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.
-
Internaves de Mexico S.A. DE C.V. v. Andromeda Steamship Corporation, No. 17-12164 (11th Cir. Aug. 01, 2018)08/01/2018
Court of appeals reversed a district court decision to compel arbitration of an admiralty and maritime dispute in Miami, finding that the parties had agreed to arbitrate in London. The contract named both London and New York as potential sites for arbitration, under English law and US law respectively. The district court could not determine which was the appropriate forum and compelled arbitration in their own district in accordance with Chapter 1 of the FAA. The appellate court found that the New York Convention, codified as Chapter 2 of the FAA, created a strong presumption in favor of directing arbitration to be held in any forum provided for in the arbitration agreement. The appellate court then used general principals of contract interpretation to determine that the parties had intended to arbitrate disputes in London, under English law.
-
Diabetic Care RX, LLC v. Express Scripts, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-01176-CDP (E.D. Mo. Aug. 01, 2018)08/01/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case, removing a previously instated temporary restraining order. Court found that the parties’ contract left no doubt that the dispute was governed by an arbitration agreement, and the FAA required that they compel arbitration. Court found defendant had not waived its right to arbitrate by removing to federal court or by its motion to remove a temporary restraining order.
-
Zean v. Comcast Broadband Security, LLC, No. 0:17-CV-05117-WMW-KMM (D. Minn. Aug. 01, 2018)08/01/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that a contract existed under Minnesota state law and it contained a valid arbitration agreement which governed this dispute. Court thus compelled arbitration and stayed the proceedings pursuant to the FAA.
-
Garcia v. NRI USA, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-08355-ODW-GJS (C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2018)08/01/2018
Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration in a wage class action against several defendants. While court found that defendants had met their burden in establish that plaintiff entered into a binding agreement to arbitrate, the only defendant remaining in the case was not a party to the arbitration and could not enforce the agreement.
-
Bergeron v. Monex Deposit Company, No. 8:17-CV-01968-JVS-DFM (C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2018)08/01/2018
Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss but granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court found that the parties clearly and unmistakably intended to delegate arbitrability to an arbitrator, and that an assertion of arbitrability was not wholly groundless, thus they deferred to the arbitrators to consider plaintiff’s argument that the value of his claims put them outside the scope of the agreement.
-
Smagin v. Yegiazaryan, No. 16-55502 (9th Cir. July 31, 2018)07/31/2018
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s post judgment injunction to freeze movement of assets but vacated district court’s award of attorney’s fees and remanded for court to consider the award under the appropriate standard. Court denied request for judicial reassignment on remand.
-
Overdroff v. NAU Country Insurance Company, No. 2:18-CV-00079-MPK (W.D. Pa. July 31, 2018)07/31/2018
Court dismissed a complaint seeking to vacate an arbitration award. Court found that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers and thus held that plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
-
Wolfinger v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-03099-NGG-PK (E.D.N.Y. July 31, 2018)07/31/2018
Court dismissed with prejudice plaintiff’s petition to vacate an arbitration award. Plaintiff sought vacatur of an award that had been arbitrated on his behalf by a union. Court found that plaintiff was not a party and did not have standing to challenge the award.
-
Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC v. Sappington, No. 1:16-CV-08956-VEC (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2018)07/31/2018
Court denied petitioner’s motion to vacate an arbitration award. Court rejected petitioner’s arguments that the arbitrator exceeded his authority, finding that the arbitrator did not consider issues which were prohibited or beyond those submitted for his consideration. Court further rejected petitioner’s argument that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law, finding that the arbitrator explored and reviewed relevant case law, and simply interpreted it differently than petitioner.
-
Limon v. AMB Industry Groups, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-00701-MMA-JMA (S.D. Cal. July 31, 2018)07/31/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that a valid arbitration agreement existed and that neither the plaintiff’s alleged inability to understand English, nor the fact the agreement did not append the AAA arbitration rules, rendered the agreement unconscionable.
-
Barr v. HSS, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-12820-DML-MKM (E.D. Mich. July 30, 2016)07/30/2018
Court granted in part a motion to dismiss an employment dispute, dismissing the dispute but compelling arbitration. Defendant argued that the claims should be dismissed entirely because they were subject to a mandatory arbitration provision, but that the one year limitation for demanding arbitration had passed. The court referred all questions of timeliness to the arbitrator.
-
High Country Dealerships , Inc. v. Polaris Sales, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00078-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C. July 30, 2016)07/30/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion compel arbitration, and stayed proceedings. Court found that pursuant to the FAA they must compel arbitration when (1) a dispute exists, (2) that is governed by a valid arbitration provision, (3) the transaction is related to interstate commerce, and (4) a party fails or refuses to arbitrate.
-
Megacorp Logistics LLC, v. Turvo, Inc., No. 18-01240-EMC (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2018)07/30/2018
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court found the parties had clearly and unmistakably delegated questions of the scope of arbitration to the arbitrators. Court also found that claims based on agreements that did not contain arbitration clauses were sufficiently related to agreements that did contain an arbitration clause, such that defendants’ assertion of arbitrability for all claims was not groundless.
-
Nosbaum v. J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-06202 (N.D. Ill. July 30, 2018)07/30/2018
Court denied petition to vacate a FINRA arbitration award, and granted cross-petition to confirm the award, converting it to a final judgment in favor of respondent. Court found that arbitrators’ evidentiary ruling that excluded certain evidence did not amount to a refusal to hear evidence which would be grounds for vacatur under the FAA. Court further found that and adverse ruling did not itself support allegations of partiality.
-
Tianjin Free Trade Zone Yongxing Parallel Imported Automotive Trading Co. Ltd. v. Executive Coach Builders, Inc., No. 6:18-CV-03070-MDH (W.D. Mo. July 30, 2018)07/30/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Court found the issues raised by plaintiff, that the arbitration clause was not contained in the agreement in question, and not all defendants were signatories to that agreement, were matters for the arbitrators to decide.
-
Polyone Corporation v. Westlake Vinyls, Inc., No. 5:18-CV-00107-TBR (W.D. Ky. July 30, 2018)07/30/2018
Court denied plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent the parties from arbitrating a dispute scheduled for hearing on August 6, 2018. Court found that there was not a substantial likelihood that plaintiff would prevail in showing the arbitration provision was invalid and unenforceable, and that allowing arbitration served the public interest.
-
La Amapola, Inc. v. Honeyville, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-01946-AB-AS (C.D. Cal. July 28, 2017)07/28/2018
Court denied defendant Gavilon Grain, LLC’s motion to dismiss the third party complaint or to compel arbitration and stay the third-party claims. Court found that Honeyville did not agree to arbitrate, as (i) the terms and conditions containing the arbitration clause were not incorporated into the contract between the parties; (ii) the mailbox rule was irrelevant here because it only resolves whether receipt has been accomplished, and Honeyville has admitted receipt; (iii) defendant Gavilon’s claim that Honeyville assented to the terms and conditions as additional terms under Section 2207 of the California Commercial Code fails because the arbitration agreement materially altered the contract.
-
Buhannic v. Tradingscreen, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-07993-ER (S.D.N.Y. July 27, 2018)07/27/2018
Court denied petitioners’ motion to vacate, and granted and granted Respondents’ cross-motion to confirm an arbitration award. Court rejected petitioners’ arguments that the arbitration panel was impartial, refused to hear certain evidence, and issued the award in manifest disregarded of the law, finding the Arbitrator’s decision consistent with applicable law and the facts presented at the hearing.
-
Ray v. NPRTO Flordia, LLC., No. 18-10188 (11th Cir. July 26, 2018)07/26/2018
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss. Appellate court refused to consider defendant’s arguments that Florida law would allow a non-signatory to be bound by a broadly drafted arbitration clause, finding that defendant had relied solely on federal law in its district court motion.
-
United Merchandise Wholesale Inc. v. Direct Containers Inc, No. 2:18-CV-00617-KM-JBC (D.N.J. July 26, 2018)07/26/2018
Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to confirm an arbitration award, and denied defendants’ motion to vacate. Court found that evidence presented by Defendants of two attenuated relationships between counsel and the arbitrator was not sufficient to meet the burden of establishing evident partiality. Court refused to apply the BMW v. Gore standard for punitive damages in the “far more deferential context of review of an arbitration award.
-
Guerrero v. Haliburton Energy Services, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01300-LJO-JLT (E.D. Cal. July 26, 2018)07/26/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that a provision purporting to waive plaintiff’s right to bring certain claims was both potentially unconscionable, and severable. Once that provision was severed, court found the remainder of the arbitration provision was enforceable pursuant to the FAA.
-
Nathaniel v. Darden Restaurants, Inc., No. 6:18-CV-06022-PKH (W.D. Ark. July 26, 2018)07/26/2018
Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Epic Systems, upholding arbitration agreements for individual proceedings. Court denied motion to stay, as all claims were subject to the arbitral agreement.
-
Maravilla v. Gruma Corporation, No. 4:18-CV-01309 (S.D. Tex. July 26, 2018)07/26/2018
Court granted motion to dismiss and compel JAMS arbitration, holding there was a valid agreement to arbitrate, the clause delegating decisions of arbitrability to the arbitrator was valid, and the class-action waiver was enforceable.
-
Greer v. Sterling Jerlers, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00480-LJO-SKO (E.D. Cal. July 26, 2018)07/26/2018
Court granted motion to dismiss the claim pursuant to the FAA, finding that there was no reason to stay the action because all claims were arbitrable.
-
Daniel v. eBay, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-01294-EGS (D.D.C. July 26, 2018)07/26/2018
Court declined to adopt magistrate judge’s recommendation to compel arbitration and denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation. Court found that plaintiff did not consent to arbitration by agreeing to the change-in-terms provision in the contract thirteen years before the arbitral agreement was added and defendant failed to prove plaintiff was notified of the revised agreement.
-
Payne v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-02313-PMD (D.S.C. July 25, 2018)07/25/2018
Court granted defendants motion to compel arbitration of a class personal injury action, and dismissed the case. Court disagreed with plaintiffs’ arguments that the arbitration provision should be evaluated under South Carolina law, citing a choice of law provision in the agreement which named Washington Law. Court further found that defendant’s placement of a disclaimer next to the “Place your order” button, which stated that by placing an order a user agrees to the conditions of use, was sufficient to provide plaintiff with adequate notice that he would be bound by the arbitration provision. Court also found that the arbitration provision was enforceable against a nonsignatory who brought claims under the contract.
-
Mansour v. Kmart Corporation, Inc., No. 8:17-CV-02440-PWG (D. Md. July 25, 2018)07/25/2018
Court denied motion to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration, finding a genuine dispute of material fact existed with regard to whether plaintiff accepted the arbitration agreement. Court ordered limited discovery on whether the plaintiff agreed to arbitrate the dispute.
-
Copper Mesa Mining Corporation v. The Republic of Ecuador, No. 1:17-CV-00394-TNM (D.D.C. July 25, 2018)07/25/2018
Court granted parties’ joint motion to stay proceedings related to enforcement of a $25 million arbitration award rendered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration pending completion of settlement agreement terms.
-
Fin Associates LP v. Hudson Specialty Insurance Company, No. 16-3541 (3d Cir. July 25, 2018)07/25/2018
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings pending arbitration. Pursuant to the FAA, court found all prerequisites to arbitration had been met and plaintiffs’ claim for compensatory damages fell within the scope of the agreement. Court determined that plaintiff consented to the arbitral agreement through his attorney-in-fact, the agreement was not unconscionable, and defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate.
-
DFM Investments, LLC v. Brandspring Solutions, LLC, No. 17-2447 (8th Cir. July 25, 2018)07/25/2018
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to affirm arbitral award pursuant to the FAA. Court found that district court did not err in its characterization of the award and even if it had, it would be insufficient to reverse the court’s decision and that the award could not be vacated based on arbitrator’s refusal to consider certain evidence as the evidence at issue was not material.
-
Munro v. University of Southern California, No. 17-55550 (9th Cir. July 24, 2018)07/24/2018
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court concluded that current and former employees of USC were not compelled to arbitrate their collective claims for breach of fiduciary responsibility against the defendants for the administration of two ERISA plans, finding that these claims fell outside the scope of the arbitration clauses in the employees’ general employment contracts.
-
McClellan v. Fitbit, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00036-JD (N.D. Cal. July 24, 2018)07/24/2018
Court denied plaintiff’s requests to be relieved of the AAA arbitration agreement and to strike it down for all of defendant’s users, finding that the slow payment of arbitration fees by defendant did not result in a material breach of obligation rising to the level of terminating its right to compel arbitration. Nevertheless, the court held defendant and its lawyers accountable for their bad-faith litigation tactics, ordering defendant to compensate plaintiff for its attorney’s fees and costs related to the misconduct and mandating that defendant file a copy of this decision in all cases where it seeks to compel arbitration with consumers.
-
Egan v. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00445-MRH (W.D. Pa. July 24, 2018)07/24/2018
Court denied defendant’s motion to stay proceedings pending appeal of its denial of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that it maintained jurisdiction of the matter because the issues on appeal were frivolous.
-
Alderson v. Devere USA, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-05081-JFK (S.D.N.Y. July 24, 2018)07/24/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction as moot. Pursuant to the FAA and the arbitration agreement, the court found it must compel AAA or JAMS arbitration and that questions of arbitrability were for the arbitrator to decide.
-
Shaut v. Hatch, No. 1:18-CV-00420-DCN (N.D. Ohio July 24, 2018)07/24/2018
Court granted motion to dismiss motion to vacate the arbitration award, finding respondents were not properly served pursuant to the FAA, the motion to vacate was time barred, and the motion was barred by res judicata as the arbitral award had already been confirmed.
-
Lovelady v. Five Star Quality Care-VA, LLC, No. 4:18-CV-00018-MSD-DEM (E.D. Va. July 25, 2018)07/24/2018
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings pending arbitration. Pursuant to the FAA, court found all prerequisites to arbitration had been met and plaintiffs’ claim for compensatory damages fell within the scope of the agreement. Court determined that plaintiff consented to the arbitral agreement through his attorney-in-fact, the agreement was not unconscionable, and defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate.
-
Academy of Allergy & Asthma in Primary Care v. Superior Healthplan, Inc., No. 5:17-CV-01122-FB-HJB (W.D. Tex. Jul. 23, 2018)07/23/2018
Court accepted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge to grant in part, deny in part, and deny as moot in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and alternative motion to dismiss. Court found that, while plaintiff AAAPC made claims in direct reference to the agreements at issue, plaintiff UAS could not be compelled to arbitrate its claims under the direct-benefits-estoppel theory or the “intertwined claims” theory. Court also noted that the Provider Plaintiffs already filed demands in the arbitration proceeding, and therefore the motion to compel arbitration as to those claims is moot.
-
Judd v. Keypoint Government Solutions, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00327-RM-STV (D. Colo. July 23, 2018)07/23/2018
Magistrate judge recommended granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Pursuant to the FAA, court found the arbitration agreement was valid, concluding that the opt-out form plaintiff signed related to the scope of the arbitral agreement not to its validity and that under the AAA rules, the scope of an arbitration agreement must be determined by the arbitrator.
-
Buchanan v. Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd., No. 4:15-CV-01696-YGR (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2018)07/23/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of certain class members’ claims pursuant to the FAA, finding defendant did not waive its right to demand arbitration and concluding there was no impermissible prospective waiver of employees’ federal antidiscrimination rights. Court also granted defendant’s motion to bifurcate the claims of plaintiff Buchanan from the class, finding that the pattern and practice method of proof of discrimination is not available to private plaintiffs, that the factual overlap of the plaintiff’s claims relative to the class were minimal, bifurcation would avoid confusion and prejudice, and would not impact judicial economy or efficiency. Court denied defendant’s motion for decertification of the class, but modified and limited its definition.
-
Trevino v. Acosta, Inc., No. 5:17-CV-06529-NC (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2018)07/23/2018
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay action, finding pursuant to the Supreme Court’s Epic Systems decision that the class action waiver in the arbitral agreement was enforceable. Court also found sufficient evidence to establish that there was mutual assent to the arbitration clause and that the agreement was not unconscionable under California law.
-
Sharp v. Terminix International, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-02072-SHM-DKV (W.D. Tenn. July 20, 2018)07/20/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of employment dispute where arbitration agreement was unsigned, but incorporated by reference into the signed employment agreement. Court found that while the agreement to arbitrate was procedurally unconscionable, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it was substantively unconscionable, and the agreement to arbitrate was therefore valid.
-
CIP Construction Company v. Western Surety Company, No 1:18-CV-00058-TDS-JLW (M.D.N.C. July 20, 2018)07/20/2018
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, but granted defendant’s alternative motion for a discretionary stay of judicial proceedings in construction dispute between general contractor and surety of a subcontractor pending the outcome of an ongoing arbitration between plaintiff and its subcontractor. Court found that, where a performance bond containing a judicial resolution clause incorporated by reference the subcontract containing an arbitration clause, and that arbitration clause had a narrow scope and made no reference to defendant surety, the surety was not a party to the arbitration agreement. Court held that a discretionary stay was appropriate as issues of fact related to the action may be settled in the pending arbitration between plaintiff and its subcontractor.
-
Innotec LLC v. Visiontech Sales, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00007-GEC-JCH (W.D. Va. July 20, 2018)07/20/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion in the alternative to compel arbitration finding that pursuant to the FAA its role was limited to determining arbitrability and that it was necessary to decide this issue before considering the primary motion to dismiss or any other defenses raised by the parties. Court found that a non-signatory plaintiff was equitably estopped from denying the existence of an agreement to arbitrate where it had sought to enforce particular terms of the contract containing the arbitration agreement against defendant. Court also held that defendant had not waived its right to arbitration by failing to raise the arbitration clause at an earlier point in the proceedings.
-
AOA of the Moorings, Inc. v. Dongbu Insurance Co., LTD., No. 16-16666 (9th Cir. July 20, 2018)07/20/2018
Court of appeals affirmed judgment of district court confirming an arbitral award including attorney’s fees to the prevailing party. Court reviewed decision de novo and found that the fees were included within the coverage of the insurance policy at issue.
-
Triangle River, LLC v. Caroline Square Realty, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-01078-TJC-MCR (M.D. Fla. July 19, 2018)07/19/2018
Magistrate judge recommended that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration be granted pursuant to the FAA, concluding a valid agreement to arbitrate existed, plaintiff’s claim fell within the scope of the agreement, and plaintiff did not demonstrate that the right to arbitration had been waived. Court recommended the action be stayed pending arbitration and that the parties submit periodic reports on the status of arbitration.
-
Middletown Borough v. Middletown Water Joint Venture LLC, No. 1:18-CV-00861-CCC (M.D. Pa. July 19, 2018)07/19/2018
Court rejected plea for preliminary injunctive relief pending the outcome of an ongoing arbitration. Court found that plaintiff failed to prove their likelihood of success on the merits of the arbitration and failed to prove that irreparable harm would follow the failure of the court to issue injunctive relief.
-
Boves v. Aarons, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00005-HBP (S.D.N.Y. July 19, 2018)07/19/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s New York state law employment discrimination claims. Pursuant to the FAA and First Options, court applied New York state contract law to determine that a valid arbitration agreement did exist. The court also held that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and dismissed plaintiff’s multiple arguments to the contrary.
-
CaringOnDemand, LLC v. Ventive LLC, No. 9:18-CV-80211-BB (S.D. Fla. July 19, 2018)07/19/2018
Court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of an order compelling arbitration and the appointment of an arbitrator. Court rejected plaintiff’s attempt to have the court appoint an arbitrator after plaintiff failed to request that relief in their initial motion. Court held that a Rule 59(e) motion could not be used to raise issues that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.
-
Mbau v. Baker Hughes, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-00101-JED-FHM (N.D. Okla. July 19, 2018)07/19/2018
Court granted motion to stay plaintiff’s claims pending arbitration. Court found arbitration provision that stated that either party “may” request that the dispute be subjected to binding arbitration was binding once either party elected to arbitrate and served proper notice thereof upon the opposing party.