Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled July 30, 2025

McConnell & Malek Enterprises v. Proof Mark, Inc

Judge
Cisneros
Docket
3:23-cv-00010
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureArbitration
In one sentence

In McConnell & Malek Enterprises v. Proof Mark, Judge Cisneros ordered Plaintiff to explain why its motion to vacate an arbitration award should not be denied as untimely.

Who this affects

McConnell & Malek Enterprises must respond to the court’s order by August 6, 2025. Proof Mark, Inc. may respond by that date but is not required to do so. Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitration award remains pending in this order.

What happened

McConnell & Malek Enterprises v. Proof Mark, Inc. concerned an arbitration award issued on October 8, 2024, after the case was stayed for arbitration. Plaintiff later filed a motion asking the court to vacate the award.

The court questioned whether the motion was filed too late under a federal law requiring notice of a motion to vacate an arbitration award within three months after the award is delivered or filed. The court noted that Plaintiff filed its motion on April 18, 2025, and that the parties’ briefs did not address the deadline as requested.

Judge Cisneros ordered Plaintiff to explain by August 6, 2025, why the motion should not be denied as untimely. The court did not decide the motion to vacate in this order; Defendant could respond by the same date but was not required to do so.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
McConnell & Malek Enterprises v. Proof Mark, Inc · No. 3:23-cv-00010
Judge
Cisneros
Date
July 30, 2025

Background

The case had been stayed while the parties arbitrated their dispute. The arbitrator issued a final award on October 8, 2024. Plaintiff later told the court that it had known about the award but had chosen to wait for Defendant to take action. Plaintiff eventually stated that it would seek confirmation of the award as a court judgment and then appeal that judgment.

The court ordered any party seeking to confirm or vacate the award to file the appropriate motion by April 18, 2025. Plaintiff filed its motion to vacate on that date. The court later directed both parties to address whether the three-month deadline in 9 U.S.C. § 12 barred Plaintiff’s requested relief. Defendant’s opposition did not address that issue, and Plaintiff did not file a reply.

Legal issue

Section 12 of the Federal Arbitration Act requires notice of a motion to vacate, modify, or correct an arbitration award to be served on the opposing party or the opposing party’s attorney within three months after the award is filed or delivered. The court cited Ninth Circuit decisions strictly enforcing that deadline and explaining that it promotes finality in arbitration awards. The court also discussed an unpublished Ninth Circuit decision suggesting that a court may apply the deadline even when a party does not raise it.

Order

The court ordered Plaintiff to show cause—meaning to explain—why its motion to vacate should not be denied as untimely. Plaintiff must respond by August 6, 2025. Defendant may respond by that date if it wishes, but need not do so. The order did not finally grant or deny the motion to vacate and did not decide the underlying grounds for challenging the arbitration award.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.