When the appellant failed to file a motion to vacate or modify an arbitration award, it waived its right to raise Section 10 or 11 of the Federal Arbitration Action (“FAA”) as a defense to a motion to confirm the award. Appellant argued that its counterclaim to the petition for confirmation should have been construed as a motion to vacate. Although a district court has “discretion to liberally construe a poorly conceived filing”, there is no obligation for the court to “independently inquire into the most advantageous construction of a represented civil litigant’s filing.” The Court found the counterclaim was “so vague that the district court could not possibly have discerned a factual predicate for Section 10 relief.”

The Court also upheld the District Court’s decision denying appellant’s motion for reconsideration, as appellant neglected to timely move for vacatur or respond to petitioner’s supplement to its petition for confirmation. Since a motion for reconsideration exists for the correction of “obvious errors or injustices” and not to put forth a new argument, the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to accept appellant’s belated request to construe the counterclaim as a motion to vacate. Careminders Home Care, Inc. v. Concura, Inc., et al., No. 16-10112 (11th Cir. Aug. 25, 2016)