Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01263/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01263-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 896
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Arbitration
Cause of Action: 09:0207 Application for order confirming award of arbitrators

---

-1- 19cv1263-MMA (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PACER CONSTRUCTION HOLDINGS 

CORPORATION, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

RICHARD PELLETIER; and RICHARD 

PELLETIER HOLDINGS INC., 

Respondents. 

Case No.: 19cv1263-MMA (BGS)

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED 

PETITION TO CONFIRM 

ARBITRATION AWARDS 

 [Doc. No. 1]

On July 9, 2019, Petitioner Pacer Construction Holdings Corporation (“Petitioner”) 

filed a Petition against Respondents Richard Pelletier (“Pelletier”) and Richard Pelletier 

Holdings, Inc. (“RPHI”) (collectively, “Respondents”) to confirm two arbitration awards 

dated March 13, 2019 and May 22, 2019. See Doc. No. 1 (hereinafter “Petition”). 

Respondents’ brief in opposition to the Petition was due on or before February 20, 2020. 

See Doc. No. 17 at 11. To date, Respondents have not filed an opposition brief. The 

Court found the matter suitable for determination on the papers and without oral 

argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1. See Doc. No. 18. For the reasons set 

forth below, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s unopposed Petition to Confirm the 

Arbitration Awards. 

/ / / 

Case 3:19-cv-01263-MMA-BGS Document 19 Filed 02/28/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
 -2- 19cv1263-MMA (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BACKGROUND

Petitioner is a corporation organized under the laws of the Province of Alberta, 

Canada, with its principal place of business in Calgary, Alberta. Petitioner is a 

construction company in the business of, among other things, providing construction and 

other services for oil and gas exploration and production companies. Petitioner alleges 

that RPHI is a corporation organized under the laws of the Province of Alberta, Canada, 

with its principal place of business in Alberta, Canada. Petitioner further alleges that 

Pelletier is the sole director and shareholder of RPHI and currently resides in the Cayman 

Islands. Pelletier has a residence at The Bridges in Rancho Santa Fe, San Diego, 

California. 

The dispute underlying the arbitration awards pertains to the sale of Pacer and its 

related entities to MasTec, Inc., the parent corporation of Pacer. In June 2014, MasTec, 

Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiary, entered into a share purchase agreement with 

Pelletier, RPHI, Pelletier’s business partners Don Taylor and John Simpson, and their 

respective holding companies, Resman Holdings Ltd. and 592652 Alberta Ltd. Through 

the share purchase agreement, MasTec, Inc. acquired Pacer and its wholly owned 

subsidiaries and various equity investments from the sellers. Following the acquisition, a 

dispute arose between the parties concerning the parties’ rights and obligations under the 

share purchase agreement. 

In March 2016, Pacer, MasTec, Inc. and the sellers entered into an arbitration 

agreement, governed by the International Commercial Arbitration Act, RSA 2000, c.i-5 

and the laws of Alberta, Canada. After several months of deliberations, the Arbitration 

Tribunal issued a partial final award (the “First Award”) in favor of Petitioner on March 

13, 2019. On April 5, 2019, the Tribunal issued an award for interest, and later issued a 

corrected interest award on May 22, 2019 (the “Corrected Interest Award”).1

Petitioner claims that certain payments were made by co-respondents, but neither 

                                               

1

 The First Award and the Corrected Interest Award are collectively referred to as the “Awards.” 

Case 3:19-cv-01263-MMA-BGS Document 19 Filed 02/28/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
 -3- 19cv1263-MMA (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Pelletier nor RPHI have made any payments toward the awards. Petitioner asserts that 

Respondents owe CAD2

 $26,493,322.50 under the awards. Petitioner brings the instant 

Petition to confirm the arbitration awards pursuant to the Convention on the Recognition 

and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, 9 U.S.C. § 207. 

LEGAL STANDARD

“Confirmation [of an arbitration] is a summary proceeding that converts a final 

arbitration award into a judgment of the court.” Ministry of Def. & Support for the 

Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. Cubic Def. Sys., Inc., 665 F.3d 1091, 

1094 n.1 (9th Cir. 2011). “Confirmation of foreign arbitration awards is governed by the 

Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, June 10, 

1958, 21 U.S.T. 2517, known as the New York Convention, and federal law 

implementing the Convention, 9 U.S.C. §§ 201-208.” Id. at 1095. “Under the 

Convention, [a] district court’s role in reviewing a foreign arbitral award is strictly 

limited.” Changzhou AMEC E. Tools & Equip. Co., Ltd. v. E. Tools & Equip., Inc., No. 

EDCV 11-00354 VAP (DTBx), 2012 WL 3106620, at *14 (C.D. Cal. July 30, 2012) 

(quoting Yusuf Ahmed Alghanim & Sons, W.L.L. v. Toys “R” Us, Inc., 126 F.3d 15, 19 

(2d Cir. 1997)). 

Section 207 provides: 

Within three years after an arbitral award falling under the Convention is 

made, any party to the arbitration may apply to any court having jurisdiction 

under this chapter for an order confirming the award as against any other 

party to the arbitration. The court shall confirm the award unless it finds one 

of the grounds for refusal or deferral of recognition or enforcement of the 

award specified in the said Convention. 

9 U.S.C. § 207. 

                                               

2

 CAD refers to the Canadian Dollar. 

