191 Conn.App. 781
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- DeRose (plaintiff) and Jason Robert’s, Inc. and Robert D. Hartmann, Sr. (defendants) submitted a long-running payment/wage dispute to binding arbitration in 2012; the submission was broad and required the arbitrator to apply Connecticut law.
- Arbitrator held hearings in 2012–2013, the matter lay largely dormant, then communications resumed in 2015–2016; arbitrator continued the final hearing to allow defendants to present rebuttal and witnesses.
- Defendants did not appear at the final January 16, 2017 arbitration hearing despite subpoenas; arbitrator proceeded and issued an award for DeRose (damages, attorney’s fees, costs totaling $171,938.20) in February 2017.
- DeRose filed to confirm the award; defendants moved to vacate under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-418, arguing laches/public policy, manifest disregard of law, that the arbitrator ignored their defenses/counterclaim, and seeking the arbitrator’s file and testimony (subpoena quashed).
- Trial court granted confirmation, denied vacatur, granted arbitrator’s motion to quash subpoena, and reopened the hearing to admit four exhibits after defendants requested an evidentiary hearing; defendants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in finding defendants effectively defaulted by failing to appear | DeRose: arbitrator proceeded after giving defendants extra time; their failure to appear justified treating them as effectively defaulted | Defs: that factual finding was improper and biased the court’s review of vacatur grounds | Court: finding supported by arbitrator’s award and record; even if error, defendants did not show prejudice to merits review — claim fails |
| Whether defendants were denied an evidentiary hearing before vacatur ruling | DeRose: no statute or rule required a hearing; court has discretion; court reopened and admitted exhibits when requested | Defs: court ruled without an evidentiary hearing and prevented them from calling arbitrator | Court: discretion exercised properly; record shows court reopened, admitted four exhibits and allowed further argument — no denial |
| Whether granting arbitrator’s motion to quash subpoena (to compel testimony/produce file) was improper | DeRose: arbitrator’s internal notes/research irrelevant under limited judicial review of unrestricted submission | Defs: arbitrator should testify and produce file to show manifest disregard/abandonment | Court: claim inadequately briefed; plus court reasonably concluded file/testimony not necessary; defendants admitted some correspondence anyway — review declined |
| Whether arbitrator ignored defendants’ special defenses, set-offs, counterclaim | DeRose: submission was unrestricted and broad; arbitrator presumed to have considered issues and tacitly rejected them by awarding damages | Defs: arbitrator failed to address entire submission and omitted defenses/counterclaim | Court: submission was broad; defendants failed to prove arbitrator did not consider claims or to show what evidence was presented to arbitrator — rejection affirmed |
| Whether award violates public policy (delay/laches; arbitration must be expeditious) | DeRose: no established public policy requires strict time limits; arbitrator found defendants caused delay | Defs: 14-year dispute and multi-year arbitration delay violate public policy/laches and warrant vacatur | Court: public policy exception is narrow; no clear, well-defined dominant policy of promptness that invalidates award; laches is discretionary and defendants showed no precedent of vacatur for delay — claim fails |
| Whether award should be vacated for manifest disregard of law under §52-418(a)(4) | DeRose: defendants only disagree with application of law; not the extraordinary showing required | Defs: arbitrator applied wrong test for employee status, misapplied wage statute, improperly awarded fees | Court: defendants offered only disagreement with arbitrator’s legal conclusions; failed to show the three-element, narrow standard for manifest disregard — claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Bridgeport v. Kasper Group, Inc., 278 Conn. 466 (explains narrow judicial review of arbitration awards)
- Garrity v. McCaskey, 223 Conn. 1 (rejects independent manifest-disregard ground; connects manifest disregard to § 52-418(4))
- Kellogg v. Middlesex Mut. Assurance Co., 326 Conn. 638 (sets narrow three-part test for manifest disregard under § 52-418(4))
- C. R. Klewin Northeast, LLC v. Bridgeport, 282 Conn. 54 (public-policy exception to enforcement of awards should be narrowly construed)
- Board of Education v. New Milford Education Assn., 331 Conn. 524 (discusses unrestricted submissions and finality of arbitrator’s decision)
- MedValUSA Health Programs, Inc. v. MemberWorks, Inc., 273 Conn. 634 (describes stringent scope of public policy exception to vacatur)