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 of appeals affirmed that district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s motion to vacate an arbitration award. Court also affirmed lower court’s issuance of sanctions against plaintiff, finding that plaintiff attacked the arbitration award without a legal basis for doing so and thus acted in bad faith.
EPRO Services, Inc., v. Regenesis Bioremediation Products, No. 6:19-CV-01220-EFM-KGG (D. Kan. Sept. 4, 2019)
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and rejected plaintiff’s argument that the court should retain jurisdiction over requests for preliminary injunctive relief—pending arbitration. Court found that because it had already dissolved plaintiff’s prior temporary restraining order, it saw no reason to grant a subsequent request for preliminary injunctive relief. Court thus compelled arbitration of all claims and stayed further proceedings.
Esso Exploration and Production Nigeria Limited v. Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, No. 1:14-CV-08445-WHP (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2019)
Court denied petition to confirm a Nigerian arbitration award under the New York Convention, when the award was set aside in a Nigerian court. Court also found that it had personal jurisdiction over respondent because respondent was an alter ego of Nigeria; the two shared property and Nigeria controlled respondent’s day-to-day operations.
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order compelling arbitration, finding that the parties’ incorporation of the JAMS rules showed clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to arbitrate the issue of arbitrability. Court found that defendant’s unconscionability argument was inapplicable when it encompassed the contract as a whole, rather than the arbitration agreement itself or the delegation clause therein.
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s claims, finding that plaintiff’s claims were foreclosed by a prior arbitration decision and that her request for arbitration was untimely.