A collection of the most recent U.S. international arbitration decisions is available here. Decisions can be quickly retrieved by using the filter tools below.
-
Verizon New England Inc. v. NLRB, No. 1:15-1062 (D.C. Cir. June 21, 2016)06/21/2016
Following review for abuse of discretion, the court reversed the decision of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) who had overturned an arbitration award. Court held that the NLRB misapplied the highly deferential Spielberg-Olin standard for review of awards in labor arbitration; the award was not “clearly repugnant” to the National Labor Relations Act; and the NLRB decision was unreasonable.
-
UBS Financial Services, Inc. v. Zimmerman, No. 5:16-CV-00155 (E.D.N.C. June 21, 2016)06/21/2016
Motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to compel arbitration dismissed. Court held that defendant is not a customer of the plaintiff and therefore not entitled to FINRA arbitration. Court compares motion to compel arbitration to a motion for summary judgment, in that it will be granted where there is no genuine dispute despite inferences being drawn in favor of the non-moving party.
-
Citizen Potawatomi Nation v. State of Oklahoma, No. 5:16-CV-00361 (W.D. Okla. June 21, 2016)06/21/2016
Motion to vacate arbitration award on the basis that, inter alia, the arbitrator exceeded his powers by failing to limit the award to enforcing the parties’ agreement denied; application for confirmation of the award granted.
-
New York City and Vicinity Dist. Council of the United Bhd. of Carpenters and Joiners of Am. v. Ass’n of Wall–Ceiling and Carpentry Indus. of New York, Inc., 15‐1574‐CV (2d Cir. June 20, 2016)06/20/2016
District court’s judgment vacating arbitral award vacated. Court held that the award was properly grounded in the arbitrator’s application of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and did not violate the court’s prior order approving the CBA. Court remanded to permit the district court to reconsider its decision to approve the CBA in light of the arbitrator’s interpretation of that agreement.
-
Brandenburg Health Facilities, LP v. Mattingly, No. 3:15-CV-833 (W.D. Ky. June 20, 2016)06/20/2016
Motion to dismiss suit seeking to enjoin state action and enforce arbitration agreement dismissed; motion to compel arbitration granted for all claims with the exception of wrongful death. The defendant is enjoined from pursuing all causes of action besides the wrongful-death claim in state court.
-
Mathew v. Austin Industrial Services, LP, No. 4:16-CV-00867 (S.D. Tex. June 20, 2016)06/20/2016
Agreed motion to compel arbitration granted. Rather than granting agreed motion to stay, case is dismissed without prejudice because all issues raised in the litigation are arbitrable.
-
Abaya v. Total Account Recovery, LLC, No. 2:15-CV-01269 (E.D. Cal. June 20, 2016)06/20/2016
Motion to compel arbitration granted and matter stayed pending completion of arbitration. Court holds that parties’ agreement requires gateway issues, including the “validity and scope” of that arbitration agreement, be decided by an arbitrator.
-
Alstom Brasil Energia E Transporte LTDA et al v. Mitsui Sumitomo Seguros S.A., No. 1:15-CV-08221 (S.D.N.Y. June 20, 2016)06/20/2016
Petition to confirm ICC arbitration award granted and motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction denied because, once federal common law choice of law rules are applied pursuant to the FAA, the arbitration agreement is enforceable against the insurer-subrogee who “stands in the shoes of its insured”.
-
Roberts Irrigation Co., Inc. v. Hortau Corp. and Hortau, Inc., No. 16-CV-0028 (W.D. Wis. June 20, 2016)06/20/2016
Motion to dismiss or stay action and to compel arbitration dismissed. An arbitration agreement must be in writing and, unlike a new contract, cannot be implied from the parties’ continued course of dealing after the original agreement expired. The court interprets the arbitration clause of the expired agreement covering “any dispute which arises in the course of or following the performance of the present contract” as applying only to disputes arising from the expired agreement and not disputes arising from the new implied contract.
-
Gonzales v. Brinker Intl Payroll Co, LP d/b/a Chili’s Bar & Grill, No. 2:15-CV-00711-MCA-GJF (D.N.M. Jun. 17, 2016)
06/17/2016Court deferred defendant’s motion to compel binding arbitration and to dismiss or stay case pending summary bench trial on the sole issue of whether plaintiff agreed to defendant’s arbitration agreement, finding that the question whether the parties concluded an arbitration agreement could only be resolved by the judicial fact finding process of a trial.
-
REM Directional, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of Am., No. 2:15-CV-152 (S.D. Miss. June 17, 2016)06/17/2016
Motion for summary judgment granted. The action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations; a court order compelling arbitration does not toll the statute of limitations when the defendant was not party to the proceedings at the time the order compelling arbitration was granted.
-
General Cable Industries Inc v. Chauffeurs Teamsters Warehousemen and Helpers Union, No. 1:15-CV-00081 (N.D. Ind. June 17, 2016)06/17/2016
Labor arbitration award confirmed. Court held the arbitrator drew his opinion from the essence of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and did not exceed the authority conferred to him by the parties, as required by the FAA.
-
Gubala v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., No. 15-CV-1078 (E.D. Wis. June 17, 2016)06/17/2016
Amended claim seeking injunctive relief dismissed where plaintiff amends complaint to remove relief that would trigger the mandatory arbitration clause. Court held that elements for injunctive relief are not met because an adequate remedy at law exists despite plaintiff’s decision not to pursue it.
-
Coleman v. System Dialing LLC, No. 1:15-CV-03868 (S.D.N.Y. June 17, 2016)06/17/2016
Motion to compel arbitration granted. Court held arbitration agreement was supported by consideration.
-
General Cable Industries Inc. v. Chauffeurs Teamsters Warehousemen and Helpers Union, No. 1:15-CV-00081 (N.D. Ind. June 17, 2016)06/17/2016
Motion to vacate award denied and cross-motion to affirm award granted. Court held FAA provides sole, limited grounds for vacating arbitral awards, and arbitrator did not exceed his authority or “dispense ‘his own brand of industrial justice.’”
-
Telecom Decision Makers, Inc. v. Access Integrated Networks Inc., No. 15-6197 (6th Cir. June 17, 2016)06/17/2016
District court decision that claims were subject to and within the scope of a binding arbitration clause affirmed.
-
Ihde v. HME, Inc., No. 4:15-CV-00585-CAN (E.D. Tex. June 16, 2016)06/16/2016
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that the parties had not agreed to arbitrate given that the arbitration provision in the subcontract agreement between the parties had not been incorporated by reference into the defendant’s purchase order. Therefore, the court held that the plaintiff should be able to deny the application of the arbitration provision.
-
COR Clearing, LLC v. LoBue, No. 5:16-CV-00909-JGB-KK (C.D. Cal. June 16, 2016)
06/16/2016Court granted preliminary injunction enjoining arbitration, finding that plaintiff would likely succeed in showing that it was not bound under FINRA rules to arbitrate with a person who had not opened any accounts from it or received any services from it.
-
United Steel Union No. 348 v. Magellan Midstream Holdings, No. 15-3249 (10th Cir. June 16, 2016)06/16/2016
District court order granting summary judgment and compelling arbitration in a labor dispute affirmed. Court reasoned that reversal is not warranted because (a) the arbitration clause is susceptible to an interpretation that covers the asserted claim, (b) doubts should be resolved in favor of arbitrability, and (c) the arbitration clause is broad and does not expressly exclude the asserted grievance.
-
Clookey v. Citibank, N.A., No. 8:14-CV-01318 (N.D.N.Y. June 16, 2016)06/16/2016
Motion for reconsideration of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration denied because the plaintiff failed to point to any change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice that could reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.
-
The Western Sugar Cooperative v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union 190, No. CV 15-119 (D. Mont. June 16, 2016).06/16/2016
Summary judgment granted and suit to vacate a labor arbitration award dismissed. An arbitrator’s decisions are accorded high deference in the labor context, unless (a) the award does not draw its essence from the collective bargaining agreement; (b) the arbitrator exceeds the boundaries of the issues submitted to him; (c) the award is contrary to public policy; or (d) the award is procured by fraud.
-
Mercado v. Sally Beauty Supply LLC, No. 2:15-CV-02316 (E.D. Cal. June 16, 2016)06/16/2016
Motion to compel arbitration and stay action granted. Court held there is a valid agreement to arbitrate, the agreement covers the dispute, and the plaintiff challenged the arbitration agreement as a whole rather than specifically challenging the specific agreement to arbitrate arbitrability.
-
The Western Sugar Cooperative v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union 190, No. 1:15-CV-00119 (D. Mont. June 16, 2016)06/16/2016
Motion for summary judgment vacating arbitration award denied and cross-motion for summary judgment granted. Court rejected argument that arbitrator failed to draw his decision from parties’ agreement and dispensed his own brand of justice.
-
Bridgetown Trucking, Inc. v. Acatech Solutions, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00236 (D. Or. June 16, 2016)06/16/2016
Motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration granted. Court held arbitration agreement encompassed dispute at issue.
-
Celltrace Communications Limited v. Acacia Research Corp., No. 1:15-CV-04746 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2016)06/16/2016
Motion to compel arbitration granted. Since the existence of an arbitration agreement was disputed, the court decided the question of arbitrability and held that the parties had a binding agreement to arbitrate under the ICC Rules.
-
Vesta Corporation v. Amdocs Management Limited, No. 3:14-CV-01142 (D. Or. June 16, 2016)06/16/2016
Motion to dismiss complaint as subject to arbitration agreement denied. Court held claims were not within scope of arbitration agreement.
-
CAMOFI Master LDC v. Associated Third Party Administrators, No. 3:16-CV-00855 (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2016)06/16/2016
Motion to compel arbitration granted in part and denied in part. Court held that the non-signatory may be compelled to arbitrate where it knowingly received direct benefits from the underlying agreement; but refused to compel arbitration of claims for which no exception applied to the general rule that non-signatories cannot be bound by the arbitral clause of a contract. Court declined to stay arbitration pending outcome of the litigation as this was a decision for the arbitrator.
-
Fallbrook Hosp. Corp. v. Cal. Nurses Ass’n/Nat’l Nurses Org. Comm. (CAN/NNOC) AFL-CIO, No. 14-56177 (9th Cir. June 15, 2016)06/15/2016
Circuit court affirmed district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s third amended complaint. Court held that defendant did not breach an implied agreement to arbitrate all disputes with plaintiff because all of plaintiff’s allegations in support of its contention that the parties entered into such agreement are all conclusory, implausible, or inconsistent with such an implied agreement. Moreover, as plaintiff’s opening brief did not address its claim that defendant breached an agreement to negotiate in good faith, that argument was therefore waived.
-
Tillman v. Tillman, No. 13-56624 (9th Cir. June 15, 2016)06/15/2016
Dismissal of legal malpractice suit in favor of arbitration by the district court reversed. Court holds that a valid arbitration agreement exists but, where an arbitration is terminated without judgment after one party ran out of funds, the arbitration occurred for purposes of § 3 of the FAA and nothing in the FAA suggests that dismissal is proper.
-
Beadore v. Conn Appliances, Inc., No. 5:16-CV-00224 (W.D. Tex. June 15, 2016)06/15/2016
Motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pending arbitration granted. Parties jointly stipulated to applicability of binding arbitration agreement and jointly requested to stay case under § 3 of the FAA.
-
Interstate Distributor Co. v. Ellis, No. 4:15-CV-01781 (S.D. Tex. June 15, 2016)06/15/2016
Motion to recover costs and attorney fees incurred in connection with litigation to vacate an arbitration award denied. Court held that because the challenge to the award was nonfrivolous and was based on a recognized ground (an undisclosed conflict suggesting possible bias), defendant was not entitled to costs.
-
Jones v. Singing River Health Services Foundation, No. 1:14-CV-00447 (S.D. Miss. June 15, 2016)06/15/2016
Motion to stay proceedings pending outcome of arbitration denied. Court held that petitioner was not entitled to a mandatory stay under § 3 of the FAA because she was not a signatory to the underlying arbitration agreement. However, the court granted a discretionary stay pending resolution of an overlapping, but not identical, arbitration in the interest of avoiding inconsistent results.
