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.
-
Hoover v. Sears Holding Corporation, No. 3:16-CV-0450-AET-TJB (D.N.J. June 14, 2017)06/14/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court found there was reasonable notice for a valid agreement to arbitrate and the dispute fell within the scope of the agreement.
-
Colon v. Conchetta, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00959-RK (E.D. Pa. June 14, 2017)06/14/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, dismiss the proceedings, and stay discovery. Under the FAA, the court determined the parties clearly agreed to arbitrate arbitrability, determined all defendants will be ordered to arbitration, and stayed the case pending the resolution of arbitration.
-
New York Hotel & Motel Trades Council, AFL-CIO v. CF 43 Hotel LLC, No. 1:16-CV-05997-RMB (S.D.N.Y. June 14, 2017)06/14/2017
Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm two arbitration awards and denied respondents’ cross-motion to dismiss. Court further ordered the respondents’ to pay petitioners’ attorneys’ fees and expenses in pursuit of this petition because the respondents failed to comply with the awards and presented no timely justification for contesting the awards.
-
Sterling Merchant Finance, Ltd. v Republic of Cabo Verde, No. 1:16-CV-01285-ESH (D.D.C June 13, 2017)06/13/2017
Court issued a default judgment confirming a Permanent Court of Arbitration award against the Republic of Cape Verde pursuant to the New York Convention and the FAA.
-
Silfee v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc., No. 16-3725 (3d Cir. June 13, 2017)06/13/2017
Court of appeals vacated and remanded the district court’s prior order denying motions to compel arbitration and dismiss the suit. Court held that since arbitrability is a gateway issue under §4 of the FAA, if a party moves to compel arbitration based on an authentic arbitration agreement that is attached to the complaint, a Rule(b)(6) summary judgment standard is appropriate unless the other party responds with additional facts sufficient to place the agreement to arbitrate at issue. Here, there were no facts presented at the outset of the litigation to place the arbitration agreement at issue and therefore the lower court failed to analyze the parties’ competing arguments regarding arbitrability.
-
National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh v. Seneca Family of Agencies, No. 1:17-CV-01061-JGK (S.D.N.Y. June 12, 2017)06/12/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration in part, finding that California statute alleged to preempt arbitration agreement only applied to claims arising after a certain date, and thus earlier arbitration agreement was not preempted as to earlier claims. Court denied without prejudice motion to compel arbitration as to later claims so that California court could determine question of whether California statute preempted the arbitration agreement, and by extension reverse preempted the FAA.
-
Willcock v. My Goodness Games, Inc., No. 8:16-CV-04020-PWG (D. Md. June 12, 2017)06/12/2017
Court stayed the action pending a decision by the arbitrator on the arbitrability of the claims because the parties’ incorporation of the AAA Arbitration Rules presents clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed the arbitrator would decide questions of arbitrability and not the court.
-
Bacon v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-05939 (D.N.J. June 9, 2017)06/09/2017
Court denied the motions to compel arbitration, finding that the issue of whether the arbitration agreement was incorporated into the principle agreement, and thus a mutual consent to arbitrate, required further development of the factual record so the motions can be decided on a summary judgment standard.
-
Internaves De Mexico s.a. de C.V. v. Andromeda Steamship Corporation, No. 9:16-CV-81719-DMM (S.D. Fla. June 9, 2017)06/09/2017
Court denied defendants’ motion for stay pending appeal. Referencing the four factors identified in Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (1987), court found that the defendants (i) failed to show that they are likely to succeed on the merits; (ii) failed to identify any concrete harm that would befall them outside of a courtroom; (iii) it is not likely that plaintiff will be substantially injured by granting a stay; and (iv) it is not against public policy to compel arbitration while a dissatisfied party pursues an appeal.
-
Kim v. CashCall, Inc., No. 8:17-CV-00076-DOC-DFM (C.D. Cal. June 8, 2017)06/08/2017
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel individual arbitration and stayed the proceedings pending the Supreme Court’s disposition of Morris v. Ernst & Young. Court rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable, but did not resolve plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration clause violated the NLRA because that very question was central to a case, Morris, currently pending before the Supreme Court.
-
Toth v. GSF Mortgage Corporation, No. 5:16-CV-02101-BYP (E.D. Ohio June 8, 2017)06/08/2017
Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that there was, at the very least, a genuine dispute of material fact as to the existence of a contract and the arbitration provision therein.
