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.

• 20/20 Communications  v. Crawford, No. 4:17-CV-00929-A (N.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2018)

  02/28/2018

  Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate an arbitral award. Court held that because the arbitrator interpreted the agreement he did not exceed his authority even if he was incorrect about the law. Thus, plaintiff failed to show existence of one of the limited grounds for vacating awards under the FAA.

• Oyola v. Midland Funding, LLC, No. 4:17-CV-40040-TSH (D. Mass. Feb. 28, 2018)

  02/28/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, dismiss the case, and strike class allegations, finding the delegation clause and arbitration agreement were valid.

• Kroat v. Pizza Hut of Maryland, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-02035-RDB (D. Md. Feb. 27, 2018)

  02/27/2018

  Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding plaintiff had entered into an agreement with his employer to arbitrate all employment-related disputes.  Court found a stay was not appropriate because all plaintiff’s claims were arbitrable.

• Jemiri v. Public Service Enterprise Group Corporation (PSEG), No. 2:17-CV-04518-ADS-AKT (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2018)

  02/27/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending the resolution of arbitration.  Pursuant to the FAA, court found a valid arbitration agreement between the plaintiff and employer existed, and concluded that because the disputes were intertwined the entire case should be sent to arbitration including claims against non-signatories to the agreement that are factually intertwined with the dispute between the signatories. 

• Management Registry, Inc. v. A.W. Companies, Inc., No. 0:17-CV-05009-JRT-FLN (D. Minn. Feb. 27, 2018)

  02/27/2018

  Court granted motion to compel AAA arbitration finding the mandatory arbitration provision was a valid agreement to arbitrate, and stayed proceedings pending arbitration pursuant to the FAA on a determination that arbitration will not likely resolve all issues between the parties.

• MacDonald v. Cashcall Inc., No. 17-2161 (D. Md. Feb. 27, 2018)

  02/27/2018

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that the arbitration agreement, including the delegation clause, was unenforceable because the agreement directed arbitration to an illusory forum and the forum selection clause was an integral, non-severable part of the arbitral agreement.

• Sayre v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., No. 3:17-CV-00449-JLS-MDD (S.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2018)

  02/26/2018

  Court denied petition to vacate or modify the arbitral award, holding there was no “manifest disregard for the law” or violation of the FAA in the tribunal’s refusal to postpone a hearing, which consisted of opposing counsel’s closing statements, when petitioner and his counsel could not be present.  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint which alleged claims that could have been brought in arbitration, finding they were barred by res judicata.                                                                

• Choice Hotels International Inc. v. Khan, No. 8:17-CV-03572-DKC (D. Md. Feb. 26, 2018)

  02/26/2018

  Court confirmed arbitration award and granted motion for default judgment, concluding that defendant had not demonstrated any ground for vacating the award under the FAA.

• Athas Health LLC v. Giuffre, No. 3:17-CV-00300-L (N.D. Tex. Feb. 23, 2018)

  02/23/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration under §4 of the FAA. Court held that because the claims arose while the contract was in effect, and because arbitration agreements are separable and therefore enforceable after a contract comes to an end, the court must enforce a specific agreement to arbitrate.  Additionally, a challenge to the enforceability or unconscionability of the underlying contract is left to the arbitrator to decide.

• Lett v. Classic Buick GMC Cadillac, No. 2:17-CV-00373-SRW (M.D. Ala. Feb. 22, 2018)

  02/22/2018

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that, plaintiff having omitted by amendment his federal claim, court no longer had federal question jurisdiction; the case was therefore dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

• Tassy v. Lindsay Entertainment Enterprises, Inc., No. 17-5375 (6th Cir. Feb. 22, 2018)

  02/22/2018

  Court of appeals vacated order denying motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration and remanded for further proceedings.  Court of appeals held that district court had erred by failing to summarily proceed to trial in order to resolve a factual dispute over the existence of an arbitration agreement and instead denying a motion to compel arbitration.

• International Corrugated and Packing Supplies, Inc. v. Lear Corporation, No. 3:15-CV-00405-DCG (W.D. Tex. Feb. 22, 2018)

  02/22/2018

  On remand from the fifth circuit, the court continued to deny the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that under Texas law, in order to incorporate an unsigned contract into another contract, the latter contract must be signed by the party sought to be charged. Here, because the defendant was attempting to incorporate by reference unsigned terms and conditions containing an arbitration clause into unsigned purchase orders, the defendant failed to prove there was a valid agreement to arbitrate.

• ACE Insurance Company of Puerto Rico v. Nolasco Communications Inc., No. 1:15-CV-00052-WAL-GWC (D.V.I. Feb. 22, 2018)

  02/22/2018

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm a AAA construction industry arbitration award under the FAA. Court held that it had jurisdiction to confirm the award and, as the defendant did not allege any of the statutory bases for vacating the award, confirmation of the award was appropriate. Court also awarded post-judgment interest pursuant to 28 USC § 1961, which applies to money judgments entered in federal courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction.

