THI of New Mexico at Vida Enca v. Lovato , 864 F.3d 1080 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                   FILED
    United States Court of Appeals
    PUBLISH                               Tenth Circuit
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          July 25, 2017
    Elisabeth A. Shumaker
    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                             Clerk of Court
    _________________________________
    THI OF NEW MEXICO AT VIDA
    ENCANTADA, LLC,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.                                                           No. 16-2041
    MARY LOUISE LOVATO, as personal
    representative for the wrongful death estate
    of Guadalupe Duran, deceased,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    _________________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of New Mexico
    (D.C. No. 1:11-CV-00634-MV-KK)
    _________________________________
    Lori D. Proctor, Cooper & Scully, P.C., Houston, Texas, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Jennifer J. Foote (Dusti D. Harvey with her on the brief), Harvey and Foote Law Firm,
    LLC, Albuquerque, New Mexico, for Defendant-Appellee.
    _________________________________
    Before HOLMES, PHILLIPS, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
    _________________________________
    PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge.
    _________________________________
    Under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), we may vacate an arbitrator’s
    decision “only in very unusual circumstances.” Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter,
    
    133 S. Ct. 2064
    , 2068 (2013) (quoting First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 
    514 U.S. 938
    , 942 (1995)). “That limited judicial review . . . ‘maintain[s] arbitration’s
    essential virtue of resolving disputes straightaway.’” 
    Id. (alteration in
    original)
    (quoting Hall Street Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 
    552 U.S. 576
    , 588 (2008)).
    Section 10(a) of the FAA delineates the four “very unusual circumstances” for
    vacating arbitration awards. Oxford Health Plans 
    LLC, 133 S. Ct. at 2068
    ; see 9
    U.S.C. § 10(a). Here, we consider whether an arbitrator exceeded his authority under
    § 10(a)(4) and whether he manifestly disregarded the law in awarding certain costs
    and fees to the prevailing party. Under our restrictive standard of review, we
    conclude that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority or manifestly disregard the
    law. So we affirm.
    I
    1.     Standard of Review
    In assessing the district court’s confirmation of the arbitration award, “we
    review legal questions de novo and factual findings for clear error.” CEEG
    (Shanghai) Solar Sci. & Tech. Co. v. LUMOS LLC, 
    829 F.3d 1201
    , 1205 (10th Cir.
    2016). “An error is clear ‘if the district court’s findings lack factual support in the
    record or if, after reviewing all the evidence, we have a definite and firm conviction
    that the district court erred.’” 
    Id. at 1205-06
    (quoting Middleton v. Stephenson, 
    749 F.3d 1197
    , 1201 (10th Cir. 2014)).
    Though “[w]e do not owe deference to the district court’s legal conclusions,”
    we “afford maximum deference to the arbitrators’ decisions.” 
    Id. at 1206
    (emphasis
    2
    omitted). Our task is to assess whether the district court correctly followed the
    restrictive standard that governs judicial review of an arbitrator’s award:
    “[W]e must give extreme deference to the determination of the
    [arbitrator] for the standard of review of arbitral awards is among the
    narrowest known to law.” ARW Exploration Corp. v. Aguirre, 
    45 F.3d 1455
    , 1462 (10th Cir. 1995) . . . . “By agreeing to arbitrate, a party
    trades the procedures and opportunity for review of the courtroom for
    the simplicity, informality, and expedition of arbitration.” Gilmer v.
    Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 
    500 U.S. 20
    , 31, 
    111 S. Ct. 1647
    , 
    114 L. Ed. 2d 26
    (1991).
    Brown v. Coleman Co., 
    220 F.3d 1180
    , 1182 (10th Cir. 2000) (emphasis added). So
    our review is extremely limited. Dominion Video Satellite, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite
    L.L.C., 
    430 F.3d 1269
    , 1275 (10th Cir. 2005). In addition, we have emphasized that a
    court should exercise “great caution” when a party asks for an arbitration award to be
    set aside. Ormsbee Dev. Co. v. Grace, 
    668 F.2d 1140
    , 1147 (10th Cir. 1982).
    The Supreme Court has emphasized that “only . . . extraordinary
    circumstances” warrant vacatur of an arbitral award. San Juan Coal Co. v. Int’l
    Union of Operating Eng’rs, Local 953, 
    672 F.3d 1198
    , 1201 (10th Cir. 2012) (citing
    Major League Baseball Players Ass’n v. Garvey, 
    532 U.S. 504
    , 509 (2001)
    (per curiam)).The Court has also said that if “the arbitrator is even arguably
    construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of his authority, that a
    court is convinced he committed serious error does not suffice to overturn his
    decision.” United Paperworkers Int’l Union, AFL-CIO v. Misco, Inc., 
    484 U.S. 29
    ,
    38 (1987); Oxford Health Plans 
    LLC, 133 S. Ct. at 2068
    (describing “the sole
    question” for courts as “whether the arbitrator (even arguably) interpreted the parties’
    3
    contract, not whether he got its meaning right or wrong”). Even so, “[t]he arbitrator
    may not ignore the plain language of the contract.” 
    Misco, 484 U.S. at 38
    .
    In practice, courts “are ‘not authorized to reconsider the merits of an award
    even though the parties may allege that the award rests on errors of fact or on
    misinterpretation of the contract.’” 
    CEEG, 829 F.3d at 1206
    (quoting 
    Misco, 484 U.S. at 36
    ); see also ARW Expl. 
    Corp., 45 F.3d at 1463
    (“Even erroneous interpretations
    or applications of law will not be disturbed.”). “The arbitrator’s construction holds,
    however good, bad, or ugly.” Oxford Health Plans 
    LLC, 133 S. Ct. at 2071
    .
    Any “less deference would risk ‘improperly substitut[ing] a judicial
    determination for the arbitrator’s decision that the parties bargained for.’” San Juan
    Coal 
    Co., 672 F.3d at 1201
    (alteration in original) (quoting Major League Baseball
    Players 
    Ass’n, 532 U.S. at 509
    ). It would also create a system in which “arbitration
    would become ‘merely a prelude to a more cumbersome and time-consuming judicial
    review process.’” Oxford Health Plans 
    LLC, 133 S. Ct. at 2068
    (quoting Hall Street
    
