Question 1:
Is it a violation of the Federal Arbitration Act for
a state court to dismiss an arbitration due to the res
ignation of an arbitrator so that a pending motion to
invoke an FAA Section 5 replacement arbitrator can be
denied or rendered "moot "?
Section 5 of the FAA requires the trial court to ap
point an arbitrator if there is a lapse in the naming of
an arbitrator "for any reason. " This section creates a
more efficient arbitration process by minimizing de
lays and mechanical breakdowns in replacing arbitra
tors who have died or resigned for any reason.
However, it is subject to the parties ' contract, which
should be rigorously enforced according to its terms.
(Section 2) Therein lies the tension between expedi
tious arbitrator replacement to continue the arbitra
tion and terms which stipulate forums or arbitrators
"integral " to the contract which may be unavailable,
thus voiding the contract.
The circuits are split on favoring the intent to ar
bitrate over the integral term exception, which may
void the contract where a specific arbitration forum or
arbitrator deemed "integral " is not available. In this
case, the DC Court of Appeals implicitly created an
other circuit split inconsistent with the goals of the
FAA, dismissing Petitioner 's arbitration contract and
also her case where an arbitrator who was not integral
to the contract resigned. This decision upends the
power and force of FAA Section 5, making arbitration
contracts vulnerable to attack whenever an arbitrator
dies or resigns.

Question 2:
Is it a violation of the Federal Arbitration Act for
a state court to dismiss an arbitration to prevent a
party from asserting the appropriate evident partiality
and disclosure standard for her arbitration contract,
rendering moot a motion to disqualify a corrupt arbi
trator?
Section 10 of the FAA requires that ail arbitration
award be vacated "where there was evident partiality
or corruption of the arbitrators. " 9 U.S.C. Section
10(a)(2). This Court likewise instructs that arbitrators
"not only must be unbiased but also must avoid even
the appearance of bias. We cannot believe that it was
the purpose of Congress to authorize litigants to sub
mit their cases and controversies to arbitration boards
that might reasonably be thought biased against one
litigant and favorable to another. " Reference is also
made to the "simple requirement that arbitrators dis
close to the parties any dealings that might create an
impression of possible bias. " Commonwealth Coating
Corp. v. Cont 'l Cas. Co., 393 U.S. 145,150 (1968).
Here the DC Court of Appeals implicitly deepened
the considerable split among circuits regarding the
standard to be used for evident partiality and how re
lated disclosures should be handled. Unlike other
appellate circuits, the Court of Appeals held that Peti
tioner could not object to Respondents ' failure to dis
close potential bias and conflict of interest even when
it resulted in substantive changes to her arbitration
contract and appeal rights.

Question 3:
Is it a violation of the Federal Arbitration Act for
a state court to dismiss an arbitration because a

Is it a violation of the Federal Arbitration Act for a state court to dismiss an arbitration due to the resignation of an arbitrator so that a pending motion to invoke an FAA Section 5 replacement arbitrator can be denied or rendered 'moot'?