1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r: ___ ____ ____ 3 Fi lin g D at e: D EC EM BE R 1, 201 6 4 N O. 34, 253 5 L.D. MILL ER CONSTRUCTI ON, INC., 6 Plaintiff-Appellee, 7 v. 8 STEPH EN KI RSCHENB AUM 9 and BA RBR O KIRS CHE NBA UM , 10 D ef

en da nts -Appe llants . 11 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF SA NTAFE CO UN TY 12 Fr ancis J. M athew , D istrict Jud ge 13 T hom as E
. Ch ism 14 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 15 for Appellee 16 Co be rly & Mart in ez, LLLP 1 7 To d dA. C o b e r l y 18 San ta Fe, NM 19 fo r Appe llants1 OPIN ION

2 Z AM ORA , Jud ge. 3 { 1} In this case, we are presented with the questio n—can an arbitrator designated 4 by the part ie s to c ondu ct

a n arb itr at ionbe dis qua lif ie d by the A m er ic anA rb itr at ion 5 Association (AA A) for ca use if the parties do not also exp licitly agree in writing that 6 the arbitrator shall function as a non-neutral arbitrator? The district court ruled that 7 he co ul d b e d is qu al ifi ed . W e aff irm. 8 I. PROCEDURAL AND FAC TUAL BACKG ROUND 9 { 2} In t h e fa ll of 2011 , S tephen and Barbro Kir schenbaum hired L .D . Miller 10 Co nstru ct ionCo m

pa ny (M il le r) to do c onc re te a nd f ram ing w ork f

or agara ge a nd 11 run-in shed on the Kir schenbaum s’ property in S an t a Fe , N ewMexico. M iller 12 co nte nds the co ns tr uc tio n pr oj ec t w as f

ini she d inla te f

al l. H ow ev er , the 13 Kirsc henb a

um s wer e apparently

unsatisfied with the work and hired other contractors 14 to c or re ct Mi lle r’ s w ork. 15 { 3} O n D ec em

be r 2, 2011 , Mi lle r pr es en te d the K ir sc he nbaum s w itha n in voi ce f or 16 $28, 576. 46, f

or it s wor k on the ir pr ope rty . T he K ir sc he nbaum s pa id M ill er $15 , 000 17 tow ar d th e ba lanc e ow ed , le av ing a n ou tst an din g ba lanc e of $13 , 576. 46, w hich the 18 K ir sc he nbaum s r ef

use d to pay . Th ere is ana lle ga tio n th at the K ir sc he nbaum s a lso2

1 kept poss ession of a table saw, tools, and other buil ding m aterials belonging to Miller 2 va lue d a t a

ppr oxi m at el y

$80 0. 3 { 4} On D ecem

ber 20, 2011, Miller and the Kirsc henbaum s entered into a w ritten 4 A rb itr at ionA gr ee m en t. T he f ull te xt o f the A gr ee m en t i s: 5 Co nt ra c t o r a nd Ownerag ree t o b in di ng arb it rat io n u nd er AAA 6 (A m er ic anA rb itr at ionA sso ci at ion ) fo r an y dis put e (c la im , w ork, 7 m at er ia l, e tc . ) be tw ee n Co ntr ac tor an d O w ne r at the fo llo w ing loc at ion : 8 Ha cienda del Cer ezo 9 100 Cam ino del Cerezo 10 Santa

F e, N ewMe xic o 87 506 11 (A nd inclu ding or for: H acienda del Ce rezo, Ltd. , S teph en / Ba rbro 1 2 K i r s c h e n b au m) 13 Contractor and O wner agree that the designated arbitrator shall be Roger 1 4 Le n g yel [( Le n g yel )]. 15 { 5} In April 2013 Miller filed a c om plai n t i n the First Judicial District Court 16 ag ai nst

the Kirs ch enbaum s f

or de bt and m one y

due c onc er

nin g it s w ork onthe 17 K ir sc he nbaum s’ pr ope rty . T he K ir sc he nbaum s were se rv ed w ithasum

m ons by 18 ce rt if ie d m ai l. T houg h the K ir sc he nbaum s re spon de d info rm al ly to Mil le r’ s c ouns el , 19 the y did not e nte r a tim el y

appe ar an ce or

f ile ati m el y

a nsw er or

oth er r es pons ive 2 0 pl e a d i n g w i t h t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt . I n J u n e 2 0 1 3 M i l l e r f i l e d a m o t i o n f

orde fault 21 j udgm en t. N o r es pons e to the m oti on w as f ile d by the K ir sc he nbaum s and a s ar es ult ,3

1 the dis tr ic t co urt iss ue d an or de r gr an tin g Mi lle r’ s m oti on fo r de fa ult jud gm en t, 2 fi ndi ng the K ir sc he nbaum s li ab le f or $16 , 153. 98. 3 { 6} Re pr es en te d by

c ouns el , the K ir sc he nbaum s pr om ptl y f ile d an answer to 4 Miller’ s original com

plaint allegin g as an aff

irm ative defense that Miller’ s court 5 ac tio n w as ba rr ed by the A rb itr at ion A gr ee m en t. T he K ir sc he nbaum s al so m ove d to 6 com pel arbitration and to vacate the default j udgm ent. In Novem ber 2013, the court 7 iss ue d an or de r gr an tin g the K ir sc he nbaum s’ m oti on to vac at e the de fa ult j udgm en t 8 an d gr an tin g th ei r m oti on t o c om pe l arb itr at ion
. I n part ic ular, the or de r sta te d: 9 [T ] he [ o] rd er

of [ d] efau lt [j ] udgm en t e nte re d onJul y 2, 201 3[ , ] is 10 vacated, these proceedings are stay ed, and that th e parties ar e com pelled 11 to ar

bitrate thi s m at te r pur suant t o th e te rm s of the D ec em

be r [20,] 12 2011 [, A ] rb itr at ion[ A ] gr ee m ent , r e qui ri ng b ind ing a rb itr at ionund er the 13 [A AA ] with .
. . L engy el as the designated arbitrator. 14 { 7} Appare ntl y

the a rb itrati on d id n ot p ro gr es s sm oothly
. O n January 22, 201 4, 15 Miller sent a letter

to AA A r equestin g disq ualification and rem oval of Lengy el as 16 ar bitrator “ pur suant t o [ A A A ] Ru le [] 20” f or r ef usi ng t o pe rf

orm his dut ie s purs ua nt 17 to required procedures, as we ll as for lack of independ ence, i.e ., non-neutrality , w hich 18 w as not

part of the part ie s’ a gr ee m en t. I n part ic ular, Mi lle r al le ge d that “ gr ound 19 ru le s” se t by

L en gy el to gove rnthe a rb itr at ionw er e m er e “ re ci ta ls” of the 20 K ir sc he nbaum s’ de sir e to d el ay the arb itr at ionpr oc es s, e xc lud e A A A int er ve nti on, 21 and lim it com

m unication betwee n the parties and Le ngy el. Miller also asserted that4

1 it ha d be co m e ap pa re nt tha t L en gy el w as ha vin g e x part e co m m uni ca tio ns w iththe 2 K ir sc he nbaum s. 3 { 8} In respo n s e, t h e K irschenbaum s sent a letter to the A AAcontendin g that 4 L en gy el c oul d no t be dis qua lifi ed pur suant t o th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r co m pe lli ng 5 ar bitratio n and d es ign at ionof L en gy el a s th e pa rt ie s’ a rb itr at or . I n a ddi tio n, the 6 K ir sc he nbaum s arg ue d th at the part ie s in te nde d to appoi nt a non -n e u tr a l a rb itr at or

not 7 subj ec t t o A A A Ru le 20. 8 { 9} AA A r espond ed to Miller’ s com plaint statin g: “ [i] n ligh t of t he [c] ourt [o] rder 9 requiring bin ding arbitration u n d er t h e [A AA ] with .
. . L engy el as the designated 10 ar bitrator , [M ill er ] m ay se ek cl ar if ic at ion fr om the [c ] ourt a s to A A A ’ s auth or ity to 11 ad dr es s thi s re que st f

or r em ova l. ” Mi lle r fi le d am oti on w iththe dis tr ic t c ourt se ek ing 12 cl ar if ic at ionof it s or de r, a rg uin g th at al l A A A r ule s ha d be eninc or

por at ed int o th e 13 Ar bitration Agreem ent. A t the hearing on Miller’ s m otio n to clarify , the c ourt 14 obse rv ed : 15 Whe n I loo k a t the co ntr ac t tha t the pa rt ie s en te re d int o f or the pur pose 16 of ar

bitratio n, I note tha t Mr
. [L en gy el ] is d es ign at ed but not r equir ed [ to 17 serve as arb i t ra t o r]. What is required is that the parties arbitrate under 18 th e ru le s o f AAA. . .
. 19 If it w ere the o t h er way around then po tentially

the AA A r

ules 20 w oul d have no m eanin g. I f the a rb itr at or c oul d a s ade sig na te d arb itr at or 21
. . . igno re or avoid those ru l es at h i s discretion then th at w ould put at 22 iss ue the A A A r ule s and the ir

