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.
-
Johnson v. Dentsply Sirona Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00520-CVE-PJC (N.D. Okla. Sept. 27, 2017)09/27/2017
Court granted motion to confirm the arbitrator’s preliminary injunction, holding it was proper to review interim arbitral awards and to confirm the arbitrator’s interim award of equitable relief in this case and enjoin plaintiff from breaching the confidentiality and non-compete provision of the parties’ agreement while the arbitration was pending.
-
Bowers v. Northern Two Cayes Company Ltd., No. 1:15-CV-00029-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C. Sept. 27, 2017)09/27/2017
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm an arbitration award but denied plaintiff’s motions to remand for clarification and for consideration of new facts. Court held the parties agreed to arbitrate their dispute, that the contract, taken as a whole, required binding arbitration, and that the plaintiff’s filing complied with the FAA and established the basis to confirm the final award, but no further clarification of the arbitration award was necessary.
-
Diag Human S.E. v. Czech Republic-Ministry of Health, No. 1:13-CV-00355-ABJ (D.D.C. Sept. 27, 2017)09/27/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the case. Court held that based on the parties’ arbitration agreement and resolution, the 2008 arbitration decision was not a final arbitration award enforceable under the New York Convention. The terms of the parties’ own arbitration agreement indicate that the 2008 final award never took effect because an application to review the award was submitted within the deadline and thus the award never became binding on the parties.
-
Larsen v. Citibank FSB, No. 15-10779 (11th Cir. Sept. 26, 2017)09/26/2017
Court of appeal reversed district court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration, finding that requirement that arbitral award be kept confidential was unconscionable in that it favored the bank as a repeat participant in the arbitration process, but this provision could be severed and the agreement was not otherwise procedurally or substantively unconscionable.
-
Gibson v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., No. 4:17-00577-RMG (D.S.C. Sept. 26, 2017)09/26/2017
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that, accepting the complaint allegations as true, the arbitration agreement in the original warranty did not provide for binding arbitration, was not enforceable with regard to the warranty enhancement, and defendant’s argument that an arbitration agreement in a vehicle lease agreement should be enforced against anyone who purchased the used vehicle after the expiration of the lease lacked merit.
-
Finsa Portafolios, S.A. de C.V. v. OpenGate Capital, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-04360-RGK-E (C.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2017)09/26/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss for forum non conveniens. Court held that parties were sophisticated corporations that chose an arbitration clause that incorporated AAA language in their commercial agreement and that the arbitrator should decide disputes relating to the validity and scope of the arbitration clause. Court also upheld the forum selection clauses at issue and held the plaintiffs’ fraud and tort claims to be within their scope.
-
Golden Gate National Senior Care, LLC v. Hudson, No. 3:17-CV-00431-JHM (W.D. Ky. Sept. 26, 2017)09/26/2017
Court granted petitioners’ motion to expedite consideration of their motion to compel arbitration and granted the motion in part. Court held the parties entered into an agreement to arbitrate, that the agreement covered the decedent’s personal claims respondent raised in state court, that there were no federal claims asserted that were precluded from arbitration, and thus the parties were ordered to arbitrate all claims except a wrongful death claim that could proceed in state court as it was not required to be arbitrated because the beneficiaries to whom that claim belonged did not consent to arbitrate.
-
Stephens v. Charter Communications Holdings, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00354-JHM (W.D. Ky. Sept. 26, 2017)09/26/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that agreement to arbitrate would be enforced as plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of a valid and binding arbitration agreement between the parties, there were no federal claims that could be nonarbitrable, nor were only some of the state law claims subject to arbitration.
-
Massaad v. CVS RX Services, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01064-JG (N.D. Ohio Sept. 26, 2017)09/26/2017
Court denied motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint and defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that at the motion to dismiss stage of litigation it was required to draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor, including that plaintiff mailed his opt-out letter and as a result opted out of the defendant’s arbitration policy.
-
Gas Natural Aprovisionamientos SDG, S.A. v. Atlantic LNG Company of Trinidad and Tobago, No. 1:17-CV-00110-LAK (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2017)09/26/2017
Court granted respondent’s motion to confirm two arbitration awards issued by the same tribunal and denied petitioner’s motion to vacate an award. Court held petitioner’s arguments to vacate failed because the arbitral tribunal did not act in manifest disregard of law and nearly all of petitioner’s arguments disputed the tribunal’s interpretation of the underlying contract, which is not open to judicial review.
-
Brne v. Inspired eLearning, No. 1:17-CV-02712-AJS (N.D. Ill. Sept. 26. 2017)09/26/2017
Court granted defendant’s FRCP 12(b)(3) motion to dismiss for improper venue and ordered plaintiff to pursue his arbitration claims in Texas rather than Illinois. Court held the arbitration clause in plaintiff’s employment agreement was enforceable as there was no showing of procedural unconscionability, the cost sharing provision of the arbitration agreement was valid, and that the substantively unconscionable clause requiring the parties to pay their own attorneys’ fees regardless of the outcome of arbitration was invalid, but was properly severed under both Illinois and Texas law as the agreement expressly allowed for severance of unenforceable provisions.
-
Larsen v. Citibank FSB, Nos. 15-10779, 10-12957 (11th Cir. Sept. 26, 2017)09/26/2017
Court of appeal reversed district court’s order denying defendant KeyBank’s motion to compel on grounds of unconscionability and remanded case to district court with instruction to compel arbitration. Court addressed multiple issues on appeal and found no reason to relieve plaintiff Johnson from his obligation to arbitrate under Ohio law, the parties’ agreed choice-of-law provision.
-
S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. and S.C. Johnson & Son de Venezuela S.C.A. v. Ghersy Group Integrated Communications, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-22380-KMW (S.D. Fla. Sept. 25, 2017)09/25/2017
Court further explained reasons for granting motion to confirm arbitration award, stating that parties agreed to a final and binding consent award, arbitrator entered such an award, defendant failed to make the payments required by the award and did not seek to vacate the award. Court held that it must confirm arbitration awards unless they are vacated, modified, or corrected.
-
Cochlear Ltd. v. Oticon Medical AB, No. 1:16-CV-01700-PAB-KMT (D. Colo. Sept. 25, 2017)09/25/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims and denied the motion to stay the action. Court held that the arbitration agreement between the parties did not limit or exclude any types of claims and that the parties’ dispute was within the scope of the arbitration clause and should be sent to arbitration.
-
Sutherland v. Amerifirst Financial, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-01676-JAH-WVG (S.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2017)09/25/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to transfer venue. Court held that the parties entered into a valid arbitration agreement, the agreement included the dispute at issue and should be enforced, and that the parties agreed upon a venue in Maricopa County, Arizona. Court held that, because § 4 of the FAA does not permit the court to compel arbitration outside of the district, the appropriate remedy was to transfer the case to the district of Arizona.
-
Raju v. Murphy, No. 3:17-CV-00357-CWR (S.D. Miss. Sept. 25, 2017)09/25/2017
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to stay proceedings pending interlocutory appeal. Court held that in the fifth circuit stays pending appeal from a denial of a motion to compel arbitration are not automatic, that plaintiff had not met his burden to show that the balance of equities weighed heavily in favor of a stay, and that in the discretion of the court the public interest favored denying the stay.
-
Primrose Retirement Communities, L.L.C. v. Omni Construction Company, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01007-RAL (D.S.D. Sept. 25, 2017)09/25/2017
Court confirmed plaintiffs’ arbitration award and denied defendant’s motion to vacate or modify the award. Court held that the FAA requires the court to confirm the award since both parties received a fair arbitration hearing, there was no basis to conclude that the arbitrators engaged in misconduct that would justify vacatur of the award, and the arbitrators provided a final and reasoned decision.
-
Northrop and Johnson Holding Company, Inc. v. Caryn Leahy, No. 0:16-CV-63008-BB (S.D. Fla. Sept. 25, 2017)09/25/2017
Court denied motion to dismiss second amended complaint for failure to arbitrate. Court held that at the motion to dismiss stage, plaintiff had plausibly pled that it terminated the agreement that would have required it to arbitrate.
-
Everman’s Electric Company v. J.J. Sosa & Associates, Inc., No. 1:14-CV-00440-LG-RHW (S.D. Miss. Sept. 22, 2017)09/22/2017
Court affirmed arbitration award and denied plaintiff’s request to reduce attorneys’ fees and interest on the award and costs.
-
Diaz v. Intuit, Inc., No. 5:15-CV-01778-EJD (N.D.Cal. Sept. 29, 2017)09/22/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the incorporation of the AAA Rules in the parties’ arbitration agreement was clear and unmistakable evidence of the parties’ intention to delegate arbitrability to the arbitrator irrespective of the sophistication of the parties and determining, upon plaintiffs’ request, that the assertion of arbitrability was not “wholly groundless.”
-
Chen v. Kyoto Sushi, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-07398-DLI-JO (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2017)09/22/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and denied plaintiffs’ request for class certification. Court held that plaintiffs consented to the arbitration agreement, that their Fair Labor Standards Act claims and state and local wage and hour law claims were arbitrable, that the arbitration agreement did not violate federal law and was not unconscionable under New York State law, nor a product of economic duress.
-
Bradley v. Centraarchy Restaurant Management Company, No. 2:15-CV-01218-PMD (D.S.C. Sept. 22, 2017)09/22/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to confirm the arbitration award. Court held that the parties’ arbitration agreement specified that the arbitration award must be confirmed by a court, that plaintiffs filed no opposition to defendant’s motion, and that the arbitrator did her job.
-
Farrow Road Dental Group, P.A. v. AT&T, Corp., No. 3:17-CV-01615-CMC (D.S.C. Sept. 22, 2017)09/22/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay the action. Court held that the arbitration agreement at issue was enforceable and, on balance, favors reference to arbitration. Further, the plaintiff’s obligation to arbitrate did not end when the parties’ relationship ended since arbitration clauses are separable from the contracts in which they are embedded.
-
Beltran v. InterExchange, Inc., No. 1:14-CV-03074-CMA-KMT (D. Colo. Sept. 21, 2017)09/21/2017
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss or stay the action. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that defendant had waived right to arbitrate, but found that there was not a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement because the agreements were unconscionable.
-
Novic v. Midland Funding, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00177-RDB (D. Md Sept. 21, 2017)09/21/2017
Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay the litigation, finding that, subsequent to the assignment of the underlying contract, the defendant no longer holds the right to compel the plaintiff to arbitrate the dispute. Court also held that, in any event, because the defendant took part in litigation proceedings against the plaintiff it defaulted on its right to arbitrate as a matter of federal law.
-
Oglala Lakota College v. Hudson Insurance Company, No. 5:16-CV-05093-JLV (D.S.D. Sept. 20, 2017)09/20/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed the suit pending resolution of the arbitration. Court held that the arbitration agreement is not ambiguous, and therefore, the parties are obligated under the FAA to proceed to arbitration to resolve their dispute.
-
Uretek, ICR Mid-Atlantic, Inc. v. Adams Robinson Enterprises, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00004-GEC (W.D. Va. Sept. 20, 2017)09/20/2017
Court denied defendant’s motion to strike the plaintiff’s motion to confirm the arbitration award and to transfer venue to the Southern District of Ohio. Court found that the forum selection clause, even when viewed in the entire context of the arbitration agreement, is permissive and therefore does not deprive the court of jurisdiction or otherwise compel the court to strike the plaintiff’s motion to confirm the arbitration award. Court therefore held it is a proper forum for reviewing the motion to confirm the arbitration award.
-
Wiseley v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 15-56799 (9th Cir. Sept. 19, 2017)09/19/2017
Court of appeal affirmed district court’s order granting defendant-appellee’s motion to compel arbitration. Circuit court held that there was no procedural unconscionability in the arbitration clause or the incorporation by reference of the AAA rules, and that plaintiff-appellant’s three arguments for substantive unconscionability lacked merit.
-
Anoruo v. Tenet Healthsystem Hanhemann, DBA Hahnemann University Hospital, No. 17-1945 (3d Cir. Sept. 19, 2017)09/19/2017
Court of appeal affirmed district court’s order granting defendant’s motion to confirm an arbitration award and denying plaintiff’s motion to vacate that award. Circuit court held that the appellant failed to establish any basis to vacate the arbitrator’s ruling.
-
Pacanowski v. United Recovery Systems, LP, No. 3:16-CV-01778-KM (M.D. Pa. Sept. 19, 2017)09/19/2017
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the suit. Court held that, although all the requisite elements for contract formation exist, and valid arbitration agreement exists between the plaintiff and third-party, the defendant was not a party to the arbitration agreement and therefore could not compel arbitration under the agreement.
-
Ross Dress for Less, Inc. v. VIWY, L.P., No. 2:12-CV-00131-JS (E.D. Pa. Sept. 19, 2017)09/19/2017
Court granted motion to confirm the arbitration award, finding that, even if manifest disregard of the law remains a valid ground for vacating an arbitration award, the arbitral tribunal did not do so because, inter alia, the improper application of a statute of limitations typically falls short of a manifest disregard of the law. Similarly, the tribunal did not exceed its powers under the §10(a)(4) of the FAA even if failed to apply the statute of limitations under Pennsylvania law.
-
Alvarez v. Amgen Manufacturing, Limited, No. 3:16-CV-02205-PAD-SCC (D.P.R. Sept. 18, 2017)09/18/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss action and compel arbitration, adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation that the plaintiff failed to opt-out of the arbitration agreement in question and that the agreement covered the claims asserted.
-
Johnson v. Oracle America, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-05157-EDL (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2017)
09/17/2017Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration. Court explained that determining which of two competing arbitration agreements applied to the dispute was a gateway issue of arbitrability, which could be answered by determining whether there was a clear delegation of issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Court concluded that since the parties clearly and unmistakably delegated the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator, the motion to compel arbitration should be granted.
-
Royal Alliance Associates, Inc. v. Mooney, No. 16-56468 (9th Cir. Sept. 14. 2017)09/14/2017
Court of appeal reversed district court’s grant of motion to compel arbitration, finding that claimants had not discharged their burden of showing that an arbitration agreement existed, since account transfer documents left ambiguous the question of whether the claimants were clients of the respondent.
-
Lake Cumberland Regional Hospital, LLC v. Coventry Health & Life Insurance Co., No. 6:16-CV-00268-KKC (E.D. Ky. Sept. 14, 2017)09/14/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel. Court found that the parties’ agreement contained an arbitration provision that required arbitration of claims arising out of or relating to that agreement. As such, court concluded that there was a valid arbitration agreement and plaintiff’s claims fell within that provision’s “broad purview.”
-
McMahan v. Byrider Sales of Indiana S, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00064-GNS (W.D. Ky. Sept. 14, 2017)09/14/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court found that (i) the contract clearly indicated that plaintiff agreed to arbitrate any claim arising from a dispute between her and the defendant (and its assignee), (ii) the broad terms of the contract required plaintiff to arbitrate her claims and allowed defendant to require arbitration even after it assigned its rights under the contract, (iii) there is no indication that Congress intended to preclude the arbitration of Fair Credit Reporting Act claims, and (iv) the arbitration provision survived plaintiff’s bankruptcy discharge.
-
Velasquez-Reyes v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 5:16-CV-01953-DMG-KK (C.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2017)09/13/2017
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss the complaint. Court held that plaintiff did not expressly agree to Samsung’s arbitration provision, and that there was no indication that plaintiff’s silence and failure to opt out of the arbitration procedures were intended to be taken as assent. Court also noted that the disclaimer on the box of the phone that plaintiff purchased did not expressly provide that opening the box or using the phone constituted consent to the terms contained inside the Warranty Guide, which itself was inside the box.e box.
-
IQ Products Company v. WD-40 Company, No. 16-20595 (5th Cir. Sept. 13, 2017)09/13/2017
Court of appeal affirmed the district court’s order compelling arbitration and final judgment. Court held that plaintiff waived its challenge to the district court’s conclusion on the existence of a delegation clause by conceding it before the district court; and the assertion of arbitrability was not “wholly groundless,” which the court noted was “extremely rare.”
-
Haberer Foods International, Inc. v. Goya de Puerto Rico, No. 0:17-CV-00080-JRT-LIB (D. Minn. Sept. 13, 2017)09/13/2017
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to confirm the arbitration award, finding that factual questions remained over whether the parties entered into an arbitration agreement. Court held that, where there is a plausible challenge to the existence of an arbitration agreement that would bring the dispute into the realm of the FAA, a party does not lose its ability to raise its challenge by failing to participate or raise the defense during arbitration. Court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that defendant is barred from challenging arbitrability by the equitable doctrines of equitable estoppel and laches, finding no evidence of a specific misrepresentation on which plaintiff justifiably relied or evidence defendant inexcusably delayed in its assertion of its defense.
