and Submitted December 4, 2017 San Francisco, California
from the United States District Court for the District of
D.C. No. 3:15-cv-00474-RCJ-VPC Nevada Robert Clive Jones,
Senior District Judge, Presiding
Jonathan E. Neuman (argued), Fresh Meadows, New York, for
F. Bus (argued), Reno, Nevada, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before: MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and SANDRA S. IKUTA, Circuit
Judges, and JOHN D. BATES, [*] Senior District Judge.
panel reversed the district court's order vacating Robert
Elizondo's arbitration award and remanding for a new
arbitration; and remanded to the district court for further
was awarded $75, 000 in damages in the parties'
arbitration, which Elizondo initiated to recoup losses he
suffered as a result of plaintiff Gregory Sanchez's
mismanagement of his investment portfolio.
panel held that there was jurisdiction pursuant to 9 U.S.C.
§ 16 of the Federal Arbitration Act to review vacatur
orders that also remand for a new arbitration.
panel held that the district court erred in vacating the
award on the basis that the arbitrator exceed his authority.
The panel held that the arbitrator's award was not
completely irrational; and the arbitrator confined himself to
the interpretation and application of the parties'
agreement; and therefore the arbitrator did not exceed his
authority. The panel also held that the arbitrator did not
exhibit manifest disregard of the law.
the district court resolved Sanchez's petition on only
one of the several grounds for vacatur Sanchez asserted, the
panel remanded for further proceedings.
Ikuta concurred. She would hold that the court clearly had
jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. § 16, and there was no need
for the majority to engage in an examination of the policies
underlying § 16(a) or the potential meaning of
Congressional silence to determine the scope of the
SMITH, CIRCUIT JUDGE.
Robert Elizondo appeals the district court's order
vacating his arbitration award and remanding for further
proceedings. Elizondo was awarded $75, 000 in damages (the
Award) in the parties' arbitration, which Elizondo
initiated to recoup losses he suffered as a result of
Plaintiff-Appellee Gregory Sanchez's mismanagement of his
investment portfolio. Elizondo argues that the district court
erred in vacating the Award on the basis that the arbitrator
exceeded his authority.
agree, reverse the district court's vacatur, and remand
the case for further proceedings.
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
essential facts in this case are undisputed. In April of
2008, Elizondo retained Sanchez, who is licensed as a
securities broker by the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority (FINRA), to manage his investment portfolio. In
September of 2008, Sanchez invested a portion of
Elizondo's portfolio in leveraged inverse Exchange Traded
Funds. Elizondo believed that this investment placed his
holdings in an inappropriately risky position.
April 29, 2014, Elizondo brought a claim against Sanchez,
alleging that Sanchez had mismanaged Elizondo's
portfolio. The parties executed a FINRA Arbitration
Submission Agreement, according to which they agreed (1) to
submit their case to arbitration in accordance with the FINRA
By-Laws, Rules, and Code of Arbitration Procedure; (2) to be
bound by the procedures and rules of FINRA relating to
arbitration; and ...