A federal district court in New York held that where a party moves to dismiss a motion to vacate an arbitration award, the court may treat the motion to dismiss as a motion to confirm the award. If the Court then denies the motion to vacate, the parties cannot subsequently relitigate the validity of the award.

In Sanluis Developments, L.L.C. v. CCP Sanluis, L.L.C., No. 06 Civ. 11531 (RJH), 2008 WL 2253060 (S.D.N.Y. June 3, 2008), Sanluis Developments (SD) moved to vacate an arbitration award that was rendered July 16, 2006. CCP Sanluis (CCP) moved to dismiss SD's motion to vacate on November 22, 2006, and after the court granted the motion to dismiss, CCP moved to modify the judgment and confirm the award August 17, 2007.

SD moved to dismiss CCP's motion to confirm, arguing that CCP's motion was untimely under the Federal Arbitration Act's (FAA's) one-year statute of limitations.

The Court rejected SD's argument, holding that CCP's November 22 motion to dismiss SD's motion to vacate was also a request to confirm the award. The Court held that although CCP had not specifically requested that its motion to dismiss be treated as a motion to confirm in this case, it would be appropriate for a court sua sponte to treat a motion to dismiss as a motion to confirm. The Court reasoned that the motion to confirm under § 9 of the FAA and motion to vacate under § 10 are related, as they submit identical issues for judicial determination.

Accordingly, the Court held that "when a court denies a motion to vacate an arbitration award, the court's judgment has the effect of collateral estoppel; the parties cannot relitigate the validity of the award." Thus, "[i]t is therefore sensible for the court to treat a party's opposition to a motion to vacate as a request to confirm the award."

SD argued that the distinctions between a motion to vacate and a motion to confirm in this case "have particular force" since it was an international arbitration conducted pursuant to the New York Convention. The Court rejected this argument, holding that "when the Convention laws apply and the arbitration award was rendered under United States law, a court engages in the same inquiry with respect to a motion to confirm as with a motion to vacate."

Consequently, CCP's November 22 motion was treated as a motion to confirm the award, so CCP's motion was not barred by the FAA's one-year statute of limitations. The Court thus granted CCP's August 17 motion and modified the judgment and confirmed the arbitration award.