2016-2025 Arbitration Decisions

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.

• Multilateral Partners Fort Myers Beach Income, L.P. v. Independent Specialty Insurance Company, 2:25-CV-00042-JES-KCD (M.D. Fla. Feb. 4, 2025)

  02/04/2025

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the New York Convention, to which plaintiff did not respond.  Court found that there was a valid commercial agreement in writing to arbitrate requiring arbitration in the United States, and at least one defendant was a foreign citizen.  Court stayed the proceedings pending the conclusion of arbitral proceedings. 

• Foundation Church Inc. v. Independent Specialty Insurance Company, No. 23-CV-02847-CEH-J_S (M.D. Fla. Apr. 11, 2024)

  04/11/2024

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay the case pending arbitration where the parties’ insurance contract contained an arbitration clause, and the four jurisdictional factors were satisfied under the New York Convention.

• Supercooler Technologies, Inc. v. The Coca-Cola Company, No. 6:23-CV-00187-CEM-RMN (M.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2023)

  10/27/2023

  Magistrate judge recommended the court grant in part defendants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Magistrate judge found respondent did not establish clear and unmistakable evidence of the parties’ intent to delegate the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator, because even though the AAA rules were incorporated by reference, there was a further carve-out provision in the agreement.  Magistrate judge determined that some the plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement while others did not and recommended staying the case pending arbitration.

• Terris v. Sprint Corporation, 8:23-CV-01033-WFJ-AAS (M.D. Fla. Sep. 11, 2023)

  09/11/2023

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that it had waived its arbitration rights by demonstrating a clear intent to litigate prior to asserting any arbitration rights.  Court acknowledged that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., cast doubt on the import of prejudice in the Eleventh Circuit’s test for waiver of arbitration rights, but nonetheless found that plaintiff was prejudiced by defendant’s belated assertion of arbitration rights.

• United States v. Water Quality Insurance Syndicate, No. 8:22-CV-02158-TBP-CPT (M.D. Fla. Aug. 31, 2023)

  08/31/2023

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the New York Convention, finding the non-signatory defendant was a party to an arbitration agreement through the “direct benefits estoppel” theory.  Defendant sought payment and indemnity under the contract containing an arbitration agreement between the vessel operator and insurer, thus embracing the contract, and consenting to arbitration.  Considering the binding arbitration agreement, court denied third party defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding it more appropriate to stay the proceedings pending arbitration.

• DAK Property Holdings, Inc. v. Independent Specialty Insurance Company, No. 2:23-CV-00497-SPC-KCD (M.D. Fla. Aug. 8, 2023)

  08/08/2023

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the New York Convention, finding plaintiff had not shown the parties’ agreement was null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed.  Court further stayed the proceedings pending arbitration.

• T.T. International Co., LTD. v. BMP International, Inc., No. 22-CV-01876-WFJ-JSS (M.D. Fla. May 15, 2023

  05/15/2023

  Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration, finding that defendants waived any right to arbitration that they might have had under the agreement at issue by waiting until judgment had been entered in a related action and participating in three years of litigation prior to seeking to compel arbitration.

• The Pointe on Westshore, LLC v. Certain Underwriters of Lloyd’s London, No. 22-CV-02478-KKM-SPF (M.D. Fla. Apr. 27, 2023)

  04/27/2023

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the requirements of the New York Convention were satisfied and that service-of-suit clause amendments did not repeal the arbitration agreement between the parties.  Court also held that plaintiff’s request for preliminary relief prohibiting defendants from appointing arbitrator was not before the court because plaintiff never moved for a preliminary injunction, and even if it was, the court would deny it because plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on the merits. 

• America Steel Trade Corporation v. Metalhouse, LLC, No. 6:22-CV-00915-RBD-EJK (M.D. Fla. Nov. 17, 2022)

  12/07/2022

  Court found that default judgment is proper where defendant was properly served at its principal place of business and defendant failed to show any reason under Article V of the NY Convention that could overcome the presumption of confirmation.

• Warrington v. Rocky Patel Premium Cigars, Inc., No. 22-CV-00077-JES-KCD (M.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2022)

  08/01/2022

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that defendants had waived their right to arbitrate by filing a state action, thereby seeking to avail themselves of the litigation machinery instead of arbitration.

• Full Moon Logistics v. Bald Eagle Logistics, Inc., No. 8:21-CV-02695-WFJ-AAS (M.D. Fla. Feb. 16, 2022)

  02/16/2022

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties and plaintiffs did not demonstrate procedural and substantive unconscionability.

• Ullrich v. Ullrich, No. 3:21-CV-00147-TJC-PDB (M.D. Fla. Sept. 3, 2021)

  09/03/2021

  Court denied in part and granted in part a motion to compel arbitration between parties subject to different arbitration agreements.  Court’s decision turned on whether the parties had “clear and unmistakable evidence of the parties” intent to submit questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator. 

• Johnson v. Westlake Portfolio Management, LLC, No. 8:20-CV-00749-SCB (M.D. Fla. Sept. 15, 2020)

  09/15/2020

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of consumer debt claims.  Court held that plaintiff, who was a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, was not equitably estopped from avoiding the arbitration agreement because its claims fell outside the contract containing the arbitration agreement.

• Nuvasive, Inc. v. Absolute Medical, LLC, No. 6:17-CV-2206-CEM-GJK (M.D. Fla. May 31, 2019)

  05/31/2019

  Plaintiff brought claims against a corporate defendant for breach of a sales agreement, and against owners of the corporate defendant for breach of their employment agreements. Plaintiff also sought to impose liability an owner for corporate defendant’s breaches. Court granted motion to compel arbitration in part, finding that plaintiff’s claim against corporate defendant fell within arbitration clause in sales agreement. Court did not grant motion to compel arbitration of claims against owners, who were not party to sales agreement. Court however stayed pending arbitration plaintiff’s attempt to hold an owner personally responsible for corporate defendant’s breaches since it was premised on the same factual allegations as the arbitrable claim.

• Fialek v. I.C. Systems, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-00136-BJD-MCR (M.D. Fla. Mar. 14, 2019)

  03/14/2019

  Court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation granting defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action pending arbitration, finding no plain error in the magistrate judge’s report.

• Vieczorek v. Khorrami, No. 3:17-CV-01118-TJC-JBT (M.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2019) 

  03/07/2019

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that defendants had waived their right to arbitration by litigating the case for six months of “tortured motion practice” and that granting the motion would prejudice the plaintiffs. 

• Mutka v. Top Hat Imports, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-00539-SPC-MRM (M.D. Fla. Mar. 4, 2019)

  03/04/2019

  Magistrate judge issued recommendation that court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case.  Plaintiff argued that that the defendant was not a party to the arbitration agreement signed between himself and his employer, a car dealership, and thus defendant could not enforce it.  Magistrate judge found that while the term “dealership” was not defined in the agreement, extrinsic evidence resolved that ambiguity and showed that defendant was a party to the agreement. 

• Sterling Equipment, Inc. v. St. John’s Ship Building, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-00504-MMH-MCR (M.D. Fla. Feb. 19, 2019)

  02/19/2019

  Court adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and granted in part and denied in part petitioner’s motion for default judgment and confirmation of arbitration award.  Magistrate judge concluded that respondent failed to respond to the instant motion, the time for filing a response had long passed, and it did not appear that the award had been or should be vacated, modified, or corrected.  However, post-judgment interest should be from the date of entry of the judgment rather than from the date of the award as the arbitrator concluded.

• Mahoney v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 8:19-CV-00118-WFJ-SPF (M.D. Fla. Feb. 13, 2019)

  02/13/2019

  Court denied motion to refer matter to arbitration and stay proceedings, reasoning that defendant had failed to show that a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement could be compelled to arbitrate.

• Schuster v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 8:18-CV-02389-MSS-JSS (M.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2019)

  02/07/2019

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court held that because the parties’ arbitration agreement clearly delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, it was for the arbitrator to consider the plaintiff’s argument that the dispute fell outside the scope of that agreement.

• Temple v. Best Rate Holdings LLC, No. 8:18-CV-00176-CEH-JSS (M.D. Fla. Dec. 27, 2018)

  12/27/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court declined to defer to the arbitrator on the question of arbitrability, holding that because the agreement was narrow, its reference to AAA rules did not constitute an unambiguous intent of the parties for such judicial deference. Court nevertheless held that the arbitration agreement was enforceable and applicable to the scope of the parties’ dispute. Finally, court held that non-signatory defendant could likewise enforce the arbitration agreement based on a theory of estoppel.

• AMC Pinnacle Inc. v. Jeunesse, LLC, No: 6:18-CV-1102-Orl-40DCI (M.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2018)

  11/30/2018

  Court denied defendant’s motion for preliminary injunction, notwithstanding a finding that incorporating AAA rules into a contract created a valid delegation clause, on grounds that the arbitration provision did not allow defendants to bypass arbitration altogether by seeking injunction.   The contract, requiring all disputes to be submitted to arbitration except that a party may apply to the court for preliminary injunction to “protect its interest prior to, during or following the filing of any arbitration,” did not mean defendant could seek injunctive relief to protect its “interest in accessing the courts” as such an interpretation would render the arbitration provision meaningless.

• Donaldson v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC No. 2:18-CV-00530-UA-UAM (M.D. Fla. Nov. 27, 2018) 

  11/27/2018

  Court recommended granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and that the entire case be stayed under 9 USC § 3 pending completion of arbitration.  Court found that a valid arbitration agreement as well as arbitrable issues existed and that defendant did not waive the right to arbitration. 

• Reinhart v. Asset Managing Group, Inc, No. 3:16-CV-00439-BJD-MCR (M.D. Fla. Nov. 19, 2018)

  11/19/2018

  Magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation to grant in part and deny without prejudice in part plaintiff’s motion for confirmation of an arbitration award, finding that there was no apparent reason why the award should be vacated, modified or corrected.  Magistrate Judge noted that although the arbitrator found plaintiffs to be entitled to their “reasonable costs,” neither the basis for awarding costs nor the amount of such costs were presented to the court and as result denied this specific request for reasonable costs without prejudice.

• Cuevas v. Verizon Wireless Personal Communications, LLP, No. 2:18-CV-00371-UA-CM (M.D. Fla. Nov. 16, 2018) 

  11/16/2018

  Court granted motion for reconsideration of a previously denied motion to compel arbitration and upon reconsideration again denied motion to compel arbitration.  Court considered defendant’s new basis for enforcing arbitration – a provision that required the parties to resolve disputes by “arbitration, small claims court, or any other means not including jury trials” – and found that, construing ambiguous language against the drafter, this did not require mandatory arbitration.

• Agostino v. Ally Financial Inc., No. 8:18-CV-01202-CEH-TGW (M.D. Fla. Nov. 16, 2018)

  11/16/2018

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration without prejudice, finding that defendant failed to discharge its burden of proof by failing to provide copies of the agreement to arbitrate and assignment, but that due to federal policy in favor or arbitration, denial would be without prejudice so that defendant could refile.

• Tuttle v. Credit Acceptance Corporation, No. 8:18-CV-02181-SDM-JSS (M.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2018)

  10/31/2018

  Magistrate judge recommended defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss the case or, in the alternative, to stay all proceedings be granted, finding that the parties entered into a valid written agreement to arbitrate, which clearly encompassed all of the claims in this matter.

• Hauser v. Westlake Services, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-00143-BJD-JRK (M.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2018)

  10/31/2018

  Magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation to grant the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay action, finding defendant did not waive arbitration because its conduct did not amount to substantial participation in litigation and defendant’s participation in mediation was not inconsistent with intent to arbitrate.

• Diamond Resorts U.S. Collection Development, LLC v. Johnson, No. 6:18-CV-00090-RBD-TBS (M.D. Fla. Oct. 17, 2018)

  10/17/2018

  Court granted petitioners’ motion to strike respondent’s affirmative defense asserting that the arbitration award should be vacated since the respondent failed to assert a recognized basis for vacatur. Court held that as the arbitration award was not yet confirmed, the respondent’s attempt to seek an offset in the amount was premature and permitted the respondent to petition the court for post-judgment relief if the court should confirm the award.

