Questar Capital Corp. v. Gorter
| Decision Date | 15 November 2012 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 3:12–MC–00004. |
| Citation | 909 F.Supp.2d 789 |
| Parties | QUESTAR CAPITAL CORPORATION, Petitioner v. Thomas J. GORTER, Respondent. |
| Court | U.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.
This matter is before the Court upon Petitioner Questar Capital Corporation's “Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award,” (Docket No. 1); Respondent Thomas 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,” (Docket No. 11); Respondent Gorter's “Motion to Dismiss Questar Capital Corporation's Improper ‘Petition’ to Vacate Arbitration Award,” (Docket No. 12); and Petitioner Questar's “Motion to Vacate,” (Docket No. 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.
The present action began in this Court upon Questar Capital Corporation's (Questar) Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award. (Docket No. 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, (Docket No. 1), to which Gorter responded with his Combined Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment and Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award, (Docket No. 11), and his Motion to Dismiss Questar's Improper “Petition” to Vacate Arbitration Award, (Docket No. 12), both on March 5, 2012. Questar responded to both on March 29, (Docket Nos. 22; 23), and Gorter replied on April 13, (Docket Nos. 26; 27). Questar also filed its Motion to Vacate with accompanying Memorandum of Law on March 29, 2012. (Docket No. 23.) Gorter responded in opposition to Questar's Motion to Vacate, (Docket No. 28), and Questar replied, (Docket No. 45). The Court then granted Gorter leave to file a Sur–Reply, which he did on May 29, (Docket No. 52), and also granted Questar leave to file a Response to Sur–Reply, which it did on June 8, 2012, (Docket No. 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.1 At 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. U.S. Dep't of Educ.
...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
...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......
-
Health Carousel LLC v. Ceesay & Assocs.
...basis for his decision.” Id. (citing, e.g., In re Time Constr., Inc., 43 F.3d 1041 (6th Cir. 1995)). Questar Cap. Corp. v. Gorter, 909 F.Supp.2d 789, 816-17 (W.D. Ky. 2012). Based on its review of the record, the Court concludes that the arbitrators had a reasonable basis for refusing to po......
- Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Conway