INTELLIVEST SECURITIES INC v. GROWTH CAPITAL SERVICES INC (2025)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

On January 10, 2022, an arbitration award was issued in favor of Plaintiff Intellivest Securities, Inc. (“Intellivest”) and against Growth Capital Services, Inc. (“Growth Capital”) in the amount of $908,929.50. Now, Intellivest moves to confirm the arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 9. The motion is GRANTED.

The FAA allows any party to apply to the court within one year of the arbitration award to confirm, vacate, modify, or correct the award. 9 U.S.C. § 9. Under the FAA, “judicial review of an arbitration award is both limited and highly deferential.” Sayta v. Martin, No. 16-cv-03775-LB, 2017 WL 491161, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2017) (quoting Sheet Metal Worker's Int'l Ass'n Local 359 v. Madison Indus., Inc., 84 F.3d 1186, 1190 (9th Cir. 1996)). A court must grant a parties motion to confirm an arbitration award where “(a) the parties have agreed that a specified court may enter judgment upon the award; (b) any party to the arbitration award applies to the specified court for confirmation of the award within a year of its issuance; and (c) the court does not vacate, modify, or correct the award under Section 10 or 11 of the FAA.” Pacific W. Secs., Inc. v. George, No. 13-cv-04260-JSC, 2014 WL 894843, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2014) (citing 9 U.S.C. § 9).

The parties voluntarily consented to “submit to the jurisdiction of any court of competent jurisdiction which may properly enter such judgment.” (Dkt. No. 2-3 at 1.) Additionally, Intellivest filed its motion to confirm the arbitration award on April 29, 2022, within one year of the award being issued.¹ Thus, because the award is not being modified or vacated under Section 10 or 11 of the FAA, the Court is required to confirm the arbitration award.

Accordingly, Intellivest's motion to confirm the arbitration award is granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   On May 12, 2022, the case was stayed because Growth Capital had filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and the motion to confirm the arbitration award was terminated without prejudice to being refiled after the stay was lifted. (Dkt. No. 10.) On July 2, 2025, the case was unstayed, and a briefing schedule was set on the renoticed motion. Additionally, the Court directed Intellivest to serve Growth Capital with a copy of its order because Growth Capital had not yet appeared in the case. Growth Capital never appeared in the case, and did not file an opposition to the motion.

RITA F. LIN United States District Judge