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
  • AtriCure, Inc. v. Dr. Jian Meng, No. 1:19-CV-00054-MPB (S.D. Ohio Nov. 4, 2019) 
    11/04/2019

    Court denied in part motion to stay all proceedings pending appeal to the sixth circuit court of appeals, considering the question of whether an appeal of a denial of a motion to compel arbitration automatically divests the district court of jurisdiction over all further proceedings in the matter. The court found that it retained discretionary jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction in the matter.

  • Metso Minerals Canada, Inc. v. Arcelormittal Exploitation Miniere Canada, No. 1:19-CV-03379-LAP (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2019) 
    11/04/2019

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award and denied cross-motion to vacate the award on the grounds of manifest disregard of the law. Court found that the FAA required great deference to the decision of the arbitration panel, and that respondents failed to demonstrate vacatur was proper under the circumstances.

  • Brice v. 7HBF No. 2 LTD., No. 19-CV-01481-WHO (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2019) 
    11/04/2019

    Court denied defendant’s motions to stay litigation and to compel arbitration where plaintiffs brought a variety of federal and state statutory claims relating to a lender’s rent-a-tribe scheme to evade state usury laws. Despite the presence of a provision in the arbitration agreement, expressly delegating the question of scope and enforceability to the arbitrator, the court found that arbitration agreement was unenforceable because it acted as a prospective waiver of plaintiffs’ statutory rights and remedies in contravention of public policy. 

  • Golden v. O’Melveny & Myers LLP, No. 2:14-CV-08725-CAS (C.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2019) 
    11/01/2019

    Court denied petitioners motion to vacate arbitration award based on arbitrator bias. The court found that the evident partiality standard of the FAA, 9 USC § 10(a)(2), did not require vacatur where: the arbitrator’s son had applied for work with both respondent and the firm representing respondent and been rejected; after closing arguments, the arbitrator was hired by respondent’s counsel on an unrelated litigation matter; and petitioner identified other rulings made by the arbitrator in the course of arbitration which were adverse to said party.

  • OI European Group B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 1;16-CV-01533-ABJ (D.D.C. Nov. 1, 2019) 
    11/01/2019

    Court granted motion to register judgement under 28 USC § 1963 and motion for leave to seek attachment and execution under 28 USC § 1610(c) for collection on an ICSID award rendered four-years prior. The court rejected Venezuela’s argument that five months was an unreasonably short period of time to wait to seek attachment against a foreign government under § 1610(c), and rejected the argument that plaintiff should not be allowed to seek attachment until such time as the political uncertainty relating to the power struggle between the Maduro and Guaido regimes is resolved. 

  • Davila v. UBS Financial Services Incorporated of Puerto Rico, Inc., No. 3:19-CV-01689-CCC (D.P.R. Nov. 1, 2019).
    11/01/2019

    Court granted unopposed motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss claims where financial services contract contained written agreement to Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitration. Court found that arbitration agreement was sufficiently broad to cover all of plaintiff’s causes of actions relating to UBS’s alleged mismanagement or breach of duties related to plaintiff’s accounts held with the firm. 

  • Robertson v. T-Mobile US, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-02567-RDB (D. Md. Nov. 1, 2019).
    11/01/2019

    Court granted petition to enforce a subpoena duces tecum issued by an AAA arbitrator against a non-party to the arbitration proceeding. Court found that arbitrator was authorized to issue the subpoena under §7 of the FAA and that the court had authority under the FAA to enforce the arbitrator’s subpoena, as petitioner had demonstrated that the information sought was integral to his claim and otherwise unavailable, giving rise to a special need for the information.

  • In Re Bio Energia Comercializadora de Energia LTDA., No. 1:19-MC-24497-BB (S.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 2019).
    11/01/2019

    Court granted ex parte application, pursuant to 28 USC §1782, for an order to serve subpoenas on two US-based executives for documents relevant to a pending arbitration seated in Sao Paulo. The court did not supply reasoning in its order, but noted that motions to quash the subpoenas may be addressed pursuant to the procedures set forth in the FRCP. 

