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.
-
Himber v. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-05001-JS-GRB (E.D.N.Y. May 21, 2018)05/21/2018
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay the action. Pursuant to the FAA, court found an agreement to arbitrate existed and concluded arbitration was the proper forum for determining whether the dispute fell within the scope of the agreement.
-
Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, No. 16-285 (U.S. May 21, 2018)05/21/2018
Supreme Court reversed the judgments of the Seventh and Ninth Circuits and affirmed that of the Fifth Circuit, holding that employer-employee arbitration agreements providing for individual proceedings must be enforced. Court determined that neither the savings clause of the FAA nor the National Labor Relations Act indicate that arbitration agreements that prohibit collective action proceedings are unenforceable.
-
Hawk Advisers, Inc. v. Gillenwater, No. 7:18-CV-00145 (W.D. Va. Tex. May 18, 2018)05/18/2018
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pursuant to the FAA. Court found the plain language of the arbitration clause mandated arbitration and interpreted references to litigation therein to mean litigation is available for nonarbitrable disputes or to enforce an arbitral award or compel arbitration. Court determined the claims fell within the scope of the arbitral agreement, finding the clause did not expressly carve out injunctive relief from its scope and the arbitral agreement was broad, and found arbitration would not be a hollow formality, concluding an award of money damages would be adequate.
-
Smagin v. Yegiazaryan, Nos. 16-56749, 17-56467 (9th Cir. May 18, 2018)
05/18/2018Court of appeals vacated the award of attorneys’ fees and turnover order against respondent but affirmed a post-judgment injunction against him. Court remanded the attorneys’ fees order holding that it was an abuse of discretion for the district court to award them without any finding of bad faith, vacated the turnover order of assets to satisfy the arbitration award against respondent as premature where resolution of certain questions of Liechtenstein trust law were still spending in the Supreme Court of Liechtenstein, and upheld the post-judgment injunctive relief to freeze assets respondent had received from an unrelated arbitration award given the district court finding that respondent might evade jurisdiction or contravene its judgment by dissipating or moving funds.
-
Spikener v. Olive Garden Holdings, LLC, No. 5:18-CV-00188-DCR (E.D. Ky. May 18, 2018)05/18/2018
Court ordered an evidentiary hearing prior to ruling on defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, and decided that it must determine whether an enforceable arbitration agreement existed not the arbitrator. Applying the FAA and Kentucky law, court concluded additional facts were needed to determine whether the plaintiff had notice of and assented to the arbitration clause.
-
Lawson v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc., No. 2:17-CV-1461-KOB (N.D. Ala. May 17, 2018)
05/17/2018Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that plaintiff did not dispute that her claims fell within a voluntarily-entered, binding arbitration agreement, and defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate by failing to raise arbitration with the EEOC and did not delay in raising it in the litigation.
-
Windward Development, Inc., v. Thomas, No. 3:17-CV-01762-CSH (D. Conn. May 17, 2018)
05/17/2018Court ordered any party believing federal subject matter jurisdiction existed over their cross petitions to confirm or vacate certain arbitration awards to file a statement of the basis for it. Court held that the FAA did not provide an independent basis for federal jurisdiction and the record provided no discernable basis for the court to exercise it in the absence of any cited federal statute or diversity of citizenship.
-
Mantooth v. Bavaria Inn Restaurant, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01150-WJM-MEH (D. Colo. May 16, 2018)
05/16/2018Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held plaintiffs’ must submit their claims to arbitration because they did not attack the delegation clause by which the parties intended to delegate arbitrability of their agreements, including the validity of the contracts, unconscionability and class action waiver. Court further held under Colorado law that the fee-shifting, cost-sharing requirement for certain plaintiffs, and the industry expert arbitrator selection requirement provisions, must be severed from the arbitration clause of the agreements for the effective vindication of plaintiffs’ rights.
-
Wolkenstein v. Citibank, No. 3:17-CV-01295-ARC (M.D. Pa. May 16, 2018)
05/16/2018Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that where plaintiff did not dispute that a valid arbitration agreement existed between the parties or that his claims fell under its terms, and showed no prejudice in being required to pursue his claim through arbitration, defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate which it had asserted in its answer filed three months after the filing of the complaint, though the motion to compel arbitration was filed eight months later.
-
Wilson v. Alorica, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-02182-TMP (N.D. Ala. May 16, 2018)
05/16/2018Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and directed plaintiff to initiate arbitration should he wish to pursue his claims. Court held a valid agreement to arbitrate plaintiff’s employment claims existed as the FAA only requires “a written provision” for arbitration (9 USC § 2), and under the applicable Alabama state contract law the lack of a “wet” signature was not a barrier to the formation of a contract. Court held that the defendant’s production of an electronic record demonstrating plaintiff’s unique login and password was used to affirm the arbitration agreement was sufficient to form a valid arbitration agreement. Court further held that the scope of the arbitration provision was sufficiently broad to encompass plaintiff’s Americans with Disabilities Act claims but that the ultimate scope of the provision would be determined by an arbitrator.
-
Strong v. Davidson, No. 17-4085 (10th Cir. May 16, 2018)
05/16/2018Court of appeals affirmed district court denial of defendant’s motion to arbitrate. Court held that district court properly found that defendant, who paid his arbitration fees, but whose co-defendants’ had not, had waived his right to arbitrate by remaining silent while the pending arbitration collapsed for failure of others to pay. Court held that defendant’s conduct was inconsistent with the right to arbitrate as plaintiff was prejudiced by the defendant’s delay in indicating that he wanted to continue to arbitrate.
-
AJU Small but Great Fund 5 v. Apache Golf, Inc., No. 8:17-CV-01063-DOC-KES (C.D. Cal. May 15, 2018)05/15/2018
Court granted plaintiff’s petition to confirm arbitral award rendered by the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board.
-
Cody v. Chase Professionals, No. 5:18-CV-06025-ODS (W.D. Mo. May 15, 2018)
05/15/2018Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held there was no mutual assent to the arbitration agreement where plaintiff signed the employment contract but defendant failed to provide an explanation for why one of its representative’s did not.
-
New York City & Vicinity District Council of Carpenters v. S & N Builders, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-02911-JMF (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2018)
05/15/2018Court granted petitioner’s unopposed motion to confirm an arbitration award. Court held there was no genuine issue of fact precluding summary judgment as to all portions of the Award where the arbitrator’s decision provided justification for the award and no reason existed to vacate it.
-
Abugeith v. Flowers Foods, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-02934 (S. D. Tex. May 15, 2015)
05/15/2018Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel individual arbitration. Court held that plaintiffs entered into a binding and valid arbitration agreement with an enforceable class-action waiver and that plaintiffs did not specifically challenge the enforceable delegation clause submitting issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator.
-
Smith v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-00195-A (N.D. Tex. May 15, 2018)
05/15/2018Court granted defendant’s unopposed motion to compel arbitration. Court held that plaintiff’s claim was subject to an arbitration agreement signed by plaintiff when defendant employed her.
-
EB Safe, LLC v. Hurley, No. 1:17-CV-06163-ALC (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2018)
05/15/2018Court denied petitioner’s motion to vacate arbitral award and denied respondent’s motion for attorneys’ fees. Court held that the arbitral decision did not reflect a “manifest disregard of the evidence” under Delaware law, which was not a proper basis for vacatur as courts should not engage in an impermissible reassessment of the evidentiary record, and was without merit as panel cited the correct Delaware laws. Court further held that the language of the parties’ agreement reflected that expenses were intended to be limited to those incurred during the arbitration, not thereafter, and there was no equitable bases for awarding attorneys’ fees to respondent.
-
Benincasa v. Jack Daniels Audi of Upper Saddle River, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-06322-KM-MAH (D.N.J. May 15, 2018)
05/15/2018Court granted defendant’s motion to refer the matter to arbitration. Court held that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed despite plaintiff’s “opportunistic post hoc quibbles about the wording of its title” since it was an agreement between plaintiff and his employer by which plaintiff intended to be bound, and plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the agreement.
-
Arnold v. Homeaway, Inc., Seim v. Homeaway, Inc., Nos. 17-50088, 17-50102 (5th Cir. May 15, 2018)
05/15/2018Court of appeals reversed the district court decision in Arnold, affirmed it in Seim, and remanded both cases to compel arbitration. Court held plaintiff Arnold’s contention that the agreement to arbitrate was illusory under Texas law because it gave the defendant a unilateral right to avoid arbitration at any point without notice was a challenge to the validity of the contract as a whole, rather than the formation of the contract. Plaintiff Arnold, however, did not specifically challenge the delegation clause, by which the parties clearly and unmistakably intended to delegate questions regarding the validity and scope of the arbitration provision, and therefore under Supreme Court precedent validity challenges must be sent to an arbitrator. Court further held that plaintiff Seim did not specifically challenge the same delegation clause and therefore district court correctly ordered arbitration but should not have assessed the threshold questions of the scope of the provision.
