Buchmiller v Krannich Solar West, LLC, 2025 WL 582252, Civil Action No. 22-07221 (RK) (TJB), (D. N.J. 2025) “Here, Plaintiffs fail to provide an adequate basis to disrupt the Arbitrator's comprehensive findings. The Arbitrator's Final Award bespeaks a careful and painstaking review of witness testimony, technical evidence relating to DocuHub audit trails and deleted Slack messages, and substantive engagement with each parties’ legal arguments.” *11 “Here, upon objections to the Arbitrator's jurisdiction, the Arbitrator submitted a determination to the parties as to the basis of his jurisdiction, and also did not object to the parties submitting his determination to the federal court. (Final Award at 4.) The Arbitrator, of course, conveyed a willingness to abide by Judge Shipp's decision as to enjoining the proceedings on jurisdictional grounds. (Id.) Judge Shipp subsequently declined to halt the proceedings, finding the Arbitrator's jurisdictional conclusions “persuasive.” (ECF No. 21 at 10:5–11.) Then, the Arbitrator resumed the proceedings on his assumption of jurisdiction. (Final Award at 4.) The Arbitrator carefully considered its jurisdiction and was deferential to the legal process; hardly the ‘flouting of governing law’ required by the Third Circuit. [citation omitted]. *12 “The Arbitrator's decision bespeaks a careful scrutiny of each of the witnesses, from which he drew conclusions regarding the veracity and credibility of each witness by comparing testimony and recognizing inconsistencies.” *13 “Overall, there is no question that the Arbitrator clearly ’provided the parties an opportunity to have a fair hearing and was prepared to hear relevant evidence.’[citation omitted]” *13 In the Matter of Moby Richard Holdings, LLC, et al., v. Alex Ramo, Index No. 654973/24, 236 A.D.3d 495, 496 (1st Dept. 2025) “Nor did the arbitrator exceed his authority or jurisdiction when he found that the new claims asserted by [Respondent]] are covered by the broad arbitration clause. Article 14.1 of the Operating Agreement provides that “any dispute, disagreement, or question arising out of or relating to this Agreement, or the validity, interpretation, breach or termination thereof’ may be resolved by arbitration. Additionally, the arbitration clause at article 14.3 provides that disputes shall be resolved by binding arbitration in accordance with the commercial arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association. Under those rules, an arbitrator is authorized to rule on their own jurisdiction [citation omitted].” Novoxel v Sentient Manufacturing, LLC, Order Granting Motion to Confirm Arbitral Award, Case No. 2:24-cv-00352-JNP-DBP (D. Utah 2024) “Under the Federal Arbitration Act (‘FAA’), a court ‘must’ confirm an arbitration award “unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected” under other sections of the Act. 9 U.S.C. § 9. Section 10 of the FAA allows the court to vacate an arbitration award if the award was ‘procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means’ (among several other bases). Id. § 10. Section 11 allows the court to modify or correct the award if an ‘evident miscalculation of figures or . . . material mistake’ affected the award. Id. § 11. These two sections are the exclusive FAA grounds for vacatur and modification of an arbitration award. [citation omitted]. The court has no reason to think that any of the § 10 or § 11 bases for vacatur or modification are present in this case, and [Respondent] (given its nonappearance) has not presented any argument to the contrary. Accordingly, the court confirms the arbitration award.” Product Equities, LLC v Chris Lundgren, L1 Consulting, LLC, Decision & Order on Motion, Index No. 653523/2022, NY Cnty. Oct. 27, 2022 (Crane Melissa, J.) “The court confirms the interim award of the arbitrator, dated September 19, 2022, for the reasons expressed on the record of October 26, 2022. In particular, as the arbitrator only issued orders running to Chris Lundgren, whom the arbitrator, after an evidentiary hearing, correctly found controls L1 Consulting, LLC, there is no basis to conclude the arbitrator acted beyond the scope of his authority.” B Smart Technology Inc. , Plaintiff, v American Arbitration Association, Inc. and Frederick R. Fucci, Defendants, and Norstan Communications, Inc., Impleaded Party, Superior Court, District of Montreal, No. 500-17-114544-201 (Phillips, Mark, J.S.C., May 3, 2022) “[I]t appears from the proceedings and exhibits that [Claimant] started to cobble together a theory to attack the arbitrator’s impartiality because it was disappointed with some of the orders rendered in pre-trial discovery, whereas the exhibits it filed show that, in fact, the arbitrator applied great care and even sent draft orders to counsel for comment before making them.” ¶20 “[I]n these proceedings, [Claimant] revisits the entire arbitration proceeding in minute detail up to questions of adjudicating the costs, seeing therein proof of partiality by the arbitrator and the AAA, which it accuses of being in bad faith and having committed a gross fault, whereas, on the face of the exhibits filed, there is nothing of the sort.” ¶21
|