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.
-
Watershape, Inc. v. The Association of Pool and Spa Professionals, No. 2:23-CV-00466-JCM-EJY (D. Nev. Jan. 19, 2024)01/19/2024
Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding the language of the arbitration clause was broad in scope and thus plaintiff’s dispute concerning how the underlying agreement must be interpreted fell within the scope of the arbitration clause.
-
Siddiqui Enterprises, LLC v. Independent Specialty Insurance Company, No. 2:23-CV-04329-CJB-JVM (E.D. La. Jan. 19, 2024)01/19/2024
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement was enforceable under the New York Convention because there was a written agreement to arbitrate, the agreement provided for arbitration in a New York Convention signatory nation, the agreement arose out of a commercial legal relationship, and at least one party to the agreement was not an American citizen. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that, pursuant to the McCarran-Ferguson Act, a local Louisiana law reverse-preempted the enforceability of the arbitration clause.
-
General Mill Supplies, Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, No. 2:23-CV-06464-NJB-KWR (E.D. La. Jan. 19, 2024)01/19/2024
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendants satisfied their burden to show that plaintiff’s claims were subject to a valid arbitration agreement pursuant to the parties’ insurance policy subject to the New York Convention. Court also found that plaintiffs failed to show that the underlying arbitration agreement was null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed. Court stayed proceedings pending arbitration.
-
Equipav S.A. Pavimentação, Engenharia e Comercio Ltda. v. Bertin, No. 22-CV-04594-PGG (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2024)01/18/2024
Court granted motion to confirm order of attachment as to respondent’s assets, finding that (i) there was a cause of action; (ii) it was probable that petitioner would succeed on the merits; (iii) one or more grounds for attachment pursuant to NY CPLR § 6201 existed; (iv) the amount demanded from respondent exceeded all counterclaims known to petitioner; and (v) the attachment was needed to obtain jurisdiction and also appropriate to secure payment from respondent. Court also granted petitioner’s motion to confirm arbitration award against respondent and nonparty and denied respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding it had quasi in rem jurisdiction over respondent’s property located in its district. Court also denied respondent’s motion for a stay, finding that the Europcar factors weighed in favor of denying a stay.
-
Causeway Partners, L.L.C. v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, No. 23-CV-06108-SM-JVM (E.D. La. Jan. 17, 2024)07/24/2023
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings, finding that the requirements of the New York Convention were satisfied. As to domestic defendants, court found that (i) the doctrine of equitable estoppel applied to non-signatories to the arbitration provision; and (ii) Louisiana law did not prohibit the domestic defendants from enforcing the arbitration clause found in each of their contracts. Court noted that although Louisiana law ordinarily prohibits enforcement of arbitration clauses as forum or venue selection clauses, Louisiana law grants an exception to surplus line insurance policies like that issued by defendants.
-
Zhongtie Dacheng (Zhuhai) Investment Management Co Ltd v. Yan, No. 8:22-CV-00461-KK-ADS (C.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2024)01/12/2024
Court confirmed an arbitral award pursuant to the New York Convention, holding that service was proper because respondents were mailed notice of the proceedings to their last known addresses listed on publicly available documents and their government-issued IDs.
-
Epicenter Loss Recovery LLC v. Burford Capital Limited, No. 18-CV-03300-DJH (D. Ariz. Jan. 9, 2024)01/10/2024
Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss following the issuance of a final arbitration award from the LCIA. Court, having previously stayed litigation pending a final award, did not maintain continued jurisdiction under the LCIA Rules or the FAA, where plaintiff challenged the validity of the award, finding the primary jurisdiction in which to challenge the award would be in the English courts.
-
In re Refinería de Cartagena S.A.S., No. 23-MC-00455-JPC (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2024)01/08/2024
Court granted 28 USC § 1782 request for leave to serve document and deposition subpoenas on defendants. Court reasoned that the discovery requests were relevant and “for use” in foreign restructuring proceedings, and that petitioner qualified as an interested party, as the proposed restructuring plans could discharge debtors from amounts owed to petitioner under an arbitration award. In weighing the discretionary Intel factors, court did not find the discovery requests to be overly intrusive or burdensome in light of the court ordered modifications limiting the scope of each request.
-
Anhui Light Industries International Co., Ltd. v. Dream Express Inc., 23-CV-05942-RGK-PD (C.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2024)01/05/2024
Court denied petition to confirm a CIETAC arbitration award under the New York Convention, finding respondent was not a party to the contracts, which were entered into fraudulently in respondent’s name, and therefore, did not consent to arbitration.
-
Battle v. General Motors, LLC, No. 22-CV-10783-MAG-KGA (E.D. Mich. Jan. 4, 2024)01/04/2024
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration on the grounds that the question of arbitrability as to the claims involving defendant—as a non-party to the agreement containing the arbitration provision—was properly delegated to the arbitrator.
-
BBC Chartering Carriers GMBH & Co., KG, v. Hsin Silk Road Shipping Limited, No. 23-CV-06043-KK-MRW (C.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2024)01/04/2024
Court granted motion to confirm foreign arbitral award and motion for default judgment pursuant to the award.
-
Patterson v. Jump Trading LLC, No. 22-CV-03600-PCP (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2024)01/04/2024
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration because defendant was not a party to the arbitration agreement between plaintiffs and former defendant. Court concluded that lead plaintiff’s arbitration agreement did not delegate issues of arbitrability to an arbitrator, and the arbitration agreement did not compel arbitration against non-signatory defendant.
-
Andonian v. Soleimani, No. 23-CV-06817-JGLC (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2024)01/03/2024
Court granted petitioner’s motion to remand to state court finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, because there was no arbitral award at issue governed by the New York Convention since the award had already been converted into a judgment. Court also found that, even if it possessed both subject-matter and removal jurisdiction, it would still abstain from hearing the case because the State of New York had a strong interest in the issues.
-
Jiakeshu Technology Limited v. Amazon.com Services, LLC, No. 22-CV-10119-JGLC (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2024)01/03/2024
Court denied petitioner’s petition to vacate the arbitral award and granted defendant’s motion to confirm the award, finding petitioner did not rely on any of the grounds under the New York Convention or the FAA on which courts may vacate an arbitral award, instead relying on the “severely limited” manifest disregard standard and other unrecognized bases in the Second Circuit such as “complete irrationality” and violation of “strong public policy.”
-
Airtex Manufacturing LLLP v. Boneso Brothers Construction, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-02269-HLT (D. Kan. January 2, 202401/02/2024
Court granted plaintiff’s unopposed motion to confirm various arbitration awards under the FAA finding the plaintiff established diversity subject-matter jurisdiction and that the parties agreed to judicial confirmation pursuant to the JAMS Construction Arbitration Rules.
-
Lanesborough 2000, LLC v. Nextres, LLC, No. 23-CV-07584-PKC (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 1, 2024)01/01/2024
Court denied petitioner’s emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against defendant’s state court action to vacate an arbitration award, finding petitioner failed to show irreparable harm would ensue in the time necessary to adjudicate the motion.
-
Nicholas Services, LLC v. Bombardier Inc., 3:23-CV-00251-MPM-RP (N.D. Miss. Dec. 26, 2023)12/26/2023
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed the proceedings after determining that it should decide threshold issues of arbitrability, despite AAA’s letter to the parties stating that AAA had made an administrative determination that claimant met the filing requirements. Court acknowledged that the fact that plaintiffs had not signed the arbitration agreement was a significant obstacle to defendants’ case but nonetheless accepted defendants’ arguments that the at-issue warranty transferred with the product when the original purchaser resold the product to plaintiffs.
-
Nipro Corporation v. Verner, No. 19-CV-62121-AHS (S.D. Fla. Dec. 21, 2023)12/21/2023
Court denied motion to dismiss where an ICC tribunal determined it did not have jurisdiction to decide the merits of plaintiff’s claims against defendants, and court retained jurisdiction to hear claims based on diversity jurisdiction.
-
TotalEnergies Renewables USA LLC v. Trina Solar (U.S.), Inc., No. 22-16763 (9th Cir. Dec. 21, 2023)12/21/2023
Court of appeals dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction under 28 USC § 1447(d) review of district court’s order denying motion to compel arbitration and remanding the case to state court. Court of appeals found district court’s order could be “colorably characterized” as a remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and thus, the order remanding the case was unreviewable on appeal.
-
Union Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church v. Independent Specialty Insurance Company, No. 2:23-CV-05455-LMA-KWR (E.D. La. Dec. 20, 2023)12/20/2023
Court granted motion to compel arbitration where Louisiana law does not prohibit the enforcement of arbitration clauses in surplus lines insurance policies and where plaintiff alleged substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct by foreign and domestic insurers.
