A&O Shearman | U.S. International Arbitration Digest
U.S. International Arbitration Digest
This links to the home page

US International Arbitration Digest

A centralized resource for newly released decisions issued by US courts

The US IA Digest collects in one place important decisions on US international arbitration case law issued since January 1, 2016, compiled and organized into categories that are most relevant and useful to practitioners and other interested parties. The Digest will be updated on a rolling basis as new decisions are issued.

Newly Released Decisions

Chubb Capital I Limited v. New Orleans City, No. 23-CV-05806-JTM-KWR (E.D. La. May 6, 2024)

Court granted plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin defendant from bringing arbitration proceedings, finding that plaintiff showed a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, a substantial threat of irreparable harm, the threatened injury outweighed the threatened harm to defendant, and there would be no disservice to the public interest.  Focusing on plaintiff’s likelihood of success, the court determined that plaintiff did not consent to arbitration, none of Louisiana’s common law bases for compelling a non-signatory to arbitrate were applicable, and Louisiana’s Direct Action Statute would hold that third-party insurers would not be compelled to submit to binding arbitration under the circumstances.


Support Community, Inc. v. MPH International LLC, No. 23-CV-04911-JSW (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2024)

Court denied the motion to compel arbitration of defendant and counterclaimant, reasoning that, although there was an agreement to arbitrate between the parties, plaintiff met its burden of demonstrating that defendant and counterclaimant had waived its right to arbitrate because under the “totality of the circumstances” it had acted inconsistently with its known right to compel arbitration.


White v. Titlemax of Virginia, Inc., No. 23-1595 (4th Cir. May 1, 2024)

Court of appeals reversed the district court’s orders granting appellees’ applications to confirm arbitral awards under Section 9 of the FAA, holding that the applications failed to identify an independent basis for the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction.


Eaton v. Ascent Resources-Utica, LLC, No. 19-CV-03412-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio Apr. 4, 2024)

Court granted defendant’s motion to modify the class definition to exclude members of a certified class of property owners who had binding arbitration provisions in their lease agreements.  Court reasoned that defendants did not waive their right to arbitrate based on their participation in the litigation because evidence regarding the arbitration agreements of non-class representatives was not available before the class certification stage, and the existence of arbitration agreements between class members and defendant had the potential to destroy the typicality and adequacy requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a).


Cephea Valve Technologies, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, No. 23-691-GBW-SRF (D. Del. Mar 18, 2024)

Court recommended that the district court grant defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint with prejudice upon concluding that the underlying arbitration provision was not ambiguous, unconscionable, or invalid due to fraud.  Court further found that certain counts in the complaint fell within the scope of the arbitration provision, which broadly covered “any dispute arising under” the at-issue agreement. 


Storyteller Production Co. v. Audient Capital GP Ltd., No. 24-CV-01664-PA-MRW (C.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2024)

Court dismissed petition to confirm arbitration award because of lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Court found petition did not properly allege citizenship of any party but did grant petitioner leave to amend in order to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction.