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
Takiedine v. 7-Eleven Inc., No. 17-CV-04518 (E.D. Pa. Jul. 29, 2021)
Court granted plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of a previous order compelling arbitration. Court found on reconsideration that the arbitration agreement at issue was invalid. Court allowed the motion despite it being untimely because it found that denying reconsideration would leave the parties in legal limbo.
Gerlach v. Tickmark Inc., No. 21-CV-02768 (N.D.Cal. July. 28, 2021)
Court granted motion to compel arbitration in a contract dispute. Court found that the parties entered into a valid arbitration agreement and “clearly and unmistakably” intended to delegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.
Mitas Endustri Sanayi Ticaret A.S. v. Valmont Industries Inc., No. 20-CV-01285-CFC (D. Del. Jul. 27, 2021)
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of claims alleging misappropriation of trade secrets and deceptive trade practices. Court found that there was a valid arbitration provision in a Non-Disclosure Agreement between the parties.
JTH Tax LLC dba Liberty Tax Service v. Pitcairn Franchise Development, LLC., No. 21-CV-00135-RAJ-DEM (E.D. Va. Jul. 27, 2021)
Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award and denied defendant’s motion to vacate. Court ruled that the alleged errors made by the arbitrator were unfounded and did not support vacatur.
Lavvan Inc. v. Amyris Inc., No. 20-CV-07386 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 26, 2021)
Court denied a motion to compel arbitration of claims alleging trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement. Court found that there was an explicit agreement between the parties that intellectual property disputes would be determined by a court and that requiring the parties to arbitrate would ignore the clear language of the parties’ agreement.