a motion to disqualify an arbitrator). 38 . See, e.g., 2/18/11 NNIC's Memorandum of Law in Support of Its Petition to Appoint an Arbitrator, No. 11 Civ. 1124, Dkt. No. 4, at 4-5. 39 . This Court has previously relied on diversity jurisdiction to consider a motion to disqualify counsel in an arbitration. See Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau v. Munich Reinsurance Am., Inc., No. 10 Civ. 3558, 2011 WL 1873123, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 16, 2011). 40 . Def. Mem. at 10. 41 . See 8/2/11 Pre-Motion Conference at 4:16-18 (noting that "it may [be that] the facts are sui generis. It may be there is no reported case about an attorney having access to the communications among the arbitration panel.”). 42 . See Munich Reinsurance Am., Inc. v. ACE Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 500 F.Supp.2d 272, 275-76 (S.D.N.Y.2007) (<HOLDING>); Yardis Corp. v. Levine, No. 89 Civ. 8794,
recognizing commonwealth court authority supporting proposition that arbitrators exceeded their jurisdiction when they considered issues which were not properly presented in the demand for arbitration holding that the court rather than arbitrators determines issues of attorney disqualification in arbitration holding that a court reviewing an arbitrators award in an act 111 grievance arbitration involves questions regarding 1 the jurisdiction of the arbitrator 2 the regularity of the proceedings 3 an excess of the arbitrators powers and 4 deprivation of constitutional rights holding that the economic substance of a transaction rather than its form determines its tax treatment holding that although party participated in arbitration even presenting argument on merits it had not waived its objection to arbitrators jurisdiction because it consistently objected to arbitrators jurisdiction throughout proceedings