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.
-
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.
-
Astanza Design, LLC v. Giemme Stile, S.p.A., 1:16-CV-01238-TDS-JEP (M.D.N.C. Dec. 16, 2016)12/16/2016
Court denied defendants’ motion to vacate, modify, or correct an arbitration award that granted plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees. Court held that the arbitrator retained the authority to award attorney’s fees under Article 34 of the ICDR Rules.
-
Eagle Sys. and Servs., Inc. v. Int’l Assoc. of Machinists, District Lodge 725, No. 2:16-CV-02077-JAM-EFB (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2016)12/16/2016
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and motion to confirm an arbitration award. Court held that it was procedurally proper for defendant to combine its motion to dismiss with a motion to confirm the arbitration award. Court further held that the award was proper under applicable law and that plaintiff’s arguments to vacate the award were unavailing.
-
Hardy Indus. Techs., LLC v. BJB, LLC, No. 1:12-CV-03097-PAG (N.D. Ohio Dec. 16, 2016)12/16/2016
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate, modify or correct an arbitration award. Court held that there was no “evident partiality” on the part of the arbitration panel, no evidence to suggest that the revised list of arbitrators was produced as a result of ex parte communications or was developed other than in accordance with the applicable arbitration rules. Further, the arbitrators were not guilty of misconduct and there was no manifest disregard of the law by the arbitrators.
-
Johnson v. Cach, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00383-BLW (D. Idaho Dec. 16, 2016)12/16/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the language of the arbitration agreement clearly contemplates and predicts a similar fact pattern as the one in this dispute, all parties are explicitly encompassed by the arbitration agreement, and the claims in this case are related to the agreement.
-
Trs. of the New York City Dist. Counc. of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Coastal Envir. Group, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-06004-GHW (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2016)12/16/2016
Court affirmed petitioners’ request to confirm an arbitration award. Court held that there was no indication that the arbitrator’s award was procured through fraud or dishonesty or that the arbitrator was acting in disregard of the parties’ agreement or outside the scope of his broad authority to resolve any dispute between the parties regarding contributions.
-
Lee v. Doctor’s Assocs., Inc., No. 5:16-CV-00032-KKC (E.D. Ky. Dec. 16, 2016)12/16/2016
Court granted motion to dismiss or stay pending arbitration. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that she is not bound by the agreement’s arbitration provision because she is not a party to it, holding that she is estopped from arguing that such provision does not apply to her given that she is asserting direct benefits from the agreement.
-
Prams Water Shipping, Co., Inc. v. Batca Global, A.S., No. 1:16-CV-22047-JAL (S.D. Fla. Dec. 16, 2016)12/16/2016
Magistrate recommended that award be confirmed and that individuals behind corporate defendant be held liable for the amount owed. Court reasoned that the owners’ conduct, including in rendering corporate defendant purposefully insolvent, made it proper to pierce the corporate veil.
-
Heston v. GB Capital Holdings, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00912-WQH-AGS (S.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2016)12/15/2016
Court denied plaintiff’s motion for relief from court’s prior order compelling arbitration. Court held that plaintiff failed to provide newly discovered evidence that would change its prior view that the parties’ disputes must be arbitrated.
-
Malhotra v. Copa de Ora Realty, LLC, No. 14-56241 (9th Cir. Dec. 14, 2016)12/14/2016
Ninth circuit affirmed district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion because by its terms, the contract containing the arbitration agreement requires arbitration only of disputes “arising from or connected with” that contract, and plaintiff’s claims do not have a “significant relationship to the contract” nor have “their origin or genesis in the contract.”
-
Careminders Home Care, Inc. v. Kianka, No. 1:15-CV-01224-RWS (11th Cir. Dec. 14, 2016)12/14/2016
Eleventh circuit rejected appellants’ appeal and affirmed district court’s confirmation of arbitral award. Court held that district court was obligated to confirm the award following appellants’ failure to challenge the award within the statutory 90 day limit. Moreover, appellants failed to identify any newly discovered evidence, a change in controlling law, or a need to correct a clear error of law or fact that would warrant reconsideration of the district court’s decision, and, having failed to raise any arguments before the district court confirmed the arbitrator’s award, appellants were barred from raising them in a motion to amend.
-
Myricks v. AT&T Servs. Inc., No. 5:16-CV-00169-MTT (M.D. Ga. Dec. 14, 2016)12/14/2016
Court granted defendant’s motion to stay litigation and compel arbitration of plaintiff’s claims. Court held that, given the breadth of the arbitration clause, it was clear that plaintiff had agreed to arbitrate the claims at issue in the case.
-
Roman v. Northrop Grumman Corp., No. 2:16-CV-06848-CAS-GJS (C.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2016)12/14/2016
Court granted in part defendant’s motion to compel bilateral arbitration of plaintiff’s claims and stayed case. Court held that, prior to the Supreme Court’s resolution of a question arising in a different case, which would thereby resolve a central question in the instant case, a stay is wholly appropriate.
-
Freeman v. Austin Maint. and Constr., Inc., No. 2:16-CV-08588-JTM-JVM (E.D. La. Dec. 14, 2016)12/14/2016
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Court held that plaintiff provided sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate disputes arising out of his employment with defendant, there is nothing onerous or oppressive about requiring an arbitration agreement as a precondition to employment, and the agreement did not constitute an unenforceable waiver of defendant’s federal causes of action.
-
Montero v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., No. 1:14-CV-09053-SEC (N.D. Ill. Dec. 14, 2016)12/14/2016
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate courts prior order compelling arbitration. Court held that plaintiff could have chosen to advance certain arguments that ultimately prevailed in the seventh circuit by appealing the court’s original order or sought a stay of the proceedings pending the outcome of the seventh circuit decision, but plaintiff failed to do so. There is thus no “extraordinary circumstance” that warrants vacatur of the existing order.
-
Emcon Assocs., Inc. v. Zale Corp., No. 3:16-CV-01985-FLW-DEA (D.N.J. Dec. 14, 2016)12/14/2016
Court granted defendants’ motion to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration. Court held that the arbitration clause did not fail to specifically give notice that plaintiff’s claims for statutory violations would be determined by arbitration and that plaintiff would thus be deprived of its rights to litigate its disputes and therefore did not offend Ohio’s contract principles. Court additionally held that two third parties could enforce the arbitration agreement against plaintiff and that nothing about the arbitration provision was unconscionable.
-
Neal v. Asta Funding, Inc., No. 2:14-CV-03550-KM-MAH (D.N.J. Dec. 14, 2016)12/14/2016
Court denied motions to reconsider prior dismissal of plaintiffs’ petition to vacate an arbitration award. Court held that reconsideration was not warranted as the movant simply repeated the cases and arguments previously analyzed by the court and filed the motion merely to disagree with or re-litigate the court’s initial decision. No new arguments or ones that could not have been pursued at the time of the initial motions were proffered.
-
Careminders Homecare Inc. v. Kianka, No. 16-10206 (11th Cir. Dec. 14, 2016)12/14/2016
Circuit court affirmed district court’s order confirming arbitral award. Court affirmed the district court’s decision to confirm the award based solely on respondent’s failure to file a motion to vacate within 90 days. Court also found that respondent failed to demonstrate any of the four statutory bases for overturning an arbitrator’s decision and, accordingly, fell short of overcoming the heavy presumption under the FAA that arbitration awards will be enforced.
-
Marc v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00579 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 13, 2016)12/13/2016
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and strike class action allegations. Court held that, because the arbitration provision expressly mandates that arbitration proceed on an individual basis and removes the arbitrator’s ability to consider claims or issues dealing with class arbitration, and since plaintiff had raised no objection to the validity or enforceability of the class-action waivers, the court must order the parties to proceed with arbitration in the individual manner set forth in the parties’ agreement.
-
Gessele v. Jack In The Box, Inc., No. 3:14-CV-01092-BR (D. Or. Dec. 13, 2016)12/13/2016
Court granted defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment as to plaintiff’s state and federal claims on the ground that he is required to arbitrate them. Court held that (i) plaintiff signed the arbitration agreement by clicking “yes” that he agreed to the contract’s terms; (ii) plaintiff was of legal age when he signed and ratified the arbitration agreement; (iii) defendant did not waive his right to enforce the arbitration agreement by failing to file a motion to compel during the short duration of plaintiff’s individual cause of action; and (iv) the arbitration agreement is not illegal under the National Labor Relations Act or the Fair Labor Standards Act.
-
Ozturk v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 2:13-CV-05463-ES-JAD (D.N.J. Dec. 13, 2016)12/13/2016
Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment because, inter alia, plaintiff failed to exhaust the exclusive remedies under the grievance and arbitration provisions of his collective bargaining agreement.
-
West v. Legacy Motors, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-12101-RHC-RSW (E.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2016)12/12/2016
Court denied motion for reconsideration to compel arbitration. Court determined that, even if, as plaintiff alleged, the contract containing the arbitration provision was “backdated,” plaintiff still had weeks to read the contract and opt out of the arbitration provision without affecting the balance of the agreement. Thus, the arbitration clause was not substantively unconscionable. Similarly, the court rejected plaintiff’s contention that the arbitration clause’s fee-splitting provision tipped the scale in favor of unconscionability, because the provision made arbitration, “if anything, more affordable for Plaintiff than federal litigation.”
-
Sanchez v. Elizondo, No. 3:15-CV-00474-RCJ-VPC (D. Nev. Dec. 12, 2016)12/12/2016
Court granted petitioner’s motion to vacate FINRA arbitration award, holding the arbitrator committed error by proceeding with a single arbitrator over plaintiff’s objection in violation of FINRA’s Rules.
-
Preferred Care of Delaware, Inc. v. Blankenship, No. 4:16-CV-00131-JHM-HBB (W.D. Ky. Dec. 12, 2016)12/12/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court held that the parties entered into an agreement to arbitrate that covers the exact type of claims defendant asserted in his state court action. Moreover, there are no federal claims asserted that are precluded from arbitration, and all, rather than some, of defendant’s claims are subject to arbitration. Therefore, the arbitration agreement must be enforced.
-
Kailuan (Hong Kong) International Co., Ltd. v. Sino East Minerals, Ltd., No. 16 Civ. 2160-PKC (S.D.N.Y Dec. 9, 2016)12/09/2016
Court denied petitioner’s motion to vacate award. Court held that the arbitral tribunal acted within the scope of its authority since it decided issues covered by the terms of reference and did not intentionally ignore a clear and unambiguous term in the contract or add new terms to it, but instead provided the requisite “barely colorable justification” for its findings. Court also denied respondent’s request for attorney’s fees and costs incurred in connection with opposing the application.
-
Short v. Grayson, No. 1:16-CV-02150 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 9, 2016)12/09/2016
Court compelled arbitration under 9 USC § 2 since plaintiff conceded that there was a written agreement to arbitrate between her and the attorney defendants, the dispute was within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and plaintiff did not assert facts supporting a finding that the arbitration clause is procedurally unconscionable. Further, court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration agreement was contrary to Illinois public policy, holding that, while the violation of an attorney’s responsibility to fully inform a client about an arbitration clause may create an attorney discipline issue, it does not satisfy the heavy burden to demonstrate the existence of a public policy bar.
-
Katsil v. Citibank, N.A., No. 3:16-CV-03694-AET-DEA (D.N.J. Dec. 8, 2016)12/08/2016
Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that there was no evidence of a contract between the parties and, therefore, an arbitration agreement cannot apply.
-
Congdon v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-02499-YGR (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2016)12/08/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration with regard to plaintiffs that had entered into arbitration agreements with defendants and stayed the action as to the same. Court held that the issue of arbitrability was for the arbitrator to decide since the arbitration agreement contained a clear and unmistakable delegation clause and that arbitration did not create obstacles in the effective vindication of the these plaintiffs’ rights, since defendants had agreed to pay the full costs of arbitration for plaintiffs.
-
Cicogna v. 33Across Inc., No. 3:16-CV-02012-JLS-WVG (S.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2016)12/08/2016
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration agreement is not substantively unconscionable under California law, and stayed the judicial proceedings under 9 USC § 3 pending the outcome of any arbitration.
-
SunLink Corporation v. American Capital Energy Inc., No. 1:15-CV-13606-ADB (D. Mass. Dec. 8, 2016)12/08/2016
Court confirmed arbitration award, holding that defendant had failed to timely contest the award within the requisite time periods under both the FAA and the Massachusetts Arbitration Act.
-
Road to Victory, LLC v. 3rd and Long Productions, LLC, No. 8:16-CV-PWG (D. Md. Dec. 7, 2016)12/07/2016
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed plaintiff’s claims, holding that defendant had not met its burden of demonstrating a genuine dispute as to the validity, enforceability, or scope of the relevant arbitration provision.
-
Archer and White Sales, Inc. v. Henry Schein, Inc., No. 2:12-CV-00572-JRG (E.D. Tex. Dec. 7, 2016)12/07/2016
Court reversed and ordered vacatur of magistrate judge’s order, denied motions to compel arbitration and lifted stay of the proceedings. Court held that there was a “positive assurance” that no reasonable interpretation of the arbitration clause would cover the dispute at issue. Further, the gateway question of arbitrability is for the court, not the arbitrator, to decide since the parties did not clearly and unmistakably agree to arbitrate the arbitrability of the action and defendants’ argument that plaintiff’s claims fall within the scope of the arbitration clause is wholly groundless.
-
Pirtek USA, LLC v. Twillman, No. 6:16-CV-01302-RBD-TBS (M.D. Fla. Dec. 7, 2016)12/07/2016
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation and dismissed defendants’ motions. Court held that defendants had not met their “heavy burden” to show that plaintiff had waived its right to arbitrate claims for permanent injunctive relief by seeking preliminary injunctive relief in court.
-
Savarese v. J.P. Morgan Chase, No. 2:16-CV-00321-JFB-SIL (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2016)12/07/2016
Court adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge to grant motion to compel arbitration and stay the present action. In granting defendant’s motion, court accepted the magistrate judge’s rejection of each of plaintiff’s arguments, including that his electronic signature was invalid, he did not recall signing the arbitration agreement, and such agreement was signed under duress. Further, Court accepted that each of the claims fell under the scope of the arbitration agreement and were arbitrable.
-
Peterson v. Islamic Republic, No. 1:01-CV-02094-RCL (D.D.C. Dec. 6, 2016)12/06/2016
Court denied counter motion to compel arbitration, holding plaintiffs did not agree to, or were otherwise bound by, the relevant arbitration agreement, and there are no disputes or petitions before the court which could justify an order to compel arbitration under 9 USC §§ 3 and 4.
-
Seldin v. Seldin, No. 8:16-CV-00372-JFB-CRZ (D. Neb. Dec. 6, 2016)12/06/2016
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, referred case to arbitration, and denied plaintiff’s motions. Court held that plaintiff is collaterally estopped from reasserting his claims in court and that res judicata also applies since plaintiff had already been ordered by a different court to arbitrate his claims under the parties’ valid and enforceable arbitration agreement. Even if neither collateral estoppel nor res judicata applied, relying on Rule 7 of the AAA Commercial Rules, court held that it would be for the arbitrator, not the court, to determine in the first instance whether the accounting claims at issue are arbitrable.
-
Recom Corp. v. Miller Brothers, a Division of Wampole-Miller, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-03320-SRC-CLW (D.N.J. Dec. 6, 2016)12/06/2016
Court granted respondent’s motion to confirm arbitration award against petitioner and, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 54(b), entered final judgment of confirmation of the award against petitioner. Court denied petitioner’s only defense to confirmation, finding that the court had already ruled in its order vacating the arbitration award that petitioner did not have standing to assert that the arbitral tribunal exceeded its powers in making the award against not only petitioner, but also its parents, successors, affiliates, and assigns.
-
Inversiones Y Procesadora Tropical Inprotsa S.A. v. Del Monte International GMBH, No. 1:16-CV-24275-FAM (S.D. Fla. Dec. 6, 201612/06/2016
Court granted motion to dismiss petition to vacate final arbitral award, finding that petitioner failed to raise any New York Convention grounds as necessary to vacate a foreign arbitral award and rejecting petitioner’s reliance on Florida law.
-
Ascendant Renewable Energy Corporation v. Soaring Wind Energy, LLC, et al, No. 3:16-CV-750-K (N.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2016)12/05/2016
Court granted motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction movant’s petition to vacate arbitration award and dismissed the case. Court held there is no longer a case or controversy to be decided by it because respondents had issued a covenant making it “absolutely clear” that they will not seek to confirm the arbitration award against movant.
-
McNeill v. Raymour & Flanigan Furniture, No. 6:15-CV-01473-GTS-TWD (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2016)12/05/2016
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that defendant had successfully established the existence of valid agreements to arbitrate since plaintiff failed to submit sufficient admissible evidence to the contrary. Moreover, the claims are arbitrable and the arbitration agreements at issue not unconscionable. Court further stayed the proceedings pending arbitration, finding that, while not mandatory, a stay is appropriate in light of plaintiff’s pro se status.
-
Snedden v. Perkins & Marie Callender's Inc., No. 1:16-CV-668 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 5, 2016)12/05/2016
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed civil action under § 3 of the FAA, holding that the parties had concluded a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement. Court found that arbitration agreement was not illusory since it was not an arbitration disclaimer in an employee handbook but a stand-alone agreement and did not lack consideration in view of the plaintiff’s continued employment by defendant. Further, court held that it was not fatally ambiguous since the method for appointment of arbitrators could be determined under § 5 of the FAA; the terms and scope of discovery was clear based on the agreement’s incorporation of the federal rules of procedure and evidence; and the agreement’s silence as to the arbitration costs is per se insufficient to render an arbitration agreement unenforceable.
-
Nationwide Insurance Company of America v. Marquez, No. 2:16-CV-01978-WHO (E.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2016)12/05/2016
Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim for declaratory relief, holding that the issue in dispute was not within the scope of the parties’ arbitration agreement. Accordingly, court found it had subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claim.
-
Milan Express Co., Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co., Inc., No. 16-5270 (6th Cir. Dec. 2, 2016)12/02/2016
Court declined to exercise appellate jurisdiction and decide the validity of the arbitration award, holding that the district court’s non-decision on the motion to vacate the arbitration award was not an implied denial of the motion. Court held that the district court’s silence was consistent with the rationale for its forum-non-conveniens dismissal and the parties’ express agreement to litigate the validity of the award in the courts of Nebraska. This was also consistent with the FAA, which provides that judgment on the validity of an arbitration award shall be sought in the court specified by the parties in their agreement.
-
Zambrana v. Pressler and Pressler, LLP, No. 1:16-CV-02907-VEC (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2016)12/02/2016
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, holding a valid arbitration agreement existed in plaintiff’s cardholder agreement. Court also held that defendants adequately established plaintiff’s credit card account was assigned to them, and thus the defendants could enforce the arbitration agreement.
-
Trs. for the Mason Tenders Dist. Council Welfare Fund v. Premier Bridging & Scaffolding Ltd., No. 1:16-CV-04921-LGS (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2016)12/02/2016
Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment to confirm and enforce an arbitration award. Court found that the arbitrator’s decision could be clearly inferred from the facts of the case, and as such, confirmed the award.
-
Franklin v. H&R Block, et al., No. 4:16-CV-00666-JAR (E.D. Mo. Dec. 2, 2016)12/02/2016
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Applying Missouri state law, court held that a valid offer to arbitrate was extended; plaintiff accepted the offer by signing the arbitration agreement; there was adequate consideration because both parties waived their rights to litigate the employment-related claims; and there was no dispute that the claims arose out of or were related to plaintiff’s employment.
-
Franklin v. H&R Block, No. 4:16-CV-666-JAR (E.D. Mo. Dec. 2, 2016)12/02/2016
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, stayed the proceedings pending arbitration, and denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. Court held that the parties’ arbitration agreement is valid and enforceable and the claims at issue are within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
-
Doctor’s Assocs. Inc. v. Pahwa, No. 3:16-CV-00446-JCH (D. Conn. Dec. 2, 2016)12/02/2016
Court affirmed magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant plaintiff’s petition to compel arbitration. Court held that arbitration was proper because (i) the outstanding issues defendants claimed should be decided by the court before compelling arbitration were issues to be decided by the arbitrator and (ii) the case law cited by defendants was inapposite.
-
Linglong Americas v. Horizon Tire, No. 16-3520 (6th Cir. Dec. 1, 2016)12/01/2016
Court affirmed district court’s refusal to compel arbitration. Court held that the arbitration clause did not survive the contract, which had expired four years earlier, because the vast majority of events occurred after expiry and there was no contractual right in dispute that survived the contract.
-
Watermill Ventures, LTD. v. Capello Capital Corp., No. 15-55145 (9th Cir. Dec. 1, 2016)12/01/2016
Court affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration. Court found that the district court correctly concluded that the assignment of rights to the arbitration proceeds was not a material breach of the settlement agreement, and thus did not excuse plaintiff-appellants from their duty to arbitrate under that contract.