Giron v. Dodds

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that a post-arbitration claim seeking to pierce a corporation’s veil and enforce an arbitration award against individual shareholders was not subject to the parties’ construction-contract arbitration agreement. The court concluded that the veil-piercing claim arose from efforts to collect the award, rather than from the contract, and that the arbitrator had clarified that no veil-piercing claim had been submitted. The court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration.

Holdings

1. The Dodds' claim to pierce C & C's corporate veil to collect the arbitration award was a separate enforcement claim arising from efforts to collect the award, not a new controversy arising out of or relating to the construction contract. The trial court therefore properly exercised jurisdiction without compelling a second arbitration.
2. The veil-piercing claim was not barred as a previously arbitrated claim because the Dodds had proceeded in arbitration under an undisclosed-principal theory, not a corporate-veil-piercing theory, and the arbitrator expressly determined that no veil-piercing claim had been submitted.
3. The trial court did not err in applying Schattner's reasoning to the Girons' motion to compel arbitration.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Dodds' post-award claim to pierce C & C's corporate veil and impose personal liability on the Girons was subject to the construction-contract arbitration agreement.
2. Whether the veil-piercing claim was barred because the allegations had already been submitted to or decided in the prior arbitration.
3. Whether the trial court properly relied on Schattner v. Girard, Inc. in allowing the veil-piercing claim to proceed in court.

Disposition

affirmed