Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01333/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01333-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 09:0010 Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HEALTHCARE WORKERS’ UNION )

LOCAL 250, SEIU, AFL-CIO, CLC, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

CV F 05-1333 AWI DLB

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS 

ORDER DENYING UNION’S

PETITION TO VACATE THE

ARBITRATION AWARD

(Documents #12, #13, & #14)

This is a civil action to vacate an arbitration award filed by Healthcare Workers’ Union

Local 250, SEUI, AFL-CIO, CLC (“Union”) arising out of Defendant American Medical

Response (“AMR”)’s termination of Union members Danielle Molloy and Larry Segovia. The

matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for scheduling and pretrial matters. After

receiving briefing from the parties, on March 31, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and

Recommendations that recommended the court deny Union’s motion to vacate the arbitration

award. The Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties and gave notice that the

parties could file objections within thirty days. On April 26, 2006, Union filed objections. On

May 9, 2006, AMR filed a response to Union’s objections.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)C) this court has conducted a 

de novo review of this case. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454

(9 Cir. 1983). Because the facts and legal arguments are well known to the parties and th

Case 1:05-cv-01333-AWI-DLB Document 39 Filed 06/12/06 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

addressed by the Magistrate Judge, they will not be restated here. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and

by proper analysis.

As explained more fully by the Magistrate Judge, the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”)

creates “a body of federal substantive law of arbitrability,” enforceable in both state and federal

courts. Moses H. Cone Mem. Hosp. v. Mercury Const. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24, (1983); Cohen v.

Wedbush, Noble, Cooke, Inc., 841 F.2d 282, 285 (1988). Federal judicial review of arbitration

awards is extremely limited. Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Cunard Line, Ltd., 943 F.2d 1056, 1060

(9 Cir. 1991). At least one Circuit Court has described judicial review of an arbitration award

th

as “among the narrowest known to the law.” Litvak Packing Co. v. United Food & Commercial

Workers, Local Union No. 7, 886 F.2d 275, 276 (10 Cir.1989). th

Title 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(3) allows the district court to vacate an arbitrator’s decision where 

the arbitrator was guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause

shown; or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other

misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced. “[A] court’s review of the

arbitrator's decision to postpone or not postpone a hearing is quite limited.” ARW Exploration

Corp. v. Aguirre, 45 F.3d 1455, 1463 (10 Cir. 1995). An arbitrator’s refusal to grant a th

postponement is not grounds to vacate an arbitration award if there is any reasonable basis for the

arbitrator’s considered decision not to grant a postponement. Scott v. Prudential Sec. Inc., 141

F.3d 1007, 1016 (11 Cir. 1998); DVC-JPW Investors v. Gershman, 5 F.3d 1172, 1174 (8 Cir. th th

1993); Fairchild & Co. Inc. v. Richmond, F. & P .R. Co., 516 F.Supp. 1305, 1314-15

(D.D.C.1981). 

Union’s primary objection to the Findings and Recommendations concerns the Magistrate

Judge’s recommendation that the court not vacate the arbitration award because the Arbitrator

denied a continuance. The day before the arbitration, on May 25, 2005, Union’s counsel asked

for a continuance during a telephonic conference because one of Union’s witnesses had become

Case 1:05-cv-01333-AWI-DLB Document 39 Filed 06/12/06 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

unavailable. The Arbitrator denied the continuance because AMR objected, it was made for

unidentified medical reasons, and the arbitration hearing date had been set for two months. 

Later that day, Union’s counsel informed the Arbitrator over the phone that the witness, John

Van Eyck, had become unavailable due to a hernia operation on May 10, 2005. At 3:55 p.m., the

Arbitrator received a fax from Union’ counsel, informing her that (1) Mr. Van Eyck was a critical

witness and must be present to testify for Union, (2) one of the grievants was also not available,

and (3) Union would not appear in the absence of its witness. The Arbitrator informed Union’s

counsel by letter, faxed that day after 5:00 p.m., that his request for a continuance was denied. In

this letter, the Arbitrator stated Mr. Van Eyck would be allowed to testify later if evidence was

provided that he had good cause for not being available. No party representing Union appeared

at the arbitration, and the arbitration took place without Union.

