Opinion ID: 2977311
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Hardship in Withholding Judicial Review

Text: The Court also considers the hardship DCS will face if judicial review is withheld at this stage of proceedings. Letter Carriers, 330 F.3d at 751. When an AAA arbitration panel issues a “Class Determination Award” certifying a matter for class arbitration, the panel must stay proceedings for at least thirty-days to permit a party “to move a court of competent jurisdiction to confirm or vacate the [award].” Supplementary Rules, Rule 5(d). The stay procedures set forth in Rule 5(d) enable a party to contest an unfavorable decision on class certification in court before commencement of class arbitration and resolution of the merits by the arbitration panel. Thus, if the arbitrators in this case ultimately decide to certify Dealers’ class, which is no certainty, Rule 5(d) would nonetheless provide DCS ample opportunity to obtain judicial review of any arguments it may have against class arbitration, including those challenging the soundness of the arbitration panel’s prior Clause Construction Award. Given this prospective opportunity for judicial review, 4 “The arbitrator’s determination concerning whether an arbitration should proceed as a class arbitration shall be set forth in a reasoned, partial final award (the ‘Class Determination Award’) . . . .” (emphasis added). Supplementary Rules, Rule 5(a). No. 07-1819 Dealer Computer Serv., Inc. v. Dub Herring Ford, et al. Page 5 it does not appear DCS will suffer any material hardship if review is withheld at this preliminary stage of arbitration. The absence of hardship for DCS at this juncture renders DCS’s motion to vacate the sort of premature adjudication the ripeness doctrine seeks to avoid. Indeed, we should remain “reluctant to invite a judicial proceeding every time the arbitrator sneezes.” Smart v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local 702, 315 F.3d 721, 725 (7th Cir. 2002).