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.
Newly Released Decisions
Altamirano v. Bodega Latina Corporation, No. 2:19-CV-01660-JJT (D. Ariz. Aug. 20, 2019)
Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court found there was a valid agreement to arbitrate and the plaintiff’s claims of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) fell within the scope of the agreement.
PPS Service Group, LLC v. Eckert, No. 1:18-CV-00727-MRB-SKB (S.D. Ohio Aug. 20, 2019)
Magistrate judge recommended the denial of the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court found that the defendant had waived its right to arbitration by participating substantially in the litigation, by filing numerous pre-trial motions, participating in discovery, and moving for summary judgment without asserting a right to arbitration.
Waithaka v. Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Logistics, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-40150-TSH (D. Mass. Aug. 20, 2019)
Court denied the defendants’ motion to move to compel arbitration. Concluding that the plaintiff fell within the transportation worker exemption to the FAA, the court applied Massachusetts state law and held that the arbitral agreement was unenforceable because state public policy prohibited class action waivers in arbitral agreements. Court granted the defendants’ motion to transfer to the Western District of Washington pursuant to the first-to-file rule.
Gupta v. Morgan Stanley, No. 18-3584 (7th Cir. Aug. 19, 2019)
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s grant of motion to compel arbitration. Pursuant to the FAA and Illinois contract law, the court of appeals held that the parties’ conduct indicated mutual assent to mandatory arbitration where the employee had not signed the arbitral agreement, finding the employee’s silence and continued employment constituted acceptance of when he had been given reasonable opportunity to opt-out and was instructed that silence and continued employment would reflect acceptance. Court of appeals concluded that the employee’s claims for discrimination, retaliation, and defamation fell within the scope of the arbitral agreement.
Mobile Now, Inc. v. Sprint Corporation, No. 1:19-CV-00918-JDB (D.D.C. Aug. 19, 2019)
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate under the FAA and D.C. law. Court held that the plaintiff was not fraudulently induced to enter into the arbitral agreement and that there was no procedural or substantive unconscionability.