Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01333/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01333-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 09:0010 Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HEALTHCARE WORKERS’ UNION )

LOCAL 250, SEIU, AFL-CIO, CLC, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

CV F 05-1333 AWI DLB

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES

(Document #44)

This is a civil action to vacate an arbitration award filed by Healthcare Workers’ Union

Local 250, SEUI, AFL-CIO, CLC (“Union”) arising out of Defendant American Medical

Response (“AMR”)’s termination of Union members Danielle Molloy and Larry Segovia. The

matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for scheduling and pretrial matters. After

receiving briefing from the parties, on March 31, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and

Recommendations that recommended the court deny Union’s petition to vacate the arbitration

award. The parties’ filed objections and responses to the Findings and Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)C), this court conducted a de

novo review of the case. On June 12, 2006, the court adopted in full the March 31, 2006

Findings and Recommendations and denied Union’s petition to vacate the arbitration award.

On July 11, 2006, AMR filed a motion for an award of attorney’s fees against Union in

the amount of $17,160.18. AMR contends that the court should award attorney’s fees under its

Case 1:05-cv-01333-AWI-DLB Document 46 Filed 10/16/06 Page 1 of 3
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

equitable powers because Union filed this action in bad faith.

On August 10, 2006, Union filed an opposition. Union contends it did not bring the

petition for frivolous reasons nor did it act in bad faith. Union claims it merely exercised its

right to file a petition to vacate an order based on the tenable argument that the arbitrator

improperly refused to grant a continuance. 

On August 17, 2006, AMR filed a reply.

DISCUSSION

Title 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(3) allows the district court to vacate an arbitrator’s decision where 

the arbitrator was guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause

shown; or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other

misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced. “[A] court’s review of the

arbitrator's decision to postpone or not postpone a hearing is quite limited.” ARW Exploration

Corp. v. Aguirre, 45 F.3d 1455, 1463 (10 Cir. 1995). An arbitrator’s refusal to grant a th

postponement is not grounds to vacate an arbitration award if there is any reasonable basis for the

arbitrator’s considered decision not to grant a postponement. Scott v. Prudential Sec. Inc., 141

F.3d 1007, 1016 (11 Cir. 1998); DVC-JPW Investors v. Gershman, 5 F.3d 1172, 1174 (8 Cir. th th

1993); Fairchild & Co. Inc. v. Richmond, F. & P .R. Co., 516 F.Supp. 1305, 1314-15

(D.D.C.1981). 

The court has already determined that Union’s petition, alleging the arbitrator wrongly

refused the continuance, must be denied because the Arbitrator had a reasonable basis not to

grant Union’s request for a postponement. Based on this conclusion, the court denied the

petition and ruled in favor of AMR. Now, AMR seeks attorney’s fees. The parties agree that

AMR is not entitled to attorney’s fees under the Federal Arbitration Act or a contract between the

parties. AMR contends it is entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to the court’s equitable powers.

The court has the inherent power to levy sanctions, including attorneys’ fees when a party

has acted in “bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.” Roadway Express, Inc.

Case 1:05-cv-01333-AWI-DLB Document 46 Filed 10/16/06 Page 2 of 3
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

v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 766 (1980); Rink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 991 (9 Cir. 2001). While the th

court’s inherent power extends to all litigation abuses, the litigant must have “engaged in bad

faith or willful disobedience of a court’s order.” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 46-47

(1991); Fink, 239 F.3d at 992. The Ninth Circuit has found that a party can act in bad faith in

failing to respect an arbitration award if the party simply refused to honor the award rather than

file a petition to vacate it, forcing the other side to file a petition to confirm it. Sheet Metal

Workers' Intern. Association Local Union No. 359 v. Madison Industries, Inc. of Arizona, 84

F.3d 1186, 1192 (9 Cir. 1996). th

The court does not find Union acted in bad faith by filing the petition to vacate the

arbitration award. Union did not simply ignore the arbitration award. Rather, Union followed

the legal procedure authorized by the Federal Arbitration Act to “appeal” a decision with which it

disagreed. In addition, Union’s position was not without all legal basis. Other courts had

vacated arbitration awards when the arbitrator refused a postponement. See Allendale Nursing

Home, Inc. v. Local 1115 Joint Bd., 377 F. Supp. 1208 (S.D. N.Y. 1974); Tube & Steel Corp. of

America v. Chicago Carbon Steel Products, 319 F. Supp. 1302 (S.D. N.Y. 1970). While the

court ultimately concluded the arbitrator’s actions in this case did not rise to the level of abuse

found in these cases and the arbitrator had good reason to deny the postponement, the court

cannot find Union’s petition to this court was made in bad faith. Because the court cannot find

Union filed this action in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons, AMR’s

motion for an award of fees must be denied.”

 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that AMR’s motion for an award of attorney’s

fees is DENIED. This action having been concluded, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to

enter judgment and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 13, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

9h0d30 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01333-AWI-DLB Document 46 Filed 10/16/06 Page 3 of 3