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.
-
Ward v. Discover Bank, No. 3:19-CV-02124-SAL (D.S.C. Apr. 21, 2020)04/21/2020
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration finding, inter alia, that the parties’ incorporation of the AAA and JAMS Rules presented clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties intended to arbitrate the issue of arbitrability.
-
Hardaway v. Quince Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-02464 (W.D. Tenn. Apr. 20, 2020)04/20/2020
Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration finding, inter alia, that a non-signatory third-party could be compelled to arbitrate pursuant to the arbitration agreement unless that party sought to enforce his rights under the agreement.
-
In re Application of Storag Etzel GMBH, No. 19-MC-00209-CFC (D. Del. Apr. 13, 2020)04/13/2020
Court denied plaintiff’s § 1782 application for an order to obtain discovery for use in a private arbitration in Germany, finding a private arbitral tribunal was not the type of “tribunal” intended by the text of the statute.
-
In re Empresa Publica de Hidrocarburos del Ecuador – EP Petroecuador v. Worleyparsons International, Inc., No. 4:19-MC-02534 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 13, 2020)04/13/2020
Court denied respondent’s motion to vacate and quash a subpoena granted under 28 U.S.C. 1782, finding that applicant’s petition met the statutory requirements. Court rejected, inter alia, respondent’s argument that applicant, as an Ecuadorian state-owned entity, was attempting to circumvent discovery procedures in a pending arbitration between Ecuador and respondent – finding that applicant was a non-party to that arbitration and that there was no evidence that applicant was operating as an instrumentality of the Ecuadorian government.
-
Engen v. Grocery Delivery E- Services USA Inc. doing business as Hello Fresh, No. 0:19-CV-02433-ECT-TNL (D. Minn. Apr. 10, 2020)04/10/2020
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel individual arbitration of plaintiff’s claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Under the FAA, court found plaintiff did not agree to arbitrate, as defendant failed to show that plaintiff manifested assent to the revised arbitration provisions.
-
Taylor v. Pilot Corporation, No. 18-6270 (6th Cir. Apr. 9, 2020)04/09/2020
Court of appeals dismissed appeal of district court’s decision to deny defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to reconsider order compelling discovery finding that it lacked jurisdiction. Court of appeals determined that there was no immediate right to appeal the order denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration without prejudice under the FAA.
-
Mode v. S-L Distribution Company, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-00150-KDB-DSC (W.D.N.C Apr. 9, 2020)04/09/2020
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding the arbitral clauses were valid and enforceable and that it did not need to resolve counterclaims and third-party complaints before determining arbitrability.
-
B.F. and A.A. v. Amazon.com, No. 2:19-CV-00910-RAJ-MLP (W.D. Wash. Apr. 9, 2020)04/09/2020
Court adopted magistrate judge’s report and recommendation denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss plaintiffs’ claims. Pursuant to the FAA, court found plaintiffs, who were non-signatories to the arbitration agreement, were not compelled to arbitrate under the theory of equitable estoppel as plaintiffs did not knowingly exploit the agreement.
-
Machul v. State of Florida, No. 3:20-CV-00078-WHR-MJN (S.D. Ohio Apr. 8, 2020)04/08/2020
Magistrate judge recommended that plaintiffs’ motion to confirm an arbitration award be denied, finding that court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the FAA because plaintiff did not show that defendants signed an agreement to arbitrate. Even if defendants agreed to arbitrate, court found that any confirmation of the alleged arbitral award would have to occur in the district where the award was made.
-
Doe v. The Trump Corporation, No. 1:18-CV-09936-LGS (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2020)04/08/2020
Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration based on an arbitration agreement to which the defendants are not a party. Court found that plaintiffs did not agree to arbitrate with defendants under the theories of equitable estoppel or agency, and even if they had, defendants had waived their right to compel arbitration by waiting eight months and until a substantial portion of the litigation occurred to request arbitration.
-
Cornelius v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 1:19-CV-11043-LJL (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2020)04/08/2020
Court granted motion to compel arbitration on an individual basis and to stay the proceedings under the FAA. Court found defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate.
-
Wells Fargo Bank National Association v. Hyflo Limited Partnership, No. 2:19-CV-02054-GMN-VCF (D. Nev. Apr. 7, 2020)04/07/2020
Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award pursuant to the FAA, as defendant had not moved to vacate, modify or correct the award.
-
Texas Brine Company, L.L.C. v. American Arbitration Association, Incorporated, No. 18-31184 (5th Cir. Apr. 7, 2020)04/07/2020
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of remand and grant of defendants’ motion to dismiss. Court of appeals found the non-forum defendant was permitted to remove the case to federal court even when the other defendant was a citizen of the forum state and had yet to be properly served. It found district court was correct to dismiss plaintiff’s challenge to the AAA, considering the relief requested, purported harm, and alleged wrongdoing showed that the claims were essentially an impermissible collateral attack on the arbitration award.
-
Northport Health Services of Arkansas, LLC v. United States Department of Health and Human Services., No. 5:19-CV-05168-TLB (W.D. Ark. Apr. 7, 2020)04/07/2020
Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granted defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment, finding a new government rule placing requirements on the use of arbitration agreements did not violate the FAA because it did not undermine the validity or enforceability of the agreements and only placed conditions on entities voluntarily participating in a federally funded program.
-
East River Capital, Inc. and ERC Access, Inc. v. VLD Access, Inc., No. 3:19-CV-01398-JPG (S.D. Ill. Apr. 7, 2020)04/07/2020
Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and denied without prejudice its motion to compel arbitration, finding that although the arbitration clause in the agreement covered any dispute in the case between the parties bound to the agreement, it was not clear who was a party to the agreement.
-
OJSC Ukrnafta v. Carpatsky Petroleum Corporation, No. 19-20011 (5th Cir. Apr. 6, 2020)04/06/2020
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order affirming $147 million arbitration award against plaintiff-appellant issued by the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce. Court of appeals held jurisdiction was proper under 9 U.S.C. § 205, and found the plaintiff-appellant’s arguments against recognition failed under the New York Convention, as the signatory had the capacity to bind defendant-appellee to the arbitration agreement, the plaintiff-appellant had waived its argument that the agreement was nonbinding by submitting to the arbitration, the award was not contrary to public policy, and manifest disregard is not a ground for nonrecognition of international arbitral awards.
-
Leany v. Zurich American Insurance Company, No. 18-17056 (9th Cir. Apr. 6, 2020)04/06/2020
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to deny motion to pierce the corporate veil and force the president, sole board-member, and majority shareholder into arbitration, finding that appellant failed to establish that adhering to the corporate form would sanction a fraud or promote injustice.
-
CBF Industria de Gusa S/A v. AMCI Holdings, Inc.., No. 1:13-CV-02581-PKC-JLC (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2020)04/06/2020
Court denied defendants’ motion to partially dismiss the third amended complaint seeking to enforce an arbitration award against defendants, finding the fraudulent transfer claim was not barred by the six-year limitations period because the amendment related back to the initial compliant.
-
Catalina Holdings (Bermuda) Limited v. Muriel, No. 1:18-CV-05642 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 6, 2020)04/06/2020
Court granted plaintiff’s petition to confirm the arbitral award, holding the tribunal did not exceed its authority. Court declined to determine whether a party may bring an action under Chapter 1 of the FAA to vacate an award issued by an arbitrator in a U.S. jurisdiction, since both the FAA and the New York Convention allow the defense that the tribunal exceeded its authority. Court denied plaintiff’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions.
-
Bright v. Brookdale Senior Living, Inc., No. 3:19-CV-00374 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 6, 2020)04/06/2020
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings under the FAA. Court held that the parties entered into a valid agreement to arbitrate, concluding that the plaintiff could not selectively invalidate the arbitral provision on the basis of lack of capacity and found that she could pursue her claims in arbitration.
-
Two Rivers Water & Farming Company v. America 2030 Capital Limited., No. 1:19-CV-01640-CMA-STV (D. Colo. Apr. 6, 2020)04/06/2020
Court denied without prejudice plaintiff’s motion to dismiss or stay an ongoing arbitration proceeding in the Federation of St. Kitts and Nevis, finding that plaintiff failed to address whether the court had jurisdiction to dismiss or stay those proceedings. In its independent research, the court found that it may lack jurisdiction to grant plaintiff the requested relief, noting that it may have jurisdiction if the foreign country is a signatory to the New York Convention.
