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.
-
Garcia v. Kakish, No. 1:17-CV-00374-LJO-JLT (E.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2018)11/05/2018
Court ordered the parties to submit an order to show cause of why the parties failed to comply with the court’s order to file a joint status report. The parties had been ordered to file a joint status report regarding the parallel arbitration proceedings, on which the stay of the action had been granted.
-
Befort v. Farm Bureau Property & Casualty Insurance Company, No. 2:18-CV-02564-RM (D. Ariz. Nov. 5, 2018)11/05/2018
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to remand to state court on the basis that the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000. To remove to federal court, defendant had relied on Plaintiff’s Certificate Regarding Compulsory Arbitration, which indicated that the action was not subject to compulsory arbitration as the jurisdictional limit for compulsory arbitration in the relevant county is $50,000, and on Plaintiff’s Offer of Judgment for $74,000. Court accepted Plaintiff’s Certificate Regarding Compulsory Arbitration as having certified that the amount in dispute exceeded $50,000.
-
Dye v. Tamko Building Products, Inc., No. 17-14052 (11th Cir. Nov. 2, 2018)11/02/2018
Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to grant defendant-appellee’s motion to compel arbitration. Court concluded that defendant-appellee made a valid offer to arbitrate by printing a mandatory arbitration clause on the packaging of its product, and that offer was accepted when the product was opened and retained. Court further concluded that, even though it was the roofers that opened the packaging, the homeowners would nevertheless be bound to arbitrate their disputes under agency-law principles.
-
Kater v. Churchill Downs Downs Incorporated, No. 2:15-CV-00612-RBL (W.D. Wash. Nov. 2, 2018)11/02/2018
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration after three years and three months of litigation, rejecting the defendant’s argument that it did not waive its right to enforce the arbitration agreement in its Terms of Use because its only substantive action was filing a motion to dismiss. Court found that plaintiff met the heavy burden of proof to establish that defendant waived its right to compel arbitration on the basis of a three-prong test: (1) defendant’s knowledge of an existing right to compel arbitration; (2) defendant’s acts inconsistent with that existing right; and (3) prejudice to the party opposing arbitration resulting from such inconsistent acts.
-
In re Regions Morgan Keegan Securities, Derivative and ERISA Litigation, No. 2:07-CV-02830-SHM-DKV (W.D. Tenn. Nov. 2, 2018)11/02/2018
Court denied defendant’s motion to enjoin a FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Association) arbitration and emergency motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin the same arbitration. Court rejected defendant’s argument that claimant could not separately bring arbitration because the court had approved class certification and accepted plaintiff’s argument that it was not bound by class certification because it had opted out of the class.
-
Gartly v. Selip & Stylianou LLP, No. 1:18-CV-01806-ARR-VMS (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2018)11/02/2018
Court granted motion to compel arbitration where defendant bank presented unrebutted evidence that a credit card agreement contained a broad arbitration clause. Court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that the affidavit in which defendant claimed to have sent plaintiff the credit card and amendments to the agreement should be excluded as hearsay and that the defendant did not provide sufficient proof that plaintiff accepted the agreement.
-
Dye v. Tamko Building Products, Inc., No. 17-14052 (11th Cir. Nov. 2, 2018)11/02/2018
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to grant defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. Court of appeals found that homeowners whose roofers ordered, opened, and installed shingles were bound by a mandatory arbitration provision included in the product-purchase agreement displayed on the exterior wrapping of every package of shingles, holding that the packaging sufficed to convey an offer of contract terms, the unwrapping and use of shingles was a reasonable means of acceptance of those terms, and the homeowners’ grant of authority to their roofers to buy and install the shingles included the acceptance of the purchase terms on the homeowners’ behalf.
-
Texas Brine Company, LLC v. American Arbitration Association, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-06610-SSV-MBN (E.D. La. Nov. 2, 2018)11/02/2018
Court granted defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, because defendants’ arbitral immunity bars suit against them, and because vacatur is the exclusive remedy to challenge an arbitration award. Plaintiff brought suit against defendants seeking to recover its arbitration costs in a separate dispute for defendants’ role in appointing allegedly conflicted arbitrators and for refusing to remove an arbitrator from the arbitration panel.
-
Trustees of the Northeast Carpenters Health, Pension, Annuity, Apprenticeship, and Labor Management Funds v. Excel Installations, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-03635-JMA-AYS (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2018)11/02/2018
Court granted petitioner’s petition to confirm and enforce arbitration award and directed the clerk of the court to enter judgment against the respondent. As the petition was unopposed, the court treated it as an unopposed motion for summary judgment.
-
Ratcliffe v. Dorsey School of Business, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-10524-LVP-EAS (E.D. Mich. Nov. 2, 2018)11/02/2018
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pending arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court found there was a valid arbitral agreement, the dispute fell within the scope of that agreement, and none of the claims were nonarbitrable.
-
Process and Industrial Developments Limited v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, No. 1:18-CV-00594-CRC (D.D.C. Nov. 1, 2018)11/01/2018
Court denied petitioner’s motion to certify respondent’s appeal as invalid or frivolous, retain jurisdiction, and lift stay. Previously, court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss petitioner’s action to seek confirmation of an arbitral award on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction under the FSIA. Petitioner objected to the motion to dismiss on the grounds that the FAA requires single petitions to enforce an arbitral award and defendant improperly sought to bifurcate. Court agreed and ordered defendant to file a petition with all jurisdictional and substantive defenses. Instead of complying with that order, defendant appealed on sovereign immunity grounds, and petitioner moved for the court to certify appeal as invalid or frivolous.
-
Brayman v. Keypoint Government Solutions, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00550-WJM-NRN (D. Colo. Nov. 1, 2018)11/01/2018
Court granted plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification as a collective action and court-authorized notice. Court rejected defendant’s argument that similarly situated persons who had signed arbitration agreements should be excluded from the collective action definition and granted the conditional certification for all persons who fit the proposed collective action definition, including those with arbitration provisions.
-
Higgins v. Ally Financial Inc., No. 4:18-CV-0417-SRB (W.D. Mo. Nov. 1, 2018)11/01/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration based on a car purchase contract containing an arbitration provision. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that defendant was not a party to the car purchase agreement and therefore not authorized to enforce the arbitration provision and that the arbitration provision was unenforceable because it lacked consideration as a matter of law.
-
Process and Industrial Developments Limited v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, No. 1:18-CV-00594-CRC (D.D.C Nov. 1, 2018)11/01/2018
Court denied petitioner’s motion to certify respondents’ appeal as invalid or frivolous, retain jurisdiction, and lift stay on proceedings. Court found respondents’ appeal of a procedural order denying bifurcation of confirmation proceedings of arbitration award under NY Convention was not so baseless as to allow the district court to assert jurisdiction despite the notice of appeal.
-
Berryman v. Newalta Environmental Services, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-00793-NBF (W.D. Pa. Nov. 1, 2018)11/01/2018
Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding that non-signatory defendant had standing to compel arbitration, because it was a third-party beneficiary under the contract. Court held a valid arbitral agreement existed, the claims fell within the scope of that agreement, and the defendant had not waived its right to arbitration by filing a third-party complaint in the action, as it moved to compel arbitration during the initial pleading stages.
-
Hauser v. Westlake Services, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-00143-BJD-JRK (M.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2018)10/31/2018
Magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation to grant the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay action, finding defendant did not waive arbitration because its conduct did not amount to substantial participation in litigation and defendant’s participation in mediation was not inconsistent with intent to arbitrate.
-
Tuttle v. Credit Acceptance Corporation, No. 8:18-CV-02181-SDM-JSS (M.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2018)10/31/2018
Magistrate judge recommended defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss the case or, in the alternative, to stay all proceedings be granted, finding that the parties entered into a valid written agreement to arbitrate, which clearly encompassed all of the claims in this matter.
-
Shoals v. Owens & Minor Distribution, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-02355-WBS-EFB (E.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2018)10/31/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pending the outcome of arbitration, as the plaintiff initialed an arbitration agreement as part of the electronic employment onboarding process. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration agreement was invalid due to procedural unconscionability because it was a contract of adhesion and because a copy of the applicable arbitration rules had not been provided to him. Court further rejected that the arbitration agreement was invalid due to substantive unconscionability because it failed to provide for adequate discovery, because defendant and its counsel would have an inequitable advantage in arbitration as “repeat players,” and because it contained an illegal waiver of representative claims under the Private Attorney General Act.
-
Heredia v. Sunrise Senior Living LLC, No. 4:18-CV-00616-HSG (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2018)10/31/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, as the plaintiffs had responded with a statement of non-opposition.
-
Sistem Muhendislik Insaat Sanayi Ve Ticaret, A.S. v. The Kyrgyz Republic, No. 1:12-CV-04502-ALC-RWL (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2018)10/31/2018
Court adopted magistrate judge’s recommendation to issue civil contempt sanctions against respondent of $5,000 a day for its failure to comply with post-judgment discovery orders related to enforcement of an arbitration award.