-
ConocoPhillips Petrozuata B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 22-MC-00464-LPS (D. Del. Dec. 20, 2023)12/20/2023
Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for a writ of attachment fieri facias against the shares of PDV Holding, Inc. owned by Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. and denied intervenor’s motion to dismiss. Court found plaintiff was not judicially estopped from asserting that PDVSA and Venezuela are alter egos because of a position taken in an ICSID arbitration.
-
America Chung Nam, LLC v. Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd., No. 2:23-CV-07676-SB-JPR (C.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2023)12/19/2023
Court denied motion to remand to state court and granted motion to compel arbitration where a valid arbitration agreement existed under the New York Convention and the claims at issue related to that agreement.
-
Yunnan Duobang Network Technology Co. Ltd. v. Amazon.com Services LLC, No. 23-CV-01137-JCC (W.D. Wash. Dec. 18, 2023)12/18/2023
Court denied motion to vacate arbitration award under the FAA and granted cross-motion to confirm the award, finding arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law and the arbitration award did not violate public policy.
-
Jiangxi Zhengao Recycled Textile Industry Co., Ltd. v. Amazon.com Services, LLC, No. 1:23-CV-09692-JGLC (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2023)12/15/2023
Court denied plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to stay an AAA arbitration, where plaintiff argued that arbitrator’s failure to disclose a prior arbitration ruling involving defendant demonstrated the arbitrator’s partiality and impaired plaintiff’s rights to a fair hearing and due process. Court found plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits for several reasons, including because the motion was predicated on a non-existent statute; the motion was premature as the court could not entertain a challenge to arbitrator partiality until after the conclusion of the arbitration and rendition of the award; and its challenge to the arbitrator was meritless under the applicable AAA Rules.
-
Li v. Longview Capital Holdings, LLC, No. 3:23-CV-00939-DRL-MGG (N.D. Ind. Dec. 15, 2023)12/15/2023
Court granted motion to remand to state court, finding it did not have subject matter jurisdiction under 9 USC § 205. Court concluded that although the relevant settlement agreement contained an arbitration provision falling under the New York Convention, the parties were not asking the court to compel arbitration or to confirm an award and they had specifically agreed that if the lender initiated litigation, which he did, no arbitral tribunal would have jurisdiction over the dispute.
-
Transportation Consultants, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 2:23-CV-06585-EEF-MBN (E.D. La. Dec. 15, 2023)12/15/2023
Court granted motion to compel arbitration of an insurance dispute and stay litigation pursuant to the New York Convention, where there was a written agreement to arbitrate, the arbitration clause required arbitration take place in a signatory nation, the agreement stemmed from a commercial legal relationship, and at least one defendant was a foreign citizen.
-
Longyan Junkai Information Technology Co., Ltd. v. Amazon.com Services LLC., No. 1:23-CV-04869-JGK (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2023)12/12/2023
Court denied petitioner’s motion to vacate and granted respondents’ cross-motion to confirm ICDR arbitral award. Court declined to remand to state court, finding it had subject matter jurisdiction under the New York Convention, because plaintiff is a foreign corporation. Court rejected petitioner’s arguments that the award should be vacated because it was irrational, in manifest disregard of the law, and violated public policy.
-
Valores Mundiales, S.L., and Consorcio Andino, S.L., v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 23-7077 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 8, 2023)12/08/2023
Court of appeals affirmed decision enforcing arbitral award pursuant to the ISCID Convention and 22 USC §1650a. Court of appeals rejected appellant’s argument that it had been deprived of due process because the ICSID annulment committee declined to recognize counsel designated by a new political regime in Venezuela.
-
Ten G, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 22-CV-04426-WBV-MBN (E.D. La. Nov. 30, 2023)11/30/2023
Court rejected plaintiff’s motion for certification of interlocutory appeal to review prior decision to compel arbitration pursuant to the New York Convention. Court found that the question of whether a dispute falls within the scope of an arbitration agreement is not a “controlling question of law” for the purposes of certification under § 1292(b). Court decided plaintiff also failed to demonstrate substantial grounds for difference of opinion as to the controlling question of law.
-
Doe v. VGW Malta Ltd., No. 23-CV-03226-TWT (N.D. Ga. Nov. 28, 2023)11/28/2023
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding an arbitration agreement exists between the parties and there are no grounds on which to deny enforcement of the agreement. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration agreement was void because it was made pursuant to a gambling contract which is illegal under Georgia law, and that plaintiff was fraudulently induced to enter the contract, finding both allegations are questions to be resolved by the arbitrator.
