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.
-
Arabian Motors Group, W.L.L., v. Ford Motor Company, No. 18-1748 (6th Cir. May 30, 2019)05/30/2019
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s confirmation of the arbitral award, finding held that the arbitrator showed no manifest disregard for the law in his interpretation of the requirement for consent to arbitration.
-
Emeric v. Florida Fine Cars, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-20987-DPG (S.D. Fla. May 28, 2019)05/29/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff’s objections related essentially to scope of the arbitration agreement and arbitrability, issues that the parties clearly and unmistakably agreed to arbitrate. Court further held the arbitration clause was enforceable.
-
Tatneft v. Ukraine, No. 18-7057 (D.C. Cir. May 28, 2019)05/29/2019
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision confirming an arbitration award, finding that the waver exception of foreign sovereignty immunity applied to Ukraine here because Ukraine and the United States have both signed the New York Convention. Court further declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the forum non conveniens issue, which was neither inextricably intertwined with the immunity issues nor necessary to ensure meaningful review of those issues.
-
Carnes v. AT&T, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-01639-ACA (N.D. Ala. May 28, 2019)05/28/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding there was a valid arbitration agreement and that plaintiff’s claims fell with the scope of the arbitration agreement.
-
Axia Netmedia Corporation v. Massachusetts Technology Park Corporation, No. 4:17-CV-10482-TSH (D. Mass. May 28, 2019)05/28/2019
Court granted defendants motion to vacate in part and modify the arbitral award and denied plaintiffs motion to confirm the award. Court held that the arbitrator exceeded his powers by re-writing the terms of the contract between the parties and altering the relationship between them.
-
Trustees of the Metal Lathers Local 46 Pension Fund v. Regal USA Construction Inc., No. 1:19-CV-03148-JMF (S.D.N.Y. May 28, 2019)05/28/2019
Court granted plaintiff’s unopposed petition to confirm an arbitration award, finding there was no genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment as to all portions of the award, as the arbitrator’s decision provides more than a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached. Court further held there was no justification under section 10(a) of the FAA for vacating the award.
-
Santa Fe Community Housing Trust v. Maes, No. 1:18-CV-00054-RB-KBM (D.N.M. May 28, 2019)05/28/2019
Court granted motion to appoint arbitrator and denied motion to stay, finding that the parties agreed to arbitrate their disputes, but failed to include in the arbitration agreement a method to select an arbitrator. Thus, court ordered the parties to submit a list of five acceptable arbitrators,
-
Border Area Mental Health, Inc. v. United Behavioral Health, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01213-MV-SCY (D.N.M. May 28, 2019)05/28/2019
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to set aside the opinion of the arbitrator, finding the arbitrator’s decision must stand because he did not stray from his delegated task of interpreting the contract. Court further held the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law.
-
Prizler v. Charter Communications, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-01724-L-MSB (S.D. Cal. May 27, 2019)05/27/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding there was a valid arbitration agreement because plaintiff failed to opt out from the arbitration agreement and that the agreement was not procedurally unconscionable.
-
YPF S.A. v. Apache Overseas, Incorporated, No. 17-20802 (5th Cir. May 24, 2019)05/24/2019
Court affirmed district court’s confirmation of an arbitration award, finding that the arbitrators did not exceed their powers and that the award was reasoned.
-
Royal v. CEC Entertainment, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-00302-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga. May 24, 2019)05/24/2019
Court granted the defendants motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Court found that a mutual arbitration agreement between employee and employer covering discrimination disputes was valid and enforceable as the dispute was within its scope and all aspects of contract formation were met.
-
Johnson v. Smyth Automotive Inc., No. 2:18-CV-01384-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio May 24, 2019)05/24/2019
Court granted defendants motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pending arbitration. Court held non-signatories may compel a signatory to abide by an arbitration agreement where, as here, there is a close relationship between the signatory and non-signatory party and the claims arise under the subject matter of the underlying agreement.
-
Ben-Salah v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., No. 18-35140 (9th Cir. May 24, 2019)05/24/2019
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order compelling arbitration and finding of no procedural unconscionability. Court held that the district court was within the scope of its authority to decide on procedural questions and provided a reasonable basis for its decision.
-
Soojay v. Worldventures Marketing LLC, No. 4:18-CV-00580-ALM-KPJ (E.D. Tex. May 23, 2019)05/23/2019
Court concurred with the report and recommendation from the Magistrate Judge recommending that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay court proceedings pending resolution of arbitral proceedings be granted.
-
Davis v. Cintas Corporation, No. 2:18-CV-01200-MRH (W.D. Pa. May 23, 2019)05/23/2019
Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending arbitration. Court held there was a valid agreement to arbitrate, the claims here were within the scope of that agreement, and no statutory exceptions nor issues of unconscionability prevented defendant from compelling arbitration.
-
360 Mortgage Group, LLC v. Castle Mortgage Corporation, No. 1:18-CV-00332-RP (W.D. Tex. May 23, 2019)05/23/2019
Magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation that the court grant defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, deny as moot plaintiffs motion to compel, and dismiss the case without prejudice, finding that all of plaintiff’s claims were subject to arbitration.
-
Hoober v. Movement Mortgage, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-06001-BHS (W.D. Wash. May 23, 2019)05/23/2019
Court granted defendants motion to compel arbitration on an individual basis and stayed proceedings pending conclusion of the arbitration. Court held that there was no procedural unconscionability and severed substantially unconscionable provisions in the contract holding the remainder of the agreement valid.
-
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Bachman, No. 4:18-CV-01496-JCH (E.D. Mo. May 23, 2019)05/23/2019
Court granted plaintiff’s petition to compel arbitration and denied petition for related injunctive relief. Court found that by incorporating AAA Rules, the parties agreed to allow the arbitrator to determine questions of arbitrability. Because plaintiff did not argue that the delegation provision itself lacked legal consideration, court must treat it as valid, and leave plaintiff’s formation challenge to the arbitrator.
-
Fisher v. Trans Union, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-00679-GJP (E.D. Pa. May 23, 2019)05/23/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to stay proceedings pending the outcome of the arbitration. Court held that a bankruptcy discharge does not render an underlying arbitration agreement between a debtor and his creditor unenforceable following federal policy in favor of arbitration.
-
Berkeley County School District v. HUB International Limited, No. 2:18-CV-00151-DCN (D.S.C. May 23, 2019)05/23/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to stay pending appeal of court’s order denying defendants previous motion to compel arbitration. Court held that fourth circuit precedent requires a stay during pendency of an appeal of an order denying a motion to compel arbitration wherever the appeal is not frivolous.
-
Kana Energy Services Inc. v. Jiangsu Jinshi Machinery Group Co. LTD., No. 4:19-CV-00213 (S.D. Tex. May 22, 2019)05/22/2019
Court granted plaintiff’s motion for remand despite finding subject matter jurisdiction over a dispute with an arbitration agreement falling under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards. Court held that remand was appropriate in this case because the state court had already ruled against arbitrability and no federal questions remained for the court’s determination.
-
Kadish v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 2:18-CV-00371-PPS-JEM (N.D. Ind. May 22, 2019).05/22/2019
Court granted defendants motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Court found there was a valid arbitration agreement and that the claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and as a result, dismissed the case.
-
Choice Hotels International, INC. v. K B H LLC., No. 8:18-CV-02929-GJH (D. Md. May 22, 2019)05/22/2019
Court granted plaintiff’s motion for default judgment regarding the confirmation of an arbitral award. Court held that there was no reason to question validity of the arbitration agreement or arbitrators conduct where defendant was properly notified of commencement of arbitration and failed to appear or answer.
-
Campanile Investments LLC v. Westmoreland Equity Fund LLC, No. 5:17-CV-00337-FB-ESC (W.D. Tex. May 22, 2019)05/22/2019
Court denied defendants’ motions to compel arbitration and to dismiss or stay proceedings, finding that the valid agreement to arbitrate was unenforceable because it was procured by fraud.
-
Brooks v. N.A.R. Inc, No. 3:18-CV-00362-JJH (N.D. Ohio May 22, 2019)05/22/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration of a non-signatory of the contract containing an arbitration agreement finding that as an assignee of the contract, defendant could compel arbitration of plaintiff’s claim based on the language of the arbitration agreement.
-
Caldwell, Wright Enterprises, Inc. v. Avadim Health, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-002090-MR-WCM (W.D.N.C. May 22, 2019)05/22/2019
Court denied without prejudice defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, noting that this motion may be renewed after a determination on validity of the agreement is made.
-
Singh Management Company, LLC v. Singh Development Company Inc., No. 18-1566 (6th Cir. May 20, 2019)05/22/2019
Court of appeals vacated the denial of a motion to clarify or amend judgment related to the confirmation of an arbitral award. Court found inconsistencies in the district court’s orders first confirming an arbitral award followed by a decision entering injunctive relief. Court held it was not possible to discern an explanation for these inconsistencies and vacated the denial motion remanding the case for further proceedings.
-
Kimsaprincess Inc. v. Hillair Capital Management LLC, No. 2.19-00952-JVS-DFM (C.D. Cal. May 21, 2019)05/21/2019
Court granted a motion to remand to state court and denied as moot the motions to confirm and vacate the arbitral award. Court held remand was appropriate in this case because defendants failed to show that removal was proper pursuant to section 205 of the FAA.
-
McNeil v. LVMH Inc., No. 1:18-CV-11751-PAE (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2019)05/21/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and to stay the case pending arbitration. Court held plaintiff’s claims of material breach of an arbitration agreement amounting to a waiver were premature because they were in the present case properly asserted, in the first instance, before the arbitrator.
-
Parkcrest Builders, LLC v. Housing Authority of New Orleans, No. 2:15-CV-00150-NJB-JVM (E.D. La. May 21, 2019)05/21/2019
Court granted a motion to lift the stay on proceedings for the limited purpose of addressing a third party’s motion to intervene in arbitration and anticipated motion to compel evidence production, finding that lifting the stay would not delay arbitration or prevent defendant from preparing for the arbitration.
-
Hermandad Independiente de Empleados Telefonicos v. Puerto Rico Telephone Company, No. 3:18-CV-01220-BJM (D.P.R. May 21, 2019)05/21/2019
Court granted the defendants motion for summary judgement against plaintiff’s challenge to the validity of the arbitral award. Court held that following a highly deferential standard there were no grounds for challenging the arbitral award.
-
Soffiantini v. Fitness International, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-23854-JLK (S.D. Fla. May 21, 2019)05/21/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration, finding that there was a valid arbitration agreement and that plaintiff failed to establish the arbitration provision was substantially or procedurally unconscionable.
-
OI European Group B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 1:16-CV-01533-ABJ (D.D.C. May 21, 2019)05/21/2019
Court confirmed an arbitral award of more than US$ 400 million rendered under the auspices of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) in favor of plaintiff. Court decided to enter judgment for the plaintiff noting defendant’s opposition pertained only to the applicable post-judgment interest rate.
-
Beattie v. TTEC Healthcare Solutions, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-03098-RM-NRN (D. Colo. May 21, 2019)05/21/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel individual arbitration and stayed the case with respect to two plaintiffs, finding they manifested their assent to arbitration agreement electronically.
-
Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Genrus Corp., No. 1:17-CV-02193-VSB-BCM (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2019)05/20/2019
Court granted plaintiffs’ unopposed petition to confirm an arbitration award, finding the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge to confirm the award did not have any clear error.
-
Constellium Rolled Products Ravenswood, LLC v. United Steel, Paper, and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, No. 2:18-CV-01404 (S.D.W. Va. May 20, 2019)05/20/2019
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend judgment granting an injunction that prevented plaintiff from taken certain actions prior to arbitration, finding that court did not commit a clear error of law in its decision.
-
Vantage Deepwater Company v. Petrobras America Inc., No. 4:18-CV-02246 (S.D. Tex. May 17, 2019)05/17/2019
Court granted plaintiff’s petition to confirm arbitration award and rejected defendant’s motion to vacate. With respect to defendant’s motion to vacate, court held that (i) defendant did not meet its burden of showing that a significant compromising connection existed between plaintiff and an arbitrator that would merit vacatur; (ii) the treatment given by one of the arbitrator to defendant’s witness and counsel does not amount to the standard of evident partiality necessary to grant vacatur; (iii) defendant did not show the tribunal denied it an adequate opportunity to present its evidence and arguments in the course of the arbitration (iv) the tribunal did not exceed its powers by failing to issue a reasoned award, and (v) the record did not support the position that defendant was denied a fair arbitration or that the arbitration was fundamentally flawed. With respect to confirmation of the final award, the court held that (i) defendant could not use the public policy defense under Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention to question the merits of the final award and re-litigate its bribery claims; (ii) there was no violation of Article V(1)(b) of the New York Convention because defendant’s dislike for one of the arbitrators cannot lead to the conclusion that the composition of the arbitral authority was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties.
-
Osborne v. Charter Communications, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-01801-HEA (E.D. Mo. May 17, 2019)05/17/2019
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the entire controversy between the parties was subject to and must be resolved by arbitration. Court held plaintiff accepted employment arbitration through not opting out of an agreement and considered that the claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
-
Lance v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-04933-MAK (E.D. Pa. May 16, 2019)05/16/2019
Court granted defendant’s renewed motion to compel individual arbitration and stay of the action pending arbitration. Applying a summary judgment standard, court concluded that (i) pursuant to the purchase agreement, defendant bought all of the rights to plaintiff’s account, which included the right to arbitration; (ii) plaintiff’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claim fell within the scope of that arbitration clause; and (iii) defendant did not waive its right to compel arbitration.
-
Perfect Fit, LLC v. Aronowitz, No. 1:19-CV-00160-NT (D. Me. May 16, 2019)05/16/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss or stay and to compel arbitration. Court found that defendant’s brief delay of less than one month (eight days of which were attributable to scheduling orders) did not amount to a waiver of his right to proceed to arbitration. Court further found that the plaintiff’s claims were subject to arbitration, as the arbitration clause contained broad language to which there attaches a strong presumption of arbitrability.
-
Espiritu Santo Holdings, LP, v. Libero Partners, LP., No. 1:19-CV-03930-CM (S.D.N.Y. May 16, 2019)05/16/2019
Court ordered that respondent, its principals and all persons acting in concert with them are enjoined from taking certain actions while ICC arbitration is pending. Court considered that the injunction shall continue in place until such time as the ICC shall enter any provisional or final award in connection with the ICC Arbitration, which award would by its terms supplant this injunction in aid of arbitration.
-
Cook-Bolden v. DG TRC Management, No. 1:19-CV-03425-KMW (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2019)05/15/2019
Court denied plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the AAA Arbitration filed by defendants. Court found that (i) the FAA applied to the asset purchase agreement; (ii) the asset purchase agreement demonstrated the parties’ clear and unmistakable intent to have an arbitrator, rather than a court, resolve threshold arbitrability questions; (iii) since plaintiff did not challenge the delegation provision or argue that it was rendered unconscionable, it must be treated as valid and enforceable under the FAA.
-
Edmondson v. Lilliston Ford Inc., No. 18-2203 (3d Cir. May 15, 2019)05/15/2019
Court of appeals affirmed district court order denying appellant’s motion to vacate the arbitration award. Court noted that appellant’s arguments that the arbitration agreement was void ab initio were previously rejected by both the district court and the court of appeals, and that a motion for relief from judgment may not be used to reargue issues that were previously resolved. Court further found that appellant’s allegations of judicial bias were merely disagreements with the district judge’s rulings.
-
Larkin v. Day, No. 2:18-CV-02636-TLP-dkv (W.D. Tenn. May 15, 2019)05/15/2019
Court granted defendants’ request to compel arbitration as to plaintiff Chad Larkin and denied the motion to dismiss as to plaintiff Genny Larkin. Noting that, under the FAA, valid arbitration clauses are severable and enforceable even if the rest of the contract is void, court found that an valid arbitration agreement existed and that it was severable from the rest of the contract. Court further found that the scope of the arbitration agreement encompassed all of Chad Larkin’s claims, but not those of Genny Larkin, as there was no evidence that she signed an agreement containing an arbitration provision.
-
Abellard v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 0:19-CV-60099-BB (S.D. Fla. May 14, 2019)05/14/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss or stay case. Court concluded that plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration clauses, noting that (i) plaintiff did not dispute the validity of the arbitration provisions, both of which delegate issues of arbitrability and enforceability to the arbitrator; and (ii) even if plaintiff’s contention was properly decided by the court, the arbitration provisions expressly include statutory claims like the ones brought by plaintiff.
-
German International School of Fort Lauderdale, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, No. 0:19-CV-60741-RNS (S.D. Fla. May 14, 2019)05/14/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Relying on the four factors listed in Bautista v. Star Cruises, 396 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2005), court found that the jurisdictional requirements for compelling arbitration under the New York Convention were met. Court also concluded that all of plaintiff’s claims are arbitrable, and that dismissal of the matter was proper.
-
Hensel Phelps Construction Co. v. Perdomo Industrial, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-01349-AJT-MSN (E.D. Va. May 14, 2019)05/14/2019
Court adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge to grant petitioner’s motion for default judgment and to confirm the arbitration award. Magistrate judge explained that, under section 9 of the FAA, a court must grant an order to confirm the award unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected. Magistrate judge found that there was no application under sections 10 or 11 of the FAA to confirm, modify, or correct the award, and so the award must be confirmed.
-
Poet Design & Construction, Inc. v. Andritz Inc., No. 4:19-CV-04070 (D.S.D. May 14, 2019)05/14/2019
Court granted the application to confirm the arbitration award. Court found that, pursuant to the FAA and Section A.4.4.5 of the parties’ contract, claimant properly applied to the court for an entry of judgment confirming the award within one year of the arbitration award being made. Court also found that, even though respondent had already paid all amounts due under the award, it would enter a separate judgment for the total principal amount of the award consistent with section 13 of the FAA.
-
Roth v. The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society, No. 5:15-CV-04074-CJW-MAR (N.D. Iowa May 14, 2019)05/14/2019
Court granted in part and denied in part the parties’ stipulation for an order confirming arbitration decision and directing entry of judgment thereon. Court found that the arbitrator’s decision was valid as to the Cletus Estate’s claims, but there was no indication that individual plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate their claims, and so the arbitrator’s decision should be given no direct effect as to the individual plaintiffs.
-
Ryan v. Salisbury, No. 1:18-CV-00406-ACK-RT (D. Haw. May 14, 2019)05/14/2019
Court granted in part and stayed in part defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Court noted that a number of district courts have found that, where there were sophisticated parties to commercial contracts, the incorporation of arbitration rules (including JAMS, AAA, and UNCITRAL) constituted clear and unmistakable evidence of the parties’ intent to submit the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Court further concluded that, since plaintiff failed to specifically challenge the delegation clause, it would not consider its validity.