Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Shriji 2000, LLC et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION (c/m to Defendants 8/21/15 sat). Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 8/21/2015. (sat, Chambers)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
: Civil Action No. DKC 15-1577
SHRIJI 2000, LLC, et al.
This case is before the court on the application of Choice
Hotels International, Inc. to confirm an arbitrator’s award in its
favor against Shriji 2000 LLC, Jayendra Patel and Harendra Kumar
The Clerk of Court entered default against Defendants (ECF
No. 8) indicating that the summonses and copies of the application
to confirm arbitration award were served on Defendants, and they
have failed to answer or otherwise respond within the time provided
by the summonses and pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil
As set forth in 9 U.S.C. § 9:
[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 attached to its application a portion of the parties’
contract, containing an agreement to arbitrate, and a copy of the
Paragraph 22 of the contract provides, in part,
that: “Judgment on the arbitration award may be entered in any
court having jurisdiction.”
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
Apex Plumbing Supply 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 review is limited to those grounds set out in § 10 of
the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. § 10(a).
allows vacating of 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 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).
addition, a court may overturn a legal interpretation of an
arbitration panel if “it is in manifest disregard 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
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.
By failing to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s
confirm an arbitrator’s award will be granted.
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge
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?