STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
NUMBER 2023 CA 1114
MOBILE ENTERPRISES, INC.
VERSUS
BRIGGS BROTHERS ENTERPRISES CORPORATION
Judgment Rendered; APR 17 1024 M
Appealed from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Suit Number 0730411
Honorable Richard " Chip" Moore, Presiding
Gerald A. Melchiode Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant Kyle M. Sepulveda Mobile Enterprises, Inc. New Orleans, LA
G. Trippe Hawthorne Counsel for Defendant/ Appellee Thomas D. Bourgeois, Jr. Briggs Brothers Enterprises
Mary M. Love Corporation Baton Rouge, LA
BEFORE: GUIDRY, C. J., CHUTZ, AND LANIER, JJ. GUIDRY, C.J.
Plaintiff/appellant, Mobile Enterprises, Inc. ( MEI), appeals from a district
court judgment denying its motion to confirm arbitration award and granting a
motion to vacate arbitration award filed by defendant/ appellee, Briggs Brothers
Enterprise Corporation, a Texas Corporation (Briggs of Texas). For the reasons that
follow, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 26, 2021, Briggs Brothers Enterprises Corporation, contractor on
United States Army Corp of Engineers ( USAGE) Project " Lilly Bayou Control
Structures, Sloped Flume Repair," entered into a subcontract agreement with MEL
The subcontract agreement listed Briggs Brothers Enterprises Corporation' s
principal place of business as 4749 Sansom Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The
agreement also contained an arbitration provision, providing that " All disputes
hereunder shall be resolved by binding arbitration in accordance with the rules of
the American Arbitration Association."
Thereafter, a dispute arose under the agreement and MEI filed a demand for
arbitration with the American Arbitration Association, naming " Briggs Brothers
Enterprises Corporation" as respondent. However, while the demand form listed the
Pennsylvania address for respondent, the attached demand pleading identified
Briggs Brothers Enterprises Corporation as " a Texas corporation with its principal
place of business in Philadelphia, PA" and stated that it may be served through its
registered agent, Terry Briggs, at a Richmond, Texas address as well as through its
counsel of record, Jeffrey Leeper, at his office address in Marietta, Georgia. Notice
of arbitration was sent by certified mail to Terry Briggs in Richmond, Texas and was
sent to Jeffrey Leeper, in Marietta, Georgia.
The matter proceeded to an arbitration hearing on December 20, 2022, at
which respondent was not present. After finding that proof had been shown that
FA demand for arbitration, notice ofpreliminary hearing, and notice of hearing had been
sent to " Briggs [ Brothers Enterprises Corporation] at its business address," the
arbitrator commenced the hearing and rendered an award in favor of MEI and against
Briggs Brothers Enterprises Corporation" in the amount of $96, 811. 88, plus
interest.
On March 30, 2023, MEI filed a petition to confirm arbitration award in the
Nineteenth Judicial District Court, naming Briggs of Texas as a defendant. Briggs
of Texas thereafter filed a motion to vacate arbitration award. Briggs of Texas
alleged that the arbitration award should be vacated because Briggs of Texas was
not a party to the subcontract with MEI and was not a party to the agreement to
arbitrate and as such, the arbitrator exceed his powers by rendering an award against
an entity not a party to any relevant contract, citing 9 U.S. C. § 10( a)( 4) and La. R. S.
9: 4210( D). Briggs of Texas asserted it was not provided notice of the arbitration
hearing, and therefore its due process rights were violated. Briggs of Texas further
asserted that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by awarding MEI damages not
claimed in the arbitration demand and by improperly awarding MEI attorney' s fees,
citing 9 U.S. C. § 10( a)( 4) and La. R.S. 9: 4210( D). In support of its motion, Briggs
of Texas alleged that it and Briggs Brothers Enterprises Corporation, a Pennsylvania
Corporation ( Briggs of Pennsylvania), are two distinct legal entities. Briggs of
Texas asserted that Briggs of Pennsylvania, and not Briggs of Texas, entered into
the subcontract agreement with MEI, and that Terry Briggs is the registered agent
for Briggs of Texas, not for Briggs of Pennsylvania. Briggs of Texas further stated
that neither it nor Briggs of Pennsylvania received notice of any proceedings beyond
the demand for arbitration.
Briggs of Texas also filed an opposition to MEPs petition to confirm
arbitration award, re -asserting the same arguments that it raised in its motion to
vacate. Following a hearing, the district court signed a judgment on August 28,
3 2023, denying the petition to confirm, granting the motion to vacate, and ordering
that the arbitration award be vacated and judgment entered in favor of Briggs
Brothers Enterprises Corporation and against MEI. The district court dismissed
MEI' s claims made in its petition to confirm with prejudice, fully reserving all rights
of MEI against Briggs Brothers Enterprises Corporation in arbitration. MEI now
appeals from the district court' s judgment.
DISCUSSION
Arbitration Law and Standard of Review
The purpose of arbitration is to allow parties to achieve speedy settlement of
their differences out of court. Revefty Food Group, LLC v. Nguyen Pro ert
Investment, 21- 0881, p. 4 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 2125122), 340 So. 3d 1151, 1155.
Arbitration is favored under both Louisiana and federal jurisprudence. Revelry Food
Group, LLC, 21- 0881 at p. 4, 340 So. 3d at 1155. Because of the strong public
policy favoring arbitration, arbitration awards are presumed to be valid. Judges are
not entitled to substitute their judgment for that of the arbitrators chosen by the
parties. Crescent Property Partners, LLC v. American Manufacturers Mutual
Insurance Company, 14- 0969, 14- 0973, p. 6 ( La. 1/ 28/ 15), 158 So. 3d 798, 803.
The Federal Arbitration Act ( FAA) is located at 9 U.S. C. §§ 1- 16.
Louisiana' s binding arbitration law ( LBAL), La. R.S. 9: 4201, et seq., echoes the
FAA, and as such, Louisiana courts look to federal law in interpreting the Louisiana
arbitration statutes. Revelry Food Group, LLC, 21- 0881 at p. 5, 340 So. 3d at 1155.
Under the FAA and LBAL, a party to an arbitration proceeding may, within one year
after the award is made, apply to the district court for confirmation of the award, and
the court must confirm the award unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected.
9 U. S. C. § 9; La. R.S. 9: 4209. The exclusive grounds for vacating an award are
identical under the FAA and the LBAL. See 9 U.S. C. § 10; La. R.S. 9: 4210. The
4 four exclusive grounds for vacating an award under the LBAL are:
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
NUMBER 2023 CA 1114
MOBILE ENTERPRISES, INC.
VERSUS
BRIGGS BROTHERS ENTERPRISES CORPORATION
Judgment Rendered; APR 17 1024 M
Appealed from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Suit Number 0730411
Honorable Richard " Chip" Moore, Presiding
Gerald A. Melchiode Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant Kyle M. Sepulveda Mobile Enterprises, Inc. New Orleans, LA
G. Trippe Hawthorne Counsel for Defendant/ Appellee Thomas D. Bourgeois, Jr. Briggs Brothers Enterprises
Mary M. Love Corporation Baton Rouge, LA
BEFORE: GUIDRY, C. J., CHUTZ, AND LANIER, JJ. GUIDRY, C.J.
Plaintiff/appellant, Mobile Enterprises, Inc. ( MEI), appeals from a district
court judgment denying its motion to confirm arbitration award and granting a
motion to vacate arbitration award filed by defendant/ appellee, Briggs Brothers
Enterprise Corporation, a Texas Corporation (Briggs of Texas). For the reasons that
follow, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 26, 2021, Briggs Brothers Enterprises Corporation, contractor on
United States Army Corp of Engineers ( USAGE) Project " Lilly Bayou Control
Structures, Sloped Flume Repair," entered into a subcontract agreement with MEL
The subcontract agreement listed Briggs Brothers Enterprises Corporation' s
principal place of business as 4749 Sansom Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The
agreement also contained an arbitration provision, providing that " All disputes
hereunder shall be resolved by binding arbitration in accordance with the rules of
the American Arbitration Association."
Thereafter, a dispute arose under the agreement and MEI filed a demand for
arbitration with the American Arbitration Association, naming " Briggs Brothers
Enterprises Corporation" as respondent. However, while the demand form listed the
Pennsylvania address for respondent, the attached demand pleading identified
Briggs Brothers Enterprises Corporation as " a Texas corporation with its principal
place of business in Philadelphia, PA" and stated that it may be served through its
registered agent, Terry Briggs, at a Richmond, Texas address as well as through its
counsel of record, Jeffrey Leeper, at his office address in Marietta, Georgia. Notice
of arbitration was sent by certified mail to Terry Briggs in Richmond, Texas and was
sent to Jeffrey Leeper, in Marietta, Georgia.
The matter proceeded to an arbitration hearing on December 20, 2022, at
which respondent was not present. After finding that proof had been shown that
FA demand for arbitration, notice ofpreliminary hearing, and notice of hearing had been
sent to " Briggs [ Brothers Enterprises Corporation] at its business address," the
arbitrator commenced the hearing and rendered an award in favor of MEI and against
Briggs Brothers Enterprises Corporation" in the amount of $96, 811. 88, plus
interest.
On March 30, 2023, MEI filed a petition to confirm arbitration award in the
Nineteenth Judicial District Court, naming Briggs of Texas as a defendant. Briggs
of Texas thereafter filed a motion to vacate arbitration award. Briggs of Texas
alleged that the arbitration award should be vacated because Briggs of Texas was
not a party to the subcontract with MEI and was not a party to the agreement to
arbitrate and as such, the arbitrator exceed his powers by rendering an award against
an entity not a party to any relevant contract, citing 9 U.S. C. § 10( a)( 4) and La. R. S.
9: 4210( D). Briggs of Texas asserted it was not provided notice of the arbitration
hearing, and therefore its due process rights were violated. Briggs of Texas further
asserted that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by awarding MEI damages not
claimed in the arbitration demand and by improperly awarding MEI attorney' s fees,
citing 9 U.S. C. § 10( a)( 4) and La. R.S. 9: 4210( D). In support of its motion, Briggs
of Texas alleged that it and Briggs Brothers Enterprises Corporation, a Pennsylvania
Corporation ( Briggs of Pennsylvania), are two distinct legal entities. Briggs of
Texas asserted that Briggs of Pennsylvania, and not Briggs of Texas, entered into
the subcontract agreement with MEI, and that Terry Briggs is the registered agent
for Briggs of Texas, not for Briggs of Pennsylvania. Briggs of Texas further stated
that neither it nor Briggs of Pennsylvania received notice of any proceedings beyond
the demand for arbitration.
Briggs of Texas also filed an opposition to MEPs petition to confirm
arbitration award, re -asserting the same arguments that it raised in its motion to
vacate. Following a hearing, the district court signed a judgment on August 28,
3 2023, denying the petition to confirm, granting the motion to vacate, and ordering
that the arbitration award be vacated and judgment entered in favor of Briggs
Brothers Enterprises Corporation and against MEI. The district court dismissed
MEI' s claims made in its petition to confirm with prejudice, fully reserving all rights
of MEI against Briggs Brothers Enterprises Corporation in arbitration. MEI now
appeals from the district court' s judgment.
DISCUSSION
Arbitration Law and Standard of Review
The purpose of arbitration is to allow parties to achieve speedy settlement of
their differences out of court. Revefty Food Group, LLC v. Nguyen Pro ert
Investment, 21- 0881, p. 4 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 2125122), 340 So. 3d 1151, 1155.
Arbitration is favored under both Louisiana and federal jurisprudence. Revelry Food
Group, LLC, 21- 0881 at p. 4, 340 So. 3d at 1155. Because of the strong public
policy favoring arbitration, arbitration awards are presumed to be valid. Judges are
not entitled to substitute their judgment for that of the arbitrators chosen by the
parties. Crescent Property Partners, LLC v. American Manufacturers Mutual
Insurance Company, 14- 0969, 14- 0973, p. 6 ( La. 1/ 28/ 15), 158 So. 3d 798, 803.
The Federal Arbitration Act ( FAA) is located at 9 U.S. C. §§ 1- 16.
Louisiana' s binding arbitration law ( LBAL), La. R.S. 9: 4201, et seq., echoes the
FAA, and as such, Louisiana courts look to federal law in interpreting the Louisiana
arbitration statutes. Revelry Food Group, LLC, 21- 0881 at p. 5, 340 So. 3d at 1155.
Under the FAA and LBAL, a party to an arbitration proceeding may, within one year
after the award is made, apply to the district court for confirmation of the award, and
the court must confirm the award unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected.
9 U. S. C. § 9; La. R.S. 9: 4209. The exclusive grounds for vacating an award are
identical under the FAA and the LBAL. See 9 U.S. C. § 10; La. R.S. 9: 4210. The
4 four exclusive grounds for vacating an award under the LBAL are:
A. Where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means.
B. Where there was evident partiality or corruption on the part of the arbitrators or any of them.
C. Where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy, or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced.
D. Where the arbitrators exceeded their powers or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.
La. R. S. 9: 4210; see also 9 U.S. C. § 10.
It is well settled that an arbitration award may be challenged only on the
grounds specified in the applicable arbitration statute. Crescent Property Partners,
LLC, 14- 0969 at p. 6, 158 So. 3d at 803. Those grounds do not include errors of
law or fact, which are insufficient to invalidate an award fairly and honestly made.
Pennington v. Cuna Brokerage Securities, Inc., 08- 0589, p. 6 ( La. App. 1st Cir.
10/ 1108), 5 So. 3d 172, 176, writ denied, 08- 2600 ( La. 119/ 09), 998 So. 2d 723; see
also Crescent Property Partners, LLC, 14- 0969 at p. 7, 158 So. 3d at 804. A court is
not entitled to substitute its judgment for that of the arbitrator chosen by the parties;
rather, a court' s determination is limited to whether the party challenging the award
has proven one or more of the specific statutory grounds for invalidation. See
DeArmond v. E. Jacob Construction Inc., 21- 0981, p. 4 ( La. App. 1 st Cir. 418122),
342 So. 3d 77, 80. An appellate court conducts a de novo review of a district court' s
judgment confirming or vacating an arbitration award. DeArnlond, 21- 0981 at p. 4,
342 So. 3d at 80; see also Revelry Food Group, LLC, 21- 0881 at p. 5, 340 So. 3d at
1156.
5 Exceeding Powers by Arbitrator
Briggs of Texas alleged in its motion to vacate that the arbitration award
should be vacated because Briggs of Texas was not a party to the subcontract with
MEI and was not a party to the agreement to arbitrate. As such, Briggs of Texas
alleged that the arbitrator exceeded his powers by rendering an award against an
entity not a party to any relevant contract, citing 9 U.S. C. § 10( a)( 4) and La. R. S.
9: 4210( D). In support of its motion to vacate, Briggs of Texas submitted the
affidavit of Terry Briggs with attachments, including the prime contract between
Briggs of Pennsylvania and USACE and the subcontract agreement between MEI
and Briggs of Pennsylvania, as well as information from the Pennsylvania Secretary
of State and the Texas Secretary of State regarding Briggs Brothers Enterprises
Corporation.
A review of the evidence submitted by Briggs of Texas shows that " Briggs
Brothers Enterprises Corporation" is incorporated in both Pennsylvania and Texas
as a domestic corporation. Terry Briggs, the President and owner of both
corporations, stated in his affidavit that there are several entities with the name
Briggs Brothers Enterprises Corporation," including Briggs of Pennsylvania and
Briggs of Texas, and that each of these entities is incorporated in a different state
and is a distinct, separate entity. Terry Briggs further stated that he signed the prime
contract and the subcontract agreement on behalf of Briggs of Pennsylvania and that
Briggs of Texas was not a party to any contract related to the USACE project. Both
the prime contract and the subcontract agreement identify Briggs Brothers
Enterprises Corporation as a contracting party and list its address as 4749 Sansom
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The address for Briggs of Pennsylvania listed
with the Pennsylvania Secretary of State is the same address listed on the prime
contract with USACE and the subcontract with MET.
9 However, the demand for arbitration, while listing Briggs Brothers
Enterprises Corporation as respondent at the Pennsylvania address, further identified
Briggs Brothers Enterprises Corporation as a Texas corporation and requested
service on Terry Briggs, at a Richmond, Texas address, as the registered agent for
Briggs of Texas. Furthermore, the petition to confirm arbitration award named
Briggs of Texas as a defendant and was served on Briggs of Texas at its business
address in Houston, Texas.
The authority of an arbitrator to resolve disputes is derived from the parties'
advance agreement to submit such grievances to arbitration. Preis Gordon, APLC
v. Chandler, 15- 0958, p. 7 ( La. App. 1 st Cir. 2126116), 191 So. 3d 31, 36, writ denied,
16- 0590 ( La. 5120116), 191 So. 3d 1067. Furthermore, challenges brought to the
very existence of the contract containing the arbitration clause must be decided by
the court, not the arbitrator. See FIA Card Services: N.A. v. Weaver, 10- 1372, pp.
7 and 17 ( La. 3115111), 62 So. 3d 709, 714 and 720 ( noting that in confirming an
arbitration award under the FAA', a party is required to file a copy of the agreement
to arbitrate, which affirms the court' s duty to rule on the issue of the contract' s
validity). Therefore, from our review of the record, we find that Briggs of
Pennsylvania and Briggs of Texas are two separate legal entities, and the arbitration
award was sought and rendered against Briggs of Texas. Briggs of Texas, however,
was not a party to the subcontract agreement containing the arbitration clause and
did not otherwise consent to participate in the arbitration proceeding. Without
evidence of contract between Briggs of Texas and MEI, the arbitrator exceeded his
power in rendering an award against Briggs of Texas.
Therefore, on our de novo review of the district court' s judgment, we find no
error in the judgment vacating the arbitration award rendered in favor of MEI and
t The LBAL contains an identical provision providing that "[ ajny party to a proceeding for an order confirming, modifying, or correcting an award shall... also file ... [ t] he agreement." La. R. S. 9: 4214.
7 against Briggs of Texas. 2
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court. All
costs of this proceeding are assessed to Mobile Enterprises, Inc.
Wal at" 01
2 Having found no error in the district court' s judgment vacating the arbitration award, we pretermit discussion of MEI' s assignment of error relating to the district court' s denial of its petition to confirm arbitration award.