Newly Released Decisions
Concierge Auctions, LLC v. A-M 2018 Homes, LLC, No. 1:24-CV-01681-VEC (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2024)
Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm arbitration award pursuant to the FAA. Court found that the arbitrator did not disregard controlling law when he concluded that the principal owner and sole manager of the respondent LLC had apparent authority to bind the LLC to the terms of the underlying agreement.
Hohl v. Black Diamond Franchising, Inc., No. 3:24-CV-00911 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 28, 2024)
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the question of arbitrability should be decided by the court on the grounds that the arbitration provision provided clear and unmistakable evidence of parties’ intention to arbitrate the gateway question of arbitrability. Court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration provision was void as a matter of public policy.
Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. VH 4122 Quincy, Inc., No. 8:24-CV-01265-AAQ (D. Md. Oct. 28, 2024)
Court granted plaintiff’s motion for default judgment confirming arbitration award. Court found that plaintiff sufficiently established the existence of a valid contract and respondents failed to establish any grounds on which the court may vacate the award.
The Republic of Nicaragua v. Hills Exploration Corporation, No. 3:24-CV-03104-MMC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2024)
Court denied the respondents’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Petitioner’s brought a petition to recognize and enforce an ICSID arbitration award. Respondents argue that simply holding property in a state does not give rise to the “minimum contacts” required to establish personal jurisdiction. Court disagreed, finding that Shaffer v. Heitner, 422 U.S. 186 (1977), created an exception to the general “minimum contacts” rule, and plaintiff could establish personal jurisdiction based on defendant’s ownership of property in the forum state for the purposes of its ICSID enforcement action.
Cajun Industries, LLC v. Calgon Carbon Corporation, No. 1:24-CV-00107-LG-RPM (S.D. Miss. Oct. 16, 2024)
Court first granted defendant O’Neal Constructors, LLC’s (“O’Neal”) motion to compel arbitration against defendant Cajun Industries, LLC’s (“Cajun”) as unopposed, finding that Cajun affirmed the validity and scope of the arbitration, by itself filing a demand for arbitration against Calgon Carbon Corporation (“Calgon”). Second, court denied Cajun’s motion to compel arbitration against Calgon as Calgon was a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, and direct benefits estoppel did not apply where Calgon had no filed any claims attempting to enforce the agreement. Third, court granted O’Neal’s motion to stay litigation pending the outcome of arbitration. Court exercised its discretion to determine that both the case between Cajun and O’Neal, and between Cajun and Calgon should be stayed because the issues were so interconnected and stem from the same essential nucleus of operative facts.
Hidroelectrica Santa Rita S.A. v. Corporacion AIC, SA, No. 23-12519 (11th Cir. Oct. 16, 2024)
Court of appeals affirmed the district court decision in finding the tribunal did not lack any contractual basis, nor did it exceed its authority when rendering a reasoned decision in the underlying arbitration. The Eleventh Circuit found that “[e]ven if the Tribunal erred in its analysis of the contractual language, it makes no difference to our review as long as the Tribunal construed and applied the underlying contract.” Court of appeals found the tribunal did so here. Additionally, court of appeals reasoned that it would not disturb the findings of fact made by the tribunal, as doing so would exceed its authority in confirming arbitration awards under the FAA.
CMB Infrastructure Group IX, LP v. Cobra Energy Investment Finance, Inc., No. 2:21-CV-00214-CDS-DJA (D. Nev. Oct. 15, 2024)
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate the parties’ arbitration award, and granted defendant’s cross-motion to confirm the award, finding the tribunal did not exceed its scope of authority by including non-signatories in the arbitration and the “law of the case” doctrine was applicable, and the tribunal did not manifestly disregard the applicable law in failing to grant plaintiff’s nominal damages. Court further granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration on the parties’ remaining claims, finding there was no waiver of defendant’s right to compel arbitration via a waiver.
Silva v. WhaleCo, Inc., No. 3:24-CV-02890-SK (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2024)
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action pending arbitration. Court found that the plaintiff accepted the defendant’s terms of use, that the arbitration agreement was valid and encompassed the plaintiff’s claims, and that the issue of unconscionability had been delegated to the arbitrator.
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.