Russell Musnick v. King Motor Co.

Eleventh Circuit

Russell Musnick v. King Motor Co.

213 F. App'x 807

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedJanuary 4, 2007

Docket06-12273

StatusUnpublished

This text of 213 F. App'x 807 (Russell Musnick v. King Motor Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Russell Musnick v. King Motor Co., 213 F. App'x 807 (11th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

King Motor Company appeals the district court’s denial of its Motion to Confirm Arbitrator’s Award as moot. King Motors filed its motion along with its opposition to plaintiff Russel Musnick’s motion challeng *808 ing the arbitrator’s award of attorneys’ fees and costs.

Musnick brought suit against King Motors, alleging discrimination and retaliation based on religion under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. King Motors filed a motion seeking to compel arbitration that was denied by the district court. However, this court reversed the district court and upon remand, the district court stayed the proceedings to allow for the arbitration. After a hearing, the arbitrator issued Final Judgment on June 22, 2004, in favor of King Motors. King Motors then sought attorneys’ fees under Title VII, which the arbitrator granted by order dated April 13, 2005. Musnick then appealed the arbitrator’s decision to the district court. King Motors filed a reply, dated May 18, 2005, opposing Musnick’s arguments and seeking confirmation of the award. The district court rejected Mus-nick’s arguments to reopen the case and then denied King Motor’s motion to confirm as moot. King Motors appeals.

Under the Arbitration Act, a party has a year from the date of the final judgment of the arbitrator to apply for confirmation. 9 U.S.C. § 9. To be eligible for confirmation, the award must not have been vacated, modified or corrected. Additionally, the arbitration agreement does not need to specify that it will be confirmed by a federal court. Ruby-Collins, Inc. v. City of Huntsville, Ala., 748 F.2d 573, 576 (11th Cir.1984). Therefore, it appears that this arbitration award is ripe for confirmation. We vacate the district court’s order denying King’s motion to confirm as moot and remand for a decision consistent with this opinion.

VACATED and REMANDED.

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

PER CURIAM:

King Motor Company appeals the district court’s denial of its Motion to Confirm Arbitrator’s Award as moot. King Motors filed its motion along with its opposition to plaintiff Russel Musnick’s motion challeng *808 ing the arbitrator’s award of attorneys’ fees and costs.

Musnick brought suit against King Motors, alleging discrimination and retaliation based on religion under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. King Motors filed a motion seeking to compel arbitration that was denied by the district court. However, this court reversed the district court and upon remand, the district court stayed the proceedings to allow for the arbitration. After a hearing, the arbitrator issued Final Judgment on June 22, 2004, in favor of King Motors. King Motors then sought attorneys’ fees under Title VII, which the arbitrator granted by order dated April 13, 2005. Musnick then appealed the arbitrator’s decision to the district court. King Motors filed a reply, dated May 18, 2005, opposing Musnick’s arguments and seeking confirmation of the award. The district court rejected Mus-nick’s arguments to reopen the case and then denied King Motor’s motion to confirm as moot. King Motors appeals.

Under the Arbitration Act, a party has a year from the date of the final judgment of the arbitrator to apply for confirmation. 9 U.S.C. § 9. To be eligible for confirmation, the award must not have been vacated, modified or corrected. Additionally, the arbitration agreement does not need to specify that it will be confirmed by a federal court. Ruby-Collins, Inc. v. City of Huntsville, Ala., 748 F.2d 573, 576 (11th Cir.1984). Therefore, it appears that this arbitration award is ripe for confirmation. We vacate the district court’s order denying King’s motion to confirm as moot and remand for a decision consistent with this opinion.

VACATED and REMANDED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 F. App'x 807, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russell-musnick-v-king-motor-co-ca11-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack