before the court calls the cases i would like to remind counsel for the appellants to be nice if you would remind us the amount of time if any that you are reserv what that you may call the first case is them are fifteen sixteen three twenty two lp at all versus black fire energy at all oral argument not to exceed fifteen minutes per side mr waters for the  thank you and your honor we have reserved five minutes of the fifteen ok if it may please the court your honor we're asking that we file this appeal to set aside a ruling  by the district court in the eastern district kentucky pertaining to an arbitration award that was entered into adverse to the rules of the contract between the parties the rules of the aaa which was a governing organization to be used and in many other ways violated due process rights of my clients to defend its blackfire energy the contract between the parties is very clear that the arbitration must be conducted by a panel of three arbitrators unless the parties specifically agree to the use of a single arbitrator moreover the arbitration has to be conducted by the aaa american arbitration association and pursuant to the rules of the trip boy none of this happened and this is very important because the black fire was unrepresented they were would be handling the arbitration process a which they can do under the aaa rules but what they would expect to receive is a notice of arbitration a demand for arbitration from the aaa that's the way that is initiated instead they were never notified at all instead taluk oyo engaged in unilaterally a single arbitrator who conducted some type of proceeding i think apparently it was a telephone proceeding as i to together and took evidence apparently only from the principals of tellico and then made a ruling that not surprisingly only tells one side of the story this so your client did not receive any notice whatsoever even in the preliminary stages of trying to agree upon a single arbitrator or arbitrator group of three that is correct your honor and in fact the whole reason that the parties went to  now blackfire is awaiting a demand for arbitration the only communication that ever came was from counsel from talib kweli to me and they asked can we agree on a single arbitrator and i said i'm not going to be involved in the arbitration you will you know you that will have to be dealing with somebody else or with him directly why wasn't that enough notice because that what that notice wasn't communicated to the blackfire counsel i was not representing him on that where their counsel and other things around other at that exact moment you were there counsel and other things that's right that's right so wouldn't a normal person give that information to their client and other things that obeidi the way talib kweli has contacted us about arbitrating we had had considerable issues in the case about taluk or trying to get us to accept service and we made it very clear that that we were not so that's why it was important to be very clear and to tell them that you have to go through the proper processes here and simply communicate with them or if they did engage other counsel then engage with that coun l and so you know this never occurred and moreover it's not and this is an error that the district court made it's not a situation where you may use a single arbitrator unless somebody objects know you must use three arbitrators unless they specifically agree the context very clear on that and so if for whatever reason talc or felt like well we're going to have to go unilateral on this which there certainly would be no reason to do so but they would have had to engage three arbitrators through the aaa the what the evidence shows in this case is that that one of the defendants mr stoughton contacted the aaa from time to time you know inquiring and we're always told no we don't have any case you know there's not they have no record of this matter and that is of course how it went because they did not go through the aaa even though the contract comport with the rules because under the rules rule two specifically requires that the arbitration be administered by the aaa so it's you can't just pick and choose among the rules of the contract is very clear so black fire unrepresented is waiting for communication from the aaa it never happens instead sometime later like fire could hypothetically black fire receive communication from taluk why would that be enough to comply with the requirements that there be an agreement on the arbitrators cetera if taluk we have communicated directly with blackfire and said do we have agreement on using a single arbitrator and black star said yes and they chose one that certainly would have sufficed i mean none of that happened but that would have worked wasn't there something in the record indicated that the parties had some communication at some point about there being a single arbitrator am i wrong about that  also got this issue of time of us yes there was a date by which blackfire did become aware of the award and i'm assuming that date this file as equals the date that it's issued yes and you obviously take exception to that well that's right i mean this record initially said it was the date that this was done in the closed case but then in the end the district court agreed with us that that's not the case and said that it's the date that the arbitrator issued is his opinion but that opinion was never communicated to two black fire and so what the what section twelve requires is that it be filed or delivered to all the parties if one takes it that well it was filed when when arbitrator  ruling then when was it delivered and the answer was it never was and the district court said well it was apparently delivered to the plaintiff and so since it was delivered to the pla must have been delivered to the to the defendant as well but there's no certificate of service there's no indication anywhere in the record that it was ever delivered and it wasn't delivered and that's the problem is that if you take th situation then you could you could do an arbitration and in a vacuum don't don't invite the other side wait several months and then spring anonymous i will guess what this this came out months ago now you don't have any opportunity  language says filed or delivered yes so you're saying there was no delivery because service did not occur what would you oh yeah that's my next question i find out i don't know that's it really i want to focus on filing ok typically you know typically in arbitration you have both you have all parties participating and the filing would probably be an issue and by the arbitrator to the participants attorneys for both sides or the pro se than to them and that filing under rule forty nine could be accomplished a number of ways you could be formal service to sir if i may all but it could also be if the parties have agreed to to email or fax the number of ways that that could be communicate of the court filing no no i'm i apologize no that would be the delivery the filing is typically that is what most courts have found is the issuance so you have the issuance of the  opinion of the award and then you have the delivery so is it not filed with the aaa if it's a aaa sanctioned arbitration this one was not the morning morning may it please the court my name is justin can happen to represent the police as the court touched on there at the end the most important issue in this appeal is the timeliness of blackfriars motion to vacate the record here evidences six occasions on which blackfire received a copy of decided the case yes your honor that's true but as i mentioned there's five other instances in which they were all right well let's take that one first one if they weren't there how can you say that because the arbitrator issued the word on that day he didn't enter it on that day and we received a copy of in the mail so it's our position that a copy was placed in the mail to all parties the arbitrator specifically found that the blackfire parties received notice of the arbitration that's the arbitrators determination and demand for arbitration was sent and they chose not to appear but even after receiving notice and failing to appear the arbitrator didn't enter a default award under the aaa arbitration rules he took testimony and document document area evidence from the taliban court parties for entering his reason but even moving to the next instance in which the black fire party has received a notice of the award as required under section twelve was when calico filed its motion to enforce in what is referred to in blackfriars appellate brief as a close case filed in two thousand and thirteen that motion to enforce included a copy of the arbitration award and that motion to enforce included a certificate of service signed by kent worker of my office and the caging that not only did tuck out excuse me blackfriars current counsel in this case and former counsel in that case received e c f notification of the award but they were was also placed in the mail via certified mail each of the blackfire parties and this was on october twenty fourth well are we talking about certified mail return receipt request d or just certified mail certified mail no return receipt is in the record but if the court is looking for a return receipt the third instances when the return receipt is evidence on november when was that on november thirteenth now why why was that if if if you understood that service had already been made why was it necessary to keep sending a copy  award because your your honor we were afraid of what happened in this case is that they would refuse to accept service much like they refused to accept notice of the arbitration award the demand for patrician and refused to appear for the arbitration hearing the minute the oh there's evidence in the record that they refused to accept the demand and and and these other instances there's actual evidence of that no your honor there is no evidence in the record to say that they refused to accept the demand there is evidence in the record to say that they received notice but failed to appear for the arbitration hearing and that was found by the arab traitor well based on what that was found by the district court to you i'm just wondering what what the basis for that was well you or i can point to no evidence in the record other than the arbitrary determination found that they received notice how can how can we rely a statement that they received notice if there is no evidence in the record to show that they received while the arbitrator's decision in this case is granted a great deference by the court and the center of your political but it's also worth noting that blackfire has never argued that the arbitrator in this case was corrupt or partial or exceeded his authority  so without challenging the arbitrator's conduct or his impartiality i see no reason to dispute his determination that they received notice i was the arbitrator selected the arbitrator was selected off of knowledge of i guess arbitrators in the general area i'm not familiar with how it was selected and there's nothing in the record indicate exactly how it was selected or not the rules require that there be some agreed upon arbitrator even arguably within his authority in the contract and you can argue luke arguably interpret the contract and even if this court is serious or seriously convinced that he committed an error there's still no reason to overturn it it's been considered one of the narrowest standards of presumably was protel acquired for whatever reason and handled this arbitration without notice to blackfire from this is taking it from blackfriars perspective of course and ended up with  with an award which may or may not have been given to black fire immediately but was given later on through at least through some one of your six efforts to provide notice so it sounds like at least from blackfriars perspective that this was sort of a done deal self interested appointment of an arbitrator to reach a result that was pro your client well even assuming all those arguments taken from their perspective the federal trade still requires them to object within three months of receiving the award and the certified mail receipts attached to our complaint evidence that their agents received a copy on november nineteenth and november twenty eighth and these are signed receipts evidence in our complaint who signed nov nineteenth and nov twenty eighth did you say alice we'd signed on behalf of black fire on nov nineteenth and she is the same party who receive service of the summons in this this matter and they have never objected to her thord she so far as you know an employee blackfriars that what her role is or what is her role yes that is my understanding of her role blackfire is an entity set up by alan weed his daughter from my understanding is the registered agent and it was sent to her home address and alice weed is deborah's mother and she signed for and again they received service of the summons in this complaint signed by alice weed and they have never disputed her authority or contested service in the second instance the signed evidence that they received a copy of the orders on november twenty eighth and this is gil stephen brown a former president and member of the black fire he received two copies of the award he received a copy on behalf of black bart addressed to black fire and he also received a copy for himself personally and the three month period when blackfire objected they objected more than three months after those two dates that's correct you are no matter what contested view a father delivered under the federal we apply to this case and even if we apply the new argument blackfire presents before this court the delivery equals receipt the evidence in this record evidences that they received a copy ever trisha ward at the very latest on the twenty eighth which places their mar base blackfire and that's but based upon the statements blackfire made in its motion to vacate itself and its motion to vacate blackfire acknowledges that nicholas stoughton on october twenty seventh received a copy of the award and this is just three days after the motion to enforce below and have never disputed his authority that he was acting on november fourth on their behalf these are their words your honor nicholas