Source: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/430/1269/505477/
Timestamp: 2013-05-24 13:16:11
Document Index: 325068951

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1927', '§ 1927', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 335', '§ 25', '§ 1927', '§ 1927', '§ 1927', '§ 1927', '§ 1927', '§ 1927', '§ 1927', '§ 1927', '§ 1927']

430 F.3d 1269: Dominion Video Satellite, Inc., Plaintiff-appellee, v. Echostar Satellite L.l.c., F/k/a Echostar Satellite Corporation, Defendant-appellant,todd A. Jansen, T. Wade Welch, and Ross W. Wooten, Parties of Interest-appellants :: US Court of Appeals Cases :: Justia
Justia > US Law > US Case Law > US Federal Case Law > US Courts of Appeals Cases > F.3d > Volume 430 > 430 F.3d 1269 - Dominion Video Satellite, Inc., ...	NEW - Receive Justia's FREE Daily Newsletters of Opinion Summaries for the US Supreme Court, all US Federal Appellate Courts & the 50 US State Supreme Courts and Weekly Practice Area Opinion Summaries Newsletters. Subscribe Now
430 F.3d 1269: Dominion Video Satellite, Inc., Plaintiff-appellee, v. Echostar Satellite L.l.c., F/k/a Echostar Satellite Corporation, Defendant-appellant,todd A. Jansen, T. Wade Welch, and Ross W. Wooten, Parties of Interest-appellants
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. - 430 F.3d 1269
In December 2002, EchoStar began broadcasting several predominantly Christian channels on the DISH Network. After attempting to persuade EchoStar that the Programming Exclusivity provision prohibited such action, Dominion sued to enjoin EchoStar from broadcasting these programs. After three days of hearings, during which the District Court was thoroughly briefed on the merits of the underlying dispute, the District Court granted Dominion a preliminary injunction.2 In so doing, the District Court noted that EchoStar's arguments on the merits of the underlying contractual dispute&#x2014;including claims regarding federal preemption, legal impossibility, res judicata, and purported violations of the First Amendment&#x2014;were "disingenuous," "exceedingly fanciful," and based on "a gross contortion" of governing law. The District Court then ordered the parties to arbitrate their dispute in accordance with a binding arbitration provision in the Agreement.
Thereafter, Dominion filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association and sought monetary and injunctive relief. The dispute was heard by an arbitration panel composed of three members who were selected in accordance with the Agreement: one panel member was selected by each of the parties, and these two panelists selected a third "neutral" member. The panel opted to bifurcate the proceedings&#x2014;it would first resolve the issue of contractual interpretation and then, if necessary, it would address the question of damages. In the first proceeding, in March 2004, EchoStar raised the same arguments the District Court had called "disingenuous," "exceedingly fanciful," and based on "a gross contortion" of governing law. The panel unanimously decided that EchoStar's broadcast of certain Christian channels violated the Programming Exclusivity provision of the Agreement. It issued a final award to that effect (which the panel called a "partial final award" because it had yet to resolve the damages issue). The panel then scheduled a remedies hearing.
In the partial final award, the panel issued certain directives to the parties to prevent future breaches of the Agreement. EchoStar, however, refused to comply with those directives. As a result, Dominion moved the District Court to confirm the partial final award. Notwithstanding the well-established rule that a district court may vacate an arbitration award only in the narrowest of circumstances &#x2014; such as fraud, corruption, and manifest disregard of controlling law &#x2014; EchoStar opposed Dominion's motion and moved to vacate the partial final award. In that motion, EchoStar again argued that federal preemption, legal impossibility, and the First Amendment prohibited confirmation of the award.
On November 5, Dominion filed a motion with the District Court seeking $62,686.02 in attorneys' fees. As it had done at nearly every stage of the proceedings, EchoStar responded with a motion in opposition and a supporting brief.3 During a hearing on the matter, the District Court called this case "the most glaring example of the wisdom of having [§ 1927]." It ordered three attorneys for EchoStar &#x2014; co-Appellants Todd A. Jansen, T. Wade Welch, and Ross W. Wooten &#x2014; to pay Dominion's requested fees. It then ordered the attorneys to pay an additional $750 to Dominion for attorneys' fees incurred in preparing for the hearing that could have been avoided if EchoStar had responded to Dominion's October 29th request for attorneys' fees.
EchoStar, through Mr. Jansen, Mr. Welch, and Mr. Wooten, now appeals the District Court's order confirming the arbitration awards. Mr. Jansen, Mr. Welch and Mr. Wooten also appeal the District Court's imposition of $63,436.02 in attorneys' fees and costs under § 1927.
Judicial review of arbitration panel decisions is extremely limited; indeed, it has been described as "among the narrowest known to law." Bowen v. Amoco Pipeline Co., 254 F.3d 925, 932 (10th Cir.2001) (quotation omitted). Under § 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act, a court may vacate an arbitration award "in certain instances of fraud or corruption, arbitrator misconduct, or `where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.'" Id. (quoting 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4)). In addition, we have acknowledged a judicially-created basis for vacating an award when the arbitrators acted in "manifest disregard" of the law. ARW Exploration Corp. v. Aguirre, 45 F.3d 1455, 1463 (10th Cir.1995). This standard requires a finding that the panel's decision exhibits "willful inattentiveness to the governing law." Id. Merely "erroneous interpretations or applications of law are not reversible." Id. Put another way, we "[r]equir[e] more than error or misunderstanding of the law[.][A] finding of manifest disregard means the record will show the arbitrators knew the law and explicitly disregarded it." Bowen, 254 F.3d at 932 (internal citation omitted). Finally, we review a district court's factual findings in confirming the award for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. Denver & Rio Grande W. Ry. Co. v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 119 F.3d 847, 849 (10th Cir.1997).
In 1992, Congress passed legislation establishing public interest obligations for DBS providers such as EchoStar and directed the FCC to require every provider to reserve a portion of its channel capacity exclusively for non-commercial programming of an educational or informational nature. See 47 U.S.C. § 335. Current regulations require EchoStar to reserve four percent of its channel capacity for such use. See 47 C.F.R. § 25.701(f)(1). EchoStar argues that because Christian programs are educational, federal law preempts Dominion's claim that EchoStar violated the Agreement by broadcasting Christian programs.
Claim preclusion bars the re-litigation of "issues that were decided or issues that could have been raised in the earlier action." Frandsen v. Westinghouse Corp., 46 F.3d 975, 978 (10th Cir.1995). The record shows that even though the prior arbitration panel referenced a provision of the Agreement at issue in this case, it did not decide any issues related to that exception, nor was the reference invited by the parties or necessary to the resolution of the prior dispute. Thus, claim preclusion does not apply.
Under the defense of impossibility of performance, a party's breach of its contractual obligation will be excused when "changed circumstances have rendered the promise vitally different from what reasonably should have been within the contemplation of both parties when they entered into the contract." Colo. Performance Corp. v. Mariposa Assocs., 754 P.2d 401, 407 (Colo.Ct.App.1987) (quotation omitted). EchoStar claims that the FCC regulations, which were promulgated in 1998 and require EchoStar to reserve four percent of its programming capacity for educational or informational purposes, make it impossible for it not to broadcast Christian programming. EchoStar's bare allegations, which are not supported by the record, do not establish evidence in support of this contention, however, and we will therefore not vacate the arbitration award on this basis.
Again, this is not a basis to vacate the arbitration award. The concept of justiciability is derived from Article III of the Constitution and limits the jurisdiction of federal courts. This Court has found no controlling authority that mandates application of those limits in arbitration.4
EchoStar next argues that the panel exceeded its authority by awarding Dominion over two million dollars in damages because the Agreement states that the parties will not be liable to each other "for any direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, special or other damages ... resulting from loss of actual or anticipated revenues or profits, or loss of business, customers, or goodwill." Contrary to EchoStar's assertions, this language appears in a provision relating to the parties' right to indemnification from third-party actions; it has no bearing on the parties' liability to each other for breach of contract. Indeed, the arbitration panel was fully briefed on the issue and it concluded that the provision did not preclude the award of damages. EchoStar fails to provide this Court with any evidence that in reaching this conclusion the panel disregarded the law or exceeded its power, and we therefore will not vacate the award on this ground. See Sterling Colo. Beef Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Local Union No. 7, 767 F.2d 718, 720 (10th Cir.1985) (stating that this Court will not set aside an arbitrator's decision "unless it can be said with positive assurance that the contract is not susceptible to the arbitrator's interpretation").5
Finally, EchoStar contends that the District Court should have remanded the award to the panel to clarify how it reached the $2,438,178 figure. Once again, the record before the District Court provides more than adequate support for the panel's award. See United Food & Commercial Workers Local Union v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 889 F.2d 940, 947-48 (10th Cir.1989) ("[A]rbitration awards generally need not delineate reasons or reasoning, at least when the grounds for the award may be gleaned from the record.") (quotations omitted). The cases EchoStar relies on simply do not support the proposition that an arbitration panel is required to set forth a precise mathematical calculation of the damages when the record provides adequate support for the amount of the award. Moreover, to assert that "[t]he grounds for the Final Award cannot be inferred in this case" is to ignore over three days of testimony, briefing from the parties, and the expert reports provided by both parties.
In sum, none of the arguments advanced by EchoStar are grounds for vacating the arbitration award. Furthermore, we find EchoStar's appeal of the confirmation of the award to be frivolous, see Braley v. Campbell, 832 F.2d 1504, 1510 (10th Cir.1987), and agree with Dominion that EchoStar has deprived Dominion of the primary benefit gained by submitting to arbitration: "to avoid the expense and delay of court proceedings," see Foster v. Turley, 808 F.2d 38, 42 (10th Cir.1986). As a result, in its brief Dominion has asked this Court to award it attorneys' fees incurred in defending this appeal under Fed. R.App. P. 38. Because we may not impose such a sanction without a separately filed motion or notice, we invite Dominion, within fifteen days from the date of this opinion, to file a separate motion for sanctions in which it apprizes this Court of the reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees and costs incurred by it in opposing EchoStar's appeal from the District Court. EchoStar will then have fifteen days from the filing of Dominion's motion to show cause why it should not be sanctioned.
Mr. Jansen, Mr. Welch, and Mr. Wooten (collectively, "attorneys for EchoStar" or "EchoStar's attorneys") challenge the basis for the District Court's order sanctioning them under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. They also claim they were not accorded sufficient due process prior to being sanctioned.
Section 1927 provides that "[a]ny attorney ... who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct." 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Sanctions under § 1927 are appropriate when an attorney acts "recklessly or with indifference to the law." Braley, 832 F.2d at 1511. They may also be awarded "when an attorney is cavalier or bent on misleading the court; intentionally acts without a plausible basis; [or]when the entire course of the proceedings was unwarranted." Miera v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 143 F.3d 1337, 1342 (10th Cir.1998) (quotations and internal citations omitted). A decision to impose § 1927 sanctions is reviewed only for abuse of discretion. Griffen v. City of Okla. City, 3 F.3d 336, 342 (10th Cir.1993).
EchoStar's attorneys contend that the District Court abused its discretion in determining that their acts fell within the purview of § 1927. The crux of their argument is that they filed the motions and briefs in opposition to confirmation of the award, to vacate the award, and in opposition of attorneys' fees only to preserve the issues for appeal.6
A review of the record discloses that Dominion asked for § 1927 sanctions in its brief opposing EchoStar's motion to vacate the final arbitration award. As a basis for sanctions, Dominion asserted that EchoStar filed the motion to vacate with the sole intention of delaying payment of the arbitration award to Dominion. Dominon labeled the motion frivolous and concluded that "EchoStar has abused the judicial process in an effort to extend the duration of its breach and avoid paying Dominion just compensation." In addition, Dominion filed a reply in support of its motion to confirm in which Dominion similarly asserted that EchoStar's opposition to confirmation of the award is "another pretext for resistance and delay" and is "utterly frivolous." Finally, at the hearing on October 20, 2004, Dominion's counsel made reference to EchoStar's "multiple filings and challenges" and pointed out that Dominion had asked for sanctions in a prior brief to the court. At the same hearing, EchoStar's attorneys attempted to demonstrate that their actions were legitimate, which undermines any argument that they did not know what conduct might be sanctioned. Each of these facts belies the attorneys' present claim that they did not have sufficient notice of the specific conduct that was being considered for sanctions. It is clear that counsel knew Dominion had sought fees based on the fact that EchoStar filed several untenable motions and briefs, including the motion to vacate the award and its motion in opposition to confirm the award.
