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.

• Shenzhen Yunzhongge Technology Co. Ltd., v. Amazon.com Services LLC, No. 2:23-CV-01693-TL (W.D. Wash. Apr. 17, 2024)

  04/17/2024

  Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate an arbitration award under the FAA for liquidated damages in connection with plaintiff’s alleged violation of defendant’s online sales policies.  Court held that the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law, the award did not violate public policy, and the award was not a completely irrational interpretation of the underlying contract.  Court granted defendant’s cross-motion to confirm the award.

• Nemo Digital Holdings Corp. v. XYZ Financial Markets LLC, No. 2:24-CV-00737-EP-JSA (D.N.J. Apr. 11, 2024)

  04/11/2024

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration on the grounds that plaintiff alleged the entire agreement between the parties was procured by fraud but did not specifically argue that the arbitration agreement was procured by fraud.  Court denied defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees, reasoning that it could not determine who was considered a prevailing party at that stage, considering the opinion was a preliminary procedural order.

• Foundation Church Inc. v. Independent Specialty Insurance Company, No. 23-CV-02847-CEH-J_S (M.D. Fla. Apr. 11, 2024)

  04/11/2024

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay the case pending arbitration where the parties’ insurance contract contained an arbitration clause, and the four jurisdictional factors were satisfied under the New York Convention.

• Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership, v. Qin, No. 23-0747 (2d Cir. Apr. 10, 2024)

  04/10/2024

  Court of appeals affirmed district court judgment granting motion for summary judgment to confirm a CIETAC arbitration award under the New York Convention and denying a motion for reconsideration where petitioner was provided adequate notice of arbitration.

• Fli-Lo Falcon LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 22-35818 (9th Cir. Apr. 10, 2024)

  04/10/2024

  Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s opinion granting motion to compel arbitration, reasoning that the transportation worker exemption under Section I of the FAA does not extend to business entities or commercial contracts.  Court of appeals found the delegation provision in the arbitration clause was not unconscionable, as it was between sophisticated parties, so plaintiffs’ unconscionability arguments directed at the arbitration agreement as a whole must be decided by the arbitrator.

• Royal White Cement, Inc. v. Weco Holli M/V, No. 23-CV-00788-BSL-DPC (E.D. La. Apr. 9, 2024)

  04/09/2024

  Court granted in part motions to compel arbitration and to stay case pursuant to the New York Convention and denied in part motions to stay, insofar as they sought to stay the case in its entirety as to claims and parties not subject to the arbitration agreement. 

• Lam v. Rise Huge Corporation Ltd., No. 22-CV-06094-TLT (N.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2024)

  04/08/2024

  Court dismissed action to uphold international arbitration award under the New York Convention for lack of personal jurisdiction where a Hong Kong defendant’s only contact with California was a contract for a one time stock purchase with a California defendant.

• Urangesellschaft MBH v. Nynco Trading Ltd, No. 23-CV-07713-DEH (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2024)

  04/05/2024

  Court granted motion to confirm ICC arbitration award rendered in Switzerland under the New York Convention, where respondent did not oppose the motion. Court awarded petitioner’s attorney’s fees and costs, and pre-judgment interest at a rate of nine percent, finding it was common practice within courts in the Second Circuit.

• Wilson v. Carnival Corp., No. 23-10122 (11th Cir. Apr. 4, 2024)

  04/04/2024

  Court of Appeals affirmed district’s court decision to dismiss plaintiff’s motion to vacate arbitration award with its legal seat in Panama, finding under the Panama Convention that only courts with primary jurisdiction, the legal seat of the arbitration, can vacate an arbitral award.

• Bua International Limited v. Domtec International LLC., No. 23-CV-00206-DCN (D. Idaho Apr. 1, 2024)

  04/01/2024

  Court denied petitioner’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs, finding that while the arbitrator ordered respondent to pay for petitioner’s costs of the arbitration, it did not award future costs such as attorneys’ fees incurred in confirming the award.

• Seagen Inc. v. Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd., 22-CV-01613-JLR (W.D. Wash. Apr. 1, 2024)

  04/01/2024

  Court denied plaintiff’s petition to vacate and granted defendant’s cross-motion to confirm  arbitration award.  Court found arbitrator plausibly interpreted the parties’ agreement and did not disregard the applicable law, nor act irrationally, where the arbitrator explicitly addressed, but denied, plaintiff’s claims.

• St. James Parish School Board v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, No. 23-CV-06638-BSL-MBN (E.D. La. Apr. 1, 2024)

  04/01/2024

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation where all four factors of the New York Convention had been met: the parties entered into a written agreement to arbitrate, the agreement provides for arbitration in a New York Convention signatory nation, the agreement arises out of a commercial legal relationship, and the respondent is a non-American citizen and party to the arbitration agreement. 

• Sunbelt Innovative Plastics, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London, 23-CV-06194-BSL-JVM (E.D. La. Apr. 1, 2024)

  04/01/2024

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation where it found all four factors of the New York Convention had been met: the parties entered into a written agreement to arbitrate, the agreement provides for arbitration in a New York Convention signatory nation, the agreement arises out of a commercial legal relationship, and respondent is a non-American citizen and party to the arbitration agreement. 

• Jubilant Generics Limited v. Dechra Veterinary Products, LLC, 2:23-CV-00237-JDL (D. Me. Mar. 28, 2024)

  03/28/2024

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel ICC arbitration of defendant’s counterclaims, holding the issue of waiver was for the court to decide because it was based on litigation conduct and that plaintiff had not waived its right to compel arbitration because its claims fell within an exemption to the arbitration provision in the parties’ underlying agreement, and the parties were required to litigate in two forums to give effect to the arbitration agreement under the FAA.

• Chifici Enterprise D/B/A Deanie’s Seafood v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 2:23-CV-05764-JTM-MBN (E.D. La. Mar. 27, 2024)

  03/27/2024

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings, holding that all four requirements of the New York Convention were met. Although at least one party to the agreement was not a foreign or non-American citizen, court granted the motion, holding that plaintiffs were equitably estopped from objecting to arbitration because their underlying claims alleged misconduct among the various defendants, who included foreign citizens, that was interdependent and in concert.

• Deutsch Telekom AG v. Republic of India, No. 1:21-CV-01070-RJL (D.D.C. Mar. 27, 2024)

  03/27/2024

  Court granted petition to confirm a Swiss arbitral award, rejecting respondent’s forum non conveniens argument because the doctrine is unavailable in proceedings to confirm foreign arbitration awards in the D.C. Circuit. Court held it had jurisdiction under the arbitration exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and rejected respondent’s argument that it was entitled to additional briefing on its merits defenses under the New York Convention.

• Landbridge Port Services (Hong Kong) Ltd. v. Notarc Port Investment LLC, 1:24-CV-00254-GBW (D. Del. Mar. 27, 2024)

  03/27/2024

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion to remand to Delaware state court, holding, in agreement with the Second Circuit, that § 205 of the FAA does not independently confer subject matter jurisdiction. Court found that it also did not have federal question jurisdiction under § 203 of the FAA, because it was an action to enjoin an arbitration in Panama instead of a motion to compel arbitration or enforce an award.

• Stonelake Condominium Association, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 3:23-CV-00279-JWD-SDJ (M.D. La. Mar. 27, 2024)

  03/27/2024

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings, holding that the arbitration agreement was covered by the New York Convention and thus could not be reverse preempted by a Louisiana state statute prohibiting arbitration clauses in insurance contracts. Court held further that the New York Convention was applicable to all defendants, including US citizen defendants, because the underlying claims alleged that all defendants acted “interdependently and in concert.”

• Vitol, Inc., v. Copape Produtos de Petroleo LTDA, No. 22-CV-10569-JPC (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2024)

  03/21/2024

  Court granted petitioner’s motion to compel arbitration and denied respondent’s cross-motion to dismiss the action. Court found that, although respondent was not a signatory to the relevant contracts, respondent was estopped from refusing to be bound by the arbitration clauses contained therein because it directly benefited from the contracts.

• Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin, No. 23-0747 (2d Cir. Mar. 20, 2024)

  03/20/2024

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s confirmation of CIETAC arbitral award pursuant to the New York Convention, rejecting defendant’s argument that he was not provided adequate notice of the arbitration and was therefore unable to participate in the selection of arbitrators. Court of appeals concluded that plaintiff made sufficient efforts that were reasonably calculated to provide notice to defendant.

• Concept Engineering LLC v. Pinterest, Inc., No. 21-CV-01465-MN (D. Del. Mar. 20, 2024)

  03/20/2024

  Court granted defendant’s motion to stay action pending arbitration finding whether a non-signatory can compel plaintiff to arbitrate is a question of arbitrability which was delegated to the arbitrator by “clear and unmistakable” evidence.

• Allianz Risk Transfer (Bermuda) Limited, v. High Lonesome Wind Power, LLC, No. 22-CV-05133-GHW (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2024)

  03/19/2024

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding the parties’ arbitration agreement unambiguously requires the arbitration of their dispute regarding the calculation of the amount due under the contract.

• Employers’ Innovative Network, LLC v. Bridgeport Benefits, Inc., No. 18-CV-01082 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 18, 2024)

  03/19/2024

  Court granted defendants’ joint motion to confirm and enforce arbitration award under the New York Convention, finding plaintiffs failed to prove that confirmation of the award would be contrary to public policy considering the arbitrator’s failure to disclose a potential conflict of interest. Court concluded that plaintiffs’ failure to challenge the arbitrator in Bermuda foreclosed their public policy defense and regardless, plaintiffs failed to conclusively offer proof of, or prejudice resulting from, the arbitrator’s perceived partiality.

• Simplot India LLC v. Himalaya Food International LTD, No. 23-CV-01612-RK-TJB (D.N.J. Mar. 15, 2024)

  03/15/2024

  Court denied petitioners’ motion to confirm foreign arbitral award, holding there was no personal jurisdiction over respondent. Court found unpersuasive petitioners’ argument that a related domestic company was respondent’s alter ego; that respondent consented to general jurisdiction by registering to do business in New Jersey and accepting service by its designated agent; or that court may exercise quasi in rem jurisdiction over the related domestic company’s debts owed to respondent, because respondent lacked sufficient interest or control in the property.

• McBurnie v. RAC Acceptance East, LLC, No. 22-16868 (9th Cir. Mar. 14, 2024)

  03/14/2024

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration finding that defendant’s arbitration agreement was unenforceable under a California law invalidating contracts that waive the right to seek injunctive relief on behalf of the general public, and that California law was not preempted by the FAA. Court of Appeals further found that its prior decision was not abrogated by the subsequent Supreme Court decision in Viking River because that decision dealt with a different California law.

• Anhui Powerguard Technology Company, Limited v. DRE Health Corporation, No. 23-1820 (8th Cir. Mar. 14, 2024)

  03/14/2024

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of motion to stay litigation and compel arbitration under the FAA.  Court of appeals determined that the parties did not agree to submit their dispute to arbitration where the arbitration agreement included a condition precedent which was not satisfied.

• Vamed Management und Service GMBH v. Gabonese Republic, No. 22-CV-03737-RJL (D.D.C. Mar. 13, 2024)

  03/13/2024

  Court granted motion for a default judgment and confirmation of the underlying arbitration award against respondent, where Gabon had not filed an appearance in the matter or otherwise participated in the confirmation proceedings.  Shearman & Sterling is counsel for Vamed Management und Service GMBH in connection with this case.

• Metropolitan Municipality of Lima v. Rutas de Lima S.A.C., No. 20-CV-02155-ACR (D.D.C. Mar. 12, 2024)

  03/12/2024

  Court denied petition to vacate two arbitration awards and granted cross-motions to confirm them, where grounds for refusal or deferral of recognition or enforcement of the awards under the New York Convention were not met. Court noted that two independent tribunals had rejected claims of bribery related to an underlying infrastructure contract to build, improve, and maintain urban highways in Peru and declined to accept petitioner’s argument that denial of the bribery before the tribunal was fraudulent. Court also disagreed that the second arbitral tribunal committed misconduct in admitting some, but not the annexes, to a prosecutorial indictment it introduced after the close of evidence.

• Cowin Technology Co., Ltd. v. Amazon.com Services LLC, No. 23-CV-03054-ALC (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2024)

  03/12/2024

  Court denied petition to vacate arbitral award and granted respondents’ cross-motion to confirm the award, where petitioner had not demonstrated that one of the seven exclusive grounds for refusal or deferral of recognition or enforcement of the award under Article V of the New York Convention applied.

• In re: Application of Bonsens.org for an Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to Conduct Discovery for Use in a Foreign Proceeding, No. 23-380 (2d. Cir. Mar. 11, 2024)

  03/11/2024

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of application seeking discovery under 28 USC § 1782 from Pfizer Inc. for use in a suit applicant initiated against the French government in France. Court of appeals determined that the requested discovery was irrelevant to the jurisdictional issue on appeal in France and that the prospect of a merits review in that proceeding was too speculative to satisfy the statutory requirement that the discovery be “for use” in the French proceeding.

• Shenzhen Gooloo E-Commerce Co., Ltd. v. Pilot, Inc., No. 23-CV-00854-PAB-SBP (D. Colo. Mar. 8, 2024)

  03/08/2024

  Court granted motion to dismiss petition to vacate arbitration award and ordered that the arbitration award be confirmed, where petitioner did not sufficiently allege that the arbitration award was in manifest disregard of the law or that the arbitrator exceeded his authority under the terms of the arbitration agreement.

• Bufkin Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, No. 23-30171 (5th Cir. Mar. 4, 2024)

  03/04/2024

  Court of appeals reversed district court’s denial of appellants’ motion to compel arbitration under the New York Convention. Court of appeals found that the doctrine of equitable estoppel under Louisiana law compelled arbitration because the appellee signatory to the arbitration agreement raised allegations of substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct by both non-signatory appellants and one or more of the signatory appellants to the arbitration agreement, even though the complaint later dismissed the signatory appellants as defendants.

• Thales Avionics, Inc. v. L3 Technologies, Inc., No. 24-CV-00112-JGK-RFT (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2024)

  02/27/2024

  Court granted preliminary injunction in aid of arbitration to enjoin defendant from selling stake in parties’ joint venture, finding that plaintiff demonstrated sufficiently serious questions going to the merits of its claim, irreparable harm, and that the balance of hardships weighed decidedly in its favor.
   

• Valentino S.p.A. v. Mrinalini, Inc., No. 23-CV-02319-MKV (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2024)

  02/26/2024

  Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award, finding that respondent failed to prove grounds under Article V of the New York Convention to refuse or defer the recognition of the award.  Court denied petitioner’s request for attorneys’ fees, finding that respondent’s actions did not warrant that exceptional award but found petitioner’s expenses would be allowed to the extent that costs are available to the prevailing party.

• Chicken Mart, Inc. v. Independent Specialty Insurance Company, No. 23-CV-06661-EEF-JVM (E.D. La. Feb. 23, 2024)

  02/23/2024

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed litigation pending arbitration, finding that the requirements of the New York Convention were satisfied.  Court compelled arbitration between foreign and domestic defendants because plaintiff was alleging intertwined conduct on the part of all defendants.

• Apex Hospitality Group, LLC v. Independent Specialty Insurance Company, No. 23-CV-02060-JTM-JVM (E.D. La. Feb. 23, 2024)

  02/23/2024

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the requirements of the New York Convention were satisfied.  Court found that plaintiff was equitably estopped from objecting to arbitration against domestic defendant, a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, because plaintiff alleged conduct that was interdependent and concerted with signatory foreign defendant.  Court also held that arbitration clauses are forum or venue selection clauses and application of equitable estoppel was thus not precluded by Louisiana law.

• Stonex Markets LLC v. Cooperativa de Caficultores del Suroeste de Antioquia, No. 23-CV-00513-JGLC-OTW (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2024)

  02/21/2024

  No. 23-CV-00513-JGLC-OTW (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2024)
  Court accepted magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to enter a motion for default judgment to confirm arbitration award finding the recommendation to be well reasoned and grounded in fact and law.

• Hoeg v. Samsung Electronics of America, Inc., No. 23-CV-01951 (E.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2024)

  02/20/2024

  Court found under § 4 of the FAA, that it may grant an order to compel arbitration where a duly initiated arbitral proceeding was previously administratively closed due to the opposition’s failure to pay its fees.  To hold otherwise would lead to a “never-ending game of cat-and-mouse” where the parties continue to initiate arbitration proceedings and one-party refuses to pay.

• Telecom Business Solutions, LLC v. Terra Towers Corp., No. 22-CV-01761-LAK (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2024)

  02/20/2024

  Court granted motion for an anti-suit injunction against defendant where a foreign litigation would frustrate the arbitration process by seeking to re-litigate issues already resolved by an arbitral tribunal and undermine the court’s confirmation of the arbitration award.

• Cameron Parish Recreation #6 v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, No. 23-30181 (5th Cir. Feb. 19, 2024)

  02/19/2024

  Court of Appeals vacated a discovery order and remanded to the district court to immediately grant a stay pending its decision on arbitration.  Court of appeals found discovery was improper in this case, where determining if a valid arbitration agreement existed between the parties was purely a matter of law.

• Chemaly v. Lampert, No. 23-CV-24257-BB (S.D. Fla. Feb. 16, 2024)

  02/16/2024

  Court granted in part and denied in part motions to compel arbitration pursuant to the New York Convention and to remand to state court, finding certain claims reasonably arose out of the arbitration agreement and remanding to state court the tort claims that did not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement and did not arise under federal law.

• Port of Vancouver USA v. BNSF Railway Company, No. 3:23-CV-05560-DGE (W.D. Wash. Feb. 15, 2024)

  02/15/2024

  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration under the FAA as to claims that defendant was not complying with an arbitration award against it that had been confirmed by a federal court.  Court reasoned that whether it could enforce the terms of the arbitration award was a “question of arbitrability” it could not resolve because the award was ambiguous.

• FGI Industries, Inc. v. Tangshan Ayers Bath Equipment Co., Ltd., No. 14-CV-00188-HDV-RAO (C.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2024)

  02/13/2024

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding defendant waived that right by actively seeking to litigate the underlying merits of the case, including filing five motions to dismiss and multiple other procedural and substantive motions over the past twelve years.

• Carriage Court Condominiums Owners Association v. Renaissance Re, No. 23-CV-05544-LMA-MBN (E.D. La. Feb. 7, 2024)

  02/07/2024

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration finding the insurance policy included a valid arbitration agreement enforceable pursuant to the New York Convention and the FAA. Plaintiff failed to file a timely opposition.

• Cedar Ridge, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 23-CV-07350-SSV-JVM (E.D. La. Feb. 7, 2024)

  02/07/2024

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings finding arbitration is mandated under the plaintiff’s insurance policy and the dispute is governed by the New York Convention.  Plaintiff did not oppose the motion.

• First United Methodist Church of Houma v. Underwriters at Lloyds of London, No. 23-CV-00610-JTM-JVM (E.D. La. Feb. 7, 2024)

  02/07/2024

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration finding the plaintiff’s insurance policy included a valid and enforceable arbitration clause. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that defendants had waived their right to arbitration finding that defendants did not evince a desire to resolve the dispute through litigation rather than arbitration by admitting venue and jurisdiction were proper in their answer, raising affirmative defenses but not the issue of arbitration, conducting discovery and providing initial disclosures, participating in mediation, and the passage of significant time since plaintiff filed its petition in state court.

• Telecom Business Solution, LLC v. Terra Towers Corp., No. 23-144 (2d Cir. Feb. 6, 2024)

  02/06/2024

  Court of Appeals affirmed district court’s ruling confirming the arbitration award because the claims were rightfully governable by the binding arbitration provision in the shareholders’ agreement.  Court of Appeals found defendants failed to establish either that the arbitration panel displayed a manifest disregard for the law or that the arbitration procedure was fundamentally unfair.  Court of Appeals concluded that the panel’s “last-minute switch” from New York law to the AAA rules was not fundamentally unfair because defendants were on notice that the arbitration would be conducted in accordance with the AAA rules.

• New Frontier Investment AG v. BitCenter, Inc., No. 23-MC-80154-PHK (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2024)

  02/06/2024

  Court denied petition to partially vacate arbitration award under the provisions of the FAA and the New York Convention finding that petitioner failed to show the arbitrator manifestly disregarded Hungarian law, or that the award was completely irrational in light of the parties’ contractual agreement or violated the public policy of either the forum state—California—or the United States.

• Devas Multimedia Private Limited v. Antrix Corp. Ltd., No. 20-36024 (9th Cir. Feb. 6, 2024)

  02/06/2024

  Court of Appeals denied petitions for rehearing en banc, finding, contrary to all other federal circuit courts, that in addition to fulfilling the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act requirements, plaintiffs must prove “minimum contacts” to assert personal jurisdiction over a foreign state, including when enforcing an international arbitration award.

• Voltage Pictures, LLC v. Gussi, S.A. de C.V., No. 23-55123 (9th Cir. Feb. 5, 2024)

  02/05/2024

  Court of Appeals affirmed district court’s confirmation of an arbitral award holding that (1) district court had jurisdiction under § 203 of Chapter 2 of the FAA and 28 USC § 1331; (2) district court erred in ruling that California law governed service because federal procedural law generally governs service when a party files in federal district court, however, under federal law, plaintiff sufficiently served defendant; and (3) district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to extend comity to a purported Mexican court order enjoining plaintiff from seeking to confirm the award because defendant did not certify the genuineness of document or the translation.