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.
-
Clark-Williams v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, No. 1:14-CV-00099-RDM (D.D.C. Mar. 25, 2017)03/25/2017
Court granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment and denied plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment. Court held that defendants’ demonstrated that no genuine question of material fact existed as to whether they breached the collective bargaining agreement with plaintiff, including its grievance and arbitration process.
-
Crystallex International Corporation v. Venezuela, No. 1:16-CV-00661-RC (D.D.C. Mar. 25, 2017)03/25/2017
Court granted petition to confirm, and denied motion to vacate, and arbitral award. Court found that arbitrability issues were delegated to the tribunal by clear and unmistakable evidence based on the language of the BIT and the arbitration rules, and therefore deferentially reviewed the tribunal’s decisions. Court held that the tribunal did not exceed its powers under Article V(1)(c) of the New York Convention by ruling on certain claims or using certain calculation methods. Additionally, court refused to vacate the award based on Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention, finding that its confirmation was not contrary to public policy. Finally, court rejected Venezuela’s independent argument that the award is in manifest disregard of the law, casting doubt on whether that doctrine is even “still good law.”
-
CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-11803-IT (D. Mass. Mar. 24, 2017)03/24/2017
Court granted in part defendant’s motion to dismiss or stay plaintiff’s non-patent claims pending arbitration. Court held that defendant, a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, may invoke the equitable estoppel provisions of the arbitration agreement to refer three claims to arbitration and stayed plaintiffs’ claims pending arbitration.
-
Tweatherford, Inc. v. 3D Systems Corporation, No. 1:16-CV-00783-WTL-DML (S.D. Ind. Mar. 24, 2017)03/24/2017
Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss for improper venue but granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Court, applying New York law to determine whether the parties agreed to submit to arbitrate the disputes, held that unambiguous arbitration clause in the agreement cannot apply to disputes and that venue was not improper.
-
Voorhees v. Ace American Insurance Co., No. 2:15-CV-01193-PP (E.D. Wis. Mar. 24, 2017)03/24/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation. Court found that the defendant showed the existence of both an agreement to arbitrate and a dispute that falls within the scope of that agreement, as well as a refusal by the plaintiff to proceed to arbitration. Additionally, court held that the issue of whether the moving party waived its right to arbitration was one for the arbitrator to decide.
-
Sader v. Griswold, No. 2:15-CV-02874 (E.D. La. Mar. 23, 2017)03/23/2017
Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel joinder of one defendant in his individual capacity. Court urged the parties to submit the entire case to arbitration but held that if the defendant, a non-signatory to the agreement requiring arbitration, would not consent to such, that the plaintiff, also a non-signatory, would not be subject to the AAA tribunal’s jurisdiction in his individual capacity.
-
Physicians Healthsource, Inc. v. Allscripts Health Solutions, Inc., No. 1:12-CV-03233 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 23, 2017)03/23/2017
Court took judicial notice of an AAA interim award that found defendants’ claims to be time-barred and that plaintiffs would be entitled to recover reasonable costs incurred in the arbitration. Court explained that, for an arbitration to be judicially recognized, there must be a showing that it has some significance in the present case. Court determined that, while “it could be argued [that the arbitration ruling] may not now be a fit subject for the exercise of discretion to take judicial notice,” the defendant did not object to plaintiff’s motion, and therefore the court would take judicial notice.
-
Munro v. University of Southern California, No. 2:16-CV-06191-VAP-E (C.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2017)03/23/2017
Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) are arbitrable; but, although the plaintiffs-employees agreed to arbitrate in their personal capacities, their ERISA claims were brought on behalf of certain retirement plans, which did not agree to arbitrate.
-
Deosaran v. ACE Cash Express, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00919-O-BP (N.D. Tex. Mar. 23, 2017)03/23/2017
Magistrate judge recommended, and the district court later agreed, to grant a motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss action as to one of the plaintiffs, but denied the motion as to a second plaintiff. Court found that one of the defendants, Goodwin, had entered into a valid loan agreement containing an arbitration clause that did not restrict plaintiff’s substantive rights regarding damages and that he should therefore be forced to arbitrate his claims. However, as to Deosaran, the court held that she never signed a valid arbitration agreement and estoppel did not compel her to arbitrate her claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
-
White v. Four Seasons Hotel and Resorts, No. 1:13-CV-01399-JEB (D.D.C. Mar. 23, 2017)03/23/2017
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitration award against defendant and granted defendant’s motion to confirm the award. Court held that plaintiff could not meet demanding standard for vacatur under the FAA where arbitrator’s discovery-related decisions did not amount to misconduct that denied plaintiff with a fundamentally fair hearing.