-
G.G. v. Valve Corporation, No. 19-35345 (9th Cir. Apr. 3, 2020)04/03/2020
Court of appeals found district court erred in compelling parents to arbitrate their claims because they were not signatories to the relevant agreement, were not bound based on equitable estoppel as they did not seek to exploit the agreement by enforcing it, and their claims were statutory tort claims unrelated to the agreement. Court of appeals did affirm district court’s decision to dismiss the claims parents brought on behalf of their teenage children who were bound by the arbitral agreement.
-
ExxonMobil Canada Holdings ULC v. Lasco Development LLC (15), No. 4:19-CV-01471 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 3, 2020)04/03/2020
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding the defendants were bound by the arbitral provision in the agreement.
-
ExxonMobil Canada Holdings ULC v. Lasco Development LLC, No. 4:19-CV-01471 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 3, 2020)04/03/2020
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration. Court rejected the defendant’s motion that it cannot be bound by the arbitration agreement because it is not a party to the agreement, finding that the defendant was a designated nominee under the agreement attempting to enforce rights to certain interest amounts under the agreement.
-
Ashford v. PriceWaterHouseCoopers LLP, No. 18-1958 (4th. Cir. Apr. 3, 2020)04/03/2020
Court of appeals reversed and remanded district court decision that denied a motion to compel arbitration of Title VII claims. Court found that the employment agreement in question should be construed as to require arbitration of Title VII claims and that the arbitration provision was neither substantively or procedurally unconscionable.
-
Morris v. Conifer Health Solutions LLC, No. 3:20-CV-05181-RJB (W.D. Wash. Apr. 2, 2020)04/02/2020
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of racial discrimination, harassment, and wrongful termination claims. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration agreements were substantively and procedurally unconscionable and found that a valid arbitration agreement governed the dispute.
-
Trina Solar US, Inc. v. Jasmin Solar PTY LTD, No. 17-572-CV (2d Cir. Apr. 2, 2020)04/02/2020
Court of appeals reversed and remanded district court’s confirmation of an arbitration award and denial of a motion for limited discovery on the question of whether a party was bound by the arbitration clause at issue. District court had found that a nonsignatory was bound to the arbitration agreement through agency theory. The Second Circuit found that the nonsignatory could not be bound by the arbitration agreement because the contract explicitly excluded it as a party.
-
Indocarb Corporation, Inc. v. Madhavan, No. 2:19-CV-00889-MPK (W.D. Penn. Apr. 2, 2020)04/02/2020
Court adopted magistrate judge’s recommendation to compel arbitration of a trade secrets dispute. Court found that the magistrate judge was not in clear error when he found that a valid arbitration agreement existed and that the agreement delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Court reasoned that the parties had a valid arbitration agreement that incorporate the rules of the AAA, and incorporating these rules was clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.
-
Satcomm v. Paypal, No. 5:19-MC-00010-MTT (M.D. Ga. Apr. 1, 2020)04/01/2020
Court denied petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss and vacate the arbitration award, and awarded respondent attorney’s fees as sanctions for petitioner’s pursuit to confirm a fraudulent arbitration award. Court found that the respondent met their burden of proving that the arbitration award was procured by fraud and that the entity Satcomm was a sham entity being run by an inmate.
-
BLW motors, LLC v. Vicksburg Ford Lincoln Mercury, Inc., No. 3:19-CV-00557-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss. Apr. 1, 2020)04/01/2020
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay contract dispute claims as to one defendant and denied the motion to stay claims against a second defendant. Court found that a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement could not compel another non-signatory to arbitrate. Further, the arbitration clause was written to limit its application solely to the signatories and rejected the defendants’ arguments that arbitration could be compelled through incorporation by reference, because plaintiffs were alter egos of each other, as third party beneficiaries, or through estoppel.
-
Seaborn v. Larry H. Miller Mercedes Benz, No. 2:19-CV-00941-TS (D. Utah Apr. 1, 2020)04/01/2020
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the dispute. Court found that the arbitration agreement was broad and was thus entitled to a strong presumption of arbitrability for the claims. Court also found that individual defendants who were not signatories to the arbitration provision were entitled to compel arbitration under agency theory, estoppel theory, or as third-party beneficiaries.
-
Dunbar v. Airbnb, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-00648-JMS-WRP (D. Haw. Apr. 1, 2020)04/01/2020
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the proceedings, holding that the arbitration clause clearly and unmistakably delegated the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator and that the arbitration provision was not substantively or procedurally unconscionable and must be enforced.
-
Salerno v. Credit One Bank, N.A., No. 1:15-CV-00516-LJV-LGF (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2020)03/31/2020
Court denied defendant’s motion to vacate an arbitration award related to violations of the TCPA. Court rejected defendant’s argument that the award should be vacated because the arbitrators had manifestly disregarded the law by not following recent second circuit precedent, finding that the recent precedent was distinguishable.
-
Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Inc., v. The Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Venezuela, No. 1:02-CV-00785-HSO-RHW (S.D. Miss. Mar. 31, 2020)03/31/2020
Court affirmed an arbitration award made in Brazil under Venezuelan arbitration law pursuant to the Panama Convention and the New York Convention. Court found that it was a court with secondary jurisdiction and was therefore limited in its review to the grounds for refusal of enforcement provided in the conventions. The court rejected the argument that the award should be vacated under Article V(1)(d) of the Panama Convention because the tribunal did not carry out the procedure in accordance with the terms of the parties agreement when it held the arbitration in Rio di Janeiro. Court found that the tribunal applied Venezuelan arbitration law which permitted it to choose the location of the arbitration if the parties did not agree.
-
American Family Life Assurance Company of New York, v. Baker, No. 1:17-CV-07054-LDH-RLM (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2020)03/31/2020
Court granted petitioner’s motion for an order compelling individual arbitration. On remand court considered whether a provision in an arbitration agreement that prohibited parties from pursuing certain state and federal statutory claims rendered the agreement unconscionable. Court found however, that petitioner’s waiving of unconscionable terms cured any potential defects in the enforceability of the arbitration provision.
-
Stumbo, Inc., v. Coin Data, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-00168-GNS (W.D. Ky. Mar. 31, 2020)03/31/2020
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismiss an action seeking declaratory relief that the arbitration agreement is not enforceable. Court ignored plaintiff’s argument that the court did not have jurisdiction because defendants could not prove that the amount in controversy was greater than $75,000, finding that in an action seeking declaratory judgment that the parties are not required to arbitrate, the arbitration demand determines the amount in controversy. Court further found that the arbitration agreements in question adopted the rules of the AAA, and thus they evinced the parties intent to delegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Finally, court found that it was immaterial under state law that the plaintiff was an assignee of the contract rather than an original party.
-
Stoetzer v. Novation IQ, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-02670-SAC-GEB (D. Kan. Mar. 31, 2020)03/31/2020
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings of Title VII employment discrimination claims. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because it was illusory. Court found that agreement did not give defendant any authority to unilaterally change any written term in the employment agreement and thus the agreement to arbitration was not illusory.
-
Bunge S.A. v. Pacific Gulf Shipping (Singapore) PTE Ltd., No. 3:19-CV-00419-SB (D. Or. Mar. 31, 2020)03/31/2020
Court entered a default judgment to confirm an arbitration award pursuant to the New York Convention. Court found that it had quasi in rem jurisdiction because the award had been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, a London arbitration tribunal, and petitioner sought property within the jurisdiction of the District of Oregon in satisfaction of the judgment. Court noted that intangible property could support quasi in rem jurisdiction in the state of Oregon.
-
Commercial Flooring System, Inc. v. Hunt Construction Group, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-01012 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2020)03/30/2020
Magistrate judge recommended granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss claims related to a hotel construction contract. Magistrate judge found that an arbitration provision that gave defendant exclusive right to select between two options of dispute resolution was not illusory because it did not grant defendant the ability to unilaterally amend or terminate the arbitration agreement.
-
Servotronics, Inc. v. The Boeing Company, No. 18-2454 (4th Cir. Mar. 30, 2020)03/30/2020
Court of appeals reversed and remanded a district court’s denial of an application to obtain testimony pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 in aid of an arbitration in the United Kingdom. Court found that a U.K. arbitral panel in a private arbitration was a “foreign or international tribunal” under § 1782, reasoning that even under a more restrictive definition of “entities acting with the authority of the State” the U.K. arbitral panel qualifies because of the governmental regulation and oversight of arbitration under U.K. law. Court also rejected the argument that this holding would give foreign arbitrations more extensive discovery than is available to domestic arbitrations under the FAA, clarifying that § 1782 does not authorize discovery but merely permits a district court to effectively act as a surrogate for a foreign tribunal receiving testimony and documents for use in the proceeding before the tribunal.
-
Foresight Luxembourg Solar 1 S.A.R.L, v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 1:19-CV-03171-ER (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2020)03/30/2020
Court granted respondent’s motion to transfer the action seeking to confirm an arbitration award to the District Court for the District of Columbia (D.D.C.) and referred all other pending motions to that court. The award was rendered by the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce pursuant to the dispute resolution provisions of the Energy Charter Treaty. Petitioner sought to confirm it under the New York Convention while respondent argued that the motion should be stayed pending set aside proceedings in Sweden. Court reasoned that venue transfer was appropriate because the D.D.C. was designated by congress as the dedicated venue for civil cases involving foreign states, and a transfer would promote judicial economy as there were parallel actions before the D.D.C.
-
Crypto Asset Fund, LLC v. Medcredits, Inc., No. 3:19-CV-0189-LAB-MDD (S.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2020)03/30/2020
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed case including various claims related to the solicitation of an investment in a crypto currency “token sale.” Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that one of the related agreements between the parties did not contain an arbitration clause, finding that none of plaintiff’s claims relied specifically on that agreement. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments relating to unconscionability, finding that these questions of arbitrability were delegated to the arbitrator.
-
Fenton v. Criterion Worldwide, No. 1:18-CV-10224-ER (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2020)03/27/2020
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action related to a wage dispute. Court found that there were two relevant arbitration agreements and that defendant could compel arbitration pursuant to either agreement. Court was not persuaded by plaintiff’s argument that she had not read the agreement before signing, finding that under New York law that was not a basis for invalidating the agreement.
-
EGI-VSR, LLC v. Huber, No. 1:19-CV-06099-ER (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2020)03/27/2020
Court granted a motion to dismiss a petition to recognize a foreign arbitration award pursuant to the Panama Convention. Court found that the petitioner made its petition seven years after the arbitral award was made and thus the petition must be dismissed as time barred pursuant to the FAA’s three year statute of limitations. The court found that a tolling agreement between the parties that attempted to toll the statute of limitations indefinitely was invalid under New York law.
-
Raymond James & Associates, Inc. v. Barlow, No. 3:19-CV-00394-CWR-LRA (S.D. Miss. Mar. 27, 2020)03/27/2020
Court denied motion to vacate and affirmed the award. Court found that there was no basis for vacating the award, rejecting the argument that the arbitrators manifestly disregarded the law because they did not follow one Mississippi case that favored the respondent in the arbitration. Court further rejected the argument that an arbitrator’s comment about a state court judge leaving the bench soon was indicative of any bias against respondent.
-
Chen-Oster v. Goldman Sachs & Co., No. 1:10-CV-06950-RWL (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2020)03/26/2020
Court granted, in part, defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of class action sex discrimination claims brought by former employees of Goldman Sachs. Court held that four of the categories of arbitration agreements at issue were enforceable and rejected plaintiffs’ argument that defendants waived their right to compel arbitration under the agreements. Court also held that the arbitration clauses in equity compensation agreements were tainted by procedural unconscionability but not substantive unconscionability and therefore could not be voided.
-
Allstate Insurance Company v. Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company, No. 1:19-CV-04341-JLA (N.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2020)03/25/2020
Court granted defendants’ motion to confirm an arbitration award relating to reinsurance contracts connected to underlying asbestos claims. Court also denied plaintiff’s motion to confirm interim award rendered in the same arbitration proceeding. Court determined that the interim award only dealt with certain issues in dispute in connection with the scope of the costs covered by the reinsurance policy on a provisional basis and left to the final award the resolution of the full extent of the claims at issue.
-
Lanza v. FINRA, Nos. 18-2057, 18-2181 (1st Cir. Mar. 24, 2020)03/24/2020
Court affirmed district court’s order dismissing claims against FINRA relating to a FINRA arbitration award rendered against the appellants. Court rejected appellants’ argument that the arbitrators’ failure to issue an explained decision in their award violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, holding that appellants’ complaint failed to state a plausible claim for breach of the implied covenant.
-
Ebbe v. Concorde Investment Services, No. 19-1819 (1st Cir. Mar. 24, 2020)03/24/2020
Court affirmed district court’s order confirming a FINRA arbitration award and denying appellant’s motion to vacate the award relating to claims alleging negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and violations of FINRA rules and regulations against deceptive securities practices. Court rejected appellant’s argument that the arbitrators manifestly disregarded the law.