ILNews

7th Circuit affirms arbitration award

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a District Court's confirmation of an arbitration award, but it denied the plaintiff recovery of attorney fees and costs because he will be reimbursed those under the terms of the arbitration agreement.

In Peter A. Prostyakov v. Masco Corporation, No. 06-3928, Prostyakov asked the federal appellate court to affirm his arbitration award against his former employer, Michigan-based Masco Corp. Masco appealed to vacate the award.

In 1992, Masco joined an Indiana and Moscow trade consortium founded after the fall of the Soviet Union. The building, plumbing, and cabinetry company wanted to develop a sales and distribution network in Russia. Masco hired Prostyakov, who was later appointed managing director and agent for the Moscow office.

Masco and Prostyakov's business relationship soured, which the appellate opinion does not detail, and Masco's president issued a company directive in April removing Prostyakov from his position. The two parties entered a settlement agreement which stated the following: both mutually agreed to release all claims either party could bring on acts that occurred before the agreement took effect; Indiana law would govern the interpretation of the agreement; future disputes would be settled by "private" arbitration; the rules of the American Arbitration Association (AAA) would apply and govern the conduct of the arbitration; and neither party would seek to enforce the agreement through legal action.

In addition, the parties agreed to communicate to third parties that the business relationship end was amicable.

Prostyakov sought employment with a bank in Moscow after his termination, but was not hired because of problems with his labor book. In Russia, as a holdover from communist times, labor law requires every citizen entering the workforce to have one. This book records employment and explains why the worker is no longer at his or her former job and is given to the next employer upon hiring. When a worker is terminated or leaves a job, the labor book is to be returned to the worker.

Prostyakov was delayed in receiving his labor book back from Masco. When he received it, he noticed the company had falsified his termination date and stated he was fired, which was not what the two parties agreed to report in the settlement agreement.

Prostyakov tried to resolve the issue through arbitration, but Masco made no moves on the issue, so Prostyakov went through the Russian judicial system. In 2002, the Russian court determined Masco violated the country's labor code by falsifying the labor book entry. With that judgment, Prostyakov filed a claim for arbitration. The parties agreed on Indianapolis attorney Max J. Hittle Jr. - who was affiliated with the AAA - to arbitrate the claim. Hittle issued awards to both parties: Masco won on its counterclaim, determining under Indiana law that Prostyakov breached the settlement agreement by going to Russian court instead of arbitration; Hittle awarded in Prostyakov's favor by finding the delayed return and falsification of the labor book hurt Prostyakov's ability for employment. Because Indiana's conflict-of-law provisions required Hittle to apply the Russian labor code for an award, he ordered Masco to correct the labor book entry and awarded Prostyakov $780,000. Prostyakov petitioned to the District Court to affirm the arbitration, which it did.

The 7th Circuit agreed with the District Court's decision, finding Masco's claims on appeal to be without merit. Masco argued Hittle lacked proper authority to serve as arbitrator because he was affiliated with the AAA; the labor book was not arbitratable because it fell outside the scope of the settlement agreement; and Hittle fashioned improper monetary and equitable awards.

The settlement only released claims stemming from pre-existing acts at the time of the settlement agreement; the falsifying of the labor book came after the agreement, wrote Judge Michael Kanne.

Finally, Hittle abided by the Indiana choice-of-law provision and interpreted the agreement in good faith. Also, nothing in the settlement limited Hittle's authority to fashion the equitable award to Prostyakov.

Prostyakov wanted the 7th Circuit to award him attorney fees and costs regarding the appeal because he claimed Masco took this appeal only to delay the enforcement of the District Court judgment. Because the settlement agreement states the breaching party will be responsible for the other party's attorney fees and costs in claims, there is no need to award them to Prostyakov. Judge Kanne wrote the court trusts Masco will promptly pay Prostyakov what he is owed.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  2. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: melisaeva9@gmail.com WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  3. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  4. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

ADVERTISEMENT