Data Mountain Solutions, Inc. v. Giordano ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                              UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    
    __________________________________________
                                              )
    DATA MOUNTAIN SOLUTIONS,                  )
    INC., et al.,                             )
                                              )
                  Petitioners,                )
                                              )
           v.                                 )                  Civil Action No. 08-1623 (PLF)
                                              )
    GREGG GIORDANO, et al.,                   )
                                              )
                  Respondents.                )
    __________________________________________)
    
    
                                                 OPINION
    
                   Petitioners Data Mountain Solutions, Inc. (“DMS”), Frederick S. Hill, Jr., and
    
    Derek McUmber seek confirmation under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq.
    
    (“FAA”), of an award issued by arbitrator Michael Kelley on November 14, 2008. In the
    
    alternative, if the Court is not yet prepared to render judgment in this matter, they have moved
    
    for the entry of a preliminary injunction that would, among other things, limit the right of
    
    respondent Gregg Giordano to dissipate his assets. As an alternative form of prejudgment
    
    remedy, the petitioners request preliminary relief under Rule 64 of the Federal Rules of Civil
    
    Procedure, which makes available in a federal court every prejudgment remedy, such as
    
    attachment, garnishment, or sequestration, that is available “under the law of the state where the
    
    court is located” for the purpose of “secur[ing] satisfaction of the potential judgment.” FED . R.
    
    CIV . P. 64. For his part, Mr. Giordano — who proceeds on his own behalf without claiming to
    
    speak for Anthony Watson, the other respondent in this matter — has moved to vacate or modify
    
    portions of the arbitration award under Sections 10 and 11 of the FAA.
                   The Court heard argument on all of the pending motions on January 5, 2010.
    
    Based on those arguments, the parties’ written submissions, and the entire record in this case, the
    
    Court will confirm the arbitration award in its entirety, deny the motion to vacate or modify, and
    
    deny the pending motions for preliminary relief as moot.1
    
    
                                           I. BACKGROUND
    
                                 A. The Dispute Leading to Arbitration
    
                   DMS is a small, closely held corporation formed under the laws of West Virginia.
    
    Orig. Compl. ¶¶ 3, 9. It is engaged in the business of electronic data management, id. ¶ 3, and
    
    derives its revenue primarily from its work for another company, NativeTechnologies, Inc.
    
    (“NTI”), which has contracted with the United States General Services Administration (“GSA”)
    
    to provide technical support for the federal government’s email system (the “GSA-NTI contract”
    
    or “dotGOV contract”). Id. ¶ 11. Under a subcontract with NTI, DMS supplies the technological
    
    
           1
                    The documents reviewed by the Court and cited in this Opinion include the
    following: Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award (“Petition”); Mr. Giordano’s Motion to Vacate
    Partially Award of Arbitrator (“MTV”); petitioners’ opposition to the motion to vacate (“MTV
    Opp.”); Mr. Giordano’s reply to the petitioners’ opposition (“MTV Reply”); Mr. Giordano’s
    Supplemental Brief Regarding Motion to Vacate Partially Award of Arbitrator (“MTV Supp.”);
    petitioners’ supplemental memorandum in support of their petition (“Petition Supp.”); Mr.
    Giordano’s supplemental memorandum in opposition to the petition (“Petition Opp. Supp.”);
    MTV, Ex. 9 (“Final Award”); Petition, Ex. A-1 (“Partial Award”); MTV Supp., Ex. 1
    (“Statement of Claim”); MTV Supp., Ex. 2 (“Answering Statement”); MTV Supp., Ex. 4
    (Transcript of Arbitration Proceeding ( Feb. 27, 2008)) (“Arb. Trans”); Petition Supp., Ex. D
    (Claimants’ Pre-Arbitration Brief) (“Cls.’ Pre-Arb. Br.”); Petition Supp., Ex. E (Respondents’
    Pre-Arbitration Brief) (“Resps.’ Pre-Arb. Br.”);Transcript of Hearing (Jan. 5, 2010) (“Oral Arg.
    Trans.”); Data Mountain Solutions, Inc. v. Giordano, Civil Action No. 06-1666, Complaint
    (D.D.C. Sept. 28, 2006) (“Orig. Compl.”); Orig. Compl., Ex. 2 (“Shareholders Agreement”);
    Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Stay, Civil Action No. 06-1666 (D.D.C. Oct. 23,
    2006) (“2006 MTD”); plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion to dismiss (“2006 MTD Opp.”);
    defendants’ reply to plaintiffs’ opposition (“2006 MTD Reply”); and Civil Action No. 06-1666,
    Transcript of Hearing (D.D.C. May 18, 2007) (“2007 Trans.”).
    
                                                     2
    products and services required by the GSA in exchange for ninety-five percent of the GSA-NTI
    
    contract fees. See Cls.’ Pre-Arb. Br. at 2 (NTI receives only five percent of GSA-NTI contract
    
    proceeds); Resps.’ Pre-Arb. Br. at 2 (same).
    
                   On June 2, 2003, under a separate contract (“the Shareholders Agreement”), Mr.
    
    Hill, Mr. McUmber, Mr. Giordano, and Mr. Watson were named as the initial shareholders of
    
    DMS. See Shareholders Agreement at 15. Each held a one-quarter ownership interest in the
    
    company, id. ¶ 12, and was prohibited from selling or otherwise transferring his shares without
    
    the written consent of the other three shareholders. Id. ¶ 3(a). Each shareholder promised to vote
    
    his shares in favor of the election of all four men to DMS’ board of directors; each also promised
    
    that he would “continue to serve as a director so long as he retains an ownership interest . . . in
    
    the Corporation.” Id. ¶ 1(a). If any of the four transferred his entire ownership interest to
    
    someone else, he would “resign from all positions . . . as an officer and/or director” of DMS at
    
    that time. Id. ¶ 1(b). The Agreement also included the following provision:
    
                   10.     Arbitration and Specific Performance
    
                           (a)     Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating
                                   to this Agreement, or the breach thereof, may, at the
                                   option of any party thereto, be resolved by
                                   arbitration by a panel of three (3) arbitrators in
                                   accordance with the Rules of the American
                                   Arbitration Association then prevailing, and such
                                   arbitration shall be held in _____________ or other
                                   place mutually agreeable to the parties. The
                                   decision of such panel shall be enforceable in any
                                   court having jurisdiction. The panel can enter an ex
                                   parte order if a Shareholder fails or refuses to
                                   participate in the arbitration proceeding.
    
                           (b)     Subject to the foregoing, inasmuch as the shares are
                                   closely held and the market for them is limited,
    
    
                                                      3
                                  irreparable damage would result if this Agreement
                                  is not specifically enforced. The parties hereto
                                  agree that their respective rights and obligations
                                  shall be enforceable in a court of equity by a decree
                                  of specific performance and that appropriate
                                  injunctive relief may be applied for and granted in
                                  connection therewith. Such remedies shall,
                                  however, be cumulative and not exclusive and shall
                                  be in addition to any other remedies which any party
                                  may have hereunder or otherwise.
    
    Shareholders Agreement ¶ 10.
    
                   In September 2006, Mr. McUmber, Mr. Hill, and DMS brought suit in this Court
    
    against Mr. Giordano, Mr. Watson, and a third defendant not relevant here. Among many other
    
    things, Mr. McUmber and Mr. Hill claimed that Mr. Giordano had violated the Shareholders
    
    Agreement by buying all but one of Mr. Watson’s DMS shares without the consent of Mr.
    
    McUmber or Mr. Hill. Orig. Compl. ¶ 14. To pay for those shares, Mr. Giordano allegedly
    
    withdrew $60,000 from DMS’ corporate accounts and gave some of that money to Mr. Watson.
    
    Id. ¶¶ 13-14. He also gave Mr. Watson DMS proprietary technology called “SecuriCabinet” “as
    
    purported additional consideration for [Mr. Watson’s] relinquishment of his roles and
    
    entitlements as a shareholder, director, and officer of DMS.” Id. ¶ 14.
    
                   Mr. McUmber and Mr. Hill contended that Mr. Watson’s sale of his stock to Mr.
    
    Giordano was void in light of the Shareholders Agreement. Orig. Compl. ¶¶ 14, 16-17. They
    
    also asserted that Mr. Watson had, with the permission of all other shareholders, sold his 22,500
    
    shares of DMS stock back to the company, not to Mr. Giordano, in exchange for the rights to
    
    SecuriCabinet and $28,406. Id. ¶ 14.
    
    
    
    
                                                    4
                   In addition to this dispute over the disposition of Mr. Watson’s shares, there was a
    
    disagreement about Mr. Hill’s ownership position in the company. According to the plaintiffs, at
    
    some point Mr. Hill had “offered to relinquish approximately [two-thirds] of his stock to the
    
    corporation in exchange for $32,000, the book value of his stock” at the time. Orig. Compl. ¶ 15
    
    n.2. DMS’ corporate counsel, however, claimed that no record of the transaction existed. Id. As
    
    a result, the plaintiffs professed to be uncertain of how many shares of DMS stock Mr. Hill
    
    owned as of the filing of their original complaint. Id.
    
                   The plaintiffs further alleged that Mr. Giordano had used his authority as the self-
    
    proclaimed majority shareholder of DMS to divert to himself payments from the GSA-NTI
    
    contract that should have been made to Mr. McUmber, Mr. Hill, and/or DMS itself. Orig.
    
    Compl. ¶ 42; see also id. ¶ 21. They estimated that the payments under the contract that were
    
    wrongfully intercepted and retained by Mr. Giordano amounted to approximately $500,000. Id.
    
    ¶ 97; see also id. ¶¶ 44, 74. For this and other harms that allegedly resulted from the defendants’
    
    improper corporate transactions, the plaintiffs demanded “at least” $680,607 in compensatory
    
    damages, one million dollars in punitive damages per defendant, id. ¶¶ 74, 97, disgorgement of
    
    the proceeds of the GSA-NTI contract, id. ¶ 53, specific performance, id. ¶ 61, and declaratory
    
    and injunctive relief that would establish, among other things, the entitlement of the plaintiffs “to
    
    any and all NTI/GSA-related contract documents[] and proceeds, checks and other payments due
    
    any of the Plaintiffs thereon, that are being retained or withheld by any of the Defendants.” Id.
    
    ¶ 109(D).
    
                   In response to the plaintiffs’ complaint, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
    
    or to stay in which they asserted that “every single count of the 45-page Complaint relates to the
    
    
                                                      5
    Shareholde[rs] Agreement, . . . a valid and binding contract containing an arbitration clause.
    
    Giordano has invoked that clause, and the plaintiffs must arbitrate their claims.” MTD at 8. The
    
    Court agreed, and ordered the case stayed while “the parties . . . submit their claims to arbitration
    
    pursuant to Paragraph 10(a) of the Shareholders Agreement.” Data Mountain Solutions, Inc. v.
    
    Giordano, Civil Action No. 06-1666, Memorandum Opinion and Order at 5 (D.D.C. Nov. 21,
    
    2006).
    
                    Several months later, after the parties had still not proceeded to arbitration, the
    
    Court held a status hearing and inquired about the source of the delay. The plaintiffs explained
    
    that they were hesitating in part because they were not sure that all of their claims fell within the
    
    scope of the Shareholders Agreement’s arbitration clause: “[O]ur fear is that we will get to
    
    arbitration and Mr. Giordano will say, . . . I’m only arbitrating those issues that are directly
    
    related to the Shareholders’ Agreement, and then we’re stuck, because we have a stay, we can’t
    
    proceed to get a remedy for the loss of funds that has occurred since June of 2006.” May 18,
    
    2007 Trans. at 4-5. The plaintiffs specifically questioned whether the distribution of proceeds
    
    from the GSA-NTI contract was arbitrable. Id. at 3; see also id. at 5. The Court responded that it
    
    had ordered the plaintiffs to resolve all of their claims in arbitration, id. at 5, and noted that if any
    
    of the parties believed that any of those claims were not arbitrable, they should register that
    
    objection immediately. Id. at 10-11. Defendants’ counsel raised no objections to the Court’s
    
    order, merely saying, “I also agree with Your Honor that Your Honor ruled that all these claims
    
    are going to be arbitrated, and that was the clear direction of the order. So I don’t disagree with
    
    
    
    
                                                       6
    you at all.” Id. at 10. Ultimately, no party filed a motion to amend the Court’s order mandating
    
    arbitration of all issues, and the parties proceeded to arbitration.2
    
    
                                         B. Arbitration Proceedings
    
                    In their Statement of Claim before the arbitrator, the plaintiffs/petitioners (called
    
    “claimants” during the arbitration) recited the same facts that they included in the complaint filed
    
    with the Court. They alleged that Mr. Giordano had used corporate funds to make an invalid
    
    purchase of Mr. Watson’s stock, Statement of Claim ¶¶ 11-12, and that Mr. Watson also wrongly
    
    claimed that he received SecuriCabinet from Mr. Giordano in exchange for his “relinquishment
    
    of his roles and entitlements as a shareholder, director, and officer of DMS.” Id. ¶ 12. They
    
    repeated their claim that Mr. Watson had agreed to sell his shares to DMS, not to Mr. Giordano,
    
    and that the sale had been approved by all shareholders in conformity with the Shareholders
    
    Agreement. Id. And they once again asserted that “Giordano has intercepted, and now holds,
    
    substantial payments from DMS’s client, NTI, that are intended for, and payable to, Claimants
    
    DMS and McUmber.” Id. ¶ 19. They claimed that they had sustained approximately $500,000 in
    
    damages as a result of this diversion of payments from NTI, id. ¶ 32, and requested that Mr.
    
    Giordano be required to “disgorge . . . to the Claimants . . . any and all contract proceeds, checks
    
    and other payments due the Claimants but that are being wrongfully retained or withheld by the
    
    Respondents,” id. at 13, including “all proceeds of DMS’ subcontract with NTI, excepting those
    
    payments due and payable to Giordano consistent with agreements and practices in place as of
    
    
    
            2
                    The Court dismissed Civil Action No. 06-1666 after a year had passed with no
    indication that the parties intended to continue litigating the case. See Data Mountain Solutions,
    Inc. v. Giordano, Civil Action No. 06-1666, Minute Order (D.D.C. July 8, 2008).
    
                                                       7
    June, 2006.” Id. at 14-15. Furthermore, the Claimants requested “rescission of any DMS stock
    
    issuances or transfers to Mr. Giordano above the equal ‘ownership proportion’ to which he
    
    committed and agreed under the Shareholders’ Agreement.” Id. at 16.
    
                   In their response to the Statement of Claim, the defendants/respondents denied
    
    that Mr. Watson had sold any stock back to DMS, admitted that the attempted sale of Mr.
    
    Watson’s stock to Mr. Giordano was void, and insisted that Mr. Hill had sold most of his stock
    
    back to the company. Answering Statement at 2-3. They raised no objection to the arbitrability
    
    of any of the claims contained in the Statement of Claim.
    
                   In their pre-arbitration brief, the claimaints asked for binding declarations by the
    
    arbitrator to the effect that (1) Mr. Watson no longer had any ownership interest in DMS, Pre-
    
    Arb. Brief at 1; (2) Mr. Hill owned 19,000 shares in DMS, id. at 1-2; and (3) Mr. McUmber and
    
    Mr. Giordano were each entitled to 23 percent of the proceeds paid to NTI by the GSA, with
    
    DMS receiving 49 percent and NTI the remaining 5 percent. Id. at 2. They further requested that
    
    Mr. Giordano pay to Mr. McUmber any revenue under the NTI contract that was still owed to
    
    him (McUmber). Id. at 3.
    
                   The respondents, in their responsive pre-arbitration brief, made no objections to
    
    the arbitrability of any of the claims raised by Mr. McUmber and Mr. Hill. They instead
    
    maintained that (1) Mr. Hill had sold approximately 16,000 shares of his DMS stock back to the
    
    company, Resps.’ Pre-Arb. Br. at 2; (2) Mr. Watson had never sold any of his own stock to DMS,
    
    id. at 6; and (3) pursuant to a contract called the “Teaming Agreement” signed by Mr. Giordano,
    
    DMS, and NTI in January of 2003, Mr. Giordano was entitled to 47.5 percent of all GSA-NTI
    
    contract proceeds, DMS to another 47.5 percent, NTI to 5 percent, and Mr. McUmber to none.
    
    
                                                     8
    Id. at 1-2. They too sought relief from the arbitrator, seeking, among other things, “a declaration
    
    of the correct ownership percentages of DMS,” “an accounting of all DMS funds expended by
    
    Hill and McUmber since May 25, 2006,” and “the return to DMS of all monies and expenditures
    
    by Hill and McUmber not authorized by the Board of Directors, including salary, bonuses and
    
    expenses.” Id. at 7-8.
    
                   On November 15, 2007, the arbitrator sent to the parties an email message in
    
    which he stated:
    
                   There is a . . . set of issues and relief requested that I indicated to
                   the parties I do not believe is in the scope of the arbitration clause
                   in the Shareholders Agreement for Data Mountain Solutions, e.g.
                   issues that might require me to determine individual entitlements
                   under contracts with third parties. I informed the parties that I
                   would be pleased to consider these issues pursuant to a submission
                   agreement.
    
    MTV, Ex. 3. In response, the claimants indicated that they were “willing to submit all of their
    
    disputes with Mr. Giordano (and Mr. Watson) to the arbitrator for a decision.” MTV, Ex. 4. The
    
    respondents raised only one objection: they asserted that certain claims included in the plaintiffs’
    
    complaint before this Court were not contained in the Statement of Claim. According to Mr.
    
    Giordano and Mr. Watson, the supposedly omitted claims had been “waived.” MTV, Ex. 5 at 1.
    
    They went on to say:
    
                   Our view is that such additional counts and relief sought were
                   arbitrable, and are subject to the arbitration clause; our only
                   objection to their being heard at this late date is the failure to file
                   them in arbitration as ordered by the Court. . . . Should you rule
                   that such claims have not been waived and may be raised at this
                   late juncture, we would obviously have no objection to their being
                   arbitrated: indeed, Judge Friedman’s order required them to be
                   arbitrated.
    Id.
    
    
                                              9
                   After hearing the parties’ initial arguments, the arbitrator issued what he called a
    
    “partial award” on December 4, 2007. He declared, among other things, that Hill, Watson,
    
    McUmber, and Giordano each owned 22,500 shares of DMS stock, Partial Award ¶ 2, and that
    
    various other individuals and entities (“third-party shareholders”) owned a total of 1,234
    
    additional shares. Id. He further declared that Hill, Watson, McUmber, and Giordano still
    
    constituted the company’s board of directors, with Mr. Hill as chairman. Id. ¶ 3. The arbitrator
    
    prohibited any shareholder from transferring any DMS shares or attempting to change the
    
    composition of the board of directors before the issuance of the arbitrator’s final award. Id.
    
    ¶¶ 2-3. Because DMS’ third-party shareholders routinely voted with Mr. Giordano and Mr.
    
    Watson, this initial ruling by the arbitrator left the respondents in control of the company. See
    
    MTV at 13. At the conclusion of the Partial Award, the arbitrator noted that the proceedings
    
    before him had not yet concluded, explaining that “[a]ny other relief sought by the parties”
    
    would be “determined in the Final Award of this matter.” Id. ¶ 7.
    
                   On January 8, 2008, the arbitrator issued an “interim order” in which he declared
    
    that, from the date of his order until the conclusion of the arbitration, “Claimant McUmber shall
    
    be entitled to receive from DMS . . . $10,000 monthly dating back to September 2007 for
    
    services rendered by him on the dotGOV contract,” plus payment at a specified hourly rate for
    
    work on another contract. Interim Order ¶ 2(a). The arbitrator also ordered the company to
    
    compensate a woman named Susan Hunt for services performed on something called the
    
    “BCBSNC contract.” Id. ¶ 2(b).
    
                   At around this point in the arbitration proceedings Mr. Giordano began
    
    complaining that certain issues were not “appropriate for this arbitration.” MTV, Ex. 6 at 1. It is
    
    
                                                    10
    not clear, however, which specific claims struck him as not “appropriate.” In a letter dated
    
    February 19, 2008, respondents’ counsel stated that the respondents “do not believe claims to
    
    employees’ compensation, or strategic decisions of the company, are suitable for arbitration, and
    
    do not wish them to be referred to an arbitrator.” MTV, Ex. 7 at 1. In particular, the respondents
    
    objected to the arbitration of such issues as “the proper rate of payment for a contractor working
    
    in North Carolina, or whether Ms. Hunt is the appropriate person for a particular job, or what
    
    contracts DMS should pursue or decline.” Id. They raised similar complaints in subsequent
    
    emails, stating that “[w]e continue to believe that awards of compensation, decisions regarding
    
    the hiring or firing of employees, decisions regarding the direction of the company, and other
    
    routine business dealings are the sole province of the directors and shareholders of Data
    
    Mountain Solutions, and the arbitration clause of the Shareholders’ Agreement cannot be read to
    
    defer these business decisions to an arbitrator.” MTV, Ex. 8 at 1; see also MTV, Ex. 9 at 1
    
    (same).
    
                   At a hearing before the arbitrator held on February 27, 2008, counsel for the
    
    respondents again complained that there were a “number of issues that simply have no real place
    
    in arbitration that are being raised either directly or indirectly in here, which have to do with
    
    really decisions that belong to the strategic direction of the company or decisions that the
    
    shareholders want to make about the direction of the company.” Arb. Trans. at 11. He suggested
    
    that the arbitrator should order the parties to convene a shareholders’ meeting to resolve those
    
    issues. Id. Again, however, counsel was unclear about exactly which issues he considered to
    
    “have no real place in arbitration,” referring vaguely to “decisions of compensation or strategic
    
    direction or which contracts to pursue.” Id. at 14.
    
    
                                                      11
                    After reviewing additional evidence and argument submitted by the parties, the
    
    arbitrator apparently began to believe that his initial findings as to the number of DMS shares
    
    held by each of the parties were incorrect. At the February 27, 2008 hearing, respondents’
    
    counsel asked the arbitrator about “possible outcomes . . . of the next phase” of arbitration,
    
    wondering whether future decisions would address “potential shareholdings . . . of everybody[.]
    
    I know you have already ruled on that. Are you considering that for redecision again or where is
    
    that?” Arb. Trans. at 41. The arbitrator confirmed that he was in fact considering revisiting the
    
    issue of the respective share holdings of the parties and adjusting the number of shares attributed
    
    to each of the claimants and respondents based on the evidence presented to him:
    
                            I think I issued a . .. preliminary award or partial award
                    based on some understandings of the facts and the claims involving
                    the shareholding.
    
                              . . . . I have heard a couple of things in the last few days
                    which have caused me to maybe rethink a couple of things here.
                     . . . I would be loathe to make a change to the partial award. But if
                    some new facts and circumstances on claims are raised which
                    might need [sic] me to revisit that, I would probably do it in the
                    context of what would be then the final award.
    
    Id. at 41-42.
    
                    On September 19, 2008, the arbitrator issued his ultimate award, which was
    
    subsequently modified on November 14, 2008, to correct a computational error. The Court refers
    
    to that award, as modified, as the “Final Award” in this matter. As part of that award, the
    
    arbitrator ordered two stock transactions: First, Mr. Watson was ordered to sell to DMS the
    
    22,500 shares attributed to him by the Partial Award. Final Award ¶ 3(a). The purchase price
    
    would consist of “the US[ ]$55,000 received by Watson from DMS funds paid directly or
    
    
    
                                                      12
    indirectly via Giordano on or about May 24, 2006, plus accrued interest thereon,” plus “the
    
    transfer of 100% of the shares owned by DMS in SecuriCabinet, which transfer occurred no later
    
    than fiscal year 2005.” Id. Second, Mr. Hill was ordered to sell to DMS 15,006 of his 22,500
    
    Partial Award shares. Id. ¶ 3(b). His consideration consisted of “the US[ ]$32,000 already
    
    received by Hill from DMS since approximately May 1, 2004,” plus “a payment to be received
    
    from DMS in the amount of $9,813.15, which payment shall be made by DMS no later than ten
    
    (10) business days from the date hereof.” Id. Those stock transactions left Mr. Hill with 7,494
    
    shares, Mr. Giordano with 22,500, Mr. McUmber with 22,500, Mr. Watson with zero, and various
    
    nonparties with a total of 1,234. Final Award ¶ 3(b). With those share positions, Mr. McUmber
    
    and Mr. Hill, assuming they acted together, could command a majority of votes at any shareholder
    
    meeting.
    
                   The arbitrator declared that DMS’ board of directors consisted of Mr. Giordano,
    
    Mr. Hill, and Mr. McUmber, with Mr. Hill serving as the chairman. Final Award ¶ 4. He further
    
    found that, “unless and until such individuals resign, are removed or are replaced in accordance
    
    with the Shareholders Agreement and Bylaws,” Mr. Hill was DMS’ president and treasurer, Mr.
    
    McUmber its vice-president, and Mr. Giordano its secretary. Id. ¶ 5. “All tangible and intangible
    
    property and assets of DMS” were to be placed “under the control of Hill, in his capacity as
    
    President of DMS, within ten (10) business days of the date hereof.” Id. ¶ 6.
    
                   Finally, in Paragraph 9 of the Final Award, the arbitrator determined the manner in
    
    which payments from the GSA-NTI contract were to be divided among the parties:
    
                   The Arbitrator does not have jurisdiction over either the General
                   Services Administration’s . . . agreements with [NTI] or NTI’s
                   Teaming Agreement with DMS . . . . However, the Arbitrator
    
    
                                                   13
                  finds that a contract exists among DMS, Giordano, and McUmber
                  as to the (a) services to be performed by each to NTI and to GSA
                  for the purpose of fulfilling NTI’s contractual obligations to GSA
                  and (b) division of fees among them and NTI arising from the
                  GSA-NTI contract (the “GSA-NTI Fee Sharing Agreement”).
                  Evidence of this GSA-NTI Fee Sharing Agreement dates back to at
                  least May 2004 and such GSA-NTI Fee Sharing Agreement
                  remains a valid agreement among DMS, Giordano and McUmber
                  as of the date hereof.
    
    Final Award ¶ 9.
    
                  As Paragraph 9 of the Final Award makes clear, the arbitrator rejected Mr.
    
    Giordano’s arguments that the Teaming Agreement controlled the manner in which GSA-NTI
    
    contract fees were to be divided among Mr. Giordano, Mr. McUmber, and DMS itself. Instead,
    
    the arbitrator found that Mr. Giordano, Mr. McUmber, and DMS had agreed among themselves
    
    no later than May 2004 that DMS would be entitled to 49 percent of the proceeds from the GSA-
    
    NTI contract, Mr. Giordano to 23 percent, and Mr. McUmber to 23 percent. Final Award ¶ 9.
    
    The arbitrator then found “that DMS and McUmber have not received the full amounts due to
    
    them under the GSA-NTI Fee Sharing Agreement, while Giordano has been overpaid.” Id.
    
    Consequently, Mr. Giordano was ordered to pay $166,957.19 to DMS and $120,083.00 to Mr.
    
    McUmber within thirty days of the date of the Final Award. Id. If Mr. Giordano was unable to
    
    make those payments within thirty days, all future proceeds from the GSA-NTI contract, aside
    
    from the five percent reserved for NTI under the terms of the Teaming Agreement, were to be
    
    apportioned between DMS and Mr. McUmber until Mr. Giordano’s debt to them was repaid. Id.
    
