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.
-
Sunmonu v. Chase Bank, N.A. No. 1:18-CV-01695-GLR (D. Md. Mar. 19, 2019)03/19/2019
Court denied plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunctive relief and granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held defendant made the necessary showing of the four requirements to compel arbitration, namely (i) the existence of a dispute between the parties; (ii) a written agreement that includes an arbitration provision which purports to cover the dispute; (iii) the relationship of the transaction, which is evidenced by the agreement, to interstate or foreign commerce; and (iv) the failure, neglect or refusal of the defendant to arbitrate the dispute.
-
Butler v. AT&T No. 1:18-CV-01749-PAB-SKC (D. Colo. Mar. 18, 2019)03/18/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings. Court found the contract was binding between the parties and that the mutual promise to arbitrate was sufficient consideration to support the agreement. Further, court held the parties’ agreement covered the claims asserted in this matter and that as a result the arbitration agreement was enforceable.
-
Fedor v. United Healthcare, Inc. No. 1:17-CV-00013-MV-KBM (D.N.M. Mar. 18, 2019)03/18/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, strike class and collective action claims and compel arbitration and dismissed the case, finding the underlying contract unmistakably delegated to the arbitrator any dispute as to the application and enforceability of the contract. Given that the plaintiff only challenged the validity of the contract as a whole without mentioning the delegate provision, Court considered it was constrained to treat the delegate provision as valid and enforce it.
-
Riverbay Corporation v. Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ No. 1:18-CV-04660-RA (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2019)03/18/2019
Court denied plaintiff’s petition to vacate the award and granted defendant’s cross petition to confirm the award. Court held the allegations the award was not final because the arbitrator failed to decide all issues submitted by plaintiff as well as that the arbitrator exceeded the scope of his authority were unsupported. Further, court held plaintiff did not identify any other basis to vacate the award, thereby granting the petition to confirm the award.
-
Lowell Daniels v. Diamond Resorts Financial Services, Inc. No. 2:18-CV-00561 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 18, 2019)03/18/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the complaint without prejudice, finding that defendant could enforce the arbitration agreement because it was an affiliate of the signatory of the underlying contract. Court further held that the claims in question fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
-
SRC Construction Corp. of Monroe v. Atlantic City Housing Authority No. 1:10-CV-03461-RMB-AMD (D.N.J. Mar. 18, 2019)03/18/2019
Court denied defendant’s motion to vacate final arbitration award and plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and bond motion, finding that there was no evidence of partiality or bias in the tribunal’s final decision and that the tribunal did not manifestly disregard the law.
-
Dickey’s Barbecue Restaurants, Inc. v. Campbell Investments, LLC, No. 4:18-CV-00491-ALM-KPJ (E.D. Tex. Mar. 15, 2019)03/15/2019
Court overruled objections to magistrate judge’s recommendation and ordered parties to submit disputes to arbitration, finding that (i) another court’s interpretation of arbitration provisions in other agreements did not create collateral estoppel or res judicata; (ii) party’s failure in the other proceedings to rely on arbitration clause in the contract giving rise to claims at issue in the present litigation was not the sort of “overt act” waiving right to arbitrate under that clause; and (iii) the question of whether the claims fall within the scope of the arbitration clause should be determined by the arbitrator.
-
Abbott v. Crossfit Inc. No. 3:18-CV-02364-WQH-MDD (S.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2019)03/15/2019
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate arbitration award and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiff failed to allege facts showing an arbitration effectively took place as well as subject matter jurisdiction.
-
Board of County Commissioners of the County of Bernalillo v. Bok Financial Securities, Inc. No. 1:17-cv-00948-PJK-KBM (D.N.M. Mar. 15, 2019)03/15/2019
Court granted defendant’s request to confirm arbitral award with the exception of one issue related to prejudgment interest, finding the arbitration panel acted within the scope of the parties’ arbitration agreement by awarding costs and attorney’s fees to defendant.
-
FCCI Insurance Company v. Nicholas County Library No. 5:18-CV-00038-JMH (E.D. Ky. Mar. 15, 2019)03/15/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Court held plaintiff had to submit its claims to an arbitrator because the parties agreed to let the arbitrator rule on his or her own jurisdiction and as a result determined to dismiss the action without prejudice.
-
Lunn v. Allianz Global Corporate and Specialty SE No. 2:19-CV-00347-RGK-PJW (C.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2019)03/15/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the non-signatories parties could enforce the arbitration agreement because they were third-party beneficiaries or agents and because they did not waive the right to compel arbitration.
-
Jiangsu Guotai International Group Guomao Corporation, Limited v. Jad International Corporation No. 1:18-CV-02699-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2019)03/15/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss based on an agreement between the principal parties to arbitrate their disputes before CIETAC. Court held the claims fell within the broad scope of the arbitration agreement and that a non-signatory was also bound to arbitrate because the claims were intertwined with the agreements between the signatories.
-
Papalote Creek II, L.L.C. v. Lower Colorado River Authority No. 17-50852 (5th Cir. Mar. 15, 2019)03/15/2019
Court reversed the district court’s order compelling arbitration and remanded for further proceedings, finding that the dispute did not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement because the arbitration agreement required that disputes about performance of the agreement be subject to arbitration, while in the case at hand it was an interpretative dispute.
-
State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v. Marrero No. 5:18-CV-00433-HSP (E.D. Pa. Mar. 15, 2019)03/15/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration holding that the arbitration agreement must be enforced because it unambiguously encompassed the subrogation dispute in question.
-
Fialek v. I.C. Systems, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-00136-BJD-MCR (M.D. Fla. Mar. 14, 2019)03/14/2019
Court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation granting defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action pending arbitration, finding no plain error in the magistrate judge’s report.
-
Bell-Sparrow v. SFP*Proschoicebeauty, No. 4:18-CV-06707-YGR (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2019)03/14/2019
Court granted one defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action as to that defendant alone, finding that (i) question of arbitrability was for court to decide since defendant had not argued that it had been delegated; (ii) credit card agreement containing arbitration clause was validly accepted by the defendant’s use of the credit card, notwithstanding that she did not sign the agreement; (iii) the arbitration agreement was not substantively unconscionable since it did not have terms that shocked the conscience; (iv) the arbitration agreement was not procedurally unconscionable since it provided an opt out mechanism; (v) the arbitration agreement was part of a bargained-for exchange, whereby the plaintiff received and used a credit card; (vi) the plaintiff had not shown that enforcement of the arbitration agreement would be prohibitively expensive in violation of the Seventh Amendment, since the defendant had offered to pay the arbitration fees; and (vii) the claims were within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
-
Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company v. Everest Reinsurance Company, No. 1:18-MC-00653-JEJ (M.D. Pa. Mar. 14, 2019)03/14/2019
Court granted one party’s motion to compel arbitration before a new arbitral panel and denied the other party’s motion to compel arbitration before an existing arbitral panel, finding that question of whether contract required consolidated arbitral proceedings was a question of arbitral procedure that should be decided in arbitration.
-
Grayton v. San Diego County Credit Union, No. 3:18-CV-02254-WQH-WVG (S.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2019)03/14/2019
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings, finding that the arbitration agreement was valid, the claims were within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and that there were no valid bases for challenging enforcement.
-
Stacy v. Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd. No. 2:18-CV-13243-KM-JBC (D.N.J. Mar. 14, 2019)03/14/2019
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint, finding that the parties were entitled to discovery. Court held that after focused discovery on the arbitrability issue was complete, it would accept a motion for partial summary judgment to compel arbitration.
-
Dimension Service Corporation v. Bayview Ford Lincoln, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-00489-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio Mar. 14, 2019)03/14/2019
Court denied motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction but granted request to arbitrate, finding that the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable.
-
Boves v. Aaron’s Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00005-HBP (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2019)03/14/2019
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings, finding that employee was bound by an arbitration agreement that he received and failed to opt out of, and that the enforcement of that agreement would not breach the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
-
Standard Security Life Insurance Company of New York v. FCE Benefit Administrators, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-00064 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 13, 2019)03/13/2019
Court dismissed action seeking confirmation of arbitral award finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the award was not a complete determination of all the issues submitted to the panel.
-
Oldcastle Precast, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, No. 7:16-CV-01914-NSR (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2019)03/13/2019
Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award and denied cross-motion to vacate portions of the award, finding that (i) claims of arbitral misconduct and manifest disregard for the law had not been established; (ii) in the absence of a transcript of the arbitral hearing, a party challenging the proceedings has a heavy burden to establish what transpired; and (iii) the objections had been waived since they were not timely raised in the arbitration.
-
Brecher v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-03142-ERK-JO (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2019)03/13/2019
Court granted motion to compel arbitration on an individual basis and dismissed class action claims, finding that a valid agreement to arbitrate claims arising from credit card debt existed since the debtor was assumed to have received the credit card agreement in the normal course and to have agreed to it by her continued use of the card.
-
Freeman v. River Manor Corp., No. 1:17-CV-05162-RJD-RER (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2019)03/13/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed statutory claims, finding that the claims were “inextricably intertwined” with consideration of the applicable collective bargaining agreement and thus must be in accordance with the agreement’s grievance and arbitration procedure.
-
Lyon v. Neustar, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-00371-KJM-KJN (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2019)03/13/2019
Court issued temporary restraining order temporarily enjoining party from continuing to pursue claims in arbitration, finding that if the arbitration in Virginia proceeded it would to damage the plaintiff’s rights under California law not to be compelled to litigate outside of California.
-
Fidelity Brokerage Services v. Deutsch, No. 18-1774 (2d Cir. Mar. 13, 2019)03/13/2019
Court of appeals dismissed appeal of district court’s order rejecting motion to vacate arbitration award on the basis it was incomplete and directing parties back to arbitration. Circuit court found that the district court had jurisdiction to order the parties back to arbitration since the “complete arbitration” rule was prudential and not jurisdictional, but that there was no appellate jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal of an order directing an arbitration to proceed.
-
Bekele v. Lyft, Inc., No. 16-2109 (1st Cir. Mar. 13, 2019)03/13/2019
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to grant motion to compel individual arbitration, finding that (i) party waived argument that no arbitration agreement had been formed by not raising it in his opening brief; (ii) the arbitration clause does not impose substantively unconscionable fees because they do not exceed the potential recovery and because the defendant has offered to pay plaintiff’s share of the fees.
-
Egan Jones Ratings Company v. Pruette No. 17:3415 (3d Cir. Mar. 13, 2019)03/13/2019
Court affirmed the district court decision denying to vacate a final partial arbitration award and granting cross-petition to confirm the award. Court considered it is not proper for a reviewing court to reexamine the evidence when reviewing an arbitration award and errors in fact finding do not justify reversal and held the arbitrator’s findings were the result of proper weighing of conflicting evidence and no justifiable grounds for vacating the partial final award existed.
-
Joia v. Jozon Enterprises. Inc No. 1:18-CV-00365-WES-PAS (D.R.I. Mar. 13, 2019)03/13/2019
Magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation that the court lacks statutory and constitutional subject matter jurisdiction over the case, and recommended that the court dismiss Plaintiff’s petition to compel arbitration. Court held the petition failed to establish subject-matter jurisdiction and that there was no case or controversy to be decided by the court because the plaintiff did not request arbitration and the defendant did not refuse to arbitrate.
-
Shore Point Distributing Company v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 701 No. 17-3684 (3d Cir. Mar. 13, 2019)03/13/2019
Court of appeals held it did not have jurisdiction to review an order that sent parties back to an arbitration that had already begun because pursuant to 9 USC § 16(b)(2) a court of appeals may not consider an appeal from an interlocutory order directing arbitration to proceed.
-
Partners 3190, LLC v. Signature Building Systems, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-01475-JMM (M.D. Penn. Mar. 12, 2019)03/12/2019
Court denied petition to vacate arbitral award and granted cross-petition to confirm the award, finding that the claim submitted in arbitration was a breach of contract claim and not subject to an exclusion from the arbitration agreement for warranty claims.
-
Doe v. Virginia College, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-00023-RP (W.D. Tex. Mar. 12, 2019)03/12/2019
Court granted unopposed motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that an arbitration existed and covered the claims at issue.
-
Bracey v. Lancaster Foods LLC, No. 1:17-CV-01826-RDB (D. Md. Mar. 12, 2019)03/12/2019
Court denied motion for reconsideration of decision granting motion to compel arbitration, finding, inter alia, that evidence of minimum interstate travel by truck driver did not render him an interstate transportation worker for purposes of the exemption under § 1 of the FAA.
-
Katz v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, No. 18-1436 (2d Cir. Mar. 12, 2019)03/12/2019
Court of appeals affirmed district court decision confirming an arbitral award, finding that the standard of review imposed by the FAA does not violate the Fifth Amendment due process right to judicial review, since a private party’s agreement to arbitrate does not constitute state action.
-
Tanis v. Southwest Airlines, Co., No. 3:18-CV-02333-BAS-BGS (S.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2019)03/11/2019
Court granted in part motion to compel arbitration, finding that (i) challenge to the arbitration agreement specifically, rather than to arbitration agreement as a whole, was to be determined by the court; (ii) there was no material fact as to whether plaintiff clicked web box agreeing to arbitration; (iii) the arbitration agreement was not inconspicuous, since text accompanying the webform alerted her to the content of the agreement and linked to it; and (iv) the plaintiff’s dispute is encompassed within the terms of the arbitration agreement.
-
Kensu v. JPay, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-11086-SFC-PTM (E.D. Mich. Mar. 11, 2019)03/11/2019
Court adopted Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation in favor of arbitration and rejected objections thereto, finding that: (i) speculation that JAMS will decline to arbitrate the case does not prevent referral to arbitration, since if JAMS does decline the FAA provides for appointment of an alternate arbitrator; (ii) unconscionability argument went to the contract as a whole rather than the arbitration clause specifically and therefore was for the arbitrator to address; (iii) plaintiff cannot avoid arbitration agreement by re-characterizing his status as a third-party beneficiary of another contract that does not have an arbitration agreement; and (iv) plaintiff is not entitled to jury trial on issue of whether he entered into arbitration agreement, as there is no genuine factual issue on the point.
-
Pierce County v. M.A. Mortenson Company, No. 3:19-CV-05041-RJB (W.D. Wash. Mar. 11, 2019)03/11/2019
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and denied cross-motion for preliminary injunction to stay arbitration, finding that party’s objection to the availability of declaratory relief in arbitration did not constitute a waiver of the right to arbitrate.
-
Agarunova v. The Stella Orton Home Care Agency, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00638-MKB-RLM (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2019)03/11/2019
Court denied motion for conditional class certification, finding that class certification would be premature in light of pending decision on motion to compel arbitration and appeal in different case of legal question of whether an arbitration clause agreed by the union is binding on union members.
-
Butcher v. Teamsters Local 955, No. 2:18-CV-02424-JAR-KGG (D. Kan. Mar. 11, 2019)03/11/2019
Court denied motion to stay pending arbitration of related claim against another defendant, finding that (i) FAA did not provide authority for staying a non-arbitrable claim pending arbitration of a separate arbitrable claim; and (ii) the claims were not so intertwined as to justify an exercise of the court’s discretionary power to stay.
-
Stone v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 1:18-CV-02526-ELH (D. Md. Mar. 11, 2019)03/11/2019
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed action, finding that (i) in a contract between a Fortune 500 company and a consumer, a cross-reference to application of the AAA rules does not provide clear and unmistakeable evidence of the consumer’s intent to arbitrate arbitrability; (ii) the claims were within the scope of the arbitration agreement; and (iii) the appropriate remedy when all issues presented in a lawsuit are referred to arbitration is dismissal.
-
New Jersey Building Construction Laborers District Council v. Innovative Masonry LLC, No. 2:18-CV-14979-WJM-MF (D.N.J. Mar. 8, 2019)03/08/2019
Court confirmed an ICC arbitration award for a Japanese company awarding payments due it by the Tanzanian Ministry of Works under a contract to upgrade a stretch of roads. Court found it had jurisdiction because the four requirements of the New York Convention were satisfied: (i) the award arose from a commercial legal relationship; (ii) there was a written agreement to arbitrate; (iii) the agreement provided for the arbitration to take place in a signatory country; and (iv) at least one of the parties was not an American citizen. Court ignored Tanzania’s argument that the award had already been satisfied by a tax set off and thus confirmation of the award would be contrary to public policy, finding that this situation did not offend the forum state’s most basic notions of morality and justice.
