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.
-
Esso Exploration and Production Nigeria Limited v. Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, No. 1:14-CV-08445-WHP (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2019)09/04/2019
Court denied petition to confirm a Nigerian arbitration award under the New York Convention, when the award was set aside in a Nigerian court. Court also found that it had personal jurisdiction over respondent because respondent was an alter ego of Nigeria; the two shared property and Nigeria controlled respondent’s day-to-day operations.
-
EPRO Services, Inc., v. Regenesis Bioremediation Products, No. 6:19-CV-01220-EFM-KGG (D. Kan. Sept. 4, 2019)09/04/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and rejected plaintiff’s argument that the court should retain jurisdiction over requests for preliminary injunctive relief—pending arbitration. Court found that because it had already dissolved plaintiff’s prior temporary restraining order, it saw no reason to grant a subsequent request for preliminary injunctive relief. Court thus compelled arbitration of all claims and stayed further proceedings.
-
Chevron Mining Inc., et al. v. Skanska USA Civ. W. Rocky Mountain Dist., Inc., No. 3:19-CV-04144-LB (N.D. Cal. Sept. 3. 2019)09/03/2019
Court denied plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction compelling the production of the pleadings, transcripts, and reports from a related arbitration as moot, granting plaintiff’s motion for expedited discovery instead.
-
Nager v. Tesla Motors, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-02382-JAR-JPO (D. Kan. Sept. 3, 2019)09/03/2019
Court reserved judgment on defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, pending evidence produced by the parties at a hearing or trial on the issue of whether plaintiffs agreed to the arbitration agreement.
-
Luster-Malone v. Cook County, Illinois, No. 18-3544 (7th Cir. Sept. 3, 2019)09/03/2019
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s claims, finding that plaintiff’s claims were foreclosed by a prior arbitration decision and that her request for arbitration was untimely.
-
Floyd v. Kelly Services, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-02247-K (N.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 2019)08/30/2019
Magistrate judge recommended dismissal of plaintiff’s putative class claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and recommended that plaintiff be compelled to arbitrate her claims on an individual basis. Magistrate judge rejected plaintiff’s argument that she never assented to the arbitration clause, finding that under Texas law the act of starting work indicated acceptance of the employment terms and thus there was a valid agreement to arbitrate. Magistrate judge further found that the agreement contained a valid delegation clause and any threshold questions of arbitrability should be delegated to the arbitrator, thus she recommended dismissal of the case.
-
Swanson v. Wilford, Gesk, & Cook, No. 19-CV-117-DWF-LIB (D. Minn. August 30, 2019)08/30/2019
District court granted defendants’ motion to vacate arbitration award, finding that plaintiff failed to discharge his burden to demonstrate the existence of any valid arbitration agreement with defendants.
-
Gulf Haulage Heavy Lift Co. v. Swanberg International Ltd., No. 4:18-CV-04392 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2019)08/26/2019
Court granted petitioner’s motion to enforce and denied respondent’s motion to vacate arbitration award rendered in Saudi Arabia pursuant to the New York Convention. Court rejected respondent’s argument that enforcement would violate public policy because one of the arbitrators was not impartial and it, therefore, was unable to present its case, finding that vacatur under an argument of “evident partiality” is not a ground for vacatur specified in the New York Convention. Further, court rejected respondent’s argument that the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties because the plain language of the agreement allowed for a panel of arbitrators and stated that Arabic was the official language of the arbitration.
-
Brownlee v. Jacob, No. 4:19-CV-00208-JM (E.D. Ark. Aug. 26, 2019)08/26/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and strike plaintiff’s class allegations, finding that defendants as assignees had the right to enforce the arbitration provision. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the Supreme Court’s decision in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela precludes assignment of the right to arbitrate.
-
Pro Drive Outboards, LLC v. Cruzani, Inc., No. 6:18-CV-01241-MJJ-CBW (W.D.La. Aug. 23, 2019)08/23/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to transfer venue from the District Court for the Western District of Louisiana to the District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, finding that no public interest factors outweighed an arbitration clause’s mandate that all claims would be arbitrated in Oklahoma.
-
LLC Energoalliance v. Republic of Moldova, No. 1:14-CV-01921 (D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2019)08/23/2019
Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award, finding that foreign-sovereign respondent did not meet its substantial burden of resisting confirmation under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). Court rejected respondent’s argument that there was no valid agreement to arbitrate when the claims arbitrated allegedly were not contemplated by the arbitration agreement—finding that respondent’s argument did not go to jurisdiction. Court also rejected two of respondent’s defenses under the New York Convention, finding that there was adequate due process and that the claims arbitrated fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
-
Ionescu v. Extra Space Storage Inc., No. 4:19-CV-02226-YGR (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2019)08/23/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding that California law did not preclude arbitration of claims for injunctive relief when the arbitration provision expressly contemplated claims from the California statute providing for such relief.
-
Lovelace v. Showroom Auto, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-04978-ERK-CLP (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2019)08/22/2019
Court granted motion for attorneys’ fees and costs for a proceeding to confirm or vacate an arbitral award. Although confirmation proceedings are summary in nature, the court concluded they still qualified as an “action” capable of an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
-
L2 Wireless, LLC v. Sprint Solutions, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-02729-K (N.D. Tex. Aug. 22, 2019)08/22/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the case pursuant to the FAA. Court found that the arbitral agreement was valid and was not unconscionable. Court concluded plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the agreement and that the determination of whether the contract’s limits on liability and damages were enforceable was a question for the arbitrator.
-
Scaba v. Jetsmarter, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-17262-MAS-DEA (D.N.J. Aug. 21, 2019)08/21/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed the matter pending completion of arbitration. Applying the FAA and Florida law, the court determined the clickwrap arbitral agreement was valid and that the issue of arbitrability should be submitted to the arbitrator. Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a prejudgment writ of attachment on defendant’s assets, finding that it was unable to determine the likelihood of plaintiffs’ success at the early stage in the proceedings or conclude that any attachable assets existed in the jurisdiction.
-
Jia v. Nerium International, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-03057-S (N.D. Tex. Aug. 21, 2019)08/21/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to reopen the case and clarify the prior order, explaining that the order compelled arbitration on an individual, not collective, basis. Court denied as moot defendants’ motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction staying the class arbitration.
-
Ayeni-Aarons v. Best Buy Credit Services/CBNA, No. 2:18-CV-01625-MCE-KJN (E.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2019)08/21/2019
Court granted motion to compel arbitration finding the arbitral provision in the credit card agreement fell within the scope of the FAA because it involved interstate commerce. Court found a valid arbitral agreement existed and decided the determination of whether plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the agreement was for the arbitrator.
-
Tessemae’s LLC v. Atlantis Capital LLC, No. 1:18-CV-04902-KHP (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2019)08/20/2019
Court granted motion to compel arbitration as to certain claims and granted defendants’ motion to stay pending arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court found there was a valid arbitral agreement that was not procedurally or substantively unconscionable; however, it concluded the scope of the agreement only covered some of the claims in the action.
-
Dorman v. The Charles Schwab Corporation, No. 18-15281 (9th Cir. Aug. 20, 2019)08/20/2019
Court of appeals reversed district court’s opinion, finding plaintiff’s ERISA claims were subject to mandatory individual arbitration. Court of appeals found the arbitral agreement was enforceable as it did not violate the National Labor Relations Act and determined that the absence of an agreement to collective arbitration meant the claims must be arbitrated on an individual basis.
-
Compere v. Nusret Miami, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-20277-KMM (S.D. Fla. Aug. 20, 2019)08/20/2019
Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motions to compel AAA arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court found there was no valid arbitral agreement for several of the plaintiffs as defendants failed to produce evidence of acceptance of an arbitral agreement. Court held a valid arbitral agreement did exist for one of the plaintiffs and that defendants had not waived their right to arbitrate by participating in litigation and submitted the claims to the tribunal to determine the arbitrability pursuant to the delegation clause.
-
Waithaka v. Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Logistics, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-40150-TSH (D. Mass. Aug. 20, 2019)08/20/2019
Court denied the defendants’ motion to move to compel arbitration. Concluding that the plaintiff fell within the transportation worker exemption to the FAA, the court applied Massachusetts state law and held that the arbitral agreement was unenforceable because state public policy prohibited class action waivers in arbitral agreements. Court granted the defendants’ motion to transfer to the Western District of Washington pursuant to the first-to-file rule.
-
PPS Service Group, LLC v. Eckert, No. 1:18-CV-00727-MRB-SKB (S.D. Ohio Aug. 20, 2019)08/20/2019
Magistrate judge recommended the denial of the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court found that the defendant had waived its right to arbitration by participating substantially in the litigation, by filing numerous pre-trial motions, participating in discovery, and moving for summary judgment without asserting a right to arbitration.
-
Altamirano v. Bodega Latina Corporation, No. 2:19-CV-01660-JJT (D. Ariz. Aug. 20, 2019)08/20/2019
Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court found there was a valid agreement to arbitrate and the plaintiff’s claims of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) fell within the scope of the agreement.
-
Williams v. Cavalry SPV I LLC, No. 1:18-CV-01479-CAB (N.D. Ohio Aug. 19, 2019)08/19/2019
Court denied the defendants’ motions to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court found that the defendants failed to bear their burden of proving that the contractual terms binding the plaintiff to an arbitral agreement had been assigned to them and therefore, were not entitled to enforce the arbitration agreement against the plaintiff.
-
Mobile Now, Inc. v. Sprint Corporation, No. 1:19-CV-00918-JDB (D.D.C. Aug. 19, 2019)08/19/2019
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate under the FAA and D.C. law. Court held that the plaintiff was not fraudulently induced to enter into the arbitral agreement and that there was no procedural or substantive unconscionability.
-
Gupta v. Morgan Stanley, No. 18-3584 (7th Cir. Aug. 19, 2019)08/19/2019
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s grant of motion to compel arbitration. Pursuant to the FAA and Illinois contract law, the court of appeals held that the parties’ conduct indicated mutual assent to mandatory arbitration where the employee had not signed the arbitral agreement, finding the employee’s silence and continued employment constituted acceptance of when he had been given reasonable opportunity to opt-out and was instructed that silence and continued employment would reflect acceptance. Court of appeals concluded that the employee’s claims for discrimination, retaliation, and defamation fell within the scope of the arbitral agreement.
-
Archer and White Sales, Inc. v. Henry Schein, Inc., No. 16-41674 (5th Cir. Aug. 14, 2019)08/14/2019
Court of appeals had previously affirmed the district court decision to dismiss a motion to compel arbitration on the grounds that it was unnecessary for the court to determine whether the issue of arbitrability had been delegated to the arbitrator because the assertion of arbitrability was “wholly groundless” because there was no plausible argument that the arbitration clause applied to an action for incentive relief. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the “wholly groundless” exception was contrary to the FAA. Here, on remand, the court of appeals considered the question of whether the question of arbitrability had been delegated to the arbitrator. Court of appeals, reviewing de novo, found that there was a valid arbitration agreement between the parties. However the court of appeals rejected the argument that incorporation of the AAA rules into the arbitration provision manifested the parties assent to a delegate questions of arbitrability of claims seeking injunctive relieve to the arbitrators. Court held that because the arbitration agreement specifically carved out actions seeking injunctive relief, there was not “clear and unmistakable” evidence that the parties delegated the question of arbitrability for claims seeking injunctive relief.
-
August Resource Funding, Inc., v. Procorp, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-01011-JDP (W.D. Wis. Aug. 09, 2019)08/09/2019
Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration of breach of contract claims. Court found that the parties had executed a valid arbitration provision, but that they subsequently executed agreements which contradicted the arbitration provision through their forum selection clauses which stated that any action related to the documents “must be litigated in courts within the State of Wisconsin.” Thus, court found the arbitration provision had been supplanted and could not be enforced.
-
Infrastructure Servs. Luxembourg S.A.R.L. v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 1:18-CV-01753-EGS (D.D.C. Aug. 8, 2019)08/08/2019
Court granted respondent’s motion to stay proceedings in a suit to enforce an arbitral award while the ICSID decided whether to annul the award. Court reasoned that enforcing an award that may later be annulled would not serve interests in efficiency and would result in hardship to the respondent.
-
Maldonado, v. SecTek, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-00693-MMB (E.D. Penn. Aug. 8, 2019)08/08/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of claims related to employment discrimination. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that arbitration could not be compelled because plaintiff was no longer an employee, subject to the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) containing the arbitration provision. Court found that the question of whether plaintiff was an “employee” as defined in the CBA and therefor subject to the arbitration provision was for the arbitrator to decide. Court also compelled arbitration of plaintiff’s federal statutory claims finding that the language in the CBA clearly and unmistakably waived plaintiff’s rights to litigate ADA and PHRA claims in federal court.
-
Transworld Medical Devices LLC, v. The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, No. 3:18-CV-00580-KDB-DSC (W.D.N.C. Aug. 8, 2019)08/08/2019
Magistrate judge recommended granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and tortious interference claims related to a licensing agreement. Magistrate judge found that all of plaintiff’s claims arose from or related to the parties licensing agreement and were therefore subject to the broad arbitration agreement therein.
-
Townsend v. Stand Up Management Inc., No. 1:18-CV-02884-CAB (N.D. Ohio Aug. 8, 2019)08/08/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss a purported class action related to wage dispute claims. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that because his employer was not named on the arbitration agreement the agreement could not be enforced finding that there was no dispute as to who plaintiff’s employer had been. Court further rejected plaintiff’s argument that arbitration should not be compelled because not every employee in the class signed an arbitration agreement, finding that plaintiffs in the class were estopped from pursuing collective claims that were subject to arbitration for some class members. Court also found that through the arbitration agreements plaintiffs had waived their rights to trail by a jury, and to collective resolution of their dispute.
-
Young v. Exeter Finance Corp., No. 3:19-CV-00636 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 8, 2019)08/08/2019
Magistrate judge recommended that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of pro se civil claims be granted. Magistrate judge found that arbitration should be compelled pursuant to the FAA, rejecting plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration agreement should not be enforced because the contracts at issue were either assigned or breached.
-
Stevens v. Conn’s, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00309-ALM (E.D. Tex. Aug. 7, 2019)08/07/2019
Court confirmed an arbitration award related to a dispute that had previously been compelled to arbitration. Court rejected respondent’s argument that the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to confirm the award because during the arbitration the plaintiff had revised its claim to remove the only federal claim. Court held that while the FAA does not independently establish federal-question arbitration the court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims that arose out of the same controversy as its previous federal claims.
-
Nygaard v. Property Damage Appraisers, Inc., No. 18-15055 (9th Cir. Aug. 7, 2019)08/07/2019
9th Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration. Court found that it was bound by former precedent set by the California Court of Appeals in Winter v. Windows Fashions Professionals to find that a lack of meeting of the minds with respect to the venue selection clause for the arbitration rendered the agreement unenforceable. Judge Smith dissented, arguing that a lack of assent about where to arbitrate should not preclude the court from compelling arbitration, and that this rule should be preempted by the FAA.
-
Chen v. Sierra Trading Post, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-01581-RAJ (W.D. Wash. Aug. 6, 2019)08/06/2019
Court granted motion to compel arbitration of a dispute related to an online purchase, finding that an agreement existed and encompassed the parties’ dispute. Court rejected the argument that the terms containing the arbitration agreement were too inconspicuously placed, finding that the website employed a modified clickwrap agreement that gave plaintiff constructive notice of the terms of service and required an affirmative action to demonstrate assent.
-
Nasrabadi v. Kameli, No. 1:18-CV-08514 (N.D. Ill. Aug 6, 2019)08/06/2019
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty claims. Court rejected defendant’s argument that he could compel arbitration as an “affiliate” of a fund whose operating agreement contained an arbitration provision. Court held that plaintiff’s claims were based on an attorney-client relationship with defendant distinct from plaintiff’s contractual relationship with the fund.
-
Harper v. Charter Communications, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-00902-WBS-DMC (E.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2019)08/06/2019
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm a JAMS arbitration award which found that wage-and-hour claims were inarbitrable, and denied defendants’ motions to vacate the award and to compel arbitration. Court rejected defendants’ arguments that it could not enforce an award based on an agreement that had been terminated, that the agreement to arbitrate did not expressly provide for court enforcement of awards, and that the JAMS arbitration award was not final because it did not resolve the merits of plaintiff’s claims. Court held that it could enforce the award because defendant voluntarily participated in the arbitration, the agreement incorporated JAMS rules which explicitly provided for court enforcement, and that a ruling on arbitrability is a confirmable final award.
-
Gravestone Entertainment LLC v. Maxim Media Marketing Inc., No. 2:19-CV-03385-GMS (D. Ariz. Aug. 6, 2019)08/06/2019
Court granted motion to compel arbitration of claims that defendant violated plaintiff’s copyright by continuing to distribute two horror films after the termination of their licensing agreement. Court found these claims sufficiently connected to the licensing agreement to fall within the scope of the agreement’s arbitration provision, and further found that the arbitration provision survived the termination of the agreement.
-
Taboada A. v. AmFirst Insurance Co., No. 3:18-CV-00883-TSL-RHW (S.D. Miss. Aug. 6, 2019)08/06/2019
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration of claims related to an insurance policy. Defendant argued that another entity had assumed the insurance policy with the arbitration agreement and it was no longer enforceable against the defendant. Court found this argument went to the validity of the contract as a whole, not specifically to the arbitration clause, and thus should be decided by the arbitrator. Court also refused to direct AAA to administer the arbitration when it had declined, deciding to appoint an arbitrator to administer under the AAA rules agreed to in the arbitration agreement.
-
Red Lion Hotels Franchising, Inc. v. Century-Omaha Land, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-00131-TOR (E.D. Wash. Aug. 6, 2019)08/06/2019
Court granted petition to confirm an arbitration award, finding no basis for vacatur or modification of the award. Court rejected defendant’s contention that the award should be vacated because the arbitrator failed to cite the legal authority as the basis of his decision.
-
Wise v. Maximus Federal Services, Inc., No. 18-CV-07454-LHK (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2019)08/05/2019
Court granted a defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss certain ERISA related cross-claims. Court rejected the argument that an ERISA claim was not arbitrable, finding that a valid arbitration agreement existed and the FAA required it to compel arbitration.
-
Big Squid, Inc. v. Domo Inc., No. 2:19-CV-00193-EJF (D. Utah Aug. 5, 2019)08/05/2019
Court denied defendants motion to compel arbitration of certain claims arising out of a software publisher agreement. Court found that the broad arbitration clause required it to compel arbitration of all disputes connected to the action. The defendant, however, conditionally waived its right to arbitration in the event the court reached such a conclusion, therefore the court denied the motion to compel.
-
Savine v. Interactive Brokers, LLC, No. 18-CV-01846-KAD (D. Conn. Aug. 5, 2019)08/05/2019
Court dismissed a petition to vacate a foreign arbitration award. Court held that it did not have jurisdiction, finding that the award was made in the United Kingdom and thus Article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention required that vacatur be sought exclusively in the United Kingdom. Court rejected petitioner’s argument that it could exercise jurisdiction on public policy grounds, holding that the New York Convention does not provide an independent basis for vacatur by a country of secondary jurisdiction. Court further found that the United States as a country of secondary jurisdiction and thus it could merely refuse to enforce rather than vacate an award on the grounds of public policy.
-
Hannie Development Inc. v. Colonial Oaks Assisted Living Lafayette, LLC, No. 6:19-CV-00833-TAD (W.D. La. Aug. 2, 2019)08/02/2019
Court denied an application to modify or partially vacate an arbitration award. Court rejected the applicants’ argument that the award was based on claims that were not arbitrable and found that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority in rendering the “partial final award.” Court also rejected the argument that the award should be vacated pursuant to 9 USC §10(a)(4) because it was not final and definite. Court held that an arbitration award is final and definite for purposes of that statute if it is “sufficiently specific as to be capable of implementation.”
-
Iliev v. Elavon, Inc., No. 18-CV-08208-MFK (N.D. Ill. July 31, 2019)07/31/2019
Court granted defendants’ motions to compel arbitration. Court rejected one defendant’s contention that plaintiff was estopped from pursuing claims in court because these claims were tied to claims against the other defendant that were subject to arbitration. The court stated that estoppel was a matter of state law, and that the defendant had not provided cited any Illinois precedent. The court, however, found that the claims against both defendants were subject to separate arbitration agreements, and thus granted the motion as to all claims.
-
Caporicci U.S.A. Corp. v. Prada S.p.A., No. 18-CV-20859-CMA (S.D. Fla. July 30, 2019)07/30/2019
Court granted defendant’s petition for confirmation and enforcement of the foreign arbitral award under the New York Convention. Court denied plaintiff’s motion to stay confirmation pending the outcome of its claims against other defendants not raised in the arbitration, because the court had previously ordered that plaintiff submit all those claims to the arbitration.
-
King Torres v. Air Resources Americas, LLC., No. 19-CV-00526 (S.D. Tex. July 25, 2019)07/25/2019
Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration in a labor dispute. Court found that there were a valid and enforceable arbitration agreements between certain of the plaintiffs and the defendants, whereas the agreements between the others were illusory because they were not supported by consideration.
-
Clemons v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-16883-NLH-AMD (D.N.J. July 25, 2019)07/25/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that defendant was assigned the right to enforce the arbitration agreement. Court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that defendant could not invoke the arbitration agreement because the agreement did not explicitly mention assignees.
-
Newirth v. Aegis Senior Communities, LLC, No. 17-17227 (9th Cir. July 24, 2019)07/24/2019
Court of appeals affirmed district court order finding that defendant-appellant waived its right to arbitrate. Court found that defendant-appellant waived its right to arbitrate when it (1) significantly engaged in the discovery process and (2) filed a motion to compel arbitration more than a year after withdrawing a prior motion to compel arbitration.