52 Conn. Supp. 592
Conn. Super. Ct.2012Background
- Plaintiff John Girolametti, Jr. sued to vacate an arbitration award favoring Rizzo Corporation under General Statutes § 52-420(b).
- The contract between Girolametti and Rizzo included a mandatory arbitration clause for disputes on a construction project where Rizzo acted as general contractor.
- AAA arbitration commenced April 2009; Girolametti ultimately did not participate in the final two hearing days.
- On March 28, 2011, the arbitrator issued a written award in favor of Rizzo (award amount slightly over $500,000); parties were notified by email that same day.
- Rizzo sought modification of the award, creating a corrected record that deleted an erroneous citation to § 4-61; modification decision issued April 18, 2011.
- Plaintiff filed the Application to Vacate on May 18, 2011, arguing the time to file should be measured from the amended award; the court must decide which date governs for timeliness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under § 52-420(b) measured from which award date? | Girolametti argues the amended award resets/tolls the period. | Rizzo argues the deadline runs from March 28, 2011, the date of the original award. | Deadline measured from March 28, 2011; untimely. |
| Does a modification toll the limitations period for filing to vacate? | Modification tolls the period; thus May 18, 2011 is within time. | Modification does not toll the period under Connecticut/FAA framework. | Modification does not toll the period; timely filing not established. |
| Should Mandl v. Bailey control tolling analysis? | Mandl supports tolling when award is not final. | Mandl based on Maryland/Uniform Act; not controlling in CT. | Mandl not controlling; CT follows federal approach that tolling does not apply. |
| Is Bloomfield v. UE Workrs of America controlling on public policy defense? | Public policy defense could toll or reopen time. | Bloomfield does not toll the deadline; policy concerns do not defeat § 52-420(b). | Bloomfield does not preclude applying the 30-day limit. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bloomfield v. United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, Connecticut Independent Police Local, Union 14, 285 Conn. 278 (Ct. 2008) (30-day limit governs applications to vacate under § 52-420(b))
- Shore v. Haverson Architecture & Design, P.C., 92 Conn. App. 469 (Ct. App. 2005) (discusses finality and timing under Rule 47/AAA procedures)
- Wu v. Chang, 264 Conn. 307 (Ct. 2003) (timeliness and subject matter jurisdiction under § 52-420(b))
- Mandl v. Bailey, 159 Md. App. 64 (Md. 2004) (tolling depends on uniform act framework; not adopted by CT)
- Fradella v. Petricca, 183 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 1999) (federal authorities hold modification does not toll time)
- Olson v. Wexford Clearing Services Corp., 397 F.3d 488 (7th Cir. 2005) (federal rule on tolling under FAA)