2004 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 7-22-2004 

# P i l le r v . V ale n t ino 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 . 00-1146

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

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 sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 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 sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . 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
" P i l le r v . V ale n t ino " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 473. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/473NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

___________ No. 00-1146

___________ SHAINDE PILLER Appellant

v. JOHN J . V ALENTINO; MARY CLARE VA LENTINO; 317 7- 79 R ICH MOND ST; 303 6 RI CHMOND STRE ET CORP ., t/a JV DIS TRI BUTI NG

___________ On A ppeal from the Un ited States District Co urt for the Easte rn D istrict of P enns ylvania (D.C. Civi l No. 99-mc-00040) Distric t Judg e: Th e H ono rable S tewa rt Da lzell

___________ Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

June 21, 2004 Be for e: N YG AA RD , M cK EE , and CH ER TO FF , Circu it Judges .

(Fil ed: July 22, 2004)

___________2 OPINI ON OF THE COURT

___________ NY GA AR D, Circu it Judge . Ap pellan t Sha inde P iller app eals fro m an orde r gran ting the appe llees’ m otion to con fi rm t heir arb it ra ti on awar d. We wil l a ffirm. I. Various i ndividual s and corpor ations , inc luding Pi ller and referred to here in as t he Kent parti es, had bus iness r elat ionships with John J . and Mary Cl aire Val entino, 3177/79 Richmond Corp., and 3036 Ri chmond Street Corp., t /a JV Distributing. The Kent parties purchased electronics goods from JV. Through a n unwritten agreement, the parti es also formed 1832 MacAurthur Corporat ion. A dispute bet

ween the Kent parties and JV occurred when JV allege d that t he Kent parties re fuse d to p ay for ap prox imate ly $1,000 ,000 in goo ds (the acco unts re ceiva ble clai ms), and t

he parti es disa greed about capit al contribut ions t o 1832 Corp. (t he 1832 clai ms). JV fi led sui t, and the parties agr eed to ar bitr ate the disput e before t he American Arbitration Associati on. After eighteen months of arbitrati on, the arbitrator awarded JV $878,122.23 on t

he accounts recei vable cl aims and $203, 479.27 on the 1832 clai ms, and additi onally

ordered t

hat 1832 Corp. be liqui dated. JV filed an a ction to confirm the arbit rati on award and the Kent par ties moved to vacate the award. After the parti es agreed the awards were flawed and should be vacat ed, the Distr ict Court issued s uch an3

order. The matter was r emanded to the AAA and, after consider ation of

new submissions by t he parti es and recons ideration of the materi als pr eviously befor e him, t he arbit rator entered a fin al award in favor o f JV tha t was sim ilar to the initial award. Shain de Piller, the r em ainin g K ent p arty, file d an actio n in the D istrict Co urt to vac ate th e fin al aw ard . The Court grant ed JV’s cros s-pet iti on to confi rm the fi nal award and t his appeal followed. II. Th e co urts h ave ver y limite d di scre tion to d istur b an arb itratio n aw ard . See , e.g., Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen v. Cross Bros. Meat Packers, Inc. , 518 F.2d 111 3, 112 1 (3d Cir. 19 75) (n oting th at our s cope of rev iew u nder the F AA is “narro w in the ex treme ”); see also 9 U.S.C. §§ 9-10. Section 10( a) of the FAA limits t he grounds on which a cour t may va cate an ar

bitr ation award to: ( 1) awards proc ured by corrupt ion, fraud, or undue means ; (2) cases where t here was evide nt partiality or corruption by t

he arbitrat or(s); ( 3) cases where the arbitrator (s) acted with misconduct so as to prejudice a party ; or (4) cases where the arbit rator(s) exce eded or imp erfec tly exe cute d th eir p ow ers s uch that a fina l and definite aw ard wa s no t ma de. 9 U.S .C. § 10(a ). We have held th at

an arbit rator ’s award must be upheld if the interpret ationcan in any r ationa l way be de rived from the agreement, viewed in the light of its languag e, its context, and any other i ndicia of the parties’ intentio n; on lywhere there is a manifest disre gard of the agree men t, total ly

unsupporte d by pr incipl es of co ntr act4 constr uctiona nd t he law of the sho p, may a review ing court distu rb th e aw ard . U.S. Ste el & Carnegi e Pension Fund v. McSkimming , 759 F.2d 269, 270 -71 (3d C ir. 1985) (interna l quotations om itted). III. On appeal, Pi ller

makes two arguments attac king the arbit rator ’s award. First , she argues t hat the arbit

rator exceeded his authori ty

by devi ating f

rom the parties’ agreement to b e bo und by the rep ort o f the acc oun ting firm Ta it, W eller & Ba ker (“T W B” ). Arbitr ators derive t

heir aut horit y fr om the arbi tration agree ment, and where ac tion is t aken in exces s of thi s grant ed authority , a court may vacat e the award. We have used a two-ste p process to determi ne whether an ar bitr ator exc eeded his powers : (1) the form of the award must be rati onally derived e ither

from the agr eement between t he parti es or from the parties ’ submiss ion to t he arbit rator s, and ( 2) the t erms of the award must not be “completely i rrat ional. ” Mut. Fire, Marine & Inland Ins. Co. v. Norad Reins urance Co. , 868 F.2 d 52 , 56 ( 3d C ir. 19 89) . Here, the arb itrator did not excee d his authority because the terms of the aw ard were not irrationaland it was derived from the agreement of the parties and the parties’ submissi ons. The parties had agr eed to re tain TWB to report on the account s recei vables and the 1832 cl aims, and these r eports were admitt ed into e vidence and cons idered by the arbit rator . In addi tion, however, the arbit rator appropri atel y cons idered t he testimony of a5

number of indi viduals and extensive documentary evidence. In doing so, the arbitrat or did not exceed his powers. Piller’ s second argument is that the arbit rator’s award should be vacated because the arbitrat or acte d in manifes t dis regard of t he law and facts . We have held t hat in order for a cou rt to vacate an arb itration award, there m ust be abso lutely nothing in the record to ju stify th e arb itrato r’s d ecis ion . See News A m. Publ’ns, Inc. v. Newark , 918 F.2d 21, 24 (3d Cir. 1990). “As long as the arbitrat or has argu ably constr ued or appli ed the contrac t, t

he award must be enfor ced.” Id . at 24 (emphasis in ori ginal) (citing United Paperworkers Int ’l Union v. Misco , 484 U .S. 29, 38 (198 7)). As d iscusse d abo ve, the arbitrato r’s dec ision w as ba sed o n a co nside ration o f all the evi dence before him. Pill er has i dentif ied no speci fic fact s that the arbitrat or man ifestly disreg arded . Thu s und er ou r high ly defere ntial stan dard of rev iew, w e w ill aff ir m. IV. For the r easons set

forth, we will affi rm the Dist rict Court’s order granting the appell ees’ moti on to confi rm the award.6

_________________________