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.
-
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.”
-
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.
-
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.”
-
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.
-
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.
-
Burch v. P.J. Cheese, Inc., No. 2:09-CV-01640-SLB (11th Cir. July 7, 2017)07/07/2017
Court of appeal affirmed district court’s order compelling arbitration, finding that the specific procedures provided in § 4 of the FAA for “demanding a jury trial on arbitrability issues displace the general procedures for demanding a jury trial.” Court noted that plaintiff had ample time and opportunity to proceed to trial and refused to create a bright line rule that the court loses authority to compel arbitration after some specified time.
-
Getma International v. Republic of Guinea, No. 16-7087 (D.C. Cir. July 7, 2017)07/07/2017
Court of appeal affirmed district court’s decision not to enforce an arbitral award that had been annulled by the Common Court of Justice and Arbitration of the Organization for the Harmonization of Business Law in Africa (CCJA). Court determined that an annulled foreign award should only be enforced if the annulment was “repugnant to fundamental notions of what is decent and just,” and the alleged errors of law – including changes in fee schedules and an unsubstantiated allegation that there was a biased judge – were insufficient to meet such a high bar.
-
Hargen-Rodriguez v. UBS Trust Co. of Puerto Rico, No. 3:16-CV-02340-FAB (D.P.R. July 7, 2017)07/07/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case without prejudice. Court held defendants demonstrated the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, plaintiffs’ unelaborated conclusion that the arbitration clause is unconscionable was waived, and that plaintiffs’ claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreements. Court dismissed the case under the first circuit’s holding that a court may dismiss rather than stay a case pursuant to § 3 of the FAA.
-
Lesneski v. Ross Stores, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00754-GCM (W.D.N.C. July 7, 2017)07/07/2017
Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss or to compel arbitration by staying the judicial proceedings pending arbitration. Court held that the dispute resolution agreement entered into by the parties was supported by adequate consideration and was not procedurally or substantively unconscionable and therefore directed the parties to proceed to arbitration.
-
Unite Here Local 1 v. Hyatt Corporation, No. 15-3668 (7th Cir. July 6, 2017)
07/06/2017Court of appeal affirmed district court’s judgment confirming two arbitration awards that instructed defendant to cease and desist from further violations of a collective bargaining agreement with the plaintiff. Defendants argued that enforcement of such awards would constitute “prospective enforcement” effectively nullifying the parties’ agreement to arbitrate and inviting plaintiffs to bring all future disputes directly to the court by way of a contempt petition. Court disagreed with defendants and found that there was no attempt on plaintiff’s part to bypass the arbitration process.
-
TWC Administration LLC v. Cathey, No. 4:17-CV-00235-BCW (W.D. Mo. July 6, 2017)07/06/2017
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration, holding an arbitration clause the defendant had signed electronically was valid under Missouri law, and that enforcement of the arbitration clause would not harm defendant and that plaintiff would be irreparably harmed by further litigation.
-
TWC Administration LLC v. Cathey, No. 4:17-CV-00235-BCW (W.D. Mo. July 6, 2017)07/06/2017
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration and for a preliminary injunction to enjoin defendant from pursuing further litigation in any venue other than arbitration. Court held that the defendant’s electronic acceptance of the arbitration agreement was valid and granted the right of Plaintiff to compel arbitration.
-
Sempa Systems GmbH v. Wacker Polysilicon North America, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00348-CHS (E.D. Tenn. July 6, 2017)07/06/2017
Magistrate judge granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration thereby ordering plaintiff to arbitrate its dispute. Court held that the arbitration clause in the prime contract had been incorporated into the subcontract between the parties, and that defendant had not waived its right to arbitrate when it appeared in a Virginia court to assert that court’s lack of personal jurisdiction.
-
The Geo Group, Inc., v. United Government Security Officers of America International Union, No. 1:16-CV-02288-RBJ (D. Colo. July 6, 2017)07/06/2017
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate an arbitrator’s initial and supplemental awards. Given the narrow standard for reviewing an arbitrator’s decision, the court held that the arbitrator’s awards “drew their essence” from the parties’ collective bargaining agreement and were valid. Court granted defendant’s counterclaims and confirmed the arbitration awards.
-
Bey v. Citi Health Card, No. 2:15-CV-06533-JHS (E.D. Pa. July 6, 2017)07/06/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, holding there was a valid arbitration agreement and that the dispute was within the agreement’s scope.
-
Young v. Brahmbhatt, No. 8:15-CV-03290-PWG (D. Md. July 6, 2017)07/06/2017
Court granted plaintiff’s motion for default judgment confirming an arbitration award by a FINRA arbitration panel. Because the defendant did not respond or demonstrate any basis for vacating the award, the court found that it had jurisdiction and cause to confirm the arbitration award. Court also denied prejudgment interest on the non-compensatory components of the award, but found that, as a matter of law, plaintiff was entitled to post-judgment interest.
-
Adams v. Anytime Labor-Kansas LLC, No. 4:16-00448-CV-RK (W.D. Mo. July 6, 2017)07/06/2017
Court had previously ordered plaintiffs to submit their claims to individual arbitration instead of class arbitration. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration asking the court, for the first time, to allow an arbitrator to determine whether the arbitration agreement allowed for class arbitration. Court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration finding that plaintiffs had waived the argument of “who decides” by not raising it when defendant’s motion to compel arbitration was briefed.
-
Webb v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, No. 1:16-CV-04664 (N.D. Ill. July 5, 2017)
07/05/2017Court granted defendant's motion to dismiss finding that the defendant was entitled to arbitral immunity. Citing relevant case law, court found that defendant was “carrying out its normal administrative functions in support of an arbitration” and that it was therefore appropriate to extend arbitral immunity. As a result, plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims against FINRA were dismissed with prejudice.
-
Union de Tronquistas de Puerto Rico, Local 901 v. Cadillac Uniform & Linen Supply, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-01795-GAG (D.P.R. July 5, 2017)07/05/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, finding that plaintiff’s petition to vacate an arbitral award was meritless. Plaintiff argued that the arbitral award should be vacated on the basis that the arbitrator erred in concluding plaintiff’s complaints were “not procedurally arbitrable” and by failing to provide a written decision of the judgment. Court disagreed, noting that issues of “procedural arbitrability” were for the arbitrator to decide, not the court, and that the collective bargaining agreement in question did not require a more detailed judgment than the arbitrator had already issued.
-
Burton Way Hotels, Ltd. v. Four Seasons Hotels Ltd. No. 2:11-CV-00303-PSG-PLA (C.D. Cal. July 5, 2017)07/05/2017
Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and rendered moot defendant’s motion to appoint arbitrators. Defendant asked the court to interpret the scope of an October 2016 ninth circuit ruling reversing part of a previous arbitration award’s confirmation. Court, however, found that per the current arbitration agreement, “jurisdictional and arbitrability disputes” should be decided by the arbitral tribunal.
-
Capili v. The Finish Line, Inc., No. 15-16657 (9th Cir. Jul. 3, 2017)
07/03/2017Court of appeal affirmed the district court decision denying defendant-appellant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that the district court properly concluded that the arbitration agreement was adhesive, or at least minimally procedurally unconscionable, and that it did not abuse its discretion by declining to sever the unconscionable portions of the arbitration agreement. Court explained that, although the FAA articulates a preference for the enforcement of arbitration agreements, employers may not “stack the deck unconscionably in their favor to discourage claims” and then force the court to “assume the role of contract author rather than interpreter.”
-
Mawhinney v. American Airlines, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-00259-MMA-BLM (9th Cir. July 3, 2017)07/03/2017
Court of appeal affirmed district court’s judgment denying Mawhinney’s petition to vacate an arbitration award and instead granted American Airlines’ petition to confirm the award. Court agreed with the lower court’s finding that Mawhinney’s allegations of arbitrator misconduct and disagreements with the arbitration process and results were not sufficient to establish any of the statutory grounds for vacating an arbitral award under the FAA.
-
TravelPass Group, LLC v. Benjamin & Brothers, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-00247-JNP-PMW (D. Utah July 3, 2017)07/03/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to stay litigation pending the outcome of arbitration between plaintiff and Expedia, a non-party to the present case. Citing relevant case law, the court noted that a motion to stay is appropriate where a closely related arbitration has the potential to resolve all or a significant portion of the disputes before the court, “even if the moving party is a nonsignatory to the arbitration agreement” or party to the pending arbitration. Court concluded that the TravelPass-Expedia arbitration would likely resolve several of TravelPass’s claims and, in the interest of judicial economy and avoiding inconsistent results, stayed the present litigation.
-
Zetor North America, Inc. v. Ridgeway Enterprises, No. 16-2125 (5th Cir. July 3, 2017)07/03/2017
Court of appeal affirmed lower court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. A 2008 trademark infringement settlement agreement between the parties contained an arbitration clause, which defendant sought to enforce in the current case. However, the court found that the trademark infringement claims in the present case were independent of the claims covered by the 2008 settlement agreement and therefore did not fall under the scope of that agreement’s arbitration clause.
-
De Alba v. Brinker International, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-03486-FMO-JC (C.D. Cal. June 30, 2017)06/30/2017
Court granted the motion to compel arbitration. Court concluded that, while the three arbitration agreements amounted to adhesion contracts, there was no other indication of oppression or surprise so the degree of procedural unconscionability was low. Court also concluded that the 2006 iteration of the arbitration agreement was not substantively unconscionable because it did not require plaintiffs to incur any type of expense other than may similarly be paid in court, and that the cost-splitting provisions in the 2008 and 2011 agreements could be severed from the arbitration agreement if those provisions were determined to be unconscionable.
-
Opie v. CVS Health Corporation, No. 1:16-CV-00159-SPW-TJC (D. Mont. June 30, 2017)06/30/2017
Court recommended defendant’s motion to compel arbitration be granted in a wrongful termination and age discrimination suit, pursuant to defendant’s binding arbitration policy. To implement the policy, defendant invited all employees to take an online training course and provided information about opt-out election. Court found that the plaintiff acknowledged receipt of the arbitration agreement and did not opt-out within the thirty day period for doing so.
-
In re Ex Parte Application of the Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, No. 1:15-MC-08232-EJL-REB (D. Idaho. June 30, 2017)06/30/2017
Court granted motion to quash subpoena issued pursuant to 28 USC § 1782. Court concluded that the criminal investigation did not constitute a proceeding before a foreign tribunal, although the two bilateral treaty arbitrations did qualify. However, court found based on the updated record that the requested discovery would likely not be permitted in the bilateral treaty arbitrations.
-
Ultra Lane Management v. McKellar, No. 9:17-CV-00076-RC (E.D. Tex. June 30, 2017)
06/30/2017Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims. Court held that dismissal was proper as plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of a valid arbitration clause and no federal statute or policy rendered plaintiff’s claims non-arbitrable.
-
Reliable Energy Solutions v. Amalfi Apartment Corporation, No. 4:16-CV-03346 (S.D. Tex. June 30, 2017)06/30/2017
Magistrate judge recommended granting the motion to compel arbitration and staying proceedings pending completion of arbitration pursuant to the FAA. The judge found that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate because, although respondent was not a signatory to the agreement, it was an intended third-party beneficiary and the court found the parties intended to be bound by the agreement. Court concluded the quantum meruit and unjust enrichment claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
-
Lovelance v. Dekra N. Am. Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00318-BR (D. Or. June 30, 2017)06/30/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the matter without prejudice. Court held that the arbitration agreement was indisputably signed by the parties, that plaintiff was a sophisticated employee who negotiated the terms of her employment, and that the agreement was neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable under Oregon law as plaintiff asserted.
-
Perkins v. Dish Network, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-02039 (S.D.W. Va. June 30, 2017)06/30/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the plaintiff’s employment contract contained a valid arbitration clause. According to the court, there were no problems of validity or unconscionability with the arbitration agreement and, therefore, the plaintiff’s claim concerning racial and gender discrimination in the course of her employment was arbitrable. Court also noted that the NLRB’s finding that the arbitration agreement violated the National Labor Relations Act had no impact on the court’s decision.
-
Clicksoftware, Inc. v. Honeywell International Inc., No. 1:16-CV-12522-NMG (D. Mass. June 30, 2017)06/30/2017
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration in Massachusetts, but denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in New York. Court held that, even though two contracts (one calling for arbitration in Massachusetts and the other calling for arbitration in New York) “apparently arose out of the same set of negotiations,” they were still separate and independent because neither contract incorporated or referenced the other. Therefore, given that the dispute at issue arose out of the contract calling for arbitration in Massachusetts, arbitration should take place in Massachusetts.
-
Matos v. Coggin Automotive Corp., No. 3:16-CV-00956-BJD-PDB (M.D. Fla. Jun. 29, 2017)
06/29/2017Court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to grant defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Magistrate judge had determined that, under the FAA, if there is no challenge to whether an agreement was concluded, whether it was enforceable, and whether it was broad enough to cover the claims plaintiff brings, then the court must “rigorously” enforce the parties’ agreement to arbitrate.
-
Horne v. Starbucks Corp., No. 2:16-CV-02727-MCE-CKD (E.D. Cal. June 29, 2017)06/29/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration agreement was not unenforceable and substantively unconscionable by virtue of the provisions on discovery. Court found that plaintiff was not limited to two depositions under the arbitration agreement, but could take as many depositions as desired within two eight-hour days, and distinguished other cases finding unconscionable discovery limitations in an arbitration agreement. Court also found that, should additional discovery be required, the arbitrator was empowered to issue such an order.
-
Drury-Jenkins v. Regency Furniture of Brandywine, Inc., No. 8:16-CV-03066-TDC (D. Md. June 29, 2017)06/29/2017
Court granted in part and denied in part motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration agreement reserved questions of arbitrability for the arbitrator. Court also found that the question of whether an appeal provision rendered the agreement unenforceable was a question of arbitrability reserved for the arbitrator.
-
Hunt v. Moore Brothers, Inc., No. 16-2055 (7th Cir. June 29, 2017)06/29/2017
Court of appeals affirmed district court order of sanctions under 28 USC § 1927 and dismissing action without prejudice, holding that the arbitration agreement was enforceable and that it was within the district court’s discretion to impose a sanction for the lawyer’s role in seeking to avoid arbitration and multiplying “the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously.” Court also held that leaving for later negotiations the selection of the arbitrator did not render the arbitration agreement unenforceable.
-
Mounts v. Midland Funding LLC, No. 3:15-CV-00572-TAV-HBG (E.D. Tenn. June 28, 2017)06/28/2017
Court granted in part and denied in part motion to compel arbitration, holding that parties had agreed to arbitrate claims under the terms of their credit card agreements, and that questions as to arbitrability of certain claims were delegated to the arbitrator. Court found that, by referencing the AAA and NAF rules, the parties had clearly and unmistakably delegated issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Court found that § 4 of the FAA and its notice requirements did not apply to cases where the plaintiff has already brought an action in court; instead, § 3 of the FAA, which did not have a notice requirement, applied.
-
Wussow v. Bruker Corp., No. 3:16-CV-00444-WMC (W.D. Wis. June 28, 2017)06/28/2017
Court granted in part and denied in part motion to compel arbitration, holding that the Dodd-Frank retaliation claim was arbitrable, but that the SOX retaliation claim was not arbitrable and should proceed in parallel judicial proceedings. Court found that, while both statutes addressed retaliation for whistleblowing, the text and structure of Dodd-Frank compelled the conclusion that these claims were not exempt from arbitration agreements, while the SOX Anti-Arbitration Provision expressly exempted SOX retaliation claims from arbitration. Court found that, despite criticism, Congress had not chosen to address this inconsistency by expressly expanding the SOX Anti-Arbitration Provision to Dodd-Frank whistleblower claims.
-
Dome Technology, LLC v. Golden Sands General Contractors, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00069-GEC (W.D. Va. June 28, 2017)06/28/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the merger and forum selection clauses in a later agreement between the parties did not supersede the original agreement’s arbitration clause. Court reasoned that, under Virginia law, the two contracts should be “harmonize[d]” to give “effect to each when reasonably possible,” and concluded that there was a valid arbitration agreement whose scope covered the dispute in question.
-
Matoza v. Thor Industries, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01971-MMC (N.D. Ca. June 28, 2017)06/28/2017
Court denied without prejudice motion to dismiss, holding that that the court cannot ordinarily resolve an evidentiary dispute on a motion to dismiss, and that the filing of a petition to compel arbitration was required, where parties disputed the existence of a binding arbitration agreement. Court found that there was disputed evidence as to whether an arbitration agreement bound the parties.
-
Dowton v. Equity Lifestyle Properties, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00659-KM (M.D. Pa. June 28, 2017)06/28/2017
Court granted in part and denied in part motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration clause was valid and binding, and applied to the plaintiff’s claims, but that parties had thirty days to conduct limited discovery on whether plaintiff intended to be bound by the arbitration clause, when she had not signed the agreement but had paid related fees due. Court found that the arbitration clause applied to “[a]ny dispute or claim arising out of [the] [a]greement,” which would include any tort claims. Court found that contract pertained to voluntary recreational activities and was thus not a contract of adhesion, but further evidence was required on arbitrability.
-
Dome Technology, LLC v. Golden Sands General Contractors, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00069-GEC (W.D. Va. June 28, 2017)06/28/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration clause was not superseded by a later agreement between the parties, and that the payment dispute was sufficiently related to the agreement so as to bring it within the scope of the arbitration clause. Court found that neither the merger clause, nor the forum selection clause, nor any other provision of a subsequent agreement between the parties indicated the intent to supersede or repudiate the prior arbitration agreement. Court also found that the arbitration clause extended to “[a]ny dispute, claim, or controversy arising … out of or relating to” the interpretation, construction, performance, breach, or enforcement of the contract, and that this embraced every dispute between the parties having a significant relationship to the contract.
-
Levy v. Lytx, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-03090-BAS-BGS (S.D. Ca. June 28, 2017)06/28/2017
Court granted in part and denied in part motion to compel individual arbitration and dismiss class claims, holding that the arbitration agreement’s reference to the AAA arbitration rules clearly and unmistakably evidence the parties’ intention to delegate the question of availability of class proceedings to the arbitrator. Court found that, by agreeing to resolve disputes according to AAA rules, parties also agreed to follow the supplementary rules, which delegate the question of class arbitration to the arbitrator.
-
GGNSC Frankfort, LLC v. Moore, No. 3:17-CV-00045-GFVT (E.D. Ky. June 28, 2017)06/28/2017
Court denied motion to dismiss and granted in part and denied in part motion to compel arbitration, holding that a binding arbitration agreement covered all disputes except for the wrongful death claim. Court found that power of attorney authorized plaintiff to enter into binding arbitration agreements and that pre-printed nature of the arbitration agreement was insufficient to render it unconscionable. Court also found that estate was not a party to the arbitration agreement, and thus the estate’s wrongful death claim was not within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
-
Bailey v. Affinitylifestyles.com, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-02684-JAD-VCF (D. Nev. June 28, 2017)06/28/2017
Court granted motion to stay all pre-trial obligations, including discovery, pending a decision on a motion to compel arbitration, holding that the risk that a stay would cause prejudice to the parties and to case administration did not outweigh the serious and irreparable prejudice, including the loss of advantages of arbitration from the failure to grant a stay. Court found that continued discovery would involve considerable expense.
-
The University of Notre Dame (USA) in England v. TJAC Waterloo, LLC, No. 16-1397 (1st Cir. June 28, 2017)06/28/2017
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s determination that the arbitrator’s decision on liability was final and that a contractor was bound as a party to the arbitration agreement. Court held, that under the FAA, a bifurcated decision on liability could be treated as final where the parties agreed to treat liability and damages separately. Court found that the parties had so informally agreed, and that the law was no different under the New York Convention. Court also found that neither party had objected when the arbitrator described the conclusions on liability as “binding,” that the contract referred to contractor as one of the three parties, and that the contractor had behaved as a party by participating in arbitral proceedings.
-
Hebbronville Lone Star Rentals, LLC, v. Sunbelt Rentals Industrial Services, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00856-RP (W.D. Tex. June 27, 2017)06/27/2017
Court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and findings that the court should vacate the portion of the arbitration award reforming an agreement between the parties on the basis of mutual mistake. Court held defendants’ objections did not raise any arguments not considered by the magistrate judge and that plaintiffs’ motion for vacatur was granted.
-
Cochrane v. Open Text Corporation, No. 3:15-CV-01234-WHA (9th Cir. June 27, 2017)06/27/2017
Court of appeal affirmed district court’s judgment confirming an arbitration award. Court agreed with the lower court’s finding that the parties, through their employment agreement and its incorporation of AAA rules, had agreed to arbitrate the issue of arbitrability. Moreover, the court found that neither the arbitrator’s determinations as to jurisdiction or amount of compensation were “completely irrational or exhibit[ed] a manifest disregard of the law” and therefore the arbitral award should be upheld.
-
Garcia v. Kakish, No. 1:17-CV-00374-JLT (E.D. Cal. June 27, 2017)06/27/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that parties agreed to arbitration and that the claims are factually and legally intertwined with the contract containing the arbitration provision. Court found that the arbitration agreement did not contain a waiver of the right to seek public injunctive relief, but left the interpretation and scope of the agreement to the arbitrator. Court also found that the procedural unconscionability of the arbitrator selection clause, which provided for one party’s approval of the arbitral body, did not permeate the entire agreement. Further, the non-signatory plaintiff’s claims were intimately founded in and intertwined with the signatory plaintiff’s claims, and thus subject to arbitration.
-
Conde v. Open Door Marketing, LLC., No. 4:15-CV-04080-KAW (N.D. Ca. April 27, 2017)06/27/2017
Court granted motion to deny class certification as to individuals who had not signed the arbitration agreement, denied motion to deny class certification with respect to individuals who had signed the agreement, and granted in part and denied in part motion to expand collective action to include individuals who signed a later arbitration agreement with a class action waiver clause. Court found that because some plaintiffs did not sign the arbitration agreement, they had no interest in its enforceability, and could not satisfy the typicality requirement of class certification. Court found that co-defendants who had not signed the arbitration agreement lacked an interest to enforce or rely on such agreement. Court found that the fact that some class members had signed arbitration agreements with class action waivers did not preclude conditional certification under the lenient standard at this point of litigation.