Moore v. Olson , 351 P.3d 1066 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •       Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the P ACIFIC R EPORTER .
    Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts,
    303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email
    corrections@akcourts.us.
    THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA
    AIMEE L. MOORE,                 )
    )                       Supreme Court No. S-15281
    Appellant,      )
    )                       Superior Court No. 3AN-13-06990 CI
    v.                        )
    )                       OPINION
    DONALD C. OLSON, DONALD         )
    OLSON ENTERPRISES, INC., OLSON )                        No. 7017 – July 2, 2015
    VENTURES, LLC, OLSON AIR        )
    SERVICE, INC., REINDEER SPIRIT, )
    INC., and POLAR EXPRESS         )
    AIRWAYS, INC.,                  )
    )
    Appellees.      )
    )
    Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third
    Judicial District, Anchorage, Andrew Guidi, Judge.
    Appearances: William F. Brattain, Baker Brattain, LLC,
    Anchorage, for Appellant. Robert J. Gunther, Law Office of
    Robert J. Gunther, Anchorage, for Appellees.
    Before: Fabe, Chief Justice, Winfree, Stowers, Maassen, and
    Bolger, Justices.
    WINFREE, Justice.
    I.    INTRODUCTION
    In this case we are asked to review a superior court’s decision confirming
    an arbitration award. In the superior court the appellant challenged procedural decisions
    made by the arbitrator; before us the appellant challenges both procedural and
    substantive decisions made by the superior court. Applying the appropriate deferential
    standards of review, we affirm the superior court’s decision confirming the arbitration
    award.
    II.   FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
    A.     Facts
    Donald Olson and Aimee Moore met in 1995. Between 1995 and 2004
    they had business and personal relationships. The business relationship began with
    Donald training Aimee to fly helicopters in exchange for Aimee’s work for Donald and
    his businesses. Eventually Aimee managed Donald’s businesses, and they agreed that
    she would receive a share of business profits. Aimee and Donald dispute the nature of
    their personal relationship:   Aimee characterizes the relationship as a cohabative
    domestic partnership; Donald asserts the relationship was not a domestic partnership.1
    Aimee terminated the personal relationship in July 2004. In December
    2004 Aimee and Donald signed an agreement “related to the deferred compensation
    owed Aimee . . . for work performed during the period January 1996 through 2004.” In
    November 2005, after negotiating for more than a year, Aimee and Donald signed a final
    settlement agreement to end their business relationship.
    During settlement negotiations and mediation Aimee chose not to have a
    professional participate on her behalf, but she did consult attorneys and accountants.
    Donald agreed to transfer to Aimee $350,000 cash as well as real property valued at
    $150,000. Donald, on behalf of his businesses, also agreed to transfer to Aimee half of
    1
    We have explained that a personal relationship is a domestic partnership
    when the parties “intended to share in the fruits of their relationship as though married,
    justifying an equal division of their property.” Reed v. Parrish, 
    286 P.3d 1054
    , 1057
    (Alaska 2012) (citing Julsen v. Julsen, 
    741 P.2d 642
    , 645 (Alaska 1987)).
    -2-                                      7017
    the net proceeds from the rents and sale of two hangars — for a five-year period — in
    an amount up to $300,000. Donald agreed to make a good faith effort to market and sell
    the hangars during the five-year period. In return Aimee agreed to pay half the operating
    expenses of each hangar prior to sale, resign from the businesses, execute a mutual
    release of claims, and maintain confidentiality.
    The settlement agreement gave either party the right to arbitrate any
    disputes and required that the losing party pay “reasonable actual attorney[’s] fees.” The
    agreement included a provision that “[t]he decision and award of the arbitrator shall be
    final and binding upon the parties and non-appealable,” and further provided:
    In the event either party shall be in default in the performance
    of any of its obligations under this Agreement and an action
    shall be brought for the enforcement thereof, the defaulting
    party shall pay to the other all the costs incurred therefor,
    including reasonable actual attorney[’s] fees.
    Donald immediately transferred the cash and the real property to Aimee,
    fulfilling his personal obligation under the settlement agreement. But Aimee continued
    to have some involvement with the hangars and Donald’s businesses, including some
    interactions with Robert Gunther, an attorney who began representing the businesses in
    2007. The interactions resulted from (1) litigation against a third party and (2) lease
    negotiations with a potential hangar lessee.
    The hangars were not sold by November 2010. But during the five years
    the businesses paid Aimee rents totaling about $285,000, so Aimee had received all but
    about $15,000 of the agreed upon $300,000. During that same period Aimee reimbursed
    the businesses for half of the hangar expenses, including $4,500 for Gunther’s legal fees.
    In February 2012, shortly after Aimee initiated arbitration proceedings, the businesses
    paid Aimee the remaining amount due on the agreed upon $300,000 and also returned
    the money Aimee had paid for half of the hangar expenses.
    -3-                                      7017
    B.     Proceedings
    Aimee initiated arbitration against Donald, but not his businesses, in
    January 2012. Aimee asserted:
    Pursuant to the property settlement of the parties’ long
    term cohabitation and partnership, . . . [Donald] had an
    obligation to pay [Aimee] approximately $300,000 through
    the sale of two specific properties.
