Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Hassanali et al

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM OPINION (c/m to Defendants 9/29/16 sat). Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 9/29/2016. (sat, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL,
INC.
v.

:
:

Civil Action No. DKC 16-1282

:
SHIRAZ HASSANALI, et al.
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This case is before the court on the application of Choice
Hotels International, Inc. to confirm an arbitrator’s award in
its

favor

against

Shiraz

Hassanali,

Shebana

Punjani, Jane Kou, Mark Hsu, and Wayne Hsu.

Noorami,

Shahnaz

Shahnaz Punjani was

dismissed without prejudice on July 12, 2016 (see ECF No. 6).
The

Clerk

of

Court

entered

default

against

the

remaining

Defendants (ECF No. 13) indicating that the summonses and copies
of the application to confirm arbitration award were served on
Defendants, and that they have failed to answer or otherwise
respond within the time provided by the summonses and pursuant
to the Federal Rules of Civil procedure.
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 copy of a portion of
the parties’ contract, containing an agreement to arbitrate, and
a

copy

of

the

award

itself.

Paragraph

21

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 litigation.
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).

That section 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

2

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.
legal

9 U.S.C. § 10(a).
interpretation

of

In addition, a court may overturn a
an

arbitration

manifest disregard for the law.”

panel

if

“it

is

in

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 America, 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.
Upshur, 933 F.2d at 229.
an

award

to

prove

the

See

The burden is on the party challenging
existence

of

one

of

the

grounds

for

vacating the award.
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