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.
-
United States ex rel. Welch v. My Left Foot Children’s Therapy, LLC, No. 16-16070 (9th Cir. Sept. 11, 2017)09/11/2017
Court of appeal affirmed the district court’s denial of defendants’ motion to compel arbitration on an alternate ground. Court held that the plain text of the arbitration agreement—which Welch signed when she applied for employment with the defendant corporation—was not broad enough to encompass the instant False Claims Act case, and therefore the lawsuit was not arbitrable.
-
Treinish v. BorrowsFirst, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01371-JG (N.D. Ohio Sept. 8, 2017)09/08/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding the arbitration provision to be valid and enforceable. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the claims are not arbitrable because she terminated the contract. Court explained that the arbitration provision contained an explicit survival clause, and thus the contract is not “completely expired” and the full presumption in favor of arbitration applies.
-
Pointstreak, Inc. v. Colorado Amateur Hockey Assoc., No. 3:16-CV-00690-RJC-DSC (W.D.N.C. Sept. 8, 2017)09/08/2017
Court granted plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and motion for confirmation of the arbitration award. Court explained that an arbitration award may be vacated only when an arbitrator strays from interpreting and applying the agreement, and effectively dispenses his own brand of justice. Here, defendant did not respond to plaintiff’s motions, and thus the court found no reason to disturb the arbitrator’s award, particularly under “the incredibly deferential standard of review.”
-
Orbital ATK, Inc. v. Heckler & Koch GmbH, No. 0:17-CV-00250-DSD-FLN (D. Minn. Sept. 8, 2017)09/08/2017
Court granted in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. The parties had entered into a subcontract and a Teaming Agreement. Court found that most claims were subcontract claims, which were expressly excluded from the dispute resolution process in the Teaming Agreement. However, one claim—the failure to deliver intellectual property pursuant to the Teaming Agreement—was subject to the arbitration provision and should be submitted to arbitration.
-
National Football League Players Assoc. v. National Football League, No. 4:17-CV-00615-ALM (E.D. Tex. Sept. 8, 2017)09/08/2017
Court granted petitioner’s emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Court determined that running back Ezekiel Elliot did not receive a fundamentally fair arbitration hearing, and his suspension should be enjoined until the court’s final ruling. Court explained that, under the FAA, there is a narrow exception to the general deference toward arbitrators, which allows courts to intervene and vacate an award when a hearing is not fundamentally fair.
-
Medchoice Risk Retention Grp., Inc. v. Katz, No. 2:17-CV-00387-TSZ (W.D. Wash. Sept. 8, 2017)09/08/2017
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and confirmed the arbitrator’s final award. Court found that the FAA applied to the enforcement of the award and that the arbitrator did not engage in misconduct by postponing the hearing and by refusing to consider the additional evidence defendants were ordered to produce during the arbitration.
-
Judge v. Unigroup, Inc., 8:17-CV-00201-SDM-TBM (M.D. Fla. Sept. 8, 2017)09/08/2017
Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss and granted in part defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court found that the FAA applied because (i) federal law strongly favors arbitration and (ii) plaintiffs reserved discretion that was characteristic of a contractor, and thus could not benefit from the transportation-worker exemption from arbitration. Court further found that the non-party defendants with contracts under Florida law could compel arbitration, but not those under Ohio, Virginia, or New Jersey law.
-
Hinkle v. Southpointe Motorcars, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-01391-TWP-DML (S.D. Ind. Sept. 8, 2017)09/08/2017
Court approved and adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, which stated that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to stay the action should be granted. Court further found that, since the parties agreed that the defendant corporation would pay the filing fee under these circumstances, the plaintiff may file his claim with the AAA by simply stating that there is an agreement that the defendant will pay all of the filing fee.
-
Ford v. Midland Funding LLC., No. 4:16-CV-12612-TGB-SDD (E.D. Mich. Sept. 8, 2017)09/08/2017
Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether an arbitration agreement existed. Court explained that because the making of the arbitration agreement was in issue, under the FAA, the case should proceed in court rather than in arbitration.
-
Freedom Investors Corp. v. Gantan, No. 4:17-CV-03914-SBA (N.D. Cal. Sep. 7, 2017)
09/07/2017Magistrate judge recommended denying petition to vacate FINRA arbitration award, finding unpersuasive petitioner’s claims of arbitrator misconduct and abuse of power.
