Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., a corporation, Respondent,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A22-1423

Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., a corporation,
Respondent,

vs.

Alioune Thiam,
Appellant.

Filed July 10, 2023
Affirmed
Reilly, Judge

Ramsey County District Court
File No. 62-CV-21-6060

Julie H. Firestone, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for
respondent)

Alioune Thiam, Hugo, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Considered and decided by Larkin, Presiding Judge; Reilly, Judge; and Slieter,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
REILLY, Judge
Appellant challenges the confirmation of an arbitration award, arguing that he never
signed an arbitration agreement, never accepted the panel of arbitrators, and did not receive
notice o f the arbitration award. Because appellant’s motion to vacate the award was
untimely, we affirm.
2
FACTS
In 2017, appellant Alioune Thiam opened three accounts with respondent Charles
Schwab & Co. Inc. (Schwab) , a securities broker -dealer. Thiam deposited funds into his
accounts and began trading. Two years later, Thiam filed suit against Schwab in district
court and alleged he suffered a significant financial loss after the company failed to deposit
dividend payments into his accounts and blocked him from selling his options. Thiam
asserted claims against Schwab of fraud, theft, and illegal seizure seeking $160,000 in
restitution. The district court granted Schwab’s motion to stay the proceedings and compel
arbitration.
The parties submitted the matter to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
(FINRA ) for arbitration and further agreed to be bound by FINRA’s rules. FINRA
assigned a panel of three arbitrators to the case. The panel first considered the arbitrability
of Thiam’s claims and determined that the parties “contracted to submit disputed matters
related to their contractual relationship to mandatory arbitration.” The panel also observed
that the issue had been litigated in the district court and concluded Thiam’s claims were
arbitrable. Upon learning who the panel members were, Thiam requested that the chair of
the panel recuse himself. Thiam asserted that a panel of only white arbitrators would not
be impartial to him and requested the panel members take an anti -bias test. The chair of
the panel did not recuse himself.
In June 2021, the panel held a hearing via videoconference and Thiam failed to
appear. Schwab moved to dismiss Thiam’s claims and award sanc tions for Thiam’s
violations of FINRA’s code of arbitration procedure. The panel deferred ruling on the
3
motions to allow Thiam to be heard. The next day, Thiam appeared at the rescheduled
evidentiary hearing and presented his case. On August 3, 2021, FI NRA issued an
arbitration award dismissing Thiam’s claims and ordering Thiam to pay $4,000 in
attorney’s fees and $3,500 in discovery sanctions to Schwab. FINRA served the award on
the parties via email and provided a l etter advising them of their right t o file a motion to
vacate the award in federal or state court within the applicable statutory time period.
On November 17, 2021, Schwab filed a motion in the district court to confirm the
FINRA arbitration award and enter judgment against Thiam. Schwab noted that over 90
days had passed since the award was issued and Thiam had not filed or served a motion to
modify or vacate the award. On December 6, Thiam filed a responsive motion requesting
the district court vacate the award and declare it “void in the interest of justice.” Thiam
argued he did not discover the award until November 19, never agreed to arbitrate his
claims when he opened his accounts, and never accepted the purportedly biased panel of
arbitrators. Schwab produced an email from a FINRA employee confirming that FINRA’s
records showed Thiam opened and viewed the digitally served award on August 3.
A referee of the district court granted Schwab’s motion to confirm the award and
judgment was entered in favor of Schwab. Thiam requested judicial review of the referee’s
decision and sought relief from the judgment under Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02. A judge of the
district court granted Thiam’s motion for review but denied his reque sted relief from the
judgment. The district court reasoned that the referee correctly confirmed the arbitration
award under Minn. Stat. § 572B.22 (2022) and properly concluded Thiam’s motion to
vacate the arbitration award was untimely.
4
This appeal follows.
DECISION
The district court did not err in confirming the arbitration award and Thiam’s
motion to vacate was untimely.

We review the district court’s decision confirming an arbitration award de novo.
Seagate Tech., LLC v. W. Digit. Corp., 854 N.W.2d 750, 760 (Minn. 2014). The district
court must make every reasonable presumption favoring an arbitration award’s validity.
Id. at 761. The district court must issue an order confirming the award unless a timely
motion to modify, correct, or vacate the aw ard is filed. Minn. Stat. § 572B.22. A motion
to vacate an arbitration award must be filed within 90 days of receiving notice of the award
or within 90 days after the movant learns that the award was procured by fraud, corruption,
or other undue means. Minn. Stat. § 572B.23(b) (2022). The failure to move to vacate an
award within 90 days, when the motion is not based on fraud, corruption, or undue means ,
prevents judicial review of the award. Abd Alla v. Mourssi , 680 N.W.2d 569, 573 (Minn.
App. 2004).
FINRA served the arbitration award on the parties on August 3, 2021, dismissing
Thiam’s claims and ordering him to pay $7,500 to Schwab. Schwab moved the district
court to confirm the arbitration award and enter judgment against Thiam on November 17,
2021. Thiam did not seek vacation of the award until December 6, 2021, more than 90
days after August 3. Thiam’s argument that he did not receive notice of the award until
November is unpersuasive. A FINRA clerk stated that its records showed Thiam opened
and viewed the digitally served arbitration award on the same day it was issued. Thiam
5
advanced no evidence to support his claim that he was unaware of the award until Schwab
moved the district court to confirm it. Moreover, the award itself indicated notice occurred
on August 3 and was served with a letter that advised Thiam of his right to move to vacate
the award within a certain, statutory time period. On this record, the district court properly
determined that Thiam received notice of the award on August 3 and that his motion to
vacate was therefore untimely. See Minn. Stat. § 572B.22. Because his motion was
untimely and properly denied by the district court, we do not reach his substantive
arguments on the three statutory grounds he contends support vacating the award. See
Minn. Stat. § 572B.23 (2022) (setting forth six statutory grounds for vacating an award
including “evident partiality by an arbitrator appointed as a neutral ,” “ an arbitrator
exceeded [their] powers,” and “there was no agreement to arbitrate”). Absent any timely
motion to vacate, the district court did not err in confirming the arbitration award.
Affirmed.