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:
  • United States v. Relyant Global, LLC, No. 21-CV-00307 (M.D. Tenn. May 17, 2024)

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss as moot on the basis that the parties participated in an ICC arbitration to resolve the dispute.

  • Mrinalini, Inc. v. Valentino S.p.A., No. 22-CV-02453-MKV (S.D.N.Y. May 13, 2024)

    Court ordered parties to submit a letter addressing which claims remain unresolved following court’s confirmation and enforcement of a final arbitration award pursuant to § 207 of the FAA and the New York Convention.

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP v. Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., No. 1:23-CV-08993-AT  (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 19, 2024)

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award finding there was no genuine dispute of material fact with respect to the confirmation of the award and the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitrator’s authority. Court further rejected petitioner’s motion to seal the arbitration award and hearing transcripts from the public record finding the parties’ confidentiality agreement did not overcome the presumption in favor of public access to judicial documents and the materials could have could have been redacted for privilege.

  • In re: Application of Bonsens.org for an Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to Conduct Discovery for Use in a Foreign Proceeding, No. 23-380 (2d. Cir. Mar. 11, 2024)

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of application seeking discovery under 28 USC § 1782 from Pfizer Inc. for use in a suit applicant initiated against the French government in France. Court of appeals determined that the requested discovery was irrelevant to the jurisdictional issue on appeal in France and that the prospect of a merits review in that proceeding was too speculative to satisfy the statutory requirement that the discovery be “for use” in the French proceeding.

  • Telecom Business Solutions, LLC v. Terra Towers Corp., No. 22-CV-01761-LAK (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2024)

    Court granted motion for an anti-suit injunction against defendant where a foreign litigation would frustrate the arbitration process by seeking to re-litigate issues already resolved by an arbitral tribunal and undermine the court’s confirmation of the arbitration award.

  • In re Refinería de Cartagena S.A.S., No. 23-MC-00455-JPC (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2024) 

    Court granted 28 USC § 1782 request for leave to serve document and deposition subpoenas on defendants.  Court reasoned that the discovery requests were relevant and “for use” in foreign restructuring proceedings, and that petitioner qualified as an interested party, as the proposed restructuring plans could discharge debtors from amounts owed to petitioner under an arbitration award.  In weighing the discretionary Intel factors, court did not find the discovery requests to be overly intrusive or burdensome in light of the court ordered modifications limiting the scope of each request.

  • ConocoPhillips Petrozuata B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 22-MC-00464-LPS (D. Del. Dec. 20, 2023) 

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for a writ of attachment fieri facias against the shares of PDV Holding, Inc. owned by Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. and denied intervenor’s motion to dismiss.  Court found plaintiff was not judicially estopped from asserting that PDVSA and Venezuela are alter egos because of a position taken in an ICSID arbitration.

  • Li v. Longview Capital Holdings, LLC, No. 3:23-CV-00939-DRL-MGG (N.D. Ind. Dec. 15, 2023) 

    Court granted motion to remand to state court, finding it did not have subject matter jurisdiction under 9 USC § 205.  Court concluded that although the relevant settlement agreement contained an arbitration provision falling under the New York Convention, the parties were not asking the court to compel arbitration or to confirm an award and they had specifically agreed that if the lender initiated litigation, which he did, no arbitral tribunal would have jurisdiction over the dispute. 

  • The People of the State of Illinois v. Monsanto Company, 1:22-CV-05339 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 24, 2023)

    Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion to compel the production of certain documents produced in alternative dispute resolution proceedings in England, Missouri, and California for use in US litigation. Court granted plaintiff’s motion as to English arbitration proceedings, holding that an implied obligation of confidentiality under English law could not serve as a basis for defendant to withhold relevant documents because otherwise international companies could mandate England as the venue for all arbitrations and preclude the production of relevant documents from those proceedings in US litigation. As to the Missouri and California proceedings, court held that mediation privileges in those jurisdictions covered the at-issue proceedings, except that California law did not apply to arbitrations.

  • Noble Prestige Limited v. Galle, No. 22-11520 (11th Cir. Oct. 16, 2023)

    Court of appeals found it lacked jurisdiction to review district court’s finding on subject matter jurisdiction over a petition to confirm a foreign arbitral award where its decision only dismissed petitioner’s claims against one respondent but left its claims against other respondents pending.  Court of appeals determined it had jurisdiction to review district court’s temporary restraining order, finding that it was actually a preliminary injunction subject to immediate review.  Court of appeals vacated the district court’s order, finding it violated the prior exclusive jurisdiction doctrine, since a Colorado probate court already exercised exclusive jurisdiction over respondents’ property, and the district court lacked the authority to issue a preliminary injunction freezing respondents’ assets under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.

  • W.J. Deutsch & Sons Ltd. v. Diego Zamora S.A., No. 1:21-CV-11003-LTS (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2023)

    Court granted petitioner’s motion for alternative service nunc pro tunc, finding previous attempts to serve the respondent by email, certified mail, Federal Express, and the Spanish Central Authority, were not prohibited by international agreement and comported with constitutional notions of due process.  Court also granted respondents’ motion to dismiss and denied petitioner’s application to vacate the parties’ arbitration award, where there was no evidence to show the arbitral tribunal ignored principles of collateral estoppel in issuing its award.

  • Athene Holding Ltd. v. Dang, No. 1:23-MC-00171-JHR-SLC (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2023)

    Magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part an application for discovery pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 seeking documents and records from three arbitration proceedings and an action in New York Supreme Court for use in a civil action in Bermuda.  The magistrate judge ordered the parties to meet and confer to determine which documents and testimony are relevant to the claims in Bermuda.

  • In re Application of Caterpillar Crédito, Sociedad Anónima de Capital Variable, No. 1:22-MC-00273-JGK-BCM (S.D.N.Y. May 24, 2023)

    Magistrate judge recommended that application to serve a subpoena pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 seeking records for use in a proceeding pending before the Court of First Instance of Curaçao be granted in part.  The magistrate found that it need not determine whether the records would establish the proof necessary under foreign law, but only needed to determine whether the applicant demonstrated that the sought-after materials could be made use of in the foreign proceeding to increase its chances of success.  The magistrate held that applicant had established the required de minimis showing of relevance.

  • Republic of Guatemala v. IC Power Asia Development LTD., No. 22-CV-00394-CM-JW (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2023)

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to compel post-judgment discovery requests in connection with an arbitration award recognized pursuant to the FAA and the New York Convention.  Court found that documents requested by petitioner clearly fell within the wide range of permitted post-judgment discovery, as they related to the assets and liabilities of the judgment creditor.  Court also granted petitioner’s request for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in making the motion to compel pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

  • MSK Covertech, Inc. v. Fevisa Industrial, S.A. de C.V., No. 23-CV-00741-DMS-MSB (S.D. Cal. May 4, 2023)

    Court denied requests to file under seal petition to confirm foreign arbitration award and ex parte application for preliminary relief, finding that plaintiff articulated no compelling reason to justify sealing the filings.  Court rejected plaintiff’s conclusory argument that the filings should be sealed as they contain information that defendant alleged or may allege constitutes trade secret and proprietary information, because to overcome the strong presumption in favor of access, plaintiff must specify the trade secrets and proprietary information contained within the filings and articulate how their public disclosure might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.

  • Ipsen Biopharm Ltd. v. Galderma Labortories, L.P., No. 4:22-CV_00662-O (N.D. Tex. Mar. 8, 2023)

    Court granted motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, finding principles of forum non conveniens is the appropriate way to enforce a forum-selection clause included in an arbitration agreement and subject to the New York Convention.

  • 9REN Holding S.A.R.L. v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 19-CV-018-71-TSC (D.D.C. Feb. 15, 2023)

    Court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining defendant from seeking relief in a pending Luxembourg action, finding the express and primary purpose of the Luxembourg action was to terminate the present action to confirm a foreign arbitral award. 

  • The Federal Republic of Nigeria v. VR Advisory Services, Ltd., No. 21-MC-00007-JGK-VF (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2022)

    Court ordered respondents to produce documents from a shareholder arbitration pursuant to 28 USC § 1782, finding that petitioner had demonstrated the documents are relevant to the issue of the fraudulent arbitration award and that petitioner was not required to exhaust opportunities for discovery before the foreign tribunal.

  • Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Hu Qin, No. 21-Civ.-09221-KPF (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28. 2022)

    Court granted a motion to dissolve an automatic stay of proceedings to enforce the court’s judgment which confirmed a foreign arbitral award.  Court found respondent’s questionable asset transfers and failure to participate in litigation created a well-founded risk that respondent was concealing or will conceal assets to avoid collection.

