Opinion ID: 728157
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: AT & T's Challenge to the Arbitration Award

Text: 7 AT & T argues that the district court erred on remand by confirming the arbitration award because of alleged partiality on the part of arbitrator Randy Knapp (Knapp), in violation of 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(2), and because it was prevented from cross-examining Knapp in violation of 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(3). 8 In the prior appeals, NAT appealed both the 60(b)(3) order and the district court's vacatur of the arbitration award. NAT properly raised in its brief the merits of AT & T's original challenge to the arbitration award, and AT & T responded to these issues. In our prior unpublished disposition we held that the district court erred both in vacating its prior confirmation and in vacating the underlying arbitration award. We said: We vacate the district court's order vacating the arbitration award and vacating the confirmation order. Consequently, the award stands confirmed. AT & T v. United Computer Sys., Inc., 5 F.3d 534 (Table), 1993 WL 360778,  7 (9th Cir. Sept.15, 1996). 9 In its petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc, AT & T recognized that our prior decision constituted a decision on the merits of the arbitration award. The law of the case bars AT & T from now challenging that award. See Leslie Salt Co. v. United States, 55 F.3d 1388, 1392 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 407, 133 L.Ed.2d 325 (1995). We find no merit to any of AT & T's remaining arguments, and hold that the district court properly confirmed the arbitration award on remand.