911 F.3d 1249
9th Cir.2018Background
- Randy and Elissa Stevens were Jiffy Lube franchisees whose franchise agreement was terminated after they lost possession of leased premises in 2013.
- The franchise agreement required arbitration; the parties agreed to dismiss pending litigation in favor of arbitration.
- An arbitrator issued a final award for Jiffy Lube on September 14, 2016.
- The Stevenses served a petition to vacate the arbitration award on December 15, 2016 (three months and one day after the award).
- The district court denied the petition; the Stevenses appealed and also filed post-judgment motions under Rules 59/60, which the district court denied.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed: it held the appeal from the denial of the post-judgment motion was timely, but the petition to vacate was untimely under the FAA when calculated using Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which rule governs computation of the FAA's 3-month filing deadline (9 U.S.C. § 12)? | Rule 6(a) compels counting three months so that Dec. 15, 2016 is within the period. | Rule 6(a) applies but Stevenses' counting is incorrect; alternatively, FAA controls. | Rule 6(a) governs computation; apply its three-step count. |
| Was the Stevenses' petition to vacate timely under Rule 6(a)? | Three months from Sept. 14 runs through Dec. 15, so petition (Dec. 15) was timely. | Counting under Rule 6(a) yields Dec. 14 as the last day; petition was one day late. | Petition was untimely: Dec. 14 was the last day; Dec. 15 was late. |
| Did the Stevenses’ post-judgment motions toll the appeal deadline? | Their Rule 59/60 motion tolled the time to appeal regardless of merit. | Jiffy Lube contended the motion was improper and should not toll. | A timely post-judgment motion under the Federal Rules tolls appeal time even if the motion lacks merit; the notice of appeal was timely. |
| May the court affirm on timeliness without reaching merits of vacatur? | N/A | N/A | Yes; court may affirm on any ground supported by record and did not reach merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr. of Ill., 434 U.S. 257 (timely appeal is jurisdictional)
- Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 207 F.3d 1126 (FAA judgments and post-judgment motion availability)
- Minasyan v. Mukasey, 553 F.3d 1224 (applying Rule 6 computation to multi-month statutory deadlines)
- Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Found., 862 F.3d 951 (court may affirm on any ground supported by record)