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.

• Herrington v. Waterstone Mortgage Corporation, No. 3:11-CV-00779-BBC (W.D. Wis. Dec. 4, 2017)

  12/04/2017

  Court confirmed an arbitration award and denied motion to vacate. In doing so, the court concluded that, according to precedent and § 10(a) of the FAA, defendant had not overcome the presumption of validity granted an arbitration award with clear and convincing evidence of the arbitrator’s alleged bias and misconduct.

• Conduragis v. Prospect Chartercare, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00272-JJM-PAS (D.R.I. Dec. 1, 2017)

  12/01/2017

  Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Applying Rhode Island state law, the court determined no valid agreement existed because the agreement lacked consideration.

• Bounty Minerals, LLC v. Chesapeake Exploration, LLC, No. 5:17-CV-01695-SL (E.D. Ohio Dec. 1, 2017)

  12/01/2017

  Court denied defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration in a dispute related to oil and gas leases, only one of which contained an arbitration clause. After the court granted plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint plaintiff removed its request to recover on the particular lease that contained the arbitration clause, leaving no arbitration clause in the agreements at issue. Court rejected arguments that it should still stay proceedings pending the arbitration of the other lease agreement.

• Steadfast Insurance Company v. Palmetto Civil Group, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-01119-PMD (D.S.C. Dec. 1, 2017)

  12/01/2017

  Court granted defendant and third-party plaintiff’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration of a dispute arising out of an airport construction project.  Pursuant to the FAA, the court determined that the insurer was bound by the arbitration agreement between the contractor and subcontractor and concluded defendant and third-party plaintiff had not waived its right to seek arbitration.

• Ngo v. Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., No. 1:17-CV-1727-GHW (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2017)

  11/30/2017

  Court held that the arbitration agreement in question was valid and enforceable, and granted motion to stay but denied motion to dismiss.  Court held that second circuit precedent requires the court to stay, but not dismiss, the proceedings when requested.

• Yang v. Majestic Blue Fisheries, LLC & Dongwon Industries Co., Ltd., No. 15-16881 (9th Cir. Nov. 30, 2017)

  11/30/2017

  Court of appeal affirmed district court’s order denying motion to compel arbitration arising from a claim related to the death of a seaman on a fishing vessel.  Court held that an arbitral clause must be signed by the parties to be enforceable under Art. II(2) of the New York Convention and determined that it could not compel arbitration of a non-signatory or non-party.  Additionally, the court concluded it could not compel arbitration under the FAA, because the statute expressly exempts employment contracts of seamen from its scope.

• NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. v. O.W. Bunker USA, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-1327 (D. Conn. Nov. 29, 2017)

  11/29/2017

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion to stay the arbitration proceedings and enjoin defendants from proceeding with arbitration.  Applying English law, court held that the arbitration provision had been superseded, and therefore plaintiff was not under any binding agreement to arbitrate its disputes.  Court also found that an injunction was warranted since (i) the parties had not agreed to arbitrate, (ii) plaintiff would be irreparably harmed by being forced to expend time and resources arbitrating an issue that is not arbitrable, and for which any award would not be enforceable; and (iii) plaintiff showed a likelihood of success on the issue of superseding the arbitration clause.

• NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., d/b/a Norwegian Cruise Line v. O.W. Bunker USA, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01327-CSH (D. Conn. Nov. 29, 2017)

  11/29/2017

  Court entered a second order granting a preliminary injunction enjoining the arbitration in London conducting the analysis under the traditional test for an injunction.  Court found plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, a likelihood of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction, that the balance of hardships tipped in the plaintiff’s favor, and that the public interest would not be harmed by the injunction.

• Global Colocation Services, LLC v. Hibernia Express (Ireland) Limited, No. 1:17-CV-09027 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2017)

  11/29/2017

  Court denied plaintiff’s application for a temporary restraining order to enjoin defendant from terminating plaintiff’s access to its undersea transatlantic cable.  Pursuant to New York law, the court determined that the pending arbitration would not be rendered ineffectual without the temporary relief, finding that plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits and that a temporary restraining order would interfere with the ongoing arbitration.

• BSG Resources (Guinea) Limited, BSG Resources (Guinea) Sarl, & BSG Resources Limited  v. Soros, No. 1:17-CV-02726-JFK-AJP (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2017)

  11/29/2017

  Court granted defendants’ motion to stay the proceeding pending the outcome of an ICSID arbitration between the plaintiffs and Guinea.  Although defendants were not a party to the arbitration, court concluded that the same key issues were integral to both disputes, the stay would not hinder the arbitration, the arbitration would be resolved within a reasonable time, and the delay would not cause undue hardship.

