Bridgepoint Ventures, LLC v. Panam Management Group, Inc. , 524 F. App'x 553 ( 2013 )

Case: 11-13971 Date Filed: 07/30/2013 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-13971
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:10-mc-60330-AJ
BRIDGEPOINT VENTURES, LLC,
ASCENT ACQUISITIONS, LLC,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
versus
PANAM MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., et al.,
Defendants,
EDWARD ADAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 30, 2013)
Case: 11-13971 Date Filed: 07/30/2013 Page: 2 of 4
Before TJOFLAT, BARKETT, and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Edward Adams, proceeding pro se, appeals from a final judgment
confirming Bridgepoint Ventures, LLC’s (“Bridgepoint”), arbitration award
against Adams stemming from the parties failed real estate deal. 1 On appeal,
Adams argues that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over
Bridgepoint’s action to confirm its arbitration award because of a lack of complete
diversity of citizenship on the grounds that some of the Bridgepoint condominium
purchasers are citizens of New York, thereby defeating diversity jurisdiction and
because Bridgepoint collusively created diversity jurisdiction in violation of 28
U.S.C. § 1359. He also argues that the district court abused its discretion in
confirming the arbitration award because Adams’s due process rights were violated
during the arbitration proceedings and because the arbitration award violates
Florida public policy.
We reject Adams’s argument regarding diversity jurisdiction as the district
court was not required to consider the citizenship of the individual condominium
purchasers because they are not members of Bridgepoint and are not named parties
in the district court action. We also find no merit to Adams’s argument that
subject matter jurisdiction is lacking because Bridgepoint collusively created
1
Other entities, which are not part of this appeal, have also been held liable along with
Adams, jointly and severally, for the arbitration award.
2
Case: 11-13971 Date Filed: 07/30/2013 Page: 3 of 4
diversity jurisdiction in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1359 by having the arbitrator
assign to Bridgepoint the claims of the individual investors. The arbitrator
correctly determined that, pursuant to the parties’ agreement and under Florida
law, Bridgepoint had standing to bring claims on behalf of the condominium
purchasers, who were named third-party beneficiaries under the agreement. With
regard to Bridgepoint’s federal suit to enforce the arbitration award, Bridgepoint
sought to vindicate its own rights under the parties’ agreement, which it was
statutorily entitled to do. See 9 U.S.C. § 9. Thus, Bridgepoint’s suit to enforce the
arbitration award was not the result of collusive conduct.
Finally, Adams’s remaining and various arguments attacking the validity of
the arbitration award are untimely. The arbitrator issued the arbitration award in
February 2010 and Adams did not attempt to challenge the substantive validity of
the award until near a year later. The Federal Arbitration Act requires that any
motion to vacate an award “must be served upon the adverse party or his attorney
within three months after the award is filed or delivered . . . .” 9 U.S.C. § 12; see
also Booth v. Hume Pub., Inc., 902 F.2d 925, 929 n.4 (11th Cir. 1990) (“[A]
party’s failure to move to vacate an arbitral award within the three-month
limitations period bars him from raising the alleged invalidity of the award as a
defense in opposition to a motion to confirm the award.”). Accordingly, we do not
consider these remaining arguments.
3
Case: 11-13971 Date Filed: 07/30/2013 Page: 4 of 4
AFFIRMED.
4