A collection of the most recent US international arbitration decisions is available here. Decisions can be quickly retrieved by using the filter tools below.
-
Agrasanchez v. Agrasanchez, No. 23-55110 (9th Cir. July 12, 2024)07/12/2024
Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s order denying petitioners’ motion to vacate an arbitration award due to fraud. To vacate an arbitration award pursuant to the FAA, the fraud must “not be discoverable by due diligence before or during the [arbitration] proceeding.” Here, petitioners did not act with diligence in taking six years to investigate a document they suspected to be fraudulent. Additionally, court of appeals found the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to alter or amend the judgment, as petitioners failed to demonstrate the alleged fraud could not have been discovered through reasonable diligence prior to or during the arbitration hearing.
-
Adk Plaza-Centrum, LLC v. Independent Specialty Insurance Company, No. 3:23-CV-01405-SDD-EWD (M.D. La. July 11, 2024)07/11/2024
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration against plaintiffs, finding that all four requirements for enforcing an arbitration clause under the New York Convention are met: (1) there is a written arbitration agreement, (2) the agreement provides for arbitration in New York and the United States is a New York Convention signatory, (3) the agreement arises out of a commercial relationship between the parties, and (4) two of the defendants are not American citizens. Court acknowledged that the plaintiffs maintained separate contracts with the foreign and domestic insurers, but where the operative policy language across contracts was nearly identical, the court found that equitable estoppel applied and required the court to compel arbitration.
-
Beijing Dayou Dingxin Investment Management Partnership, L.P. v. Wang, No. 1:24-CV-00137-CEF (N.D. Ohio July 9, 2024)07/09/2024
Court granted an automatic stay for one of the two respondents, holding an automatic stay issued in connection with Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings only extends to non-debtors in “unusual circumstances” and no evidence supporting an exception for the second respondent was present here. Court further rejected second respondent’s argument that the arbitration enforcement petition was premature because of pending Chinese proceedings where the second respondent could not present any compelling evidence of ongoing proceedings in China.
-
Wallrich v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 23-2842 (7th Cir. July 1, 2024)07/01/2024
Court of appeals denied appellants’ motion to compel arbitration because consumers failed to show an arbitration agreement existed. To show an arbitration agreement existed, consumers only needed to show they were Samsung customers. Evidence of an AAA request for arbitration, spreadsheet with names and address, copies of Samsung’s terms and conditions, and the AAA’s determination that filing requirements had been met were insufficient proof of the parties’ arbitration agreement. Additionally, court of appeals denied request to compel appellees to pay the AAA’s administrative fees, finding that because there was no arbitration agreement, the AAA’s rules and procedures which granted the tribunal discretion in resolving fee disputes were irrelevant. Moreover, even where the parties agreed to abide by the rules of the AAA, the AAA has exclusive discretion over its fee disputes.
-
Global Industrial Investment Ltd v. 1955 Capital China Fund GP LLC, No. 23-2662 (9th Cir. July 1, 2024)07/01/2024
Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s order confirming the arbitration award, finding that the court is to defer to the arbitrator except for “the most limited circumstances.” Here, the arbitrator conducted a careful review of the agreement and spent several pages reasoning whether he had authority to dissolve the funds under Delaware law and the doctrine of equitable dissolution. Under these circumstances, the court could not find that that the arbitrator exceeded his authority.
-
Appel v. Concierge Auctions, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-02263-BAS-MDD (S.D. Cal. July 1, 2024)07/01/2024
Court granted defendant’s motion to confirm arbitration award, finding that plaintiff’s opposition did not present any arguments against defendant’s motion to confirm, but rather presented two objections to the structure and content of defendant’s motion.
-
Teta v. Go New York Tours, Inc., No. 1:24-CV-01614-ER (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2024)07/01/2024
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that the parties were bound by a “clickwrap arbitration agreement” within the contract’s terms and conditions where the parties had “reasonable notice of the arbitration provision.” To determine whether there was reasonable notice, the court relied on the fact that plaintiffs had to affirmatively click their assent to the agreement and that the terms and conditions were hyperlinked.
-
Barton v. Zhang, No. 1:23-CV-08536-LJL (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 2024)06/27/2024
Court granted petitioner’s unanswered motion to confirm arbitration award, reviewing it as an unopposed motion for summary judgment under Second Circuit precedent, and awarded petitioner pre- and post-judgement interest. Court found no grounds for refusing to enforce the award under the New York Convention.
-
Estate of Ke Zhengguang v. Yu, No. 23-1144 (4th Cir. June 27, 2024)06/27/2024
Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to confirm an arbitration award under the New York Convention. Appellant opposed confirmation and enforcement of the arbitration award, arguing that the district court should have considered her procedural defenses of forum non conveniens and failure to join necessary parties. The district court decided, and the court of appeals affirmed, that these were purely procedural obstacles and not grounds for invalidating the award under Art. V of the New York Convention. Court of appeals additionally rejected appellant’s argument that the award violated public policy where local Chinese law requires China to approve payments of RMB that flow outside of China.
-
B&C KB Holding GmbH v. Goldberg Lindsay & Co., No. 23-1014 (2d Cir. June 26, 2024)06/26/2024
Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s order granting appellee’s §1782 application and denying the motion to quash, finding that appellee’s application satisfied the “for use” requirement of §1782 and the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a limited use restriction.
-
Subway Franchise Systems of Canada, ULC v. Subway Developments 2000, Inc., No. 1:24-CV-00593-AS (S.D.N.Y. June 21, 2024)06/21/2024
Court granted defendant’s petition to confirm an arbitration award, finding that an interim order is “final” for the purposes of the FAA, even where it does not resolve the merits of an issue to be arbitrated. Court rejected plaintiff’s motion to vacate the award, holding that the arbitrator did not exceed her authority where the interim payment obligation was specifically referenced in the parties’ arbitration agreement.
-
Garage Door Systems, LLC v. Blue Giant Equipment Corp., No. 1:23-CV-02223-JMS-KMB (S.D. Ind. June 20, 2024)
06/20/2024Court found that a Rule 12(b)(3) motion to dismiss for improper venue, rather than a motion to stay or compel arbitration, is the proper procedure to use when an arbitration clause requires arbitration outside a district court’s district. Court then denied defendant’s motion to dismiss for improper venue, finding that a vague reference to the Terms and Conditions in the Order Acknowledgements was not sufficient under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods to render the clause part of the parties' agreement. As a result, the arbitration provision contained in the Terms and Conditions was not part of the parties' agreement.
-
Queen-Gilbertson v. U.S. Auto Sales, Inc., No. 23-CV-03331-DCC (D.S.C. June 20, 2024)06/20/2024
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, denied motion to dismiss, and denied motions for protective order and to stay discovery as moot. Court concluded that arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable and that delegation clause provided that issues of arbitrability would be decided by arbitration.
-
Ghazizadeh v. Coursera, Inc., No. 23-CV-05646-EJD (N.D. Cal. June 20, 2024)06/20/2024
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay pending arbitration. Court concluded that an arbitration agreement was formed where plaintiff manifested assent to the website’s terms of use on a sign-up screen, the terms of use contained a provision indicating that continued use signaled assent to updated terms, and website provided sufficient notice of the updated terms of use containing the arbitration agreement in an email.
-
Williams v. Wallace Finance, LLC, No. 24-CV-00662-D (N.D. Tex. June 18, 2024)06/18/2024
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings pending arbitration. Court found that defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate and further found that the agreement to arbitrate was valid where plaintiff failed to reject the agreement as warranted under the agreement.
-
Risen Energy Co. v. Focus Futura Holding Participacoes S.A., No. 23-CV-10993-LGS06/18/2024
Court denied petitioner’s motion to vacate arbitration award and granted respondent’s motion to confirm.
-
Jonna v. Bitcoin Latinum, No. 22-CV-10208-LJM-JJCG (E.D. Mich. June 17, 2024)06/17/2024
Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings where plaintiffs did not read or sign the arbitration agreement, nor could plaintiffs assent to the agreement be inferred from conduct. Court further found that the issue of arbitrability could not be delegated to an arbitrator where no valid arbitration agreement existed and that, even if an agreement existed, defendants waived their right to enforce arbitration by engaging extensively in litigation.
-
Gate Gourmet Korea Co. v. Asiana Airlines, Inc., No. 24-CV-01265-RGK-PD (C.D. Cal. June 17, 2024)06/17/2024
Court granted petitioner’s motion to enforce the parties’ arbitration award and rejected respondent’s arguments against enforcement where these issues had already been resolved in favor of petitioner by Korean courts. Court converted award to USD using the exchange rates effective on the date of the award.
-
Hunter v. Azentio Software Private Ltd., No. 24-CV-03728-LJL (S.D.N.Y. June 14, 2024)06/14/2024
Court entered judgment in favor of petitioners who sought confirmation of arbitration award, for the award amount less credit for respondent’s partial payment towards satisfaction of the award.
