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.
-
General Re Life Corporation v. Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, No. 3:15-CV-01860-VAB (D. Conn. July 18, 2017)07/18/2017
Court denied petition for reconsideration of the terms of its confirmation of arbitral award, finding that it did not have authority under the FAA to enter judgment for a sum certain when the award did not calculate the amount due thereunder.
-
Aspic Engineering and Construction Company v. ECC CENTCOM Constructors, LLC, No. 4:17-CV-00224-YGR (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2017)07/18/2017
Court granted motion to vacate arbitral award under the FAA, finding that arbitrator exceeded its powers when determining that a party should not be held to a “strict interpretation” of certain contractual provisions since they did not reflect a “true meeting of the minds.”
-
Developers Surety and Indemnity Company v. Carothers Construction Inc., No. 9:17-CV-01419-RMG (D.S.C. July 18, 2017)07/18/2017
Court denied motion to dismiss claim seeking declaration that third party was not bound to arbitrate and transferred to jurisdiction of seat to compel arbitration, finding that a surety company’s liability is subordinate to that of the principal and thus is bound by the principle’s agreement to arbitrate.
-
Mason v. Regions Bank, No. 1:16-CV-01299-RP (W.D. Tex. July 18, 2017)07/18/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that an assignee may invoke the assignors right to compel arbitration.
-
Goulds Pumps, Inc. v. DXP Enterprises, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-07427-VSB (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2017)07/18/2017
Court granted petition to confirm arbitral award, in light of parties’ agreement that award should be confirmed and the court’s “independent review” that all of the requirements of § 9 of the FAA were met.
-
Presta v. Omni Hotels Management Corporation, No. 4:17-CV-00912 (S.D. Tex. July 18, 2017)07/18/2017
Court granted motion for partial summary judgment and denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement was illusory since it was subject to a savings clause that allowed the employer to unilaterally modify or revoke the agreement after a dispute had arisen but before a claim had been filed.
-
Cox v. Perfect Building Maintenance Corp., No. 1:16-cv-07474-VEC (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2017)07/18/2017
Court granted motion to dismiss statutory employment discrimination claims, finding that prior arbitral award was res judicata on the matter, since the arbitration agreement expressly included statutory discrimination claims within its scope and such claims were in fact raised in the arbitration (even though they were not decided in the award).
-
Bechtel Infrastructure Corp. v. S & N Communications, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01221-LMM (N.D. Ga. July 18, 2017)07/18/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that defendant did not waive its right to arbitration, that arbitration provisions were not permissive but provided the parties with a choice to continue a dispute in arbitration, and the rights at issue fell within the arbitration provisions such that all the claims should go to arbitration.
-
Laschkewitsch v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company, No. 5:14-CV-00632-D (E.D.N.C. July 17, 2017)07/17/2017
Court denied motion to reconsider prior order rejecting motion to modify or correct arbitration award, finding that it did not clearly err in concluding that an arbitration agreement existed and no recognized ground for enforcing the award existed under the FAA or common law.
-
Dlorah, Inc. v. KLE Construction, LLC, No. 5:16-CV-05102-JLV (D.S.D. July 17, 2017)07/17/2017
Court granted motion to stay the case pending arbitration, finding that question of whether procedural prerequisites to arbitration had been met was for the arbitrator to decide, and that arbitration agreement was mandatory in nature notwithstanding the existence of procedural prerequisites.
-
Money Mailer LLC v. Brewer, No. 2:15-CV-01215-RSL (W.D. Wash. July 17, 2017)07/17/2017
Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that party had waived its rights under the arbitration agreement by initiating litigation through its alter ego.
-
Bamberger Rosenheim Ltd. v. OA Development, Inc., No. 16-16163 (11th Cir. July 17, 2017)07/17/2017
Court of appeal affirmed district court’s confirmation of international arbitral award, finding that questions of arbitral venue are presumptively for the arbitrator to decide, and that the arbitrator arguably interpreted the arbitral-venue provision at issue.
