Schoenduve Corporation, a California Corporation v. Lucent Technologies, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

Good Law
442 F.3d 727·2006 WL 709194·38 Communications Reg. (P&F) 102·2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 7095
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 22, 200604-15529California4,321 words

Opinion

Opinion

Tallman, J.

Lucent Technologies (“Lucent”) appeals the district court’s order confirming an arbitration award entered in favor of Schoenduve Corporation (“Schoenduve”). Lucent asks this Court to vacate or modify the arbitration award claiming that the arbitrator (1) exceeded his authority by ruling on an issue not submitted by the parties, (2) modified or expanded the unambiguous language of the agreement requiring arbitration, and (3) failed to provide Lucent an opportunity to rebut Schoenduve’s claim for commissions under a quasi-contract or estoppel theory. Lu-cent also asks us to vacate the portion of the arbitrator’s decision awarding attorneys’ fees to Schoenduve as a manifest disregard of the law. Because the arbitrator stayed within the bounds of his authority in applying New York substantive law as the parties had contractually agreed, and made a good faith effort to apply the applicable provisions of the California Civil Code to the award of attorneys’ fees, we affirm.

I

A

Lucent is a manufacturer of wireless communication products and Schoenduve is a manufacturer’s sales representative. On August 14, 1996, Lucent entered into a Manufacturer’s Representative Agreement (“MRA”)…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.