Questar Capital Corp. v. Gorter

Decision Date15 November 2012
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 3:12–MC–00004.
CitationQuestar Capital Corp. v. Gorter, 909 F. Supp.2d 789 (W.D. Ky. 2012)
PartiesQUESTAR CAPITAL CORPORATION, Petitioner v. Thomas J. GORTER, Respondent.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Ben V. Seessel, Jorden Burt LLP, Simsbury, CT, Chadwick A. McTighe, Joseph Lee Hamilton, Stites & Harbison, PLLC, Louisville, KY, James F. Jorden, Jorden Burt LLP, Washington, DC, Sonia Escobio O'Donnell, Jorden Burt LLP, Miami, FL, for Petitioner.

David B. Cosgrove, Kurt J. Schafers, Cosgrove Law, LLC, St. Louis, MO, Richard V. Evans, Oldfather Law Firm, Louisville, KY, for Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

THOMAS B. RUSSELL, Senior District Judge.

This matter is before the Court upon PetitionerQuestar Capital Corporation's Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award,”(DocketNo. 1); RespondentThomas J. Gorter's “Combined Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment on Questar Capital Corporation's Petition to Vacate and Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award,”(DocketNo. 11); Respondent Gorter's Motion to Dismiss Questar Capital Corporation's Improper ‘Petition’ to Vacate Arbitration Award,”(DocketNo. 12); and Petitioner Questar's Motion to Vacate,”(DocketNo. 23).Because the several motions in this case present varying arguments but are necessarily interrelated, the Court will address the parties' respective arguments collectively in the Opinion that follows.

+-----------------+
                ¦TABLE OF CONTENTS¦
                +-----------------¦
                ¦                 ¦
                +-----------------+
                
+----------------------------------+
                ¦BACKGROUND                    ¦796¦
                +------------------------------+---¦
                ¦                              ¦   ¦
                +------------------------------+---¦
                ¦STANDARD                      ¦798¦
                +------------------------------+---¦
                ¦                              ¦   ¦
                +------------------------------+---¦
                ¦DISCUSSION                    ¦799¦
                +------------------------------+---¦
                ¦                              ¦   ¦
                +----------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦Respondent Gorter's “Motion to Dismiss Questar Capital    ¦       ¦
                ¦    ¦I.  ¦Corporation's Improper ‘Petition’ to Vacate Arbitration   ¦799    ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦Award,” (Docket No. 12)                                   ¦       ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦A.  ¦Seeking Vacatur of the Arbitration Award by Petition¦800   ¦
                +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦The Sixth Circuit and Its Lower Courts Have Used  ¦      ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦the Titles “Petition” and “Motion” Interchangeably¦      ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦    ¦1. ¦in This Context Without Concern for the Precise   ¦800   ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦Nomenclature or Styling of an Application for     ¦      ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦Vacatur.                                          ¦      ¦
                +----+----+----+---+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦Courts in Other Circuits Have Construed Filings   ¦      ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦    ¦2. ¦Not Titled “Motion” as Motions to Vacate for      ¦801   ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦Purposes of the FAA.                              ¦      ¦
                +----+----+----+---+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦Other Courts' Reasoning For Requiring That a      ¦      ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦    ¦3. ¦Filing Be Styled as a “Motion” Is Distinguishable ¦802   ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦From the Circumstances This Case.                 ¦      ¦
                +----+----+----+---+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦In Its Discretion, the Court Will Treat Questar's ¦      ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦    ¦4. ¦Petition as a Motion to Vacate for Purposes of the¦804   ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦FAA.                                              ¦      ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦    ¦B. ¦Timeliness of Questar's Petition to Vacate¦804  ¦
                +---+----+---+------------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦   ¦    ¦C. ¦Local Rule 7.1(a)                         ¦807  ¦
                +-------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦                                                          ¦       ¦
                +----+----+----------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦Respondent Gorter's “Combined Motion to Dismiss and/or For¦       ¦
                ¦    ¦II. ¦Summary Judgment on Questar Capital Corporation's Petition¦808    ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦to Vacate and Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award”        ¦       ¦
                +----+----+----------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦                                                          ¦       ¦
                +----+----+----------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦    ¦III.¦Motions to Confirm and Vacate                             ¦809    ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+------------------------------------------+
                ¦  ¦  ¦A.¦Evident Partiality          ¦810 ¦
                +------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦Questar waived its objection to Chairman Stanton's¦      ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦    ¦1. ¦partiality by failing to raise this objection at  ¦811   ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦the arbitration hearing.                          ¦      ¦
                +----+----+----+---+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦Even if Questar did not waive its objection to    ¦      ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦    ¦2. ¦Chairman Stanton, the facts do not support a      ¦815   ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦finding of evident partiality.                    ¦      ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦B.  ¦Refusing to Hear Evidence Pertinent and Material to  ¦816    ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦    ¦the Controversy                                      ¦       ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦Questar was not denied a fundamentally fair       ¦      ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦    ¦1. ¦hearing in relation to the testimony of Jason     ¦817   ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦Hargadon.                                         ¦      ¦
                +----+----+----+---+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦Questar was not denied a fundamentally fair       ¦      ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦    ¦2. ¦hearing in regard to its request that the Panel   ¦820   ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦subpoena more than 50 of Gorter's former clients. ¦      ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦    ¦C.  ¦Arbitrators Exceeding or So Imperfectly Executing    ¦821    ¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦    ¦Their Powers                                         ¦       ¦
                +----+----+----+-----------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦    ¦    ¦D.  ¦Manifest Disregard for the Law                       ¦825    ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------+
                ¦                              ¦   ¦
                +------------------------------+---¦
                ¦CONCLUSION                    ¦827¦
                +----------------------------------+
                
