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.
-
Zylstra v. Matter, No. 0:16-CV-02438-RHK-SER (D. Minn. Sept. 30, 2016)09/30/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding the dispute fell within the parties’ arbitration agreement. Court stated that, even if it harbored some doubt on this issue, compelling arbitration still would be appropriate due to the strong federal policy favoring arbitration.
-
Helms v. Pioneer Energy Services Corp., No. 5:15-CV-00928-RCL (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2016)09/30/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration. Court found that the parties agreed to arbitrate and the Fair Labor Standards Act claims fall within the scope of that agreement and there is no federal statute or policy rendering these claims nonarbitrable.
-
Crafty Productions Inc. v. Fuqing Sanxing Crafts. Co. Ltd., No. 3:15-CV-00719-BAS-JLB (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2016)09/30/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the parties clearly and unmistakably agreed to delegate the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator.
-
Smith v. Xlibris Publishing Co., No. 1:15-CV-05334-DLI-RER (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2016)09/30/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding the plaintiff entered a valid arbitration, the plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration clause, there were no non-arbitrable federal claims, and defendants did not waive their rights to arbitration.
-
Western Surety Co. v. U.S. Engineering Co., No. 1:15-CV-00327-TSC (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2016)09/30/2016
Court granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment, finding that plaintiff is not contractually bound to arbitrate dispute over surety bond. Court held that although plaintiff was bound by the defendant’s subcontract as a whole, it was not bound by the subcontract’s arbitration clause.
-
Crystallex v. PDVSA, No. 1:15-CV-01082-LPS (D. Del. Sept. 30, 2016)09/30/2016
Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims that defendant, seeking to repatriate funds to escape enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, engaged in a civil conspiracy and violated the Delaware Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. Court dismissed plaintiff’s civil conspiracy claim, but held the plaintiff’s Delaware Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act claims could not be dismissed on the basis of the FSIA and act of state doctrines.
-
Sistem Muhendislik Insaat Sanayi Ve Ticaret v. the Kyrgyz Republic, No. 1:12-CV-04502-ALC-RLE (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2016)09/30/2016
Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment confirming foreign arbitral award. Court held that defendant failed to meet its burden to show that the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, and that the defendant’s improper venue and forum non conveniens arguments also fell short.
-
Stillwell v. SLH Vista Inc, No. 4:15-CV-01465-HEA (E.D. Mont. Sept. 30, 2016)09/30/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration in dispute over plaintiff’s alleged wrongful termination, which court found was within agreement to arbitrate. Court also found that plaintiff bore the burden, but failed, to establish that the arbitration agreement she voluntarily entered into was invalid.
-
Chatman v. Jimmy Gray Chevrolet, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00009-NBB-SAA (N.D. Miss. Sept. 30, 2016)09/30/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration. Court found that a valid delegation clause existed, which was not substantively or procedurally unconscionable. Thus, the arbitrator should resolve the issue of whether the defendant waived its right to arbitrate when it instigated criminal proceedings against the plaintiff.
-
Crystallex Int’l Corp. v. Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A., No. 1:15-CV-01082-LPS (D. Del. Sept. 30, 2016)09/30/2016
Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissing defendant CITGO but not defendant PDV Holding, Inc. Plaintiff had filed suit based on the Delaware Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act and civil conspiracy, alleging that Venezuela had orchestrated transfers to avoid paying a large arbitration award. Court held that (a) CITGO was not a party to a fraudulent transfer and thus could not be held liable as an accomplice or co-conspirator, (b) plaintiff’s civil conspiracy claim should be dismissed, (c) the suit was not barred under the FSIA, and (d) the motion to dismiss the suit under the act of state doctrine would be denied without prejudice.
-
Helms v. Pioneer Energy Servs. Corp., No. 5:15-CV-00928-RCL (W.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2016)09/30/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding the parties’ mutual agreement to arbitrate claims was sufficient consideration and the arbitration agreement was not illusory because the defendant could not unilaterally avoid its promise to arbitrate. Court also held the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable because plaintiffs failed to show that arbitration would impose significantly greater costs than litigation.
-
Republic of Argentina v. AWG Group Ltd., No. 1:15-CV-01057-BAH (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2016)09/30/2016
Court denied petition to vacate arbitral award and granted respondent’s petition to confirm the award. Court held that the challenged arbitrator’s failure to disclose her appointment to the board of UBS, a financial institution invested in the relevant market and a shareholder in one of the AWG claimants, did not amount to “evident partiality” warranting vacatur under FAA § 10(a)(2). Court also held that the tribunal did not exceed its powers when it awarded damages and elected not to apply the principle of necessity, thus vacatur under FAA § 10(a)(4) was also not 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Atencio v. TuneCore, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-01925-DMG-MRW (C.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2016)09/29/2016
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration with regard to claims arising out of certain agreements and denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration with regard to claims arising out of different agreements. With respect to the agreements that contained valid arbitration clauses, court found no issues of unconscionability.
-
Daniel v. EBAY, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-01294-EGS (D.D.C. Sep. 29, 2016)09/29/2016
Court granted defendants motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings. Court found that the arbitration agreement was broad and that any ambiguity as to arbitrability should be resolved in favor of arbitration under the FAA, and relevant precedent. Court also rejected plaintiff’s arguments that there was not a valid contract because eBay never sent him the contract, and that the arbitration agreement was induced by fraud.
-
Wijesinha v. DIRECTV, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-22090-KMM (S.D. Fla. Sept. 29, 2016)09/29/2016
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed between the parties, the arbitration provision remained in effect after termination of the customer agreement, and that plaintiff’s dispute fell under the scope of the arbitration provision.
-
Benhenni v. Bayesian Efficient Strategic Trading LLC, No. 2:15-CV-08511-ES-JAD (D.N.J. Sept. 29, 2016)09/29/2016
Court denied motion to vacate arbitration award. Court found plaintiff’s argument that the arbitrator’s contractual interpretation was irrational did not provide the court with a basis for vacating the award and that the arbitrator did not exceed his scope of power.
-
International Union of Operating Engineers v. Wingra Stone Company, No. Case: 3:15-CV-00236-WMC (W.D. Wisc. Sept. 29, 2016)09/29/2016
Court affirmed arbitration award, denying petitioner’s claim that it should be vacated on the ground that the grievance leading to the arbitration was untimely. Court found that the arbitrator interpreted the relevant statute to allow for the filing of a grievance based on a continuing violation, and the court’s review of an arbitrator’s award does not include consideration of whether such an interpretation was in error. The court likewise declined to review the arbitrator’s factual findings.
-
Vujasinovic & Beckcom, PLLC v. Cubillos, No. 4:15-CV-02546 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2016)09/29/2016
Court held that determination of whether client that fired law firm owed the firm attorney fees is a question to be determined in arbitration, not by the court, as the contingent-fee arrangement in the representation agreement required disputes to be resolved through binding arbitration.
-
Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C. v. Henceroth, No. 4:16-cv-00150-BYP (N.D. Ohio Sept. 29, 2016)09/29/2016
Court granted motion for summary judgment and denied motion for leave to take discovery on the point of sale and title transfer. Court held that, under both the FAA and Ohio law, the arbitration clauses in the parties’ leases were silent as to class arbitration, and thus class-wide arbitration was not authorized.
-
Choice Hotels Intl., Inc. v. Hassanali, No. 8:16-CV-01282-DKC (D. Md. Sept. 29, 2016)09/29/2016
Court granted application to confirm the arbitration award, as defendants had failed to answer or otherwise respond to summonses. Court found that the burden to prove the existence of one of the grounds for vacating the award is on the party challenging the award, and by failing to answer, defendants did not demonstrate any ground for vacatur.
-
Eurotec Vertical Flight Solutions, LLC v. Turbomeca, S.A., No. 3:15-CV-3454-B (N.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2016)09/29/2016
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, and granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion to refer issues of arbitrability to arbitration and stay action pending arbitrator’s decision. Court found that a valid delegation clause existed directing issues of arbitrability to arbitration.
-
Fernandez Perez v. UBS Financial Servs., No. 3:15-CV-03081-GAG (D.P.R. Sept. 29, 2016)09/29/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that challenges to the arbitration agreement itself would be determined by the court before compelling arbitration, but challenges to the contract as a whole are for the arbitrator to decide. Court held that New York law applied to the contract and that plaintiff’s challenge was to the contract as a whole, so the arbitration clause must be enforced.
-
Hope Christian Fellowship v. Chesapeake Energy Corp., No. 4:15-CV-02275-BYP (N.D. Ohio Sept. 29, 2016)09/29/2016
Court granted motion to compel individual arbitration. While defendants were non-signatories to the contract containing the arbitration agreement, because there was an agency relationship between the defendants and a signatory, the claim was inextricably intertwined with the contract and the defendants could compel arbitration. Court also held that because the arbitration clauses were silent as to class arbitration, class-wide arbitration was not authorized.
-
Merryman v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank., No: 1:15-CV-09188-VEC (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2016)09/29/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration of all claims, finding that the arbitration agreement was enforceable under the New York Convention and the FAA, and the issue of whether a condition precedent was met was for the arbitrator to decide.
-
Smith v. Xlibris Publishing, Penguin et al., No. 1:15-CV-05334-DLI-RER (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2016)09/29/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed action pending the arbitration. Court found that plaintiff consented to a valid arbitration agreement, plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration clause, there were no non-arbitrable federal claims, and defendants did not waive their right to arbitration.
-
Transport Workers Union of Am. Local 252 v. Veolia Transportation Servs., Inc., No. 2:14-CV-03837-DRH-ARL (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2016)09/29/2016
In granting a petition to confirm an arbitration award, and denying the counter-petition to vacate the award, the court held that: the arbitrator did not display evident partiality; the arbitrator’s decisions to bifurcate the proceedings and defer ruling on back pay until a proper hearing could be held were not a violation of fundamental fairness; and the arbitrator did not show a manifest disregard for the law.
-
Wilson Constr. Co. V. Scheffler Northwest, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-173-YY (D. Or. Sept. 29, 2016)09/29/2016
Court adopted magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation to compel arbitration, deny motion to dismiss and grant alternative motion to stay pending the conclusion of arbitration. Although the parties’ subcontract did not contain an arbitration agreement, it incorporated by reference a contract that did. The magistrate judge held that while the incorporation clause of the subcontract was ambiguous, any doubt should be resolved in favor of arbitration.
-
Hays v. HCA Holdings, Inc, No. 15-51002 (5th Cir. Sept. 29, 2016)09/29/2016
Circuit court affirmed district court’s decision ordering arbitration of plaintiff’s claims against a non-signatory to the contract containing the arbitration agreement. Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that defendant could compel arbitration of plaintiff’s tortious interference claim under direct benefits estoppel. Court also held that plaintiff must arbitrate his wrongful termination, breach of contract, and negligence claims under intertwined claims estoppel, which involves compelling arbitration when a non-signatory has a close relationship with one of the signatories and the claims are “intimately founded in and intertwined with the underlying contract obligations.”
-
Green Tree Servicing, LLC et al. v. Clayton, No. 3:16-CV-00059-WHB-JCG (S.D. Miss. Sept. 28, 2016)09/28/2016
Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss and granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration. Court found that (i) the parties’ underlying contract involved “interstate commerce” as that term is applied to the FAA, (ii) a valid agreement to arbitrate existed because the non-signatory plaintiffs had a close legal relationship with a signatory and there was “substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct” between the signatory and non-signatory plaintiffs, and (iii) the arbitration agreement specifically authorized the arbitrator to resolve “disputes over the formation, existence, validity, interpretation or scope of the agreement under which Arbitration is sought.”
-
Kotchen and Low LLP v. Precision Discovery, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00224-GK (D.D.C. Sept. 28, 2016)09/28/2016
Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ amended motion to compel arbitration, finding that the language of the retainer agreement showed that it extended to the e-discovery services provided by defendant. However, the scope of the agreement did not apply to claims arising out of unpaid hosting fees, as these were not sufficiently related to the court-ordered forensic services covered by the retainer agreement.
-
V5 Investments, LLC v. GoWaiter Business Holdings, LLC, No. 6:15-CV-02065-PGB-KRS (M.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2016)09/28/2016
Court granted defendants’ cross motion to confirm the arbitration award, finding no grounds to vacate, modify, or correct the arbitration award. Court rejected plaintiff’s contention that the award was procured by undue needs, as the issue had already been decided by the arbitrator and plaintiffs demonstrated no undue means which were not discovered prior to or during the arbitration. Court also rejected plaintiff’s contention that the arbitrator exceeded his powers by awarding damages that exceeded the scope of damages granted by the contract, finding that the arbitrator’s interpretation of what damages were permitted were not expressly contradicted by the language of the contract.
-
Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Keyes, No. 3:16-CV-00058-WHB-JCG (S.D. Miss. Sept. 28, 2016)09/28/2016
Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that a valid arbitration agreement existed between the parties and that the arbitration agreement contained a delegation provision under which the parties agreed to arbitrate the question of arbitrability.
-
V5 Invs., LLC v. Gowaiter Business Holdings, LLC, No. 6:15-CV-2065-Orl-40KRS (M.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2016)09/28/2016
Court confirmed arbitration award and denied plaintiff’s amended complaint for vacatur. Court held that plaintiffs established no undue means which were not considered and resolved by the arbitrator. Court also held that the arbitrator acted within his authority by interpreting the parties’ agreements to permit an award of expectation damages.
-
Larson v. Westwood Inc., No. 2:15-CV-01372-RFB-GWF (D. Nev. Sept. 27, 2016)09/27/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, denied motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment, and stayed case pending outcome of arbitration. Court found, that the parties agreed to binding arbitration, and that the scope of the agreement encompasses all of plaintiff’s claims.
-
Dockery v. GGNSC Louisville Hillcreek, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00025-DJH (W.D. Ky. Sept. 27, 2016)09/27/2016
Court granted motion to stay case pending the outcome of the parties’ parallel arbitration. Court found that allowing the case to proceed in tandem with the parallel FAA case would likely result in unnecessary duplication and waste of judicial resources, making a stay efficient and appropriate.
