Opinion ID: 484676
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Representative Capacity

Text: 11 Appellant's next contention is that, assuming arguendo the arbitration panel had the authority to hear the dispute, the district court erred in finding that Bernstein, Seawell & Kove filed the instant action on behalf of itself as a limited partner, and as a representative of the twenty-two other [limited partners] named in the original complaint.... Appellant claims the evidence clearly establishes that BS & K was acting solely in its own interest and that the award may be confirmed only to the extent of BS & K's share of the partnership. We determine, however, that the district court's finding is not clearly erroneous. 12 The caption of the original complaint filed in the district court by BS & K reads: IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION BETWEEN BERNSTEIN SEAWELL & KOVE, Petitioners.... Bosarge claims that, even if BS & K intended to act in a representative capacity, it failed to include the names of all the parties in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(a), 2 thereby waiving its capacity to bring suit on behalf of any party other than itself. The complaint, however, expressly requested the court for an order confirming the award of Arbitrators In the Matter of the Arbitration between Bernstein Seawell & Kove, et al, Petitioners and W.E. Bosarge, Jr., Respondent.... Additionally, the copy of the arbitration award attached to the complaint listed the twenty-three limited partners. This list was prefaced by the following statement: Limited Partners of Hugoton I, Ltd. Who Constitute the Petitioners Herein. 13 Bosarge claims he did not know that BS & K was purporting to represent anyone other than itself until the issue was raised at trial. The evidence, however, belies the accuracy of this assertion. The caption of appellant's MOTION TO DISMISS AND ORIGINAL ANSWER OF RESPONDENT W.E. BOSARGE JR. clearly refers to IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION BETWEEN BERNSTEIN SEAWELL & KOVE, ET AL, Petitioners. This caption shows that Bosarge had knowledge that BS & K was acting in a representative capacity. His contention that BS & K brought the complaint only on its own behalf cannot prevail. 14 Any questions concerning the ability of a party to sue in a representative capacity must be raised by specific negative averment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(a). Bosarge did not challenge BS & K's authority to bring suit on behalf of the other twenty-two limited partners prior to the commencement of the trial. Thus any right to object to BS & K's representative capacity was waived. See Myers v. Manchester Insurance & Indemnity Co., 572 F.2d 134, 184 (5th Cir.1978) (appellant waived its right to challenge appellee's representative capacity by failing to object until the post-trial conference). BS & K brought suit to reduce to judgment the arbitrators' award which had been entered in favor of all the limited partners. The district court's finding that BS & K took this action on behalf of those limited partners is not clearly erroneous. Appellant has no cause to object to the trial amendment adding the names of the other twenty-two limited partners since the amendment did not bring any additional parties into the suit. It merely clarified the fact that all the limited partners were original parties in the action. 15 Since we affirm the district court's finding that this suit was instituted by all of the limited partners, we need not consider in detail appellant's statute of limitations claims. The complaint to enforce the arbitration award was filed within one year as required by 9 U.S.C. Sec. 9. 16 Likewise, appellant was not prejudiced by the district court's decisions to grant the trial amendment and to deny appellant's motion for a continuance. Bosarge knew or should have known that all the limited partners were included in the arbitration award and that the enforcement action to confirm the award was brought on behalf of all the interested parties. Additionally, the limited partnership agreement to arbitrate is clearly sufficient to satisfy the requirement that an agreement to arbitrate must be in writing. See 9 U.S.C. Sec. 2.