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)
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?