Dluhos v. Strasberg, 01-3713.

Citation321 F.3d 365
Decision Date20 February 2003
Docket NumberNo. 01-3713.,01-3713.
PartiesEric DLUHOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Anna STRASBERG; Mark Roesler, Esquire, Jane Doe, a/k/a Marilyn.cmgworldwide.com; CMG Worldwide, Inc.; the Estate of Lee Strasberg; the Lee Strasberg Theatre Institute; Network Solutions, Inc., and John Does/Jane Does (1-10), Defendants-Appellees.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)

Eric Dluhos (argued), Belleville, NJ, Plaintiff, pro se.

Randy M. Mastro (argued), Peter M. Skinner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY, for Appellees Anna Strasberg, the Estate of Lee Strasberg, the Lee Strasberg Theatre Institute, Mark Roesler, and CMG Worldwide, Inc.

Shari Claire Lewis (argued), Rivkin Radler LLP, Uniondale, NY, Philip L. Sbarbaro, VeriSign, Inc., Dulles, VA, for Appellee Network Solutions, Inc.

Before ROTH, FUENTES and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

ALDISERT, Circuit Judge.

This appeal requires us to decide whether a dispute resolution under the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers' Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("UDRP") is entitled to the extremely deferential standard of judicial review set forth in the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(2)-10(a)(3). After Appellant Eric Dluhos registered the domain name invoking the name of the renowned acting coach, representatives of Lee Strasberg's widow, his eponymous acting institute and his estate instituted administrative proceedings culminating in a National Arbitration Forum dispute resolution that shifted the domain name from Dluhos to the Strasberg parties. Dluhos simultaneously sought relief in the district court, which applied the FAA standards to the NAF panel's order and dismissed the complaint. Dluhos appealed, and we now reverse.

Among Appellant's various contentions, he appeal from the district court's refusal to vacate an order under the UDRP. Constitutional issues are presented, but we must first decide whether the district court properly chose to review the NAF panel's decision under the Federal Arbitration Act's deferential standards for judicial review of arbitration decisions and a separate "manifest disregard for the law" standard, or whether a UDRP dispute resolution proceeding does not qualify as "arbitration" under the FAA and instead falls under broader category of review.

I.

In the district court, Dluhos had filed a complaint against Anna Strasberg, the Estate of Lee Strasberg and the Lee Strasberg Theatre Institute (the "Strasberg defendants") Mark Roesler and CMG Worldwide Inc. (the "CMG defendants"); and Network Solutions, Inc. The court ruled that he failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted. Rule 12(b)(6) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey had jurisdiction of the underlying action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 based on Appellant's constitutional claims and his challenge to the constitutionality of the arbitration process1 brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and his sundry state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). As will become clear, the court also had jurisdiction under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act ("ACPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(D)(v). We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Pursuant to a Cooperative Agreement with the federal National Science Foundation (NSF), one of the Appellees, Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI), a private entity, is the exclusive provider of Internet domain name registration services to the public.2 On June 25, 1999, pro se plaintiff Eric Dluhos entered into a domain-name registration agreement with NSI to register the domain name . The registration agreement required Dluhos to abide by NSI's ever-evolving dispute resolution policy, which incorporated the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers' Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy as it developed. The UDRP — and thus Dluhos' agreement with NSI — requires a domain-name registrant to submit to a "mandatory administrative proceeding" before an approved dispute resolution service provider to resolve a third party's complaint concerning the registration and use of a particular registered domain name. Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy 4(a) (Oct. 24, 1999), available at http://www.icann.org/dndr/udrp/policy.htm. The National Arbitration Forum is one such approved provider. See Approved Providers for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, available at http://www.icann.org/dndr/udrp/approved-providers.htm (listing the National Arbitration Forum as an approved resolution provider).

