15-765

Kuruwa v. Turner Construction Company

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED

ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE

PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A

DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX 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.

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals

2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United

3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,

on the 29th 4 day of March, two thousand sixteen.

5

6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,

7 PETER W. HALL,

8 Circuit Judges.

DENISE COTE,* 9

10 District Judge.

11

12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

13 DUSHYANT KURUWA, 

14 Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant15 Appellant,

16

17 -v.- 15-765

18

19 TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, 

20 Defendant-Counter-Claimant21 Appellee.

22 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

23

* The Honorable Denise Cote, United States District

Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by

designation.

1
1 FOR APPELLANT: Dushyant Kuruwa, pro se, Port

2 Washington, New York.

3

4 FOR APPELLEE: Gregory Robert Begg, Peckar &

5 Abramson, P.C., River Edge, New

6 Jersey.

7

8 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District

9 Court for the Southern District of New York (Castel, J.).

10

11 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED

12 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be

13 AFFIRMED. 

14

15 Dushyant Kuruwa appeals from the judgment of the United

16 States District Court for the Southern District of New York

17 (Castel, J.), confirming an arbitral award in favor of

18 Turner Construction Company. We assume the parties’

19 familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural

20 history, and the issues presented for review. 

21

22 “We review a district court’s decision to confirm an

23 arbitration award de novo to the extent it turns on legal

24 questions, and we review any findings of fact for clear

25 error.” Duferco Int’l Steel Trading v. T. Klaveness

26 Shipping A/S, 333 F.3d 383, 388 (2d Cir. 2003). “It is well

27 established that courts must grant an arbitration panel’s

28 decision great deference. A party petitioning a federal

29 court to vacate an arbitral award bears the heavy burden of

30 showing that the award falls within a vary narrow set of

31 circumstances delineated by statute and case law . . . . all

32 of which involve corruption, fraud, or some other

33 impropriety on the part of the arbitrators.” Id.

34 Additionally, “we permit vacatur of an arbitral award that

35 exhibits a ‘manifest disregard of law.’” Id. (quoting

36 Goldman v. Architectural Iron Co., 306 F.3d 1214, 1216 (2d

37 Cir. 2002)). “Our review under the doctrine of manifest

38 disregard is ‘severely limited.’ It is highly deferential

39 to the arbitral award and obtaining judicial relief for

40 arbitrators’ manifest disregard of the law is rare.” Id. at

41 389 (quoting Gov’t of India v. Cargill Inc., 867 F.2d 130,

42 133 (2d Cir. 1989)). 

43

44 None of Kuruwa’s arguments satisfy this exacting

45 standard.

46

2
1 For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in

2 Kuruwa’s other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of

3 the district court.

4

5 FOR THE COURT:

6 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK

7

3