Opinion ID: 2320696
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Corruption, fraud, or other undue means

Text: Under D.C.Code § 16-4311(a)(1), a court must vacate an award that was procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue means. [8] We conclude that the record does not support a vacatur on these grounds. Although there were administrative problems with the arbitration, there is nothing in the record to suggest that the final decision of the arbitrator was the result of corruption, fraud, or other undue means. [9] Mr. Sanders strenuously asserts that the AAA engaged in clandestine ex parte discussions with Maple Springs and granted Maple Springs special favors. He complains, in particular, that Maple Springs and AAA case administrators had ex parte discussions about the pre-hearing conference. [10] Commentary G to AAA Rule 29, however, specifically authorizes such discussions, stating that [i]n order to maintain the integrity of the arbitration process, parties should not have direct communication with the neutral arbitrator except at the arbitration hearing itself; instead, they should use the case administrator as the funnel through which all communications must pass. Thus the communication between AAA administrators and Maple Springs of which Mr. Sanders complains was consistent with the AAA Rules, and fails to support Mr. Sanders' claim of corruption or fraud. See also Capozio, 490 A.2d at 618-619 (interpreting AAA Rules). Mr. Sanders also argues that the AAA granted certain special favors to Maple Springs by delaying the arbitration process during settlement discussions and by failing to schedule a pre-hearing conference until he demanded one. However, AAA Rule 39 provides that either the AAA or the arbitrator may for good cause extend any period of time established by these rules. Settlement discussions would surely constitute good cause for postponing a hearing, at least in the absence of unusual circumstances which are not shown on this record. In addition, AAA Rule 10 provides that pre-hearing administrative conferences are not scheduled unless a party requests one or unless the AAA, in its discretion, decides to hold one. See Capozio, 490 A.2d at 616 n. 7 (the scheduling of a pre-hearing conference is discretionary with the AAA). The AAA properly scheduled such a conference when Mr. Sanders asked for one; under Rule 10, it was under no obligation to do so earlier. We also find no merit in Mr. Sanders' contention that the errors by AAA staff  its failure to provide him timely biographical information about potential arbitrators and its failure to forward his amended claim to the arbitrator  require us to hold that the arbitrator's award was the result of corruption, fraud, or other undue means. First, there is nothing in the record indicating any sort of bad faith on the part of the AAA or its staff; at worst, it appears that the AAA simply failed to follow its own procedures and failed to explain clearly to Mr. Sanders what it was doing and why. Second, there is no evidence that these administrative errors affected in any way the eventual award in favor of Maple Springs or otherwise prejudiced Mr. Sanders' case. Mr. Sanders asserts that he would have struck Mr. O'Brien if the AAA had sent him the biographical data on time. However, at the time that he initially found O'Brien to be a suitable candidate for arbitrator, ranking him third out of seven, Mr. Sanders already had his résumé and biographical information. There is nothing in the additional information that he eventually did receive (see note 2, supra ) to suggest that O'Brien might have been the wrong man for the job, and even now Mr. Sanders does not explain why he would have struck Mr. O'Brien from the list after he had earlier found him acceptable. See Cellular Radio Corp. v. OKI America, Inc., 664 A.2d 357, 361 n. 6 (D.C.1995) (to demonstrate partiality by an arbitrator, it is insufficient merely to show that a party would have lodged an unreasonable objection to an arbitrator had there been fuller disclosure). Likewise, the AAA's failure to forward Mr. Sanders' amended claim to Mr. O'Brien did not affect the final award because it is undisputed that Mr. O'Brien received the amended claim before he made his decision.