Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00651—lV|FlK Document 57 Filed 07/20/2005 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
I DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ;
WILLIAM E. McCARTY : CASE NO. 3:03—C\/-00651 (MRK)
Plaintiff :
W V. : W
_ DERIVIUM CAPITAL, LLC, et al. —
_ Defendants JULY 19, 2005 1
S AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S C
{ OBJECTION TO MOTION TO DISMISS {
I Pursuant to L. Civ. R. 7(d), the Defendant, American Arbitration Association
Q ("AAA"), respectfully files this Reply to the letter, dated July 5, 2005, that the Plaintiff,
i William E. McCarty, sent to the Court in response to the AAA’s Motion to Dismiss. C
Although the Plaintiff’s letter is largely incomprehensible, he appears to make the
I following two arguments in response to the AAA’s Motion to Dismiss on pages l and 2
of the letter: (l) the AAA is not entitled to arbitral immunity because an administrator,
I and not an arbitrator or judge, made the decision to deny the Plaintiff’s request that the Z
arbitration be held in New York City; and (2) the AAA is not entitled to immunity
I because its decision allegedly violated the Plaintiffs Constitutional rights. As indicated I
in the Memorandum of Law that the AAA filed in Support of its Motion to Dismiss, both
of these arguments are unavailing, because the doctrine of arbitral immunity shields the
AAA from liability for its decision in this matter.
First, the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, including the Second Circuit Court of
I Appeals, have uniformly extended arbitral immunity to the organizations that sponsor
arbitrations for ag acts within the scope of the arbitration process, including basic
administrative functions performed by the sponsoring organization. Honn v. Nat’l Ass’n ,

Case 3:03-cv-00651-IVIRK Document 57 Filed 07/20/2005 Page 2 of 4
of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 182 F.3d 1014, 1017 (8th Cir. l999)(affirming on the basis of
I arbitral immunity the dismissal of a claim that an arbitration sponsoring organization I
engaged in misconduct in carrying out its "normal administrative functions"); Qew
_ England Cleaning v. Am. Arbitration Ass’n, 199 F.3d 542, 545 (lst Cir. 1999)(affirming _
on the basis of arbitral immunity the dismissal of a claim that the AAA improperly
. proceeded with an arbitration, scheduled a hearing, and billed the plaintiff for its services E
i despite the plaintiff’s claim that no arbitration agreement existed); Olson v. Nat’l Ass’n ii
3 of Sec. Dealers, 85 F.3d 381, 382 (8th Cir. 1996)(affirming on the basis of arbitral 2
Q immunity the dismissal of a claim that the sponsoring organization violated its own rules g
3 in appointing a particular arbitrator); Austern v. Chicago Board Options Exch., 898 F.2d i;
882, 886 (2d Cir. 1990)(affirming on the basis of arbitral immunity the dismissal of a
Y claim that the sponsoring organization improperly noticed and scheduled the arbitration if
` hearing and improperly selected the arbitrators). —
. Second, the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, including the Second Circuit Court ;
of Appeals, have extended the doctrine of arbitral immunity to shield arbitral sponsoring
i organizations from liability even for alleged violations of a party’s Constitutional rights. ii
Hudson v. Am. Arbitration Ass’n, 101 Fed. Appx. 947, 2004 WL 1367591, at **1 (Sth
Cir. 2004)("Any equal protection claims or claims of misdeeds by the American
Arbitration Association are barred by arbitral immunity."); Aust_e_ig, 898 F.2d at 886-87
(affirming on the basis of arbitral immunity the dismissal of a claim that the arbitration
association violated the plaintiff’s right to due process under the Fourteenth
1 Amendment.) if
2

Case 3:03-cv-00651-IVIRK Document 57 Filed 07/20/2005 Page 3 of 4
For these reasons, and the other reasons articulated in the AAA’s supporting
i Memorandum of Law, the Court should dismiss the Plaintiff’s action against the AAA —
pursuant to Rule l2(b)(6).
_ THE DEFENDANT, _
` AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCLATION —
T W` i m H. Cham III, CT04202 T
Mi h el T. McCor i ck, CTl3799
$ Ja es R. Byrne, CT14632 E
` TYLER COOPER & ALCORN, LLP "
CityPlace - 35th Floor
Q Hartford, CT 06103-3488 Q
' Telephone: (860) 725-6200 M
i Fax: (860) 278-3802 M;
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
7 - Its Attorneys — ii
3

Case 3:03-cv-00651-IVIRK Document 57 Filed 07/20/2005 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATION
I This is to certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing on all counsel of record i
and pro se parties by causing it to be mailed on this 19th day of July, 2005 postage prepaid
Q and properly addressed to: Q
; William E. McCarty Z
Q 113 Grove Place Z
P,O. Box 16684
West Haven, CT 06516
r s
, Kemreth Rosenthal ` ,
I Brenner, Saltzman & Wallman O
271 Whitney Ave.
P.O. Box 1746
’ New Haven, CT 06511—1746 ’
* Victor A. Machcinski, Jr. *
Krebsbach & Snyder
i One Exchange Plaza j
55 Broadway, Suite 1600
New York, NY 10006 \
{ s R. Byrne
R Y ,/
gi V x,
L'I`00003(>34V00l .wpd '
- 2 -