Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 17, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Wells Fargo Clearing Services, LLC v. Wade Roberts

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 25-13683
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Nature of Suit: NEW

• Opinion

• Authorities (5)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (70)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-13683 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 03/17/2026 Page: 1 of 6

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit

No. 25-13683
Non-Argument Calendar

WELLS FARGO CLEARING SERVICES, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus

WADE ROBERTS,
Defendant- Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 1:24-cv-04406-VMC

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and BRASHER and WILSON,
Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 25-13683 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 03/17/2026 Page: 2 of 6

2 Opinion of the Court 25-13683

Wade Roberts appeals an order confirming an arbitration
award in favor of his former employer, Wells Fargo Clearing Ser-
vices, LLC, and denying his motion to vacate that award. He con-
tends that the petition was deficient because it lacked a copy of the
award. See 9 U.S.C. § 13 (b). He also contends that the arbitrator
erred by rejecting his defense of res judicata. Because the record
establishes that the arbitrator acted within his contractual author-
ity, we affirm the confirmation of the award. But we vacate the
judgment and remand with instructions to enter a judgment that
reflects the amount of the arbitration award as supplemented in the
record.
I. BACKGROUND
In an earlier appeal, we affirmed an order compelling Rob-
erts to arbitrate his complaint against Wells Fargo for collecting the
balance he owed on outstanding loans. See Roberts v. Wells Fargo
Clearing Servs., LLC, No. 22-11049, 2022 WL 16826715, at *1 (11th
Cir. Nov. 9, 2022). Roberts and Wells Fargo arbitrated that dispute
before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, and the Au-
thority issued an award in favor of Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo peti-
tioned the district court to confirm the award of $1,077,225.54 and
erroneously stated that it had attached a copy of the award to in-
corporate it by reference. 9 U.S.C. §§ 9, 13.
Roberts answered the petition, admitted that Wells Fargo
attached a copy of the award, and moved to vacate it. In his mo-
tion, Roberts argued that the arbitrator exceeded his powers by ig-
USCA11 Case: 25-13683 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 03/17/2026 Page: 3 of 6

25-13683 Opinion of the Court 3

noring Roberts’s defense of res judicata, which was based on state-
ments in our earlier decision that “Wells Fargo garnished Roberts’s
bank account to satisfy the debt,” and “Wells Services had already
collected the amounts outstanding on the promissory notes.”
Wells Fargo opposed the motion. See 9 U.S.C. § 10 (a). It asserted
that the arbitrator acted within his express authority, that Roberts
waived his right to present evidence by failing to appear at the final
hearing, and that his defense of res judicata misconstrued our deci-
sion, which was a jurisdictional ruling, not a merits determination.
The district court granted Wells Fargo’s petition and denied
Roberts’s motion. It ruled that the arbitrator acted within his con-
tractual authority because the promissory notes between Wells
Fargo and Roberts permitted him to resolve disputes regarding the
debt owed to Wells Fargo. It rejected Roberts’s defense of res judi-
cata and explained that our earlier decision was a jurisdictional rul-
ing, not a merits determination. And it concluded that because the
arbitrator was “arguably construing the contract,” no valid grounds
for vacatur existed. The district court confirmed the award and en-
tered judgment in favor of Wells Fargo for $1,077,225.54.
On appeal, Wells Fargo moved to supplement the record
with a copy of the arbitration award, see FED. R. APP. P. 10(e)(2),
after Roberts’s initial brief identified its absence as a ground for re-
versible error. Wells Fargo argues that the parties and the district
court relied on the award despite its accidental omission from the
record. Alternatively, Wells Fargo asks us to exercise our inherent
authority to supplement the record or to take judicial notice of the
USCA11 Case: 25-13683 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 03/17/2026 Page: 4 of 6