• Clarke v. Alltran Financial LP f/k/a United Recovery Systems LP, No. 2:17-CV-03330-JFB-AYS (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2018)

  02/22/2018

  Court granted non-signatory defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action pending conclusion of the arbitration. Court held that the plain language of the contract at issue allows the defendant to compel arbitration because the arbitration agreement does not expressly limit the right to compel arbitration to the signatories.  Moreover, the arbitration provision states that it is to be interpreted in “the broadest way the law will allow it to be interpreted.”

• Norfolk Southern Railway v. Sprint Communications Company L.P., No. 16-2107 (4th Cir. Feb. 22, 2018)

  02/22/2018

  Court of appeals reversed the district court’s order granting a motion to confirm an arbitration award. Court held that the award failed to resolve an issue presented by the parties to the arbitrators, and therefore it is not “mutual, final, and definite” as required by the FAA.

• LPF II, LLC v. Cornerstone Systems, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-02417-DDC-JPO  (D. Kan. Feb. 21, 2018)

  02/21/2018

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration based on the record before it and concluded that a summary trial was necessary to determine whether the parties’ contract requires them to arbitrate their disputes.

• Lionsbrood Enterprises, LLC v. Installation Solutions, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01507-WJM-MJW (D. Colo. Feb. 20, 2018)

  02/20/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that, because both statutory rights and common law claims may be resolved in arbitration, all claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and thus the agreement was binding and enforceable.

• Independent Laboratory Employees’ Union, Inc. v. ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company, No. 3:17-CV-11858-PGS-LHG (D.N.J. Feb. 20, 2018)

  02/20/2018

  Court granted motion to enforce a AAA arbitration award, finding that the arbitrator’s award did not disregard the “zipper clause” nor manifestly ignore the plain language of the collective bargaining agreement at issue.

• Diaz v. Intuit, Inc., No. 5:15-CV-01778-EJD (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2018)

  02/16/2018

  Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to certify for appeal the court’s order granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that an interlocutory appeal would not materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation but rather delay the arbitration. 

• Jenkins v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-1999-MMA-BGS (S.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2018)

  02/16/2018

  Court granted in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that a valid agreement to arbitrate all but one of the claims existed and that the agreement was not procedurally unconscionable under California law.  Court stayed one claim in the interest of efficiency, pending completion of the arbitration.

• DCK World Wide LLC v. Pacifica Riverplace, LP., No. 1:16-CV-00666-SS (W.D. Tex. Feb. 16, 2018)

  02/16/2018

  Court granted motion to confirm an arbitration award under §9 of the FAA. Court found that it, rather than the arbitrator, had the authority to determine whether a non-signatory was bound to the arbitration agreement; and that the non-signatory plaintiff was bound by the arbitration agreement on equitable grounds of implied assumption and direct benefits estoppel. Having determined that the arbitrator correctly found that the non-signatory was required to arbitrate, the court held that the arbitrator did not exceed its authority and therefore no grounds for vacatur existed.

• ATT Mobility Services LLC v. Payne, No. 3:17-CV-00649-CRS (W.D. Ky. Feb. 16, 2018)

  02/16/2018

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration of state court claims and for a preliminary injunction enjoining the state court proceedings.  Court held that a valid and enforceable contract between the parties exists under Kentucky law and that the defendant accepted the plaintiff’s offer to arbitrate future claims.  Additionally, the court found that enjoining the state court proceedings, in light of the finding that a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement existed, would prevent irreparable harm against the movant by avoiding the expense and delay of trial.

• Adkins v. Comcast Corp., No. 3:17-CV-06477-VC (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2018)

  02/15/2018

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement contained an unenforceable waiver under California law of an individual’s right to bring a public injunctive relief claim in any forum.  Court further held that the agreement included language that invalidated the entire arbitration clause if the waiver was invalidated.

• Adkins v. Comcast Corp., No. 3:17-CV-06477-VC (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2018)

  02/15/2018

  Court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment against the confirmation of plaintiff’s arbitration award, granted plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitrator’s unexplained denial of plaintiff’s attorney’s fees for lack of procedural fairness, and remanded the case to the arbitrator to determine plaintiff’s reasonable fees.

• Penneco Oil Co., Inc. v. Energy Corp. of America, No. 2:16-CV-01918-JFC (W.D. Pa. Feb. 15, 2018)

  02/15/2018

  Court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment against the confirmation of plaintiff’s arbitration award, granted plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitrator’s unexplained denial of plaintiff’s attorney’s fees for lack of procedural fairness, and remanded the case to the arbitrator to determine plaintiff’s reasonable fees.

• Kingsbury v. Lyft, Inc., No.1:17-CV-02272-SDY (N.D. Ill. Feb. 15, 2018)

  02/15/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiffs agreed to broad arbitration clauses on multiple occasions and that their claims fell squarely within the scope of those clauses. 

• Smith v. Kellogg Co., No. 2:17-CV-01914-APG-GWF (D. Nev. Feb. 15, 2018)

  02/15/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the parties’ arbitration agreement clearly and unmistakably delegated the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator by incorporation of the JAMS rules, and that such delegation provision was not unconscionable.
   

• Pfeffer v. Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, No. 17-1819 (2d Cir. Feb. 15, 2018)

  02/15/2018

  Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s confirmation of an arbitration award and denial of motion to vacate that award.  Court found no error in the district court decision that plaintiff failed to meet her burden to demonstrate that vacatur was appropriate under the FAA. 

• OOO FC Grand Capital v. International Pharmaceutical Services Ltd., No. 2:16-CV-06156-JS-SIL (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2018)

  02/14/2018

  Court adopted Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation to grant plaintiff’s motion to confirm an arbitration award in its favor, finding it to be comprehensive and free of clear error, and that all objections were deemed waived as no party timely objected to the report.

• Rose v. Humana Insurance Co., No. 3:17-CV-08107-DGC (D. Ariz. Feb. 14, 2018)

  02/14/2018

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendants failed to establish a valid arbitration agreement existed when they did not establish under Arizona law that plaintiff knew about or assented to the unilateral modification to the agreement requiring arbitration.
   

• Brown v. Sperber-Porter, No. 17-15121 (9th Cir. Feb. 14, 2018)

  02/14/2018

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s confirmation of an arbitration award.  Court held that under Arizona law the arbitrator’s refusal to postpone the hearing did not provide a basis for setting aside the award in circumstances where the plaintiffs failed to show sufficient cause for the postponement, nor did the award conflict with the express guidelines or standards set forth in the arbitration agreement.
   

• Rhoades v. Duke University, No. 5:17-CV-00446-FWL (E.D.N.C. Feb. 13, 2018)

  02/14/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed between the parties with respect to the claims plaintiff asserted.

• Ridgeway v. Nabors Completion & Production Services Co., No. 2:15-CV-03436-DDP-JPR (9th Cir. Feb. 13, 2018)

  02/13/2018

  Court of appeals reversed district court decision and remanded with instructions. Court concluded that the district court correctly held that the arbitration agreement involved a moderate level of procedural unconscionability because it was a nonnegotiable requirement of plaintiff’s employment. However, the provisions at issue were substantively unconscionable, with two exceptions relating to shifting discovery costs and expert fees.

• Goldgroup Resources, Inc. v. DynaResource de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., No. 1 :16-CV-02547-RM-KMT (D. Colo. Feb. 13, 2018)

  02/13/2018

  Magistrate judge recommended that district court deny plaintiff’s application to confirm an arbitration award and grant defendants’ petition for nonrecognition of the award and that the award be vacated.  Magistrate judge found that the arbitrator exceeded his authority to proceed with arbitration without one of the defendants’ participation and when a Mexican court ordered the arbitration to not proceed. Further, the defendants had not engaged in improper forum shopping since they brought the case in Mexico City to contest the legality and applicability of the arbitration clause under Mexican law.

• Dasher v. RBC Bank (USA), No. 15-13871 (11th Cir. Feb. 13, 2018)

  02/13/2018

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that defendant failed to show that plaintiff agreed to the addition of the arbitration provision in dispute.
   

• Dooley v. Federated Law Group, PLLC, No. 1:16-CV-04703-SCJ (N.D. Ga. Feb. 12, 2018)

  02/12/2018

  Court adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge to grant defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Magistrate judge found that (i) defendants established by a preponderance of the evidence that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate, as evidenced by the credit member agreement attached to the affidavit of the records custodian; (ii) defendants could enforce the arbitration agreement even though they were not one of the original signatories; (iii) plaintiff’s individual claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement; and (iv) the Eleventh Circuit has held that arbitration agreements precluding class action relief are valid and enforceable.

• Singh v. Peters, No. 3:09-CV-00181-CVG-RM (D.V.I. Feb. 12, 2018)

  02/12/2018

  Court adopted Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation to grant in part plaintiff’s motion to show cause.  Court held that defendant shall appear to show cause why he should not be held in civil contempt for failure to appear for an examination in aid of execution of judgment on an order confirming an arbitral award.

