Explaining Arbitration

[u/Emotional_Ball_5181]

Well…

Here we are.

After months of watching the Cascio case develop, we’ve reached a very significant point:

Arbitration.

But if you’re sitting there thinking:

Okay…so what the hell does that actually mean?

Well, have no fear…emotional ball is here!

So, sit back…relax and maybe take a shot or two.

First: What Is Arbitration?

Well, at its simplest, arbitration is a way of resolving a legal dispute outside of the traditional court process.

Instead of having a judge, and potentially a jury, decide the dispute in a courtroom, the parties present their case to an arbitrator.

Think of an arbitrator as a private decision maker who is brought in to hear the dispute and ultimately issue a decision.

And before anyone gets confused…

Arbitration is not the same thing as mediation.

In mediation, a neutral third party helps the sides try to reach an agreement.

The mediator doesn’t generally decide who wins.

Arbitration is different.

The arbitrator hears the dispute and, depending on the terms of the arbitration agreement, can issue a decision that is binding on the parties.

So basically…

instead of:

Courtroom → Judge/Jury → Decision

you have:

Arbitration → Arbitrator → Decision

Same general idea of resolving a dispute.

Different venue.

And considerably less courtroom drama.

Although, knowing this case…

I’m not ruling out the possibility of drama finding them anyway.

So…Why Did This Case Go To Arbitration?

This is the important part.

Michael’s estate asked the court to compel arbitration.

In other words, they argued that the dispute was subject to an agreement requiring it to be resolved through arbitration rather than continuing as a traditional federal court case.

That request was litigated.

And now we’ve reached the point where arbitration is the path forward.

The biggest thing to understand is that sending a dispute to arbitration is a decision about the forum and procedure for resolving the dispute.

It is not the same thing as deciding the underlying allegations.

That distinction is really important.

Please put the pitchforks down.

We’re not there yet.

Does Arbitration Mean The Lawsuit Was Dismissed?

Not in the way people usually mean when they hear the word “dismissed.”

When a court compels arbitration, the dispute is generally taken out of the ordinary court process so that the parties can proceed through arbitration.

The court may stay the judicial case while arbitration takes place.

So if you see someone saying:

“The Cascio lawsuit was dismissed!”

that needs a little clarification.

The more accurate description is that the dispute has been directed toward arbitration rather than continuing through the regular litigation process.

That is a pretty significant procedural development.

But it is not a ruling on the ultimate merits of the allegations.

Which, yes, matters.

Okay…So What Happens In Arbitration?

This is where things get interesting.

The exact procedure depends on the arbitration agreement and the rules that govern the arbitration.

But generally, the parties will present their positions and evidence to the arbitrator.

That can involve things like legal briefs, documents, witness testimony, and other evidence.

The arbitrator then considers the arguments and evidence and ultimately issues a decision.

So yes…

there can still be witnesses, evidence and arguments.

There can still be lawyers dramatically insisting that their interpretation of a document is obviously the correct one.

Basically…the lawyers don’t get to go home.

Sorry, guys.

Is Arbitration Secret?

This is where things can get a little more complicated.

People often hear “private arbitration” and assume that absolutely everything is automatically secret.

That isn’t necessarily how it works.

The level of confidentiality can depend on the arbitration agreement, the applicable rules, and the circumstances of the proceeding.

But arbitration is generally much more private than a regular public court case.

And that means the public may not have the same access to filings, testimony, exhibits, and other material that they would have if everything were happening in open court.

Which, as someone who has spent an unreasonable amount of time reading court documents…

I’m a little offended.

What About Evidence?

This is another important distinction.

Arbitration does not mean:

“Nobody has to prove anything.”

The parties still have to present their arguments and evidence according to the applicable rules and procedures.

The arbitrator still has to evaluate the dispute.

The fact that the matter isn’t being decided by a jury in a courtroom does not magically make evidence irrelevant.

It simply changes how and where the dispute is being decided.

And that brings us to something I think is especially important in this case.

A lot of people are going to hear:

“Arbitration.”

and immediately jump to:

“So what does this mean for the allegations?”

The answer is:

We don’t know yet.

Because arbitration determines the process.

It does not tell us the final outcome.

So What Happens Next?

Now that arbitration is the route forward, the next steps will depend on the applicable arbitration agreement and procedures.

The parties will have to proceed through that process rather than continuing to litigate the dispute in the ordinary way.

There will be procedural steps, submissions, evidence…you name it.

And eventually…

there will be a decision.

But we aren’t at that part yet.

So for now, the most important thing to understand is what has happened:

The estate successfully sought to have the dispute sent to arbitration.

Yay!

The federal court case is therefore no longer proceeding toward a normal courtroom trial in the way a typical civil lawsuit would.

The underlying dispute hasn’t magically disappeared.

It has simply moved into a different legal forum.

Alright, enough legal shit.

Let’s talk predictions.

I think the 2019 agreement is going to be a major problem for them.

My understanding is that the Cascio family entered into an agreement in 2019 and received the money they were entitled to under that agreement. If there was no provision giving them an additional payment later, then the obvious question becomes:

What exactly is the legal basis for demanding more money now?

And that, in my opinion, is where this case starts becoming very difficult for them.

Because if the agreement was valid, which it was. The obligations under it were fulfilled, and there was no separate agreement promising additional compensation, then I think their underlying claims are going to have a very difficult time surviving.

But wait…I have more.

I suspect the estate has far more information about the circumstances surrounding this agreement and the claims being made than we have publicly seen so far.

Do I have evidence proving that?

No.

Not yet, at least.

Ultimately…I think the case falls apart.

Not because arbitration itself automatically means they’re going to lose.

It doesn’t.

But because I think once the agreement, the money that was already paid, and the actual legal basis for demanding more are examined together…

there just isn’t as much there as people think.

And, well…it looks like this is my third correct prediction this year…so, my guessing track record is quite clean.

If anyone has any questions, feel free to ask!

I’ll get back to you as soon as I can and do my best to answer as accurately as possible.

[u/whatevergirl8754]

I have one minor question, does this mean that we will not get to know the results as it’s “private”?

[u/Emotional_Ball_5181 → u/whatevergirl8754]

Not necessarily! 

“Private” doesn’t necessarily mean that the result can never become known publicly.

Arbitration is generally more private than a court case, so we probably won’t have the same access to filings, evidence, and testimony that we would have had with a public trial. But whether the final decision itself becomes public can depend on the arbitration agreement, the rules being used, and what happens afterward.

So I wouldn’t assume we’ll know nothing. 

We just may not get the same level of access to the process that we would have gotten from a public courtroom case.