United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A. ROSS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Movant Plocher Construction
Company, Inc. (“Plocher”)'s Motion to Confirm
Arbitral Award Dated February 13, 2017 (Doc. No. 1).
about October 27, 2014, Plocher and Highland TH, LLC, an
Indiana limited liability company (“Highland”),
entered into a construction contract (the
“Contract”) whereby Plocher would provide for
Highland the installation of a dewatering plant at 3200 South
State Road, 63, Belt Press Building, Terre Haute, Indiana.
(Declaration of Scott J. Plocher (“Plocher
Decl.”), Doc. No. 2-1 at ¶ 5). The Contract
contained an arbitration provision which states, inter
alia, that “all claims or disputes arising from or
in connection with this Contract … shall finally be
resolved by arbitration administered by and in accordance
with the Commercial Industry Arbitration Rules of the
American Arbitration Association …” (Doc. No.
2-3 at § 13.2; Plocher Decl. at ¶ 6).
about December 1, 2014, Plocher, Highland, and Respondent
Overseas Lease Group, Inc. (“Overseas”) entered
into an Assignment and Delegation of Construction Contract
(Plocher Decl. at ¶ 7). Pursuant to the Assignment,
Overseas accepted all of Highland's rights and
obligations under the Contract (Doc. No. 2-4 at 3; Plocher
Decl. at ¶ 8). Thereafter, a dispute arose under the
Contract between Overseas and Plocher stemming from
Overseas' failure to pay for the construction work
performed by Plocher (Plocher Decl. at ¶ 9).
about June 11, 2015, Plocher initiated an arbitration
proceeding against Overseas pursuant to the Construction
Contract and Assignment with the American Arbitration
Association (Plocher Decl. at ¶ 10). An arbitration
hearing was held in St. Louis, Missouri on January 31, 2017
before James R. Keller of Herzog Crebs, LLP, Richard Rhyne of
Lanthrop & Gage, and D. Lynn Whitt; the parties appeared
represented by counsel. (Plocher Decl. at ¶¶ 11,
12; Doc. No. 2-5). On February 13, 2017, the arbitration
panel awarded Plocher $989, 694.80 on its claim and $59,
417.37 for administrative fees and expenses, for a total
award of $1, 049, 112.17 (Plocher Decl. at ¶¶ 13,
14; Doc. No. 2-2). On March 14, 2017, Plocher moved to
confirm the final arbitration award pursuant to the Federal
Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. §§ 6,
9. The Motion to Confirm Arbitral Award and Memorandum in
Support thereof was mailed to Overseas c/o of its registered
agent and to attorney Paul Batista on March 15, 2017 (Doc.
No. 4) and served on Overseas' registered agent on March
27, 2017 (Doc. No. 7).
FAA embodies a national policy favoring arbitration; contains
a narrow set of statutory grounds to vacate, modify, or
correct an award; and supplies enforcement mechanisms for
these types of actions.” Infinity Fulfillment Grp.,
LLC v. Cenveo Corp., No. 4:14CV966 SNLJ, 2015 WL
3823166, at *6 (E.D. Mo. June 19, 2015) (citing Hall
Street Associates v. Mattel, 552 U.S. 576, 581-582
(2008)). To that end, section 9 of the FAA provides that any
party may apply, within one year after an arbitration award
is made, to the district court for an entry of judgment
confirming the award. 9 U.S.C. § 9. “A
confirmation proceeding under 9 U.S.C. § 9 is intended
to be summary: confirmation can only be denied if the award
has been corrected, vacated, or modified in accordance with
the Federal Arbitration Act.” McClelland v.
Azrilyan, 31 F.Supp.2d 707, 713 (W.D. Mo. 1998) (quoting
Taylor v. Nelson, 788 F.2d 220, 225 (4th Cir.
1986)). “Section 9 of the FAA provides that federal
courts must grant an order confirming an arbitration award
unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected as
prescribed in sections 10 and 11 of this title. Congress did
not authorize de novo review of such an award on its merits;
it commanded that when the exceptions do not apply, a federal
court has no choice but to confirm.” UHC Mgmt. Co.
v. Computer Scis. Corp., 148 F.3d 992, 997 (8th Cir.
1998) (internal quotation marks omitted).
party may file a motion to vacate, modify or correct an
arbitration award. 9 U.S.C. § 12. However, such motion
must be filed within 90 days of the initial arbitration
award. Id.; Domino Group, Inc. v. Charlie Parker
Memorial Foundation, 985 F.2d 417, 419 (8th Cir. 1993).
Failure to do so waives any defenses to confirmation of the
arbitration award. Id. at 419-20 (“Failure to
file a motion to vacate, modify, or correct within three
months ... waived any defenses to confirmation that might be
asserted in a timely motion to vacate.”).
has not filed a motion to vacate or modify the award, and the
time for doing so expired on May 14, 2017. Given its
uncontroverted failure to timely move to vacate the
arbitration award under the FAA, Overseas is precluded from
asserting any defenses to confirmation of the award in a
summary proceeding such as this. See, e.g.,
Norton v. AMISUB St. Joseph Hospital, 155 F.3d 1040,
1041 (8th Cir. 1998) (plaintiff waived her right to argue
that arbitration agreement was an unenforceable contract of
adhesion because she failed to file a timely motion to vacate
award); Med. Shoppe Int'l, Inc. v. Asong, No.
4:05MC499CDP, 2006 WL 83491, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 12, 2006).
The Court will, therefore, grant Plocher's motion and
confirm the arbitration award.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Movants'
Motion to Confirm Arbitral Award  is
GRANTED. A separate Judgment ...