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.

• 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.

• 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.

• Merritt v. Square Capital, LLC, No. 2:24-CV-02196-TLP-ATC  (W.D. Tenn. July 25, 2024)

  07/25/2024

  Court recommended that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration be granted. Court found that a valid arbitration agreement was formed when plaintiff consented to terms of service of a cash app containing an express and unequivocal agreement to arbitrate. Court also found that plaintiff failed to meet his burden to show that the arbitration agreement was invalid or that his claims fell outside the scope of the agreement. Court rejected plaintiff’s claims relating to the merits of the parties’ dispute or the question of arbitrability on the grounds that those claims fell within the purview of the arbitrator’s authority.

• 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.