White Springs Agricultural Chemicals, Inc. v. Glawson Investments Corp.
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20962
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- White Springs and Glawson entered into an Operating Agreement and a Settlement Agreement requiring arbitration of future disputes.
- A two-phase arbitration was agreed: Phase I addressed injunctive/declaratory relief; Phase II addressed all remaining claims, including damages.
- Phase I favored Glawson, enjoining White Springs from discharging certain industrial water; Phase I award was partially confirmed by the district court.
- For Phase II, Glawson moved to amend its demand to include attorneys’ fees; the panel allowed evidence of fees as damages to an existing claim and reserved ruling until the end.
- The panel awarded Glawson attorneys’ fees, expert costs, and prejudgment interest on ad valorem taxes, with the district court to determine the amounts.
- White Springs moved to vacate or modify; the district court confirmed the award; White Springs appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the panel had power to award attorneys’ fees | White Springs argues the panel exceeded powers and misapplied Florida law. | Glawson contends the arbitration clause expressly authorized attorneys’ fees as a potential remedy. | Panel had power to award attorneys’ fees. |
| Whether attorneys’ fees were properly submitted to the panel | White Springs contends the fee issue was not properly submitted. | Glawson asserts it timely submitted the issue and the panel received briefing and argument. | Yes, properly submitted; panel considered the issue. |
| Whether bifurcation into Phases I and II affected the fee claim | White Springs claims Phase I fees could not be pursued in Phase II. | Glawson notes Phase II was to resolve all unresolved issues, preserving fee claims arising in Phase I. | Bifurcation did not bar Phase II recovery of fees. |
| Whether the panel exceeded its powers by awarding expert fees and prejudgment interest | White Springs contends federal law governs and Florida law prohibits prejudgment interest. | Glawson argues the panel acted within the arbitration clause and FAA review limits do not assess underlying merits. | FAA limits review of legal merits; cannot overturn on these grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Frazier v. CitiFinancial Corp., 604 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2010) (limits FAA review to exclusive grounds under §§10,11)
- Hall St. Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (Supreme Court, 2008) (arbitration awards subject to narrow FAA grounds for vacatur/modification)
- Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp., 559 U.S. _ (Supreme Court, 2010) (limits on court review when arbitrator exceeds interpretation of agreement)
- Executone Info. Sys., Inc. v. Davis, 26 F.3d 1314 (5th Cir. 1994) (submission of claims to arbitration evidenced by party briefing)
- Davis v. Prudential Sec., Inc., 59 F.3d 1186 (11th Cir. 1995) (general demand for costs does not equate to submitted attorneys’ fees)
- Cat Charter, LLC v. Schurtenberger, 646 F.3d 836 (11th Cir. 2011) (powers of arbitrators derived from the arbitration clause)