NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 

23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, 

as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties 

and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's 

decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire 

court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. 

A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 

2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted 

above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 

n.4 (2008).

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPEALS COURT

23-P-958

PERSONAL BEST KARATE, INC.

vs.

JOHN A. MOSCA & another.1

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

Defendants, John A. Mosca and Barbara A. Mosca (the 

Moscas), appeal from a Superior Court judge's final judgment 

confirming an arbitration award issued to the plaintiff, 

Personal Best Karate, Inc. (PBK Inc.). The Moscas argue that 

even though they failed to respond to contractually mandated

arbitration, the judge was required to consider whether the

noncompete restriction within the franchise agreement was 

unconscionable. We affirm.

Background. Personal Best Karate of Norwood, Inc. (PBK 

Norwood) and PBK Inc. entered into a franchise agreement 

(Agreement) granting PBK Norwood the right to operate a karate 

1 Barbara A. Mosca. Defendants Personal Best Karate of 

Norwood, Inc., and Mosca Village Martial Arts, Inc., both owned 

by the Moscas, are not parties to this appeal.
2

school as a franchisee of PBK Inc.2 The Agreement3 required the 

parties to attempt to resolve all disputes, other than demands 

for equitable relief, by proceeding first with formal

negotiation, followed by mediation, and then by arbitration as a 

final resort.4 In 2019, PBK Inc. received notice from the 

Moscas' counsel that they were terminating their business 

relationship with PBK Inc. due to an alleged breach of contract. 

PBK Inc.'s counsel responded with a letter contesting the 

Moscas' breach of contract claims and requesting that the Moscas 

contact her to address the dispute.

After receiving no response from the Moscas, PBK Inc. filed 

a demand for arbitration against PBK Norwood and the Moscas with 

the American Arbitration Association. In its demand, PBK Inc. 

alleged that the Moscas materially breached the Agreement by 

changing their karate studio's name from PBK Norwood to Mosca 

2 The Moscas personally guaranteed the Agreement on behalf 

of PBK Norwood.

3 The parties first signed the Agreement in 2006. The 

parties renewed it on October 15, 2011, and again on December 4, 

2016. The 2016 Agreement is controlling in this case.

4 The Agreement provides, in pertinent part, "[i]f the 

parties have not resolved a claim, controversy or dispute by 

negotiation, mediation, or otherwise . . . or if a claim, 

controversy or dispute arises subsequent to the termination or 

expiration of this Agreement, such claim, controversy or dispute 

shall be referred to Arbitration in accordance with the 

Commercial Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures . . . .

If such Rules are in any way contrary to or in conflict with 

this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall control."
3

Village Martial Arts and by violating the noncompete provision 

through their misuse of PBK Inc.'s intellectual property and 

social media platforms. PBK Inc. estimated the dollar amount of 

its claim to be $70,000. PBK Norwood and the Moscas were duly 

noticed of the arbitration proceedings but neither participated

nor submitted documents. Furthermore, the Moscas failed to 

challenge either the requirement to arbitrate or the authority 

of the designated arbitrator to hear the dispute.

The arbitrator issued an interim award on November 20, 

2019, in which she found the Moscas were in default of the 

Agreement and ordered the Moscas to cease operations. The 

arbitrator also prohibited the Moscas from operating a competing 

business for two years and awarded PBK Inc. $95,847.40, as well 

as attorney's fees. On December 9, 2019, the arbitrator issued 

a final award in the amount of $13,724.90, stating that the 

Moscas' purported termination of the Agreement for cause was 

merely a fabricated claim to absolve them of their contractual 

obligations. The Moscas failed to file an application to vacate 

the arbitration award.

PBK Inc. filed a complaint in Superior Court on January 16, 

2020, to confirm the arbitration award against the Moscas. 

Shortly thereafter, the Moscas and PBK Norwood each filed 

suggestions of bankruptcy and the proceedings were stayed. PBK 

Inc. filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay, and the 
4

Bankruptcy Court granted limited relief from it; the Superior 

Court then issued an order lifting the stay on August 30, 2021. 

PBK Inc. filed a motion to confirm the arbitration award, and 

the Moscas thereafter filed an opposition and reply memorandum. 

The motion judge then issued an order and final judgment 

confirming the arbitration award.

Discussion. 1. Legal framework. Arbitration agreements 

in Massachusetts are governed by the Massachusetts Arbitration 

Act, G. L. c. 251, §§ 1-19. The court's review of an 

arbitration award is narrow. See Katz, Nannis & Solomon, P.C. 

v. Levine, 473 Mass. 784, 793 (2016). "Courts inquire into an 

arbitration award only to determine if the arbitrator has 

exceeded the scope of his authority, or decided the matter based 

on 'fraud, arbitrary conduct, or procedural irregularity in the 

hearings.'" Plymouth-Carver Regional Sch. Dist. v. J. Farmer & 

Co., 407 Mass. 1006, 1007 (1990), quoting Marino v. Tagaris, 395 

Mass. 397, 400 (1985).

General Laws c. 251, § 11, provides that "[u]pon 

application of a party, the court shall confirm" an arbitration 

award unless "grounds are urged for vacating or modifying or 

correcting the award" as set forth in G. L. c. 251, 

§§ 12 and 13. See Kauders v. Uber Techs., Inc., 486 Mass. 557, 

569-570 (2021) ("The use of 'shall' [in G. L. c. 251, § 11] is 

mandatory").
5

We review de novo the judge's decision to confirm the 

arbitration award subject to the same principles. Massachusetts 

Highway Dep't v. Perini Corp., 79 Mass. App. Ct. 430, 436 

(2011).

2. Motion to confirm arbitration award. a. Thirty-day 

limit. The Moscas argue that the judge erred by declining to 

resolve their claim that the noncompete provision in the 

Agreement is unconscionable. PBK Inc., however, contends that 

the Moscas waived any arguments pertaining to the validity of 

the noncompete provision by failing to timely challenge the 

arbitration award. Any challenge to an arbitration award must 

be brought within thirty days of the receipt of the award. See 

G. L. c. 251, §§ 12 (b) and 13 (a). "The thirty-day limit

during which action must be commenced to vacate or modify an 

award [is] strictly construed." Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. 

Malacaria, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 184, 192 (1996), citing Bernstein

v. Gramercy Mills, Inc., 16 Mass. App. Ct. 403, 408-409 (1983). 

In the case at hand, the final award was issued on December 9, 

2019, and the Moscas failed to seek relief within the strict 

thirty-day limit imposed by G. L. c. 251, §§ 12 (b) and 13 (a).

The judge did not err by confirming the arbitration award based 

on the Moscas' failure to adhere to the thirty-day timeframe.

b. Bases for vacating an arbitration award. While we may 

affirm solely on the grounds that the Moscas failed to adhere to 
6

the thirty-day time limit, we note that the Moscas fare no 

better on their substantive challenge to the arbitrator's award. 

In reviewing the basis for an arbitrator's award, the court "is 

strictly bound by an arbitrator's findings and legal 

conclusions, even if they appear erroneous, inconsistent, or 

unsupported by the record at the arbitration hearing." Lynn v. 

Thompson, 435 Mass. 54, 61 (2001), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 1131 

(2002). General Laws c. 251, § 12 (a) provides five limited 

bases for vacating an arbitration award: (1) the award was 

procured by fraud; (2) the arbitrators evidenced partiality;

(3) the arbitrators exceeded their powers; (4) sufficient cause 

was shown to postpone the arbitration hearing and the 

arbitrators unfairly refused to do so; and (5) no arbitration 

agreement ever existed. The Moscas do not advance any of these 

bases on appeal; nor are any of these grounds evident to us on 

our review of the record.

Instead, the Moscas argue that the noncompete provision of 

the Agreement is unconscionable, and resultingly, the Superior 

Court should have determined whether the Agreement was 

unconscionable or returned the matter to the arbitrator for 

further proceedings.5 "Under Massachusetts law, [t]o prove that 

5 The Moscas fail to cite any case law or record cites in 

support of their unconscionability claim, and resultingly, this

claim does not rise to the level of appellate argument. See 
7

the terms of a contract are unconscionable, a plaintiff must 

show both substantive unconscionability (that the terms are 

oppressive to one party) and procedural unconscionability (that 

the circumstances surrounding the formation of the contract show 

that the aggrieved party had no meaningful choice and was 

subject to unfair surprise" (quotations and citation omitted). 