  • Arcelormittal North America Holdings LLC v. Essar Global Fund Limited, 1:21-CIV-06975-KPG (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2022)

    Court denied motion to dismiss plaintiff’s case for enforcement of a foreign arbitral award.  Court determined that (1) forum non conveniens should not apply as substantial deference should be given to the plaintiff’s choice of forum and (2) principles of international comity did not warrant dismissal without “exceptional circumstances.”

  • Sistem Mühendislik Insaat Sanayi Ve Ticaret, A.Ş. v. The Kyrgyz Republic, No. 12-CV-4502-ALC-RWL (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2022)

    Court issued a second interim sanctions judgment against the Kyrgyz Republic following a repeated and continuing failure to comply with previous orders to pay the plaintiff in accordance with an enforceable arbitration award

  • Panajoti Consulting, LLC v. BuyHive USA, Inc., No. 22-10487-GSC-CI (E.D. Mich. Aug. 24, 2022)

    Following Sixth Circuit precedent, court determined that the arbitrator must first decide questions of jurisdiction despite a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement being invoked in the action.

  • Trajkovski Invest AB v. I.AM.PLUS, Electronics, Inc., No. 2:21-CV-04246-ODW-JEMx, (C.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2022)

    Court denied respondent’s motion for relief from final judgment.  Court determined that that a foreign corporation that fails to pay taxes in California forfeits its status as a registered corporation and therefore suspends its right to litigate in the forum.  If respondent rectifies its forfeited status, it may bring its claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), alleging that the lower court committed clear error in granting petitioners’ motion to enforce judgment for failure to comply with Article IV of the New York Convention.

  • Iraq Telecom Ltd. v. IBL Bank S.A.L., No. 22-540-CV (2d Cir. August 5, 2022)

    Court affirmed the district court’s decision to consider extraordinary circumstances, including the impact of attachment on the Lebanese economy, when deciding whether petitioner established the statutory requirements for attachment in aid of arbitration.  However, the district court abused its discretion in reducing the attachment amount in three respects: failing to consider alternative attachment amounts, concluding that the greater culpability of one of the wrongdoers was a reason to reduce the attachment, and applying a “conceivable” rather than “probable” legal standard in assessing petitioner’s probability of success.

  • In re Application of Newbrook Shipping Corporation and Falcon Confidence Shipping Ltd., No. 20-2268 (4th Cir. Apr. 20, 2022)

    Court of appeals found district court erred in granting the entire application for discovery under 28 USC § 1782, finding that the court should have restricted the evidence sought to what would be “for use” in the one proceeding that satisfied the foreign proceeding requirement.  Court of appeals also remanded to the district court to address whether an appropriate agent was served with the subpoenas pursuant to Rule 4(h)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Maryland Rule 2-124(d).

  • Republic of Kazakhstan v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, No. 18-CV-00409-DWF-TNL (D. Minn. Aug. 12, 2021)

    Court granted Kazakhstan’s consent motion for supplemental authority seeking authority to subpoena Wells Fargo to produce a witness for deposition in aid of a foreign proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 1782.  Court concluded Wells Fargo was not a participant in the foreign proceedings, it may have evidence that would aid in the proceedings that is not likely to be rejected by foreign tribunals, Kazakhstan was not attempting to circumvent foreign tribunals’ procedures, and compliance with the discovery request would not be unduly burdensome.

  • Daredevil, Inc. v. ZTE Corporation, No. 19-3769 (8th Cir. Jun. 18, 2021)

    Court affirmed lower court’s ruling that claims against a parent company were precluded by an arbitration award involving its subsidiary.  Court determined that there was privity between the parent company and its wholly owned subsidiary that met the identity of the parties requirement for issue preclusion, and that the claims were nearly identical in this case as to those made during the previous arbitration.

  • Pfeil v. Discover Bank, 2:20-CV-01813-GMS (D. Ariz. Apr. 15, 2021)

    Court denied petitioner’s motion to reinstate case to vacate an arbitral award on the basis that the court did not have an independent basis for jurisdiction because it had did not have either diversity or federal question jurisdiction over the case. 

  • Kandavilli v. Gadiyaram, No. 1:19-CV-03306-ADC (D. Md. Aug. 26, 2020)

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s remaining two claims after fifteen claims were submitted to arbitration, finding that there was not a sufficient amount in controversy when accounting for the claims compelled to arbitration.

  • In re Application of Storag Etzel GMBH, No. 19-MC-00209-CFC (D. Del. Apr. 13, 2020)

    Court denied plaintiff’s § 1782 application for an order to obtain discovery for use in a private arbitration in Germany, finding a private arbitral tribunal was not the type of “tribunal” intended by the text of the statute.

  • Northport Health Services of Arkansas, LLC v. United States Department of Health and Human Services., No. 5:19-CV-05168-TLB (W.D. Ark. Apr. 7, 2020) 

    Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granted defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment, finding a new government rule placing requirements on the use of arbitration agreements did not violate the FAA because it did not undermine the validity or enforceability of the agreements and only placed conditions on entities voluntarily participating in a federally funded program.

  • Roberts v. Harley Davidson Financial Services, Inc., No. 4:19-CV-00841-SRB (W.D. Mo. Feb. 13, 2020)

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding no reason to reopen state court’s prior dismissal of motion to compel arbitration. Prior to removal of case to federal court, defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration, which was dismissed by state court. Defendant did not appeal against state court’s decision. Defendant filed a second motion to compel arbitration after removal. Court held that, in view of law-of-the-case doctrine, it would not exercise its discretion to reopen state court’s prior order.

  • Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. Becerra, No. 2:19-CV-02456-KJM-DB (E.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2020)

    Court granted preliminary injunction restraining state officials from enforcing California Assembly Bill 51 (“AB 51”), which was signed into law on October 10, 2019, finding that there was a serious question whether the challenged statute was preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). AB 51 prohibited California employers from requiring prospective and current employees to “waive any right, forum, or procedure” for a violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act or the California Labor Code. Court found that plaintiffs had discharged their burden of showing that there were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that AB 51 was preempted by the FAA, and that the circumstances were appropriate for the grant of preliminary injunctive relief.

  • Veolia Water Solutions & Technologies Support v. Westech Engineering, Inc., No. 5:19-CV-00344-FL (E.D.N.C. Jan. 22, 2020)

    Court denied respondents’ petition to compel arbitration, finding that it lacked the power to compel arbitration or enjoin litigation when a parallel action—determining the same issues between the same parties—was filed in a Utah district court before the North Carolina action.  Court found that only the district where the litigation commenced has the authority to compel arbitration and enjoin litigation.

  • Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP v. World Class Capital Group, LLC, No. 1:20-CV-00054-PKC (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2020)

    Court ordered petitioner to amend petition where petition facially failed to assert a basis for federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. Court found that FAA is not in and of itself a grant of subject matter jurisdiction.

  • Crystallex International Corp. v. PDV Holding, Inc., No. 15-CV-1082-LPS (D. Del. Dec. 12, 2019)

    Court issued stay of proceedings to collect on debts owed by the Republic of Venezuela on all arbitration related matters before it, pending the conclusion of proceedings in the Supreme Court on the matter. The Third Circuit had affirmed the district court’s initial writ of attachment and denied requests by Venezuela for rehearing, leading to the expiration of their stay on the matters. Further, the Supreme Court had yet to issue a writ of certiorari nor had the parties yet requested one. However, the court found that public interest, including “the interest of furthering the expressed foreign policy of the United States, as determined by the Executive Branch”, strongly supported the issuance of a stay.

  • International Bancshares Corporation v. Paola Ochoa, No. 5:19-CV-00062 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 3, 2019)

    Court granted parties’ joint motion to reinstate the case.  Both parties had secured a final arbitration award and jointly moved to reopen the case.  In support of their motion, the parties submitted that the award should be confirmed under the FAA, and subject to approval under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

  • AtriCure, Inc. v. Dr. Jian Meng, No. 1:19-CV-00054-MPB (S.D. Ohio Nov. 4, 2019) 

    Court denied in part motion to stay all proceedings pending appeal to the sixth circuit court of appeals, considering the question of whether an appeal of a denial of a motion to compel arbitration automatically divests the district court of jurisdiction over all further proceedings in the matter. The court found that it retained discretionary jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction in the matter.

  • Hitchcock Independent School District v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, No. 3:19-CV-00198 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2019)

    Court approved and adopted the magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation recommending denial of plaintiff’s motion to remand certain removed claims.  Magistrate judge concluded that removal to federal court was proper under Section 205 of the NY Convention given that plaintiffs’ claims related to the arbitration clause and “easy removal is exactly what Congress intended.”

  • In re del Valle Ruiz for an Order to Take Discovery for Use in Foreign Proceedings Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, No. 18-3226 (2d Cir. Oct. 7, 2019)

    Court of appeals held that the language in 28 U.S.C. § 1782 that requires that a person or entity "resides or is found" within the district in which discovery is sought extends the reach of § 1782 to the limits of personal jurisdiction consistent with due process. However, Court held that the contacts at issue within the Southern District of New York were insufficient to subject it to the district court’s personal jurisdiction.

  • Buhannic v. American Arbitration Association (AAA), No. 1:18-CIV-02430-ER (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2019)

    Court dismissed plaintiff’s claim against the American Arbitration Association (AAA) and several of its arbitrators for alleged improper selection of arbitrators and allegedly defective reviewing procedures on the basis of arbitral immunity.

  • Inversiones y Procesadora Tropical Inprosta, S.A., No. 18-14807 (11th Cir. Sept. 5, 2019)

    Court of appeals affirmed that district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s motion to vacate an arbitration award.  Court also affirmed lower court’s issuance of sanctions against plaintiff, finding that plaintiff attacked the arbitration award without a legal basis for doing so and thus acted in bad faith.

  • Capone v. Atlantic Specialty Ins. Co., No. 1:18-CV-02824-CAB (N.D. Ohio July 19, 2019)

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiff’s claims were barred by res judicata when an arbitrator issued an award resolving such claims.  Court found that the arbitrator’s award was not reviewable when he arguably construed the underlying contract.

  • In re the Petition of Galaxy Energy and Resources Co. Pte. Ltd. for Discovery Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, No. 1:19-MC-00287-LTS (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2019) 

    Court denied petitioner’s ex parte petition to conduct discovery pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 to aid in recognition and enforcement as well as attachment and garnishment proceedings it has initiated or will initiate in Singapore to enforce an arbitral award.  Court found petitioner was an “interested person” and that the New York banks from which discovery would be requested did properly reside in the district for purposes of § 1782.  However, the court concluded that the proposed actions did not satisfy the “foreign proceeding” requirement as the merits of the controversy were already decided by the foreign tribunal in the arbitration, so the proceedings were not adjudicative in nature.

  • Lovig v. Best Buy Stores LP, No. 4:18-CV-02807-PJH (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2019)

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss certain of its claims without prejudice.  Court concluded that plaintiff’s motion did not comply with the district’s basic requirements of a motion to amend the complaint and the FAA did not permit the plaintiff to amend the complaint.

  • Turan Petroleum, Inc. v. Ministry of Oil and Gas of Kazakhstan, No. 1:10-CV-02102-RBW (D.D.C Apr. 26, 2019) 

    Court granted intervenor’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and denied as futile plaintiffs’ motions to file amended and supplemental complaints.  Court held that it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over defendant, agency of a foreign sovereign, because plaintiffs’ complaints were insufficient to establish that an exception to sovereign immunity applied under the FSIA.  Court found that the arbitration agreement in the concession contracts did not apply as the plaintiffs were not in privity of contract and concluded that the mere fact that the foreign state was a signatory to the ICSID Convention did not waive sovereign immunity as they were not seeking the enforcement of an arbitral award.

  • Davison Design & Development, Inc. v. Frison, No. 2:17-CV-01468-JFC (W.D. Pa. Apr. 18, 2019)

    Court denied defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees when there was no basis under the arbitration agreement or the FAA to overcome the “American Rule” – i.e. the presumption that each party bears its own attorneys’ fees.  Court granted defendant’s request for costs, finding that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) provided a basis for awarding costs where the parties’ agreement and the FAA were silent.  

  • Harris v. Chelan County Sheriff’s Department, No. 2:17-CV-0137-JTR (E.D. Wash. Apr. 15, 2019)

    Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, declining plaintiffs’ argument that defendant was collaterally estopped from presenting evidence or arguing facts contrary to the arbitrator’s ruling.  Court found that, inter alia, the doctrine of collateral estoppel did not apply to an arbitration award because courts are not required to give full faith and credit to arbitration proceedings.

  • Mitsui Sumimoto Insurance USA, Inc. v. Denham-Blythe Company, Inc., No. 5:18-CV-00152-JMH (E.D. Ky. Apr. 11, 2019)

    Court granted in part defendant’s motion to alter or amend a court order to dismiss claims subject to arbitration when it improperly discussed whether a claim was barred by waiver of a subrogation clause.  Court found that the discussion should be omitted from the order, as the court may not consider the merits of a case that the parties agreed to arbitrate.

  • Cilliers v. Cobalt Holdings, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-02428 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 8, 2019)

    Court denied, in part, defendants’ motion to dismiss finding that such a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was not the appropriate mechanism for enforcing an arbitration clause, as the existence of an arbitration agreement is not itself a basis for dismissal.

View All