State ex. rel. Schlect v. Wolff
2011 ND 164
| N.D. | 2011Background
- James Valley and David contracted July 3 and 10, 2007 to sell James Valley soybeans for 2008.
- James Valley sued August 5, 2008 for anticipatory repudiation, breach, and promissory estoppel.
- David allegedly canceled contracts in September 2007; James Valley claimed damages despite cancellation.
- October 6, 2008 district court compelled arbitration, finding NGFA rules were incorporated and not unconscionable, and no waiver by James Valley occurred.
- Arbitration proceeded before a NGFA panel; August 31, 2010 James Valley moved to confirm the award.
- September–October 2010 the parties and court addressed timing to challenge the award under North Dakota law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did David waive challenging the award by delaying under 90 days? | James Valley contends the 90-day window to vacate was not met by David. | David argues grounds to vacate could be raised beyond 90 days in response to a motion to confirm. | Waived rights to vacate under 32-29.3-23(1)(a)-(f) by failing within 90 days. |
| Does filing a motion to confirm extend the 90-day deadline to vacate? | Statutory deadlines require timely vacatur motion; confirmation filings do not extend the period. | Some jurisdictions permit extension by confirmation motion or court stipulation. | Filing to confirm does not extend the 90-day period to challenge the award. |
| Would a valid arbitration agreement and proper application of law have been reached if timely challenged? | Arbitration agreement valid and panel properly applied arbitration rules. | Arbitration agreement may be invalid and panel misapplied law; timeliness forecloses review. | Court did not reach merits of arbitrability or panel compliance due to timely challenge failure. |
Key Cases Cited
- MBNA America Bank, N.A. v. Hart, 2006 ND 33 (ND) (90-day review period governs vacatur; timely challenge required)
- Springfield Teachers Ass’n v. Springfield Sch. Dirs., 705 A.2d 541 (Vt. 1997) (timely motion to vacate required)
- 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, 187 N.Y.S.2d 511 (N.Y. 1959) (New York allows challenge to respond to motion to confirm)
- Oaktree Capital Mgmt., L.P. v. Bernard, 182 Cal. App. 4th 60 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (California extends time in certain arbitration contexts)