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.
Gold Coast Property Management Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 1:18-CV-23693-DPG (S.D. Fla. June 14, 2019)
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that a “service of suit” clause within an insurance contract reserving defendant’s right to commence a lawsuit did not supersede an arbitration clause within the same contract.
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding, inter alia, that plaintiff was bound to an agreement to arbitrate when her friend signed her up for defendant’s service. Court found that an agency relationship existed when plaintiff gave her friend permission to sign her up for the service. Court additionally found that plaintiff, through her agent, had inquiry notice of the arbitration agreement when it provided that plaintiff acknowledged her agreement to the terms and conditions of the service by signing up.
Brundage v. Pension Associates Retirement Planning, LLC, No. 7:18-CV-02473-NSR (S.D.N.Y. June 13, 2019)
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that a contract was not unconscionable even though the portion containing the arbitration clause was missing. Court reasoned that because the signature page made clear reference to the arbitration clause, plaintiffs would have noticed that a portion of the contract was missing had they reviewed the document.
Huntington Ingalls Incorporated v. Ministry of Defense of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 1:18-CV-00469-KBJ (D.D.C. June 13, 2019)
Court denied petitioner’s petition to recognize and enforce an arbitration award when the Southern District of Mississippi – which compelled the arbitration in 2010 – specifically retained jurisdiction to conclude the matter after arbitration. Court found that petitioner showed no good cause for the court to “inject itself” into a pending matter in Mississippi by turning the award into a D.C. judgment.
Court vacated a revised final award issued in favor of petitioner and remanded the case to the arbitration panel to properly apply Supreme Court precedent on fee enhancements. Court found that the arbitration panel manifestly disregarded the law when it enhanced petitioner’s attorneys’ fees by 25% - an amount exceeding the “lodestar” figure that would result from the methodology courts should use to calculate reasonable attorneys’ fees.