    Assocs., 552 U.S. at 588
    ).
    2.    Grounds for Reversal
    Alongside this highly deferential standard of review, the law sets a high hurdle
    for reversal of an arbitral award. Enforcing the “strong federal policy favoring
    arbitration,” this court has required parties seeking to set aside an arbitration award to
    establish a statutory basis or a judicially created exception for doing so. Bowen v.
    Amoco Pipeline Co., 
    254 F.3d 925
    , 932 (10th Cir. 2001); see Burlington N. & Santa
    Fe Ry. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Co. of Okla., 
    636 F.3d 562
    , 567 (10th Cir. 2010). Aside from
    4
    these “limited circumstances,” § 9 of the FAA requires courts to confirm arbitration
    awards. Denver & Rio Grande W. R.R. Co. v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 
    119 F.3d 847
    , 849
    (10th Cir. 1997) (citing 9 U.S.C. § 9).
    Section 10(a) of the FAA, 9 U.S.C. § 10(a), delineates four statutory grounds
    for vacating arbitral awards—grounds that require very unusual circumstances.
    Oxford Health Plans 
    LLC, 133 S. Ct. at 2068
    . The first three grounds encompass
    various types of “corruption, fraud, or undue means” and arbitrator misconduct. 9
    U.S.C. § 10(a)(1)-(3). The fourth ground, which is the only ground that THI of New
    Mexico at Vida Encantada (THI) invokes, applies “where the arbitrators exceeded
    their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award
    upon the subject matter submitted was not made.” 
    Id. § 10(a)(4).
    A party seeking relief under § 10(a)(4) “bears a heavy burden.” Oxford Health
    Plans 
    LLC, 133 S. Ct. at 2068
    . “[C]onvincing a court of an arbitrator’s error—even
    his grave error—is not enough.” 
    Id. at 2070.
    “Because the parties ‘bargained for the
    arbitrator’s construction of their agreement,’ an arbitral decision ‘even arguably
    construing or applying the contract’ must stand, regardless of a court’s view of its
    (de)merits.” 
    Id. (quoting E.
    Associated Coal Corp. v. Mine Workers, 
    531 U.S. 57
    , 62
    (2000)). Thus, in considering whether the arbitrator exceeded his powers, we
    consider one question: whether the arbitrator arguably interpreted the parties’
    contract, regardless of whether that interpretation was correct. 
    Id. To supplement
    these statutory grounds, we have recognized a judicially
    created exception to the rule that even an erroneous interpretation or application of
    5
    law by an arbitrator is not reversible. See Denver & Rio Grande W. 
    R.R., 119 F.3d at 849
    (explaining that “a handful of judicially created reasons” to reverse an
    arbitrator’s decision have emerged over the years). For instance, this court has held
    that “manifest disregard of the law”—which requires “willful inattentiveness to the
    governing law”—is subject to reversal. ARW Expl. 
    Corp., 45 F.3d at 1463
    (quoting
    Jenkins v. Prudential–Bache Sec. Inc., 
    847 F.2d 631
    , 634 (10th Cir. 1988)). “It is not
    enough . . . to show that the [arbitrator] committed an error—or even a serious error.”
    Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. Animalfeeds Int’l Corp., 
    559 U.S. 662
    , 671 (2010). “To warrant
    setting aside an arbitration award based on manifest disregard of the law, ‘the record
    must show that the arbitrators knew the law and explicitly disregarded it.’” Hollern v.
    Wachovia Secs., Inc., 
    458 F.3d 1169
    , 1176 (10th Cir. 2006) (quoting Dominion Video
    
