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.
-
Nugussie v. HMS Host North America, No. 2:16-CV-00268-RSL (W.D. Wash. Apr. 5, 2017)04/05/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding no justification for invalidating the agreement to arbitrate based on communication from defendants’ while a class action was pending. Court directed plaintiff to submit her individual claims to binding arbitration in accordance with the arbitration agreement.
-
Glover v. Citibank, N.A., No. 3:16-CV-01786-BEN-BLM (S.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2017)04/05/2017
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and motion to file documents under seal. Court held that there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff consented to the arbitration agreement, which was a question in need of resolution by trial.
-
Gray v. Midland Funding, LLC, No. 5:16-CV-00036-TBR (W.D. Ky. Apr. 4, 2017)04/04/2017
Court found that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the validity of the arbitration agreement and decided to hold an evidentiary hearing on this issue. The arbitration clause was embedded in a credit agreement that plaintiff claimed she did not sign as she allegedly opened her account via phone. However, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for the court to order discovery and a jury trial on the issue of the agreement’s validity.
-
Ipock v. Manor Care of Tulsa OK, LLC, No. 17-CV-0106-CVE-TLW (N.D. Okla. Apr. 4, 2017)04/04/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings as to plaintiff’s negligence claim and denied motion as to plaintiff’s wrongful death claim. Court held that under Oklahoma supreme court precedent, plaintiff cannot be compelled to arbitrate a wrongful death claim based on an arbitration agreement that the plaintiff, as decedent’s next of kin, did not sign, even if the decedent’s husband signed the arbitration agreement on behalf of the decedent. Court also held that, per the US Supreme Court Concepcion test, the Federal Arbitration Act did not preempt the cited Oklahoma Supreme Court case.
-
G.G., A.L., and B.S. v. Valve Corporation, No. 2:16-CV-01941-JCC (W.D. Wash. Apr. 3, 2017)04/03/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court concluded that the that the arbitration agreement was conspicuous and each party had an opportunity to understand the terms, therefore plaintiffs’ procedural unconscionability argument was unpersuasive. Further, the plaintiff parents of the minors who entered into the contract were bound by the arbitration agreement on grounds of equitable estoppel.
-
Weickert v. Natural Products Ass’n, No. 1:16-CV-00142-RJL (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2017)
03/31/2017Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held plaintiff made a binding contract with defendants to arbitrate his employment claims and that any contract defenses regarding the validity of the agreement are within the purview of the arbitrator under the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (JAMS) Rules and Procedures incorporated therein.
-
Schreiber v. Friedman, No. 1:15-CV-06861-CBA-JO (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2017)03/31/2017
Court denied in-part defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and concluded a stay would be inappropriate because the majority of claims were non-arbitrable. Contrary to Supreme Court precedent but consistent with Second Circuit decisions, court determined that the issue of whether defendants’ pre-litigation and litigation conduct waived their rights to arbitrate was a question for the court rather than arbitration. Court held signatory defendant had waived his right to compel arbitration based on his pre-litigation refusals to arbitrate and denied non-signatory defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, concluding that the defendants failed to establish the close relationship required to prove equitable estoppel, but granted in part some of the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.
-
Rimel v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 6:15-CV-02191-CEM-KRS (M.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2017)03/31/2017
Court adopted and confirmed magistrate judge’s recommendation, granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and strike class action allegations and stayed case pending arbitration, finding that the arbitration provision and the delegation clause are valid and enforceable under Florida law, which the magistrate judge correctly applied in the absence of a choice-of-law provision in the arbitration provision. Court further found that the California choice of law provision in the main agreement was inapplicable, since the arbitration provision is severable from that agreement, that its decision however would not be altered even if California law did apply, and that the class-action waiver in the arbitration agreement did not render the arbitration agreement substantively unconscionable, since plaintiff had the right to opt out of arbitration.
