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.
-
Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C. v. Ostroski, No. 4:16-CV-00050-JEJ (M.D. Pa. Aug. 8, 2016)08/08/2016
Court granted motion for summary judgment, declaring that the lease agreement between the parties did not permit class arbitration and precluding defendants from pursuing any claims on behalf of a purported class. Court held the FAA, not the Pennsylvania Arbitration Act, applied to an interstate agreement; and FAA jurisprudence does not permit defendants to compel class arbitration when the agreement was silent on this point.
-
Diag Human S.E. v. Czech Republic Ministry of Health, No. 1:13-CV-00355-ABJ (D.C. Cir. Aug. 8, 2016)08/08/2016
Circuit court denied the Czech Republic’s request for a rehearing en banc of Diag Human S.E.'s enforcement efforts of a $325 million arbitral award issued by an international tribunal.
-
Ambrosio v. Cogent Commc’ns, Inc., No. 3:14-CV-02182 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2016)08/05/2016
Motion to compel arbitration denied. Court held defendant had waived its right to compel arbitration.
-
The O’Gara Group, Inc. v. UXB Int’l, Inc., No. 7:16-CV-00170-GEC (W.D. Va. Aug. 5, 2016)08/05/2016
Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award and denied motion to vacate the award where defendant failed to satisfy its heavy burden of showing that the arbitrator exceeded his authority or manifestly disregarded the law.
-
Incredible Foods Group, LLC v. Unifoods, S.A. DE C.V., No. 14-CV-5207-KAM (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 201608/05/2016
Court granted application for attorney’s fees for reasonable rates and hours worked to confirm an arbitration award and oppose motion to vacate the award.
-
W.J. O’Neill Co. v. Shepley, Bulfinch, Richardson & Abbot, Inc., No. 11-CV-12020-RHC (E.D. Mich. Aug. 5, 2016)08/05/2016
Court granted motions to dismiss since plaintiff and both defendants were parties to a prior arbitration in which various issues already had a full and fair opportunity to be litigated and determined. Court further held that mutuality of estoppel was not necessary in this case because Michigan law does not require such if collateral estoppel is, as here, asserted defensively, and plaintiff did not provide any authority or evidence that collateral estoppel does not apply when the prior action was an arbitration.
-
Visteon Corp. v. Leuliette, No. 16-CV-11180-TGB (E.D. Mich. Aug. 5, 2016)08/05/2016
Court stayed the case pending the outcome of arbitration proceedings initiated by defendant, and denied plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction to stay arbitration proceedings.
-
Jones v. Titlemax of Missouri, Inc., No. 4:15-CV-01361-JAR (E.D. Mo. Aug. 5, 2016)08/05/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration. Court held that delegation clause was valid under Rent-A-Center and therefore it was not the court’s prerogative to answer questions of arbitrability.
-
Arabian Gas & Oil Dev. Co. v. Wisdom Marines Lines, SA, Nos. 4:16-CV-03801-DMR, 4:16-03872-DMR (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2016)08/05/2016
Court set aside its ex parte order to attach and ordered the immediate release of a vessel that was held to secure an alleged, but not forthcoming, arbitral award under the New York Convention.
-
Stati v. Republic of Kazakhstan, No. 1:14-CV-01638-ABJ (D.D.C. Aug. 5, 2016)08/05/2016
Court stayed action to confirm arbitral award. Court held, as a preliminary matter, that it had jurisdiction under the FAA and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. However, given the pendency of a proceeding in Sweden to set aside the arbitral award, the action should be stayed pending resolution of that challenge, pursuant to Art. VI of the New York Convention.
-
Sophinos v. Quadriga Worldwide Ltd., No. 2:16-CV-01273-MWF-MRW (C.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2016)
08/04/2016Court denied petition to lift stay on proceedings based on the plaintiff’s ex parte submission that the arbitration had been terminated because the defendant had refused to pay the AAA filing fees. Court reasoned that the question of whether the defendant was obligated to pay the fees and had defaulted on the arbitration by its failure to do so was a question to be decided by the arbitrator.
-
Brent v. Priority 1 Automotive Group, BMW of Rockville, No. 8:14-CV-01705-PWG (D. Md. Aug. 4, 2016)08/04/2016
Court granted plaintiff’s summary judgment motion to determine that there was no valid agreement to arbitrate. Applying Maryland state law, the court determined no valid agreement existed because the agreement lacked consideration.
-
Rimel v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No: 6:15-CV-2191-ORL-41KRS (M.D. Fla. Aug. 4, 2016)08/04/2016
Magistrate judge recommended that the court grant motion to compel arbitration and strike class action allegations. The arbitration provision is not procedurally unconscionable because plaintiff had the right to opt out of the provision. The waiver of collective and class actions is not substantively unconscionable and invalidation of the waiver is preempted by the FAA under Florida law.
-
Parker v. ETB Management, L.L.C., No. 15-11128 (5th Cir. Aug. 4, 2016)08/04/2016
Circuit court affirmed the district court’s confirmation of an arbitration award, as plaintiff-appellant had “failed to advance any credible argument to show the arbitrator acted with corruption in violation of the FAA.” Court rejected plaintiff-appellant’s argument that the arbitrator ignored conflicting statements given by defendants’ witnesses, as this was an inquiry regarding the merits of appellant’s claim and the credibility determinations of the arbitration, which was outside of the court’s “limited” and “exceedingly deferential” review of arbitration decisions.
-
Bastida v. Nat’l Holding Corp., No. 16-CV-388-RSL (W.D. Wash. Aug. 4, 2016)08/04/2016
Court granted in part motion to dismiss and denied request for a stay until FINRA arbitration was resolved. Court held that plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient facts to support the conclusion that defendant had an agency relationship with a party against which plaintiffs had filed claims in arbitration. Court also held that the standards governing FINRA arbitration are substantially different than those of a judicial proceeding, and that any decision would likely have minimal value to the court or promote judicial efficiency.
-
Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-05699-JGK (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2016)08/04/2016
Court granted petition to compel arbitration and to enjoin defendant during the pendency of the arbitration from proceeding with a California state court action where the parties’ dispute was subject to arbitration and the arbitration clauses provide that the parties will arbitrate in New York.
-
Guidotti v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, L.L.C., No. 1:11-CV-01219 (D.N.J. Aug. 4, 2016)08/04/2016
Court denied motion challenging right to a jury trial to decide whether plaintiff agreed to arbitration. Court held that §4 of the FAA operates in the absence of a timely jury demand under Fed. R. Civ. P. 38, and therefore §4 of the FAA does not prescribe the exclusive means of providing a jury trial in the context of summary arbitration proceedings.
-
Golden v. O’Melveny & Meyers LLP, No. 14-CV-8725-CAS (C.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2016)08/03/2016
Court denied motion for reconsideration and compelled the parties to proceed with arbitration. Court held that plaintiff had no basis for reconsideration of the court’s prior order sending the parties to arbitration for some claims and staying others pending arbitration. Court further held that the FAA, not California’s arbitration rules, apply to the arbitration agreement even in circumstances where the agreement provides that it is governed by California law because a general choice-of-law clause does not evidence the parties’ intent to apply state law procedural rules of arbitration sufficiently to overcome the presumption that the FAA applies.
-
Hagan v. Katz Communications, Inc., No. 1:12-CV-05987-RA (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2016)08/03/2016
Court denied petition to vacate arbitral award since arbitrator did not act in “manifest disregard of federal law” when he imposed a 90-day statute of limitations and found that such period was not equitably tolled.
-
Douglas v. Oceanview Healthcare, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-00225 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 3, 2016)08/03/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the claims brought by plaintiff were subject to arbitration, that plaintiff received sufficient notice of the arbitration agreement, and that defendant did not waive its right to compel arbitration simply by removing the case to federal court.
-
Thornell v. Performance Imports, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-00397-JHE (N.D. Ala. Aug. 3, 2016)08/03/2016
Court denied motion to appoint arbitrator. Court held that the arbitration agreement entitled defendant to veto the plaintiff’s selection of an organization other than the American Arbitration Association, not the arbitrator the plaintiff nominated. Therefore, §5 of the FAA was not applicable.
-
Webb v. Frawley, No. 1:15-CV-06406 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 3, 2016)08/03/2016
Motion granted to compel arbitration. Court held that disputes were subject to mandatory arbitration under FINRA, and therefore the FAA required the court to compel arbitration. Court refused to stay the proceedings and dismissed the action with leave to reinstate within one year.
-
Woods v. Caremark PHC, L.L.C., No. 4:14-CV-583-SRB (W.D. Mo. Aug. 2, 2016)08/02/2016
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that the plain terms of the relevant arbitration agreement made clear that it did not apply to the dispute at issue, as the dispute preceded the plaintiff’s viewing of the arbitration agreement.
-
Woods v. Caremark PHC, L.L.C., No. 4:14-CV-583-SRB (W.D. Mo. Aug. 2, 2016)08/02/2016
Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration because defendants waived their arbitration rights by waiting over a year to file the motion to compel arbitration, during which a “wealth of extensive litigation occurred.” Court found that there was “little doubt that defendants knew of the right” to arbitration and plaintiffs were prejudiced by “expending large sums of attorney time and money.”
-
Bosworth v. Cubicon Corp., No. 3:16-CV-02416-WHA (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2016)08/02/2016
Court denied motion to vacate arbitral award and granted petition to confirm. Court held that the award did not exhibit “manifest disregard of the law” and therefore defendant did not clear the FAA’s high hurdle necessary to vacate an arbitration award.
-
Andrade v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc., No. 3:12-CV-02724 JLS (MDD) (S.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2016)08/02/2016
Court denied renewed motion to vacate arbitration award. Court held that the award was not final under the FAA and that cost and delay alone could not constitute “severe irreparable injury” or “manifest injustice” so as to justify review of the arbitrator’s non-final decision.
-
BMO Harris Bank, N.A. v. Lailer, No. 16-CV-545-JPS (E.D. Wis. Aug. 2, 2016)08/02/2016
Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay court action. Court held that the dispute is not arbitrable before FINRA because it was not subject to mandatory arbitration under the FINRA rules. Further, the doctrine of “direct benefits estoppel,” by which a non-signatory can be forced to arbitrate a claim, did not apply.
-
Glynn v. Christy, No. 1:14-CV-01924-LTS-RLE (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2016)08/02/2016
Court denied motions to compel arbitration and stay action. Court held that defendants’ substantial delay in asserting the arbitration clause, until after their participation in litigation in multiple courts and after months of discovery, demonstrated enough prejudice to plaintiff to establish waiver.
-
Corporación Mexicana De Mantenimiento Integral v. Pemex-Exploración Y Producción, No. 13-4022 (2d Cir. Aug. 2, 2016)08/02/2016
Circuit court affirmed confirmation of an ICC arbitral award following vacatur of the award by Mexican courts. While acknowledging “the prudential concern of international comity” and cautioning that “any court should act with trepidation and reluctance in enforcing an arbitral award that has been declared a nullity by the courts having jurisdiction over the forum in which the award was rendered,” the second circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, holding, inter alia, that Mexico’s retroactive application of one of its laws, which had the effect of favoring a state enterprise over a private party, and left that party with no available remedy or potential relief for its claims, violated U.S. public policy and basic standards of justice.
-
Main v. Gateway Genomics, LLC, No. 3:15-CV-02945-AJB-WVG (S.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2016)08/01/2016
Court denied defendant’s request to compel arbitration. Although the court found that the defendant did not waive its right to arbitration, the plaintiff was not bound by the arbitration provisions because they were contained in contracts to which it is a non-signatory.
-
Lerner v. Citigroup, No. 2:16-CV-01573-KM-MAH (D.N.J. Aug. 1, 2016)08/01/2016
Motion granted to compel arbitration and action stayed. Court held that a valid arbitration agreement existed and that all the claims were covered by that agreement. As such, pursuant to §3 of the FAA, court stayed the proceedings pending arbitration.
-
Royce v. Needle, No. 1:15-CV-00259 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 1, 2016)08/01/2016
Court granted request to compel arbitration. Court found that the arbitration agreement, which specified arbitration by a former Magistrate judge who had since passed away, survived the named arbitrator’s death and remains enforceable. As the arbitration agreement did not contemplate the death of the named arbitrator, it was the court’s duty to appoint an arbitrator pursuant to section 5 of the FAA.
-
DCK World Wide, LLC v. Pacifica Riverplace, L.P., No. 1:16-CV-00666-SS (W.D. Tex. July 29, 2016)07/29/2016
Court denied request for a preliminary injunction enjoining parallel arbitration proceedings, finding that the requestor had not established a substantial likelihood that it would succeed in showing that it did not assume obligations or benefits from the underlying agreement and thus that it was not bound by the agreement’s delegation of question of arbitrability to the arbitrator.
-
Wells Fargo Ins. Servs. USA, Inc. v. King, No. 0:15-CV-04378-PJS-HB (D. Minn. July 29, 2016)07/29/2016
Court granted in part motion to stay discovery pending determination of motion to compel arbitration, permitting discovery to proceed primarily in relation to defendants’ grounds for opposing arbitration.
-
Tradeline Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Jess Smith & Sons Cotton, LLC, No. 2:15-CV-08048 JAK (C.D. Cal. July 29, 2016)07/29/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed action pending arbitration. Court held the antitrust claim arose from a licensing agreement with a non-party trade association, and the licensing agreement’s arbitration clause therefore applied even though the defendants were not signatories.
-
Moon v. Breathless, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-06297-SDW-LDW (D.N.J. July 29, 2016)07/29/2016
Court granted motion for summary judgment. Court held that it was for an arbitrator to decide whether the classification of plaintiff as an independent contractor violated New Jersey employment law, since that was a challenge to the whole agreement, not specifically to the arbitration provision. Additionally, the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable since both parties waived their litigation rights.
-
Lakah v. UBS AG, No. 1:07-CV-02799 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2016)07/29/2016
Court granted request to voluntarily dismiss petition with prejudice, but cross-petition to determine whether petitioners agreed to arbitrate remains pending. Court held that despite petitioners’ recent consent to arbitration, court retained subject matter jurisdiction because courts must decide whether a party is subject to an arbitration agreement by resolving issues surrounding the making of an arbitration agreement.
-
Berger v. Accounting Fulfillment Svcs., No. 8:16-CV-00744-JSM-JSS (M.D. Fla. July 29, 2016)07/29/2016
Motion granted to stay proceedings pending appeal. Court held the FAA gives defendants a direct, immediate right to file an interlocutory appeal of an order denying arbitration.
-
Meyer v. Kalanick, No. 1:15-CV-09796-JSR (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2016)07/29/2016
Court denied motion to compel arbitration. Court held that a valid arbitration agreement was not formed because the arbitration agreement was in an electronic form contract that encouraged users to overlook contractual terms in the process of gaining access to a product or service.
-
Tigges v. AM Pizza, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-10136-WGY (D. Mass. July 29, 2016)07/29/2016
Court denied motion to dismiss and allowed motion to certify classes. Court held the class action waiver provision and opt-out provision in an arbitration agreement was invalid because the National Labor Relations Act confers on employees a non-waivable statutory right to act collectively.
-
Bodine v. Cook’s Pest Control Inc., No. 15-13233 (11th Cir. July 29, 2016)07/29/2016
Circuit court affirmed district court decision compelling arbitration. Court held the FAA and the non-waiver provision of the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act were not in conflict and the district court properly compelled arbitration; it is, however, the arbitrator, and not the district court, that should determine the validity of the terms of the arbitration agreement.
-
Bankers Life & Cas. Ins. v. CBRE, No. 15-1471 (7th Cir. July 29, 2016)07/29/2016
Circuit court reversed and remanded district court decision upholding an arbitration award. Court held that the arbitrators exceeded their power by basing the award on documents outside the parties’ agreement and ignoring the agreement itself.
-
Chelmowski v. AT&T Mobility, LLC., No. 1:15-CV-10980 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 28, 2016)07/28/2016
Court confirmed motion to confirm an AAA arbitration award, denying cross-motion to vacate based on the arbitrator’s alleged bias, misconduct, and exceeding her powers. Court reasoned that plaintiff failed to present clear and convincing evidence that any of the “narrow grounds” available for overturning an arbitration award under the FAA applied, rejecting plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitrator acted improperly by treating his arguments as legal and not factual, denying requests for discovery and an evidentiary hearing. Nor, Court held, did the arbitrator make a manifest error of fact or law or violate AAA rules.
-
Breazeale v. Victim Services Inc., No. 3:14-CV-05266-VC (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2016)07/27/2016
Court denied motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act does not apply to a contract between a local prosecutor and a criminal suspect about how to address a potential state-law criminal violation, and that California law does not allow arbitration of a dispute, between a citizen and the government or its agents, arising out of the exercise of the government’s criminal law enforcement powers.
-
Unite Here Int’l Union v. Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, No. 2:16-CV-00384-TLN-EFB (E.D. Cal. July 27, 2016)07/27/2016
Court denied motion to dismiss action. Court held that ninth circuit and district courts routinely treat petitions to compel arbitrations as capable of instituting a court action, and as a result, respondent failed to establish that dismissal was warranted.
-
Easter v. Prof’l Performance Dev. Group, No. 5:16-CV-00222-DAE (W.D. Tex. July 27, 2016)07/27/2016
Motion to compel arbitration granted. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration agreement was invalid because the contract lacks mutuality of obligation, finding that although the promises were not identical, the agreement did not provide any party the power to avoid its promise to arbitrate.
-
Langlois v. Amedisys, No. 3:15-CV-00835-SDD-RLB (M.D. La. July 27, 2016)07/27/2016
Motion granted to compel arbitration. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that it could not be compelled to arbitrate because pre-dispute arbitration agreements are null and void under Louisiana law. The FAA makes pre-dispute arbitration agreements enforceable and pre-empts Louisiana law.
-
Virginia Van Dusen v. Swift Transportation Co, No. CB-7121-15-0034-V-1 (9th Cir. July 26, 2016)07/26/2016
Court denied writ of mandamus ordering the district court to vacate its case management order and decide the petition to compel arbitration without discovery or trial. Court weighed factors to determine whether mandamus relief was available and determined that petitioner may appeal once district court issues a decision on whether to compel arbitrator.
-
Clark v. CitiFinancial Servicing, LLC., No. 3:16-CV-00140-MOC-DSC (W.D.N.C. July 26, 2016)07/26/2016
Court granted motion to stay and compel arbitration, finding that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proving that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable.
-
United States v. SF Green Clean, LLC, No. 15-15254 (9th Cir. July 26, 2016)07/26/2016
Circuit court affirmed district court’s confirmation of an arbitration award and dismissal of defendant’s counterclaims. Court held defendant had been given the opportunity to participate in the selection of an arbitrator when it chose to sign a lease that set out how the arbitrator would be selected, and therefore no adequate grounds existed for vacating the award under the FAA. Court also held that while the arbitrator was not empowered to award damages on some of the counterclaims, the counterclaims were properly dismissed on alternative grounds.