Document: 128 S. Ct. 1396 (2008) HALL STREET ASSOCIATES, L.L.C., Petitioner, v. MATTEL, INC. No. 06-989. Supreme Court of United States. Argued November 7, 2007. Decided March 25, 2008. *1399 Carter G. Phillips, Virginia A. Seitz Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, D.C., Michael *1400 T. Garone, Counsel Record, Cohen, Jay Waldron, Sara Kobak Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C., Portland, OR, for Petitioner. Shirley M. Hufstedler, Peter Hsiao, Morrison Foerster Los Angeles, CA, Drew Days, III, Beth Brinkmann, Seth Galanter, Ketanji Brown Jackson DC, Respondent. Justice SOUTER delivered the opinion Court.[*] The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA or Act), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., provides expedited judicial review to confirm, vacate, modify arbitration awards. §§ 9-11 (2000 ed. and Supp. V). question here is whether statutory grounds prompt vacatur modification may be supplemented by contract. We hold that are exclusive. I This case began as a lease dispute between landlord, petitioner Hall Street Associates, tenant, respondent Mattel, Inc. property was used many years manufacturing site, leases provided tenant would indemnify landlord any costs resulting from failure its predecessor lessees follow environmental laws while using premises. App. 88-89. Tests property's well water in 1998 showed high levels trichloroethylene (TCE), apparent residue discharges Mattel's predecessors 1951 1980. After Oregon Department Environmental Quality (DEQ) discovered even more pollutants, Mattel stopped drawing and, along with one predecessors, signed consent order DEQ providing cleanup site. gave notice intent terminate 2001, filed this suit, contesting right vacate on date it gave, claiming obliged cleaning up TCE, among other things. Following bench trial before States District Oregon, won termination issue, after an unsuccessful try at mediating indemnification claim, parties proposed submit arbitration. amenable, drew agreement, which court approved entered order. One paragraph agreement "[t]he enter judgment upon award, either confirming award vacating, modifying correcting award. shall correct award: (i) where arbitrator's findings facts not supported substantial evidence, (ii) *1401 conclusions law erroneous." Pet. Cert. 16a. took place, arbitrator decided Mattel. In particular, he held no due, because obligation all applicable federal, state, local did require compliance testing requirements Drinking Water (Oregon Act); characterized dealing human health distinct contamination. then Motion Order Vacating, Modifying And/Or Correcting decision, 4, ground failing treat under terms legal error. agreed, vacated remanded further consideration arbitrator. expressly invoked standard chosen included error, cited LaPine Technology Corp. Kyocera Corp., 130 F.3d 884, 889 (C.A.9 1997), proposition FAA leaves "free. . draft contract sets rules dictates alternative review." 46a. On remand, followed Court's ruling amended decision favor Street. time, each party sought modification, again applied parties' stipulated calculation interest but otherwise upholding Each appealed Appeals Ninth Circuit, switched horses contended Circuit's recent en banc action overruling Prudential-Bache Trade Servs., Inc., 341 987, 1000 (2003), left agreement's provision error unenforceable. countered (the later one) distinguishable, severable submission Circuit reversed holding that, "[u]nder controlling mode unenforceable severable." 113 Fed. Appx. 272, 272-273 (2004). instructed remand "return application confirm original (not subsequent revised reversal), unless should allowable 10, modified corrected 11." Id., 273. reversed,[1] we granted certiorari decide 10 11 550 U.S. ___, 127 2875, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1151 (2007). agree they are, independent issues. *1402 II Congress enacted replace indisposition "national policy favoring [it] plac[ing] agreements equal footing contracts." Buckeye Check Cashing, Cardegna, 546 440, 443, 126 1204, 163 1038 (2006). As jurisdiction over controversies touching arbitration, does nothing, being "something anomaly field federal-court jurisdiction" bestowing federal rather requiring jurisdictional basis. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital Mercury Constr. 460 1, n. 32, 103 927, 74 765 (1983); see, e.g., 4 (providing district "which, save such [arbitration] have title 28").[2] But cases falling within court's jurisdiction, makes contracts arbitrate "valid, irrevocable, enforceable," so long their subject involves "commerce." 2. And has broad reach goes just dispute, enforcement state federal. See ibid.; Southland Keating, 465 15-16, 104 852, 79 (1984). also supplies mechanisms enforcing awards: decree vacating it, it. 9-11. An these orders will get streamlined treatment motion, obviating separate usually necessary enforce tinker arbitral court.[3] 6. Under 9, "must" "unless" vacated, modified, "as prescribed" 11. Section lists names those one.[4] *1403 Courts split exclusiveness when take shortcut some saying recitations exclusive, others regarding them mere threshold provisions open expansion agreement.[5] mentioned already, litigation started, side split, see LaPine, F.3d, 889, departed exclusivity view, Kyocera, 1000, case, Fed.Appx., now respectively provide FAA's exclusive modification. III two main efforts show set out taking position, first, expandable authority been accepted since Wilko Swan, 346 427, 182, 98 168 (1953). This, however, what decided, 14 Securities 1933 voided claims violations Act, id., 437-438, overruled Rodriguez de Quijas Shearson/American Express, 490 477, 484, 109 1917, 526 (1989). Although true discussion includes language arguably Street's arguable far goes. explaining undercut Act's buyer protections remarked (citing 10) "[p]ower limited," U.S., 436, went say "the interpretations arbitrators contrast manifest disregard [of law] subject, courts, interpretation," 436-437, 182. reads statement recognizing "manifest law" top listed Circuits read same way. See, McCarthy Citigroup Global Markets, 463 87, 91 (CA1 2006); Hoeft MVL Group, 343 57, 64 (CA2 2003); Prestige Ford Dealer Computer 324 391, 395-396 (C.A.5 Scott Prudential Securities, 141 1007, 1017 (C.A.11 1998). sees supposed addition camel's nose: if judges can add (or modify), contracting parties. *1404 too much bear. Quite apart leap interpretation private contract, overlooks fact relies rejects asks here, general errors. Then there vagueness Wilko's phrasing. Maybe term disregard" meant name new review, maybe merely referred collectively, than adding them. Mitsubishi Motors Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, 473 614, 656, 105 3346, 87 444 (1985) (STEVENS, J., dissenting) ("Arbitration awards only reviewable law, 207"); I/S Stavborg National Metal Converters, 500 F.2d 424, 431 (C.A.2 1974). Or, courts thought, shorthand 10(a)(3) 10(a)(4), subsections authorizing were "guilty misconduct" "exceeded powers." supra, 997. We, speaking Court, taken found without embellishment, First Options Chicago, Kaplan, 514 938, 942, 115 1920, 131 985 (1995), meaning implicated, reason accord significance urges. Second, says ought prevail simply creature "motivated, first foremost, congressional desire into ha[ve] entered." Dean Witter Reynolds Byrd, 470 213, 220, 1238, 84 158 (1985). But, again, think argument comes short. certainly lets tailor some, features including way chosen, qualifications be, issues arbitrable, procedure choice substantive law. rest treating enforceable beg question, textual odds expand following To particular answer yes, text compels reading §§10 categories begin with, assumed could extent, stretch basic interpretive principles stated point evidentiary generally. Sections 11, all, address egregious departures agreed-upon arbitration: "corruption," "fraud," "evident partiality," "misconduct," "misbehavior," "exceed[ing] powers," material miscalculation," mistake," "award[s] matter submitted;" softer focus "imperfect[ions]," go "[a] form affecting merits." Given emphasis extreme conduct, old rule ejusdem generis implicit lesson teach here. rule, statute series specific items ending term, confined covering subjects comparable specifics follows. Since normally limited, surely hook cannot authorize supplement instances outrageous conduct *1405 "Fraud" mistake cut cloth. That aside, expanding detailed rub against grain language, confirmation carries hint flexibility. "must grant" "unless prescribed sections title." There nothing malleable about grant," unequivocally tells grant cases, except "prescribed" exceptions applies. sound remotely like tell do else.[6] fact, anyone who thinks might understood default turn back 5 example thought look like: "[i]f made method naming appointing followed; therein, thereto fail avail himself method, controversy designate appoint ." "[I]f provided" cry unless" 9. Instead fighting text, sense three provisions, 9-11, substantiating national limited needed maintain arbitration's essential virtue resolving disputes straightaway. Any opens door full-bore appeals "rende[r] informal prelude cumbersome time-consuming process," 998; cf. Ethyl Steelworkers America, 768 180, 184 (C.A.7 1985), bring theory grief post-arbitration process. Nor Witter, 158, contrary, be. state-law remitted considering related, nonarbitrable claim; immediately. 217, 1238. Despite opinion's "reject[ing] suggestion overriding goal [FAA] promote expeditious *1406 resolution claims," 219, mandated immediate agreement; trying explain inefficiency difficulty conducting simultaneous good enough defer When arguments based prior done remain happens next. amici flee expanded Brief Petitioner 39; New England Legal Foundation al. Amici Curiae 15. foresees flight is. Council Int'l Business Amicus 29-30. know who, anyone, right, threat popularity courts. whatever consequences our holding, gives us business grounds.[7] IV regimes statute, purport exclude searching outside well. wanting contemplate common example, different scope arguable. speak deciding possible avenues avenue claimed revealed procedural *1407 history claim presented arrived doorstep, appeared anything case. never meeting 2 requirement arose "involving commerce." 2; Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. Dobson, 513 265, 277, 834, 753 (1995) (§ "exercise[s] Congress' commerce power full"). doubt least had mind outset; incorporates empowering compel attendance witnesses. 13a. While invoke none various motions said relying FAA, apparently applying alluded quoting then-unexceptional "`[f]ederal beyond grounds, agreed.'" part, seemed given direct examination depended FAA; expanded-review determines petition principal briefing us, acted premise. 27 ("This accept resolve important issue construction FAA"); 16 ("Because consistent goals policies employ regularly apply variety contexts, entitled FAA"). unusual feature, prompted approached another course district-court litigation, submitted request deviate sequence procedure, adopted 46-47; 4a-8a. Hence raised oral argument: treated exercise manage Rules Civil Procedure 16? Tr. Oral Arg. 11-12. Supplemental behest joined appears suggested something lines Appeals, suggestion. position now, noting relevant management FAA. supplemental implicate waiver relation both Rule Alternative Dispute Resolution 1998, 28 651 considered previously addressed time express matters leaving press remand. If finds *1408 open, consider independently warranted remaining * confines proceedings opinion. It ordered. STEVENS, whom KENNEDY joins, dissenting. May ongoing lawsuit caveat judge refuse rests erroneous conclusion law? Prior enactment Act) 1925, "Yes."[1] Today, holds vacation specified forbids perfectly reasonable fairly negotiated court. Because result conflicts primary purpose ignores historical context passed, respectfully dissent. passage American generally hostile They refused, rare exceptions, executory arbitrate.[2] responded hostility making written enforceable." section, centerpiece reflects passing legislation: "to abrogate common-law agreements," 18, (1984) concurring part dissenting part), "ensur[e] enforced according terms," Volt Information Sciences, Board Trustees Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 489 468, 478, 1248, 488 settled understanding core interests enforceability stronger today enacted. such, moreand lessreason give effect decisions errors complex Based diverse citizenship parties, removed More later, resolved, obtained *1409 approval novo review. neither requested, nor authorized, "expedited" disposition glaring refused affirm his until corrected. reversed. agrees (most recent) setting forth statute. opinion, identifies reasons reaching result: (1) quid pro quo bargain litigants conditions acceptance limit awards; (2) assumption intended include words "and other" Neither persuasive. imposes 1-year treatment. Of course, premise entire process less costly ordinary interpreting liberally use unnecessary refusal category defeats sufficient response reliance text. wooden generis," ante, 1404, support inference literal readinga flatly inconsistent effectuating clearly expressed A listing must always available additional Moreover, light broader best shield protect sword down irrevocable enforceable" law.