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.

• Goldgroup Resources, Inc. v. DynaResource de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. et al., No. 16-CV-02547-RM-KMT (D. Colo. Sept. 3, 2021)

  09/03/2021

  Court denied defendant’s motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, finding that defendant failed to meet its burden of showing that the court should grant relief.  Additionally, the court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion for contempt, finding that only part of a confirmed arbitration award was violated.

• Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A. v. Republic of Haiti et al., No. 21-CV-04960-PKC (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 3, 2021)

  09/03/2021

  Court granted non-party central bank’s motion to intervene in action seeking a maritime attachment in aid of arbitration against foreign state.  Court vacated the attachment, finding that plaintiff did not rebut the presumption that the central bank’s account was immune from attachment under Section 1611(b)(1) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.  Court additionally granted central bank’s motion to quash subpoena and protective order.

• Baker Hughes Services International, LLC v. Joshi Technologies International, Inc., No. 20-CV-00626-TCK-SH (N.D. Okla. Sept. 2, 2021)

  09/02/2021

  Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award, finding that petitioner complied with the requirements of the New York Convention.  Court found that respondent failed to show that the arbitration agreement was invalid or that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

• Nordic Water Products AB v. Veolia Water Solutions Technologies Support, No. 21-CV-317-FL (E.D.N.C. Sept. 1, 2021)

  09/01/2021

  Court granted motions to compel arbitration in related cases arising out of a patent dispute. Court found that the issues raised by the plaintiffs were subject to arbitration under the terms of the parties’ arbitration agreement. 

• ArtiCure Inc. v. Meng No. 19-4067, No. 19-4067 (6th Cir. Aug. 27, 2021)

  08/27/2021

  Court considered whether Ohio law permitted defendants to enforce an arbitration clause even though they did not sign the contract.  Court agreed with district court in rejecting defendant’s equitable estoppel argument and one of their agency arguments but remanded for reconsideration of defendants’ second agency claim.

• Iberoamericana de Hidrocarburos S.A. v. Exterran Corporation, No. 4:21-CV-01840 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2021)

  08/19/2021

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel ICC arbitration and to stay the case pending arbitration.  Pursuant to the FAA, court found a valid agreement to arbitrate and concluded that the dispute fell within the scope of the agreement.

• Cathay Capital Holdings II, LP v. Zheng, No. 3:20-CV-01365-JBA (D. Conn. Aug. 18, 2021)

  08/18/2021

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the case.  Court found that the parties intended to delegate the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator by incorporating the UNCITRAL and HKAIC rules into the agreements.  Court denied plaintiff’s motion to remand to state court, finding the action related to arbitration agreements subject to the New York Convention, which confers subject matter jurisdiction on the court.

• Koch Minerals SARL v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 1:17-CV-02559-ZMF (D.D.C. Aug. 18, 2021)

  08/18/2021

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and confirmed the ICSID Award pursuant to 22 USC § 1650a.  Court concluded that defendant presented no grounds to contest the authenticity of the award nor raised concerns about the award’s finality in light of the annulment proceedings.

• Lin v. Ant Bicycle Inc., No. 1:21-CV-10510-GAO (D. Mass. August 17, 2021)

  08/17/2021

  Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment in relation to an arbitration award against defendants and ordered defendants to pay the award and to transfer all interests in the company to plaintiffs.

• Luxshare, Ltd. v. ZF Automotive US, Inc., No. 2:20-MC-51245-LJM-APP (E.D. Mich. Aug. 17, 2021)

  08/17/2021

  Court denied respondent’s motion to stay the case pending appeal, finding that respondent had not demonstrated any irreparable harm, that respondent had little likelihood of success considering that Sixth Circuit precedent permits discovery under § 1782 for private arbitration, that petitioner could suffer harm if discovery is stayed, and that the public interest weighed against a stay.  Court granted petitioner’s motion to compel discovery under § 1782 and ordered respondent to comply with the subpoenas.

• Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd., No. 2:18-CV-01360-TSZ (W.D. Wash. Aug. 16, 2021)

  08/16/2021

  Court granted in part and denied in part intervenors’ motion to compel discovery, finding the intervenors were entitled to discovery as to respondent’s assets and relationships in relation to recovering amounts due under a foreign arbitration award but modified intervenors’ requests.  Court granted respondent’s motion for a protective order in part with regard to specific interrogatories and requests for production, which it found to be overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to reveal executable assets.

• Heirs of Khalid Abu Al-Qarqani, et al v. Chevron Corporation, et al, No. 19-17074 (9th Cir. Aug. 12, 2021)

  08/12/2021

  Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a petition to enforce a foreign arbitration award for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Court found that only the five heirs named on the notice of appeal sufficiently appealed the district court’s order such that the Court had jurisdiction and that the Court did have subject matter jurisdiction, but that the district court should have dismissed the petition on the merits.   Court concluded that, while there was a binding agreement to arbitrate between the parties, the heirs could not establish a right to enforce the arbitration clause and, even if they could, by the time they obtained interest in the land, the rights had been assigned to another party thus Chevron’s predecessor was no longer bound by the arbitration agreement.

• Republic of Kazakhstan v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, No. 18-CV-00409-DWF-TNL (D. Minn. Aug. 12, 2021)

  08/12/2021

  Court granted Kazakhstan’s consent motion for supplemental authority seeking authority to subpoena Wells Fargo to produce a witness for deposition in aid of a foreign proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 1782.  Court concluded Wells Fargo was not a participant in the foreign proceedings, it may have evidence that would aid in the proceedings that is not likely to be rejected by foreign tribunals, Kazakhstan was not attempting to circumvent foreign tribunals’ procedures, and compliance with the discovery request would not be unduly burdensome.

• CLMS Management Services Limit, et al v. Amwins Brokerage of Georgia LL, et al, No. 20-35428 (9th Cir. Aug. 12, 2021)

  08/12/2021

  Court affirmed district court’s order compelling arbitration in an insurance dispute involving U.S. policy-holders and a U.K. insurance company following the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey in 2017.  Court found that the McCarran-Ferguson Act, a Washington law that prohibits the enforcement of arbitration clauses in insurance contracts, does not prohibit enforcement of the New York Convention such that Washington law controls, because the Convention is self-executing and therefore not reverse-preempted by the McCarran-Ferguson Act.

• MarkDutchCo 1 B.V., et al v. Zeta Interactive Corp, No. 19-3845 (3rd Cir. Aug. 10, 2021)

  08/10/2021

  Court affirmed confirmation of an arbitral award in a dispute arising out of an interest purchase agreement between the parties.  Court found that defendant did not meet the “heavy burden” imposed by the FAA and the New York Convention because the parties bargained for an IPA that committed to resolving all disputes, procedural and substantive, before an arbitrator and reaffirmed that commitment when engaging in arbitration.

• Takiedine v. 7-Eleven Inc., No. 17-CV-04518 (E.D. Pa. Jul. 29, 2021)

  07/29/2021

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of a previous order compelling arbitration.  Court found on reconsideration that the arbitration agreement at issue was invalid.  Court allowed the motion despite it being untimely because it found that denying reconsideration would leave the parties in legal limbo.

• Gerlach v. Tickmark Inc., No. 21-CV-02768 (N.D.Cal. July. 28, 2021)

  07/28/2021

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration in a contract dispute.  Court found that the parties entered into a valid arbitration agreement and “clearly and unmistakably” intended to delegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

• Mitas Endustri Sanayi Ticaret A.S. v. Valmont Industries Inc., No. 20-CV-01285-CFC (D. Del. Jul. 27, 2021)

  07/27/2021

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of claims alleging misappropriation of trade secrets and deceptive trade practices. Court found that there was a valid arbitration provision in a Non-Disclosure Agreement between the parties.

• JTH Tax LLC dba Liberty Tax Service v. Pitcairn Franchise Development, LLC., No. 21-CV-00135-RAJ-DEM (E.D. Va. Jul. 27, 2021)

  07/27/2021

  Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award and denied defendant’s motion to vacate.  Court ruled that the alleged errors made by the arbitrator were unfounded and did not support vacatur.

• Lavvan Inc. v. Amyris Inc., No. 20-CV-07386 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 26, 2021)

  07/26/2021

  Court denied a motion to compel arbitration of claims alleging trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement.  Court found that there was an explicit agreement between the parties that intellectual property disputes would be determined by a court and that requiring the parties to arbitrate would ignore the clear language of the parties’ agreement.

• CW Baice Limited v. The Wisdomobile Group Limited, No. 5:20-CV-03526-LHK (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2021)

  07/20/2021

  Court denied defendants’ motion to dissolve preliminary injunction on the dissipation of defendants’ assets pending an arbitration before the HKIAC, finding that a Hong Kong court’s decision to dissolve a similar injunction did not change the balance of equities which led the U.S. court to issue the injunction in question.

• Nidec Corporation v. Seargate Technology LLC, No. 1:21-CV-00052-RGA (D. Del. July 20, 2021)

  07/20/2021

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending arbitration of the issue of arbitrability, finding that the parties unmistakably delegated to the issue of arbitrability to an arbitrator when the parties incorporated the JAMS International Arbitration Rules into their agreement.

• Fischer v. Instant Checkmate LLC, No. 1:19-CV-04892 (N.D. Ill. July 19, 2021)

  07/19/2021

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff’s registration on defendant’s website and clicking “Continue” constituted acceptance of defendant’s Terms of Use, which included an arbitration agreement.

• Zitan Technologies, LLC v. Yu, No. 3:18-CV-00395-RCJ-WGC (D. Nev. July 16, 2021)

  07/16/2021

  Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to confirm an arbitration award and granted in part their motion for attorneys fees and costs incurred in the process of acquiring preliminary and permanent injunctions.  Court found that attorneys fees incurred in the process of acquiring a permanent injunction in the arbitral forum were barred by contract provision stating that the parties shall bear their own attorneys fees in arbitration.

• In re Ex Parte Application of Eni S.p.A. for an Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for Granting Leave to Obtain Discovery for Use in Foreign Proceedings, No. 1:20-MC-00334-MN (D. Del. July 15, 2021)

  07/15/2021

  Court denied respondents’ motion for re-argument and reconsideration, finding that respondents did not provide a compelling reason for reconsideration of its decision to grant discovery for use in the Italian criminal proceeding and the ICSID proceeding pursuant to 28 USC § 1782.  Court also rejected respondents’ request to narrow the subpoenas to apply only to the respondent with a financial interest in the proceedings, concluding that respondents should have raised the argument earlier.  Court denied petitioner’s motion for sanctions, finding that petitioner was not entitled to costs of responding to the motion.

• The Application of the Fund for Protection of Investor Rights in Foreign States Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for an Order granting Leave to Obtain Discovery for use in a Foreign Proceeding, No. 20-2653 (2d Cir. July 15, 2021)

  07/15/2021

  Court of appeals affirmed the District Court’s order granting petitioners’ application pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 to obtain discovery from a third party for use in an arbitration proceeding between plaintiff and the Republic of Lithuania under the bilateral investment treaty between Lithuania and Russia.  Court of appeals found that the proceeding was before a foreign or international tribunal because the arbitration was between an investor and foreign state party to a bilateral investment treaty and the tribunal was established by that treaty; that plaintiff qualified as an interested person under § 1782 because it is a party to the arbitration; and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the relevant factors.

• The Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic v. Baldwin, No. 2:20-CV-00195-CRK (D. Idaho July 15, 2021)

  07/15/2021

  Court granted plaintiff’s third motion to amend the complaint to enforce a PCA and ICSID award issued against defendants in order to add a new party and to plead causes of action relating to fraudulent transfers under Idaho law.  Court found the proposed amendments would not be prejudicial and that there was no undue delay.

• Saint Gobain Performance Plastics Europe v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 1:20-CV-00129-RC (D.D.C. July 13, 2021)

  07/13/2021

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion pursuant to 28 USC § 1610(c) to attach the property of a foreign state located in the US, finding four months was a reasonable period of time since the arbitral award judgment and considering that respondent failed to proffer evidence of efforts to pay the judgment.  Court also granted plaintiff’s motion to register the judgment in any judicial district under 28 USC § 1963, concluding that good cause exists since respondent lacks assets in the District of Columbia but retains assets elsewhere.

• Hamilton v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines, No. 1:21-CV-20906-JEM (S.D. Fla. July 13, 2021)

  07/13/2021

  Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate ICDR arbitral award pursuant to § 10 of the FAA on grounds of evident partiality, finding that grounds for vacatur under the FAA were not applicable to the non-domestic commercial arbitration and that the plaintiff failed to provide any defenses against enforcement under the New York Convention.  Court further found that even if the FAA applied, plaintiff had not met the standard to establish evident partiality.  Court confirmed the award but denied defendant’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs, since the plaintiff had marshalled some support for its position, although it was weak.

• Commodities & Minerals Enterprise Ltd. v. CVG Ferrominera Orinoco, C.A., No. 1:19-CV-25217-DPG (S.D. Fla. July 8, 2021)

  07/08/2021

  Court granted motion to vacate the final default judgment granting petition to confirm arbitration award because service of process was insufficient under 28 USC § 1608.  Since petitioner failed to serve a summons, court found that it did not comply with the requirements for service on an instrumentality of a foreign state and rejected petitioner’s contention that service was excused by actual notice.

• Tuckman v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 20-11242 (11th Cir. July 7, 2021)

  07/07/2021

  Court of appeals affirmed district court decision denying appellants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement was not enforceable as to plaintiff where: (1) plaintiff did not sign the agreement in his individual capacity and (2) no equitable considerations existed to allow non-signatory defendants to enforce the agreement.