BACKGROUND

The present action began in this Court upon Questar Capital Corporation's (Questar)Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award.(DocketNo. 1.)On January 13, 2012, a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitration panel(Panel) issued an award in favor of Thomas J. Gorter(Gorter) following arbitration proceedings that began on August 16, 2011.After some 31 hearing sessions, the arbitration proceedings closed on December 13, 2011.Questar filed its Petition to Vacate on February 10, 2012, (DocketNo. 1), to which Gorter responded with his Combined Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment and Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award, (DocketNo. 11), and his Motion to Dismiss Questar's Improper “Petition” to Vacate Arbitration Award, (DocketNo. 12), both on March 5, 2012.Questar responded to both on March 29, (DocketNos. 22; 23), and Gorter replied on April 13, (DocketNos. 26; 27).Questar also filed its Motion to Vacate with accompanying Memorandum of Law on March 29, 2012.(DocketNo. 23.)Gorter responded in opposition to Questar's Motion to Vacate, (DocketNo. 28), and Questar replied, (DocketNo. 45).The Court then granted Gorter leave to file a Sur–Reply, which he did on May 29, (DocketNo. 52), and also granted Questar leave to file a Response to Sur–Reply, which it did on June 8, 2012, (DocketNo. 58).

Throughout their many filings in this matter, the parties continue to dispute the facts of this case and to challenge one another's characterizations of those facts.This is in no small part due to the fact that the Panel did not issue findings of fact, nor did it provide an explained decision or opinion along with its award.1At this juncture, much of the contested factual matter is not particularly relevant or necessary given the standard of review for an arbitration award.Therefore, the following summary is intended for background purposes only and represents no findings of fact by this Court.

Questar is a brokerage firm currently based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and is a fully owned subsidiary of Allianz Life.(Docket No. 11–1, at 1.)Questar is registered with the Securities and Exchange...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
19 cases
  • State v. U.S. Dep't of Educ.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • March 26, 2019
    ...Decorative Panels International v. International Ass. of Machinists , 996 F.Supp.2d 559 (E.D. Mich. 2014) ; Questar Capital Corp. v. Gorter , 909 F.Supp.2d 789 (W.D. Ky. 2012) ; Brown v. Plata , 563 U.S. 493, 131 S.Ct. 1910, 179 L.Ed.2d 969 (2011) ). Finally, Mr. Cyrus argues that—even if B......
  • Hale v. Morgan Stanley
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • November 15, 2021
    ...award? See Barrick Enters., Inc. v. Crescent Petroleum, Inc. , 496 F. App'x 614, 616 (6th Cir. 2012) ; Questar Cap. Grp. v. Gorter , 909 F. Supp. 2d 789, 797 (W.D. Ky. 2012). But for clarity and to give a complete account of the arbitration proceedings, the Court will set the facts forth be......
  • Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Conway
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky
    • December 19, 2012
  • Thames v. Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Soc'y
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama
    • August 13, 2013
    ...of evidence only when such error was "in bad faith or so gross as to amount to affirmative misconduct"); Questar Capital Corp. v. Gorter, 909 F. Supp.2d 789, 816 (W.D. Ky. 2012) ("not every failure to receive evidence constitutes misconduct under § 10(a)(3); instead, the question is simply ......
  • Get Started for Free