Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Padmavati Devi, Inc. et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM ORDER granting 8 Motion for Default Judgment; CONFIRMING the arbitration award of December 13, 2016 and ENTERING DEFAULT JUDGMENT in favor of Choice Hotels International, Inc. against Padmavati Devi, Inc., Himansu Parikh, Punita Parikh in the amount of $114,700.21 and $400.00 in costs. Signed by Judge Theodore D. Chuang on 10/31/2017. (kns, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 10/31/17)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. TDC-17-0783 PADMA VATI DEVI, INC., HIMANSU PARIKH and PUNITA PARIKH, Defendants. MEMORANDUM ORDER On March 21, 2017, Plaintiff Choice Hotels International, Inc. ("Choice Hotels") filed an Application to Confirm Arbitration Award against Defendants Padmavati Devi, Inc. ("Padmavati Devi"), Himansu Parikh, and Punita Parikh. 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 to pay required royalties and other fees. As a result of Defendants' alleged breach of the Franchise Agreement, Choice Hotels initiated arbitration proceedings, as provided for in the Agreement. Although Defendants were notified of those arbitration proceedings, they did not participate in them. On December 13, 2016, the arbitrator awarded Choice Hotels a total of $114,700.21 in damages, comprised of contractually specified franchise fees, interest, liquidated damages, and arbitration expenses. Padmavati Devi and Himansu Parikh were served with the Application on April 3, 2017. Punith Parikh was served on May 15, 2017. Application. No Defendant has filed a response to the On June 13,2017, Choice Hotels filed a Motion for Clerk's Entry of Default and a Motion for Default Judgment against all Defendants. The Clerk entered an Order of Default on June 20, 2017. Although Defendants were served with the Motion for Default Judgment, 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. See D. Md. Local R. 105.6. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion for Default Judgment is GRANTED. DISCUSSION 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 (D. Md. 2005). 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 450, 453 (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 Court is satisfied that it has diversity jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. S 1332. Choice Hotels is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Rockville, Maryland. Padmavati Devi is an Iowa corporation with its principal place of business in Walcott, Iowa. Himansu Parikh and Punita Parikh are citizens of Iowa. In addition, the amount in controversy is greater than the $75,000 jurisdictional minimum under 28 U.S.C. 2 S 1332. 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. 9 U.S.C. S 9. controversy 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 Agreement, arbitration award may be entered in any court having jurisdiction." Ex. 1, ECF NO.1-I. the arbitrator's Franchise Agmt. ~ 21, Appl. Choice Hotels filed its application to confirm the award within one year of 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 arbitration award. 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." us. Supply 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. Id. Section 10 of the FAA limits review to the following grounds: (1) "the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means"; (2) "there was evident 3 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." 9 U.S.C. S 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 Franchise Agreement, specifically, a failure to pay royalties and other fees due under the 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. S 10(a). Accordingly, the Court will grant the Motion for Default Judgment to the extent it seeks confirmation of the arbitrator's award of $114,700.21. Choice Hotels also asks to be awarded $400.00 in costs, the filing fee for this action, which the Court will grant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(I). 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 4 it. See 28 U.S.C. S 1961(a) (2012) ("Interest shall be allowed on any monetary judgment in a civil case recovered in a district court."). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Choice Hotels' Motion for Default Judgment, ECF No.8, is GRANTED. 2. The arbitration award of December 13, 2016 is CONFIRMED. 3. Judgment is ENTERED in favor of Choice Hotels and against Defendants in the amount of $114,700.21, which shall accrue post-judgment interest as specified by statute. 4. Choice Hotels is AWARDED $400.00 in costs. 5. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case. Date: October 31,2017 5

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?