ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION for Nunc Pro Tunc Enlargement of Page Limits Applicable to Benworth's… — Benworth Oto (Dkt. 28)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · No. 4:24-cv-04840-AMO · Doc. 28 · 2024-08-07 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
 
Case No. 3:24-CV-4840-AMO 
1 
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR NUNC PRO TUNC  ENLARGEMENT OF PAGE LIMITS APPLICABLE TO 
BENWORTH’S PETITION TO VACATE FINAL ARBITRATION AWARD 
 
Daniel C. Girard (State Bar No. 114826)  
dgirard@girardsharp.com  
Simon S. Grille (State Bar No. 294914) 
sgrille@girardsharp.com  
GIRARD SHARP LLP 
601 California Street, Suite 1400 
San Francisco, CA 94108 
Telephone: (415) 981-4800 
 
Jorge L. Piedra (Florida Bar No. 88315) 
(Pro Hac Vice) 
Jpiedra@kttlaw.com  
Dwayne A. Robinson (Florida Bar No. 99976) 
(Pro Hac Vice) 
drobinson@kttlaw.com  
Michael R. Lorigas (Florida Bar No. 123597) 
(Pro Hac Vice) 
mlorigas@kttlaw.com  
KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON 
2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, 9th Floor 
Miami, Florida 33134 
Telephone: (305) 372-1800 
 
Attorneys for Benworth Capital Partners, LLC 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 
 
 
 
BENWORTH CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC, 
 
Petitioner, 
 
v. 
 
OTO ANALYTICS, LLC, 
 
Respondent. 
 
Case No. 3:24-cv-4840-AMO 
 
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR NUNC 
PRO TUNC ENLARGEMENT OF PAGE 
LIMITS APPLICABLE TO BENWORTH’S 
PETITION TO VACATE FINAL 
ARBITRATION AWARD  
 
 
Pursuant to Local Rules 7-2 and 7-11, Petitioner, Benworth Capital Partners, LLC (“Benworth”), 
seeks a nunc pro tunc enlargement of the page limits applicable to its Petition to Vacate Final Arbitration 
Award (ECF No. 1) (the “Petition to Vacate”), and states as follows: 
1. 
Benworth filed its Petition to Vacate on August 7, 2024. The Petition to Vacate is 67 pages 
in length. Robinson Decl. at ¶ 2. Due to the complex nature of this dispute, the extensive record, and the 
demanding standard for vacating an arbitration award, the 25-page limit prescribed by Local Rule 7-2 is 
Case 4:24-cv-04840-AMO     Document 28     Filed 08/29/24     Page 1 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
 
Case No. 3:24-CV-4840-AMO 
2 
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR NUNC PRO TUNC  ENLARGEMENT OF PAGE LIMITS APPLICABLE TO 
BENWORTH’S PETITION TO VACATE FINAL ARBITRATION AWARD 
 
insufficient for Benworth to adequately present its case for vacatur to the Court. Robinson Decl. at ¶ 3. 
2. 
Respondent Oto Analytics, LLC f/k/a Oto Analytics, Inc. d/b/a Womply (“Womply”) 
expressed to Benworth that the Petition to Vacate violated the  25-page limit set forth in Local Rule 7-2. 
Robinson Decl. at ¶ 4. 
3. 
In the related case, Womply filed a petition to confirm the same final arbitration award that 
is at issue here. See Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award, Oto Analytics, LLC f/k/a Oto Analytics, Inc. 
d/b/a Womply v. Benworth Capital Partners, LLC, Case No.3:24-cv-3975-AMO (N.D. Calif. Aug. 26, 
2024), ECF No. 1 (the “Confirmation Proceedings”). A dispute arose between the Parties in the 
Confirmation Proceedings concerning Benworth’s deadline to respond to Womply’s petition to confirm. 
See Benworth’s Administrative Motion for Clarification of Deadline and/or for Extension of Time to 
Respond to Womply’s Petition, Confirmation Proceedings, ECF No. 26. This Court ruled that Benworth 
had no obligation to respond to the petition to confirm because it should have been filed and noticed as a 
motion. See Order Re Administrative Motion for Clarification of Deadline, Confirmation Proceedings, 
ECF No. 40. (Benworth filed its Petition to Vacate before the Court entered this order.) The Court also 
noted that “it is currently setting motion hearings in January 2025” and reminded “the parties that their 
case may be resolved more quickly if they consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction.” Id. at 2. 
4. 
Shortly thereafter, Womply informed Benworth that it would not move to strike the Petition 
to Vacate for being over page limits if Benworth consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction for the related 
cases. Robinson Decl. at ¶ 5. Womply, however, never moved to strike the Petition to Vacate even after 
Benworth did not accept its offer. Id. 
5. 
Benworth proposed to Womply that the parties agree to consolidate briefing on the vacatur 
and confirmation proceedings and to extended pages limits for the consolidated briefing. Robinson Decl. 
at ¶ 6. Womply waited until just before it filed its opposition to the Petition to Vacate here (ECF No. 25) 
(the “Opposition”) to respond to Benworth’s proposal, contending the proposal was rendered moot by its 
Opposition. Robinson Decl. at ¶ 7. 
6. 
Benworth then filed a motion in the related case to consolidate briefing on the vacatur and 
confirmation proceedings. See Administrative Motion for Enlargement of Page Limits Applicable to 
Respondent’s Cross-Motion to Vacate and for Extension of Time to Respond to Petitioner’s Motion to 
Case 4:24-cv-04840-AMO     Document 28     Filed 08/29/24     Page 2 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
 
Case No. 3:24-CV-4840-AMO 
3 
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR NUNC PRO TUNC  ENLARGEMENT OF PAGE LIMITS APPLICABLE TO 
BENWORTH’S PETITION TO VACATE FINAL ARBITRATION AWARD 
 
Confirm, Confirmation Proceedings, ECF No. 46. This Court has not adjudicated that motion as of this 
filing. See generally Docket, Confirmation Proceedings. As such, and in the event this Court declines to 
consolidate the proceedings and/or briefing, the undersigned submits this motion for a nunc pro tunc 
enlargement of the page limits applicable to its Petition to Vacate in an abundance of caution. It remains 
Benworth’s preference to submit consolidated briefing and with tighter page limits—just not those that, at 
25 pages, would prejudice Benworth in presenting the extensive federal regulations, contracts, and history 
related to the competing petitions.   
7. 
Accordingly, and in the event this Court declines to consolidate proceedings and their 
briefing as proposed in the Confirmation Proceeding, Benworth requests that the Court grant a nunc pro 
tunc enlargement of the page limits to 67 pages. Doing so obviates the need for submission of a shorter 
Petition to Vacate, a new response, and briefing on reply in the event the Court declines the administrative 
motion pending in the Confirmation Proceeding .  
8. 
Benworth requests the nunc pro tunc enlargement of page limits to 67 pages so that it may 
adequately present its case for vacatur to the Court. The Federal Arbitration Act provides limited grounds 
to vacate an arbitration award. One of those grounds is that the arbitrator exceeded his powers by manifestly 
disregarding the law. Aspic Eng’g & Constr. Co. v. ECC Centcom Constructors LLC, 913 F.3d 1162, 1166 
(9th Cir. 2019). Ninth Circuit precedent establishes that “an arbitrator’s failure to recognize undisputed, 
legally dispositive facts may properly be deemed a manifest disregard for the law.” Coutee v. Barington 
Cap. Grp., L.P., 336 F.3d 1128, 1133 (9th Cir. 2003). Although courts generally “must defer to an 
arbitrator’s conclusions even where they are erroneous[,]” an “arbitrator’s conclusions” are not “entitled 
to the deference ordinarily accorded” and do “not bind” this Court where, like here, an award is legally 
irreconcilable with the undisputed facts. Am. Postal Workers Union v. U.S.  Postal Serv., 682 F.2d 1280, 
1284–85 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1200 (1983). 
9. 
Although Benworth raises two additional grounds authorized by binding precedent to vacate 
the arbitration award, the bulk of the Petition to Vacate is dedicated to arguments showing that the arbitrator 
manifestly disregarded the law by failing to recognize the undisputed, legally dispositive facts. To meet 
the demanding standard for vacatur, Benworth must survey the relevant undisputed facts in detail—which 
are set forth in a record containing over 4,000 pages of documentary, photographic, and video evidence—
Case 4:24-cv-04840-AMO     Document 28     Filed 08/29/24     Page 3 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
 
Case No. 3:24-CV-4840-AMO 
4 
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR NUNC PRO TUNC  ENLARGEMENT OF PAGE LIMITS APPLICABLE TO 
BENWORTH’S PETITION TO VACATE FINAL ARBITRATION AWARD 
 
and do so in the context of hundreds of pages of SBA SOPs, rules, and regulations as well as the 73-page 
final arbitration award. Robinson Decl. ¶ 8. Benworth thus requires more than 25 pages to adequately meet 
such a demanding standard. 
10. 
Granting the requested relief will not prejudice Womply. Womply already admitted as much 
when it proposed to waive filing a motion to strike the Petition to Vacate for being over pages limits if 
Benworth consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. And Womply already filed its Opposition without 
asking the Court for an enlargement of page limits or to strike, in whole or in part, the Petition to Vacate.  
11. 
The undersigned met and conferred with counsel for Womply regarding the requested relief. 
Robinson Decl. at ¶ 9. Womply objects to the requested relief because it believes Benworth should have 
sought this relief closer in time to when Womply accepted service of the Petition to Vacate. Id.  
WHEREFORE, Petitioner, Benworth Capital Partners, LLC respectfully requests that the Court 
grant a nunc pro tunc enlargement of the page limits applicable to the Petition to Vacate to 67 pages. 
 
Dated: August 29, 2024 
/s/ Dwayne A. Robinson 
 
 
Dwayne A. Robinson (Florida Bar No. 99976)  
(Pro Hac Vice)  
drobinson@kttlaw.com  
Jorge L. Piedra (Florida Bar No. 88315) 
(Pro Hac Vice) 
jpiedra@kttlaw.com  
Michael R. Lorigas (Florida Bar No. 123597)  
(Pro Hac Vice)  
mlorigas@kttlaw.com  
KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON  
2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, 9th Floor  
Miami, Florida 33134  
Telephone: (305) 372-1800  
 
Daniel C. Girard (State Bar No. 114826)  
dgirard@girardsharp.com  
Simon S. Grille (State Bar No. 294914)  
sgrille@girardsharp.com  
GIRARD SHARP LLP  
601 California Street, Suite 1400  
San Francisco, CA 94108  
Telephone: (415) 981-4800 
 
 
Attorneys for Petitioner Benworth Capital Partners, 
LLC 
Case 4:24-cv-04840-AMO     Document 28     Filed 08/29/24     Page 4 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
 
Case No. 3:24-CV-4840-AMO 
5 
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR NUNC PRO TUNC  ENLARGEMENT OF PAGE LIMITS APPLICABLE TO 
BENWORTH’S PETITION TO VACATE FINAL ARBITRATION AWARD 
 
ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL RULE 5-1(i)(3) 
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), the filer of this document attests that concurrence in the 
filing of this document has been obtained from the signatories above. 
 
Dated: August 29, 2024 
 
/s/ Simon S. Grille 
 
 
Simon S. Grille 
 
Case 4:24-cv-04840-AMO     Document 28     Filed 08/29/24     Page 5 of 5

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cand.433897.28.0.pdf

Size

169,292 bytes

SHA-256

437b5ebf664e637957e02b3dbb8338bf3167127b3e351e3e7d8c2f4f3a45fa64

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cand.433897.28.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)