Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02744/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02744-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

JOSHUA J. GODHART, )

)

Plaintiff, ) 2:10-cv-02744 JWS

)

vs. ) ORDER AND OPINION

)

DIRECT ALLIANCE CORPORATION, ) [Re: Motions at Dockets 61 and 63]

)

)

Defendant. )

)

I. PARTIES

The plaintiff, Joshua J. Godhart (“Mr. Godhart”), is an individual who was

formerly employed by Direct Alliance Corporation (“Direct Alliance”). Ravanna, Inc. is

the successor to Direct Alliance. For the sake of simplicity and consistency in the

record, the court will continue to refer to the defendant as Direct Alliance. 

II. MOTIONS PRESENTED

In the order at docket 22, the court granted the motion filed by Direct

Alliance to stay these proceedings and compel arbitration. The arbitration has been

Case 2:10-cv-02744-JWS Document 66 Filed 05/30/13 Page 1 of 6
concluded and an award made by arbitrator Charles W. Herf (“Award”). Direct Alliance 1

moves at docket 61 for an order lifting the stay and confirming the Award. Mr. Godhart

opposes the motion at docket 62 and in an identical filing moves at docket 63 to vacate

the arbitration Award. Direct Alliance’s combined reply in support of its motion and in

opposition to Mr. Godhart’s motion is at docket 65. No reply supporting the motion at

docket 63 was filed. Oral argument was not requested and would not assist the court.

III. BACKGROUND

The parties are familiar with the allegations which gave rise to Mr. Godhart’s

complaint. Readers unfamiliar with those allegations are directed to the court’s order at

docket 22. 

As explained in that earlier order, the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA”) allows a

party, in this case Direct Alliance, “aggrieved by the alleged . . . refusal of another [in

this case Mr. Godhart] to arbitrate under a written agreement for arbitration [to] petition

any United States district court . . . for an order directing that such arbitration proceed in

the manner provided for in such agreement.” The FAA “leaves no place for the

2

exercise of discretion by a district court, but instead mandates that district courts shall

direct the parties to proceed to arbitration on issues as to which an arbitration

agreement has been signed.” “The court’s role under the Act is therefore limited to 3

A copy of the nineteen page Award appears in the record as Exhibit 6 in doc. 61-1. 1

9 U.S.C. § 4. 2

Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 218 (1985). 3

-2-

Case 2:10-cv-02744-JWS Document 66 Filed 05/30/13 Page 2 of 6
determining (1) whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists and, if it does, (2) whether

the agreement encompasses the dispute at issue.”4

The arbitration agreement in this case covered “any disputes arising during [Mr.

Godhart’s] employment with Direct Alliance or after termination of [Mr. Godhart’s]

employment by Direct Alliance.” In the section titled “Scope of Arbitration” the

5

agreement includes “disputes regarding [Mr. Godhart’s] employment with Direct Alliance

and termination thereof, employment discrimination, harassment and retaliation, [and]

wrongful discharge.” In opposing Direct Alliance’s request for an order compelling 6

arbitration, Mr. Godhart contended that the arbitration agreement was procured by

fraud and was not enforceable. He advanced two main arguments. First, he

contended that his signature on the agreement was forged. Second, he argued that the

agreement was procedurally and substantively unconscionable. In the order at docket

22, the court evaluated and rejected both arguments. Mr. Godhart also argued that the

agreement was unsupported by consideration, because Direct Alliance’s promise was

illusory. This argument failed as the court explained in the earlier order because both

parties promised to arbitrate their claims and forbear exercising their right to sue. Thus,

there was consideration given by both parties. Moreover, as the court also explained in

the earlier order, Direct Alliance’s reservation of the right to change its policies and

procedures did not apply to its obligation to arbitrate established by the agreement.

Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 207 F.3d 1126, 1130 (2000). 4

Doc. 11-1 at 33. 5

Id. at 34. 6

-3-

Case 2:10-cv-02744-JWS Document 66 Filed 05/30/13 Page 3 of 6
IV. DISCUSSION

The arbitrator ruled in favor of Direct Alliance on all of the claims presented by

Mr. Godhart. Direct Alliance’s motion asks this court to lift the stay it earlier imposed for

the purpose of confirming the Award pursuant to section 9 of the FAA, 9 U.S.C. § 9,

and the parties’ arbitration agreement. In support of its request, Direct Alliance has

submitted all of the materials required by 9 U.S.C. § 13 for the court’s consideration. In

response Mr. Godhart does not point to any shortcoming in what has been submitted to

support confirmation of the Award. Instead, he contends that Direct Alliance “procured

the Arbitration Award in question by corruption, fraud, and/or undue means.” Mr. 7

Godhart also contends that the arbitrator was partial to Direct Alliance. 

