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.
-
Covington v. Kanan Enterprises, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-01453-TMP (N.D. Ohio Sept. 17, 2018)09/17/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Court followed sixth circuit test and determined that plaintiff’s claims were subject to the parties’ agreement to arbitrate.
-
Johnson v. Nissan North America, Inc., 3:17-CV-00517-WHO (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2018)09/14/2018
Court denied motion to compel arbitration with respect to a non-signatory, reasoning that it was not included as a third party beneficiary to the contract. Court likewise denied equivalent argument under the principle of equitable estoppel, holding that the claims asserted did not require reliance on the contract containing the arbitration clause.
-
Cree, Inc. v. BHP Energy Mexico, No. 2:16-CV-01508-PP (E.D. Wis. Sept. 14, 201809/14/2018
Court issued order enjoining defendant from further pursuing litigation in Mexico and compelling arbitration. Court found that a valid arbitration agreement existed, that an ongoing litigation in Mexico was within the scope of the agreement, and that plaintiff had not waived its rights under the agreement.
-
Joy v. Onemain Financial Services, Inc., No. 8:18-CV-01428-VMC-JSS (M.D. Fla. Sept. 14, 2018)09/14/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the claims fell outside the scope of the arbitration clause, and found that the agreement delegated questions as to the scope of the arbitration clause to the arbitrator.
-
Niagara Blower Company v. Shopmen’s Local Union 576, No. 1:16-CV-00262-LJV-HKS (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2018)09/14/2018
Court denied petition to vacate arbitration award, finding that the arbitrator’s decision to reinstate a terminated employee was rooted in the authority granted by the collective bargaining agreement. Court found that by submitting the question of whether the employee’s discharge was proper to the arbitrator, the parties granted the arbitrator authority to reinstate the employee. Court also rejected respondent’s argument that reinstating an employee terminated for being intoxicated at work was contrary to public policy.
-
Innotec LLC v. Visiontech Sales, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00007-GEC-JCH (W.D. Va. Sept. 14, 2018)09/14/2018
Court granted motion to stay proceedings for a renewable period of 120 days during pendency of an arbitration it had compelled by an earlier ruling. Court reasoned that considerations of judicial economy militated in favor of a stay given the relevance of the questions at issue in the arbitration to the resolution of the remaining claims. Court retained jurisdiction over pending motion of sanctions and the enforcement of the parties’ existing discovery obligations.
-
Environmental Chemical Corporation v. Coastal Environmental Group, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-03082-GHW-GWG (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2018)09/14/2018
Court denied motion to vacate arbitration award and granted cross-motion to confirm it. Court rejected arguments that the award could be vacated based on several section of the FAA because plaintiff had been unaware that the attorneys for the defendant in fact represented an entity to the defendant had assigned its rights and that the arbitrators purportedly exceeding their authority by applying the doctrine of estoppel to its calculation of damages.
-
National Federation of the Blind v. Container Store, Inc., No. 16-2112 (1st Cir. Sept. 14, 2018)09/14/2018
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration. Court agreed that because the plaintiffs challenged the validity of the arbitration provision, rather than the overall contract, it was the proper forum to consider arbitrability. Court further affirmed the district court’s rejection of defendant’s arguments that the clause had been valid and binding on the plaintiffs.
-
Nanko Shipping, Guinea v. Alcoa, Inc., No. 1:14-CV-01301-RMC (D.D.C. Sept. 14, 2018)09/14/2018
Court denied in part motion to dismiss dispute based on argument that plaintiff could be bound by arbitration clause of an agreement to which it was not a party. Court held that because the arbitration clause in the applicable agreement required that any party to which rights were assigned under the agreement had to stipulate its acceptance of the arbitration clause contained in that agreement, no arbitration obligations existed in the absence of such a stipulation by the plaintiff.
-
Crafty Productions, Inc. v. Fuqing Sanxing Crafts Co. Ltd., No. 3:15-CV-00719-BAS-JLB (S.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2018)09/13/2018
Court granted in part petition to confirm arbitration award, declining only to award costs. Court denied motion to stay execution of award pending related proceedings.
-
Wade v. Home Depot U.S.A. Inc., No. 3:18-CV-00739-TAD-KLH (W.D. La. Sept. 12, 2018)09/12/2018
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismiss certain claims subject to a valid arbitration agreement and stayed proceedings with respect to other claims not dismissed for unrelated reasons.
-
Rasin v. MacDougall Arts, Ltd., No. 2:18-CV-04612-SDW-LDW (D. N.J. Sept. 12, 2018)09/12/2018
Court denied motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed between the parties.
-
Overdorff v. NAU Country Insurance Company, No. 2:18-CV-00750-MPK (W.D. Pa. Sept. 12, 2018)09/12/2018
Court denied motion to vacate an arbitration award, finding that there was no basis for concluding that the arbitrator had exceeded the authority granted under the agreement at issue, which denied relief where a claim was not timely submitted.
-
Sayta v. Martin, No. 3:16-CV-03775-LB (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2018)09/12/2018
Court granted motion to confirm JAMS arbitration award. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that he could not be bound by an arbitration award because he was entitled to a new trial as wholly without merit and likewise rejected arguments that the award was void or irrationally rendered. Court awarded interest on the amount owed and deferred ruling on the motion for attorney’s fees pending further documentation.
-
Beam Partners, LLC v. Atkins, No. 3:17-CV-00004-GFVT (E.D. Ky. Sept. 11, 2018)09/11/2018
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the existence of parallel liquidation proceedings did not preclude the application of the FAA to enforce the applicable arbitration agreement. Court held that a valid arbitration agreement was broad enough to cover the dispute and stayed proceedings.
-
Atkins v. CGI Technologies and Solutions, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00037-GFVT (E.D. Ky. Sept. 11, 2018)09/11/2018
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings. Court held that parties were not required to comply with state requirements before seeking such relief under the FAA and that a valid arbitration agreement applied to the dispute and bound the non-signatory plaintiff, as it sought to benefit from the rest of the underlying contract.
-
Taylor v. Shutterfly, Inc., No. 5:18-CV-00266-BLF (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2018)09/11/2018
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court held that the parties had delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrators by incorporating AAA rules into their agreement. Court further held that even if the Ninth Circuit had a rule allowing courts to retain jurisdiction over claims where the assertion of arbitrability is “wholly groundless,” the plaintiff had failed to make her case.
-
Yiru v. Worldventures Holdings, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-02155-S (N.D. Tex. Sept. 11, 2018)09/11/2018
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that a valid contract that included an arbitration provision bound the parties, including because a “click” was sufficient to manifest assent under Texas law. Court further held that the parties had delegated any arbitrability decisions with respect to scope to the arbitrator by incorporating the AAA rules and that the “wholly groundless” exception to that general rule did not apply. Court ruled that plaintiff’s further validity challenges must consequently be submitted to the arbitrator.
-
Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. v. Brady, No. 1:18-CV-10337-DPW (D. Mass. Sept. 11, 2018)09/11/2018
Court granted motion to vacate an arbitration award to the extent it purported to assess attorney fees against petitioner. Court considered all four of the statutory grounds for vacatur under the FAA, but accepted only petitioner’s argument that the award of attorneys’ fees had either exceeded the panel’s power or had been in manifest disregard of the applicable state arbitration law.
-
Parks v. Port of Oakland, No. 4:16-CV-04061-HSG (N.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2018)09/10/2018
Court granted summary judgment for certain claims upon finding that those claims were subject to a valid arbitration agreement.
-
Burnley v. Conifer Health Solutions, No. 3:17-CV-00769-CRS (W.D. Ky. Sept. 10, 2018)09/10/2018
Court granted motion to dismiss claim in favor of arbitration, finding that a valid arbitral agreement governed the dispute.
-
Banco Bradesco S.A. v. Steadfast Insurance Company, No. 1:18-CV-00331-LAP (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2018)09/07/2018
Court denied motion to vacate award, rejecting petitioner’s argument that it had been rendered in manifest disregard of the law because of the panel’s evidentiary decisions.
-
Paxton v. Macy's West Stores, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00132-LJO-SKO (E.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2018)09/07/2018
Court granted motion to compel arbitration. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that he had not assented to the agreement where the opt-out provisions were clear or that the contract had been procedurally unconscionable because he had not reviewed the contract and it was a contract of adhesion. Court likewise held that defendant did not demonstrate that the contract was substantively unconscionable to a significant degree by pointing to limitations on discovery, ability to recover litigation costs, and of mutuality in obligation. Finally, court rejected arguments that the dispute fell outside the scope of the arbitration agreement or that defendant had waived its right to arbitration.
-
Pharmaniaga Berhad v. E*Healthline.com, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-02672-MCE-EFB (E.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2018)09/07/2018
Court granted motion to compel foreign arbitral award, denying cross-motions to dismiss and vacate. Court rejected as unsupported both of the defendant’s non-enforcement arguments under the New York Convention Articles V(1)(e) and V(1)(b). Court further held that the New York Convention provided the sole bases for setting aside foreign awards, but that, in any case, none of the defendant’s arguments under Section 10 of the FAA (alleging denial of a fair hearing and bias) were supported. Finally, court rejected defendant’s argument that the award as not final because the tribunal had accepted jurisdiction over only some of the claims, finding that no such rule exists.
-
Laprime v. Extra Space Storage, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-04092-LMA-MBN (W.D. La. Sept. 7, 2018)09/07/2018
Court granted motion to stay litigation pending arbitration, holding that the parties’ dispute fell within the scope of an arbitration agreement the validity of which was not contested.
-
Medidata Solutions, Inc. v. Veeva Systems Inc., No. 17-2694 (2d Cir. Sept. 6, 2018)09/06/2018
Court of appeals affirmed denial of motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the remaining defendant had never entered into an arbitration agreement with the plaintiff and lacked a basis for compelling arbitration under a theory of equitable estoppel.
-
In Re: Zetia (Ezetimibe) Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:18-CV-00071-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. Sept. 6, 2018)09/06/2018
Magistrate judge recommended denying motion to compel arbitration. Court found that the contract did not unambiguously delegate questions of enforceability to the arbitrator and contained clear waivers regarding certain statutory remedies, and therefore did not require the arbitration of the plaintiffs’ antitrust claims.
-
Vero Water, Inc. v. Shymanski, No. 1:17-CV-23320-JEM (S.D. Fla. Aug. 30, 2018)08/30/2018
Magistrate judge recommended granting in part motion to compel arbitration. Judge held that only the defendant with whom an arbitration agreement existed could compel litigation. Judge recommended that proceedings against the other defendant be stayed pending arbitration. Court later accepted these recommendations.
-
Greenberg v. Doctors Associates, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-22505-UU (S.D. Fla. Aug. 29, 2018)08/29/2018
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, rejecting arguments regarding the applicability of the terms and conditions and terms of use that contained the arbitration agreement.
-
Singh v. Mednax Services Inc., No. 0:17-CV-61792-JEM (S.D. Fla. Aug. 28, 2018)08/28/2018
Magistrate judge recommended that motion to compel arbitration be granted. Court held that although the defendants had engaged in conduct suggesting they had waived their right to arbitrate, the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that their conduct had prejudiced her.
-
Plummer v. McSweeny, No. 4:18-CV-00063-JM (E.D. Ark. Aug. 27, 201808/27/2018
Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court rejected plaintiff’s first two arguments – that there was no contract because it was only signed by plaintiff and that certain agents of the signatory to the arbitration agreement could not compel arbitration of claims against them because they were non-signatories. However, court found that the agreement was unconscionable because defendants were sophisticated attorneys who called the uneducated plaintiff’s cell phone and told her she would die unless she had certain surgical procedures and that she would have to sign the agreement containing the arbitration provision before she could have the lifesaving procedure.
-
Smith v. General Information Solutions, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-00230-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio Aug. 23, 2018)08/23/2018
Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to transfer venue to the District of South Carolina, finding that the balance of the public and private interests weighed in favor of transfer and concluding that it was “appropriate and in the interest of judicial economy” to address the venue question before reaching the motion to compel arbitration.
-
Crystallex International Corporation v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 17-MC-151-LPS (D. Del. Aug. 23, 2018)08/23/2018
Court granted petitioner’s request to seize shares of a Delaware company held by an alter ego of Venezuela to begin enforcement of petitioner’s $1.2 billion judgment against Venezuela. Court stayed sale of shares until it issues a separate order of sale.
-
Revitch v. DirecTV, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-01127-JCS (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 201808/23/2018
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel AAA arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court found plaintiff’s arbitral agreement with AT&T Mobility did not bind him to arbitrate with affiliated defendant, because plaintiff did not intend to enter the arbitral agreement with defendant, who only became affiliated with AT&T Mobility after plaintiff entered into the agreement.
-
Alonso v. AuPairCare, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-00970-JD (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2018)08/23/2018
Court granted in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of plaintiffs’ non-Private Attorney General Act claims pursuant to the FAA. Court found that the arbitration clause in one plaintiff’s contract was so one-sided, since the defendant alone could determine the arbitrator and the rules of arbitration, as to make it procedurally and substantively unconscionable under California law. However, court compelled the other plaintiff to arbitrate, because that agreement delegated decisions on arbitrability to the arbitrator.
-
PDC Machines Inc. v. Nel Hydrogen A/S, No. 2:17-CV-05399-JS (E.D. Pa. Aug. 22, 2018)08/22/2018
Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration in Denmark and stay the case pending completion of arbitration pursuant to the New York Convention and the FAA. Court held that defendants waived their right to arbitration by participating in the litigation for several months before seeking to compel arbitration and regardless, concluded plaintiff’s claims, all related to the misappropriation of trade secrets, did not fall within the scope of the arbitral agreement.
-
Orihuela-Knott v. The Salvation Army, No. 2:18-CV-01060-KJM-DB (E.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2018)08/21/2018
Court granted motion to compel arbitration upon finding that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable. Court held that the agreement was not unconscionable because it was presented as a condition of employment. Court likewise rejected plaintiffs’ arguments that the agreement was substantively unconscionable because it restricted discovery, contained a confidentiality clause, and waived the application of the Private Attorneys General Act.
-
Geiger v. H&H Franchising Systems, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00738-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C. Aug. 21, 2018)08/21/2018
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay the action pending arbitration, pursuant to the FAA, against those plaintiffs who signed the employment agreement containing the arbitration clause and class action waiver.
-
Dish Network LLC v. Ray, No. 17-1013 (10th Cir. Aug. 21, 2018)08/21/2018
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of a petition to vacate a construction arbitration award. Court concluded that the agreement demonstrated the parties intended to delegate all issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator and found the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law or impermissibly base his decision on public policy.
-
Balvin v. Rain and Hail, LLC, No. 4:18-CV-04049-LLP (D.S.D. Aug. 21, 2018)08/21/2018
Court granted in part plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitration award. Pursuant to Section 10(a) of the FAA, the court held that the arbitrator did not commit misconduct in refusing to hear evidence, concluding that both parties had an adequate opportunity to present evidence, and found the arbitrator did not exceed his power in interpreting the meaning of “good farming practices.” However, court held that arbitrator exceeded his authority in interpreting the “appraised value” on the basis of un-signed appraisal worksheets without submitting the disputes to the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation as mandated by the insurance policy and ordered a determination of the proper procedure in these circumstances.
-
Whitworth v. Solarcity Corp., No. 3:16-CV-01540-JSC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2018)08/21/2018
Court granted motion to compel arbitration of individual claims following the Supreme Court’s decision in Epic Systems but denied motion to compel arbitration of PAGA claims. Court granted motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration.
-
Jones v. Home Buyers Warranty Corporation and National Home Insurance Company (A Risk Retention Group), No. 1:17-CV-00773-JFB-SRF (D. Del. Aug. 21, 2018)08/21/2018
Court rejected plaintiffs’ objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation denying their motion to remand the action to vacate the arbitral award to state court. Court held that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 because, although the plaintiffs only requested declaratory relief, the amount in controversy is determined by the value of the underlying cause of action arbitrated not just the amount sought in the demand for arbitration.
-
Willcock v. My Goodness! Games, Inc., No. 8:16-CV-04020-PWG (D. Md. Aug. 20, 2018)08/20/2018
Court transferred the case to the Western District of Texas for that court to compel AAA arbitration after finding that it could not compel arbitration in Texas pursuant to Section 4 of the FAA, which courts have interpreted to mean a court cannot compel arbitration outside its own district, and concluding that the standing preliminary injunction could not survive dismissal of the case.
-
Sherwood Marketing Group, LLC v. Intertek Testing Services, N.A., Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00782-BEN-NLS (S.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2018)08/20/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss or stay pending arbitration. Pursuant to the FAA and the broad language of the arbitral agreement, court held that plaintiff’s claim fell within the scope of the arbitral provision and must be arbitrated. Court concluded the second amended complaint should be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim.
-
Octaform Systems Inc. v. Johnston., No. 2:16-CV-02500-APG-PAL (D. Nev. Aug. 17, 2018)08/17/2018
Court granted narrowed discovery requests and ordered plaintiff to produce all non-privileged documents related to an arbitration pending in Canada between plaintiff and a Chinese manufacturer and its principal and a second arbitration in Canada between plaintiff and defendants related to their employment contracts.
-
En Pointe Technologies Sales, LLC v. Ovex Technologies (Private) Limited, No. 2:18-CV-03235-PSG-SK (C.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2018)08/17/2018
Court granted motion to confirm JAMS arbitral award against defendant by default as defendant failed to respond or otherwise defend itself pursuant to Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Court held defendant was properly served pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Hague Service Convention. Court entered judgment against defendant in the full amount of the final partial award plus any additional amounts to be ordered by the arbitrator in the arbitration, including attorney’s fees and post-judgment interest.
-
Drywall Tapers and Pointers of Greater New York Local Union 1974, IUPAT, AFL-CIO v. MAIA MP Construction, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-05506-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018)08/17/2018
Court granted plaintiff’s unopposed petition to confirm arbitral award, holding there was no justification for vacating the award under Section 10(a) of the FAA.
-
Fox Bend Development Associates, Ltd. v. Ennis, No. 3:17-CV-3137-N (N.D. Tex. Aug. 17, 2018)08/17/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss holding plaintiffs’ claims were subject to arbitration. Pursuant to the FAA, the court rejected plaintiffs’ contention that the arbitration clause was invalid because defendant fraudulently induced them to enter into the contract, since the alleged fraudulent conduct related to the contract as a whole and not the arbitration clause itself; and court found that plaintiffs’ claims were connected to the contract and therefore, fell within the scope of the broad arbitration agreement. Court found the High Court of Ireland’s decision to appoint a liquidator and wind up the company did not terminate defendant’s right to compel plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims, as that right arose prior to the termination.
-
Sultanate of Oman v. Al Tamimi, No. 1:18-CV-11291-LTS (D. Mass. Aug. 16, 2018)08/16/2018
Clerk of court entered an order of default for defendant’s failure to plead or defend himself in a suit claiming he failed to pay a $5.6 million ICSID arbitration award pursuant to Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
-
Arthur v. Evansville Anesthesia Associates, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-00116-JMS-MPB (S.D. Ind. Aug. 16, 2018)08/16/2018
Court ordered that the matter be remanded to the Vanderburgh Circuit Court. Court concluded that it was not obvious that the FAA applied to the arbitration agreement and defendants provided no explanation or argument as to why it might. However, even assuming that the FAA applied generally, defendants provided no basis upon which the court could conclude that Section 4 of the FAA applies to them, a non-aggrieved party seeking to prevent arbitration where there is no Section 4 petition.