1 2
3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE 7 ARASH GHAYOORI, 8 Petitioner, 9 v. 10 COBRA TRADING, INC., 11 Respondent. C25-0021 TSZ 12 ORDER 13 COBRA TRADING, INC., 14 Counter Claimant, 15 v. 16 ARASH GHAYOORI, Counter Defendant. 17
18 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on petitioner and counter-defendant 19 Arash Ghayoori’s Petition to vacate the arbitration award (the “Award”), docket no. 1, 20 respondent and counter-claimant Cobra Trading, Inc.’s counterclaim, see Answer and 21 Counterclaim, docket no. 6, Cobra’s opposition to the petition to vacate and motion to 22 confirm (“Motion to Confirm”) the Award, docket no. 8, Mr. Ghayoori’s cross motion to 1 vacate the Award (“Cross Motion to Vacate”), docket no. 13, and Mr. Ghayoori’s Motion 2 for a More Definite Statement, docket no 15. Having reviewed all papers filed in support
3 of, and in opposition to, the petition and motions, the Court enters the following order. 4 Background 5 Founded in 2004, Cobra operates as a retail broker providing customer service and 6 trading tools to active stock and option traders—both institutional and retail. See Ex. C to 7 Mot. to Confirm (docket no. 8-3).1 8 On or about July 6, 2021, Mr. Ghayoori created a margin trading account with
9 Cobra, which allowed him to trade on credit. See Ghayoori Decl. at ¶ 3 (docket no. 14); 10 see also Ex. C to Mot. to Confirm at 48–49 (docket no. 8-3). On his application for the 11 account, Mr. Ghayoori indicated that his investment objectives included “Trading, 12 Speculation, Growth” and “Income,” he wrote “Aggressive” as his risk tolerance, and he 13 provided several addresses, including his physical addresses in California and Vancouver,
14 British Columbia, and his brother’s physical address. See Ghayoori Decl. at ¶ 3 (docket 15 no. 14); see also Ex. E to Mot. to Confirm at 68 (docket no. 8-5). In connection with 16 establishing a margin account with Cobra, Mr. Ghayoori agreed to the following: 17 You can lose more funds than you deposit in the margin account – A decline in the value of securities that are purchased on margin may require you to 18 provide additional funds to the firm that has made the loan to avoid the forced sale of those securities or other securities in your account. The firm can force 19 the sale of securities in your account – If the equity in your account falls below the maintenance margin requirements under the law or the firm’s 20
21 1 The Court notes that exhibits filed by Cobra in support of its Motion to Confirm include declarations executed under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746. Pursuant to this statute, these “unsworn 22 declarations” are admissible and entitled to evidentiary weight. 1 higher “house” requirements, the firm can sell the securities in your account to cover the margin deficiency. You also will be responsible for any shortfall 2 in the account after such a sale. The firm can sell your securities without contacting you – Some investors mistakenly believe that a firm must contact 3 them for a margin call to be valid, and that the firm cannot liquidate securities in their accounts to meet the call unless the firm has contacted them first. 4 This is not the case.
5 See Ex. B to Mot. to Confirm at 6 (docket no. 8-2). 6 On November 7, 2023, Mr. Ghayoori’s account reflected a negative balance of 7 $353,913.50 as a result of the trading activity and fund withdrawal the day prior.2 See 8 Ex. B to Mot. to Confirm at 5 (docket no. 8-2). The parties dispute, however, whether the 9 trading that occurred on November 6, 2023, was authorized by Mr. Ghayoori. Cobra 10 contends that on that date, Mr. Ghayoori “shorted” the stock of MSP Recovery, Inc. by 11 borrowing shares and selling them to buyers at market price, as he anticipated a decline in 12 value. See Ex. C to Mot. to Confirm at 54, 70 (docket no. 8-3). Instead, the stock price 13 rose, and Mr. Ghayoori’s positions incurred substantial losses. See Ex. B to Mot. to 14 Confirm at 69 (docket no. 8-2). Cobra asserts that it was required to cover the growing 15 debt by liquidating Mr. Ghayoori’s margin account. See Ex. C to Mot. to Confirm at 70 16 (docket no. 8-3). During the time the trades were being processed, Cobra contends that 17 Mr. Ghayoori represented he needed to immediately wire $313,000.00 for a real estate 18 transaction, and Cobra staff approved the transfer. See Ex. D to Mot. to Confirm (docket 19 no. 8-4). As a result of the trading losses and the withdrawal, Cobra states that 20
21 2 Mr. Ghayoori maintains that his account should reflect a balance of $30,000.00—the amount that would have remained following his request for a wire transfer—as he denies having traded on November 6, 22 2023. See Ghayoori Decl. at ¶ 9 (docket no. 14). 1 Mr. Ghayoori’s account balance reflected a negative $353,913.50. See Ex. E to Mot. to 2 Confirm at 86 (docket no. 8-5). On or about November 6, 2023, Mr. Ghayoori retained an
3 attorney who spoke with Cobra concerning this dispute. See Ex. B to Mot. to Confirm at 4 4 (docket no. 8-2). The attorney no longer represented Mr. Ghayoori as of November 9, 5 2023. See Ex. D to Mot. to Confirm at 4 (docket no. 8-4). 6 Mr. Ghayoori denies that he authorized any trades on November 6, 2023. See 7 Ghayoori Decl. at ¶¶ 5, 7 (docket no. 14). He maintains that, prior to learning of the 8 trades, he requested a wire transfer, which Cobra staff approved. See id. at ¶¶ 4, 6. Upon
9 discovering the trading activity, Mr. Ghayoori states that he “immediately contacted 10 Cobra to dispute them and assert that my account had been compromised.” Id. at ¶ 8; see 11 also Ex. F to Ghayoori Decl. (docket no. 14). 12 On November 16, 2023, Mr. Ghayoori sent an email to the Chief Operating 13 Officer of Cobra, Thomas Terry, stating the trades that occurred on November 6, 2023,
14 on his account were “unauthorized,” that he does “not have any responsibility for the 15 negative account balance” as “it is the direct result of the unauthorized trading,” that his 16 “phone number is no longer in service,” he has “moved to another part of the world,” and 17 “no longer live[s] in the U[nited] S[tates].” Ex. B to Mot. to Confirm at 4–5 (docket 18 no. 8-2).
19 On or about December 27, 2023, Cobra initiated arbitration proceedings against 20 Mr. Ghayoori through the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) pursuant 21 to the terms of the margin agreement. See Ex. C to Mot. to Confirm (docket no. 8-3). 22 Cobra initially requested Dallas, Texas, as the venue for the arbitration proceedings 1 because it is headquartered in the Dallas area and Mr. Ghayoori entered agreements 2 governed by Texas law with a Dallas forum selection provision. See id. Thereafter,
3 pursuant to FINRA Rule 12213, FINRA designated Seattle, Washington, as the 4 arbitration location, because the last known physical address of Mr. Ghayoori was in 5 Vancouver, British Columbia, and Seattle is the closest venue to that location. See Ex. C 6 to Mot. to Confirm at 24 (docket no. 8-3). 7 On January 3, 2024, FINRA mailed copies of the statement of the arbitration claim 8 (the “Statement of Claim”) and related arbitration documents to both physical addresses
9 Cobra maintained on file for Mr. Ghayoori, but the mailings were returned as 10 undelivered. See Exs. C & E to Mot. to Confirm (docket nos. 8-3 & 8-5). On January 24, 11 2024, Cobra’s counsel served the Statement of Claim and related documents on 12 Mr. Ghayoori via the FINRA Dispute Resolution (“DR”) Portal.3 See Ex. C to Mot. to 13 Confirm at 4 (docket no. 8-3). That same day, Cobra also emailed the materials to the
14 same address Mr. Ghayoori used to open his account and correspond with Cobra. See id. 15 at 8. Cobra copied Mr. Ghayoori’s former attorney on the email, who acknowledged 16 receipt but did not forward the materials to Mr. Ghayoori. See Ex. D to Mot. to Confirm 17 at 4 (docket no. 8-4). The legal assistant with Cobra’s counsel who sent the email to 18 Mr. Ghayoori confirmed in an affidavit that the email did not “bounce-back,” and that
19 20
21 3 The FINRA Dispute Resolution Portal is a secure online system that parties use to file, serve, and access documents in arbitration proceedings. See FINRA, Dispute Resolution Portal, 22 https://www.finra.org/arbitration-mediation/rules-case-resources/dr-portal (last visited May 14, 2025). 1 Cobra’s IT department verified successful delivery. Ex. E to Mot. to Confirm (docket 2 no. 8-5).
3 On May 6, 2024, Cobra filed a Motion for Determination of Service with the 4 FINRA panel, requesting that it issue an order finding that service of the Statement of 5 Claim and all other documents was effective, and that Mr. Ghayoori has actual notice of 6 the proceedings and the claims against him. See Ex. E to Mot. to Confirm (docket 7 no. 8-5). On May 9, 2024, Cobra filed a notice with the chairperson of FINRA, stating 8 that it attempted to serve the documents relating to the Motion for Determination of
9 Service to Mr. Ghayoori via his email address on file, but delivery was unsuccessful. See 10 Ex. F to Mot. to Confirm (docket no. 8-6). On June 6, 2024, the FINRA panel granted the 11 Motion for Determination of Service and found that Cobra’s service of the Statement of 12 Claim and other documents was “adequate, effective, and in compliance with [FINRA] 13 Rule 12300,” and as a result, the arbitration “matter may proceed accordingly.” Ex. G to
14 Mot. to Confirm (docket no. 8-7). 15 Despite the ruling in its favor, in August 2024, Cobra’s counsel retained King 16 International Advisory Group, Inc. (“KIAG”), an investigative agency, to locate 17 Mr. Ghayoori and attempt to personally serve him with arbitration proceeding 18 documents. See Ex. H to Mot. to Confirm (docket no. 8-8). Investigators at KIAG
19 conducted a background research report and found evidence of a physical address in 20 Toronto, Ontario, belonging to Mr. Ghayoori. Id. Two KIAG investigators visited that 21 address on two separate occasions prior to the arbitration hearing to personally serve 22 Mr. Ghayoori, but both attempts were unsuccessful. Id. 1 In or about November 2024, the FINRA panel conducted the arbitration 2 proceedings, and in December 2024, it issued the Award in Cobra’s favor in the amount
3 of $353,913.50, plus interest and costs. See Exs. I & J to Mot. to Confirm (docket 4 nos. 8-9 & 8-10). Mr. Ghayoori did not participate in the arbitration proceedings and 5 discovered the Award while checking FINRA’s online database on December 9, 2024. 6 Ghayoori Decl. at ¶ 10 (docket no. 14). He asserts that Cobra’s only attempt to serve him 7 was via the email address he used to create the margin account. Id. That email address 8 was “deactivated at [his] request in November 2023,” before arbitration proceedings were
9 initiated. Id. 10 On January 6, 2025, Mr. Ghayoori filed a petition against Cobra pursuant to the 11 Federal Arbitration Act, (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 10, seeking vacatur of the award under 12 §§ 10(a)(3) and (a)(4), alleging that the arbitrators exceeded their authority and that the 13 Award was procured through improper means because he did not receive adequate notice
14 and the hearing was conducted at an improper venue. See Petition (docket no. 1). On 15 February 3, 2025, Cobra filed its answer to the petition and a counterclaim against 16 Mr. Ghayoori, see Answer and Counterclaim (docket no. 6), requesting confirmation of 17 the Award under the FAA, 9 U.S.C. § 9, and additionally filed the Motion to Confirm the 18 Award, see Mot. to Confirm (docket no. 8). On February 20, 2025, Mr. Ghayoori filed
19 the Cross Motion to Vacate the Award, in which he reiterated the arguments made in the 20 petition, and requested a continuance due to an unspecified scheduling conflict and to 21 conduct discovery that would allegedly result in evidence supporting vacating the Award. 22 1 See Cross Motion to Vacate (docket no. 13).4 In substance, Mr. Ghayoori seeks vacatur 2 of the Award or a continuance, while Cobra requests confirmation of the Award.
3 Discussion 4 A. Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards 5 Under the FAA, 9 U.S.C. § 9, courts must confirm an arbitration award unless one 6 of the limited grounds for vacatur under 9 U.S.C. § 10 is established. See Kyocera Corp. 7 v. Prudential-Bache Trade Servs., Inc., 341 F.3d 987, 997 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). The 8 Ninth Circuit has emphasized that “[n]either erroneous legal conclusions nor
9 unsubstantiated factual findings justify federal court review of an arbitral award under the 10 statute.” Id. at 994. 11 B. Arbitrator Misconduct 12 Mr. Ghayoori contends that the Award should be vacated under 9 U.S.C. 13 § 10(a)(3) on two grounds: (1) he did not receive adequate notice of the arbitration
14 proceedings, and (2) the arbitration was conducted in an improper venue. Petition at 5–6 15 (docket no. 1). Cobra argues that both notice and venue were proper under the FINRA 16 rules and applicable law. Mot. to Confirm at 8–9 (docket no. 8). The Court addresses the 17 notice and venue arguments. 18
21 4 On February 20, 2025, Mr. Ghayoori filed a motion for a more definite statement, docket no. 15, requesting that the Court order Cobra to provide greater specificity regarding the fraud allegations in its 22 counterclaim in support of its request to confirm the Award. 1 1. Notice 2 Under 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(3), a court may vacate an arbitration award if the
3 arbitrators were guilty of misconduct or “misbehavior by which the rights of any party 4 have been prejudiced.” Mr. Ghayoori contends that service of the Statement of Claim and 5 arbitration documents was deficient under FINRA Rules 12300(a), 12302(c)(2), & 6 13300, and constitutional due process. See Petition at 5 (docket no. 1); Cross Mot. to 7 Vacate at 11–15 (docket no. 13). He argues that Cobra served the arbitration documents 8 to a “defunct” email address and failed to serve him via other available means, such as
9 his mailing addresses, alternate email accounts, or his brother’s address. As a result, he 10 contends, he did not learn of the arbitration until after the Award was issued and was 11 unable to meaningfully participate. Cross Mot. to Vacate at 6, 12, 14–15 (docket no. 13). 12 Cobra argues that service was proper under both the FINRA Rules and due process, and 13 that the Court should defer to the FINRA panel’s order finding service procedurally
14 sufficient. See Mot. to Confirm at 8–9 (docket no. 8); Resp. to Mot. at 7–10 (docket 15 no. 17). 16 The Court agrees that Cobra’s methods of service complied with the FINRA 17 Rules. Under FINRA Rule 12300(a), parties are required to use the FINRA DR Portal to 18 serve statements of claim and other documents but are permitted to “use other means of
19 filing or service” if an exception applies or “in other extraordinary circumstances.” In 20 accordance with Rule 12300(a), Cobra’s counsel served the Statement of Claim and the 21 arbitration documents via the FINRA DR Portal, and Cobra served the same documents 22 by email to the address Mr. Ghayoori used to open his margin account and correspond 1 with Cobra as recently as November 2023, shortly before Cobra initiated arbitration 2 proceedings. See Exs. B, C & E to Mot. to Confirm (docket nos. 8-2, 8-3 & 8-5). Under
3 Rule 12302(c)(2), a FINRA Director is required to serve the Statement of Claim and 4 related documents. The term “Director” includes “FINRA staff to whom the Director has 5 delegated authority.” FINRA Rule 12100(m); see also FINRA Rule 13103(a) (“The 6 Director may delegate his or her duties when it is appropriate, unless the Code provides 7 otherwise.”). Here, a FINRA case administrator mailed a copy of the Statement of Claim 8 and other arbitration documents to both physical addresses Cobra maintained on file for
9 Mr. Ghayoori. See Ex. E to Mot. to Confirm (docket no. 8-5). Absent evidence to the 10 contrary, the Court finds such service procedurally proper. Finally, Mr. Ghayoori’s 11 reliance on Rule 13300 is misplaced because this Rule applies only to industry disputes, 12 and this matter involves a customer claim. 13 Cobra’s service also complies with constitutional due process. “Due process
14 requires notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise parties of 15 the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” 16 United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 272 (2010) (internal quotation 17 marks omitted). “Due process does not require actual notice.” Id. (quoting Jones v. 18 Flowers, 547 U.S. 220, 225 (2006) (cleaned up)). Although Mr. Ghayoori claims that the
19 documents were sent to a “defunct” email address, the email did not bounce, and Cobra’s 20 IT department confirmed successful delivery. See Ex. E to Mot. to Confirm (docket 21 no. 8-5). Cobra also sent the materials to Mr. Ghayoori’s former attorney, who 22 acknowledged receipt. See Ex. D to Mot. to Confirm (docket no. 8-4). Mr. Ghayoori 1 further argues that Cobra’s failure to use his physical addresses to serve him violate due 2 process. But prior to the arbitration proceedings, Mr. Ghayoori informed Cobra that he
3 was moving to “another part of the world,” had disconnected his phone, and left no 4 updated contact information. See Ex. B to Mot. to Confirm at 4–5 (docket no. 8-2). To 5 the extent Mr. Ghayoori argues that service was inadequate, such a basis falls outside the 6 grounds for vacatur under the FAA. See Gingiss Int’l, Inc. v. Bormet, 58 F.3d 328, 332– 7 33 (7th Cir. 1995) (holding that inadequate notice is not a valid basis for vacating an 8 arbitration award under § 10(a) and rejecting a § 10(a)(3) claim where the petitioner was
9 notified at the address on file and the notices were not returned as undelivered). The 10 Court finds that service was reasonably calculated to apprise Mr. Ghayoori of the 11 proceedings, and he had an opportunity to appear and defend. 12 The Court is limited to reviewing the Award on the narrow grounds set forth in the 13 FAA and may not second-guess the panel’s factual or legal conclusions. See Kyocera,
14 341 F.3d at 994, 998 (holding that, under the FAA, courts are afforded “an extremely 15 limited review authority” and “neither erroneous legal conclusions or unsubstantiated 16 factual findings justify federal court review” of an arbitration award). On May 6, 2024, 17 Cobra moved the panel for a determination that its service upon Mr. Ghayoori was 18 effective under FINRA Rule 12300. The panel granted the Motion for Determination of
19 Service, stating: 20 Based on the panel’s review of the pleadings and documents noted above, and FINRA Rule 12300, the panel finds Claimant’s service of the Statement 21 of Claim and other documents and pleadings referenced in its motion was adequate, effective, and in compliance with Rule 12300. Therefore, IT IS 22 1 ORDERED claimant’s motion for Determination of Service is granted. This matter may proceed accordingly. 2 Ex. G (FINRA Order) to Mot. to Confirm (docket no. 8-7). 3 Nothing in the record suggests that the panel’s ruling was the result of misconduct 4 or legal error. The Court finds no basis to disturb the panel’s determination, and vacatur 5 is not warranted based on inadequate notice under § 10(a)(3). 6 2. Venue 7 Mr. Ghayoori also argues that the Award should be vacated under § 10(a)(3) 8 because the venue location, Seattle, Washington, was improper and prejudiced his rights. 9 See Petition at 6 (docket no. 1); see also Cross Mot. to Vacate at 9–11 (docket no. 13). 