Bobby N. Harmon, CPCU, ARM
Louisville, Kentucky 40229-1655
June 2, 2004
VIA fax only @ (559) 490-1919
Mr. James B. Farris
Senior Case Manager
American Arbitration Association
6795 North Palm Avenue, 2nd Ave.
Fresno, California 93704
RE: Mary Lou Woo, Trustee v. Bobby N. Harmon - Case No. 74 166 00491 03 JAFA
Dear Mr. Farris:
This is to comment on Judith Neustadter’s letter to you dated May 28, 2004, in which she states, in part:
“I have reviewed the Claimant’s Motion to Require Respondent’s Personal Appearance at Arbitration Hearing. I did not receive any opposition or other response from Respondent. Based on the records and files herein, and in accordance with my commitment to issue an order today due to the time-sensitivity of the issues raised in the motion, I order the following:
1. The Hearing will be held on June 14 and 15, 2004, as scheduled. The Claimant shall confirm that the Hearing will be held at the Bankruptcy Court in Honolulu.
2. The Arbitrator will travel to Honolulu to preside over the Hearing in person. The Claimant shall reimburse the Arbitrator for travel expenses (round-trip travel each day, airport parking, taxi fare to/from Bankruptcy Court). The Arbitrator will not bill for travel time.
3. Mr. Harmon shall either:
a. Appear in person at the Hearing, with travel expenses to be paid by the Claimant, as outlined in Claimant’s motion. To choose this option, Mr. Harmon shall so advise Mr. Guttman, through the American Arbitration Association, in writing by or before 11:00 a.m., Hawaii time, on Wednesday, June 2, 2004. If Mr. Harmon timely makes this choice, Mr. Guttman shall without delay finalize the proposed travel arrangements and deliver tickets/confirmation information to Respondent;
or,
b. Participate in the Hearing by video-conference in Kentucky at the location reserved and paid for by the Claimant. Mr. Harmon may choose this option in writing at any time. However, in the event Mr. Harmon does not affirmatively choose either option, Mr. Harmon will be deemed to have chosen to participate by video-conference from Kentucky. Moreover, Mr. Harmon will be deemed to have waived any objection he may have to the Arbitrator being in the same room as the Claimant, the Claimant’s attorney, and/or any witness without Mr. Harmon’s presence. Should Mr. Harmon wish to ever raise an objection in the regard, Mr. Harmon must timely choose to travel to Honolulu as outlined in choice a., above.
“It appeared from the Claimant’s motion that Claimant does not object to the Arbitrator being in the same room as the Claimant, the Claimant’s attorney, and/or any witness without Mr. Harmon’s presence. If the Claimant does object, the Claimant shall state its objection in writing and deliver it to the American Arbitration Association by 11:00 a.m., Hawaii time, on Tuesday, June 1, 2004. If no such objection is delivered, the Claimant will be deemed to have waived any such objection.”
For the reasons stated in RESPONDENT’S OBJECTION TO CLAIMANT’S MOTION TO REQUIRE RESPONDENT’S PERSONAL APPEARANCE AT ARBITRATION HEARING, I do elect to participate in these scheduled hearings by teleconference in Kentucky. However, as I do not have an attorney representing me in these proceedings, I do object to being required to waive the AAA’s rules that prohibit the Arbitrator and the Claimant from being at the same hearing location when the Respondent, or his legal representative, is not able to be present.
This order is even more objectionable now that I have learned that some of my Witnesses may be located in California, as described in my letters to Steven Guttman dated June 2, 2004. Since I became aware of this new information on this date, it is highly improbable that I can contact these newly identified witnesses, take their statements, and, if necessary, arrange for them to participate in the video conference.
All things considered, I continue to believe that both of Mr. Gluttman’s means of conducting these hearings is unduly burdensome and costly to all parties involved. I again suggest that these hearings be held by means of a relatively simple telephone conference, similar to those we have conducted in our pre-hearing conferences. This would avoid breaking any of the AAA’s rules, and would be the least expensive, by far, of the alternate methods. This would also allow the newly identified witnesses opportunity to participate from their current locations wherever they might be.
Due to the current tenuous nature of the scheduling of these proceedings, conducting the hearings by telephone would also save possible cancellation charges for airline tickets, television facilities, etc., in the event these hearings are cancelled or postponed.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely yours,
Bobby N. Harmon
cc: Mary Lou Woo, Trustee,
c/o Steven Guttman, Esq., Kessner Duca Umebayashi Bain & Matsunaga
(via fax only @ 808-529-7177)
This is a leaf from
~ ~ ~
To fly to the top of the tree