State Legislature Finally Passes Revised Uniform Arbitration Act
With the increasing use of arbitration as a means of resolving disputes throughout the state and at the federal level, this is a positive step toward revising and modernizing arbitration procedures.
May 15, 2018 at 12:52 PM
4 minute read
The Connecticut state flag
On May 9, the Connecticut legislature unanimously passed into law the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act (RUAA). With the increasing use of arbitration as a means of resolving disputes throughout the state and at the federal level, this is a positive step toward revising and modernizing arbitration procedures.
Historically, Connecticut was one of the first colonies to adopt an arbitration act. That act, dating back to 1753, was titled “An Act for the More Easy and Effective Finishing of Controversies by the Use of Arbitration.” As the use of arbitration grew nationally, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws first promulgated a Uniform Arbitration Act in 1956. In response to ever-increasing popularity of arbitration in virtually all states, the commissioners enacted the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act (RUAA) in 2000. Prior to 2018, 19 states had adopted the RUAA—but Connecticut did not.
In the years since the RUAA was first adopted, several Connecticut lawyers have persisted in urging the legislature to join the growing number of participating states. In addition, the CBA's legislative lobbyist also played an active role. They all deserve credit for their perseverance and persistence. Likewise, the co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, William Tong, and vice chairman Steve Stafstrom, deserve to be acknowledged for their efforts and support.
Overall, the enactment of the RUAA in Connecticut renders the arbitration process much more uniform. Several noteworthy features of the act include: a provision for enforcement of agreements to arbitrate that appear in electronic documents; a provision whereby a party may apply to a court for interim relief without automatically waiving the right to arbitrate; a new obligation upon arbitrators to disclose facts that might call the arbitrator's impartiality into question; a requirement that the arbitrator must conduct the proceedings in a fair and expeditious manner; and a specific provision that allows an arbitrator to clarify or correct an award.
One aspect of the RUAA that was not included in Connecticut's version of the law is the provision in the RUAA related to the payment of attorney fees in post-arbitration proceedings. Those proceedings include, for example, applications to vacate or to confirm the arbitrator's award. Although the RUAA provides that a judge may award attorney fees to the prevailing party in such proceedings, Connecticut's version of the act does not include this provision. The main reason for this change was based on a longstanding law in Connecticut that states parties normally should pay their own attorney fees.
This move toward uniformity of procedures in alternative dispute resolution such as arbitration has very real value for practicing lawyers. Uniformity is particularly important for those practitioners who may not be thoroughly familiar with the nuances of the arbitration process. Although a seasoned practitioner over time will undoubtedly become aware of many of the particulars related to the arbitration process, there are subtle procedural rules that can cause serious problems for the uninitiated. For example, the timing and filing deadlines for applying to the court to vacate an arbitration award is a matter of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, if such an application is not filed within the prescribed time limit, the court will dismiss an application to vacate based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This issue can be further complicated in the event that an arbitrator has rendered a corrected award. In at least one Connecticut case, the court dismissed an application to vacate an arbitration award in which the arbitrator had made minor corrections to the award and the filing party waited until after the corrected award was issued. With the enactment of this uniform law addressing an arbitrator's ability to modify or correct an award, presumably such issues will not be as difficult to resolve.
The RUAA in Connecticut is set to take effect Oct. 1. While Connecticut General Statutes Section 909 (governing arbitration) remains in effect as law and will apply in certain instances, the RUAA will apply to arbitration agreements entered into after Oct. 1. We applaud the legislature's move toward uniformity of arbitration procedures in Connecticut.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe Stormy Daniels 'Hush Money' Trial: Donald Trump Should Be Very Worried
7 minute readShining a Light on Opposing Hate: The Palestinian Protesters Who Defended New Haven's Menorah
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 15th Circuit Rules Open-Source Code Is Not Property in Tornado Cash Appeal
- 2Mediators for the Southern District of New York Honored at Eighth Annual James Duane Awards
- 3The Lawyers Picked by Trump for Key Roles in His Second Term
- 4Pa. High Court to Weigh Parent Company's Liability for Dissolved Subsidiary's Conduct
- 5Depo-Provera MDL Could Be Headed to California
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250