r equir em en t of the A A A ru le s un de r the 23 pa rt ie s’ a gr ee m en t.19 O n June 2, 20 14 , t he c ourt i ssu ed a n or de r pe rm itt ing c ouns el f or the 1 20 K ir sc he nbaum s to w ith dr awf ro m the c as e fo r pr of

es sio na l r ea sons . 5 1 { 10} T he c ourt i ssu ed a n or de r on June 4, 201 4, c onc lud ing tha t “ it w as the part ie s’ 1 2 int ent tha t the a rb itr at ionbe tw ee n th em w oul d be sub

j ec t t o a ll the r

ule s and 3 procedures of the [AA A], includi ng the rule regarding disq ualification of an 4 arbitrator[, ] ” and ordered that A AA“ has the authorityto d i s qualify designated 5 arbitrator .
. . L engy el, if the AAA determ ines that such a dis qualification is warranted 6 un de r it s ru le s an d p ro ced ur es .” 7 { 11} O n Ju ly

17, 201 4, the K ir sc he nbaum s m ove d, pr o se , f or r ec onsi de ra tio n of

the 8 June 4 or de r. I n pe rt ine nt pa rt , the K ir sc he nbaum s arg ue d, “ [n ] ot d isc los ed by pr ior 9 co unse l w as tha t both pa rt ie s spe ci fi ca lly dis cu sse d an d ag re ed to use . . . Leng y el , 10 an architect very we ll known to them both—which was param ount to anything else. 11 Using the procedures of the AA A wa s m erely an adj unct to th eir desire to have Mr. 12 L en gy el de ci de an y dis put e. ” T he K ir sc he nbaum s re que ste d an or de r fi ndi ng the 13 A A A r

ule pr ovi din g fo r the re m ova l and s ubst itu tio n of a n arb itr at or

did not appl y to 14 the parties’ arbitration and order the parties to ar bitrate w ith Lengy el serving as 15 arbitrator. In Septem

ber 2014 AAAdecided to rem ove Le ngy el from the parties’ case. 16 { 12} T w o m onths l at er , in N ove m be r 2014 , the c ourt de nie d th e K ir sc he nbaum s’ 17 m oti on f

or r ec onsi de ratio n. T he K ir sc he nba um s f ile d th eir not ic e of

appe al on 18 N ove m

be r 14, 201 4.6

1 II. DISC US SION 2 A . Th e Ki rs ch en ba um s’ A pp ea l of t he D ist ri ctC ou rt ’s Or de r D en yin g T he ir 3 Motion f

or Re consideration Was Tim ely Filed 4 { 13} T he K ir sc he nbaum s them se lve s no te a pot en tia l pr obl em

w iththe ti m el ine ss 5 of the ir appe al an d the re la te d is sue of the sc ope of

our r ev ie w . T he K ir sc he nbaum s’ 6 m oti on f

or r ec onsi de ratio n w as f

ile d m or e than thi rty da y s af te r the or de r it ad dr es se d. 7 A s su ch , the m oti on w as f ile d a ft er the de ad lin e fo r fi lin g an appe al to this Co urt f ro m 8 th e d is tri ctco ur t’s o rd er. See Rul e 12-201(A)( 2) NM RA. Our case lawis clear that 9 Rule 1

- 06 0( B ) N M RA m ot i on s br ou gh t“ t o c or r e c ta n e rr or

o f l a w b y t he d i strict 10 court m

ust be filed b efore the expiration of the tim e for a ppeal.” D ee rm an v . B d. of 11 Cty. Comm r’s , 1993 -N MC A -1 23, ¶ 16, 116 N
. M. 501, 864 P
. 2d 3 17; se e R es olu tio n 12 Tr

. Co rp. v. F

erri , 19 95 -NMSC -0 55 , ¶ 9, 1 20 N.M. 32 0, 9 01 P.2d 73 8. D ee rm an he ld 13 that district courts lack autho rity to grant relief pursuant to a “belated” Rule 1-060(B) 14 m ot io n, ab se nt ex tra or di na ry cir cu m st an ces . D ee rm an , 199 3- N MC A -1 23, ¶ ¶ 21, 23- 15 24. G iven the holding o f D ee rm an , Mi lle r ar gue s th at the K ir sc he nbaum s’ not ic e of 16 ap pe al is too la te to ca ptu re the or de r en te re d in June 2014 an d th e ap pe al sho uld thu s 17 be dism issed as unti m ely . W e disagree. 18 { 14} A s we not ed

