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.
-
Thomas v. National Collector’s Mint, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-00348 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 4, 2018)12/04/2018
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and denied motion to dismiss, staying proceedings until plaintiff’s claims against two defendants were arbitrated, because the third defendant had not consented to arbitration. Court held that the clause in arbitration agreement restricting recovery of attorney’s fees was severable and did not render the agreement unconscionable.
-
S&O Construction Services, Inc. v. APS Contracting, Inc., No. 7:18-CV-05836-CS (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2018)12/04/2018
Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award, finding, inter alia, that parties’ adoption of AAA rules showed clear and unmistakable intention for the arbitrator to decide arbitrability.
-
Davison Design & Development, Inc. v. Frison, No. 2:17-CV-01468-JFC (W.D. Pa. Dec. 4, 2018)12/04/2018
Court denied motion to vacate or modify arbitration award, holding that plaintiff failed to meet the “tremendous obstacle” of showing that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded contract law. Court found that so long as any legally plausible line of argument supports an award, then it must be confirmed. Court concluded that there was no evidently material miscalculation of damages or material mistake sufficient to warrant modifying the award.
-
ASARCO LLC v. United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Services Works International Union, No. 16-16363 (9th Cir. Dec. 4, 2018)12/04/2018
Court of appeals affirmed confirmation of arbitration award, holding that the arbitrator acted within his authority when crafting a remedy for the parties’ mutual mistake, notwithstanding a provision in the arbitration agreement barring an arbitrator from altering such agreement.
-
National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA. v. BMC Stock Holdings, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-05777-JPO (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2018)12/03/2018
Court granted motion to compel arbitration of a payment dispute arising from an insurance policy, holding that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate notwithstanding conflicting provisions concerning whether a court or an arbitrator would determine arbitrability. Court declined to entertain merits-based arguments when parties unequivocally agreed to arbitrate disagreements about payment obligations under the policy.
-
Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Parabia, No. 8:18-CV-00177-TDC (D. Md. Dec. 3, 2018)12/03/2018
Court granted motion for default judgment confirming arbitration award. Court found that it need not specifically award post-judgment interest as plaintiff was entitled to it by statute.
-
Rowe v. Affordable Motors, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01592-VAB (D. Conn. Nov. 30, 2018)11/30/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay all proceeding. Court concluded that (i) a valid agreement to arbitrate was formed, as defendant submitted evidentiary facts showing an agreement to arbitrate and plaintiffs failed to submit facts showing a dispute; and (ii) the claims made in the complaint “touch[ed] matters covered” by the arbitration clause and therefore fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
-
Miner v. Ecolab, Inc., No. 17-56183 (9th Cir. Nov. 30, 2018)11/30/2018
Court of appeals vacated and remanded district court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration of federal and state wage and hour claims, in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612, 1632 (2018) that class and collective action waivers must be enforced as written under the FAA.
-
Millrock Technology, Inc. v. Pixar Bio Corp., No. 1:18-CV-00666-GTS (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2018)11/30/2018
Court granted an unanswered motion to confirm arbitration award, holding plaintiff met its burden of showing entitlement to the relief requested, which is “modest” when a party fails to appear. The amount prayed for in plaintiff’s motion aggregated the damages from a breach of contract claim along with attorney’s fees, reimbursement for arbitration fees, and a nine percent per annum interest rate. Court declined plaintiffs’ motion for interest on attorney’s fees and arbitration fees where the award granted interest only in relation to the breach of contract damages.
-
Drake v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc., No. 18-3020 (6th Cir. Nov. 30, 2018)11/30/2018
Court of appeals remanded the issue of whether an arbitration award should be vacated, holding that it did not have appellate jurisdiction under the FAA where the district court declined to rule on the issue of vacatur. Court also held that district court’s finding that arbitration was non-binding did not implicitly vacate the award.
-
American Brokerage Network v. American General Life Ins. Co., No. 17-16371 (9th Cir. Nov. 30, 2018)11/30/2018
Court of appeals reversed and remanded vacatur of an arbitration award for arbitrator’s alleged evident partiality due to her failure to disclose relationships that she was unaware of. Court held that arbitrator’s disclosure that an entity was a former client of her law firm gave appellees a duty to inquire about the nature of the relationship, and that there was no reasonable impression of partiality in arbitrator’s non-disclosure in light of the relationships she did disclose.
-
AMC Pinnacle Inc. v. Jeunesse, LLC, No: 6:18-CV-1102-Orl-40DCI (M.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2018)11/30/2018
Court denied defendant’s motion for preliminary injunction, notwithstanding a finding that incorporating AAA rules into a contract created a valid delegation clause, on grounds that the arbitration provision did not allow defendants to bypass arbitration altogether by seeking injunction. The contract, requiring all disputes to be submitted to arbitration except that a party may apply to the court for preliminary injunction to “protect its interest prior to, during or following the filing of any arbitration,” did not mean defendant could seek injunctive relief to protect its “interest in accessing the courts” as such an interpretation would render the arbitration provision meaningless.
-
Ahlstrom v. DHI Mortgage Company, No. 5:17-CV-04383-BLF, (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2018)11/30/2018
Court granted motion to dismiss suit and compel arbitration, holding that there was a valid arbitration agreement and that defendant accepted the agreement upon signing notwithstanding its efforts to terminate acceptance according to the terms of the agreement. Court held that the issue of whether defendant properly terminated its acceptance of the arbitration agreement is delegated to the arbitrator, under the contract’s delegation clause.
-
Styczynski v. Marketsource, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-02662-GAM (E.D. Pa. Nov. 30, 2018)11/30/2018
Court granted motion to compel arbitration of employment claims, holding that neither limitations on discovery nor mere difference in bargaining power were sufficient to render a contract procedurally or substantively unconscionable under the FAA.
-
International Union of Operating Engineers v. Ohio Contractors Association, No. 1:18-CV-00722-JG (N.D. Ohio Nov. 30, 2018)11/30/2018
Court denied motion to vacate – and granted motion to confirm – an arbitration award, finding that award met the “low standard” of whether the arbitrator was arguably construing or applying the disputed contract. Court found that an arbitrator sufficiently interprets a contract where he refers to and analyzes relevant provisions and does not indicate that he was doing more than trying to reach a good-faith interpretation of the contract.
-
Lowell v. Lyft, Inc., No. 7:17-CV-06251-NSR (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2018)11/29/2018
Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Court rejected defendant’s argument that direct benefits estoppel required the non-signatory plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims, explaining that requiring them to do so would hold them to an arbitration clause in agreement that they neither signed up for nor benefited from.
-
McCormick v. America Online, Inc., No. 17-1542 (4th Cir. Nov. 29, 2018)11/29/2018
Court of appeals vacated and remanded the district court’s order of dismissal based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Court of appeals explained that the court that has jurisdiction to compel arbitration under FAA § 4 also has jurisdiction to supervise the arbitration’s procedures and to confirm, vacate, modify, and enforce the resulting arbitration award. Court of appeals concluded that because the claim could, absent the arbitration agreement, be litigated in federal court under its federal-question jurisdiction, controversies regarding the arbitration of his claim should likewise be resolved in federal court.
-
Patterson v. Nine Energy Services, No. 17-CV-01116-JB-GBW (D.N.M. Nov. 29, 2018)11/29/2018
Court reaffirmed its determination that the substantively unconscionable injunctive relief provision in the arbitration agreement was severable, and declined to certify the question to the Supreme Court of New Mexico for its determination. Court noted that, consistent with its prior determination, the unilateral relief provision was severable because it was not central to the arbitration scheme. Court further concluded that the lack of a savings clause did not indicate the parties’ manifested intent to discard the entire arbitration agreement if a provision is found unconscionable
-
Mendez v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-00189-PRM (W.D. Tex. Nov. 28, 2018)11/28/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the Federal Arbitration Act was applicable and the arbitration agreement was valid.
-
Rodriguez v. SSC San Antonio West Operating Company LLC, No. 5:18-CV-00741-OLG (W.D. Tex. Nov. 28, 2018)11/28/2018
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding there was a valid arbitration agreement that covered the scope of all of plaintiff’s claims and there was no basis on which the agreement to arbitrate should not be enforced.
