Opinion ID: 3038897
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Procedural Infirmities

Text: Transtech alleges procedural flaws in the arbitration process that Judge Gafni employed and that those flaws violated its due process rights. In particular, it argues that 6 On appeal, SCA argues that Transtech has waived all its procedurally phrased arguments, but we reject that line of reasoning. SCA had ample notice, based on Transtech’s opening brief in the District Court, of the basis for the procedural claims Transtech has pursued in this appeal; even if the terms “due process” and “functus officio” did not appear, the substance of the claims did. De Laval Turbine, Inc. v. West India Indus., Inc., 502 F.2d 259, 271 (3d Cir. 1974) (“The general rule that matters must first be raised at the district court level is a cornerstone of a rational federal judicial system. As significant as the rule is, however, we see no reason to append to it a ‘magic word’ requirement.”). 14 the proceedings lacked certain pertinent evidence, a live hearing, and cross-examination of witnesses. But given the multiple submissions, voluminous supporting materials, and frequent opportunities for oral argument, it does not appear that Transtech’s position on contract interpretation issues escaped the arbitrator’s notice. Its opening “position paper” comprised over 500 pages. By the end of the arbitration, it had made 17 different submissions. These facts do not suggest a constitutional procedural defect. Relatedly, Transtech claims that Judge Gafni engaged in “misconduct.” It alleges