Background
Doctors Scott Sullivan and Frank Dellacroce entered a risk pooling agreement with Stewart Feldman and related entities. The parties engaged in multiple arbitrations resulting in four conflicting awards favoring the doctors. The district court confirmed the awards and entered a partial final judgment. A prior appeal, Sullivan I, affirmed most of the judgment but vacated and remanded the stay order to allow further arbitration to resolve inconsistencies among the awards. On remand, the district court entered an amended judgment confirming the awards and staying the case pending the outcome of the new arbitration.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed de novo whether the district court complied with the mandate from Sullivan I. The court found that the prior decision did not determine whether arbitration must precede the rendering of judgment. The prior decision did not discuss whether the arbitration must predate the judgment confirming the awards, nor did it indicate a procedural criticism of the district court’s issuance of judgment. The amended judgment respected the prior decision by staying the case pending resolution of the final arbitration. Because the prior mandate did not indicate or imply that arbitration must precede the issuance of the judgment, the district court did not violate the mandate.
What it means going forward
The amended judgment confirming the arbitration awards stands, and the case remains stayed pending the outcome of the arbitration to resolve the res judicata effects of the different awards.