2016-2025 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.

• 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. 

• 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, 2024

  12/27/2024

  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, 2024

  11/14/2024

  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, 2024

  11/13/2024

  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.

• Von Pezold v. Republic of Zimbabwe, No. 23-7109 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 13, 2024)

  11/13/2024

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s finding that Zimbabwe waived its sovereign immunity under the arbitration exception in the FSIA. Court of appeals found the elements of the exception satisfied because the applicable bilateral investment treaties were arbitration agreements, the ICSID tribunal issued valid arbitration awards, and the ICSID Convention governed the enforcement of the arbitration awards. Court of appeals also rejected Zimbabwe’s argument that the relevant bilateral investment treaties contained exclusive forum selection clauses that required enforcement only in Zimbabwe.

• Young v. Laurence A. Pagnoni & Associates, Inc., No. 1:24-CV-05385-JLR (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2024

  11/08/2024

  Court granted plaintiff’s unopposed petition to confirm arbitration award and reasonable attorney’s fees under the FAA finding that plaintiff timely filed the petition within one year of the award, and the award explicitly provided for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to the prevailing party.  Court found “well more than a ‘barely colorable’ justification for each component of the Award.”

• United Mexican States v. Lion Mexico Consolidated, L.P., No. 1:21-CV-03185-ACR (D.D.C. Nov. 8, 2024

  11/08/2024

  Court denied plaintiff’s petition to vacate the ICSID arbitration award and granted defendant’s cross-petition for enforcement of the award.  Contrary to Mexico’s argument, court found that the tribunal did interpret Article 1105(1) of NAFTA, employing common interpretive tools, citing authorities, and explaining its reasoning.  Court also denied a motion to intervene filed by a Mexican businessman as untimely and futile, because he did not meet the requirements for intervention under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

• Southfield Capital, LP v. Stonington Capital Advisors, LLC, No. 1:24-CV-06269-AT (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2024

  11/08/2024

  Court denied plaintiff’s motion to seal or redact certain judicial documents attached as exhibits in connection with its petition to confirm the arbitration award.  Court disagreed with plaintiff’s arguments that (1) the parties have an interest in maintaining the arbitration proceedings confidential in their entirety, and (2) the proposed redactions would protect sensitive proprietary information – finding that plaintiff’s proposed redactions went far beyond the “narrow-tailoring requirement” exception to public access to judicial records.

• Robinett’s Floor Covering, LLC v. Walmart, Inc., No. 4:24-CV-00233-JFJ (N.D. Okla. Nov. 8, 2024

  11/08/2024

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding the existence of a valid arbitration agreement.  Court, however, found that the question of whether the dispute at issue fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement was clearly and unmistakably delegated to the arbitrator.  Court also denied motion for leave to intervene filed by American Bank of Oklahoma without prejudice to refiling upon completion of the arbitration proceedings.

• Concierge Auctions, LLC v. A-M 2018 Homes, LLC, No. 1:24-CV-01681-VEC (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2024)

  10/30/2024

  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)

  10/28/2024

  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)

  10/28/2024

  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)

  10/28/2024

  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)

  10/16/2024

  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)

  10/16/2024

  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)

  10/15/2024

  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)

  10/10/2024

  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.

• Next Level Ventures, LLC v. Avid Holdings, Ltd., No. 23-35404 (9th Cir. Oct. 10, 2024)

  10/10/2024

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s finding that motion to vacate arbitral award was untimely since it was filed more than three months after the award was delivered. In particular, it found the movant was not entitled to equitable tolling because it received actual notice of the arbitration award more than three months before it moved to vacate it.

• Purple Innovation, LLC v. Responsive Surface Technology LLC, 2:20-CV-00708-RJS-CMR (D. Utah Oct. 8, 2024)

  10/08/2024

  Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award and denied cross-motion to vacate arbitration award, finding none of the defendants’ arguments concerning vacatur under the FAA to have merit. In particular, the defendants challenged the arbitrator’s award of legal fees and costs. Court found such an award permissible, in part because of the arbitrator’s express reasoning and legal findings.

• Dunn v. Global Trust Management, LLC, No. 21-10120 (11th Cir. Oct. 3, 2024)

  10/03/2024

  Court of appeals reversed and remanded the district court’s order finding that the delegation provisions in the parties’ arbitration agreements which delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator were unenforceable and ordered the district court to address whether defendant waived their ability to compel arbitration. Court of appeals concluded that the application of tribal law does not conflict with the FAA, and thus the delegation provisions at issue were enforceable. As such, issue of the choice-of-law provision have been delegated to the arbitrator.

• S.T.G. v. Epic Games, Inc., No. 3:24-CV-00517-RSH-AHG (S.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2024)

  10/02/2024

  Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and ordered certain plaintiffs to proceed to arbitration and stay their claims pending the completion of arbitration proceedings. Court concluded that, for the six of seven plaintiffs who themselves were parties to the End User License Agreement (“EULA”), it was for the arbitrator, and not the court, to determine whether the minors disaffirmed the EULA by filing the instant lawsuit. Court concluded, however, that the seventh plaintiff whose mother, and not himself, entered into the EULA could not be compelled to arbitrate under the EULA.

• Kendall v. Regional Enterprises, LLC, No. 5:24-CV-00180-KDB-SCR (W.D.N.C. Oct. 2, 2024)

  10/02/2024

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration because the parties did not dispute the existence of the arbitration agreement and its terms clearly applied to the dispute at issue. Furthermore, court found the arbitration agreement contained a valid choice of law provision that properly delegates the issue of choice of law to the arbitrator.

• Cure & Associates, P.C. v. LPL Financial LLC, No. 23-40519 (5th Cir. Oct. 1, 2024)

  10/01/2024

  Court of appeals found remanded to the district court to compel arbitration and enter a stay pending arbitration finding non-signatories to an arbitration agreement may be compelled to arbitrate under California and Texas law equitable estoppel principles. Court of appeals concluded that both non-signatory companies “deliberately sought and received direct benefits” from the contractual relationship between plaintiff and defendant, which contained the arbitration agreement, “such that their [non-signatory companies] are subject to arbitration per those underlying contracts.”

• Klosterman v. Discover Products Inc., No. 2:24-CV-01253-WB (E.D. Pa. Oct. 1, 2024)

  10/01/2024

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings after the denial of defendant’s first motion to compel arbitration, and the subsequent limited discovery that followed. Court denied plaintiff’s motion to exclude the declaration submitted by defendant, finding it was properly admissible pursuant Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) as a business record. Having admitted the affidavit, court concluded that “there [wa]s no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether there exists a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate.

• Sociedad Concesionaria Metropolitana de Salud S.A. v. Webuild S.p.A., No. 1:23-CV-01175-CFC (D. Del. Sept. 27, 2024)

  09/27/2024

  Court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction and found, contrary to plaintiff’s contention, it did not have quasi in rem jurisdiction where because Webuild S.p.A, a foreign defendenat, is the sole owner of Webuild US, a Delaware corporation, but Webuild US has no relation to the arbitration award at issue.

• Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Partnership Acting Through Vantage Mezzanine Fund II (PTY) LTD v. Taylor, No. 1:23-CV-06852-ALC (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2024)

  09/27/2024

  Court granted plaintiff’s petition to confirm and enforce a foreign arbitral award against defendant finding that (1) court has quasi in rem jurisdiction over defendant with respect to funds held at defendant’s account at Bank of America in New York, (2) defendant has not demonstrated that one of the seven grounds of exclusion under Article V of the Convention applies, and (3) the award does not violate New York’s public policy because it is not “excessive”.