Last month the Southern District of New York granted DCH Auto Group’s motion to confirm a favorable arbitral decision dismissing a pro se plaintiff’s arbitration with prejudice, over a host of different challenges seeking vacatur of that decision. The plaintiff, Marciano, brought workplace discrimination claims against DCH. During the course of the litigation, plaintiff was represented intermittently by outside counsel, notified of various discovery delinquencies, made multiple requests for extensions of time to comply with said deficiencies or other deadlines, and was warned at least twice that no further extensions would be granted. The arbitrator ultimately dismissed the arbitration with prejudice based on these factors, as well as the detriment DCH faced with having to defend a case that had already been litigated for two-and-a-half years but not proceeded beyond discovery.
The court systematically rejected all seven of Marciano’s challenges to the arbitration decision. First, the court found no wrongdoing by DCH where the AAA made a mistake in providing a pre-corrected version of the arbitration decision. Second, the court rejected the claim that the arbitrator was guilty of misconduct for failure to hear evidence because the allegedly ignored evidence was unsolicited, submitted long after the operative deadline, and the arbitral decision was likely already made before the submission. Third, there was no non-speculative evidence of bias by the arbitrator. Fourth, the allegedly improper ex parte communications did not prejudice Marciano because they were mainly comprised of exchanges between DCH and the AAA (not the individual arbitrator), contained non-dispositive procedural questions, and were not “untoward.” Fifth, the court rejected Marciano’s challenge that DCH’s participation in the arbitration required vacatur. Sixth, the arbitrator was justified in refusing Marciano’s request to further postpone the arbitration proceedings because of the numerous extension requests that had been granted throughout the proceedings and because Marciano had adequate notice and ample time to respond by the deadlines. Finally, the court found no manifest disregard of the law on the arbitrator’s behalf and noted that Marciano failed to, despite notice, adequately respond to discovery inquiries regarding her disability status—a threshold issue in the case. Accordingly, the court granted DCH’s motion to confirm and denied Marciano’s motion to vacate.
Marciano v DCH Auto Grp., Case No. 11-9635 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2017)
This post written by Thaddeus Ewald .
See our disclaimer.