Google LLC v. Spivak

[5] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE [7] GOOGLE LLC, Case No.: 2:24-cv-00333-RSL 8 _________________ Petitioner, [9] ORDER CONFIRMING ARBITRATION 10 v. AWARD AND ENTRY OF JUDGMENT 11 RIVKA (“REBECCA”) SPIVAK 12 Respondent. [14] This matter comes before the Court on Google LLC’s “Petition to Confirm Arbitration [15] Award and Entry of Judgment.” Dkt. # 1. Pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), “[i]f [16] the parties in their agreement have agreed that a judgment of the court shall be entered upon the [17] award made pursuant to the arbitration, and shall specify the court, then at any time within one [18] year after the award is made any party to the arbitration may apply to the court so specified for [19] an order confirming the award, and ... the court must grant such an order unless the award is [20] vacated, modified, or corrected ...” 9 U.S.C. § 9 . If, as here, the parties’ agreement does not [21] specify a particular court, the petition “may be made to the United States court in and for the [22] district within which such award was made.” Id. Consistent with this language, the Court must [23] ensure that the parties contemplated judicial enforcement of an arbitration award in their [24] agreement and that a petition to confirm is timely sought. [25] To obtain a court order confirming an arbitration award, the petitioner must also satisfy [26] 1 certain filing requirements. Section 13 of the FAA requires that the party moving to confirm an 2 arbitration award file: (1) the arbitration agreement and the selection or appointment of an 3 arbitrator, (2) the award, and (3) “[e]ach notice, affidavit, or other papers used upon an 4 application to confirm, modify, or correct the award ...” 9 U.S.C. §§ 13 (a)–(c). Upon receiving 5 evidence that the petition meets the jurisdictional and procedural requirements of the FAA, the 6 Court’s ultimate review of the petition is “both limited and highly deferential.” Coutee v. 7 Barington Capital Group, L.P., 336 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Sheet Metal 8 Workers' Int'l Ass'n v. Madison Indus., Inc., 84 F.3d 1186, 1190 (9th Cir. 1996) ). Confirmation 9 of an arbitration award typically “is a summary proceeding that merely makes what is already a 10 final arbitration award a judgment of the court.” Romero v. Citibank USA, Nat’l Ass’n, 551 F. 11 Supp.2d 1010, 1014 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (quoting Florasynth, Inc. v. Pickholz, 750 F.2d 171 , 175– 12 76 (2d Cir. 1984)). This limited and summary review aims to honor the parties’ contractual 13 choices and further the FAA’s “national policy favoring arbitration and plac[ing] arbitration 14 agreements on equal footing with all other contracts....” Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. 15 Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 443 (2006); see also Thompson v. Tega-Rand Int’l, 740 F.2d 762 , 763 16 (9th Cir. 1984) (“[w]here the parties have agreed to arbitration, the court will not review the 17 merits of the dispute.”). 18 Section 9 of the FAA mandates that the Court must confirm an arbitration award unless 19 it is “vacated, modified, or corrected as prescribed in sections 10 and 11.” 9 U.S.C. § 9 . The 20 grounds for not granting a confirmation are “extremely limited” and only implicated when a 21 party to the arbitration moves to vacate the award based on certain circumstances that 22 undermine the award’s validity or its accuracy on material issues. 9 U.S.C. § 10 (a) 23 (enumerating grounds for vacating an award, including that the award was procured by fraud, 24 corruption or undue means or the arbitrator was biased, engaged in misconduct, or exceeded his 25 powers); 9 U.S.C. § 11 (court may modify or correct award for material miscalculations or 26 material mistakes, when the award addresses matters not submitted to the arbitrator, or the 1 award is “imperfect in form”); see also Kyocera Corp. v. Prudential Bache Trade Servs., 341 2 F.3d 987 , 998 (9th Cir. 2003) (“These grounds afford an extremely limited review authority, a 3 limitation that is designed to preserve due process but not to permit unnecessary public 4 intrusion into private arbitration matters”). [5] 6 Having reviewed the petition, the supporting documents, and the remainder of the 7 record, the Court finds as follows: 8 1. Google properly served on respondent Rivka (“Rebecca”) Spivak its “Petition 9 To Confirm Arbitration Award and Entry of Judgment,” the Declaration of Allison Lane in 10 Support and accompanying exhibits, a proposed order granting the petition, and a Civil Cover 11 Sheet. Google filed a Proof of Service of such documents. Dkt. # 6. 12 2. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Ms. Spivak, a resident of Seattle, 13 Washington, and this Court also has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 9 14 U.S.C. § 9 because the Award giving rise to the petition was issued in Seattle, Washington, less 15 than one year before the petition was filed. 16 3. The Court also has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 17 U.S.C. § 1332 (a)(2) because this action is between a citizen of a foreign state (Google) and a 18 citizen of Washington (Ms. Spivak). 19 4. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b)(2) and 9 U.S.C. § 9 because the 20 Award giving rise to the petition was issued in Seattle, Washington. 21 5. Google, in accordance with 9 U.S.C. § 13 (a), properly submitted the 22 employment agreement with Ms. Spivak containing a binding arbitration provision; the 23 appointment of Hon. Richard McDermott (Ret.); and the December 12, 2023 (“Award”) issued 24 by Judge McDermott against Ms. Spivak and in favor of Petitioner Google. Dkt. # 2 and 25 attached exhibits. [26] 1 6. Ms. Spivak has not appeared in response to the petition, nor has the award been 2 vacated under 9 U.S.C. § 10 or modified or corrected under 9 U.S.C. § 11 . In the absence of a 3 cognizable challenge to the award, the Court will hew to the FAA’s mandate to confirm it. 4 7. Based on the foregoing and the papers and pleadings on file herein, the Court 5 hereby confirms the Award without further inquiry, as required by 9 U.S.C. § 9 et seq. 6 8. The Clerk of the Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT, consistent with the 7 award, as follows: 8 Judgment in favor of Petitioner Google and against Ms. Spivak in the amount of 9 $10,000; however, such monetary amount may not be enforced by Petitioner 10 Google against Ms. Spivak unless she files future actions against Petitioner 11 Google BASED ON THE SAME FACTS AND ALLEGATIONS that were 12 presented in the arbitration resulting in the Award. [13] 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. [15] Dated this 18th day of April, 2024. [17] 18 Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge