2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 12-10-2009 

# Andorr a Svc s Inc v

. M/T E OS, et al P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-4902

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Andorr a Svc s Inc v

. M/T E O S , e t al " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 117. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/117NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT 

### No. 08- 4902 A N D O R R A S E R V IC E S IN C .; C H E M O IL C O R P ., A p p e llan ts

v. V E N FL E E T , L T D . , i n per s onam and M /T E O S , its e n g in e s , b o ile r, t a c k le , e tc .

i n r em APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT

FOR TH E DI STRI CT O F NEW J ERSEY ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 06- cv- 00373) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Pet erG . Sher i dan Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember18, 2009 B efor e: R E N D E L L , B A R R Y and C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udges

O pi ni on Fi l ed: D ece m ber10, 2009

OP I NI ON

B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge C hemoi l C orpor at i on ( “C hemoi l ”) and A ndor r a Ser vi ces , I nc. B V I ( “A ndor r a”)PD V SA , orPet r ol eos de V enez uel a, i s t he V enez uel an nat i onal oi l companyt hat 1 s u p p lie d th e f

u e l o il th a t w a s lo a d e d o n to th e E O S . -2- ( col l ect i vel y“A ppel l ant s ”) appea l t he fi nal j udgm entof the D i s t r i ctC our tconfi r m i ng an arbi t r at or ’ s aw ar d i n favorof V enfl eet , L t d. ( “V enfl eet ”) and M / V E O S ( “EO S”) (c o llec tiv e ly“ A p p e llee s” ) a n d d e n y in g A p p e llan ts’ m o tio n to v a c a te th a t aw a rd . W e w ill a f f ir m . I . BA CKGROUND W e a ss u m e th e p a rties ’ f a m ili a rityw ith th e f

a c ts, a n d in c lu d e o n lyth o se f a c ts nece s s aryt o r es ol ve the i s s ues on appea l . C hemoi l , a pur chas erand s el l erof petr ol eum pr oduct s i n t he gl obal m arketpl ace , di r ect ed A ndor r a, i t s aff i l i at e, t o arr ange f

ort he s hi pm entof fue l oi l fr om A m uayB ay , V enez uel a t o C hemoi l ’ s fac i l i t yi n B ay onne, N ew J er s ey . A ndor r a cha r t er ed EO S, an oi l t ankerow ned byV enfl eet . U l t i m at el y , i tw as t he w a te r c o n te n t o f

th e f u e l o il th a t le d to th is litig a tio n a n d a rb itr a tio n . T he EO S ar r i ved att he PD V SA T erm i nal i n A m uayB ayon D ece m ber25, 2005, 1 and, aft era s hor tdel ay , t he fue l oi l w as l oaded ont o t he t ankerfr om s hor e t ank 801. T ank 801, w hi ch s erves as a s t or age t ank forfuel oi l , i s des cr i bed as an “ope n pi t ” havi ng no overhead pr ot ect i on fr om t he el ement s . ( A pp. at84. ) O nce the fue l oi l w as l oaded, i tw as t o be keptatt he appr opr i at e t emper atur e byheat i ng coi l s . I n t hi s cas e, how ever , V enfl eet “fa i l [ed] t o pr oper l ypr es s ur e t es tand i ns pectt he ca r go heat i ng coi l s . . . [and] V enfl eet conce des t he coi l s w er e def ect i ve and l eake d w at eri nt o t he ca r go fr om t he mom ent heat i ng comm ence d unt i l the ves s el arr i ved i n N ew Y or k. ” (I d. a t 1 0 2 .)-3-

D i s char ge of the fue l oi l began upon the EO S’ s arr i val i n t he Por tof N ew Y or k on Ja n u a ry6 , 2 0 0 6 . S h o rtlyth e re a f ter , h o w e v e r, C h e m o il h a lted th e o p e ra tio n s, c laim in g it w as m ot i vat ed byt es tr es ul t s r evea l i ng t hatt he w at ercont entof the ca r go w as betw een 1. 7% and 1. 8% w hen i ts houl d have be en no gr eat ert han 1% . T he EO S dr i ft ed for r oughl yt w entyday s w hi l e s ever al j oi nti ns pect i ons t ook pl ace . U l t i m at el y , di s char ge re s u m e d a n d w a s c o m p le te d o n J a n u a ry 2 9 . I I . P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY A ppel l ant s fi l ed a V er i fi ed C om pl ai nti n t he U . S. D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s eyon J anuary26, 2006, s eeki ng damages forcar go cont ami nat i on. T he part i es e v e n tu a llya g re e d to a rb itrate , se lec tin g Ja c k B e rg a s th e so le a rb itrato r. A t th a t p o in t, A ppel l ant s s ought$471, 435. 81 i n damages al l egedl yt he r es ul tof EO S’ s l eaki ng heat i ng c o ils, the E O S ’s u n se a w o rth in e ss , an d o th e r f a u lts. F o r th e ir p a rt, A p p e llee s s o u g h t to r ecove r$1, 190, 112. 54, r epr es ent i ng t he cos t s as s oci at ed w i t h demurr age a nd ot her exp enses. T he p art i es al so soug ht i nter estand at t orney s’ fees. A rbi t r at i on t ook pl ace overa per i od of tw enty - one mont hs , dur i ng w hi ch ther e w as “ext ens i ve di s coveryand pr oduct i on of r el evantdocument s , ” as w el l as t es t i m onyfr om s ever al w i t nes s es ; how ever , bot h s i des w er e di s s at i s fi ed w i t h cert ai n as pect s of the d is c o v e ry. (I

d. a t9 2 . ) I n s e e k i n g t o a s c e r t a i n t h e wa t e rc o n t e n to f t h e f u e l o i l a tt h e t i me i tw as l oaded ont o t he EO S atA m uayB ay , t he arbi t r at orm ade a compre hens i ve as s es s m entof a va r i etyof evi dence , i ncl udi ng, forexampl e, t he moi s tur e per cent age of t he fue l oi l l oaded outof pi t801 ont o anothert ankerj us tpr i ort o t he EO S’ s l oadi ng, t heT he mat t erw as pr oper l ybefor e the D i s t r i ctC our tpur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . §§ 1333 and 2 1391. W e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. -4- di ffe r ence i n t he EO S’ s car go t ank ul l ages betw een w hen the EO S l eftV enez uel a and arr i ved i n N ew J er s ey , and the “l i m i t ed quant i t yof fr es h w at ert he s hi p coul d have gener at ed orhave i n t anks t o pos s i bl yi ncr eas e the w at ercont entof the fue l oi l . . . . ” (I d. at98 . ) B ased on t he ev i den ce he f ou nd credi ble, and decli ning t o d raw adv ers e inf ere n ce s fro m the e v iden ce h e d id n o t, the a rbit rator d eterm ined that the E O S ’s m al funct i oni ng heat i ng coi l s coul d nothave c ont r i but ed more t han 0. 4% of w at ert o t he s hi p’ s l oad and, t hus , t hatt he fue l oi l had a w at ercont entbetw een 1. 4% and 1. 5% att he tim e it w a s lo a d e d o n to th e tan k e r f ro m p it 8 0 1 . A c c o rd in g ly , the a rb itrato r f o u n d in favorof A ppel l ees , fi ndi ng no evi dence t o s uppor tA ppel l ant s ’ r at i onal e forfor ci ng t he E O S to re m a in a t se a f

o r tw e n tyd a y s p rio r to d isc h a rg in g th e f u e l o il. B yor derdat ed N ovember19, 2008, t he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed A ppel l ees ’ m ot i on t o confi r m t he arbi t r at or ’ s aw ar d and deni ed A ppel l ant s ’ cr os s - m ot i on t o vaca t e orm odi fy t h a ta wa r d , p u r s u a n tt o t h e F e d e r a l Arb i t r a t i o n Ac t( t h e “ F AA” ) , 9 U. S . C. § § 1 - 1 1 . On N ovember25, 2008, t he C our tent er ed fi nal j udgm entforA ppel l ees i n t he amountof $1, 986, 882. 67, pl us i nt er es tand cos t s . T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. 2 I I I . S TANDA RD O F REVI EW “W e r evi ew a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deni al of a mot i on t o vaca t e a c om m er ci al arbi t r at i on aw ar d de novo. ” D l uh os v. Str asberg , 3 2 1 F .3 d 3 6 5 , 3 6 9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ); Kap l an v. F i rstFactual fi ndi ngs ar e r evi ew ed forcl earerr or , and w e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew over 3 q u e s tio n s o f

la w . C hi na Mi nm etal

s Mat er i al

s I m p. & Exp. C o. v. C hi MeiC or p. , 334 F .3 d 2 7 4 , 2 7 8 -7 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). O ne of A ppel l ant s ’ cont ent i ons i s t hatt he aw ar d exce eded the s cope of t he 4 arbi t r at or ’ s author i t ybeca us e he de t erm i ned thatC hemoi l and A ndor r a w er e al t eregos -5- O pt i ons , 1 9 F . 3 d 1 5 0 3 , 1 5 0 9 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 9 4 ) . I n s o d o i n g , we a r e mi n d f u l t h a tt h e F AA 3 w as i nt ended t o over come t he “hos t i l i t yof A m er i can c our t s t o t he enf or cementof arbi t r at i on agr eement s . ” Ci r c u i tCi t y S t o r e s , I

n c . v . A da ms , 5 3 2 U .S . 1 0 5 , 1 1 1 (2 0 0 1 ). Indeed , t here i s a “strong p res um pti on . . . i n fav or of en forci ng arbi t rat i on aw ards” e m b o d ie d in th e F A A . B rentw oo d Med. A ssocs. v. U nited Mi ne W

orkers , 396 F. 3d 237, 2 4 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). W h e n p a rties a g re e to a rb itrate , the ya g re e to d o so “ th ro u g h to c o m p letio n ,” f

u llyc o g n iza n t th a t “a d istric t co u rt m a yv a c a te . . . on lyu n d e r e x c e e d in g ly narr ow ci r cumst ance s . ” D l uhos , 3 2 1 F .3 d a t 3 6 9 -7 0 ; C i t go A spha l tR ef

. C o. v. P ap er, A llie d-I n d u s . In t’ l U

n io n , L o c a l 2 -9 9 1 , 3 8 5 F . 3 d 8 0 9 , 8 1 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) (no ti n g co u rt ’s l i m i t ed r ol e i n r evi ew i ng arbi t r at or ’ s deci s i on beca us e the dec i s i on i s “bar gai ned forby th e p a rties ” ). A s a re su lt, re v iew in g c o u rts “ a f f irm e a silyth e a rb itratio n a w a rd u n d e r th is extr emel ydefe r ent i al s t andar d— a r es ul tt hati s s quar el yi n l i ne w i t h t he purpos e behi nd t he FA A w her e court s ar e t as ked w i t h r evi ew i ng an arbi t r at i on deci s i on. ” D l uhos , 321 F .3 d a t 3 7 0 ; s ee B r entw ood Med. A s s ocs . , 396 F. 3d at241. I V. DI S CU S S I ON A ppel l ant s cont end that , forvar i ous r eas ons , t he arbi t r at or ’ s aw ar d s houl d be vaca t ed, or , i n t he al t ernat i ve, m odi fi ed. W e di s agr ee. 4and j oi nt l yl i abl e w i t houthavi ng hear d anyar gum enton t he i s s ue. T her e w as no

ar gum entbeca us e, as t he D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed, A ppel l ant s neverr ai s ed thi s i s s ue t o t he a rb itr a to r. -6- A. VAC AT UR Pur s uantt o t he FA A , cour t s m ayvaca t e an a rbi t r at i on aw ar d i n anyof four i ns t ance s , t w o of w hi ch ar e i m pl i cat ed her e: w her e ther e w as “evi dentpar t i al i t yor c o rru p tio n in th e a rb itrato rs,” o r “ w h e re th e a rb itrato rs w e re g u iltyo f m isc o n d u c t in r efus i ng t o pos tpone the hea r i ng . . . ori n r efus i ng t o hearevi dence per t i nentand mat er i al to th e c o n tro v e rsy. . . .” 9 U .S .C . § 1 0 (a ); H al lStr eet A s s ocs . v. Mat t el

, I nc. , 55 2 U. S.

, 128 S. C t . 1396, 1402, n. 4 ( 2008) . A ppel l ant s ar gue thatt hes e pr ovi s i ons , as w el l as p u b lic p o lic yc o n c e rn s , ju s tif yv a c a tin g th e a rb itr a to r’ s a w a rd in th is c a s e . 1. The A r bi tr at or ’s C onduct N ei therC r eat ed the Appearanc e of B i as N orV i ol at ed Fu n da m e n ta l Fa ir n e s s in C o n tr a v e n tio n o f 9 U.S .C . § 1 0 (a

)(2 )-(3 ). I n or dert o s etas i de an a rbi t r at or ’ s aw ar d on t he gr ound of § 10( a) ( 2) “evi dent p a rtiality ,” “ th e c h a llen g in g p a rtym u st s h o w ‘a re a so n a b le p e rso n w o u ld h a v e to concl ude thatt he arbi t r at orw as par t i al ’ t o t he otherpar t yt o t he arbi t r at i on. ” Kapl an v. F i rs tO pi ni ons of

C hi . , I nc. , 19 F. 3d 1503, 1523 n. 30 ( 3d C i r . 1994) ( quot i ng Appers on v. F l eet C ar r i erC or

p. , 879 F. 2d 1344, 1358 ( 6t h C i r . 1989) ) . U ndert hi s s t andar d, t he evi dence m us tbe “pow er ful l ys ugges t i ve of bi as . ” Id . ( quot i ng Mer i tI ns . C o. v. Leather by I

ns . C o. , 714 F. 2d 673, 681- 82 ( 7t h C i r . 1983) ) . B i as i n r efus i ng t o cons i der cert ai n evi dence coul d r es ul ti n an unfa i rhear i ng, and s o, pur s uantt o § 10( a) ( 3) , “a d istric t co u rt m ay vaca t e an a w ar d i f a pa r t yt o an arbi t r at i on pr ocee di ng has notbeen-7-

gi ven not i ce a nd oppor tuni t yt o pr es entar gum ent s and evi dence on t he mer i t s of the di s put e. ” Team s t ers Local312 v. Mat l ack, I nc. , 118 F. 3d 985, 995 ( 3d C i r . 1997) ( emphasi s added) . O f cour s e, vaca turi s notr equi r ed i n everycas e w her e ce r t ai n r el evant evi dence i s excl uded; r ather , § 10( a) ( 3) i s i m pl i cat ed w her e the pr ocedur al err or cons t i tut es “funda m ent al unfai r nes s . ” Id . A ppel l ant s ar gue thatt he arbi t r at ordemonst r at ed hi s bi as byfai l i ng t o ens ur e that r el evantdocument aryevi dence w as di s cl os ed i n a t i m el ym anner . M or e s peci fi cal l y , t hey ar gue thatt heyw er e pr ej udi ced byt he arbi t r at or ’ s r efus al t o or dert he pr oduct i on of document s r el at ed t o t he EO S’ s SA A B r adars y s t em, “w hi ch r ecor ds t he l evel of l i qui ds i n t he ca r go contr ol r oom . ” ( A pp. at84. ) A ppel l ant s cont end thatt heyfi r s tl earned that th e E O S w a s e q u ip p e d w ith S A A B te c h n o lo g yo n th e e v e o f th e ire x p e rt ’s te s tim o n y . T heym ai nt ai n t hatt he SA A B r adar ’ s “s ophi s t i cat ed el ectr oni c l i qui d car go m eas ur i ng s y s t em” w oul d have pr ovi ded val uabl e i ns i ghti nt o t he w at ercont entof the fue l oi l at var i ous poi nt s dur i ng t he j our neyfr om A m uayB ayt o N ew J er s ey . ( A ppel l ant s ’ B r . at 37. ) Fort hei rpar t , A ppel l ees cont end thatt he SA A B r adari s “notus ed forcar go m eas ur ement s ” w hi l e t anker s ar e ats ea, A ppel l ees ’ B r . at14- 15, but , i ns t ead, m eas ur ement s ar e t aken byt he EO S’ s gauges w hen the s hi p i s “r el at i vel ys t at i c, ” Supp. A pp. at19. T her e i s no evi dence t o s ugges tt hatt he arbi t r at or ’ s r efus al t o del ayt he p roc ee d ing s an d o rde r th e p rod u cti o n o f th is ev iden ce w as m o ti v ated b yb ias, n o r i s the re anyi ndi cat i on t hati tr es ul t ed i n a funda m ent al l yunfai rpr ocee di ng. I ti s cl earfr om t he-8-

