In re: Dorris Marketing Group, formerly doing business as Dorris & Associates

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1993
In Re: DORRIS MARKETING GROUP, formerly doing
business as Dorris & Associates,
Debtor.
_____________________________________________
EDWARD K. DORRIS; NANCY DORRIS,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
and
GORDON P. PEYTON,
Trustee,
versus
AMERICAN COLLEGE OF DENTISTS FOUNDATION,
INCORPORATED,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CA-05-572-LMB; BK-03-15025-SSM)
Submitted: May 22, 2006 Decided: June 15, 2006
Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit
Judges.

-- 1 of 5 --

2
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bruce H. Matson, LECLAIR RYAN, P.C., Richmond, Virginia; C. Erik
Gustafson, Tara L. Elgie, LECLAIR RYAN, P.C., Alexandria, Virginia,
for Appellants. Victor M. Glasberg, Paul Gowder, VICTOR M.
GLASBERG & ASSOCIATES, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 5 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Edward and Nancy Dorris and Dorris Marketing Group, Inc.
(collectively, “DMG”) appeal an order of the district court
affirming an order of the bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy court
order, in turn, confirmed an arbitration award in favor of Appellee
American College of Dentists Foundation, Inc. (ACDF). We affirm.
I.
ACDF is responsible for fundraising for the American College
of Dentists. In 1999, ACDF decided to engage a professional
fundraiser for an extensive campaign. In October 2000, ACDF
entered into a contract with DMG for fundraising services.
Pursuant to the contract, DMG agreed to “conscientiously ... devote
its best efforts and abilities” to a fundraising campaign on behalf
of ACDF. J.A. 61. Among other things, DMG promised to conduct
face-to-face meetings with potential donors. This technique was a
primary reason for ACDF’s decision to hire DMG.
Although the contract did not set a specific fundraising goal,
it prohibited ACDF from terminating the agreement if DMG had
received commitments of at least $2.5 million by December 30, 2001
and provided for a $65,000 bonus if DMG obtained commitments of $5
million or more by the end of the campaign on March 31, 2002.
These amounts were based on the results of a pre-campaign study
conducted by DMG; the study indicated that a fundraising campaign

-- 3 of 5 --

4
of the type DMG proposed could raise $2.6 million. The contract
also contained a clause requiring arbitration of “[a]ny and all
disputes, controversies or claims between parties hereto arising
under, out of, or in any way relating to this Agreement.” Id. at
63.
DMG breached the agreement in numerous respects. For example,
DMG failed to implement a campaign structure, and the first manager
of the campaign had no fundraising experience. Additionally,
although ACDF provided a list of potential donors and identified 65
of these as priority candidates, DMG failed to contact many of
those on the list. Those who were contacted were solicited by
telephone rather than by in-person visit. And, DMG simply stopped
work on the campaign in early 2002 without any justification. The
total amount raised during the campaign was $232,000; ACDF paid DMG
$237,205.
In calculating the award to ACDF, the arbitrator began with
the $2.6 million figure that DMG had conceded was a reasonable goal
for the campaign. The arbitrator then halved this amount to
account for the economic upheavals caused by the terrorist attacks
of September 11, 2001. After subtracting the amount actually
raised during the campaign and adding the amount still owed to DMG
under the contract, the arbitrator awarded ACDF $1,033,401.57. DMG
now challenges this award.

-- 4 of 5 --

5
II.
“Judicial review of an arbitration award is among the
narrowest known to the law.” Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac
R.R. v. Transp. Commc’n Int’l Union, 973 F.2d 276, 278 (4th Cir.
1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). The question in
reviewing an arbitration award is whether the award “draw[s] its
essence from the contract.” United Paperworkers Int’l Union v.
Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 38 (1987). Indeed, “as long as the
arbitrator is even arguably construing or applying the contract and
acting within the scope of his authority, that a court is convinced
he committed serious error does not suffice to overturn his
decision.” Id.
DMG’s chief complaint is that the arbitrator’s award does not
draw its essence from the contract because the $2.6 million figure
with which the arbitrator began is not found in the contract. We
agree with the district court, and with the bankruptcy court before
it, that the award clearly drew its essence from the contract. It
is clear that in executing the contract, the parties had in mind a
fundraising goal consistent with the $2.6 million that the pre-
campaign study indicated was possible. It was therefore entirely
reasonable for the arbitrator to base the award on this figure even
though it was not specifically mentioned in the contract. We
therefore affirm.
AFFIRMED

-- 5 of 5 --