Colin Masseau, et ux. v. Guy Henning, et al.

Colin and Emily Masseau were a young couple looking to purchasing their first home and hired a local Vermont licensed home inspector to inspect that home. During the inspection he failed to point out patent and obvious signs of potential asbestos in the stucco ceiling as required by Vermont law. The Masseaus sued the inspector and the state court held the Federal Arbitration Act applied even though the transaction took place entirely in Vermont and was not in interstate commerce and did not substantially impact interstate commerce. At arbitration the Arbitrator decided the case on a motion to dismiss that was previously filed by the Defendant and fully responded to by both parties. The Arbitrator did not accept as true facts in the complaint and dismissed the claim without a hearing, even though Vermont has a very liberal notice pleading standard that was both pleaded and known to the Arbitrator. If the Vermont Arbitration Act had applied, the arbitration agreement would have been void for lack of notice and the matter would not have gone to arbitration.

1. Does a court have the right under the Federal Arbitration Act to review a decision of the Arbitrator where the Arbitrator has engaged in a manifest disregard of the law, and is this a separate duty or just judicial gloss of the grounds under 9 U.S.C. § 10(a) (3)&(4) for vacating an arbitration decision where the Arbitrator failed to consider evidence in the complaint in deciding a motion to dismiss and thus refused to consider evidence pertinent and material to the controversy? 2. Did the Federal Arbitration Act apply to the transaction between the Masseaus and the Defendants since it involved only intrastate commerce and did not substantially impact interstate commerce as required for the Federal Arbitration Act to be applicable?

2. Is the Federal Arbitration Act a rule of procedure or a substantive law and should the Supreme Court overturn Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1, 104 S.Ct. 852 (1984) and hold that the Federal Arbitration Act does not apply to proceedings in state courts and is its current application unconstitutional where it applies to contracts of adhesion pursuant to AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 131 S.Ct. 1740 (2011)?