Case Law Questar Capital Corp. v. Gorter

Questar Capital Corp. v. Gorter

Document Cited Authorities (52) Cited in (25) Related

909 F.Supp.2d 789

QUESTAR CAPITAL CORPORATION, Petitioner

v.Thomas J. GORTER, Respondent.

Civil Action No. 3:12–MC–00004.

United States District Court,

W.D. Kentucky,

Louisville Division.

Nov. 15, 2012.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Ben V. Seessel, Jorden Burt LLP, Simsbury, CT, Chadwick A. McTighe, Joseph Lee Hamilton, Stites & Harbison, PLLC, Louisville, KY, James F. Jorden, Jorden Burt LLP, Washington, DC, Sonia Escobio O'Donnell, Jorden Burt LLP, Miami, FL, for Petitioner.

David B. Cosgrove, Kurt J. Schafers, Cosgrove Law, LLC, St. Louis, MO, Richard V. Evans, Oldfather Law Firm, Louisville, KY, for Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

THOMAS B. RUSSELL, Senior District Judge.

This matter is before the Court upon Petitioner Questar Capital Corporation's “Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award,” (Docket No. 1); Respondent Thomas J. Gorter's “Combined Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment on Questar Capital Corporation's Petition to Vacate and Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award,” (Docket No. 11); Respondent Gorter's “Motion to Dismiss Questar Capital Corporation's Improper ‘Petition’ to Vacate Arbitration Award,” (Docket No. 12); and Petitioner Questar's “Motion to Vacate,” (Docket No. 23). Because the several motions in this case present varying arguments but are necessarily interrelated, the Court will address the parties' respective arguments collectively in the Opinion that follows.

