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.
-
I3 Triple Crown Holdings, LLC v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC, No. 5:19-CV-00057-JMH (E.D. Ky. July 24, 2019)07/24/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss or compel arbitration, holding that an arbitration agreement was not unconscionable when it incorporated pages of the contract that were not provided to plaintiff. Court additionally rejected plaintiff’s argument that the agreement was unconscionable because it was offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.
-
Core v. Lighthouse Ins. Group, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-01186-DAP (N.D. Ohio July 23, 2019)07/23/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that an arbitration agreement was not unconscionable when it included a cost-splitting provision. Court additionally found that dismissal of plaintiff’s claims without prejudice was most appropriate when all of plaintiffs’ claims were submitted to arbitration.
-
Denson v. Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-02690-JMF (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2019)07/23/2019
Court denied plaintiff’s cross-petition to vacate an award in federal court, finding that the cross-petition was precluded by a state-court judgment confirming the award.
-
20/20 Communications, Inc. v. Crawford, No. 18-10260 (5th Cir. July 22, 2019)07/22/2019
Court of appeals remanded the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint, finding that, absent clear and unmistakable language to the contrary, the availability of class arbitration is a gateway issue for courts to decide rather than arbitrators. Court found that the parties did not provide clear and unmistakable language authorizing arbitrators to order class arbitration, where the arbitration agreement specifically prohibited arbitrators from “fashion[ing] a proceeding as a class or collective action.”
-
Blevins v. Teletech Holdings, Inc., No. 6:19-CV-03121-DPR (W.D. Mo. July 22, 2019)07/22/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel individual arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable when there was an inequality in bargaining power. Court also found that the issue of arbitrability was explicitly delegated to the arbitrator.
-
Maher v. Northland Group, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-02957-KM-JBC (D.N.J. July 19, 2019)07/19/2019
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendant waived the right to arbitrate by nearly two years of litigation conduct before state courts.
-
Miller Legal, LLP v. Miller, No. 1:18-CV-01007-RC (D.D.C. July 19, 2019)07/19/2019
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff waived its right to arbitrate when it engaged in litigation activity for seven months and failed to invoke the right to arbitrate until defendants filed counterclaims.
-
Capone v. Atlantic Specialty Ins. Co., No. 1:18-CV-02824-CAB (N.D. Ohio July 19, 2019)07/19/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiff’s claims were barred by res judicata when an arbitrator issued an award resolving such claims. Court found that the arbitrator’s award was not reviewable when he arguably construed the underlying contract.
-
Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Gopi Hospitality, LLC, No. 8:18-CV-01680-DKC (D. Md. July 18, 2019)07/18/2019
Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, finding there was no genuine dispute of material fact regarding the confirmation of an award because defendant’s request to vacate the award was untimely. Court further held that plaintiff established there was a valid contract between the parties and that the claims resolved at arbitration were within the scope of the parties’ arbitration agreement.
-
United States for the Use and Benefit of Metropower, Inc. v. Darwin National Assurance Company, No. 4:18-CV-00035-CDL (M.D. Ga. July 18, 2019)07/18/2019
Court granted plaintiff’s motions to confirm an arbitration award and rejected defendant’s motion to vacate an arbitration award. Court found the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law and that there was no other basis for vacating the award.
-
United States of America, for the use and benefit of Simpson Unlimited, Inc. v. The Whiting-Turner Contracting Co., No. 1:19-CV-01400-SAG (D. Md. July 18, 2019)07/18/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to stay proceedings. Court held it would grant discretionary stay even if the claims, with respect to one of the parties, were not referable to arbitration after weighing the competing interests presented, considerations of judicial economy, efficient use of the parties’ time, effort, and resources, and the lack of prejudice to the non-moving party.
-
Ebbe v. Concorde Investment Services, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-10289-PBS (D. Mass. July 18, 2019)07/18/2019
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm an arbitral award against two defendants and denied motion to vacate award against two other defendants. Court considered the arbitrators did not act in manifest disregard of the law and that parties received adequate notice of the arbitration.
-
Smiley v. American Family Care, Inc. No. 3:18-CV-00994 (M.D. Tenn. July 18, 2019)07/18/2019
Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, but stayed the proceedings pending arbitration. Court found the underlying agreement was not a contract of adhesion and that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable. Court further held that although the arbitration agreement was enforceable, it lacked jurisdiction to compel arbitration because court is located outside of the district in which the arbitration took place.
-
Erdheim v. Harris, No. 1:18-CV-08601-LGS (S.D.N.Y. July 17, 2019)07/17/2019
Court dismissed plaintiff’s motion to confirm in part and modify in part an arbitration award regarding a disputed contract assignment. Court found it did not have jurisdiction.
-
Kraseman v. Scholastic Incorporated, No. 3:18-CV-08313-DWL (D. Ariz. July 17, 2019)07/17/2019
Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, finding that it could not conclude at that point in the litigation that plaintiffs were required to arbitrate their disputes under agency or third-party beneficiary theories.
-
Petrie v. Gosmith, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-01528-CMA-MEH (D. Colo. July 17, 2019)07/17/2019
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to reconsider an order granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held an arbitration existed and that plaintiff assented to it. Court also found that reconsideration of the original order was not justified because it did not create manifest injustice.
-
Shift4 Payments, LLC v. Smith, No. 5:19-CV-00330-JFL (E.D. Pa. July 17, 2019)07/17/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that all of the claims brought by plaintiff were subject to a valid arbitration agreement. Court further held that although one of the defendants was a non-signatory to the underlying contract he could compel arbitration under traditional agency theories.
-
Yorke v. TSE Group LLC, No. 1:18-CV-05268-JMF (S.D.N.Y. July 17, 2019)07/17/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration clause in an employee handbook. Court held defendants made a prima facie showing that plaintiff agreed to arbitrate his claims by submitting a signed agreement containing an arbitration clause and plaintiff offered no evidence to challenge the making of that agreement.
-
Allen v. W&T Offshore, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-00305 (S.D. Tex. July 16, 2019)07/16/2019
Court adopted the memorandum and opinion of the magistrate judge granting defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss or abate.
-
American Family Life Assurance Company of New York v. Baker, No. 18-1960 (2d Cir. July 16, 2019)07/16/2019
Court of appeals vacated district court’s decision granting petition to compel arbitration. Court found the record needed further development regarding the unconscionability issue and that this argument would be better addressed by the district court in the first instance.
-
CBF Indústria de Gusa S/A v. AMCI Holdings, Inc. No. 1:13-CV-02581-PKC-JLC (S.D.N.Y. July 16, 2019)07/16/2019
Court confirmed order of attachment in aid of arbitration for the plaintiff. It secured an amount of $48,413,462.00 considering it was probable that plaintiff would succeed on the merits of its claims.
-
Perales v. SFM, LLC, No. 4:18-CV-02224 (S.D. Tex. July 16, 2019)07/16/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that the parties’ arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable.
-
BJ’s Electric, Inc., v. The Cherokee 8A Group, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-01383-SMD-EPD (S.D. Ohio July 15, 2019)07/15/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to stay pending arbitration and dismissed one of the defendant’s from the proceedings because all of the claims against this defendant would be addressed by arbitration. Court further held there was no basis for refusing to enforce an arbitration agreement under the FAA based on inconvenience.
-
Cetera Advisor Networks LLC v. Protective Property 7 Casualty Insurance Company, No. 2:19-CV-00299-JAM-EFB (E.D. Cal. July 15, 2019)07/15/2019
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration of counterclaims. Court took note that both parties agreed the counterclaims fell within the scope of the arbitration provision and considered plaintiff did not waive the right to arbitrate counterclaims.
-
Compagnie des Grands Hotels d’Afrique S.A. v. Starman Hotel Holdings LLC, No. 1:18-CV-00654-RGA-SRF (D. Del. July 15, 2019)07/15/2019
Court granted plaintiff’s motion for issuance of a letter of request in aid of arbitration and denied defendant’s proposed alterations. Court considered that plaintiff made a reasonable showing that the evidence sought could be material or lead to the discovery of material regarding an alter ego theory at issue in enforcement proceedings related to an arbitration award.
-
Davimos v. Jetsmarter, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-15144-MAS-DEA (D.N.J. July 15, 2019)07/15/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration in part staying the matter pending completion of arbitration pursuant to § 3 of the FAA. Court found the arbitration provision was valid and that the scope of the arbitration agreement was an issue for arbitrator’s review pursuant to a delegation of arbitrability provision.
-
Gibbens v. Optumrx, Inc., No. 18-6292 (6th Cir. July 15. 2019)07/15/2019
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order confirming an arbitration award, holding that the arbitrator’s findings were not in manifest disregard of the law.
