2016-2025 Arbitration Decisions

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.

• Bergheim v. Sirona Dental Systems, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01692-LTS (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2017)

  01/24/2017

  Court grants petitioners motion for confirmation of an arbitral award and request for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and denies respondents’ cross-motion to vacate the award.  Court held that, in rendering the award, the arbitral tribunal did not exceed its powers, dispense its own brand of justice, or manifestly disregard the terms of the arbitration agreement or the law.

• Bruzda v. Sonic Automotive, No. 1:16-CV-02413-MEH (D. Colo. Jan. 23, 2017)

  01/23/2017

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration because the defendant had defaulted in a prior arbitration proceeding.  Plaintiffs initially submitted their discrimination claims to arbitration with the AAA, but defendant failed to pay the AAA administrative fees in full and the AAA closed the case.  Court found that in failing to pay the AAA arbitration fees, defendant had forfeited its ability to enforce the arbitration agreement.

• Bell Products, Inc. v. Hospital Building and Equipment Company, No. 3:16-CV-04515-JSC (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2017)

  01/23/2017

  Court grants defendants motion to stay the arbitration pursuant to § 3 of the FAA and held that the venue provision in the parties’ arbitration agreement is enforceable because the FAA preempts California Code of Civil Procedure § 410.42(a)(1).

• Brown & Pipkins, LLC v. Service Employees International Union, Local 32BJ, Nos. 15-1931, 15-1987 (4th Cir. Jan. 23, 2017)

  01/23/2017

  Circuit court affirms district court’s confirmation of four labor arbitration awards, based in large part on the limited scope of review afforded to labor-arbitration decisions pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement.  Court also held that defendant waived its claim for attorneys’ fees by not complying with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54.

• Ortiz-Espinosa v. BBVA Securities of Puerto Rico, Inc., No. 16-1122 (1st Cir. Jan. 20, 2017)

  01/20/2017

  Circuit court affirmed district court’s refusal to vacate arbitral award and instead to confirm it.  Court held that district court’s “look-through” the motion to the underlying dispute approach to determine whether a court has federal jurisdiction was the correct test, that federal jurisdiction existed, and that the lower court did not err in determining the lack of grounds to vacate or modify the award.  

• HCR ManorCare, Inc. v. Carr, No. 3:16-CV-00068 (N.D.W. Va. Jan. 20, 2017)

  01/20/2017

  Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, abstain, and grants plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that a decedent’s estate, though it is a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, is bound by that agreement because under West Virginia law any potential recovery in a wrongful death action is derivative based upon the decedent’s own ability to recover if alive. 

• Dang v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 15-16768 (9th Cir. Jan. 19, 2017)

  01/19/2017

  Circuit court reversed district court order granting motion to compel arbitration, finding that arbitration clause printed on brochure inserted in product box did not create a binding agreement with purchaser who failed to opt out in accordance with its terms.

• Malik v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-10477 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 19, 2017)

  01/19/2017

  Court denies motion to allow immediate appeal of the court’s grant of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and subsequent stay of the proceedings. Could held that it conducted a thorough analysis of whether the delegation clause was valid and there is no substantial ground for difference of opinion that could make an immediate appeal appropriate.

• Arabian Motors Group W.L.L. v. Ford Motor Co., No. 2:16-CV-13655 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 19, 2017)

  01/19/2017

  Court denied motion for preliminary injunction to stay arbitration.  Court found that the Motor Vehicle Franchise Contract Arbitration Fairness Act, which requires a written agreement to arbitrate after a dispute arises, does not cover the agreement between the parties because plaintiff is a foreign dealer and the statute is presumed to apply only to domestic entities.  Thus, the parties’ delegation of questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator is enforceable.

• Martin v. Deutsche Bank Sec. Inc., No. 16-456 (2d Cir. Jan. 19, 2017)

  01/19/2017

  Court affirms district court’s denial of plaintiff’s petition to vacate an arbitration award because plaintiff failed to give defendant timely notice of the petition to vacate as required by the FAA.  Service of the petition via email was inappropriate where the defendant had not agreed in writing to accept service by email.

• Norcia v. Samsung Telecom America, No. 14-16994 (9th Cir. Jan. 19, 2017)

  01/19/2017

  Circuit court affirmed district court’s order denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of a class action complaint concerning the performance of the Galaxy S4 phone.  Court found that arbitration provision included in the warranty brochure with the Galaxy S4 is not binding because the plaintiff’s silence does not constitute consent to arbitration; the brochure was an unenforceable in-the-box contract; and (c) plaintiff did not agree to arbitrate by signing agreements with Verizon Wireless.