[3] Even narrow debatable conflict suggests, rely presumption importance debate petitioner's permits "not regulate" offend public whatsoever, "is *1410 adequately justified freedom." FCC Beach Communications, 508 307, 320, 2096, 124 211 (1993) judgment). Accordingly, 1406-1408, dissent final BREYER, precludes enforcing" aside embodies i. Like majority primarily forth, believe preclude agreement. 1406-1407 (opinion Court) (The awards"); 1409-1410 "shield `valid, enforceable' law"). At need send decisionmaking. Court. Aside itself, below pointed violate. rejected violates instructions NOTES [*] SCALIA joins footnote 7 [1] supposedly rested implausible thus exceeded powers, violation 10. appealed, reversed, implausibility valid 196 Fed.Appx. 476, 477-478 [2] jurisdictional, merit create entirely permissible [3] Unlike post, 1408-1409 (dissenting opinion), understand seeking time; party's pleadings raise defense [4] Title 10(a) ed., V) provides: "(a) wherein make  "(1) procured corruption, fraud, undue means; "(2) evident partiality corruption arbitrators, them; "(3) guilty misconduct refusing postpone hearing, cause shown, hear evidence pertinent controversy; misbehavior rights prejudiced; "(4) imperfectly executed mutual, final, definite made." ed.) "In arbitration Where miscalculation figures description person, thing, "(b) awarded them, merits submitted. "(c) imperfect controversy. "The thereof justice parties." [5] Tenth Bowen Amoco Pipeline Co., 254 925, 936 (C.A.10 2001). First, Third, Fifth, Sixth Circuits, meanwhile, Puerto Rico Tel. Co. Phone Mfg. 427 21, 31 (C.A.1 2005); Jacada (Europe), Ltd. International Marketing Strategies, 401 701, 710 (C.A.6 Roadway Package System, Kayser, 257 287, 288 (C.A.3 2001); Gateway Technologies, MCI Telecommunications 993, 997 1995). Fourth latter unpublished Syncor McLeland, 120 262 (1997), Eighth former dicta, UHC Management Sciences 148 992, 997-998 (1998). [6] supports allows agreed pursuant arbitration." argues "expresses Congress's whether, circumstances, Reply 5; 22-24. peculiar argument, converting condition bar enforcement. problematical Street: enforcement, exist sentence nowhere predicates having standards; anything, suggests contemplated undertake criteria. specifically predicate entry adherence judicial-review standard. 15a. extent otherwise, contests severability analysis, seek certiorari. [7] conclusion. York's S.Rep. 536, 68th Cong., 1st Sess., 3 (1924) ("The bill follows York 1920. ."). Law incorporated pre-existing Code Procedure. 1920 N.Y. Laws p. 806. 2373 code order, corrected, next sections." Ann.Code Civ. Proc. (Stover 6th ed.1902) (hereinafter Stover). correction virtually identical grounds. Stover 2374, 2375. brief House Senate Subcommittees Committees Judiciary, Julius Henry drafters said, modifying, limited. [meets 10], vacated. [an 11], Interstate Commercial Disputes, Joint Hearings Judiciary 1005 H.R. 646, 34 (1924). Report similarly recognized "award judgment, attack fraud similar influence, palpable form." H.R.Rep. 96, contemporaneous campaign promulgation uniform Cohen contrasted Illinois Awards required arbitrator, party, arising during determination. Handbook Conference Commissioners Uniform State Proceedings 97-98 (1924); 1917 Ill. 203. Klein Catara, F. Cas. 732, 735 (C.C.D.Mass.1814) ("If wish reserve court, stipulate submission; restrain enlarge operation please") (Story, J.). Red Cross Line Atlantic Fruit 264 109, 120-122, 44 274, 68 582 Atlanten, 252 313, 315-316, 40 332, 586 (1920). enforceable, nominal damages breach contracts. thorough Dayton, Law, 12 Va. L.Rev. 270-271 (1926); Cullinan, Contracting Expanded Scope Judicial Review Agreements, 51 Vand. 395, 409 significantly meddlesome

Category: 7