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

• Crystallex International Corp. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 17-7068 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 14, 2019)

  02/14/2019

  Court of appeals affirmed district court judgment affirming an arbitral award against a sovereign state.  Court held that none of the three arguments asserted “comes close to securing a withdrawal,” reasoning that the district court had sufficiently considered all of the defendant’s arguments under the FAA, appropriately reviewed the arbitral tribunal’s method for calculating damages, and committed no errors in analyzing the award.  Court further sanctioned the defendant for conduct it viewed as misleading to the court.

• Abeona Therapeutics, Inc. v. EB Research Partnership, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-10889-DLC (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2019)

  02/14/2019

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding the parties’ agreement contained a broad arbitration clause and the plaintiff’s challenge to the validity of the overall agreement was irrelevant to the motion to compel.  Court further held that, in any event, even if the plaintiff’s argument that the agreement lacked consideration could be directed at its arbitration clause, it would fail.

• Dornaus v. Best Buy Co., Inc., No. 4:18-CV-04085-PJH (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2019)

  02/14/2019

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings, holding that a valid arbitration agreement governed the parties’ dispute.  Court agreed with the plaintiff that a provision of the agreement prohibiting adjudication of claims for public injunctive relief was invalid under California law, but held that it could be severed from the rest of the agreement, such that the court would retain jurisdiction over adjudicating any such requests and compel arbitration with respect to any other claims.

• Charlie's Project LLC v. T2B LLC, No. 1:18-CV-11240-IT (D. Mass. Feb. 13, 2019)

  02/13/2019

  Court denied in part and allowed in part motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.  Court compelled arbitration with respect to intellectual property claims included in the scope of the arbitration agreement and held that any related defenses must be evaluated by the arbitrator, as the agreement delegated questions of arbitrability by incorporating AAA rules.  However, the court declined to hold that other claims were so intertwined with the intellectual property claims that they had to be arbitrated as well even though they did not fall within the scope of the arbitral agreement.

• Next Level Planning & Wealth Management, LLC v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, No. 2:18-MC-00065-PP (E.D. Wis. Feb. 13, 2019)

  02/13/2019

  Court denied petition to enforce a FINRA arbitration subpoena.  Court evaluated the motion to compel compliance with the subpoena as a petition under § 7 of the FAA to compel a non-party witness to appeal.  Court reasoned that arbitration differed from litigation by providing for circumscribed discovery procedures and that Section 7 allowed an arbitrator to require production of documents in connection with an evidentiary hearing but not within 30 days of receiving a subpoena.

• Sheehan v. Sparks Black Bear, LLC, 3:18- CV-00510-HDM-CBC (D. Nev. Feb. 13, 2019)

  02/13/2019

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Court rejected arguments that the arbitration agreements were procedurally or substantively unconscionable based on assertions of unequal bargaining argument, format of the text, failure to supply arbitral rules, proposed location of the arbitration, and purportedly unequal burdens and rights. Court further declined to hold that the arbitration clauses violated public policy by containing class action waivers.

• Mahoney v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 8:19-CV-00118-WFJ-SPF (M.D. Fla. Feb. 13, 2019)

  02/13/2019

  Court denied motion to refer matter to arbitration and stay proceedings, reasoning that defendant had failed to show that a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement could be compelled to arbitrate.

• First Capital Real Estate Investments, L.L.C. v. SDDCO Brokerage Advisors, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-02013-JGK (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2019)

  02/13/2019

  Court denied motion to vacate FINRA arbitral award and granted cross-motion to confirm and award reasonable attorneys’ fees and prejudgment interest.  Court rejected arguments that the award could be vacated because the proceedings were conducted in accordance with rules for intra-industry disputes, that one of the arbitrators was allegedly not qualified, and that the panel imposed discovery sanctions improperly.

• E. Hedinger AG v. Brainwave Science, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-00538-MN (D. Del. Feb. 13, 2019)

  02/13/2019

  Court granted motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.  Court rejected arguments that an oral exchange at a hearing constituted waiver of the defendants’ right to arbitrate or that the claims at issue were outside the scope of the arbitral agreement.  Court further held that the parties had evidenced an intention to arbitrate even though their agreement referenced a non-existent arbitral institution.

• Nippon Yusen Kaisha (N.Y.K. Line) v. Sea Central Shipping, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-06153-DAB (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2019)

  02/12/2019

  Court granted unopposed petition to confirm an arbitral award.  Court, upon a limited review of the underlying contract and award, held that the arbitrator had acted within the scope of her authority and that no ground existed to vacate her award.

• Brown v. Firstsource Advantage, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-05760-GJP (E.D. Pa. Feb. 12, 2019)

  02/12/2019

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, rejecting the plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration agreement was invalid as “overly broad.”  Court further held that the parties’ dispute fell within the scope of that agreement.

• Doscher v. Sea Port Group Securities, LLC, No. 18-0054-CV (2d Cir. Feb. 12, 2019)

  02/12/2019

  Court of appeal affirmed district court’s order denying petition to vacate and modify an arbitral award. Court held that district court had correctly reasoned that it had no basis for determining that the arbitral panel had acted in a way that violated fundamental fairness.

• Valley Tool & Die, Inc. v. Fastenal Company, No. 1:18-CV-02682-CAB (N.D. Ohio Feb. 12, 2019)

  02/12/2019

  Court granted motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration.  Court held that the parties’ dispute was within the scope of their arbitration agreement, which the court found to be “extremely” broad.

• MEMC II v. Cannon Storage Systems, Inc., No. 18-6079 (10th Cir. Feb. 12, 2019)

  02/12/2019

  Court of appeal affirmed district court’s denial or relief from AAA arbitral award.  Court held that the arbitrator had not exceeded her powers by declining to find that the breach of contract at issue was material and thus precluded recovery.

• Schuster v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 8:18-CV-02389-MSS-JSS (M.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2019)

  02/07/2019

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court held that because the parties’ arbitration agreement clearly delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, it was for the arbitrator to consider the plaintiff’s argument that the dispute fell outside the scope of that agreement.

• Great American Insurance Company v. Russell, No. 17-2441 (8th Cir. Jan. 31, 2019)

  01/31/2019

  Court of appeals vacated district court’s decision to vacate an arbitration award, finding that the arbitration panel’s failure to break down the award by county did not justify vacatur as the award was sufficiently mutual, final, and definite.

• Health Integrated, Inc. v. Community Health Plan of Washington, No. 2:18-CV-01522-RSM (W.D. Wash. Jan. 31, 2019)

  01/31/2019

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that an arbitration agreement providing that parties “may” request arbitration did not bar defendant from seeking arbitration after plaintiff filed an action in court.

• In Re: Midland Credit Management, Inc. Telephone Consumer Protection Litigation, No. 3:16-CV-02157-MMA-MDD (S.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2019)

  01/31/2019

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement authorized defendants – as assignees of the agreement – to seek arbitration of plaintiffs’ claims.  Court also found that the parties clearly and unmistakably intended to arbitrate arbitrability.

• Shapiro v. Logitech, Inc., No. 3:17-00673-FLW-TJB (D.N.J. Jan. 31, 2019)

  01/31/2019

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the benefit of an arbitration clause contained in the conditions of use for an online marketplace did not extend to defendant – a third-party retailer.

• Price v. Petaluma Health Center, No. 4:17-CV-05428-HSG (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2019)

  01/31/2019

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and denied defendant’s motion to dismiss, rejecting defendant’s request that the motion to dismiss be decided first.  Court found that where a defendant moves in part to compel, the court’s inquiry is limited to whether the claims at issue are covered under a valid arbitration agreement – only after that determination may a court dismiss a plaintiff’s claims.

• Sanders v. Shadow Mountain Behavioral Health System, LLC, No. 4:18-00574-CVE-FHM (N.D. Okla. Jan. 31, 2019)

  01/31/2019

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding inter alia that defendants did not waive their right to request arbitration when they filed their motion one year after plaintiff’s demand for compensation indicating her intent to bring a subsequent lawsuit.  Court found that defendants’ motion was timely when they filed the motion one month after plaintiff actually filed suit.

• Global Gold Mining LLC v. Caldera Resources, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-04419-KPF (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2019)

  01/30/2019

  Court granted plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to confirm an arbitration award, finding that the grounds for the award were clear when arbitrator provided factual support for each financial component.  Court also found that the parties’ selection of New York law in the arbitration agreement did not supplant the federal post-judgment interest rate applicable to federal judgments.

• Resourcing Edge I, LLC v. CBA Service Corporation, No. 3:19-CV-00174-L (N.D. Tex. Jan. 30, 2019)

  01/30/2019

  Court dismissed plaintiff’s motion to confirm an arbitration award for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding inter alia that invoking the FAA was not sufficient to confer federal question jurisdiction on the court.

• FW Associates LLC v. WM Associates LLC, No. 1:18-CV-05081(N.D. Ill. Jan. 28, 2019)

  01/28/2019

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendants’ counterclaims, finding that those claims were precluded by an arbitrator’s ruling.  Court found the arbitrator’s ruling preclusive when it decided the issue of substantial performance of a contract and defendant’s counterclaims sought to enforce terms of that already-litigated contract.

• Prospect CCMC, LLC v. CCNA/Pennsylvania Association of Staff Nurses and Allied Professionals, No. 2:18-CV-04039-GAM (E.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2019)

  01/28/2019

  Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate an arbitration award, finding inter alia that “manifest disregard” of federal law, rather than ordinary legal error, would be required for vacating the award.  Court found that manifest disregard of federal law did not exist when an arbitrator “simply reached a different result” on the facts presented.

• Aspic Engineering and Construction Company v. ECC Centcom Constructors LLC, No. 17-16510 (9th Cir. Jan. 28, 2019)

  01/28/2019

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s ruling vacating an arbitration award, finding that the arbitrator exceeded his powers when he disregarded contract provisions to achieve a desired result.  Court found that the arbitrator’s ruling that certain contractual provisions did not apply was unreasonable when neither party argued the inapplicability of the provisions.

• Dropp v. Diamond Resorts International, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-00247-APG-GWF (D. Nev. Jan. 25, 2019)

  01/25/2019

  Court granted defendants’ motions to compel arbitration and dismiss, finding that plaintiffs’ claims were subject to a valid arbitration agreement when there was no inherent conflict between the FAA and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.  Court found it proper to decide the issue of enforceability when it dealt solely with the arbitration provision and not the contracts as a whole, as validity of the contracts would be decided by an arbitrator.

• In Re: Dealer Management Systems Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:18-CV-00864 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 25, 2019)

  01/25/2019

  Court denied defendants’ motions to compel arbitration and dismiss plaintiffs’ claims where plaintiff was a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement and defendants failed to show sufficient detrimental reliance to bind plaintiffs to the agreement.  Court found that defendants waived their right to arbitrate when they waited nine months assert their intent to arbitrate.

• Hogan v. SPAR Group, Inc., No. 18-1286 (1st Cir. Jan. 25, 2019)

  01/25/2019

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendant was not subject to an arbitration agreement when it was a non-signatory to said agreement.  Court also found that defendant was not a third-party beneficiary of the arbitration agreement when the agreement was limited to disputes “between the parties.”

• McGovern v. U.S. Bank N.A., No. 3:18-CV-01794-CAB-LL (S.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2019)

  01/25/2019

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding inter alia that the savings clause of the FAA preempted a state law rule when it stood as an obstacle to the FAA’s objectives.