-
Certain Underwriting Members at Lloyd’s of London v. Insurance Company of the Americas, No. 1:16-CV-00374-VSB (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2017)03/31/2017
Court granted motion to vacate the arbitration award, finding that the undisclosed relationships of the party arbitrator for respondent ICA were significant enough to demonstrate evident partiality. In his disclosures, the arbitrator claimed that his only connection to the respondent was a failed business venture that had occurred ten years ago, failing to mention his close business relationships with numerous principals of ICA, the number and variety of which suggested that he was personally acquainted with some of these individuals over a number of years. Further, the arbitrator failed to acknowledge that he knew the treasurer, secretary, and director of ICA during the three-day arbitration, evincing an apparent willful avoidance that suggested that he was hiding their relationship from the other arbitrators and petitioner’s representatives.
-
Reis Robotics (China) Co., Ltd. v. Miasole, Inc., No. 5:15-CV-06112-HRL (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2017)03/31/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, holding that inclusion of an arbitration agreement separate to the parties’ main contract did not cause the plaintiff to suffer surprise or hardship and became one of the parties’ agreed terms.
-
Belize Bank Ltd. v. Government of Belize, Nos. 16-7089, 16-7094 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 31, 2017)03/31/2017
Circuit court affirmed district court decision enforcing an arbitration award as consistent with the New York Convention. Circuit court held that enforcement of the award against Belize was not contrary to US public policy under New York Convention Art. V(2)(b). Court also held that Belize did not allege conduct that would warrant denial of enforcement of the award in challenging the LCIA’s decision to not disqualify LCIA-appointed member of tribunal. Even if it had, court held this would not have violated the “most basic notions of morality and justice,” the standard set forth in TermoRio required to set aside an award.
-
Commissions Import Export S.A. v. Republic of the Congo, No. 1:13-CV-00713-RJL (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2017)03/31/2017
Court granted petitioner’s motion for sanctions and counsel for respondent’s motion to withdraw. Court held Republic of the Congo in civil contempt for failure to respond to post-judgment interrogatories for collection on a previously confirmed arbitration award.
-
Firdous v. Credit Acceptance Corporation, No. 1:17-CV-00215-RJJ-PJG (W.D. Mich. Mar. 30, 2017)
03/30/2017Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that arbitration clause was not unconscionable since there were conspicuous notices regarding the arbitration clause right above the signature line and the contract gave the plaintiff the option to reject the arbitration clause.
-
Johnson v. Miami-Bade County, No. 1:16-CV-21658-KMW (S.D. Fla. Mar. 30, 2017)03/30/2017
Court granted motion to dismiss in part, finding, inter alia, that the arbitration clause could be enforced after expiry of the agreement in which it formed a part, and that arbitration applied to some matters not all.
-
Johnson v. Drake, No. 3:16-CV-01993-L-BF (N.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2017)03/30/2017
Court accepted as modified magistrate judge’s report recommending that the court grant respondent’s motion to dismiss without prejudice for failure to effect service on respondent. Court held § 9 of the FAA applied to service in proceedings such as this one to confirm an arbitration award. Court also held failure to effect service was curable defect for which it provided petitioner with additional time.
-
Brendel v. Meyrowitz, No. 3:15-CV-01928-SAF (N.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2017)03/30/2017
Court granted in part plaintiff’s motion to confirm an arbitration award. Court held that defendants’ contention that arbitrator improperly considered records and manifestly disregarded Florida law did not correspond to any ground for vacatur of an award recognized in the Fifth Circuit.
-
McElrath v. Uber Tech., Inc., No. 3:16-CV-07241-JSC (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2017)03/30/2017
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings pending a Supreme Court ruling that may foreclose plaintiff’s class action claim. Court held that the entire arbitration agreement was unenforceable under current ninth circuit law, and whether the case could proceed as a class action turns squarely on the outcome of the Supreme Court’s upcoming review in Ernst & Young v. Morris, 2017 WL 125665 (Jan. 13, 2017).
-
Arabian Gas & Oil Dev. Co. v. Wisdom Marines Lines, S.A., No. 4:16-CV-03801-DMR (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2017)03/30/2017
Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to increase plaintiff’s undertaking while arbitration proceedings were pending in London. Court held that plaintiff’s undertaking should be increased to provide defendants with security for a potential wrongful attachment claim in the event the plaintiff did not recover judgment.
-
Moore v. America Online Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01561-GBL-MSN (E.D. Va. Mar. 29, 2017)03/29/2017
Court dismissed plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitral award, finding that the FAA does not create federal question jurisdiction and plaintiff did not have independent subject matter jurisdiction because he did not meet the amount in controversy. Court explained that although the Fourth Circuit had not adopted an approach to establish the amount in controversy in arbitral award challenges and that there was a split among the circuit courts regarding the appropriate methodology, plaintiff did not meet the amount in controversy under any of the approaches.
-
Westcode, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Electric Corp., No. 3:15-CV-01474-MAD (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2017)03/29/2017
Court denied defendant’s motion for reconsideration of prior order denying motion to compel arbitration. Court held that defendant failed to demonstrate any of the three possible grounds upon which a motion to reconsider may be granted. Court also declined to send the entire case to arbitration when in the prior order court held that defendant waived it right to compel arbitration and plaintiff suffered prejudice as a result of defendant’s litigation.
-
Johnson v. Retirement Plan of General Mills, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00151-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind. Mar. 29, 2017)03/29/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to stay litigation and proceed to arbitration. Court held that agreement between the parties was enforceable and required plaintiff to arbitration questions regarding the right to enforce it and whether it covered her claims.
-
Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. MAA Laxmi, LLC, No. 8:16-CV-02322-PX (D. Md. Mar. 29, 2017)03/29/2017
Court granted plaintiff’s request to enter default judgment confirming its arbitration award. Court held that plaintiff’s pleadings demonstrated that the award can and should be confirmed.
-
Great Lengths Universal Hair Extensions S.r.L v. Gold, No. 1:16-CV-00193-GBD (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2017)03/29/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court held that undisputed, valid arbitration clause in agreement applies to non-signatory plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are estopped from avoiding the clause when they receive a direct benefit from the contract containing it by seeking to enforce the provisions contained therein.
-
James v. Global Tellink Corp., No. 16-1555 (3d Cir. Mar. 29, 2017)03/29/2017
Circuit court affirmed district court ruling denying motion to compel arbitration against plaintiff and putative class. Circuit court held that appellees did not agree to arbitrate their dispute with appellants and a party cannot be required to arbitrate without consent.
-
Seaman v. Private Placement Capital Notes II, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00578-BAS-DHB (S.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2017)03/29/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration in part and to stay the case pending arbitration. Court held that by incorporating the AAA Rules into their arbitration agreement, the parties clearly and unmistakably delegated the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Court further held that conflicting terms of Section 4 of the FAA provide that the forum will be both “in accordance with the terms of the agreement,” in this case Colorado, but also “shall be within the district in which the petition of an order directing such arbitration is filed, which the court held to be the southern district of California. Court also denied a transfer to the contractually-designated forum under 28 USC § 1404(a) for public interest factors.
-
UBS Financial Services Inc, v. Asociación de Empleados del Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico, No. 3:16-02017-GAG (D.P.R. Mar. 28, 2017)03/28/2017
Court granted petitioner’s petition to confirm its arbitration award, holding that respondent did not provide any evidence or argument for the application of any of the FAA’s statutorily defined exceptions to confirming an arbitration award.
-
Cesca Therapeutics Inc. v. Syngen Inc., No. 2:14-CV-02085-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2017)03/28/2017
Court denied defendants’ motion to stay proceedings pending appeal of prior order denying motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the defendants did not meet a threshold showing of the requisite individualized irreparable harm they would suffer but for a stay of proceedings or their likelihood of success on the merits, and a stay would injure plaintiff’s interests in preserving evidence. Court further held that the strong public policy support for arbitration did not outweigh these three reasons against the granting of a stay.
-
Jackson v. Diversicare Humble, LLC, No. 4:16-CV-02776-SL (S.D. Tex. Mar. 28, 2017)03/28/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pending arbitration. Court held the parties are subject to binding and valid arbitration agreement.
-
Song v. Charter Commc’ns, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00325-JTM (S.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2017)03/28/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that under ninth circuit precedent, clear and unmistakable language in the agreement between the parties requires the arbitrator to determine which claims are arbitrable or belong in court.
-
Murillo v. Coryell County Tradesmen, LLC, No. 2:15-CV-03641 (E.D. La. Mar. 28, 2017)03/28/2017
Court stayed litigation of cross-claim plaintiff against one defendant pending the outcome of arbitration. Court held that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed, that the cross-claim fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and that the court would stay rather than dismiss the action pending resolution of the arbitration.
-
Jefferson v. Baptist Health System, Inc., Nos. 2:14-CV-01028, 2:14-CV-1094-KOB (N.D. Ala. Mar. 28, 2017)03/28/2017
Court awarded attorney’s fees and costs to plaintiff. Court held that where defendant challenged the plaintiff’s arbitration award in court, plaintiff was entitled to fees and costs for those proceedings concerning the enforceability of the arbitration award.
-
UBS Financial Services, Inc. v. Zimmerman, No. 5:16-CV-00155-FL (E.D.N.C. Mar. 28, 2017)03/28/2017
Court enjoined defendant from pursuing arbitration against plaintiff in prior order and expanded that injunction to include other affiliated corporate entities provided they are joined in the action. Court held that the defendant is not a customer of any of these entities and they do not have a written arbitration agreement with defendant.
-
Lenhardt v. Sysco Corp., No. 1:16-CV-00153-SPW (D. Mont. Mar. 28, 2017)03/28/2017
Court adopted magistrate judge’s findings in part and modified in part. Court refrained from deciding defendant’s motion to dismiss until after arbitration, as plaintiff agreed to arbitrate any claim arising from certain protective covenants, including her non-compete agreement. Court therefore stayed the case pending arbitration.
-
Weirton Medical Center, Inc. v. QHR Intensive Resources, LLC, No. 16-1647 (4th Cir. Mar. 28, 2017)03/28/2017
Circuit Court affirmed district court’s order denying plaintiff-appellant’s motion to vacate arbitration award and confirming defendant-appellee’s arbitration award. Court held that plaintiff-appellant had plenty of opportunity to uncover misconduct of witnesses and to demonstrate a causal connection between such and the result of the arbitration, which it did not.
-
Internaves de Mexico s.a. de C.V. v. Andromeda Steamship Corp., No. 9:16-CV-81719-DMM (S.D. Fla. Mar. 28, 2017)03/28/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration but denied motion to compel arbitration in London, England under English law. Court held that because plaintiff challenged the entire agreement, and not the making of the arbitration agreement in particular, an arbitrator must decide plaintiff’s allegation of fraud. Court further held it lacked jurisdiction to compel arbitration in a particular forum where the contract contained contradictory forum provisions resulting in an ambiguity.
-
UBS Financial Services Inc. v. Associacion de Empleados Del Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico, No. 3:16-CV-02017-GAG (D.P.R. Mar. 28, 2017)03/28/2017
Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm arbitration award, holding that respondent presented no evidence or argument for the application of any FAA exception to confirming the award.
-
Carlson v. Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Ltd., No. 2013-CV-00115-CVG (D.V.I. Mar. 28, 2017)03/28/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to vacate arbitration award. Court remanded case to arbitration for proceedings consistent with its prior order holding that arbitrator had committed misconduct in refusing to hear material evidence, and stayed matter pending completion of arbitration.
-
Sport Collectors Guild Incorporated v. Bank of America NA, No. 2:16-CV-02229-ROS (D. Ariz. Mar. 27, 2017)
03/27/2017Court found that claim for breach of contract for failure to arbitrate was not barred by res judicata or collaterally estopped by prior court decision that was dismissed without prejudice.
-
Pierre v. University of Dayton, No. 3:15-CV-00362-TMR (S.D. Ohio Mar. 27, 2017)03/27/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim. Court held, inter alia, that there is no written contract between the parties requiring controversies to be settled through arbitration and that plaintiff had not asserted any claim under the Ohio Arbitration Act.
-
Carey v. Uber Tech., Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01058-SEL (N.D. Ohio Mar. 27, 2017)03/27/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to strike plaintiff’s class allegations as moot. Court held that plaintiff accepted defendant’s employment agreement that contained a valid delegation clause that was clear and unmistakable and was not unconscionable under Ohio state law.
-
Local 30, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO v. Wood Group Power Operations LLC, No. 2:13-CV-02499-JS-GRB (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2017)03/27/2017
Court adopted as modified magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to grant petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award against respondent. Court overruled both petitioner’s and respondent’s objections to conclude that respondent must comply with the award, that petitioner may not use the award to collect damages beyond the scope of the award, and that petitioner was granted leave to apply for an award of fees and costs.
-
Echevarria-Hernandez v. Affinitylifestyles.com, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00943-GMN (D. Nev. Mar. 27, 2017)03/27/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the terms of the arbitration policy in plaintiff’s employment agreement were presented clearly, that plaintiff had a meaningful opportunity to agree or not with the terms, and that the policy was neither substantively or procedurally unconscionable nor unenforceable.
-
The National Retirement Fund v. Metz Culinary Management, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-02408-VEC (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2017)03/27/2017
Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the final arbitration award and denied defendant’s motion to confirm the award. Court held that the arbitrator made a legal determination rather than a factual finding when it decided that various assumptions continued from one pension plan year to the next, and that such determination was reviewable de novo by the court and in error.
-
Tritsis v. BankFinancial Corp., No. 1:16-CV-02052-SJC (N.D. Ill. Mar. 27, 2017)03/27/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss case for lack of venue based on an arbitration clause in the parties’ employment agreement. Court held that payment by employee plaintiff of only the initial case management fee pursuant to the JAMS Endispute Employment Arbitration Rules and Procedures is not so burdensome as to render the arbitration clause unenforceable.
-
Pershing LLC v. Kiebach, No. 2:14-CV-02549-LMA-MBN (E.D. La. Mar. 27, 2017)03/27/2017
Court ordered defendant to produce some but not all documents to defendant in an action under the FAA to confirm a FINRA dispute resolution panel arbitration award. Court held that the mere fact that certain documents are not privileged does not make them discoverable, and yet, even though rare in an action to confirm an arbitration award, discovery is not prohibited and certain relevant documents should be produced.
-
Brock Industrial Services, LLC v. Laborers International Union of North America, Construction & General Laborers Local #100, No. 3:16-CV-00780-NJR-DGW (S.D. Ill. Mar. 27, 2017)03/27/2017
Court denied four interrelated motions to dismiss, vacate, and enforce a grievance decision of a labor dispute between the parties. Court held there are clearly disputed issues of fact which prevented the court from determining whether the decision should be enforced or vacated as the court must decide which arbitration agreement and procedure is applicable, which will have the effect of determining the merits of the underlying dispute and the arbitration award.
-
Eisen v. Venulum Ltd., No. 1:16-CV-00461-EAW (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2017)03/27/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismiss. Court held that plaintiffs’ claims are subject to arbitration on an individual, non-class basis because each signed multiple arbitration agreements that cover their claims while employed with defendants. Neither the Fair Labor Standards Act nor the National Labor Relations Act overrides the FAA’s clear mandate to enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms.
-
McGrew v. VCG Holding Corp., No. 3:16-CV-00397-TBR (W.D. Ky. Mar. 27, 2017)03/27/2017
Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that under New York law, the arbitration provisions are substantively unconscionable and void as against public policy where they would require plaintiff to forego his rights and remedies under the applicable U.S. securities laws.
-
Inversiones y Procesadora Tropical INPROTSA, S.A. v. Del Monte International GMBH, No. 16-17623 (11th Cir. Mar. 27, 2017)03/27/2017
Circuit court granted defendant-appellee-cross-appellant’s motion for a limited remand for further proceedings to resolve defendant’s cross-petition to confirm an arbitration award. Circuit court held it has no jurisdiction over the appeal until the district court clarifies its order.
-
Carey v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01058-SL (N.D. Ohio Mar. 27, 2017)03/27/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss complaint or compel arbitration and strike plaintiff’s class allegations. Court found that the language of the delegation provision in the parties’ valid agreement clearly and unmistakably evinces the parties’ intent to submit all issues to the arbitrator, including issues of arbitrability. Court further held that Ohio state law governed the delegation provision which was not procedurally unconscionable and could therefore not be both procedurally and substantively unconscionable as required to be invalid.