Hall Street v. Mattel
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
| Hall Street v. Mattel | |
| Court | Supreme Court of the United States |
|---|---|
| Citation | 552 U.S. 576 |
| Date decided | March 25, 2008 |
| Appealed from | 9th Circuit |
Facts
- Mattel, Inc. = "Mattel" = plaintiff
- Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. = "Hall Street" = defendant = proprietor
- Mattel leased property from Hall Street in Oregon. However, the water in the property was polluted.
Procedural History
The 2 parties took the indemnity question to arbitration.
They agreed that a court could vacate or modify the arbitration order if the legal conclusion was erroneous.
Initially, the arbitrator found for Mattel. Nevertheless, Mattel lost in the district court.
On remand, the arbitrator found for Hall Street.Issues
Can parties contractually broaden the scope of judicial review available under the Federal Arbitration Act?
Arguments
Mattel argued that the district court shouldn't review the arbitration order.
Holding
No. Parties can't contractually broaden the scope of judicial review available under the act.
Judgment
Judgment of 9th Circuit vacated & remanded
Reasons
David Souter: Federal Arbitration Act:
- Section 10: fraud or corruption provides for vacating the award
- Section 11: mistakenly describing the award recipient provides for modifying the award
- Neither section: erroneous conclusion of law
Resources
- Video summary at Quimbee
- Summary at Oyez
- Case text at Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School
