JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Plaintiff, and Focus South Group, LLC; South Edge, LLC, Petitioners-Appellees, v. KB HOME NEVADA INC.; Coleman-Toll Limited Partnership, LLC; Pardee Homes of Nevada; Beazer Homes Holdings Corp.; Meritage Homes of Nevada, fka MTH Homes Nevada, Inc., Defendants-Appellants, 469 F. App'x 619

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Defendants-Appellants KB Home Nevada; Coleman-Toll Ltd. Partnership; Par-dee Homes of Nevada; and Beazer Homes Holding Corp. (collectively, “Home Builders”); and DefendanL-Appellant Meritage Homes of Nevada (“Meritage”) appeal the district court’s order confirming a final arbitration award in favor of Plaintiff-Ap-pellee Focus South Group (“Focus”), and denying their motions to vacate and/or correct the award. 1. We GRANT

(1) Focus’ motion to substitute Inspirada Builders as appellee, filed January 26, 2012; (2) the stipulation of partial dismissal, filed February 9, 2012;

(3) Meritage’s request for judicial notice, filed January 20, 2012;

(4) Home Builders’ motion for leave to file a response to Meri-tage’s reply brief, filed October 6, 2011; and

(5) Meritage’s unopposed motion for an extension of time to file a response, filed October 12, 2011. 2. Judicial estoppel does not apply here. See New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 750-51, 121. S.Ct. 1808, 149 L.Ed.2d 968 (2001) (discussing factors relevant to the judicial estoppel analysis); Interstate Fire & Cas. Co. v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 139 F.3d 1234, 1239 (9th Cir.1998) (restricting application of judicial estoppel to cases in which a court “reliéd on the party’s previously inconsistent statement”). 3.

Applying the deferential standard of judicial review governing arbitration awards, see Kyocera Corp. v. Prudential-Bache Trade Servs., Inc., 341 F.3d 987, 994 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc), we reject the argument that the arbitrators exceeded then- authority by awarding what Meritage would construe as consequential damages despite the arbitrators’ specific finding to the contrary, see id. (“Neither erroneous legal conclusions nor unsubstantiated factual findings justify federal court review of an arbitral award under the [FAA].”). See also Health Plan of Nev., Inc. v.

Rainbow Med., LLC, 120 Nev. 689, 100 P.3d 172, 178 (2004). 4. The award is not “imperfect in a matter of form.” 9 U.S.C. § 11; Nev.Rev. Stat. § 38.242(c). See Kyocera, 341 F.3d at 994; Bosack v. Soward, 586 F.3d 1096, 1106 (9th Cir.2009) (explaining that contradictory findings of fact are not grounds for vacatur). 5. Meritage’s appeal of the denial of its motion to vacate the ai-bitration award’s denial of its counterclaim against South Edge, LLC is stayed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). See Parker v. Bain, 68 F.3d 1131, 1135-36 (9th Cir.1995).

The panel shall retain jurisdiction over this appeal pending further proceedings in the bankruptcy court. Within 30 days of this order, Meritage shall file a status report regarding the proceedings referenced in Meritage’s notice of bankruptcy proceeding and automatic stay, filed March 3, 2011. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. AFFIRMED as to Home Builders’ motion to vacate the award in part, and Meri-tage’s motion to correct the award; STAYED as to Meritage’s motion to vacate the denial of its counterclaims against South Edge, LLC. The mandate is stayed pending further notice of the court.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.