Scotus blog reported that the parties in Hall Street filed their supplemental briefing. See http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/new-layer-of-dispute-on-arbitration/#more-6207 for a story on this topic as well as a link to the briefs. The parties have until Monday, December 3rd to file reply briefs. While I am not certain that anyone other than Justice Roberts was behind the supplemental … Continue reading Supplemental Briefing Filed In Hall Street →

Today, the Court issued an order requesting supplemental briefing from the Hall Street Parties. The order is as follows: ORDER IN PENDING CASE 06-989 HALL STREET ASSOC. V. MATTEL, INC. The parties are directed to file supplemental briefs addressing the following questions: (1) Does authority exist outside the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) under which a … Continue reading Supreme Court Orders Additional Briefing in Hall Street →

The parties in Hall Street argued their case on November 7, 2007. While the argument was difficult to follow, I thought I could discern some of the justices’ points of view. Chief Justice Roberts suggested that when parties agree to expand judicial review of arbitration awards, they take themselves outside the scope of the Federal … Continue reading Hall Street v. Mattel Oral Argument Yesterday by Sarah Cole →

Hall St. Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 196 F. App’x 476 (9th Cir. 2006), cert. granted, 127 S. Ct. 2875 (May 29, 2007) Argument: November 7, 2007 By Sarah Cole Listen to the Podcast Issue: Whether the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) prohibits federal courts from enforcing “a post-dispute agreement to review an arbitration award for … Continue reading Argument this Week in Hall Street Associates v. Mattel →

When California legislators decided to require arbitration providers to disclose certain information about their arbitrations, they were probably focused on helping individual people who faced the prospect of participating in an arbitration proceeding.  But the resulting data is also allowing us get an overall look at the status and effects of private arbitration, at least … Continue reading New California Data on Employment Arbitration →

“Evident partiality” is one of the very few grounds upon which a court may vacate an arbitral award under Section 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act. The typical target of Section 10(a)(2) is an arbitrator who knows of a conflict of interest, fails to disclose it, and therefore fails to secure a waiver from the … Continue reading Arbitrators, Evident Partiality, and Contrived Ignorance →

A recent case from the Ohio Supreme Court illustrates a division in the way different jurisdictions treat workers’ compensation claims where the employer and employee signed an arbitration agreement. In Peters v. Columbus Steel Castings Co., 115 Ohio St.3d 134 (2007) http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/default.asp, the employee agreed to arbitrate all claims he might have against his employer. … Continue reading Wrongful Death and Arbitration →