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

• Cargill Inc. v. Triorient LLC, No. 20-CV-10058 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2021) 

  04/15/2021

  Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm a final arbitral award in a case relating to a breach of a charter party.  Court found no genuine factual dispute as to the propriety of the final award and duly confirmed. 

• Pfeil v. Discover Bank, 2:20-CV-01813-GMS (D. Ariz. Apr. 15, 2021)

  04/15/2021

  Court denied petitioner’s motion to reinstate case to vacate an arbitral award on the basis that the court did not have an independent basis for jurisdiction because it had did not have either diversity or federal question jurisdiction over the case. 

• Diaz v. Popular Securities, LLC, No. 3:19-CV-01065-JAG (D.P.R. Apr. 12, 2021) 

  04/12/2021

  Court denied petitioner’s petition to vacate arbitration award and granted respondent’s cross-motion to confirm the award.  Court found that petitioner had failed to show fraud on the arbitral tribunal, partiality, or arbitrator misbehavior to justify vacating the award. 

• Balwin v. Beeche, No. 4:20-CV-00639-ALM (E.D. Tex. Apr. 12, 2021)

  04/12/2021

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration in a contract dispute.  Court held that the claims were within the scope of the arbitration agreement and plaintiffs could be compelled to arbitrate the case in Costa Rica. 

• Fort Washington Investment Advisors, Inc., v. Adkins, No. 1:19-CV-00685-DRC (S.D. Ohio Apr. 12, 2021)

  04/12/2021

  Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court rejected defendants’ arguments that equitable estoppel compelled arbitration and that plaintiff was an intended third-party beneficiary and therefore bound by the arbitration agreement. 

• National Oilwell Verco v. Smith International, Inc., No. 4:21-MC-00655 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 12, 2021) 

  04/12/2021

  Court denied plaintiffs’ motions for transfer and for appointment of a third arbitrator.  The court held that under the language of the parties’ agreement the court had discretion as to whether to choose a third arbitrator or to leave it to the AAA. 

• F.T. Maritime Services. Ltd., v. Lambda Shipholding Ltd., No. 1:20-CV-02111-ER (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2021) 

  04/12/2021

  Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration and appoint an arbitrator holding that plaintiff’s claim was barred by collateral estoppel.  Court went on to say that, even if the plaintiff’s claim was not collaterally estopped, it would fail on the merits because it was not clear that any version of plaintiff’s terms and conditions were incorporated into the agreement at issue. 

• JPaulJones, L.P. v. Zurich General Insurance Co. (China) Ltd., No. 3:20-CV-01767 (D. Or. Apr. 9, 2021)

  04/09/2021

  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens.  Court held that arbitration and forum selection clauses were valid, unambiguous, and did not violate plaintiff’s right to trial by jury under the Oregon Constitution.

• Credit Suisse AG v. Graham, No. 1:21-CV-00951-LJL (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 2021)

  04/07/2021

  Court denied petitioners’ petition for an order enjoining arbitration and granted respondent’s motion to compel arbitration of claims arising out of a failed joint venture.  Court held that it should be up to the arbitrator and not the court to decide whether a second arbitration is barred by res judicata. 

• In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., No. 19-14097 (11th Cir. Apr. 07, 2021)

  04/07/2021

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s enforcement of arbitration clauses in the account agreements of five classes of former and current customers in a class action against a bank relating to overdraft fees.  Court held that gateway questions about unconscionability were not for the district court to decide because they had been delegated to the arbitrator under a delegation clause.

• Hearn v. Comcast Cable Communications LLC, No. 19-14455 (11th Cir. Apr. 5, 2021)

  04/05/2021

  Court of appeals reversed lower court decision denying motion to compel arbitration, finding that an arbitration provision applying to all disputes “relating to [defendant]” was applicable where plaintiff’s claim pertained to the underlying agreement even where the dispute arose after the agreement was terminated.

• Norris v. Aon PLC, No.3:21-CV-00932-CRB (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2021)

  04/02/2021

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that the presence of a delegation clause constituted clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties intended gateway issues of arbitrability to be determined by an arbitrator.  

• Synopsys, Inc. v. Siemens Industry Software Inc., No. 3:20-CV-04151-WHO (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2021)

  04/02/2021

  Court denied defendants’ motion to stay arbitration under Section 3 of the FAA where the parties admitted that the conditions precedent to arbitration had not been met – thus staying or ordering arbitration would be premature.  Court noted that had there been a question of whether the conditions precedent had been met, this would be a question for an arbitrator under the parties’ agreement. 

• Chen v. Kyoto Sushi, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-07398-DLI-RER (E.D.N.Y. April 1, 2021) 

  04/01/2021

  Court denied motion to modify AAA arbitration award to include reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses.  Court found petitioner did not meet his burden to demonstrate the arbitrator made an evident material mistake by failing to award attorney’s fees or costs.

• Servotronics, Inc. v. Rolls-Royce PLC, No. 0:20-MC-00081-JRT-KMM (D. Minn. April 1, 2021) 

  04/01/2021

  Court sua sponte entered order staying the matter for an application to take discovery for use in foreign proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, pending Supreme Court’s review of the issue.

• Maine Community Health Options v. Albertsons Companies, Inc., No. 20-35931 (9th Cir. March 31, 2021) 

  03/31/2021

  Court of appeals reversed district court’s order dismissing action for enforcement of a third-party subpoena issued by arbitrators for want of subject matter jurisdiction and remanded for further proceedings, finding that the alleged subpoenaed information would likely impact more than $75,000 of petitioner’s claims in the arbitration.

• RREEF Infrastructure (G.P.) Limited v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 1:19-CV-03783-CJN (D.D.C. March 31, 2021) 

  03/31/2021

  Court granted motion to stay the application to recognize and enforce an ICSID arbitral award, pending ICSID’s ruling on the Kingdom of Spain’s annulment application.  

• China Fortune Land Development v. 1955 Capital Fund I GP LLC, No. 20-15269 (9th Cir. March 26, 2021) 

  03/26/2021

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order confirming arbitration award pursuant to the FAA, finding that the arbitrators did not exceed their powers and that the award did not exhibit manifest disregard of the law.

• Leonard A. Sacks & Associates, P.C. v. International Monetary Fund, No. 1:20-CV-02266-TJK (D.D.C. March 26, 2021) 

  03/26/2021

  Court granted motion to dismiss lawsuit seeking to modify an arbitration award for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, finding the International Monetary Fund was immune from suit and had not waived immunity by incorporating the AAA rules in the contract, because the parties’ contract specifically affirmed that submission of a dispute to arbitration did not waive immunity.

• Mazlin Trading Corp. v. WJ Holding Ltd., No. 1:19-CV-07652-LTS (S.D.N.Y. March 26, 2021) 

  03/26/2021

  Court granted respondents’ motion to dismiss petition for confirmation of two LCIA awards pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) by abstaining from exercising subject matter jurisdiction, because the action was parallel to two pending state court actions and further declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over petitioners’ remaining state law claims.

• Northtrop and Johnson Yachts-Ships, Inc. v. Royal Van Lent Skipyard, B.V., No. 20-13442 (11th Cir. March 26, 2021) 

  03/26/2021

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order compelling arbitration under the New York Convention, finding plaintiff agreed in writing to arbitrate its claims.  Court of appeals found the reference in the parties’ agreement to a specified commission for the construction of a second yacht was sufficient to bind the parties to the arbitration clause and that the tort and contract claims fell within the broad scope of the arbitration agreement.

• Caillet v. Newman, No. 3:19-CV-00515-JWD-RLB (M.D. La. Feb. 5, 2021)

  02/05/2021

  Court denied plaintiff’s petition to vacate arbitration award. Plaintiff argued that its award should be vacated because it was unable to attend because of a medical emergency.  Court found that plaintiff had failed to meet burden of establishing any prejudice to her rights. 

• Berk v. Coinbase, Inc., No. 19-16594 (9th Cir. Dec. 23, 2020) 

  12/23/2020

  Court of appeals reversed district court’s dismissal of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that even though plaintiffs framed their claim as one for negligence sounding in tort, the claim related to the interpretation and performance of defendant’s user agreement and was therefore subject to the arbitration clause contained within it.

• Keystone Food Holdings Ltd. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-03888-ALC (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2020) 

  09/30/2020

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to stay proceedings in a contract dispute.  Court found that the disputes at issue were purchase price disputes as opposed to alleged breaches of representations and warranties and were therefore within the scope of the arbitration clause.

• Kwik Ticket Inc. v. Spiewak, No. 1:20-CV-01201-FB-SJB (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2020)

  09/23/2020

  Court denied defendants’ motion for a preliminary injunction to stay litigation pending court’s ruling on motion to compel arbitration and to stay magistrate judge’s order requiring the parties to participate in a settlement conference and initiate discovery.  Court found defendants did not show irreparable harm or a likelihood of success on the merits of the motion to compel arbitration.

