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 petition to confirm arbitration award rendered by the American Arbitration Association pursuant to the §9 of the FAA.
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and denied dismissal of the complaint, holding that arbitrability was an issue for the arbitrator, and claims fell within the scope of the arbitration clause, notwithstanding the equitable relief sought. Court found that the arbitration clause incorporated the AAA’s Commercial Arbitration Rules, which expressly provide that an arbitrator will adjudicate on arbitrability. Court also found that the equitable nature of the relief sought did not alter the fact that plaintiff’s breach of contract claims went to the heart of the arbitration clause’s subject matter.
Court granted motion compel arbitration and dismiss complaint, and denied as moot the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction in aid of arbitration. Court found that the arbitration clause was broad, covering “[a]ny controversy or claim between the [parties] arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, including any claim concerning an alleged breach,” which thus included claims for injunctive relief. Court also found that plaintiff had not shown risk of irreparable harm and had not shown that the integrity of the arbitration was at risk or that defendants will be unable to fund an award.
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the delegation clause in the arbitration agreement rendered the issue of whether the claim was within the scope of the arbitration agreement one for the arbitrator to decide. Court found that the delegation clause was unambiguous, requiring parties to arbitrate “[c]laims regarding the interpretation, scope, or validity of [the arbitration] clause, or arbitrability of any issue.”
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and denied motion to dismiss, holding that whether the dispute was covered by the arbitration agreement was an issue for the arbitrator. Court found that the arbitration agreement provided that the arbitrator will decide “any disputes or questions arising hereunder, including the construction or application of this Agreement,” and incorporated by reference the AAA rules, which provide that an arbitrator determines whether a dispute falls within an arbitration agreement.