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.

  • Gemini Insurance Company v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London Subscribing to Policy No. B0973MA1305152 Issued Through the Offices of Osprey Underwriting Agency Ltd., No. 4:17-CV-01044 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 13, 2017)

    Court dissolved a state court’s temporary restraining order barring defendants from pursuing arbitration in London.  Court also denied a preliminary injunction finding that there was a valid arbitration agreement under the New York Convention.  Finally, the court held that the arbitration agreement’s incorporation of English law was an implicit delegation clause and therefore any threshold arbitrability questions would be sent to the arbitrators. 

  • Hallock v. Kia Motors Finance, No. 8:17-CV-00417-RAL-TBM (M.D. Fla. Apr. 7, 2017)

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and motion to stay, noting that, under eleventh circuit precedent, even if a court decides to compel arbitration, “it is error to dismiss [an] appeal.”  Instead, upon compelling arbitration, a court should stay court proceedings.

  • Arabian Gas & Oil Dev. Co. v. Wisdom Marines Lines, S.A., No. 4:16-CV-03801-DMR (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2017)

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to increase plaintiff’s undertaking while arbitration proceedings were pending in London.  Court held that plaintiff’s undertaking should be increased to provide defendants with security for a potential wrongful attachment claim in the event the plaintiff did not recover judgment.

  • Johnson v. Drake, No. 3:16-CV-01993-L-BF (N.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2017)

    Court accepted as modified magistrate judge’s report recommending that the court grant respondent’s motion to dismiss without prejudice for failure to effect service on respondent.  Court held § 9 of the FAA applied to service in proceedings such as this one to confirm an arbitration award.  Court also held failure to effect service was curable defect for which it provided petitioner with additional time.

  • Jefferson v. Baptist Health System, Inc., Nos. 2:14-CV-01028, 2:14-CV-1094-KOB (N.D. Ala. Mar. 28, 2017)

    Court awarded attorney’s fees and costs to plaintiff.  Court held that where defendant challenged the plaintiff’s arbitration award in court, plaintiff was entitled to fees and costs for those proceedings concerning the enforceability of the arbitration award. 

  • Mohebbi v. Khazen, No. 5:13-CV-03044-BLF (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2017)

    Court denied defendant’s motion to partially lift a stay of claims where court had previously granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay remaining claims. Court held that lifting the stay for a single defendant who joined the motion to compel arbitration would be contrary to the FAA’s mandate, prejudicial to other defendants, and unwarranted where the completion of the arbitration was imminent and furthered the goal of efficiency for both the judiciary and the litigants.

  • Erwin v. Citibank, N.A., No. 3:16-CV-03040-GPC-KSC (S.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2017)

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration since there was a question as to whether the plaintiff opted out of a more recent arbitration agreement sent to him by his credit card company. Court granted the parties 60 days leave to take limited discovery on the issue, which the court stated would be dispositive of the arbitrability of the dispute.

  • Evans v. Affiliated Computer Services Inc., No. 15-55453 (9th Cir. Mar. 16, 2017)

    Court of appeals affirmed the lower court’s judgment holding appellant in contempt and dismissing her action for failure to comply with court-ordered arbitration.  Court held that the lower court properly determined that appellant’s claims should proceed to arbitration.  Further, the lower court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion for contempt where, on more than one occasion, appellant violated the district court’s order to arbitrate her employment-based claims.

  • O’Connor v. Maritime Mgmt. Corp., No. 2:16-CV-16201-KDE-JCW (E.D. La. Mar. 16, 2017)

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for remand.  Court held that remand to the state court was improper and that defendant’s removal of the case to the federal district court was appropriate.  Specifically, court explained that defendant, a foreign insurer, was entitled to invoke the removal provision of the New York Convention and remove the case to federal court because of the existence of an arbitration provision which defendant claimed covered the dispute.  Court further rejected plaintiff’s defenses finding that (i) proof of a valid arbitration agreement was not required for purposes of establishing that removal was justified and (ii) that plaintiff’s efforts to attack the enforceability of the arbitration agreement were premature for purposes of deciding the motion to remand.

  • Horner v. American Airlines, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00665-D (N.D. Tex. Mar. 13, 2017)

    Court denied plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order against the commencement of an arbitration hearing between plaintiffs and defendants.  Court held that a temporary restraining order was not justified because plaintiffs did not show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.  Specifically, court found that plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that the court had jurisdiction to hear the dispute under the Railway Labor Act.

  • Golden Gate National Senior Care LLC v. Bateman, No. 1:16-CV-00898-YK (M.D. Penn. Mar. 10, 2017)

    Court denied, without prejudice, petitioners’ motion to compel arbitration and stay court proceedings.  Court held that respondent made more than a “naked assertion” that the petitioners did not intend to be bound by the arbitration agreement and that the parties should be entitled to conduct discovery on the question of arbitrability before the court entertained further briefing on the question.

  • Doe v. Swift Tranp. Co., Inc., No. 2:10-CV-00899 (D. Ariz. Feb. 24, 2017)

    Court granted defendants’ motion staying the case pending appeal.  Court held the defendants did not show a likelihood of success on the merits but the appeal raised serious legal questions; that defendants would suffer irreparable harm from the increased cost of litigation associated with defending the proposed class action and the loss of the efficiency of arbitration; and that a stay is in the public interest.

  • Fox v. Vision Serv. Plan, No. 2:16-CV-02456 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2017)

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo pending a determination of whether the dispute resolution process is legal and enforceable.  Court concluded that the plaintiff showed she was likely to succeed on the merits, she would suffer irreparable harm without preliminary relief, the balance of equities tipped in her favor, and the injunction was in the public interest.

  • Corchado v. Foulke Management Corporation, No. 1:15-CV-06600-JBS-JS (D.N.J. Feb. 15, 2017)

    Court denied defendant’s appeal and upheld the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations, finding, pursuant to the FAA, that the court and not the arbitrator must make the gateway determination of the existence of an arbitral agreement since the “claim is fraud in the inducement of the arbitration clause itself.”  Court granted limited discovery to determine whether there was mutual assent to the arbitration agreement.

  • Briggs v. Macy’s Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00902-MEM (M.D. Pa. Feb. 14, 2017)

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiffs were entitled to discovery on the question of arbitrability.  Court explained that, pursuant to third circuit doctrine, when the issue of arbitrability is not apparent on the face of the complaint, the motion to compel arbitration must be denied pending further development of the factual record.

  • 20/20 Communications, Inc. v. Blevins, No. 4:16-CV-00810-Y (N.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2017)

    Court denied motion to issue a preliminary injunction to enjoin arbitration.  Court held that the availability of class arbitration under the parties’ arbitration agreement was a question for the arbitrator because the parties had incorporated a delegation clause, including by agreeing that any arbitration would be governed by AAA rules.

  • CFL Pizza LLC v. Hammack, No. 6:16-CV-00968-JA-KRS (M.D. Fla. Feb. 1, 2017)

    Court denied petition to compel arbitration in accordance with agreement, finding that issue of whether class arbitration was permitted was to be determined by arbitrator in pending arbitration.

  • Arabian Motors Group W.L.L. v. Ford Motor Co., No. 2:16-CV-13655 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 19, 2017)

    Court denied motion for preliminary injunction to stay arbitration.  Court found that the Motor Vehicle Franchise Contract Arbitration Fairness Act, which requires a written agreement to arbitrate after a dispute arises, does not cover the agreement between the parties because plaintiff is a foreign dealer and the statute is presumed to apply only to domestic entities.  Thus, the parties’ delegation of questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator is enforceable.

  • CPB Contractors Pty. Ltd. v. Chevron Corp., 4:16-CV-05344 (N.D. Cal. Jan 17, 2017)

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay pending the resolution of binding arbitration between the plaintiff and Chevron Australia, a non-party to the case. Court found that § 3 of the FAA allows for a stay when “any issue” involved in the suit is referable to arbitration. This is supported by prior decisions holding that district courts have discretion to stay claims where (a) litigation of claims against the non-signatory would adversely affect the signatory’s rights in arbitration and (b) a stay is advisable in view of the claims’ interdependence with claims properly referred to arbitration.  Here, proceeding with the case would interfere with Chevron Australia’s right to have the claims against it decided in arbitration.

  • Ventura v. Gov’t Empl. Ins. Co. (GEICO), No. 2:16-CV-08441-JFW-GJS (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2017)

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the action without prejudice.  Court held that plaintiffs’ failure to file an opposition pursuant to local rules to defendant’s motion to compel arbitration constituted consent to the granting of the motion.

  • TransAtlantic Lines LLC v. Amergent Techs, LLC, No. 16-CV-3549-PAE (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2017)

    Court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss on the ground it lacks personal jurisdiction over the respondent and denied petitioner’s motion to compel arbitration on the same basis.  Court held that agreement contained an arbitration clause that specified the application of Connecticut law but did not specify an arbitral forum.  Court held that plaintiff did not allege that defendant had any contacts within the district or had undertaken activities therein, and therefore court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

  • Aztec Engineering Group, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., No. 1:16-CV-01657-JMS (S.D. Ind. Jan. 04, 2017)

    Court denied third-party entity from intervening to assert a counterclaim against defendant and stay litigation to pursue arbitration.  Court held that if party believed it was entitled to initiate arbitration on allegedly arbitrable claims, no aspect of the litigation prevented it from doing so but the proposed intervention was geared more to delay than the merits of any dispute.

  • UBS Financial Services Inc. v. Bounty Gain Enterprises Inc., No. 9:14-CV-81603-WM (S.D. Fla. Dec. 27, 2016)

    Court denied defendant’s motion for relief from preliminary injunction, stating that the plaintiff was not required to submit to FINRA arbitration. Court held that both the defendant and the defendant’s employee, who likewise sought FINRA arbitration, failed to establish standing, as the defendant was never a customer of the plaintiff or an associated person of the plaintiff, and the defendant’s employee sought arbitration under the same set of factual circumstances as the defendant.

  • Lenox Corp. v. Blackshear, No. 2:15-CV-06019-AB (E.D. Pa. Dec. 22, 2016)

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of an ongoing arbitration and denied defendants’ motion to enjoin the arbitration.  Court held that the parties were obligated to arbitrate the dispute because there was no dispute that an agreement to arbitrate existed and upon examination of the arbitration clause the parties’ dispute clearly fell within the scope of the provision.

  • Worth v. Worth, No. 2:16-CV-03877-MAK (E.D. Pa. Dec. 22, 2016)

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to stay proceedings on a motion to compel arbitration pending the outcome of an interlocutory appeal.  Court held that the pending motion to compel arbitration must be stayed because (i) plaintiff made a strong showing that he was likely to succeed on the merits; (ii) there was a risk that plaintiff would be irreparably injured absent a stay; and (iii) the issuance of a stay would not substantially injure defendants.

  • Meadows v. Dickey’s Barbecue Restaurants Inc., No. 1:15-CV-02139-JST (N.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2016)

    Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for order to consolidate arbitrations.  Court held that it did not have jurisdiction to rule on the question of consolidation because consolidation is a procedural question for the arbitrator to decide.

  • Seldon v. Airbnb, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00933-CRC (D.D.C. Dec. 19, 2016)

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to certify an interlocutory appeal of the court’s order to compel arbitration.  Court held that because plaintiff failed to show that there was substantial ground for a different of opinion on a controlling question of law, plaintiff’s motion to certify an interlocutory appeal should be denied.  Court explained that the moving party to an interlocutory appeal bears a heavy burden to show that exceptional circumstances justify a departure from the basic policy of postponing appellate review until after the entry of final judgment and that this burden is made more stringent given the FAA’s objective of moving the parties to an arbitrable dispute into arbitration as quickly and easily as possible. 

  • SprinkleBit Holding, Inc. v. MJD Interactive Agency, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-01324-W-BGS (S.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2016)

    Court granted motion to stay proceedings pending conclusion of concurrent arbitral proceedings involving related claims and related parties.

  • Humana Ins. Co. v. Tenet Health Sys., No. 3:16-CV-02919-B (N.D. Tex. Nov. 21, 2016)

    Court denied motion for a preliminary injunction pending the arbitration panel’s decision, finding that the movant had failed to make a clear showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits or that it or others are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary injunctive relief.

  • In re Ex Parte Application of Kleimar N.V., No. 1:16-MC-00355-P1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2016)

    Court denied motions to vacate an ex parte discovery order and to quash a subpoena duces tecum.  Court found that third-party lacked standing to vacate the ex parte discovery order directed against the defendant.  As to the subpoena duces tecum, which was directed at the third-party, court held:  (i) third-party had sufficiently significant contacts with New York to be considered a resident for the purposes of 28 USC § 1782; (ii) second circuit precedent holding private foreign arbitrations fall outside the scope of “foreign tribunals” for the purposes of 28 USC § 1782 is no longer determinative in light of subsequent US Supreme Court dicta; (iii) subpoena is neither a confidentiality concern nor an undue burden in light of agreement by party requesting subpoena to narrow its scope and consent to a protective order; and (iv) service on third-party’s in-state agent was sufficient.

  • 20/20 Communications, Inc. v. Blevins, No. 4:16-CV-00810-Y (N.D. Tex. Nov. 15, 2016)

    Court denied motion for a temporary restraining order against arbitrating issues in dispute among the parties.  Court held that plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or demonstrate an appropriate balance of party and public interest.

  • Fang v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-06071-JD (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2016)

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction requesting the court to dismiss an ongoing arbitration involving the parties.  Court held that injunctive relief was not warranted because plaintiff made no showing that she was likely to suffer irreparable hard in the absence of preliminary relief; that the balance of equities tipped in her favor; and that an injunction was in the public interest.

  • Sopinski v. Lackawanna Cnty., No. 3:16-CV-00466-PDM (M.D. Pa. Nov. 10, 2016)

    Court granted motion by an arbitrator to quash a subpoena for deposition.  Court held that, although arbitrators may be deposed on issues of alleged bias or prejudice, where an arbitrator previously disclosed all conflicts of interest to plaintiff, the arbitrator was entitled to assert her testimonial privilege.

  • United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 653 v. Fresh Seasons Market, LLC, No. 0:15-CV-03910-PJS-TNL (D. Minn. Nov. 8, 2016)

    Court denied defendants’ motion to stay an order compelling arbitration pending the outcome of defendants’ appeal of the court’s order.  Court held a stay was not warranted because (i) defendant failed to make a strong showing that its appeal would be successful; (ii) the cost of submitting to arbitration was not an irreparable harm; (iii) a stay would prejudice plaintiff by further delaying a case that had already lasted several years; and (iv) there is a strong federal policy favoring arbitrating disputes in general and labor disputes in particular.

  • ABX Air, Inc. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Airline Division, No. 1:16-CV-01039-TSB (S.D. Ohio Nov. 7, 2016)

    Court denied motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, and dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.  Court held that the dispute at issue was a “minor dispute” as defined by the Railway Labor Act and, according to the statute, all “minor disputes” must be submitted to arbitration instead of the federal courts.

  • American Healthcare Assoc. v. Burwell, No. 3:16-CV-00233-MPM-RP (N.D. Miss. Nov. 7, 2016)

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the defendants from enforcing a new regulation that would bar nursing homes receiving federal funds from entering pre-dispute arbitration agreements with their residents.  Court held that a preliminary injunction was warranted because inter alia it was likely that the new regulation would be barred by the FAA.

  • McKinnon v. Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., No. 4:12-CV-04457-YGR (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2016)

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to intervene.  Court held inter alia that the existence of an arbitration provision in an agreement between an intervenor and defendants was not sufficient reason to deny plaintiff’s motion.  Court explained that if defendants successfully compelled the intervenor to litigate his claims in arbitration, the court could stay the intervenor’s claims against defendants and proceed to hear the remaining claims that were not subject to arbitration.

  • Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 1:13-CV-01668-LPS (D. Del. Nov. 3, 2016)

    Court denied defendants’ motion to stay the proceedings pending arbitration.  Court held that defendants could not invoke the doctrine of equitable estoppel to stay an arbitration to which they were not a party.  Court further held that a discretionary stay of the pending arbitration was unwarranted because a stay would unfairly prejudice the plaintiff and was unlikely to promote judicial economy.

  • Commc’n Workers of America Local 3010, AFL-CIO v. Telephone Tech. Sys., Inc., No. 3:16-CV-02635-GAG (D.P.R. Nov. 1, 2016)

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction in aid of arbitration and denied defendant’s motion to dismiss.  Court held that the question of whether the parties’ collective bargaining agreement had expired at the time the dispute arose should be decided by an arbitrator per the terms of the parties’ agreement to arbitrate.  Court also held that a preliminary injunction in aid of arbitration was justified because (1) the parties had entered into a collective bargaining agreement providing for mandatory arbitration; (2) the dispute between the parties was subject to binding arbitration; and (3) traditional principles of equity warranted injunctive relief.

  • State of Wisconsin Local Government Property Insurance Fund v. Lexington Insurance Company, No. 15-1973 (7th Cir. Oct. 21, 2016)

    Seventh circuit confirmed district court’s decision denying appellant’s attempt to intervene in an arbitration proceeding.  Court held that the dispute over the existence of an arbitration agreement was to be decided by the judiciary, and that the policy in favor of arbitration did not apply in this case because the contract unambiguously contained no arbitration provision.

  • Wells Fargo Advisors, L.L.C. v. Tucker, No. 1:15-CV-07722-VEC (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2016)

    Having previously denied Plaintiff’s petition to dismiss on-going class-wide arbitration and compel individual arbitration and entered judgment for respondent, court denied respondent’s motion to modify the judgment and stay proceedings pursuant to § 3 of the FAA.  Court holds that § 3 only applies when the underlying dispute is before the court and is not relevant where all issues in dispute are arbitrable as in the instant case.

  • Zemel v. Citibank, No. 2:16-CV-03976 (D.N.J. Oct. 20, 2016)

    Court denied without prejudice motion to compel arbitration, allowing for renewal of the motion following limited discovery on the question of arbitrability.  Court found that there were genuine questions as to whether an arbitration agreement existed between the parties, with plaintiff contending that he opted out of the arbitration agreement at issue.  Court ordered limited discovery on the question of arbitrability after which defendant may renew its motion to compel arbitration.

  • AmTrust North America, Inc. et al. v. Preferred Contractors Ins. Co. Risk Retention Group, L.L.C., No. 1:16-MC-0340 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2006)

    Court grants motion to compel defendant to disclose information and orders defendant to refrain from using or transferring funds in its possession that belong to a third-party debtor pursuant to an arbitration award that was confirmed by the court in a separate action.

  • Levy v. Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, No. 2-16-mc-00171 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 18, 2016)

    Court dismissed motion to vacate an arbitration award.  Court held that motion filed on the 92nd day after the award was issued is not timely because New York Law requires the motion to be filed within 90 days, and service of the motion is governed by the FAA, which requires service within three months.              

  • HBR Lewisport, LLC v. Hamilton, No. 4:16-CV-00044 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 7, 2016)

    Court authorized limited discovery in aid of a motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that insufficient evidence had been provided as to whether the applicable arbitration agreement had been validly signed through power of attorney.

  • Hulley Enterprises Ltd. v. Russian Federation, No. 1:14-CV-01996-BAH (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2016)

    Court stayed action to recognize and enforce an arbitral award of $50 billion against the Russian Federation pending appeal of decision to set aside the award by a foreign court at the seat of the arbitration.  Court held that it possessed the inherent authority to stay the action pending the foreign court’s decision and rejected the Russian Federation’s argument that it must first decide whether it possesses subject matter jurisdiction before deciding whether to grant a stay. Court deemed that a stay was judicially efficient and warranted because the outcome of the foreign court decision could affect the legal viability of the award enforcement action in the United States. The court likewise found that the hardships faced by the Russian Federation did not outweigh the benefits that flowed from granting a stay. Shearman & Sterling is counsel for petitioners seeking award enforcement in connection with this case.

  • R&G Student Hous., LLC v. Phoenix Sustainable Grp., LLC, No. 6:16-CV-01363-GAP-DAB (M.D. Fla. Sept. 7, 2016)

    Court denied emergency motion to enforce the parties’ negotiated arbitration provision, finding that, where parties disagree over proper forum for arbitration, cost of responding to arbitration demand in contested forum is not an irreparable injury warranting a preliminary injunction enjoining the contested proceedings.

  • Capelli Enterprises, Inc. v. Fantastic Sams Salons Corp., No. 5:16-CV-03401 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2016)

    Court denied motion for temporary injunction on AAA arbitration.  Court held plaintiffs did not establish a sufficient likelihood of success or serious question to succeed in a temporary restraining order.  Court reasoned that incorporation of AAA arbitration rules indicated delegation of arbitrability questions to the arbitrator.

  • In re Ashley Madison, No. 4:15-MD-02669-JAR (E.D. Mo. Aug 24, 2016)

    Court granted in part motion to compel discovery relating to contemplated motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration.  Court reasoned that plaintiffs were entitled to full and complete discovery on questions relevant to the court’s ultimate determination of whether they would be permitted to proceed as a class action or compelled to arbitrate individually.  Requests not “reasonably necessary” to address motion to compel were denied.

  • Zurich Ins. PLC v. Ethos Energy (USA) LLC, No., 4:15-CV-03580-MH (S.D. Tex. Aug. 16, 2016)

    Court granted motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction to enforce an arbitrator’s subpoena directing a non-party to the arbitration to produce documents pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 7.  Court held §7 of the FAA does not establish federal question jurisdiction and the amount in controversy does not meet the $75,000 threshold amount required for federal diversity jurisdiction.

  • Central States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund v. Nat’l Concrete Prods. Co., No. 1:15-CV-03739-MSS (N.D. Ill. Aug. 16, 2016)

    Court granted motion for summary judgment to collect payment for defendant’s alleged default in contributing to a multiemployer pension plan on behalf of its unionized employees while arbitration between the parties about the amount of withdrawal liability is ongoing.

  • Clouser v. Golden Gate Nat’l Senior Care, LLC, No. 3:15-CV-00033-KRG (W.D. Pa. Aug. 10, 2016)

    Court denied motion to stay the trial of plaintiff’s wrongful death claim pending resolution of plaintiff’s survival claim in arbitration.  In weighing the competing interests and the totality of circumstances, including a stay of indefinite duration, court held stay was not appropriate. 

  • The Robbins Co. v. JCM Northlink LLC, No. 2:16-CV-00646-RSL (W.D. Wash. Aug. 9, 2016)

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the matter.  Court held that the Family Leave and Medical Act does not confer an unqualified right to a judicial forum, as would be required to displace the FAA; nor does an anti-waiver of employee rights provision invalidate an agreement to submit such claim to arbitration.

  • Arabian Gas & Oil Dev. Co. v. Wisdom Marines Lines, SA, Nos. 4:16-CV-03801-DMR, 4:16-03872-DMR (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2016)

    Court set aside its ex parte order to attach and ordered the immediate release of a vessel that was held to secure an alleged, but not forthcoming, arbitral award under the New York Convention.

