A&O Shearman | U.S. International Arbitration Digest | 2016-2024 Arbitration Decisions
U.S. International Arbitration Digest
This links to the home page

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.

Filter By:
  • Kelemen v. Olah, 1:22-CV-00566-JGLC (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2023)

    Court appointed an arbitrator after the parties failed to agree to a neutral and sent the court proposed qualifications for the arbitrator.  Court selected an arbitrator who met the proposed qualifications and who it found to be best suited for the case based on her experience in New York.

  • Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty SE v. HBC US Holdings Inc., No. 1:23-CV-00553-JLR (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2023)

    Court granted the petition to appoint an umpire in pending arbitration, pursuant to the FAA and appointed a neutral umpire.

  • Endurance Specialty Insurance Limited v. Horseshoe Re Limited, No. 23-CV-01831-JGK (S.D.N.Y. July 5, 2023)

    Court denied motion to remand petition to remove presiding arbitrator for bias, finding that it had federal subject matter jurisdiction over the action pursuant to § 203 of the FAA.  Court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a claim, finding that the court was without authority to remove a sitting arbitrator in an arbitration proceeding under Bermuda procedural law, and in any event, the petition failed on the merits.

  • Canobinoti, LLC v. Woods, No. 20-CV-25081-MGC (S.D. Fla. July 26, 2022)

    Court found a provision designating the International Arbitration Center as the arbitral forum was not integral to the agreement as it does not “pervade” the agreement.  Accordingly, the court recommends the appointment of a substitute arbitrator pursuant to § 5 of the FAA.

  • National Oilwell Verco v. Smith International, Inc., No. 4:21-MC-00655 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 12, 2021) 

    Court denied plaintiffs’ motions for transfer and for appointment of a third arbitrator.  The court held that under the language of the parties’ agreement the court had discretion as to whether to choose a third arbitrator or to leave it to the AAA. 

  • Santa Fe Community Housing Trust v. Maes, No. 1:18-CV-00054-RB-KBM (D.N.M. May 28, 2019)

    Court granted motion to appoint arbitrator and denied motion to stay, finding that the parties agreed to arbitrate their disputes, but failed to include in the arbitration agreement a method to select an arbitrator.  Thus, court ordered the parties to submit a list of five acceptable arbitrators,

  • The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society v. Moreno, No. 2:16-CV-01355-JB-KRS (D.N.M. Feb. 28, 2019)

    Court granted defendant’s motion to appoint a neutral arbitrator pursuant to the FAA.  Court found that the parties failed to agree on an arbitrator and that arbitration agreement did not provide a method for appointing an arbitrator in the event that the parties failed to agree.  Thus, court had authority to appoint an arbitrator pursuant to 9 USC § 5.

  • The Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters Insurance Company v. C.F.L.P. 1, LLC, No. 17-6498 (6th Cir. Oct. 31, 2018)

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s selection of a third party appraiser, reaffirmation of that appraiser in face of allegations of bias, denial of appellant’s motion to rescind the appraisal process, refusal to instruct appraiser that cosmetic matching was required under the contract, and grant of summary judgment for appellee on appellants’ extracontractual claims. Court noted that even if the district court was incorrect in applying the FAA to the proceedings, the result would be the same.

  • Konz v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-05181-GBD (S.D.N.Y. Oct 17, 2018)

    Court granted respondent’s cross-petition to confirm an arbitration award issued by a FINRA panel and denied petitioner’s motion to vacate. Court rejected petitioner’s argument that the arbitrators exceeded their powers on the grounds that they were not appointed in accordance with the procedures agreed upon by the parties because the petitioner did not object to their appointment during the arbitration proceedings upon receiving the panel’s disclosures.

  • Ventive, LLC v. Caring People LLC, No. 1:18-CV-00120-DCN (D. Idaho Oct. 12, 2018)

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to appoint an arbitrator, rejecting defendant’s initial argument that the collateral attack doctrine barred any relief plaintiff seeks.  Subsequently, defendants joined plaintiff’s motion to appoint an arbitrator and so, the court granted and required the parties to submit a joint list of no more than three potential arbitrators.

  • CaringOnDemand, LLC v. Ventive LLC, No. 9:18-CV-80211-BB (S.D. Fla. July 19, 2018)

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of an order compelling arbitration and the appointment of an arbitrator. Court rejected plaintiff’s attempt to have the court appoint an arbitrator after plaintiff failed to request that relief in their initial motion. Court held that a Rule 59(e) motion could not be used to raise issues that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.

  • Certain Underwriting Members of Lloyds of London v. Insurance Company of the Americas, No. 17-1137-CV (2d Cir. June 7, 2018)

    Court of appeals reversed district court’s vacatur of arbitral award for evident partiality under the FAA, holding that a party seeking to vacate an award under § 10(a)(2) of the FAA had to sustain a higher burden to prove evident partiality on the part of a party-appointed arbitrator. The panel remanded the case for a determination by clear and convincing evidence whether the failure by the arbitrator to disclose his relationships violated the contractual requirement of disinterestedness or had a prejudicial impact on the award.

  • Sprint Communications Company v. Albany County, New York, No. 1:17-CV-01271-BKS-CFH (N.D.N.Y. May 25, 2018)

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to appoint an arbitrator pursuant to § 5 of the FAA.  Court held that congress had enacted § 5 to prevent indefinite delays in the arbitration process, and that the six month delay warranted court intervention and appointment of arbitrators. 

  • Johnson v. Cach, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00383-BLW (D. Idaho Feb. 9, 2018)


    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to reopen the case or appoint an arbitrator. Court held that, despite the unavailability of the National Arbitration Forum as an arbitration forum, the language of the arbitration agreement at issue contemplated the use of other arbitral forums and provides guidance for doing so.

  • In the matter of Arbitration between Shepherd v. LPL Financial LLC, No. 5:17-CV-00150-D (E.D.N.C. Nov. 1, 2017)

    Court granted motion to quash subpoenas of arbitrators in relation to plaintiffs’ petition to vacate an arbitration award.  Court found that plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate clear evidence of impropriety to justify post-award discovery from an arbitrator.  Court further found that the undisclosed relationship between a lawyer and the arbitrator was strictly professional, and the circumstances surrounding the arbitrator’s non-disclosures did not give the impression of clear impropriety, particularly when plaintiffs won the arbitral award unanimously.   Court found that alleged impropriety by one arbitrator did not give grounds to “double-check” the other panelists.

  • Whaley v. Pacific Seafood Group, No. 1:10-CV-03057-MC (D. Or. Nov. 1, 2017)

    Court granted motion to stay arbitration pending an appeal of an order appointing another federal judge as a replacement arbitrator, after the initial judge retired, holding that appellant had made sufficient showing that it may prevail on appeal.  Court found that movant had raised a serious question as to whether parties intended to appoint the initial arbitrator, regardless of whether he remained a federal judge.  Court found that parties could be harmed without a stay, as if the Ninth Circuit granted the appeal, parties would have wasted time and resources during arbitration in front of the replacement arbitrator.

  • National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA v. Beelman Truck Company, No. 1:17-CV-02946-VEC (S.D.N.Y. July 17, 2017)

    Court granted petition to select an umpire, finding that, in the absence of agreement among the party-appointed arbitrators as to who the umpire would be, the FAA and arbitration agreement empowered the court to appoint the umpire. 

  • Greenway Energy, LLC v. Ardica Tech., Inc., No. 1:17-819-RMG (D.S.C. May 17, 2017)

    Court ordered parties to arbitrate their dispute and dismissed the complaint.  Because the parties agreed that all claims arising out of the contract must be arbitrated, court held that the only issues before the court were selection of the arbitral forum and the arbitrator, which the court duly selected.  Court dismissed complaint given that entire dispute was within the scope of the arbitration clause.

  • AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. v. Lacchini, No. 16 Civ. 2575 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2017)

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction on allegations that the foreign defendant arbitrator corruptly presided over the arbitration, including violations of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) and tortious interference with contract under New York law.  Court held it lacked jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2), concluding that defendant did not possess minimum contacts to warrant an exercise of personal jurisdiction pursuant to constitutional standards.

  • Terra Finance, LLC v. Acrow Corporation of America, No. 2:16-CV-00075-SRC-CLW (D.N.J. Feb. 7, 2017)

    Court granted motion to dismiss proceedings and compel arbitration.  Court held that the dispute was subject to a valid arbitration agreement and rejected the plaintiff’s assertions of procedural and substantive accountability, finding that they were mere assertions of impropriety.  Court also refused to substitute an arbitrator, holding that concern with the amount of administrative fees did not satisfy the narrow FAA grounds permitting such judicial intervention.

  • Nat’l Indemnity Co. v. IRB Brazil Reseguros S.A., No. 16-1267 (2d Cir. Jan. 31, 2017)

    Circuit court affirmed confirmation of arbitral awards, finding that district court had not committed clear error in concluding that an arbitrator had not shown “evident partiality” by accepting an appointment by a related party in another arbitration.

  • Owens v. American Arbitration Association, No. 16-1055 (8th Cir. Nov. 18, 2016)

    Court affirmed dismissal of plaintiff-appellant’s claims based on arbitral immunity.  Owens sued the AAA for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, tortious interference with contract, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage after the AAA removed an arbitrator from a three-member arbitration panel without holding a hearing, consulting the removed arbitrator, or informing Owens.  Appellate court concluded that the removal of arbitrators is protected by arbitral immunity, which protects sponsoring organizations from civil liability at all stages of the arbitration process.

  • Robinson v. EOR-ARK, LLC, No. 15-3406 (8th Cir. Nov. 14, 2016)

    Court dismissed complaint and compelled arbitration, holding that arbitration agreement was enforceable under Arkansas law even if none of the arbitral fora foreseen under the arbitration agreement were available, since in that case the arbitrator would be appointed by the court under 9 USC § 5.  Court further held that the arbitration agreement was enforceable even against non-signatory defendants, since they were closely related to the signatory defendants and arbitration therefore is appropriate.

  • Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh. v. Source One Staffing LLC, No. 1:16-CV-06461 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2016)

    Court agreed to appoint arbitral chair.  Court concluded that judicial intervention was proper because the terms of the parties’ arbitration agreement called for judicial appointment of third arbitrator if the parties’ own process had lapsed.  Court made its appointment with reference to the requirements included in the parties’ agreement and considerations of relative experience.

  • Gillick v. Brown, No. 4:16-CV-00122-RLW (E.D. Mo. Sept. 8, 2016)

    Court granted motion for judgment on the pleadings in action seeking court appointing of an impartial umpire, finding that the applicable agreement provided for court appointment in the event the parties could not agree on an impartial umpire.

  • Moss v. First Premier Bank, No. 15-2513-CV (2d Cir. Aug. 29, 2016)

    Circuit court affirms district court’s decision that it could not appoint a substitute arbitrator since the parties’ arbitration agreement contemplated arbitration only before the National Arbitration Forum which was no longer accepting consumer arbitrations.  Court held that, where the designated arbitration forum is unavailable and no other option has been agreed by the parties, it must decline under §5 of the FAA to appoint substitute arbitrators or compel arbitration in another forum. Court did however recognize that there is a circuit split on this issue.

  • Parm v. National Bank of California, N.A., No. 15-12509 (11th Cir. Aug. 29, 2016)

    Circuit court affirms district court’s decision not to compel arbitration since the arbitration agreement was unconscionable and required the parties to arbitrate in an unavailable forum.  Court held that the arbitration agreement’s forum selection clause mandates the use of an illusory and unavailable arbitral forum, and because this term was integral to the parties’ agreement to arbitrate, the court cannot provide a substitute arbitrator or compel arbitration under §5 of the FAA.

  • Int’l Assn of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Bath Iron Works, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00257-GZS (D. Me. Aug. 11, 2016)

    Court granted motion to dismiss claim that arbitrator was biased as plaintiff both failed to file its complaint within Maine’s 90-day time limit to challenge an arbitral award and, despite knowledge of alleged bias, failed to challenge the arbitrator prior to the arbitrator’s decision.

  • Cooper v. Westend Capital Mgmt., L.L.C., No. 15-31068 (5th Cir. Aug. 9, 2016)

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s orders refusing to enjoin arbitration and confirming an award in favor of defendants who had expelled plaintiff from an operating agreement which required binding arbitration of disputes.  Court held that defendants did not substantially invoke the judicial process by filing a TRO and did not waive arbitration when they sought judicial relief.  Court also held that the operating agreement’s choice-of-law provision was insufficient to compel application of California’s arbitration standards.  Court rejected plaintiff’s claim that the arbitrator exceeded his powers in making the award as plaintiff failed to point to any specific bias or prejudice against him.

  • Royce v. Needle, No. 1:15-CV-00259 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 1, 2016)

    Court granted request to compel arbitration. Court found that the arbitration agreement, which specified arbitration by a former Magistrate judge who had since passed away, survived the named arbitrator’s death and remains enforceable.  As the arbitration agreement did not contemplate the death of the named arbitrator, it was the court’s duty to appoint an arbitrator pursuant to section 5 of the FAA.

  • Bordelon Marine, LLC v. Bibby Subsea ROV, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-01106-LMA-DEK (W.D. La. July 7, 2016)

    Plaintiff’s motion to re-open and enforce method for appointment of arbitrators denied and defendant’s motion to compel arbitration granted. Since the parties had deadlocked regarding the selection of arbitrators, the court may intervene pursuant to 9 USC § 4 and decide defendant’s challenge to the arbitrator appointment.  In doing so, court held that defendant was unambiguously authorized under the parties’ contract to appoint both the first and the second arbitrator since plaintiff failed to appoint an arbitrator within the contractually agreed time period.  An order compelling arbitration under 9 USC § 4 is warranted since, by refusing to recognize the properly appointed arbitration panel, plaintiff had refused to arbitrate.

  • John Hancock Life Ins. Co. (U.S.A) v. Employers Reassurance Corp., No. 1:15-CV-13626 (D. Mass. June 21, 2016)

    Petition to remove an arbitrator for lack of qualifications specified by the parties’ agreement denied. Court held that neither § 4 or § 5 of the FAA provide authority to remove an arbitrator timely appointed prior to the conclusion of the arbitration. 

  • Henry v. New Orleans Louisiana Saints L.L.C., No. 2:15-CV-05971-CJB-JCW (E.D. La. May 18, 2016)

    Motion to compel arbitration granted and action stayed pending outcome of the arbitration. Court found that a valid arbitration agreement existed, noting that ambiguous language does not necessarily render it unenforceable. Additionally, since plaintiff failed to show that the arbitrator’s relationship with defendants was undisclosed, unanticipated, or unintended, the appropriate method for contesting any possible bias is through judicial review of the ensuing arbitration award.

  • Badinelli v. The Tuxedo Club, No. 7:15-CV-06273 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2016)

    Motion to compel arbitration and stay court action granted.  Since the arbitration agreement lacked a description of the arbitral procedure, the court ordered that the parties to confer and appoint an arbitrator, failing which the court would do so.

  • AMA Multimedia LLC v. Borjan Solutions SL, No. 2:15-CV-1673 JCM (GWF) (D. Nev. Apr. 15, 2016) 

    Motions to compel arbitration and stay action granted following parties’ submission agreement to arbitrate dispute. Court further orders that Honorable Philip M. Pro be selected to arbitrate the matter. 

  • Capstone Associated Services Ltd v. Organizational Strategies Inc., No. 4:15-CV-03233 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 8, 2016)

    Motion to compel arbitration denied because sole arbitrator selected by agreement of the parties refused to serve as arbitrator. Separate motion to compel arbitration pursuant to different arbitration agreement granted and sole arbitrator selected shall decide which claims, if any, are subject to arbitration. 

  • WeWork Companies Inc. v. Zoumer, No. 16-CV-457 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2016)

    Motion to compel arbitration granted and action stayed except for issues relating to appointment of arbitrator. The failure to include specific details on the procedure of the arbitration is not fatal to the clause’s validity. Court ordered parties to attempt to agree sole arbitrator, failing which, the court would do so.

  • Bowers v. Northern Two Cayes Co. Ltd., No. 1:15-CV-00029-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C. Mar. 15, 2016)

    Motion to compel arbitration granted as the arbitration agreement is valid; defendant’s motion to dismiss denied as premature. Parties directed to confer and agree upon an arbitrator. 

  • Ruiz v. Millennium Square Residential Association, No. 15-1014 (JDB) (D.D.C. Jan. 13, 2016)

    Motion to compel arbitration granted and action stayed pending arbitration. Arbitration agreement’s failure to require written arbitration decisions or to provide for certain discovery procedures does not render the agreement substantively unconscionable as a whole. The agreement’s arbitrator-selection process was however unconscionable because it assigned the selection power solely to one of the parties and the arbitrator-selection provision could be severed from the agreement.

  • Parkcrest Builders, LLC v. Housing Authority of New Orleans (HANO), No. 15-150 (E.D. La. Jan. 13, 2016)

    Motion to compel arbitration granted; question of whether plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies is an issue of procedural arbitrability to be decided by an arbitrator; the court is authorized to appoint an arbitrator but it is preferable that arbitrators be chosen by the parties.