Opinion ID: 1037943
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Arbitrator’s Jurisdiction

Text: CD&L contends that under Sandvik AB v. Advent Int’l Corp, 220 F.3d 99 (3d Cir. 2000), the District Court, not the Arbitrator, had the authority to address CD&L’s argument that the PSA was void—and therefore non-existent—because OwensBrockway did not obtain NJDEP’s approval to sell the property. We disagree with CD&L’s premise that the failure to obtain NJDEP’s approval rendered the PSA void. N.J.S.A. 13:1k-13 states that “[f]ailure of the transferor to perform a remediation and obtain department approval thereof as required pursuant to the provision of this act is grounds for voiding the sale. . . .” (emphasis added). By the statute’s own terms, failure to obtain NJDEP’s approval is simply grounds for CD&L’s declaring the PSA unenforceable—it does not implicate its formation. It merely provided a grounds for CD&L to avoid its obligations if it so desired. Thus, we agree with the Arbitrator that because the issue presented did not go to the existence of the contract, but, rather its validity or enforceability, that the Arbitrator had the authority to resolve the dispute. See Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 445-46 (2006); see also SBRMCOA, LLC v. Bayside Resort, Inc., 707 F.3d 267, 274 (3d Cir. 2013). With respect to its enforceability, the Arbitrator determined that CD&L’s “belated presentation of [its ISRA] argument [was] . . . time barred because [CD&L] clearly knew of the situation at closing and waived any objection then and through years of failure to raise it until presenting that argument in this proceeding.” (J.A. 63.) CD&L had the 5 opportunity to declare the PSA unenforceable early on but did not do so. Thus, we agree with the Arbitrator that N.J.S.A. 13:1k-13 was not a bar to the enforcement of the PSA.