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 defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate an arbitral award. Court held that the arbitration clauses within the disputed labor agreements between the parties were enforceable, that the arbitrator had proper jurisdiction, and that no valid reason existed to vacate the award.
Circuit court reversed the district court’s judgment compelling arbitration and remanded for further proceedings. Circuit court held that the agreement requiring arbitration between the parties had expired prior to the material events at the heart of the dispute arose and the contractual right at issue did not survive expiration under normal principles of contract interpretation.
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay pending action. Court held there was a valid agreement to arbitrate as defendant provided a copy of the agreement containing plaintiff’s electronic signature and last four digits of her social security number, plaintiff produced no evidence otherwise, and plaintiff’s claims fell within the parties’ agreement.
Circuit court dismissed appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction over a district court order enjoining its state court action, compelling arbitration, and staying the case. Court held that § 16(b)(3) of the FAA forbids it from hearing interlocutory challenges where the federal lawsuit is covered by an arbitration agreement; and where the lower court stayed rather than dismissed the suit, there was no final judgment yet to appeal.
Court denied defendant’s motion to vacate an arbitral award, granted the plaintiffs’ motion to confirm the award and request for attorney fees and costs, and denied plaintiffs’ request for sanctions. Court held that since the award was derived from a breach relating to the parties’ agreement, and the plaintiffs could be considered the prevailing party, it was rational for the tribunal to award attorney fees and costs. Court also held the plaintiffs were entitled to attorney fees and costs associated with the challenge to the arbitral award, but denied the plaintiffs’ request to issue sanctions against the defendant under FRCP 11 for a frivolous challenge.