Labor & Employment Law

Hall Street Associates v. Mattel: more briefs to be filed

The US Supreme Court on November 16 ordered supplemental briefing in Hall Street Associates v. Mattel

Oral arguments were held November 7. The issue in this case is whether a federal court must (or may) enforce the parties' agreement that expands the scope of judicial review of an arbitration award beyond what is provided by the Federal Arbitration Act.

The Court's order identified three issues for the parties to brief:

(1) Does authority exist outside the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) under which a party to litigation begun without reliance on the FAA may enforce a provision for judicial review of an arbitration award?

(2) If such authority does exist, did the parties, in agreeing to arbitrate, rely in whole or part on that authority?

(3) Has petitioner in the course of this litigation waived any reliance on authority outside the FAA for enforcing the judicial review provision of the parties? arbitration agreement?

Briefs are due November 27. Replies are due December 3.

My view: I thought this case would be easy, and that the Court would not allow private parties to expand the role of the federal courts beyond what is laid out in the Federal Arbitration Act.

Now it appears that the Court is looking for some other way (outside of the FAA) to enforce the parties' agreement. As far as I can tell, this legal argument was never brought up previously in this litigation, and I think it should be too late to bring it up now.

Full post as published by Arbitration Blog on November 16, 2007 (boomark / email).