Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Patel

Filing 34

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Granting 32 Motion for Summary Judgment; Granting Choice Hotels International, Inc.'s application to confirm arbitration; Confirming the award of $106,557.06; JUDGMENT in favor of Choice Hotels International, Inc. against Jitendra Patel. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 12/19/2018. (c/m 12/21/18 km4s, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Southern Division
CHOICE HOTELS
INTERNATIONAL,

*
INC.,

Plaintiff,

*

v.

*

JITENDRA PATEL

*

Defendant

*

*

*

Case No.: PWG-16-1316

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Choice Hotels International, Inc. ("Choice Hotels") filed an application to
confirm arbitration award against Jitendra Patel on May 3,2016.

Complaint, ECF No.1.

Choice

Hotels seeks $106,557.06 pursuant to the arbitration award and on August 14, 2018 Choice
Hotels filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Pl.'s Mot., ECF No. 32. Because I have already
found that I have jurisdiction to confirm the arbitration award, see ECF No. 12, and Defendant
has not demonstrated any basis for vacating the award, I will grant Choice Hotel's motion for
summary judgment.
I.

BACKGROUND
On August 13, 2015 an arbitration award was entered in favor of Plaintiff Choice Hotels

against Defendant Jitendra Patel. See Arbitration Award, ECF No. 32-4. The award consisted of
$99,177.34 in liquidated damages plus $7,379.72 in arbitration fees for a total of $106,557.06.
See id. On May 3, 2016, Choice Hotels filed its application to confirm arbitration award against
Defendant, within one year of the arbitration award. See Complaint. Mr. Patel entered a special

appearance and filed a motion to dismiss on June 6, 2016. ECF NO.6.

This Court denied the

Motion to Dismiss, and Mr. Patel subsequently filed an Answer to the Complaint on March 6,
2017. Answer, ECF No. 13. After settlement conferences failed to reach a resolution, Choice
Hotels filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on August 14,2018.

ECF No. 32. Mr. Patel has

failed to respond to or otherwise answer the Motion for Summary Judgment.

A hearing is

unnecessary to determine the amount of liability given the information provided in the arbitration
award. ECF No. 32-4.

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is proper when the moving party demonstrates, through "particular

parts of materials

in the record, including

depositions,

documents,

electronically

stored

information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations ... , admissions, interrogatory answers, or
other materials," that "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), (c)(l)(A); see Baldwin v. City of
Greensboro, No. 12-1722, 714 F.3d 828, 833 (4th Cir. 2013).

If the party seeking summary

judgment demonstrates that there is no evidence to support the nonmoving party's case, the
burden shifts to the nonmoving party to identify evidence that shows that a genuine dispute
exists as to material facts. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574,
585-87 & n.10 (1986).

When the nonmoving party does not oppose a summary judgment

motion, "those facts established by the motion" are "uncontroverted."

Custer v. Pan Am. Life

Ins. Co., 12 F.3d 410,416 (4th Cir. 1993). Nonetheless, the moving party still must demonstrate
that, based on those facts, that party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, because "[t]he
failure to respond to the motion does not automatically accomplish this." Id.

2

III.

DISCUSSION
Choice Hotels moves for summary judgment with respect to its arbitration award.

The

Fourth Circuit stated that
[j]udicial review of an arbitration award is "severely circumscribed." Patten v.
Signator Ins. Agency, Inc., 441 F.3d 230, 234 (4th Cir. 2006). In fact, the scope
of judicial review for an arbitrator's 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."
Three S. Del., Inc. v. DataQuick Info. Sys., Inc., 492 F.3d 520, 527 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting Apex
Plumbing Supply, Inc. v. Us. Supply Co., Inc., 142 F.3d 188, 193 (4th Cir. 1998)). The Federal
Arbitration Act provides that
[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 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.
9 U.S.C.

S 9.

"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 [9 U.S.c.
2000, No. DKC-15-1577,

S

10]." Choice Hotels Int'l, Inc. v. Shriji

2015 WL 5010130, at *1 (D. Md. Aug. 21, 2015) (citing Apex

Plumbing, 142 F.3d 193). 9 U.S.C.

S

10 provides that a court may vacate an arbitration award

1) where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means;
2) where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them;
3) where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon
sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the

3

controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been
prejudiced; or
4) 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.

"(TJhe party opposing the award bears the burden of proving the existence of grounds for
vacating the award."

Choice Hotels Int'l, Inc. v. Austin Area Hosp., Inc., No. TDC01500516,

2015 WL 6123523, at *2 (D. Md. Oct. 14,2015) (citing Three S Del., Inc., 492 F.3d at 527).

In this case, the parties'

franchise agreement includes an arbitration

clause which

provides, in part, that "any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement, or
the breach of this Agreement, ... will be sent to final and binding arbitration before either the
American Arbitration Association, lA.M.S., or National Arbitration Forum ... " Arbitration Agr.,
ECF No. 32-1. The arbitration clause further provides that "[j]udgment on the arbitration award
may be entered in any court having jurisdiction." Id.

Because Choice Hotels filed its demand for arbitration against Defendant

seeking

damages for a breach of their franchise agreement, the arbitration resolved a dispute within the
scope of the parties' arbitration clause. See ECF 32. Because the arbitration award was made on
August 13, 2015 and Choice Hotels' motion was filed on May 3, 2016, the application for
arbitration award was timely.

See Complaint, ECF 1.

Additionally,

as described in the

arbitration award, Mr. Patel was given due notice of the arbitration but failed to make an
appearance. ECF No. 32-4. Mr. Patel also failed to challenge the arbitration award within three
months of the award being filed or delivered as required by 9 U.S.C.

S

12. I have already ruled

that the parties appear to be diverse and the amount in controversy satisfies the jurisdictional

4

mllllmum for diversity jurisdiction

in this Court.

See ECF No. 12.

Thus this Court has

jurisdiction to confirm the arbitration award. See Austin Area, 2015 WL 6123523, at *2; Choice
Hotels Int'l, Inc. v. Savannah Shakti Corp., No. DKC-11-0438, 2011 WL 5118328, at *3 (D.
Md. Oct. 25, 2011).

IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

;P7
Accordingly, it is on this ~

ORDER

day of December, 2018, by the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, hereby ORDERED that:
a. Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 32, is GRANTED.
b. The application of Plaintiff Choice Hotels International, Inc. to confirm arbitration
award is GRANTED;
c. The award of $106,557.06

(representing

$99,177.34

III

liquidated damages plus

$7,379.72 in arbitration fees) is CONFIRMED;
d. Judgment shall be entered in favor of Plaintiff Choice Hotels International, Inc. and
against Defendant Jitendra Patel in the amount of $106,557.06, plus post-judgment
interest at the prevailing rate until paid and costs of $400.00 (representing the court's
filing fee);
e. The Clerk will send copies of this Memorandum 0
CLOSE the case.

and Order to the parties and

.•.

Paul W. Grimm
United States District Judge
spr
5