A collection of the most recent US international arbitration decisions is available here. Decisions can be quickly retrieved by using the filter tools below.
-
Spineway SA v. Strategos Group, LLC, No. 24-1584 (3d Cir. Mar. 18, 2025)03/18/2025
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order denying petition to confirm a foreign arbitration award because the arbitrator was not selected in accordance with the parties’ agreement. Court of Appeals found that, despite a reference to the non-existent Geneva ICC in their agreement, the parties intended the ICC, not the Swiss Chambers’ Arbitration Institution (SCAI), to select the arbitrator and intended for the ICC rules to govern. Since the arbitrator was selected under SCAI rules, in contravention of the parties’ agreement, the district court properly refused to confirm the award under the New York Convention.
-
CSRS, LLC v. Element 25 Limited, No. 24-CV-00358-RLB (M.D. La. Mar. 18, 2025)03/18/2025
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay pending arbitration, following the Fifth Circuit precedent that an agreement’s provision that a dispute “may” be resolved by arbitration is not permissive, but rather makes arbitration mandatory if one of the parties to the contract requests it. Court also found that any dispute regarding arbitrability was delegated to the arbitrator on the basis that the agreement incorporated by reference the LCIA rules. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration clause was null and void, finding that the FAA pre-empted the Louisiana statute that would have otherwise prohibited the arbitration from occurring in London.
-
Zhongtie Dacheng (Zhuhai) Inv. Mgmt. Co. Ltd. v. Yan, No. 24-736 (9th Cir. Feb. 27, 2025)02/27/2025
Court of Appeals vacated district court judgment granting petition to enforce award against respondents under the New York Convention, explaining the “district court failed to show its work” in making the required factual findings to support confirmation of the award, including whether the agreement containing the arbitration clause was forged.
-
Wang v. Haitou Global (Cayman) Inc., No. 24-CV-07781-DLC (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2025)02/25/2025
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of claims asserted against it by plaintiff because plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration clause. Court denied cross-motion to compel arbitration against non-signatory defendants, rejecting the plaintiff’s arguments based on alter-ego and direct benefits theories.
-
Spire Global Subsidiary, Inc. v. NorthStar Earth & Space, Inc., No. 24-CV-08434-JHR-SLC (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2025)02/24/2025
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding the broad scope of the relevant arbitration clause covered the disputes plaintiff had filed in the litigation. Court also found that the dispute resolution clause in a second relevant contract did not displace the arbitration clause in the first relevant contract because the arbitration clause provided a more limited means for resolving disputes arising out of the contracts.
-
Flintlock Construction Services, LLC v. Arch Specialty Insurance Company & Catlin Specialty Insurance Company, No. 24-791 (2d Cir. Feb. 21, 2025)02/21/2025
Court of Appeals affirmed district court’s denial of petitioner’s request to vacate arbitration award. Court of Appeals found the arbitration panel did not exceed its authority in its interpretation of the underlying agreement and that the panel’s decision was not irrational because it reflected the “plain meaning” of the underlying agreement.
-
Global Voice Group SA v. Republic of Guinea, No. 22-CV-2100-JMC (D.D.C. Feb. 18, 2025)02/18/2025
Court granted defendant’s motion to set aside default judgment, finding there existed “good cause” because of the timing of the appearance of defendant’s counsel and noting the D.C. Circuit’s strong presumption against default judgments against a foreign sovereign. Court also found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, finding no jurisdiction existed under the FSIA arbitration exception in the absence of evidence that defendant was party to the relevant arbitration agreement or that it delegated arbitrability to the arbitration tribunal.
-
Catalent Pharma Solutions, LLC v. Romark Global Pharma, LLC, No. 24-MC-00445-ADC (D.P.R. Feb. 13, 2025)02/13/2025
Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm arbitration award pursuant to the FAA. Court found that respondent waived the right to vacate award by failing to comply with court’s order to properly oppose petitioner’s motion. Court also found that, even if respondent’s arguments for vacatur had not been waived, vacatur would not have been granted since respondent failed to show that the arbitral tribunal committed an error in rendering a final and complete award.
