Harrod v. Citicorp Credit Servs., Inc., 197 F. App'x 324 (5th Cir. 2006). · Go Syfert
Search
Harrod v. Citicorp Credit Servs., Inc., 197 F. App'x 324 (5th Cir. 2006). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Keith D. HARROD, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITICORP CREDIT SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellee
05-10989.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Aug 31, 2006.
197 F. App'x 324
Denise Cotter Villani, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
Smith, Wiener, Owen.
Unpublished
PER CURIAM: *

Plaintiff-Appellant Keith D. Harrod appeals pro se the district court’s memorandum opinion denying his Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award and granting Citicorp Credit Services, Inc.’s (“CCSI”) Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award. As Harrod is a pro se litigant, we liberally construe his briefs and we apply less stringent standards in interpreting his arguments. [1] When we do so here, we construe Harrod’s briefs as attacking the arbitration award on four grounds: the arbitrator’s (1) evident partiality; [2] (2) exceeding his powers; [3] (3) manifest disregard of the law; [4] and (4) arbitrariness and capriciousness. [5]

We review a district court’s confirmation of an arbitration award de novo. 6 Based on the applicable law and our extensive review of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, we conclude that neither the arbitrator in issuing the award nor the district court in confirming the award committed any error. Simply put, there is absolutely no meritorious basis for vacating the award. Accordingly, we affirm the[*325] judgment of the district court in all respects.

Furthermore, even though DefendantAppellee CCSI has not sought sanctions against Harrod under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 for a frivolous appeal, any future prolongation of this matter by him may subject Harrod to such sanctions. [7]

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

1

. Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir.1995).

2

. 9U.S.C. § 10(a)(1).

3

. Id. § 10(a)(4).

4

. Sarofim v. Trust Co. of the West, 440 F.3d 213, 216-17 (5th Cir.2006).

5

. Safeway Stores v. Am. Bakery & Confectionery Workers Int’l Union, 390 F.2d 79, 81-82 (5th Cir.1968).

6

. Action Indus., Inc. v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., 358 F.3d 337, 339-40 (5th Cir.2004).

7

. In the conclusion to its appellate brief, CCSI requests us to award it costs and attorneys fees. CCSI, however, has failed to brief this issue and, as such, has waived any right to such costs and fees. Strong v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 137 F.3d 844, 853 n. 9 (5th Cir. 1998); Webb v. Investacorp, Inc., 89 F.3d 252, 257 n. 2 (5th Cir.1996).