USCA11 Case: 23-10232 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 05/20/2024 Page: 1 of 8
[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-10232 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________
MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC, MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY FINANCING LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellees, versus IZHAR SHEFER,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cv-21542-BB USCA11 Case: 23-10232 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 05/20/2024 Page: 2 of 8
2 Opinion of the Court 23-10232
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and WILSON and LUCK, Cir- cuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Izhar Shefer appeals the denial of his motion to vacate the arbitration award entered against him and in favor of Morgan Stan- ley Smith Barney LLC and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Financ- ing LLC. After Shefer resigned from his position as a financial advi- sor in 2017, Morgan Stanley commenced arbitration proceedings to recover $767,367.70 owed on eight promissory notes executed by Shefer during his employment. Shefer filed a counterclaim. The arbitration panel dismissed his counterclaim without prejudice as a sanction and permitted him a hearing on his motion to reinstate his counterclaim. The panel denied his motion. Shefer argues that the panel violated the Federal Arbitration Act by prohibiting him from filing a reply for his motion to reinstate, dismissing his counter- claim without first imposing lesser sanctions, and sanctioning him for the conduct of his attorney and spouse, Nera Shefer. We affirm. In reviewing the denial of a motion to vacate an arbitration award, we review findings of fact for clear error and legal conclu- sions de novo. Frazier v. CitiFinancial Corp., LLC, 604 F.3d 1313, 1321 (11th Cir. 2010). The presumption under the Act is that “arbitration awards will be confirmed, and federal courts should defer to an ar- bitrator’s decision whenever possible.” Id. USCA11 Case: 23-10232 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 05/20/2024 Page: 3 of 8
23-10232 Opinion of the Court 3
Section 9 of the Act provides that, upon application of any party to the arbitration, “the court must confirm the arbitrator’s award unless it is vacated, modified, or corrected in accordance with sections 10 and 11 of the statute.” Id.; see 9 U.S.C. § 9. Section 10 of the Act permits vacatur of arbitration awards in four narrow circumstances: (1) where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means;
(2) where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them;
(3) where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence perti- nent and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced; or
(4) 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.
9 U.S.C. § 10. Shefer failed to establish any statutory ground for vacating the award. See id. We disagree with Shefer’s assertion that the arbi- tration panel is guilty of misconduct, id. § 10(3), for refusing to al- low him to file a reply to Morgan Stanley’s response to his motion USCA11 Case: 23-10232 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 05/20/2024 Page: 4 of 8
4 Opinion of the Court 23-10232
to reinstate his counterclaim. Shefer filed his counterclaim in Janu- ary 2018. Over a year later, Shefer obtained leave to file an amended counterclaim, and Morgan Stanley agreed to a discovery extension because the Shefers’ son was ill. The amended counter- claim alleged more than a dozen claims and requested $13.7 million total in compensatory and punitive damages. At the several-day hearing in July 2021, during her redirect examination of Shefer, Nera asked to withdraw as counsel due to disagreements over strat- egy. Shefer told the panel that he was discharging Nera and assured the panel that he had already found another attorney to continue the proceedings the next day. The panel ordered substitute counsel to appear the next morning, assessed fees against Shefer for the last-minute adjournment, and dismissed his counterclaim without prejudice. Nevertheless, the panel explained that it would hear ar- gument the next day from Shefer’s substitute counsel regarding why his counterclaim should be reinstated. But the next day, Nera told the panel that substitute counsel, who was Shefer’s brother-in-law, could not represent Shefer due to a conflict identi- fied late the previous evening. After Nera requested a continuance, Morgan Stanley moved to dismiss the counterclaims with preju- dice for violating the panel’s order and failing to notify Morgan Stanley of the conflict. The panel decided that Nera would con- tinue to represent Shefer and ordered her to file a motion to rein- state his counterclaim within 48 hours. It provided Morgan Stanley a right of response but warned Shefer that it would receive no re- ply. USCA11 Case: 23-10232 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 05/20/2024 Page: 5 of 8
23-10232 Opinion of the Court 5
The arbitration panel is not “guilty of misconduct,” id., for not permitting Shefer to reply to Morgan Stanley’s response to his motion to reinstate. Although Shefer argues that he was entitled to a reply because Morgan Stanley’s response raised “new conten- tions” about Nera’s performance—including that she failed to ap- pear at or cancelled at least four appearances, failed to file various stipulations and witness subpoenas, and belatedly identified new witnesses—the record establishes that the panel was familiar with the reasons Nera provided, most of which concerned family cir- cumstances, travel, and weather. The record confirms that the panel had good cause to expedite consideration of his motion to reinstate his counterclaim because his repeated failures to comply with directives caused the panel and Morgan Stanley undue delays. For example, at the hearing on July 14, 2021, Nera told the panel that she and Shefer were unavailable to participate in the hearing due to a storm that interrupted their power and internet. That afternoon, Shefer testified for three hours before asking, dur- ing his cross-examination on the issue of damages, to adjourn be- cause he needed to rest. Later, it was disclosed that Shefer instead met with his damages expert to discuss an updated expert report on that issue. The next day, the panel permitted an early adjourn- ment due to Nera being “extremely overwhelmed” and needing a “long break.” And the next day, the panel permitted several more breaks while Nera and Shefer decided whether to bring in substi- tute counsel. Shefer identifies no misconduct by the panel. Id. USCA11 Case: 23-10232 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 05/20/2024 Page: 6 of 8
6 Opinion of the Court 23-10232
Shefer argues that the arbitration panel exceeded its powers, id. § 10(4), by immediately resorting to dismissing his counter- claims as a sanction without first providing warnings or lesser sanc- tions. We disagree. The rules provide that a panel has broad discre- tion to craft sanctions for a party’s failure to comply with rules; in- deed, the panel “may dismiss a claim, defense or arbitration with prejudice as a sanction for material and intentional failure to com- ply with an order of the panel if prior warnings or sanctions have proven ineffective.” Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) Rule 13212(c).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
USCA11 Case: 23-10232 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 05/20/2024 Page: 1 of 8
[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-10232 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________
MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC, MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY FINANCING LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellees, versus IZHAR SHEFER,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cv-21542-BB USCA11 Case: 23-10232 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 05/20/2024 Page: 2 of 8
2 Opinion of the Court 23-10232
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and WILSON and LUCK, Cir- cuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Izhar Shefer appeals the denial of his motion to vacate the arbitration award entered against him and in favor of Morgan Stan- ley Smith Barney LLC and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Financ- ing LLC. After Shefer resigned from his position as a financial advi- sor in 2017, Morgan Stanley commenced arbitration proceedings to recover $767,367.70 owed on eight promissory notes executed by Shefer during his employment. Shefer filed a counterclaim. The arbitration panel dismissed his counterclaim without prejudice as a sanction and permitted him a hearing on his motion to reinstate his counterclaim. The panel denied his motion. Shefer argues that the panel violated the Federal Arbitration Act by prohibiting him from filing a reply for his motion to reinstate, dismissing his counter- claim without first imposing lesser sanctions, and sanctioning him for the conduct of his attorney and spouse, Nera Shefer. We affirm. In reviewing the denial of a motion to vacate an arbitration award, we review findings of fact for clear error and legal conclu- sions de novo. Frazier v. CitiFinancial Corp., LLC, 604 F.3d 1313, 1321 (11th Cir. 2010). The presumption under the Act is that “arbitration awards will be confirmed, and federal courts should defer to an ar- bitrator’s decision whenever possible.” Id. USCA11 Case: 23-10232 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 05/20/2024 Page: 3 of 8
23-10232 Opinion of the Court 3
Section 9 of the Act provides that, upon application of any party to the arbitration, “the court must confirm the arbitrator’s award unless it is vacated, modified, or corrected in accordance with sections 10 and 11 of the statute.” Id.; see 9 U.S.C. § 9. Section 10 of the Act permits vacatur of arbitration awards in four narrow circumstances: (1) where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means;
(2) where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them;
(3) where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence perti- nent and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced; or
(4) 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.
9 U.S.C. § 10. Shefer failed to establish any statutory ground for vacating the award. See id. We disagree with Shefer’s assertion that the arbi- tration panel is guilty of misconduct, id. § 10(3), for refusing to al- low him to file a reply to Morgan Stanley’s response to his motion USCA11 Case: 23-10232 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 05/20/2024 Page: 4 of 8
4 Opinion of the Court 23-10232
to reinstate his counterclaim. Shefer filed his counterclaim in Janu- ary 2018. Over a year later, Shefer obtained leave to file an amended counterclaim, and Morgan Stanley agreed to a discovery extension because the Shefers’ son was ill. The amended counter- claim alleged more than a dozen claims and requested $13.7 million total in compensatory and punitive damages. At the several-day hearing in July 2021, during her redirect examination of Shefer, Nera asked to withdraw as counsel due to disagreements over strat- egy. Shefer told the panel that he was discharging Nera and assured the panel that he had already found another attorney to continue the proceedings the next day. The panel ordered substitute counsel to appear the next morning, assessed fees against Shefer for the last-minute adjournment, and dismissed his counterclaim without prejudice. Nevertheless, the panel explained that it would hear ar- gument the next day from Shefer’s substitute counsel regarding why his counterclaim should be reinstated. But the next day, Nera told the panel that substitute counsel, who was Shefer’s brother-in-law, could not represent Shefer due to a conflict identi- fied late the previous evening. After Nera requested a continuance, Morgan Stanley moved to dismiss the counterclaims with preju- dice for violating the panel’s order and failing to notify Morgan Stanley of the conflict. The panel decided that Nera would con- tinue to represent Shefer and ordered her to file a motion to rein- state his counterclaim within 48 hours. It provided Morgan Stanley a right of response but warned Shefer that it would receive no re- ply. USCA11 Case: 23-10232 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 05/20/2024 Page: 5 of 8
23-10232 Opinion of the Court 5
The arbitration panel is not “guilty of misconduct,” id., for not permitting Shefer to reply to Morgan Stanley’s response to his motion to reinstate. Although Shefer argues that he was entitled to a reply because Morgan Stanley’s response raised “new conten- tions” about Nera’s performance—including that she failed to ap- pear at or cancelled at least four appearances, failed to file various stipulations and witness subpoenas, and belatedly identified new witnesses—the record establishes that the panel was familiar with the reasons Nera provided, most of which concerned family cir- cumstances, travel, and weather. The record confirms that the panel had good cause to expedite consideration of his motion to reinstate his counterclaim because his repeated failures to comply with directives caused the panel and Morgan Stanley undue delays. For example, at the hearing on July 14, 2021, Nera told the panel that she and Shefer were unavailable to participate in the hearing due to a storm that interrupted their power and internet. That afternoon, Shefer testified for three hours before asking, dur- ing his cross-examination on the issue of damages, to adjourn be- cause he needed to rest. Later, it was disclosed that Shefer instead met with his damages expert to discuss an updated expert report on that issue. The next day, the panel permitted an early adjourn- ment due to Nera being “extremely overwhelmed” and needing a “long break.” And the next day, the panel permitted several more breaks while Nera and Shefer decided whether to bring in substi- tute counsel. Shefer identifies no misconduct by the panel. Id. USCA11 Case: 23-10232 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 05/20/2024 Page: 6 of 8
6 Opinion of the Court 23-10232
Shefer argues that the arbitration panel exceeded its powers, id. § 10(4), by immediately resorting to dismissing his counter- claims as a sanction without first providing warnings or lesser sanc- tions. We disagree. The rules provide that a panel has broad discre- tion to craft sanctions for a party’s failure to comply with rules; in- deed, the panel “may dismiss a claim, defense or arbitration with prejudice as a sanction for material and intentional failure to com- ply with an order of the panel if prior warnings or sanctions have proven ineffective.” Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) Rule 13212(c). The record contains evidence of sanc- tionable conduct by Nera that extended from several failures to at- tend pre-hearing conferences and timely file witness lists and briefs, as required by the FINRA rules, to disregarding directives by the panel to file her exhibit stipulations, failing to confirm witness schedules, belatedly identifying a new witness, calling witnesses that she previously confirmed would not testify during the hearing, and failing to timely produce expert reports, as required by the FINRA rules. See, e.g., FINRA Rules 13208, 13512, 131514; see also FINRA Rule 13212(a) (providing that the panel may impose sanc- tions for failing to comply with “any provision in the Code.”). The record refutes Shefer’s argument that the panel pro- vided no warnings or sanctions before dismissing his counterclaim with prejudice. The panel’s first sanction occurred on July 16, 2021, several days into the hearing after the Shefers caused multiple de- lays. After Nera asked during Shefer’s testimony to withdraw from the representation, the panel sanctioned Shefer by assessing fees against Shefer for the last-minute adjournment and ordering USCA11 Case: 23-10232 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 05/20/2024 Page: 7 of 8
23-10232 Opinion of the Court 7
substitute counsel to appear the next day. Although the panel also dismissed Shefer’s counterclaim, it did so without prejudice and clarified that substitute counsel would be permitted to argue the next day for reinstatement of the counterclaim. After the Shefers still failed to comply with the order for substitute counsel to file a notice of appearance and failed to notify opposing counsel of the conflict, Morgan Stanley moved for dismissal with prejudice of the counterclaim. But the panel provided Shefer a final opportunity at arbitrating his counterclaim by ordering him to file a motion to re- instate the counterclaim. After a hearing on that motion, the panel declined to reinstate the counterclaim and dismissed it with preju- dice. Moreover, the panel explained that it received his “pleadings, testimony, and evidence” but that his “request for damages [was] unpersuasive” and that it was “highly improbable [that] he would have prevailed on his [c]ounterclaim under the best circum- stances.” The panel did not exceed its powers by dismissing Shefer’s counterclaim after providing him several opportunities to conform to its directives, particularly in the light of the series of delays and uncertainty that the breakdown of his relationship with his attorney-spouse caused the panel and opposing counsel. See 9 U.S.C. § 10(4). Shefer also argues that the panel exceeded its powers, id., by sanctioning him for conduct solely attributable to his attor- ney-spouse because “there was no indication that [Shefer himself] played any role in his counsel’s supposedly problematic conduct.” We discern no error. At a minimum, the record establishes that Shefer’s own conduct—including requesting an early adjournment USCA11 Case: 23-10232 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 05/20/2024 Page: 8 of 8
8 Opinion of the Court 23-10232
during his testimony due to fatigue to instead consult with experts on the subject matter of his testimony as well as deciding to dis- charge his attorney-wife during his testimony—contributed to the panel’s resort to sanctions. Shefer identifies no reason not to defer to the arbitrator’s decision. See Frazier, 604 F.3d at 1321. We AFFIRM the order confirming the arbitration award in favor of Morgan Stanley and denying Shefer’s motion to vacate the award.