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.

• 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.

• FGI Industries, Inc. v. Tangshan Ayers Bath Equipment Co., Ltd., No. 14-CV-00188-HDV-RAO (C.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2024)

  02/13/2024

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding defendant waived that right by actively seeking to litigate the underlying merits of the case, including filing five motions to dismiss and multiple other procedural and substantive motions over the past twelve years.

• America Chung Nam, LLC v. Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd., No. 2:23-CV-07676-SB-JPR (C.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2023)

  12/19/2023

  Court denied motion to remand to state court and granted motion to compel arbitration where a valid arbitration agreement existed under the New York Convention and the claims at issue related to that agreement.  

• Hong Kong Continental Trade Co. Limited v. Natural Balance Pet Foods, Inc., No. 22-CV-00571-JAK-AFM (C.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2023)

  03/28/2023

  Court compelled arbitration finding (1) issues of arbitrability are governed by federal law where the arbitration agreement is covered by the FAA and the parties did not clearly agree otherwise, (2) the agreement delegated issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator, and (3) a court may not override a contract that clearly and unmistakably delegated issues of arbitrability.

• Gui Cai v. CMB Export LLC, No. 22-CV-02025-MWF-JPRx (C.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2022)

  12/05/2022

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that the scope of the arbitration agreement between the parties did not encompass the dispute before the court.

• Fantastic Films International, LLC v. Screen Media Ventures, LLC et al., No. 22-CV-01014-FWS-AGR (C.D. Cal. Jul. 12, 2022)

  07/12/2022

  Court granted a motion to compel arbitration in a copyright infringement case. Court found that arbitration provisions in license agreements at issue did not terminate with the expiration of the underlying agreements.

• Cruz v. Mercedes-Benz USA LLC, No. 21-CV-00809-JGB-SHK (C.D. Cal. August 12, 2021)

  08/12/2021

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding defendant did not have standing to enforce the arbitration clause as a third-party beneficiary to a lease.  Court held that the parties clearly chose to include successors or assigns in the arbitration clause but that this did not include defendant.

• McFarlane v. Rolls-Royce Motor Cars NA, LLC., No. 20-CV09275-AB-JPR (C.D.Cal. Apr. 8, 2021)

  04/08/2021

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to stay proceedings.  Court found that because defendant was not a party to the agreement at issue, it could not enforce the arbitration provision.

• Brittain v. Navient Solutions, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-10529-FMO-AGR (C.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2020)

  03/20/2020

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that statutory claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 USC § 227, among others, fell within scope of arbitration agreement in student loan documents.

• Sponheim v. Citibank, N.A., No. SACV 8:19-00264-JVS-ADS (C.D. Cal. June 10, 2019)

  06/10/2019

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the proceedings.  Court found that plaintiff was not primarily seeking public injunctive relief, which would exempt this dispute from arbitration under California’s McGill rule.  Court considered that this claim was merely an incidental benefit to his primary aim of gaining compensation for his injury and that the arbitration agreement was thus enforceable.

• Shams v. CVS Health Corporation, No. 2:18-CV-08158-SK (C.D. Cal. May 2, 2019)
   

  05/02/2019

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of employment discrimination claims. Court held that although plaintiff argued that certain provisions awarding costs and attorney fees made the arbitration provision unconscionable, the provision contained a delegation clause that plaintiff did not challenge and thus the question of whether the claims were arbitrable was properly reserved for the arbitrator.

• Knepper v. Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., No. 2:19-CV-00527-JVS-ADS (C.D. Cal. March 26, 2019) 

  03/26/2019

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay all proceedings pursuant to the FAA, finding that although plaintiff did not sign the arbitration agreement, she was on notice that it would become binding unless she signed an opt-out agreement.  Court held the class action waiver in the arbitral agreement was valid and denied the motion to amend to add additional plaintiffs.  Court granted motion for leave to amend to add a claim for breach of fiduciary duty.

• Snow v. ADT, LLC, No. 5:19-CV-00021-JGB-SHK (C.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2019) 

  03/05/2019

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court rejected defendant’s argument that plaintiff’s continued employment after the initiation of an arbitration policy with an opt-out provision was sufficient to establish plaintiff implied-in-fact assent to arbitrate, finding that plaintiff was on leave when the policy was initiated and thus never received it and could not assent.

• Thoma v. CBRE Group, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-06040-CBM-AJW (C.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2017)

  01/26/2019

  Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that the class, collective or representative action waiver referring disputes to arbitration was unenforceable because it interfered with a substantive federal right protected by the NLRA’s Section 7. 

• Bank Luemi, USA v. Miramax Distribution Services, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-07574-SVW-KS (C.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2018) 

  12/27/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the portion of the agreement which contained the arbitration clause was not implicated by their dispute, finding that the clauses was broadly written to include all disputes under the agreement.  Court also found that language in the arbitration agreement which included “the determination of the scope or applicability of this agreement to arbitrate” provided clear and unmistakable evidence of the parties’ intention to delegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

• Liggins v. Gmri, Inc. No. 2:18-CV-09000-DSF-AFM (C.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2018) 

  12/11/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to stay all civil proceedings pending arbitration, finding that defendants could enforce the arbitration agreement because they were either third-party beneficiaries of the contract or agents of one another. 

• Elite Air Conditioning Inc. v. BVB Construction, Inc., No. 5:18-CV-01956-MWF-SP (C.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2018)

  12/11/2018

  Court ordered the parties to arbitration and stayed the case until completion of arbitration pursuant to the parties’ stipulation and agreement to submit all claims between them arising out of the contract in question to arbitration under the auspices of the American Arbitration Association. 

• Romo v. CBRE Group, Inc., No. 8:18-CV-00237-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2018)

  10/03/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, struck the class action allegations, and stayed the proceedings pending arbitration.  Court concluded that (i) defendant showed that the parties entered into a clear agreement to arbitrate and plaintiff manifested his assent to the terms of the Offer Letter by clicking the check box on the Candidate Gateway and thereafter pursuing his employment with defendant; (ii) plaintiff cannot avoid the terms of the arbitration agreement under California Labor Code § 229; (iii) plaintiff’s Private Attorney General Act claim for civil penalties is outside of the scope of the arbitration agreement and shall remain pending; and (iv) while plaintiff showed some degree of procedural unconscionability, plaintiff failed to show any substantive unconscionability arising from the arbitration agreement.

• FaradayFuture Inc. v. Evelozcity Inc., No. 18-CV-00727 (C.D.Cal. Aug. 8, 2018)

  08/08/2018

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration of claims involving the alleged theft of trade secrets from an artificial intelligence electric vehicles company.  Court found that because defendant was not a signatory to the underlying employment agreements between plaintiff and its former employees it could not compel arbitration.

• Bergeron  v. Monex Deposit Company, No. 8:17-CV-01968-JVS-DFM (C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2018) 

  08/01/2018

  Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss but granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court found that the parties clearly and unmistakably intended to delegate arbitrability to an arbitrator, and that an assertion of arbitrability was not wholly groundless, thus they deferred to the arbitrators to consider plaintiff’s argument that the value of his claims put them outside the scope of the agreement.

• Garcia v. NRI USA, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-08355-ODW-GJS (C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2018)

  08/01/2018

  Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration in a wage class action against several defendants. While court found that defendants had met their burden in establish that plaintiff entered into a binding agreement to arbitrate, the only defendant remaining in the case was not a party to the arbitration and could not enforce the agreement.

• La Amapola, Inc. v. Honeyville, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-01946-AB-AS (C.D. Cal. July 28, 2017)

  07/28/2018

  Court denied defendant Gavilon Grain, LLC’s motion to dismiss the third party complaint or to compel arbitration and stay the third-party claims. Court found that Honeyville did not agree to arbitrate, as (i) the terms and conditions containing the arbitration clause were not incorporated into the contract between the parties; (ii) the mailbox rule was irrelevant here because it only resolves whether receipt has been accomplished, and Honeyville has admitted receipt; (iii) defendant Gavilon’s claim that Honeyville assented to the terms and conditions as additional terms under Section 2207 of the California Commercial Code fails because the arbitration agreement materially altered the contract.

• Assad v. Josefsson, No. 2:18-CV-02470-PSG-JPR (C.D. Cal. June 19, 2018

  06/19/2018

  Court denied motion to remand, finding that, while the subject matter of the underlying arbitration was sufficiently connected to the arbitration agreement for removal purposes, the parties did not waive their right to arbitrate and thus removal was not warranted.

• Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v. Phelps Dunbar, LLP, No. 2:17-CV-05232-JAK (C.D. Cal. Jun. 6, 2018)

  06/06/2018

  Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of a malpractice claim.  Court found that there was no enforceable arbitration agreement between the parties and therefore no subject matter jurisdiction under the FAA. 

• Pompliano v. Snap, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-03664-DMG-JPR (C.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2018)

  04/11/2018

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, concluding that: (i) the parties’ dispute plainly fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement; (ii) the delegation clause was neither ambiguous nor unconscionable; and (iii) the agreement as a whole was not unconscionable.

• Campos v. DXP Enterprises, Inc., No. 8:18-CV-00103-JLS-DFM (C.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2018)

  03/14/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of wage dispute, and stayed the action pursuant to the FAA. Court found that the plaintiff must show both procedural and substantive unconscionability, however the only argument plaintiff made concerning substantive unconscionability was that the agreement contained “unlawful waivers of plaintiff’s right to bring collective and representative actions,” an argument that was recently rejected by the Supreme Court’s holding in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis. Thus following Supreme Court precedent, the court found the agreement to arbitrate was not unconscionable and enforced it.

• Cunico Corporation v. Custom Alloy Corporation, No. 2:14-CV-01234-PA-AJW (C.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2017)

  12/15/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that a valid arbitration agreement governed the dispute. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments as to contract formation and incorporation of Terms and Conditions. Court likewise rejected as unsubstantiated plaintiff’s arguments as to agreement invalidity as unconscionable.

• Gray v. Petrossian, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-06870-PSG-PJW (C.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2017)

  11/20/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.  Court further rejected plaintiff’s argument that the agreement could not be enforced as unconscionable based on purported deficiencies with respect to, inter alia, one-sidedness, discovery, and recovery.

• Mizra v. Cachet Hotel Group Limited Cayman L.P., No. 2:17-CV-07140-RGK-KS (C.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2017)

  11/17/2017

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that the arbitration clause was incapable of being performed because it required arbitration before the HKIAC in accordance with the ICC rules.

• Finsa Portafolios, S.A. de C.V. v. Opengate Capital, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-04360-RGK-E (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2017)

  11/15/2017

  Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of decision to dismiss the action on grounds of forum non conveniens and compel arbitration in Mexico, finding where the contract contains a forum selection clause, plaintiffs have the burden to show the forum was not an adequate alternative forum; concluding the court is not required to impose conditions on dismissal unless there is reason to doubt a party with comply with the foreign forum; and determining plaintiffs could not raise the new argument that a Mexican judge or arbitrator could not assert jurisdiction over the defendant. Court also denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended complaint, finding an amended complaint would be futile because the fraud claims fell within the scope of the forum selection and arbitration clauses.

• Hart v. Charter Communications, No. 8:17-CV-00556-DOC (C.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017)

  11/08/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that (i) reference in billing statement to new terms of service containing arbitration was reasonably conspicuous; (ii) entity resulting from merger may invoke pre-merger entity’s right to arbitration; and (iii) issues of arbitrability were expressly delegated to the arbitrator.

• Employment Solutions Management, Inc. v. Partners Personnel-Central Valley, Corp., No. 8:17-CV-01044-JLS-JCG (C.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017)

  11/08/2017

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that the court, rather than the arbitrator, should determine whether the parties had agreed to arbitrate, that the defendants were third-party beneficiaries under either Delaware or California law and thus able to compel arbitration, and that plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration clause

• Curtis International Ltd v. Pacific Logistics Corp., No. 2:17-CV-01968-PA-JEM (C.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2017)

  10/25/2017

  Court granted joint motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the case, finding that a valid arbitration agreement governed the dispute.

• Tate v. Progressive Finance Holdings, LLC., No. 2:17-CV-01589-ODW-AS (C.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2017)

  10/24/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case.  Court held that the otherwise uncontested arbitration agreement was broad enough to cover the dispute.  Based on that finding, court, as a matter of discretion, declined to stay proceedings and dismissed the claim.

• Finsa Portafolios, S.A. de C.V. v. OpenGate Capital, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-04360-RGK-E (C.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2017)  

  09/26/2017

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss for forum non conveniens.  Court held that parties were sophisticated corporations that chose an arbitration clause that incorporated AAA language in their commercial agreement and that the arbitrator should decide disputes relating to the validity and scope of the arbitration clause.  Court also upheld the forum selection clauses at issue and held the plaintiffs’ fraud and tort claims to be within their scope.

• Velasquez-Reyes v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 5:16-CV-01953-DMG-KK (C.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2017)

  09/13/2017

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss the complaint. Court held that plaintiff did not expressly agree to Samsung’s arbitration provision, and that there was no indication that plaintiff’s silence and failure to opt out of the arbitration procedures were intended to be taken as assent. Court also noted that the disclaimer on the box of the phone that plaintiff purchased did not expressly provide that opening the box or using the phone constituted consent to the terms contained inside the Warranty Guide, which itself was inside the box.e box.

• Hallsted v. JPMorgan Chase and Company, No. 8:17-CV-00822-JVS-JDE (C.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2017)

  09/11/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings.  Court rejected arguments that the arbitration agreement was rendered invalid as unconscionable because the contract was one of adhesion, did not attach the applicable AAA rules, lacked mutuality, limited discovery, and waived rights to a jury trial.

• Taylor v. Frontier Communications Corporation, No. 8:17-CV-00476-PA-DTB (C.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2017)

  09/05/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff entered into a contractual agreement with defendant’s predecessor-in-interest, which included an arbitration provision that encompasses the claims at issue in the present action. Court also found that plaintiff consented to the granting of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.

• Rappley v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, No. 5:17-CV-00108-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2017)

  08/24/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that ordering arbitration would not contravene a fundamental public policy of California and the arbitration provision encompassed the dispute.

• Rappley v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, No. 5:17-CV-00108-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2017)

  08/24/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that there was a valid arbitration agreement which covered plaintiff’s claims.  Court found that plaintiff was not seeking public injunctive relief, as the class of persons plaintiff sought to represent was comprised of persons who were subjected to purportedly unlawful debt collection efforts; as such, there was no basis to conclude that enforcement of the arbitration agreement would violate fundamental California policy.  Court found that the terms of the arbitration were broad and encompassed any statutory claims.

• The Sales Group Inc. v. Realm Wireless Corp., No. 17-CV-02347-JAK-FFM (C.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2017)

  08/04/2017

  Court denied motions to dismiss based on a claimed arbitration agreement in dispute over payment of sales commissions.  Court found that an arbitration clause in a written contract that did not cover the time period of the dispute was not adopted or incorporated by a subsequent oral contract and therefore did not apply to the dispute in question.

• McKee v. Audible, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-1941-GW-E (C.D. Cal. July 17, 2017)

  07/17/2017

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration by one of defendants, holding that it had not demonstrated that a valid arbitration agreement existed between that defendant and the plaintiff, rejecting arguments that it could benefit from the arbitration agreement of its affiliate co-defendant.  However, court granted that co-defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, denying plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable as a contract of adhesion or substantively unconscionable because it permitted unilateral modification, contained certain carve-outs, prohibited public injunctive relief, and contained a class action waiver.  Court agreed that the agreement’s limit on liability was one-sided and arbitrary and thus substantively unconscionable, severing the offending provision. 

• Burton Way Hotels, Ltd. v. Four Seasons Hotels Ltd. No. 2:11-CV-00303-PSG-PLA (C.D. Cal. July 5, 2017)

  07/05/2017

  Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and rendered moot defendant’s motion to appoint arbitrators.  Defendant asked the court to interpret the scope of an October 2016 ninth circuit ruling reversing part of a previous arbitration award’s confirmation.  Court, however, found that per the current arbitration agreement, “jurisdictional and arbitrability disputes” should be decided by the arbitral tribunal. 

• De Alba v. Brinker International, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-03486-FMO-JC (C.D. Cal. June 30, 2017)

  06/30/2017

  Court granted the motion to compel arbitration. Court concluded that, while the three arbitration agreements amounted to adhesion contracts, there was no other indication of oppression or surprise so the degree of procedural unconscionability was low. Court also concluded that the 2006 iteration of the arbitration agreement was not substantively unconscionable because it did not require plaintiffs to incur any type of expense other than may similarly be paid in court, and that the cost-splitting provisions in the 2008 and 2011 agreements could be severed from the arbitration agreement if those provisions were determined to be unconscionable.

• Maxson v. Beazer Homes Holdings Corp., No. 8:17-CV-00583-DOC-AFM (C.D. Cal. June 21, 2017)

  06/21/2017

  Court granted the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court concluded that defendant’s “multistate nature” was sufficient for it to find that the FAA applied to the agreement. Court also concluded that, although there was a modest level of procedural unconscionability because the agreement was a contract of adhesion, plaintiff failed to establish substantive unconscionability and therefore the agreement was not unconscionable.

• 2151 Michelson, L.P. v. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, No. 8:17-CV-0781-DOC-DFM (C.D. Cal. June 16, 2017)

  06/16/2017

  Court denied plaintiff’s motion to remand and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court found the issue of whether the previous state court judgment had preclusive effect was not subject to arbitration, but all other claims were and defendant had not waived its right to compel arbitration. 

• Kim v. CashCall, Inc., No. 8:17-CV-00076-DOC-DFM (C.D. Cal. June 8, 2017) 

  06/08/2017

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel individual arbitration and stayed the proceedings pending the Supreme Court’s disposition of Morris v. Ernst & Young.  Court rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable, but did not resolve plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration clause violated the NLRA because that very question was central to a case, Morris, currently pending before the Supreme Court.

• Oren Enterprises, Inc.  v. Stefanie Cove & Co., No. 2:17-CV-03619-PA-AFM (C.D. Cal June 2, 2017)

  06/02/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of trade secret claims and dismissed the case. Court found that claims related to post employment conduct were within the scope of an arbitration clause contained in an employee agreement. Court further found that a non-signatory to the agreement could compel arbitration under California state law where a signatory relies on the terms of the agreement in asserting its claims against the non-signatory.

• Wright v. Sirius XM radio Inc., No. 8:16-CV-01688-JVS-JCG (C.D. Cal. June 1, 2017)

  06/01/2017

  Court granted motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that defendant’s documentary evidence of mailing the agreement to plaintiff was sufficient to establish that plaintiff received the agreement and had notice of the arbitration provision.

• Division Six Sports, Inc. v. Levi Strauss Asia Pacific Division Pte. Ltd., No. 2:17-CV-02768-MWF-AFM (C.D. Cal. May. 19, 2017)

  05/19/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the action.  Court declined to dismiss the motion based on the defendant’s failure to first comply with a local timing rule and held that the parties’ agreement governed the claims at issue.  Court further held that the parties had delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator by adopting the UNCITRAL rules and declined to deny the petition as wholly groundless notwithstanding such delegation.