where the award was entered pursuant to court-annexed arbitration, which was originally authorized by the 1988 Judicial Improvements and Access to Justice Act. Specifically, § 655(a) refers only to arbitration awards filed "under section 654," which in turn refers only to "award[s] by an arbitrator under this chapter," § 654(a) (emphasis added). In contrast, private agreements to arbitrate are governed by the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16, and court-annexed arbitration "shall not affect title 9," 28 U.S.C. § 651(b). Accordingly, § 655(a)'s thirty-day demand period is irrelevant here; in any event, we have awaited entry of confirmation until after full briefing, and August 8 has already passed.
Next, the defendants object to reading the arbitration award to include interest on the $ 82,571.78 awarded in the Final Award, that is, the amount due in attorneys' fees, costs, arbitration expenses, and arbitrator's compensation. We agree with the defendants that, while the arbitrator expressly imposed 1.5% per month interest on the $ 158,745.75 awarded in the Partial Award, no such interest was imposed on the subsequent award. Indeed, the arbitrator never mentioned, in either the Partial Award or Final Award, imposing interest on the attorneys' fees, costs, arbitration expenses, and arbitrator's compensation. Although the plaintiff contends that the franchise agreement clearly provides for such interest, an examination of the agreement reveals otherwise. Compare Franchise Agreement § 6(G) (section dealing with "late payments" provides for 1.5% interest on such payments to AlphaGraphics) with § 19(F) (section dealing with "arbitration" provides for interest on "money damages" but not on "attorneys' fees and costs").
Thus, we confirm the arbitration award, but the award contains no imposition of interest on the Final Award's $ 82,571.78.
Finally, AlphaGraphics seeks post-award, prejudgment interest on the arbitration award in addition to the post-award interest already imposed on the initial $ 158,745.75 awarded by the arbitrator. We decline to impose the additional interest. The plaintiff did not make this claim until its reply brief, Pl.'s Reply at 2-3, and thus waived entry of such interest. Moreover, although AlphaGraphics asserts that the amount of interest is within our discretion, and in support cites Sun Ship, Inc. v. Matson Navigation Co., 785 F.2d 59, 63 (3d Cir. 1986), the plaintiff fails to point out that there is a split in authority over whether federal law or state law governs the entitlement to, and rate of, post-award, prejudgment interest. Compare id. at 63 (applying federal law) with Northrop Corp. v. Triad Int'l Marketing S.A., 842 F.2d 1154, 1155 (9th Cir. 1988) (applying state law); see also Fitigues, Inc. v. Varat Enters., 813 F. Supp. 1336, 1339 (N.D. Ill. 1992) (pointing out conflict in authority); cf. Merit Ins. Co. v. Leatherby Ins. Co., 728 F.2d 943, 944 (7th Cir. 1984) (parties agreed that state law applied); DDI Seamless Cylinder Int'l Inc. v. General Fire Extinguisher Corp., 14 F.3d 1163, 1167 (7th Cir. 1994) (dicta expressing that arbitrator may award post-award, preconfirmation interest). In any event, even following the plaintiff's incomplete view of the law, we would exercise our discretion and refrain from imposing post-award, prejudgment interest on top of the post-award interest already granted. Under the particular circumstances, AlphaGraphics is adequately compensated for the time-value of the money damages by the generous 1.5% per month interest imposed on the $ 158,745.75 in the arbitrator's award.
In sum, we grant the motion to confirm the arbitration award, which we read as follows: (1) $ 158,745.75 to AlphaGraphics with interest at the rate of 1.5% per month from issuance of the Final Award (June 28, 1996) until paid; (2) $ 82,571.78 in attorneys' fees, costs, administrative fees and expenses of the American Arbitration Association, and the arbitrator's compensation. It is so ordered.
MARVIN E. ASPEN
United States District Judge