Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02552/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02552-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
MX
Appellee
Zotec Solutions
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2552

___________

MX, Inc., *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Missouri. 

Zotec Solutions, Inc., *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. * 

___________

Submitted: December 15, 2005

Filed: January 30, 2006

___________

Before MELLOY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

MX, Inc. (“MX”), and Zotec Solutions, Inc. (“Zotec”), entered into a written

contract whereby MX agreed to sell its assets in an accounts receivable management

service business to Zotec. The contract contained an arbitration clause, and when a

dispute developed concerning alleged breaches of the contract and alleged fraud, the

parties submitted the matter to arbitration. The arbitrator found in favor of MX and

ordered Zotec to pay $23,000 plus interest for the balance of the purchase price,

$128,959.30 for MX’s share of unpaid “renewal revenues,” and $70,922.70 in

attorneys’ fees, arbitration fees, and other amounts associated with the arbitration.

Appellate Case: 05-2552 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/30/2006 Entry ID: 2003132
-2-

MX filed an action in the district court, seeking an order affirming the

arbitration award and ordering Zotec to pay the amounts decreed by the arbitrator.

The district court, applying the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 10(a), affirmed the

award, finding that “Zotec has failed to demonstrate that the arbitrator’s award is

irrational or constitutes a manifest disregard for the law.” 

As the district court noted, we have held that an arbitration award may be set

aside if “it is completely irrational or evidences a manifest disregard for the law.”

Lincoln Nat’l Life Ins. Co. v. Payne, 374 F.3d 672, 674 (8th Cir. 2004) (internal

quotations omitted). The “manifest disregard for the law” standard, drawn from dicta

in two Supreme Court cases, is “extremely narrow” and has been characterized as “a

doctrine of last resort” reserved for “those exceedingly rare instances where some

egregious impropriety on the part of the arbitrators is apparent, but where none of the

provisions of the FAA apply.” St. John’s Mercy Medical Center v. Delfino, 414 F.3d

882, 884 & n.1 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting Wallace v. Buttar, 378 F.3d 182, 189 (2d Cir.

2004)). We have said that “manifest disregard for the law” requires proof “that the

arbitrators were fully aware of the existence of a clearly defined governing legal

principle, but refused to apply it, in effect, ignoring it.” Stark v. Sanberg, Phoenix, &

Von Gontard, P.C., 381 F.3d 793, 802 (8th Cir. 2004) (quoting Duferco Int’l Steel

Trading v. T. Klaveness Shipping A/S, 333 F.3d 383, 389 (2d Cir. 2003)).

In a brief that is bereft of discussion concerning the limited scope of review

applicable to an arbitrator’s award, Zotec contends that the arbitrator (and the district

court) erred in failing to conclude that MX breached representations and warranties

of the contract or that MX committed actionable fraud by withholding material

information from Zotec. Even if the arbitrator made erroneous factual findings, of

course, that would not establish manifest disregard for the law under the stringent

standard set forth above. Having reviewed the record with care, and in light of the

applicable standard of review, we conclude that MX’s application to confirm the

Appellate Case: 05-2552 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/30/2006 Entry ID: 2003132
-3-

arbitration award was properly granted for the reasons stated by the district court. The

judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

 ______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2552 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/30/2006 Entry ID: 2003132