Facts

Respondent Med-Aesthetic Solutions Inc. was the assignee of a patent for the Total Salt Facial device. It purchased all the components of the device and then shipped those components to KMI IMI, who then manufactured it. Around 2017, Med-Aesthetic began selling the device through a network of independent distributors. In 2018, Med-Aesthetic met with petitioner MD Spa Shop LLC. Over the next months, the parties negotiated a distribution agreement for MD Spa to become Med-Aesthetic's exclusive nationwide sales agent for the device. Under the terms of their agreement, MD Spa was to sell a quarterly quota of the device, with the purchases to be approved by Med-Aesthetic. MD Spa was required to submit an advance payment for the devices each quarter. All went well under the agreement until 2019 when MD Spa failed to meet its sales quotas, failed to obtain Med-Aesthetic's approval for third-party sales and allowed its sales personnel to make unauthorized promises to customers. Their agreement was formally terminated in August 2019. MD Spa retaliated by submitting a claim to American Express to reverse certain charges it had made to Med-Aesthetic for the devices. Pursuant to their agreement, Med-Aesthetic filed a claim with the American Arbitration Association. The arbitrator, John H. L'Estrange, Jr., awarded Med-Aesthetic a final award of $1,358,546.50.

PETITIONER'S CONTENTIONS: Petitioner contended that the arbitrator's calculation of respondent's lost profits was irrational, the agreement was illegal, and sealing the documents was warranted because it contained sensitive pricing and financial information.

RESPONDENT'S CONTENTIONS: Respondent argued that the arbitrator's calculations were rational: MD Spa failed to pay for 87 units it committed to under the agreement and Med-Aesthetics' profit on each unit would have been $14,050 which totaled was the amount the arbitrator arrived at for the damages. As for the illegality of the agreement, petitioner forfeited this challenge since it was not raised prior to arbitration.

Result

The court confirmed the arbitration award and denied the motion to seal. As to the motion to seal, unfortunately, because the exhibit was erroneously filed on the public docket, that relief was unavailable as it was already available to the public.