802 N.W.2d 158
N.D.2011Background
- James Valley sued David for breach related to soybean contracts; arbitration was invoked under NGFA Rules incorporated by contract and district court found validity.
- Arbitration proceeded before NGFA panel after court-ordered arbitration in Dec. 2008.
- Award issued June 22, 2010, with James Valley seeking confirmation in Aug. 2010; David responded in Sept. 2010.
- David argued no valid arbitration agreement existed, the agreement was unconscionable, and James Valley waived arbitration by filing suit.
- David did not move to Vacate within 90 days, and the district court confirmed the award; this Court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether David waived challenge by not timely moving to vacate | Valley | David argues timing can be extended | David waived grounds under §32-29.3-23(2) by not timely filing |
| Whether filing to confirm extends the 90-day deadline to vacate | Valley | David | Filing to confirm does not extend the 90-day deadline |
| Whether an arbitration agreement existed and panel misapplied the law; | Valley | David contends no agreement existed and panel erred | Not reached due to timeliness grounding; affirmed on waiver |
Key Cases Cited
- MBNA America Bank, N.A. v. Hart, 2006 ND 33 (ND 2006) (90-day review rule; timely challenge required to vacate)
- T & M Props. v. ZVFK Architects and Planners, 661 P.2d 1040 (Wyo. 1983) (filing to confirm does not extend 90-day period)
- In re Katz, 18 Misc.2d 576, 187 N.Y.S.2d 511 (N.Y. 1959) (New York allows challenge after motion to confirm (minority rule))
- Oaktree Capital Mgmt., L.P. v. Bernard, 182 Cal.App.4th 60 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (California extends time when motion to confirm is timely)
- Springfield Teachers Ass’n v. Springfield Sch. Dirs., 167 A.2d 541 (Vt. 1997) (timeliness of vacatur under arbitration acts)