  • Laccinole v. Trans Union Risk and Alternative Data Solutions, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-00221-JM-LDA (D.R.I. Oct. 31, 2019) 
    10/31/2019

    Court denied petition to compel arbitration against third party pursuant to a service agreement containing an arbitration provision. Court found that third party was not subject to the provisions of the service agreement, and thus could not be forced to arbitrate their dispute with petitioner. 

  • McGee v. Armstrong, No. 18-3886 (6th Cir. Oct. 29, 2019)
    10/29/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court decision granting defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, denying plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitration award, and granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment regarding plaintiff’s breach of contract claims.  In coming to its decision, court found that all questions of arbitrability must be referred to arbitration, the arbitrators did not exceed their powers by entering a decision on defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and plaintiff’s four-paragraph, conclusory affidavit in opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment did not establish any issue of material fact.

  • Martinez-Gonzales v. Elkhorn Packing Co., LLC, No. 3:18-CV-05226-EMC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2019)
    10/29/2019

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement was the product of both economic duress and undue influence.  Court found that plaintiff had no “reasonable alternative” but to sign the documents, as he reasonably believed he could not seek work with another employer, did not have another place to live should his employment with defendant end, and did not have his own means of transportation by which to return to Mexico.  Court also found that many of the factors of undue influence listed in Odorizzi v. Bloomfield Sch. Dist., 246 Cal. App. 2d 123 (Ct. App. 1996) were met, including that the presentation of new-hire documents came at an unusual or inappropriate time, the consummation of the contract occurred in an unusual place, defendant made insistent demands that the signing of the documents be completed rapidly, and there were no third-party advisors to assist the employees.

  • Terminal Properties, LLC v. 54 Chevy, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-01238-CAB (N.D. Ohio Oct. 29, 2019)
    10/29/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and ordered plaintiff to arbitrate his claims against defendant.  Court found that the arbitration provision was valid and binding and broad in scope as to cover the claims in the instant case.

  • Republic of Kazakhstan v. Lawler, No. 2:19-MC-00035-DWL (D. Ariz. Oct. 28, 2019)
    10/28/2019

    Court granted petitioner’s ex parte application under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for leave to serve a subpoena on respondent.  Court found that all three criteria under 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) were satisfied, as (i) Lawler resided in Arizona and had a business address in Arizona; (ii) the purpose of the application was to acquire information for use in an arbitration proceeding; and (iii) petitioner was a party to the arbitration at issue.  Court also found that the four discretionary factors listed in Supreme Court decision Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 264 (2004) weighed in favor of granting the application.

  • Hitchcock Independent School District v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, No. 3:19-CV-00198 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2019)
    10/28/2019

    Court approved and adopted the magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation recommending denial of plaintiff’s motion to remand certain removed claims.  Magistrate judge concluded that removal to federal court was proper under Section 205 of the NY Convention given that plaintiffs’ claims related to the arbitration clause and “easy removal is exactly what Congress intended.”

  • Hall v. Affordable Care, LLC, No. 4:19-CV-00335-ALM (E.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2019)
    10/28/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court noted that while the arbitration provision was susceptible to either a broad or narrow construction, it would nevertheless encompass plaintiffs’ fraudulent inducement claim.  Court also concluded that plaintiffs’ tortious interference claim fell within the scope of the arbitration provision.
     

  • Termini v. Group 1 Automotive, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-02196-KHV-JPO (D. Kan. Oct. 25, 2019)
    10/25/2019

    Court sustained plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that (i) the record contained sufficient evidence of an enforceable agreement to arbitration, (ii) defendants failed to demonstrate the clear and express mutual intention of both parties not to enforce the arbitration agreement, (iii) defendants failed to show that plaintiff intentionally relinquished or abandoned his right to arbitration, and (iv) defendants failed to satisfy its heavy burden of demonstrating that plaintiff’s conduct foreclosed his right to arbitration.

  • Larue v. Collateral Recovery Team LLC, No 4:19-CV-01039 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 25, 2019)
    10/25/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that the agreement’s language unambiguously demonstrated that the parties agreed to arbitrate and plaintiff’s claims were within the scope of the arbitration clause.  Court noted that even if the language of the arbitration agreement were ambiguous, the ambiguity would be resolved in favor of arbitration.

  • Atricure, Inc. v. Dr. Jian Meng, No. 1:19-CV-00054-MRB (S.D. Ohio Oct. 25, 2019)
    10/25/2019

    Court denied defendants’ motion for an immediate stay of all judicial proceedings pending international arbitration.  Court concluded that (i) defendants’ failure to challenge the availability of arbitration did not rise to the level of conduct found to constitute a waiver by the Sixth Circuit; (ii) defendants cannot enforce the arbitration provision via agency or estoppel theories and therefore defendants cannot invoke Section 3 of the FAA and a mandatory stay is not required; and (iii) a discretionary stay is not appropriate in light of the prejudice plaintiffs will suffer if a stay is granted.

  • Foss v. Spencer Brewery, No. 4:19-CV-40098-TSH (D. Mass. Oct. 25, 2019)
    10/25/2019

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court noted that plaintiff voluntarily filed two civil actions in the court system, and the court entered judgment against plaintiff in both actions.  Only then did plaintiff file a demand for arbitration.  Court concluded that, by choosing to litigate in the court system instead of demanding arbitration in the first instance, plaintiff waived her right to arbitration.

  • Sayre v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., No. 18-55411 (9th Cir. Oct. 24, 2019)
    10/24/2019

    Court of appeals reversed district court’s denial of a motion to vacate an arbitration award.  Court held that this was one of the rare cases that an award must be vacated based on the arbitrator’s arbitrary denial of a reasonable request for a postponement.  Court held that the arbitration panel’s denial of a continuance requested in light of plaintiff’s counsel’s medical emergency was arbitrary. 

  • Spok, Inc., v. Goel, No. 1:19-CV-02096-DSD-DTS (D. Minn. Oct. 24, 2019)
    10/24/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of claims related to a contract dispute.  Court held that where an arbitration agreement incorporates the AAA rules, it provides clear and mistakable evidence that the parties delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.  Court was not persuaded by plaintiff’s argument that because the arbitration agreement had mandated that certain disputes be resolved by the courts and not the arbitrators this showed that the parties did not intend to delegate all questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

  • Calzadillas, v. The Wonderful Company, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-00172-DAD-JLT (E.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2019)
    10/24/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of wage dispute claims for a putative class and dismissed the case.  After an opportunity for limited discovery, the plaintiff did not contend defendant’s evidence that it was a third party beneficiary of an agreement containing an arbitration provision. Thus court held that defendant as a third party beneficiary could enforce the arbitration agreement.

  • Baron v. Sprint Corporation, No. 1:19-CV-01255-JKB (D. Md. Oct. 24, 2019)
    10/24/2019

    Court granted each of four defendants’ motions to compel arbitration of putative class action claims related to major mobile carriers allegedly selling geolocation data.  Court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the arbitration clauses were substantively unconscionable under Maryland law because they would prevent plaintiffs from litigating as a class and would allow defendants to escape public scrutiny.  Court found that pursuant to Supreme Court and fourth circuit precedent, it may not invalidate an arbitration clause on a theory that features inherent to arbitration are unconscionable. 

  • Morrison v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 1:19-CV-01257-JKB (D. Md. Oct. 24, 2019)
    10/24/2019

    Court granted each of four defendants’ motions to compel arbitration of putative class action claims related to major mobile carriers allegedly selling geolocation data.  Court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the arbitration clauses were substantively unconscionable under Maryland law because they would prevent plaintiffs from litigating as a class and would allow defendants to escape public scrutiny.  Court found that pursuant to Supreme Court and fourth circuit precedent, it may not invalidate an arbitration clause on a theory that features inherent to arbitration are unconscionable. 

  • Morrison v. Verizon Communications Inc., No. 1:19-CV-01298-JKB (D. Md. Oct. 24, 2019)
    10/24/2019

    Court granted each of four defendants’ motions to compel arbitration of putative class action claims related to major mobile carriers allegedly selling geolocation data.  Court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the arbitration clauses were substantively unconscionable under Maryland law because they would prevent plaintiffs from litigating as a class and would allow defendants to escape public scrutiny.  Court found that pursuant to Supreme Court and fourth circuit precedent, it may not invalidate an arbitration clause on a theory that features inherent to arbitration are unconscionable. 

  • Ray v. T-Mobile US, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-01299-JKB (D. Md. Oct. 24, 2019)
    10/24/2019

    Court granted each of four defendants’ motions to compel arbitration of putative class action claims related to major mobile carriers allegedly selling geolocation data.  Court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the arbitration clauses were substantively unconscionable under Maryland law because they would prevent plaintiffs from litigating as a class and would allow defendants to escape public scrutiny.  Court found that pursuant to Supreme Court and fourth circuit precedent, it may not invalidate an arbitration clause on a theory that features inherent to arbitration are unconscionable.  

  • Dowdy v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-01386-SAG (D. Md. Oct. 24, 2019)
    10/24/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of claims related to the purchase of a used vehicle.  Court rejected all of plaintiffs four arguments: 1) that the claims were related to a different agreement than the agreement that contained the arbitration provision; 2) defendant could not enforce the arbitration provision because defendant was an assignee, not the original signatory; 3) defendant cannot enforce the arbitration provision because defendant assigned the agreement upon which plaintiff’s claim is based to another party; and 4) when the district court dismissed an earlier case against plaintiff, it extinguished the rights under that agreement, including the right to compel arbitration.

  • Johnson, v. SSC Houston Northwest Operating Company LLC, No. 4:19-CV-01221 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 23, 2019)
    10/23/2019

    Court granted defendant’s unopposed motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s medical negligence claims.  Court agreed with magistrate judge’s opinion that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate and that these claims were within the scope of that agreement.

  • Peterson v. Minerva Surgical, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-02050-KHV-TJJ (D. Kans. Oct. 23, 2019)
    10/23/2019

    Court granted defendants motion to compel arbitration of employment discrimination claims related to plaintiff’s disability.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration provision was procedurally unconscionable because it was a contract of adhesion, finding the contract was governed by California law and that under California law, adhesion contracts are not procedurally unconscionable without some additional procedural deficiency.  Court also found that plaintiff’s argument that the forum selection clause was substantively unconscionable did not challenge the arbitration agreement specifically and thus the arbitration agreement should be enforced.

  • Lagsit v. International Coffee and Tea LLC, No. 19-55143 (9th Cir. Oct. 23, 2019)
    10/23/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of a motion to vacate an arbitration award, and its confirmation of the award. Court agreed with the district court that the petitioner failed to establish any of the limited grounds on which an arbitration award may be vacated.

  • Plummer v. McSweeney, No. 18-03059 (8th Cir. Oct. 23, 2019)
    10/23/2019

    Court of appeals reversed and remanded district court’s refusal to enforce an arbitration provision between a law firm and its client. District court refused to enforce arbitration because they found that the agreement to arbitrate was substantively and procedurally unconscionable.  Court found that defendant’s post hoc offer to pay plaintiff’s arbitration costs cured the substantive unconscionability, and that the agreement was not procedurally unconscionable merely because there was time pressure put on plaintiff and the plaintiff did not read the agreement.

  • Edward Jones & Co., v. Martin, No. 2:19-CV-06776-AB-KS (C.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2019)
    10/23/2019

    Court granted an unopposed motion to confirm an arbitration award rendered in a FINRA arbitration.  The judgment incorporated the arbitrators ruling, finding that the claimant did not meet the burden of proof to establish their claims.

  • Chicago Insurance Company, v. General Reinsurance Corporation, No. 1:18-CV-10450 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2019)
    10/22/2019

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings of a different arbitration. Court reasoned that the arbitration panel constituted in a previous dispute between the parties had retained jurisdiction for any dispute related to the final award.  Court therefore rejected plaintiff’s argument that the prior arbitration panel’s authority over the dispute had ended pursuant to the doctrine of functus officio.  Court found that the question of whether the present dispute was related to the previous award, and therefore within the jurisdiction of the previous arbitration panel was a question for the arbitrators to decide.

  • St. Theresa Specialty Hospital, LLC v. Indian Harbor Insurance, No. 2:19-CV-12126-MLCF-JCW (E.D. La. Oct. 22, 2019)
    10/22/2019

    Court granted defendant’s unopposed motion to compel arbitration pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 206.  Court further compelled plaintiff to produce certain documents in aid of arbitration within 30 days and appointed an arbitrator.  Court reasoned that the contract allowed for the party seeking arbitration to appoint the arbitrator if the responding party failed to respond within 30 days.

  • Kiawah Island Utility, Inc. v. Westport Insurance Corporation, No. 1:19-CV-09775-JGK (D.S.C. Oct. 22, 2019)
    10/22/2019

    Court granted defendants motion to compel arbitration and transferred the dispute to the S.D.N.Y. so that arbitration could be compelled in New York City as called for in the arbitration agreement.  Court found that because plaintiff sought a declaration that it was entitled to coverage under an insurance policy, under the theory of direct benefit estoppel plaintiff could not avoid the arbitration clause in the policy merely because it was not a signatory.  Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that South Carolina state law prevented the court from enforcing a forum selection clause outside of the state, finding that the FAA preempts state law.

  • Norred v. Cotton Patch Café, LLC, No. 3:19-CV-01010-G (N.D. Tex. Oct. 22, 2019)
    10/22/2019

    Court granted defendants motion to compel arbitration of a dispute related to the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the arbitration provision was not valid because plaintiffs did not assent to it and there was no consideration.  Court found a notice signed by plaintiffs incorporated the arbitration provision by reference, and that the mutual promise to arbitrate was valid consideration.  Court also rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the promise to arbitrate was illusory, finding that under Texas law only arbitration provisions that require arbitration from one party while giving the other party the option of whether or not to arbitrate are illusory. 

  • Scott Environmental Services, Inc. v. Newfield Exploration Company, No. 2:19-CV-00026-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex. Oct. 22, 2019)
    10/22/2019

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of claims related to the alleged breach of a non-disclosure agreement. Court held that under Texas contract law, the parties had not agreed to arbitrate disputes under the NDA.

  • In Re Papa John’s Employee and Franchise Employee Antitrust Litigation, No. 3:18-CV-00825-JHM-RSE (W.D. Ken. Oct. 21, 2019)
    10/21/2019

    Court of appeals reversed and vacated a district court’s affirming of an arbitration award, and award of post-arbitration fees.  Court found that the district court erred in confirming the award because the arbitrator was a co-owner of JAMS and therefor has an ongoing business relationship with Monster who is a repeat player at arbitration and that this rendered the arbitrator potentially biased.  Judge Friedland dissented, arguing that this sort of information would not have made a material biases in an evaluation of the arbitrator’s bias.

  • Williams v. Eaze Solutions , Inc., No. 3:18-CV-02598-JD (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2019)
    10/21/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of claims related to a marijuana company’s alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that because the defendant’s business was illegal under federal law, a contract was never formed between the parties.  Court found that illegality merely renders a contract void, it does not negate formation, and that the arbitration provision is severable form a voided contract. Court further found that the contract delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, and thus refused to consider plaintiff’s arguments past the formation issue.


