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.

• Milfort v. Comcast Cable Communications Management, No. 0:17-CV-62576-KMM (S.D. Fla. April 9, 2018)

  04/09/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding that the agreement between the parties contained a valid arbitration clause, which survived the termination of services by defendant.

• Aguirre v. Vivint Solar Developer, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-01197-JLT (E.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2018)

  04/09/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings, finding that a valid arbitration agreement governed the claims at issue.  Court held that even though the agreement was procedurally oppressive, it was not substantively unconscionable. 

• Hudgins v. Total Quality Logistics, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-07331 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 9, 2018)

  04/09/2018

  Court granted motion to dismiss claims of two plaintiffs in a class action for whom arbitration agreements had been belatedly found.  Court reasoned that there had been no waiver of the right to arbitrate, as there had been no prejudice and defendant had promptly requested arbitration upon locating the agreements and agreed to toll the statute of limitations.

• The Queen's Medical Center v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, No. 1:17-CV-00361-JMS-RLP (D. Haw. Apr. 9, 2018)

  04/09/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Court rejected arguments that the parties’ agreement was not governed by the FAA or was otherwise invalid because it lacked certain terms.  Court likewise did not find persuasive the defendant’s argument that the plaintiff’s appointed arbitrator had a disqualifying conflict, noting that courts lack the power to disqualify an arbitrator before the arbitration is complete, but may only act to vacate an award for bias after one is rendered.

• Altruist, LLC v. Medex Patient Transport, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-01179 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 9, 2018)

  04/09/2018

  Court granted motion to confirm AAA arbitration award.  Court denied argument that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law in his determination on whether rescission was proper, calculation of related damages, reading of the franchise agreement, application of relevant state law, and imposition of joint and several liability.  Court denied attorney’s feels in connection with the confirmation proceedings but granted post-judgment interest.

• Lee v. Brock Services, No. 1:17-CV-00272-LG-RHW (S.D. Miss. Apr. 9, 2018)

  04/09/2018

  Court granted unopposed motion to compel arbitration and dismissed proceedings with prejudice upon finding that all claims at issue were subject to the arbitration agreement.

• Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Rahimzadeh, No. 3:17-CV-02126-JCH (D. Conn. Apr. 9, 2018)

  04/09/2018

  Court granted petition to compel arbitration.  Court rejected arguments that it lacked jurisdiction to compel arbitration, that the agreement was void as a matter of state franchise law, or that the underlying claims (filed in state court) did not arise from the agreement containing the arbitration provision.

• Aimiuwu v. AT&T Services, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-03952-CAP (N.D. Ga. Apr. 9, 2018)

  04/09/2018

  Magistrate judge recommended granting motion to compel arbitration, finding that a valid arbitration governed the dispute and rejecting the plaintiff’s challenges as to its authenticity.

• Moody v. Navient Solutions, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-01805-BYP (N.D. Ohio Apr. 6, 2018)

  04/06/2018

  Court granted unopposed motion to confirm arbitration award, finding that under AAA Rules and the FAA, the arbitrator’s decision to modify the award to correct a typographical error, while denying a petition to revisions that he viewed as a substantive challenge to the award, was proper.

• Brown v Credit One Bank, N.A., No. 2:17-CV-00786-JAD-VCF (D. Nev. Apr. 6, 2018)

  04/06/2018

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration.  Court denied to enforce an arbitration agreement against a non-signatory under a theory of estoppel, finding that the claims at issue did not arise from that agreement and that the claimant had not benefitted therefrom.

• Rogers v. SWEPI LP, No. 2:16-CV-00999-JLG-KAJ (S.D. Ohio Apr. 6, 2018)

  04/06/2018

  Court granted motion to stay proceedings pending interlocutory appeal of its decision to deny motion to compel arbitration, reasoning that it was without jurisdiction to hear further proceedings until the question of arbitrability was resolved.

• Tassy v. Lindsay Entertainment Enterprises, Inc., 3:16-CV-00077-TBR (W.D. Ky. Apr. 6, 2018)

  04/06/2018

  Court granted motion to compel the discovery necessary to resolve the threshold issue of arbitrability.

• Golden Gate National Senior Care, LLC v. Brown, 5:17-CV-00153-JMH (E.D. Ky. Apr. 5, 2018)

  04/05/2018

  Court, inter alia, granted motion to compel arbitration.  Court rejected argument that the arbitration agreement did not sufficiently involve interstate commerce to be actionable under the FAA or that it was unconscionable as a contract of adhesion that imposed higher costs on plaintiffs and truncated discovery.  However, the court declined to compel non-signatory plaintiff to arbitrate his independent claim.

• Hubbell v. NCR Corporation, No. 2:17-CV-00807-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio Apr. 5, 2018)

  04/05/2018

  Court granted motion for a stay pending limited discovery in support of the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, determining that factors within the court’s discretion favored a limited stay.

• Coyne v. Hewlett-Packard Company, No. 1:16-CV-01694-RCL (D.D.C. Apr. 5, 2018)

  04/05/2018

  Court denied motion to vacate arbitration award and granted sealed motion to confirm it.  Court rejected petitioner’s arguments that the arbitrator had exceeded his powers or manifestly disregarded the applicable law of unjust enrichment.

• Cvoro v. Carnival Corporation, No. 1:16-CV-21559-FAM (S.D. Fla. Apr. 5, 2018)

  04/05/2018

  Court denied petition to vacate arbitral award, holding that arbitrator’s refusal to offer a remedy available by US statute but not under Panamanian law, which governed the arbitration, did not violate US public policy.

• Rahmany v. Subway Sandwich Shops, INC., No. 17-35094 (9th Cir. Apr. 5, 2018)

  04/05/2018

  Court of appeals reversed district court’s order granting motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the case.  Court reasoned that because the defendant was a non-signatory to the agreement on which it sought to rely to compel arbitration, and because the plaintiff’s claims, in any case, did not arise therefrom, the district court erred in compelling arbitration.

• Elmy v. Western Express, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01199 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 4, 2018)

  04/04/2018

  Court granted motion to stay proceedings in connection with a motion to compel arbitration pending resolution of a case before the Supreme Court.  Court reasoned that because the pending case implicated considerations at issue in the proceedings before it (namely, (i) whether the applicability of the FAA is a threshold question a court must determine before compelling arbitration and (ii) whether certain transportation-worker agreements trigger its application), a stay was appropriate, as it would further judicial efficiency without undue prejudice.

• Youssofi v. Credit One Financial, No. 17-55275 (9th Cir. Apr. 4, 2018)

  04/04/2018

  Court of appeals affirmed judgment compelling arbitration, holding that the constitutional first amendment right to petition was not implicated by enforcement of arbitration agreements, as no state action is involved.

• Cornell University v. Illumina Inc., 1:10-CV-00433-LPS-MPT (D. Del. Apr. 3, 2018)

  04/03/2018

  Court adopted magistrate judge’s recommendation to compel arbitration, rejecting arguments that the arbitration agreement did not sufficiently cover the dispute.

• Chelsea Grand, LLC v. New York Hotel and Motel Trades Council, AFL-CIO, No. 17-1711-CV (2d Cir. Apr. 3, 2018)

  04/03/2018

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s confirmation of an arbitration award, ruling that the arbitrator had acted within the scope of his authority.

• Virtu KCG Holdings LLC v. Li, No. 2:17-CV-08296-SDW-CLW (D.N.J. Apr. 3, 2018)

  04/03/2018

  Court granted motion for automatic stay pending the defendant’s appeal of its denial of its earlier motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court noted that such appeals automatically stayed proceedings unless frivolous or forfeited.

• BEA Mountain Mining Corporation v. International Construction & Engineering (Seychelles), No. 1:17-CV-01374-LO-MSN (E.D. Va. Apr. 3, 2018)

  04/03/2018

  Magistrate judge recommended confirmation of an arbitral award, finding that plaintiff had met all requirements under the New York convention.  Court recommended against awarding costs, as plaintiff requested costs generically, but failed to provide specific amounts.

• Freedom Investors Corp. v. Gantan, No. 4:17-CV-03914-SBA (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2018)

  04/03/2018

  Court denied petition to vacate FINRA arbitration award and granted cross-petition to confirm it, rejecting petitioner’s  argument that the arbitrators had exceeded their authority or ignored controlling law.

• 16th Street Investments, LLC v. KTJ 216, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00174-WGY-ARS (D.N.D. Apr. 3, 2018)

  04/03/2018

  Court confirmed arbitration award, declining to permit a third party complaint by defendant seeking indemnity and contribution from non-diverse third parties and rejecting defendant’s argument that its award obligation should be reduced because it had previously tendered partial payment.

• Fireman's Fund Insurance Company v. Regions Insurance, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00195-GHD-DAS (N.D. Miss. Apr. 3, 2018)

  04/03/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, but declined to dismiss proceedings in light of remaining claims not subject to arbitration, staying the case instead.  Court noted that parties did not dispute the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and ruled that the dispute fell within its broad scope.  Court further granted motion to compel arbitration of a cross-claim brought by a third-party non-signatory on the theory of direct-benefit estoppel.

