United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Asheville Division
RAYMOND V. BOWERS, Plaintiff,
NORTHERN TWO CAYES COMPANY LIMITED and LIGHTHOUSE REEF RESORT LTD., Defendants.
Reidinger United States District Judge
MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff's
“Motion for Remand to Arbitrator for Clarification,
Extension of Injunctive Relief, and Ruling that Arbitration
in Binding.” [Doc. 37]. Defendants have responded to
Plaintiff's Motion [Doc. 40], and the Plaintiff has
replied thereto. [Doc. 41].
March 15, 2016, this Court entered an Order compelling
arbitration of this matter pursuant to the arbitration
provision set forth in the parties' Listing Contract.
[Doc. 29]. Thereafter, the parties selected Gary S. Hemric to
be the arbitrator and agreed to use the Commercial Rules of
the American Arbitration Association to govern the
arbitration proceeding. According to the parties, Arbitrator
Hemric conducted a three-day arbitration hearing September
14-16, 2016. [Docs. 37 at 1; 40 at 2]. Further, according to
the parties, Arbitrator Hemric issued an Opinion and Award on
October 13, 2016. [Id.].
Plaintiff's present motion requests that the Court remand
Arbitrator Hemric's Opinion and Award for: (1)
clarification; (2) an extension of the injunctive relief
previously imposed; and (3) an explicit determination that
the arbitration is binding on the parties. [Doc. 37]. The
Defendants oppose the Plaintiff's motion asserting that:
(1) the arbitration Opinion and Award is clear; (2) the
arbitration proceeding was non-binding; and (3) the parties
should proceed to litigate the matter in court. [Doc. 40 at
Plaintiff asks the Court to remand the arbitrator's
Opinion and Award for further modifications. According to the
Plaintiff, “the main thrust” of his motion
“is to request that the court remand the
Arbitrator's O&A for major clarifications and order
clear enforcement measures.” [Doc. 37 at 2]. The
impediment to the relief requested by the Plaintiff, however,
is that the arbitrator's Opinion and Award is not
presently before the Court.
framework established by the FAA is clear. Until a party
applies to a court for the confirmation of an arbitration
award, and serves such application (to include a complete
copy of the arbitrator's award) upon the adverse party in
conformity with section 9 of the FAA, no court is able to
adjudicate any interests of (or potential contentions by) the
adverse party reflected in such award. See 9 U.S.C.
§ 9 (“Notice of the application shall be served
upon the adverse party, and thereupon the court shall have
jurisdiction of such party as though he had appeared
generally in the proceeding.”). Plaintiffs citation to
section 11 of the FAA regarding the Court's ability to
modify or correct an award is inapposite. [Doc. 37 at 3]. A
court can take no action upon an arbitrator's award
without such award first being served upon the adverse party
and presented to the court for confirmation pursuant to
section 9 of FAA. As no such motion is presently before the
Court, there exists no basis on which the Court can order
remand.Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion to
remand the arbitrator's Opinion and Award will be denied.
THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff's “Motion for
Remand to Arbitrator for Clarification, Extension of
Injunctive Relief, and Ruling that Arbitration in
Binding” [Doc. 37] is DENIED.
 Even though the parties agree that the
arbitrator issued his Opinion and Award on October 13, 2016,
the story does not end there. According ...