Jake Mendel, in His Capacity as Personal Representative of the Estate of Thelma A. Mendel, et al. v. Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc.

The Court of Appeals has, in two unpublished opinions, applied two rulings which present fundamental and far-reaching departures from clearly enunciated and controlling Supreme Court precedent. The Circuit Court has refused to apply the long-standing and unvarying rule of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), to a diversity case properly controlled by state law. It has, in addition, essentially federalized the substantive standards of review of arbitration awards, in contravention of clear precedent of this Court; and, finally, having chosen to apply a federal review standard to a challenged arbitration award in a diversity case, it has chosen the wrong standard – one in conflict with Supreme Court precedent, the plain language of the Federal Arbitration Act and with the rule in every other Circuit which has addressed the issue. The questions thus presented for this Court are:

1. Is the rule of Erie Railroad to be eroded or evaded in diversity cases merely because the Federal Arbitration Act compels states to give the same effect to arbitration clauses as to other contract provisions?

2. Does the Federal Arbitration Act co-opt or preempt state standards of review of arbitration awards in diversity cases?

3. Should the Eleventh Circuit decision on the application of the “evident partiality or corruption”