-
Mohebbi v. Khazen, No. 5:13-CV-03044-BLF (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2017)03/23/2017
Court denied defendant’s motion to partially lift a stay of claims where court had previously granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay remaining claims. Court held that lifting the stay for a single defendant who joined the motion to compel arbitration would be contrary to the FAA’s mandate, prejudicial to other defendants, and unwarranted where the completion of the arbitration was imminent and furthered the goal of efficiency for both the judiciary and the litigants.
-
MHA, LLC v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-07825-ES (D.N.J. Mar. 23, 2017)03/23/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to direct the arbitration panel to determine whether plaintiff’s claims are arbitrable and stayed action. Court held that the parties clearly and unmistakably agreed to submit the question of arbitrability of plaintiff’s claims to arbitration.
-
Baltimore/Washington Constr. and Public Emp. Laborer’s Dist. Council v. Whiting-Turner Contracting Co., No. 16-CV-3722-JKB (D. Md. Mar. 23, 2017)03/23/2017
Court granted petitioner’s motion to compel arbitration under the Labor Management Relations Act and denied as moot the motion to compel under the FAA. Court held petitioner filed timely motion and its grievance was contemplated under the arbitration provision contained in the Project Labor Agreement between the parties.
-
Glenwright v. Carbondale Nursing Home, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00926-MEM (M.D. Pa. Mar. 23, 2017)03/23/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, as a valid arbitration agreement existed between the parties and the issue of whether the plaintiff waived her right to arbitrate is an issue for the arbitrator to decide. Court also refused to grant more time for discovery where the parties had already been engaged in several months of discovery and the plaintiff had not submitted or attempted to submit any additional evidence or briefing to support her arguments on the issue of arbitrability.
-
Chelsea Grand LLC v. New York Hotel & Motel Trades Council, AFL-CIO, No. 1:16-CV-05301-PAC (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2017)03/23/2017
Court denied petition to vacate an arbitration award. Court held that the arbitral award did not manifestly disregard the law by ignoring the statute of limitations to confirm arbitral awards or by providing impermissible remedies.
-
Tully Construction Co., Inc. v. Canam Steel Corp., No. 16-1324 (2d Cir. Mar. 23, 2017)03/23/2017
Court of appeals affirmed the decision of the lower court’s confirmation of an arbitral award and denial of vacatur. Court held that the award was not in manifest disregard of the law or the parties’ agreement, that the award was reasoned, and that the lower court was correct in reducing the damages only by the principal amount in escrow instead of principal and accrued interest.
-
Amsurg Glendale, Inc. v. Glendale Surgery Partners, No. 3:16-CV-00862 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 22, 2017)
03/22/2017Court confirmed the arbitration award and denied respondent’s motions to vacate. Looking at the grounds for vacatur under FAA § 10(a), the court concluded that respondent was not entitled to set aside the award for having been procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means because (i) petitioner was not complicit in the alleged wrong-doing by its attorneys, and (ii) respondent had not shown that due diligence would have failed to uncover the alleged wrongdoing prior to or during the arbitration.
-
Broadcom Corp. v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 8:16-CV-01774-JVS-JCG (C.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2017)
03/22/2017Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that an amendment to the parties’ agreement superseded the prior contract and did not provide for arbitration. Court further held that, in any case, corporate entities that were part of a corporate families but not themselves party to the agreement could not be compelled to arbitrate.
-
Madrigal v. Zuniga, No. 1:16-CV-09415-RMB (D.N.J. Mar. 22, 2017)03/22/2017
Court terminated pro se complaint of prisoner who filed action without paying the filing fee or completing an application to proceed without prepayment of fees in a case in which plaintiff was awarded fees against an attorney by the Supreme Court of New Jersey District 1 Fee Arbitration Committee. The Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to enforce plaintiff’s fee determination when it did not meet the amount in controversy given that the FAA does not create independent federal question jurisdiction.
