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 6-5-2009 

# Lind a Guyde n v

. P r ude nt i al Li fe Ins P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 08-3108

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 no va . 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 " L ind a G uyde n v

. P r ude n t i al L i fe In s " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1225. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1225NOT 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

____________ N o. 08- 3108

____________ LI ND A G UY DEN v. P RUDENTI AL L I F E I NSURANCE CO M P ANY OF AM E RI CA , A ppel l ant

____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . N o. 2- 00- cv- 04563) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e K athar i ne S. H ay den

____________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 2, 2009 B e f o re : M c K E E , H A R D IM A N a n d G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed: J une 5, 2009)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudge .2

T h is ap p ea l ari ses f

rom a d ispu te be tw ee n L ind a G u y d en an d h er e m p loy er, Pr udent i al L i fe I ns ur ance C om pany . G uy den s ued Prudent i al i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct C our tfort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey , al l egi ng r aci al di s cr i m i nat i on and r et al i at i on. T he H onor abl e A l fr ed Lechnercompel l ed arbi t r at i on atPr udent i al ’ s r eques t . A ft ert he arb itrator ru led in P rud en ti al’s fa v o r, G u y d en m o v ed to v ac ate the arb itrati o n aw ard p u rsu a n t to 9 U .S .C . § 1 0 (a )(4 ). A f ter Ju d g e L e c h n e r re tired , this c a se w a s re a ss ig n e d to t he H onor abl e K athar i ne H ay den. O n J ul y15, 2008, J udge H ay den or der ed l i m i t ed d isco v eryto d ec ide G u y d en ’s m o ti o n . P rud en ti al ap p ea ls from that o rde r. P rud en ti al asse rt s tha t w e h av e jurisdicti o n p u rsua n t t o 9 U . S . C . § 1 6 (a)(1)(E ), w hi ch al l ow s forappea l s fr om or der s “modi fy i ng, corr ect i ng, orvaca t i ng an [a rbi t r at i on] aw ar d. ” W e di s agr ee. T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derdi d notvaca t e the arbi t r at i on aw ar d, but m e re ly o rd e re d d is c o v e ry so th a t it m a yla te r d e te rm in e w h e th e r t o v a c a te th e a w a rd . T h o u g h th e D istric t C o u rt’s la n g u a g e in d ica ted it w a s “ g ra n t[ in g ]” G u y d e n ’s m o tio n “ in par t , ” “the appe al abi l i t yof an or derdepends on i t s eff ectr athert han i t s l anguage . ” Fas s et tv. D el t a Kappa E ps i l on , 807 F. 2d 1150, 1167 ( 3d C i r . 1986) . A l t hough t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derm i ghtbe a pr el ude t o a fi nal or dervaca t i ng orm odi fy i ng t he aw ar d, i ti s nota fi nal or dervaca t i ng an arbi t r at i on aw ar d under9 U . S. C . § 16. P rudenti al asser t ed in i t s M ay27 , 20 09 R ule 28j l et t er that j uri sdi ct i on l i es becau se t he D i s t r i ctC our thas ( 1) “made cl eart hati ti nt ends t o deci de the enf or cea bi l i t yof [the arbi t r at i on] agr eement , ” and ( 2) “modi fi ed and va cat ed [the] arbi t r al deci s i on” r egar di ng3

the g ran t of

d isco v ery . W ith reg ard to the firstarg u m en t, w e a g ree that the D istri ct C o u rt h a s in d ica ted th a t itin ten d s to d e c id e th e e n f o rc e a b ili tyo f

th e a rb itratio n a g re e m e n t; ot herw i s e, t her e w oul d be no r eas on t o or derdi s coveryw i t h r egar d t o G uy den’ s contr act d ef en ses. H o w ev er, byrev iew ing the e n fo rce ab il ityo f th e a g ree m en t, the D istri ct C o u rt has notover tur ned the arbi t r at or ’ s deci s i on; i ns t ead, i thas eff ect i vel yr econs i der ed J udge L echne r ’ s deci s i on of A ugus t30, 2001, w hi ch hel d t hatt he ques t i on of arbi t r abi l i t yw as to b e d ec ided b ythe a rbit rator. I n esse n ce , P rud en ti al asse rt s tha t th e D istri ct C o u rt “i ntends” t o d eci de the enfo rceabi l i t yof the arbi t rat i on agreem ent, no tt hat i thas do ne so a l r e a d y. W i t h r egar d t o t he s econd a r gum ent , w e agr ee thatt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derof l i m i t ed di s coveryon t he i s s ue of e nfor cea bi l i t yconfl i ct s w i t h t he appr oach t aken byt he arbi t r at ori n hi s deci s i on of D ece m ber3, 2004, w hi ch found the agr eementt o be e n f o rc e a b le w ith o u t th e n e e d f o r d isc o v e ry . H o w e v e r, th e D e c e m b e r 3 , 2 0 0 4 in ter im o rde r ca n n o t be f

airl ych ara cterized as a n “a w ard . ” T h ere fo re, th o u g h the D istri ct C o u rt ’s o rd e r o f lim ited d isc o v e ryc o n f

licts w ith th a t d e c isio n , w e d e c lin e to f in d th a t it “modi f[i ed] , corr ect [ed] , orvaca t [ed] an aw ard . ” The fi nal arbi t r at i on aw ar d — i ndeed, t he onl yaw ar d i n t hi s cas e, dat ed February16, 2007 — r emai ns i n pl ace . A ccor di ngl y , t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derof l i m i t ed di s coverydoes notconfe r a p p e llate ju risd ictio n , an d w e w ill d ism iss P ru d e n tial’s a p p e a l.