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.

• Concierge Auctions, LLC v. A-M 2018 Homes, LLC, No. 1:24-CV-01681-VEC (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2024)

  10/30/2024

  Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm arbitration award pursuant to the FAA. Court found that the arbitrator did not disregard controlling law when he concluded that the principal owner and sole manager of the respondent LLC had apparent authority to bind the LLC to the terms of the underlying agreement.

• Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. VH 4122 Quincy, Inc., No. 8:24-CV-01265-AAQ (D. Md. Oct. 28, 2024)

  10/28/2024

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion for default judgment confirming arbitration award. Court found that plaintiff sufficiently established the existence of a valid contract and respondents failed to establish any grounds on which the court may vacate the award.

• The Republic of Nicaragua v. Hills Exploration Corporation, No. 3:24-CV-03104-MMC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2024)

  10/28/2024

  Court denied the respondents’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Petitioner’s brought a petition to recognize and enforce an ICSID arbitration award. Respondents argue that simply holding property in a state does not give rise to the “minimum contacts” required to establish personal jurisdiction. Court disagreed, finding that Shaffer v. Heitner, 422 U.S. 186 (1977), created an exception to the general “minimum contacts” rule, and plaintiff could establish personal jurisdiction based on defendant’s ownership of property in the forum state for the purposes of its ICSID enforcement action.

• Hidroelectrica Santa Rita S.A. v. Corporacion AIC, SA, No. 23-12519 (11th Cir. Oct. 16, 2024)

  10/16/2024

  Court of appeals affirmed the district court decision in finding the tribunal did not lack any contractual basis, nor did it exceed its authority when rendering a reasoned decision in the underlying arbitration. The Eleventh Circuit found that “[e]ven if the Tribunal erred in its analysis of the contractual language, it makes no difference to our review as long as the Tribunal construed and applied the underlying contract.” Court of appeals found the tribunal did so here. Additionally, court of appeals reasoned that it would not disturb the findings of fact made by the tribunal, as doing so would exceed its authority in confirming arbitration awards under the FAA.

• 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.

• Next Level Ventures, LLC v. Avid Holdings, Ltd., No. 23-35404 (9th Cir. Oct. 10, 2024)

  10/10/2024

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s finding that motion to vacate arbitral award was untimely since it was filed more than three months after the award was delivered. In particular, it found the movant was not entitled to equitable tolling because it received actual notice of the arbitration award more than three months before it moved to vacate it.

• Purple Innovation, LLC v. Responsive Surface Technology LLC, 2:20-CV-00708-RJS-CMR (D. Utah Oct. 8, 2024)

  10/08/2024

  Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award and denied cross-motion to vacate arbitration award, finding none of the defendants’ arguments concerning vacatur under the FAA to have merit. In particular, the defendants challenged the arbitrator’s award of legal fees and costs. Court found such an award permissible, in part because of the arbitrator’s express reasoning and legal findings.

• Sociedad Concesionaria Metropolitana de Salud S.A. v. Webuild S.p.A., No. 1:23-CV-01175-CFC (D. Del. Sept. 27, 2024)

  09/27/2024

  Court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction and found, contrary to plaintiff’s contention, it did not have quasi in rem jurisdiction where because Webuild S.p.A, a foreign defendenat, is the sole owner of Webuild US, a Delaware corporation, but Webuild US has no relation to the arbitration award at issue.

• Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Partnership Acting Through Vantage Mezzanine Fund II (PTY) LTD v. Taylor, No. 1:23-CV-06852-ALC (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2024)

  09/27/2024

  Court granted plaintiff’s petition to confirm and enforce a foreign arbitral award against defendant finding that (1) court has quasi in rem jurisdiction over defendant with respect to funds held at defendant’s account at Bank of America in New York, (2) defendant has not demonstrated that one of the seven grounds of exclusion under Article V of the Convention applies, and (3) the award does not violate New York’s public policy because it is not “excessive”.

• Blasket Renewable Investments, LLC v. Kingdom of Spain, 1:23-CV-02701-RC (D.D.C. Sept. 26, 2024)

  09/26/2024

  Court granted petitioner’s petition to enforce an arbitration award against the Kingdom of Spain, holding (1) that it had jurisdiction to do so under the FSIA, (2) Spain was not entitled to a stay pending resolution of related proceedings, (3) the award was entitled to full faith and credit, and (4) the defenses of forum non conveniens, the act of state doctrine, the foreign sovereign compulsion doctrine, and the broader principles of international comity doctrine did not apply.

• LXA Aviation Leasing 3 Ltd. v. Honeywell Aerospace Trading, Inc., No. 24-CV-04080 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2024)

  09/25/2024

  Court granted petitioner’s petition to confirm an arbitration award, rejecting respondent’s argument that there was no Article III case or controversy at-issue where the award had not been fully satisfied.

• UpHealth Holdings Inc. v. Glocal Healthcare Systems Private Limited, No. 1:24-CV-03778 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 24, 2024)

  09/24/2024

  Court granted in part petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitral award arising under a share purchase agreement, finding that most respondents waived their contract and damages based arguments when they failed to raise them before the arbitral tribunal. Court also held that the award should be confirmed as to most respondents because the arbitral tribunal properly interpreted the underlying share purchase agreement. However, the court held that one respondent preserved a legal argument that was properly before the court and vacated the award as to that respondent, reasoning that the tribunal premised its finding as to that respondent on a fact that was not alleged or in evidence. 

• Panamax International Shipping Company Ltd. v. AAT Global Ltd., No. 1:24-CV-03512-JGK (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2024)

  09/24/2024

  Court granted petitioner’s petition to confirm an arbitral award issued after respondents failed to appear at the arbitration and declined to vacate the award because respondents did not show that any provision in Article V of the New York Convention applied, or that the award was procured through corruption, fraud, or undue means.

• Redes Andinas de Comunicaciones S.R.L. v. The Republico of Peru, No. 1:22-CV-03631-RC (D.D.C. Sept. 24, 2024)

  09/24/2024

  Following adverse arbitral awards, two respondents—the Republic of Peru and a Peruvian government ministry—failed to appear before the court in response to petitioner’s petition to enforce its arbitral awards, and the court held that the arbitration exception to the FSIA applied such that entry of default judgment and enforcement of the awards was proper. Court set aside the default judgment of a third respondent—another Peruvian governmental entity—upon finding good cause to do so.

• First Green Industries v. Solar Dairy, LLC, No. 1:23-CV-22433-JEM (S.D. Fla. Sept. 24, 2024)

  09/24/2024

  Magistrate court recommended that petitioner’s motion for final default judgement be granted because defendant had “failed to answer or otherwise respond to” plaintiff’s petition to confirm, recognize, and enforce foreign arbitral award. Court found that plaintiff properly complied with the Convention’s Article IV’s jurisdictional prerequisites, had established a prima facie case for confirmation of the award (which defendant did rebut), and “[t]here is no evidence that any of the bases for vacating the Final Award under the New York Convention apply here.” Furthermore, defendant could not even make such a showing because it failed to file a motion to set aside the Final Award within the required three-month time limit set by the FAA.

• GPGC Limited v. The Government of the Republic of Ghana, No. 1:24-CV-00169-JEB (D.D.C. Sept. 23, 2024)

  09/23/2024

  Court held that petitioner was entitled to attorneys’ fees in connection with an arbitral award the court previously confirmed upon finding that the underlying contract allowed for the prevailing party to receive fees, and respondent acted in bad faith. Court awarded fees pursuant to the Laffey Matrix, a commonly employed schedule of attorneys’ fees, which resulted in fees lower than petitioner requested.

• D.C. Keenan & Associates v. Wisell, No. 1:23-CV-08685-MKV (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2024)

  09/20/2024

  Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitral award in connection with a dispute over attorneys’ fees between two law firms and denied respondents’ cross-motion to vacate or modify the award. Court found that respondent was a signatory to the underlying agreement because one of the partners (who was also a respondent) signed on behalf of his law firm, and respondents were bound by the arbitration clause. Court also found the arbitration to have been fundamentally fair because respondents were given notice and an opportunity to be heard, and parties conducted a full and fair arbitration hearing.

• RSM Production Corporation v. Gaz du Cameroun, S.A., No. 23-20583 (5th Cir. Sept. 19, 2024)

  09/19/2024

  Court of appeals reversed the district court’s vacatur of an amended arbitral award, reasoning that the arbitral panel had authority to correct computational errors in determining the amount of damages, as well as the authority to determine what constituted a computational error under the applicable rules.

• Shenzhen Zejuijin Investment Center v. Yingkyui, No. 24-CV-00372-MMA-DEB (S.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2024)

  09/10/2024

  Court granted petition to confirm an arbitration award where none of the Art. V defenses to enforcement under the New York Convention applied. Court further denied respondent’s motions for lack or personal jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, and failure to joint indispensable parties. Court additionally denied respondent’s request for a stay, finding that a pending litigation in China did not have any bearing on the current proceeding to warrant a stay. Additionally, court considered numerous evidentiary objections made by the parties regarding the various declarations submitted in this mater. Court considered each objection on the basis of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 which holds that “[a] party may object that the material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence.”

• Suarez Magual v. Anez Dager, No. 23-CV-23491-RAR (S.D. Fla. Sept. 3, 2024) 

  09/03/2024

  Court confirmed a magistrate judge’s recommendation to vacate an order confirming an arbitration award by the ICC where one of the respondents was not properly served with the application for confirmation of the final arbitral award prior to the court’s entry of final judgment.

• Archirodon Construction (Overseas) Company Limited v. General Company for Ports of Iraq, No. 22-CV-01571-JEB (D.D.C. Aug. 16, 2024)

  08/16/2024

  Court denied respondents’ multiple motions asserting a range of jurisdictional and procedural arguments, and granted petitioner’s motion authorizing the commencement of attachment and execution efforts pursuant the FSIA. Under the FSIA, petitioner may seek to enforce a judgment by attaching certain property of the foreign state used for commercial activity in the United States, but only once “the court has . . . determined that a reasonable period of time has elapsed following the entry of judgment…” Contrary to respondents’ assertions, court concluded that “the intent [of respondents] to challenge the Court’s judgment does not toll the clock for the purposes of [FSIA]’s Section 1610(c)’s reasonable-time requirement,” and that eight months constitutes “a reasonable period of time” under which a court may authorize attachment and execution.

• NextEra Energy Global Holdings B.V. v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 23-7031 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 16, 2024)

  08/16/2024

  Court of appeals found that the district courts have jurisdiction over Spain pursuant to the FSIA’s arbitration exception. Court of appeals explained that when reviewing arbitration awards issued pursuant to the Energy Charter Treaty (“ECT”), whether the ECT applies to a dispute is not a jurisdictional question—rather, all that is required for jurisdictional purposes is “that the arbitral tribunal “‘purported to make an award pursuant to the ECT, not that it in fact did so.’” Court of appeals also held that the district court abused its discretion in enjoining Spain from pursuing an anti-suit injunction in foreign courts because it failed to (1) address the fact that the injunctions were sought against foreign sovereigns and (2) identify domestic interests strong enough to warrant the anti-suit injunctions. Judge Pan dissented, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting an anti-suit injunction where it considered principles of international comity, consideration of the views of the US is improper because they were not before the court, and the majority gave “insufficient weight to the [US’] obligation to uphold the ICSID Convention and its strong interests in doing so”.

• Zhongshan Fucheng Industrial Investment Co. Ltd v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, No. 23-7016 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 9, 2024)

  08/09/2024

  Court of appeals upheld enforcement of arbitral award against Nigeria, finding the FSIA’s arbitration exception applied because the award was governed by the New York Convention. Court of appeals reasoned that FSIA’s arbitration exception requires the court to find (1) an arbitration agreement, (2) an arbitration award, and (3) a treaty governing the arbitration award. Whether the arbitration exception applies in this case turned on whether the New York Convention governed the arbitration award. Court of appeals held it did because it found (1) a legal relationship, (2) the relationship was considered commercial, and (3) it is one between persons.

• Commodities & Minerals Enterprise, Ltd. v. CVS Ferrominera Orinoco C.A., No. 21-14504 (11th Cir. Aug. 8, 2024)

  08/08/2024

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision confirming arbitral award in favor of petitioner pursuant to the FAA and the New York Convention.  Court of appeals rejected respondent’s public policy defense regarding bribery to foreign officials because the defense applied to the underlying agreement and not to the award itself.

• Van Andel, LLM v. Lindberg, No. 1:23-CV-00879-CCE-JEP (M.D.N.C. Aug. 8, 2024)

  08/08/2024

  Court granted petitioners’ motion to confirm arbitration award pursuant to the FAA and the New York Convention.  Court found that respondents did not reference any ground for refusal authorized under the New York Convention, nor was a stay appropriate.

• 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.

• Risen Energy Co., Ltd., v. Focus Futura Holding Participações S.A., 1:23-CV-10993-LGS (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2024)

  07/31/2024

  Pursuant to a previous order, the court entered a pair of “re-amended” final judgments denying petitioner’s motion to vacate an arbitration award and granting respondent’s cross-motion to confirm the award but denying respondent’s request for attorneys’ fees.

• Doraleh Container Terminal SA v. Republic of Djibouti, No. 23-7023 (D.C. Cir. July 30, 2024)

  07/30/2024

  Court of appeals held that the authority of the law firm representing a company engaged in a public-private partnership with the Republic of Djibouti to build and manage a major port was subject to a challenge with regard to the firm’s ability to represent the company in proceedings to enforce an arbitral award against Djibouti.  Court reasoned that the sworn declarations of a state-appointed administrator of the company—which Djibouti nationalized shortly before the arbitral award was issued—attesting that she had not authorized the filing raised substantial questions about the firm’s authority such that the judgement confirming the arbitral award should be vacated and remanded for the district court to evaluate the firm’s authority.

• TIG Insurance Company v. Republic of Argentina, No. 23-7064 (D.C. Cir. July 30, 2024)

  07/30/2024

  Court of appeals reversed and remanded the district court’s decision that it lacked jurisdiction to determine whether the Republic of Argentina was immune from a writ of execution filed by a company that had been granted two arbitral awards against Argentina for breach of reinsurance contracts.  Court held that the arbitration and waiver exceptions to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act may apply, requiring the district court to engage in further analysis and fact finding.

• Molecular Dynamics, Ltd. v. Spectrum Dynamics Medical Ltd., No. 1:22-CV-05167-KPF (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2024)

  07/23/2024

  Court dismisses petitioners’ request to vacate two arbitration awards issued by the Swiss Arbitration Centre finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute.  The seat, and primary jurisdiction, of the parties’ arbitration was Mexico.  Therefore, New York was a secondary jurisdiction and lacked the power to vacate.  It could only decline to enforce an award based on the limited grounds specified in Art. V of the New York Convention.

• Ball v. Utopia Music Holdings (US) Inc., No. 1:24-CV-05086-CM (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2024)

  07/18/2024

  Court granted petition to recognize and confirm the parties’ arbitration award where the respondents admit petitioners are entitled to such an order under 9 USC § 207 and Art. III of the New York Convention, and no grounds to refuse or defer recognition or enforcement are applicable here.

• Xiamen Xiangyu Logistics Group Corp. v. Wholesale 209, LLC, No. 2:23-CV-02704-DJC-AC (E.D. Cal. July 17, 2024)

  07/17/2024

  Court denied without prejudice respondent’s motion to refuse to recognize the arbitration award.  Court found there was a genuine dispute over factual issues that warranted additional, but limited, discovery into whether Respondent assented to the arbitration agreement.  Respondent argued the contract is “null and void” because it was signed without its consent, notice was deficient because it was provided in Chinese, a language not used or understood by respondent’s employees, and affirming the award would violate US public policy.

• Risen Energy Co., Ltd., v. Focus Futura Holding Participações S.A., 1:23-CV-10993-LGS (S.D.N.Y. July 17, 2024)

  07/17/2024

  Pursuant to a previous order, the court entered a pair of “re-amended” final judgments denying petitioner’s motion to vacate an arbitration award and granting respondent’s cross-motion to confirm the award but denying respondent’s request for attorneys’ fees.

• Agrasanchez v. Agrasanchez, No. 23-55110 (9th Cir. July 12, 2024)

  07/12/2024

  Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s order denying petitioners’ motion to vacate an arbitration award due to fraud.  To vacate an arbitration award pursuant to the FAA, the fraud must “not be discoverable by due diligence before or during the [arbitration] proceeding.”  Here, petitioners did not act with diligence in taking six years to investigate a document they suspected to be fraudulent.  Additionally, court of appeals found the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to alter or amend the judgment, as petitioners failed to demonstrate the alleged fraud could not have been discovered through reasonable diligence prior to or during the arbitration hearing.

• Beijing Dayou Dingxin Investment Management Partnership, L.P. v. Wang, No. 1:24-CV-00137-CEF (N.D. Ohio July 9, 2024)

  07/09/2024

  Court granted an automatic stay for one of the two respondents, holding an automatic stay issued in connection with Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings only extends to non-debtors in “unusual circumstances” and no evidence supporting an exception for the second respondent was present here.  Court further rejected second respondent’s argument that the arbitration enforcement petition was premature because of pending Chinese proceedings where the second respondent could not present any compelling evidence of ongoing proceedings in China.

• Global Industrial Investment Ltd v. 1955 Capital China Fund GP LLC, No. 23-2662 (9th Cir. July 1, 2024)

  07/01/2024

  Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s order confirming the arbitration award, finding that the court is to defer to the arbitrator except for “the most limited circumstances.”  Here, the arbitrator conducted a careful review of the agreement and spent several pages reasoning whether he had authority to dissolve the funds under Delaware law and the doctrine of equitable dissolution.  Under these circumstances, the court could not find that that the arbitrator exceeded his authority.

• Appel v. Concierge Auctions, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-02263-BAS-MDD (S.D. Cal. July 1, 2024)

  07/01/2024

  Court granted defendant’s motion to confirm arbitration award, finding that plaintiff’s opposition did not present any arguments against defendant’s motion to confirm, but rather presented two objections to the structure and content of defendant’s motion.

• Barton v. Zhang, No. 1:23-CV-08536-LJL (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 2024)

  06/27/2024

  Court granted petitioner’s unanswered motion to confirm arbitration award, reviewing it as an unopposed motion for summary judgment under Second Circuit precedent, and awarded petitioner pre- and post-judgement interest.  Court found no grounds for refusing to enforce the award under the New York Convention.

• Estate of Ke Zhengguang v. Yu, No. 23-1144 (4th Cir. June 27, 2024)

  06/27/2024

  Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to confirm an arbitration award under the New York Convention.  Appellant opposed confirmation and enforcement of the arbitration award, arguing that the district court should have considered her procedural defenses of forum non conveniens and failure to join necessary parties.  The district court decided, and the court of appeals affirmed, that these were purely procedural obstacles and not grounds for invalidating the award under Art. V of the New York Convention.  Court of appeals additionally rejected appellant’s argument that the award violated public policy where local Chinese law requires China to approve payments of RMB that flow outside of China. 

• Barton v. Zhang, No. 1:23-CV-08536-LJL (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 2024)

  06/27/2024

  Court granted petitioner’s motion for summary judgment confirming an arbitral award pursuant to the FAA and the New York Convention.  Court found that the dispute and award fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement and identified no ground upon which it could refuse to confirm any part of the award.

• Subway Franchise Systems of Canada, ULC v. Subway Developments 2000, Inc., No. 1:24-CV-00593-AS (S.D.N.Y. June 21, 2024)

  06/21/2024

  Court granted defendant’s petition to confirm an arbitration award, finding that an interim order is “final” for the purposes of the FAA, even where it does not resolve the merits of an issue to be arbitrated.  Court rejected plaintiff’s motion to vacate the award, holding that the arbitrator did not exceed her authority where the interim payment obligation was specifically referenced in the parties’ arbitration agreement.

• Risen Energy Co. v. Focus Futura Holding Participacoes S.A., No. 23-CV-10993-LGS 

  06/18/2024

  Court denied petitioner’s motion to vacate arbitration award and granted respondent’s motion to confirm.

• Gate Gourmet Korea Co. v. Asiana Airlines, Inc., No. 24-CV-01265-RGK-PD (C.D. Cal. June 17, 2024)

  06/17/2024

  Court granted petitioner’s motion to enforce the parties’ arbitration award and rejected respondent’s arguments against enforcement where these issues had already been resolved in favor of petitioner by Korean courts.  Court converted award to USD using the exchange rates effective on the date of the award.

• Hunter v. Azentio Software Private Ltd., No. 24-CV-03728-LJL (S.D.N.Y. June 14, 2024)

  06/14/2024

  Court entered judgment in favor of petitioners who sought confirmation of arbitration award, for the award amount less credit for respondent’s partial payment towards satisfaction of the award.

• Risen Energy Co. v. Focus Futura Holdings Participacoes S.A., No. 23-CV-10993-LGS (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2024)

  06/11/2024

  Court granted respondent’s motion to confirm arbitral award, but denied respondent’s request for attorneys’ fees relating to post-arbitration litigation where the parties’ arbitration agreements did not provide for such relief.

• Gem Yield Bahamas Ltd. v. Mullen Technologies, Inc., No. 24-CV-01120-KPF (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2024)

  06/11/2024

  Court granted petitioners’ motion for summary judgment and confirmed the interim measures award issued during the liability phase of a bifurcated arbitration.  Court denied respondents’ motion to vacate the award, concluding that the arbitrator did not exceed their authority and that the award was not rendered in manifest disregard of the law.

• UiPath, Inc. v. Shanghai Yunkuo Information Technology Co., No. 23-CV-07835-LGS (S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2024)

  06/04/2024

  Court granted unopposed petition to confirm arbitration award and granted pre- and post-judgment interest, finding that the parties’ entered into a written arbitration agreement, both the United States and China are signatories to the New York Convention, the subject matter of the agreement is commercial in nature as it related to respondents’ misappropriation of trade secrets, and the agreement is not “entirely domestic in scope” because respondent is a foreign corporation.

• Samsung Electronics Co. v. Triller Platform Co., No. 24-CV-00261-MCS-MAA (C.D. Cal. May 30, 2024)

  05/30/2024

  Court granted petition to confirm the parties’ foreign arbitration award and awarded pre- and post- award interest. 

• Leviathan Group LLC v. Delco LLC, No. 23-CV-12611-DML-CI (E.D. Mich. May 28, 2024)

  05/28/2024

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion to enforce the arbitration award and denied defendant’s motion to vacate.  Court did not find evidence that the arbitrator exceeded her authority or acted with a “manifest disregard of the law” in that the arbitrator considered each of defendant’s arguments and provided a reasonable basis for her decision. 

• Subway International, B.V. v. Subway Russia Franchising Co., LLC, No. 21-CV-07362-JSR (S.D.N.Y. May 28, 2024)

  05/28/2024

  Court granted petition to confirm the parties’ initial arbitration award and second award issued on remand.  Court denied the cross-petition to vacate, determining there were no grounds to vacate under the FAA where the petition to confirm was not procedurally improper, the arbitrator did not exceed her authority, there was no demonstrated undue partiality by the arbitrator, and the AAA did not err in reappointing the same arbitrator.