8

Mr. Godhart is correct to say that under some circumstances, a district court

which has referred a dispute to arbitration may vacate the arbitrator’s award. Section

10 of the FAA, 9 U.S.C. § 10, sets out the grounds which may support vacation of an

award. As pertinent to Mr. Godhart’s assertions, the grounds consist of circumstances

“where the award was procured by corruption, fraud or undue means” or “where there

was evident partiality or corruption.”9

 With respect to the proposition that the award was procured by corruption, fraud

or undue means, Mr. Godhart simply essentially relies on the same arguments he made

Doc. 62 at p. 1. 7

Id. at p. 2. 8

9 U.S.C. § 10(a) (1) and (2). 9

-4-

Case 2:10-cv-02744-JWS Document 66 Filed 05/30/13 Page 4 of 6
unsuccessfully in opposing Direct Alliance’s motion to compel arbitration. Those

arguments are foreclosed by the court’s previous decision finding they lacked merit. 

Mr. Godhart also seeks relief on the alternative ground that the Arbitrator was

evidently partial to Direct Alliance. The burden falls on Mr. Godahart to establish the

partiality or corruption of the Arbitrator.10

To carry his burden, Mr. Godhart asserts that there is “unmistakable evidence of

partiality pursuant to [9] U.S.C. section 10 by [the arbitrator’s omission of ] evidence

from the facts to arrive at an Arbitration Award in favor of the Defendant in these

matters.” It appears to be correct to say that the arbitrator did not recite all of what 11

Mr. Godhart believes to be facts favoring his position. However, that an arbitrator may

not accept all of the “facts” asserted by one party or the other does not establish bias,

merely a different assessment of the record than the assessment of an interested party. 

It is relevant to note the following introductory comments by the arbitrator:

While hundreds of Exhibits were introduced, only a few will be mentioned

in this discussion. Many, while theoretically interesting, did not assist in

focusing on the issue as described [below]. Much leeway, over objections

of [Direct Alliance’s] counsel was given to [Mr. Godhart] in offering

evidence that would not have been allowed if he had not been

representing himself.

The dispute in this case is not about Godhart’s character as all who

testified were positive about his sales efforts, work ethic and personality. 

It is an employment dispute to determine whether, based on the terms

and conditions of his employment, his termination following an internal

investigation involving the transmittal [of] confidential material and/or

See, e.g., Scott v. Prudential Sec., Inc., 141 F.3d 1007, 1014 (11th Cir. 1998). 10

Doc. 62 at p. 2. 11

-5-

Case 2:10-cv-02744-JWS Document 66 Filed 05/30/13 Page 5 of 6
conflict of interest was for misconduct or if it was based on his race

African American in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act . . . .

12

The court’s examination of the arbitrator’s discussion and evaluation of the

evidence shows nothing to support the proposition that the arbitrator was partial. 

Indeed, the arbitrator’s decision set out in the Award appears to be careful, thorough

and fair. While the arbitrator had to chose which witnesses to believe with respect to

important conflicting testimony, that only shows he did his job. The court finds nothing

in the Award or the other materials in the record to support Mr. Godhart’s

characterization of the arbitrator as partial to Direct Alliance.

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set out above, the motion to lift the stay and to confirm the

Award at docket 61 is GRANTED and the motions at dockets 62 and 63 are DENIED. 

The court adopts the Award by arbitrator Charles W. Herf as the basis for its judgment. 

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant Direct Alliance

Corporation such that plaintiff Joshua J. Godhart takes nothing and his complaint is

dismissed with prejudice. 

DATED this 29th day of May 2013.

 /s/ 

JOHN W. SEDWICK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Award at p. 2. 12

-6-

Case 2:10-cv-02744-JWS Document 66 Filed 05/30/13 Page 6 of 6