Opinion
C. A. 6:23-cv-06366-TMC-KFM
03-27-2024
James A. Griffin, Plaintiff, v. Santander Consumer USA, Defendant.
REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
KEVIN F. MCDONALD, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter is before the court on a motion to confirm arbitration award filed by the defendant (doc. 24). This is a civil action filed by a non-prisoner. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), this magistrate judge is authorized to review all pretrial matters in this case and submit findings and recommendations to the district court.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The plaintiff's complaint/petition to vacate arbitration award was entered on the docket on December 8, 2023 (doc. 1). By order dated December 28, 2023, the plaintiff was given an opportunity to provide the necessary information to bring the case into proper form for evaluation and possible service of process (doc. 10). The plaintiff submitted documents in response to the order, bringing his case into proper form. On January 4, 2024, the defendant filed a response to the plaintiff's complaint/petition asserting that the plaintiff's request to vacate the arbitration award should be denied (doc. 15). On January 17, 2024, the plaintiff filed a motion to amend his petition (doc. 16), to which the defendant responded in opposition on January 25, 2024 (doc. 17). On February 13, 2024, the undersigned granted the plaintiff's motion to amend (doc. 19). That same day, the undersigned issued a report and recommendation recommending that the plaintiff's request to vacate the arbitration award be denied (doc. 22). The defendant then filed a motion seeking to confirm the arbitration award (doc. 24), to which the plaintiff responded in opposition (doc. 25). On March 18, 2024, the Honorable Timothy M. Cain, United States District Judge, entered an order adopting the undersigned's report and recommendation and denying the plaintiff's motion to vacate the arbitration award (doc. 31). The order also recommitted the defendant's motion to confirm the arbitration award to the undersigned for consideration (id. at 4-5). As such, the defendant's motion is now ripe for review.
APPLICABLE LAW & ANALYSIS
As noted above, before the undersigned is the defendant's motion to confirm the arbitration award (doc. 24). Judicial review of an arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) in federal court “is among the narrowest known at law” and “a district or appellate court is limited to determine whether the arbitrators did the job they were told to do - not whether they did it well, or correctly, or reasonably, but simply whether they did it.” Three S Del., Inc. v. DataQuick Info. Sys., Inc., 492 F.3d 520, 527 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Under the FAA, “a court must confirm an arbitration award unless a party to the arbitration demonstrates that the award should be vacated under one” of the four enumerated grounds in 9 U.S.C. § 10 or because the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law. See Jones v. Dancel, 792 F.3d 395, 401 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Those grounds (which are the same as those for vacating an arbitration award) include: (1) the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means; (2) where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrator; (3) where the arbitrator was guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing (upon sufficient cause shown), refused to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy, or any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced; or (4) where the arbitrator exceeded its power so that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made. Id.; Three S Del., Inc., 492 F.3d at 527. Here, the plaintiff's arguments offered in opposition to the defendant's motion are substantially similar to those he originally offered in seeking to vacate the arbitration award (compare docs. 1; 20 with doc. 25). However, these grounds by the plaintiff have been considered - and rejected - in this case, and as noted by Judge Cain, the grounds asserted by the plaintiff “require the court to venture beyond the narrow scope of its review of an arbitration award” (doc. 31 at 4); thus, these arguments which could not provide a basis for vacating the arbitration award likewise cannot provide a basis for denying the defendant's motion to confirm the arbitration award. Even considering the plaintiff's assertion of fraud upon the court or public policy concerns, the defendant's motion should still be granted. The crux of the plaintiff's arguments regarding public policy/fraud upon the court appear to be based on the plaintiff's contention that there is no longer a valid lien on the vehicle in question and that the arbitrator erred by finding that the defendant was entitled to possession of the vehicle in order to sell it to satisfy the unpaid balance on the loan (doc. 25 at 5-9). This assertion by the plaintiff, in essence, is a request by the plaintiff that this Court review the merits of the arbitrator's decision by calling it a challenge based on fraud or public policy concerns. However, the United States Supreme Court has instructed that courts “are not authorized to review the arbitrator's decision on the merits despite allegations that the decision rests on factual errors or misinterprets the parties' agreement.” Major League Baseball Players Ass'n v. Garvey, 532 U.S. 504, 509 (2001). Indeed, “the arbitrator's ‘improvident, even silly, factfinding' does not provide a basis for a reviewing court to” find enforcement of the award impermissible. Id. (quoting United Paperworkers Int'l Union, AFL-CIO v. Miscio, Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 39 (1987)). As such, the plaintiff's assertions of fraud and public policy concerns do not provide a basis for denying the defendant's motion.
Additionally, out of an abundance of caution for the pro se plaintiff, the undersigned has reviewed the arbitrator's October 16, 2023, order as well as the updated record before the Court and has found no evidence that (1) the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means; (2) evidence of partiality or corruption of the arbitrator; (3) arbitrator misconduct; (4) that the arbitrator exceeded his powers. Nor does the arbitration award reflect the arbitrator's manifest disregard for the law as required to deny a motion to confirm under the FAA. See 9 U.S.C. § 10(a); Dancel 792 F.3d at 401. As such, the undersigned has reviewed the arbitrator's award to determine if he did his job and concludes that he did. See Wachovia Sec., LLC v. Brand, 671 F.3d 472, 478 (4th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that the Court grant the defendant's motion and confirm the arbitrator's award.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Now, therefore, based upon the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the defendant's motion to confirm arbitration award (doc. 24) be granted. The attention of the parties is directed to the important notice on the next page.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
250 East North Street, Room 2300
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).