EchoStar's attorneys also argue that they were denied due process because they were not given an opportunity to contest the amount of the attorneys' fees alleged by Dominion. The record reflects, however, that after the District Court determined that fees were appropriate at the October 20 hearing, it outlined a clear process to be followed in order to determine the amount of fees chargeable to EchoStar's counsel: it asked the parties to file a statement of agreement, and it specified that if the parties could not agree the court would appoint a special master to resolve the dispute. Dominion followed through with this process by sending a proposed agreement to EchoStar listing fees in excess of $60,000. EchoStar's counsel, however, completely ignored the proposed agreement, and instead, only filed an opposition motion once Dominion filed its November 5th motion to the District Court seeking its fees. Because EchoStar failed to take advantage of the process afforded them, it cannot not now complain that it was not afforded an opportunity to respond. See Santana v. City of Tulsa, 359 F.3d 1241, 1244 (10th Cir.2004) (stating that the availability of sufficient procedure satisfies due process requirements if the complainant fails to take advantage of the procedure).
Finally, EchoStar's counsel argues that the District Court abused its discretion in sua sponte imposing an additional $750 sanction at the January 2005 fees hearing. As the District Court explained, the sanction was based on the amount of attorneys' fees Dominion incurred as a result of EchoStar's failure to respond to Dominion's October 29th letter requesting attorneys' fees. The District Court found that EchoStar's conduct "unnecessarily complicated and delayed this case." These grounds were substantially similar to the basis for sanctions EchoStar's attorneys had been apprized of several months earlier. As a result, these individuals cannot credibly claim that they did not know that filing a brief in opposition to attorneys' fees without conferring with opposing counsel in direct violation of the court's instructions might subject them to further sanctions under § 1927. See Sally Beauty Co. Inc. v. Beautyco, Inc., 372 F.3d 1186, 1191 (10th Cir.2004) (stating that imposition of costs because of attorney's disregard for court imposed deadline is "reasonably foreseeable" and therefore counsel had adequate notice). Moreover, EchoStar's attorneys were present at the hearing and attempted to explain why they failed to respond to Dominion's request for fees. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that this was a sufficient opportunity to respond to the imposition of sanctions for their conduct. See id. (stating that less process is due when a relatively small monetary sanction is to be divided among several persons). The District Court therefore did not abuse its discretion in ordering counsel for EchoStar to pay Dominion its reasonable attorneys' fees of $62,686.02 plus the additional $750.
EchoStar has failed to show that the arbitration panel acted fraudulently or with a manifest disregard for the law. We therefore affirm the District Court's order confirming the final award. Because we also find EchoStar's appeal of the District Court's order to be frivolous, Dominion may file a motion seeking reasonable attorneys' fees within fifteen days of the filing of this opinion; EchoStar will then have fifteen days to respond. Finally, we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Dominion $63,436.02 in attorneys' fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.
1 A transponder is a device on a satellite that receives signals from Earth and then transmits those signals back to the planet for reception covering a broad area
2 This Court vacated the preliminary injunction on grounds unrelated to the present appeal and specifically declined to address EchoStar's arguments on the merits of the disputeSee Dominion Video Satellite, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 356 F.3d 1256, 1266 & n. 8 (10th Cir.2004).
3 Ultimately, the District Court struck EchoStar's opposition papers because they contained several gross mischaracterizations of case law
4 To the extent EchoStar agues that the arbitration panel exceeded the scope of its authority in fashioning this order, such argument must also be rejected. The Agreement explicitly states that "any matter not resolved amicably between the parties to the satisfaction of both parties, shall be subject to mandatory binding arbitration." Further, the Agreement permitted the panel to fashion orders so long as they were within the scope of the disputed issue. The panel therefore acted within the scope of its authority when it defined the meaning of "reasonable cooperation" and instructed the parties to act in accordance with that definitionSee Int'l Bhd. Elec. Workers Local Union No. 611 v. Pub. Serv. Co. of N.M., 980 F.2d 616, 618 (10th Cir.1992) (stating that even if a court is convinced the arbitrator erred, this is not a basis for overturning the award as long as the arbitrator is "even arguably ... acting within the scope of his authority").
5 We note that this argument is particularly disingenuous given the fact that EchoStar took precisely the opposite position when it opposed the preliminary injunction before this Court in 2003See Dominion Video Satellite, 269 F.3d at 1156 ("EchoStar contends that the district court abused its discretion in finding irreparable harm. A plaintiff suffers irreparable injury when the court would be unable to grant an effective monetary remedy after a full trial because such damages would be inadequate or difficult to ascertain.").
6 EchoStar also argues that the District Court abused its discretion in imposing sanctions because its attorneys did not act in bad faith. This Court, however, has explicitly held that § 1927 does not require a finding of bad faithBraley, 832 F.2d at 1512.