4 Opinion of the Court 25-13683

award as a public record. Roberts did not respond. We carried the
motion with the case.
II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
The same standards apply to orders confirming an arbitra-
tion award and those denying a motion to vacate. Frazier v. CitiFi-
nancial Corp., LLC, 604 F.3d 1313, 1321 (11th Cir. 2010). We review
legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error. Id.
III. DISCUSSION
We grant Wells Fargo’s motion to supplement. “If anything
material to either party is omitted from . . . the record by error or
accident, the omission . . . may be corrected and a supplemental
record may be certified . . . by the court of appeals.” FED. R. APP. P.
10(e)(2). We will supplement a record when a party omits a docu-
ment by oversight, not by tactical decision. See, e.g., Ross v. Kemp,
785 F.2d 1467, 1471 (11th Cir. 1986). In this case, the record con-
firms that the parties and the district court proceeded under the
reasonable—though mistaken—belief that Wells Fargo filed a copy
of the arbitration award. The petition incorporated the award by
reference, Roberts admitted that Wells Fargo attached it, and both
parties relied on its terms in the pleadings related to Roberts’s mo-
tion to vacate the award. The district court made findings based on
those pleadings. The record confirms that the omission was acci-
dental. See McDaniel v. Travelers Ins. Co., 494 F.2d 1189 (11th Cir.
1974). Any clerical defect was harmless and must be disregarded, as
it did not affect his substantial rights. See 28 U.S.C. § 2111.
USCA11 Case: 25-13683 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 03/17/2026 Page: 5 of 6

25-13683 Opinion of the Court 5

Review of arbitration decisions is “among the narrowest
known to the law.” Warrior Met Coal Mining, LLC v. United Mine
Workers of Am., 28 F.4th 1073, 1078 (11th Cir. 2022) (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted). Vacatur is permitted “only in
very unusual circumstances,” Gherardi v. Citigroup Glob. Mkts. Inc.,
975 F.3d 1232, 1236 (11th Cir. 2020) (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted), such as when an arbitrator “exceeded [his] pow-
ers,” 9 U.S.C. § 10 (a)(4). Review under section 10(a)(4) is “quasi-
jurisdictional: a check to make sure that the arbitration agreement
granted the arbitrator authority to reach the issues it resolved.”
Gherardi, 975 F.3d at 1238.
The arbitrator had the authority to resolve the dispute. The
promissory notes underlying the loans granted him the power to
resolve “any controversy arising out of, or in connection with the
validity, enforcement or construction of” the notes. Roberts argues
that the arbitrator exceeded his powers by rejecting Roberts’s de-
fense of res judicata. Yet, res judicata is “for the arbitrator to decide
in the first instance.” Klay v. United Healthgroup, Inc., 376 F.3d 1092,
1109 (11th Cir. 2004). And the arbitrator’s rejection of Roberts’s de-
fense cannot serve as a basis for vacatur. “Our sole question under
[section] 10(a)(4) . . . is whether the arbitrator (even arguably) in-
terpreted the parties’ contract, not whether []he got its meaning
right or wrong.” Gherardi, 975 F.3d at 1238 (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted). Although this result may be a “tough
pill to swallow,” id. at 1237, because the arbitrator had the power
to resolve the controversy, our judicial inquiry “must end,” Warrior
Met Coal Mining, 28 F.4th at 1078.
USCA11 Case: 25-13683 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 03/17/2026 Page: 6 of 6

6 Opinion of the Court 25-13683

Nevertheless, our review suggests that the amount stated in
the judgment is inconsistent with the award. Accordingly, we va-
cate the judgment in part and remand for the district court to de-
termine the correct amount of the judgment based on the arbitra-
tion award as supplemented in the record.
IV. CONCLUSION
We GRANT Wells Fargo’s motion to supplement, AFFIRM
in part the order granting Wells Fargo’s petition, VACATE in part
the judgment, and REMAND with instructions to enter a judg-
ment in favor of Wells Fargo that reflects the amount of the arbi-
tration award as supplemented in the record.