10 Cobra acknowledges that it initially requested Dallas, Texas, as the hearing location, but 11 argues that Seattle was a proper venue pursuant to FINRA Rule 12213(a) because 12 Mr. Ghayoori’s last known residence was in Vancouver, British Columbia. Mot. to 13 Confirm at 4 (docket no. 8). 14 Mr. Ghayoori fails to articulate any prejudice or provide any authority supporting 15 his objection to venue. According to FINRA Rule 12213(a)(1), the FINRA Director 16 selects the arbitration hearing location, and generally “will select the hearing location 17 closest to the customer’s residence at the time” the events occurred that gave rise to the 18 dispute. When Mr. Ghayoori opened his margin account with Cobra, he provided two 19 physical addresses for himself, one in Studio City, California, and one in Vancouver, 20 British Columbia. See Ex. C to Mot. to Confirm (docket no. 8-3). Because Mr. Ghayoori 21 resided in Vancouver during the relevant time period, FINRA selected Seattle, not Dallas, 22 1 as the closest designated hearing location in accordance with Rule 12213(a)(1). See Ex. K 2 (docket no. 8-11). Mr. Ghayoori has not demonstrated that this selection constitutes
3 “misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced.”5 See 9 U.S.C. 4 10(a)(3). Accordingly, the Court concludes that venue was proper, and the arbitrators did 5 not engage in misconduct. Vacatur is not warranted under § 10(a)(3) for improper venue.6 6 C. Manifest Disregard of the Law 7 Mr. Ghayoori also alleges that the Award should be vacated pursuant to 9 U.S.C. 8 § 10(a)(4). See Petition at ¶¶ 24-33 (docket no. 1). He contends that the panel lacked
9 jurisdiction to proceed because service of the Statement of Claim was defective, venue 10 was improper, that he was deprived of the opportunity to participate in the arbitration and 11 the selection of the arbitrator, and that the panel proceeded with the arbitration despite 12 knowing service had allegedly failed. Id. These alleged procedural defects, he argues, 13 render the Award unenforceable under § 10(a)(4). Id. Under 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4), a court
14 may vacate an arbitration award if “the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so 15 imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject 16 matter submitted was not made.” See Bosack v. Soward, 586 F.3d 1096, 1104 (9th Cir. 17 2009) (quoting Comedy Club, Inc. v. Improv W. Associates, 553 F.3d 1277, 1290 (9th 18 Cir. 2009) (citing Kyocera, 341 F.3d at 997)) (explaining that vacatur may be warranted
20 5 The Court notes that the arbitration hearing was conducted by videoconference. See Ex. J to Mot. to 21 Confirm (docket no. 8-10). 6 The Court also notes that improper venue is not an enumerated ground for vacatur under the Federal 22 Arbitration Act. See 9 U.S.C. § 10(a). 1 if the arbitrators acted in a manner that was “completely irrational” or in “manifest 2 disregard of the law.”). Indeed, there “must be some evidence in the record, other than
3 the result, that the arbitrators were aware of the law and intentionally disregarded it.” 4 Bosack, 586 F.3d at 1104. The grounds for review are “extremely limited.” Kyocera, 341 5 F.3d at 998. 6 Here, Mr. Ghayoori makes no showing that the FINRA panel acted irrationally or 7 intentionally disregarded governing law. The record reflects that the panel was duly 8 appointed pursuant to the parties’ agreement and the FINRA Rules, and that it conducted
9 proceedings in which it considered evidence, admitted exhibits, and held hearings before 10 issuing the Award. 11 Accordingly, the Court concludes that Mr. Ghayoori has not shown that the 12 arbitrators exceeded their powers or manifestly disregarded the law. Vacatur is not 13 warranted under § 10(a).
14 D. Mr. Ghayoori’s Remaining Arguments in the Cross Motion to Vacate 15 Mr. Ghayoori raises several additional arguments in support of vacatur, none of 16 which have merit. 17 First, Mr. Ghayoori contends that the Award constitutes a default judgment and is 18 therefore unenforceable. See Cross Mot. to Vacate at 18 (docket no. 13). This argument is
19 contradicted by the record. The record shows that the FINRA panel admitted evidence 20 and issued a reasoned award. The absence of Mr. Ghayoori’s participation in the 21 proceedings does not render the Award ineffective. 22 1 Second, Mr. Ghayoori argues that Cobra is barred from seeking confirmation 2 based on the doctrine of res judicata and the risk of double recovery. See Cross Mot. to
3 Vacate at 21 (docket no. 13). This argument is misplaced. Cobra is not attempting to 4 relitigate claims; it seeks judicial confirmation of the existing Award pursuant to 9 U.S.C. 5 § 9. See Mot. to Confirm (docket no. 8). 6 Third, Mr. Ghayoori asserts that Cobra waived its right to rely on the Award by 7 asserting a counterclaim in this action. See Cross Mot. to Vacate at 22 (docket no. 13). 8 This assertion is also without merit. The counterclaim merely reiterates the request for
9 confirmation and incorporates the arbitration record. See Answer and Counterclaim at 10 20–25 (docket no. 6). It does not constitute waiver or an attempt to pursue duplicative 11 relief. 12 Fourth, Mr. Ghayoori argues the FINRA panel made “cumulative errors” and that 13 “policy considerations” support vacating the Award. See Cross Mot. to Vacate at 15–16
14 (docket no. 13). He contends that the Court, by affirming the Award, “would undermine 15 both the letter and spirit of the Federal Arbitration Act” and “encourage[] forum- 16 shopping through selection of arbitration venues with no discernible connection to the 17 dispute.” Id. Vacating the Award, Mr. Ghayoori argues, would “preserve the integrity of 18 the arbitration process.” Id. at 16. The Court finds no support in the record for these
19 assertions. As discussed above, the Court’s review of arbitral decisions is extremely 20 limited under the FAA, and there is no evidence of misconduct, unfairness, or 21 misapplication of governing rules. To the extent Mr. Ghayoori invokes general concerns 22 1 about fairness and transparency, those unsupported arguments do not provide a basis for 2 vacatur under the FAA.
3 Finally, Mr. Ghayoori also seeks a 60-day continuance, citing both an unspecified 4 scheduling conflict and a desire to conduct discovery related to the arbitration. See Cross 5 Mot. to Vacate at 23–24 (docket no. 13). Mr. Ghayoori fails to identify any specific 6 scheduling conflict or explain how it prevents him from responding to the legal issues 7 presented, all of which are briefed and turn on the existing record. As to discovery, 8 because the Court independently concludes that both service and venue were proper, and
9 that the panel neither exceeded its authority nor acted in manifest disregard of the law, 10 discovery is unnecessary. Mr. Ghayoori identifies no facts that would alter these findings. 11 Accordingly, his request for a continuance is DENIED.7 12 Conclusion 13 For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS:
14 (1) Cobra’s Motion to Confirm the Arbitration Award, docket no. 8, is 15 GRANTED; 16 17 18 7 Cobra’s counterclaim, see Answer and Counterclaim at 20–25 (docket no. 6), styled as a request for confirmation of the Award, is fully resolved. Although the counterclaim includes allegations of fraudulent 19 conduct, those allegations are offered as factual context for the arbitration proceedings and are not asserted as a separate cause of action. See id. at 12–13. Because the Court confirms the Award, the 20 counterclaim requires no further adjudication. To the extent Cobra seeks any additional relief through the counterclaim, the counterclaim is DENIED as moot. Mr. Ghayoori’s Motion for a More Definite Statement, docket no. 15, which challenges the sufficiency of Cobra’s fraud allegations, is likewise 21 DENIED as moot. Cobra’s counterclaim, see docket no. 6, is DENIED as moot; Mr. Ghayoori’s Cross Motion to Vacate the Arbitration Award, docket no. 13, is DENIED, and Mr. Ghayoori’s Motion for a 22 More Definite Statement, docket no. 15, is DENIED as moot. 1 (2) Mr. Ghayoori’s Petition to Vacate the Arbitration Award, docket no. 1, is 2 DENIED;
3 (3) The Court hereby CONFIRMS the FINRA panel’s Award; and 4 (4) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to all counsel of record, 5 to enter judgment confirming the Award, and close this case. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated this 28th day of May, 2025. 8 A 9 Thomas S. Zilly 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22