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

• Goulart v. Edgewell Personal Care Co., No. 4:19-CV-02559-SEP (E.D. Mo. June 4, 2020)

  06/04/2020

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration finding that: (1) plaintiff assented to the arbitration agreement when making a purchase on defendants’ website and (2) the parties’ incorporation of the JAMS Rules indicated clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties intended to arbitrate the issue of arbitrability.

• Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 19-01833 (2d Cir. June 4, 2020)

  06/04/2020

  Court of appeals affirmed district court judgment granting a motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the case.  Court found that plaintiff was bound to the arbitration agreement when he was on inquiry notice of the agreement by making various purchases.  Court found that plaintiff’s challenge of the validity of the contract was not a threshold issue of arbitrability, and thus should be considered by the arbitrator in the first instance.

• Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Inc. v. The Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Venezuela, No. 1:02-CV-00785-HSO-RHW (S.D. Miss. June 4, 2020)

  06/04/2020

  Court granted plaintiff’s request for entry of final judgment on a confirmed arbitration award, finding that plaintiff was entitled to a judgment in the full amount of the award notwithstanding amounts already paid to plaintiff on behalf of defendant.

• Rizvi v. BMW of North America LLC, No. 5:20-CV-00229-EJD (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2020)

  06/04/2020

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding that: (1) plaintiff assented to the arbitration provision contained in a lease agreement when he entered into a lease transfer agreement and (2) a third party beneficiary to the lease agreement was entitled to compel arbitration.

• Union Fenosa Gas, S.A. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, No. 1:18-CV-02395-JEB (D.D.C. June 4, 2020)

  06/04/2020

  Court granted defendant’s motion to stay and set aside entry of default and denied plaintiff’s motion for default judgment of an ICSID Award under appeal, finding inter alia that: (1) the possibility that the award will be annulled was more than wishful thinking and (2) the balance of hardships favored defendant due to the burden it would face by having to attack the validity of the award in two forums.

• Jordan v. Sugartree Homes Association of Louis County, No. 4:19-CV-02144-JAR (W.D. Mo. June 3, 2020)

  06/03/2020

  Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding inter alia that plaintiffs’ claims were subject to arbitration.  Court found that defendants did not waive their right to arbitrate when they did not file any motions other than the motion to dismiss, nor did they undertake any discovery.  Consequently, court found that defendants acted consistently with the right to arbitrate.

• Action Industries, Inc. v. Innophos, Inc., No. 3:19-CV-00509-BAJ-RLB (M.D. La. June 3, 2020)

  06/03/2020

  Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed upon accepting a purchase order incorporating by reference a company’s terms and conditions which contained an arbitration provision.

• Wang v. NYZ Management Services, LLC, No. 3:19-CV-00064-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C. June 3, 2020)

  06/03/2020

  Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, finding that the presence of a clause permitting litigation in North Carolina state and federal courts did not preempt the application of a broad arbitration clause.  Court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the arbitration.

• Teco Guatemala Holdings, LLC v. Republic of Guatemala, No. 1:17-CV-00102-RDM (D.D.C. June 2, 2020)

  06/02/2020

  Court granted an order for petitioner execute US property of a foreign sovereign under Section 1610(c) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, finding that a period of six months after the court entered final judgment was sufficient to satisfy the requirement under Section 1610(c) that a “reasonable period of time” pass before execution can be issued.

• DSNR Media Group Ltd. v. Vdopia, Inc., No. 3:19-CV-07833-WHO (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2020)

  06/02/2020

  Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss finding that plaintiffs’ claims for provisional relief and pre-judgment attachment were arbitrable when specifically the arbitration agreement specifically granted the arbitrator the power to grant temporary and provisional relief.

• Lobster 207, LLC v. Pettegrow, No. 1:19-CV-00552-LEW (D. Me. June 1, 2020)

  06/01/2020

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding that plaintiff’s breach of contract claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.  Court found that defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate when it filed its motion to compel arbitration four months after the Complaint was filed. 

• GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS Corp. v. Outokumpu Stainless USA LLC, No. 18-1048 (U.S. June 1, 2020)

  06/01/2020

  Supreme Court an Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision in finding that the New York Convention does not preclude the application of domestic law permitting non-signatories to enforce an international arbitration agreement.  Consequently, Court found that a non-signatory French company could compel arbitration of an Alabama steel plant.

• The Pharma Partners, LTD v. Liposeuticals, No. 1:19-CV-05735-AJN (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2020)

  06/01/2020

  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss finding that, despite an arbitration provision submitting disputes to binding arbitration in New York, court did not have personal jurisdiction over defendant for a case unrelated to the arbitration clause.

• Wright v. NH Thornton Place, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-02063-DDC-GEB (D. Kan. June 1, 2020)

  06/01/2020

  Court granted defendant’s unopposed application for order confirming arbitration award finding that neither plaintiff nor the court expressed a reason to vacate the award under Section 10 of the FAA.

• Blash v. BCS Placements, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-06321-AJN (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2020)

  05/31/2020

  Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to preliminary enjoin an arbitration where plaintiffs argued that the underlying claims were not arbitrable.  Court found that the parties manifested clear and unmistakable intent to arbitrate arbitrability where the agreement (1) submitted “all claims, disputes, and other matters” to arbitration and (2) incorporated the AAA Rules.

• Tolliver v. Covington Credit, No. 3:19-CV-02655-M (N.D. Tex. May 31, 2020)

  05/31/2020

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding that plaintiffs’ statutory claims were not explicitly excluded from an arbitration clause encompassing “any dispute with the exception of those outlined below.”  Court stayed the action pending arbitration finding it mandatory to do so when an issue is referable to arbitration.

• Charter Communications, Inc. v. Taylor, No. 4:20-CV-00233-HEA (E.D. Mo. May 29, 2020)

  05/29/2020

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff did not waive its right to arbitrate when it first invoked one arbitration agreement as the basis of the arbitration but ultimately brought an action under another.  Court found that inconsistency with the right to arbitrate must exist with regard with the right itself, not which agreement is invoked.

• CPR Management, S.A. v. Devon Park Bioventures, L.P., No. 2:18-CV-01973-CMR (E.D. Pa. May 29, 2020)

  05/29/2020

  Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award, and denied respondents’ cross motion to vacate, finding that none of the grounds for vacating an award under Section 10 of the FAA applied.  Court found that applying the FAA was appropriate where: (1) the arbitration was brought in the United States and (2) there was no conflict between the New York Convention and the domestic FAA, reasoning that Article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention allows awards to be “set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country in which that award was made.”  Court refused to impose additional prejudgment interest finding that such interest is not a penalty and that the good or bad faith of a losing party is not of dispositive significance.

• Hutt v. Xpressbet, LLC, No. 2:20-CV-00494-JD (E.D. Pa. May 29, 2020)

  05/29/2020

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding inter alia that a non-signatory plaintiff was subjected to the terms of the arbitration agreement when he sought to enforce the terms of the underlying contract.  Court found that both contract and tort claims were arbitrable where the arbitration agreement was broad and placed no restriction on arbitrable disputes.

• Kahapea v. Pennymac Loan Services, LLC, No. 1:19-MC-00028-MV (D.N.M. May 29, 2020)

  05/29/2020

  Court dismissed without prejudice petitioner’s action to confirm an arbitration award, finding that petitioner failed to fulfill the jurisdiction requirements of Section 9 of the FAA when he did not demonstrate that the arbitration agreement explicitly or implicitly intended that the parties have a judgment entered on the arbitration award.

• IMAX Corporation v. Giencourt Investments, S.A., No. 20-10491 (11th Cir. May 28, 2020)

  05/28/2020

  Court of appeals affirmed a district court decision denying appellant’s motion to vacate arbitration awards, finding that appellant failed to carry its burden to establish any defense under the New York Convention or prove that the arbitral tribunal exceeded its powers under the FAA.

