Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
James Timothy Work purchased a new home from Oppidan Homes VI, Ltd. and later asserted claims arising from alleged construction defects. The sales contract required binding arbitration before the American Arbitration Association. Work initially sued in state court but then demanded arbitration, and the AAA appointed attorney Michael Mazzone as the sole arbitrator.
Mazzone disclosed that Oppidan’s counsel, Ian Faria, had participated in other matters in which Mazzone served as arbitrator, along with other professional connections. No party objected to his appointment. After a four-day hearing, Mazzone denied Work’s claims and awarded Oppidan attorney’s fees and costs. Work later learned that, while his arbitration was pending, Mazzone had presided over an unrelated arbitration involving Faria and had ruled for Faria’s homebuilder client. The trial court vacated the award and denied Oppidan’s request to confirm it.
The Court’s Holding
The First Court of Appeals held that Work did not establish evident partiality under Section 10(a) of the Federal Arbitration Act. Nondisclosure alone does not justify vacatur; the undisclosed facts must be capable of creating, in an objective observer, a reasonable impression that the arbitrator favored one party. Mazzone had already disclosed his professional relationship with Faria and Faria’s appearances in arbitrations before him, and Work did not object.
The court concluded that the additional facts about the unrelated arbitration—including Mazzone’s appointment and ruling for Faria’s client—did not create a reasonable impression of partiality. At most, they supplied details about the type of ongoing professional relationship already disclosed. The court also held that complete irrationality and manifest disregard of the law are not independent grounds for vacatur under binding FAA precedent. It therefore reversed the trial court’s order and rendered judgment confirming the arbitration award.
Key Takeaways
- An arbitrator’s nondisclosure warrants vacatur for evident partiality only when the undisclosed facts could give an objective observer a reasonable impression of bias.
- Repeated appearances by the same lawyer before an arbitrator establish familiarity, not partiality, without additional facts suggesting a material conflict.
- Because Work proved no statutory ground for vacatur and no party sought modification or correction, the FAA required confirmation of the award.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the narrow scope of judicial review afforded to arbitration awards under the FAA. A party challenging an award cannot rely merely on an omitted disclosure or disagreement with the arbitrator’s decision; it must prove one of the statute’s exclusive grounds for vacatur.
The ruling also distinguishes potentially significant conflicts from routine professional overlap in arbitration practice. Prior or concurrent service in unrelated matters involving the same lawyer does not, without more, demonstrate evident partiality.