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.
-
Disher v. Tamko Building Products, No. 3:14-CV-00740-SMY-SCW (S.D. Ill. Aug. 11, 2017)08/11/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that a non-signatory plaintiff seeking to enforce a contract it did not sign was estopped from avoiding the arbitration provision of that contract.
-
Dye v. Tamko Building Products, Inc., No. 8:17-CV-590-T-35AEP (M.D. Fla. Aug. 11, 2017)
08/11/2017Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the proceedings. The putative class action arose out of allegedly defective shingles that the plaintiffs’ purchased from defendant, Tamko. But, because the product’s limited warranty contained a valid arbitration clause, all parties were forced to arbitrate their claims.
-
System4, LLC v. Ribeiro, No. 1:17-CV-10455-RWZ (D. Mass. Aug. 11, 2017)08/11/2017
Court denied a motion pursuant to §10 of the FAA to vacate a AAA arbitration award and granted the cross-motion to confirm the award. The allegation of evident partiality by the arbitrator failed because, inter alia, such a claim was not raised during the arbitral proceeding; petitioner did not identify any evidence in the record that the arbitrator failed to disclose a pre-existing bias or conflict of interest; and, in any event, no reasonable person would conclude that the arbitrator was partial to the respondent. Further, the court held that the arbitrator did not exceed her powers under the terms of the agreement or by acting in manifest disregard of the law.
-
Potapowicz v. Gregerson Management Services, No. 4:16-CV-01999 (N.D. Ala. Aug. 11, 2017)08/11/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration on the basis that the type of claim asserted by the plaintiff is subject to mandatory arbitration pursuant to §2 of the FAA because (1) a valid agreement to arbitrate exists; (2) the claims fall within the scope of that agreement; and (3) the underlying contract evidences a transaction involving interstate commerce.
-
Minnieland Private Day School, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-01695-AJT-IDD (4th Cir. Aug. 11, 2017)08/11/2017
Court of appeal affirmed the district court decision denying Applied Underwriters’ motion to compel arbitration, but found the lower court erred in applying the doctrine of judicial estoppel to hold the agreement at issue constituted an insurance contract. Court held that, inter alia, a delegation provision within an arbitration agreement constitutes an additional, antecedent agreement to arbitrate, and therefore federal courts must consider challenges to delegation provisions before ordering compliance with such. Because under Virginia law arbitration provisions, including delegation provisions, are void in putative insurance contracts, the district court did not err in denying the motion to compel.
-
Coconut Coast Partners, L. P. v. Aqua Hospitality LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00212-LEK-KSC (D. Haw. Aug. 10, 2017)08/10/2017
Court granted plaintiff’s unopposed motion to compel arbitration, finding that there was a valid arbitration agreement that encompasses all of the claims submitted by plaintiff.
-
Treto v. Princess Cruise Lines Ltd., No. 1:17-CV-20790-KMM (S.D. Fla. Aug. 10, 2017)08/10/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. In rejecting plaintiff’s argument that there was not an agreement in writing within the meaning of the New York Convention, court found that the arbitration provisions contained in the collective bargaining agreement, which were incorporated into the parties’ contract, continued to apply to plaintiff’s work on the ninth cruise aboard the Sun Princess, including the alleged injury occurring on May 13, 2013.
-
GGNSC Louisville St. Mathews, LLC v. Phillips, No. 3:17-CV-00406-JHM-CHL (W.D. Ky. Aug. 10, 2017)08/10/2017
Court granted petition to compel arbitration finding there was a valid arbitration agreement enforceable under the FAA and that all claims fell within the scope of the agreement. Court rejected the motion to dismiss finding there was no necessity to join the administrator and enjoined defendants from proceeding in state court against the plaintiffs pending conclusion of arbitration.
-
Protective Insurance Company v. State Farm General Insurance Company, No. 1:16-CV-00038-MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla. Aug. 9, 2017)08/09/2017
Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award pursuant to the FAA. Court determined that the parties agreed the arbitrator’s decision would be final and binding; that even though the confirmation was not sought within the one-year time period, defendant waived the issue by failing to raise it in its pleadings, as the confirmation period functions as a statute of limitation and not a jurisdictional bar; and that defendant failed to timely move to vacate, modify, or correct the award.
-
Klein v. Verizon Communications, Inc., No. 1:12-CV-00757-LMB-IDD (E.D. Va. Aug. 9, 2017)
08/09/2017Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings, reasoning that a modification providing for arbitration validly changed the parties’ agreement to require arbitration of the underlying claim.
-
International Corrugated and Packing Supplies, Inc. v. Lear Corp., No. 17-50139 (5th Cir. Aug. 9, 2017)08/09/2017
Court of appeal vacated district court’s denial of a motion to reconsider its order denying defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the district court incorrectly applied the FRCP Rule 59 standard for review of its decision rather than a proper Rule 54(b) analysis that the court recently clarified regarding reconsideration of an interlocutory order, and therefore remanded the case for reconsideration under the appropriate standard.
-
GGNSC Louisville Camelot, LLC v. Coppedge, No. 3:16-CV-00834-TBR (W.D. Ky. Aug. 9, 2017)08/09/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding the FAA applied to the transaction, determining that the power of attorney was sufficiently broad to include an arbitration agreement, and concluding that the agreement was not unconscionable. Court denied motion to dismiss, concluding that it had subject matter jurisdiction and enjoined defendants from pursing further claims against plaintiffs with the exception of loss of consortium.
-
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP v. Engagepoint, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-01163-KJM-KJN (E.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2017)08/09/2017
Court granted unopposed petition to confirm an arbitration award pursuant to §9 of the FAA, finding that the petition was filed within one year of entry of the arbitration award and petitioner provided the arbitration agreement and the award itself.
-
United Media Holdings, NV, v. Forbes Media, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-05926-PKC (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2017)08/09/2017
Court denied petition to vacate arbitral award pursuant to the FAA and the New York Convention. Court found that the arbitrator acted reasonably and within his broad discretion in denying petitioners’ request for adjournments; concluded that neither the arbitration nor the award violated Executive Order 13660 since they were authorized by the Office of Foreign Asset Control (“OFAC”); determined that the petitioners were not under any incapacity at the time the arbitration agreement was made as necessitated by Article V(1)(a) of the New York Convention; and held that the award was not contrary to public policy under Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention or under New York or Federal Law. Court also denied petitioners’ motion for post-award discovery and leave to amend, concluding that petitioners’ assertions that the award was based on illegal proceedings and fraud were untimely and meritless.
-
Amazon.com, Inc. v. Arobo Trade, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00804-JLR (W.D. Wash. Aug. 9, 2017)08/09/2017
Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award even though respondent failed to respond to the petition. Court concluded that under the FAA petitioner did not have to affect service via United States marshal on a nonresident respondent and held that service by process server in accordance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was effective.
-
Brittania-U Nigeria Ltd. v. Chevron USA Inc., No. 16-20690 (5th Cir. Aug. 9, 2017)08/09/2017
Court of appeal affirmed district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s case finding no error in the district court’s recognition that the parties signed a confidentiality agreement containing an arbitration provision that delegates arbitrability to the arbitrators. Court also held that the arbitration provision’s adoption of UNCITRAL arbitration rules clearly and unmistakably delegated arbitrability.
-
Charleston Equities, Inc. v. Winslett, No. 3:17-CV-00137-JFA (D.S.C. Aug. 8, 2017)08/08/2017
Court ordered defendant’s third-party claims for civil conspiracy and breach of fiduciary duty to be submitted to arbitration. Court found that defendant’s claim for breach of fiduciary duty is significantly related to the arbitration provisions in the operating agreements and is therefore subject to arbitration.
-
In re Kleimar N.V. v. Benxi Iron And Steel America, Ltd., No. 1:17-CV-01287 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 8, 2017)08/08/2017
Court denied respondent’s motion to vacate and quash subpoenas issued pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 for production of documents and deposition testimony for use in proceedings before the London Maritime Arbitration Association (“LMAA”). Court concluded that respondent had standing to challenge its own subpoena and the order because petitioner had commenced arbitral proceedings against entities affiliated with respondent. But, respondent did not have standing to challenge the subpoena served on the other third-party entity. Court held that the requested discovery was “for use” in a foreign proceeding; the LMMA was a foreign tribunal for purposes of § 1782 because its decisions are judicial reviewable by the English courts pursuant to the English Arbitration Act 1996; and the document production requests were not unduly intrusive and burdensome.
-
Dumas v. Warner Literary Group, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00518-RM-NYW (D. Colo. Aug. 8, 2016)08/08/2017
Magistrate judge granted motion to compel and stay proceedings, recommending that the matter be administratively closed. Court determined that the dispute was subject to a valid arbitration agreement, rejecting plaintiff’s contention that the agreement was ambiguous and thus unenforceable. Court likewise rejected a claim that the agreement had been fraudulently induced, reasoning that it did not challenge the arbitration clause itself, but the agreement as a whole. Nor did the court agree that any statute or policy rendered the claim non-arbitrable.
-
Crystallex International Corp. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 1:17-mc-00205-VEC (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2017)08/08/2017
Court granted ex parte application for a writ of execution against sovereign defendant’s property held in the district. Court summarily concluded that its ruling was proper because (1) a reasonable amount of time had elapsed since entry of judgment; (2) execution was sought against defendant’s property that was located in the district and used for commercial activity; and (3) all requirements of 28 USC § 1610(1) had been met. Court further held that its order was to remain under seal for 14 days so that service could be effectuated without prior notice.
-
TIC Seven Bar 12, LLC, v. Core Seven Bar H, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00450-RB-SCY (D.N.M. Aug. 8, 2017)08/08/2017
Court denied in part plaintiff’s motion to confirm the arbitration award, remanding for clarification of the award and deferring its decision pending clarification. Finding there was more than one reasonable interpretation of the interest ownership portion of the arbitration award, the court remanded to the arbitrator for clarification. Court denied plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs.
-
Carlton Energy Group LLC v. Cliveden Petroleum Company Limited, Case 4:13-cv-00095 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 8, 2017)
08/08/2017Court issued order adopting magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation of June 23, 2017, staying the proceedings pending arbitration where the non-signatories to the arbitration agreement stipulated consent to be bound by the arbitral clause.
-
Byrne v. K12 Services Inc., No. 2:17-CV-04311-SDW-LDW (D.N.J. Aug. 8, 2017)08/08/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the complaint. Pursuant to the FAA, the court found a valid agreement to arbitrate and determined that the wrongful termination dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration clause.
-
Life Flights Network, LLC v. Metro Aviation, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00028-AC (D. Or. Aug. 8, 2017)08/08/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees. Court held that plaintiff waived its right to attorney’s fees when it waived the arbitration clause because that was the only part of the Agreement that provided for the award of attorney’s fees.
-
Wheeler v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., No. 6:17-CV-00847-RGJ-PJH (W.D. La. Aug. 8, 2017)08/08/2017
Court deferred resolution of defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Court held that more discovery was necessary to determine whether a valid arbitration agreement was entered into by the parties.
-
Commercial Lubricants, LLC v. Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc., No. 1:14-CV-07483-MKB-RLM (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2017)08/08/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment but reserved judgment on claim involving agreement with provision to arbitrate. Court noted that defendant first raised the agreement’s arbitration clause seven months after plaintiff filed its claim and instructed plaintiff to brief any prejudice should the court decide to sever and refer the claim to arbitration.
-
Crystallex International Corp. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 1:16-CV-00661-RC (D.D.C. Aug. 8, 2017)08/08/2017
Court denied respondent’s motion to stay execution of judgment pending appeal of previously confirmed arbitral award. Court held that petitioner’s interests would be endangered if court were to grant a stay without requiring the foreign sovereign, which may be either unwilling or unable to satisfy the full judgment, to post a supersedeas bond.
-
Reliable Energy Solutions v. Amalfi Apartment Corporation, No. 4:16-CV-03346 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 7, 2017)08/07/2017
Court adopted magistrate judge’s June 30, 2017 memorandum and recommendation and granted the motion to compel arbitration staying proceedings pending completion of arbitration.
-
Jones v. Waffle House, Inc., No. 16-15574 (11th Cir. Aug. 7, 2017)08/07/2017
Court of appeal vacated the district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel and remanded with instructions to stay the case pending arbitration. Court held that the delegation provision in the agreement between the parties was valid and that the agreement evinced the parties’ intent to arbitrate all gateway issues.
-
In re Kleimar N. V. v. Benxi Iron and Steel America, Ltd. (Chicago), No. 1:17-CV-01287-JRB (N.D. Ill. Aug. 7, 2017)08/07/2017
Court denied motion to vacate and quash subpoenas issued pursuant to ex parte order for discovery pursuant to 28 USC § 1782. Court held the requested discovery was “for use” in a foreign proceeding, that the London Maritime Arbitration Association constituted a “foreign tribunal” under the statute, and that the discovery was neither untimely nor burdensome.
-
The Sales Group Inc. v. Realm Wireless Corp., No. 17-CV-02347-JAK-FFM (C.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2017)08/04/2017
Court denied motions to dismiss based on a claimed arbitration agreement in dispute over payment of sales commissions. Court found that an arbitration clause in a written contract that did not cover the time period of the dispute was not adopted or incorporated by a subsequent oral contract and therefore did not apply to the dispute in question.
-
Iberiabank v. Previty Surgical PLLC, No. 4:17-CV-00160 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 4, 2017)08/04/2017
Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court denied as untimely defendants’ motion, filed five months after plaintiff filed suit and three weeks after the court’s dispositive motion deadline, as it would cause undue delay and unfairly prejudice the plaintiff.
-
McAllister v. The St. Louis Rams, LLC, No. 4:16-CV-00172-SNLJ, No. 4:16-CV-00189, No. 4:16-CV-00262, No. 4:16-CV-00297 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 4, 2017)08/04/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion for stay pending arbitration in part. Court held that both Missouri state law and § 3 of the FAA requires courts to stay any suit with an issue referable to arbitration. Court further held that the remainder of the claims in litigation between the non-arbitrating plaintiff groups and the defendant was discretionary and declined to stay the litigation based on three factors, including the risk of inconsistent rulings, the extent to which parties will be bound by the arbiters’ decision, and the prejudice that could result from delays.
-
Amergent Techs, LLC v. Transatlantic Lines, LLC, No. 3-16-CV-01140-JLS-JLB (S.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2017)08/04/2017
Court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss petition to compel arbitration. Court held it did not have personal jurisdiction over the respondent, who did not purposefully avail itself of the benefits of the forum’s jurisdiction. The formation of the contract containing the arbitration clause was not alone sufficient to establish minimum contacts with the state.
-
Senter v. Equifax Information Services LLC, No. 5:16-CV-00875-SL (N.D. Ohio Aug. 4, 2017)08/04/2017
Court denied plaintiffs’ petition to compel arbitration, holding that plaintiffs could not establish that the parties had a valid arbitration agreement or that any claim plaintiffs had was within the scope of any purported arbitration agreement.
-
In re Ex Parte Application of Anz Commodity Trading Pty Ltd., No. 4:17-MC-80070-DMR (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2017)08/04/2017
Court granted ex parte application for an order to obtain discovery for use in foreign proceedings pursuant to 28 USC § 1782. Court found the application met the mandatory requirements, determining that the witnesses reside or were found in the district, the discovery was for use before foreign tribunals, and the applicant, as party to the anticipated litigation, was “interested person.” Court held the discretionary factors weighed in favor of issuing the subpoena because none of the witnesses were intended to be parties in the foreign proceedings, there was nothing to suggest that the applicant was attempting to circumvent foreign proof-gathering restrictions, and the discovery sought was not unduly burdensome. Shearman & Sterling is counsel for the petitioners in connection with this case.
-
Venco Imtiaz Construction Company v. Symbion Power LLC, No. 1:16-CV-01737-JDB (D.D.C. August 4, 2017)08/04/2017
Court granted protective order stipulated by both parties in regard to discovery in aid of execution of the ICC award confirmed by this Court on May 31, 2017.
-
Arevalo Tortilleria, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc., No. 15-56830 (9th Cir. Aug. 4, 2017)08/04/2017
Court of appeal vacated district court’s judgment dismissing the case and compelling arbitration. Court remanded to the district court for a trial on whether plaintiff executed the arbitration agreement, noting that, under the FAA, a party that raises a genuine issue of fact with respect to the execution of agreements is entitled to a trial.
-
Varela v. Lamps Plus, Inc., No. 16-56085 (9th Cir. Aug. 3, 2017)08/03/2017
Circuit court, in split decision, affirmed district court holding that defendants agreed to class arbitration. Circuit court held that because the agreement was capable of two reasonable constructions, the district court correctly found ambiguity and that state contract principles required construction against the drafter of the adhesive agreement.
-
Starke v. Squaretrade, Inc., No. 1-16-CV-07036-NGG (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2017)08/03/2017
Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that defendant failed to establish an enforceable arbitration agreement with the plaintiff where the arbitration provision appeared in a terms and conditions document provided by hyperlink in an email confirming plaintiff’s purchase.
-
Adams v. Conn Appliances Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00362-DLR (D. Ariz. Aug. 3, 2017)08/03/2017
Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss, but granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration finding that the parties entered into a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate questions of arbitrability. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable and that defendant waived its right to arbitrate.
-
Morgan v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00869-JAM-KJN (E.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2017)08/03/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that there was a valid arbitration agreement and the dispute at issue fell within the scope of that agreement. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that defendant had waived its right to compel arbitration, noting that plaintiff had not met the “heavy burden” in showing the waiver elements.
-
Valenzuela v. Crest-Mex Corporation, No. 3:16-CV-01129-D (N.D. Tex. Aug. 3, 2017)08/03/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, but denied defendants’ motion to dismiss. Court found there were valid agreements to arbitrate because plaintiffs had received notice of their employer’s arbitration policy and continued to work and accept pay, which constituted an acceptance under Texas law. Court also found that plaintiffs’ claims were within the scope of the arbitration agreements; that the agreements were not unconscionable; and that plaintiffs had to arbitrate their claims against all defendants, even those who were not parties to the arbitration agreements.
-
Chassen v. Fidelity National Financial Inc., No. 15-2814 (3rd Cir. Aug. 3, 2017)08/03/2017
Court of appeal affirmed district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Circuit court agreed that plaintiffs had not consented to arbitration when they signed an owner’s policy that included an arbitration provision that was later amended to require both parties to consent to arbitration before arbitration could be compelled. Court rejected appellant’s arguments that the amendment to the arbitration agreement had resulted from mutual mistake or that it should not apply because two agreements at issue were not incorporated.
-
Mendel v. Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc., No. 16-17587 (11th Cir. Aug. 2, 2017)08/02/2017
Court of appeal affirmed district court’s refusal to reopen discovery for plaintiff on remand as not an abuse of discretion. Circuit court held that the district court had provided plaintiff a three month discovery period within which to seek evidence that the arbitrator knew of a potential conflict to vacate an award under § 10(a)(2) of the FAA for partiality of an arbitrator. Court held that plaintiff’s failure to do so was unreasonable, even where the district court erroneously applied Alabama state law, rather than the controlling federal law to interpret that provision of the FAA, because the lower court had explained to plaintiff under the correct standard governing the case that plaintiff would need to provide evidence that the arbitrator had actual knowledge of a potential conflict to vacate the award.
-
Trader Joe’s Co. v. Hallatt, No. 2-13-CV-00768-BJR (W.D. Wash. Aug. 2, 2017)08/02/2017
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm and enforce an arbitration award. Court upheld the arbitration award as defendant did not argue and none of the factors existed to permit vacatur of an arbitration award under the FAA.
-
Nelson v. Carl Black Chevrolet of Nashville, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00687-WDC (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 2, 2017)08/02/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion for a stay pending arbitration. Court held the defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate by failing to raise arbitration as an affirmative defense in its answer. Court further held the agreement between the parties reserved gateway issues of arbitrability and enforceability to the arbitrator -- who could determine whether the agreement applied to the plaintiff’s second period of employment with the defendant, and that the plaintiff’s whistleblowing and retaliation claims were not beyond the scope of the agreement.
-
Dahir v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., No. 3:16-CV-00292-GCH (S.D. Tex. Aug. 2, 2017)08/02/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held the New York Convention controlled an arbitration agreement between two United States citizens, as plaintiff was not exempt from arbitration because of his status as a Jones Act seaman. Unlike § 1 of the FAA that exempts seamen’s employment contracts from arbitration, the New York Convention provides no such exemption and the FAA applies only to the extent it is not in conflict with the New York Convention.
-
Wendt v. The Bondfactor Company LLC, No. 1:16-CV-07751-DLC (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2017)08/02/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss finding that existing arbitration awards barred the complaint under the doctrine of res judicata. Court found that an outstanding issue as to one of the plaintiffs’ claims regarding wages owed was collateral and did not impact the finality of the arbitrator’s adjudication of plaintiffs’ remaining claims. Court also found that all members of defendant’s board of directors could invoke res judicata, even if they had not been parties to the arbitration proceedings; and that res judicata applied to plaintiffs’ retaliation claims under Dodd-Frank that could have been litigated in arbitration.
-
Hispasat, S.A. v. Bantel Telecom, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-20534-KMW (S.D. Fla. Aug. 2, 2017)08/02/2017
Magistrate judge recommended that Hispasat’s petition to confirm and enforce a foreign arbitral award be granted. Bantel argued that the award should not be confirmed because the arbitrator’s appointment by the ICC violated that institution’s rules and the arbitration agreement between the parties. But magistrate judge found that Bantel did not meet the heavy burden of proving any of the seven defenses to enforcement under the New York Convention and therefore the arbitral award should be confirmed and enforced.