The underlying lawsuit, which arose from an international arbitration proceeding against Ayala Law’s client before the Refined Sugar Association (“RSA”), was entered before Ayala Law’s involvement in the matter.
In the lawsuit, the petitioner sought to confirm the arbitration award, while we argued on behalf of our client that the arbitration award should be vacated for various shortcomings during the arbitration process resulting in prejudice to our client. The petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss argued that our client’s counter petition was time-barred, a deadline that is triggered depending on proper service and delivery of the arbitration award. However, the petitioner failed to include an accurate or otherwise complete quotation of the applicable arbitration rule governing delivery and service of the underlying arbitration award. RSA Rule 4 provides:
Any notice, document or other correspondence to be served on any party in connection with an arbitration under these Rules may be effected either by (a) courier, (b) first class post, (c) post in a registered letter, (d) telex, (e) facsimile or (f) electronic mail in each case to the usual or last known address or place of business of any party. In the case of a facsimile or electronic mail message such notice, document or correspondence shall also be served in accordance with one of the provisions under (a) to (d) above.
After our client’s response was filed, petitioner filed its reply support of its Motion to Dismiss, wherein, for the first time, it attached what it purported to be delivery of the arbitration award via email, but did not provide any evidence of delivery by any other means required under RSA Rule 4 to accompany electronic mail. However, petitioner’s failure to fully quote RSA Rule 4 in its filing potentially lead to confusion as to the requirements for service and delivery of the award under the applicable rules.
As a result of this confusion, and misinterpretation stemming therefrom, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause on the basis that the argument that had been made was that the respondent did not receive the email attached to the petitioner’s subsequent filing.
Ayala Law quickly remediated this issue by providing a detailed response defending the conduct leading to the arguments made, and again emphasizing the accurate quotation and application of RSA Rule 4–and its explicit language that delivery by email alone is insufficient. Moreover, the response to the Order to Show Cause explained that even the email evidence was only produced by the petitioner after we had made our response, and therefore could not have been considered when filing the initial response to the Motion to Dismiss.
Upon review of Ayala Law’s response, the case was turned on its head, and the Court shifted its attention to petitioner and its counsel ordering them to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for misrepresenting the language of RSA Rule 4 concerning service.
Concerning the recent events Partner Eduardo Maura stated, “We are always particular in how we cite and quote sources of law and other applicable rules. We are happy with this result in the interim, but remain committed to our client as this matter continues to play out.”
If you are dealing with a business dispute, ongoing civil litigation or arbitration, contact one of our experienced attorneys at 305-570-2208.
You can also contact our team directly at: arianna@ayalalawpa.com
Schedule a case evaluation online here.
[The opinions in this blog are not intended to be legal advice. You should consult with an attorney about the particulars of your case].
Subscribe to Our Blog
Stay informed with our latest blog posts delivered directly to your inbox. Gain valuable legal insights, tips, and advice from our seasoned attorneys.
