Court Opinion

ID: 9951850
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-19 14:00:48.885214+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:43:11.999795
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-13168    Document: 27-1     Date Filed: 03/19/2024   Page: 1 of 5

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-13168
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       JESSICA GRAULAU,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       CREDIT ONE BANK, N.A.,
       a foreign corporation,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 6:19-cv-01723-WWB-EJK
USCA11 Case: 23-13168           Document: 27-1           Date Filed: 03/19/2024            Page: 2 of 5

       2                            Opinion of the Court                            23-13168

                                  ____________________

       Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Jessica Graulau, proceeding pro se, 1 appeals the district
       court’s denial of (1) her motion to vacate an arbitration award and
       (2) her motion to correct or modify the award on defendant Credit
       One Bank, N.A.’s counterclaim, pursuant to 9 U.S.C. §§ 10 and 11
       of the Federal Arbitration Act. 2
                                                   I.
              Sections 10 and 11 of the FAA provide its exclusive grounds
       for vacatur and modification of arbitration awards. Hall St. Assocs.,

       1 While we construe pro se pleadings liberally, such liberal construction “does not

       give a court license to serve as de facto counsel for a party, or to rewrite an otherwise
       deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.” Campbell v. Air Jamaica Ltd., 760 F.3d
       1165, 1168–69 (11th Cir. 2014) (quotation marks omitted). Additionally, even pro se
       litigants will be deemed to have abandoned a claim by making only passing reference
       to it, raising it in a perfunctory manner without supporting arguments and authority,
       or referring to it only in the “statement of the case” or “summary of the argument,”
       or where the references to the issue are mere background to the appellant’s main
       arguments. Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681–82 (11th Cir. 2014).
       2 In reviewing the district court’s denial of a motion to vacate or modify an arbitration

       award, we review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and its legal con-
       clusions de novo. Frazier v. CitiFinancial Corp., LLC, 604 F.3d 1313, 1321 (11th Cir.
       2010). “There is a presumption under the FAA that arbitration awards will be con-
       firmed, and federal courts should defer to an arbitrator’s decision whenever possible.”
       Id. (quotation marks omitted). As such, “a court’s confirmation of an arbitration
       award is usually routine or summary.” Cat Charter, LLC, v. Schurtenberger, 646 F.3d
       836, 842 (11th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks omitted).
USCA11 Case: 23-13168      Document: 27-1      Date Filed: 03/19/2024     Page: 3 of 5

       23-13168               Opinion of the Court                          3

       L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 584 (2008). Section 10 of the FAA
       allows a district court to vacate an arbitration award only in the
       following narrow circumstances:
              (1) where the award was procured by corruption,
              fraud, or undue means;
              (2) where there was evident partiality or corruption
              in the arbitrators, or either of them;
              (3) where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in
              refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient
              cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence perti-
              nent and material to the controversy; or of any other
              misbehavior by which the rights of any party have
              been prejudiced; or
              (4) where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so
              imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and
              definite award upon the subject matter submitted
              was not made.
       9 U.S.C. § 10(a). We have held that, in light of Hall Street, the “ju-
       dicially-created bases for vacatur” formerly recognized, such as
       where an arbitrator behaved in manifest disregard of the law, are
       no longer valid. Frazier, 604 F.3d at 1321, 1323–24; see also Southern
       Commc’ns Servs., Inc. v. Thomas, 720 F.3d 1352, 1358 (11th Cir. 2013)
       (“In light of the [Supreme] Court’s decision in Hall Street, we held
       that the ‘judicially-created bases for vacatur’ that we had formerly
       recognized, such as where an arbitrator behaves in manifest disre-
       gard of the law, ‘are no longer valid.’ Nor is an ‘incorrect legal
USCA11 Case: 23-13168      Document: 27-1        Date Filed: 03/19/2024     Page: 4 of 5

       4                       Opinion of the Court                   23-13168

       conclusion . . . grounds for vacating or modifying an award.’”) (ci-
       tations omitted).
               Here, the district court did not err in denying Graulau’s mo-
       tion to vacate because she fails to establish any of the four narrow
       circumstances justifying vacatur as provided by FAA § 10. See 9
       U.S.C. § 10(a)(1)–(4). While she argues that the arbitrator exceeded
       his powers under FAA § 10(a)(4) by disregarding applicable federal
       and state law, that argument is untenable, as we have repeatedly
       held post-Hall Street that manifest disregard of the law is a judicially-
       created basis for vacatur, and that such judicially-created bases are
       no longer valid grounds for vacating or modifying an arbitration
       award in cases brought under the FAA. Frazier, 604 F.3d at 1323–
       24; Southern Commc’ns Servs., 720 F.3d at 1358. She also mentions
       the arbitrator’s “misconduct/misbehavior” and “clear partiality
       with bias” against her in what appears to be an attempt to assert an
       entitlement to relief under FAA § 10(a)(2) and (3). But she cites no
       authority and makes no argument as to why she would be entitled
       to relief on those grounds and has thus abandoned any argument
       as to them. Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 681–82. Because Graulau failed to
       raise any valid challenges to the arbitrator’s decision, we affirm the
       district court’s denial of her motion to vacate.
                                           II.
             Section 11 of the FAA, in turn, provides that a district court
       may correct or modify an arbitration award in three circumstances:
              (a) Where there was an evident material miscalcula-
              tion of figures or an evident material mistake in the
USCA11 Case: 23-13168      Document: 27-1       Date Filed: 03/19/2024   Page: 5 of 5

       23-13168               Opinion of the Court                         5

             description of any person, thing, or property referred
             to in the award.
             (b) Where the arbitrators have awarded upon a mat-
             ter not submitted to them, unless it is a matter not
             affecting the merits of the decision upon the matter
             submitted.
             (c) Where the award is imperfect in matter of form
             not affecting the merits of the controversy.
       9 U.S.C. § 11.
               Here, the district court also did not err in denying Graulau’s
       motion to correct or modify the arbitration award on Credit One’s
       counterclaim. As the court found and the record makes clear,
       Graulau’s argument that the arbitrator awarded upon a matter not
       submitted to him is untenable because Credit One’s counterclaim
       was expressly submitted to him. See 9 U.S.C. § 11(b). And, as al-
       ready explained, her argument that the arbitrator’s award was “im-
       perfect” based on his disregard of applicable laws remains meritless
       and is also likely abandoned based on her failure to cite any author-
       ity in support of that position. Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 681–82; 9 U.S.C.
       § 11(c).
                                         III.
             Because Graulau can establish no valid bases upon which to
       vacate or modify of the arbitration award, we affirm.
             AFFIRMED.