OMG, L.P. et al v. Heritage Auctions, Inc.

Filing 44

ORDER: The court conducted an independent review of the Report, and based upon the record, arguments of the parties, and applicable law, the court determines that the 34 findings, and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct. Accordingly, th ey are accepted as the findings and conclusions of the court, and the court overrules Heritages objections. For the reasons herein stated and those set forth in the Report, the court grants Plaintiffs' 1 Motion to Vacate Final Arbitration Awar d and denies Heritage's 15 Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award. Accordingly, the court vacates the arbitration award of 1/9/2013, and remands this action to the American Arbitration Association for further proceedings consistent with this order. All allowable and reasonable costs will be taxed against Heritage. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 3/31/2014) (ctf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
OMG, LP, JOHN GALLO, and GREG
MARTIN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
HERITAGE AUCTIONS, INC.,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-1404-L

ORDER
Before the court are Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate Final Arbitration Award, filed April 8,
2013; and Heritage’s Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award, filed April 29, 2013. On April 29,
2013, and May 1, 2013, the court referred both motions for findings and recommendations to the
Honorable United States Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez.
On January 22, 2014, the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge (“Report”) was issued. The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiffs’
Motion to Vacate Final Arbitration Award be granted and that Heritage’s Motion to Confirm
Arbitration Award be denied.
On February 5, 2014, Heritage’s Objections to the Findings, Conclusions, and
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge were filed. Plaintiffs filed a response to
Heritage’s objections. On March 21, 2014, Heritage’s Supplemental Authority was filed. The
bases of Heritage’s objections to the Report are grounded on the following:
1.
The Recommendation ignores the contractual language that gave the
Arbitrator the authority to rule as he did;

ORDER – Page 1

2.
Plaintiffs tried the formation issue by consent and therefore waived
their objection to the Arbitrator’s authority; and
3.
The Recommendation failed to account for the posture of this case
and therefore misapplies the law.
Heritage’s Objs. to the Findings, Conclusions, & Recomm. of the U.S.M.J. 2.
The court conducted an independent review of the Report, and based upon the record,
arguments of the parties, and applicable law, the court determines that the findings, and
conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct. Accordingly, they are accepted as the findings
and conclusions of the court, and the court overrules Heritage’s objections.
For the reasons herein stated and those set forth in the Report, the court grants Plaintiffs’
Motion to Vacate Final Arbitration Award and denies Heritage’s Motion to Confirm Arbitration
Award. Accordingly, the court vacates the arbitration award of January 9, 2013, and remands
this action to the American Arbitration Association for further proceedings consistent with this
order. All allowable and reasonable costs will be taxed against Heritage.
It is so ordered this 31st day of March, 2014.

_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge



Initially, the court planned to issue a memorandum opinion and order but later decided against
such approach, as much of what it would have written would be duplicative of what the magistrate judge
set forth in her well-written Report.

ORDER – Page 2