USCA11 Case: 23-13168 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 03/19/2024 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-13168
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
JESSICA GRAULAU,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CREDIT ONE BANK, N.A.,
a foreign corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 6:19-cv-01723-WWB-EJK
USCA11 Case: 23-13168 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 03/19/2024 Page: 2 of 5
2 Opinion of the Court 23-13168
____________________
Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jessica Graulau, proceeding pro se, 1 appeals the district
court’s denial of (1) her motion to vacate an arbitration award and
(2) her motion to correct or modify the award on defendant Credit
One Bank, N.A.’s counterclaim, pursuant to 9 U.S.C. §§ 10 and 11
of the Federal Arbitration Act. 2
I.
Sections 10 and 11 of the FAA provide its exclusive grounds
for vacatur and modification of arbitration awards. Hall St. Assocs.,
1 While we construe pro se pleadings liberally, such liberal construction “does not
give a court license to serve as de facto counsel for a party, or to rewrite an otherwise
deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.” Campbell v. Air Jamaica Ltd., 760 F.3d
1165, 1168–69 (11th Cir. 2014) (quotation marks omitted). Additionally, even pro se
litigants will be deemed to have abandoned a claim by making only passing reference
to it, raising it in a perfunctory manner without supporting arguments and authority,
or referring to it only in the “statement of the case” or “summary of the argument,”
or where the references to the issue are mere background to the appellant’s main
arguments. Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681–82 (11th Cir. 2014).
2 In reviewing the district court’s denial of a motion to vacate or modify an arbitration
award, we review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and its legal con-
clusions de novo. Frazier v. CitiFinancial Corp., LLC, 604 F.3d 1313, 1321 (11th Cir.
2010). “There is a presumption under the FAA that arbitration awards will be con-
firmed, and federal courts should defer to an arbitrator’s decision whenever possible.”
Id. (quotation marks omitted). As such, “a court’s confirmation of an arbitration
award is usually routine or summary.” Cat Charter, LLC, v. Schurtenberger, 646 F.3d
836, 842 (11th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks omitted).
USCA11 Case: 23-13168 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 03/19/2024 Page: 3 of 5
23-13168 Opinion of the Court 3
L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 584 (2008). Section 10 of the FAA
allows a district court to vacate an arbitration award only in the
following narrow circumstances:
(1) where the award was procured by corruption,
fraud, or undue means;
(2) where there was evident partiality or corruption
in the arbitrators, or either of them;
(3) where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in
refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient
cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence perti-
nent and material to the controversy; or of any other
misbehavior by which the rights of any party have
been prejudiced; or
(4) where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so
imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and
definite award upon the subject matter submitted
was not made.
9 U.S.C. § 10(a). We have held that, in light of Hall Street, the “ju-
dicially-created bases for vacatur” formerly recognized, such as
where an arbitrator behaved in manifest disregard of the law, are
no longer valid. Frazier, 604 F.3d at 1321, 1323–24; see also Southern
Commc’ns Servs., Inc. v. Thomas, 720 F.3d 1352, 1358 (11th Cir. 2013)
(“In light of the [Supreme] Court’s decision in Hall Street, we held
that the ‘judicially-created bases for vacatur’ that we had formerly
recognized, such as where an arbitrator behaves in manifest disre-
gard of the law, ‘are no longer valid.’ Nor is an ‘incorrect legal
USCA11 Case: 23-13168 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 03/19/2024 Page: 4 of 5
4 Opinion of the Court 23-13168
conclusion . . . grounds for vacating or modifying an award.’”) (ci-
tations omitted).
Here, the district court did not err in denying Graulau’s mo-
tion to vacate because she fails to establish any of the four narrow
circumstances justifying vacatur as provided by FAA § 10. See 9
U.S.C. § 10(a)(1)–(4). While she argues that the arbitrator exceeded
his powers under FAA § 10(a)(4) by disregarding applicable federal
and state law, that argument is untenable, as we have repeatedly
held post-Hall Street that manifest disregard of the law is a judicially-
created basis for vacatur, and that such judicially-created bases are
no longer valid grounds for vacating or modifying an arbitration
award in cases brought under the FAA. Frazier, 604 F.3d at 1323–
24; Southern Commc’ns Servs., 720 F.3d at 1358. She also mentions
the arbitrator’s “misconduct/misbehavior” and “clear partiality
with bias” against her in what appears to be an attempt to assert an
entitlement to relief under FAA § 10(a)(2) and (3). But she cites no
authority and makes no argument as to why she would be entitled
to relief on those grounds and has thus abandoned any argument
as to them. Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 681–82. Because Graulau failed to
raise any valid challenges to the arbitrator’s decision, we affirm the
district court’s denial of her motion to vacate.
II.
Section 11 of the FAA, in turn, provides that a district court
may correct or modify an arbitration award in three circumstances:
(a) Where there was an evident material miscalcula-
tion of figures or an evident material mistake in the
USCA11 Case: 23-13168 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 03/19/2024 Page: 5 of 5
23-13168 Opinion of the Court 5
description of any person, thing, or property referred
to in the award.
(b) Where the arbitrators have awarded upon a mat-
ter not submitted to them, unless it is a matter not
affecting the merits of the decision upon the matter
submitted.
(c) Where the award is imperfect in matter of form
not affecting the merits of the controversy.
9 U.S.C. § 11.
Here, the district court also did not err in denying Graulau’s
motion to correct or modify the arbitration award on Credit One’s
counterclaim. As the court found and the record makes clear,
Graulau’s argument that the arbitrator awarded upon a matter not
submitted to him is untenable because Credit One’s counterclaim
was expressly submitted to him. See 9 U.S.C. § 11(b). And, as al-
ready explained, her argument that the arbitrator’s award was “im-
perfect” based on his disregard of applicable laws remains meritless
and is also likely abandoned based on her failure to cite any author-
ity in support of that position. Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 681–82; 9 U.S.C.
§ 11(c).
III.
Because Graulau can establish no valid bases upon which to
vacate or modify of the arbitration award, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.