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.
-
Webuild S.P.A. v. Argentine Republic, No. 1:21-CV-02464-RBW (D.D.C. Nov. 19, 2024)11/19/2024
Court denied Argentina’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s action seeking recognition and enforcement of an ICSID arbitration award on the basis that it was time-barred. Court concluded the 12-year statute of limitations from the D.C. Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act was the most appropriate in the absence of a statute of limitations in the federal statute authorizing enforcement of ICSID awards. Court found the policy concerns expressed by Argentina that would support use of the statute of limitations in the FAA did not "defeat the presumption against borrowing a statute of limitations from federal law."
-
HFA Specialty Acquisitions LLC v. NexGen Flight Solutions, LLC, No. 1:24-CV-01891-BAH (D.D.C. Nov. 19, 2024)11/19/2024
Court granted defendants' motion to stay the litigation in favor of arbitration, finding defendants had not waived their right to seek arbitration and the incorporation of the JAMS rules in the arbitration agreement "leaves no doubt that an arbitrator must decide whether plaintiffs' claims are arbitrable, requiring that the litigation be stayed until arbitration has concluded." In particular, court pointed to the following language in the JAMS rules: "The Arbitrator has the authority to determine jurisdiction and arbitrability issues as a preliminary matter."
-
In re Application of financialright claims GmbH, No. 1:23-CV-01481-CFC (D. Del. Nov. 18, 2024)11/18/2024
Court granted application to seek discovery from three Delaware LLCs for use in a litigation proceeding in a German court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782. Court found the application met the three statutory conditions, and that the Intel factors, on balance, supported granting of the application. Court denied motion to dismiss the application in favor of arbitration, finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because there was no independent jurisdictional basis in title 28 for a district court to enforce an agreement to arbitrate a § 1782 application.
-
Osterhaus Pharmacy Incorporated v. CVS Health Corporation, No. 2:24-CV-01539-JJT (D. Ariz. Nov. 14, 202411/14/2024
Court denied defendants’ motions to compel arbitration of the parties’ antitrust dispute finding the delegation clause was void for substantive unconscionability and thus unenforceable. Court ordered supplemental briefing on the question of whether the arbitration agreement as a whole is unconscionable.
-
Li v. Lu, No. 3:24-CV-05604-DGE (W.D. Wash. Nov. 13, 202411/13/2024
Court issued order to plaintiff to show cause as to why the action should not be dismissed for failure to provide proof of service. Court lacked confidence that defendant had been properly served and that it had proper jurisdiction and thus requested further supplemental briefing before ruling on plaintiff’s petition to enter default judgment to enforce Singapore arbitral award.
-
Von Pezold v. Republic of Zimbabwe, No. 23-7109 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 13, 2024)11/13/2024
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s finding that Zimbabwe waived its sovereign immunity under the arbitration exception in the FSIA. Court of appeals found the elements of the exception satisfied because the applicable bilateral investment treaties were arbitration agreements, the ICSID tribunal issued valid arbitration awards, and the ICSID Convention governed the enforcement of the arbitration awards. Court of appeals also rejected Zimbabwe’s argument that the relevant bilateral investment treaties contained exclusive forum selection clauses that required enforcement only in Zimbabwe.
-
Robinett’s Floor Covering, LLC v. Walmart, Inc., No. 4:24-CV-00233-JFJ (N.D. Okla. Nov. 8, 202411/08/2024
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. Court, however, found that the question of whether the dispute at issue fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement was clearly and unmistakably delegated to the arbitrator. Court also denied motion for leave to intervene filed by American Bank of Oklahoma without prejudice to refiling upon completion of the arbitration proceedings.
-
Southfield Capital, LP v. Stonington Capital Advisors, LLC, No. 1:24-CV-06269-AT (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 202408/16/2024
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to seal or redact certain judicial documents attached as exhibits in connection with its petition to confirm the arbitration award. Court disagreed with plaintiff’s arguments that (1) the parties have an interest in maintaining the arbitration proceedings confidential in their entirety, and (2) the proposed redactions would protect sensitive proprietary information – finding that plaintiff’s proposed redactions went far beyond the “narrow-tailoring requirement” exception to public access to judicial records.
-
United Mexican States v. Lion Mexico Consolidated, L.P., No. 1:21-CV-03185-ACR (D.D.C. Nov. 8, 202411/08/2024
Court denied plaintiff’s petition to vacate the ICSID arbitration award and granted defendant’s cross-petition for enforcement of the award. Contrary to Mexico’s argument, court found that the tribunal did interpret Article 1105(1) of NAFTA, employing common interpretive tools, citing authorities, and explaining its reasoning. Court also denied a motion to intervene filed by a Mexican businessman as untimely and futile, because he did not meet the requirements for intervention under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
-
Young v. Laurence A. Pagnoni & Associates, Inc., No. 1:24-CV-05385-JLR (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 202411/08/2024
Court granted plaintiff’s unopposed petition to confirm arbitration award and reasonable attorney’s fees under the FAA finding that plaintiff timely filed the petition within one year of the award, and the award explicitly provided for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to the prevailing party. Court found “well more than a ‘barely colorable’ justification for each component of the Award.”
-
Concierge Auctions, LLC v. A-M 2018 Homes, LLC, No. 1:24-CV-01681-VEC (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2024)10/30/2024
Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm arbitration award pursuant to the FAA. Court found that the arbitrator did not disregard controlling law when he concluded that the principal owner and sole manager of the respondent LLC had apparent authority to bind the LLC to the terms of the underlying agreement.
-
The Republic of Nicaragua v. Hills Exploration Corporation, No. 3:24-CV-03104-MMC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2024)10/28/2024
Court denied the respondents’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Petitioner’s brought a petition to recognize and enforce an ICSID arbitration award. Respondents argue that simply holding property in a state does not give rise to the “minimum contacts” required to establish personal jurisdiction. Court disagreed, finding that Shaffer v. Heitner, 422 U.S. 186 (1977), created an exception to the general “minimum contacts” rule, and plaintiff could establish personal jurisdiction based on defendant’s ownership of property in the forum state for the purposes of its ICSID enforcement action.
-
Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. VH 4122 Quincy, Inc., No. 8:24-CV-01265-AAQ (D. Md. Oct. 28, 2024)
10/28/2024Court granted plaintiff’s motion for default judgment confirming arbitration award. Court found that plaintiff sufficiently established the existence of a valid contract and respondents failed to establish any grounds on which the court may vacate the award.
-
Hohl v. Black Diamond Franchising, Inc., No. 3:24-CV-00911 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 28, 2024)
10/28/2024Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the question of arbitrability should be decided by the court on the grounds that the arbitration provision provided clear and unmistakable evidence of parties’ intention to arbitrate the gateway question of arbitrability. Court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration provision was void as a matter of public policy.
-
Hidroelectrica Santa Rita S.A. v. Corporacion AIC, SA, No. 23-12519 (11th Cir. Oct. 16, 2024)10/16/2024
Court of appeals affirmed the district court decision in finding the tribunal did not lack any contractual basis, nor did it exceed its authority when rendering a reasoned decision in the underlying arbitration. The Eleventh Circuit found that “[e]ven if the Tribunal erred in its analysis of the contractual language, it makes no difference to our review as long as the Tribunal construed and applied the underlying contract.” Court of appeals found the tribunal did so here. Additionally, court of appeals reasoned that it would not disturb the findings of fact made by the tribunal, as doing so would exceed its authority in confirming arbitration awards under the FAA.
-
Cajun Industries, LLC v. Calgon Carbon Corporation, No. 1:24-CV-00107-LG-RPM (S.D. Miss. Oct. 16, 2024)10/16/2024
Court first granted defendant O’Neal Constructors, LLC’s (“O’Neal”) motion to compel arbitration against defendant Cajun Industries, LLC’s (“Cajun”) as unopposed, finding that Cajun affirmed the validity and scope of the arbitration, by itself filing a demand for arbitration against Calgon Carbon Corporation (“Calgon”). Second, court denied Cajun’s motion to compel arbitration against Calgon as Calgon was a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, and direct benefits estoppel did not apply where Calgon had no filed any claims attempting to enforce the agreement. Third, court granted O’Neal’s motion to stay litigation pending the outcome of arbitration. Court exercised its discretion to determine that both the case between Cajun and O’Neal, and between Cajun and Calgon should be stayed because the issues were so interconnected and stem from the same essential nucleus of operative facts.
-
CMB Infrastructure Group IX, LP v. Cobra Energy Investment Finance, Inc., No. 2:21-CV-00214-CDS-DJA (D. Nev. Oct. 15, 2024)10/15/2024
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate the parties’ arbitration award, and granted defendant’s cross-motion to confirm the award, finding the tribunal did not exceed its scope of authority by including non-signatories in the arbitration and the “law of the case” doctrine was applicable, and the tribunal did not manifestly disregard the applicable law in failing to grant plaintiff’s nominal damages. Court further granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration on the parties’ remaining claims, finding there was no waiver of defendant’s right to compel arbitration via a waiver.
-
Silva v. WhaleCo, Inc., No. 3:24-CV-02890-SK (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2024)10/10/2024
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action pending arbitration. Court found that the plaintiff accepted the defendant’s terms of use, that the arbitration agreement was valid and encompassed the plaintiff’s claims, and that the issue of unconscionability had been delegated to the arbitrator.
-
Next Level Ventures, LLC v. Avid Holdings, Ltd., No. 23-35404 (9th Cir. Oct. 10, 2024)
10/10/2024Court of appeals affirmed district court’s finding that motion to vacate arbitral award was untimely since it was filed more than three months after the award was delivered. In particular, it found the movant was not entitled to equitable tolling because it received actual notice of the arbitration award more than three months before it moved to vacate it.
-
Purple Innovation, LLC v. Responsive Surface Technology LLC, 2:20-CV-00708-RJS-CMR (D. Utah Oct. 8, 2024)10/08/2024
Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award and denied cross-motion to vacate arbitration award, finding none of the defendants’ arguments concerning vacatur under the FAA to have merit. In particular, the defendants challenged the arbitrator’s award of legal fees and costs. Court found such an award permissible, in part because of the arbitrator’s express reasoning and legal findings.
-
Dunn v. Global Trust Management, LLC, No. 21-10120 (11th Cir. Oct. 3, 2024)10/03/2024
Court of appeals reversed and remanded the district court’s order finding that the delegation provisions in the parties’ arbitration agreements which delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator were unenforceable and ordered the district court to address whether defendant waived their ability to compel arbitration. Court of appeals concluded that the application of tribal law does not conflict with the FAA, and thus the delegation provisions at issue were enforceable. As such, issue of the choice-of-law provision have been delegated to the arbitrator.
-
Kendall v. Regional Enterprises, LLC, No. 5:24-CV-00180-KDB-SCR (W.D.N.C. Oct. 2, 2024)
10/02/2024Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration because the parties did not dispute the existence of the arbitration agreement and its terms clearly applied to the dispute at issue. Furthermore, court found the arbitration agreement contained a valid choice of law provision that properly delegates the issue of choice of law to the arbitrator.
-
S.T.G. v. Epic Games, Inc., No. 3:24-CV-00517-RSH-AHG (S.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2024)
10/02/2024Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and ordered certain plaintiffs to proceed to arbitration and stay their claims pending the completion of arbitration proceedings. Court concluded that, for the six of seven plaintiffs who themselves were parties to the End User License Agreement (“EULA”), it was for the arbitrator, and not the court, to determine whether the minors disaffirmed the EULA by filing the instant lawsuit. Court concluded, however, that the seventh plaintiff whose mother, and not himself, entered into the EULA could not be compelled to arbitrate under the EULA.
-
Klosterman v. Discover Products Inc., No. 2:24-CV-01253-WB (E.D. Pa. Oct. 1, 2024)10/01/2024
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings after the denial of defendant’s first motion to compel arbitration, and the subsequent limited discovery that followed. Court denied plaintiff’s motion to exclude the declaration submitted by defendant, finding it was properly admissible pursuant Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) as a business record. Having admitted the affidavit, court concluded that “there [wa]s no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether there exists a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate.
-
Cure & Associates, P.C. v. LPL Financial LLC, No. 23-40519 (5th Cir. Oct. 1, 2024)
10/01/2024Court of appeals found remanded to the district court to compel arbitration and enter a stay pending arbitration finding non-signatories to an arbitration agreement may be compelled to arbitrate under California and Texas law equitable estoppel principles. Court of appeals concluded that both non-signatory companies “deliberately sought and received direct benefits” from the contractual relationship between plaintiff and defendant, which contained the arbitration agreement, “such that their [non-signatory companies] are subject to arbitration per those underlying contracts.”
-
Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Partnership Acting Through Vantage Mezzanine Fund II (PTY) LTD v. Taylor, No. 1:23-CV-06852-ALC (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2024)09/27/2024
Court granted plaintiff’s petition to confirm and enforce a foreign arbitral award against defendant finding that (1) court has quasi in rem jurisdiction over defendant with respect to funds held at defendant’s account at Bank of America in New York, (2) defendant has not demonstrated that one of the seven grounds of exclusion under Article V of the Convention applies, and (3) the award does not violate New York’s public policy because it is not “excessive”.
-
Sociedad Concesionaria Metropolitana de Salud S.A. v. Webuild S.p.A., No. 1:23-CV-01175-CFC (D. Del. Sept. 27, 2024)09/27/2024
Court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction and found, contrary to plaintiff’s contention, it did not have quasi in rem jurisdiction where because Webuild S.p.A, a foreign defendenat, is the sole owner of Webuild US, a Delaware corporation, but Webuild US has no relation to the arbitration award at issue.
-
Blasket Renewable Investments, LLC v. Kingdom of Spain, 1:23-CV-02701-RC (D.D.C. Sept. 26, 2024)09/26/2024
Court granted petitioner’s petition to enforce an arbitration award against the Kingdom of Spain, holding (1) that it had jurisdiction to do so under the FSIA, (2) Spain was not entitled to a stay pending resolution of related proceedings, (3) the award was entitled to full faith and credit, and (4) the defenses of forum non conveniens, the act of state doctrine, the foreign sovereign compulsion doctrine, and the broader principles of international comity doctrine did not apply.
-
LXA Aviation Leasing 3 Ltd. v. Honeywell Aerospace Trading, Inc., No. 24-CV-04080 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2024)09/25/2024
Court granted petitioner’s petition to confirm an arbitration award, rejecting respondent’s argument that there was no Article III case or controversy at-issue where the award had not been fully satisfied.
-
First Green Industries v. Solar Dairy, LLC, No. 1:23-CV-22433-JEM (S.D. Fla. Sept. 24, 2024)
09/24/2024Magistrate court recommended that petitioner’s motion for final default judgement be granted because defendant had “failed to answer or otherwise respond to” plaintiff’s petition to confirm, recognize, and enforce foreign arbitral award. Court found that plaintiff properly complied with the Convention’s Article IV’s jurisdictional prerequisites, had established a prima facie case for confirmation of the award (which defendant did rebut), and “[t]here is no evidence that any of the bases for vacating the Final Award under the New York Convention apply here.” Furthermore, defendant could not even make such a showing because it failed to file a motion to set aside the Final Award within the required three-month time limit set by the FAA.
-
Redes Andinas de Comunicaciones S.R.L. v. The Republico of Peru, No. 1:22-CV-03631-RC (D.D.C. Sept. 24, 2024)09/24/2024
Following adverse arbitral awards, two respondents—the Republic of Peru and a Peruvian government ministry—failed to appear before the court in response to petitioner’s petition to enforce its arbitral awards, and the court held that the arbitration exception to the FSIA applied such that entry of default judgment and enforcement of the awards was proper. Court set aside the default judgment of a third respondent—another Peruvian governmental entity—upon finding good cause to do so.
-
Panamax International Shipping Company Ltd. v. AAT Global Ltd., No. 1:24-CV-03512-JGK (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2024)09/24/2024
Court granted petitioner’s petition to confirm an arbitral award issued after respondents failed to appear at the arbitration and declined to vacate the award because respondents did not show that any provision in Article V of the New York Convention applied, or that the award was procured through corruption, fraud, or undue means.
-
UpHealth Holdings Inc. v. Glocal Healthcare Systems Private Limited, No. 1:24-CV-03778 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 24, 2024)09/24/2024
Court granted in part petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitral award arising under a share purchase agreement, finding that most respondents waived their contract and damages based arguments when they failed to raise them before the arbitral tribunal. Court also held that the award should be confirmed as to most respondents because the arbitral tribunal properly interpreted the underlying share purchase agreement. However, the court held that one respondent preserved a legal argument that was properly before the court and vacated the award as to that respondent, reasoning that the tribunal premised its finding as to that respondent on a fact that was not alleged or in evidence.
-
GPGC Limited v. The Government of the Republic of Ghana, No. 1:24-CV-00169-JEB (D.D.C. Sept. 23, 2024)09/23/2024
Court held that petitioner was entitled to attorneys’ fees in connection with an arbitral award the court previously confirmed upon finding that the underlying contract allowed for the prevailing party to receive fees, and respondent acted in bad faith. Court awarded fees pursuant to the Laffey Matrix, a commonly employed schedule of attorneys’ fees, which resulted in fees lower than petitioner requested.
-
Frank Haas, GmbH v. Winebow, Inc., No. 2:24-CV-04431-JLS-SK (C.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 202409/20/2024
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss because the arbitration award at issue had not yet been confirmed by a US district court pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 207 and, as such, court had no legal authority to interpret or enforce the foreign arbitration award.
-
D.C. Keenan & Associates v. Wisell, No. 1:23-CV-08685-MKV (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2024)09/20/2024
Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitral award in connection with a dispute over attorneys’ fees between two law firms and denied respondents’ cross-motion to vacate or modify the award. Court found that respondent was a signatory to the underlying agreement because one of the partners (who was also a respondent) signed on behalf of his law firm, and respondents were bound by the arbitration clause. Court also found the arbitration to have been fundamentally fair because respondents were given notice and an opportunity to be heard, and parties conducted a full and fair arbitration hearing.
-
Pagano v. Nordictrack, Inc., No. 1:23-CV-00058-JNP-DAO (D. Utah Sept. 19, 2024)09/19/2024
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court found that plaintiffs assented to the underlying terms of use, which contained an arbitration provision, by entering into clickwrap and sign-in wrap agreements when they opted to purchase the products and services provided by defendants. Court also found that parties agreed to delegate the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator and rejected plaintiffs’ claims that the agreement terms were illusory, unconscionable, and in conflict with federal law.
-
RSM Production Corporation v. Gaz du Cameroun, S.A., No. 23-20583 (5th Cir. Sept. 19, 2024)09/19/2024
Court of appeals reversed the district court’s vacatur of an amended arbitral award, reasoning that the arbitral panel had authority to correct computational errors in determining the amount of damages, as well as the authority to determine what constituted a computational error under the applicable rules.
-
BDD Group, LLC v. Crave Franchising LLC, No. 5:24-CV-10035-JEL-EAS (E.D. Mich. Sept. 18, 2024)09/18/2024
Court granted motion compel to arbitration by one of the defendants. Court found that when a valid arbitration agreement exists and it contains a valid delegation clause, challenges to the applicability of the arbitration agreement is decided by an arbitrator and not the court.
-
Schmidt v. Antunez, No. 1:24-CV-22464-RKA (S.D. Fla. Sept. 16, 2024)09/16/2024
Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court found that plaintiffs’ claim that defendants published their confidential information on several state-court dockets without plaintiffs’ consent fell outside of the scope of the arbitration agreement.
-
Pliszka v. Axos Bank, No. 3:24-CV-00445-RSH-BJC (S.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2024)09/13/2024
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court found that, by submitting sufficient evidence authenticating plaintiff’s electronic signature, defendant met its burden to show that plaintiff executed and assented to an online agreement containing an arbitration provision. Court also found that the arbitration agreement contained a clause delegating the question of the scope and enforceability of the agreement to the arbitrator.
-
Saadeh v. Solibus Payments, Inc., No. 5:24-CV-00745-KK-SHK (C.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 202409/12/2024
Court denied defendants’ motion to quash service and compel arbitration finding that defendants failed (1) to identify any defect in the method of service, and (2) to meet their burden of establishing the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate by a preponderance of the evidence.
-
Purchase v. FaceApp Inc., No. 23-CV-02735 (S.D. Ill. Sept. 12, 2024)09/12/2024
Court granted motions to compel arbitration and stay the case pending the outcome of the arbitration pursuant to the FAA where plaintiff entered into a written agreement to arbitrate via a “hybridwrap” agreement to which plaintiff had reasonable notice and granted her assent, the claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and plaintiff refused to arbitrate her claims.
-
Shenzhen Zejuijin Investment Center v. Yingkyui, No. 24-CV-00372-MMA-DEB (S.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2024)09/10/2024
Court granted petition to confirm an arbitration award where none of the Art. V defenses to enforcement under the New York Convention applied. Court further denied respondent’s motions for lack or personal jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, and failure to joint indispensable parties. Court additionally denied respondent’s request for a stay, finding that a pending litigation in China did not have any bearing on the current proceeding to warrant a stay. Additionally, court considered numerous evidentiary objections made by the parties regarding the various declarations submitted in this mater. Court considered each objection on the basis of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 which holds that “[a] party may object that the material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence.”
-
Eletson Holdings Inc. v. Levona Holdings Ltd., No. 23-CV-07331-LJL (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 6, 2024)09/06/2024
Court granted motion for leave to file an amended answer to a petition to confirm a final arbitration award and amended cross-petition to vacate the award where the amendment was not time-barred. Court determined that the expedited and summary nature of FAA proceedings is not inconsistent with applying equitable tolling to motions to vacate.
-
Steines v. Westgate Palace, LLC, No. 22-14211 (11th Cir. Sept. 5, 2024)09/05/2024
Court of appeals dismissed an interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction, because the court could only exercise jurisdiction pursuant to § 16 of the FAA and the FAA did not apply to the parties’ dispute. Court of appeals affirmed the district court ruling that the question of whether the FAA had been overridden by another act of Congress could not be delegated to an arbitrator and the courts retain jurisdiction over the question. Court of appeals also affirmed the district court’s ruling that the parties’ arbitration agreement was not enforceable under the FAA due to the Military Lending Act, which shows Congress’ clear and manifest intention override the FAA.
-
ARCO National Construction, LLC v. MCM Management Corp., No. 1:20-CV-03783-JRR (D. Md. Sept. 4, 2024)
09/04/2024Court granted motion to compel arbitration, reasoning that the defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate the disputes in this action. Court found that the defendant’s initiation of a separate litigation on other issues did not constitute waiver of the right to arbitrate. Additionally, defendant’s participation in the present litigation to defend its position did not constitute waiver.
-
Paris Road Shopping Center, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London, No. 2:23-CV-05770-CJB-MBN (E.D. La. Sept. 4, 2024)09/04/2024
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that while Louisiana law prohibits the enforcement of arbitration clauses in insurance contracts, the New York Convention and the FAA requires that courts enforce an arbitration clause when certain criteria are met, including that the parties to the arbitration agreement include a non-US citizen. Court found the criteria was met and the New York Convention applied because the conduct of the foreign and domestic defendants was so intertwined and identical that separation of the plaintiffs’ claims against foreign and domestic defendants could yield inconsistent results.
-
Suarez Magual v. Anez Dager, No. 23-CV-23491-RAR (S.D. Fla. Sept. 3, 2024)09/03/2024
Court confirmed a magistrate judge’s recommendation to vacate an order confirming an arbitration award by the ICC where one of the respondents was not properly served with the application for confirmation of the final arbitral award prior to the court’s entry of final judgment.
-
Young v. Solana Labs Inc., No. 3:22-CV-03912-RFL (N.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2024)09/03/2024
Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that the defendants had not submitted adequate proof showing the plaintiff agreed to a third party’s terms of service (“ToS”) containing an arbitration agreement. Court also denied the defendants’ request for discovery concerning the plaintiff’s agreement to the third party’s ToS, reasoning that even if the plaintiff agreed to the ToS, the defendant was not a signatory to the agreement and lacked any basis to invoke the arbitration provision.