Ohio Farmers Insurance Co. v. City of Akron, Case Nos. 25642, 25725 (Ohio Ct. App. July 20, 2011) (affirming confirmation of award; panel properly found “good cause” for delay in seeking confirmation; rule providing one year to seek confirmation deemed not a statute of limitations).
Grego v. Nexagen USA LLC, Case No. 10-02691 (USDC N.D. Ohio July 15, 2011) (confirming award; denying motion to vacate; allegedly unfair amount of briefing opportunities was a “far cry” from “evident partiality”).
Authenticity of Agreement:
Klima v. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society, Case No. 10-01390 (USDC D. Kan. June 21, 2011) (denying motion to dismiss or compel arbitration; ordering trial to determine authenticity of signature on arbitration agreement).
Scope of Agreement:
Adol Owen-Williams v. BB&T Investment Services, Inc., Case No. 06-00948 (USDC D.D.C. July 18, 2011) (denying reconsideration of order confirming award; noting “manifest disregard” is unsettled law in D.C. Circuit);
McGowan Working Partners, Inc. v. Eland Energy, Inc., Case No. 10-02472 (USDC N.D. Tex. July 6, 2011) (confirming award; denying motion to vacate; noting “manifest disregard” no longer viable in Fifth Circuit; panel did not exceed authority for determining issues outside scope of arbitration agreement);
Pocono Medical Center v. SEIU Healthcare Pennsylvania CTW, CLC, Case No. 10-01334 (USDC M.D. Pa. July 14, 2011) (granting SEIU’s motion for summary judgment; award drew essence from collective bargaining agreement; employee wrongly terminated without “just cause”; upholding challenge to application of corporate policy).
Standard of Review:
Roofers Local No. 30 Combined Pension Fund v. D.A. Nolt, Inc., Case Nos. 10-3753, 10-3854 (3d Cir. July 22, 2011) (affirming confirmation of award; de novo standard of review for arbitrator’s legal conclusions; where a court’s “denial of a motion to reconsider is based upon the interpretation of legal precepts” the review of the court’s decision is plenary)
Ruggiero v. Richert, Case No. 10-23539 (USDC S.D. Fla. July 18, 2011) (granting motion for summary judgment; denying petition to vacate FINRA award and sanctions; panel was entitled to schedule hearing and require telephonic attendance, notwithstanding petitioner’s travel schedule);
Aviles v. Charles Schwab & Co., Case No. 10-12216 (11th Cir. July 20, 2011) (affirming confirmation of FINRA award and denial of motion to vacate; noting “manifest disregard” law no longer viable in Eleventh Circuit; no evident partiality);
Mid-Ohio Securities Corp. v. Estate of Burns, Case No. 10-01975 (USDC D. Nev. June 14, 2011) (confirming FINRA award; denying motion to vacate; finding no manifest disregard; panel had authority to interpret FINRA rule relating to timeliness of arbitration, akin to statute of limitations; no record of plaintiff citing law to panel);
Bayme v. Groupargent Securities, LLC, Case No. 10-06213 (USDC S.D.N.Y. July 19, 2011) (denying petition to vacate FINRA award; finding no “manifest disregard” for determination that panel lacked jurisdiction based on finding that petitioner was employed by non-FINRA member);
Kulchinsky v. Ameriprise Financial, Case No. 11-00319 (USDC E.D. Pa. July 13, 2011) (confirming FINRA award; denying motion to vacate; noting validity of “manifest disregard” law still undetermined in Third Circuit; no manifest disregard where no evidence that party informed panel of law).