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.
-
Tradewinds Ltd. v. Grupo Dolphin Discovery, No. 2:17-CV-01292-RGK-RAO (C.D. Cal. May 31, 2017)05/31/2017
Court granted petitioner’s petition to confirm an arbitration award, holding that the arbitral panel did not manifestly disregard the law by concluding that petitioner was not acting as an unregistered broker or deal in violation of federal and California law
-
Cavallo v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-04264-FLW-DEA (D.N.J. May 31, 2017)05/31/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that, contrary to plaintiff’s arguments, the arbitration agreement did not violate the National Labor Relations Act and the arbitration agreement’s class waiver did not violate the Norris-LaGuardia Act. Court further held that the arbitration agreement contained an enforceable delegation clause which established that the arbitrator would decide the question of arbitrability.
-
Venco Imtiaz Construction Company v. Symbion Power LLC, No. 1:16-CV-01737-JDB (D.D.C. May 31, 2017)05/31/2017
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to enforce an arbitration award and denied defendant’s motion for a stay and security. Court held that defendant had not established that issue preclusion arising from parallel proceedings in the U.K. courts was warranted and thus, had not established that the public policy exception to the New York Convention applied to the disputed arbitration award. Court further held that after balancing the factors established in applicable precedent, it would not be appropriate to stay the enforcement proceedings pending the outcome of an appeal before the U.K. courts.
-
Redeemer Committee of Highland Credit Strategies Funds v. Highland Capital Management, L.P., No. 1:16-CV-02668-JSR (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2017)05/30/2017
Court denied joint motions to vacate preceding decisions confirming arbitration award and dismiss complaint with prejudice, holding that vacatur and dismissal or preceding decisions was not warranted on the sole basis that parties had settled the case. Court found that no exceptional circumstances existed to vacate the award on the basis of settlement.
-
New York Dialysis Services, Inc. v. New York State Nurses Association, No. 1:17-CV-00469-JSR (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2017)05/30/2017
Court granted petitioner’s motion to stay the arbitration. Court held that the parties could not be forced to arbitrate a dispute pursuant to an expired arbitration agreement, notwithstanding the fact that the arbitration agreement unmistakably delegated the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator.
-
Bigham v. Genz-Ryan Plumbing & Heating Co., No. 0:16-CV-00280-DWF-SER (D. Minn. May 30, 2017)05/30/2017
Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment seeking to vacate an arbitration award. Court held that the arbitrator did not err by failing to give preclusive effect to an earlier decision in the federal courts because the earlier decision was not a final determination. Court further held that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the arbitrator committed a clear error when assessing the evidence presented in the arbitration.
-
Adams v. Energy Transfer Partners, No. 2:16-CV-00400 (S.D. Tex. May 30, 2017)05/30/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings pending the outcome of the arbitration. Court held that plaintiff failed to state a reason for why the motion to compel arbitration should not be granted and, upon review of the agreement, found that it was free of errors or was not contrary to law.
-
Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Patel, No. 8:15-CV-02968-TDC (D. Md. May 30, 2017)05/30/2017
Court granted plaintiff’s application to confirm an arbitration award against defendants, holding that the parties entered into a valid arbitration agreement and that there were no grounds to vacate the arbitration award.
-
Albtelecom SH.A v. UNIFI Communications, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-09001-PAE (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2017)05/30/2017
Court confirmed an arbitration award and entered judgment for plaintiff. Court held that the fact that an arbitration award was entered into by consent of the parties, as opposed to being based on an arbitrator’s resolution of the factual and legal disputes, had no bearing on whether the award was binding under the New York Convention. Court further held that it lacked sufficient evidence to determine whether, as requested by plaintiff, defendant breached the terms of the arbitration award.
-
Local 1982 International Longshoremen's Assoc. v. Midwest Terminals of Toledo International, Inc., No. 16-04004 (6th Cir. May 30, 2017)05/30/2017
Court of appeals affirmed lower court’s decision to remand an arbitration award to an arbitral panel for further clarification. Court of appeals held that the arbitration award was ambiguous and that, contrary to defendant’s arguments, the same arbitral panel should clarify the award.
