Expanding Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards: The Uncertainty Continues for Drafters of Arbitration Agreements

By Chao, Cedric C.; Schurz, James M. | Dispute Resolution Journal, November-January 2008 | Go to article overview

Expanding Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards: The Uncertainty Continues for Drafters of Arbitration Agreements


Chao, Cedric C., Schurz, James M., Dispute Resolution Journal


How the California Supreme Court muddied the waters with its decision upholding expanded review in Cable Connection v. DIRECTV.

Much of the arbitration community heaved a sigh of relief when the U.S. Supreme Court held earlier this year in Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc. (128 S. Ct. 1396, 2008) that the grounds to vacate or modify an arbitration award in the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) are exclusive; thus, parties cannot agree to allow judicial review of an award for errors or law made by the arbitrator. The decision resolved a split in the federal circuit courts, which have struggled with this issue for more than a decade. But did it finally resolve a drafting problem that has vexed lawyers?

Well, not quite. Five months after the Supreme Court ruled that parties cannot obtain judicial review of the merits of an arbitration award by express agreement, the California Supreme Court ruled in Cable Connection v. DIRECTV (2008 WL 3891556, Aug. 25, 2008) that they could, even when they also agree that their arbitration is governed by the FAA.

The split between federal and California state courts creates risks and opportunities for clients who arbitrate in California. And the tension between these conflicting positions underscores the importance of drafting detailed choice-of-law provisions with compatible forum-selection clauses.

Hall Street Limits Review

In ruling in Hall Street that the FAA prevents parties from contracting for expanded judicial review of arbitral awards, the Supreme Court said that this reading of the FAA was necessary to curtail the "full-bore legal and evidentiary appeals" that often followed a contentious arbitration, which severely undercut arbitration's "essential virtue" of providing a final resolution quickly and efficiently.

The plaintiff in the case, Hall Street, was Mattel's landlord. After years of use by Mattel and prior tenants, the leased property showed high levels of pollutants when environmental tests were conducted. Mattel, the manufacturer of such popular toys as "Hot Wheels" and "Barbie," notified Hall Street that it would be terminating its lease and vacating the premises. Hall Street sued, claiming that Mattel could not terminate its lease. It also sought indemnification under the terms of the lease for the looming environmental cleanup costs. At trial, the court found for Mattel on the issue of termination. The parties agreed to mediate the separate issue of indemnification, but the mediation effort failed. They agreed to arbitrate that issue and so notified the court. Then they drafted an arbitration agreement, which they submitted to the court for approval. Among other things, the arbitration agreement provided that the U.S. district court "shall vacate, modify or correct the arbitration award: (1) either where the arbitrator's findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence, or (2) where the arbitrator's conclusions of law are erroneous." The court approved the arbitration agreement and entered it as an order.

The arbitrator initially ruled in Mattel's favor, but the award was hardly final since the result was a long succession of appeals, reversals, remands, and then review by the Supreme Court.

As noted above, the Supreme Court concluded that the judicial review clause was unenforceable under the FAA. The decision echoed many of the policies championed by the American Arbitration Association (AAA) in its amicus brief. The AAA argued that eliminating expanded judicial review would be consistent with international trends, which favor reduced judicial intervention. Most importantly, the AAA stressed that to allow expanded judicial review by contract would "eviscerate the principle of finality" in arbitration, and would "likely transform arbitration into traditional litigation." Rather than providing efficient dispute resolution while avoiding the courtroom, arbitration might become just another step in the lengthy litigation process. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Expanding Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards: The Uncertainty Continues for Drafters of Arbitration Agreements
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.