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.
Court granted motion to amend a previously confirmed arbitration award to include continuing interest awarded by the arbitrator and the prejudgment interest stipulated to by the parties. Court held that the final award expressly stated that it was issued in accordance with the findings of fact and conclusions of law which included the award of continuing interest.
Court provided reasoning for its earlier grant of motion to dismiss action and refer it to arbitration. Court reasoned that under the FAA, a court’s inquiry into the validity of the underlying contract is limited to the formation of the contract as a whole or to the validity of the arbitration clause, and held that an ultra vires challenge to different parts of the agreement is a matter for arbitrators to decide.
Court held in abeyance defendants’ motion to dismiss in order to permit plaintiffs a final opportunity to perfect their arbitration demands and to proceed to arbitration before the AAA. Court held plaintiffs have not moved with alacrity to arbitration as court expected and thus plaintiffs were ordered to file a status report demonstrating continued progress in pursuing arbitration of its claims.
Court denies motion to compel arbitration. In holding that state contract law, rather than federal common law, controls whether a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement can be bound by that agreement, court rejected an estoppel theory based on intertwined claims as basis for compelling a non-signatory to arbitrate.
Court granted motions to remand to state court where plaintiff initially filed both a putative class action complaint alleging a violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act which defendant removed to federal court, and then a second action “Petition to Stay Threatened Arbitration.” Court held that defendant failed to prove federal jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence and, absent Class Action Fairness Act or federal question jurisdiction over the complaint, there was no jurisdiction under the “look through” doctrine.