    Satellite, 430 F.3d at 1274
    ).1
    II
    With this framework in mind, we turn to the facts of this case. In May 2007,
    ninety-two-year-old Guadalupe Duran was admitted to THI of New Mexico at Vida
    Encantada, LLC, a nursing home in Las Vegas, New Mexico, to obtain nursing-home
    1
    This exception’s viability has been uncertain, however, since the Supreme
    Court’s decision in Hall Street. There, the Court questioned whether “manifest
    disregard” names a new ground for review or refers to the § 10 grounds 
    collectively. 552 U.S. at 585
    . It then emphasized that “expanding the detailed categories would
    rub too much against the grain of the § 9 language, where provision for judicial
    confirmation carries no hint of flexibility.” 
    Id. at 587;
    see also Abbott v. Law Office
    of Patrick J. Mulligan, 440 F. App’x 612 (10th Cir. 2011) (unpublished) (explaining
    the uncertainty as to whether manifest disregard is still a viable ground to overturn an
    arbitration award after Hall Street).
    6
    care. During her stay at THI, Ms. Duran fell several times. During one fall, she broke
    her femur and hip. She suffered a stroke soon after undergoing surgery for her
    injuries. Less than five months after admission, Ms. Duran died while in THI’s care.
    Before admitting Ms. Duran to THI, her daughter and personal representative,
    Mary Ann Atencio, executed on her behalf an Admission Agreement and an
    Arbitration Agreement. In the Arbitration Agreement, the parties agreed to submit to
    “arbitration, as provided by the National Arbitration Forum Code of Procedure or
    other such association,” and to allow an arbitrator to resolve “any Dispute(s)”
    between them, including “any controversy or dispute . . . arising out of or relating to”
    the Admission Agreement or “the provision of care or services to” Ms. Duran, and
    “all issues pertaining to the scope of” the Arbitration Agreement. Appellant’s App.
    Vol. 1 at 43. The Arbitration Agreement also said that it “shall be governed by and
    interpreted under the [FAA].” 
    Id. Acting on
    behalf of Ms. Duran’s estate, Mary Louise Lovato, Ms. Duran’s
    granddaughter and the personal representative of the estate, sued THI (and others
    who are not parties to this appeal) in New Mexico state court for wrongful death and
    other tort claims. In response, THI filed a motion in federal court to compel
    arbitration, which the district court granted over Ms. Lovato’s opposition. THI of
    N.M. of Vida Encantada, LLC v. Lovato, 
    848 F. Supp. 2d 1309
    , 1334-35 (D.N.M.
    2012).
    After his appointment, the arbitrator requested a copy of the Arbitration
    Agreement and sought clarification as to whether the New Mexico Uniform
    7
    Arbitration Act (NMUAA) governed the dispute: “I would like to receive a copy of
    the written agreement to arbitrate which controls this process. I am assuming that the
    Arbitration is covered by the Uniform Arbitration Act of New Mexico. If that
    assumption is not correct would you please advise me of your respective positions?”
    Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 219. The arbitrator received a copy of the Arbitration
    Agreement, though the timing of receipt is not evident from the record. Neither party
    responded to his inquiry about the NMUAA’s applicability.
    The parties participated in a four-day arbitration, at which Ms. Lovato
    prevailed on the wrongful-death claim. The arbitrator awarded her $475,000 in
    compensatory damages and authorized a post-arbitration motion for further relief and
    costs. After extensive briefing by the parties concerning Ms. Lovato’s Post-
    Arbitration Motion for Fees and Costs, the arbitrator awarded Ms. Lovato an
    additional $245,462.75: $62,100.89 in costs and expenses, which included
    $39,051.25 in arbitrator’s fees (half of the total fees of $78,102.49); $170,087.98 in
    pre-judgment interest; and $13,273.88 in post-judgment interest, with additional
    post-judgment interest continuing to accrue from the date of the award.
    THI filed a motion in district court to vacate or modify the arbitrator’s award,
    and Ms. Lovato filed a motion to confirm it. The district court upheld the award. THI
    appealed, challenging only the confirmation of the costs and interest award.2
    2
    During appellate briefing, THI conditionally withdrew its challenge to paying
    Ms. Lovato’s half-share of the arbitrator’s fees ($39,051.25), which is included
    within that award, because it had agreed to pay those fees in its motion to compel
    8
    III
    The district court applied the “maximum deference” standard of review within
    the framework of § 10(a)(4) of the FAA and appropriately deferred to the arbitrator
    in confirming the award of costs and interest. 
    CEEG, 829 F.3d at 1205
    . The district
    court correctly stated that “irrespective of whether the Court concurs with the
    Arbitrator’s interpretation of the underlying arbitration agreement, it is obvious that
    the Arbitrator here construed the relevant contract.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 332.
    The arbitrator did so when he reasoned that the Arbitration Agreement “states that it
    is governed by and interpreted under the [FAA]” but “does not exclude jurisdiction
    for the arbitration under the [NMUAA,] a statute which applies to all arbitration
    agreements contracted within New Mexico.” 
    Id. at 162.
    Thus, unless this conclusion
    ignored the plain language of the parties’ agreement, the arbitrator’s award must
    stand.
    1.       The Terms of the Arbitration Agreement
    Relying extensively on cases from other circuits, THI argues that the costs and
    interest award—which the arbitrator issued under the NMUAA—is “in direct
    contradiction to the Arbitration Agreement’s plain language” such that he exceeded
    his powers under § 10(a)(4). Appellant’s Br. at 11. THI argues that the Arbitration
    arbitration. See Appellant’s Reply Br. at 16-17 & n.12 (stating that “[THI] will
    remain true to its word” but advising that it “is not willing to pay those costs pursuant
    to the Award that is predicated on the NMUAA”); Appellee’s Supp. App. at 21 n.2
    (“Regardless of the arbitral forum/rules of the procedure that ultimately are used to
    administer the arbitration proceeding here, [THI] is agreeable to paying the
    administrative costs of arbitration.”).
    9
    Agreement designates the FAA, not the NMUAA, as the governing law, and the FAA
    does not authorize the recovery of costs and interest by the prevailing party.
    In assessing the Arbitration Agreement, “[w]e consider the plain language of
    the relevant provisions, giving meaning and significance to each word or phrase
    within the context of the entire contract, as objective evidence of the parties’ mutual
    expression of assent.” H-B-S P’ship v. Aircoa Hosp. Servs., Inc., 
    114 P.3d 306
    , 313
    (N.M. Ct. App. 2005) (emphasis added). THI focuses only on one sentence: “This
    Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9
    U.S.C. Sections 1-16.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 1 at 43.
    As a threshold matter, THI has not established that the FAA affirmatively
    prohibits an award of costs and interest—only that it does not expressly authorize
    one. Although the FAA displaces conflicting state law, Preston v. Ferrer, 
    552 U.S. 346
    , 353 (2008), state law is preempted only “to the extent that it actually conflicts
    with federal law” and “would undermine the goals and policies of the FAA,” Volt
    Info. Sciens., Inc. v. Bd. of Trs. of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 
    489 U.S. 468
    , 477-
    78 (1989). We have previously recognized that the FAA and the NMUAA may apply
    to the same arbitration agreement so long as the NMUAA doesn’t conflict with the
    FAA.3 See THI of N.M. at Hobbs Ctr., LLC v. Patton, 
    741 F.3d 1162
    , 1169-70 (10th
    Cir. 2014). The Arbitration Agreement poses no such conflict.
    3
    Ms. Lovato also points out that the arbitrator twice advised the parties that he
    understood that the NMUAA applied in the arbitration and that THI did not say
    otherwise. The arbitrator first informed the parties of his view in his January 22,
    10
    Two contractual terms support the arbitrator’s award of costs and interest.
    First, as THI itself emphasized in moving to compel arbitration,4 the Arbitration
    Agreement delegates broad authority to the arbitrator: “The parties agree that all
    issues pertaining to the scope of this Agreement . . . shall be determined by the
    arbitrator,” Appellant’s App. Vol. 1 at 43 (emphasis added), language that appears to
    include the determination of available legal and equitable remedies. “[C]ourts favor
    the arbitrator’s exercise of . . . broad discretion in fashioning remedies.” Campo
    Machining Co. v. Local Lodge No. 1926, 
    536 F.2d 330
    , 334 (10th Cir. 1976); 
    Bowen, 254 F.3d at 939
    ; see also Rivera v. Am. Gen. Fin. Servs., Inc., 
    259 P.3d 803
    , 818
    (N.M. 2011) (“As a matter of law arbitrators have broad authority and are deemed
    capable of granting any remedy necessary to resolve a case.”). “Parties who agree to
    submit matters to arbitration are presumed to agree that everything, both as to law
    and fact, necessary to render an ultimate decision is included in the authority of the
    arbitrators.” 
    Ormsbee, 668 F.2d at 1146
    .
    2014 introductory letter and asked them to provide their “respective positions” if they
    disagreed with it. Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 219. THI concedes it “did not formally
    respond to the Arbitrator’s letter.” Appellant’s Br. at 4. From this silence, the
