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.
-
Hearn v. Oriole Shipping, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-02759-MMB (E.D. Pa. Mar. 27, 2018)
03/27/2018Court denied without prejudice motion to stay any contribution or indemnity action relating to an admiralty action pending arbitration, reasoning that such contribution or indemnity fell outside the relevant contract.
-
Continental Casualty Company v. Hopeman Brothers, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00688-ALC (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2018)
03/27/2018Court granted motion to compel arbitration, determining that the arbitration agreement was sufficiently broad to cover the scope of the parties’ dispute. Court rejected plaintiffs arguments that defendant had waived its right to arbitrate by initiating proceedings against other plaintiffs in the dispute who were not parties to the arbitration agreement.
-
Willett v. Ally Bank, No. 2:17-CV-02472-JAR-GLR (D. Kan. Mar. 26, 2018)
03/26/2018Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement was valid under Arkansas state law.
-
Jesmar Energy, Inc.. v. Range Resources – Appalachia, LLC., No. 2:17-CV-00928-LPL (W.D. Pa. Mar. 26, 2018)
03/26/2018Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court held that no valid arbitration agreement existed, rejecting a reading of an assignment agreement that would have incorporated arbitration obligations contained in the assigned lease.
-
Campbell Investments, LLC v. Dickey's Barbecue Restaurants, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00832-DB (D. Utah Mar. 26, 2018)
03/26/2018Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that defendant failed to demonstrate that plaintiffs had agreed to arbitrate the claims. Specifically, court rejected arguments that an agreement that bound the previous owners of a franchise locations or that specifically applied to a wholly separate location (that was also not in existence at the time) could bind plaintiffs to arbitrate.
-
Call v. Harris Stowe State University, No. 4:17-CV-01548-HEW (W.D. Mo. Mar. 26, 2018)
03/26/2018Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that defendants had waived their right to arbitrate, holding that the case had seen little activity since being commenced and that plaintiff had herself amended her complaint to add a claim that led defendants to remove the action to federal court and to move to compel arbitration.
-
Golden Gate National Senior Care, LLC v. Stambaugh, No. 5:17-CV-00161-KKC (E.D. Ky. Mar. 26, 2018)
03/26/2018Court denied motion to dismiss complaint seeking to compel defendant estate to arbitrate claims the estate had filed in state court. Court dismissed argument that it lacked diversity jurisdiction to hear the complaint or that the FAA was inapplicable because the claim did not sufficiently concern interstate commerce. Court further rejected arguments that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable because it was part of a mass-produced contract, incorporated JAMS rules, and would truncate discovery.
-
Thomas v. PFG Transco, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00785-ALM (E.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2018)
03/25/2018Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court rejected a unified theory for treating the allegedly intertwined claims against two defendants, only one of whom was a signatory to an arbitration agreement. Court reasoned that parties to the agreement had delegated the arbitrability decision and granted motion to compel those claims, staying related proceedings; however, court declined to compel arbitration against remaining non-signatory defendants and ordered that they proceed.
-
Andreoli v. Youngevity International, Inc., 3:16-CV-02922-BTM-JLB (S.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2018)
03/23/2018Among its other dispositions, court denied without prejudice motion to compel one of the claims, holding that defendants failed to satisfy their burden of proving the existence of an agreement when they submitted a blank contract with no signatures or names.
-
Sidney v. Verizon Communications, No. 1:17-CV-01850-RJD-RLM (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2018)
03/23/2018Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, holding that plaintiff failed to substantiate his complaint of unconscionability and did not otherwise challenge the validity of the applicable arbitration agreement, and that the parties’ dispute fell within the agreement’s scope. Court noted that where arbitration agreements are valid and enforceable, so are any class action waivers contained therein.
-
Begole v. North Mississippi Medical Center, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00033-SA-DAS (N.D. Miss. Mar. 23, 2018)
03/23/2018Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the parties had a valid agreement to arbitrate plaintiff’s claims. Court found that, even reading the arbitration clause narrowly, plaintiff’s claims arose from duties imposed by the contract and were therefore subject to arbitration. Court also found that the individual defendant, as the corporate defendant’s agent, had the right to compel arbitration.
-
Rodriguez v. Echosphere, L.L.C., No. 3:18-CV-00063-DCG (W.D. Tex. Mar. 23, 2018)
03/23/2018Court granted plaintiff’s motion to remand, which asserted that defendant failed to prove complete diversity of citizenship or that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs. The parties’ contract contained a stipulation that barred recovery in excess of $74,999, which defendant contended was not truly binding because the arbitration clause expressly withdrew all the limitations on damages. Court noted that the parties only located two cases addressing this precise issue nationwide, both of which held that the stipulation was binding.
-
Franklin v. H&R Block, No. 4:16-CV-00666-JAR (W.D. Mo. Mar. 23, 2018)
03/23/2018Court granted motion to enforce arbitration award under the FAA, noting that it had been timely filed and that the plaintiff had waived her right to proffer any defenses to such enforcement by her failure to timely file a motion to vacate or modify the award under the FAA.
-
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated v. Thompson, No. 2:17-CV-02648-CM-KGS (D. Kan. Mar. 23, 2018)
03/23/2018Court, inter alia, granted motion to compel FINRA arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that a valid arbitral agreement governed the parties’ dispute.
-
Remington v. Shwinco Architectural Products, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00750-TFM (M.D. Ala. Mar. 23, 2018)
03/23/2018Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, reasoning that a valid arbitration agreement appeared to govern the dispute, but that, in any case, the parties’ joint stipulation as to arbitration filed with the court constituted a valid agreement to arbitrate the claims at issue.
-
Restea v. Brown Harris Stevens LLC, No. 1:17-CV-04801-VEC-GWG (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2018)
03/23/2018Magistrate judge recommended that motion to compel be granted and the case dismissed. Court determined that a valid arbitration agreement governed the parties’ dispute and dismissed contrary arguments. Court further held that dismissal was proper as neither party had requested a stay.
-
H.H. Franchising Systems, Inc. v. Pawson, No. 1:17-CV-00368-SJD (S.D. Ohio Mar. 23, 2018)
03/23/2018Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court agreed that the arbitration agreement expressly included a large claim exception to arbitration and ruled that the exception applied, and was neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable. Court further held that its conclusion regarding large claims mooted the defendants’ argument that only claims seeking injunctive relief could be excluded from arbitration under the contractual exemption of injunctive claims from the arbitration agreement.
-
Zoller v. UBS Securities LLC, No. 1:16-CV-11277 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 23, 2018)
03/23/2018Court denied motion to compel arbitration with respect to one claimant and to dismiss the claims of another, reasoning that the arbitration agreement did not apply to putative class and collective action claims by operation of FINRA Rule 13209, which it deemed incorporated into the arbitration agreements. Court, however, rejected plaintiffs’ parallel theories based on the argument that a FINRA arbitration would be “prohibitively expensive,” that they had been fraudulently induced to accept the arbitration clause itself, and that the defendant had waived its right to litigate.
-
Stati v. Republic of Kazakhstan, No. 1:14-CV-01638-ABJ (D.D.C. Mar. 23, 2018)
03/23/2018Court denied the defendant’s motion to reconsider its request to submit additional defense grounds and confirmed arbitration award. Court held that the arbitral seat had already denied the defendant’s arguments that the award had been fraudulently obtained and that the court itself had committed no error either in law or in fact in rejecting the defendant’s fraud-based defense to enforcement. Court then held that none of the NY Convention grounds for declining to enforce the award applied and granted motion to confirm arbitral award.
-
Nieto v. 2249 Corp., No. 1:16-CV-07947-LAP (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2018)
03/22/2018Court denied motion to compel arbitration, reasoning that the plaintiffs had raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether an arbitration agreement had been made and ordered that the court would proceed summarily to a trial addressing this question.
-
A.D. v. Credit One Bank, N.A., No. 17-1486 (7th Cir. Mar. 22, 2018)
03/22/2018Court of appeals reversed the judgment of the district court, which granted defendant-appellee’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that plaintiff-appellant was not bound by the terms of the agreement to arbitrate, as she did not directly benefit from the agreement such that equitable principles convinced the court to apply the arbitration clause against her. Additionally, court found that plaintiff-appellant had not consented to arbitration and did not have legal capacity to enter into a contractual relationship with defendant-appellee.