• Inferno Group Holdings, LLC v. 1000 Degrees Pizzeria Franchise, Inc., No. 9:17-CV-80983-BB (S.D. Fla. Nov. 28, 2017)

  11/28/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the parties’ incorporation of AAA rules meant that both the validity of the arbitration agreement and its scope was for the arbitrator to decide.

• Borecki v. Raymours Furniture Co. Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01188-LAK-SN (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 2017)

  11/28/2017

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings, finding that the dispute did not fall within the narrow scope of the arbitral clause.

• Zhu v. Hakkasan NYC LLC & Hakkasan Holdings, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-05589-KPF (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 2017)

  11/28/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement valid and enforceable and concluding plaintiffs’ claims fell within its scope pursuant to the FAA.  Court determined the availability of collective arbitration and the validity of the confidentiality clause were questions for the arbitrator.

• Green Tree Servicing, L.L.C. v. Miller, No. 17-60108 (5th Cir. Nov. 28, 2017)

  11/28/2017

  Court of appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the district court’s order compelling arbitration was not a final appealable order when a matter involving the same parties and essentially the same dispute is stayed pending arbitration.

• Hyatt Franchising, L.L.C. v. Shen Zhen New World I, LLC & Shen Zhen New World Investment (USA) Inc., No. 17-2071 (7th Cir. Nov. 28, 2017)

  11/28/2017

  Court of appeal denied motion to vacate arbitration award, finding the arbitrator’s decision not to disqualify counsel was not misbehavior within the meaning of § 10(a)(3) of the FAA and that the arbitrator’s interpretation of the contract did not exceed the arbitrator’s power under § 10(a)(4).

• Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc. v. International Union, No. 2:17-CV-05122-PSG-SK (C.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2017)

  11/27/2017

  Court denied motion to dismiss proceedings to vacate arbitration award, rejecting respondent’s argument that the award was not sufficiently final because the arbitrator retained jurisdiction in the event of a dispute over implementation of the remedy.

• Marquez v. The Finish Line, No. 5:16-CV-01038-DAE (W.D. Tex. Nov. 27, 2017)

  11/27/2017

  Court granted plaintiff’s unopposed motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case without prejudice. Court found that parties had a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate, and the FAA required the case be referred to arbitration.

• TIC Seven Bar 12, LLC v. Core Seven Bar H., LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00450-RB-SCY (D.N.M. Nov. 27, 2017)

  11/27/2017

  Court confirmed and entered judgment on an AAA arbitration award as revised after remand to the arbitrator with the supplemental final award.

• Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Haynes, No. 17-60113 (5th Cir. Nov. 27, 2017)

  11/27/2017

  Court dismissed the appeal, holding that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the district court’s order compelling arbitration, because the judgment also stayed the substantive claims in the underlying lawsuit between the parties.

• Frye, Ndege Ndogo Inc., & Graf, v. Wild Bird Centers of America, No. 17-1346 (4th Cir. Nov. 27, 2017)

  11/27/2017

  Court affirmed District Court’s denial of petition to vacate arbitral award entered in favor of the appellee and confirmation of the award pursuant to the FAA and common law.  Court concluded that the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law, exceed his powers, or draw the award from the essence of the agreement.

• Ali, Cole, Collins, Norman, Renfroe, & Torry v. Vehi-Ship, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-02688 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 27, 2017)

  11/27/2017

  Court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) for lack of venue.  Finding that the AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules’ delegation clause, granting the arbitrator the power to decide questions of arbitrability, was incorporated by reference in the agreement, the court held that the arbitrator should determine the validity and scope of the arbitration agreement.

• Laborers’ Local Union Nos. 472 & 172 v. Tri-State Erosion Control, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01792-JBS-AMD (D.N.J. Nov. 22, 2017)

  11/22/2017

  Court granted petitioners’ motion to confirm an arbitration award.  Court concluded that (i) contrary to respondent’s assertion that the arbitrator disregarded documents and improperly granted benefits beyond the termination date of the collective bargaining agreement, the arbitrator did consider evidence presented by both parties and did not irrationally decide to award benefits for work performed after termination; (ii) the FAA does not require the arbitrator to explain his or her reasoning for an award; (iii) there is no support in case law for prescribing a more searching review for awards issued by a permanently assigned arbitrator.

• Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. Simply Wireless, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-24565-FAM (S.D. Fla. Nov. 22, 2017)

  11/22/2017

  Court denied plaintiff’s motion to enjoin the arbitration and granted in part defendants’ motion to stay.  Court found that by incorporating the AAA rules into their arbitration agreement, the parties agreed that the arbitrator should decide whether the arbitration agreement encompassed the claims before him.  Court also concluded that, because there are issues involved in the suit that are subject to arbitration, it would stay the action, consistent with the requirements of the FAA.

• Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, and Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Education and Industry Fund, No. 1:17-CV-01106-PAE (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2017)

  11/22/2017

  Court confirmed the arbitral award and ordered interest, fees, and costs.  Court found that the arbitrator’s decision contained an apparent scrivener’s error and, based on supplemental briefing, court was satisfied that the award was amply justified by the factual record.  Court also awarded interest, as the FAA bears interest from the date of the award until judgment confirming it and the parties had not contracted out of the post-judgment interest rate established by 28 USC § 1961.

• Ouadani v. TF Final Mile LLC, No. 17-1583 (5th Cir. Nov. 21, 2017)

  11/21/2017

  Court of appeal affirmed the district court decision denying defendant-appellant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court concluded that the non-signatory plaintiff-appellee was not required to submit his claims to arbitration because (i) he was not an agent of one of the signatories, (ii) he was not equitably estopped from refusing to arbitrate because the benefits of the arbitration clause accrued to the contracting signatories and not to plaintiff-appellee, and (iii) he is not a third-party beneficiary of the agreement.

• YPF S.A. v. Apache Overseas, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00178 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 21, 2017)

  11/21/2017

  Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award pursuant to the FAA, denying respondent’s motion to vacate the award or stay confirmation pending a final award.  Court concluded that the award was final and binding, found that the arbitrators did not exceed their powers, and determined that a stay was inappropriate where the ongoing mediation proceedings did not involve the petitioner as a party.

• Gray v. Petrossian, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-06870-PSG-PJW (C.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2017)

  11/20/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.  Court further rejected plaintiff’s argument that the agreement could not be enforced as unconscionable based on purported deficiencies with respect to, inter alia, one-sidedness, discovery, and recovery.

• Gamble v. New England Auto Finance, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-02979-LMM (N.D. Ga. Nov. 20, 2017)

  11/20/2017

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the action, concluding that plaintiff’s claim was not within the scope of arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff’s claim did not “arise from” the loan agreement because (i) even though the claim was based on loan applicants’ refusal to sign a provision in that agreement, the unsigned provision did not create any rights and obligations and no agreement on this basis occurred; and (ii) defendant’s actions would have harmed plaintiff regardless of whether plaintiff had entered into the agreement.  Court also concluded that plaintiff’s claim does not “touch” the loan agreement because it does not arise from any right implicated by the agreement.

• Wuest v. Comcast Corporation, No. 4:17-CV-04063-JSW (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2017)

  11/20/2017

  Court granted defendants’ motion to stay pending the outcome of the appeal of the court’s order denying arbitration.  Court found that defendants would be irreparably harmed if it did not stay the action, noting that when a party is denied the opportunity to arbitrate, “the advantages of arbitration—speed and economy—are lost forever.”

• Cunningham v. Henry Ford Health System, No. 2:17-CV-11015-SJM-APP (E.D. Mich. Nov. 20, 2017)

  11/20/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss or stay the proceeding and to compel arbitration.  Court found that (i) plaintiff received adequate notice and signed the agreement, thus knowingly and voluntarily waiving her right to a jury trial; (ii) plaintiff’s claims fell within the ambit of the arbitration agreement’s clear language; (iii) nothing in the record suggested that Congress intended the ADA to preclude waiver of the judicial forum through arbitration agreements; and (iv) the entirety of plaintiff’s complaint is subject to arbitration, and therefore it is proper for the court to dismiss.

• Johnson v. RCO Legal, P.S., No. 2:17-CV-00512-RAJ (W.D. Wash. Nov. 20, 2017)

  11/20/2017

  Court granted plaintiff’s application to confirm an arbitration award and denied defendant’s motion to vacate.  Court concluded that, despite defendant’s arguments to the contrary, (i) the arbitrator did consider Section 237 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts and decided it was not dispositive; (ii) the arbitrator did consider defendant’s “after acquired evidence”; (iii) the arbitrator did not interpret the agreement in an unjust manner; and (iv) the court is not authorized to review the arbitrator’s decision on the merits.

• Meierhenry Sargent LLP v. Williams, No. 4:16-CV-04180-LLP (D.S.D. Nov. 20, 2017)

  11/20/2017

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion for relief from stay and motion for order to declare the scope of arbitration proceedings.  Court held that arbitrability was an issue for the court to decide because the arbitration provision of the contract was silent on whether the arbitrator or the court would decide the issue and plaintiff clearly did not agree to submit the question to the arbitrator.

• Owners Management Co. v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., No. 1:17-CV-00881-CAB (N.D. Ohio Nov. 20, 2017)

  11/20/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss.  Court found that (i) the arbitration provision was broadly worded to cover “any dispute relating to this Agreement,” (ii) it did not expressly exclude any specific disputes, and (iii) the instant case “absolutely cannot be resolved without reference to the Agreement.”  As such, the court concluded that the arbitration of plaintiff’s claims was appropriate.

• Schroder v. Teufel, No. 1:17-CV-06119 (E.D. Ill. Nov. 20, 2017)

  11/20/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for improper venue and stayed the litigation pending arbitration.  Court held that because the parties agreed that the AAA rules would govern their pending arbitration, and those rules unequivocally state that the arbitrator has the authority to decide the validity of an arbitration agreement, the parties “clearly and unmistakably” expressed their intent to arbitrate the validity of the arbitration agreement.

• In the Matter of the Arbitration Between Holton B. Shepherd v. LPL Financial LLC, No. 5:17-CV-00150-D (W.D.N.C. Nov. 20, 2017)

  11/20/2017

  Court denied defendant’s motion for a protective order and to stay discovery.  Court noted that, as a general matter, a limited scope of judicial review and restricted inquiry into factual issues support the strong federal policy favoring arbitrability, and allowing “full-blown discovery” would undermine that policy.  However, these principles fail to justify the “preemptive ban” defendant sought on all discovery, and therefore court denied defendant’s motion.

• McAllister v. St. Louis Rams, LLC, No. 16-CV-00172-SNLJ (W.D.Mo. Nov. 17, 2017)

  11/17/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, including as to the threshold question of arbitrability.  The parties’ contract included an arbitration provision in accordance with the rules of the AAA.  The court found that the Rule 7(a) of the AAA requires disputes regarding the jurisdiction of the arbitrator be resolved in arbitration.

• Armstead v. Starbucks Corp., No. 2:17-CV-01163-PKC (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2017)

  11/17/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceeding.  Court found that the arbitration agreement was presented in a manner that required two separate steps of viewing and electronically signing the agreement, the webpage was neatly organized, and the arbitration agreement was expressly identified.  Thus, court concluded that the plaintiff electronically consented to the arbitration of her claims and had not come forward with evidence that would permit a reasonable trier of fact to conclude that the consent was not effective. 

• Brown v. David Stanley Chevrolet, Inc., No. 5:17-CV-00190-D (W.D. Okla. Nov. 17, 2017)

  11/17/2017

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay the action.  Court held that the agreements plaintiffs signed should be construed together, rejecting plaintiffs’ argument that one of the contracts—which contained a merger clause but no arbitration agreement—superseded the dispute resolution clause.  Court also found that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate and that plaintiffs’ arguments related to fraud in the inducement of the contract of as a whole, which was for the arbitrator and not the court to decide.

• Burrell v. 911 Restoration Franchise Inc., No. 1:17-CV-02278-JKB (D. Md. Nov. 17, 2017)

  11/17/2017

  Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim in part, interpreting that part of the motion as a motion to compel arbitration.  Court explained that the FAA requires the demonstration of four elements to compel arbitration, and found that there was no genuine dispute of material fact with regard to three of those elements:  the existence of a dispute, its relationship to interstate commerce, and the failure of the plaintiffs to arbitrate the dispute.  On the final element, the existence of a written agreement that includes an arbitration provision which purports to cover the dispute, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the rescission of the contract meant rescission of the arbitration clause, finding that the arbitration clause survived rescission.

• Original Appalachian Artworks, Inc. v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc., No. 17-11513 (11th Cir. Nov. 17, 2017)

  11/17/2017

  Court of appeal affirmed district court’s grant of motion to confirm arbitral award and rejected motion to partially vacate the award. Court held that (i) the mere failure to apply the law (as opposed to intentional failure) or legal error is insufficient to show manifest disregard; (ii) the arbitrator did not impermissibly decide a matter not properly before him; (iii) the arbitrator interpreted the contract, but did not modify it; and (iv) the award could not be challenged for mere insufficiency of evidence.

• Memorial Hermann Health System v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas, No. 4:17-CV-02661 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 17, 2017)

  11/17/2017

  Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss for improper venue and motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that (i) the parties had a valid arbitration agreement, (ii) the scope of the arbitration agreement was for the court to determine, and (iii) certain of the plaintiff’s claims did not fall within the scope of the narrow arbitration agreement.

• Mizra v. Cachet Hotel Group Limited Cayman L.P., No. 2:17-CV-07140-RGK-KS (C.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2017)

  11/17/2017

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that the arbitration clause was incapable of being performed because it required arbitration before the HKIAC in accordance with the ICC rules.

• McAllister v. The St. Louis Rams, LLC, No. 4:16-CV-00172-SNLJ (E.D. Mo. Nov. 17, 2017)

  11/17/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that incorporation of AAA Rules constituted agreement to arbitrate arbitrability.

• Edwards v. Doordash, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-02255 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 16, 2017)

  11/16/2017

  Court adopted the magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation to grant defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.  Magistrate judge found that plaintiff Lupo signed the same independent contractor agreement on the same basis as the named plaintiff, which was previously found by the court to contain a valid arbitration clause.  For plaintiffs Hicks and Williams, who signed a second version of the independent contractor agreement, court also found that a valid arbitration agreement existed, and that the adoption of the AAA rules by the parties indicated that they intended to delegate arbitrability rules to the arbitrator.

• Oliver v. First Century Bank, N.A., No. 3:17-CV-00620-MMA-KSC (S.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2017)

  11/16/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that question of arbitrability was delegated to the arbitrator.

• Ross v. Quality Homes of McComb, No. 5:17-CV-00046-DCB-MTP (S.D. Miss. Nov. 16, 2017)

  11/16/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings, finding that (i) an arbitration agreement in a form contract was not procedurally unconscionable; (ii) neither the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act nor the National Manufactured Housing and Construction and Safety Standards act preclude arbitration of claims arising thereunder; (iii) non-signatory defendants can invoke an arbitration provision in a contract under which the plaintiff’s claim arise; and (iv) question of whether claims are within the scope of the arbitration agreement was delegated to the arbitrator.

• WDCD, LLC v. iSTAR, INC., No. 1:17-CV-00301-DKW-RLP (D. Haw. Nov. 16, 2017)

  11/16/2017

  Court granted motion to stay in favor of arbitration, finding that non-signatory could invoke arbitration clause in the agreement under which the claims against it arose.

• Finsa Portafolios, S.A. de C.V. v. Opengate Capital, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-04360-RGK-E (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2017)

  11/15/2017

  Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of decision to dismiss the action on grounds of forum non conveniens and compel arbitration in Mexico, finding where the contract contains a forum selection clause, plaintiffs have the burden to show the forum was not an adequate alternative forum; concluding the court is not required to impose conditions on dismissal unless there is reason to doubt a party with comply with the foreign forum; and determining plaintiffs could not raise the new argument that a Mexican judge or arbitrator could not assert jurisdiction over the defendant. Court also denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended complaint, finding an amended complaint would be futile because the fraud claims fell within the scope of the forum selection and arbitration clauses.

• United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial & Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Essentia Health, No. 0:17-CV-04753-WMW-LIB (D. Minn. Nov. 15, 2017)

  11/15/2017

  Court denied motion for expedited preliminary injunction, finding that it had not been established that arbitration would be rendered a meaningless ritual if policy requiring employees to receive flu vaccine were implemented pending ruling in arbitration on whether policy is subject to bargaining under collective bargaining agreement.

• GGNSC Greensburg, LLC v. Smith, No. 1:17-CV-00150-GNS (W.D. Ky. Nov. 15, 2017)

  11/15/2017

  Court partially granted motion to compel arbitration and enjoined parallel state proceedings, finding that (i) no basis existed for federal abstention in favor of parallel state court proceedings; (ii) a nursing home admission agreement is a contract involving interstate commerce within the federal court jurisdiction; (iii) that the decedent’s attorney-in-fact was authorized to bind the decedent’s estate to pursue any claims in arbitration; (iv) an arbitration agreement in a nursing home admission agreement is not unconscionable; and (v) enjoining parallel state proceedings would not violate the anti-injunction act.  However, court denied motion to compel arbitration as to a wrongful death claim, since that claim belonged to decedent’s beneficiaries, and decedent’s attorney-in-fact did not have authority to bind them to arbitration.