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 denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that plaintiff was not bound by the arbitration clause under an estoppel theory as (i) plaintiff did not directly benefit from the cardholder agreement, (ii) defendant’s argument that plaintiff was an authorized user was not persuasive, and (iii) defendant did not cite legal authority for its proposition that plaintiff was an intended third-party beneficiary.
New York City District Council of Carpenters v. American Flooring Concepts, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-02657-AMD-RLM (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2018)
Court adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge to confirm the arbitration award. Magistrate concluded that there was more than a barely colorable justification for the arbitrator’s outcome and awards. Magistrate also concluded that because respondent failed to appear before the Court—let alone raise any argument regarding vacatur, modification, or correction—and no defense is apparent from the record, confirmation is mandatory.
Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and motion to dismiss. Court found that the non-discrimination provisions were clearly exempt from the arbitration provisions, so plaintiff could not be compelled to arbitrate her discrimination claims.
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the arbitration provision was valid and enforceable and covered the claims at issue, such that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration must be granted and its motion to dismiss must be granted as to the claim for declaratory relief that the arbitration provision is unconscionable.
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that plaintiff showed no basis for concluding the parties did not enter into an agreement to arbitrate and the agreement covered plaintiff’s claims. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments on procedural unconscionability and substantive unconscionability.