Glenn O. Hawbaker, Inc. v. William H. Lane Incorporated

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GLENN O. HAWBAKER, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM H. LANE
INCORPORATED,
Defendant.
No. 4:25-CV-00989
(Chief Judge Brann)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
J ANUARY 16, 2026
I. 	BACKGROUND
On June 2, 2025, Plaintiff, Glenn O. Hawbaker, Inc. (“GOH”), filed a petition
to vacate an arbitration award, or in the alternative, to modify an arbitration award
(“Petition”) against Defendant William H. Lane Incorporated (“WHL”). 1 On August
4, 2025, WHL filed a motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a claim and
an accompanying motion for sanctions.2 The motions are now ripe for disposition;
for the reasons that follow, they are both denied.
1 	Doc. 1.
2 	Docs. 12, 13.
Case 4:25-cv-00989-MWB Document 23 Filed 01/16/26 Page 1 of 8

2
II. 	MOTION TO DISMISS
A. 	Facts Alleged in the Petition 3
This case arises from a general contractor (WHL) and subcontractor (GOH)
dispute over the latter’s concrete services in the development of a public safety
center and corners building in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania. As can be
assumed by the setting of this summary, that contracting relationship soured. After
the suspension and termination of the subcontractor’s work, together with a
subsequent allegation of nonpayment for services rendered, GOH filed an American
Arbitration Association action against WHL in April 2023.4 That action included
three causes of action: “(1) Breach of Contract; (2) Unjust Enrichment; and (3)
Violation of the Pennsylvania Procurement Code Prompt Payment Act.” 5
After the arbitrator held evidentiary hearings over eight days in October 2024,
he made several findings of note in a March 2025 award. 6 First, he found that WHL
“improperly suspended the performance of GOH’s work on the project.”7 Next, he
determined that due to the actions by WHL, GOH was due an additional $55,362.18
in addition to the $759,010 original subcontract amount.8 However, this did not end
3 	This summary of allegations of facts comes from a reading of Plaintiff’s initial petition and is
only offered to serve as a framing of the matter.
4 	See Doc. 1 ¶¶ 14-27.
5 	Doc. 1 ¶ 14.
6 	See Doc 1, Ex. E (Award of Arbitrator).
7 	Id. at 2.
8 	Id. at 1-2. However, the arbitrator also found that WHL had made payments totaling
$309,188.22 to GOH. Id. at 3.
Case 4:25-cv-00989-MWB Document 23 Filed 01/16/26 Page 2 of 8

3
the arbitrator’s analysis. Rather, he continued to find that “WHL incurred expense
as a result of performance defaults by GOH on the project.”9 The arbitrator found
these expenses to total $586,282.71—including $169,024.50 in “reasonable legal
fees.” 10 Finally, he summarized that adding everything together, WHL was owed
$81,098.75.11
After that award was brought down, GOH initiated the instant action to vacate
the arbitration award or, in the alternative, modify that award.12 The arguments that
they are entitled to either form of relief arise under the Federal Arbitration Act
(“FAA”). 13
B. 	Analysis
As an initial matter, it is unimportant that this case arrived at the Court in the
form of a petition and without a complaint.14 The FAA itself does not require a
complaint to be filed, and I will require no such pre-requisite to deciding this
matter. 15
However, both the Unted States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and
the United States Supreme Court have made clear that petitions to vacate or modify
9 	Id. at 2.
10 	Id. at 2-3.
11 	Id. at 3.
12 	See Doc. 1.
13 	See Doc. 1 at 8-11 (citing 9 U.S.C. §§ 10-11).
14 	See PG Publ’g, Inc. v. Newspaper Guild of Pittsburgh, 19 F.4th 308, 313 (3d Cir. 2021) (“FAA
Section 10 … does not instruct parties to file a complaint”).
15 	See id.
Case 4:25-cv-00989-MWB Document 23 Filed 01/16/26 Page 3 of 8

4
an arbitration award are not to be treated as a run-of-the-mill civil case; rather,
applications requesting either outcome “get streamlined treatment as a motion.”16
Therefore, the petition that initiated this litigation will be treated as a motion.
This is imperative to note for one all-important reason. While Rule 12 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure undoubtably applies to pleadings, it does not apply
to motions.17 The FAA nature of this motion does not exempt it from this rule, as the
Third Circuit has plainly said that Rule 12 does not apply to FAA motions.18 Because
Rule 12 does not apply to motions to dismiss like the one currently before the Court,
that motion is denied.
III. 	POSTURE MOVING FORWARD
FAA petitions “present[] a limited inquiry that typically should not “develop
into full scale litigation.”19 Further, a court “can, within its discretion, decide an FAA
motion without conducting a full hearing or taking additional evidence.”20 With that
in mind, I do not believe that a full hearing or additional evidence gathering is
necessary to adjudicate the dispute before the Court. Therefore, I will be deciding
the merits of the FAA motion—which is the entirety of this case—as a “summary
16 	Hall St. Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 582 (2008); see also PG Publ’g, Inc., 19
F.4th 308, 313.
17 	See PG Publ’g, Inc., 19 F.4th at 319; Jiangsu Beier Decoration Materials Co. v. Angle World
LLC, 52 F.4th 554, 562 (3d Cir. 2022).
18 	PG Publ’g, Inc., 19 F.4th at 319.
19 	Jiangsu Beier Decoration Materials Co., 52 F.4th at 563 (citing PG Publ’g, Inc., 19 F.4th at
314) (internal quotations omitted).
20 	PG Publ’g, Inc., 19 F.4th at 314 (citing Legion Ins. Co. v. Ins. Gen. Agency, Inc., 822 F.2d
541, 542–43 (5th Cir. 1987)).
Case 4:25-cv-00989-MWB Document 23 Filed 01/16/26 Page 4 of 8

5
proceeding[]” in the near future. 21 However, before doing so, I want to give both
parties a final opportunity to be heard on the FAA motion. Therefore, in the order
accompanying this memorandum opinion, I will set out a briefing schedule that
provides for an opportunity for GOH to submit a brief in support, WHL to proffer a
brief in opposition, and, finally, for GOH to file a reply brief. These briefs are
welcome to incorporate portions of the already submitted briefing related to the
motion to dismiss, as it seems that many of the issues will overlap.22 As such, I will
consider this additional briefing submitted and the briefing that has already been
filed in support and opposition to the motion to dismiss. Additionally, if either party
disagrees with my determination that a hearing is not necessary to adjudicate the
matter, then they are welcome to raise why in their briefing. After this subsequent
briefing is submitted the Court will decide the merits of the FAA motion.
IV. 	MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
WHL has also moved for sanctions against GOH under Rule 11 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.23 “Rule 11(b) provides that when a lawyer ‘present[s] to
the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper,’ she is ‘certif[ying] that to the
best of [her] knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable
21 	See Jiangsu Beier Decoration Materials Co., 52 F.4th at 560 (quoting CPR Mgmt., S.A. v.
Devon Park Bioventures, L.P., 19 F.4th 236, 244 (3d Cir. 2021)) (internal citations omitted).
22 	The parties are encouraged to emphasize in these subsequent briefs which parts of the motion
to dismiss briefing it would like to incorporate or bring to the Court’s attention.
23 	See Doc. 13.
Case 4:25-cv-00989-MWB Document 23 Filed 01/16/26 Page 5 of 8

6
under the circumstances: ... (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support.’” 24
As the Third Circuit has said, “Rule 11 imposes an objective standard of reasonable
inquiry which does not mandate a finding of bad faith.”25 This means that “lawyers
can be sanctioned for objectively unreasonable conduct—in a word, negligence.” 26
But importantly, “a showing of at least culpable carelessness is required before a
violation of the Rule can be found.” 27
While Rule 11 provides “a vehicle for deterring abuses of the legal system,”
it must be noted that “sanctions are serious business.” 28 “Receiving sanctions signals
a severe lack of professionalism and inflicts lasting damage to a lawyer's credibility.
So while moving for sanctions is a necessary tool to prevent injustice, such motions
are not to be used as a ‘hardball’ litigation tactic.” 29
Here, neither WHL’s briefing, nor the record before the Court, provides any
evidence for the proposition that GOH’s conduct warrants sanctions. Further, the
Court simply does not believe that GOH’s conduct requires a sanction to deter
abuses of the legal system, or that their petition breaches the line of being frivolous. 30
24 	Wharton v. Superintendent Graterford SCI Phila. Dist. Attorney’s Off., 95 F.4th 140, 147 (3d
Cir. 2024) (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 11(b)) (emphasis removed).
25 	Id. (quoting Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 47 (1991)) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
26 	Id.
27 	Keller v. Sierra-Cedar, LLC, No. 4:22-CV-00013, 2023 WL 8437617, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 5,
2023) (quoting) (internal quotation marks omitted).
28 	Id. at *1.
29 	Id.
30 	While the Court will not reach the merits of the petition filed by GOH, it appears from the
record that they have a valid argument that is based on a reasonable recitation of the facts and
Case 4:25-cv-00989-MWB Document 23 Filed 01/16/26 Page 6 of 8

7
Even assuming the quotations that WHL points out in its briefing were false
assertions made by GOH, this would not be enough to warrant Rule 11 sanctions.31
There is patently no evidence proffered by WHL to show that the statements made
by GOH are anything other than a form of advocacy.
“A 	district 	court 	presented 	with 	a Rule 	11 motion 	for 	sanctions 	must
determine whether the accused attorney’s conduct was ‘objectively reasonable under
the circumstances.’” 32 After reviewing the petition and briefing accompanying the
motion for sanctions, the Court cannot say that any of GOH’s statements or conduct
was unreasonable or demonstrated any level of carelessness. The underlying claims
and motion pointed to by WHL are also not “patently unmeritorious or frivolous.”33
Therefore, they do not rise to the level of “exceptional circumstances” that warrant
the implementation of Rule 11 sanctions. 34
a reasonable proffer of the applicable law. Whether that argument will bear fruit is a matter for
another day. For now, it is sufficient to say that their motion and claims are not frivolous. See
id. at *7 (“a motion for sanctions should never simply substitute for a merits decision”); see
also Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n, 434 U.S. 412, 421-22
(1978).
31 	See Keller, 2023 WL 8437617, at *3 (“Even if incorrect, a party’s argument is not considered
frivolous so long as it is not patently unreasonable to conclude that it is ‘warranted by existing
law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for
establishing new law.’”).
32 	Anderson v. Bd. of Sch. Directors of Millcreek Twp. Sch. Dist., 574 F. App’x 169, 175 (3d Cir.
2014) (quoting Ario v. Underwriting Members of Syndicate 53 at Lloyds for 1998 Year of
Account, 618 F.3d 277, 297 (3d Cir.2010)).
33 	Id.
34 	Id.
Case 4:25-cv-00989-MWB Document 23 Filed 01/16/26 Page 7 of 8

8
Ultimately WHL’s motion for sanctions appears to “confuse[] the merits with
sanctionable conduct.” 35 This opinion does not delve into the merits of the FAA
motion. The Court will address that motion following the submission of the briefing
discussed above and in the accompanying order. GOH’s conduct here is not
sanctionable under Rule 11, and even if it were a closer call, the Court would
exercise its discretion not to impose sanctions.36 Accordingly, WHL’s motion for
sanctions is denied.
V. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is denied and the motion for
sanctions is denied. The Court will enter a briefing schedule in advance of deciding
the merits of the FAA motion.
An appropriate Order follows.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
Chief United States District Judge
35 	Keller, 2023 WL 8437617, at *8. This becomes apparent when one considers the fact that the
briefing submitted by WHL in support of its motion to dismiss and motion for sanctions are
almost identical.
36 	See id.
Case 4:25-cv-00989-MWB Document 23 Filed 01/16/26 Page 8 of 8