-
Balkan Energy Limited v. Republic of Ghana, No. 1:17-CV-00584-APM (D.D.C. Mar. 22, 2018)
03/22/2018Court granted the petition to confirm a foreign arbitral award rendered against the Republic of Ghana by the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Court held that (i) the FSIA arbitration exception applied, (ii) the forum non conveniens doctrine did not apply to actions in the US to enforce arbitral awards against foreign nations, and (iii) petitioners had standing to seek confirmation and enforcement of the award. Court also found that none of Ghana’s arguments—that the arbitration agreement was invalid under Ghanian law, that the parties did not agree to submit the question of the validity of the arbitration clause to the tribunal, and that recognition of the award would be contrary to US public policy—supplied a defense to the confirmation of the award.
-
GGNSC Louisville St. Matthews LLC v. Badgett, No. 17-5963 (6th Cir. Mar. 22, 2018)
03/22/2018Court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court, which denied petitioners-appellants’ motion to compel arbitration. The deceased had signed an arbitration agreement at one nursing home, but later disclaimed an identical agreement at a facility owned by the same parent company. Court explained that because the second arbitration agreement was a novation of the first agreement and clearly expressed the intent of the parties, no valid arbitration agreement existed.
-
Oliver v. First Century Bank, N.A., No. 3:17-CV-00620-MMA-KSC (S.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2018)
03/22/2018Court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of its order compelling arbitration. Court explained that if plaintiff did not challenge a delegation clause specifically, then the court must treat it as valid under FAA § 2, and enforce it under §§ 3 and 4, leaving any challenge to the validity of the agreement as a whole for the arbitrator. Court also determined that under Rent-A-Ctr., W., Inc. v. Jackson, 51 U.S. 63 (2010), the party seeking to avoid arbitration bears the burden of raising specific arbitrability challenges, including a challenge to the enforceability of the delegation clause.
-
Lee v. Burlington Coat Factory of Missouri, LLC, No. 4:17-CV-02467-AGF (E.D. Mo. Mar. 21, 2018)
03/21/2018Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending arbitration. Court held that plaintiff accepted the offer to arbitrate by failing to opt out in a timely fashion and that the agreement was supported by valid consideration in the form of mutual promises to arbitrate claims. Court also noted that, although plaintiff did not explicitly assert one, it would also reject any legal argument based on the prominence (or alleged lack thereof) of the terms of the arbitration agreement.
-
Stroman v. Barefoot, No. 3:17-CV-02760-CMC (D.S.C. Mar. 21, 2018)
03/21/2018Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration. Court concluded that (i) nothing in plaintiff’s arguments suggested that defendants waived the right to enforce the arbitration agreement by offering a pre-litigation alternative dispute resolution option or by any action they took during mediation; (ii) it was enough that plaintiff understood that she was accepting an agreement by her actions, even if she was discouraged from reading the agreement; (iii) plaintiff’s unconscionability argument was based on speculation as to possible total costs of arbitration, which was insufficient to establish unconscionability; and (iv) enforcement of a private agreement under the FAA does not raise due process or other constitutional concerns.
-
Vyas v. Doctor’s Associates, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01774-JCH (D. Conn. Mar. 21, 2018)
03/21/2018Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitration award and granted defendant’s motion to confirm. Court held that (i) the arbitrator’s denial of plaintiff’s requests to arbitrate did not constitute misconduct sufficient to vacate the ex parte award, (ii) the arbitrator’s reservation of judgment with respect to plaintiff’s motion to preclude claimant from calling undisclosed witnesses did not constitute prejudicial behavior pursuant to FAA § 10(a)(3), and (iii) plaintiff failed to show that the arbitrator’s denial of the motion to compel testimony from a certain witness constituted misconduct. Court also held that neither the process by which the arbitrator was appointed nor the appointment of the arbitrator himself violated FAA § 10(a)(4).
-
Perry v. Kingsland Capital Management LLC, No. 1:16-CV-04305-DAB (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2018)
03/20/2018Court denied petition to vacate arbitration award and granted motion to confirm it. Court denied argument that the arbitrator had exceeded his powers or manifestly disregarded the terms of the parties’ agreement in reaching his decision regarding fees.
