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 10-20-2009 

# Ob e r wage r v

. M cK echnie Lt d 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 . 08-1117

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://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 gh t 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 Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt 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 Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t 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
" Obe r wag e r v

. M cKe chnie Lt d " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 419. h tt p://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/419NOT PRECEDENTIAL U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H ET H IRD C IR C U IT

_________ No. 08-1117

_ _ _______ W A S H B U R N S . O B E R W A G E R ; D IN E S H R . D E S A I; F IR S T B R IT A N N IA M E Z Z ANI NE CA P I T AL BV ; F I RS T BR I T ANNI A M E Z Z ANI NE NV; I NT E RN AT I ONAL M E Z Z ANI NE CA P I T AL BV ; a n d I NT E RN AT I ONAL

M E Z Z ANI NE I NVE S T M E NT NV; ( col l ect i vel y , t he “Sel l er s ”)

A p p e llan ts v. M c KECHNI E L TD, f

o r me r l yM c Ke c h n i e P LC; W ES TE RN S KY I NDU S TRI ES , LL C, s u c c e s s o r t o M c K e c h n ie U S H o ld in g s , In c . ( col l ect i vel yt he “Buy er s ”)

___________________ A p p e a l f ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt fort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a C as e N o. 06- cv- 02685 ( H onor abl e W i l l i am H . Y ohn)

___________________ Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 11, 2009 B e f o re : M c K E E , H A R D IM A N , a n d V A N A N T W E R P E N , C i r cui tJudges

( Fi l ed O ct ober20, 2009) OPI NI ON O F THE COURTThe district cour t had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. W e havejurisdiction 1 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our re view of a motion to vacate a

commerc ial arbitration award is de novo . Dluh osv . S

trasb e rg , 321 F.3d 365, 369 ( 3d Cir. 2003).

2 M c K E E , C i r cui tJudge Pl ai nt i ffs appea l t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s or dergr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof t he D efe ndant s bas ed on t hatcour t ’ s concl us i on t hatPl ai nt i ffs ’ m ot i on t o vaca t e w as u n tim e ly . P lain tiff

s a rg u e th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rro n e o u slyre lied o n o u r d e c isio n in R oadw ay Package Sy s t em , I nc. v. Kays er , 257 F. 3d 287 ( 3d C i r . 2001) , beca us e R oadw ay P ackage i s no l ongervi abl e fol l ow i ng t he Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n H al lSt r eet A s s oci at es v. M

at t el , I nc. , 1 2 8 S .C t. 13 9 6 (2 0 0 8 ). F o r th e re a so n s th a t f o llo w , w e w ill
a f f irm th e d e c isio n o f

th e d istric t co u rt. 1 I. A s w e w r i t e pr i m ar i l yfort he par t i es , w e nee d notr eci t e t he fa ct s orpr ocedur al b a c k g ro u n d e x c e p t in s o f a r a s th e ya re h e lp f

u l to o u r d is c u s s io n . T hi s cas e ar i s es fr om a s t ock pur chas e agr eement( “SPA ”) ent er ed i nt o byt he par t i es i n 1999, pr ovi di ng forarbi t r at i on of anydi s put e ar i s i ng fr om t he agr eement . T he SPA al s o cont ai ned a ge ner i c choi ce- of- l aw pr ovi s i on w hi ch s t at ed thatt he agr eement
w as t o be “gove r ned byand cons t rued i n acc or dance w i t h t he l aw s of t he St at e of D e la w a re w ith o u t r e g a rd to c h o ic e o f la w p ri n c ip le s . . . .” I n 2004, t he par t i es ent er ed i nt o arbi t r at i on t o r es ol ve a di s put e t hathad ar i s en undert he SPA . T he arbi t r at orr es ol ved t hatdi s put e i n D efe ndant s ’ favor , and Pl ai nt i ffsPlaintiffs init iated this action by filing a complaint and subseque ntly amendingthat 2 complaint rathe r than by

filing a motion to vacate the a

rbitration awa

rd as is re quired unde r the FAA . However, the district cour t appropriately

exercised its discre tion to consider the ame nded complaint as a motion to vacate the ar bitration awa

rd, see O.R. Sec ., Inc. v . Prof’l Planning Asso cs. , 857 F.2d 742, 745 ( 11th Cir. 1988), and wewill therefore proc eed a s if Plaintiffs had initiated this action as a motion to vacate . Plaintiffs also argue that the district cour t erre d by failingto consider whe ther 3 application of theFAAwas inappropriate in light of Gu aran ty Trust C o. v . York, 326 U.S. 99, 111 (1945), a

nd its poli cy

ag ainst forum shopping . As Def endants note, this argument is not re le va nt t o th e iss ue s b e fo reus and wewi ll the re fo reno t a dd re ss i t. 3 t hen i ni t i at ed t hi s act i on undert he D el aw ar e U ni for m A rbi t r at i on A ct( “D U A A ”) i n t he E as t er n D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a i n an at t empt t o vaca t e t he arbi t r at i on aw ar d. 2 D efe ndant s m oved fors um m aryj udgm enton t he gr ounds t hatt he ac t i on w as unt i m el yunder§ 12 of t he FA A , w hi ch r equi r es t hata mot i on t o vaca t e an a rbi t r at i on aw ard b e se rve d u p o n the a d v erse p artyw ith in three m o n ths o f th e f il ing o f th e a w ard . In
r es pons e, Pl ai nt i ffs ar gued t hatbeca us e of the choi ce- of- l aw pr ovi s i on i n t he SPA , t he D U A A , r at hert han t he FA A , appl i ed, and thatt he ac t i on w as t i m el yunderD el aw ar e l aw a s s e tf o r t h i n t h e DUAA. II. Pl ai nt i ffs ar gue t hatt he di s t r i ctcour ter r ed i n concl udi ng t hatt he FA A , r athert han the D U A A , g o v ern ed their m o ti o n to v ac ate. T h eyarg u e tha t th e S u p rem e C o u rt ’s deci s i on i n H

al lSt r eet m akes R oadw ay i nappos i t e bycl ar i fy i ng t hatpar t i es m ays eek j udi ci al r evi ew of arbi t r at i on deci s i ons underanyappl i cabl e l aw , s o l ong as t he l aw i s not p re e m p ted b yth e F A A . P lain tiff s’ a rg u m e n t is w ith o u t m e rit. 3Hall Street re so lve d a

sp lit of a uth ority amon gtheCirc uit

Court s o f A

pp e a ls a s to 4 whether parties to agree ments subject to the FAA could supplement by contra ct the standa

rds for vacatur and modification of arbitration awards set forth in §§ 9, 10, and 11 of the FAA. The Court c on c lud e d th at th e y

c ou ld n ot. It is there fo reun c onte ste d th at Ha ll S tre e t abrog ates one holding of Roadway , that parties to agree ments subject to the FAA ca n specific ally

contra ct out of the F AA standa

rds of re view. Plaintiffs argue, howe ver, that cer tain dic ta in Ha ll S

tre e t a lso abrog ate the se cond holdingof Roadway , th at a g e ne ri c c ho ic e -o f- law c la us e is i ns uf

fi c ie nt t o demonstrate a

n intent to contrac t around the F AA entire ly . We disagree . 4 A s t he di s t r i ctcour tnot ed, i ti s uncont es t ed thatt he SPA fal l s w i t hi n t he br oad
r eac h of t he FA A . H ow ever , as w e expl ai ned i n R oadw ay Package , par t i es can c ont r act o u t o f th e F A A a n d s e le c t a lte rn a te ru le s to g o v e rn a rb itr a tio n p ro c e e d in g s b e tw e e n th e m . T o do s o, par t i es m us t“mani fes t [] a cl eari nt ent , ” 257 F. 3d at293, and a ge ner i c choi ceo f -l a w p ro v is io n , s ta n d in g a lo n e , is n o t s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e o f

