Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Olympic Garden Investment, Inc.

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION (c/m 3/12/15 to Defendant Olympic Garden Investment, Inc. c/o California Secretary of State, 1500 11th Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 and c/o 3751 W 6th Street, Unit 761458, Los Angeles, CA 90076 sat). Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 3/12/2015. (sat, Chambers)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND : CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL, INC. : v. : Civil Action No. DKC 14-1740 : OLYMPIC GARDEN INVESTMENT, INC., et al. : MEMORANDUM OPINION Pending before the court is Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default and motion for judgment by default. ECF Nos. 12 and 13. Defendant1 has not responded. On December 8, 2014, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion to allow service of process upon Defendant Olympic Garden Investment, Inc. by alternative means, namely by hand-delivering a copy of the summons and application to confirm arbitration award and Secretary all of other State’s papers office filed in with it to Sacramento, the California California. On January 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed a return of service indicating that Defendant was served on December 22, 2014. Accordingly, a default against Olympic Garden Investment, Inc. 1 Plaintiff filed a stipulation of dismissal as to Defendant Chang H. Lee which was approved October 3, 2014, and Defendant Lee was dismissed. (ECF Nos. 5 and 6). Plaintiff’s motion for judgment by default requests the court to confirm an arbitrator’s award in its favor against Defendant Olympic Garden Investment, Inc. 9 U.S.C. § 9 provides, in relevant part: [i]f the parties in their agreement have agreed that a judgment of the court shall be entered upon the award made pursuant to the arbitration, and shall specify the court, then at any time within one year after the award is made any party to the arbitration may apply to the court so specified for an order confirming the award, and thereupon the court must grant such an order unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected as prescribed in sections 10 and 11 of this title. If no court is specified in the agreement of the parties, then such application may be made to the United States court in and for the district within which such award was made. Choice Hotels attached to its application a portion of a copy of the parties’ contract, which contained an agreement to arbitrate, and a copy of the arbitration award. the contract arbitration provides, award jurisdiction.” may in be part, that entered in Paragraph 22 of “[j]udgment any court (ECF No. 1-2). Review of an arbitrator’s award is severely circumscribed. Indeed, the scope of review of an arbitrator’s valuation decision is among the narrowest known at law because to allow full scrutiny of such awards would frustrate the purpose of having arbitration at all - the quick resolution of disputes and the avoidance of the expense and delay associated with litigation. 2 on the having Apex Plumbing Supply, Inc. v. U.S. Supply Co., 142 F.3d 188, 193 (4th Cir. 1998). If there is a valid contract between the parties that provides for arbitration, and if the dispute resolved in the arbitration is within the scope of the arbitration clause, then substantive review is limited to those grounds set (“FAA”). out in § 10(a) 9 U.S.C. § 10(a). of the Federal Arbitration Act Section 10 allows vacating of an award where: (1) the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means; (2) there was evident partiality or misconduct on the part of the arbitrator; or (3) the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made. 9 U.S.C. § 10(a). a interpretation legal of In addition, a court may overturn an arbitration panel if interpretation “is in manifest disregard for the law.” the See, e.g., 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. See Upshur, 933 F.2d at 229. 3 The burden is on the party challenging an award to prove existence of one of the grounds for vacating the award. the See Three S Delaware, Inc. v. DataQuick Info. Sys., Inc., 492 F.3d 520, 527 (4th Cir. 2007) (“[T]he moving party must sustain the heavy burden of showing one of the grounds specified in the Federal Arbitration Act[.]”). By failing to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s application, Defendant vacating award. the has not demonstrated Accordingly, Plaintiff’s any ground application confirm an arbitrator’s award will be granted. /s/ DEBORAH K. CHASANOW United States District Judge 4 for to

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?