A collection of the most recent US international arbitration decisions is available here. Decisions can be quickly retrieved by using the filter tools below.
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.
Fernandez Perez v. UBS Financial Servs., No. 3:15-CV-03081-GAG (D.P.R. Sept. 29, 2016)09/29/2016
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that challenges to the arbitration agreement itself would be determined by the court before compelling arbitration, but challenges to the contract as a whole are for the arbitrator to decide. Court held that New York law applied to the contract and that plaintiff’s challenge was to the contract as a whole, so the arbitration clause must be enforced.
Torres v. E-Land World, Ltd., No. 1:16-CV-00004 (D.N. Mar. Is Apr. 20, 2017)04/20/2017
Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and granted plaintiff’s motion to remand back to state court. Since the claims at issue were based on state-law and independent from the agreement containing the parties’ arbitration clause, court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.
Wulfe v. Valero Refining Company-California, No. 16-55824 (9th Cir. Apr. 19, 2017)04/19/2017
Court of appeal affirmed lower court’s decision declining to vacate the arbitration award on the basis that intervening law could not provide a basis for vacatur. Court held that, at the time the arbitration award was rendered the law relating to the plaintiff’s claim was unsettled, and the arbitrator’s failure to correctly predict future judicial decisions and the change in the law does not mean she acted in “manifest disregard” of the existing law.