February18,2014
Preliminary hearings were held telephonically on
April 23, May 12
June 2 and June12
2014 on each occasion Mr. Leckrone
participated but renewed his stated position of making a special
appearance for the sole purpose of contesting jurisdiction and
arbitrability
as to him
I have considered the positions urged by Claimant and
Respondent and
reviewed the relevant portions of t
he PDS
Operating Agreement;
the parties to that agreement are Patriot
and TPL, not Mes
srs. Johnson and Leckrone, and
those parties
Q
(Patriot and TPL)
, not Messrs. Johnson and
Leckrone, agreed
that
the arbitrator could decide issues of ju
risdiction and the
arbitrator
’
authority. Based on my consideration of the parties
’
submissions, I conclude that neither Mr. Johnson nor Mr.
Leckrone are or should be deemed
“
parties
”
to the Operating Agreement for the purposes and
relief sought in thisarbitration,
and that absent a court order I do not have jurisdiction to decide
issues
between the current Claimant and Respondent in
this
arbitration.Neith
er Mr. Johnson nor Mr. Leckrone
executed the
Operating Agreement
in their individual capacities
or agreed that the arbitrator, as opposed to a court of competent jurisdiction,
could decide issues of jurisdiction or arbitral authority.
Rather than dismiss the arbitration outright and thereby require
the filing and commencement o
f another arbitration
Respondent
’
s motion/request that he be dismissed from this
arbitration is GRANTED, but without prejudice to Claimant, or, if
Claimant elects, another Claimant s uch as Patriot, to amend its
Demand to assert claims against a proper party, presumably TPL.
Claimant is granted twenty (20) calendar days within w
hich to
.