ILNews

COA extends judicial immunity to arbitrators

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a real estate broker’s action to vacate an arbitration award to another broker. In doing so, the appellate court extended judicial and quasi-judicial immunity to arbitrators and their sponsors.

Real estate broker Ron Droscha challenged the arbitration award of nearly $19,000 in favor of Scott Shepherd. The money was half of the brokers’ commission from a sale of commercial property in which Shepherd represented the seller and Droscha’s firm represented the buyer.

Originally the $37,000 in brokers’ commission was divided equally between the two companies, but Shepherd challenged the split, claiming he was entitled to the whole commission. The first arbitration panel awarded Shepherd nearly $10,000; that order was vacated, and an arbitration panel established by the Fort Wayne Association of Realtors awarded Shepherd the entire amount he wanted.

In Ron Droscha v. Scott Shepherd and Fort Wayne Area Association of Realtors, No. 52A02-1001-PL-26, Droscha filed suit against Shepherd and the association, arguing the proceedings didn’t follow the trial court instructions given when it vacated the original award granted by a different panel. The trial court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

The appellate court agreed with the association that the trial court properly dismissed Droscha’s action against it because it has arbitral immunity. Relying on Olson v. Nat. Ass’n of Sec. Dealers, 85 F.3d 381 (8th Cir. 1996), the judges decided to extend judicial and/or quasi-judicial immunity to arbitrators and their sponsors.

Droscha’s claim relates to the association’s appointment of a panel and the panel’s performance of its official decision-making function in addressing the fee dispute. That challenge is to the overall arbitration process and therefore is akin to judicial or quasi-judicial functions subject to immunity, wrote Judge Cale Bradford.  

The Court of Appeals also upheld the dismissal of claims against Shepherd, in which Droscha argued, among other things, that the panel didn’t constitute a representative peer panel. There’s no suggestion in the statutes cited by Droscha that noncompliance permits a court to vacate the arbitration award. The panel wasn’t a party to the action at the time of the trial court’s judgment, and Droscha failed to allege that the orders were introduced as an exhibit or otherwise used to inform the arbitration panel. The judges also didn’t find the panel committed misconduct that prejudiced Droscha’s rights to warrant judicial relief.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT