Opinion ID: 780894
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Interest

Text: 43 Finally, GSI sought and was awarded attorneys' fees under the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act. The district court vacated the panel's award for attorneys' fees, costs and prejudgment interest, finding that the award manifested a disregard of applicable Minnesota law, and failed to make a final determination of the issues. 44 A district court has the authority to vacate a panel's award when it evidences a manifest disregard for the law. Missouri River Servs., Inc. v. Omaha Tribe of Nebraska, 267 F.3d 848, 854 (8th Cir.2001). An arbitration decision evidences a manifest disregard for the law where the arbitrators clearly identify the applicable, governing law and then proceed to ignore it. Hoffman, 236 F.3d at 462. 45 The panel's award of attorneys' fees is troubling. The panel majority states, Howard's Reply Brief presented the panel with a decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court holding that the Consumer Fraud Act does not apply to GSI's dispute with Howard. 7 The Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act permits private parties to recover attorneys' fees for violations of Minn.Stat. § 325F.69. We agree with the arbitration panel dissent which states: As a matter of law, the transactions between the parties are not consumer transactions at all. Rather they are transactions between sophisticated gas traders in the wholesale, commercial gas market. 46 Despite acknowledging the rule as set forth by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Ly which precludes a cause of action under the Consumer Fraud Act by a commercial trader, the panel majority ultimately awarded GSI attorneys' fees. This ruling ignores the relevant law. Where an arbitration panel cites relevant law, then proceeds to ignore it, it is said to evidence a manifest disregard for the law. Hoffman, 236 F.3d at 462 (citing Stroh, 783 F.2d at 749-50). We find that the award evidenced a manifest disregard for Minnesota law, and therefore affirm the district court's decision to vacate the award of attorneys' fees. 47 We also agree with the district court's analysis regarding prejudgment interest. A court can vacate an arbitrator's award where the arbitrators fail to make a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted. 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4). The arbitrator must resolve all issues submitted to the arbitration, and determine each issue fully so that no further litigation is necessary to finalize the obligations of the parties under the award. Dighello v. Busconi, 673 F.Supp. 85, 90 (D.Conn.1987). 48 Here, the panel's award indicates that the panel did not fully decide the issue of prejudgment interest: 49 The panel further recognizes that the entitlement to an amount of prejudgment interest ... may also be specifically governed by Minnesota or federal statute, court rule, and/or case law. The panel has not sought to make purely legal rulings with respect to those two (2) issues. The panel emphasizes that, should a Minnesota or federal court of competent jurisdiction determine that GSI is not legally entitled to Attorneys Fees and Prejudgment Interest, such a determination should not and does not affect the other findings, conclusions, or awards made by the panel herein. 50 Arbitrator's Award And Dissent at 27-28. 51 By expressly leaving this award open for judicial determination, the panel failed to make a final determination. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's decision to vacate the award of prejudgment interest. 52 The judgment of the district court is REVERSED and the arbitration panel's decision CONFIRMED as to the awards for loss of business damages and general trading account (Sale Price in Contract). The district court is AFFIRMED as to the attorneys' fees, costs and interest award.