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.
-
Asphalt Trader Ltd. v. Taryn Capital Energy, L.L.C., No. 1:16-CV-00054-JNP-EJF (D. Utah Dec. 1, 2016)12/01/2016
Court granted petition to confirm foreign award and enter judgment. Court also agreed to convert portions of the award originally rendered in British pounds to U.S. dollars because this “is the norm, rather than the exception.” Court found that the exchange rate on the day the respondent’s obligation to pay costs and fees arose was the applicable rate for conversion.
-
Sadjdlowska v. Guardian Services. Industries, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-03947-PAE (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2016)12/01/2016
Court referred plaintiff’s claims to arbitration and stayed the action pending the outcome of the arbitration. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the defendants waived their right to arbitration by unjustifiably delaying arbitration and that an attachment to the agreement allowed plaintiff to bypass arbitration and file the action in federal court. Both these issues are for the arbitrator to decide.
-
Singh v. Interactive Brokers LLC, No. 2:16-CV-00277-RGD-DEM (E.D. Va. Nov. 30, 2016)11/30/2016
Court granted motions to compel arbitration, finding that a mandatory arbitration clause was not invalidated by the plaintiffs’ failure to sign the contract. Court also rejected plaintiffs’ argument that defendant’s failure to comply with FINRA Rule 2268 was sufficient to render null and void an otherwise valid arbitration agreement under the FAA.
-
Shah v. Blue Wake Shipping, No. 2:16-CV-00529-PM-KK (W.D. La. Nov. 30, 2016)11/30/2016
Court adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and denied plaintiff’s motion for remand. Magistrate judge found that the arbitration agreement, which was contained within an employment contract signed by the plaintiff and an agent of the defendant, was binding and did not limit the type of claim or the parties eligible for arbitration.
-
Hardy Exploration & Prod. (India), Inc. v. Gov’t of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, No. 1:16-CV- 00140-RC (D.D.C. Nov. 30, 2016)11/30/2016
Court granted in part and denied in part motion to dismiss petition to confirm an arbitration award because petitioner had served the respondent using Federal Express, which was insufficient under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act. Court held that petitioner would be given another opportunity to attempt service on the respondent.
-
Global Liquidity Partners, LLC v. Wegher, No. 3:16-CV-02439-MAS-LHG (D.N.J. Nov. 30, 2016)11/30/2016
Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award and denied cross-motion to vacate the award. Court rejected respondents’ argument that the arbitrator’s familiarity with petitioners’ counsel constituted bias, and held that the respondents had waived any objection regarding late joinder by specifically stating on record that they had no additional evidence to present in support of their case.
-
Cowsette v. Federal National Mortgage Assoc., No. 3:16-CV-02430-L (N.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2016)11/30/2016
Court accepted the findings of the magistrate judge and granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Magistrate judge employed the fifth circuit’s two-step inquiry for deciding a motion to compel arbitration under the FAA, which looks at (i) whether the parties agreed to arbitrate the issue and (ii) whether any legal restraints external to the agreement foreclose the arbitration of the dispute. The magistrate judge determined that the arbitration agreement was valid because plaintiff confirmed receipt of the arbitration agreement contained in her employment contract and continued to work for the defendant.
-
Gregorius v. NPC Int’l, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-593-FTM-99MRM (M.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2016)11/30/2016
Court compelled individual arbitration . Court found that the evidence was sufficient to establish the existence of an arbitration agreement, including evidence that plaintiff at least electronically opened the agreement and electronically signed it. Court also upheld the class arbitration waiver in the arbitration agreement.
-
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 2150 v. Nextera Energy Point Beach LLC, (E.D. Wis. November 30, 2016)11/30/2016
Court denied motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, holding that there was no explicit exclusion or positive assurance that parties intended to exclude unescorted access decisions from arbitration. Court found that arbitration clause was broad enough to trigger a presumption of arbitrability. Court found that defendant’s internal review processes for this issue did not provide assurance of a purposeful intent to exclude those determinations from arbitration, and that prior arbitral awards finding to the contrary, particularly involving different parties and arbitration agreements, were not precedential.
-
Worth v. Worth, No. 2:16-CV-03877-MAK (E.D. Pa. Nov. 29, 2016)11/29/2016
Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that most of plaintiff’s claims fell within a carve-out in the arbitration clause for “matters related to the operation and management of the company.” On the remaining minority oppression claim, court found that defendants waived their right to arbitrate after aggressively litigating the claim for nine months.
-
Rossman v. A.R.M. Corp., No. 1:16-CV-00493 WCG (E.D. Wis. Nov. 29, 2016)11/29/2016
Court granted motion to dismiss or stay pending arbitration. Court determined that whether the arbitration agreement conflicts with a non-waivable statutory right was a question for the court to decide. In turn, court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable because it was in a weaker bargaining position compared to the other signatory.
-
Pocalyko v. Baker Tilly Virchow Crouse, LLP, No. 2:16-CV-03637-MMB (E.D. Pa. Nov. 29, 2016)11/29/2016
Court granted motion to dismiss complaint and compel arbitration. Court held that since the plaintiff challenged the agreement as a whole, rather than the delegation of authority to the arbitrator in particular, plaintiff’s challenges to the enforceability and applicability of the arbitration clause should be decided by the arbitrator.
-
Calderon v. Total Wealth Management, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-01632-BEN-NLS (S.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2016)11/29/2016
Court granted motion to dismiss, vacated motion to stay pending arbitration as moot, and dismissed claims. Court held that plaintiff’s challenge to the validity of the parties’ entire contract containing the arbitration clause is to be decided by arbitration under §§ 3 and 4 of the FAA, noting that the plaintiffs did not separately claim that the arbitration clause itself was fraudulently induced.
-
Reliant Pro Rehab, LLC v. Atkins, No. 3:16-CV-00920-M (N.D. Tex. Nov. 28, 2016)11/28/2016
Court transferred the case to the Middle District of Florida due to lack of personal jurisdiction over non-signatories to the arbitration agreement. Court held that plaintiff failed to show that the forum selection clause applied to the non-signatories and rejected plaintiff’s arguments based on the intertwined claims theory of estoppel—because it only applies to non-signatories bringing claims against signatories—and found that direct benefits estoppel did not apply.
-
Reading Joint Apprentice and Electric Committee v. Hiester, No. 5:16-CV-04306-JFL (E.D. Pa. Nov. 28, 2016)11/28/2016
Court denied request to confirm arbitration award due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Court held that while § 9 of the FAA allows a party to apply to a court for an order confirming an arbitration award if the parties contemplated doing so in their arbitration agreement, the FAA does not provide a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction to hear an application to confirm an award. Instead, jurisdiction must arise from the questions presented by the § 9 application itself.
-
Trs. of the New York City Dist. Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, v. Jessica Rose Enters. Corp., No. 1:15-CV-09040-RA (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 2016)11/28/2016
Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award and awarded prejudgment interest and attorney’s fees. Court confirmed the award after finding that there was no dispute as to whether arbitration was appropriate, whether the arbitrator acted within the scope of his authority, or the amount owed. Court also determined that, although the FAA does not provide for attorney’s fees in actions to confirm arbitration awards, a district court always can award attorney’s fees where the losing party has acted in bad faith.
-
Servpro Intellectual Property, Inc. v. Stellar Emarketing, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-01267 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 28, 2016)11/28/2016
Court granted a third-party defendant’s motion to stay or dismiss pending arbitration. Court determined that the third-party defendant did not waive its right to arbitration by filing motions, participating in settlement conferences, and participating in discovery. Court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that a delay in asserting arbitration rights could be considered a waiver, as there was nothing in the FAA that suggested that a party loses its arbitration rights merely by failing to exercise them at the earliest possible opportunity.
-
Fellows v. Sundahl, No. 2:16-CV-00785-JNP-PMW (D. Utah Nov. 28, 2016)11/28/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation. Court held that plaintiff failed to dispute the existence or applicability of the agreement’s arbitration clause and that the language of the arbitration provision was broad enough to encompass the underlying dispute.
-
SprinkleBit Holding, Inc. v. MJD Interactive Agency, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-01324-W-BGS (S.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2016)11/23/2016
Court granted motion to stay proceedings pending conclusion of concurrent arbitral proceedings involving related claims and related parties.
-
Pine Tree Villa, LLC v. Lasley, No. 3:16-CV-00570-DJH (W.D. Ky. Nov. 23, 2016)11/23/2016
Court granted motion to dismiss petition to confirm arbitration award for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that FAA does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction and that the “underlying substantive controversy” concerned state law.
-
New York City Dist. Council of Carpenters v. Best Made Floors, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-03429-ARR-ST (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 2016)11/23/2016
Court granted motions to confirm two arbitration awards and permitted petitioner to file a new motion seeking to modify a third award, rejecting motions to vacate all three awards. Court rejected procedural challenges to the awards, primarily relating to the evidentiary record during the arbitrations and the sufficiency of notice.
-
Davis v. Vanguard Home Care, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-07277 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 22, 2016)11/22/2016
Court rejected motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, finding that seventh circuit precedent barring enforcement of class arbitration waivers in employment contracts was applicable and that, in the absence of a delegation clause, the question was for the court, not the arbitrator, to decide.
-
Martinez v. Utilimap Corp., No. 3:14-CV-00310-JPG-PGW (S.D. Ill. Nov. 22, 2016)11/22/2016
Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award, finding that the parties delegated the question of class arbitrability to the arbitrator by choosing to arbitrate under AAA arbitration rules, and that arbitrator’s analysis reflected a dutiful interpretation of the arbitration agreement, “whether it be right or wrong.”
-
St. Pierre v. Advanced Call Ctr. Techs., LLC, No. 2:15-CV-02415-JAD-NJK (D. Nev. Nov. 22, 2016)11/22/2016
Court granted motion to dismiss and compelled arbitration, finding that defendant could invoke an arbitration clause in an agreement between the plaintiff and a third party since defendant served as the third party’s agent in performing the acts at issue.
-
Trs. of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labor-Mgm’t Cooperation, Pension & Welfare Funds v. C.R. Edwards Constr. Corp., No. 2:15-CV-05232-JFB-ARL (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2016)11/22/2016
Court granted motion to confirm labor arbitration award, finding that the award drew its essence from the parties’ agreement and was based on uncontroverted evidence.
-
Pacific West Securities, Inc. v. George, No. 14-15628 (9th Cir. Nov. 22, 2016)11/22/2016
Circuit court affirmed district court’s denial of motion to vacate an arbitral award and granting motion to confirm the award, finding that defendants failed to show evident partiality or prejudicial misconduct or misbehavior.
-
UBS Fin. Servs. v. Padussis, No. 15-2148 (4th Cir. Nov. 22, 2016)11/22/2016
Circuit court affirmed denial of motion to vacate an arbitral award, finding that FINRA’s refusal to extend deadline for responses striking arbitrators off of panel lists was within its discretion and applying setoff between the amounts awarded for the claim and counterclaim would impermissibly modify the award.
-
Collier v. RD Am., LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00194-MOC-DSC (W.D.N.C. Nov. 22, 2016)11/22/2016
Court denied motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that plaintiffs adequately alleged that they lacked actual notice of the terms of the arbitration agreement, where, despite signing an acknowledgement that they “have read” and “have received a copy of” the arbitration agreement, they claimed that they never were in fact provided with a copy of the arbitration agreement.
