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.
-
Employers Resource v. NLRB, No. 16-60034 (5th Cir. Nov. 1, 2016)11/01/2016
Court granted petition for review and denied cross-application for enforcement of an administrative law judge’s decision that the arbitration provision mandating individual arbitration violates §8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act. Court declined to overturn earlier Fifth Circuit decisions absent an intervening change in the law, concluding that the FAA mandates enforcement of arbitration provisions requiring individual arbitration.
-
Corporación Mexicana de Mantenimiento Integral, S. De R.L. De C.V., v. Pemex-Exploración Y Producción, No. 13-4022 (2d Cir. Nov. 1, 2016)11/01/2016
Court denied appellant’s petition for rehearing in panel or en banc of its decision to affirm confirmation of an ICC arbitral award vacated by Mexican courts in Corporación Mexicana de Mantenimiento Integral v. Pemex-Exploración Y Producción, No. 13-4022 (2d. Cir. Aug. 2, 2016).
-
Borgarding v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, No. 2:16-CV-02485-FMO-RAO (C.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2017)
10/31/2016Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that, although there was a low level of procedural unconscionability there was no substantive unconscionability, and therefore the agreement to arbitrate was valid.
-
Gonzalez v. Ceva Logistics U.S., Inc., 3:16-CV-04282-WHO (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2016)10/31/2016
Court denied motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA and the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Morris v. Ernst & Young, 2016 WL 4433080 (9th Cir. Aug. 22, 2016). Court found the arbitration agreement, which waived class claims with no meaningful opportunity to opt out, was unenforceable under §7 of the National Labor Relations Act, and held that severing the class waiver provision would still violate Morris.
-
Clos La Chance Wines, Inc., v. AV Brands, Inc., 5:16-CV-04047 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2016)10/31/2016
Court granted motion for reconsideration and for relief from judgment confirming the arbitral award. Under FRCP 60(b) and 59(e), respectively, the court found the defendant’s failure to file timely opposition to the motion to confirm the award was a result of excusable neglect and held that manifest injustice would result if relief was not granted.
-
DCK N. America, LLC, v. Burns and Roe Servs., Co., 2:16-CV-00994-MRH (W.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2016)10/31/2016
Court granted motions to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings pending arbitration or mediation. Court first held that since the parties’ failed to sufficiently reference the AAA Arbitration Rules in their arbitration agreement, such that the question of arbitrability would be delegated to the arbitrator, the question of arbitrability was for judicial determination. In making such a determination, court then held that the parties’ arbitration agreement was broadly drafted and the presumption of arbitrability applied.
-
Matala-De Mazza v. Special Touch Home Care Servs., Inc., 1:16-CV-01185-ARR-RLM (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2016)10/31/2016
Court granted motion to stay and to compel arbitration under FAA. Court found that there was a valid arbitration agreement, that the action fell within the scope of the agreement, and that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of showing the arbitration would be prohibitively expensive.
-
Howse v. DirecTV, LLC, 6:16-CV-00594-PGB-TBS (M.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2016)10/31/2016
Court granted amended motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable under Florida law and that the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (“EFTA”) claims were arbitrable. Court found that plaintiff failed to meet his burden of showing a contrary congressional command precluded the waiver of judicial remedies for alleged EFTA violations that would override the strong federal policy in the FAA requiring courts to enforce arbitration agreements.
-
Gamboa v. Citibank, National Association, No. 1:16-CV-02349-MHC (N.D. Ga. Oct. 28, 2016)
10/28/2016Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed action pending arbitration, finding that, by using defendant’s services plaintiff had accepted defendant’s terms of use, including the arbitration agreement contained therein, and that the broad arbitration agreement encompasses the claims at issue.
-
Mitchell v. Tillett, 3:15-CV-04044-VC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2016)10/28/2016
Court dismissed the petition for vacatur of an arbitral award with prejudice. Court found the New York Convention, not the FAA, governed the sailor’s employment contract and concluded that the award arose out of a commercial relationship. Since the New York Convention does not provide for vacatur, the court relied on FAA and state law rules. Court held that regardless of whether state law or FAA rules applied, the petition to vacate was untimely.
-
Laurence v. Sol G. Atlas Realty Co., Inc., No. 15-3087-CV (2nd Cir. Oct. 28, 2016)10/28/2016
Court vacated district court’s grant of motion to compel arbitration and remands suit. Court held that the wording of the arbitration provision in the collective bargaining agreement is not “clear and unmistakable” as to whether statutory discrimination or retaliation claims must be submitted to arbitration.
-
Cortes-Ramos v. Martin-Morales, No. 3:16-CV-01223-DRD (D.P.R. Oct. 28, 2016)10/28/2016
Court granted motion to dismiss and remitted the suit to arbitration. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the agreement to arbitrate is not valid because plaintiff had not read the arbitration agreement, and found that plaintiff failed to show that the agreement was induced by fraud. Moreover, the court rejected the argument that defendant is not covered by the arbitration clause because defendant is a third-party beneficiary of the agreement.
-
Coleman-Reed v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, No. 2:15-CV-13687 (S.D.W. Va. Oct. 28, 2016)10/28/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and rejected argument that defendant had waived its right to arbitrate under the default provision in § 3 of the FAA. Court held that the alleged delay in filing the motion to compel should be measured from the day the defendant became aware or should have become aware of the arbitration provision and not the date of filing of the complaint. Court also held that filing of minimal responsive pleadings and limited participation in discovery are not actions inconsistent with an intent to pursue arbitration, and concluded that plaintiff failed to show that defendant’s actions resulted in actual prejudice.
-
Youssofi v. Credit One Fin., 15-CV-1764-AJB-RBB (S.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2016).10/28/2016
Court granted motion to certify for immediate interlocutory appeal. Plaintiff challenged court’s ruling that the constitutional waiver test is inapplicable in the context of arbitration agreements. Court held that (1) the issue of whether the constitutional waiver test applies is a controlling question of law, (2) there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion, and (3) immediate appeal would materially advance the litigation’s end.
-
Munning v. Gap, 3:16-CV-03804-TEH (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28 2016).10/28/2016
Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s litigation claims as being subject to arbitration. Under a FAA analysis of the validity and scope of the arbitration agreement, the court found that it was unclear whether an arbitration agreement existed between the parties and held the forum selection clause on defendant’s website was “sufficiently specific” to impute to the parties “the reasonable expectation that they were superseding, displacing or waiving the prior arbitration clause.”
-
Lawrence v. Sol G. Atlas Realty Co., Inc., 15-3087 (2d Cir. Oct, 28, 2016)10/28/2016
Court vacated district court’s motion to compel arbitration under the FAA, finding that the collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) does not require arbitration of statutory discrimination claims. Court held that the CBA did not contain a “clear and unmistakable” waiver of plaintiff’s statutory claims.
-
Haven Beauty Inc. v. Kardashian, No. 8:16-CV-01307-JVS-DFM (C.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2016)10/27/2016
District court denied motion to compel arbitration against defendants who were not party to the arbitration agreement, finding that the estoppel theory articulated by plaintiffs was inapplicable because the non-party defendants had asserted no claims (but only affirmative defenses) relating to the agreement containing the arbitration clauses.
-
ATCi Communications Inc. v. Federal Insurance Company, No. 1:16-CV-23374-CMA (S.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2016)10/27/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed the litigation, finding that third party was bound to arbitrate due to equitable estoppel, that the dispute fell within the scope of the broadly worded arbitration clause, and that it had the power to stay litigation even in the absence of a pending arbitration.
-
R&G Student Housing, LLC v. Phoenix Sustainable Group, LLC, No. 6:16-CV-01363-GAP-GJK (M.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2016)10/27/2016
Court granted motion to stay litigation and compel AAA arbitration pursuant to a clause requiring arbitration in a “neutral site in accordance with the rules of the AAA”. Court held that arbitration “in accordance with the rules of the AAA” requires that the dispute be referred to the AAA as the arbitrating entity.
