2016-2025 Arbitration Decisions

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.

• Davis v. Red Eye Jack’s Sports Bar, No. 3:17-CV-01111-BEN-JMA (S.D. Cal. June 7, 2018)

  06/07/2018

  Court vacated its preceding order denying motion to compel arbitration in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, finding that an arbitration agreement containing a concerted action waiver now is valid and enforceable.

• Zyppah, Inc. v. Allemeier, No. 2:17-CV-02840-JAD-PAL (D. Nev. June 7, 2018)

  06/07/2018

  Court denied motion for attorney’s fees without prejudice, holding that, once arbitration has begun, responsibility for ruling on request for attorney’s fees and costs lies with the arbitrator.

• Hardy Exploration & Production India v. Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, No. 1:16-CV-00140-RC (D.D.C. June 7, 2018)

  06/07/2018

  Court denied petition to confirm foreign arbitral award that ordered specific performance of contractual obligations against Government of India. Citing the Europcar factors, court first dismissed Government of India’s request to stay proceedings pending the resolution of enforcement proceedings in India. Court then declined to enforce portions of award ordering specific performance and punitive interest, citing Article V of the New York Convention. The court noted that a strong US public policy exists respecting sovereign immunity against orders of specific performance, especially extraterritorially.

• Certain Underwriting Members of Lloyds of London v. Insurance Company of the Americas, No. 17-1137-CV (2d Cir. June 7, 2018)

  06/07/2018

  Court of appeals reversed district court’s vacatur of arbitral award for evident partiality under the FAA, holding that a party seeking to vacate an award under § 10(a)(2) of the FAA had to sustain a higher burden to prove evident partiality on the part of a party-appointed arbitrator. The panel remanded the case for a determination by clear and convincing evidence whether the failure by the arbitrator to disclose his relationships violated the contractual requirement of disinterestedness or had a prejudicial impact on the award.

• SOTI v. Impartner, No. 2:18-CV-00295-RJS (D. Utah June 7, 2018)

  06/07/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate existed. In granting motion, court held terms of use including arbitration agreement were validly incorporated by reference through URL link in the underlying contract. Court refused to decide on other issues with regard to the contract itself, noting these must be resolved by an arbitrator.

• Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v. Phelps Dunbar, LLP, No. 2:17-CV-05232-JAK (C.D. Cal. Jun. 6, 2018)

  06/06/2018

  Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of a malpractice claim.  Court found that there was no enforceable arbitration agreement between the parties and therefore no subject matter jurisdiction under the FAA. 

• Buckley v. Pinnacle Community Services Limited Partnership, 2:16-CV-02326-GMN-PAL (D. Nev. June 6, 2018)

  06/06/2018

  Court dismissed case after determining pursuant to § 3 of the FAA and circuit precedent that the parties no longer warranted a continued stay due to their lack of diligence in pursuing arbitration. The court noted that parties had had more than nineteen months to arbitrate and had been given repeated warnings. The court deemed this delay unreasonable and that it had interfered with the court’s ability to efficiently manage its docket.

• Mercy Medical Center v. Oregon Nurses Association, No. 16-35435 (9th Cir. June 6, 2018)

  06/06/2018

  Court of appeals affirmed confirmation of arbitration award, finding that the arbitrator looked at and construed the contract and was thus owed significant deference.

• Curatola v. TitleMax of Tennessee Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01263-JDB-EGB (W.D. Tenn. June 6, 2018)

  06/06/2018

  Court reversed magistrate judge’s order dismissing motion to compel arbitration and granted defendant’s motion.  Court found that a motion to compel arbitration was to be interpreted as a request for injunctive relief, and thus, the magistrate judge’s order denying the motion was to be reviewed de novo.  Court held, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, that an employment agreement containing an arbitration clause mandating bilateral arbitration was valid and enforceable under the FAA.