-
Gold Mine Jewelry Shoppes, Inc. v. Lise Aagaard Copenhagen, A/S, No. 5:16-CV-00135-BR (E.D.N.C. Mar. 7, 2017)06/07/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the suit, finding that the arbitration agreement at issues was enforceable and the dispute fell within the scope of that agreement, and therefore are not for the court to decide.
-
Quality Plus Services, Inc. v. AGY Aiken LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00727-MHL (E.D. Va. June 7, 2017)06/07/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and denied as moot the motion to dismiss or transfer. Court found that the parties agreed to the arbitration clause and the arbitration clause applied to all claims arising out of purchase orders, including plaintiff’s. Court also determined that because the court found all of plaintiff’s claims subject to arbitration, it would exercise its discretion to dismiss the case without prejudice.
-
Mayton v. Tempoe, LLC, No. 5:17-CV-00179-XR (W.D. Tex. June 7, 2017)06/07/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismiss. Court found that (i) there was a valid agreement to arbitrate between the parties; (ii) the agreement to arbitrate covered the dispute in question; (iii) there were no legal constraints external to the parties’ agreement that would foreclose arbitration of plaintiff’s claims; (iv) there is a “tight relatedness of the parties, contracts and controversies” sufficient to compel plaintiff to arbitration with respect to his claims against a non-party to the contract; and (v) dismissal of the case, rather than a stay, would be appropriate as plaintiff presented no justification for a stay.
-
Demartini v. Johns, No. 16-15078 (9th Cir. June 7, 2017)06/07/2017
Court of appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the district court’s order denying defendants’ motion to vacate an arbitration award. Court found that it could not conclude from the record that the arbitrator’s decision, while perhaps an erroneous application of California law, constituted a manifest disregard of the law. Could also found defendants’ public policy argument would require the court to revisit the arbitrator’s findings of fact and conclusions of law and so the court could not vacate on that ground.
-
Trustees of the Northeast Carpenters, Health, Pension, Annuity, Apprenticeship v. Tiki Industries, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-04487-DRH-ARL (E.D.N.Y. June 6, 2017)06/06/2017
Court adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge recommending that petitioners’ motion to confirm the arbitration award be granted. Magistrate judge held that petitioners satisfied their burden in establishing that the arbitration award should be confirmed, as the award was plausibly grounded in the parties’ agreement and there was no issue of material fact precluding summary judgment.
-
Wilhelm v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-01148-ILRL-KWR (E.D. La. June 5, 2017)06/05/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration. Court held that (i) the fact that a representative of the defendant failed to sign the document did not invalidate the arbitration agreement; (ii) the FAA preempted any state law that attempted to prohibit the enforcement of otherwise valid arbitration agreements; and (iii) the misconduct alleged by the plaintiff against the signatory defendant and the non-signatory defendant was sufficiently interdependent to allow a non-signatory to compel arbitration against the signatories.
-
Evans v. Building Materials Corporation of America, No. 16-2427 (Fed. Cir. June 5, 2017)06/05/2017
Court of appeal affirmed the district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss or stay action pending arbitration, finding defendant’s assertion that the dispute was covered by the arbitration agreement to be “wholly groundless.”
-
Benhenni v. Bayesian Efficient Strategic Trading, LLC, No. 16-3949 (3d Cir. June 5, 2017)06/05/2017
Court of appeal affirmed the district court’s denial of pro se appellant’s petition to vacate an arbitral award. Court found that appellant filed a non-compliant appellate brief devoid of references to the record and citations to legal authority in support of his arguments, which failed to identify why the district court’s order should be disturbed. Court also found that appellant’s arguments amounted to assertions that the arbitrator’s interpretation was flawed, a basis upon which the court could not vacate the arbitrator’s award.
-
Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Soskin, No. 1:17-CV-21663-KMW (S.D. Fla. June 2, 2017)06/02/2017
Court granted motion to consolidate enforcement action and vacatur action of the same arbitral award so as not to risk inconsistent awards, denying respondent-petitioner’s motion to stay the enforcement action until the vacatur action was decided. Court also granted respondent-petitioner’s motion to submit excerpts of recording of the arbitration hearing and corresponding transcripts, because he did not provide explanation for why requested recordings are not cumulative of transcript excerpts already in the record.