-
Gatlin v. John M. O'Quinn & Associates, PLLC d-b-a The O'Quinn Law Firm, No. 4:16-CV-00629 (S.D. Tex. June 15, 2016)06/15/2016
Motion to compel arbitration and stay judicial action granted. Plaintiff did not dispute the existence of a binding arbitration agreement and could not overcome the presumption that the agreement was valid.
-
In re Anderson, No. 15-CV-4227 (S.D.N.Y. June 14, 2016)06/14/2016
Bankruptcy Court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration affirmed. Bankruptcy Court properly exercised its discretion to override the arbitration agreement where there is an inherent conflict between the Bankruptcy Code and FAA with respect to a core bankruptcy proceeding.
-
Smagin v. Yegiazaryan, No. 14-CV-09764-R (C.D. Ca. June 14, 2016)06/14/2016
Motion to stay judicial proceedings pending appeal of arbitral award denied. The court disagreed with respondent’s argument that the award had been suspended because it was on appeal at the seat of the arbitration and further held that, in any case, courts retain discretion to enforce a suspended award under Article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention.
-
Founders Real Estate Investment Trust v. Kinsale Insurance Company, No. 1:16-CV-00086 (N.D. Ohio June 14, 2016)06/14/2016
Motion to compel arbitration granted. Court held the right to arbitrate had not been waived through parties’ initial failure to pay the full filing fees, especially since the defendant had subsequently cured any filing defects. Case dismissed in its entirety because the parties expressly contracted to resolve this type of dispute by arbitration, the arbitration clause governed all claims at issue, and the arbitrator’s decisions would be final and binding.
-
Monica Echavarria v. Adir International, LLC, No. 2:15-CV-09172 (C.D. Cal. June 13, 2016)06/13/2016
Motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings granted. Court held defendant had not waived its right to arbitrate and that the claims at issue were within the scope of the arbitration agreement between the parties. Court likewise rejected plaintiff’s argument that the agreement had been oppressive and therefore unconscionable on either procedural or substantive grounds.
-
Jolie Design & Decor, Inc. v. Van Gogh, No. 2:15-CV-00740 (E.D. La. June 13, 2016)06/13/2016
Motions to confirm arbitration award and grant attorney fees and costs granted and cross-motion to vacate award denied. US courts have primary jurisdiction over New York Convention awards and must look to § 10 of the FAA for the exclusive grounds for vacating an award, applying a “very differential” standard. Court held that the arbitrator had not exceeded his authority in finding that a valid arbitration agreement existed, relying on a later agreement to interpret a contract term, and awarding allegedly unreasonable attorney fees. Motion for attorney fees and costs associated with the litigation granted based on the parties’ agreement.
-
Harris v. Halliburton Co., No. 1:16-CV-00281-LJO-JLT (E.D. Ca. June 13, 2016)06/13/2016
Magistrate judge recommendation to grant motion to compel arbitration. FAA applied because the employment agreement at issue affected interstate commerce. Court further held that the agreement was valid, rejecting defenses based on alleged procedural and substgantive unconscionability.
-
Welch v. My Left Foot Children's Therapy, LLC, No. 2:14-CV-01786 (D. Nev. June 13, 2016)06/13/2016
Motion to compel arbitration and stay action denied. Court held the arbitration agreement between the parties, which covered all claims relating to claimant’s employment, must be read broadly to include qui tam claims under the False Claims Act. However, because the US government was the real party of interest in the action and was not party to the arbitration agreement, requiring arbitration of the claims “would exceed the bounds of the arbitration agreement regardless of whether the government objects to arbitration.”
-
Manning v. Parsons Transportation Grp., Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00390-JLT (E.D. Ca June 13, 2016)06/13/2016
Motion to compel arbitration granted. Court held that the FAA applied to the employment agreement because the defendant operated nationwide and further held that the agreement was valid, rejecting plaintiff’s argument that it was procedurally or substantively unconscionable.
-
Campbell v. Adecco USA, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-04059-NKL, (W.D.Mo. Jun. 13, 2016)06/13/2016
Motion to compel arbitration under the FAA denied. Court held that since the defendant held an asymmetrical right to change or modify the terms of the arbitration agreement at any time and without reasonable notice, the promise to arbitrate was therefore illusory and cannot constitute consideration or an enforceable contract.
-
Colton v. Hibbett Sporting Goods, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-04002-NKL (W.D. Mo. June 13, 2016)06/13/2016
Motion to compel arbitration under the FAA granted and case stayed pending the outcome of the arbitration. Court held that the arbitration agreement at issue contains valid consideration and is therefore binding on both parties; and the claim falls within the scope of the agreement.
-
CVS Health Corp. v. Vividus LLC, No. 2:15-MC-00093-JJT (D. Ariz. June 13, 2016)06/13/2016
Motion to enforce arbitral tribunal’s subpoena ordering a non-party to produce documents prior to hearing denied. In the absence of a decision by the Ninth Circuit expanding the scope of the FAA, 9 USC § 7, the court held that “[t]he plain terms of the statute restrict an arbitrator’s subpoena power to situations where the non-party has been called to appear in the physical presence of the arbitrators and provide the relevant documents at that time.” The issue of whether arbitrators have the authority to order a non-party to testify and produce documents in conjunction with pre-hearing discovery is however not settled between other federal courts.
-
Terracap SC Partners, L.P., v. American Management Services Central, L.L.C., No. 4:16-CV-00037-DW (W.D. Mo. June 10, 2016)06/10/2016
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that an arbitration provision that incorporates the Rules of the AAA is, as in this case, a clear and unmistakable expression of the parties’ intent to arbitrate.
-
Consolidation Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers of Am., No. 1:15-CV-00167-IMK (N.D.W. Va. June 10, 2016)06/10/2016
Court granted motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, finding that an arbitration clause providing that an “employee” shall submit disputes to arbitration also binds the employer to arbitrate disputes.
-
Gerszberg v. LI & Fung (Trading) Limited, No. 1:16-CV-01182 (S.D.N.Y. June 10, 2016)06/10/2016
Motion to continue preliminary anti-arbitration injunction granted and parties permitted to conduct expedited discovery and additional briefing on the issue of arbitrability. Non-signatory third-party beneficiary is enjoined from proceeding to arbitration since, although the parties’ arbitration agreement delegated the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrators, the issue of whether a party must arbitrate with a non-signatory third-party beneficiary is an issue for the court.
-
Desimoni v. TBC Corp., 2:15-CV-00366-UA-CM (M.D. Fla. June 9, 2016)06/09/2016
Recommendation that motion to compel arbitration be granted. Court held that plaintiffs had failed to meet their burden of showing the lack of an agreement to arbitrate and that the inclusion of a waiver of collective actions in the agreement did not render them unenforceable. Court further held that the contract’s provision requiring that each side pay its own attorney’s fees is severable and therefore it does not affect its decision to compel arbitration.
-
Gerena v. Neurological Surgery, P.C., and Brisman, 2:15-CV-04634-JMA-GRB (E.D.N.Y. June 9, 2016)06/09/2016
Recommendation by Magistrate Judge to grant motion to compel arbitration and stay case pending completion of arbitration. Court held that, as to the first defendant, because there was clear and unmistakable evidence under New York law that the parties intended that the arbitrator decide the question of arbitrability, such issue must be referred to the arbitrator. Court further held that, as to the second defendant, the fact that he was a non-signatory did not prevent the court from compelling arbitration on the question of arbitrability.
-
ExxonMobil Corp. v. United Steel Workers Local Union 11-470, No. 1:15-CV-00123-CSO (D. Mont. June 9, 2016)06/09/2016
Order denying motion to vacate and granting cross-motion to enforce labor arbitration award. In reviewing labor arbitration awards, the ninth circuit has held that courts afford a nearly unparalleled degree of deference to the arbitrator’s decision, including the arbitrator’s interpretation of the parties’ agreement and to his findings of fact. In light of this deference, only four circumstances exist where vacatur of a labor arbitration is justified: “(1) when the award does not draw its essence from the collective bargaining agreement and the arbitrator is dispensing his own brand of industrial justice; (2) where the arbitrator exceeds the boundaries of the issues submitted to him; (3) when the award is contrary to public policy; or (4) when the award is procured by fraud.” None of these circumstances were present according to the court.