Peter Akaoma v. Supershuttle International Cor, No. 10-1602 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1602 PETER N. AKAOMA, Plaintiff Appellant, v. SUPERSHUTTLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION; WASHINGTON SHUTTLE, INCORPORATED; DOUG CLARKE, General Manager - Supershuttle, Defendants Appellees, and KAVARD MOORE, JR., Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:04-cv-01464-GBL-BRP) Submitted: June 1, 2011 Decided: June 22, 2011 Before GREGORY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Hopkins, LAW OFFICE OF JOHN HOPKINS, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Ralph E. Kipp, THE LAW OFFICES OF RALPH E. KIPP, P.L.C., Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Peter ruling on N. April Akaoma 23, appeals 2010, and the district subsequent court s judgment oral granting Defendants motion to confirm the arbitration award and denying his motion to vacate that award. the arbitration Akaoma s claims, attorney s fees, proceedings except and one ordered The arbitrator concluded that were binding, tort claim, Akaoma to rejected awarded return to all of Defendants Washington Shuttle, Inc., the van he used as an airport shuttle driver. On appeal, Akaoma raises nine claims, only one of which is properly before us. * We affirm. Akaoma arbitration challenges proceedings are the determination binding. We review that de the novo a district court s decision to confirm an arbitration award and review for clear error the court s factual findings. First Options of Chi., Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 947-48 (1995). However, judicial review of arbitration awards is . . . among * Claims designated A-C and E-I in Akaoma s brief are not properly before us because Akaoma failed to present them to the district court. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993) (noting that issues raised for first time on appeal generally are not considered absent exceptional circumstances, not present here). To the extent Akaoma also urges us to reevaluate the validity of the Federal Arbitration Act, we decline to do so. See Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105, 112 (2001) (noting that Act repeatedly has been held constitutional). 3 U.S. Postal Serv. v. Am. the narrowest known to the law. Postal Workers Union, 204 F.3d 523, 527 (4th Cir. 2000) (quoting Union Pac. R.R. v. Sheehan, 439 U.S. 89, 91 (1978)). A court must determine only whether the arbitrator did his job not whether he did it well, correctly, or reasonably, but simply Mountaineer Gas Co. v. Oil, Chem. & Atomic whether he did it. Workers Int l Union, 76 F.3d 606, 608 (4th Cir. 1996). Akaoma asserts that the district court erred by confirming the arbitrator s award because the arbitration clause neglected to include the word binding. To the extent that this claim may be construed as alleging a common law ground for vacatur of the arbitration award, see Choice Hotels Int l, Inc. v. SM Prop. Mgmt., LLC, 519 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir. 2008) (setting forth statutory and common law grounds for vacatur), we conclude that the claim fails. Federal law strongly favors arbitration and interprets arbitration provisions under ordinary contract principles. AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740, 1745-46 (2011) (citing Moses H. Cone Mem l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24 (1983)). The arbitration clause in the franchise agreement provided that any controversy arising out American of this Arbitration [a]greement shall Association . . be . submitted for arbitration accordance with its commercial rules and procedures. 195). to the in (J.A. We previously have found that similar references to such 4 rules are sufficient to show that the parties to an arbitration agreement intended the arbitrator s decision to be binding. Qorvis Commc ns, LLC v. Wilson, 549 F.3d 303, 308 (4th Cir. 2008). Thus, Akaoma is not entitled to relief on this claim. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. Akaoma v. SuperShuttle Int l Corp., No. 1:04-cv-01464-GBL-BRP (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 28, 2010 & entered Apr. 29, 2010). We deny Akaoma s motion for oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
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.
