Transcription of UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT
1 UNIFORMARBITRATIONACT(LastRevisionsCompl etedYear2000) ,FLORIDAJULY28 AUGUST4,2000 WITHPREFATORYNOTEANDCOMMENTSC opyright 2000 ByNATIONALCONFERENCEOFCOMMISSIONERSONUNI FORMSTATELAWSD ecember13,2000 ,83 HuntingtonStreet,NewLondon,CT06320, , ,16thFloor,BancoPopularCenter,HatoRey, ,100 MainStreet, ,Burlington, , ,Rockville, ,OneLandmarkSquare,17thFloor,Stamford, ,UniversityofMissouri-Columbia,SchoolofL aw,203 HulstonHall,Columbia,MO65211, ,UniversityofArizona, ,MountainandSpeedwayStreets,Tucson,AZ857 21,CommitteeonStyleLiaisonJEREMIAHMARSH, Suite4300,ThreeFirstNationalPlaza,Chicag o, , ,Midland, ,JR.,CourtofAppeals, , ,Raleigh,NC27602 JOANZELDON,SuperiorCourt,500 IndianaAvenue, ,Room1640,Washington, , ,Charleston,WV25322, ,1100 HuntingtonBuilding,925 EuclidAvenue,Cleveland,OH44115-1475,Divi sionChairAMERICANBARASSOCIATIONADVISORSR ICHARDCHERNICK,3055 WilshireBoulevard,7thFloor,LosAngeles,CA 90010-1108, , ,Portland,OR97205, ,JR.
2 ,3300 QuakerTower, ,Chicago,IL60610-4795,SeniorLawyersDivis ionAdvisorYARKOSOCHYNSKY,350 TheEmbarcadero,6thFloor,SanFrancisco,CA9 4105-1250,RealProperty, ,27 BadgerDrive,Livingston,NJ07039,Co-Adviso rMAXZIMNY,Floor3,1710 Broadway,NewYork,NY10019-5254, ,UniversityofOklahoma,CollegeofLaw,300 TimberdellRoad,Norman,OK73019, ,1505 RoxburyRoad,AnnArbor,MI48104, ,Suite1300 Chicago,Illinois60611312 [ACT] ; [APPLICATION] [MOTION] ; ;COMPETENCYTOTESTIFY;ATTORNEY ;SUBPOENAS;DEPOSITIONS; ; ;ATTORNEY (UAA),promulgatedin1955, ; ,thegreatercomplexityofmanydisputesresol vedbyarbitration, (1)whodecidesthearbitrabilityofadisputea ndbywhatcriteria;(2)whetheracourtorarbit ratorsmayissueprovisionalremedies;(3)how apartycaninitiateanarbitrationproceeding ;(4)whetherarbitrationproceedingsmaybeco nsolidated;(5)whetherarbitratorsarerequi redtodisclosefactsreasonablylikelytoaffe ctimpartiality;(6)whatextentarbitratorso ranarbitrationorganizationareimmunefromc ivilactions;(7)whetherarbitratorsorrepre sentativesofarbitrationorganizationsmayb erequiredtotestifyinanotherproceeding;(8 )whetherarbitratorshavethediscretiontoor derdiscovery,issueprotectiveorders,decid emotionsforsummarydispositions,holdprehe aringconferencesandotherwisemanagethearb itrationprocess;(9)whenacourtmayenforcea preawardrulingbyanarbitrator;(10)whatrem ediesanarbitratormayaward,especiallyinre gardtoattorney sfees,punitivedamagesorotherexemplaryrel ief;(11)whenacourtcanawardattorney sfeesandcoststoarbitratorsandarbitration organizations;(12)whenacourtcanawardatto rney sfeesandcoststoaprevailingpartyinanappea lofanarbitrator saward;and(13)whichsectionsoftheUAAwould notbewaivable,animportantmattertoinsuref undamentalfairnesstothepartieswillbepres erved,particularlyinthoseinstanceswhereo nepartymayhavesignificantlylessbargainin gpowerthananother.
