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

Ewell v. John C. Heath, Attorney at Law PLLC, No. 4:17-CV-11876-LVP-EAS (E.D. Mich. Jan. 18, 2018)

Court granted motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, finding that a party may not avoid arbitration by arguing that the contract as a whole (rather than the arbitration clause specifically) is void.


Ferrari v. Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, No. 4:17-CV-00018-YGR (N.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2018)

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendants could invoke the arbitration clause as intended third-party beneficiaries.


Freeman v. Smartpay Leasing, LLC, No. 6:17-CV-00938-GAP-GJK (M.D. Fla. Jan. 18, 2018)

Court granted motion to vacate order compelling arbitration, finding that company who refused to pay filing fee as required under the consumer arbitration procedures of JAMS – a forum expressly designated as acceptable in the agreement drafted by the company – waived its right to rely on the arbitration clause.


KCG Holdings, Inc. v. Rohit Khandekar, No. 1:17-CV-03533-AJN-GWG (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2018)

Court granted motion to stay in favor of a pending arbitration, finding that, although the litigation concerned different claims than the arbitration, there was significant factual overlap between the proceedings.


Marriott International, Inc. v. Danna, No. 2:17-CV-10590-ILRL-DEK (E.D. La. Jan. 18, 2018)

Court denied plaintiff's motion to compel arbitration and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that there was no controversy since defendant had not yet asserted any claims in court.