MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

PAUL W. GRIMM, District Judge.

Plaintiff Choice Hotels International, Inc. ("Choice Hotels") filed an application to confirm arbitration award against Jitendra Patel on May 3,2016. Complaint, ECF No.1. Choice Hotels seeks $106,557.06 pursuant to the arbitration award and on August 14, 2018 Choice Hotels filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Pl.'s Mot., ECF No. 32. Because I have already found that I have jurisdiction to confirm the arbitration award, see ECF No. 12, and Defendant has not demonstrated any basis for vacating the award, I will grant Choice Hotel's motion for summary judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

On August 13, 2015 an arbitration award was entered in favor of Plaintiff Choice Hotels against Defendant Jitendra Patel. See Arbitration Award, ECF No. 32-4. The award consisted of $99,177.34 in liquidated damages plus $7,379.72 in arbitration fees for a total of $106,557.06. See id. On May 3, 2016, Choice Hotels filed its application to confirm arbitration award against Defendant, within one year of the arbitration award. See Complaint. Mr. Patel entered a special appearance and filed a motion to dismiss on June 6, 2016. ECF NO.6. This Court denied the Motion to Dismiss, and Mr. Patel subsequently filed an Answer to the Complaint on March 6, 2017. Answer, ECF No. 13. After settlement conferences failed to reach a resolution, Choice Hotels filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on August 14, 2018. ECF No. 32. Mr. Patel has failed to respond to or otherwise answer the Motion for Summary Judgment. A hearing is unnecessary to determine the amount of liability given the information provided in the arbitration award. ECF No. 32-4.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment is proper when the moving party demonstrates, through "particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations . . ., admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials," that "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), (c)(1)(A); see Baldwin v. City of Greensboro, No. 12-1722, 714 F.3d 828, 833 (4th Cir. 2013). If the party seeking summary judgment demonstrates that there is no evidence to support the nonmoving party's case, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to identify evidence that shows that a genuine dispute exists as to material facts. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 585-87 & n. 10 (1986). When the nonmoving party does not oppose a summary judgment motion, "those facts established by the motion" are "uncontroverted." Custer v. Pan Am. Life Ins. Co., 12 F.3d 410, 416 (4th Cir. 1993). Nonetheless, the moving party still must demonstrate that, based on those facts, that party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, because "[t]he failure to respond to the motion does not automatically accomplish this." Id.

III. DISCUSSION

Choice Hotels moves for summary judgment with respect to its arbitration award. The Fourth Circuit stated that

Three S. Del., Inc. v. DataQuick Info. Sys., Inc., 492 F.3d 520, 527 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting Apex Plumbing Supply, Inc. v. U.S. Supply Co., Inc., 142 F.3d 188, 193 (4th Cir. 1998)). The Federal Arbitration Act provides that

9 U.S.C. § 9. "If there is a valid contract between the parties providing for arbitration, and if the dispute resolved in the arbitration was within the scope of the arbitration clause, then substantive review is limited to those grounds set out in [9 U.S.C. § 10]." Choice Hotels Int'l, Inc. v. Shriji 2000, No. DKC-15-1577, 2015 WL 5010130, at *1 (D. Md. Aug. 21, 2015) (citing Apex Plumbing, 142 F.3d 193). 9 U.S.C. § 10 provides that a court may vacate an arbitration award

"[T]he party opposing the award bears the burden of proving the existence of grounds for vacating the award." Choice Hotels Int'l, Inc. v. Austin Area Hosp., Inc., No. TDC01500516, 2015 WL 6123523, at *2 (D. Md. Oct. 14,2015) (citing Three S Del., Inc., 492 F.3d at 527).

In this case, the parties' franchise agreement includes an arbitration clause which provides, in part, that "any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement, or the breach of this Agreement, . . . will be sent to final and binding arbitration before either the American Arbitration Association, J.A.M.S., or National Arbitration Forum . . ." Arbitration Agr., ECF No. 32-1. The arbitration clause further provides that "[j]udgment on the arbitration award may be entered in any court having jurisdiction." Id.

Because Choice Hotels filed its demand for arbitration against Defendant seeking damages for a breach of their franchise agreement, the arbitration resolved a dispute within the scope of the parties' arbitration clause. See ECF 32. Because the arbitration award was made on August 13, 2015 and Choice Hotels' motion was filed on May 3, 2016, the application for arbitration award was timely. See Complaint, ECF 1. Additionally, as described in the arbitration award, Mr. Patel was given due notice of the arbitration but failed to make an appearance. ECF No. 32-4. Mr. Patel also failed to challenge the arbitration award within three months of the award being filed or delivered as required by 9 U.S.C. § 12. I have already ruled that the parties appear to be diverse and the amount in controversy satisfies the jurisdictional mllllmum for diversity jurisdiction in this Court. See ECF No. 12. Thus this Court has jurisdiction to confirm the arbitration award. See Austin Area, 2015 WL 6123523, at *2; Choice Hotels Int'l, Inc. v. Savannah Shakti Corp., No. DKC-11-0438, 2011 WL 5118328, at *3 (D. Md. Oct. 25, 2011).

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

ORDER

Accordingly, it is on this 19th day of December, 2018, by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, hereby ORDERED that: