Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 14-1903
RODNEY FARNSWORTH, III,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
TOWBOAT NANTUCKET SOUND, INC.,
Defendant, Appellee.
Before
Howard, Chief Judge,
Selya and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
Farnsworth later
The parties by
and
declaration
that
the
salvage
contract
was
complaint
drew
no
distinction
between
the
obligation
to
arbitrate and the merits issue of what payment was owed to TNS.
The district court denied the motion for injunctive relief and
stayed the case pending the outcome of the arbitration.
The
- 2 -
Farnsworth
did
not
challenge
the
We hold that,
validity
of
the
We affirm.
I.
Bay.
The
boat's
depth
sounder
malfunctioned
and
Farnsworth requested a tow over his marine radio, and TNS's vessel
the NORTHPOINT responded to his call. Farnsworth also made contact
with the Coast Guard, which instructed him that, if he had any
problems, he should "make the appropriate hail" and the Coast Guard
would assist.
The merits issue in this case turns on whether the
contract which ensued was a towage or a salvage contract.
The
Law 16-1 (5th ed. 2014); see also Faneuil Advisors, Inc. v. O/S
Sea Hawk, 50 F.3d 88, 92 (1st Cir. 1995) (describing the law of
salvage).
Evanow
hours
after
Farnsworth
made
contact
with
the
NORTHPOINT.
to
create
salvage"
by
taking
various
actions
resisted
TNS's
efforts
to
create
salvage,
the
The complaint
contract,
gave
starkly
- 5 -
different
account
of
the
encounter.
The
area
which
the
AURORA
was
stranded,
Brown
said,
was
Brown
noted that Farnsworth had earlier spoken to the Coast Guard but
"never attempted to contact the Coast Guard after we left."
The contract executed by the parties is a standard form
"no cure, no pay" marine salvage agreement.
Farnsworth wrote by
hand the following addendum to the form contract: "Aurora was hard
aground, Tow Boat prevented the Boat from going further aground,
Farnsworth's
buyers'
remorse
set
in
quickly.
and
intimating
business practices.
that
TNS
had
engaged
in
illegal
August 11 advising TNS of his belief that TNS had no salvage claim
Although Farnsworth
- 8 -
After
motion
to
stay
the
case
- 9 -
pending
the
outcome
of
the
arbitration proceeding.
Farnsworth's
counterclaims.5
This
was
unanimous
Farnsworth
time argued to the court that he had been coerced to agree to the
arbitration clause specifically, as opposed to the contract as a
whole.
The district court granted TNS's motion to confirm the
arbitration award, rejecting Farnsworth's argument that the court,
rather than the arbitrators, should have decided the duress as to
arbitration issue.
II.
A.
Legal Principles
The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 1 et seq.,
Id.
as follows:
A
written
provision
in
any
maritime
transaction or a contract . . . to settle by
arbitration a controversy thereafter arising
out of such contract or transaction, . . .
shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable,
save upon such grounds as exist at law or in
equity for the revocation of any contract.
9 U.S.C. 2.
The Supreme Court has differentiated between two types
Farnsworth
does
not
dispute
appeal.
- 11 -
this
latter
holding
on
with Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Manufacturing Co., 388
U.S. 395 (1967), the Court has held that challenges of the first
type are for the arbitrator to decide, whereas challenges of the
second type are for the courts to decide, if timely and properly
made.
546 U.S. at 444-45; Prima Paint, 388 U.S. at 402-04; see also
Dialysis Access Ctr., LLC v. RMS Lifeline, Inc., 638 F.3d 367,
376-77, 383 (1st Cir. 2011).
This rule reflects two basic principles of arbitration
law.
contract[,]
party
cannot
be
required
to
submit
to
The second is
- 12 -
the
validity
arbitrator.
of
the
contract
as
whole
goes
to
the
That
- 13 -
The
See
Application
This
case
does
implicate
the
severability
doctrine
victim, rather than void, but that "in the relatively rare case
where one person physically compels another to give apparent
assent" there is no acceptance and hence no contract).8
Farnsworth
make the contract invalid, but it would not mean that no contract
was ever formed.
F.3d 267, 273-74 (3d Cir. 2013); see also Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv,
Inc., 175 F.3d 716, 726 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that duress
challenge to a contract was for the arbitrator).
Farnsworth nevertheless argues that the district court
erred in confirming the arbitration award for two reasons.
First,
contract, and so the district court should have resolved the duress
issue
even
had
Farnsworth
not
raised
the
validity
of
the
Thus,
- 16 -
on the general principle that a party has the right to "refine and
clarify general allegations made in a complaint," argues that the
district court erred in "ignor[ing]" that challenge.
That general principle does not help Farnsworth here.
Farnsworth had ample opportunity to refine and clarify the general
allegations
made
in
his
severability principle.
complaint
so
as
to
comply
with
the
that
proposition.
Farnsworth's
challenge
to
the
validity of the arbitration clause itself came only after TNS moved
to confirm the panel's award, which went against him.
- 17 -
That was
the
FAA,
courts
may
vacate
an
arbitrator's
Oxford Health
Plans LLC v. Sutter, 133 S. Ct. 2064, 2068 (2013) (quoting First
Options of Chi., Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 942 (1995)).
Judicial
review
of
binding
arbitration
awards
is
necessarily
disputes
straightaway.'"
Id.
(quoting
Hall
Street
Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 588 (2008)); see
also Booth v. Hume Pub., Inc., 902 F.2d 925, 932 (11th Cir. 1990)
(characterizing 9 confirmation proceedings as "summary" and
noting that the FAA "expresses a presumption that arbitration
award
under
enforced").
present
those
provisions,
an
arbitral
award
must
be
here,
and
Farnsworth
does
not
argue
otherwise.
Farnsworth's
Cf.
10
Costs are