-
Sigma Constructores, S.A. v. Republic of Guatemala, No. 22-CV-01674-TSC-MAU (D.D.C. Feb. 13, 2025)02/13/2025
Magistrate judge recommended denial of respondent’s motion to dismiss petitioner’s action to confirm three foreign arbitration awards, rejecting respondent’s argument that court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the New York Convention and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Magistrate judge further rejected respondent’s argument that the action should be dismissed based on forum non conveniens, finding that no adequate alternative forum outside of the US existed. Lastly, magistrate judge rejected respondent’s request for dismissal under the principles of international comity, because respondent failed to cite any binding precedent supporting this assertion.
-
Walgreen Co. v. PWNHealth, LLC d/b/a Everly Health Solutions, No. 24-CV-00357-RGA (D. Del. Feb. 10, 2025)02/10/2025
Court denied petitioner’s motion to vacate arbitral award under the FAA because the arbitrator neither exceeded his authority nor exhibited manifest disregard for the law. Court also denied petitioner’s alternative request to modify the award, finding that the award did not contain any evident material miscalculation, nor was it completely irrational. Court granted respondent’s cross-motion to confirm the award.
-
Dominican Republic v. Lee-Chin, No. 23-CV-03821-CKK-ZMF (D.D.C. Feb. 7, 2025)02/07/2025
Magistrate judge recommended denying petitioner’s motion to vacate or, in the alternative, modify respondent’s ICSID award, and recommended granting respondent’s cross-petition to confirm the award. Magistrate judge found clear and unmistakable evidence that parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability; concluded that petitioner failed to satisfy grounds for vacatur under the FAA and the New York Convention; and found no mathematical errors in the arbitral tribunal’s calculation of the award and thus, did not modify the award.
-
GEM Yield Bahamas Limited v. Mullen Technologies, Inc., 1:24-CV-01120-KPF (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2025)02/06/2025
For reasons stated in an order issued under seal, the court denied respondents’ motion to vacate arbitral awards and granted petitioners’ cross-motion to confirm the awards, as well petitioners’ application to be awarded interest.
-
Trident Builders, LLC v. American Residential Services, LLC, 2:24-CV-02464-DCN (D.S.C. Feb. 5, 2025)02/05/2025
Court denied plaintiff’s motion for a stay and to compel arbitration, holding that plaintiff failed to show that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate. Court reasoned that plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of when the alleged agreement was accepted or when the parties reached a meeting of the minds as to the essential terms. Court also rejected plaintiff’s equitable estoppel argument because plaintiff provided no evidence indicating that defendant had attempted to avail itself of the benefits of the arbitration agreement.
-
Etrak İnşaat Taahhüt Ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. State of Libya, 22-CV-864-JMC (D.D.C. Feb. 4, 2025)02/04/2025
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm an arbitration award against defendant. Court found it had jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s arbitration exception, as well as personal jurisdiction, and determined that confirming the arbitration award would not violate public policy. Court concluded that it had no authority to stay the case under the New York Convention, where confirmation proceedings were pending in Turkey and Curaçao but no set aside proceedings were ongoing at the seat.
-
Multilateral Partners Fort Myers Beach Income, L.P. v. Independent Specialty Insurance Company, 2:25-CV-00042-JES-KCD (M.D. Fla. Feb. 4, 2025)02/04/2025
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the New York Convention, to which plaintiff did not respond. Court found that there was a valid commercial agreement in writing to arbitrate requiring arbitration in the United States, and at least one defendant was a foreign citizen. Court stayed the proceedings pending the conclusion of arbitral proceedings.
-
Trilogy Federal, LLC v. General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc., 1:24-CV-02772-BAH (D.D.C. Feb. 4, 2025)02/04/2025
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the case, determining that the parties had agreed to arbitrate the threshold issue of arbitrability. Court found that even though the clause provided that arbitration “may” be conducted under the AAA rules, such permissive language was still considered to fully incorporate the AAA rules in the D.C. Circuit.
-
InterAmerican Financial Consulting Group, Inc. v. Best Doctors Insurance Limited, 1:24-CV-23323-JEM (S.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2025)01/31/2025
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, holding that (1) the at-issue arbitration clause was enforceable, despite allegations that defendants repudiated the arbitration agreement; (2) the parties assented to the agreement, and it was thus not illusory; and (3) the forum selection clause requiring arbitration in a different forum was not unconscionable.
-
McEachern v. E.R.J. Insurance Group, Inc., 23-13298 (11th Cir. Jan. 31, 2025)01/31/2025
Court affirmed the district court’s vacatur of an arbitral award, reasoning that the process for appointing arbitrators did not comply with the terms of the underlying arbitration agreement.
-
The Republic of Nicaragua v. Hills Exploration Corporation, 3:24-CV-03104-MMC (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2025)01/31/2025
Court denied petitioner’s motion for an order permitting alternative service to enforce an ICSID award, holding that petitioner had failed to show that relying on email and WhatsApp was appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3).
-
Huarong Tianze (Hong Kong) Investment Partnership v. Huang, 1:24-CV-06502-ALC (Jan. 30, 2025)01/30/2025
Court entered judgment confirming a foreign arbitration award issued by CIETAC and granting monetary damages, interest, and fees.
-
Safran Electronics & Defense SAS v. Exail SAS, 1:24-CV-02325-JPO (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2025)01/29/2025
Court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss a petition to vacate an arbitration award as untimely under the FAA. Court reasoned that petitioners did not properly serve respondents—despite attempting to do so by email—within the three-month period required under the FAA, and equitable tolling was not available to avoid the limitations period.
-
ARDU Tech Ltd. v. DS Games, Inc., No. 1:24-CV-00901-MN (D. Del. Jan. 28, 2025)01/28/2025
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)01/28/2025
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)01/28/2025
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)01/27/2025
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)01/27/2025
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)01/27/2025
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)01/27/2025
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)01/24/2025
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.
-
Arrive Nola Hotel, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London, No. 2:24-CV-01585-NJB-EJD (E.D. La Jan. 22, 2025)01/22/2025
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to remand, holding that removal to federal court was proper pursuant to 28 USC § 1331 because the arbitration agreement fell under the New York Convention, and the dispute related to the arbitration agreement. Court concluded that under the Fifth Circuit’s precedent, the New York Convention does not require a signature for there to be a written agreement when the arbitration clause is contained within a broader contract.
-
Charleston Immersive/Interactive Media Studio, LLC v. Aydin, No. 1:24-CV-04943-PAE (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2025)01/16/2025
Court granted defendant’s motion for a protective order, denied plaintiff’s cross-motion to compel production of certain evidence, and denied plaintiff’s motion to disqualify defendant’s counsel in an action seeking vacatur of an arbitral award. Court found that it did not have a basis to second-guess the arbitrator’s evidentiary ruling on an issue of attorney-client privilege.
-
Blasket Renewable Investments, LLC v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 1:20-CV-00817-JDB (D.D.C. Jan. 13, 2025)01/13/2025
Court denied Spain’s motion to stay, finding that it failed to show that the Supreme Court is likely to grant certiorari in its case NextEra Energy Global Holdings B.V. v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 23-7032, or that it would be likely to succeed there on the merits. Court also found that Spain did not show it would be irreparably harmed by the case continuing, that the plaintiffs would likely be harmed by granting the stay, and that the public interest weighs in favor of denying the motion because stays in arbitration enforcement cases are only appropriate if they further the objectives of arbitration, such as speedy resolution.
-
Modern Perfection, LLC v. Bank of America, N.A., 23-1965 (4th Cir. Jan. 13, 2025)01/13/2025
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s grant of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, reasoning that the issue of arbitrability had been delegated to the arbitrator. Court of appeals applied the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski, 602 U.S. 143 (2024) and found that plaintiffs had not shown that there were multiple agreements in conflict as to who decides the issue of arbitrability. Court of appeals reasoned further that the agreement to delegate arbitrability was valid and enforceable, and that the district court had not erred in dismissing the complaint rather than staying proceedings.
-
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. v. Refinería de Cartagena S.A.S., No. 1:23-CV-04825-GHW (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2025)01/10/2025
Court denied petition to vacate or modify arbitration award and granted the respondent’s cross-petition to confirm the award under the Panama Convention, holding that the tribunal had not committed procedural misconduct, exceeded its powers, or manifestly disregarded the law. Court determined that the admission of statements from two witnesses who did not appear for cross-examination did not render the proceedings fundamentally unfair and affirmed the tribunal’s decision to hold a virtual hearing during the COVID-19 pandemic.