    arbitrator concluded that THI had impliedly “assented to the application of the
    [NMUAA] . . . . and its remedies.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 162. Later, during the
    arbitration proceeding, the arbitrator asked, “Well, we’re under the Uniform
    Arbitration Act, right?” 
    Id. at 222.
    Ms. Lovato’s counsel responded, “We are.” 
    Id. THI’s counsel
    did not respond.
    4
    See Supp. App. at 34 (“Where, as here, an arbitration clause is drafted in
    broad terms, it is broadly construed.”).
    11
    Second, the Arbitration Agreement directs that the National Arbitration Forum
    Code of Procedure (NAF Code) applies. See Appellant’s App. Vol. 1 at 43 (“[T]he
    parties agree that [any] Dispute(s) shall be resolved by arbitration, as provided by the
    National Arbitration Forum Code of Procedure or other such association.”). Rule 20
    of the NAF Code allows an arbitrator to “grant any legal, equitable or other remedy
    or relief provided by law in deciding a Claim.” NAF Code, Rule 20.D (2008). Also,
    under Rule 37, an arbitrator’s final award “may include fees and costs . . . as
    permitted by law” if the party seeking them makes a timely request, though the
    opposing party has an opportunity to object. 
    Id., Rule 37.C;
    see also 
    id., Rule 37.D
    (“An Award may include arbitration fees awarded by an Arbitrator . . . .”).5 By
    referencing the applicable law, the NAF Code authorized the application of New
    Mexico law governing costs and interest.6
    We acknowledge the parties did not arbitrate under the NAF Code, and the
    district court found they were not “[bound] . . . to follow the rules and procedures of
    the NAF.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 1 at 103. But the Arbitration Agreement’s reference
    5
    We also note that Rule 12(A)(1) of the NAF Code contemplates that a claim
    may include “the specific amount and computation of any interest [and] costs.” 
    Id., Rule 12(A)(1).
          6
    Section 44-7A-22(b) of the NMUAA allows an arbitrator to award fees and
    expenses if authorized by law in a civil action. In civil actions, New Mexico law
    allows the costs and interest awarded by the arbitrator in this case. See N.M. R. Civ.
    P. for Dist. Cts. 1-054(d) (authorizing costs other than attorneys’ fees for prevailing
    parties and describing recoverable costs); N.M. Stat. Ann. § 56-8-4(A)-(B)
    (authorizing pre- and post-judgment interest). Thus, the arbitrator had authority under
    New Mexico law, as incorporated by the NAF Code, to award costs and interest.
    12
    still shows that an award of costs and interest was within the realm of their
    agreement. See NAF Code, Rule 1.A (“This Code shall be deemed incorporated by
    reference in every Arbitration Agreement, which refers to . . . this Code of Procedure,
    unless the Parties agree otherwise.”).
    Section 10(a)(4) “permits courts to vacate an arbitral decision only when the
    arbitrator strayed from his delegated task of interpreting a contract.” Oxford Health
    Plans 
    LLC, 133 S. Ct. at 2070
    . Where, as here, the arbitrator’s decision has “any”
    contractual basis, it should not be overturned under the deferential standard of review
    afforded to arbitration awards. See 
    id. at 2069-70.
    Because the costs and interest
    award finds support in the terms of the Arbitration Agreement, the district court did
    not err in confirming it. See, e.g., San Juan Coal 
    Co., 672 F.3d at 1201
    (explaining
    that an arbitration award must be upheld if it has “at least some foundation in the text
    of the controlling agreements” and is based on a “defensible construction[] of the
    agreement”).
    2.     Manifest Disregard of the Law
    Finally, THI asks us to apply the judicially created manifest disregard of the law
    exception to vacate the arbitrator’s costs and interest award. Again, we apply the required
    deferential standard of review. We assume (without deciding) the viability of that
    exception. For the reasons discussed above explaining why the arbitrator did not exceed
    his authority, we affirm the district court’s conclusion that the arbitrator did not act in
    manifest disregard of the law. THI has presented no evidence showing the arbitrator’s
    “willful inattentiveness to the governing law.” Dominion 
    Video, 430 F.3d at 1275
    13
    (quoting ARW Expl. 
    Corp., 45 F.3d at 1463
    ). Nor has THI shown that the arbitrator
    “knew the law and explicitly disregarded it.” 
    Bowen, 254 F.3d at 932
    .
    IV
    Under the restrictive standard of review applicable to this appeal, THI falls
    short of the exceptional showing required to upset the finality of arbitration. We
    affirm the district court’s order confirming the arbitrator’s award of costs and
    interest.
    14
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-2041

