UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

AMWAY GLOBAL,

Case No. 09-12946

Petitioner,

Hon. Gerald E. Rosen

v.

ORRIN WOODWARD, LAURIE WOODWARD,

CHRIS BRADY, TERRI BRADY, TIM MARKS,

and AMY MARKS,

Respondents.

_________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING

CROSS-MOTIONS TO CONFIRM OR VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD

At a session of said Court, held in

the U.S. Courthouse, Detroit, Michigan

on September 30, 2010 

PRESENT: Honorable Gerald E. Rosen

Chief Judge, United States District Court

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Amway Global commenced this action on July 24, 2009, seeking

confirmation of an interim arbitration award entered earlier that same day by arbitrator

Linda R. Singer. In this interim award, as subsequently restated in an August 7, 2009

final award, the arbitrator determined (i) that Respondents Orrin and Laurie Woodward

were liable to Petitioner in the amount of $12,736,659, (ii) that Respondents Chris and

Terri Brady were liable to Petitioner in the amount of $9,578,756, and (iii) that
2

Respondents Tim and Amy Marks were liable to Petitioner in the amount of $3,533,230. 

Petitioner has moved for an order confirming this award under § 9 of the Federal

Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 9, and Respondents, in turn, have moved to vacate

the arbitrator’s award under § 10 of the FAA, 9 U.S.C. § 10, as well as on the threshold

ground that the parties’ disputes were not arbitrable. This Court’s subject matter

jurisdiction rests upon the diverse citizenship of the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

The parties’ cross-motions to confirm or vacate the arbitrator’s award have been

fully (and extensively) briefed. Having reviewed the parties’ lengthy written submissions

and accompanying (and voluminous) exhibits, and having gained considerable familiarity

with the issues raised in the present motions by virtue of having presided over an earlier

suit involving the same parties, see Quixtar Inc. v. Brady, No. 08-14346, 2008 WL

5386774 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 17, 2008), the Court finds that the relevant allegations, facts,

and legal arguments are adequately presented in the parties’ briefs and supporting

materials, and that oral argument would not aid the decisional process. Accordingly, the

Court will decide the parties’ cross-motions “on the briefs.” See Local Rule 7.1(f)(2),

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan. This opinion sets forth the Court’s

rulings on these motions.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The Parties

Petitioner Amway Global is a Virginia corporation with its headquarters in Ada,

Michigan. Petitioner sells health and beauty products, and is the successor in interest to
1

Further confirmation of the extent and scope of the parties’ various court challenges can

be found in the 145-page brief that Respondents initially submitted in support of their motion to

vacate the arbitrator’s award. Roughly twenty (20) pages of this brief were devoted to

recounting the various lawsuits thought to be relevant here. By order dated November 24, 2009,

3

Quixtar Inc. (the petitioner in the prior suit before this court) and the original Amway

Corporation. Petitioner sells its products through a network of hundreds of thousands of

individuals referred to as Independent Business Owners (“IBOs”). Respondents Orrin

and Laurie Woodward, Chris and Terri Brady, and Tim and Amy Marks are Florida

residents and former Amway IBOs.

B. The Underlying Arbitration Proceedings

In August of 2007, Petitioner terminated each of the Respondents as IBOs and

commenced arbitration proceedings against them, along with several other former IBOs. 

In this arbitration, Petitioner asserted breach of contract and tortious interference claims

against Respondents, arising from their alleged violation of contractual prohibitions

against soliciting other IBOs to compete against Petitioner.

These arbitration proceedings were interrupted and delayed by a number of trips to

courts across the country. As this Court observed in an earlier suit involving Petitioner,

Respondents, and other former Amway IBOs, “[i]t would scarcely be possible to

recount” all of the disputes between Petitioner and its IBOs that have ended up in court,

but it “[s]uffice[s] . . . to say that these parties have proven to be extremely litigious.” 

Quixtar, 2008 WL 5386774, at *1; see also id. at *2-*3 (summarizing this procedural

history).1

 Indeed, the prior suit before this Court was part of this series of detours from
the Court denied Respondents’ request for leave to file this 145-page brief, and instead limited

them to a 50-page brief.

2

The arbitrator confirmed in this interim award that the claims against all other parties

had been settled or dismissed.

4

the arbitration proceedings, with Petitioner seeking an order compelling Respondents to

return to arbitration, and Respondents requesting, among other relief, that the Court

abstain in favor of ongoing Georgia state court proceedings. The Court concluded that

Respondents were seeking, in essence, interlocutory review of an arbitrator’s rulings in

an ongoing arbitration proceeding, and it held that the arbitration should proceed to its

conclusion without further judicial intervention. See id. at *14-*15. The Sixth Circuit

affirmed this ruling on appeal. See Quixtar, Inc. v. Brady, No. 08-2629, 328 F. App’x

317 (6th Cir. Apr. 30, 2009).

Upon the parties’ return to arbitration, Petitioner settled its claims against certain

of its former IBOs, and motion practice led to the narrowing of Petitioner’s claims

against Respondents. Following a hearing spanning from May 5, 2009 to June 4, 2009,

the arbitrator issued an interim award on July 24, 2009, holding Respondents Orrin and

Laurie Woodward liable to Petitioner in the amount of $12,736,659, holding

Respondents Chris and Terri Brady liable to Petitioner in the amount of $9,578,756, and

holding Respondents Tim and Amy Marks liable to Petitioner in the amount of

$3,533,230. (See Petitioner’s Motion, Ex. 1-A, Interim Award at 6.)2

 The arbitrator then

restated these awards in an August 7, 2009 final award. (See Petitioner’s Motion, Ex. 1,
5

Final Award.) Petitioner now requests that this award be confirmed, while Respondents

seek to vacate the award on a number of grounds.

III. ANALYSIS

A. There Is No Basis for Disturbing the Arbitrator’s Rulings on Arbitrability

Under the Deferential Standard That Governs This Court’s Review.

Apart from deciding Petitioner’s substantive claims against Respondents, the

arbitrator also was called upon to rule on a number of threshold questions of arbitrability. 

In particular, in a pair of motions filed on February 22, 2008, Respondents requested that

the arbitrator dismiss the arbitration proceeding, arguing (i) that the agreement giving rise

to the arbitration was unenforceable on a number of grounds, and (ii) that, even if this

agreement might be enforceable in some instances, the specific claims asserted by

Petitioner against Respondents were not subject to arbitration. Following a hearing, the

arbitrator denied these motions in an April 1, 2008 order.

In their pending motion to vacate the arbitrator’s award, Respondents seek to

reassert these arbitrability challenges that they advanced in the course of the arbitration

proceedings. As the parties recognize, the viability of these challenges turns, to a

considerable extent, upon the standard of review that the Court elects to apply in

resolving these threshold questions of arbitrability. Accordingly, the Court turns first to

this question.
6

1. The Arbitrator’s Rulings on Arbitrability Are Subject to Deferential

Review.

In the earlier case brought by Petitioner against Respondents and other former

Amway IBOs, the Court and the parties extensively addressed the question whether

Respondents had waived their opportunity for independent judicial review of the question

of arbitrability by submitting this matter for determination by the arbitrator. See Quixtar,

2008 WL 5386774, at *9-*13. The principal focus of this discussion was the Sixth

Circuit’s decision in Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v. Utility Workers Union, Local

270, 440 F.3d 809, 813 (6th Cir. 2006), in which the court held that plaintiff Cleveland

Electric had waived its opportunity for independent judicial review of the issue of

arbitrability by “submitt[ing] the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator for his

determination” without any indication that it “wanted to reserve the question of

arbitrability for the court.”

Upon considering the ruling in Cleveland Electric in light of the arbitrability

challenges Respondents had submitted for the arbitrator’s determination, this Court

opined that “it would appear that Respondents did not sufficiently preserve their

opportunity to have a court decide the question of arbitrability.” Quixtar, 2008 WL

5386774, at *11. The Court explained:

In their motion to dismiss filed with the arbitrator, Respondents did not

separately and discretely “argue that the arbitrator had no authority to

decide the issue of arbitrability.” Cleveland Electric, 440 F.3d at 811. To

the contrary, in the brief in support of their motion to dismiss, Respondents

cited [Petitioner’s] own Rules of Conduct as conferring upon the arbitrator
7

the authority to “resolve disputes about the interpretation and applicability

of these Rules,” and they argued that the arbitrator was obliged to use this

authority to make “[a]n early determination of the[] pivotal legal issues”

that, in their view, would lead to “a dismissal of all claims.” ([Case No. 08-

14346, Dkt. No. 40], Ex. E, Respondents’ Br. in Support of Motion to

Dismiss at 1 (quoting Quixtar Rule of Conduct 11.5.4).) Among the

“pivotal legal issues” identified in Respondents’ motion was their claim

that their disputes with [Petitioner] were not arbitrable because the

arbitration provisions in [Petitioner’s] Rules of Conduct were

“unenforceable as a matter of law.” (Id.) Just as in Cleveland Electric,

then, it appears that Respondents “submitted the issue of arbitrability to the

arbitrator for h[er] consideration,” without separately “argu[ing] that the

arbitrator had no authority to decide the issue of arbitrability.” Cleveland

Electric, 440 F.3d at 811. The Sixth Circuit found a waiver under these

circumstances, and nothing in Respondents’ submission to the arbitrator

appears to warrant a different result here.

Quixtar, 2008 WL 5386774, at *11.

Nonetheless, this Court recognized that “Cleveland Electric is distinguishable in at

least one respect”:

In that case, the court observed that “Cleveland Electric raised the issue of

who should decide arbitrability for the first time in its brief to the district

court,” a brief filed after the arbitration had concluded. Cleveland Electric,

440 F.3d at 812. Here, in contrast, at least some of the Respondents

presented the question of arbitrability to a court before the JAMS

Arbitration had begun, seeking a declaration in [a suit brought in a

California federal district court] that [Petitioner’s] agreements with its IBOs

— including their arbitration provisions — were unlawful and

unenforceable. As the Sixth Circuit has explained, a party retains its right

to a judicial resolution of the question of arbitrability if it “reserv[es] the

question for initial determination by the court,” typically in “an action to

compel or enjoin arbitration.” Vic Wertz Distributing Co. v. Teamsters

Local 1038, 898 F.2d 1136, 1140 (6th Cir. 1990).

The difficulty here, however, is that Respondents — or, more

accurately, some of them — sought but did not obtain an “initial

determination by the court” as to the arbitrability of their dispute with
8

Quixtar. The federal district court in California elected to abstain, and thus

did not address Respondents’ challenge to arbitrability on the merits. 

Following this ruling, Respondents did not pursue the matter any further in

court, but instead submitted their challenge to arbitrability for the arbitrator

to decide. While this perhaps could be more accurately characterized as an

“abandonment” of Respondents’ opportunity to have a court decide the

issue of arbitrability, and not a “waiver,” the legal effect surely is precisely

the same, and Respondents have not cited any authority that might suggest

otherwise.

Quixtar, 2008 WL 5386774, at *12. Likewise, in its decision on appeal from this Court’s

ruling, the Sixth Circuit concurred in this Court’s conclusion that “Respondents

abandoned their efforts to secure a judicial determination of arbitrability and submitted

this issue to the arbitrator.” Quixtar, 328 F. App’x at 322 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted).

Yet, while this earlier discussion is instructive here, this Court expressly

acknowledged that it was dicta. Specifically, the Court observed that “the issue of waiver

[wa]s not yet ripe for decision” while the parties remained in arbitration, and emphasized

that it “need not (and does not) decide what issues have been preserved for judicial

review at the conclusion of the JAMS Arbitration, nor what standards should govern any

such review.” Quixtar, 2008 WL 5386774, at *13 n.21. Similarly, the Sixth Circuit

recognized that “[b]ecause the District Court declined to make any determination on the

issue of waiver, there is no decision for this Court to review.” Quixtar, 328 F. App’x at

322. Accordingly, in the absence of any prior “law of the case” on this issue, the Court

must now determine the standard that governs its review of the arbitrator’s decisions on
9

matters of arbitrability.

With this renewed opportunity to review the record and consider the pertinent case

law, the Court no longer views the issues of waiver and abandonment as controlling here. 

Rather, the Court views the “standard of review” question as governed by the more

general principles of contract law addressed by the Supreme Court in First Options of

Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 115 S. Ct. 1920 (1995). This Court extensively

surveyed the First Options decision in the earlier suit brought by Petitioner, and this

discussion bears repeating here:

In [First Options], the Court considered “how a district court should review

an arbitrator’s decision that the parties agreed to arbitrate a dispute,” and

reasoned that this question, in turn, depended upon whether the parties

“agree[d] to submit the arbitrability question itself to arbitration.” First

Options, 514 U.S. at 940, 943, 115 S. Ct. at 1922-23. “If so, then the

court’s standard for reviewing the arbitrator’s decision about [arbitrability]

should not differ from the [deferential] standard courts apply when they

review any other matter that parties have agreed to arbitrate.” 514 U.S. at

943, 115 S. Ct. at 1923. “If, on the other hand, the parties did not agree to

submit the arbitrability question itself to arbitration, then the court should

decide that question just as it would decide any other question that the

parties did not submit to arbitration, namely, independently.” 514 U.S. at

943, 115 S. Ct. at 1924. The Court further explained that “[w]hen deciding

whether the parties agreed to arbitrate a certain matter (including

arbitrability), courts generally . . . should apply ordinary state-law principles

that govern the formation of contracts.” 514 U.S. at 944, 115 S. Ct. at 1924. 

The Court then added a “qualification” to this general principle,

emphasizing that “[c]ourts should not assume that the parties agreed to

arbitrate arbitrability unless there is clear and unmistakable evidence that

they did so.” 514 U.S. at 944, 115 S. Ct. at 1924.

Applying these principles to the case before it, the Court held that

petitioner First Options had failed to show that the respondents, Manuel and

Carol Kaplan, had “clearly agreed to have the arbitrators decide (i.e., to

arbitrate) the question of arbitrability.” 514 U.S. at 946, 115 S. Ct. at 1925. 
3

This Rule includes an exception for debt claims in amounts less than $10,000, whether

asserted “by the IBO or the Corporation,” which may be pursued “in any court of competent

jurisdiction.” (Id.) This exception plainly does not apply here. Apart from this exception, the

parties agreed “[i]n all other cases” to “try to resolve the dispute as provided for under these

Rules.” (Id.) 

10

In so ruling, the Court found it insufficient that the Kaplans had filed a

written memorandum with the arbitrators objecting to their jurisdiction,

explaining that “merely arguing the arbitrability issue to an arbitrator does

not indicate a clear willingness to arbitrate that issue, i.e., a willingness to

be effectively bound by the arbitrator’s decision on that point.” 514 U.S. at

946, 115 S. Ct. at 1925. Rather, in light of the Kaplans’ “forceful[]

object[ions] to the arbitrators deciding their dispute with First Options,” the

Court reasoned that it was far more plausible to conclude “that they did not

want the arbitrators to have binding authority over them.” 514 U.S. at 946,

115 S. Ct. at 1925. Accordingly, because the Kaplans “did not clearly agree

to submit the question of arbitrability to arbitration,” the Court held that the

arbitrators’ determination of this question “was subject to independent

review by the courts.” 514 U.S. at 947, 115 S. Ct. at 1925-26.

Quixtar, 2008 WL 5386774, at *10.

To resolve the “standard of review” question here, then, the Court must begin with

the terms of the parties’ agreement, inquiring whether the parties agreed to submit the

issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator or instead intended to reserve this matter for the

courts. Under the Rules of Conduct that governed the relationship between Petitioner and

the Respondent IBOs, the parties were directed to use a set of “Dispute Resolution

Procedures” to “address any issues that relate to” an IBO’s business. (Petitioner’s

Motion, Ex. 2, Rules of Conduct (“ROC”) Rule 11.)3

 As part of this dispute resolution

process, if the parties were unable to resolve a dispute within 90 days or after the

exhaustion of a “Conciliation Process,” they were “required to submit any remaining

claim(s) arising out of or relating to [an] IB, the IBO Plan, or the Rules of Conduct . . . to
11

binding arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration Rules” set forth in the Rules of

Conduct. (ROC Rule 11.5.) Under Rule 11.5, the resulting arbitrator’s award was

deemed “final and binding” and enforceable “by any court of competent jurisdiction,”

with the “United States Arbitration Act” (presumably the FAA) “govern[ing] the

interpretation [and] enforcement” of the parties’ arbitration agreement. (Id.)

As noted, the Rules of Conduct incorporate a set of “Arbitration Rules” that

govern arbitration proceedings conducted as part of the overall “Dispute Resolution

Process.” One of these “Arbitration Rules” specifically addresses the arbitrator’s

authority to decide questions of arbitrability:

11.5.4. Interpretation of Rules and Jurisdictional Challenges

Once appointed, the Arbitrator will resolve disputes about the

interpretation and applicability of these Rules, including disputes relating to

the duties of the Arbitrator and the conduct of the Arbitration Hearing. The

resolution of the issue by the Arbitrator is final.

Jurisdictional and arbitrability disputes, including disputes over the

existence, validity, interpretation, or scope of the agreement under which

Arbitration is sought, may be submitted to and ruled on by the Arbitrator,

unless the relevant law requires that a court make such determinations. The

Arbitrator has the authority to determine jurisdiction and arbitrability prior

to conducting a full hearing on the merits.

(ROC Rule 11.5.4.)

Under Rule 11.5.4, then, the arbitrator is expressly vested with the authority to

decide “[j]urisdictional and arbitrability disputes, including disputes over the existence,

validity, interpretation, or scope of the agreement under which Arbitration is sought.” 

Each of the threshold challenges asserted in Respondents’ motion in this case — namely,
12

that the agreement to arbitrate does not reach disputes between Petitioner and former

IBOs, and that this agreement is unenforceable as illusory and unconscionable, (see

Respondents’ Motion, Br. in Support at 7-30) — plainly qualifies as a “jurisdictional” or

“arbitrability” dispute within the meaning of Rule 11.5.4. Under comparable

circumstances, where parties have included language in their arbitration agreement

authorizing the arbitrator to decide issues of arbitrability, the courts have held that such a

provision serves as the requisite “clear and unmistakable evidence” under First Options

that the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability. See, e.g., Qualcomm Inc. v. Nokia Corp.,

466 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Terminix International Co. v. Palmer Ranch

Limited Partnership, 432 F.3d 1327, 1332 (11th Cir. 2005); Contec Corp. v. Remote

Solution Co., 398 F.3d 205, 208 (2d Cir. 2005); FSC Securities Corp. v. Freel, 14 F.3d

1310, 1312-13 (8th Cir. 1994); Apollo Computer, Inc. v. Berg, 886 F.2d 469, 473 (1st Cir.

1989); Bishop v. Gosiger, Inc., 692 F. Supp.2d 762, 769 (E.D. Mich. 2010).

In an effort to avoid this result, Respondents point to the seemingly discretionary

language of Rule 11.5.4, under which jurisdictional and arbitrability disputes “may be

submitted to and ruled on by the Arbitrator.” In Respondents’ view, the parties remain

free under this Rule to elect not to submit a jurisdictional or arbitrability dispute to the

arbitrator. Yet, this discretionary language does not necessarily distinguish the agreement

here from the arbitration agreements in the above-cited cases. Rather, the rulings in these

cases rested upon the fact that the parties had authorized the arbitrator to resolve disputes

over arbitrability, and not just substantive matters. In Contec, 398 F.3d at 208, for
4

Although it is difficult to say for certain, given the veritable avalanche of papers

submitted by the parties, it does not appear that this latter motion has been filed as an exhibit in

13

example, the Second Circuit explained that where “parties explicitly incorporate rules that

empower an arbitrator to decide issues of arbitrability, the incorporation serves as clear

and unmistakable evidence of the parties’ intent to delegate such issues to an arbitrator.” 

Likewise, in this case, the parties surely empowered the arbitrator to hear and resolve

“[j]urisdictional and arbitrability disputes,” and this conclusion does not hinge upon the

use of the word “may” or “must” — either word would equally confer the authority to

decide such disputes.

