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 to vacate arbitration award. Court remanded case to arbitration for proceedings consistent with its prior order holding that arbitrator had committed misconduct in refusing to hear material evidence, and stayed matter pending completion of arbitration.
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss case for lack of venue based on an arbitration clause in the parties’ employment agreement. Court held that payment by employee plaintiff of only the initial case management fee pursuant to the JAMS Endispute Employment Arbitration Rules and Procedures is not so burdensome as to render the arbitration clause unenforceable.
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss complaint or compel arbitration and strike plaintiff’s class allegations. Court found that the language of the delegation provision in the parties’ valid agreement clearly and unmistakably evinces the parties’ intent to submit all issues to the arbitrator, including issues of arbitrability. Court further held that Ohio state law governed the delegation provision which was not procedurally unconscionable and could therefore not be both procedurally and substantively unconscionable as required to be invalid.
Circuit court granted defendant-appellee-cross-appellant’s motion for a limited remand for further proceedings to resolve defendant’s cross-petition to confirm an arbitration award. Circuit court held it has no jurisdiction over the appeal until the district court clarifies its order.
Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that under New York law, the arbitration provisions are substantively unconscionable and void as against public policy where they would require plaintiff to forego his rights and remedies under the applicable U.S. securities laws.