A collection of the most recent US international arbitration decisions is available here. Decisions can be quickly retrieved by using the filter tools below.
Lifetree Trading PTE., Ltd. V. Washakie Renewable Energy, No. 1:14-CV-09075-JPO (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2017)10/27/2017
Court denied motion for a stay, pending the appeal of a decision to deny a motion to compel arbitration, holding that defendant had waived its right to arbitrate. Court found that (i) the case had been in federal court for almost three years, (ii) the litigation was in its advanced stages, with trial scheduled in one month’s time, (iii) defendant had engaged in prejudicial and sanctionable conduct to prolong the litigation, and (iv) defendant had twice explicitly submitted to the court’s jurisdiction, and had engaged in discovery practice without taking steps to bifurcate the case.
Letom Management Inc. v. Centaur Gaming, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-03793-PAE (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2017)10/27/2017
Court granted motion to dismiss, holding that it had no jurisdiction over the defendant. Court found that defendant’s “waiver” of an arbitration process, which would have applied Indiana Law, by electing to apply New York choice of law in its brief seeking dismissal did not grant specific jurisdiction. Court found that defendant had to rely on New York authorities, as plaintiff had filed in the SDNY, and rejected plaintiff’s contention that this amounted to the defendant availing itself of the laws of New York.
Norfolk Southern Railway v. Sprint Communications Company L.P., No. 16-2107 (4th Cir. Feb. 22, 2018)02/22/2018
Court of appeals reversed the district court’s order granting a motion to confirm an arbitration award. Court held that the award failed to resolve an issue presented by the parties to the arbitrators, and therefore it is not “mutual, final, and definite” as required by the FAA.
Clarke v. Alltran Financial LP f/k/a United Recovery Systems LP, No. 2:17-CV-03330-JFB-AYS (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2018)02/22/2018
Court granted non-signatory defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action pending conclusion of the arbitration. Court held that the plain language of the contract at issue allows the defendant to compel arbitration because the arbitration agreement does not expressly limit the right to compel arbitration to the signatories. Moreover, the arbitration provision states that it is to be interpreted in “the broadest way the law will allow it to be interpreted.”