The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
-------------------------------------------------------
:
FADI KAYYALI, , :
: Case No. 1:21-cv-718
Plaintiffs, : OPINION AND ORDER
: [Resolving Docs. 4 & 8]
v. :
:
AMERICAN ARBITRATION :
ASSOCIATION, INC., :
:
Defendant, :
-------------------------------------------------------
JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Plaintiffs Fadi Kayyali and Rola El-Saadi sue Defendant American Arbitration
Association, Inc., for failing to timely notify them of an adverse arbitration decision in a
related case.1 Plaintiffs claim that this late notification caused them prejudice in contesting
that arbitration decision before it was enforced in federal court.2
On April 7, 2021, Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that this suit is
barred by arbitral immunity.3 As of the date of this order, Plaintiffs have not opposed the
dismissal motion. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s dismissal
motion.
I. BACKGROUND
This case against the American Arbitration Association grows out of a prior case before
this Court, , 1:18-cv-2859. The Court
summarizes the facts of that case below:
1 Doc. 1-1.
2
On December 12, 2018, non-party Ammar Alkatib sued Plaintiffs Kayyali and El-Saadi
and associated corporate entities, Alkatib’s former employers, alleging fraud, breach of
contract, and violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, among other things.4 On March 20,
2019, the Court ordered the parties to arbitrate their dispute.5
On April 22, 2020, Daniel G. Zeiser, an arbitrator employed by Defendant, awarded
Alkatib over $200,000 in damages and attorney fees against Plaintiffs Kayyali and El-Saadi.6
Plaintiffs, however, claim that they did not learn of the decision until September 1, 2020,
because arbitrator Zeiser sent a copy of the award to an incorrect email address.7
On April 29, 2020, Alkatib moved to enforce the arbitration award in this Court,
attaching the award as a motion exhibit.8 On June 23, 2020, the Court enforced the
arbitration award without opposition from Plaintiffs Kayyali and El-Saadi.9
On August 21, 2020, the Clerk of the Court issued a Certificate of Judgment Lien
Upon Lands and Tenements against Plaintiffs Kayyali and El-Saadi and the Court entered a
judgment lien against Plaintiffs’ property.10 On September 1, 2020, Plaintiffs moved for relief
from the arbitration judgment,11 arguing that they had changed counsel around the time of
the arbitration proceedings, and thereafter never received notice of the final arbitration award
or any of the subsequent proceedings in this Court to enforce it.12
4 , Case No. 1:18-cv-2859, 2020 WL 5797990, at
*1 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 29, 2020).
5
6
7 Doc. 1-1 at 5–6.
8 , Doc. 33-5.
9 , 2020 WL 3447809, at *1 (N.D. Ohio June 23, 2020).
10 , 2020 WL 5797990, at *1.
11
12
On September 29, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiffs relief from the arbitration award
judgment, finding:
Parties before this Court have an affirmative duty to monitor their case dockets
and provide up-to-date contact and representation information to the Court. In
discharging this duty, parties are not entitled to depend on receiving email
notifications from the ECF system. Nor may they be excused because of errors
or dereliction of duty on the part of their attorneys. Least of all should a party
be entitled to rely on his adversary to help him keep up with case filings.
Because Defendants’ lack of knowledge regarding the progress of the case is
directly attributable to their own omissions and the omissions of their counsel,
Defendants cannot demonstrate excusable neglect to justify issuance of relief
from the Judgment Lien.13
On October 29, 2020, Plaintiffs appealed the Court’s order denying judgment relief.14
On January 27, 2021, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their appeal.15
On March 1, 2021, Plaintiffs, out of options to contest Alkatib’s arbitration award,
sued the American Arbitration Association in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common
Pleas.16 Plaintiffs’ lawsuit claims that arbitrator Zeiser’s failure to send Plaintiffs a copy of
the April 22, 2020 arbitration award until September 1, 2020, prejudiced Plaintiffs’
opportunity to contest the award.17
On April 1, 2021, Defendant removed the case to this Court.18 On April 7, 2021,
Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by arbitral immunity.19
Plaintiffs have not opposed the dismissal motion.
II. DISCUSSION
13 at *2.
14 , Case No. 20-4163, 2021 WL 304394, at *1 (6th Cir. 2021).
15
16 Doc. 1-1.
17
18 Doc. 1.
19 Doc. 4.
To ensure the independence and impartiality of arbitrators’ quasi-judicial role,
arbitrators and the boards that employ them are entitled to immunity from suit for “all acts
within the scope of the arbitral process.”20 This broad immunity extends to administrative
actions inherent in the arbitration process.21
Plaintiffs’ suit falls squarely within the bounds of arbitral immunity. Plaintiffs’ sole
ground for relief is arbitrator Zeiser’s failure to send the April 22, 2020 arbitration award in
favor of Alkatib to Plaintiffs.22 Plaintiffs accordingly claim that they did not receive notice of
the award until September 1, 2020.23
Because sending notices to arbitration parties is “within the scope of the arbitral
process,” Defendant is entitled to arbitral immunity.24
But even if Plaintiffs’ claims weren’t barred, they are meritless. This suit is just another
attempt by Plaintiffs to foist responsibility on others for their own failure to monitor the
progress of the Alkatib arbitration and litigation proceedings. Even assuming that arbitrator
Zeiser failed to send Plaintiffs immediate notice of the April 22, 2020 Alkatib arbitration
award, Alkatib moved to enforce the award in this Court just one week later, on April 29,
2020, attaching the arbitration award as an exhibit.25
20 , 2:12-cv-638, 2013 WL 1282431, at *6 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 27,
2013).
21 , 15-cv- 7508, 2016 WL 5339551, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23,
2016) (citing , 199 F.3d 542, 545 (1st
Cir. 1999)).
22 Doc. 1-1.
23
24 , 2013 WL 1282431, at *6.
25 , Case No. 1:18-cv-2859, Doc. 33-5 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 29, 2021).
Despite that clear constructive notice, Plaintiffs failed to contest Alkatib’s enforcement
motion for nearly two months before the Court entered its enforcement order on June 23,
2020.26 For the reasons explained in the order denying Plaintiff’s relief from the arbitration
award judgment, Plaintiffs have only themselves to blame for any lost opportunity to contest
the Alkatib arbitration award.27
III. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ dismissal motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 6, 2021
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
26 , 2020 WL 5797990, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 29, 2020).
27