• MB Financial, Inc. v. Hart, No. 1:17-CV-08866 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 24, 2019)

  01/24/2019

  Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration of defendant’s counterclaim where that claim fell under the scope of an agreement to arbitrate.  Although plaintiffs engaged in litigation on other claims, the court found that plaintiffs’ conduct did not waive their right to arbitrate defendant’s counterclaim.

• Sultan v. Coinbase, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00934-FB-ST (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2019)

  01/24/2019

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff’s claims were subject to mandatory arbitration per defendant’s user agreement.  Court also found that plaintiff had inquiry notice of the arbitration agreement when he clicked “I agree” to its terms and conditions when creating an account on defendant’s interface.

• Producers Credit Corporation v. Fletcher, No. 5:18-CV-00150-MTT (M.D. Ga. Jan. 23, 2019)

  01/23/2019

  Court denied third-party defendants’ motion to stay the case pending arbitration and compel arbitration, finding that third-party defendants waived their contractual rights to arbitration when they substantially participated in litigation – through filing an answer and engaging in discovery – without raising the issue of arbitration.

• Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, and Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund v. Bar-Mac Construction of NJ Inc., No. 1:18-CV-06284-RA (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2019)

  01/23/2019

  Court granted petitioners’ motion to confirm an arbitration award, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, where respondent failed to file an opposition.  Court found that in the absence of a filed opposition, the court must treat petitioners’ motion as an unopposed motion for summary judgment.

• Chen v. Premier Financial Alliance, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-03771-YGR (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2019)

  01/22/2019

  Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendants failed to establish the existence of an arbitration agreement where they failed to show that their website’s design would put plaintiffs on inquiry notice of an arbitration agreement.

• HTC Corporation v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, No. 6:18-CV-00243-JRG (E.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 2019)

  01/22/2019

  Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to sever, stay, and compel arbitration, finding that plaintiffs waived their right to arbitrate by seeking a decision on the merits before attempting arbitration.  Court found that the parties substantially invoked the judicial process – so as to waive arbitration – where parties completed fact and expert discovery on claims not already submitted to arbitration, and where plaintiff affirmatively moved for dismissal and for summary judgment.  Court found that it could properly determine the issue of waiver where the parties did not “clearly and unmistakably” intend to delegate determination of waiver to an arbitrator.

• Partners 3190, LLC v. Signature Building Systems, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-01475-JMM (M.D. Pa. Jan. 22, 2019)

  01/22/2019

  Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss or to remand in regard to an action to confirm a $330,509.38 arbitration award.  Court found that plaintiff properly removed the case to federal court where there was diversity between the parties and the amount in controversy – determined here to be the amount of the award – exceeded $75,000.00.

• Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. Rodriguez Morillo, No. 2:18-CV-01773-JPS (E.D. Wis. Jan. 18, 2019)

  01/18/2019

  Court granted request to effectuate service on a nonresident with a private process server, finding that service pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is sufficient under § 9 of the FAA.

• Katz v. Feldman, No. 1:18-CV-00213-MN (D. Del. Jan. 18, 2019)

  01/18/2019

  Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate an AAA Award Order, finding that the court had no personal jurisdiction over pro se parties acting on behalf of corporations as only the corporations were named parties in the underlying arbitration.  Court also found that plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the arbitration award because the interests of a corporation may only be represented by licensed counsel in federal courts.

• Washington National Insurance Company v. Obex Group LLC, No. 7:18-CV-09693-VB (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2019)

  01/18/2019

  Court granted petitioner’s motions to enforce two arbitration summonses and denied respondents’ motions to quash the summonses.  Court found, inter alia, that pre-hearing discovery was proper under § 7 of the FAA where respondents were summoned to a hearing  rather than a deposition, the arbitral panel was prepared to rule on evidentiary issues, and the hearing would be recorded as part of the arbitration record for the panel to use in its determination of the dispute.

