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.
-
Shore v. Johnson & Bell, No. 1:16-CV-04363 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 22, 2017)02/22/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to proceed to arbitration and enjoin class arbitration. Court found the issue of class arbitration was an issue of arbitrability for the court to decide. Pursuant to the FAA, the court held that since the arbitration clause did not explicitly or implicitly authorize class arbitration, the defendant could not be compelled to submit to class arbitration.
-
Reed v. First Premier Bank, No. 2:16-CV-15654-KDE-JVM (E.D. La. Feb. 22, 2017)02/22/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA and stayed the action pending completion of arbitration, finding no memoranda was filed in opposition to defendant’s motion.
-
Alfortish v. Greensky, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-15084-ILRL-JVM (E.D. La. Feb. 22, 2017)02/22/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, and stayed and administratively closed the case. Court dismissed as moot plaintiffs’ motion to certify class and defendants’ alternative motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ first amended class action complaint. Court held that under the FAA, the arbitration clause in the loan agreement was valid and enforceable even though the plaintiffs may not have received a copy of the form including the arbitration clause; the dispute fell within the scope of the agreement; and the class action waiver was valid.
-
Danley v. Encore Capital Grp. Inc., No. 16-1670 (6th Cir. Feb. 22, 2017)02/22/2017
Court affirmed district court’s order compelling arbitration but reversed the order denying in part plaintiffs’ motion to unseal documents. Pursuant to the FAA, the court held that the plaintiffs did not meet the burden of demonstrating that no valid arbitration agreement existed and concluded the “parties ‘clearly and unmistakably’ provided for an arbitrator to determine various ‘gateway issues’ related to their claims.” Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to unseal documents, finding the district court failed to provide adequate and specific reasons for sealing the records.
-
McKenzie v. AT&T Services Inc., No. 2:15-CV-02325-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2017)02/21/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the motion to vacate or modify an arbitration award pursuant to the FAA. Court concluded there was no federal-question or diversity jurisdiction.
-
Gates v. Northland Group., Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01492-NLH-AMD (D.N.J. Feb. 21, 2017)02/21/2017
Court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint in favor of arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable pursuant to the FAA because a valid arbitration agreement existed between the parties and the dispute fell within the scope of the agreement. Court also held the plaintiff’s class action claims were subject to the arbitration agreement’s class action waiver clause.
-
Czech Republic Ministry of Health v. Diag Human SE, No. 16-620 (Feb. 21, 2017)02/21/2017
U.S. Supreme Court denied the Czech Republic’s petition for writ of certiorari challenging the D.C. Circuit’s decision reviving Diag Human SE’s enforcement efforts of a $325 million arbitral award issued by an international tribunal. [NB: No case decision available]
-
Cova v. Charter Communications, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00469-RLW (E.D. Mo. Feb. 17, 2017)02/17/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel individual arbitrations and stay litigation under the FAA. Court concluded the agreement was valid since plaintiffs were on notice of the arbitral provision and were given an opt-out option. Court also found the arbitration clause was not unconscionable because the plaintiffs presented no evidence of a disparity in bargaining power and the contract was negotiable based on the opt-out option and the un-prohibitive costs.
-
Amergence Supply Chain Mgmt. Inc. v. Changhong (Hong Kong) Trading Ltd., No. 2:15-CV-09976-MWF-AFM (C.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2016)02/17/2017
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration because the defendant did not have standing as a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement between the plaintiff and Guangdong Changhong Electronics Company, Ltd., and the arbitration clause did not contemplate binding signatories with non-signatories. Court also found that equitable estoppel did not apply because plaintiff’s claims did not rely on and were not “intimately intertwined” with the terms of the agreement.
-
Ray v. Chafetz, No. 1:16-CV-00428-CKK (D.D.C. Feb. 17, 2017)02/17/2017
Court confirmed the arbitral award and denied the motion to vacate pursuant to the FAA, finding the award was not procured by undue means and there was no evident partiality of misconduct of the arbitrator. Concluding that the petitioners’ contentions were meritless, court determined it did not need to decide whether “manifest disregard of the law” was still a valid ground for vacatur. Court also found the respondent was entitled to post-judgment interest, but denied the respondent’s request for attorney’s fees and costs and denied the respondent’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions.
-
Herrera Gollo v. Seaborne Puerto Rico, LLC, No. 3:15-CV-01771-JAG (D.P.R. Feb. 17, 2017)02/17/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration under the FAA and pursuant to the arbitration agreement the plaintiff signed. Court held that (i) the defendant had not waived its right to arbitration by delaying to seek arbitration; and (ii) the defendant could enforce the arbitration agreement even though it was not the entity that signed the agreement because of its close relationship to the signatory and the related nature of the plaintiff’s claims.
-
Continental Transfert Technique Ltd. V. Federal Government of Nigeria, No. 1:08-CV-02026-PLF-GMH (D.D.C. Feb. 17, 2017)02/17/2017
Court granted defense counsel’s renewed motion to withdraw, finding counsel’s sealed declaration explaining the rationale for the withdrawal request constituted “new evidence not previously available.” Court held that the motion to withdrawal would not unduly delay trial of the case since the defendants had failed to comply with any order of the court or the arbitration award issued eight years ago regardless of representation. Court also found it would not unfairly prejudice the plaintiff because sanctions would still persist for defendants’ failure to respond to the deposition notice regardless of counsel’s withdrawal.
-
Choice Hotels, Int’l, Inc. v. Patel, No. 8:16-CV-01316-PWG (D. Md. Feb 17, 2017)02/17/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to confirm the arbitration award and denied plaintiff’s pre-conference request, construed as a motion to dismiss. Court found that it had subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction and that venue was proper pursuant to the FAA. Court held that the plaintiff received adequate notice of the arbitration proceedings and that the defendant’s motion to confirm the arbitral award under the FAA properly stated a claim for which relief could be granted.
-
Anderson v. Walmart Stores Inc., No. 6:16-CV-06488-CJS (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2017)02/17/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to stay and compel arbitration, and denied plaintiff’s motion to remand to state court. Court found that the FAA applied because the sale of the computers at issue involved interstate commerce, and therefore, New York law prohibiting arbitration clauses involving the sale of consumer goods was inapplicable. However, court held the arbitration agreement was valid, as the consumer was not induced by fraud and a binding arbitration agreement was formed.
-
Bailey v. Healthsouth Corp., No. 9:15-CV-00057-RC-KFG (E.D. Tex. Feb. 16, 2017)02/16/2017
Court ordered that magistrate judge’s report and recommendation was adopted and the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration was granted. Court thus stayed the civil action pending the completion of arbitration, after which the parties were to notify the court of completion of arbitration.
-
Csukardi v. Platinum Corral, LLC, No. 6:16-CV-00064-NKM-RSB (W.D. Va. Feb. 16, 2017)02/16/2017
Court dismissed the complaint and ordered the parties to submit their dispute to arbitration. Court held that the parties entered into an agreement to arbitrate any disputes relating to plaintiff’s employment, including those under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and rejected plaintiff’s arguments that (i) the agreement was not voluntary, (ii) the agreement was missing material terms, and (iii) the agreement lacked consideration.
-
Corchado v. Foulke Management Corporation, No. 1:15-CV-06600-JBS-JS (D.N.J. Feb. 15, 2017)02/15/2017
Court denied defendant’s appeal and upheld the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations, finding, pursuant to the FAA, that the court and not the arbitrator must make the gateway determination of the existence of an arbitral agreement since the “claim is fraud in the inducement of the arbitration clause itself.” Court granted limited discovery to determine whether there was mutual assent to the arbitration agreement.
-
LED One Distribution, Inc. v. C.S. Koida, LLC, No. 4:16-CV-04315-PJH (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2017)02/15/2017
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the dispute did not arise from or relate to the contract containing the arbitration agreement, and thus there was no agreement to arbitrate. The contract created a joint venture between the parties, whereas plaintiff’s claims were regarding a failure to pay for certain products and the breach of a personal guaranty.
-
Corchado v. Foulke Mgmt. Corp., No. 1:15-cv-06600-JBS-JS (D.N.J. Feb. 15, 2017)02/15/2017
Court denied defendants’ appeal of an opinion and order of the magistrate judge, and adopted the magistrate judge’s determination that a court, and not an arbitrator, must make the gateway determination of the existence of an agreement to arbitrate. Court also adopted the magistrate judge’s finding that limited discovery is necessary to determine the enforceability of such an agreement.
-
C&N Farms v. Producers Agriculture Insurance. Co., No. 2:15-CV-00136-BSM (E.D. Ark. Feb. 15, 2017)02/15/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and confirmed the arbitrator’s award. Court found that plaintiff failed to allege any of the four grounds under the FAA for vacating the arbitral award, and its failure to allege or produce evidence to support its claims meant that there was “no question that [plaintiff] is not entitled to modification.”
-
Smaller v. JRK Residential Mgmt. Corp., No. 5:16-CV-02066-JLS (E.D. Pa. Feb. 15, 2017)02/15/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, rejecting plaintiff’s argument that the agreement was unconscionable because it prevented her from recovering attorneys’ fees and because it lacked consideration. Court held that the provision in the arbitration agreement requiring plaintiff to pay her own costs and legal fees could be stricken without invalidating the entire agreement and that continued employment was sufficient consideration for entering into the arbitration agreement.
-
Lakah v. UBS AG, No. 1:07-CV-02799-LAP-FM (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2017)
02/14/2017Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that non-signatories who reap a direct benefit made possible by an agreement cannot avoid the application of an arbitration clause contained therein.
-
Mahamedi IP Law LLP v. Paradice & Li LLP, No. 5:16-CV-02805-EJD (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2017)02/14/2017
District court granted in part motion to stay discovery pending decision on a motion to compel arbitration, but allowed a third-party deposition to proceed where that party may be unavailable after the court rules on the motion to compel arbitration.
-
Briggs v. Macy’s Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00902-MEM (M.D. Pa. Feb. 14, 2017)02/14/2017
Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiffs were entitled to discovery on the question of arbitrability. Court explained that, pursuant to third circuit doctrine, when the issue of arbitrability is not apparent on the face of the complaint, the motion to compel arbitration must be denied pending further development of the factual record.
-
Doherty v. Barclays Bank Delaware, No. 3:16-CV-01131-AJB-NLS (S.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2017)02/14/2017
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel individual arbitration. Noting that questions as to the making of the contract containing the arbitration clause were for the court to decide, court determined that defendant failed to show that plaintiff assented to the card-member agreement when plaintiff used and became an authorized user of a credit card account.
-
Lismore v. Societe Generale Energy Corp., No. 1:16-CV-08012-AKH (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2017)02/14/2017
Court denied plaintiff’s petition to vacate the arbitration award and confirmed defendants’ cross-petition to confirm. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the chair of the panel was inherently biased against the plaintiff because she was a “repeat player” and “only SocGen has the ability to give [the chair] continuing business” and that the chair failed to make a complete disclosure regarding the number of times she served as an arbitrator in matters involving Societe Generale. Court also rejected plaintiff’s allegations that the defendant coached its witnesses and instructed them to engage in perjury, and that the tribunal refused to consider pertinent and material evidence because the relevant issues were within the discretion of the panel.
-
Mohammed v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-02537 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 14, 2017)02/14/2017
Court denied defendants’ motions to compel arbitration. Court recognized that Supreme Court doctrine delegates challenges to a contract to the arbitrator and challenges to the arbitration agreement itself to the court, but found that plaintiff was raising a third type of challenge as to whether or not a contract existed at all, which was for the court to decide.
-
Jurado v. Schutz 665 LLC, No. 2:16-CV-05996-CAS-RAO (C.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2017)02/13/2017
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that defendants did not waive their right to compel arbitration by filing the current action, as it was still in its early stages and had not yet substantially invoked “the litigation machinery.” Court also held that there was a valid arbitration agreement, and rejected plaintiff’s arguments that defendants had provided no evidence of plaintiff’s assent and that the clause was unconscionable and unenforceable.
-
Mooney v. Jimmy Gray Chevrolet, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00010-DMB-RP (N.D. Miss. Feb. 13, 2017)02/13/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, rejecting plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration provision was unconscionable. Court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that defendant waived its right to enforce the arbitration provision when it instituted criminal theft proceedings against the plaintiff, as this argument was a defense to arbitrability as a whole and the existence of a delegation clause—which delegated issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator—required plaintiff to specifically challenge the delegation clause.
-
Perkins v. M&N Dealership XII, LLC d/b/a Metro Ford of OKC, No. 5:16-CV-00796-M (W.D. Okla. Feb. 13, 2017)02/13/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that (i) the arbitration clause was not superseded by a separate contract, which was executed at the same time and covered different terms than the purchase agreement; (ii) the arbitration clause did not contradict any terms in second contract; (iii) arbitration would provide complete relief to the plaintiff; (iv) defendant did not waive its right to arbitration when it rescinded the second contract; (v) plaintiff did not meet her burden of showing that she was fraudulently induced to sign the arbitration clause; and (vi) the arbitration clause was not unconscionable due to its fee-shifting provisions.
-
Cypress v. Cintas Corp. No. 2, No. 2:16-CV-02478-ADS-ARL (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2017)02/11/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and rejected plaintiff’s argument that the employment contracts containing the arbitration agreements were invalid due to lack of consideration. Court also rejected plaintiff’s claim of fraudulent inducement, as plaintiff only asserted that he was fraudulently induced to enter into one of the arbitration agreements and challenges to the arbitration clause itself do not prevent a court from enforcing a specific agreement to arbitrate.
-
Olson v. Harland Clarke Corp., No. 14-35586 (9th Cir. Feb. 10, 2017)02/10/2017
Court affirmed district court’s decision to confirm employment arbitration award. Court reasoned that plaintiff had not demonstrated that the arbitrator had exceeded his powers for purposes of vacatur under the FAA nor was the arbitrator obligated to rule on all evidentiary issues.
-
Anglin v. Vertical Group, No. 1:16-CV-03269-KPF (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2017)02/10/2017
Court affirmed FINRA award in its entirety, declining to vacate and revise portion of award denying attorney’s fees. Court held that request for partial vacatur was not timely because it was not served within three months of the date when the award had been delivered and fell short of meeting the high standard of manifest regard for the law.
-
Laccinole v. IC System, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-00337-M-LDA (D.R.I. Feb. 10, 2017)02/10/2017
Court granted motion to confirm AAA award and denied cross-motion to vacate, finding there was no evidence that the arbitrator’s summary disposition of the matter was improper.
-
Salini Construttori S.P.A. v. Kingdom of Morocco, No. 1:14-CV-02036-TSC (D.D.C. Feb. 10, 2017)02/10/2017
Court granted motion to enforce ICC arbitration award against the Kingdom of Morocco and denied cross-motion to dismiss. Court rejected argument that Moroccan courts could annul portion of the award issued by an arbitral panel in France, finding that Morocco was not a primary jurisdiction for purposes of Article V of the New York Convention. Court likewise rejected Morocco’s estoppel, public policy, comity, and res judicata arguments.
-
Lenhardt v. Sysco Corp., No. 1:16-CV-00153-BLG-SPW-TJC (D. Mont. Feb. 9, 2017)
02/09/2017Magistrate judge recommended that Court deny defendant’s motion to dismiss and to grant defendant’s request to stay the case pending mandatory arbitration. Magistrate Judge noted that the parties’ arbitration agreement encompassed a non-compete provision which applied to the first two counts of the complaint and required resolution prior to the third count before the court.
-
Rodriguez v. Xerox Business Services, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00041-FM (W.D. Tex. Feb. 9, 2017)02/09/2017
Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to abate and compel arbitration, finding that a valid arbitration existed and the plaintiff’s claims fell within its scope. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the lack of interstate commerce meant the FAA did not apply, finding that there was no requirement that the contract itself constitute a commercial transaction, that the employee be regularly engaged in interstate commerce in performing her duties, or that the employee was so engaged at the time the cause of action arose.
-
GGNSC Louisville Mt. Holly, LLC v. Turner ex rel. White, No. 3:16-CV-00149-TBR (W.D. Ky. Feb. 9, 2017)02/09/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and enjoin defendant from pursuing further litigation in state court. Court rejected argument that the matter was insufficiently related to interstate commerce to trigger the FAA, reasoning that courts had applied the broadest possible definition. Nor did the court agree that the agreement had been either procedurally or substantively unconscionable because it had been a contract of adhesion requiring arbitration, or that arbitration of the claim was barred by the Anti-Injunction Act.
-
Stevens v. Jiffy Lube International Inc., No. 3:16-CV-07175-EMC (N.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2017)02/08/2017
Court denied motion to vacate AAA arbitration award, holding that plaintiffs did not meet the high burden of proving that the arbitrator had manifestly disregarded the law or was irrational in her reasoning. Court also noted, but did not decide, challenge to the motion based on its timeliness.
-
Schardan v. Allied Interstate, LLC, No. 4:15-CV-01613-HEA (E.D. Mo. Feb. 8, 2017)02/08/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, reasoning that the dispute was covered by a valid arbitration agreement. Court declined to find that the defendant had waived its rights to arbitrate by participating in the limited pre-trial litigation required by the motions before it.
-
Valdez-Mendoza v. Jovani Fashion Ltd., No. 1:15-CV-07261-ILG-RML (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2017)02/08/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismiss proceedings, holding that under the factors enumerated under Genesco, Inc. v. T. Kakiuchi & Co., 815 F.2d 840 (2d Cir. 1987) a valid arbitration agreement covered the claim.
-
Lewis v. Epic Sys. Corp., No. 3:15-CV-00082-BBC (W.D. Wis. Feb. 8, 2017)02/08/2017
Court granted motion to stay proceedings pending appeal to the Supreme Court of its earlier rejection of a motion to dismiss the case after finding that the arbitration agreement was invalid. Court held that the balance of harms favored the defendant and a stay.
-
Red Rocks Resources LLC. V. Trident Steel Corporation, No. 5:14-CV-00948-C (W.D. Okla. Feb. 7, 2017)02/07/2017
Court granted in part third-party defendants motion to stay litigation and compel arbitration. Court held the arbitration agreement had not been waived because the actions taken in terms of discovery would have occurred whether the arbitration agreement had been enforced early in the litigation or at this stage. Thus, there was no wasted or excess effort.
-
20/20 Communications, Inc. v. Blevins, No. 4:16-CV-00810-Y (N.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2017)02/07/2017
Court denied motion to issue a preliminary injunction to enjoin arbitration. Court held that the availability of class arbitration under the parties’ arbitration agreement was a question for the arbitrator because the parties had incorporated a delegation clause, including by agreeing that any arbitration would be governed by AAA rules.
-
Terra Finance, LLC v. Acrow Corporation of America, No. 2:16-CV-00075-SRC-CLW (D.N.J. Feb. 7, 2017)02/07/2017
Court granted motion to dismiss proceedings and compel arbitration. Court held that the dispute was subject to a valid arbitration agreement and rejected the plaintiff’s assertions of procedural and substantive accountability, finding that they were mere assertions of impropriety. Court also refused to substitute an arbitrator, holding that concern with the amount of administrative fees did not satisfy the narrow FAA grounds permitting such judicial intervention.
-
HDI Glob. SE v. Lexington Ins. Co., No. 1:16-CV-07241-CM (S.D.N.Y Feb. 7, 2017)02/07/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court rejected argument that the parties’ agreement was void for lack of mutual assent or that the court must interpret its applicability, holding that the parties agreed to arbitrate all questions of contract interpretation. Court noted that the arbitration agreement was, in any case, severable from the rest of the contract and could not be invalidated by a challenge to the contract as a whole.
-
Julian v. Rollins, Inc., No. 8:16-CV-03092-JSM-TBM (M.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2017)02/07/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, reasoning that the arbitration clause extended to the dispute under Florida law and that defendant could enforce it as a non-signatory assignee of the underlying finance agreement. Court further held that by incorporating the AAA rules, the parties agreed to delegate any threshold questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.
-
Bay S. Ltd., Inc. v. Stephens Constr. & Concrete, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00472-WS-C (S.D. Ala. Feb. 7, 2017)02/07/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay judicial proceedings. Court rejected arguments that the Miller Act posed a statutory bar to arbitration or that the motion had been procedurally improper, and held that the parties had clearly and unmistakably agreed to have a AAA arbitrator decide the scope of their arbitral agreement and therefore deferred the question of scope to the arbitrator and stayed proceedings against all defendants.
-
Leverage Health Sols., LLC v. Medversant Techs., LLC, No. 2:16-CV-09058-JFW-FFM (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2017)02/07/2017
Court summarily granted petition to confirm AAA arbitration award, including post-award, pre-judgment interest, but not an amount the arbitrator had ordered reimbursed to Respondent for fees paid to the AAA.
-
Young v. CitiFinancial Serv. LLC, No. 4:16-CV-01171-CDP (E.D. Mo. Feb. 6, 2017)02/06/2017
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the dispute fell within a valid arbitration agreement. Court found that Plaintiff had presented no evidence that the agreement was invalid or that federal law might prevent arbitration of the claim.