| | |
avoidance of potentially conflicting results, courts in New York | | and a number of other States concluded that they have the power | | to direct consolidated arbitration proceedings involving common | | legal or factual issues. See County of Sullivan v. Edward L. | | Nezelek, Inc., 42 N.Y.2d 123, 366 N.E.2d 72, 397 N.Y.S.2d 371 | | (1977); see also New England Energy v. Keystone Shipping Co., | | 855 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1988), cert denied, 489 U.S. 1077 (1989); | | Litton Bionetics, Inc. v. Glen Constr. Co., 292 Md. 34, 437 A.2d | | 208 (1981); Grover-Diamond Assoc. v. American Arbitration Ass'n, | | 297 Minn. 324, 211 N.W.2d 787 (1973); Polshek v. Bergen Cty. | | Iron Works, 142 N.J. Super. 516, 362 A.2d 63 (Ch. Div. 1976); | | Exber v. Sletten Constr. Co., 558 P.2d 517 (Nev. 1976); Plaza | | Dev. Serv. v. Joe Harden Builder, Inc., 294 S.C. 430, 365 S.E.2d | | 231 (S.C. Ct. App. 1988). |
|
| | | A number of other courts have held that in the absence of an | | agreement by all parties to multiparty arbitration they do not | | have the power to order consolidation of arbitrations despite | | the presence of common legal or factual issues. See, e.g., | | Stop & Shop Co. v. Gilbane Bldg. Co., 364 Mass. 325, 304 | | N.E.2d 429 (1973); J. Brodie & Son, Inc. v. George A. Fuller | | Co., 16 Mich. App. 137, 167 N.W.2d 886 (1969); Balfour, | | Guthrie & Co. v. Commercial Metals Co., 93 Wash. 2d 199, 607 | | P.2d 856 (1980). |
|
| | | The split of authority regarding the power of courts to | | consolidate arbitration proceedings in the absence of | | contractual consolidation provisions extends to the federal | | sphere. In the absence of clear direction in the FAA, courts | | have reached conflicting holdings. The current trend under the | | FAA disfavors court-ordered consolidation absent express | | agreement. See generally III Macneil Treatise §33.3; Glencore, | | Ltd. v. Schnitzer Steel Prod. Co., 189 F.3d 264 (2nd Cir. | | 1999). However, a recent California appellate decision held | | that state law regarding consolidated arbitration was not | | preempted by federal arbitration law under the FAA. Blue Cross | | of Calif. v. Superior Ct., 67 Cal. App. 4th 42, 78 Cal. Rptr. | | 2d 779 (1998). |
|
| | | 2. A growing number of jurisdictions have enacted statutes | | empowering courts to address multiparty conflict through | | consolidation of proceedings or joinder of parties even in the | | absence of specific contractual provisions authorizing such | | procedures. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §1281.3 (West 1997) | | (consolidation); Ga. Code Ann. § 9-9-6 (1996) (consolidation); | | Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 251, § 2A (West 1997) | | (consolidation); N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A-23A-3 (West 1997) | | (consolidation); S.C. Code Ann. § 15-48-60 (1996) (joinder); | | Utah Code Ann. § 78-31a-9 (1996) (joinder). |
|
| | | Some empirical studies also support court-ordered | | consolidation. In a survey of arbitrators in construction | | cases, 83% favored |
|
|
