Dole Ocean Liner v. Georgia Vegetable Co ( 1998 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-60885
Summary Calendar
DOLE OCEAN LINER EXPRESS,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GEORGIA VEGETABLE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:95-CV-407RG
- - - - - - - - - -
January 8, 1998
Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:*
Georgia Vegetable Company, Inc. (Georgia Vegetable)
appeals the decision of the district court granting summary
judgment in favor of Dole Ocean Liner Express (Dole). In Dole
Ocean Liner Exp. v. Georgia Vegetable Co., 93 F.3d 166 (5th Cir.
1996) (Dole II), we remanded the case to the district court to
interpret the Marketing Agreement between Georgia Vegetable and
Manprosa of Nicaragua and to determine whether the decision of a
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5 47.5, the court has
determined that this opinion should not be published and is not
precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 96-60885
- 2 -
panel of The Society of Maritime Arbitrators of the New Orleans
Board of Trade was correct as a matter of law.
After reviewing the briefs and the record de novo, we
conclude that the decision of the district court granting Dole’s
motion for summary judgment was error. It is undisputed that Dole
solicited Manprosa’s business, Manprosa introduced Dole to Georgia
Vegetable, and Manprosa delegated authority to negotiate carriage
to Georgia Vegetable. Dole refused to permit Manprosa to become a
signatory to the Service Contract between Dole and Georgia
Vegetable because of previous difficulties with Nicaraguan
shippers. The arbitration panel held a hearing and considered the
Marketing Agreement between Georgia Vegetable and Manprosa, as well
as testimony concerning Dole’s knowledge of the business
relationship between Georgia Vegetable and Manprosa. The
arbitrators determined that Dole should have been aware that
Georgia Vegetable would seek to enforce the Service Contract on
behalf of Manprosa. The arbitration panel’s decision is
“rationally inferable” from the purpose and language of the
contract between Georgia Vegetable and Dole and was, therefore,
within the scope of its powers. See Anderman/Smith Co. v. Tenn.
Gas Pipeline Co., 918 F.2d 1215, 1218-19 & n.3 (5th Cir. 1990).
We do not revisit the arbitration panel’s damage award to
Georgia Vegetable. In Dole Ocean Liner Exp. v. Georgia Vegetable
Co., 84 F.3d 772, 774 (5th Cir. 1996) (Dole I), we held that the
arbitration panel did not exceed its power in finding, as a matter
of law, that the liquidated-damages clause of the contract between
Georgia Vegetable and Dole was void and in fashioning the damage
No. 96-60885
- 3 -
award to Georgia Vegetable. Because the district court erred in
its construction of the Marketing Agreement as inconsistent with
the arbitrators’ decision, the court exceeded the scope of remand
in addressing this issue. See Burroughs v. FFP Operating Partners,
70 F.3d 31, 33 (5th Cir. 1996).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
VACATED and the cause is REMANDED to that court to reinstate the
arbitration panel award.
VACATE AND REMAND.