United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Eastern Division
BORIS NICHOLS, et al. PLAINTIFFS
U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, et al. DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW
STARRETT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
October 28, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a petition  with this
Court seeking confirmation of a purported arbitration award
in their favor against Defendants in the amount of $1, 800,
000.00. As the Court noted in a separate case, several cases
involving “Sitcomm Arbitration Association” have
been filed in this Court. See, e.g. Brown v. Ally
Financial, Inc., 2019 WL 6718672 (S.D.Miss. Dec. 10,
2019); Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award, Teverbaugh v.
Lima One Capital, LLC, No. 2:19-MC-159-KS-MTP (S.D.Miss.
Oct. 23, 2019), ECF No. 1; Complaint, Imperial Indus.
Supply Co. v. Thomas, No. 2:19-CV-129-KS-MTP (S.D.Miss.
Sept. 13, 2019), ECF No. 1. Moreover, this is the
sixth case Plaintiffs have initiated seeking to
block the foreclosure of their home. See, e.g. U.S. Bank
Nat'l Ass'n v. Nichols, 2019 WL 4276995, at *1
(N.D. Okla. Sept. 10, 2019). Like their filings in previous
cases, Plaintiffs' pleadings here consist of a
“bizarre jumble of inconsistent, nonsensical word
salad.” Id. at *2. The bottom line is that
Plaintiffs claim that they received a favorable arbitration
judgment, and they want this Court to enter a judgment
confirming it, presumably as a prelude to execution. In
response, Defendant U.S. Bank argues that there was no
arbitration agreement. Plaintiffs contend that Defendant
waived its right to challenge the award.
Motion to Strike 
Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Strike  Defendant's
response to the Motion for Confirmation  of the purported
arbitration award. Plaintiffs argue that the response - which
contests the validity of the purported arbitration award -
Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) provides that
“[n]otice of a motion to vacate, modify, or correct an
award must be served upon the adverse party or his attorney
within three months after the award is filed or
delivered.” 9 U.S.C. § 12. “The three-month
deadline to challenge an arbitration award is absolute, and
not subject to a ‘discovery rule' or
‘equitable tolling.'” Mitchell v.
Franchise Servs. of N. Am., Inc., 2019 WL 6135058, at *4
(S.D.Miss. Nov. 19, 2019). However, the statute specifically
provides that notice of a motion to vacate must be served
within three months after the award is “filed or
delivered.” 9 U.S.C. § 12. The Fifth Circuit has
not addressed this language, and the FAA does not provide a
procedure for calculating the three-month time period. But
district courts in the Fifth Circuit have held that the time
period begins to run when the award was delivered to the
party seeking vacatur or modification. See, e.g. Am.
Income Life Ins. Co. v. Alkurdi, 2019 WL 2022220, at *2
(W.D. Tex. Apr. 25, 2019); Adcock v. Halliburton Energy
Servs., Inc., 2007 WL 496729, at *2 (S.D.Miss. Feb. 13,
2007); see also Sargent v. Paine Webber Jackson
& Curtis, Inc., 882 F.2d 529, 531 (D.C. Cir. 1989).
presented a declaration under 28 U.S.C. § 1746 from one
of its officers, Rozalynn L. Martin. See Exhibit 1
to Response, Nichols v. U.S. Bank, Nat'l
Ass'n, No. 2:19-MC-162-KS-MTP (S.D.Miss. Dec. 19,
2019), ECF No. 11-1. Martin stated that Defendant
“first received notice of the ‘Final Arbitration
Award' that Plaintiffs . . . seek to confirm . . .
through a Law 360 case alert that provided notification that
Plaintiffs had filed a ‘Special Action for Confirmation
of Arbitration Award' on October 28, 2019.”
Id. at 1-2. Therefore, Defendant “did not
receive a copy of the ‘Final Arbitration Award'
that Plaintiffs seek to confirm in this action before October
30, 2019.” Id. at 2.
presented no evidence contradicting Martin's declaration.
Therefore, the Court concludes that Defendant received notice
of the purported arbitration award on October 30, 2019.
Defendant filed its response to Plaintiff's motion on
November 22, 2019 - within three months of receiving the
purported award. Accordingly, Defendant's response was
not untimely. The Court denies
Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike .
Motion for Confirmation 
Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) provides various
“mechanisms for enforcing arbitration awards: a
judicial decree confirming an award, an order vacating it, or
an order modifying or correcting it.” 21st Fin.
Servs., LLC v. Manchester Fin. Bank, 747 F.3d 331, 335
(5th Cir. 2014) (quoting Hall St. Assocs., LLC
v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 582, 128 S.Ct. 1396, 170
L.Ed.2d 254 (2008)). The Court's scope of review
“of an arbitration award is extraordinarily
narrow.” Id. The Court may only vacate an
award if: “(1) the award was procured by corruption,
fraud, or undue means; (2) there is evidence of partiality or
corruption among the arbitrators; (3) the arbitrators were
guilty of misconduct which prejudiced the rights of one of
the parties; or (4) the arbitrators exceeded their
powers.” Id. at 336 (quoting Harris v.
Parker Coll. Of Chiropractic, 286 F.3d 790, 792 (5th
arbitrator's power derives from the arbitration
agreement. Timegate Studios, Inc. v. Southpeak
Interactive, LLC, 713 F.3d 797, 802 (5th Cir. 2013).
Therefore, an arbitrator only has the power to grant an award
if the parties agreed to submit the matter to arbitration.
See, e.g. MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Exalon Indus.,
Inc., 138 F.3d 426, 430 (1st Cir. 1998);
Thomson-CSF, S.A. v. Am. Arbitration Ass'n, 64
F.3d 773, 776 (2nd Cir. 1995); Garcia v. Kakish,
2017 WL 2773667, at *9 (E.D. Cal. June 27, 2017);
Nat'l Wastewater Sys., Inc. v. McKittrick Precast,
Inc., 2013 WL 4648334, at *3 (W.D. La. Aug. 29, 2013).
“A reviewing court examining whether arbitrators
exceeded their powers must resolve all doubts in favor of
arbitration.” YPF S.A. v. Apache Overseas,
Inc., 924 F.3d 815, 818 (5th Cir. 2019). “The
party challenging enforcement of the arbitration award has
the burden of proof.” 21st Fin. Servs., 747
F.3d at 336.
response to Plaintiff's Motion for Confirmation ,
Defendant presented a declaration from its officer, Rozalynn
L. Martin. See Exhibit 1 to Response,
Nichols v. U.S. Bank, Nat'l Ass'n,
No. 2:19-MC-162-KS-MTP (S.D.Miss. Nov. 22, 2019), ECF No.
8-1. Martin stated that Defendant “has not entered into
any arbitration agreement or agreement with an arbitration
clause with Plaintiffs . . . .” Id. at 3.
Plaintiffs have not provided any evidence to contradict
Martin's declaration. Therefore, the Court concludes that
there was no arbitration agreement between the parties.
Accordingly, the arbitrator had no authority to enter an
arbitration award, and the Court must deny
Plaintiff's Motion for Confirmation .
Motion for Bond 
filed a document which the Clerk docketed as a “Motion
for Bond” . The document is pseudo-legal nonsense.
As far as the Court can discern, it does not request any
specific form of relief. Regardless, to the extent it does
request some form of relief, it is now denied as