Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. Donald Stennett, 2:20-cv-07488

On February 25, 2020, a JAMS arbitrator issued a Final Arbitration Award in favor of Halliburton, finding that Stennett had validly released all claims against his former employer.
By stipulation dated July 21, 2020, Stennett and Halliburton agreed to have the Final Arbitration Award confirmed by a court and expressly agreed there were no grounds to vacate the award.
Halliburton filed a Consent Petition to Confirm Final Arbitration Award and for Entry of Judgment in federal district court.
The parties’ arbitration agreement incorporated the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and expressly contemplated court confirmation of awards.
The court noted that judicial review of arbitration awards under the FAA is extremely limited and found no statutory grounds to vacate, modify, or correct the award.
The court granted Halliburton’s Consent Petition, confirmed the Final Arbitration Award, and ordered Halliburton to submit a Proposed Judgment within 14 days.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court must confirm the Final Arbitration Award	Halliburton: FAA requires confirmation; Stennett consented and agreed there are no grounds to vacate	Stennett: (did not oppose confirmation; stipulated there are no grounds to vacate)	Court: Must grant confirmation; no basis under FAA to vacate, modify, or correct the award

Hall St. Assocs., LLC v. Mattel, 552 U.S. 576 (U.S. 2008) (FAA requires courts to confirm awards unless statutory exceptions apply)
Kyocera Corp. v. Prudential-Bache Trade Servs., Inc., 341 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 2003) (federal review of arbitration awards is extremely limited)
Bosack v. Soward, 586 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009) (erroneous legal conclusions or unsubstantiated factual findings do not justify vacatur under the FAA)
Cent. Mont. Rail v. BNSF Ry. Co., [citation="422 F. App'x 636"] (9th Cir. 2011) (court must confirm arbitration award unless vacatur, modification, or correction is warranted)