789 F. Supp. 2d 716
S.D.W. Va2011Background
- L&K seeks to confirm an arbitration award against Detherage under the FAA, and to obtain entry of judgment thereon.
- Arbitration occurred March 16, 2011 in Charleston, WV under AAA Commercial Rules; the award issued April 21, 2011 ordering Detherage to pay $2,724,719.50 plus L&K's fees.
- L&K filed Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award on May 13, 2011, and later moved (May 17, 2011) for the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the motion and documents on Detherage.
- Detherage is a nonresident; L&K contends service by a U.S. Marshal is required under 9 U.S.C. § 9 because service must be effected by marshal for nonresidents.
- The court must decide whether FAA § 9 service requirements override or align with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding service of process.
- The court ultimately grants the motion to the extent it directs marshal service for the motion to confirm, citing the statutory language and coexistence with the Rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FAA § 9 requires marshal service on a nonresident for confirmation of an arbitration award. | L&K contends marshal service is required under § 9 because Detherage is nonresident. | Detherage argues Rule 4 service suffices and § 9 should not govern in modern practice. | Marshal service is proper; § 9 governs service for nonresidents and can coexist with Rules. |
| Whether Rule 4 effectively repeals § 9's marshal-service requirement. | Rule 4 changes did not expressly repeal § 9; marshal service remains available. | Amendments to Rule 4 reduce marshal usage and imply repeal of § 9's marshal requirement. | No repeal; § 9 remains effective and marshal service may be ordered. |
| What governing framework applies to service of the FAA § 9 notice on a nonresident. | Service should be by marshal in any district where the adverse party may be found. | Service can be accomplished by modern Rule 4 methods where appropriate. | Service by marshal is proper under § 9 and limited Rule 4 methods do not foreclose marshal service. |
| Does the court have authority to direct marshal service under these facts. | Court should exercise its discretion to ensure proper service under FAA § 9. | Court should not deviate from Rule 4 norms unless necessary. | Court grants the motion directing marshal service for the arbitration-confirmation papers. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reed & Martin, Inc. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 439 F.2d 1268 (2d Cir. 1971) (§9 service described as 'in like manner as other process' refers to proper Fed. R. Civ. P. service.)
- Hancor, Inc. v. R & R Eng’g Prods., Inc., 381 F. Supp. 2d 12 (D.P.R. 2005) (discusses continued relevance of marshal service under §9 vs. Rule 4 changes.)
- Traynor v. Turnage, 485 U.S. 535 (1988) (repeals by implication are disfavored unless clear conflict between later and earlier statutes.)