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.
-
Bowie’s Priority Care Pharmacy L.L.C. v. CaremarkPCS, L.L.C., No. 6:18-CV-00300-LSC (N.D. Al. Apr. 26, 2018)04/26/2018
Court granted motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration. Court found a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate existed under Alabama law despite plaintiff’s argument that it had not signed the contract. Court reasoned that plaintiff revealed through its conduct and behavior that it had adopted the contract.
-
Arabian Motors Group W.L.L. v. Ford Motor Company, No. 2:16-CV-13655-MFL-EAS (E.D. Mich. Apr. 25, 2018)04/25/2018
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate arbitration award and granted defendant’s cross-motion to confirm arbitration award. Court held the arbitrator did not make any error – and certainly did not show a “manifest disregard for the law” – when, like the court, the arbitrator concluded that the Fairness Act did not apply to the parties’ contract and when, based upon that conclusion, the arbitrator rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction.
-
Sakyi v. Estee Lauder Companies, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01863-BAH (D.D.C. Apr. 25, 2018)04/25/2018
Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Court found that a valid arbitration agreement existed as to one defendant, and that the other defendants were able to enforce the agreement based on equitable estoppel since they sought to resolve issues intertwined with the agreement. Court further held that the arbitration clause delegated “gateway” questions of arbitrability, such as class arbitration, or plaintiff’s status as an employee, to the arbitrator.
-
Edwards v. Doordash, Inc., No. 17-CV-20082 (5th Cir. Apr. 25, 2018)04/25/2018
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order granting a motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the district court did not err in finding that a challenge to the validity of an arbitration agreement should be decided by arbitration when that agreement delegates questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.
-
Zyppah, Inc. v. Allemeier, No. 2:17-CV-02840-JAD-PAL (D. Nev. Apr. 24, 2018)04/24/2018
Court dismissed petition to compel arbitration in Nevada and enjoin arbitration in California. Court found that petitioner was not an “aggrieved” party under the FAA because opposing party had not “failed, neglected, or refused to arbitrate,” and therefore could not compel arbitration. Court further found that the issue of venue was committed to the arbitrators.
-
Republic of Kazakhstan v. Stati, No. 1:17-CV-02067-ABJ (D.D.C. Apr. 24, 2018)04/24/2018
Republic of Kazakhstan brought a RICO claim against a group of defendants alleging that defendants had obtained a foreign arbitral award through fraud and civil conspiracy. While a clerk had entered default judgment against two defendants who failed to respond, the court granted the motion to vacate default judgment of these two defendants finding, among other things, that the complaint fails to allege a prima facie RICO claim because the majority of the activity was lawful and occurred outside of the United States.
-
Farrell v. Road Ready Used Cars, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-02030-JCH (D. Conn. Apr. 24, 2018)04/24/2018
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding the dispute was governed by a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement. While plaintiff argued that the contract containing the arbitration agreement was superseded by a contract without an arbitration clause, the court found that plaintiff’s claims relied on the original contract and thus defendants could avail themselves of the arbitration clause.
-
Trustees of the Northeast Carpenters Health, Pension, Annuity, Apprenticeship, and Labor Management Cooperation Funds v. Architectural Building & Design Inc., No. 2:17-CV-05968-ADS-SIL (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2018)04/24/2018
Court granted petitioners unopposed motion to confirm award. Court treated the unanswered motion as an unopposed summary judgment motion and found no issues of material fact, and that petitioners were entitled to confirmation of the award.
-
Whitlow v. Crescent Consulting, LLC., No. 5:16-CV-01330-R (W.D. Okla. Apr. 23, 2018)04/23/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration. Court found the agreement to be enforceable despite plaintiff’s arguments that fee-splitting provision rendered arbitration agreement unenforceable, and that the agreement was invalid for want of consideration.
-
Inception Mining v. Danzig, LTD., No. 2:17-CV-00944-DN (D. Utah Apr. 23, 2018)04/23/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss in favor of an ongoing arbitration in Boston. Although the arbitration agreement required the arbitration to be held in Salt Lake City, the court found that issues of arbitrability were delegated to the arbitrator and therefore the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining portion of claims.
-
MD Helicopters v. The Boeing Company, No. 2:17-CV-02598-JAT (D. Ariz. Apr. 23, 2018)04/23/2018
Court dismissed certain counterclaims pursuant to the FAA, finding that they fell within the scope of an enforceable arbitration agreement. Court rejected the argument that subsequent agreements superseded the arbitration agreement. While the court dismissed the claims, it did not compel arbitration.
-
Britto v. St. Joseph Health Services of Rhode Island, No. 1:17-CV-00234-WES-LDA (D.R.I. Apr. 23, 2018)04/23/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable. Court held that the mutual promise to arbitrate was not illusory despite employer’s right to unilaterally change the terms of the agreement, and that continued employment was adequate consideration to support the agreement.
-
Sabre GLBL, Inc. v. Shan, No. 2:15-CV-08900-WJM-MF (D.N.J. Apr. 23, 2018)04/23/2018
Court confirmed an award for damages and injunctive relief but vacated an award of attorneys’ fees. Court found the arbitrator “exceeded his power” under §10 of the FAA because the parties’ agreement explicitly stated each party would bear their own attorneys’ fees.
-
American Trucking and Transportation Insurance Company v. Nelson, No. 9:16-CV-00160-DLC (D. Mont. Apr. 20, 2018)04/20/2018
Court denied defendant insurer’s motion to compel arbitration finding, pursuant to Montana law, that by failing initially to defend the insured it is later estopped from asserting a right to arbitrate under an otherwise enforceable arbitration agreement.
-
MHA, LLC v. UnitedHealth Group Inc., et al., No. 2:17-CV-02759-ES-JAD (D.N.J. Apr. 20, 2018)
04/20/2018Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court noted that derivative claims are arbitrable where the parties’ agreement demonstrates an intent to arbitrate such claims. Moreover, plaintiff was asserting first-party and not third-party claims.
-
MEMC II LLC v. Cannon Storage Systems Inc., No. 5:18-CV-00143-C (W.D. Okla. Apr. 19, 2018)
04/19/2018Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for relief regarding an arbitration award and, in doing so, refused to vacate or disturb the award. Court held that the arbitrator did not exceed her power or dispense with her own brand of justice by awarding damages to the defendant and that she acted within the scope of contractual delegated authority.
-
McCurdy v. Virginia College, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00562-TJC-JBT (M.D. Fla. Apr. 19, 2018)
04/19/2018Court adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge to deny plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitration award. Magistrate judge found that (i) the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law by ignoring the enrollment and tuition agreement between the parties, having noted in the award that the agreement was offered as an exhibit; (ii) the arbitrator did not erroneously apply Florida law rather than Alabama law, as the arbitrator analyzed the claim under both and found it deficient under both; (iii) § 10(a)(3) of the FAA does not warrant vacatur where the arbitrator merely made an erroneous discovery or evidentiary ruling, and plaintiff failed to show any bad faith or affirmative conduct that would have deprived her of a fundamentally fair proceeding.
-
Gomez v. PDS Tech, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-12351-WJM-MF (D.N.J. Apr. 19, 2018)
04/19/2018Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that (i) plaintiff had not responded with additional facts that placed the agreement to arbitrate in issue; (ii) the agreement was unquestionably subject to federal law; (iii) plaintiff’s claims fell under the scope of the agreement; and (iv) defendants were third-party beneficiaries to the agreement, so plaintiff’s claims against them were subject to the arbitration clause.
-
MEMC II, LLC v. Cannon Storage Systems, Inc., No. 5:18-CV-00143-C (W.D. Okla. Apr. 19, 2018)
04/19/2018Court denied plaintiffs’ motion and application for relief regarding an arbitration award. Court found that the arbitrator’s conclusions in the award were well within her purview as the fact finder, and she was not exceeding her powers or dispensing her own brand of justice by awarding damages for what the arbitrator found to be a breach of the parties’ contract.
-
Bea Mountain Mining Corp. v. International Construction & Engineering (Seychelles), No. 1:17-CV-01374-LO-MSN (E.D. Va. Apr. 18, 2018)
04/18/2018Court adopted the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge to grant plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. Magistrate judge concluded that none of the grounds for refusal or deferral of recognition applied, and therefore the court should confirm the award pursuant to the court’s authority under the New York Convention and 9 USC § 207.
-
Teschendorf v. RIIS, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-13967-AC-SDD (E.D. Mich. Apr. 18, 2018)
04/18/2018Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration agreement did not constitute a binding contract because it explicitly said it did not create a binding contract. Additionally, the promise to arbitrate was illusory since the agreement allowed the company to unilaterally change the handbook containing the arbitration agreement.
-
Tribal Casino Gaming Enterprise v. W.G. Yates & Sons Construction Co., No. 1:16-CV-00132-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C. Apr. 18, 2018)
04/18/2018Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm an arbitration award and ordered plaintiff to file a satisfaction of judgment. Defendant had asked the court to confirm the award but dismiss the action because defendant had already paid the award. Court explained that this is not allowed under the FAA, which requires the court to confirm the award and docket the judgment.
-
Aptim Corp. v. McCall, No. 17-30772 (5th Cir. Apr. 17, 2018)
04/17/2018Court of appeals affirmed the district court decision to compel arbitration and stay the state-court proceeding. Court concluded that plaintiff did not waive its arbitration rights as it did not substantially invoke the judicial process, having filed nothing regarding the merits or asking for damages. Additionally, defendant could not demonstrate the time, expense, or disadvantage in litigating position required to show the prejudice necessary for waiver.
-
Aralar v. Scott McRae Automotive Group, LLLP, No. 3:16-CV-00146-TJC-JBT (M.D. Fla. Apr. 17, 2018)
04/17/2018Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitration award. Court explained that the previously recognized non-statutory grounds for vacatur are no longer viable, and the court’s authority to vacate an arbitration decision is narrowly limited to the four circumstances outlined in the FAA. Court concluded that the arbitrator’s decision did not contravene any of the FAA’s enumerated vacatur justifications, and therefore the court could not disturb it.
-
Katz v. Cellco Partnership, No. 7:12-CV-09193-VB (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2018)
04/17/2018Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion to partially confirm and partially vacate the arbitrator’s decisions of October 28, 2016 and June 29, 2017. Court held that (i) the arbitrator did not exceed his authority by ruling that New York General Business Law Section 349 does not permit general injunctive relief; (ii) the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law by holding that plaintiff was not entitled to general injunctive relief; (iii) the arbitrator did not exceed his authority by awarding attorney’s fees; (iv) the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law by ruling that defendant must pay plaintiff $1,500 without interest; (iv) the arbitrator was not guilty of misconduct by denying plaintiff the right to take limited discovery and then opining that plaintiff wanted discovery so that he could use it in another case against defendant; and (iv) plaintiff failed to show that there was evident partiality on the part of the arbitrator because defendant paid his fees.
-
Lynch v. SSC Glen Burnie Operating Co., LLC, No. 1:17-CV-01328-JKB (D. Md. Apr. 17, 2018)
04/17/2018Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the arbitration agreement was valid and defendant did not waive its right to enforce. Court found that (i) defendant presented sufficient evidence to authenticate the alleged arbitration agreement by presenting an arbitration agreement that was signed by both parties; (ii) plaintiffs failed to show that one of the signatories was cognitively impaired when signing the agreement; (iii) defendant did not engage in much delay in the case; and (iv) some degree of participation in a judicial proceeding is acceptable before a party will be deemed to have waived its right to arbitrate.
-
Voltage Pictures, LLC v. Gulf Film, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-00696-VAP-SK (C.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2018)
04/17/2018Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award, finding no basis to vacate, modify, or correct the award. Court concluded that (i) the arbitrator did not exceed her authority by rejecting respondent’s demand for offsetting credits or funds owed by plaintiffs; (ii) the arbitrator did not exceed her authority by rejecting respondent’s argument regarding waiver and estoppel; and (iii) respondent was not denied a fundamentally fair hearing.
-
Kelleher v. Dream Catcher, L.L.C., No. 17-7104 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 16, 2018)04/16/2018
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of motion to stay and compel arbitration, finding that the right to arbitrate was forfeited when defendant filed an answer rather than a motion to dismiss and did not invoke its right to arbitrate in the answer.
