The US IA Digest collects in one place important decisions on US international arbitration case law issued since January 1, 2016, compiled and organized into categories that are most relevant and useful to practitioners and other interested parties. The Digest will be updated on a rolling basis as new decisions are issued.
GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS Corp. v. Outokumpu Stainless USA LLC, No. 18-1048 (U.S. June 1, 2020)
Supreme Court an Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision in finding that the New York Convention does not preclude the application of domestic law permitting non-signatories to enforce an international arbitration agreement. Consequently, Court found that a non-signatory French company could compel arbitration of an Alabama steel plant.
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss finding that, despite an arbitration provision submitting disputes to binding arbitration in New York, court did not have personal jurisdiction over defendant for a case unrelated to the arbitration clause.
Court granted defendant’s unopposed application for order confirming arbitration award finding that neither plaintiff nor the court expressed a reason to vacate the award under Section 10 of the FAA.
Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to preliminary enjoin an arbitration where plaintiffs argued that the underlying claims were not arbitrable. Court found that the parties manifested clear and unmistakable intent to arbitrate arbitrability where the agreement (1) submitted “all claims, disputes, and other matters” to arbitration and (2) incorporated the AAA Rules.
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff did not waive its right to arbitrate when it first invoked one arbitration agreement as the basis of the arbitration but ultimately brought an action under another. Court found that inconsistency with the right to arbitrate must exist with regard with the right itself, not which agreement is invoked.
Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding the arbitral agreement was enforceable and valid as the plaintiff signed it as a condition of her stay at the hotel. Court concluded that the agreement was not unconscionable.