Skip to Content
U.S. International Arbitration Digest

2016-2025 Arbitration Decisions

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.

Filter By:
and/or
  • Dennie v. Medimmune, Inc., No. 8:16-CV-03643-PX (D. Md. July 10, 2017)
    07/10/2017

    Court granted one defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the action.  Court held that the arbitration clause applied to the defendant who was a nonsignatory to the agreement and that the clause covered the conduct at issue in dispute.  Court concluded that as all the issues in the lawsuit were arbitrable, the FAA requires a court to stay judicial proceedings involving issues covered by written arbitration agreement. 

  • Kelleher v. Dream Catcher, L.L.C., No. 1:16-CV-02092-APM (D.D.C. July 10, 2017)
    07/10/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s prior opinion and order denying defendant’s motion to stay and compel arbitration.  Court held that defendant had forfeited its right to arbitrate plaintiff’s claims by waiting nearly six months to move for arbitration and not timely invoking its right to arbitrate at the earliest opportunity, which caused plaintiff to incur costs. 

  • Forby v. One Techs, LP, No. 3:16-CV-856-L (N.D. Tex. July 10, 2017)
    07/10/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case with prejudice.  Court held that there was no dispute over the existence of a valid arbitration clause and that the dispute fell within that clause.  Court further held that even though defendants substantially invoked the judicial process by seeking a decision on the merits before attempting to arbitrate and waiting nearly thirteen months after the transfer of the case to compel arbitration, plaintiff failed to establish she suffered sufficient prejudice from defendants’ actions to the extent required by existing precedent and Fifth Circuit authority.

  • Kutluca v. PQ New York Inc., No. 1:16-CV-03070-VSB (S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2017)
    07/10/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the plaintiff’s agreed to arbitrate by agreed to create accounts, and that the plaintiff’s statutory claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreements.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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. 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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. 

  • 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.

  • 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. 

  • Unite Here Local 1 v. Hyatt Corporation, No. 15-3668 (7th Cir. July 6, 2017)
    07/06/2017

    Court 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.

  • 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. 

  • 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.

  • Webb v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, No. 1:16-CV-04664 (N.D. Ill. July 5, 2017)
    07/05/2017

    Court 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. 

  • 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. 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Capili v. The Finish Line, Inc., No. 15-16657 (9th Cir. Jul. 3, 2017)
    07/03/2017

    Court 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.”

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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. 

  • 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.

  • Ultra Lane Management v. McKellar, No. 9:17-CV-00076-RC (E.D. Tex. June 30, 2017)
    06/30/2017

    Court 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Matos v. Coggin Automotive Corp., No. 3:16-CV-00956-BJD-PDB (M.D. Fla. Jun. 29, 2017)
    06/29/2017

    Court 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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. 

  • 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.  

  • 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. 

  • Alexander Dubose Jefferson & Townsend LLP v. Vance, No. 1:17-CV-00133-RP (W.D. Tex. June 27, 2017)
    06/27/2017

    Court denied motion for reconsideration of denial of motion to compel arbitration, holding that the motion provided no newly discovered evidence and therefore did not meet the standard required under FRCP rules 54(b) and 59(e).  Court found that the declarations regarding conversations that took place in 2016 did not constitute newly discovered evidence.

  • Leonard v. Delaware North Companies Sport Service, Inc., No. 16-3246 (8th Cir. June 27, 2017)
    06/27/2017

    Court of appeals affirmed district court order compelling arbitration and dismissing case without prejudice, holding that the arbitration agreement was valid and not unconscionable.  Court found that plaintiff’s contract was easily understood, negotiable, and did not threaten basic necessities.  Court also found that the language “any dispute arising from the Activity” in the arbitration agreement covered the underlying factual allegations.

  • Aviation Alliance Insurance Risk Retention Group, Inc. v. Polaris Enterprise Group, Inc., No. 9:17-CV-00035-DWM (D. Mont. June 27, 2017)
    06/27/2017

    Court granted in part and denied in part motion to compel arbitration, holding that, to the extent that plaintiff’s claims arose under a terminated contract, they remained subject to a “zombie” arbitration provision post-expiration.  Court found nothing in the agreement indicating intent to eliminate the duty to arbitrate as of the date of the agreement’s termination.

  • Sanford v. Bracewell LLP, No. 2:13-CV-01205-JHS (E.D. Pa. June 27, 2017)
    06/27/2017

    Court withheld ruling on motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiffs should have the opportunity to return to arbitration and pay the associated fees. Court found that plaintiffs continued to violate a prior order that they produce financial documentation to demonstrate their claimed inability to afford the cost of arbitration, as partial tax returns, partial bank statements, and a list of properties owned were insufficient to show this. Court found that this failure to comply had prejudiced defendants by imposing excessive and irremediable costs, and that plaintiffs had acted in bad faith.

  • Personacare of Reading, Inc. v. Lengel, No. 5:16-CV-01965-JLS (E.D. Pa. June 27, 2017)
    06/27/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, ordered survival claims in the state court matter proceed to arbitration, and stayed pending state court proceedings, holding that the arbitrator could proceed on arbitrable claims, bifurcated from non-arbitrable claims, even where the agreement provided for arbitration of “all disputes.” Court found that the arbitration agreement’s provision that a third party service “may” conduct the arbitration, unless the parties chose not to select them, did not amount to fraud.