    
    
    
                                                  14
                                            C. Subsequent History
    
                    On September 22, 2008, DMS, Mr. McUmber, and Mr. Hill filed the instant
    
    lawsuit in this Court to confirm the final arbitration award. Mr. Giordano and Mr. Watson
    
    opposed the petition to confirm and, after the modified final award was issued, filed a motion to
    
    partially vacate or modify the award. For reasons explained in an Opinion issued on August 20,
    
    2009, the Court denied both the application to confirm the award and the motion to vacate without
    
    prejudice. See Data Mountain Solutions, Inc. v. Giordano, Civil Action No. 08-1623, Opinion
    
    and Order at 8-11 (D.D.C. Aug. 20, 2009). At the Court’s direction, the parties filed several
    
    supplemental memoranda; the Court construed them as renewed motions to confirm or vacate the
    
    award. See id., Minute Order (D.D.C. Dec. 29, 2009). On December 22, 2009, the petitioners
    
    filed the pending motions for preliminary relief.
    
    
                                               II. DISCUSSION
    
                    The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) provides that a “written provision in . . . a
    
    contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy
    
    thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction . . . shall be valid, irrevocable, and
    
    enforceable, save upon any grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.”
    
    9 U.S.C. § 2. The FAA applies to any transaction involving interstate commerce and creates a
    
    strong presumption in favor of the enforcement of agreements to arbitrate; any doubts regarding
    
    the scope of an agreement to arbitrate are to be resolved in favor of arbitration. See
    
    Shearson/American Express, Inc. v. McMahon, 
    482 U.S. 220
    , 226-27 (1987) (with enactment of
    
    the FAA Congress mandated that arbitration agreements be rigorously enforced); see also Moses
    
    
    
                                                        15
    H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corporation, 
    460 U.S. 1
    , 24-25 (1983);
    
    Finegold, Alexander & Assocs. v. Setty & Assocs., 
    81 F.3d 206
    , 207-08 (D.C. Cir. 1996). The
    
    Supreme Court has stressed that “the liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements,
    
    manifested by this provision and the Act as a whole, is at bottom a policy guaranteeing the
    
    enforcement of private contractual arrangements.” Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler
    
    Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 
    473 U.S. 614
    , 625 (1985).
    
                   The FAA provides that an arbitration award may be vacated “where the arbitrators
    
    exceeded their powers.” 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4). The party challenging the award bears the burden of
    
    demonstrating that a circumstance justifying vacatur exists. See Kurke v. Oscar Gruss & Son,
    
    Inc., 
    454 F.3d 350
    , 356 (D.C. Cir. 2006); Al-Harbi v. Citibank, N.A., 
    85 F.3d 680
    , 683 (D.C. Cir.
    
    1996). Here, Mr. Giordano argues for the vacatur of three portions of the Final Award. First, he
    
    argues that the arbitrator lacked the authority to order Mr. Watson to sell his 22,500 shares of
    
    DMS stock back to the company. MTV at 11. Second, he maintains that the arbitrator exceeded
    
    his authority by “appointing” the directors and officers of DMS in the Final Award. Id. at 8.
    
    Third, he claims that any dispute between the parties regarding the proper division of fees from
    
    the GSA-NTI contract (the fee-splitting dispute) is not arbitrable because it is not encompassed by
    
    the arbitration clause of the Shareholders Agreement. Id. at 14. Thus, according to Mr. Giordano,
    
    the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to decide the issues discussed in Paragraph 9 of the Final Award,
    
    which determines the proportions in which the GSA-NTI contract fees are to be divided among
    
    Mr. Giordano, Mr. McUmber, and DMS. Id.3
    
    
           3
                   Mr. Giordano also argues that Paragraph 9 of the Final Award should be modified
    — exactly how, he does not say — under 9 U.S.C. § 11, which provides that a court may modify
    or correct an award “[w]here the arbitrators have awarded upon a matter not submitted to them.”
    
                                                     16
                   The Court examines Mr. Giordano’s arguments for the vacatur of various portions
    
    of the Final Award below and explains why each lacks merit.
    
    
                                A. Order That Mr. Watson Sell His Shares
    
                   Mr. Giordano contends that the ordered “sale” of Mr. Watson’s stock to DMS in
    
    exchange for (1) $55,000 in DMS funds previously paid to Mr. Watson in May 2006 and
    
    (2) ownership of SecuriCabinet, conveyed to Mr. Watson in 2005 or 2006, should be vacated
    
    because the arbitrator lacked the authority to provide such a remedy. MTV at 11. Mr. Giordano
    
    makes two arguments in support of this contention. First, he asserts that “there is nothing to
    
    suggest that ‘any authority of competent jurisdiction’ could simply divest a private citizen of his
    
    right to own the shares of a corporation engaged in a lawful enterprise. . . . Nothing in the
    
    Modified Final Award even remotely suggests a basis for later stripping Watson of his lawful
    
    ownership against his apparent will.” MTV at 12. Second, he argues that “[t]here is simply no
    
    basis under the [Shareholders] Agreement or West Virginia law to order DMS to acquire
    
    Watson’s stock.” Id.
    
                   The evidence before the arbitrator contained numerous allegations supporting the
    
    proposition that Mr. Watson was no longer the rightful holder of the 22,500 shares of stock he
    
    was ordered to relinquish. The claimants asserted that he had agreed to sell those shares back to
    
    the company and had already accepted consideration for them. Statement of Claim ¶ 12. After
    
    
    MTV at 1. Mr. Giordano, however, does not contend that the fee-splitting dispute was not
    submitted to the arbitrator. Instead, he protests that he did not consent to the submission of the
    issue, see id. — an argument that amounts to an assertion that the arbitrator exceeded his powers
    by ruling on an unarbitrable claim. See infra at 23. This is the same argument made by Mr.
    Giordano in favor of vacating the Final Award under Section 10 of the FAA and so does not
    merit separate discussion.
    
                                                     17
    the arbitrator found, in the Partial Award, that Mr. Watson still held those 22,500 shares, the
    
    claimants argued that he should either give up the shares or the consideration he had received for
    
    them. MTV, Ex. 6 at 2. Either claim, if found meritorious by the arbitrator, would justify the
    
    remedy granted in the Final Award. Mr. Giordano’s claim that Mr. Watson was “stripp[ed] . . . of
    
    his lawful ownership against his will” for no reason at all, MTVat 12, is simply not true. The
    
    evidence presented to the arbitrator led him to conclude that the company had already paid for Mr.
    
    Watson’s stock with the $55,000 of company funds Mr. Giordano gave Mr. Watson in May 2006,
    
    plus the right to SecuriCabinet conveyed to Mr. Watson in 2005. See Final Award ¶ 3(a). Thus,
    
    Mr. Watson was no longer the rightful holder of those shares. Under the FAA, the Court is not
    
    free to substitute its own factual findings or conclusions for those of the arbitrator. See Kurke v.
    
    Oscar Gruss & Son, Inc., 454 F.3d at 355 (arbitration award must be confirmed if any “justifiable
    
    ground for the decision can be inferred from the facts of the case” (citation and internal quotation
    
    marks omitted)).
    
                   Nor does the Shareholders Agreement forbid the sale of Mr. Watson’s shares as
    
    ordered by the arbitrator; on the contrary, such a transfer is explicitly contemplated by the
    
    Agreement. As the arbitrator noted, see Final Award ¶ 3, Paragraph 3(c) of the Agreement refers
    
    to the possibility that “any authority of competent jurisdiction” could potentially “order[] the sale,
    
    assignment, or other transfer of all or any portion of the shares” of DMS outstanding, even if the
    
    ordered sale did not comply with the restrictions laid out in the Agreement. Because the
    
    Agreement’s arbitration clause places arbitrators within the category of “authorit[ies] of
    
    competent jurisdiction,” it is clear from Paragraph 3(c) that an arbitrator has the power to order a
    
    party to the Agreement to sell his shares.
    
    
                                                      18
                   Paragraph 3(c) of the Shareholders Agreement goes on to provide that, if a sale of
    
    shares is ordered, “the Corporation or its designee shall have the option, but shall not be required,
    
    to purchase all or any of the shares owned or transferred by the subject Shareholder.” Mr.
    
    Giordano reads this provision to mean that an arbitrator cannot order the company to buy Mr.
    
    Watson’s stock. See MTV at 13. He is wrong. Paragraph 3 of the Shareholders Agreement refers
    
    to orders that could be issued by “any authority of competent jurisdiction,” which presumably
    
    includes courts as well as arbitrators. It is not within the power of DMS’ shareholders to prohibit
    
    courts from ordering the company to buy back shares of its own stock. Paragraph 3 therefore
    
    cannot mean, as Mr. Giordano would like, that DMS can never be ordered to buy its own stock.
    
    Instead, the provision is more plausibly read to mean that if a shareholder is ordered to dispose of
    
    his stock, but is not required to convey it to anyone in particular, DMS has the first option — but
    
    not any obligation under the contract — to buy that stock from him.
    
                   This reading is more consistent than Mr. Giordano’s with the arbitration clause of
    
    the Shareholders Agreement. That clause is a broad one that places no limits on the authority of
    
    the arbitrator and, in fact, explicitly contemplates that orders of specific performance or injunctive
    
    relief may be necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Agreement. See SA ¶ 10(b). Given that
    
    the entire Agreement is concerned with the conditions under which shares may or must be
    
    transferred, see SA ¶ 4 (describing circumstances under which shares must be placed for sale), it
    
    strains credulity to assert, as Mr. Giordano does, that an arbitrator authorized to order specific
    
    performance or injunctive relief would be powerless to order the sale or purchase of shares.
    
