DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this arbitration action by Millrock Technology, Inc. (“Petitioner”) against Pixar Bio Corporation (“Respondentt”), is Petitioner’s motion, pursuant to Section 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. §1 et seq., to confirm an arbitration award rendered by an arbitrator of the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) on April 19, 2018, against Respondent. (Dkt. No. 1.) For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner’s motion is granted and the award is confirmed.I. RELEVANT BACKGROUNDA. Relevant Factual HistoryOn September 8, 2017, Petitioner commenced an arbitration proceeding before the AAA against Respondent regarding a breach of contract related to a purchase agreement in which Petitioner agreed to build two custom freeze dryer units for Respondent in exchange for a total purchase price of $721,404.00. (Dkt. No. 1.) On April 19, 2018, Petitioners obtained from AAA arbitrator Perry Dean Freedman an arbitration award in the amount of three hundred sixty thousand seven hundred and two dollars ($360,702.00) in contractual damages plus interest at the statutory rate of 9percent per annum from November 15, 2016, until payment, as well as thirty thousand nine hundred and six dollars and seventy five cents ($30,906.75) in reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and disbursements, and eight thousand and seventy five dollars ($8,075.00) to reimburse Petitioner for administrative fees previously incurred and paid by Petitioner related to the arbitration. (Dkt. No. 1, Attach. 2.)On June 6, 2018, Petitioner commenced the current action. (Dkt. No. 1.) On July 19, 2018, Petitioner personally served on Respondent’s registered agent a copy of its initiating motion to confirm the arbitration award in this action and the Court’s Scheduling Order regarding that motion. (Dkt. No. 3.) On August 29, 2018, the Court sua sponte extended the deadline for Respondent to file a response to Petitioner’s motion until September 12, 2018, and advised Respondent that its failure to file a response to the motion by that date might result in a judgment being entered against it; the Court served a copy of this Text Order upon Respondent via regular mail at two different addresses, including the one at which Respondent had previously received personal service. (Dkt. No. 4 [Text Order filed 8/29/2018].) Despite having received notice of this action and warning about the consequences of failing to file a response, Respondent has not filed a response or even made an appearance in this action as of the date of this Decision and Order. (See generally Docket Sheet.)C. Parties’ Arguments on Respondent’s MotionGenerally, in its motion seeking an order confirming the arbitration award, Petitioner argues that this Court should issue an order confirming the arbitration award of April 19, 2018, as a valid and final arbitration award pursuant to 9 U.S.C. §9, arguing that none of the grounds for allowing a court to vacate an arbitration award are present in this case. (Dkt. No. 1, at
