Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Patel et al
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 7 Motion for Default Judgment; JUDGMENT in favor of Choice Hotels International, Inc. against Minesh Patel and Rajendra Patel in the amount of $160,126.00; directing the Clerk to close this case. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 12/10/2018. (jf3s, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Southern Division
CHOICE HOTELS
INTERNATIONAL,
*
INC.,
Plaintiff,
*
v.
*
RAJENDRA PATEL et al
*
Defendants.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Case No.: PWG-18-1034
*
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Choice Hotels International,
Inc. ("Choice Hotels") filed an application to
confirm arbitration award against Minesh Patel and Rajendra Patel. App., ECF NO.1.
Choice
Hotels subsequently filed a motion for default judgment against Minesh Patel and Rajendra Patel
in the amount of $160,126.00 plus post-judgment interest and $400.00 for the costs of this
action. Pl.'s Mot., ECF NO.7. Because I find that I have jurisdiction to confirm the arbitration
award and Defendants have not responded and demonstrated any basis for vacating the award, I
will grant Choice Hotel's motion for default judgment.
I.
BACKGROUND
On October 20, 2017 an arbitration award was entered in favor of Plaintiff Choice Hotels
against Defendants Minesh Patel and Rajendra Patel jointly and severally.
Award, ECF No. 1-3. The award consisted of$152,200.00
See Arbitration
in liquidated damages plus $7,926.00
in arbitration fees. See id. On April 10, 2018, Choice Hotels filed its application to confirm
arbitration award against Defendants.
This was within one year of the arbitration award. See
App. Defendants Minesh Patel and Rajendra Patel were properly served on May 31, 2018, and
April 15, 2018, respectively.
See ECF NO.5.
The Defendants were required to file their
responses on June 21, 2018 and May 7, 2018 respectively and they have failed to answer or
otherwise defend.
The Clerk of the Court entered Defendants'
defaults on August 31, 2018.
ECF NO.9. A hearing is unnecessary to determine the amount of liability given the information
provided in the arbitration award, ECF No. 1-3, and affidavit provided by Plaintiff, ECF NO.7-I.
II.
DISCUSSION
Choice Hotels moves for default judgment with respect to its arbitration award.
The
Fourth Circuit has 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 ifthe
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.
2
S
10]." Choice Hotels Int'l, Inc. v. Shriji
2000, No. DKC-15-1577,
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
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.
"(T]he party opposing the award bears the burden of proving the existence of grounds for
vacating the award."
Choice Hotels Int'!, 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, l.A.M.S., or National Arbitration Forum ... " Arbitration Agr.,
ECF No. 1-2. The arbitration clause further provides that "[j]udgment on the arbitration award
may be entered in any court having jurisdiction" and "(a]ny arbitration will be conducted at our
headquarters office in Maryland." Id.
Because Choice Hotels filed its demand for arbitration against Defendants
seeking
damages for a breach of their franchise agreement, the arbitration resolved a dispute within the
3
scope of the parties' arbitration clause. See ECF 7. Because the arbitration award was made on
October 20, 2017 and Choice Hotels' motion was filed on April 10, 2018, the application for
arbitration award was timely. See ECF 1, 1-3. The parties appear to be diverse and the amount
in controversy satisfies the jurisdictional minimum for diversity jurisdiction in this Court. See 28
U.S.C.
S 1332(a).
Thus this Court has jurisdiction to confirm the arbitration award. See Austin
Area, 2015 WL 6123523, at *2; Choice Hotels Int'!, Inc. v. Savannah Shakti Corp., No. DKC11-0438,2011
WL 5118328, at *3 (D. Md. Oct. 25, 2011). Further, because Defendants have
failed to respond to Plaintiff s application, they have not demonstrated any ground for vacating
the award.
plaintiffs
See Shriji 2000, 2015 WL 5010130, at *2 (granting default judgment in favor of
application to confirm arbitration award when defendants failed to respond); Swami
Krupa, Inc., 2015 WL 4430684, at *2.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs motion for default judgment is GRANTED.
ORDER
{;.
Accordingly, it is on this
/Ii- day of December,
2018, by the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, hereby ORDERED that:
a. Plaintiffs motion for default judgment, ECF NO.7, is GRANTED.
b. The application of Plaintiff Choice Hotels International, Inc. to confirm arbitration
award is GRANTED;
c. The award of $160,126.00
(representing
$152,200.00
in liquidated
damages,
$3,276.00 in arbitrator compensation and $4,650.00 in administrative expenses) is
CONFIRMED;
4
d. Judgment shall be entered in favor of Plaintiff Choice Hotels International, Inc. and
against Defendants Minesh Patel and Rajendra Patel in the amount of $160,126.00,
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 Opinion and Order to the parties and
CLOSE the case.
Paul W. Grimm
United States District Judge
spr
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?