in W el ls F argo B ank

, N. A

. v. Ci tyof G all up , 201 1- N MC A -1 06, 19 ¶ 8, 150 N. M. 706 , 265 P
. 3d 1 279, the r ule state d in D ee rm an is not abso lute. In 20 W el ls F argo B ank , w e m ad e cl ear tha t the r ule in D ee rm an sho uld

be appl ie d “ onl y7

1 when the [Rule 1-060(B)(1)] m otion is used as a subst itute for a direc t appeal or as 2 a m eans of circ umventing the tim e period allowed f or a direc t appeal.” W

el ls F argo 3 B ank , 201 1- N MC A -1 06, ¶ 8. 4 { 15} T he ti m el ine ss o f the K ir sc he nbaum s’ m oti on f or r ec onsi de ra tio n w as not 5 litigated belo w. W e ar e left w ith the real-w orld circum stance that the distric t court 6 co nsi de re d th e m oti on and d en ie d it on i ts m er its
. Part of the K ir sc he nbaum s’ m oti on 7 fo r re co nsi de ratio n de ta ile d th e br eakdow n of the ir r el at ion shi p w iththe at tor ne y w ho 8 re pr es en te d th em

a t the he ar ing on M ill er ’ s m oti on, a nd the ir uns uc ce ssf

ul e ff orts t o 9 hire newcounsel before they filed their pro se m ot i o n . Given their unrebutted 10 ci rc um stanc e, the dis tr ic t c ourt w oul d have be enw ith in i ts d isc re tio n to de te rm ine 11 tha t the la te m oti on w as not sim ply an at te m

pt to ev ad e the tim e fo r ap pe al
. Appl y ing 12 our presum

ption in the correc tness of dist rict court ac tions , we will not engage an 13 in de pe nd en t as se ss m en t o f th e Kir sc he nb au m s’ m ot iv es . Cf . Farm er s, I nc . v . D al 14 Mach. & Fabricating, Inc. , 1990 -N MS C- 100, ¶ 8, 111 N
. M. 6, 800 P. 2d 1 063 (“ T he 15 presum

ption upon reviewfavors the corr ectness of the [district] court’ s act i o n s.”)
. 16 T his ap pr oa ch al so fur the rs our pol ic y of c onstru ing our

appe lla te r

ule s li be ra lly

so 17 as to de te rm ine appe al s onthe ir m er its
. See W

akeland v. N.M

. De p’t of Wo r kf

orce 18 Sol uti ons , 2012-NMC A- 021, ¶ 7, 274 P. 3d 766 (noting that this Court has adop ted 19 a “ lib er al appr oa ch ” to the int er pr et at ionof

the Ru le s of

Appe lla te P ro ced ur e “ in8

1 or de r to f

urthe r a pol ic y

of he ar ing ap pe al s onthe ir m er its r athe r than di sm iss ing 2 them on technical ground s”). 3 { 16} “ Appe lla te c ourts w il l no t inte rf er e w iththe a ct ionof

the [ dis tr ic t] c ourt i n 4 v ac at ing a judgm ent [under Rule 1-060(B)] ” or w ith an appeal from the denial of a 5 Rule 1-060(B) m otion , e xcept upon a showing of abuse of discretion by the district 6 co ur t. P he lps D odge Co rp. v . G ue rra , 1978 -N MS C- 053, ¶ 20, 92 N
. M. 47, 582 P
. 2d 7 819; Ja m es v . B rum lop , 198 0- N MC A -0 43, ¶ 9, 94 N
. M. 291 , 60 9 P. 2d 1 247. T he 8 dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a

buse it s disc re tio n in ru lin g on the K ir sc he nbaum s’ m oti on t o 9 re c o n s i d e r

u n d e r R u l e 1
- 0 6 0 ( B )
. F o r

t h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , w e h o l dt he 10 K ir sc he nbaum s ti m el y appe al ed

the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of the ir m oti on t o 11 reconsider. 12 B. Th e Distr ict C ourt D id N ot Ab use Its D iscretion in De nying the 13 Kirschen baum s’ Motion t o Rec onsider 14 1. Stand ard of R eview 15 { 17} G en er al ly , w e re vie w adis tr ic t c ourt’ s r uli ng u nde r Ru le 1- 060( B) f or abuse 16 of di sc ret io n. E

de ns v. E de ns , 2005 -N MC A -0 33, ¶ 13, 137 N
. M. 207 , 109 P
. 3d 2 95 17 (h old in g th at to r ev er se the dis tr ic t c ourt un de r anabuse of dis cr et ionstandard