    [Donald] breached this agreement in some or all of the
    following ways: (1) he failed to promptly sell the properties
    and fund the balance of the $300,000 payment; (2) he
    continued to require [Aimee’s] involvement in the
    management of the property by asking her to meet and
    negotiate with prospective tenants and to deal with tenant
    issues; and (3) by asking for additional contributions to
    maintain and improve the property. To date, [Donald] has
    not attempted to sell the properties despite his promise to do
    so. Because [Donald] committed a breach of the contract, the
    contract should either be rescinded in its entirety and the
    parties restored to their respective positions status quo ante
    or, in the alternative, [Aimee] should receive an amount equal
    to the present value of the property at the time of sale or as
    otherwise determined as being just and equitable, less interim
    payments received by her prior to notice of the breach.
    Charles Kasmar entered an appearance as Donald’s attorney, and an arbitration hearing
    was scheduled for December 2012.
    In early November 2012 Kasmar emailed Aimee’s attorney, William
    Brattain, explaining that “Robert Gunther will be entering an appearance on behalf of
    [Donald’s businesses] when they are added as party respondents.” Kasmar, Gunther, and
    Brattain stipulated to the addition of Donald’s businesses and Gunther’s representation
    of the businesses in the arbitration. They also agreed to arbitration scheduling and
    deadlines, including a December 3 deadline for motions. Gunther entered his appearance
    in the arbitration on December 3.
    -4-                                     7017
    In mid-January 2013 Aimee moved to continue the arbitration proceedings,
    arguing that she needed more time to prepare because deposition testimony had
    complicated the scope of the arbitration and because the hangars were not yet
    professionally appraised. Aimee also moved to disqualify Gunther, arguing that he had
    a conflict of interest because he had represented Aimee in a substantially related matter
    — the hangar lease negotiations — and arguing that Gunther was a vital witness for the
    arbitration. Donald and the businesses opposed Aimee’s motions. Gunther submitted
    an affidavit asserting that he had “never entered into an express formal, or an implied,
    agreement to represent Aimee.”
    The arbitrator denied the motion to continue, concluding that the motion
    was untimely filed without justification. The arbitrator found that Aimee knew from the
    outset of arbitration that appraising the hangars might be necessary. The arbitrator also
    found that “a continuance of the arbitration would delay the final resolution of the
    dispute between the parties and would defeat the primary benefit of arbitration of
    expeditiously and inexpensively resolv[ing] the dispute between the parties.”
    The arbitrator also denied Aimee’s motion to disqualify Gunther,
    concluding that the motion was untimely filed without justification. The arbitrator noted
    that Aimee knew in November 2012 that Gunther had become involved in the arbitration
    proceedings; Aimee did not support her motion with an affidavit and only filed an
    affidavit with her reply; the facts did not support finding an attorney-client relationship
    between Aimee and Gunther; and the alleged representation was not in a substantially
    related matter. The arbitrator finally found that “[t]he timing of the motion to disqualify
    Gunther from these proceedings is suspect.”
    The parties appeared before the arbitrator in February 2013. The arbitrator
    ultimately agreed with Donald and his businesses, concluding that the parties’ personal
    relationship was not a domestic partnership and finding that Donald and the businesses
    -5-                                       7017
    had not materially breached the settlement agreement. The arbitrator ruled in Donald’s
    and the businesses’ favor and awarded them reasonable prevailing party costs and
    attorney’s fees.
    Donald and the businesses applied in superior court to confirm the
    arbitration award. Aimee sought to vacate the award, arguing that: (1) “[b]y not
    recusing Mr. Gunther, the Arbitrator substantially prejudiced [Aimee’s] rights, and thus
    under A.S. 09.43.500, the Arbitration must be vacated”; and (2) “[the] refusal by the
    Arbitrator to continue the hearing . . . constituted a substantial prejudice of [Aimee’s]
    rights, and thus under A.S. 09.43.500, this court should vacate, rather than confirm, the
    decision of the Arbitrator.” Aimee also moved to disqualify Gunther from the superior
    court proceedings. The court denied Aimee’s motion to disqualify Gunther, denied
    Aimee’s vacatur request, and confirmed the arbitration award. The court also granted
    Donald’s and the businesses’ motions for full reasonable costs and attorney’s fees,
    finding that the settlement agreement mandated such an award, Alaska Civil Rule 82
    supported a full reasonable fee award, and that Donald’s and the businesses’ actual costs
    and fees were reasonable.
    Aimee appeals, arguing that the superior court erred and violated her right
    to due process by denying her disqualification motion, confirming the arbitration award,
    and awarding attorney’s fees, all without holding a hearing.
    III.   STANDARD OF REVIEW
    “A superior court’s decision reviewing an arbitration award is subject to de
    novo review.”2 A “decision concerning a motion to disqualify opposing counsel will
    2
    Johnson v. Aleut Corp., 
    307 P.3d 942
    , 947 (Alaska 2013) (citing Kinn v.
    Alaska Sales & Serv., Inc., 
    144 P.3d 474
    , 482 (Alaska 2006)). Accord McAlpine v.
    Priddle, 
    321 P.3d 345
    , 348 (Alaska 2014) (“We ‘review de novo the superior court’s
    (continued...)
