Opinion ID: 173592
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The FAA vacatur standards

Text: Vacatur under the FAA is governed by 9 U.S.C. § 10. If the FAA's vacatur standards apply, as they do here, these are the only grounds that can support vacatur. See Hall St., 552 U.S. at 590, 128 S.Ct. 1396. Four narrow grounds are provided in the statute: In any of the following cases the United States court in and for the district wherein the award was made may make an order vacating the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration (1) where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means; (2) where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them; (3) where the arbitrators were 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 arbitrators exceeded their 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). The sole basis Ario asserts for vacation of the award is irrationality, and he makes no contention of any corruption, fraud, partiality, or misconduct (the first three grounds). The irrationality standard comes from the fourth ground, the exceeded their powers provision. See Mut. Fire, Marine & Inland Ins. Co. v. Norad Reins. Co., 868 F.2d 52, 56 (3d Cir.1989) (noting that the court's function in confirming or vacating a commercial [arbitration] award is severely limited and interpreting what is now § 10(a)(4) (alteration in original) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)). We review the form of the relief awarded by the arbitrators to determine if the form of the arbitrators' award can be rationally derived either from the agreement between the parties or from the parties['] submissions to the arbitrators, and we do not revise the terms of the award unless they are `completely irrational.' Id. (citation omitted). So deferential is the irrationality standard under the FAA that we may not overrule an arbitrator simply because [we] disagree. . . . [T]here must be absolutely no support at all in the record justifying the arbitrator's determinations for a court to deny enforcement of an award. United Transp. Union Local 1589 v. Suburban Transit Corp., 51 F.3d 376, 379 (3d Cir.1995) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). It should be clear that the test used to probe the validity of a[n] . . . arbitrator's decision is a singularly undemanding one. Id. (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Conversely, Ario faces a steep uphill battle to show that the arbitration award rendered here was completely irrational and could not be supported on any theory of relief.