-
Tallakoy LP v. Black Fire Energy, Inc., No. 7:14-CV-00180-KKC-EBA (E.D. Ky. Mar. 20, 2018)
03/20/2018Court granted plaintiffs’ renewed motion to confirm the arbitration award following remand. Sixth Circuit had disagreed with the district court’s conclusion that issuance by an arbitrator, without more, deemed an award “filed” or “delivered” under the FAA. On remand, court found that defendants’ challenge to the arbitration award was untimely and the court’s analysis of the effect of that untimeliness and of the general validity of the award was undisturbed.
-
Developers Surety and Indemnity Co. v. Carothers Construction, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00875-JBA (D. Conn. Mar. 19, 2018)
03/19/2018Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied defendant’s request to transfer. Court concluded that the arbitration provision in question did not cover the plaintiff, as it referenced the subcontractor but not the surety, i.e. plaintiff. Court also rejected defendant’s argument that plaintiff was estopped from seeking to avoid arbitration, noting that defendant presented little evidence of plaintiff having received a direct benefit from the agreement.
-
DISH Network L.L.C. v. Open Orbit Corporation, No. 1:16-CV-02083-LTB (D. Colo. Mar. 19, 2018)
03/19/2018Court granted plaintiff’s application to confirm an arbitration award, holding that the award could be enforced against individual defendant. Court noted that, even though the defendant was not a party to the arbitration, he had notice of the arbitration and participated in it.
-
Dodson International Parts, Inc. v. Williams International Co., No. 2:16-CV-02212-JAR-KGS (D. Kan. Mar. 19, 2018)
03/19/2018Court denied plaintiff’s motion for modification of stay order, which asked the court to permit the parties to issue subpoenas for the purpose of compelling witnesses to attend depositions and provide documents. Court determined that it need not decide whether FAA § 7 permits the discovery plaintiff seeks, as plaintiff should have petitioned another court (the district court for the district in which the arbitrator sits).
-
Matalka v. Home Point Financial Corporation, No. 2:17-CV-00155-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio Mar. 19, 2018)
03/19/2018Court denied the motion to compel arbitration, concluding that the parties agreed to arbitrate claims relating to plaintiff’s work as a branch manager, but not plaintiff’s work as a regional manager. Court rejected defendant’s contention that the arbitrator was to decide the arbitrability of the case, as plaintiff’s claims did not arise out of or relate, directly or indirectly, to the branch manager agreement.
-
Pao Tatneft v. Ukraine, No. 1:17-CV-00582-CKK (D.D.C. Mar. 19, 2018)
03/19/2018Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss, motion for leave to take jurisdictional discovery, and motion to stay, holding in abeyance plaintiff’s petition for enforcement of the arbitration award. Court rejected defendant’s argument that the FSIA arbitration exception did not apply to the instant case because plaintiff is a state-controlled entity and declined to stay the action while an appeal in France was ongoing because the proceeding had been “deactivated” due to an unpaid order of legal costs. Court asked for additional briefing from plaintiff in response to defendant’s opposition to the enforcement of the award, which argued that the tribunal was improperly constituted and that the award was contrary to US public policy.
-
Van Rooyen v. Greystone Home Builders, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-10895-RHC-MKM (N.D. Tex. Mar. 19, 2018)
03/19/2018Court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or improper venue, and granted their alternative motion to transfer. Court noted that the fifth circuit has recognized six theories for binding a non-signatory to a contract’s arbitration clause: incorporation by reference, assumption, agency, veil-piercing ego, estoppel, and third party beneficiary theory. Court concluded that the principle of estoppel made the contract’s forum-selection clause binding on the non-signatories, as the claims against the remaining defendants were intertwined with and dependent upon the contract containing the forum-selection clause.
-
Ayala v. Ace Cash Express, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-02166-AJB-WVG (S.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2018)
03/15/2018Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that arbitral agreement was not procedurally or substantively unconscionable.
-
Bankers Conseco Life Insurance Company v. Feuer, No. 1:16-CV-07646-ER (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2018)
03/15/2018Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that signatory was required to arbitrate claims against a non-signatory under a theory of equitable estoppel.
