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.
-
Hayford v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. 2:16-CV-04480-JJT (D. Ariz. Mar. 3, 2017)03/03/2017
Court granted defendants motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pursuant to the FAA, finding the claim was within the scope of a valid arbitration agreement.
-
Wholesalecars.com v. Hutcherson, No. 2:16-CV-00155-KOB (N.D. Ala. Mar. 3, 2017)03/03/2017
Court rejected plaintiff’s contention that the case before it should be dismissed, and instead ordered the parties to brief the court on the questions of whether the arbitration award at issue should be vacated because it was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means and whether defendant should be judicially estopped from enforcing the award or otherwise pursuing her claim (including whether the judicial estoppel defense is arbitrable). Court first held that the arbitration award, having made a final judgment as to liability, actual damages, and defendant’s entitlement to attorney’s fees, was final and subject to review by the courts, and that the amount of those fees remained outstanding did not compel a different conclusion. Court further held that the action before it should not be dismissed at this time on the basis of judicial estoppel because plaintiff had properly moved to vacate the arbitration award on the basis it was obtained through fraud and such decision remains outstanding.
-
Choice Hotels Int’l, Inc. v. Grewal Props. LLC, No. 8:16-CV-01318-PX (D. Md. Mar. 3, 2017)03/03/2017
Court granted plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and confirmation of an arbitral award. Court held that, as neither the grounds enumerated in the Federal Arbitration Act nor manifest disregard for the law were valid bases for vacatur, the award should be confirmed.
-
Valdez v. Terminix International Company Limited Partnership, No. 15-56236 (9th Cir. Mar. 3, 2017)03/03/2017
Circuit court reversed district court’s order denying motion to compel arbitration and remanded case to the district court to consider whether to dismiss or stay the action pending arbitration. Court found that the district court had erred in finding that cases under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) categorically could not proceed to arbitration. The court then found that the PAGA claim at issue fell within the scope of the arbitration clause.
-
Noble v. Samsung Electronics, America, Inc., No. 16-1903 (3d Cir. Mar. 3, 2017)03/03/2017
Circuit court affirmed district court’s order denying motion to compel arbitration. Court found that a consumer could not be bound to arbitrate claims by an arbitration agreement that the consumer was unaware of, which was found buried within an approximately 100 page brochure.
-
Southside Hospital v. New York State Nurse’s Association., No. 2:15-CV-02282-JS-GRB (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2017)03/03/2017
Court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in its entirety, thereby denying petitioner’s motion for summary judgment and confirming the arbitration award. Court held that the parties’ collective bargaining agreement did not include clear language excluding the underlying dispute from arbitration, thus requiring that it be arbitrated. Further, the court accepted the magistrate judge’s determination that the agreement’s incorporation of the rules of an arbitration association evidenced that the issue of arbitrability was to be referred to the arbitrator. As the arbitrators had considered and rejected petitioner’s arguments regarding arbitrability, and petitioner had not objected to the confirmation of the award, such determination is final.
-
United States ex rel Fisher v. Homeward Residential, Inc., No. 4:12-CV-00461-ALM (E.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2017)03/03/2017
Court denied movants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that, while an arbitration agreement existed, the statutory attorney’s fee dispute did not fall within the scope of the agreed arbitration provision because, inter alia, the review of attorney’s fees is statutorily assigned to the court under the False Claims Act and, in any event, was agreed to be submitted to the court by the parties in their mediated settlement agreement.
-
Chelmowski v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, Nos. 16‐1855 & 16‐3539 (7th Cir. Mar. 2, 2017)03/02/2017
Circuit Court affirmed the district court’s denial of plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) motion to reopen the district court’s prior judgment denying his motion to vacate an arbitration award and granting defendant’s motion to confirm, finding that it was nothing more than an effort to relitigate matters conclusively resolved by the arbitrator. Circuit court also affirmed a separate judge’s denial of plaintiff’s motion to vacate a second arbitration award involving the same essential dispute with defendant. As this second arbitration was barred by the preclusion doctrine, plaintiff had no basis to argue that the arbitrator committed misconduct or otherwise exceeded his or her powers per the Federal Arbitration Act.
-
East El Paso Physicians’ Medical Center, LLC, v. Aetna Health Inc. and Aetna Life Insurance Company, No. 3:16-CV-00044-KC (W.D. Tex. Mar. 2, 2017)03/02/2017
Court granted Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court first held that, as both Douglas factors (the parties “clearly and unmistakably” intended to delegate the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator, and the assertion of arbitrability is not “wholly groundless”) favor arbitrating arbitrability, the question of arbitrability of plaintiff’s claims must be resolved by the arbitrator. Court next held that ERISA neither preempts the Federal Arbitration Act nor renders unenforceable the arbitration provision in the parties’ agreement.
-
Smith v. Dolgencorp, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00338-VEH (N.D. Ala. Mar. 2, 2017)03/02/2017
Court granted motion to sever claims and compel arbitration. Court found that one of two plaintiffs’ claims were subject to mandatory arbitration under the FAA, and therefore severed these claims and compelled arbitration.
-
In re Global Tel*Link Corporation ICS Litigation, No. 5:14-CV-05275-TLB (W.D. Ark. Mar. 2, 2017)03/02/2017
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that the question of whether an arbitration agreement was agreed in the first place is a question that is “presumptively committed to judicial determination” under eighth circuit precedent. Court determined that a reasonable layperson in plaintiff’s position would not have understood the automated message received prior to funding an account with defendant to be referring to the terms of any contract, thus eliminating the essential element of mutual assent requisite to establishing plaintiff’s agreement to arbitrate his claims.
-
CBF Indústria de Gusa v. AMCI Holdings, Inc., No. 15-1133 (2d Cir. Mar. 2, 2017)03/02/2017
Circuit court granted petition for rehearing and vacated district court’s judgment dismissing the action to enforce award. Court found that district court had erred in determining that New York Convention and FAA require appellants to seek confirmation of a foreign arbitral award before the award may be enforced by a United States District Court, and erred in holding that appellants’ fraud claims should be dismissed prior to discovery on the ground of issue preclusion, as issue preclusion is an equitable doctrine and appellants plausibly alleged that appellees engaged in fraud.
-
Sherrard v. Macy’s System and Technology, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-03322-CC (N.D. Ga. Mar. 1, 2017)03/01/2017
Magistrate judge recommended that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration be granted and rejected plaintiff’s argument that the defendant had waived its right to arbitration and noted that the FAA requires a court to enforce agreements to arbitrate.
-
Haugh v. Barrett Business Services, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-02121-VC (E.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2017)03/01/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding plaintiff’s failure to understand the arbitration agreement was insufficient to show unconscionability. Court also noted that even if the arbitration provision were unconscionable, plaintiff’s claims would still be compelled to arbitration because the problematic injunctive relief provision was severable from the arbitration agreement.
-
Walker v. USA Swimming, No. 3:16-0825 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 1, 2017)03/01/2017
Court denied motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in relation to a motion to vacate an arbitration award. Court found that pursuant to the Sports Act, it had federal question jurisdiction over the issue of whether USA Swimming and the arbitrator properly implemented USA Swimming’s own rules and regulations in imposing the lifetime ban upon the plaintiff.
-
Hayes v. Reinhart Ford Service, LLC, No. 5:16-CV-02264-JLS (E.D. Pa. Mar. 1, 2017)03/01/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable and, contrary to plaintiff’s arguments, was not a contract of adhesion, and found that the FAA applies to Title VII cases.
-
Bayer Cropscience AG v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, No. 16-1530 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 1, 2017)03/01/2017
Circuit court affirmed district court’s decision to confirm arbitral award and vacated district court’s decision denying motion to amend the judgment. Court found that the district court abused its discretion regarding post-judgment interest by denying the defendant’s motion to amend the judgment to use the federal statutory rate for post-judgment interest for the period beginning with the entry of the district court’s judgment.
-
Millennium Operations, Inc. v. SuperValu, Inc., No. 15-1786 (8th Cir. Mar. 1, 2017)03/01/2017
Circuit court affirmed district court’s finding that defendants who were non-signatories to an arbitration agreement could not compel arbitration. The Court held, as the district court had, that the defendants could not succeed in compelling arbitration based on a successors-in-interest theory or based on the alternate theory that the defendants could directly enforce their previous arbitration agreements because some of the conduct at issue occurred when the previous agreements were still in effect.
