Bettis v. Serra Nissan/Oldsmobile Inc et al

Filing 59

MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 4/24/18. (SAC )

FILED
2018 Apr-24 PM 01:53
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

RUTH D. BETTIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
SERRA NISSAN/OLDSMOBILE, INC., et
al.,
Defendants.

}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}

Case No.: 2:16-cv-01260-RDP

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This case is before the court on the Motion to Reopen Case and Motion to Confirm
Arbitration Award filed by Defendants Serra Nissan/Oldsmobile, Inc., Serra Volkswagen, Inc.,
Serra Automotive, Inc., Serra Automotive Management, Inc., and Anthony F. Serra
(“Defendants”). (Doc. # 55). On April 2, 2018, the court reopened this case for purposes of
addressing Defendants’ Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award. (Doc. # 58). The court ordered
the parties to brief the motion in accordance with Exhibit B to the court’s Initial Order, a copy of
which was attached to the order. (Id. at 1). Under that exhibit, Plaintiff’s opposition brief was
due on April 13, 2018. (See id. at 3). The court mailed its order to Plaintiff at the address her
former counsel used to send Plaintiff his Motion to Withdraw. (See id. at 1; Doc. # 56 at 3). No
response to Defendants’ Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award has been filed to date.
Accordingly, the court concludes that Defendants’ Motion to Confirm is under submission.
After careful review, and for the reasons explained below, the court concludes that Defendants’
Motion (Doc. # 55) is due to be granted.

I.

Background and Procedural History
In August 2016, Plaintiff filed this action in federal court. (See Doc. # 1). In her

Complaint, Plaintiff raised federal-law claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organization Act, along with state-law claims of identity theft, unjust enrichment, fraudulent
concealment, negligence, wantonness, negligent training, supervision, and retention, and civil
conspiracy. (See generally id.). In December 2016, Defendants moved to compel arbitration of
Plaintiff’s claims. (Doc. # 21). In response, Plaintiff averred that she had not signed the retail
order that contained the arbitration clause Defendants sought to enforce. (Doc. # 30-2 at 1-2).
After limited discovery, the court found material questions of fact regarding whether Plaintiff
had assented to an enforceable arbitration agreement. (See Doc. # 38 at 2-4). Therefore, in
September 2017, the court conducted a bench trial to determine whether Plaintiff had entered
into an enforceable arbitration agreement. (Docs. # 53 at 3; 54).
During the bench trial, the parties agreed to dismiss this case without prejudice and
proceed to arbitration. (Doc. # 54 at 123). By agreement, Plaintiff had 90 days to decide
whether to arbitrate her claims. (Id.). Defendants reserved “the right to assert appropriate
counterclaims or claims for costs before the arbitrator” if Plaintiff proceeded to arbitration. (Id.).
But, the parties agreed to not file any motion for fees or costs with this court pertaining to the
bench trial and other proceedings. (Id.). Defendants’ counsel stated that the matter would be
closed in this court unless a party filed a motion to enforce an arbitration award or a motion to
set aside an arbitrator’s award. (Id. at 124). Consistent with the parties’ agreement, the court
granted Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismissed this action without prejudice.
(Doc. # 52 at 1).

2

On November 1, 2017, Plaintiff submitted an agreement to arbitrate to the Better
Business Bureau. (Doc. # 55-3). During the ensuing arbitration proceedings, Defendant Serra
Nissan denied Plaintiff’s allegations, accused Plaintiff of falsifying documents and submitting
perjured testimony, and requested costs and attorneys’ fees for defending the action. (Doc. # 551 at 1). Plaintiff testified before the arbitrator that she had not signed certain documents when
she purchased a vehicle from Serra Nissan. (Id. at 3). The arbitrator also heard testimony from a
handwriting expert presented by Defendants. (Id.). The handwriting expert testified that the
retail order presented by Defendants contained Plaintiff’s authentic signature and that the retail
order presented by Plaintiff contained a forged signature. (Id. at 3-4).
The arbitrator issued the following ruling:
Therefore, based upon the testimony and evidence received, the undersigned finds
for [ ] Serra Nissan and denies all requested relief by Ms. Bettis. The undersigned
examined closely all the documents submitted, compared the signatures himself,
taking into consideration what the handwriting expert looks for, and made his
own conclusion as to the documents. First of all, it is clear that the signature of
John Hall on the cash receipt does not match any of the known signatures of Mr.
Hall which is contained numerous times throughout the documents. Second, it
was compelling that the co-signer Mr. Brewster was not present, nor gave an
affidavit, that his signature on the very same forms as Ms. Bettis was a forgery.
And lastly, after comparing the retail orders supplied by both parties, it is clear to
the undersigned that the $8,500 entry for the deposit does not match the typeset of
the [rest] of the documents, which leads the undersigned to find that this was
entered after the contract was signed. Further, the math on the retail order
supplied by Ms. Bettis is inaccurate in that if $8,500.00 was put down as
contemplated, the unpaid balance would be much less.
Further, I find that the award of attorney fees is proper under these facts and
circumstances and award attorney’s fees and costs to be paid by Ruth Bettis to
Serra Nissan in the amount of $28,509.03.
(Id. at 5). Defendants have moved for the court to enforce this arbitration award. (Doc. # 55).

3

II.

Analysis
A court retains jurisdiction to confirm or vacate an arbitration award when it grants a

motion to compel arbitration, as the court did in this case. PTA-FLA, Inc. v. ZTE USA, Inc., 844
F.3d 1299, 1305 (11th Cir. 2016). A party may apply for the court to confirm an arbitration
award within one year of its issuance. 9 U.S.C. § 9. “This provision ‘carries no hint of
flexibility. On application for an order confirming the arbitration award, the court must grant the
order unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected.’” PTA-FLA, 844 F.3d at 1306 (internal
quotation marks omitted) (quoting Hall Street Assocs., LLC v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 587
(2008)). “The Federal Arbitration Act . . . imposes a heavy presumption in favor of confirming
arbitration awards. As a result, a court’s confirmation of an arbitration award is usually routine
or summary.” Riccard v. Prudential Ins. Co., 307 F.3d 1277, 1288 (11th Cir. 2003). A party
seeking to vacate an arbitration award has the burden of proving one of four limited grounds for
vacatur. Id. at 1289.
Here, Plaintiff has not challenged the validity of the arbitration award. This is the case
despite the fact that the court sent notice to her of the motion. (Doc. # 58). Accordingly, the
court finds that Defendants’ motion is due to be granted and that the arbitration award is due to
be confirmed. See Riccard, 307 F.3d at 1288-89; Brice Building Co. v. Lee, 2010 WL 11562098,
at *1 (N.D. Ala. Sept. 30, 2010) (confirming an arbitration award where the losing party failed to
respond to the confirmation motion).

An Order and Final Judgment consistent with this

Memorandum Opinion will be entered.

4

DONE and ORDERED this April 24, 2018.

_________________________________
R. DAVID PROCTOR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5