Case ID: f-appx_500/html/0669-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STONE & YOUNGBERG, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KAY FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST UAD 02-07-90 FBO LENORE BLEADON UNDER TRUST A, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 11-16684.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Dec. 3, 2012.
    Filed Dec. 12, 2012.
    Ben Suter, Cara L. Finan, Keesal Young & Logan, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Cary Lapidus, Law Offices of Cary S. Lapidus, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff Stone & Youngberg, LLC, sued defendant Kay Family Revocable Trust UAD 02-07-90 FBO Lenore Bleadon Under Trust A under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16, after Defendant received a favorable arbitration award. The district court denied Plaintiffs motion to vacate the award and granted Defendant’s motion to confirm it. Reviewing de novo, Collins v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 505 F.3d 874, 879 (9th Cir.2007), we affirm.

1. The arbitration panel did not exceed its powers within the meaning of 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4) because it did not manifestly disregard the law. See Bosack v. Soward, 586 F.3d 1096, 1104 (9th Cir.2009). The arbitration panel may have accepted a theory of liability under California negligence law according to which Plaintiff was liable because of its allegedly inadequate due diligence. Notwithstanding the legal authorities it cited to the arbitration panel, Plaintiff has not demonstrated “that the arbitrators recognized the applicable law and then ignored it.” Lagstein v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 607 F.3d 634, 641 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 832, 178 L.Ed.2d 558 (2010) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Kyocera Corp. v. Prudential-Bache Trade Servs., Inc., 341 F.3d 987, 994 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc) (“Neither erroneous legal conclusions nor unsubstantiated factual findings justify federal court review of an arbitral award under the statute.... ”).

2. We have no authority under the Arbitration Act to vacate or modify the arbitration award to prevent a potential double recovery by Defendant. 9 U.S.C. §§ 10-11. We express no opinion as to whether Plaintiff may pursue any other legal remedies it may have.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.