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.
-
Cochrane v. Open Text Corporation, No. 15-16322 (9th Cir. June 27, 2017)06/27/2017
Court affirmed district court order confirming arbitral award, holding that the district court had correctly determined that parties had agreed to arbitrate arbitrability, and that neither the arbitrator’s determination that he had jurisdiction to determine the amount of compensation nor the determination of the amount was completely irrational or exhibited a manifest disregard of the law. Court found that parties had designated the arbitrator to determine arbitrability by incorporating the AAA’s Rules into the employment agreement. Court found that the arbitrator’s decisions derived from the language of the contracts and representations made by the parties.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Aviation Alliance Insurance Risk Retention Group, Inc. v. Polaris Enterprise Group, Inc., No. 9:17-CV-00035-DWM (D. Mont. June 27, 2017)
06/27/2017Court 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.
-
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.
-
In re Document Technologies Litigation, No. 1:17-CV-02405-JSR (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2017)06/26/2017
Court explained its reasons for an earlier bench order granting defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff argued that defendants had waived their right to arbitration because they unreasonably delayed filing a motion to compel arbitration, engaged in protracted discovery, and “evidenced a preference for litigation.” In rejecting those arguments, court held that defendants had filed their motions to compel arbitration shortly after plaintiff filed its suit and that they had not waived their right to arbitration. Court also denied a co-defendant’s motion to compel arbitration because it was not a signatory to the arbitration agreements and did not have the requisite “close relationship” with the parties to allow it to compel arbitration.
-
Thompson v. AT&T Mobility Services LLC, No. 5:17-CV-139-FL (E.D.N.C. June 26, 2017)06/26/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that plaintiff had agreed to arbitrate “any claim that [she] may have against [defendants]”, and that all of plaintiff’s claims were arbitrable.
-
Applebaum v. Lyft, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-07062-JGK (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2017)06/26/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that, by clicking “I accept” on the terms of service in a subsequent agreement, where the terms were expressly presented as a legally binding agreement, the plaintiff assented to the arbitration clause. Court found that, regarding an earlier agreement, a reasonably prudent consumer would not have been on inquiry notice of the terms of service, as the text was small and difficult to read, and would not lead a reasonable consumer to understand that it hyperlinked to a contract.
-
In re application of EISER Infrastructure Ltd. for Recognition and Enforcement of an Arbitration Award against Kingdom of Spain, No. 1:17-CV-03808-LAK (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2017)06/26/2017
Court recognized and entered as a judgment the arbitral award, and ordered that Spain pay to petitioners the award amount of $128 million Euro plus interest, holding that petitioners had complied with the requirements under New York CPLR §§ 5401 et seq., for recognition of judgments entitled to full faith and credit.
-
In re Application of Hulley Enterprises Ltd., Yukos Universal Ltd., and Veteran Petroleum Ltd., No. 1:17-MC-01466-BAH (D.D.C. June 23, 2017)06/23/2017
Court denied petitioners’ ex parte application to issue subpoenas pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 to conduct discovery for use in a foreign proceeding, finding notice to recipients would streamline the proceedings and an order to show cause was appropriate given the likelihood of privileged material at issue. Court denied petitioners’ request for waiver of notice requirements for related cases, concluding that even if there was a reasonable concern that notification would result in spoliation of evidence, the risk would not be meaningfully mitigated by suspending immediate notice since petitioners would have to provide notice when issuing subpoenas. Shearman & Sterling is counsel for the petitioners in connection with this case.
-
Storagecraft Technology Corp. v. Storagecraft UK, No. 2.13-CV-01005-DN (D. Utah June 23, 2017)06/23/2017
Court granted unopposed petition to confirm arbitration award, finding that parties had agreed to submit to arbitration any dispute, controversy, or claim arising out of, relating to, or in connection with the contract or the subject thereof, and that the final ICDR award had not been modified, corrected, or vacated.
-
Carlton Energy Group, LLC v. Cliveden Petroleum Co. Ltd., No. 4:13-CV-00095 (S.D. Tex. June 23, 2017)06/23/2017
Court recommended that non-signatory defendants’ suggestion of mootness and motion to stay pending arbitration be granted, holding that non-signatory defendants submitted to the jurisdiction of the arbitrators in Texas pursuant to the arbitration provision, and accordingly to the Texas court’s jurisdiction, by stipulating that they were proper parties to the arbitration. Court found that this implied consent extended to any post-arbitration enforcement action. Court found that to determine issues beyond this question would constitute a decision on the merits and exceed the court’s authority, and these must be decided by the arbitrator.
-
Clos la Chance Wines, Inc. V. AV Brands, Inc., No. 5 :16-CV-04047-EJD (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2017)06/23/2017
Court granted application for order to confirm arbitral award and enter judgment, holding (i) the arbitrator did not exceed his powers or manifestly disregard the law by awarding damages for time and costs associated with capturing market share; and (ii) the respondent has not shown the final arbitration award was procured through undue means or fraud. Court found arbitrator’s finding on damages for loss of market position, as a “natural and necessary” consequence of respondent’s breach, was not something that could be overturned and was based on the arbitrator’s consideration of concrete evidence. Court also found it had no authority to re-weigh the evidence before the arbitrator, and that petitioner had cited no evidence demonstrating fraud on the part of petitioner or its expert.
-
DataStrait Networks, Inc. v. S2 Security Corp., No. 0:17-CV-01355-DWF-FLN (D. Minn. June 23, 2017)06/23/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and denied motion to dismiss, holding that whether the dispute was covered by the arbitration agreement was an issue for the arbitrator. Court found that the arbitration agreement provided that the arbitrator will decide “any disputes or questions arising hereunder, including the construction or application of this Agreement,” and incorporated by reference the AAA rules, which provide that an arbitrator determines whether a dispute falls within an arbitration agreement.
-
Burcham v. Ford Motor Credit Company, LLC., No. 3:16-CV-00943-DRH (S.D. Ill June 23, 2017)06/23/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the delegation clause in the arbitration agreement rendered the issue of whether the claim was within the scope of the arbitration agreement one for the arbitrator to decide. Court found that the delegation clause was unambiguous, requiring parties to arbitrate “[c]laims regarding the interpretation, scope, or validity of [the arbitration] clause, or arbitrability of any issue.”
-
TK Services, Inc. v. RWD Consulting, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-01152-ABJ (D.D.C. June 23, 2017)06/23/2017
Court granted motion compel arbitration and dismiss complaint, and denied as moot the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction in aid of arbitration. Court found that the arbitration clause was broad, covering “[a]ny controversy or claim between the [parties] arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, including any claim concerning an alleged breach,” which thus included claims for injunctive relief. Court also found that plaintiff had not shown risk of irreparable harm and had not shown that the integrity of the arbitration was at risk or that defendants will be unable to fund an award.
-
Information Systems Audit and Control Association, Inc. v. Telecommunications Systems, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-02066 (N.D. Ill. June 23, 2017)06/23/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and denied dismissal of the complaint, holding that arbitrability was an issue for the arbitrator, and claims fell within the scope of the arbitration clause, notwithstanding the equitable relief sought. Court found that the arbitration clause incorporated the AAA’s Commercial Arbitration Rules, which expressly provide that an arbitrator will adjudicate on arbitrability. Court also found that the equitable nature of the relief sought did not alter the fact that plaintiff’s breach of contract claims went to the heart of the arbitration clause’s subject matter.
-
Caribbean Bottlers (Trinidad & Tobago) Limited v. Alexander, Norona, & Expedient Ship Chandler of Panama, S.A., No. 1:17-CV-21740-UU (S.D. Fla. June 23, 2017)06/23/2017
Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award rendered by the American Arbitration Association pursuant to the §9 of the FAA.
-
In re Application of Hulley Enterprises Ltd., Yukos Universal Ltd., and Veteran Petroleum Ltd., No. 2:17-MC-00088-UA-E (C.D. Cal. June 22, 2017)06/22/2017
Court granted petitioners’ application for an ex parte order pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 to conduct discovery for use in a foreign proceeding. Shearman & Sterling is counsel for the petitioners in connection with this case.
-
Pompeo v. AD Astra Recovery Services, Inc., No 1:16-cv-01371-MCA-KK (D.N.M. June 22, 2017)06/22/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration agreement was binding and encompassed plaintiff’s claims. Court found that the binding arbitration agreement defined “claim” broadly, and was not on its face faulty because it is illusory, unconscionable, or otherwise invalid.
-
AGCS Marine Insurance Company v. Hymel & Associates, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-06899 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2017)06/22/2017
Court granted in part and denied in part petition to compel arbitration, holding that the agreement to arbitrate was effective as to Mr. Hymel, but not with respect to Hymel & Associates (“H&A”). Court found that H&A had not signed the insurance application containing the arbitration clause, and petitioners had not demonstrated a valid basis to compel H&A to attend arbitration. Court found that the arbitration agreement did not require an insured non-party to the agreement to arbitrate, requiring only that “the parties hereto” submit to arbitration. Court found no indication that Mr. Hymel signed the application as an agent for H&A. Court declined to find that a choice of law clause served to limit the application of the arbitration clause to instances where New York law applied.
-
Trustees for the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Annuity Fund, and Training Program Fund v. Super, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-06387-PKC (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2017)06/22/2017
Court granted petitioners’ motion to confirm the arbitral award pursuant to the FAA, the Labor Management Relations Act, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Court found there was no genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment confirming the award.
-
Maxson v. Beazer Homes Holdings Corp., No. 8:17-CV-00583-DOC-AFM (C.D. Cal. June 21, 2017)06/21/2017
Court granted the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court concluded that defendant’s “multistate nature” was sufficient for it to find that the FAA applied to the agreement. Court also concluded that, although there was a modest level of procedural unconscionability because the agreement was a contract of adhesion, plaintiff failed to establish substantive unconscionability and therefore the agreement was not unconscionable.
-
Hobzek v. Homeaway.com, Inc., No. 17-50144 (5th Cir. June 21, 2017)06/21/2017
Circuit court per curiam dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Court held that the district court’s order compelling arbitration was not a final appealable order over which the court had jurisdiction as the case was stayed pending a decision by the arbitrator.
-
Kane International Corp. v. US Polymers-Accurez LLC, No. 4:17-CV-01625-RLW (E.D. Mo. June 21, 2017)06/21/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the parties had agreed to arbitrate and that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration clause. Court found that defendants had previously relied on the arbitration agreement, in responding to the application for a temporary restraining order, and that any dispute regarding the scope of the arbitration provision was for the arbitrator to resolve.
-
JPay Inc. v. Salim, No. 1:16-CV-20107-DLG (S.D. Fla. June 20, 2017)06/20/2017
Court affirmed a AAA arbitration award and denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate. Court disagreed with plaintiff’s argument that a determination on class arbitration exceeded the arbitrator’s powers.
-
GGNSC Louisville St. Matthews, LLC v. Badgett, No. 3:17-CV-00188-TBR (W.D. Ky. July 20, 2017)
06/20/2017Court denied petition to compel arbitration, finding that a respondent who signed an arbitration agreement upon admission to one nursing home but later disclaimed an identical agreement upon admission to another nursing home owned by the same parent company had novated the contract and was not bound to arbitrate.
-
Webco Industries, Inc. v. Texas Tubular Products, Inc., No. 4:15-CV-00704-JED-FHM (N.D. Okla. June 20, 2016)06/20/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration. Pursuant to the FAA, court found a valid agreement to arbitrate and determined that the subject matter of the dispute fell within the scope of the agreement.
-
Optimum Laboratory Services LLC v. East El Paso Physicians’ Medical Center, LLC, No. 5:17-CV-00411-R (W.D. Okla. June 20, 2017)06/20/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Pursuant to the FAA, court found the delegation provision in the arbitration agreement was clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to arbitrate issues of arbitrability, and under state contract law, the court found the clause valid and enforceable.
-
Al Azzawi v. International Centre for Dispute Resolution Organization, Kellogg Brown and Roots Services, Inc., No. 16-3965 (2d Cir. June 20, 2017)06/20/2017
Court of appeal granted appellees’ motions for summary affirmance of the district court’s ruling that plaintiff lacked standing to assert claims of an alleged violation of the ICDR Arbitration Ruels in an underlying arbitration and dismissed the appeal as lacking “an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”
-
Sentry Select Insurance Company v. Ruiz, No. 3:16-CV-00376-DCG (W.D. Tex. June 20, 2017)06/20/2017
Court granted and denied in part motion to compel arbitration. Court held that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate and found no evidence of a federal statute or policy that rendered the claims nonarbitrable. Court found counterclaims against plaintiff were not subject to arbitration, but stayed proceedings as to those claims pending arbitration.
-
Slavin v. Imperial Parking (U.S.), LLC, No. 8:16-CV-02511-PWG (D. Md. June 19, 2017)06/19/2017
Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award and ordered the lawsuit to proceed on the remaining claims. Court held the FAA applied based on the choice of law provision in the agreement and concluded that the three month limitations period to vacate the award applied, but the respondent failed to make the request within that period. Court concluded the respondent’s fraud claims were also outside the time limitations and held that the respondent was a party to the arbitration.
-
Marchand v. Northrop Grumman Corporation, No. 5:16-CV-06825-BLF (N.D. Cal. June 19, 2017)
06/19/2017Court granted motion to compel arbitration of all non-Title VII claims and stayed the case pending outcome of arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement enforceable pursuant to the FAA. Court concluded defendant did not waive or abrogate its right to enforce the agreement, finding that defendant did not fail to timely demand arbitration; defendant did not waive its right to compel arbitration by failing to complete the dispute resolution process requested or by failing to proceed with arbitration after plaintiff withdrew her demand for arbitration; and the arbitration agreement has not expired. Court concluded the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable, finding at most modest procedural unconscionability, but no substantive unconscionability.
-
Arctic Glavier U.S.A., Inc., v. Principal Life Insurance Company, No. 8:16-CV-03555-PX (D. Md. June 19, 2017)06/19/2017
Court transferred the petition to compel arbitration to the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska pursuant to the arbitration clause in the agreement. Court found jurisdiction pursuant to the FAA and concluded the petitioners had standing to enforce the arbitration agreement. While court held it had diversity jurisdiction, it found venue was improper based on the forum selection clause in the agreement pursuant to § 4 of the FAA.
-
Mahanandigari & Mahanandigari v. Tata Consultancy Services, No. 2:16-CV-08746-JLL-SCM (D.N.J. June 19, 2017)06/19/2017
Court granted motion to dismiss and compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding a valid agreement to arbitrate and concluding the employment dispute fell within the scope of the agreement.
-
Amos v. Lincoln Property Company, No. 3:17-CV-00037 (M.D. Tenn. June 19, 2017)06/19/2017
Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pursuant to the FAA. Court found there was no valid agreement to arbitrate that would bind the plaintiff as there was no evidence she was ever informed that her acceptance of an arbitration agreement was a condition of employment.
-
Steinmann v. ZTE Corporation, ZTE (USA) Inc., No. 16-55109 (9th Cir. June 19, 2017)06/19/2017
Court of appeal affirmed district court’s confirmation of an ICDR award, holding that plaintiffs’ waived their right to challenge the award because plaintiffs’ neglected to request a clarification or correction from the arbitrator when the issue arose, and thus waived their right to do so pursuant to Article 25 of the ICDR Arbitration Rules.
-
Taylor v. Pilot Corporation, Pilot Travel Centers LLC, No. 16-5326 (6th Cir. June 19, 2017)06/19/2017
Court of appeal denied defendants’ interlocutory appeal, finding that the FAA did not provide jurisdiction to resolve the class certification issue because it was not a final judgment on the merits. Court found defendants’ jurisdictional arguments under the FAA to be unpersuasive, concluding that §16(a)(1)(A) of the FAA only granted the court authority to consider the denial of stay and that §16(a)(1)(B) only applied to a petition to compel arbitration, which was not present here. Court held it had jurisdiction only over the denial of the request for stay, but affirmed the district court’s decision to deny the request pursuant to the FAA, finding the request premature.
-
In Re: Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation., No. 4:13-MD-02420-YGR (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2017)06/16/2017
Court granted motion for issuance of letter rogatory to obtain discovery for use in an arbitration proceeding in Finland. Court found the discovery requested is relevant and discoverable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, finding the individual from which discovery was requested may possess information directly relevant to their claims.
-
Green v. Broker Solutions, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00844-RLW (E.D. Mo. June 16, 2017)06/16/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court found the defendant non-signatory had standing to compel arbitration, that the agreement was a bilateral contract with adequate consideration under Missouri law that was not procedurally unconscionable.
-
Fox v. Forest River Inc., No. 1:16-CV-0770-GTS-DJS (N.D.N.Y. June 16, 2017)06/16/2017
Court denied motion to compel arbitration of all claims and cross-claims pursuant to the FAA. Court found moot the cross-defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s claims as the parties had stipulated to dismissal of those claims and denied the motion to compel arbitration of the remaining claims, finding that there was no evidence of a contractual arbitration agreement with the cross-defendant. Court held defendants had not established that a stay was warranted under the FAA.
-
2151 Michelson, L.P. v. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, No. 8:17-CV-0781-DOC-DFM (C.D. Cal. June 16, 2017)06/16/2017
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to remand and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court found the issue of whether the previous state court judgment had preclusive effect was not subject to arbitration, but all other claims were and defendant had not waived its right to compel arbitration.
-
Olson v. MBO Partners Inc., No. 3:15-CV-02216-HZ (D. Or. June 15, 2017)06/15/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and denied motion to stay pending arbitration. Court held the arbitration clause is valid and found unpersuasive arguments that the provision violated Oregon law, was unconscionable, resulted from the plaintiff’s signature under duress, or was the result of misrepresentation or fraudulent inducement. Court found plaintiff provided no reason to stay the case and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss.
-
Fontana v. The Chefs’ Warehouse, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-06521-HSG (N.D. Cal. June 15, 2017)06/15/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action pending resolution of the arbitration. Court found that the original arbitration agreement between the parties controlled because a later in time agreement, which provided for resolution of the dispute by a court of competent jurisdiction, was not executed by both parties and therefore not legally binding. Moreover, to the extent there was a lingering doubt as to whether arbitration is appropriate, the arbitration agreement contained a delegation clause giving the arbitrator the authority to resolve such a dispute.
-
Mesa Power Group LLC v. Government of Canada, No. 1:16-CV-01101-JDB (D.D.C. June 15, 2017)06/15/2017
Court denied petition to vacate the arbitration award, granted the counter-petition to enforce, and denied the request to award attorney’s fees. In rejecting the petition to vacate, the court held that there is nothing in the tribunal’s award or the dissent to indicate that the tribunal engaged in “misbehavior by which the rights” of the petitioner “were prejudiced” under FAA §10(3)(a) or that the tribunal exceeded its powers under §10(4)(a). Additionally, the court held that while it has the inherent authority to award attorney’s fees when the losing party’s actions were frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, even though not brought in bad faith, the petitioner’s petition did not rise to this level.
-
Clearfield v. HCL America Inc., No. 1:17-CV-02933-JMF (S.D.N.Y. June 15,2017)06/15/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the plaintiff received and agreed to the arbitration agreement at issue and was therefore bound by its terms.
-
USA for the use and benefit of Bright Future Electric, LLC v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, No. 9:16-CV-81457-WJZ (S.D. Fla. June 14, 2017)06/14/2017
Court denied defendant’s motion for stay of litigation pending arbitration. In the arbitration, general contractor claimed damages related to delays in the project’s completion and prime sub-contractor claimed outstanding payments owed by general contractor. In the present action, secondary sub-contractor brings suit against prime sub-contractor’s surety company for outstanding payments. Court rejected defendant’s arguments that the arbitration concerned the same core facts and claims as the action and that a stay would abate the risk of inconsistent judgments.
-
Singer v. Stuerke, No. 2:16-CV-02526-KJD-GWF (D. Nev. June 14, 2017)06/14/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the first amended petition and ordered plaintiffs to file a second amended petition. Pursuant to the FAA, court found the parties had a valid agreement to arbitrate and the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement. Court also held it had specific personal jurisdiction over the defendant, but lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims because there was no federal question or diversity jurisdiction. Court denied defendant’s motion to strike but found the allegations were irrelevant to plaintiffs’ claims and thus should not be included in an amended petition.