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.
-
United States of America v. B.L. Harbert International, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-00173-JRH-BKE (S.D. Ga. July 23, 2020)07/23/2020
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of construction dispute claims related to a government contract for the United States Army. Court found that a valid agreement to arbitrate governed the dispute and rejected the Plaintiff’s argument that the agreements were unconscionable because arbitration only permits limited discovery.
-
CEF Energia, B.V. v. Italian Republic, No. 1:19-CV-03443-K (D.D.C. July 23, 2020)07/23/2020
Court granted temporary stay of petition seeking to confirm two arbitration awards in the interest of judicial economy and international comity. The awards were rendered under the ECT by arbitration panels both based in Stockholm, Sweden. The tribunal had ignored Italy’s argument that the panels lacked jurisdiction because of a recent CJEU ruling that intra-EU treaty arbitration are invalid to the extent they prohibit judicial review of EU law by EU courts, finding that Italy’s regulations reduced the value of petitioner’s investments. The court neglected to issue a stay pursuant to Article VI of the New York Convention because they did not determine whether they had jurisdiction and instead stayed under the courts inherent powers.
-
Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, v. Ocean Marine Development Corp., No. 1:19-CV-06164-RA (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2020)07/23/2020
Court granted unopposed petition to confirm an arbitration award, but modified the amount of attorneys’ fees sought. Court found that the petitioners demonstrated that there was no material issue of fact that would preclude enforcement of the award. Court also confirmed the attorneys’ fees, but found that the rates charged for the associate were slightly higher than reasonable.
-
Watkins v. Vision Academy Charter School, No. 2:20-CV-00656-JCJ (E.D. Pa. July 23, 2020)07/23/2020
Court denied defendants motion to compel arbitration of employment discrimination claims and ordered the parties to engage in limited discovery regarding the question of arbitrability. Court found that the plaintiffs argument that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable because it required the plaintiff to pay for half of the mediation and arbitration fees and to pay defendant’s attorneys fees in the event that the plaintiff’s claims are unsuccessful was sufficient to create a dispute of material fact over whether there was a valid agreement to arbitrate.
-
Nemecek v. Finger One, Inc., No. 3:20-CV-00048-DMS-LL (S.D. Cal. July 23, 2020)07/23/2020
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed employment related claims. The parties agreed that the claims were within the scope of a valid agreement to arbitrate and court found it had discretion over whether to grant a stay or dismiss the claims.
-
Hanna v. Ivy Funding Company, LLC, No. 3:20-CV-00231-L (N.D. Tex. July 23, 2020)07/23/2020
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court found that the claims were arbitrable and the parties agreed that the claims were in the scope of the arbitration provision, the court compelled arbitration.
-
Bush v. Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-01004-NR (07/22/2020
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of employee discrimination claims. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the agreements were unconscionable because they required arbitration, and court also rejected the argument that defendant materially breached the arbitration agreement by refusing to arbitrate claim, finding that the record did not support the contention that plaintiff previously demanded arbitration.
-
Chess v. CF Arcis IX LLC., No. 3:20-01625 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2020)07/22/2020
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed claims related to a golf club membership agreement. Court rejected plaintiffs’ arguments that the arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable because it was presented on a take it or leave it basis and procedurally unconscionable because the modification allegedly frustrated the purpose of the contract. Court also rejected plaintiffs’ argument that they were non-signatories to the arbitration agreement because the modification that added the arbitration agreement was a new contract.
-
Gibbs v. Sequoia Capital Operations, LLC, No. 19-2108 (4th Cir. July 21, 2020)07/21/2020
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration of class claims and RICO claims connected to pay day loans. The pay day loan companies were owned by sovereign Native American tribes and the arbitration agreement specified that it was governed by tribal law and the arbitrator should apply tribal law. Court held that although plaintiffs did not mention the delegation provision, they may rely on the same arguments they employed to challenge the other arbitration provisions, and thus it was appropriate for the district court to consider the validity of the delegation provision. Court also agreed with district court that the choice of law provision that provided tribal law should preempt federal law waived the plaintiffs’ rights to federal statutory remedies and were therefore unenforceable.
