Meena Enterprises, Inc. et al v. Mail Boxes Etc., Inc.

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 12/9/13. (sat, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
MEENA ENTERPRISES, INC., et al.
:
v.

:

Civil Action No. DKC 12-1360

:
MAIL BOXES ETC., INC.
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Presently pending and ready for resolution is an unopposed
motion

to

confirm

and

enforce

Defendant Mail Boxes Etc., Inc.

arbitration

award

(ECF No. 21).

filed

by

The relevant

issues have been briefed and the court now rules pursuant to
Local Rule 105.6, no hearing being deemed necessary.

For the

reasons that follow, the motion will be granted.
I.

Background
Plaintiffs

Sengottuvelu

Meena

commenced

Enterprises,
this

action

Inc.,
on

and

January

Sabapathy

27,

2012,

by

filing a complaint in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s
County,

Maryland,

inducement,

and

alleging

negligent

breach

contract,

misrepresentation

Mail Boxes Etc., Inc. (“MBE”)
served

on

April

3,

2012,

citing

diversity

of

citizenship

(ECF No. 1).

of

and

against

(ECF No. 2).
timely
as

removed

the

fraudulent
Defendant

Defendant was
to

this

court,

jurisdictional

basis.

Noting
governed

by

that

the

franchise

relationship
agreements,

between
which

the

parties

contained

was

clauses

requiring the parties to submit to arbitration of any dispute
arising therefrom, Defendant moved to stay the proceedings and
compel arbitration of Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to the Federal
Arbitration Act.

(ECF No. 9).

The court granted that motion by

a memorandum opinion and order issued October 11, 2012, and the
case was administratively closed subject to reopening upon the
completion of arbitration at the request of either party.

(ECF

Nos. 17, 18).
On November 1, 2013, Defendant filed the pending motion to
confirm arbitration award and for entry of final judgment.
No. 21).
II.

(ECF

Plaintiff does not oppose this motion.

Standard of Review
Review of an arbitrator’s award is severely circumscribed;

indeed, the scope of review is among the narrowest known at law
because to allow full scrutiny of such awards would frustrate
the purpose of having arbitrations at all – i.e., the quick
resolution of disputes and the avoidance of the expense and
delay associated with litigation.

See Apex Plumbing Supply,

Inc. v. U.S. Supply Co., Inc., 142 F.3d 188, 193 (4th Cir. 1998).
If there is a valid contract between the parties providing for
arbitration, and if the dispute resolved in the arbitration was
within the scope of the arbitration clause, then substantive
2

review is limited to those grounds set out in § 10 of the
Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 10(a).
Section 10 allows for vacating an award (1) where the award
was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means; (2) where
there was evident partiality or misconduct on the part of the
arbitrator; or (3) where the arbitrator exceeded his or her
powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final,
and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not
made.

Id.

In

addition,

a

court

may

overturn

a

legal

interpretation of an arbitrator if it is “in manifest disregard
for the law.”

Apex Plumbing, 142 F.3d at 193 (“Federal courts

may vacate an arbitration award only upon a showing of one of
the grounds listed in the [FAA], or if the arbitrator acted in
manifest disregard of the law.”); Upshur Coals Corp. v. United
Mine Workers of Am., Dist. 31, 933 F.2d 225, 229 (4th Cir. 1991).
Mere misinterpretation of a contract or an error of law does not
suffice to overturn an award.
burden

is

on

the

party

See Upshur, 933 F.2d at 229.

challenging

an

award

to

prove

The
the

existence of one of the grounds for vacating the award.
III. Analysis
Defendant

attaches

to

its

motion

evidence

establishing

that, before the arbitrator, it submitted a motion to dismiss
Plaintiffs’

claims

and

a

counterclaim

seeking

an

injunction

enjoining Plaintiffs from violating non-competition provisions
3

contained in the franchise agreements.

Plaintiffs opposed those

motions and appeared at a hearing before the arbitrator.
On June 28, 2013, the arbitrator issued a partial final
award,

dismissing

Plaintiffs’

claims.

That

ruling

was

reiterated in the arbitrator’s final award, dated August 26,
2013,

which

further

determined,

“[a]s

a

legal

matter,

[that

Defendant] is entitled to the requested injunctive relief to
stop on-going violations of the non-compete and non-solicitation
provisions of the Franchise Agreements immediately and through
the 9th of January 2014 – the date that represents the end of the
two year period of the non-compete/non-solicitation provisions
commencing

on

January

9,

2012.”

(ECF

No.

21-9,

at

24).

Accordingly, the arbitrator ordered Plaintiffs to
immediately cease and desist from engaging
in
the
business
of
offering
postal,
communication and business services and
products
and
related
services
at
any
location within five (5) miles of an
existing MBE franchise, including but not
limited to [Plaintiffs’] businesses located
at 4423 Lehigh Road, College Park, Maryland
(the “Lehigh Center”) and in the Stamp
Student Union at the University of Maryland,
College Park, Maryland (the “Union Center”)
from [the date of the Order] until and
including January 9, 2014.
(Id. at 25).
Defendant has established that there were valid contracts
between

the

parties

requiring

arbitration

as

to

“every

controversy, claim or dispute arising out of or in connection
4

with

the

negotiation,

agreements.]”

performance

or

non-performance

(ECF Nos. 9-1, at 41; 9-2, at 41).

of

[the

Moreover, the

franchise agreements provide that any such dispute “shall be
solely and finally settled by binding arbitration[.]”
Thus,

the

court

is

satisfied

that

the

claims

(Id.).

resolved

at

arbitration are within the scope of the parties’ agreements, and
its scope of review is confined to the grounds set forth in § 10
of the FAA.

Plaintiffs have not opposed Defendant’s motion for

confirmation

of

the

grounds for vacatur.

award,

nor

does

the

record

reflect

any

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion will be

granted.
IV.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to confirm

and enforce arbitration award will be granted.

A separate order

will follow.

________/s/_________________
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

5