Opinion
No. C-03-05502 RMW.
August 30, 2004
Michael B. Roger, Barry E. Hinkle, Ezekiel D. Carder, Weinberg, Roger Rosenfeld, Oakland, CA, Counsel for plaintiff.
Colonial American Casualty and Surety Company, Glendale, CA, and Apex Partitions, Inc. Granite Bay, CA, Counsel for Defendants
ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD
Plaintiff Robert Alvarado, on behalf of the Carpenter Funds Administrative Office of Northern California, Inc., entered into a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") with defendant Apex Partitions, Inc. on May 7, 2001. The CBA provided that in the event of a grievance between the parties, disputes were to be submitted to either a Board of Adjustment or an arbitrator, whose decision would be final and binding upon the parties. Accordingly, plaintiffs filed a grievance with a Board of Adjustment ("the Board"). The Board issued a decision and award in favor of plaintiffs on December 3, 2003. Plaintiffs have made demands upon defendant to comply with the award issued by the Board, however, defendant has failed to comply. Plaintiffs now bring a petition to confirm the arbitration award. The petition is not contested by defendant.
The Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") governs the role of federal courts in reviewing arbitral decisions. See 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16. Under section 9 of the FAA, a federal district court "must grant [a confirmation] order unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected as prescribed in sections 10 and 11 of this title."Id. at § 9. Here, none of these grounds apply.
"Confirmation is required even in the face of `erroneous findings of fact or misinterpretations of law.'" French v. Merrill Lynch, 784 F.2d 902, 906 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Amn. Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO v. United States Postal Serv., 682 F.2d 1280, 1285 (9th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1200 (1983)). In fact, "[i]t is not even enough that the [arbitrator] may have failed to understand or apply the law. An arbitrator's decision must be upheld unless it is completely irrational or it constitutes a manifest disregard for law." G.C. and K.B. Invs., Inc. v. Wilson, 326 F.3d 1096, 1105 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Cunard Line, 943 F.2d 1056, 1060 (9th Cir. 1991). Therefore, the federal district court's role in an arbitration confirmation proceeding is severely limited, and for the most part, the court defers to the arbitrator's determination of the award.
Furthermore, "[a] claimant may not voluntarily submit his claim to arbitration, await the outcome, and, if the decision is unfavorable, then challenge the authority of the arbitrator's act." Ficek v. S. Pac. Co., 338 F.2d 655, 657 (9th Cir. 1964),cert. denied, 380 U.S. 988 (1965); see also Carpenters 46 N. Cal. Counties Conference Bd. v. Zcon Builders, 96 F.3d 410, 415 (9th Cir. 1996).
In agreeing to the terms of the CBA, defendant Apex voluntarily agreed to arbitration as well as to the Board's decision being final and binding. Therefore, defendant cannot now refuse to comply with the Board's determination in favor of plaintiffs, unless the determination is shown to manifest a disregard for the law. See Ficek, 338 F.2d at 657. Defendant has not opposed plaintiffs' petition to confirm the award, and has therefore not provided reasons as to why the court should not confirm the Board's decision. Moreover, the court has found nothing in the award that appears to be a manifest disregard for the law.
III. ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the court CONFIRMS plaintiffs' arbitration award. Judgment in favor of plaintiffs will be entered accordingly.