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.
-
Bow v. Ad Astra Recovery Services, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-00510-G (N.D. Tex. July 18, 2018)07/18/2018
Court granted motion to stay and compel arbitration filed by defendant, a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement in question. Court found that, regardless of theories of equitable estoppel, the terms of the relevant loan agreement clearly identified that plaintiff may be compelled to arbitrate with a non-signatory affiliate entity of the signatory. Court held that defendant was an affiliate and that plaintiff’s statutory claims fell within the broad scope of the loan agreement.
-
Youngevity International Corp. v. Smith, No. 3:16-CV-00704-BTM-JLB (S.D. Cal. July 18, 2018)07/18/2018
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration of defendant’s counter-claims. Court held that counter-claimants’ arguments had not met “a heavy burden of proof” that plaintiff had waived their right to arbitration. Specifically, defendants and counter-claimants had not shown that plaintiff had knowledge of the right to compel arbitration, acted inconsistently with that right, or that resulting prejudice to defendants had followed.
-
Commodities & Minerals Enterprise LTD. v. CVG Ferrominera Orinoco, C.A., No. 1:17-CV-20196-JEM (S.D. Fla. July 18, 2018)07/18/2018
Court granted petition to confirm partial final award in an arbitration between foreign parties in Miami pursuant to the Society of Maritime Arbitrators Rules. Court found that, pursuant to the New York Convention, its review of the award was “extremely limited,” none of the grounds for vacatur under the FAA were present, and that the arbitrators had competence to determine arbitrability under the arbitration agreement according to the standard in First Options. In confirming the award, court held there was no reason to remand the partial award to the arbitral panel until after resolution of jurisdictional phase of that proceeding.
-
Starnes v. Conduent Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00495-WO-LPA (M.D.N.C. July 18, 2018)07/18/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to stay litigation and compel arbitration. Court rejected all arguments of plaintiff as to the improper formation of the contract containing the agreement to arbitrate and found all requirements of the FAA were met to compel arbitration.
-
Crowe v. CGNSC Ripley, No. 3:17-CV-00171-MPM-RP (N.D. Miss. July 17, 2018)07/17/2018
Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to § 4 of the FAA. Court considered conflict between state contract law precedent clearly limiting the ability of informal agents to enter into valid arbitration agreements on behalf of their wards, and Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedent which disapproved of nominally neutral rules that in practice “would have a disproportionate impact on arbitration agreements”. Court found that the facts before it did not represent a distinction from Fifth Circuit precedent and held the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable.
-
Garcia Saz v. Church of Scientology Religious Trust, No. 8:13-CV-00220-JDW-TBM (M.D. Fla. July 17, 2018)07/17/2018
Court denied motion to vacate arbitration award in ecclesiastical arbitration conducted pursuant to Church of Scientology ethics and justice policies. Plaintiff alleged the arbitrators exhibited partiality towards the Church, and engaged in misconduct by: refusing to hear evidence, refusing to consider fraud claims, allowing the Church to have ex parte conduct with the panel, refusing to allow plaintiff’s counsel to attend the arbitration, and failing to provide sufficient findings for the court to review. Finding that heightened deference must be given to a religious arbitration, court held none of the four grounds for vacatur under the FAA were met.
-
Sistem v. Kyrgyz Republic, No. 16-4153 (2d Cir. July 17, 2018)07/17/2018
Court of appeals affirmed decision of district court confirming ICSID Additional Facility arbitral award, clarifying that the action was actually one of “recognition and enforcement” rather than “confirmation”. Court found that defendant waived its right to challenge the jurisdiction of the tribunal by failing to raise the issue during the arbitration. Court emphasized that, under the FSIA and on the record before them, the District of Colombia may have been the proper venue, but held that defendant failed to timely raise a venue objection and thus was precluded from doing so on appeal.
-
Balkan Energy Ltd. v. Republic of Ghana, No. 1:17-CV-00584-APM (D.D.C. July 17, 2018)07/17/2018
Court granted petitioner’s motion to authorize attachment and execution on a judgment rendered four-months prior, confirming an arbitral award rendered in prior investor-state arbitration. Court found Ghana’s fear that it may be subject to duplicative enforcement was misplaced where another party that had retained the right to pursue award confirmation and enforcement had not yet moved to authorize or attach assets under 28 USC §1610(c).
-
Mattox v. Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-00119-JAM (D. Conn. July 16, 2018)07/16/2018
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action pending arbitration after finding sufficient consideration for the arbitration agreement through both mutual obligations to arbitrate disputes and continued employment.
-
Daniels v. Painter, No. 2:16-CV-03782-RSWL (C.D. Cal. July 16, 2018)07/16/2018
Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award, holding the arbitrator did not act in manifest disregard of the law simply because he took an interpretation of the law that defendants cited as incorrect. Court likewise held that the arbitrator did not act in manifest disregard of the law by holding non-signatory jointly and severally liable nor did he act in manifest disregard of the law by failing to reduce an award of future damages to present value. Court dismissed plaintiffs request for attorney’s fees.
-
Mattox v. Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC., No. 3:18-CV-00119-JAM (D. Conn. July 16, 2018)07/16/2018
Court granted motion to compel arbitration of employment agreement. Employee argued that the agreement was unenforceable as he received no consideration for submitting to arbitration. Court found that reciprocal commitment of parties to arbitration constituted adequate consideration.
-
Hessong v. Cape Securities, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00500-RDB (D. Md. July 16, 2018)07/16/2018
Court refused motion to vacate FINRA arbitration award. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the award be vacated under FRCP 60(b) and applied grounds for vacatur of the FAA. Court held that plaintiff’s motion to vacate was not timely under the FAA’s three-month tolling period as they did not file for thirteen-months after the award was served upon them.
-
Denver Global Products, Inc. v. Leon, No. 5:17-CV-00102 (W.D.N.C. July 16, 2018)07/16/2018
Court affirmed recommendation of magistrate judge confirming arbitration award and entering final judgment against award debtor to Chinese counter-party. Court overruled defendant’s objections to the magistrate judge’s factual findings, holding that no genuine dispute as to the formation and validity of the arbitration agreement existed on the facts. Court also overruled defendant’s objections to the legal conclusion of the magistrate where his decision was based on a precedential opinions expressing a very narrow judicial review of arbitral awards.
-
Armstrong County Memorial Hospital v. Penn. Assoc. of Staff Nurses & Allied Professionals, No. 2:18-CV-00048-AJS (W.D. Pa. July 16, 2018)07/16/2018
Court enforced arbitration award in favor of employees seeking overtime pay. Court found the award to be rationally based upon and drawing its essence from the language of the CBA underlying the arbitration, and that the arbitrator did thus not exceed his jurisdiction.
-
AT&T Mobility Services LLC v. Jean-Baptiste, No. 2:17-CV-11962-MCA-MAH (D.N.J. July 16, 2018)07/16/2018
Court denied motion to compel arbitration where employment contract stipulated that a failure to follow the procedure for opt-out would effect a submission to a binding arbitration agreement. Court followed New Jersey law precedent in stating that, because plaintiff did not condition defendant’s continued employment on participation in its arbitration program, her affirmative consent was necessary to effect the arbitration agreement.
-
United Nations Int. School v. United Nations Int. School Staff Assoc., No. 1:17-CV-04811-ERK (E.D.N.Y. July 13, 2018)07/13/2018
Court refused to vacate arbitration award granting teacher right to return to work. Court found sentences at issue in arbitrator’s award to meet the threshold standard of a “barely colorable justification” and that the award drew its essence from the CBA containing the arbitration agreement.
-
Hermosillo v. Davey Tree Surgery Co., No. 1:18-CV-00393-LHK (N.D. Cal. July 13, 2018)07/13/2018
Court granted motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s six contract claims while severing what it found to be a substantively unconscionable six-month limitations period term from the agreement. Applying California law pursuant to First Options of Chi., Inc., the court found that an agreement to arbitrate did exist in the employment agreement between plaintiff and defendant. In granting the motion to compel, the court engaged in a protracted discussion of procedural and substantive unconscionability, ultimately finding the agreement to arbitrate to be enforceable.
-
Let’s Go Aero, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00710-CMA-MJW (D. Colo. July 13, 2018)07/13/2018
Court granted stay of proceedings and administrative closure pending the outcome of a related arbitration. Court held that the lawsuit and arbitration were duplicative, the parties to be “substantially the same”, the actions asserted to be “nearly identical”, thus the first-filed rule thus favored deference to the pending arbitration.
-
Edible International, LLC v. Google, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-00216-MPS (D. Conn. July 13, 2018)07/13/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration with respect to all of the plaintiff’s claims. Court found that claims fell within the “broad” scope of the arbitration agreement and that plaintiff failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that disputed issues were “collateral” to the agreement.
-
Weiss v. Macy’s Retail Holdings, Inc., No. 17-2219 (2d Cir. Jul. 12, 2018)07/12/2018
Court of appeals vacated the district court judgment denying the motion to compel arbitration and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the order. Court of appeals concluded that plaintiff-appellee’s failure to send back the arbitration opt-out form and continued work for defendant would constitute an agreement to arbitrate. However, the district court did not resolve the contested factual issue as to whether plaintiff received the mailings that would have allowed him to opt out of mandatory arbitration, and therefore remand was appropriate to determine whether plaintiff received the documents.
-
KT Corporation v. ABS Holdings Ltd., No. 1:17-CV-07859-LGS (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2018)07/12/2018
Court granted motion to confirm award rendered in ICC arbitration between foreign companies. Court found that its review of the award was severely limited, and that neither grounds for vacatur under the FAA nor grounds for refusal of confirmation under the New York Convention were present.
-
Tradeline Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. V. Jess Smith & Sons Cotton, LLC, No. 2:15-CV-08048-JAK-RAO (C.D. Cal. July 12, 2018)07/12/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to confirm the arbitration award, holding that the plaintiff brought parallel arguments against the motion to confirm the award and the motion to compel arbitration. Court further held that the plaintiff had not offered any new evidence or shown any change in controlling law which would indicate that the previous order was wrong.
-
Technical Products, Inc. v. Bellsouth Telecommunications, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-02996-RWS (N.D. Ga. July 12, 2018)07/12/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the plaintiff conceded it was bound to the arbitration agreement, and the agreement applied broadly to cover all the plaintiff’s claims and not just to the claims related to the agreement.
-
PKT Associates, Inc. v. Granum Group, LLC, No. 18-CV-1169-VEC (S.D.N.Y July 12, 2018)07/12/2018
Court granted plaintiff’s petition to enforce a foreign arbitration award. Court held that it had jurisdiction because the parties relationship, “involves property located abroad, envisages performance or enforcement abroad, or has some other reasonable relation with one or more foreign states,” pursuant to 9 USC § 202. Court further held that the defendant failed to show there should be an exception to enforcement. Court granted costs to the plaintiff due to the defendant’s failure to pay the arbitral award which caused the plaintiff to incur the cost of initiating the lawsuit.
-
Market America, Inc. v. Yang, No. 1:17-CV-897 (M.D.N.C. July 12, 2018)07/12/2018
Court denied respondent’s motion to dismiss and to strike petitioner’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that (i) special circumstances justified an exception to the ‘first to file rule’; (ii) the court had subject-matter jurisdiction; (iii) in light of the forum selection clause in the arbitration agreement, the forum was appropriate; and (iv) the respondent consented to the arbitration agreement, which was neither illusory nor unconscionable.
-
Lagrasso v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America, No. 4:18-CV-11497-LVP-RSW (E.D. Mich. July 12, 2018)07/12/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion for stay pending arbitration. Court held that the plaintiff’s claims were inseparable from those asserted in arbitration and that allowing the action to proceed would result in litigation of arbitrable issues. Court further held that the plaintiff failed to show that staying the matter would cause undue hardship, prejudice or inequity.
-
Heidrich v. Pennymac Financial Services, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-02821-TLN-EFB (E.D. Cal. July 11, 2018)07/11/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement was valid and that the dispute fell within the scope of the agreement. Court held that the agreement therefore had to be enforced, despite a waiver which the plaintiff alleged to be illegal.
-
Garren v. CVS Health Corporation, No. 3:17-CV-149 (E.D. Tenn. July 11, 2018)07/11/2018
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that the plaintiff showed a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether he opted out of the arbitration agreement.
-
Stemcor USA Inc. v. Cia Siderurgica do Para Cosipar, No. 16-30984 (5th Cir. July 11, 2018)07/11/2018
Court of appeals granted plaintiff’s motion for panel rehearing, and substituted its prior decision. Court held that plaintiff-appellant failed to comply with the procedural requirements which would have allowed for attachments to issue in aid of arbitration.
-
New York City & Vicinity District Council of Carpenters v. A.J.S. Project Management, No. 1:16-CV-08818-VSB (S.D.N.Y. July 11, 2018)07/11/2018
Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm arbitration award, holding that (i) the respondent failed to demonstrate that the claims in the two relevant arbitrations were identical, (ii) different parties initiated the two arbitrations, and (iii) the respondent did not raise the issue of preclusion at the second arbitration. Court therefore found that the award did not violate public policy.
-
Li v. Wok 88 Inc., No. 1:17-CV-08715-GHW (S.D.N.Y. July 11, 2018)07/11/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration agreement was valid and the plaintiff’s claim was within its scope. Court denied defendant’s motion for sanctions under 28 USC § 1927, holding that while the plaintiff’s refusal to comply with the arbitration agreement did cause unnecessary delays and expenditures, it did not demonstrate bad faith.
-
Lester v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-00267-VEH (N.D. Ala. July 11, 2018)07/11/2018
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that defendant failed to provide evidence that, as an assignee of the right to collect debt from the plaintiff, it also received the assignor’s right to demand arbitration.
-
Rodero v. Signal Finance Company LLC No. 1:18-CV-21807-JG (S.D. Fla. Jul. 10, 2018)07/10/2018
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that a court cannot compel arbitration when the making of the arbitration agreement has been put in issue. As a result, court ordered the case should proceed to a jury trial to determine whether the parties entered into an arbitration agreement.
-
Kiobel v. Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, No. 17-424 (2d Cir. July 10, 2018)07/10/2018
Court of appeals reversed district court’s decision to grant petition seeking leave to subpoena under 28 USC § 1782. Court held that the district court’s decision was an abuse of discretion where the documents sought from a foreign company’s US counsel would be unreachable in foreign proceedings. Court held that this would threaten the US policy of promoting open communications between lawyers and their clients.
-
Venco Imtiaz Construction Company v. Symbion Power LLC, No. 17-7102 (D.C. Cir. July 10, 2018)07/10/2018
Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to confirm the ICC arbitration award, finding no merit to the argument that the arbitration decision contravened principles of collateral estoppel.
-
KT Corporation v. ABS Holdings, Ltd., No. 1:17-CV-07859-LGS (S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2018)07/10/2018
Court granted the petition to confirm a partial ICC arbitration award, holding that the arbitral tribunal did not exceed its authority and its decision did not lack “any colorable justification.” Court also held that enforcement of the award would not be contrary to public policy, and that respondents could recover attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the action because the parties contractually agreed to such.
-
Driver v. BPV Market Place Investors, LLC, No. 4:17-CV-01607-CAS (E.D. Mo. July 10, 2018)07/10/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, finding the existence of a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement. Court held that the plaintiff’s challenges to the agreement should be decided by an arbitrator because the agreement contains a valid delegation provision.
-
Greer v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00480-LJO-SKO (E.D. Cal. July 10, 2018)07/10/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable and contained the “essential bilaterality of an arbitration agreement between an employer and employee.” Court, however, severed the requirement that the plaintiff comply with pre-arbitration procedures as a prerequisite to arbitration, holding that the requirement was substantively unconscionable.
-
Gomez v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-01528-KM-SCM (D.N.J. July 10, 2018)07/10/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that the defendant met its burden of demonstrating that the parties formed an arbitration agreement covering the dispute.
-
Halcón Operating Co., Inc. C. Rez Rock N Water, LLC No. 1:17-CV-00202-DLH-CSM (D.N.D. Jul. 9 2018)07/09/2018
Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction enjoining defendants from prosecuting any lawsuits against plaintiff before the Fort Berthold District Court and prohibiting the Forth Berthold District Court from exercising jurisdiction over the plaintiffs in a Tribal Court case. Court found plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits and a preliminary injunction was warranted.
-
Pineview Extended Care Center, Inc. v. Ade, No. 8:18-CV-00307-PX (D. Md. July 9, 2018)07/09/2018
Court held the motion to alter the judgment denying stay of proceedings in conveyance until the state court decided the motion, stating that FAA does not specifically authorize federal courts to stay proceedings pending in state courts. Court denied motion to reconsider judgment granting petition to compel arbitration, since the respondent had not provided any basis for the court to change its prior decision.
-
Electrum Partners, LLC v. Johnston, No. 2:17-CV-03106-JAD-CWH (D. Nev. July 9, 2018)07/09/2018
Court denied petition to compel arbitration without prejudice, holding that the petitioner had not supplied sufficient evidence to establish that a valid arbitration agreement existed with the respondent. Court stated that the petitioner needed a preponderance of evidence to compel the respondent, a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, to participate in arbitration.
-
Chatziplis v. PriceWaterhouseCoopers, L.L.P., No. 1:17-CV-049109-ER (S.D.N.Y. July 6, 2018)07/06/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable and the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement. Court concluded that, having found a valid arbitration argument covering this dispute, it was bound to direct the parties to proceed to arbitration.
-
United States of America, ex rel. v. United Dairies, L.L.P., No. 0:16-CV-03092 (D. Minn. July 6, 2018)07/06/2018
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to stay arbitration and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss. Court noted that it lacked the authority to stay the arbitration, and found that the arbitration agreement was valid and covered the allegations at issue. Court found that the joinder provision in the agreement was insufficient to override the arbitration provision.
-
FinTech Fund, F.L.P. v. Horne, No. 4:18-CV-01125 (S.D. Tex. July 6, 2018)07/06/2018
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that it was not the proper court to compel arbitration given that the arbitration agreement was under the jurisdiction of England and Wales.
-
Andre v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00142-VAC-CJB (D. Del. July 6, 2018)07/06/2018
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration without prejudice, holding that the plaintiff had cited sufficient facts to bring into question whether a valid arbitration existed. Court ordered limited discovery on that question.
-
Clientron Corp. v. Devon It, Inc., No. 16-3432 (3d Cir. July 5, 2018)07/05/2018
Court of appeals vacated district court’s order holding defendants liable for the breach of contract damages and monetary sanctions in relation to an award rendered by the Chinese Arbitration Association. Court determined that plaintiffs’ evidence was insufficient to pierce the corporate veil and that it would not pierce the veil on the basis of discovery sanctions.
-
Directors Guild of America, Inc. v. Superstition Dog With A Bone, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-02719-CAS-SK (C.D. Cal. July 5, 2018)07/05/2018
Court granted plaintiff’s petition to confirm the arbitration award. Court noted that it must accord considerable deference to arbitrators’ judgments. Court found that the arbitration award was support by the record, and that the defendant did not demonstrate that the arbitrator exceeded his scope of authority or was completely erroneous in his findings.
-
Vivint, Inc. v. NorthStar Alarm Services, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-00106-JNP-EJF (D. Utah July 5, 2018)07/05/2018
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to bifurcate trial to determine if some matters were arbitrable, holding that the plaintiff had waived its right to arbitration. Court stated that plaintiff’s actions were inconsistent with the right to arbitrate and that it did not follow the procedures dictated by the FAA for compelling arbitration by first filing a motion for summary judgment and to bifurcate the trial.
-
Siracusa v. Marriott International Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01145-FAB (D.P.R. July 5, 2018)07/05/2018
Court granted one defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and denied another defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding pursuant to the FAA the first defendant signed a valid arbitration agreement with the plaintiff. The second defendant, however, failed to demonstrate a valid arbitration agreement as it did not meet the requirements of a joint employer, and therefore, was not party to the arbitration agreement.