Priast v. Nieman Marcus Group, Inc.

Background

Felipe A. Priast, a former employee of Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., alleged that he experienced sexual harassment by his manager and stereotype discrimination by another sales representative. He brought those claims in an arbitration administered by JAMS under a mandatory arbitration agreement.

After the parties exchanged documents, the arbitrator held a hearing on three motions filed by Priast: a motion to compel further evidence, a motion to quash subpoenas, and a motion for sanctions. The arbitrator denied all three motions. Priast then emailed the arbitrator and Neiman Marcus’s counsel that he was leaving the arbitration, while stating that he was not dismissing his claims.

The arbitrator issued notices treating Priast’s communications as a unilateral withdrawal of his claims without prejudice under JAMS Rule 13(b). The arbitration file was later closed on August 13, 2019.

Motion and governing standard

Priast filed a motion asking the federal court to vacate an arbitration award. Under the Federal Arbitration Act, federal court review of arbitration decisions is limited and highly deferential. The Act allows a court to vacate an award in specified circumstances, including certain forms of arbitrator misconduct that prejudiced a party’s rights.

Court’s analysis

Judge Edward M. Chen concluded that there was no final arbitration award to review or vacate. Priast acknowledged in his reply that “no award was granted in arbitration.” The court explained that an arbitration award must be a written, signed decision resolving the submitted claims and determining the relief, if any. The arbitrator’s withdrawal notices and closure of the file did not constitute such an award.

Because no final award existed, the court held that it could not provide the relief Priast requested and denied his motion to vacate the arbitration award. The court also noted that the Federal Arbitration Act generally does not permit court intervention before a final arbitration award is issued.

Other requested relief and disposition

Priast also asked for default judgment, punitive damages, or permission to pursue his claims in federal or state court. The court stated that these forms of relief were not proper to award at that time or through a motion to vacate an arbitration award. It stated that, if Priast wished to pursue his underlying claims through litigation, he would need to file a lawsuit and be prepared to respond to issues such as a possible motion by Neiman Marcus to compel arbitration.

The court denied the motion to vacate the arbitration award and stated that the order disposed of Docket No. 1.