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.
-
Daelim Industrial Co. Ltd v. ECC International LLC, No. 3:17-cv-00775-MEJ (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2017)04/20/2017
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to stay the action pending arbitration. Court found that it must grant the stay under FAA § 3 and that the court had discretion to stay the action even though one of the defendants was not a party to the arbitration agreement.
-
Torres v. E-Land World, Ltd., No. 1:16-CV-00004 (D.N. Mar. Is Apr. 20, 2017)04/20/2017
Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and granted plaintiff’s motion to remand back to state court. Since the claims at issue were based on state-law and independent from the agreement containing the parties’ arbitration clause, court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.
-
GCIU-Employer Retirement Fund v. Quad/Graphics, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-03391-ODW-AFM (C.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2017)04/19/2017
Court affirmed in part and vacated in part an arbitral award, finding that questions of law in arbitration under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 are reviewed de novo and that arbitrator incorrectly found that obligation to contribute to a multiemployer pension plan survived termination of the agreement.
-
Local 689, Amalgamated Transit Union v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, No. 1:16-CV-01482-JEB (D.D.C. Apr. 19, 2017)04/19/2017
Court granted motion to confirm award, finding that the arbitrator’s interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement could not be challenged, that the award was not arbitrary and capricious, and that it was not against public policy.
-
JDA Software, Inc. v. Sabert Holding Corp., No. 2:17-CV-00373 (D. Ariz. Apr. 19, 2017)04/19/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to stay case pending arbitration of plaintiff’s claims, which the court construed as a motion to compel arbitration, and denied plaintiff’s motion to stay the pending arbitration until the case was resolved. Court concluded that the parties’ incorporation of the AAA arbitration rules into their arbitration agreement means the question of arbitrability falls to the arbitrator to decide and not the court.
-
The Knabb Partnership v. Home Income Equity, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-00373-GAM (E.D. Pa. Apr. 19, 2017)04/19/2017
Court granted motion to confirm the arbitration award and denied motion to vacate. Court determined that, while the third circuit has not taken a position on whether “manifest disregard of the law” remains a viable standard, it remains a viable basis for vacatur. Nonetheless, the respondent failed to carry the heavy burden of proving that the arbitrator willfully ignored controlling law.
-
Hyatt Franchising, LLC v. Shen Zhen New World I, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-08306 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 19)04/19/2017
Court granted motion to confirm the arbitration award and, conversely, denied motion to vacate. Court held that there was no evidence of misbehavior by the arbitrator by which the right of any party had been prejudiced, as required to vacate an arbitral award pursuant to §10(a)(3) of the FAA, nor was there a manifest disregard for the law or authority to vacate the award on public policy grounds.
-
Wulfe v. Valero Refining Company-California, No. 16-55824 (9th Cir. Apr. 19, 2017)04/19/2017
Court of appeal affirmed lower court’s decision declining to vacate the arbitration award on the basis that intervening law could not provide a basis for vacatur. Court held that, at the time the arbitration award was rendered the law relating to the plaintiff’s claim was unsettled, and the arbitrator’s failure to correctly predict future judicial decisions and the change in the law does not mean she acted in “manifest disregard” of the existing law.
-
Parkridge Limited v. Indyzen, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-07387-KAW (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2017)04/18/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings. Court held that the parties’ incorporation of the AAA rules left questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator and declined to assess whether the agreement covered all the scope at issue, holding that, in any case, the clause was sufficiently broad. Court further held that nonsignatory plaintiff was equitably estopped from seeking to benefits of the agreement while avoiding its arbitration provision.
-
In re: Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:15-CV-03001-MOB-MKM (E.D. Mich. Apr. 18, 2017)04/18/2017
Court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss and stay several claims pending arbitration in relation to an alleged conspiracy amongst defendants to fix prices. In relation to defendants that were signatories to an arbitration agreement, court held that the doctrine of equitable estoppel applied to compel arbitration of claims by a non-signatory plaintiff arising from damages attributable to the signatories’ purchases and sales under this contract. In relation to a non-signatory defendant whose sales were made through signatory defendants, court held that the doctrine of equitable estoppel equally applied and compelled arbitration accordingly.
-
Marshall v. SSC Nashville Operating Co., LLC, No. 16-5751 (6th Cir. Apr. 18, 2017)04/18/2017
Court of appeals affirmed lower court’s decision denying plaintiff’s motion to vacate or modify the arbitrator’s decision. In holding that the plaintiff had not established any of the exceptions to enforcement of an arbitration award under the FAA, court noted that a review of an arbitrator’s decision is “one of the narrowest standards of judicial review in all of American jurisprudence.”
-
Metter v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-06652-RS (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2017)04/17/2017
Court denied motion to compel arbitration in light of plaintiff establishing a genuine issue of fact as to whether he assented to defendant’s terms of service and the arbitration agreement therein.
-
Pharmacy Corp. of America, Inc. v. Health Care at College Park, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-04790-LMM (Apr. 14, 2017 N.D. Ga.)
04/14/2017Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held plaintiffs’ claims for payment of money due were carved out of the arbitration clause, and that defendants’ arbitrable counterclaim did not require plaintiffs’ excluded claims to go to arbitration.
-
Roach v. Asbury Automotive Group, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-04215-CC (N.D. Ga. Apr. 14, 2017)04/14/2017
Court recommended motion to compel arbitration and stay pending arbitration be granted in part and denied in part, holding that all of plaintiff’s claims were subject to arbitration, as plaintiff had not established fraud in the factum, and dismissal of the claim was warranted. Court found that plaintiff did not allege she did not understand the contract containing the arbitration agreement, nor that plaintiff presented any evidence that defendant prevented her from reviewing the contract before signing it.
-
Bordelon Marine, LLC v. Bibby Subsea ROV, LLC, No. 16-30847 (5th Cir. Apr. 14, 2017)04/14/2017
Court of appeal dismissed plaintiff-appellant’s appeal of the lower court’s decision as to the selection of arbitrators due to lack of appellate jurisdiction. Court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction because (1) the lower court never entered final judgment or dismissed the state-law claims, as required for an appeal under §16(a)(3) of the FAA; and (2) appellate jurisdiction does not exist under §16(a)(1)(B) of the FAA for a motion relating to the selection of arbitrators under §5 of the FAA.
-
McLeod v. General Mills, Inc., No. 15-3540 (8th Cir. Apr. 14, 2017)04/14/2017
Court of appeals reversed and remanded lower court’s decision denying General Mills’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the arbitration agreement at issue is broad enough to establish the parties’ intent to arbitrate both the release of claims and stand-alone claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Further, court held that no “contrary congressional command” existed to override the FAA’s mandate to enforce the parties’ agreement to arbitrate substantive ADEA claims.
-
Hernandez v. Goldfarb Properties, Inc, No. 1:13-CV-08640-LGS (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2017)04/14/2017
Court granted motion to compel an arbitration award. Court determined that the motion was effectively unopposed because no motion for vacatur or modification of the award was filed within the FAA’s three-month limit to do so, but held that it was nevertheless required to consider the merits. However, court ruled that in the absence of any challenge of the award or of the arbitrator’s findings of fact, summary judgment to confirm the award was appropriate.
-
Mitchell v. Precision Motor Cars, Inc., No. 8:17-CV-00376-SCB-AAS (M.D. Fla. Apr. 14, 2017)04/14/2017
Court granted motion for an evidentiary hearing on a motion to compel arbitration. Court reasoned that the existence of a valid written agreement to arbitrate is a threshold issue in compelling arbitration under the FAA. Because party seeking to compel arbitration could not locate the credit agreement allegedly containing the arbitration clause and the claimant categorically denied the existence of any such provision in the contract she signed, a genuine issue of fact existed. Court further held that the sufficiency of consideration for the contract went to the existence of the contract, which was a threshold question for the court to decide, and determined that adequate consideration existed under applicable state law.
-
Albertson v. Art Institute of Atlanta, No. 1:16-CV-03922-WSD (N.D. Ga. Apr. 14, 2017)04/14/2017
Court approved magistrate’s recommendation to dismiss labor claim and compel arbitration. Court held that a valid arbitration agreement applied to the dispute and rejected argument that mere inequality of bargaining power in concluding that agreement rendered it unconscionable. Court denied request for attorneys’ fees, holding that mere refusal to dismiss claim and proceed to arbitration did not constitute sufficiently egregious conduct to warrant bad faith subject to sanctions.
-
Gonzalez v. Coverall North America, Inc., No. 5:16-CV-02287-JGB-KK (C.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2017)04/13/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court found that the agreement delegated issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator, and that the delegation clause was not unconscionable.
-
Minute Med Clinic Group, LLC v. Absolute MD, LLC, No. 6:17-CV-0025 (W.D. La. Apr. 13, 2017)04/13/2017
Magistrate judge recommended defendants’ motion to dismiss be denied and motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings be granted. Court found there was a valid arbitral agreement, the claim for fraud in the inducement of the contract was arbitrable, and no federal statute or policy rendered the claims non-arbitrable. Court concluded action should be stayed because it was unclear whether defendant intended to arbitrate all claims in the petition.
-
Science Applications International Corporation v. Hellenic Republic, No. 1:13-CV-01070-GK (D.D.C. Apr. 13, 2017)04/13/2017
Court corrected an entry of judgment following its January 5, 2017 confirmation of an arbitral award granted to petitioner in a contract dispute regarding Greece’s failure to pay for the design and installation of a public safety infrastructure system. In correcting the clerical mistakes, court held that petitioner had not waived its right to have the award granted in dollars, and, after tacking on interest, arbitration fees, and an adjustment to the exchange rate, increased the award from €39.8 million ($42.2 million) to $63 million. Court noted that federal courts generally enter judgment in U.S. dollars partly to protect aggrieved parties from having their award devalued by currency fluctuations, as had been the case here.
-
Doctor’s Associates Inc. v. Nijjar, No. 3:16-CV-01944-JCH (D. Conn. Apr. 13, 2017)04/13/2017
Court denied plaintiff’s petition to compel arbitration finding that, because defendant’s Virginia lawsuit was only seeking to enforce an existing arbitration award, the arbitration clauses found in separate franchise agreements did not apply to the present case.
-
Gemini Insurance Company v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London Subscribing to Policy No. B0973MA1305152 Issued Through the Offices of Osprey Underwriting Agency Ltd., No. 4:17-CV-01044 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 13, 2017)04/13/2017
Court dissolved a state court’s temporary restraining order barring defendants from pursuing arbitration in London. Court also denied a preliminary injunction finding that there was a valid arbitration agreement under the New York Convention. Finally, the court held that the arbitration agreement’s incorporation of English law was an implicit delegation clause and therefore any threshold arbitrability questions would be sent to the arbitrators.
-
UBS Financial Services, Inc. v. Bounty Gain Enterprises, Inc., No. 9:14-CV-81603-WM (S.D. Fla. Apr. 12, 2017)04/12/2017
Magistrate judge denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment finding that there were disputed material issues of fact that should go to trial before a final decision on arbitrability could be made. One of the questions at hand would revisit whether non-signatories to a contract can compel arbitration, which the magistrate judge noted depends on the facts of each case.
-
Lockett v. Conn Appliances, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-703-ALM-CAN (E.D. Tex. April 11, 2017)04/11/2017
Court recommended that motion to compel arbitration be granted and suit stayed pending an arbitral ruling on arbitrability, holding that the arbitration agreement evidenced a clear intent to submit disputes regarding arbitrability to arbitration. Court found that parties had incorporated the AAA rules and the arbitration clause specifically stated that disputes regarding “the scope and validity of this arbitration clause (including disputes as to the matters subject to arbitration)” must be submitted to arbitration. Further, court found that this agreement was not unconscionable merely by virtue of being a contract of adhesion.
-
Stevens v. Jiffy Lube International, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-07175-EMC (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2017)04/11/2017
Court denied petitioners’ motion for new judgment or to alter or amend a judgment vacating an arbitration award in favor of respondent. Court found that the FAA provision allowing a court to vacate an arbitration award “where there was evident partiality of corruption in the arbitrators” did not apply in the present case because there was insufficient evidence to show a “reasonable impression of partiality.”
-
Hudson v. BAH Shoney’s Corporation, No. 3:16-CV-03016 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 11, 2017)04/11/2017
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay all proceedings regarding plaintiff’s claims of discrimination and retaliation against defendant as her employer Court refused to enforce the arbitration agreement because it found that three of the four factors in determining whether a waiver is “knowing and voluntary” weighed strongly against enforcement.
-
Lefoldt for Natchez Regional Medical Center Liquidation Trust v. Horne, No. 16-60245 (4th Cir. Apr. 11, 2017)04/11/2017
Court of appeals vacated and remanded lower court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration as to one of the three engagement letters at issue. The primary legal question was whether Mississippi’s “minutes rule,” which requires the board of trustees of a community hospital to “keep minutes of its official business,” pertains to the validity of a contract. Court thus remanded to lower court suggesting that the minutes rule is one of contract formation and thus should be addressed by the courts, not by arbitrators. Court also held that §2 of the FAA did not foreclose application of the minutes rule because there was no indication of the rule being applied selectively to arbitration provisions.
-
BOSC v. Board of County Commissioners of the Country of Bernalillo, No. 1:15-CV-01042-KG-LF (10th Cir. Apr. 11, 2017)04/11/2017
Court of appeals affirmed lower court’s judgment holding that the Board of County Commissioners had not waived its right to demand FINRA arbitration when it filed a state court action. Court rejected the existence of a bright-line rule under federal law that a party who files litigation intentionally abandons its right to arbitrate; and applied the Peterson factors to find that the Board of County Commissioners had not waived its right to arbitrate through its conduct.
-
Villarreal v. Perfection Pet Foods, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-01661-LJO-EPG (E.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2017)04/10/2017
Magistrate judge recommended that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration be granted based on a finding that there was a binding agreement that was not unconscionable; that under ninth circuit case law Private Attorneys General Act claims were arbitrable; and that the arbitration could include class claims because there was no enforceable class waiver.
-
Simmons v. Simpson House, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-06636-GJP (E.D. Pa. Apr. 10, 2017)04/10/2017
Court granted one of the defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims and enforce an arbitration agreement as to claims filed on behalf of decedent, but denied defendant’s motion with respect to plaintiff’s wrongful death claim. Defendant Kindred argued, and the court agreed, that decedent, through her attorney and legal guardian, agreed to arbitrate any dispute between Kindred and decedent and that such an arbitration agreement was valid even if it cited to the now-defunct National Arbitration Forum as the arbitration entity. However, the court agreed that plaintiff, decedent’s son, had not signed the arbitration agreement and therefore he and his wrongful death claim were not subject to arbitration.
-
Keraplast Technology v. Bath and Kitchen Distributors LLC, No. 2:17-CV-01562 (D.N.J. Apr. 10, 2017)04/10/2017
Court confirmed an arbitration award issued by the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukraine Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Court held that it had jurisdiction pursuant to the FAA and the New York Convention and that defendant had not filed any opposition to petitioner’s efforts to confirm the award.
-
Emam v. CVS Foundation Inc., No. 5:16-CV-897-D (E.D.N.C. Apr. 10, 2017)04/10/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration but denied motion to dismiss. Court found that there was a valid “arbitration policy” that required CVS employees to arbitrate disputes and, because the arbitration clause had not been obtained fraudulently, neither North Carolina public policy nor contract law invalidated it. Further, all of plaintiff’s claims were arbitrable.
-
Evans v. Midland Funding, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00421-GNS-DW (W.D. Ky. Apr. 10, 2017)04/10/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding there was no issue of material fact as to the validity of the arbitration agreement since the plaintiff signed a credit agreement that contained an arbitration clause and failed to respond to the defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Court also found that all of the plaintiff’s claims where within the scope of the arbitration clause, that the credit agreement prohibited class-based claims, and the defendant was an appropriate successor-in-interest to the credit agreement’s original parties.
-
Novosad v. Broomall Operating Company LP, No. 16-2089 (3d Cir. Apr. 10, 2017)04/10/2017
Court of appeals affirmed lower court’s judgment holding that an arbitration clause that covered “only claims by individuals and [did] not cover class or collective actions” excluded a putative class and collective action for overtime pay from arbitration. Court found that despite a strong federal policy favoring arbitration, in this case, the arbitration clause unmistakably excluded class and collective actions from mandatory arbitration.
-
Enron Nigeria Power Holding Ltd. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, No. 1:13-CV-01106 (D.D.C. Apr. 7, 2017)04/07/2017
Court added approximately $2.6 million in exchange rate fluctuations and interest on fees to plaintiff’s arbitration award. because the pound-dollar exchange rate has declined 22 percent since the 2012 London-seated arbitration panel issued the award, the court issued its decision to allow plaintiff to receive a “judgment that reflects the true value in dollars of the Final Award at the time it was issued instead of the significantly diminished value resulting from Nigeria’s success in delaying the entry of final judgment.” The decision also left open the possibility for plaintiff to pursue legal fees related to the confirmation of the award, as long as it files a motion to do so within 14 days.
-
Hallock v. Kia Motors Finance, No. 8:17-CV-00417-RAL-TBM (M.D. Fla. Apr. 7, 2017)04/07/2017
Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and motion to stay, noting that, under eleventh circuit precedent, even if a court decides to compel arbitration, “it is error to dismiss [an] appeal.” Instead, upon compelling arbitration, a court should stay court proceedings.
-
Charging Bison, LLC v. Interstate Battery Franchising & Development, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-03479-G-BN (N.D. Tex. Apr. 7, 2017)04/07/2017
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to stay an arbitration pending before JAMS. Court found that it had jurisdiction to decide the issue of arbitrability, and in doing so, held that the plaintiff’s right to terminate a franchise agreement due to defendant’s alleged misrepresentations was a dispute that fell within the scope of the parties’ arbitration clause.
