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

• GC Services limited Partnership v. Little, No. 4:19-CV-01180 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 23, 2019)

  10/23/2019

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s discrimination claims and enjoined her from pursuing these claims in state court.  Plaintiff’s only challenge to the agreement was that she had not signed the agreement.  Court held in a bench trial that plaintiff had signed the agreement and the parties had formed a valid and broad agreement to arbitration all disputes.

• Monster Energy Company v. City Beverages, LLC, No. 17-55813, 17-56082 (9th Cir. Oct. 22, 2019)

  10/22/2019

  Court of appeals reversed and vacated a district court’s affirming of an arbitration award, and award of post-arbitration fees.  Court found that the district court erred in confirming the award because the arbitrator was a co-owner of JAMS and therefor has an ongoing business relationship with Monster who is a repeat player at arbitration and that this rendered the arbitrator potentially biased.  Judge Friedland dissented, arguing that this sort of information would not have made a material biases in an evaluation of the arbitrator’s bias.

• AtriCure, Inc. v. Dr. Jian Meng, No. 1:19-CV-00054-MPB (S.D. Ohio Nov. 4, 2019) 

  11/04/2019

  Court denied in part motion to stay all proceedings pending appeal to the sixth circuit court of appeals, considering the question of whether an appeal of a denial of a motion to compel arbitration automatically divests the district court of jurisdiction over all further proceedings in the matter. The court found that it retained discretionary jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction in the matter.

• Metso Minerals Canada, Inc. v. Arcelormittal Exploitation Miniere Canada, No. 1:19-CV-03379-LAP (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2019) 

  11/04/2019

  Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award and denied cross-motion to vacate the award on the grounds of manifest disregard of the law. Court found that the FAA required great deference to the decision of the arbitration panel, and that respondents failed to demonstrate vacatur was proper under the circumstances.