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

Heading: The appointment of an arbitrator

Text: Rule 13 of the American Arbitration Association Rules (AAA Rules) establishes specific procedures for the AAA to follow when appointing an arbitrator to resolve a dispute. Immediately after a request for arbitration is filed, the AAA must send simultaneously to each party a list of proposed arbitrators. If any of the proposed arbitrators is a member of the AAA's national panel, Commentary C to Rule 13 states that the AAA will also furnish to each party a biographical sketch containing information on the arbitrators' current employment, employment history, areas of technical expertise, educational background, practical career experiences, and professional association memberships. In addition, any party can receive further information on prospective arbitrators from any AAA regional office. After the AAA submits its list of suggested arbitrators to the parties, they have ten days within which to strike any names to which they object, rank the remaining names in order of preference, and return the list to the AAA. The AAA then chooses an arbitrator in accordance with the parties' stated order of preference. It is clear from the record in this case that the AAA did not follow its own procedures in the selection process. First, the AAA unilaterally appointed Julian Hoffar as arbitrator of the dispute without sending either party a list of proposed candidates. Mr. Sanders objected to the appointment, and Hoffar subsequently recused himself as arbitrator. Second, after the AAA properly sent Sanders and Maple Springs a list of potential arbitrators on February 10, 1996, Mr. Sanders requested additional information on each nominee from the AAA's regional office in the District of Columbia (the D.C. Office). [1] The AAA collected the information, [2] but did not send it to Mr. Sanders until February 20. [3] He did not receive it until February 21, the day after he was required to return his list of preferences to the AAA. Sometime in late February (the exact date is not clear from the record), the AAA selected Gerald O'Brien to arbitrate the dispute between Mr. Sanders and Maple Springs. Although Sanders initially accepted Mr. O'Brien as a potential arbitrator, [4] he was disturbed by the failure of the AAA to provide in a timely manner the additional information he had sought. After numerous requests to meet with the Administrative Supervisor and the Director of the D.C. Office, [5] he formally challenged Mr. O'Brien as an arbitrator on April 12, 1996, and demanded a new selection process. Sanders listed numerous alleged improprieties as the basis for his challenge: 1. [An AAA representative] attempted to coerce me during a telephone call he made to have me accept a schedule he implied was favorable to [Maple Springs].... 2.... [Julian Hoffar's] resume was transmitted to me in a manner that caused me to receive it only a few hours before a ... scheduled conference call/hearing with [Mr. Hoffar]. 3. [The Case Administrator's] after the fact transmittal of resumes I requested of candidates for arbitrator that was not received by me until after the strike-list return deadline. Circumstances support my contention that my opposition received and processed these resumes in a manner that afforded them an unfair advantage. [6] 4. The refusal of [the Administrative Supervisor and the Director] to meet with me to resolve this unfair advantage issue. 5. The passage of four (4) weeks from my initial request ... to the time I received a superficial meeting with [two AAA representatives]. When the AAA did not respond to Sanders' challenge to O'Brien, Sanders sent four additional letters to the AAA in May and June 1996, all alleging that the AAA was biased against him. On this appeal, Mr. Sanders asserts that if he had had the additional information about Mr. O'Brien, he would have stricken him as unsuitable to hear the case.