As alternative dispute resolution seems to take an ever-widening bite out of the cases routed through the federal courts, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Pasadena on Monday questioned how much information is enough for parties to decide the appearance of impartiality of arbitrators during arguments in Monster Energy vs. City Beverages.

Energy drink company Monster Energy Co. is asking the court to confirm its arbitration award against distributor City Beverages LLC, which does business as Olympic Eagle Distributing. However, Olympic argues that it did not get a fair resolution in the case terminating its contract with Monster because of the energy drink company’s connection with arbitration services provider JAMS.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]