Douglas Uhl v. LLC (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The plaintiff filed an action in this matter on September 30, 2008 alleging misconduct and a violation of LLC practices by the defendant LLC and its manager, Szczygeil.   The LLC's organizational documents required that all disputes go to arbitration.   The matter was referred to the American Arbitration Association and was heard by Attorney George Royster over three days in November and December 2009.   On March 18, 2010, the arbitrator issued his award which was favorable to the plaintiff.   The defendant filed a motion to vacate the arbitration award on March 24, 2010.

Briefly stated, the defendant claims that the arbitrator either ignored or chose to reject certain principles or law and exceeded his authority in reaching his decision.   The defendant cites Connecticut General Statutes § 52-418(a)(2) and (4) as a basis of his claim.   Subsection (2) raises a claim of partiality or corruption on the part of an arbitrator, and subsection (4) concerns arbitrators who exceed their powers or imperfectly execute their powers.

For obvious reasons, the standard for a court to overturn the ruling of an arbitrator is very strict.   The Connecticut Supreme Court has addressed the scope of this standard in a number of cases but very unequivocally in Economos v. Liljedahl Bros, Inc., 279 Conn 300 “․ in other words, [u]nder an unrestricted submission, the arbitrators' decision is considered final and binding;  thus the courts will not review the evidence considered by the arbitrators nor will they review the award for errors of law or fact.”   (Internal quotation marks omitted).  Id., 306.   Furthermore, after a careful review of the briefs submitted by the plaintiff and defendant, the court is not persuaded that the arbitrator exceeded his power.

The defendants' motion to vacate the arbitrator's award is denied.

Cronan, J.

Cronan, John F., J.