    -6-                                     7017
    only be reversed when it constitutes an abuse of discretion.”3 A ruling that an underlying
    agreement required an award of actual reasonable attorney’s fees is “reviewed under the
    de novo standard because it involves contract interpretation.”4 “Questions of due process
    present constitutional issues that we review de novo.”5
    An “arbitrator’s findings of both fact and law . . . receive great deference.”6
    Generally “the arbitrator’s findings of fact are unreviewable, even in the case of gross
    error,”7 and “judicial review . . . of an arbitrator’s decision is limited to issues of
    arbitrability.”8 “[I]n order to vacate [an] award based on the arbitrators’ refusal to
    continue the arbitration hearing, a litigant must show that the ‘arbitrators committed
    gross error’ in determining that a ‘litigant did not show sufficient cause for
    2
    (...continued)
    decision to confirm [an] arbitration award.’ ” (alteration in original) (quoting State v.
    Pub. Safety Emps. Ass’n, 
    235 P.3d 197
    , 201 (Alaska 2010))).
    3
    Munn v. Bristol Bay Hous. Auth., 
    777 P.2d 188
    , 196 (Alaska 1989). Accord
    In re Estate of Adkins, 
    874 P.2d 271
    , 272-73 (Alaska 1994) (“We review questions of
    attorney disqualification under the abuse of discretion standard.”).
    4
    Marathon Oil Co. v. ARCO Alaska, Inc., 
    972 P.2d 595
    , 600 (Alaska 1999)
    (citing State v. Arbuckle, 
    941 P.2d 181
    , 184 (Alaska 1997)).
    5
    Grimmett v. Univ. of Alaska, 
    303 P.3d 482
    , 487 (Alaska 2013) (citing
    James v. State, Dep’t of Corr., 
    260 P.3d 1046
    , 1050 (Alaska 2011)).
    6
    OK Lumber Co. v. Alaska R.R. Corp., 
    123 P.3d 1076
    , 1078 (Alaska 2005)
    (alteration in original) (quoting Ahtna, Inc. v. Ebasco Constructors, Inc., 
    894 P.2d 657
    ,
    660 (Alaska 1995)).
    7
    Ahtna, 
    Inc., 894 P.2d at 661
    (citing Breeze v. Sims, 
    778 P.2d 215
    , 217
    (Alaska 1989)); accord 
    McAlpine, 321 P.3d at 349
    .
    8
    Ahtna, 
    Inc., 894 P.2d at 661
    (quoting Masden v. Univ. of Alaska, 
    633 P.2d 1374
    , 1377 (Alaska 1981)).
    -7-                                        7017
    postponement.’ ”9 We also have applied the gross error standard of review to other
    issues concerning arbitration management.10
    IV.	   DISCUSSION
    A.	   The Superior Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion When It Refused To
    Disqualify Gunther From The Confirmation And Vacatur
    Proceedings.
    During the superior court confirmation and vacatur proceedings Aimee
    9
    Marathon Oil 
    Co., 972 P.2d at 602
    (quoting Ebasco Constructors, Inc. v.
    Ahtna, Inc., 
    932 P.2d 1312
    , 1316 (Alaska 1997)).
    10
    See 
    id. (“Because AS
    09.43.120(a)(4) deals generally with issues
    concerning the management of arbitration, it is logical to adopt the same standard of
    review for all alleged violations of this provision.”). We recognize that our decision in
    Marathon Oil addressed Alaska’s Uniform Arbitration Act (UAA), and that Aimee and
    Donald’s agreement is subject to Alaska’s Revised Uniform Arbitration Act (RUAA).
    Ch. 170, §§ 1-2, SLA 2004 (Alaska adopted the RUAA in 2004, and the RUAA governs
    arbitration agreements entered into on or after January 1, 2005.); AS 09.43.300-.595.
    Donald argues that “[t]he RUAA includes few substantive changes from the original
    UAA provisions regarding confirmation and vacatur,” and he suggests “that case law
    decided under the UAA is equally applicable to the RUAA; or, at the very least, provides
    highly persuasive guidance.”
    Donald’s arguments are persuasive. For example, the RUAA and UAA
    each mandate vacatur when a party’s continuance request was denied despite a “showing
    of sufficient cause for postponement.” See AS 09.43.500(a)(3) (mandating vacatur when
    “an arbitrator refused to postpone the hearing on showing of sufficient cause for
    postponement, refused to consider evidence material to the controversy, or otherwise
    conducted the hearing contrary to AS 09.43.420, so as to prejudice substantially the
    rights of a party to the arbitration proceeding”); AS 09.43.120(a)(4) (mandating vacatur
    when “the arbitrators refused to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown
    for postponement or refused to hear evidence material to the controversy or otherwise
    so conducted the hearing, contrary to the provisions of AS 09.43.050, as to prejudice
    substantially the rights of a party”). Because the RUAA did not change or limit the
    policies in favor of arbitration, we apply the same deferential review of arbitration
    decisions that we applied under the UAA. We thus continue to review arbitration
    management decisions for gross error.
    -8-	                                    7017
    unsuccessfully moved to disqualify Gunther, asserting a conflict of interest and arguing
    that she was Gunther’s former client in a substantially related matter. Aimee now argues
    that the court erred when it refused to disqualify Gunther.
    We have held that
    an attorney “may not represent a third party against a former
    client where there exists a substantial possibility that
    knowledge gained by him in the earlier professional
    relationship can be used against the former client, or where
    the subject matter of his present undertaking has a substantial
    relationship to that of the prior representation.”[11]
    This test is incorporated in Alaska Professional Conduct Rule 1.9(a)12 which provides:
    A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter
    shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a
    substantially related matter in which that person’s interests
    are materially adverse to the interests of the former client
    unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in
    writing.
    Disqualification therefore is warranted after determining that (1) the party alleging a
    conflict of interest is the attorney’s former client and (2) the attorney represented the
    former client in a substantially related matter.
    Rule 9.1(q) defines “substantially related matters” as “matters: (1) that
    involve the same transaction or the same underlying legal dispute, or (2) where there is
    a substantial risk that confidential factual information obtained in the prior matter would
    materially advance a client’s position in the subsequent matter.” We have explained that
    “[t]he substantial relationship test for determining disqualification of an attorney is a
    prophylactic rule which obviates the need for the former client to demonstrate that
    11
    Griffith v. Taylor, 
    937 P.2d 297
    , 301 (Alaska 1997) (quoting Aleut Corp.
    v. McGarvey, 
    573 P.2d 473
    , 474-75 (Alaska 1978)).
    12
    See 
    id. at 301
    n.8.
    -9-                                      7017
    confidential information was actually disclosed in the course of the prior
    representation.”13 But the former client still has the burden to demonstrate “that the
    matters embraced within the pending suit wherein [her] former attorney appears on
    behalf of [her] adversary are substantially related to the matters or cause of action
    wherein the attorney previously represented [her], the former client.”14
    We do not decide whether Aimee is Gunther’s former client because Aimee
    fails to establish that the superior court erred when concluding that there was no
    substantial relationship between Gunther’s alleged representation and the confirmation
    and vacatur proceedings. Aimee argues that “Gunther was [her] lawyer in regard to
    selling the two airport properties, and subsequently purported to represent [Donald] in
    a case in which [Aimee] was attempting to assert an interest in those same airport
    properties.” In the superior court Aimee asserted that she came to Gunther “for
    assistance in making key decisions in the leasing, pollution and environmental concerns,
    and management of the Barrow hangar property.” Aimee supported her statement with
    an affidavit asserting:
    I met several times with Mr. Gunther during the five year
    period of the Settlement Agreement, with [Donald], to obtain
    legal assistance and advice on issues relating to the airport
    properties. At the time, and to this day, I believed that I was
    consulting with Mr. Gunther as a lawyer in his professional
    capacity. At the time I participated proactively in the
    meetings, and manifested my intention to seek professional
    legal advice from Mr. Gunther. At the time I consulted with
    Mr. Gunther I had a legal and equitable interest in the airport
    properties, and considered him to be my attorney vis-á-vis
    those properties.
    13
    
    Id. at 301.
           14
    Aleut 
    Corp., 573 P.2d at 475
    (quoting T.C. Theatre Corp. v. Warner Bros.
    Pictures, 
    113 F. Supp. 265
    , 268 (S.D.N.Y. 1953)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
    -10-                                   7017
    But Aimee fails to demonstrate how her alleged attorney-client relationship
    with Gunther, and the matters allegedly discussed, were substantially related to the
    superior court confirmation and vacatur proceedings. She does not argue, nor does it
    appear from the record, that her alleged participation in the hangar lease negotiations was
    related in any way to the legal dispute raised in her allegations that Donald and the
    businesses breached the settlement agreement. And Aimee’s superior court claims were
    even further removed from her alleged interaction with Gunther — her superior court
    arguments were based on the arbitrator’s procedural decisions, not on the leasing,
    management, or even sale of the airport properties.
    Finally, Aimee fails to establish that there was any “substantial risk that
    confidential factual information obtained in the prior matter would materially advance
    a client’s position in the subsequent matter.”15 Aimee asserts that the subject matter of
    her meetings with Gunther and the subject matter of the arbitration dispute were
    identical, i.e., “what needed to be done with two airport properties in which both parties
    had an interest.” Aimee does not need to establish that Gunther received confidential
    information,16 but she must establish a substantial risk that he did. Aimee fails to explain
    why her involvement and interaction with Gunther during lease negotiations with an
    outside party created a substantial risk that she had revealed confidential information
    relevant to her subsequent application for the superior court to vacate the arbitrator’s
    decision based on alleged procedural errors. And Aimee did not establish that her
    interactions with Gunther — dealing with unrelated litigation and lease negotiations —
    were related to her domestic partnership or breach of contract theories. Because Aimee
    failed to satisfy her burden of explaining or establishing a substantial risk that Gunther
    15
    Alaska R. Prof. Conduct 9.1(q)(2).
    16
    See 
    Griffith, 937 P.2d at 301
    .
    -11­                                       7017
    received confidential information, the superior court did not abuse its discretion when
    denying her disqualification request.
    B.	    The Arbitrator’s Denial Of Aimee’s Disqualification Request Was Not
    Gross Error.
    Aimee asserts that the arbitrator committed gross error when concluding
    that Aimee and Gunther did not have an attorney-client relationship and when
    concluding that Aimee did not consult Gunther on a substantially related matter. A
    preliminary issue not explicitly raised by the parties is the arbitrator’s authority to
    determine whether Gunther had a conflict of interest.17
    Courts that have addressed this issue are split. Some courts have held that
    attorney disqualification issues are outside arbitrators’ jurisdiction, concluding that
    public policy dictates reserving such decisions for courts.18 And it may be inappropriate
    17
    In her opening brief Aimee asserts that the arbitration award should be
    vacated under AS 09.43.500(4). AS 09.43.500(4) provides for vacatur when “an
    arbitrator exceeded the arbitrator’s powers.” But Aimee never develops this argument
    and never explicitly argues that an arbitrator is not authorized to determine whether a
    lawyer has a conflict of interest. And because Aimee is the party who brought the
    disqualification issue to the arbitrator; never disputed the arbitrator’s authority to make
    this decision; never sought a stay of the proceedings to bring the issue before a superior
    court; and has not raised the issue to us, we do nothing more than identify the issue for
    future cases.
    18
    See, e.g., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Benjamin, 
    766 N.Y.S.2d 1
    , 6 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003) (“Another matter ‘intertwined with overriding
    public policy considerations’ and therefore beyond the reach of the arbitrators’ discretion
    is the disqualification of an attorney from representing a client. . . . [I]ssues of attorney
    disqualification involve interpretation and application of the Code of Professional
    Responsibility and Disciplinary Rules and cannot be left to the determination of
    arbitrators selected by the parties themselves for expertise in the particular industries in
    which they are engaged.” (quoting Bidermann Indus. Licensing v. Avmar N.V., 
    570 N.Y.S.2d 33
    , 34 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991))); Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Clements,
    (continued...)
    -12-	                                      7017
    for arbitrators to address disqualification issues because they arguably present
    substantive disputes between one party to the arbitration and their alleged former counsel
    — a party who has not agreed to arbitrate the dispute.19 Other courts, noting that “[t]he
    law provides an opportunity for judicial review of arbitration decisions,” have narrowly
    construed the public policy exception,20 concluding that attorney disqualification
    decisions are procedural decisions for arbitrators to make consistent with the policy of
    encouraging arbitration as a speedy alternative to litigation.21
    Donald and Aimee’s settlement agreement provided: “In the event of any
    dispute, claim or question arising under this Agreement, or related hereto, . . . . [T]hen
    either party shall have the right to submit the matter to the American Arbitration
    Association . . . for arbitration under its Commercial Arbitration Rules . . . .” We have
    18
    (...continued)
    O’Neill, Pierce & Nickens, L.L.P., No. H-99-1882, 
    2000 WL 36098499
    , at *5 (S.D. Tex.
    Sept. 8, 2000) (“[O]verarching policy considerations preclude arbitrators, who are often
    non-lawyers, from interpreting and applying the applicable rules of professional conduct
    for attorneys.”).
    19
    Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 
    2000 WL 36098499
    , at *4 (“[Appellee]
    characterizes the disqualification dispute as nothing more than a matter of [one party’s]
    choice of counsel in the underlying . . . arbitration. However, at its core, the
    disqualification dispute lies between [the alleged client] and [the lawyer], not between
    [the parties to the arbitration].”).
    20
    SOC-SMG, Inc. v. Day & Zimmermann, Inc., No. 5375-VCS, 
    2010 WL 3634204
    , at *3 (Del. Ch. Sept. 15, 2010).
    21
    See, e.g., 
    id. (“Just as
    a trial judge should deal in the first instance with
    alleged discovery abuses or attorney misconduct in cases before her, so should an
    arbitration panel.”); Canaan Venture Partners, L.P. v. Salzman, No. CV 950144056S,
    
    1996 WL 62658
    , at *3 (Conn. Super. Jan. 28, 1996) (“This court will not interfere with
    and interrupt the process of arbitration . . . . Furthermore, the public policy exception is
    to be construed narrowly, and . . . attorney disqualification is not within the scope of the
    exception.”).
    -13-                                       7017
    emphasized a “strong [public] policy favoring arbitration and our rule of construction
    allowing even ambiguous contract terms to be construed in favor of arbitrability.”22 But
    because neither party has ever explicitly argued that the attorney disqualification issue
    was not subject to arbitration — thereby tacitly accepting the arbitrator’s jurisdiction to
    address the issue — we do not need to decide in this case whether disqualification is an
    arbitrable issue.
    The arbitrator did not grossly err when denying the disqualification motion.
    The arbitrator found that Aimee’s motion was filed well after the deadline for motions
    and that Aimee failed to adequately justify her late-filed motion when she knew two
    months earlier that Gunther would participate in the arbitration. The arbitrator also
    found the timing of Aimee’s disqualification motion “suspect.” On appeal Aimee fails
    to argue that either finding was obvious and significant error. Under our deferential
    standard of review, these findings alone are sufficient to affirm the arbitrator’s decision
    denying the disqualification motion.
    Aimee argues that the arbitrator grossly erred when finding no substantial
    relationship between Gunther and Aimee’s prior interactions and the issues addressed
    in the arbitration. The arbitrator found that Aimee and Gunther “in fact met regarding
    the airport properties.” But the arbitrator distinguished (1) Aimee providing “a factual
    basis affidavit dealing with issues involved in [a different] litigation,” and (2) discussing
    a potential lease of one of the hangar properties, from Aimee and Donald’s settlement
    agreement and Aimee’s ownership claims. The arbitrator noted that Aimee:
    does not specifically mention nor does she state any
    discussion she might have had with Gunther that dealt with
    22
    Lexington Mktg. Grp., Inc. v. Goldbelt Eagle, LLC, 
    157 P.3d 470
    , 478
    (Alaska 2007) (citing Univ. of Alaska v. Modern Constr., Inc., 
    522 P.2d 1132
    , 1138
    (Alaska 1974)).
    -14-                                       7017
    any of the issues involved in the Arbitration proceeding. A
    careful reading of the affidavits presented makes it clear that
    [Aimee’s] contact with Gunther . . . did not involve any of the
    issues dealing with the current dispute between the parties in
    the Arbitration proceeding.
    Aimee correctly asserts that under Alaska law she is not required to show
    that confidential information was disclosed in order to disqualify Gunther.23 But the
    arbitrator did not mandate a showing of a confidential disclosure. Rather, the arbitrator
    noted that Aimee failed to establish that her prior interactions with Gunther addressed
    any of the disputed issues in the arbitration. Aimee’s briefs in this appeal and her
    citations to the record similarly fail to establish that Aimee’s discussions with Gunther
    involved any of the same issues — i.e., the alleged domestic partnership and alleged
    breach of the settlement agreement — that the parties disputed in the arbitration.
    Because Aimee does not dispute the arbitrator’s finding that her motion was
    untimely filed without justification, and because the arbitrator reasonably concluded that
    Gunther never consulted with Aimee regarding a substantially related matter, we
    conclude that the arbitrator did not grossly err when denying Aimee’s disqualification
    motion. We therefore conclude that the superior court correctly ruled that the denial was
    insufficient grounds for vacatur.
    C.	    The Arbitrator’s Denial Of Aimee’s Continuance Request Was Not
    Gross Error.
    Alaska Statute 09.43.500(a)(3) requires vacatur of an arbitration award
    when “an arbitrator refused to postpone the hearing on showing of sufficient cause for
    postponement, refused to consider evidence material to the controversy, or otherwise
    conducted the hearing contrary to AS 09.43.420, so as to prejudice substantially the
    rights of a party to the arbitration proceeding.” We have explained that “the party
    23
    See supra, page 11.
    -15-	                                      7017
    challenging [an arbitration] award bears the burden of proof,”24 and we have noted that
    “[c]ourts have rejected most claims that an arbitration proceeding should be vacated
    because of an arbitrator’s refusal to postpone the hearing.”25
    Aimee argues that the inclusion of Donald’s businesses in the arbitration
    complicated the proceedings. Aimee asserts she showed good cause for postponement
    because she needed time to put together a case establishing her domestic partnership
    theory or to show that she was owed much more deferred compensation than she had
    received. Aimee also argues that the need to appraise the airport properties was good
    cause for the continuance because (1) “[t]he gravamen of [Aimee’s] claim [was] that the
    airport hangar properties were never properly valued at the time of the negotiations
    leading to the Settlement Agreement” and (2) the properties’ value was necessary for the
    arbitrator’s determination “whether the Settlement Agreement was breached, was
    rescinded, expired, or was never fully integrated in the first place, and what remedy
    would be most fair and equitable to the parties.”
    When denying Aimee’s motion to continue, the arbitrator noted that the
    arbitration had been continued twice before: first, upon the parties’ stipulation the
    arbitration had been continued from early December 2012 until late January 2013, and
    second, a week after Aimee first moved to continue, before the arbitrator issued a
    decision on the continuance motion, the arbitration was continued for two weeks due to
    Aimee’s counsel’s illness. The arbitrator’s order denying the continuance also noted that
    the gravamen of Aimee’s original claim was an alleged breach of the settlement
    agreement, that Aimee sought “half of the . . . fair market value of the two airport
    24
    City of Fairbanks Mun. Utils. Sys. v. Lees, 
    705 P.2d 457
    , 461 (Alaska
    1985).
    25
    Ebasco Constructors, Inc. v. Ahtna, Inc., 
    932 P.2d 1312
    , 1316 n.1 (Alaska
    1997).
    -16­                                     7017
    properties,” and that Aimee’s arbitration notice recognized that “[q]uantification of the
    [fair market value] is complex, and likely to be controversial.”
    The arbitrator found that Aimee’s motion to continue was “clearly
    untimely” and that Aimee failed to advance a “just reason” for the late motion.
    Explaining that arbitration helps “resolve disputes privately, promptly, and
    economically,” the arbitrator found that “it is clear that [Aimee] knew from the beginning
    of this arbitration process that the fair market value of the property was an issue that she
    had raised by her pleadings” and that “a continuance of the arbitration would delay the
    final resolution of the dispute between the parties and would defeat the primary benefit
    of arbitration.”
    The arbitrator’s denial did not address Aimee’s assertions that a
    continuance was warranted because addition of the businesses complicated the
    arbitration and because she needed more time to gather evidence of a domestic
    partnership. But none of Aimee’s assertions establish that the arbitrator’s denial of her
    continuance request was obvious and significant error. First, the businesses obviously
    were necessary parties to the arbitration, and Aimee expressly consented to their addition
    and the new arbitration date. Second, in his ultimate decision the arbitrator relied on
    evidence in the record reflecting the parties’ views on whether Aimee was due any
    additional deferred compensation.       Third, when Aimee submitted the dispute to
    arbitration asserting a breach of contract, she did not explain that she planned to argue
    for a remedy under her domestic partnership theory.
    Because the arbitrator soundly justified denying Aimee’s continuance
    request, we conclude that the superior court correctly ruled that the denial was
    insufficient grounds for vacatur.
    -17-                                       7017
    D.	    The Superior Court Was Not Required To Sua Sponte Conduct An
    Evidentiary Hearing.
    Aimee did not request an evidentiary hearing during the confirmation and
    vacatur proceedings. But she now asserts that the superior court’s failure to sua sponte
    conduct an evidentiary hearing was erroneous.
    1.	    No statute requires a sua sponte evidentiary hearing.
    Describing the superior court’s role in confirmation and vacatur
    proceedings as that of “an intermediate appellate body,” Aimee argues that the statute
    providing the superior court’s appellate jurisdiction, AS 22.10.020(d), includes the
    requirement to conduct “hearings on appeal.” Aimee then notes that she and Donald
    contested facts that were relevant for the superior court’s confirmation and vacatur
    decisions. Thus, Aimee concludes that the superior court failed to hold “a hearing to see
    whether in fact criteria from AS 09.43.500 justified vacation . . . . [A]nd its failure to
    conduct any hearing whatsoever before simply confirming the award derogated its duty
    to properly review the arbitration’s compliance with AS 09.43.500.”
    Aimee incorrectly classifies the superior court’s action in this case as
    intermediate appellate review. Alaska Statue 22.10.020(d) establishes the superior
    court’s appellate jurisdiction over matters appealed from subordinate courts and
    administrative agencies.26 But the superior court does not exercise appellate jurisdiction
    over arbitration disputes; rather, the court exercises original jurisdiction over applications
    26
    See AS 22.10.020(d) (“The superior court has jurisdiction in all matters
    appealed to it from a subordinate court, or administrative agency when appeal is
    provided by law, and has jurisdiction over petitions for relief in administrative matters
    under AS 44.62.305. The hearings on appeal from a final order or judgment of a
    subordinate court or administrative agency, except an appeal under AS 43.05.242, shall
    be on the record unless the superior court, in its discretion, grants a trial de novo, in
    whole or in part. The hearings on appeal from a final order or judgment under
    AS 43.05.242 shall be on the record.”).
    -18-	                                       7017
    to confirm or vacate arbitration awards.27 And the RUAA does not include an explicit
    requirement that courts conduct a hearing when addressing applications to confirm,
    modify, or vacate arbitration awards.28 We conclude that the superior court had no
    statutory obligation to sua sponte conduct an evidentiary hearing. This conclusion is
    consistent with our precedent: “In order to preserve the finality of arbitration awards,
    the superior court’s function in confirming or vacating an arbitration award must
    necessarily be limited.”29
    27
    See Leisnoi, Inc. v. Merdes & Merdes, P.C., 
    307 P.3d 879
    , 892 (Alaska
    2013) (“The superior court is the trial court of general jurisdiction, with original
    jurisdiction over civil matters. . . . Unquestionably, the superior court initially had
    subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether the arbitration award was valid.
    (footnote omitted) (emphasis added)); AS 22.10.020(a).
    In asserting that superior court confirmation and vacatur proceedings must
    include evidentiary hearings because the court must resolve factual disputes while
    conducting intermediate appellate review, Aimee exhibits confusion about the difference
    between oral argument and an evidentiary hearing. We have explained that oral
    argument addresses legal propositions while evidentiary hearings address relevant factual
    disputes. See Stinson v. Holder, 
    996 P.2d 1238
    , 1242 (Alaska 2000) (“[I]t was necessary
    to conduct an evidentiary hearing to allow testimony about Stinson’s mental state and
    to find facts about his competence at relevant times. The superior court had discretion
    to decide whether to hear oral argument on Stinson’s motion, and it could well have
    decided that oral argument on the legal propositions presented was not necessary. But
    it was an abuse of discretion to deny the motion without hearing and determining the
    relevant facts.” (footnote omitted)). Parties to an appeal may request oral argument.
    Alaska R. App. P. 605.5(b). But Aimee appears to argue for both oral argument and an
    evidentiary hearing, i.e., without providing a basis in law, she argues that because
    superior court confirmation and vacatur proceedings are intermediate appellate review
    and because she alleges factual disputes, she is entitled to an evidentiary hearing.
    28
    See AS 09.43.470, .490, .500, .510.
    29
    
    Lees, 705 P.2d at 460
    .
    -19-                                     7017
    2.	    The superior court did not violate Aimee’s right to due process
    when confirming the arbitration award without an evidentiary
    hearing.
    Aimee asserts that her right to due process was violated because the
    superior court proceedings “involve[d] substantial property interests, and [Alaska
    precedent] mandates that [Aimee] was entitled to a hearing to present her case.” But
    when a party fails to request an evidentiary hearing we will review a court’s failure to
    sua sponte conduct an evidentiary hearing only for plain error.30 “Plain error exists if ‘an
    obvious mistake has been made which creates a high likelihood that injustice has
    resulted.’ ”31 And even if Aimee had the right to an evidentiary hearing, which we do
    not suggest, procedural due process does not guarantee that a party will receive an
    evidentiary hearing on all material fact disputes because “[a] party may waive the right
    to an evidentiary hearing on disputed material questions of fact by failing to request one
    30
    See In re Estate of Fields, 
    219 P.3d 995
    , 1011 (Alaska 2009) (“We will
    consider an issue not raised below or in a statement of points on appeal if it reflects plain
    error, which exists if ‘an obvious mistake has been made which creates a high likelihood
    that injustice has resulted.’ We cannot conclude that the failure to sua sponte order an
    unrequested discretionary evidentiary hearing on the Alaska Civil Rule 60(b) motion was
    an obvious mistake that created a high likelihood of injustice.” (footnote omitted)
    (quoting Miller v. Sears, 
    636 P.2d 1183
    , 1189 (Alaska 1981))); Owen M. v. State, Office
    of Children’s Servs., 
    120 P.3d 201
    , 203 (Alaska 2005) (“We review [appellant’s]
    argument for plain error because he did not ask the superior court for an evidentiary
    hearing on [his child’s] placement. . . . [Appellant] cannot show plain error. The
    superior court did not make an obvious mistake in not holding an evidentiary hearing
    because neither the statute nor the [Child in Need of Aid R]ule explicitly requires one.”
