What could be a better subject for a Black Friday weekend post than the Cabbage Patch Kids??! Especially if you are old enough to remember the 1980s… Whether you loved or hated the smushed-face dolls, the point of this post is that the 11th Circuit confirmed an arbitration award in their favor, showing significant deference
In most circumstances, the Federal Arbitration Act requires that the losing party move to vacate an arbitration award within three months. However, the Ninth Circuit recently ruled that the three-month timeline can be tolled, especially for something as significant as the chair lying about being a licensed attorney.
In Move, Inc. v. Citigroup Global Markets
While I was busy blogging out listicles and “think pieces” last month, my stack of unread arbitration cases grew exponentially. August was apparently a very busy month for publishing arbitration opinions. Maybe most surprisingly, the federal appellate courts vacated three arbitration awards in recent weeks. So I will start there, and end with
While regular people count down the days to summer blockbusters that come in the form of high-paid actors fighting aliens or robots, I prefer my summer blockbusters in the form of arbitration opinions that have been months in the making (maybe finally released because the clerks are about to turn over?). Today, I report on
Finding that some of its previous pronouncements were leading district court judges astray, the Ninth Circuit clarified its precedent regarding the scope of review of labor arbitration awards. “We conclude that it is time for us to retire the use of ‘plausibility’ as a term to describe the courts’ role in reviewing labor arbitration awards.”
The Supreme Court of Hawaii ruled recently that if a neutral arbitrator fails to meet disclosure requirements, it constitutes “evident partiality” as a matter of law, and requires the vacatur of the arbitrator’s award. Furthermore, Hawaii interpreted its disclosure requirements broadly, and in this case found an arbitrator’s failure to disclose the “concrete possibility” of
Again this year, a famous athlete put the spotlight on the process of arbitration. Earlier this month, Tom Brady succeeded in convincing a federal judge to vacate the arbitration award against Brady. (The four-game “deflategate” suspension — a pdf of the decision is available through the link.)
The decision vacating the award is 40 pages
The Eleventh Circuit has a lesson for future litigants: the presence of a repeat player is not enough to show the evident partiality needed to vacate an arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act.
In Johnson v. Directory Assistants, Inc., __ F.3d __, 2015 WL 4939578 (11th Cir. Aug. 20, 2015), an advertising company
Three years ago, this blog catalogued where all the federal circuits stood on the issue of whether an arbitration award that “manifestly disregarded the law” could be vacated under the Federal Arbitration Act, as that is not one of the four bases for vacatur listed in Section 10. There was a circuit split then, and
Let’s say your arbitration agreement calls for arbitration administered by JAMS under JAMS rules, but the arbitrator is independent and applies AAA rules, over one party’s objection. A new decision from the Fifth Circuit says that is enough to vacate the resulting award.
In Poolre Insurance Corp. v. Organizational Strategies, Inc., __ F.3d__, 2015 WL