Concierge Auctions, LLC v. Howard

Background

Concierge Auctions, LLC asked the court to confirm an arbitration award against Newton Howard under Section 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act. Concierge markets and conducts auctions of high-end residential properties. Howard owns the property at 440 Rochambeau Avenue in Providence, Rhode Island.

The parties entered an auction agreement on February 2, 2022. Concierge later auctioned the property, and the highest bid was $4,000,000. Howard refused to close the sale. Under the agreement, if the sale did not close because of Howard’s actions or those of his agents, Howard owed Concierge a fee equal to 12% of the highest bid, or $480,000.

Arbitration and Court Proceedings

Concierge began arbitration with the American Arbitration Association under the agreement’s mandatory arbitration provision. The arbitrator issued a partial final award on June 23, 2023, and a final award on August 16, 2023. The final award confirmed the earlier award, required Howard to pay Concierge $480,000 plus 9% interest from March 29, 2022 until payment, and awarded Concierge $66,400.77 in attorneys’ fees, costs, and disbursements.

Concierge filed the petition to confirm the award on January 12, 2024. Howard did not appear, oppose, or otherwise respond to the petition. Concierge moved for default judgment, but at a show-cause hearing the court explained that default judgments are generally inappropriate in proceedings to confirm or cancel arbitration awards. The court instead treated the petition as an unopposed motion for summary judgment, meaning a request for judgment because no genuine dispute of material fact requires a trial. Concierge withdrew its request for fees and costs incurred in seeking confirmation in federal court.

Court’s Analysis

The Federal Arbitration Act generally requires a court to confirm an arbitration award unless a statutory ground exists to vacate, modify, or correct it. The court reviewed the petition and final award and found no genuine dispute of material fact.

The court also found no indication that the award resulted from corruption, fraud, or undue means; contained a miscalculation; or involved arbitrator partiality, corruption, misconduct, or action outside the arbitrator’s authority. The court stated that the arbitrator based the award on undisputed evidence presented by Concierge. The opinion also states that, according to Concierge’s counsel, Howard had been represented by counsel during at least part of the arbitration and knew about the proceedings through counsel in a related matter but chose not to participate.

Disposition

Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted Concierge’s motion and confirmed the arbitration award. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment for Concierge and against Howard for $480,000, pre-judgment interest at 9% per year from March 29, 2022 through the date of judgment, post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a), and $66,400.77 in attorneys’ fees, costs, and disbursements. The court directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motions and close the case.