s u c h in te n t, i d. a t 2 8 9 . A s n o ted a t th e o u tse t, P lain tiff s a rg u e th a t R oadw ay has been unde r m i ned byt he Supr eme C our t ’ s i nt er veni ng deci s i on i n H al lSt r eet . A c c o rd in g to P la in tif f s , H al lSt r eet eff ect i vel yover rul ed R oadw ay undert he ci r cumst ance s her e, and now al l ow s r evi ew of 4
an arbi t r at i on aw ar d pur s uantt o anyappl i cabl e l aw , s o l ong as t hatl aw i s notpr eempt ed byt he FA A . Pl ai nt i ffs bas e t hi s ar gum enton t he fol l ow i ng l anguage w hi ch theypl uck f r o m H al lSt r eet : “[t ] he FA A i s nott he onl yw ayi nt o cour tforpar t i es w ant i ng r evi ew of
arbi t r at i on aw ar ds : t heym aycont empl at e enf or cementunders t at e s t atut or yorcomm on l aw , forexampl e, w her e j udi ci al r evi ew of di ffe r ents cope i s ar guabl e. ” H al lSt r eet , 128 S. C t . at1406. A ccor di ng t o Pl ai nt i ffs , t hes e fe w s ent ence s under m i ne the contr actual i nt ent fr amew or k el uci dat ed i n R oadw ay , and us heri n a new r egi m e i n w hi ch a pl ai nt i ff mayIn their Reply brief, Plaintiffs c hang e their a rgument substantially , and argue that 5 Roadwayis inapplicable he re, not be causeof Hall Street , but beca use our de cision in Roadway concerned preemption, rather than c ontrac t construction. It is, of course, ina ppropriateto raise a

n argument for the f

irst time in a Reply

brief. Moreover , the argument is belied by our cle ar asser tion in Roadwaythat the question before us wa s “not one of c hoice- of-law or pre emption” but “simply

a matter of contra ct construc tion.” 257 F.3d at 294. 5 sel ect anycause o f act i on , so l on g as i ti s not pr eem pted byt he F A A . P l ai nti ffs i nsi st that, af ter H al lSt r eet , the es s ent i al i nqui r yi n det er m i ni ng t he appl i cabl e l aw i n s i tuat i ons s uch as t hes e i s nott he par t i es ’ i nt entbefor ehand a s expr es s ed i n t he arbi t r at i on a g re e m e n t. R a th e r, itis th e p lain tiff ’s s u b se q u e n t in ten t as se t f o rth in th e a c tio n to v a c a te an arbi t r at i on aw ar d. B eca us e Pl ai nt i ffs onl yas s er tcl ai m s undert he D U A A , t heyar gue t hatt he di s t r i ctcour ter r ed i n r el y i ng on t i m e l i m i t at i ons es t abl i s hed i n t he FA A . T he
a rg u m e n t is m e ri tle s s . T h e f e w se n ten c e s c ited b yP lain tiff s m e re lyre itera te th e lo n g -sta n d in g ru le th a t, undercer t ai n ci r cumst ance s , par t i es m aychoos e t o opt - outof t he FA A . T hi s l anguage d o e s n o t, ho w e v e r, ch a n g e th e f u n d a m e n tal m e c h a n ism th ro u g h w h ich p a rties a c tu a lly expr es s t hatchoi ce. T heys t i l l m us texpr es s i tbefor ehand i n t he appl i cabl e pr ovi s i ons of t hei rarbi t r at i on agr eement . I n R oadw ay , w e hel d t hata gene r i c choi ce- of- l aw pr ovi s i on is in su f f icie n t to e v id e n c e th e c lea r in ten t n e c e ss a ryto o p t o u t o f th e F A A ’s d e f

a u lt
r egi m e. H

al lSt r eet d o e s n o t a lte r t h a t h o ld in g . 5 I V. F o r th e re a so n s s tate d a b o v e , w e w ill a f f irm th e d e c isio n o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.