-
Alcazar Capital Partners Company v. Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraq, No. 1:23-CV-00186-AS (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 202412/27/2024
Court denied third-party’s motion to seal finding it did not prove that its privacy interests warranted sealing a letter to defendant produced in an ICC arbitral proceeding against plaintiff. Court concluded that the third party failed to address plaintiff’s point that the arbitral terms of reference permitted disclosure for the purpose of enforcing a judgment and did not address the Second Circuit’s extensive case law in favor of the public’s right to access judicial documents in connection with a request for the Court to enter a judgment or issue a dispositive order.
-
Desarrolladora La Ribera, S. de R.L. de C.V. v. Anderson, 1:24-CV-00067-LAK-BCM (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2024)12/20/2024
Court granted parties’ cross-motions to compel arbitration and stay the case pending arbitration pursuant to the Panama Convention and FAA. Court determined defendant was required to arbitrate four of its counterclaims because plaintiff had not waived its right to compel arbitration, as it timely filed its motion to compel arbitration before it filed an answer, motions, or sought discovery. Court also found plaintiff was required to arbitrate its defamation claims, concluding that although questions of arbitrability were delegated to the arbitrator, the parties invited the court to determine the issue of scope in this case and the claims fell within the scope of the agreement, and determining that plaintiff was estopped from denying an obligation to arbitrate with non-signatory defendant.
-
Abira Medical Laboratories, LLC v. Sierra Health & Life Insurance Company, Inc., 2:24-CV-01979-JP (E.D. Pa. Dec. 9, 2024)12/09/2024
Court granted the defendant’s motion to compel AAA arbitration and stayed the case, reasoning that there existed an agreement to arbitrate, and there was no justification for court-ordered discovery on the issue of arbitrability, where the delegation clause delegated resolution of arbitrability to the arbitrator.
-
Siert v. Spiffy Franchising, LLC, 5:24-CV-01771-EJD (N.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2024)12/09/2024
Court granted in part the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration under the FAA. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the at-issue arbitration clause was invalid due to unconscionability and waiver. Court, however, found that the arbitration agreement lacked mutual assent as to its forum selection and choice of law provisions and severed those provisions from the contract. Court stayed the case pending resolution of arbitration proceedings.
-
Moonshadow Mobile, Inc. v. Labels & Lists, Inc., 6:23-CV-01716-MTK (D. Or. Dec. 9, 2024)12/09/2024
Court vacated an arbitration award under the FAA on the grounds that it was “fundamentally unfair” to the respondent. Court reasoned that the arbitral panel applied an improperly high pleading standard in dismissing the respondent’s fraud claim while at the same time applying an unduly permissive standard in deciding in favor of the petitioner’s trade secrets claims. It further reasoned that the panel unfairly prejudiced the respondent through its management of the proceedings, including by granting disproportionate time to the petitioner and giving the petitioner disproportionately favorable treatment regarding the admissibility of witness testimony.
-
Alcazar Capital Partners Company v. Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraq, 1:23-CV-00186-AS (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2024)12/05/2024
Court exercised its discretion to stay the case to recognize a Kuwati judgment pending final resolution of an ICSID proceeding, reasoning that a stay would be the most efficient way for the case to move forward.
-
ConocoPhillips Petrozuata BV v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 24-1071 (3d Cir. Dec. 5, 2024)12/05/2024
Court of appeals affirmed and remanded district court’s decision denying intervening party, Venezuela's state-owned oil company, PDVSA's, motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on sovereign immunity grounds under the FSIA and granted appellant’s motion for a writ of attachment. Court of appeals rejected PDVSA's judicial and collateral estoppel argument, finding appellant’s arguments in the ICSID arbitration and the current litigation were not identical, but not irreconcilable where both arguments accepted that PDVSA and Venezuela were separate legal entities, and appellant did not change its position in bad faith.
-
NextEra Energy Global Holdings B.V. v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 23-7031 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 2, 2024)12/02/2024
Court of appeals denied Kingdom of Spain’s petition for rehearing en banc, which was supported by an amicus curiae brief of the European Commission, relating to a case brought by renewable energy investors to enforce approximately $377 million in arbitration awards against the Kingdom of Spain.
