Ahmed v. Oak Management Corp.

Summary

This dissent would have vacated the arbitration award because the arbitrator exceeded the authority granted by the parties' agreement and incorporated AAA rules by applying fugitive disentitlement to bar Ahmed from asserting claims and defenses, presenting evidence, and participating in the arbitration. It also would have found misconduct because the arbitrator decided liability without providing Ahmed an opportunity to respond or conduct a merits hearing. The majority affirmed the judgment confirming the award, but Justice Alexander, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Ecker, would have reversed and remanded with instructions to vacate the award.