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
Antoine’s Restaurant, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, No. 2:23-CV-00229-WBV-KWR (E.D. La. June 1, 2023)
Court denied a motion for reconsideration of order and reasons and, in the alternative, a motion to stay arbitration pending judgment by the Fifth Circuit of related decisions, filed after the same court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the New York Convention. Court found plaintiffs’ argument that there was split authority in the district on enforcement of arbitration provisions in insurance contracts unpersuasive.
Ainstein AI, Inc. v. ADAC Plastics, Inc., No. 2:23-CV-11273-SMJ-KGA (D. Kan. May 31, 2023)
Court granted defendant’s motion to transfer venue based on an arbitration agreement, finding that a carveout for certain equitable relief and references to waiver of jury trial in the parties’ agreement did not undermine the fundamental agreement to arbitrate. Because the Tenth Circuit holds that only district courts in the forum identified in the parties’ agreement have authority to compel arbitration, the court transferred the case to the district identified in the agreement.
Elk Energy Holdings, LLC v. Lippelmann Partners, LLC, No. 6:22-CV-01057-DDC-KGG (D. Kan. May 31, 2023)
Court granted in part defendants’ joint motion to dismiss based on an existing agreement’s arbitration clause, finding that, even in the face of fraudulent inducement claims, the enforceability of the contract was a question for the arbitrator.
Spinx Games, Ltd. v. Viel, No. 3:23-CV-01337-WHO (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2023)
Court denied cross-motions to compel arbitration where both defendants agreed to the arbitrability of the dispute, but could not agree on location. Defendant wished for combined arbitration in San Francisco, which was identified in the agreement’s venue provision, but the claims were filed with the AAA in five different states, and neither party inquired of AAA whether virtual hearings were possible. Court found that, as the claims had been filed with AAA in other states, it had no jurisdiction and defendant would need to go to the arbitrators or district court in each of those states to enforce the venue provisions in the agreement.
Mousebelt Labs Pte. Ltd. v. Armstrong, No. 4:22-CV-04847-JST (N.D. Cal. May 24, 2023)
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the New York Convention, finding defendants had not waived their right to arbitration by participating in state court litigation on the merits, because defendants previously lacked knowledge of a right to arbitrate. Court also found the relationship between the parties justified equitably estopping plaintiff from repudiating the arbitration clause and required plaintiff to arbitrate its claims.