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.
-
Norred v. Cotton Patch Café, LLC, No. 3:19-CV-01010-G (N.D. Tex. Oct. 22, 2019)10/22/2019
Court granted defendants motion to compel arbitration of a dispute related to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the arbitration provision was not valid because plaintiffs did not assent to it and there was no consideration. Court found a notice signed by plaintiffs incorporated the arbitration provision by reference, and that the mutual promise to arbitrate was valid consideration. Court also rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the promise to arbitrate was illusory, finding that under Texas law only arbitration provisions that require arbitration from one party while giving the other party the option of whether or not to arbitrate are illusory.
-
Kiawah Island Utility, Inc. v. Westport Insurance Corporation, No. 1:19-CV-09775-JGK (D.S.C. Oct. 22, 2019)10/22/2019
Court granted defendants motion to compel arbitration and transferred the dispute to the S.D.N.Y. so that arbitration could be compelled in New York City as called for in the arbitration agreement. Court found that because plaintiff sought a declaration that it was entitled to coverage under an insurance policy, under the theory of direct benefit estoppel plaintiff could not avoid the arbitration clause in the policy merely because it was not a signatory. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that South Carolina state law prevented the court from enforcing a forum selection clause outside of the state, finding that the FAA preempts state law.
-
St. Theresa Specialty Hospital, LLC v. Indian Harbor Insurance, No. 2:19-CV-12126-MLCF-JCW (E.D. La. Oct. 22, 2019)10/22/2019
Court granted defendant’s unopposed motion to compel arbitration pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 206. Court further compelled plaintiff to produce certain documents in aid of arbitration within 30 days and appointed an arbitrator. Court reasoned that the contract allowed for the party seeking arbitration to appoint the arbitrator if the responding party failed to respond within 30 days.
-
Chicago Insurance Company, v. General Reinsurance Corporation, No. 1:18-CV-10450 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2019)10/22/2019
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings of a different arbitration. Court reasoned that the arbitration panel constituted in a previous dispute between the parties had retained jurisdiction for any dispute related to the final award. Court therefore rejected plaintiff’s argument that the prior arbitration panel’s authority over the dispute had ended pursuant to the doctrine of functus officio. Court found that the question of whether the present dispute was related to the previous award, and therefore within the jurisdiction of the previous arbitration panel was a question for the arbitrators to decide.
-
Williams v. Eaze Solutions , Inc., No. 3:18-CV-02598-JD (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2019)10/21/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of claims related to a marijuana company’s alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that because the defendant’s business was illegal under federal law, a contract was never formed between the parties. Court found that illegality merely renders a contract void, it does not negate formation, and that the arbitration provision is severable form a voided contract. Court further found that the contract delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, and thus refused to consider plaintiff’s arguments past the formation issue.
-
In Re Papa John’s Employee and Franchise Employee Antitrust Litigation, No. 3:18-CV-00825-JHM-RSE (W.D. Ken. Oct. 21, 2019)10/21/2019
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.
-
Hearn v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-01198-TWT (N.D. Ga. Oct. 21, 2019)10/21/2019
Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of a class action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Court found that the dispute was not tied to the parties’ agreement and declined to enforce the broad language that referred any claim “related to” the defendant to arbitration. Court said that this was an issue of contract interpretation and that no reasonable customer would have understood himself to be signing over his right to pursue any claim against defendant in perpetuity by signing a service agreement.
-
Chang v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-02091-LAP (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2019)10/21/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of claims related alleged discrimination. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration provisions expired when plaintiff singed a new agreement, that the provisions were unconscionable, that defendant could not enforce because it was not a signatory to the arbitration agreement, and that the claims were outside the scope of the arbitration clause. Court found that the arbitration provision had a survivability clause and that the new agreement signed by plaintiff indicated that certain obligations would survive from the previous agreement. Court further held that Defendant could enforce the agreement as a non-signatory under the theory of estoppel.
-
Byars, v. Dart Transit Company, No. 3:19-CV-00541 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 21, 2019)10/21/2019Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of putative class claims related to a wage dispute. Court considered two arguments plaintiff made as to the validity of the arbitration provision, first that the potential pool of arbitrators and the arbitration rules were biased in favor of defendants and second that the arbitration provisions were unconscionable. Court rejected these arguments finding that a party cannot avoid arbitration merely by alleging that an arbitration panel will be biased before the panel is constituted, and that the contract was not unconscionable merely because it was a contract of adhesion.
-
Barone v. LAZ Parking Ltd, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-01545-VLB (D. Conn. Oct. 20, 2019)10/20/2019
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of wage dispute claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. While court found that defendant had not waived the right to compel arbitration by not raising it at the conditional certification stage. Court found that because the class had not yet been identified it was not possible to consider whether the individual members had signed arbitration agreements that precluded class resolution of their claims, but noted that the defendant could raise the issue again at the second stage of the certification process.
-
O’Shaugnessy v. Young Living Essential Oils, LC, No. 1:19-CV-00412-LY (W.D. Tex. Oct. 18, 2019)10/18/2019
Court denied defendants’ motions to compel arbitration, finding that the conflicting nature of the forum selection clause and arbitration clause of the underlying contract demonstrated that there was no meeting of the minds with regard to arbitration. Court rejected defendants’ argument that the forum selection clause only dealt with those claims not subject to arbitration, finding that no language in the contract supported defendants’ interpretation.
-
Eaton Partners, LLC v. Azimuth Capital Management IV, Ltd., No. 1:18-CV-11112-ER (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2019)10/18/2019
Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award and denied respondent’s motion to vacate the award, finding that the arbitrator was not guilty of misconduct when he excluded evidence from an unavailable witness – as arbitrators enjoy latitude under the AAA Rules to exclude evidence that is cumulative or irrelevant. Court denied respondent’s request to enter judgment in its favor, finding that courts may not review an arbitrator’s decision on the merits.
-
Strange v. Select Management Resources, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-00321-CCF-JFP (M.D.N.C. Oct. 17, 2019)10/17/2019
Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration as to a non-signatory defendant, finding that the non-signatory was merely an affiliate company of the other defendants and that no additional evidence supported binding the non-signatory to the arbitration agreement. Court compelled arbitration with respect to all signatory defendants.
-
Entes Industrial Plants, Construction and Erection Contraction Co. Inc. v. The Kyrgyz Republic, No. 1:18-CV-02228-RC (D.D.C. Oct. 17, 2019)10/17/2019
Court granted in part petitioner’s petition to confirm an arbitration award and denied respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition for forum non conveniens, finding that courts should not dismiss a petition when a foreign entity attempts to enforce an award against another foreign entity that might hold property in the United States. Court rejected petitioner’s argument that a forum non conveniens defense is necessarily precluded in actions to enforce an award under the New York Convention because it is not listed as one of the limited grounds to deny enforcement. Court requested additional briefing on the question of whether the sovereign respondent was an appropriate party to the action when it did not sign the arbitration agreement.
-
Nicholas v. Wayfair Inc., No. 1:19-CV-01974-JBW-LB (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2019)10/16/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff agreed to arbitrate her claims when she acquiesced to defendants’ website terms and conditions. Court found that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable when the website text clearly indicated that submission of plaintiff’s order would result in her agreement to the terms and conditions.
-
Doud v. Gold, No. 1:19-CV-06561-KPF (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2019)10/16/2019
Court granted petitioners’ motion for summary judgment on their unopposed petition to confirm an arbitration award, finding that (i) petitioners met the low standard of showing “a barely colorable justification for the arbitrator’s conclusion,” (ii) the grounds for the arbitral award were readily discernable from the contents of the award, and (iii) there were no grounds for setting aside or modifying the award.
-
Robinson v. Virginia College, LLC, No. 19-11864 (11th Cir. Oct. 16, 2019)10/16/2019
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order denying defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff’s claims – as a student and former employee of one defendant – against defendants resulting from the latter’s loss of college accreditation fell outside of plaintiff’s employment-related arbitration agreement. Court found that because plaintiff’s claims arose from his role as a student, rather than an employee, rendered the claims not arbitrable.
-
Buhannic v. Tradingscreen, Inc., No. 18-2274 (2d Cir. Oct. 11, 2019)10/11/2019
Court of appeals affirmed district court order confirming an arbitration award, finding meritless petitioner’s claims that the arbitral panel had improper connections with the respondents. Court additionally refused to consider documentary exhibits not presented to the district court, finding that no obvious injustice or extraordinary circumstance justified the consideration of new allegations and evidence.
-
Cooper v. Adobe Systems Incorporated, No. 5:18-CV-06472-BLF (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2019)10/11/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that notwithstanding plaintiff’s challenges to the formation of the arbitration agreement, the parties agreed to arbitrate issues of arbitrability by incorporating the JAMS rules.
-
Murillo v. A Better Way Wholesale Autos, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01883-VLB (D. Conn. Oct. 10, 2019)10/10/2019
Court denied defendant’s motion to reconsider a judgment confirming an arbitration award, finding that the award did not manifestly disregard the law when it granted punitive damages in addition to the amount claimed. Court additionally found that nothing in the arbitration agreement set a cap on the damages an arbitrator may order. Court declined defendant’s argument that it was denied due process because it defended the case based on the belief that damages were capped at the amount claimed.
-
Rainey v. Citigroup, Incorporated, No. 19-10036 (5th Cir. Oct. 7, 2019)10/07/2019
Court of appeals held that defendant’s service of process complied with FRCP 5(b)(2)(C) and that dismissal, as opposed to a stay pending arbitration, is proper “when all of the issues raised in the district court must be submitted to arbitration.”
-
In re del Valle Ruiz for an Order to Take Discovery for Use in Foreign Proceedings Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, No. 18-3226 (2d Cir. Oct. 7, 2019)10/07/2019
Court of appeals held that the language in 28 U.S.C. § 1782 that requires that a person or entity "resides or is found" within the district in which discovery is sought extends the reach of § 1782 to the limits of personal jurisdiction consistent with due process. However, Court held that the contacts at issue within the Southern District of New York were insufficient to subject it to the district court’s personal jurisdiction.
-
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. The City of Fresno, No. 2:16-CV-00495-JAM (E.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2019)10/03/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to vacate order compelling arbitration of an insurance coverage dispute. Court held that the arbitration it previously compelled was now moot as a result of a summary judgment order in favor of defendant by a California Court in a related action.
-
Marisco, Ltd. v. GL Engineering & Construction PTE., Ltd, No. 1:18-CV-00211-SOM (D. Haw. Oct. 3, 2019)10/03/2019
Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims relating to the construction of a dry dock. Court held that although there was a valid arbitration agreement, plaintiff’s claims did not fall within its scope.
-
Capital & Security Management, Inc. v. Telthorster, No. 2:19-CV-01677-MMB (E.D. Pa. Oct 3, 2019)10/03/2019
Court denied petitioners’ motion to vacate arbitration award relating to an investment contract, thereby rejecting petitioners’ argument that the arbitral tribunal acted in manifest disregard of the law.
-
Morrison v. Home Depot, No. 2:19-CV-00517-GCS (S.D. Ohio Oct. 2, 2019)10/02/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims relating to credit card transactions. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the motion was untimely, that it was entitled to a trial by jury and that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable. -
Sarah Adult Day Services, Inc. v. Beyda Adult Day Care Center, LLC, No. 5:19-CV-00614-SL (N.D. Ohio Oct. 2, 2019)10/02/2019
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm arbitration award issued by the American Arbitration Association in connection with a franchise agreement relating to adult day care services. Court held that the award was enforceable in all respects.
-
Phillips v. Neutron Holdings, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-03382-KGS (N.D. Tex. Oct. 2, 2019)10/02/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims arising from an electric scooter accident. Court held that the ‘sign-in-wrap’ online user agreement at issue, which contained an arbitration agreement, was enforceable and that it was for the arbitral tribunal to decide whether the claims asserted fell within the scope of the agreement.
-
TECO Guatemala Holdings, LLC v. Republic of Guatemala, No. 1:17-CV-00102 (D.D.C. October 1, 2019)10/01/2019
Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in action to enforce an ICSID award against the Republic of Guatemala. Court rejected as an attempt to revisit the merits of the underlying dispute Guatemala’s argument that the award was procured by fraud. Court also rejected Guatemala’s argument that the doctrines of issue preclusion and claim preclusion deprived the ICSID tribunal of jurisdiction to render the award and rejected Guatemala’s contention that the award was not final due to an ongoing related arbitration between the parties in connection with related claims.
-
Izett v. Crown Asset Management, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-05224-EMC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2019)10/01/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims relating to the debt collection practices of defendants. Court held that defendants did not waive their right to arbitrate the subject matter of the dispute despite having previously successfully pursued collection of the debt in state court. Court also held that the question of whether the state court judgment extinguished the defendants’ right to arbitrate should be directed to the arbitral tribunal.
-
Sadler v. General Electric Company, No. 3:17-CV-00328-RGJ (W.D. Ky. Sept. 30, 2019)09/30/2019
Court denied in part and grants in part defendant GE’s motion to compel arbitration. Court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that there was insufficient consideration to form a binding agreement to arbitrate holding that there was sufficient consideration because the agreement was an exchange of promises between the parties that bound each party to submit their disputes to arbitration. Court also found that it had insufficient evidence to find that certain of the plaintiffs consented to the arbitration agreement and ordered the parties to supplement the record with evidence on this issue.
-
Lotsoff v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 3:18-CV-02033-AJB (S.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2019)09/30/2019
Court denied defendant Wells Fargo’s motion to compel arbitration of claims relating to Wells Fargo’s practice of charging overdraft fees on checking accounts. Court held that the arbitration agreement at issue was invalid and unenforceable because it precluded the plaintiffs’ ability to seek public injunctive relief against Wells Fargo in any forum.
-
Kathan v. Autovest, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-00486-TC (D. Utah Sept. 30, 2019)09/30/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in connection with a claim alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Court held that the defendant had not waived its right to compel arbitration by previously filing a debt collection action in state court.
-
Galvez v. Jet Smarter, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-10311-VSB (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2019)09/30/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stays proceedings pending arbitration in a breach of contract and fraud action relating to a membership agreement for private jet services. Court held that there was a valid agreement between the parties to arbitrate in the terms and conditions of service which were accepted by the plaintiff at the time he purchased his membership.
-
Drake v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., No. 1:13-DP-20140-JJH (N.D. Ohio Sept. 30, 2019)09/30/2019
Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to vacate arbitration award relating to fees allegedly payable under an attorney representation agreement. Court held that the arbitration proceeding in which the award was rendered did not comply with the arbitral procedures agreed between the parties in the operative agreement to arbitrate.
-
Dhaliwal v. Mallinckdrodt PLC, No. 1:18-CV-03146-VSB (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2019)09/30/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of a whistleblower retaliation action. Court held that although the defendants were not parties to the arbitration agreement entered into with the plaintiff by a company they had acquired, the subject matter of the plaintiff’s claims were intertwined with the scope of the arbitration agreement and that it would be inequitable for the plaintiff to refuse to arbitrate on the ground that it had made no agreement with the defendants.
-
In re Application of NJSC Naftogaz of Ukraine, No. 3:18-MC-00092-SAL (N.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2019)09/30/2019
Court granted application under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for discovery from auditors in the U.S. in aid of a contemplated court proceeding in the Netherlands to enforce an arbitral award rendered against Gazprom in an arbitration seated in Stockholm, Sweden. Court held that the application met all of the requirements of § 1782.
-
Gibbs v. Stinson, No. 3:18-CV-00676-MHL (E.D. Va. Sept. 30, 2019)09/30/2019
Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims relating to an alleged unlawful lending operation. Court held that certain of the arbitration agreements at issue were unenforceable because they sought to apply Native American tribal law to the exclusion of federal law. Court also held that the other arbitration agreement at issue was enforceable because it did not disavow federal law wholesale and instead contemplated application of federal law to the arbitral proceedings.
-
Enel Green Power North America, Inc. v. Geronimo Energy, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-05882-AJN (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2019)09/30/2019
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of a claim relating to an alleged breach of a partnership agreement. Court held that the claim was not subject to an earlier agreement between the parties to arbitrate because the later agreements upon which the claim was based included mandatory forum selection clauses choosing New York courts as the exclusive jurisdiction. -
Jackson v. Rushmore Service Center, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-04587-SJF (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2019)09/27/2019
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and to stay court action alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in connection with allegedly misleading credit card collection letters. Court held that an agreement between the parties to arbitrate existed, which was the sole matter in dispute in relation to arbitrability.
