M STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2023 CA 1114 MOBILE ENTERPRISES, INC.

VERSUS BRIGGS BROTHERS ENTERPRISES CORPORATION Judgment Rendered; 

## APR 17 1024

Appealed from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge

State of Louisiana Suit Number 0730411 

### Honorable Richard "Chip" Moore, Presiding

Gerald A. Melchiode Counsel for Plaintiff/ Appellant Kyle M. Sepulveda Mobile Enterprises, Inc. New Orleans, LA G. Trippe Hawthorne Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Thomas D. Bourgeois, Jr. Briggs Brothers Enterprises 

### Mary M. Love Corporation Baton Rouge, LA

BEFORE: GUIDRY, C.J., CHUTZ, AND LANIER,JJ.GUIDRY, C.J. Plaintiff/

appellant, Mobile Enterprises, Inc. ( MEI), appeals from a district 

### court judgment denying its motion to confirm arbitration award and granting a motion to vacate arbitration award filed by defendant/appellee, Briggs Brothers Enterprise Corporation, a Texas Corporation (Briggs ofTexas). Forthe reasons that follow, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

### On May 26, 2021, Briggs Brothers Enterprises Corporation, contractor on 

### United States Army Corp of Engineers ( USAGE) Project " 

### Lilly Bayou Control Structures, Sloped Flume Repair," entered into a subcontract agreement with MEL The subcontract agreement listed Briggs Brothers Enterprises Corporation' s principal place ofbusiness as 4749 Sansom Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The agreement also contained an arbitration provision, providing that " All disputes 

### hereunder shall be resolved by binding arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association." Thereafter, a dispute arose under the agreement and MEI filed a demand for 

### arbitration with the American Arbitration Association, naming " Briggs Brothers Enterprises Corporation" as respondent. However, while the demand form listed the Pennsylvania address for respondent, 

### the attached demand pleading identified Briggs Brothers Enterprises Corporation as " a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Philadelphia, PA" 

### and stated that it may be served through its 

### registered agent, Terry Briggs, ata Richmond,Texas address as well as through its counsel ofrecord,Jeffrey Leeper,at his office address in Marietta,Georgia. Notice ofarbitration was sent bycertified mail toTerry Briggs in Richmond,Texas andwas sent to Jeffrey Leeper, in Marietta, Georgia. The matter proceeded to an arbitration hearing on December 20, 2022, at

which respondent was not present. 

### After finding that proof had been shown that
FA

### demand forarbitration,notice ofpreliminaryhearing,and notice ofhearinghadbeen

sent to " Briggs [ Brothers Enterprises Corporation] at its business address," the 

### arbitratorcommencedthe hearing and rendered an award in favorofMEI and against Briggs Brothers Enterprises Corporation" in the amount of $96,811. 88, plus interest. On March 30, 2023, MEI filed a petition to confirm arbitration award in the 

### Nineteenth Judicial District Court, naming Briggs ofTexas as a defendant. Briggs of Texas thereafter filed a motion to vacate arbitration award. Briggs of Texas alleged that the arbitration award should be vacated because Briggs ofTexas was 

### not a party to the subcontract with MEI and was not a party to the agreement to arbitrate and as such,the arbitrator exceed his powers by rendering an award against 

### an entity not a party to any relevant contract, citing 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)( 4) and La. R.S. 9: 4210( D). Briggs of Texas asserted it was not provided notice of the arbitration 

### hearing, and therefore its due process rights were violated. Briggs of Texas further 

### asserted that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by awarding MEI damages not 

### claimed in the arbitration demand and by improperly awarding MEI attorney's fees, citing 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)( 4) and La. R.S. 9:4210(D). In support of its motion, Briggs ofTexas alleged that it and Briggs Brothers Enterprises Corporation, a Pennsylvania Corporation ( Briggs of Pennsylvania), are two distinct legal entities. Briggs of Texas asserted that Briggs of Pennsylvania, and not Briggs of Texas, entered into 

### the subcontract agreement with MEI, and that Terry Briggs is the registered agent for Briggs ofTexas, not for Briggs of Pennsylvania. Briggs ofTexas further stated 

### thatneither itnorBriggs ofPennsylvania received notice ofanyproceedings beyond the demand for arbitration. Briggs of Texas also filed an opposition to MEPs petition to confirm 

### arbitration award, re -

asserting the same arguments that it raised in its motion to

vacate. 

