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.
-
Jeffreys v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., No. 2:15-CV-08470 (D.N.J. Aug. 18, 2016)08/18/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismiss action. Court held that the arbitration agreement was valid as between the parties, one of which, while not a signatory, was authorized to invoke the agreement, and was and not unconscionable.
-
Diversicare Leasing Corp. v. Allen, No. 0:15-CV-00060 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 18, 2016)08/18/2016
Motion to compel arbitration granted. Determining that the dispute was covered by a valid arbitration agreement that was not unconscionable, court held it was bound by the FAA to compel arbitration. Court enjoined parallel actions and dismissed the matter with prejudice.
-
Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC v. Sappington, No. 1:16-CV-00878 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2016)08/18/2016
Court denied motion to dismiss or stay pending class arbitration and to compel individual arbitration. Court held that it was for the arbitrators to decide questions of arbitrability, including whether respondents can proceed on a class-wide basis.
-
Jeffreys v. Midland Credit Mngt., Inc., No. 2:15-CV-08470-JLL-JAD (D.N.J. Aug. 18, 2016)08/18/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s Fair Debt and Credit Practices Act action. Court held that defendant, a non-signatory to the cardholder agreement, was assigned the debt and thereby authorized to invoke the provisions of the agreement which were neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable.
-
Fin. Assocs. v. Hudson Specialty Ins. Co., No. 2:15-CV-02245-SDW (D.N.J. Aug. 18, 2016)08/18/2016
Motion granted to compel arbitration. Court held that the FAA and New York precedent confirming strong federal policy in favor of arbitration in the presence of a valid arbitral agreement compelled arbitration.
-
Abernathy v. Becon Constr. Col., Inc., No. 1:14-CV-466-RC (E.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2016)08/18/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration of plaintiffs’ claims and to stay litigation pending arbitration of those claims pursuant to the contested report and recommendation of the magistrate judge. Court held that neither plaintiffs’ objection to the magistrate judge’s findings concerning the employee dispute resolution plan nor defendant’s objections to the motion to compel as untimely could alter the court’s agreement with the magistrate judge.
-
Hong v. Belleville Dev’t Group, LLC, No. 1:15-CV-05890-RJS (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2016)08/17/2016
Court granted motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because dispute was governed by mandatory arbitration agreement. Court found that a valid arbitral agreement governed the dispute even though some of the defendants were not signatories. Court reasoned that “a signatory may be bound to arbitrate claims it brings against a non-signatory based on ‘the close relationship between the entities involved, as well as the relationship of the alleged wrongs to the non-signatory’s obligations and duties in the contract and the fact that the claims were intertwined with the underlying contractual obligations.’”
-
Cates v. Crystal Clear Tech., LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00008-AAT (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 17, 2016)08/17/2016
Court granted three motions to dismiss filed by various defendants’ and denied one of those defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation as moot. Court held because court finds plaintiffs have failed to state a claim with respect to one defendant, the court need not reach defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court further noted that without deciding whether the plaintiffs even entered into any contractual relationship governed by the customer agreements, the conduct giving rise to the action takes place separate and apart from that relationship governed by the terms of the agreement, including an arbitration clause contained therein.
-
Cline v. Etsy, Inc., No.2:15-CV-02115-JCM-VCF (D. Nev. Aug. 17, 2016)08/17/2016
Court denied plaintiff’s motion for failure to arbitrate. Court held that plaintiff may use her pre-dispute arbitration agreement or a previously issued court order compelling arbitration to initiate arbitration.
-
Local 1982, Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n v. Midwest Terminals of Toledo, Int’l, Inc., No. 3:12-CIV-1384-JJH (N.D. Ohio Aug. 16, 2016)08/16/2016
Court granted plaintiff’s request to remand the action to the Joint Grievance Committee for clarification of an arbitral award where the terms were ambiguous. Court held that award failed to specify details sufficient to support either party’s position.
-
Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. v. Regency Heritage Nursing & Rehab. Ctr., No. 15-1883 (3d Cir. Aug. 16, 2016)08/16/2016
Circuit court granted National Labor Relations Board’s application and enforced its order against respondent. Court held that the case did not need to be sent to arbitration as the dispute was not encompassed by the ongoing arbitration between the parties, and deferral to arbitration was not otherwise required because an arbitration clause does not survive the expiration of the contract unless the dispute arises under the contract.
-
GCIU-Empl. Ret. Fund v. Quad Graphics, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-03391-ODW, No. 2:16-CV-03418-ODW (N.D. Ill. Aug. 16, 2016)08/16/2016
Court consolidated two cases in which both parties were seeking to vacate, modify, or enforce different portions of an arbitrator’s award, where both actions ultimately stemmed from the same arbitration proceeding, and both actions presented common questions of law and fact.
-
Central States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund v. Nat’l Concrete Prods. Co., No. 1:15-CV-03739-MSS (N.D. Ill. Aug. 16, 2016)08/16/2016
Court granted motion for summary judgment to collect payment for defendant’s alleged default in contributing to a multiemployer pension plan on behalf of its unionized employees while arbitration between the parties about the amount of withdrawal liability is ongoing.
-
Moomjian v. T.D. Ameritrade, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-00952-SAL (N.D. Tex. Aug. 16, 2016)08/16/2016
Court denied motion to vacate arbitration award and granted motion to confirm award. Court held that when an agreement contains a clause that designates Texas law but does not exclude the FAA, the Texas Arbitration Act and FAA apply concurrently to govern whether the arbitration award should be vacated or confirmed. Applying the Fifth Circuit’s “essence test,” court found the arbitrators did not exceed their authority or engage in misconduct by determining that plaintiff’s request for an explained decision was untimely.
-
Zurich Ins. PLC v. Ethos Energy (USA) LLC, No., 4:15-CV-03580-MH (S.D. Tex. Aug. 16, 2016)08/16/2016
Court granted motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction to enforce an arbitrator’s subpoena directing a non-party to the arbitration to produce documents pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 7. Court held §7 of the FAA does not establish federal question jurisdiction and the amount in controversy does not meet the $75,000 threshold amount required for federal diversity jurisdiction.
-
Gill v. Grewal, No. 4:14-CV-02502-MH (S.D. Tex. Aug. 15, 2016)08/15/2016
Court denied motion to abate and compel arbitration. Court held that fact that plaintiff/counter-defendants’ filed suit and conducted discovery, were aware of arbitration clause, and had delayed more than twelve months until the eve of trial with no reasonable explanation after consolidating cases to compel arbitration, were all factors under Texas law in favor of finding that judicial process had been invoked without asserting arbitration clause.
-
James v. Comcast Corp., No. 16-CV-02218-EMC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2016)08/15/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss putative class action. Court held that defendant had a new arbitration provision in its service agreement that replaced and superseded any prior agreements that would take effect upon a customer’s continued use of the services unless the user opted out within 30 days after the mailing of the notice of the new agreement. The provision was not unconscionable because of the conspicuous notice, the opt-out provision, the non-essential nature of the service and plausible alternatives, and because the customer could easily terminate the agreement.
-
Broom, Jr. v. AXA Advisors, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-0028-RDP (N.D. Ala. Aug. 15, 2016)08/15/2016
Court granted motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Court held that plaintiff conceded that claims that accrued after July 1, 2013 were subject to arbitration, and no claims made in the complaint would have accrued prior to that date.
-
Doss v. Nordstrom, Inc., N.A., No. 3:15-CV-00904-JSB (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 15, 2016)08/15/2016
Magistrate judge issued report and recommendation that the motion to dismiss proceedings and compel arbitration be granted, and that the parties be ordered to arbitrate their dispute in accordance with the arbitration agreement.
-
Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund v. K & M Equip., Inc., No. 1:15-CV-11586 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 15, 2016)08/15/2016
Court granted motion for summary judgment, declaring that defendants failed to timely initiate arbitration. But court denied motion for an injunction to compel defendants to dismiss a pending AAA arbitration since the court’s finding that defendant waived its arbitration rights stripped the AAA arbitrator of his jurisdiction and plaintiffs do not face irreparable harm without the injunction.
-
Carlini Enters., Inc. v. Paul Yaffe Design, Inc., No. 8:13-CV-01671-ODW (C.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2016)08/12/2016
Court grants motion to confirm arbitration award and denies motion to vacate. Court held it has no authority to re-weigh the evidence or question the arbitrator’s conclusions and that the plaintiffs failed to establish specific facts indicating actual bias of the arbitrator.
-
Fakhri v. Marriot Int’l Hotels, Inc., No. 8:14-CV-00840-PJM (D. Md. Aug. 12. 2016)08/12/2016
Court granted motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that plaintiff’s suit constituted a collateral attack on an arbitral award. Court held that the plaintiff was attempting to use the present suit as a means of re-litigating the same damages that were presented to the ICC arbitral tribunal, thus constituting a collateral attack over which the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain under the New York Convention.
-
Sural (Barbados) Ltd. v. Gov't of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, No. 1:15-CV-22825-KMM (S.D. Fla. Aug. 12, 2016)08/12/2016
Court granted respondent’s cross-motion to confirm arbitration award. Court held that given the high threshold to overturn an arbitration award under the New York Convention, and the court’s necessarily limited review, the petitioners arguments for vacating the award must fail as a matter of law and the petitioner’s “efforts to vacate the award are merely an attempt to mask an unsuccessful arbitration campaign under the guise of a lack of due process.”
-
Vine v. PLS Fin. Servs. Inc., No. 3:15-CV-00031 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 11, 2016)08/11/2016
Court refused to reconsider earlier denial of motion to compel arbitration based on factual challenges to its earlier ruling, holding that it was bound to accept plaintiffs’ allegations as true and that defendants could not rely on an arbitration agreement where they had substantially invoked the judicial process by filing a criminal complaint on related claims. Court further held that notwithstanding Supreme Court decisions that arbitrators, and not courts, should decide procedural arbitration challenges, courts retain the power to evaluate whether a defendant waived arbitral rights through litigation activities. Court granted a stay of proceedings pending defendants’ interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit.
-
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC v. Couch, No. 1:15-17092 (9th Cir. Aug. 11, 2016)08/11/2016
Circuit court affirmed district court’s decision to grant motion to preliminarily enjoin FINRA arbitration proceedings commenced by the defendant pending resolution of the plaintiff’s declaratory judgment action. Court held that, in the absence of any evidence demonstrating the parties’ intent to the contrary, the district court correctly determined both that it had the authority to decide whether defendant had waived its right to arbitrate under an employment contract, and that where the parties had been in litigation for over a year, with discovery closed and dispositive motions due, defendant had waived his arbitration rights.
-
Jolie Design & Décor, Inc., v. Kathy Van Gogh, No. 2:15-00740-MBN (E.D. La. Aug. 11, 2016)08/11/2016
Magistrate judge recommended the court grant plaintiff’s motion for costs and attorneys' fees in an action filed to enforce an arbitration award under the New York Convention. The court analyzed the invoices and recommended a reduction for block billing and an additional reduction for failure to exercise billing judgment.
-
Wiles v. Palm Springs Grill, LLC, No. 9:15-CV-81597-KAM (S.D.Fla. Aug. 11, 2016)08/11/2016
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed case pending the arbitration. Court held the agreement between the parties contained a valid arbitration clause that incorporated the commercial arbitration rules of the AAA, and therefore the question of validity and scope of the both the contract and the arbitration agreement are for the arbitrator to decide. Court also held that plaintiff’s Fair Labor Standards Act claims are subject to arbitration, and that a stay furthers the FAA’s goal of “efficient and speedy dispute resolution.”
-
Gordon v. TBC Retail Group, Inc., No. 2:14-CV-03365-DCN (D.S.C. Aug. 11, 2016)08/11/2016
Court granted in part motion to compel arbitration for opt-in plaintiffs who acknowledged a mutual arbitration agreement through an “electronic onboarding system.” Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration for one named plaintiff and some “opt-in” plaintiffs who did not recall, inter alia, acknowledging or signing the agreement to arbitrate since they could not be compelled to arbitrate given a genuine issue of material facts in dispute.
-
Eggleston v. Marshall Durbin Food Corp., No. 6:16-CV-00217-LSC (N.D. Ala. Aug. 11, 2016)08/11/2016
Court granted motions to confirm an arbitration award and denied motion to vacate award. Court held that the arbitrator did not exceed her powers by interpreting Rule 40 of the National Rules for the Resolution of Employment Disputes to allow her to reconsider the merits of plaintiff’s claim heard by a prior arbitrator prior to a final award. Court also held that damages were available under the Fair Labor Standards Act for plaintiff’s retaliatory discharge claim.
-
Int’l Assn of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Bath Iron Works, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00257-GZS (D. Me. Aug. 11, 2016)08/11/2016
Court granted motion to dismiss claim that arbitrator was biased as plaintiff both failed to file its complaint within Maine’s 90-day time limit to challenge an arbitral award and, despite knowledge of alleged bias, failed to challenge the arbitrator prior to the arbitrator’s decision.
-
Mason Tenders Dist. Counc. of Greater New York v. Emlo Corp., No. 14-CV-8898-LLS (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2016)08/10/2016
Court granted motion to confirm arbitration awards against defendant. Court held that arbitrator acted within the scope of his authority in declining to change the schedule of the hearing where defendant refused a seven-day postponement and did not participate further in the arbitration.
-
Grand Resources, Inc. v. Jewel, No. 4:14-CV-00642-JED (N.D. Okla. Aug. 10, 2016)08/10/2016
Court granted motions to dismiss and held that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the case. Plaintiff acknowledged that arbitration was required and court dismissed the case as refusal to participate in mandatory arbitration does not create a federal jurisdiction.
-
Torgerson v. LLC Int’l, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-02495-DDC (D. Kan. Aug. 10, 2016)08/10/2016
Court granted request to stay proceedings and ordered parties to proceed to arbitration. Court further declined to grant both defendants’ opposition to and plaintiff’s request for class certification, leaving the question to be presented to an arbitrator.
-
Ackison Surveying, LLC v. Focus Fiber Sols., LLC, No. 2:15-CV-02044-ALM (S.D. Ohio Aug. 10, 2016)08/10/2016
Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay judicial proceedings. Court held that failure to produce contract containing the alleged arbitration provision created a genuine dispute of material fact and a stay would prejudice plaintiffs whose claims were not identical to those raised in an ongoing arbitration proceeding.
-
Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC v Converteam SAS, No. 1:16-00378-KD-C (S.D. Ala. Aug. 10, 2016)08/10/2016
Court denied motion to stay briefing and consideration of the defendant’s pending motions to compel arbitration and dismiss—to the extent the substance of these motions are inextricably intertwined with plaintiff’s expected motions to remand.
-
Sanchez v. Borelli, No. 3:15-CV-00455-LRH (D. Nev. Aug. 10, 2016)08/10/2016
Court dismissed motion to vacate an arbitration award for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Court held that the FAA does not itself confer federal subject matter jurisdiction; rather, there must be an independent jurisdictional basis. Here, there was no federal question jurisdiction because the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000 for diversity jurisdiction and did the petition did not indicate any issues with federal law or how the arbitrator handled federal law.
-
Sodexo Mngt., Inc. v. Detroit Public Schools, No. 15-CV-10610 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 10, 2016)08/10/2016
Court confirmed a $24 million arbitration award and denied motion to vacate the award. Court declined to vacate the award on the grounds of alleged partiality of the AAA-appointed arbitrator where defendant did not demonstrate even an appearance of bias. Court also held that the defendant did not meet the exacting test that an arbitrator exceeded his or her power as there was a contractual basis for the arbitrator to exercise jurisdiction over a nonparty, and, given the parties’ “threadbare” arbitration clause and contractual provision that Michigan law applies, the arbitrator did not exceed his authority either under the clause or the AAA arbitration rules.
-
Clouser v. Golden Gate Nat’l Senior Care, LLC, No. 3:15-CV-00033-KRG (W.D. Pa. Aug. 10, 2016)08/10/2016
Court denied motion to stay the trial of plaintiff’s wrongful death claim pending resolution of plaintiff’s survival claim in arbitration. In weighing the competing interests and the totality of circumstances, including a stay of indefinite duration, court held stay was not appropriate.
-
Harris v. Halliburton Co., No. 1:16-CV-00281-LJO (E.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2016)08/09/2016
Court adopted magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations to grant motion to compel arbitration because plaintiff was obligated under the FAA to arbitrate his employment claims.
-
The Robbins Co. v. JCM Northlink LLC, No. 2:16-CV-00646-RSL (W.D. Wash. Aug. 9, 2016)08/09/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the matter. Court held that the Family Leave and Medical Act does not confer an unqualified right to a judicial forum, as would be required to displace the FAA; nor does an anti-waiver of employee rights provision invalidate an agreement to submit such claim to arbitration.
-
Robinson v. Universal Prot. Serv., L.P., No. 2:16-CV-01408-DGC (D.Ariz. Aug. 9, 2016)08/09/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the matter. Court held that the Family Leave and Medical Act does not confer an unqualified right to a judicial forum, as would be required to displace the FAA; nor does an anti-waiver of employee rights provision invalidate an agreement to submit such claim to arbitration.
-
Neumayer v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 2:16-CV-03508-AB (C.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2016)08/09/2016
Court denied plaintiff’s motion for remand and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss. Court held amount in controversy met the $75,000 jurisdictional requirement to prevent remand to state court, but complaint failed to state a claim for breach of contract because plaintiff did not allege that defendant failed to participate in the arbitration process as required by contract or to comply with the arbitration award.
-
Bekele v. Lyft, No. 15-11650-FDC (D.Mass. Aug. 9, 2016)08/09/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed suit. Court held that plaintiff agreed to defendant’s Terms of Service Agreement which contained a valid arbitration clause requiring binding individual arbitration. Court also rejected plaintiff’s affirmative defenses, of procedural and substantive unconscionability under Massachusetts state law and illegality under the FAA’s saving clause, where the undisputed facts sufficiently demonstrated that plaintiff, as a prospective employee, had more than reasonable notice of and assented to defendant’s arbitration provision, and the class action waiver contained within the agreement was not illegal under the National Labor Relations Act.
-
Beattie v. Credit One Bank, No. 5:15-CV-01315-LEK (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2016)08/09/2016
Court granted motion to stay and compel arbitration of a dispute alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Court held that the claims are subject to arbitration, that plaintiff agreed to the terms of the cardholder agreement requiring arbitration, and that the agreement was not unconscionable.
-
Switch Commerce, LLC v. Star Networks, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-4031-B-JJB (N.D. Tex. Aug. 9, 2016)08/09/2016
Court denied motion for reconsideration of its prior decision in which it held the arbitration provisions of the parties’ agreement enforceable and dismissed the case in favor of arbitration. Court held that the contract was neither unconscionable nor illusory and the case merited dismissal with prejudice.
-
Law Offices of Daniel C. Flint, P.C. v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 2:15-CV-13006 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 9, 2016)08/09/2016
Court denied motion to amend an interlocutory order finding no exceptional circumstances existed to warrant an interlocutory appeal in a case in which the court had granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court held that its decision to compel arbitration did not “involve[] a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion…”.
-
Cooper v. Westend Capital Mgmt., L.L.C., No. 15-31068 (5th Cir. Aug. 9, 2016)08/09/2016
Circuit court affirmed district court’s orders refusing to enjoin arbitration and confirming an award in favor of defendants who had expelled plaintiff from an operating agreement which required binding arbitration of disputes. Court held that defendants did not substantially invoke the judicial process by filing a TRO and did not waive arbitration when they sought judicial relief. Court also held that the operating agreement’s choice-of-law provision was insufficient to compel application of California’s arbitration standards. Court rejected plaintiff’s claim that the arbitrator exceeded his powers in making the award as plaintiff failed to point to any specific bias or prejudice against him.
-
Anderson v. AIG Life & Ret., No. 4:14-CV-00278-LGW (S.D. Ga. Aug. 8, 2016)08/08/2016
Court granted motion to dismiss and compel plaintiff to submit claims to arbitration. Court held that the parties’ employment dispute was subject to arbitration where two arbitration agreements broadly covered, with a few exceptions, all disputes “regarding legally protected rights” and expressly mentioned those brought by plaintiff. Court further held that the FAA and not the Georgia Arbitration Act (requiring the initialing of the provisions) applied, thus preempting the plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration provisions are unenforceable because they are not initialed by the parties.
-
Union de Tronquistas de Puerto Rico, Local 901 v. United Parcel Serv., Inc. No. 3:16-CV-01098-JPG (D.P.R. Aug. 8, 2016)08/08/2016
Court granted motion for summary judgment denying motion to set aside an arbitration award. Court held the arbitrator had a reasonable basis for his award after holding a hearing in which both parties presented evidence and the arbitrator’s determinations on credibility are not proper grounds for review.
-
Diversicare Leasing Corp. v. Wurtland Nursing & Rehab. Ctr., No. 0:15-CV-00029-HRW (N.D. Ky. Aug. 8, 2016)08/08/2016
Court overruled motion for reconsideration of court’s prior order to compel arbitration and enjoin defendant from proceeding in the underlying court case given that none of the grounds for a court to amend its judgment was present.