-
Brown v. Charter Communications, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00670-LJO-JLT (E.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2018)
04/16/2018Court adopted in full the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations to deny defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Magistrate judge had determined that the agreement plaintiff signed contained a valid arbitration agreement, but this agreement did not apply to plaintiff by virtue of a carve-out notice provision.
-
XPO Last Mile, Inc. v. Anessa’s Transport Inc., No. 3:18-CV-00709-SK (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2018)
04/16/2018Court directed petitioner to file a response showing cause why the matter should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Petitioner sought to confirm an arbitration award that provided the respondent with nothing. Court explained that, to establish diversity jurisdiction, plaintiff needed to show that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. Court held that, since neither party was seeking to reopen the arbitration proceedings, the amount in controversy was the amount of the arbitration award (zero) rather than the amount in controversy in the underlying arbitration.
-
Namisnak v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 17-CV-06124-RS (N.D. Cal. April 13, 2018)04/13/2018
Court denied motion to compel arbitration for claims against non-parties to the arbitration agreement, holding that equitable estoppel could not enforce an arbitration agreement against a non-signatory. Court granted motion to compel arbitration for claims against party to the arbitration agreement, holding that the agreement was enforceable and the dispute fell within the scope of the agreement.
-
Parkridge Limited v. Indyzen, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-07387-JSW (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2018)04/13/2018
Court granted defendant’s petition to compel arbitration. Court found that the non-signatories were sufficiently interrelated and interdependent on conduct governed by the agreement containing the arbitration provision. Accordingly, court held that the doctrine of collateral estoppel enabled it to find that the non-signatories may be bound by the agreement despite not having signed it.
-
Krogstadt v. Loan Payment Administration LLC, No. 2:16-CV-00465-APG-CWH (D. Nev. Apr. 13, 2017)04/13/2018
Court granted third-party defendant’s motion to dismiss claims because they were covered by a valid arbitration agreement. Court rejected third-party plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration provision was invalid because of a class-action waiver.
-
In re Application of Pola Maritime Ltd., No. 4:16-CV-00333-WTM-GRS (S.D. Ga. Apr. 13, 2018)
04/13/2018Court overruled respondents’ objection to magistrate judge’s order. Court concluded that the order at issue was procedural, and therefore the court’s review was governed by FRCP Rule 72, which requires modification or set aside of the parts of the order that are clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Court held that it was unable to conclude that the magistrate judge’s order was either a clear error or contrary to law.
-
Tennessee Tractor, LLC v. WH Administrators, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-02829-STA-EGB (W.D. Tenn. Apr. 13, 2018)
04/13/2018Court denied defendant’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s order granting in part and denying in part defendant’s third motion to compel arbitration. Court found that defendant had, at best, satisfied plaintiffs’ burden by creating a genuine dispute of fact as to whether plaintiffs had sufficient access to the documents to accept their terms.
-
Appel v. Concierge Auctions, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-02263-BAS-MDD (S.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2018)
04/13/2018Court granted in part motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings. Court ruled that the claims sufficiently touched on interstate commerce to fall under the FAA and that the parties delegated questions of arbitrability by incorporating AAA rules into their agreement, rejecting the plaintiffs’ formation and unconscionability arguments as to the alleged unenforceability of the agreement. Court noted that it had power to compel arbitration only in its district and held this to be an adequate alternative to the relief requested.
-
Caldarera & Company, Inc. v. Complex Management, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00917-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss. Apr. 13, 2018)
04/13/2018Court granted motion to compel arbitration. Court held that both defendants were bound by an agreement to arbitrate, the second – though a non-signatory – through its subsequent ratification of the overall contract through its actions. Court also rejected defendants’ waiver argument.
-
Kabba v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., No. 17-1595 (4th Cir. Apr. 13, 2018)
04/13/2018Court of appeals affirmed district court’s refusal to compel arbitration on summary judgment, agreeing that the parties had not clearly manifested their intent to delegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator and that genuine questions of material fact precluded summary judgment on this question by the court itself.
