Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
No. 12-1519
DORAL FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
CALIXTO GARCA-VLEZ; CARMEN T. GARCA-VLEZ,
Defendants, Appellees.
Before
Lynch, Chief Judge,
Torruella and Selya, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff-Appellant Doral
According
He notified Doral by
September
4,
2009,
five
days
before
the
first
According to Doral,
the
stay,
and
the
arbitration
commenced
as
of
that
documents.
it
intended
Doral
to
also
request
notified
Garca-Vlez's
pre-hearing
third-party
He
argued that the subpoenas were untimely and that they sought to
change the schedule agreed upon by the parties.
Garca-Vlez also
argued that the granting of the subpoenas would likely require the
the
the
tribunal
to
reconsider
its
decision
on
pre-hearing
tribunal
found
Garca-Vlez
"entitled
to
be
compensated
had failed to "establish that Mr. Garca-Vlez breached the noncompetition provision of the Employment Agreement" and held that he
Arbitration
Rules.
The
arbitral
award
totaled
vacatur
of
the
award.
It
argued
that
the
tribunal
II. Discussion
We review de novo a district court's decision to vacate
or confirm an arbitration award.
United Food & Commer. Workers Union, Local 1445, 527 F.3d 1, 5 (1st
Cir. 2008).
Menorah
(1st
de
novo
review
in
this
area
"is
extremely
narrow
and
-8-
The
equivalent
to
limited
scope
granting
of
our
limitless
review,
power
however,
to
the
"is
not
arbitrator."
One
As
Of
Hotels Condado
vacatur
of
an
arbitrator's
award.").
"Vacatur
is
introduction
of
relevant
evidence
regarding
Garca-Vlez's
Doral's position is
In fact, it is undisputed
that the scheduling order the tribunal issued was agreed upon by
the parties.
The scheduling
order speaks for itself in this regard: "if a party wishes to issue
determine
if
there
is
any
disagreement
to
the
date
and
In fact, the
tribunal
bat:
allowed
Doral
three
opportunities
at
(1)
the
tribunal
afforded
Doral
many
other
procedural
Furthermore,
See
Zayas v. Bacard Corp., 524 F.3d 65, 70 (1st Cir. 2008) ("Although
arbitrators frequently elect to explain their decisions in written
-11-
We are
Doral's
proposed
subpoenas
requested
wide
range
of
information
importantly,
even
was
available
assuming
that
for
production.
But
more
the
information
sought
was
indicate
that
Garca-Vlez
in
fact
violated
the
non-
See, e.g., Cytyc Corp. v. DEKA Prods. Ltd., 439 F.3d 27, 36
-12-
tribunal.
that "[t]he fact that [Doral] has maintained the same claim against
[Garca-Vlez] for his employment with . . . the merged entity
indicates that it should have requested the information it believed
relevant to its claim during the Exchange of Information process."
We have no authority to second guess the tribunal's decision on
this issue. See
v. Unin
Inc.
v.
Tanner,
72
F.3d
234,
240-41
(1st
Cir.
1995)
The record
As stated above,
We cannot do so.
Therefore,
-14-
Arbitration Association.
-15-