-
Imagetec, L.P. v. Lexmark International, Inc., No. 5:18-CV-00011-CHB (E.D. Ky. Sept. 27, 2019)09/27/2019
Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in dispute regarding software and dealer agreements relating to commercial printing. Court held than an agreement to arbitrate in a dealer agreement did not fall within the scope of a subsequent software agreement between the parties, which included an integration clause but no arbitration agreement, and that claims falling under the latter agreement were not subject to arbitration. Court also decided to stay the non-arbitrable claims falling under the software agreement pending arbitration of the claims arising under the dealer agreement.
-
Gorin v. Vivint Solar Developer LLC, No. 1:19-CV-01207 (D. Md. Sept. 27, 2019)Gorin09/27/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay court proceedings in breach of warranty case relating to the design and installation of a residential solar power system. Court held that the regulations enacted by the Federal Trade Commission requiring parties to enter into non-binding dispute resolution before a warrantor can insist on binding arbitration did not apply to the warranty claims at issue.
-
Buhannic v. American Arbitration Association (AAA), No. 1:18-CIV-02430-ER (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2019)09/27/2019
Court dismissed plaintiff’s claim against the American Arbitration Association (AAA) and several of its arbitrators for alleged improper selection of arbitrators and allegedly defective reviewing procedures on the basis of arbitral immunity.
-
First Student, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 959, No. 3:18-CV-00305-SLG (D. Alaska Sept. 26, 2019)09/26/2019
Court dismissed motion to vacate arbitral award, finding that the timeliness of the award was not a ground for vacatur; that the arbitral tribunal did not exceed the scope of its authority; and that there was no basis to interfere with the merits of the arbitral tribunal’s decision, which was entitled to deference.
-
Fambrough v. Green, No. 4:19-00158-CV-RK (W.D. Mo. Sept. 26, 2019)09/26/2019
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that parties had delegated gateway issues concerning the arbitrability of the dispute to the arbitral tribunal, and, therefore, that defendant’s claim that agreement was procured by duress had to be determined by the tribunal.
-
Lomeli v. Midland Funding, LLC., No. 5:19-CV-01141-LHK (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2019)09/26/2019
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that assignee of rights under credit card agreement was entitled to enforce arbitration provision against plaintiff. Court also held that third-party debt collection agency engaged by assignee was entitled to enforce arbitration provision because of broad language in arbitration provision requiring arbitration of any disputes involving entities “claiming through” the parties to credit card agreement.
-
KG Schifffahrtsgesellschaft MS Pacific Winter MBH & Co. v. Safesea Transport Inc., No. 2:19-CV-04869-CCC-SCM (D.N.J. Sept. 26, 2019)09/26/2019
Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award, finding that alleged error of law committed by arbitral tribunal’s failure to apply limitation defense, even if established, would not warrant non-confirmation of arbitral award on public policy grounds.
-
Aerpio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Quaggin, No. 1:18-CV-00794-SJD-KLL (S.D. Ohio Sept. 26, 2019)09/26/2019
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding clear and unmistakable evidence of parties’ intent to delegate gateway arbitrability issues to arbitral tribunal. Court held that carve-out in arbitration provision providing for specific remedies in the event of breach did not create any ambiguity as to the delegation.
-
Johnson & Johnson International v. Puerto Rico Hospital Supply, No. 3:17-CV-01405-FAB (D.P.R. Sep. 25, 2019)09/25/2019
Court denied motion to vacate arbitral award, finding that there was no serious error or manifest disregard of law that warranted intervention in the arbitral tribunal’s decision.
-
Park Avenue Life Insurance Company v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, No. 1:19-CV-01089-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2019)09/25/2019
Court denied both parties’ motions to confirm an arbitral award and remanded the arbitral award to the arbitral tribunal for clarification. Parties both moved to confirm arbitral award but each party had a different interpretation of the effect of the award. Court found that ambiguity in the arbitral award “goes to the very heart of the dispute” and was not merely a matter of semantics, therefore the arbitral award had to be remanded to arbitral tribunal.