-
MSV Synergy, LLC v. Shapiro, No. 1:21-CV-07578-ER (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2024)12/02/2024
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to lift a stay and confirm the arbitration award, and denied defendants’ cross-motion to vacate the award on the basis that the arbitrator exceeded her powers and denied defendants a fair opportunity to be heard, and that she manifestly disregarded the law. Court found that the arbitration clause did not limit the scope of the arbitration to preclude arbitration of certain claims and thus, the arbitrator did not exceed her authority, and that each claim the arbitrator considered was properly before the court. Further, defendants did not meet their burden in establish a manifest disregard of the law.
-
Jack Rubenstein CT, LLC v. Naturalena Brands, Inc., No. 1:24-CV-06864-AT (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2024)11/26/2024
Court granted petition to confirm an arbitration award under the FAA where respondent failed to appear in the action. Court found that petitioner was entitled to confirmation where there was no genuine dispute of material fact, the arbitrator had more than a "barely colorable justification for the outcome reached," and there was no justification for vacating or modifying the award.
-
Beijing Dayou Dingxin Investment Management Partnership, L.P. v. Wang, No. 1:24-CV-00137-CEF (N.D. Ohio Nov. 25, 2024)11/25/2024
Court granted petition to recognize and enforce foreign arbitration award, finding that respondent failed to establish an applicable exception to confirmation under the New York Convention. Respondent argued the petition to enforce the award was premature because of a pending appeal, and contrary to United States public policy because it would cause undue hardship to respondent and company shareholders. Court found there was insufficient evidence of a pending appeal and respondent’s public policy arguments fell outside the narrow exception under the New York Convention.
-
HFA Specialty Acquisitions LLC v. NexGen Flight Solutions, LLC, No. 1:24-CV-01891-BAH (D.D.C. Nov. 19, 2024)11/19/2024
Court granted defendants' motion to stay the litigation in favor of arbitration, finding defendants had not waived their right to seek arbitration and the incorporation of the JAMS rules in the arbitration agreement "leaves no doubt that an arbitrator must decide whether plaintiffs' claims are arbitrable, requiring that the litigation be stayed until arbitration has concluded." In particular, court pointed to the following language in the JAMS rules: "The Arbitrator has the authority to determine jurisdiction and arbitrability issues as a preliminary matter."
-
Webuild S.P.A. v. Argentine Republic, No. 1:21-CV-02464-RBW (D.D.C. Nov. 19, 2024)11/19/2024
Court denied Argentina’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s action seeking recognition and enforcement of an ICSID arbitration award on the basis that it was time-barred. Court concluded the 12-year statute of limitations from the D.C. Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act was the most appropriate in the absence of a statute of limitations in the federal statute authorizing enforcement of ICSID awards. Court found the policy concerns expressed by Argentina that would support use of the statute of limitations in the FAA did not "defeat the presumption against borrowing a statute of limitations from federal law."
-
In re Application of financialright claims GmbH, No. 1:23-CV-01481-CFC (D. Del. Nov. 18, 2024)11/18/2024
Court granted application to seek discovery from three Delaware LLCs for use in a litigation proceeding in a German court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782. Court found the application met the three statutory conditions, and that the Intel factors, on balance, supported granting of the application. Court denied motion to dismiss the application in favor of arbitration, finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because there was no independent jurisdictional basis in title 28 for a district court to enforce an agreement to arbitrate a § 1782 application.
-
Osterhaus Pharmacy Incorporated v. CVS Health Corporation, No. 2:24-CV-01539-JJT (D. Ariz. Nov. 14, 202411/14/2024
Court denied defendants’ motions to compel arbitration of the parties’ antitrust dispute finding the delegation clause was void for substantive unconscionability and thus unenforceable. Court ordered supplemental briefing on the question of whether the arbitration agreement as a whole is unconscionable.
-
Li v. Lu, No. 3:24-CV-05604-DGE (W.D. Wash. Nov. 13, 202411/13/2024
Court issued order to plaintiff to show cause as to why the action should not be dismissed for failure to provide proof of service. Court lacked confidence that defendant had been properly served and that it had proper jurisdiction and thus requested further supplemental briefing before ruling on plaintiff’s petition to enter default judgment to enforce Singapore arbitral award.