15-765 Kuruwa v. Turner Construction Company



### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS **FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT**



## SUMMARY ORDER

**R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT**  **. C**  **ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER**  **J ANUARY**  **1, 2007,**  **IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY F**  **EDERAL R** **ULE OF A** **PPELLATE P**  **ROCEDURE 32.1**  **AND THIS COURT ’**  **S L**  **OCAL R** **ULE 32.1.1.**  **W HEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A**  **DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT ,**  **A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE F**  **EDERAL A** **PPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE**  **( WITH THE NOTATION**  **“ SUMMARY ORDER**  **”). A**  **PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL**  **. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals**  1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United** 2 **States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,** 3 **on the 29 th** **day of March, two thousand sixteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,** 6 **PETER W. HALL,** 7 **Circuit Judges**

**.** 8 **DENISE COTE,** ***** 9 **District Judge**

. 10 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 12 **DUSHYANT KURUWA,** 13 **Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant** 14 **Appellant ,**  15 16 **-v.- 15-765** 17 18 **TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,** 19 **Defendant-Counter-Claimant** 20 **Appellee**
**.** 21 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 22 23

* The Honorable Denise Cote, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

1**FOR APPELLANT:** Dushyant Kuruwa, pro se, Port 1 Washington, New York. 2 3 **FOR APPELLEE:** Gregory Robert Begg, Peckar & 4 Abramson, P.C., River Edge, New 5 Jersey. 6 7 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District 8 Court for the Southern District of New York (Castel, J. ). 9 10 **UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED** 11 **AND DECREED**that the judgment of the district court be 12 **AFFIRMED**

. 13 14 Dushyant Kuruwa appeals from the judgment of the United 15 States District Court for the Southern District of New York 16 (Castel, J. ), confirming an arbitral award in favor of 17 Turner Construction Company

. We assume the parties’ 18 familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural 19 history, and the issues presented for review. 20 21 “We review a district court’s decision to confirm an 22 arbitration award de novo to the extent it turns on legal 23 questions, and we review any findings of fact for clear 24 error.” Duferco Int’l Steel Trading v. T. Klaveness 25 Shipping A/S , 333 F.3d 383, 388 (2d Cir. 2003). “It is well 26 established that courts must grant an arbitration panel’s 27 decision great deference. A party petitioning a federal 28 court to vacate an arbitral award bears the heavy burden of 29 showing that the award falls within a vary narrow set of 30 circumstances delineated by statute and case law . . . . all 31 of which involve corruption, fraud, or some other 32 impropriety on the part of the arbitrators.” Id. 33 Additionally, “we permit vacatur of an arbitral award that 34 exhibits a ‘manifest disregard of law.’” Id. (quoting 35 Goldman v. Architectural Iron Co. , 306 F.3d 1214, 1216 (2d 36 Cir. 2002)). “Our review under the doctrine of manifest 37 disregard is ‘severely limited.’ It is highly deferential 38 to the arbitral award and obtaining judicial relief for 39 arbitrators’ manifest disregard of the law is rare.” Id. at 40 389 (quoting Gov’t of India v. Cargill Inc. , 867 F.2d 130, 41 133 (2d Cir. 1989)). 42 43 None of Kuruwa’s arguments satisfy this exacting 44 standard. 45 46

2For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in 1 Kuruwa’s other arguments, we hereby **AFFIRM** the judgment of 2 the district court. 3 4 FOR THE COURT: 5 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 6 7

3