In any event, if the language of Rule 11.5.4 alone does not supply a sufficiently

clear statement of the parties’ intent to authorize the arbitrator to decide questions of

jurisdiction and arbitrability, Respondents have removed all doubt on this point by acting

in accordance with this stated intent. In particular, Respondents filed a pair of motions in

the arbitration proceedings in which they raised each of the jurisdictional and arbitrability

challenges they seek to pursue before this Court. In the first of these motions,

Respondents argued that the arbitration provisions in the Rules of Conduct were

unenforceable for lack of mutuality of obligation and as procedurally and substantively

unconscionable. (See Respondents’ Motion, Ex. 36.) In their second motion,

Respondents contended that Petitioner’s claims in arbitration rested upon contractual

provisions in the Rules of Conduct that were either unenforceable or did not give rise to

legal obligations owed by Respondents. (See Case No. 08-14346, Dkt. No. 40, Ex. E.)4
this case. Nonetheless, it was filed with the Court in the prior suit brought by Petitioner, Case

No. 08-14346, and thus is available on the docket in that case.

14

As this Court observed in the earlier litigation between Petitioner and

Respondents, these motions did not contest the arbitrator’s authority to decide

Respondents’ threshold challenges to the arbitrator’s jurisdiction and to arbitrability. See

Quixtar, 2008 WL 5386774, at *11. To the contrary, and as this Court previously

recognized, Respondents expressly cited Rule 11.5.4 as imposing upon the arbitrator the

affirmative obligation to resolve these threshold matters. See Quixtar, 2008 WL

5386774, at *11 (citing Case No. 08-14346, Dkt. No. 40, Ex. E, Respondents’ Br. in

Support of Motion to Dismiss at 1). Indeed, a party seemingly cannot invite an arbitrator

to dismiss an arbitration proceeding on jurisdictional or arbitrability grounds without

acknowledging, at least implicitly, that the arbitrator has the authority to decide such

questions. Here, this recognition was explicit in Respondents’ motions, and confirmed

what was clear from Rule 11.5.4 itself — namely, that the parties had empowered the

arbitrator to rule upon “[j]urisdictional and arbitrability disputes.”

Under this record, the Court does not view the “standard of review” question as

turning upon considerations of waiver or abandonment. Nor does the Court find it

necessary to decide whether Respondents exhausted (or were required to exhaust) all

possible avenues of judicial recourse before they presented their jurisdictional and

arbitrability disputes to the arbitrator. Rather, the Court instead views Respondents’

actions during the arbitration — and, in particular, their submission of motions
15

challenging the arbitrator’s jurisdiction and the arbitrability of Petitioner’s claims — as

both an acknowledgment and an affirmative exercise of the parties’ contractual right to

present questions of jurisdiction and arbitrability for determination by the arbitrator. 

Having asserted this contractual right, and having secured the requested rulings (albeit not

the desired outcome) on their challenges to jurisdiction and arbitrability, Respondents

cannot now seek independent judicial review of these matters. See PowerAgent Inc. v.

Electronic Data Systems Corp., 358 F.3d 1187, 1192 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Having

affirmatively urged the arbitrators to decide arbitrability and asserted their authority to do

so, [a party to the arbitration] cannot await the outcome and, after an unfavorable

decision, challenge the authority of the arbitrators to act on that very issue.”); Tristar

Pictures, Inc. v. Director’s Guild of America, Inc., 160 F.3d 537, 540 (9th Cir. 1998)

(reasoning that by submitting an arbitrability challenge to the arbitrator, petitioner Tristar

“by its conduct evinced clearly its intent to allow the arbitrator to decide not only the

merits of the dispute but also the question of arbitrability” (internal quotation marks,

alteration, and citations omitted)).

This conclusion is fully in accord with the Supreme Court’s recognition in First

Options that “arbitration is simply a matter of contract between the parties,” with the

parties free to choose which types of disputes (if any) they wish to resolve through this

means. First Options, 514 U.S. at 943, 115 S. Ct. at 1924. In that case, two of the parties

before the Court, Manuel and Carol Kaplan, “denied that their disagreement with

[petitioner] First Options was arbitrable,” on the ground that they “had not personally
16

signed” the “only . . . document . . . that contained an arbitration clause.” 514 U.S. at

941, 115 S. Ct. at 1922. Although the Kaplans “fil[ed] with the arbitrators a written

memorandum objecting to the arbitrators’ jurisdiction,” the Court found that this did not

“indicate a clear willingness to arbitrate that issue, i.e., a willingness to be effectively

bound by the arbitrator’s decision on that point.” 514 U.S. at 946, 115 S. Ct. at 1925. 

Rather, the Court observed that “insofar as the Kaplans were forcefully objecting to the

arbitrators deciding their dispute with First Options, one naturally would think that they

did not want the arbitrators to have binding authority over them.” 514 U.S. at 946, 115 S.

Ct. at 1925.

First Options shows, then, that a party’s mere submission of an arbitrability

challenge to the arbitrator does not, by itself, demonstrate the requisite “clear and

unmistakable” intent to be bound by the arbitrator’s resolution of this challenge. Here,

however, Respondents’ election to submit issues of jurisdiction and arbitrability to the

arbitrator does not stand alone, but is instead accompanied by contractual language that

both (i) permits the parties to submit these issues to the arbitrator, and (ii) empowers the

arbitrator to decide these issues. There was no such contractual language in First Options

that a court could look to as evidence of the parties’ intent; to the contrary, the Kaplans,

as individuals, were not even parties to any contract containing an arbitration clause. In

light of this crucial distinction, the Court finds ample basis for a different result here.

Finally, the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Rent-a-Center, West, Inc. v.

Jackson, 130 S. Ct. 2772 (2010), lends further support to the conclusion that the
17

arbitrator’s decisions on jurisdiction and arbitrability should be reviewed under a

deferential standard. In that case, the parties’ arbitration agreement included provisions

that broadly called for arbitration of “all past, present or future disputes arising out of

[respondent] Jackson’s employment with [petitioner] Rent-a-Center,” and that conferred

upon the arbitrator the “exclusive authority to resolve any dispute relating to the

enforceability of” the arbitration agreement. Rent-a-Center, 130 S. Ct. at 2777 (internal

quotation marks, alterations, and citations omitted). The Court referred to the latter of

these two provisions as the “delegation provision,” and observed that, under its

precedents, “parties can agree to arbitrate gateway questions of arbitrability, such as

whether the parties have agreed to arbitrate or whether their agreement covers a particular

controversy.” 130 S. Ct. at 2777 (citations omitted). Such “[a]n agreement to arbitrate a

gateway issue is simply an additional, antecedent agreement the party seeking arbitration

asks the federal court to enforce, and the FAA operates on this additional arbitration

agreement just as it does on any other.” 130 S. Ct. at 2777-78.

The Court then discussed the different types of challenges that a party might bring

under § 2 of the FAA, 9 U.S.C. § 2, in order to contest the validity or enforceability of an

agreement to arbitrate:

There are two types of validity challenges under § 2: One type

challenges specifically the validity of the agreement to arbitrate, and the

other challenges the contract as a whole, either on a ground that directly

affects the entire agreement (e.g., the agreement was fraudulently induced),

or on the ground that the illegality of one of the contract’s provisions

renders the whole contract invalid. In a line of cases neither party has asked

us to overrule, we held that only the first type of challenge is relevant to a
18

court’s determination whether the arbitration agreement at issue is

enforceable. That is because § 2 states that a “written provision” “to settle

by arbitration a controversy” is “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable”

without mention of the validity of the contract in which it is contained. 

Thus, a party’s challenge to another provision of the contract, or to the

contract as a whole, does not prevent a court from enforcing a specific

agreement to arbitrate. As a matter of substantive federal arbitration law, an

arbitration provision is severable from the remainder of the contract.

But that agreements to arbitrate are severable does not mean that

they are unassailable. If a party challenges the validity under § 2 of the

precise agreement to arbitrate at issue, the federal court must consider the

challenge before ordering compliance with that agreement under § 4 . . . . 

In some cases the claimed basis of invalidity for the contract as a whole will

be much easier to establish than the same basis as applied only to the

severable agreement to arbitrate. Thus, in an employment contract many

elements of alleged unconscionability applicable to the entire contract

(outrageously low wages, for example) would not affect the agreement to

arbitrate alone. But even where that is not the case . . . we nonetheless

require the basis of challenge to be directed specifically to the agreement to

arbitrate before the court will intervene.

130 S. Ct. at 2778 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Applying these principles to the case before it, the Court observed that respondent

Jackson had “challenged only the validity of the contract as a whole” — that is, the

entirety of the parties’ arbitration agreement — and had not mounted a separate and

distinct challenge to the “delegation provision.” 130 S. Ct. at 2779. In particular,

Jackson contended that the entire arbitration agreement, including its delegation

provision, was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable, but he did not

separately contest petitioner Rent-a-Center’s argument that, under the agreement’s

delegation provision, the arbitrator was to decide Jackson’s threshold challenges to the

enforceability of the agreement. 130 S. Ct. at 2779-80. Because Jackson had not
19

“challenged the delegation provision specifically,” and because it was this provision that

Rent-a-Center was seeking to enforce, the Court held that “we must treat it as valid under

§ 2, and must enforce it under §§ 3 and 4, leaving any challenge to the validity of the

[arbitration agreement] as a whole for the arbitrator.” 130 S. Ct. at 2779.

The ruling in Rent-a-Center provides further confirmation that the arbitrator’s

decisions in this case on matters of jurisdiction and arbitrability must be reviewed under a

deferential standard. As discussed in this Court’s opinion in the earlier suit brought by

Petitioner, and as reiterated above, “Respondents submitted the issue of arbitrability to the

arbitrator for her consideration, without separately arguing that the arbitrator had no

authority to decide the issue of arbitrability.” Quixtar, 2008 WL 5386774, at *11

(internal quotation marks, alteration, and citation omitted). Similarly, in their pending

motion to vacate in the present suit, Respondents have advanced various challenges to the

enforceability of the parties’ arbitration agreement as a whole, as well as the Rules of

Conduct within which this agreement is contained, but they do not separately contest the

enforceability of the specific provision within the Rules of Conduct, Rule 11.5.4, that

empowers the arbitrator to decide jurisdictional and arbitrability disputes. Under Rent-aCenter, then, this “delegation provision” in Rule 11.5.4 is entitled to enforcement under

the FAA, and Respondents’ challenges to the validity of the parties’ arbitration agreement

as a whole were properly left for the arbitrator to decide. This, in turn, triggers

deferential review of the arbitrator’s determinations on those matters that Rule 11.5.4

gave her the power to decide.
20

2. The Arbitrator’s Rulings on Arbitrability Readily Survive Scrutiny

Under the Deferential Standard of Review That Applies to These

Rulings.

