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.
-
Credit Acceptance Corporation v. Vansteenburgh, No. 1:17-CV-00040-GHD-DAS (N.D. Miss. Oct. 12, 2017)10/12/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed claim, finding that claim for tort of conversion for repossession of loan collateral fell within the scope of the loan agreement's arbitration clause.
-
National Football League Players Association v. National Football League, No. 17-40936 (5th Cir. Oct. 12, 2017)10/12/2017
Court of Appeal vacated district court’s preliminary injunction, finding that court was without jurisdiction to issue preliminary injunction under the Labor Relations Management Act so long as arbitral or other grievance proceeds had not concluded.
-
Nexteer Automotive Corporation v. Korea Delphi Automotive Systems Corporation, No. 2:13-CV-15189-GCS-LJM (E.D. Mich. Oct. 12, 2017)
10/12/2017Court ordered and confirmed award rendered by Singapore International Arbitration Center, that defendant make payment of outstanding amounts due under award (including prejudgment interest) and pay royalties on certain past and future sales. Court also held that plaintiff shall have the right to audit the sales and other financial records of defendant, that all payments are to be made by wire transfer in U.S. currency, that plaintiff is not precluded from applying for recovery of fees and costs incurred after the entry of the award, and that entry of judgment does not restart the automatic stay period under Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(a).
-
Rosenberg v. TIG Insurance Company, No. 2:16-CV-958-WHA (M.D. Ala. Oct. 12, 2017)
10/12/2017Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment in action to recover on an arbitral award from the award debtor’s insurer, finding that the occurrence underlying the arbitral award was not covered by the award debtor’s insurance policy.
-
Benson v. Enloe Medical Center, No. 2:15-CV-02053-JAM-CMK (E.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2017)
10/11/2017Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary, finding that they were either veiled challenges to the substance of the arbitrator’s decision or had been waived and otherwise disposed of in the arbitration.
-
Bergheim v. Sirona Dental Systems, Inc., No. 17-548-CV (2d Cir. Oct. 11, 2017)
10/11/2017Court of appeal affirmed district court judgment confirming arbitral award on damages and rejecting appellants’ allegation that award should have been vacated on the ground that arbitrator disregarded the plain terms of the agreement and manifestly disregarded Delaware’s prohibition on speculative damages.
-
Dastime Group Limited v. Moonvale Investments Limited, No. 4:17-CV-01859-JSW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2017)
10/11/2017Court denied motion to vacate and granted petition to confirm arbitration award as to first respondent, denying that arbitrator would have exceeded her authority by awarding petitioners attorney’s fees or would have violated respondent’s due process rights. Court further found there was just reason for delaying entering judgment until the claims against all respondents have been resolved, rejected petitioners’ request for entry of separate judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), ordered petitioners to file a motion for default against second respondent who had failed to appear in this action, and denied without prejudice petitioners’ request for attorney’s fees incurred in brining action to confirm arbitration award.
-
Darren Bagert Productions LLC v. Pulse Evolution Corporation, No. 1:17-CV-05391-GHW (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 2017)
10/11/2017Court confirmed petition to confirm arbitration award against party in default, finding that a court should treat an unopposed petition to confirm an arbitration award as akin to a motion for summary judgment and that there was no indication that the award was procured through fraud, dishonesty, or manifest disregard of the law, or that any other bases for vacating or modifying the award exist.
-
Webb v. Farmers of North America, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00080-FJG (W.D. Mo. Oct. 10, 2017)
10/10/2017Court, having compelled arbitration pursuant to AAA rules, responded in the negative to letter disputing whether AAA was required to administer the arbitration, ordering that the parties work jointly to find a mutually acceptable arbitrator. Court reasoned that the agreement’s mention of AAA rules did not mandate AAA as the arbitration administrator.
-
Cusolito v. Citibank, N.A., No. 0:17-CV-60963-WPD (S.D. Fla. Oct. 6, 2017)
10/06/2017Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that plaintiff’s argument as to whether she entered into the agreement was to be decided by the arbitrator and not the court. Court also held that plaintiff’s claims fell clearly within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and that plaintiff could not place the existence of the arbitration agreement in issue by merely denying its existence.
-
Preferred Care of Delaware Inc. v Hewgley, No. 1:17-CV-00127-GNS (W.D. Ky. Oct. 6, 2017)10/06/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration except with respect to respondent’s wrongful death claims, and granted in part and denied in part motion to dismiss. Court rejected respondent’s various jurisdictional defenses, finding, in particular, that the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable even though it was executed by a court-appointed guardian. Further, court found that neither the boiler-plate language, nor execution as part of a series of documents, renders the arbitration agreement procedurally unconscionable and that the alleged disparity in bargaining power and the non-disclosure of the costs of arbitration does not make it substantively unconscionable.
-
Wuest v. Comcast Corp., No. 4:17-CV-04063-JSW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 05, 2017)10/05/2017
Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation. Pursuant to the FAA, court found the arbitration clause was valid but concluded the claims did not fall within the scope of the provision because plaintiff was not a customer of defendant at the time the dispute arose.
-
Scales v. SCC Winston-Salem Operating Company, No. 1:17-CV-00539 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 5, 2017)10/05/2017
Court denied without prejudice request to compel arbitration and stay proceedings on the ground that it was premature and granted request to conduct discovery regarding the formation and performance of the arbitration agreement.
-
Baker v. The Academy of Art University Foundation, No. 3:17-CV-03444-JSC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2017)10/05/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings, rejecting plaintiff’s defense that the main agreement containing the arbitration provision was cancelled. Could also held that the arbitration agreement was not procedurally unconscionable since plaintiff had failed to demonstrate any oppression or surprise beyond that inherent in any adhesion contract, and also denied the allegation that the arbitration agreement was substantively unconscionable.
-
Ambulatory Surgical Center of Somerset et al v. Allstate Fire Casualty Insurance Company, No. 3:16-CV-05378-AET-LHG (D.N.J. Oct. 5, 2017)10/05/2017
Court granted motion for reconsideration under FRCP 59(e), finding that court had overlooked amendments to the relevant dispute resolution provision that empowered any party to a dispute to compel arbitration.
-
Scales v. SSC Winston-Salem Operating Company, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00539-WO-I PA (M.D.N.C. Oct. 5, 2017)10/05/2017
Court denied in part and granted in part arbitration motion, dismissing as premature defendant’s request to compel arbitration and granting request to conduct discovery regarding the formation and performance of the parties’ agreement.
-
Bynum v. Maplebear, Inc., No. 16-3348 (2d Cir. Oct. 5, 2017)10/05/2017
Court of appeal dismissed appeal from district court judgment dismissing plaintiff-appellant’s case upon plaintiff’s motion to end stay of court proceedings pending arbitration and dismiss action on the merits, with the district court having confirmed that plaintiff wished to waive her right to arbitration. Court found that it lacked jurisdiction since the FAA bars interlocutory appeals from the grant of a motion to compel arbitration, which plaintiff could not circumvent by agreeing to dismiss her claims rather than proceeding to arbitration.
-
Exploraciones y Perforadora Central, S.A. de C.V. v. Axxis Drilling, No. 17-cv-2833 (E.D. La. Oct. 4, 2017)
10/04/2017Court confirmed the arbitration award, awarded pre-judgment interest in the amount of 12% per annum and post-judgment interest at the statutory rate, and recognized an offset for amounts due to defendant. Court held that the 12% interest awarded in the arbitration applied to the period prior to confirmation and entry of judgment, after which post-judgment interest would apply.
-
Kelleher v. Dream Catcher, L.L.C., No. 1:16-CV-02092-APM (D.D.C. Oct. 4, 2017)10/04/2017
Court denied defendants’ application to stay pending arbitration, finding defendants had forfeited their right to arbitrate by failing to invoke arbitration at the earliest available opportunity and that defendants’ application for stay and any subsequent appeal was “frivolous” since it was based on a flawed legal theory and moreover wholly ignored controlling Supreme Court precedent and other pertinent cases.
