The case involved an AAA arbitration centering on the lack of performance under an exclusive distributorship agreement (EDA) that a medical supplier signed with a product manufacturer. The supplier failed to order sufficient amounts of the product under the EDA, but contended that the manufacturer fraudulently induced the supplier to enter into the EDA by making representations that the product was unique. The EDA, however, included an integration clause stating that the agreement constituted the entire agreement between the parties. The arbitrator ruled in favor of the manufacturer, finding that the supplier was barred by the parol evidence rule from asserting that it was fraudulently induced into signing the EDA.

The manufacturer then filed a petition with a district court to confirm the award. Although the supplier failed to file a response to the manufacturer’s petition, the court refused to simply enter a default judgment, holding that a default is not appropriate on a petition to confirm an arbitration award. The court then found that the evidence and the law showed that the arbitrator’s decision was more than “colorable” and confirmed the award. Included in the award was an award of attorneys’ fees. On review, the court found that the manufacturer’s attorneys complied with evidentiary requirements, including submission of an affidavit describing their experience, rate, amount of time spent on the case, and a statement that the requested rates are reasonable in their community. As a result, the district court confirmed the requested amount of fees in their entirety, noting specifically that the supplier had not presented any evidence to the contrary.

Intellisystem, LLC v. McHenry, No. 2:19-cv-01359 (E.D. Pa. June 26, 2019).