Id. (citing, e.g., HCC Aviation Ins. Group, Inc. v. Emp'rs Reinsurance Corp., 243 Fed.Appx. 838, 842 n. 5 (5th Cir.2007) (concluding that an order vacating an entire arbitration award is appealable, despite being remanded to the same panel); Bull HN Info. Sys., Inc. v. Hutson, 229 F.3d 321, 327 (1st Cir.2000) (construing as appealable part of a district court order remanding the “entire matter” to a new arbitrator); Jay Foods, L.L.C. v. Chem. & Allied Prod. Workers Union, Local 20, AFL–CIO, 208 F.3d 610, 613 (7th Cir.2000) (noting that appeal is available from an order of remand, unless the purpose of the remand was “was merely to enable the arbitratorto clarify his decision in order to set the stage for informed appellate review”); Virgin Islands Hous. Auth. v. Coastal Gen. Constr. Servs. Corp., 27 F.3d 911, 914 (3rd Cir.1994) (concluding an order remanding the case to a new arbitration hearing was subject to appeal, but under facts in which “the District Court did not simply request clarification, but instead directed a re-evaluation of the entire controversy....”)). Orders that direct a re-evaluation
Courts must resolve all doubts in favor of the arbitrator's award. See HCC Aviation Ins. Grp. v. Employers Reins. Corp., 243 Fed. Appx. 838, 843 (5th Cir. 2007); Valentine Sugars, Inc. v Donau Corp., 981 F.2d 210, 213 (5th Cir. 1993). "[I]f there is ambiguity as to whether an arbitrator is acting within the scope of his authority, that ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the arbitrator."
Id. (citing, e.g., HCC Aviation Ins. Group, Inc. v. Emp'rs Reinsurance Corp., 243 F. App'x 838, 842 n.5 (5th Cir. 2007) (concluding that an order vacating an entire arbitration award is appealable, despite being remanded to the same panel); Bull HN Info. Sys., Inc. v. Hutson, 229 F.3d 321, 327 (1st Cir. 2000) (construing as appealable part of a district court order remanding the "entire matter" to a new arbitrator); Jay Foods, L.L.C. v. Chem. & Allied Prod.Workers Union, Local 20, AFL-CIO, 208 F.3d 610, 613 (7th Cir. 2000) (noting that appeal is available from an order of remand, unless the purpose of the remand was "was merely to enable the arbitrator to clarify his decision in order to set the stage for informed appellate review"); Virgin Islands Hous. Auth. v. Coastal Gen. Constr. Servs. Corp., 27 F.3d 911, 914 (3rd Cir. 1994) (concluding an order remanding the case to a new arbitration hearing was subject to appeal, but under facts in which "the District Court did not simply request clarification, but instead directed a re-evaluation of the entire controversy . . . .")). Orders that direct a re-eva
Smythe cites numerous federal cases finding that, when a district court enters an order vacating an arbitration award and remanding for further arbitration proceedings, the order is appealable under Section 16(a)(1)(E) of the FAA. See HCC Aviation Group, Inc. v. Employer Reinsurance Corp., 243 Fed. Appx. 838, 842 n.5 (5th Cir. 2007); Bull HN Info. Sys., Inc. v. Hutson, 229 F.3d 321, 328 (1st Cir. 2000); Jay Foods, L.L.C. v. Chem. & Allied Prod. Workers Union, 208 F.3d 610, 612-13 (7th Cir. 2000); Virgin Islands Hous. Auth. v. Coastal Gen. Constr. Servs. Corp., 27 F.3d 911, 913-14 (3d Cir. 1994). One court summarized as follows: "The FAA does not distinguish between orders vacating arbitration awards without directing a rehearing and those orders which vacate awards and direct a rehearing of the arbitration dispute; both are appealable."