United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division
TERRENCE W. BOYLE CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
cause comes before the Court on movant's motion to
confirm an arbitration award. [DE 5]. The motion is ripe for
disposition. For the reasons that follow, movant's motion
to confirm the arbitration award [DE 5] is GRANTED.
SMD Hospitality, LLC, is a Texas limited liability company
that owns a Holiday Inn hotel in Addison, Texas. [DE 5-1, p.
1]. Respondent, A Royal Touch, Inc., is a North Carolina
corporation that, in December 2016, agreed to provide various
furnishings for the Addison Holiday Inn. [DE 5-1, p. 1-3].
Following various disputes about the contract and its
performance, the parties submitted to arbitration before the
American Arbitration Association (AAA) in March 2018. [DE 5].
February 27, 2019, the arbitrator awarded movant $595,
258.03, with post-judgment interest set at 8% per annum, as
well as $5, 600.00 in attorneys' fees and expenses.
Id. In April 2019, movant filed the instant motion
to confirm the arbitration award. [DE 5]. Respondent has not
timely responded to the motion and it is now ripe for
"is a major factor in achieving industrial peace, a
vital force in establishing confidence and minimizing
confusion at all levels of the labor-management relationship
and a major constructive force in the collective bargaining
process itself." Richmond, Fredericksburg &
Potomac R. Co. v. Transp. Commc'ns Int'l Union,
973 F.2d 276, 278 (4th Cir. 1992) (internal quotations and
alterations omitted). Accordingly, "judicial review of
an arbitration award must be an extremely narrow
exercise." Long John Silver's Rests., Inc. v.
Cole, 14 F.3d 345');">514 F.3d 345, 351 (4th Cir. 2008). In fact, it is
"among the narrowest known to law." U.S. Postal
Serv. v. Am. Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, 204 F.3d
523, 527 (4th Cir. 2000).
district court is not authorized to review the merits of an
arbitrator's decision, but "is limited to
determining whether the arbitrators did the job they were
told to do-not whether they did it well, correctly, or
reasonably, but simply whether they did it." Remmey
v. Paine Webber, Inc., 143');">32 F.3d 143, 146 (4th Cir. 1994)
(quotation and citation omitted). The limited appellate
review reflects a strong policy favoring arbitration as an
alternative to litigation. Id. at 145. "[T]he
reviewing court's task is to enforce the bargained-for
decision of the arbitrator and not to evaluate the
arbitrator's factual findings or legal analysis."
Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R.R. Co. v.
Transp. Commc'ns Int'l Union, 973 F.2d 276, 281
(4th Cir. 1992). "Any more probing review of arbitral
awards would risk changing arbitration from an efficient
alternative to litigation into a vehicle for protracting
disputes." Wachovia Sees., L.L.C v. Brand, 671
F.3d 472, 478 n.5 (4th Cir. 2012).
motion to confirm the arbitration award must be granted.
There is no indication of any defect in the arbitration
proceedings, and in light of the narrow scope of review of
arbitration decisions, the Court finds that the arbitration
award should be confirmed. Respondent is therefore ordered to
pay movant $595, 258.03, plus post-judgment interest of 8%
per annum, as well as $5, 600.00 in costs and fees. Further,
as the prevailing party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
54(d)(1), movant is awarded an additional $400.00 in costs
for this action, for a total of $6, 000.00' in costs and
fees. See Teague v. Bakker, 35 F.3d 978, 996 (4th
Cir. 1994) (noting that Rule 54(d)(1) "gives rise to a
presumption in favor of an award of costs to the prevailing
above reasons, movant's motion to confirm the arbitration
award [DE 5] is GRANTED and the arbitration award is
CONFIRMED. Respondent is ORDERED to pay $595, 258.03, plus