-
Gibbs v. Haynes Investments, LLC, No. 19-1434 (4th Cir. July 21, 2020)07/21/2020
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration of class claims and RICO claims connected to pay day loans. The pay day loan companies were owned by sovereign Native American tribes and the arbitration agreement specified that it was governed by tribal law and the arbitrator should apply tribal law. Court held that although plaintiffs did not mention the delegation provision, they may rely on the same arguments they employed to challenge the other arbitration provisions, and thus it was appropriate for the district court to consider the validity of the delegation provision. Court also agreed with district court that the choice of law provision that provided tribal law should preempt federal law waived the plaintiffs’ rights to federal statutory remedies and were therefore unenforceable.
-
CMH Manufacturing, Inc. v. Caruthers, No. 3:20-00387 (S.D.W.V. July 21, 2020)07/21/2020
Court granted petitioner’s motion for a order compelling arbitration of contract claims in West Virginia state court but denied a motion to stay claims in the state court proceeding because doing so would raise serious concerns for federalism and comity. Court found compelling arbitration was appropriate because that there was (1) a dispute between the parties, (2) covered by a written agreement to arbitrate, (3) the dispute concerned interstate commerce, and (4) the respondent refused to arbitrate.
-
Bush v. Comcast Corporation, No. 1:18-16090-RBK-KMW (D.N.J. July 21, 2020)07/21/2020
Court granted motion to compel arbitration of employment related claims. Court found that the arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable because plaintiff was forced to accept the agreement or quit his job, but rejected plaintiffs arguments that the agreement was substantively unconscionable because arbitration limits discovery and is an inherently biased forum. Court held that because plaintiff was unable to show substantive unconscionability, he is bound to arbitrate.
-
Aquino v. BT’s On the River, LLC, No. 1:20-CV-20090-RNS (S.D. Fla. July 21, 2020)07/21/2020
Court granted motion to compel arbitration of an employment dispute. Court rejected plaintiffs’ arguments that the agreements were substantively unconscionable because they found that certain offensive terms in the contract were severable from the agreement to arbitrate. Court also rejected plaintiffs’ procedural unconscionability arguments as not being supported by evidence.
-
Kahuna Group, LLC v. Bunker Capital, LLC, No. 3:19-CV-00552-GCM (W.D.N.C. July 21, 2020)07/29/2022
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and rejected plaintiff’s argument that the defendant should not be able to compel arbitration because they were non-signatories to the agreement, finding that under Florida law a non-signatory can compel signatories to arbitration when the proceedings concerns actions allegedly taken by a non-signatory agent of a signatory.
-
Nicaragua Tobacco Imports, Inc. v. Yam Export & Import LLC, No. 1:19-CV-23164-MGC (S.D. Fla. July 20, 2020)07/20/2020
Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding the parties expressed their intent for the arbitrator to decide issues of arbitrability by incorporating the AAA rules into their arbitration agreement. Court further rejected plaintiff’s attempt to avoid arbitration because certain defendants were non-signatories to the arbitration agreement, determining that under Florida’s doctrine of equitable estoppel, plaintiff may not seek to avoid arbitration with non-signatories while simultaneously asserting claims against them.
-
Jackson v. The Aleria Companies, Inc., No. 2:19-01281-BJR (W.D. Wash. July 20, 2020)07/20/2020
Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of a putative class action related to health insurance plans. Court found that because defendants waited nearly a year to compel arbitration and had engaged in discovery conferences, filed motions to dismiss, entered a protective order and joint stipulations, and were working with plaintiffs’ counsel to set a case management schedule, they had taken advantage of the federal forum and therefore waived their right to compel arbitration.
-
Banuelos v. Alorica, Inc., No. 3:20-00065 (W.D. Tex. July 20, 2020)07/20/2020
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of employee discrimination claims. Court found that defendant met its burden of showing that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed, rejecting the plaintiff’s arguments that defendant’s evidence was insufficient. Court reasoned that any print out that accurately reflects the contents of an electronic file can be considered an original of that file, and noted that a printout of defendant’s log was admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.
-
Jones v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., No. 4:19-00811-BRW (E.D. Ark. July 20, 2020)07/20/2020
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of a putative class dispute arising out of an automobile purchase. Court rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments that the agreements were not valid because defendant failed to execute them, and that the arbitration clauses violated the requirement of mutuality because Arkansas recently put arbitration agreements outside the requirement of mutuality.
-
Levi Strauss & Co. v. Aqua Dynamics Systems, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-04718-WHO (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2020)07/20/2020
Court granted petition to confirm an arbitration award and denied a petition to vacate. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that an arbitration award issued by JAMS should be vacated on the grounds that the panel was evidently partial because two of the three arbitrators were undisclosed shareholders in JAMS and JAMS engaged in undisclosed business with one of the parties. Court found that the business was trivial and that the parties and that the JAMS arbitration was not forced but jointly selected by both parties.
