James Root v. American Express National Bank, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: September 30, 2025
• Docket: 2:20-cv-02267
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * *

7 JAMES ROOT,

8 Plaintiff, Case No. 2:20-cv-02267-RFB-NJK

9 v. ORDER

10 AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK, et al., 11 Defendants. 12

13 14 Before the Court is Defendant American Express National Bank’s (“American Express”) 15 Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award (ECF No. 50). For the following reasons, the Court grants 16 Defendant’s motion. 17 18 I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY 19 On December 15, 2020, Plaintiff James Root filed his Complaint. See ECF No. 1. On April 20 9, 2021, Defendant American Express filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay the action. See 21 ECF No. 24. On April 20, Defendant Trans Union LLC joined this motion. See ECF No. 25. Two 22 days later, Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. also joined. See ECF No. 27. The 23 motion was briefed by May 14. See ECF Nos. 29, 31. 24 On July 15, 2021, the Court granted the Parties’ stipulation to dismiss Defendant Trans 25 Union LLC. See ECF Nos. 41, 42. On July 21, the Court granted the Parties’ stipulation to dismiss 26 Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. See ECF Nos. 43, 44. 27 On January 18, 2022, the Court granted the Motion to Compel but declined to stay 28 proceedings pending the outcome of arbitration. See ECF No. 48. Instead, the Court dismissed the 1 action in its entirety. See id. Judgment in favor of American Express was entered on January 18. 2 See ECF No. 49. 3 On February 4, Plaintiff filed a demand for arbitration before the Judicial Arbitration and 4 Mediation Services (“JAMS”). The Arbitration was filed pursuant to the arbitration agreement 5 contained within the Cardmember Agreement governing Plaintiff’s American Express accounts. 6 On December 19, Defendant American Express filed its counterclaim. On April 21, 2023, the 7 Parties submitted a Stipulation to Entry of Judgment and Award for American Express National 8 Bank’s Counterclaims Against James Root, which was entered by the arbitrator on May 2. The 9 final arbitration decision was not entered until June 5, 2024. 10 Defendant American Express filed the instant motion to confirm the arbitration award on 11 January 27, 2025. See ECF No. 50. It was briefed by February 13. See ECF Nos. 51, 52. The 12 Court’s Order follows. 13 14 II. LEGAL STANDARD 15 The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) provides district courts with jurisdiction to review 16 arbitration awards. See 9 U.S.C. §§ 9–12. A party to an arbitration may apply to a district court for 17 an order confirming the arbitration award. See id. § 9. To obtain confirmation of an award, the 18 FAA requires the moving party to file: “(a) [t]he agreement; . . . (b) The award[;] . . . [and] (c) 19 [e]ach notice, affidavit, or other paper used to confirm, modify, or correct the award . . . .” Id. § 13. 20 A court “must grant such an order unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected as prescribed 21 in sections 10 and 11 of [the FAA].” Id. § 9. 22 A district court’s review of an arbitration award is “both limited and highly deferential.” 23 Comedy Club, Inc. v. Improv W. Assocs., 553 F.3d 1277, 1288 (9th Cir. 2009); Kyocera Corp. v. 24 Prudential-Bache Trade Servs., Inc., 341 F.3d 987, 994 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“The Federal 25 Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1–16, enumerates limited grounds on which a federal court may 26 vacate, modify, or correct an arbitral award.”). Confirmation of arbitration awards “is required 27 even in the face of erroneous findings of fact or misinterpretations of law.” French v. Merrill 28 Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 784 F.2d 902, 906 (9th Cir. 1986) (internal quotation marks 1 omitted). Reviewing the merits of an arbitration award is “beyond the scope” of a federal court’s 2 review. See Lagstein v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 607 F.3d 634, 640–41 (9th Cir. 3 2010). 4 5 III. DISCUSSION 6 In its motion, Defendant American Express asks the Court to confirm the arbitration award 7 and enter judgment against Plaintiff James Root. Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s motion is 8 untimely since it was filed nearly nine months after the expiration of the FAA’s one-year 9 limitations deadline. 10 The FAA provides, in relevant part, that “at any time within one year after the award is 11 made[,] any party to the arbitration may apply to the court so specified for an order confirming the 12 award . . . .” 9 U.S.C. § 9; see also Sheet Metal Workers Int'l Ass'n, Loc. Union 150 v. Air Sys. 13 Eng'g, Inc., 831 F.2d 1509, 1512 (9th Cir. 1987) (stating that the FAA “provides a one-year period 14 for confirmation of an arbitration award”). 15 Plaintiffs rely on the May 2, 2023, date, when the Honorable Carl W. Hoffman entered a 16 Stipulated Judgment and Award on American Express’s counterclaims against Plaintiff. Defendant 17 did not file the instant motion until January 27, 2025, over a year and eight months after this entry. 18 However, “[h]istorically, for an arbitration award to be subject to judicial review, it must be final 19 and binding as to all of the issues presented to the arbitrator.” Chinmax Med. Sys. Inc. v. Alere 20 San Diego, Inc., No. 10-CV-2467-WQH-NLS, 2011 WL 2135350, at 4 (S.D. Cal. May 27, 2011). 21 “Because of the Congressional policy favoring arbitration when agreed to by the parties, judicial 22 review of non-final arbitration awards ‘should be indulged, if at all, only in the most extreme 23 cases.’” Id. (citing Pac. Reinsurance Mgmt. Corp. v. Ohio Reinsurance Corp., 935 F.2d 1019, 1022 24 (9th Cir. 1991)). 25 While the arbitrator entered the Parties’ stipulation on May 2, 2023, this stipulation did not 26 resolve all of the issues presented to the arbitrator, including the claims Root asserted against 27 American Express. It was not until the arbitrator’s final award entered on June 5, 2024, that all the 28 claims were resolved, and the arbitration award was final as to all issues. Defendant then filed the 1 | pending motion within a year of that date. Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant’s motion was 2| timely. 3 4 IV. CONCLUSION 5 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant American Express’s Motion to 6 | Confirm Arbitration Award (ECF No. 50) is GRANTED. 7 8 DATED: September 29, 2025.

RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-4-