2016-2025 Arbitration Decisions

A collection of the most recent US international arbitration decisions is available here. Decisions can be quickly retrieved by using the filter tools below.

• Terra Towers Corp. v. Schachter, No. 1:22-CV-06150-LAK (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2025)

  04/01/2025

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the litigation pursuant to the FAA and New  York Convention.  Court reasoned that while defendants were not parties to the arbitration agreement, non-signatories could enforce the arbitration agreement by equitable estoppel where the dispute defendants sought to resolve was intertwined with the underlying agreement and the parties maintained a close enough relationship to justify arbitration.

• Quandel Construction Group, Inc. v. Hunt Construction Group, Inc., No. 2:24-CV-02362-ALM-EDP (S.D. Ohio Mar. 31, 2025)

  03/31/2025

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, rejecting plaintiff’s argument that respondent waived its right to arbitrate.  Court found that based on the totality of the circumstances, respondent’s actions were not “completely inconsistent” with its later reliance on the arbitration agreement, because its previous objections to arbitration were reasonably qualified and limited to particular deficiencies.  

• Kodiak Gas Services LLC v. Legend Energy Advisors LLC, No. 4:24-CV-01333 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2025)

  03/31/2025

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding the parties’ settlement agreement contained a valid agreement to arbitrate and did not expressly exclude certain disputes from arbitration. 

• Hebei Viroad Biotechnology Co., Ltd. v. Phippy LLC, No. 24-CV-00555 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 26, 2025)

  03/28/2025

  Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims in favor of international arbitration pursuant to the New York Convention, holding that there was a written agreement between a US and a non-US party to arbitrate a commercial purchase dispute.  Court found that arbitration provisions using the language “may” should be construed to give either party the option to require arbitration.  Court, therefore, determined that the arbitration agreement was mandatory and enforceable despite its permissive language because the plain language demonstrated an intent to arbitrate upon the election to do so by either party.

• Abbas v. Truist Bank, No. 3:24-CV-01283 (M.D. Tenn. March 20, 2025)

  03/20/2025

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that defendants could not use a separately signed contract containing an arbitration agreement to compel plaintiffs to arbitrate an issue arising from a contract containing no such provision.

• Arrive NOLA Hotel, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London, No. 24-1585 (E.D. La. March 20, 2025)

  03/20/2025

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration as to both foreign and domestic insurers involved and granted motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration. Court found that plaintiff’s signature was not necessary for the agreement to arbitrate to be valid, because the arbitration clause was part of a larger contract—in this case, an insurance policy—that was in writing and effective. Court further held that the agreement was not null and void because, though the plaintiff did not consent to the terms of the original policy, plaintiff manifested consent by renewing the policy containing the arbitration clause. Court also held that, following Fifth Circuit precedent, federal equitable estoppel principles could be used to compel arbitration as to domestic insurers when foreign insurers were required to arbitrate under the New York Convention.

• Maclin v. Allenbrooke Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC, No. 2:24-CV-02472-TLP-ATC (W.D. Tenn. March 19, 2025)

  03/19/2025

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay federal court proceedings, finding that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable on account of its length, or the differences in bargaining power. Despite finding that the fee provision was unenforceable, court nevertheless found it was severable. Court also rejected plaintiff’s claim that the agreement was unenforceable because it constituted a violation of the defendant care facility’s fiduciary duty. Court found that the agreement was compliant with federal statute, and that any further questions of enforceability would go to the arbitrator.

• Merritt v. Square Capital, LLC, No. 2:24-CV-02196-TLP-ATC (W.D. Tenn. March 18, 2025)

  03/18/2025

  Court adopted magistrate’s report and recommendation and granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the magistrate correctly noted that each of plaintiff’s arguments against referring the matter to arbitration were issues that themselves needed to be arbitrated.

• CSRS, LLC v. Element 25 Limited, No. 24-CV-00358-RLB (M.D. La. Mar. 18, 2025)

  03/18/2025

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay pending arbitration, following the Fifth Circuit precedent that an agreement’s provision that a dispute “may” be resolved by arbitration is not permissive, but rather makes arbitration mandatory if one of the parties to the contract requests it.  Court also found that any dispute regarding arbitrability was delegated to the arbitrator on the basis that the agreement incorporated by reference the LCIA rules.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration clause was null and void, finding that the FAA pre-empted the Louisiana statute that would have otherwise prohibited the arbitration from occurring in London.  

• Wang v. Haitou Global (Cayman) Inc., No. 24-CV-07781-DLC (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2025)

  02/25/2025

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of claims asserted against it by plaintiff because plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration clause.  Court denied cross-motion to compel arbitration against non-signatory defendants, rejecting the plaintiff’s arguments based on alter-ego and direct benefits theories.  

• Spire Global Subsidiary, Inc. v. NorthStar Earth & Space, Inc., No. 24-CV-08434-JHR-SLC (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2025)

  02/24/2025

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding the broad scope of the relevant arbitration clause covered the disputes plaintiff had filed in the litigation.  Court also found that the dispute resolution clause in a second relevant contract did not displace the arbitration clause in the first relevant contract because the arbitration clause provided a more limited means for resolving disputes arising out of the contracts. 

• GEM Yield Bahamas Limited v. Mullen Technologies, Inc., 1:24-CV-01120-KPF (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2025)

  02/06/2025

  For reasons stated in an order issued under seal, the court denied respondents’ motion to vacate arbitral awards and granted petitioners’ cross-motion to confirm the awards, as well petitioners’ application to be awarded interest.

• Trident Builders, LLC v. American Residential Services, LLC, 2:24-CV-02464-DCN (D.S.C. Feb. 5, 2025)

  02/05/2025

  Court denied plaintiff’s motion for a stay and to compel arbitration, holding that plaintiff failed to show that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate.  Court reasoned that plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of when the alleged agreement was accepted or when the parties reached a meeting of the minds as to the essential terms.  Court also rejected plaintiff’s equitable estoppel argument because plaintiff provided no evidence indicating that defendant had attempted to avail itself of the benefits of the arbitration agreement.

• 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. 

• Trilogy Federal, LLC v. General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc., 1:24-CV-02772-BAH (D.D.C. Feb. 4, 2025)

  02/04/2025

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the case, determining that the parties had agreed to arbitrate the threshold issue of arbitrability.  Court found that even though the clause provided that arbitration “may” be conducted under the AAA rules, such permissive language was still considered to fully incorporate the AAA rules in the D.C. Circuit.

• InterAmerican Financial Consulting Group, Inc. v. Best Doctors Insurance Limited, 1:24-CV-23323-JEM (S.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2025)

  01/31/2025

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, holding that (1) the at-issue arbitration clause was enforceable, despite allegations that defendants repudiated the arbitration agreement; (2) the parties assented to the agreement, and it was thus not illusory; and (3) the forum selection clause requiring arbitration in a different forum was not unconscionable.

• Baker Hughes Saudi Arabia Company Limited v. Dynamic Industries, Inc., No. 23-30827 (5th Cir. Jan. 27, 2025)

  01/27/2025

  Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s decision refusing to compel arbitration where the parties’ arbitration agreement called for disputes to be resolved under the DIFC-LCIA rules, and the DIFC-LCIA was abolished by the UAE in 2021.  Court of Appeals first found that the arbitration agreement only specified a particular set of rules to apply to the parties’ dispute, and not the institution to administer the dispute.  Because court of appeals concluded the parties intended to arbitrate generally, and not to set an exclusive forum, it must compel arbitration.  Court of appeals ordered the district court on remand to consider whether the DIFC-LCIA rules can be applied in any other available forum, consistent with the parties’ objective intent. 

• Espin v. Citibank, N.A., No. 28-2083 (4th Cir. Jan. 27, 2025)

  01/27/2025

  Court of appeals remanded to the district court to compel arbitration on all claims under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (“SCRA”), but not those brought under Military Lending Act (“MLA”).  Court of appeals concluded that federal statutory remedies do not override agreements to arbitrate, unless they do so explicitly.  Here, Congress had not demonstrated a clear intention to displace the provisions of the FAA since the SCRA did not exclusively provide for a particular forum and the statute’s silence on matters of arbitration would not be construed as prohibiting arbitration.  By contrast, the MLA explicitly overrides the use of arbitration agreements, so arbitration could not be compelled on those claims.