Anna Strasberg — the widow of actor and acting coach Lee Strasberg — owns and directs the Lee Strasberg Theatre Institute and serves as the executrix of the Estate of Lee Strasberg. As executrix, she is responsible for Estate-owned trademarks and service marks, which include "The Lee Strasberg Institute" and "Actor by Lee Strasberg." CMG Worldwide, Inc. represents and manages Internet sites for the Estate, the Institute and Anna Strasberg. CMG maintains an official Web sites for the Institute, the Estate and Anna Strasberg at .

Dluhos' registration of came to the attention of Mark Roesler, CMG's chief executive officer. In May 2000, Roesler sent four letters to Dluhos, informing him that his use of the domain name violated the Strasberg trademarks and that CMG would take action to have the domain name transferred, potentially through UDRP dispute resolution, if Dluhos would not rescind it.

Having heard nothing from Dluhos, CMG submitted a complaint to the National Arbitration Forum on June 2, 2000. The complaint requested a UDRP dispute resolution proceeding and formally disputed Dluhos' right to use the domain name, alleging that the domain name was "identical or confusingly similar to" a trademark owned by the Estate; that Dluhos had "no rights or legitimate interests" in the name; and that he had registered and used the name "in bad faith." Dluhos had until June 26, 2000 to respond. Rather than participating in the dispute resolution process to which he had agreed when he registered the domain name with NSI a year earlier, Dluhos submitted a letter of limited appearance to the NAF to explain that he would not submit to dispute resolution because he contested the NAF's jurisdiction over the matter. He added that he would instead file a complaint in federal court. On June 27, 2000, he did just that. He filed a complaint against the Strasberg defendants and the CMG defendants with the district court challenging the constitutionality of the dispute resolution process.

Three days later on June 30, 2000, a one-member NAF panel issued an order suspending the NAF/UDRP proceeding in light of the pending federal lawsuit. See UDRP § 18 (giving panel "the discretion to decide whether to suspend or terminate the administrative proceeding, or to proceed to a decision" while a lawsuit is pending). Because Dluhos failed to serve properly either the Strasberg defendants or the CMG defendants, CMG formally requested in August 2000 that the NAF lift the suspension order and proceed with UDRP dispute resolution. NAF lifted the order when CMG served notice of its request on Dluhos and paid a $150 fee to remove the suspension order.

On October 26, 2000, the NAF panel issued a decision against Dluhos — without his participation — and directed that the domain name be transferred to the Estate. See UDRP § 5(e) (mandating that the panel "decide the dispute based upon the complaint" if a registrant declines to participate in the UDRP proceedings).

Dluhos filed an amended complaint in the district court on October 31, 2000, alleging harassment, breach of contract, and violations of his First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Essentially, he challenged the constitutionality of the dispute resolution process, raised First Amendment arguments against enforcement of NSI's dispute resolution policy and asked the district court to restore his right in the domain name . All defendants promptly filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and in an August 31, 2001 memorandum and order, the district court granted the defendants' motions. After dismissing all constitutional and § 1983 claims against the defendants for want of state action, the district court dismissed the various state law claims against all parties for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted.

The court then proceeded to review the NAF's decision in favor of the Strasberg and CMG defendants under: 1) 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(2)-10(a)(3) of the Federal Arbitration Act, which authorizes a district court to vacate an arbitration decision if there is "evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrator[]," or if "the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct ... in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy"; and 2) the judicially created "manifest disregard of the law" standard, which allows a district court to vacate an arbitration award that "evidences manifest disregard of the law rather than an erroneous interpretation." See Local 863 Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America v. Jersey Coast Egg Producers, Inc., 773 F.2d 530, 533 (3d Cir.1985) (trotting out the standard but holding that a union arbitration judgment did not rise to the level of "manifest disregard"). The district court reviewed and upheld the NAF's decision under both deferential standards.

Dluhos filed a timely Notice of Appeal.

II.

We review a district court's denial of a motion to vacate a commercial arbitration award de novo. Kaplan v. First Options, 19 F.3d 1503, 1509 (3d Cir.1994). We also note that because Dluhos has filed his complaint pro se, we must liberally construe his pleadings, and we will apply the applicable law, irrespective of whether the pro se litigant has mentioned it by name. Higgins v. Beyer, 293 F.3d 683, 688 (3d Cir.200...

To continue reading

Request your trial
746 cases
  • Polsky v. Werfel, CIVIL ACTION No. 14-655
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • February 23, 2015
    ...se plaintiffs' pleadings must be considered deferentially, affording them the benefit of the doubt where one exists. Dluhos v. Strasberg, 321 F.3d 365, 369 (3d Cir. 2003) (citing Higgins v. Beyer, 293 F.3d 683, 688 (3d Cir. 2002)). With these standards in mind, we shall accept as true the f......
  • Clerk v. First Bank of Del.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • March 22, 2010
    ...149 L.Ed.2d 234 (2001) ("[T]he FAA compels judicial enforcement of a wide range of written arbitration agreements."); Dluhos v. Strasberg, 321 F.3d 365, 369 (3d Cir.2003). The FAA evinces the "liberal federal policy favoring arbitration." Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., ......
  • Century Indemnity v. Underwriters, Lloyd's, London
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • October 15, 2009
    ...the award. The FAA allows district courts to vacate arbitration awards "only under exceedingly narrow circumstances." Dluhos v. Strasberg, 321 F.3d 365, 370 (3d Cir. 2003) (citing 9 U.S.C. § 10).29 One such circumstance is "where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct ... in refusing to ......
  • Wade v. Donahoe
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • September 4, 2012
    ...se plaintiff's pleadings must be considered deferentially, affording her the benefit of the doubt where one exists. Dluhos v. Strasberg, 321 F.3d 365, 369 (3d Cir. 2003) (citing Higgins v. Beyer, 293 F.3d 683, 688 (3d Cir. 2002)). With these standards in mind, we shall accept as true the fa......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Franchise and Dealership Termination Handbook
    • January 1, 2012
    ...73 F.3d 756 (7th Cir. 1996), 51, 65 Direx Israel, Ltd. v. Breakthrough Med. Corp., 952 F.2d 802 (4th Cir. 1991), 90 Dluhos v. Strasberg, 321 F.3d 365 (3rd Cir. 2003), 104 Doctor’s Associates v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681 (1996), 116, 117 Doctor’s Associates v. Hamilton, 150 F.3d 157 (2d Cir. 1......
  • Lost in Dicta: The Curious Case of Nonstatutory Grounds of Vacatur in an Era of Ubiquitous Consumer Arbitration.
    • United States
    • Suffolk University Law Review Vol. 52 No. 2, March 2019
    • March 22, 2019
    ...inattentiveness to ... governing law"), abrogated by Hall Street Assocs. LLC v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (2008); Dluhos v. Strasberg, 321 F.3d 365, 370 (3d Cir. 2003) (noting result of judicial application of narrow manifest disregard generally to affirm award); Scott v. Prudential Sec., ......
  • Alternatives To Litigation
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Franchise and Dealership Termination Handbook
    • January 1, 2012
    ...FAA). 12. Advanced Bodycare Solutions, LLC v. Thione Int’l, Inc., 524 F.3d 1235, 1239 (11th Cir. 2008). 13. E.g. , Dluhos v. Strasberg, 321 F.3d 365 (3rd Cir. 2003) (non-binding arbitration is not arbitration under the FAA); Thomas Stipanovich, The Arbitration Penumbra: Arbitration Law and ......
  • When Is an “arbitration” Not an Arbitration?
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 46-9, October 2017
    • Invalid date
    ...Warranty Corp. II, 428 S.E.2d 709 (S.O 1993). [39] AMF Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 621 F.Supp. 456 (E.D.NY1985). [40] Dluhos v. Strasberg, 321 F.3d 365 (3d Or. 2003). [41] Wotsey v. Foodmaker, Inc., 144 F.3d 1205 (9th Or. 1998). [42] The "presumption of arbitrability" was initially announced b......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT