Hart et al v. ITC Service Group, Inc. et al
ORDER - The Court GRANTS the parties' joint motion to confirm the Arbitrator's order approving the parties' settlement, attorney's fees, and incentive fees, as to Plaintiffs Allen and Hickcox. Signed on 8/30/17 by Chief District Judge Greg Kays. (Strodtman, Tracy)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
MICHAEL HART, et al.,
ITC SERVICE GROUP, INC., et al.,
ORDER CONFIRMING ARBITRATOR’S AWARD
In this putative collective action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Plaintiffs
are looking to recover allegedly unpaid wages from Defendants, their employers. On June 2,
2016, after finding the parties had entered into an arbitration agreement, the Court ordered the
parties to litigate their claims in arbitration. On May 1, 2017, the arbitrator approved the
settlement reached between Plaintiffs Cody Hickcox and Jesse Allen and Defendants.1
Now before the Court is the parties’ joint motion for Order Confirming Arbitrator’s
Order Approving of Settlement of FLSA Claims, Attorney’s Fees, and Incentive Fees (Doc. 75)
for Plaintiffs Allen and Hickcox. For the following reasons the motion is GRANTED.
Defendant ITC Service Group, Inc., installs and services telecommunications products
for Defendant Google Fiber. The remaining Defendants are managers for ITC Service Group.
Plaintiffs Allen and Hickcox also worked for ITC Service Group, each in a different capacity:
Allen as an installation and service technician and Hickcox as a master installation specialist.
As a condition of their employment, each Plaintiff signed a document captioned “Mutual
Arbitration Agreement” (Doc. 26-1 at 6–11, 13–18, 20–25) and later a “Temporary Contract
Plaintiff Hart’s claims are being resolved separately.
Employment Agreement.” (Docs. 36-1 at 9–20, 36-2 at 9–18, 36-3 at 9–24). Both agreements
compelled arbitration for employment-related claims against Defendants.
On June 2, 2016, the Court ordered the parties to litigate their claims in arbitration (Doc.
63). As a result, the parties reached a settlement of all claims and the arbitrator approved that
settlement by order on May 1, 2017. While the parties disagreed which of the arbitration
agreements applied, both agreements contained a provision for judicial confirmation of the
arbitration award. Accordingly, the parties jointly request the Court to confirm the arbitration
An arbitrator's decision is subject to limited judicial review. Med. Shoppe Int'l, Inc. v.
Turner Investments, Inc., 614 F.3d 485, 488 (8th Cir. 2010). Under the Federal Arbitration Act
(“FAA”), a court must grant a motion to confirm an arbitration award unless the award is
vacated, modified, or corrected for reasons outlined in §§ 10 and 11.2 9 U.S.C. § 9.
The parties move the Court jointly to confirm the award, and neither party argues the
arbitrator’s order should be vacated, modified, or corrected. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS
the parties’ joint motion to confirm the Arbitrator’s order approving the parties’ settlement,
attorney’s fees, and incentive fees, as to Plaintiffs Allen and Hickcox.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 30, 2017
/s/ Greg Kays
GREG KAYS, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Section 10 permits vacatur in circumstances involving corruption, fraud, arbitrator misconduct, and where the
arbitrator exceeds their powers. Section 11 permits modifying or correcting an award where there is a material
miscalculation, an award on a matter not submitted, and where the award is imperfect in a matter of form. 9 U.S.C.
§§ 10, 11.
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?