                   The only legal authority Mr. Giordano cites to support his argument is Davis v.
    
    Chevy Chase Financial Ltd., 
    667 F.2d 160
     (D.C. Cir. 1981). That case is inapposite. There, the
    
    
                                                      19
    relevant arbitration clause provided for arbitration in the event that the corporation in question and
    
    one of its shareholders could not agree on “[t]he fair market value of” shares to be sold back to the
    
    company. Id. at 165. The findings of the arbitrator were to be binding “as to the fair market value
    
    of the offered Shares.” Id. Understandably finding that the clause authorized the arbitrator only
    
    to make determinations as to the value of the shares, the court of appeals ruled that the arbitrator
    
    did not have the authority to consider whether the shareholder was required to sell any shares back
    
    to the company. Id. at 167. Because the arbitration clause at issue in that case is so different from
    
    the one involved here, Davis does not control, or even inform, the outcome of this case.
    
                   In the face of a broad arbitration clause placing no limits on the remedial authority
    
    of the arbitrator, Mr. Giordano has offered only strained readings of the Shareholders Agreement
    
    and inapposite case law. He has not met his burden of demonstrating that the arbitrator lacked the
    
    authority to order the return to DMS of Mr. Watson’s stock.
    
    
                          B. The “Appointment” of DMS’ Directors and Officers
    
                   Mr. Giordano claims that by identifying the existing directors and officers of DMS
    
    in both the Partial and Final Awards, the arbitrator impermissibly “interfered directly in the
    
    internal management of DMS.” MTV at 6. According to Mr. Giordano, once the arbitrator had
    
    stated in the Partial Award that Mr. Giordano, Mr. Hill, Mr. McUmber, and Mr. Watson each
    
    owned 22,500 shares of DMS stock, he should have refrained from making any attempt to define
    
    the company’s existing governance structure and left it to the feuding shareholders to choose their
    
    directors and officers at some future shareholder meeting to be held on an unspecified date. See
    
    id. at 9-10. That the arbitrator should have so limited himself is supposedly evident from two
    
    
    
                                                     20
    West Virginia court cases, one decided in 2001 and the other in 1913. See id. Mr. Giordano
    
    argues that these two cases stand for the proposition that “absent fraud or conduct amounting to
    
    fraud, the majority of the shareholders of a solvent corporation ‘have the uncontrollable right to
    
    manage the corporate affairs’ without interference by a court of equity.’” Id. (citing State ex rel.
    
    Smith . Evans, 
    209 W. Va. 340
    , 344 (2001)). The arbitrator’s “appointment” of DMS’ directors
    
    and officers allegedly violates this principle.
    
                   For many reasons, this argument is without merit. First, the arbitrator did not
    
    “appoint” any directors or officers of DMS in either his Partial Award or his Final Award. He
    
    merely identified the individuals that remained as directors and officers of the corporation once he
    
    had determined the correct share positions held by Mr. Giordano, Mr. Hill, Mr. McUmber, and
    
    Mr. Watson — that is, after determining that Watson had already sold his shares to DMS and had
    
    been compensated, and that Hill had agreed to sell some of his shares. Mr. Giordano himself
    
    admitted that, going into the arbitration process, the directors of DMS were Mr. Giordano himself,
    
    Mr. Hill, Mr. McUmber, and Mr. Watson. See Answering Statement at 2. Indeed, the
    
    Shareholders Agreement itself states that those individuals are the directors of the company, and
    
    are to remain so as long as each “retains an ownership interest . . . in the Corporation.”
    
    Shareholders Agreement ¶ 1(a). The arbitrator modified the identities of the company’s directors
    
    only by ruling, in his Final Award, that Mr. Watson no longer was one. That ruling followed as a
    
    necessary consequence of Mr. Watson’s share position. As of the date of the arbitrator’s Final
    
    Award, Mr. Watson no longer owned shares in the company. Under the explicit terms of the
    
    Shareholders Agreement, he therefore could no longer serve as either a DMS director or officer.
    
    See Shareolders Agreement ¶ 1(b).
    
    
                                                      21
                   Similarly, the arbitrator made no invasive rulings regarding the identities of DMS’
    
    officers. He stated in the Final Award that Mr. Hill is DMS’ president and treasurer, Mr.
    
    Giordano its secretary, and Mr. McUmber its vice president. Mr. Giordano himself acknowledged
    
    at the outset of arbitration that Mr. Hill was the company’s president and treasurer and Mr.
    
    Giordano its secretary. See Answering Statement at 2. He has not argued that Mr. McUmber was
    
    other than the vice president of DMS (although Mr. McUmber has previously represented that he
    
    is the company’s CEO, see Statement of Claim ¶ 2).
    
                   Even if the arbitrator had reversed some decision of Mr. Giordano and Mr.Watson
    
    regarding the identity of the company’s officers — and again, there is no evidence of this, nor has
    
    Mr. Giordano even alleged it — he would have been well within his authority to do so. The
    
    dispute between Mr. Watson and Mr. Giordano, on the one hand, and Mr. Hill and Mr. McUmber,
    
    on the other, is more than anything else about who controls the company. See Petition Supp., Ex.
    
    E (Respondents’ Pre-Arbitration Brief) at 1. Mr. Giordano and Mr. Watson have claimed that they
    
    do. See id. The arbitrator disagreed. See Final Award ¶ 3(b). Any purported changes in the
    
    identity of the company’s officers made by Mr. Giordano and Mr. Watson would be void as a
    
    necessary consequence of the arbitrator’s ruling.
    
                   The West Virginia cases cited by Mr. Giordano say nothing that undermines any of
    
    this reasoning. They merely establish that a court may not, absent evidence of fraud or similar
    
    misconduct, reverse a valid decision by a company’s majority shareholder(s) to name a particular
    
    individual to a position as an officer of the company, or to remove an individual from such a
    
    position. See Smith v. Evans, 209 W.Va. at 282; Smiley v. New River Co., 
    77 S.E. 970
    , 977-78
    
    (W.Va. 1913). There is no allegation here that the arbitrator has reversed any such decision.
    
    
                                                    22
                   Finally, the arbitrator did not deprive DMS’ legitimate shareholders of the right to
    
    exercise any power held by them. Although he identified the officers and directors of the
    
    company as of the date of the Final Award, the arbitrator also noted that those directors could be
    
    “removed or . . . replaced in accordance with the Shareholders Agreement and the Bylaws of
    
    DMS,” Final Award ¶ 4, as could the officers, id. ¶ 5. Ultimately, the arbitrator did only what he
    
    promised the parties he would do: “provide a set of rulings . . . [that] determine as a snapshot in
    
    time [that] this is the corporate governance of Data Mountain Solutions as we finish” the
    
    arbitration proceedings. Arb. Trans. at 19.
    
    
                                 C. Resolution of the Fee-Splitting Dispute
    
                   “[A]rbitration is predicated on the consent of the parties to a dispute.” Wolff v.
    
    Westwood Management, LLC, 
    558 F.3d 517
    , 520 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (citation and internal quotation
    
    marks omitted). That consent may be reflected in “[a] written provision in . . . a contract . . . to
    
    settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract,” or “an agreement in
    
    writing to submit to arbitration an existing controversy arising out of such a contract.” 9 U.S.C.
    
    § 2. Consent may also be inferred where a party has engaged in arbitration of an issue “without
    
    objecting to the arbitrator’s jurisdiction.” Howard Univ. v. Metro. Campus Police Officer’s
    
    Union, 
    512 F.3d 716
    , 720 (D.C. Cir. 2008). If a party has not consented to arbitration of a given
    
    issue, then an arbitrator “exceed[s] [his] powers” by reaching that issue, and any consequent
    
    award may be vacated by a court upon judicial review. 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4).
    
                   Mr. Giordano argues that he never consented to the arbitration of the issues
    
    addressed in Paragraph 9 of the Final Award, in which the arbitrator finds that Mr. Giordano, Mr.
    
    
    
                                                      23
    McUmber, and DMS agreed to split the proceeds of the GSA-NTI contract among themselves
    
    according to certain fixed percentages. MTV at 6. In the view of Mr. Giordano, the arbitration
    
    clause of the Shareholders Agreement does not encompass any claims regarding “the existence of
    
    a compensation agreement among Giordano, McUmber, and DMS.” Id. at 15. Mr. Giordano
    
    alleges that he did not consent affirmatively, either before this Court or before the arbitrator, to the
    
    arbitration of the fee-splitting issue, and that he promptly informed the arbitrator that he objected
    
    to any attempt to arbitrate the issue. Id. at 19.4
    
                    For their part, the petitioners have not argued that the dispute over the division of
    
    contract fees was a matter falling within the reach of the Shareholders Agreement’s arbitration
    
    clause. Instead, they contend that Mr. Giordano is barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel from
    
    claiming now that the fee-splitting issue is not arbitrable.5 The Court addresses that contention
    
    below, and then proceeds to consider whether Mr. Giordano implicitly consented to the arbitration
    
    of the fees dispute by failing to make a timely objection to the arbitrator’s consideration of that
    
    issue during the arbitration process.
    
    
    
    
            4
                   Mr. Giordano’s counsel also suggested at oral argument that the arbitrator
    exceeded his authority in deciding the issues addressed by Paragraph 9 of the Final Award
    because the arbitrator had no jurisdiction over NTI. This argument merits little attention. Mr.
    Giordano has not identified any ruling of the arbitrator that binds NTI and therefore has failed to
    show that the arbitrator would have needed jurisdiction over that company.
            5
                    The petitioners also assert that Mr. Giordano’s argument is foreclosed by the
    principles of issue preclusion, res judicata, and law of the case. Because the Court finds judicial
    estoppel the most appropriate doctrine to apply to Mr. Giordano’s arguments, it does not address
    the other theories of preclusion advanced by the petitioners.
    
                                                         24
                                            1. Judicial Estoppel
    
                   Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine that prevents parties from abusing the
    
    legal system by taking a position in one legal proceeding that is inconsistent with a position taken
    
    in an earlier proceeding. See New Hampshire v. Maine, 
    532 U.S. 742
    , 749-50 (2001); Elemary v.
    
    Holzmann A.G., 
    533 F. Supp. 2d 116
    , 125 n.6 (D.D.C. 2008). The doctrine “protect[s] the
    
    integrity of the judicial process . . . by prohibiting parties from deliberately changing positions
    
    according to the exigencies of the moment.” New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. at 749-50; see
    
    also Konstantinidis v. Chen, 
    626 F.2d 933
    , 938 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (purpose of the doctrine is to
    
    prevent “improper use of judicial machinery”); Scarano v. Central Rail Co. of New Jersey, 
    203 F.2d 510
    , 513 (3d Cir. 1953) (observing that the application of judicial estoppel prevents the use
    
    of “intentional self-contradiction . . . as a means of obtaining an unfair advantage”). As the
    
    Supreme Court recently explained, “‘[t]he circumstances under which judicial estoppel may
    
    appropriately be invoked are probably not reducible to any general formulation of principle.”
    
    New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. at 750 (quoting Allen v. Zurich Insurance Co., 
    667 F.2d 1162
    , 1166 (4th Cir. 1982)). The Court observed, however, that courts generally consider three
    
    factors when determining whether to apply the doctrine of judicial estoppel in a particular case:
    
                   First, a party’s later position must be “clearly inconsistent” with its
                   earlier position. . . . Second, courts regularly inquire whether the
                   party has succeeded in persuading a court to accept that party’s
                   earlier position, so that judicial acceptance of an inconsistent
                   position in a later proceeding would create “the perception that
                   either the first or the second court was misled,” [Edwards v. Aetna
                   Life Insurance Co., 
    690 F.2d 595
    , 599 (6th Cir. 1982)]. . . . A third
                   consideration is whether the party seeking to assert an inconsistent
                   position would derive an unfair advantage or impose an unfair
                   detriment on the opposing party if not estopped.
    
    
    
                                                      25
    New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. at 750-51. These factors, the Court emphasized, are not
    
    “inflexible prerequisites or an exhaustive formula for determining the applicability of judicial
    
    estoppel.” Id. at 751. Rather, they serve as guideposts and “[a]dditional considerations may
    
    inform the doctrine’s application in specific factual contexts.” Id.
    
                   When the petitioners first brought suit against Mr. Giordano in this Court in 2006,
    
    he moved for the dismissal of their complaint, or for an indefinite stay of the litigation, on the
    
    ground that “every single count of the 45-page Complaint relate[d] to the Shareholder’s [sic]
    
    Agreement” and therefore fell within the scope of the Agreement’s arbitration clause. 2006 MTD
    
    at 8. Mr. Giordano invoked his right to arbitrate under the express terms of Paragraph 10 of the
    
    Shareholders Agreement, and pointed out that as a result of the Agreement, “the plaintiffs must
    
    arbitrate their claims.” Id. The plaintiffs resisted Mr. Giordano’s position, protesting that several
    
    matters raised by the complaint were not subject to the arbitration clause. 2006 MTD Opp. at 14.
    
    They insisted in particular that the alleged “conversion of the NTI contract and its proceeds is not
    
    a dispute under the Shareholders Agreement.” Id. In response, Mr. Giordano dismissed the
    
    plaintiffs’ arguments as “risible,” stating: “The Shareholders’ Agreement or the shares of
    
    ownership are referred to on virtually every page of the 45-page Complaint. Every single count of
    
    the Complaint refers to the Shareholders’ Agreement, either directly or by incorporation of
    
    previous allegations.” 2006 MTD Reply at 9 (citation omitted). The Court was persuaded by Mr.
    
    Giordano’s arguments and ordered the case stayed pending the arbitration of all of the plaintiffs’
    
    claims. Data Mountain Solutions, Inc. v. Giordano, Civil Action No. 06-1666, Memorandum
    
    Opinion and Order, at 5 (D.D.C. Nov. 21, 2006); 2007 Trans. at 5 (emphasizing that all of the
    
    plaintiffs’ claims were to be arbitrated).
    
    
                                                      26
                    Mr. Giordano, through his counsel, thus represented to the Court in his motion to
    
    stay that all matters in the complaint were arbitrable, and he reaffirmed that position in his reply
    
    brief. He got what he asked for: a stay of the plaintiffs’ court case and the arbitration of all claims
    
    against him. If Mr. Giordano now were to argue, in the wake of an unfavorable result from the
    
    arbitration, that any issue raised in that complaint is not arbitrable, he would be blatantly reversing
    
    his prior position. Perhaps recognizing that reality, Mr. Giordano still maintains that “all counts
    
    in Plaintiffs’ lengthy Complaint related to the Shareholders Agreement” and were thus
    
    encompassed by the Agreement’s arbitration clause. MTV Reply at 3. He simply denies that “the
    
    Arbitrator’s ‘findings’ in [P]aragraph 9 of the [Final] Award . . . have any truly discernible basis
    
    in the Complaint’s allegations.” MTV Reply at 3. That argument is risible.6
    
                    The plaintiffs asserted in their original complaint in this Court that “Giordano has
    
    intercepted, and now holds, substantial payments from DMS’s client, NTI, that are intended for,
    
    and payable to, plaintiffs DMS and McUmber.” Orig. Compl. ¶ 21. Each claim concerning the
    
    distribution of fees reiterated the same set of factual allegations: “As a result of the actions . . . of
    
    the Defendants, the Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer damages . . . of
    
    
    
            6
                    Apparently believing that turnabout is fair play, Mr. Giordano has answered
    petitioners’ judicial estoppel argument with a claim that the petitioners should be estopped from
    asserting that the fee-splitting dispute is arbitrable, because they filed counterclaims regarding the
    fees dispute in an interpleader lawsuit initiated by NTI in circuit court for Fairfax County,
    Virginia, in 2007. See Petition Opp. Supp. at 1. So far as the Court understands this argument,
    Mr. Giordano contends that by filing those counterclaims in the parallel NTI litigation after this
    Court ordered the parties to arbitrate all of their claims, the petitioners were indicating that they
    did not believe the fee-splitting dispute to be one of the claims ordered to arbitration. See id. at
    2. This is nonsense. Even if the Court assumes that the petitioners were indicating such a belief,
    Mr. Giordano has introduced no evidence suggesting that the circuit court relied upon that
    position, or that the petitioners will receive an unfair benefit or inflict an unjust detriment as a
    result.
    
                                                       27
    approximately $95,000 in payments actually made to the plaintiffs for their work on the NTI
    
    contract but which payments were wrongfully intercepted and are being detained and otherwise
    
    converted by the Defendants . . . ; [and] damages of $410,000 in further contract proceeds due and
    
    payable to the Plaintiffs under the NTI contract but that are instead being wrongly claimed,
    
    diverted, and converted by the Defendants.” Id. ¶ 44; see also id. ¶¶ 74, 81, 86, 88, 97.
    
                   Despite the fact that those allegations clearly refer to a dispute over the entitlement
    
    of Mr. Giordano, Mr. McUmber, and DMS to fees from the GSA-NTI contract, Mr. Giordano
    
    insists that no allegations in the complaint “properly raise[d] the existence of [the] ‘GSA-NTI Fee
    
    Splitting Contract[]’ upon which the Arbitrator based [P]aragraph 9 of the . . . Final Award.”
    
    MTV Supp. at 2. While acknowledging that “McUmber alleged in the Complaint that Giordano
    
    received money from the NTI Contract that did not belong to him,” MTV Supp. at 2, Mr.
    
    Giordano asserts that the complaint did not allege the existence of the fee-splitting agreement
    
    found by the arbitrator in Paragraph 9, but instead was
    
                   about Defendants Giordano and Watson violating the proportional
                   ownership structure of the Shareholders Agreement in an
                   underhanded and manipulative manner and then, as a consequence,
                   directing to their own benefit the remuneration DMS received from
                   the dotGOV contract, all to the detriment of the other DMS
                   shareholders and officers. Even the most generous reading of the
                   Complaint is that Defendants Giordano and Watson used an
                   improperly gained majority shareholder status to redirect the
                   compensation due to DMS . . . under the Teaming Agreement in a
                   manner benefit[t]ing them, to the detriment of Plaintiffs McUmber
                   and Hill. Paragraph 9 of the Award, as modified, went even
                   beyond that.
    
    MTV Reply at 3 (emphasis in original).
    
    
    
    
                                                     28
                   Mr. Giordano’s interpretation of the complaint is, at best, creative. The complaint
    
    does not mention the Teaming Agreement, nor does it claim that the remuneration “redirected” by
    
    Mr. Giordano was due only to DMS; rather, it indicates that payments from NTI were due to both
    
    DMS and Mr. McUmber. See Orig. Compl. ¶ 21 (“Giordano has intercepted . . . substantial
    
    payments from DMS’s client, NTI, that are intended for, and payable to, plaintiffs DMS and
    
    McUmber.”). More importantly, Mr. Giordano seems to have some rather odd ideas about the
    
    specificity with which the plaintiffs were required to plead their claims. To assess the arbitrability
    
    of the plaintiffs’ claims, one must determine whether the subject matter of those claims “aris[es]
    
    out of or relat[es] to” the Shareholders Agreement. Shareholders Agreement ¶ 10(a); see, e.g.,
    
    Wolff v. Westwood Management, LLC, 
    503 F. Supp. 2d 274
    , 289 (D.D.C. 2007) (to determine
    
    whether a claim is arbitrable, court asks whether the claim is “encompass[ed]” by the arbitration
    
    agreement), aff’d, 
    558 F.3d 517
     (D.C. Cir. 2009). The plaintiffs’ complaint clearly alleged that
    
    DMS and Mr. McUmber were entitled to a certain portion of the fees paid out under the GSA-NTI
    
    contract, and that Mr. Giordano was wrongfully retaining those funds. See Orig. Compl. ¶¶ 21,
    
    44, 74, 81, 86, 88, 97. It is true that the complaint refers to a certain dollar-amount of contract
    
    proceeds to which Mr. McUmber and DMS are entitled, while in the Final Award the amounts
    
    due to the plaintiffs are expressed as percentages of contract revenues. But that difference is
    
    immaterial to the question of arbitrability. In either case, the connection of the claim to the
    
    Shareholders Agreement is clear: Mr. Giordano attempted to gain control of DMS, violating the
    
    Shareholders Agreement in the process, so that he could take control of income from the GSA-
    
    NTI contract, including those funds payable to Mr. McUmber and DMS itself. See, e.g., Orig.
    
    
    
    
                                                      29
    Compl. ¶ ¶ 12, 21. This is precisely the connection outlined above in the passage quoted from
    
    Mr. Giordano’s brief. See MTV Reply at 3.
    
                    The complaint therefore alleged the fee-splitting dispute with sufficient
    
    particularity to enable Mr. Giordano to determine whether the dispute was arbitrable. And Mr.
    
    Giordano concluded that it was: “The arbitration clause at issue here is one of broad scope.
    
    Moreover, every single count of the 45-page Complaint relates to the Shareholder’s Agreement.”
    
    2006 MTD at 8 (citation omitted; emphasis added). Mr. Giordano cannot credibly assert that the
    
    fee-splitting dispute alleged in the complaint differs from that resolved by the arbitrator in any
    
    way that is relevant to the determination of arbitrability. Thus, since the issues addressed in
    
    Paragraph 9 were presented in sufficient detail in the complaint to allow an accurate assessment of
    
    their arbitrability, Mr. Giordano’s current claim that those issues were not within the jurisdiction
    
    of the arbitrator is a direct contradiction of his prior representations to this Court.
    
                    If the Court were to permit Mr. Giordano to espouse such obviously inconsistent
    
    arguments and then accepted his current position on the merits, Mr. Giordano would receive an
    
    undeserved advantage while inflicting an unfair burden on the petitioners. The petitioners did not
    
    wish to have the fee-splitting dispute resolved in arbitration, see 2006 MTD Opp. at 14; they were
    
    forced to do so when Mr. Giordano insisted on his right to arbitrate all of their claims and
    
    persuaded the Court that all of those claims were arbitrable. The parties then proceeded to spend
    
    more than a year in an arbitration process that included seven days of hearings and the
    
    presentation of more than 200 evidentiary exhibits. If Mr. Giordano were now to succeed in
    
    arguing that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction over the fees dispute, all of the time and resources
    
    that the petitioners spent proving their case in arbitration — while their case in federal court was
    
    
                                                       30
    on hold and ultimately dismissed — would have been wasted. At the same time, Mr. Giordano
    
    would gain an opportunity to escape an unfavorable judgment. Such crass manipulation of the
    
    legal process constitutes an insult to the integrity of the judicial system and fully warrants
    
    invocation of the doctrine of judicial estoppel. See, e.g., Cannon-Stokes v. Potter, 
    453 F.3d 446
    ,
    
    448 (7th Cir. 2006) (“Judicial estoppel is designed to prevent the perversion of the judicial
    
    process”). Because Mr. Giordano has (1) adopted two plainly different positions before this
    
    Court, (2) induced the Court to adopt the earlier of those positions, and (3) reversed his position in
    
    order to benefit himself and disadvantage his opponents unfairly, he is estopped from objecting to
    
    the arbitrator’s exercise of jurisdiction over the dispute resolved by Paragraph 9 of the Final
    
    Award.
    
    
                                          2. Consent to Arbitration
    
                   Even if Mr. Giordano were not judicially estopped from challenging the
    
    arbitrability of the fee-splitting dispute, he would be barred from presenting that challenge before
    
    this Court because he failed to present it during the arbitration. “Absent excusable ignorance of a
    
    predicate fact, a party that does not object to the arbitrator’s jurisdiction during the arbitration may
    
    not later do so in court.” Howard Univ. v. Metro. Campus Police Officer’s Union, 
    512 F.3d 716
    ,
    
    720 (D.C. Cir. 2008). This rule serves two purposes. “First, arbitration is a matter of consent; if a
    
    party submits to arbitration without objecting to the arbitrator’s jurisdiction, then it may fairly be
    
    said to have consented to the arbitration, and the other party, having gone foward with the
    
    proceeding, may fairly be said to have relied upon that consent.” Id. “Second, requiring a party to
    
    object to the arbitrator’s jurisdiction during the arbitration conserves resources,” because if the
    
    
    
                                                      31
    arbitrator “sustains the objection, . . . the parties can go directly to court and, if the court affirms,
    
    avoid an unnecessary arbitration proceeding.” Id. at 721.
    
                    To preserve an objection to an arbitrator’s jurisdiction, a party must raise it “clearly
    
    and explicitly” during the arbitration process. Environmental Barrier Co., LLC v. Slurry Systems,
    
    Inc., 
    540 F.3d 590
    , 606 (7th Cir. 2008); see also Opals on Ice Lingerie v. Bodylines, Inc., 
    320 F.3d 362
    , 368 (2nd Cir. 2003). The requirement that the objection be clear and explicit ensures that the
    
    objecting party’s opponent has an opportunity “to respond with a petition for an order to compel
    
    arbitration under the [FAA]” and thereby “obtain a judicial determination on arbitrability.”
    
    Environmental Barrier Co., LLC v. Slurry Systems, Inc., 540 F.3d at 606.
    
                    Mr. Giordano claims that he may now present to this Court his objections to the
    
    arbitration of the fee-splitting dispute because he “specifically and repeatedly” made those
    
    objections to the arbitrator. MTV at 19. The record does not support his claim. The petitioners
    
    raised the fee-splitting issue at the commencement of the arbitration process, claiming that Mr.
    
    Giordano had retained proceeds from the GSA-NTI contract that rightfully belonged to Mr.
    
    McUmber and DMS. See supra at 7. They expanded upon that claim in their pre-arbitration brief,
    
    arguing that Mr. McUmber was entitled to 23 percent of the proceeds and DMS to 49 percent.
    
    Cls.’ Pre-Arb. Br. ¶¶ 4-5. In response, Mr. Giordano raised no questions regarding the
    
    arbitrability of those claims. Indeed, after the arbitrator contacted counsel for all parties and asked
    
    whether they would consent to his resolution of “issues that might require him to determine
    
    individual entitlements under contracts with third parties,” MTV, Ex. 3, Mr. Giordano’s counsel
    
    replied that his clients had “no objection” to the arbitration of the petitioners’ claims, so long as
    
    
    
    
                                                        32
    the arbitrator found that none of them had been waived. MTV, Ex. 5 at 1. That response entitled
    
    both the petitioners and the arbitrator to rely upon the respondents’ consent to arbitration of the
    
    fee-splitting issue.
    
                    In light of that consent to the arbitration of the fee-splitting issue, it is doubtful that
    
    Mr. Giordano could have preserved an objection to the arbitrator’s jurisdiction even if he had
    
    explicitly made such an objection later in the arbitration proceedings. The Court need not decide
    
    that question, however, because Mr. Giordano never made such an objection. As evidence that he
    
    challenged the arbitrator’s authority during the arbitration, Mr. Giordano points to several
    
    statements made by his counsel on or after February 19, 2008 — more than three months after the
    
    arbitrator asked if the parties would allow him to resolve issues related to the division of contract
    
    proceeds, and well after the arbitrator had issued both the Partial Award and the Interim Order.
    
    The following are the statements — each an excerpt from an email sent by Mr. Giordano’s
    
    counsel to the arbitrator and opposing counsel — which Mr. Giordano claims constitute his
    
    objections to the arbitrability of the fee-splitting dispute:
    
                    I have spoken to my clients, and they have confirmed that they do
                    not believe claims to employees’ compensation, or strategic
                    decisions of the company, are suitable for arbitration, and do not
                    wish them to be referred to an arbitrator.
    
