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.
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendants had not waived right to arbitration by filing motion to compel arbitration only four months after they had removed case to federal court, and after they had participated in Rule 16 conference. Court also found that arbitration agreement was not non-mutual or unconscionable.
Asia Maritime Pacific Chartering Ltd. v. A. Cayume Hakh & Sons, No. 1:19-CV-24919-BB (S.D. Fla. Mar. 16, 2020)
Court construed motion to dismiss as a motion to compel arbitration and granted motion, finding that defendant had not waived right to arbitrate by requesting a dismissal of the complaint instead of filing a motion to compel arbitration. Court held that although defendant had filed a motion to dismiss, it was more properly viewed as a motion to compel arbitration. Court also held that defendant had not waived its right to arbitration because defendant’s conduct had not been inconsistent with the right to arbitration, nor had defendant substantially invoked the litigation machinery.
Court construed motion to dismiss as a motion to compel arbitration and granted motion, finding that the statutory claims under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. § 512(f) fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and that there was no indication that Congress precluded such claims from arbitration.
Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that there was a genuine dispute of material fact over the existence of the arbitration agreement since defendant had not established, among others, that the customer agreements containing the arbitration agreement had been delivered to plaintiff or brought to plaintiff’s attention. Court directed an evidentiary hearing to determine whether a valid arbitration agreement existed.
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding that defendant’s terms of service were too inconspicuous to give plaintiffs constructive notice of the arbitration provision, and thus there was no agreement to the provision.