• CJ’s Sales and Service of Ocala, Inc. v. Howard, No. 5:18-CV-00194-JSM-PRL (M.D. Fla. Oct. 10, 2018)

  10/10/2018

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration, concluding there was no clear, explicit and unequivocal language in the contract evidencing an agreement to arbitrate and there was no meeting of the minds to form an arbitration agreement.

• Dickens v. GC Services Limited Partnership, No. (M.D. Fla. Oct. 2, 2018)

  10/02/2018

  Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.  Court stated that it was wholly unpersuaded by the request given defendant’s active involvement in the litigation.

• DIAS Analytic Corporation v. Soex (Hong Kong) Industry & Investment Co. Ltd., No. 8:18-CV-01458-WFJ-TGW (M.D. Fla. Sept. 26, 2018)

  09/26/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings pursuant to the terms of the applicable contract, finding that the dispute resolution provisions of an employment agreement were irrelevant given that the employee was not a party to the dispute.

• Color Events, BV v. Multi-Talent Agency, Inc., No. 6:18-CV-00648-RBD-DCI (M.D. Fla. Sept. 17, 2018)

  09/17/2018

  Court adopted and confirmed the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to grant petitioner’s motion for final default judgment to confirm an ICDR award.  Magistrate judge found that (i) the well-pled allegations of the petition, the attached documents, and the affidavit in support of the motion adequately establish the basis for a default judgment; (ii) the court had jurisdiction under the FAA; and (iii) venue was properly served.

• Joy  v. Onemain Financial Services, Inc., No. 8:18-CV-01428-VMC-JSS (M.D. Fla. Sept. 14, 2018)

  09/14/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the claims fell outside the scope of the arbitration clause, and found that the agreement delegated questions as to the scope of the arbitration clause to the arbitrator.

• Bettin’ on Blue Farms, LLC v. Dole Berry Company, No. 8:18-CV-00755-SDM-JSS (M.D. Fla. Aug. 14, 2018)

  08/14/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that the parties included in the agreement two provisions that delegated to the arbitrator the power to resolve a dispute about arbitrability.

• Conklin v. Onebeacon America Insurance Company No. 6:18-CV-00636-PGB-TBS (M.D. Fla. Aug. 2, 2018)

  08/02/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration ordering the parties shall proceed to arbitration in accordance with the terms of their arbitration agreement.

• Triangle River, LLC v. Caroline Square Realty, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-01078-TJC-MCR (M.D. Fla. July 19, 2018)

  07/19/2018

  Magistrate judge recommended that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration be granted pursuant to the FAA, concluding a valid agreement to arbitrate existed, plaintiff’s claim fell within the scope of the agreement, and plaintiff did not demonstrate that the right to arbitration had been waived. Court recommended the action be stayed pending arbitration and that the parties submit periodic reports on the status of arbitration.

• Garcia Saz v. Church of Scientology Religious Trust, No. 8:13-CV-00220-JDW-TBM (M.D. Fla. July 17, 2018)

  07/17/2018

  Court denied motion to vacate arbitration award in ecclesiastical arbitration conducted pursuant to Church of Scientology ethics and justice policies. Plaintiff alleged the arbitrators exhibited partiality towards the Church, and engaged in misconduct by: refusing to hear evidence, refusing to consider fraud claims, allowing the Church to have ex parte conduct with the panel, refusing to allow plaintiff’s counsel to attend the arbitration, and failing to provide sufficient findings for the court to review. Finding that heightened deference must be given to a religious arbitration, court held none of the four grounds for vacatur under the FAA were met.

• Sorensen Companies, Inc. v. B.J. Burns Incorporated, No. 3:17-CV-01095-MMH-JRK (M.D. Fla. June 19, 2018)

  06/19/2018

  Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award on the basis of a magistrate judge’s report, finding that award was valid and that petitioner’s application for its confirmation was timely.

• Giraud v. Woof Gang Bakery, Inc., No. 8:17-CV-02442-RAL-AEP (M.D. Fla. May 3, 2018)

  05/03/2018

  Court adopted the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that (i) plaintiffs failed to show why prejudice would result from compelling the arbitral claims of the designated four plaintiffs; (ii) the arbitration agreement covered any controversy over the construction or application of the agreement even though it did not include the language “arising out of”; and (iii) nothing indicated that the agreement was unconscionable.

• McCurdy v. Virginia College, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00562-TJC-JBT (M.D. Fla. Apr. 19, 2018)

  04/19/2018

  Court adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge to deny plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitration award.  Magistrate judge found that (i) the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law by ignoring the enrollment and tuition agreement between the parties, having noted in the award that the agreement was offered as an exhibit; (ii) the arbitrator did not erroneously apply Florida law rather than Alabama law, as the arbitrator analyzed the claim under both and found it deficient under both; (iii) § 10(a)(3) of the FAA does not warrant vacatur where the arbitrator merely made an erroneous discovery or evidentiary ruling, and plaintiff failed to show any bad faith or affirmative conduct that would have deprived her of a fundamentally fair proceeding.

• Aralar v. Scott McRae Automotive Group, LLLP, No. 3:16-CV-00146-TJC-JBT (M.D. Fla. Apr. 17, 2018)

  04/17/2018

  Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitration award.  Court explained that the previously recognized non-statutory grounds for vacatur are no longer viable, and the court’s authority to vacate an arbitration decision is narrowly limited to the four circumstances outlined in the FAA.  Court concluded that the arbitrator’s decision did not contravene any of the FAA’s enumerated vacatur justifications, and therefore the court could not disturb it.

• Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated v. Middleton, No. 3:17-CV-01259-HES-JRK (M.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2018)

  02/07/2018

  Court granted defendants’ motion to stay proceedings and compel FINRA arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Plaintiff had brought an action to enjoin defendant, a previous employee from arbitrating claims that his portfolio had been devalued through fraud, but the court found that the dispute was within arbitration provisions in both the employee agreement and the customer agreement.

• Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC v. Abel, No. 3:18-CV-00141-MMH-MCR (M.D. Fla. Feb. 5, 2018)

  02/05/2018

  Court granted emergency motion to stay proceedings pending FINRA arbitration, agreeing to extent a temporary restraining order until the hearing commenced.

• Freeman v. Smartpay Leasing, LLC, No. 6:17-CV-00938-GAP-GJK (M.D. Fla. Jan. 18, 2018)

  01/18/2018

  Court granted motion to vacate order compelling arbitration, finding that company who refused to pay filing fee as required under the consumer arbitration procedures of JAMS – a forum expressly designated as acceptable in the agreement drafted by the company – waived its right to rely on the arbitration clause.

• Spinner v. Credit One Bank, N.A., No. 6:17-CV-00340-RBD-TBS (M.D. Fla. Dec. 29, 2017)

  12/29/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, denying plaintiff’s argument that defendant had waived right to arbitrate by participating in litigation.

• Steel, LLC v. Sauer Group, Inc., No. 6:17-CV-01812-KRS (M.D. Fla. Dec. 28, 2017)

  12/28/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the claim. Court denied plaintiff’s arguments that certain claims were not the type which plaintiff agreed to arbitrate because any potential damages may actually be the responsibility of a third party. Court determined that this question was one of arbitrability and had been delegated to the arbitrators under the agreement.

• Ray v. NPRTO Florida, LLC, No. 5:17-CV-00415-JSM-PRL (M.D. Fla. Dec. 18, 2017)

  12/18/2017

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration against non-signatory third party. Court reasoned that where the third party had accepted a benefit under an agreement but was not basing any claims on that agreement, that party could not be bound by its arbitration provisions.

• Patientpoint Royalty Holdings, Inc. v. Healthgrid Coordinated Care Solutions, Inc., No. 6:17-CV-01051-GAP-DCI (M.D. Fla. Nov. 3, 2017)

  11/03/2017

  Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to compel arbitration.  Court found that, while there was a valid arbitration clause between the parties, it was a narrow provision that did not cover the issues disputed in this case.

• Nelson  v. Synchrony Bank, No. 2:16-CV-00703-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla. Oct. 20, 2017)

  10/20/2017

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff had waived its right to arbitrate by waiting to file its motion for over a year and substantively participating in litigation during the interim, both factors that prejudiced the plaintiff.