2016-2024 Arbitration Decisions

A collection of the most recent US international arbitration decisions is available here. Decisions can be quickly retrieved by using the filter tools below.

• Steines v. Westgate Palace, LLC, No. 22-14211 (11th Cir. Sept. 5, 2024)

  09/05/2024

  Court of appeals dismissed an interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction, because the court could only exercise jurisdiction pursuant to § 16 of the FAA and the FAA did not apply to the parties’ dispute. Court of appeals affirmed the district court ruling that the question of whether the FAA had been overridden by another act of Congress could not be delegated to an arbitrator and the courts retain jurisdiction over the question. Court of appeals also affirmed the district court’s ruling that the parties’ arbitration agreement was not enforceable under the FAA due to the Military Lending Act, which shows Congress’ clear and manifest intention override the FAA.

• Paris Road Shopping Center, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London, No. 2:23-CV-05770-CJB-MBN (E.D. La. Sept. 4, 2024)

  09/04/2024

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that while Louisiana law prohibits the enforcement of arbitration clauses in insurance contracts, the New York Convention and the FAA requires that courts enforce an arbitration clause when certain criteria are met, including that the parties to the arbitration agreement include a non-US citizen. Court found the criteria was met and the New York Convention applied because the conduct of the foreign and domestic defendants was so intertwined and identical that separation of the plaintiffs’ claims against foreign and domestic defendants could yield inconsistent results.

• ARCO National Construction, LLC v. MCM Management Corp., No. 1:20-CV-03783-JRR (D. Md. Sept. 4, 2024)
   

  09/04/2024

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, reasoning that the defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate the disputes in this action. Court found that the defendant’s initiation of a separate litigation on other issues did not constitute waiver of the right to arbitrate. Additionally, defendant’s participation in the present litigation to defend its position did not constitute waiver.

• Young v. Solana Labs Inc., No. 3:22-CV-03912-RFL (N.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2024)

  09/03/2024

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that the defendants had not submitted adequate proof showing the plaintiff agreed to a third party’s terms of service (“ToS”) containing an arbitration agreement. Court also denied the defendants’ request for discovery concerning the plaintiff’s agreement to the third party’s ToS, reasoning that even if the plaintiff agreed to the ToS, the defendant was not a signatory to the agreement and lacked any basis to invoke the arbitration provision.

• JES Farms Partnership v. Indigo Ag Inc., No. 23-2565 (8th Cir. Aug. 29, 2024)

  08/29/2024

  Court of appeals reversed district court’s order denying motion to compel arbitration in part. Court of appeals found that the parties’ claims arising under addenda to the parties’ agreement were arbitrable, together with the claims arising under the main agreement. Court of appeals reasoned that the parties inclusion of two similar sentences containing arbitration clauses reflected “duplicative emphasis,” and did not reflect an intention to narrow the scope of arbitrable claims.

• SZY Holdings, LLC v. Garcia, No. 23-1305 (4th Cir. Aug 29, 2024)

  08/29/2024

  Court of appeals reversed district court’s decision that appellants had waived right to move to compel arbitration by waiting over nine months to do so after it was sued. Court of appeals reasoned that waiver did not occur because “Appellants consistently requested arbitration before formally moving to compel it” and that such “persistence” was not indicative of relinquishing the known right to pursue arbitration.

• Scentsy, Inc. v. Blue Cross of Idaho Health Service, Inc., 1:23-cv-00552-AKB (D. Idaho Aug. 28, 2024)

  08/28/2024

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that that the agreement in which plaintiff’s claim arose under did not have an arbitration clause. Court reasoned claims arose from the parties’ prior 2020 agreement, and not a later-in-time agreement which contained an arbitration clause. 

• Gramercy Distressed Opportunity Fund II, L.P., v. Bakhmatyuk, No. 2:21-CV-00223-KHR (D. Wyo. Aug. 26, 2024)

  08/26/2024

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding no privity of contract existed between the parties with respect to an arbitration agreement despite reference to several documents that allegedly contained arbitration provisions.

• Iraq Telecom Limited v. Sirwin Saber Mustafa, No. 2:24-CV-03728-RBS (E.D. Pa. Aug. 23, 2024)

  08/23/2024

  Court confirmed arbitration award pursuant to the New York Convention, finding none of the grounds for refusal to enforce an award applicable. Court also found that by filing a related application under 28 USC § 1782, respondents had waived any objections to personal jurisdiction. 

• Titan Consortium 1, LLC v. Argentine Republic, No. 21-CV-02250-JMC (D.D.C. Aug. 19, 2024)

  08/19/2024

  Court denied respondent’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit as time-barred, finding that the twelve-year statute of limitations under D.C. Code § 15-101, governing enforcement of judgments rendered by courts in the District of Columbia, applied to the instant matter and not, as respondent argued, the three-year statute of limitations period pursuant to the federal or D.C. Arbitration Acts. Court reasoned that the “potential lack of uniformity [in limitations periods for claims pursuant to 22 USC § 1650a] does not compel departing from the well-settled practice of borrowing state limitations period.” As such, the twelve-year statute of limitations applied, and thus petitioner’s suit was not time-barred.

• Archirodon Construction (Overseas) Company Limited v. General Company for Ports of Iraq, No. 22-CV-01571-JEB (D.D.C. Aug. 16, 2024)

  08/16/2024

  Court denied respondents’ multiple motions asserting a range of jurisdictional and procedural arguments, and granted petitioner’s motion authorizing the commencement of attachment and execution efforts pursuant the FSIA. Under the FSIA, petitioner may seek to enforce a judgment by attaching certain property of the foreign state used for commercial activity in the United States, but only once “the court has . . . determined that a reasonable period of time has elapsed following the entry of judgment…” Contrary to respondents’ assertions, court concluded that “the intent [of respondents] to challenge the Court’s judgment does not toll the clock for the purposes of [FSIA]’s Section 1610(c)’s reasonable-time requirement,” and that eight months constitutes “a reasonable period of time” under which a court may authorize attachment and execution.

• NextEra Energy Global Holdings B.V. v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 23-7031 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 16, 2024)

  08/16/2024

  Court of appeals found that the district courts have jurisdiction over Spain pursuant to the FSIA’s arbitration exception. Court of appeals explained that when reviewing arbitration awards issued pursuant to the Energy Charter Treaty (“ECT”), whether the ECT applies to a dispute is not a jurisdictional question—rather, all that is required for jurisdictional purposes is “that the arbitral tribunal “‘purported to make an award pursuant to the ECT, not that it in fact did so.’” Court of appeals also held that the district court abused its discretion in enjoining Spain from pursuing an anti-suit injunction in foreign courts because it failed to (1) address the fact that the injunctions were sought against foreign sovereigns and (2) identify domestic interests strong enough to warrant the anti-suit injunctions. Judge Pan dissented, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting an anti-suit injunction where it considered principles of international comity, consideration of the views of the US is improper because they were not before the court, and the majority gave “insufficient weight to the [US’] obligation to uphold the ICSID Convention and its strong interests in doing so”.

• Lanesborough 2000, LLC, v. Nextres, LLC, No. 1:23-CV-07584-PKC (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2024)

  08/15/2024

  Court denied in part petition to confirm arbitration award and vacated in part the parties award pursuant to 9 USC § 10(a)(4). Court found that the arbitrator exceeded his authority in awarding injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. However, claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing were within the scope of the parties’ arbitration agreement.

• Zhongshan Fucheng Industrial Investment Co. Ltd v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, No. 23-7016 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 9, 2024)

  08/09/2024

  Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s finding of jurisdiction over defendant Nigeria pursuant to the FSIA’s arbitration exception. Court of appeals found that the exception was met because the award was governed by an international treaty—i.e., the New York Convention—and arose from (1) a legal relationship, (2) that is considered as commercial, and (3) between persons.

• Zhongshan Fucheng Industrial Investment Co. Ltd v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, No. 23-7016 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 9, 2024)

  08/09/2024

  Court of appeals upheld enforcement of arbitral award against Nigeria, finding the FSIA’s arbitration exception applied because the award was governed by the New York Convention. Court of appeals reasoned that FSIA’s arbitration exception requires the court to find (1) an arbitration agreement, (2) an arbitration award, and (3) a treaty governing the arbitration award. Whether the arbitration exception applies in this case turned on whether the New York Convention governed the arbitration award. Court of appeals held it did because it found (1) a legal relationship, (2) the relationship was considered commercial, and (3) it is one between persons.

• Fiorentino v. Cantiere Delle Marche, No. 23-CV-21089 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 9, 2024

  08/09/2024

  Fiorentino v. Cantiere Delle Marche, No. 23-CV-21089 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 9, 2024) Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending the outcome of that arbitration where the parties entered into a contract for the construction of a yacht which contained an arbitration provision and each of the Complaint’s counts were determined to arise from the contract.

• Commodities & Minerals Enterprise, Ltd. v. CVS Ferrominera Orinoco C.A., No. 21-14504 (11th Cir. Aug. 8, 2024)

  08/08/2024

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision confirming arbitral award in favor of petitioner pursuant to the FAA and the New York Convention.  Court of appeals rejected respondent’s public policy defense regarding bribery to foreign officials because the defense applied to the underlying agreement and not to the award itself.

• Van Andel, LLM v. Lindberg, No. 1:23-CV-00879-CCE-JEP (M.D.N.C. Aug. 8, 2024)

  08/08/2024

  Court granted petitioners’ motion to confirm arbitration award pursuant to the FAA and the New York Convention.  Court found that respondents did not reference any ground for refusal authorized under the New York Convention, nor was a stay appropriate.

• Jiangsu Beier Decoration Materials Co. Ltd. v. Angle World LLC, No. 23-2450 (3rd Cir. Aug. 8, 2024)

  08/08/2024

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of appellant’s renewed petition to confirm its foreign arbitration award.  Court of appeals found that the parties did not agree to arbitrate pursuant to Article IV of the New York Convention and that the district court properly applied Pennsylvania, as opposed to Chinese, law in determining whether the arbitration agreement was valid.  Further, court of appeals rejected appellant’s argument that district court should have granted comity to the Chinese court’s holding that the parties had a valid agreement to arbitrate.

• Storz v. Southern Airways Corp., No. 4:23-CV-01496-SEP (E.D. Mo. Aug. 5, 2024)

  08/05/2024

  Court granted in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court rejected plaintiffs’ claim that a later agreement revoked and superseded the arbitration provision of an earlier agreement where all of the plaintiffs’ claims arose from the earlier agreement.

• Risen Energy Co., Ltd., v. Focus Futura Holding Participações S.A., 1:23-CV-10993-LGS (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2024)

  07/31/2024

  Pursuant to a previous order, the court entered a pair of “re-amended” final judgments denying petitioner’s motion to vacate an arbitration award and granting respondent’s cross-motion to confirm the award but denying respondent’s request for attorneys’ fees.

• Doraleh Container Terminal SA v. Republic of Djibouti, No. 23-7023 (D.C. Cir. July 30, 2024)

  07/30/2024

  Court of appeals held that the authority of the law firm representing a company engaged in a public-private partnership with the Republic of Djibouti to build and manage a major port was subject to a challenge with regard to the firm’s ability to represent the company in proceedings to enforce an arbitral award against Djibouti.  Court reasoned that the sworn declarations of a state-appointed administrator of the company—which Djibouti nationalized shortly before the arbitral award was issued—attesting that she had not authorized the filing raised substantial questions about the firm’s authority such that the judgement confirming the arbitral award should be vacated and remanded for the district court to evaluate the firm’s authority.

• TIG Insurance Company v. Republic of Argentina, No. 23-7064 (D.C. Cir. July 30, 2024)

  07/30/2024

  Court of appeals reversed and remanded the district court’s decision that it lacked jurisdiction to determine whether the Republic of Argentina was immune from a writ of execution filed by a company that had been granted two arbitral awards against Argentina for breach of reinsurance contracts.  Court held that the arbitration and waiver exceptions to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act may apply, requiring the district court to engage in further analysis and fact finding.

• Texas Green Star Holdings, LLC, v. Landmark American Insurance Company, 3:23-CV-02223-X (N.D. Tex. July 30, 2024)

  07/30/2024

  Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for remand after granting certain defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court then reasoned that it had supplemental jurisdiction over claims against the defendants not subject to arbitration.  Therefore, court stayed and administratively closes the current case pending the outcome of the arbitration.  When a party moved for the Court to enter judgment on the arbitration award, the court will then order plaintiffs and defendants not subject to arbitration to meet and confer regarding the resolution of their remaining claims.

• William B. Coleman Co., Inc. v. Certain Underwriters At Lloyds, London, 2:23-CV-05892-BSL-KWR (E.D. La. July 30, 2024)

  07/30/2024

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration under a surplus lines insurance policy based on its determination that the claims were subject to arbitration under the New York Convention, and the arbitration provision was not invalid under Section 22:868 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes—which serves as a general bar to the enforcement of arbitration provisions against insurers—because the New York Convention is an exception to that statute.

• In the Matter of the Application of Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Partnership, No. 1:24-MC-00320-AS (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2024)

  07/23/2024

  Court granted Vantage’s ex parte application for an order to take discovery pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 for use in proceedings to recognize an arbitration award and seek related relief before foreign courts.

• Molecular Dynamics, Ltd. v. Spectrum Dynamics Medical Ltd., No. 1:22-CV-05167-KPF (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2024)

  07/23/2024

  Court dismisses petitioners’ request to vacate two arbitration awards issued by the Swiss Arbitration Centre finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute.  The seat, and primary jurisdiction, of the parties’ arbitration was Mexico.  Therefore, New York was a secondary jurisdiction and lacked the power to vacate.  It could only decline to enforce an award based on the limited grounds specified in Art. V of the New York Convention.

• Lupo Futures, LLC v. Wedbush Securities, Inc., No. 1:24-CV-02826 (N.D. Ill. July 22, 2024)

  07/22/2024

  Court granted in part petitioners’ motion to compel arbitration, ordering the parties to comply with the procedure for selecting an arbitration venue detailed in the parties’ arbitration agreement.  Court further denied respondents’ motion to dismiss, finding it had the authority to determine questions of arbitrability where the arbitration agreement did not explicitly delegate issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator.  Further respondents’ motion to dismiss was denied as the petitioners were able to show respondent refused to arbitrate in failing to comply with the procedures that required it to provide three arbitration bodies to petitioners after they indicated their intention to arbitration.

• Brooks v. Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC, No. 3:23-CV-01729-LL-VET (S.D. Cal. July 19, 2024)

  07/19/2024

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and denied plaintiffs’ request to stay the proceedings.  Court found plaintiff signed an arbitration agreement via DocuSign where the plaintiff had ample time to review the contract, the arbitration provision was clearly labelled, and there was an option to opt-out of the agreement.  Additionally, the FAA applied here as a case concerning “commerce”, which included real estate rental contracts and preempted California law prohibiting arbitration in this instance.  Court further found defendants to be parties to the arbitration agreement where plaintiff acknowledged this relationship in its complaint.

• Ball v. Utopia Music Holdings (US) Inc., No. 1:24-CV-05086-CM (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2024)

  07/18/2024

  Court granted petition to recognize and confirm the parties’ arbitration award where the respondents admit petitioners are entitled to such an order under 9 USC § 207 and Art. III of the New York Convention, and no grounds to refuse or defer recognition or enforcement are applicable here.

• Xiamen Xiangyu Logistics Group Corp. v. Wholesale 209, LLC, No. 2:23-CV-02704-DJC-AC (E.D. Cal. July 17, 2024)

  07/17/2024

  Court denied without prejudice respondent’s motion to refuse to recognize the arbitration award.  Court found there was a genuine dispute over factual issues that warranted additional, but limited, discovery into whether Respondent assented to the arbitration agreement.  Respondent argued the contract is “null and void” because it was signed without its consent, notice was deficient because it was provided in Chinese, a language not used or understood by respondent’s employees, and affirming the award would violate US public policy.

• Stati v. Republic of Kazakhstan, No. 1:19-MC-00382-PAE (S.D.N.Y. July 17, 2024)

  07/17/2024

  Court granted in part petitioners’ motion to compel Citibank to respond to post-judgment subpoenas to disclose information about assets held by Kazakhstani agencies, instrumentalities, and affiliates.  Court however found subpoenas were unduly burdensome and ordered that Citi only respond to the specific entities listed by petitioners and shall produce records from a limited time period.  Additionally, court denied Kazakhstan’s motion for a protective order that would require petitioners to serve Kazakhstan with all post-judgment subpoenas they issue to non-parties to this action and quash any previously issued subpoenas not served on Kazakhstan, finding that there is no requirement for a judgment creditor to take such action under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or New York law.

• Risen Energy Co., Ltd., v. Focus Futura Holding Participações S.A., 1:23-CV-10993-LGS (S.D.N.Y. July 17, 2024)

  07/17/2024

  Pursuant to a previous order, the court entered a pair of “re-amended” final judgments denying petitioner’s motion to vacate an arbitration award and granting respondent’s cross-motion to confirm the award but denying respondent’s request for attorneys’ fees.

• Agrasanchez v. Agrasanchez, No. 23-55110 (9th Cir. July 12, 2024)

  07/12/2024

  Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s order denying petitioners’ motion to vacate an arbitration award due to fraud.  To vacate an arbitration award pursuant to the FAA, the fraud must “not be discoverable by due diligence before or during the [arbitration] proceeding.”  Here, petitioners did not act with diligence in taking six years to investigate a document they suspected to be fraudulent.  Additionally, court of appeals found the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to alter or amend the judgment, as petitioners failed to demonstrate the alleged fraud could not have been discovered through reasonable diligence prior to or during the arbitration hearing.

• Adk Plaza-Centrum, LLC v. Independent Specialty Insurance Company, No. 3:23-CV-01405-SDD-EWD (M.D. La. July 11, 2024)

  07/11/2024

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration against plaintiffs, finding that all four requirements for enforcing an arbitration clause under the New York Convention are met: (1) there is a written arbitration agreement, (2) the agreement provides for arbitration in New York and the United States is a New York Convention signatory, (3) the agreement arises out of a commercial relationship between the parties, and (4) two of the defendants are not American citizens.  Court acknowledged that the plaintiffs maintained separate contracts with the foreign and domestic insurers, but where the operative policy language across contracts was nearly identical, the court found that equitable estoppel applied and required the court to compel arbitration.

• Beijing Dayou Dingxin Investment Management Partnership, L.P. v. Wang, No. 1:24-CV-00137-CEF (N.D. Ohio July 9, 2024)

  07/09/2024

  Court granted an automatic stay for one of the two respondents, holding an automatic stay issued in connection with Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings only extends to non-debtors in “unusual circumstances” and no evidence supporting an exception for the second respondent was present here.  Court further rejected second respondent’s argument that the arbitration enforcement petition was premature because of pending Chinese proceedings where the second respondent could not present any compelling evidence of ongoing proceedings in China.

• Wallrich v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 23-2842 (7th Cir. July 1, 2024)

  07/01/2024

  Court of appeals denied appellants’ motion to compel arbitration because consumers failed to show an arbitration agreement existed.  To show an arbitration agreement existed, consumers only needed to show they were Samsung customers.  Evidence of an AAA request for arbitration, spreadsheet with names and address, copies of Samsung’s terms and conditions, and the AAA’s determination that filing requirements had been met were insufficient proof of the parties’ arbitration agreement.  Additionally, court of appeals denied request to compel appellees to pay the AAA’s administrative fees, finding that because there was no arbitration agreement, the AAA’s rules and procedures which granted the tribunal discretion in resolving fee disputes were irrelevant.  Moreover, even where the parties agreed to abide by the rules of the AAA, the AAA has exclusive discretion over its fee disputes.

• Global Industrial Investment Ltd v. 1955 Capital China Fund GP LLC, No. 23-2662 (9th Cir. July 1, 2024)

  07/01/2024

  Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s order confirming the arbitration award, finding that the court is to defer to the arbitrator except for “the most limited circumstances.”  Here, the arbitrator conducted a careful review of the agreement and spent several pages reasoning whether he had authority to dissolve the funds under Delaware law and the doctrine of equitable dissolution.  Under these circumstances, the court could not find that that the arbitrator exceeded his authority.

• Appel v. Concierge Auctions, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-02263-BAS-MDD (S.D. Cal. July 1, 2024)

  07/01/2024

  Court granted defendant’s motion to confirm arbitration award, finding that plaintiff’s opposition did not present any arguments against defendant’s motion to confirm, but rather presented two objections to the structure and content of defendant’s motion.

• Teta v. Go New York Tours, Inc., No. 1:24-CV-01614-ER (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2024)

  07/01/2024

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that the parties were bound by a “clickwrap arbitration agreement” within the contract’s terms and conditions where the parties had “reasonable notice of the arbitration provision.”  To determine whether there was reasonable notice, the court relied on the fact that plaintiffs had to affirmatively click their assent to the agreement and that the terms and conditions were hyperlinked.

• Barton v. Zhang, No. 1:23-CV-08536-LJL (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 2024)

  06/27/2024

  Court granted petitioner’s unanswered motion to confirm arbitration award, reviewing it as an unopposed motion for summary judgment under Second Circuit precedent, and awarded petitioner pre- and post-judgement interest.  Court found no grounds for refusing to enforce the award under the New York Convention.

• Estate of Ke Zhengguang v. Yu, No. 23-1144 (4th Cir. June 27, 2024)

  06/27/2024

  Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to confirm an arbitration award under the New York Convention.  Appellant opposed confirmation and enforcement of the arbitration award, arguing that the district court should have considered her procedural defenses of forum non conveniens and failure to join necessary parties.  The district court decided, and the court of appeals affirmed, that these were purely procedural obstacles and not grounds for invalidating the award under Art. V of the New York Convention.  Court of appeals additionally rejected appellant’s argument that the award violated public policy where local Chinese law requires China to approve payments of RMB that flow outside of China. 

• Barton v. Zhang, No. 1:23-CV-08536-LJL (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 2024)

  06/27/2024

  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.

• B&C KB Holding GmbH v. Goldberg Lindsay & Co., No. 23-1014 (2d Cir. June 26, 2024)

  06/26/2024

  Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s order granting appellee’s §1782 application and denying the motion to quash, finding that appellee’s application satisfied the “for use” requirement of §1782 and the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a limited use restriction.

• Subway Franchise Systems of Canada, ULC v. Subway Developments 2000, Inc., No. 1:24-CV-00593-AS (S.D.N.Y. June 21, 2024)

  06/21/2024

  Court granted defendant’s petition to confirm an arbitration award, finding that an interim order is “final” for the purposes of the FAA, even where it does not resolve the merits of an issue to be arbitrated.  Court rejected plaintiff’s motion to vacate the award, holding that the arbitrator did not exceed her authority where the interim payment obligation was specifically referenced in the parties’ arbitration agreement.

• Garage Door Systems, LLC v. Blue Giant Equipment Corp., No. 1:23-CV-02223-JMS-KMB (S.D. Ind. June 20, 2024)

  06/20/2024

  Court found that a Rule 12(b)(3) motion to dismiss for improper venue, rather than a motion to stay or compel arbitration, is the proper procedure to use when an arbitration clause requires arbitration outside a district court’s district.  Court then denied defendant’s motion to dismiss for improper venue, finding that a vague reference to the Terms and Conditions in the Order Acknowledgements was not sufficient under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods to render the clause part of the parties' agreement.  As a result, the arbitration provision contained in the Terms and Conditions was not part of the parties' agreement.

• Queen-Gilbertson v. U.S. Auto Sales, Inc., No. 23-CV-03331-DCC (D.S.C. June 20, 2024)

  06/20/2024

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, denied motion to dismiss, and denied motions for protective order and to stay discovery as moot.  Court concluded that arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable and that delegation clause provided that issues of arbitrability would be decided by arbitration.

• Ghazizadeh v. Coursera, Inc., No. 23-CV-05646-EJD (N.D. Cal. June 20, 2024)

  06/20/2024

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay pending arbitration.  Court concluded that an arbitration agreement was formed where plaintiff manifested assent to the website’s terms of use on a sign-up screen, the terms of use contained a provision indicating that continued use signaled assent to updated terms, and website provided sufficient notice of the updated terms of use containing the arbitration agreement in an email.

• Williams v. Wallace Finance, LLC, No. 24-CV-00662-D (N.D. Tex. June 18, 2024)

  06/18/2024

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings pending arbitration.  Court found that defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate and further found that the agreement to arbitrate was valid where plaintiff failed to reject the agreement as warranted under the agreement.

• Risen Energy Co. v. Focus Futura Holding Participacoes S.A., No. 23-CV-10993-LGS 

  06/18/2024

  Court denied petitioner’s motion to vacate arbitration award and granted respondent’s motion to confirm.