Owen-Williams v. BB & T Investment Services, Inc.

11 Citing cases

  1. Owen-Williams v. BB & T Investment Services, Inc.

    797 F. Supp. 2d 118 (D.D.C. 2011)   Cited 21 times
    Stating that the decision to conduct an oral argument "shall be within the discretion of the Court"

    See Owen–Williams v. BB & T Inv. Servs., Inc., Civ. Act. No. 06–948, 2006 WL 6593816, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52392 (D.D.C. July 31, 2006); Owen–Williams v. BB & T Inv. Servs., Inc., 717 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C.2010). Accordingly, the Court will limit itself here to setting forth those facts that are most germane to the pending motion.

  2. Arma v. Bae Systems Overseas, Inc.

    961 F. Supp. 2d 245 (D.D.C. 2013)   Cited 20 times
    Concluding petitioner's request to vacate based on manifest disregard of summary-judgment standard "fail on the ground that this Court cannot correct errors in an arbitrator's reasoning, even when [the arbitrator] substantially misapplies an established legal standard"

    First, the party seeking vacatur must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that its opponent actually engaged in fraudulent conduct or used undue means during the course of the arbitration. See, e.g., Lafarge Conseils et Etudes, S.A. v. Kaiser Cement & Gypsum Corp., 791 F.2d 1334, 1339 (9th Cir.1986); Dogherra v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 679 F.2d 1293, 1297 (9th Cir.1982); see also Owen–Williams v. BB & T Inv. Servs., Inc., 717 F.Supp.2d 1, 17 (D.D.C.2010) (plaintiff's failure to provide evidence beyond its own “unsupported, hearsay statements” insufficient to prove fraud). Under this first requirement, ordinary misconduct will not suffice; the alleged fraudulent acts must have been so prejudicial that they effectively denied the opposing party a “fundamentally fair hearing.”

  3. Andresen v. Intepros Fed.

    Civil Action 15-446 (EGS) (D.D.C. Sep. 12, 2024)

    Additionally, another judge in this district court followed the Supreme Court's permissive view of the FAA when it rejected the defendant's contention that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiff's motion to vacate when the plaintiff filed it in the same, ongoing civil action, as opposed to in a new, separate action focused exclusively on vacating the arbitration award. See Owen-Williams v. BB & T Inv. Servs., Inc., 717 F.Supp.2d 1, 12-15 (D.D.C. 2010). Using caselaw from other circuits, that judge concluded that “courts retain jurisdiction to hear a motion to vacate even when the original order compelling arbitration dismissed the plaintiff's claims.”

  4. Ray v. Chafetz

    236 F. Supp. 3d 66 (D.D.C. 2017)   Cited 4 times

    Courts do not sit to hear claims of factual or legal error by an arbitrator." Owen–Williams v. BB & T Inv. Servs., Inc. , 717 F.Supp.2d 1, 9 (D.D.C. 2010) (Kollar–Kotelly, J.) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also FBR Capital Markets & Co v. Hans , 985 F.Supp.2d 33, 36 (D.D.C. 2013) ("[T]he burden facing petitioners who seek judicial vacatur of arbitration awards is exceedingly high. ... It is not enough for petitioners to show that the panel committed an error–or even a serious error." (internal quotation marks omitted)).

  5. Combs v. Same Day Delivery Inc.

    1:22-cv-00520-MKV (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 20, 2023)

    See e.g., Owen-Williams v. BB & T Inv. Servs., Inc., 717 F.Supp.2d 1, 13 (D.D.C. 2010); Collins v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 361 F.Supp.2d 1085, 1101 (D. Ariz. 2005), aff'd, 505 F.3d 874 (9th Cir. 2007); but see Thompson, 2010 WL 4023743; Switzer, 2009 WL 2900254.

  6. Petruss Media Grp. v. Advantage Sales & Mktg.

    Civil Action 22-3278 (RC) (D.D.C. Aug. 25, 2023)   Cited 2 times

    Ray v. Chafetz, 236 F.Supp.3d 66, 75 (D.D.C. 2017) (quoting Owen-Williams v. BB&T Inv. Servs., Inc., 717 F.Supp.2d 1, 10 (D.D.C. 2010)). b. Analysis

  7. Laborers' Local Union Nos. 472 & 172 v. Tri-State Erosion Control, Inc.

    Civil Action No. 17-1792 (JBS/AMD) (D.N.J. Nov. 21, 2017)

    21. Precedent is clear that the FAA contains no requirement that an arbitrator explain his or her reasoning for an award. Sobel v. Hertz, Warner & Co., 469 F.2d 1211, 1215 (2d Cir. 1972) (citing Wilko v. Swan, 346 U.S. 427, 436 (1953), and Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co., 350 U.S. 198, 203 (1956)); see also Sargent v. Paine Webber Jackson & Curtis, Inc. 882 F.2d 529, 532 (D.C. Cir. 1989); O.R. Sec. Inc. v. Prof'l Planning Assoc., 857 F.2d 742, 747 (11th Cir. 1988); Owen-Williams v. BB&T Inv. Servs., 717 F. Supp. 2d 1, 19 (D.D.C. 2010); Reichman v. Creative Real Estate Consultants, Inc., 476 F. Supp. 1276, 1282 (S.D.N.Y. 1979). In this regard, an arbitrator's award may be vacated if it is shown that the arbitrator "so imperfectly executed [their powers] that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made."

  8. Insun Kim v. Progressive N. Ins. Co.

    Civil Action No. 2:16-2561-RMG (D.S.C. Sep. 23, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    That would indeed seem to indicate a lack of diversity jurisdiction. However, pro se filings are liberally construed, see Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1277 (4th Cir. 1985), and a pleading error does not divest this Court of subject matter jurisdiction, see, e.g., Owen-Williams v. BB & T Inv. Servs., Inc., 717 F. Supp. 2d 1, 13 (D.D.C. 2010). Although Plaintiff did assert that Progressive is a South Carolina citizen in her answers to the Court's interrogatories, she clearly did not understand the questions being asked.

  9. Riley v. Bmo Harris Bank, N.A.

    115 F. Supp. 3d 87 (D.D.C. 2015)   Cited 7 times

    In the context of orders compelling arbitration, courts have found it appropriate to exercise ancillary jurisdiction over motions filed during the course of the arbitration proceedings “to determine any subsequent application involving the same agreement to arbitrate.” Owen–Williams v. BB & T Inv. Servs., Inc., 717 F.Supp.2d 1, 13–14 (D.D.C.2010). Specifically, after compelling the parties to arbitrate their dispute and dismissing the action without prejudice, this Court exercised ancillary jurisdiction over an FAA Section 10 motion to confirm or vacate the arbitration award, see id. and the Fifth Circuit in Adam Technologies Int'l S.A. de C.V. v. Sutherland Global Servs., Inc., 729 F.3d 443, 447 (5th Cir.2013), exercised ancillary jurisdiction over a plaintiff's motion requesting the appointment of a substitute arbitrator pursuant to Section 5 of the FAA.

  10. Lutsenko v. Pshnka

    282 F.R.D. 5 (D.D.C. 2012)

    Kramer v. Gates, 481 F.3d 788, 792 (D.C.Cir.2007). Because Lutsenko's Motion is properly construed under Rule 60(b)(1), the Court may not consider the motion under Rule 60(b)(6) as well. SeeOwen-Williams v. BB & T Inv. Servs., Inc., 717 F.Supp.2d 1, 12 (D.D.C.2010). In any event, relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is available only if " the movant can demonstrate a meritorious claim or defense."