Moore v. Poolcorp/SCP Distribution

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION

CALVIN MOORE, SR., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 2:19-cv-02537-TLP v. ) ) JURY DEMAND POOLCORP/SCP DISTRIBUTION, ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE, MODIFY, OR CORRECT THE ARBITRATOR’S AWARD

Plaintiff sued Defendant under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e17, as amended. (ECF No. 1.)

Defendant then moved to stay this case pending arbitration. (ECF No. 15.) And the Court granted that motion. (ECF No. 19.)

With arbitration now finalized, Plaintiff now moves to vacate, modify, or correct the arbitrator’s award in this case.1 (See ECF No. 21; ECF No. 24.) Defendant has responded. (ECF No. 25.)

For the reasons below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to vacate, modify, or correct the arbitrator’s award.

ANALYSIS A. Plaintiff’s Motion Is Untimely The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) provides that “[n]otice of a motion to vacate, modify, or correct an award must be served upon the adverse party or his attorney within three months after the award is filed or delivered.” 9 U.S.C. § 12 (emphasis added).

Here, the arbitrator issued his decision in mid-March 2020. (ECF No. 25-1 at PageID 120.) And that decision was delivered to the parties on March 23, 2020. (ECF No. 25-2 at PageID 121.)

Under the FAA, therefore, Plaintiff had until June 23, at the latest, to ask to “vacate, modify, or correct” the arbitrator’s award. 9 U.S.C. § 12. But he waited several days after then to do so.2 The Court thus DENIES Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time because the FAA states in unequivocal language that, past the three-month mark, motions to vacate, modify, or correct an award are untimely.

B. Plaintiff Has Not Shown Why the Court Should Vacate the Arbitration Award Even if Plaintiff’s motion was timely, he has failed to show why the Court should vacate the arbitration award.

Plaintiff made that response by e-mail on June 29, 2020. (See ECF No. 20-1 at PageID 75.)

Even though the email was not a proper motion, the Court chose to treat it as a motion and provided time for Defendant to respond. (ECF No. 24).

“Section 9 of the [FAA] is clear that confirmation is a summary proceeding and the court must confirm the award where the award is not vacated, modified or corrected . . . .” Wachovia Sec., Inc. v. Gangale, 125 F. App'x 671, 676 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing 9 U.S.C. § 9). “[T]he standard for reviewing arbitration awards ‘is one of the narrowest standards of judicial review in all of American jurisprudence.’” Mich. Family Res., Inc. v. SEIU Local 517M, 438 F.3d 653, 656 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting Tenn. Valley Auth. v. Tenn. Valley Trades & Labor Council, 184 F.3d 510, 514–15 (6th Cir. 1999)).

“A court's review of an Arbitrator's decision is ‘strikingly deferential,’ and courts review ‘only to determine whether the Arbitrator was arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of his authority.’” Braganza Assocs., P.C. v. Houck, No. 10-00049, 2011 WL 4565466, at *1 (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 29, 2011) (quoting Bixby Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Mich. Nurses Ass'n, 142 F. App'x 843, 845 (6th Cir. 2005)).

That said, the FAA does provide four situations in which a court can 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. 9 U.S.C.A. § 10(a).

Here, Plaintiff has failed to show how § 10(a) applies here. 3 Instead, presumably in an effort to show that the arbitrator was partial to Defendant, he quotes portions of the arbitrator’s award where the arbitrator finds that Plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient evidence to survive a motion for summary judgment.4 (See ECF No. 21 at PageID 81.)

Plaintiff may disagree with the arbitrator’s award. But such disagreement is far from enough to justify vacating the award under § 10(a). See Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Home Ins. Co., 429 F.3d 640, 644 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing Apperson v. Fleet Carrier Corp., 879 F.2d 1344, 1358 (6th Cir. 1989), cert. denied 495 U.S. 947, 110 (1990) (“[E]vident partiality will be found only where a reasonable person would have to conclude that an arbitrator was partial to one party to the arbitration.”)

The Court thus DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitration award in this case.

C. Plaintiff Has Not Shown Why the Court Should Modify or Correct the Arbitration Award Finally, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not stated any facts showing why the Court should modify or correct the arbitration award here.

The FAA identifies three situations where a court can modify or correct an arbitration award: (a) Where there was an evident material miscalculation of figures or an evident material mistake in the description of any person, thing, or property referred to in the award.

(b) Where the arbitrators have awarded upon a matter not submitted to them, unless it is a matter not affecting the merits of the decision upon the matter submitted.

(c) Where the award is imperfect in matter of form not affecting the merits of the controversy. 9 U.S.C.A. § 11.

Here, the Court agrees with Defendant that, “[d]espite including the terms ‘modify or correct’ in the title of his Motion, Plaintiff has not argued any of the enumerated circumstances upon which this Court may modify or correct the [a]ward.” (ECF No. 25 at PageID 112.) Or stated otherwise, Plaintiff spends no time arguing how § 11 applies here. So the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to modify or correct the arbitration award.

CONCLUSION For the reasons above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to vacate, modify, or correct the arbitration award in this case.

SO ORDERED, this 30th day of July, 2020. s/Thomas L. Parker THOMAS L. PARKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE