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.
-
Superior Energy Services Columbia S.A.S. v. Premium Petroleum Services S. de R.L., No. 1:18-CV-07704-ALC (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2019)06/28/2019
Court granted petition for confirmation of arbitral award and denied motion to vacate the award under the FAA and the New York Convention. Court found that respondent was fully able to present its case, the arbitrator did not exhibit a manifest disregard of the law, and the award was not a punishment or penalty but rather appropriate damages and as such, did not violate public policy.
-
Intellisystem, LLC v. McHenry, No. 2:19-CV-01359-RBS (E.D. Pa. June 26, 2019)06/26/2019
Court granted petitioners’ motion to confirm an AAA arbitral award, treating it as an unopposed motion for summary judgment where the respondent failed to file a response. Court found no reason to vacate the award under the FAA and awarded costs associated with filing of the petition as well as post-judgment interest.
-
Acqupart Holding AG v. Rivada Networks, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-03945-LGS (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2019)06/25/2019
Court granted the petition to confirm the arbitral award, finding that the arbitrator’s decision could be inferred from the facts of the case and because the arbitrator acted within the scope of her authority.
-
Air-Con, Inc. v. Daikin Applied Latin America, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-01800-GAG (D.P.R. June 25, 2019)06/25/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court concluded that (i) there was a binding agreement to arbitrate; (ii) defendant was a party to the agreement and therefore entitled to invoke the arbitration clause; (iii) it was uncontested that plaintiff was also a signatory to the agreement and was therefore bound by it; (iv) plaintiff’s claims clearly related to a dispute arising between the parties in connection with the agreement and therefore fell within the scope of the arbitration clause.
-
George v. Midland Funding, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-15830-WJM-MF (D.N.J. June 25, 2019)06/25/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, concluding that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate and that it covered the claims in the complaint. Court found that the arbitration agreement broadly incorporated any claim related to the agreement, including claims against debt collectors or assignees like defendants. Court further found that the agreement contained a class action waiver and required any questions of arbitrability to be decided by the arbitrator.
-
New York City & Vicinity District Council of Carpenters v. Hi-Tek Building Renovation Inc., No. 1:19-CV-04682-JMF (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2019)06/25/2019
Court granted petitioner’s unopposed petition to confirm the arbitral award. Court found no genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment as to all portions of the award, as the arbitrator’s decision provided more than a “barely colorable justification for the outcome reached.”
-
Safe Step Walk-In Tub Co. v. CKH Industries, Inc., No. 7:15-CV-07543-NSR-LMS (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2019)06/25/2019
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court held that plaintiff engaged in significant motion practice and caused substantial delay, which resulted in prejudice to the defendant. Court also held that plaintiff’s conduct suggested a questionable disingenuousness, if not gamesmanship, which the FAA did not protect.
-
Stemcor USA Incorporated v. CIA Siderurgica Do Para Cosipar, No. 16-30984 (5th Cir. June 25, 2019)06/25/2019
Court of appeals vacated the judgment of the district court, which had held that Louisiana’s non-resident attachment statute does not allow for attachment in aid of arbitration, and remanded. Court of appeals determined that the arbitration agreements were covered by the New York Convention, and that that the instant case was related to the arbitration agreements because plaintiff-appellant was seeking an attachment to facilitate the arbitration. Court of appeals further concluded that Louisiana state law allows parties to seize assets while pursuing arbitration for monetary damages.
-
Villasenor v. Community Child Care Council of Santa Clara County, Inc., No. 5:18-CV-06628-BLF (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2019)06/25/2019
Court denied without prejudice defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court found that “good faith discussion and negotiation,” which was a predicate to arbitration, had not occurred, and therefore the purported agreement to arbitrate was not yet implicated.
-
Daewoo International Corporation v. America Metals Trading L.L.P., No. 16-30984 (5th Cir. June 25, 2019)06/25/2019
Court of appeals vacated the judgment of the district court remanding for trial, finding that, contrary to the court of first instance decision, Louisiana’s non-resident attachment statute allow for attachment in aid of arbitration.
-
Silverman v. Move Inc, No. 5:18-CV-05919-BLF (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2019)06/24/2019
Court granted defendant NAR’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and granted defendant Move Inc.’s amended motion to compel arbitration. Court found that the parties’ contract clearly and unmistakably delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator and that the arbitrator must decide if the contract covers the time period and events at issue in the instant case. Court also found that plaintiff had notice of and agreed to the terms of the contract, which were not an unenforceable browsewrap agreement.
-
Lovig v. Best Buy Stores LP, No. 4:18-CV-02807-PJH (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2019)06/21/2019
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss certain of its claims without prejudice. Court concluded that plaintiff’s motion did not comply with the district’s basic requirements of a motion to amend the complaint and the FAA did not permit the plaintiff to amend the complaint.
-
Ramirez v. Midland Funding, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-02626 (N.D. Ill. June 21, 2019)06/21/2019
Court denied the motion to compel arbitration. Court concluded that (i) plaintiffs’ claims were within the scope of the arbitration agreements, which applied to “any claim . . . arising out of or related to [the plaintiffs’] accounts”; and (ii) Midland, as an assignee of the accounts, could enforce the arbitration agreement. However, court found that defendants had waived any right to arbitrate the claims in the case, as their conduct suggested that defendants’ original plan was to litigate the claims in court but they changed their minds once plaintiffs’ claims were threatening to be litigated as a class action.
-
Drake v. Conn’s HomePlus, No. 2:18-CV-02773-DLR (D. Ariz. June 21, 2019)06/21/2019
Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, stay proceedings and compel arbitration. Court concluded that (i) the parties’ contract expressly provided that the arbitration would be conducted according to the rules of the AAA, which was clear and unmistakable evidence of an express agreement to arbitrate arbitrability; (ii) since plaintiff did not challenge the delegation provision as being unconscionable, the court must treat the delegation provision as valid and leave any challenge to be decided by the arbitrator; and (iii) the action should be stayed, consistent with the Ninth circuit’s preference for staying an action pending arbitration rather than dismissing it.
-
Marketti v. The Cordish Companies, No. 1:19-CV-00904-RSL (D. Md. June 21, 2019)06/21/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss the litigation. While plaintiffs did not oppose defendants’ request to compel arbitration, they did oppose the dismissal of the action and demanded a stay. Court noted that while Section 3 of the FAA required the district court to stay judicial proceedings, the Fourth Circuit has held that a stay is not the sole remedy available. Court concluded that no useful purpose would be served by staying the proceedings pending arbitration, and therefore dismissal would be the appropriate remedy.
-
Benegas v. Byram, No. 1:18-CV-00893-RP (W.D. Tex. June 20, 2019)06/20/2019
Court granted the motion for default judgment to confirm the arbitration award. Court found that plaintiff met the requirements under Section 9 of the FAA by (i) alleging and submitting documentation showing that the parties’ contract provided that the place of arbitration would be Austin, Texas and that the award would be issued at the place of arbitration; (ii) plaintiffs brought the action within the appropriate time limit specified by statute; and (iii) the court found no reason to vacate or modify the final arbitration award.
-
Tecnocap LLC, v. Graphic Communications Conference, No. 18-3340 (6th Cir. June 20, 2019)06/20/2019
6th Circuit affirmed a district court’s vacatur of an arbitration award. Appellate court agreed with district court’s finding that the arbitrator had exceeded his authority by issuing an award that required employer to rehire an employee with back pay. Arbitrator held that an employer had terminated a worker without just cause in violation of a collective bargaining agreement, ignoring a subsequent controlling agreement that gave employer authority to terminate the employee for any absence during a probationary period.
-
Yuan v. Howng, No. 3:18-CV-01960-MSB (S.D. Cal. June 20, 2019)06/20/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed claims related to fraud and data protection issues. Court rejected plaintiff’s contention that the motion to compel was untimely, finding that plaintiff had not met its burden in proving defendant waived its right to arbitration. Court further rejected plaintiff’s contention that the claims were outside the scope of the arbitration agreement.
-
Cheshire v. Fitness & Sports Clubs, LLC, No. 0:18-CV-61904-WPD (S.D. Fla. June 19, 2019)06/19/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that a third-party had the apparent authority to bind plaintiff to the arbitration provision when he signed the agreement in plaintiff’s presence. Court additionally found that defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate when it filed an Answer reserving such right.
-
Bowles v. Onemain Financial Group, L.L.C., No. 18-60749 (5th Cir. June 19, 2019)06/19/2019
5th Circuit court reversed and vacated district court’s order compelling arbitration of age discrimination claims. District court held that procedural unconscionability was a question of the enforceability of an agreement, not of formation, and was delegated to the arbitrator under the agreement. Appellate court found that district court had plainly erred, holding that procedural unconscionability arguments challenge the formation of the arbitration agreement.
-
Schusterman v. Mazzone, No. 1:19-CV-00212-PAE (S.D.N.Y. June 19, 2019)06/19/2019
Court confirmed a FINRA arbitration award and denied a motion to dismiss the action seeking confirmation. Court ignored argument that the action to confirm the award was moot because the award had been paid, holding that prior compliance with an award is not a ground for refusal of confirmation.
-
In Re Uber Text Messaging, No. 1:18-CV-02931-HSG (N.D. Ca. June 18, 2019)06/18/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings in an employment dispute. Court rejected plaintiff’s contention that the arbitration agreement could not be enforced by one of the defendants because he had not signed the agreement, finding that the agreement was enforceable by a nonsignatory through equitable estoppel. Court also disregarded plaintiff’s argument that defendants waived their right to arbitrate because they failed to arbitrate before they terminated her employment.
-
Allen v. Brookdale Senior Living, No. 5:19-CV-00125-TES (M.D. Ga. June 18, 2019)
06/18/2019Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings in an employment dispute. Court rejected plaintiff’s contention that the arbitration agreement could not be enforced by one of the defendants because he had not signed the agreement, finding that the agreement was enforceable by a nonsignatory through equitable estoppel. Court also disregarded plaintiff’s argument that defendants waived their right to arbitrate because they failed to arbitrate before they terminated her employment.
-
Welch v. EZ Loan Auto Sales, No. 1:18-CV-01168-EAW (W.D.N.Y. June 18, 2019)06/18/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Court found that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed and that the dispute was within the scope of that agreement. Court found additionally that plaintiff had previously been permanently barred from filing lawsuits in the W.D.N.Y. and that he could instead pursue his claims in arbitration.
-
HPG, LLC v. Kerrigan, No. 2:18-CV-01872-RSL (W.D. Wash. June 18, 201906/18/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and refused to resolve a pending motion for preliminary injunction. Court disagreed with plaintiff’s contention that requests for preliminary relief did not fall within the scope of arbitration, and applying Washington state-law principles of contract interpretation, ordered plaintiff to submit requests for a preliminary injunction to the arbitrator.
-
In Re Application of Moneyonmobile, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-80128-VKD (N.D. Ca. June 18, 2019)06/18/2019
Court granted a petition for discovery in support of a foreign proceeding pursuant to 28 USC § 1782(a). Court found that applicant met the statutory criteria authorizing service of a proposed subpoena. Court further found all four of the Intel factors weighed in favor of the court granting the petition: 1) the discovery sought was outside the jurisdiction of the foreign tribunal; 2) the LCIA was likely to be receptive to U.S. judicial assistance; 3) the LCIA did not have any restrictions to gathering the evidence sought; and 4) that the nine document requests were not unduly burdensome.
-
Mike Rose’s Auto Body Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-01864-EMC (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2019)06/17/2019
Court granted in part petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award, vacating only certain provisions. Court had previously refused to confirm the award, remanding it to the arbitrator who, on remand, had increased the interest rate on the award. Respondent argued that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by increasing the interest rate, which was outside the limited scope of issues to be considered on remand. Court agreed and vacated the portion of the remand award that increased the interest rate.
-
Zeon Chemicals, L.P. v. United Food and Commercial Works, No. 3:18-CV-00376-GNS (W.D. Ky. June 17, 2019)06/17/2019
Court vacated the decision of an arbitrator in an employment dispute. While the court recognized that the review of an arbitration award is extremely narrow, court found that although the arbitrator had quoted language from the agreement, he ruled in a manner that appeared not to be connected to the agreement. Specifically, court found that the arbitrator’s reading of substantive due process rights into the contract that were not explicit within the language amounted to the arbitrator entirely disregarding the language of the CBA and improperly imposing his personal notion of industrial justice.
-
Royal Merchant Holdings, LLC, v. Traeger Pellet Grills, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-00108-EHF (D. Utah June 17, 2019)06/17/2019
Magistrate judge recommended the dismissal of a petition seeking to compel compliance with an arbitral subpoena under Section 7 of the FAA for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Magistrate judge recognized that the FAA does not confer federal question jurisdiction and an independent basis must exist. Magistrate judge rejected the argument that the FAA required the court to ‘look through’ the Section 7 petition to the underlying arbitration to determine diversity and amount in controversy.
-
SMD Hospitality, LLC, v. A Royal Touch, Inc., No. 5:19-CV-00128-BO (W.D.N.C. June 17, 2019)06/17/2019
Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award. Court found that there was no indication of any defect in the arbitration proceedings and that the scope of review for arbitration awards was limited to determining whether the arbitrators did the job they were asked, not whether they did it correctly.
-
Ledermann v. Kibrik, No. 1:19-CV-01961-GHW (S.D.N.Y. June 17, 2019)06/17/2019
Court granted petition to confirm a FINRA arbitration award, finding that the decision of the FINRA panel was well grounded in fact and law. Court received a letter from respondent asking for dismissal because petitioner was required to arbitrate. Court found that petitioner had complied with that requirement but that respondent had failed to appear before the FINRA panel of arbitrators.
-
Echevarria v. Aerotek, Inc., No. 5:16-CV-04041-BLF (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2019)06/17/2019
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel individual arbitration and granted plaintiff’s motion to remand. Court held that an arbitration agreement’s waiver of class actions is not enforceable to bar such claims under California’s Private Attorney General Act, which the court found was not preempted by the FAA.
-
Bi-State Insulation, Inc., v. Geiler Co., No. 1:19-CV-00040-SJD-KLL (S. D. Ohio June 17, 2019)06/17/2019
Magistrate judge recommended defendants’ motion to compel be granted and the case be dismissed without prejudice. Magistrate judge found that although the subcontractor contract did not have an arbitration agreement, this contract incorporated a master contract which did include an arbitration clause. Magistrate judge found plaintiff’s argument that it did not know of the existence of the arbitration clause was not sufficient to meet the burden of showing a genuine dispute of fact as to the validity of the agreement.
-
Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 1:14-CV-04513-ILG-LB (E.D.N.Y. June 14, 2019)06/14/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding, inter alia, that plaintiff was bound to an agreement to arbitrate when her friend signed her up for defendant’s service. Court found that an agency relationship existed when plaintiff gave her friend permission to sign her up for the service. Court additionally found that plaintiff, through her agent, had inquiry notice of the arbitration agreement when it provided that plaintiff acknowledged her agreement to the terms and conditions of the service by signing up.
-
Gold Coast Property Management Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 1:18-CV-23693-DPG (S.D. Fla. June 14, 2019)06/14/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that a “service of suit” clause within an insurance contract reserving defendant’s right to commence a lawsuit did not supersede an arbitration clause within the same contract.
-
Scaccia v. Uber Technologies, No. 3:18-CV-00418-TMR-SLO (S.D. Ohio June 13, 2019)06/13/2019
Magistrate judge recommended that defendants’ motion to compel arbitration be granted and the wrongful termination case be dismissed. Magistrate judge found that the plaintiff’s contention that he never agreed to arbitrate was a threshold issue delegated to the arbitrator by the agreement. Court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that he was a “worker engaged in … interstate commerce” and was exempted from the FAA through 9 U.S.C. § 1, finding that this narrow exception only applied to those transportation workers who moved goods through interstate commerce.
-
Huntington Ingalls Incorporated v. Ministry of Defense of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 1:18-CV-00469-KBJ (D.D.C. June 13, 2019)06/13/2019
Court denied petitioner’s petition to recognize and enforce an arbitration award when the Southern District of Mississippi – which compelled the arbitration in 2010 – specifically retained jurisdiction to conclude the matter after arbitration. Court found that petitioner showed no good cause for the court to “inject itself” into a pending matter in Mississippi by turning the award into a D.C. judgment.
-
Brundage v. Pension Associates Retirement Planning, LLC, No. 7:18-CV-02473-NSR (S.D.N.Y. June 13, 2019)06/13/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that a contract was not unconscionable even though the portion containing the arbitration clause was missing. Court reasoned that because the signature page made clear reference to the arbitration clause, plaintiffs would have noticed that a portion of the contract was missing had they reviewed the document.
-
Badgerow v. REJ Properties, Inc., No. 17-CV-09492 (W.D. La. Jun. 12, 2019)06/12/2019
Court granted Defendant’s motion to confirm an arbitration award. Court held that plaintiff failed to establish a causal nexus between the fraud she alleged occurred during the arbitration and the basis of the arbitration panel’s decision.
-
Craddock v. LeClairRyan, A Professional Corporation, No. 3:16-CV-00011-REP (E.D. Va. June 11, 2019)06/11/2019
Court vacated a revised final award issued in favor of petitioner and remanded the case to the arbitration panel to properly apply Supreme Court precedent on fee enhancements. Court found that the arbitration panel manifestly disregarded the law when it enhanced petitioner’s attorneys’ fees by 25% - an amount exceeding the “lodestar” figure that would result from the methodology courts should use to calculate reasonable attorneys’ fees.
-
Tradiverse Corporation v. Luzar Trading, S.A., No. 1:18-CV-08194-RMB (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2019)06/11/2019
Court denied respondent’s motion to vacate an interim award and granted petitioner’s cross-motion to confirm the interim award, finding that a court is required to enforce an arbitration award so long as there is a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached. Court found that there was a “barely colorable justification” where the arbitrator found that petitioner raised several potentially valid claims, service of process by mail was sufficient, and respondent failed to show that the arbitrator did not provide respondent with a fair hearing.
-
Sponheim v. Citibank, N.A., No. SACV 8:19-00264-JVS-ADS (C.D. Cal. June 10, 2019)06/10/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the proceedings. Court found that plaintiff was not primarily seeking public injunctive relief, which would exempt this dispute from arbitration under California’s McGill rule. Court considered that this claim was merely an incidental benefit to his primary aim of gaining compensation for his injury and that the arbitration agreement was thus enforceable.
-
Kernick v. N.A.R. Inc., No. 2:18-CV-01505-CB (W.D. Pa. June 10, 2019)06/10/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendant could invoke the right to arbitrate as an assignee of the cardholder agreement containing the arbitration clause.
-
East v. CD Baby Inc., No. 2:19-CV-00168-GMS (D. Ariz. June 10, 2019)06/10/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when a valid arbitration agreement existed between plaintiff and defendants. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration clause was procedurally unconscionable when it was offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, finding that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he was surprised by the agreement or that he was placed under duress or otherwise manipulated into signing the arbitration agreement.
-
Church v. Expedia Inc., No. 2:18-CV-01812-JLR (W.D. Wash. June 10, 2019)06/10/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the case, finding that defendants could invoke the arbitration clause as third-party beneficiaries of the agreement. Court found that the terms of the arbitration agreement contemplated defendants when they referred to a party’s “affiliates,” “affiliated companies,” “partners” and “suppliers.”
-
Nuvasive, Inc. v. Absolute Medical, LLC, No. 6:17-CV-2206-CEM-GJK (M.D. Fla. May 31, 2019)05/31/2019
Plaintiff brought claims against a corporate defendant for breach of a sales agreement, and against owners of the corporate defendant for breach of their employment agreements. Plaintiff also sought to impose liability an owner for corporate defendant’s breaches. Court granted motion to compel arbitration in part, finding that plaintiff’s claim against corporate defendant fell within arbitration clause in sales agreement. Court did not grant motion to compel arbitration of claims against owners, who were not party to sales agreement. Court however stayed pending arbitration plaintiff’s attempt to hold an owner personally responsible for corporate defendant’s breaches since it was premised on the same factual allegations as the arbitrable claim.
-
Capitalplus Equity, LLC, v. Tutor Perini Corporation, No. 3:18-CV-178-TAV-DCP (E.D. Tenn. May 31, 2019)05/31/2019
Court issued a report and recommendation to deny plaintiff’s motion to intervene in an arbitration. Court found plaintiff did not explain any legal or factual basis for intervening in the arbitration.
-
Farmers of North America, Inc., v. Mann, No. 17-3456 (8th Cir. May 31, 2019)05/31/2019
Court of appeals dismissed plaintiffs’ interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Court noted district court previously found that where an arbitration agreement specified AAA arbitration rules but did not specify an arbitral institution, an arbitrator outside of the AAA could be used. Court held that where a case was merely stayed and not dismissed because the district court’s decision was not effectively unreviewable since the underlying petition to arbitrate was not denied.
-
Reo v. Palmer Administrative Services, No. 18-3924 (6th Cir. May 30, 2019)05/30/2019
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision granting a motion to compel arbitration, finding there was privity between plaintiff and a previous litigant bound by an arbitration agreement with defendant.
-
Lincoln National Life Insurance Company v. Sussman, No. 17-10436 (11th Cir. May 30, 2019)05/30/2019
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision granting summary judgement in favor of plaintiff and denying defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that failure of the pro se defendant to address the district court’s conclusion that he waived his right to arbitrate by engaging in litigation on appeal foreclosed his ability to challenge that conclusion.