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.

• Marriott International, Inc. v. Danna, No. 2:17-CV-10590-ILRL-DEK (E.D. La. Jan. 18, 2018)

  01/18/2018

  Court denied plaintiff's motion to compel arbitration and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that there was no controversy since defendant had not yet asserted any claims in court.

• KCG Holdings, Inc. v. Rohit Khandekar, No. 1:17-CV-03533-AJN-GWG (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2018)

  01/18/2018

  Court granted motion to stay in favor of a pending arbitration, finding that, although the litigation concerned different claims than the arbitration, there was significant factual overlap between the proceedings.

• Freeman v. Smartpay Leasing, LLC, No. 6:17-CV-00938-GAP-GJK (M.D. Fla. Jan. 18, 2018)

  01/18/2018

  Court granted motion to vacate order compelling arbitration, finding that company who refused to pay filing fee as required under the consumer arbitration procedures of JAMS – a forum expressly designated as acceptable in the agreement drafted by the company – waived its right to rely on the arbitration clause.

• Ferrari v. Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, No. 4:17-CV-00018-YGR (N.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2018)

  01/18/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendants could invoke the arbitration clause as intended third-party beneficiaries.

• Ewell v. John C. Heath, Attorney at Law PLLC, No. 4:17-CV-11876-LVP-EAS (E.D. Mich. Jan. 18, 2018)

  01/18/2018

  Court granted motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, finding that a party may not avoid arbitration by arguing that the contract as a whole (rather than the arbitration clause specifically) is void.

• Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, and Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund v. Premier Concrete Services Inc., No. 1:17-CV-06036-VEC (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2018)

  01/18/2018

  Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award against non-appearing party, finding that an unopposed confirmation petition must be granted unless the undisputed facts fail to show that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

• Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Mathis, No. 3:16-CV-00315-WHB-JCG (S.D. Miss. Jan. 17, 2017)

  01/17/2018

  Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that a valid arbitration agreement existed between the arbitration plaintiffs, non-signatories to the agreement, and the defendant under Mississippi law, that issues of whether the agreement was enforceable, who were proper parties to the agreement, unconscionability, and whether pre-arbitration mediation was required, have been clearly and unmistakably delegated to the arbitrator as the agreement adopts the JAMS rules which provide a delegation provision.

• The New York City District Council of Carpenters, Local 4112 v. Modivative Flooring Systems, Inc., No. 1:14-CV-01792-ER (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 17, 2018)

  01/17/2018

  Court granted unopposed motion for summary judgment to confirm arbitral award, finding that there was at least a barely colorable justification for the award.  However, court vacates arbitrator’s prospective award of attorney’s fees in the event of non-compliance of the award, and instead granted attorney’s fees at the reasonable amount actually incurred.

• Bryant v. CFRA Holdings, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-01469-RWS (N.D. Ga. Jan. 16, 2018)

  01/16/2018

  Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate or modify the arbitration award.  Court held that (i) the arbitrator clearly interpreted and applied the terms of the agreement and therefore did not exceed his power in issuing the arbitration award; (ii) the reasoning in the award was greater than what was required, since the controlling agreement did not specify the form of the award and the parties did not request that the arbitrator provide findings of fact and conclusions of law; and (iii) plaintiff’s arguments that the award was arbitrary and capricious, that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law, and that enforcing the award was against public policy were judicially-created grounds for vacatur that are no longer valid.

• Salus Capital Partners, LLC v. Moser, No. 1:17-CV-05536-NRB (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2018)

  01/16/2018

  Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm the arbitration award, finding that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers under FAA § 10(a).  Court explained that the relevant standard for vacatur is whether the arbitrator lacked the authority to impose an award, not simply if the arbitrator misidentified the authority under which he was empowered to act.

• International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural, Implement Workers of America (UAW) v. TRW Automotive U.S. LLC, No. 2:11-CV-14630-DPH-MKM (E.D. Mich. Jan. 16, 2018)

  01/16/2018

  Court rejected motion to strike, finding, inter alia, that since arbitrator decided only contractual claims, the plaintiffs were free to pursue related statutory claims in federal court and were not constrained to challenge the award under the FAA.

• Jock v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., No. 1:08-CV-02875-JSR (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2018)

  01/16/2018

  Court granted motion to vacate arbitrator’s class certification award, finding that arbitrator may not bind non-parties to a class arbitration procedure where the court has found the arbitration agreement does not permit class arbitration procedures.

• TRW Automotive U.S. LLC v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural, Implement Workers of America (UAW), No. 2:13-CV-12160-DPH-MKM (E.D. Mich. Jan. 16, 2018)

  01/16/2018

  Court denied motion to vacate award and granted cross-motion to affirm, finding that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority by fashioning a remedy substituting a different health care plan for the plan named in the collective bargaining agreement.

• Chavez v. Get It Now, LLC d/b/a Home Choice, No. 0:17-CV-01490-DWF-HB (D. Minn. Jan. 16, 2018)

  01/16/2018

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that, although a bankruptcy discharge did not render the arbitration agreement unenforceable, enforcing it would be contrary to the bankruptcy code where the claims arise from the creditor’s attempts to collect the discharged debt.

• Galilea, LLC v. AGCS Marin Insurance Company, No. 16-35474 (9th Cir. Jan. 16, 2018)

  01/16/2018

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s grant of motion to compel arbitration of certain claims and reversed its denial of motion to compel arbitration of other claims, finding that: (i) although state law normally preempts federal law as to insurance contracts, an insurance policy insuring maritime interests against maritime risks is a maritime contract subject to federal maritime law, not state law, and therefore the FAA applies; and (ii) the parties delegated arbitrability issues to the arbitrator.

• Shockley v. Primelending, A Plainscapital Company, No. 4:17-CV-00763-ODS (W.D. Mo. Jan. 12, 2018) 

  01/12/2018

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding that no contract was formed between the parties. Court found that providing an employee a handbook containing an arbitration provision, with not language suggesting the handbook was a contract does not create an obligation to arbitrate disputes. 

• Open Sea Investment, S.A. v. Credit Agricole Corporation, No. 1:17-CV-22366-KMW (S.D. Fla. Jan. 12, 2018)

  01/12/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay action, finding a binding arbitration agreement existed within the terms and conditions incorporated by reference into an application to open a bank account.  Court rejected the plaintiff’s two-fold claim that there was no “agreement in writing” to arbitrate on the bases that the arbitration agreement was not properly incorporated by reference because it was not sufficiently described in the application and that the arbitration agreement directly conflicts with the forum selection clause in the application.

• Heritage Capital Corporation v. Christie’s, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-03404-D (N.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2018)

  01/12/2018

  Court denied motion for attorney’s fees, finding that a party who succeeds in compelling arbitration of copyright infringement claims is not a “prevailing party” entitled to attorney’s fees under the copyright act, since compelling arbitration is a procedural victory that does not materially alter the legal relationship between the parties.

• Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, and Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund v. Regal USA Construction Inc., No. 1:17-CV-04594-AJN (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2018)

  01/12/2018

  Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award against non-appearing party, finding that grounds for the arbitrator’s decision could be inferred from the record and were justifiable.

• Walker v. USA Swimming, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00825 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 12, 2018)

  01/12/2018

  Court denied petition to vacate arbitral award, finding that arbitrator’s decision not to adjudicate a dispute de novo, but rather apply a deferential standard of review to the prior determination of a professional organization’s internal judicial body, did not constitute a refusal to hear evidence material and pertinent to the controversy warranting vacatur under the FAA.

• Fatt Katt Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Granite Transformations of Atlanta v. Rocksolid Granit (USA), Inc., No. 1:17-CV-1900-MHC (N.D. Ga. Jan. 11, 2018)

  01/11/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to stay or dismiss and to compel arbitration.  Court found that the arbitrability of the parties’ agreement should be decided by an arbitrator because the parties expressly agreed to arbitrate, and plaintiff’s claim of unconscionability relates to the contract as a whole and not specifically to the delegation provision within the arbitration clause.

• Edmondson v. Lilliston Ford Inc, No. 17-1991 (3d Cir. Jan. 11, 2018)

  01/11/2018

  Court of appeals affirmed district court order denying motion to vacate an arbitral award and granting cross-motion to confirm the award, finding that the arbitration clause’s validity was not affected by a business’s statement that it had “severed its ties with the AAA” or its failure to register the arbitration clause with the AAA prior to the filing of a demand for arbitration.

• Arnold v. HomeAway, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00374-LY (W.D. Tex. Jan. 10, 2017)

  01/10/2018

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that (i) website user with multiple accounts was subject to arbitration agreement in updated terms and conditions since he accepted the updated terms on one of his accounts, notwithstanding that he did not accept them for the account at issue; but (ii) under Texas law, an agreement to arbitrate is illusory and unenforceable if it permits a party to unilaterally abolish or modify the arbitration provision.

• DiMucci v. Zenimax Media Inc., No. 3:17-CV-03789-EMC (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2018)

  01/09/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement relied on by the defendant is applicable and that as sophisticated parties to a commercial contract who agreed to the AAA Voluntary Arbitration Rules, issues of arbitrability should be decided by the arbitrator.

• Visual Creations Inc. v. IDL Worldwide Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00405-WES-PAS (D.R.I. Jan. 9, 2018)

  01/09/2018

  Court denied request to deny plaintiff’s request for a jury, as opposed to bench, trial on the issue of whether there exists a binding agreement to arbitrate. Court held that the plaintiff’s timely request should be granted because §4 of the FAA explicitly provides for a jury trial on the issue of an arbitration agreement’s existence when the party allegedly in default requests such.

• Wilson-Davis Co. v. Mirgliotta, No. 17-3496 (6th Cir. Jan. 8, 2018)

  01/08/2018

  Court of appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision refusing to enjoin certain of the defendant-appellee’s claims in FINRA arbitration.

• Everest Biosynthesis Group v. Biosynthesis Pharma Group Ltd., No. 3:17-CV-01466-JM-BGS (S.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2018)

  01/08/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration of claims against the first defendant and stay the action as to the remainder of the defendants pending conclusion of the anticipated arbitration.  Court held the parties’ arbitration agreement is clear and concise and evidences an intent to arbitrate any and all disputes under the subject agreement via HKIAC arbitration.  Further, the arbitration agreement was neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable as it was bargained for by the parties and that delegating arbitration in Hong Kong, as opposed to the US, is not so one-sided as to shock the conscience or be overly harsh or oppressive.

• Sanchez v. Elizondo, No. 16-17345 (9th Cir. Jan. 5, 2018)

  01/05/2018

  Court of Appeals reversed district court’s order vacating an arbitration award and remanding for a new arbitration, and remanded to the district court for further proceedings. Court held that the district court erred in finding that the arbitrator exceeded his powers and that the arbitrator exhibited a manifest disregard of the law. Court also joined other circuits in holding that it had jurisdiction pursuant to § 16 of the FAA where a motion for vacatur is accompanied by an order remanding for a new arbitration.

• DTC Energy Group, Inc. v. Hirschfeld, No. 1:17-CV-01718-PAB-KLM (D. Colo. Jan. 4, 2018)

  01/04/2018

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding the plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief expressly falls outside the scope of the parties’ arbitration agreement.

• Donado v. MRC Express, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-24032-RNS (S.D. Fla. Jan. 4, 2018)

  01/04/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case, determining that the language of the agreement at issue did not contain any temporal limitations and, therefore, it’s arbitration agreement could apply retroactively to all of the plaintiff’s claim. Could also held that the fee sharing and attorney fee provisions were not unconscionable.

• Dreibrodt v. McClinton Energy Group, LLC, No. 7:16-CV-00340-RAJ (W.D. Tex. Jan. 3, 2017)

  01/03/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss claims and compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court found that fee-splitting provision was severable and did not render arbitration agreement unenforceable. Court therefore struck fee-splitting provision and ordered defendants be responsible for costs of arbitration.

• Crystallex International Corp v. Petroleos de Venezuela SA, No. 16-4012 (3rd Cir. Jan. 3, 2018)

  01/03/2018

  Court of appeals reversed and remanded a Delaware district court decision that a subsidiary of Petroleos de Venezuela SA, a non-debtor to an ICSID award against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, was liable under the Delaware Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act’s (DUFTA).  Court held that while the transfer resulted in assets being put out of the reach of creditors by virtue of international law, a transfer from a non-debtor, the subsidiary of Petroleos de Venezuela SA, to a debtor, Venezuela, is not covered by DUFTA.

• Thanh Do v. Toyota Motor North America, No. 2:17-CV-12984-GCS-EAS (E.D. Mich. Jan. 3, 2018)

  01/03/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the complaint, finding that allegations of discrimination in violation of Title VII were within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

• American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus v. Hubbard, No. 4:17-CV-00246-CDL (M.D. Ga. Jan. 3, 2018)

  01/03/2018

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court rejected defendants’ arguments that plaintiff had previously breached the arbitration agreement and that plaintiff had waived right to arbitration.

• Seldin v. Seldin, No. 17-1045 (8th Cir. Jan. 2, 2018)

  01/02/2018

  Court of appeals reversed and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.  Court held that (i) a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not an appropriate mechanism to attempt to compel arbitration, and a 12(b)(6) or Rule 56 motion should be used instead; (ii) the existence of an arbitration agreement alone does not deprive the federal courts of jurisdiction; and (iii) the district court erred when it found that res judicata and collateral estoppel were sufficient grounds to grant a Rule 12(b)(1) motion because preclusion is not a jurisdictional matter.

• Partridge v. American Hospital Management Company, LLC., No. 17-0248-RC (D.D.C. Dec. 29, 2017)

  12/29/2017

  Court dismissed defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding inter alia that defendant had waived right to arbitration through active participation in litigation.

• Spinner v. Credit One Bank, N.A., No. 6:17-CV-00340-RBD-TBS (M.D. Fla. Dec. 29, 2017)

  12/29/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, denying plaintiff’s argument that defendant had waived right to arbitrate by participating in litigation.

