Opinion ID: 2455129
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Review Of Arbitral Awards

Text: The FAA does not independently confer subject matter jurisdiction on the federal courts. Durant, Nichols, Houston, Hodgson & Cortese-Costa, P.C. v. Dupont, 565 F.3d 56, 63 (2d Cir.2009). [T]here must be an independent basis of jurisdiction before a district court may entertain petitions to confirm or vacate an award under the FAA. Id. (internal quotation marks). In this case, the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. § 203, which provides federal jurisdiction over actions to confirm or vacate an arbitral award that is governed by the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention). The New York Convention applies in this case because Scandinavian is a foreign corporation. See 9 U.S.C. § 202. Because the Award in the St. Paul Arbitration was entered in the United States, however, the domestic provisions of the FAA also apply, as is permitted by Articles V(1)(e) and V(2) of the New York Convention. See Zeiler v. Deitsch, 500 F.3d 157, 164 (2d Cir.2007) (describing overlap of New York Convention and the FAA); Yusuf Ahmed Alghanim & Sons, W.L.L. v. Toys R Us, Inc., 126 F.3d 15, 19-23 (2d Cir.1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1111, 118 S.Ct. 1042, 140 L.Ed.2d 107 (1998). [T]he FAA and the New York Convention work in tandem, and they have overlapping coverage to the extent that they do not conflict. Sole Resort, S.A. de C.V. v. Allure Resorts Mgmt., LLC, 450 F.3d 100, 102 n. 1 (2d Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Neither party disputes that section 10 of the FAA governs the issues before us on this appeal. See 9 U.S.C. § 10.
When reviewing a district court's decision to vacate an arbitration award, we review findings of fact for clear error and questions of law de novo.  [16] Applied Industrial, 492 F.3d at 136; see also Zeiler, 500 F.3d at 164. A court reviewing an arbitration award under the FAA can confirm and/or vacate the award, either in whole or in part. D.H. Blair & Co. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95, 104 (2d Cir.2006). But a petition brought under the FAA is not an occasion for de novo review of an arbitral award. Wallace v. Buttar, 378 F.3d 182, 189 (2d Cir.2004). A court's review of an arbitration award is instead severely limited, ReliaStar Life Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. EMC Nat. Life Co., 564 F.3d 81, 85 (2d Cir. 2009), so as not to frustrate the twin goals of arbitration, namely, settling disputes efficiently and avoiding long and expensive litigation, Rich v. Spartis, 516 F.3d 75, 81 (2d Cir.2008) (internal quotation mark omitted). This Court has repeatedly recognized the strong deference appropriately due arbitral awards and the arbitral process, and has limited its review of arbitration awards in obeisance to that process. Porzig v. Dresdner, Kleinwort, Benson, N. Am. LLC, 497 F.3d 133, 138 (2d Cir.2007) (citation omitted). Therefore, in order to obtain vacatur of the decision of an arbitral panel under the FAA, a party must clear a high hurdle. Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp., ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1758, 1767, 176 L.Ed.2d 605 (2010); see also Wallace, 378 F.3d at 189 (referring to the heavy burden on the party seeking vacatur under the FAA).