United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Barbara Bennett, pro se Plaintiff,
Margaret R. Ryan, Esq., Meagher & Geer, P.L.L.P., for the defendant, Cavalry Portfolio Services.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JEFFREY J. KEYES, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is currently before this Court on Defendant Cavalry Portfolio's Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award. (Doc. No. 40.) For the reasons stated below, the Court recommends granting Defendant's motion.
Plaintiff Barbara Bennett is a former employee of Defendant Cavalry Portfolio Services. (Doc. No. 5 at 2.) On January 9, 2012, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a Binding Arbitration Agreement and Waiver of Jury Trial. (Doc. No. 14, Ex. A.) The arbitration agreement required the parties to resolve any claims arising from Plaintiff's employment by binding arbitration pursuant to the American Arbitration Association's Employment Arbitration Rules. ( Id. ) On March 28, 2012, Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment. (Doc. No. 5 at 10.)
On September 16, 2013, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint alleging racial discrimination and retaliation. (Doc. No. 5.) A Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss or Stay Defendant was filed by Defendant on October 30, 2013. (Doc. No. 11.) This Court granted Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration on December 17, 2013, staying the matter pending the outcome of the arbitration. (Doc. No. 38 at 8.) On September 5, 2014, an arbitrator granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all of Plaintiff's claims against Defendant with prejudice. (Doc. No. 40 at 1.)
This Court issued an Order to Show Cause on October 9, 2014, requiring Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed. (Doc. No. 39.) On October 23, 2014, Defendant filed a Motion to Confirm the Arbitration Award. (Doc. No. 40.) Plaintiff has filed a response to Defendant's motion in which she presents argument as to why the arbitrator should not have granted summary judgment. (Doc. Nos. 41, 42.)
I. Standard of Review
The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. § 9, states that a court "must" confirm an arbitration award unless it is vacated, modified, or corrected as prescribed under § 10 or § 11. Under § 10, the court may vacate an award if it was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means; if there was evident partiality, corruption or misconduct on the part of the arbitrator; or if the arbitrator exceeded his or her powers. 9 U.S.C. § 10. Under § 11, the court may modify an arbitrator's award if there was an evident material miscalculation or mistake in description, or if the award "is imperfect in matter of form not affecting the merits of the controversy." 9 U.S.C.A. § 11.
The grounds listed in §§ 10 and 11 constitute the FAA's exclusive grounds for modification of an arbitration award. Hall St. Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 584 (2008). Courts have no authority to reconsider the merits of an arbitration award, even when the parties allege that the award rests on factual errors. Medicine Shoppe Int'l, Inc. v. Turner Inv., Inc., 614 F.3d 485, 488 (8th Cir. 2010). The district court affords the arbitrator's decisions "an extraordinary level of deference" and should confirm the award "so long as the arbitrator is even arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of his authority." Crawford Grp., Inc. v. Holekamp, 543 F.3d 971, 976 (8th Cir. 2008) (internal citations omitted). Because this Court has ...