Landau v. Eisenberg
922 F.3d 495
| 2d Cir. | 2019Background
- Two factions of the Bobov Hasidic community in Brooklyn agreed to arbitrate disputes (including use of the name/mark “Bobov”) before a five-rabbi rabbinical tribunal starting in 2005.
- The tribunal ruled in August 2014 that petitioners (Landau et al.) owned the “Bobov” trademark and could register and use the name; it stated any party could seek confirmation of the award in secular court.
- Petitioners filed to confirm the arbitration award in federal district court under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) § 9. Of 613 respondents served, only Baruch Eisenberg opposed confirmation.
- Eisenberg challenged subject matter jurisdiction, venue, and the award’s merits; the district court found jurisdiction, rejected non-jurisdictional challenges (including timeliness), and confirmed the award.
- The Second Circuit reviewed whether district courts should apply the Supreme Court’s “look-through” approach (from FAA § 4 context) to § 9 confirmation petitions and whether the confirmation was proper under the highly deferential FAA standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Landau) | Defendant's Argument (Eisenberg) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction to confirm an arbitration award under FAA § 9 | District court has jurisdiction because the underlying dispute raises federal trademark law (federal-question jurisdiction) | FAA § 9 does not by itself confer jurisdiction; court must not assume jurisdiction without an independent basis | Courts should “look through” § 9 petitions to the underlying controversy; jurisdiction existed here because the underlying dispute raised federal trademark law, so confirmation was proper |
| Whether the Second Circuit should apply Vaden’s look-through approach (used for § 4) to § 9 petitions | Vaden/Doscher logic supports applying look-through to all FAA remedies so federal courts can enforce remedies when the underlying dispute invokes federal law | Opposed implicitly by arguing lack of jurisdiction over confirmation | The Court adopted the look-through approach for § 9, relying on Doscher’s reasoning and consistency with the FAA’s structure and purpose |
| Whether the arbitration award should be confirmed on the merits | Petitioners urged enforcement and emphasized the tribunal’s thorough multi-year proceedings and the FAA’s pro-enforcement policy | Eisenberg raised venue/merits/timeliness objections (largely unpressed on appeal) | District court’s confirmation affirmed: review is extremely deferential; no clear basis (fraud, dishonesty, or other grounds) to vacate; award enforced |
Key Cases Cited
- Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (Sup. Ct.) (adopts "look-through" approach for FAA § 4 petitions)
- Doscher v. Sea Port Group Secs., LLC, 832 F.3d 372 (2d Cir.) (applies Vaden look-through approach to FAA § 10 and reasons it should apply to other FAA remedies)
- Ortiz-Espinosa v. BBVA Secs. of Puerto Rico, Inc., 852 F.3d 36 (1st Cir.) (adopts Doscher approach and applies look-through to § 9)
- Landy Michaels Realty Corp. v. Local 32B–32J Serv. Employees Int’l, 954 F.2d 794 (2d Cir.) (articulates the extremely deferential standard for confirming arbitration awards)
- Wall Street Assocs., L.P. v. Becker Paribas Inc., 27 F.3d 845 (2d Cir.) (describes strong presumption favoring enforcement of arbitration awards)