-
Asphalt Trader Ltd. V. Taryn Capital Energy, L.L.C., No. 1:16-CV-00054-JNP-EJF (D. Utah Sept. 27, 2016)09/27/2016
Court granted petition to confirm a foreign arbitration award and enter judgment under the New York Convention. Court held that the petitioner met its burden of production by submitting a signed copy of the arbitration award and the initial charter-party, which contained the arbitration agreement. Court also held that the award fell under its original jurisdiction since the case was rendered in a foreign nation that was party to the New York Convention and arose out of a commercial agreement.
-
GGNSC Louisville Hillcreek, LLC v. Dockery, No. 3:15-CV-00908-DJH (W.D. Ky. Sept. 27, 2016)09/27/2016
Court ordered an evidentiary hearing to determine if the arbitration agreement at issue was a forgery, granted motion to dismiss counterclaims, and denied motion for summary judgment based on the contention that the FAA is unconstitutional since it requires waiver of the right to a trial by jury. Court held that the counterclaims fell outside the scope of inquiry into a FAA § 4 petition to compel arbitration, and that the right to a jury had not yet attached as the seventh amendment only confers “the right to have a jury hear the case once it is determined that litigation should proceed before a court.”
-
Schnaudt v. Johncol, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-02619-JLG-EPD (S.D. Ohio Sept. 27, 2016)09/27/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration for an individual claim for retaliatory termination and provisionally granted the motion as to the remaining claims that were brought as a putative collective action. While the court held that the arbitration agreement was enforceable as between the parties, because recent decisions in the seventh and ninth circuits have held that collective action waivers were unenforceable the court withheld an order compelling arbitration for the collective action pending further consideration and developments regarding the issue.
-
Africard Co. Ltd. v. Republic of Niger, No. 1:16-CV-00196-ABJ (D.D.C. Sept. 27, 2016)09/27/2016
Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award and motion for default judgment. Court held that it had jurisdiction under the FAA and respondent did not enjoy sovereign immunity under the FSIA because “it is well settled that the New York Convention gives rise to jurisdiction under the treaty exception.” Court also held that respondent was properly served under 28 USC § 1608(a) and that there were no grounds for denying the confirmation of the arbitral award under Art. V of the New York Convention.
-
Dittmann v. ACS Human Services LLC, No. 2:16-CV-00016-PPS-PRC (N.D. Ind. Sept. 26, 2016)09/26/2016
Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, rejecting plaintiff’s argument that the dispute resolution plan did not require him to arbitrate disputes where a third party is named. Court found that the defendants were only seeking arbitration of the disputes against them, and not a third party, and any challenges regarding the interpretation, applicability, or enforceability of the dispute resolution plan or the arbitration agreement was to be decided by the arbitrator.
-
Dissolved Air Floatation Corp. v. Kothari, No. 1:14-CV-01223-WCG (E.D. Wis. Sept. 26, 2016)09/26/2016
Court granted motion to dismiss on ripeness grounds. Court rejected the argument that the case was unripe because the purchase agreement underlying the dispute contains a provision requiring disputes to be subject to binding arbitration, but that arbitration had not occurred. Court held that an arbitration clause does not affect subject matter jurisdiction because parties may always waive a contractual right to arbitrate.
-
Duge v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., No. 6:16-CV-00114-RP (W.D. Tex. Sept. 26, 2016)09/26/2016
Court denied motion to compel arbitration and dismiss action because the parties’ dispute over whether the plaintiff accepted the defendant’s arbitration agreement was a genuine issue of fact, for which the FAA provides a right to a trial by jury.
-
Lemberg Law, LLC v. Hussin, No. 3:16-CV-01727-JM-WVG (S.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2016)09/26/2016
Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings because plaintiff had litigated the case for over a year before moving to stay proceedings and compel arbitration. Court found that by undertaking extensive federal litigation plaintiff waived any right to arbitration.
-
Michel v. Parts Auth., Inc., No. 1:15-CV-05730-ARR-MDG) (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2016)09/26/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismiss action because, even if the FAA did not apply, New York state law would compel arbitration. Court also held that the plaintiff made no attempt to demonstrate what prohibitive expense would result from compelling arbitration, and thus could not rely on unconscionability to invalidate the arbitration agreement.
-
Tribal Casino Gaming Enter. v. W.G. Yates & Sons Construction Co., No. 1:16-CV-00132-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C. Sept. 26, 2016)09/26/2016
Court granted motions to compel arbitration and stay matter. Court held that the question of whether the arbitration panel exceeded their powers by failing to extend the allegedly “unreasonably short time period” which they were to issue an award was not ripe for consideration since an award had not been issued by the tribunal.