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.
-
Turan Petroleum, Inc. v. Ministry of Oil and Gas of Kazakhstan, No. 1:10-CV-02102-RBW (D.D.C Apr. 26, 2019)04/26/2019
Court granted intervenor’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and denied as futile plaintiffs’ motions to file amended and supplemental complaints. Court held that it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over defendant, agency of a foreign sovereign, because plaintiffs’ complaints were insufficient to establish that an exception to sovereign immunity applied under the FSIA. Court found that the arbitration agreement in the concession contracts did not apply as the plaintiffs were not in privity of contract and concluded that the mere fact that the foreign state was a signatory to the ICSID Convention did not waive sovereign immunity as they were not seeking the enforcement of an arbitral award.
-
BOKF, NA v. Wise, No. 3:18-CV-00794-N (N.D. Tex.. Apr. 25, 2019)04/25/2019
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed court proceedings until arbitration was resolved. Court proceedings were brought by two plaintiffs, only one of which was a signatory to an arbitration agreement with defendant. Court found that claims by both plaintiffs were so intertwined that allowing non-signatory plaintiff to proceed with litigation would be destructive of defendant’s right to arbitration of claims with signatory plaintiff.
-
NTCH-WA, Inc. v. ZTE Corporation, No. 17-35833 (9th Cir. Apr. 25, 2019)04/25/2019
Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal of petitioner’s claims against respondent. Court concluded confirmation of the arbitral award under the FAA barred petitioner from pursuing its claims under the law of claim preclusion because petitioner was seeking the same remedy as it sought in arbitration, the evidence needed to prove its claims was the same, and petitioner is in privity with its wholly-owned subsidiary, and is suing in the same capacity as they did in the arbitration.
-
Light-Age, Incorporated v. Ashcroft-Smith, No. 18-20098 (5th Cir. Ohio Apr. 25, 2019)04/25/2019
Court of appeals affirmed confirmation of arbitral award, finding that petitioner waived its challenge to the constitution of the panel by failing to object at the time of the hearing. Court concluded that a party to arbitration must preserve any argument it wants to raise on later review.
-
Lee v. Postmates, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-03421-JCS (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2019)04/25/2019
Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to certify an interlocutory appeal related to two orders compelling arbitration. Court concluded that although the FAA does not generally permit a party to appeal an order granting arbitration, it found the appeal fell within the 28 USC § 1292(b) exception because the order involved a controlling question of law as to which there was a substantial ground for difference of opinion and an immediate appeal may materially advance the termination of litigation.
-
Hale v. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., No. 4:18-CV-02217-BYP (N.D. Ohio Apr. 25, 2019)04/25/2019
Court confirmed arbitration award in its entirety under the FAA. Court rejected petitioner’s arguments in favor of vacatur, finding that the tribunal did not exceed its powers and did not manifestly disregard the law in construing the underlying contracts in favor of respondents.
-
Atencio v. Tunecore, Inc., No. 16-56625 (9th Cir. Apr. 25, 2019)04/25/2019
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order partially denying its motion to compel arbitration. Court found that although the arbitration clause in the underlying agreement was broad, there was no indication that the parties intended it to apply retroactively to disputes arising prior to the agreement.
-
Borgonia v. G2 Secure Staff, LLC, No. 3:19-CV-00914-LB (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2019)04/25/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the case. Court found that plaintiffs were not exempt from application of the FAA under the transportation workers exception in 9 USC § 1 because plaintiffs only provided ancillary aviation services in a confined geographic area. Court held plaintiffs failed to show that the arbitral agreements were procedurally or substantively unconscionable.
-
Betts v. United Airlines, Inc., No. 18-3336 (7th Cir. Apr. 24, 2019)04/24/2019
Court affirmed the district courts confirmation of the arbitral award terminating plaintiff pilot’s employment. Court found that plaintiff did not raise any basis for challenging the award as it was clear the arbitrator engaged in interpreting the “last chance agreement” and diverging interpretations did not create grounds for a challenge to the award. Court noted the 7th Circuit has never disturbed an award on public policy grounds and refused to do so here.
-
Science Applications International Corporation v. The Hellenic Republic, No. 1:18-MC-00327-AT-GWG (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2019)04/24/2019
Court granted petitioner’s motion for an order that a “reasonable period of time” had elapsed following the entry of judgment enforcing an arbitral award against a foreign state, concluding that eleven months satisfied the standard.
-
Kennedy v. LVNV Funding LLC, No. 2:18-CV-10695-JMV-CLW (D.N.J. Apr. 24, 2019)04/24/2019
Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court concluded that it was unclear whether an arbitration agreement existed between the parties and compelled discovery to determine whether defendants were successors or assigns of the underlying contract.
-
Gingras v. Think Finance, Inc., No. 16-2019 (2d Cir. Apr. 24, 2019)04/24/2019
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of defendants’ motion to dismiss on grounds of tribunal sovereign immunity and motion to compel arbitration under the FAA. Court held that plaintiffs could sue tribunal officers for injunctive relief on violations of state and federal law for activity occurring off tribal lands and held that the loan agreements’ arbitral clauses were unenforceable and unconscionable because they exclusively required application of tribal law, waiving the right to pursue federal statutory remedies, and restricted review of awards to a tribal court.
-
Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, No. 17-988 (S. Ct. Apr. 24, 2019)04/24/2019
Supreme Court affirmed the ninth circuit’s decision that it had subject matter jurisdiction as the decision was final and defendant, who had requested individual arbitration, did not secure the relief it sought when the court ordered class arbitration. However, it reversed the ninth circuit’s decision related to class arbitration and held that under the FAA, an ambiguous agreement cannot provide the necessary contractual basis for compelling class arbitration.
-
Safra Securities, LLC, v. Gonzales, No. 18-2343 (2d Cir. Apr. 23, 2019)04/23/2019
Second Circuit affirmed a district courts order dismissing defendant’s motion to enjoin pending arbitration. Court ignored plaintiff’s argument that they were coerced by the FINRA administrator to agree to arbitration, finding that these allegations did not undermine a conclusion that the parties agreed to submit disputes to arbitration.
-
Rubis Caribbean Holdings, Inc. v. Be Tag Holdings Limited and Blue Equity International, LLC, No. 1:15-CV-24369-JLK (S.D. Fla. Apr. 23, 2019)04/23/2019
Court granted motion to confirm AAA arbitral award and denied motion to vacate the award under § 10 of the FAA. Court held respondents had not met their burden of demonstrating evident partiality, finding that there was no financial relationship between the arbitrator and counsel and the arbitrator’s involvement in a matter undertaken by counsel was not suggestive as a potential conflict as the arbitrator had disclosed his involvement.
-
Rittmann v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-01554-JCC (W.D. Wash. Apr. 23, 2019)04/23/2019
Court denied motion to compel arbitration. Court found the FAA was inapplicable to plaintiffs, as they fell within the transportation worker exemption under § 1 of the FAA. Court held the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because the governing law provision specifically stated that the FAA applied and excluded application of Washington state law; and therefore, concluded that there was not a valid agreement to arbitrate as it was unclear what law should apply.
-
Inversiones y Procesadora Tropical Inprotsa, S.A. v. Del Monte International GMBH, No. 16-17623 (11th Cir. Apr. 23, 2019)04/23/2019
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s orders denying petition to vacate and confirming an ICC arbitration award, finding the award did not offend public policy. Court of appeals confirmed that district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the petition to vacate the award because it fell under the New York Convention and upheld the dismissal of the petition since none of the New York Convention grounds for vacatur were raised.
-
The Shakespeare Globe Trust v. Kultur International Films, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-16297-AET-LHG (D.N.J. Apr. 22, 2019)04/22/2019
Court granted motion for preliminary injunction and held that the arbitration agreement could not be enforced, because the underlying contract had been terminated and the dispute arose after the termination of the contract.
-
Stati v. Republic of Kazakhstan, No. 1:14-CV-01638 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 19, 2019)04/19/2019
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to grant plaintiff’s petition to confirm an arbitral award rendered under the auspices of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce in Sweden. Court found defendant failed to show that any exceptions to enforceability of arbitral awards under the New York Convention were appropriate in this case.
-
Thomas v. V.I. Terminal Services, LLC, No. 3:15-CV-00016-WAL-RM (D.V.I. Apr. 19, 2019)04/19/2019
Court granted defendant’s unopposed motion to confirm an arbitration award when it was properly filed in a federal court of competent jurisdiction within one year, pursuant to the parties’ agreement and § 9 of the FAA.
-
Davison Design & Development, Inc. v. Frison, No. 2:17-CV-01468-JFC (W.D. Pa. Apr. 18, 2019)04/18/2019
Court denied defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees when there was no basis under the arbitration agreement or the FAA to overcome the “American Rule” – i.e. the presumption that each party bears its own attorneys’ fees. Court granted defendant’s request for costs, finding that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) provided a basis for awarding costs where the parties’ agreement and the FAA were silent.
-
National Indemnity Company v. IRB Brasil Resseguros S.A., No. 18-534-CV (2d Cir. Apr. 18, 2019)04/18/2019
Court of appeals vacated district court’s order granting motion to enforce arbitral award, concluding that a settlement agreement between petitioner and intervenor did not establish liability of non-party respondent, but rejected respondent’s argument that the settlement agreement exonerated it from any further liability under the arbitral award.
-
LifeTree Trading Pte. Ltd. v. Washakie Renewable Energy LLC, No. 18-1458 (2d Cir. Apr. 17, 2019)04/17/2019
Court of appeals affirmed, inter alia, lower court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that incorporation of industry-standard provisions which mention arbitration in London under English law, contradicted the choice-of-law provision in the underlying contract mandating dispute resolution in New York and under New York law. Court additionally found that defendant waived its right to arbitrate when it actively litigated the action for three years and affirmatively requested a jury trial.
-
Harris v. Equifax Information Services, No. 2:18-CV-00558 (S.D.W. Va. Apr. 17, 2019)04/17/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding a valid agreement to arbitrate where there was a delegation clause submitting the issue of arbitrability to an arbitrator. Court found that arbitration was appropriate notwithstanding plaintiff’s claims as to the scope of the agreement and whether defendant was an intended party, given that the agreement left such issues to be decided by an arbitrator.
-
Halliburton Energy Services v. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company, No. 17-20768 (5th Cir. Apr. 17, 2019)04/17/2019
Court of appeals reversed, inter alia, lower court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that even though defendant was a non-signatory to the agreement, it still had the right enforce the agreement through its rights to subrogation. Court found that the parties intended for the issue of subrogation rights to be arbitrated when they incorporated the AAA Rules.
-
Guia v. World CDJR LLC, No. 2:18-CV-04294-AB (E.D. Pa. Apr. 17, 2019)04/17/2019
Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that discovery was necessary to ascertain whether the parties agreed to arbitrate when it was unclear which of two sets of documents controlled the disputed transaction. Court found that without such discovery, it could not engage in the conflict of law analysis that would ultimately be necessary to determine whether the parties agreed to arbitrate.
-
Guia v. World CDJR LLC, No. 2:18-CV-04294-AB (E.D. Pa. Apr. 17, 2019)04/17/2019
Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that discovery was necessary to ascertain whether the parties agreed to arbitrate when it was unclear which of two sets of documents controlled the disputed transaction. Court found that without such discovery, it could not engage in the conflict of law analysis that would ultimately be necessary to determine whether the parties agreed to arbitrate.
-
Doe v. Stoneridge Homes, Inc., No. 5:18-CV-02101-CLS (N.D. Ala. Apr. 16, 2019)04/16/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, declining plaintiffs’ argument that there was no mutual assent to the arbitration clause when the clause required arbitration “by and pursuant to” a nonexistent arbitration provision from another agreement. Court found that the arbitration clause standing alone – notwithstanding the reference to the other provision – demonstrated a clear intent to arbitrate.
-
Loyola v. American Credit Acceptance LLC, No. 2:19-CV-00002-SMJ (E.D. Wash. Apr. 15, 2019)04/15/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that Plaintiffs’ challenges to enforceability were subject to arbitration and thus would not be considered under § 2 of the FAA.
-
Livingston v. The Progressive Eldercare Service – Cleveland Inc., No. 5:19-CV-00044-JM (E.D. Ark. Apr. 15, 2019)04/15/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement was enforceable – despite lacking defendant’s signature – when defendant clearly manifested consent to the agreement. Court additionally found that plaintiffs’ employment as healthcare providers did not preclude application of the FAA.
-
Harris v. Chelan County Sheriff’s Department, No. 2:17-CV-0137-JTR (E.D. Wash. Apr. 15, 2019)04/15/2019
Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, declining plaintiffs’ argument that defendant was collaterally estopped from presenting evidence or arguing facts contrary to the arbitrator’s ruling. Court found that, inter alia, the doctrine of collateral estoppel did not apply to an arbitration award because courts are not required to give full faith and credit to arbitration proceedings.
-
Benedict v. Amgen USA, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-00113-SO (N.D. Ohio Apr. 15, 2019)04/15/2019
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate an arbitration award, and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process, finding that plaintiff failed to comply with the service requirements of § 12 of the FAA when she notified defendant via email. Court found that § 12 requires service by marshal, and, even if it did not, service by email would not be sufficient.
-
Griffin v. Portaro Group, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-02786 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 12, 2019)04/12/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to stay a class and collective action, pending the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela – which will determine whether the FAA forecloses a state-law interpretation of whether an arbitration agreement authorizes class arbitration based solely on general language commonly used in such agreements. Because Plaintiffs signed an arbitration agreement that was silent as to authorization of class arbitrations, Lamps Plus would determine whether the case should proceed through court of through arbitration.
-
Lerner v. Citigroup, No. 2:16-CV-01573 (D.N.J. Apr. 12, 2019)04/12/2019
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate an arbitration award, declining merits-based arguments as courts are not authorized to reconsider the merits of an arbitral award. Court found that no conflict of interest existed between the AAA and the defendant when defendant’s counsel served as a board member of the AAA and had previously advised defendant in over a dozen cases.
-
Rowland v. Carmax Auto Superstores California, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-02135-VC (E.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2019)04/11/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case without prejudice, denying plaintiff’s argument that enforcement of an arbitration agreement is a state action implicating the First and Fifth Amendments. Court also found that the agreement was not substantively unconscionable when it expressly reserved plaintiff’s right to seek relief from any government agency.
-
Mitsui Sumimoto Insurance USA, Inc. v. Denham-Blythe Company, Inc., No. 5:18-CV-00152-JMH (E.D. Ky. Apr. 11, 2019)04/11/2019
Court granted in part defendant’s motion to alter or amend a court order to dismiss claims subject to arbitration when it improperly discussed whether a claim was barred by waiver of a subrogation clause. Court found that the discussion should be omitted from the order, as the court may not consider the merits of a case that the parties agreed to arbitrate.
-
Ballinasmalla Holdings Limited v. FCStone Merchant Services, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-12254-PKC (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 2019)04/11/2019
Court denied petitioners’ claim to vacate an arbitration award under the New York Convention, and granted respondents’ counter-claim to confirm the award, when the arbitrator acted within the scope of his powers and did not manifestly disregard the law. Court found that the award was final and definite when it decided liability and damages, despite potentially being subject to subsequent litigation pending a decision by a New York appellate court. Court found that the arbitrator’s decision not to stay the case did not manifestly disregard New York law or the AAA Rules.
-
Abner v. Convergys Corporation, No. 1:18-CV-00442 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 11, 2019)04/11/2019
Court denied defendant’s motion to strike collective and class action claims, finding that the Sixth Circuit deems a class or collective action waiver invalid in an employment agreement, when such waiver is presented without an arbitration provision.
-
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. v. Gas Workers Union, No. 17-01322 (8th Cir. Apr. 10, 2019)04/10/2019
Appellate Court reversed district court’s vacatur of an arbitration award and directed that they affirm on remand. District court had held that the arbitrator disregarded the plain language of the contract by reading in “basic notions of fairness and due process,” but the appellate court found that the arbitrator had found that these were implicit to articles in the agreement. Thus, the appellate court determined that the arbitrator’s views, right or wrong, were an interpretation of the contract and were not grounds for vacatur.
-
Jolen, Inc. v. Kundan Rice Mills, Ltd., No. 1:19-CV-01296-PKC (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2019)04/10/2019
Court confirmed petitioner’s unopposed petition to confirm an arbitration award, finding that an arbitrator’s partial award as to liability, but not as to damages, was “final” for the purposes of confirming an award under § 10(a)(4) of the FAA.