• Pioneer Roofing Org. v. Local Joint Adjustment Smart Board Local Union No. 104, No. 3:15-CV-03544 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2017)

  01/18/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment of plaintiff’s suit to vacate an arbitration award favoring defendant. Review of an arbitration decision pursuant to a labor contract is “very limited” and, “[s]o long as the arbitrator is even arguably construing or applying the contract or acting within the scope of his authority”, great deference is given to the arbitrator’s interpretation of the parties’ agreement as well as his findings of fact.

• Dickson v. Gospel for ASIA, Inc., No. 5:16-CV-05027 (W.D. Ark. Jan. 18, 2017)

  01/18/2017

  Court denied motions to compel arbitration and dismiss action.  Court found that the relevant agreement, church mission statement and pledges signed by the plaintiff, are invalid because they lack consideration and contain no mutuality of obligation.  Therefore the arbitration provision is an illusory promise that is not binding.

• Kroma Makeup EU, LLC v. Kimberly Kardashian, No. 15-15060 (11th Cir. Jan. 18, 2017)

  01/18/2017

  Court affirmed district court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the doctrine of equitable estoppel allows non-signatory defendants to invoke the arbitration provision of an agreement only when the claims asserted against those defendants fall within the scope of the clause that the signatories had agreed upon.  Here, the defendants failed to show that they are “parties” to the agreement and therefore cannot enforce an arbitration clause that reads: “the Parties agree that the disputes arising between them concerning the validity, interpretation, termination or performance”.

• CBF Industria De Gusa SA v. Amci Holdings, Inc., No. 15-1133 (2d Cir. Jan. 18, 2017)

  01/18/2017

  Circuit court vacated district court’s dismissal of enforcement action and remands for further proceedings.  Court held that the district court erred in holding that appellants were required to confirm their foreign arbitral award before they could be allowed to enforce it. This is because the New York Convention and Chapter 2 of the FAA require only that the award-creditor of a foreign arbitral award file one action in a federal district court to enforce the foreign arbitral award.

• Sundquist v. Ubiquity, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-02472-H-DHB (S.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2017)

  01/17/2017

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiffs had entered into a valid arbitration agreement when purchasing Ubiquity, Inc. stock.  Plaintiffs claimed that they had been defrauded by defendants in the course of investing in Ubiquity, but because these claims were within the scope of the arbitration agreement, the court held that the parties had to proceed to arbitration.

• Payne v. Menard Inc, No. 2:15-CV-00317 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 17, 2017)

  01/17/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss.  The arbitration agreement is valid and dismissal is proper where a valid arbitration agreement requires arbitration outside the district where the lawsuit pends.

• Laporte v. One Beacon America Ins. Co., No. 3:16-CV-00500 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 17, 2017)

  01/17/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss pending arbitration.  A clear and unambiguous agreement to arbitrate exists and the plaintiff’s claims are within the scope of the arbitration provision.

• CPB Contractors Pty. Ltd. v. Chevron Corp., 4:16-CV-05344 (N.D. Cal. Jan 17, 2017)

  01/17/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to stay pending the resolution of binding arbitration between the plaintiff and Chevron Australia, a non-party to the case. Court found that § 3 of the FAA allows for a stay when “any issue” involved in the suit is referable to arbitration. This is supported by prior decisions holding that district courts have discretion to stay claims where (a) litigation of claims against the non-signatory would adversely affect the signatory’s rights in arbitration and (b) a stay is advisable in view of the claims’ interdependence with claims properly referred to arbitration.  Here, proceeding with the case would interfere with Chevron Australia’s right to have the claims against it decided in arbitration.

• CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. v. Gas Workers Union, No. 0:16-CV-03543 (D. Minn. Jan. 17, 2017)

  01/17/2017

  Court granted motion to vacate arbitration award.  Court held that arbitrator’s authority in labor disputes is not unlimited.  The arbitrator disregarded the plain language of an unambiguous clause of the collective bargaining agreement, which limits the arbitrator’s authority to determining whether an employee was dishonest or negligent; the arbitrator exceeded this authority by fashioning a remedy following his factual finding. 

• Curtis v. Cintas Corp., 2:16-CV-03597 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 17, 2017)

  01/17/2017

  Court grants motion to stay pending the resolution of arbitration.  Even under the “sliding scale approach” of Pennsylvania law, a finding of both substantive and procedural unconscionability is required to deem the arbitration clause invalid.  An arbitration agreement that expressly states that one party will pay the costs of arbitration for the other party is not substantively unconscionable without a showing that the agreement unreasonably or grossly favors the paying party. 

• Trina Solar US, Inc. v. JRC-Services LLC, No. 1:16-CV-02869 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 17, 2017)

  01/17/2017

  Court confirms arbitration award and denies motion to vacate.  Court found that de novo review of arbitrability is warranted because a non-signatory to the agreement preserved its objection to jurisdiction by refusing to participate in the arbitration.  Court holds that the tribunal did not exceed its authority by finding a non-signatory to the agreement jointly and severally liable, having concluded that (a) the signatory to the agreement was an actual and apparent agent of the non-signatory and (b) the non-signatory was estopped from objecting to jurisdiction because it received direct benefits from the agreement.  Moreover, the arbitration proceeding was not fundamentally unfair despite the tribunal’s acceptance of a “skeletal” declaration as satisfying its order of detailed witness statements; this behavior did not render the proceedings fundamentally unfair.

• D.A.R.E. New Jersey, INC v. D.A.R.E. America, No. 15-55512 (9th Cir. Jan. 17, 2017)

  01/17/2017

  Circuit court affirms district court’s confirmation of an arbitration award. Court finds that arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law by rejecting plaintiff’s application to amend its complaint on the eve of the hearing, noting that a tribunal’s interpretation of the scope of its powers is entitled to great deference.  Plaintiff also failed to show that an explicit public policy militates against the relief ordered in the arbitration.

• DKS, Inc. v. Corporate Business Solutions, Inc., No.15-16589 (9th Cir. Jan. 17, 2017)

  01/17/2017

  Circuit court affirms district court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration following de novo review of the district court’s interpretation of the relevant contract provisions.  Court concludes that the complaint contains sufficient facts that, if assumed true, constitute “fraud in the inception” and invalidate the agreement.

• Ventura v. Gov’t Empl. Ins. Co. (GEICO), No. 2:16-CV-08441-JFW-GJS (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2017)

  01/13/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the action without prejudice.  Court held that plaintiffs’ failure to file an opposition pursuant to local rules to defendant’s motion to compel arbitration constituted consent to the granting of the motion.

• Nichols v. Murray Ford of Kingsland, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00069-LGW-RSB (S.D. Ga. Jan. 13, 2017)

  01/13/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration.  Court held Title VII claim was subject to a valid arbitration and enforceable agreement as there was no dispute plaintiff signed the arbitration agreement and the agreement was not unconscionable under Georgia law.  

• Capelli Enterprises, Inc. v. Fantastic Sams Salons Corp., No. 5:16-CV-03401 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2017)

  01/13/2017

  Having denied plaintiff’s motion for temporary injunction of a AAA arbitration in August 2016, court grants motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the key disagreement between the parties, whether a claim for declaratory relief is subject to the arbitration agreement, should be resolved in arbitration since a valid arbitration clause exists, questions of arbitrability are clearly delegated to the arbitrator, and the arbitration clause evinces an intent to arbitrate arbitrability.  Since the arbitrator may ultimately determine that the issue is not arbitrable, the court stayed the proceedings rather than dismissing the case.

• Preferred Care of Delaware Inc. v. Simm VanArsdale, No. 16-5209 (6th Cir. Jan. 13, 2017)

  01/13/2017

  Circuit court affirmed the district court’s abstention in a federal lawsuit brought under the FAA.  Circuit court held that district court’s Colorado River abstention was proper because the federal and state suits were parallel actions as both turned on an identical claim of the enforceability of an underlying arbitration agreement and that the majority of factors to be considered favored abstention.

• Kum Tat Ltd. v Linden Ox Pasture, LLC, No. 14-17472 (9th Cir. Jan. 13, 2017)

  01/13/2017

  Circuit court dismissed interlocutory appeal from district court denial of a motion to compel arbitration.  Circuit court held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal where the arbitration motion relied only on California state arbitration law and was not filed pursuant to the FAA.  Court also declined to treat the appeal as a petition for a writ of mandamus because the district court order was not clearly erroneous in reserving for itself the question of whether the parties agreed to arbitrate or had formed a valid contract.

• S. Ohio Trenching & Excavating, Inc. v. Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs., Local 181, No. 0:15-CV-00027-HRW (E.D. Ky. Jan. 12, 2017)

  01/12/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate an arbitral award.  Court held that the arbitration clauses within the disputed labor agreements between the parties were enforceable, that the arbitrator had proper jurisdiction, and that no valid reason existed to vacate the award.

• Thick v. Dolgencorp of Tex., Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00733-ALM (E.D. Tex. Jan. 11, 2017)

  01/11/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay pending action.  Court held there was a valid agreement to arbitrate as defendant provided a copy of the agreement containing plaintiff’s electronic signature and last four digits of her social security number, plaintiff produced no evidence otherwise, and plaintiff’s claims fell within the parties’ agreement.

• Stevens-Bratton v. TruGreen, Inc., No. 16-5161 (6th Cir. Jan. 11, 2017)

  01/11/2017

  Circuit court reversed the district court’s judgment compelling arbitration and remanded for further proceedings.  Circuit court held that the agreement requiring arbitration between the parties had expired prior to the material events at the heart of the dispute arose and the contractual right at issue did not survive expiration under normal principles of contract interpretation. 

• Smith v. Credit Acceptance Corp., No. 3:16-CV-01675-RPC (M.D. Pa.  Jan. 11, 2017)

  01/11/2017

  Court stayed the case pending the outcome of arbitration. Court held that plaintiff requested the stay and that the third circuit has concluded that § 3 of the FAA requires a stay of proceedings if requested by a party, even though several other circuits have held that litigation in which all claims are being arbitrated may be dismissed. 

• CPR Telecom Corp., Inc. v. Bullseye Telecom, Inc., No. 5:16-CV-10732-JEL-RSW (E.D. Mich. Jan. 11, 2017)

  01/11/2017

  Court denied defendant’s motion to vacate an arbitral award, granted the plaintiffs’ motion to confirm the award and request for attorney fees and costs, and denied plaintiffs’ request for sanctions.  Court held that since the award was derived from a breach relating to the parties’ agreement, and the plaintiffs could be considered the prevailing party, it was rational for the tribunal to award attorney fees and costs.  Court also held the plaintiffs were entitled to attorney fees and costs associated with the challenge to the arbitral award, but denied the plaintiffs’ request to issue sanctions against the defendant under FRCP 11 for a frivolous challenge.

• Preferred Care of Del., Inc. v. Estate of Marilyn Hopkins, No. 16-6180 (6th Cir. Jan. 11, 2017)

  01/11/2017

  Circuit court dismissed appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction over a district court order enjoining its state court action, compelling arbitration, and staying the case.  Court held that § 16(b)(3) of the FAA forbids it from hearing interlocutory challenges where the federal lawsuit is covered by an arbitration agreement; and where the lower court stayed rather than dismissed the suit, there was no final judgment yet to appeal.

• PT Antam (Persero) TBK v. Airtrol, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00586-HEA (E.D. Mo.  Jan. 10, 2017)

  01/10/2017

  Court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff after finding that arbitrator’s awards were duly filed.

• Bhakta v. Choice Hotels Int’l, Inc., No. 16-CV-1431-EFM (D. Kan. Jan. 10, 2017)

  01/10/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the case pending arbitration.  Court held that plaintiffs’ claim is within the scope of the valid arbitration provision within the parties’ franchise agreement.

• Ege v. Express Messenger Systems, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-01167-RSL ((W.D.Wash. Jan. 10, 2017)

  01/10/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration.  Court held that defendant was a third-party beneficiary to the agreement, all of plaintiffs’ claims were within the scope of the agreement’s arbitration provision, and that arbitration was the proper forum for those claims to be heard.

• King v. Sullivan, No. 4:16-CV-00695-JLH (E.D. Ark. Jan. 10, 2017)

  01/10/2017

  Court confirmed arbitration award, holding that, where duly-served respondent filed no response in the action and did not request extension of time to respond, respondent admitted all well-pled allegations against her.

• Alstom v. Gen. Elec. Co., No. 16-CV-3568-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2017)

  01/10/2017

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel ICC arbitration with the ICC, and granted plaintiff’s motion to compel submission of the dispute to an independent accounting firm.  Court held that where the agreement contains both a broadly worded arbitration clause and a specific arbitration clause assigning the decision to the independent accounting firm, the parties’ intent to arbitrate the question of arbitrability under the broad clause is not clear; the presence of conflicting clauses and ambiguity requires the court to decide arbitrability. 

• Guidotti v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, L.L.C., No. 1:11-CV-01219-JBS-KMW (D.N.J. Jan. 9, 2017)

  01/09/2017

  Court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of prior court order requiring a jury trial to determine whether an agreement to arbitrate under § 4 of the FAA exists.  Court held that plaintiff provided no additional justification that the ruling was a clear error of law and thus did not meet the standard for reconsideration.

• Massó-Torrellas v. Municipality of Toa Alta, No. 16-1319 (1st Cir. Jan. 9, 2017)

  01/09/2017

  Circuit court affirmed district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a viable claim because the plaintiffs failed to comply with the mediation/arbitration clause in their contract.  However, circuit court held that the lower court erred in concluding that the mediation/arbitration clause covered the constitutional claims, which the parties agreed were not in the scope of the clause that only encompassed matters relating to the contract. 

• Gomez v. Lace Ent., Inc., No. 15-CV-3326-CM (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2017)

  01/06/2017

  Court granted motion for class certification of plaintiff’s claims not subject to arbitration where court had previously denied motion to compel arbitration of one of the plaintiff’s claims.  Court held that sufficiently numerous employees were not subject to arbitration agreements to constitute the proposed class in that plaintiff’s putative class and collective action.

• Harman v. Wilson-Davis & Co., No.2:16-DV-00229-CW (D. Utah Jan. 6, 2017)

  01/06/2017

  Court denied plaintiffs’ petition to vacate an arbitration award.  Court noted that the tenth circuit has not yet addressed a circuit split as to whether a court may “look through” an FAA § 10 petition to vacate an arbitration award to find federal question jurisdiction based on the underlying federal substantive claims in the arbitration.  Court held it had federal question jurisdiction over the petition where the claims subject to arbitration raised federal questions.  Court also held that plaintiff failed to state sufficient grounds to vacate the award under either the public policy exception or the enumerated reasons for vacatur set forth in § 10 of the FAA.

• TransAtlantic Lines LLC v. Amergent Techs, LLC, No. 16-CV-3549-PAE (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2017)

  01/06/2017

  Court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss on the ground it lacks personal jurisdiction over the respondent and denied petitioner’s motion to compel arbitration on the same basis.  Court held that agreement contained an arbitration clause that specified the application of Connecticut law but did not specify an arbitral forum.  Court held that plaintiff did not allege that defendant had any contacts within the district or had undertaken activities therein, and therefore court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

• Baron v. DIRECTV, LLC, No. 1:16-03145-JKB (D. Md. Jan. 6, 2017)

  01/06/2017

  Court denied plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s affirmative defenses pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(f), including defendant’s claim that the plaintiff’s claims are barred because they are subject to arbitration.  Court held that the validity of the affirmative defense could not be adjudicated prior to discovery and dispositive motions because plaintiff’s contract could have included an arbitration clause.

• Service Employees International Union, Local 1107 v. Northeastern Nevada Regional Hospital, No. 3:16-CV-00476-HDM-WGC (D. Nev. Jan. 6, 2017)

  01/06/2017

  Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss because plaintiff stated a claim for which relief may be granted.  Court held that arbitration should be compelled under the collective bargaining agreement because of defendant’s alleged violations of that agreement.

• Doe 1 v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., No. 2:10-CV-00899-JWS (D. Ariz. Jan. 6, 2017)

  01/06/2017

  Court denied defendants’ motions for partial summary judgment and granted plaintiffs’ motions for partial summary judgment since plaintiffs had contracts of employment which are exempt from arbitration under § 1 of the FAA and under the AAA.

• Zweizig v. Northwest Direct Teleservices, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-02401-HZ (D. Or. Jan. 6, 2017)

  01/06/2017

  Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss two of plaintiff’s claims. Court found that defendant’s challenge to the existence of an arbitration agreement constituted a petition to raise an arbitration defense within the meaning of § 4 of the FAA, which removes the court’s subject matter jurisdiction if there is a valid, enforceable arbitration clause.  Court held that defendant, in his individual capacity, was a non-signatory to an employment agreement and, in any event, defendant had waived his right to compel arbitration by submitting multiple filings and participating in several hearings.

• Food, Indus. and Beverage Warehouse, Drivers and Clerical Empl. Local 630 v. Barton Brands of Cal., Inc., No. 16-CV-6178-GW (C.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2017)

  01/05/2017

  Court denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment to compel arbitration under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act.  Court held that waiver by litigation conduct is a matter for the court to decide unless the parties clearly and unmistakably provided otherwise.  Court further denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration only after it had fully litigated its claim before the NLRB because to permit such would force the defendant to relitigate the issues on the merits.