-
Pompliano v. Snap, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-03664-DMG-JPR (C.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2018)04/11/2018
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, concluding that: (i) the parties’ dispute plainly fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement; (ii) the delegation clause was neither ambiguous nor unconscionable; and (iii) the agreement as a whole was not unconscionable.
-
Cristo v. The Charles Schwab Corporation, No. 3:17-CV-01843-GPC-MDD (S.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2018)
04/11/2018Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings. Court held that the plaintiff’s signed application constituted a valid arbitration agreement between the parties and that it applied to all of the plaintiff’s claims. Court further held that although the plaintiff demonstrated a low level of procedural unconscionability in the contract, he did not demonstrate any substantive unconscionability and therefore could not evade arbitration.
-
Myrvold v. Raibow Fiberglass & Boat Repair, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00245-SLG (D. Alaska Apr. 11, 2018)
04/11/2018Court interpreted the defendant’s motion to dismiss as a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA and denied it. Court noted that the question of whether a valid arbitration agreement existed was disputed by the parties, who therefore had to present evidence for the court to evaluate before deciding whether arbitration was proper.
-
Wells Fargo Clearing Services, LLC v. Foster, No. 3:18-CV-00032-MMD-VPC (D. Nev. Apr. 11, 2018)
04/11/2018Court denied motion to compel arbitration as moot because the plaintiff had already commenced a FINRA arbitration and granted motion to stay proceedings.
-
Fuller v. Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-07901 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 11, 2018)
04/11/2018Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings, finding that an arbitration agreement existed, had been validly assigned, and had covered the scope of the dispute. Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the defendants had waived their right to arbitration.
-
Folck v. Lennar Corporation, No. 3:17-CV-00992-L-NLS (S.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2018)
04/10/2018Court denied motion to compel arbitration pending jury trial on the issue of whether the plaintiff consented to an arbitration agreement. Court reasoned there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the plaintiff consented to an arbitration agreement and its authenticity, but denied the plaintiff’s arguments that the defendants had waived any existing right to arbitration or that the agreement was unconscionable because of its provisions for confidentiality, attorneys’ fees, limitations on discovery, and unilateral modification.
-
Robinson v. American Family Care, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-00116-SGC (N.D. Ala. Apr. 10, 2018)
04/10/2018Court granted motion to compel arbitration and responsive motion to stay proceedings. Court reasoned that plaintiff’s bringing a claim did preclude it from obtaining a stay under the FAA.
-
KT Corporation v. ABS Holdings, Ltd., No. 1:17-CV-07859-LGS (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2018)
04/10/2018Court denied petition to vacate partial ICC award and granted cross-petition to confirm the award and recoup related attorneys’ fees and costs. Court rejected arguments that the arbitral panel had exceeded its authority or otherwise acted in manifest disregard of the law.
-
LegalForce RAPC Worldwide, P.C. v. LegalZoom.Com, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-07194-MMC (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2018)
04/10/2018Court granted in part motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings. Court held that one of the plaintiffs was party to the arbitration agreement and therefore bound thereby, while the other was not, and left challenges as to the agreement’s validity to the arbitrator. Court further held that all of the claims before it were subject to arbitration.
-
Anderson v. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society, No. 6:18-CV-02008-MWB (N.D. Iowa Apr. 10, 2018)
04/10/2018Court, applying a de novo standard of review, rejected in part magistrate judge’s recommendation, declining to stay proceedings on one of the plaintiff’s claims, but agreeing to compel arbitration with respect to the other.
-
DeMidio v. REV Recreation Group, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00326-WCL-SLC (N.D. Ind. Apr. 10, 2018)
04/10/2018Court rejected motion to compel arbitration, finding that there was no valid arbitration agreement among the parties where the document containing the provision was not provided to the claimants until after they executed the sales agreement.
-
Metayer v. IEC US Holdings, Inc., No. 0:18-CV-60545-UU (S.D. Fla. April 9, 2018)
04/09/2018Court ordered a stay of litigation pending the resolution of arbitration in response to a joint motion of the parties pursuant to § 3 of the FAA. Court found claims before it to be arbitrable and that the parties had a valid arbitration agreement that extended to additional non-signatory defendant who had agreed to arbitrate claims.