3 And(14) (RUAA) ,arbitrationisa2consensualprocessinwhich autonomyofthepartieswhoenterintoarbitrat ionagreementsshouldbegivenprimaryconside ration, ,theunderlyingreasonmanypartieschoosearb itrationistherelativespeed,lowercost, ,whereapplicable, , , sfees, (FAA), ,wherebyFAAstandardsandtheemphaticallypr o-arbitrationperspectiveoftheFAAcontrol, ,thepreemption-relatedopinionsoftheSupre meCourthavecenteredinlargepartonthetwoke yissuesthatariseatthefrontendofthearbitr ationprocess , (1967); , (1983); , (1984); , (1987); , (1995);Doctor , (1996).Thatbodyofcaselawestablishesthats tatelawofanyilk,includingadaptationsofth eRUAA,mootingorlimitingcontractualagreem entstoarbitratemustyieldtothepro-arbitra tionpublicpolicyvoicedinSections2,3, ,confirmationandmodificationofarbitratio nawardsarethesubjectofSections9,10,11, frontend issuesofenforceabilityandsubstantivearbi trability,thereisnodefinitiveSupremeCour tcaselawspeakingtothepreemptiveeffect,if any,oftheFAAwithregardtothese backend (a) ,theSupremeCourt sunequivocalstandtodateastothepreemptive effectoftheFAAprovidesstrongreasontobeli evethatasimilarresultwillobtainwithregar dtoSection10(a) ,andiftheSupremeCourteventuallydetermine sthattheSection10(a)standardsarethesoleg roundsforvacaturofcommercialarbitrationa wards,FAApreemptionofconflictingstatelaw withregardtothe backend issuesofvacatur(andconfirmationandmodifi cation) (a)groundsarenottheexclusivecriteriaforv acatur,thepreemptiveeffectofSection10(a)
4 Wouldmostlikelybelimitedtotherulethatsta tearbitrationactscannoteliminate,limitor modifyanyofthefourgroundsofpartyandarbit ratormisconductsetoutinSection10(a).Anyd efinitivefederal commonlaw, pertainingtothenonstatutorygroundsforvac aturotherthanthosesetoutinSection10(a),a rticulatedbytheSupremeCourtorestablished asaclearmajorityrulebytheUnitedStatesCou rtsofAppeals, (a)groundsarenotexclusivewouldalsofreeth eStatestocodifyothergroundsforvacaturbey ondthosesetoutinSection10(a).Thesevariou s, , , (1989) ,Inc., (1995). ,theirbargainwillbehonored aslongasthestatelawprinciplesinvokedbyth echoice-of-lawprovisiondonotconflictwith theFAA , ,ASWA llstatePainting& , ( );RussBerrie& , ( ). (a) ,whenpartieschoosetocontractuallyspecify theprocedurestobefollowedundertheirarbit rationagreement,theRUAA contemplatesthatthecontractually-establi shedprocedureswillcontrolovercontrarysta telaw,exceptwithregardtoissuesdesignated as nonwaivable inSection4(b)and(c) ,thereareotherareasofarbitrationlawwhere theFAAdoesnotpreemptstatelaw, , , (1995)(quotingVolt, (1989))andquotedinCassarotto, ,685(1996);andCassarotto, ( , ,511(1974)).
5 Equalfooting thequestionofwhethertheRUAA shouldexplicitlysanctioncontractualprovi sionsfor opt-in reviewofchallengedarbitrationawardsbeyon dthatpresentlycontemplatedbytheFAAandcur rentstatearbitrationacts. Opt-in , opt-in contractualprovisionestablishesanappella tearbitralmechanismtowhichchallengedarbi trationawardscanbesubmittedforreview, ,therewereanumberofreasonsthatresultedin thedecisionnottoincludestatutorysanction ofthe opt-in deviceforexpandedjudicialreviewintheRUAA :(1)thecurrentuncertaintyastothelegality ofastatestatutorysanctionofthe opt-in device,(2)the disconnect betweentheAct spurposeoffosteringtheuseofarbitrationas afinalandbindingalternativetotraditional litigationinacourtoflaw,and(3) , opt-in judicialreviewmechanism,therearefew,ifan y,legalconcernsraisedbystatutorysanction of opt-in ,asexplainedintheSectionBoftheCommentsto Section23,becausethecurrent,contract-bas edviewofarbitrationestablishesthatthepar tiesarefreetodesigntheinnerworkingsofthe irarbitrationproceduresinanymannertheyse efit, opt-in ,withintheconstraintsimposedbytheexistin ganddevelopinglaw, ( ,discovery[RUAAS ection17],consolidationofclaims[RUAAS ection10],andarbitratorimmunity[RUAAS ection14]) (RUAAS ection21)andthestandardsforarbitratordis closureofpotentialconflictsofinterest(RU AAS ection12) borderline issuesarenotpurelyproceduralinnaturebutu nlikethe frontend and backend , (UNCITRAL).
6 OtherStateshaveapproachedinternationalar bitrationinavarietyofways,suchasadopting partsoftheUNCITRALM odelLawtogetherwithprovisionstakendirect lyfromthe1958 UnitedNationsConventiononRecognitionandE nforcementofForeignArbitralAwards(common lyreferredtoastheNewYorkConvention) ,towhichtheUnitedStatesadheredin1970( 201), fallingunderthe[NewYork]Convention andpermitsremovalofanysuchcasefromastate courttothefederalcourt atanytimepriortotrial. 203, , :(1)wherethepartiesdesignateaspecificsta tearbitrationlawtogoverntheinternational arbitrationand(2) , ,theDraftingCommitteedecidednottoaddress internationalarbitrationasaspecificsubje ctintherevisionoftheUAA;however,theCommi tteeutilizedprovisionsoftheUNCITRALM odelLaw,theNewYorkConvention, [Act]:(1) Arbitrationorganization meansanassociation,agency,board,commissi on,orotherentitythatisneutralandinitiate s,sponsors,oradministersanarbitrationpro ceedingorisinvolvedintheappointmentofana rbitrator.
7 (2) Arbitrator meansanindividualappointedtorenderanawar d,aloneorwithothers,inacontroversythatis subjecttoanagreementtoarbitrate.(3) Court means[acourtofcompetentjurisdictioninthi sState].(4) Knowledge meansactualknowledge.(5) Person meansanindividual,corporation,businesstr ust,estate,trust,partnership,limitedliab ilitycompany,association,jointventure,go vernment;governmentalsubdivision,agency, orinstrumentality;publiccorporation;oran yotherlegalorcommercialentity.(6) Record arbitrationorganization issimilartotheoneusedinsection74ofthe199 6 EnglishArbitrationActanddescribeswellthe functionsofagenciessuchastheAmericanArbi trationAssociation(AAA),theCPR,JAMS,theN ationalArbitrationForum,NASDR egulation,Inc.,theAmericanStockExchange, theNewYorkStockExchange, , , ,Inc., , , (1997)(statingthatdefendants self-administeredarbitrationprogrambetwe eninsurerandcustomersthatdidnot9impartia llyadministerarbitrationsystemandmaderep resentationsabouttimelinessoftheproceedi ngscontrarytowhatdefendantknewwouldoccur wasimproper).
8 Theterm arbitrationorganization arbitrator inSection1(2),theterm individual ratherthan person isusedbecausebusinessentitiesororganizat ionsdonotfunctionas arbitrators. court knowledge isusedinSection2regardingnoticeundertheR UAA andisreferencedinSection12(a) Actualknowledge (6)isbasedonthedefinitionof record (a)(14) written orlikephrasesinotherstatutesofanenacting Statemaynotbegivenequallybroadinterpreta tionastheterm record. (a)Exceptasotherwiseprovidedinthis[Act], apersongivesnoticetoanotherpersonbytakin gactionthatisreasonablynecessarytoinform theotherpersoninordinarycourse,whetheror nottheotherpersonacquiresknowledgeofthen otice.(b) (c)Apersonreceivesnoticewhenitcomestothe person sattentionorthenoticeisdeliveredattheper son splaceofresidenceorplaceofbusiness, (25) , ,having,orreceivingnoticeisinSection15(b )and(c)concerningpartiesgivingnoticeofar equestforsummarydispositionandarbitrator sgivingnoticeofanarbitrationhearing;Sect ion19(a)regardinganarbitratororanarbitra tionorganizationgivingnoticeofanawardand Section19(b)concerningapartynotifyingana rbitratorofuntimelydeliveryofanaward;Sec tion20(b)concerningaparty snoticeofrequestingachangeintheawardbyar bitrators;Section22concerningapartyapply ingtoacourttoconfirmanawardafterreceivin gnoticeofit;Section23(b)concerningaparty filingamotiontovacateanaward;andSection2 4(a) Notice isalsousedinSection9regardinginitiationo fanarbitrationproceeding.