-
Khashaki v. Lowe’s HIW, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00526-R-JC (C.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2017)04/06/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings upon finding that the dispute was subject to a valid arbitration agreement. Court held that plaintiff’s failure to specifically initial the arbitration provision was not fatal and rejected his arguments that the agreement was unconscionable.
-
Clark v. Cellco Partnership, No. 3:16-CV-00720-GCM (W.D.N.C. Apr. 6 2017)04/06/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the litigation pending arbitration. Court held that defendant did not substantially utilize the litigation machinery such that plaintiff suffered actual prejudice.
-
Ciprianni v. Omni La Costa Resort Spa LLC, No. 3:16-CV-01002-L-BGS (S.D. Cal. Apr. 6 2017)04/06/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the FAA applied since the contract between the parties involves interstate commerce; the presence of additional defendants who are not a party to the arbitration agreement cannot defeat a motion to compel arbitration with a party to the arbitration agreement; the defendant did not waive its right to compel arbitration; and a valid arbitration agreement covered the claim.
-
Dimattei v. Diskin Motors, No. 2:16-CV-05183-GEKP (E.D. Pa. Apr. 6, 2017)04/06/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in light of an arbitration agreement between the parties. Claimant failed to raise any argument that the dispute was outside the scope of the arbitration agreement.
-
Patton v. Volkswagen Group of America Chattanooga Operations, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00327-TAV-CHS (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 6, 2017)04/06/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint. Court found that the arbitration agreement’s delegation provision clearly communicates the parties’ intent to displace state law and to submit the gateway issue of arbitrability to arbitration; and plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily entered into the agreement with defendant.
-
Herrera v. West Flagler Associates, Ltd., No. 1:17-CV-20872-CMA (S.D. Fla. April 5, 2017)04/05/2017
Court granted in part defendant’s motion to dismiss complaint and compel arbitration, staying the labor action pending arbitration. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments (1) that the FAA does not provide a basis for the court to require him to comply with any condition precedent to bringing his FLSA claims; (2) that the FLSA does not permit an employer to impose conditions precedent by contract; (3) that defendants’ pre-arbitration grievance process is illusory and unenforceable; (4) that defendants seek incorrect relief whether they advocate for dismissal instead of relief; (5) that plaintiff’s claims against the different defendants are not inextricably intertwined and so the non-signatories to the arbitration agreement are not entitled to enforce the arbitration agreement; and (6) that the arbitration agreements’ limitations on discovery render the agreement unconscionable.
-
Barron v. Best Buy Co., Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00690-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss. Apr. 5, 2017)04/05/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that contract between parties contained an arbitration provision and that plaintiff’s Fair Credit Reporting Act claims were subject to arbitration.
-
Vega v. CVS, No. 1:16-CV-07594-RBK-AMD (D.N.J. Apr. 5, 2017)04/05/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss complaint. Court held that there was a binding arbitration agreement between the parties and that plaintiff was aware of that agreement and did not opt out of it. Plaintiff was therefore bound to arbitrate her claims for discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
-
Schambon v. Orkin, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00130-GNS (W.D. Ky. Apr. 5, 2017)04/05/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration finding that plaintiff had knowingly and voluntarily entered into an agreement to arbitrate any dispute arising out of his employment relationship with Orkin, LLC. Court noted, among other things, that plaintiff’s experience, background, and education, as well as the time and opportunity that he had to review the agreement and consult with a lawyer, weighed in favor of finding that he executed a knowing and voluntary waiver to a jury trial.
-
Hudson v. Windows USA, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00596-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss. Apr. 5, 2017)04/05/2017
Court granted defendant Wells Fargo National Bank’s motion to compel arbitration, but denied Wells Fargo’s request for dismissal. Court found that there was a valid arbitration agreement, noting that plaintiffs’ argument that the credit-card agreement containing the arbitration clause had been procured by fraud-in-the-factum was not sufficient to challenge the arbitration clause within that agreement. Court set oral argument and sought additional briefing from the parties on whether other non-signatory defendants could join in Wells Fargo’s motion to compel arbitration.
-
Spencer v. CVS, 1:16-CV-07593-RBK-AMD (D.N.J. Apr. 5, 2017)04/05/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss complaint and to compel arbitration. Court held that there was a binding arbitration agreement between the parties and that plaintiff was aware of that agreement and did not opt out of it. Plaintiff was therefore barred from asserting her discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims before any court and had to submit them to arbitration.