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

Heading: Partiality, corruption, or prejudicial misconduct

Text: Even if we assume, without deciding, that the AAA staff could be deemed arbitrators within the meaning of D.C.Code § 16-4311(a)(2), Mr. Sanders has not demonstrated evident partiality, corruption, or misconduct that would require setting aside the arbitration award. As we have discussed, all of Mr. Sanders' allegations except for the one about the delay in receiving biographical information concerned conduct that was either consistent with AAA rules or harmless. As for the biographical information, Mr. Sanders has not shown that Mr. O'Brien was biased or otherwise unfit to serve as an arbitrator. See Cellular Radio Corp., 664 A.2d at 361 n. 6; see also Remmey v. PaineWebber, Inc., 32 F.3d 143, 148 (4th Cir.1994) (party challenging arbitrator's failure to disclose that he had once been fined by arbitral tribunal must show that this newly discovered information affected [the arbitrator's] impartiality, thereby yielding an impermissible award). Moreover, just as the AAA's action did not constitute undue means in procuring the award, for essentially the same reasons it did not amount to misconduct prejudicing Mr. Sanders' rights. We therefore find no error in the trial court's refusal to set aside the arbitration award under D.C.Code § 16-4311(a)(2).