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.
-
Mohazzabi v. Wells Fargo, N.A., No. 2:18-CV-02137-RFB-VCF (D. Nev. Sept. 25, 2019)09/25/2019
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that parties had entered into a binding contract to arbitrate, and that the contract was not unconscionable under Nevada law.
-
Johnson & Johnson International v. Puerto Rico Hospital Supply, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01405-FAB (D.P.R. Sept. 25, 2019)09/25/2019
Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to vacate an arbitral award and granted defendants’ motion to confirm the award, finding that the arbitral tribunal had not issued the award in manifest disregard of the law. Court found that there was no evidence on the record that the arbitral tribunal ignored the law; to the contrary, the award set forth a well-reasoned and methodical approach to the law and the evidence.
-
Hallam v. Southaven R.V. Center, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-220-DMB-RP (N.D. Miss. Sept. 25, 2019)09/25/2019
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed court action against non-signatory pending arbitration between signatories to the arbitration provision. Plaintiffs brought action against the seller and the manufacturer of a motor home, but only the seller was a signatory to the arbitration provision in the sale contract with plaintiffs. Court granted motion to compel arbitration between plaintiffs and the seller, and held that it would stay the action against the manufacturer pending arbitration, since the claims both involved the same primary question of fact, namely, whether the motor home had numerous defects.
-
Eaton Partners, LLC v. Azimuth Capital Management IV, Ltd., No. 1:18-CV-11112-ER (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2019)09/24/2019
Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award, finding that arbitrator was not guilty of misconduct by refusing to postpone hearing when respondent’s witness became unavailable, and by refusing to accept additional witness testimony from another of respondent’s witnesses
-
Sheinfeld v. BMW Financial Services NA, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-02083-JAD-EJY (D. Nev. Sept. 24, 2019)09/24/2019
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the claims-resolution procedure in the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act 15 USC § 2301, which allows consumers to bring warranty claims in respect of certain consumer products, did not prohibit the enforcement of a binding arbitration agreement.
-
SFM LLC v. Best Roast Coffee LLC, No. 2:19-CV-04820-JAT (D. Ariz. Sept. 24, 2019)09/24/2019
Court dismissed motion to compel arbitration, finding that dispute did not fall within arbitration clause in a contract between the parties. Court held that the claims, which concerned trademark infringement, cybersquatting, false endorsement, or false advertising, did not “relate to or arise from the terms of” a Non-Circumvention Agreement that was limited to matters such as trade secrets or the use of business opportunities.
-
Al-Qarqani v. Chevron Corporation, No. 4:18-CV-03297-JSW (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2019)09/24/2019
Court granted motion to dismiss petition to confirm a foreign arbitral award, finding that petitioners failed to demonstrate an operative agreement to arbitration between themselves and respondents. Court also held that other independent grounds precluded confirmation of the arbitral award, including: petitioners’ failure to produce an authenticated or certified English copies of the contract or arbitral award; substantial irregularities in the conduct of arbitral proceedings, including the choice of venue and arbitrator selection process; and non-arbitrability of the dispute.
-
ERISA Funds v. Piccini MNM, Inc, No. 1:18-CV-08202-ALC (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2019)09/23/2019
Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award, finding that tribunal acted within the scope of its authority, and that there were justifications for each component of the award.
-
Nandorf, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-05285 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 23, 2019)09/23/2019
Court converted motion to compel arbitration to a motion to dismiss, and granted motion to dismiss, holding that, while it did not have authority to compel arbitration in a forum outside its district, it had authority to dismiss the complaint if the claims were subject to arbitration. Court found that even though there was a dispute over the enforceability of the arbitration agreement, there was clear and unmistakable evidence of parties’ intent to delegate threshold arbitrability questions to arbitral tribunal.
-
Twin Falls NSC, LLC v. Southern Idaho Ambulatory Surgery Center, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-00009-DCN (D. Idaho Sept. 23, 2019)09/23/2019
Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award and dismissed motion to vacate arbitral award, finding that tribunal had not committed misconduct by refusing to compel production of supplemental discovery, by providing a short briefing schedule for the arbitration, by excluding the evidence from defendant’s expert, or by purportedly not considering pertinent and material evidence. Court also did not accept that tribunal acted in manifest disregard of the law
-
Customs and Tax Consultancy LLC v. The Democratic Republic of the Congo, No. 1:18-CV-01408-RJL (D.D.C. Sept. 23, 2019)09/23/2019
Court granted motion to confirm arbitral awards and enter default judgment against respondent, finding that it had subject matter and personal jurisdiction over respondent, and that petitioner had provided satisfactory evidence for the arbitral awards to be confirmed.
-
The Monongolia County Coal Company v. United Mine Works of America, No. 1:18-CV-00176-TSK (N.D.W. Va. Sept. 23, 2019)09/23/2019
Court granted motion to vacate arbitral award, finding that the award did not draw its essence from the contract. Recognizing its “extremely limited” role in deciding arbitration disputes, court decided that tribunal’s decision ignored the plain language of the contract it was required to construe, and reached factual conclusions without any evidentiary basis.
-
Arredondo v. Southwestern & Pacific Specialty Finance, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-01737-DAD-SKO (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2019)09/23/2019
Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff had validly opted out of arbitration provision in a dispute resolution agreement, which superseded a prior dispute resolution agreement that plaintiff had signed two years earlier.
-
Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Rahi Corp., No. 8:18-CV-02955-GJH (D. Md. Sept. 23, 2019)
09/23/2019Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award, finding that there was no reason in the record to question the validity of the contract containing the arbitration provision or the conduct of tribunal.
-
Cerner Middle East Limited v. iCapital, LLC, No. No. 17-35514 (9th Cir. Sept. 23, 2019)09/23/2019
Court of appeals reversed district court’s order dismissing the case and refusing to enforce an arbitral award against respondent’s property on the basis that a court had not confirmed that the respondent was within the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction. Subsequent to the district court’s decision, the Paris Court of Appeal, which had jurisdiction over respondent, confirmed that respondent was subject to the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction. Court recognized the Paris Court of Appeal’s decision under the principles of international comity and remanded the case for further proceedings.
-
Parker v. Resurgent Capital Services LP, No. 4:19-CV-50-BO (E.D.N.C. Sept. 23, 2019)09/23/2019
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff was bound by the arbitration provision in a credit card agreement, notwithstanding that defendant was the assignee of the account and not the original party to the agreement with plaintiff.
-
Ruiz v. New Avon LLC, No. 1:18-CV-09033-VSB (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2019)09/22/2019
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding that the arbitration agreement signed by an employee was superseded by the terms of a subsequent employment agreement that contained a mandatory forum selection clause requiring all disputes related to plaintiff’s employment to be submitted to the “sole exclusive jurisdiction” of the New York federal or state courts.
-
Hofer v. Emley, No. 3:19-CV-02205-JSC (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2019)09/20/2019
Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding that the non-signatory plaintiff was bound by the arbitration agreement as a consequence of equitable estoppel under California law
-
Northeast Natural Energy LLC v. Larson, No. 3:18-CV-240 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 20, 2019)09/20/2019
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate arbitral award, finding that arbitral tribunal’s decisions were justified and were not a “manifest disregard for the law.”
-
Solar Leasing, Inc. v. Hutchinson, No. 3:17-CV-00076-WAL-RM (D.V.I. Sept. 20, 2019)09/20/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of claims related to defendant’s personal guaranty of payments under a licensing agreement. Court found although the personal guaranty did not contain an arbitration agreement, the parties intended the terms of the lease agreement, including the arbitration provision, to apply to the personal guaranty. Court further found that the agreement to arbitrate was valid, the plaintiff’s claims were within the scope of the agreement, and the agreement required the parties to submit the dispute informally to nonbinding mediation prior to commencing arbitration.
-
Stover v. Valley Rubber, LLC, No. 5:18-CV-01795-LCB (N.D. Ala. Sept. 19, 2019)
09/19/2019Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims related to employee discrimination. Court found that under Alabama law, an arbitration agreement must be in writing but is not required to be signed. However, here explicit language in a company policy evidenced that only the General Manager had authority to enter into contracts affecting terms of employment, and any such contract must be signed by the General Manager and employee, and thus the lack of a signature from the General Manager on the arbitration agreement rendered the agreement unenforceable.
-
Townsend v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-05939-AJN (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2019)09/19/2019
Court denied motion to vacate a FINRA arbitration award. Court rejected petitioner’s argument that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law by issuing an award when FINRA had failed to properly serve notice on Petitioner, finding that petitioner did ot meet his demanding burden of proof because he introduced no evidence that he was actually unaware of the arbitration against him. Court also found that the awarding of fees was not improper.
-
Daly v. Citigroup Inc., No. 18-665 (2d Cir. Sept. 19, 2019)09/19/2019
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to compel arbitration of whistleblower and gender discrimination claims and to dismiss claims related to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Court of appeals agreed with the district court that claims arising under Title VII. the Equal Pay Act, and Dodd-Frank are arbitrable. Court of appeals noted that while claims related to Sarbanes-Oxley are not arbitrable, they were properly dismissed because the plaintiff had not met the jurisdictional prerequisite of exhausting administrative remedies.
-
Abdil Latif Jameel Transportation Company Limited v. FedEx Corporation, No. 19-5315 (6th Cir. Sept. 19, 2019)
09/19/2019Court of appeals reversed and remanded a district court’s denial of an application for discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) for use in a foreign arbitration proceeding. Petitioner sought discovery for use in two simultaneous arbitration proceedings, one under the rules of the Dubai International Financial Centre-London Court of International Arbitration (DIFC-LCIA), and the other under the rules and laws of Saudi Arabia. The district court held that neither the Saudi nor the DIFC-LCIA arbitration panel constituted a “foreign or international tribunal” under § 1782(a). Court of appeals, considered the definition of “tribunal” in dictionaries, legal writing, and other sources and determined that the text, context, and structure of § 1782(a) gave no reason to doubt that the word “tribunal” includes private commercial arbitral panels. Court of appeals also found that Court of appeals was persuaded that because the Saudi arbitration had been dismissed, the question of discovery under § 1782(a) was moot.
-
Barclays Capital Inc. v. Urquidi, No. 1:15-CV-21850-JEM (11th Cir. Sept. 19, 2019)09/19/2019
Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion to vacate an arbitration award forgiving the debt that claimants owed to the respondents. Court of appeals found that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers, rejecting the argument that the arbitrator ignored the plain language of, or modified impermissibly, the underlying agreements. The panel had given no written reasons for its award, but the court inferred that the panel had agreed with the claimant’s position that respondents’ conduct had rendered the loan notes unenforceable. The court said that determining whether this decision was legally or factually erroneous was beyond their limited scope of review.
-
Krohn v. Spectrum Gulf Coast, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-2722-S (N.D. Tex. Sept. 19, 2019)09/19/2019
Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, holding that an employment contract was validly modified to incorporate an arbitration agreement under Texas law. Plaintiff had been given notice of contract modification by email, which provided for binding arbitration unless plaintiff opted-out. Plaintiff accepted modification by continuing to work with knowledge of the modified employment terms.
-
Torlay v. Nelligan, No. 3:19-CV-06589-AET-LHG (D.N.J. Sept. 18, 201909/18/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings of claims related to a contract dispute. Court found that there were two arbitration at issue, and that plaintiff was non-signatories to the first, and defendants were non-signatories to the second but that by applying the theory of equitable estoppel to both agreements, all of plaintiff’s claims could be compelled to arbitration.
-
Davis v. TMC Restaurant of Charlotte, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-00313-DCK (W.D.N.C. Sept. 18, 2019)09/18/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration as to two defendants and denied it as to one defendant. Court found that because one defendant did not sign an arbitration policy, an agreement to arbitrate was not formed and the court could not compel her to arbitrate labor dispute claims.
-
Managed Care Advisory Group, LLC, v. Cigna Healthcare, Inc., No. 17-13761 (11th Cir. Sept. 18, 2019)09/18/2019
Court of appeals reversed and remanded district court’s decision to enforce arbitration summonses. Court of appeals held that 9 U.S.C § 7 (FAA) authorized federal courts to enforce arbitration summonses that required non-parties to present documents and testimony in the physical presence of the arbitrator, where the summons enforced by the district court required the non-parties to appear via video conference from locations across the country while the arbitrator sat in Miami, Florida.
-
Masdar Solar & Wind Cooperatief U.A. v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 1:18-CV-02254-JEB (D.D.C. Sept. 18, 2019)09/18/2019
Court granted petition to stay enforcement of ICSID award pending resolution of ongoing ICSID proceedings to annul the award, holding that considerations of judicial economy and comity favored the stay. Court noted that the case raised thorny questions concerning a conflict between decades-old treaties and recent European Union case law.
-
Accordant Communications, LLC, v. Sayers Construction, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-00401-LY (W.D. Tex. Sept. 18, 2019)09/18/2019
Magistrate judge recommended denying a motion to dismiss a petition for confirmation of an arbitration award, and confirm the award. Magistrate judge rejected arguments that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction or that the matter was not ripe because at the time confirmation of the award was sought, the arbitrator had only issued a partial award. Magistrate judge found that the court had diversity jurisdiction and did not rely on the FAA for jurisdiction. Magistrate judge further found that, here any lack of ripeness had been cured by the arbitrator’s issuance of a final award, but regardless the partial award could be enforced because the arbitrator had reached a final determination on the merits of all the issues relevant to the partial award (having not yet considered the issue of attorney’s fees and costs).
-
The Harrison County Coal Company v. United Mine Workers of America, No. 1:18-CV-00138-TSK (N.D.W.V. Sept. 18, 2019)09/18/2019
Court confirmed an arbitration award made for labor grievances related to the construction of mining equipment. The court rejected arguments that the award should be vacated because it failed to draw its essence from the agreement because the damages awarded were punitive and not permitted under the agreement, concluding that the damages were compensatory.
-
Valentin v. ADECCO, No. 18-3489 (3d Cir. Sept. 18, 2019)09/18/2019
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s granting of a motion to compel arbitration of employment disputes. Court found that there was a valid agreement and that the dispute related to claims of employee discrimination that fell within the scope of the agreement.
-
In re HomeAdvisor Inc. Litigation, No. 1:16-CV-01849-PAB-KLM (D. Colo. Sept. 17, 2019)09/17/2019
Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court rejected defendant’s argument that the plaintiffs had manifested assent to arbitration of disputes related to an independent contractor agreement when they verbally manifested assent to the contract over the phone, or through their continued employment. Court found that plaintiffs were not given reasonable notice of the terms of the agreement over the phone at the time of contract formation and the materials sent to them subsequently did not detail the terms and conditions or mention the arbitration clause.
-
1199 SEIU united Healthcare Workers East v. Alaris Health Hamilton Park, No. 18-2898 (2d Cir. Sept. 17, 2019)09/17/2019
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to confirm an arbitration award rendered in a dispute related to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Court rejected defendants’ arguments that the award violated public policy and that the arbitrator did not draw its essence from the CBA.
-
Krause v. Expedia Group, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-00123-BJR (W.D. Wash. Sept. 17, 2019)09/17/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings of wage dispute claims arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that an indemnification provision that allowed defendant to collect attorney’s fees from plaintiff even if plaintiff was victorious rendered the agreement unconscionable. Court found that this question was delegated to the arbitrator by the terms of the agreement. Court also found that defendants could enforce the arbitration provision as third-party beneficiaries, rejecting plaintiff’s argument that defendants could not enforce the arbitration agreement as non-signatories.
-
Frazier v. Papa John’s USA, Inc., No. 4:19-CV-00892-CDP (E.D. Mo. Sept. 17, 2019)09/17/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims related to alleged employment discrimination. Court found that the arbitration agreement expressly delegated all issues of contract formation to the arbitrator, however, because the plaintiff specifically challenged the validity of the delegation clause, the court considered its validity. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration agreement and delegation clause were invalid because (1) the agreement was not signed by defendant, (2) plaintiff did not handwrite his signature, and (3) the plaintiff had no recollection of signing the provision. Court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that the agreement was an illusory promise because the defendant retained the right to unilaterally modify the terms by giving thirty days’ notice. Court held, following Missouri Supreme Court precedent, that as long as the delegation clause standing alone is valid, the arbitrator should be allowed to determine whether the clause contains illusory provisions.
-
Katz v. BMW of North America, LLC, No. 4:19-CV-01553-KAW (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2019)09/17/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of contract claims connected with a vehicle lease agreement. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the defendant did not have standing to enforce agreement and that compelling a buyer to arbitrate claims under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is unconscionable. Court held that although the defendant was not a signatory to the agreement, it had standing as an affiliate of the Lessor’s assignee, or could enforce the agreement under a theory of equitable estoppel. Court also held that the requirement to pay to arbitrate some consumer claims does not automatically give rise to substantive unconscionability.
-
Velasquez-Reyes v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 17-56556 (9th Cir. Sept. 17, 2019)09/17/2019
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s refusal to compel arbitration of claims stemming from Samsung’s alleged false advertising. Court found that under California law, the terms and conditions contained in a poorly titled booklet packaged with the phone, and references to the terms and conditions on the phone’s packaging, were insufficient to put a reasonable consumer on notice of the arbitration provision.
-
Samsung Electronics America, Inc., v. Ramirez, No. 18-16094 (9th Cir. Sept. 17, 2019)09/17/2019
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s refusal to compel arbitration of claims related to severe burns allegedly caused by a mobile phone. Court found that under California law, the terms and conditions contained in a poorly titled booklet packaged with the phone, and references to the terms and conditions on the phone’s packaging, were insufficient to put a reasonable consumer on notice of the arbitration provision.
-
Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. S&S Kings Corp., No. 1:19-CV-01052-RA (S.D.N.Y Sept. 16, 2019)09/16/2019
Court granted an unopposed petition to confirm an arbitration award made in a labor dispute. Court found that there was no material issue of fact in dispute to preclude enforcing the arbitration award.
-
Rock Roofing, LLC, v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America., No. 2:18-CV-01193-RB-GBW (D.N.M. Sept. 16, 2019)09/16/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of a contract dispute. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the defendant was not a party to the subcontract containing the arbitration provision, finding that a non-signatory could compel arbitration under the theory of equitable estoppel because the plaintiff relied on the terms of the agreement in making its claim against the non-signatory defendant.
-
Hanberry v. First Premier Bank, No. 2:19-CV-10235-KWR (E.D. La. Sept. 16, 2019)09/16/2019
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceeding of a pro se dispute under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Court held that the FAA governed the dispute and that threshold questions of arbitrability had not been unmistakably delegated to the arbitrator. The court followed 5th Circuit precedent and found that plaintiff’s FCRA claims “touch[ed] matters” covered by the credit card contracts containing the arbitration agreements, and the disputes were sufficiently within the scope of the agreement to enforce arbitration.
-
Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc., v. Barker Management, Inc., No. 17-56856 (9th Cir. Sept. 16, 2019)09/16/2019
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of a motion to vacate an arbitration award. Court found that district court correctly held that the arbitrator had not exceeded his powers, finding that there was nothing in the record to establish that the arbitrator had correctly stated the law but intentionally disregarded it. Court also found that the law petitioner claimed was disregarded was not, according to the court, well defined and clearly applicable at the time of the award.
-
Bayless Engineering, Inc., v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc., No. 18-55249 (9th Cir. Sept. 16, 2019)09/16/2019
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of a motion to vacate an arbitration award. Court found that district court correctly held that the arbitrator had not exceeded his powers, finding that there was nothing in the record to establish that the arbitrator had correctly stated the law but intentionally disregarded it. Court also found that the law petitioner claimed was disregarded was not, according to the court, well defined and clearly applicable at the time of the award.
-
MED TRUST Handelsges.m.b.H. v. Intrinsyk Medical Devices, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-00220-AJ (D.N.H. Sept. 13, 2019)09/13/2019
Court recommended district judge grant plaintiff’s motion for default judgment in relation to enforcement of an arbitral award issued by the Vienna International Arbitral Center.
-
Loewen v. John McDonnell, III, No. 4:19-CV-07437-CM (S.D.N.Y Sept. 13, 2019)09/13/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings. Court found that by incorporating arbitration rules in their agreement that stated the tribunal “may rule on its own jurisdiction” the parties had given clear and unmistakable evidence of their intent to delegate gateway issues to the arbitrator.
-
Pimental v. Ricotta & Marks, P.C., No. 1:19-CV-07437-CM (S.D.N.Y Sept. 13, 2019)09/13/2019
Court declined to enforce an arbitration award for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Court held that the FAA did not provide independent means for jurisdiction and that New York courts “look through” to the underlying claims in the arbitration. Here those claims were based on state law and did not provide federal jurisdiction.
-
Inversiones y Procesadora Tropical Inprosta, S.A., No. 18-14807 (11th Cir. Sept. 5, 2019)09/05/2019
Court of appeals affirmed that district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s motion to vacate an arbitration award. Court also affirmed lower court’s issuance of sanctions against plaintiff, finding that plaintiff attacked the arbitration award without a legal basis for doing so and thus acted in bad faith.
-
Maravilla v. Gruma Corporation, No. 18-20570 (5th Cir. Sept. 4, 2019)09/04/2019
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order compelling arbitration, finding that the parties’ incorporation of the JAMS rules showed clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to arbitrate the issue of arbitrability. Court found that defendant’s unconscionability argument was inapplicable when it encompassed the contract as a whole, rather than the arbitration agreement itself or the delegation clause therein.