“ it 18 m ust be sho w n th at

the c ourt’ s r

uli ng e xc ee ds the bou nds of a ll re as on or

tha t the 19 j udicial action t ak en is arbitrary , f anciful, or unreasonable” (om issio n, internal 20 quot at ion m ar

ks, a nd c ita tio n om itt ed ))
. H ow ev er , ins of ar a s de te rm ini ng w he the r the9

1 distric t court abused its di scretion in deny ing th e K irschenbaum s’ Rule 1-060(B) 2 m ot io n req ui res co ns tru ct io n of th e Arb it rat io n Ag reem en t, we p ro ceedde no vo . See 3 Rive ra v. A m. Ge n. F

in. Servs. , I

nc. , 2011 -N MS C- 033, ¶ 27, 150 N
. M. 398, 259 P
. 3d 4 803 (n oti ng tha t the int er pr et at ionof

a n ar bitra tio n ag re em en t is an is sue the appe lla te 5 co urts r ev ie w is de nov o) ; W . F arm B ureau Ins. Co. v. Carter , 199 9- N MS C- 012, ¶ 4, 6 127 N. M. 186 , 979 P. 2d 231 (rec ogni zing that the contract interpretation is a m atter 7 of lawreview ed de novo). 8 { 18} A rb itr at ion ag reem en ts are aspe ci es of c ontra ct , sub

j ec t t o th e pr inc ipl es of 9 New Mex ic o c on tra ctlaw. Horne v. Los Alam os Nat’l Sec. , L .L .C. , 201 3- N MS C- 004, 10 ¶ 16, 296 P
. 3d 4 78. A cc or din gly , w e app ly N ew Me xic o contra ct law in i nte rp re ta tio n 11 an d co nstru ct ion of the A rb itr at ion A gr ee m en t. W e not e tha t the part ie s do not a rg ue 12 tha t the A rb itr at ionA gr ee m en t i s a m big uous . N ei the r of

the m p r o v ide d any

te sti m ony 13 as to the ir

int en t or tho ught s w ithr eg ar d to the w or din g of the A gr ee m en t. A s su ch , 14 our j ob i s apur e le ga l ques tio n of inte rp re ta tio n and con str uc tio n: wha t do the w or ds 15 of t he A gr e e m e nt

m e a n a nd w ha t i s t he i r l e ga l e f f e c t ? Se e F

ashi on F abri cs of Io wa , 16 In c. v . Retai l I

nv ’r s C orp. , 266 N
. W
. 2d 2 2, 25 ( Io w a 1978 ) (n oti ng tha t the 17 “ [i ] te rp re ta tio n i nvol ve s a sc er ta ini ng the m eanin g of contra ct ua l w or ds; c onstru ct ion 18 refe rs to deciding th eir legal e ffec t”).10

1 2. R ive ra D oe s N ot C on tr ol 2 { 19} The Kirschenbaum s contend th at pursuant to th e R iv er a “i n t e g r a l [
- ]a n c i l l a ry” 3 te st, the se co nd c lause of the A rb itr at ionA gr ee m en t, d es ig na tin g L en gy el “ sha ll” 4 serve as the parties’ arbitrator, is integral, while the first clause, providin g the parties 5 ag re e to arb itr at e “ unde r A A A ” unm odi fi ed by m an da tor

y c ontra ct ua l l an gua ge li ke 6 “ m ust” or “ shall,” is ancillary . W e disagree. 7 { 20} T he Supr em e Co ur t’s ap pl ic at io n o f th e “ in te gr al [-]anc ill ar y ” te st i n R iv er

a wa s 8 lim ited to the fact-specific issue of the unavailabil ity of a designated instit ution al 9 ar bitratio n pr ovi de r tha t the pa rties c le ar ly int en de d to use e xc lus ive ly in re sol vin g 10 di sp ut es be twee n t he m . R iv er a ad dr es se d a consu m er dis put e ar bitra tio n a gr ee m en t 11 inv olv ing the N at ion al A rb itr at ionF or um ( N A F) in the w ak e of

the dis sol uti on o f its 12 co nsum er

dis put e div isi on. 201 1- N MS C- 033, ¶ 20. T he lang ua ge of

the part ie s’ 13 ag re em en t de m onstrate d an in te nt t o de sig na te N A F as the a rb itr at ionpr ovi de r an d 14 to arb itr at e ex cl usi ve ly und er N A F’ s r ule s and p ro ce dures. Id

. ¶¶ 3, 29 (notin g that 15 the a gr ee m en t pr ovi de d th e pa rt ie s “ sha ll” ag re e the y ar bitra te und er

N A F ru le s and 16 procedures). The NA F rules and procedure s i n cluded a rule providin g that onl y an 17 NAF arb it rat orco ul d a dm in is te r th e NAF ru le s an d p ro ced ur es . Id

. ¶ 35. T he Court 18 re as one d th at

the part ie s’ in te nt an d th e fa ct tha t on ly

a n N A F ar

bitra tor c oul d 19 adm ini ste r the N A F ru le s de m onstra te d that ar bitra tio n unde r N A F w as int eg ra l t o th e11

1 pa rti es ’ ag reem en t. Id

. ¶ 3 8
. Ho we v er , b ec au s e o f N AF ’s co n s u m erd i s p u t e d i v i s i o n ’s 2 dis sol uti on, it

w as impossibl e fo r the part ie s to a rb itr at e unde r N A F’ s r ule s and 3 pr oc edur es . Id

. ¶ 35. A s a result, the Court determ ined it woul d violate an integral 4 term of the parties’ agree m ent to com pel them to arbitrate disput es under an 5 arb it rat io n pr ov id er ot he r th an NAF an d th e NAF rul es an d p ro ced ur es . Id

. ¶¶ 55- 56 6 (striking th e parties’ arbitration provisio ns in th eir entirety ). 7 { 21} R iv er a did no t consider the fact-specif ic issues presented in th is case: 8 int er pr et at ionof

a rb itr at iona gr ee m en t t er m s nam ing a n in div idu al a rb itr at or to 9 re sol ve the part ie s’ dis put es “ unde r A AA,” a n ex ist ing ins tit uti ona l arb itr at ion 10 provi de r w i t h a se t of r ul e s c on t r ol l i ng pr oc e e di ng s he l d un de r i t s aus pic es. I n 11 co ntr as t, onl y

one m at er ia l pr ovi sio n w as a t i ssu e in R iv er a —NA F “ shall” serve as 12 the part ie s’ a rb itr at ionpr ovi de r. A pa rticul ar a rb itr at or

w as not na m ed in the 13 ag re em en t t o se rv e as the part ie s’ de sig na te d arb itr at or , a nd so th e Co urt di d no t 14 co nsi de r thi s vari ab le in R ivera
. H er e, A A A is av ai la ble to adm ini ste r the part ie s’ 15 arbitration, unlike R iv er a . A lso , the A A A ru le s pr ovi de that i n c er ta in c ir cu m stanc es , 16 a de sig na te d arb itr at or m ay be dis qua lif

ie d and r ep la ce d. I nte rp re ta tio n of the 17 A rb itr at ionA gr ee m en t in this ca se goe s bey ond the sc ope of the Co urt’ s ana ly sis in 18 R iv er a . See State v . San chez , 2015-NMS C-018, ¶ 26, 350 P.3d 1169 (holding that 19 “ ca se s are not

auth or ity f or pr opos iti ons not

c onsi de re d” ( int er

na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks12

1 an d c ita tio n om itt ed )). Accordi ngl y , w e de cl ine to ad opt the K ir sc he nbaum s’ 2 interpretation of the Ar bitration Agreem ent under R iv er a . T o do so woul d 3 unr ea s o n ab l y t r e a t a s e qu i v a l e n t a n u n a v a i l ab l e a r b i t r a t i o n p r o v i d e r a nd a 4 di sq ua li fia bl e arb it rat or . Sta te e x re l. U

dal l v

. Co lon ial

P en n I

ns. Co

. , 5 1991 -N MS C- 048, ¶

30, 112 N
. M. 123 , 812 P. 2d 7 77 ( “ Inc onstru ing ac ontra ct , the 6 law favors a r easonable rather than unreasonable interpretation.” ). 7 { 22} In ad di ti on , R ivera did not use the int eg ra l- an ci llary te st i n Brown v. ITT 8 C o n s u m e r F i n a n c i a l C orp. , 211 F
. 3d 1 217, 122 2 ( 11th C ir
. 200 0) , to gauge the 9 relative im

portance o f tw o contract provisio ns; rather, it used it to d eterm ine whether 10 a co ntr ac t c ondi tio n w as so c en tr al to the pa rt ie s’ int en t in c ontra ct ing tha t t o arb itr at e 11 without it would be to “ eviscerate the core of the par ties’ agree m ent.” R iv er a , 201 1- 12 N MS C- 033, ¶ 38 ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and c ita tio n om itt ed ). I nte rp re ta tio ns o f 13 the m eaning and relative value of contract provisions is best left to established 14 co ntr act in ter

pr et at iona nd c onstru ct iondoc tr ine s, w iththe ir ove rarc hin g go al of 15 en fo rci ng contr ac ts a cc or din g to the ir te rm s, and e sc he w ing the nul lif ic at ionof 16 pr ovi sio ns. 17 C . Th e D ist ri ctC ou rtC or re ct ly I nt er pr eted t he Te rm s of t he A rb it ra ti on 18 Agree m ent 19 { 23} T he dis tr ic t c ourt f ound in its Jun e 4, 201 4, or de r “ [t ] ha t i t w as the part ie s’ 20 int en t tha t the a rb itr at ionbe tw ee n th em w ould be sub

j ec t t o a ll the r

ule s and13

1 pro ce d u re s of the [A AA ] , including th e rule r egarding disq ualification of an 2 ar bitrator . ” W e ag re e w ith the dis tr ic t cour t tha t this is the le ga l e ff

ec t of the part ie s’ 3 chosen langu age. 4 { 24} The f

irst clause of the A rbitration Agree m ent provides: “ Contractor and O wner 5 ag re e to b ind ing a rb itr at ionunder AAA. ” T he m ost r ea sona ble c onstru ct ionof

thi s 6 langua ge is tha t “ unde r A A A ” inc or por at es al l of the A A A r

ule s no rm al ly

appl ic ab le 7 to pro ceed in gs he ld un de r AAA’ s au sp ic es . See Co noc oPhil lips C o. v . L yo ns , 8 2013 -N MS C- 009, ¶

67, 299 P
. 3d 8 44 ( hol din g th at ac ourt m ay

“ im pl[ y ] ar ea sona

ble 9 te rm to co ve r” a n om itt ed

log ist ic al iss ue if

the im pli ed te rm is co ns is tent w iththe 10 langua ge of

the a gr ee m en t ( int er

na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and c ita tio n om itt ed )) ; A m . A rb
. 11 Ass ’n, Rul e 2 (20 09 ) (p ro vi di n g w h e n p art ie s ag ree t o a rb it rat e u nd er t he AAA 12 “ [r ] ule s, or

w he n th ey

pr ovi de f

or a rb itr at ionby

the A A A a nd an arb itr at ionis 13 ini tia te d un de r th[ e A A A r ] ule s, the y ther eb y auth or iz e A A A to adm ini ste r the 14 ar bitratio n”). A ddi tio na lly , the re is no l an gua ge of li m ita tio n inthe A rb itr at ion 15 A gr ee m en t dem onstratin g inte nt t o li m it the sc ope of the A A A r

ule s’ appl ic at ionto 16 th e p art ie s’ arb it rat io n. Cf

. Cen te x/ W or th gr ou p, LL C v. W

or th gr ou p Ar ch it ect

s, L.P. , 17 2016 -N MC A -0 13, ¶

18, 365 P
. 3d 3 7 ( hol din g th at “ w he re a su bc ontra ct

c ont ai ns 18 w or ds o f de fi nit e lim ita tio n, tho se w or ds are giv en ef fe ct an d the inc or

por at ionof

the 19 pr im e co ntr ac t i s li m ite d a cc or din gly ” (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and ci ta tio n14

1 om itte d) ). A s ar es ult , the langua ge of the A rb itr at ionA gr ee m en t r ea sona bly 2 de m onstrate s an in te nt t o arb itr at e unde r al l of the A A A r

ule s. 3 { 25} T he se co nd c lause of the A rb itr at ionA gr ee m en t pr ovi de s: “ Co ntr ac tor a nd 4 O w ne r ag re e tha t the de sig na te d ar bitra tor sha ll be
. . . L en gy el
. ” E m plo ym en t of

the 5 langua ge tha t the part ie s a gr ee the y sha ll de sig na te Len gyel as the ir a rb itr at or

is 6 st ro ng ev id en ce o f i n t e nt to ap po in t t he sp eci fie d p ers on . Se e R iv er a , 7 2011 -N MS C- 033, ¶

31; A m . A rb
. A ss’ n, Ru le 15( a) ( 2009 ) (p ro vid ing tha t “ [i ] f the 8 agreem ent of the parties nam es an arbitrator or specifies a m ethod of appo intin g an 9 ar bitrator , tha t de sig na tio n or m ethod sh al l be f