-
Blackberry Limited v. Nokia Corporation, No. 1:17-CV-00155-RGA (D. Del. Oct. 31, 2018)10/31/2018
Court denied motion for preliminary injunctive relief limiting the arbitration that defendants commenced in Sweden, finding that the Swedish arbitration related to issues outside of the patent claim before the court and that comity concerns weighed against enjoining the arbitration.
-
Axia Netmedia Corporation v. Massachusetts Technology Park Corporation, No. 4:17-CV-10482-TSH (D. Mass. Oct. 31, 2018)10/31/2018
Court granted motion to dissolve injunction concluding the partial arbitral award was final because the only issue currently in arbitration was fee and cost shifting which was subsidiary to the partial award and concluded an award did not need to be confirmed to be considered final. Court found petitioner was not entitled to a bond for wrongful injunction.
-
Torres v. Rushmore Service Center, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-09236-SDW-LDW (D.N.J. Oct. 31, 2018)10/31/2018
Court denied motion to compel arbitration and ordered parties to conduct limited discovery on the issue of arbitrability. Court concluded that the question of arbitrability could not be resolved without considering evidence extraneous to the pleadings, so it would be inappropriate to apply the Rule 12(b)(6) standard in deciding the motion.
-
The Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters Insurance Company v. C.F.L.P. 1, LLC, No. 17-6498 (6th Cir. Oct. 31, 2018)10/31/2018
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s selection of a third party appraiser, reaffirmation of that appraiser in face of allegations of bias, denial of appellant’s motion to rescind the appraisal process, refusal to instruct appraiser that cosmetic matching was required under the contract, and grant of summary judgment for appellee on appellants’ extracontractual claims. Court noted that even if the district court was incorrect in applying the FAA to the proceedings, the result would be the same.
-
In re Application of Luis Javier Martinez Sampedro for an Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to Conduct Discovery for Use in a Foreign Proceeding, No. 3:18-MC-00047-JBA (D. Conn. Oct. 30, 2018)10/30/2018
Court denied respondents’ motions to quash subpoenaed documents pursuant to a Section 1782 order for discovery related to ongoing litigation in Spain and ICC arbitration, but granted respondents’ motions to quash subpoenaed testimony since the Spanish court could compel respondents’ testimony. Court declined to prohibit petitioner from using discovered material in the ICC Arbitration, since there was no evidence that petitioner’s request for discovery for the Spanish litigation was a ruse for obtaining evidence for the arbitration. Court directed parties to meet and confer on the breadth of document production and denied respondents’ request for reciprocal discovery.
-
Summit Emergency Holdings LLC v. Michael J. Camlinde and Associates, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-03080-G-BN (N.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2018)10/30/2018
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings pending arbitration pursuant to the FAA as the agreement involved a transaction affecting interstate commerce. Court found there was a valid agreement to arbitrate, the dispute fell within the scope of the agreement, and defendant had not waived its right to arbitration after engaging in discovery and filing the motion to compel arbitration ten months after the case was initiated.
-
Global Gold Corporation v. Amarant Mining, Ltd. and Alluvia Mining, Ltd., No. 7:18-CV-04723-CS (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 29, 2018)10/29/2018
Court granted motion to confirm ICDR arbitration awards and entered default judgment against respondents for failing to timely answer the petition and complaint. Court enjoined respondents from transferring or alienating any assets pending payment to petitioner and ordered respondents to provide petitioner all documents relating to whether respondents have diverted funds which could have been used to pay petitioner.
-
Trustees for the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. Prime Construction Co. of NY, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-05696-PAE (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 29, 2018)10/29/2018
Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award pursuant to the FAA where the respondent failed to appear. Court denied request for attorneys’ fees and costs for bringing the action but granted request for post-judgment interest on the award.
-
International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 618 v. Henkel Consumer Products, No. 4:18-CV-00185-SNLJ (E.D. Mo. Oct. 26, 2018)
10/26/2018Court confirmed arbitration award and granted summary judgment, finding the arbitrator did not exceed his authority by ignoring the language of the collective bargaining agreement at issue or by ruling on an issue implicitly presented in the hearing and related to the subject matter of the arbitration. Court found arbitrator’s decision to extend time limit on written warnings for disciplinary events did not amount to double jeopardy.
-
In re Remicade Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:18-CV-00303-JCJ (E.D. Pa. Oct. 26, 2018)10/26/2018
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel individual arbitration and stay proceedings. Even though the scope of the arbitral clause was broad, the court held plaintiff’s antitrust claims did not arise out of the agreement as the alleged anticompetitive conduct lacked a significant relationship to the agreement.
-
Fox v. Transunion, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00362-TSB (S.D. Ohio Oct. 26, 2018)10/26/2018
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation pursuant to the FAA, holding the parties agreed to arbitrate, the defamation and Fair Credit Reporting Act claims fell within the scope of the agreement, and those claims were arbitrable.
-
Diag Human S.E. v. Czech Republic-Ministry of Health, No. 17-7154 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 26, 2018)10/26/2018
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision refusing to enforce a foreign arbitral award under Article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention. Court held the award was not binding on the respondent and therefore unenforceable because a review panel, instituted under Czech arbitration law, issued a resolution discontinuing the arbitration and invalidating the final award. Court also found the district court did not err in failing to set aside the review panel’s nullification of the award on public policy grounds under the New York Convention.
-
Ross Dress for Less Inc. v. VIWP, L.P., No. 17-3145 (3d Cir. Oct. 24, 2018)
10/24/2018Court of appeals granted motion to confirm arbitration award pursuant to the FAA, holding that the AAA tribunal did not exceed its powers under § 10(a)(4) of the FAA or act in manifest disregard of Pennsylvania law in its application of the statute of limitations. Court noted that because respondents failed to demonstrate the tribunal manifestly disregarded Pennsylvania law, it would not decide whether manifest disregard as an independent grounds for vacatur survives the Supreme Court’s decision in Hall Street Associates L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 584 (2008).
-
Kensu v. Jpay, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-11086-SFC-PTM (E.D. Mich. Oct. 22, 2018)10/22/2018
Magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation in favor of defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and request to dismiss without prejudice, finding that there was a valid arbitration agreement and that all claims were within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
-
Herrington v. Waterstone Mortgage Corporation, No. 17-3609 (7th Cir. Oct. 22, 2018)10/22/2018
Court of appeal vacated a district court order confirming an arbitration award. Court of appeal followed recent Supreme Court precedent in Epic Systems Corp. to determine that a waiver clause that forbids collective arbitration of claims is valid. Court further held that the availability of collective arbitration is a threshold question of arbitrability and on remand the district court, and not the arbitrator, should determine if the arbitration agreement permitted the collective arbitration of plaintiff’s claims.
-
Smith v. GC Services Limited Partnership, No. 18-1361 (7th Cir. Oct. 22, 2018)10/22/2018
Court of appeal affirmed the district court decision to deny defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. The court of appeal agreed with the lower court that by waiting to seek arbitration until after defendant had litigated several discovery motions and a motion to dismiss, the defendant had waived its right to arbitration.
-
Westburg v. Good Life Advisors, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-00248-LAB-MDD (S.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2018)10/19/2018
Court denied defendant’s motion to stay pending arbitration, denying defendant’s argument that plaintiff former employees had agreed to arbitrate any disputes with defendant employer by signing an arbitration agreement with a non-party partner company. Court found that the plaintiff’s allegations did not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
-
Skiba v. Sasser, et al., No. 1:16-CV-00444-HSO-JCG (S.D. Miss. Oct. 19, 2018)10/19/2018
Court denied the motions to set aside judgment and to vacate arbitration award. Court denied plaintiff’s arguments (1) that the arbitrator exceeded his powers by only allowing plaintiff to pursue claims against her actual employer; (2) that the award was procured by corruption, fraud, and undue means, because the arbitrator was not licensed in Mississippi; and (3) that the award was procured in violation of plaintiff’s constitutional right to prepare her case, because defendants failed to respond to her discovery requests.
-
YTC America Inc. v. Grigorian, No. 2:18-CV-07875-CAS-AGR (C.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2018)10/18/2018
Court confirmed the stipulated final arbitration award, as the parties agreed that the court would enter the order and a judgment on the award, including the permanent injunction it contained, enjoining the respondent from disseminating various confidential information.
-
WTA Tour, Inc. v. Super Slam Limited, No. 1:18-CV-05601-JSR (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2018)10/18/2018
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and enjoined respondents from proceeding with the action pending in Cyprus until the completion of the arbitration proceedings ordered. Court denied respondents’ arguments that several parties to the foreign litigation are not signatories to the agreement containing the arbitration agreement and that none of the claims at issue in the foreign lawsuits fall within the scope of the arbitration clause. Court found that the non-signatories to the arbitration agreement were estopped from denying the obligation to arbitration because it received a direct benefit from the contract containing the arbitration clause.
-
Tyler v. Timothy E. Baxter & Associates, P.C., No. 2:17-CV-13740-NGE-RSW (E.D. Mich. Oct. 18, 2018)10/18/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, rendering moot its alternative motion to compel arbitration. Court found that the defendant had not provided evidence to satisfy a determination that the parties agreed to arbitrate, that a valid arbitration agreement existed, and therefore there was no basis on which to find the defendant could compel arbitration.
