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

  • Lifetree Trading PTE., Ltd. V. Washakie Renewable Energy, No. 1:14-CV-09075-JPO (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 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)

    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.   

  • SBMH Group DMCC v. Noadiam USA, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-22605-CMA (S.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2017)

    Court granted in part motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that even though the parties had agreed to arbitrate questions of arbitrability, it was upon the court – applying relevant contract law – to decide whether non-signatories to the arbitration agreement could likewise benefit.  Court determined that defendants’ theory of equitable estoppel had no application under the governing UAE law and compelled arbitration only those claims involving signatory parties, staying the remaining proceedings pending the arbitral outcome.

  • Johnson & Johnson International v. Puerto Rico Hospital Supply, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01405-FAB (D.P.R. Oct. 26, 2017)

    Court denied motion for reconsideration of opinion and order compelling arbitration and staying all claims pending completion of arbitration, holding that plaintiffs’ arguments were based on formerly available evidence or arguments which had already been submitted to the court in earlier motions.  

  • In re Application of Barnwell Enterprises Ltd., No. 1:16–MC–02581-RC-GMH (D.D.C. July 13, 2017)

    Court granted petitioners’ application for expedited discovery pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 for use in litigation pending before courts in Uganda and Mauritius with court imposed time and subject-matter restrictions to alleviate the burdensomeness of the original requests.  Court determined that petitioners’ met the statutory requirements and that the four Intel factors weighed in favor of petitioners.

  • 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.

  • Fernandez Perez v. UBS Financial Servs., No. 3:15-CV-03081-GAG (D.P.R. Sept. 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.

  • Eurotec Vertical Flight Solutions, LLC v. Turbomeca, S.A., No. 3:15-CV-3454-B (N.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2016)

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, and granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion to refer issues of arbitrability to arbitration and stay action pending arbitrator’s decision.  Court found that a valid delegation clause existed directing issues of arbitrability to arbitration.

  • Choice Hotels Intl., Inc. v. Hassanali, No. 8:16-CV-01282-DKC (D. Md. Sept. 29, 2016)

    Court granted application to confirm the arbitration award, as defendants had failed to answer or otherwise respond to summonses.  Court found that the burden to prove the existence of one of the grounds for vacating the award is on the party challenging the award, and by failing to answer, defendants did not demonstrate any ground for vacatur.

  • Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C. v. Henceroth, No. 4:16-cv-00150-BYP (N.D. Ohio Sept. 29, 2016)

    Court granted motion for summary judgment and denied motion for leave to take discovery on the point of sale and title transfer.  Court held that, under both the FAA and Ohio law, the arbitration clauses in the parties’ leases were silent as to class arbitration, and thus class-wide arbitration was not authorized.

  • V5 Invs., LLC v. Gowaiter Business Holdings, LLC, No. 6:15-CV-2065-Orl-40KRS (M.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2016)

    Court confirmed arbitration award and denied plaintiff’s amended complaint for vacatur.  Court held that plaintiffs established no undue means which were not considered and resolved by the arbitrator.  Court also held that the arbitrator acted within his authority by interpreting the parties’ agreements to permit an award of expectation damages.

  • Lee v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 1:15-CV-11756 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 21, 2016)

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismiss action.  Court held that questions of enforceability of the parties’ agreement, the collective arbitration prohibition, and unconscionability, should be decided by the arbitrator.  Court also held that the proper procedure was to stay the proceedings rather than dismiss them outright.

  • Woods v. Caremark PHC, L.L.C., No. 4:14-CV-583-SRB (W.D. Mo. Aug. 2, 2016)

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration because defendants waived their arbitration rights by waiting over a year to file the motion to compel arbitration, during which a “wealth of extensive litigation occurred.”  Court found that there was “little doubt that defendants knew of the right” to arbitration and plaintiffs were prejudiced by “expending large sums of attorney time and money.”

  • General Cable Industries Inc v. Chauffeurs Teamsters Warehousemen and Helpers Union, No. 1:15-CV-00081 (N.D. Ind. June 17, 2016)

    Labor arbitration award confirmed. Court held the arbitrator drew his opinion from the essence of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and did not exceed the authority conferred to him by the parties, as required by the FAA.

  • Rowan v. Brookdale Senior Living, No. 15-1793 (6th Cir. May 9, 2016)

    District court’s order granting motion to compel arbitration and dismiss court action affirmed. 

  • Dent v. Encana Oil & Gas, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-01800-CMA (D. Colo. February 7, 2016)

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration as moot where plaintiff agreed his claims must be arbitrated and had, in fact, initiated arbitration.  Court denied defendant’s request for an order finding plaintiff’s collective and class action claims were not permitted to proceed in arbitration where the arbitration clause in the parties’ agreement authorized the arbitrator to interpret the agreement and make those determinations.