Rule 70-I.Confirming, Vacating, or Modifying Arbitration Awards Under the Arbitration Amendments Act of 2007 (Revised Uniform Arbitration Act)

Arbitration is meant to be faster and less adversarial than litigation, and Rule 70-I keeps the court's role in that process narrow and structured. An application to confirm, vacate, or modify an arbitration award must take the form of a motion accompanied by a proposed order. The motion has to establish that a written agreement or order to arbitrate existed and that an award was rendered under it, and it must attach copies of the underlying agreement or order, any arbitrator or umpire selected outside of what the agreement specified, the award itself, and any papers filed with the arbitrator asking to correct or modify the award along with whatever the arbitrator decided on that request.

Service follows Rule 4 in the ordinary case, but where the court already has jurisdiction over a party, service of the motion can instead proceed under the simpler mechanics of Rule 5. Consistent with the limited scope of judicial review that arbitration is supposed to receive, Rule 70-I(b) treats the whole proceeding as summary in nature: discovery is available only on a showing of good cause, not as a matter of course.

A party who objects to the award has to raise every objection through a formal opposition to the motion, stated with particularity rather than in general terms, and that opposition is due within 21 days of service — extended to 60 days when the opposing party is the District of Columbia, the United States, or an officer or agency of either. If the court ultimately vacates the award, Rule 70-I(d) gives it discretion to send the matter back for an arbitration rehearing, but only on a finding that doing so would not be contrary to law or equity.

This rule governs applications made under the Arbitration Amendments Act of 2007 — the District's version of the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act, which has controlled arbitration agreements in the District regardless of when they were signed since it took effect in mid-2009. It does not reach awards issued under the Superior Court's own civil arbitration program, which follow a separate set of rules. Because the District's arbitration statute closely tracks its federal counterpart, courts applying it have also looked to how federal courts interpret the analogous federal arbitration statute for guidance where the local and federal provisions do not meaningfully differ.