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.

• Julabo USA, Inc. v. Juchheim, No. 5:19-CV-01412-JDW (E.D. Pa. June 9, 2021)

  06/09/2021

  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)

  05/28/2021

  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)

  05/28/2021

  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)

  05/27/2021

  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)

  05/21/2021

  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)

  05/21/2021

  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)

  05/21/2021

  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) 

  05/17/2021

  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)

  05/17/2021

  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)

  05/17/2021

  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)

  05/10/2021

  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)

  05/05/2021

  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)

  05/05/2021

  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)

  04/30/2021

  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)

  04/29/2021

  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)

  04/29/2021

  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)

  04/28/2021

  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)

  04/28/2021

  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)

  04/27/2021

  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)

  04/27/2021

  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)

  04/27/2021

  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)

  04/27/2021

  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)

  04/27/2021

  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. Amazon.com Inc., No. 20-35359 (9th Cir. Apr. 23, 2021)

  04/23/2021

  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)

  04/23/2021

  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)

  04/23/2021

  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)

  04/23/2021

  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)

  04/22/2021

  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)

  04/22/2021

  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)

  04/20/2021

  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.

• Unitech Composites, Inc. v. Avcorp Industries Inc., No. 3:18-CV-1399-YY (D. Or. Apr. 17, 2021)

  04/17/2021

  Court declined to adopt magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation to grant defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendant waived its right to arbitration.

• Goldgroup Resources, Inc. v. DynaResource de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., No. 1:16-CV-02547-RM-KMT (10th Cir. Apr. 16, 2021)

  04/16/2021

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order confirming arbitration award relating to an option agreement.  Court of appeals found that appellant failed to preserve issue concerning waiver of right to arbitrate, that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers, and that a Mexican court’s order could not preemptively annul a US award not yet rendered.

• Goldgroup Resources Inc. v. Dynaresource de Mexico S.A. de C.V., No. 20-1143 (10th Cir. Apr. 16, 2021)

  04/16/2021

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of a motion to vacate an arbitration award.  Court found that the New York Convention did not provide the exclusive grounds for vacatur where the subject award was rendered in the United States or under U.S. arbitral law.  Accordingly, the appellee properly raised grounds for vacatur provided by the FAA.

• Cargill Inc. v. Triorient LLC, No. 20-CV-10058 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2021) 

  04/15/2021

  Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm a final arbitral award in a case relating to a breach of a charter party.  Court found no genuine factual dispute as to the propriety of the final award and duly confirmed. 

• Pfeil v. Discover Bank, 2:20-CV-01813-GMS (D. Ariz. Apr. 15, 2021)

  04/15/2021

  Court denied petitioner’s motion to reinstate case to vacate an arbitral award on the basis that the court did not have an independent basis for jurisdiction because it had did not have either diversity or federal question jurisdiction over the case. 

• Diaz v. Popular Securities, LLC, No. 3:19-CV-01065-JAG (D.P.R. Apr. 12, 2021) 

  04/12/2021

  Court denied petitioner’s petition to vacate arbitration award and granted respondent’s cross-motion to confirm the award.  Court found that petitioner had failed to show fraud on the arbitral tribunal, partiality, or arbitrator misbehavior to justify vacating the award. 

• Balwin v. Beeche, No. 4:20-CV-00639-ALM (E.D. Tex. Apr. 12, 2021)

  04/12/2021

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration in a contract dispute.  Court held that the claims were within the scope of the arbitration agreement and plaintiffs could be compelled to arbitrate the case in Costa Rica. 

• Fort Washington Investment Advisors, Inc., v. Adkins, No. 1:19-CV-00685-DRC (S.D. Ohio Apr. 12, 2021)

  04/12/2021

  Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court rejected defendants’ arguments that equitable estoppel compelled arbitration and that plaintiff was an intended third-party beneficiary and therefore bound by the arbitration agreement. 

• National Oilwell Verco v. Smith International, Inc., No. 4:21-MC-00655 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 12, 2021) 

  04/12/2021

  Court denied plaintiffs’ motions for transfer and for appointment of a third arbitrator.  The court held that under the language of the parties’ agreement the court had discretion as to whether to choose a third arbitrator or to leave it to the AAA. 

• F.T. Maritime Services. Ltd., v. Lambda Shipholding Ltd., No. 1:20-CV-02111-ER (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2021) 

  04/12/2021

  Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration and appoint an arbitrator holding that plaintiff’s claim was barred by collateral estoppel.  Court went on to say that, even if the plaintiff’s claim was not collaterally estopped, it would fail on the merits because it was not clear that any version of plaintiff’s terms and conditions were incorporated into the agreement at issue. 

• JPaulJones, L.P. v. Zurich General Insurance Co. (China) Ltd., No. 3:20-CV-01767 (D. Or. Apr. 9, 2021)

  04/09/2021

  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens.  Court held that arbitration and forum selection clauses were valid, unambiguous, and did not violate plaintiff’s right to trial by jury under the Oregon Constitution.

• KPA Promotion Awards Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase Co., No. 1:20-CV-03910-NRB (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2021)

  04/08/2021

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the parties’ incorporation of the JAMS and AAA Rules constituted clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties intended to delegate issues of arbitrability to an arbitrator.  Accordingly, court declined to consider plaintiffs’ arguments regarding the scope of the arbitration agreement. 

• Rowland v. Sandy Morris Financial Estate Planning Services LLC, No. 20-1187 (4th Cir. Apr. 7, 2021)

  04/07/2021

  Court of appeals affirmed lower court order denying motion to compel arbitration, finding that the parties had not agreed to arbitrate where there were material differences between the versions of the contract signed by each party.  Court found that even though there was a delegation clause in the underlying arbitration agreement, the court continued to have a duty to decide threshold issues of contract formation.

• In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., No. 19-14097 (11th Cir. Apr. 07, 2021)

  04/07/2021

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s enforcement of arbitration clauses in the account agreements of five classes of former and current customers in a class action against a bank relating to overdraft fees.  Court held that gateway questions about unconscionability were not for the district court to decide because they had been delegated to the arbitrator under a delegation clause.

• Credit Suisse AG v. Graham, No. 1:21-CV-00951-LJL (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 2021)

  04/07/2021

  Court denied petitioners’ petition for an order enjoining arbitration and granted respondent’s motion to compel arbitration of claims arising out of a failed joint venture.  Court held that it should be up to the arbitrator and not the court to decide whether a second arbitration is barred by res judicata. 

• Hearn v. Comcast Cable Communications LLC, No. 19-14455 (11th Cir. Apr. 5, 2021)

  04/05/2021

  Court of appeals reversed lower court decision denying motion to compel arbitration, finding that an arbitration provision applying to all disputes “relating to [defendant]” was applicable where plaintiff’s claim pertained to the underlying agreement even where the dispute arose after the agreement was terminated.

• Norris v. Aon PLC, No.3:21-CV-00932-CRB (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2021)

  04/02/2021

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that the presence of a delegation clause constituted clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties intended gateway issues of arbitrability to be determined by an arbitrator.  

• Synopsys, Inc. v. Siemens Industry Software Inc., No. 3:20-CV-04151-WHO (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2021)

  04/02/2021

  Court denied defendants’ motion to stay arbitration under Section 3 of the FAA where the parties admitted that the conditions precedent to arbitration had not been met – thus staying or ordering arbitration would be premature.  Court noted that had there been a question of whether the conditions precedent had been met, this would be a question for an arbitrator under the parties’ agreement. 

• Chen v. Kyoto Sushi, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-07398-DLI-RER (E.D.N.Y. April 1, 2021) 

  04/01/2021

  Court denied motion to modify AAA arbitration award to include reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses.  Court found petitioner did not meet his burden to demonstrate the arbitrator made an evident material mistake by failing to award attorney’s fees or costs.

• Servotronics, Inc. v. Rolls-Royce PLC, No. 0:20-MC-00081-JRT-KMM (D. Minn. April 1, 2021) 

  04/01/2021

  Court sua sponte entered order staying the matter for an application to take discovery for use in foreign proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, pending Supreme Court’s review of the issue.