-
Koons v. Jetsmarter, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-16723-MAS-DEA (D.N.J. July 15, 2019)07/15/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration in part staying the matter pending completion of arbitration pursuant to Section 3 of the FAA. Court found the arbitration provision was valid and that the scope of the arbitration agreement was an issue for arbitrator’s review pursuant to a delegation of arbitrability provision.
-
Moore v. Seven Seas Cruises S. De R.I., LLC, No. 1:19-CV-22085-FAM (S.D. Fla. July 15, 2019)07/15/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and to compel arbitration, holding there was a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement.
-
Russ v. United Services Automobile Association, No. CV-18-04222-PHX-SMB (D. Ariz. July 15, 2019)07/15/2019
Court dismissed both parties’ motions considering it lacked jurisdiction over plaintiff’s motion to vacate arbitrator dismissal decision as well as over defendants’ cross-motion to confirm dismissal.
-
Shockley v. PrimeLendinc, a PlainsCapital Company, No. 18-1235 (8th Cir. July 15, 2019)07/15/2019
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision denying defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that the parties never entered into a contract relating to arbitration or a delegation provision.
-
Andre v. Mattress Firm, No. 7:18-CV-08244-VB (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2019)07/12/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending arbitration. Court held that a valid arbitration agreement existed disagreeing with the four theories raised by plaintiff, namely (i) lack of knowing consent; (ii) duress; (iii) unconscionability; and (iv) unilateral mistake induced by fraud.
-
Orn v. Alltran Financial, L.P., No. 18-3802 (3d Cir. July 12, 2019)07/12/2019
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order denying defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court found there were no factual basis for defendant to invoke the theories of agent or third-party beneficiary to enforce the arbitration agreement as a non-signatory.
-
Taylor v. Rothschild, No. C18-5863-BHS (W.D. Wash. July 12, 2019)07/12/2019
Court granted defendants’ second motion to compel arbitration finding the claims were within the scope of the arbitration agreement and that the agreement was valid, irrevocable and enforceable.
-
Silver Betty, Inc. v. Technology Training Systems, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-04029-RA (S.D.N.Y. July 3, 2019)07/03/2019
Court granted motion to confirm the AAA arbitral award, finding that the award was appropriate and the arbitrator acted within the scope of his authority.
-
Sabre GLBL, Inc. v. Shan, No. 18-2079 (3d Cir. July 3, 2019)07/03/2019
Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s confirmation of the award of head start damages and reversed the judgment vacating the award of attorney’s fees, concluding there was no basis to disturb the arbitrator’s award. Pursuant to the FAA, court held the arbitrator did not exceed his powers, did not deprive the parties of a fair hearing, and did not exhibit evident partiality. Court declined to decide whether manifest disregard of the law remains a valid basis for vacatur, finding the parties had not briefed the issue and regardless, appellee had not shown relief would be warranted.
-
Hubbard v. Comcast Corporation, No. 1:18-CV-16090-RBK-KMW (D.N.J. July 3, 2019)
07/03/2019Court denied motion to compel arbitration without prejudice, finding that the complaint lacked the necessary clarity to establish that the parties had a valid agreement to arbitrate. Court concluded that after limited discovery on whether a valid arbitration agreement existed, it would entertain a renewed motion to compel arbitration.
-
Cunico Corporation v. Custom Alloy Corporation, No. 18-55047 (9th Cir. July 3, 2019)
07/03/2019Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order compelling arbitration and dismissing the complaint. Pursuant to the FAA, court found a valid arbitral agreement, the agreement was neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable, and appellee did not waive its right to arbitrate by removing to federal court before filing its motion to compel arbitration.
-
A.C. Dellovade, Inc. v. Walsh Federal/Alberici Joint Venture, No. 5:19-CV-00163-C (W.D. Okla. July 3, 2019)07/03/2019
Court granted motion to stay litigation pending arbitration, concluding that the contract did not lack consideration so the agreement was not illusory and the arbitral agreement was neither manifestly unfair nor unconscionable.
-
Wilson v. Starbucks Corporation, No. 5:19-CV-00087-JMH (E.D. Ky. July 2, 2019)07/02/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement was enforceable under Kentucky law as a recently enacted statutory provision retroactively permitted employers to require employees to agree to mandatory arbitration as a condition of future or continued employment.
