Opinion ID: 2612656
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Refusal to Allow a 60-Day Postponement

Text: The arbitration hearing did not become scheduled until October of 1978, at which time it was set for December 4, 1978, although arbitration had been ordered by the district court almost a year earlier. In November, the hearing was rescheduled from December 4 to December 5. By letter dated November 16, 1978, Cudahy's attorney requested a continuance of the arbitration hearing  almost three weeks prior to the scheduled hearing date. Appellant's unavailability (she and a minor child had been obliged to return to the Chicago area), financial difficulties, and family commitments were stated as reasons for the request. Her attorney committed her therein to being present during the first week in February, 1979, a scant sixty days away. The letter was addressed to the AAA tribunal office in Seattle, as per its rules, to Smith's attorney and also to Mr. Davis, the individual appointed as arbitrator by the AAA. There was no response from the tribunal, and no objection from the adverse party. Cudahy's counsel made a formal request for postponement which was dated December 4, 1978. When Mr. Davis arrived to conduct the hearing, the request for a postponement was again presented to Mr. Davis, but denied without a scintilla of reason or explanation. The arbitration hearing then turned into an ex parte presentation by Smith and his witnesses, and was followed by a terse, conclusory and totally unexplained decision simply denying all of Cudahy's claims against Smith, and denying also Smith's claims against Cudahy. Although the Court's opinion recites with much accuracy the rescheduling by the AAA of the hearing from December 4th to December 5th, it fails to note that this was at the request of Mr. Davis, who must be considered as the hearing officer, since the district court had actually appointed the AAA (whose rules say that it is a tribunal and not an arbitrator). Mr. Davis, an attorney, had a conflict in his own schedule. Similarly, the Court is not wholly inaccurate in differentiating between the letter request of November 16th and the formal request of December 4th  other than that a perusal of the record shows that the AAA tribunal is not founded on formality. Rules, yes, but formality no. Mr. Davis' request for a postponement was also in letter form, as was a notice from the AAA advising that Mr. Davis would act as the arbitrator. Another letter contained an important ruling of the AAA, one overlooked by Mr. Davis, by the trial court, and now by this Court. That ruling, found in the letter of September 19, 1978, stated: The AAA, after reviewing the contentions of the parties, has determined that an issue as to arbitrability exists which could be determined by an Arbitrator. (Emphasis added.) The decision of Mr. Davis would not satisfy the formalistic requirements of the Idaho judicial system. Bluntly put, Cudahy's counsel will clearly see the Court as flavoring its opinion to show a timely request as untimely. After the award was announced, Cudahy sought an order vacating it and Smith sought an order confirming. In the appeal record, R. at 247, is the brief of Smith's counsel, Mr. Campion, which clearly and to the point accepts that a postponement was sought by Mr. Rolzitto's letter of November 16th on behalf of Mrs. Cudahy. Does he contend that it was inadequate? No, and on the contrary, asserts having knowledge that Mr. Davis denied it  by telephone if you please. R. at 249. Formality obviously was not required. Mr. Campion states therein that [a] further letter ... dated November 30, 1978, reiterated that Mrs. Cudahy would not be available ..., again added that Mr. Davis informed counsel that the hearing would not be postponed  but not declaring how this information was passed on, or complaining of any supposed informality. R. at 249. It would unduly lengthen an already long opinion to set forth the argument of that trial court brief, and it should suffice to merely lay out the fact that it made no contention of Smith having filed any objection to the requested postponement  nor did it contend that Smith had claimed any prejudice which would befall him if Mrs. Cudahy were to have had the sixty-day delay which she sought. His best shot in his after-the-fact brief in district court is the unsupported statement that Cudahy had ample notice and opportunity to arrange to attend the hearing. R. at 251. However, her uncontradicted affidavit, which was attached to Smith's brief showed otherwise: AUDRIE B. CUDAHY, being first duly sworn, states under oath that she is the respondent in the above-captioned arbitration and that she is making this affidavit in support of her motion for a continuance of the hearing scheduled December 5, 1978, and in support of said motion states as follows: 1. That the affiant has recently moved from Ketchum, Idaho to Winnetka, Illinois, where she now maintains an apartment for herself and her child who requires attention and cannot be left alone so that it is impossible for the affiant to attend the hearing on December 5, 1978. 2. The affiant is presently engaged in efforts to locate employment as she is not now employed, and is therefore unable to afford the expense of a trip to Idaho to attend a hearing on December 5, 1978. 3. That the affiant believes that after she has located employment and has income that it will be possible for her to arrange for care for her child and pay expenses of travel to attend the arbitration of this matter at a later date. 4. That it would work an undue hardship upon her to be compelled to attend a hearing before convenient arrangements can be made for the care of her child and before she has gainful employment. 5. That the affiant knows of no prejudice to the claimant which will result if the hearing in this matter is postponed until a time when it will not unfairly prejudice her. To vacate an arbitration award requires proof that [t]he arbitrators refused to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown therefor... . I.C. § 7-912(a)(4). Thus, the question is whether sufficient cause to justify a continuance was shown by appellant. Historically this has always included the issue of prejudice to the other party. For reasons hereinafter set forth, I am unable to find any substance in the Court's opinion which upholds the denial of the requested postponement, and am mystified, amazed, and appalled at the summary manner in which the Court places its due process stamp of approval on such conduct. As an alternative to the judicial process, Thorgaard Plumbing & Heating Co. v. County of King, 71 Wash.2d 126, 426 P.2d 828 (1967); Staklinski v. Pyramid Electric Co., 6 App.Div.2d 565, 180 N.Y.S.2d 20 (1958), arbitration de-emphasizes many procedural formalities in favor of a time and money-saving system of effective conflict resolution. Thorgaard, supra ; Layne-Minnesota Co. v. Regents of University of Minnesota, 266 Minn. 284, 123 N.W.2d 371 (1963); Pacific Vegetable Oil Corp. v. C.S.T. Ltd., 29 Cal.2d 228, 174 P.2d 441 (1946); 5 Am.Jur.2d, Arbitration and Award, § 1 (1962). Although not universally applicable, certain types of conflicts are particularly amenable to the arbitration process. Notwithstanding its isolation from the judicial process, it is imperative that arbitration proceedings adequately protect the substantive and procedural rights of the parties involved. Tombs v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 83 Wash.2d 157, 516 P.2d 1028 (1973). In order to ensure that this protection is enforced, the legislature has seen fit to incorporate provisions allowing for judicial review within the Idaho Uniform Arbitration Act, I.C. §§ 7-901  7-922 (1979). (I.C. § 7-912, Vacating an award; I.C. § 7-913, Modification or corrections of award; I.C. § 7-919, Appeals.) Regardless of judicial supervision it is incumbent upon those in charge of conducting arbitration proceedings to maintain a degree of fairness at least equal to that which is found in a formal court of law. Any judge in Idaho, given a two-week notification that a party was unavailable for a hearing because of financial and family difficulties, would order a continuance save for considerations of undue prejudice or intentional dilatory tactics, neither of which were raised by Smith. [6] As a matter of reciprocity, Smith had been allowed an order setting aside a default judgment against him, and was thus given his day in court, undoubtedly because of the judge's deference to Smith's due process right to present his side of the dispute prior to resolution. Denial of the right to be heard is allowed only in the most extraordinary cases. See North Georgia Finishing Co. v. Di-Chem, Inc., 419 U.S. 601, 95 S.Ct. 719, 42 L.Ed.2d 751 (1975); Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 92 S.Ct. 1983, 32 L.Ed.2d 556, reh'g denied, 409 U.S. 902, 93 S.Ct. 177, 34 L.Ed.2d 165 (1972); Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U.S. 337, 89 S.Ct. 1820, 23 L.Ed.2d 349 (1969); Nettleton v. Higginson, 98 Idaho 87, 558 P.2d 1048 (1977); accord, Mitchell v. W.T. Grant Co., 416 U.S. 600, 94 S.Ct. 1895, 40 L.Ed.2d 406 (1974). In the case at bar, the arbitrator's denial of appellant's request for a continuance effectively deprived her of any opportunity to be heard. If arbitration hearings are to accommodate individuals seeking a viable, efficient means of conflict resolution, fair play and impartiality must be the rule and not the exception. Can this Court condone an action by an arbitrator which so substantially violates the rights of one of the parties involved, i.e., the right to be heard at the arbitration hearing? Until today, I would have thought not.