666 F. App'x 832
11th Cir.2016Background
- Compassionate Care, a former CareMinders franchisee, initiated arbitration in Oct. 2013 alleging breach of contract and fraud; the arbitrator issued a reasoned award for CareMinders for $232,789.30 and granted injunctive relief enforcing non-compete / non-solicitation provisions.
- CareMinders petitioned to confirm the award in the Northern District of Georgia on Apr. 17, 2015; Compassionate Care filed an Answer/Counterclaim (May 15, 2015) alleging multiple bases to vacate but promised a separate motion under 9 U.S.C. § 12 and never filed it.
- CareMinders argued Compassionate Care waived vacatur defenses by failing to move to vacate within the 90-day FAA limitations period; district court confirmed the award on Sept. 24, 2015 and dismissed Compassionate Care’s counterclaims.
- Compassionate Care’s motion for reconsideration was denied (Dec. 16, 2015); district court found Compassionate Care had not met Rule 59(e)/Local Rule 7.2(E) standards or Rule 60(b) requirements and, alternatively, that the vacatur arguments lacked merit under 9 U.S.C. § 10.
- Eleventh Circuit reviewed the confirmation de novo as to legal conclusions and for clear error as to facts, applying the FAA’s heavy presumption in favor of enforcing arbitration awards.
Issues
| Issue | CareMinders' Argument | Compassionate Care's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Compassionate Care waived vacatur defenses by failing to move to vacate within 90 days under FAA §12 | The FAA’s 90-day limit bars untimely vacatur; Compassionate Care’s filings did not suffice | The Answer/Counterclaim should be treated as a §12 motion (or otherwise excused) | Held: Waiver; district court properly confirmed the award for failure to timely move to vacate |
| Whether the district court was required to construe Compassionate Care’s filing as a motion to vacate | Court may construe mislabelled filings as motions when parties fully present the issue | The Answer/Counterclaim should be treated as a vacatur motion despite lack of formal motion | Held: Not required here—Compassionate Care expressly promised a motion and never filed one; district court not obligated to relax FAA procedures |
| Whether denial of reconsideration was erroneous under Local Rule 7.2(E), FRCP 59(e), or FRCP 60(b) | Reconsideration / amendment / relief warranted due to mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect, or other grounds | Arguments were new or were not shown to meet standards for reconsideration or Rule 60 relief | Held: Denial affirmed—Compassionate Care failed to show new evidence, intervening law, clear error, or satisfy Rule 60(b) requirements |
| Whether the arbitration award should be vacated on the merits under 9 U.S.C. §10 (partiality, misconduct, exceeding powers, fraud) | Various asserted bases: denied continuance, discovery rulings, perceived bias, ex parte contacts, attorney’s fees award | These grounds meet statutory vacatur standards | Held: Meritless—Compassionate Care failed to show any of the §10 grounds; arbitrator issued a reasoned award, so confirmation independently proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Gianelli Money Purchase Plan & Trust v. ADM Inv’r Servs., Inc., 146 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir.) (standard of review for confirmation of arbitration awards; legal conclusions de novo, factual findings for clear error)
- Riccard v. Prudential Ins. Co., 307 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir.) (describes FAA’s strong presumption favoring confirmation and the §10 vacatur grounds)
- Cullen v. Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc., 863 F.2d 851 (11th Cir.) (failure to move to vacate within §12’s 90-day period bars raising vacatur defenses in opposition to a §9 confirmation)
- Johnson v. Directory Assistants Inc., 797 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir.) (courts may construe mislabelled filings liberally when parties have fully briefed vacatur issues)
- O.R. Sec., Inc. v. Prof’l Planning Assocs., Inc., 857 F.2d 742 (11th Cir.) (affirming district court’s treatment of a nonconforming filing as seeking vacatur)
- In re Worldwide Web Sys., Inc., 328 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir.) (requirements for relief based on mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect under Rule 60(b))