Harrod v. Citicorp Credit Services, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
August 31, 2006
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________ Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-10989
(Summary Calendar)
_____________________
KEITH D. HARROD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITICORP CREDIT SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
----------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(3:04-CV-2736)
----------------------
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM*:
Plaintiff-Appellant Keith D. Harrod appeals pro se the
district court’s memorandum opinion denying his Petition to
Vacate Arbitration Award and granting Citicorp Credit Services,
Inc.’s (“CCSI”) Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award. As Harrod
is a pro se litigant, we liberally construe his briefs and we
apply less stringent standards in interpreting his arguments.1
When we do so here, we construe Harrod’s briefs as attacking the
arbitration award on four grounds: the arbitrator’s (1) evident
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
1
Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995).
partiality;2 (2) exceeding his powers;3 (3) manifest disregard of
the law;4 and (4) arbitrariness and capriciousness.5
We review a district court’s confirmation of an arbitration
award de novo.6 Based on the applicable law and our extensive
review of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, we
conclude that neither the arbitrator in issuing the award nor the
district court in confirming the award committed any error.
Simply put, there is absolutely no meritorious basis for vacating
the award. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court in all respects.
Furthermore, even though Defendant-Appellee CCSI has not
sought sanctions against Harrod under Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 38 for a frivolous appeal, any future prolongation of
this matter by him may subject Harrod to such sanctions.7
2
9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(1).
3
Id. § 10(a)(4).
4
Sarofim v. Trust Co. of the West, 440 F.3d 213, 216-17 (5th
Cir. 2006).
5
Safeway Stores v. Am. Bakery & Confectionery Workers Int’l
Union, 390 F.2d 79, 81-82 (5th Cir. 1968).
6
Action Indus., Inc. v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., 358 F.3d
337, 339-40 (5th Cir. 2004).
7
In the conclusion to its appellate brief, CCSI requests us
to award it costs and attorneys fees. CCSI, however, has failed
to brief this issue and, as such, has waived any right to such
costs and fees. Strong v. Bellsouth Telecomms., Inc., 137 F.3d
844, 853 n.9 (5th Cir. 1998); Webb v. Investacorp, Inc., 89 F.3d
252, 257 n.2 (5th Cir. 1996).
2
AFFIRMED.
3