Beard v. West Colorado Motors, LLC

Background

Daniella Davina Beard, representing herself, bought a used 2016 Ford Escape in Colorado in July 2019. The purchase-sale agreement stated that the vehicle was sold “as is,” disclaimed warranties, and limited certain damages. The retail-installment sales contract required 75 monthly payments of $330.62 and included an arbitration clause covering disputes related to the contract or vehicle purchase. It also provided that the Federal Arbitration Act governed the arbitration.

Beard contended that the car stopped starting two days after purchase. The respondent installed a new battery, but Beard later stopped making payments. She sued in Colorado state court over the failure to transfer the vehicle’s title and registration and over the vehicle’s alleged failure to meet its intended purpose. The dispute was sent to arbitration. In July 2023, the arbitration occurred by videoconference in Oakland.

In November 2023, the arbitrator awarded the respondent $19,139.77, consisting of $16,643.28 in damages and $2,496.49 in contractual attorney’s fees. The arbitrator ruled against Beard on her claims and awarded her nothing. Beard petitioned to vacate the award, while the respondent moved to confirm it.

Beard’s challenges to the award

Beard relied on provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act allowing a court to vacate an award when an arbitrator refuses to hear material evidence, exceeds the arbitrator’s authority, or displays evident partiality. She argued that the arbitrator improperly refused to consider more than half of her evidence, disregarded the contracts and applicable law, and created a reasonable impression of bias.

The court rejected these arguments. It found that the arbitrator considered Beard’s hearing evidence and closing brief, discussed that evidence and the witnesses’ testimony, and considered evidence concerning her post-traumatic stress disorder and status as a disabled veteran. The arbitrator concluded that Beard had not shown that those circumstances affected her ability to enter the vehicle contracts.

The court also held that the award was not irrational and that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority. The arbitrator relied on the vehicle’s “as is” provision, Beard’s failure to continue payments or return the vehicle, testimony concerning responsibility for correcting title and registration issues, the installation of a new battery, and the service contract covering emissions issues. The court further found no basis for concluding that the arbitrator was evidently partial.

Ruling

The court concluded that the requirements for confirming the award were satisfied: there was a valid arbitration agreement, an arbitration award, and notice of the request for confirmation. The court denied the petition to vacate the award and confirmed the award.

Disposition

The petition to vacate was denied, and the arbitration award of $19,139.77 was confirmed.