Tianjin Bond USA, LLC et al v. Western Post (US) Inc et al

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 13 MOTION for Summary Judgment. This matter is DISMISSED. The Court will issue a final judgment simultaneously with this opinion. (Signed by Judge George C Hanks, Jr) Parties notified.(bthomas, 4)

Case 4:21-cv-02013 Document 21 Filed on 09/16/22 in TXSD Page 1 of 5
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
§
§
§
§
Plaintiffs,
§
VS.
§
WESTERN POST (US) INC. f/k/a POWER §
§
IN CLOUD, INC., WESTERN POST
§
(HOU) INC. f/k/a OW SOUTHWEST
DISTRIBUTION INC., ZIAOWEI WANG
and BIOA PENG,

September 16, 2022
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

TIANJIN BOND USA, LLC and
BANGPING YU,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:21-cv-02013

Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs Tianjin Bond USA, LLC and Bangping Yu’s Motion
for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. 13) After carefully reviewing the motion, response, and
reply, the submissions, and the applicable law, the Court finds summary judgment for
Plaintiffs should be GRANTED.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The two Plaintiffs are a company engaged in the warehouse business and that
company’s president. (Dkt. 13-1 at 1) Defendants are companies engaged in the online
retail business and certain corporate officers of those companies. (Dkt. 13-1 at 1) This
matter started when Plaintiffs brought a state court action against Defendants, asserting
claims of breach of contract, promissory estoppel, tortious interference, and conversion.
(Dkt. 14-2) Defendants obtained a stay of that state court action pending arbitration of the
dispute. (Dkt. 14-3)
1/5

Case 4:21-cv-02013 Document 21 Filed on 09/16/22 in TXSD Page 2 of 5

The arbitrator ruled in favor of Tianjin Bond on its breach of contract claims against
the corporate-entity Defendants (“the Award”). (Dkt. 14-41) Both parties requested
clarification of the Award; those requests were denied. (Dkt. 14-43, 14-44, 14-45)
Plaintiffs filed a motion in state court to lift the arbitration stay and to confirm the
Award. (Dkt. 14-47) Defendants removed the lawsuit to federal court and filed a Motion
to Correct or Modify Arbitration Award (“Motion to Modify”). (Dkt. 1, 5) Plaintiffs filed
a response. (Dkt. 6) While Defendants’ Motion to Modify was pending, Plaintiffs filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment and a supplement to that motion. (Dkt. 13, 14) Defendants
filed responses to both. (Dkt. 15, 16) The court denied Defendants’ Motion to Modify.
(Dkt. 19)
LEGAL STANDARD
In deciding a motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
56, the Court must determine whether the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials
on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and
that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 322–23 (1986). “An issue is material if its resolution could affect the outcome of
the action. A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable
jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” DIRECT TV Inc. v. Robson, 420 F.3d
532, 536 (5th Cir. 2006) (citations and internal quotations omitted). In deciding whether a
genuine and material fact issue has been created, the Court must review the facts and the
inferences to be drawn from those facts in the light most favorable to the non-movant.
Reaves Brokerage Co. v. Sunbelt Fruit & Vegetable Co., 336 F.3d 410, 412 (5th Cir. 2003).
2/5

Case 4:21-cv-02013 Document 21 Filed on 09/16/22 in TXSD Page 3 of 5

ANALYSIS
Plaintiffs offer five arguments in favor of summary judgment. (Dkt. 13 at 17)
Plaintiffs received favorable rulings on three of the five arguments—which are dispositive
here—when the court denied Defendants’ Motion to Modify. (Dkt. 19) The remaining two
arguments offered by Plaintiffs were rendered moot by the denial of that same motion.
All but one of Defendants’ arguments in opposition to summary judgment were
addressed when the court denied Defendants’ Motion to Modify. The court is not persuaded
by Defendants’ remaining procedural argument, that motions for summary judgment filed
during a petition to confirm an arbitration award are redundant and inappropriate.
A. Summary judgment is warranted because there remain no substantive
arguments against confirming the Award.
Defendants have three primary objections to the Award: (1) that the Arbitrator
erroneously found that Western post US owns Western Port Houston, which Defendants
contend is a clear error that warrants modification of the Award; (2) that the Arbitrator’s
damages award for Plaintiffs of $164,869.10 reflects an evident material miscalculation;
and (3) that the Arbitrator’s failure to segregate attorney’s fees constituted an evident
material miscalculation. Defendants presented the arguments to the court in their Motion
to Modify; that motion was denied for reasons stated on the record. (Dkt. 5, 19)
Under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), district courts play a very limited and
deferential role in reviewing an arbitration panel's award. Any review is “extraordinarily
narrow,” and “federal courts will defer to the arbitrators' resolution of the dispute whenever
possible.” Anderman/Smith Operating Co. v. Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co., 918 F.2d 1215, 1218

3/5

Case 4:21-cv-02013 Document 21 Filed on 09/16/22 in TXSD Page 4 of 5

(5th Cir. 1990) (quoting Antwine v. Prudential Bache Sec., Inc., 899 F.2d 410, 413 (5th
Cir. 1990)). For the reasons provided in the court’s denial of Defendants’ Motion to
Modify, Defendants’ objections to the Award do not provide the court sufficient
justification to set aside the arbitrator’s findings and modify the Award. (Dkt. 19)
The court’s denial of Defendants’ Motion to Modify settled the substantive issues
raised in Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs’ remaining summary
judgment arguments—that Defendants’ Motion to Modify was untimely and that
Defendants waived the right to challenge the Award—were rendered moot by the denial of
Defendants’ Motion to Modify.
B. Plaintiffs are not barred from filing a motion for summary judgment
after filing a motion to confirm the Award.
The court’s denial of Defendants’ Motion to Modify addressed Defendants’
substantive arguments against summary judgment. (Dkt. 19) Defendants raise an additional
procedural argument, that motions for summary judgment are redundant and thus
inappropriate when a court is considering a motion to confirm an arbitration award. (Dkt.
16 at 2-3) The court finds this argument unpersuasive. Defendants’ cited authority does not
support their argument that motions for summary judgment are inappropriate when courts
are deciding whether to confirm an arbitration award. Indeed, summary judgment motions
are appropriate vehicles for resolving motion-to-confirm proceedings. See, e.g., Commc'ns
Workers of Am., AFL-CIO v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 953 F.3d 822, 830 (5th Cir. 2020).

4/5

Case 4:21-cv-02013 Document 21 Filed on 09/16/22 in TXSD Page 5 of 5

CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 13) is GRANTED, and this matter
is DISMISSED. The Court will issue a final judgment simultaneously with this opinion.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas on September 16, 2022.
_______________________________
GEORGE C. HANKS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5/5