Joel Soileau v. Space Exploration Technologies Corp.

C.D. California

Joel Soileau v. Space Exploration Technologies Corp.

DecidedApril 16, 2026

Docket2:24-cv-06397

StatusUnknown

This text of Joel Soileau v. Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (Joel Soileau v. Space Exploration Technologies Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Joel Soileau v. Space Exploration Technologies Corp., (C.D. Cal. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

O 1

2 3 4 5 6

7 United States District Court 8 Central District of California 9 10 11 JOEL SOILEAU, Case No. 2:24-cv-06397-ODW (Ex)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD 14 SPACE EXPLORATION [38] TECHNOLOGIES CORP., 15 Defendant. 16 17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 Before the Court is Defendant Space Exploration Technologies Corp.’s 19 (“SpaceX”) Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award. (Mem. ISO Mot. Confirm 20 Arbitration Award (“Motion” or “Mot.”) 1, Dkt No. 38-1.) Plaintiff Joel Soileau 21 opposes. (See Opp’n. Mot. (“Opp’n.”) 1, Dkt. No. 40.) For the reasons discussed 22 below, the Court GRANTS the Motion.1 23 II. BACKGROUND 24 SpaceX previously employed Soileau at its facility in Cape Canaveral, Florida. 25 (Order Den. Remand & Granting Compel Arbitration (“Prior Order”) 2, Dkt. No. 27.) 26 After SpaceX terminated his employment, Soileau initiated this legal action against 27

28 1 After carefully considering the papers filed in connection with the Motion, the Court deemed the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. 1 SpaceX in a continuing dispute over the reason for his termination. (Id.) SpaceX 2 moved to compel arbitration of Soileau’s claims based on an agreement to arbitrate 3 that Soileau had signed pursuant to his employment. (Id. at 3.) On December 4, 4 2024, the Court granted SpaceX’s motion and compelled the parties to arbitrate 5 pursuant to the arbitration agreement and the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). (Id. 6 at 7–11.) 7 Soileau eventually complied and filed demands to arbitrate his claims with 8 JAMS. (Decl. Kara L. Jassy ISO Mot. (“Jassy Decl.”) ¶ 4, Dkt. No. 38-2.) JAMS 9 consolidated the matters in Florida, where the arbitration proceeded. (Id. ¶ 6.) 10 Ultimately, on August 6, 2025, the arbitrator issued his final decision dismissing 11 Soileau’s claims with prejudice and entered a final award in SpaceX’s favor. (Id. 12 ¶ 12, Ex. 2 (“Arbitration Award”), Dkt. No. 38-2.) 13 SpaceX now seeks a court order confirming the Arbitration Award pursuant to 14 the FAA, 9 U.S.C. § 9. (Mot. 1.) Soileau opposes the Motion. (Opp’n, Dkt. 40.2) 15 III. LEGAL STANDARD 16 Where a party seeks an order confirming an arbitration award under the FAA, 17 “the court must grant such an order unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected 18 as prescribed in sections 10 and 11 of this title.” 9 U.S.C. § 9. Judicial review of 19 arbitration awards is “extremely limited” and highly “deferential.” Kyocera Corp. v. 20 Prudential-Bache Trade Servs., Inc., 341 F.3d 987, 998 (9th Cir. 2003). Therefore, a 21 court will set aside an arbitrator’s decision “only in very unusual circumstances,” First 22 Options of Chi., Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 942 (1995), such as where the arbitrator 23 24

25 2 Local Rule 11-6.1 provides that “no memorandum of points and authorities . . . may exceed 7,000 words, including headings, footnotes, and quotations.” Local Rule 11-6.2 requires a party to 26 attach a certificate to “any memorandum of points and authorities” attesting to their compliance with this word count limitation. Soileau submits an opposition in excess of 20,000 words, with no 27 certificate of compliance. Despite Soileau’s noncompliance with the Court’s rules, the Court 28 declines to strike his opposition. However, the Court considers Soileau’s brief only through page 44, after which it exceeds the word count limit. 1 exceeds her authority or demonstrates a manifest disregard for the law, Kyocera 2 Corp., 341 F.3d at 1002–03. 3 IV. DISCUSSION 4 SpaceX seeks confirmation of the Arbitration Award dismissing Soileau’s 5 claims with prejudice. (Mot. 3–4.) SpaceX complies with the statutory conditions for 6 confirming the Arbitration Award as it filed its Motion within one year after the award 7 was made and served notice of the Motion on Soileau. 9 U.S.C. § 9. Thus, the Court 8 must confirm the award unless Soileau establishes a basis to vacate, modify, or correct 9 it. Id. Soileau asserts the Court should deny SpaceX’s Motion on numerous grounds, 10 including that: the Court lacks jurisdiction to confirm because the arbitration occurred 11 in Florida; the Arbitration Award is fraudulent, largely for the same reason; and the 12 arbitration proceeding itself was unlawful because the agreement is not valid and the 13 arbitrator was corrupt. (See generally Opp’n 13–16.3) 14 First, Soileau argues the Court lacks jurisdiction to confirm the award because 15 the arbitration occurred in Florida. (Opp’n 21–24.) A motion to confirm, vacate, or 16 modify is properly brought in either the district where the award was made or any 17 district proper under the general venue statute. Cortez Byrd Chips, Inc. v. Bill Harbert 18 Constr. Co., 529 U.S. 193, 201–204 (2000). Additionally, a court with the power to 19 stay an action for arbitration also has the authority to confirm the arbitration award. 20 Marine Transit Corp. v. Dreyfus, 284 U.S. 263, 275–276 (1932). Here, this district is 21 proper under the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391, and, as the Court previously 22 held, it possesses diversity jurisdiction over this action, (Prior Order 3–7). Thus, the 23 Court possesses the authority, as it did when it compelled arbitration and stayed the 24 case, to properly resolve SpaceX’s Motion now. 25 26

3 In addition, Soileau argues the Court cannot confirm the Arbitration Award because it lacks 27 personal and subject matter jurisdiction over him and this action. (Opp’n 17–23.) The Court 28 previously considered these arguments and rejected them when it denied Soileau’s motion for remand. (Prior Order 3–7.) The Court declines to revisit those issues here. 1 Next, Soileau argues the Arbitration Award is fraudulent, because the arbitration 2 occurred in Florida instead of California and because he claims the arbitration 3 agreement is not valid or enforceable. (Opp’n 32–42.) The Court considered the issue 4 of a Florida forum when it granted SpaceX’s motion to compel arbitration. (See Mem. 5 ISO Mot. Compel Arbitration 16–17, Dkt. No. 18-1 (arguing that Florida was the 6 appropriate forum).) JAMS also considered the issue and similarly determined that 7 Florida was the appropriate forum. (Jassy Decl. ¶ 6.) Further, the Court previously 8 found that the arbitration agreement is valid and enforceable. (Prior Order 8–10.) The 9 Court declines to reconsider these findings. 10 Finally, to the extent Soileau seeks to vacate, modify, or appeal the Arbitration 11 Award with his opposition, those arguments are procedurally improper and untimely. 12 The FAA requires a party to file a motion to vacate, modify, or correct an arbitration 13 award and to “serve[ it] upon the adverse party or his attorney within three months 14 after the award is filed or delivered.” 9 U.S.C. § 12. This deadline is strict and a 15 motion will be denied if it is even one day late. Stevens v. Jiffy Lube Int’l, Inc., 16 911 F.3d 1249, 1251 (9th Cir.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

O 1

2 3 4 5 6

7 United States District Court 8 Central District of California 9 10 11 JOEL SOILEAU, Case No. 2:24-cv-06397-ODW (Ex)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD 14 SPACE EXPLORATION [38] TECHNOLOGIES CORP., 15 Defendant. 16 17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 Before the Court is Defendant Space Exploration Technologies Corp.’s 19 (“SpaceX”) Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award. (Mem. ISO Mot. Confirm 20 Arbitration Award (“Motion” or “Mot.”) 1, Dkt No. 38-1.) Plaintiff Joel Soileau 21 opposes. (See Opp’n. Mot. (“Opp’n.”) 1, Dkt. No. 40.) For the reasons discussed 22 below, the Court GRANTS the Motion.1 23 II. BACKGROUND 24 SpaceX previously employed Soileau at its facility in Cape Canaveral, Florida. 25 (Order Den. Remand & Granting Compel Arbitration (“Prior Order”) 2, Dkt. No. 27.) 26 After SpaceX terminated his employment, Soileau initiated this legal action against 27

28 1 After carefully considering the papers filed in connection with the Motion, the Court deemed the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. 1 SpaceX in a continuing dispute over the reason for his termination. (Id.) SpaceX 2 moved to compel arbitration of Soileau’s claims based on an agreement to arbitrate 3 that Soileau had signed pursuant to his employment. (Id. at 3.) On December 4, 4 2024, the Court granted SpaceX’s motion and compelled the parties to arbitrate 5 pursuant to the arbitration agreement and the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). (Id. 6 at 7–11.) 7 Soileau eventually complied and filed demands to arbitrate his claims with 8 JAMS. (Decl. Kara L. Jassy ISO Mot. (“Jassy Decl.”) ¶ 4, Dkt. No. 38-2.) JAMS 9 consolidated the matters in Florida, where the arbitration proceeded. (Id. ¶ 6.) 10 Ultimately, on August 6, 2025, the arbitrator issued his final decision dismissing 11 Soileau’s claims with prejudice and entered a final award in SpaceX’s favor. (Id. 12 ¶ 12, Ex. 2 (“Arbitration Award”), Dkt. No. 38-2.) 13 SpaceX now seeks a court order confirming the Arbitration Award pursuant to 14 the FAA, 9 U.S.C. § 9. (Mot. 1.) Soileau opposes the Motion. (Opp’n, Dkt. 40.2) 15 III. LEGAL STANDARD 16 Where a party seeks an order confirming an arbitration award under the FAA, 17 “the court must grant such an order unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected 18 as prescribed in sections 10 and 11 of this title.” 9 U.S.C. § 9. Judicial review of 19 arbitration awards is “extremely limited” and highly “deferential.” Kyocera Corp. v. 20 Prudential-Bache Trade Servs., Inc., 341 F.3d 987, 998 (9th Cir. 2003). Therefore, a 21 court will set aside an arbitrator’s decision “only in very unusual circumstances,” First 22 Options of Chi., Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 942 (1995), such as where the arbitrator 23 24

25 2 Local Rule 11-6.1 provides that “no memorandum of points and authorities . . . may exceed 7,000 words, including headings, footnotes, and quotations.” Local Rule 11-6.2 requires a party to 26 attach a certificate to “any memorandum of points and authorities” attesting to their compliance with this word count limitation. Soileau submits an opposition in excess of 20,000 words, with no 27 certificate of compliance. Despite Soileau’s noncompliance with the Court’s rules, the Court 28 declines to strike his opposition. However, the Court considers Soileau’s brief only through page 44, after which it exceeds the word count limit. 1 exceeds her authority or demonstrates a manifest disregard for the law, Kyocera 2 Corp., 341 F.3d at 1002–03. 3 IV. DISCUSSION 4 SpaceX seeks confirmation of the Arbitration Award dismissing Soileau’s 5 claims with prejudice. (Mot. 3–4.) SpaceX complies with the statutory conditions for 6 confirming the Arbitration Award as it filed its Motion within one year after the award 7 was made and served notice of the Motion on Soileau. 9 U.S.C. § 9. Thus, the Court 8 must confirm the award unless Soileau establishes a basis to vacate, modify, or correct 9 it. Id. Soileau asserts the Court should deny SpaceX’s Motion on numerous grounds, 10 including that: the Court lacks jurisdiction to confirm because the arbitration occurred 11 in Florida; the Arbitration Award is fraudulent, largely for the same reason; and the 12 arbitration proceeding itself was unlawful because the agreement is not valid and the 13 arbitrator was corrupt. (See generally Opp’n 13–16.3) 14 First, Soileau argues the Court lacks jurisdiction to confirm the award because 15 the arbitration occurred in Florida. (Opp’n 21–24.) A motion to confirm, vacate, or 16 modify is properly brought in either the district where the award was made or any 17 district proper under the general venue statute. Cortez Byrd Chips, Inc. v. Bill Harbert 18 Constr. Co., 529 U.S. 193, 201–204 (2000). Additionally, a court with the power to 19 stay an action for arbitration also has the authority to confirm the arbitration award. 20 Marine Transit Corp. v. Dreyfus, 284 U.S. 263, 275–276 (1932). Here, this district is 21 proper under the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391, and, as the Court previously 22 held, it possesses diversity jurisdiction over this action, (Prior Order 3–7). Thus, the 23 Court possesses the authority, as it did when it compelled arbitration and stayed the 24 case, to properly resolve SpaceX’s Motion now. 25 26

3 In addition, Soileau argues the Court cannot confirm the Arbitration Award because it lacks 27 personal and subject matter jurisdiction over him and this action. (Opp’n 17–23.) The Court 28 previously considered these arguments and rejected them when it denied Soileau’s motion for remand. (Prior Order 3–7.) The Court declines to revisit those issues here. 1 Next, Soileau argues the Arbitration Award is fraudulent, because the arbitration 2 occurred in Florida instead of California and because he claims the arbitration 3 agreement is not valid or enforceable. (Opp’n 32–42.) The Court considered the issue 4 of a Florida forum when it granted SpaceX’s motion to compel arbitration. (See Mem. 5 ISO Mot. Compel Arbitration 16–17, Dkt. No. 18-1 (arguing that Florida was the 6 appropriate forum).) JAMS also considered the issue and similarly determined that 7 Florida was the appropriate forum. (Jassy Decl. ¶ 6.) Further, the Court previously 8 found that the arbitration agreement is valid and enforceable. (Prior Order 8–10.) The 9 Court declines to reconsider these findings. 10 Finally, to the extent Soileau seeks to vacate, modify, or appeal the Arbitration 11 Award with his opposition, those arguments are procedurally improper and untimely. 12 The FAA requires a party to file a motion to vacate, modify, or correct an arbitration 13 award and to “serve[ it] upon the adverse party or his attorney within three months 14 after the award is filed or delivered.” 9 U.S.C. § 12. This deadline is strict and a 15 motion will be denied if it is even one day late. Stevens v. Jiffy Lube Int’l, Inc., 16 911 F.3d 1249, 1251 (9th Cir. 2018). In this case, the arbitrator signed the Arbitration 17 Award on August 6, 2025, and served it on the parties on August 27, 2025. (Jassy 18 Decl. ¶ 12; Arbitration Award 6.) Thus, Soileau must have served notice of a motion 19 to vacate or modify the award no later than November 25, 2025. 9 U.S.C. § 12. 20 However, Soileau did not challenge the Arbitration Award in a noticed motion, nor did 21 he file his opposition asserting these challenges until January 12, 2026. (See Opp’n.) 22 Thus, any arguments to vacate, modify, or appeal the award in the opposition are 23 procedurally improper and untimely. 24 SpaceX complied with the statutory conditions for confirming the Arbitration 25 Award and Soileau fails to establish any ground for vacating or modifying it. 26 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS SpaceX’s Motion and CONFIRMS the Arbitration 27 Award. 28 1 Vv. CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS SpaceX’s Motion to 3 || Confirm Arbitration Award. (Dkt. No. 38.) 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 April 16, 2026

10 OTIS D. GHT, II UNITED STATESSISTRICK JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Joel Soileau v. Space Exploration Technologies Corp., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joel-soileau-v-space-exploration-technologies-corp-cacd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack