Whether a state appellate court violates the Federal Arbitration Act by vacating an arbitration award on the ground that the arbitration procedure failed to satisfy a judicial standard of procedural due process

No question identified. : App. No. 24ABn the Supreme Court of the United States ROYAL MERCHANT HOLDINGS, LLC, Applicant, Vv. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM, P.A. Respondent. APPLICANT ROYAL MERCHANT HOLDINGS, LLC’S APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI To the Honorable Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court and Circuit Justice for the Eleventh Circuit: 1. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 13.5, 22, and 30, Applicant Royal Merchant Holdings, LLC (“Applicant”)! respectfully requests a 60-day extension of time, up to and including, Monday, July 28, 2025, to file a petition for writ of certiorari to the State of Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal (“Third District”), seeking review of that court’s decision vacating an arbitration award governed by the Federal Arbitration Act that improperly imposes a judicial standard for procedural due process in arbitration. The Florida Supreme Court denied discretionary review of that decision. A copy of the Third District’s decision, dated June 12, 2024, the Third 1 Applicant does not have a parent corporation. No publicly held corporation owns any portion of any of the Applicant, and the Applicant is not a subsidiary or an affiliate of any publicly owned corporation. District’s order denying a motion for rehearing, dated August 21, 2024, and the Florida Supreme Court’s order denying discretionary review, dated February 25, 2025, are attached as