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.
-
Mahoney v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 8:19-CV-00118-WFJ-SPF (M.D. Fla. Feb. 13, 2019)02/13/2019
Court denied motion to refer matter to arbitration and stay proceedings, reasoning that defendant had failed to show that a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement could be compelled to arbitrate.
-
First Capital Real Estate Investments, L.L.C. v. SDDCO Brokerage Advisors, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-02013-JGK (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2019)02/13/2019
Court denied motion to vacate FINRA arbitral award and granted cross-motion to confirm and award reasonable attorneys’ fees and prejudgment interest. Court rejected arguments that the award could be vacated because the proceedings were conducted in accordance with rules for intra-industry disputes, that one of the arbitrators was allegedly not qualified, and that the panel imposed discovery sanctions improperly.
-
E. Hedinger AG v. Brainwave Science, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-00538-MN (D. Del. Feb. 13, 2019)02/13/2019
Court granted motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Court rejected arguments that an oral exchange at a hearing constituted waiver of the defendants’ right to arbitrate or that the claims at issue were outside the scope of the arbitral agreement. Court further held that the parties had evidenced an intention to arbitrate even though their agreement referenced a non-existent arbitral institution.
-
Ytech 180 Units Miami Beach Investments LLC v. Certain Underwriters At Lloyd's, London, No. 1:18-CV-24770-DLG (S.D. Fla. Feb. 13, 2019)02/13/2019
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed proceedings. Court rejected argument that purported ambiguity in the structure of the parties’ agreement meant there was no written agreement to arbitrate. Court further held that the parties had agreed to delegate to the arbitrator questions of arbitrability.
-
Doscher v. Sea Port Group Securities, LLC, No. 18-0054-CV (2d Cir. Feb. 12, 2019)02/12/2019
Court of appeal affirmed district court’s order denying petition to vacate and modify an arbitral award. Court held that district court had correctly reasoned that it had no basis for determining that the arbitral panel had acted in a way that violated fundamental fairness.
-
Valley Tool & Die, Inc. v. Fastenal Company, No. 1:18-CV-02682-CAB (N.D. Ohio Feb. 12, 2019)02/12/2019
Court granted motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration. Court held that the parties’ dispute was within the scope of their arbitration agreement, which the court found to be “extremely” broad.
-
MEMC II v. Cannon Storage Systems, Inc., No. 18-6079 (10th Cir. Feb. 12, 2019)02/12/2019
Court of appeal affirmed district court’s denial or relief from AAA arbitral award. Court held that the arbitrator had not exceeded her powers by declining to find that the breach of contract at issue was material and thus precluded recovery.
-
Nippon Yusen Kaisha (N.Y.K. Line) v. Sea Central Shipping, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-06153-DAB (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2019)02/12/2019
Court granted unopposed petition to confirm an arbitral award. Court, upon a limited review of the underlying contract and award, held that the arbitrator had acted within the scope of her authority and that no ground existed to vacate her award.
-
Brown v. Firstsource Advantage, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-05760-GJP (E.D. Pa. Feb. 12, 2019)02/12/2019
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, rejecting the plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration agreement was invalid as “overly broad.” Court further held that the parties’ dispute fell within the scope of that agreement.
-
Patton v. Jonson, No. 18-1750 (1st Cir. Feb. 11, 2019)02/11/2019
Court of appeals reviewed de novo a magistrate judge’s denial of plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration and affirmed. Plaintiff sought to compel arbitration based on an agreement which had previously been found by a JAMS arbitrator not to be binding on the parties. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitrator exceeded his powers because the agreement did not delegate issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator, finding that the parties to the original arbitration delegated these issues during arbitration.
-
Schuster v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 8:18-CV-02389-MSS-JSS (M.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2019)02/07/2019
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court held that because the parties’ arbitration agreement clearly delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, it was for the arbitrator to consider the plaintiff’s argument that the dispute fell outside the scope of that agreement.
-
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Vintage Grand Condominium Association, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-10382-CM (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2019)02/06/2019
Court denied all parties’ applications for relief and dismissed the petition to appoint a neutral arbitrator and the cross-petition seeking to disqualify one of the party arbitrators. Court noted that it was guided by two governing principles: (i) courts have little business interfering in arbitrations; and (ii) the parties have made an agreement, which should be construed according to its plain terms and in accordance with the settled maxims of contract construction. Court dismissed the petition because Section 5 of the FAA clearly requires that whatever method for naming an arbitrator is provided in the arbitration agreement must be followed, and denied the cross-petition on the grounds that the party arbitrator met the qualifications for membership on the tribunal that was specified in the arbitration clause.
-
Hudson v. P.I.P. Inc., No. 0:18-CV-61877-FAM (S.D. Fla. Feb. 6, 2019)02/06/2019
Magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation denying defendants’ motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, finding that language requiring each party to cover their own costs of arbitration regardless of the outcome contravened the Fair Labor Standards Act, which rendered the arbitration agreement unenforceable.
-
Romero v. Titlemax of New Mexico, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00775-KG-SCY (10th Cir. Feb. 5, 2019)02/05/2019
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision granting a motion to compel arbitration because some of plaintiff’s claims were subject to arbitration. Court considered defendant’s position would inappropriately render an entire clause of an agreement meaningless and concluded the alternative theories raised by defendant to compel arbitration were either premature of procedurally improper.
-
Great American Insurance Company v. Russell, No. 17-2441 (8th Cir. Jan. 31, 2019)01/31/2019
Court of appeals vacated district court’s decision to vacate an arbitration award, finding that the arbitration panel’s failure to break down the award by county did not justify vacatur as the award was sufficiently mutual, final, and definite.
-
Health Integrated, Inc. v. Community Health Plan of Washington, No. 2:18-CV-01522-RSM (W.D. Wash. Jan. 31, 2019)01/31/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that an arbitration agreement providing that parties “may” request arbitration did not bar defendant from seeking arbitration after plaintiff filed an action in court.
-
In Re: Midland Credit Management, Inc. Telephone Consumer Protection Litigation, No. 3:16-CV-02157-MMA-MDD (S.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2019)01/31/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement authorized defendants – as assignees of the agreement – to seek arbitration of plaintiffs’ claims. Court also found that the parties clearly and unmistakably intended to arbitrate arbitrability.
-
Shapiro v. Logitech, Inc., No. 3:17-00673-FLW-TJB (D.N.J. Jan. 31, 2019)01/31/2019
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the benefit of an arbitration clause contained in the conditions of use for an online marketplace did not extend to defendant – a third-party retailer.
-
Sanders v. Shadow Mountain Behavioral Health System, LLC, No. 4:18-00574-CVE-FHM (N.D. Okla. Jan. 31, 2019)01/31/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding inter alia that defendants did not waive their right to request arbitration when they filed their motion one year after plaintiff’s demand for compensation indicating her intent to bring a subsequent lawsuit. Court found that defendants’ motion was timely when they filed the motion one month after plaintiff actually filed suit.
-
Price v. Petaluma Health Center, No. 4:17-CV-05428-HSG (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2019)01/31/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and denied defendant’s motion to dismiss, rejecting defendant’s request that the motion to dismiss be decided first. Court found that where a defendant moves in part to compel, the court’s inquiry is limited to whether the claims at issue are covered under a valid arbitration agreement – only after that determination may a court dismiss a plaintiff’s claims.
-
Global Gold Mining LLC v. Caldera Resources, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-04419-KPF (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2019)01/30/2019
Court granted plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to confirm an arbitration award, finding that the grounds for the award were clear when arbitrator provided factual support for each financial component. Court also found that the parties’ selection of New York law in the arbitration agreement did not supplant the federal post-judgment interest rate applicable to federal judgments.
-
Resourcing Edge I, LLC v. CBA Service Corporation, No. 3:19-CV-00174-L (N.D. Tex. Jan. 30, 2019)01/30/2019
Court dismissed plaintiff’s motion to confirm an arbitration award for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding inter alia that invoking the FAA was not sufficient to confer federal question jurisdiction on the court.
-
Aspic Engineering and Construction Company v. ECC Centcom Constructors LLC, No. 17-16510 (9th Cir. Jan. 28, 2019)01/28/2019
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s ruling vacating an arbitration award, finding that the arbitrator exceeded his powers when he disregarded contract provisions to achieve a desired result. Court found that the arbitrator’s ruling that certain contractual provisions did not apply was unreasonable when neither party argued the inapplicability of the provisions.
-
FW Associates LLC v. WM Associates LLC, No. 1:18-CV-05081(N.D. Ill. Jan. 28, 2019)01/28/2019
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendants’ counterclaims, finding that those claims were precluded by an arbitrator’s ruling. Court found the arbitrator’s ruling preclusive when it decided the issue of substantial performance of a contract and defendant’s counterclaims sought to enforce terms of that already-litigated contract.
-
Prospect CCMC, LLC v. CCNA/Pennsylvania Association of Staff Nurses and Allied Professionals, No. 2:18-CV-04039-GAM (E.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2019)01/28/2019
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate an arbitration award, finding inter alia that “manifest disregard” of federal law, rather than ordinary legal error, would be required for vacating the award. Court found that manifest disregard of federal law did not exist when an arbitrator “simply reached a different result” on the facts presented.
-
Thoma v. CBRE Group, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-06040-CBM-AJW (C.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2017)01/26/2019
Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that the class, collective or representative action waiver referring disputes to arbitration was unenforceable because it interfered with a substantive federal right protected by the NLRA’s Section 7.
-
Dropp v. Diamond Resorts International, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-00247-APG-GWF (D. Nev. Jan. 25, 2019)01/25/2019
Court granted defendants’ motions to compel arbitration and dismiss, finding that plaintiffs’ claims were subject to a valid arbitration agreement when there was no inherent conflict between the FAA and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Court found it proper to decide the issue of enforceability when it dealt solely with the arbitration provision and not the contracts as a whole, as validity of the contracts would be decided by an arbitrator.
-
In Re: Dealer Management Systems Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:18-CV-00864 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 25, 2019)01/25/2019
Court denied defendants’ motions to compel arbitration and dismiss plaintiffs’ claims where plaintiff was a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement and defendants failed to show sufficient detrimental reliance to bind plaintiffs to the agreement. Court found that defendants waived their right to arbitrate when they waited nine months assert their intent to arbitrate.
-
Hogan v. SPAR Group, Inc., No. 18-1286 (1st Cir. Jan. 25, 2019)01/25/2019
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendant was not subject to an arbitration agreement when it was a non-signatory to said agreement. Court also found that defendant was not a third-party beneficiary of the arbitration agreement when the agreement was limited to disputes “between the parties.”
-
McGovern v. U.S. Bank N.A., No. 3:18-CV-01794-CAB-LL (S.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2019)01/25/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding inter alia that the savings clause of the FAA preempted a state law rule when it stood as an obstacle to the FAA’s objectives.
-
Sultan v. Coinbase, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00934-FB-ST (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2019)01/24/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff’s claims were subject to mandatory arbitration per defendant’s user agreement. Court also found that plaintiff had inquiry notice of the arbitration agreement when he clicked “I agree” to its terms and conditions when creating an account on defendant’s interface.
-
MB Financial, Inc. v. Hart, No. 1:17-CV-08866 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 24, 2019)01/24/2019
Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration of defendant’s counterclaim where that claim fell under the scope of an agreement to arbitrate. Although plaintiffs engaged in litigation on other claims, the court found that plaintiffs’ conduct did not waive their right to arbitrate defendant’s counterclaim.
-
Inversiones y Procesadora Tropical Inprotsa S.A. v. Del Monte International GMBH, No. 1:16-CV-24275-FAM (S.D. Fla. Jan. 24, 2019)01/24/2019
Magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation denying plaintiff’s motion to abstain in deference to parallel enforcement proceedings in Costa Rica and granting in part defendant’s motion to enforce order and final judgment confirming final arbitral award among other rulings. Magistrate judge considered there were no grounds to abstain to foreign proceedings because while the court has already made several rulings exercising jurisdiction over this matter for two years, foreign proceedings did not meaningfully begun. Magistrate judge further considered that post-award damages should not be granted because there was no precedent involving a court awarding damages for violation of an injunction that occurred prior to confirmation the award and entry of final judgment
-
Producers Credit Corporation v. Fletcher, No. 5:18-CV-00150-MTT (M.D. Ga. Jan. 23, 2019)01/23/2019
Court denied third-party defendants’ motion to stay the case pending arbitration and compel arbitration, finding that third-party defendants waived their contractual rights to arbitration when they substantially participated in litigation – through filing an answer and engaging in discovery – without raising the issue of arbitration.
-
Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, and Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund v. Bar-Mac Construction of NJ Inc., No. 1:18-CV-06284-RA (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2019)01/23/2019
Court granted petitioners’ motion to confirm an arbitration award, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, where respondent failed to file an opposition. Court found that in the absence of a filed opposition, the court must treat petitioners’ motion as an unopposed motion for summary judgment.
-
Chen v. Premier Financial Alliance, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-03771-YGR (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2019)01/22/2019
Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendants failed to establish the existence of an arbitration agreement where they failed to show that their website’s design would put plaintiffs on inquiry notice of an arbitration agreement.
-
HTC Corporation v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, No. 6:18-CV-00243-JRG (E.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 2019)01/22/2019
Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to sever, stay, and compel arbitration, finding that plaintiffs waived their right to arbitrate by seeking a decision on the merits before attempting arbitration. Court found that the parties substantially invoked the judicial process – so as to waive arbitration – where parties completed fact and expert discovery on claims not already submitted to arbitration, and where plaintiff affirmatively moved for dismissal and for summary judgment. Court found that it could properly determine the issue of waiver where the parties did not “clearly and unmistakably” intend to delegate determination of waiver to an arbitrator.
-
Partners 3190, LLC v. Signature Building Systems, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-01475-JMM (M.D. Pa. Jan. 22, 2019)01/22/2019
Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss or to remand in regard to an action to confirm a $330,509.38 arbitration award. Court found that plaintiff properly removed the case to federal court where there was diversity between the parties and the amount in controversy – determined here to be the amount of the award – exceeded $75,000.00.
-
F & D Defense, LLC v. East Texas Machining & Manufacturing, LLC, No. 6:18-CV-00060-RAW (E.D. Okla. Jan. 22, 2019)01/22/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings. Court found that while the invoice of certain gun manufacturing products did not contain an arbitration clause, the dispute fell within the scope of a separate licensing agreement between the parties.
-
Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. Rodriguez Morillo, No. 2:18-CV-01773-JPS (E.D. Wis. Jan. 18, 2019)01/18/2019
Court granted request to effectuate service on a nonresident with a private process server, finding that service pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is sufficient under § 9 of the FAA.
-
Katz v. Feldman, No. 1:18-CV-00213-MN (D. Del. Jan. 18, 2019)01/18/2019
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate an AAA Award Order, finding that the court had no personal jurisdiction over pro se parties acting on behalf of corporations as only the corporations were named parties in the underlying arbitration. Court also found that plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the arbitration award because the interests of a corporation may only be represented by licensed counsel in federal courts.
-
Washington National Insurance Company v. Obex Group LLC, No. 7:18-CV-09693-VB (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2019)01/18/2019
Court granted petitioner’s motions to enforce two arbitration summonses and denied respondents’ motions to quash the summonses. Court found, inter alia, that pre-hearing discovery was proper under § 7 of the FAA where respondents were summoned to a hearing rather than a deposition, the arbitral panel was prepared to rule on evidentiary issues, and the hearing would be recorded as part of the arbitration record for the panel to use in its determination of the dispute.
-
Jordan-Rowell v. Fairway Supermarket, No. 1:18-CV-01938-VEC (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2019)01/16/2019
Magistrate judge recommended compelling arbitration and dismissing the claim upon holding that one of the parties’ agreements contained an arbitration provision binding on the dispute.
-
New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, No. 17-340 (U.S. Jan. 15, 2019)01/15/2019
Supreme Court affirmed a first circuit decision finding that (1) a court should decide whether an arbitration agreement falls under the FAA before compelling arbitration; and (2) § 1 of the FAA – which excludes certain “contracts of employment” from its purview – applies to both employer-employee contractors and those involving independent contractors.
-
Starke v. SquareTrade, Inc., No. 17-2474-CV (2d Cir. Jan. 10, 2019)01/10/2019
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff-appellee did not manifestly assent to the arbitration clause of an online-based contract, nor did he have reasonable notice of the clause. Court found that notwithstanding the general rule that actual notice is not necessary to render an arbitration clause binding, plaintiff-appellee did not have reasonable notice where, inter alia, the design of the confirmation page did not provide the terms and conditions in a “clear and conspicuous” way. Court found little justification for enforcing the arbitration clause where it would have been “virtually costless” for defendant-appellant to appropriately provide the governing terms and conditions to plaintiff-appellee before he purchased a product protection plan.
-
Southwest Airlines Company v. Local 555, Transport workers of America AFL-CIO, No. 18-10122 (5th Cir. Jan. 9, 2019)01/09/2019
Court of appeals reversed and remanded district court’s ruling confirming an arbitration award. Court found that the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction, and thus vacatur was appropriate, when the arbitration award conflicted with the plain language of the arbitration agreement.
-
Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., No. 17-1272 (U.S. Jan. 8, 2019)01/08/2019
Supreme Court held that when an arbitration agreement delegates the question of the arbitrability of a particular dispute to an arbitrator a court may not override the parties’ arbitration agreement, even if the court considers the argument that the arbitration agreement applies to a dispute is wholly groundless.
-
20/20 Communications, Inc. v. Blevins, No. 4:16-CV-00810-Y (N.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2019)01/08/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that an arbitrator – rather than the court – was to determine whether the matter would be resolved with a single class-arbitration or eighteen separate arbitrations, due to an unambiguous delegation clause in the arbitration agreement.
-
Wolfe v. Carnival Corporation, No. 1:18-CV-23463-KMW (S.D. Fla. Jan. 4, 2019)01/04/2019Court granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and to compel arbitration, finding claimants’ only argument that the arbitration agreement does not fall within the scope of the arbitration clause was incorrect.
-
Voorhees v. Tolia No. 18-1949 (3d Cir. Jan. 4, 2019)01/04/2019
Court of appeals vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded for further proceedings. Court held the district court did not address whether or why any of the plaintiff’s claims were subject to the arbitration agreement concluding it was not immediately apparent that all of them were.