9 Section9(a)requiresthatunlessthepartieso therwiseagreeasperSection4,noticemustbeg iveneitherbycertifiedorregistered,return receiptrequestedandobtained, exceptasotherwiseprovidedbythis[Act], themannerofnoticeprovidedinSection9(a) [ACT]APPLIES.(a)This[Act]governsanagreem enttoarbitratemadeonorafter[theeffective dateofthis[Act]].(b)This[Act]governsanag reementtoarbitratemadebefore[theeffectiv edateofthis[Act]]ifallthepartiestotheagr eementortothearbitrationproceedingsoagre einarecord.(c)Onorafter[adelayeddate],th is[Act] (Section1206)and1996 AmendmentsconstitutingtheUniformLimitedL iabilityPartnershipActof1994(Section1210 ).Section3(b) (c)establishesacertaindatewhenallarbitra tionagreements,whetherenteredintobeforeo raftertheeffectivedateoftheRUAA, , ,suchasSection3(b) (c) ,theeffectivedateoftheAct;Section32,that repealstheUAAorpresentarbitrationstatute inaStateas12ofthedelayeddatewhichisthesa medelayeddateasinSection3(c),andSection3 3,asavingsclausethatpreservesactionsorpr oceedingsaccruingbeforetheRUAA takeseffectandprovidesthat,subjecttoSect ion3, ,31,32,and33maycauseaprobleminsomeStates thatdonotallowonestatute,theRUAA,toamend anotherstatute, ,31,32, ,inaccordancewithSection31,makestheRUAA effectiveonJanuary1,2005,and,inaccordanc ewithSections3(c)and32,choosesadateofJan uary1,2007,[referredtoasthe delayeddate inSections3(c)and32] (a)and31anyagreementsenteredintoafterJan uary1,2005, (b)and33fortheperiodbetweenJanuary1,2005 ,andDecember31,2006,theUAAwouldapplytoar bitrationagreementsenteredintobeforeJanu ary1,2005, (c)and32onJanuary1,2007,theRUAA wouldapplytoallarbitrationagreements, ,thoseenteredintobothbeforeandafterJanua ry1,2005, (c)
10 Alegislaturewillexpressaspecificintentth attheRUAA,onthedatewhichthelegislaturese lects,willhaveretroactiveapplicationasto arbitrationagreementsenteredintopriortot heeffectivedateofthelegislationandwheret hepartieshavenotoptedintocoverageunderth eRUAA duringtheinterimperiodunderSection3(a)(2 ). , , , (1999)(holdingthatbecauselegislaturedidn otclearlyexpressanintentionthatUniformAr bitrationActwastobeappliedretroactively, itonlyappliesprospectively); , ( ); , , (1992). ( ).Theneedforuniformapplicationofarbitrat ionlawsandtoavoidtwosetsofrulesforarbitr ationagreementsthatareofalong-termdurati onarelegitimaterationalesforretroactivea pplication, ;NONWAIVABLEPROVISIONS.(a)Exceptasotherw iseprovidedinsubsections(b)and(c),aparty toanagreementtoarbitrateortoanarbitratio nproceedingmaywaiveor,thepartiesmayvaryt heeffectof,therequirementsofthis[Act]tot heextentpermittedbylaw.(b)Beforeacontrov ersyarisesthatissubjecttoanagreementtoar bitrate,apartytotheagreementmaynot:(1)wa iveoragreetovarytheeffectoftherequiremen tsofSection5(a),6(a),8,17(a),17(b),26,or 28;(2)agreetounreasonablyrestricttherigh tunderSection9tonoticeoftheinitiationofa narbitrationproceeding;(3)agreetounreaso nablyrestricttherightunderSection12todis closureofanyfactsbyaneutralarbitrator;or (4)waivetherightunderSection16ofapartyto anagreementtoarbitratetoberepresentedbya lawyeratanyproceedingorhearingunderthis[ Act],butanemployerandalabororganizationm aywaivetherighttorepresentationbyalawyer inalaborarbitration.
