134 Conn. App. 415
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Directory Assistants, Inc. and several affiliated entities entered a February 2008 consulting contract to reduce the defendants' Yellow Pages costs.
- A dispute over plaintiff's billing procedures and services performed arose, and the parties invoked arbitration per the contract.
- arbitration was conducted unilaterally by the plaintiff at a New Britain, Connecticut arbitration center on June 17, 2009 after location disagreements.
- The defendants did not attend the arbitration and instead filed a Texas action (July 6, 2009) contending the dispute was not arbitrable and seeking declaratory relief and a stay.
- An arbitration award of $77,100.78 plus costs and fees was issued on August 28, 2009; defendants sought to vacate in Texas and did not file a CT motion to vacate.
- On October 1, 2009, plaintiff filed a Connecticut § 52-417 application to confirm the award; the trial court dismissed, finding the dispute not arbitrable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly dismissed due to arbitrability. | Directory argues the award should be confirmed under § 52-417, regardless of arbitrability. | Big Country contends the dispute was not arbitrable and the court lacked jurisdiction to confirm. | Court erred; dismissal based on arbitrability was improper; § 52-417 governs confirmation. |
| Whether failure to timely file a motion to vacate bars confirmation. | Directory contends timely vacating is irrelevant if a party did not file a vacate motion. | Big Country argues timely vacate is required to attack an award under §§ 52-418/52-419. | Defendants could not raise the challenge via dismissal because no timely motion to vacate was filed. |
| Whether Texas action preserved arbitrability and affected CT confirmation. | Directory asserts preservation of arbitrability arguments allows judicial determination. | Big Country argues the Texas action preserved arbitrability but does not excuse compliance with § 52-417 procedures. | Preservation occurred, but § 52-417 procedures still apply; lack of timely vacate prevents challenging the award. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hayes Family Ltd. Partnership v. Glastonbury, 132 Conn. App. 218 (2011) (de novo review of dismissal when jurisdictional issue raised)
- Bacon Construction Co. v. Dept. of Public Works, 294 Conn. 695 (2010) (threshold arbitrability may be reserved for arbitrators or courts per contract)
- MBNA America Bank, N.A. v. Boata, 283 Conn. 381 (2007) (existence of arbitration agreement matters for arbitrability)
- Stratek Plastics, Ltd. v. Ibar, 120 Conn. App. 90 (2010) (no motion to vacate within 30 days limits challenge to award on §§ 52-418/52-419 grounds)
- Dean-Moss Family Ltd. Partnership v. Five Mile River Works, Inc., 130 Conn. App. 363 (2011) (lack of subject matter jurisdiction different from lack of personal jurisdiction; procedural distinctions)