Opinion
Index No. 656129/2019
11-10-2021
Gary SINDERBRAND, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO ADVISORS, LLC, Steven Sinderbrand, Defendant.
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 2, 38, 40, 41, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 118, 121, 122, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147 were read on this motion to/for VACATE - DECISION/ORDER/JUDGMENT/AWARD.
Upon the foregoing documents, it is ordered that this motion to vacate the arbitration award entered in FINRA Arbitration No. 17-02705 is denied.
Pursuant to Section 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. § 10, Petitioner moves to vacate the arbitration award entered in FINRA Arbitration No. 17-02705. Respondents oppose Petitioner's motion to vacate and move to confirm the arbitration award under Section 9 of the FAA, 9 U.S.C. § 9.
STANDARD OF REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
Judicial review of arbitration awards under the FAA is "extremely limited" and an award will be upheld if there is even "a barely colorable justification" for the result, regardless of any errors of law or fact committed by the arbitrators. Wien & Malkin LLP v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc. , 6 NY3d 471, 479-80 (2006) ; U.S. Elecs., Inc. v. Sirius Satellite Radio, Inc. , 73 AD3d 497, 498 (1st Dep't 2010).
Petitioner argues that the statutory grounds for vacating this award are that (1) the Panel refused to hear allegedly "pertinent and material" evidence, (2) the Panel manifestly disregarded the applicable law, and (3) the award was procured by fraud. Petitioner's arguments for vacating the arbitration award fail because they either are misinterpretations of the law or were previously raised in arbitration and therefore barred as arguments for vacatur.
First, the FAA does not require arbitrators to delve into every piece of evidence in a case. Kolel Beth Yechiel Mechil of Tartikov, Inc. v. YLL Irrevocable Tr. , 729 F.3d 99, 107 (2d Cir. 2013) ("Arbitration proceedings require merely an expeditious and summary hearing, with only restricted inquiry into factual issues."). The Panel reviewed briefings and heard oral argument relating to the inadvertently produced confidential information. The Panel's decision not to reopen discovery was within the Panel's discretion. The Panel's decision does not constitute misconduct.
Second, the arbitrators did not "manifestly disregard the applicable law" by not applying FINRA Rule 13804. A party seeking to vacate an award on the basis of manifest disregard of the applicable law must show both that the arbitrators "(1) knew of a governing legal principle yet refused to apply it or ignored it altogether, and (2) the law ignored by the arbitrators was well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable to the case." Wien , 6 NY3d at 481. Both parties briefed the Panel on FINRA Rule 13804 and the Rule's applicability. The rule's applicability was not clear in this situation. The Panel acted within its discretion in deciding not to apply the rule.
Third, Petitioner has not demonstrated that the award was procured by fraud. During the arbitration, Petitioner alleged that a WFA witness perjured himself when testifying. Petitioner is raising this issue as proof of fraud after the same argument was rejected during arbitration. There is no proof of fraud.
It is hereby,
ORDERED that the petition to vacate the award is denied and dismissed; and it is further
ORDERED that the award is confirmed.
This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.