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.
-
Klein v. Verizon Comm., Inc., No. 14-1660 (4th Cir. Jan. 5, 2017)01/05/2017
Circuit court reversed and remanded district court’s determination of choice of law provision that resulted in arbitration. Circuit court held that district court wrongly applied Maryland rather than Virginia law pursuant to the parties’ clear contractual choice of law provision in their agreement.
-
Jones v. Singing River Health Services Foundation, No. 16-60263 (5th Cir. Jan. 5, 2017)01/05/2017
Circuit court affirmed lower court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration. Court held that defendant voluntarily waived the issue of arbitrability because defendant submitted the issue to the court. Court also found that the arbitration provisions could not be enforced against the non-signatory plaintiff because the claims asserted did not “necessarily rely” on the contracts containing the arbitration provisions.
-
Belnap, M.D. v. IASIS Healthcare, No. 15-4010 (10th Cir. Jan. 5, 2017)01/05/2017
Circuit court affirmed in part and reversed in part district court’s ruling on motion to compel arbitration. Court affirmed that claims against parties that were not signatories to the arbitration agreement should not be arbitrated. However, court reversed lower court’s partial grant of the motion to compel arbitration as to the signatory, and stated that the motion should be granted on the remainder of the claims against that signatory as well, because the parties clearly and unmistakably agreed to delegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrators.
-
Science Applications International Corp. v. The Hellenic Republic, No. 1:13-CV-01070-GK (D.D.C. Jan. 5, 2017)01/05/2017
Court granted petition to confirm an award from an ICC arbitration seated in Greece after previously staying the action while annulment proceedings were ongoing in in the Greek courts. Court held that the Europcar factors weighed in favor of enforcement of the award since it had been set aside by an appeals court in Greece but was reinstated by the Greek Supreme Court.
-
Aztec Engineering Group, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., No. 1:16-CV-01657-JMS (S.D. Ind. Jan. 04, 2017)01/04/2017
Court denied third-party entity from intervening to assert a counterclaim against defendant and stay litigation to pursue arbitration. Court held that if party believed it was entitled to initiate arbitration on allegedly arbitrable claims, no aspect of the litigation prevented it from doing so but the proposed intervention was geared more to delay than the merits of any dispute.
-
Sherman v. Service Corp. International, No. 3:16-CV-00011-JJH (N.D. Ohio Jan. 4, 2017)01/04/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss complaint and compel arbitration. Court found that the only point of contention—whether the agreement was signed—did not invalidate the agreement under principles of contract law, because clicking on an “I Agree” button is a valid electronic signature.
-
Scott v. Family Dollar Store, Inc., No. 3:08-CV-00540-MOC-DSC (W.D.N.C. Jan. 4, 2017)01/04/2017
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that seeking arbitration after fully litigating the class certification issue was contrary to the purpose of arbitration, and defendant therefore waived its right to arbitration.
-
Solo Cup Operating Corp. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 528, No. 1:15-CV-00185-JRH-BKE (S.D. Ga. Jan. 4, 2017)01/04/2017
Court denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on complaint to vacate or modify the arbitrator’s award. Court found that the arbitrator was arguably construing the collective bargaining agreement in reaching his award and, therefore, the court deferred entirely to the arbitrator’s interpretation.
-
Torgerson v. LCC International, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-02495-DDC-TJJ (D. Kan. Jan. 3, 2017)
01/03/2017Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. Court held that an appellate decision did not change controlling law sufficient to support reconsideration of a decision to compel arbitration, and even if it did, arbitrability was an issue for the arbitrator not the court.
-
Kirsch v. Dean, No. 3:16-CV-00299-CRS (W.D. Ky. Jan. 3, 2017)01/03/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and denied motion to stay arbitration pending a decision on the motion to compel as moot. Court found that the parties agreed to a broad arbitration provision that applied to the claims, and that the defendant was neither estopped from, nor had we waived his right to, arbitrating the claims.
-
NRI Academy of Sciences v. Mukkamala, No. 2:12-CV-15333 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 1, 2017)01/01/2017
Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award pursuant to the FAA. Court denied the motion to vacate, concluding that the arbitrator’s discovery decisions were reasonable and the arbitrator acted within his broad authority.
-
Eazy Electronics & Technology, LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-01830-GAG (D.P.R. Dec. 30, 2016)
12/30/2016Court granted the motion to dismiss and compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA and the New York Convention. Court held that the arbitration agreement was subject to enforcement, was not unenforceable based on public policy, and was not unconscionable. Court found the waiver of discovery clause in the agreement was valid, concluding that discovery was not a fundamental attribute of arbitration and determining that the clause did not contravene the FAA.
-
Marcus v. Collins, No. 1:16-CV-04221-GBD-BCM (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2016)12/30/2016
Court denied motion to compel arbitration or an employment discrimination claim, holding that plaintiff was not bound by a written agreement to arbitrate. Court reasoned that the FAA presumption of arbitrability did not apply to the threshold question of whether an arbitration agreement exists, which must be decided as a matter of state contract law; Court held that defendants failed to demonstrate plaintiff, who had not individually agreed to arbitrate, was covered by a collective bargaining agreement.
-
Sanes v. Treasure Bay (VI) Corp, No. 1:14-CV-00049-WAL-GWC (D.V.I. Dec. 30, 2016)12/30/2016
Court interpreted defendant’s motion to dismiss action in favor of arbitration as request to refer matter to arbitration, which it granted, and stayed action pending arbitration. Court found that it had jurisdiction to grant motion and that defendant did not waive right to arbitration by failing to raise this right in the EEOC proceeding.
-
Fraser v. Perkins & Marie Callender’s LLC, No. 8:16-CV-3226-SDM-AEP (M.D. Fla. Dec. 30, 2016)12/30/2016
Court granted in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the action. While the court agreed that arbitration provision was valid under Florida contract law, it refused to dismiss the action, stating that the Federal Arbitration Act mandated a stay and precluded dismissal.
-
Orafol Americas Inc. v. Reflex-o-Lite, LTDA, No. 3:16-CV-02070 (VLB) (D. Conn. Dec. 29, 2016)12/29/2016
District court denied without prejudice motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction staying certain arbitration, finding that courts are not ordinarily allowed to interfere with the parties’ agreement to arbitrate and that the movant had failed to make a showing of particularized and irreparable harm from proceeding with the arbitration.
-
DISH Network L.L.C. v. Ray, No. 1:16-CV-00314-LTB (D. Colo. Dec. 28, 2016)12/28/2016
Court denied plaintiffs’ petition to vacate arbitration award. Court found that the arbitrator had jurisdiction to decide whether the arbitration agreement permitted collective or class arbitration, and that the arbitrator’s conclusion that the agreement permitted collective or class arbitration was not in error or manifestly disregarded applicable law so as to vacate the award.
-
Alstom Brasil Energia E Transporte LTDA v. Mitsui Sumitomo Seguros S.A., No. 1:15-CV-08221 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2016)12/28/2016
Court denied petitioners’ motion to hold respondent in contempt and to issue monetary sanctions against it. Court found that refusing to abide with the declaratory relief issued in an arbitral award—and subsequently confirmed by the court—does not rise to level of contempt, as declaratory relief lacks the coercive effect of injunctive relief. Additionally, the court relied on the arbitrators’ declaration that while the actions in Brazilian courts may overlap with the arbitral award, such a question was not for the tribunal to answer.
-
Machesky v. United Recovery Systems, LP, No. 4:16-CV-00596 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 28, 2016)12/28/2016
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff agreed to a broad arbitration agreement and that no state or federal laws precluded arbitration.
-
Saporito v. Townes, No. 2:16-CV-01670-JAD-VCF (D. Nev. Dec. 27, 2016)12/27/2016
Court granted plaintiff’s petition to confirm FINRA arbitration award. Court held that it must confirm award, as defendant offered no reason that award should be vacated, modified or corrected, and court found no reason to do so.
-
UBS Financial Services Inc. v. Bounty Gain Enterprises Inc., No. 9:14-CV-81603-WM (S.D. Fla. Dec. 27, 2016)12/27/2016
Court denied defendant’s motion for relief from preliminary injunction, stating that the plaintiff was not required to submit to FINRA arbitration. Court held that both the defendant and the defendant’s employee, who likewise sought FINRA arbitration, failed to establish standing, as the defendant was never a customer of the plaintiff or an associated person of the plaintiff, and the defendant’s employee sought arbitration under the same set of factual circumstances as the defendant.
-
Enron Nigeria Power Holding Ltd. V. Nigeria, No. 15-7121 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 27, 2016)12/27/2016
Circuit court affirmed district court order enforcing arbitral award. Court rejected Nigeria’s defense against enforcement on the ground that enforcement of the award violated U.S. public policy and should thus be denied pursuant to Art. V(2)(b) of the New York Convention. Court found that the arbitral tribunal’s interpretation of the power purchase agreement was due substantial deference and thus led it to reject Nigeria’s public policy defense.
-
Trs. for the Mason Tenders Dist. Council Welfare Fund v. Earth Const. Corp., No. 1:16:-CV-06068-LGS (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2016)12/23/2016
Court granted plaintiffs’ unopposed petition to confirm an arbitration award, holding that the arbitration award should be confirmed because the petition was uncontested and the decision in the arbitration award could clearly be inferred from the facts of the case.
-
Trs. of the U.A. Local 38 Defined Benefit Pension Plan v. Trs. of the Plumbers and Pipe Fitters Nat’l Pension Fund, No. 16-15228 (9th Cir. Dec. 23, 2016)12/23/2016
Circuit court affirmed lower court’s order to confirm an arbitration award. Court held that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority when determining the amount owed to appellee because the arbitration agreement specified that the arbitrator would retain jurisdiction to decide the amount due. Court also held that the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law because relevant case law clearly supported the arbitrator’s findings.
-
Campbell v. Nevada Prop. 1 LLC, No. 14-17189 (9th Cir. Dec. 23, 2016)12/23/2016
Circuit court affirmed lower court’s order to confirm an arbitration award. Court held that appellant failed to show that the arbitrator exceeded the powers afforded by the terms of the arbitration agreement.
-
Alvarado v. Pacific Motor Trucking Co., No. 14-56823 (9th Cir. Dec. 23, 2016)12/23/2016
Circuit court affirmed lower court’s order to compel arbitration. Court held that the arbitration clause in question was not unconscionable as a result of fraud in the inducement because, at the time of the contract was executed, defendant had made no material misrepresentations. Court also held that plaintiffs, a group of long haul drivers, did not fall within the FAA’s exemption for “interstate transportation workers” because the exemption only applied to “contracts of employment” and the contracts in question were not contracts of employment.
-
Hudgins v. Total Quality Logistics LLC, No. 1:16-CV-07331 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 23, 2016)12/23/2016
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and granted plaintiffs’ motion for conditional class certification. Court held that delegation clause in arbitration agreement did not bar court from determining enforceability of arbitration agreement. However, court found that because the arbitration clause stated that arbitration shall be held in the county and state where the employee most recently worked for the defendant, and none of the employees for whom the defendant sought to compel arbitration worked for the defendant in the court’s district, the court could not compel plaintiffs to pursue arbitration in other districts.
-
UBS Financial Services, Inc. v. Asociación de Empleados del Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico, No. 3:16-CV-02017-WGY (D.P.R. Dec. 22, 2016)12/22/2016
Court denied respondent’s motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or in the alternative a stay. Court held that it has federal subject matter jurisdiction because the proper jurisdictional inquiry is to look through a post-arbitration petition to the substance of the dispute and, in this case, the arbitral claims arose under federal law, thus establishing federal question jurisdiction to consider the enforcement of a FINRA award under the FAA.
-
Worth v. Worth, No. 2:16-CV-03877-MAK (E.D. Pa. Dec. 22, 2016)12/22/2016
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to stay proceedings on a motion to compel arbitration pending the outcome of an interlocutory appeal. Court held that the pending motion to compel arbitration must be stayed because (i) plaintiff made a strong showing that he was likely to succeed on the merits; (ii) there was a risk that plaintiff would be irreparably injured absent a stay; and (iii) the issuance of a stay would not substantially injure defendants.
-
Choice Hotels Int’l, Inc. v. Host Hospitality, LLC, No. 8:16-CV-02321-TDC (D. Md. Dec. 22, 2016)12/22/2016
Court granted plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. Court held that defendants’ failure to respond to plaintiff’s application to confirm an arbitration award justified the default judgment. Court further held that it was satisfied that the arbitration award met the requirements of the FAA and that it would be confirmed as a result.
-
Lenox Corp. v. Blackshear, No. 2:15-CV-06019-AB (E.D. Pa. Dec. 22, 2016)12/22/2016
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of an ongoing arbitration and denied defendants’ motion to enjoin the arbitration. Court held that the parties were obligated to arbitrate the dispute because there was no dispute that an agreement to arbitrate existed and upon examination of the arbitration clause the parties’ dispute clearly fell within the scope of the provision.
-
Int’l Corrugated and Packing Supplies, Inc. v. Lear Corp., No. 3:15-CV-00405-DCG (W.D. Tex. Dec. 21, 2016)12/21/2016
Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that there was no agreement to arbitrate because there was insufficient evidence to conclude that an unsigned document containing an arbitration clause was incorporated by reference into the parties executed agreements.
-
House v. Rent-A-Center Franchising Int’l, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-06654 (S.D. W. Va. Dec. 21, 2016)12/21/2016
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that, contrary to plaintiffs’ claims, the parties’ arbitration agreement should be enforced because, although the defendant’s motion was late, plaintiffs would not be prejudiced if required to arbitrate the dispute, and the delegation provision contained in the arbitration clause was not unconscionable or otherwise invalid.
-
Calderone v. Sonic Houston JLR, LP, No. 4:15-CV-03699 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 21, 2016)12/21/2016
Court granted motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, holding that the parties were obligated to arbitrate the dispute because plaintiff, a car salesman, did not fall within the FAA’s exempted class of “transportation workers” and that defendant had not waived its right to invoke the arbitration agreement.
-
Burgess v. Buddy’s Northwest LLC, No. 3:15-CV-05785-BHS (W.D. Wash. Dec. 21, 2016)12/21/2016
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that a defendant, an employee of the company and a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, could enforce the agreement to arbitrate because the agreement stated that it would apply to “the Company . . . [and] its officers, directors, employees, or agents in their capacity as such otherwise.” Court also held that the arbitration agreement was valid because there was mutual assent to arbitrate the dispute at issue; the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable; and defendants had not waived the right to compel arbitration by proceeding with limited discovery.
-
Brown v. Comcast Corp., No. 3:16-CV-03649-JST (N.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2016)12/21/2016
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the parties should proceed to arbitration because plaintiff did not argue that the arbitration provision was invalid or unenforceable, or that the present dispute fell outside the scope of the arbitration provision.
-
Allen v. Bloomingdale’s Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00772-WJM-MF (D.N.J. Dec. 21, 2016)12/21/2016
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the agreement to arbitrate was enforceable because plaintiffs plainly accepted the terms of the arbitration provision; and that plaintiffs’ contention that the arbitration agreement constitutes an unconscionable contract that defied public policy against racial discrimination was unsupported by legal precedent.
-
Youssofi v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Assoc., No. 3:16-CV-01330-MMA-JMA (S.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2016).12/21/2016
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to reconsider an order to compel arbitration, holding plaintiff’s decision to execute an agreement containing an arbitration clause that did not expressly provide for a waiver of his right to petition the courts did not violate plaintiff’s First Amendment rights.
-
Yundt v. Amsurg Holdings, Inc., No. 6:15-CV-01548-MC (D. Or. Dec. 21, 2016)12/21/2016
Court granted defendant’s motion to confirm and denied plaintiffs’ motion to vacate an arbitration award. Court held that the arbitral tribunal did not exceed its authority by issuing its award beyond the 30-day deadline mandated by the applicable arbitral rules because neither party objected to nor was prejudiced by the untimely issuance of the award. Court further held that the arbitral award should not be vacated because the arbitral tribunal did not refuse to hear plaintiffs’ antitrust claims; rather, plaintiffs failed to pursue those claims in arbitration.
-
Meadows v. Dickey’s Barbecue Restaurants Inc., No. 1:15-CV-02139-JST (N.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2016)12/21/2016
Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for order to consolidate arbitrations. Court held that it did not have jurisdiction to rule on the question of consolidation because consolidation is a procedural question for the arbitrator to decide.
-
Mohamed v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 15-16178 (9th Cir. Dec. 21, 2016)12/21/2016
Circuit court affirmed in part and reversed in part district court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration, finding that the district court had erred in assuming authority to decide whether the parties’ arbitration agreements were enforceable since the question of arbitrability as to most claims had been delegated to the arbitrator. Circuit court also affirmed district court’s denial of co-defendant non-signatory’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff’s conclusory allegation that all defendants were each other’s agents was insufficient to entitle co-defendant to invoke arbitration agreement as an agent of the signatory.
-
Dagnan v. St. John’s Military School, No. 2:16-CV-02246-CM-GEB (D. Kan. Dec. 21, 2016)12/21/2016
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the arbitration agreement between the parties was enforceable because (i) contrary to the plaintiff’s assertions, defendants did not retain the right to unilaterally alter the terms of the parties’ agreement and thus render the arbitration provision illusory; (ii) plaintiff’s allegations that arbitration did not allow for effective vindication of plaintiff’s rights was unsupported; (iii) the arbitration clause was not unconscionable under Kansas law; and (iv) the arbitration clause did not violate public policy by compelling arbitration against a minor.
-
Velazquez v. Corporate Transit of America, Inc., No. 8:16-CV-00948-JDW-AEP (M.D. Fla. Dec. 20, 2016)12/20/2016
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Because plaintiff was an independent contractor, court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that agreement was a “contract of employment” that fit within an exception to the FAA and that plaintiff’s had a substantive right to class actions under the NLRA.
-
Zurich Ins. Co. a/s/o Adidas Group v. Crowley Latin America Servs., LLC, No. 1:16-CV-01861-JPO (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2016).12/20/2016
Court granted plaintiff’s petition to compel arbitration. Court held that the parties were bound to submit their dispute to arbitration because (i) arbitration was not barred by Mississippi state insurance law; (ii) defendant’s arguments concerning the doctrine of laches raised issues that should be decided by an arbitrator and not by the court; and (iii) plaintiff, as an equitable subrogee, was not prohibited from enforcing the terms of the agreement against the defendant.
-
Roquette Frères S.A. v. Solazyme, Inc., No. 15-4030 and No. 16-1308 (3d Cir. Dec. 20, 2016)12/20/2016
Circuit court of appeals affirmed district court’s order confirming an arbitration award. Court held that the arbitration clause contained in the parties’ agreement was broad enough to cover the dispute and that there was no evidence that the arbitral tribunal exceeded its authority in rendering its award.
-
National Star Route Mail Contractors Association, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, No. 1:16-CV-02350-CKK (D.D.C. December 19, 2016)12/19/2016
Court held that the matter was not ripe and that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the arbitration award, where it was uncertain whether contracts held by plaintiff’s members would be terminated by defendants in implementing the arbitral award. Court found defendants had not yet made any determinations as to how to implement the arbitration award.
-
Portis v. Ruan Transp. Mgmt. Sys., Inc., No. 7:15-CV-00118-GEC (W.D. Va. Dec. 19, 2016)12/19/2016
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate and granted defendant’s request to confirm an arbitration award. Court held that the arbitrator’s decision was not subject to vacature on the basis of fraud because, even if a witness committed perjury during the course of the arbitration, plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to challenge the witness’s allegedly fraudulent testimony during the arbitration.
-
Seldon v. Airbnb, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00933-CRC (D.D.C. Dec. 19, 2016)12/19/2016
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to certify an interlocutory appeal of the court’s order to compel arbitration. Court held that because plaintiff failed to show that there was substantial ground for a different of opinion on a controlling question of law, plaintiff’s motion to certify an interlocutory appeal should be denied. Court explained that the moving party to an interlocutory appeal bears a heavy burden to show that exceptional circumstances justify a departure from the basic policy of postponing appellate review until after the entry of final judgment and that this burden is made more stringent given the FAA’s objective of moving the parties to an arbitrable dispute into arbitration as quickly and easily as possible.
-
Kirsch v. Dean, No. 3:16-CV-00299-CRS-DW (W.D. Ky. Dec. 19, 2016)12/19/2016
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to dismiss an amended counterclaim that alleged plaintiff breached the parties’ arbitration agreement. Court held that, contrary to plaintiff’s assertions, defendant (i) was not equitably estopped from relying on the arbitration agreement in her counterclaim; (ii) had alleged facts that would plausibly support a finding that plaintiff breached the arbitration agreement; (iii) did not waive her right to compel arbitration under the arbitration agreement; and (iv) established that there was no support for the assertion that plaintiff was unaware of the arbitration agreement.
-
Doe v. George Street Photo & Video, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-02698-MEJ (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2016)12/19/2016
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that, contrary to plaintiff’s assertions, the arbitration agreement between the parties was not procedurally or substantively unconscionable and therefore, was an enforceable agreement to arbitrate the dispute at issue.