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.
-
JPay, Inc. v. Salim, No. 1:16-CV-20107-DLG (S.D. Fla. Mar. 15, 2017)03/15/2017
Court denied without prejudice application to vacate arbitration award, finding the court was without jurisdiction to rule on the application while appeal of motion compelling arbitration was pending.
-
Sawgrass Mutual Insurance Company v. Endurance Specialty Insurance Ltd., No. 4:16-CV-00449-MW-CAS (N.D. Fla. Mar. 15, 2017)03/15/2017
Court remanded defendant’s motions to compel arbitration and confirm the ex-parte arbitral award to state court, finding the FAA does not confer subject matter jurisdiction on federal courts and there was no independent basis for jurisdiction.
-
Woo v. Ochiai Georgia, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00086-TAV-HBG (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 15, 2017)03/15/2017
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. After finding that the parties had not expressly intended for an arbitrator to decide the issue of arbitrability, court held that plaintiff, a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement, could not be compelled to arbitrate the dispute because traditional principles of contract or agency law did not establish that plaintiff intended to be bound by the arbitration agreement in question.
-
Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace v. Spirit Aerosystems, Inc., No. 16-3022 (10th Cir. Mar. 15, 2017)03/15/2017
Court of appeals reversed the lower court’s decision to grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that an individual employee’s grievance had challenged a company-wide policy and thus, was not subject to arbitration under the parties’ collective bargaining agreement. Court of appeals held that the collective bargaining agreement contained a valid agreement to arbitrate and that the terms of the arbitration provision did not disqualify the dispute from arbitration simply because the dispute would likely affect other employees.
-
Owensboro Health Facilities, L.P. v. Canary, No. 4:16-CV-00166-JHM-HBB (W.D. Ky. Mar. 15, 2017)03/15/2017
Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration and to stay the proceedings in part. Court held that defendants, the representatives of a deceased resident of plaintiffs’ nursing and rehabilitation center, were required to litigate their case through arbitration because plaintiffs and deceased had entered into an arbitration agreement that covered all of defendants’ claims except for defendants’ wrongful death claim. Court further held that defendants’ wrongful death claim was not subject to the arbitration provision because controlling state law established that wrongful death claims do not derive from a claim on behalf of a decedent but belonged to the beneficiaries (i.e., defendants in the present case).
-
National Hockey League v. National Hockey League Players’ Association, No. 1:16-CV-04287-AJN (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2017)03/15/2017
Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss a complaint seeking to vacate an arbitration award and granted defendant’s motion to confirm the award. Court held that dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint was not warranted simply because plaintiff elected not to initiate the action as a motion to vacate. Court further held that, contrary to plaintiff’s assertions, arbitrator did not exceed his authority when interpreting the standard of review that the collective bargaining agreement required him to apply.
-
Hebbronville Lone Star Rentals, LLC v. Sunbelt Rentals Industrial Services, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00856-RP (W.D. Tex. Mar. 15, 2017)03/15/2017
Magistrate judge recommended that court grant plaintiffs’ motion to vacate an arbitration award. Magistrate judge concluded that, although an arbitrator had in fact decided the issue of arbitrability, the parties had not expressly intended for the arbitrator to determine his jurisdiction and that therefore, the court would have to independently determine whether the dispute at issue was arbitrable. Upon review of the parties’ claims, magistrate judge determined that the issue in dispute was outside the scope of the arbitration agreement and that the arbitrator had therefore exceeded his authority in issuing an award.
-
Hammer v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., No. 8:16-CV-03553-EAK-AAS (M.D. Fla. Mar. 15, 2017)03/15/2017
Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that plaintiff was bound to an unsigned arbitration agreement because an arbitration agreement is enforceable regardless of whether it is signed when, as was the case in the present dispute, the agreement stated that plaintiff accepted the agreement’s terms as a condition of continued employment.
-
BCI Construction, Inc. v. 797 Broadway Group., LLC, No. 1:16-CV-017077-FJS (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2017)03/15/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to remand case to state court and denied defendant’s motion to confirm/modify an arbitration award as moot. Court held that it lacked federal subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiff’s complaint seeking to vacate an arbitration award failed to assert that the award was rendered in manifest disregard of federal law or that the underlying dispute involved a federal question.
