Newly Released Decisions
ARDU Tech Ltd. v. DS Games, Inc., No. 1:24-CV-00901-MN (D. Del. Jan. 28, 2025)
Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award, finding the award met all the requirements of the New York Convention and FAA. Court further granted motion for entry of default judgment where respondent failed to appear, and plaintiff would be substantially prejudiced and unlikely to recover without a default judgment in place.
Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc. v. T. Park Central LLC, No. 1:24-CV-08009-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2025)
Court dismissed petition to confirm arbitration award, finding an interim award which did not fully dispose of all the issues in the arbitration, was not a final award that the court could enforce under the FAA.
McEnery v. McEnery, No. 4:21-CV-09614-HSG (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2025)
Court granted defendants’ motion to confirm arbitration award and request for attorneys’ fees, and denied plaintiff’s request to vacate the award. Court found plaintiff’s argument that the arbitrator erred in its decision because it did not consider plaintiff’s additional valuation evidence was untimely, and the record reflected the arbitrator did in fact review the additional evidence.
Baker Hughes Saudi Arabia Company Limited v. Dynamic Industries, Inc., No. 23-30827 (5th Cir. Jan. 27, 2025)
Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s decision refusing to compel arbitration where the parties’ arbitration agreement called for disputes to be resolved under the DIFC-LCIA rules, and the DIFC-LCIA was abolished by the UAE in 2021. Court of Appeals first found that the arbitration agreement only specified a particular set of rules to apply to the parties’ dispute, and not the institution to administer the dispute. Because court of appeals concluded the parties intended to arbitrate generally, and not to set an exclusive forum, it must compel arbitration. Court of appeals ordered the district court on remand to consider whether the DIFC-LCIA rules can be applied in any other available forum, consistent with the parties’ objective intent.
Espin v. Citibank, N.A., No. 28-2083 (4th Cir. Jan. 27, 2025)
Court of appeals remanded to the district court to compel arbitration on all claims under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (“SCRA”), but not those brought under Military Lending Act (“MLA”). Court of appeals concluded that federal statutory remedies do not override agreements to arbitrate, unless they do so explicitly. Here, Congress had not demonstrated a clear intention to displace the provisions of the FAA since the SCRA did not exclusively provide for a particular forum and the statute’s silence on matters of arbitration would not be construed as prohibiting arbitration. By contrast, the MLA explicitly overrides the use of arbitration agreements, so arbitration could not be compelled on those claims.
Glass-Inspiration GMBH Design + Engineering v. M.G. McGrath, Inc. Glass & Glazing, No. 24-CV-03315-LPM-DLM (D. Minn. Jan. 27, 2025)
Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm arbitration award and denied respondent’s request to deny confirmation of the award on public policy grounds. Court reasoned that respondent’s public policy argument was forfeited, where it was not first raised in the underlying arbitration, and failed on the merits where petitioner initiated a dispute within the appropriate timeframe following respondent’s notice of dissolution. Court further awarded petitioner’s reasonable attorneys’ fees because respondent did not seek to set aside the award and failed to show a substantial justification for refusal to comply with the award.
Li v. Lu, No. 3:24-CV-05604-DGE (W.D. Wash. Jan. 27, 2025)
Court granted motion for default judgment and petition to confirm a foreign arbitration award, where defendant failed to appear. Applying the Eitel factors, court found that default judgment was appropriate, entered default judgment, and confirmed the arbitration award.
Hogan Lovells US LLP v. Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, No. 1:24-CV-05541-AS (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2025)
Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award where respondents failed to respond to the petition or otherwise seek relief from the award. Treating the petition as a motion for summary judgment, court found there was no issue of material fact, the arbitrator provided more than a “barely colorable justification” for the decision, and there were no grounds to vacate the award under § 10 of the FAA. Additionally, court granted petitioner’s requested fees and costs, along with pre-judgment interest as set by the arbitrator. In awarding post-judgment interest, court found it was bound by 28 USC § 1961(a), and not by the arbitrator’s decision.