Benhenni v. Bayesian Efficient Strategic Trading, LLC
692 F. App'x 94
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Benhenni, an employee of Bayesian Efficient Strategic Trading, LLC (BEST), accepted a full-time job expecting a substantial bonus; BEST offered $10,000 for 2013 but did not pay it.
- Benhenni demanded $375,000 in arbitration for a larger bonus; an Arbitrator dismissed most claims, allowed the breach-of-contract claim, and entered a $10,000 award after BEST accepted final award in lieu of hearing.
- Benhenni petitioned the District Court under the Federal Arbitration Act to vacate or modify the arbitration award; the District Court denied relief.
- Benhenni appealed pro se, filing a lengthy, noncompliant brief lacking record cites and legal authority.
- He argued the Arbitrator misinterpreted the contract (bonus clause discretion), committed misconduct by excluding evidence and hearings, and raised other claims not previously argued below.
- The Third Circuit reviewed de novo legal conclusions, for clear error as to facts, and affirmed, holding Benhenni failed to meet the heavy FAA standard to vacate an award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitrator exceeded power or misconstrued contract by treating bonus as discretionary as to amount | Benhenni: contract only allows discretion whether to award a bonus, not discretion over amount; arbitrator failed to construe properly | BEST: arbitrator interpreted clear contract language granting Partners discretion as to amount and timing | Held: Arbitrator reasonably construed the contract; Court will not vacate for mere interpretation error (award stands) |
| Whether arbitrator committed misconduct by excluding parol-evidence about course of conduct/industry practice | Benhenni: arbitrator improperly barred evidence of prior course of conduct and industry norms | BEST: exclusion was correct under New Jersey parol evidence rules; arbitrator addressed and applied law | Held: Arbitrator applied governing law and did not commit misconduct; exclusion was proper |
| Whether arbitrator denied fair hearing/denied discovery and arbitrarily set award amount at $10,000 | Benhenni: lack of evidentiary hearing/discovery and arbitrary award | BEST: Arbitrator ruled for Benhenni on breach and accepted his own submission that $10,000 was the offered bonus; no arbitrary setting | Held: No misconduct; award based on parties’ submissions and consent; not vacated |
| Whether issues not raised below (e.g., FAA §11, other misconduct allegations) can be considered on appeal | Benhenni: raised additional statutory and misconduct claims on appeal | BEST: these claims were not presented to District Court and are waived | Held: Claims not raised below are not considered on appeal (waived) |
Key Cases Cited
- Opalinski v. Robert Half Int’l Inc., 761 F.3d 326 (3d Cir. 2014) (standard for appellate review of district court in FAA contexts)
- United States v. Hoffecker, 530 F.3d 137 (3d Cir. 2008) (pro se briefs must present issues clearly)
- Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239 (3d Cir. 2013) (pro se litigants must follow same rules as other litigants)
- Laborers’ Int’l Union v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp., 26 F.3d 375 (3d Cir. 1994) (issue waiver for appeals)
- Freeman v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, 709 F.3d 240 (3d Cir. 2013) (narrow FAA vacatur standards and deference to arbitrator’s contract interpretation)
- Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 133 S. Ct. 2064 (2013) (arbitrator need only arguably interpret the contract to foreclose vacatur)
- Tri-M Grp., LLC v. Sharp, 638 F.3d 406 (3d Cir. 2011) (appellate review limits when issues were not litigated below)
- Karsner v. Lothian, 532 F.3d 876 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (demand approach for amount in controversy)