-
Dickson v. Gospel for Asia, Inc., No. 5:16-CV-05027-PKH (W.D. Ark. Nov. 28, 2018)11/28/2018
Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to compel arbitration and stay, ordering the parties to engage in arbitration but not entering a stay. Court noted that the court of appeals had determined that binding arbitration agreements exist and that the parties’ disagreement fell within the scope of those agreements. Court also found that, because the arbitration agreement controlled the entirety of the dispute, the weight of authority supported dismissal of the action.
-
Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. v. Lunera Lighting, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-05091-EMC (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2018)11/28/2018
Court denied plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. Relying on Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc., 175 F.3d 716, court concluded that once a court determines that all disputes are subject to arbitration pursuant to a binding arbitration clause, it is improper for a district court to grant preliminary relief where provisional relief is available from an arbitral tribunal.
-
Droney v. Vivint Solar, No. 1:18-CV-00849-RBK-KMW (D.N.J. Nov. 28, 2018)11/28/2018
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court concluded that a Rule 56 standard applied because arbitrability was not apparent on the face of the complaint. Court further concluded that there was a genuine issue as to whether the parties ever entered into a valid agreement.
-
Forby v. One Technologies, L.P., No. 17-10883 (5th Cir. Nov. 28, 2018)11/28/2018
Court of appeals reversed the district court judgment granting defendant-appellee’s motion to compel arbitration. Court of appeals concluded that defendant-appellee waived its right to arbitrate, as it substantially invoked the judicial process and that plaintiff-appellant was prejudiced thereby.
-
General Re Life Corp. v. Lincoln National Life Ins., No. 17-2496 (2d Cir. Nov. 28, 2018)11/28/2018
Court of appeals affirmed the district court judgment granting the cross-petition to confirm the award issued after the arbitral panel clarified the original award. Court recognized an exception to the doctrine of functus officio, holding that arbitrators retain their authority to clarify an award where an arbitration award is ambiguous.
-
Sheridan v. Page, No. 1:18-CV-00449-LM (D.N.H. Nov. 28, 2018)11/28/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss or stay plaintiff’s claims against it pending mandatory arbitration. Court concluded that, given the broad language of the arbitration clauses and the policy favoring arbitration, both of plaintiffs’ claims fell within the scope of the arbitration clauses.
-
Matalka v. Home Point Financial Corporation, No. 18-3333 (6th Cir. Nov. 28, 2018)11/28/2018
Court of appeals affirmed decision denying motion to compel arbitration, holding that claims arising from an unrelated oral contract were not subject to an arbitration clause in a prior written contract where the former made no reference to the latter. Court found the FAA presumption in favor of arbitration need not apply when a claim falls outside the scope of an arbitration agreement.
-
Herboroso v. Pollo Operations, Inc. No. 1:18-CV-21960-JEM (S.D. Fla. Nov. 27, 2018)11/27/2018
Magistrate Judge recommended defendants’ motion to compel arbitration be granted and the case be dismissed without prejudice, finding that there was an enforceable agreement to arbitrate and that all of plaintiff’s claims were subject to arbitration.
-
Donaldson v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC No. 2:18-CV-00530-UA-UAM (M.D. Fla. Nov. 27, 2018)11/27/2018
Court recommended granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and that the entire case be stayed under 9 USC § 3 pending completion of arbitration. Court found that a valid arbitration agreement as well as arbitrable issues existed and that defendant did not waive the right to arbitration.
-
Bagadiya Brothers PVT Limited v. Churchgate Nigeria Limited, No. 1:14-CV-05656-ER (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 27, 2018)11/27/2018
Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm and enforce an arbitration award. Court concluded that (i) there was no indication that the arbitrator’s decision was made capriciously, exceeded the arbitrator’s jurisdiction under the contracts, or was contrary to law; (ii) there was no evidence that the award was procured by fraud, that the arbitrator was biased or guilty of misconduct, or that he exceeded his powers; and (iii) there was at least “a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached.”
-
Elliott v. NTAN LLC, No. 3:18-CV-00638 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 27, 2018)11/27/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration or, in the alternative, to stay proceedings and compel arbitration is granted. Court concluded that (i) plaintiffs mutually assented to the agreement when they signed it; (ii) the agreement was not an adhesive contract and plaintiffs failed to establish any grounds supporting procedural or substantive unconscionability; and (iii) the agreement was not insufficiently definite to allow for effective vindication of plaintiff’s statutory rights.
