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.

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

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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.

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

    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)

    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.

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

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

    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)

    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)

    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.

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

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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.

  • 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)

    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.

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

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

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

  • Uttam Chand Rakesh Kumar v. Derco Associates Inc., No. 1:21-CV-00692-DAD (E.D. Cal. May. 17, 2021)

    Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in a contract dispute case where plaintiffs were seeking a declaratory judgment that the arbitration agreement between the parties was unenforceable.  Court held that plaintiffs had not demonstrated that they were likely to succeed on the merits of the action because they had breached the contract and the question of whether the arbitration clause had been terminated or repudiated is a matter for the arbitrator to decide.

  • Cube Infrastructure Fund SICAV v. Kingdom of Spain, 1:20-CV-01708-EGS (D. D.C. May. 17, 2021)

    Court granted defendant’s motion for a stay and denied without prejudice defendant’s motion for to dismiss in an enforcement case.  Court held that the most efficient and fairest course was to stay the case while defendant’s pending application to annul the award was resolved by the ICSID, reasoning that considerations of international comity also weighed in favor of a stay given that the case involved addressing a conflict between decades-old treaties and newly minted EU case law.

  • In re Application of Food Delivery Holding 12 S.A.R.L., No. 1:21-MC-00005-GMH (D.D.C. May 10, 2021)

    Court granted applicant’s application for an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for testimonial and documentary evidence for use in an international arbitration before the DIFC-LCIA.  Court declined to find whether Section 1782 discovery is available in private commercial arbitrations, finding instead that discovery was proper where the DIFC-LCIA was state-sponsored by the United Arab Emirates.

  • Andes Petroleum Eduador Ltd. v. Occidental Exploration and Exploring Company, No. 1:21-CV-03930-GHW (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2021)

    Court ordered petitioner to file and serve a statement pursuant to Local Rule 56.1 to support its petition to confirm arbitral award, noting that proceedings to confirm an arbitral award must be treated as a motion for summary judgment.

  • D’Amico Dry D.A.C. v. Tremond Metals Corporation, No. 1:20-CV-06256-JPC (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2021)

    Court granted petition to confirm two arbitration awards issued by a sole arbitrator in a London-seated arbitration, finding that defendant failed to prove that any of the grounds in Article V of the New York Convention applied to permit the court to refuse to recognize the awards.

  • Compania de Inversiones Mercantiles S.A. v. Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua, S.A.B. de C.V., No. 1:15-CV-02120-JLK (D. Colo. April 30, 2021)

    Court denied motion to vacate final judgment confirming an arbitral award pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5) where the award had been annulled through a series of Bolivian court orders.  Court held that vacating the judgment would be unjust, considering that defendants acted inequitably throughout the litigation and that the annulment proceedings were untimely.

  • Vale S.A. v. BSG Resources Limited, No. 1:19-CV-03619-VSB (S.D.N.Y. April 29, 2021)

    Court granted application for leave to file a memorandum of law and accompanying affidavit to provide evidence of the alter ego relationship between defendant and defendant’s owner in support of the execution of plaintiff’s $2 billion judgment against defendant arising from an LCIA award.

  • Midwest Air Technologies, Inc. v. JC US Inc., No. 21-CV-00337 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 29, 2021)

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for improper venue.  The Court found that the parties’ inclusion of the AAA rules in the arbitration clause constituted a clear agreement by the parties to arbitrate threshold arbitrability issues.

  • Luciano v. Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America, No. 15-CV-06726-MAS-DEA (D.N.J. Apr. 28, 2021)

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm arbitration award and to reopen the case.  The court concluded that the arbitrator correctly held that the language of plaintiff’s deceased-husband’s retirement agreement was unambiguous and capable of only one interpretation and that the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the appropriate standard of review.

  • The WE Project, Inc. v. Relavistic, LLC, No. 20-CV-02873-JG (N.D. Ohio Apr. 28, 2021)

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Analyzing Maryland law as selected by the contracting parties, court found that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable for want of mutual consideration.  Court held that the agreement provided for arbitration at the sole discretion of defendant.

