Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Seagate Technology, LLC v. Western Digital Corporation, Sining Mao

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided October 8, 2014No. A12-1944Published

1ConcurrenceStras, Justice

I agree with the court that none of the grounds for vacating an arbitration award are present here. See Minn.Stat. § 572.19, subd. 1 (2010). I am less certain, however, that the court’s analysis of waiver is correct.

When the court answers the question of what happens to a party’s challenge to the authority of the arbitrator under Minn.Stat. § 572.19, subd. 1(3), in the absence of an objection during the course of the arbitration, it answers only half of Seagate’s argument. The other half of Seagate’s argument is, and always has been, that Mao and Western Digital impliedly (yet intentionally)…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. United States v. OlanoSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  2. Johnson v. ZerbstSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  3. Kontrick v. RyanSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  4. United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. EspinosaSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
  5. Twomey v. DurkeeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API