|
Despite written language indicating that arbitration must be completed before a certain date, a party may act in a way that "impliedly consents" to an extension of that deadline and therefore expand the scope of the arbitrator's powers, a state court in California held.
In Turnermedia, LLC v. Infinity Bail Network, LLC, No. D048044, 2007 WL 867774 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 23, 2007), Turnermedia sued Infinity Bail Network, LLC (Infinity) for breach of contract arising from a failure to pay for placement of Yellow Pages advertisements.
The parties stipulated to resolve their dispute through binding arbitration, with a projected "arbitration completion date" (ACD) of March 31, 2004. However, due to failed settlement negotiations and the departure of Infinity's counsel, initial arbitration hearings did not take place until November 2004.
Infinity filed a petition to vacate the arbitration award, reasoning that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by issuing an award after the ACD. However, the Court disagreed and confirmed the arbitrator's award. The Court noted that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers because the actions of Infinity's attorneys constituted "implied consent" of the arbitrator's authority to resolve the dispute beyond the initial ACD.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|