• Taylor v. Prince, No. 2:18-CV-02053-KHV-GLR (D. Kan. June 6, 2018)

  06/06/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss or compel mediation, ordering a stay of litigation and compelling mediation pursuant to Kansas contract law.  Court found that where parties had tiered dispute resolution clause mandating mediation prior to arbitration, and defendant sought to compel mediation rather than arbitration, the FAA did not apply.

• Arabian Motors Group, W.L.L. v. Ford Motor Company, No. 2:16-CV-13655-MFL-EAS (E.D. Mich. June 6, 2018)

  06/06/2018

  Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate and granted defendant’s cross motion to confirm ICDR arbitration award pursuant to §§ 9 and 207 of the FAA.

• Gramercy Wrecking and Environmental Contractors v. Trucking Employees of North Jersey Welfare Fund, No. 1:17-CV-07101-BMC (E.D.N.Y. June 5, 2018)

  06/05/2018

  Court granted motion to dismiss without prejudice, finding that, although petitioner did not sign collective bargaining agreement containing the arbitration clause supporting jurisdiction, the collective bargaining agreement was incorporated by reference.

• Gomez v. MLB Enterprises, Corp., No. 1:15-CV-03326-CM (S.D.N.Y. June 5, 2018)

  06/05/2018

  Court granted in part and denied in part cross-motions for summary judgment, finding that, where defendants materially breached the arbitration agreements, they could not subsequently selectively enforce them against plaintiffs.

• Young Men’s Christian Association of Honolulu v. Aloha Kai Development LLC, No. 1:18-CV-00086-ACK-KSC (D. Haw. June 5, 2018)

  06/05/2018

  Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award under Hawaiian Uniform Arbitration Act. Court found that express language in the arbitration agreement was sufficient to defeat presumption that FAA governed enforcement of the arbitration award and that the HUAA applied instead.

• Crooks v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 3:18-CV-00219-DMS-JLB (S.D. Cal. June 4, 2018)

  06/04/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the parties had delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator and that the assertion of arbitrability was not wholly groundless.

• Lopez v. Kane Beef Processors LLC, No. 2:18-CV-00080 (S.D. Tex. June 4, 2018)

  06/04/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay lawsuit pending arbitration, finding that plaintiff’s employment action alleging statutory violations fell within the scope of a valid agreement to arbitrate between the parties. Court dismissed plaintiff’s argument that defendant was a non-signatory, finding that he had failed to demonstrate that defendant was a separate legal entity from the employer with whom he agreed to arbitrate and that plaintiff had agreed to arbitrator’s determination on arbitrability in that agreement.

• Boroditskiy v. European Specialties LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00689-VSB (S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2018)

  06/04/2018

  Court granted petition to stay arbitration where respondents sought to compel petitioners to arbitrate, in their individual capacities, certain claims relating to a distribution agreement.  Court concluded that respondents failed to demonstrate that petitioners either acted as the alter ego of their LLC or that they should be estopped from avoiding arbitration.

• Rose v. Central USA Wireless, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-02673-SHM (W.D. Tenn. June 4, 2018)

  06/04/2018

  Court dismissed defendant’s motion to vacate an arbitration award and request for oral argument, and granted plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to the FAA.  Court held that none of defendant’s nine asserted affirmative defenses established grounds for vacating the award under the FAA, but rather invited de novo review which the court refused to conduct.

• Pioneer Roofing Organization v. Local Joint Adjustment Smart Board Local Union No. 104, No. 17-15296 (9th Cir. June 4, 2018)

  06/04/2018

  Court of appeals affirmed district court summary judgment granting labor union’s counterclaim to enforce arbitration award.  Court found that appellant failed to preserve arbitrability issue for judicial review because it had not made any objections or reservations as to jurisdiction or the arbitrator’s authority during the arbitration.  Court also found award did not constitute a manifest disregard of law where nothing in the record demonstrated the arbitrator recognized and ignored controlling law.

• EGI-VSR LLC v. Coderch Mitjans, No. 1:15-CV-20098-RNS (S.D. Fla. June 1, 2018)

  06/01/2018

  Court granted motion to confirm an award rendered in an arbitration conducted in Chile between a Delaware company and a Chilean citizen.  Pursuant to the Panama Convention, the court found its review of the award was circumscribed, and that the Convention manifested a general pro-enforcement bias. Pursuant to the Inter-American Convention on Letters Rogatory, the court deferred to the determination of the Superior Judicial Tribunal in Brazil that respondent had been properly served with process.  Court dismissed defendant’s arguments as to improper venue, lack of personal jurisdiction, and forum non conveniens.  Finally, the court determined that a Florida statute limiting recognition of out-of-country judgments to monetary judgments did not apply because defendant failed to prove that the final arbitration award was a “judgment.”

• Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC v. Walker, No. 2:17-CV-05635-JCJ (E.D. Pa. June 1, 2018)

  06/01/2018

  Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award and denied respondent’s challenge to the award under FAA § 10(a)(3). Court was not persuaded by assertion that failure to consider respondent’s spoliation claim in a preliminary hearing rendered the hearing fundamentally unfair under this section of the FAA or that the arbitral tribunal’s handling of this spoliation claim amounted to a manifest disregard of law.

• Graham v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-03148-CCB (D. Md. June 1, 2018)

  06/01/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel non-class arbitration. Pursuant to the FAA, the court found that a valid written agreement existed, the scope of which covered the dispute in question.  Court also found plaintiff’s arguments, that defendant was not properly assigned the right to arbitrate the dispute and that alternatively defendant itself had assigned the right to arbitrate the dispute to a third party, unavailing by the language of the agreement.

• Delek Refining, Limited v. Local 202, United Steel, No. 17-40593 (5th Cir. June 1, 2018)

  06/01/2018

  Court of appeals affirmed district court decision dismissing challenge to arbitration award interpreting a collective bargaining agreement between the parties, finding that a court’s review of arbitral awards interpreting labor agreements is “exceedingly deferential”.  Court thus refused to scrutinize arbitrator’s explanation of award that did not directly contravene the CBA.  Court further granted appellee attorney’s fees for having to defend the award in court, finding that appellant’s challenge was in substance a challenge to the merits, even though it was pled as challenging the arbitrator’s “power to make the award”.

• Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC v. Deutsch, No. 17-CV-05778-NRB (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2018)

  05/31/2018

  Court granted petition to confirm arbitral award, finding that the defendants had not identified any arbitrator misconduct or manifest disregard of the law that would merit vacatur.

• Viorel Angheloiu v. Peacehealth, No. 3:17-CV-05891-BHS (W.D. Wash. May 31, 2018)

  05/31/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration and denied plaintiff’s motion to compel discover and to continue.  Court found defendant met its burden under the FAA to compel arbitration and that plaintiff’s argument of procedural unconscionability.

• Camillo v. Uber Technologies Inc., No. 1:17-CV-09508-AKH (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2018)

  05/31/2018

  Pursuant to the FAA, court granted defendant’s motions to compel arbitration and to dismiss plaintiff’s class action employment suit on the basis of the arbitration and class waiver clause contained in plaintiff’s agreement with Uber. Court found that the agreement at issue was not procedurally unconscionable and that it was valid and enforceable.

• Gamble v. New England Auto Finance Inc., No. 1:17-CV-02979-LMM (11th Cir. May 31, 2018)

  05/31/2018

  Court of appeals affirmed district court decision dismissing defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s class action claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  Court found that the agreement to arbitrate did not cover plaintiffs TCPA claim which was based on rights and obligations created by Congress and not the Loan Agreement between the parties.

• Ralph v. Hosseini, No. 3:17-CV-01332-JM-JMA (S.D. Cal. May 31, 2018)

  05/31/2018

  Court had previously deferred ruling on a motion to compel arbitration of a FLSA claim pending Supreme Court’s ruling in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis.  Following Supreme Court’s holding that collective action waivers in arbitration agreements must be enforced in FLSA claims, the court compelled those claims to arbitration.

• Camilo v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-09508-AKH (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2018)

  05/31/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement in question was valid and conscionable. Court also found that the class action waivers in the agreement were valid under second circuit and Supreme Court precedent.

