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.
-
Shasha v. Malkin, No. 1:14-CV-09989-AT-RWL (S.D.N.Y. July 5, 2018)07/05/2018
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to enforce two subpoenas issued by arbitrators to two non-party witnesses. Pursuant to §7 of the FAA, court concluded that the arbitrators had greater familiarity with what non-party testimony was material and therefore, the witnesses should appear to testify.
-
O’Callaghan v. Uber Corporation of California, No. 1:17-CV-02094-ER (S.D.N.Y. July 5, 2018)07/05/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding pursuant to §4 of the FAA that the parties were bound by their agreement to arbitrate and that the agreement contained clear and unmistakable evidence they intended to submit the issue of arbitrability to an arbitrator.
-
Anytime Labor-Kansas LLC v. Anderson, No. 4:17-CV-00573-RK (W.D. Mo. July 5, 2018)07/05/2018
Court granted plaintiff’s motion for declaratory summary judgment that defendant was party to a valid arbitration agreement that only allowed individual, not class, arbitration. Court further granted a permanent injunction against defendant pursuing class arbitration with plaintiff.
-
Spikener v. Olive Garden Holdings, LLC, No. 5:18-CV-00188-DCR (E.D. Ky. July 5, 2018)07/05/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding pursuant to the FAA that the arbitration agreement was valid since the plaintiff had been aware of and consented to the agreement.
-
UBS Financial Services, Inc. v. Reeves, No. 2:17-CV-00832-MHT-SRW (M.D. Ala. July 3, 2018)07/03/2018
Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award pursuant to §9 of the FAA, holding the award accorded with the parties’ agreement.
-
Scottsdale Capital Advisors Incorporated v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Incorporated, No. 2:18-MC-00035-GMS (D. Ariz. July 3, 2018)07/03/2018
Court declined to enforce subpoena in arbitration that would require a non-party to provide pre-hearing document discovery. Court also declined to enforce a subpoena that would require FINRA witnesses to appear at a hearing, as the witnesses did not meet the location requirement for subpoenas set out in FRCP 45(c)(1)(A).
-
Republic of Argentina v. AWG Group Ltd., No. 16-7134 (D.C. Cir. July 3, 2018)07/03/2018
Court of appeals affirmed the arbitration award pursuant to the FAA and the New York Convention, rejecting Argentina’s objections that a member of the ICSID panel had shown “evident partiality” and that the panel determination had exceeded its authority. Court held that the arbitrator’s seat on the board of directors of a company that invested in two of the parties was not more than a trivial interest to the company, thereby implicating no disclosure duties. Court also ruled that the panel had not exceeded its authority because the panel had provided sufficient explanation of its decision and the panel’s decision on damages complied with a good-faith understanding of the arbitration agreement.
-
Thompson v. Body Sculpt International, LLC, 2:18-CV-01001-ARR-GRB (E.D.N.Y. July 2, 2018)07/02/2018
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and denied motion for conditional certification, holding that the plaintiffs must arbitrate as none of the agreements signed by the plaintiffs were unconscionable and that the plaintiffs must arbitrate individually and not as a class. Court ruled that the successive arbitration agreements were not unconscionably forced on the plaintiffs though their employment was conditioned on signing. Court cited recent Supreme Court precedent to establish that parties must expressly agree in contract to class arbitration for it to be an option.
-
Pacific Media Workers Guild, CWA Local 39521 v. San Francisco Chronicle, 4:17-CV-05953-HSG (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2018)07/02/2018
Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of arbitrability, holding pursuant to the FAA that the arbitration agreement between the parties required that the arbitrator decide issues of arbitrability. Court also held that the notice requirements of the agreement had plausibly been met and did not give rise to procedural violations that would cause two grievances to be non-arbitrable.
-
Hicks v. Brookdale Senior Living Communities Inc., 6:17-CV-02462-DCC (D.S.C. July 2, 2018)07/02/2018
Court adopted the ruling of the report made by a magistrate judge and granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that the first of plaintiff’s objections was based only on scrivener’s error on the part of the defendant, that the plaintiff’s employment had a sufficient relationship with interstate commerce to bring it under the FAA, and that the confidentiality agreement did not undermine Title VII because plaintiff could bring claims with an administrative agency if provided for by law.
-
Carter v. Brookdale Senior Living Communities Inc., 6:17-CV-02457-DCC (D.S.C. July 2, 2018)07/02/2018
Court adopted a modified ruling of the report made by a magistrate judge and granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that the plaintiff did not raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the validity of an arbitration agreement by arguing that she had signed two other contemporary but different agreements. Court also found that the plaintiff’s employment had a sufficient relationship with interstate commerce to bring it under the FAA.
-
Brumfield v. Kindred Healthcare Inc., 2:18-CV-00591-DCN (D.S.C. July 2, 2018)07/02/2018
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, holding that pursuant to the FAA and recent Supreme Court precedent that the plaintiffs are prohibited from this collective action. Court also held pursuant to § 4 of the FAA that it cannot compel several plaintiffs to arbitration because they are bound to arbitrate in different states, so the court transferred their cases to the relevant district courts. Court further held that because a plaintiff did not challenge the delegation clause stating an arbitrator would decide arbitrability, the court was required to transfer the case so that another district court could compel arbitration.
-
Bestway (USA), Inc. v. Sgromo, 4:17-CV-00205-HSG (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2018)07/02/2018
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and granted cross-claimants motion for summary judgment, holding that the defendant had through his conduct throughout the litigation waived his right to arbitrate and that compelling arbitration would prejudice plaintiffs and cross-claimants who had expended considerable resources in the current lawsuit. Court noted that allowing defendant to compel arbitration after progressing sixteen months into litigation just before a decision on summary judgment would reward poor litigation conduct. The court also held that cross-claimants were entitled to royalties from two license agreements.
-
Ploetz v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC, No. 17-2405 (8th Cir. July 2, 2018)07/02/2018
Court of appeals found error but affirmed on partially different grounds the denial of a motion to vacate an arbitration award where plaintiff had alleged “evident partiality” pursuant to §10 of the FAA. Court found that the district court had erred when it applied the wrong standard for finding “evident partiality.” Applying the correct standard, the court found no sign of “evident partiality” in the arbitrator’s failure to disclose one instance of a relationship with the opposing party when the arbitrator had disclosed ten other instances, nor did the court consider procedural violations of FINRA rules to support a finding of bias.
-
Farmer v. Stafford County Hospital, No. 6:17-CV-01284-EFM-GLR (D. Kan. June 29, 2018)06/29/2018
Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings pursuant to the FAA because plaintiff’s claims did not arise out of or relate to the agreement. Court distinguished between hospital bylaws which governed the plaintiff’s claims and a separate agreement plaintiff had made with hospital board of trustees that included an agreement to arbitrate but did not apply to the present claims.
-
VanDeHey v. Real Social Dynamics, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-02230-JAD-NJK (D. Nev. June 29, 2018)06/29/2018
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that a written arbitration agreement existed between plaintiff and Real Social Dynamics, though not the other defendants, and enforced the agreement despite plaintiff’s claims that doctrines of unclean hands and futility militated against enforcement. Court further found that issues of arbitrability were to be decided by the arbitrator per the parties’ agreement.
-
Montalvo v. SBH-El Paso, LLC d/b/a Peak Behavioral Health Services, No. 2:18-CV-00048-KG-GBW (D.N.M. June 29, 2018)06/29/2018
Court granted motion to dismiss and compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court concluded the arbitral clause was valid and enforceable and required plaintiff to arbitrate employment claims.
-
LegalForce RAPC Worldwide P.C. v. Swyers, No. 3:17-CV-07318-MMC (N.D. Cal. June 28, 2018)06/28/2018
Court denied defendant’s motion to transfer or, alternatively, to compel arbitration. Court concluded that defendants failed to show that plaintiffs were parties to the terms of service at issue or that they were estopped from avoiding either the forum selection clause or the arbitration clause. Court noted that the non-signatory plaintiffs did not seek relief under the agreement containing the arbitration provision, and neither plaintiff had or ever had duties or obligations thereunder.
-
The McDonnel Group LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 2:18-CV-02804-LMA-KWR (E.D. La. June 28, 2018)06/28/2018
Court granted the underwriters’ motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration. Court found that (i) the insurance policy contained a written agreement to arbitrate; (ii) the agreement required arbitration to take place in the territory of a New York Convention signatory; (iii) the underwriters were not U.S. citizens; and (iv) the agreement arose out of a commercial relationship.
-
Webb v. Oaktree Medical Center, P.C., No. 3:18-CV-00924-JMC (D.S.C. June 28, 2018)06/28/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to stay litigation and compel arbitration. Court found that the agreement at issue affected interstate commerce, as required under §2 of the FAA. Court also concluded that plaintiff’s claims were covered by the broad arbitration provision in the employment agreement because they had a “significant relationship” to the employment agreement and because courts had previously construed similarly worded arbitration clauses to cover employment discrimination claims.
-
Serrano v. Tuition Options, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-24443-DPG (S.D. Fla. June 27, 2018)06/27/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss or stay the case. Court found that the arbitration agreement contained a valid delegation provision. As such, the arbitrator needed to resolve in the first instance all disputed issues as to arbitrability or the existence, validity, construction, or enforceability of the arbitration agreement.
-
Cortes-Ramos v. Martin Morales, No. 16-2456 (1st Cir. June 27, 2018)06/27/2018
Court of appeals reversed the lower court decision dismissing plaintiff’s claims based on the arbitration provision. Court held that the arbitration provision contained an exception to the requirement to arbitrate that suggests that the provision simply did not apply to a dispute involving the defendant. Court also rejected the argument that defendant was “intrinsically linked to” the contest, concluding that the agreement to arbitrate did not reveal the requisite intent by the parties to benefit the defendant with the kind of “special clarity” required.
-
Moyet v. Lugo-Sánchez, No. 3:18-MC-00394-FAB (D.P.R. June 27, 2018)06/27/2018
Court granted motion to compel compliance with FINRA arbitral subpoenas and ordered respondents to attend arbitration hearings after they failed to establish undue hardship. Pursuant to §7 of the FAA, court rejected respondents’ claim that arbitrators residing in a different state and present by means of video-conferencing technology were not “sitting” in the appropriate jurisdiction. Court expressly relied on FINRA rules for determining the arbitral seat, not the arbitrator’s physical location, and further rejected the claim that only a district court where the arbitrators sit may compel arbitral subpoenas.
-
Vanede, LLC v. Oxley, No. 2:17-CV-02865-SHM-cgc (W.D. Tenn. June 26, 2018)06/26/2018
Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court found that, under the language of the parties’ agreement, fraud claims and claims for equitable relief were exempt from arbitration, but a claim for breach of contract fell squarely within the scope of the arbitration provision.
-
Wang v. Precision Extrusion, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00350-FJS-DJS (N.D.N.Y. June 26, 2018)06/26/2018
Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. Following the Second Circuit’s four prong analysis for determining whether a dispute is governed by an arbitration clause, court concluded that (i) the parties agreed to arbitrate; (ii) the arbitration clause was broad and carried a presumption of arbitrability that plaintiff had not overcome; (iii) Congress did not intend for the claims to be nonarbitrable; and (iv) defendants did not waive their right to arbitration when they failed to raise the arbitrability defense with the New York State Division of Human Rights or in the proceeding before the New York State Supreme Court.
-
Applications Software Technology LLC v. Kapadia, No. 1:18-CV-00822 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2018)06/26/2018
Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that there was an enforceable arbitration agreement, but only plaintiff Serene AST, LLC’s claims against defendant Kapadia must be arbitrated. Court rejected defendant’s argument that non-signatories could be bound by the arbitration provision, as it relied on an expanded interpretation of equitable estoppel that had been recognized by various federal courts but rejected in Illinois.
-
Church v. Hotels.com L.P., No. 2:18-CV-00018-RMG (D.S.C. June 26, 2018)06/26/2018
Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. Court found that a valid arbitration agreement existed between the parties, as the plaintiff needed to affirmatively consent to the Terms of Service before making a reservation. Court also held that plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration provision because they were “arising out of or relating to” the Terms of Service governing the parties’ transaction at the time.
-
Experian Information Solutions, Inc. v. Berger, No. 1:18-CV-00297-TJM (N.D.N.Y. June 26, 2018)06/26/2018
Court granted petition to confirm the arbitration award. Court found that the award had not been vacated, modified or corrected, and that the documentation presented to the court permitted it to conclude that the arbitrator had sufficient grounds to find in petitioner’s favor.
-
Fiorilla v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-05123-PKC (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2018)06/26/2018
Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. Court held that plaintiff’s claims fell squarely within the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and therefore it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over them. Court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that Supreme Court of the State of New York, which previously vacated an arbitration award in plaintiff’s favor on grounds of manifest disregard of the law, acted contrary to the FAA and New York law, and “strip[ped]” the arbitrators of their jurisdiction.
