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.
-
Von Maack v. Wyckoff Heights Medical Center, No. 17-3211-CV (2d Cir. Oct. 17, 2018)10/17/2018
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s motion to vacate an arbitration award against plaintiff-appellant, finding that the claims were time-barred and did not merit equitable tolling or else failed to state a claim. Court denied plaintiff’s argument that the district court had applied the wrong legal standard in failing to construe the facts liberally.
-
Symphony FS Limited v. Thompson, No. 5:18-CV-03904-JFL (E.D. Pa. Oct. 17, 2018)10/17/2018
Court denied defendant’s motion to quash two subpoenas, including one directed to JAMS, rejecting the defendant’s argument that JAMS rules treat information relating to pending arbitration proceedings as confidential. Court found that defendant did not meet his burden to prove any particular harm that will result from the disclosure of pending arbitrations.
-
Stemcor USA Incorporated v. CIA Siderurgica Do Para Cosipar, No. 16-30984 (5th Cir. Oct. 17, 2018)10/17/2018
Court of Appeals exercised certification privilege requesting the Louisiana Supreme Court to resolve the question whether, as a matter of Louisiana law, the state non-resident attachment statute allows for attachment in a suit to compel arbitration. Court requested a precise meaning of the phrase “action for a money judgment.”
-
Garcia v. Keith and Kal, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01230-AWI-JLT (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2018)10/17/2018
Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss and request for a protective order, finding that the defendant wished to litigate this case, instead of joining the related arbitration proceedings, in aid of an indemnity dispute with a third party, Specifically, the court found that defendant was perpetuating the action in order to take plaintiffs’ depositions, since obtaining them during arbitration discovery would be unlikely, and so the court also quashed defendant’s deposition notices.
-
Lifetime Products, Inc. v. Maxchief Investments, Ltd, No. 8:18-CV-01230-JVS-ADS (C.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2018)10/16/2018
Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm the arbitration award and motion to enter judgment.
-
Eisenbach v. Ernst & Young U.S. LLP, No. 2:18-CV-01679 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 16, 2018)10/16/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay action, finding a valid arbitration agreement was contained within plaintiff’s employment agreement. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration agreement was not signed by defendant, was fraudulently induced, was procedurally unconscionable, and was substantively unconscionable.
-
Nevarez v. Forty Niners Football Company, LLC, et al., No. 5:16-CV-007013-LHK (N.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2018)10/16/2018
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents and deposition of third parties, which were originally defendants in the suit; court dismissed the third-parties pursuant to a motion to compel arbitration. Court dismissed third parties’ argument that the motion was an attempt to circumvent the discovery restrictions in the arbitration proceedings and stipulated that any documents or depositions produced in this action were not to be used in the arbitration.
-
Sequip Participações S.A. v. Franco Marinho, No. 1:15-MC-23737-JAL (S.D. Fla. Oct. 16, 2018)10/16/2018
Court denied respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and ordered respondent to show cause, if any, why petition to confirm arbitration award should not be confirmed. Court found that the respondent engaged in substantial and not isolated activity, permitting personal jurisdiction on the bases of several extended visits, the purchase and sale of multiple properties, memberships at local clubs, and local corporate investments. Court permitted petitioner to proceed in pursuant of its petition to confirm arbitration award and prejudgment writ of attachment against respondent.
-
In re: Apple Inc. Device Performance Litigation, No. 5:18-MD-02827-EJD (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2018)10/15/2018
Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that cases in which defendants proposed arbitration agreements to putative class members during the pendency of litigation were found to threaten litigation apply to the present case, because plaintiff had not presented such an agreement to putative class members.
-
Trustees for the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Annuity Fund, and Training Program Fund v. Shorecon-NY, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-04012-PAE (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2018)10/15/2018
Court confirmed the arbitration award in favor of the petitioners and issued a monetary judgment, despite that the respondent did not appear at the arbitration hearing. Court evaluated the motion to confirm the arbitration award against a party that has failed to appear in the action under the standards applicable to a motion for summary judgment and found that the petitioners showed there was no material issue of fact in dispute.
-
Schmell v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., No. 3:17-CV-13080-AET-LHG (D.N.J. Oct. 15, 2018)10/15/2018
Court granted defendant’s renewed motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings on the basis of an arbitration agreement in which all employees were automatically enrolled and provided with an opt-out system. Court denied the initial motion to compel and ordered limited discovery on the question of whether the plaintiff had notice of the arbitration agreement. Court found that plaintiff had adequate notice given that the arbitration agreement appeared in his work email during working hours combined with the expectation of employment that plaintiff would read his work email.
-
Rushing v. Viacom Inc., No. 3:17-CV-04492-JD (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2018)10/15/2018
Court denied defendant’s motion to stay or dismiss the plaintiff’s claims pending arbitration, finding an arbitration agreement did not exist between the parties. Court found that plaintiff received neither actual notice nor constructive notice of the arbitration agreement contained within the end user license agreement when downloading a mobile application.
-
Pullam v. Apria Healthcare, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-02649-JAR-GEB (D. Kan. Oct. 15, 2018)10/15/2018
Court denied defendant’s motion to stay the case and compel arbitration on the basis of an arbitration agreement that the plaintiff purportedly entered into during the course of her employment with the defendant. Defendant introduced an arbitration agreement to its employees through a required online training course; plaintiff denied that she had completed the course or become aware of the arbitration agreement or of the opt-out election. Court found that the defendant did not meet its burden to prove that plaintiff had completed the online course that would have served to bind plaintiff by the arbitration agreement.
-
Lee v. Postmates Inc., No. 3:18-CV-03421-JCS (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2018)10/15/2018
Court granted the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in a class action regarding employee misclassification of couriers as independent contractors. Court held that any claim that the class action waiver is unenforceable must be determined by a court and cannot be determined by an arbitrator.
-
Keystone Mountain Lakes Regional Council of Carpenters v. Angelo’s Construction Company, No. 2:18-CV-11313-JLL-SCM (D.N.J. Oct. 15, 2018)10/15/2018
Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm the arbitration award, denying respondents’ arguments that the arbitration award is void because a judge later found the ordinance on which the arbitration award was based to be void or, in the alternative, because the arbitration award did not draw its findings from the ordinance or evidence in the record.
-
Claussen v. American Family Life Assurance Company, No. 418-CV-04087 (D.S.D. Oct. 15, 2018)10/15/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, upholding strong federal and state policy favoring arbitration, as the plaintiff did not meet her burden to prove either that the arbitration agreement was invalid or that her claims did not fall within the arbitration agreement. Court denied dismissing the action, in favor of staying the action, stating the discretionary authority to dismiss should be used sparingly.
-
BPP Retail Properties, LLC v. North American Roofing Services, Inc., No. 313-CV-01259-FAB (D.P.R. Oct. 15, 2018)10/15/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, denying plaintiff’s motion to enforce obligations pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement. Court found that the defendant sufficiently demonstrated the four requirements necessary to compel arbitration, as the plaintiff did not challenge the validity of the arbitration clause and did not deny either party’s status as a signatory to the arbitration agreement, and the dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration clause.
-
Ameren Illinois Company v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 51, No. 18-1591 (7th Cir. Oct. 12, 2018)10/12/2018
Court of appeals reversed the district court’s judgment vacating the arbitration award and upheld the arbitrator’s award. Court held that, although the arbitrator’s analysis was incomplete, the arbitrator was permitted to apply external law because the collective bargaining agreement explicitly suspends any part of the collective bargaining agreement that conflicts with state law.
-
Esso Exploration and Production Nigeria Limited v. Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, No. 1:14-CV-08445-WHP (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2018)10/12/2018
Court granted petitioners’ motion for additional discovery in a suit seeking to enforce an arbitration award against the respondent state-owned oil company. Court found that respondent’s general manager and two additional employees would be deposed on the subject of whether the respondent company is an alter ego of the Nigerian government. Court also held that respondent must identify recipients of documents on its privilege log or produce those documents.
-
Georgia Southern University Housing Foundation One, LLC v. Capstone Development Corp v. Capstone Building Corp., No. 6:11-CV-00104-RSB-JEG (S.D. Ga. Oct. 12, 2018)10/12/2018
Court found the statutes of limitations and repose had passed on the non-party’s claims and therefore denied the non-party’s motion to amend complaint and dismissed the non-party’s motion to enjoin arbitration.
-
Ventive, LLC v. Caring People LLC, No. 1:18-CV-00120-DCN (D. Idaho Oct. 12, 2018)10/12/2018
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to appoint an arbitrator, rejecting defendant’s initial argument that the collateral attack doctrine barred any relief plaintiff seeks. Subsequently, defendants joined plaintiff’s motion to appoint an arbitrator and so, the court granted and required the parties to submit a joint list of no more than three potential arbitrators.
-
Petty v. Ashcroft, No. 2:18-CV-01323-JAD-VCF (D. Nev. Oct. 12, 2018)10/12/2018
Court granted a stipulated protective order that all disclosure and discovery activity was entitled to confidential treatment extending to the court action and through the subsequent arbitration.
-
Anderson v. Monterey Financial Services, LLC, No. 4:18-CV-02040-DMR (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2018)10/12/2018
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the plaintiff signed a contract containing an arbitration agreement and denying that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable as a contract of adhesion and therefore unenforceable.
-
Crawley v. Macy’s Retail Holdings, Inc., 1:15-CV-02228-KPF (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 2018)10/11/2018
Court granted motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff’s lone claim was subject to both claim and issue preclusion as the AAA arbitrator had addressed the question pending before the court and rejected the claim. Court recognized the arbitrator under AAA had competent jurisdiction over the case.
-
Dish Network v. Ghosh, No. 18-1131 (10th Cir. Oct. 11, 2018)10/11/2018
Court of appeals affirmed order confirming arbitration, rejecting appellant’s argument that the award could not be enforced against him because he was not a party to the arbitration. Court found relevant that plaintiff had appeared in the arbitration and acknowledged that the arbitral decision would be binding, and that the he specifically litigated before the arbitrator whether his personal guarantee to the losing party was valid.
-
CJ’s Sales and Service of Ocala, Inc. v. Howard, No. 5:18-CV-00194-JSM-PRL (M.D. Fla. Oct. 10, 2018)10/10/2018
Court denied motion to compel arbitration, concluding there was no clear, explicit and unequivocal language in the contract evidencing an agreement to arbitrate and there was no meeting of the minds to form an arbitration agreement.
-
Dogan v. KeyBank, N.A., No. 1:18-CV-00205-MAD-DJS (N.D. N.Y. Oct. 10, 2018)10/10/2018
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that a valid arbitration agreement governed the dispute.
-
Cintron v. Monterey Financial Services, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-11537-CCC-CLW (D. N.J. Oct. 10, 2018)10/10/2018
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed proceedings, holding that a valid arbitration agreement governed the dispute. Court rejected plaintiff’s challenges to the validity of his signature.
-
Bolden v. AT&T Services, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-02306-JWL-JPO (D. Kan. Oct. 10, 2018)10/10/2018
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court held that valid arbitration agreement applied to the parties dispute, rejecting plaintiff arguments regarding purported insufficiency of contract formation and consideration given. Further, court held that plaintiff could be deemed to have accepted the agreement to arbitrate.
-
Amos v. North Hill Nursing and Rehabilitation Center LLC, No. 2:18-CV-00217-AKK (N.D. Ala. Oct. 10, 2018)10/10/2018
Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court held that because the signatory on the agreement containing the arbitration provision did not have the legal authority to execute it, no valid arbitral agreement existed.
-
Temsa Ulasim Araclari Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. CH Bus Sales LLC, No. 1:18-CV-00698-RGA (D. Del. Oct. 9, 2018)10/09/2018
Court stayed motion to enjoin arbitration pending arbitral decision on equivalent question of jurisdiction. Court reasoned that the parties’ incorporation of AAA rules into their agreement left questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.
-
Acosta v. EuroAmerican Propagators, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00131-H-RBB (S.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2017)10/04/2018
Court granted the motion submitted by one defendant to compel arbitration for another defendant’s cross-complaint, because the cross-complaining defendant did not oppose.
-
Alexander v. Possible Productions, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-05532-DAB (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2018)10/04/2018
Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and motion to dismiss. Court found that the non-discrimination provisions were clearly exempt from the arbitration provisions, so plaintiff could not be compelled to arbitrate her discrimination claims.
-
New York City District Council of Carpenters v. American Flooring Concepts, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-02657-AMD-RLM (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2018)10/04/2018
Court adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge to confirm the arbitration award. Magistrate concluded that there was more than a barely colorable justification for the arbitrator’s outcome and awards. Magistrate also concluded that because respondent failed to appear before the Court—let alone raise any argument regarding vacatur, modification, or correction—and no defense is apparent from the record, confirmation is mandatory.
-
Pyciak v. Credit One Bank, N.A., No. 2:17-CV-11415-GCS-RSW (E.D. Mich. Oct. 4, 2018)10/04/2018
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that plaintiff was not bound by the arbitration clause under an estoppel theory as (i) plaintiff did not directly benefit from the cardholder agreement, (ii) defendant’s argument that plaintiff was an authorized user was not persuasive, and (iii) defendant did not cite legal authority for its proposition that plaintiff was an intended third-party beneficiary.
-
Rozas v. AIG Employee Services, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-01158-KAD (D. Conn. Oct. 3, 2018)10/03/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court found that (i) the plaintiff, in accepting employment with the defendant, agreed to arbitration of any employment related disputes; (ii) the plaintiff’s claims brought in this action fall within the scope of that agreement as they each arise out of her employment with the defendant; and (iii) the plaintiff has offered no argument or authority that Congress intended the plaintiff’s claims to be nonarbitrable.
-
Shaw v. Baker Hughes Incorporated, No. 6:17-CV-00284-JHP (E.D. Okla. Oct. 3, 2018)10/03/2018
Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge granting defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismiss or stay proceedings. Magistrate judge stated that the court could not conclude that defendants acted inconsistent with asserting its rights under the arbitration clause, because much of the protracted duration of the case was due to the reassignment of the litigation to multiple different judges.
-
Steele v. Lending Club Corporation, No. 3:18-CV-02023-RS (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2018)10/03/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that plaintiff showed no basis for concluding the parties did not enter into an agreement to arbitrate and the agreement covered plaintiff’s claims. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments on procedural unconscionability and substantive unconscionability.
-
Trudeau v. Google LLC, No. 5:18-CV-00947-BLF (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2018)10/03/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the arbitration provision was valid and enforceable and covered the claims at issue, such that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration must be granted and its motion to dismiss must be granted as to the claim for declaratory relief that the arbitration provision is unconscionable.
-
Romo v. CBRE Group, Inc., No. 8:18-CV-00237-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2018)10/03/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, struck the class action allegations, and stayed the proceedings pending arbitration. Court concluded that (i) defendant showed that the parties entered into a clear agreement to arbitrate and plaintiff manifested his assent to the terms of the Offer Letter by clicking the check box on the Candidate Gateway and thereafter pursuing his employment with defendant; (ii) plaintiff cannot avoid the terms of the arbitration agreement under California Labor Code § 229; (iii) plaintiff’s Private Attorney General Act claim for civil penalties is outside of the scope of the arbitration agreement and shall remain pending; and (iv) while plaintiff showed some degree of procedural unconscionability, plaintiff failed to show any substantive unconscionability arising from the arbitration agreement.
-
Hobon v. Pizza Hut of Southern Wisconsin, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00947-SLC (W.D. Wis. Oct. 3, 2018)10/03/2018
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed defendants’ motion to strike until after plaintiffs had an opportunity to file an amended complaint. Court found that defendants’ conduct in the case did not support a finding of waiver, and plaintiff was not prejudiced by the delay in moving to compel arbitration.
-
Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Republic of Yemen, No. 1:16-CV-01383-DLF (D.D.C. Oct. 3, 2018)10/03/2018
Court granted petitioners’ motion for default judgment and confirmation of arbitral award and confirmed the final arbitral award issued by the ICC.
-
Ventrice v. Lexington Insurance Co., No. 2:16-CV-00660-CCC-JBC (D.N.J. Oct. 2, 2018)10/02/2018
Court administratively terminated plaintiff’s motion to confirm the arbitration award without prejudice, and denied plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and defendant’s motion to bifurcate trial and discovery. Court noted that whether the court will vacate, modify, or correct the award is dependent on whether plaintiffs are entitled to coverage under the relevant policy, which is an issue pending before the court.
-
Dickens v. GC Services Limited Partnership, No. (M.D. Fla. Oct. 2, 2018)10/02/2018
Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Court stated that it was wholly unpersuaded by the request given defendant’s active involvement in the litigation.
-
Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Gopi Hospitality, LLC, No. 8:18-CV-01680-DKC (D. Md. Oct. 2, 2018)10/02/2018
Court granted plaintiff’s motion for default judgment as to the corporate defendant and denied the motion as to the individual defendants. Court noted that the entry of default as to the individual defendants had been vacated, and therefore the motion for default judgment could only apply to the corporate defendant. Court then concluded that, by failing to answer or otherwise respond to plaintiff’s application, the corporate defendant failed to demonstrate grounds for vacating the arbitration award.
-
Appel v. Concierge Auctions, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-02263-BAS-MDD (S.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2018)10/01/2018
Court denied defendant’s motion for reconsideration. Court rejected defendant’s argument that after Epic Systems v. Lewis, 138 S.Ct. 1612 (2018), district courts in the Ninth Circuit must now enforce parties’ arbitration agreements as written, noting that this was not a new holding from the Supreme Court but an interpretation of part of the Arbitration Act.
-
Doe v. George Street Photo & Video, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-02698-TSH (N.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2018)10/01/2018
Court granted plaintiff’s request to lift the stay and denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the arbitration order as moot. Court explained that an arbitration terminated under agreed-upon rules is deemed to have “proceeded pursuant to the parties’ agreement” to arbitrate and thus to have satisfied the FAA. Because Defendant voluntarily requested the arbitration be terminated under the AAA’s rules, and it did not seek relief from the court based on any failure, neglect, or refusal to participate on Plaintiff’s part, court found that the arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
-
Randle v. Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, No. 4:18-CV-01770 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 1, 2018)10/01/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court concluded that (i) the arbitration clauses were not illusory as there were bilateral promises to arbitrate; (ii) the unconscionable language challenged by plaintiff was not in the arbitration clauses and could not be a basis for denying the motion to compel arbitration; (iii) non-signatory Metro can compel arbitration under the direct-benefits estoppel theory; and (iv) since the parties’ agreements had broad arbitration clauses and plaintiff’s claims have a significant relationship to those agreements, the claims must be resolved in arbitration.
-
Hudgins v. Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-03125-S (N.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2018)09/30/2018
Court denied plaintiff’s application to vacate and granted defendant’s counter-motion to confirm the arbitration award. Court concluded that (i) a denial in part of a discovery request after full and thorough consideration does not amount to procurement of an award by corruption, fraud, or undue means; (ii) plaintiff did not carry her burden in supporting a claim that there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators; and (iii) plaintiff did not allege any facts to support her claim that the members of the arbitration panel were guilty of misconduct or misbehavior that prejudiced her rights.
-
Meridian Autonomous Inc. v. Coast Autonomous LLC, No. 1:17-CV-05846-VSB (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2018)09/30/2018
Court granted in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. Court found that plaintiffs did not contest (and therefore conceded) that certain claims are subject to the arbitration clause.