Motion to vacate an arbitration award; Error in the arbitration demand & the award’s caption; Whether the caption error created an ambiguity; Whether plaintiffs waived the right to claim a procedural error when they did not raise the issue with the arbitrator; Whether the defect was a “curable misnomer”; Whether the district court sua sponte modified the award; Collective bargaining agreement (CBA)

[This appeal was from the WD-MI.] The court held that “where an arbitration demand and the case’s caption misname the party against whom an award is meant to be entered, but there is no ambiguity as to the real identity of that party,” a federal district court may enforce the award. Plaintiff-Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC (HDI) and defendant-Michigan State Utility Workers Council (the Union) were parties to a CBA that provided for arbitration of the Union members’ grievances. When the Union requested arbitration over a member’s discharge, its arbitration demand mistakenly named HDI’s parent company, plaintiff-Holtec International Corporation, with whom the Union had no agreement. HDI participated in the arbitration. After the arbitrator ruled in favor of the Union, HDI did not comply and plaintiffs (collectively Holtec) moved for vacatur based on the misnamed caption. The district court denied the motion, finding that “‘the record is replete with evidence that HDI—not Holtec International—engaged in and intended to be bound by the proceedings.’” It granted the Union summary judgment on its counterclaim seeking confirmation. On appeal, after construing the entire arbitration award, the court agreed “with the district court that the award can be interpreted to have issued only against HDI, as opposed to Holtec International.” It rejected Holtec’s argument that Holtec International’s name in the award caption constituted “a ‘defined term’ that the arbitrator deliberately chose as an expression of the award’s intent.” Instead, the court concluded that the caption was “simply a carryover from the arbitration demand, which pervaded the proceedings.” It additionally noted that Holtec’s attorneys appeared at arbitration and identified themselves as HDI’s representatives. And Holtec did not raise the alleged error before the arbitrator, agreeing that “there were ‘no . . . procedural questions which would preclude a decision[,]’” and that “the matter was ‘procedurally properly before’ the arbitrator ‘for a decision on the merits.’” Thus, Holtec waived any jurisdictional objections. The court also found that the defect in the arbitration demand was a “curable misnomer.” HDI was unable to establish prejudice. Affirmed.