the court may intervene “only in extremely limited circumstances.” United States v. John C. Grimberg Co., Inc., 702 F.2d 1362, 1372 (Fed.Cir.1983). “Courts have found an agency’s decision to be arbitrary and capricious when the agency ‘entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or [the decision] is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.’ ” Ala. Aircraft Indus., Inc.-Birmingham v. United States, 586 F.3d 1372, 1375 (Fed.Cir.2009) (quoting Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983)); see also John C. Grimberg Co., Inc., 702 F.2d at 1372 (<HOLDING>). In this case, the parties have filed
holding that manifest disregard of the law is one of the very unusual circumstances in which a federal court can set aside an arbitration award holding that the trial court was without authority to set aside entry of default on motion to set aside default judgment holding that this court will only set aside district courts factual findings when they are clearly erroneous recognizing that a trial court can set aside verdict holding that the court may set aside agency action only in extremely limited circumstances