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

• 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.

• Wells Fargo Advisors LLC v. Tucker, No. 1:18-CV-06757-PAE (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2019)

  01/02/2019

  Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate an arbitral award rendered under the auspices of the American Arbitration Association.  Court found the arbitrator neither exceeded her powers nor manifestly disregarded the law.

• Austin v. J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc. No. 2:18-CV-02207-JAR-TJJ (D. Kan. Jan. 2, 2019)

  01/02/2019

  Court granted defendants’ motion to stay the case pending arbitration, holding that the parties entered into a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement, defendants did not waive their right to enforce the arbitration agreement, and plaintiff’s claims are arbitrable under the arbitration agreement.

• Elerath v. Vitorino, No. 2:18-CV-04058-JTM-DEK (E.D. La. Jan. 2, 2019)

  01/02/2019

  Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.  Court found all plaintiffs, including non-signatory plaintiffs, were bound by the arbitration agreement and the dispute in question fell within the scope of that agreement.  Court also considered plaintiffs’ objection to the validity of the arbitration agreement was ill-conceived because claiming the agreement as a whole is a relative nullity does not challenge the making of the arbitration agreement. 

• Esanbock v. Weyerhaeuser Company, No. 0:17-CV-03702-SRN-DTS (D. Minn. Jan. 2, 2019)

  01/02/2019

  Court adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss or stay the claims, holding that the type of dispute at issue was not subject to arbitration.

• Mondelez Global LLC v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, District 8, Local Lodge 1202, No. 1:17-CV-08628 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 2, 2019)

  01/02/2019

  Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the arbitrator’s decision was not contrary to a well-defined and dominant public policy.  Court further directed the clerk to enter judgment in favor of defendant, confirming the August 21, 2016 arbitration award and directing plaintiff to comply with the terms of the arbitration award.

• Castello v. AY&T Mobility Services, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-01874 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 28, 2018)

  12/28/2018

  Court entered and continued motion to compel arbitration, holding that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether an arbitration agreement existed.  Court found that a trial was necessary to determine whether an agreement was offered and accepted by the parties.

• Czech Republic v. A11Y Ltd., No. 1:18-CV-07565-NRB (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2018)

  12/28/2018

  Court ordered judgment granting plaintiff’s petition to confirm arbitral award in favor of the Czech Republic.  Court undertook an independent review of the record in the absence of defendant’s response and determined the facts entitled the petitioner to the relief requested as a matter of law.

• Dillion v. Bet Information Systems, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-04717-JST (N.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 2018)

  12/28/2018

  Court ordered parties to show cause why the case should not be stayed, including the resolution of the pending motion to compel arbitration, until the issuance of a decision in Henry Schein.  Court considered this necessary because the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Henry Schein, 138 S. Ct. 2678, to address the following question: “Whether the Federal Arbitration Act permits a court to decline to enforce an agreement delegating questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator if the court concludes the claim of arbitrability is ‘wholly groundless.’” 

• Spencer v. XPO Logistics, No. 2:17-CV-14084-VAR-MKM (E.D. Mich. Dec. 28, 2018)

  12/28/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss finding there was no basis on which the arbitration provision could be deemed unenforceable.  Court also found it could not order the parties to arbitration because the court is located in the Eastern District of Michigan and the arbitration agreement provided for arbitration in North Carolina.

• Williams v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 5:18-CV-00915-EEF-MLH (W.D. La. Dec. 28, 2018)

  12/28/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding plaintiff executed a valid agreement to arbitrate his employment-related disputes and decided to dismiss the case because the agreement assigned the question of arbitratibility to the arbitrator.

• Berisha v. Stan, Inc., No. 0:18-CV-62114-MGC (S.D. Fla. Dec. 27, 2018)

  12/27/2018

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pending the resolution of this case by an arbitrator.  Plaintiff did not oppose defendants’ motion and court noted FLSA claims can be arbitrated and federal policy favors arbitration.

