Opinion ID: 2672444
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Counterclaims Under the FAA

Text: Finally, Chesapeake argues that BP’s counterclaim is not cognizable under the FAA, citing authority from other circuits. Aplt. Br. 35-37 (citing Booth v. Hume Pub., Inc., 902 F.2d 925, 931 (11th Cir. 1990); Ottley v. Schwartzberg, 819 F.2d 373, 377 (2d Cir. 1987)). In Booth, the Eleventh Circuit concluded it would be inconsistent with the goals of the FAA to allow counterclaims in confirmation proceedings other than those enumerated by FAA §§ 10-11. Booth, 902 F.2d at 931. The court expressed concern that allowing counterclaims would change the “summary” nature of confirmation proceedings. Id. at 931-33. There is no rule in this circuit prohibiting counterclaims in confirmation 4 Chesapeake addresses the law of claim preclusion of this circuit, Aplt. Br. 34, while BP argues the district court correctly applied the claim preclusion rules of Oklahoma, Aplee. Br. 47. Both Tenth Circuit and Oklahoma law require a final judgment before a claim may be precluded, See MACTEC, 427 F.3d at 831; Doyle v. Smith, 202 P.3d 856, 864 (Okla. Civ. App. 2009), and the result is the same under either. - 12 - proceedings, and we do not need to consider adopting one now. When Chesapeake initiated this litigation, it sought more than summary confirmation; it asked the court to examine the jurisdiction of the panel and to enjoin it from hearing the parties’ dispute. Aplt. App. 56. Allowing BP’s counterclaim in that context would not change the nature of the proceeding. See Booth, 902 F.2d at 931-33. As we find Chesapeake’s arguments in appeal No. 13-6108 unpersuasive, the ruling of the district court, BP Am. Prod. Co., 2013 WL 1397727, will be affirmed.