Miniex v. The Law Office of E. Sharon Thornton, LLC
4:20-cv-01477
S.D. Tex.Dec 16, 2020Background
- Miniex sued the Houston Housing Authority (Retaliation Lawsuit) and prevailed at trial in March 2019; the court awarded roughly $1.8M and separately awarded Thornton $142,200 for work she performed for Miniex.
- Thornton (former counsel and friend of Miniex) filed an AAA arbitration (May 2018) seeking $547,723.75 on a quantum meruit theory for additional fees; an arbitrator was appointed and replaced in Oct. 2019.
- On Oct. 23, 2019, the arbitrator entered an unopposed partial judgment for $142,274.03 (fees/costs previously awarded); full evidentiary hearing occurred Oct. 28, 2019.
- On Dec. 13, 2019 the arbitrator issued a Final Award denying Thornton any additional fees; Miniex’s counsel promptly arranged payment of the previously ordered $142,274.03.
- Thornton moved to vacate the Final Award alleging (1) arbitrator nondisclosure/evident partiality, (2) ex parte communications between Miniex and the arbitrator and improper communications/withdrawal by Thornton’s prior counsel, and (3) that the arbitrator exceeded her powers by ignoring evidence and Texas law.
- The district court applied the narrow FAA review standard, found Thornton failed to meet the statutory vacatur burdens, granted Miniex’s petition to confirm, and denied Thornton’s motion to vacate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Miniex) | Defendant's Argument (Thornton) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arbitrator nondisclosure / evident partiality (§10(a)(2)) | Any prior emails with Ray were limited and not material; challenge waived because Thornton knew and failed to object during arbitration. | Ray emailed Thornton about serving as an expert before appointment and did not disclose that contact; nondisclosure shows evident partiality. | Denied. Limited, brief emails do not create a reasonable impression of bias; Thornton waived objection by not raising it during arbitration. |
| Ex parte communications between Miniex and arbitrator / procured by fraud or undue means (§10(a)(1)) | No ex parte contact; communications showing Miniex arranged payment refer to the Oct. 23 partial judgment, not the Final Award. | Miniex exchanged communications and then settled/promptly paid the amount matching the Final Award, suggesting ex parte contact and undue influence. | Denied. Evidence does not show ex parte communications about the Final Award; payment related to the earlier unopposed partial judgment. |
| Communications/withdrawal by Thornton’s prior counsel (Lang) corrupting arbitrator (§10(a)(1)) | Statements about Lang’s withdrawal were public filings/pleadings; no proof of improper private communications. | Lang withdrew close to the award and may have communicated with the arbitrator, influencing decisions. | Denied. No evidence of ex parte communications by Lang; suspicions alone fail to meet clear-and-convincing standard. |
| Arbitrator exceeded powers / refused to consider evidence / ignored Texas law (§10(a)(4)) | The arbitrator considered the record, applied Texas quantum meruit law, and explained why Thornton’s proof was insufficient. | Arbitrator ignored Texas law on quantum meruit and refused to consider key evidence, exceeding authority. | Denied. The award shows the arbitrator considered evidence and applied the correct Texas standard; complaints amount to an improper manifest-disregard claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall St. Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (Sup. Ct. 2008) (federal courts must confirm arbitration awards unless vacatur/modification grounds in FAA §§10–11 apply)
- OOGC Am., L.L.C. v. Chesapeake Expl., L.L.C., 975 F.3d 449 (5th Cir. 2020) (arbitral awards receive extraordinary deference; burden on party seeking vacatur)
- Positive Software Sols., Inc. v. New Century Mortg. Corp., 476 F.3d 278 (5th Cir. 2007) (nondisclosure must show a "significant compromising connection" to demonstrate evident partiality)
- Karaha Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 364 F.3d 274 (5th Cir. 2004) (three-prong test for §10(a)(1) fraud/undue means vacatur: clear-and-convincing proof, undiscoverable by due diligence, and materiality)
- Quezada v. Bechtel OG & C Constr. Servs., Inc., 946 F.3d 837 (5th Cir. 2020) (rejects freestanding "manifest disregard" of law as a ground independent of FAA statutory bases)
- Hill v. Shamoun & Norman, LLP, 554 S.W.3d 724 (Tex. 2018) (Texas standard for quantum meruit: recovery for the reasonable value of services performed)