|
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a district court properly issued supplemental judgment on an arbitration award that was fully confirmed eighteen months earlier because the supplemental judgment corrected an omission from the original judgment.
In Robert Lewis Rosen Associates, Ltd. v. Webb, No. 05-3578-CV, 2007 WL 79448 (2d Cir. Jan. 11, 2007), Webb, a director of televised sporting events, hired Robert Lewis Rosen Associates (RLR), an entertainment agency, to serve as his personal manager and career advisor. The parties' contract required Webb to pay 10 percent of his compensation to RLR in exchange for its management services.
When Webb terminated the relationship in 2000, RLR filed an arbitration demand for money allegedly due under the contract. The arbitrator awarded RLR $355,084.32 for money then owing and further determined that Webb would owe RLR additional money when he received payment for subsequent contract renewals. The district court confirmed the award and entered judgment for $355,084.32.
More than a year later, after Webb satisfied the original money judgment, RLR moved for entry of an additional money judgment based on Webb's contract renewals. The district court issued supplemental judgment for $106,441.72 but noted that it was not increasing the original judgment because the court's previous order confirmed the entire arbitration award, including Webb's prospective liability for contract renewals.
On appeal, Webb argued that the district court lacked authority to issue supplemental judgment on an arbitration award that was confirmed eighteen months earlier. In support of his argument, Webb cited Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that "[a]ny motion to alter or amend a judgment shall be filed no later than 10 days after entry of the judgment."
The Court found that Webb's reliance on Rule 59(e) was misplaced because the district court was not altering or amending the judgment when it issued the supplemental judgment. Instead, the district court was correcting an omission from the original judgment. Rule 60(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to correct such omissions "at any time."
Since the original judgment confirmed the entire award, the Court held that the district court properly issued the supplemental judgment as a means of "explicitly elucidat[ing] a portion of the award now due RLR."
The supplemental judgment aided the efficiency of arbitration by correcting an oversight that otherwise might have led to another round of proceedings. Under Rule 42 of the National Arbitration Forum Code of Procedure, arbitrators have similar authority to correct any oversights or omissions in their awards.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|