-
In re Application of Hulley Enterprises Ltd., et al., No. 2:17-MC-00088-UA-E (C.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2017)09/13/2017
Court denied petitioners’ motion for leave to serve a subpoena by “alternative means.” Court found that Rule 45(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure required personal service rather than delivery “to the named person’s doorstep, mailbox or son.” Shearman & Sterling is counsel for the petitioners in connection with this case.
-
Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers v. Kellogg Company, No. 1:16-CV-01180-GJQ-RSK (W.D. Mich. Sept. 13, 2017)09/13/2017
Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration, finding no merit to the defendant’s argument that, because plaintiffs took an inconsistent position in a separate case, they were judicially-estopped from arguing that the arbitration provisions applied. Court also held that the agreements the parties entered into reinforced their understanding that the arbitration provisions did not apply to casual employees.
-
Lawson-Jackson v. Rosenhaus, No. 8:16-CV-04049-TDC (D. Md. Sept. 12, 2017)09/12/2017
Court granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the amended petition to vacate the arbitration award. Court held that the petition was not timely served pursuant to the FAA, which specifies a three-month deadline for a party to both move to vacate the arbitration award and serve opposing party with that motion.
-
Hunter v. NHCash.com, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00348-HEH (E.D. Va. Sept. 12, 2017)09/12/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss to the extent defendants seek to compel arbitration. Court found that the doctrine of equitable estoppel was applicable in this case, which allows all defendants—even non-signatories—to move to compel arbitration. Court additionally found that, even if equitable estoppel were not appropriate, the scope of the arbitration provision was sufficiently broad to encompass plaintiff’s claims against all defendants.
-
Lockard v. EYM King of Kansas, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-02181-JAR-JPO (D. Kan. Sept. 12, 2017)09/12/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and to stay the action. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration agreement was illusory because it was part of a handbook containing a conflicting revocation and modification clause, and that there was no meeting of the minds because the arbitration agreement failed to specify arbitration procedures. Court explained that (i) the arbitration agreement itself is separate and distinct from the handbook, (ii) even if there were ambiguity, this was a question for the arbitrator to decide, and (ii) the lack of arbitral procedures in the arbitration agreement does not invalidate the agreement.
-
Hallsted v. JPMorgan Chase and Company, No. 8:17-CV-00822-JVS-JDE (C.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2017)09/11/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings. Court rejected arguments that the arbitration agreement was rendered invalid as unconscionable because the contract was one of adhesion, did not attach the applicable AAA rules, lacked mutuality, limited discovery, and waived rights to a jury trial.
-
Chin v. Boehringer Ingelham Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-03703-JSC (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2017)09/11/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel and stay the action. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration agreement was contrary to public policy because it forced plaintiff to waive certain rights, finding that the arbitrator was not precluded from awarding plaintiff legal fees and costs. Court also held that the mere fact that the arbitration agreement is a contract of adhesion is insufficient to establish procedural unconscionability, and that the agreement did not lack mutuality and therefore was not substantively unconscionable.
-
NTCH-WA, Inc. v. ZTE Corporation, No. 2:12-CV-03110-TOR (E.D. Wash. Sept. 11, 2017)09/11/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Court found that (i) the arbitration award had the same force and effect as a final judgment on the merits as entered by the federal court, (ii) the defendant and its wholly-owned subsidiary were in privity for the purposes of claim preclusion, and (iii) the undisputed evidence clearly showed that all current claims were or could have been raised during the arbitration proceedings.
-
Skiba v. Sasser, No. 1:16-CV-00444-HSO-JCG (S.D. Miss. Sept. 11, 2017)09/11/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss or to compel arbitration. Court found that there was a valid arbitration agreement between the parties as it was undisputed that the parties signed the agreement. Court additionally found that there was a valid delegation clause that granted the authority to determine the arbitrability of plaintiff’s claims to the arbitrator.
-
Barron v. Best Buy Co., Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00690-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss. Sept. 11, 2017)09/11/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to stay, finding that one of the threshold issues in the instant case would be the subject of a pending arbitration, and thus it would be in the interest of judicial economy to stay the case pending the arbitration award.