-
Titus v. Zestfinance Inc., No. 3:18-CV-05373-RJB (W.D. Wash. Oct. 18, 2018)10/18/2018
Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding the “effective vindication” exception applied because the arbitration agreement was a prospective waiver of plaintiff’s rights to pursue federal statutory remedies. Court agreed with plaintiff’s argument that the only way to interpret a loan agreement was to conclude that Tribal law applied, barring the application of federal law. Court acknowledged that the arbitration agreement created a conflict between the FAA’s requirement that contracts to arbitration be enforced on their terms and the enforcement provisions of federal statutes that plaintiff could not pursue under the contract.
-
O’Quinn, P.C. v. Lexington Insurance Company, No. 16-20224 (5th Cir. Oct 18, 2018)10/18/2018
Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment that plaintiff-appellants’ claims were not covered under its policy with defendant-appellee. The claims arose when an arbitration panel issued an award against plaintiff-appellants in a fee dispute with plaintiff-appellants’ former clients. Plaintiff-appellants sought to recover a portion of the award amount from its professional liability insurance carrier, defendant-appellee. The findings of the arbitral tribunal characterized plaintiff-appellants’ actions as such that they were not covered by its insurance policy.
-
Dynamic Int’l of Wisconsin v. SMEC Co., Ltd., No. 18-CV-582-PP (E.D. Wis. Oct. 18, 2018)10/18/2018
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to stay arbitration pending the court’s disposition of parties’ competing motions. Plaintiff filed motion to stay arbitration when the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB) ruled that it had jurisdiction; defendant refused to stipulate a stay of arbitration proceedings and KCAB refused to stay the proceedings. Court found that, under the effective schedule, the plaintiff would have the court’s decision on the substantive motion before being required to file before KCAB.
-
Cottonwood Centers Incorporated v. Klearman, No. 4:18-CV-00252-CKJ (D. Ariz. Oct. 18, 2018)10/18/2018
Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, denying the defendants’ argument that the arbitration agreement was incorporated by reference to the overall agreement where the overall agreement referred to an attached document and the document was not physically attached, but was one of multiple attachments to an email. Court found that there was no evidence that plaintiff viewed the other attachments to the email, including the arbitration agreement, prior to signing the overall agreement. Further, court found there was no acknowledgement of incorporation that would indicate plaintiff’s consent.
-
Konz v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-05181-GBD (S.D.N.Y. Oct 17, 2018)10/17/2018
Court granted respondent’s cross-petition to confirm an arbitration award issued by a FINRA panel and denied petitioner’s motion to vacate. Court rejected petitioner’s argument that the arbitrators exceeded their powers on the grounds that they were not appointed in accordance with the procedures agreed upon by the parties because the petitioner did not object to their appointment during the arbitration proceedings upon receiving the panel’s disclosures.
-
Diamond Resorts U.S. Collection Development, LLC v. Johnson, No. 6:18-CV-00090-RBD-TBS (M.D. Fla. Oct. 17, 2018)10/17/2018
Court granted petitioners’ motion to strike respondent’s affirmative defense asserting that the arbitration award should be vacated since the respondent failed to assert a recognized basis for vacatur. Court held that as the arbitration award was not yet confirmed, the respondent’s attempt to seek an offset in the amount was premature and permitted the respondent to petition the court for post-judgment relief if the court should confirm the award.
-
Rivera v. Petsmart, Inc. and Medical Management International, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-02121-MMB (E.D. Pa. Oct. 17, 2018)10/17/2018
Court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement contained within plaintiff’s employment contract to be valid and enforceable. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the employment contract was an unenforceable contract for adhesion, finding that the contract was procedurally conscionable and substantively conscionable and that plaintiff did not allege sufficient facts suggesting a lack of consideration.
-
Li v. Stockx.com, No. 1:18-CV-00911-JKB (D. Md. Oct. 17, 2018)10/17/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings in a putative class action against defendant online marketplace. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration clause contained within the terms of service was not valid under Michigan contract law on the grounds that it lacked consideration and mutuality of obligation, that defendant materially misrepresented the terms, that the arbitration agreement is unconscionable, and that the agreement to arbitrate was an illusory contract.
-
Commercial Lubricants, LLC v. Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc., No. 1:14-CV-07483-MKB-RLM (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2018)10/17/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the agreement at issue was terminated and plaintiff could not recover post-termination damages. Court found that the defendant had waived its right to arbitration under the arbitration clause contained within the agreement by waiting seven months to raise the arbitration issue, by engaging in the action, by making motions to the court, and by conducting significant discovery.