|
Rejecting an attempt to have an arbitration award vacated as arbitrary and capricious, a federal court in Florida sternly warned the attorney who filed the suit not to bring such "frivolous challenges" in the future.
In Spartan Masonry, LLC v. Hoar Construction, LLC, No. 06-CIV-61033, 2007 WL 951773 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 28, 2007), subcontractor Spartan Masonry (Spartan) and general contractor Hoar Construction (Hoar) each claimed the other party breached their contract. An arbitration panel found that Spartan's failure to complete the work under the contract preceded Hoar's non-payment and ordered Spartan to pay nearly two million dollars in compensatory damages.
Spartan moved to vacate the award, claiming it was arbitrary and capricious. The Court strongly disagreed. Noting "ample evidence" to indicate that Spartan's work was not adequately performed, much of which was provided by Spartan's own expert witness, the Court found the arbitration panel's award to be well-grounded.
In addition, the Court had harsh words for the attorney filing the motion to vacate. Relying upon the 11th Circuit ruling in B.L. Harbert International, LLC v. Hercules Steel Co., 441 F.3d 905 (11th Cir. 2006), this Court echoed its exasperation with those "who attempt to salvage arbitration losses through litigation that has no sound basis."
The Court noted that allowing parties a "second bite at the apple" by re-litigating issues already decided in arbitration would thwart the "laudatory goals" of the Federal Arbitration Act, including faster resolution, lower costs, and reducing court congestion. Reminding Spartan's attorney that such attempts are sanctionable, counsel was cautioned "to refrain from filing such frivolous challenges in the future."
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|