• Home
  • RSS Feeds
  • Blog Archives
Subscribe to Disputing
Book an ADR Service
Call Karl Bayer
Karl Bayer's Disputing Blog - Mediator, Arbitrator, Court Master & Technical Advisor
About Karl  |  Book an ADR Service  |  Contact Karl   (214) 891-4505

Menu 
  • home
  • Mediation
  • Arbitration
  • Court Neutrals
  • Online Dispute Resolution
  • Technology
    • Intellectual Property
    • Privacy and Cybersecurity
    • E-discovery
  • Court Decisions
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • Fifth Circuit
    • Third Court of Appeals
    • U.S. Supreme Court
  • More
    • Legislation
      • Texas
      • United States
    • Healthcare
    • Guest Posts
      • John DeGroote
      • John C. Fleming
      • Rick Freeman
      • Professor Peter Friedman
      • Honorable W. Royal Furgeson, Jr.
      • James M. Gaitis
      • Laura A. Kaster
      • Professor John Lande
      • Philip J. Loree, Jr.
      • Michael McIlwrath
      • F. Peter Phillips
      • Professor Alan Scott Rau
      • Professor Thomas J. Stipanowich
      • Professor S.I. Strong
      • Richard Webb
      • Glen M. Wilkerson
    • International arbitration
    • Regulation
    • Sports and Entertainment


Texas Supreme Court Denies Petition in Alleged Arbitrator Partiality Case

0
by Beth Graham

Tuesday, Oct 28, 2014


Tweet

Last week, the Supreme Court of Texas declined to consider whether an arbitral decision should be set aside based on a member of an arbitration panel’s alleged evident partiality. In Port Arthur Steam Energy LP v. Oxbow Calcining LLC, No. 01-12-01165-CV (Tex. – App. – 1st [Houston], October 22, 2013), Oxbow Calcining initiated arbitral proceedings with Port Arthur Steam Energy (“PASE”) before the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) over a number of environmental compliance costs related to an industrial facility. The parties selected a three-member arbitration panel and participated in both discovery and an evidentiary hearing.

Before the arbitral panel came to a decision, Oxbow learned that a former law firm at which a jointly selected, neutral arbitrator was a shareholder was engaged in a pending attorneys’ fees dispute with a client represented by Oxbow’s own attorneys. After learning of the alleged conflict, Oxbow sought to disqualify the arbitrator. The AAA denied Oxbow’s request and the three-member panel issued a unanimous decision awarding $3.4 million to PASE.

Next, PASE filed a motion to confirm the arbitration award in district court. Instead, the trial court vacated the award on Oxbow’s motion due to the arbitrator’s partiality. In response, PASE appealed the decision to Texas’ First District Court of Appeals in Houston. The appellate court reversed the lower court’s order because the facts of the case did not demonstrate evident partiality.

According to the Houston court, it was reasonable for the arbitrator to warn Oxbow’s counsel prior to his selection that he could not check old case files for potential conflicts because his former law firm was closed in 2001. In addition, the appeals court stated the arbitrator had no way of knowing Oxbow’s firm was involved in the ongoing fee dispute because the arbitrator was replaced by another attorney three years before the company’s firm became involved in the dispute.

After the First District ordered the trial court to reinstate the arbitration award, Oxbow sought review by the Supreme Court of Texas. On Friday, the Texas high court let the multi-million dollar judgment stand when it declined to consider the case.

Photo credit: Texasbubba / Foter / CC BY-ND

Related Posts

  • Texas Supreme Court Overturns $26 Million Arbitral Award Over Improper Arbitrator DisqualificationTexas Supreme Court Overturns $26 Million Arbitral Award Over Improper Arbitrator Disqualification
  • U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear Evident Partiality Claim Following FINRA ArbitrationU.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear Evident Partiality Claim Following FINRA Arbitration
  • Texas Supreme Court Agrees to Consider What Constitutes Arbitrator Evident PartialityTexas Supreme Court Agrees to Consider What Constitutes Arbitrator Evident Partiality
  • Texas Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case Involving Arbitrator DisqualificationTexas Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case Involving Arbitrator Disqualification
  • SCOTX Affirms Arbitration Award, Finds No Manifest Disregard of the Law in Oil & Gas DisputeSCOTX Affirms Arbitration Award, Finds No Manifest Disregard of the Law in Oil & Gas Dispute
  • Dallas COA Holds Trial Court Abused Discretion When it Denied Discovery Regarding Arbitrator’s Purported Evident PartialityDallas COA Holds Trial Court Abused Discretion When it Denied Discovery Regarding Arbitrator’s Purported Evident Partiality

Like this article? Share it!


  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
    LinkedIn

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window)
    X

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
    Facebook

  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
    Pinterest

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
    Email
About Beth Graham

Beth Graham earned a Master of Arts in Information Science and Learning Technologies from the University of Missouri-Columbia, and a Juris Doctor from the University of Nebraska College of Law, where she was an Eastman Memorial Law Scholar. Beth is licensed to practice law in Texas and the District of Columbia. She is also a member of the Texas Bar College and holds CIPP/US, CIPP/E, and CIPM certifications from the International Association of Privacy Professionals.

Legal Research

Legal Research

Connect with Disputing

Visit Us On LinkedinCheck Our Feed

About Disputing

Disputing is published by Karl Bayer, a dispute resolution expert based in Austin, Texas. Articles published on Disputing aim to provide original insight and commentary around issues related to arbitration, mediation and the alternative dispute resolution industry.

To learn more about Karl and his team, or to schedule a mediation or arbitration with Karl’s live scheduling calendar, visit www.karlbayer.com.

About Disputing

Disputing is published by Karl Bayer, a dispute resolution expert based in Austin, Texas. Articles published on Disputing aim to provide original insight and commentary around issues related to arbitration, mediation and the alternative dispute resolution industry.

To learn more about Karl and his team, or to schedule a mediation or arbitration with Karl’s live scheduling calendar, visit www.karlbayer.com.

Recent Posts

We're Back!!!!
Feb 24, 2025
JAMS Welcomes Karl Bayer to its Panel of Neutrals
JAMS Welcomes Karl Bayer to its Panel of Neutrals
May 28, 2024
Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements: The Twenty-First Century Arbitration Battleground and Implications for the EU Countries
Nov 27, 2023

Featured Posts

Tips on Taking Good Remote Depositions From a Veteran Court Reporter

Online Mediation May Allow Restorative Justice to Continue During COVID-19

Remote Arbitration Best Practices: Witness Examination

Search

Legal Research

Legal Research


© 2025, Karl Bayer. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy