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 compel arbitration, holding that under both Washington and California law plaintiffs assented to arbitration where they were provided with notice on the outside of the box and in a brochure for a Samsung device that additional terms and conditions applied to use of the device. Court further found that a Texas choice of law provision in the arbitration agreement was substantively unconscionable because plaintiffs had no connection to Texas, nor was there another basis for which Texas law might reasonably apply, and therefore the provision was severed.
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action, finding that plaintiff assented to arbitration agreements contained in credit card agreements governing plaintiff’s five credit card accounts and that there was no unconscionability with respect to the arbitration agreements.
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action, finding that plaintiff unambiguously agreed to arbitrate any employment disputes with the defendant and that the scope of the arbitration provision in the employer’s dispute resolution program encompassed plaintiff’s claim.
Court denied defendants’ request to compel arbitration, holding that defendants’ unnecessary two-year delay in seeking arbitration and the expense of litigating the matter over the course of the prolonged time period had caused sufficient prejudice to the plaintiff such as to waive any right the defendants may have had to compel arbitration.
Court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part district court’s order compelling arbitration. Court held that arbitration provisions in plaintiffs’ employment contracts were merely venue provisions, and that the court could only order plaintiffs to arbitrate under FINRA rules if they had so agreed. Court therefore found that plaintiff who had agreed to arbitrate under FINRA rules must do so, whereas other plaintiff who did not agree was not so required.