-
Walker v. Huyandai Capital America, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00045-WTM-GRS (S.D. Ga. Mar. 15, 2018)
03/15/2018Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that assignee of lender in car loan agreement was entitled to rely on arbitration agreement in car purchase agreement executed at same time.
-
Peco Foods Inc. v. Retail Wholesale and Department Store Union Mid-South Council, No. 17-13269 (11th Cir. Mar. 15, 2018)
03/15/2018Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of motion to vacate arbitral award, finding award did not violate public policy and that arbitrator did not exceed his authority by finding that party waived its challenge to the timeliness of request for arbitration.
-
Campos v. DXP Enterprises, Inc., No. 8:18-CV-00103-JLS-DFM (C.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2018)03/14/2018
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of wage dispute, and stayed the action pursuant to the FAA. Court found that the plaintiff must show both procedural and substantive unconscionability, however the only argument plaintiff made concerning substantive unconscionability was that the agreement contained “unlawful waivers of plaintiff’s right to bring collective and representative actions,” an argument that was recently rejected by the Supreme Court’s holding in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis. Thus following Supreme Court precedent, the court found the agreement to arbitrate was not unconscionable and enforced it.
-
BOKF, NA v. Estes, No. 3:17-CV-00694-LRH-WGC (D. Nev. Mar. 14, 2018)
03/14/2018After denying motion for preliminary anti-arbitration injunction, court denied motion for an injunction pending appeal, finding that appellant had not established it was likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal; that its claim of irreparable harm was insufficient; and that the balance of the equities was against the injunction.
-
Medic Ambulance Services, Inc. v. United EMS Workers, AFSCME, Local 4911, No. 2:17-CV-01859-KJM-KJN (E.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2018)
03/14/2018Court denied motion to vacate arbitral award and granted cross-motion to confirm it, finding that (i) timing for filing a motion to vacate is governed by California law, not the FAA; and (ii) the arbitrator did not exceed her authority by issuing a precedential award or considering past practice.
-
Kent Building Services, LLC v. Kessler, No. 1:17-CV-03509-JPO (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2018)
03/14/2018Court denied motion to vacate arbitral award and granted cross-motion to confirm it, finding that the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard New York contract law in finding a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
-
Garnick v. Interstate Batteries, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-12026-SFC-APP (E.D. Mich. Mar. 14, 2018)
03/14/2018Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate and Plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial.
-
Simmons v. First Premier Bank, N.A., No. 5:17-CV-00376-CAR (M.D. Ga. Mar. 14, 2018)
03/14/2018Court granted in part joint motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that, when all claims are subject to arbitration, the proper course of actions is not to stay all proceedings, but to dismiss without prejudice.
-
Roberts v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 3:15-CV-03418-EMC (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2018)
03/14/2018Reconsidering its former ruling, court denied motion to compel arbitration as to California residents (while granting it as to an Alabama resident), finding that arbitration clause containing a clause waiving the right to seek the statutory remedy of public injunctive relief was invalid under newly issued California Supreme Court case.
-
Jordan v. Integrity First Financial Group, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-02994-RBH (D.S.C. Mar. 14, 2018)
03/14/2018Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that it was substantively unopposed, except with respect to dismissal. Court also dismissed proceedings, noting that such dismissal was proper where all claims at issue were subject to the arbitration agreement.
-
The Centercap Group, LLC v. Optio, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-09823-DAB (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2018)
03/14/2018Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award and denied cross-motion for vacatur. Court rejected arguments that the arbitrator had engaged in misconduct or manifestly disregarded the terms of the parties’ agreements.
-
Local Union No. 164, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO and IBEW Local 164 Benefit Funds, No. 3:17-CV-11817-FLW-LHG (D.N.J. Mar. 13, 2018)
03/13/2018Court granted petition to confirm arbitral award, finding that an alleged “post-award accord” did not bear on question of whether arbitral award was final and binding.
-
Giddings v. Media Lodge, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-04068-RAL (D.S.D. Mar. 13, 2018)
03/13/2018Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that (i) defendant had waived right to rely on delegation clause by failing to raise it; (ii) arbitration clause was not unconscionable; and (iii) statutory USERRA claims were within the scope of the arbitration clause and could be arbitrated.