  • Byars, v. Dart Transit Company, No. 3:19-CV-00541 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 21, 2019)
    10/21/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of putative class claims related to a wage dispute.  Court considered two arguments plaintiff made as to the validity of the arbitration provision, first that the potential pool of arbitrators and the arbitration rules were biased in favor of defendants and second that the arbitration provisions were unconscionable. Court rejected these arguments finding that a party cannot avoid arbitration merely by alleging that an arbitration panel will be biased before the panel is constituted, and that the contract was not unconscionable merely because it was a contract of adhesion.

  • Chang v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-02091-LAP (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2019)
    10/21/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of claims related alleged discrimination.  Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration provisions expired when plaintiff singed a new agreement, that the provisions were unconscionable, that defendant could not enforce because it was not a signatory to the arbitration agreement, and that the claims were outside the scope of the arbitration clause. Court found that the arbitration provision had a survivability clause and that the new agreement signed by plaintiff indicated that certain obligations would survive from the previous agreement.  Court further held that Defendant could enforce the agreement as a non-signatory under the theory of estoppel.

  • Hearn v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-01198-TWT (N.D. Ga. Oct. 21, 2019)
    10/21/2019

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of a class action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.  Court found that the dispute was not tied to the parties’ agreement and declined to enforce the broad language that referred any claim “related to” the defendant to arbitration.  Court said that this was an issue of contract interpretation and that no reasonable customer would have understood himself to be signing over his right to pursue any claim against defendant in perpetuity by signing a service agreement.

  • Barone v. LAZ Parking Ltd, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-01545-VLB (D. Conn. Oct. 20, 2019)
    10/20/2019

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of wage dispute claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  While court found that defendant had not waived the right to compel arbitration by not raising it at the conditional certification stage. Court found that because the class had not yet been identified it was not possible to consider whether the individual members had signed arbitration agreements that precluded class resolution of their claims, but noted that the defendant could raise the issue again at the second stage of the certification process.

  • Eaton Partners, LLC v. Azimuth Capital Management IV, Ltd., No. 1:18-CV-11112-ER (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2019) 
    10/18/2019

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award and denied respondent’s motion to vacate the award, finding that the arbitrator was not guilty of misconduct when he excluded evidence from an unavailable witness – as arbitrators enjoy latitude under the AAA Rules to exclude evidence that is cumulative or irrelevant.  Court denied respondent’s request to enter judgment in its favor, finding that courts may not review an arbitrator’s decision on the merits. 

  • O’Shaugnessy v. Young Living Essential Oils, LC, No. 1:19-CV-00412-LY (W.D. Tex. Oct. 18, 2019)
    10/18/2019

    Court denied defendants’ motions to compel arbitration, finding that the conflicting nature of the forum selection clause and arbitration clause of the underlying contract demonstrated that there was no meeting of the minds with regard to arbitration.  Court rejected defendants’ argument that the forum selection clause only dealt with those claims not subject to arbitration, finding that no language in the contract supported defendants’ interpretation.

  • Entes Industrial Plants, Construction and Erection Contraction Co. Inc. v. The Kyrgyz Republic, No. 1:18-CV-02228-RC (D.D.C. Oct. 17, 2019)
    10/17/2019

    Court granted in part petitioner’s petition to confirm an arbitration award and denied respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition for forum non conveniens, finding that courts should not dismiss a petition when a foreign entity attempts to enforce an award against another foreign entity that might hold property in the United States.  Court rejected petitioner’s argument that a forum non conveniens defense is necessarily precluded in actions to enforce an award under the New York Convention because it is not listed as one of the limited grounds to deny enforcement.  Court requested additional briefing on the question of whether the sovereign respondent was an appropriate party to the action when it did not sign the arbitration agreement.

  • Strange v. Select Management Resources, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-00321-CCF-JFP (M.D.N.C. Oct. 17, 2019)
    10/17/2019

    Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration as to a non-signatory defendant, finding that the non-signatory was merely an affiliate company of the other defendants and that no additional evidence supported binding the non-signatory to the arbitration agreement.  Court compelled arbitration with respect to all signatory defendants.

  • 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.

View All