|
An arbitrator may determine that an arbitration hearing is not closed until the final date set by the arbitrator for the receipt of post-hearing briefs, and courts will defer to that determination, according to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
In Martini v. Pearson Educ., Inc., No. C 07-1028 SI, 2007 WL 1500846 (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2007), textbook author Martini sued electronic publisher Pearson for copyright infringement and breach of contract. The parties were ordered into Early Neutral Evaluation and later moved into mediation.
The parties settled most issues in mediation and Pearson agreed to produce additional documents. Based upon these documents, Martini claimed additional damages and the parties entered arbitration pursuant to the settlement agreement. The arbitrator determined that Martini was not entitled to the additional damages.
Martini sought to set aside the arbitration award on the grounds that it was untimely. Martini argued that the arbitration hearing was closed on the date that the parties informed the arbitrator that post-hearing briefs would not be filed. Pearson maintained the arbitration hearing was not closed until the final date set by the arbitrator for the receipt of briefs.
If Martini prevailed on the closing date question, the award would be untimely, coming over eight months after the close. If Pearson prevailed, the award would be timely, within a month of the close of hearings.
The Court held Martini's argument to be without merit, deferring to the determination of the arbitrator as to when the arbitration hearing closed. The arbitration rules stated that if briefs were to be filed, the closing date would be "the final date set by the arbitrator for the receipt of briefs." The Court found the arbitration hearing was merely suspended on the earlier date where the parties informed the arbitrator that they would not submit briefs, but would be "continuing the arbitration."
The Court noted that the arbitrator, and ultimately the arbitrator's organization have, "the power to interpret and apply" any governing rules. Since the organization also found the award timely, the Court was unwilling to set aside a decision in compliance with that rule.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|