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
CW Baice Limited v. The Wisdomobile Group Limited, No. 5:20-CV-03526-LHK (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2021)
Court denied defendants’ motion to dissolve preliminary injunction on the dissipation of defendants’ assets pending an arbitration before the HKIAC, finding that a Hong Kong court’s decision to dissolve a similar injunction did not change the balance of equities which led the U.S. court to issue the injunction in question.
Nidec Corporation v. Seargate Technology LLC, No. 1:21-CV-00052-RGA (D. Del. July 20, 2021)
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending arbitration of the issue of arbitrability, finding that the parties unmistakably delegated to the issue of arbitrability to an arbitrator when the parties incorporated the JAMS International Arbitration Rules into their agreement.
Fischer v. Instant Checkmate LLC, No. 1:19-CV-04892 (N.D. Ill. July 19, 2021)
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff’s registration on defendant’s website and clicking “Continue” constituted acceptance of defendant’s Terms of Use, which included an arbitration agreement.
Zitan Technologies, LLC v. Yu, No. 3:18-CV-00395-RCJ-WGC (D. Nev. July 16, 2021)
Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to confirm an arbitration award and granted in part their motion for attorneys fees and costs incurred in the process of acquiring preliminary and permanent injunctions. Court found that attorneys fees incurred in the process of acquiring a permanent injunction in the arbitral forum were barred by contract provision stating that the parties shall bear their own attorneys fees in arbitration.
In re Ex Parte Application of Eni S.p.A. for an Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for Granting Leave to Obtain Discovery for Use in Foreign Proceedings, No. 1:20-MC-00334-MN (D. Del. July 15, 2021)
Court denied respondents’ motion for re-argument and reconsideration, finding that respondents did not provide a compelling reason for reconsideration of its decision to grant discovery for use in the Italian criminal proceeding and the ICSID proceeding pursuant to 28 USC § 1782. Court also rejected respondents’ request to narrow the subpoenas to apply only to the respondent with a financial interest in the proceedings, concluding that respondents should have raised the argument earlier. Court denied petitioner’s motion for sanctions, finding that petitioner was not entitled to costs of responding to the motion.