-
Oren Enterprises, Inc. v. Stefanie Cove & Co., No. 2:17-CV-03619-PA-AFM (C.D. Cal June 2, 2017)06/02/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of trade secret claims and dismissed the case. Court found that claims related to post employment conduct were within the scope of an arbitration clause contained in an employee agreement. Court further found that a non-signatory to the agreement could compel arbitration under California state law where a signatory relies on the terms of the agreement in asserting its claims against the non-signatory.
-
Kelleher v. Dream Catcher, L.L.C., No. 1:16-CV-02902-APM (D.D.C. June 2, 2017)
06/02/2017Court denied defendant’s motion to stay pending arbitration, holding that the defendant failed to overcome the presumption that it had forfeited its right to arbitrate since it failed to invoke that right at the earliest opportunity and instead waiting more than five months to do so.
-
Golden Temple of Oregon, LLC v. Puri, No. 3:11-CV-01358-HZ (D. Or. June 2, 2017)06/02/2017
Court granted plaintiff’s motion for order confirming arbitration award and denied defendant’s motion to vacate. Court found that (i) defendant did not show that the panel manifestly disregarded the law by implicitly rejecting defendant’s standing argument and by awarding relief to a party that did not participate in the arbitration; (ii) the panel did not exceed its power by not including foreign and other intellectual property in the award; and (iii) the plaintiff was the prevailing party because it prevailed on claims as alleged in the complaint, and so the panel did not exceed its power in awarding plaintiff reasonable attorney fees and costs.
-
Bakon v. Rushmore Service Center, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-06137-ILG-SMG (E.D.N.Y. June 2, 2017)06/02/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to enforce an arbitration agreement between plaintiff and a third party, finding that plaintiff entered into a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement with the third-party that defendant (as an affiliate of the third party) is entitled to invoke. Court also determined that the regular use of a credit card constitutes sufficient evidence of a card user’s consent to the terms of the agreement governing the account and that the FAA does not require arbitration agreements to be signed to be enforceable.
-
Cochran v. Nabors Drilling Technologies USA Inc., No. 2:16-CV-01633-JTT-KK (W.D. La. June 2, 2017)06/02/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. Court held that plaintiff failed to establish that defendant waived its right to arbitrate because plaintiff provided no evidence that the defendant took an overt action manifesting an intent to resolve the dispute through litigation. Court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that defendant should be equitably estopped from enforcing the arbitration agreement, as plaintiff cited no law supporting the proposition that the state law doctrine of equitable estoppel can be the basis of a party being “in default” under the FAA.
-
Forbes v. Seaworld Parks & Entertainment, No. 4:16-CV-00172-MSD-LRL (E.D. Va. June 2, 2017)06/02/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that the dispute resolution program was not “outdated” the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable. Additionally, court held that defendant did not waive its right to arbitration by failing to “bring up arbitration” in response to settlement requests and failing to respond to certain emails, and plaintiff’s allegations of harassment do not provide sufficient justification to ignore the parties’ valid agreement to arbitrate their disputes
-
Robinson v. PNC Bank, No. 2:13-CV-07818-SRC-CLW (D.N.J. June 2, 2017)06/02/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to reopen the case, confirm the arbitration award, and enter judgment. The FAA provides that a district court must grant a motion to confirm an arbitration award if four conditions are met: (i) the parties agreed that a judgment would be entered after an arbitration award is made; (ii) a party to the arbitration has moved to confirm the award within one year after the award is entered; (iii) the motion to confirm is brought in the district court specified in the agreement or in a district court in the district within which the arbitration award was made; and (iv) there must be no grounds on which to vacate, modify, or correct an arbitration award. As all four conditions were satisfied in the instant case, the court found that it must grant defendant’s motion to confirm the arbitration award.
-
Xome Holdings LLC v. Derbonne, No. 4:16-CV-00550-ALM (E.D. Tex. June 2, 2017)06/02/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, rejecting defendants’ argument that the arbitration agreement is unconscionable. Court held that the action fell squarely within the plain language of the arbitration clause, and thus, the parties should resolve their disputes in arbitration pursuant to their agreement.
-
Madden v. Ally Financial Inc., No. 5:16-CV-00172-JMH-EBA (E.D. Ky. June 2, 2017)06/02/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the only action defendant took that could be considered inconsistent with reliance on the arbitration agreement was filing an answer that did not include the arbitration agreement as a specific affirmative defense. However, since defendant moved to compel arbitration soon after discovery of the arbitration clause, this was not “completely inconsistent” with an intent to rely on the arbitration clause.
-
Nexteer Automotive Corporation v. Korea Delphi Automotive Systems Corporation, No. 2:13-CV-15189-GCS-LJM (E.D. Mich. June 2, 2017)06/02/2017
Court confirmed in part a SIAC arbitral award. Court held that (i) although the New York Convention authorized the court to stay enforcement, such a stay would be inappropriate here because the parties agreed to be bound by the arbitrator’s decision and waived their right to appeal; (ii) that while it would be prudent to await a decision from the Singapore court on some parts of the award, the defendant did not level a serious challenge to the non-derivative royalty provisions of the arbitral award and so it was not necessary to stay enforcement of those portions; and (iii) the six Europcar factors established by second circuit precedent weighed in favor of denying a stay.
-
North American Deer Registry, Inc. v. DNA Solutions, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00062-ALM (E.D. Tex. June 2, 2017)06/02/2017
Court granted plaintiff’s application for a preliminary injunction, finding that (i) the arbitration clause was narrow and did not encompass injunctive relief, (ii) the contract did not provide any means by which the arbitrator could resolve a dispute as to the non-contract claims, and (iii) the FAA did not apply to bar a preliminary injunction because the non-contract claims were not subject to arbitration.
-
Ortiz v. Volt Management Corp., No. 4:16-CV-07096-YGR (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2017)06/02/2017
Court granted a non-signatory defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that the plaintiff had signed an employment agreement with the staffing company that contained a broad arbitration provision, and that the staffing company had assigned plaintiff to work for the non-signatory defendant. As such, the plaintiff’s claims were intimately founded in and intertwined with his employment relationship with the staffing company and it was appropriate to allow arbitration.
-
GGNSC Louisville Mt. Holly, LLC v. Mohamed-Vall, No. 16-5606 (6th Cir. June 2, 2017)06/02/2017
Court of appeals affirmed lower court’s order compelling arbitration and enjoining defendants from proceeding with litigation in state court. Court of appeals held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the dispute because the district court’s order compelling arbitration was not a final decision as required by the FAA. Court further declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction to hear defendant’s challenge to the district court’s injunction.
-
Wright v. Sirius XM radio Inc., No. 8:16-CV-01688-JVS-JCG (C.D. Cal. June 1, 2017)06/01/2017
Court granted motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that defendant’s documentary evidence of mailing the agreement to plaintiff was sufficient to establish that plaintiff received the agreement and had notice of the arbitration provision.
-
Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company v. LaFerrera, No. 7:15-CV-02350-LSC (N.D. Ala. June 1, 2016)06/01/2017
Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings as to one of the defendants (CCG) and held that it was moot as to the other defendants. Court found that the language of the arbitration agreement was sufficiently restrictive to preclude CCG, a nonsignatory to the arbitration agreement, from enforcing the agreement through the doctrine of equitable estoppel.
-
Moise v. Family Dollar Stores of New York, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-06314-RA-GWG (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2017)06/01/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings. Court found that (i) claiming that one does not recall receiving the arbitration agreement does not create a genuine dispute as to whether the plaintiff signed it; (ii) plaintiff’s claim that he did not read or fully understand the agreement does not demonstrate a genuine dispute as to the formation of an arbitration agreement; (iii) plaintiff cannot avoid the binding effects of the agreement by asserting that he signed it “under economic duress and coercion;” and (iv) the argument that the arbitration agreement is unconscionable under New York law is for the arbitrator to decide.
-
Price v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00706-SEB-MJD (S.D. Ind. June 1, 2017)06/01/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, holding that the class action waiver contained in the arbitration clause did not violate the National Labor Relations Act and was enforceable.
-
Leidel v. Coinbase, Inc., No. 9:16-CV-81992-KAM (S.D. Fla. June 1, 2017)06/01/2017
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that although plaintiff entered into a valid arbitration agreement, plaintiff’s claims did not fall within the scope of the arbitration clause.
-
La Frontera Center, Inc. v. United States Behavioral Health, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00187-JB-WPL (D.N.M. June 1, 2017)06/01/2017
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration and to stay the proceedings. Court held that plaintiff entered into an enforceable arbitration agreement with defendants and that plaintiff’s claims against defendants were subject to the arbitration clause.
-
Jock v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., No. 16-1731 (2d Cir. June 1, 2017)06/01/2017
Court of appeals dismissed appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Court of appeals held that the FAA only provides that an appeal may be taken in limited circumstances, including from “an order” confirming or denying confirmation of an award or partial award. According to the court of appeals, because the lower court did not confirm or deny an arbitrator's decision, but rather dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, the court of appeals lacked appellate jurisdiction under the FAA.