-
Ji’An Grp. Co., Ltd. v. Rock-Tenn CP, LLP, No. 1:15-CV-03258-MHC (N.D. Ga. Nov. 22, 2016)11/22/2016
Court denied petition to confirm arbitration award, finding that petitioner failed to establish that respondent ever received notice of the arbitration, and thus denial pursuant to the New York Convention was proper under grounds relating to lack of notice and improper formation of the tribunal.
-
Local 210 Warehouse & Prod. Emps. Union, AFL-CIO v. Envtl. Servs., Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00756-JFB-SIL (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2016)11/22/2016
Court denied motion to vacate an arbitral award and granted motion for summary judgment confirming the award, finding that arbitrator’s failure to hold an evidentiary hearing did not deprive plaintiffs of fundamental fairness or exceed the arbitrator’s contractual powers despite contractual language stating that the arbitrator shall conduct a hearing. And in any event the argument was waived by the plaintiffs’ failure to raise it in the arbitration.
-
Sandor v. General Electric Co., No. 1:16-CV-01670-JG (N.D. Ohio Nov. 22, 2016)11/22/2016
Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that employee lacked actual notice that she had agreed to arbitrate given that employer had not informed her that acceptance of employment agreement containing arbitration clause was a condition of continued employment.
-
Trs. of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labor-Mgm’t Cooperation, Pension & Welfare Funds v. Bayview Custom Constr. Corp., No. 2:15-CV-06574-JFB-ARL (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2016)11/22/2016
Court granted motion to confirm labor arbitration award, finding that the award applies the relevant legal provisions “to the letter.”
-
Ragab v. Howard, No. 15-1444 (10th Cir. Nov. 21, 2016)11/21/2016
Circuit court affirmed district court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration, finding that inconsistencies among multiple arbitration provisions in a package of contracts prevented a meeting of the minds.
-
Parnell v. Western Sky Fin., LLC, No. 16-11369 (11th Cir. Nov. 21, 2016)11/21/2016
Circuit court affirmed district court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration, applying controlling precedent concerning same arbitration provision that had found that designated arbitrator was unavailable but “integral” to the loan agreement.
-
Color-Web, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Heavy Indus. Printing & Packaging Mach., Ltd., No. 1:16-CV-01435-DLC (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2016)11/21/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that non-signatory defendants could rely on an arbitration clause because the claims against them were the “same dispute” as those against the defendant that signed the contract containing the arbitration clause, and non-signatory plaintiffs were bound by estoppel due to their receipt of a direct benefit from the contract containing the arbitration clause.
-
Greene v. IPA/UPS Sys. Bd. of Adjustment, No. 3:15-CV-00234-TBR (W.D. Ky. Nov. 21, 2016)11/21/2016
Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding that there were no valid grounds for vacating the arbitration award.
-
Humana Ins. Co. v. Tenet Health Sys., No. 3:16-CV-02919-B (N.D. Tex. Nov. 21, 2016)11/21/2016
Court denied motion for a preliminary injunction pending the arbitration panel’s decision, finding that the movant had failed to make a clear showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits or that it or others are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary injunctive relief.
-
One Man Band Corp. v. Smith, No. 2:14-CV-00221-TS (D. Utah Nov. 21, 2016)11/21/2016
Court granted motion to confirm final arbitration award but rejected motion to transfer property, finding that there was no ground under the FAA for refusing confirmation but that it was premature to seek execution under Fed. R. Civ. P. 70 since additional claims remained for trial.
-
Tompkins-Cortland Counties Building & Construction Trades Council, Maintenance Division v. Cornell University, No. 5:16-CV-00429-MAD-ATB (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2016)11/18/2016
Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the claims. Court held that, although the parties agreed to arbitrate the merits of the underlying dispute, because there is no “clear and unmistakable evidence” that the parties intended to submit the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator, the question of arbitrability is properly before the court.
-
Anheuser-Busch, LLC, v. Local 1, Int’l Bhd. Of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO, No. 4:16-CV-00990-SNLJ (E.D. Mo. Nov. 18, 2016)11/18/2016
Court granted motion for summary judgment and vacated arbitration award, finding that the arbitrator had applied legal provisions that it recognized were inapplicable.
-
Evans v. Nissan Extended Servs. N. Am., Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00628-JLH (E.D. Ark. Nov. 18, 2016)11/18/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement did not unconscionably preclude recovery of statutory fees and costs, and that the question of whether plaintiff's claim fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement was a question of arbitrability that the parties agreed to arbitrate.
-
Trs. of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labor-Mgm’t Cooperation, Pension & Welfare Funds v. Allied Design & Constr., LLC, No. 2:15-CV-03854-JFB-GRB (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2016)11/18/2016
Court granted motion to confirm labor arbitration award, finding that the award applies the relevant legal provisions “to the letter.”
-
Owens v. American Arbitration Association, No. 16-1055 (8th Cir. Nov. 18, 2016)11/18/2016
Court affirmed dismissal of plaintiff-appellant’s claims based on arbitral immunity. Owens sued the AAA for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, tortious interference with contract, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage after the AAA removed an arbitrator from a three-member arbitration panel without holding a hearing, consulting the removed arbitrator, or informing Owens. Appellate court concluded that the removal of arbitrators is protected by arbitral immunity, which protects sponsoring organizations from civil liability at all stages of the arbitration process.
-
Cooper v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00471-JTN-ESC (W.D. Mich. Nov. 18, 2016)11/18/2016
Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration, holding that the collective bargaining agreement at issue only governed the relationship between defendant’s active employees and defendant. As a result, court concluded that there was no valid agreement to arbitrate between plaintiffs, a group of retired employees, and defendant.
-
Purvis v. Cavalry SPV II, LLC., No. 2:15-CV-188 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 17, 2016)11/17/2016
Court granted defendant’s motion to confirm arbitration award pursuant to §9 of the FAA. Plaintiff who previously opposed defendant’s motion to compel arbitration consented to enforcement.
-
Dallas Digital Signs & Graphics v. Bunting Graphics, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00923-A-JM (N.D. Tex. Nov. 17, 2016)11/17/2016
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that the contract between the plaintiff and one defendant provided for arbitration, and the other defendant would be liable for any claims unpaid by the defendant and thus bound to arbitrate as well.
-
Griggs v. Kenworth of Montgomery, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00406-MHT-GMB (M.D. Ala. Nov. 17, 2016)11/17/2016
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court found the arbitration agreement was valid; that plaintiff signed the agreement in his individual capacity not as an agent of a limited liability company, as he did not have the authority to sign in the company’s name; and that the claims fell within the scope of the agreement. Court stayed the action pending arbitration.
-
Infrassure, Ltd. v. First Mutual Transportation Assurance Co., No. 16-306 (2d Cir. Nov. 16, 2016)11/16/2016
Circuit court affirmed district court’s prior decision, finding that, between two competing arbitration agreements executed by the parties, the arbitration agreement in the body of the contract controlled.
-
Trustees for the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. One Ten Restoration Corp., No. 1:15-CV-10000-JPO (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2016)11/16/2016
Court granted motion to confirm a default arbitration award. Court held the defendant received sufficient notice of the arbitration from both the plaintiffs and the arbitrator, and that the arbitrator had a sufficient basis to conclude that the necessary procedures had been followed and there was no denial of fundamental fairness.
-
Quiroz v. Cavalry SPV I, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-04779-JFW-E (C.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2016)11/16/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that a credit card agreement did not have to be signed to be binding; that failure to provide defendant with allegedly required notice implicated the validity of the credit card agreement as a whole, rather than just the arbitration provision, and thus was a question to be determined in arbitration; and arbitration agreement was not unconscionable since the defendant could have opted out.