A Louisiana appellate court determined that an arbitrator did not engage in misconduct when he denied a party's second request for extension of the hearing because the party did not show sufficient cause for such a delay.

In Dicorte v. Landrieu, No. 2008-CA-0249, 2008 WL 4191135 (La. Ct. App. Sept. 10, 2008), Dicorte's house was damaged by Hurricane Katrina. Dicorte entered into a contract with Landrieu to make repairs to her home. When Dicorte raised questions as to the quality and timeliness of the repairs, the parties voluntarily agreed to submit their dispute to arbitration administered by the Better Business Bureau (BBB). The initial hearing was scheduled for June 25, 2007. At Landrieu's request for an extension, the hearing was continued until July 10, 2007.

On the day before the arbitration hearing, the arbitrator changed the hearing time from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on the same day. When Landrieu was informed of the time delay, he requested a second extension.

The arbitrator denied this second extension request, but offered Landrieu the opportunity to participate via telephone. Landrieu did not participate in the arbitration proceedings. The arbitrator rendered the decision in Dicorte's favor. Afterward, Dicorte moved to confirm the award.

The trial court denied her motion and instead vacated the award. The trial court reasoned that under Louisiana law, where an arbitrator was guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing for sufficient cause, the arbitration award must be vacated.

On appeal, the Court disagreed with the trial court's reasoning. According to BBB arbitration rules, the BBB reserves the right to make a final decision as to the date, time, and place for arbitration proceedings. The Court noted that the hearing was previously continued upon Landrieu's request.

Further, the Court could not find evidence in the record that Landrieu had shown sufficient cause to warrant an extension. To the contrary, Landrieu never stated he could not attend the hearing, only that he wanted more time. Additionally, the arbitrator offered Landrieu the opportunity to participate over the phone, an opportunity that Landrieu declined.

Based on these circumstances, the Court determined that Landrieu was not prejudiced by the four hour delay of the arbitration hearing. Also, there was no evidence to suggest that the arbitrator did not abide by the BBB rules. Accordingly, the Court reversed the trial court's order and confirmed the award.