IACM Conference June 7-10, 1998 at University of Maryland

International Asociation for Conflict Management (IACM) will hold its next conference June 7-10, 1998 on the campus of University of Maryland, College Park.  To get on the mailing list, write to iacm@tc.umn.edu.

NCPCR Seeks New Home

National Conference on Peacemaking and Conflict Resolution (NCPCR) is seeking a new home.  Now housed at George Mason University, the space is getting tight, and NCPCR is looking for a new partner. contact Linda A. Baron ncpcr@osf1.gmu.edu.

Mediation Clause Prompts Court to Stay its Proceedings Cecala v. Moore (ND Ill 11/17/97)

Real estate buyers sued sellers, alleging false statements in a disclosure report.  Sellers moved to stay the proceeding pursuant to a mediation provision in the property sale contract. The court granted the motion, concluding it had authority under the Illinois Uniform Arbitration Act. [Full Decision Not Available Online:  1997 WL 718783]

Ombudsman Act Does Not Create A Private Right of Action Crusco v. Oakland Care Center, Inc. (NJ App 12/03/97)

In a wrongful discharge claim, the court held that no private right of action is conferred by the New Jersey Ombudsman Act, which prohibits retaliatory acts.  The Office of Ombudsman for the Institutionalized Elderly is to investigate and pursue matters involving complaints about health care facilities.  Although report mechanisms are important to this purpose, the beneficiaries of the Act clearly are the institutionalized elderly.  In a common law claim for wrongful discharge, a plaintiff can raise the standards and procedures of the Act, but the Act can not be used to support a private cause of action. [Full Decision:  Request 297191]

Arbitration Contract Controls Scope Of Judicial Review LaPine Technology Corp. v. Kyocera Corp. (9th Cir 12/09/97)

LaPine won a favorable award in arbitration of its trading agreement dispute with Kyocera.  The District Court denied Kyocera's motion to vacate and refused to apply the contractual standard of review, which provided that the court would review an award for errors of law or fact; the court reviewed the award under the FAA standards.  The Circuit Court reversed, stating "When, as here, the parties agree contractually to subject an arbitration award to expanded judicial review, federal arbitration policy demands that the court conduct its review according to the terms of the arbitration contract."  The dissent argued that there was "no authority explicitly empowering litigants to dictate how an Article III court must review an arbitration decision." [Full Decision:  Request 297192]

Arbitration Clause Not Enforceable by Non-Party Arrants v. Buck (4th Cir 12/04/97)

Customers purchased securities through an "introducing broker," although Prudential was the "clearing broker" who performed processing functions.  The contract for sale was between the customers and Prudential. When the customers sued the introducing broker for fraud, defendants sought to compel arbitration.  The court denied the request because defendants were not parties to the contract which contained the arbitration clause. [Full Decision:  Request 297193]

Foreign Arbitrator Has No Power To Compel Production By Nonparty Application of Medway Power Ltd. (SD NY 11/21/97)

Petitioner moved, under 28 U.S.C. Section 1782, for an order requiring General Electric (GE) to produce documents for use in an arbitration pending in the United Kingdom, to which GE was not a party.  The UK arbitrator had directed in a letter that GE's documents were relevant and necessary for the fair determination of the dispute.  The court denied the petition because it found that private arbitration was not a "tribunal" within the meaning of Section 1782 because the arbitrator had no authority (under English or US law) to bind non-parties to obey his or her recommendations. [Full Decision Not Available Online:  1997 WL 729109]

Arbitrator Exceeded Authority By Ruling Contract Invalid Bull HN Information Systems, Inc. v. Hutson (D Mass 11/10/97)

Plaintiff sought compensation under a Sales Compensation Plan. However, the arbitrator held the Plan was not a contract.  The court held that this finding was enough to vacate the arbitrator's award because "an arbitrator may not invalidate the very agreement from which he derives his power."  In addition, the arbitrator had ignored the plain language of the contract regarding the limitations period.  Therefore, the court found that the arbitrator had exceeded his authority and vacated the award. [Full Decision Not Available Online:  1997 WL 713284]

Statute Not Available For Arbitration Discovery Wallace v. Investment Advisors, Inc. (Tex App 12/09/97)

Texas Article 171.012 sets out a procedure by which the court initiates arbitration and governs how the proceeding is conducted. The statute permits the court to order discovery before arbitration, but does not authorize a suit to be brought solely in order to obtain discovery for an arbitration proceeding. [Full Decision Not Available Online:  1997 WL 755159]

Strict Compliance With Court-Annexed Arbitration Rules Nevers v. Fireside, Inc. (Wash 12/04/97)

The Superior Court Mandatory Arbitration Rules (MAR) 7.1(a) requires that, to comply with the requirements for a trial de novo after a mandatory arbitration, the aggrieved party must file within 20 days of when the arbitration award is filed with the court. The aggrieved party must, within the 20-days, provide proof that all parties have been served with the written request.  The court held that the rules require strict compliance with the filing, service of copies to other parties, and proof of service requirements. [Full Decision:  Request 297194]

NASD Ineligibility Time Bar is Arbitrable Smith Barney Shearson, Inc. v. Hause (New York 12/04/97)

The six-year time bar on arbitration of claims under Section 15 of the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) creates a substantive question of arbitrability.  Also, where (such as in this case) the parties have a clear agreement to arbitrate, the question of arbitrability can be decided in arbitration. Arbitrating an NASD time limitation does not clash with New York State Law in a choice of laws provision and is in accordance with policy favoring arbitration. [Full Decision:  Request 297195]

Non-Party Gets No Collateral Estoppel From Arbitration Decision Vandenberg v. Superior Court (Cal App, 3rd Dist 12/02/97)

The court held that a private arbitration decision cannot be used by non-parties to that arbitration to collaterally estop a party from relitigating an issue in later litigation.  However, the decision of an arbitrator is given res judicata effect, so that the arbitration award is final and binding. [Full Decision:  Request 297196]

Automated Document Delivery Service delivers text via email:   Look for the request number following each summary.
Address email to:   rrunkel@willamette.edu
In the Subject line write:   request 297191     
or whatever the appropriate number is. Leave the message itself blank. Send a separate message for each item requested.  
Full text also on our web page: http://www.willamette.edu/dis-res/