A couple weeks ago, we talked about the basic un-appealability of arbitral awards, and the idea that any potential alternative rule must be pursued at the front-end: parties can contract for some sort of appellate review of an arbitral award, but if it’s not in the arbitration clause there is nothing beyond what the FAA or the TAA (in Texas) allows, plus extremely limited non-statutory grounds for challenging confirmation of awards. Which is to say, for the most part, that arbitral awards are not appealable. We should have mentioned, of course, that while drafting some sort of appellate review into an arbitration clause is (we think) allowable in Texas and the Fifth Circuit, it is not possible everywhere. On Monday, the ICM’s blog posted a great memo laying out the different approaches taken by various federal circuits on this issue. Amazing how timing works out some times. Finally, I would note that we’ve written a fairly detailed CLE paper on this very subject, which is linked-to in our prior post on this topic (I’m not linking again because a whole section of the prior paper was rendered obsolete by the Positive Software en banc opinion). We’ve updated the paper once, but it’s due for another update, which should happen in the next couple weeks as Karl gets ready for a CLE talk in Corpus Christi. Once we finish the updated paper I’ll post a link. Technorati Tags: arbitration, ADR, law

The Fifth Circuit just released an opinion reversing a district court’s vacatur (link is to .pdf file) of an arbitral award in the collective bargaining context. The opinion sets out the standard of review for arbitral awards when the arbitration is established by the collective bargaining process. Since this is an area in which we do not practice, I’m not offering any detail or analysis, but the opinion seemed worth noting. Resolution Performance Prod., LLC v. Paper Allied Industrial Chemical and Energy Workers International Union, ___ F3d ___ (5th Cir. 2007) (Cause No. 05-30813) Technorati Tags: arbitration, ADR, Fifth Circuit, law

This morning, the Texas Supreme Court handed down opinions in six cases; none had anything to do with arbitration. In an opinion on interlocutory appeal of an order certifying a class, Citizens Ins. Co. of America, et al. v. Daccach, et al., the Court decertified a class and remanded the case to the trial court. The case is a potential class action involving alleged violations of the Texas Securities Act. Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg involves a discussion of specific personal jurisdiction in Texas. City of Galveston v. State of Texas marks the first time, according to the Court, that the State of Texas has sued one of its cities for money damages. Can it do that? You’ll have to read the opinion. The other three opinions are short and per curiam, and involve issues relating to writs of executions based on default judgments, the segregation of unrecoverable attorneys’ fees from recoverable attorneys’ fees, and preservation of error. We’re mighty busy around here, so I’m afraid I can’t tell you any more. Technorati Tags: arbitration, Texas Supreme Court, law

This morning, the Third Court of Appeals issued an opinion in a procedurally complex case stemming from a group of hairstylists’ claim in quantum meruit that Supercuts failed to pay them for work done “off the clock.” The case was originally filed as a breach of contract class action in 1993; this morning’s opinion marks the fourth time the Third Court has written on it. The opinion spends a large amount of time reciting the unusual and complex procedural history; I will not recap it here. The single issue resolved this morning, however, has to do with the potential interlocutory appeal of orders certifying or refusing to certify a class, and the circumstances under which a party may be excused for failing to file its notice of appeal on time. It will likely be extremely useful for anyone who has a case in which the timing of the notice of appeal is an issue, or in which there is uncertainty as to which interlocutory order a party seeks to appeal. Rainbow Group v. Wagoner, et al., ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. App. – Austin 2007) (Cause No. 03-06-00138-CV) Technorati Tags: litigation, Third Court of Appeals, law