-
Waithaka v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 19-1848 (1st Cir. July 17, 2020)07/17/2020
Court of appeal affirmed district court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration. Court extended the exception for transportation workers in the FAA to those transportation workers who operate within the flow of interstate commerce, not just those who cross state lines. Court found that the exception applied to independent contractors like the plaintiffs following the Supreme Court’s decision in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, 139 S. Ct. 532, 544 (2019), and further held that the statute provided an exception for workers “engaged in… interstate commerce” not merely those who crossed state lines.
-
In Re Petition of the Republic of Turkey, No. 2:19-CV-20107-ES-SCM (D.N.J. Cal. July 17, 2020)07/17/2020
Court denied petition seeking an order directing discovery pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782. Court found that the petitioner met the statutory requirements of § 1782, rejecting respondent’s contention that§ 1782 prohibited discovery because the petitioner was seeking discovery not only to defend itself in international arbitration, but also to gather evidence for a criminal trial against respondent. However, the court found that one of the intel factors, whether the requests are intrusive and burdensome, required the court to deny the petition because respondent asserted his fifth amendment privilege and because respondent has indefinite asylum in the United States. Court thus exercised its discretion to deny the petition.
-
Nicholas v. Uber, No. 4:19-CV-08228-PJH (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2020)07/17/2020
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of most of the putative class claims related to employment by defendant’s ride sharing app, staying plaintiffs’ PAGA claim until the resolution of the arbitration. Court found that plaintiffs had the opportunity to opt out of arbitration but had not done so, and that the questions of arbitrability of the claims had been delegated to the arbitrator by the agreement.
-
Vantage Deepwater Company v. Petrobas America, Incorporated, No. 19-20435 (5th Cir. July 16, 2020)07/16/2020
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order confirming an arbitration award pursuant to the FAA and the Panama Convention. Court found that, by properly deferring to arbitrators’ finding that defendants’ bribery objection was waived due to their ratification of the underlying agreement, district court correctly concluded the arbitration award did not violate public policy. Court of appeals also determined that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying discovery from a dissenting arbitrator and the AAA.
-
Teamsters Local 177 v. United Parcel Service, No. 19-3510 (3d Cir. July 16, 2020)07/16/2020
Court of appeals reversed district court’s order denying petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award. Court of appeals found there was sufficient Art. III “case or controversy” to confer subject-matter jurisdiction on district court to confirm the arbitration award, since under the FAA a party’s injury was only fully remedied by the entry of a confirmation order.
-
Saponjic v. BMW of North America, LLC, No. 3:20-CV-00703-BAS-RBB (S.D. Cal. July 16, 2020)07/16/2020
Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court found that defendant had standing to enforce the arbitration agreement since it was an affiliate and managing entity of an assignee of the underlying lease. Although there was partial procedural unconscionability, court concluded the plaintiff failed to meet its burden in demonstrating substantive unconscionability since the terms of the agreement were not overly harsh, unduly oppressive, or so one-sided as to shock the conscience.
-
Hansen v. Elon Musk; TESLA Inc.; TESLA Motors, Inc.; US Security Associates, No. 3:19-CV-00413-LRH-WGC (D. Nev. July 15, 2020)07/15/2020
Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court found that non-signatory party may compel arbitration since plaintiff raised allegations of “substantially interdependent and concerted” misconduct by both the non-signatory and the signatory. Court also determined that plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the agreement’s broad arbitration clause which contained no express provision excluding specific disputes.
-
East River Capital Inc. and ERC Access, Inc. v. VLD Access Inc., Dunn, Route Consultant Inc., and Rummy Inc., No. 3:19-CV-01398-JPG (S.D. Ill. July 15, 2020)07/15/2020
Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding that the arbitration agreement was valid and a challenge to the underlying contract as a whole was for the arbitrator to decide. Court also determined that the arbitration clause itself was not too vague to be enforced and that the plaintiff’s non-signatory, successor was bound by the contractual obligation to arbitrate.
-
Schulz v. BMW of North America, LLC, No. 5:20-CV-01697 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2020)07/15/2020
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding that the defendant may not compel arbitration under the doctrine of equitable estoppel since plaintiff’s breach claims were not intimately founded in and intertwined with the purchase agreement. Court also determined that it may decide the question of arbitrability since defendant did not have the contractual right to enforce the delegation clause.
-
Precision Castparts Corp. v. Schultz Holding GMBH & Co. KG, No. 1:20-CV-03029-LJL (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 2020)07/15/2020
Court granted motion to confirm an arbitration award pursuant to the FAA and the New York Convention. Court found the tribunal did not manifestly disregard Delaware law’s rehash doctrine in determining that petitioners’ fraud claim was not identical to but broader than the breach claim. Court also determined that respondents failed to establish the tribunal exceeded its power under § 10(a)(4) of the FAA.
-
Williams; Stermel v. Medley Opportunity Fund II, LP, No. 19-2058 (3d Cir. July 14, 2020)07/14/2020
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order denying defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court of appeals found that because plaintiffs were allowed to raise disputes in arbitration only under tribal law, and such limitations constituted a prospective waiver of their statutory rights, the arbitration agreement violated public policy and was thus unenforceable.
-
The Charlotte Mecklenburg Board of Education v. 34 ED, LC d/b/a CENTEGIX, No. 3:20-CV-00259-GCM (W.D.N.C. July 14, 2020)07/14/2020
Court granted motion to enjoin arbitration proceedings. Court found that plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits because plaintiff’s agent had no actual or apparent authority to bind it to an arbitration provision and defendant could not have reasonably believed the agent had any such authority. Court also determined that plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if injunction was not granted, the balance of equities favored plaintiff’s position, and the relief sought was in the public interest.
-
Kantz v. AT&T, Inc. and AT&T Services, Inc., No. 2:20-CV-00531-JCJ (E.D. Pa. July 14, 2020)07/14/2020
Court stayed motion to compel arbitration to allow limited discovery on the question of whether there was a valid arbitration agreement, since, from the face of the complaint and supporting documents upon which the complaint relied, no such agreement was apparent.
-
Anderson v. Charter Communications and Christopher Cornett, No. 3:20-CV-00005-CRS (W.D. Ky. July 14, 2020)07/14/2020
Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court found that since the underlying contract was itself an arbitration agreement to which the parties consented, and not simply an arbitration clause within a broader contract, any challenge to its validity and scope was for the arbitrator to decide.
-
Collazo v. Prime Fight of DE, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-21312-KM-JBC (D.N.J. July 13, 2020)07/13/2020
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court found that the arbitration agreement, explicitly waiving the right to bring lawsuit in court, did not need to specifically waive the right to trial by jury to satisfy the notice requirement and was, thus, valid.
-
Ciccio v. SmileDirectClub, LLC, No. 3:19-CV-00845 (M.D. Tenn. July 13, 2020)07/13/2020
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff was entitled to pursue the claim in court following the AAA’s rejection of arbitration of the dispute based on a due process review pursuant to AAA Rules.
-
Trout v. Organizacion Mundial De Boxeo, Inc., No. 19-1068 (1st Cir. July 10, 2020)07/10/2020
Court of Appeals vacated and remanded district court’s order granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court of appeals found that the arbitration-selection provision, granting defendant exclusive control over the appointment of the arbitrators, was unconscionable, rendering the arbitration agreement invalid and unenforceable under Puerto Rican contract law.
-
Levy and Brouard v. Republic of Guinea, No. 1:19-CV-02405-DLF (D.D.C. July 10, 2020)07/10/2020
Court granted petitioners’ motion for default judgment recognizing and enforcing arbitration award pursuant to the ICSID Convention and 22 USC § 1650a. Court found that the respondent was properly served under the FSIA and that copies of the tribunal’s award constituted sufficient evidence to show that petitioners were entitled to the claimed amounts as the creditor of a final ICSID award.
-
Danford v. Lowe’s Companies, Inc. and Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC, No. 5:19-CV-00041-KDB-DCK (W.D.N.C. July 10, 2020)07/10/2020
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA and dismissed opt-in plaintiffs from the case. Court found that the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable since no signature was required for the contract to be binding, an arbitration agreement could be accepted through performance, such as continued employment, and mutual promise to arbitrate formed sufficient consideration for the agreement.
