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.

  • Mesa Power Group LLC v. Government of Canada, No. 1:16-CV-01101-JDB (D.D.C. June 15, 2017)

    Court denied petition to vacate the arbitration award, granted the counter-petition to enforce, and denied the request to award attorney’s fees. In rejecting the petition to vacate, the court held that there is nothing in the tribunal’s award or the dissent to indicate that the tribunal engaged in “misbehavior by which the rights” of the petitioner “were prejudiced” under FAA §10(3)(a) or that the tribunal exceeded its powers under §10(4)(a). Additionally, the court held that while it has the inherent authority to award attorney’s fees when the losing party’s actions were frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, even though not brought in bad faith, the petitioner’s petition did not rise to this level.

  • Jock v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., No. 16-1731 (2d Cir. June 1, 2017)

    Court of appeals dismissed appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Court of appeals held that the FAA only provides that an appeal may be taken in limited circumstances, including from “an order” confirming or denying confirmation of an award or partial award. According to the court of appeals, because the lower court did not confirm or deny an arbitrator's decision, but rather dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, the court of appeals lacked appellate jurisdiction under the FAA.

  • Local 1982 International Longshoremen's Assoc. v. Midwest Terminals of Toledo International, Inc., No. 16-04004 (6th Cir. May 30, 2017)

    Court of appeals affirmed lower court’s decision to remand an arbitration award to an arbitral panel for further clarification.  Court of appeals held that the arbitration award was ambiguous and that, contrary to defendant’s arguments, the same arbitral panel should clarify the award.

  • Del Monte International, GMBH v. Ticofrut S.A., No. 1:16-CV-23894-JEM (S.D. Fla. May 16, 2017)

    Court affirmed and adopted magistrate’s recommendation to deny request to garnish debt to satisfy an unconfirmed arbitral award which had not yet been converted to a judgment.

  • North American Deer Registry, Inc. v. DNA Solutions, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00062-ALM (E.D. Tex. May 16, 2017)

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that claims of unfair competition, misappropriation of trade secrets, constructive trust, and unjust enrichment fell outside the scope of the arbitration agreement.  Court found that the scope of the arbitration clause was narrow, as parties had only agreed to arbitrate disputes “concerning the interpretation” of the contract.

  • Coudert Brothers LLP v. Rupert X. LI, No. 7:16-CV-08237-KMK (S.D.N.Y. May 10, 2017)

    Court denied order compelling arbitration, finding the defendant had not been properly served.  Court determined that where a party to an arbitration agreement is not within the US service is not governed by the FAA but FRCP Rule 4.  In the instant case, the plaintiff failed to properly effect service under any of the possibilities under FRCP Rule 4.

  • Habliston v. FINRA Dispute Resolution, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-02225-ABJ (D.D.C. May 8, 2017)

    Court denied motion for reconsideration of order dismissing case with prejudice and motion for leave to file a substituted amended complaint, holding that the court had no jurisdiction over the proposed amended complaint.  Court found that suits brought under the FAA required an independent jurisdictional basis, as the statute was not jurisdictional, and that claims were barred by the doctrine of arbitral immunity, as defendant was immune from suit.

  • Garcia v. Midland Funding, No. 1:15-6119-RBK-KMW (D.N.J. May 5, 2017)

    Court denied motion to compel individual arbitration under the FAA.  Court found that while there was a valid arbitration agreement, defendant did not have the broad right to compel arbitration for any dispute or claim under the assigned agreement.  Court granted and denied in part defendant’s motion to seal, allowing for public access to a redacted version of the underlying agreement.

  • Conde v. Open Door Marketing, LLC, No. 4:15-CV-04080-KAW (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2017)

    Court granted in part motion to deny class certification, finding that the fact that some individuals signed an arbitration agreement prevented certification as to those individuals, but also granted in part motion to expand the scope of the collective action to include a group with some individuals who signed an arbitration agreement, finding that conditional certification was a more lenient standard than eventual class certification.

  • Albertson v. Art Institute of Atlanta, No. 1:16-CV-03922-WSD (N.D. Ga. Apr. 14, 2017)

    Court approved magistrate’s recommendation to dismiss labor claim and compel arbitration.  Court held that a valid arbitration agreement applied to the dispute and rejected argument that mere inequality of bargaining power in concluding that agreement rendered it unconscionable.  Court denied request for attorneys’ fees, holding that mere refusal to dismiss claim and proceed to arbitration did not constitute sufficiently egregious conduct to warrant bad faith subject to sanctions.

  • 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. 

  • Science Applications International Corporation v. Hellenic Republic, No. 1:13-CV-01070-GK (D.D.C. Apr. 13, 2017)

    Court corrected an entry of judgment following its January 5, 2017 confirmation of an arbitral award granted to petitioner in a contract dispute regarding Greece’s failure to pay for the design and installation of a public safety infrastructure system.  In correcting the clerical mistakes, court held that petitioner had not waived its right to have the award granted in dollars, and, after tacking on interest, arbitration fees, and an adjustment to the exchange rate, increased the award from €39.8 million ($42.2 million) to $63 million.  Court noted that federal courts generally enter judgment in U.S. dollars partly to protect aggrieved parties from having their award devalued by currency fluctuations, as had been the case here.

  • Villarreal v. Perfection Pet Foods, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-01661-LJO-EPG (E.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2017)

    Magistrate judge recommended that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration be granted based on a finding that there was a binding agreement that was not unconscionable; that under ninth circuit case law Private Attorneys General Act claims were arbitrable; and that the arbitration could include class claims because there was no enforceable class waiver.

  • 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.

  • Enron Nigeria Power Holding Ltd. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, No. 1:13-CV-01106 (D.D.C. Apr. 7, 2017)

    Court added approximately $2.6 million in exchange rate fluctuations and interest on fees to plaintiff’s arbitration award. because the pound-dollar exchange rate has declined 22 percent since the 2012 London-seated arbitration panel issued the award, the court issued its decision to allow plaintiff to receive a “judgment that reflects the true value in dollars of the Final Award at the time it was issued instead of the significantly diminished value resulting from Nigeria’s success in delaying the entry of final judgment.”  The decision also left open the possibility for plaintiff to pursue legal fees related to the confirmation of the award, as long as it files a motion to do so within 14 days.

  • Commissions Import Export S.A. v. Republic of the Congo, No. 1:13-CV-00713-RJL (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2017)

    Court granted petitioner’s motion for sanctions and counsel for respondent’s motion to withdraw.  Court held Republic of the Congo in civil contempt for failure to respond to post-judgment interrogatories for collection on a previously confirmed arbitration award. 

  • Inversiones y Procesadora Tropical INPROTSA, S.A. v. Del Monte International GMBH, No. 16-17623 (11th Cir. Mar. 27, 2017)

    Circuit court granted defendant-appellee-cross-appellant’s motion for a limited remand for further proceedings to resolve defendant’s cross-petition to confirm an arbitration award. Circuit court held it has no jurisdiction over the appeal until the district court clarifies its order.

  • Tritsis v. BankFinancial Corp., No. 1:16-CV-02052-SJC (N.D. Ill. Mar. 27, 2017)

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss case for lack of venue based on an arbitration clause in the parties’ employment agreement. Court held that payment by employee plaintiff of only the initial case management fee pursuant to the JAMS Endispute Employment Arbitration Rules and Procedures is not so burdensome as to render the arbitration clause unenforceable.

  • Ameriprise Financial Services Inc. v. Ekweani, No. 2:14-CV-00935-DGC (9th Cir. Mar. 20, 2017)

    Court of appeals affirmed the lower court’s summary judgment order granting attorney’s fees in Ameriprise’s declaratory judgment action.  Court found that the lower court properly granted summary judgment for Ameriprise because it had demonstrated Ekweani’s “knowledge of an existing right to arbitrate, acts inconsistent with that right, and prejudice” to Ameriprise.  Court disagreed with Ekweani’s argument that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute because the underlying substantive question involved arbitration of damages in cases of intentional discrimination in employment.

  • CBF Indústria de Gusa v. AMCI Holdings, Inc., No. 15-1133 (2d Cir. Mar. 2, 2017)

    Circuit court granted petition for rehearing and vacated district court’s judgment dismissing the action to enforce award. Court found that district court had erred in determining that New York Convention and FAA require appellants to seek confirmation of a foreign arbitral award before the award may be enforced by a United States District Court, and erred in holding that appellants’ fraud claims should be dismissed prior to discovery on the ground of issue preclusion, as issue preclusion is an equitable doctrine and appellants plausibly alleged that appellees engaged in fraud.

  • Walker v. USA Swimming, No. 3:16-0825 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 1, 2017)

    Court denied motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in relation to a motion to vacate an arbitration award. Court found that pursuant to the Sports Act, it had federal question jurisdiction over the issue of whether USA Swimming and the arbitrator properly implemented USA Swimming’s own rules and regulations in imposing the lifetime ban upon the plaintiff.

  • Tallakoy v. Black Fire Energy - Eastern District of Kentucky at Pikeville, No. 15-6322 (6th Cir. Feb. 28, 2017)

    Circuit court reversed district court’s prior decision on the basis that the record was inadequate to support a finding that the defendant’s motion to vacate the award under §12 of the FAA was not served “within three months after the award is filed or delivered.”  On remand, the district court is to determine whether evidence supports a finding that the defendant took delivery or had knowledge of the award on dates that would make its motion under §12 of the FAA untimely.

  • Cerner Middle East Limited v. Al-Dhaheri, No. 1:16-CV-11984-FDS (D. Mass. Feb. 28, 2017)

    Court denied motion to dismiss action for recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award for lack of personal jurisdiction. Court held that it has jurisdiction over claims where an arbitration agreement could “conceivably affect the outcome of the plaintiff’s case,” and that this was true for the present action.

  • Andresen v. Intepros Federal, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-00446 (D.D.C. Feb. 27, 2017)

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action during the pendency of the arbitration.  Court held that while the delegation provision in the parties’ arbitration agreement delegates the question of arbitrability to the arbitral tribunal, because the agreement’s expense-shifting term and the incorporation of the provisions of the AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules risk saddling the plaintiff with prohibitive costs for the federal statutory claims – which is proscribed under Green Tree Financial Corp.– Alabama v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79 (2000) – the defendant is responsible for the arbitral filing fees and the fees and expenses due to the arbitrator for deciding the arbitrability of the federal statutory claims.

  • GoPro Hong Kong Ltd. v. 2B Trading, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-05113-JD (N.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2017)

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to seal specific portions of an arbitral award and the contracts in dispute since the petitioner established compelling reasons to overcome a historically strong presumption of access to judicial records.

  • Danley v. Encore Capital Grp. Inc., No. 16-1670 (6th Cir. Feb. 22, 2017)

    Court affirmed district court’s order compelling arbitration but reversed the order denying in part plaintiffs’ motion to unseal documents.  Pursuant to the FAA, the court held that the plaintiffs did not meet the burden of demonstrating that no valid arbitration agreement existed and concluded the “parties ‘clearly and unmistakably’ provided for an arbitrator to determine various ‘gateway issues’ related to their claims.” Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to unseal documents, finding the district court failed to provide adequate and specific reasons for sealing the records.

  • Continental Transfert Technique Ltd. V. Federal Government of Nigeria, No. 1:08-CV-02026-PLF-GMH (D.D.C. Feb. 17, 2017)

    Court granted defense counsel’s renewed motion to withdraw, finding counsel’s sealed declaration explaining the rationale for the withdrawal request constituted “new evidence not previously available.”  Court held that the motion to withdrawal would not unduly delay trial of the case since the defendants had failed to comply with any order of the court or the arbitration award issued eight years ago regardless of representation.  Court also found it would not unfairly prejudice the plaintiff because sanctions would still persist for defendants’ failure to respond to the deposition notice regardless of counsel’s withdrawal.

  • Ray v. Chafetz, No. 1:16-CV-00428-CKK (D.D.C. Feb. 17, 2017)

    Court confirmed the arbitral award and denied the motion to vacate pursuant to the FAA, finding the award was not procured by undue means and there was no evident partiality of misconduct of the arbitrator.  Concluding that the petitioners’ contentions were meritless, court determined it did not need to decide whether “manifest disregard of the law” was still a valid ground for vacatur.  Court also found the respondent was entitled to post-judgment interest, but denied the respondent’s request for attorney’s fees and costs and denied the respondent’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions.

  • Corchado v. Foulke Mgmt. Corp., No. 1:15-cv-06600-JBS-JS (D.N.J. Feb. 15, 2017)

    Court denied defendants’ appeal of an opinion and order of the magistrate judge, and adopted the magistrate judge’s determination that a court, and not an arbitrator, must make the gateway determination of the existence of an agreement to arbitrate.  Court also adopted the magistrate judge’s finding that limited discovery is necessary to determine the enforceability of such an agreement.

  • GGNSC Louisville Mt. Holly, LLC v. Turner ex rel. White, No. 3:16-CV-00149-TBR (W.D. Ky. Feb. 9, 2017)

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and enjoin defendant from pursuing further litigation in state court.  Court rejected argument that the matter was insufficiently related to interstate commerce to trigger the FAA, reasoning that courts had applied the broadest possible definition.  Nor did the court agree that the agreement had been either procedurally or substantively unconscionable because it had been a contract of adhesion requiring arbitration, or that arbitration of the claim was barred by the Anti-Injunction Act.

  • Lewis v. Epic Sys. Corp., No. 3:15-CV-00082-BBC (W.D. Wis. Feb. 8, 2017)

    Court granted motion to stay proceedings pending appeal to the Supreme Court of its earlier rejection of a motion to dismiss the case after finding that the arbitration agreement was invalid.  Court held that the balance of harms favored the defendant and a stay.

  • Schardan v. Allied Interstate, LLC, No. 4:15-CV-01613-HEA (E.D. Mo. Feb. 8, 2017)

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, reasoning that the dispute was covered by a valid arbitration agreement.  Court declined to find that the defendant had waived its rights to arbitrate by participating in the limited pre-trial litigation required by the motions before it.

  • Plumbers & Pipe Fitters, Local 23 v. Kelsey Excavating, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-50306 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 3, 2017)

    Court granted in part and denied in part motion to dismiss action to enforce arbitral award, finding that (1) plaintiffs had adequately pleaded that one defendant was successor-in-interest to party to arbitral agreement; (2) another defendant had dissolved prior to accrual of claims; (3) plaintiffs had adequately pleaded that another defendant was operating as an alter ego to party to arbitral agreement; (4) plaintiffs had not alleged facts sufficient to state a claim for single employer liability as to another defendant; and (5) plaintiffs had not alleged facts sufficient to state a claim for successor liability.

  • Iraq Middle Mkt. Dev. Found. v. Harmoosh, No. 16-1403 (4th Cir. Feb. 2, 2017)

    Circuit court vacated grant of summary judgment in action to recognize Iraqi judgment and remanded, finding that a genuine issue of material existed as to whether the debtor lost his right to arbitrate by utilizing the Iraqi judicial process.

  • Jefferson v. Baptist Health Sys., Inc., No. 2:16-CV-01094-KOB (N.D. Ala. Feb. 2, 2017)

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award and denied motion to vacate. Court held that, where a party filed suit in court within the statute of limitations and the parties later agreed to have action heard in arbitration, the arbitrator did not exceed her authority to find that the claimant’s failure to initiate arbitration within the statute of limitations did not bar suit; and  arbitrator did not exceed her authority under rules requiring a “single award” by issuing two preliminary awards and a final award.

  • Gundrum v. Cleveland Integrity Servs., Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00369-WMC (W.D. Wis. Jan. 31, 2017)

    Court granted motion to transfer, finding that proper venue for motion to compel arbitration is in the district where forum-selection clause provides that arbitration would occur, and no valid ground for challenging the forum-selection clause existed.

  • Bowers v. N. Two Cayes Co. Ltd., No. 1:15-CV-00029-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C. Jan. 30, 2017)

    Court denied motion to remand award to arbitrator, finding that it was unable to adjudicate any interests reflected in the ward until a confirmation action had been brought.

  • Muhammad v. Community Coach, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-08344-JLL-JAD (D.N.J. Jan. 30, 2017)

    Court granted motion to dismiss, finding, inter alia, that certain of plaintiff’s claims addressed matters that were already decided against him in arbitration, and a motion to vacate would be untimely.

  • Habilston v. FINRA Regulation, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-02225-ABJ (D.D.C. Jan. 27, 2017)

    Court granted motion to dismiss in light of pending arbitration, finding that claims that arbitral forum violated their constitutional rights by unfair arbitration process were not ripe while arbitration was ongoing, and that the arbitral forum was entitled to arbitral immunity.

  • Brown & Pipkins, LLC v. Service Employees International Union, Local 32BJ, Nos. 15-1931, 15-1987 (4th Cir. Jan. 23, 2017)

    Circuit court affirms district court’s confirmation of four labor arbitration awards, based in large part on the limited scope of review afforded to labor-arbitration decisions pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement.  Court also held that defendant waived its claim for attorneys’ fees by not complying with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54.

  • Martin v. Deutsche Bank Sec. Inc., No. 16-456 (2d Cir. Jan. 19, 2017)

    Court affirms district court’s denial of plaintiff’s petition to vacate an arbitration award because plaintiff failed to give defendant timely notice of the petition to vacate as required by the FAA.  Service of the petition via email was inappropriate where the defendant had not agreed in writing to accept service by email.

  • 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.

  • CPR Telecom Corp., Inc. v. Bullseye Telecom, Inc., No. 5:16-CV-10732-JEL-RSW (E.D. Mich. Jan. 11, 2017)

    Court denied defendant’s motion to vacate an arbitral award, granted the plaintiffs’ motion to confirm the award and request for attorney fees and costs, and denied plaintiffs’ request for sanctions.  Court held that since the award was derived from a breach relating to the parties’ agreement, and the plaintiffs could be considered the prevailing party, it was rational for the tribunal to award attorney fees and costs.  Court also held the plaintiffs were entitled to attorney fees and costs associated with the challenge to the arbitral award, but denied the plaintiffs’ request to issue sanctions against the defendant under FRCP 11 for a frivolous challenge.

  • Sanes v. Treasure Bay (VI) Corp, No. 1:14-CV-00049-WAL-GWC (D.V.I. Dec. 30, 2016)

    Court interpreted defendant’s motion to dismiss action in favor of arbitration as request to refer matter to arbitration, which it granted, and stayed action pending arbitration. Court found that it had jurisdiction to grant motion and that defendant did not waive right to arbitration by failing to raise this right in the EEOC proceeding.

  • Alstom Brasil Energia E Transporte LTDA v. Mitsui Sumitomo Seguros S.A., No. 1:15-CV-08221 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2016)

    Court denied petitioners’ motion to hold respondent in contempt and to issue monetary sanctions against it. Court found that refusing to abide with the declaratory relief issued in an arbitral award—and subsequently confirmed by the court—does not rise to level of contempt, as declaratory relief lacks the coercive effect of injunctive relief.  Additionally, the court relied on the arbitrators’ declaration that while the actions in Brazilian courts may overlap with the arbitral award, such a question was not for the tribunal to answer.

  • UBS Financial Services, Inc. v. Asociación de Empleados del Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico, No. 3:16-CV-02017-WGY (D.P.R. Dec. 22, 2016)

    Court denied respondent’s motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or in the alternative a stay.  Court held that it has federal subject matter jurisdiction because the proper jurisdictional inquiry is to look through a post-arbitration petition to the substance of the dispute and, in this case, the arbitral claims arose under federal law, thus establishing federal question jurisdiction to consider the enforcement of a FINRA award under the FAA.

  • Myricks v. AT&T Servs. Inc., No. 5:16-CV-00169-MTT (M.D. Ga. Dec. 14, 2016)

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay litigation and compel arbitration of plaintiff’s claims.  Court held that, given the breadth of the arbitration clause, it was clear that plaintiff had agreed to arbitrate the claims at issue in the case.

  • Roman v. Northrop Grumman Corp., No. 2:16-CV-06848-CAS-GJS (C.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2016)

    Court granted in part defendant’s motion to compel bilateral arbitration of plaintiff’s claims and stayed case.  Court held that, prior to the Supreme Court’s resolution of a question arising in a different case, which would thereby resolve a central question in the instant case, a stay is wholly appropriate.

  • Ozturk v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 2:13-CV-05463-ES-JAD (D.N.J. Dec. 13, 2016)

    Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment because, inter alia, plaintiff failed to exhaust the exclusive remedies under the grievance and arbitration provisions of his collective bargaining agreement.

  • Kailuan (Hong Kong) International Co., Ltd. v. Sino East Minerals, Ltd., No. 16 Civ. 2160-PKC (S.D.N.Y Dec. 9, 2016)

    Court denied petitioner’s motion to vacate award. Court held that the arbitral tribunal acted within the scope of its authority since it decided issues covered by the terms of reference and did not intentionally ignore a clear and unambiguous term in the contract or add new terms to it, but instead provided the requisite “barely colorable justification” for its findings.  Court also denied respondent’s request for attorney’s fees and costs incurred in connection with opposing the application.

  • Recom Corp. v. Miller Brothers, a Division of Wampole-Miller, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-03320-SRC-CLW (D.N.J. Dec. 6, 2016)

    Court granted respondent’s motion to confirm arbitration award against petitioner and, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 54(b), entered final judgment of confirmation of the award against petitioner.  Court denied petitioner’s only defense to confirmation, finding that the court had already ruled in its order vacating the arbitration award that petitioner did not have standing to assert that the arbitral tribunal exceeded its powers in making the award against not only petitioner, but also its parents, successors, affiliates, and assigns.

  • Ascendant Renewable Energy Corporation v. Soaring Wind Energy, LLC, et al, No. 3:16-CV-750-K (N.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2016)

    Court granted motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction movant’s petition to vacate arbitration award and dismissed the case. Court held there is no longer a case or controversy to be decided by it because respondents had issued a covenant making it “absolutely clear” that they will not seek to confirm the arbitration award against movant.

  • Milan Express Co., Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co., Inc., No. 16-5270 (6th Cir. Dec. 2, 2016)

    Court declined to exercise appellate jurisdiction and decide the validity of the arbitration award, holding that the district court’s non-decision on the motion to vacate the arbitration award was not an implied denial of the motion.  Court held that the district court’s silence was consistent with the rationale for its forum-non-conveniens dismissal and the parties’ express agreement to litigate the validity of the award in the courts of Nebraska.  This was also consistent with the FAA, which provides that judgment on the validity of an arbitration award shall be sought in the court specified by the parties in their agreement.

  • Asphalt Trader Ltd. v. Taryn Capital Energy, L.L.C., No. 1:16-CV-00054-JNP-EJF (D. Utah Dec. 1, 2016)

    Court granted petition to confirm foreign award and enter judgment.  Court also agreed to convert portions of the award originally rendered in British pounds to U.S. dollars because this “is the norm, rather than the exception.”  Court found that the exchange rate on the day the respondent’s obligation to pay costs and fees arose was the applicable rate for conversion.

  • Hardy Exploration & Prod. (India), Inc. v. Gov’t of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, No. 1:16-CV- 00140-RC (D.D.C. Nov. 30, 2016)

    Court granted in part and denied in part motion to dismiss petition to confirm an arbitration award because petitioner had served the respondent using Federal Express, which was insufficient under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act. Court held that petitioner would be given another opportunity to attempt service on the respondent.

  • Reliant Pro Rehab, LLC v. Atkins, No. 3:16-CV-00920-M (N.D. Tex. Nov. 28, 2016)

    Court transferred the case to the Middle District of Florida due to lack of personal jurisdiction over non-signatories to the arbitration agreement.  Court held that plaintiff failed to show that the forum selection clause applied to the non-signatories and rejected plaintiff’s arguments based on the intertwined claims theory of estoppel—because it only applies to non-signatories bringing claims against signatories—and found that direct benefits estoppel did not apply.

  • Trs. of the New York City Dist. Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, v. Jessica Rose Enters. Corp., No. 1:15-CV-09040-RA (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 2016)

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award and awarded prejudgment interest and attorney’s fees.  Court confirmed the award after finding that there was no dispute as to whether arbitration was appropriate, whether the arbitrator acted within the scope of his authority, or the amount owed.  Court also determined that, although the FAA does not provide for attorney’s fees in actions to confirm arbitration awards, a district court always can award attorney’s fees where the losing party has acted in bad faith.

  • 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.

  • GoPro Hong Kong Ltd. v. 2B Trading, Inc., No. 16-CV-05113-JD (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2016)

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s petition to enforce the arbitral award. Court held that, inter alia, the presence of federal-law issues related to foreign arbitration weighed in favor the action being heard in federal court in circumstances where the defendant issued state court proceedings to vacate the award.

  • Oat Solutions, LLC v. Rihko, No. 2:16-CV-01046 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2016)

    Court granted motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for forum non conveniens.  Court held that inter alia the existence of an arbitration agreement stating that the parties would resolve disputes arising out of the operative agreement through arbitration in Finland favored dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint on forum non conveniens grounds because arbitration would reduce the burden on local courts to administer the case.

  • Hudson v. Windows USA, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00596-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss. Nov. 3, 2016)

    Court denied request for discovery in relation to plaintiffs’ fraud in the factum opposition to motion to compel arbitration, finding that the allegations of fraud could be supported by the plaintiffs’ own testimony and discovery was improper in light of the summary nature of a motion to compel arbitration.

  • Corporación Mexicana de Mantenimiento Integral, S. De R.L. De C.V., v. Pemex-Exploración Y Producción, No. 13-4022 (2d Cir. Nov. 1, 2016)

    Court denied appellant’s petition for rehearing in panel or en banc of its decision to affirm confirmation of an ICC arbitral award vacated by Mexican courts in Corporación Mexicana de Mantenimiento Integral v. Pemex-Exploración Y Producción, No. 13-4022 (2d. Cir. Aug. 2, 2016).

  • Clos La Chance Wines, Inc., v. AV Brands, Inc., 5:16-CV-04047 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2016)

    Court granted motion for reconsideration and for relief from judgment confirming the arbitral award.  Under FRCP 60(b) and 59(e), respectively, the court found the defendant’s failure to file timely opposition to the motion to confirm the award was a result of excusable neglect and held that manifest injustice would result if relief was not granted.

  • Youssofi v. Credit One Fin., 15-CV-1764-AJB-RBB (S.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2016).

    Court granted motion to certify for immediate interlocutory appeal.  Plaintiff challenged court’s ruling that the constitutional waiver test is inapplicable in the context of arbitration agreements.   Court held that (1) the issue of whether the constitutional waiver test applies is a controlling question of law, (2) there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion, and (3) immediate appeal would materially advance the litigation’s end

  • Clinical Solutions, LLC v. Physicians Plan Rx, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00196 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 26, 2016)

    Court dismissed case in light of enforceable arbitration provision in parties’ joint venture agreement.  Court held that the validity of the overall agreement should be evaluated by an arbitrator, and plaintiff’s fraudulent inducement argument is not applicable solely to the arbitration clause but to the agreement as a whole. 

  • Aldrich v. University of Phoenix, No. 16-5276 (6th Cir. Oct. 24, 2016)

    Circuit court affirmed removal of suit to federal court and dismissal of suit in favor of arbitration.  Plaintiffs demonstrated assent to the arbitration agreement under Kentucky law by continuing to work at the university even though they did not execute the form expressly acknowledging the arbitration provision.

  • Metlife Secs., Inc. v. Holt, No. 2:16-CV-00032-RLJ-MCLC (E.D. Tenn. Oct. 19, 2016)

    Court granted motion to strike defendant’s jury demand because the demand was untimely.  Under § 4 of the FAA, a party opposing arbitration is entitled to a jury trial only when an issue of material fact exists as to the validity of the arbitration agreement and the demand is made “on or before the return day of the notice of application.”

  • TIC Park Centre 9, LLC v. Wojnar, No. 1:16-CV-04302-ARR-JO (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2016)

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings pending arbitration.  Court found that an arbitration agreement providing for arbitration of any controversy “arising out of or related to” an agreement was sufficiently broad in scope to trigger “the presumption of arbitrability for collateral agreements.”  Additionally, the court found that plaintiff was estopped from claiming that the arbitration agreement did not apply because defendants were not signatories, since the issues in arbitration were intertwined with the signed agreement.

  • Roman v. AutoNation Ford Gulf Freeway, No. 16-20047 (5th Cir. Oct. 13, 2016)

    Circuit court vacated district court order to compel arbitration and remanded for further proceedings.  Court reasoned that the district court had failed to establish facts necessary to determine whether it had subject matter jurisdiction in an arbitral action under state law and remanded since jurisdiction is not independently created under the FAA.

  • Scheurer v. Fromm Family Foods LLC, No. 3:15-CV-00770 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 12, 2016)

    Court granted motion to stay proceedings pending appeal of earlier order denying motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that although it did not find defendant’s argument regarding the disputed contract persuasive, it was not frivolous and therefore merited a stay.

  • CFL Pizza LLC v. Hammack, No. 6:16-CV-00968 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 12, 2016)

    Court denied motion to enjoin class or collective arbitration pending outcome of earlier motion to compel single claimant arbitration.  Court reasoned that movant had not demonstrated the likelihood of success, irreparable injury, or compelling balance of private and public harms.

  • Wior v. Bellsouth Corp., No. 1:15-CV-02375 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 12, 2016)

    Court denied motion for reconsideration of its order to compel arbitration.  Court reasoned that petitioner could not meet the clear error standard applicable in the absence of new evidence or intervening changes of law, but was instead asking the court to revisit its decision.  Court dismissed as moot petitioner’s motion to stay proceedings pending resolution of the motion for reconsideration.

  • Burke v. Cumulus Media Inc., No. 1:16-CV-11220 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 11, 2016)

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that agreement containing arbitration provisions had been superseded by subsequent agreement and that, in any case, defendant had waived its right to compel arbitration by actively engaging in litigation in a manner “completely inconsistent” with reliance on the arbitration provision.

  • Inomedic-Innovative Health v. Noninvasive Med. Techs., Inc., No. 2:14-CV-01035 (D. Nev. Oct. 11, 2016)

    Court confirmed AAA arbitration award and declined to consider a “forthcoming” motion to vacate as untimely.  Court emphasized its narrow reviewing authority and held that there was no evidence that the award should be set aside.  It decided that judgment on the pleadings was appropriate and that it was not required to wait for forthcoming pleadings because they would be barred by the FAA’s three-month limit on filing motions to vacate.

  • Duncan Telecom, Inc. v. Pond Constructors Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01086 (E.D. Va. Oct. 11, 2016)

    Court granted motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration with respect to one of the defendants, but denied it with respect to the other.  Court reasoned that only one of the defendants was bound by the arbitration agreement and concluded that proceedings would continue with respect to the other, even though liability of the two is generally coextensive under the applicable precedent concerning sureties.

  • Johnson v. Dentsply Int’l, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00520 (N.D. Okla. Oct. 7, 2016)

    Court stayed proceedings pending arbitration, reasoning that broad stays are appropriate where arbitrable claims predominate the dispute and any nonarbitrable claims are of questionable merit.  Court held that the parties’ dispute fell under two broad arbitration clauses and any distinction between them was a procedural question presumptively for the arbitrators to decide.

  • GGNSC Louisville Mt. Holly LLC v. Stevenson, No. 3:16-CV-00423 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 6, 2016)

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, dismissing action without prejudice and enjoining plaintiff from litigating in state court.  Court held that a valid arbitral agreement applied to the claim and rejected proffered defenses, reasoning that lengthy documents and mental weakness in the plaintiff did not create procedural unconscionability; and the agreement contained reasonable terms that were not oppressive or on-sided and was therefore not substantively unconscionable.  Court affirmed its power to issue an injunction against state court action under the Anti-Injunction Act as necessary for protecting its judgment.

  • N.J. Reg’l Council of Carpenters v. R. Mesmer, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-02881 (D.N.J. Oct. 6, 2016)

    Court denied motion to confirm arbitration award issued against a non-party to the arbitration.  Award had been issued against person and entity related to losing arbitral defendant, which was insolvent, but not themselves a party to the arbitration or underlying agreement.  Court held that arbitrator could not issue an award against a non-party absent judicial determination of alter ego status.

  • Welch v. My Left Foot Children’s Therapy, LLC, No. 2:14-CV-01786 (D. Nev. Oct. 6, 2016)

    Court denied motion to stay pending appeal of its refusal to compel arbitration.  Court reasoned that defendants did not make a strong showing on the merits for their contention that a non-party to the arbitration agreement could be compelled to arbitrate.  Court also ruled that monetary expenses did not amount to irreparable harm warranting a stay.

  • Arrowhead General Insurance Agency Inc. v. Lincoln General Insurance Company Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01138-CCC (M.D. Pa. Oct. 5, 2016)

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration in light of the third circuit’s express adoption of a narrow exception to the general rule favoring arbitration where res judicata implications of a previous arbitration are at issue. Based on this, court found that confirmation of the prior award was a federal judgment, and therefore res judicata applied.

  • Cornoyer v. AT&T Mobility Servs., LLC, 1:15-CV-00474 (D.N.M. Oct. 5, 2016).

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pursuant to the FAA and New Mexico law.  Court held there is a binding arbitration agreement and defendant had not waived its right to arbitration through delay in filing its motion. 

  • Nicholas v. N. Phila. Health Sys., No. 2:16-CV-00232 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 4, 2016)

    Court denied motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, holding that arbitration agreements are not necessarily binding on third parties like trustees.  Court declined to consider the motion on jurisdictional grounds under FRCP 12(b)(1), noting that contract-based defenses to arbitration speak to the merits of the action and are therefore properly considered under FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 56.

  • Crystallex Int’l Corp. v. Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A., No. 1:15-CV-01082-LPS (D. Del. Sept. 30, 2016)

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissing defendant CITGO but not defendant PDV Holding, Inc.  Plaintiff had filed suit based on the Delaware Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act and civil conspiracy, alleging that Venezuela had orchestrated transfers to avoid paying a large arbitration award.  Court held that (a) CITGO was not a party to a fraudulent transfer and thus could not be held liable as an accomplice or co-conspirator, (b) plaintiff’s civil conspiracy claim should be dismissed, (c) the suit was not barred under the FSIA, and (d) the motion to dismiss the suit under the act of state doctrine would be denied without prejudice.

  • Crystallex v. PDVSA, No. 1:15-CV-01082-LPS (D. Del. Sept. 30, 2016)

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims that defendant, seeking to repatriate funds to escape enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, engaged in a civil conspiracy and violated the Delaware Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act.  Court dismissed plaintiff’s civil conspiracy claim, but held the plaintiff’s Delaware Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act claims could not be dismissed on the basis of the FSIA and act of state doctrines.

  • Hays v. HCA Holdings, Inc, No. 15-51002 (5th Cir. Sept. 29, 2016)

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s decision ordering arbitration of plaintiff’s claims against a non-signatory to the contract containing the arbitration agreement. Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that defendant could compel arbitration of plaintiff’s tortious interference claim under direct benefits estoppel. Court also held that plaintiff must arbitrate his wrongful termination, breach of contract, and negligence claims under intertwined claims estoppel, which involves compelling arbitration when a non-signatory has a close relationship with one of the signatories and the claims are “intimately founded in and intertwined with the underlying contract obligations.”

  • GGNSC Louisville Hillcreek, LLC v. Dockery, No. 3:15-CV-00908-DJH (W.D. Ky. Sept. 27, 2016)

    Court ordered an evidentiary hearing to determine if the arbitration agreement at issue was a forgery, granted motion to dismiss counterclaims, and denied motion for summary judgment based on the contention that the FAA is unconstitutional since it requires waiver of the right to a trial by jury.  Court held that the counterclaims fell outside the scope of inquiry into a FAA § 4 petition to compel arbitration, and that the right to a jury had not yet attached as the seventh amendment only confers “the right to have a jury hear the case once it is determined that litigation should proceed before a court.” 

  • Dockery v. GGNSC Louisville Hillcreek, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00025-DJH (W.D. Ky. Sept. 27, 2016)

    Court granted motion to stay case pending the outcome of the parties’ parallel arbitration. Court found that allowing the case to proceed in tandem with the parallel FAA case would likely result in unnecessary duplication and waste of judicial resources, making a stay efficient and appropriate.

  • Dissolved Air Floatation Corp. v. Kothari, No. 1:14-CV-01223-WCG (E.D. Wis. Sept. 26, 2016)

    Court granted motion to dismiss on ripeness grounds.  Court rejected the argument that the case was unripe because the purchase agreement underlying the dispute contains a provision requiring disputes to be subject to binding arbitration, but that arbitration had not occurred.  Court held that an arbitration clause does not affect subject matter jurisdiction because parties may always waive a contractual right to arbitrate.

  • Estate of Johnson Clark v. William Horwich, No. 12-17577 (9th Cir. Sept. 23, 2016)

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s dismissal of a motion to compel arbitration since the FAA does not itself confer jurisdiction on federal district courts over actions to compel arbitration, nor create a federal cause of action giving rise to federal question jurisdiction under 28 USC § 1331.

  • Imbruce v. American Arbitration Association, No. 1:15-CV-07508-NRB (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2016)

    Court granted AAA’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint based on AAA Rule R-52(D) and the doctrine of arbitral immunity.  Court held that AAA’s failure to collect a counterclaim fee prior to the issuance of the arbitrator’s damages award on that counterclaim is “sufficiently associated with the adjudicative phase of the arbitration to justify immunity.”  Court rejected plaintiffs’ “thinly veiled attempt to evade arbitral immunity” under the functus officio doctrine by basing their case on the alleged post-award collection of a fee by the AAA rather than the AAA’s failure to collect such fees prior to the issuance of the award.  Court also dismissed plaintiffs’ claims for a judgment declaring the AAA’s fee collection void, holding that this was an impermissible attempt to challenge the arbitral award that can only be brought in an action to vacate.

  • Lift Equipment Certification Co., Inc. v. Lawrence Leasing Corp., No. 2:15-CV-01987-JAD-GWF (D. Nev. Sept. 23, 2016)

    Court denied motion to modify or partially vacate arbitration award and granted in part and denied in part defendant’s counter motion to confirm and award attorney fees.  Court held that plaintiff failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the arbitrator “manifestly disregarded the law” or that the award was “arbitrary and capricious.”  Court declined to award defendant its legal fees since plaintiff’s claims were “far from frivolous – particularly given the arbitration award’s vagueness.”

  • Zambrano v. Strategic Delivery Solutions, No. 1:15-CV-08410-ER (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2016)

    Court granted in part and denied in part motion to dismiss complaint and compel arbitration, and stayed action pending arbitration.  Court held that plaintiffs are bound to arbitrate their claims since they agreed to arbitration, their claims are within the scope of the arbitration agreement, there is no indication that their claims are nonarbitrable, and the arbitration agreement does not prevent plaintiffs from effectively vindicating their rights.  Even if the plaintiffs’ claims qualified as exempt from the FAA, court held they would be subject to mandatory arbitration under New York law.  Whether the class waiver provision is enforceable, is for the arbitrator to decide.

  • Air-Con, Inc. v. Daikin Applied Latin America LLC, No. 15-2683 (GAG) (D.P.R., Sep. 19, 2016)

    Court granted motion to remand case to state court.  Court denied request to exercise federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 9 USC § 205, holding that from the notice of removal it is not clear that there is a written arbitration agreement as required by the New York Convention..

  • Melody Bynum v. Maplebear dba Instacart, No. 1:15-CV-06263-JBW-CLP (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2016)

    Court denied motion for certification for appeal under 28 USC § 1292(b) of court order compelling arbitration and staying litigation.  Court held that the question whether claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act are arbitrable is not “a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion.” 

  • Marshall v. Wells Fargo Advisors LLC, No. 16-10497 (11th Cir. Sept. 13, 2016)

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s granting of defendant’s motion to strike certain parties from the complaint because they were not represented by an attorney and its motion to dismiss as to another plaintiff because he lacked standing to sue, as he was not party to the arbitration and therefore is not a party to the award.

  • Mascio v. Mullica Twp. Sch. Dist., 1:16-CV-00206-RBK-JS (D. N.J. Sept. 13, 2016)

    District court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that defendants violated her rights to procedural due process under the U.S. Constitution, as plaintiff received notice and a hearing before an independent arbitrator.

  • Board of Trustees of the Ohio Carpenters’ Pension Fund v. Ramunno Builders, Inc., No. 4:15-CV-00424-BYP (N.D. Ohio Sept. 12, 2016)

    District Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.  Court held that, as defendants failed to timely request arbitration, as required by the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980, they waived any defenses to the withdrawal liability assessment under ERISA or any right to assert a counterclaim concerning the assessment process.

  • Dunn v. Dunn, No. 2:14-CV-601-MHT (M.D. Ala. Sept. 9, 2016)

    Court granted final approval of the parties’ joint settlement agreement, which contained an arbitration provision, and their request to enter a consent decree.  Court determined that the stipulations negotiated and entered into by the parties were sufficient to alleviate its concerns that any arbitration of disputes arising during the pendency of the consent decree would be binding, mandatory and enforceable.

  • Grynberg v. BP P.L.C., No. 1:08-CV-00301-JDB (D.D.C. Sept. 8, 2016)

    Court denied Rule 60 motion to vacate the court’s prior 2008 decision dismissing his claims, to rescind the arbitration agreement, and to revive his previously dismissed RICO claims on the ground of arbitrator bias and defendant’s alleged bad faith in exploiting such bias.  Court held that, as plaintiff had failed to pursue prior avenues for appeal, his RICO claims are res judicata, the arbitrator was not biased against plaintiff when he decided the RICO claims, and plaintiff failed to show bad faith on the part of defendant.

  • Golden Living Ctr.-Vanceburg v. Reeder, No. 0:16-CV-00009-HRW (E.D. Ky. Sept. 7, 2016)

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and enjoin parallel state court proceedings and denied motion to dismiss.  Rejecting the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to join a party, court found that non-diverse individual defendants to a state action are not indispensable parties in a parallel federal court action to compel arbitration.  In rejecting challenge to arbitration agreement, court held that state precedent creating exacting requirements for power of attorney documents purporting to grant an agent authority to enter into an arbitration agreement on behalf of a principle is pre-empted by the FAA and in any event not controlling in cases of guardianship.  In rejecting request to abstain from exercising jurisdiction, court found that applicability of FAA weighs against surrender of federal jurisdiction.  Finally, court held that, although FAA does not authorize federal courts to stay state court proceedings pending arbitration, an injunction to this effect may be issued under an exception to the Anti-Injunction Act.