-
Karimov v. OBK Center Corp d/b/a Bahor Restaurant, No. 1:17-CV-20314-DPG (S.D. Fla. May 26, 2017)05/26/2017
Magistrate judge recommended granting defendants’ motion to stay proceedings and to compel arbitration, rejecting plaintiff’s argument that defendants waived their right to compel arbitration by participating in litigation, as the defendants only participated in mediation.
-
Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Kinsale Ins. Co., No. 2:17-CV-00350-ER (E.D. Pa. May 26, 2017)05/26/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that plaintiff, a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement, could be compelled to arbitrate the dispute because plaintiff’s claims against defendant were dependent on defendant’s obligation to provide insurance coverage as part of an agreement that contained an arbitration clause.
-
Sauberman v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., LLC, No. 2:17-CV-00756-WJM-MF (D.N.J. May 26, 2017 2017)05/26/2017
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration without prejudice. Court held that it could not determine whether the parties had entered into an agreement to arbitrate and therefore ordered the parties to engage in limited discovery on the issue of whether an arbitration agreement existed.
-
GGNSC Louisville St. Matthews v. Madison, No. 3:16-CV-00830-TBR (W.D. Ky. May 26, 2017)05/26/2017
Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held inter alia that (i) a power of attorney was sufficient authority for a representative to bind an infirm patient to an arbitration agreement; (ii) the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable; and (iii) federal law did not require or otherwise advise the court to refrain from enjoining the parties from litigating in state court.
-
Davis v. Fenton, No. 16-2121 (7th Cir. May 26, 2017)05/26/2017
Court of appeal affirmed district court’s default judgment granting plaintiff’s motion to confirm arbitration award. Court held that district court, which enforced defendants’ request for arbitration, retained jurisdiction over any request to confirm or vacate an arbitral award, not a state court.
-
National Labor Relations Board v. Alternative Entertainment, Inc., No. 16-1385 (6th Cir. May 26, 2017)05/26/2017
Court of appeal held that an arbitration provision requiring employees covered by the National Labor Relations Act to individually arbitrate all employment-related claims is not enforceable, finding that such a provision violates the NLRA’s right to collective action and therefore falls within the FAA’s saving clause.
-
Robredo v. Metro Honda, No. 16-3317 (3d Cir. May 26, 2017)05/26/2017
Court of appeal affirmed district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant, finding that the parties agreed to arbitrate all claims arising out of or relating to automobile purchase/lease transactions and the evidence did not support plaintiff’s claims that the arbitration proceedings were unfair or biased.
-
Branch v. Mays, No. 3:16-CV-00249-HSM-CCS (E.D. Tenn. May 25, 2017)05/25/2017
Court granted motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, finding that the existence of both an arbitration clause and forum selection clause in an agreement does not render the forum selection clause invalid, but rather gives the courts in the selected forum exclusive jurisdiction to hear actions complimentary to the arbitral proceedings
-
Ploetz v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC, No. 0:17-CV-01112-PAM-DTS (D. Minn. May 25, 2017)05/25/2017
Court denied petitioner’s petition to vacate an arbitration award. Court held that an arbitrator’s failure to disclose that he mediated a dispute involving the defendant at the time the parties selected him to be chair of the arbitral panel was not evidence of “evident partiality” or arbitrator misbehavior because the arbitrator had disclosed six other arbitrations involving defendant over which he had presided. Accordingly, court found that the arbitrator’s conduct was not sufficient to vacate the award.
-
Conway Family Trust v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, No. 16-3289 (7th Cir. May 25, 2017)05/25/2017
Court of appeals denied petitioner’s petition for review. Court held that petitioner’s request for equitable tolling and an opportunity to pursue its claims against defendant were, in fact, an attempt to collaterally attack an arbitration award that was barred by the FAA. Court further held that the arbitration award in question had nothing to do with equitable tolling.
-
Crawley v. Macy’s Retail Holdings, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-02228-KPF (S.D.N.Y. May 25, 2017)05/25/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action, finding that plaintiff unambiguously agreed to arbitrate any employment disputes with the defendant and that the scope of the arbitration provision in the employer’s dispute resolution program encompassed plaintiff’s claim.
-
Samenow v. Citicorp Credit Services, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01346-CKK (D.D.C. May 25, 2017)05/25/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action, finding that plaintiff assented to arbitration agreements contained in credit card agreements governing plaintiff’s five credit card accounts and that there was no unconscionability with respect to the arbitration agreements.
-
Schmidt v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 2:16-01725-JCC (W.D. Wash. May 25, 2017)05/25/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that under both Washington and California law plaintiffs assented to arbitration where they were provided with notice on the outside of the box and in a brochure for a Samsung device that additional terms and conditions applied to use of the device. Court further found that a Texas choice of law provision in the arbitration agreement was substantively unconscionable because plaintiffs had no connection to Texas, nor was there another basis for which Texas law might reasonably apply, and therefore the provision was severed.
-
Fuentes v. Security Forever LLC, No. 1:16-CV-20483-RNS (S.D. Fla. May 24, 2017)05/24/2017
Magistrate recommended grant of motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendants had not waived their right to arbitrate. Magistrate held that even though defendants had acted inconsistently with an intent to arbitrate, the delay in seeking arbitration was not prejudicial.
-
Simmons v. Rush Trucks Centers of Idaho, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00450-EJL (D. Idaho May 24, 2017)05/24/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss lawsuit, finding a valid arbitration agreement supported by mutual assent and consideration and lacking indications of unconscionability. Court held that arbitration agreement constituted an offer that was accepted upon plaintiff’s signature binding both parties to its terms, even if defendant did not sign the agreement. Court further held that agreement was supported by consideration in the mutuality of obligation to arbitrate, and in the employment relationship governed by the agreement.
-
Webb v. Frawley, No. 16-3336 (7th Cir. May 24, 2017)05/24/2017
Court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part district court’s order compelling arbitration. Court held that arbitration provisions in plaintiffs’ employment contracts were merely venue provisions, and that the court could only order plaintiffs to arbitrate under FINRA rules if they had so agreed. Court therefore found that plaintiff who had agreed to arbitrate under FINRA rules must do so, whereas other plaintiff who did not agree was not so required.
-
Nepomuceno v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., No. 2:14-CV-05719-SDW-SCM (D.N.J. May 24, 2017)05/24/2017
Court denied defendants’ request to compel arbitration, holding that defendants’ unnecessary two-year delay in seeking arbitration and the expense of litigating the matter over the course of the prolonged time period had caused sufficient prejudice to the plaintiff such as to waive any right the defendants may have had to compel arbitration.
-
Liquidx Inc. v. Brooklawn Capital, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-05528WHP (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2017)05/23/2017
Court denied declaratory relief, holding that under New York law, successor was alter ego of predecessor company and thus could be compelled to join arbitration proceedings between creditor and predecessor. Court found that the predecessor and successor were virtually indistinguishable, and the latter was a new company in name only. Court found the successor took responsibility for the predecessor’s financing and legal disputes, offices and employees, and that this domination and control was not displaced by discrepancies in share ownership. Court found ample evidence that this control was used to commit fraud or wrongdoing.
-
Scudieri v. Chapman Chevrolet Chandler, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-01988-JWS (D. Ariz. May 23, 2017)05/23/2017
Court ordered parties to proceed to arbitration in accordance with terms of their arbitration agreement. Court held that because plaintiff had no evidence showing the likely costs of arbitration and had decided to forego discovery, plaintiff would be unable to establish that arbitration costs would be so prohibitively expensive such as to permit him to effectively resist arbitration.
-
Hiller v. Schwartz & Feinsod, No. 7:16-CV-05447-VB (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2017)05/23/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the action. Court held that the expansive scope of the National Football League Players Association Regulations and the language of its arbitration provision encompassed the parties’ wage and hour disputes. Court also declined to rule that the Regulations’ six-month limitations period was unenforceable as a matter of law, as the general rule in the second circuit is that the arbitrator decides statute of limitations issues.
-
Pfeffer v. Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, No. 7:16-CV-08321-VB (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2017)05/23/2017
Court denied motion to vacate award issued by FINRA arbitral panel and confirmed the award. Court held that the award was not obtained through undue means, there were no allegations of partiality among the arbitrators, and there was no misconduct on the part of the arbitration panel.
-
Anderson v. Credit One Bank, National Association, No. 3:16-CV-03125-MMA-AGS (S.D. Cal. May 23, 2017)05/23/2017
Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding insufficient evidence that the parties agreed to arbitrate any dispute. Court held that factual disputes existed as to plaintiff’s assent to the terms of a cardholder agreement where plaintiff contended that he never received the agreement, was unaware of the agreement, and did not consent to any arbitration agreement.
-
Gloucester Terminals, LLC v. Teamsters Local Union 929, No. 2:16-CV-05322-BMS (E.D. Pa. May 22, 2017)05/22/2017
Court enforced arbitration award in favor of defendants, deferring to arbitrator’s determination of his own jurisdiction and to his conclusions regarding which of two agreements applied to the dispute. Court also found that arbitrator did not exercise manifest disregard for the operative agreement.
-
Pershing LLC v. Kiebach, No. 2:14-CV-02549-LMA-MBN (E.D. La. May 22, 2017)05/22/2017
Court confirmed arbitration award in favor of plaintiffs. Court held that defendants had waived the right to seek vacatur because they did not raise the issue of alleged impartiality of the tribunal during the arbitral proceedings; that defendants failed to satisfy burden for proving panel bias; and manifest disregard of the law was not recognized by the fifth circuit as a ground for vacatur.
-
Atkinson v. Harpeth Financial Services, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-504 (M.D. Tenn. May 22, 2017)05/22/2017
Court granted defendants’ petition to compel arbitration and to stay the action pending arbitration. Pursuant to principles of severability, court held that plaintiff failed to advance any specific and unique challenge to the delegation provision of an arbitration agreement in a loan agreement. Court also held that plaintiff’s duress defense and unconscionability arguments relating to the loan agreement were not sufficiently specific or unique to the delegation provision to effectively contest its enforceability.
-
National Water Services, LLC v. ACC Construction Co., Inc., No. 3:12-CV-00792-DJH-DW (W.D. Ken. May 22, 2017)05/22/2017
Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award, finding no reason to vacate, modify, or correct the award.
-
Alexander Dubose Jefferson & Townsend LLP v. Vance, No. 1:17-CV-133-RP (W.D. Tex. May 22, 2017)05/22/2017
Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff failed to establish that defendant received sufficient express or implied notice creating a valid agreement to arbitrate. Court held that law firm did not provide direct notice of an arbitration agreement where it informed employees of the existence and online availability of the firm’s dispute resolution program by email, but did not use the word “arbitration” and did not attach the policy. Court further held there was no implied notice of the arbitration agreement because the email from the firm did not suggest that the firm was implementing a binding arbitration policy to which continued employment would constitute acquiescence, so as to impose a duty to further investigate the policy’s terms.
-
Arabian Motors Group W.L.L. v. Ford Motor Co., No. 2:16-CV-13655-MFL-SDD (E.D. Mich. May 22, 2017)05/22/2017
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to certify for interlocutory appeal court’s order requiring plaintiff to arbitrate breach of contract claims pursuant to Motor Vehicle Franchise Contract Arbitration Fairness Act. Court held that such an appeal would not ultimately resolve plaintiff’s dispute with the defendant as the proposed question on appeal was not a controlling question of law at the instant point in the case. Court also held because an appellate ruling in plaintiff’s favor would lead to additional litigation regarding whether arbitration may proceed, an interlocutory appeal would not materially advance resolution of the litigation.
-
Division Six Sports, Inc. v. Levi Strauss Asia Pacific Division Pte. Ltd., No. 2:17-CV-02768-MWF-AFM (C.D. Cal. May. 19, 2017)05/19/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the action. Court declined to dismiss the motion based on the defendant’s failure to first comply with a local timing rule and held that the parties’ agreement governed the claims at issue. Court further held that the parties had delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator by adopting the UNCITRAL rules and declined to deny the petition as wholly groundless notwithstanding such delegation.
-
Winfrey v. Kmart Corp., No. 16-55184 (9th Cir. May 19, 2017)05/19/2017
Court of appeal affirmed district court decision declining to stay litigation of claims pending arbitration of the employee’s claims under the labor code. Court held that that district court acted within its discretion by declining to stay plaintiff’s claims pending arbitration as a stay of litigation under § 3 of the FAA was mandatory for arbitrable claims but discretionary for nonarbitrable claims and issues.
-
Westberry v. St. Operated School District of Newark, No. 2:15-CV-07998-JMV-JBC (D.N.J. May 19, 2017)05/19/2017
Court dismissed plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims, holding that the collective bargaining agreement’s use of the word “may” did not render arbitration a permissive step in the grievance process but rather offered plaintiffs the opportunity to either pursue their grievances through arbitration or abandon their claims altogether. Accordingly, because plaintiffs failed to pursue their grievances through arbitration, the court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims arising from alleged breaches of the collective bargaining agreement.
-
West Charleston Lofts III, LLC v. Farina, No. 2:16-CV-02491-JAD-VCF (D. Nev. May 19, 2017)05/19/2017
Court dismissed plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration, holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the dispute because, in a case filed under diversity jurisdiction, defendants and one plaintiff were citizens of the same state.
-
Preferred Care, Inc. v. Roberts, No. 5:16-CV-00203-KKC (E.D. Ky. May 19, 2017)05/19/2017
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to reconsider an earlier ruling that certain claims against nonparties to an arbitration agreement would have to be arbitrated. Court held that there was no reason to alter its earlier decision and that plaintiff improperly raised new arguments that plaintiff could have raised before judgment.
-
Columbus LTACH Management, LLC & Columbus LTACH, LLC v. Quantum LTACH Holdings, LLC & Quantum Int’l Income Corp., No. 16-6510 (D.N.J. May 19, 2017)05/19/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s case, the sole purpose of which was to compel arbitration. Court held that plaintiff’s complaint failed to plead facts showing that defendant, a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, should be compelled to arbitrate under theories of contract or agency law. Court further denied plaintiff’s request in the alternative to stay the proceedings as court’s decision that defendant was not compelled to arbitrate left nothing for the court to stay.
-
Verasonics, Inc. v. Alpinion Medical Systems Co., No. C14-1820-JCC (W.D. Wash. May 19, 2017)05/19/2017
Court granted plaintiff’s unopposed motion to confirm arbitration award. Court held that none of the conditions permitting vacation, modification, or correction of the award under the FAA were present. Court also held that none of the seven grounds for refusal or deferral of enforcement under the New York Convention applied.
-
Plocher Construction Co. v. Overseas Lease Group, Inc., No. 4:17-MC-156-JAR (E.D. Miss. May 19, 2017)05/19/2017
Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award, holding that defendant’s failure to timely move to vacate the arbitration award under §12 of the FAA precludes it from asserting any defenses to confirmation of the award.
-
Vine v. PLS Financial Services, Inc., No. 16-50847 (5th Cir. May 19, 2017)05/19/2017
Court of appeals affirmed lower court’s denial of appellants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Court held that the lower court did not err in concluding that appellants waived their right to compel arbitration by litigating the dispute in the federal courts and initially seeking to avoid arbitration. Court also held that the lower court retained the authority to determine the scope of the arbitration clause.
-
Promptu Systems Corp. v. Comcast Corp., No. 2:16-CV-06516-LDD (E.D. Pa. May 18, 2017)
05/18/2017Court granted defendant’s motion to stay pending arbitration. Court held that clear and unmistakable evidence of the parties’ intent to refer arbitrability to the arbitrator is demonstrated under Delaware law when an arbitration clause incorporates arbitration rules (here the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the AAA) that empower arbitrators to decide substantive arbitrability and provide for arbitration of all disputes.
-
GGNSC Louisville St. Matthews, LLC v. Saunders, No. 3:17-CV-00185-CRS-CHL (W.D. Ky. May 18, 2017)05/18/2017
Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ petition to compel arbitration, and granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s petition to compel arbitration of claims currently pending in state court. In denying defendant’s motion to dismiss, court held that diversity jurisdiction existed, plaintiffs did not fail to join indispensable parties, and there was a valid arbitration agreement. In granting petition to compel arbitration, court held that arbitration agreement was enforceable and the scope of the agreement encompassed only certain of plaintiffs’ claims.
-
Jones v. SCO Silver Care Operations LLC, No. 16-1101 (3d Cir. May 18, 2017)05/18/2017
Court of appeals affirmed decision denying motion to dismiss or to stay proceedings pending arbitration, holding that the collective bargaining agreement did not provide a clear and unmistakable waiver of the right to judicial recourse for statutory claims, and that neither of the claims depended on interpretation of the agreement. Court found plaintiffs’ claims were based on statutory and factual analysis, and did not depend on a disputed term of the contract.