+-----------------+
¦TABLE OF CONTENTS¦
+-----------------¦
¦                 ¦
+-----------------+

+----------------------------------+
¦BACKGROUND                    ¦796¦
+------------------------------+---¦
¦                              ¦   ¦
+------------------------------+---¦
¦STANDARD                      ¦798¦
+------------------------------+---¦
¦                              ¦   ¦
+------------------------------+---¦
¦DISCUSSION                    ¦799¦
+------------------------------+---¦
¦                              ¦   ¦
+----------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦Respondent Gorter's “Motion to Dismiss Questar Capital    ¦       ¦
¦    ¦I.  ¦Corporation's Improper ‘Petition’ to Vacate Arbitration   ¦799    ¦
¦    ¦    ¦Award,” (Docket No. 12)                                   ¦       ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦A.  ¦Seeking Vacatur of the Arbitration Award by Petition¦800   ¦
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦The Sixth Circuit and Its Lower Courts Have Used  ¦      ¦
¦    ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦the Titles “Petition” and “Motion” Interchangeably¦      ¦
¦    ¦    ¦    ¦1. ¦in This Context Without Concern for the Precise   ¦800   ¦
¦    ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦Nomenclature or Styling of an Application for     ¦      ¦
¦    ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦Vacatur.                                          ¦      ¦
+----+----+----+---+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦Courts in Other Circuits Have Construed Filings   ¦      ¦
¦    ¦    ¦    ¦2. ¦Not Titled “Motion” as Motions to Vacate for      ¦801   ¦
¦    ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦Purposes of the FAA.                              ¦      ¦
+----+----+----+---+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦Other Courts' Reasoning For Requiring That a      ¦      ¦
¦    ¦    ¦    ¦3. ¦Filing Be Styled as a “Motion” Is Distinguishable ¦802   ¦
¦    ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦From the Circumstances This Case.                 ¦      ¦
+----+----+----+---+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦In Its Discretion, the Court Will Treat Questar's ¦      ¦
¦    ¦    ¦    ¦4. ¦Petition as a Motion to Vacate for Purposes of the¦804   ¦
¦    ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦FAA.                                              ¦      ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-------------------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦    ¦B. ¦Timeliness of Questar's Petition to Vacate¦804  ¦
+---+----+---+------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦   ¦    ¦C. ¦Local Rule 7.1(a)                         ¦807  ¦
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦                                                          ¦       ¦
+----+----+----------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦    ¦Respondent Gorter's “Combined Motion to Dismiss and/or For¦       ¦
¦    ¦II. ¦Summary Judgment on Questar Capital Corporation's Petition¦808    ¦
¦    ¦    ¦to Vacate and Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award”        ¦       ¦
+----+----+----------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦    ¦                                                          ¦       ¦
+----+----+----------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦III.¦Motions to Confirm and Vacate                             ¦809    ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+------------------------------------------+
¦  ¦  ¦A.¦Evident Partiality          ¦810 ¦
+------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦Questar waived its objection to Chairman Stanton's¦      ¦
¦    ¦    ¦    ¦1. ¦partiality by failing to raise this objection at  ¦811   ¦
¦    ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦the arbitration hearing.                          ¦      ¦
+----+----+----+---+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦Even if Questar did not waive its objection to    ¦      ¦
¦    ¦    ¦    ¦2. ¦Chairman Stanton, the facts do not support a      ¦815   ¦
¦    ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦finding of evident partiality.                    ¦      ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦B.  ¦Refusing to Hear Evidence Pertinent and Material to  ¦816    ¦
¦    ¦    ¦    ¦the Controversy                                      ¦       ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦Questar was not denied a fundamentally fair       ¦      ¦
¦    ¦    ¦    ¦1. ¦hearing in relation to the testimony of Jason     ¦817   ¦
¦    ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦Hargadon.                                         ¦      ¦
+----+----+----+---+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦Questar was not denied a fundamentally fair       ¦      ¦
¦    ¦    ¦    ¦2. ¦hearing in regard to its request that the Panel   ¦820   ¦
¦    ¦    ¦    ¦   ¦subpoena more than 50 of Gorter's former clients. ¦      ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦C.  ¦Arbitrators Exceeding or So Imperfectly Executing    ¦821    ¦
¦    ¦    ¦    ¦Their Powers                                         ¦       ¦
+----+----+----+-----------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦    ¦D.  ¦Manifest Disregard for the Law                       ¦825    ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------+
¦                              ¦   ¦
+------------------------------+---¦
¦CONCLUSION                    ¦827¦
+----------------------------------+
BACKGROUND

The present action began in this Court upon Questar Capital Corporation's (Questar) Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award. (Docket No. 1.) On January 13, 2012, a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitration panel (Panel) issued an award in favor of Thomas J. Gorter (Gorter) following arbitration proceedings that began on August 16, 2011. After some 31 hearing sessions, the arbitration proceedings closed on December 13, 2011. Questar filed its Petition to Vacate on February 10, 2012, (Docket No. 1), to which Gorter responded with his Combined Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment and Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award, (Docket No. 11), and his Motion to Dismiss Questar's Improper “Petition” to Vacate Arbitration Award, (Docket No. 12), both on March 5, 2012. Questar responded to both on March 29, (Docket Nos. 22; 23), and Gorter replied on April 13, (Docket Nos. 26; 27). Questar also filed its Motion to Vacate with accompanying Memorandum of Law on March 29, 2012. (Docket No. 23.) Gorter responded in opposition to Questar's Motion to Vacate, (Docket No. 28), and Questar replied, (Docket No. 45). The Court then granted Gorter leave to file a Sur–Reply, which he did on May 29, (Docket No. 52), and also granted Questar leave to file a Response to Sur–Reply, which it did on June 8, 2012, (Docket No. 58).

Throughout their many filings in this matter, the parties continue to dispute the facts of this case and to challenge one another's characterizations of those facts. This is in no small part due to the fact that the Panel did not issue findings of fact, nor did it provide an explained decision or opinion along with its award.1 At this juncture, much of the contested factual matter is not particularly relevant or necessary given the standard of review for an arbitration award. Therefore, the following summary is intended for background purposes only and represents no findings of fact by this Court.