-
Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC v. Rocine, No. 4:17-CV-04993-PJH (N.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2017)09/07/2017
Court granted temporary restraining order (TRO) restricting defendants’ use of plaintiff’s customer information, and ordered that plaintiff to initiate expedited FINRA arbitration. Court found that defendant had compiled a list of customer information after his departure from plaintiff’s company, and there was a likelihood of significant irreparable harm if defendants were not enjoined from using this information.
-
Ortiz Bey v. XPO Logistics, Inc., No. 6:16-CV-02195-RBD-KRS (M.D. Fla. Sept. 7, 2017)09/07/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that defendant had not waived its right to arbitrate and that plaintiff had not demonstrated that the delegation provision was unconscionable. Court found that the sixth month delay in demanding arbitration, without any other substantial conduct inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate, did not amount to waiver. Court also found that plaintiffs failed to include detail of litigation expenses incurred, and failed to show prejudice as a result of delay, and that plaintiffs had failed to challenge the delegation provision specifically as unconscionable, and the enforceability of the arbitration agreement as a whole was a determination left to the arbitrator.
-
Hoover v. Sears Holding Corp., No. 3:16-CV-04520-AET-TJB (D.N.J. Sept. 7, 2017)09/07/2017
Court denied motion for reconsideration of order compelling arbitration, holding that the arbitration clause in the contract was severable and non-illusory, and that any issue regarding contract validity should be considered by the arbitrator. Court found that plaintiff had not argued that the clause allowing defendant to alter terms and conditions was within the arbitration provision, or that the arbitration clause was not severable. Court found that a unilateral change provision pertained only to a rewards program, not to the arbitration provision or other parts of the contract.
-
Gibson-Dalton v. Carnival Corp. & PLC, No. 2:16-CV-02457-DCN (D.S.C. Sept. 7, 2017)09/07/2017
Court granted motion to dismiss claims for failure to comply with the arbitration clause, holding that there was no issue in dispute as to whether parties were bound by an arbitration agreement. Court held that plaintiff failed to present any evidence suggesting she was not bound by the contract containing the arbitration clause.
-
Poole-Ward v. Affiliates for Women’s Health, P.A., No. 4:17-CV-00885 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 7, 2017)09/07/2017
Court granted motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, holding that a valid arbitration agreement existed and covered the plaintiff’s statutory discrimination and state common law contract claims. Court found that invalidating the arbitration agreement would permit the plaintiff to litigate the types of claims she clearly and validly agreed to arbitrate.
-
Alabama Municipal Insurance Corp. v. Munich Reinsurance America Inc., No. 2:16-CV-948-WHA-SRW (M.D. Ala. Sept. 7, 2017)09/07/2017
Court granted motion to stay pending arbitration, holding that plaintiff had not waived the right to arbitrate. Court found that actions taken toward litigation prior to filing the amended complaint should not be considered waiver of the right to seek arbitration, as the amended complaint was the first time plaintiff alleged breach of a contract which contained an arbitration clause. Additionally, subsequently complying with a scheduling order did not waive the right to arbitrate.
-
Glass, Molders, Pottery, Plastics, & Allied Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC v. Tecnocap LLC, No. 5:17-CV-00006-JPB (N.D.W. Va. Sept. 6, 2017)09/06/2017
Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, holding that parties must arbitrate grievances in accordance with the Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”). Court found that there is a presumption of arbitrability where there is a broad arbitration agreement. Court found that, according to precedent, it had no license to examine whether the demand for arbitration had been timely made, as the defendant had refused the demand.
-
Baldwin v. Wittle, No. 1:17-CV-00823-JMS-DML (S.D. Ind. Sept. 6, 2017)09/06/2017
Court denied motion to dismiss, holding that there was no valid arbitration agreement between the parties. Court found no privity between parties to the security contract, containing the arbitration clause, and the insurance contract, which did not. Court found that there was not sufficient relatedness between the two contracts to justify estoppel.
-
Solo v. United Parcel Service Co., No. 2:14-CV-12719-DPH-RSW (E.D. Mich. Sept. 6, 2017)09/06/2017
Court denied motion to stay or dismiss proceedings, holding that defendant had waived its right to arbitration by acting inconsistently with reliance on arbitration and delayed its assertion of the need to arbitrate, to the actual prejudice of plaintiffs. Court found that defendant did not seek to compel arbitration until more than two years after the complaint was filed, moving instead for dismissal on the merits. Court found that defendant had not filed this motion regarding the arbitration provision until eight months after the Sixth Circuit remanded the case.
-
Petrobras America, Inc. v. Vicinay Cadenas, S.A., No. 4:12-CV-00888 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 6, 2017)09/06/2017
Court granted motion for jury trial, and denied motion to stay lawsuit pending arbitration, holding that non-signatory plaintiffs were not bound by the arbitration clause. Court found that the direct-benefits estoppel doctrine did not apply, as plaintiffs’ claims were not based on the purchase order containing the arbitration clause, but rather from pre-purchase representations and duties under Louisiana law.
-
Taylor v. Frontier Communications Corporation, No. 8:17-CV-00476-PA-DTB (C.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2017)09/05/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff entered into a contractual agreement with defendant’s predecessor-in-interest, which included an arbitration provision that encompasses the claims at issue in the present action. Court also found that plaintiff consented to the granting of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.
-
In re Anthony Henson and William Cintron, No. 16-71818 (9th Cir. Sept. 5, 2017)09/05/2017
Court granted petition for a writ of mandamus and vacated order granting motion to compel arbitration, holding that a non-signatory “middle man” for internet-based advertisements could not invoke an arbitration provision contained in a contract between plaintiffs and their wireless service provider. Court found that the customer agreement provided only that the subscriber and the internet service provider agreed to resolve disputes by arbitration. Court found that estoppel was not available, as the claims against defendant were not based on the contract containing the arbitration agreement, and there was no evidence of interdependent and concerted conduct.
-
White v. Sunoco, Inc., No. 16-2808 (3d Cir. Sept. 5, 2017)09/05/2017
Court affirmed decision to deny motion to compel arbitration, holding that defendant, as a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, could not compel plaintiff to arbitrate. Court held that the principles of equitable estoppel could not be invoked since there was no alleged concerted conduct on the part of defendant and a signatory party. Court also found that the claims asserted against defendant did not rely on any terms in the contract containing the arbitration agreement.
-
Kropke v. Dunbar, No. 2:16-CV-08753-MWF-FFM (C.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2017)09/01/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to confirm the arbitration award. Court concluded that the result reached by the arbitrator was not precluded by well-defined, explicit, and clearly applicable law. Court also found that the arbitrator was not evidently partial.
-
Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited v. APR Energy Holding Limited, No. 1:17-MC-00216-GHW (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2017)09/01/2017
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to quash subpoena issued pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 for discovery for use in a foreign arbitral proceeding against Australia conducted under the UNCITRAL arbitration rules and the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement and denied defendant’s request for limited jurisdictional discovery. Although court noted that it was unclear whether the 28 USC § 1782 statutory requirement that the person from whom discovery is requested “resides or is found” in the district equated to a requirement of personal jurisdiction, it held that the Constitution’s due process protections applied and it lacked personal jurisdiction. General jurisdiction was not satisfied because plaintiff was not “at home” in New York and compliance with the International Banking Act of 1978 did not amount to consent to jurisdiction, and there was no specific personal jurisdiction as there was no nexus between plaintiff’s New York contacts and the subject matter of the discovery sought.
-
Doe #1 v. Déjà Vu Consulting, No. 3 :17-CV-00040 (M.D. Tenn. Sept. 1, 2017)09/01/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the action without prejudice, holding that there was an enforceable arbitration agreement covering all disputes. Court found that, according to precedent and § 3 of the FAA, a motion to compel arbitration must take precedence over and be considered before virtually any other pending motion. Further, the broad delegation clause conferred authority to resolve disputes regarding waiver and estoppel to the arbitrator, and the plaintiff was estopped from asserting that she did not agree to arbitrate with non-signatory defendants, as she had argued that these defendants were alter egos of the signatory defendant.
-
Carriere v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC., No. 2:17-CV-00325-UDJ-KK (W.D. La. Sept. 1, 2017)09/01/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceeding, holding that there was a valid arbitration agreement, which delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Court found that, even if Louisiana law required consideration for arbitration agreements between at-will employees and employers, a mutual agreement to arbitrate claims was sufficient consideration.
-
Interactive Brokers LLC v. Saroop, No. 3:17-CV-00127-REP (E.D. Va. Sept. 1, 2017)09/01/2017
Court denied motion to vacate and motion to confirm arbitration award, and remanded matter to arbitration panel for clarification, holding that without reasoning, the court could not judicially examine the award under § 10 of the FAA. Court found that the award did not explain the reasons for compensatory damages, and it was impossible to discern which theory of liability corresponded with the amount of damages awarded.
-
Stemcor USA Incorporated v. CIA Siderurgica do Para Cosipar, No. 16-30984 (5th Cir. Sept. 1, 2017)09/01/2017
Court of appeal reversed district court’s order vacating a pre-arbitration attachment under Louisiana’s non-resident attachment statute, finding that, although the requirement that attachment support an action for a money judgment would not permit attachment in support of an action to compel arbitration, attachment could nevertheless be ordered in support of a future action to confirm the arbitral award.
-
United States of America for the Use of Magnum Contracting, Inc. v. Mason & Hanger, Inc. No. 3:14-CV-00112-RRE-ARS (D.N.D. Aug. 31, 2017)08/31/2017
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm an arbitration award and denied defendant’s motion to vacate the award, finding the arbitrator was clearly authorized to decide the issue of whether the claim for arbitration was time-barred by the contract and that she she did not exceed her powers.
-
Ziglar v. Express messenger Systems Inc., No. 2:16-CV-02726-SRB (D. Ariz. Aug. 31, 2017)08/31/2017
Court dismissed defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement to be unconscionable because of provisions prohibiting the awarding of attorney’s fees and requiring cost-splitting.
-
AbbVie Inc. v. Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc., No. 17-CV-01815-EMC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2017)08/31/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration agreement covered patent disputes. Court found that the license agreement was reasonably susceptible to the interpretation advanced by Novartis, namely that patent disputes were arbitrable, and was therefore ambiguous. Further, if the parties had intended to carve out an exception to arbitration for patent disputes, they would have done so more clearly. Court also found that Congress made clear that patent validity may be determined in arbitration if the parties so choose.
-
Luciano v. Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America-College Retirement Equities Fund, No. 3:15-CV-06726-MAS-DEA (D.N.J. Aug. 31, 2017)08/31/2017
Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that, after successful motion to compel arbitration brought by all defendants, a sub-set of those defendants was not estopped from arguing that they were not parties to the arbitration agreement.
-
Clack v. United Services Automobile Association (USAA), No. 5:16-CV-01069-RCL (W.D. Tex. Aug. 31, 2017)08/31/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff had agreed to mandatory binding arbitration and no defense had been established.
-
Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Sandhu Hospitality, Inc., No. 8:16-CV-03330-TDC (D. Md. Aug. 31, 2017)08/31/2017
Court granted motion for default judgment on petition to confirm arbitration award, finding that plaintiff had shown it is entitled to confirmation as a matter of law and nothing in the record suggested any grounds for vacating the award.
-
District Council No. 9 International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, A.F.L.-C.I.O. v. Siler Line Décor, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-05765-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2017)08/31/2017
Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award, finding that, although unopposed, it should be treated as a motion for summary judgment, and no genuine issue of material fact existed.
-
Employer Trustees of Western Pennsylvania Teamsters v. Union Trustees of Western Pennsylvania Teamsters, No. 16-3359 (3d Cir. Aug. 31, 2017)08/31/2017
Court of appeal reversed district court’s denial of petition to appoint arbitrator, finding that the district erred in finding that a contested right was not provided for in the contract and thus not subject to arbitration, since the interpretation of the contract was a matter for the arbitrator to determine.
-
Townsend Ventures, LLC v. Hybrid Kinetic Group Limited, No. 1:17-CV-00130-GLR (D. Md. Aug. 31, 2017)08/31/2017
Court granted motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, finding that reference in the arbitration agreement to rules of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) evidences an agreement to arbitrate arbitrability.
-
Broussard v. GameStop, Inc., No. 5:16-CV-06075-EJD (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2017)08/31/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that an arbitration agreement providing an employee the opportunity to opt out of arbitration was neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable.