• Charging Bison, L.L.C. v. Interstate Battery Franchising & Development Inc., No. 17-10509 (5th Cir. Feb. 12, 2018)

  02/12/2018

  Court of appeals affirmed district court order denying a stay of arbitration.  Court held that district court properly ruled in favor of arbitration where the carveout provision in the arbitration agreement did not cover anticipatory terminations of the franchise agreement.

• Atkins v. CGI Technologies & Solutions, Inc., No. 17-5506 (6th Cir. Feb. 9, 2018)

  02/09/2018

  Court of appeals vacated and remanded district court’s order denying motion to compel arbitration, finding that reverse-preemption poses no obstacles to the enforcement of the contractual arbitration clause at issue.

• Atkins v. CGI Technologies and Solutions, Inc., No. 17-5506 (6th Cir. Feb. 9, 2018)

  02/09/2018

  Court of appeals vacated the district court’s order denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and remanded for further proceedings.  Court held that that reverse-preemption by state law regulating insurance business pursuant to the McCarran-Ferguson Act did not did not preclude enforcement of the contractual arbitration clause under the FAA.

• Kimble v. Jamieson, P.C., No. 2:17-CV-02187-SHM-TMP (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 9, 2018)

  02/09/2018

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that the plain language of the arbitration provision in the contract did not apply to defendant’s or plaintiff’s claims as defendant was not a party to the contract.

• DDRA Capital, Inc. v. KPMG, LLP, No. 1:04-CV-00158-AET (D.V.I. Feb. 9, 2018)

  02/09/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss RICO arbitration claims for failure to prosecute.  Court held that the Third Circuit’s six equitable factors to be considered for motions to dismiss weighed on balance in favor of dismissal.

• Rogers v. SWEPI LP, No. 2:16-CV-00999-JLG-KAJ (S.D. Ohio Feb. 9, 2018)

  02/09/2018

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that while a broad arbitration clause existed, the plaintiff’s agreement to arbitration was subject to a condition precedent that was not fulfilled.

• Johnson v. Cach, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00383-BLW (D. Idaho Feb. 9, 2018)

  02/09/2018

  Court denied plaintiff’s motion to reopen the case or appoint an arbitrator. Court held that, despite the unavailability of the National Arbitration Forum as an arbitration forum, the language of the arbitration agreement at issue contemplated the use of other arbitral forums and provides guidance for doing so.

• Dixon v. Wilora Lake Healthcare LLC, 3:17-CV-00713-FDW-DCK (W.D.N.C. Feb. 8, 2018)

  02/08/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay the action, holding that the plaintiff’s claims fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement at issue. Additionally, the alleged rescission of the contract, and whether the parties satisfied any procedural preconditions to arbitration, is an issue of substantive arbitrability and thus reviewable in the arbitration.

• Smith v. JRK Residential Group, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01586-MPS (D. Conn. Feb. 8, 2018)

  02/08/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action. Applying the second circuit’s four-factor test for determining whether parties are compelled to arbitrate, the court held that (1) the parties agreed to arbitrate the claims at issue; (2) the claims fell within the scope of the agreement; (3) the claims can be resolved through arbitration; and, (4) the court action will be stayed pending the conclusion of the arbitration.

• Beltsville Land, LLC v. Conaboy, No. 1:17-CV-00551-WS-B (S.D. Ala. Feb. 8, 2018)

  02/08/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration but denied motion to dismiss and stayed the claim.  Court held that a clear and unmistakable agreement to arbitrate exists and that the arbitrator shall resolve objections as to the existence, scope and validly of such agreement.  Additionally, under eleventh circuit precedent, the claims are to be stayed, not dismissed, pending arbitration.

• Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated v. Middleton, No. 3:17-CV-01259-HES-JRK (M.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2018)

  02/07/2018

  Court granted defendants’ motion to stay proceedings and compel FINRA arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Plaintiff had brought an action to enjoin defendant, a previous employee from arbitrating claims that his portfolio had been devalued through fraud, but the court found that the dispute was within arbitration provisions in both the employee agreement and the customer agreement.

• Ranger Offshore Mexico, S. De R.L. De C.V. v. Grupo Tradeco, S.A. de C.V., No. 4:15-CV-00635 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2018)

  02/07/2018

  Court denied a motion for vacatur of an international arbitration award. In doing so, the court held that the arbitral tribunal did not exceed its authority in granting fees and costs, the arbitral award was final and not conditional, and that the arbitral tribunal reasonably denied the defendants’ request to postpone a hearing.

• Ohio River Valley Associates, LLC v. PST Services, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00628-GNS (W.D. Ky. Feb. 7 2018)

  02/07/2018

  Court granted motions for preliminary injunction to enjoin defendant from arbitrating the dispute between the parties and to conduct limited discovery. Court held that all four factors relevant to determining whether a preliminary injunction weigh in favor of the motion.