• Temple v. Best Rate Holdings LLC, No. 8:18-CV-00176-CEH-JSS (M.D. Fla. Dec. 27, 2018)

  12/27/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court declined to defer to the arbitrator on the question of arbitrability, holding that because the agreement was narrow, its reference to AAA rules did not constitute an unambiguous intent of the parties for such judicial deference. Court nevertheless held that the arbitration agreement was enforceable and applicable to the scope of the parties’ dispute. Finally, court held that non-signatory defendant could likewise enforce the arbitration agreement based on a theory of estoppel.

• Stevens v. Jiffy Lube International, Inc., No. 17-15965 (9th Cir. Dec. 27, 2018)

  12/27/2018

  Court of appeals affirmed denial of petition to vacate arbitral award, holding that the petition of vacatur could not be granted because it was filed one day after the three-month deadline established by the FAA.

• Amazon Digital Services, LLC v. Green Publishing, Ltd., No. 2:18-CV-00475-RAJ (W.D. Wash. Dec. 27, 2018)

  12/27/2018

  Court granted unopposed motion to confirm AAA arbitration award, finding that no arguments based on grounds available under the FAA for its invalidity had been presented.

• Global Empire Corporation v. Flower Tech Center, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-08795-ES-SCM (D.N.J. Dec. 21, 2018)

  12/21/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the proceeding.  Court held the parties entered into a valid arbitration agreement in accordance with Alberta, Canada law and found no reason to void a clear arbitration provision which was the product of an arm’s length negotiation by two sophisticated commercial entities.

• NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. v. O.W. Bunker USA, Inc., 17-4028-CV (2d Cir. Dec. 19, 2018)

  12/19/2018

  Court of appeals vacated district court’s preliminary injunction of a London arbitration, holding that, while participation in an arbitration to which a party did not consent constitutes irreparable harm, the district court failed to make adequate findings regarding the likelihood of success on the merits.

• Hill-Smith v. Silver Dollar Cabaret, Inc., No. 5:18-CV-05145-PKH (W.D. Ark. Dec. 13, 2018)

  12/14/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint finding that the arbitration agreement was enforceable and that plaintiff’s claims fell squarely within the terms of the arbitration provision and the entire controversy would be resolved by the arbitrator. 

• Local Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas v. Mirage Casino-Hotel, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-01225-GMN-PAL (9th Circ. Dec. 13, 2018)

  12/13/2018

  Court of appeals reversed district court’s decision confirming an arbitration award.  Court concluded the arbitrator blurred the line between arbitrability and merits because, although the arbitrator did not have authority to decide the question of substantive arbitrability, the arbitrator concluded the claims were not arbitrable.  Court of appeals held the arbitrator’s analysis contravened foundational principles of the arbitral process by overlooking the limits the Supreme Court has placed on the arbitrator’s presumptive powers. 

• Banks v. Barclays Bank Credit Services, No. 1:17-CV-00096-CCC (M.D. Pa. Dec. 13, 2018)

  12/13/2018

  Court granted defendant’s renewed motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending the outcome of the arbitration.  Court noted the plaintiff did not object and concluded there was no clear error on the face of the record thereby granting defendant’s motion. 

• Hicks v. Comcast Cable Communication LLC, No. 0:18-CV-61384-BB (S.D. Fla. Dec. 13, 2018)

  12/13/2018

  Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay action as well as motion to stay discovery and pretrial proceedings.  Court held that a bench trial will be held pursuant to 9 USC § 4 to determine the existence of a binding arbitration agreement between the parties. 

• McNamara v. S.I. Logistics, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-12523-ADB (D. Mass. Dec. 13, 2018)

  12/13/2018

  Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint, finding that the parties’ agreement to arbitrate was illusory from the outset because one of the parties had the right to modify the agreement to arbitrate at any moment.  Thus, no agreement to arbitrate was formed between the parties. 

• Werner v. Waterstone Mortgage Corporation, No. 3:17-CV-00608-JDP (W.D. Wis. Dec. 13, 2018)

  12/13/2018

  Court denied plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the case and compel arbitration, finding that plaintiffs waived their right to arbitrate by filing the claims before federal court and litigating for more than a year before seeking to compel arbitration. 

• Winkler v. Total Quality Logistics, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-03707 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 13, 2018)

  12/13/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint. Court held the parties entered into a binding arbitration agreement and plaintiff’s three claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.  Court also concluded the arbitration agreement was neither unconscionable nor otherwise materially flawed. 

• Winters v. Aimco/Bethesda Holdings Inc., No. 3:18-CV-01937-JAH-MDD (S.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2018)

  12/13/2018

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion to remand to state court and denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay proceeding, finding that defendant failed to meet the burden of establishing complete diversity of citizenship.  As a result, court held defendant’s motion to compel arbitration was moot. 

• National Dentex, LLC v. Gold, No. 1:18-CV-10484-LTS (D. Mass. Dec. 12, 2018)

  12/12/2018

  Court denied defendant’s renewed motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss or stay the case.  Court held plaintiff’s claims arise under related, but separate agreements, neither of which contained or incorporated an arbitration clause.

• Wilson v. CPB Foods, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-00014-CHB-CHL (W.D. Ky. Dec. 12, 2018)

  12/12/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation, finding that the claims before it fell squarely within the scope of the arbitration agreement and that defendant did not waive its right to arbitration. 

• Smith v. General Information Solutions, LLC No. 3:18-CV-02534-MGL (D.S.C. Dec. 11, 2018)

  12/11/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice.  Court held the language of the arbitration agreement provided clear and unmistakable evidence the parties have chosen to give arbitrability questions to an arbitrator, concluding the parties should be compelled to arbitration because it appeared a valid arbitration agreement existed. 

• Armstrong v. Michael Stores, Inc., No. 5:17-CV-06540-LHK (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2018)

  12/11/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stays the lawsuit, finding that plaintiff assented to the arbitration agreement twice and that defendant did not waive its right to compel arbitration. 

• ECI Software Solutions, Inc. v. Sheridan, No. 3:18-CV-00511-N (N.D. Tex. Dec. 11, 2018)

  12/11/2018

  Court granted one defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case against another defendant for lack of personal jurisdiction.  Court found there was a valid arbitration agreement, the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement and that no federal statute of policy rendered the claims nonarbitrable. 

• Elite Air Conditioning Inc. v. BVB Construction, Inc., No. 5:18-CV-01956-MWF-SP (C.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2018)

  12/11/2018

  Court ordered the parties to arbitration and stayed the case until completion of arbitration pursuant to the parties’ stipulation and agreement to submit all claims between them arising out of the contract in question to arbitration under the auspices of the American Arbitration Association. 

• Velazquez v. Midland Funding, LLC., No. 1:18-CV-00043-CWD (D. Idaho Dec. 10, 2018)

  12/10/2018

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and issue a protective order, but granted plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint.  Court determined that defendant did not acquire the right to arbitrate the issues in dispute and found the claim did not fall within the terms of the arbitration clause.

• Lothan Van Hook DeStefano Architecture v. SB Yen Management Group, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00275 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 10, 2018)

  12/10/2018

  Court granted defendant’s request to compel mediation and arbitration, but denied defendant’s request to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.  Court held the claim was subject to arbitration and that an arbitration agreement existed requiring the parties to endeavor to resolve claims by mediation and then by arbitration if mediation was unsuccessful. 

• Rogers v. Swepi LP, No. 18-3229 (6th Cir. Dec. 10, 2018)

  12/10/2018

  Court of appeals reversed the district court’s denial of defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and remanded the case for entry of an order compelling arbitration and a decision on whether the agreement allows for class-wide arbitration.  Court rejected plaintiff’s defense against arbitration, because he attacked more than just the arbitration agreement.  Court concluded the district court erred in assuming it had the power to rule on arbitrability, which should have been reserved for the arbitrator.

• Globalone Management Group Limited v. Tempus Applied Solutions, LLC., No. 4:18-CV-00059-RGD-LRL (E.D. Va. Dec. 7, 2018)

  12/07/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motions to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, but dismissed defendant’s motion to dismiss without prejudice.  Court determined that it must compel arbitration and stay proceedings pursuant to §§  3 and 4 of the FAA because the express incorporation of the ICC Rules into an arbitration provision constitutes clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to arbitrate issues of arbitrability.  Court also held defendant’s assertion that all the parties’ disputes are subject to arbitration was not frivolous or illegitimate, concluding that all threshold questions of arbitrability must be referred to arbitration.

• Collins v. Discover Financial Services, No. 8:17-CV-03011-PX (D. Md. Dec. 7, 2018)

  12/07/2018

  Court denied motion for reconsideration to alter judgment compelling arbitration.  Court held that plaintiffs provided no reason to find that the provisions in the agreements referring to AAA and JAMS rules were not binding and confirmed prior decision compelling to arbitration.  Court also deferred the question of scope of the arbitration agreements to the arbitrator. 

• Zendon v. Grandison Management, Inc., No. 2:18-CV_04545-ARR-JO (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2018)

  12/07/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel the arbitration of plaintiff’s claims pursuant to the parties’ 2015 Employment Agreement.  Court held the arbitration agreement was valid and plaintiff’s claims clearly constituted a dispute between the parties within the meaning of the arbitration provision.  Court also held defendant did not waive its right to demand arbitration because the filing and withdrawal of a state court action does not constitute “protracted litigation.” 

• Ege v. Express Messenger Systems Inc., No. 17-35123 (9th Circ. Dec. 7, 2018)

  12/07/2018

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s dismissal of appellants’ complaint in favor of arbitration.  Court held one of the appellants was a third-party beneficiary, appellants’ claims were arbitrable, and arbitration was the proper forum in which to adjudicate the claims. 

• OJSC Ukrnafta v. Carpatsky Petroleum Corporation, No. 4:09-CV-00891 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 6, 2018)

  12/06/2018

  Court entered a final judgment dismissing claims against defendants and finalizing confirmation of a $147 million arbitration award issued by a Stockholm arbitration panel against plaintiff.  Court severed claims against one defendant and allowed those claims to proceed. 

• Sagicor Life Insurance Company v. Houchins, No. 5:17-CV-02189-AKK (N.D. Ala. Dec. 6, 2018)

  12/06/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding that claims arising outside the scope of arbitration agreement were irrelevant to determining parties’ intent to arbitrate.  Court held that defendants did not waive their right to arbitrate, notwithstanding defendants’ intent to amicably resolve the dispute and decision to wait several months into the litigation process before filing their motion to compel arbitration.

• International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail & Transp. Workers v. CSX Transp., Inc., No. 18-3323 (6th Cir. Dec. 5, 2018)

  12/05/2018

  Court of appeals upheld decision confirming arbitration award, finding that the award met highly deferential standard that arbitrator was arguably construing the collective bargaining agreement.  Court found that interpretation was arguably correct where arbitrator relied on the text of the disputed provision, surrounding language, and previous, similar awards.

• OOGC America LLC v. Chesapeake Exploration, LLC, No. 4:17-CV-00248 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2018)

  12/05/2018

  Court vacated arbitration awards, finding evident partiality where arbitrator failed to disclose decade-long business and investing relationship with an affiliate of the party who appointed him. 

• SteppeChange, LLC v. VEON, Ltd., No. 3:18-CV-04842-WHO (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2018)

  12/05/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration on the issue of arbitrability, finding that invocation of LCIA rules in the arbitration agreement presented a clear and unmistakable intent to leave arbitrability to the arbitrator.  Court stayed proceedings for both defendants pending arbitrator’s determination.

• Focus Music Entertainment LLC v. Streamify LLC, No. 1:18-CV-01241-ELH (D. Md. Dec. 5, 2018)

  12/05/2018

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration and transferred case to the District Court for the Southern District of Texas finding that, notwithstanding a valid arbitration agreement, court could not compel arbitration in a different jurisdiction than was contemplated by the agreement, pursuant to § 4 of the FAA.

• ASARCO LLC v. United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Services Works International Union, No. 16-16363 (9th Cir. Dec. 4, 2018)

  12/04/2018

  Court of appeals affirmed confirmation of arbitration award, holding that the arbitrator acted within his authority when crafting a remedy for the parties’ mutual mistake, notwithstanding a provision in the arbitration agreement barring an arbitrator from altering such agreement.