The Honora ble Her man J
. Weber, Senior United States District J udg e for the S o u t hern * District of Ohio, sitting by desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0094n.06 F iled: F ebruary 6, 2007 No. 06-1578 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
AN GE L A E SSEN MA CH ER, Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,
v. ORKI N EXTERMI

NATI NG C OMPANY, I NCORPORATED, Def endant- Appellee
. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

Be fore : DAUGHT REY and COOK, Circ uit J udg es; and WEBER, District Judge. *
PER CU RI AM . Pl a int if

f A ng e la Es se nma c he r a

pp e a ls the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s re fu sa l to va c a te
an a rb itr a tio n a

wa rd de c ide d in fa

vo r of De fe nd ant Or

kin Exte rm inatin g Com

pa ny (O rk in) on

mos t of he r c la ims . We a ff

ir m.
I n 1997, Essenmac her contra cted with O rkin to e x terminate various pests in he r house. After the Michig an De partment of A g riculture f ound that Orkin h ad m i s ap plied the pesticide F icam D, Or kin of fe re d to pa

y c le anu p c os ts. Es se nma c he r f

ile d th is s uit

in A ugus t 20 00 , a lle g ingthat O rk in had als o neg lig e ntl y

a pp lie d o the r c he mic a ls a

nd that O rk in h a d f

a ile d to wa

rn he r a bo ut p os sib leNo. 06-1578

Essenmac her v. O rkin Exterm inating

Whil e Essenma cher

primarily argues t hat t he ar

bitrators manife stly

disreg arde d the law, she 1 also sug g ests that they

(and the district court) may have be en biase d. For

a cour t to vacate the awa

rd for pa rtiali ty , see 9 U .S. C. § 10 (a )( 2) , E sse nma c he r m us t se t f or th “ sp e c if ic fa c ts that in dic a te improper motives on the pa rt of th e arb i t ra t o r.” Andersons, Inc . v. Horton Farms, Inc

. , 166 F.3d 308, 329 (6th Cir. 1998). She has fa iled to do so. - 2 - dang ers. The district court g rante d Orkin’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant t o t h e original contra ct for se rvice s and orde red Orkin to pay the costs of arbitration. A pane l of three arbitrators unanimously

found t hat Orkin had neglig ently applied Ficam D, found i n favor of Orkin on a ll other claims, and a

war ded Es s en m ache r $35,554 in damag es. Afte r the district cour t denied Essenmac her’ s motion t o vacate the decision and to a war d her litigation costs, she timely appea led.
Courts have a

limit ed role when r eviewingarbitration awar ds, setting a side awa rds for substantive rea sons only

if the ar bitrators manife stly disreg arde d the law, “ a ver y narr ow standar d of revie w.” Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Jaros , 7 0 F .3 d 4 18 , 4 21 (6 th C ir . 1 99 5) ; see als o Dawahare v. Spe ncer , 210 F.3d 666, 669 (6th Cir. 2000)
. Arbitrator s manifestly disreg ard the law o nly if the re le va

nt l aw i s c learly defi ned and the y c on sc iou sly

c ho os e no t to a

pp ly it. Da wah ar e , 210 F.3d at 669. Essenmac her a rgues that these a

rbitrators manif

estly disreg arde d the law by (1) not findingfor he r on two of he r negl ige nce c laims, (2) finding that the Fe dera l I nsecticide , Fung icide and Rodenticide Act (FI FRA), 7 U .S.C. §§ 136-136g, pr eempted he r fa ilureto-war n claims, and (3) not awar ding he r taxable costs. We addre ss eac h claim in turn. 1 First, Essenma cher

argues that t he arbitrators dis reg arde d the l aw of neg lige nce be cause the fac tual rec ord compe lled a finding of neglig ence . We “ar e not per mitted to consider the mer its ofNo. 06-1578

Essenmac her v. O rkin Exterm inating

- 3 - an arb i t ra t ion awar d even if the par ties alleg e that the a

war d rests on er

rors of f act . . . .” S

h e lby County He a l t h Care Corp. v. AFSCME , 9 6 7 F. 2 d 1 0 9 1 , 1 0 9 4 (6 t hC i r. 1 9 9 2 ) ( ci t i n g United Paperworkers I

nt’l Union v. Misco, I

nc. , 484 U.S. 29, 36 (1987)) . At the ar bitration, Orkin put on b o t h l ay an d ex p er twi t n es s e s a n d s u b m i t t eda n u mb er

o f d o cu m en t s t o co u n t er E s s en m ac h er 's
c l a i m s . T h e ar

b i t r a t o r s , o f c o u r s e , h a d d i s c r e t i o nt o b e l i e v e an y w i t n e s s ’ s t e s t i m o n y “ i ni t s e n t i r e t y, in pa rt, or not at all.” Da wah ar e , 210 F.3d at 671. The re cord w as more tha n sufficie nt to allow the
arb itr a tor s to re a c h the le g a l con c lus ion s the y did , an d we de c lin e to dis tur b the arb itr a tor s’ fi nd ing s. Second, Essenma cher

argues that the a

rbitrators e rr ed as a matter of law by decidingthat FI FRA pre empted her

failure -to-wa

rn cla ims. W hether

FI FRA pre empts these cla ims is immaterial be c a us e the arb itr a tor s ru le d a g a ins t Es se nma c he r on a ll thr e e of he r fa ilure -t o- wa rn c la ims
. Specifica lly , the pane l he ld that Orkin did not neg lige ntly fail to war

n Essenmac her a

bout any of the products used in he r home, that Or kin did not commit silent fra ud, and that Orkin di d not make any innocent misrepr esentation of a mater ial fac t
. E s s enmac her points to no law that the a rbitrators manifestly

disreg arde d, and we see no ba sis for vac ating the ar bitrators’ de cision. Third, Essenmac her a

rgues that both the ar

bitrators and the district co u rt er red by not
awa rding taxable costs to he r. To the e x tent that Essenmac her a rgues that the a

rbitrators e rre d by not awar ding he r costs, dec lining to aw ar d co s t s was we ll within t he ar bitrators’ a

uthority
. Cf. Nationw ide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hom e Ins. Co. , 4 29 F .3 d 6 40 , 6 51 (6t h Ci r. 2005 ); se e als o Am
. Ar bit ratio n A ss’ n, Com me rc ia l Ar bit ratio n Ru le 50 . H e r a

rgume nt t hat th e dis tr ic t c ourt

e rr e d r e stsNo. 06-1578

Essenmac her v. O rkin Exterm inating

- 4 - on the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s ow n o rd e r c omp e lli ngarb itr a tio n, wh ic h r e qu ir e d th a t O rk in “ pa y a ll the c os ts of arbitration.” The district c ourt clar ified the meaning of this orde r afte r the arbitration, telling the parties that “costs refer

red to the AAA filing fee and t he ar bitrators’ f

ees . . . , not other

litigation expenses.” We see no rea son to second guess the district cour t’s interpre tation of its own order.
F or the fo re g oin g re a so ns , w e a ff ir m th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de nia l of Es se nma c he r’ s mo tio n to
va c a te or mod if y the arb itr a tio n a

wa rd and to a wa rd he r l iti g a tio n e xpe ns e s.