Opinion ID: 613100
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Challenge to Award of Attorneys' Fees

Text: Appellants contend that the district court erred in confirming the award of attorneys' fees against e-Pin, arguing that there was no basis to hold e-Pin liable for them. They point out that e-Pin is a party to the PLA, but not the SLA, and that the PLA provides that any dispute or agreement arising out of it be resolved in accordance with the dispute resolution procedures specified in the [SLA]. J.A. Ex. 000274. Those procedures, in turn, endow the Panel with the authority to award costs and fees to the same extent a judge could pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or other applicable law. Id. ¶ 7. Appellants argue, however, that the Panel grounded its award of attorneys' fees on a different provision of the SLA, ¶ 12(k), which allows attorneys' fees to be awarded to the prevailing party. That provision is not incorporated by reference in the PLA and thus should not be applied against e-Pin, which was not a party to the SLA. Therefore, according to the appellants, the Panel exceeded its authority in assessing fees against e-Pin in Wells Fargo's favor on the basis of the prevailing party provision. Wells Fargo responds that the parties agreed that the arbitration would be governed by the AAA Rules, a provision of which expressly provides that the award of the arbitrator(s) may include ... an award of attorneys' fees if all parties have requested such an award or it is authorized by law or their arbitration agreement. AAA Rule 43(d)(ii). Wells Fargo submits that under this provision, if parties bound by the AAA Commercial Rules request attorneys' fees, then the arbitrators before whom they appear are empowered to award such fees. As support, Wells Fargo cites affidavits from counsel for e-Pin, as well an affidavit from its sole owner, that were submitted to the Panel before it announced the Award. The affidavits requested that attorneys' fees be awarded to appellants. Wells Fargo had made a similar request before the Panel announced its decision. Accordingly, all parties requested an award of attorneys' fees and thus the Panel was authorized to consider those requests. Because Rule 43(d)(ii) provides a basis for the award of attorneys' fees against e-Pin, we conclude that the district court did not err in confirming it.