The court rejected an attempt to vacate an arbitration award pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Arbitration Act based on the losing party’s allegations that the arbitrator’s previous written opinion in a different matter evidenced his partiality on a particular rule of law. Antietam Indus., Inc. v. Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc.,No 12-1250 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 25, 2013). The court observed that cases addressing “evident partiality” of arbitrators have all focused on the arbitrator’s non-disclosure of relationships that the arbitrator had with a party or a party’s counsel, family or others. The court refused to extend the grounds for asserting “evident partiality” to an arbitrator’s alleged predisposition on an issue of law.