Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 12-2175
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:11-cv-02195-RDB)
Argued:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Kiran Dewan and his close corporation, Kiran M. Dewan, CPA,
P.A. (the Company) (collectively, Appellants), appeal from
the district courts confirmation of an arbitral award in favor
of the Companys former employee, Appellee Arun Walia. Walia
came to the United States from Canada in 2003 on an employment
visa to work for the Company as an accountant. 1 By 2009, the
parties agreed to a parting of the ways, in connection with
which Walia executed a broadly worded Release Agreement (the
Release) in consideration for the Companys payment of $7,000.
The parting proved less than amicable. In January 2010,
Appellants
filed
demand
for
arbitration
against
Walia,
in
asserted
his
employment
numerous
agreement.
counterclaims
Despite
in
the
the
Release,
arbitral
forum,
primarily alleging that the Company had underpaid him during his
employment
and
that
Appellants
had
run
afoul
of
federal
due
vacate
and
court.
The
course,
to
the
parties
confirm/enforce
district
court
filed
the
opposing
award
confirmed
in
the
petitions
federal
award
to
district
and
granted
the
Arbitrator.
Accordingly,
we
vacate
the
judgment
and
on
an
employment
visa
to
work
for
the
Company
as
an
and
noncompetition
provisions,
as
well
as
cancer.
On
approximately
March
14,
2009
(as
the
Companys
office
manager,
Veena
Sindwani
(who
was
also
Dewans wife), went to the intensive care unit to see Walia. The
parties
dispute
contended
the
(and
events
the
occurring
Arbitrator
in
later
the
hospital.
found)
that
Walia
Sindwani
any
event,
Walia
continued
to
work
for
the
Company
circumstances
employment.
This
letter
ever
was
executed
the
surrounding
much
sent
Release,
is
to
the
termination
undisputed:
Walia,
which
on
Though
November
release[d]
of
no
termination
3,
and
Walias
2009,
Walia
discharge[d]
$7,000.
J.A.
250-52. 2
The
Release
provided
for
binding
performance.
J.A.
251.
As
with
the
2006
Employment
29,
2010,
Dewan
initiated
arbitration
proceedings
that
Walia
breached
an
employment
agreement
by
asserted
things,
experience
he
that
was
several
(1)
counterclaims.
based
underpaid
on
(in
his
He
years
apparent
alleged,
of
among
accounting
violation
of
the
2006
Employment
Agreement;
and
(3)
Dewan,
Walias
so-called
interim
award
(the
Interim
Award)
in
Dewan
was
party
to
fraud
based
on
the
differences
damages,
and
found
that
Dewan
and
the
Company
were
The
district
court
first
denied
Appellants
petition
to
vacate the Final Award. Kiran M. Dewan, CPA, P.A. v. Walia, 2012
WL 3156839 (D. Md. Aug. 3, 2012). The court noted its severely
circumscribed role in reviewing an arbitration award, and the
limited grounds for vacating such an award. The court stated
that Appellants federal-court claims are almost identical to
the ones presented before the arbitration tribunal, and that in
bringing the claims Appellants [e]ssentially . . . have asked
[the court] to second-guess the well-reasoned award . . . . Id.
at *9. The court concluded that there was substantial support
for the decisions made by the arbitrator, that the arbitrator
did not go beyond the scope of the submissions, and that the
arbitrators determinations were not arbitrary. Id. at *10. The
court
further
concluded
that
Appellants
did
not
meet
their
Walias petition
to
confirm
and
enforce
the
award.
Kiran
M.
Dewan, CPA, P.A. v. Walia, 2012 WL 4356783 (D. Md. Sept. 21,
2012). On October 16, 2012, the court granted Walias motion for
attorneys fees and costs. Kiran M. Dewan, CPA, P.A. v. Walia,
2012 WL 4963827 (D. Md. Oct. 16, 2012).
Appellants timely noticed this appeal.
II.
A.
On
appeal
from
the
district
courts
evaluation
of
an
FAA
supplies
not
simply
procedural
framework
arbitration
controversy
thereafter
arising
out
of
such
citations
omitted).
Commerce
includes
foreign
commerce. See Adkins v. Labor Ready, Inc., 303 F.3d 496, 500-01
(4th Cir. 2002) (noting that a litigant can compel arbitration
under the FAA if able to demonstrate, among other things, the
relationship of the transaction . . . to interstate or foreign
commerce . . . .). The relevant transactions here are the nonimmigrant
ultimate
employment
execution
application
by
the
process
parties
10
of,
leading
the
to,
2003
and
and
the
2006
by
Walia,
jurisdiction
plainly
Canadian
exists
national.
because
Walia
Subject
is
matter
Canadian
to
federal
immigration
law
clearly
involved
foreign
commerce.
The Release states that it shall be construed and enforced
in accordance with the laws of the State of Maryland, J.A. 251,
and
the
2006
Employment
Agreement
states
that
it
shall
be
applicable
to
therein,
J.A.
248.
provision
does
not
contract
involves
agreements
But
displace
interstate
to
contracts
federal
[or
be
wholly
general
arbitration
foreign]
performed
choice-of-law
law
commerce.
if
the
Rota-
McLarty, 700 F.3d at 698 n.7; see also Porter Hayden Co. v.
Century Indem. Co., 136 F.3d 380, 383 (4th Cir. 1998) (finding
that a similar choice-of-law provision could reasonably be read
merely as specifying that Maryland substantive law be applied to
resolve disputes arising out of the contractual relationship,
and
absent
clearer
expression
11
of
the
parties
intent
to
in
of
the
FAA
only
that
the
and
arise
out
of
transactions
involving
foreign
must
be
vacated
because
it
is
the
product
of
the
out
of
his
employment
with
the
Company.
We
are
constrained to agree.
Judicial review of an arbitration award in federal court
is
substantially
circumscribed.
Three
Del.,
Inc.
v.
DataQuick Info. Sys., Inc., 492 F.3d 520, 527 (4th Cir. 2007)
(citation omitted). In fact, the scope of judicial review for
an arbitrators decision is among the narrowest known at law
because to allow full scrutiny of such awards would frustrate
12
disputes
and
the
avoidance
of
the
expense
and
delay
9 U.S.C. 10(a).
of
the
law.
MCI
Constructors,
610
F.3d
at
857
of
the
law
is
established
only
where
the
arbitrator[
230,
235
(4th
Cir.
2006)
(citation
omitted).
Merely
of
or
the
law.
modify
Id.
An
arbitrator
unambiguous
contract
may
not,
however,
provisions.
Id.
an
arbitrator
has
based
his
award
on
his
own
personal
claims
$7,000.
J.A.
related
to
250-52.
The
Walias
employment
expansive
breadth
in
and
exchange
for
scope
the
of
14
the
Interim
Award,
the
Arbitrator
rejected
Walias
see
also
J.A.
69
(All
claims
involving
Solicitation,
federal
statutory
claims
if
they
were
brought
in
state
or
federal court, but did not extinguish some or all of such claims
if they were brought in an arbitral forum. We find untenable the
Arbitrators attempt to parse the language of the Release so
finely.
We agree with Appellants that in purporting to construe
the release and waiver provision to apply only to tort and
contractual claims Walia might file in federal or state court,
the
Arbitrator
rewr[ote]
the
release,
which
expressly
and
local
statutory
or
common
law,
and
imposes
no
have
no
doubt
that
Maryland
law
accords
with
Appellants
contentions. See Herget v. Herget, 573 A.2d 798, 801 (Md. 1990)
(stating that a broad settlement agreement purporting to release
all claims, whether known or unknown, is enforceable); Bernstein
v. Kapneck, 430 A.2d 602, 606 (Md. 1981). 6
Release
was
unconscionable. 7
We
do
not
know
how
the
18
Release
retained
the
fatally
right
undermines
to
bring
the
any
suggestion
of
his
that
Walia
counterclaims
in
law
by
nevertheless
holding
the
arbitrating
Release
Walias
valid
and
counterclaims
enforceable
arising
out
but
of
IV.
For
remand
the
with
reasons
set
instructions
forth,
that
we
the
vacate
district
the
judgment
court
vacate
and
the
award.
by
20
the
Release
and
could
not
review
of
an
arbitrators
award
is
so
severely
Not surprisingly,
then,
the
even
an
erroneous
interpretation
of
agreement
in
Id. at 194.
United Mine Workers of Am., Dist. 31, 933 F.2d 225, 229 (4th
Cir. 1991) (quotation marks omitted).
In
agreement
this
case,
stating
the
that
arbitrator
Arun
Walia
interpreted
promised
never
release
to
file
not
manifestly
disregard
the
law,
cannot
support
Accordingly,
Under
the
agreement,
Walia
release[d]
and
J.A. 250-51.
arbitrator
concluded
that
the
release
agreement
was
J.A. 66.
award
circumscribed.
in
federal
Judicial review of an
court
is
substantially
F.3d 183, 190 (4th Cir. 2010) (quotation marks and omitted).
Indeed,
the
scope
of
judicial
review
for
an
arbitrators
scrutiny
of
such
awards
would
frustrate
the
purpose
of
avoidance
litigation.
of
the
expense
and
delay
22
associated
with
We
have
consistently
emphasized
that,
in
reviewing
an
Upshur
omitted).
arbitrator
is
contract[,]
Coals
Corp.,
Stated
even
the
933
F.2d
differently,
arguably
reviewing
229
[a]s
construing
courts
at
(quotation
long
or
as
the
applying
the
conviction
that
the
this
agreement
to
arbitration.
case,
the
arbitrator
release
suits
The
release
arbitration.
F.3d
319,
to
mean
court
agreement
J.A. 250-51.
in
reasonably
but
interpreted
not
disputes
specifically
the
in
barred
proceedings
in
judicial
forum,
not
(4th
Cir.
2013)
(noting
that
the
phrase
arbitration.
cannot
agree
with
the
majority
that
Ante at
17.
In contrast to the arbitrator, the majority interprets the
agreement as releasing all claims regardless of forum.
This
thus
or
did
not
provisions,
disregard
ante
at
14,
and
modify
vacatur
The arbitrator
unambiguous
on
that
basis
contract
is
thus
unjustified.
Further, I cannot agree with the majoritys statement that
the release agreement could not be more expansive, clear, or
unambiguous.
Ante at 19.
J.A. 250-51.
Or it could
But
it did not.
Because the arbitrator unquestionably construed the release
agreement at issue, we are not at liberty to substitute our
preferred
interpretation
for
the
arbitrators.
Upshur
Coals
of
an
arbitration
occurrence . . . .
at 184.
award
is,
and
must
be,
rare
25