2016-2024 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.

• 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.

• Scentsy, Inc. v. Blue Cross of Idaho Health Service, Inc., 1:23-cv-00552-AKB (D. Idaho Aug. 28, 2024)

  08/28/2024

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that that the agreement in which plaintiff’s claim arose under did not have an arbitration clause. Court reasoned claims arose from the parties’ prior 2020 agreement, and not a later-in-time agreement which contained an arbitration clause. 

• Gramercy Distressed Opportunity Fund II, L.P., v. Bakhmatyuk, No. 2:21-CV-00223-KHR (D. Wyo. Aug. 26, 2024)

  08/26/2024

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding no privity of contract existed between the parties with respect to an arbitration agreement despite reference to several documents that allegedly contained arbitration provisions.

• Iraq Telecom Limited v. Sirwin Saber Mustafa, No. 2:24-CV-03728-RBS (E.D. Pa. Aug. 23, 2024)

  08/23/2024

  Court confirmed arbitration award pursuant to the New York Convention, finding none of the grounds for refusal to enforce an award applicable. Court also found that by filing a related application under 28 USC § 1782, respondents had waived any objections to personal jurisdiction. 

• Titan Consortium 1, LLC v. Argentine Republic, No. 21-CV-02250-JMC (D.D.C. Aug. 19, 2024)

  08/19/2024

  Court denied respondent’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit as time-barred, finding that the twelve-year statute of limitations under D.C. Code § 15-101, governing enforcement of judgments rendered by courts in the District of Columbia, applied to the instant matter and not, as respondent argued, the three-year statute of limitations period pursuant to the federal or D.C. Arbitration Acts. Court reasoned that the “potential lack of uniformity [in limitations periods for claims pursuant to 22 USC § 1650a] does not compel departing from the well-settled practice of borrowing state limitations period.” As such, the twelve-year statute of limitations applied, and thus petitioner’s suit was not time-barred.

• Lanesborough 2000, LLC, v. Nextres, LLC, No. 1:23-CV-07584-PKC (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2024)

  08/15/2024

  Court denied in part petition to confirm arbitration award and vacated in part the parties award pursuant to 9 USC § 10(a)(4). Court found that the arbitrator exceeded his authority in awarding injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. However, claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing were within the scope of the parties’ arbitration agreement.

• Fiorentino v. Cantiere Delle Marche, No. 23-CV-21089 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 9, 2024

  08/09/2024

  Fiorentino v. Cantiere Delle Marche, No. 23-CV-21089 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 9, 2024) Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending the outcome of that arbitration where the parties entered into a contract for the construction of a yacht which contained an arbitration provision and each of the Complaint’s counts were determined to arise from the contract.

• Jiangsu Beier Decoration Materials Co. Ltd. v. Angle World LLC, No. 23-2450 (3rd Cir. Aug. 8, 2024)

  08/08/2024

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of appellant’s renewed petition to confirm its foreign arbitration award.  Court of appeals found that the parties did not agree to arbitrate pursuant to Article IV of the New York Convention and that the district court properly applied Pennsylvania, as opposed to Chinese, law in determining whether the arbitration agreement was valid.  Further, court of appeals rejected appellant’s argument that district court should have granted comity to the Chinese court’s holding that the parties had a valid agreement to arbitrate.

• Storz v. Southern Airways Corp., No. 4:23-CV-01496-SEP (E.D. Mo. Aug. 5, 2024)

  08/05/2024

  Court granted in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court rejected plaintiffs’ claim that a later agreement revoked and superseded the arbitration provision of an earlier agreement where all of the plaintiffs’ claims arose from the earlier agreement.

• Texas Green Star Holdings, LLC, v. Landmark American Insurance Company, 3:23-CV-02223-X (N.D. Tex. July 30, 2024)

  07/30/2024

  Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for remand after granting certain defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court then reasoned that it had supplemental jurisdiction over claims against the defendants not subject to arbitration.  Therefore, court stayed and administratively closes the current case pending the outcome of the arbitration.  When a party moved for the Court to enter judgment on the arbitration award, the court will then order plaintiffs and defendants not subject to arbitration to meet and confer regarding the resolution of their remaining claims.

• William B. Coleman Co., Inc. v. Certain Underwriters At Lloyds, London, 2:23-CV-05892-BSL-KWR (E.D. La. July 30, 2024)

  07/30/2024

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration under a surplus lines insurance policy based on its determination that the claims were subject to arbitration under the New York Convention, and the arbitration provision was not invalid under Section 22:868 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes—which serves as a general bar to the enforcement of arbitration provisions against insurers—because the New York Convention is an exception to that statute.

• Lupo Futures, LLC v. Wedbush Securities, Inc., No. 1:24-CV-02826 (N.D. Ill. July 22, 2024)

  07/22/2024

  Court granted in part petitioners’ motion to compel arbitration, ordering the parties to comply with the procedure for selecting an arbitration venue detailed in the parties’ arbitration agreement.  Court further denied respondents’ motion to dismiss, finding it had the authority to determine questions of arbitrability where the arbitration agreement did not explicitly delegate issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator.  Further respondents’ motion to dismiss was denied as the petitioners were able to show respondent refused to arbitrate in failing to comply with the procedures that required it to provide three arbitration bodies to petitioners after they indicated their intention to arbitration.

• Brooks v. Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC, No. 3:23-CV-01729-LL-VET (S.D. Cal. July 19, 2024)

  07/19/2024

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and denied plaintiffs’ request to stay the proceedings.  Court found plaintiff signed an arbitration agreement via DocuSign where the plaintiff had ample time to review the contract, the arbitration provision was clearly labelled, and there was an option to opt-out of the agreement.  Additionally, the FAA applied here as a case concerning “commerce”, which included real estate rental contracts and preempted California law prohibiting arbitration in this instance.  Court further found defendants to be parties to the arbitration agreement where plaintiff acknowledged this relationship in its complaint.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• Garage Door Systems, LLC v. Blue Giant Equipment Corp., No. 1:23-CV-02223-JMS-KMB (S.D. Ind. June 20, 2024)

  06/20/2024

  Court 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• Baskin v. Bottini & Bottini, Inc., No. 4:23-CV-02701 (S.D. Tex. May 20, 2024)

  05/20/2024

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, reasoning that under “direct benefits estoppel” a plaintiff cannot both seek the benefits of a contract and avoid the contract’s arbitration agreement. Here, court concluded that plaintiff sought direct benefits wherein by seeking compensation pursuant to the terms of contract and thus, the arbitration agreement could not be avoided. Court also denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss, instead choosing to stay the action pending resolution of the arbitral proceedings. 

• 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.

• In re BAM Trading Services Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:22-CV-03461-JSC (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2024)

  05/14/2024

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that by incorporating the AAA rules into the parties’ arbitration agreement, the parties clearly and unmistakably agreed that questions of arbitrability will be delegated to the arbitrator. Court also found that under agency and equitable estoppel theories, the individual defendant could similarly invoke the arbitration agreement and compel arbitration as to the claims brought against them. 

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• Nemo Digital Holdings Corp. v. XYZ Financial Markets LLC, No. 2:24-CV-00737-EP-JSA (D.N.J. Apr. 11, 2024)

  04/11/2024

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration on the grounds that plaintiff alleged the entire agreement between the parties was procured by fraud but did not specifically argue that the arbitration agreement was procured by fraud.  Court denied defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees, reasoning that it could not determine who was considered a prevailing party at that stage, considering the opinion was a preliminary procedural order.

• Fli-Lo Falcon LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 22-35818 (9th Cir. Apr. 10, 2024)

  04/10/2024

  Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s opinion granting motion to compel arbitration, reasoning that the transportation worker exemption under Section I of the FAA does not extend to business entities or commercial contracts.  Court of appeals found the delegation provision in the arbitration clause was not unconscionable, as it was between sophisticated parties, so plaintiffs’ unconscionability arguments directed at the arbitration agreement as a whole must be decided by the arbitrator.

• Royal White Cement, Inc. v. Weco Holli M/V, No. 23-CV-00788-BSL-DPC (E.D. La. Apr. 9, 2024)

  04/09/2024

  Court granted in part motions to compel arbitration and to stay case pursuant to the New York Convention and denied in part motions to stay, insofar as they sought to stay the case in its entirety as to claims and parties not subject to the arbitration agreement. 

• Eaton v. Ascent Resources-Utica, LLC, No. 19-CV-03412-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio Apr. 4, 2024)

  04/04/2024

  Court granted defendant’s motion to modify the class definition to exclude members of a certified class of property owners who had binding arbitration provisions in their lease agreements.  Court reasoned that defendants did not waive their right to arbitrate based on their participation in the litigation because evidence regarding the arbitration agreements of non-class representatives was not available before the class certification stage, and the existence of arbitration agreements between class members and defendant had the potential to destroy the typicality and adequacy requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a).

• St. James Parish School Board v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, No. 23-CV-06638-BSL-MBN (E.D. La. Apr. 1, 2024)

  04/01/2024

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation where all four factors of the New York Convention had been met: the parties entered into a written agreement to arbitrate, the agreement provides for arbitration in a New York Convention signatory nation, the agreement arises out of a commercial legal relationship, and the respondent is a non-American citizen and party to the arbitration agreement. 

• Sunbelt Innovative Plastics, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London, 23-CV-06194-BSL-JVM (E.D. La. Apr. 1, 2024)

  04/01/2024

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation where it found all four factors of the New York Convention had been met: the parties entered into a written agreement to arbitrate, the agreement provides for arbitration in a New York Convention signatory nation, the agreement arises out of a commercial legal relationship, and respondent is a non-American citizen and party to the arbitration agreement. 

• Jubilant Generics Limited v. Dechra Veterinary Products, LLC, 2:23-CV-00237-JDL (D. Me. Mar. 28, 2024)

  03/28/2024

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel ICC arbitration of defendant’s counterclaims, holding the issue of waiver was for the court to decide because it was based on litigation conduct and that plaintiff had not waived its right to compel arbitration because its claims fell within an exemption to the arbitration provision in the parties’ underlying agreement, and the parties were required to litigate in two forums to give effect to the arbitration agreement under the FAA.

• Chifici Enterprise D/B/A Deanie’s Seafood v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 2:23-CV-05764-JTM-MBN (E.D. La. Mar. 27, 2024)

  03/27/2024

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings, holding that all four requirements of the New York Convention were met. Although at least one party to the agreement was not a foreign or non-American citizen, court granted the motion, holding that plaintiffs were equitably estopped from objecting to arbitration because their underlying claims alleged misconduct among the various defendants, who included foreign citizens, that was interdependent and in concert.

• Landbridge Port Services (Hong Kong) Ltd. v. Notarc Port Investment LLC, 1:24-CV-00254-GBW (D. Del. Mar. 27, 2024)

  03/27/2024

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion to remand to Delaware state court, holding, in agreement with the Second Circuit, that § 205 of the FAA does not independently confer subject matter jurisdiction. Court found that it also did not have federal question jurisdiction under § 203 of the FAA, because it was an action to enjoin an arbitration in Panama instead of a motion to compel arbitration or enforce an award.

• Stonelake Condominium Association, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 3:23-CV-00279-JWD-SDJ (M.D. La. Mar. 27, 2024)

  03/27/2024

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings, holding that the arbitration agreement was covered by the New York Convention and thus could not be reverse preempted by a Louisiana state statute prohibiting arbitration clauses in insurance contracts. Court held further that the New York Convention was applicable to all defendants, including US citizen defendants, because the underlying claims alleged that all defendants acted “interdependently and in concert.”

• Vitol, Inc., v. Copape Produtos de Petroleo LTDA, No. 22-CV-10569-JPC (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2024)

  03/21/2024

  Court granted petitioner’s motion to compel arbitration and denied respondent’s cross-motion to dismiss the action. Court found that, although respondent was not a signatory to the relevant contracts, respondent was estopped from refusing to be bound by the arbitration clauses contained therein because it directly benefited from the contracts.