Welcome to the Shearman & Sterling US International Arbitration Digest
Shearman & Sterling’s US International Arbitration Digest (US IA Digest) provides a centralized resource for newly released decisions issued by US courts.
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
Parm v. Arce, No. 17-1931 (8th Cir. Aug. 7, 2018)
Court of appeals reversed district court’s partial denial of motion to compel arbitration and ordered arbitration of all claims, finding that a “broad” arbitration clause covered state-law usury claims, state and federal financial-disclosure claims, and state-law unjust enrichment claims.
Reading Health System v. Bear Sterns & Co., No. 16-4234 (3d Cir. Aug. 7, 2018)
Court of appeals affirmed district court judgment compelling arbitration finding, inter alia, that forum selection clause did not waive right to arbitrate under FINRA Rule 12200.
Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, and Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund v. Nguyen Custom Woodworking LLC, No. 1:18-CV-05793-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 2018)
Court granted unopposed petition to confirm arbitral award, treating it as akin to a motion for summary judgment and finding no genuine issue of material fact precluding confirmation.
Hebbronville Lone Star Rentals, L.L.C. v. Sunbelt Rentals Industrial Services, L.L.C., No. 17-50613 (5th Cir. Aug. 6, 2018)
Court of appeals affirmed district court judgment vacating an arbitral award that reformed the contract, finding that the arbitration agreement did not grant the arbitrator the power to decide reformation.
Golden Gate National Senior Care, LLC v. Killian, No. 2:17-CV-02732-JD (E.D. Penn. Aug. 6, 2018)
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that respondent had the capacity to execute the arbitration agreement and that the agreement was not unconscionable.