New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields
In Sanluis Developments, LLC v. CCP Sanluis, LLC, Case No. 06-11531 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Je. 3, 2008), the court held that under the Federal Arbitration Act, when a party moves to dismiss a motion to vacate an arbitration award, the court may, sua sponte, treat the motion to dismiss as a motion to confirm the award, and deny vacation and instead confirm the award.
This post written by Rollie Goss.
A labor union cannot continue litigating the validity of an arbitration award concerning a contract that no longer controlled the parties’ relationship, an Arkansas federal district court has held. In 2006, the plaintiff corporation became the successor in interest to a collective bargaining agreement that had been entered into in 2005 with the defendant labor union. This 2005 CBA was scheduled to terminate in February 2008. After a dispute arose over the plaintiff’s right to oppose the defendant’s attempts to organize employees, the defendant filed a grievance with an arbitrator, who upheld the grievance in July 2007. The plaintiff subsequently moved in federal district court to vacate the arbitration award. While the litigation was pending, the 2005 CBA expired. In the interim, the parties had entered into a new collective bargaining agreement which did not contain the same limitations on the plaintiff’s right to oppose employee organization that had been contained in the 2005 CBA. The plaintiff, therefore, sought to dismiss the case as moot, which the defendant opposed, requesting that the court confirm the arbitration award. In its ruling, the court sided with the plaintiff, and dismissed the case as moot. The court noted that judicial economy counseled against confirming an arbitration award where it would not effect the present relations of the parties, and that the arbitration award conflicted with the now-controlling 2008 CBA. Windstream Corp. v. Communication Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Case No. 07 CV 1158 (USDC E.D. Ark. May 9, 2008).
This post written by Brian Perryman.
A district court has granted a motion to dismiss an action filed by a postal workers union against the United States Postal Service that sought to enforce an arbitration award. The arbitrator ruled in favor of the union on the merits of the dispute, included remedial provisions in his award, but expressly retained jurisdiction for the implementation and interpretation of the award. The court found that the complete arbitration rule did not apply because although the award was a final determination on the merits of the dispute, it did not fully complete the adjudication of the remedial aspects of the dispute. The award hence was not final as to its remedy. Finding that there was additional discretion to remand an arbitration award concerning an employment agreement compared to other arbitration awards, the court found that it had authority to remand to the arbitrator for clarification if it determined that the award was ambiguous, which it held meant that the award was subject to at least two differing interpretations. The court found two ambiguities in the award, and remanded for clarification of the remedies to be implemented. The court cautioned that the arbitrator did not have authority to revisit the merits of the dispute, which he had conclusively determined. Pittsburgh Metro Area Postal Workers’ Union v. United States Postal Service, Case No. 07-781 (USDC W.D. Pa. Apr. 16, 2008).
This post written by Rollie Goss.
There have been a number of decisions recently addressing different issues with respect to the confirmation or vacation of arbitration awards:
This post written by Rollie Goss.
With this post we are expanding the content of Reinsurance Focus to include an occasional article of greater length containing a more detailed analysis of a reinsurance or arbitration-related topic of interest. These posts will be placed in the Special Focus category of our blog, and will consist of a short executive summary of the article linked to the article. We hope that this somewhat more detailed exploration of selected topics adds to our readers’ enjoyment of our blog. Our current intention is to have one such Special Focus post about every other month. Following is the executive summary of our first such article.
The manifest disregard of law doctrine has been referred to as a “judicially created” basis for vacating arbitration awards, which arguably is not expressly provided for in the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). In the recent Hall Street Associates opinion (see the March 28, 2008 post), the United States Supreme Court stated that the grounds for vacating arbitration awards set forth in the FAA are the exclusive grounds for vacating an arbitration award, which may imply that what some courts have described as judicially created bases for vacation, such as the manifest disregard of law doctrine, are not viable. In the accompanying article, we briefly explore the current status of the manifest disregard of law doctrine and whether it has a future after Hall Street Associates. Read the article.
This post written by Rollie Goss.