Shearman & Sterling’s US International Arbitration Digest (US IA Digest) provides a centralized resource for newly released decisions issued by US courts.
Court granted defendant’s motion for stay pending arbitration. Court held that the plaintiff’s claims were inseparable from those asserted in arbitration and that allowing the action to proceed would result in litigation of arbitrable issues. Court further held that the plaintiff failed to show that staying the matter would cause undue hardship, prejudice or inequity.
Court denied respondent’s motion to dismiss and to strike petitioner’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that (i) special circumstances justified an exception to the ‘first to file rule’; (ii) the court had subject-matter jurisdiction; (iii) in light of the forum selection clause in the arbitration agreement, the forum was appropriate; and (iv) the respondent consented to the arbitration agreement, which was neither illusory nor unconscionable.
Court granted plaintiff’s petition to enforce a foreign arbitration award. Court held that it had jurisdiction because the parties relationship, “involves property located abroad, envisages performance or enforcement abroad, or has some other reasonable relation with one or more foreign states,” pursuant to 9 USC § 202. Court further held that the defendant failed to show there should be an exception to enforcement. Court granted costs to the plaintiff due to the defendant’s failure to pay the arbitral award which caused the plaintiff to incur the cost of initiating the lawsuit.
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the plaintiff conceded it was bound to the arbitration agreement, and the agreement applied broadly to cover all the plaintiff’s claims and not just to the claims related to the agreement.
Court granted defendant’s motion to confirm the arbitration award, holding that the plaintiff brought parallel arguments against the motion to confirm the award and the motion to compel arbitration. Court further held that the plaintiff had not offered any new evidence or shown any change in controlling law which would indicate that the previous order was wrong.