Machado v. System4 LLC, 471 Mass. 204, 218 (2015). The Moscas' 

argument implicitly recognizes that their claim of 

unconscionability could have been submitted to and determined by 

the arbitrator when PBK Inc. first sought arbitration, and they 

do not point to, nor do we see anything in the arbitration 

clause that suggests otherwise. Having forfeited their right to 

present evidence of substantive and procedural unconscionability 

before the arbitrator, the Moscas are not entitled to a de novo 

review in the Superior Court. As explained above, the court is 

strictly bound by the arbitrator's findings and legal 

conclusions. See Lynn, 435 Mass. at 61.

We also note that the Moscas' unconscionability challenge 

is not aimed toward the agreement to arbitrate, and thus, the 

court may not address it. See Emmanuel v. Handy Techs., Inc., 

992 F.3d 1, 11 (1st Cir. 2021) ("because the basis of [the 

Mass. R. A. P. 16 (a) (9), as appearing in 481 Mass. 1628 

(2019); Oggiani v. Chief Justice of the Trial Ct., 476 Mass. 

1016, 1017 (2017).
8

plaintiff's] unconscionability challenge is not directed 

specifically to the agreement to arbitrate . . . we may not 

address it" [quotations and citation omitted]).6 See also 

Boursiquot v. United Healthcare Servs. of Delaware, Inc., 98 

Mass. App. Ct. 624, 630 (2020).

3. Appellate costs and fees. PBK Inc. requested that for 

pursuing this appeal, the Moscas be sanctioned pursuant to Mass.

R. A. P. 25, as appearing in 481 Mass. 1654 (2019), and G. L. 

c. 211A, § 15. In our discretion, under these provisions we may 

award double costs and attorney's fees "when the appeal is 

frivolous, immaterial, or intended for delay." Avery v. Steele, 

414 Mass. 450, 455 (1993).

We agree that the Moscas' appeal is frivolous and allow PBK 

Inc.'s request for appellate fees and costs. See Mass. R. A. P. 

25, as appearing in 481 Mass. 1654 (2019); Avery, 414 Mass. at

6 The Moscas rely on Productora E Importadora de Papel, S.A. 

de C.V. v. Fleming, 376 Mass. 826 (1978) (Productora), to 

support their contention that their failure to appear at 

arbitration had no bearing on the court's obligation to consider 

whether the unchallenged facts in this case constituted a 

legitimate cause of action. In Productora, the Supreme Judicial 

Court held that after a default judgment, the court remains 

obligated to assess whether unchallenged facts establish a 

legitimate cause of action because a party in default does not 

admit conclusions of law. Id. at 834-835. Productora is

substantially dissimilar from the case at bar given that, here, 

there was no default judgment entered in the trial court. See 

id. Moreover, the Moscas cite no authority, and we do not 

discern any authority, that supports applying the holding of 

Productora to an action to confirm an arbitration award. See 

id.
9

455 ("An appeal is frivolous [w]hen the law is well settled, 

when there can be no reasonable expectation of a reversal 

. . . . The determination whether an appeal is frivolous is 

left to the sound discretion of the appellate court" [quotations 

and citations omitted]). In accordance with the procedure 

specified in Fabre v. Walton, 441 Mass. 9, 10-11 (2004), PBK 

Inc. may, within fourteen days of the issuance of this 

memorandum and order, submit an application for attorney's fees 

and costs with the appropriate supporting materials. The Moscas

shall have fourteen days thereafter to file a response to that 

application.

Conclusion. The judgment confirming the arbitration award 

is affirmed, and PBK Inc. may timely submit an application for

attorney's fees and double costs.

Judgment affirmed.

By the Court (Milkey, Sacks & 

Smyth, JJ.7),

Clerk

Entered: July 26, 2024.

7 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.