Shearman & Sterling LLP | U.S. International Arbitration Digest | US International Arbitration
U.S. International Arbitration Digest
This links to the home page
US International Arbitration

A collection of the most recent US international arbitration decisions is available here. Decisions can be quickly retrieved by using the filter tools below.

Newly Released Opinions View All
  • Velasquez-Reyes v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 17-56556 (9th Cir. Sept. 17, 2019)

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s refusal to compel arbitration of claims stemming from Samsung’s alleged false advertising.  Court found that under California law, the terms and conditions contained in a poorly titled booklet packaged with the phone, and references to the terms and conditions on the phone’s packaging, were insufficient to put a reasonable consumer on notice of the arbitration provision. 

  • Erdheim v. Harris, No. 1:18-CV-08601-LGS (S.D.N.Y. July 17, 2019)

    Court dismissed plaintiff’s motion to confirm in part and modify in part an arbitration award regarding a disputed contract assignment.  Court found it did not have jurisdiction.

2016-2019 Arbitration Decisions View All
  • Robinson v. Virginia College, LLC, No. 19-11864 (11th Cir. Oct. 16, 2019)

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order denying defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff’s claims – as a student and former employee of one defendant – against defendants resulting from the latter’s loss of college accreditation fell outside of plaintiff’s employment-related arbitration agreement.  Court found that because plaintiff’s claims arose from his role as a student, rather than an employee, rendered the claims not arbitrable.

  • Doud v. Gold, No. 1:19-CV-06561-KPF (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2019)

    Court granted petitioners’ motion for summary judgment on their unopposed petition to confirm an arbitration award, finding that (i) petitioners met the low standard of showing “a barely colorable justification for the arbitrator’s conclusion,” (ii) the grounds for the arbitral award were readily discernable from the contents of the award, and (iii) there were no grounds for setting aside or modifying the award.