A collection of the most recent US international arbitration decisions is available here. Decisions can be quickly retrieved by using the filter tools below.
-
Franklin v. Community Regional Medical Center., No. 4:19-CV-03042-SBA (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2019)12/09/2019
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding non-signatory defendant was entitled to rely on the arbitration agreement between plaintiff and third-party under the doctrine of equitable estoppel.
-
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.
-
In re Bio Energias Comercializadora de energia LTDA, No. 1:19-CV-24497 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2020)01/31/2020
Court granted respondent’s motion to quash a subpoena issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to obtain discovery in aid of an arbitration in Brazil. While court assumed that the foreign arbitration qualified as a foreign or international tribunal, it found that the Intel factors weighed in favor of quashing the subpoenas.
-
Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company v. Anthem, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-03589 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 31, 2020)01/31/2020
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings and granted plaintiff’s motion to stay the arbitration. Court found that the agreement obligated the parties to submit their dispute to only one of two possible methods of ADR, and having submitted the dispute to mediation, defendant could not now also compel plaintiffs to arbitrate. Court further found that there was a question of fact as to whether the parties’ participation in mediation in a forum different from that specified in their agreement modified the agreement, thus they could not grant the motion to compel under the summary judgment standard.