Does the Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers holding that an arbitrator's 'serious error' does not suffice to overturn an arbitrator's decision include the 'serious' legal error of ignoring the terms of an arbitration agreement in favor of a decision based solely on 'equity' in violation of this Court's precedent?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Does the Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers, 531 U.S. 57, 62 (2000) holding that an arbitrator’s “serious error does not suffice to overturn” or vacate an arbitrator’s decision include the “serious” legal error of ignoring the of terms of an arbitration agreement in favor of a decision based solely on “equity” in violation of this Court’s precedent including Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. Animal Feeds Int'l Corp., 559 U.S. 662, 682 (2010) and the FAA’s mandate that arbitrators base their judgments on the interpretation of the terms of the arbitral contract? 2. If Radcliffe is left undisturbed, will the FAA’s limited right to seek vacatur be effectively neutered in the Ninth Circuit, roiling arbitration practice in the Ninth Circuit in ways contrary to Supreme Court precedent as followed by the Eighth, Fifth and Third Circuits?