Newly Released Decisions
Next Level Ventures, LLC v. Avid Holdings, Ltd., No. 23-35404 (9th Cir. Oct. 10, 2024)
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s finding that motion to vacate arbitral award was untimely since it was filed more than three months after the award was delivered. In particular, it found the movant was not entitled to equitable tolling because it received actual notice of the arbitration award more than three months before it moved to vacate it.
Purple Innovation, LLC v. Responsive Surface Technology LLC, 2:20-CV-00708-RJS-CMR (D. Utah Oct. 8, 2024)
Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award and denied cross-motion to vacate arbitration award, finding none of the defendants’ arguments concerning vacatur under the FAA to have merit. In particular, the defendants challenged the arbitrator’s award of legal fees and costs. Court found such an award permissible, in part because of the arbitrator’s express reasoning and legal findings.
Dunn v. Global Trust Management, LLC, No. 21-10120 (11th Cir. Oct. 3, 2024)
Court of appeals reversed and remanded the district court’s order finding that the delegation provisions in the parties’ arbitration agreements which delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator were unenforceable and ordered the district court to address whether defendant waived their ability to compel arbitration. Court of appeals concluded that the application of tribal law does not conflict with the FAA, and thus the delegation provisions at issue were enforceable. As such, issue of the choice-of-law provision have been delegated to the arbitrator.
S.T.G. v. Epic Games, Inc., No. 3:24-CV-00517-RSH-AHG (S.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2024)
Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and ordered certain plaintiffs to proceed to arbitration and stay their claims pending the completion of arbitration proceedings. Court concluded that, for the six of seven plaintiffs who themselves were parties to the End User License Agreement (“EULA”), it was for the arbitrator, and not the court, to determine whether the minors disaffirmed the EULA by filing the instant lawsuit. Court concluded, however, that the seventh plaintiff whose mother, and not himself, entered into the EULA could not be compelled to arbitrate under the EULA.
Kendall v. Regional Enterprises, LLC, No. 5:24-CV-00180-KDB-SCR (W.D.N.C. Oct. 2, 2024)
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration because the parties did not dispute the existence of the arbitration agreement and its terms clearly applied to the dispute at issue. Furthermore, court found the arbitration agreement contained a valid choice of law provision that properly delegates the issue of choice of law to the arbitrator.
Cure & Associates, P.C. v. LPL Financial LLC, No. 23-40519 (5th Cir. Oct. 1, 2024)
Court of appeals found remanded to the district court to compel arbitration and enter a stay pending arbitration finding non-signatories to an arbitration agreement may be compelled to arbitrate under California and Texas law equitable estoppel principles. Court of appeals concluded that both non-signatory companies “deliberately sought and received direct benefits” from the contractual relationship between plaintiff and defendant, which contained the arbitration agreement, “such that their [non-signatory companies] are subject to arbitration per those underlying contracts.”
Klosterman v. Discover Products Inc., No. 2:24-CV-01253-WB (E.D. Pa. Oct. 1, 2024)
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings after the denial of defendant’s first motion to compel arbitration, and the subsequent limited discovery that followed. Court denied plaintiff’s motion to exclude the declaration submitted by defendant, finding it was properly admissible pursuant Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) as a business record. Having admitted the affidavit, court concluded that “there [wa]s no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether there exists a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate.
Barton v. Zhang, No. 1:23-CV-08536-LJL (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 2024)
Court granted petitioner’s motion for summary judgment confirming an arbitral award pursuant to the FAA and the New York Convention. Court found that the dispute and award fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement and identified no ground upon which it could refuse to confirm any part of the award.