* Family Law Essay Contest Held by Hofstra School of Law
* Arbitration Award Vacated Because Employer Urged Board To Disregard Law
* FAA Does Not Confer Subject Matter Jurisdiction On Federal Courts
* Court Can Fill In Name Of Arbitrator
* Franchisee Required To Arbitrate In Forum Stated In Arbitration Provision

Family Law Essay Contest Held by Hofstra School of Law

The Family and Conciliation Courts Review of Hofstra School of Law is holding its annual Law School Essay Contest.  The contest invites essays on various family law topics.  The winning essay receives a stipend of $400 and is published in the Review.  For more information, contact Editor Andrew Schepard at the Hofstra School of Law.  Mr. Schepard’s email is:  LAWAZS@hofstra.edu

Montes sought overtime pay under the FSLA; Shearson denied her pay, maintaining Montes was exempt.  Shearson’s attorneys urged the arbitration board not to follow the FSLA if the board determined Montes was not exempt.  The board found in favor of Shearson.  The court vacated the award because it found the award “in manifest disregard of the law.”  In the award, the board had referenced Shearson’s argument and made no indication it was following the FSLA.  In addition, the court determined that the record indicated Montes was not exempt from the FSLA.
[Full Decision: Request 197181]

FAA Does Not Confer Subject Matter Jurisdiction On Federal Courts
Baltin v. Alaron Trading Corp. (11th Cir. 11/25/97)

 Investors Baltins brought action to vacate, modify, or correct an arbitration award.  The District Court in Florida had granted permissive jurisdiction, but dismissed after finding the forum selection clause mandated an Illinois forum.  The Circuit Court affirmed the dismissal on different grounds: the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case.  The court followed other circuits in ruling that sections 10 and 11 of the FAA do not grant federal courts subject matter jurisdiction; rather, a federal court must have an independent basis of jurisdiction to entertain a matter under the FAA.  In this case, no federal question was implicated and the amount in controversy did not meet the requirements of diversity jurisdiction.
[Full Decision: Request 297182]

Court Can Fill In Name Of Arbitrator
United Association of Journeymen v. Bechtel Construction Co. (9th Cir. 11/3/97)

Pipefitters union sued Ironworkers union to compel arbitration of jurisdictional dispute.  The project agreement provided for submission of disputes “to _____, who will act as arbitrator.”  The unions failed to fill in the blank.  Ironworkers argued that the omission left the agreement vague, which excused them from arbitrating.  The court disagreed.  Following 3rd and 5th Circuit decisions, the court held that the District Court could hold the parties to the agreement and fill in the blank for them: “Preservation of labor peace requires that district courts have some flexibility in fashioning decrees to enforce agreements to arbitrate labor disputes.”
[Full Decision: 297183]

Franchisee Required To Arbitrate In Forum Stated In Arbitration Provision
Management Recruiters Int’l v. Bloor (6th Cir. 11/19/97)

Bloor, a Washington resident, signed a franchise agreement with MRI, of Ohio.  The arbitration clause specified Cleveland as the forum, unless a Washington statute required arbitration to take place in Washington.  The court rejected Bloor’s argument that a Washington Securities Administration’s Franchise Interpretive Statement evinced a requirement that Washington be the forum. The court also noted in dicta that, had Washington law clearly required arbitration in that state, the clause would not have been valid because it would have been in conflict with the FAA.  9 U.S.C. sec. 2.
[Full Decision: 297184]