The Veil of Acquiescence: Between the Lines of an Intuitive Appellate Decision, the Ninth Circuit Subtly Marginalizes FAA Limitations on Judicial Review - ARIA - Vol. 24, No. 4 2013

Author(s): 

Anthony Rallo

Page Count: 

12 pages

Media Description: 

1 PDF Download

Published: 

June, 2014

Subscribe to download

PDF575.9 KB

$40.00

Add to cart

Description: 

Originally from American Review of International Arbitration - ARIA

Preview Page

 

I. INTRODUCTION

 

In Biller v. Toyota Motor Corporation,1 the Ninth Circuit affirmed a decision

by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, that confirmed an

arbitral award in favor of Toyota Motor Sales. Plaintiff Biller sought vacatur on a

number of insubstantial grounds, all of which were denied by the district court.

The Ninth Circuit granted appeal and addressed each of Biller’s arguments,

ultimately reaffirming that Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) § 10 contains the

exclusive grounds for vacatur of arbitral awards.2 While it may appear that this

decision demonstrates long overdue Ninth Circuit compliance with the federal

policy favoring arbitration, the decision subtly limits the FAA’s role in enforcing

arbitral awards. The Ninth Circuit proclaimed that parties may implicate state law

in arbitration agreements to circumvent the limited judicial review of arbitral

awards available under the FAA. This will frustrate attempts to federalize the

U.S. law of arbitration, raise questions regarding the efficacy of arbitral awards

borne of contracts that do not expressly invoke the FAA, and give rise to

undesirable post-arbitration litigation.

 

II. BACKGROUND FACTS

 

Dimitrios Biller worked at Toyota Motor Sales (“TMS”) as in-house

counsel from 2003 to 2007.3 In 2007, Biller sued TMS for constructive wrongful

discharge, alleging TMS’s unethical discovery practices compelled him to resign.4

The parties settled by entering a Severance Agreement, which required Biller to:

1) release any claims relating to his employment; 2) protect TMS’s Confidential

Information; and 3) return, without copying, any TMS Confidential Information in

his possession.5

 

The Severance Agreement contained a Dispute Resolution clause requiring

the parties to submit any disputes relating to the Agreement to binding