-
Legalforce RAPC Worldwide, P.C. v. Trademark Engine LLC, No. 3:17-CV-07303-MMC (N.D. Cal. June 26, 2018)06/26/2018
Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court found that the non-signatories to the arbitration agreement were not bound by it, as defendants’ arguments relied on allegations contained in the plaintiffs’ initial complaint, which were meant to refer solely to a former named plaintiff whose claims were subsequently dismissed. Court also held that, because the non-signatories had not sought relief under the agreement containing the arbitration provision, the non-signatories were not equitably estopped from avoiding arbitration.
-
Robertson v. Fiesta Restaurant Group, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00384 (S.D. Tex. June 26, 2018)06/26/2018
Court adopted the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Magistrate judge found that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed. Magistrate judge also held that plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement, as it was quite broad and specifically covered the Title VII claims brought by plaintiff.
-
Southern Industrial Contractors, LLC v. Neel-Schaffer, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00255-LG-JCG (S.D. Miss. June 26, 2018)06/26/2018
Court stayed lawsuit pending the appeal of the decision ordering arbitration. Court held that (i) the FAA governed the arbitration clause; and (ii) allowing the instant litigation to proceed would risk inconsistent results and substantively impact the arbitration because the arbitrator would necessarily be strongly influenced to follow the court’s determination.
-
Boston Scientific Corporation v. Acacia Research Group, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-01144-RGA (D. Del. June 25, 2018)06/25/2018
Court granted respondent’s motion to confirm the final arbitration award. Petitioner argued that one of the three arbitrators did not meet the qualifications set forth in the relevant agreement, and therefore the panel had no power to resolve the parties’ dispute. Court rejected this argument, noting that the agreement only required that each of the three arbitrators be “experienced in intellectual property contracts and issues,” but did not indicate how much experience or what kind of experience.
-
Pearsall v. Delta Career Education Corporation, No. 7:17-CV-00226-FL (E.D.N.C. June 25, 2018)06/25/2018
Court granted plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and confirmed the arbitration award. Court concluded that plaintiff’s filings demonstrated that the arbitration award was valid, and no challenge to the factual premise of this conclusion was before the court.
-
USG Companies, Inc. v. Advantage Sales & Marketing LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00861-CCC (D. Del. June 25, 2018)06/25/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss. Court held that, in light of the broad language used in the arbitration clause and the presumption of arbitrability, the claims fell within the scope of the arbitration provision and should have been raised during the arbitration. Since they were not, those claims were barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion.
-
Cullinane v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 16-2023 (1st Cir. June 25, 2018)06/25/2018
Court of appeals reversed the district court’s grant of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. Court concluded that plaintiffs were not reasonably notified of the terms of the agreement, as the screens linking to the “Terms of Service & Privacy Policy” were filled with other noticeable terms that diminished the conspicuousness of the notice and hyperlink.
-
Hurn v. Macy’s Inc., No. 17-3055 (7th Cir. June 25, 2018)06/25/2018
Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to confirm the arbitration award, finding nothing in the record to support a valid ground for vacating the award. Court held that (i) the arbitrator’s decision not to allow one of plaintiff-appellant’s questions was not “misbehavior” under § 10(a)(3) of the FAA because it was the kind of procedural decision arbitrators may permissibly make; (ii) the arbitrator allegedly falling asleep during the hearing was an insufficient reason to vacate the award, as plaintiff-appellant failed to show that the arbitrator’s sleeping was prejudicial; and (iii) an adverse ruling alone is not direct, definite, and demonstrable bias sufficient to constitute evident partiality.
-
Premier Paint & Drywall, Inc. v. Designed to Build, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-00155-MHT-DAB (M.D. Ala. June 22, 2018)06/22/2018
Court adopted the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Magistrate judge concluded that, given the unambiguous arbitration provision contained in the parties’ contract and the parties’ agreement that the dispute was subject to the arbitration provision, there was no doubt that arbitration was appropriate.
-
CaringOnDemand, LLC v. Ventive LLC, No. 9:18-CV-80211-BB (S.D. Fla. June 22, 2018)06/22/2018
Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration. Since the parties agreed to submit “all disputes” to binding arbitration, court held that the arbitration provision expresses that any dispute whatsoever between the parties must be arbitrated, regardless of whether the dispute is substantive or procedural.
-
Federated Mutual Insurance Company. v. Federated National Holding Company, Inc., No. 0:18-CV-00714-PAM-DTS (D. Minn. June 22, 2018)06/22/2018
Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm the arbitration award. Court explained that the FAA confers no federal jurisdiction, but instead requires an independent jurisdictional basis. Applying the “look-through approach”—which looks through to the underlying dispute, here, a claim under federal trademark laws—the court concluded that it had federal question jurisdiction over the petition. Court also concluded that, even if there was no federal question jurisdiction, it was satisfied that diversity jurisdiction existed because the injunctive relief granted had at least $75,000 in economic value to the petitioner.
-
H20 Resources, LLC v. Oilfield Tracking Services, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-01164-RK (E.D. Pa. June 22, 2018)06/22/2018
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement because all of the allegations pertained to services that plaintiff was providing under the parties’ agreement. Court also determined that, in deciding whether claims fall within the scope of an arbitration clause, it must look only to the facts underlying the claims and not the actual legal theories themselves, and therefore the fact that plaintiff pleaded torts rather than claims of breach of contract was irrelevant to the determination of whether the claims fell within the scope of the arbitration clause.
-
The Shipman Agency, Inc. v. TheBlaze Inc., No. 4:18-CV-00772 (S.D. Tex. June 22, 2018)06/22/2018
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that (i) there was a valid arbitration agreement; (ii) the arbitration agreement was not illusory, as defendants did not have the power to avoid arbitration under the License Agreement by unilaterally changing its terms; (iii) the limitation on remedies was unconscionable, but could be severed from the arbitration provision; and (iv) because the arbitration provision governed all disputes “relating to” the License Agreement, it must be construed broadly to include disputes that “touch” matters covered by the agreement.
-
Vail Services Group, LLC v. Dines, No. 1:17-CV-02428-CMA-KLM (D. Colo. June 21, 2018)06/21/2018
Court granted motion to stay pending arbitration, finding the arbitration proceedings to be sufficiently parallel to warrant a stay under the Colorado River doctrine.
-
Frompovicz, Jr. v. PTS Realty Holdings, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-00261-WB (E.D. Pa. June 21, 2018)06/21/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Court held that, although the arbitration award was not yet confirmed, it was undisputed that plaintiff did not appeal it, and therefore the award issued in defendant’s favor was a final judgment that may be used for purposes of general res judicata. Court also held that collateral estoppel barred plaintiff’s misrepresentation and fraud claims, and technical res judicata extinguished all of plaintiff’s remaining claims, as they should have been litigated in the arbitration.
-
Johnston v. Electrum Partners LLC et al, No. 1:17-CV-07823-KPF (S.D.N.Y. June 21, 2018)06/21/2018
Court granted defendants’ motion for a stay pending arbitration. Court held that (i) plaintiff failed to create a triable issue of fact as to whether the parties entered into a separate oral agreement where the parties did not agree to arbitrate disputes arising under that contract; (ii) the non-signatory plaintiff was bound by the arbitration agreement under agency, estoppel, and alter ego theories; (iii) plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement; and (iv) the arbitration agreement was not void under Nevada law.
-
Setty v. Shrinivas Sugandhalaya LLP, No. 2:17-CV-01146-RAJ (W.D. Wash. June 21, 2018)06/21/2018
Court denied motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, finding that under theories of equitable estoppel the non-signatory claimants were not parties to the deed containing arbitration clause and could therefore not compel arbitration.
-
Purus Plastics GmbH v. Eco Terr Distributing, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-00277-JLR (W.D. Wash. June 21, 2018)06/21/2018
Court confirmed foreign arbitration award and denied motion to dismiss, finding that defendants failed to successfully assert a defense pursuant to 9 USC § 207 to refuse recognition of the award, and that the award was final and binding.
-
Laver v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, No. 3:18-CV-00828-WHO (N.D. Cal. June 21 2018)06/21/2018
Court granted motion to dismiss, finding that parties had entered into a binding arbitration agreement and claims were therefore subject to arbitration.
-
Goplin v. WeConnect, Incorporated, No. 18-1193 (7th Cir. June 21, 2018)06/21/2018
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order denying a motion to compel arbitration, finding that respondent was not a party to the arbitration agreement it sought to enforce.
-
Slawson Exploration Company, Inc. v. U.S. Energy Development Corporation, No. 1:17-CV-01248-PAB-KMT (D. Colo. June 20, 2018)06/20/2018
Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award, finding jurisdiction was proper and failing to find grounds on which to vacate, modify, or correct the award.