White Lilly, LLC v. Balestriere

• Decision Date: 21 September 2022
• Docket Number: 18-cv-12404 (ALC)
• Parties: WHITE LILLY, LLC and JONATHAN BERNSTEIN, Plaintiffs, v. BALESTRIERE PLLC, ET AL., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

WHITE LILLY, LLC and JONATHAN BERNSTEIN, Plaintiffs,
v.
BALESTRIERE PLLC, ET AL., Defendants.

No. 18-cv-12404 (ALC)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

September 21, 2022

OPINION & ORDER

ANDREW L. CARTER, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiffs White Lilly, LLC and Jonathan Bernstein together, “Bernstein” filed this suit in an attempt to enjoin a then-pending arbitration proceeding brought by Defendants Balestriere PLLC, Balestriere Fariello, John Balestriere together, “Balestriere” or “Balestriere Parties”, The Law Offices of Adina G. Storch, and Adina Storch. Balestriere filed a dispute with the AAA seeking to recover fees for their nearly four-year representation of White Lilly. Complicating matters, John Balestriere dipped into escrow funds, retrieving $1.4 million to partially satisfy outstanding fees owed to Balestriere Fariello.

On February 5, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration. On March 5, 2019, the Parties filed a stipulation to stay the action pending arbitration. The Court signed the stipulation the following day. The Arbitrator issued an Award on July 23, 2021. The parties now bring cross-motions to modify and confirm as modified the Award.

LEGAL STANDARD

“Normally, confirmation of an arbitration award is a summary proceeding that merely makes what is already a final arbitration award a judgment of the court, and the court must grant the award unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected.” D.H. Blair & Co. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95, 1102d Cir. 2006 citations and internal quotations omitted. Judicial review of

1

arbitration awards is “‘severely limited,' so as not to frustrate the ‘twin goals of arbitration, namely, settling disputes efficiently and avoiding long and expensive litigation.'” Scandinavian Reins. Co. v. Saint Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 668 F.3d 60, 71-72 (2d Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). The reviewing court owes “strong deference” to “arbitral awards and the arbitral process,” Porzig v. Dresdner, Kleinwort, Benson, N. Am. LLC, 497 F.3d 133, 138 (2d Cir. 2007), and so a party seeking to vacate an arbitration award “must clear a high hurdle,” Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. Animal Feeds Int'l Corp., 559 U.S. 662, 671 (2010). “It is not enough for petitioners to show that the panel committed an error-or even a serious error.” Id. (citing Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. Mine Workers, 531 U.S. 57, 62 (2000)). The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., only allows for vacatur in four circumstances: (1)...