Exhibit 11 — JAMS NAC Decision Denying Challenge to Arbitrator - OTO Analytics, LLC (Womply) v. Benworth Capital Partners LLC (N.D. Cal. No. 3:24-cv-03975)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · No. 4:24-cv-03975-AMO · Doc. 41-13 · 2024-08-20 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

EXHIBIT 11 
 
 
 
Case 4:24-cv-03975-AMO     Document 41-13     Filed 08/20/24     Page 1 of 3

 
 
 
NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES 
 
 
 
 
 
 
          March 16, 2023 
 
RE: 
Oto Analytics, Inc. dba Womply vs Benworth Capital Partners, LLC - 
1210038203 
 
 
Dear Parties: 
  
Pursuant to JAMS Comprehensive Arbitration Rules 1(c) and 15 the JAMS National Arbitration 
Committee (“NAC”) has received and reviewed Respondent’s challenge to the continued service 
of Lex Brainard, Esq. as the arbitrator, and Claimant’s response thereto. 
  
Mr. Brainard was appointed the arbitrator on October 19, 2021. Since his appointment, 
extensive work has been conducted on the matter. There have been numerous conference 
calls, hearings, and decisions issued by the arbitrator. The ten-day arbitration hearing is set to 
begin in a few days on March 20, 2023. Respondent now challenges the continued service of 
the arbitrator based on an alleged pattern of prejudice against Respondent in the arbitrator’s 
rulings, and alleged conduct by the arbitrator during a recent pre-hearing conference. 
  
Regarding Respondent’s challenge based on the recent conference between the parties and the 
arbitrator, Respondent alleges that the arbitrator is incapable of impartiality and that “no 
reasonable party would expect to receive a fair adjudication of its claims after being subjected 
to the prejudicial attacks.” Respondent does not allege any other similar behavior on the other 
numerous calls and hearings conducted during this matter.  
  
Adverse rulings are not evidence of bias per se to justify the removal of an arbitrator for cause. 
JAMS, as an ADR provider, has no authority to review an arbitrator’s decision, however, it does 
appear that the many rulings on this case are thorough and balanced. It does not appear that 
the arbitrator is “unfamiliar” with the issues as Respondent alleges. Any issue Respondent has 
with the arbitrator’s rulings, should be directed to the arbitrator. 
  
Furthermore, Respondent raises these issues for the first time, approximately ten days before 
the start of the arbitration hearing. As highlighted above, there have been extensive rulings 
previously issued, including the rulings that Respondent alleges show prejudice on the part of 
the arbitrator. 
  
JAMS Comprehensive Rule 15(i) provides that at any time during the arbitration process, a party 
may challenge the continued service of the arbitrator for cause. JAMS shall make the final 
determination as to such challenge, and such determination shall take into account the 
materiality of the facts and any prejudice to the parties. (Emphasis added). 
  
Case 4:24-cv-03975-AMO     Document 41-13     Filed 08/20/24     Page 2 of 3

Oto Analytics, Inc. dba Womply vs Benworth Capital Partners, LLC – 1210038203 
March 16, 2023 
P a g e  | 2 
 
 
 
The arbitrator has conducted extensive work on the matter for approximately a year and a half. 
Delay of the hearing and replacement of the arbitrator at this juncture, based on alleged 
conduct during one conference call would cause great prejudice to the parties. Additionally, 
Claimant disputes that there is any bias on the part of the arbitrator. Accordingly, there is no 
material proof of bias by the arbitrator. 
  
Taking into account the materiality of the facts and any prejudice to the parties, Respondent’s 
challenge to the continued service of the Arbitrator is denied. 
 
Sincerely, 
 
/s/ Kimberly Loew 
 
Kimberly Loew, Esq. 
Counsel, Legal Affairs 
Member, JAMS National Arbitration Committee 
Case 4:24-cv-03975-AMO     Document 41-13     Filed 08/20/24     Page 3 of 3

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cand.431982.41.13.pdf

Size

189,018 bytes

SHA-256

2bc958d4760823c16ea5d9ecb337495c7265c003833c66658d06c2a656f9e2f6

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cand.431982.41.13.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)