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.
-
Dr. Robert L. Meinders. D.C. Ltd. v. Unitedhealthcare, Inc., 3:14-CV-00548-DRH-DGW (S.D. Ill. July 15, 2016)07/15/2016
Court granted two defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and to stay litigation as to the remaining non-arbitrating parties pending arbitration. Court held that non-signatory parties to an agreement had assumed material obligations and performed core duties of a signatory party under the agreement, which thereby authorized those non-signatory defendants to enforce the arbitration clause.
-
Brockway Mould, Inc. v. United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Mfg., Energy, Allied Indus. and Serv. Workers Int’l Union on behalf of its Local 71, No. 15-2941 and 15-3542 (3d Cir. July 15, 2016)07/15/2016
Appellate court affirmed district court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion to vacate arbitral award and granting of defendant’s motion to enforce the award. Court held that, regardless of whether the arbitrator’s interpretation of the agreement was correct, plaintiff got what it bargained for—a procedure in which an arbitrator would interpret the agreement.
-
AFSCME Council 25 v. Detroit Med. Ctr., 2:15-CV-12799-AC-DRG (E.D. Mich. July 15, 2016)07/15/2016
Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to enforce arbitral award. Court held that plaintiff cannot rely on the award to obtain its requested relief where defendant was not a party to the arbitration and plaintiff seeks relief not within the confines of the award. Court further held that plaintiff inappropriately seeks enforcement of claims not yet settled by the arbitrator.
-
Trustees of Empire State Carpenters Annuity v. Amendola Contracting, Inc., 2:15-CV-04034-ADS-GRB (E.D.N.Y. July 14, 2016)07/14/2016
Court granted petitioners’ petition to confirm and enforce arbitration award. Court held that, since an unanswered confirmation petition must be treated as a motion for summary judgment based on the movant’s submissions, and no genuine issue of material fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment existed, the arbitrator’s award must be confirmed.
-
Greerwalker, LLP v. Jackson et al., 3:16-CV-00235-GCM (W.D.N.C. July 14, 2016)07/14/2016
Motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin arbitration granted. Court held that, as defendants were not parties to the engagement letter containing the agreement to arbitrate, there was no “clear and unmistakable” indication that the parties agreed that questions of arbitrability would be decided by the arbitrator and not the court. Court further held that plaintiff showed it was likely to succeed on its claim that the dispute between the parties was not arbitrable and that it would cause plaintiff irreparable harm if plaintiff were forced to continue with an arbitration on the merits before the issue of arbitrability was determined.
-
Redeemer Comm. of Highland Credit Strategies Funds v. Highland Capital Mgmt, L.P., No. 1:16-CV-02668 (S.D.N.Y July 13, 2016)07/13/2016
Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award and denied motion to vacate. In confirming the award, Court held that the parties agreed that questions of arbitrability would be committed to the arbitrators, the decision to exclude evidence was within the arbitrators’ discretion, and the petitioners’ request for damages permitted the arbitrators to consider granting interest.
-
Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co. v. City of Fresno, 2:16-CV-00495-JAM-KJN (E.D. Cal. July 13, 2016)07/13/2016
Motion to compel arbitration granted. Court held that, even though defendant was not an official signatory to the policy containing the arbitration agreement, because defendant did not file any opposition to plaintiff’s motion to compel and defendant sought to benefit from the policy, the court can presume that defendant conceded that it is bound by the agreement. Court further held that the arbitration clause clearly encompassed the dispute in this case.
-
Carmax Auto Superstores, Inc. v. Montgomergy Blair Sidley v. Littler Mendelson, P.C., 8:16-CV-01459-RWT (D. Md. July 13, 2016)07/13/2016
Court granted plaintiff until July 25, 2016 to file a Motion for Summary Judgment on defendant’s petition to compel arbitration. Court held that, where a party has unambiguously manifested an intention not to arbitrate, a court may compel arbitration.
-
Sittner v. Country Club, Inc., 4:15-CV-05043-RBH (D.S.C. July 13, 2016)07/13/2016
Motion to stay and compel arbitration granted. Court held that a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement existed and the issues in the case were covered by the arbitration agreement. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that court should defer ruling on the arbitration agreement’s enforceability prior to determining certification of a class and providing notice to all putative class members, finding it irrelevant whether other individuals received notice of plaintiff’s lawsuit and may have valid arguments against arbitrating their claims.
-
SC&H Group, Inc. v. Altus Group U.S., Inc., WMN-16-1037 (D. Md. July 13, 2016)07/13/2016
Motion to dismiss and compel arbitration granted. Court held that the agreement was a transaction involving interstate commerce and, therefore, arbitrability is governed by the FAA. Court further held that the only exclusion to the general arbitration clause involved were disputes regarding certain calculations to the determined by an independent accountant, and that nothing was left to be litigated in court.
-
Riederer v. United Healthcare Serv., Inc., 1:15-CV-01292-WCG (E.D. Wis. July 13, 2016)07/13/2016
Motion to dismiss and compel arbitration of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims denied. Court held that, pursuant to recent Seventh Circuit precedent, an agreement mandating individual arbitration of FLSA claims brought by groups of employees violated the National Labor Relations Act and was also unenforceable under the FAA.
-
Reg’l Local Union No. 846 et al. v. Gulf Coast Rebar, Inc., 3:11-CV-00658-AC (D. Or. July 13, 2016)07/13/2016
Motion to compel arbitration granted and matter remanded to arbitrator. Court held that, where an award needs clarification, the same arbitrator who made the award should provide the needed clarity. Court further held that exceptions to the functus officio doctrine applied so as to allow remand to the arbitrator.
-
Miceli v. Citigroup, Inc., 2:15-CV-01962-GMN-VCF (D. Nev. July 13, 2016)07/13/2016
Motion to dismiss complaint granted. Court held that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the arbitration policy at issue was procedurally or substantively unconscionable and that all of plaintiff’s claims were subject to the arbitration clause.
-
Gorchoff et al. v. Jefferson Capital Sys., LLC, 2:15-CV-09164-DDP-AGR (C.D. Cal. July 13, 2016)07/13/2016
Motion for reconsideration of order granting unopposed motion to compel arbitration denied and matter stayed pending arbitration. Court held that plaintiff had failed to proffer any explanation for its failure to file a timely opposition and that the substantive claims at issue were arbitrable.
-
Eastland Energy, LLC v. Sharpe Energy LLC and Ray Sharpe, 3:15-CV-00595-SMY-SCW (S.D. Ill. July 12, 2016)07/12/2016
Motion to compel arbitration granted and matter stayed pending resolution of arbitration. Court held that, given the breadth of the agreed provision and the federal policy favoring arbitration, all of plaintiff’s claims were subject to arbitration. Court further held that there was no waiver of arbitration by defendants where, upon plaintiff’s filing of the present action, defendants raised the arbitration clause as an affirmative defense.
-
Barclays Capital Inc. v. Ramon Manuel Hache, 1:16-CV-00315-LGS (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2016)07/12/2016
Motion to confirm arbitration award granted. Court held that, as the three month period for raising challenges to the validity of the award had passed and defendant had not raised any legal issue that could deprive the court of the ability to confirm the award, the award must be confirmed. Court further held that, as the agreement giving rise to the underlying arbitration provided that defendant would pay all expenses incurred, plaintiff was entitled to its costs incurred in seeking confirmation of the award.
-
Enkema v. FTI Consulting, Inc., et al., 1:16-CV-01048-JFM (D. Md. July 12, 2016)07/12/2016
Motion to compel arbitration granted. Court held that, as claims did not arise under a section of the contract providing that a party shall not be required to submit certain disputes to arbitration, but otherwise providing for arbitration of any and all disputes, compulsion of arbitration was warranted.
-
Salberg v. Massage Green Int’l Franchise Corp., 3:15-CV-02805-GPC-WVG (S.D. Cal. July 11, 2016)07/11/2016
Motion to compel individual arbitration granted. Court held that the agreement to arbitrate was valid and enforceable under the FAA, that the agreement encompassed all relevant claims, and that the clear language of the agreement expressly forbade class certification, thereby requiring that any issues relating to plaintiff’s employment be decided by individual arbitration.
-
Ault v. Centurylink, 1:15-CV-00002-TS (D. Utah July 11, 2016)07/11/2016
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration of defendant’s counterclaims. Court held that, by pursuing substantial litigation of claims that were subject to arbitration, plaintiff waived its right to enforce the arbitration provisions against defendant’s counterclaims arising out of the agreement.
-
Mitsubishi Elec. Corp. v. Westcode, Inc., 3:15-CV-00505-MAD-DEP (N.D.N.Y. July 11, 2016)07/11/2016
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration of defendant’s counterclaims. Court held that, by pursuing substantial litigation of claims that were subject to arbitration, plaintiff waived its right to enforce the arbitration provisions against defendant’s counterclaims arising out of the agreement.
-
Leonard v. Del. North Cos. Sport Serv., Inc., 4:15-CV-01356-CDP (E.D. Mo. July 11, 2016)07/11/2016
Motion to enforce arbitration agreement and dismiss case granted. Court held that plaintiff had not demonstrated unconscionability sufficient to overcome the FAA’s strong policy favoring arbitration or the clear intention of the parties expressed in their arbitration agreement. Court additionally held that the arbitration agreement was sufficiently broad to encompass plaintiff’s claim of fraud.
-
CNG Fin. Corp. v. Davis, 1:16-CV-00297-SSB-SKB (S.D. Ohio July 11, 2016)07/11/2016
Motion granted to dismiss complaint seeking confirmation of arbitral award and injunctive relief precluding defendant from filing future potential claims. Court held that plaintiff had not properly pled a basis for the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, as federal courts are not authorized to issue rulings about claims that are not before it.
-
Chu v. Chinese-American Planning Council Home Attendant Program, Inc., 1:16-CV-03569-KBF (S.D.N.Y. July 11, 2016)07/11/2016
Motion to compel arbitration denied. The Court held that, as it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action, it was required to remand the action to state court, thereby rendering moot defendant’s motion.
-
Westcode, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Elec. Corp., No. 3:15-CV-01474-MAD-DEP (N.D.N.Y. July 11, 2016)07/11/2016
Motion to compel arbitration denied. Court held that, while the time elapsed prior to defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, standing alone, was not so egregious in length, defendant nevertheless waived its right to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s claims by pursuing substantial and continued in-court litigation.
-
Univ. of Chicago Med. Ctr. v. Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 743, 1:15-CV-08765 (N.D. Ill. July 11, 2016)07/11/2016
Motion seeking vacatur of arbitration award denied. Court held that, given the arbitrator’s factual findings, and the narrow scope of the public policy exception, the award could not be vacated on public policy grounds.
-
East Mountain Energy, LLC v. United Mine Workers of America, Local Union 1769, 2:16-CV-00018-DAK (D. Utah July 11, 2016)07/11/2016
Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and compel arbitration denied. Court held that, as the parties did not clearly and unmistakably agree to arbitrate the question of arbitrability, the question of arbitrability as it pertains to the agreement must be decided by the court. Court further decided that the dispute at issue was not within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
-
Leonard v. Delaware North Cos. Sport Serv., Inc., 4:15-CV-01356-CDP (E.D. Mo. July 11, 2016)07/11/2016
Motion to compel arbitration granted. Court held that plaintiff had not demonstrated unconscionability sufficient to overcome the FAA’s policy favoring arbitration and there was valid consideration for the agreement to arbitrate. Court further held that all disputed claims are encompassed by that agreement to arbitrate.
-
Williams v. Home Depot USA, Inc., No.3:15-CV-3655-L (N.D. Tex. July 8, 2016)07/08/2016
Motion granted to compel arbitration. Court held the claims were subject to arbitration; that the defendant did not waive enforcement of the arbitration clause; and that while mediation may have been a condition precedent to arbitration, the effect of not going to mediation is a decision left for the arbitrator to decide.
-
Tassy v. Lindsay Entm’t Enter., Inc., 3:16-CV-00077-TBR (W.D. Ky. July 8, 2016)07/08/2016
Evidentiary hearing ordered prior to deciding upon defendant’s motion to stay pending arbitration. Court held that there was a triable issue of fact concerning the formation of the agreement.
-
Himark Biogas, Inc. v. Western Plains Energy LLC, 6:14-CV-01070-SAC-KGS (D. Kan. July 8, 2016)07/08/2016
Defendant’s motion for entry of final judgment denied. Court held that, while its confirmation order of the arbitration award constituted a final judgment as to all claims presented and decided in the arbitration proceedings, there were patent claims related to the claims arbitrated and to the scope of the arbitration proceedings and whose relationship to those proceedings remains unsettled.
-
Cullinane v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 1:14-CV-14750-DPW (D. Mass. July 8, 2016)07/08/2016
Motion to compel arbitration granted and case dismissed. Court held that plaintiffs were put on reasonable notice that signing up to use Uber would bind them to contract terms providing for arbitration. Having concluded that arbitration is not an illusory remedy for the plaintiffs in this case, court left all other issues to the arbitrator to decide.
-
Berger v. Accounting Fulfillment Services, LLC, No. 8:16-CV-00744-JSM-JSS (M.D. Fla. July 8, 2016)07/08/2016
Motion to compel arbitration and dismiss action granted in part and denied in part. Court held that since the parties’ agreement incorporated the AAA Rules the question of arbitrability is delegated to the arbitrator, but arbitration could not be compelled in relation to any claims accruing prior to the execution of the parties’ arbitration agreements. Court dismissed plaintiffs’ defense that certain defendants had not signed the arbitration agreement on the ground of equitable estoppel, finding that plaintiffs allege “substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct by both the nonsignatory and one or more of the signatories to the contract.” Court also held that provision requiring plaintiffs to cover their own attorney’s fees, even if they ultimately prevailed, is substantively unconscionable and thus unenforceable as applied to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
-
Dynamic International Airways, LLC v. Air India Limited, No. 1:15-CV-07054-PKC (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2016)07/08/2016
Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in India granted; plaintiff’s cross-motion to compel arbitration in New York and to enjoin defendant from proceeding with arbitration in India denied and action stayed pending the India arbitration. Court found that New York contract law, rather than India law, applies to the question of whether the two arbitration agreements the parties rely on are enforceable. Court held that the letter relied on by plaintiff for arbitration in New York was not an enforceable arbitration agreement since it failed to state any material terms of the arbitration, such as the location, forum and rules of the arbitration; whereas the arbitration clause relied on by the defendant for arbitration in India was valid and enforceable since, even though it does not explicitly use the words “arbitration” or “arbitrator,” it contains an unambiguous agreement to settle a controversy. Plaintiff’s allegation that arbitrator was not impartial was not a prima facie cause to enjoin the arbitration and instead could be raised on a motion to vacate the arbitration award.
-
Varela v. Lamps Plus, Inc., No. 5:16-CV-00577-DMG-KS (C.D. Cal. Jul. 7, 2016)07/07/2016
District court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed claims without prejudice. Having found that plaintiff’s claims were within the broad scope of the arbitration agreement, court declined to find arbitration agreement invalid, ruling that the level of procedural unconscionability was minimal and the arbitration agreement was not substantively unconscionable. Court further found that a class-wide arbitration was permissible, and denied motion for limited discovery on arbitration-related issues.