-
Dirse v. Rent-a-Car East, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-23530-FAM (S.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2016)10/27/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and entered judgment for petitioner. Court held that a non-signatory plaintiff, having received benefit from the rental agreement, cannot avoid arbitration where the signatory plaintiff concedes that she entered into a rental agreement and does not deny that she endorsed the arbitration provision expressly referring “any dispute or claim” to arbitration.
-
Clinical Solutions, LLC v. Physicians Plan Rx, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00196 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 26, 2016)10/26/2016
Court dismissed case in light of enforceable arbitration provision in parties’ joint venture agreement. Court held that the validity of the overall agreement should be evaluated by an arbitrator, and plaintiff’s fraudulent inducement argument is not applicable solely to the arbitration clause but to the agreement as a whole.
-
TWTB, Inc. v. Rampick, No. 2:15-03399 (E.D. La. Oct. 25, 2016)10/25/2016
Court granted motion to stay matter pending arbitration, but denied motion to dismiss, holding that the arbitration agreement was enforceable. Court found that plaintiffs had made no argument that the arbitration agreement was invalid or unenforceable separate from the contract, and therefore the question of enforceability of the arbitration provision was for the arbitrator and not the court. Court found that matters not subject to the arbitration clause should be stayed pending arbitration.
-
South Jersey Sanitation Co., Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co., Inc., No. 14-4010 (3d Cir. Oct. 25, 2016)10/25/2016
Court reversed district court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration because plaintiff’s challenges to the arbitration agreement apply to the parties’ contract as a whole and the validity of the contract is to be determined by the arbitrator.
-
Canlas v. Olomana Golf Links, Inc, No. 1:15-CV-00243 (D. Haw. Oct. 24, 2016)10/24/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration. Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that a valid agreement to arbitrate that encompassed her claims is unenforceable because, inter alia, it was a contract of adhesion. Court held that the provision was not unenforceable despite unequal bargaining power because it merely substituted one forum for another without imposing unequal obligations on one party over the other. Court also held that the agreement’s coverage of claims is even handed and the agreement’s silence as to the allocation of arbitration expenses is insufficient grounds for finding the agreement unconscionable.
-
Trustees of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labor-Management Cooperation, Pension and Welfare Funds v. Lilco Construction, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-03820-JS-GRB (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2016)10/24/2016
Court adopted recommendation of magistrate judge to confirm an arbitration award in favor of plaintiff, award interest, costs and attorney’s fees, and compel respondents to allow an audit as no objections had been raised by either party. Magistrate judge reviewed the unanswered petition and concluded that there is no genuine issue of material fact preventing the court from issuing summary judgment in favor of petitioner.
-
Aldrich v. University of Phoenix, No. 16-5276 (6th Cir. Oct. 24, 2016)10/24/2016
Circuit court affirmed removal of suit to federal court and dismissal of suit in favor of arbitration. Plaintiffs demonstrated assent to the arbitration agreement under Kentucky law by continuing to work at the university even though they did not execute the form expressly acknowledging the arbitration provision.
-
Eagle Aviation Technologies, LLC v. Carson Helicopters, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-05216 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 24, 2016)10/24/2016
Court denied petition to vacate pursuant to § 10(a)(4) of the FAA and confirmed the arbitration award. Court held the arbitrator made a good faith effort to interpret the parties’ agreement in accordance with the principles of contract law and, therefore, did not exceed its powers.
-
Balberdi v. Fedex Ground Package System, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-00481-LEK-KSC (D. Haw. Oct. 21, 2016)10/21/2016
Court granted defendant’s unopposed motion to confirm the arbitration award, finding that court could no longer vacate, modify or correct the award given that the three-month deadline for filing a notice to modify or correct an arbitration award had long passed.
-
Spencer v. Midland Funding LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00093-BR (D. Or. Oct. 21, 2016)10/21/2016
Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motions to compel arbitration, stay case, and strike class allegations. Court held that the applicability and enforcement of the arbitration provision should be resolved by an arbitrator; that defendants had not waived their right to arbitration by proceeding with litigation in state court; that the applicability and extent of issue preclusion as a result of the state-court decision should be resolved by an arbitrator; and that plaintiff’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claim was subject to arbitration, but plaintiff could only pursue her own claims, not class-action claims.
-
Wells Fargo Advisors, L.L.C. v. Tucker, No. 1:15-CV-07722-VEC (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2016)10/21/2016
Having previously denied Plaintiff’s petition to dismiss on-going class-wide arbitration and compel individual arbitration and entered judgment for respondent, court denied respondent’s motion to modify the judgment and stay proceedings pursuant to § 3 of the FAA. Court holds that § 3 only applies when the underlying dispute is before the court and is not relevant where all issues in dispute are arbitrable as in the instant case.
-
Reyna v. International Bank of Commerce, No. 16-40057 (5th Cir. Oct. 20, 2016)10/21/2016
Fifth circuit reversed district court’s decision denying motion to compel arbitration, and remanded with instruction to refer the dispute to arbitration. Court held that arbitration was a threshold question for the arbitrator to decide because of the agreement’s delegation clause.
-
Fleming v. J. Crew, No. 1:16-CV-02663-GHW (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2016)10/21/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration based upon a finding that the parties entered into an agreement to arbitrate and that the claim fell within the scope of that agreement.
-
Holland v. LVNV Funding, LLC, No. 5:16-CV-00069-TBR (W.D. Ky. Oct. 21, 2016)10/21/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding the creditor, which had bought the debt from plaintiff’s credit card company, was entitled to invoke the arbitration agreement between the plaintiff and the credit card company. Court found that the arbitration provision was valid and that the plaintiff’s suit arising out of the settlement of the debt fell within its scope.
-
State of Wisconsin Local Government Property Insurance Fund v. Lexington Insurance Company, No. 15-1973 (7th Cir. Oct. 21, 2016)10/21/2016
Seventh circuit confirmed district court’s decision denying appellant’s attempt to intervene in an arbitration proceeding. Court held that the dispute over the existence of an arbitration agreement was to be decided by the judiciary, and that the policy in favor of arbitration did not apply in this case because the contract unambiguously contained no arbitration provision.
-
Zemel v. Citibank, No. 2:16-CV-03976 (D.N.J. Oct. 20, 2016)10/20/2016
Court denied without prejudice motion to compel arbitration, allowing for renewal of the motion following limited discovery on the question of arbitrability. Court found that there were genuine questions as to whether an arbitration agreement existed between the parties, with plaintiff contending that he opted out of the arbitration agreement at issue. Court ordered limited discovery on the question of arbitrability after which defendant may renew its motion to compel arbitration.
-
Trustees for the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Annuity Funds and Training Fund v. TNS Management Services, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01120-AJN (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2016)10/20/2016
Court granted unopposed motion to confirm arbitration award. Treating the unopposed motion as an unopposed motion for summary judgment, the court found that there was no genuine dispute as to any material fact.
-
Olson v. MBO Partners, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-02216-HZ (D. Or. Oct. 20, 2016)10/20/2016
Court granted motion to dismiss an Americans with Disabilities Act claim. Court found that the claim was subject to mandatory arbitration as the agreement did not violate Oregon law, it was not unconscionable, it was not a result of misrepresentation or fraud, and plaintiff did not sign it under duress.
-
Bouchard Transportation Co. v. VT Halter Marine, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-11264-NJB-JCW (E.D. La. Oct. 20, 2016)10/20/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration. Court held that as the FAA applied to the dispute, it was required to enforce the arbitration provision. Additionally, the parties’ incorporation of the AAA rules “clearly and unmistakably” evidenced the parties’ intent to arbitrate issues of arbitrability.
-
Verizon Pennsylvania LLC v. Communications Workers of America, No. 2:16-CV-03992-GJP (E.D. Pa. Oct. 20, 2016)10/20/2016
Court granted motion to dismiss complaint seeking to vacate arbitration award. Court found that the arbitration panel’s decision was not final because it ruled on liability but had not yet ruled on remedies. Court was therefore not willing to entertain a motion to vacate, based on the “complete arbitration rule,” which mandates that courts should not entertain a lawsuit challenging a labor arbitration award until it is final.
-
Metlife Secs., Inc. v. Holt, No. 2:16-CV-00032-RLJ-MCLC (E.D. Tenn. Oct. 19, 2016)10/19/2016
Court granted motion to strike defendant’s jury demand because the demand was untimely. Under § 4 of the FAA, a party opposing arbitration is entitled to a jury trial only when an issue of material fact exists as to the validity of the arbitration agreement and the demand is made “on or before the return day of the notice of application.”
-
Boehm v. Getty Images (US), Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00311-JDP (W.D. Wis. Oct. 19, 2016)10/19/2016
Court granted motions to dismiss complaints. Court held that the parties “clearly and unmistakably” agreed to have the arbitrator decide threshold questions of arbitrability, but the court could not compel arbitration because the arbitration clause called for arbitration outside the court’s jurisdiction.
-
Ceona PTE Ltd. v. BMT Giant, S.A. DE C.V., No. 1:16-CV-04437-WHP (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2016)10/19/2016
Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award. Court held that because the petition was unopposed, it would treat it as a motion for summary judgment which would fail only if the undisputed facts fail to show the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Additionally, the court found the petitioner to be entitled to pre- and post-judgment interest.
-
Jackson v. Comenity Bank, No. 0-16-cv-01133 (D. Minn. Oct. 18, 2016)10/18/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court held that a valid arbitration agreement exists where credit card user failed to reject the arbitration provision in the contract and used the credit account.
-
Levy v. Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, No. 2-16-mc-00171 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 18, 2016)10/18/2016
Court dismissed motion to vacate an arbitration award. Court held that motion filed on the 92nd day after the award was issued is not timely because New York Law requires the motion to be filed within 90 days, and service of the motion is governed by the FAA, which requires service within three months.
-
AmTrust North America, Inc. et al. v. Preferred Contractors Ins. Co. Risk Retention Group, L.L.C., No. 1:16-MC-0340 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2006)10/18/2016
Court grants motion to compel defendant to disclose information and orders defendant to refrain from using or transferring funds in its possession that belong to a third-party debtor pursuant to an arbitration award that was confirmed by the court in a separate action.
-
Answers Corp. v. First East Circular, LLC, No. 4:16-CV-01252-RLW (E.D. Mo. Oct. 18, 2016)10/18/2016
Court granted petition to compel arbitration. Court found that the claims pursued by petitioner fell within the scope of the arbitration provision and that the arbitration provision was valid and binding.
-
Levi Strauss & Co. v. Aqua Dynamics Systems, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-04718-WHO (N.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2016)10/18/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration. Court found that while the party seeking to compel arbitration was not a signatory to the arbitration agreement, it was the successor in interest to a company that had a right to enforce the arbitration agreement.
-
Scott v. Education Management Corp., No. 15-2225 (3d Cir. Oct. 18, 2016)10/18/2016
Court reversed district court’s dismissal of two age discrimination lawsuits in favor of arbitration. Court held that there was no consent to arbitrate, especially since Pennsylvania law requires arbitration agreements to be “clear and unmistakable” and discourages finding arbitration agreements “by implication.”
-
Burton Ways Hotels, Ltd. v. Four Seasons Hotels Ltd., No. 14-56856 (9th Cir. Oct. 18, 2016)10/18/2016
Circuit court reversed in part and affirmed in part district court’s confirmation of arbitral award. Court found that the arbitral tribunal erred in determining the correct interpretation of the contract (based on external evidence presented by both sides) at a “summary judgment” phase because California law requires that such finding be made after a full, evidentiary hearing.
-
A&C Discount Pharmacy L.L.C. v. Prime Therapeutics LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00429-D (N.D. Tex. Oct. 17, 2016)10/17/2016
Court denied motion to stay and compel arbitration. Court held that plaintiff movant had “substantially invoked the judicial process to the detriment or prejudice of the other party” and therefore it had waived its right to arbitration.