• Vision Healthcare Systems (International) PTY, LTD v. Vision Software Technologies, Inc., 3:15-CV-00175 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 2, 2018)

  04/02/2018

  Court granted application of entry of arbitration award as final judgment, rejecting defendant’s argument that arbitrator had exceeded his powers by allegedly misinterpreting the contract, because it was clear that the arbitrator had analyzed the relevant provision.

• Lagrone v. Omnova Solutions, No. 1:16-CV-00159-SA-DAS (N.D. Miss Mar. 31, 2018)

  03/31/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that plaintiffs’ claims were covered by the arbitration contract.  Court held that disputes as to whether conditions precedent to arbitration had been satisfied were presumptively for the arbitrator to decide.

• Christus St. Vincent Regional Medical Center v. District 1199NM, National Union of Hospital and Healthcare Employees, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, No. 1:17-CV-00452-JB-KK (D.N.M. Mar. 30, 2018)

  03/30/2018

  Court denied petition to vacate arbitration award and granted motion to confirm it, finding that plaintiff had not demonstrated that the arbitrator had exceeded his authority or that the award was contrary to public policy.  However, court denied motion to award attorneys’ fees or costs in connection with the petition, finding that plaintiff had not acted in bad faith in bringing it.

• Ohio Valley Aluminum Company, LLC v. Hydratech Industries US, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00051-GFVT (E.D. Ky. Mar. 30, 2018)

  03/30/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the arbitration agreement was valid and rejected plaintiff’s argument that arbitration in Denmark would be unduly burdensome (treating it as a contention as to the contract’s unconscionability).  Court declined to stay proceedings, as all issues before it were arbitrable, and dismissed the matter.

• Thunderbird Resorts Inc. v. Zimmer, No. 3:15-CV-01304-JAH-BGS (S.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2018)

  03/30/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, ruling that the arbitration agreement was sufficiently broad to cover all claims at issue, and held that motion to domesticate a Hong Kong ICC arbitration award between plaintiff and one of the defendants was therefore premature.

• Wardlow v. U-Haul International, Inc., No. 6:17-CV-01100-AA (D. Or. Mar. 30, 2018)

  03/30/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings.  Court held that the arbitration clause covered the dispute at issue and rejected plaintiff’s argument that it could not be applied because it was unconscionable.  Specifically, court held that mere inequality of bargaining power did not render an agreement procedurally unconscionable, that the agreement was not so inconspicuous as to constitute an improper surprise, and that the agreement was not so unfair and one-sided as to be substantively unconscionable. 

• Bracey v. Lancaster Foods LLC, No. 1:17-CV-01826-RDB (D. Md. Mar. 30, 2018)

  03/30/2018

  Court granted motion to dismiss proceedings upon finding that the claims at issue had to be arbitrated.  Court rejected, inter alia, plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable as unconscionable because it imposed  a shorter statute of limitations than the applicable legislation.

• Best Effort First Time, LLC v. Southside Oil, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00825-GLR (D. Md. Mar. 30, 2018)

  03/30/2018

  Court granted with respect to certain claims motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that although the parties had delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator by incorporating AAA rules, the claim that the dispute fell within an arbitration clause was so frivolous that it need not leave the question to the arbitrator.  Court then ruled that the agreement was valid, but applied only to some of the claims brought by plaintiffs.

• Smith v. Medidata Solutions, Inc., 3:16-CV-01689-L-JLB (S.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2018)

  03/30/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the arbitration agreement was supported by consideration and therefore valid, and that the dispute fell within its scope.  Court then rejected plaintiff’s various objections to the enforceability of the arbitration agreement, finding, inter alia, that even though the contract was one of adhesion it did not suffer from substantive unconscionability because it carved out defendant’s right to file certain claims in court, imposed certain costs, and

• In Re Samsung Galaxy Smartphone Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, 5:16-CV-06391-BLF (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2018)

  03/30/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration with respect to those plaintiffs who had assented to – but not for those who had opted out of – arbitration agreements and stayed all claims.  Court granted motion to dismiss class action claims for those plaintiffs subject to valid arbitration agreement.

• Maher v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 1:17-CV-00753 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 29, 2018)

  03/29/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration after determining that the parties had mutually agreed to arbitrate and that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration clause.

• Garcia v. TEMPOE, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-02106-SDW-LDW (D.N.J. Mar. 29, 2018)

  03/29/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, rejecting plaintiffs’ argument that the agreement was unconscionable because it precluded treble damages, potential punitive damages, and one-way fee shifting available under the applicable statutes in court.

• Coots v. Western Refining Retail, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00838-JCH-LF (D.N.M. Mar. 29, 2018)

  03/29/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court held that a valid arbitration agreement governed the dispute, rejecting plaintiff’s argument that the agreement was unsupported by consideration.  Court further rejected plaintiff’s argument that the agreement was unconscionable, finding that he had not met his burden of proof.

• Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association, INC. v. Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association of San Diego, INC., No. 3:17-CV-01690-BTM-JLB (S.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2018)

  03/29/2018

  Court granted application to confirm a JAMS arbitration award.  Court denied argument that such a request may only be filed as a motion (rather than application) and likewise rejected respondent’s argument that the arbitrator had exceeded the scope of his authority.

• Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC v. Insurance Company of North America, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00715-DLC (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2018)

  03/29/2018

  Court ruled that claims before it must be submitted to arbitration and stayed proceedings.  Court held that although the presumption that it is for the arbitrator to decide questions of waiver could be reversed, because the conduct of which plaintiff complained occurred entirely outside the court, it remained for the arbitrator to adjudicate.  Court further ruled that by incorporating AAA rules, the parties had delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator as well.

• Star Development Group, LLC v. Constructure Management, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01246-RDB (D. Md. Mar. 28, 2018)

  03/28/2018

  Court granted motion to compel AAA arbitral award and award attorneys’ fees, denying plaintiffs’ petition to vacate.  Court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the arbitral tribunal had manifestly disregarded the law or made irrational fact-findings in denying their delay damages and granting one of defendants’ claims.

• Davis v. USA Nutra Labs, No. 1:15-CV-01107-MV-SCY (D.N.M. Mar. 28, 2018)

  03/28/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, rejecting plaintiff’s arguments that she had not entered into the arbitration agreement or that it was otherwise unconscionable, as well as her contention that the claims at issue did not fall within the scope of the agreement.

• Blackberry Limited v. Nokia Corporation, No. 1:17-CV-00155-RGA (D. Del. Mar. 28, 2018)

  03/28/2018

  Court denied without prejudice motion to compel arbitration.  Court reasoned that the agreement did not cover claims against a third party beneficiary, further rejecting defendants’ equitable estoppel theory for why the court should nevertheless compel arbitration.

• Border Area Mental Health, Inc. v. United Behavioral Health, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01213-MV-SCY (D.N.M. Mar. 28, 2018)

  03/28/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Court rejected as irrelevant plaintiffs’ argument that their claims fell outside the scope of the arbitration agreement, finding that because the parties had incorporated AAA rules they had agreed to delegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

• Airtourist Holdings LLC v. HNA Group, No. 4:17-CV-04989-JSW (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2018)

  03/27/2018

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court found that plaintiffs’ claims were subject to the broad arbitration clauses in the agreements, as each of the formative contracts contained broadly-worded dispute resolution provisions requiring mandatory arbitration of “[a]ny unresolved controversy or claim arising out of or relating to” the parties’ contracts. Court also held that defendants were entitled to enforce the agreements against non-signatories pursuant to the agency doctrine and as third-party beneficiaries of the agreements.

• Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Professional Installations, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-04591-DAB (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2018)

  03/27/2018

  Court granted the petition to confirm the arbitration award.  Court concluded that the arbitrator was acting within the scope of his authority, as granted by the agreements.  Based on the record provided, court found that there was no disputed material issue of fact, and therefore confirmed the arbitration award.

• MDL 2048 Cox Enterprises, Inc., No. 5:12-ML-02048-C (W.D. Okla. Mar. 27, 2018)

  03/27/2018

  Court denied motion for leave to file an amended complaint in a multi-district litigation as futile upon finding that each of the proposed substitute plaintiffs was subject to arbitration.  Court rejected arguments that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable as a contract of adhesion given the way it was presented to plaintiffs.

• Fields v. Trans Union, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-02939-CDJ (E.D. Pa. Mar. 27, 2018)

  03/27/2018

  Court granted a defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of the claims filed against it.  Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable as unconscionable, finding unpersuasive her contention that the form of the agreement was so convoluted as to be procedurally unconscionable or that the cost and discovery consequences of arbitrating her claims made it substantively unconscionable.  Nor did the court agree that the agreement was one-sided.

• Wholesalecars.com v. Hutcherson, No. 2:16-CV-00155 (N.D. Ala. Mar. 27, 2018)

  03/27/2018

  Court denied motion to vacate arbitration award obtained by defendant in her own name, in spite of having initiated bankruptcy proceedings, reasoning that her failure to inform creditors and the bankruptcy estate of her action and corresponding lack of standing did not affect the arbitrator’s decision and thus did not constitute fraud for purposes of invalidating the award under the FAA.  However, court agreed to estop defendant from enforcing the award for those same reasons, including her denial under oath of the suit.