Triangulo Pisos E Paineis, LTDA v. BR-111 Imports & Exports, Inc.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-10776
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:10-mc-24102-WMH
TRIANGULO PISOS E PAINEIS, LTDA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner - Appellee,
versus
BR-111 IMPORTS & EXPORTS, INC.,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(August 24, 2012)
Before BARKETT, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-10776 Date Filed: 08/24/2012 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

Appellant BR-111 Imports & Exports, Inc. (BR-111) and Appellee
Triângulo Pisos E Paineis, LTDA (Triângulo) agreed to have all disputes finally
settled under the Rules of Conciliation and Arbitration of the International
Chamber of Commerce. At the conclusion of a hearing held before the
International Court of Arbitration, the arbitration tribunal requested post-hearing
submissions from both parties. BR-111 contended that Triângulo’s submission
included new evidence and arguments and requested an opportunity to respond.
The arbitration tribunal denied this request because it found that the submission
did not include new evidence or arguments. The arbitration tribunal concluded
that BR-111 owed Triângulo for unpaid invoices with interest and attorneys fees.
The tribunal also determined that Triângulo owed BR-111 for outstanding
warranty claims with interest. Triângulo field a Motion to Confirm Final Arbitral
Award in the district court and BR-111 filed a Motion to Vacate Final Award.
The district court denied BR-111’s motion and granted Triângulo’s motion. After
reviewing the parties’ briefs, we affirm the district court.
We review a district court’s order confirming or vacating an arbitration
award de novo and its factual findings for clear error. Gianelli Money Purchase
Plan & Trust v. ADM Investor Servs., Inc., 146 F.3d 1309, 1311 (11th Cir. 1998).
Both parties accept that there is a strong presumption in favor of confirming the
2
Case: 12-10776 Date Filed: 08/24/2012 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

arbitration award. However, the parties disagree on which principles govern
challenges to the arbitration award. BR-111 contends that the Federal Arbitration
Act (FAA) governs; whereas, Triângulo contends that the Inter-American
Convention (Panama Convention) governs.
Even assuming we apply the FAA, as BR-111 wishes, the arbitration award
will still stand. Under the FAA, the party seeking to vacate an arbitration award
must show that the award falls into one of the statutory bases for vacatur. 9 U.S.C.
§§ 9, 10. BR-111 contends that the arbitration tribunal “refus[ed] to hear evidence
pertinent and material to the controversy,” and therefore the award must be
vacated. 9 U.S.C. § 10. However, the district court correctly found that the
arbitration tribunal noted in the Final Award that both parties responded to the
panel’s post-hearing request. Additionally, the arbitration tribunal found that none
of Triângulo’s submissions presented new evidence or arguments that required
BR-111’s response. Thus, the arbitration tribunal did not refuse to hear evidence
pertinent and material to the controversy. BR-111 was given a full opportunity to
present its case during a full hearing and in the post-hearing submissions. We
therefore affirm the district court’s order granting Triângulo’s Motion to Confirm
and denying BR-111’s Motion to Vacate.
AFFIRMED.
3
Case: 12-10776 Date Filed: 08/24/2012 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --