Newly Released Decisions
The Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic v. Baldwin, No. 1:22-CV-00011 (D.N. Mar. Is. April 3, 2025)
Court granted respondents’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Court accepted respondents’ argument that the Government of Laos’ petition to enforce an arbitration award against them was premature, as respondents were not parties to the underlying arbitration and a determination of whether respondents could be held liable as alter egos was inappropriate in the context of an action to confirm an arbitration award.
Abbas v. Truist Bank, No. 3:24-CV-01283 (M.D. Tenn. March 20, 2025)
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that defendants could not use a separately signed contract containing an arbitration agreement to compel plaintiffs to arbitrate an issue arising from a contract containing no such provision.
Arrive NOLA Hotel, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London, No. 24-1585 (E.D. La. March 20, 2025)
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration as to both foreign and domestic insurers involved and granted motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration. Court found that plaintiff’s signature was not necessary for the agreement to arbitrate to be valid, because the arbitration clause was part of a larger contract—in this case, an insurance policy—that was in writing and effective. Court further held that the agreement was not null and void because, though the plaintiff did not consent to the terms of the original policy, plaintiff manifested consent by renewing the policy containing the arbitration clause. Court also held that, following Fifth Circuit precedent, federal equitable estoppel principles could be used to compel arbitration as to domestic insurers when foreign insurers were required to arbitrate under the New York Convention.
Maclin v. Allenbrooke Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC, No. 2:24-CV-02472-TLP-ATC (W.D. Tenn. March 19, 2025)
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay federal court proceedings, finding that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable on account of its length, or the differences in bargaining power. Despite finding that the fee provision was unenforceable, court nevertheless found it was severable. Court also rejected plaintiff’s claim that the agreement was unenforceable because it constituted a violation of the defendant care facility’s fiduciary duty. Court found that the agreement was compliant with federal statute, and that any further questions of enforceability would go to the arbitrator.
Cuker v. Berezofsky, No. 24-0471 (E.D. Pa. March 18, 2025)
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm final arbitration award and denied defendant’s cross-motion to vacate or modify the award. Court dismissed defendant’s manifest disregard argument that arbitral panel misallocated fees among the parties and that the panel also misinterpreted the governing dissolution agreement, resulting in a misallocation of costs for the proceeding. Court found there was strong support for the panel’s decisions, and that one of the matters for which the defendant argued fees were misallocated was not raised at arbitration.
Merritt v. Square Capital, LLC, No. 2:24-CV-02196-TLP-ATC (W.D. Tenn. March 18, 2025)
Court adopted magistrate’s report and recommendation and granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the magistrate correctly noted that each of plaintiff’s arguments against referring the matter to arbitration were issues that themselves needed to be arbitrated.
Teleport Mobility, Inc v. Sywula, No. 21-CV-00874-SI (N.D. Cal. March 18, 2025)
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to lift the stay proceedings, denied defendant’s motion to vacate the award, and confirmed the arbitration award in part but held it did not have jurisdiction to confirm the award in full. Court held it only had jurisdiction over the portions of the award concerning issues and parties previously before the court, and that the other portions of the award would need to be confirmed by a state court judge.
Zhuhai Dingfu Phase I Industrial Energy Conservation Investment Fund, LP v. Zhang, No. 8:23-CV-02059-MRA-JDE (C.D. Ca. Jan. 21, 2025).
Court granted petitioner’s motion for recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral award, finding that the petitioner had submitted an authentic arbitration award to the court; that notice was sufficient because a subsidiary—for whom the respondent was the controller and legal representative—participated in the arbitration proceedings and respondent appeared to be aware of this participation. Court further dismissed respondent’s defenses that he could not adequately participate in the proceedings due to COVID-19 travel restrictions, finding that respondent did not adequately prove that remote appearances or appearance through counsel were unavailable. Court also found respondent’s duress defense unpersuasive, noting the respondent did not make any effort to repudiate the contract until now.