-
Lublin v. American Automobile Association of Northern California, Nevada & Utah, No. 2:17-CV-00021-GMN-PAL (D. Nev. Aug. 31, 2017)08/31/2017
Court denied motion to compel arbitration and dismiss, holding that plaintiff had sufficiently raised an issue of material fact regarding the formation of the arbitration agreement. Court found that plaintiff’s sworn affidavit stating that he was never presented with the arbitration agreement was sufficient to raise this issue, and that defendant had failed to show evidence regarding any electronic system of signature or otherwise provide evidence establishing chain of custody.
-
Fraternal Order of Police Metro Transit Police Labor Committee, Inc. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), No. 1:17-CV-00644-TSE-MSN (E.D. Va. Aug. 30, 2017)08/30/2017
Court granted motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, finding that claim for breach of a settlement agreement was subject to arbitration since the settlement agreement was “inextricably intertwined” with a collectively-bargained labor contract containing an arbitration clause.
-
Spano v. V & J National Enterprises, LLC, No. 6:16-CV-06419-EAW-MWP (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2017)08/30/2017
Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that (i) the non-signatory defendants were bound to arbitrate as agents/alter-egos, but that (ii) the defendants had waived their right to compel arbitration by failing to participate in the parallel arbitration proceedings.
-
Hart v. ITC Service Group, Inc., No. 4:15-CV-00599-DGK (W.D. Mo. Aug. 30, 2017)08/30/2017
Court summarily granted joint motion for an order confirming arbitrator’s approval of a collective labor settlement, noting the limited nature of judicial review available under the FAA.
-
The Children's Mercy Hospital v. Alliance for Community Health, LLC, No. 4:17-MC-00552-NKL (W.D. Mo. Aug. 30, 2017)08/30/2017
Court granted unopposed motion to compel arbitration, noting the limited nature of judicial review available under the FAA.
-
Dykes v. Cleveland Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, No. 4:15-CV-00076-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss Aug. 30, 2017)08/30/2017
Court denied renewed motion to compel arbitration after determining that it could do so without a hearing. Court held that, because defendants could not prove that the signatory of the applicable agreement was empowered to act as the principle’s agent, no binding agreement to arbitrate existed.
-
Myers v. Credit One Bank, N.A., No. 5:16-CV-05214-JLS (E.D. Pa. Aug. 30, 2017)08/30/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case, declining to decide objections over agreement validity because the parties had agreed to defer questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Court dismissed plaintiff’s claim of waiver through delay in responding to her claim as factually unsupported.
-
Lipinski v. Jones, No. 8:17-CV-02031-VMC-TGW (M.D. Fla. Aug. 30, 2017)08/30/2017
Court dismissed petition to compel arbitration, finding that there was no federal jurisdiction over the claim. Court held that the FAA alone did not supply it with subject matter jurisdiction over the claim as the FAA supplies substantive law but does not itself establish federal subject matter jurisdiction.
-
Progressive Health Supply & Source Corp. v. Biosense Medical Devices LLC, No. 3:16-CV-04965-AET-DEA (D. N.J. Aug. 29, 2017)08/29/2017
Court denied without prejudice motion to compel arbitration and dismiss proceedings. Court, upon determining that a summary judgment standard applied, held that it had insufficient information to adjudicate whether an agreement with a non-party allegedly relating to one of the claims was sufficient to require arbitration, noting that defendant could renew its motion within 21 days.
-
In Re: Application of Pola Maritime Ltd. for an Order Pursuant to 28 USC 1782 to Conduct Discovery for Use in Foreign Proceedings, No. 4:16-CV-00333-WTM-GRS (S.D. Ga. Aug. 29, 2017)08/29/2017
Court denied motion to quash a 28 USC 1782 subpoena and deferred motion to compel compliance with same, pending a party meet and confer. Court held that the formal statutory factors for granting a §1782 subpoena were satisfied, including because a London Maritime Arbitrators Association tribunal qualified as a “foreign on international tribunal” for purposes of the statute. Court further held that related discretionary factors identified by the U.S. Supreme Court largely favored the requested discovery, noting that any concerns with over-breadth could be resolved through conference among counsel and deferring a final ruling pending such conference.
-
Russell v. Dunlap & Kyle Tire Co., Inc. (Tennessee), No. 3:17-CV-00843 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 29, 2017)08/29/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the case. Court held that the contested arbitration agreement between the parties bound plaintiff, rejecting challenges to its form.