-
Baker v. Comcast Corporation, No. 2:19-CV-00652-HCN-CMR (D. Utah July 10, 2020)07/10/2020
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court found that the arbitration agreement was valid because it was supported by consideration and because plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly signed a service order that contained the arbitration provision. Court also determined that plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
-
Mullen Technologies, Inc. v. Qiantu Motor (Suzhou) Ltd., No. 3:19-CV-01979-W-DEB (S.D. Cal. July 1, 2020)07/01/2020
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA and the New York Convention and stayed proceedings pending arbitration. Court found the arbitration agreement was valid under the New York Convention since the contract was commercial in nature and the arbitration agreement was in writing, designated a signatory country as venue for arbitration, and involved a foreign entity. Court also concluded the agreement was enforceable as plaintiff failed to demonstrate any duress, mistake, fraud, or waiver associated with the arbitration clause.
-
J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. v. Steadfast Insurance Company, No. 5:20-CV-05049-TLB (W.D. Ark. July 1, 2020)07/01/2020
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA and the New York Convention and stayed proceedings pending arbitration. Court found that Art. II, § 3 of the New York Convention, as a self-executing provision of an international treaty, is not an Act of Congress under the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which permits state insurance laws to reverse-preempt federal laws. Court also found that the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable and that the defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate.
-
Mason v. Lowe’s Companies, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-00973-CB (W.D. Pa. June 30, 2020)06/30/2020
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding that the parties’ obligation to arbitrate provides sufficient consideration for the arbitration agreement to be valid and enforceable. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the agreement was otherwise unenforceable because of procedural or substantive unconscionability, contract of adhesion, equitable estoppel, breach of good faith and fair dealing, coercion, or fraud.
-
Reed v. Royal Sonesta, Inc., No. 2:20-CV-00384-WBV-KWR (E.D. La. June 30, 2020)06/30/2020
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding that an arbitration agreement’s limits on discovery did not render the agreement invalid and that the delegation clause required the court to refer the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Court concluded that no federal statutes or policy rendered plaintiff’s claims non-arbitrable.
-
Carusone v. Nintendo of America, Inc., No. 5:19-CV-01183-LCB (N.D. Ala. June 30, 2020)06/30/2020
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court concluded the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable based on parties’ mutual assent manifested in plaintiff’s ratification of the contract; sufficient consideration in the form of parties’ mutual obligation to arbitrate; plaintiff’s ability to return the product; and the absence of alleged inconsistencies in the arbitration agreement. Court found there was no dispute as to whether plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
-
Armijo v. Cositas Ricas Ecuatorianas Corp., No. 1:19-CV-02893-FB-JO (E.D.N.Y. June 29, 2020)06/29/2020
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA and stayed the litigation pending arbitration. Court ruled that the arbitration agreements were neither unconscionable nor fraudulently induced, since the plaintiff was informed of the agreements’ purpose and he was not entitled to have the agreements translated into his native language. Court found the arbitration agreements were valid and enforceable and that plaintiff’s claim fell within their scope.
-
O’Quinn v. TransCanada USA Services, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-00844 (S.D.W. Va. June 29, 2020)06/29/2020
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel certain opt-in plaintiffs to arbitration, severed their respective claims, and stayed the proceedings pending arbitration. Court found that there was a valid arbitration agreement, since opt-in plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate against a third-part beneficiary of the arbitration agreement, and that the claims fell within the scope of the agreement.
-
BI-LO, LLC v. Parker, No. 5:19-CV-03213-JMC (D.S.C. June 29, 2020)06/29/2020
Court denied petitioner’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court found that the arbitration clause was invalid and unenforceable due to insufficient evidence as to whether the respondent consented to the terms of the agreement. Court also concluded that none of the respondent’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration clause.
-
The United States of America, for the use and benefit of The New IEM, LLC v. Tri-Technic, Inc., No. 3:20-CV-01505-VC (N.D. Cal. June 27, 2020)06/27/2020
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel AAA arbitration, finding the broad arbitration clause clearly encompassed the claims and that, by affirmatively seeking arbitration, plaintiff waived its ability to deny the existence of the arbitration agreement. Court stayed the case pending arbitration.
-
EGI-VSR, LLC v. Coderch, No. 18-12615 (11th Cir. June 25, 2020)06/25/2020
Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s confirmation of an arbitration award under the Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration, but remanded with instructions to correct two errors. Court of appeals found the district court used the incorrect date of conversion under the “breach day” rule and failed to order appellee to tender its shares on payment as required in the Shareholders’ Agreement.
-
Iheanacho v. Air Liquide Large Industries U.S. L.P., 3:19-CV-00532-SDD (M.D. La. June 24, 2020)06/24/2020
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of employment discrimination claims. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration agreement was not enforceable because defendant did not sign the agreement containing the arbitration clause.