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.
-
Augustine v. TLC Resorts Vacation Club, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-01120-H-JMA (S.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2018)08/16/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court concluded that (i) defendant carried its burden to show the existence of an agreement to arbitrate; (ii) plaintiff failed to show the existence of procedural and substantive unconscionability; and (iii) plaintiff had not established a genuine issue of material fact as to the existence of the agreement or the agreement’s applicability to the instant dispute.
-
Fitzgibbons v. Atkinson, No. 8:17-CV-02092-AMQ-JDA (D.S.C. Aug. 16, 2018)08/16/2018
Court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to deny defendants’ motion to dismiss. Court concluded that (i) there was no error in the magistrate judge’s report regarding personal jurisdiction; (ii) the magistrate judge correctly concluded that defendants failed to meet their burden of proof to transfer venue; (iii) the magistrate judge correctly identified the applicable legal principles for motions relating to alleged necessary and indispensable parties, and correctly analyzed the facts relating to those motions; and (iv) there was no error in the magistrate judge’s recommendation that defendants’ motions to dismiss and compel arbitration be denied.
-
Lyles v. Brennan, No. 1:15-CV-00354-CLC-CHS (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 16, 2018)08/16/2018
Court denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment. Court found that because the arbitrator never considered whether defendant honestly believed plaintiff was at blame for the accident—which was defendant’s nondiscriminatory reason for terminating plaintiff—defendant was not collaterally estopped from relying on the accident against plaintiff’s Title VII allegations. Court also concluded that it remained free to accord the appropriate weight to the arbitration decision, taking into account (1) the degree of the procedural fairness at arbitration, (2) the adequacy of the record with respect to the issue of discrimination, (3) the special competence of particular arbitrators, and (4) whether the issue was solely one of fact, specifically addressed by the parties and decided by the arbitrator on the basis of an adequate record.
-
Reddy v. Buttar, No. 3:18-CV-00172-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C. Aug. 16, 2018)08/16/2018
Court denied in part and deferred in part defendant’s motion to dismiss the petition, denied as moot plaintiff’s conditional motion to continue and grant jurisdictional discovery, and denied without prejudice plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend. Court held that district courts have subject matter jurisdiction over cases brought to enforce arbitration awards issued under the New York Convention. Court further concluded that limited discovery was warranted to explore jurisdictional facts, and that plaintiff must ultimately prove the existence of personal jurisdiction over the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence.
-
Santana v. A.I. Recovery, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-00016-JFC (W.D. Pa. Aug. 16, 2018)08/16/2018
​Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court concluded that (i) a reasonable person would find that the parties manifested an intent to be bound by the CSO Agreement; (ii) the terms of the arbitration provision were sufficiently definite and required plaintiff to arbitrate claims that fell within its scope; and (iii) the arbitration provision was supported by consideration because both parties agreed to arbitrate claims relating to the CSO agreement.
-
Taylor v. Samsung Electronics America, No. 3:16-CV-50313 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 16, 2018)08/16/2018
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court concluded that there was an enforceable agreement to arbitrate. Court also concluded that because all of the disputes arose from the “sale, condition, or performance” of the phone, they fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
-
Stanley v. A Better Way Wholesale Autos, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01215-MPS (D. Conn. Aug. 15, 2018)08/15/2018
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the action. Court found that the arbitration provisions, which appear in two contracts drafted by defendant, must be read together and, because the combined agreement is ambiguous as to the identity of the arbitrator, must be construed in plaintiff’s favor. As such, AAA was the proper arbitration panel, and defendant forfeited its right to arbitrate by refusing to participate in the AAA arbitration.
-
Air Center Helicopters, Inc. v. Starlite Investments Ireland Limited, et al., No. 4:18-CV-00599-O (N.D. Tex. Aug. 15, 2018)08/15/2018
Court granted defendants’ cross motion to confirm the award. Court noted that circuits addressing whether an arbitration award granting temporary injunctive relief constitutes a “final order” or whether a district court has jurisdiction to vacate or confirm the temporary award have concluded that where an interim award is in the nature of a preliminary injunction, a district court’s determination whether to vacate or confirm the award is permissible to “make final relief meaningful.”
-
Gaffers v. Kelly Services, Inc., No. 16-2210 (6th Cir. Aug. 15, 2018)
08/15/2018Court of appeals reversed the district court’s denial of defendant-appellant’s motion to compel arbitration, and remanded the action for proceedings consistent with the opinion. Court of appeals held that neither the National Labor Relations Act nor the Fair Labor Standards Act were obstacles to arbitration agreements in the instant case.
-
Michigan Nurses Assoc. v. Bay Area Medical Center, No. 1:18-CV-01221-WCG (E.D. Wis. Aug. 15, 2018)08/15/2018
Court denied the petition for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in aid of arbitration. Court held that consummation of the transaction at issue would not result in irreparable harm to petitioner nor vitiate the arbitration process, and that the hardships claimed by the petitioner did not outweigh the hardships claimed by the respondent.
-
Spirit Airlines, Inc. v. Maizes, No. 17-14415 (11th Cir. Aug. 15, 2018)08/15/2018
Court of appeals affirmed the district court ruling that the agreement’s choice of AAA rules designated the arbitrator to decide whether the arbitration agreement permitted class arbitration. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (1995), court concluded that the parties’ agreement plainly chose AAA rules, which included the AAA’s Supplementary Rules for Class Arbitrations. As such, this was clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties chose to have an arbitrator decide whether their agreement provided for class arbitration.
-
Williams v. Dearborn Motors 1, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-12724-NGE-DRG (E.D. Mich. Aug. 15, 2018)08/15/2018
Court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of court’s order granting defendant’s motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration. Court concluded that requiring the availability of classwide arbitration interfered with the fundamental attributes of arbitration; that there was no substantive statutory right to bring a “pattern-or-practice class claim”; and that there was no contrary command in Title VII, the ADA, or the ADEA that overrode the FAA’s mandate towards favoring arbitration agreements.
-
Alemayehu v. Gemignani, No. 1:18-CV-00212-CMA-MJW (D. Colo. Aug. 14, 2018)08/14/2018
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to dissolve stay. Court agreed with defendants’ argument that Tenth Circuit precedent requires a stay pending the appeal of a denial of a petition to compel arbitration. Court also concluded that, even if the court’s stay was discretionary, it would be appropriate because defendants have made a sufficiently strong showing of necessity.
-
Bettin’ on Blue Farms, LLC v. Dole Berry Company, No. 8:18-CV-00755-SDM-JSS (M.D. Fla. Aug. 14, 2018)08/14/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that the parties included in the agreement two provisions that delegated to the arbitrator the power to resolve a dispute about arbitrability.
-
Clymer v. Jetro Cash and Carry Enterprises, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-05530-NIQA (E.D. Pa. Aug. 14, 2018)08/14/2018
Court severed two unconscionable provisions of the arbitration agreement and granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court determined that the arbitration costs provision and the one-year limitation for requesting arbitration were unconscionable as applied, but since they were severable the matter should still go to arbitration.
-
Pitino v. Adidas America, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00639-DJH (W.D. Ky Aug. 14, 2018)08/14/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss. Court found that by providing for arbitration before the AAA, the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability. However, since the parties’ agreement specified that arbitration would take place in Oregon, only a district court in that forum would have jurisdiction to compel arbitration.
-
Steadfast Insurance Co. v. Frost Bank, No. 5:17-CV-01222-XR (W.D. Tex. Aug. 14, 2018)08/14/2018
Court granted plaintiff’s opposed motion to stay pending arbitration. Following Fonesca v. USG Insurance Services, Inc., 467 F. App’x 260 (5th Cir. 2012), court determined that it would exercise its discretion to stay the case to preserve a forum for redress in the event the arbitration failed to resolve the claims.
-
United Food and Commercial Workers Union 8-Golden State v. Gibson Wine Company, No. 1:17-CV-01674-AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2018)08/14/2018
Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its motion to compel arbitration. Court concluded that defendant failed to demonstrate how issues raised in the grievances were “representative issues,” and failed to identify portions of the record in support of its mootness and waiver arguments. Court also concluded that no genuine issue of material fact existed concerning the parties’ agreement to arbitrate.
-
Wartsila North America, Inc. v. International Centre for Dispute Resolution, No. 4:18-CV-01531 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 14, 2018)08/14/2018
Court granted defendant ICDR’s motion to dismiss, finding that it was protected by arbitral immunity. Court explained that that if the resolution of the arbitrability issue was not facially obvious, as it was not here, then immunity should apply to the administrative stages prior to an official appointment of an arbitrator or panel of arbitrators. Court also granted defendant Hartford’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that plaintiffs failed to present a prima facie case of specific jurisdiction with regard to the breach of contract and tortious interference claims.
-
Weirton Medical Center, Inc. v. Quorum Health Resources, LLC, No. 18-1058 (4th Cir. Aug. 14, 2018)08/14/2018
Court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court confirming an arbitration award. Court of appeals held that the second arbitrator’s finding was not inconsistent with the first arbitrator’s findings, and therefore petitioner failed to establish that the second arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law in reaching his decision.
-
Richland Equipment Co., Inc. v. Deere & Company, No. 17-60631 (5th Cir. Aug. 13, 2018)08/13/2018
Court of appeals affirmed the district court decision that arbitration must be compelled when a contract providing for arbitration of “any dispute” between the parties and containing a valid delegation clause is terminated and the claims thereunder are removed from a complaint but the claims under related contracts are preserved. Court concluded that there is no evidence that the parties intended for disputes to be resolved in arbitration before the termination of the contract and in court afterward, and thus the parties are subject to a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement.
-
Smith v. RJC, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-00830-JHE (N.D. Ala. Aug. 13, 2018)08/13/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss. Court found that there was an existence of a written agreement to arbitrate claims, a nexus to interstate commerce, and coverage of the claims by the arbitration clause. Court also concluded that the action should be dismissed because there were no substantive issues left pending before the district court.
-
Stinson v. Best Buy Co., Inc., No. 0:18-CV-00295-JNE-KMM (D. Minn. Aug. 13, 2018)08/13/2018
Court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to grant defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Magistrate judge concluded that (i) defendant Best Buy could enforce the arbitration agreement even though it was a nonsignatory; (ii) the arbitration agreement was valid; and (iii) the dispute raised in the complaint fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
-
Tecnimont S.P.A. v. Holtec International, No. 1:17-CV-05167-JBS-KMW (D.N.J. Aug. 13, 2018)08/13/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion in favor of arbitration. Court concluded that the parties agreed to arbitration pursuant to a broad arbitration clause that covers the claims at issue here. Court also concluded that the duress claimed by plaintiffs did not relate to the formation of the arbitration clause.
-
Coleman v. Bristol Care, No. 2:18-cv-04069-MDH (W.D. Mo. Aug. 13, 2018)08/13/2018
Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Court found that defendant offered, in consideration for plaintiff’s assent, its own assent to resolve employment claims via binding arbitration, and that this exchange of ironclad promises was sufficient consideration to support the contract. Court also found that issues in the lawsuit at least touched on matters related to plaintiff’s employment application and consideration for employment, and therefore her claims were within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
-
Guest v. Air Liquide America Specialty Gasses, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-01969-AC (D. Or. Aug. 13, 2018)08/13/2018
Court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to grant defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that (i) the magistrate judge corrected concluded that the arbitration agreement validly waived plaintiff’s right to a jury trial; (ii) plaintiff’s attempt to characterize his claims as not arising out of his employment with defendant was unavailing; (iii) the unambiguous text of the arbitration agreement could not reasonably be read to imply a time-limited one-year term; and (iv) the arbitration agreement was not procedurally or substantively unconscionable.
-
Hazen v. Citibank, N.A., No. 1:18-CV-00103-BLW (D. Idaho Aug. 13, 2018)08/13/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court concluded that it was evident that Citi presented its Employee Arbitration Policy as an explicit condition to plaintiff, that plaintiff acknowledged that policy, and agreed to its terms when he continued to work at Citi. Court also found that the arbitration policy was not procedurally unconscionable on the grounds that it differed significantly from the 2006 arbitration policy and, while one of the provisions was substantively unconscionable, there was a severability provision that prevented the invalidation of the arbitration policy as a whole.
-
Huertas v. Foulke Management Corp., No. 1:17-CV-01891-RMB-AMD (D.N.J. Aug. 13, 2018)08/13/2018
Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion to amend. Court had previously ruled that claims against Foulke Management were subject to arbitration, but since Capital One was a nonsignatory, the same analysis did not necessarily apply to Capital One. Court therefore concluded that it could not rule, on the present record, that plaintiff’s proposed claims against Capital One were futile on the basis that the claims, or issue of arbitrability of the claims, were subject to arbitration.
-
Carlson v. Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Ltd., No. 3:13-CV-00115-CVG-RM (D.V.I. Aug. 10, 2018)08/10/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to vacate the arbitration award. Court found that because the remand of the original award was not under one of the three circumstances that would have permitted the arbitrator to revisit and revise her original award, the arbitrator was without power to enter her second award. Accordingly, the court must vacate the second award.
-
Crystallex International Corporation v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 1:17-MC-00151-LPS (D. Del. Aug. 10, 2018)08/10/2018
Court granted plaintiff’s motion for an order authorizing the issuance of a writ of attachment. Court concluded that plaintiff rebutted the presumption of separateness, showing that PDVSA may be deemed the alter ego of Venezuela and proving the applicability of an exception to PDVSA’s sovereign immunity. Court also concluded that plaintiff overcame the immunities embodied in the FSIA relating to attachment and execution on property held by foreign sovereigns in the U.S.
-
Khaliquzzaman v. Equifax Information Services LLC, No. 1:17-CV-01450-ENV-JO (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2018)08/10/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court concluded that there was no genuine issue of fact regarding the validity and applicability of the revised agreement, including its terms compelling the arbitration of related disputes. Court further concluded that because plaintiff’s claim relates to the reporting of credit information, which is related to his credit account, it is clear that the claim falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
-
Penn Outdoor Services LLC v. JK Consultants, No. 2:17-CV-02791-NIQA (E.D. Pa. Aug. 10.2018)08/10/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court concluded that plaintiff’s underlying declaratory judgment action must be submitted to binding arbitration pursuant to the arbitration provision contained in the parties’ agreement because it challenged only the validity of the contract as a whole, and not the arbitration provision directly.
-
Landry v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00507-SM (D.N.H. Aug. 9, 2018)
08/09/2018Court granted motion to compel arbitration in party, finding that the fact of the plaintiff’s execution of the arbitration agreement had been established and that requiring arbitration and class action waiver as a condition of employment was not unconscionable. However, the Court deferred decision on claim that class action wavier was an unfair labor practice in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, as the matter was pending before the Supreme Court in N.R.L.B. v. Murphy Oil.
-
Soaring Wind Energy LLC v. Catic USA, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-04033-K (N.D. Tex. Aug. 9, 2018)08/09/2018
Court granted movants’ motion to confirm the arbitration award against respondent. Court found that (i) the method by which the arbitrators was selected was in accordance with the exact process agreed to by the parties in their arbitration agreement, and therefore the panel did not exceed their powers; (ii) common law grounds such as public policy and due process are no longer valid to support vacatur under the FAA; (iii) the panel did not exceed its authority by identifying an ambiguity in the contract that neither party identified or submitted; (iv) respondent failed to meet is burden to prove that the panel committed misconduct; and (v) respondent failed to show that the panel exceeded its powers in awarding damages and attorneys’ fees and in exercising jurisdiction over derivative claims.
-
FaradayFuture Inc. v. Evelozcity Inc., No. 18-CV-00727 (C.D.Cal. Aug. 8, 2018)08/08/2018
Court denied motion to compel arbitration of claims involving the alleged theft of trade secrets from an artificial intelligence electric vehicles company. Court found that because defendant was not a signatory to the underlying employment agreements between plaintiff and its former employees it could not compel arbitration.
-
Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, and Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund v. Nguyen Custom Woodworking LLC, No. 1:18-CV-05793-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 2018)08/07/2018
Court granted unopposed petition to confirm arbitral award, treating it as akin to a motion for summary judgment and finding no genuine issue of material fact precluding confirmation.
-
Reading Health System v. Bear Sterns & Co., No. 16-4234 (3d Cir. Aug. 7, 2018)08/07/2018
Court of appeals affirmed district court judgment compelling arbitration finding, inter alia, that forum selection clause did not waive right to arbitrate under FINRA Rule 12200.
-
Parm v. Arce, No. 17-1931 (8th Cir. Aug. 7, 2018)08/07/2018
Court of appeals reversed district court’s partial denial of motion to compel arbitration and ordered arbitration of all claims, finding that a “broad” arbitration clause covered state-law usury claims, state and federal financial-disclosure claims, and state-law unjust enrichment claims.
-
Plump Engineering, Inc. v. Westshore Design Engineers, P.C., No. 1:18-CV-00027-BKS-DJS (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2018)08/06/2018
Court granted in part and denied in part motion to compel arbitration as to arbitrable claims and stay non-arbitrable claims, finding that arbitration clause carving out claims for injunctive relief did not preclude remaining claims.
-
Golden Gate National Senior Care, LLC v. Killian, No. 2:17-CV-02732-JD (E.D. Penn. Aug. 6, 2018)08/06/2018
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that respondent had the capacity to execute the arbitration agreement and that the agreement was not unconscionable.
-
Hebbronville Lone Star Rentals, L.L.C. v. Sunbelt Rentals Industrial Services, L.L.C., No. 17-50613 (5th Cir. Aug. 6, 2018)08/06/2018
Court of appeals affirmed district court judgment vacating an arbitral award that reformed the contract, finding that the arbitration agreement did not grant the arbitrator the power to decide reformation.
-
McFadden v. Van Chevrolet-Cadillac, LLC, No. 4:18-00395-CV-W-BP (W.D. Mo. Aug. 3, 2018)08/03/2018
Court denied motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, finding that mutual assent was lacking because the defendant did not sign the arbitration agreement or otherwise establish its assent.
-
Discullo v. Allstate Insurance Company, No. 3:17-CV-00234-MPS (D. Conn. Aug. 3, 2018)08/03/2018
Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that claimant waived right to arbitrate by litigating her case for fourteen months.
-
Conklin v. Onebeacon America Insurance Company No. 6:18-CV-00636-PGB-TBS (M.D. Fla. Aug. 2, 2018)08/02/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration ordering the parties shall proceed to arbitration in accordance with the terms of their arbitration agreement.
-
Morgan v. UMH Properties, No. 1:18-CV-00948-DCN (N.D. Ohio Aug. 1, 2018)08/02/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed plaintiff’s claims without prejudice. Court found that the arbitration agreement which delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrators was not unconscionable under Ohio law and thus deferred the question of the validity of the agreement to the arbitrators.
-
District 1199NM v. Christus St. Vincent Regional Medical Center, No. 1:16-CV-00774-MV-JHR (D.N.M. Aug. 2, 2018)08/02/2018
Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award and request for injunctive relief, denying respondent’s motion to vacate. Court held that the arbitrator’s factual findings were beyond its review and therefore denied respondent’s argument that the arbitrator’s findings show the award did not draw its essence from the agreement. Court also rejected respondent’s argument that the arbitrator exceeded the issues submitted by the parties.
-
Patton v. Johnson, No. 1:17-CV-00259-WES-PAS (D.R.I. Aug. 2, 2018)08/02/2018
​Court adopted magistrate’s judge’s report and recommendation that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration should be denied. An earlier arbitration award had found that plaintiff did not agree to arbitrate disputes arising from the agreements in question. Defendant sought vacatur of this decision and to compel arbitration of the present claims. Magistrate judge found no basis for vacating the arbitrator’s decision, and concluded that defendant was collaterally estopped from re-litigating the precise issue, thus he recommended that the court deny defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.
-
Schwartz v. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-03751-GJP (E.D. Pa. Aug. 2, 2018)08/02/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings of a claim for age discrimination pursuant to the FAA. Court found that plaintiff’s employment agreement contained a valid arbitration provision, and that plaintiff’s age discrimination claims were within the scope of that provision.
-
Moreno v. Progistics Distribution, No. 1:18-CV-01833 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 2, 2018)08/02/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court found that plaintiff’s continued employment after being notified of an arbitration policy constituted acceptance of the agreement and consideration under Illinois law. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the agreement was vague and unconscionable and thus compelled arbitration pursuant to the FAA.
-
Chuang v. OD Expense LLC, No. 17-1774 (3rd Cir. Aug. 01, 2018)08/01/2018
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration. Appellate court, reviewing de novo, agreed that defendants were not a party to the mandatory arbitration agreement they had sought to enforce, instead the arbitration provision defendant was party to permitted actions to be brought in Delaware.