-
Scheurer v. Fromm Family Foods LLC, No. 16-3327 (7th Cir. July 17, 2017)07/17/2017
Circuit court affirmed district court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration, finding that third-party had no standing to invoke arbitration agreement under Wisconsin contract law doctrine of equitable estoppel.
-
Guzy v. Guzy, No. 1:17-CV-00228-RP (W.D. Tex. July 17, 2017)07/17/2017
Court granted motion to dismiss petition to confirm arbitral award, finding that litigation and appeals on motion to vacate the award before the Nevada state courts did not toll statute of limitations to confirm award under the FAA, and that equitable tolling was unavailable since confirmation action could have been brought notwithstanding parallel litigation before the Nevada state courts.
-
National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA v. Beelman Truck Company, No. 1:17-CV-02946-VEC (S.D.N.Y. July 17, 2017)07/17/2017
Court granted petition to select an umpire, finding that, in the absence of agreement among the party-appointed arbitrators as to who the umpire would be, the FAA and arbitration agreement empowered the court to appoint the umpire.
-
McKee v. Audible, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-1941-GW-E (C.D. Cal. July 17, 2017)07/17/2017
Court denied motion to compel arbitration by one of defendants, holding that it had not demonstrated that a valid arbitration agreement existed between that defendant and the plaintiff, rejecting arguments that it could benefit from the arbitration agreement of its affiliate co-defendant. However, court granted that co-defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, denying plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable as a contract of adhesion or substantively unconscionable because it permitted unilateral modification, contained certain carve-outs, prohibited public injunctive relief, and contained a class action waiver. Court agreed that the agreement’s limit on liability was one-sided and arbitrary and thus substantively unconscionable, severing the offending provision.
-
Olivares v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-06062-JLA (N.D. Ill. July 15, 2017)
07/15/2017Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending arbitration. Court held that plaintiff entered into valid and enforceable arbitration agreements, did not “opt out” of the arbitration provisions, and defendant’s delegation clause is clear and unmistakable evidence that plaintiff agreed to arbitrate threshold issues.
-
Weiss v. Macy’s Retail Holdings Inc., No. 1:16-CV-07660-AKH (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2017)07/14/2017
Court rejected motion to compel arbitration, finding that no binding arbitration agreement was formed as program that allowed employee to opt out of arbitration did not state or imply that acceptance of arbitration was a mandatory condition of employment, and thus employee’s silence was not acceptance of arbitration.
-
Carr v. Air Line Pilots Association, International, No. 16-20578 (5th Cir. July 14, 2017)07/14/2017
Court of appeal affirmed summary judgment, holding the Air Line Pilots Association’s conduct in organizing arbitration did not lead to an erroneous outcome, and that there was no evidence that ex parte communications with arbitrator caused it to breach its duty of representation. Court found that the final list created by arbitrators contained a full explanation of the factors considered. Court found that appellants failed to make a connection between unprofessional statements about the proceeding and bad faith.
-
Mountain Valley Property, Inc. v. Applied Risk Services, Inc., No. 16-2189 (1st Cir. July 13, 2017)07/13/2017
Court of appeal affirmed denial of motion to vacate arbitrator’s decision that the dispute was not arbitrable, finding that the arbitrator issued a well-reasoned award and therefore did not manifestly disregard the law in determining that, under the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 USC §§ 1011-1015, the Nebraska Uniform Arbitration Act reverse preempts the Federal Arbitration Act in matters of insurance, and the Nebraska Uniform Arbitration Act bans arbitration or insurance-related cases regardless of the parties’ intent.
-
Webb v. Farmers of North America, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00080-FJG (W.D. Mo. July 13, 2017)07/13/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that reference to AAA rules and broad arbitration clause evidenced a clear intent to submit questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.
-
Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association v. Southwest Airlines Co., No. 3:15-CV-03642-L (N.D. Tex. July 13, 2017)07/13/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and rejected petition to vacate award, finding that the petitioner could rely on a previous award that the arbitrator had determined was inapplicable to the dispute.
-
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 15, AFL-CIO v. R.W. Dunteman, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00076-MFK (N.D. Ill. July 13, 2017)
07/13/2017Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, vacated the arbitration award, and remanded for further arbitration proceedings. Court held that although review of an award was extremely limited, the arbitrator’s award did not “draw its essence” from the construction agreement at issue.
-
In re Application of Barnwell Enterprises Ltd., No. 1:16–MC–02581-RC-GMH (D.D.C. July 13, 2017)07/13/2017
Court granted petitioners’ application for expedited discovery pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 for use in litigation pending before courts in Uganda and Mauritius with court imposed time and subject-matter restrictions to alleviate the burdensomeness of the original requests. Court determined that petitioners’ met the statutory requirements and that the four Intel factors weighed in favor of petitioners.
-
Powers Distributing Company, Inc. v. Grenzebach Corporation, No. 4:16-CV-12740-TGB-EAS (E.D. Mich. July 12, 2017)07/12/2017
Court granted motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, finding that the plaintiff’s common law and other claims could not be maintained without reference to obligations whose scope is determined by contracts subject to arbitration.
-
Franlogic Scout Development, LLC v. Scott Holdings, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-05042-JHS (E.D. Pa. July 12, 2017)07/12/2017
Court denied petition to compel arbitration and granted motion to dismiss, finding that, although the subject matter of the dispute related to an agreement with an arbitration clause, the parties had agreed that another agreement without an arbitration clause would control in the event of conflict, and the pre-conditions for arbitration under the first agreement were in any event not met.
-
Unite Here International Union v. Shingle Springs Bank of Miwok Indians, No. 2:16-CV-00384-TLN-EFB (E.D. Cal. July 12, 2017)07/12/2017
Court granted petitioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in action to compel arbitration, finding that an agreement to arbitrate “any disputes over the interpretation or application of” the operative agreement was sufficiently broad to require questions of arbitrability to be submitted to the arbitrator.
-
McHale v. Taylored Services, LLC, No. 16-3196 (3d Cir. July 12, 2017)07/12/2017
Court of appeal reversed district court’s modification of an arbitration award to grant appellee attorney’s fees. Court held that under New Jersey law, absent an agreement by the parties to expand judicial review, a court could only modify an award if the arbitrator made an award on a claim not submitted to the arbitrator. Court held that the arbitrator had reviewed the issues properly before it when it concluded that neither party prevailed more than the other to award attorney’s fees to appellee, and that, at most, the conclusion was an error of law unreviewable by the district court.
-
Milestone Systems A/S v. On-Net Surveillance Systems, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-05724-JMF (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2017)07/12/2017
Court confirmed two partial and final foreign arbitral awards in favor of petitioner and with the consent of the respondent.
-
Sanum Investment Ltd. v. San Marco Capital Partners LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00320-SLR (D. Del. July 12, 2017)07/12/2017
Court granted motion to dismiss, holding that defendants, as non-signatories to a deed, could enforce an arbitration clause therein against the signatory plaintiffs because the defendants had a sufficiently close relationship to the other executing party to the deed and all of the claims were intertwined with the deed. Court also held the plaintiffs were estopped from avoiding arbitration with the non-signatories.
-
Homeland Munitions LLC v. Purple Shovel, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-00207-DB (D. Utah July 12, 2017)07/12/2017
Court granted motion for confirmation of a final arbitration award rendered by the International Institute of Conflict Prevention and Resolution as a judgment of the Court. Court held that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate circumstances sufficient under § 10 of the FAA to vacate the award.
-
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. IEC Corporation, No. 8:16-CV-00295-DOC-AJW (C.D. Cal. July 12, 2017)07/12/2017
Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that it was premature to determine plaintiff’s right to arbitrate counsel’s fee dispute at this time. Court found that plaintiff may move to compel arbitration of fees upon a favorable ruling on the remaining substantive issues in dispute.
-
McHale v. Taylored Services, LLC, No. 16 -3196 (3d Cir. July 12, 2017)07/12/2017
Court of appeals reversed district court’s modification adding attorney’s fees to an arbitration award, reasoning that a court has very limited authority to vacate or modify an arbitration award.
-
Mobil Cerro Negro Ltd. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 15-707 (2d Cir. July 11, 2017)07/11/2017
Court of appeal reversed an order denying respondent’s motion, vacated the judgment and remanded the case with instruction to dismiss the ex parte petition brought by petitioner to confirm a $1.6 billion ICSID award in accordance with the ICSID Convention. Court held that the district court’s reliance on New York’s CPLR Art. 54, to import into 22 USC § 1650a a procedural mechanism by which to convert an arbitral award into a federal judgment and thereby exercise subject matter and personal jurisdiction over the foreign sovereign, was in error. Court held that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) provides the sole basis for subject matter jurisdiction over foreign sovereigns and requires serving the sovereign with process in compliance with the FSIA and meeting venue requirements before seeking entry of a federal judgment, and that Section 1650a “mandates enforcement of ICSID awards in federal court through an action on the award and not through an ex parte order.”
-
Davis v. BSH Home Appliances Corp., No. 4:15-CV-00103-FL (E.D.N.C. July 11, 2017)07/11/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to confirm arbitration award, holding there existed no basis to vacate, modify, or correct the arbitration award and plaintiff could not show that arbitration was improper.
-
Creasy v. Seelbach and Co., Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00742-AAT (M.D. Tenn. July 11, 2017)07/11/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration. Court held that plaintiff did not challenge the validity or applicability of the agreement to arbitrate, and therefore, when presented with an issue that is referable to arbitration pursuant to a valid arbitration agreement, on the application of either party, the court must stay the suit and compel arbitration.
-
MacRury v. Am. Steamship Co., No. 1:16-CV-13889-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich. July 11, 2017)07/11/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to stay and compel arbitration. Court, applying the sixth circuit’s four-factor test to determine if a case should be dismissed or stayed and arbitration compelled, held that because of the federal policy favoring arbitration, and the broad scope of the arbitration agreement, it would compel arbitration because the plaintiff’s complaint is either governed by the agreement as it relates to a preexisting injury or fails to state a claim because any injury was new.
-
Coleman v. Sys. Dialing LLC, No. 1:15-CV-03868-DLC (S.D.N.Y. July 11, 2017)07/11/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute his claims. Court held that FRCP 41(b) permits the court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute, even though the FAA requires that federal courts stay rather than dismiss a case when all claims are referred to arbitration and a stay is requested. Court held that dismissal with prejudice was warranted in this case where the legal guardian of the plaintiff was on notice regarding his pattern of delay in commencing ordered arbitration proceedings, where no status letter had been received a year later, and where defendants had been substantially prejudiced.
-
Privacy-Assured Inc. v. AccessData Corp., Ltd., No. 2:14-CV-00722-CW (D. Utah July 11, 2017)07/11/2017
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to join Access Data Group, Inc. as a judgment debtor with defendant pursuant to FRCP 21. Court held that where the court’s original jurisdiction arose under the New York Convention and was limited to confirmation of a foreign arbitration award, the court’s federal question jurisdiction did not extend to joining another party as a judgment debtor under a theory of alter ego liability. Court held it had independent diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC 1332(a)(2), which provides for alienage jurisdiction, and thus had broad discretion over whether to add a judgment debtor as an alter ego of defendant even after judgment had been entered, but to do so here would be inappropriate because of concerns of due process, judicial economy and inconsistent judgments.
-
Cho v. Mallon & McCool, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00453-KBJ (D.D.C. July 11, 2017)07/11/2017
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the case. Court held that the D.C. Circuit requires a party’s request to stay proceedings referable to arbitration under § 3 of the FAA to be invoked at the first available opportunity or the right is presumptively forfeited; court also held that plaintiff had repeatedly acted inconsistently with the intent to exercise any right to arbitration that he may have possessed and in doing so plaintiff’s litigation activities had imposed substantial costs on the defendants and the court.
-
UBS Financial Services, Inc. v. Zimmerman, No. 5:16-CV-00155-FL (W.D.N.C. July 11, 2017)07/11/2017
Court granted motion for permanent injunction requiring defendant to withdraw arbitration, finding that permitting an arbitration to proceed in the absence of an arbitration agreement would cause irreparable injury.
-
Big City Small World Bakery Café, LLC v. Francis David Corp., No. 16-CV-12652-DML (E.D. Mich. July 11, 2017)07/11/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, holding that the arbitration clause contained with plaintiff’s signed credit card merchant agreement was not unconscionable and therefore plaintiff must pursue its dispute in an arbitral forum.
-
Drayton v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, No. 3:16-CV-00046-BJD-JBT (M.D. Fla. July 11, 2016)
07/11/2017Magistrate judge recommended (and court later adopted) that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration be denied because the contract between the parties did not contain an arbitration provision. Additionally, defendant could not subscribe to an arbitration agreement in a related contract because, under Florida law, a non-party to an arbitration agreement cannot compel arbitration, and exceptions under equitable estoppel and the scope of the arbitration provision did not apply in the present case.
-
DDR Construction Services, Inc. v. Schlesinger Electrical Contractors, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-04454-DRH-ARL (E.D.N.Y. July 11, 2017)07/11/2017
Court modified and confirmed an AAA arbitration award granting interest. Court found arbitrator exceeded his powers by granting an award including certain claims not submitted to arbitration. Court denied petition to vacate the award, but did vacate those portions of the claims outside the scope of arbitration, confirming a modified award.
-
Soskin v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., No. 17-CV-21663 (S.D. Fla. July 7, 2017)07/11/2017
Court denied respondent’s motion for a pre-judgment bond against the petitioner in the amount awarded in arbitration proceedings. Court found the respondent’s motion to be deficient because it presented no authority for why a security bond should be issued in connections with the facts present and because it made only conclusory allegations and vague references that the petitioner represents a substantial risk of prejudicing the full payment of the arbitration award.
-
Portland Gen. Elec. Co. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., No. 16-35628 (9th Cir. July 10, 2017)07/10/2017
Court of appeals vacated the judgment of the district court which had entered a preliminary injunction prohibiting the appellant sureties from pursuing claims against the plaintiff-appellee in arbitration and denied a mandatory stay of the judicial proceeding under § 3 of the FAA. Circuit court held that the arbitration agreement incorporated the ICC Rules and thus constituted a clear and unmistakable delegation of gateway arbitrability issues to the arbitrator to determine the scope of the arbitration clause, and remanded to the district court for further proceedings.
-
A. Kershaw, P.C. v. Shannon L. Spangler, P.C., No. 16-1483 (10th Cir. July 10, 2017)07/10/2017
Court of appeal affirmed district court’s confirmation of an arbitration award, finding that petitioner-appellant had not satisfied the exceptional showing required to upset the finality of arbitration. Court held that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers or so imperfectly execute them so as to create a ground for vacating the award under section 10(a) of the FAA.
-
Layne Winters v. AT & T Mobility Services, LLC, No. 4:17-CV-04053-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill. July 10, 2017)07/10/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that FAA governs federal courts’ treatment of litigants’ arbitration agreements and that Illinois contract law applied to plaintiff’s contention that she did not enter into the unambiguous electronic contract containing both an arbitration clause and an “opt-out” provision. Court held plaintiff offered no evidence to suggest she had attempted to “opt out” and “in failing to do so, manifested her intent to be bound by the terms of the arbitration agreement, which must be enforced.”
-
Johnson & Johnson International v. Puerto Rico Hospital Supply, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01405-FAB (D.P.R. July 10, 2017)07/10/2017
Court granted one defendant’s motion to compel arbitration but denied the other defendant’s, as the latter was neither a party to, nor a third-party beneficiary of, the agreement at issue. Court held that there was a valid agreement that contained an arbitration provision, that only claims implicating the agreement are arbitrable, and that while one defendant is entitled to invoke the arbitration while the other was not, it was in the interest of justice to stay all claims pending arbitration.
-
Freeman v. Progress Residential Prop. Manager, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00356-GCH (S.D. Tex. July 10, 2017)07/10/2017
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, holding that where one party has unilateral authority to terminate an arbitration agreement, under Texas law the agreement is unenforceable because it is “not supported by consideration and must be considered illusory.”