-
Diversant, LLC v. Mitchelle Carino, No. 3:18-CV-03155-AET-DEA (D.N.J. Mar. 8, 2019)03/08/2019
Court denied motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, finding that although fees and costs pertained to representation in court proceedings for injunctive relief (as such proceedings were excluded from the arbitration clause), there was no explicit exception from the arbitration clause for claims for attorneys’ fees and costs, and that the claim must therefore be brought in arbitration.
-
United Food & Commercial Workers’ Union, Local No. 293 v. Nebraska Prime Group, LLC, No. 8:18-CV-00466-RFR-SMB (D. Neb. Mar. 8, 2019)03/08/2019
Court ordered defendant to show cause why it should not be held in civil contempt and sanctioned for failing to comply with terms of arbitration award confirmed by the court, finding that appeal of confirmation order did not divest the district court of jurisdiction absent a stay of proceedings.
-
Peterson v. Binncacle Capital Services LLC, No. 4:18-CV-40088-TSH (D. Mass. Mar. 8, 2019)03/08/2019
Court granted in part and denied in part motion to compel arbitration, finding (i) challenges to the validity of the entire contract should be resolved in arbitration; (ii) the parties’ mutual promises to arbitrate are adequate consideration; (iii) since Vermont law favors arbitration, the clause at issue should be read as containing both an agreement to arbitrate and an agreement to waive class and collective actions, rather than as a narrow agreement to arbitrate individual claims; and (iv) the arbitration clause could be enforced by a defendant who was a party to the agreement, but not by another defendant who was not a party to the agreement.
-
Lowery v. N.A.R., Inc., No. 2:18-CV-00480-JNP-PMW (D. Utah Mar. 8, 2019)03/08/2019
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and referred to arbitration request to strike class claims, finding that questions of arbitrability were to be determined by the court and the claims at issue fell within the broad arbitration agreement, but that the question of whether to strike class claims was for the arbitrator to decide.
-
Konoike Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ministry of Works, Tanzania, No. 1:17-CV-01986-RJL (D.D.C. Mar. 7, 2019)03/07/2019
Court confirmed an ICC arbitration award for a Japanese company awarding payments due it by the Tanzanian Ministry of Works under a contract to upgrade a stretch of roads. Court found it had jurisdiction because the four requirements of the New York Convention were satisfied: (i) the award arose from a commercial legal relationship; (ii) there was a written agreement to arbitrate; (iii) the agreement provided for the arbitration to take place in a signatory country; and (iv) at least one of the parties was not an American citizen. Court ignored Tanzania’s argument that the award had already been satisfied by a tax set off and thus confirmation of the award would be contrary to public policy, finding that this situation did not offend the forum state’s most basic notions of morality and justice.
-
Brumley v. Austin Centers for Exceptional Students Incorporated, No. 2:18-CV-00662-DLR (D. Ariz. Mar. 7, 2019)03/07/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Following ninth circuit precedent, court found that the agreement incorporation of the AAA rules constituted clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to delegate issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Court disagreed with plaintiff’s argument that this precedent should not apply where one of the parties was unsophisticated. Court also found that because plaintiff argued that the entire agreement was unconscionable, but did not challenge the arbitration clause specifically, this issue must be resolved by the arbitrator.
-
Vieczorek v. Khorrami, No. 3:17-CV-01118-TJC-JBT (M.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2019)03/07/2019
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that defendants had waived their right to arbitration by litigating the case for six months of “tortured motion practice” and that granting the motion would prejudice the plaintiffs.
-
Bernardino v. Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc., No. 18-00607 (2d Cir. Mar. 7, 2019)03/07/2019
Court of appeals denied the appeal of a granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that it did not have jurisdiction under the FAA. Court found that under the FAA an appeal may not be taken from an interlocutory order granting a stay or compelling arbitration.