Kohn Law Group, Inc. v. Bruce Jacobs ( 2020 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
OCT 8 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KOHN LAW GROUP, INC., No. 19-56083
Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No.
2:19-cv-05775-VAP-E
and
ROBERT E. KOHN, MEMORANDUM*
Petitioner,
v.
BRUCE JACOBS; et al.,
Respondents-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Virginia A. Phillips, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 5, 2020**
Pasadena, California
Before: KLEINFELD, HURWITZ, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Kohn Law Group appeals the district court’s order confirming an arbitration
award. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 16 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
affirm.
A district court’s confirmation of an arbitration award is reviewed de novo.
Biller v. Toyota Motor Corp., 668 F.3d 655, 661 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Comedy
Club, Inc. v. Improv W. Assocs., 553 F.3d 1277, 1284 (9th Cir. 2009)). This
Court’s review, however, is both limited and highly deferential. Aspic Eng’g &
Constr. Co. v. ECC Centcom Constructors LLC, 913 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir.
2019). Arbitration awards must be confirmed unless they are “vacated, modified,
or corrected as prescribed in sections 10 and 11 [of the Federal Arbitration Act
(FAA)].” 9 U.S.C. § 9. Neither erroneous legal conclusions nor unsubstantiated
factual findings by an arbitrator justify overturning an arbitral award under the
FAA. Biller, 668 F.3d at 662 (citing Bosack v. Soward, 586 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th
Cir. 2009)).
Kohn Law Group argues that the arbitration award should be vacated in part
under FAA Section 10(a)(4) because the arbitrator exceeded her powers by
disregarding a contract provision. On the contrary, the arbitrator considered the
contract provision mentioned by Kohn Law Group, she merely interpreted it
differently than Kohn Law Group preferred. “We will not vacate an award simply
2
because we might have interpreted the contract differently.” Bosack, 586 F.3d at
1106.
Alternatively, Kohn Law Group argues its award should be modified
pursuant to FAA Section 11(a). The record, however, indicates that there was no
material miscalculation of figures, merely a typographical error within the body of
the arbitrator’s analysis. Therefore, modification of the arbitration award is not
warranted.
Kohn Law Group also argues for vacatur based on the arbitrator’s alleged
manifest disregard for California law. To prove manifest disregard, the party
challenging the arbitration award must show that the arbitrator understood and
correctly stated the law, but proceeded to disregard it. Bosack, 586 F.3d at 1104.
Here, the arbitrator extensively analyzed the issue raised by Kohn Law Group and
thoughtfully applied the law to the facts. Thus, Kohn Law Group has failed to
show manifest disregard.
Finally, Kohn Law Group argues the award should be vacated due to a
failure to award it pre-judgment interest. Section 10(a)(4) of the FAA allows
vacating an award when a “definite award upon the subject matter submitted was
not made.” 9 U.S.C. § 10. Here, Kohn Law Group did receive a definite award, it
just did not receive interest. While this may not be the result Kohn Law Group
3
preferred, an arbitrator is allowed to make an award without explaining her
reasons. Bosack, 586 F.3d at 1104. And in this case, the arbitrator specifically
noted that the parties had made many arguments that the arbitrator did not formally
address in the award, but that in reaching her decision the arbitrator had carefully
considered and weighed each of the points addressed and developed.
AFFIRMED.
4