Under this fact pattern, the court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the Arbitrator had

a reasonable basis to not grant Union’s request for a postponement. The Arbitrator was given

little information about Mr. Van Eyck’s medical condition, Mr. Van Eyck’s proposed testimony,

and why counsel had waited until the eve of the arbitration to inform AMR and the Arbitrator of

the need for a postponement. In other controversies, courts have refused to vacate an arbitration

award over postponement denials involving a party's “flimsy” claim of unavailability due to

overseas travel, see ARW Exploration Corp. v. Aguirre, 45 F.3d 1455 (10 Cir. 1995), or a th

purported flare-up in a party's long-term, stress-related illness the evening before a scheduled

arbitration hearing, see Hilliard v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 229 Ga. App. 336 (1997). Here,

Union’s counsel gave the Arbitrator little information on which to make an informed decision

and the information that was given did not require a postponement. Union’s counsel informed

the Arbitrator that they would not appear before she even ruled on the second request for a

postponement. If Union believed that it could not go forward without Mr. Van Eyck, the

appropriate procedure would have been to appear at the hearing and renew the request for a

continuance, with proper argument and supporting evidence. Had the Arbitrator conducted the

Case 1:05-cv-01333-AWI-DLB Document 39 Filed 06/12/06 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 4

hearing anyway, Union could have asked for Mr. Van Eyck to testify at a later date; a solution

actually proposed by the Arbitrator when she denied Union’s second motion. Ultimately, had

the Arbitrator conducted the hearing without allowing any opportunity for Mr. Van Eyck’s

testimony or participation, Union’s argument that the Arbitrator erred by not postponing the

hearing might have been viewed with sympathy by the Magistrate Judge. However, under the

facts, the court must agree with the Magistrate Judge that the Arbitrator did not err in denying a

postponement to Union, which had offered no explanation for the late request, offered little

information about the need for a continuance, and blatantly refused to attend a properly noticed

hearing in direct contempt of the Arbitrator’s decision.

The court does recognize that in a few cases courts have found the refusal to postpone an

arbitration grounds to vacate an arbitration award. One court found that sufficient cause to

postpone an arbitration hearing was provided when an out-of-town party was unable to attend. 

See Tube & Steel Corp. of America v. Chicago Carbon Steel Products, 319 F. Supp. 1302 (S.D.

N.Y. 1970). Another court vacated an arbitration award when the arbitrator refused to postpone

when a union representative and witness became ill during the hearing. See Allendale Nursing

Home, Inc. v. Local 1115 Joint Bd., 377 F. Supp. 1208 (S.D. N.Y. 1974). Union contends this

case is similar to Allendale because Mr. Van Eyck was Petitioners’ union representative and he

was unable to attend due to medical reasons. The court disagrees. Mr. Van Eyck did not

become ill during the arbitration. Rather, his surgery was 15 days prior to Union even suggesting

a continuance was necessary. Union offers no reason for the delay. In addition, because the

representative in Allendale was at the hearing, the arbitrator observed the representative become

ill and need to leave. In fact, the arbitrator in Allendale, stated on the record that the

representative had become “noticeably ill.” Id. at 1212. Here, the arbitrator was given little

information about Mr. Van Eyck’s condition. Finally, the court in Allendale determined that the

arbitrator had abused his discretion in failing to continue the hearing. Id. at 1214. Allendale

was decided in 1974. Under current standards, the test is not whether the arbitrator abused her

Case 1:05-cv-01333-AWI-DLB Document 39 Filed 06/12/06 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 5

discretion in failing to continue the hearing. The standard is whether there was a reasonable

basis for the arbitrator’s decision not to grant a postponement. Scott, 141 F.3d at 1016; 

DVC-JPW Investors, 5 F.3d at 1174. In light of Petitioners’ actions, the limited information

given to the Arbitrator about the need for a continuance, and the timing of Petitioners’ request,

the court must agree with the Magistrate Judge and find the Arbitrator had an adequate reason to

deny the postponement and proceed with the hearing. This is especially true in light of Union’s

failure to use its best efforts to present its case and Union’s conduct in insulting the jurisdiction

and authority of the arbitrator by refusing to attend the hearing, questioning of the arbitrator’s

competence, and threat that any action contrary to Union’s position would certainly be reversed

by this court. Thus, Union’s objections do not provide a basis to not adopt the Findings and

Recommendations. 

The court notes that in the motion to vacate, Union makes additional contentions on why

the arbitrator’s decision should be vacated. The court has reviewed these arguments, and agrees

with the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations. The court focused on Union’s

arguments regarding the failure to grant a postponement in this order because this is the issue

addressed in Union’s objections. 

 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed March 31, 2006, are ADOPTED IN FULL; and

2. Union’s petition to vacate the arbitration award is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 9, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

9h0d30 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01333-AWI-DLB Document 39 Filed 06/12/06 Page 5 of 5