-
Limitless Beauty Partners, LLC v. Skinmedica, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-02824-JAG (D.P.R. Mar. 14, 2017)03/14/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of a contract dispute. Court held that claims that arose out of events that occurred after a written distribution agreement had expired and been extended by oral agreement were within the scope of the arbitration clause in the original agreement.
-
West Georgia Wireless, LLC v. Southwestco Wireless, LP, No. 3:16-CV-00196-TCB (N.D. Ga. Mar. 14, 2017)03/14/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, but denied motion to stay discovery as moot. Court found unsupported the plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable or should not be enforced because arbitration would be overly costly.
-
Greerwalker, LLP v. Jackson, No. 3:15-CV-00235-GCM (W.D.N.C. Mar. 14, 2017)03/14/2017
Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment to enjoin the defendants from arbitrating their malpractice claims. Court held that there was no evidence to support defendants claim that an engagement letter containing an arbitration clause between plaintiff and a pharmaceutical company had been modified by plaintiff to make defendants, shareholders of the pharmaceutical company, party to the agreement.
-
Johnson v. Uber Tech., Inc., No. 1:16-CV-05468-JZL (N.D. Ill. Mar. 13, 2017)03/13/2017
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff to arbitrate without prejudice. Court held that defendant failed to provide to the court facts that would establish that plaintiff was meaningfully informed of an arbitration agreement to which he assented and that parties should engage in discovery on the formation of the arbitration agreement.
-
Choice Hotels Int’l, Inc. v. Shree Sai Properties, No. 8:16-CV-00231 (D. Md. Mar. 13, 2017)03/13/2017
Court granted motion to enforce the arbitration award. Court construed defendants’ motion to dismiss as a motion to vacate, and proceeded to reject it because it was untimely under §9 of the FAA. Court also found that the defendants’ claim that they were not properly notified of the arbitration proceedings unpersuasive since they were given notices reasonably calculated to inform them of the action and had an opportunity to present their objections.
-
Horner v. American Airlines, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00665-D (N.D. Tex. Mar. 13, 2017)03/13/2017
Court denied plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order against the commencement of an arbitration hearing between plaintiffs and defendants. Court held that a temporary restraining order was not justified because plaintiffs did not show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. Specifically, court found that plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that the court had jurisdiction to hear the dispute under the Railway Labor Act.
-
Carroll v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. 3:15-CV-02321-EMC (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2017)03/13/2017
Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendants’ affirmative defense—that certain members of the putative class were barred from becoming members of the class because of their agreements to arbitrate employment disputes with the defendants. Court held that defendants’ had not waived their right to arbitrate the disputes in question because (i) a year-long delay in raising the prospect of arbitration was not sufficient to bar the defense and (ii) the plaintiffs would not be prejudiced if certain members of the class were required to arbitrate their disputes with the defendants.
-
Umbach v. Carrington Investment Partners (US), LP, No. 15-1285-CV (2d Cir. Mar. 13, 2017)03/13/2017
Court affirmed lower court’s decision to permit plaintiff the opportunity to amend his complaint to request damages. Court held that although the parties’ agreement included a provision that subjected claims for damages to mandatory arbitration, defendants waived their right to rely on the arbitration agreement as an affirmative defense because defendants offered no evidence to show they moved to compel arbitration before the lower court.
-
Roberts v. Lame Deer Public Schools, No. 14-36038 (9th Cir. Mar. 13, 2017)03/13/2017
Court of appeals denied appellant’s challenge to an arbitral award. Court held that the district court correctly found that appellant’s attempt to vacate the arbitration award was barred as a result of claim preclusion. Court of appeals also held that, contrary to appellant’s claims, even if claim preclusion did not apply, the district court correctly concluded that the appellant had been afforded adequate procedural due process.
-
Hurst v. Monitronics Int’l, Inc., No. 16-11177 (11th Cir. Mar. 13, 2017)03/13/2017
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of appellant’s motion to compel arbitration since appellant’s initial brief did not challenge the district court’s decision not to compel arbitration.