  • Diversicare Leasing Corp. v. Helmick, No. 0:16-CV-00048-HRW (E.D. Ky. Sept. 7, 2016)

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and enjoin parallel state court proceedings and dismissed with prejudice.  In rejecting challenge to arbitration agreement, court held that state precedent creating exacting requirements for power of attorney documents purporting to grant an agent authority to enter into an arbitration agreement on behalf of a principle is pre-empted by the FAA and in any event not applicable where the power of attorney expressly gives authority to execute consents, waivers, and releases of liability.  Court also held that, although FAA does not authorize federal courts to stay state court proceedings pending arbitration, an injunction to this effect may be issued under an exception to the Anti-Injunction Act.

  • Slatten v. Jim Glover Chevrolet Lawton, LLC, No. 5:15-CV-01180-D (W.D. Okla. Sept. 7, 2016)

    Court denied motion to reconsider prior denial of motion to compel arbitration. Court held that defendant’s argument that the arbitration agreement’s fee-splitting provision was contrary to the AAA arbitration rules and unenforceable – and that the agreement may thus be enforced without that provision – should have been raised in prior briefing.

  • 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.

  • NCR Corporation v. Goh, No. 2:16-CV-00127-MJP (W.D. Wash. Sept. 1, 2016)

    Court granted motion for summary judgment that arbitrator was authorized to decide the dispute.  Court held that the plaintiff had waived its right to challenge the arbitrator’s authority to resolve the dispute and it would be unreasonable to allow the plaintiff to reverse course after voluntarily participating.

  • Fitzgerald v. The Bondfactor Co., LLC, No. 1:15-CV-06796-CM (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2016)

    Court granted plaintiff’s petition to confirm arbitral award but denied plea for pre-judgment interest at New York’s statutory rate of 9% per annum on the award.  Court held that neither party objected to confirmation of the award nor argued a basis for vacating or modifying it, so the award must be confirmed.  Court rejected plaintiff’s claim for pre-judgment interest because in an action for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, pre-judgment interest may not be awarded in addition to liquidated damages, which is what plaintiff received.

  • Meditech Inc. v., Inc., No. 1:14-CV-00023-TC (D. Utah Aug. 30)

    Following the court’s September 2014 order compelling arbitration, the defendant refused to pay the deposit on the arbitrator’s fees and the arbitrator cancelled the arbitration.  Court now orders the defendant to pay the arbitrator’s deposit and the plaintiff’s reasonable attorney’s fees to enforce the court order and the arbitration agreement; and re-imposes the stay pending completion of the arbitration.

  • Hose v. Washington Inventory Servs., Inc., 3:14- CV-02869-WQH-AGS (S.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2016)

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Finding that the electronic signatures were an act attributable to the plaintiffs, court concluded the arbitration agreement was valid.  Inventory associate workers were not exempt from the FAA as transportation employees engaged in interstate commerce.

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

    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.

  • Craddock v. LeClair Ryan, No. 16-1423 (4th Cir. Aug. 26, 2016)

    Court dismissed appeal of order directing arbitration.  Court held that a stay order was neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order and thus not subject to appeal.

  • 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.

  • Alberts v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., No. 15-14775 (11th Cir. Aug. 23, 2016)

    Circuit court affirmed order to compel arbitration under the New York Convention.  Upon de novo review, court affirmed that employment contract performed by a US national while traveling to or from a foreign state “envisages performance . . . abroad” and therefore permits recourse to the New York Convention.

  • Johnson v. Thompson-Smith, No. 16 C 1182 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 23, 2016)

    Action seeking damages from arbitrator appointed by Illinois Workers Compensation Commission (IWCC), as well as from two IWCC directors for failing to properly supervise arbitrator, for harms allegedly suffered in connection with the dismissal of an arbitration action dismissed with prejudice.  Court held that arbitrator enjoyed absolute judicial immunity from suit for all acts taken within the scope of her adjudicative duties and that plaintiff has provided nothing to suggest that arbitrator acted “in the clear absence of jurisdiction.” Further, as public officials, the IWCC directors enjoy qualified immunity, since the plaintiff’s complaint fails to allege the violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.  Moreover, even in the absence of immunity, plaintiff has failed to state plausible claims.

  • City of New York v. Golden Dev. & Constr. Corp., No. 1:15-CV-04462 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2016)

    Court granted motion to confirm award and enter default judgment, including costs and prejudgment interest.  Court found no evidence of arbitral impropriety and confirmed the ex parte arbitral award, noting that the attorney fees requested were “reasonable” and that such awards are “final and binding” for purposes of calculating prejudgment interest.

  • Gingras v. Rosette, No. 1:15-CV-00101 (D. Vt. Aug. 22, 2016)

    Court granted motion to stay proceedings pending appeal of court’s refusal to compel arbitration.  Court held there was no automatic right to stay pending appeal of arbitrability decision but that discretionary factors favored such a stay.

  • GCIU-Empl. Ret. Fund v. Quad Graphics, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-03391-ODW, No. 2:16-CV-03418-ODW (N.D. Ill. Aug. 16, 2016)

    Court consolidated two cases in which both parties were seeking to vacate, modify, or enforce different portions of an arbitrator’s award, where both actions ultimately stemmed from the same arbitration proceeding, and both actions presented common questions of law and fact.

  • Jolie Design & Décor, Inc., v. Kathy Van Gogh, No. 2:15-00740-MBN (E.D. La. Aug. 11, 2016)

    Magistrate judge recommended the court grant plaintiff’s motion for costs and attorneys' fees in an action filed to enforce an arbitration award under the New York Convention.  The court analyzed the invoices and recommended a reduction for block billing and an additional  reduction for failure to exercise billing judgment.

  • Vine v. PLS Fin. Servs. Inc., No. 3:15-CV-00031 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 11, 2016)

    Court refused to reconsider earlier denial of motion to compel arbitration based on factual challenges to its earlier ruling, holding that it was bound to accept plaintiffs’ allegations as true and that defendants could not rely on an arbitration agreement where they had substantially invoked the judicial process by filing a criminal complaint on related claims.  Court further held that notwithstanding Supreme Court decisions that arbitrators, and not courts, should decide procedural arbitration challenges, courts retain the power to evaluate whether a defendant waived arbitral rights through litigation activities.  Court granted a stay of proceedings pending defendants’ interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit.

  • Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC v Converteam SAS, No. 1:16-00378-KD-C (S.D. Ala. Aug. 10, 2016)

    Court denied motion to stay briefing and consideration of the defendant’s pending motions to compel arbitration and dismiss—to the extent the substance of these motions are inextricably intertwined with plaintiff’s expected motions to remand.

  • Law Offices of Daniel C. Flint, P.C. v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 2:15-CV-13006 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 9, 2016)

    Court denied motion to amend an interlocutory order finding no exceptional circumstances existed to warrant an interlocutory appeal in a case in which the court had granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court held that its decision to compel arbitration did not “involve[] a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion…”.

  • Incredible Foods Group, LLC v. Unifoods, S.A. DE C.V., No. 14-CV-5207-KAM (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2016

    Court granted application for attorney’s fees for reasonable rates and hours worked to confirm an arbitration award and oppose motion to vacate the award.

  • Guidotti v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, L.L.C., No. 1:11-CV-01219 (D.N.J. Aug. 4, 2016)

    Court denied motion challenging right to a jury trial to decide whether plaintiff agreed to arbitration.  Court held that §4 of the FAA operates in the absence of a timely jury demand under Fed. R. Civ. P. 38, and therefore §4 of the FAA does not prescribe the exclusive means of providing a jury trial in the context of summary arbitration proceedings.

  • Golden v. O’Melveny & Meyers LLP, No. 14-CV-8725-CAS (C.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2016)

    Court denied motion for reconsideration and compelled the parties to proceed with arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff had no basis for reconsideration of the court’s prior order sending the parties to arbitration for some claims and staying others pending arbitration.  Court further held that the FAA, not California’s arbitration rules, apply to the arbitration agreement even in circumstances where the agreement provides that it is governed by California law because a general choice-of-law clause does not evidence the parties’ intent to apply state law procedural rules of arbitration sufficiently to overcome the presumption that the FAA applies. 

  • Breazeale v. Victim Services Inc., No. 3:14-CV-05266-VC (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2016)

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act does not apply to a contract between a local prosecutor and a criminal suspect about how to address a potential state-law criminal violation, and that California law does not allow arbitration of a dispute, between a citizen and the government or its agents, arising out of the exercise of the government’s criminal law enforcement powers.