oll ow ed ”)
. H ow ev er , the re is no 10 indication in the language of the Ar bitration A greem ent that the parties intended th at 11 L en gy el w oul d se rv e as anon -n eu tra l arb itr at or c ontrary to A m er ic anA rb itr at ion 12 Ass oc ia ti on , Rul e 2 0 (2 00 9)
. Se e Co noc oPhi ll ips , 201 3- N MS C- 009, ¶ 67 13 (r ec ogni zi ng tha t the “ [c ] ourts c an not c re at e a ne w a gr ee m en t f or the part ie s” 14 (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted)). Under the AA A r ules, ar bitrators are 15 required to adhere to a ll of the AA A rules generally
. Am
. Ar b. A ss’ n, Rule 8 ( 2009 ). 16 Ar bitrators, including arbitrators specifically designated b y the parties, are presum ed 17 and expected to function as neutral ar bitrators, unless the parties specifically agree 18 in “ w r i t i ng ” t ha tas pe c i f i c a l l y d e si gn a t e d a r

bi tr a t or s ha l l f un c t i ona s an on - ne utr al 19 arbitrator. Am . A rb. A ss’ n, Rule 20(a) (2009). In a ll other circumst an ces, an15

1 ar bitrator , inc lud ing a n ar

bitrator spe ci fi ca lly de sig na te d by part ie s ina n a gr ee m en t, 2 m ay be dis qua lif

ie d un de r the A A A r

ule s f or non -n eu tr al ity
. A m . A rb
. A ss’ n, Ru le 3 20 ( 2009 ). A s r ec ogni ze d by the dis tr ic t cour

t, “ [i ] f the ar

bitrator c oul d .
. . ign or e or 4 av oid [ the ] r ule s a t hi s di sc ret io n th en tha t w oul d pu t a t i ssu e the A A A r ule s” a nd 5 pot en tia lly

c au se the m

to ha ve no m eanin g. L en gyel shoul d thus b e tr ea te d a s a 6 ne utr al a rb itr at or

ba se d onthe abse nc e of

a n e xpl ic it ag re em en t t o a ppoi nt h im

a s a 7 non-neut ral ar

bitrator. 8 { 26} T he Kirs ch enbaum s arg ue the part ie s in te nde d to de sig na te L en gy el a s a 9 non- ne utr al a rb itr at or

ba se d onboth part ie s’ lon g re la tio nshi ps w ithhim , his 10 background as an ar chitect , an d his lack of legal or m ediation training . H owever , 11 the re is sim

ply no e vid en ce in the r ec or d and n o in dicati on i n th e A rb itr at ion 1 2 A g r e e men t t h a t s u c h a p r o p o s i t i o n mad e i t i n t o t h e f i n a l a g r e e me n t . A c c o r d i n g l y, 13 L en gy el w il l be tr ea te d a s ane utr al a rb itr at or . L en gy el w as not e xpl ic itl y 14 de nom ina te d a s anon -n eu tr al a rb itr at or , a nd the K ir s c h e n b a um s f a ile d to de m onstrate 15 by clear and convin cing evidence he wa s intended to serve as a non-neutral arbitrator. 16 Se e B ors t v
. A lls tat e In s. Co

. , 200 6 W I 70, ¶ 43, 7 17 N.W .2d 42 ( hol din g th at the 17 ar bitrator s—whe the r d e s i g n at ed by the part ie s or

not —are pr es um ed

to be ne utr al a nd 18 im pa rt ia l i n th e ab se nc e of cl ear an d co nvi nc ing ev ide nc e in the part ie s’ a gr ee m en t 19 to the contrary ).16

1 D . Th e D ist rict C ou rt ’s D en ial of t he Ki rs ch en ba um s’ M ot ion f or 2 Re consideration Was N ot Un reasonable, Ar bitrary, or F anciful 3 { 27} The m ost natural construction of the Ar bitration Agreem ent is that the parties 4 intended to arbitrate dispu te s b etwe en them concerning Miller’ s construction work 5 under all of the AA A r

ules, w ith Lengy el serving as a neutral ar bitrator. T o interpret 6 the A rb itr at ionA gr ee m en t de signa ti ng L en gy el to tr um p th e A A A r

ule pe rm itt ing 7 re pla ce m en t of a neu tr al ar bitrator in ce rt ai n cir cu m stanc es w oul d r isk r en de ri ng the 8 AA A R

ules m eaningless. Ac cordingly , w e hold that th e district court did no t act 9 unr ea sona

bly , a rb itr ar ily , or f

an ci fu l i n de ny ing the K ir sc he nbaum s’ m oti on f or 10 reco ns id erat io n. Se e E de ns , 200 5- N MC A -0 33, ¶ 13. 11 III. CON CLU SION 12 { 28} F o r

t h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , w e a f

f i rm. 13 { 29} IT IS S O ORDERE D.
14 15 M . M ON IC A Z A M OR A , Ju dg e 16 WE CO NCUR:
17

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 18 JO N A TH A N B. S U TI N , Ju dg e
19

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 20 LI N D A M . V A N Z I, Ju dg e