-
Dine Dev. Corp. v. Fletcher, No. 1:17-CV-0015-JB-KBM (D.N.M. March 10, 2017)03/10/2017
Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order and enjoined defendant from proceeding with arbitration against defendant. Court held that inter alia plaintiffs were entitled to sovereign immunity because they were corporations organized under the laws of the Navajo Nation. As a result, plaintiffs were immune from the claims that defendant planned to bring in arbitration.
-
Golden Gate National Senior Care LLC v. Bateman, No. 1:16-CV-00898-YK (M.D. Penn. Mar. 10, 2017)03/10/2017
Court denied, without prejudice, petitioners’ motion to compel arbitration and stay court proceedings. Court held that respondent made more than a “naked assertion” that the petitioners did not intend to be bound by the arbitration agreement and that the parties should be entitled to conduct discovery on the question of arbitrability before the court entertained further briefing on the question.
-
Trs. of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labor Management Cooperation, Pension and Welfare Funds v. Duncan & Son Carpentry, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-02843-JS-AYS (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2017)03/10/2017
Court granted magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to inter alia (i) grant a petition to confirm and enforce an arbitration award and (ii) direct the clerk of the court to enter judgment in favor of the petitioners. Court held that it should adopt the magistrate judge’s recommendation because the report and recommendation was free of clear error and the parties failed to submit objections to the magistrate judge’s rulings.
-
Arkwright Advanced Coating, Inc. v. MJ Solutions GmbH, No. 0:14-CV-05030-DSD-TNL (D. Minn. Mar. 10, 2017)03/10/2017
Court granted in part petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment. Court held that petitioner should be relieved of the injunctive relief imposed by an arbitration award which prohibited the petitioner from infringing on a patent held by respondent. Court found that under applicable precedent, the injunction imposed by the arbitration award should not apply because the patent in question had expired.
-
Fujifilm North America Corporation v. Geleshmall Enterprises LLC, No. 1:16-CV-05677-BMC (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2017)03/10/2017
Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion to dismiss and denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration on the “gray markets claims.” Court held that the counterclaims fell within the arbitration clause, but—contrary to plaintiff’s argument for dismissal—a stay of the counterclaims was mandatory. Court also found that the arbitration agreement was not broad enough to encompass the gray market claims, which exist separate and apart from the subject of the arbitration agreement.
-
Goodwin v. Branch Banking and Trust Co., No. 5:16-CV-10501 (S.D. W.Va. Mar. 10, 2017)03/10/2017
Court denied defendant’s motion to inter alia compel arbitration. Court held that the arbitration agreement between the parties was unenforceable because it was unconscionable under West Virginia law, namely, because (i) plaintiff was not offered the opportunity to opt out of the arbitration provision; (ii) plaintiff was rushed when she executed the agreement; (iii) plaintiff was an unsophisticated consumer; and (iv) the terms of the arbitration agreement heavily favored defendant.
-
Jaeger v. Peak Medical Montana Operations, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-00030-SHE (D. Mont. Mar. 10, 2017)03/10/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings. Court held that the terms of the arbitration agreement at issue were not unconscionable under Montana law. In determining that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable, court stated the agreement to arbitrate (i) was a standalone document; (ii) stated in multiple places that the agreement was voluntary; (iii) permitted cancellation by plaintiff within thirty days of execution; (iv) stated that trial by judge or jury would be waived three separate times (twice in capitalized type); and (v) included a signature page that restated certain provisions in capitalized type.
-
Thoma v. CBRE Group, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-06040-CBM-AJW (C.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2017)03/09/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, strike collective actions claims and stay claim pending arbitration. Court found that a waiver in the arbitration agreement violated the NLRA by precluding plaintiff from engaging in concerted activity and was therefore unenforceable. Court further held the waiver was not severable from the remainder of the arbitration agreement concluding the parties did not agree to arbitrate class-wide, collective or representative claims.
-
Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, No. 1:69-CV-02145 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 9, 2017)03/09/2017
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate an arbitration award. Court held that, contrary to plaintiff’s claims, there was no evidence to support a finding that the arbitrator had made gross errors of law and fact that were apparent on the face of the arbitration award.
-
Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB v. Universitas Education, LLC, No. 3:15-CV-00911-VLB (D. Conn. Mar. 9, 2017)03/09/2017
Court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s decision to compel arbitration. Court held that plaintiff failed to (i) offer “newly discovered” evidence for purpose of a motion for reconsideration and (ii) establish that the court did not resolve material factual disputes in its decision.
-
Roy v. Buffalo Philharmonic Orchestra Society, Inc., No. 16-717 (2d Cir. Mar. 9, 2017)03/09/2017
Court of appeals affirmed lower court’s decision to deny appellant’s motion to vacate an arbitration award. Court held that, contrary to the appellant’s claims, the arbitrator had not (i) committed misconduct by refusing to admit into evidence certain recordings and transcripts; (ii) exceeded his powers by hearing testimony concerning complaints and concerns over the appellant’s performance and competence; (iii) improperly considered the testimony of the appellees’ witnesses over those who supported the appellant; and (iv) issued an award that was contrary to public policy. Court of appeals further held that appellant failed to proffer sufficient evidence to establish that his union breached its duty to fairly represent the appellant during the arbitration.
-
McAdoo v. New Line Transport, LLC, No. 8:16-CV-01917-JDW-AEP (M.D. Fla. Mar. 9, 2017)03/09/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint and compel arbitration. Court held that, contrary to the plaintiffs’ claims, the arbitration agreement in question was not unconscionable and the issues in dispute were subject to the terms of the arbitration agreement.
-
Huttsell v. Radcliff Co., Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00796-CRS (W.D. Ky. Mar. 9, 2017)03/09/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to stay the proceedings and compel the claims into arbitration. Court found that plaintiff’s claims were subject to arbitration because they could not be resolved without reference to the dispute resolution and were specifically mentioned within the agreement to arbitrate.
-
Hill v. Assuranceforeningen Skuld, No. 1:15-CV-00025 (D. Guam Mar. 9, 2017)03/09/2017
Court adopted the recommendation of the magistrate judge that the parties’ dispute should be arbitrated in Norway and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for an alternative forum.
-
Bright-Asante v. Saks & Co., Inc., No. 1:15-CV-05876-ER (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2017)03/09/2017
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 the plaintiff’s statutory claims.
-
Mumin v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-06143-NGG-JO (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2017)03/08/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration agreement delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, and that this was not procedurally unconscionable. Court found that there was no inconsistency between the arbitration provision and a later forum selection clause, which explicitly governed disputes not subject to the arbitration clause and provided for enforcement of an award or the agreement. Court found that the employers were told that the arbitration agreement was not a mandatory condition of their contractual relationship with Uber.
-
Mumim v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 1:15-CV-07387-NGG-JO (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2017)03/08/2017
Court inter alia granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the arbitration agreement in question provided clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties intended to delegate the issue of arbitrability to an arbitrator and that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable. Court further held that the class action waiver included in the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable.
-
Int’l Brotherhood of Elec. Workers Local 31 v. Allete, Inc., No. 0:16-CV-00523-PAM-LIB (D. Minn. Mar. 8, 2017)03/08/2017
Court granted plaintiff’s petition to compel arbitration. Court held that a collective bargaining agreement between the parties contained a valid agreement to arbitrate and that the issues in dispute were subject to the terms of the provision.
-
Palmiste Group., LLC v. Prakash, No. 3:16-CV-05763-BRM-TJB (D.N.J. Mar. 8, 2017)03/08/2017
Court denied petitioner’s motion to vacate the arbitration award. Court found that petitioner failed to allege it was denied a fundamentally fair hearing as a result of the arbitrator’s alleged refusal to review evidence. Court noted that no evidence was excluded by the arbitrator and neither party was prohibited from proffering evidence.
-
Wright v. SSC Nashville Operating Co. LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00768 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 8, 2017)03/08/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the lawsuit, rejecting plaintiff’s arguments that the agreement was improperly signed and that the integration clause superseded the dispute resolution provision.
-
Luperon-Garcia v. Mexican Gastronomy International, LLC, No. 16-24598-CIV-JEM (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2017)03/07/2017
Magistrate judge recommended that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration be granted, rejecting plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration provisions at issue violated the National Labor Relations Act because they do not permit collective arbitration or collective action. Magistrate judge noted that, despite circuits being split on the issue, under eleventh circuit law, the right to collective action is a procedural one, not a substantive one and therefore arbitration agreements with class and collective action waivers are valid and enforceable under the FAA.
-
Pro’s Choice Beauty Care, Inc. v. Local 2013, No. 2:16-CV-02318-ADS-ARL (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2017)03/07/2017
Court granted petitioner’s petition to vacate an arbitration award and denied respondent’s cross-petition to confirm the arbitration award. Court held that the arbitration award should be vacated on the grounds that a portion of the award violated public policy codified in the Immigration Reform and Control Act.
-
Chebar v. Oak Financial Group, Inc., No. 2:14-CV-02982-LDW-GRB (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2017)03/07/2017
Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings pending the completion of arbitration. Court held that, contrary to defendant’s claims, that plaintiffs had not waived their right to arbitration because (i) a delay of approximately two and one-half months between the commencement of litigation and the filing of plaintiff’ request for arbitration did not by itself constitute waiver; (ii) defendants would not suffer substantive prejudice and prejudice in terms of excess costs and delay if forced to arbitrate the dispute; and (iii) even if the plaintiffs’ conduct was inconsistent, the mere filing of litigation before a request for arbitration does not constitute waiver.
-
Parton v. FCA US LLC, No. 5:16-CV-00262-M (W.D. Okla. Mar. 7, 2017)03/07/2017
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings because plaintiffs met their burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that they were fraudulently induced into signing the dispute resolution clause. Court found that defendant’s agent owed plaintiffs a duty of full disclosure because he chose to speak regarding the dispute resolution clause, and the partial disclosure conveyed a false impression of the purpose and content of that clause.
-
Johnson v. CRC Holdings, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-02937-JKB (D. Md. Mar. 7, 2017)03/07/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration. Court noted that although the parties did not expressly address whether the arbitration would be binding, it would be sufficient to conclude that the agreement’s silence on the issue did not render it unenforceable, especially given the parties’ clearly expressed intention to allow the defendant to submit disputes to arbitration.
-
Spurgeon v. Marriot Int’l, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-24612-CMA (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2017)03/07/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and to stay. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable and found that non-signatory defendants in the instant case were allowed to compel arbitration under the doctrine of equitable estoppel.
-
Mecum v. Weilert Custom Homes, LLC, No. 1:15-CV-08548 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 6, 2017)03/06/2017
Court entered and continued motion to compel arbitration, holding that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether an arbitration agreement existed. Court found that there was conflicting evidence as to whether parties received a letter containing the arbitration agreement, and whether there was a preexisting oral agreement. Court found that a trial was necessary to determine whether an agreement was offered and accepted by the parties.
-
Int’l Union v. Monongalia County Coal Company, No. 1:16-CV-00056-IMK (N.D. W. Va. Mar. 6, 2017)03/06/2017
Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and ordered the arbitration award to be enforced. Court found that (i) the company’s defenses to the award were not time-barred under 9 USC § 12, as the three month statute of limitation was for challenges to the validity of the award, not the enforceability, (ii) the well-reasoned and factually supported award drew its essence from the contract and conformed with the prevailing common law of the shop, and (iii) the award did not violate any explicit public policy.
-
Rightnour v. Tiffany and Co., No. 1:16-CV-03527-JGK (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2017)03/06/2017
Court denied defendant’s petition for an order compelling arbitration. Court found that plaintiff’s continued employment was not conclusive and irrebutable evidence of her intent to be bound by the dispute resolution agreement. Rather, plaintiff’s written notice to defendant stating that she rejected the terms of the agreement plainly constituted an objective manifestation of her intent not to be bound by the Dispute Resolution Agreement.
-
Morgan v. Sears Holdings Mgmt. Corp., No. 1:16-CV-06871 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 6, 2017)03/06/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in part, ordering one plaintiff’s claim be submitted to arbitration and staying further proceedings on that claim pending arbitration. Court first reasoned that the arbitration agreement itself was not void ab initio, as the subject matter of the agreement – including the existence of a collective action waiver – was not illegal. It next determined that, for two of the plaintiffs, the existence of a factual dispute regarding whether the two plaintiffs opted out of the arbitration agreement, required an evidentiary hearing. For the remaining plaintiff, however, the court held that it was required to compel arbitration because defendant had met its burden of showing the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate, a dispute within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and a refusal to arbitrate by the plaintiff.