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.

FILTER BY:
AND/OR
  • Robinson v. Virginia College, LLC, No. 19-11864 (11th Cir. Oct. 16, 2019)
    10/16/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order denying defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff’s claims – as a student and former employee of one defendant – against defendants resulting from the latter’s loss of college accreditation fell outside of plaintiff’s employment-related arbitration agreement.  Court found that because plaintiff’s claims arose from his role as a student, rather than an employee, rendered the claims not arbitrable.

  • Doud v. Gold, No. 1:19-CV-06561-KPF (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2019)
    10/16/2019

    Court granted petitioners’ motion for summary judgment on their unopposed petition to confirm an arbitration award, finding that (i) petitioners met the low standard of showing “a barely colorable justification for the arbitrator’s conclusion,” (ii) the grounds for the arbitral award were readily discernable from the contents of the award, and (iii) there were no grounds for setting aside or modifying the award.

  • Nicholas v. Wayfair Inc., No. 1:19-CV-01974-JBW-LB (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2019)
    10/16/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff agreed to arbitrate her claims when she acquiesced to defendants’ website terms and conditions.  Court found that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable when the website text clearly indicated that submission of plaintiff’s order would result in her agreement to the terms and conditions.

  • Cooper v. Adobe Systems Incorporated, No. 5:18-CV-06472-BLF (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2019)
    10/11/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that notwithstanding plaintiff’s challenges to the formation of the arbitration agreement, the parties agreed to arbitrate issues of arbitrability by incorporating the JAMS rules.

  • Buhannic v. Tradingscreen, Inc., No. 18-2274 (2d Cir. Oct. 11, 2019)
    10/11/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court order confirming an arbitration award, finding meritless petitioner’s claims that the arbitral panel had improper connections with the respondents.  Court additionally refused to consider documentary exhibits not presented to the district court, finding that no obvious injustice or extraordinary circumstance justified the consideration of new allegations and evidence.

  • Murillo v. A Better Way Wholesale Autos, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01883-VLB (D. Conn. Oct. 10, 2019)
    10/10/2019

    Court denied defendant’s motion to reconsider a judgment confirming an arbitration award, finding that the award did not manifestly disregard the law when it granted punitive damages in addition to the amount claimed.  Court additionally found that nothing in the arbitration agreement set a cap on the damages an arbitrator may order.  Court declined defendant’s argument that it was denied due process because it defended the case based on the belief that damages were capped at the amount claimed.

  • In re del Valle Ruiz for an Order to Take Discovery for Use in Foreign Proceedings Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, No. 18-3226 (2d Cir. Oct. 7, 2019)
    10/07/2019

    Court of appeals held that the language in 28 U.S.C. § 1782 that requires that a person or entity "resides or is found" within the district in which discovery is sought extends the reach of § 1782 to the limits of personal jurisdiction consistent with due process. However, Court held that the contacts at issue within the Southern District of New York were insufficient to subject it to the district court’s personal jurisdiction.

  • Rainey v. Citigroup, Incorporated, No. 19-10036 (5th Cir. Oct. 7, 2019)
    10/07/2019

    Court of appeals held that defendant’s service of process complied with FRCP 5(b)(2)(C) and that dismissal, as opposed to a stay pending arbitration, is proper “when all of the issues raised in the district court must be submitted to arbitration.”

  • Capital & Security Management, Inc. v. Telthorster, No. 2:19-CV-01677-MMB (E.D. Pa. Oct 3, 2019)
    10/03/2019

    Court denied petitioners’ motion to vacate arbitration award relating to an investment contract, thereby rejecting petitioners’ argument that the arbitral tribunal acted in manifest disregard of the law. 
     

  • Marisco, Ltd. v. GL Engineering & Construction PTE., Ltd, No. 1:18-CV-00211-SOM (D. Haw. Oct. 3, 2019)
    10/03/2019

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims relating to the construction of a dry dock.  Court held that although there was a valid arbitration agreement, plaintiff’s claims did not fall within its scope.

  • Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. The City of Fresno, No. 2:16-CV-00495-JAM (E.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2019)
    10/03/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to vacate order compelling arbitration of an insurance coverage dispute.  Court held that the arbitration it previously compelled was now moot as a result of a summary judgment order in favor of defendant by a California Court in a related action. 

  • Phillips v. Neutron Holdings, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-03382-KGS (N.D. Tex. Oct. 2, 2019)
    10/02/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims arising from an electric scooter accident.  Court held that the ‘sign-in-wrap’ online user agreement at issue, which contained an arbitration agreement, was enforceable and that it was for the arbitral tribunal to decide whether the claims asserted fell within the scope of the agreement.

  • Sarah Adult Day Services, Inc. v. Beyda Adult Day Care Center, LLC, No. 5:19-CV-00614-SL (N.D. Ohio Oct. 2, 2019)
    10/02/2019

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm arbitration award issued by the American Arbitration Association in connection with a franchise agreement relating to adult day care services.  Court held that the award was enforceable in all respects.

  • Morrison v. Home Depot, No. 2:19-CV-00517-GCS (S.D. Ohio Oct. 2, 2019)
    10/02/2019


    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims relating to credit card transactions.  Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the motion was untimely, that it was entitled to a trial by jury and that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable. 

  • Izett v. Crown Asset Management, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-05224-EMC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2019)
    10/01/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims relating to the debt collection practices of defendants.  Court held that defendants did not waive their right to arbitrate the subject matter of the dispute despite having previously successfully pursued collection of the debt in state court.  Court also held that the question of whether the state court judgment extinguished the defendants’ right to arbitrate should be directed to the arbitral tribunal.

  • TECO Guatemala Holdings, LLC v. Republic of Guatemala, No. 1:17-CV-00102 (D.D.C. October 1, 2019)
    10/01/2019

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in action to enforce an ICSID award against the Republic of Guatemala.  Court rejected as an attempt to revisit the merits of the underlying dispute Guatemala’s argument that the award was procured by fraud.  Court also rejected Guatemala’s argument that the doctrines of issue preclusion and claim preclusion deprived the ICSID tribunal of jurisdiction to render the award and rejected Guatemala’s contention that the award was not final due to an ongoing related arbitration between the parties in connection with related claims.

  • Enel Green Power North America, Inc. v. Geronimo Energy, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-05882-AJN (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2019)
    09/30/2019


    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of a claim relating to an alleged breach of a partnership agreement.  Court held that the claim was not subject to an earlier agreement between the parties to arbitrate because the later agreements upon which the claim was based included mandatory forum selection clauses choosing New York courts as the exclusive jurisdiction.

  • Gibbs v. Stinson, No. 3:18-CV-00676-MHL (E.D. Va. Sept. 30, 2019)
    09/30/2019

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims relating to an alleged unlawful lending operation.  Court held that certain of the arbitration agreements at issue were unenforceable because they sought to apply Native American tribal law to the exclusion of federal law.  Court also held that the other arbitration agreement at issue was enforceable because it did not disavow federal law wholesale and instead contemplated application of federal law to the arbitral proceedings.

  • In re Application of NJSC Naftogaz of Ukraine, No. 3:18-MC-00092-SAL (N.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2019)
    09/30/2019

    Court granted application under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for discovery from auditors in the U.S. in aid of a contemplated court proceeding in the Netherlands to enforce an arbitral award rendered against Gazprom in an arbitration seated in Stockholm, Sweden.  Court held that the application met all of the requirements of § 1782.

  • Dhaliwal v. Mallinckdrodt PLC, No. 1:18-CV-03146-VSB (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2019)
    09/30/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of a whistleblower retaliation action.  Court held that although the defendants were not parties to the arbitration agreement entered into with the plaintiff by a company they had acquired, the subject matter of the plaintiff’s claims were intertwined with the scope of the arbitration agreement and that it would be inequitable for the plaintiff to refuse to arbitrate on the ground that it had made no agreement with the defendants.

  • Drake v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., No. 1:13-DP-20140-JJH (N.D. Ohio Sept. 30, 2019)
    09/30/2019

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to vacate arbitration award relating to fees allegedly payable under an attorney representation agreement.  Court held that the arbitration proceeding in which the award was rendered did not comply with the arbitral procedures agreed between the parties in the operative agreement to arbitrate.

  • Galvez v. Jet Smarter, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-10311-VSB (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2019)
    09/30/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stays proceedings pending arbitration in a breach of contract and fraud action relating to a membership agreement for private jet services.  Court held that there was a valid agreement between the parties to arbitrate in the terms and conditions of service which were accepted by the plaintiff at the time he purchased his membership. 

  • Kathan v. Autovest, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-00486-TC (D. Utah Sept. 30, 2019)
    09/30/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in connection with a claim alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  Court held that the defendant had not waived its right to compel arbitration by previously filing a debt collection action in state court.

  • Lotsoff v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 3:18-CV-02033-AJB (S.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2019)
    09/30/2019

    Court denied defendant Wells Fargo’s motion to compel arbitration of claims relating to Wells Fargo’s practice of charging overdraft fees on checking accounts.  Court held that the arbitration agreement at issue was invalid and unenforceable because it precluded the plaintiffs’ ability to seek public injunctive relief against Wells Fargo in any forum.

  • Sadler v. General Electric Company, No. 3:17-CV-00328-RGJ (W.D. Ky. Sept. 30, 2019)
    09/30/2019

    Court denied in part and grants in part defendant GE’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that there was insufficient consideration to form a binding agreement to arbitrate holding that there was sufficient consideration because the agreement was an exchange of promises between the parties that bound each party to submit their disputes to arbitration.  Court also found that it had insufficient evidence to find that certain of the plaintiffs consented to the arbitration agreement and ordered the parties to supplement the record with evidence on this issue.

  • Buhannic v. American Arbitration Association (AAA), No. 1:18-CIV-02430-ER (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2019)
    09/27/2019

    Court dismissed plaintiff’s claim against the American Arbitration Association (AAA) and several of its arbitrators for alleged improper selection of arbitrators and allegedly defective reviewing procedures on the basis of arbitral immunity.

  • Gorin v. Vivint Solar Developer LLC, No. 1:19-CV-01207 (D. Md. Sept. 27, 2019)Gorin
    09/27/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay court proceedings in breach of warranty case relating to the design and installation of a residential solar power system.  Court held that the regulations enacted by the Federal Trade Commission requiring parties to enter into non-binding dispute resolution before a warrantor can insist on binding arbitration did not apply to the warranty claims at issue.

  • Imagetec, L.P. v. Lexmark International, Inc., No. 5:18-CV-00011-CHB (E.D. Ky. Sept. 27, 2019)
    09/27/2019

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in dispute regarding software and dealer agreements relating to commercial printing.  Court held than an agreement to arbitrate in a dealer agreement did not fall within the scope of a subsequent software agreement between the parties, which included an integration clause but no arbitration agreement, and that claims falling under the latter agreement were not subject to arbitration.  Court also decided to stay the non-arbitrable claims falling under the software agreement pending arbitration of the claims arising under the dealer agreement.

  • Jackson v. Rushmore Service Center, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-04587-SJF (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2019)
    09/27/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and to stay court action alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in connection with allegedly misleading credit card collection letters.  Court held that an agreement between the parties to arbitrate existed, which was the sole matter in dispute in relation to arbitrability.

  • Aerpio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Quaggin, No. 1:18-CV-00794-SJD-KLL (S.D. Ohio Sept. 26, 2019)
    09/26/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding clear and unmistakable evidence of parties’ intent to delegate gateway arbitrability issues to arbitral tribunal. Court held that carve-out in arbitration provision providing for specific remedies in the event of breach did not create any ambiguity as to the delegation.

  • KG Schifffahrtsgesellschaft MS Pacific Winter MBH & Co. v. Safesea Transport Inc., No. 2:19-CV-04869-CCC-SCM (D.N.J. Sept. 26, 2019)
    09/26/2019

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award, finding that alleged error of law committed by arbitral tribunal’s failure to apply limitation defense, even if established, would not warrant non-confirmation of arbitral award on public policy grounds.

  • Lomeli v. Midland Funding, LLC., No. 5:19-CV-01141-LHK (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2019)
    09/26/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that assignee of rights under credit card agreement was entitled to enforce arbitration provision against plaintiff. Court also held that third-party debt collection agency engaged by assignee was entitled to enforce arbitration provision because of broad language in arbitration provision requiring arbitration of any disputes involving entities “claiming through” the parties to credit card agreement.

  • Fambrough v. Green, No. 4:19-00158-CV-RK (W.D. Mo. Sept. 26, 2019)
    09/26/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that parties had delegated gateway issues concerning the arbitrability of the dispute to the arbitral tribunal, and, therefore, that defendant’s claim that agreement was procured by duress had to be determined by the tribunal.

  • First Student, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 959, No. 3:18-CV-00305-SLG (D. Alaska Sept. 26, 2019)
    09/26/2019

    Court dismissed motion to vacate arbitral award, finding that the timeliness of the award was not a ground for vacatur; that the arbitral tribunal did not exceed the scope of its authority; and that there was no basis to interfere with the merits of the arbitral tribunal’s decision, which was entitled to deference.

  • Hallam v. Southaven R.V. Center, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-220-DMB-RP (N.D. Miss. Sept. 25, 2019)
    09/25/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed court action against non-signatory pending arbitration between signatories to the arbitration provision. Plaintiffs brought action against the seller and the manufacturer of a motor home, but only the seller was a signatory to the arbitration provision in the sale contract with plaintiffs. Court granted motion to compel arbitration between plaintiffs and the seller, and held that it would stay the action against the manufacturer pending arbitration, since the claims both involved the same primary question of fact, namely, whether the motor home had numerous defects.

  • Johnson & Johnson International v. Puerto Rico Hospital Supply, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01405-FAB (D.P.R. Sept. 25, 2019)
    09/25/2019

    Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to vacate an arbitral award and granted defendants’ motion to confirm the award, finding that the arbitral tribunal had not issued the award in manifest disregard of the law. Court found that there was no evidence on the record that the arbitral tribunal ignored the law; to the contrary, the award set forth a well-reasoned and methodical approach to the law and the evidence.

  • Mohazzabi v. Wells Fargo, N.A., No. 2:18-CV-02137-RFB-VCF (D. Nev. Sept. 25, 2019)
    09/25/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that parties had entered into a binding contract to arbitrate, and that the contract was not unconscionable under Nevada law.

  • Park Avenue Life Insurance Company v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, No. 1:19-CV-01089-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2019)
    09/25/2019

    Court denied both parties’ motions to confirm an arbitral award and remanded the arbitral award to the arbitral tribunal for clarification. Parties both moved to confirm arbitral award but each party had a different interpretation of the effect of the award. Court found that ambiguity in the arbitral award “goes to the very heart of the dispute” and was not merely a matter of semantics, therefore the arbitral award had to be remanded to arbitral tribunal.

  • Al-Qarqani v. Chevron Corporation, No. 4:18-CV-03297-JSW (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2019)
    09/24/2019

    Court granted motion to dismiss petition to confirm a foreign arbitral award, finding that petitioners failed to demonstrate an operative agreement to arbitration between themselves and respondents. Court also held that other independent grounds precluded confirmation of the arbitral award, including: petitioners’ failure to produce an authenticated or certified English copies of the contract or arbitral award; substantial irregularities in the conduct of arbitral proceedings, including the choice of venue and arbitrator selection process; and non-arbitrability of the dispute.

  • SFM LLC v. Best Roast Coffee LLC, No. 2:19-CV-04820-JAT (D. Ariz. Sept. 24, 2019)
    09/24/2019

    Court dismissed motion to compel arbitration, finding that dispute did not fall within arbitration clause in a contract between the parties. Court held that the claims, which concerned trademark infringement, cybersquatting, false endorsement, or false advertising, did not “relate to or arise from the terms of” a Non-Circumvention Agreement that was limited to matters such as trade secrets or the use of business opportunities.

  • Sheinfeld v. BMW Financial Services NA, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-02083-JAD-EJY (D. Nev. Sept. 24, 2019)
    09/24/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the claims-resolution procedure in the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act 15 USC § 2301, which allows consumers to bring warranty claims in respect of certain consumer products, did not prohibit the enforcement of a binding arbitration agreement.

  • Eaton Partners, LLC v. Azimuth Capital Management IV, Ltd., No. 1:18-CV-11112-ER (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2019)
    09/24/2019

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award, finding that arbitrator was not guilty of misconduct by refusing to postpone hearing when respondent’s witness became unavailable, and by refusing to accept additional witness testimony from another of respondent’s witnesses

  • Parker v. Resurgent Capital Services LP, No. 4:19-CV-50-BO (E.D.N.C. Sept. 23, 2019)
    09/23/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff was bound by the arbitration provision in a credit card agreement, notwithstanding that defendant was the assignee of the account and not the original party to the agreement with plaintiff.

  • Cerner Middle East Limited v. iCapital, LLC, No. No. 17-35514 (9th Cir. Sept. 23, 2019) 
    09/23/2019

    Court of appeals reversed district court’s order dismissing the case and refusing to enforce an arbitral award against respondent’s property on the basis that a court had not confirmed that the respondent was within the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction. Subsequent to the district court’s decision, the Paris Court of Appeal, which had jurisdiction over respondent, confirmed that respondent was subject to the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction. Court recognized the Paris Court of Appeal’s decision under the principles of international comity and remanded the case for further proceedings.

  • Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Rahi Corp., No. 8:18-CV-02955-GJH (D. Md. Sept. 23, 2019)
     
    09/23/2019

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award, finding that there was no reason in the record to question the validity of the contract containing the arbitration provision or the conduct of tribunal. 

  • Arredondo v. Southwestern & Pacific Specialty Finance, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-01737-DAD-SKO (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2019) 
    09/23/2019

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff had validly opted out of arbitration provision in a dispute resolution agreement, which superseded a prior dispute resolution agreement that plaintiff had signed two years earlier. 

  • The Monongolia County Coal Company v. United Mine Works of America, No. 1:18-CV-00176-TSK (N.D.W. Va. Sept. 23, 2019)
    09/23/2019

    Court granted motion to vacate arbitral award, finding that the award did not draw its essence from the contract. Recognizing its “extremely limited” role in deciding arbitration disputes, court decided that tribunal’s decision ignored the plain language of the contract it was required to construe, and reached factual conclusions without any evidentiary basis.

  • Customs and Tax Consultancy LLC v. The Democratic Republic of the Congo, No. 1:18-CV-01408-RJL (D.D.C. Sept. 23, 2019)
    09/23/2019

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral awards and enter default judgment against respondent, finding that it had subject matter and personal jurisdiction over respondent, and that petitioner had provided satisfactory evidence for the arbitral awards to be confirmed.

  • Twin Falls NSC, LLC v. Southern Idaho Ambulatory Surgery Center, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-00009-DCN (D. Idaho Sept. 23, 2019)
    09/23/2019

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award and dismissed motion to vacate arbitral award, finding that tribunal had not committed misconduct by refusing to compel production of supplemental discovery, by providing a short briefing schedule for the arbitration, by excluding the evidence from defendant’s expert, or by purportedly not considering pertinent and material evidence. Court also did not accept that tribunal acted in manifest disregard of the law

  • Nandorf, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-05285 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 23, 2019) 
    09/23/2019

    Court converted motion to compel arbitration to a motion to dismiss, and granted motion to dismiss, holding that, while it did not have authority to compel arbitration in a forum outside its district, it had authority to dismiss the complaint if the claims were subject to arbitration. Court found that even though there was a dispute over the enforceability of the arbitration agreement, there was clear and unmistakable evidence of parties’ intent to delegate threshold arbitrability questions to arbitral tribunal.

View All