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.
-
Gold v. Opera Solutions, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-08121-JPO (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2017)08/01/2017
Court denied the motion to modify the award and granted the motion to confirm the award pursuant to the FAA. Court found the award could not be modified under FAA § 11(a) because there was no clear mathematical error in damages calculations, but rather the petitioner was seeking modification on substantive grounds. Court also rejected petitioners’ argument the award should be modified on public policy grounds.
-
Goodly v. Check-6 Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00334-GKF-TLW (N.D. Okla. Aug. 1, 2017)08/01/2017
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitratio, finding that defendant had waived its right to demand arbitration. Fourteen months after the lawsuit was filed, and over six weeks after the class action opt-in period closed, defendant filed its motion to compel arbitration, arguing that each opt-in plaintiff had signed an agreement containing an arbitration clause. Court held that, per the Tenth Circuit’s Peterson decision, defendant had waived its right to arbitration.
-
Daniels v. Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01851-CBS (D. Colo. Aug. 1, 2017)08/01/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, stayed the case pending completion of arbitration, and directed plaintiff to show cause as to why he could not bear the costs of arbitration. In making its decision, the court discussed the tensions between the “arbitrability doctrine” and the “effective vindication doctrine,” which allows the striking down of arbitration agreements that operate as a “prospective waiver of a party’s right to pursue statutory remedies.”
-
Aikens v. Johnson, No. 3:16-CV-00729-SDD-EWD (M.D. La. July 31, 2017)07/31/2017
Court stayed the action pending arbitration finding that the Individual Retirement Account (IRA) Custodial Agreement at issue contained a valid arbitration agreement whose scope extended to the present matter. Court noted that plaintiff had failed to provide any proper legal challenge to the existence of the arbitration clause and found that the presence of a co-defendant did not foreclose a stay pending arbitration.
-
Golden Gate National Senior Care, LLC v. Newkam, No. 1:16-CV-01791-JEJ (M.D. Pa. July 31, 2017)
07/31/2017Court granted Golden Gate’s motion for summary judgment, finding that no genuine issue of material fact existed in that Newkam agreed to arbitrate and that the agreement was valid and enforceable. Court disagreed with Newkman’s argument that the arbitration agreement was substantively and procedurally unconscionable. Finally, court found that a wrongful death claim could be severed from other claims covered by the arbitration clause and that an arbitration agreement does not need to be dated to be valid.
-
Elsadig v. Luxottica Retail North America, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-02055-L (N.D. Tex. July 31, 2017)
07/31/2017Court adopted magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations that defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration be granted. Court found that all of plaintiff’s claims were subject to arbitration under the agreements between the parties. Therefore, finding no other reason to retain jurisdiction over the matter, the court dismissed the action with prejudice.
-
Yeransian v. Markel Corporation, No. 1:16-CV-00808-GMS (D. Del. July 31, 2017)
07/31/2017Court granted defendant’s motion to stay litigation and compel arbitration finding that, even though the contract between the parties did not contain a traditional arbitration agreement, it was nevertheless an agreement to arbitrate and the present dispute fell within the scope of that agreement. Court also found that plaintiff’s arguments that defendant had either waived its right to invoke arbitration or should be estopped from doing so were not applicable.
-
Sugick v. New York Life Insurance Company, No. 2:17-CV-10211-RHC-RSW (E.D. Mich. July 31, 2017)
07/31/2017Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss complaint pursuant to the FAA. Court held that plaintiff’s argument that his assent to the employment contract was obtained through fraud goes to the question of the contract’s validity, which should be decided by the arbitrator.
-
Castro v. Tri Marine Fish Company, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-00008-RSL (W.D. Wash. July 31, 2017)
07/31/2017Court granted defendant’s motion to enforce a foreign arbitral award certifying a 2014 settlement and release of claims between the parties. Upon reviewing the arbitral award, the court found that defendants had ensured plaintiff understood the rights he was waiving and held that the arbitral award did not offend the U.S.’ “most basic notions of morality and justice.”
-
Tarazi v. Truehope, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-01038-LAK-RWL (S.D.N.Y. July 28, 2017)07/28/2017
Magistrate judge recommended granting in part defendant’s motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration. Pursuant to the FAA the magistrate judge found that the contract contained a valid, enforceable arbitration agreement, and that it was proper to dismiss all claims except claims for unjust enrichment.
-
Rajapakse v. Credit Acceptance Corporation, No. 2:16-CV-13144-MFL-SDD (E.D. Mich. July 28, 2017)07/28/2017
Magistrate judge recommended that motion to compel arbitration be granted and the matter dismissed without prejudice because the claim was subject to a valid arbitration agreement. Magistrate judge also recommended against a stay, finding that all of the claims presented were subject to arbitration.
-
Catamaran Corp. v. Towncrest Pharmacy, 16-03275 (8th Cir. July 28, 2017)07/28/2017
Circuit court reversed and remanded district court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Circuit court held, in case of first impression in the circuit, that absent clear and unmistakable language to the contrary, the question of class arbitration is for the courts to determine as a substantive question of arbitrability. Circuit court further held that the parties’ agreements did not delegate the issue of class arbitration to an arbitrator, and thus remanded case for district court to determine whether a contractual basis of class arbitration exists in the parties’ agreements.
-
Fuentes v. Security Forever LLC, No. 1:16-CV-20483-RNS (S.D. Fla. July 28, 2017)
07/28/2017Court adopted magistrate judge’s recommendation granting defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Even though defendants filed their motion to compel arbitration almost a year after the initial complaint was filed, the magistrate judge found that while defendants had “acted inconsistently with arbitration,” plaintiffs had not been “substantially prejudiced.” In reviewing de novo, Court found that none of the plaintiffs’ objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendations were persuasive and instead adopted the totality of the magistrate judge’s recommendations and stayed the case pending arbitration.
-
Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. DGN Construction Corp, No. 1:17-CV-01659-LGS (S.D.N.Y. July 27, 2017)
07/27/2017Court granted petitioners’ motion to confirm a 2016 arbitration award, finding that there were no genuine issues of material fact and the award drew its essence from the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the parties. Court also granted petitioners’ request for attorney’s fees and costs because, despite DGN signing the CBA, it failed to participate in the arbitration, did not satisfy the arbitration award, and failed to oppose the petition at hand.
-
Cassity v. GCI, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00004 (D. Alaska Jul. 27, 2017)07/27/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration in part, finding that the parties had entered into a valid arbitration agreement that covered all but one of petitioner’s claims and rejecting petitioner’s arguments of fraud, duress, unconscionability, and waiver, while declining to find that federal law precluded arbitration of the claims in question. -
Talhelm v. Diamond Resorts Hawaii Collection Development LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00593-LEK-KSC (D. Hawaii Jul. 26, 2017)07/26/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and to stay the action. Court found that, since plaintiff challenged only the arbitration clause and not the incorporation of the AAA rules, which constitutes the delegation provision in the contract, any question about the validity of the arbitration clause must be decided by the arbitrator.
-
2017.07.26 Neal v. Asta Funding, Inc., No. 2:14-CV-03550-KM-MAH (July 26, 2017 D. N.J.)
07/26/2017District court dismissed motion for relief from summary judgment affirming an arbitral award under Rule 60(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Court held that petitioner was effectively asking it to reconsider the award itself and declined to do so, ruling that it had been offered no clear and convincing evidence of fraud that prevented the petitioner from presenting his case to the arbitrator. Court noted that the issues brought up by the petitioners were properly decided by the arbitrator and known to him at that time, and therefore not reviewable by a court absent such a showing.
-
2017.07.26 Neal v. Asta Funding, Inc., No. 2:13-CV-06981-KM-MAH (July 26, 2017 D. N.J.)07/26/2017
District court dismissed motion for relief from summary judgment affirming an arbitral award under Rule 60(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Court held that petitioner was effectively asking it to reconsider the award itself and declined to do so, ruling that it had been offered no clear and convincing evidence of fraud that prevented the petitioner from presenting his case to the arbitrator. Court noted that the issues brought up by the petitioners were properly decided by the arbitrator and known to him at that time, and therefore not reviewable by a court absent such a showing.
-
Pinto v. USAA Insurance Agency Incorporated of Texas (FN), No. 2:17-CV-00873-DGC (July 26, 2017 D. Ariz.)07/26/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that an electronic signature was not required for consent to arbitration where the plaintiff had been made aware in writing of the arbitration provision and rejecting plaintiff’s defenses based on unconscionability and waiver.
-
Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, and Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund v. Baywood Concrete Corp., No. 1:17-CV-01800-ER (July 26, 2017 S.D.N.Y)07/26/2017
Court granted unopposed motion to confirm a labor arbitration award under the FAA upon conducting a limited review of the award and finding that the arbitrator had acted within the scope of his authority.
-
American Process Inc. v. GranBio Investimentos S.A., No. 1:16-CV-4234-MHC (N.D. Ga. July 26, 2017)07/26/2017
Court denied motion for an injunction and granted cross-motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that by incorporating AAA rules the parties had delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, including the scope of the contractual carve-out for court-issued injunctive relief.
-
Henry Controls, Inc. v. Ultra Electronics, No. 1:17-CV-00276-SS (W.D. Tex. Jul. 25, 2017)07/25/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case, finding that since the parties’ dispute was subject to a broad arbitration agreement, it is for the arbitrator, and not the court, to determine whether petitioner’s claims are frivolous, and rejecting the petitioner’s argument that defendant had waived its right to appoint an arbitrator.
-
Barreto v. Jec II, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-09729-KBF (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 25, 2017)07/25/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed case, finding that, even if the arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable, it was not substantively unconscionable and therefore enforceable, and that principles of estoppel required the plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims against even those defendants who were not signatories to the arbitration agreement.
-
Raju v. Murphy, No. 3:17-CV-00357-CWR-LRA (S.D. Miss. Jul. 25, 2017)07/25/2017
Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that plaintiff had waived his right to arbitrate by filing the action before the court.
-
Morrison v. Credit One Bank, No. 2:16-CV-03353-JS (E.D. Pa. Jul. 25, 2017)07/25/2017
Court granted renewed motion to compel arbitration, both because plaintiff had failed to oppose the motion and because he had not provided any evidence that his claim falls outside the parties’ arbitration agreement.
-
Jeffries v. Wells Fargo & Company, No. 2:16-CV-01987-LSC (N.D. Ala. Jul. 25, 2017)07/25/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that it could not decide challenges to the arbitration agreement’s validity, since the parties had delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator and plaintiffs had failed to specifically challenge that delegation, and that defendants had not waived their right to arbitrate by settling in related litigation.
-
Davis v. Uber Technologies, INC., No. 2:16-CV-06122-MMB (E.D. Pa. Jul. 25, 2017)07/25/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the parties’ contract clearly delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator and that, because plaintiff had failed specifically to challenge the validity of the delegation clause, the gateway issue of arbitrability was to be decided by the arbitrator.
-
THI of New Mexico at Vida Encantada, LLC v. Lovato, No. 16-2041 (10th Cir. Jul. 25, 2017)07/25/2017
Circuit court affirmed district court’s confirmation of arbitration award, finding that arbitrator had not exceeded his authority or manifestly disregarded the law, since the plain language of the arbitration agreement covered the contested award on costs and interest.
-
Bradford v. Flagship Facility Services Inc., No. 5:17-CV-01245-LHK (N.D. Cal. Jul. 24, 2017)07/24/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the action, finding that it had jurisdiction to rule on the question of arbitrability, since the parties had not delegated this question to arbitration, and rejecting arguments that the arbitration agreement was substantively or procedurally unconscionable or that compelling arbitration would result in impermissible claim splitting.
-
Lathan v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 16-CV-794 (E.D. Wis. July 24, 2017)07/24/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that the parties’ arbitration agreement covered the dispute and that the challenge to the arbitration agreement’s validity was for the arbitrator to decide, since the parties’ agreement contained a valid and enforceable delegation clause to that effect.
-
Kelleher v. Dream Catcher, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-02092-APM (D.D.C. Jul. 24, 2017)07/24/2017
District court determined that it retained jurisdiction over case pending party’s appeal of its decision not to compel arbitration upon finding that its appeal was frivolous.
-
Grant v. Performance Contracting, INC., No. 3:17-CV-00008-RLY-MPB (S.D. Ind. Jul. 24, 2017)07/24/2017
District court granted in part motion to compel arbitration, rejecting it with respect to a claim of discrimination upon holding that it was not within the scope of the arbitration agreement; court stayed proceedings pending arbitration with respect to all claims, finding that the facts at issue in the arbitration were pivotal to the non-arbitrable claim as well.
-
Amuchie v. Carmax Auto Superstores Inc, No. 6:16-CV-03074-TMC (D.S.C. Jul. 24, 2017)07/24/2017
District court adopted magistrate’s recommendation to compel arbitration and dismiss the claim, finding that plaintiff had failed to show that there was no valid arbitration agreement between the parties.
-
O'Meara v. Intepros Incorporated, No. 3:16-CV-01840-HBF (D. Conn. Jul. 24, 2017)07/24/2017
District court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings during its pendency, finding that the arbitration forum and choice of law provisions were not unconscionable and that defendant had not waived its right to arbitrate.
-
Jock v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc., No. 15-3947-CV (2d Cir. Jul. 24, 2017)07/24/2017
Circuit court vacated judgment confirming arbitral award and remanded case, holding that district court erred in finding existing case law conclusively resolved the question whether arbitrator had the authority to certify a class containing absent class members.
-
Odeon Capital Group LLC v. Ackerman, No. 16-1717-CV(XAP) (2nd Cir. July 21, 2017)
07/21/2017Court of appeal affirmed district court’s refusal to vacate an arbitral award and vacated and remanded the court’s denial of Ackerman’s motion for attorneys’ fees. Court found that the arbitral award did not warrant vacatur because Odeon had not sufficiently demonstrated that Ackerman’s alleged perjury was material to the award. However, the court found that the district court had applied the wrong legal standard in denying Ackerman’s fee request and that, under New York law, employees who prevail against their employer on a claim of unpaid wages are entitled to all reasonable attorneys’ fees.
-
McGhee v. North American Bancard, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00586-AJB-KSC (S.D. Cal. Jul. 21, 2017)07/21/2017
District court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff had not manifested his assent to arbitration, since the agreement containing the arbitration clause could not be qualified as a (modified) “clickwrap” agreement.
-
Shoebacca LTD v. K-2 Corp., No. 3:17-CV-00473-G (N.D. Tex. Jul. 21, 2017)07/21/2017
District Court granted motion to dismiss, finding that even though the arbitration agreement was a narrow one, plaintiff had failed to overcome the presumption in favor of arbitration, since it had not provided clear evidence that the parties did not intend for the claim to be arbitrable.
-
Guerrero v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01300-LJA LJT (E.D. Cal. Jul. 21, 2017)07/21/2017
District court stayed proceedings and held defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in abeyance pending a forthcoming Supreme Court decision regarding the enforceability of agreements requiring an employee to arbitrate claims against an employer on an individual, rather than collective, basis.
-
Armenta v. Staffworks, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00011-BAS-NLS (S.D. Cal. Jul. 21, 2017)07/21/2017
District court denied motion to compel arbitration and strike class claims, finding that the arbitration agreement is unenforceable, since by failing to provide for class arbitration, it unlawfully undercuts an employee’s right to concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act.
-
Farley v. Eaton Corporation, No. 16-3893 (6th Cir. July 20, 2017)07/20/2017
Court of appeal affirmed district court judgment confirming arbitral award which construed the language of an indemnification provision. Court found that petitioner provided no evidence that the award did not “draw its essence” from the contract, thus it was appropriate for the district court to confirm the award.
-
Mathis v. Lendmark Financial Services, LLC, No. 7:16-CV-00355-FL (E.D.N.C. July 20, 2017)
07/20/2017Court granted motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, finding that, although there were missing pages in the version of the operative note, it had been adequately established that an arbitration agreement was in the original version signed by the plaintiff.
-
Frank N. Magid Associates, Inc. v. Marrs, No. 1:16-CV-00198-LRR (N.D. Iowa July 20, 2017)
07/20/2017Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding (i) that, although dispute resolution provisions allowed one party to choose between three fora and required the other party to pursue arbitration, it was not unconscionable; and (ii) that question of whether counterclaims fall within the scope of the arbitration is one of arbitrability delegated to the arbitrator to decide.
-
Lopez v. YourPeople Incorporated, No. 2:16-CV-03982-JZB (D. Ariz. July 20, 2017)
07/20/2017Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that question of arbitrability was delegated to the arbitrator and that the arbitration agreement, including the delegation clause, was not procedurally or substantively unconscionable.
-
Kaufman v. Sony Pictures Television, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-12027-LTS (D. Mass. July 20, 2017)
07/20/2017Court granted motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, finding that the arbitration clause in an agreement governing the plaintiff’s participation on a TV show was (i) not procedurally unconscionable, as it was clearly disclosed in bold, capital letters on a page the plaintiff initialed, and (ii) not substantively unconscionable since it was not one sided.
-
Eagle Rebar & Cable Company, Inc. v. Southern Industrial Contractors, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00025-LG-RHW (S.D. Miss. July 20, 2017)
07/20/2017Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that a valid arbitration agreement covering the dispute at issue existed based on the record before it, and in light of the fact that the party against whom the agreement was to be enforced had not filed opposition papers or presented any reason for denying the motion. However, the court refused to grant the motion as to claims against a defendant who had not appeared in the lawsuit.
-
Gridsmart Technologies, Inc. v. Marlin Controls, Inc., No. 17-5121 (6th Cir. July 20, 2017)
07/20/2017Court of appeal affirmed district court’s vacatur of arbitration award, finding that, following termination of the contract, no enforceable contract existed as to matters at issue, and the arbitration clause did not survive termination.
-
Thai-Lao Lignite (Thailand) Co., Ltd. v. Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, No. 14-597 (2d Cir. July 20, 2017)
07/20/2017Court of appeal affirmed district court’s vacatur of prior judgment confirming an arbitration award that had since been set aside, finding that a court should analyze the full range of considerations for vacatur under FRCP Rule 60(b) and give significant weight to concerns of international comity. Although the district court had failed to do so, and instead ruled on the ground that the New York Convention required vacatur, the court found that consideration of these factors would not have materially changed the outcome.
-
EmployBridge LLC v. Riven Rock Staffing, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00833-WJ-KK (D.N.M. July 19, 2017)07/19/2017
Court granted motion to stay pending arbitration, finding that non-arbitrable claims were intertwined with arbitral claims.