-
Ranier DSC 1, L.L.C. v. Ranier Capital Mgmt., L.P. (I), No. 15-20375 (5th Cir. July 7, 2016)07/07/2016
Circuit court affirmed district court’s denial of a motion to stay litigation pending arbitration since plaintiffs’ initial brief failed to address the distinction between signatories and non-signatories to an arbitration agreement. Court held that where parties to litigation include both signatories and non-signatories to an arbitration agreement, stay of non-signatories’ litigation under § 3 of the FAA is subject to the district court’s discretion and only warranted if: (1) the arbitrated and litigated disputes involve the same operative facts; (2) the claims asserted in the arbitration and litigation are “inherently inseparable”; and (3) the litigation has a “critical impact” on the arbitration.
-
Emilio v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 1:11-CV-03041-JPO-KNF (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2016)07/07/2016
Motion to dismiss amended complaint denied. Court held that plaintiff was entitled to equitable tolling given that he proceeded in court only after initiating arbitration under a provision that was not only mandatory, but also penalized plaintiff if he filed in federal court solely to seek a stay, and therefore his claims were timely.
-
Bordelon Marine, LLC v. Bibby Subsea ROV, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-01106-LMA-DEK (W.D. La. July 7, 2016)07/07/2016
Plaintiff’s motion to re-open and enforce method for appointment of arbitrators denied and defendant’s motion to compel arbitration granted. Since the parties had deadlocked regarding the selection of arbitrators, the court may intervene pursuant to 9 USC § 4 and decide defendant’s challenge to the arbitrator appointment. In doing so, court held that defendant was unambiguously authorized under the parties’ contract to appoint both the first and the second arbitrator since plaintiff failed to appoint an arbitrator within the contractually agreed time period. An order compelling arbitration under 9 USC § 4 is warranted since, by refusing to recognize the properly appointed arbitration panel, plaintiff had refused to arbitrate.
-
Blackman & Co., Inc. v. GE Bus. Fin. Serv., Inc. and Riverwinds Urban Renewal, LLC, No. 1:15-CV-07274-NLH-JS (D.N.J. July 7, 2016)07/07/2016
Court held that the claims at issue were nonarbitrable because they dealt with post-construction defects, whereas the contract’s dispute resolution procedures, including arbitration, solely concerned claims arising during the construction process, and the contract’s language did not clearly and unmistakably establish a waiver of the complainant’s right to a jury trial under New Jersey law.
-
Moule v. United Parcel Serv. Co., No. 1:16-CV-00102-JLT (E.D. Cal. July 7, 2016)07/07/2016
Motion to compel arbitration granted and action stayed pending arbitration. Court held that the parties validly consented to arbitration, and the provisions of the agreement regarding claims subject to arbitration, taken as a whole, were neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable. Court also held that the issue in dispute was encompassed within the arbitration provision.
-
Bowers v. Northern Two Cayes Company Limited, No. 1:15-CV-00029-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C. July 7, 2016)07/07/2016
Arbitrator’s order for interim measures confirmed and motion to confirm arbitrator’s opinion that the arbitration is binding denied. Court held that arbitrator did not act in manifest disregard of the law simply because his order of interim injunctive relief under AAA Rule 37 failed to state the legal standard on which it was based. Since arbitrator’s opinion that the arbitration is binding was stated in an email communication to the parties, and not in a formal order or award, there was nothing for the court to confirm.
-
Salameno v. Gogo Inc., 1:16-CV-00487-JBW-ST (E.D.N.Y. July 7, 2016)07/07/2016
Motion to compel arbitration granted. Court held arbitration clause in defendant’s terms of use for internet access services was binding on sophisticated plaintiffs, who are assumed to have consented to defendant’s arbitration clause by repeatedly purchasing and using defendant’s online product; the dispute is within the scope of the broad arbitration clause; and plaintiffs have not asserted any federal claims which the statute made nonarbitrable.
-
Rainier DSC 1, L.L.C. v. Rainier Capital Mg, No. 15-20383 (5th Cir. July 7, 2016)07/07/2016
District court’s confirmation of arbitration award affirmed as plaintiffs failed to identify a basis for vacating the award under 9 USC § 10(a)(3). Court held that the fact that the arbitrator and the district court reached the same result regarding the merits of the plaintiffs’ claim is not evidence of the arbitrator’s improper bias; the arbitrator did not refuse to hear material evidence, did not otherwise engage in “misconduct,” and did not deprive the plaintiffs of a fair hearing.
-
Rainier DSC 1, L.L.C. v. Rainier Capital Mg, No. 15-20375 (5th Cir. July 7, 2016)07/07/2016
District court’s decision to deny motion to stay litigation relating to non-arbitrating co-defendants pending arbitration affirmed. A stay under 9 USC § 3 is subject to court discretion and is only warranted if (1) the arbitrated and litigated disputes involve the same operative facts, (2) the claims asserted in the arbitration and litigation were “inherently inseparable,” and (3) the litigation had a “critical impact” on the arbitration. Court held the non-arbitrating co-defendants had failed to establish these elements or that the district court abused its discretion.
-
Vane Line Bunkering, Inc. v. Hooper, No. 1:16-MC-23148-FAM (S.D. Fla. July 6, 2016)07/06/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that (1) contract to provide benefits to injured seaman does not fall within the “contracts of employment of seamen” exception to the FAA; (2) federal law relating to seamen does not incorporate FELA venue provisions; and (3) arguments regarding the validity of the contract were to be resolved in in the arbitration.
-
Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 of the United Ass’n of Journeymen, et al. v. Aleut Facilities Support Serv., LLC, 1:15-CV-01710-LO-MSN (E.D. Va. July 6, 2016)07/06/2016
Motion for summary judgment to enforce grievance committee decision granted. Court held that the parties only intended that a dispute be subject to arbitration under two specific circumstances, as provided for in their agreement, and otherwise disputes would be addressed by the grievance procedure found therein. Court further held that the grievance procedure was final and binding on the parties, as was the grievance committee’s decision.
-
Farley v. Eaton Incorporated, No. 1:16-CV-00690-PAG (N.D. Ohio July 6, 2016)07/06/2016
Motion to vacate arbitration award under 9 USC § 10(a)(4) for excess of powers denied and motion for confirmation of award and entry of final judgment thereon granted. Court held that an arbitrator’s contract interpretation is entitled to great deference, and petitioner failed to demonstrate that the arbitrator exceeded his powers by rejecting the petitioner’s reading of the contract. Court emphasized that a party may not re-litigate issues resolved in arbitration under the guise of a motion to vacate.
-
Phillip Ngheim v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc., No. 8:16-CV-00097-CJC-DFM (C.D. Cal. July 5, 2016)07/05/2016
Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that user of automated telephone service had no actual or constructive knowledge of arbitration agreement in terms of use posted the service provider’s website.
-
HSGCHG Investments, LLC v. Time Warner Cable Enterprises LLC, No. 4:15-CV-04401-RBH (D.S.C. July 5, 2016)07/05/2016
Motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint and to compel arbitration granted. Court held that the parties clearly and unmistakably agreed to arbitrate arbitrability and therefore whether the dispute is arbitrable is for the arbitrator, not the court, to decide. Whether sections within the parties’ contract other than the arbitration agreement are unconscionable is also for the arbitrator to decide.
-
Christina Bazemore v. Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC, No. 3:14-CV-00115-DHB-BKE (11th Cir. July 5, 2016)07/05/2016
District court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings affirmed as a matter of law. Court held that defendant failed to prove under the applicable state contract law that plaintiff in fact entered into an arbitration agreement when applying for a credit card with defendant’s predecessor-in-interest.
-
Wells Fargo Advisors, L.L.C. v. Tucker, No. 15-CV-07722-VEC (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2016)07/01/2016
Petition to dismiss or stay pending class arbitration and compel individual arbitration denied. Court held that it is for the arbitrator, not the court, to determine whether, under the terms of the arbitration clause, respondents are entitled to arbitrate on a collective or class-wide basis.