### Following a hearing, the district court signed ajudgment on August 28,

3

### 2023, denying the petition to confirm, granting the motion to vacate, and ordering

that the arbitration award be vacated and judgment entered in favor of Briggs Brothers Enterprises Corporation and against MEI. The district court dismissed 

### MEI' s claims made in its petition to confirm with prejudice,fully reserving all rights of MEI against Briggs Brothers Enterprises Corporation in arbitration. MEI now appeals from the district court' sjudgment. DISCUSSION Arbitration Law and Standard of Review The purpose ofarbitration is to allow parties to achieve speedy settlement of their differences out of court. 

### Revefty Food Group, LLC v. Nguyen Pro ert Investment, 21- 0881, 

### p. 4 ( 

### La. App. 1st Cir. 2125122), 340 So. 3d 1151, 1155. 

### Arbitration is favored underboth Louisiana and federaljurisprudence. Revelry Food 

### Group, LLC, 21- 0881 at p. 4, 340 So. 3d at 1155. Because ofthe strong public 

### policy favoring arbitration, arbitration awards are presumed to be valid. Judges are 

### not entitled to substitute their judgment for that of the arbitrators chosen by the parties. 

### Crescent Property Partners, LLC v. American Manufacturers Mutual 

### Insurance Company, 14-0969, 14-0973, p. 6 (La. 1/ 28/15), 158 So. 3d 798, 803. The Federal Arbitration Act ( FAA) is located at 9 U.S. C. §§ 1- 16. 

### Louisiana's binding arbitration law (LBAL), La. R.S. 9:4201, et seq., echoes the 

### FAA,and as such, Louisiana courts lookto federal law in interpreting the Louisiana

arbitration statutes. 

### RevelryFood Group, LLC,21- 0881 at p. 5, 340 So. 3d at 1155. Underthe FAAand LBAL,a partyto an arbitration proceeding may,within one year 

### afterthe award is made, applytothe districtcourtforconfirmation ofthe award, and the court must confirm the award unless the award is vacated, modified, orcorrected. 9 U.S.C. § 9; La. R.S. 9:4209. 

### The exclusive grounds for vacating an award are identical under the FAA and the LBAL. See 9 U.S. C. § 10; La. R.S. 9:4210. The

4

### four exclusive grounds forvacating an award underthe LBAL are: A. 

### Where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means. B. Where there was evident partiality or corruption on the part ofthe arbitrators or any ofthem. C. 

### Where the arbitrators were 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 ofany other 

### misbehavior bywhich the rights ofany party have been prejudiced. D. 

### Where the arbitrators exceeded their powers or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made. La. R.S. 9:4210; see also 9 U.S. C. § 10. 

### It is well settled that an arbitration award may be challenged only on the grounds specified in the applicable arbitration statute. Crescent Property Partners, LLC, 

### 14-0969 at p. 6, 158 So. 3d at 803. Those grounds do not include errors of 

### law or fact, which are insufficient to invalidate an award fairly and honestly made. Pennington v. Cuna Brokerage Securities, Inc., 08-0589, p. 6 ( 

### La. App. 1st Cir. 10/ 1108), 5 So. 3d 172, 176, writ denied, 08-2600 (La. 119/09), 998 So. 2d 723; see 

### also Crescent Property Partners, LLC, 14-0969 at p. 7, 158 So. 3d at 804. A court is 

### not entitledto substitute itsjudgment forthat ofthe arbitrator chosen bythe parties; rather, a court's determination is limited to whetherthe party challenging the award 

### has proven one or more of the specific statutory grounds for invalidation. See DeArmond v. E. Jacob Construction Inc.,

### 21-0981, p. 4 (La.App. 1st Cir. 418122), 342 So. 3d 77, 80. An appellate court conducts a de novo review ofa district court' s 

### judgment confirming orvacating an arbitration award. DeArnlond, 21- 0981 atp. 4, 

### 342 So. 3d at 80; see also Revelry Food Group, LLC, 21- 0881 at p. 5, 340 So. 3d at 1156.

5Exceeding Powers by Arbitrator Briggs of Texas alleged in its motion to vacate that the arbitration award should be vacated because Briggs ofTexas was not a party to the subcontract with MEI and was not a party to the agreement to arbitrate. As such, Briggs of Texas 

