Opinion ID: 2357348
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Remand to the Arbitrator

Text: We are not persuaded by appellant's argument that the trial court lacked authority to seek clarification from the arbitrator. The court's instructions made clear that it was in no way reopening the arbitration proceedings. Rather, the court sought to clarify the award it was being asked to enforce. When the arbitrator ordered adjustments to partnership accounts, he might simply have been ruling that plaintiffs Forsberg and Richey were entitled to be reimbursed for payments they had made on behalf of the partnership. He might also have gone further and ruled, essentially, that the capital accounts would be accurate once these adjustments had been made  in other words, he might have adjudicated the capital accounts. The arbitrator's response clarified that he had done the latter, accept[ing] the accounting presented by Mr. Murphy as a proper accounting of the capital accounts. There is ample authority for seeking a clarification (as opposed to a reopening) of an arbitrator's award. See, e.g., U.S. Energy Corp. v. Nukem, Inc., 400 F.3d 822, 831 (10th Cir.2005) (When there is more than one reasonable interpretation of an arbitration award, a remand for clarification is appropriate.); Hyle v. Doctor's Assocs., Inc., 198 F.3d 368, 370 (2d Cir.1999) ([A] district court can remand an award to the arbitrator for clarification where an award is ambiguous.); Colonial Penn Insurance Co. v. Omaha Indemnity Co., 943 F.2d 327, 334 (3rd Cir.1991) (Because of the limited purpose of [a remand for clarification] . . ., there is not even a theoretical inconsistency with the functus officio doctrine.); American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO v. United States Postal Service, 254 F.Supp.2d 12, 15 (D.D.C.2003) (Because of a remand's limited purpose, remand to clarify an ambiguity does not run afoul of the common-law doctrine of functus officio. ) (footnote omitted). [1] Contrary to appellant's suggestion, this authority is not limited to cases involving the federal law of labor arbitration contracts. Jaffe v. Nocera, 493 A.2d 1003 (D.C. 1985), does not hold that the Superior Court lacked the authority to remand for clarification. [2] In Jaffe, the arbitrators had entered an award against Ronald Mickey Nocera d/b/a Papermill Associates, and Columbine, Ltd., General Partner. . . . When it became clear that Mr. Jaffe intended to enforce the award against Nocera in his personal capacity, the Superior Court remanded the case to the arbitrators for clarification of the identity of the respondent. The arbitrators replied that they had not decided that question because neither party had raised it. Id. at 1007. The court then directed the arbitrators to decide the matter. They responded that the demand was filed against Nocera personally and that they accordingly had adjudged him personally liable. The Superior Court disagreed with the arbitrators, concluding that Nocera did not have notice that he was a party to the arbitration and could not be held personally liable. We reversed, concluding that the trial court had no power to vacate the award against Nocera personally. Id. at 1011. Nevertheless, we did comment on the court's remand for clarification. When reciting the procedural history of the case, we dropped a footnote explaining that There is no provision of the Arbitration Act that allows for such a remand. D.C.Code § 16-4311(c) (1981) permits the court to order a rehearing in certain limited circumstances. Even the power to order a rehearing, however, is dependent upon the timely filing of a motion to vacate the award. 493 A.2d at 1007 n. 1. This comment was not a part of our holding, and in the present case the trial court was careful not to order a rehearing. Moreover, there is no inconsistency between our footnote in Jaffe and the holdings of the cases cited above, which do not rely upon statutory authority, but rather upon common-law doctrine. It was appropriate for the trial court to seek clarification of the arbitrator's award.