Opinion ID: 62855
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Motion for a Judgment of Default

Text: Rogers alleged that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law by failing to grant his motion for a judgment of default. He argued that Rule 3(E) of the HDRP required KBR to submit an answering statement by a certain date. KBR’s failure to do so, Rogers claimed, entitled him to a default judgment. Although he correctly cited the HDRP rules, Rogers failed to cite any authority in the employment agreement, the HDRP, or any law which required a default judgment if a party failed to file an answering statement in a timely fashion. The AAA case manager indicated that a failure to file an answering statement would result in it not being considered by the AAA, but did not state that a default judgment was a sanction for failing to file an answering statement in a timely fashion. We conclude that the arbitrator’s decision to deny Rogers’s motion for a default judgment could be rationally inferred from the HDRP.