-
Prowant v. Federal National Mortgage Association, No. 1:14-CV-3799-AT (N.D. Ga. May 31, 2017)
05/31/2017Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in this collective action case brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime provisions. Court held that defendant had waived its right to compel arbitration with respect to opt-in plaintiffs and that its new arbitration agreement, which purportedly replaced the prior dispute resolution policy, did not apply as to opt-in plaintiffs.
-
Michigan Health Information Network Shared Services v. Notarycam, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00342-RJJ-PJG (W.D. Mich. May 31, 2016)05/31/2017
Court granted in part defendant’s motion arbitrate, but stayed the case instead of dismissing it pending resolution of the arbitration. Court held that the parties agreed to arbitrate, the claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and defendant had not waived its right to invoke arbitration.
-
McDougle v. Kemper Corporate Services, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00231-WHB-JCG (S.D. Miss. May 31, 2017)05/31/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that the subject insurance policy and the incorporated arbitration agreement involved interstate commerce as the term is applied to the FAA and therefore could be enforced thereunder. Court also held that the arbitration agreement was valid under Mississippi law and the issue of whether the agreement was enforceable was delegated to the arbitrator.
-
Rearick v. Clearwater 2008 Note Program, LLC, No. 4:15-CV-02265-YK (M.D. Pa. May 31, 2017)05/31/2017Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that (i) plaintiff’s request for additional discovery was untimely; (ii) plaintiff failed to adduce substantiated evidence of prohibitive arbitration costs to invalidate the arbitration clause; (iii) plaintiff failed to adduce sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to the validity of the arbitration agreement; and (iv) plaintiff’s breach of contract claim undoubtedly arises under, and relates to, the contract containing the arbitration agreement.
-
Ungava Technologies Inc. v. Innerspec Technologies, Inc., No. 6:17-CV-00006-NKM-RSB (W.D. Va. May, 31, 2017)05/31/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding the parties had entered into a valid arbitration agreement and that the plaintiff’s interpretation of the agreement was inconsistent with the language of the arbitration clause.
-
Iota Shipholding Ltd. v. Starr Indemnity and Liability Company, No. 1:16-CV-04881-KPF (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2017)05/31/2017
Court granted petitioners’ motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that no valid arbitration agreement between the parties existed and a stay of a parallel arbitration. Court held that the arbitration clause in question did not bind the petitioners because the petitioners did not execute the agreement and the text of the arbitration clause did not purport to bind nonsignatories.
-
Rearick v. Clearwater 2008 Note Program, LLC, No. 4:15-CV-02265-YK (M.D. Pa. May 31, 2017)05/31/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the parties had entered into a valid agreement to arbitrate and that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration clause. Court further declined to defer its decision pending limited discovery and held that plaintiff failed to establish that she would incur prohibitive arbitration costs sufficient to invalidate the arbitration agreement.
-
NCR Corporation v. Goh, No. 2:16-CV-00127-BJR (W.D. Wa. May 31, 2017)05/31/2017
Court denied plaintiff’s motion for (i) de novo review of an arbitrator’s decision on the arbitrability of the dispute and (ii) vacatur of the arbitrator's ruling. Court held that plaintiff was not entitled to challenge the arbitrator’s decision on arbitrability because plaintiff had previously agreed to submit the question to the arbitrator. Court further held that vacatur was not warranted because defendant failed to show that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law.
-
Lower Colorado River Authority v. Papalote Creek II, LLC, No. 16-50317 (5th Cir. May 31, 2017)05/31/2017
Court of appeals vacated the lower court’s decision to compel arbitration. Court held that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to compel arbitration because the dispute was not sufficiently ripe to constitute a “case “or “controversy.” Court further held that events occurring after the lower court’s decision which caused the dispute to become ripe would not retroactively resurrect the district court’s lack of jurisdiction.
-
Trustees of the Northeast Carpenters Health, Pension, Annuity, Apprenticeship, and Labor Management Cooperation Funds v. All State Furniture Technicians Corp., No. 2:17-CV-00722-SJF-AKT (E.D.N.Y. May 31, 2017)05/31/2017
Court granted petitioners’ unopposed petition to confirm an arbitration award. Court held that because the arbitration award “draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement” at issue, the court must affirm the award.