• Steel, LLC v. Sauer Group, Inc., No. 6:17-CV-01812-KRS (M.D. Fla. Dec. 28, 2017)

  12/28/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the claim. Court denied plaintiff’s arguments that certain claims were not the type which plaintiff agreed to arbitrate because any potential damages may actually be the responsibility of a third party. Court determined that this question was one of arbitrability and had been delegated to the arbitrators under the agreement.

• Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Worldwide Shrimp Co., No. 1:17-CV-04723 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 28, 2017)

  12/28/2017

  Magistrate judge recommended that district court find plaintiff waived its right to arbitration as it failed to carry its burden that dismissal of the action was warranted.  Magistrate judge determined that plaintiff elected to proceed before a non-arbitral tribunal, acted in a manner inconsistent with the right to arbitrate, and that dismissal would prejudice the defendants.

• Faggiano v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-03773-JFB-GRB (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2017)

  12/28/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court disposed of plaintiff’s argument that a class action waiver rendered the arbitration agreement unenforceable, reasoning that the waiver clause was severable from the agreement.

• Drywall Tapers and Pointers of Greater New York Local Union 1974, IUPAT, AFL-CIO v. Falcon & Son Corp, No. 1:17-CV-09148-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2017)

  12/28/2017

  Court granted unopposed motion to confirm an arbitration award, finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact nor any grounds for vacatur under the FAA.

• J&J Sports Productions Inc. v. Toetz Enterprises LLC, 2:15-CV-01411-JPS (E.D. Wis. Dec. 28, 2017)

  12/28/2017

  Court denied motion to modify the arbitrator’s award and dismissed the case.  Court reasoned that the modification provision of the FAA concerned only arithmetic-type errors, and not disagreements as to the arbitrator’s methodology or findings of fact.

• Leslie v. Hooters of America, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-02873-SEB-MJD (S.D. Ind. Dec. 28, 2017)

  12/28/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings.  Court rejected arguments that the arbitration agreement was invalid as unconscionable merely because it was a contract of adhesion and because the parties’ bargaining power had been unequal.

• Four Star Beauty Supply Corp. v. GIB, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-01351-WCG (E.D. Wis. Dec. 28, 2017)

  12/28/2017

  Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award and denied cross-motion to vacate it under the FAA and Wisconsin state law.  Court rejected arguments that the arbitrator had manifestly disregarded the law, and held that a public policy defense to enforcement was not available under the FAA and that the plaintiff had failed to satisfy the standard under state law.

• American, Etc., Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-03660-DMR (N.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 2017)

  12/28/2017

  Court denied motion to vacate arbitration award and granted cross-motion to confirm it.  Court rejected arguments that vacatur was merited under the FAA based on allegations that the arbitrator had exceeded his powers by ordering the petitioner to pay certain premiums to a non-party and considering certain claims by that non-party.

• Nygaard v. Property Damage Appraisers, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-02184-VC (E.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 2017)

  12/28/2017

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that because California law rendered the arbitration provisions of the parties’ agreement unenforceable no valid arbitration agreement existed.

• Schilling Livestock, Inc., v. Umpqua Bank, FKA Sterling Savings Bank, No. 15-35995 (9th Cir. Dec. 28, 2017)

  12/28/2017

  Court of appeals denied appeal of district court order confirming an arbitration award, holding that the record did not satisfy the high standard for vacatur.

• Egonjic v. Princess Cruise Line, Ltd., No. 1:17-CV-24118-RNS (S.D. Fla. Dec. 27, 2017)

  12/27/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the matter.  Court reasoned that dismissal was the proper remedy under the FAA because the contract’s broad arbitration provision meant that all of the issues presented to the court were arbitrable.  The plaintiff did not challenge the arbitrability of the dispute.

• Aqualucid Consultants, Inc. v. Zeta Corp., No. 17-1217 (6th Cir. Dec. 27, 2017)

  12/27/2017

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order compelling arbitration.  Court agreed that the arbitration agreement covered the dispute and held that the plaintiff’s failed to challenge its validity or demonstrate that the defendants had invalidated it by purportedly refusing to arbitrate prior to commencement of the litigation.  Court further ruled that the defendants had not waived their right to enforce the arbitration clause, finding no prejudice to the plaintiffs from any delays in asserting the arbitration defense.

• Willett v. Ally Bank, No. 2:17-CV-02472-JAR-GLR (D. Kan. Dec. 26, 2017)

  12/26/2017

  Court denied the plaintiff’s motion to stay its consideration of a motion to compel arbitration in order to grant limited discovery.  Court reasoned that discovery regarding the possible existence of additional arbitration agreements would be unduly burdensome in light of the defendant’s assurance that no such agreements existed beyond the one submitted by the defendant to the Court and provided to the plaintiff.