United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, Plaintiff,
H & R BLOCK, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A. ROSS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Defendant HRB Resources,
LLC's Application to Confirm Arbitration Award. (Doc. No.
Beverly Franklin brought this action for employment
discrimination against Defendant HRB Resources, LLC
(“HRB”),  William Cobb, Jason Mann, Shelley
Hotchkiss, Kelli Brown, Carlyn Webber, Mary Ingram, and Nicko
Kemp, alleging she was terminated in violation of Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act (“ADEA”), the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”), and the Rehabilitation Act (Employment
Discrimination Complaint (“Compl.”), Doc. No. 1).
On December 2, 2016, the Court compelled arbitration and
stayed the case until the parties completed arbitration as
called for in the employment agreement. (Doc. No. 27)
April 12, 2017, Arbitrator Robert D. Litz issued an Order
dismissing all defendants, other than HRB. (Doc. NO. 32-2) On
September 8, 2017, HRB moved for summary judgment on
Plaintiff's claims. On September 30, 2017, Plaintiff
opposed HRB's motion for summary judgment and filed her
own cross-motion for summary judgment. On October 17, 2017,
the parties appeared before the Arbitrator for oral argument
on the cross-motions for summary judgment. On October 24,
2017, Arbitrator Litz issued the Arbitration Award, granting
HRB's Motion for Summary Judgment and denying
Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No.
32-1) On December 18, 2017, HRB moved to confirm the final
arbitration award pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act
(“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. §§ 9, 13.
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 January 22, 2018. Given her
uncontroverted failure to timely move to vacate the
arbitration award under the FAA, Plaintiff 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 HRB's motion and confirm
the arbitration award.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the
STAY entered in this matter on December 2,
2016 is LIFTED.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant HRB Resources,
LLC's Application to Confirm Arbitration Award  is
separate Judgment will accompany this Memorandum and Order.