-
Marseille-Kliniken AG v. Republic of Equatorial Guinea, No. 20-CV-03572-RJL (D.D.C. Nov. 17, 2023)11/17/2023
Court confirmed petitioner’s arbitration award, dismissing defendant’s argument that the parties agreed to litigate in an Equatoguinean court before using arbitration as an appeal tribunal. Court concluded that such procedural preconditions to arbitration were for the arbitrators to decide and that the arbitrators’ decision that they had jurisdiction over the claim should not be disturbed.
-
Galaxia Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Luxmax, U.S.A., 2:16-CV-05144-JAK-GJS (C.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2023)11/16/2023
Court entered a default judgment against defendants, including for attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest arising out of the parties’ prior international arbitration proceeding.
-
National Casualty Company v. Continental Insurance Company, 1:23-CV-03143 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 15, 2023)11/15/2023
Court granted defendant’s cross-motion to compel arbitration of claims relating to the interpretation of a contractual provision that was the subject of previous arbitrations between the same parties that were confirmed in federal court. Court held that the preclusive effect of the previous arbitrations on the pending proceedings was appropriate for an arbitration panel to decide. Court dismissed the case without prejudice, concluding that all of the claims were subject to arbitration.
-
Insurance Company of Greater New York v. Kinsale Insurance Company, 1:23-CV-03577-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 15, 2023)11/15/2023
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, although plaintiff was not a signatory to the policy at issue, reasoning that plaintiff was bound by the arbitration clause because plaintiff sought to enforce other provisions of the policy against defendant. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the policy contained a “service of suit” provision, finding that the clause applies only when a party seeks to compel arbitration or enforce an arbitration award. Court similarly rejected plaintiff’s argument that defendant waived its right to compel arbitration by delaying its motion to compel until a month after the suit was filed and a few days after removal to federal court. Court stayed the proceedings pending resolution of the arbitration.
-
Kelemen v. Olah, 1:22-CV-00566-JGLC (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2023)11/14/2023
Court appointed an arbitrator after the parties failed to agree to a neutral and sent the court proposed qualifications for the arbitrator. Court selected an arbitrator who met the proposed qualifications and who it found to be best suited for the case based on her experience in New York.
-
Next Level Ventures LLC v. Avid Holdings Ltd., 2:23-MC-00052-LK (W.D. Wash. Nov. 14, 2023)11/14/2023
Court denied plaintiff’s application for a writ of execution for the United States Marshal to take possession of and sell certain of defendant’s personal property—including intellectual property, contract rights, or claims of compensation—after court confirmed ICDR award, and defendant appealed the court’s confirmation of the arbitrator’s award without moving for a stay. Court reasoned that granting a writ of execution would be unjust because plaintiff could in theory purchase the rights at issue through the Marshal’s sale while also destroying the opposing party’s appeal by becoming its owner through enforcement of the very judgment under review. Court also expressed hesitancy to issue a writ when plaintiff’s application did not specify whether the subject property is located within the state and indicated that the writ would be improper since plaintiff had not given a pre-sale notice to the debtor.
-
Morningstar v. Amazon.com, 23-60367 (5th Cir. Nov. 14, 2023)11/14/2023
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed as frivolous his appeal from the district court’s grant of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissal of the case, noting that plaintiff had not shown he was fraudulently induced into agreeing to the arbitration provisions at issue.
-
Jean Lafitte Condominium, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 2:23-CV-03415-SSV-KWR (E.D. La. Nov. 14, 2023)11/14/2023
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings pending arbitration. Court found that the requirements of the New York Convention were satisfied and that the issue of arbitrability was for the arbitrators given the arbitration clause’s broad language encompassing all matters in difference, including those relating to the arbitrability of any dispute. Court stayed the proceedings and declined to exercise its discretion to dismiss the action, finding that defendants had not adequately justified that a dismissal, rather than a stay, was the proper action.
-
La Belle Maison Associates, LLC v. Amrisc LP, No. 2:23-CV-06440-BWA-MBN (E.D. La. Nov. 9, 2023)11/09/2023
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings where the insurance policy at issue contained an arbitration clause that fell under the New York Convention and required all claims to be arbitrated in New York.
-
City Beverages LLC v. Crown Imports LLC, No. 3:22-CV-05756-DGE (W.D. Wash. Nov. 9, 2023)11/09/2023
Court denied motion for a temporary restraining order preventing transfer of distribution rights until after compensation for the distribution rights had been determined by agreement or arbitration where petitioner failed to establish the likelihood of irreparable damage and that the injunction was in the public interest.
-
Shenzhen Zongheng Domain Network Co., Ltd. v. Amazon.com Services LLC, No. 1:23-CV-03334-JLR (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2023)11/07/2023
Court denied petition to vacate arbitration award and granted cross-motion to confirm the award where there was no basis to confirm that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law and where there was no public policy ground to vacate the award.
-
Baker Hughes Saudi Arabia Co. Ltd. v. Dynamic Industries, Inc., No. 2:23-CV-01396-GGG-KWR (E.D. La. Nov. 6, 2023)11/06/2023
Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens or to compel arbitration where the parties’ agreed upon arbitration center, the Dubai International Financial Center London Court of International Arbitration, was replaced by the Dubai International Arbitration Center and was therefore no longer available.
-
RSM Production Corp. v. Gaz du Cameroun, S.A., No. 4:22-CV-03611 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2023)11/04/2023
Court granted motion to partially vacate portion of arbitration award reducing recovery by roughly $4 million, and confirm the remaining portions of the award where the tribunal reversed course on a substantive legal issue it previously decided.
-
Mayes v. International Markets Live, No. 2:22-CV-01269-TL (W.D. Wash. Nov. 2, 2023)11/02/2023
Court granted, in part, defendants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court found that plaintiff’s claims arising after he signed the arbitration agreement were subject to mandatory arbitration and compelled arbitration of those claims. Court did not rule on the validity of the arbitration provision, finding that it must be reviewed by arbitrator.
-
Barcadia Bar & Grill of New Orleans, LLC v. Independent Specialty Insurance Company, No. 2:23-CV-03125-EEF-JVM (E.D. La. Nov. 2, 2023)11/02/2023
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court found that defendants did not waive the arbitration clause because there was no evidence that defendants evinced a desire to resolve the dispute through litigation and because litigation was in its initial stages. Court also found that the arbitration clause was enforceable under Article II of the New York Convention and Fifth Circuit precedent, although it was not signed by plaintiff.
-
Allco Finance Limited, Inc. v. Trina Solar (U.S.) Inc., No. 9:23-CV-81111-RLR (S.D. Fla. Nov. 2, 2023)11/02/2023
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court found that the parties agreed to arbitrate and the dispute potentially fell within the scope of the arbitration agreements. Court also found that the arbitration agreements delegated the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator by incorporating the AAA rules.
-
Dow Olefinverbund GmbH v. Trinseo Deutschland GmbH, No. 1:23-CV-07794-LAK (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 2023)11/01/2023
Court confirmed ICDR arbitration award pursuant to the New York Convention where respondent failed to respond, finding petitioner had met its burden of demonstrating that the award should be confirmed.
-
Supercooler Technologies, Inc. v. The Coca-Cola Company, No. 6:23-CV-00187-CEM-RMN (M.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2023)10/27/2023
Magistrate judge recommended the court grant in part defendants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Magistrate judge found respondent did not establish clear and unmistakable evidence of the parties’ intent to delegate the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator, because even though the AAA rules were incorporated by reference, there was a further carve-out provision in the agreement. Magistrate judge determined that some the plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement while others did not and recommended staying the case pending arbitration.
-
The People of the State of Illinois v. Monsanto Company, 1:22-CV-05339 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 24, 2023)10/24/2023
Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion to compel the production of certain documents produced in alternative dispute resolution proceedings in England, Missouri, and California for use in US litigation. Court granted plaintiff’s motion as to English arbitration proceedings, holding that an implied obligation of confidentiality under English law could not serve as a basis for defendant to withhold relevant documents because otherwise international companies could mandate England as the venue for all arbitrations and preclude the production of relevant documents from those proceedings in US litigation. As to the Missouri and California proceedings, court held that mediation privileges in those jurisdictions covered the at-issue proceedings, except that California law did not apply to arbitrations.
-
GIC Re, India, Corporate Member Limited v. Tyson International Company, Ltd., No. 23-CV-09175-DEH (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2023)10/24/2023
Court granted request for stay of petition to compel arbitration while High Court of England and Wales addressed whether English courts were the appropriate forum to resolve dispute between the parties.