-
Tradeline Enterprises PVT. Ltd. v. Jess Smith & Sons Cotton, LLC, No. 18-56101 (9th Cir. July 2, 2019)07/02/2019
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order confirming an arbitral award. Court of appeals concluded that the district court did not err in allowing non-signatories to invoke the arbitration clause because under the applicable Arizona state law, a non-signatory may compel arbitration with a signatory to an arbitral agreement if the claims are intimately intertwined in the underlying contractual obligations.
-
Rollins v. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, No. 1:18-CV-07162-ER (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 2019)07/02/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate under both the laws of New York and the United Kingdom and plaintiff’s Securities Exchange Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and state law claims of fraudulent inducement and defamation fell within the scope of the agreement.
-
Cardno International PTY, Ltd. v. Jacome, No. 1:17-CV-23964-RNS (S.D. Fla. July 2, 2019)07/02/2019
Court granted motion to dismiss action for confirmation of arbitral award, concluding that as an agent or instrumentality of Ecuador, the moving party was immune from suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) where petitioner did not identify any exceptions to the FSIA. Court denied petitioner’s motion for leave to substitute deceased defendant’s estate as a party to the action under Rule 25 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but instead granted petitioner the opportunity to amend the complaint to join the proper party.
-
Abdullayeva v. Attending Homecare Services LLC, No. 18-0651 (2d Cir. July 2, 2019)07/02/2019
Court of appeals reversed the district court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration. Court found that the district court erred in applying the clear and unmistakable standard to determine whether an arbitration agreement existed. It concluded that the arbitral clause in the collective bargaining agreement mandated arbitration, plaintiff-appellee’s claims fell within the scope of the agreement, and the selection of the arbitrator did not deny due process to defendant-appellant’s employees.
-
Auyeung v. Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-00278 (N.D. Ill. July 1, 2019)07/01/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court concluded that there was a valid arbitration agreement and that plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of this agreement, noting that plaintiff relied on “cherry-picked language, lifted from unrelated portions of the license agreement” that did not alter the meaning of the agreement’s most pertinent language. Court also found that the arbitration agreement was neither procedurally unconscionable (since the agreement was available online and plaintiff was never required to download and use the application to access the many features outside of third-party applications) or substantively unconscionable due to a limitation of liability provision or the class action waiver.
-
In re the Petition of Galaxy Energy and Resources Co. Pte. Ltd. for Discovery Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, No. 1:19-MC-00287-LTS (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2019)07/01/2019
Court denied petitioner’s ex parte petition to conduct discovery pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 to aid in recognition and enforcement as well as attachment and garnishment proceedings it has initiated or will initiate in Singapore to enforce an arbitral award. Court found petitioner was an “interested person” and that the New York banks from which discovery would be requested did properly reside in the district for purposes of § 1782. However, the court concluded that the proposed actions did not satisfy the “foreign proceeding” requirement as the merits of the controversy were already decided by the foreign tribunal in the arbitration, so the proceedings were not adjudicative in nature.
-
Global Graphic Resources LLC v. Triunfo, Inc., No. 0:18-CV-02710-WMW-SER (D. Minn. July 1, 2019)07/01/2019
Court granted respondent’s motion to transfer venue and declined to address petitioners’ motion to compel arbitration. Court found that given the valid forum-selection clause and the lack of an arbitration agreement between the parties, the motion to transfer had to be decided before the motion to compel arbitration.
-
Baker v. CMH Homes, Inc., No. 3:19-CV-05311-RJB-JRC (W.D. Wash. July 1, 2019)
07/01/2019Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding that no valid agreement to arbitrate existed as a new contract had replaced the original agreement with the relevant arbitral clause.
-
Maro v. Commuter Advertising, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-06802 (N.D. Ill. July 1, 2019)07/01/2019
Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA and stay proceedings, finding a valid arbitral agreement and concluding plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the agreement. Court held defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate by removing to federal court before moving to compel arbitration.
-
Anand v. Heath, No. 1:19-CV-00016 (N.D. Ill. June 28, 2019)06/28/2019
Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding defendants failed to show that plaintiff assented to an arbitration agreement on defendants’ website. Pursuant to the FAA and state contract law, the court concluded that plaintiff did not have actual notice of the arbitration agreement and plaintiff was not placed on reasonable notice of manifesting assent to the agreement.