  • Gorchoff et al. v. Jefferson Capital Sys., LLC, 2:15-CV-09164-DDP-AGR (C.D. Cal. July 13, 2016)

    Motion for reconsideration of order granting unopposed motion to compel arbitration denied and matter stayed pending arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff had failed to proffer any explanation for its failure to file a timely opposition and that the substantive claims at issue were arbitrable.

  • Reg’l Local Union No. 846 et al. v. Gulf Coast Rebar, Inc., 3:11-CV-00658-AC (D. Or. July 13, 2016)

    Motion to compel arbitration granted and matter remanded to arbitrator.  Court held that, where an award needs clarification, the same arbitrator who made the award should provide the needed clarity.  Court further held that exceptions to the functus officio doctrine applied so as to allow remand to the arbitrator.

  • Barclays Capital Inc. v. Ramon Manuel Hache, 1:16-CV-00315-LGS (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2016)

    Motion to confirm arbitration award granted.  Court held that, as the three month period for raising challenges to the validity of the award had passed and defendant had not raised any legal issue that could deprive the court of the ability to confirm the award, the award must be confirmed.  Court further held that, as the agreement giving rise to the underlying arbitration provided that defendant would pay all expenses incurred, plaintiff was entitled to its costs incurred in seeking confirmation of the award.

  • 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. 

  • Berger v. Accounting Fulfillment Services, LLC, No. 8:16-CV-00744-JSM-JSS (M.D. Fla. July 8, 2016)

    Motion to compel arbitration and dismiss action granted in part and denied in part.  Court held that since the parties’ agreement incorporated the AAA Rules the question of arbitrability is delegated to the arbitrator, but arbitration could not be compelled in relation to any claims accruing prior to the execution of the parties’ arbitration agreements.  Court dismissed plaintiffs’ defense that certain defendants had not signed the arbitration agreement on the ground of equitable estoppel, finding that plaintiffs allege “substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct by both the nonsignatory and one or more of the signatories to the contract.”  Court also held that provision requiring plaintiffs to cover their own attorney’s fees, even if they ultimately prevailed, is substantively unconscionable and thus unenforceable as applied to the Fair Labor Standards Act. 

  • Cullinane v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 1:14-CV-14750-DPW (D. Mass. July 8, 2016)

    Motion to compel arbitration granted and case dismissed.  Court held that plaintiffs were put on reasonable notice that signing up to use Uber would bind them to contract terms providing for arbitration. Having concluded that arbitration is not an illusory remedy for the plaintiffs in this case, court left all other issues to the arbitrator to decide.

  • Himark Biogas, Inc. v. Western Plains Energy LLC, 6:14-CV-01070-SAC-KGS (D. Kan. July 8, 2016)

    Defendant’s motion for entry of final judgment denied.  Court held that, while its confirmation order of the arbitration award constituted a final judgment as to all claims presented and decided in the arbitration proceedings, there were patent claims related to the claims arbitrated and to the scope of the arbitration proceedings and whose relationship to those proceedings remains unsettled.

  • Rainier DSC 1, L.L.C. v. Rainier Capital Mg, No. 15-20375 (5th Cir. July 7, 2016)

    District court’s decision to deny motion to stay litigation relating to non-arbitrating co-defendants pending arbitration affirmed.  A stay under 9 USC § 3 is subject to court discretion and is only warranted if (1) the arbitrated and litigated disputes involve the same operative facts, (2) the claims asserted in the arbitration and litigation were “inherently inseparable,” and (3) the litigation had a “critical impact” on the arbitration.  Court held the non-arbitrating co-defendants had failed to establish these elements or that the district court abused its discretion.

  • 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.

  • Emilio v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 1:11-CV-03041-JPO-KNF (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2016)

    Motion to dismiss amended complaint denied.  Court held that plaintiff was entitled to equitable tolling given that he proceeded in court only after initiating arbitration under a provision that was not only mandatory, but also penalized plaintiff if he filed in federal court solely to seek a stay, and therefore his claims were timely.

  • Ranier DSC 1, L.L.C. v.  Ranier Capital Mgmt., L.P. (I), No. 15-20375 (5th Cir. July 7, 2016)

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s denial of a motion to stay litigation pending arbitration since plaintiffs’ initial brief failed to address the distinction between signatories and non-signatories to an arbitration agreement.  Court held that where parties to litigation include both signatories and non-signatories to an arbitration agreement, stay of non-signatories’ litigation under § 3 of the FAA is subject to the district court’s discretion and only warranted if: (1) the arbitrated and litigated disputes involve the same operative facts; (2) the claims asserted in the arbitration and litigation are “inherently inseparable”; and (3) the litigation has a “critical impact” on the arbitration.

  • Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 of the United Ass’n of Journeymen, et al. v. Aleut Facilities Support Serv., LLC, 1:15-CV-01710-LO-MSN (E.D. Va. July 6, 2016)

    Motion for summary judgment to enforce grievance committee decision granted.  Court held that the parties only intended that a dispute be subject to arbitration under two specific circumstances, as provided for in their agreement, and otherwise disputes would be addressed by the grievance procedure found therein.  Court further held that the grievance procedure was final and binding on the parties, as was the grievance committee’s decision.

  • Gaul v. Chrysler Financial Services Americas, LLC, No. 15-1337 (2d Cir. July 1, 2016)

    Appellate court affirms district court judgment compelling arbitration and declining to lift the stay after the AAA refused to conduct the arbitration. Court found that appellees raised no issues of fact contesting that they entered the arbitration agreement and that the dispute was within the scope of the agreement. Court also found that lifting the stay would impermissibly reward appellees for failing to comply with the district court’s order compelling arbitration and the appellees’ campaign of inappropriate, hostile, and threatening emails to the AAA that resulted in its refusal to conduct the arbitration.

  • Cely Tablizo v. City of Las Vegas, No. 2:14-CV-00763-APG-VCF (D. Nev. June 30, 2016)

    Motion for summary judgment on res judicata grounds denied. Court held that prior arbitration award in favor of defendant does not bar re-litigation of plaintiff’s claims under federal statutory law.  The arbitration award has no preclusive effect under the Full Faith and Credit Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, since nothing in the record shows it was confirmed by a court, no judicially fashioned rule of claim preclusion applies, and the arbitration grievance procedure in the parties’ collective bargaining agreement clearly and unmistakably does not apply to the federal statutory claims the arbitrator ruled on.

  • Ashley Slatten v. Jim Glover Chevrolet Lawton, LLC, No. 5:15-CV-01180-D (W.D. Okla. June 29, 2016)

    Motion to compel arbitration and stay court proceedings denied. Court held that enforcement of the arbitration agreement in this case would prevent the effective vindication of plaintiffs’ statutory claims under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act since defendant does not dispute plaintiffs’ assertion that they cannot afford to pay their share of an arbitrator’s fee, nor challenge as insufficient plaintiffs’ showing that enforcement of the arbitration agreement would be cost prohibitive. 

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

  • REM Directional, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of Am., No. 2:15-CV-152 (S.D. Miss. June 17, 2016)

    Motion for summary judgment granted.  The action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations; a court order compelling arbitration does not toll the statute of limitations when the defendant was not party to the proceedings at the time the order compelling arbitration was granted.

  • Jones v. Singing River Health Services Foundation, No. 1:14-CV-00447 (S.D. Miss. June 15, 2016)

    Motion to stay proceedings pending outcome of arbitration denied.  Court held that petitioner was not entitled to a mandatory stay under § 3 of the FAA because she was not a signatory to the underlying arbitration agreement.  However, the court granted a discretionary stay pending resolution of an overlapping, but not identical, arbitration in the interest of avoiding inconsistent results.

  • Interstate Distributor Co. v. Ellis, No. 4:15-CV-01781 (S.D. Tex. June 15, 2016)

    Motion to recover costs and attorney fees incurred in connection with litigation to vacate an arbitration award denied.  Court held that because the challenge to the award was nonfrivolous and was based on a recognized ground (an undisclosed conflict suggesting possible bias), defendant was not entitled to costs.

  • Beadore v. Conn Appliances, Inc., No. 5:16-CV-00224 (W.D. Tex. June 15, 2016)

    Motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pending arbitration granted.  Parties jointly stipulated to applicability of binding arbitration agreement and jointly requested to stay case under § 3 of the FAA.

