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.
-
Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc, No. 15-1970 (Fed. Cir. July 26, 2016)07/26/2016
Circuit court affirmed district court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the defendant’s counterclaims were not subject to arbitration because they related to the scope of licensed intellectual property rights, an issue expressly exempted from arbitration in the parties’ agreement. Court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that counterclaims not involving the license should be severed and sent to arbitration, since the counterclaims were centered on the infringement suit.
-
Babb v. Credit One Fin., No. 2:16-CV-00266-SPC-CM (M.D. Fla. July 22, 2016)07/22/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the parties had agreed to arbitrate all disputes arising out of a consumer cardholder agreement.
-
Sanchez v. General Elec. Co., No. 2:16-CV-00050 (S.D. Tex. July 22, 2016)07/22/2016
Motion granted to compel arbitration. Court held that it retained the authority to decide whether the parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute because the parties did not delegate the question of arbitrability to an arbitrator. Court further held that there was sufficient evidence of an enforceable arbitration agreement and the dispute in question fell within the agreement’s scope.
-
Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. John Deere Ins. Co., No. 2:15-CV-15-00671-PHX-PGR (D. Ariz. July 22, 2016)07/22/2016
Court granted application for attorney’s fees and costs arising from an action to confirm arbitration award. Court rejected respondent’s argument that the petitioner was limited to seeking remuneration for attorney’s fees incurred solely in connection with the cross-motion to confirm the arbitration award, and not matters such as filing an answer or responding to a motion to seal the entirety of the proceedings.
-
Keena v. GroupOn, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-00520-GCM (W.D.N.C. July 22, 2016)07/22/2016
Court granted motion to dismiss with prejudice. Court held that because the plaintiff’s claims were subject to an enforceable arbitration agreement, and plaintiff indicated that she had no intention to pursue arbitration, dismissal was warranted.
-
KAG West, LLC v. Malone, No. 3:15-CV-03827-TEH (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2016)07/22/2016
Motion denied to enjoin the respondent from filing and prosecuting duplicative claims. Court held that the FAA did not authorize federal courts to stay proceedings pending in state courts.
-
Hillware v. New Orleans Saints, No. 2:14-CV-02964-MVL-KWR (E.D La. July 22, 2016)07/22/2016
Court denied motion to vacate an arbitration award. Court held that plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the relevant arbitration agreement and the arbitrator did not exceed his authority in issuing an award in defendants’ favor.
-
Robredo v. Metro Honda, 2:15-CV-08135-KM-JBC (D.N.J. July 22, 2016)07/22/2016
Court granted motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action. Court held that since the claims were arbitrable and the plaintiff had fully participated in the previous arbitration, there was no genuine material issue of fact that would require trial on the claims asserted by the plaintiff.
-
Watson v. Corvias Constr., LLC, No. 5:16-CV-00463-C (W.D. Okla. July 21, 2016)07/21/2016
Court granted defendants’ motion to stay judicial proceedings and refer the case to arbitration. Court held that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the arbitration agreement was so unfair and one-sided as to meet the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s definition of an unconscionable contract.
-
Valtech Solutions, Inc. v. Davenport, No. 3:15-CV-03361-D (N.D. Tx. July 21, 2016)07/21/2016
Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to remand the action to state court. Court held that the dispute related to confidentiality agreements containing an arbitration clause falling under the New York Convention; defendants’ removal of the case to federal district court was proper where defendants asserted a non-frivolous argument that the clause provided a defense to the plaintiffs’ claims; and the court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the dispute pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 205.
-
Uszak v. AT&T Mobility Servs. LLC, No. 15-4195 (6th Cir. July 21, 2016)07/21/2016
Circuit court affirmed district court’s finding that an arbitration agreement between the parties was enforceable. Court held that district court properly applied Ohio state law to find that the employee (appellant) entered into an arbitration agreement with his employers (appellee) by virtue of reading an email containing the arbitration agreement, clicking a “Review Completed” button, and never opting out of the terms of the agreement.
-
Theerachayavaranont v. Red Lobster Hospitality, LLC, No. 2:15-CV-00188-SPC-MRM (M.D. Fla. July 21, 2016)07/21/2016
Court granted defendant’s unopposed request to stay the case pending the conclusion of arbitration and plaintiff did not oppose arbitration of her employment disputes.
-
Spathos v. Smart Payment Plan, LLC, No. 3:15-CV-08014-MAS-DEA (D.N.J. July 21, 2016)07/21/2016
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the dispute arose after the five year term of the agency agreement containing an arbitration clause expired, and the parties did not intend to arbitrate claims arising after the expiration of the agreement.
-
Razak v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00573-MMB (E.D. Pa. July 21, 2016)07/21/2016
Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Court held that plaintiffs indisputably opted out of an arbitration agreement and that, although the agreement delegated questions of enforceability, revocability, and validity of the agreement to an arbitrator, the agreement did not delegate to an arbitrator whether the parties complied with the agreement’s conspicuous opt-out provisions.
-
Metlife Secs., Inc. v. Holt, No. 2:16-CV-00032-RLJ-MCLC (E.D. Tenn. July 21, 2016)07/21/2016
Court granted in part petitioners’ motion to compel arbitration and denied Respondent’s motion to dismiss while ordering an evidentiary hearing on the remaining claims. Court held that, for at least some claims, the evidence did not demonstrate that petitioners waived their right to enforce an arbitration agreement or that the arbitration agreement in question was a contract of adhesion when petitioners did not engage in unfair and oppressive tactics to obtain respondent’s consent.
-
Martin v. Yasuda, No. 15-55696 (9th Cir. July 21, 2016)07/21/2016
Circuit court affirmed district court’s denial of defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the district court retained jurisdiction to decide the question of whether the parties’ dispute was arbitrable because the agreement did not include clear, unmistakable language that issues of waiver would be decided by an arbitrator. Court further held that defendants’ conduct waived their right to arbitration because defendants spent seventeen months litigating the case before moving to compel arbitration, and forcing plaintiffs to re-litigate the issues in arbitration would constitute obvious prejudice.
-
Hamilton v. Partners Healthcare Sys., Inc., No. 1:09-CV-11725-DPW (D. Ma. July 21, 2016)07/21/2016
Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. Court held inter alia that the Labor Management Relations Act preempted the state law claims raised by two of the three plaintiffs and, as a result, must be dismissed where those plaintiffs failed to exhaust the statute’s mandatory grievance and arbitration procedures.
-
Xu v. China Sunergy (US) Clean Tech Inc., No. 5:15-CV-04823-HRL (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2016)07/20/2016
Court granted in part respondents’ motion to dismiss in an action seeking confirmation of an arbitral award. Court held that petitioner’s complaint relied on the wrong cause of action, 9 U.S.C. § 9 instead of 9 U.S.C. § 207, because the arbitration award was governed by the New York Convention, that the Court could exercise jurisdiction where the petition failed to invoke the precise jurisdictional citation, and that petitioner would be granted leave to amend his complaint.
-
Varon v. Uber Techs. Inc., No. 1:15-CV-03650-MJG (D. Md. July 20, 2016)07/20/2016
Court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of its decision to grant defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that plaintiff’s argument, that California rather than Maryland law governed the case, was incorrect, but even if California law applied, the arbitration agreement in question would not be unconscionable.
-
New York City & Vicinity Dist. Council of Carpenters v. Plaza Constr. Group, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01115-GHW (S.D.N.Y. July 19, 2016)07/20/2016
Court granted petitioner’s application for attorney’s fees and costs arising from an action to confirm an arbitration award where the collective bargaining agreement entitled petitioner to recover reasonable fees and costs and where respondent offered no justification for its failure to abide by a court-confirmed arbitration award.
-
Murdock v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., No. 2:15-CV-00268-SPC-CM (M.D. Fla. July 20, 2016)07/20/2016
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Adopting the recommendations of a magistrate judge, court ordered the plaintiffs and one defendant to proceed in arbitration pursuant to a valid arbitration agreement. Court stayed plaintiffs’ remaining claims not subject to the agreement against two other defendants, to promote judicial economy where the arbitrable and non-arbitrable claims arose from similar facts and circumstances.
-
Kubala v. Supreme Prod. Servs., Inc., No. 15-41507 (5th Cir. July 20, 2016)07/20/2016
Circuit court reversed district court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the district court incorrectly concluded that no valid arbitration agreement existed between the parties where, after employee-appellee filed a Fair Labor Standards Act but before employer-appellant learned of it, appellant provided notice of a newly-imposed arbitration agreement as a term of continued employment. Court held as a matter of Texas state law, at-will appellee accepted the agreement when he continued working with notice of the new policy, and the agreement contained a valid delegation clause that transferred the authority to decide threshold matters of arbitrability to the arbitrator to determine whether appellee’s claims should be decided in arbitration or court.
-
Kennedy v. Am. Airlines Inc., No. 1:15-CV-08058-JBS-KMW (D.N.J. July 20, 2016)07/20/2016
Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. Court held inter alia that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to decide plaintiff’s collective bargaining claims when the Railway Labor Act pre-empts those claims under an agreement that required disputes to be resolved through arbitration.
-
Great N. Ins. Co. v. Cornerstone Custom Home Builder, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00071-WLS (M.D. Ga. July 20, 2016)07/20/2016
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the defendant had not waived its right to enforce the arbitration clause of the contract prior to the initiation of the lawsuit, and had not delayed in asserting its arbitration right after plaintiff initiated suit.
-
Erie Operating, LLC v. Foster, No. 1:14-CV-00072-TFM-SPB (W.D. Pa. July 20, 2016)07/20/2016
Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment to dismiss action where plaintiffs sought to compel arbitration. Court, adopting the recommendations of a magistrate judge, held that because the dispute in question had already been litigated and resolved by a state court, plaintiffs were precluded from re-litigating the dispute in arbitration.
-
Comm’ns Imp. Exp. S.A v. Republic of the Congo, No. 2:16-CV-00404-BSJ (D. Utah July 20, 2016)07/20/2016
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance with a subpoena duces tecum against a third-party bank where plaintiff sought information concerning an asset of defendant, a foreign sovereign, to assist in the enforcement of plaintiff’s arbitration award. Court held that the bank’s concerns over the scope and nature of the subpoena were insufficient to abrogate its duty to respond and that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act does not bar a request for discovery in aid of execution.
-
CEEG (Shanghai) Solar Science & Tech. Co. v. LUMOS LLC, No. 15-1256 (10th Cir. July 19, 2016)07/19/2016
Tenth circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a petition for recognition and enforcement under the New York Convention of a CIETAC arbitral award. Court held that, because the notice of commencement of arbitration was sent to the US respondent in Chinese instead of in English, the notice was not reasonably calculated to apprise the defendant of arbitration proceedings and prejudiced defendant because it could not participate in the selection of the tribunal. Lack of proper notice is a defence to enforcement under the New York Convention.
-
Patton v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., No. 4:15-CV-01371 (S.D. Tex. July 19, 2016)07/19/2016
Court granted defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Court affirmed magistrate judge’s recommendation that a judgment obtained from arbitration award against a third-party contractor could not be enforced against the defendant-insurer because the arbitrator’s award established that the awarded damages were excluded under the contractor’s insurance policies.
-
Bd. of Trs. of the W. Metal Indus. Pension Fund v. Cent. Machine Works, Inc., No. 2:14-CV-00802-RAJ (W.D. Wash. July 19, 2016)07/19/2016
Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment following defendants’ failure to arbitrate the dispute in accordance with ERISA. Court held that ERISA requires all disputes concerning an employer’s failure to appropriate fund employee retirement plans to be resolved through arbitration and an employer’s failure to initiate arbitration within 60 days of a triggering event renders the employer liable for any unfunded withdrawals.
-
CEEG (Shanghai) Solar Sci. & Tech. Co. v. Lumos LLC, No. 15-1256 (10th Cir. July 19, 2016)07/19/2016
Appellate court affirmed lower court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s motion to confirm an arbitration award. Court found that plaintiff’s Chinese-language notice of arbitration was not reasonably calculated to apprise the defendant of the arbitration proceedings because past communications between the parties were only in English, the defendant did not understand Chinese, and the agreement provided for proceedings in English. Plaintiff’s insufficient notice caused defendant to miss the deadline to appoint a neutral arbitral tribunal, evidences substantial prejudice, and therefore violated the due process exception to enforcement under the New York Convention.
-
Tr. of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labor-Mgmt., Corp., Pension, and Welfare Funds v. CMI Casework & Millwork, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-05686-DRH-GRB (E.D.N.Y. July 19, 2016)07/19/2016
Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award. Court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation to confirm where the respondent failed to answer the petitioner’s motion and petitioner demonstrated that there were no issues of material fact precluding summary judgment as to all portions of the award.
-
Malik v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, No. 2:16-CV-10477-GCS-SDD (E.D. Mich. July 19, 2016)07/19/2016
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the plaintiff’s challenge to the validity of an arbitration agreement was a matter for an arbitrator to decide where the arbitration agreement expressly delegated “disputes about the validity, enforceability, arbitrability or scope” to the arbitrator and plaintiff failed to raise an issue of material fact concerning whether he exercised the right-to-reject clause of the arbitration agreement.
-
KCOM, Inc. v. Emps. Mut. Cas. Co., No. 15-1218 (10th Cir. July 19, 2016)07/19/2016
Appellate court dismissed claimant’s appeal of the lower court’s decision to deny a motion to confirm an insurance appraisal award. Court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute because claimant’s original motion to confirm the award was made under Colorado state law and a federal court of appeals may grant interlocutory relief only where a movant seeks to confirm an award under FAA § 9.
-
I.B.E.W. Local No. 531 v. TGB Unlimited Inc., No. 2:15-CV-00028-JD (N.D. Ind. July 19, 2016)07/19/2016
Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment to confirm a labor arbitration award. Court held that defendant’s failure to challenge the arbitration award within the 90-day statute of limitations period established under Indiana law rendered the award final.
-
Caldwell v. SSC Lebanon Operating Co. LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00036 (M.D. Tenn. July 19, 2016)07/19/2016
Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that defendants failed to establish the existence of an agreement to arbitrate because the counter-party to the agreement, a deceased former nursing home resident, had not formed a valid contract with the defendant.
-
Reflex Media, Inc. v. Vibe Media, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-02243-PA (C.D. Cal. July 18, 201607/18/2016
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of fraud, trademark infringement, and other claims. Court found that while the arbitration agreement contained an exception for claims related to trademark infringement, it also delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Thus court held that whether trademark infringement claims were subject to the arbitration clause should be decided by the arbitrator in the first instance.
-
Dimattina Holdings, LLC v. Steri-Clean, Inc., No. 16-CV-61084-CMA (S.D. Fla. Jul. 18, 2016)07/18/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending arbitration. Court held that an arbitrator must decide matters of procedural arbitrability, including whether conditions precedent to arbitration have been met. Court also held plaintiff’s fraudulent inducement and deceptive and unfair practices claims are “in connection with” the franchise agreement even if they do not “arise out of” it, and that a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement may compel arbitration when the allegations against him are inextricably intertwined with or mirror those against a signatory such that equitable estoppel applies.
-
Performance Dynamics, Inc. v. Flynn, No. 1:13-CV-00298-WTL-TAB (S.D. Ind. July 18, 2016)07/18/2016
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to enforce mediation agreement. Court held that, contrary to defendants’ arguments, the agreement was valid, unambiguous, explicitly contained essential arbitration terms, and was consistent with public policy.
-
Roes v. SFBSC Mgmt., LLC, No. 15-15437 (9th Cir. July 18, 2016)07/18/2016
Appellate court affirmed the district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that defendant was not a party to the applicable agreement and failed to establish it had standing as a non-signatory to compel arbitration.
-
Britvan. v. Cantor Fitzgerald L.P., No. 2:16-CV-04075-ODW-JPR (C.D. Cal. July 18, 2016).07/18/2016
Court granted defendants’ motion to transfer to the Southern District of New York where the agreement in dispute contained an arbitration provision that required “any disputes, differences or controversies under [the] [a]greement to be adjudicated by a panel of arbitrators sitting in New York City.” Court rejected plaintiffs’ arguments that the arbitration forum selection clause contravened public policy, was unconscionable, and that defendant could not legally be a party to arbitration in the agreed upon forum.
-
SCL Basilisk AG, v. Agribusiness United Savannah Logistics LLC, No. 4:16-CV-00162-WTM-GRS (S.D. Ga. July 18, 2016)07/18/2016
Court denied plaintiffs’ petition and application for an order for security in aid of foreign arbitration. Court held that plaintiffs’ petition could not seek security pursuant to Georgia’s International Commercial Arbitration Code rather than traditionally applicable but unavailable maritime law provisions because the relief sought would bypass the FAA’s § 8 requirement that entities seek security “according to the usual course of admiralty proceedings.”
-
Jarrie Crawford v. Regions Bank, No. 3:16-CV-00190-DPJ-FKB (N.D. Miss. July 18, 2016)07/18/2016
Court denied without prejudice defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s pro se suit seeking to remand an arbitral award for clarification. Court held defendant’s arguments that court decline to exercise jurisdiction because of parallel proceeding pending in state court were not compelling where no factors weighed in favor of abstention.
-
Sheet Metal Emp’rs Indus. Promotion Fund, v. Absolute Balancing Co., No. 15-1682 (6th Cir. July 18, 2016)07/18/2016
Appellate court reversed the district court’s denial of cross motions for summary judgment to confirm an arbitral award. In response to a certified question, court held that federal not state law applies to determine whether a party has assented to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, including its arbitration provision.
-
Arriola v. Martinez, Jr., No. 5:15-CV-01097-OLG (W.D. Tex. Jul. 15, 2016)07/15/2016
Court denied defendants’ motions to vacate the arbitration award and granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion seeking the partial confirmation and partial vacatur of the final arbitration award. Court found that (i) defendants failed to allege any corruption, fraud, or other impropriety that touched on the arbitral proceedings; (ii) defendant’s second argument was simply a dispute over a finding of fact reached by the arbitrator, which is not a ground for setting aside an arbitration award; and (iii) the arbitrator’s unwillingness to delay the arbitration to allow the defendant to change counsel was not considered misconduct or misbehavior that prejudiced defendant’s rights.
-
Smart Techs. ULC v. Rapt Touch Ireland Ltd, No. 3:16-CV-03531-VC (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2016)07/15/2016
Court denied plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order where there was no valid reason for a federal court to issue that relief. Court held parties had agreed that the contract in dispute contained an arbitration clause which afforded the plaintiff the right to request emergency relief from an arbitrator as well as the court.
-
Trustees of New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, v. High Performance Floors Inc., 1:15-CV-00781-LGS (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 2016)07/15/2016
Court denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration of prior vacatur of arbitral award. Court held that respondent had not pointed to any previously overlooked controlling decisions or data.
-
Crawford v. Pruitthealth-Peake, LLC, 5:16-CV-00157-CAR (M.D. Ga. July 15, 2016)07/15/2016
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismissed action with prejudice. Court held that the arbitration agreement was enforceable as parties conceded, and plaintiff could not point to any fact or law as to why the case would not be resolved entirely by the agreement.
-
Hale v. Heath, 3:15-CV-01676-LAB-JMA (S.D. Cal. Jul. 15, 2016)07/15/2016
Court preliminarily denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pending jury trial. Court held that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable, but triable issues of fact existed that required a summary trial on the sole issue of whether the parties entered into the arbitration agreement.
-
Benihana, Inc. v. Benihana of Tokyo, LLC, 1:15-CV-07428-PAE (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 2016)07/15/2016
Court denied petitioner’s petition to partially vacate arbitral award, granted respondent’s cross-petition to confirm the award in its entirety, and denied respondent’s motion for sanctions. Court held that the arbitration panel neither exceeded its authority nor deprived petitioner of fundamental fairness and due process, and acted within its broad authority in issuing the award.
-
Union Trustees of W. PA Teamsters. v. Emps. of W. PA Teamsters., 2:16-CV-00084-TFM (W.D. Pa. July 15, 2016)07/15/2016
Court denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment. Court held that where parties’ trust agreement provides for the appointment of an arbitrator, but that the arbitrator may not amend the agreement’s terms, plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration must be denied when relief plaintiff seeks would require an action the arbitrator is not entitled to take.