• Simpson v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., No. 1:20-CV-07630-VEC (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2020) 

  09/22/2020

  Court denied petitioner’s request to file under seal documents subject to a protective order issued by the AAA without prejudice to the parties explaining how the AAA opinion is not a “judicial document.”  In the alternative, Court directed that if particular aspects of the opinion are legitimately confidential, the parties are to propose more narrow redactions.

• Herrington v. Waterstone Mortgage Corporation, No. 3:11-CV-00779-bbc (W.D. Wis. Sept. 22, 2020) 

  09/22/2020

  Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award pursuant to the FAA.  Court rejected defendant’s arguments that the award should be vacated because the arbitrator retained jurisdiction over the proceedings after a remand from a vacated collective arbitration award, did not allow additional discovery, and considered evidence presented in the prior arbitral proceeding.

• Servotronics, Inc. v. Rolls-Royce PLC and The Boeing Company, No. 19-1847 (7th Cir. Sept. 22, 2020) 

  09/22/2020

  Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s decision finding that 28 U.S.C. § 1782 does not authorize courts to compel discovery for use in private foreign arbitration.  Court found that the Supreme Court’s decision in Intel did not authorize courts to provide discovery assistance in private foreign arbitrations and noted that interpreting § 1782 to include private foreign arbitral tribunals would conflict with the FAA.

• Goobich v. Excelligence Learning Corporation, No. 5:19-CV-06771-EJD (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2020) 

  09/18/2020

  Court granted motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 3, finding that defendant had not breached the arbitration agreement by refusing to pay the disproportionate filing fee and did not waive the right to compel arbitration by participating in the litigation.

• In re: Ex Parte Application of Axion Holding Cyprus Ltd. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for Leave to Take Discovery for use in Foreign Proceedings, No. 1:20-MC-00290-MN (D. Del. Sept. 18, 2020) 

  09/18/2020

  Court denied petitioner’s ex parte application for leave to take discovery for use in two private LCIA arbitrations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782.  Court found that although the Third Circuit has not determined whether private commercial arbitrations are “tribunals” within the meaning of the statute, it agreed with the recent district court cases holding that private commercial arbitrations are not “tribunals.”  Court rejected petitioner’s argument that the LCIA acts with the authority of the state because the tribunals are governed by the U.K. Arbitration Act of 1996 and the parties may seek judicial review.

• Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd., No. 2:18-CV-01360-TSZ (W.D. Wash. Sept. 17, 2020) 

  09/17/2020

  Court granted motion to lift stay, finding that under the Europcar factors the stay was no longer warranted, particularly considering the protracted nature of the proceedings to set-aside the arbitration award in India.  Court granted oral argument on motion to confirm arbitration award under the New York Convention.  

• Gherardi v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc., No. 18-CV-13181 (11th Cir. Sept. 17, 2020)

  09/17/2020

  Court of appeal reversed district court order vacating arbitration award relating to an employment dispute.  Court of appeal held that the parties agreed to arbitrate all disputes relating to appellant’s employment and that the arbitrators did not exceed their powers.

• Diverse Enterprises, Limited Company, L.L.C. v. Beyond International, Incorporated, No. 19-CV-51121 (5th Cir. Sept. 17, 2020)

  09/17/2020

  Court of appeal affirmed district court order confirming arbitration award relating to a distribution agreement.  Court of appeal held that the arbitrators did not exceed their powers in awarding attorneys’ fees.

• Tyler v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-03492-ABJ (D.D.C. Sept. 17, 2020)

  09/17/2020

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of employment-related claims.  Court rejected plaintiff’s contention that its claims were exempted by the FAA on the basis that it was a transportation worker.

• Cianchetta v. BMW of North America, LLC, No. 2:20-CV-00241-KJM (E.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2020)

  09/17/2020

  Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims alleging violations of consumer protection laws.  Court held that plaintiff’s claims against non-signatory defendant were not arbitrable under the terms of the arbitration agreement.

• Sanders v. Allenbrooke Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC, No. 2:20-CV-02001-SHM (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 17, 2020)

  09/17/2020

  Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of wrongful death claims. Court held that no arbitration agreement had been formed in circumstances where the agreement was signed by a healthcare surrogate before the party on whose behalf the agreement was signed had been determined to lack capacity.

