Shearman & Sterling LLP | U.S. International Arbitration Digest | US International Arbitration
US International Arbitration

A collection of the most recent US international arbitration decisions is available here. Decisions can be quickly retrieved by using the filter tools below.

Newly Released Opinions View All
  • Rearick v. Clearwater 2008 Note Program, LLC, No. 4:15-CV-02265-YK (M.D. Pa. May 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)

    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.

2016 Arbitration Decisions View All
  • Cassity v. GCI, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00004 (D. Alaska Jul. 27, 2017)

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration in part, finding that the parties had entered into a valid arbitration agreement that covered all but one of petitioner’s claims and rejecting petitioner’s arguments of fraud, duress, unconscionability, and waiver, while declining to find that federal law precluded arbitration of the claims in question.

  • American Process Inc. v. GranBio Investimentos S.A., No. 1:16-CV-4234-MHC (N.D. Ga. July 26, 2017)

    Court denied motion for an injunction and granted cross-motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that by incorporating AAA rules the parties had delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, including the scope of the contractual carve-out for court-issued injunctive relief.