Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. WMR e-PIN, LLC, et al., No. 09-3800 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseSynoran and e-Pin (appellants) appealed from the district court's confirmation of an arbitration award in favor of Wells Fargo, which had prevailed on its claims for breach of contract and for misappropriation of trade secrets. Appellants maintained that the district court lacked jurisdiction to confirm the award, erred in confirming the award, and abused its discretion in denying their motion to amend or terminate a permanent injunction issued as part of the award. The court rejected appellants' claim that Wells Fargo was a citizen of both South Dakota and California and concluded that the district court did not err in determining that it had subject-matter jurisdiction over the action. The court also held that the district court did not err in determining that appellants had waived their right to challenge the award of injunctive relief; in declining to vacate the award on the grounds that the arbitration panel exceeded the scope of its arbitral mandate; and in confirming the award of attorneys' fees against e-Pin. The court further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to terminate or amend the permanent injunction. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.
Court Description: Civil case - Arbitration. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1348, a national bank is a citizen only of the state in which its main office is located; applied here, Wells Fargo is a citizen only of South Dakota, and the district court did not err in concluding that it had subject-matter jurisdiction over this action because the parties are citizens of different states; defendants waived their right to enforce a contractual proscription on injunctive relief by failing to challenge Wells Fargo's request for such relief in the arbitration proceedings and by asking for such relief themselves; arbitrators did not exceed scope of the arbitral mandate by deciding the parties' competing claims as to who developed or invented a software package as resolving the issue was necessary to deciding an issue concerning misappropriation; Rule 43(d)(ii) provided a basis for an award of attorneys' fees against e-Pin; district court did not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to terminate or amend the permanent injunction. Judge Murphy, dissenting.
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.