• Arrive Nola Hotel, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London, No. 2:24-CV-01585-NJB-EJD (E.D. La Jan. 22, 2025)

  01/22/2025

  Court denied plaintiff’s motion to remand, holding that removal to federal court was proper pursuant to 28 USC § 1331 because the arbitration agreement fell under the New York Convention, and the dispute related to the arbitration agreement.  Court concluded that under the Fifth Circuit’s precedent, the New York Convention does not require a signature for there to be a written agreement when the arbitration clause is contained within a broader contract.

• Modern Perfection, LLC v. Bank of America, N.A., 23-1965 (4th Cir. Jan. 13, 2025)

  01/13/2025

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s grant of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, reasoning that the issue of arbitrability had been delegated to the arbitrator. Court of appeals applied the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski, 602 U.S. 143 (2024) and found that plaintiffs had not shown that there were multiple agreements in conflict as to who decides the issue of arbitrability. Court of appeals reasoned further that the agreement to delegate arbitrability was valid and enforceable, and that the district court had not erred in dismissing the complaint rather than staying proceedings.

• Desarrolladora La Ribera, S. de R.L. de C.V. v. Anderson, 1:24-CV-00067-LAK-BCM (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2024)

  12/20/2024

  Court granted parties’ cross-motions to compel arbitration and stay the case pending arbitration pursuant to the Panama Convention and FAA.  Court determined defendant was required to arbitrate four of its counterclaims because plaintiff had not waived its right to compel arbitration, as it timely filed its motion to compel arbitration before it filed an answer, motions, or sought discovery.  Court also found plaintiff was required to arbitrate its defamation claims, concluding that although questions of arbitrability were delegated to the arbitrator, the parties invited the court to determine the issue of scope in this case and the claims fell within the scope of the agreement, and determining that plaintiff was estopped from denying an obligation to arbitrate with non-signatory defendant.

• Abira Medical Laboratories, LLC v. Sierra Health & Life Insurance Company, Inc., 2:24-CV-01979-JP (E.D. Pa. Dec. 9, 2024)

  12/09/2024

  Court granted the defendant’s motion to compel AAA arbitration and stayed the case, reasoning that there existed an agreement to arbitrate, and there was no justification for court-ordered discovery on the issue of arbitrability, where the delegation clause delegated resolution of arbitrability to the arbitrator.  

• Siert v. Spiffy Franchising, LLC, 5:24-CV-01771-EJD (N.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2024)

  12/09/2024

  Court granted in part the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration under the FAA.  Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the at-issue arbitration clause was invalid due to unconscionability and waiver.  Court, however, found that the arbitration agreement lacked mutual assent as to its forum selection and choice of law provisions and severed those provisions from the contract.  Court stayed the case pending resolution of arbitration proceedings.

• Alcazar Capital Partners Company v. Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraq, 1:23-CV-00186-AS (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2024)

  12/05/2024

  Court exercised its discretion to stay the case to recognize a Kuwati judgment pending final resolution of an ICSID proceeding, reasoning that a stay would be the most efficient way for the case to move forward.

• HFA Specialty Acquisitions LLC v. NexGen Flight Solutions, LLC, No. 1:24-CV-01891-BAH (D.D.C. Nov. 19, 2024)

  11/19/2024

  Court granted defendants' motion to stay the litigation in favor of arbitration, finding defendants had not waived their right to seek arbitration and the incorporation of the JAMS rules in the arbitration agreement "leaves no doubt that an arbitrator must decide whether plaintiffs' claims are arbitrable, requiring that the litigation be stayed until arbitration has concluded." In particular, court pointed to the following language in the JAMS rules: "The Arbitrator has the authority to determine jurisdiction and arbitrability issues as a preliminary matter."

• Webuild S.P.A. v. Argentine Republic, No. 1:21-CV-02464-RBW (D.D.C. Nov. 19, 2024)

  11/19/2024

  Court denied Argentina’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s action seeking recognition and enforcement of an ICSID arbitration award on the basis that it was time-barred. Court concluded the 12-year statute of limitations from the D.C. Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act was the most appropriate in the absence of a statute of limitations in the federal statute authorizing enforcement of ICSID awards. Court found the policy concerns expressed by Argentina that would support use of the statute of limitations in the FAA did not "defeat the presumption against borrowing a statute of limitations from federal law."

• In re Application of financialright claims GmbH, No. 1:23-CV-01481-CFC (D. Del. Nov. 18, 2024)

  11/18/2024

  Court granted application to seek discovery from three Delaware LLCs for use in a litigation proceeding in a German court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782. Court found the application met the three statutory conditions, and that the Intel factors, on balance, supported granting of the application. Court denied motion to dismiss the application in favor of arbitration, finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because there was no independent jurisdictional basis in title 28 for a district court to enforce an agreement to arbitrate a § 1782 application.

• Osterhaus Pharmacy Incorporated v. CVS Health Corporation, No. 2:24-CV-01539-JJT (D. Ariz. Nov. 14, 2024

  11/14/2024

  Court denied defendants’ motions to compel arbitration of the parties’ antitrust dispute finding the delegation clause was void for substantive unconscionability and thus unenforceable.  Court ordered supplemental briefing on the question of whether the arbitration agreement as a whole is unconscionable.

• Von Pezold v. Republic of Zimbabwe, No. 23-7109 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 13, 2024)

  11/13/2024

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s finding that Zimbabwe waived its sovereign immunity under the arbitration exception in the FSIA. Court of appeals found the elements of the exception satisfied because the applicable bilateral investment treaties were arbitration agreements, the ICSID tribunal issued valid arbitration awards, and the ICSID Convention governed the enforcement of the arbitration awards. Court of appeals also rejected Zimbabwe’s argument that the relevant bilateral investment treaties contained exclusive forum selection clauses that required enforcement only in Zimbabwe.

• Hohl v. Black Diamond Franchising, Inc., No. 3:24-CV-00911 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 28, 2024)

  10/28/2024

  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the question of arbitrability should be decided by the court on the grounds that the arbitration provision provided clear and unmistakable evidence of parties’ intention to arbitrate the gateway question of arbitrability. Court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration provision was void as a matter of public policy.

• Cajun Industries, LLC v. Calgon Carbon Corporation, No. 1:24-CV-00107-LG-RPM (S.D. Miss. Oct. 16, 2024)

  10/16/2024

  Court first granted defendant O’Neal Constructors, LLC’s (“O’Neal”) motion to compel arbitration against defendant Cajun Industries, LLC’s (“Cajun”) as unopposed, finding that Cajun affirmed the validity and scope of the arbitration, by itself filing a demand for arbitration against Calgon Carbon Corporation (“Calgon”). Second, court denied Cajun’s motion to compel arbitration against Calgon as Calgon was a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, and direct benefits estoppel did not apply where Calgon had no filed any claims attempting to enforce the agreement. Third, court granted O’Neal’s motion to stay litigation pending the outcome of arbitration. Court exercised its discretion to determine that both the case between Cajun and O’Neal, and between Cajun and Calgon should be stayed because the issues were so interconnected and stem from the same essential nucleus of operative facts.

• CMB Infrastructure Group IX, LP v. Cobra Energy Investment Finance, Inc., No. 2:21-CV-00214-CDS-DJA (D. Nev. Oct. 15, 2024)

  10/15/2024

  Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate the parties’ arbitration award, and granted defendant’s cross-motion to confirm the award, finding the tribunal did not exceed its scope of authority by including non-signatories in the arbitration and the “law of the case” doctrine was applicable, and the tribunal did not manifestly disregard the applicable law in failing to grant plaintiff’s nominal damages. Court further granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration on the parties’ remaining claims, finding there was no waiver of defendant’s right to compel arbitration via a waiver.

• Silva v. WhaleCo, Inc., No. 3:24-CV-02890-SK (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2024)

  10/10/2024

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action pending arbitration. Court found that the plaintiff accepted the defendant’s terms of use, that the arbitration agreement was valid and encompassed the plaintiff’s claims, and that the issue of unconscionability had been delegated to the arbitrator.

• Dunn v. Global Trust Management, LLC, No. 21-10120 (11th Cir. Oct. 3, 2024)

  10/03/2024

  Court of appeals reversed and remanded the district court’s order finding that the delegation provisions in the parties’ arbitration agreements which delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator were unenforceable and ordered the district court to address whether defendant waived their ability to compel arbitration. Court of appeals concluded that the application of tribal law does not conflict with the FAA, and thus the delegation provisions at issue were enforceable. As such, issue of the choice-of-law provision have been delegated to the arbitrator.

• S.T.G. v. Epic Games, Inc., No. 3:24-CV-00517-RSH-AHG (S.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2024)

  10/02/2024

  Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and ordered certain plaintiffs to proceed to arbitration and stay their claims pending the completion of arbitration proceedings. Court concluded that, for the six of seven plaintiffs who themselves were parties to the End User License Agreement (“EULA”), it was for the arbitrator, and not the court, to determine whether the minors disaffirmed the EULA by filing the instant lawsuit. Court concluded, however, that the seventh plaintiff whose mother, and not himself, entered into the EULA could not be compelled to arbitrate under the EULA.

• Kendall v. Regional Enterprises, LLC, No. 5:24-CV-00180-KDB-SCR (W.D.N.C. Oct. 2, 2024)

  10/02/2024

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration because the parties did not dispute the existence of the arbitration agreement and its terms clearly applied to the dispute at issue. Furthermore, court found the arbitration agreement contained a valid choice of law provision that properly delegates the issue of choice of law to the arbitrator.

• Cure & Associates, P.C. v. LPL Financial LLC, No. 23-40519 (5th Cir. Oct. 1, 2024)

  10/01/2024

  Court of appeals found remanded to the district court to compel arbitration and enter a stay pending arbitration finding non-signatories to an arbitration agreement may be compelled to arbitrate under California and Texas law equitable estoppel principles. Court of appeals concluded that both non-signatory companies “deliberately sought and received direct benefits” from the contractual relationship between plaintiff and defendant, which contained the arbitration agreement, “such that their [non-signatory companies] are subject to arbitration per those underlying contracts.”

• Klosterman v. Discover Products Inc., No. 2:24-CV-01253-WB (E.D. Pa. Oct. 1, 2024)

  10/01/2024

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings after the denial of defendant’s first motion to compel arbitration, and the subsequent limited discovery that followed. Court denied plaintiff’s motion to exclude the declaration submitted by defendant, finding it was properly admissible pursuant Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) as a business record. Having admitted the affidavit, court concluded that “there [wa]s no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether there exists a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate.

• Pagano v. Nordictrack, Inc., No. 1:23-CV-00058-JNP-DAO (D. Utah Sept. 19, 2024)

  09/19/2024

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court found that plaintiffs assented to the underlying terms of use, which contained an arbitration provision, by entering into clickwrap and sign-in wrap agreements when they opted to purchase the products and services provided by defendants. Court also found that parties agreed to delegate the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator and rejected plaintiffs’ claims that the agreement terms were illusory, unconscionable, and in conflict with federal law.

• BDD Group, LLC v. Crave Franchising LLC, No. 5:24-CV-10035-JEL-EAS  (E.D. Mich. Sept. 18, 2024)

  09/18/2024

  Court granted motion compel to arbitration by one of the defendants. Court found that when a valid arbitration agreement exists and it contains a valid delegation clause, challenges to the applicability of the arbitration agreement is decided by an arbitrator and not the court.

• Schmidt v. Antunez, No. 1:24-CV-22464-RKA (S.D. Fla. Sept. 16, 2024)

  09/16/2024

  Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court found that plaintiffs’ claim that defendants published their confidential information on several state-court dockets without plaintiffs’ consent fell outside of the scope of the arbitration agreement.

• Pliszka v. Axos Bank, No. 3:24-CV-00445-RSH-BJC (S.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2024)

  09/13/2024

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court found that, by submitting sufficient evidence authenticating plaintiff’s electronic signature, defendant met its burden to show that plaintiff executed and assented to an online agreement containing an arbitration provision. Court also found that the arbitration agreement contained a clause delegating the question of the scope and enforceability of the agreement to the arbitrator. 

• Saadeh v. Solibus Payments, Inc., No. 5:24-CV-00745-KK-SHK (C.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2024

  09/12/2024

  Court denied defendants’ motion to quash service and compel arbitration finding that defendants failed (1) to identify any defect in the method of service, and (2) to meet their burden of establishing the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate by a preponderance of the evidence.

• Purchase v. FaceApp Inc., No. 23-CV-02735 (S.D. Ill. Sept. 12, 2024)

  09/12/2024

  Court granted motions to compel arbitration and stay the case pending the outcome of the arbitration pursuant to the FAA where plaintiff entered into a written agreement to arbitrate via a “hybridwrap” agreement to which plaintiff had reasonable notice and granted her assent, the claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and plaintiff refused to arbitrate her claims.

• Steines v. Westgate Palace, LLC, No. 22-14211 (11th Cir. Sept. 5, 2024)

  09/05/2024

  Court of appeals dismissed an interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction, because the court could only exercise jurisdiction pursuant to § 16 of the FAA and the FAA did not apply to the parties’ dispute. Court of appeals affirmed the district court ruling that the question of whether the FAA had been overridden by another act of Congress could not be delegated to an arbitrator and the courts retain jurisdiction over the question. Court of appeals also affirmed the district court’s ruling that the parties’ arbitration agreement was not enforceable under the FAA due to the Military Lending Act, which shows Congress’ clear and manifest intention override the FAA.

• Paris Road Shopping Center, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London, No. 2:23-CV-05770-CJB-MBN (E.D. La. Sept. 4, 2024)

  09/04/2024

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that while Louisiana law prohibits the enforcement of arbitration clauses in insurance contracts, the New York Convention and the FAA requires that courts enforce an arbitration clause when certain criteria are met, including that the parties to the arbitration agreement include a non-US citizen. Court found the criteria was met and the New York Convention applied because the conduct of the foreign and domestic defendants was so intertwined and identical that separation of the plaintiffs’ claims against foreign and domestic defendants could yield inconsistent results.

• ARCO National Construction, LLC v. MCM Management Corp., No. 1:20-CV-03783-JRR (D. Md. Sept. 4, 2024)
   

  09/04/2024

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, reasoning that the defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate the disputes in this action. Court found that the defendant’s initiation of a separate litigation on other issues did not constitute waiver of the right to arbitrate. Additionally, defendant’s participation in the present litigation to defend its position did not constitute waiver.

• Young v. Solana Labs Inc., No. 3:22-CV-03912-RFL (N.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2024)

  09/03/2024

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that the defendants had not submitted adequate proof showing the plaintiff agreed to a third party’s terms of service (“ToS”) containing an arbitration agreement. Court also denied the defendants’ request for discovery concerning the plaintiff’s agreement to the third party’s ToS, reasoning that even if the plaintiff agreed to the ToS, the defendant was not a signatory to the agreement and lacked any basis to invoke the arbitration provision.

• JES Farms Partnership v. Indigo Ag Inc., No. 23-2565 (8th Cir. Aug. 29, 2024)

  08/29/2024

  Court of appeals reversed district court’s order denying motion to compel arbitration in part. Court of appeals found that the parties’ claims arising under addenda to the parties’ agreement were arbitrable, together with the claims arising under the main agreement. Court of appeals reasoned that the parties inclusion of two similar sentences containing arbitration clauses reflected “duplicative emphasis,” and did not reflect an intention to narrow the scope of arbitrable claims.

• SZY Holdings, LLC v. Garcia, No. 23-1305 (4th Cir. Aug 29, 2024)

  08/29/2024

  Court of appeals reversed district court’s decision that appellants had waived right to move to compel arbitration by waiting over nine months to do so after it was sued. Court of appeals reasoned that waiver did not occur because “Appellants consistently requested arbitration before formally moving to compel it” and that such “persistence” was not indicative of relinquishing the known right to pursue arbitration.