-
Burton Way Hotels, Ltd. v. Four Seasons Hotels Ltd., No. 2:11-CV-00303-PSG-PLA (C.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2017)03/22/2017
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to void the parties’ arbitration agreement. Court held that the recusal and unavailability of a judge who was specifically named in the arbitration agreement did not invalidate the agreement because the judge’s involvement was not integral or central to the arbitration agreement, particularly in circumstances where the agreement provided that JAMS was to be the arbitral forum.
-
G&G Close Circuit Events, LLC v. Castillo, No. 1:14-CV-02073 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 22, 2017)03/22/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration of third-party claims filed by the defendants. Court found that the third-party claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement, especially given the FAA’s rule that doubt over the scope of the arbitration clause should be resolved in favor of arbitrability.
-
Crumpton v. Hurstbourne Healthcare, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00478-DJH (W.D. Ky. March 22, 2017)03/22/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed between the parties which covered the dispute within its scope, and stayed the action pending arbitration.
-
Adams v. John M. O’Quinn & Associates, PLLC, No. 4:16-CV-00071-GHD-JMV (N.D. Miss. Mar. 22, 2017)03/22/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the signatories of the arbitration agreement were bound to it under principles of contract law, while non-signatories were bound to the arbitration agreement based on the “intertwined claims” theory of estoppel, which prevents a signatory plaintiff from bringing a case in court against a non-signatory defendant based on a contract that contains an arbitration provision.
-
Chuang v. OD Expense, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00915-RGA (D. Del. Mar. 22, 2017)03/22/2017
Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay the action. Court found that of the two arbitration agreements that potentially applied to the dispute, one was too ambiguous to enforce, and the other did not cover the defendants in the case.
-
Hite v. Lush Internet Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01533-JBS-AMD (D.N.J. Mar. 22, 2017)03/22/2017
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration but dismissed the case on other grounds. Court found that the terms of a website—including and arbitration provision—were not displayed conspicuously enough to website users and therefore there was no valid contract created under New Jersey law.
-
Donald v. National Truck Funding, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00403-HSO-JCG (S.D. Miss. Mar. 22, 2017)03/22/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case. Court found that the parties agreed to arbitrate and that the dispute fell within the scope of the agreement and there were no external legal constraints that foreclosed arbitration.
-
Johnson v. Pizza Hut, No. 1:16-CV-01089-SOH –BAB (W.D. Ark. Mar. 21, 2017)03/21/2017
Court adopted magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, granting the motion to compel arbitration and staying the action without prejudice to the parties to re-open the proceedings to enforce the arbitration award. Court found that the contract-formation defenses advanced by the plaintiff were not persuasive and that the contract was valid under Arkansas law.
-
Aliments Krispy Kernels, Inc. v. Nichols Farms, No. 16-1975 (3d Cir. Mar. 21, 2017)03/21/2017
Court of appeals vacated district court’s judgment denying plaintiff’s petition to confirm an arbitration award and granted defendant’s petition to vacate the award. Court found that issues of material fact existed as to whether the parties agreed to engage in arbitration proceedings, which defendant refused to attend. Court remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.
-
Liebman v. Better Way Wholesale Autos, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-01263-JBA (D. Conn. March 21, 2017)03/21/2017
Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for judgment based on the arbitral award issued in plaintiffs’ favor, and denied defendant’s motion to vacate the arbitral award. Court held that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority and did not act in manifest disregard of the law.
-
Roach v. Tate Publishing & Enterprises, LLC, No. 1:15-CV-00917-SAB (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2017)03/20/2017
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to lift the stay. Court concluded that defendants’ failure to pay the costs of arbitration has resulted in the claims not having an expeditious resolution, and defendants should not be allowed to indefinitely postpone litigation while they do not comply with arbitration.
-
La Frontera Center, Inc. v. United Behavioral Health, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00187-JB-WPL (D.N.M. Mar. 20, 2017)03/20/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff entered an enforceable arbitration agreement and that each of plaintiff’s claims against each defendant was subject to mandatory arbitration.
-
Ameriprise Financial Services Inc. v. Ekweani, No. 2:14-CV-00935-DGC (9th Cir. Mar. 20, 2017)03/20/2017
Court of appeals affirmed the lower court’s summary judgment order granting attorney’s fees in Ameriprise’s declaratory judgment action. Court found that the lower court properly granted summary judgment for Ameriprise because it had demonstrated Ekweani’s “knowledge of an existing right to arbitrate, acts inconsistent with that right, and prejudice” to Ameriprise. Court disagreed with Ekweani’s argument that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute because the underlying substantive question involved arbitration of damages in cases of intentional discrimination in employment.
-
Grant v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC, No. 9:16-CV-81924-KAM (S.D. Fla. Mar. 20, 2017)03/20/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to stay the action. Court held that the fact that the employee did not open the email regarding the expansion of the mandatory arbitration program by his employer did not render the arbitration agreement invalid, especially because the employee received a follow-up email about it.
-
Kelly v. Credit Acceptance, No. 1:16-CV-00223-SA-DAS (N.D. Miss. Mar. 20, 2017)03/20/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding the plaintiff’s electronic signature on the arbitration agreement meant he agreed to arbitrate the claim and that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
-
Erwin v. Citibank, N.A., No. 3:16-CV-03040-GPC-KSC (S.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2017)03/20/2017
Court denied motion to compel arbitration since there was a question as to whether the plaintiff opted out of a more recent arbitration agreement sent to him by his credit card company. Court granted the parties 60 days leave to take limited discovery on the issue, which the court stated would be dispositive of the arbitrability of the dispute.
-
Fozard v. C.R. England, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-01334 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 17, 2017)03/17/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration. Court held that a valid arbitration agreement existed, but found that it did not need to address the question of whether the dispute fell within the scope of the agreement because the agreement contained language clearly and unmistakably reserving gateway issues for the arbitrators, including “interpretation, scope, and enforceability” of the agreement.
-
Personacare of Reading, Inc. d/b/a Kindred Transitional Care and Rehabilitation – Wyomissing v. Lengel, No. 5:16-CV-01965-JLS (E.D. Pa. Mar. 17, 2017)03/17/2017
Court denied defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that, contrary to defendants’ assertions, a motion to strike the motion to compel arbitration was inappropriate because the motion to compel arbitration was not a pleading.
-
Hanson v. Prime Communications LP, No. 1:17-CV-00161-VEH (N.D. Ala. Mar. 17, 2017)03/17/2017
Court granted an unopposed motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings. Court held that although the motion was unopposed it was required to assess whether the parties had in fact entered into a valid agreement to arbitrate and that the dispute at issue fell within the scope of the provision. Upon review of the arbitration agreement and the parties’ submissions, the court concluded that the agreement was valid and should be enforced.
-
Al Maya Trading Establishment v. Global Export Mktg. Co., Ltd., No. 1:16-CV-02140-RA (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2017)03/17/2017
Court granted petition to confirm an arbitral award and denied respondent’s motion to vacate the award and denied petitioner’s motion for sanctions. Court held that there was no evidence to indicate that the arbitral tribunal’s decision to exclude evidence met the standard of misconduct required to vacate the award. Court further held that, consistent with petitioner’s claim, the award should be adjusted to include $74,000 in damages that the arbitral tribunal inadvertently left out of its award and post-award interest.
-
Mooneyham v. BRSI, LLC, d/b/a Big Red Kia, No. 15-6221 (10th Cir. Mar. 17, 2017)03/17/2017
Court of appeals reversed district court’s decision that the parties’ arbitration agreement did not govern the dispute, holding that the arbitration agreement between the parties was not superseded by a set of documents that were signed after the arbitration agreement was executed and that the terms of the arbitration agreement clearly governed the dispute.
-
Zorilla v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00615 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 16, 2017)03/16/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration. Court held that (i) the arbitration agreement clearly and unmistakably delegated issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator, (ii) plaintiffs’ claims that the delegation provision was substantively unconscionable due to the significantly greater costs of arbitration are “entirely speculative,” and (ii) plaintiffs were under no pressure or obligation to enter into the arbitration agreement, and thus it was not procedurally unconscionable.
-
Hernandez v. DMSI Staffing, LLC, No. 15-15366 (9th Cir. Feb. 16, 2017)03/16/2017
Court of appeals affirmed lower court’s order to deny appellants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the lower court correctly applied precedent which stated that any that claims under the California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act could not be waived by an employment agreement and that applicable law was not preempted by the FAA.
-
Sanders v. Concorde Career Colleges, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-01974-HZ (D. Or. Mar. 16, 2017)03/16/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the parties had entered into valid arbitration agreement which covered the subject of the dispute and that plaintiff’s defenses, that the agreement was ambiguous and that she never signed the agreement, were belied by the evidence. Court further held that contrary to plaintiff’s assertions, the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable because there was no evidence that the agreement was oppressive or would impose a severe financial burden.
-
O’Connor v. Maritime Mgmt. Corp., No. 2:16-CV-16201-KDE-JCW (E.D. La. Mar. 16, 2017)03/16/2017
Court denied plaintiff’s motion for remand. Court held that remand to the state court was improper and that defendant’s removal of the case to the federal district court was appropriate. Specifically, court explained that defendant, a foreign insurer, was entitled to invoke the removal provision of the New York Convention and remove the case to federal court because of the existence of an arbitration provision which defendant claimed covered the dispute. Court further rejected plaintiff’s defenses finding that (i) proof of a valid arbitration agreement was not required for purposes of establishing that removal was justified and (ii) that plaintiff’s efforts to attack the enforceability of the arbitration agreement were premature for purposes of deciding the motion to remand.
-
Knight v. Dandy RV Superstore, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00229-JHE (N.D. Ala. Mar. 16, 2017)03/16/2017
Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that, contrary to defendants’ contention, it was proper for the court to consider whether the arbitration agreement between the parties was enforceable prior to deciding defendants’ motion to dismiss. Upon examination of the parties’ agreement, court further held that the parties had entered into a valid arbitration agreement and that the subject of the dispute fell within the scope of the provision.
-
Jersey Shore University Medical Center v. Local 5058, Health Professionals & Allied Employees, AFT/ALF-CIO, No. 3:16-CV-04840-MAS-DEA (D.N.J. Mar. 16, 2017)03/16/2017
Court denied petitioner’s motion to vacate an arbitration award and granted respondent’s petition to confirm the arbitration award. Court held that, contrary to petitioner’s assertions, an arbitrator’s decision to rely on evidence that had been previously deemed inadmissible during the arbitration hearing did not rise to the level of misconduct justifying vacature because petitioner failed to establish that it had been prejudiced as a result of the alleged misconduct. Court further held that the arbitrator’s alleged failings did not satisfy the standard that the arbitrator engaged in a manifest disregard of the law.
-
Evans v. Affiliated Computer Services Inc., No. 15-55453 (9th Cir. Mar. 16, 2017)03/16/2017
Court of appeals affirmed the lower court’s judgment holding appellant in contempt and dismissing her action for failure to comply with court-ordered arbitration. Court held that the lower court properly determined that appellant’s claims should proceed to arbitration. Further, the lower court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion for contempt where, on more than one occasion, appellant violated the district court’s order to arbitrate her employment-based claims.
-
Cubria v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00544-SS (W.D. Tex. Mar. 16, 2017)03/16/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and ordered the case stayed pending the outcome of the arbitration. Court held that plaintiff had agreed to an arbitration clause and that the clause evinced a clear and unmistakable intent to delegate arbitrability to an arbitrator.
-
Creech v. JEM Pizza Group, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-03087-PMD (D.S.C. Mar. 16, 2017)03/16/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that plaintiff had validly executed an arbitration agreement because the evidence presented to the court demonstrated that in order to be hired by defendants, plaintiff had to fill out an online application that included an arbitration provision. Court also found plaintiff’s other argument—that someone else executed the arbitration agreement on her behalf and without her knowledge—unpersuasive because, according to the court, plaintiff was not a credible witness.
-
Bright-Asante v. Saks & Co., Inc., No. 1:15-CV-05876-ER (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2017)03/16/2017
Court inter alia denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate an arbitration award and denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that plaintiff was unable to meet the standard to vacate an arbitration award because plaintiff did not assert any of the grounds available for vacating an award. Court further held, with respect to defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, that plaintiff’s statutory claims were not subject to arbitration because there was no “clear and unmistakable” statement that the parties intended to arbitrate such claims.