Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Vishal, Inc. et al
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 9/23/14. (jf2s, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL,
INC.
:
:
v.
Civil Action No. DKC 14-2043
:
VISHAL, INC., ET AL.
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This case is before the court on the application of Plaintiff
Choice Hotels International, Inc. (“Choice Hotels”) to confirm an
arbitrator’s award in its favor against Defendants Vishal, Inc. and
Urmila Praful Amin.
The Clerk of Court entered judgment by default
against Defendants, (ECF No. 7), indicating that the summonses and
copies of the application to confirm the arbitration award were
served on Defendants, and Defendants have failed to respond within
the time provided by the summonses and pursuant to the Federal
Rules of Civil procedure.
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
arbitrate, and a copy of the arbitration award.
an
agreement
to
Paragraph 22 of
the contract provides, in part, that “[j]udgment on the arbitration
award may be entered in any court having jurisdiction.”
(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.
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 out in §
10(a) of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”).
9 U.S.C. § 10(a).
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).
In
addition, a court may overturn a legal interpretation of an
arbitration panel if the interpretation “is in manifest disregard
2
for the law.”
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.
The burden is
on the party challenging an award to prove the existence of one of
the grounds for vacating the award.
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,
vacating
the
Defendants
award.
have
not
demonstrated
Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s
any
ground
application
confirm an arbitrator’s award will be granted.
/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge
3
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?