Jessica Graulau v. Credit One Bank, N.A.

USCA11 Case: 23-13168 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 03/19/2024 Page: 1 of 5

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________

No. 23-13168

Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

JESSICA GRAULAU,

Plaintiff-Appellant, versus CREDIT ONE BANK, N.A., a foreign corporation,

Defendant-Appellee. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 6:19-cv-01723-WWB-EJK

2 Opinion of the Court 23-13168

____________________

Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Jessica Graulau, proceeding pro se, 1 appeals the district court’s denial of (1) her motion to vacate an arbitration award and (2) her motion to correct or modify the award on defendant Credit One Bank, N.A.’s counterclaim, pursuant to 9 U.S.C. §§ 10 and 11 of the Federal Arbitration Act. 2

I.

Sections 10 and 11 of the FAA provide its exclusive grounds for vacatur and modification of arbitration awards. Hall St. Assocs., 23-13168 Opinion of the Court 3 L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 584 (2008). Section 10 of the FAA allows a district court to vacate an arbitration award only in the following narrow circumstances:

(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 perti- nent 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. § 10(a). We have held that, in light of Hall Street, the “ju- dicially-created bases for vacatur” formerly recognized, such as where an arbitrator behaved in manifest disregard of the law, are no longer valid. Frazier, 604 F.3d at 1321, 1323–24; see also Southern Commc’ns Servs., Inc. v. Thomas, 720 F.3d 1352, 1358 (11th Cir. 2013) (“In light of the [Supreme] Court’s decision in Hall Street, we held that the ‘judicially-created bases for vacatur’ that we had formerly recognized, such as where an arbitrator behaves in manifest disre- gard of the law, ‘are no longer valid.’ Nor is an ‘incorrect legal 4 Opinion of the Court 23-13168 conclusion . . . grounds for vacating or modifying an award.’”) (ci- tations omitted).

Here, the district court did not err in denying Graulau’s mo- tion to vacate because she fails to establish any of the four narrow circumstances justifying vacatur as provided by FAA § 10. See 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(1)–(4). While she argues that the arbitrator exceeded his powers under FAA § 10(a)(4) by disregarding applicable federal and state law, that argument is untenable, as we have repeatedly held post-Hall Street that manifest disregard of the law is a judicially- created basis for vacatur, and that such judicially-created bases are no longer valid grounds for vacating or modifying an arbitration award in cases brought under the FAA. Frazier, 604 F.3d at 1323– 24; Southern Commc’ns Servs., 720 F.3d at 1358. She also mentions the arbitrator’s “misconduct/misbehavior” and “clear partiality with bias” against her in what appears to be an attempt to assert an entitlement to relief under FAA § 10(a)(2) and (3). But she cites no authority and makes no argument as to why she would be entitled to relief on those grounds and has thus abandoned any argument as to them. Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 681–82. Because Graulau failed to raise any valid challenges to the arbitrator’s decision, we affirm the district court’s denial of her motion to vacate.

II.

Section 11 of the FAA, in turn, provides that a district court may correct or modify an arbitration award in three circumstances:

(a) Where there was an evident material miscalcula- tion of figures or an evident material mistake in the

23-13168 Opinion of the Court 5 description of any person, thing, or property referred to in the award. (b) Where the arbitrators have awarded upon a mat- ter 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. § 11.

Here, the district court also did not err in denying Graulau’s motion to correct or modify the arbitration award on Credit One’s counterclaim. As the court found and the record makes clear, Graulau’s argument that the arbitrator awarded upon a matter not submitted to him is untenable because Credit One’s counterclaim was expressly submitted to him. See 9 U.S.C. § 11(b). And, as al- ready explained, her argument that the arbitrator’s award was “im- perfect” based on his disregard of applicable laws remains meritless and is also likely abandoned based on her failure to cite any author- ity in support of that position. Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 681–82; 9 U.S.C. § 11(c).

III.

Because Graulau can establish no valid bases upon which to vacate or modify of the arbitration award, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.