### alleged that the arbitrator exceeded his powers by rendering an award against an 

### entity not a party to any relevant contract, citing 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)( 4) and La. R.S. 9: 4210(D). In support of its motion to vacate, Briggs of Texas submitted the 

### affidavit ofTerry Briggs with attachments, including the prime contract between Briggs of Pennsylvania and USACE and the subcontract agreement between MEI 

### and Briggs ofPennsylvania,as well as information from the Pennsylvania Secretary 

### of State and the Texas Secretary of State regarding Briggs Brothers Enterprises Corporation. 

### A review ofthe evidence submitted by Briggs ofTexas shows that " Briggs Brothers Enterprises Corporation" is incorporated in both Pennsylvania and Texas

as a domestic corporation. Terry Briggs, the President and owner of both corporations, stated in his affidavit that there are several entities with the name Briggs Brothers Enterprises Corporation," 

### including Briggs of Pennsylvania and Briggs of Texas, and that each ofthese entities is incorporated in a different state 

### and is adistinct, separate entity. Terry Briggs further statedthat he signed the prime contract and the subcontract agreement on behalfofBriggs ofPennsylvania and that 

### Briggs ofTexas was not a partyto any contract related to the USACE project. Both the prime contract and the subcontract agreement 

### identify Briggs Brothers 

### Enterprises Corporation as a contracting party and list its address as 4749 Sansom Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The address for Briggs of Pennsylvania listed 

### with the Pennsylvania Secretary of State is the same address listed on the prime contract with USACE and the subcontract with MET.

9However, the demand for arbitration, while 

### listing Briggs Brothers

Enterprises Corporation as respondent atthe Pennsylvania address, further identified Briggs Brothers Enterprises Corporation as a Texas corporation and requested 

### service on Terry Briggs, at a Richmond, Texas address, as the registered agent for Briggs of Texas. Furthermore, the petition to confirm arbitration award named Briggs of Texas as a defendant and was served on Briggs of Texas at its business address in Houston, Texas. 

### The authority ofan arbitrator to resolve disputes is derived from the parties' advance agreement to submit such grievances to arbitration. Preis Gordon, APLC 

### v. Chandler, 15-0958, p. 7 (La.App. 1 stCir.2126116), 191 So. 3d 31, 36, writ denied, 16-0590 ( La. 5120116), 191 So. 3d 1067. Furthermore, challenges brought to the 

### very existence ofthe contract containing the arbitration clause must be decided by the court, not the arbitrator. 

### See FIA Card Services: N.A.v. Weaver,10- 1372, pp. 7 and 17 ( La. 3115111), 

### 62 So. 3d 709, 714 and 720 ( noting that in confirming an arbitration award under the FAA', 

### a party is required to file a copy ofthe agreement to arbitrate, which affirms the court' s duty to rule on the issue of the contract's validity). Therefore, from our review of the record, we find that Briggs of Pennsylvania and Briggs ofTexas are two separate legal entities, and the arbitration award was sought and rendered against Briggs ofTexas. Briggs ofTexas, however, was not a party to the subcontract agreement containing the arbitration clause and 

### did not otherwise consent to participate in the arbitration proceeding. Without

evidence of contract between Briggs ofTexas and MEI,the arbitrator exceeded his 

### power in rendering an award against Briggs ofTexas. Therefore, on our de novo review ofthe district court' sjudgment, we find no 

### error in thejudgmentvacating the arbitration award rendered in favorof MEI and
t The LBAL contains an identical provision providing that "[ ajny partyto a proceeding for an order confirming, modifying, or correcting an award shall... also file ... [ t]he agreement." La. R.S. 9:4214. 7against Briggs ofTexas. 2 CONCLUSION



### For the foregoing reasons, we affirm thejudgment ofthe district court. All 

### costs ofthis proceeding are assessed to Mobile Enterprises, Inc. Wal at" 01

2 

### Havingfound noerrorinthedistrictcourt'sjudgmentvacatingthearbitration award,wepretermit discussion of MEI's assignment of error relating to the district court' s denial of its petition to confirm arbitration award. 8