• Convergen Energy LLC v. Brooks, No. 1:20-CV-03746-LJL (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2020)

  09/16/2020

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims relating to the sale of a power plant.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the contract containing the arbitration agreement was not concluded because plaintiff’s signatory did not have authority to bind it.  Court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that the forum selection clause in another agreement between the parties controlled the subject matter of the dispute.  Court held that the claims at issue fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

• Fedor v. United Healthcare, Inc., No. 19-CV-2066 (10th Cir. Sept. 16, 2020)

  09/16/2020

  Court of appeal vacated district court order granting motion to compel arbitration of claims alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New Mexico’s wage law.  Court of appeal held that the district court erred by failing to first determine whether an agreement to
  arbitrate was formed before sending the case to the arbitrator.

• Grantham v. TA Operating, LLC, No. 1:20-CV-01108-RMB (D. N.J. Sept. 16, 2020)

  09/16/2020

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims brought under the Family Medical Leave Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration agreement was void as against the public policy of New Jersey.

• Hermès of Paris, Inc. v. Swain, No. 1:16-CV-06255-CM (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2020)

  09/16/2020

  Court granted plaintiff’s petition to confirm arbitration award relating to employment claims.  Court held that the arbitrator did not exceed its powers by deciding that defendant’s claims were time-barred.

• International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1393 v. Carroll White Rural Electric Membership Corporation, No. 1:20-CV-1689-JMS (S.D. Ind. Sept. 16, 2020)

  09/16/2020

  Court granted petition to compel arbitration of claims arising under a collective bargaining agreement.  Court held that the terms of the collective bargaining agreement were wide enough to encompass the claims at issue.

• Arnaud v. Doctor’s Associates, Inc., No. 19-CV-3057 (2d Cir. Sept. 15, 2020)

  09/15/2020

  Court of appeal affirmed district court order denying motion to compel arbitration of claims alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  Court of appeal held that no arbitration agreement existed between the parties because the terms and conditions of the alleged agreement were not reasonably clear and conspicuous on the online form relied upon by defendant-appellant.

• Cheatham v. Virginia College, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-04481-SDG (N.D. Ga. Sept. 15, 2020)

  09/15/2020

  Court grated defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims brought by students against a private college.  Court held that the parties delegated the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

• Clayco Construction Co., Inc. v. Miles Construction Group, Inc., No. 4:20-MC-00524-HEA (E.D. Mo. Sept. 15, 2020)

  09/15/2020

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm arbitration award relating to construction subcontracts.  Court found that plaintiff failed to cite any grounds under the FAA to vacate the award.

• Johnson v. Westlake Portfolio Management, LLC, No. 8:20-CV-00749-SCB (M.D. Fla. Sept. 15, 2020)

  09/15/2020

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of consumer debt claims.  Court held that plaintiff, who was a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, was not equitably estopped from avoiding the arbitration agreement because its claims fell outside the contract containing the arbitration agreement.

• USA Volleyball v. Tatham, No. 1:17-CV-03162-MEH (D. Colo. Sept. 15, 2020)

  09/15/2020

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion for order confirming arbitration award relating to trademark infringement claims.  Court rejected defendants’ allegation that the arbitrator engaged in misconduct by refusing to hear relevant evidence.

• Allen v. Shutterlfy, Inc., No. 5:20-CV-02448-BLF (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2020)

  09/14/2020

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of fraud claims.  Court held that the arbitration agreement delegated gateway questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator and that the plaintiff assented to the online arbitration agreement.

• Tetronics (International) Limited v. BlueOak Arkansas LLC, No. 4:20-CV-00530-SWW (E.D. Ark. Sept. 14, 2020)

  09/14/2020

  Court denied defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and refuse recognition of foreign arbitration award.  Court held that defendant’s appeal in France in relation to the award was not a sufficient reason to stay confirmation proceedings and that the discretionary factors for a stay were not met.  Court also held that no grounds for non-recognition under Article V of the New York Convention applied.

• Carillo v. ROICOM USA, LLC, No. 3:20-CV-00147-ATB (W.D. Tex. Sept. 14, 2020)

  09/14/2020

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of claims brought under the False Claims Act.  Court held that the arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable because plaintiff, a Spanish speaker, was incapable of understanding the contents of the English-language agreement and because of misrepresentations by defendant regarding the arbitration agreement.

• Kingsbury Capital, Inc. v. Kappel, No. 1:20-CV-00800 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 14, 2020)

  09/14/2020

  Court denied plaintiff’s petition to vacate arbitration award relating to employee compensation claims.  Court rejected plaintiff’s allegations that the arbitral tribunal showed partiality toward defendant, exceeded its authority, rendered an award in the absence of an arbitration agreement, and violated public policy.