  • Fallbrook Hosp. Corp. v. Cal. Nurses Ass’n/Nat’l Nurses Org. Comm. (CAN/NNOC) AFL-CIO, No. 14-56177 (9th Cir. June 15, 2016)

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s third amended complaint.  Court held that defendant did not breach an implied agreement to arbitrate all disputes with plaintiff because all of plaintiff’s allegations in support of its contention that the parties entered into such agreement are all conclusory, implausible, or inconsistent with such an implied agreement.  Moreover, as plaintiff’s opening brief did not address its claim that defendant breached an agreement to negotiate in good faith, that argument was therefore waived.

  • 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.

  • Smagin v. Yegiazaryan, No. 14-CV-09764-R (C.D. Ca. June 14, 2016)

    Motion to stay judicial proceedings pending appeal of arbitral award denied.  The court disagreed with respondent’s argument that the award had been suspended because it was on appeal at the seat of the arbitration and further held that, in any case, courts retain discretion to enforce a suspended award under Article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention.

  • 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.

  • Jolie Design & Decor, Inc. v. Van Gogh, No. 2:15-CV-00740 (E.D. La. June 13, 2016)

    Motions to confirm arbitration award and grant attorney fees and costs granted and cross-motion to vacate award denied.  US courts have primary jurisdiction over New York Convention awards and must look to § 10 of the FAA for the exclusive grounds for vacating an award, applying a “very differential” standard.  Court held that the arbitrator had not exceeded his authority in finding that a valid arbitration agreement existed, relying on a later agreement to interpret a contract term, and awarding allegedly unreasonable attorney fees.  Motion for attorney fees and costs associated with the litigation granted based on the parties’ agreement.

  • Monica Echavarria v. Adir International, LLC, No. 2:15-CV-09172 (C.D. Cal. June 13, 2016)

    Motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings granted.  Court held defendant had not waived its right to arbitrate and that the claims at issue were within the scope of the arbitration agreement between the parties.  Court likewise rejected plaintiff’s argument that the agreement had been oppressive and therefore unconscionable on either procedural or substantive grounds.

  • Virtualpoint, Inc. v. Poarch Band of Creek Indians, No. 8:15-CV-02025, (C.D. Cal. June 6, 2016)

    Motion to dismiss action for declaratory judgment and common law fraud against the National Arbitration Forum, Inc. granted.  Doctrine of “arbitral immunity protects arbitrators and the arbitration process from ‘reprisals by dissatisfied litigants’” so long as they act “‘within the scope of their duties and within their jurisdiction.’”  Allegations of bias, unless “‘systemic, pervasive, and far reaching,’” are insufficient to overcome arbitral immunity.

  • Wu v. Prudential Fin., Inc., Nos. 15‐2877 & 15‐2880 (7th Cir. June 1, 2016)

    District court acted within its discretion to vacate order to dismiss without prejudice and replace with order to dismiss with prejudice, where order had been granted on the basis of plaintiff’s promise to take case to arbitration and plaintiff failed to initiate arbitration.

  • LeafGuard of Kentuckiana, Inc. v. LeafGuard of Kentucky, LLC, No. 5:15-CV-00237 (E.D. Ky. May 31, 2016)

    Motion to reinstate claims rejected.  Defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate by failing to proceed with arbitration following granting of motion to compel arbitration since plaintiff’s motion to reconsider that decision was pending.

  • Fusco v. Plastic Surgery Ct’r, P.A., No. 2:15-CV-460-DBH (D. Me. May 31, 2016)

    Motion for reconsideration of order compelling arbitration denied.  While high cost structure of AAA arbitration deters employee-plaintiff from seeking relief, first circuit precedent permits plaintiff to challenge whether mandatory arbitration provides an effective vindication of her statutory rights only following final decision of the arbitrator.

  • Orange Middle East & Africa v. Republic of Equatorial Guinea, No. 1:15-CV-00849-RMC (D.D.C. May 18, 2016)

    Petition to enforce arbitration award dismissed without prejudice. Court held that proper service was never effected on the respondent foreign state, as required by 28 USC § 1608, since an agreement between the parties about the exchanging of notices was not a “special arrangement for service” as required by the FSIA’s strict service requirements.

  • EEOC v. PJ Utah, LLC, No. 15-4079 (10th Cir. May 18, 2016)

    Appeal of the district court’s order compelling arbitration dismissed. Since the order compelling arbitration did not dispose of all claims by all parties, and therefore does not constitute a final decision, the appellate court lacked jurisdiction over that order.

  • U-Save Auto Rental of America, Inc. v. Barton, No. 3:15-CV-00348-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss. May 13, 2016)

    Motion to correct judgment as to prejudgment interest under FRCP Rule 60(a) denied.  Setting an earlier accrual date for calculating prejudgment interest was not a clerical-type correction as envisioned by FRCP Rule 60(a), but was a modification of the arbitration award that would require findings of law and fact.

  • Stati v. Republic of Kazakhstan, No. 14-1638 (ABJ) (D.D.C. May 11, 2016)

    Motion for leave to submit additional grounds in support of opposition to confirm an arbitration award denied. Court held respondent’s proposed submissions on evidence of alleged fraud were not relied upon by the Tribunal in making its decision and therefore would not be germane to the petition to confirm the award.

  • James Howden & Co. Ltd. v. Bossart LLC, No. 2:15-CV-01977 (W.D. Wash. May 5, 2016)

    Motion for entry of judgment on a monetary foreign arbitration award pursuant to FRCP Rule 58 granted. Court refused requests from both parties to convert the currency of the award since federal law allows for judgment in foreign currency and federal policy weighs strongly against modification of arbitral awards.

  • Wawock v. CSI Elec. Contractors, Inc., No. 14-56810 (9th Cir. May 5, 2016)

    Circuit court held that arbitration clause in collective bargaining agreement (CBA) did not clearly and explicitly waive employee’s right to a judicial forum for his claims. Court found that disputes concerning the meaning of a federal statute are not entitled to a presumption of arbitrability and any CBA requirement to arbitrate them must be particularly clear; because the CBA here did not explicitly require arbitration under these circumstances, it did not waive employee’s right to a judicial forum.

  • Gold Reserve Inc. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 15-7158 (D.C. Cir. May 4, 2016)

    Motion to stay a district court judgment pending appeal denied. Appellant failed to satisfy the stringent requirements for a stay pending appeal without posting a supersedeas bond.

  • InfoSpan Inc. v. Emirates NBD Bank PJSC, No. 8:14-CV-01679 (C.D. Cal. May 3, 2016)

    Motion for award of attorney’s fees and costs denied. Court held that a successful motion to compel arbitration is temporary procedural victory rather than an event conferring prevailing party status.

  • Drill Cutting Disposal Co. LLC v. Lynn, No. 6:15-02532 (W.D. La. Apr. 20, 2016)

    Motion to transfer venue granted. Plaintiff must bring action to vacate arbitration award in the same court that previously dismissed the action in favor of arbitration; under the FAA, the court that dismissed the action retains jurisdiction over confirmation and vacatur proceedings.

  • Pershing LLC v. Kiebach, No. 15-30396 (5th Cir. Apr. 6, 2016)

    The amount in controversy for establishing diversity jurisdiction over a petition to confirm an arbitration award is the amount previously sought in the arbitration proceeding, e.g. the "demand approach," and not the amount ultimately awarded by the arbitrator.

  • Jarry v. Allied Cash Advance Virginia LLC, 6:15-CV-00045 (W.D. Va. Mar. 29, 2016)

    Court granted motion to stay and compel arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement valid and enforceable pursuant to the FAA.  Court concluded that the arbitration agreement covered the statutory dispute, requiring it to be resolved through arbitration, and determined that the arbitration costs do not preclude plaintiff from vindication of her rights.                         

  • Hopper v. American Arbitration Association, No. 2:16-CV-01124-RGK-AGR (C.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2016)

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiff’s claims were barred by arbitral immunity.  Plaintiff argued that the AAA failed to provide a neutral arbitrator because, according to an article in the New York Times and the Employee Rights and Employment Practice Journal, arbitrators are not neutral because they unfairly favor big corporations.  Court explained that arbitration proceedings require the need for independent judgments free from fear of legal action, and so the California and federal courts have held that an arbitrator and his or her sponsoring organization are immune from liability for “partiality” or bias.

  • Guidotti v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, No. 1:11-CV-01219 (3d Cir. Feb. 10, 2016)

    Circuit court vacated order of district court declining to compel arbitration and remanded for further fact-finding.  Court held that record was insufficiently developed for it to decide whether the FAA preempted state law affecting arbitrability of the dispute.

  • Montview Blvd. Presbyterian Church v. Church Mutual Insurance Company, No. 14-CV-01635-MSK-KMT (D. Colo. Jan. 20, 2016)

    An insurance policy appraisal process is not an arbitration clause subject to provisions of the Colorado Uniform Arbitration Act.