Case Name: Miodrag BELJAKOVIC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MELOHN PROPERTIES, INC., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-11-20
Citations: 542 F. App'x 72
Docket Number: No. 12-4997-CV
Parties: Miodrag BELJAKOVIC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MELOHN PROPERTIES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Present: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, REENA RAGGI, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 542
Pages: 72–73

Head Matter:
Miodrag BELJAKOVIC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MELOHN PROPERTIES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 12-4997-CV.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Nov. 20, 2013.
Miodrag Beljakovic, Elizabeth, N.J., pro se.
Harry Mark Weinberg, Law Offices of Harry Weinberg, New York, N.Y., for Ap-pellees.
Present: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, REENA RAGGI, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Appellant Miodrag Beljakovic, proceeding pro se, appeals from a November 7, 2012 Order confirming an arbitration award in favor of his former employer, Appellee Melohn Properties, Inc., as to Appellant's age discrimination claims, brought pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history of the case, and issues on appeal.
The Labor Management Relations Act § 301, 29 U.S.C. § 185, confers upon the federal courts jurisdiction over contract disputes between an employer and a labor union; however, it provides no procedure for confirming or vacating an arbitration award resolving such a dispute. Courts have, in the past, turned to the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. § 1-16, for guidance about arbitration enforcement conducted under § 301. See United Pa-perworkers Int'l Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 40 n. 9, 108 S.Ct. 364, 98 L.Ed.2d 286 (1987).
Pursuant to the FAA, district court review of an arbitration is highly deferential, see Fahnestock & Co. v. Wattman, 935 F.2d 512, 515 (2d Cir.1991), and a district court may vacate an arbitration award only:
(1) where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means;
(2) where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrator[ ] .;
(3) where the arbitrator[ was] 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 arbitrator[] exceeded [his] powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.
9 U.S.C. § 10(a); see also Jock v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., 646 F.3d 113, 121 (2d Cir.2011). "The showing required to avoid summary confirmation of an arbitration award is high." Willemijn Houdstermaatschappij, BV v. Standard Microsys. Corp., 103 F.3d 9, 12 (2d Cir.1997). When we review a district court judgment confirming an arbitration award, we review legal conclusions de novo, and findings of fact for clear error. See Pike v. Freeman, 266 F.3d 78, 86 (2d Cir.2001).
An independent review of the record and relevant case law demonstrates that the district court properly rejected Appellant's arguments for vacatur of the arbitration award and correctly confirmed the award in favor of the Appellee. We therefore affirm, for substantially the reasons set forth in the district court's thorough and well-reasoned order. We have examined Beljakovic's remaining contentions, and find them to be without merit.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.