-
Hillyard v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc., No. 6:17-CV-06062-SJ-FJG (W.D. Mo. Feb. 28, 2017)02/28/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings. Plaintiff argued that the arbitration agreement was part of an insurance contract and was therefore not enforceable. However, court found that the arbitration clause delegated all questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator and therefore compelled arbitration.
-
Preferred Care of Delaware, Inc. v. Crocker, No. 16-6179 (6th Cir. Feb. 28, 2017)
02/28/2017Court of appeal affirmed district court’s judgment dismissing appellants’ complaint to compel arbitration. Court held that the district court had correctly given preclusive effect to a state trial court’s ruling that the arbitration agreement between the parties was not enforceable because all of the elements of issue preclusion were satisfied.
-
Epic Driving & Marine Services, LLC v. Ranger Offshore, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00386-KMH (S.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2017)
02/28/2017Court granted defendant’s motion to stay the proceedings until a full and final award was granted by the arbitration tribunal. Court held that judicial economy would be best served by permitting the arbitral tribunal to make all final decisions prior to ruling on plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment motion.
-
Cerner Middle East Limited v. Al-Dhaheri, No. 1:16-CV-11984-FDS (D. Mass. Feb. 28, 2017)02/28/2017
Court denied motion to dismiss action for recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award for lack of personal jurisdiction. Court held that it has jurisdiction over claims where an arbitration agreement could “conceivably affect the outcome of the plaintiff’s case,” and that this was true for the present action.
-
Urquhart v. Kurlan, No. 1:16-CV-02301 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 28, 2017)02/28/2017
Court denied motion to confirm the arbitration award and remanded case to arbitration tribunal for clarification on apportionment of award, which it found to be ambiguous because of the award’s shift between “respondent” (singular) and “respondents” (plural), rendering the apportionment of damages ambiguous.
-
LGC USA Holdings Inc. v. Julius Klein Diamonds, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-05294-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2017)02/28/2017
Court granted motion to confirm the arbitration award and denied motions to dismiss, remand, and vacate. Court held (i) it has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to the New York Convention because the parties’ relationship involves property abroad and envisages performance abroad; (ii) the challenges to the award based on arbitrator bias were belated and fell short; and (iii) the substantial deference owed to arbitrators rebutted a finding that the tribunal’s award exceeded its powers or acted in manifest disregard of the law.
-
Tallakoy v. Black Fire Energy - Eastern District of Kentucky at Pikeville, No. 15-6322 (6th Cir. Feb. 28, 2017)02/28/2017
Circuit court reversed district court’s prior decision on the basis that the record was inadequate to support a finding that the defendant’s motion to vacate the award under §12 of the FAA was not served “within three months after the award is filed or delivered.” On remand, the district court is to determine whether evidence supports a finding that the defendant took delivery or had knowledge of the award on dates that would make its motion under §12 of the FAA untimely.
-
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated v. Oliver, No. 16-843-CV (2d Cir. Feb. 27, 2017)02/27/2017
Court of appeal affirmed district court’s judgment enjoining a FINRA arbitration and granting declaratory relief in favor of Merrill Lynch. Court found that where a settlement agreement vested jurisdiction in the courts, and explicitly stated that it superseded previous agreements between the parties, it was sufficient to overcome any initial requirement on the parties to arbitrate.
-
Katsoris v. WME IMG, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00135-RA (S.D.N.Y Feb. 27, 2017)02/27/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration. Court found that arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable and that plaintiff did not waive right to arbitrate by waiting five months after filing their complaint to file a formal motion to compel arbitration.
-
GoPro Hong Kong Ltd. v. 2B Trading, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-05113-JD (N.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2017)02/27/2017
Court granted petitioner’s motion to seal specific portions of an arbitral award and the contracts in dispute since the petitioner established compelling reasons to overcome a historically strong presumption of access to judicial records.
-
Andresen v. Intepros Federal, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-00446 (D.D.C. Feb. 27, 2017)02/27/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action during the pendency of the arbitration. Court held that while the delegation provision in the parties’ arbitration agreement delegates the question of arbitrability to the arbitral tribunal, because the agreement’s expense-shifting term and the incorporation of the provisions of the AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules risk saddling the plaintiff with prohibitive costs for the federal statutory claims – which is proscribed under Green Tree Financial Corp.– Alabama v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79 (2000) – the defendant is responsible for the arbitral filing fees and the fees and expenses due to the arbitrator for deciding the arbitrability of the federal statutory claims.
-
Basile v. Los Angeles Film School, LLC, No. 15-56309 (9th Cir. Feb. 27, 2017)02/27/2017
Circuit Court affirmed lower court’s decision denying motion to vacate an arbitration award because the plaintiff failed to establish any of the limited grounds on which an arbitration award can be vacated under § 10 of the FAA.
-
Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company v. Laferrera, No. 16-14519 (11th Cir. Feb. 27, 2017)02/27/2017
Circuit court affirmed lower court’s decision denying defendants’ request for a stay and request to compel arbitration. Court held that, under Alabama contract law, the non-signatory defendant could not compel arbitration where an agreement to arbitrate limited arbitration to the signing parties, even in circumstances where the nonarbitrable claims are “intimately founded in and intertwined with” arbitrable claims. Court did, however, vacate the lower court’s refusal to grant a discretionary stay of the nonarbitrable claims against the non-signatory because of the risk of inconsistent results and remanded with instructions to stay the nonarbitrable claims.
-
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Oliver, No. 16-0843 (2d Cir. Feb. 27, 2017)02/27/2017
Circuit court affirmed lower court’s judgment enjoining a FINRA arbitration and granting declaratory relief in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the parties’ subsequent settlement agreement released the claims that had been subject to the initial consent to FINRA arbitration.
-
Internaves de Mexico v. Andromeda Steamship Corporation, American Navigation, Inc., Pegasus Lines, Ltd. S.A., Panama, and James Karathanos, No. 9:16-CV-81719-DMM (S.D. Fla. Feb. 24, 2017)02/24/2017
Court granted motion to stay proceedings pending resolution of motion to compel arbitration and stayed discovery. Court found a stay to proceedings to be in the interests of judicial economy and of preventing the defendants from being prejudiced by participating in discovery.
-
McDougal v. Comcast Corporation, No. 9:16-CV-81906-DMM (S.D. Fla. Feb. 24, 2017)02/24/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed proceedings. Court ruled that plaintiffs were bound by a valid arbitration agreement applicable to their claims that they had failed to opt out of before the stated deadline. Court rejected arguments that the agreement was invalid as unconscionable, finding no evidence of procedural unconscionability in the opt-out process and declining to consider substantive unconscionability following that determination.
-
Rasmy v. Marriott International, Inc., No. 1:1 6-CV-O4865-AJN (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2017)02/24/2017
Court denied in part defendant’s motion to dismiss complaint for wrongful termination. Court held that provisions in the relevant collective bargaining agreement between the defendant and its employees did not bar the plaintiff’s lawsuit, as the these provisions came nowhere near constituting “clear and unmistakable” waiver of the plaintiff’s rights to pursue Title VII and state and city-law discrimination claims in federal court.
-
Fox v. Vision Serv. Plan, No. 2:16-CV-02456 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2017)02/24/2017
Court granted plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo pending a determination of whether the dispute resolution process is legal and enforceable. Court concluded that the plaintiff showed she was likely to succeed on the merits, she would suffer irreparable harm without preliminary relief, the balance of equities tipped in her favor, and the injunction was in the public interest.
-
Doe v. Swift Tranp. Co., Inc., No. 2:10-CV-00899 (D. Ariz. Feb. 24, 2017)02/24/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion staying the case pending appeal. Court held the defendants did not show a likelihood of success on the merits but the appeal raised serious legal questions; that defendants would suffer irreparable harm from the increased cost of litigation associated with defending the proposed class action and the loss of the efficiency of arbitration; and that a stay is in the public interest.
-
DeVries v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-02953 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2017)02/24/2017
Court granted motions to compel arbitration and stay litigation pursuant to the FAA. Court held plaintiff consented to the agreement and found, pursuant to the delegation clause, that issues of arbitrability were for the arbitrator to decide, save for the question of whether defendant had waived its right to enforce the arbitration provision. Court concluded defendant had not waived its right to arbitration because it did not know of an existing right to compel arbitration; it did not engage in acts inconsistent with the right to arbitrate; and the plaintiff was not prejudiced by litigation conduct inconsistent with the right to arbitrate.
-
Brandenburg Health Facilities v. Ivye Mattingly, No. 16-6168 (6th Cir. Feb. 24, 2017)02/24/2017
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss. Since the district court stayed the case pending arbitration pursuant to the FAA, the court held there was no final order, and thus, it had no jurisdiction over the appeal.
-
IPayment, Inc. v. 1st Americard, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-01904-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2017)02/23/2017
Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award finding “this [was] a textbook case for application of veil piercing,” granted the application for attorney’s fees, and denied the motion to vacate the award. Court found it should consider any admissible evidence on the issue of alter ego under a de novo standard, concluding that the corporation easily met the alter ego test and that the defendant’s control of the corporation was used to perpetrate a wrongful act under New York law. The court therefore held the corporate veil should be pierced and the arbitration award confirmed.
-
CMH Homes, Inc. v. Bob’s Home Services, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-10696 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 23, 2017)02/23/2017
Court granted petition to confirm the arbitration award and the motion for entry of default judgment pursuant to the FAA. Court concluded that it had jurisdiction to confirm the award, the plaintiff filed all the necessary documents required by §13 of the FAA, there was a valid arbitration agreement, and the claims fell within the scope of the agreement.
-
Byrnes v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc., No. 1:16-CV-02445 (D. Md. Feb. 23, 2017)02/23/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and denied plaintiff’s motion to stay pending arbitration where both parties agreed all of plaintiff’s claims were arbitrable. Court found plaintiff’s request to stay pending arbitration was unnecessary because plaintiff could request judicial review of the arbitration award and a stay was not required under §3 of the FAA.
-
Avilla v. Discover Financial Services., No. 2:16-CV-09232-JFW-RAO (C.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2017)02/23/2017
Court stayed all proceedings pending arbitration pursuant to §3 of the FAA on the stipulation of the parties and ordered the parties to file a joint status report on or before June 26, 2017.
-
Shenzhen Fenda Technology Co. Ltd. v. Stellé LLC, 8:16-CV-02169-JVS-JCG (C.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2017)02/23/2017
Court granted motion to confirm the final arbitration award and entered a judgment thereon pursuant to §§3 and 9 of FAA. Court found the arbitration agreement was valid and there was no indication the award had been modified, vacated, or corrected.
-
Peng v. Uber Technologies Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00545 (E.D.N.Y Feb. 23, 2017)02/23/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action pending arbitration, finding that plaintiffs assented to the Service Agreements and entered into a valid arbitration clause. Court concluded the parties clearly delegated the gateway arbitrability issues to the arbitrator; found the delegation clause was not procedurally or substantively unconscionable; and held that the class action waiver was valid and did not violate the National Labor Relations Act.
-
Lakah v. UBS AG, Exporters Insurance Co., Ltd., No. 07-CV-2799-LAP-AJP (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2017)02/23/2017
Court stayed the proceeding pending arbitration and ordered arbitration be held in New York, New York, finding that the petitioners were bound by the arbitration agreement.
-
G&K Services LUG, LLC v. Talent Creation, Ltd., No. 3:16-CV-00180-WHR (W.D. Ohio Feb. 23, 2017)02/23/2017
Court sustained motion to confirm arbitration award and overruled petition to vacate arbitration award pursuant to the New York Convention. Court found that the arbitrator did not exceed his scope of powers in awarding damages; that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers in rejecting the laches defense; and that arbitrator did not manifestly disregard Ohio law in rejecting petitioner’s statute of limitations defense.
-
AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. v. Lacchini, No. 16 Civ. 2575 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2017)02/23/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction on allegations that the foreign defendant arbitrator corruptly presided over the arbitration, including violations of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) and tortious interference with contract under New York law. Court held it lacked jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2), concluding that defendant did not possess minimum contacts to warrant an exercise of personal jurisdiction pursuant to constitutional standards.
-
Chatman v. Jimmy Gray Chevrolet, Incorporated, No. 16-60677 (5th Cir. Feb. 22, 2017)
02/22/2017Court of appeals found that decision compelling arbitration and staying proceedings was not a final appealable order since case remained stayed before the district court.
-
The Casiano-Bel Air Homeowners Association v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance, No. 2:16-CV-08549-SVW-SK (C.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2017)02/22/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay claims, finding that the arbitration clause was not unenforceable for unconscionability, was mandatory and not permissive, and encompassed the dispute at issue.