Rose v. Central USA Wireless, LLC, No. 2:2017cv02673 - Document 27 (W.D. Tenn. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER granting 11 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; denying 12 Motion to Vacate. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 6/4/2018. (Mays, Samuel)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Leases The Arbitrator determined that Defendant had “failed to distinguish between (a) the assignment of contract rights under the financing agreements and (b) the prohibition of subleasing or lending the equipment that is the subject of the Leases. And, the authorities relied upon by [Defendant] concerning the enforceability of anti-assignment clauses pertain only to the assignment of contract rights. . . . After careful review of the argument of the parties and the applicable law, I hold that the Leases were not null and void as a matter of law.” (ECF No. 32 ¶¶ 37-36.) In its Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award and Request for Oral Argument, Defendant cites Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. United Computer Capital Corp., No. 16340, 1994 WL 78640, at *4 (Ohio Ct. App. Mar. 16, 1994), for the proposition that Ohio’s anti-assignment law extends to subleasing equipment. 13 at 73.) (ECF No. Defendant has not established that this case or any similar case was before the Arbitrator when he made his determination. Because Defendant has failed to demonstrate that whether Ohio anti-assignment law extended to subleasing 12 equipment was before the Arbitrator, its motion to vacate on that ground fails. See Dawahare, 210 F.3d at 670. 2. Evidence of Mitigating Damages The Arbitrator made no explicit finding about whether Plaintiff had failed to mitigate his damages under the Leases. Defendant does not cite any evidence that Plaintiff failed to mitigate. Defendant makes the conclusory allegation that, “despite [its] providing ample evidence that [Plaintiff] failed to mitigate his damages at the Arbitration, the [A]rbitrator failed to properly consider this evidence when making his Award, which demonstrates that the arbitrator exceeded his powers in manifest disregard of the law.” (ECF No. 13 at 76.) Defendant has not demonstrated that whether a plaintiff must mitigate his damages was before the Arbitrator. Because the Arbitrator does not explain whether Plaintiff did or did not fail to mitigate his damages, “it is all but impossible to determine whether [the Arbitrator] acted with manifest disregard [of] the law.” Dawahare, 210 F.3d at 669. Also, because Defendant has not demonstrated that the question of mitigation was properly before the Arbitrator, Defendant has failed to establish that the Arbitrator acted with manifest disregard of the law. “This is not a case where one of the parties clearly stated the law and the arbitrator[] expressly 13 chose not to follow it.” Id. at 670. Defendant’s motion to vacate the arbitration award on that ground fails. Id. Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award and Request for Oral Argument is DENIED. V. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED, and Defendant’s motion to vacate the arbitration award is DENIED. So ordered this 4th day of June, 2018. /s/ Samuel H. Mays, Jr. SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