Citation Numbers: 864 F.3d 1080

Filed Date: 7/25/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023

Authorities (21)

San Juan Coal Co. v. International Union of Operating ... , 672 F.3d 1198 ( 2012 )

Campo MacHining Co., Inc. v. Local Lodge No. 1926 of the ... , 536 F.2d 330 ( 1976 )

Brown v. Coleman Company , 220 F.3d 1180 ( 2000 )

Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Public ... , 636 F.3d 562 ( 2010 )

ormsbee-development-company-a-wyoming-corporation-v-corrine-grace-and , 668 F.2d 1140 ( 1982 )

Joseph Jenkins and Stanley Hodges, & Cross-Appellees v. ... , 847 F.2d 631 ( 1988 )

H-B-S Partnership v. Aircoa Hospitality Services, Inc. , 137 N.M. 626 ( 2005 )

Bowen v. Amoco Pipeline Co. , 254 F.3d 925 ( 2001 )

dominion-video-satellite-inc-v-echostar-satellite-llc-fka-echostar , 430 F.3d 1269 ( 2005 )

Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad v. Union Pacific ... , 119 F.3d 847 ( 1997 )

United Paperworkers International Union v. Misco, Inc. , 108 S. Ct. 364 ( 1987 )

Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland ... , 109 S. Ct. 1248 ( 1989 )

Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp. , 111 S. Ct. 1647 ( 1991 )

Hollern v. Wachovia Securities , 458 F.3d 1169 ( 2006 )

First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan , 115 S. Ct. 1920 ( 1995 )

Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers, ... , 121 S. Ct. 462 ( 2000 )

Major League Baseball Players Assn. v. Garvey , 121 S. Ct. 1724 ( 2001 )

Preston v. Ferrer , 128 S. Ct. 978 ( 2008 )

Hall Street Associates, L. L. C. v. Mattel, Inc. , 128 S. Ct. 1396 ( 2008 )

Stolt-Nielsen S. A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp. , 130 S. Ct. 1758 ( 2010 )

View All Authorities »