Opinion ID: 180842
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Post-Award Proceedings in the District Court

Text: PSO filed a motion to confirm the 2006 award in the district court, which granted the motion and entered judgment for PSO. Later, at BNSF's request, the court vacated its judgment in order to consider BNSF's claims that (1) the board exceeded its power in determining the 1994 award and the amended agreement contained no rate floor of $11.77 per ton, and (2) the board incorrectly interpreted unambiguous agreement language. On August 19, 2009, the district court denied BNSF's motion to vacate and once again granted PSO's motion to confirm. Burlington N. and Santa Fe R.R. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Co. of Okla., No. 05-CV-53-TCK-FHM, 2009 WL 2588868 (N.D.Okla. Aug.19, 2009). With regard to BNSF's first, claim, the court determined the board's finding was directly related to renegotiation of the rate or escalation in § 11 (the renegotiation section) as outlined in § 13 (the arbitration section). Id. at . The court also noted that, since BNSF submitted the precise issue for arbitration, it cannot escape an unfavorable decision by claiming after the fact that the Board was without authority to hear the dispute. Id. at . With regard to BNSF's claim that the board erroneously interpreted the agreement, the court found the contention to be without merit. Id.