Having resolved the threshold issue of the standard of review under which to

review the arbitrator’s decisions on matters of jurisdiction and arbitrability, the Court

turns to the (far easier) question whether the arbitrator’s determinations pass muster under

this standard. An arbitrator’s decision on a matter that the parties have elected to submit

for her determination may be set aside only on the limited grounds set forth in § 10 of the

FAA, 9 U.S.C. § 10. See Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 590,

128 S. Ct. 1396, 1406 (2008); Grain v. Trinity Health, Mercy Health Services Inc., 551

F.3d 374, 378 (6th Cir. 2008). Section 10, in turn, provides that an arbitrator’s decision

may be vacated only under the following circumstances:

(1) where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue

means;

 (2) where there was evident partiality or corruption in the

arbitrators, or either of them;

(3) 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 of any other

misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced; or

(4) 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.
5

Apart from these criteria set forth in § 10, some case law holds that an arbitrator’s

decision may be set aside if the arbitrator “act[s] with manifest disregard for the law.” See, e.g.,

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Home Insurance Co., 429 F.3d 640, 643 (6th Cir. 2005)

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Yet, the Supreme Court has held that §§ 10 and

11 “provide [the] exclusive regime[]” for judicial consideration whether to vacate or modify an

arbitrator’s award. Hall Street, 552 U.S. at 590, 128 S. Ct. at 1406. This has led the Sixth

Circuit to recently observe that Hall Street “casts some doubt on the continuing vitality” of the

“manifest disregard” standard. Grain, 551 F.3d at 380. In another (albeit unpublished) decision,

however, a Sixth Circuit panel elected to “follow . . . well-established precedent . . . and continue

to employ the ‘manifest disregard’ standard.” Coffee Beanery, Ltd. v. WW, L.L.C., No. 07-1830,

300 F. App’x 415, 419 (6th Cir. Nov. 14, 2008). For present purposes, this Court deems it

unnecessary to decide whether Hall Street has supplanted this ground for vacating an arbitrator’s

decision, but instead assumes that this standard remains available for application here.

6

Even in the 145-page brief that Respondents initially sought to file in support of their

motion to vacate, this argument still was deemed worthy of only a footnote, with Respondents

stating in a wholly conclusory fashion that “the arbitrator’s ruling on the arbitrability issues was

flatly contrary to established law.” (Docket #39, Respondents’ 11/6/2009 Br. in Support at 52

n.51.) 

21

9 U.S.C. § 10(a).5 As the Supreme Court has recognized, only in “very unusual

circumstances” will an arbitrator’s decision fail to survive scrutiny under this deferential

standard. First Options, 514 U.S. at 942, 115 S. Ct. at 1923.

In this case, as Petitioner points out, Respondents have utterly failed to “argue or

explain how the Court could vacate the Arbitrator’s ruling on arbitrability” under the

deferential standard that governs the Court’s review of this ruling. (Petitioner’s

12/31/2009 Reply Br. at 12.) Rather, Respondents’ argument on this point is relegated to

a footnote, in which they summarily assert that “the Arbitrator’s rulings on the

arbitrability issues were flatly contrary to clearly established law and to the undisputed

facts,” and “[t]herefore . . . would have to be vacated even under a deferential standard of

review.” (Respondents’ Motion, 12/4/2009 Br. in Support at 7 n.7.)6

 “It is well-
22

established that issues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some

effort at developed argument, are deemed waived.” Dillery v. City of Sandusky, 398 F.3d

562, 569 (6th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Bishop,

supra, 692 F. Supp.2d at 774 (“It is not sufficient for a party to mention a possible

argument in a most skeletal way, leaving the court to put flesh on its bones.” (internal

quotation marks and citations omitted)). This rule is particularly applicable here, where

Respondents are represented by able counsel who have proven quite capable of advancing

a number of arguments backed by a thorough discussion of the case law and citation to

the pertinent record, and where Respondents have been given ample opportunity to

present and develop any desired arguments over the course of a 50-page brief.

Even if this challenge had not been waived, the Court would readily conclude that

the arbitrator’s decisions on questions of arbitrability were not “flatly contrary to clearly

established law” as Respondents contend. Assuming that Respondents mean by this

contention to appeal to the “manifest disregard” standard of review, and assuming that

this standard remains viable in the wake of the Hall Street decision, the Sixth Circuit has

recognized that “manifest disregard of the law is a very narrow standard of review,” and

that “[a] mere error in interpretation or application of the law is insufficient” to disturb an

arbitrator’s ruling. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Jaros, 70 F.3d 418,

421 (6th Cir. 1995). “Rather, the decision must fly in the face of clearly established legal

precedent,” and an arbitrator will not be deemed to have acted in manifest disregard of the

law “unless (1) the applicable legal principle is clearly defined and not subject to
23

reasonable debate; and (2) the arbitrators refused to heed that legal principle.” Merrill

Lynch, 70 F.3d at 421.

Respondents have identified three aspects of the arbitrator’s rulings which, in their

view, were flatly contrary to clearly established law. First, they contend that the parties’

arbitration agreement requires only current IBOs, and not former IBOs, to participate in

arbitration. As support for this proposition, they rely principally upon a district court

ruling that construed the Amway Rules of Conduct as binding only current IBOs to

arbitrate their disputes with Petitioner, and as reaching only those disputes that arise prior

to the termination of an IBO’s relationship with Petitioner. See MonaVie, LLC v. Quixtar

Inc., 2009 WL 3584331, at *5-*6, *8 (D. Utah Oct. 26, 2009). As Petitioner points out,

however, this ruling is in tension with (and does not address) the presumption that a

party’s obligation to arbitrate generally survives the termination of the underlying

contract containing the arbitration provision, at least as to disputes arising out of the

contractual relationship. See Litton Financial Printing Division v. NLRB, 501 U.S. 190,

208, 111 S. Ct. 2215, 2226 (1991) (“We presume as a matter of contract interpretation

that the parties did not intend a pivotal dispute resolution provision to terminate for all

purposes upon the expiration of the agreement.”); Zucker v. After Six, Inc., No. 05-3347,

174 F. App’x 944, 947-48 (6th Cir. Apr. 7, 2006); Bishop, supra, 692 F. Supp.2d at 775;

Lyman v. Greater Boston Radio, Inc., No. 09-14502, 2010 WL 2557831, at *6 (E.D.

Mich. June 21, 2010) (collecting cases). Moreover, the dispute here arguably arose out of

the contractual relationship, as it rests upon allegations that Respondents breached
7

The Court acknowledges that on appeal from this ruling, the Sixth Circuit suggested in a

footnote that this Court had “erred in stating that merely because the court in Morrison . . .

applied a different jurisdiction’s substantive law (that of Texas instead of Michigan), it

necessarily did not decide the precise issue presented in the instant litigation.” Quixtar, 328 F.

App’x at 323 n.4. Interestingly, however, in a more recent published decision, the Sixth Circuit

quoted with approval from this Court’s ruling in Quixtar (and did not mention its own

unpublished decision on appeal from this Court’s ruling), holding that issue preclusion did not

bar the relitigation of a question of insurance coverage decided by a South Carolina state court

under South Carolina law because, while the same insurance policy language was at issue, the

question in the case before the court was “whether such damage is covered under Indiana

insurance law.” Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. Beazer Homes Investments, LLC, 594 F.3d 441,

444-47 (6th Cir. 2010). This published Sixth Circuit decision, then, appears to have adopted the

very same view of the “same issue” prong of the test for issue preclusion as this Court applied in

Quixtar. At a minimum, the arbitrator would not have acted contrary to “clearly established

law” by applying the same issue preclusion analysis employed by this Court in Quixtar and

evidently adopted by the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati Insurance.

24

obligations owed under the Rules of Conduct not to solicit IBOs to a competitor for a

limited time and not to use Petitioner’s trade secrets. Under these circumstances, the

arbitrator’s decision cannot be said to be flatly contrary to clearly established law.

Next, Respondents contend that the arbitrator erred by failing to follow, or give

preclusive effect to, the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in Morrison v. Amway Corp., 517 F.3d 248,

254-57 (5th Cir. 2008), that the arbitration agreement between Petitioner and the plaintiff

distributors in that case was illusory and unenforceable. Yet, as to Respondents’ claim of

issue preclusion, this Court expressed doubt in the prior suit brought by Petitioner that the

ruling in Morrison, decided under Texas law, would be binding on Petitioner under the

standards of Michigan law that govern here. See Quixtar, 2008 WL 5386774, at *5.7

Moreover, it is clear that Morrison would be entitled to issue-preclusive effect only if that

case and this one involve the same or materially indistinguishable facts. See Cincinnati
25

Insurance, 594 F.3d at 445. As Petitioner points out, Michigan Circuit Judge (and now

federal District Judge) Mark A. Goldsmith held that there were “critical distinctions”

between the facts in Morrison and the facts of the case before him, Freeze v. Quixtar,

Inc., No. 07-085295, slip op. at 5 (Mich. Cir. Ct. July 28, 2008) (attached as Exhibit 10 to

Petitioner’s Response to Respondents’ Motion), and these same factual distinctions are

present here — most notably, that in Morrison, 517 F.3d at 256, Petitioner sought “to

enforce an arbitration agreement with respect to a dispute which arose, and concern[ing]

matters which occurred, before” Petitioner introduced an arbitration provision into its

IBO agreements, while the disputes here (and in Freeze) post-date the parties’ entry into

an agreement to arbitrate their disputes. Accordingly, Judge Goldsmith held that the

ruling in Morrison was “neither controlling nor persuasive,” Freeze, slip op. at 6, and the

arbitrator would not have acted in disregard of clearly established law by reaching the

same conclusion in this case.