Questar is a brokerage firm currently based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and is a fully owned subsidiary of Allianz Life. (Docket No. 11–1, at 1.) Questar is registered with the Securities and Exchange...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Start a free trial
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio – 2019
State v. U.S. Dep't of Educ.
"...Decorative Panels International v. International Ass. of Machinists , 996 F.Supp.2d 559 (E.D. Mich. 2014) ; Questar Capital Corp. v. Gorter , 909 F.Supp.2d 789 (W.D. Ky. 2012) ; Brown v. Plata , 563 U.S. 493, 131 S.Ct. 1910, 179 L.Ed.2d 969 (2011) ). Finally, Mr. Cyrus argues that—even if B..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky – 2012
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Conway
"..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama – 2013
Thames v. Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Soc'y
"...of evidence only when such error was "in bad faith or so gross as to amount to affirmative misconduct"); Questar Capital Corp. v. Gorter, 909 F. Supp.2d 789, 816 (W.D. Ky. 2012) ("not every failure to receive evidence constitutes misconduct under § 10(a)(3); instead, the question is simply ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan – 2015
Amerisure Mut. Ins. Co. v. Everest Reinsurance Co.
"...federal courts." Apperson v. Fleet Carrier Corporation, 879 F.2d 1344, 1358–1359 (6th Cir.1989) ; see also Questar Capital Corporation v. Gorter, 909 F.Supp.2d 789, 814 (W.D.Ky.2012) ("A party cannot remain silent as to perceived or actual partiality or bias and then later object after the ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee – 2016
Metlife Sec., Inc. v. Holt
"...and motions. This distinction simply precludes treating the one as the other." (quotations omitted)); Questar Capital Corp. v. Gorter , 909 F.Supp.2d 789, 803 (W.D. Ky. 2012) ("Where § 6 of the FAA instructs that applications shall be made and heard in the manner of motions, the clear inten..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio – 2019
State v. U.S. Dep't of Educ.
"...Decorative Panels International v. International Ass. of Machinists , 996 F.Supp.2d 559 (E.D. Mich. 2014) ; Questar Capital Corp. v. Gorter , 909 F.Supp.2d 789 (W.D. Ky. 2012) ; Brown v. Plata , 563 U.S. 493, 131 S.Ct. 1910, 179 L.Ed.2d 969 (2011) ). Finally, Mr. Cyrus argues that—even if B..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky – 2012
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Conway
"..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama – 2013
Thames v. Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Soc'y
"...of evidence only when such error was "in bad faith or so gross as to amount to affirmative misconduct"); Questar Capital Corp. v. Gorter, 909 F. Supp.2d 789, 816 (W.D. Ky. 2012) ("not every failure to receive evidence constitutes misconduct under § 10(a)(3); instead, the question is simply ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan – 2015
Amerisure Mut. Ins. Co. v. Everest Reinsurance Co.
"...federal courts." Apperson v. Fleet Carrier Corporation, 879 F.2d 1344, 1358–1359 (6th Cir.1989) ; see also Questar Capital Corporation v. Gorter, 909 F.Supp.2d 789, 814 (W.D.Ky.2012) ("A party cannot remain silent as to perceived or actual partiality or bias and then later object after the ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee – 2016
Metlife Sec., Inc. v. Holt
"...and motions. This distinction simply precludes treating the one as the other." (quotations omitted)); Questar Capital Corp. v. Gorter , 909 F.Supp.2d 789, 803 (W.D. Ky. 2012) ("Where § 6 of the FAA instructs that applications shall be made and heard in the manner of motions, the clear inten..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Used by the world's leading companies

Herbert Smith Freehills Logo Princeton University Logo University of Oxford Logo K2 Intelligence LLC Logo Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP Logo Kobre & Kim LLP Logo Wiley Logo ABA Logo Perez Lorca Logo Fisher Phillips Logo
vLex Footer Logo
© 2025 vLex. All rights reserved.