Founding Attorney
A motion to vacate arbitration award is the court filing that asks a judge to annul an arbitrator’s decision on narrow statutory grounds. Under the Federal Arbitration Act, those grounds are fraud, evident partiality, misconduct, or arbitrators exceeding their powers. The movant must serve notice within three months of the award. In short, courts will not re-decide the merits.
Losing parties often assume they can appeal an arbitration award like a judgment. However, they cannot. Instead, arbitration is a private dispute resolution process, so the only remedy is vacatur under the Federal Arbitration Act or state law. Transnational Matters PLLC specializes in international arbitration and cross-border business disputes, and this guide explains the grounds, deadlines, and forums that govern the challenge.
What a Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award Can and Cannot Do
First, vacatur is not an appeal. In fact, judicial review of arbitration awards does not ask whether the arbitrators got the facts or the law right. In Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (2008), the Supreme Court held that Sections 10 and 11 of the FAA provide the only grounds to vacate or modify an award. Consequently, parties cannot expand judicial review by contract, and courts cannot add grounds of their own. Therefore, a contract clause that promises an appeal-style review of legal errors will not work under the FAA.
Second, courts defer to the arbitrator. As long as the arbitrator is even arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of his authority, a court’s conviction that he committed serious error does not justify overturning the decision. That rule comes from United Paperworkers International Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29 (1987). Accordingly, federal courts still apply it today.
Third, the Eleventh Circuit rejects grounds that do not appear in the statute. In Frazier v. CitiFinancial Corp., 604 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2010), the court held that court-made bases such as “manifest disregard of the law” are no longer valid after Hall Street. Therefore, a motion filed in Miami must fit one of the four grounds below.
The Four FAA Grounds for Vacating an Arbitration Award
Section 10(a) of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 10, lists four grounds. Specifically, the court in the district of the award may vacate it in any of these cases:
Corruption, fraud, or undue means. The award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means (§ 10(a)(1)).
Evident partiality or corruption. There was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them (§ 10(a)(2)).
Procedural misconduct. The arbitrators refused to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause, refused to hear pertinent and material evidence, or engaged in other misbehavior that prejudiced a party’s rights (§ 10(a)(3)).
Exceeding powers. The arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award was not made (§ 10(a)(4)).
In addition, Section 10(b) allows the court to direct a rehearing by the arbitrators if it vacates the award and the time for making the award has not expired.
| Ground under § 10(a) | What the movant must show | Typical evidence |
|---|---|---|
| (1) Fraud or undue means | Clear and convincing proof of fraud that could not be found with due care and that related to an issue in the arbitration | Hidden documents, coached testimony, forged exhibits |
| (2) Evident partiality | Undisclosed ties or conduct showing bias by the arbitrator | Disclosure records, business ties, emails |
| (3) Misconduct | Refusal to delay the hearing for good cause or to hear key evidence, causing harm | Hearing transcripts, scheduling orders, excluded exhibits |
| (4) Exceeded powers | The tribunal decided issues the parties never submitted or ignored the contract’s plain terms | The arbitration clause, terms of reference, the award’s reasoning |
Evident Partiality and Arbitrator Disclosure
Evident partiality turns on arbitrator disclosure. In Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co., 393 U.S. 145 (1968), the Supreme Court required arbitrators to disclose any dealings that might create an impression of possible bias. Similarly, the Eleventh Circuit applies that principle through a two-part test. Under University Commons-Urbana, Ltd. v. Universal Constructors, Inc., 304 F.3d 1331 (11th Cir. 2002), a court may vacate an award for evident partiality only when an actual conflict exists, or when the arbitrator knows of, but fails to disclose, information that would lead a reasonable person to believe a potential conflict exists. Moreover, the alleged partiality must be direct, definite, and capable of demonstration rather than remote, uncertain, and speculative.
The Three-Month Deadline Under 9 U.S.C. § 12
Under 9 U.S.C. § 12 of the Federal Arbitration Act, the movant must serve notice of a motion to vacate, modify, or correct an award on the adverse party within three months after the award’s filing or delivery. Moreover, the statute requires service of notice, not merely filing.
Equitable Tolling in the Eleventh Circuit
The Eleventh Circuit treats the three-month window as a claim-processing rule rather than a jurisdictional bar. In NuVasive, Inc. v. Absolute Medical, LLC, No. 22-10214 (11th Cir. June 21, 2023), the court held that courts may equitably toll the window in Section 12 in appropriate circumstances, joining the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Move, Inc. v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., 840 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2016). There, the opposing party had withheld text messages showing that its principal coached a witness during remote testimony. As a result, the district court tolled the deadline and vacated the award for fraud, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. Nevertheless, the court stressed that tolling is an extraordinary remedy.