stern was their agent he was contacting the aaa when it within his authority as their agent to discuss the arbitration knowledge upon all the black fire parties is well settled law that an agent's knowledge is imputed upon the principal so long as he is acting within their authority and by claiming that nicholas and acknowledging that nicholas stern was contacting the aaa on their behalf this running from october twenty seventh that october twenty seventh date still puts the motion of a k forty one days out of time so not no matter which way we slice it the record evidence is that filed or delivered under the section twelve of the federal act has been satisfied were aware of the award and they sat on the right to file a motion of if if we assume for the moment contrary to your argument that their objection is time they filed within three month period or modified under section eleven and here we're only dealing with section ten and there are four elements to vacating an arbitration word under section ten has not argued any in fact the district court below had to assume that their arguments were place under section ten but even if we place the arguments they present today which are not presented under section ten under this framework they fail and they fail because the parties arbitration agreement did not require that the party submit t the rules of the american arbitration association cited by blackfire provide that it shall only be administered by the aaa or by an individual or organization authorized by the aaa to do so and i the parties who the movement's burden to satisfy one of the most narrow standards review in american jurisprudence to show that the arbitration word should be vacated and blackfire has submitted no with already that the arbitrator in this case was not is fatal to their argument but again the arbitration agreement between the parties did not provided that be administered a form arbitration agreement between the aaa provides expressly that the aaa agreement or arbitration  administered by the aaa and here the parties expressly excluded this language from their arbitration agreement and there's good reason to do so filing fees for a case like this for administering every trace and exceed fourteen thousand dollars in addition to the arbitrators fees removing this express one language  indicates a clear intent for the parties to not have an administrative attrition according to the rules of the aaa though you agree as there is the requirement right i see my time's up my answer yes you ma yes the agreement does say in accordance with the ratings with the rules of the american arbitration so if we were going to spend time which we can i do now what rules would you say were rules should be look at to see how the arbitrator should be selected in accordance with the aaa well the the selection of the arbitrator in this case is controlled by the parties agreement i know and i keep looking at this paragraph which is seven point arbitrator or alternatively a panel of three arbitrators in the event the parties are unable to agree on one arbitrator the arbitration will be conducted in kentucky in accordance with the rules of the aaa so i'm trying to figure out what rules of  the aaa are being referred to in this paragraph seven point two which both sides seem to have agreed to while the rules of the aaa cover everything from filing of the award but as far as the average particular rule would you like me to look at in my leisure after th thank you your honors in our system let me answer that last question first the applicable rules are the commercial arbitration rules of the aaa and these rules the selection is deferred to the contract and the contract is very clear that the parties self select from whoever water whoever is authorized with the aaa has a panel of acceptable arbitrators the  parties are free to choose among one of those individuals if they if they are going to choose a single arbitrator if not then then it has to be three but it would have given be from that panel mr waters i think we understand that ok i'm going to break in only because what i'm concerned about is this timing thing the merits are not going to get you very far if you're not going to be able to stay in court so what what about this signed receipts on the nineteenth and the twenty eighth of november that would make you would make the filing late that is a is a complete red herring with all due respect you are the  something was sent up but that was not this arbitration award according to their own certificates of service they claimed that this was done in october then in november they  this is like a month later something is received by alice we who is not agent for service of process and bill steven brown but was that this arbitration award there is nothing in the record to indicate that it was now taluk oyo asked the sixth circuit to take judicial notice of that fact and that was denied to me that this green card doesn't say anything and the assertion that this was the sending of this arbitration award would mean that that there certificate of service which indicates that they sent it to parties a month earlier is either false or duplicative and there is nothing in the record indicate that this was sent in november and moreover the district court did not find that we have no idea what was received or evidence which would indicate that that they first claimed do this in october because on those green cards themselves they have the date that they were sent which is like november twenty one or so which is is several weeks almost a month beyond what it says on this tip at a service so what was what were the green cards attached to we don't know there is no indication the district court did not on on that day and there's no indication that they the only way they sent this motion to enforce was filing it and this closed case which makes it available for those on e c f which would not be these on represented parties so what  the records are not clear but at some point he became aware that there was an allegation of an arbitration that's why he contacted the aaa and there isn't any there's no evidence at all in the record indicate that he was no no i mean he was he had been involved with blackfire but he was not authorized by blackfire to receive service of process at all he was a was he not a senior level person  most senior person at the company he had been in the past but at this point there was there was no he was not authorized for anything in particular and there's nothing in the record indicate that the company was a at this point in time you know a defunct company somebody have to be authorized to receive process yes or to make it effective under the notice provisions here under the rules of the aaa i didn't mean to cut you off but but under the rules of the aaa i'm not sure i would have to check that but i would think that the answer is yes it certainly wouldn't comport with due process or otherwise but the but the aaa apparently would allow the award to be issued to the parties even if the person who's the service of process didn't happen to be there that is correct of course mr stoughton was a defendant personally not not