    (footnotes omitted)).
    31
    Johnson v. Johnson, 
    239 P.3d 393
    , 407 (Alaska 2010) (quoting Estate of
    
    Fields, 219 P.3d at 1011
    ).
    -20-	                                      7017
    before the court rules on the matter.”32
    During the confirmation and vacatur proceedings Aimee challenged only
    two procedural decisions by the arbitrator. These were discretionary decisions subject
    to review only for gross error. As discussed above, the arbitrator explained his decisions
    and they were supported by the arbitration record. Because the superior court’s decision
    to confirm the arbitration award based on the parties’ applications and the arbitration
    record was not an obvious mistake that created a high likelihood of injustice, we
    conclude that Aimee’s right to due process was not violated.
    E.	    The Superior Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion Or Err As A Matter
    Of Law When Awarding Full Reasonable Attorney’s Fees.
    The superior court awarded Donald and his businesses full reasonable
    attorney’s fees for the confirmation proceedings. The court explained that the “award
    of actual reasonable attorney[’s] fees and cost[s] in this case is mandated by the
    November 2005 Settlement Agreement. Even if the Settlement Agreement did not
    mandate an award of such costs and fees, they are independently appropriate pursuant
    to Civil Rule 82(b)(3) and the policy favoring arbitration.” The court supported its
    independent Rule 82 conclusion with findings that “[Aimee’s] case was largely frivolous
    and devoid of merit. [Aimee] showed a remarkable use of untrue and misleading facts.
    [Aimee] engaged in an unfounded campaign to damage the personal and business
    reputations of [Donald] and [his businesses].”
    Focusing on the superior court’s findings, Aimee argues that awarding the
    fees without an evidentiary hearing violated her right to due process and that the fee
    award was unreasonable. But Aimee ignores the superior court’s first basis for the
    attorney’s fees award: The court concluded that the award “is mandated by the
    32
    DeNardo v. Maassen, 
    200 P.3d 305
    , 315 (Alaska 2009) (citing Corbin v.
    Corbin, 
    68 P.3d 1269
    , 1274 (Alaska 2003)).
    -21-	                                    7017
    November 2005 Settlement Agreement.” Rule 82(a) provides: “Except as otherwise
    provided by law or agreed to by the parties, the prevailing party in a civil case shall be
    awarded attorney’s fees calculated under this rule.” (Emphasis added.)
    The settlement agreement provided for a full reasonable attorney’s fees
    award made to the prevailing party in arbitration and explained that “[t]he decision and
    award of the arbitrator shall be final and binding upon the parties and non-appealable.”
    The settlement agreement also included the following provision: “In the event that either
    party shall without fault on its part be made a party to any litigation commenced by or
    against the other, then such party shall pay all costs and reasonable actual attorneys fees
    incurred or paid by such party in connection with such litigation.” In her briefing Aimee
    does not dispute the superior court’s conclusion that the settlement agreement mandates
    a full reasonable attorney’s fees award. Therefore we do not need to consider Aimee’s
    arguments under Rule 82.
    Aimee does argue that the attorney’s fees award was unreasonable. When
    determining whether attorney’s fees are reasonable courts “often focus[] on two factors:
    (1) the hourly rate charged and (2) the number of hours reported.”33 But Aimee’s
    argument focuses on neither of these factors. Rather than asserting that Donald’s and the
    businesses’ lawyers spent an unreasonable amount of time or billed an unreasonable
    amount per hour, Aimee focuses only on whether it was reasonable to award full
    attorney’s fees at all.    “[T]he trial court is in the best position to determine
    reasonableness as ‘it has knowledge of the case that the reviewing court lacks’ and ‘[t]he
    trial court’s greater knowledge of the case makes it uniquely suited to [determine
    33
    Okagawa v. Yaple, 
    234 P.3d 1278
    , 1281-82 (Alaska 2010).
    -22-                                      7017
    reasonable actual attorney’s fees] quickly, accurately, and fairly.’ ”34 We conclude that
    the amount awarded was not an abuse of discretion.
    Aimee finally argues that the superior court, when awarding attorney’s fees
    without holding oral argument or an evidentiary hearing, violated her right to due
    process. But Aimee never requested any kind of in person hearing on the issue of
    attorney’s fees, and she cannot dispute that she had the opportunity to be heard during
    the motion practice by submitting her opposition to the requests for attorney’s fees.
    Because the superior court properly awarded attorney’s fees based on the
    settlement agreement and because Aimee never requested, nor was she necessarily
    entitled to, an evidentiary hearing or oral argument on the reasonableness of the fees, we
    conclude that the superior court did not err in its attorney’s fees award.
    V.    CONCLUSION
    We AFFIRM the superior court’s decisions confirming the arbitration
    award and awarding Donald and the businesses their actual reasonable attorney’s fees
    for the confirmation proceeding.
    34
    
    Id. at 1282
    (second two alterations in original) (quoting Valdez Fisheries
    Dev. Ass’n v. Froines, 
    217 P.3d 830
    , 833 (Alaska 2009)).
    -23-                                      7017