Finally, Respondents suggest that the arbitrator ruled contrary to clearly

established law by failing to hold that the parties’ arbitration agreement is procedurally

and substantively unconscionable. As Respondents recognize, Michigan law requires that

both forms of unconscionability must be shown in order to declare an arbitration

provision unconscionable. See Lozada v. Dale Baker Oldsmobile, Inc., 91 F. Supp.2d

1087, 1100 (W.D. Mich. 2000). Again, however, Petitioner points to decisions in which

courts have found that its arbitration agreement with its IBOs is not procedurally

unconscionable. See, e.g., McCrone v. Quixtar, Inc., No. 07-2737, slip op. at 9-12 (N.D.
26

Ohio Feb. 21, 2008) (attached as Exhibit 12 to Petitioner’s Response to Respondents’

Motion); U-Can-II v. Setzer, No. 02-2535-CA, slip op. at 15-16 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Apr. 23,

2003) (attached as Exhibit 13 to Petitioner’s Response to Respondents’ Motion). Thus, it

cannot be said that the arbitrator disregarded a clearly established and unified body of law

in rejecting Respondents’ unconscionability challenge to their arbitration agreement with

Petitioner.

B. The Arbitrator’s Rulings on the Merits of Petitioner’s Claims Against

Respondents Survive Scrutiny Under the Applicable, Deferential Standard of

Review.

1. The Standards Governing This Court’s Review of the Arbitrator’s

Rulings.

Respondents acknowledge that this Court’s review of the arbitrator’s decisions on

the merits of Petitioner’s claims against Respondent is governed by a deferential standard. 

In particular, and as stated earlier, the arbitrator’s award may be vacated only on the four

grounds set forth in § 10 of the FAA, 9 U.S.C. § 10, which are listed above and need not

be repeated here. Alternatively, the arbitrator’s award may be modified or corrected on

the following grounds:

(a) Where there was an evident material miscalculation of figures or

an evident material mistake in the description of any person, thing, or

property referred to in the award[;]

(b) Where the arbitrators have awarded upon a matter not submitted

to them, unless it is a matter not affecting the merits of the decision upon

the matter submitted[; or]

(c) Where the award is imperfect in matter of form not affecting the

merits of the controversy.
27

9 U.S.C. § 11.

As the Sixth Circuit has observed, the FAA “expresses a presumption that

arbitration awards will be confirmed,” and judicial review of an arbitrator’s decision “is

very narrow; one of the narrowest standards of judicial review in all of American

jurisprudence.” Nationwide Mutual Insurance, 429 F.3d at 643. Nonetheless, an

arbitrator’s award must be set aside where the arbitrator exceeds her power by “act[ing]

beyond the material terms of the contract from which [she] draw[s] [her] authority, or in

contravention of controlling principles of law.” Electronic Data Systems Corp. v.

Donelson, 473 F.3d 684, 688 (6th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citations

omitted). Similarly, an award must be vacated “if, from an analysis of the transcript of

the arbitration proceeding and the evidence provided to the [arbitrator], absolutely no

rational means c[an] be determined by which the [arbitrator] may have come to [her]

decision.” Fitzgerald v. H & R Block Financial Advisors, Inc., No. 08-10784, 2008 WL

2397636, at *5 (E.D. Mich. June 11, 2008).

In this case, the arbitrator did not give reasons for her award in favor of Petitioner

and against Respondents, explaining that under Rule 11.5.47 of the Rules of Conduct, the

arbitrator may provide a summary of reasons for an award only upon the unanimous

written request of all parties, and that only Petitioner, and not Respondents, gave the

requisite consent. (See Petitioner’s Motion, Ex. 1, Final Award at 2.) “Arbitrators are not

required to explain their decisions,” and “[i]f they choose not to do so, it is all but

impossible to determine whether they acted with manifest disregard for the law.” 
8

As Respondents point out, although the arbitrator here gave no statement of reasons for

her award, it nonetheless is possible to infer at least a portion of the rationale behind the award

from statements in the award itself, and from the arbitrator’s resolution of the parties’ earlier

round of motions for summary disposition. Where this is possible, the Court’s review will be

based on the actual grounds relied upon by the arbitrator in making the challenged award.

28

Dawahare v. Spencer, 210 F.3d 666, 669 (6th Cir. 2000); see also Merrill Lynch, 70 F.3d

at 421 (“Where, as here, the arbitrators decline to explain their resolution of certain

questions of law, a party seeking to have the award set aside faces a tremendous

obstacle.”); Fitzgerald, 2008 WL 2397636, at *4-*5. Under these circumstances, “[i]f a

court can find any line of argument that is legally plausible and supports the award then it

must be confirmed,” and “[o]nly where no judge or group of judges could conceivably

come to the same determination as the arbitrators must the award be set aside.” Merrill

Lynch, 70 F.3d at 421.8

2. Respondents’ Various Challenges to the Arbitrator’s

Determinations on Liability and Damages Do Not Provide a

Basis for Vacating the Arbitrator’s Award.

Broadly speaking, Respondents have mounted three challenges to the arbitrator’s

award. First, they contend that the arbitrator’s award of over $25.8 million was based on

theories of liability and damages that are contrary to clearly established law and

unsupported by the evidentiary record presented to the arbitrator. Next, they argue that

the arbitrator’s imposition of liability upon the Respondent wives — Laurie Woodward,

Terri Brady, and Amy Marks — was the product of a manifest disregard for the law. 

Finally, Respondents assert that Petitioner procured an award in its favor by undue

means, where it purportedly withheld pertinent information that would have enabled
9

As Respondents point out, the relevant definition of “Compete” as set forth in the Rules

of Conduct is “to own, manage, operate, consult for, be employed by, or participate as an

independent distributor in . . . (b) any other enterprise that markets, through independent

distributors, products or services functionally interchangeable with those offered or marketed by

the Corporation.” (ROC Rule 6.5.1.)

29

Respondents to impeach the testimony of Petitioner’s damage expert. The Court

addresses each of these challenges in turn.

(a) Petitioner’s Theories of Liability and Damages

As noted earlier, and as summarized in the arbitrator’s award, Petitioner’s claims

against Respondents rested upon theories of breach of contract, tortious interference, and

misappropriation of trade secrets. In light of the arbitrator’s statements in her award

regarding (i) her rulings on the parties’ motions for summary disposition and (ii) the

conduct giving rise to Respondents’ liability, (see Final Award at 4, 6), it seems fair to

say that the award was based upon the first of these theories — namely, that Respondents

breached the Rules of Conduct by soliciting other IBOs to compete with Petitioner’s

business. More specifically, Respondents evidently were held liable for violating Rule of

Conduct 6.5.5, which prohibits IBOs from “encourag[ing], solicit[ing], or otherwise

attempt[ing] to recruit or persuade any other IBO to Compete with the business of the

Corporation.” (Petitioner’s Response to Respondents’ Motion, Ex. 5, ROC Rule 6.5.5.)9

In challenging the arbitrator’s award, Respondents argue that there was no evidentiary or

legal basis upon which the arbitrator could have found that they breached Rule of

Conduct 6.5.5, and that the arbitrator’s award of damages for any such breach likewise

lacked support in the record or the law.
30

Turning first to Respondents’ challenge to the arbitrator’s finding of breach-ofcontract liability, Respondents do not contest that Petitioner introduced evidence in the

course of the arbitration proceeding of a three-stage strategy employed by Respondents

under which (i) IBOs terminated their relationship with Petitioner, (ii) these former IBOs

remained affiliated among themselves and with Respondents by means of the “TEAM”

organization co-founded by Respondents Orrin Woodward and Chris Brady, and (iii)

Respondents then issued coordinated statements in which they announced that they were

joining Petitioner’s competitor, MonaVie, and listed their reasons for doing so. This

record includes evidence that would readily be characterized as solicitations; most

notably, in a blog entry in which Orrin Woodward announced his decision to join

MonaVie and gave his reasons for doing so, he stated, “If you knew what I knew, you

would do what I do.” (Petitioner’s Response to Respondents’ Motion, Ex. 82.) More

generally, this record is summarized in Petitioner’s brief in response to Respondents’

motion to vacate the arbitrator’s award, (see Petitioner’s Response, Br. at 35-39), and this

summary need not be repeated here, as Respondents do not challenge the general thrust of

this evidence.

Rather, Respondents contend that this record fails in two respects to establish any

actionable solicitation in violation of Rule of Conduct 6.5.5. First, they assert that to the

extent Petitioner relies upon blogs and website postings to establish violations of the nonsolicitation provision in the Rules of Conduct, such passive, untargeted communications

fail as a matter of law to qualify as actionable solicitations. Yet, common sense dictates
31

that it is the substance of the message conveyed, and not the medium through which it is

transmitted, that determines whether a communication qualifies as a solicitation. The

above-quoted statement from Respondent Woodward’s website, for example, is readily

characterized as an invitation for the reader to follow his lead and join Petitioner’s

competitor MonaVie, and this is true despite the diffuse and uncertain readership of the

site.

The courts have confirmed that communications qualifying as solicitations do not

lose this character simply by virtue of being posted on the Internet. See, e.g., Domino’s

Pizza PMC v. Caribbean Rhino, Inc., 453 F. Supp.2d 998, 1000 (E.D. Mich. 2006)

(describing the defendant’s efforts to “solicit[] pizza franchises by telephone and internet

websites to participate in his pizza card program”); United States v. Zein, No. 09-20237,

2009 WL 4884973, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 11, 2009) (determining, for purposes of

calculating a defendant’s sentencing range under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, that the

placement of an advertisement on the Craigslist website “certainly qualifies as a plan to

solicit by the internet”). More to the point, in United States v. Pirello, 255 F.3d 728, 732

(9th Cir. 2001), the Ninth Circuit rejected a defendant’s contention that he had not

engaged in “mass marketing” by posting classified ads on the Internet because “only three

people responded to his advertisement.” In holding that the defendant was properly

subject to a “mass marketing” sentencing enhancement, the court reasoned that his ad

“invited any and all persons to send money for computers that [he] had no intention of

providing,” and that “[t]he relatively low number of individuals actually victimized by
32

[the defendant] before the FBI ended his scheme was the product of chance, and is in no

way indicative of the breadth of [his] solicitation.” Pirello, 255 F.3d at 732. Notably, the

dissent in that case, like Respondents here, argued that the “passive placement” of an

advertisement on an Internet website devoted to that purpose should not qualify as

solicitation because it did not entail “one-on-one importuning” and was not “directed at

specific individuals,” Pirello, 255 F.3d at 733 (Berzon, J, dissenting), but this contention

failed to carry the day. While these cases, of course, arise in different contexts and under

different bodies of law, they nonetheless demonstrate that the arbitrator did not act with

manifest disregard for the law by viewing Respondents’ Internet-based communications

as evidence of actionable solicitation.