-
In re Application of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan for an Order Permitting Discovery Pursuant to 28 USC. § 1782 v. Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, No. 1:18-MC-00103-RMC (D.D.C. Apr. 10, 2019)04/10/2019
Court granted in part and denied in part a foreign sovereign petitioner’s application for an order permitting discovery pursuant to 28 USC § 1782. The court rejected respondent’s argument that the ICSID Tribunal – or any other “supra-national arbitral institution” – is not a foreign tribunal contemplated by § 1782, finding that arbitrations pursuant to bilateral investment treaties are sanctioned by governments, who also participate in such arbitrations. The court found that discretionary factors weighed against permitting discovery where respondent claimed that it had no access to sought-after electronic records. Notwithstanding, the court also found that respondent could respond to petitioner’s interrogatories when they would not require burdensome document recovery, review, and production.
-
Neumayer v. Allstate Insurance Company, No. 17-56469 (9th Cir. Apr. 10, 2019)04/10/2019
Court of appeals affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s breach of contract claim based on an alleged “sham” arbitration which resulted in an award for defendants. The court found that plaintiff failed to state a claim when she failed to challenge the arbitration award through a petition to vacate or correct the award.
-
Ingenieria, Maquinaria y Equipos de Colombia S.A. v. Aviation Technology & Turbine Service, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-03624-JBS-JS (D.N.J. April 9, 2018)04/09/2019
Court granted in part and denied in part respondent’s motion to stay execution of judgment pending appeal and waive the bond requirement or alternatively, approve a supersedes bond pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(b). Court found bond requirement should not be waived as respondent did not satisfy the factors related to complexity of the collection process or the amount of time to obtain an appeal. Court stayed execution of judgment and set the bond at the amount of the arbitration award.
-
Sanchez v. Gruma Corporation, No. 3:19-CV-00794-WHO (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2019)04/09/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement was enforceable because it did not contain any substantively unconscionable provisions – despite plaintiff’s arguments that the agreement was procedurally unconscionable. The court found that substantive unconscionability did not exist when, inter alia, the contract contained provisions incorporating the JAMS fee-shifting rules.
-
In re: Application of CA Investment (Brazil) S.A., No. 0:19-MC-00022-MJD-SER (D. Minn. Apr. 9, 2019)04/09/2019
Court granted a Brazilian corporation’s ex parte application for an order to take discovery for use in foreign proceedings under 28 USC § 1782, granting applicant discovery for use in proceedings including an ICC arbitrations in Brazil. The court granted the application, finding that the targeted bank conducted business within the judicial district, the discovery sought would be used in several foreign proceedings, and that applicant was an “interested person” given that it was a participant in such proceedings.
-
Paisley Park Enterprises, Inc. v. Boxill, No. 0:17-CV-01212-WMW-TNL (D. Minn. Apr. 8, 2019)04/08/2019
Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to confirm an arbitration award, and denied defendant’s motion to vacate the award, finding that the arbitrator neither committed misconduct nor exceeded her authority where defendant disagreed with the arbitrator’s legal conclusion. The court declined defendant’s argument that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law, citing that the Eighth Circuit no longer recognizes manifest disregard for the law as a basis to vacate an arbitration award.
-
Cilliers v. Cobalt Holdings, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-02428 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 8, 2019)04/08/2019
Court denied, in part, defendants’ motion to dismiss finding that such a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was not the appropriate mechanism for enforcing an arbitration clause, as the existence of an arbitration agreement is not itself a basis for dismissal.
-
Broom v. Mydatt Services, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00358 (D. Haw. Apr. 8, 2019)04/08/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that the agreement was not substantively unconscionable when it incorporated fee-splitting provisions of the AAA Rules. The court found that because an agreement must be both substantively and procedurally unconscionable to not be enforced, it did not need to reach plaintiff’s argument that the agreement was procedurally unconscionable for having a print smaller than the size found on other documents signed during his application process.
-
Wood v. Team Enterprises, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-06867-WHA (N.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2019)04/07/2019
Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration in a putative class action, finding that the arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable when plaintiffs lacked equal bargaining power and the agreement was offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. The court additionally found that the agreement was substantively unconscionable where several provisions conflicted with rights under California law such as placing a one-year statute of limitations on arbitration claims.
-
Carpio v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., No. 18-CV-22923 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 4, 2019)04/04/2019
Court granted a motion to remand in a wrongful death suit. Court found that it no longer had original jurisdiction over the case and declined the defendant’s request to stay the litigation pending the outcome of arbitration and exercise supplemental jurisdiction for convenience reasons.