• New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, No. 17-340 (U.S. Jan. 15, 2019)

  01/15/2019

  Supreme Court affirmed a first circuit decision finding that (1) a court should decide whether an arbitration agreement falls under the FAA before compelling arbitration; and (2) § 1 of the FAA – which excludes certain “contracts of employment” from its purview – applies to both employer-employee contractors and those involving independent contractors.

• Starke v. SquareTrade, Inc., No. 17-2474-CV (2d Cir. Jan. 10, 2019)

  01/10/2019

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff-appellee did not manifestly assent to the arbitration clause of an online-based contract, nor did he have reasonable notice of the clause.  Court found that notwithstanding the general rule that actual notice is not necessary to render an arbitration clause binding, plaintiff-appellee did not have reasonable notice where, inter alia, the design of the confirmation page did not provide the terms and conditions in a “clear and conspicuous” way.  Court found little justification for enforcing the arbitration clause where it would have been “virtually costless” for defendant-appellant to appropriately provide the governing terms and conditions to plaintiff-appellee before he purchased a product protection plan.

• Southwest Airlines Company v. Local 555, Transport workers of America AFL-CIO, No. 18-10122 (5th Cir. Jan. 9, 2019)

  01/09/2019

  Court of appeals reversed and remanded district court’s ruling confirming an arbitration award.  Court found that the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction, and thus vacatur was appropriate, when the arbitration award conflicted with the plain language of the arbitration agreement.

• 20/20 Communications, Inc. v. Blevins, No. 4:16-CV-00810-Y (N.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2019)

  01/08/2019

  Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that an arbitrator – rather than the court – was to determine whether the matter would be resolved with a single class-arbitration or eighteen separate arbitrations, due to an unambiguous delegation clause in the arbitration agreement. 

• Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., No. 17-1272 (U.S. Jan. 8, 2019)

  01/08/2019

  Supreme Court held that when an arbitration agreement delegates the question of the arbitrability of a particular dispute to an arbitrator a court may not override the parties’ arbitration agreement, even if the court considers the argument that the arbitration agreement applies to a dispute is wholly groundless.

• Wolfe v. Carnival Corporation, No. 1:18-CV-23463-KMW (S.D. Fla. Jan. 4, 2019)

  01/04/2019

  Court granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and to compel arbitration, finding claimants’ only argument that the arbitration agreement does not fall within the scope of the arbitration clause was incorrect.

• Voorhees v. Tolia No. 18-1949 (3d Cir. Jan. 4, 2019)

  01/04/2019

  Court of appeals vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded for further proceedings.  Court held the district court did not address whether or why any of the plaintiff’s claims were subject to the arbitration agreement concluding it was not immediately apparent that all of them were. 

• In re Application of Luis Javier Martinez Sampedro for an Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to Conduct Discovery for Use in a Foreign Proceeding, No. 3:18-MC-00047-JBA (D. Conn. Jan. 3, 2019)

  01/03/2019

  Court overruled defendants’ objection to the ruling on defendants’ motion to compel reciprocal discovery.  Court found it could not set aside the order of the magistrate judge because defendant did not show the magistrate judge’s decision was beyond the scope of the court’s discretion or that it was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

• Amazon Digital Services, LLC v. Green Publishing, Ltd., No. 2:18-CV-00475-RAJ (W.D. Wash. Jan. 2, 2019)

  01/02/2019

  Court ordered judgment be entered in favor of plaintiff confirming an arbitral award rendered on 11 January 2018 and enjoining defendants from performing certain actions.  Court held the conditions for confirming the award were found and noted the defendants made no arguments that the arbitrator exceeded her powers in this this case or that she strayed from interpretation and application of the parties’ agreement. 

• Continental Insurance Company v. Axa Versicherung AG, No. 1:18-CV-07349-VEC (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2019)

  01/02/2019

  Court granted unopposed petition to confirm a final arbitration award, finding that plaintiff met the statutory requirements for confirming the award.