On a related note, Petitioner points to the decision in Neways Inc. v. Mower, 543 F.

Supp.2d 1277 (D. Utah 2008), as indicating that solicitation encompasses more than

simply explicit, one-to-one exhortations. In that case, the court found that the defendant

distributors violated a contractual non-solicitation clause through such activities as (i)

providing information to other distributors about the plaintiff’s competitor, (ii) holding a

series of meetings at the home of one of the defendant distributors at which the

competitor’s products and compensation plan were discussed, (iii) sponsoring former

distributors of the plaintiff’s products into the competitor’s network of distributors, and

(iv) giving speeches about the competitor’s mission and products at seminars likely to be

attended by plaintiff’s distributors. Neways, 543 F. Supp.2d at 1286-87. Likewise, in

this case, even assuming the record lacked any overt appeals to enlist with MonaVie, it
33

certainly discloses examples of Respondents providing information to other current and

recently-departed members of Petitioner’s IBO network about the drawbacks of

remaining as Petitioner’s IBOs and the advantages of joining the MonaVie network. To

the extent that Respondents conveyed this information over the Internet, Petitioner points

to evidence that Respondents viewed this as a more efficient and effective means of

communication than, say, telephone calls, (see, e.g., Arb. Hearing Tr. at 1302-03, 3905-

06), as well as evidence of Respondents’ awareness of the sizable audience they could

reach through this means, (see, e.g., Petitioner’s Response to Respondents’ Motion, Ex.

83 (Respondent Woodward’s statement on his blog that there were nearly 100,000

viewings of his announcement that he was joining MonaVie)). Under this record, the

arbitrator permissibly could have found that Respondents engaged in solicitation in

violation of Rule of Conduct 6.5.5.

Next, Respondents seize upon Petitioner’s failure to produce evidence that any

particular IBO received the communications characterized by Petitioner as solicitations,

much less that any specific IBO actually acted and relied upon these communications as

grounds for leaving Petitioner’s distributor network and joining MonaVie. Indeed, as a

matter of brute fact, Respondents note that a large number of TEAM-affiliated IBOs had

already terminated their relationships with Petitioner before Respondents began any of

the activities that Petitioner has identified as impermissible solicitations — namely,

Respondents’ communications informing others about MonaVie and urging them to

follow Respondents to this competitor. It follows, in Respondents’ view, that Petitioner
10Petitioner also points to the evidence which, in its view, establishes a multi-phase

strategy to induce IBOs to leave Petitioner’s network of distributors and join MonaVie. If the

arbitrator viewed the record in this way, Respondents’ impermissible solicitation efforts would

not necessarily be confined to the final phase of this strategy, where they explicitly urged others

to enlist with MonaVie, but also would encompass the earlier stages in which IBOs were

exhorted to leave Petitioner’s network in preparation for joining MonaVie. Under this broader

view of Respondents’ solicitation activities, it would not necessarily be true that many or most

IBOs had already terminated their relationships with Petitioner before Respondents began the

earlier stages of their overall “solicitation” efforts. 

34

cannot establish a breach of the non-solicitation provision in the Rules of Conduct.

There are two problems with this argument. First, and as Respondents themselves

expressly acknowledge, nothing in the pertinent Rule of Conduct, Rule 6.5.5, “prohibit[s]

soliciting an IBO to leave Amway.” (Respondents’ Motion, Br. in Support at 33.) 

Consequently, it is immaterial to Respondents’ breach-of-contract liability whether their

communications led any IBO to leave Petitioner’s network of distributors, and it follows

that they cannot be absolved of liability by showing that any such departing IBO did so

before they commenced their solicitations to join MonaVie.10 Next, and more

importantly, the prohibition in Rule of Conduct 6.5.5 is against “encourag[ing],

solicit[ing], or otherwise attempt[ing] to recruit or persuade any other IBO to Compete

with” Petitioner’s business, (ROC Rule 6.5.5), and a violation of this rule plainly does not

turn upon the success of an IBO in persuading a fellow IBO to join a competitor such as

MonaVie — it is enough that an IBO engaged in the act of soliciting the fellow IBO to do

so, even if unsuccessfully. Any question as to the success of Respondents’ solicitation

efforts goes to the issue of damages.

Accordingly, the Court turns to Respondents’ challenges to the arbitrator’s
11This is the date that the relationships between Petitioner and the Respondent IBOs were

terminated.

35

determination of the amount of a damage award. As Respondents point out, the arbitrator

awarded the entirety of the damages computed by Petitioner’s expert. Respondents

summarize this damage calculation as follows (and Petitioner does not dispute the

accuracy of this summary):

Damages for Amway’s solicitation claim were based upon the

testimony of its two damage experts, Vincent Thomas, CPA, and Kenneth

Wise, Ph.D. Thomas’ expert opinions were limited solely to matching

processes in which he determined that of the 110,000 distributors in

Respondents’ MonaVie downlines, 26,004 were former Amway IBOs. 

Wise used Thomas’ match of 26,004 as a starting point to calculate the

profits Amway “lost” due to solicitation, subtracting the IBOs who left

Amway prior to August 9, 2007[11] and those who remained in Amway while

joining MonaVie.

The result was 22,778 former Amway IBOs in Respondents’

MonaVie downlines, each of whom was a former Amway IBO who left

Amway after August 9, 2007 and joined MonaVie before December 31,

2008. Wise then ran a query on this group of IBOs to determine the number

of such former Amway IBOs in each of Respondents’ individual MonaVie

downlines. For Woodward, Wise calculated 4,602; for Brady, 3,499; for

Marks, 1,279, for a total of 9,380. Wise’s query did not include any names

or other identifiers of those IBOs.

To reach a lost profits amount, Wise then separately calculated an

annual profit figure for Amway IBOs based on “seniority;” multiplied that

figure by the number of IBOs in each of the Respondents’ MonaVie

downlines; carried out the calculation 20 years into Amway’s future; then

reduced the total to a net present value. The resulting “lost profits” were: 

Woodward: $12,736,659; Brady: $9,578,756; and Marks: $3,533,230.

These are the exact amounts awarded by the Arbitrator. Neither Thomas

nor wise had any opinions as to why any of the 9,380 left Amway or joined

MonaVie. Thus, at best, all the experts did was calculate a purported lost

profit number based on the departure of 9,380 former Amway IBOs.
36

(Respondents’ Motion, Br. in Support at 32-33 (footnote and citations to record omitted).

In challenging the arbitrator’s decision to award damages in the full amount

identified by Petitioner’s expert, Respondents point to various purported deficiencies in

Petitioner’s effort to prove that these damages were properly attributable to Respondents’

breach of the non-solicitation provision at Rule of Conduct 6.5.5. First, and as noted

earlier, Respondents point to the absence of evidence that they actually solicited the

above-cited 9,380 former IBOs to leave Petitioner’s network of distributors and join

MonaVie, much less that any such solicitation efforts were the cause of these former

IBOs’ decisions to join Petitioner’s competitor. Indeed, Petitioner made no effort to

identify anyone in this class of 9,380 former IBOs, making it impossible, in Respondents’

view, for Petitioner to meet its burden of linking Respondents’ purported breach of Rule

of Conduct 6.5.5 to any losses arising from this breach. Respondents further submit that

Petitioner and its experts impermissibly failed to address or negate the many other reasons

why, in their view, IBOs might have elected to leave Petitioner and join MonaVie.

As the parties agree, the Michigan courts follow the venerable rule of Hadley v.

Baxendale, 9 Exch. 341 (1954), in determining the damages recoverable for a breach of

contract. As stated by the Michigan Supreme Court, a party may recover “those

[damages] that arise naturally from the breach or those that were in the contemplation of

the parties at the time the contract was made.” Kewin v. Massachusetts Mutual Life
12The parties agree that Petitioner’s claims in the arbitration proceeding were governed

by Michigan law.

37

Insurance Co., 409 Mich. 401, 295 N.W.2d 50, 52-53 (1980).12 Respondents do not

contest the foreseeability that soliciting activities in violation of Rule of Conduct 6.5.5, if

found to have occurred, could be expected to cause IBOs to leave Petitioner and join a

competitor such as MonaVie. More generally, Respondents do not dispute, at least before

this Court, that Petitioner introduced evidence that Respondents employed means of

communication (e.g., mass e-mails, websites, and speeches at meetings and seminars) that

were designed to reach current and former IBOs, and that they had reason to believe they

were, in fact, successfully communicating to this audience. Rather, Respondents’

challenge to the arbitrator’s determination of damages is focused upon the lack of

evidence that any specific IBO, out of the 9,380 IBOs cited by Petitioner and its damage

expert, actually acted on these solicitations by leaving Petitioner for MonaVie.

The Court finds nothing in the law that demands the form of proof Respondents

would require. Presumably, Respondents would agree that Petitioner need not have

introduced direct evidence that each of the 9,380 IBOs relied upon in computing damages

received a soliciting communication from Respondents and acted upon it. Yet, with

anything short of this comprehensive evidentiary showing as to why each of these 9,380

IBOs acted as they did, a trier of fact necessarily would have to extrapolate from a more

limited set of data in order to conclude that Petitioner was entitled to damages based upon

this entire universe of 9,380 departed IBOs who had joined MonaVie. Plainly, then,
38

Petitioner was entitled to rely, at least to some extent, upon inferential and statistical

proofs in establishing how many IBOs defected to a competitor as a result of

Respondents’ solicitation efforts. Viewed in this light, it is not clear how the quality of

the proofs would be substantially improved by insisting that Petitioner identify, say, one,

ten, or perhaps one hundred specific IBOs who received Respondents’ communications

and were led through these solicitations to leave Petitioner and join MonaVie. 

More generally, the case law confirms that breach-of-contract damages —

including the lost profit damages sought by Petitioner and awarded by the arbitrator —

may be established through methods of proof like the one employed by Petitioner here. 

Under Michigan law, “[i]t is clear that loss of future profits is permitted as an element of

damages in breach of contract actions when they can be established with reasonable

certainty.” American Anodco, Inc. v. Reynolds Metals Co., 743 F.2d 417, 423 (6th Cir.

1984) (citing Fera v. Village Plaza, Inc., 396 Mich. 639, 242 N.W.2d 372 (1976)). In

mandating such a showing, “[t]he law does not require impossibilities; and cannot

therefore require a higher degree of certainty than the nature of the case admits.” 

American Anodco, 743 F.2d at 423-24 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

Moreover, lost profits need not be “determined to a mathematical certainty,” and even

when they are “difficult to calculate, and are speculative to some degree, they are still

allowed as a loss item.” Lorenz Supply Co. v. American Standard, Inc., 100 Mich. App.

600, 300 N.W.2d 335, 340 (1980). The requisite proof may be supplied in the form of

reasonable projections or statistical analyses. See, e.g., Conwood Co. v. United States
13Respondents make much of the fact that Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Wise, relied exclusively

on these sorts of statistical grounds in determining the appropriate base of former IBOs upon

which to calculate damages, and they point to his concession that he “assum[ed] causation” in

arriving at his damage estimates. (Arb. Hearing Tr. at 2593-94, 4527-28.) Yet, it is clear from

the totality of Dr. Wise’s testimony that he assumed liability — i.e., that Respondents had

engaged in conduct that violated Rule of Conduct 6.5.5 — and that, rather than focusing on the

impact of Respondents’ conduct on any particular IBO, he had been charged with the task of

deriving a statistical measure of whether and how an aggregate population of IBOs had acted

differently than could be expected in the rate and manner in which they left Petitioner and joined

MonaVie.

39

Tobacco Co., 290 F.3d 768, 793-95 (6th Cir. 2002); Multimatic, Inc. v. Faurecia Interior

Systems USA, Inc., 542 F. Supp.2d 677, 681-82 (E.D. Mich. 2008); Bero Motors, Inc. v.

General Motors Corp., No. 257675, 2006 WL 2312182, at *7-*8 (Mich. Ct. App. Aug.

10, 2006).

Upon reviewing the record submitted for the arbitrator’s consideration, the Court

finds that it provides a sufficient basis for the arbitrator to accept the estimate of damages

proffered by Petitioner’s experts. First, Petitioner did, in fact, produce evidence of

specific former IBOs who joined MonaVie as a result of Respondents’ solicitation efforts. 

(See, e.g., Arb. Hearing Tr. at 1170-76; Petitioner’s Response to Respondents’ Motion,

Ex. 90.) Next, Petitioner introduced expert testimony that the manner and rate of

departures of IBOs downline of Respondents could not have happened randomly or

independently, and that such widespread departures had not occurred elsewhere in

Petitioner’s distribution network during the relevant time frame.13 Finally, the former

IBOs that formed the basis for Petitioner’s damage calculation had ended up downline to

Respondents in MonaVie’s distribution network, rather than elsewhere in this network,
40

giving rise to an inference that they had been reached by and acted upon Respondents’

solicitation efforts.

To be sure, Petitioner’s computation of damages was subject to challenge on the

ground that there were a variety of other reasons, separate from Respondents’ solicitation

efforts, why an IBO might have elected to leave Petitioner’s distribution network and sign

up with MonaVie. Yet, Petitioner’s expert sought to account for at least some of these

factors in arriving at his estimate of damages, and Respondents do not contend that they

lacked the opportunity to challenge his analysis on this ground. To the contrary, they

thoroughly explored this matter in their questioning of Petitioner’s expert, and they point

to a variety of evidence introduced during the arbitration proceedings that, in their view,

“shows that there were many reasons why IBOs left.” (Respondents’ Motion, Br. in

Support at 36.) As the courts have confirmed, an expert’s failure to account for all

possible causes or factors goes only to the weight, and not the admissibility, of his

testimony, see Conwood Co., 290 F.3d at 794, and once this threshold of admissibility is

met, it is up to the trier of fact to determine the weight to be given to the expert’s

testimony, see, e.g., Fera, 242 N.W.2d at 375-76; Bero Motors, 2006 WL 2312182, at *8. 

Accordingly, the arbitrator’s award may not be disturbed, particularly under the highly

deferential standard that governs this Court’s review of the award.

(b) The Imposition of Liability Upon the Respondent Wives

As Respondents point out, and Petitioner does not dispute, there was no evidence

that the Respondent wives — Laurie Woodward, Terri Brady, and Amy Marks —
41

engaged in any solicitation activities in violation of Rule of Conduct 6.5.5. Rather, it is

clear that these three Respondents were charged with liability under the arbitrator’s award

solely by virtue of Rule of Conduct 3.2.1, which provides:

A husband and wife are deemed to operate their IBs as a single entity

regardless of whether both names are on the business. Therefore, each is

held accountable for the actions of the other so far as the Rules of Conduct

are concerned.

(Petitioner’s Response to Respondents’ Motion, Ex. 5, ROC Rule 3.2.1.) Respondents

contend that the arbitrator acted beyond the bounds of the parties’ contract by invoking

this rule to impose liability upon the Respondent wives, where the acts giving rise to this

liability — the solicitation efforts of the Respondent husbands — occurred after the

termination of the contractual relationship between Petitioner and Respondents. Upon the

termination of this relationship, Respondents reason that the wives were no longer bound

by Rule of Conduct 3.2.1, and therefore could not be held liable under this rule.

In light of the considerable latitude given to the arbitrator to interpret the parties’

contract, the Court cannot say that the arbitrator acted wholly beyond the bounds of this

agreement in imposing liability on the Respondent wives. As observed earlier, the

liability of the Respondent husbands was predicated on their violation of Rule of Conduct

6.5.5. By the express terms of Rule of Conduct 3.2.1, a husband or wife is “held

accountable for the actions of” his or her spouse “so far as the Rules of Conduct are

concerned.” This rule is readily construed as imposing liability on both spouses for any

violations of the Rules of Conduct committed by either spouse. Moreover, if one spouse
14Respondents characterize this as “vicarious” liability, under the premise that the

Respondent wives are being held liable despite the absence of any wrongful act or breach of the

Rules of Conduct. Yet, it is wholly permissible for two or more parties, when entering into a

contract with another party, to agree in their contract that each will bear joint liability for a

breach by the other(s). This is joint rather than vicarious liability. 

42

may continue to be bound by a Rule of Conduct — here, Rule of Conduct 6.5.5 — and

incur liability for conduct violating that rule after the termination of the Amway/IBO

relationship, the Court fails to see why the other spouse cannot continue to be charged

with joint liability for this violation under Rule of Conduct 3.2.1.14 At a minimum, the

Court cannot say that the arbitrator acted wholly beyond the bounds of any tenable

reading of the Rules of Conduct in reaching this conclusion. Consequently, this aspect of

the arbitrator’s award may not be set aside.

(c) Undue Means 

 As their final challenge to the arbitrator’s award, Respondents contend that the

award should be set aside as “procured by . . . undue means,” 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(1), where

one of Petitioner’s experts, Vincent Thomas, advanced a theory of damages in another

arbitration proceeding brought against Petitioner (the “Stewart Arbitration”) that

purportedly was inconsistent with the theory of damages advanced in the present

arbitration proceeding by Petitioner’s other damage expert, Dr. Wise, and where

Petitioner allegedly concealed Mr. Thomas’s inconsistent analysis from Respondents

during the course of discovery in the present arbitration proceeding. In response,

Petitioner argues that it did not engage in improper conduct, but merely asserted a

position in a discovery dispute that the arbitrator ultimately accepted. Petitioner further
43

contends that Respondents failed to exercise due diligence upon obtaining the deposition

testimony of Mr. Thomas in the Stewart Arbitration, and that, in any event, Respondents

have not shown that the introduction of this deposition testimony during the present

arbitration proceeding would have materially altered the arbitrator’s analysis or award. 

As explained below, the Court finds that Petitioner has the better of the argument on each

of these prongs of the “undue means” inquiry.

To establish that the arbitrator’s award should be vacated as procured by undue

means, Respondents must show (i) clear and convincing evidence of fraud or misconduct

by Petitioner, (ii) that this fraud or concealment could not have been discovered prior to

or during the arbitration proceedings through the exercise of due diligence, and (iii) that

the fraud or concealment materially related to an issue in the arbitration. See

International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 519 v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 335

F.3d 497, 503 (6th Cir. 2003); Pontiac Trail Medical Clinic, P.C. v. PaineWebber, Inc.,

No. 92-1972, 1993 WL 288301, at *3 (6th Cir. July 29, 1993); Barcume v. City of Flint,

132 F. Supp.2d 549, 556 (E.D. Mich. 2001). As to the first prong of this standard, the

courts have held that a showing of “undue means” under § 10 of the FAA “requir[es]

some type of bad faith behavior,” and that this language “clearly connotes behavior that is

immoral if not illegal,” as opposed to “mere sloppy or overzealous lawyering.” Pontiac

Trail, 1993 WL 288301, at *4 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also

Barcume, 132 F. Supp.2d at 556.

As noted, Respondents’ claim of “undue means” here rests upon Petitioner’s
44

purported “concealment” of the damage analysis Mr. Thomas performed on Petitioner’s

behalf in the Stewart Arbitration. This claim of “concealment,” however, fails on a

fundamental ground: namely, it does not appear that Petitioner ever had an obligation to

produce this analysis at any point during the arbitration proceedings, such that it could be

accused of “concealing” material that it had a duty to disclose. Rather, as discussed

below, while Petitioner certainly resisted Respondents’ efforts to obtain discovery

relating to the Stewart Arbitration, this resistance was based upon permissible grounds

that the arbitrator upheld in denying Respondents’ request for this discovery.

Respondents evidently first became aware of Mr. Thomas’s employment as an

expert in the Stewart Arbitration when he was deposed in the present arbitration

proceeding. When Respondents’ counsel sought to inquire about the nature and

substance of Mr. Thomas’s expert analysis and report in the Stewart Arbitration,

Petitioner’s counsel instructed Mr. Thomas to answer only in general terms and not to

disclose the substance of his report, on the ground that more detailed responses would run

afoul of the confidentiality agreement governing the Stewart Arbitration. There is no

indication in the record that Respondents sought a ruling from the arbitrator on the

validity of these instructions and objections.

Instead, Respondents pursued other means of obtaining discovery relating to the

Stewart Arbitration. First, they sought an order compelling Petitioner to produce a copy

of the award issued in the Stewart Arbitration, but the arbitrator denied this request in a

July 14, 2008 order. (See Respondents’ Motion, Ex. 152, 7/14/2008 Order at ¶ 13.) Next,
15This assumption, in the Court’s view, is likely unwarranted. Respondents have not

pointed to any discovery request they made during the arbitration proceedings in which they

squarely sought the production of any discovery materials compiled during the Stewart

Arbitration. Rather, it appears that they sought only the award in the Stewart Arbitration, as

well as certain documents produced by Petitioner in the federal suit arising from this arbitration,

45

Respondents issued a notice of deposition duces tecum in which they asked Petitioner to

designate a witness who could testify on a number of matters, including the discovery

provided by Petitioner in a federal suit arising from the Stewart Arbitration and the award

issued in the Stewart Arbitration, and they further demanded that this designated witness

produce (i) the documents provided by Petitioner to the opposing party in discovery in the

suit arising from the Stewart Arbitration, to the extent these documents concerned “the

issue of the enforceability of the Amway/Quixtar arbitration provisions in the

Amway/Quixtar Rules of Conduct or registration forms,” and (ii) the award issued in the

Stewart Arbitration. (Petitioner’s Response to Respondents’ Motion, Ex. 93.) Again,

Petitioner opposed these discovery efforts on the ground that the Stewart Arbitration was

governed by a confidentiality agreement, and the arbitrator determined at a December 30,

2008 hearing that these matters were “neither relevant nor likely to lead to relevant

evidence.” (Respondents’ Motion, Ex. 153, 12/30/2008 Arb. Hearing at 20-21.) There is

no indication that Respondents pursued this matter any further in the arbitration

proceedings.

Under this record, even assuming that the document Petitioner is accused of

“concealing” — namely, Mr. Thomas’s deposition testimony in the Stewart Arbitration

— was encompassed within any of Respondents’ discovery efforts outlined above,15
but only as they related to the issue of the enforceability of Petitioner’s arbitration agreement. 

Despite Respondents’ accusations of concealment, they notably fail to direct the Court’s

attention to any discovery request during the arbitration proceedings that plainly would have

encompassed Mr. Thomas’s deposition testimony or expert analysis in the Stewart Arbitration,

nor have they even attempted to put forward an argument that one of their discovery requests

should be construed as encompassing these materials.

46

Respondents have failed to show (much less by clear and convincing evidence) that

Petitioner engaged in any sort of misconduct or behaved in bad faith in failing to produce

this material. Petitioner consistently took the position that the award in the Stewart

Arbitration and the materials produced and exchanged in this arbitration proceeding were

protected from disclosure by a confidentiality agreement. When Respondents sought to

compel the production of the award in the Stewart Arbitration and other related materials,

the arbitrator denied these requests. Respondents do not contend that Petitioner’s appeal

to a confidentiality agreement governing the Stewart Arbitration was untenable, frivolous,

or wholly lacking in legal or factual support. Neither have they argued that the arbitrator

abused her discretion or acted contrary to law in her rulings on Respondents’ discovery

requests, or that Petitioner misled the arbitrator into ruling in its favor on these disputes. 

Rather, Respondents simply invite the Court to speculate that Petitioner invoked the

Stewart Arbitration confidentiality agreement as a subterfuge to prevent the disclosure of

material that would undercut its theory of damages in the present arbitration proceeding. 

Nothing in the record supports this inference, much less supplies the requisite clear and

convincing evidence of an affirmative act of concealment or other misconduct. At most,

Petitioner and its counsel could be accused of “overzealous lawyering” in their appeals to
47

the Stewart Arbitration confidentiality agreement, but this, as explained earlier, “does not

constitute ‘undue means.’” Pontiac Trail, 1993 WL 288301, at *4.

Under comparable circumstances, the courts have held that a party’s assertion of

objections to a discovery request does not rise to the level of misconduct that could

sustain a finding of “undue means” under § 10 of the FAA. In Bauer v. Carty & Co., No.

06-5390, 246 F. App’x 375, 376-77 (6th Cir. Sept. 4, 2007), for example, plaintiff Ty

Kevin Bauer sought to vacate an arbitration award on the ground that defendant Carty &

Company had fraudulently procured the award by withholding documents during

discovery in the arbitration proceeding. Although Bauer argued that defendant Carty

“must have acted in bad faith” because the documents at issue “were responsive to . . .

valid document requests but were not produced,” the court found that this lack of

production was merely “consistent with bad faith,” and that “this inference alone is not

clear and convincing evidence of bad faith.” Bauer, 246 F. App’x at 378-79. The court

further noted that Carty had objected to the production of the documents at issue on

grounds of relevance, and it found that this “relevance objection may have had merit.” 

246 F. App’x at 379. Under these circumstances, the court held that “[t]he narrow

interpretation of a document request and withholding of a document based upon a

potentially meritorious objection do not constitute clear and convincing evidence of bad

faith or immoral conduct required for fraud or undue means.” 246 F. App’x at 379-80.

Similarly, in Pontiac Trail, 1993 WL 288301, at *1, the party seeking to vacate the

arbitrator’s award, plaintiff Pontiac Trail Medical Clinic, made a request for documents
16While Respondents characterize the decision in Pontiac Trail as turning solely upon

plaintiff Pontiac Trail’s lack of due diligence in seeking to obtain the documents at issue from

other sources, (see Respondents’ Reply Br. at 19-20), it is clear from the above-quoted passages

that the court in that case also found that PaineWebber had not engaged in fraud or misconduct

solely by virtue of having objected to Pontiac Trail’s discovery requests.

48

during the arbitration proceedings, but defendant PaineWebber objected to these requests

on grounds of relevancy, and the arbitrators denied Pontiac Trail’s discovery requests. 

Pontiac Trail contended that PaineWebber “obtained the [arbitration] award fraudulently

by withholding relevant documents,” but the Sixth Circuit disagreed, finding that

“Pontiac Trail has cited no authority suggesting that allegedly defective objections and

misleading discovery responses to prehearing discovery requests can constitute fraud

within the meaning of § 10(a)(1) when, as here, the arbitrators declined to order

production of the requested documents and sustained PaineWebber’s objections to their

production.” 1993 WL 288301, at *3-*4. The court further concluded that Pontiac Trail

had failed to establish that the award was procured by undue means, reasoning that a

party does not exhibit bad faith behavior merely by advancing even a “meritless” position

in a discovery dispute. 1993 WL 288301, at *4-*5 (internal quotation marks and citation

omitted).16

Respondents also have failed to establish the remaining two prongs of the “undue

means” standard. First, as to the “due diligence” prong of this standard, the record

reveals that Respondents obtained an unredacted transcript of Mr. Thomas’s deposition

testimony and report from the Stewart Arbitration on July 7, 2009, before the arbitrator

issued her award in the present proceeding. Yet, they did not seek to reopen the
17As Petitioner points out, while Mr. Thomas provided expert testimony in both the

present arbitration proceeding and the Stewart Arbitration, it was Dr. Wise, and not Mr. Thomas,

who supplied the purportedly inconsistent computation of damages in this case. Thus, even if

Mr. Thomas’s deposition testimony in the Stewart Arbitration had been introduced in the present

arbitration proceeding, it could only have been used to impeach the testimony of Dr. Wise, and

not Mr. Thomas’s own testimony.

49

arbitration record or otherwise bring this new information to the arbitrator’s attention

before she issued her July 24, 2009 interim award or August 7, 2009 final award. Such

inaction does not bespeak due diligence.

Finally, it is not evident that Mr. Thomas’s deposition testimony, if introduced

during the arbitration proceedings, would have materially altered the record or the

outcome. Respondents’ claim of materiality rests upon Mr. Thomas’s calculation of lost

profits in the Stewart Arbitration, with Thomas opining that the income of the plaintiff

IBOs in that case would have fallen to a flattened, “terminal” level after five years. (See

Respondents’ Motion, Ex. 157, Thomas Dep. at 108-12.) In the present arbitration

proceeding, in contrast, Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Wise, projected Petitioner’s lost profits

due to IBO defections to competitor MonaVie by reference to a 20-year period.17

Yet, as Petitioner points out, Mr. Thomas’s selection of a five-year lost-profits

curve in the Stewart Arbitration did not rest upon generalized notions of the average

profit-making “life span” of an IBO, but instead was based upon the specific facts of that

case. (See id. at 109, 114-15.) Indeed, Thomas specifically denied at his deposition that

he had “assumed” a five-year period of profit-making, or that he had simply relied upon

information indicating that the average life span of an IBO is two to five years, and he
50

instead insisted that his analysis was based on the historical figures and actual

experiences of the IBOs at issue. (See id. at 108-09, 111-12, 114.) Under these

circumstances, it cannot be said that any effort to impeach Dr. Wise based on Mr.

Thomas’s fact-specific testimony in the Stewart Arbitration would have materially altered

the arbitrator’s assessment of Dr. Wise’s testimony, particularly where Respondents

vigorously cross-examined Dr. Wise on his 20-year projections of lost profits, and where

they offered the testimony of their own damage expert to refute this and other aspects of

Dr. Wise’s analysis.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above,

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s October 21,

2009 motion to confirm arbitration award (docket #30) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER

ORDERED that Respondents’ November 6, 2009 motion to vacate arbitration award

(docket #39) is DENIED.

s/Gerald E. Rosen 

Chief Judge, United States District Court

Dated: September 30, 2010

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

on October 4, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Ruth A. Gunther 

Case Manager