The district court granted a motion to remove an arbitrator from presiding over an ongoing arbitration because of his failure timely to disclose a business pursuit that was likely to give rise to doubt regarding his impartiality. Sussex v. Turnberry/MGM Grand Towers, LLC, No. 08-cv-00773 (D. Nev. Dec. 31, 2013). Two years after his appointment, the arbitrator updated his LinkedIn profile to announce that he had recently refocused his practice to concentrate on the field of Litigation Finance and Funding. Defendants requested the arbitration administrator to review the arbitrator’s appointment based on his new disclosure, but the administrator denied the request to remove him. Defendants then filed a motion in the district court to disqualify the arbitrator. Granting the motion, the court found that it had equitable authority to intervene in extreme cases such as this, rather than have years of complicated proceedings in the underlying arbitration ensue and only then be subject to challenge. The court concluded that the goal of an expeditious and just arbitration would be furthered by the court’s intervention at the pre-award stage.