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

• Taylor v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-04526 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 15, 2020)

  03/19/2020

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendants had not waived right to arbitration by filing motion to compel arbitration only four months after they had removed case to federal court, and after they had participated in Rule 16 conference. Court also found that arbitration agreement was not non-mutual or unconscionable. 

• Asia Maritime Pacific Chartering Ltd. v. A. Cayume Hakh & Sons, No. 1:19-CV-24919-BB (S.D. Fla. Mar. 16, 2020)

  03/19/2020

  Court construed motion to dismiss as a motion to compel arbitration and granted motion, finding that defendant had not waived right to arbitrate by requesting a dismissal of the complaint instead of filing a motion to compel arbitration. Court held that although defendant had filed a motion to dismiss, it was more properly viewed as a motion to compel arbitration. Court also held that defendant had not waived its right to arbitration because defendant’s conduct had not been inconsistent with the right to arbitration, nor had defendant substantially invoked the litigation machinery.

• Boss Worldwide LLC v. Beau Crabill, No. 7:19-CV-02363-VB (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2020)

  03/19/2020

  Court construed motion to dismiss as a motion to compel arbitration and granted motion, finding that the statutory claims under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. § 512(f) fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and that there was no indication that Congress precluded such claims from arbitration.

• Card v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 3:19-CV-1515-SI (D. Or. Mar. 16, 2020)

  03/19/2020

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that there was a genuine dispute of material fact over the existence of the arbitration agreement since defendant had not established, among others, that the customer agreements containing the arbitration agreement had been delivered to plaintiff or brought to plaintiff’s attention. Court directed an evidentiary hearing to determine whether a valid arbitration agreement existed.

• Arena v. Intuit Inc., No. 3:19-CV-02546-CRB (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2020)

  03/19/2020

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding that defendant’s terms of service were too inconspicuous to give plaintiffs constructive notice of the arbitration provision, and thus there was no agreement to the provision.

• Christmas Lumber Company, Inc. v. NWH Roof & Floor Truss Systems, LLC, No. 3:19-CV-00055-HBG (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 12, 2020)

  03/19/2020

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the agreement containing the arbitration provision was separate from the contract under which plaintiff’s claims were brought.  Court found that the arbitration agreement made no reference to the disputed contract and thus that plaintiff’s claims were not subject to arbitration.

• First National Petroleum Corporation v. OAO Tyumenneftegaz, No. 4:19-CV-00097 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 12, 2020)

  03/19/2020

  Court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and denied petitioner’s petition to confirm an arbitral award where responded was a Russian oil company subject to an agreement and joint venture in Russia to develop a Russian oil field.  Court found that notwithstanding respondent’s visits to Houston, the “hub of the parties’ activities” was outside of Texas.  Court further found that the New York Convention did not prevent the court from refusing to confirm an award for lack of personal jurisdiction. 

• Brickstructures, Inc. v. Coaster Dynamix, Inc., No. 19-2187 (7th Cir. Mar. 11, 2020)

  03/19/2020

  Court of appeals affirmed judgment denying motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendant’s withdrawal of an arbitration demand in response to plaintiff’s threat of sanctions constituted a waiver of defendant’s right to arbitrate. 

• Marroquin v. Dan Ryan Builders Mid-Atlantic, LLC, No. 5:19-CV-00083-EKD (W.D. Va. Mar. 11, 2020)

  03/19/2020

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding that an arbitration clause which allowed defendant to initiate arbitration in any United States jurisdiction was not sufficiently one-sided to be considered unconscionable. 

• Vinjarapu v. Gadiyaram, No. 1:19-CV-03306-ADC (D. Md. Mar. 11, 2020)

  03/19/2020

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration finding that nonsignatory defendants had an independent right to compel plaintiff’s claims to arbitration when the claims related to the operation of the contract containing the arbitration agreement. Court additionally found that the issue of whether the arbitration agreement was entered into fraudulently was for the arbitrator to decide. 

• Drasal v. Pilot Traveling Centers, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-00981-KWR-CG (D.N.M. Mar. 10, 2020)

  03/19/2020

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding that a valid arbitration agreement existed when, inter alia, plaintiff signed other documents contingent on assent to the arbitration agreement and plaintiff performed under the employment contract containing the arbitration clause. 

• Leja v. Brosseau Management Co., LLC, No. 3:19-CV-00269-BAJ-EWD (M.D. La. Mar. 10, 2020)

  03/19/2020

  Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration finding, inter alia, that defendants waived their right to arbitrate by ignoring correspondence from plaintiff seeking to initiate arbitration proceedings. 

• Federico v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, No. 1:20-CV-00027-DAP (N.D. Ohio Mar. 9, 2020)

  03/19/2020

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff’s claims were arbitrable when there was a mutual waiver of trial rights.  Court additionally found that plaintiff’s claims against a nonsignatory of the arbitration agreement were arbitrable when there was an agency relationship between the signatory defendant and the nonsignatory defendant.

• Whispering Pines West Condominium Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 1:19-CV-03238-REB-MEH (D. Colo. Mar. 6, 2020)

  03/19/2020

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that language submitting disputes “regarding any aspect of this Policy” covered the plaintiff’s statutory claims.  Court found that where the parties did not expressly agree to arbitrate arbitrability, the issue of arbitrability was one for the court.

• Herskovic v. Verizon Wireless, No. 1:19-CV-03372-AMD-RML (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2020)

  03/19/2020

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding, inter alia, that reference to the FAA evidences that parties’ intent for the Act to apply to the arbitration agreement. Court additionally found that defendant’s removal of the case to federal court was not sufficient participation in litigation to constitute waiver of the right to arbitrate.

• Compañía de Inversiones Mercantiles S.A. v. Grupo Cementos De Chihuahua de C.V., No. 1:15-CV-02120-JLK (D. Colo. Mar. 25, 2019)

  03/19/2020

  Court granted petition to confirm foreign arbitral award, finding that the merits award had not been set aside in the seat of the arbitration, and that the damages award was binding and enforceable notwithstanding the ongoing challenge to the award in the seat of the arbitration. Court found that the circumstances did not warrant the grant of a stay against enforcement pending the challenge to the damages award. 

• Roberts v. Harley Davidson Financial Services, Inc., No. 4:19-CV-00841-SRB (W.D. Mo. Feb. 13, 2020)

  02/13/2020

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding no reason to reopen state court’s prior dismissal of motion to compel arbitration. Prior to removal of case to federal court, defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration, which was dismissed by state court. Defendant did not appeal against state court’s decision. Defendant filed a second motion to compel arbitration after removal. Court held that, in view of law-of-the-case doctrine, it would not exercise its discretion to reopen state court’s prior order.

• Marbaker v. Statoil USA Onshore Properties, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01528 (3d Cir. Feb. 13, 2020)

  02/13/2020

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of motion to compel class arbitration, finding that bilateral arbitration clause in lease agreement between defendant and plaintiffs did not provide consent necessary for court to compel class arbitration to resolve disputes across multiple similar leases as a class.

• Calderon v. Sixt Rent A Car, LLC, No. 0:19-CV-6408-AHS (S.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2020)

  02/12/2020

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that arbitration agreement did not bind defendant car rental companies. One plaintiff reserved and rented a car from defendants through a website operated by a third party. Court found that arbitration agreement in terms of use between third party and the plaintiff did not bind defendants, who were not party to terms of use.

• Abgara v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, No. 1:19-CV01823-TSC (D.D.C. Feb. 11, 2020)

  02/11/2020

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff’s negligence claim and statutory claim under the Cable Communications Policy Act fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement between plaintiff and defendants.

• Petersen-Dean, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA., No. 1:19-CV-11299-AKH (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2020)

  02/11/2020

  Court denied motion to vacate prehearing security award granted by arbitral tribunal, finding that the arbitral tribunal was authorized to award interim security, and that it had properly exercised its power to do so.

• PolyOne Corporation v. Westlake Vinyls, Inc., No. 5:19-CV00121-TBR (W.D. Ky. Feb. 11, 2020)

  02/11/2020

  Court denied motion to vacate arbitration award and granted motion to confirm, finding that the arbitral tribunal had not exceeded their power or decided the matter in manifest disregard of the law, nor was the arbitration award contrary to public policy.

• Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Earth Construction Corp., No. 1:19-CV-05411-ALC (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2020)

  02/10/2020

  Court granted unopposed petition to confirm arbitration award, finding that there was at least a ‘barely colorable’ justification for each component of the arbitrator’s award. Court also granted claim for pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

• Jolen, Inc. v. Kundan Rice Mills, Ltd., No. 1:19-CV-01296-PKC (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2020)

  02/10/2020

  Court granted unopposed petition to confirm arbitration award, finding that arbitrator’s decision was well-grounded in fact and law.

• Climbzone, LLC v. Clifford Washington, No. 8:18-CV-02732-GJH (D. Md. Feb. 10, 2020)

  02/10/2020

  Court granted unopposed motion to confirm arbitration award, finding that, although plaintiff filed its complaint nearly three years after arbitration award was entered, defendant’s failure to appear resulted in its forfeiture any statute of limitations-based defense defendant may have had to the enforcement of the arbitration award, to the extent that one was available.

• PNY Technologies, Inc. v. Netac Technology Co., Ltd., No. 2-13-CV-06799 (3d Cir. Feb. 10, 2020)

  02/10/2020

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to confirm arbitral award. Court rejected appellant’s contentions that arbitrator’s damages figure was completely irrational and that arbitration manifestly disregarded the law, finding that appellant had failed to meet the high standard for court intervention.

• Troia v. Tinder, Inc., No. 4:19-CV-01647-RLW (E.D. Mo. Feb. 10, 2020)

  02/10/2020

  Court granted motion to compel individual arbitration, finding that claims against Tinder for discriminatory pricing and use of unconscionable contract provisions were arbitral, and that question of whether enforcement of arbitration agreement was unconscionable had been delegated to arbitrator. Court held that plaintiff was bound by arbitration agreement in the terms of use, which plaintiff had agreed to when creating his account.

• TIG Insurance Company v. American Home Assurance Company, No. 1:18-CV-10183-VSB (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2020)

  02/07/2020

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that dispute between plaintiff and two of three defendants fell within scope of broad arbitration agreement between those parties. Court stayed action against remaining defendant, which was not party to the arbitration agreement, pending completion of arbitration.

• Neubauer-Perkins, Inc. v. Jason Walters & Associates, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-00821 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 7, 2020)

  02/07/2020

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendant (“Associates”) was bound by arbitration agreement in related contracts between plaintiffs and other defendants. Even though contract between plaintiffs and Associates contained a forum selection clause requiring all litigation to proceed in the state or federal courts in Cook County, court found that it could not have been the intent of the parties to require plaintiffs to pursue claims against Associates in federal court while they pursued same theories of liability against other defendants under related contracts in arbitration.

• Edmonds v. Nexus RV LLC, No. 2:19-CV-05348-JCJ (E.D. Pa. Feb. 7, 2020)

  02/07/2020

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that dispute between plaintiff purchaser and defendant dealer fell within arbitration clause in contract of sale.

• Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. Becerra, No. 2:19-CV-02456-KJM-DB (E.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2020)

  02/07/2020

  Court granted preliminary injunction restraining state officials from enforcing California Assembly Bill 51 (“AB 51”), which was signed into law on October 10, 2019, finding that there was a serious question whether the challenged statute was preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). AB 51 prohibited California employers from requiring prospective and current employees to “waive any right, forum, or procedure” for a violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act or the California Labor Code. Court found that plaintiffs had discharged their burden of showing that there were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that AB 51 was preempted by the FAA, and that the circumstances were appropriate for the grant of preliminary injunctive relief.

• In re Bio Energias Comercializadora de energia LTDA, No. 1:19-CV-24497 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2020)

  01/31/2020

  Court granted respondent’s motion to quash a subpoena issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to obtain discovery in aid of an arbitration in Brazil.  While court assumed that the foreign arbitration qualified as a foreign or international tribunal, it found that the Intel factors weighed in favor of quashing the subpoenas.

• Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company v. Anthem, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-03589 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 31, 2020)

  01/31/2020

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings and granted plaintiff’s motion to stay the arbitration.  Court found that the agreement obligated the parties to submit their dispute to only one of two possible methods of ADR, and having submitted the dispute to mediation, defendant could not now also compel plaintiffs to arbitrate. Court further found that there was a question of fact as to whether the parties’ participation in mediation in a forum different from that specified in their agreement modified the agreement, thus they could not grant the motion to compel under the summary judgment standard. 

• Kelch v. Pyramid Hotel Group, No. 1:18-CV-00707-TSB (S.D. Ohio Jan. 30, 2020)

  01/30/2020

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case.  Plaintiff did not oppose the motion to compel arbitration but argued that the case should be stayed rather than dismissed.  Court disagreed and held that because all claims were subject to arbitration, dismissal was appropriate.

• Benson v. Double Down Interactive, LLC, No. 18-36015 (9th Cir. Jan. 29, 2020)

  01/29/2020

  Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of putative class claims related to the downloading through the Apple app store and playing of a mobile game.  Court found that under Washington state law the terms of use containing the arbitration provision were not sufficiently conspicuous to give a reasonably prudent user constructive notice and thus there was no mutual assent to arbitrate.

• Trawick v. McCuthchen, No. 2:19-CV-01199-ACA (N.D. Ala. Jan. 29, 2020)

  01/29/2020

  Court granted petition to confirm an arbitration award and denied motion to vacate.  Court rejected respondent’s arguments that the arbitrators had exceeded their authority by denying a motion to dismiss claims which respondent argued were untimely, holding that even if the arbitrators made a mistake this is not a basis for vacatur.  Court further rejected respondent’s argument that participation of the chair of the arbitration panel in a “mock arbitration” biased him against respondent.

• Borror Property Management, LLC v. Oro Karric North, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-04375-ALM-EPD (D. Ohio Jan. 29, 2020)

  01/29/2020

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, holding that defendants had waived their right to compel arbitration when they wrote to plaintiff threatening to sue and indicated that their reading of the arbitration agreement did not “limit litigation exclusively to arbitration.”  Defendants’ letter further invited plaintiff to waive any right it had to compel arbitration.  Court found that it would prejudice plaintiffs to allow defendants to invoke the arbitration provisions.

• Falkner v. Dolgencorp, LLC., No. 2:19-CV-00598-GMB (N.D. Ala. Jan. 29, 2020)

  01/29/2020

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings of various tort claims against plaintiff’s former employer.  Court rejected plaintiff’s contention that she had not seen or signed an arbitration agreement, finding that there was no dispute of material fact after considering the evidence of an initialed agreement provided by defendant.

• Villa v. Gruma Corporation, No. 1:19-CV-01721-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2020)

  01/28/2020

  Court granted defendant’s unopposed motion to compel arbitration and dismiss a wrongful termination claim.  Court found that defendant met its burden in demonstrating that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed and covered the dispute at issue.  Court further found that because all claims were subject to arbitration, dismissal was appropriate.

• Teverbaugh v. Lima One Capital, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-00159-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss. Jan. 28, 2020)

  01/28/2020

  Court denied an unopposed motion to confirm an arbitration award awarded by SITCOMM Arbitration Association.  Court found that it could not confirm an award where petitioner had failed to attach the underlying agreement to arbitrate, as required by the FAA, since it could not determine if the award was made pursuant to a valid agreement.  Court further threatened petitioner with Rule 11 Sanctions if she submitted an agreement to arbitrate similar to one recently discussed in Imperial Industrial Supply Company v. Thomas, a case involving the same suspect arbitrators who issued petitioners award.

• Laborers’ Local Union Nos. 472 & 172  v. Tarheel Enterprises, Inc., No. 3:19-CV-20624-AET-LHG (D.N.J. Jan. 28, 2020)

  01/28/2020

  Court granted unopposed motion to confirm arbitration award.  Court found that pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 9, it must confirm an arbitration award “[i]f the parties in their agreement have agreed that a judgment of the court shall be entered upon the award made pursuant to the arbitration.” 
  

• UBS Securities LLC, v. Prowse, No. 1:20-CV-00217 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2020)

  01/27/2020

  Court granted a preliminary injunction and a petition to compel arbitration, preventing respondent from pursuing claims under Section 120 of New York’s compensation law.  Court rejected respondent’s argument that the employment agreement was unconscionable and therefore unenforceable.  Court further found that the question of whether the Section 120 claims were within the scope of the agreement had been clearly and unmistakably delegated to the arbitrators.

• Capone v. Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company, No. 19-3760 (6th Cir. Jan. 27, 2020)

  01/27/2020

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s granting of defendant’s motion to dismiss claims that had previously been resolved in arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff was seeking a vacatur of the previous arbitration award and that there were no grounds for vacating the award.

• Republic of Kazakhstan v. Lawler, No. 2:20-CV-00090-DWL (D. Ariz. Jan. 27, 2020)

  01/27/2020

  Court granted a motion to quash a subpoena previously authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 1782.  Court noted that Kazakhstan was involved in a dispute under a BIT and was looking for information regarding whether a Nevada corporation was controlled by non-U.S. nationals which may preclude the corporation from asserting claims under the BIT.  Court held that because the petition to serve the subpoena was granted on an ex parte basis with the understanding that the subpoenaed party would be free to challenge it, the court should reexamine the § 1782 factors in considering the motion to quash. Court considered the Intel factors and found that they weighed in favor of granting the motion to quash.

• Willis  v. Fitbit, Inc., No. 3:19-CV-01377 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2020)

  01/27/2020

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration agreements were procedurally and substantively unconscionable, that the language in the parties’ agreements evidenced a clear an unmistakable intent to delegate threshold issues like arbitrability to the arbitrators, and the arguments related to unconscionability were not specific to the delegation provision.

• Novenergia II – Energy & Environment (SCA) v. The Kingdom of Spain, No. 1:18-CV-01148-TSC (D. D.C. Jan. 27, 2020)

  01/27/2020

  Court granted respondent’s motion to stay the proceedings of an action seeking to enforce a € 53.3 million SCC arbitral award issued against the Kingdom of Spain.  Court did not decide whether it had jurisdiction, holding that this question was dependent on a determination of whether the parties decided to arbitrate their dispute which, in turn, was currently the question before an appellate court in Sweden. Thus, without deciding whether the court had jurisdiction, the court determined that the principals of judicial economy and international comity weighed in favor of granting a stay.  Court further found that because it had not ruled on its own jurisdiction, it could not grant petitioner’s request that respondent be required to post a bond for the amount of the award under the New York Convention.

• Summers Laboratories, Inc. v. Shionogi Inc., No. 1:19-CV-02754-AT (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2020)

  01/27/2020

  Court granted motion to confirm an arbitration award and denied respondent’s petition to partially vacate the award with respect to attorney’s fees.  Court rejected respondent’s arguments that claims for attorney’s fees were not set forth in petitioner’s demand for arbitration, that the panel exceeded its authority, and that the agreement allowing for attorney’s fees had become void.  Court also awarded post-award pre-judgment interest at nine percent per annum.

• Wainwright v. Melaleuca, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-02330-JAM-DB (E.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2020)

  01/27/2020

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss a putative class action alleging violations of the California labor code.  Court found that the contract clearly delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

• MGP Electronics, Inc. v. Electronic Design & Sales, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-00483-HAB-SLC (D. Ind. Jan. 24, 2020)

  01/24/2020

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration of defendant’s counterclaims and stayed the proceedings.  Parties agreed a valid arbitration agreement governed the contract, and court rejected defendant’s argument that it’s counterclaim for defamation arose after the agreement was terminated and was thus outside the scope of the arbitration clause.  Court found that the alleged defamation arose from the parties business relationship which was subject to the arbitration agreement. 

• Katz v. The Rittenhouse Organization, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-00546-MN (D. Del. Jan. 23, 2020)

  01/23/2020

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding that plaintiff’s claims must be arbitrated when the agreement provided that either party may request arbitration, and rejecting plaintiff’s argument that his claims must be litigated because he chose litigation in lieu of arbitration.