American Numismatic Ass'n v. Cipoletti
31 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1861
Colo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Cipoletti was ANA's executive director and general counsel from 2002 to 2007; after termination he demanded arbitration claiming breach of his employment agreement; the dispute focused on whether ANA had cause to terminate him; ANA moved to dismiss based on after-acquired evidence and sought attorney fees and costs under a fee-shifting provision; the arbitrator interrupted proceedings to rule on the dismissal motion; May 27, 2009 Order RE: Respondent's Motion to Dismiss granted dismissal of the entire case and directed briefs on attorney fees and costs; July 29, 2009 Final Award dismissed the case, awarded costs due to bad-faith conduct, denied attorney fees, and stated the award settled all submitted claims; Cipoletti filed an application to vacate the May 27 and July 29 orders with the district court; the district court confirmed the May 27 dismissal as untimely and confirmed the costs order; Cipoletti appeals arguing the May 27 order was not an award or that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to decide fees and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the May 27, 2009 dismissal order was an 'award' under the 1975 Act. | Cipoletti contends the May 27 order was not an award until fees/costs were resolved. | ANA contends the May 27 order disposed of merits and costs/issues as part of the award. | Yes; May 27 dismissal order was an 'award' triggering the 30-day review period. |
| Whether the arbitrator retained jurisdiction to decide attorney fees and costs after issuing the May 27 order. | If May 27 was an award, arbitrator could not later decide costs. | Attorney fees/costs are collateral to merits; arbitrator retained jurisdiction to decide them after merits ruling. | Yes; arbitrator retained jurisdiction to decide costs after the merits award. |
Key Cases Cited
- Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196 (1988) (fees not part of merits; may be collateral to award)
- Baldwin v. Bright Mortgage Co., 757 P.2d 1072 (Colo. 1988) (unresolved attorney fees do not preclude finality of merits judgment)
- Judd Constr. Co. v. Evans Joint Venture, 642 P.2d 922 (Colo.1982) (court review limited for arbitration awards; finality on merits)
- BFN-Greeley, LLC v. Adair Group, Inc., 141 P.3d 937 (Colo.App.2006) (limits on judicial vacatur to promote finality and discourage piecemeal review)
- Coors Brewing Co. v. Cabo, 114 P.3d 60 (Colo.App.2004) (arbitration finality and limited judicial review; context of arbitration)
- Swan v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 8 P.3d 546 (Colo.App.2000) (purpose to promote judicial economy in arbitration)
- Smart v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 702, 315 F.3d 721 (7th Cir.2002) (complete arbitration rule; when award is final for review)
- McKinney Restoration Co., Inc. v. Illinois Dist. Council No. 1, 392 F.3d 867 (7th Cir.2004) (complete arbitration rule; finality tied to arbitrator's completion of assignment)