Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_14-cv-01187/USCOURTS-alnd-2_14-cv-01187-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 9:9 Motion to Confirm Arbitration Loan

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

VIRGINIA COLLEGE, LLC, and 

EDUCATION CORPORATION OF 

AMERICA,

Petitioners,

v.

NATIFRACURIA DANIELS,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 2:14-cv-01187-SGC

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMEDNATION

On June 20, 2014, petitioners, Virginia College, LLC (“Virginia College”), 

and Education Corporation of America (together, “Petitioners”), filed a petition

(“Petition”) seeking confirmation of an arbitration award pursuant to the Federal 

Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 9 (“FAA”). (Doc. 1). Because the FAA does not 

confer federal subject-matter jurisdiction, and because the Petition did not 

sufficiently allege the existence of federal jurisdiction, the undersigned ordered 

Petitioners to show cause why this matter should not to be dismissed. (Doc. 7). 

Specifically, the allegations regarding the citizenship of two parties were 

inadequate to determine whether federal diversity jurisdiction existed. (Id.). In 

response to the order to show cause, Petitioners filed an amended petition 

(“Amended Petition”) clarifying the citizenship of the parties. (Doc. 8). Review 

of the Amended Petition reveals Petitioners have pled facts sufficient to invoke 

FILED

 2014 Jul-31 PM 03:02

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:14-cv-01187-MHH Document 9 Filed 07/31/14 Page 1 of 5
2

federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Doc. 8). Having settled the 

jurisdictional inquiry, the undersigned concludes the Amended Petition is due to be 

granted and the arbitration award is due to be confirmed. 

Petitioners seek confirmation of an arbitration award which denied all claims 

brought against Petitioners by Respondent, Natifracuria Daniels (“Daniels”). 

(Doc. 8 at 3). The Petition also seeks the “costs and disbursements of this 

proceeding.” (Id. at 4). On June 24, 2014, Petitioners perfected service on Daniels 

by personally serving her grandmother at Daniels’s residence in Jackson,

Mississippi. (See Doc. 5). Daniels has not answered or otherwise appeared, and

after the time for Daniels to answer had expired, Petitioners moved the 

undersigned to grant the Petition. (Doc. 6). 

Daniels attended Virginia College, where she pursued an associate degree in 

surgical technology. (See Doc. 8-1 at 1). On November 30, 2009, Daniels signed 

an enrollment and tuition agreement, which set out the obligations between herself

and Virginia College. (Id. at 5). The agreement included an arbitration clause 

under which all disputes were to be arbitrated in Birmingham, Alabama. (Id. at 3). 

The arbitration clause also stated any arbitration award could “be entered in any 

court of competent jurisdiction to enforce it.” (Id.). 

On July 19, 2013, Daniels filed a demand for arbitration in which she sought 

$100,000 in damages. (Doc. 8-2). Daniels alleged she was unable to find work as 

Case 2:14-cv-01187-MHH Document 9 Filed 07/31/14 Page 2 of 5
3

a surgical technician, due to Virginia College’s failure to properly educate her. (Id. 

at 3-4). On June 4-5, 2014, an arbitrator conducted a final hearing in Birmingham. 

(See Doc. 8 at 3; Doc. 8-3 at 2). On June 12, 2014, the arbitrator issued an award, 

denying Daniels’s claims in their entirety and taxing costs as paid. (Doc. 8-3 at 2). 

The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) provides:

If the parties in their agreement have agreed that a judgment of the 

court shall be entered upon the award made pursuant to the arbitration 

. . . then at any time within one year after the award is made any party 

to the arbitration may apply to the court so specified for an order 

confirming the award, and thereupon the court must grant such an 

order unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected as prescribed 

in sections 10 and 11 of this title. If no court is specified in the 

agreement of the parties, then such application may be made to the 

United States court in and for the district within which such award 

was made. Notice of the application shall be served upon the adverse 

party, and thereupon the court shall have jurisdiction of such party as 

though he had appeared generally in the proceeding. . . . 

9 U.S.C. § 9. Under the FAA, a court hearing a petition to confirm an arbitration 

award “has no discretion and must confirm an arbitration award unless the 

opposing party presents grounds for vacating, modifying, or correcting it.” 31 

MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE 3d § 908.03[1] (citing Hall Street Assocs., LLC. v. 

Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 587 (2008). 

Because Daniels has not responded to the Petition, the arbitration award is 

due to be confirmed. Additionally, independent review of the arbitration award 

reveals no reason why it should be disturbed under sections 10 or 11 of the FAA. 

For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Amended 

Case 2:14-cv-01187-MHH Document 9 Filed 07/31/14 Page 3 of 5
4

Petition be GRANTED and the arbitration award be CONFIRMED. However, 

because Daniels does not appear to have attempted to disturb the arbitration award, 

Petitioners are not entitled to costs. Accordingly, the undersigned further 

RECOMMENDS that costs be taxed as paid. 

Notice of Right to Object

Any party who objects to this report and recommendation must, within 

fourteen (14) days of the date on which it is entered, file specific written objections 

with the clerk of this court. Any objections to the failure of the magistrate judge to 

address any facts or legal arguments also must be included. Failure to do so will 

bar any later challenge or review of the magistrate judge’s factual findings or legal 

conclusions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140(1985), 

reh’g denied, 474 U.S. 1111 (1986); Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 

1982) (en banc). 

To challenge the magistrate judge’s factual findings or legal conclusions, a 

party must file with the clerk of the court written objections specifically identifying 

the factual findings or legal conclusions to which objection is made and the 

specific basis for objection. A copy of the objections must be served on all other 

parties to the action.

On receipt of objections meeting the foregoing specificity requirement, a 

district judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report 

Case 2:14-cv-01187-MHH Document 9 Filed 07/31/14 Page 4 of 5
5

and recommendation to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify 

in whole or in part, the magistrate judge’s factual findings or legal conclusions. 

The district judge, however, need conduct a hearing only in his or her discretion or 

if required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate 

judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The 

district judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses, or recommit the 

matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. Objections not meeting the 

foregoing specificity requirement will not be considered by a district judge.

A party may not appeal a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 

directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Appeals 

may be made only from a final judgment entered by or at the direction of a district 

judge.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this report and recommendation 

to Daniels at the address provided on the Summons. (Doc. 2).

DONE this 31st day of July, 2014.

 ______________________________

STACI G. CORNELIUS

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-01187-MHH Document 9 Filed 07/31/14 Page 5 of 5