Outside Counsel

Judicial Supervision of an Ongoing Arbitration

, New York Law Journal


Paul Bennett Marrow writes: Even though the FAA does not mention a judicial power to supervise, some courts justify intervention to overturn interim arbitral decisions, claiming authority in equity, i.e. to assure the fairness and efficiency of the arbitration process. But while it is possible to enlist the assistance of a court, it isn't easy to do so.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • Bharathesh Hiremath

    I do not see any reason to disagree with the argument that congress intended to leave it to the courts to supervise Arbitration Proceedings.The new Arbitrator will have to start proceedings from the stage the arbitration proceedings was pending and whether he had authority to revise the interim award passed after hearing the parties under the facts and circumstances of the case will have to be left to the supervision of Courts.

  • MarcusLutherX

    This article came right on time. The legal community, as well as American citizens, need to become informed about Washington v. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment et al. (10-9647). A "watchful eye" must become fixated on federal district judge P. Kevin Castel of the Southern District of New York and his arbitrary and biased application of the Federal Arbitration Association at various points throughout this landmark employment discrimination, human rights and antitrust case against the oldest talent agency in Hollywood.

    Not only has Castel erroneously compelled the case into arbitration as a matter of law and public policy, he refused to entertain motions pursuant to sections 9-10 of the FAA once the arbitrator issued his "final" Award pertaining to the merits of the case in favor of the former employee. Although the arbitrator‘s Award was "final and binding," Castel refused to acknowledge the Award was "final, for the sake of judicial review" and didn‘t mind that the American Arbitration Association disqualified the original arbitrator without reason AFTER issuing his Award -- in complete defiance of their own procedural rules concerning arbitrator disqualification [read the Review Standards of the AAA‘s ARC].

    Since Castel turned a blind eye to the continued fraud happening in the case, this allowed the AAA and the newly appointed "arbitrator" -- Timothy K. Lewis -- to engage in only more fraud (e.g. vacating the Award of the original arbitrator in violation of section 10 of the FAA [only an active federal judge has the authority to make that decision] and subsequently, "dismissing the case with prejudice, and on the merits" due to the fact that the Plaintiff refused to remain silent about the overall fraud being perpetrated throughout his case). Much more is discuss in the Motions submitted to P. Kevin Castel, see Docket No. 40 and 46.

    It is clear that the plaintiffs‘ constitutional and statutory rights have been violated, but federal judges must be reminded that although they are protected by judicial immunity, no man, including federal judges, is above the law. Castel must be held accountable for intentionally violating his Oath of Office and numerous Canons under the Judicial Code of Conduct, corrupting the administration of justice, undermining the public‘s confidence in the law, and engaging in "high crimes and misdemeanors" that have allowed this company, as well as other American businesses, the right to continue violating our nation‘s antidiscrimination laws with "malice and/or reckless indifference" to the federally protect rights of African Americans and people of color.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202666609888

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.