Hixson v. CitiMortgage, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that, upon remand, a panel should “merely clarif[y] the award . . . rather than substantively modif[y] it”
• explaining that a supplemental award clarifying an earlier award violates the functus officio doctrine unless “the clarification merely clarifies the award rather than substantively modifying it”
• finding exception to the 2 functus officio doctrine to promote “the twin objectives of arbitration: settling 3 disputes efficiently and avoiding long and expensive litigation”
• award was ambiguous where its “language [was] susceptible to multiple meanings,” given that the parties and the arbitral panel each “offered a different interpretation of what the language at issue meant”
• “Here, each party offered a different interpretation of what the language at issue meant, and the arbitral panel said it meant something else altogether. Given that the language is susceptible to multiple meanings, it is ambiguous.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).