Interaction With the One-Year Confirmation Window
A party can seek confirmation for up to one year under Section 9, so the winner may wait while the loser’s vacatur clock runs out. For that reason, the Eleventh Circuit held in Cullen v. Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc., 863 F.2d 851 (11th Cir. 1989), following the Second Circuit’s decision in Florasynth, Inc. v. Pickholz, 750 F.2d 171 (2d Cir. 1984), that a party who misses the three-month window cannot raise the award’s invalidity as a defense to confirmation. In addition, our earlier article on confirmation deadlines by regime explains that timeline in detail.
Where to File: Venue, Jurisdiction, and Badgerow
Section 10(a) points to the federal district court in and for the district of the award. However, the Federal Arbitration Act does not itself create federal jurisdiction. Indeed, in Badgerow v. Walters, 596 U.S. 1 (2022), the Supreme Court held that courts may not “look through” a Section 9 or Section 10 application to the underlying dispute. As a result, the application itself must show an independent basis for the district court’s jurisdiction, such as diversity of citizenship or a federal question on its face.
When no independent basis exists, the motion belongs in state court, even if the contract’s arbitration clause invokes the FAA. Therefore, many arbitration agreements between citizens of the same state end up in state court. In Florida, for example, that means a motion to vacate arbitration award under the Revised Florida Arbitration Code or, for international commercial awards, the Florida International Commercial Arbitration Act.
Vacating an Arbitration Award Seated in the United States: International Cases
International awards raise a threshold question, namely which country’s courts may annul the award. Under the New York Convention, which governs the recognition of foreign and non-domestic arbitral awards, only the courts of the primary jurisdiction can vacate. In other words, only the country that hosted the seat, or whose law governed the proceedings, may set the award aside. Likewise, Article V(1)(e) of the Convention permits refusal where a competent authority at the seat has set the award aside. Our explainer on the seat of the arbitration covers why that choice matters when drafting dispute resolution clauses.
Corporación AIC: Vacating an Arbitration Award Seated in Miami
For Miami-seated proceedings, the governing decision is Corporación AIC, SA v. Hidroeléctrica Santa Rita S.A., 66 F.4th 876 (11th Cir. 2023) (en banc). Specifically, the dispute arose from a construction contract for a hydroelectric plant in Guatemala, and an ICC arbitration between two Guatemalan companies seated in Miami decided it. Sitting en banc, the Eleventh Circuit held that where the United States is the primary jurisdiction, the grounds for vacatur are those in Chapter 1 of the FAA, and it overruled its earlier decisions in Industrial Risk Insurers and Inversiones. Subsequently, on remand, the district court applied Section 10(a)(4), found that the tribunal had at least arguably interpreted the parties’ contract, and confirmed the award on July 28, 2023; Jus Mundi publishes the confirmation order.
In practice, the result is that a foreign party seated in Florida now has the same four Section 10 grounds as a domestic party. Notably, Article 38(3) of the 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules provides that parties undertake to comply with any award and waive recourse “insofar as such waiver can validly be made.” In Corporación AIC, the court nonetheless applied the FAA’s grounds to the ICC award. Our international arbitration practice handles both sides of this post-award stage.
Florida Law: Section 682.13 and the International Commercial Arbitration Act
In Florida state court, section 682.13, Florida Statutes governs domestic awards. Generally, the grounds track the Federal Arbitration Act. For example, they include an award procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue means; evident partiality, corruption, or misconduct by an arbitrator; refusal to postpone or to hear material evidence; an arbitrator exceeding the arbitrator’s powers; the absence of an agreement to arbitrate; and lack of proper notice of the arbitration. In addition, chapter 682 sets the procedure Florida courts follow for arbitration agreements and arbitration awards in state court.
However, the Florida deadline is different. Under section 682.13(2), the movant must file the motion within 90 days after receiving notice of the award. If the ground is corruption, fraud, or other undue means, the 90 days run from when the movant knew or should have known of it. Furthermore, section 682.13(4) provides that if the court denies the motion and no motion to modify is pending, the court shall confirm the award.
International Awards Under Chapter 684
International commercial awards in Florida state court fall under chapter 684. Under section 684.0046, an application to set aside is the exclusive remedy against the award. In particular, the grounds mirror the UNCITRAL Model Law: incapacity or an invalid agreement, lack of proper notice or inability to present a case, an award beyond the scope of the submission, an irregular tribunal or procedure, non-arbitrable subject matter, and conflict with Florida public policy. Likewise, a party may not apply after three months have elapsed from receipt of the award, and section 684.0008 assigns the function to the circuit court in the county of the seat.
Comparison of Rules for Vacatur of an Arbitration Award
| Regime | Where to file | Deadline | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|
| FAA Chapter 1 (9 U.S.C. § 10) | Federal district court in the district of the award, with an independent basis for jurisdiction | Notice within three months of the award (§ 12) | The four grounds in § 10(a) |
| New York Convention award seated in the United States (Eleventh Circuit) | Federal district court at the seat | Three months under § 12 | Section 10(a) grounds under Corporación AIC |
| Revised Florida Arbitration Code (§ 682.13) | Florida state court | 90 days after notice of the award; for fraud, 90 days after the movant knew or should have known of it | Section 682.13(1)(a) through (f) |
| Florida International Commercial Arbitration Act (§ 684.0046) | Circuit court in the county of the seat | Three months after receipt of the award | Model Law grounds listed in § 684.0046(2) |
Recent Decisions That Shape Vacatur Strategy in 2026
First, in Zeidman v. Lindell Management LLC, No. 24-1608 (8th Cir. July 23, 2025), the Eighth Circuit reversed a district court’s confirmation of a $5 million award and directed vacatur under Section 10(a)(4). The panel had acknowledged that Minnesota law barred extrinsic evidence for an unambiguous contract, then relied on advertising materials to add a requirement the contract did not contain. Consequently, the court concluded that the arbitrators exceeded their powers by effectively amending the contract. Subsequently, the Supreme Court denied review on January 12, 2026 (No. 25-504), leaving in place a split over whether “manifest disregard” survives.
Second, the Eleventh Circuit’s position remains stricter. Because Frazier forecloses manifest disregard in Florida federal courts, a movant should frame the same facts in a motion to vacate arbitration award as an “exceeded powers” argument under Section 10(a)(4). Similarly, the NuVasive decision shows that fraud claims can succeed, but only with clear and convincing proof that the movant could not have found during the arbitration.
Checklist Before Filing a Motion to Vacate an Arbitration Award
Calendar the deadline from the date you received the award: three months under Section 12 of the FAA, or 90 days under section 682.13 in Florida state court.
Identify the seat, because only the courts of the seat can vacate an international award.
Confirm jurisdiction under Badgerow, since diversity or a federal question must appear on the face of the application.
Match each argument to a statutory ground, and then drop any theory that only says the arbitrators misread the contract or the law.
Gather the record: the arbitration agreement or dispute resolution clause, terms of reference, procedural orders, transcripts, and the reasoned award.
Consider a request to correct or interpret the award under the institutional rules first: 30 days from receipt under Article 39(2) of the 2026 ICC Rules, and 20 calendar days from transmittal under Rule R-52 of the American Arbitration Association’s Commercial Arbitration Rules for clerical, typographical, or computational errors.
Frequently Asked Questions
Section 10(a) of the Federal Arbitration Act lists four grounds: an award procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means; evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators; misconduct at the hearing that prejudiced a party; and arbitrators exceeding their powers. Consequently, courts treat these grounds as exclusive.
Under 9 U.S.C. § 12 of the FAA, you must serve notice of the motion within three months after the award’s filing or delivery. In Florida state court, section 682.13 requires the motion within 90 days after notice of the award. However, the Eleventh Circuit has allowed equitable tolling only in extraordinary circumstances.
Generally, no. Judicial review under the Federal Arbitration Act covers only the grounds in the statute, and legal or factual error is not one of them. In the Eleventh Circuit, Frazier v. CitiFinancial rejected “manifest disregard of the law” as a basis for vacatur.
Yes. Under Corporación AIC v. Hidroeléctrica Santa Rita, the Eleventh Circuit applies the FAA’s Section 10 grounds to New York Convention arbitral awards seated in the United States. In contrast, courts outside the seat can only recognize the award or refuse recognition under Article V.
The award loses its binding effect in the primary jurisdiction. Under Section 10(b), the court may direct a rehearing by the arbitrators. Likewise, under section 682.13(3), a Florida court may order a rehearing, and a new arbitrator must hear it if the ground was corruption, fraud, undue means, partiality, or misconduct.
Conclusion
A motion to vacate arbitration award succeeds only when it fits a statutory ground and arrives on time. In short, the Federal Arbitration Act gives movants three months and four grounds, Florida gives 90 days and a similar list, and international parties seated in Miami now face the same FAA Section 10 standard after Corporación AIC. Where no ground fits, the better strategy is to prepare for confirmation and enforcement. Finally, if you are weighing whether to challenge or defend an award, contact our team to discuss the deadlines and options tailored to your situation.
