Judge Burke presses counsel on whether defendants had notice and meaningful opportunity to pay

Members of the bench (identified in argument as Judge Burke) focused extensive questioning on whether parties were given effective notice and a realistic opportunity to meet payment deadlines tied to the rehearing. The bench asked whether civil rules govern arbitration when JDR rules are silent and whether an arbitrator's CR 59-style order is final for appeal purposes; counsel discussed JDR rules, CR 59 analogies, and the limits of appellate review of arbitration awards.

The bench asked whether the appellant had a window to pay before the final award and whether the reimbursement condition had been raised and acknowledged during the June 24 conference. Counsel for the respondent said defendants conceded the reimbursement request at that conference and that an office reminder email also warned of imminent deadlines. Appellant counsel disputed that formal notice was provided in time and said the written order memorializing the condition was not released until after deadlines had passed, rendering any opportunity to pay illusory.

Why this matters: The bench’s questions probe the factual and legal foundation for relief: whether there was sufficient notice and whether the arbitrator's actions were within the scope of the arbitration agreement and applicable rules. The court did not announce a ruling in the transcript; further action will depend on the panel’s review of the written record and the applicable standard of review for arbitration awards.