kjnumbers

Can you provide some more insight on Berman's notice reasoning? As I understand it, FAA§10 is the exclusive grounds for vacatur in arbitration agreements. Lack of notice might fall under §10(a)(3) or (4), but it seems kind of tenuous, and Berman definitely didn't make it clear what section of the FAA applied to notice (the evidence, cross-examination stuff seems more clear; in those sections Berman says lack of access to files/Pash "prejudiced" Brady, which is grounds for vacatur in §10). Do you have any insights on this? Thanks

OK, thanks. I've been thinking about this since Berman's opinion yesterday. I can't figure out why he strained with the notice requirement and decided to say the court "does not reach" the claim of evident partiality against Goodell when that argument seems like a clear winner.

Exactly, Jacknbox. But Berman specifically said the court "did not reach" the claim that Gooddell exhibited evident partiality (see opinion pages 38-39). So that is NOT what the opinion was based on. Berman was explicit the vacatur here was NOT based on evident partiality.

This I don't understand. I'm confused why Berman didn't just use evident partiality, instead of have this whole notice argument, which seems dubious.

Isn't it true that in arbitration the arbitrator need not be "neutral" in the sense that he is connected to one party or the other? As I understand it, arbitrators can be connected to either party, so long as the arbitrator is CHOSEN by BOTH parties (Goodell was in the CBA agreement).

What I'm saying is Goodell is not per se "not neutral." For vacatur he has to EXHIBIT evident partiality, correct? (which i think he did by way of his actions, but my point is that Goodell is not impartial simply because he's the commissioner).

OK, thanks. Interesting that underlying claim gives rise to SMJ.