• Harren & Partner Ship Management De Mexico S.A.P.I. v. American Bureau of Shipping, No. 1:21-CV-05361-LGS (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2021)

  07/07/2021

  Court granted petitioners’ request to preliminary enjoin the arbitration before the Society of Maritime Arbitrators, finding that the petitioners established a likelihood of success on the merits that there was no arbitration agreement in force between the parties under the New York Convention, since there was no written arbitral agreement and they could not be bound by estoppel.  Court found that petitioners showed a likelihood of irreparable harm absent relief, that the balance of equities favored the petitioners, and that an injunction was not against the public interest.

• PPT Research Inc. v. Solvay USA Inc., No. 20-CV-02645-JLS (E.D. Pa. July 7, 2021)

  07/07/2021

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed the matter pending arbitration.  Court found the arbitration provision in the reciprocal confidentiality agreement signed between the parties properly delegated the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator and the use of the word “may” in the arbitration provision did not render the clause permissive. Court also addressed plaintiff’s “effective vindication” argument finding plaintiff was “disingenuous” in claiming financial distress while simultaneously seeking to proceed in federal court litigation.

• Setty v. Shrinivas Sugandhalaya LLP, No. 18-35573 (9th Cir. July 7, 2021)

  07/07/2021

  Court affirmed the district court’s order denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to grant a stay pending arbitration on remand from the Supreme Court.  In applying federal common law, the Court found the claims have no relationship to the partnership deed containing the arbitration agreement at issue in the appeal.  The ownership issue at question does not stem from the partnership deed and therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting defendants’ argument for equitable estoppel or denying its motion to compel.

• University of Notre Dame (USA) in England v. TJAC Waterloo LLC, No. 16-CV-10150-ADB (D. Mass. Jul. 7, 2021)

  07/07/2021

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm the damages award and recognition of an English court’s judgment awarding costs to petitioner in connection with an arbitration in England.  Court found the damages, which had been divided into subcategories during bifurcated proceedings, were not time-barred for confirmation because the clock did not begin to run until the last award.  Court also held defendants misinterpreted the “revenue rule” which is not applicable here, because the Court was merely enforcing a decision rather than interpreting English law.

• Prodigy Finance Limited v. Funsho, No. 19-CV-06458-WFK-RER (E.D.N.Y. July 6, 2021)

  07/06/2021

  Court confirmed petitioner’s arbitration award and granted petitioner’s motion for summary judgment.  Court found respondent failed to respond to the arbitration proceedings and to the Court, and that the record in the case supports the arbitrator’s decision.

• Jiajing (Beijing) Tourism Co., Inc. v. Aeroballoon USA, Inc., No. 20-CV-11313-MBB (D. Mass. July 1, 2021)

  07/01/2021

  Court denied petitioner’s motion for a separate judgment against respondent to recognize and confirm a foreign arbitration award under Rule 54(b).  Court found there was a final judgment, but there was a just reason for delay because respondents may have to duplicate their efforts regarding discovery in a separate proceeding and could be forced to litigate in two forums if Rule 54(b) certification were allowed.

• Infrared Environmental Infrastructure GP Limited v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 20-CV-00817-JDB (D.D.C. June 29, 2021)

  06/29/2021

  Court denied the Kingdom of Spain’s motion to dismiss action to enforce an ICSID arbitral award and plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment without prejudice, finding that its ruling would directly and prematurely contradict the judgment of the ICSID tribunal, pending the resolution of ICSID annulment proceedings.  Court also granted Spain’s motion to stay pending resolution of the annulment proceedings, holding that the balance of hardships favored a stay.  Court also denied plaintiffs’ request that Spain be ordered to provide a bond to secure the ICSID award, finding that such an order would undermine the court’s decision not to rule on the validity of the ICSID award.

• Gater Asset Limited v. Ao Moldovagaz, No. 19-3550 (2d. Cir. Jun. 22, 2021)

  06/22/2021

  Court vacated district court’s judgment in petitioner’s renewal action and remanded with instructions to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction but affirmed district court’s original default judgment in dispute about Moldovan gas debts.  Court found it unnecessary to vacate the earlier default judgment because the respondents had relied heavily on facts that postdated the default judgment when asking the court to vacate for lack of jurisdiction.

• Boyd-Holsinger v. Peloton College LLC., No. 19-CV-01686 (N.D.Tex. Jun. 21, 2021)

  06/21/2021

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of claims brought under the False Claims Act.  Court found that there were valid agreements to arbitrate between the parties that encompassed the claims at issue.

• CKR Law LLP v. Anderson Investments International, LLC, No. 20-CV-07937 (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 21, 2021)

  06/21/2021

  Court granted petitioner’s motion for default judgment in a petition to compel arbitration under the FAA.  Court declined to inquire into personal jurisdiction at this stage, reasoning that the Second Circuit required such petitions to be ‘decided with dispatch’ and that a respondent would have opportunities later to appear and contest jurisdiction.

• Daredevil, Inc. v. ZTE Corporation, No. 19-3769 (8th Cir. Jun. 18, 2021)

  06/18/2021

  Court affirmed lower court’s ruling that claims against a parent company were precluded by an arbitration award involving its subsidiary.  Court determined that there was privity between the parent company and its wholly owned subsidiary that met the identity of the parties requirement for issue preclusion, and that the claims were nearly identical in this case as to those made during the previous arbitration.

• Julabo USA, Inc. v. Juchheim, No. 5:19-CV-01412-JDW (E.D. Pa. June 9, 2021)

  06/09/2021

  Court granted motion to compel ICDR arbitration and stay the litigation pursuant to the FAA.

• International Energy Ventures Management L.L.C. v. United Energy Group Limited, No. 20-20221 (4th Cir. May 28, 2021)

  05/28/2021

  Court reversed the district court’s finding that International Energy Ventures Management’s (“IEVM”) pursuit of litigation did not prevent it from returning to arbitration, after the dispute bounced between three courts and two arbitrations over the course of seven years.  Court found that two arbitrators exceeded their powers in violation of the FAA when they determined that IEVM waived its right to arbitrate through litigation-conduct, as that determination is presumptively a judicial matter, and the parties failed to contract around the general rule that courts resolve litigation-conduct waivers. Court held that IEVM substantially invoked the judicial process to United Energy Group’s detriment.

• Government of the Cook Island v. Hubbart, No. 21-CV-21395-FAM (S.D. Fl. May 28, 2021)

  05/28/2021

  Court granted petition to recognize and enforce a foreign arbitral award because respondent failed to file a response to the petition.  Court found petitioner satisfied the statutory conditions for recognition and enforcement of the award and respondent failed to provide any response to establish its burden that the New York Convention’s grounds for refusal had been met.

• Luxshare, Ltd. v. Zf Automotive US, Inc., No. 2:20-MC-51245 (E.D. Mich. May 27, 2021)

  05/27/2021

  Magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part motion to quash subpoenas in connection with discovery for use in foreign proceedings, finding that plaintiff met the statutory requirements of 28 USC 1782(a) but ordering that the discovery be circumscribed.

• Bryon Stafford v. Rite Aid Corporation, No. 20-55333 (9th Cir. May 21, 2021)

  05/21/2021

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order denying motion to compel arbitration in putative class action, holding that equitable estoppel did not apply to bind lead plaintiff to the arbitration agreements in contracts between defendant and third parties.

• Peiran Zheng v. Live Auctioneers LLC, No. 20-CV-9744 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2021)

  05/21/2021

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay the litigation, finding that “clickwrap” agreement on defendant’s website created a binding contract to arbitrate.

• Bunge S.A. v. Pacific Gulf Shipping (Singapore) PTE LTD., Pacific Gulf Shipping Co. Limited, No. 3:19-CV-00491-IM (D. Or. May 21, 2020)

  05/21/2021

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion for bill of costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920 for action to enforce arbitral award under the New York Convention relating to the fees for filing the complaint, serving the complaint and summons, and the docket fees and denied the motion regarding fees for pro hac vice motions, cost of serving the motion for default judgment, and cost of purchasing a transcript.  Court granted request for attorney’s fees for the action to enforce the award but declined to award attorney’s fees for the underlying arbitration, as the award stated that fees were to be determined by the tribunal or the High Court in England and Wales.  Court granted plaintiff’s request to amend the judgment to include pre-judgment interest consistent with the arbitral award and request to include post-judgment interest at the rate of 0.15% from the date of entry of the original judgment.

• Food Delivery Holding 12 S.A.R.L. v. Barnes Thornburg LLP, No. 2:21-MC-00137-JFW (C.D. Cal. May. 17, 2021) 

  05/17/2021

  Court denied petitioner’s application for discovery for use in a foreign proceeding.  Court held that, in the absence of binding authority on whether private arbitrations qualify as “foreign or international tribunals, it would join lower courts in the Circuit in concluding that private arbitrations are not “tribunals” for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1782.