Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Sandhu Hospitality, Inc. et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Theodore D. Chuang on 8/29/2017. (aos, Deputy Clerk)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL,
SANDHU HOSPITALITY, INC.,
MOHINDER SANDHU and
Civil Action No. TDC-16-3330
On October 4, 2016, Plaintiff Choice Hotels International, Inc. ("Choice Hotels") filed an
Application to Confirm Arbitration Award against Defendan~s Sandhu Hospitality, Inc. ("Sandhu
Hospitality"), Manjit Sandhu, Mohinder Sandhu, and Jaskiran Sandhu. The award at issue was
based on Defendants'
alleged breach of a franchise agreement between the parties ("the
Franchise Agreement"), specifically the failure of Defendants' hotel to pass a required quality
assurance review and Defendants'
failure to correct deficiencies
identified in that review.
Although Defendants were notified of arbitration proceedings relating to the alleged breach of
contract, they did not present any evidence or participate in the arbitration proceedings.
13, 2016, the arbitrator awarded Choice Hotels a total of $85,135.08 in damages, comprised of
contractually specified franchise fees, interest, liquidated damages, and arbitration expenses.
Sandhu Hospitality was served with the Application on March 1, 2017. Manjit Sandhu,
Mohinder Sandhu, and Jaskiran Sandhu were served on May 16,2017.
response to the Application.
No Defendant has filed a
On May 22, 2017, Choice Hotels filed a Motion for Clerk's Entry
of Default. The Clerk entered an Order of Default on June 20, 2017. On June 23, 2017, Choice
Hotels filed a Motion for Default Judgment against all Defendants.
Although Defendants were
served with the Motion, to date, no Defendant has responded to it or to any other filing in this
case. The Motion is now ripe for disposition, and the Court finds no hearing necessary.
Md. Local R. 105.6.
For the reasons set forth below, the Motion for Default Judgment is
In the Motion for Default Judgment, Choice Hotels asserts that Defendants have failed to
file a timely responsive pleading to its Application.
Thus, Choice Hotels argues that it is entitled
to default judgment against Defendants in the amount of the arbitration award and costs.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2), a default judgment after an entry of
default is left to the discretion of the court. s.E.c. v. Lawbaugh, 359 F. Supp. 2d 418,421
Although the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recognizes a
"strong policy that cases be decided on their merits," United States v. Shaffer Equip. Co., 11 F.3d
(4th Cir. 1993), a default judgment may be appropriate when a party is unresponsive,
Lawbaugh, 359 F. Supp. 2d at 422-23 (citing Jackson v. Beech, 636 F.2d 831, 836 (D.C. Cir.
1980)). When default judgment is sought with respect to an application for confirmation of an
arbitration award, the plaintiff must show that it is entitled to confirmation as a matter of law.
See D.H Blair & Co. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95, 109-10 (2d Cir. 2006).
The Arbitration Award
The Court is satisfied that it has diversity jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1332. Choice Hotels is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters located in Rockville,
Maryland. Sandhu Hospitality, Inc. is a citizen of Kansas.
Manjit Sandhu, Mohinder Sandhu,
and Jaskiran Sandhu are citizens of California. In addition, the amount in controversy is greater
than the $75,000 jurisdictional minimum under 28 U.S.C.
The Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. SS 1-16 (2012), provides in part that:
If 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.
Here, the Franchise Agreement contains an arbitration clause that states that "any
or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement,
or the breach of this
will be sent to final and binding arbitration," and that "[j]udgment on the
arbitration award may be entered in any court having jurisdiction."
Franchise Agreement ~ 21,
Appl. Ex. 2, ECF No. 1-2. Choice Hotels filed its application to confirm the award within one
year of the arbitrator's decision. The award was rendered in the State of Maryland. The Court is
therefore satisfied that the requirements
of the FAA are met, such that it may review the.
Judicial review of an arbitration award is "severely circumscribed,"
and, in fact, 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.
Co., Inc., 142 F.3d 188, 193 (4th Cir. 1998) (footnote omitted). Thus, where there is
a valid contract between the parties providing for arbitration, and the arbitration resolved a
dispute within the scope of the arbitration clause, federal courts may vacate an arbitration award
only upon a showing of one of the grounds set forth in the FAA, or if the arbitrator acted in
manifest disregard of law. !d. Section 10 of the FAA limits review to the following grounds:
(l) "the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means"; (2) "there was evident
partiality or misconduct"
on the part of the arbitrators; (3) "the arbitrators were guilty of
misconduct" by which "the rights of any party have been prejudiced"; or (4) "the arbitrators
exceeded their powers."
10(a). A misinterpretation of a contract, or of law, does not
suffice to overturn an award. See Upshur Coals Corp. v. United Mine Workers of Am., Dist. 31,
933 F.2d 225,229 (4th Cir. 1991). Where an arbitration award is challenged, the party opposing
the award bears the burden of proving the existence of grounds for vacating the award. Three S
Del., Inc. v. DataQuick Info. Sys., Inc., 492 F.3d 520,527 (4th Cir. 2007).
Here, Choice Hotels alleges, and the arbitrator awarded damages for, a breach of the
parties' Franchise Agreement,
specifically, a failure to pass a quality assurance review and
correct identified deficiencies, resulting in the termination of the Franchise Agreement. As noted
above, the Franchise Agreement provides that a claim for breach of the agreement is subject to
arbitration, so the claims resolved by arbitration were within the scope of the parties' agreement.
Although Defendants were served in this case and received notice of the Motion, they have failed
to file an Answer to Choice Hotels' Application or otherwise make a showing of any grounds for
vacating the arbitration award.
Nor is there anything in the record to suggest that any of the
limited grounds for setting aside an arbitration award are present in this case. See 9 U.S.C.
10(a). Accordingly, the Court will grant the Motion for Default Judgment to the extent it seeks
confirmation of the arbitrator's award of $85,135.08.
Choice Hotels also asks to be awarded
$400.00 in costs, presumably the filing fee for this action, which the Court will grant. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 54(d)(l).
To the extent that Choice Hotels also requests post-judgment interest for the time period
following this Court's grant of default judgment, Choice Hotels is entitled by statute to such
post-judgment interest as calculated under federal law, so the Court need not specifically award
it. See 28 U.S.C.
1961(a) ("Interest shall be allowed. on any monetary judgment in a civil case
recovered in a district court.").
For the foregoing reasons, Choice Hotels' Motion for Default Judgment, ECF No. 14, is
The Court therefore confirms the arbitration award, enters judgment in favor of
Choice Hotels and against Defendants in the amount of $85,135.08, which shall accrue postjudgment interest as specified by statute, and awards $400.00 in costs. A separate Order shall
Date: August 29,2017
THEODORE D. CHU~
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?