Opinion
Case No. 09-10757.
April 21, 2010
OPINION AND ORDER
The Thomas Kinkade Company and Richard Barnett ("Plaintiffs") filed a Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award in this Court on March 4, 2009. Lighthouse Galleries, LLC, David White, and Nancy White ("Defendants") responded and filed a Cross-Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award on May 26, 2009. After hearing oral argument on the motions and allowing the parties to submit supplemental evidence in support of their claims, the Court issued an opinion and order on January 27, 2010, vacating the underlying arbitration award. Presently pending before the Court is a motion for reconsideration filed by Defendants on February 8, 2010.
I. Standard of Review
II. Analysis
Fleck v. Titan Tire Corp.177 F. Supp. 2d 605624Pakideh v. Ahadi99 F. Supp. 2d 805809Durkin v. Taylor444 F. Supp. 879889 Id.
In fact, the Court even acknowledged that at least one of the other asserted grounds could not independently justify vacatur under Sixth Circuit precedent. ( See January 27, 2010, opinon and order at 18 n. 20.)
At its core, Defendants' motion for reconsideration presents a disagreement with the Court's conclusion that the neutral arbitrator demonstrated evident partiality in the underlying arbitration proceedings. Defendants take the position that mid-arbitration, contemporaneous conflicts of interest are less egregious than pre-existing conflicts of interest so long as they are promptly disclosed. In support, Defendants reiterate arguments previously made and attempt to distinguish cases referred to as persuasive authority by the Court.
The Court continues to disagree with Defendants' analysis of mid-arbitration, contemporaneous conflicts of interest. The fact that the neutral arbitrator promptly disclosed potential conflicts of interest as they arose does nothing to change the fact that "mid-arbitration business relationships undermine the ability of the parties to make informed decisions regarding the members of their arbitration panel." (January 27, 2010, opinion and order at 16.) Furthermore, the fact that the potential conflicts of interest in this case were either declined after objection or ultimately produced minimal income for the neutral arbitrator's law firm does nothing to change the difficult position in which Plaintiffs were placed at the time of disclosure.
Having reviewed the entirety of the motion for reconsideration, the Court concludes that Defendants merely present the same issues ruled upon by the Court, either expressly or by reasonable implication. Because Defendants' displeasure provides no proper basis upon which to alter or amend the order previously entered, the Court denies the motion for reconsideration.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.