  • Thornell v. Performance Imports, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-00397-JHE (N.D. Ala. Aug. 3, 2016)

    Court denied motion to appoint arbitrator.  Court held that the arbitration agreement entitled defendant to veto the plaintiff’s selection of an organization other than the American Arbitration Association, not the arbitrator the plaintiff nominated.  Therefore, §5 of the FAA was not applicable.

  • Andrade v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc., No. 3:12-CV-02724 JLS (MDD) (S.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2016)

    Court denied renewed motion to vacate arbitration award.  Court held that the award was not final under the FAA and that cost and delay alone could not constitute “severe irreparable injury” or “manifest injustice” so as to justify review of the arbitrator’s non-final decision.

  • Wells Fargo Ins. Servs. USA, Inc. v. King, No. 0:15-CV-04378-PJS-HB (D. Minn. July 29, 2016)

    Court granted in part motion to stay discovery pending determination of motion to compel arbitration, permitting discovery to proceed primarily in relation to defendants’ grounds for opposing arbitration.

  • KAG West, LLC v. Malone, No. 3:15-CV-03827-TEH (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2016)

    Motion denied to enjoin the respondent from filing and prosecuting duplicative claims.  Court held that the FAA did not authorize federal courts to stay proceedings pending in state courts. 

  • Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. John Deere Ins. Co., No. 2:15-CV-15-00671-PHX-PGR (D. Ariz. July 22, 2016)

    Court granted application for attorney’s fees and costs arising from an action to confirm arbitration award.  Court rejected respondent’s argument that the petitioner was limited to seeking remuneration for attorney’s fees incurred solely in connection with the cross-motion to confirm the arbitration award, and not matters such as filing an answer or responding to a motion to seal the entirety of the proceedings.

  • New York City & Vicinity Dist. Council of Carpenters v. Plaza Constr. Group, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01115-GHW (S.D.N.Y. July 19, 2016)

    Court granted petitioner’s application for attorney’s fees and costs arising from an action to confirm an arbitration award where the collective bargaining agreement entitled petitioner to recover reasonable fees and costs and where respondent offered no justification for its failure to abide by a court-confirmed arbitration award.

  • SCL Basilisk AG, v. Agribusiness United Savannah Logistics LLC, No. 4:16-CV-00162-WTM-GRS (S.D. Ga. July 18, 2016)

    Court denied plaintiffs’ petition and application for an order for security in aid of foreign arbitration.  Court held that plaintiffs’ petition could not seek security pursuant to Georgia’s International Commercial Arbitration Code rather than traditionally applicable but unavailable maritime law provisions because the relief sought would bypass the FAA’s § 8 requirement that entities seek security “according to the usual course of admiralty proceedings.”

  • Smart Techs. ULC  v. Rapt Touch Ireland Ltd, No. 3:16-CV-03531-VC (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2016)

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order where there was no valid reason for a federal court to issue that relief.  Court held parties had agreed that the contract in dispute contained an arbitration clause which afforded the plaintiff the right to request emergency relief from an arbitrator as well as the court.

  • Greerwalker, LLP v. Jackson et al., 3:16-CV-00235-GCM (W.D.N.C. July 14, 2016)

    Motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin arbitration granted.  Court held that, as defendants were not parties to the engagement letter containing the agreement to arbitrate, there was no “clear and unmistakable” indication that the parties agreed that questions of arbitrability would be decided by the arbitrator and not the court.  Court further held that plaintiff showed it was likely to succeed on its claim that the dispute between the parties was not arbitrable and that it would cause plaintiff irreparable harm if plaintiff were forced to continue with an arbitration on the merits before the issue of arbitrability was determined.

  • Dynamic International Airways, LLC v. Air India Limited, No. 1:15-CV-07054-PKC (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2016)

    Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in India granted; plaintiff’s cross-motion to compel arbitration in New York and to enjoin defendant from proceeding with arbitration in India denied and action stayed pending the India arbitration.  Court found that New York contract law, rather than India law, applies to the question of whether the two arbitration agreements the parties rely on are enforceable.  Court held that the letter relied on by plaintiff for arbitration in New York was not an enforceable arbitration agreement since it failed to state any material terms of the arbitration, such as the location, forum and rules of the arbitration; whereas the arbitration clause relied on by the defendant for arbitration in India was valid and enforceable since, even though it does not explicitly use the words “arbitration” or “arbitrator,” it contains an unambiguous agreement to settle a controversy.  Plaintiff’s allegation that arbitrator was not impartial was not a prima facie cause to enjoin the arbitration and instead could be raised on a motion to vacate the arbitration award. 

  • Bowers v. Northern Two Cayes Company Limited, No. 1:15-CV-00029-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C. July 7, 2016)

    Arbitrator’s order for interim measures confirmed and motion to confirm arbitrator’s opinion that the arbitration is binding denied.  Court held that arbitrator did not act in manifest disregard of the law simply because his order of interim injunctive relief under AAA Rule 37 failed to state the legal standard on which it was based.  Since arbitrator’s opinion that the arbitration is binding was stated in an email communication to the parties, and not in a formal order or award, there was nothing for the court to confirm.

  • Hotel Investors Inc. v. Modular Steel Systems Inc., No. 4:16-CV-01337-MWB (M.D. Pa. July 1, 2016)

    Motion for emergency temporary injunction denied. Court found that although plaintiff showed it was likely to succeed on the merits in the pending arbitration, it failed to show that it would be irreparably injured if defendant were not enjoined from selling, transferring, alienating, or exercising any control over assets relating to the agreement at issue in the arbitration.

  • Miller v. Tri Marine Fish Company, No. 2:16-CV-02203-JAK-SS (C.D. Cal. June 28, 2016)

    Motion to remand action to state court denied. Court held that removal of action to federal court was appropriate since the arbitration agreements at issue fell under 9 USC § 205 and the New York Convention and because they related to the subject matter of the plaintiff’s claims.

  • A & C Discount Pharmacy, L.L.C. v. Caremark, L.L.C., No. 3:16-CV-0264-D (N.D. Tex. June 27, 2016)

    Motion to compel arbitration granted and request for preliminary injunctive relief not decided.   Where court decides to compel arbitration, the parties’ incorporation of the AAA arbitration rules is clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed that the arbitrator has the primary power to decide whether a request for preliminary injunctive relief is arbitrable.

  • Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. BNSF Railway Co., No. 8:16-CV-0063 (D. Neb. June 24, 2016)

    Court granted motion to dismiss.  Court held that whether or not to consolidate claims is a decision left to the arbitrator, and therefore the court would not enjoin a party from bringing counterclaims to on-going arbitration.

  • Westport Resources Management Inc. v. DeLaura, No. 3:16-CV-00873 (D. Conn.  June 23, 2016)

    Motion for temporary restraining order granted, enjoining defendant from soliciting or inducing plaintiff’s clients to end their relationship with the plaintiff, pending the outcome of an expedited FINRA arbitration. Court found that the plaintiff had shown a likelihood of success on the merits and a risk of irreparable harm if the restraining order were not granted.

  • GE Transp. Co., Ltd. v. A-Power Energy Generation Sys., Ltd., No. 1:15-CV-06194 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2016)

    Petition to recognize an HKIAC award granted.  Judgment entered against the respondent in the underlying arbitration, who is enjoined from transferring or otherwise dissipating its assets pending full payment.  However, court finds that it has no authority to enter judgment against entities related to the respondent under an alter-ego joint and several liability theory.

  • Laudano v. Credit One Bank, No. 1:15-CV-07668 (D.N.J June 22, 2016)

    Motion to dismiss without prejudice and compel arbitration denied.  Court holds that arbitrability is not apparent from the face of the complaint and directs the parties to conduct limited discovery on the issue of whether the parties have entered into a valid agreement to arbitrate.

  • UBS Financial Services, Inc. v. Zimmerman, No. 5:16-CV-00155 (E.D.N.C. June 21, 2016)

    Motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to compel arbitration dismissed. Court held that defendant is not a customer of the plaintiff and therefore not entitled to FINRA arbitration.  Court compares motion to compel arbitration to a motion for summary judgment, in that it will be granted where there is no genuine dispute despite inferences being drawn in favor of the non-moving party.

  • Mathew v. Austin Industrial Services, LP, No. 4:16-CV-00867 (S.D. Tex. June 20, 2016)

    Agreed motion to compel arbitration granted.  Rather than granting agreed motion to stay, case is dismissed without prejudice because all issues raised in the litigation are arbitrable.             

  • Brandenburg Health Facilities, LP v. Mattingly, No. 3:15-CV-833 (W.D. Ky. June 20, 2016)

    Motion to dismiss suit seeking to enjoin state action and enforce arbitration agreement dismissed; motion to compel arbitration granted for all claims with the exception of wrongful death.  The defendant is enjoined from pursuing all causes of action besides the wrongful-death claim in state court.

  • Gubala v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., No. 15-CV-1078 (E.D. Wis. June 17, 2016)

    Amended claim seeking injunctive relief dismissed where plaintiff amends complaint to remove relief that would trigger the mandatory arbitration clause. Court held that elements for injunctive relief are not met because an adequate remedy at law exists despite plaintiff’s decision not to pursue it.

  • Founders Real Estate Investment Trust v. Kinsale Insurance Company, No. 1:16-CV-00086 (N.D. Ohio June 14, 2016)

    Motion to compel arbitration granted.  Court held the right to arbitrate had not been waived through parties’ initial failure to pay the full filing fees, especially since the defendant had subsequently cured any filing defects.  Case dismissed  in its entirety because the parties expressly contracted to resolve this type of dispute by arbitration, the arbitration clause governed all claims at issue, and the arbitrator’s decisions would be final and binding.

  • CVS Health Corp. v. Vividus LLC, No. 2:15-MC-00093-JJT (D. Ariz. June 13, 2016)

    Motion to enforce arbitral tribunal’s subpoena ordering a non-party to produce documents prior to hearing denied. In the absence of a decision by the Ninth Circuit expanding the scope of the FAA, 9 USC § 7, the court held that “[t]he plain terms of the statute restrict an arbitrator’s subpoena power to situations where the non-party has been called to appear in the physical presence of the arbitrators and provide the relevant documents at that time.” The issue of whether arbitrators have the authority to order a non-party to testify and produce documents in conjunction with pre-hearing discovery is however not settled between other federal courts.

  • Gerszberg v. LI & Fung (Trading) Limited, No. 1:16-CV-01182 (S.D.N.Y. June 10, 2016)

    Motion to continue preliminary anti-arbitration injunction granted and parties permitted to conduct expedited discovery and additional briefing on the issue of arbitrability. Non-signatory third-party beneficiary is enjoined from proceeding to arbitration since, although the parties’ arbitration agreement delegated the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrators, the issue of whether a party must arbitrate with a non-signatory third-party beneficiary is an issue for the court.

  • Deem v. Baron, No. 2:15-CV-00755-DS (D. Utah June 1, 2016)

    Motion to compel arbitration granted, action stayed, and motion for preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo denied.  Plaintiff’s offer to arbitrate, although not accepted by defendant, was not sufficient to constitute substantial compliance with mandatory mediation / arbitration clause.  Preliminary injunction in arbitrable case not available from court where not provided for in arbitration agreement.

  • Haines Caribe, Inc., v. Global Mfrs. & Contractors, S.A., No. 1:15-CV-972 (M.D.N.C. June 1, 2016)

    Motion for preliminary anti-suit injunction barring defendant from pursuing foreign court proceedings in contravention of arbitration agreement denied because U.S. court did not have personal jurisdiction over defendant.

  • Castleton Commodities Shipping Co. PTE. Ltd. v. HSL Shipping & Logistics (NA) Inc., No. 4:16-CV-01472 (S.D. Tex. May 26, 2016)

    Court orders pre-judgment garnishment of $12,060,232 to ensure a partial award issued by the London Maritime Arbitration Association (LMAA) ordering defendant to provide money in escrow as security.

  • Jock v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc., No. 1:08-CV-02875-JSR (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2016)

    Motion to vacate an arbitrator’s conditional certification award and tolling order denied as the court lacks jurisdiction to review arbitrator’s non-final orders.

  • Pasi of LA, Inc. v. Harry Pepper & Assoc., Inc., No. 1:15-CV-0369HSO-JCG (S.D. Miss. May 23, 2016)

    Motion to stay proceedings pending related litigation and arbitration granted pursuant to the court’s inherent authority to control its docket rather than pursuant to 9 USC § 3. Court held that the instant action could not be litigated until a related AAA arbitration was resolved and a pending ruling on the issue of arbitrability was decided by another court in the first instance.

  • Capstone Associated Servs., Ltd. v. Organizational Strategies, Inc., No. H-15-3233 (S.D. Tex. May 20, 2016)

    Defendant’s motion for reconsideration of court order granting plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration denied.  Court held that another court’s decision did not have preclusive effect on the court’s decision that the arbitrator should determine the arbitrability of whether various affirmative defenses were waived in the parties’ mediation settlement agreement.

  • Monadnock Construction, Inc. v. Westchester Fire Insurance Co., No. 1:16-CV-00420-JBW-VMS (E.D.N.Y. May 17, 2016)

    Action stayed since pending arbitration between parties covered aspects of the court action. Court requested that the arbitrators expedite the proceedings and stated that the magistrate judge may lift the stay to help the parties seek discovery in aid of the arbitration.

  • Leong v. The Goldman Sachs Group Inc., No. 1:13-CV-08655 (S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2016)

    Request for injunctive relief granted to enjoin plaintiff from proceeding with Commodity Futures Trading Commission reparations claim against defendant.  Parties directed to submit any dispute arising out of their agreement to the LCIA, consistent with the court’s order of two years earlier compelling arbitration between the same two parties.

  • In Re The Application of TJAC Waterloo, LLC., No. 3:16-MC-00009-CAN (N.D. Ind. April 27, 2016)

    Court held it did not have jurisdiction under 28 USC § 1782 to order discovery in the foreign proceeding at issue because the “English Expert Determination” is a private arbitral body. Even if the court had jurisdiction, the discovery request was untimely and seeks information beyond the appropriate scope of discovery.

  • Lower Colorado River Authority v. Papalote Creek II LLC, No. 115-CV-00656 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 22, 2016)

    Motion to stay arbitration pending appeal denied. Defendant did not show it was likely to succeed on the merits, ripeness is an issue for the arbitrator and a stay would only delay the resolution of that ripeness question.

    See also Lower Colorado River Authority v. Papalote Creek II, LLC, No. A-15-CA-656-SS (W.D. Tex. Feb. 24, 2016)

    Motion to compel arbitration granted; the parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute in question and there are no legal constraints external to the parties that foreclose arbitrating the dispute.

  • Bald v. PCPA, LLC, No. 15-CV-219-SM (D.N.H. Apr. 19, 2016)

    Summary judgment granted. Sole member of an LLC was not personally bound to an arbitration agreement since under New Hampshire law an authorized member of an LLC is presumed to be executing agreements on the company’s behalf.

  • Golden Horn Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Volnas Shipping Company Limited, No. 114-CV-02168 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2016)

    Original writ of attachment and garnishment modified and reduced to reflect amount of damages awarded by LCIA arbitral tribunal.

  • Language Connect International Ltd. v. Iverse Media, No. 15-CV-00236-XR (W.D. Tex. Apr. 14, 2016)

    Motion to compel documents from defendant's arbitration with third-party granted subject to in camera review by the court to inspect for relevancy.

  • Probulk Carriers Limited v. Marvel International and Transportation, No. 114-CV-08338 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 13, 2016)

    Subpoenas served on Turkish Citizen in an attempt to obtain evidence for the enforcement of a previously confirmed arbitration award modified to account for FRCP Rule 45(c) requirement that the subpoena may command a person to attend a deposition or to produce documents no more than 100 miles from where that person "resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person."

  • Tiffany v. KO Huts Inc., No. 5:15-CV-01190-HE (W.D. Okla. Apr. 13, 2016) 

    Motion to strike claim denied and motion for preliminary injunction granted to enjoin parties from further pursuing arbitration until the court decides the gateway arbitrability issues or otherwise modifies the injunction.

  • In re Application of the Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic, No. 1:15-MC-00018 (D.N. Mar. Is. Apr. 7, 2016) 

    Application for discovery pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 and the United Nations Convention on Corruption denied. As a private arbitral body SIAC does not constitute a "foreign or international tribunal" for the purposes of a discovery application pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 and the potential criminal investigation is not within reasonable contemplation, therefore failing the requirement that the discovery requested would be "for use in a proceeding."

  • The University of Notre Dame (USA) in England v. TJAC Waterloo LLC, No. 6-CV-10150-ADB (D. Mass. Apr. 7, 2016) 

    Court grants motions to confirm partial award on liability pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 207 and attachment of defendants' property under FRCP Rule 64 and Massachusetts law. 

  • Sabre GLBL Inc. v. Shan, No. 15-CV-8900 (WJM) (D.N.J. Apr. 6, 2016) 

    Motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings granted. Motion for expedited discovery denied where such right is only provided by the arbitration agreement in the context of a preliminary injunction application, which was not asserted.

  • Knaus v. Scottrade, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-03549 (ES)(JAD) (D.N.J. Mar. 28, 2016) 

    Defendant’s FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) motion granted but court cannot compel arbitration under a Rule 12(b)(6) motion because, when the complaint is silent on the issue of arbitrability, the court must apply the Rule 56 summary judgment standard and that standard was not met here.

  • Dell Webb Communities, Inc. v. Carlson, No. 15-1385 (4th Cir. Mar. 28, 2016)

    District court’s conclusion that the threshold issue of whether an arbitration clause permits class action is procedural and should be determined by the arbitrator is reversed, vacated and remanded.  Procedural matters arise only once the obligation to arbitrate a matter is established, and the threshold issue at hand is relevant to arbitrability and should be determined by the court.

  • Rio Tinto Plc. v. Vale S.A., et. al., No. 1:14-CV-03042-RMB (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2016)

    Court affirmed prior March 9, 2016 Decision and Order of a magistrate judge.

    See also Rio Tinto Plc. v. Vale S.A., et. al., No. 1:14-CV-03042-RMB (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2016)
    U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held that it has the power to modify a previously issued protective order and, therefore, approved the request to modify that protective order to allow documents to be produced in an LCIA arbitration.

  • Preferred Care of Delaware, Inc. v. Crocker, No. 5:15-CV-0177-TBR (W.D. Ky. Mar. 25, 2016)

    Court, inter alia, denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration and request for preliminary injunction against defendant’s negligence claims brought in state court.  Court held that attorney-in-fact had authority to enter arbitration agreement and considered the question of whether she entered that arbitration agreement “freely, voluntarily and knowingly” irrelevant.  The court also concluded that the arbitration agreement was not one-sided, did not lack valid consideration and contained complete and definite terms.

  • Miceli v. Citigroup, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-01962-GMN-VCF (D. Nev. Mar. 22, 2016)

    Motion to stay all pre-trial obligations (including discovery) pending the court’s decision on motion to compel arbitration granted; when considering a motion to compel arbitration a federal court “may consider only issues relating to the making and performance of the agreement to arbitrate.”

  • Unison Co., Ltd. v. Juhl Energy Development Inc., No. 13-CV-3342 (ADM/JJK) (D. Minn. Mar. 21, 2016)

    Motion to compel compliance with an arbitral tribunal's disclosure orders pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 7 denied.  Defendants' request to the court went far afield of the powers available under 9 U.S.C. § 7 since the arbitral tribunal had not ordered a witness to appear at a hearing or issued a final decision on the disclosure of documents.

  • Sutherland Global Services, Inc. v. Adam Technologies International SA de C.V., No. 12-CV-06439 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2016)

    In light of the second circuit's affirmation of the court's decision and order confirming an arbitration award in favor of the plaintiff, court granted plaintiff's motion to compel responses to its post-judgment discovery demands on the defendant pursuant to FRCP Rule 69. 

    See also Sutherland Global Services Inc. v. Adam Technologies International SA de C.V., No. 15-1063-CV (2d Cir. Feb. 9, 2016)
    District court’s order confirming an arbitration award affirmed.

  • Western Security Bank v. Schneider Ltd. Partnership, No. 15-35617 (9th Cir. Mar. 14, 2016) 

    Appeal dismissed; interlocutory appeal not appropriate because court lacks jurisdiction where the motion to stay was not seeking to have issues exclusively decided by an arbitrator, and only sought a stay not to compel arbitration.

  • Albaniabeg Ambient SH.P.K. v. Enel S.P.A. and Enelpower S.P.A., No. 1:15-CV-03283-PGG (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2016)

    Motion to remand action to the state court granted; 9 U.S.C. § 203 and the New York Convention do not provide subject matter jurisdiction over actions to enforce a foreign court's judgment, even where a party contends that the foreign court's judgment is inconsistent with an earlier arbitration award or an agreement to arbitrate.

  • Rio Tinto Plc. v. Vale S.A., No. 1:14-CV-03042-RMB (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2016)

    Court held it has the power to modify a previously issued protective order and, therefore, approved defendant's request to modify that protective order to allow documents to be produced in an LCIA arbitration.

    See also Rio Tinto Plc. v. Vale S.A., No. 1:14-CV-03042-RMB (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2016)
    Court affirmed prior March 9, 2016 decision and order of a magistrate judge.

  • Epic Diving & Marine Services LLC v. Ranger Offshore Inc., No. 4:16-CV-386 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2016)

    Request for preliminary injunction to freeze assets of the respondent pending the claimant's application to confirm an arbitration award granted; plaintiff directed to post a bond (or cash in lieu of the bond) before the order became effective.

  • Exec. Home Care Franchising LLC v. Marshall Health Corp., No. 15-1887 (3d Cir. Feb. 23, 2016)

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s ruling denying motion for a preliminary injunction where plaintiff had failed to establish it would suffer irreparable harm.  Circuit court held that the district court did not commit reversible error by continuing to deny a request for a preliminary injunction after the parties filed a claim with the AAA and all parties agreed to arbitrate all claims, even where defendants may have agreed that plaintiff would be entitled to the preliminary injunction if it established a substantial likelihood of breach or threatened breach of a franchise agreement.

  • Sutherland Global Services, Inc. v. Adam Technologies International SA de C.V., No. 15-1063-CV (2d Cir. Feb. 9, 2016)

    District court’s order confirming an arbitration award affirmed.

    See also Sutherland Global Services, Inc. v. Adam Technologies International SA de C.V., No. 12-CV-06439 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2016)
    In light of the second circuit's affirmation of the court's decision and order confirming an arbitration award in favor of the plaintiff, court granted plaintiff's motion to compel responses to its post-judgment discovery demands on the defendant pursuant to FRCP Rule 69.

  • RX Pros, Inc. v. CVS Health Corp, Civ. No. 16-0061 (W.D. La. Jan. 26, 2016)

    Motion to compel arbitration granted and state court’s temporary restraining order is dissolved; incorporation of rules requiring the arbitration of arbitrability is clear and unmistakable evidence that arbitrators should decide arbitrability.