"In arguing the arbitrator’s legal error in applying the honest belief defense is not subject to judicial review, AutoNation disingenuously asserts the Supreme Court in
Pearson Dental 'refused to adopt the rule that "all legal errors are reviewable in this context."' It is difficult for us to accept this as simply an innocent misreading of the Court’s reservation of the question for another day."
to this:
"In arguing the arbitrator’s legal error in applying the honest belief defense is not subject to judicial review, AutoNation asserts the Supreme Court in Pearson Dental 'refused to adopt the rule that "all legal errors are reviewable in this context.’” AutoNation has clearly misread the Court's reservation of the question for another day."
In other words: You've convinced us in your petition for rehearing that you're not necessarily sleazy, and perhaps are merely stupid.
P.S. - Given that I was slightly critical of the merits of the underlying opinion, I think being soft on the lawyers is the right -- as well as a nice -- move.
to this:
"In arguing the arbitrator’s legal error in applying the honest belief defense is not subject to judicial review, AutoNation asserts the Supreme Court in Pearson Dental 'refused to adopt the rule that "all legal errors are reviewable in this context.’” AutoNation has clearly misread the Court's reservation of the question for another day."
In other words: You've convinced us in your petition for rehearing that you're not necessarily sleazy, and perhaps are merely stupid.
P.S. - Given that I was slightly critical of the merits of the underlying opinion, I think being soft on the lawyers is the right -- as well as a nice -- move.
