Shearman & Sterling LLP | U.S. International Arbitration Digest

Welcome to the Shearman & Sterling US International Arbitration Digest

Shearman & Sterling’s US International Arbitration Digest (US IA Digest) provides a centralized resource for newly released decisions issued by US courts. The US IA Digest collects in one place important decisions on US international arbitration case law issued since January 1, 2016, compiled and organized into categories that are most relevant and useful to practitioners and other interested parties. The Digest will be updated on a rolling basis as new decisions are issued.

Newly Released Decisions

Cassity v. GCI, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00004 (D. Alaska Jul. 27, 2017)

Court granted motion to compel arbitration in part, finding that the parties had entered into a valid arbitration agreement that covered all but one of petitioner’s claims and rejecting petitioner’s arguments of fraud, duress, unconscionability, and waiver, while declining to find that federal law precluded arbitration of the claims in question.


Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, and Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund v. Baywood Concrete Corp., No. 1:17-CV-01800-ER (July 26, 2017 S.D.N.Y)

Court granted unopposed motion to confirm a labor arbitration award under the FAA upon conducting a limited review of the award and finding that the arbitrator had acted within the scope of his authority.


Pinto v. USAA Insurance Agency Incorporated of Texas (FN), No. 2:17-CV-00873-DGC (July 26, 2017 D. Ariz.)

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that an electronic signature was not required for consent to arbitration where the plaintiff had been made aware in writing of the arbitration provision and rejecting plaintiff’s defenses based on unconscionability and waiver.


American Process Inc. v. GranBio Investimentos S.A., No. 1:16-CV-4234-MHC (N.D. Ga. July 26, 2017)

Court denied motion for an injunction and granted cross-motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that by incorporating AAA rules the parties had delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, including the scope of the contractual carve-out for court-issued injunctive relief.


Henry Controls, Inc. v. Ultra Electronics, No. 1:17-CV-00276-SS (W.D. Tex. Jul. 25, 2017)

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case, finding that since the parties’ dispute was subject to a broad arbitration agreement, it is for the arbitrator, and not the court, to determine whether petitioner’s claims are frivolous, and rejecting the petitioner’s argument that defendant had waived its right to appoint an arbitrator.