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.
-
Noye v. Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc., No. 18-2197 (3d Cir. Apr. 4, 2019)04/04/2019
Court of appeals vacated lower court order denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding a sufficiently close relationship between defendant and the signatories to the arbitration agreement to allow defendant to enforce the agreement as a non-signatory. The court found that a close relationship existed when, inter alia, a signatory was authorize to use the defendant’s logos and trademarks on employment forms including the document containing the arbitration agreement.
-
Anderson v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-00706-JDP (W.D. Wis. Apr. 4, 2019)04/04/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable when plaintiff failed to demonstrate unequal bargaining power and where the agreement contained a class action waiver. The court additionally found that neither the scope of an arbitration provision nor its choice of institutional forum renders such provision unconscionable.
-
Trident Atlanta, LLC v. Charlie Graingers Franchising, LLC, No. 7:18-CV-00010-BO (E.D.N.C. Apr. 4, 2019)04/04/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiffs did not show that they suffered any prejudice when defendants filed their motion after a year of pursuing litigation. The court found that plaintiffs did not suffer any prejudice when defendants only moved to dismiss and the discovery process had recently begun.
-
Thompson v. Sutherland Global Services, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-03607 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 3, 2019)04/03/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration provision was enforceable when the defendant was neither a party nor a signatory to the agreement. The court found that the agreement was enforceable by defendant when it was included in a list of affiliates defining parties to the agreement. The court further found that defendant could enforce the agreement because a non-signatory may enforce an arbitration agreement when acting as the agent of a signatory.
-
United States of America, ex rel. v. Singulex, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-05241-KAW (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2019)04/03/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding, inter alia, that the arbitration provision was not unconscionable when plaintiff had 48 hours to review the agreement and the provision incorporated the AAA Rules, but did not provide a copy of the rules. Court additionally found that a one-sided contract is not necessarily substantively unconscionable, and that provisions under such contract may be severed to enforce the agreement.
-
Powell v. United Rentals (North America), Inc., No. 2:17-CV-01573-JLP (W.D. Wash. Apr. 3, 2019)04/03/2019
Court declined to rule on defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding improper venue when the agreement was subject to a forum selection clause mandating resolution in Connecticut. Court found, inter alia, that while it had subject matter jurisdiction over the action, this did not allow the court to ignore the forum selection clause.
-
Bellevue v. Exxon Mobile Corporation, No. 1:19-CV-00652-BMC-LB (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2019)04/02/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement contained in the terms of a co-branded credit card was valid even when the agreement referred to only one of the two defendants offering the card. Court held that the provision including claims made by or against anyone “connected with” the mentioned defendant was sufficient to include claims by the unmentioned defendant.
-
Abraham v. Jetsmarter Inc., No. 2:18-CV-01647-WED (E.D. Wis. Apr. 2, 2019)04/02/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in favor of mandatory arbitration, finding that plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate when they clicked the button next to a phrase stating that they accept the terms and conditions of the agreement containing the arbitration clause. Court found that the agreement was neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable when defendants were able to negotiate the terms and the agreement contained a class action waiver.
-
I.D. Images, LLC v. Meritan Health, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-02177-JG (N.D. Ohio Apr. 1, 2019)04/01/2019
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm an arbitration award, and denied defendant’s motion to vacate the award, finding that the arbitrator arguably construed a contract in making his decision. Court declined plaintiff’s argument that the arbitrator did not arguably construe the contract when the arbitrator failed to address plaintiff’s interpretation.
-
CRT Capital Group LLC v. SLS Capital, S.A., No. 1:18-CV-03986-VSB (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2019)03/31/2019
Court granted petitioner’s petition to confirm an arbitration award and denied respondent’s cross-petition to vacate the award. Court held that the arbitral tribunal’s decision to exclude rebuttal expert testimony did not warrant vacatur under § 10(a)(3) of the FAA. Court also found that there was a reasonable basis for the panel to exclude rebuttal expert testimony when its decision was based on petitioner’s arguments to exclude the testimony.
-
Spruce Environmental Technologies, Inc. v. Festa Radon Technologies, Co., No. 1:18-CV-11828-NMG (D. Mass. Mar. 30, 2019)03/30/2019
Court denied defendant’s motion to vacate an arbitration award and granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm the award, finding no manifest disregard for the law when, inter alia, the arbitrator rendered the arbitration award one day later than the thirty days required by the JAMS rules.
-
Republic of Kazakhstan v. Stati, No. 1:17-CV-02067-ABJ (D.D.C. Mar. 30, 2019)03/30/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss where plaintiff filed a parallel RICO civil suit while an action to enforce an arbitral award was already pending. Plaintiff claimed that defendants obtained an arbitral award from the SCC by fraud, and that subsequent actions to enforce the award were unlawful. Court dismissed plaintiff’s claims finding that a RICO lawsuit was not an appropriate means to “challenge non-frivolous litigation, or in this case, a valid and final arbitral award.”
-
iiiTec, Limited v. Weatherford Technology Holdings, LLC, No. 4:18-CV-01191 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2019)03/29/2019
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration where defendants were not signatories to the arbitration agreement. Court held that defendants did not have a sufficiently close relationship to a signatory of the contract nor did they receive a direct benefit under the agreement that would make the arbitration clause binding on defendants.
-
Business Credit & Capital II LLC v. Neuronexus, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-03374-ALC (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2019)03/29/2019
Court granted petitioner’s application to confirm an arbitration award, and denied respondents’ motion to vacate the award and dismiss the action, finding that the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law and that the court had jurisdiction over respondents. Court found that the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law when he considered cases cited by respondents but interpreted them differently than respondents. Court additionally held that it had jurisdiction over respondents when the underlying arbitration agreement and forum selection clause subjected respondents to the jurisdiction of any federal court in New York.
-
Moskalenko v. Carnival PLC, No. 1:17-CV-06947-NGG-CLP (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2019)
03/29/2019Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration under the New York Convention and the FAA, finding that plaintiff was bound to an agreement to arbitrate when she signed a contract incorporating the arbitration clause by reference but did not sign the referenced agreement. Court noted that federal arbitration law controlled the question of whether an U.S. non-signatory to an arbitration agreement can be bound to arbitrate under the Convention.
-
Herndon v. Sherwood Construction Co., Inc., No. 4:19-CV-00028-CVE-JFJ (N.D. Okla. March 28, 2019)03/28/2019
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pursuant to the FAA. Court found that there was a valid arbitral agreement and the breach of contract and negligence claims fell within the scope of the contract.
-
Passmore v. SSC Kerrville Hilltop Village Operating Company LLC, No. 5:18-CV-00782-FB-ESC (W.D. Tex. March 28, 2019)03/28/2019
Court denied motion to stay proceedings pending appeal of district court’s denial of defendants’ motion to compel arbitration to the Fifth Circuit. Court found that there was not a substantial legal question involved; the public interest did not favor the issuance of a stay; defendants did not show that plaintiffs would not be injured by the stay; and defendants did not make a strong showing of a likelihood of success on the merits.
-
W.P. Carey, Inc. v. Bigler, No. 1:18-CV-00585-KPF (S.D.N.Y. March 27, 2019)03/27/2019
Court denied motion to compel arbitration under the FAA and granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Court found plaintiff who was a non-signatory to the arbitral agreement was not bound to arbitrate under the theories of assumption, agency, veil-piercing, or estoppel.
-
Hoolahan v. IBC Advanced Alloys Corp., No. 1:17-CV-11949-GAO (D. Mass. March 27, 2019)03/27/2019
Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award under the FAA. Although the court assumed the validity of the manifest disregard doctrine, it concluded no manifest disregard occurred and denied the motion to vacate the award.
-
Knepper v. Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., No. 2:19-CV-00527-JVS-ADS (C.D. Cal. March 26, 2019)03/26/2019
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay all proceedings pursuant to the FAA, finding that although plaintiff did not sign the arbitration agreement, she was on notice that it would become binding unless she signed an opt-out agreement. Court held the class action waiver in the arbitral agreement was valid and denied the motion to amend to add additional plaintiffs. Court granted motion for leave to amend to add a claim for breach of fiduciary duty.
-
Baugh v. Allied Professionals Insurance Company, No. 1:18-CV-00074-DB-EJF (D. Utah March 26, 2019)03/26/2019
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings under the FAA, concluding that the parties delegated the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Court granted attorneys’ fees to defendant for the motion to compel pursuant to the agreement between the parties.
-
Smarter Tools Inc. v. Chongqing SENCI Import & Export Trade Co., Ltd., No. 1:18-CV-02714-AJN (S.D.N.Y. March 26, 2019)03/26/2019
Court denied petitioner’s motion to vacate an arbitration award and denied respondent’s cross-petition for confirmation of the award and remanded the issue to the arbitrator for clarification of the award. Court found that the arbitrator exceeded its authority in failing to issue a reasoned award, where the award contained no reason for rejecting petitioner’s claims, but rejected petitioner’s argument that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law in failing to apply the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. Court concluded the proper remedy for failure to issue a reasoned award was not to vacate the award but to remand to the arbitrator.
-
G.G., A.L., and B.S. v. Valve Corporation, No. 2:16-CV-01941-JCC (W.D. Wash. March 26, 2019)03/26/2019
Court granted motion to lift stay and dismissed the case with prejudice, as the AAA tribunal had issued awards dispositive of plaintiffs’ claims and the arbitration proceedings were closed. Pursuant to the FAA, the court denied plaintiffs’ challenges contesting the enforcement of the awards on public policy grounds and claims the arguments did not fall within the scope of the arbitral agreement. Court rejected plaintiffs’ claims that the awards should be vacated under § 10 of the FAA.
-
Adam Joseph Resources (M) SDN BHD. v. CNA Metals Limited, No. 17-20685 (5th Cir. March 26, 2019)03/26/2019
Court of appeals reversed district court’s dismissal of attorney’s claims for fees related to a foreign arbitration proceeding on grounds of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and remanded for the district court to grant attorney’s motion to intervene and consider his claims on the merits. Court held that the New York Convention conferred jurisdiction on the court to consider attorney’s claim for contingency fees because his alleged interest in the award for services rendered “relates to” the arbitration award within the meaning of 9 USC § 205. Court also found attorney met the requirements to intervene as of right.
-
Postal Police Officers Association v. United States Postal Service, No. 2:18-CV-11457-MOB-APP (E.D. Mich. Mar. 25, 2019).03/25/2019
Court granted plaintiff’s motion for an order confirming an arbitration award and for summary judgment. Court held the arbitrator did not exceed his authority and decided that there was no basis to set aside the arbitrator’s decision on arbitrability issues under the deferential standard that governs this inquiry.
-
Williamson v. Dillard’s, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-00451-CVE-FHM (N.D. Okla. March 25, 2019)03/25/2019
Court granted motion to compel arbitration under the FAA. Court found plaintiff’s claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act fell within the scope of the arbitral agreement and that the agreement was enforceable because the arbitration agreement did not lack consideration as the arbitration of disputes arising out of plaintiff’s employment was a valuable benefit to both parties.
-
Vine v. PLS Financial Services, Inc. and PLS Loan Store of Texas, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-00450-ALM (E.D. Tex. March 25, 2019)03/25/2019
Court denied defendants’ motion to reconsider denial of motion to compel arbitration. Court declined to reconsider the Fifth Circuit’s affirmance of the district court’s orders to deny the motion to compel arbitration because defendants had substantially invoked the judicial process under the law-of-the-case doctrine, concluding that the new Texas Supreme Court decision was not an intervening change in law.
-
Alvarez-Mauras v. Banco Popular of Puerto Rico, No. 18-1051 (1st Cir. March 25, 2019)03/25/2019
Court of appeals affirmed the decision of the district court that plaintiff’s RICO claims against one defendant must be pursued in arbitration because they fell within the scope of a binding arbitration agreement. Court concluded that claims against the defendant’s wife were subject to arbitration because they were derivative of the claims against him. Court held that plaintiff’s RICO claims were time barred under the four-year statute of limitations as applied to the defendant non-party to the arbitration agreement.
-
Compania de Inversiones Mercantiles S.A. v. Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua, S.A.B. de C.V., No. 1:15-CV-02120-JLK (D. Colo. March 25, 2019)
03/25/2019Court granted motion to confirm foreign arbitral award under the New York Convention. Court found that the merits award was not set aside by a competent authority in Bolivia and that the damages award was binding under the New York Convention despite an ongoing annulment proceeding. Court held a stay was unwarranted.
-
Garcia v. Trademark Construction Co., Inc., No. 3:18-CV-01214-JLS-WVG (S.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2019)03/22/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s individual claims, dismissed plaintiff’s class claim and stayed plaintiff’s PAGA claims pending resolution of the arbitration of plaintiff’s individual claims. Court held the arbitration agreement was enforceable and encompassed plaintiff’s individual claims, rejecting claims of procedural and substantive unconscionability.
-
Lance v. Midland Credit Management Inc., No. 2-18-CV-04933-MAK (E.D. Pa. Mar. 22, 2019)03/22/2019
Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration as the issues concerning the terms of an assignment either precluded defendants’ right to compel arbitration or were ambiguous requiring further discovery before court could determine consent to arbitration existed.
-
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Bucsek, No. 17-881 (2d Cir. Mar. 22, 2019)03/22/2019
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision granting plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction barring defendant from pursuing claims in arbitration before FINRA. Court held the district court correctly decided the question whether plaintiff was obligated to arbitrate the dispute was to be decided by a court, rather than an arbitrator and that plaintiff’s claims did not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
-
Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v. Black Diamond Capital Management, LLC., No. 1:18-CV-07620 (S.D.N.Y. March 22, 2019)03/22/2019
Court granted petition to vacate the amended final award and confirm the final award under the New York Convention. Court held that the arbitral panel exceeded its powers and exhibited manifest disregard of the law when it changed its method for calculating the interest due from the final award to the amended final award.
-
Johnson v. Oracle America, Inc., No. 17-17489 (9th Cir. Mar. 21, 2019)03/21/2019
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order compelling arbitration in an employment dispute. Court held that the district court correctly ruled it was for the arbitrator to determine which contract defined the scope of the arbitration.
-
Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance USA, Inc., v. Denham-Blythe Company, Inc., No. 5:18-CV-00152-JMH (E.D. Ky. Mar. 21, 2019)03/21/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the action without prejudice, directing plaintiff to comply with the dispute resolution provisions set forth in the contract requiring the parties to mediate their claims and eventually submit them to arbitration.
-
Smith v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-01351-LJO-JLT (E.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2019)03/21/2019
Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss or in the alternative to stay proceedings and compel arbitration. Court held the defendant did not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff signed the electronic agreement, which contained an arbitration agreement.
-
Esparza v. Smartpay Leasing, Inc., 17-17175 (9th Cir. Mar. 21, 2019)03/21/2019
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the district court correctly determined that plaintiff’s claims did not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
-
Alkatib v. Progressive Paralegal Services LLC, No. 1:18-CV-02859-JG (N.D. Ohio Mar. 20, 2019)03/20/2019
Court granted in part defendant’s motion to stay and compel arbitration, finding the defendant did not waive arbitration and that thirteen out of fourteen counts were within the scope of the arbitration agreement and plaintiff should be ordered to arbitrate these claims.
-
Life Care Centers of America Inc. v. Estate of Fannie Deal, No. 1:18-CV-00187-MV-KK (D.N.M. Mar. 20, 2019)03/20/2019
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement was valid and that court should not abstain from exercising jurisdiction over plaintiff’s action to compel arbitration and that the defendant was bound to the arbitration agreement because it was a third-party beneficiary to the agreement. Court further held the provision of the arbitration agreement that prohibited an award of fees and costs in connection with defendant’s claim, and the provision of the arbitration agreement that prohibited an award of exemplary or punitive damages were unenforceable and, therefore, severed these provisions from the arbitration agreement.
-
Mitchell v. Diversicare of Batesville, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-00278-SA-RP (N.D. Miss. Mar. 20, 2019)03/20/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration by agreement of the parties.
-
Quintero v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, No. 1:19-CV-00261-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2019)03/20/2019
Court granted the parties joint stipulation to stay the matter while they engage in arbitration and requested the parties to file a joint status report every ninety days informing the court of the status of the arbitration.
-
Shepherd v. LPL Financial LLC, No. 5:17-CV-150-D (W.D.N.C. Mar. 20, 2019)03/20/2019
Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and confirmed an arbitration award entered in plaintiff’s favor. Court held plaintiffs could not show the arbitrator was partial and that plaintiffs did not meet their burden of proof under 9 USC § 10(a)(l) concerning an allegation defendant failed to produce relevant documents during the arbitration.
-
Walker v. Dillard’s, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00657-MV-KK (D.N.M. Mar. 20, 2019)03/20/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay this lawsuit, finding the evidence established that the parties entered into an agreement to arbitrate. Court further held it was for the arbitrator to decide whether the arbitration agreement is unenforceable for lack of consideration.
-
Crump v. Metasource Acquisitions LLC, No. 2:18-CV-03313-WB (E.D. Pa. Mar. 19, 2019)03/19/2019
Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, concluding the arbitration agreement was unenforceable. Court held the arbitration agreement was illusory because the defendants had the unfettered discretion to modify their arbitration obligations and the arbitration agreement was not supported by sufficient consideration in the form of continued employment.
-
Anderson v. American General Life Insurance, No. 4:17-CV-00117-LGW-CLR (S.D. Ga. Mar. 19, 2019)03/19/2019
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate arbitration award, finding that the arbitrator did not refuse to hear “pertinent and material” evidence and that the plaintiff could not show prejudice, partiality, misbehavior by the arbitrator or that he exceeded his powers or committed a manifest disregard of law.
-
SS White Burs, Inc. v. Guidance Endodontics, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-00698-WJ-KBM (D.N.M. Mar. 19, 2019)03/19/2019
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend a prior decision entering a memorandum opinion and order denying plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss case. Court found that district court did not err in failing to apply motion to dismiss standard and it did not misapprehend the facts.
-
Thibault v. Heartland Recreational Vehicles, LLC No. 2:18-CV-00732-GCS-EPD (S.D. Ohio Mar. 19, 2019)03/19/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, finding that (i) defendant did not waive the right to compel arbitration, (ii) the parties agreed to arbitration, (iii) plaintiff’s claims are within the scope of the arbitration agreement, (iv) the claims were arbitrable, (v) the non-signatory defendants could enforce the arbitration agreement.
-
State Enterprise Research-Industrial Complex “Pavlograd Chemical Plant” v. Petroleum & Materials LLC No. 2:18-CV-02510-ADS-AKT (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2019)03/19/2019
Court concurred with the report and recommendation from the Magistrate Judge recommending that (i) default judgment be granted in favor of the petitioner; and (ii) the award issued by the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce on June 20, 2017 be confirmed.
-
Ithaca Capital Investments I, S.A. v. Trump Panama Hotel Management LLC No. 1:18-CV-00390-ER (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2019)03/19/2019
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to stay the action pending the resolution of a related arbitration, finding that several of the defendant’s claims would not be resolved by arbitration and plaintiffs have failed to show that the arbitration would conclude in a reasonable amount of time.
-
Hanson v. Tmx Finance, LLC No. 2:18-CV-00616-RFB-CWB (D. Nev. Mar. 19, 2019)03/19/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the introduction of claims before courts could not amount to an opt out of the arbitration agreement under the terms of the underlying contract because it contained specific requirements that plaintiff did not comply with.