  • Stauber v. Per Mar Security and Research Corp, No. 20-CV-00775-JDP (W.D. Wis. Apr. 27, 2021)

    Court ordered a hearing on defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Pro se plaintiff argued that the arbitration agreement was invalid or unconscionable.  In reading the pro se filing generously, the court found plaintiff’s allegations raised a plausible concern that the signed agreement was a product of fraud.

  • Phillips v. Weatherford US, LP, No. 20-CV-01104 -RP (W.D. Tex. Apr. 27, 2021)

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss, or in the alternative to stay, and compel arbitration concluding that there remained a genuine fact issue as to the validity of the arbitration agreement.  Court held that defendant failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish that plaintiff, a former employee, received notice of the company’s dispute resolution program, which mandates arbitration.

  • Healey v. Elliot, P.C., No. 20-CV-13209-MAG-RSW (E.D. Mich. Apr. 27, 2021)

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to take limited discovery to respond to defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  The court noted that limited discovery requests of this kind are entertained by the Sixth Circuit because motions to compel arbitration are evaluated similarly to motions for summary judgment.

  • In re Stubhub Refund Litigation, No. 20-MD-02951-MSG (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2021)

    Court provided defendant leave to amend its motion to compel arbitration after plaintiff introduced new evidence at the motion’s hearing.  Plaintiffs argued that the existence of an agreement to arbitrate may depend on whether plaintiffs purchased tickets from the website or the mobile application.  The court granted defendants time to file a supplemental brief to respond to this argument.

  • Jackson v. EK Real Estate Servs. of NY, LLC, No. 20-CV-03867 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 27, 2021)

    Court vacated a memorandum and opinion denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration because the parties agreed to settle.  The court found that vacatur was in the public interest as the case involved an indigent homeowner facing eviction represented by pro bono counsel.

  • B. F., et al v. Inc., No. 20-35359 (9th Cir. Apr. 23, 2021)

    Court affirmed district court’s denial of Amazon’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that minor plaintiffs were not bound by their parents’ consent to arbitration because plaintiffs brought statutory claims that do not depend on their parents’ contracts.  

  • Sperring v. LLR, Inc., No. 19-56295 (9th Cir. Apr. 23, 2021)

    Court dismissed an appeal from the district court’s order compelling arbitration of their putative class action for lack of jurisdiction.  Appellants voluntarily dismissed their action with prejudice to obtain an appealable final judgment following an order to compel arbitration. The court held that a voluntary dismissal did not constitute an appealable final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

  • Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC v. Insurance Company of North America, Inc., No. 18-CV-00715-DLC (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2021)

    Court granted defendants’ motion to confirm an arbitration award in an insurance dispute.  The court found no reason to hold the motion to confirm in abeyance because the award was not ambiguous and plaintiff did not move to vacate, modify, or correct the award.

  • Lukis v. Whitepages Incorporated, No. 19-CV-04871 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 23, 2021)

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration under § 4 of the FAA.  The Court found that Whitepages waived its right to enforce a “browsewrap” dispute resolution provision on its website, which included an arbitration clause, by waiting too long to bring its motion.

  • TIG Insurance Company v. American Home Assurance Company, No. 21-CV-02504-NRB (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 22, 2021)

    Court confirmed a final arbitration award and ordered previously-sealed documents to remain under seal and redacted where appropriate. Respondents did not object before the deadline to object to the award was filed.

  • CesFin Ventures LLC v. Al Ghaith Holding Company PJSC, No. 20-1106-CV (2nd Cir. Apr. 22, 2021)

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order confirming arbitration award relating to guarantee agreements, finding that the tribunal did not manifestly disregard the law.

  • Eaton Partners, LLC v. Azimuth Capital Management IV, LTD., No. 19-4365-CV (2nd Cir. Apr. 20, 2021)

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order confirming arbitration award relating to a placement agreement, finding that the arbitrator did not engage in misconduct.

View All