Amir v. Bayway Auto Group

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ALI AMIR, 	§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
VS. 	§
§
BAYWAY AUTO GROUP, doing business as 	§
BAYWAYCADILLACOFTHE 	§
WOODLANDS , 	§
§
Def endant. 	§
ORDER
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-cv-478
Pending before this Court is Defendant's Application to Confirm Arbitration Award. (Doc.
No. 16) . Plaintiff responded, (Doc. No. 17) , to which Defendant replied, (Doc. No. 18). For the
following reasons, this Court GRANTS Defendant's Application and confirms the arbitration
award as a judgment in this Court.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Ali Amir ("Plaintiff'') brought this lawsuit against Defendant Bayway Auto Group
doing business as Bayway Cadillac of the Woodlands ("Defendant"), alleging employment
discrimination and retaliation on the basis of national origin. (Doc. No. 16 at 1). He originally filed
suit in a different case, also before this Court, under the cause number 4:23-cv-4328. There, the
parties agreed to arbitrate the case pursuant to an arbitration agreement, so the Court ordered
arbitration and dismissed the case without prejudice. 1 After hearing the case, the arbitrator granted
Defendant's summary judgment on statute-of-limitation grounds and dismissed Plaintiff's claims
with prejudice. (Doc. No. 16-1 at 2-3). Defendant now asks this Court to confirm the arbitrator 's
1 Defendant originally filed the present motion under Cause No. 4:23-cv-4328 ; however, this Court instructed the
parties to instead file their motions in the above-captioned case, as this case was already ongoing between the parties
and the original case was closed. (Docket 4:23-cv-4328, Doc. No. 7).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
December 22, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-00478 Document 19 Filed on 12/22/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

award as a judgment in this case. (Doc. No. 16 at 1). In response, Plaintiff asks this Court to deny
the Defendant's request and instead, vacate the arbitration award. (Doc. No. 17 at 6).
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
The Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") reflects a national policy favoring arbitration. Se e
Hall St. Assocs., L.L. C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 581 (2008). "In light of the strong federal
policy favoring arbitration, judicial review of an arbitration award is extraordinarily narrow." Rain
CII Carbon, LLC v. ConocoPhillips Co ., 674 F.3d 469, 471-72 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting Brook v.
Peak Int 'l, Ltd. , 294 F.3d 668, 672 (5th Cir. 2002)); see also Hall St. Assocs ., L.L. C. , 552 U.S. at
588 (noting that the FAA provides "just the limited review needed to maintain arbitration's
essential virtue of resolving disputes straightaway" ).
Under the FAA, the court "must" confirm an award unless the award is vacated under
Section 10 or modified or corrected under Section 11. Hall St. Assocs., L.L.C. , 552 U.S. at 582.
Section 10 of the FAA provides the exclusive grounds for vacatur of an arbitration award.
Citigroup Global Mkt s., Inc. v. Bacon, 562 F.3d 349, 358 (5th Cir. 2009). An award may be vacated :
(1) "where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means"; (2) "where there was
evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators"; (3) "where the arbitrators were guilty of
misconduct ... or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced";
or (4) "where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual,
final , and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made." 9 U.S.C. § l0(a). "The
burden of proof is on the party seeking to vacate the award, and any doubts or uncertainties must
be resolved in favor of upholding it." Cooper v. WestEnd Cap. Mgmt. , L.L.C. , 832 F.3d 534, 544
(5th Cir. 2016).
2
Case 4:25-cv-00478 Document 19 Filed on 12/22/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

III. 	ANALYSIS
Plaintiff presents two arguments for vacatur of the arbitrator's decision; both ultimately
fail. First, Plaintiff argues that the arbitration award should be vacated due to the arbitrator's
"evident partiality." (Doc. No. 17 at 3). 2 Under the FAA, a court may vacate an arbitration award
where there was evident partiality or corruption amongst the arbitrators, which is a "stern standard"
to meet. Cooper, 832 F.3d at 545. For the arbitration award to be vacated here, Plaintiff "must
produce specific facts from which a reasonable person would have to conclude that the arbitrator
was partial to [the Defendant]." Id. The only allegation of partiality Plaintiff makes is that the
arbitrator recited the "defendant's made-up law as the controlling statute." (Doc. No. 17 at 3).
Plaintiff points to no specific portions of the record in this assertion. General allegations like these
are hardly sufficient to establish the strict "evident partiality" standard required by the Fifth
Circuit. See Cooper, 832 F.3d at 545 (holding that "general allegations of partiality" that fail to
point to any evidence in the record fail to show clearly evident bias).
Plaintiff's second argument similarly fails. Next, he claims that the arbitrator "exceeded
his power when rendering the award," by both misapplying the law and deciding an issue not
submitted for arbitration. (Doc. No. 17 at 3-6). Essentially, Plaintiff argues that the arbitrator
should have looked to the arbitration agreement's deadline to bring a suit to determine the relevant
statute of limitations, rather than the statutorily defined deadline to bring a civil action after
receiving a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC. See (id.). The arbitrator ultimately dismissed
Plaintiff's suit because the 90-day statute of limitations to sue after Plaintiff received his EEOC
charge had passed. (Doc. No. 16-1 at 12-13).
2 Plaintiff did not file a separate Motion to Vacate the Arbitration Award, instead arguing for the award to be vacated
in hi s response. (Doc. No. 17).
3
Case 4:25-cv-00478 Document 19 Filed on 12/22/25 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

An arbitration award may not be set aside for a mere mistake of fact or law. Cooper, 832
F.3d at 546. Even assuming the arbitrator erred in applying the statute of limitations, which
Plaintiff has not shown to have happened in this case, that "mere mistake" would not justify
vacatur. Id. ; see also Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 569 U.S. 564, 569 (2013) ("It is not
enough .. . to show that the [arbitrator] committed an error-or even a serious error." (omission
and alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Although Plaintiff fails
to make clear what issue the arbitrator allegedly decided that was not submitted for arbitration, the
Court presumes Plaintiff means the statute of limitations issue. That being said, the statute of
limitations issue was appropriately decided by the arbitrator. Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds,
Inc., 537 U.S. 79, 84 (2002) ("[P]rocedural questions which grow out of the dispute and bear on
its final disposition are presumptively not for the judge, but for an arbitrator, to decide."); Cooper,
832 F.3d at 546 ("Procedural questions, such as whether a claim is barred by a statute oflimitations,
are generally "to be reviewed by the arbitrator."').
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Application to Confirm Arbitration Award 1s
GRANTED. (Doc. No. 16). The Clerk is ordered to close this case.
It is so ordered.
h_
Signed on this the 1..1..,... day of December, 2025.
Andrew S. Hanen
United States District Judge
4
Case 4:25-cv-00478 Document 19 Filed on 12/22/25 in TXSD Page 4 of 4