-
Oglethorpe Power Corp. v. Ethosenergy Power Plant Services, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-00072-CDL (Nov. 27, 2018 N.D. Ga.)11/27/2018
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court concluded that the parties agreed to arbitrate disputes only if they entered into a separate written agreement to do so. Since it was undisputed that no such separate written agreement to arbitrate existed, the parties had not agreed to arbitrate their dispute.
-
Peak Pipe and Supply, LLC v. UMW Oilfield (L) International Ltd., No. 3:18-CV-00410-L (N.D. Tex. Nov. 27, 2018)11/27/2018
Court accepted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge that plaintiff is equitably required to arbitrate its claims and granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. The court determined that the magistrate judge, in applying the first prong of the test set out in Noble Drilling Servs., Inc. v. Certex USA, Inc., 620 F.3d 469, 473 (5th Cir. 2010), correctly determined that the non-signatory plaintiff is required to arbitrate its claims against UMW, and, accordingly, overruled plaintiff’s objection.
-
Harris v. Wells Fargo Clearing Services LLC, No. 1:18-CV-04625-GDB (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2018)11/26/2018
Court denied plaintiff’s petition to vacate an award entered against him in a FINRA arbitration and granted defendant’s cross-petition to confirm the award rejecting plaintiff’s arguments he did not receive proper notice. Court held due process does not require perfect or actual notice and that in the present case the mailing of notifications to plaintiff’s residential address in FINRA’s records was a means reasonably calculated to apprise plaintiff of the pendency of the arbitration.
-
Orn v. Alltran Financial, LP, No. 3:18-CV-00599-JMM (M.D. Penn. Nov. 26, 2018)11/26/2018
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that no agreement to arbitrate existed between plaintiff and the non-signatory defendant. Court concluded that defendant could not enforce the agreement between plaintiff and non-party Citibank because (i) Citibank did not clearly intend to benefit defendant under the Card Agreement, as there is no evidence that defendant received any benefit from the underlying contract that contained the arbitration provision; (ii) plaintiff’s claim is not related to the Card Agreement containing the arbitration clause, so defendant cannot compel arbitration on agency principles; and (iii) there is no alleged interdependent misconduct with Citibank that would bind defendant to the contract as a non-signatory, so there is an insufficient connection between defendant and the Card Agreement.
-
Williamson v. Grano, No. 1:18-CV-00432-WJ-SCY (D.N.M. Nov. 26, 2018)11/26/2018
Court denied defendant’s motion to strike several pleadings relating to plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration. Court noted that (i) defendants cannot rely on Rule 12—or any other federal procedural rule—to excuse their failure to file a response to plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration; (ii) defendants were mistaken that plaintiffs’ amendment of the complaint requires that the motion to compel be stricken and then re-filed; and (iii) defendants were mistaken that a party is excused from complying with briefing deadlines when that party has raised a jurisdictional challenge in another motion.
-
Fang v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-06071-JD (N.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2018)11/23/2018
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitrator’s award. Court found that (i) the award was not the product of corruption, fraud, and undue means; (ii) the arbitrators did not exceed their authority by continuing the arbitration after plaintiff decided to pursue a class action in court; and (iii) plaintiff failed to show that the arbitrators were “completely irrational” or guilty of “a manifest disregard of law.”
-
Senderovic v. Lasership, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-00250-VLB (D. Conn. Nov. 21, 2018)11/21/2018
Magistrate judge recommended granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding the parties clearly agreed to submit to arbitration all disputes relating to any relationship between them and that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable.
-
Earth Science Tech, Inc. v. Impact UA, Inc., No. 9:14-CV-81622-RLR (S.D. Fla. Nov. 21, 2018)11/21/2018
Magistrate judge recommended that defendant’s motion to confirm arbitration award be granted and that plaintiff’s cross-motion to partially vacate the award be denied, finding that all of the claims submitted to arbitration fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement. Magistrate Judge further considered court could not modify the arbitration award because it was not a situation of mathematical error appearing on the face of the award.
