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.
-
Napoleone v. S2k Financial, LLC., No. 1:18-CV-03124-DAB (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2019)12/09/2019
Court denied motion to vacate arbitration award, holding that movant was judicially estopped from asserting that arbitrator acted in manifest disregard of law in refusing counter-party’s request that the arbitration be heard by a three-member panel where movant had opposed that same request in the arbitration.
-
City of Almaty, Kazakhstan v. Sater, No. 1:19-CV-02645-AJN-KHP (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2019)12/06/2019
Court denied motion to stay litigation as to defendant Sater pending outcome of an ongoing AAA arbitration. Court found an agreement to arbitrate did not exist where movant was a non-signatory in his personal capacity, but an officer of a signatory to the contract containing the arbitration agreement, and the issues being litigated related to actions taken in movant’s personal capacity. The court also held that movant did not meet his burden to demonstrate that he was an intended third-party beneficiary of the contract containing an arbitration provision.
-
Transworld Medical Devices LLC v. The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, No. 3:18-CV-00580-GCM (W.D.N.C. Dec. 6, 2019)12/06/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings under the FAA and compelled plaintiff to begin, if it has not already done so, arbitration of its claims for breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, breach of contract, tortious interference, and conspiracy within 60 days.
-
Fairfield Processing Corp. v. Best Made Toys International, ULC, No. 4:19-MC-00310-JAR (E.D. Mo. Dec. 6, 2019)12/06/2019
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm the arbitration award because defendant had not filed a motion to vacate or modify the award and the time for doing so has expired.
-
Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company v. New England Reinsurance Corporation, No. 19-1805 (3d Cir. Dec. 6, 2019)12/06/2019
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order compelling arbitration of the consolidated disputes in question before a new panel of arbitrators.
-
Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company, LLC v. A.F.L.-CIO Local 675, No. 2:19-CV-08853-CJC-MRW (C.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2019)12/05/2019
Court granted motion to dismiss action to vacate arbitral award for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court found the arbitral award was not sufficiently final where important details of the awarded remedy remained unresolved, and thus movant’s motion to vacate the award was not sufficiently ripe to vest the court with subject matter jurisdiction.
-
Ibarra v. Navient Solutions, LLC, No. 8:19-CV-01764-JLS-DFM (C.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2019)12/05/2019
Court confirmed the arbitration award. Court found that the three-arbitrator appellate panel did not exceed its powers through its construction of the arbitration agreement’s “de novo” language, nor did the panel exceed its powers in granting post-award interest.
-
Pollak v. Keybank, N.A., No. 1:19-CV-01866-DCN (N.D. Ohio Dec. 5, 2019)12/05/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that the arbitration provision was valid and enforceable, and that the claim at issue fell within the scope of the arbitration provision.
-
Rogers v. Clayton Homes Florence, No. 4:19-CV-00570-DCC (D.S.C. Dec. 5, 2019)12/05/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, holding that a valid arbitration agreement existed, and that all the claims presented fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
-
Flynn v. Sanchez Oil & Gas Corporation, No. 5:19-CV-00867-JKP-ESC (W.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2019)12/05/2019
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendant had not established that it was a third-party beneficiary with authority to enforce the arbitration agreement at issue.
-
Integrand Assurance Company v. Everest Reinsurance Company, No. 3:19-CV-01111-DRD (D.P.R. Dec. 4, 2019)12/04/2019
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and held that the arbitration clause encompasses the present suit, and considering the strong presumption in favor of arbitration, the court ordered the parties to arbitrate the dispute
-
International Bancshares Corporation v. Paola Ochoa, No. 5:19-CV-00062 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 3, 2019)12/03/2019
Court granted parties’ joint motion to reinstate the case. Both parties had secured a final arbitration award and jointly moved to reopen the case. In support of their motion, the parties submitted that the award should be confirmed under the FAA, and subject to approval under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
-
Intralox LLC v. System Solutions of Kentucky No. 19-CV-01653 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 25, 2019)11/25/2019
Court granted in part and denied in part motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration in a contract dispute. Court found that it was proper for the arbitrator to decide the merits of the motion to dismiss.
-
Forby v. One Technologies, LP, No. 3:16-CV-00856-L (N.D. Tex. Nov. 8, 2019)11/08/2019
Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendants had waived right to arbitrate by moving to dismiss plaintiff’s claims filed in court, among others. Court held that plaintiff’s filing of an amended complaint alleging new cause of action did not thereby ‘revive’ the defendants’ previously waived arbitration rights.
-
Brice v. 7HBF No. 2 LTD., No. 19-CV-01481-WHO (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2019)11/04/2019
Court denied defendant’s motions to stay litigation and to compel arbitration where plaintiffs brought a variety of federal and state statutory claims relating to a lender’s rent-a-tribe scheme to evade state usury laws. Despite the presence of a provision in the arbitration agreement, expressly delegating the question of scope and enforceability to the arbitrator, the court found that arbitration agreement was unenforceable because it acted as a prospective waiver of plaintiffs’ statutory rights and remedies in contravention of public policy.
-
Metso Minerals Canada, Inc. v. Arcelormittal Exploitation Miniere Canada, No. 1:19-CV-03379-LAP (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2019)11/04/2019
Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award and denied cross-motion to vacate the award on the grounds of manifest disregard of the law. Court found that the FAA required great deference to the decision of the arbitration panel, and that respondents failed to demonstrate vacatur was proper under the circumstances.
-
AtriCure, Inc. v. Dr. Jian Meng, No. 1:19-CV-00054-MPB (S.D. Ohio Nov. 4, 2019)11/04/2019
Court denied in part motion to stay all proceedings pending appeal to the sixth circuit court of appeals, considering the question of whether an appeal of a denial of a motion to compel arbitration automatically divests the district court of jurisdiction over all further proceedings in the matter. The court found that it retained discretionary jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction in the matter.
-
In Re Bio Energia Comercializadora de Energia LTDA., No. 1:19-MC-24497-BB (S.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 2019).11/01/2019
Court granted ex parte application, pursuant to 28 USC §1782, for an order to serve subpoenas on two US-based executives for documents relevant to a pending arbitration seated in Sao Paulo. The court did not supply reasoning in its order, but noted that motions to quash the subpoenas may be addressed pursuant to the procedures set forth in the FRCP.
-
Robertson v. T-Mobile US, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-02567-RDB (D. Md. Nov. 1, 2019).11/01/2019
Court granted petition to enforce a subpoena duces tecum issued by an AAA arbitrator against a non-party to the arbitration proceeding. Court found that arbitrator was authorized to issue the subpoena under §7 of the FAA and that the court had authority under the FAA to enforce the arbitrator’s subpoena, as petitioner had demonstrated that the information sought was integral to his claim and otherwise unavailable, giving rise to a special need for the information.
-
Davila v. UBS Financial Services Incorporated of Puerto Rico, Inc., No. 3:19-CV-01689-CCC (D.P.R. Nov. 1, 2019).11/01/2019
Court granted unopposed motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss claims where financial services contract contained written agreement to Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitration. Court found that arbitration agreement was sufficiently broad to cover all of plaintiff’s causes of actions relating to UBS’s alleged mismanagement or breach of duties related to plaintiff’s accounts held with the firm.
-
OI European Group B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 1;16-CV-01533-ABJ (D.D.C. Nov. 1, 2019)11/01/2019
Court granted motion to register judgement under 28 USC § 1963 and motion for leave to seek attachment and execution under 28 USC § 1610(c) for collection on an ICSID award rendered four-years prior. The court rejected Venezuela’s argument that five months was an unreasonably short period of time to wait to seek attachment against a foreign government under § 1610(c), and rejected the argument that plaintiff should not be allowed to seek attachment until such time as the political uncertainty relating to the power struggle between the Maduro and Guaido regimes is resolved.
-
Golden v. O’Melveny & Myers LLP, No. 2:14-CV-08725-CAS (C.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2019)11/01/2019
Court denied petitioners motion to vacate arbitration award based on arbitrator bias. The court found that the evident partiality standard of the FAA, 9 USC § 10(a)(2), did not require vacatur where: the arbitrator’s son had applied for work with both respondent and the firm representing respondent and been rejected; after closing arguments, the arbitrator was hired by respondent’s counsel on an unrelated litigation matter; and petitioner identified other rulings made by the arbitrator in the course of arbitration which were adverse to said party.
-
Laccinole v. Trans Union Risk and Alternative Data Solutions, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-00221-JM-LDA (D.R.I. Oct. 31, 2019)10/31/2019
Court denied petition to compel arbitration against third party pursuant to a service agreement containing an arbitration provision. Court found that third party was not subject to the provisions of the service agreement, and thus could not be forced to arbitrate their dispute with petitioner.
-
Terminal Properties, LLC v. 54 Chevy, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-01238-CAB (N.D. Ohio Oct. 29, 2019)10/29/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and ordered plaintiff to arbitrate his claims against defendant. Court found that the arbitration provision was valid and binding and broad in scope as to cover the claims in the instant case.
-
Martinez-Gonzales v. Elkhorn Packing Co., LLC, No. 3:18-CV-05226-EMC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2019)10/29/2019
Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement was the product of both economic duress and undue influence. Court found that plaintiff had no “reasonable alternative” but to sign the documents, as he reasonably believed he could not seek work with another employer, did not have another place to live should his employment with defendant end, and did not have his own means of transportation by which to return to Mexico. Court also found that many of the factors of undue influence listed in Odorizzi v. Bloomfield Sch. Dist., 246 Cal. App. 2d 123 (Ct. App. 1996) were met, including that the presentation of new-hire documents came at an unusual or inappropriate time, the consummation of the contract occurred in an unusual place, defendant made insistent demands that the signing of the documents be completed rapidly, and there were no third-party advisors to assist the employees.
-
McGee v. Armstrong, No. 18-3886 (6th Cir. Oct. 29, 2019)10/29/2019
Court of appeals affirmed the district court decision granting defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, denying plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitration award, and granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment regarding plaintiff’s breach of contract claims. In coming to its decision, court found that all questions of arbitrability must be referred to arbitration, the arbitrators did not exceed their powers by entering a decision on defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and plaintiff’s four-paragraph, conclusory affidavit in opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment did not establish any issue of material fact.
-
Hall v. Affordable Care, LLC, No. 4:19-CV-00335-ALM (E.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2019)10/28/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court noted that while the arbitration provision was susceptible to either a broad or narrow construction, it would nevertheless encompass plaintiffs’ fraudulent inducement claim. Court also concluded that plaintiffs’ tortious interference claim fell within the scope of the arbitration provision.
-
Hitchcock Independent School District v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, No. 3:19-CV-00198 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2019)10/28/2019
Court approved and adopted the magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation recommending denial of plaintiff’s motion to remand certain removed claims. Magistrate judge concluded that removal to federal court was proper under Section 205 of the NY Convention given that plaintiffs’ claims related to the arbitration clause and “easy removal is exactly what Congress intended.”
-
Republic of Kazakhstan v. Lawler, No. 2:19-MC-00035-DWL (D. Ariz. Oct. 28, 2019)10/28/2019
Court granted petitioner’s ex parte application under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for leave to serve a subpoena on respondent. Court found that all three criteria under 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) were satisfied, as (i) Lawler resided in Arizona and had a business address in Arizona; (ii) the purpose of the application was to acquire information for use in an arbitration proceeding; and (iii) petitioner was a party to the arbitration at issue. Court also found that the four discretionary factors listed in Supreme Court decision Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 264 (2004) weighed in favor of granting the application.
-
Foss v. Spencer Brewery, No. 4:19-CV-40098-TSH (D. Mass. Oct. 25, 2019)10/25/2019
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration. Court noted that plaintiff voluntarily filed two civil actions in the court system, and the court entered judgment against plaintiff in both actions. Only then did plaintiff file a demand for arbitration. Court concluded that, by choosing to litigate in the court system instead of demanding arbitration in the first instance, plaintiff waived her right to arbitration.
-
Atricure, Inc. v. Dr. Jian Meng, No. 1:19-CV-00054-MRB (S.D. Ohio Oct. 25, 2019)10/25/2019
Court denied defendants’ motion for an immediate stay of all judicial proceedings pending international arbitration. Court concluded that (i) defendants’ failure to challenge the availability of arbitration did not rise to the level of conduct found to constitute a waiver by the Sixth Circuit; (ii) defendants cannot enforce the arbitration provision via agency or estoppel theories and therefore defendants cannot invoke Section 3 of the FAA and a mandatory stay is not required; and (iii) a discretionary stay is not appropriate in light of the prejudice plaintiffs will suffer if a stay is granted.
-
Larue v. Collateral Recovery Team LLC, No 4:19-CV-01039 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 25, 2019)10/25/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court found that the agreement’s language unambiguously demonstrated that the parties agreed to arbitrate and plaintiff’s claims were within the scope of the arbitration clause. Court noted that even if the language of the arbitration agreement were ambiguous, the ambiguity would be resolved in favor of arbitration.
-
Termini v. Group 1 Automotive, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-02196-KHV-JPO (D. Kan. Oct. 25, 2019)10/25/2019
Court sustained plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that (i) the record contained sufficient evidence of an enforceable agreement to arbitration, (ii) defendants failed to demonstrate the clear and express mutual intention of both parties not to enforce the arbitration agreement, (iii) defendants failed to show that plaintiff intentionally relinquished or abandoned his right to arbitration, and (iv) defendants failed to satisfy its heavy burden of demonstrating that plaintiff’s conduct foreclosed his right to arbitration.
-
Dowdy v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-01386-SAG (D. Md. Oct. 24, 2019)10/24/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of claims related to the purchase of a used vehicle. Court rejected all of plaintiffs four arguments: 1) that the claims were related to a different agreement than the agreement that contained the arbitration provision; 2) defendant could not enforce the arbitration provision because defendant was an assignee, not the original signatory; 3) defendant cannot enforce the arbitration provision because defendant assigned the agreement upon which plaintiff’s claim is based to another party; and 4) when the district court dismissed an earlier case against plaintiff, it extinguished the rights under that agreement, including the right to compel arbitration.
-
Ray v. T-Mobile US, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-01299-JKB (D. Md. Oct. 24, 2019)10/24/2019
Court granted each of four defendants’ motions to compel arbitration of putative class action claims related to major mobile carriers allegedly selling geolocation data. Court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the arbitration clauses were substantively unconscionable under Maryland law because they would prevent plaintiffs from litigating as a class and would allow defendants to escape public scrutiny. Court found that pursuant to Supreme Court and fourth circuit precedent, it may not invalidate an arbitration clause on a theory that features inherent to arbitration are unconscionable.
-
Morrison v. Verizon Communications Inc., No. 1:19-CV-01298-JKB (D. Md. Oct. 24, 2019)10/24/2019
Court granted each of four defendants’ motions to compel arbitration of putative class action claims related to major mobile carriers allegedly selling geolocation data. Court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the arbitration clauses were substantively unconscionable under Maryland law because they would prevent plaintiffs from litigating as a class and would allow defendants to escape public scrutiny. Court found that pursuant to Supreme Court and fourth circuit precedent, it may not invalidate an arbitration clause on a theory that features inherent to arbitration are unconscionable.
-
Morrison v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 1:19-CV-01257-JKB (D. Md. Oct. 24, 2019)10/24/2019
Court granted each of four defendants’ motions to compel arbitration of putative class action claims related to major mobile carriers allegedly selling geolocation data. Court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the arbitration clauses were substantively unconscionable under Maryland law because they would prevent plaintiffs from litigating as a class and would allow defendants to escape public scrutiny. Court found that pursuant to Supreme Court and fourth circuit precedent, it may not invalidate an arbitration clause on a theory that features inherent to arbitration are unconscionable.
-
Baron v. Sprint Corporation, No. 1:19-CV-01255-JKB (D. Md. Oct. 24, 2019)10/24/2019
Court granted each of four defendants’ motions to compel arbitration of putative class action claims related to major mobile carriers allegedly selling geolocation data. Court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the arbitration clauses were substantively unconscionable under Maryland law because they would prevent plaintiffs from litigating as a class and would allow defendants to escape public scrutiny. Court found that pursuant to Supreme Court and fourth circuit precedent, it may not invalidate an arbitration clause on a theory that features inherent to arbitration are unconscionable.
-
Calzadillas, v. The Wonderful Company, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-00172-DAD-JLT (E.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2019)10/24/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of wage dispute claims for a putative class and dismissed the case. After an opportunity for limited discovery, the plaintiff did not contend defendant’s evidence that it was a third party beneficiary of an agreement containing an arbitration provision. Thus court held that defendant as a third party beneficiary could enforce the arbitration agreement.
-
Spok, Inc., v. Goel, No. 1:19-CV-02096-DSD-DTS (D. Minn. Oct. 24, 2019)10/24/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of claims related to a contract dispute. Court held that where an arbitration agreement incorporates the AAA rules, it provides clear and mistakable evidence that the parties delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Court was not persuaded by plaintiff’s argument that because the arbitration agreement had mandated that certain disputes be resolved by the courts and not the arbitrators this showed that the parties did not intend to delegate all questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.
-
Sayre v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., No. 18-55411 (9th Cir. Oct. 24, 2019)10/24/2019
Court of appeals reversed district court’s denial of a motion to vacate an arbitration award. Court held that this was one of the rare cases that an award must be vacated based on the arbitrator’s arbitrary denial of a reasonable request for a postponement. Court held that the arbitration panel’s denial of a continuance requested in light of plaintiff’s counsel’s medical emergency was arbitrary.
-
Edward Jones & Co., v. Martin, No. 2:19-CV-06776-AB-KS (C.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2019)10/23/2019
Court granted an unopposed motion to confirm an arbitration award rendered in a FINRA arbitration. The judgment incorporated the arbitrators ruling, finding that the claimant did not meet the burden of proof to establish their claims.
-
Plummer v. McSweeney, No. 18-03059 (8th Cir. Oct. 23, 2019)10/23/2019
Court of appeals reversed and remanded district court’s refusal to enforce an arbitration provision between a law firm and its client. District court refused to enforce arbitration because they found that the agreement to arbitrate was substantively and procedurally unconscionable. Court found that defendant’s post hoc offer to pay plaintiff’s arbitration costs cured the substantive unconscionability, and that the agreement was not procedurally unconscionable merely because there was time pressure put on plaintiff and the plaintiff did not read the agreement.
-
Lagsit v. International Coffee and Tea LLC, No. 19-55143 (9th Cir. Oct. 23, 2019)10/23/2019
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of a motion to vacate an arbitration award, and its confirmation of the award. Court agreed with the district court that the petitioner failed to establish any of the limited grounds on which an arbitration award may be vacated.
-
GC Services limited Partnership v. Little, No. 4:19-CV-01180 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 23, 2019)10/23/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s discrimination claims and enjoined her from pursuing these claims in state court. Plaintiff’s only challenge to the agreement was that she had not signed the agreement. Court held in a bench trial that plaintiff had signed the agreement and the parties had formed a valid and broad agreement to arbitration all disputes.
-
Peterson v. Minerva Surgical, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-02050-KHV-TJJ (D. Kans. Oct. 23, 2019)10/23/2019
Court granted defendants motion to compel arbitration of employment discrimination claims related to plaintiff’s disability. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration provision was procedurally unconscionable because it was a contract of adhesion, finding the contract was governed by California law and that under California law, adhesion contracts are not procedurally unconscionable without some additional procedural deficiency. Court also found that plaintiff’s argument that the forum selection clause was substantively unconscionable did not challenge the arbitration agreement specifically and thus the arbitration agreement should be enforced.
-
Johnson, v. SSC Houston Northwest Operating Company LLC, No. 4:19-CV-01221 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 23, 2019)10/23/2019
Court granted defendant’s unopposed motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s medical negligence claims. Court agreed with magistrate judge’s opinion that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate and that these claims were within the scope of that agreement.
-
Adams v. Postmates, Inc., No. 4:19-CV-03042-SBA (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2019)10/22/2019
Court granted dual motions to compel arbitration, but declined to decide whether plaintiffs were obliged to engage in individual, rather than consolidated arbitrations or whether defendant was obligated to pay AAA filing fees in excess of 9 million USD, holding that these were questions of arbitrability to be determined by the arbitrator.
-
Monster Energy Company v. City Beverages, LLC, No. 17-55813, 17-56082 (9th Cir. Oct. 22, 2019)10/22/2019
Court of appeals reversed and vacated a district court’s affirming of an arbitration award, and award of post-arbitration fees. Court found that the district court erred in confirming the award because the arbitrator was a co-owner of JAMS and therefor has an ongoing business relationship with Monster who is a repeat player at arbitration and that this rendered the arbitrator potentially biased. Judge Friedland dissented, arguing that this sort of information would not have made a material biases in an evaluation of the arbitrator’s bias.
-
Scott Environmental Services, Inc. v. Newfield Exploration Company, No. 2:19-CV-00026-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex. Oct. 22, 2019)10/22/2019
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of claims related to the alleged breach of a non-disclosure agreement. Court held that under Texas contract law, the parties had not agreed to arbitrate disputes under the NDA.