By Leslie King O’Neal
What’s in a Name?
In arbitration, as in court, it’s important to name the parties accurately. However, in a recent case, the 6th Circuit upheld an award which incorrectly named the respondent. Finding the substance of the arbitration award governed over the caption’s form and that the respondent waived any objection by participating in the arbitration, the court denied respondent’s motion to vacate.
Parent Company Incorrectly Named in Demand, but Employer Appears & Participates
In Holtec International Corporation et al. v. Michigan State Utility Workers Council (MSUWC)[i] the union filed for arbitration on behalf of a member pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. However, the arbitration demand mistakenly named the employer’s parent company, Holtec international Corporation (“Holtec”) (which was not a party to the arbitration agreement) rather than the employer, Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC (“HDI”). Despite the misnomer, HDI appeared through counsel and participated in the arbitration until the arbitrator issued an award in favor of the union.
After Adverse Award, Parent Company Moves to Vacate
After receiving the award, Holtec filed an action to vacate, asserting it was improperly issued against a non-party, and thus was outside the arbitrator’s authority and was invalid. The union filed a counterclaim to confirm the award, which the district court granted. The court found the incorrect caption was merely a procedural defect and that Holtec had waived any objection.
On appeal the 6th Circuit noted that in construing an arbitral award, courts “examine the award and opinion as a whole and attempt to ascertain their unambiguous meaning.” Both courts found the award, read in its entirety, related only to HDI rather than to Holtec.
Misnomer Doctrine Applies; Award Upheld
Further, the appellate court upheld applying the doctrine of misnomer,[ii] finding the proof supported the conclusion that, “everyone involved in the arbitration, including Holtec, understood the award would bind both HDI and the union.”
The 6th Circuit noted that courts have used the misnomer doctrine in dealing with errors in arbitration awards. For example, in Cigna Ins. Co. v. Huddleston, [iii] the caption named “CIGNA Property and Casualty Company” rather than “CIGNA Insurance Company.” The 5th Circuit held “this technical defect does not render the district court’s confirmation of the arbitration award erroneous” because “everyone involved in the action . . . knew of and could identify the entity being sued.”
Courts Dislike “Sandbagging”
HDI’s participation in the arbitration without raising any issue about the erroneous caption and then waiting until the last moment to file a motion to vacate the award did not win any points with the courts. The 6th Circuit had harsh criticism for HDI’s “sandbagging” the court by remaining silent about the defective caption, then calling “foul” only after getting an adverse award.
Takeaways
- While it’s better to name all parties in arbitration correctly, courts may uphold awards despite misnomers.
- Participating in an arbitration without raising procedural issues may waive those issues.
- Courts do not take kindly to litigants who “sandbag.”
[i] (No. 25-1469, 6th Circuit, November 24, 2025). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/25-1469/25-1469-2025-11-24.html?utm_source=summary-newsletters&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2025-11-28-arbitration-mediation-02030302a6&utm_content=text-case-read-more-1
[ii] A longstanding contract law principle, “[t]he misnomer of a person or corporation in a written instrument will not defeat a recovery thereon if the identity sufficiently appears from the name employed in the writing or is satisfactorily established by proof.” (Citing PIM, Inc. v. Steinbichler Optical Tech. USA, Inc., 660 NW 2d, 73, 73-74 (Mich. 2003).
[iii] 986 F.2d 1418 (5th Cir. 2023)