United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A. ROSS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Fairfield
Processing Corporation (“Fairfield”)'s motion
to confirm arbitration award. (Doc. No. 1). No. response or
opposition was filed by Defendant Best Made Toys
International, ULC (“BMT”).
April 2017, Fairfield and Defendant Best Made Toys
International, ULC, (“BMT”), entered into a
Contract Filling Agreement (“Agreement”), whereby
Fairfield would fill, finish, package, and prepare for
shipping BMT products in its St. Louis, Missouri facility.
(Doc. No. 1-1). The Agreement contained an arbitration
provision, which states, inter alia, that
“[a]ny dispute, controversy or claim arising out of, or
relating to this Agreement . . . shall be determined by
arbitration in the State of Connecticut before one
arbitrator. The arbitration shall be administered by JAMS
pursuant to its Streamlined Arbitration Rules and
early 2018, a dispute arose concerning BMT's failure to
make certain payments that Fairfield believed BMT owed under
the Agreement. On July 19, 2018, Fairfield initiated
arbitration proceedings with JAMS, asserting claims against
BMT. BMT filed a response pleading denying Fairfield's
allegations and asserting counterclaims against Fairfield. An
arbitration hearing was held on January 22-25, 2019.
April 3, 2019, JAMS issued a Notification of Award informing
the parties that the Arbitrator had issued his decision.
JAMS, however, would not release and serve the Award until
“all outstanding fees have been received.” (Doc.
No. 1-4). Fairfield contends that, believing that BMT would
not pay the invoice, Fairfield paid the outstanding amount
owed. JAMS thereafter released and issued the Final Award, in
which the Arbitrator found that BMT breached the Agreement,
denied BMT's counterclaims, and awarded Fairfield $576,
445.32, including damages, pre-judgment interest, and
attorney's fees. Thereafter, Fairfield filed a motion to
modify the award, requesting that the Arbitrator add an
additional $15, 938.30 in arbitration fees and costs
Fairfield incurred in excess of its pro rata share, as well
as $1, 335.00 in additional attorney's fees. (Doc. No.
1-4). On April 24, 2019, the Arbitrator granted
Fairfield's request and issued a Modified Final Award,
for a total award of $593, 718.62. (Doc. No. 4-1).
now moves to confirm the Modified Final Award pursuant to the
Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C.
§§ 6, 9. The motion to confirm arbitration award
and memorandum in support thereof was served on BMT through
its Chief Executive Officer, Carter Pennington, on April 24,
2019. (Doc. No. 2-1).
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.”).
not filed a motion to vacate or modify the award, and the
time for doing so has expired. Given its uncontroverted
failure to timely move to vacate the arbitration award under
the FAA, BMT 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) (holding
that the 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 Fairfield's motion and confirm the
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff
Fairfield Processing Corp.'s motion to confirm
arbitration award is GRANTED. A separate