    MTV, Ex. 6 at 1.
    
                    We continue to believe that awards of compensation, decisions
                    regarding the hiring or firing of employees, decisions regarding the
                    direction of the company, and other routine business dealings are
                    the sole province of the directors and shareholders of Data
                    Mountain Solutions, and the arbitration clause of the Shareholders’
                    Agreement cannot be read to defer these business decisions to an
                    arbitrator.
    
    MTV, Ex. 7 at 1.
    
    
                                               33
                    We continue to maintain that awards of compensation, decisions
                    regarding employees, decisions regarding the direction of the
                    company, and other routine business dealings are the province of
                    the directors and shareholders of Data Mountain Solutions, and
                    cannot be read to be encompassed by the arbitration clause of the
                    Shareholders’ Agreement.
    
    MTV, Ex. 8 at 1. Mr. Giordano’s counsel made similar comments during hearings before the
    
    arbitrator. See, e.g., Arb. Trans. at 11 (“strategic decisions” of the company should not be
    
    subject to arbitration).
    
                    The problem with each of these statements is that none could reasonably be
    
    expected to put either the arbitrator or the petitioners on notice that Mr. Giordano wished to
    
    contest the arbitrability of the fee-splitting dispute. Mr. Giordano attempts to get around this
    
    problem by categorizing the fees dispute as one over “matters of compensation.” MTV at 19.
    
    But in context, none of the objections regarding compensation quoted above can be read to
    
    encompass the fee-splitting dispute. First, an agreement regarding the initial split of GSA-NTI
    
    contract proceeds among DMS itself and two of its principal shareholders cannot be considered
    
    either a simple “award of compensation” or a “routine business dealing.” Second, further
    
    statements of Mr. Giordano’s counsel make clear that Mr. Giordano objected to the arbitration of
    
    only some compensation matters, but not to all. For example, a sentence after he proclaimed that
    
    “claims to employees’ compensation” were not “suitable for arbitration,” Mr. Giordano’s counsel
    
    added that
    
                    [t]o the extent . . . that Mr. McUmber and/or Mr. Hill have paid
                    themselves funds without authorization from the Board of
                    Directors or the shareholders, those unauthorized payments need to
                    be returned to DMS. But with regard to issues like the proper rate
                    of payment for a contractor working in North Carolina, or whether
                    Ms. Hunt is the appropriate person for a particular job, or what
                    contracts DMS should pursue or decline, my clients view those
    
    
                                                     34
                   issues as well outside the scope of arbitrable issues.
    
    MTV, Ex. 6 at 1. These statements make clear that Mr. Giordano fully consented to — indeed,
    
    insisted upon, the arbitration of some “compensation” issues, such as disputes over any
    
    compensation paid by Mr. McUmber or Mr. Hill to himself. The only compensation-related
    
    issue that Mr. Giordano specifically deemed not arbitrable — payment rates for contractors in
    
    North Carolina — is distinctly unrelated to the fee-splitting dispute.
    
                   Furthermore, the context in which Mr. Giordano’s objections were made
    
    demonstrates that none of those objections were directed toward the disputes that led the
    
    arbitrator to include Paragraph 9 in the Final Award. On December 5, 2007, petitioners’ counsel,
    
    Mr. McNutt, sent to the arbitrator and the respondents an email in which he requested that the
    
    arbitrator find in future awards that (1) “DMS is entitled to the sum equal to 49% of the gross
    
    receipts from the dotGov contract,” MTV, Ex. 5 at 1 ¶ 1; (2) “Derek McUmber is entitled to the
    
    sum equal to 23% of the gross receipts from the dotGov contract from and after June, 2006,” id.
    
    at 2 ¶ 2; and (3) “[f]or all subsequent periods DMS and/or Giordano shall pay, or cause to be
    
    paid, to McUmber, an amount equal to 23% of the gross contract proceeds received by NTI under
    
    the dotGOV contract.” Id. at 2 ¶ 6. Giordano’s counsel objected to only one of those claims on
    
    the ground that it was “outside the scope of arbitrable issues”: the last claim, to which counsel
    
    objected on the ground that “Mr. McUmber asks that he be permanently entitled to a fixed
    
    percentage of all future compensation from NTI; it is difficult to see how this future permanent
    
    compensation could be awarded or even sought.” MTV, Ex. 6 at 2. Respondents thus gave no
    
    
    
    indication that they believed the other claims regarding the apportionment of past proceeds from
    
    
    
                                                     35
    the GSA-NTI contract to be unarbitrable.
    
                   Finally, Mr. Giordano’s counsel first asserted that “awards of compensation”
    
    should not be made by the arbitrator approximately one month after the arbitrator clearly
    
    addressed compensation issues in his Interim Order. In that Order the arbitrator declared that Mr.
    
    McUmber should receive a monthly sum of $10,000 for his services, and that one “Susan Hunt”
    
    should be paid “at the rate of $87.60 hourly” for her work for DMS. Interim Order ¶ 2. Mr.
    
    Giordano’s insistence that the arbitrator should not involve himself in matters related to
    
    compensation arose only after the issuance of these orders and thus would seem logically to
    
    apply to them, not to the fee-splitting dispute.
    
                   In light of all these considerations, Mr. Giordano has failed utterly to demonstrate
    
    that he made a “clear and explicit” objection to the presentation of the fee-splitting dispute to the
    
    arbitrator. He therefore consented to the arbitration of that issue and may not challenge the
    
    arbitrator’s authority before this Court.
    
    
                                                III. REMEDIES
    
                   Having determined that Mr. Giordano has not demonstrated that any portion of the
    
    Final Award should be vacated or modified, the Court will grant the pending petition to confirm
    
    the award and deny the motion to vacate. One last set of issues remains to be addressed,
    
    however. In response to an Order of the Court instructing the parties to submit proposed orders
    
    that would resolve this case, the petitioners filed a proposed order that, far from merely
    
    confirming the Final Award, institutes a lien on Mr. Giodano’s assets, creates a constructive trust
    
    on the GSA-NTI contract proceeds paid to Mr. Giordano, and appoints a trustee to collect and
    
    distribute those proceeds. See [Proposed] Order Confirming Arbitration Award at 1-2 (filed on
    
    
                                                       36
    January 7, 2010). The petitioners have cited, and the Court is aware of, no authority that would
    
    permit the institution of such remedies based solely upon the confirmation of an arbitration
    
    award that does not itself provide for the creation of a lien on assets or a constructive trust. The
    
    petitioners are entitled to move for any post-judgment relief allowable under the Federal Rules of
    
    Civil Procedure or other applicable federal or District of Columbia law, but they must do so by
    
    following the appropriate procedures, and not simply by requesting this Court to create a trust out
    
    of thin air.
    
    
                                              IV. CONCLUSION
    
                   For the foregoing reasons, the arbitral award issued on September 19, 2008, and
    
    modified on November 14, 2008, is CONFIRMED in its entirety, and Mr. Giordano’s motion to
    
    vacate that award in part is DENIED. Because a final judgment is being rendered in this matter,
    
    the petitioners’ motions for preliminary relief are DENIED as moot. An Order consistent with
    
    this Opinion shall issue this same day.
    
                   SO ORDERED.
    
    
                                                   /s/
                                                   PAUL L. FRIEDMAN
                                                   United States District Judge
    DATE: January 15, 2010
    
    
    
    
                                                     37
    

Document Info

DocketNumber: Civil Action No. 2008-1623

Judges: Judge Paul L. Friedman

Filed Date: 1/15/2010

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014

Authorities (18)

Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp. , 460 U.S. 1 ( 1983 )

Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. , 473 U.S. 614 ( 1985 )

Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahon , 482 U.S. 220 ( 1987 )

New Hampshire v. Maine , 532 U.S. 742 ( 2001 )

Kurke, David S. v. Oscar Gruss & Son , 454 F.3d 350 ( 2006 )

Howard Univ. v. METRO. CAMPUS POLICE OFFICER'S UN. , 512 F.3d 716 ( 2008 )

Wolff v. Westwood Management, LLC , 558 F.3d 517 ( 2009 )

Scarano v. Central R. Co. Of New Jersey , 203 F.2d 510 ( 1953 )

Athanasios Konstantinidis and Vasiliki Konstantinidis, His ... , 626 F.2d 933 ( 1980 )

Winthrop F. Davis v. Chevy Chase Financial Limited and B. ... , 667 F.2d 160 ( 1981 )

Grady Allen v. Zurich Insurance Company , 667 F.2d 1162 ( 1982 )

William Edwards v. Aetna Life Insurance Company , 690 F.2d 595 ( 1982 )

Finegold, Alexander + Associates, Inc. v. Setty & ... , 81 F.3d 206 ( 1996 )

Abdullah E. Al-Harbi v. Citibank, N.A. And Citibank, A.S. , 85 F.3d 680 ( 1996 )

opals-on-ice-lingerie-designs-by-bernadette-inc , 320 F.3d 362 ( 2003 )

Traci Cannon-Stokes v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General ... , 453 F.3d 446 ( 2006 )

Wolff v. Westwood Management, LLC , 503 F. Supp. 2d 274 ( 2007 )

Elemary v. Philipp Holzmann AG , 533 F. Supp. 2d 116 ( 2008 )

View All Authorities »