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.
-
In re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, No. 1:09-MD-02036-JLK (S.D. Fla. Oct. 17, 2016)10/17/2016
Court denied motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration. Court found that defendant waived its right to arbitration because it acted inconsistently with any right to arbitrate and, by doing so, it had prejudiced the other parties. Court also found that class certification did not nullify the defendant’s prior waiver of its arbitration rights and that defendant’s motion was untimely considering the court had twice ordered all defendants to assert any arbitration rights.
-
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.
-
Ziober v. BLB Resources, Inc., No. 14-56374 (9th Cir. Oct. 14, 2016)10/14/2016
Circuit court affirmed district court’s order compelling arbitration and dismissing an action under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). Court found that USERRA’s text and legislative history did not evince any intent to override the FAA’s strong pro-arbitration policy, and therefore the arbitration of claims arising under USERRA is not prohibited.
-
TIC Park Centre 9, LLC v. Wojnar, No. 1:16-CV-04302-ARR-JO (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2016)10/14/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings pending arbitration. Court found that an arbitration agreement providing for arbitration of any controversy “arising out of or related to” an agreement was sufficiently broad in scope to trigger “the presumption of arbitrability for collateral agreements.” Additionally, the court found that plaintiff was estopped from claiming that the arbitration agreement did not apply because defendants were not signatories, since the issues in arbitration were intertwined with the signed agreement.
-
Carmax Auto Superstores, Inc. v. Sibley, No. 8:16-CV-01459-RWT (D. Md. Oct. 14, 2016)10/14/2016
Court granted summary judgment on petition to compel arbitration. Court found that, in light of its obligation to “rigorously enforce” arbitration agreements according to their terms, the class action waiver and confidentiality provisions were valid as a matter of law and no genuine issue of material fact existed.
-
Horton v. FedChoice Fed. Credit Union, No. 2:16-CV-00318 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 13, 2016)10/13/2016
Court denied motion to compel arbitration, reasoning that parties were entitled to discovery on the question of arbitrability because the arbitration provision was contained in a contract of adhesion raising questions of unconscionability.
-
ACP Inv. Grp., LLC v. Blake, No. 1:15-CV-09364 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2016)10/13/2016
Court granted motion to confirm employment arbitration award under the FAA. Court held that none of the narrow defenses to arbitral enforcement afforded by the FAA applied.
-
Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh. v. Source One Staffing LLC, No. 1:16-CV-06461 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2016)10/13/2016
Court agreed to appoint arbitral chair. Court concluded that judicial intervention was proper because the terms of the parties’ arbitration agreement called for judicial appointment of third arbitrator if the parties’ own process had lapsed. Court made its appointment with reference to the requirements included in the parties’ agreement and considerations of relative experience.
-
Peters v. Amazon Services, LLC, No. 14-35294 (9th Cir. Oct. 13, 2016)10/13/2016
Court affirmed district court order compelling arbitration. Court ruled that dispute was encompassed by a valid arbitration agreement, which superseded any other agreements.
-
Roman v. AutoNation Ford Gulf Freeway, No. 16-20047 (5th Cir. Oct. 13, 2016)10/13/2016
Circuit court vacated district court order to compel arbitration and remanded for further proceedings. Court reasoned that the district court had failed to establish facts necessary to determine whether it had subject matter jurisdiction in an arbitral action under state law and remanded since jurisdiction is not independently created under the FAA.
-
Nardello v. Boehringer Ingelheim USA Corp., No. 1:15-CV-03792 (D. Md. Oct. 13, 2016)10/13/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings. Court held that arbitration provision reflected the parties’ intent to arbitrate arbitrability and concluded that it was for the arbitrator to determine whether the dispute was arbitrable. Court noted that it would, in any case, conclude that the dispute was within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
-
Tompkins v. 23andMe, Inc., No. 14-16405 (9th Cir. Oct. 13, 2016)10/13/2016
Circuit court affirmed district court’s order to compel arbitration. Court confirmed that arbitration provision was valid, reasoning that the prevailing party clause, forum selection clause, exclusion of intellectual property claims from mandatory arbitration, statute of limitations, and defendant’s unilateral right to modification contained in the parties’ agreement, were not unconscionable under California law.
-
Scheurer v. Fromm Family Foods LLC, No. 3:15-CV-00770 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 12, 2016)10/12/2016
Court granted motion to stay proceedings pending appeal of earlier order denying motion to compel arbitration. Court held that although it did not find defendant’s argument regarding the disputed contract persuasive, it was not frivolous and therefore merited a stay.
-
CFL Pizza LLC v. Hammack, No. 6:16-CV-00968 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 12, 2016)10/12/2016
Court denied motion to enjoin class or collective arbitration pending outcome of earlier motion to compel single claimant arbitration. Court reasoned that movant had not demonstrated the likelihood of success, irreparable injury, or compelling balance of private and public harms.
-
Wior v. Bellsouth Corp., No. 1:15-CV-02375 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 12, 2016)10/12/2016
Court denied motion for reconsideration of its order to compel arbitration. Court reasoned that petitioner could not meet the clear error standard applicable in the absence of new evidence or intervening changes of law, but was instead asking the court to revisit its decision. Court dismissed as moot petitioner’s motion to stay proceedings pending resolution of the motion for reconsideration.
-
Burke v. Cumulus Media Inc., No. 1:16-CV-11220 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 11, 2016)10/11/2016
Court denied motion to compel arbitration. Court held that agreement containing arbitration provisions had been superseded by subsequent agreement and that, in any case, defendant had waived its right to compel arbitration by actively engaging in litigation in a manner “completely inconsistent” with reliance on the arbitration provision.
-
Inomedic-Innovative Health v. Noninvasive Med. Techs., Inc., No. 2:14-CV-01035 (D. Nev. Oct. 11, 2016)10/11/2016
Court confirmed AAA arbitration award and declined to consider a “forthcoming” motion to vacate as untimely. Court emphasized its narrow reviewing authority and held that there was no evidence that the award should be set aside. It decided that judgment on the pleadings was appropriate and that it was not required to wait for forthcoming pleadings because they would be barred by the FAA’s three-month limit on filing motions to vacate.
-
Tillman v. Hertz Corp., No. 1:16-CV-04242 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 11, 2016)10/11/2016
Court denied motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the arbitration agreement did not cover the dispute because plaintiff was not party to the agreement.
-
Duncan Telecom, Inc. v. Pond Constructors Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01086 (E.D. Va. Oct. 11, 2016)10/11/2016
Court granted motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration with respect to one of the defendants, but denied it with respect to the other. Court reasoned that only one of the defendants was bound by the arbitration agreement and concluded that proceedings would continue with respect to the other, even though liability of the two is generally coextensive under the applicable precedent concerning sureties.
-
Providence Health & Servs. – Or. v. Boulder Admin. Servs. Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00745-TSZ (W.D. Wash. Oct. 11, 2016)10/11/2016
Court denied motion to dismiss, but granted alternative motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration. Court held that plaintiff was bound by the arbitration clause contained in the contract as an assignee of rights thereunder.
-
HBR Lewisport, LLC v. Hamilton, No. 4:16-CV-00044 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 7, 2016)10/07/2016
Court authorized limited discovery in aid of a motion to compel arbitration. Court held that insufficient evidence had been provided as to whether the applicable arbitration agreement had been validly signed through power of attorney.
-
Johnson v. Dentsply Int’l, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00520 (N.D. Okla. Oct. 7, 2016)10/07/2016
Court stayed proceedings pending arbitration, reasoning that broad stays are appropriate where arbitrable claims predominate the dispute and any nonarbitrable claims are of questionable merit. Court held that the parties’ dispute fell under two broad arbitration clauses and any distinction between them was a procedural question presumptively for the arbitrators to decide.
-
CM South East Texas Houston v. CareMinders Home Care Inc., No. 16-11054 (11th Cir. Oct. 7, 2016)10/07/2016
Circuit court affirmed district court’s confirmation of arbitration award. Court held that arbitrator’s refusal to grant postponement of the proceedings did not mandate vacatur under the FAA, even in circumstances where the parties had mutually agreed to a postponement. Court found that defendant failed to establish that the arbitrator’s refusal to postpone the hearing prejudiced its rights or deprived it of a fair hearing.
-
Dream Team Holdings LLC v. Alarcon, No. 2:16-CV-01420-DLR (D. Ariz. Oct. 7, 2016)
10/07/2016Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement did not encompass the dispute at issue, since it required arbitration of claims “arising out of” another agreement that was never concluded.
-
GGNSC Louisville Mt. Holly LLC v. Stevenson, No. 3:16-CV-00423 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 6, 2016)10/06/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, dismissing action without prejudice and enjoining plaintiff from litigating in state court. Court held that a valid arbitral agreement applied to the claim and rejected proffered defenses, reasoning that lengthy documents and mental weakness in the plaintiff did not create procedural unconscionability; and the agreement contained reasonable terms that were not oppressive or on-sided and was therefore not substantively unconscionable. Court affirmed its power to issue an injunction against state court action under the Anti-Injunction Act as necessary for protecting its judgment.
-
United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 653 v. Fresh Seasons Mkt., LLC, No. 0:15-CV-03910 (D. Minn. Oct. 6, 2016)10/06/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration. Court rejected a statute of limitations defense, reasoning that the plain text of the applicable statute started tolling when demand for arbitration was refused, regardless of the request’s timeliness. Court likewise rejected defendant’s claim that it was not a party to the arbitration agreement that had been struck by a multi-employer bargaining unit.
-
N.J. Reg’l Council of Carpenters v. R. Mesmer, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-02881 (D.N.J. Oct. 6, 2016)10/06/2016
Court denied motion to confirm arbitration award issued against a non-party to the arbitration. Award had been issued against person and entity related to losing arbitral defendant, which was insolvent, but not themselves a party to the arbitration or underlying agreement. Court held that arbitrator could not issue an award against a non-party absent judicial determination of alter ego status.
-
Welch v. My Left Foot Children’s Therapy, LLC, No. 2:14-CV-01786 (D. Nev. Oct. 6, 2016)10/06/2016
Court denied motion to stay pending appeal of its refusal to compel arbitration. Court reasoned that defendants did not make a strong showing on the merits for their contention that a non-party to the arbitration agreement could be compelled to arbitrate. Court also ruled that monetary expenses did not amount to irreparable harm warranting a stay.
-
In re: Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., No. 15-3480 (2d Cir. Oct. 6, 2016)10/06/2016
Court of appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision to deny plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration. Court of appeals held that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration because the dispute at issue was a “core proceeding,” as defined by applicable case law, and compelling arbitration would in this instance jeopardize the objectives of the Bankruptcy Code.
-
Clarke's Allied Incorporated v. Rail Source Fuel L.L.C., No. 15-41492 No. (5th Cir. Oct. 5, 2016)10/05/2016
Circuit court affirmed district court’s confirmation of arbitral award. Court found that, contrary to the defendant’s arguments, the arbitrator did not exceed his authority, as the award did not: grant an unauthorized rescission remedy; conflict with the terms of the underlying contract; and, impermissibly grant unsegregated costs.
-
Arrowhead General Insurance Agency Inc. v. Lincoln General Insurance Company Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01138-CCC (M.D. Pa. Oct. 5, 2016)10/05/2016
Court denied motion to compel arbitration in light of the third circuit’s express adoption of a narrow exception to the general rule favoring arbitration where res judicata implications of a previous arbitration are at issue. Based on this, court found that confirmation of the prior award was a federal judgment, and therefore res judicata applied.
-
Cornoyer v. AT&T Mobility Servs., LLC, 1:15-CV-00474 (D.N.M. Oct. 5, 2016).10/05/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pursuant to the FAA and New Mexico law. Court held there is a binding arbitration agreement and defendant had not waived its right to arbitration through delay in filing its motion.
-
InstallIt Inc. v. Carpenters 46 N. Cal. Counties Conf. Board, No. 3:16-CV-01514-TEH (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2016)10/04/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration. Court held that both the FAA and the Labor Relations Management Act required arbitration of plaintiff’s claim as the facts underlying the claim were covered by the arbitration agreement and plaintiff failed to meet its burden to demonstrate congressional intent to preclude arbitration of the statutory claim at issue.
-
In re: Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation, No. 4:15-CV-03443-YGR (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2016)10/04/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay claims. Court held that incorporation of the ICC Arbitration Rules into the parties’ arbitration agreement constitutes a clear and unmistakable delegation of questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, rather than the court; and given the commercial relationship between the parties and the overlap in the substantive claims, the specific issues in dispute were subject to arbitration.
-
Carlos Reyna v. International Bank of Commerce, No. 16-40057 (5th Cir. Oct. 4, 2016)10/04/2016
Circuit court reversed district court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration and remanded with instructions to refer dispute to arbitration. Court determined that arbitrability was a gateway issue and court was required to consider arbitrability of claim conditionally before certifying class and, based on the delegation clause, arbitrator had authority to determine arbitrability of issue.
-
Pine Tree Villa LLC v. Coulter, No. 3-15-CV-00815 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 4, 2016)10/04/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration. Court held the parties had agreed to arbitrate, that the dispute at issue fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and that all claims asserted were subject to arbitration.
-
Nicholas v. N. Phila. Health Sys., No. 2:16-CV-00232 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 4, 2016)10/04/2016
Court denied motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, holding that arbitration agreements are not necessarily binding on third parties like trustees. Court declined to consider the motion on jurisdictional grounds under FRCP 12(b)(1), noting that contract-based defenses to arbitration speak to the merits of the action and are therefore properly considered under FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 56.
-
Shilman Rocbit, LLC v. American Blasting Consumables, Inc., No. 2-16-CV-06745 (S.D.W. Va. Oct. 4, 2016)10/04/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration in South Africa and dismissed the suit with prejudice. Though both parties are citizens of West Virginia, the court concluded that subject matter jurisdiction is proper under the New York Convention because the state court action “relates to” an agreement that is governed by the Convention. The court also held that the arbitration clause is enforceable.
-
Roberts v. Petersen Investments, No. 1:16-CV-02525-VM (S.D.N.Y. October 4, 2016)10/04/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the three agreements between the parties reflected a common understanding that all disputes would be subject to FINRA arbitration. Court found unpersuasive claims of a forged signature on one agreement, as plaintiff had subsequently exercised his rights under the contract for two years.
-
Leviege v. Vodafone US Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00374 (E.D. Va. Oct. 4, 2016)10/04/2016
Court granted motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, holding that there was an enforceable arbitration agreement between the parties. Court found that a letter signed by the employee provided that it was the “entire agreement” between the parties and that any dispute would be resolved exclusively by the binding arbitration procedure set forth in defendant’s ADR policy.
-
McClean v. HSBC Finance Corp., No. 2:15-CV-08974-SDW-LDW (D.N.J. Oct. 3, 2016)10/03/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration. Despite defendant not having been a signatory to the arbitration agreement at issue, court held that the doctrine of equitable estoppel dictates that plaintiff’s claims proceed to arbitration.
-
Wexler v. ATT Corp., No. 1:15-CV-00686-FB-PK (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2016)10/03/2016
Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that scope of agreement to arbitrate was too broad for a reasonable person to think that checking a box accepting terms and conditions of contract would obligate her to arbitrate every possible dispute she might have with the service provider.
-
Micheletti v. Uber Technologies Inc., No. 5:15-CV-010001-RCL (W.D. Tex. Oct. 3, 2016)10/03/2016
Court granted motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration. Court held the arbitration agreement clearly and unmistakably delegates issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator and is neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable. Court also found that it could not consider whether the larger arbitration agreement violates California public policy, as the interpretation of what claims fall under the arbitration agreement and whether the very terms of the arbitration agreement are enforceable, was clearly and unmistakably delegated to arbitration.
-
Reed v. Darden Rests., Inc., No. 3:16-CV-03872 (S.D.W. Va. Oct. 3, 2016)10/03/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed action without prejudice, holding that the parties were bound by a valid arbitration agreement. Court determined that the agreement was valid even though plaintiff could not produce a copy signed by defendant and that a mutual promise to arbitrate was adequate consideration. Court declined to consider an unconscionability defense, reasoning that the parties had agreed to delegate arbitrability questions to the arbitrators.
-
Nelson v. Klaas No. 1:16-CV-00042-DLH-CSM (D.N.D. Oct. 3, 2016)10/03/2016
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay the civil action and denied plaintiffs’ motion to stay arbitration. Court found a valid arbitration agreement existed and that the parties have specifically agreed to leave the question of arbitrability to an arbitrator because the arbitration agreement explicitly incorporates the AAA rules of arbitration.
-
Hulley Enterprises Ltd. v. Russian Federation, No. 1:14-CV-01996-BAH (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2016)09/30/2016
Court stayed action to recognize and enforce an arbitral award of $50 billion against the Russian Federation pending appeal of decision to set aside the award by a foreign court at the seat of the arbitration. Court held that it possessed the inherent authority to stay the action pending the foreign court’s decision and rejected the Russian Federation’s argument that it must first decide whether it possesses subject matter jurisdiction before deciding whether to grant a stay. Court deemed that a stay was judicially efficient and warranted because the outcome of the foreign court decision could affect the legal viability of the award enforcement action in the United States. The court likewise found that the hardships faced by the Russian Federation did not outweigh the benefits that flowed from granting a stay. Shearman & Sterling is counsel for petitioners seeking award enforcement in connection with this case.
-
W. Sur. Co. v. U.S. Eng’g Co., No. 1:15-CV-00327-TSC (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2016)09/30/2016
Court granted motion for partial summary judgment and denied defendant’s motion to dismiss. Court found that plaintiff was not bound by the arbitration agreement as it contained a limiting clause that meant that only defendant and its subcontractor were bound by the arbitration agreement.
-
Trs. for the Mason Tenders Dist. Council Welfare Fund v. Marlboro Group Int’l, No. 1:16-CV-04776-WHP (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2016)09/30/2016
Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award. Court held that there was nothing in the record indicating that the arbitration award should be vacated, modified, or corrected under FAA §§ 10 and 11. Court further held that the award had substantially more than the “colorable justification” needed to confirm it.
-
TD Ameritrade, Inc. v. Kelley, No. 1:15-CV-00714-PAC-FM (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2016)09/30/2016
Court granted motion to vacate the arbitral award. Court agreed with the magistrate judge that it was impossible or illegal for the petitioner to comply with the award and thus vacatur was warranted.
-
Smith v. Xlibris Publ’g, No. 1:15-CV-05334-DLI-RER (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2016)09/30/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement clearly set forth only one process through which plaintiff could “opt out” of arbitration and plaintiff conceded that he did not follow that process. Court also held plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration clause, there were no non-arbitrable federal claims given the lack of a clear congressional command indicating that the claims should be non-arbitrable, and defendants did not waive their right to arbitrate by failing to demand arbitration within thirty days, as they were not required to do so.