Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02283/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02283-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DINH NGUY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CINCH BAKERY EQUIPMENT, LLC; 

CINDY CHANANIE; BACKTECHNIC 

S.I.; GERD MANG; and JOHN and JANE 

DOES 1–10,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-02283-TLN-KJN 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION 

AWARD 

This matter is before the Court on Defendants Cinch Bakery Equipment, LLC (“Cinch”), 

Cindy Chananie, Backtechnic S.I., and Gerd Mang’s (“Defendants”) motion to confirm 

arbitration award. (ECF No. 44.) Plaintiff Dinh Nguy (“Plaintiff”) filed an opposition to 

Defendants’ motion. (ECF No. 36.) The Court has carefully considered all briefing filed in this 

case. For the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ motion to confirm 

arbitration award and DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety. 

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

This case arises out of a dispute between Plaintiff and Defendants regarding Defendant

Cinch’s alleged breach of its sales agreement with Plaintiff. (Pl.’s Opp’n. to Mot. to Confirm 

Case 2:13-cv-02283-TLN-KJN Document 54 Filed 05/05/16 Page 1 of 5
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

2

Arbitration Award, ECF No. 51 at 2.) Plaintiff is the owner and CEO of United Bakery, Inc. 

(Decl. in Supp. of Dinh Nguy’s Admin. Verified Compl., ECF No. 18-1 at 2.) Defendant Gerd 

Mang and Cindy Chananie are the owners of Cinch Bakery Equipment, LLC. (Pl.’s First Am. 

Compl., ECF No. 18 at 5.) 

On October 4, 2013, Plaintiff initiated the instant case in California state court. (ECF No. 

1-1 at 2.) Thereafter, on November 1, 2013, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal to the Eastern 

District of California. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) Defendants subsequently filed a motion to compel 

arbitration and/or dismiss for improper venue. (ECF No. 4.) On January 10, 2014, Magistrate 

Judge Kendall J. Newman denied the motion to dismiss, granted the motion to compel arbitration, 

and stayed the instant action pending resolution of the arbitration. (ECF No. 12.) On or about 

August 15, 2014, Plaintiff commenced the arbitration proceeding against Defendants through the 

American Arbitration Association (the “AAA”). (Status Report by Defs., ECF No. 20 at 2.)

On April 1, 2015, after the preliminary hearing, the arbitrator ordered Plaintiff to: (1) add 

United Bakery as a party to the instant action; and (2) find counsel to represent United Bakery.

1

(ECF No. 44-3 at 3.) The arbitrator ordered that Plaintiff secure an attorney for United Bakery by 

April 8, 2015. (ECF No. 44-3 at 5.) Plaintiff did not meet this deadline. (ECF No. 44-3 at 5.) 

The arbitrator extended the deadline to April 23, 2015, and Plaintiff again did not meet this 

deadline. (ECF No. 44-3 at 5.) Consequently, on April 29, 2015, the arbitrator issued an order 

stating: 

[B]ased on all of the facts set forth herein, the arbitration complaint is hereby 

dismissed without prejudice for a period of 20 days. If at the end of 20 days 

claimants have failed to provide AAA with an official letter of representation in 

writing from an attorney authorized to practice law in the State of New Jersey the 

complaint shall be dismissed with prejudice.

(ECF No. 44-3 at 5.) Plaintiff did not reply after 20 days and accordingly, on May 26, 2015, the 

arbitrator signed an order dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice. (ECF No. 44-3 at 5.) 

Defendants now seek entry of this award. (ECF No. 44.) 

 

1 The arbitrator does not provide an explanation as to why United Bakery is an indispensable party. However, 

Plaintiff names United Bakery, Inc. as a co-Plaintiff in his declaration in support for a continuance (ECF No. 48 at ¶ 

2) and in his opposition (ECF No. 51 at 1). Plaintiff also names United Bakery, Inc. as the claimant in his demand 

for arbitration (ECF No. 18-3 at 2) and on numerous occasions states that he is bringing his claims “on behalf of 

United Bakery” (see e.g., ECF No. 48 at ¶ 13). 

Case 2:13-cv-02283-TLN-KJN Document 54 Filed 05/05/16 Page 2 of 5
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

3

While Plaintiff failed to respond to instructions from the arbitrator, he did continue to file 

motions in federal court. On April 22, 2015, Plaintiff filed three documents before Judge 

Newman, styled as a “verified complaint for permanent injunction,” a “motion for 

reinstatement,” and a “notice of recission.” (ECF No. 43 at 3.) Plaintiff filed these documents 

despite the existing motion to stay pending the parties’ ongoing arbitration proceedings. (ECF 

No. 43 at 3.) Judge Newman held that all of Plaintiff’s filings were stricken from the record. 

(ECF No. 43 at 6.) Thereafter, on May 22, 2015, and June 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed two motions 

to quash. (ECF No. 34; ECF No. 36.) Judge Newman held that these two motions were 

frivolous and ordered them stricken from the record. (ECF No. 43 at 8.) In or around April 2015 

and June 2015, Plaintiff also filed three other documents, one titled as a “notice of removal back 

into the United States District Court, Eastern District of California,” (ECF No. 23), another 

designated as a “notice to the American Arbitration Association to cease and desist,” (ECF No. 

29), and the final one identified as a “final answer” (ECF No. 41). Judge Newman held that all 

three of these filings were frivolous and violated the court’s order to stay. (ECF No. 43 at 8.) 

Consequently, Judge Newman ordered these three filings stricken from the record and cautioned 

Plaintiff that any further filings before the arbitration proceeding concluded could prompt 

monetary sanctions against Plaintiff as well as an involuntary dismissal. (ECF No. 43 at 8.) 

On July 2, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to confirm arbitration award before Judge 

Newman, asking the court to confirm the arbitrator’s award in which she dismissed Plaintiff’s 

arbitration complaint with prejudice. (ECF No. 44.) Judge Newman ordered that Plaintiff file an 

opposition no later than September 3, 2015. (ECF No. 46.) On September 3, 2015, Plaintiff 

filed a notice of substitution of attorney and requested a continuance to allow his attorney to 

prepare a written opposition. (ECF No. 47; ECF No. 48 at 3.) Judge Newman approved this 

request and referred the matter to this Court. (ECF No. 49.) On September 23, 2015, Plaintiff’s 

counsel filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion to confirm arbitration award. (ECF No. 51.) 

Defendants filed a reply on October 1, 2015. (ECF No. 52.) 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:13-cv-02283-TLN-KJN Document 54 Filed 05/05/16 Page 3 of 5
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

4

II. STANDARD OF LAW

Section 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) authorizes a party to an arbitration 

agreement to apply for an order confirming an arbitration award “any time within one year after 

the award.” 9 U.S.C. § 9. “[T]he court must grant such an order unless the award is vacated, 

modified, or corrected as prescribed in sections 10 and 11 of this title.” Id.

“[T]he [FAA] allows a federal court to correct a technical error, to strike all or a

portion of an award pertaining to an issue not at all subject to arbitration, and to vacate an award 

that evidences affirmative misconduct in the arbitral process or the final result or that is 

completely irrational or exhibits a manifest disregard for the law.” Kyocera Corp. v. Prudential—

Bache Trade Servs., Inc., 341 F.3d 987, 997–98 (9th Cir. 2003). However, the court’s review of 

an arbitration award is “extremely limited.” A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. v. McCollough, 967 F.2d 

1401, 1403 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Cunard Line, Ltd., 943 F.2d 1056, 

1060 (9th Cir. 1991)). Courts are deferential to arbitrators’ decisions. Romero v. Citibank USA, 

No. 1:07–CV–00549, 2007 WL 2688848, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Sept.13, 2007) (citing Rostad & Rostad 

Corp. v. Inv. Mgmt. & Research, Inc., 923 F.2d 694, 697 (9th Cir. 1991)). “[A]rbitrators exceed 

their powers not when they merely interpret or apply the governing law incorrectly, but when the 

award is completely irrational, or exhibits a manifest disregard of law.” Kyocera Corp., 341 F.3d 

at 997 (internal citations and quotations omitted). 

III. ANALYSIS 

Defendants petition the Court to confirm the final award issued by the arbitrator on May

26, 2015. In response, Plaintiff opposes this request and essentially alleges that the Court should 

vacate the arbitration award because: (1) the arbitrator’s order to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim with 

prejudice does not constitute an award pursuant to Title 9 of the United States Code section 11(b); 

and (2) the arbitrator exceeded her power by dismissing Plaintiff’s case with prejudice because 

she “refused to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy.” (ECF No. 51 at 3–7.)

Notices of a motion to vacate, modify, or correct an award “must be served upon the 

adverse party or his attorney within three months after the award is filed or delivered.” 9 

U.S.C.A. § 12. A motion to vacate an arbitration award after the three months prescribed time is 

Case 2:13-cv-02283-TLN-KJN Document 54 Filed 05/05/16 Page 4 of 5
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

5

not permitted, even if filed as part of an opposition to a motion to confirm an arbitration award or 

to assert new claims. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers v. Celotex Corp., 708 F.2d 

488, 490 (9th Cir. 1983) (“[An] unsuccessful party at arbitration who did not move to vacate the 

award within the prescribed time may not subsequently raise, as affirmative defenses in a suit to 

enforce the award, contentions that it could have raised in a timely petition to vacate the award.”). 

Here, on September 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed an opposition, which is in essence a petition

to vacate the arbitration award. (ECF No. 51.) This filing date was nearly four months after the

arbitrator signed the arbitration award on May 26, 2015. “The clear import of this statutory [three 

month time limit] is that challenges to an arbitration award are to be brought via a timely motion 

to vacate, not by way of defenses based upon the statutory grounds for vacating raised in response 

to a motion to confirm.” Carpenters 46 Northern California Counties Conference Bd. v. 

Meddles, 535 F. Supp. 775, 778–79 (N.D. Cal. 1981). Allowing a respondent to ignore an award 

unfavorable to him or her by failing to move to vacate it in a timely fashion, and thereafter seek to 

upset the award when the petitioner brings a motion to confirm or enforce it, would impair the 

fundamental policy of this rule. Id. at 779. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s defenses stated within its 

opposition motion are barred by the statute of limitations. See Sheet Metal Workers’ Intern. 

Ass’n, Local No. 252 v. Standard Sheet Metal, Inc., 699 F.2d 481, 483 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding 

that the failure to move to vacate an arbitration award within the three month time period bars a 

moving party from bringing future defenses). Plaintiff cites no authority that would exempt his 

defenses from 9 U.S.C. § 12. Accordingly, Plaintiff may not move to vacate Defendants’ 

arbitration award through his opposition to Defendants’ motion to confirm the award. Moreover,

because the Court must grant a confirmation order “unless the award is vacated, modified, or 

corrected” pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 9, the Court hereby grants Defendants’ motion to confirm 

arbitration award and consequently dismisses Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: May 4, 2016

Case 2:13-cv-02283-TLN-KJN Document 54 Filed 05/05/16 Page 5 of 5