-
Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund et al v. Interior Cinema Inc., No. 1:17-CV-06530-KBF (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2017)10/04/2017
Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award, as well as plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees and costs and post-judgment interest. Court treated plaintiff’s petition as an unopposed motion for summary judgment since defendant had not filed an opposition to defendant’s petition to confirm award, and concluded there are no triable issues of material fact and that plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
-
Blair v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-02335-WHA (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2017)10/03/2017
Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’ motion to compel arbitration. Court found that, while three of plaintiff’s claims were not arbitrable under McGill v. Citibank, N.A., according to which arbitration agreements prohibiting plaintiffs from exercising a statutory right to seek a public injunction are invalid— a rule not preempted by the FAA—, with respect to plaintiff’s remaining claim the arbitration agreement was valid. Court rejected defendant’s request to stay the proceedings on the ground that plaintiff’s arbitration claim was sufficiently distinct from its court claims so that parallel proceedings would not be unduly duplicative or burdensome.
-
Fundamental Administrative Services v. Cohen, No. 17-2025 (10th Cir. Oct. 3, 2017)10/03/2017
Court of appeal affirmed district court order dismissing complaint to compel arbitration, finding the case was precluded by res judicata since it had been previously decided in state court proceedings.
-
Esparza v. Smartpay Leasing, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-03421-WHA (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2017)10/03/2017
Court denied motion to compel arbitration in putative class action finding that plaintiff’s claims fall outside of the scope of the arbitration clause on which plaintiff relied.
-
Rocha v. Macy's Retail Holdings, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00073-PRM (W.D. Tex. Oct. 3, 2017)
10/03/2017Court denied defendant’s motion to abate and compel arbitration finding that defendant failed to provide evidence that plaintiff consented to arbitration.
-
Wedi Corp. v. Wright, No. 2:15-CV-00671-TSZ (W.D. Wash. Oct. 3, 2017)10/03/2017
Court granted in part and denied in part motion to correct or modify arbitral award, modifying the award to omit a sentence inconsistent with the arbitrator’s direction that the parties wait until after the award was issued to submit a petition for attorney’s fees, but denying that plaintiff may seek reimbursement of attorney’s fees in a subsequent court motion since the arbitrator had ruled that attorney’s fees would not be awarded to either side.
-
OJSC Ukrnafta v. Carpatsky Petroleum Corporation, No. 4:09-CV-00891 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 2, 2017)10/02/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to confirm arbitration award, rejecting plaintiff’s allegations that defendants had failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Art. IV of the New York Convention, as well as plaintiff’s various defenses under Art. V of the New York Convention, finding, moreover, that plaintiff’s arguments under Art. II of the New York Convention could only be considered to the extent they intertwined with its Art. V arguments. Court dismissed without prejudice defendants’ motion to dismiss all of plaintiff’s claims on res judicata and collateral estoppel grounds, finding it did not have the information required to rule on this request.
-
Pain Treatment Centers of Illinois v. SpectraLab Scientific, Incorporated, No. 1:15-CV-01012 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 30, 2017)09/30/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for improper venue finding that the parties’ agreement contained a valid arbitration clause and rejecting plaintiffs’ allegations that the arbitration clause was substantively unconscionable since it lacked specificity, was impossible to comply with, and failed to mention the costs of the arbitration, as well as that it was procedurally unconscionable because plaintiffs did not have an opportunity to negotiate it.
-
Landau v. Rheinold, No. 1:15-CV-04811-CBA-VMS (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2017)09/30/2017
Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award issued by a Rabbinical Court, finding that, while the FAA does not confer subject matter jurisdiction, under a “look through approach,” it had subject matter jurisdiction regarding the petition because the underlying dispute involved a question of trademark law which the court would have had jurisdiction to hear under 28 USC 1338. Court rejected the allegation that confirmation ought to be sought in state court, finding that the language of the parties’ forum selection clause was not mandatory and denied respondent’s challenge of the merits of the award on the ground that the FAA’s limitations period for vacating the award had run.
-
Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society v. Telles, No. 2:17-CV-00207-MCA-GJF (D.N.M. Sept. 30, 2017)09/30/2017
Court granted complaint to compel arbitration and petition for appointment of arbitrator, as well as related motion and memorandum of law, compelled arbitration, and dismissed action. Court found that the parties’ arbitration agreement contained a clear delegation clause, rejecting defendant’s allegation that the delegation clause was procedurally unconscionable and noting that defendant had not specifically challenged the delegation clause on substantive unconscionability grounds.
-
Eurotec Vertical Flight Solutions, LLC v. Turbomeca, S.A., No. 3:15-CV-03454-B (N.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2016)
09/29/2017Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings and granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion to refer only issues of arbitrability to arbitration and stay action pending arbitrators’ decision on arbitrability. Court found that the parties’ arbitration agreement contained a valid and enforceable delegation clause so that the issue of arbitrability was one of the issues that would have to be decided by arbitration, while rejecting plaintiff’s assertion that a court could initially refer only arbitrabilty issues to arbitration.
-
Powers v. Charles River Laboratories, Inc., No. 2-16-CV-13668-PDB-SDD (E.D. Mich. Sept. 29, 2017)09/29/2017
District court adopted magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and, amongst others, granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss or compel arbitration, finding that magistrate judge had correctly concluded that the parties agreed to arbitration, that plaintiff had failed to show a genuine issue of material fact as to the validity of the arbitration agreement or as to whether defendant was a successor party to the agreement, and that the applicability of the contractual time bar contained in the arbitration agreement was for the arbitrator, not the court, to decide.
-
Humphreys v. Houston Pizza Ventures, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00935 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2017)09/29/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed, as well as administratively closed, case pending arbitration, finding that the parties entered into a valid and binding agreement to arbitrate under Texas law.
-
Green Tree Servicing, L.L.C. v. Charles, No. 17-60165 (5th Cir. Sept. 29, 2017)09/29/2017
Court of appeal dismissed defendant-appellant’s appeal of district court’s grant of plaintiffs-appellees’ motion to compel arbitration and to stay the claims of another civil action involving the same parties and same dispute. Court held the district court’s order was not a final decision as it stayed the claims still pending between the parties in the district court in the other civil action and therefore the appellate court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal.
-
Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society v. Hatton, No. 2:16-CV-01355-JB-KRS, No. 19 (D.N.M. Sept. 29, 2017)09/29/2017
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement that had been signed by the decedent’s temporary legal guardian was valid and binding on the personal representative of the decedent’s wrongful death estate, and denying motion to compel discovery regarding the temporary legal guardian’s authority to bind decedent to arbitration, which was an issue for the arbitrator to decide.
-
Johns, Jr. v. Pluckers, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00553-SS (W.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2017)09/29/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion in part and denied it in part, compelling arbitration but finding that the question whether the dispute may be arbitrated as a collective action is for the arbitrator to decide, and staying the case pending final decision by the arbitrator.
-
Bradley v. The Hertz Corporation, No. 3:15-CV-00652-NJR-RJD (S.D. Ill. Sept. 29, 2017)09/29/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the parties’ arbitration agreement was valid and that the scope of that agreement was for the arbitrator to decide, per the delegation clause contained in the arbitration agreement.
-
Allen v. SSC Lexington Operating Company LLC, No. 1:16-CV-01080 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 29, 2017)09/29/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel individual arbitration and stay court proceedings, denied as moot plaintiff’s motion for putative class action certification and defendant’s partial motion to dismiss, and stayed court proceedings under § 3 of the FAA pending arbitration. Court found that, while the language of the agreement raised doubts as to whether the parties intended their agreement to include a waiver of class or collective action, such doubts had to be resolved in favor or arbitration.
-
Townsend v. Central Pony Express Inc., No. 5-17-CV-00552-OLG (W.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2017)09/28/2017
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of an employment dispute and to dismiss the case. Court found that because defendant had the ability to unilaterally modify the entire employee handbook, including the arbitration provision, the agreement to arbitrate disputes was illusory and unenforceable.
-
Allied World Insurance Company v. New Paradigm Property Management LLC, No. 2:16-CV-02992-MCE-GGH (E.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2017)
09/28/2017Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss plaintiff’s complaint, or alternatively stay action, finding that, while the arbitration agreement applied to plaintiff as surety, the scope of the arbitration agreement did not encompass the controversy at issue.
-
Durr v. Adams Beverages, Inc., No. 16-15285 (11th Cir. Sept. 28, 2017)09/28/2017
Court of appeal affirmed in part and dismissed in part the district court’s order dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice and entering judgment for the defendant. Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in setting a deadline to enforce and grant defendant’s motion to dismiss when plaintiff showed no signs of challenging the arbitration award at issue. Court further held it lacked jurisdiction to consider plaintiff-appellant’s challenge of the denial of his post-judgment motions seeking to vacate the arbitration award.
-
Pineda v. Oceania Cruises, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-20544-RNS (S.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2017)09/28/2017
Court remanded case to state court, holding that the arbitration agreement relied upon by the defendants to remove the case to federal court was inapplicable to plaintiff’s claims as there was no agreement to arbitrate between the parties and therefore subject matter jurisdiction was lacking.
-
CMH Homes, Inc. v. Pyke, No. 2:17-CV-00077-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss. Sept. 28, 2017)09/28/2017
Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and improper venue. Court held that plaintiffs had filed their petition under § 4 of the FAA seeking an order to compel arbitration and that the underlying dispute was ripe for adjudication as no further factual development was needed and the issues warranted judicial review.
-
Chruby v. Global Tel*Link Corp., No. 5:15-CV-05136-TLB (W.D. Ark. Sept. 28, 2017)09/28/2017
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings. Court held that all three elements of waiver of the right to arbitrate were satisfied with respect to each of the arbitrating plaintiffs as the defendant knew of an existing right to arbitrate, acted inconsistently with that right by having waited over a year and a half after the litigation began to attempt to compel arbitration, and prejudiced the plaintiffs who were forced to defend against other motions.
-
Imperial Crane Sales, Inc. v. Sany America, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-00859 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2017)09/28/2017
Court denied a motion to vacate the majority of plaintiff’s arbitration award, confirmed plaintiff’s award and granted reasonable attorney’s fees to plaintiff in defense of the motion to vacate. Court held that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers in issuing his ruling, considered all the relevant contracts and based the final award on them, and properly limited the award to direct damages. Court further held that though the FAA does not provide for attorney fees to the party who successfully confirms an arbitration award in federal court, the parties’ contractual agreement did and thus plaintiff was entitled to recover its fees.
-
Hubbard v. Dolgencorp, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-01133-SA-egb (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 28, 2017)09/28/2017
Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the named plaintiffs, except Hubbard, were bound to arbitrate their claims. Court further held that because in the sixth circuit the class action waiver found in the arbitration agreement was void as against public policy and unenforceable under the FAA, and yet severable, the court would compel plaintiffs to bring their claims to arbitration but they could do so collectively as a class.
-
Ford v. Combined Insurance Company of America, No. 5:17-CV-00103-RH-GRJ (N.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2017)09/28/2017
Court adopted magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and granted motion to compel arbitration in part. Court held that the plaintiff signed a binding arbitration agreement that applied to plaintiff’s claims and ordered the parties to present their dispute to arbitration in accordance with their agreement.
-
Gyptec S.A. v. Hakim-Daccach, No. 1:16-CV-20810-KMW (S.D. Fla. Sept. 27, 2017)09/27/2017
Court denied respondent’s motions to strike a majority of petitioner’s sur-reply and to quash subpoena and to vacate the court’s order granting petitioner’s application for discovery under 28 USC § 1782 for use in an ongoing litigation in Colombia. Court concluded that petitioner met the statutory elements of 28 USC § 1782 and determined that the discretionary factors weighed in favor of petitioner, finding that there is no exhaustion requirement that petitioner must first seek discovery in Colombia, that whether the discovery will ultimately be admissible is of no import to the analysis, that petitioner was not seeking to circumvent Colombian procedures, and that the discovery request was not burdensome.
-
Del Monte International, GMBH v. Ticofrut S.A., No. 1:16-CV-23894-JEM (S.D. Fla. Sept. 27, 2017)
09/27/2017Court denied motion to remand, holding that federal jurisdiction over the matter existed because it pertained to an ICC arbitral award and thus “relate[d] to” the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards under 9 USC § 205.
-
Barboza v. Adecco USA, Inc., No. 5:16-CV-01113-EJD (N.D. Cal. Sept. 27. 2017)09/27/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, holding that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed and that plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the agreement.
-
Sanders v. JGWPT Holdings, LLC, No. 1:14-CV-09188-SLE (N.D. Ill. Sept. 27, 2017)09/27/2017
Court granted defendant motion to compel arbitration, holding that the parties do not dispute that the arbitration clauses are mandatory and that plaintiffs failed to establish a defense to arbitration.