351 P.3d 1066
Alaska2015Background
- Aimee Moore and Donald Olson had intertwined personal and business relationships from 1995–2004; after they split Moore and Olson executed a 2005 settlement requiring Olson (and his businesses) to pay Moore $350,000 cash plus up to $300,000 tied to proceeds from two hangars over five years. The agreement included arbitration and fee-shifting clauses and stated the arbitrator’s award was final and non-appealable.
- Moore initiated arbitration in 2012 alleging breach for failing to timely sell the hangars and other related conduct; Olson (and his businesses) were added as respondents and were represented by attorney Robert Gunther.
- Moore moved to continue the arbitration and to disqualify Gunther as conflicted (claiming he previously represented her on hangar issues); the arbitrator denied both motions as untimely and on the merits, held Moore’s domestic-partnership claim failed, and awarded fees to Olson and his businesses.
- Olson and his businesses moved in superior court to confirm the arbitration award; Moore moved to vacate under AS 09.43.500, and to disqualify Gunther in the superior-court proceedings; the superior court denied vacatur and disqualification and confirmed the award, awarding full reasonable attorney’s fees to Olson and his businesses based on the settlement agreement and Civil Rule 82.
- On appeal Moore argued the superior court erred by refusing to disqualify Gunther, by confirming the award without granting an evidentiary hearing (violating due process), and by awarding fees without a hearing.
- The Alaska Supreme Court applied de novo review to the superior court’s legal rulings and deferential review (gross-error or abuse of discretion) to the arbitrator’s procedural management decisions, and affirmed the superior court in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Moore's Argument | Olson's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Superior-court disqualification of Gunther | Gunther conflicted; previously represented Moore on hangar matters so should be disqualified | No substantial relationship or substantial risk of confidential info; Moore didn’t show the required nexus or prejudice | Denial affirmed — Moore failed to show substantial relationship or risk; superior court did not abuse discretion |
| Arbitrator’s denial of disqualification motion | Arbitrator should have removed Gunther for conflict; decision prejudiced Moore | Motion untimely; no attorney-client relationship or substantial relation; arbitrator’s denial falls within arbitral discretion | Denial not gross error — untimeliness and lack of substantial relationship supported arbitrator’s decision |
| Arbitrator’s denial of continuance | Moore needed additional time for appraisal, to develop domestic-partnership theory, and to address businesses’ addition | Motion untimely; parties had stipulated to schedule; arbitration’s speed is key; added parties were foreseeable | Denial not gross error — arbitrator reasonably found motion untimely and no sufficient cause for postponement |
| Superior court confirmation, evidentiary hearing & fee award | Confirming without holding an evidentiary hearing violated due process; fee award unreasonable without hearing | No statutory requirement to hold sua sponte hearing; Moore never requested one; settlement agreement mandates fee-shifting; court relied on record | Affirmed — no statutory or due-process duty to hold sua sponte hearing (plain-error standard applies); fee award proper (mandated by contract and not unreasonable) |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Aleut Corp., 307 P.3d 942 (Alaska 2013) (motion to disqualify opposing counsel reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- McAlpine v. Priddle, 321 P.3d 345 (Alaska 2014) (deference to arbitrator’s factual findings and limited judicial review)
- Munn v. Bristol Bay Hous. Auth., 777 P.2d 188 (Alaska 1989) (standards for vacating arbitration awards for refusal to postpone)
- Marathon Oil Co. v. ARCO Alaska, Inc., 972 P.2d 595 (Alaska 1999) (adopting deferential review for arbitrator’s management decisions under arbitration statutes)
- Ahtna, Inc. v. Ebasco Constructors, Inc., 894 P.2d 657 (Alaska 1995) (arbitrator findings receive great deference; limited judicial review)
- Okagawa v. Yaple, 234 P.3d 1278 (Alaska 2010) (trial court best positioned to determine reasonableness of attorney’s fees)