Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 16 views

    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case regarding an arbitration award entered as an adverse judgment against the defendant, Mr. Baardson. The key details are: 1) The plaintiff, St. Helen's Investment, sued the defendant for breach of contract. The parties agreed to binding arbitration through the American Arbitration Association. 2) The arbitrator issued a lump sum award against the defendant. The defendant filed to vacate the award but the district court upheld it. 3) On appeal, the court affirms the district court's decision, finding no grounds to vacate the arbitration award such as fraud, misconduct, or manifest disregard of the law. The court notes its limited role in reviewing valid arbitration proceedings.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    16 views3 pages
    This document summarizes a court case regarding an arbitration award entered as an adverse judgment against the defendant, Mr. Baardson. The key details are: 1) The plaintiff, St. Helen's Investment, sued the defendant for breach of contract. The parties agreed to binding arbitration through the American Arbitration Association. 2) The arbitrator issued a lump sum award against the defendant. The defendant filed to vacate the award but the district court upheld it. 3) On appeal, the court affirms the district court's decision, finding no grounds to vacate the arbitration award such as fraud, misconduct, or manifest disregard of the law. The court notes its limited role in reviewing valid arbitration proceedings.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1994-06-16 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 28 F.3d 113 Docket: 94-4004

    Original Title

    St. Helen's Investment, Inc., a Washington Corporation, D/B/A Pozzolanic International v. A.B. Baardson, D/B/A Red Crown Mill Supply/mcci, Mountain Country Cogeneration, Inc., and Oregon Corporation, and Red Crown Mill Supply, Inc., an Oregon Corporation, 28 F.3d 113, 10th Cir. (1994)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case regarding an arbitration award entered as an adverse judgment against the defendant, Mr. Baardson. The key details are: 1) The plaintiff, St. Helen's Investment, sued the defendant for breach of contract. The parties agreed to binding arbitration through the American Arbitration Association. 2) The arbitrator issued a lump sum award against the defendant. The defendant filed to vacate the award but the district court upheld it. 3) On appeal, the court affirms the district court's decision, finding no grounds to vacate the arbitration award such as fraud, misconduct, or manifest disregard of the law. The court notes its limited role in reviewing valid arbitration proceedings.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    16 views3 pages

    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case regarding an arbitration award entered as an adverse judgment against the defendant, Mr. Baardson. The key details are: 1) The plaintiff, St. Helen's Investment, sued the defendant for breach of contract. The parties agreed to binding arbitration through the American Arbitration Association. 2) The arbitrator issued a lump sum award against the defendant. The defendant filed to vacate the award but the district court upheld it. 3) On appeal, the court affirms the district court's decision, finding no grounds to vacate the arbitration award such as fraud, misconduct, or manifest disregard of the law. The court notes its limited role in reviewing valid arbitration proceedings.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    28 F.

    3d 113
    NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored,
    unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a
    material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral
    argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of
    November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or
    further order.

    ST. HELEN'S INVESTMENT, INC., a Washington


    corporation,
    d/b/a Pozzolanic International, Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    A.B. BAARDSON, d/b/a Red Crown Mill Supply/MCCI,
    Mountain
    Country Cogeneration, Inc., and Oregon
    corporation, Defendant-Appellant,
    and RED CROWN MILL SUPPLY, INC., an Oregon
    corporation, Defendant.
    No. 94-4004.

    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.


    June 16, 1994.
    1

    Before TACHA, BRORBY, and EBEL, C.J.

    ORDER AND JUDGMENT1


    2

    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination
    of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is
    therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

    Mr. Baardson (Defendant), acting pro se, appeals an order entering an


    arbitration award as an adverse judgment. Finding no error, we affirm.

    St. Helen's Investment (Plaintiff) instituted this action against Mr. Baardson
    complaining of a breach of contract. The parties then entered into a written

    stipulation agreeing to submit the matter to binding and final arbitration to be


    conducted by the American Arbitration Association. Following a three-day
    proceeding, the arbitrator, without further explanation, issued a written award
    of a lump sum against Mr. Baardson.
    5

    Defendant then filed a motion to vacate the arbitration award, pursuant to 9


    U.S.C. 10, and a demand for a trial de novo, under 28 U.S.C. 655. The district
    court found Defendant's arguments unpersuasive and entered judgment upon
    the award. Mr. Baardson appeals, raising several arguments for the first time
    that we decline to address.

    It is evident Mr. Baardson, having first agreed to arbitration, 2 misperceives the


    limited role of courts in reviewing valid arbitration proceedings. Defendant is
    not entitled to a trial de novo under 28 U.S.C. 655 because he did not seek the
    district court's approval and direction of a nonbinding arbitration under the
    experimental court annexed arbitration program.3 Second, while our review of a
    district court's analysis under 9 U.S.C. 10 is de novo, that review is strictly
    limited and does not examine generally the arbitrator's interpretation of law or
    findings of fact. See Bowles Fin. Group v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., --- F.3d ----,
    1994 WL 145607 (10th Cir.1994).

    Examining the record for fraud, corruption, misconduct, undue means, or


    manifest disregard of the law, we find none. See 9 U.S.C. 10; Jenkins v.
    Prudential-Bache Sec., Inc., 847 F.2d 631, 634 (10th Cir.1988) (recognizing
    "manifest disregard of the law" as grounds for vacatur). An arbitrator's silence
    may not be used to infer a ground for vacating an award. See Ormsbee Dev. Co.
    v. Grace, 668 F.2d 1140, 1147 (10th Cir.) ("arbitration awards generally need
    not delineate reasons or reasoning"), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 838 (1982); accord
    Robbins v. Day, 954 F.2d 679, 684 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 201
    (1992); Stroh Container Co. v. Delphi Indus., Inc., 783 F.2d 743, 750 (8th
    Cir.). cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1141 (1986). Nor have Mr. Baardson's allegations
    satisfied his burden of demonstrating one of the above factors.

    The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of
    law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally
    disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and
    judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of the court's General
    Order filed November 29, 1993. 151 F.R.D. 470

    Mr. Baardson contends for the first time before this court that he "did not
    accept arbitration then and does not accept the results of arbitration now." This
    statement does not overcome Defendant's acknowledgment that his then
    counsel entered into a written stipulation on his behalf, or Defendant's obvious
    participation in arbitration without recorded objection. Our representational
    legal system rests on the fundamental principle that a party acts through chosen
    counsel. Security Nat'l Bank of Enid, Okla. v. John Deere Co., 927 F.2d 519,
    520 (10th Cir.1991)

    Repeal of the five-year program is pending effective December 31, 1994. See
    Judicial Improvements and Access to Justice Act, Pub.L. No. 100-702, 906,
    102 Stat. 4664 (1988)

    You might also like