-
Vitol, Inc. v. Copape Produtos de Petróleo LTDA, No. 22-CV-10569-JPC (S.D.N.Y. June 13, 2024)06/13/2024
Court granted stay pending arbitration and denied respondent’s motion to dismiss in accordance with the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Smith v. Spizzirri.
-
LAG Oasis, LLC v. Independent Specialty Insurance Co., No. 23-CV-06584-NJB-DPC (E.D. La. June 13, 2024)06/13/2024
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation, but denied the motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Smith v. Spizzirri. Court concluded, in line with Fifth Circuit’s precedent, that where the arbitration agreement was housed within a broader insurance contract, the arbitration clause need not be signed by the parties to satisfy the requirements of the FAA and NY Convention. Court further did not consider the arbitration clause to be against public policy.
-
Risen Energy Co. v. Focus Futura Holdings Participacoes S.A., No. 23-CV-10993-LGS (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2024)06/11/2024
Court granted respondent’s motion to confirm arbitral award, but denied respondent’s request for attorneys’ fees relating to post-arbitration litigation where the parties’ arbitration agreements did not provide for such relief.
-
Gem Yield Bahamas Ltd. v. Mullen Technologies, Inc., No. 24-CV-01120-KPF (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2024)06/11/2024
Court granted petitioners’ motion for summary judgment and confirmed the interim measures award issued during the liability phase of a bifurcated arbitration. Court denied respondents’ motion to vacate the award, concluding that the arbitrator did not exceed their authority and that the award was not rendered in manifest disregard of the law.
-
Arigna Technology Ltd. v. Longford Capital Fund, III, LP, No. 23-CV-01441-GBW (D. Del. June 5, 2024)06/05/2024
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and denied plaintiff’s motion to enjoin arbitration as moot. Court found that defendant, as a non-signatory third party to arbitration agreement, could compel arbitration because the agreement assigned arbitrability disputes to arbitrator, the agreement incorporated a second agreement with defendant by reference, and defendant was third-party beneficiary to arbitration agreement.
-
UiPath, Inc. v. Shanghai Yunkuo Information Technology Co., No. 23-CV-07835-LGS (S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2024)06/04/2024
Court granted unopposed petition to confirm arbitration award and granted pre- and post-judgment interest, finding that the parties’ entered into a written arbitration agreement, both the United States and China are signatories to the New York Convention, the subject matter of the agreement is commercial in nature as it related to respondents’ misappropriation of trade secrets, and the agreement is not “entirely domestic in scope” because respondent is a foreign corporation.
-
Mullen Technologies, Inc. v. Gem Global Yield LLC, No. 24-CV-01120-KPF (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2024)05/31/2024
Court denied petitioners’ application for a pre-motion conference and respondents’ application to lift stay on related rescission action. Court set briefing schedule for summary judgment on confirmation or vacatur of parties’ arbitration awards.
-
Marshall v. Ameriprise Financial Services, No. 24-CV-00112-DJC-AC (E.D. Cal. May 31, 2024)05/31/2024
Court granted in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay pending arbitration. Court held that the arbitration agreement was enforceable against plaintiff where plaintiff was dyslexic and their fiduciary failed to orally explain the material terms of the parties’ agreement, including the arbitration agreement. The agreement was however binding on the trustee, where the same circumstances did not exist. Court further struck the agreement’s unconscionable provision which unfairly limited plaintiff’s recovery.
-
Samsung Electronics Co. v. Triller Platform Co., No. 24-CV-00261-MCS-MAA (C.D. Cal. May 30, 2024)05/30/2024
Court granted petition to confirm the parties’ foreign arbitration award and awarded pre- and post- award interest.
-
Shenzhen Xingchen Xuanyuan Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Amazon.com Services LLC, No. 23-CV-06549-GHW (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2024)05/30/2024
Court granted motion to stay and compel arbitration where the AAA previously closed an arbitration between the parties due to the plaintiff’s nonpayment of arbitrator fees. Court found it would not sidestep the parties’ arbitration agreement where the arbitration process had not “been had” under Section 3 of the FAA. Additionally, a party cannot avoid a mandatory arbitration clause by refusing to pay arbitrator fees.
-
Subway International, B.V. v. Subway Russia Franchising Co., LLC, No. 21-CV-07362-JSR (S.D.N.Y. May 28, 2024)05/28/2024
Court granted petition to confirm the parties’ initial arbitration award and second award issued on remand. Court denied the cross-petition to vacate, determining there were no grounds to vacate under the FAA where the petition to confirm was not procedurally improper, the arbitrator did not exceed her authority, there was no demonstrated undue partiality by the arbitrator, and the AAA did not err in reappointing the same arbitrator.
-
Leviathan Group LLC v. Delco LLC, No. 23-CV-12611-DML-CI (E.D. Mich. May 28, 2024)05/28/2024
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to enforce the arbitration award and denied defendant’s motion to vacate. Court did not find evidence that the arbitrator exceeded her authority or acted with a “manifest disregard of the law” in that the arbitrator considered each of defendant’s arguments and provided a reasonable basis for her decision.
-
3131 Veterans Blvd, LLC v. Indian Harbor Insurance Co., No. 24-CV-00753-CJB-DPC (E.D. La. May 23, 2024)05/23/2024
Court granted motion to stay proceedings for breach of the parties’ insurance policy where an appeal to the Second Circuit for the denial of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration remained pending. The Southern District of New York denied defendant’s motion to compel, finding that arbitration agreements in insurance contracts were invalid under Louisiana law. However, the Fifth Circuit recently clarified that La. R.S. 22:868 does not apply to treaties and therefore does not reverse-preempt the New York Convention. Accordingly, the Louisiana district court found, a stay here was warranted where defendants would lose the ability to enforce the arbitration agreement if the stay was not granted.
-
Ecopetrol S.A. v. Offshore Exploration and Production, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-10024-JLR (S.D.N.Y May 23, 2024)05/23/2024
Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an interim supplemental award and denied motion to vacate the final supplemental award. The arbitral tribunal at issue was tasked with clarifying the terms of earlier-issued arbitration awards on remand. Following a hearing, the tribunal issued an interim supplemental award and final supplemental award. Court denied petitioner’s motion to vacate the final supplemental award, disagreeing with petitioner’s contention that the tribunal had exceeded its authority in deciding an issue not presented to it.
-
Professional Sport Service FI OY v. Puck Agency, LLC, No. 24-CV-2022-KMK (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2024)05/20/2024
Court granted petition to confirm an arbitration award pursuant to the FAA, noting the “deferential standard” applied to judgments of arbitration panels. Given that the opposing party did not assert any defenses against enforcement specified in the New York Convention, the court confirmed the award and directed the petitioner to submit an updated proposed judgment.
-
Thyssenkrupp Materials NA, Inc. v. Pegasus Denizcilik A.S., No. 23-CV-03086 (N.D. Ill. May 17, 2024)05/17/2024
Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss for improper venue based on an arbitration agreement where plaintiff was not a signatory to the arbitration agreement and the arbitration clause was not sufficiently incorporated into the parties’ contract through specific reference. Focusing on the Seventh Circuit’s limited caselaw on the meaning of “specific reference,” the court affirmed that the contract must at least identify the date of the arbitration agreement to incorporate the clause.
-
United States v. Relyant Global, LLC, No. 21-CV-00307 (M.D. Tenn. May 17, 2024)05/17/2024
Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss as moot on the basis that the parties participated in an ICC arbitration to resolve the dispute.
-
Smith v. Spizzirri, No. 22-1218 (U.S. May 16, 2024)05/16/2024
Supreme Court reversed and remanded the district court’s dismissal of case determined to be arbitrable. Supreme Court found that where a party requests a stay to litigation pending arbitration, section 3 of the FAA requires the district court to issue the stay and the court lacks jurisdiction to dismiss the suit.
-
Micula v. Government of Romania, No. 23-7008 (D.C. Cir. May 14, 2024)05/14/2024
Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of Romania’s motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) for relief from judgment. Romania contended that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction enforce the underlying arbitration award because the parties’ bilateral agreement to arbitrate was invalid under EU law. The district decided, and the court of appeals affirmed, that EU law was inapplicable where the dispute preceded Romania’s accession to the EU in 2007.
-
Mrinalini, Inc. v. Valentino S.p.A., No. 22-CV-02453-MKV (S.D.N.Y. May 13, 2024)05/13/2024
Court ordered parties to submit a letter addressing which claims remain unresolved following court’s confirmation and enforcement of a final arbitration award pursuant to § 207 of the FAA and the New York Convention.
-
In re Ex Parte Application Pursuant to Section 204 Of The Federal Arbitration Act and A.R.S. § 12-1507 For An Order To Provide Documents And/Or Appear Remotely And Testify In A Foreign Arbitration Hearing, 24-MC-00015-DLR (D. Ariz. May 9, 2024)05/09/2024
Court granted application pursuant to Section 204 of the FAA and issued a subpoena to produce insurance policy coverage documents and/or offer remote testimony at an upcoming arbitration in Canada. In granting the application, court held that the subpoenaed parties resided within the district of the court, the petitioner was an “interested person” as a party to the arbitration proceedings, and the arbitration constituted a “foreign tribunal” for purposes of the statute because it is the process provided by Canadian law to resolve the claims at issue.
-
The Cherokee Nation v. OptumRX, Inc., No. 23-CV-00259-RAW-GLJ (E.D. Okla. May 8, 2024)05/08/2024
Court recommended that defendants’ motion to stay the litigation pending arbitration should be granted pursuant to § 3 of the FAA. Court’s recommendation was based on clear evidence that the parties delegated the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator, and thus that challenges to the arbitration provision’s enforceability must be resolved by the arbitrator. Accordingly, questions as to the tribal nation’s waiver of its sovereign immunity, whether the arbitration provision was unconscionable, and whether the Recovery Act precluded arbitration must be resolved by the arbitrator.
-
Alghanim v. Alghanim, No. 23-CV-10196-MWF-JDE (C.D. Cal. May 8, 2024)05/08/2024
Court granted petitioner’s motion for attorney fees and costs incurred in the process of seeking confirmation of the foreign arbitration award.
-
Chubb Capital I Limited v. New Orleans City, No. 23-CV-05806-JTM-KWR (E.D. La. May 6, 2024)05/06/2024
Court granted plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin defendant from bringing arbitration proceedings, finding that plaintiff showed a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, a substantial threat of irreparable harm, the threatened injury outweighed the threatened harm to defendant, and there would be no disservice to the public interest. Focusing on plaintiff’s likelihood of success, the court determined that plaintiff did not consent to arbitration, none of Louisiana’s common law bases for compelling a non-signatory to arbitrate were applicable, and Louisiana’s Direct Action Statute would hold that third-party insurers would not be compelled to submit to binding arbitration under the circumstances.
-
Support Community, Inc. v. MPH International LLC, No. 23-CV-04911-JSW (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2024)05/02/2024
Court denied the motion to compel arbitration of defendant and counterclaimant, reasoning that, although there was an agreement to arbitrate between the parties, plaintiff met its burden of demonstrating that defendant and counterclaimant had waived its right to arbitrate because under the “totality of the circumstances” it had acted inconsistently with its known right to compel arbitration.
-
White v. Titlemax of Virginia, Inc., No. 23-1595 (4th Cir. May 1, 2024)05/01/2024
Court of appeals reversed the district court’s orders granting appellees’ applications to confirm arbitral awards under Section 9 of the FAA, holding that the applications failed to identify an independent basis for the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction.
-
Crescent Petroleum Company International Ltd. v. National Iranian Oil Company, No. 22-CV-1361-JMC (D.D.C. Apr. 30, 2024)04/30/2024
Court granted petitioners’ motion for default judgment and confirmed the parties’ arbitration award. Court had subject matter jurisdiction under the FSIA’s arbitration exception to immunity of a foreign sovereign and personal jurisdiction where defendant was properly served by email. Once satisfied that it had jurisdiction to proceed, court found all elements to enforce the arbitration award were met under the New York Convention. -
Van Andel, LLM v. Lindberg, No. 23-CV-00879-CCE-JEP (M.D.N.C. Apr. 29, 2024)04/29/2024
Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award, finding that a provisional award may be enforced. Court weighed the fact that NAI arbitration rules considered the award to be binding and courts have previously enforced provisional equitable arbitration awards. Court further determined the petition was not time barred because the FAA’s limitation period is “permissive” and does not automatically bar the confirmation of an award after one year.
-
Pilot, Inc., v. Aukey Technolology Co., No. 22-CV-02408-SKC-SBP (D. Colo. Apr. 29, 2024)04/29/2024
Court granted plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment to confirm the parties’ foreign arbitral award. Court found all relevant requirements for the entry of default judgement were satisfied – court had proper subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction, the venue was appropriate, and plaintiff provided sufficient proof of damages owed.
-
Aptim Environmental & Infrastructure, LLC v. Alico, LLC, No. 23-CV-02587-ILRL-JVM (E.D. La. Apr. 29, 2024)04/29/2024
Court granted plaintiff’s motion for default judgement and confirmed the final arbitration award because plaintiffs “demonstrate[d] the absence of a genuine issue of material fact” in its application for confirmation of its arbitration award.
-
Compleat Hospitality Management, LLC v. Independent Specialty Insurance Company, No. 2:23-CV-04032-BSL-KWR (E.D. La. Apr. 19, 2024)04/19/2024
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed the proceedings. Court found that while Louisiana state law prohibits arbitration agreements in insurance contracts, that law is preempted by the New York Convention. Court further found that each element required to compel arbitration under the New York Convention was met.