• Barranco v. 3D Systems Corporation, No. 17-01744 (4th Cir. May 31, 2018)

  05/31/2018

  Court of appeals affirmed district court order denying appellant’s motion to vacate or modify an arbitration award entered in favor of appellee.  Court found arbitrator’s ruling on a term beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement did not affect his calculation of damages based on three other breaches and that an amendment to the award which contained only minor changes for purposes of clarification did not violate functus officio or AAA Commercial Arbitration Rule 50.

• Gamble v. New England Auto Finance, No. 17-15343 (11th Cir. May 31, 2018)

  05/31/2018

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to deny defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that the dispute arose under rights granted by a federal law, and was not within the scope of the loan agreement which contained the arbitration provision.

• Pelligrino v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC, No. 1:17-CV-07865-RA (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2018)

  05/31/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court was unpersuaded by the plaintiff’s argument that he did not consent to a mandatory arbitration agreement that was sent to his email and gave him an opportunity to opt-out because he was on vacation when the email was sent. Court held that the plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of a valid arbitration agreement.

• Tianjin Port Free Trade Zone International Trade Service Co., Ltd. v. Tiancheng Chempharm, Inc. USA, No. 2:17-CV-04130-AYS (E.D.N.Y. May 30, 2018)

  05/30/2018

  Court confirmed an arbitration award and denied respondent’s motion to dismiss. Court rejected respondent’s arguments that they were not properly noticed of the CIETAC arbitration and that petitioner did not attempt to resolve the dispute before commencing arbitration. Court further found that poisoners argument that the underlying contract was a forgery was a question to be resolved by the arbitral tribunal.

• Schmell v. Morgan Stanley & Co., No. 1:17-CV-13080-AET-LHG (D.N.J. May 30, 2018)

  05/30/2018

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of whether plaintiff was properly noticed under the arbitration agreement.  Court found that plaintiff had signed two separate arbitration agreements, and although one provided for the arbitration of questions of arbitrability, this did not permit questions of arbitrability arising under the separate agreement to be submitted to arbitration.

• Owa v. Fred Meyer Stores Inc., No. 2:16-CV-01236-RAJ (W.D. Wash. May 29, 2018)

  05/29/2018

  Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award.  Court held that any vacatur sought by plaintiff would be procedurally deficient because plaintiff failed to notice defendants of any challenge to the validity to the award within the three months. Court further found that the record did not support plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitrator’s award of attorney’s fees was in manifest disregard to the law.

• Shirk v. Gonzales, No. 1:17-CV-01129-MCA-KK (D.N.M. May 29, 2018)

  05/29/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the FAA could not apply because the transaction did not implicate “interstate commerce” and found this language of the FAA should be read broadly to provide enforcement of all agreements within reach of the commerce clause.

• New York City District Council of Carpenters v. Namow, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-10098-GHW (S.D.N.Y. May 25, 2018)

  05/25/2018

  Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award.  Court found no grounds to invalidate the award under the FAA, finding no indication of fraud or dishonesty in procuring the award, and that the arbitrator had not acted in disregard to the law or outside the scope of his broad powers.

• Sprint Communications Company v. Albany County, New York, No. 1:17-CV-01271-BKS-CFH (N.D.N.Y. May 25, 2018)

  05/25/2018

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion to appoint an arbitrator pursuant to § 5 of the FAA.  Court held that congress had enacted § 5 to prevent indefinite delays in the arbitration process, and that the six month delay warranted court intervention and appointment of arbitrators. 

• Williams v. FCA US LLC, No. 2:17-CV-10097-LJM-EAS (E.D. Mich. May 24, 2018)

  05/24/2018

  Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and denied defendant’s motion to dismiss or motion to strike class allegations in the second amended complaint.  Pursuant to the FAA and the Supreme Court’s decision in Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, the court compelled all but two plaintiffs to arbitrate.

• Marshall v. Rogers, No. 2:18-CV-00078-JAD-CWH (D. Nev. May 24, 2018)

  05/24/2018

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding defendant did not provide sufficient evidence to support its claims.  Pursuant to the FAA, court found a valid arbitration agreement, but could not determine whether the parties had agreed to arbitrate or whether the dispute fell within the agreement’s scope.

• Franklin v. H&R Block, No. 4:16-CV-00666-JAR (E.D. Mo. May 23, 2018)

  05/23/2018

  Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award. Pursuant to the FAA, court found that respondent had not filed any petition to vacate or modify within 90 days of the award and was precluded from raising any defenses.

• Williams v. Wellshire Financial Services, LLC, No. 5:18-CV-00219-XR (W.D. Tex. May 23, 2018)

  05/23/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Pursuant to the FAA, court found a valid agreement to arbitrate and determined the claims related to a settlement agreement fell within the scope of the broad language of the arbitral clause.

• Juhasz v. Menard, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-10708-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich. May 23, 2018)

  05/23/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pursuant to the FAA.  Court concluded the arbitral clause was valid and enforceable, and its terms unambiguously mandated arbitration.

• Bezek v. NBC Universal, No. 3:17-CV-01087-JCH (D. Conn. May 23, 2018)

  05/23/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and confirm arbitration award, which was issued before the parties finished briefing the motion to compel.  Pursuant to §10 of the FAA, court denied motion to vacate award, rejecting plaintiff’s claims of fraud and undue means, finding no evident partiality or arbitrator misconduct, and concluding arbitrator did not exceed his authority.  Court further denied plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint to add claims of libel and slander, finding the amendment would be futile.

• Cardno International PTY, Ltd. v. Merino, No. 1:17-CV-23964-RNS (S.D. Fla. May 23, 2018)

  05/23/2018

  Court granted motion to confirm ICDR arbitration award pursuant to the FAA and the Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration.  Although defendants were not time barred from seeking vacatur, court denied motion to vacate, rejecting defendants’ claims that the tribunal exceeded its authority under §10 of the FAA and lacked jurisdiction over the dispute under Article V of the Convention.  Court rejected petitioner’s motion to enter default judgment against one of the defendants, who died prior to initiation of the confirmation proceedings, concluding that he had not been properly served.

• Alfa Adhesives v. A. Duie Pyle Inc., No. 2:18-CV-03689-JLL-CLW (D.N.J. May. 22, 2018)

  05/22/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed proceedings, finding that a valid arbitration agreement governed the dispute.

• Micula v. Government of Romania, No. 1:17-CV-02332-APM (D.D.C. May 22, 2018)

  05/22/2018

  Court denied Romania’s motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process, finding service was successful under Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention, since Romania had not objected to service by mail.  Court also rejected respondent’s objections to service under Articles 3, 5, and 6 of the Hague Service Convention, determining that petitioners’ counsel was a “competent authority” to forward the service documents to Romania’s Central Authority, finding use of a private courier was proper, and concluding petitioners could not be at fault for failing to secure a certificate of service where Romania twice declined to issue a certificate after being properly served.

• Qualls v. EOG Resources, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-00666 (S.D. Tex. May 22, 2018)

  05/22/2018

  Court granted motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration and tolled the statute of limitations for Fair Labor Standards Act opt-in plaintiffs during the stay.

• International Bancshares Corporation v. Ochoa, No. 5:17-CV-00238 (S.D. Tex. May 21, 2018)

  05/21/2018

  Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration.  Pursuant to the FAA, court found it lacked jurisdiction to intervene in the dispute over the proper number of arbitrators as the arbitration was ongoing and there was no mechanical breakdown in the arbitration process.

• Voltage Pictures, LLC v. Gulf Film, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-00696-VAP-SK (C.D. Cal. May 21, 2018)

  05/21/2018

  Court confirmed arbitral award of the IFTA International Arbitration Tribunal and awarded attorneys’ fees and costs in connection with enforcement of the arbitration award and determined the post-judgment interest terms.