Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. Donald Stennett

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: March 3, 2021
• Docket: 2:20-cv-07488
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

O 1

2 3 4 5 6 7

8 United States District Court 9 Central District of California

11 HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, Case № 2:20-CV-07488-ODW (PLAx) 12 I NC., 13 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING CONSENT PETITION TO CONFIRM 14 v. ARBITRATION AWARD [1] 15 DONALD STENNETT,

16 Respondent. 17 18 I. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND 19 On February 25, 2020, Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. 20 (“JAMS”), Hon. Steven J. Stone, (Ret.), issued a Findings of Fact, Conclusions of 21 Law, and Award (“Final Arbitration Award”) in the Arbitration of Donald Stennett’s 22 claims against his former employer, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (Consent Pet. 23 ¶ 14, Ex. B, ECF No. 1.) In the Final Arbitration Award, the arbitrator concluded that 24 Stennett had validly released all claims asserted against Halliburton and found in favor 25 of Halliburton on all of Stennett’s claims. (Id. ¶ 15, Ex. B.) By stipulation dated 26 July 21, 2020, Stennett and Halliburton consented to “having the [Final Arbitration] 27 Award confirmed by a court of competent jurisdiction,” and agreed “that there are no 28 grounds upon which to vacate the [Final Arbitration] Award.” (Id. ¶ 16, Ex. C.) 1 Accordingly, Petitioner Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. initiated this action seeking 2 confirmation of the Final Arbitration Award by filing its Consent Petition to Confirm 3 Final Arbitration Award and for Entry of Judgment. (See Consent Pet.)1 4 II. DISCUSSION 5 “The Federal Arbitration Act (‘FAA’) provides that a court must confirm an 6 arbitration award unless it is vacated, modified, or corrected as prescribed by the 7 FAA.” Cent. Mont. Rail v. BNSF Ry. Co., 422 F. App’x 636, 637 (9th Cir. 2011) 8 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Hall St. Assocs., LLC v. Mattel, Inc., 9 552 U.S. 576, 582 (2008)); see 9 U.S.C. § 9 (“[T]he court must grant such an order 10 unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected as prescribed in sections 10 and 11 11 of this title.”). “There is nothing malleable about ‘must grant,’ which unequivocally 12 tells courts to grant confirmation in all cases, except when one of the ‘prescribed’ 13 exceptions applies.” Hall St. Assocs., 552 U.S. at 587. Thus, a federal court’s review 14 authority of arbitration awards is “extremely limited.” Kyocera Corp. v. 15 Prudential-Bache Trade Servs., Inc., 341 F.3d 987, 998 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). 16 “Neither erroneous legal conclusions nor unsubstantiated factual findings justify 17 federal court review of an arbitral award under the statute, which is unambiguous in 18 this regard.” Bosack v. Soward, 586 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting 19 Kyocera Corp., 341 F.3d at 994). 20 Here, the applicable arbitration agreement provides that the FAA applies to all 21 proceedings under the agreement, and specifically includes “actions to . . . confirm . . . 22 awards [or] orders of an arbitrator.” (Consent Pet. ¶ 8, Ex. A ¶ 8A.) Stennett 23 consented to the Court’s confirmation of the Final Arbitration Award in writing and 24 expressly agreed that no grounds exist to vacate the award. (Id. Ex. C.) Further, even 25 had Stennett not agreed to confirmation, the Court’s scope of review is “extremely 26 limited,” and nothing in the record before the Court indicates a basis for “vacat[ing], 27

28 1 Having carefully considered the papers filed in connection with the Petition, the Court deems the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. 1 | modif[ying], or correct[ing]” the Final Arbitration Award as prescribed in the FAA. 2 || Consequently, the Court “must grant” Halliburton’s Consent Petition and confirm the 3 || Final Arbitration Award. See 9 U.S.C. § 9; Hall St. Assocs., 552 U.S. at 587. 4 Il. CONCLUSION 5 As the Court finds no basis to vacate, modify, or correct the Final Arbitration 6 | Award, the Court GRANTS Petitioner Halliburton’s Consent Petition to Confirm 7 || Final Arbitration Award and for Entry of Judgment. (ECF No. 1.) Halliburton shall 8 | submit a Proposed Judgment no later than fourteen days after the date of this Order. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1] 12 March 3, 2021 ~ 13 N we 14 biked Lied Af

15 OTIS D. HT, I UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28