a rb itrato r’s w ritten d e c isio n th a t h e w a s a w a re o f th e S A A B ra d a r system , an d d e sp ite A pp el l ants ’ cont enti on s, he fo un d thatt he “rem ote SA A B gau ges, t ri m and l i stgau ges, di gi t al dr aftr eadi ngs , et c. ar e ava i l abl e forr eadout s byal l i ns pect or s and s ur vey or s . ” ( A pp. at84. ) U l t i m at el y , w hetherA ppel l ant s w er e on not i ce of t he SA A B r adars y s t em s o t hatt heycoul d r eques ti t s dat a i s i m m at er i al , beca us e the arbi t r at ordi d notfi nd t he s y s t e m i mp o r t a n tt o h i s d e c i s i o n . He v i e we d t h e S AAB s y s t e m a s b e i n g o n e o f t wo

“ c lo s e d c a rg o m e a s u re m e n t s y s te m s ,” th e o th e r b e in g th e M M C e q u ip m e n t. (Id . ) B as ed on hi s expert i s e, t he arbi t r at orm ade a j udgm entas t o t he ca r go’ s w at ercont entaft er cons i der i ng a var i etyof fa ct or s , one of w hi ch w as “the di ffe r ence i n t he EO S’ car go t ank ul l ages betw een l oadi ng A m uayB ayand arr i val atB ay onne. ” (I d. at98. ) T hatt he arbi t r at orr el i ed on the i ns pect i on r epor t s fr om A m uayB ayand B ay onne – i n conj unct i on w i t h ot herevi dence t he r es ul tof the ext ens i ve di s coveryi n t hi s cas e – i ns t ead of t he S A A B ra d a r system to c o m e to h is c o n c lu sio n a b o u t w a ter c o n ten t is n o t “p o w e rf u lly s ugges t i ve of bi as . ” See Kapl an , 1 9 F . 3 d at 15 2 3 , n . 3 0 . F u rth erm o re, th e a rbit rator’s evi dent i aryrul i ngs conce r ni ng t he SA A B equi pm entdi d not“s o aff ect [] t he r i ght s of [appe l l ant s ] t hati tm aybe s ai d t hat[theyw er e] depr i ved of a fai rhear i ng. ” See Team s t ers Local312 , 118 F. 3d at995. T he D i s t r i ctC our tw as j us t i fi ed i n r ej ect i ng A ppel l ant s ’ ar gum entt hat§ 10( a) of the FA A r equi r ed thatt he arbi t r at or ’ s aw ar d be v a c a te d .T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notcons i der“mani fes tdi s r egar d forl aw ” as a bas i s for 5 vaca turgi ven i t s under s t andi ng t hatt he Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n H a ll S tre e t s t ands f o r th e p ro p o sitio n th a t th e F A A p ro v id e s th e o n lyg ro u n d s f o r v a c a tu r. O u r sis ter c irc u its have e xpr es s ed vary i ng vi ew s on t he i m pactof H a ll S tre e t. C o m

p a re T e len o r Mo b ile Com m c ’ ns AS v . St or m LLC , 5 8 4 F . 3 d 3 9 6 , 4 0 7 n . 6 ( 2 d C i r . 2 0 0 9 ) ( “ [ W ] e [ p r e v i o u s l y] r ead H a ll S t. t o hol d t hatt he FA A s etfor t h t he ‘ excl us i ve’ gr ounds forvaca t i ng an arbi t r at i on aw ar d, and thatt he t erm ‘ m ani fes tdi s r egar d’ w as m er el ya ‘ j udi ci al gl os s ’ on s om e of thos e gr ounds . ”) , w i th C i t igr oup G l obalM kt s . , I nc. v. B acon , 562 F. 3d 349, 355 (5th C i r. 20 09 ) ( “[T ]o the ex t ent that m anifestdis regar d o f t he law con st i tutes a nons t atut or ygr ound forvaca tur , i ti s no l ongera bas i s forvaca t i ng aw ar ds undert he F A A . ”). -9- 2. The A r bi tr at orD i d N otI m pos e An Im

pr operB ur den on Appel l ant s Such that V a c a tu ris R e q u ir e d . A p p e llan ts n e x t ar g u e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in d e n y in g th e m o tio n to v a c a te b e c a u s e th e a rb itr a to r “ m a n if e s tly d is re g a rd e d th e la w ” in re a c h in g h is d e c is io n . (A p p e llan ts’ B r. at 3 9 .) T h a t an a rb itrato r’s m a n if e st d isre g a rd o f

th e law m a ysu p p o rt a d e c is io n to v a c a te a n a rb itr a tio n a w a rd is n o t a n e w c o n c e p t. See, e. g. , Tanom a Mi ni ng C o. , I nc. v. LocalU

ni on N o. 1268 , 8 9 6 F . 2 d 7 4 5 , 7 4 9 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 0 ); Local863 I nt ’ lB hd. of Team s t ers v. Jer

s ey Coast

Egg P r oducer

s , I nc. , 7 7 3 F .2 d 5 3 0 , 5 3 3 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 5 ). W hethert hi s conce ptcont i nues t o exi s tt odayas an i ndepende nt , vi abl e gr ound for v a c a tu r, a n iss u e w e n e e d n o t d e c id e , this c a se d o e s n o t ev id e n c e o n e o f th o se “ e x tre m e ly 5 n a rr o w c ir c u m s ta n c e s ” s u p p o rt in g a d e c is io n to v a c a te . Metr om edi a E ner gy, I nc. v. E ns er ch Energy Ser vs . , I nc. , 409 F. 3d 574, 578 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( narr ow gr ound s uppor t i ng v a c a tu r e x ists “ w h e re a n a rb itratio n p a n e l m a n if e stlyd isre g a rd s, ra th e r th a n m e re ly e rr o n e o u s ly in te rp re ts , th e la w ” ). A ppel l ant s compl ai n, i n par t i cul ar , of the arbi t r at or ’ s cons i der at i on of-10-

unauthent i cat ed evi dence , w hi ch he then found s uffi ci entt o s uppor tA ppel l ees ’ cl ai m t hat t he ca r go had i nher entdefe ct s . T he r es ul t , t heyar gue, w as t hatan undul yheavybur den w as s hi ft ed t o t hem “t o s how bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence t he w at ercont entof the car go w hen l oaded a nd dur i ng di s char ge . . . . ” ( A ppel l ant s ’ B r . at46. ) T he arbi t r at or m ade a choi ce t o cr edi ts om e pi ece s of evi dence m or e than other s . A ppel l ant s s ubm i t t ed cargo t estres ult s show i ng t he fu el oil ’s w at er cont ent t o b e 0. 7% atl oad i ng . T heyal so pr es ent ed evi dence of a “ r et ai ned s ampl e, ” w hi ch s how ed a 0. 8% w at ercont entat l oadi ng. N onethel es s , t he arbi t r at orexpr es s ed conc ern t hat , among ot hert hi ngs , t he s ampl es w er e “i m pr oper l ydr aw n. ” H e found thatt he contr aryevi dence under m i ni ng th o se f ig u re s w a s “ su b sta n tial a n d c o n tro lli n g .” (A p p . at 1 0 0 .) T h u s, th e a rb itrato r d id notm ani fes t l ydi s r egar d t he l aw i n s et t i ng outbur dens but , r ather , m ade a fac tual det erm i nat i on t hatt he w ei ghtof the evi dence s uppor t ed one theoryof w at ercont entover another , and ca r eful l yexpl ai ned hi s r eas oni ng. A s s uch, t hi s i s not“the r ar es tcas e” c o m p e llin g u s to v a c a te . N ew ark Mor ni ng LedgerC o. v. N ew ark Typogr aphi cal

U ni on Local103 , 7 9 7 F .2 d 1 6 2 , 1 6 5 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 6 ); s ee Ma j o rL e a g u e Ump i r e s A s s ’ n v . A m. League of

P r of’ lB as ebal lC l ubs , 357 F. 3d 272, 289 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( quot i ng R em m ey v . P ai neW ebber , I nc. , 3 2 F .3 d 1 4 3 , 1 4 6 (4 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 )) (“ L im ited ju d icia l re v iew is n e c e s s a ry to e n c o u ra g e th e u s e o f a rb itr a tio n a s a n a lte rn a tiv e to f o rm a l liti g a tio n . . . . A pol i cyfavor i ng arbi t r at i on w oul d m ean l i t t l e, of cour s e, i f arbi t r at i on w er e mer el yt heA ss u m in g w ith o u t d e c id in g th a t, po st- H al lStr eet , “[a ] rbi t r at i on aw ar ds . . . can be 6 vaca t ed w hen s uch aw ar ds vi ol at e publ i c pol i cy , ” U ni t ed Tr ans

p. U ni on Local1589 v. Subur ban Trans i tC or

p. , 51 F. 3d 376, 381 ( 3d C i r . 1995) , t her e w as no s uch vi ol at i on h e re . A p p e llan ts c o n ten d th a t v a c a tu r is a p p ro p ria te b e c a u se A p p e llee s’ a c tio n s a lleg e d ly r an af oul of tw o publ i c i nt er es t s , namel yenvi r onm ent al pr ot ect i on and the s afe t y/ s eaw or t hi nes s of ves s el s . A l t hough t he arbi t r at orfound the EO S t o be uns eaw or t hybeca us e of i t s defe ct i ve hea t i ng coi l s , A ppel l ant s di d nots how t hatt he l eaking co i l s posed e nv i ronm ental or safetyri sks bey on d d am aging t he cargo , m uch l ess th a t u p h o ld in g th is a w a rd “ w o u ld th w a rt a c h iev e m e n t o f th e o v e rrid in g in ter e st in p u b lic s afe t yfur t her ed byt he [l aw s and] r egul at i ons . ” E xx o n Sh ipp ingC o . v. E

xx o n S ea m en ’s U ni on , 9 9 3 F .2 d 3 5 7 , 3 6 4 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). -11- p rolo g u e to p rolo n g ed li ti g ati o n ”). 6 B. M ODI F I CA T I ON T he FA A al s o empow er s cour t s t o m odi fyan arbi t r at i on aw ar d i n anyof the f o llo w in g in sta n c e s: “ [ w ]h e re th e re w a s a n e v id e n t m a ter ial m isc a lcu latio n o f f ig u re s. . . ” ; [w ]her e t he arbi t rat ors have aw arded u po n a m at t er notsubm i t t ed to them , un l ess i ti s a m att er n o t aff

ec ti n g the m erit s o f th e d ec isi o n u p o n the m att er su b m itted” ; and “[ w ]he re th e a w a rd is im p e rf

e c t in m a tter o f

f o rm . . . . ” 9 U .S .C . § 1 1 (a )-(c ). A n ym o d if ica tio n is ent i r el ydi s cr et i onaryand s houl d “pr om ot e j us t i ce be t w een the part i es . ” I d. ( “[T] he U ni t ed St at es cour ti n and fort he di s t r i ctw her ei n t he aw ar d w as m ade m ay m ake a n a w a rd m o d if

y in g o r c o rre c tin g th e a w a rd . . . . ” ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ); s ee H al lStr eet , 552 U . S. , 128 S. C t . at1403. 1 . T h e A rb itra to r D id

N o t E x c e e d His A u th o rity b

y A w a rd in gP re - a n d

P o stJ u d g m e n t In ter e st. A ppel l ant s ar gue thatt he arbi t r at orl acke d t he author i t yt o aw ar d A ppel l ees pr ean d p o st- jud g m en t i n terest an d that, in an yev en t, the in terest r ates tha t he im p o sed w ereT he arbi t r at orfound thatt he EO S shoul d have be en di s char ged w i t houtdel ay , and 7 f u rth e r n o ted th a t, w h ile th e d e lay co st V e n f lee t, “C h e m o il p ro f

ited e n o rm o u sly. . . d u e to t he appr eci at i on of fue l oi l val ues dur i ng t he per i od forw hi ch demur r age i s bei ng cl ai m ed. ” ( A pp. at107. ) T he arbi t r at oraw ar ded V enfl eeti nt er es ton t he more t han ni nem o n th d e lay i n re c e iv in g p a ym e n t af ter h e a rin g “ n o ra tio n a l ex p lan a tio n ” f ro m A p p e llan ts fort hatdel ay . W e r ej ectw i t houtfur t hercomm entA ppel l ant s ’ cl ai m t hatt he del ay ed p a ym e n t w a s n e ith e r i n d is p u te n o r w a s a n is s u e b e f o re th e a rb itr a to r. -12- i n exce s s of w hat28 U . S. C . § 1961 per m i t s . A tt he ce nt erof thei rcl ai m i s t he ar gum ent t hatbeca us e the part i es agr eed t o arbi t r at e w i t houtanypr i oragr eementas t o i nt er es t , t hey “had e veryr eas on t o bel i eve . . . t he D i s t r i ctC our tw oul d det erm i ne anyaw ar d. ” (A p p e llan ts’ B r. at 5 1 .) W e d isa g re e . A s th e a rb itrato r’s d e c isio n in d ica tes , “[ b ]o th par t i es have de m anded i nt er es ton t hei rr es pect i ve cl ai m s . ” ( A pp. at108) . B eca us e the par t i es agr eed t o s ubm i tt he di s put e t o an arbi t r at or , t he arbi t r at orhad the author i t yt o s ee t he mat t er“thr ough t o compl et i on. ” D l uhos , 321 F. 3d at369- 70. T her e i s s i m pl yno bas i s forbel i evi ng t hatt he arbi t r at orw as t o handl e onl ycert ai n m at t er s , w hi l e l eavi ng r el at ed pi ece s of the over al l di s put e fort he D i s t r i ctC our tt o r es ol ve. Fur t her m or e, A ppel l ant s offe rnot hi ng t o s quar e thei rar gum entt hat28 U . S. C . § 1961 r equi r es an i nt er es tr at e di ffe r entfr om t hati m pos ed byt he arbi t r at orw i t h t he l anguage i n Sun Shi p, I nc. v. Mat

s on N avi gat i on C o. , w hi ch s t at es t hatt he i nt er es tr at e i s “a mat t erof di s t r i ct cour tdi s cr et i on . . . gui ded by28 U . S. C . § 1961. ” 785 F. 2d 59, 63 ( 3d C i r . 1986) . A nd, w e not e, t he arbi t r at orexpl ai ned the bas i s fort he i nt er es tr at es he i m pos ed, namel y“the a v e ra g e p ri m e in te re s t r a te ” d u ri n g th e re le v a n t p e ri o d s . (A p p . a t 1 0 8 .) 7 2. T he A rbi trat or D i d N

ot Err i n A w arding A t t orneys’ Fees. A ppel l ant s ar gue thatt he arbi t r at orerr ed i n aw ar di ng at t or ney s ’ fee s t o A ppel l ees-13-

beca us e s uch an a w ar d w as out s i de the s cope of t he arbi t r at i on, al t hough t heyconce de t hatt heyr eques t ed att or ney s ’ fee s fort hemsel ves . T he D i s t r i ctC our tuphel d t he aw ar d of a tto rn e y s’ f

e e s b e c a u se th a t aw a rd “ d r[ e w ] its e ss e n c e ” f ro m th e p a rties ’ d e c isio n to arbi t r at e; fur t herm or e, t he C our tdi d notfi nd t he aw ar d t o be “c om pl et el yi r r at i onal . ” (I d. at9. ) N o s er i ous ar gum entcompel s us t o al t ert hatdet erm i nat i on. CO NC L US I ON W e w ill a f

f ir m th e f in a l ju d g m e n t o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt .