A collection of the most recent US international arbitration decisions is available here. Decisions can be quickly retrieved by using the filter tools below.
Rearick v. Clearwater 2008 Note Program, LLC, No. 4:15-CV-02265-YK (M.D. Pa. May 31, 2017)05/31/2017
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the parties had entered into a valid agreement to arbitrate and that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration clause. Court further declined to defer its decision pending limited discovery and held that plaintiff failed to establish that she would incur prohibitive arbitration costs sufficient to invalidate the arbitration agreement.
Amergence Supply Chain Mgmt. Inc. v. Changhong (Hong Kong) Trading Ltd., No. 2:15-CV-09976-MWF-AFM (C.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2016)02/17/2017
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration because the defendant did not have standing as a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement between the plaintiff and Guangdong Changhong Electronics Company, Ltd., and the arbitration clause did not contemplate binding signatories with non-signatories. Court also found that equitable estoppel did not apply because plaintiff’s claims did not rely on and were not “intimately intertwined” with the terms of the agreement.
Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers v. Kellogg Company, No. 1:16-CV-01180-GJQ-RSK (W.D. Mich. Sept. 13, 2017)09/13/2017
Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration, finding no merit to the defendant’s argument that, because plaintiffs took an inconsistent position in a separate case, they were judicially-estopped from arguing that the arbitration provisions applied. Court also held that the agreements the parties entered into reinforced their understanding that the arbitration provisions did not apply to casual employees.
In re Application of Hulley Enterprises Ltd., et al., No. 2:17-MC-00088-UA-E (C.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2017)09/13/2017
Court denied petitioners’ motion for leave to serve a subpoena by “alternative means.” Court found that Rule 45(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure required personal service rather than delivery “to the named person’s doorstep, mailbox or son.” Shearman & Sterling is counsel for the petitioners in connection with this case.