Case 3:19-cv-01263-MMA-BGS Document 19 Filed 02/28/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
 -4- 19cv1263-MMA (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

“The seven grounds for refusing to confirm an award are set out in Article V of the 

Convention. These defenses are construed narrowly, and the party opposing recognition 

or enforcement bears the burden of establishing that a defense applies.”3

 Cubic Def., 665 

F.3d at 1096 (citing Polimaster Ltd. v. RAE Sys., Inc., 623 F.3d 832, 836 (9th Cir. 2010)). 

“Courts are bound to defer to the conclusions of the arbitrator unless the arbitrator has 

manifestly disregarded the law.” Am. Postal Workers Union AFL-CIO v. U.S. Postal 

Serv., 682 F.2d 1280, 1284 (9th Cir. 1982). 

DISCUSSION

Here, Petitioner has met its burden to confirm the Awards. “A petitioner seeking 

the confirmation of a foreign arbitral award satisfies its burden by submitting copies of 

                                               

3

 Article V states: 

1. Recognition and enforcement of the award may be refused, at the request of the party 

against whom it is invoked, only if that party furnishes to the competent authority where 

the recognition and enforcement is sought, proof that: 

(a) The parties to the agreement referred to in article II were, under the law applicable to 

them, under some incapacity, or the said agreement is not valid under the law to which 

the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law of the 

country where the award was made; or 

(b) The party against whom the award is invoked was not given proper notice of the 

appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitration proceedings or was otherwise unable to 

present his case; or 

(c) The award deals with a difference not contemplated by or not falling within the terms 

of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of 

the submission to arbitration, provided that, if the decisions on matters submitted to 

arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, that part of the award which 

contains decisions on matters submitted to arbitration may be recognized and enforced; or 

(d) The composition of the arbitral authority or the arbitral procedure was not in 

accordance with the agreement of the parties, or, failing such agreement, was not in 

accordance with the law of the country where the arbitration took place; or 

(e) The award has not yet become binding on the parties, or has been set aside or 

suspended by a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, 

that award was made. 

2. Recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award may also be refused if the competent 

authority in the country where recognition and enforcement is sought finds that: 

(a) The subject matter of the difference is not capable of settlement by arbitration under 

the law of that country; or 

(b) The recognition or enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of 

that country. 

Case 3:19-cv-01263-MMA-BGS Document 19 Filed 02/28/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
 -5- 19cv1263-MMA (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(1) the award and (2) the agreement to arbitrate.” Pharmaniaga Berhad v. 

E*HealthLine.com, Inc., 344 F. Supp. 3d 1136, 1141 (E.D. Cal. 2018). Petitioner has 

submittied a copy of the Arbitration Agreement (see Petition, Ex. A) as well as a copy of 

the First Award (see id., Ex. F) and the Corrected Interest Award (see id., Ex. H). 

Moreover, the Court finds that there is no basis to refuse confirmation under the 

New York Convention. Respondents have not challenged the Awards on any ground set 

forth in Article V of the New York Convention. Respondents, as the parties “opposing 

recognition or enforcement bear[] the burden of establishing that a defense applies.” 

Cubic Def., 665 F.3d at 1096 (citing Polimaster, 623 F.3d at 836). Additionally, upon 

review of the documentation submitted, the Court finds that none of the grounds set forth 

in Article V applies to the case at bar. The Court finds that the Arbitral Tribunal acted 

within its authority in issuing the Awards. See id. at 1103 (“[A] court’s review of the 

award itself is minimal: the Convention requires a court to ‘confirm the award unless it 

finds one of the grounds for refusal or deferral of recognition or enforcement of the 

award specified in the said Convention.’”) (quoting 9 U.S.C. § 207)). 

Accordingly, because Respondents have failed to offer any evidence establishing 

that a defense applies, the Court GRANTS the Petition. See China Nat’l Metal Prods. 

Imp./Exp. Co. v. Apex Digital, Inc., 379 F.3d 796, 799 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Rather than 

review the merits of the underlying arbitration, we review de novo only whether the party 

established a defense under the Convention.”); Shanghai Lan Cai Asset Mgmt. Co., Ltd. 

v. Jia Yueting, No. CV 18-10255 SJO (MRWx), 2019 WL 6870345, at *4 (C.D. Cal. 

Mar. 26, 2019) (“Because Respondent has failed to offer any evidence that would warrant 

a conclusion to the contrary, the Court GRANTS the Petition.”); Verasonics, Inc. v. 

Alpinion Medical Sys. Co., Ltd., No. C14-1820-JCC, 2017 WL 2215781, at *1 (W.D. 

Wash. May 19, 2017) (“[Defendant] did not oppose the motion [to confirm the arbitration 

award] and thus does not show that a defense applies. The Court confirms the award 

under the New York Convention.”). 

/ / / 

Case 3:19-cv-01263-MMA-BGS Document 19 Filed 02/28/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
 -6- 19cv1263-MMA (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the Petition and CONFIRMS the 

Awards. The Clerk of Court is instructed to enter judgment in favor of Petitioner and 

against Respondents as provided for in the Awards. To the extent Petitioner seeks to 

obtain costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920, the Court finds that Petitioner is entitled to 

such costs. Petitioner can apply with the Clerk of Court for such costs consistent with the 

procedure set forth in CivilLR 54.1. The Court declines to retain jurisdiction to enforce 

the Awards. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 28, 2020

 _____________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:19-cv-01263-MMA-BGS Document 19 Filed 02/28/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6