-
Iysheh v. Cellular Sales of Tennessee, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00542-TWP (E.D. Tenn. May 14, 2018)
05/14/2018Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that plaintiff presented no evidence that the agreement to arbitrate lacked mutual assent where agreement contained a plain and bold warning about the arbitration provision that plaintiff accepted while in defendant’s employ, that the agreement was neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable, and that plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the agreement to arbitrate. Court further held that the JAMS rules were not procedurally unconscionable or that the arbitration would be prohibitively costly to plaintiff.
-
Castro v. ABM Industries, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-03026-YGR (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2018)
05/14/2018Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that defendant had not waived its rights to arbitrate even though it did not notify plaintiffs until nearly two years after the collective bargaining agreements at issue became effective and three years after initiation of the litigation in which both parties had engaged. Court further held that the arbitration clause in the collective bargaining agreements applied only to claims arising after the effective date of the relevant agreements.
-
Terlizzi v. Altitude Marketing, Inc. No. 1:16-CV-01712-WJM-STV (D. Co. May 14, 2018)
05/14/2018Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that an arbitration agreement existed between the parties that governed the disputes at issue, referred the parties to arbitration, and stayed the court proceedings. Court held that plaintiffs had accepted by their conduct an agreement containing an arbitration clause which assigned questions of whether the clause was enforceable to the arbitrator.
-
Samsung Electronics America, Inc., v. Ramirez, No. 1:17-CV-01462-AWI-SAB (E.D. Cal. May 14, 2018)
05/14/2018Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration and defendant’s motion to stay federal proceedings in favor of defendant’s state court proceedings. Court held that it was obliged to exercise jurisdiction as plaintiff was entitled to bring a petition to compel arbitration in federal court, though plaintiff appeared to file after defendant had voluntarily dismissed a state court filing and prior to defendant’s refiling in California state court. Court also held that the arbitration agreement was not enforceable as the consumer was not on notice of the contractual nature of the arbitration provision that was provided within a product guidebook for the exploding telephone.
-
Ceder v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00422-NT (D. Me. May 14, 2018)
05/14/2018Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s Maine Human Rights Act claims of sexual harassment, sex discrimination, and retaliation. Court held that plaintiff employee signed agreement to arbitrate, regardless of whether plaintiff remembered reading it as only assent to be bound was required, that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate, and that all claims were arbitrable.
-
Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. House, No. 17-60164 (5th Cir. May 14, 2018)
05/14/2018Court of appeals affirmed district court’s grant of motion to compel arbitration. Though some parties were not signatories to the arbitration agreement, and Mississippi law generally does not permit non-signatories to enforce an arbitration agreement, court held that an exception exists for “substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct.” Court also held that the parties had agreed to delegate questions regarding arbitrability to the arbitrator by incorporating the JAMS rules into their agreement.
-
Flores v. Dignity Health, No. 2:18-CV-02471-JFW-AGR (C.D. Cal. May 11, 2018)
05/11/2018Court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss petition to confirm an arbitration award without leave to amend. Court held that petitioner, an employee and third party beneficiary of the agreement, was not a party to the arbitration and therefore lacked standing under California law to petition the court to confirm the arbitration award.
-
Noye v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 1:15-CV-02382-YK (M.D. Pa. May 11, 2018)
05/11/2018Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that plaintiff was not estopped from avoiding arbitration when defendant, a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, had not shown that equitable estoppel applied to plaintiff’s claims as they were not “intimately founded in and intertwined with the underlying contract obligations,” even if the court were to find that a close relationship existed between the defendant entities.
-
Gonsales v. Acosta, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-05767-VC (N.D. Cal. May 11, 2018)
05/11/2018Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff did not show that the arbitration agreement was procedurally or substantively unconscionable.
-
State of Hawaii v. United States Marine Corps, No. 1:18-CV-00128-LEK-KJM (D. Haw. May 11, 2018)
05/11/2018Court granted plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order to maintain the status quo until the arbitration panel renders its decision. Court held that plaintiff made a timely request for arbitration, would be able to have an arbitration panel consider its challenges, was likely to succeed on the merits, and that the balance of equities favored granting the TRO as plaintiff would face a concrete, imminent and severe injury from great financial harm that would be irreparable as the Marine Corps’ sovereign immunity would preclude the plaintiff from recovering any monetary damages while the arbitration was pending, whereas any injury to the Marine Corps would be primarily economic.
-
Wilson v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. 3:17-CV-2054-SI (D. Or. May 11, 2018)
05/11/2018Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the arbitration agreement language applied to claims existing before plaintiff entered into the agreement, and that the agreement was enforceable and not void as unconscionable.
-
Reyes v. Gracefully, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-09328-VEC (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2018)
05/11/2018Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that plaintiff signed the arbitration agreement, plaintiff’s claims fell within its scope, and the agreement was enforceable notwithstanding plaintiff’s assertion that he did not have time to examine it, his alleged inability to read or understand English, and that the employment was conditioned on acceptance of the agreement. Court also severed a 60-day notification period from the agreement as it would prevent the “effective vindication” of plaintiff’s rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
-
Nguyen v. MarketSource, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-02063-AJB-JLB (S.D. Cal. May 11, 2018)
05/11/2018Court granted defendant’s motion to stay all proceedings pending anticipated U.S. Supreme Court ruling on which the matter before the court depended. Court declined to consider motion until Supreme Court considered circuit split of whether an employment agreement requiring an employee and employer to resolve employment disputes through individual arbitration is enforceable under the FAA.
-
Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Cutting Edge Services Limited, No. 3:18-CV-00735-JZ (N.D. Ohio May 10, 2018)05/10/2018
Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. Court concluded that the requirements for personal jurisdiction over the defendant was satisfied, both to preserve the bargained-for benefit of arbitration and based on the defendant’s contacts with the forum state. Court also concluded that it should enforce the noncompetition agreement because doing so would not substantially harm the defendant, but it would not compel additional disclosures because plaintiff would not be irreparably harmed absent the additional disclosures it sought.
-
Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. 16-16820 (11th Cir. May 10, 2018)05/10/2018
Court of appeals vacated the district court’s decision that the defendant had waived its right to compel arbitration against unnamed plaintiffs. In conducting a two-part inquiry to determine whether the defendant waived its right to compel arbitration, the court found that the defendant had not acted inconsistently with it arbitration rights and its actions did not prejudice the other parties. Court remanded the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with its opinion.
-
Southside Hospital v. New York State Nurses Association, No. 17-0990 (2d Cir. May 9, 2018)05/09/2018
Court of appeals affirmed the judgement of the district court to confirm an arbitral award in favor of the respondent-appellee. Court held that, because the parties’ agreement expressly incorporated the AAA Arbitration Rules, they delegated the power to decide issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator. In that context, there was nothing in what the arbitrator did that would require the court to abandon the substantial deference accorded to an arbitrator’s decision.
-
Cooperativa Agraria Industrial Naranjillo Ltda. v. Transmar Commodity Group Ltd., No. 16-3532 (2d Cir. May 9, 2018)05/09/2018
Court of appeals vacated and remanded the district court’s decision to vacate an arbitration award under §10(a)(4) of the FAA. Court held that the district court erred by relying on New York Law and not the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG); and erred as a matter of law by relying primarily on the face of the contract and the document allegedly incorporated by reference, whereby it should have also considered extrinsic evidence: “Because additional fact finding will be required in order to adduce such evidence, the district court abused its discretion in failing to allow discovery, hold an evidentiary hearing, or both.”
-
Castro v. Castro-Harrison, No. 3:16-CV-02731-CCC (D.P.R. May 8, 2018)05/08/2018
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings, finding that the plaintiff’s claims are arbitrable under the subject arbitration agreement. Court also found that the non-signatory’s claims were “intertwined” with the contract at issue, and therefore the plaintiff was equitably estopped from avoid the arbitration agreement contained therein.
-
Delgado v. Ally Financial, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-02189-BEN-JMA (S.D. Cal. May 8, 2018)05/08/2018
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss action, finding that the parties entered into an arbitration agreement and the claims at issue fall within the agreement’s scope. Additionally, the court held that a bankruptcy discharge does not render an arbitration agreement unenforceable since such extinguishes the debtor’s obligation to pay, but the other contractual provisions, including the arbitration agreement, remain enforceable.
-
Marshall Square, LLC v. Bette, No. 5:17-CV-00425-M (W.D. Okla. May 8, 2018)05/08/2018
Court granted defendants’ motion for an expedited protective order staying discovery pending a ruling on a motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the interests of judicial economy would be advanced by a temporary stay of discovery, particularly in circumstances where the motion to compel arbitration could dispose of the entire action.
-
Caporicci U.S.A. Corp. v. Prada S.p.A., No. 1:18-CV-20859-CMA (S.D. Fla. May 7, 2018)
05/07/2018Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration under the New York Convention. Court held that the defendants satisfied the four jurisdictional prerequisites under the New York Convention – (1) the arbitration agreement was in writing; (2) the arbitration agreement provided for arbitration in the territory of a signatory to the Convention; (3) the arbitration agreement arises out of a commercial relationship; and (4) one or more of the parties is not an American citizen – to compel arbitration of the dispute to the Chamber of National and International Arbitration in Milan.
-
Viehweg v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 3:17-CV-03140-SEM-TSH (C.D. Ill. May 7, 2018)
05/07/2018Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings because plaintiff’s defamation claims are not subject or related to the arbitration agreement and therefore do not fall within its scope.
-
Key Contracting, Inc. v. Contech International, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-01599-SI (D. Or. May 7, 2018)
05/07/2018Court granted motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to stay proceedings and compel arbitration. Court held that, although the plaintiffs are non-signatories to the arbitration agreement, their claims rely are intertwined with and arise out of the contact containing the arbitration agreement. As such, the defendants may therefore rely on the agreement’s arbitration provision to compel arbitration of the plaintiffs’ claims.
-
Perkins Delaware, LLC v. MF Cornhusker Member, LLC, No. 8:17-CV-00332-RFR-CRZ (D. Neb. May 6, 2018)
05/06/2018Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff’s claims are beyond the scope of the arbitration provision and are not subject to arbitration absent the current and mutual consent of the parties.
-
Alixander v. Group Health of Washington, No. 2:17-CV-01224-RSL (W.D. Wash. May 4, 2018)
05/04/2018Court denied motions to dismiss or compel arbitration, finding that the court must, in first instance, determine (a) whether a valid arbitration agreement exists and (b) whether the particular dispute falls within the scope of that agreement. Here, while there is a valid arbitration agreement, the plaintiff’s statutory claims do not fall within the scope of the agreement.
-
Giraud v. Woof Gang Bakery, Inc., No. 8:17-CV-02442-RAL-AEP (M.D. Fla. May 3, 2018)05/03/2018
Court adopted the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that (i) plaintiffs failed to show why prejudice would result from compelling the arbitral claims of the designated four plaintiffs; (ii) the arbitration agreement covered any controversy over the construction or application of the agreement even though it did not include the language “arising out of”; and (iii) nothing indicated that the agreement was unconscionable.
-
Sung v. Sacor Financial, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01317-ERK-VMS (E.D.N.Y. May. 2, 2018)05/02/2018
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding frivolous plaintiff’s argument that he was not bound thereby and, in any case, determining that the plaintiff was estopped from making that argument having relied on the agreement elsewhere. Court declined that any right to arbitration was waived, holding that there was no evidence of intent to do so or any prejudicial delay.
-
Robinson v. OnStar, LLC, No. 16-56412 (9th Cir. May 1, 2018)
05/01/2018Court of appeals amended prior memorandum disposition filed on March 15, 2018, and with those amendments denied the petition for panel rehearing. Court reversed and remanded district court’s dismissal of plaintiff-appellant’s complaint on the basis of an arbitration agreement. Court of appeals held that the parties’ agreement when formed did not include an arbitration provision, and defendant’s subsequent inclusion of one by mailing was an offer to modify the agreement, which the plaintiff did not accept by retaining the service to which plaintiff was entitled under the original agreement.
-
Kung v. Experian Information Solutions Inc., No. 3:18-CV-00452-WHA (N.D. Cal. May 1, 2018)
05/01/2018Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the parties’ agreement constituted interstate commerce and, thus, the FAA, and not the California Arbitration Act, governs the parties’ arbitration agreement. Additionally, the “gateway” issue of arbitrability was “clearly and unmistakably” delegated to the arbitrator per the inclusion of AAA Rule 7(a) in the parties’ arbitration agreement.
-
Schoemehl v. Unwin, No. 4:18-CV-00031-JAR (W.D. Mo. May 1, 2018)
05/01/2018Court granted motions to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings. Court held that, because the plaintiff argued that the entire contract was fraudulently induced, and not just the arbitration clause by itself, the FAA requires a claim to be submitted to arbitration.
-
Peregrine Falcon, LLC v. Piaggio America, Inc., No. 16-CV-35773 (9th Cir. Apr. 26, 2018)04/26/2018
Court of appeals confirmed district court’s denial of appellant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or in the alternative to compel arbitration. Court found that non-signatory respondent was not a party to the arbitration clause, but was a third party beneficiary and had not consented to arbitration.