-
Psara Energy, Ltd. v. Space Shipping, Ltd., No. 1:18-CV-00178-MAC-ZJH (E.D. Tex. Nov. 20, 2018)11/20/2018
Magistrate judge recommended that the court grant defendants’ motion for referral to arbitration and direct the parties to arbitrate their dispute in London. Magistrate judge found that this maritime dispute between two non US entities was governed by the New York Convention. Magistrate judge found that court could compel a non-signatory to arbitrate under both federal common law and Texas state law theories of equitable estoppel.
-
Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Kirksey, No. 3:18-CV-00963-JCH (D. Conn. Nov. 20, 2018)11/20/2018
Court granted petition to compel arbitration, finding that parties had delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.
-
The Pike Company v. Tri-Krete Limited, No. 6:18-CV-06311-EAW (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2018)11/20/2018
Court denied motion for preliminary injunction to stay arbitration, granted motion to compel arbitration as to claims under the New York Prompt Payment Act (PPA) and stayed litigation on contractual claims, finding that determining whether irreparable harm would result from arbitration turned on whether the dispute was arbitrable, that the contract’s dispute resolution provisions were voided by the PPA; that claims under the PPA may be brought in arbitration; that the defendant’s arguments for the non-applicability of the PPA were defenses on the merits to the PPA claims and did not constitute not reasons not to arbitrate; and that the contractual claims would be stayed pending determination of the claims under the PPA since factual determinations made in arbitration may resolve the contractual claims.
-
Garcia v. MaineGeneral Health, No. 1:18-CV-00019-NT (D. Me. Nov. 20, 2018)11/20/2018
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that an agreement to arbitrate was formed, it was not unconscionable, and the defendant had not waived its right to rely on it by waiting until litigation had been filed to seek to arbitrate. Court also found that questions of whether agreement as a whole was unconscionable or whether pre-conditions to arbitration clause had been met would fall to the arbitrator to decide.
-
Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Patel, No. 8:18-CV-00758-GJH (D. Md. Nov. 20, 2018)11/20/2018
Court granted motion for default judgement against defendant that had defaulted in both the underlying arbitration and the enforcement proceedings, finding that the claims had been properly before the arbitrator and there was no reason to question the validity of the arbitration agreement or award.
-
Curtis v. Contractor Management Services, LLC, No. 1:15-CV-00487-NT (D. Me. Nov. 20, 2018)11/20/2018
Court granted motions to compel arbitration, finding that cost-splitting and confidentiality provisions in arbitration clause in employment agreement were not unconscionable, and that one party’s covenant not to enforce the provision’s cost-splitting, forum selection, and confidentiality provisions mooted potential unconscionability arguments with respect to those provisions.
-
Howes v. New York Life Insurance Company., No. 8:18-CV-00431-GJH (D. Md. Nov. 20, 2018)11/20/2018
Court granted motion to dismiss action to vacate arbitration award, finding that plaintiff did not serve timely notice of its application in a manner that conformed to the FAA.
-
Reinhart v. Asset Managing Group, Inc, No. 3:16-CV-00439-BJD-MCR (M.D. Fla. Nov. 19, 2018)11/19/2018
Magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation to grant in part and deny without prejudice in part plaintiff’s motion for confirmation of an arbitration award, finding that there was no apparent reason why the award should be vacated, modified or corrected. Magistrate Judge noted that although the arbitrator found plaintiffs to be entitled to their “reasonable costs,” neither the basis for awarding costs nor the amount of such costs were presented to the court and as result denied this specific request for reasonable costs without prejudice.
-
Peterson v. Lyft, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-07343-LB (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2018)11/19/2018
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that (1) the parties entered into a binding agreement that contains an arbitration provision, (2) the parties in their arbitration provision delegated questions about the arbitrability of disputes to the arbitrator, and (3) the arbitration provision is enforceable and not unconscionable.
-
Consolo v. Com-Corp. Industries, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00742-CAB (N.D. Ohio Nov. 19, 2018)11/19/2018
Court compelled arbitration of issues of arbitrability sua sponte, finding that parties’ dispute as to whether preconditions for arbitration had been met should be determined by arbitrator.
-
Primoris Energy Services Corporation v. New Day Aluminum, No. 2:18-CV-05839-SSV-MBN (E.D. La. Nov. 19, 2018)11/19/2018
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, interpreting arbitration clause providing that disputes “may” be submitted to arbitration as a binding agreement to arbitrate.