Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 14-1580
FOR
THE
ADVANCEMENT
OF
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NORWELL, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:14-cv-01067-RWT)
Submitted:
Decided:
January 8, 2015
PER CURIAM:
The Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of
Military
Medicine,
Inc.
(Foundation),
appeals
the
district
March
2014
arbitral
award,
granting
summary
judgment
to
We affirm.
award,
we
review
the
district
courts
arbitration
award
circumscribed.
Inc.,
492
in
federal
Judicial review of
court
is
substantially
F.3d
520,
marks omitted).
arbitrators
to
decision
527
(4th
Cir.
2007)
(internal
quotation
decision
is
among
the
narrowest
known
at
law
F.3d
849,
857
omitted).
In
arbitration
award,
(4th
order
the
Cir.
for
2010)
(internal
reviewing
moving
party
court
must
quotation
to
sustain
marks
vacate
the
an
heavy
Id.
The grounds specified in the FAA are: (1) where the
award
was
(2) where
procured
there
was
by
corruption,
evident
fraud,
partiality
or
or
undue
corruption
means;
in
the
of
misconduct . . . ;
or
(4)
where
the
arbitrators
final,
and
definite
award
upon
the
subject
matter
Inc.,
quotation
441
F.3d
marks
230,
and
235
(4th
Cir.
alterations
2006)
(internal
omitted).
Merely
or
modify
Id.
unambiguous
contract
provisions.
Id.
omitted).
After review of the record and the parties briefs, we
conclude that the Foundation fails to establish reversible error
in
the
district
Foundations
appeal,
courts
claim
concerning
of
the
confirmation
error,
raised
district
ruling.
We
for
first
courts
the
reject
construction
time
of
the
on
its
contention
that
is
required
because
the
manifestly
disregarded
controlling
law
by
ignoring
and
law.
Contrary
to
the
Foundations
suggestions,
an
&
Car
argument
that
Corp.,
the
363
panel
proximate
cause
amounts
committed
error
in
error,
however,
U.S.
593,
reached
at
best
construing
even
if
(1960)),
an
erroneous
to
the
extant,
597-98
2009
claim
conclusion
that
agreement.
provides
and
no
the
its
on
panel
Such
basis
an
for
Inc. v. Cole, 514 F.3d 345, 349 (4th Cir. 2008) (As long as the
arbitrator is even arguably construing or applying the contract
and acting within the scope of his authority, that a court is
convinced
he
committed
serious
error
does
not
suffice
to
of
May
2009
exchange,
id.,
and
that
the
awards
We
reject
the
Foundations
contention
that
the
upon
which
arbitrators
the
parties
notions
had
of
never
right
agreedbased
and
on
wrong
the
that
also
reject
the
Foundations
manifest
disregard
and
specific
case.
The
Foundation
does
preventing
the
Maryland
law
performance
as
not
breach
identify
concurrent
remedies
any
award
in
this
provision
of
damages
and
of
further
reject
the
Foundations
contention
that
executed
its
powers
that
mutual,
final,
and
Cases addressing
when
the
arbitrator
either
failed
to
resolve
an
issue
Local
516,
500
921,
923
6
(2d
Cir.
1974)
(ambiguous
Cir.
1968)
(arbitrators
presented to them).
failed
to
mention
defense
in
relative
its
trial.
to
view
of
the
obligations
parties
regarding
an
existing
positions
clinical
conflicting
the
Foundations
remaining
extraneous
arguments
for
award,
we
affirm
its
judgment.
We
deny
Norwells
request and motion for the award of attorneys fees, costs, and
damages and dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before
contentions
this
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED