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.

FILTER BY:
AND/OR
  • AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. v. Lacchini, No. 16 Civ. 2575 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2017)
    02/23/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction on allegations that the foreign defendant arbitrator corruptly presided over the arbitration, including violations of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) and tortious interference with contract under New York law.  Court held it lacked jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2), concluding that defendant did not possess minimum contacts to warrant an exercise of personal jurisdiction pursuant to constitutional standards.

  • Terra Finance, LLC v. Acrow Corporation of America, No. 2:16-CV-00075-SRC-CLW (D.N.J. Feb. 7, 2017)
    02/07/2017

    Court granted motion to dismiss proceedings and compel arbitration.  Court held that the dispute was subject to a valid arbitration agreement and rejected the plaintiff’s assertions of procedural and substantive accountability, finding that they were mere assertions of impropriety.  Court also refused to substitute an arbitrator, holding that concern with the amount of administrative fees did not satisfy the narrow FAA grounds permitting such judicial intervention.

  • Nat’l Indemnity Co. v. IRB Brazil Reseguros S.A., No. 16-1267 (2d Cir. Jan. 31, 2017)
    01/31/2017

    Circuit court affirmed confirmation of arbitral awards, finding that district court had not committed clear error in concluding that an arbitrator had not shown “evident partiality” by accepting an appointment by a related party in another arbitration.

  • Owens v. American Arbitration Association, No. 16-1055 (8th Cir. Nov. 18, 2016)
    11/18/2016

    Court affirmed dismissal of plaintiff-appellant’s claims based on arbitral immunity.  Owens sued the AAA for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, tortious interference with contract, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage after the AAA removed an arbitrator from a three-member arbitration panel without holding a hearing, consulting the removed arbitrator, or informing Owens.  Appellate court concluded that the removal of arbitrators is protected by arbitral immunity, which protects sponsoring organizations from civil liability at all stages of the arbitration process.

  • Robinson v. EOR-ARK, LLC, No. 15-3406 (8th Cir. Nov. 14, 2016)
    11/14/2016

    Court dismissed complaint and compelled arbitration, holding that arbitration agreement was enforceable under Arkansas law even if none of the arbitral fora foreseen under the arbitration agreement were available, since in that case the arbitrator would be appointed by the court under 9 USC § 5.  Court further held that the arbitration agreement was enforceable even against non-signatory defendants, since they were closely related to the signatory defendants and arbitration therefore is appropriate.

  • Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh. v. Source One Staffing LLC, No. 1:16-CV-06461 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2016)
    10/13/2016

    Court agreed to appoint arbitral chair.  Court concluded that judicial intervention was proper because the terms of the parties’ arbitration agreement called for judicial appointment of third arbitrator if the parties’ own process had lapsed.  Court made its appointment with reference to the requirements included in the parties’ agreement and considerations of relative experience.

  • Moss v. First Premier Bank, No. 15-2513-CV (2d Cir. Aug. 29, 2016)
    08/29/2016

    Circuit court affirms district court’s decision that it could not appoint a substitute arbitrator since the parties’ arbitration agreement contemplated arbitration only before the National Arbitration Forum which was no longer accepting consumer arbitrations.  Court held that, where the designated arbitration forum is unavailable and no other option has been agreed by the parties, it must decline under §5 of the FAA to appoint substitute arbitrators or compel arbitration in another forum. Court did however recognize that there is a circuit split on this issue.

  • Parm v. National Bank of California, N.A., No. 15-12509 (11th Cir. Aug. 29, 2016)
    08/29/2016

    Circuit court affirms district court’s decision not to compel arbitration since the arbitration agreement was unconscionable and required the parties to arbitrate in an unavailable forum.  Court held that the arbitration agreement’s forum selection clause mandates the use of an illusory and unavailable arbitral forum, and because this term was integral to the parties’ agreement to arbitrate, the court cannot provide a substitute arbitrator or compel arbitration under §5 of the FAA.

  • Int’l Assn of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Bath Iron Works, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00257-GZS (D. Me. Aug. 11, 2016)
    08/11/2016

    Court granted motion to dismiss claim that arbitrator was biased as plaintiff both failed to file its complaint within Maine’s 90-day time limit to challenge an arbitral award and, despite knowledge of alleged bias, failed to challenge the arbitrator prior to the arbitrator’s decision.

  • Cooper v. Westend Capital Mgmt., L.L.C., No. 15-31068 (5th Cir. Aug. 9, 2016)
    08/09/2016

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s orders refusing to enjoin arbitration and confirming an award in favor of defendants who had expelled plaintiff from an operating agreement which required binding arbitration of disputes.  Court held that defendants did not substantially invoke the judicial process by filing a TRO and did not waive arbitration when they sought judicial relief.  Court also held that the operating agreement’s choice-of-law provision was insufficient to compel application of California’s arbitration standards.  Court rejected plaintiff’s claim that the arbitrator exceeded his powers in making the award as plaintiff failed to point to any specific bias or prejudice against him.

  • Royce v. Needle, No. 1:15-CV-00259 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 1, 2016)
    08/01/2016

    Court granted request to compel arbitration. Court found that the arbitration agreement, which specified arbitration by a former Magistrate judge who had since passed away, survived the named arbitrator’s death and remains enforceable.  As the arbitration agreement did not contemplate the death of the named arbitrator, it was the court’s duty to appoint an arbitrator pursuant to section 5 of the FAA.

  • Bordelon Marine, LLC v. Bibby Subsea ROV, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-01106-LMA-DEK (W.D. La. July 7, 2016)
    07/07/2016

    Plaintiff’s motion to re-open and enforce method for appointment of arbitrators denied and defendant’s motion to compel arbitration granted. Since the parties had deadlocked regarding the selection of arbitrators, the court may intervene pursuant to 9 USC § 4 and decide defendant’s challenge to the arbitrator appointment.  In doing so, court held that defendant was unambiguously authorized under the parties’ contract to appoint both the first and the second arbitrator since plaintiff failed to appoint an arbitrator within the contractually agreed time period.  An order compelling arbitration under 9 USC § 4 is warranted since, by refusing to recognize the properly appointed arbitration panel, plaintiff had refused to arbitrate.

  • John Hancock Life Ins. Co. (U.S.A) v. Employers Reassurance Corp., No. 1:15-CV-13626 (D. Mass. June 21, 2016)
    06/21/2016

    Petition to remove an arbitrator for lack of qualifications specified by the parties’ agreement denied. Court held that neither § 4 or § 5 of the FAA provide authority to remove an arbitrator timely appointed prior to the conclusion of the arbitration. 

  • Henry v. New Orleans Louisiana Saints L.L.C., No. 2:15-CV-05971-CJB-JCW (E.D. La. May 18, 2016)
    05/18/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted and action stayed pending outcome of the arbitration. Court found that a valid arbitration agreement existed, noting that ambiguous language does not necessarily render it unenforceable. Additionally, since plaintiff failed to show that the arbitrator’s relationship with defendants was undisclosed, unanticipated, or unintended, the appropriate method for contesting any possible bias is through judicial review of the ensuing arbitration award.

  • Badinelli v. The Tuxedo Club, No. 7:15-CV-06273 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2016)
    04/25/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration and stay court action granted.  Since the arbitration agreement lacked a description of the arbitral procedure, the court ordered that the parties to confer and appoint an arbitrator, failing which the court would do so.

  • AMA Multimedia LLC v. Borjan Solutions SL, No. 2:15-CV-1673 JCM (GWF) (D. Nev. Apr. 15, 2016) 
    04/15/2016

    Motions to compel arbitration and stay action granted following parties’ submission agreement to arbitrate dispute. Court further orders that Honorable Philip M. Pro be selected to arbitrate the matter. 

  • Capstone Associated Services Ltd v. Organizational Strategies Inc., No. 4:15-CV-03233 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 8, 2016)
    04/08/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration denied because sole arbitrator selected by agreement of the parties refused to serve as arbitrator. Separate motion to compel arbitration pursuant to different arbitration agreement granted and sole arbitrator selected shall decide which claims, if any, are subject to arbitration. 

  • WeWork Companies Inc. v. Zoumer, No. 16-CV-457 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2016)
    04/05/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted and action stayed except for issues relating to appointment of arbitrator. The failure to include specific details on the procedure of the arbitration is not fatal to the clause’s validity. Court ordered parties to attempt to agree sole arbitrator, failing which, the court would do so.

  • Bowers v. Northern Two Cayes Co. Ltd., No. 1:15-CV-00029-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C. Mar. 15, 2016)
    03/15/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted as the arbitration agreement is valid; defendant’s motion to dismiss denied as premature. Parties directed to confer and agree upon an arbitrator. 

  • Ruiz v. Millennium Square Residential Association, No. 15-1014 (JDB) (D.D.C. Jan. 13, 2016)
    01/13/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted and action stayed pending arbitration. Arbitration agreement’s failure to require written arbitration decisions or to provide for certain discovery procedures does not render the agreement substantively unconscionable as a whole. The agreement’s arbitrator-selection process was however unconscionable because it assigned the selection power solely to one of the parties and the arbitrator-selection provision could be severed from the agreement.

  • Parkcrest Builders, LLC v. Housing Authority of New Orleans (HANO), No. 15-150 (E.D. La. Jan. 13, 2016)
    01/13/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted; question of whether plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies is an issue of procedural arbitrability to be decided by an arbitrator; the court is authorized to appoint an arbitrator but it is preferable that arbitrators be chosen by the parties.