In my case, I don't believe this judge followed the letter of the law, but when opposing party prevailed used a flip...
In my case, I don't believe this judge followed the letter of the law, but when opposing party prevailed used a flip flop decision to base her ruling on. The other party presented evidence not supposed to be considered but not struck, tainted proceeding, accepted ex parte communications and included them in reversal of initial ruling. Did not reprimand opposing party relative to obstruction of justice in trying to evade serve, and allowing docs without striking them inadmissible in this case. Did not rely on sound principle of failure to disclose as to the arbitration which should have trumped her reliance on facilitator's ex parte statement which should not have been admissible in my opinion or relied upon. The statement did not deny arbitrator relationship with industry expert professionally skirted that relationship " reasonable impression of bias" standard. Never mind the landmark ruling; this was brought fully to the attention of the law in Mt. Holyoke Homes LLp v. Jeffer Mangels Butler and Mitchell. LLp. which involved the Judge but the same failure to disclose applied to our case and should have been upheld to the letter of the law. A new arbitration should have been upheld based on this standard of law. Arbitrator felt the necessity to disclose prior to arbitration beginning which signified the import of it to petioner's detriment.