• Teco Guatemala Holdings, LLC v. Republic of Guatemala, No. 19-7153 (D.C. Cir. May 21, 2020) 

  05/21/2020

  Court of appeals denied motion for stay of enforcement of arbitral award, finding appellant did not satisfy the stringent requirements for a stay pending appeal.

• Bayco Products, Inc. v. ProTorch Company, Inc., No. 4:19-CV-00648-ALM (E.D. Tex. May 21, 2020) 

  05/21/2020

  Court granted motion to dismiss and compel arbitration finding the arbitration clause in the agreement was governed by the New York Convention.  Court concluded that the non-signatory defendants could use the theory of estoppel to enforce the arbitral clause under the New York Convention and plaintiff’s asserted causes of action fell within the scope of the provision.  Court denied as moot plaintiff’s emergency motion for an anti-suit injunction.

• Vergara v. Nintendo of America Inc., No. 1:19-CV-06374 (N.D. Ill. May 21, 2020) 

  05/21/2020

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding that by incorporating the AAA’s Commercial Arbitration Rules the arbitration agreement delegated the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator.  Court stayed the suit pending arbitration and denied plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended compliant as moot.

• Washington Lift Truck Corp. v. Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift America, Inc., No. 2:20-CV-00655-WED (E.D. Wis. May 21, 2020) 

  05/21/2020

  Court granted motion to dismiss, finding that the arbitral provision which prohibited an arbitrator from ordering specific performance was not incompatible with the applicable Wisconsin law and the parties would still obtain the relief they were seeking through arbitration.  Pursuant to § 4 of the FAA, court found it could not compel arbitration as the arbitration was to take place in the Southern District of Texas but noted that defendant could file its motion in the appropriate district.  Court denied the motion for preliminary injunction, finding the harm plaintiff was seeking to avoid was not immediate and that it could seek preliminary injunctive relief from the arbitral tribunal. 

• Ameriprise Financial Services, LLC v. George, No. 1:20-CV-00215-DDD-SKC (D. Colo. May 20, 2020) 

  05/20/2020

  Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award pursuant to the FAA and entered default judgment as defendant never moved to modify or vacate the award.

• Bogard v. Blackstone, No. 5:20-CV-00080-XR (W.D. Tex. May 20, 2020) 

  05/20/2020

  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s motion to confirm arbitration award.  Court found that a state official sued in her official capacity was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity and therefore, court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to consider plaintiff’s motion to confirm the arbitral award.

• McKie v. Bridgecrest Credit Company LLC, No. 1:19-CV-00097-JRH-BKE (S.D. Ga. May 20, 2020) 

  05/20/2020

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay the matter pending arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court found the arbitration agreement was valid and that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitral clause.

• La Dolce Vita Fine Dining Company Limited v. Lan, No. 1:20-MC-00200-VEC (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 2020) 

  05/19/2020

  Court granted petitioners’ motion for an order of attachment in aid of two arbitrations pending before the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (“CIETAC”).  Court found petitioners met requirements for attachment under New York CPLR § 7502(c) and Article 62, because petitioners had a cause of action in the form of the arbitrations; a likelihood of success on the merits, as they were already awarded arbitral awards against the respondents; the awards may be ineffectual without the attachment; and respondents had no pending counterclaims against petitioners.

• Micula v. Government of Romania, No. 19-7127 (D.C. Cir. May 19, 2020) 

  05/19/2020

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order confirming arbitration award against the Government of Romania.  Court of appeals found the district court did not improperly resolve disputes of material fact and did not abuse its discretion by denying Romania’s request for an extension of time on the day its responsive filing was due.

• Murray v. Grocery Delivery E-Services USA Inc., No. 1:19-CV-12608-WGY (D. Mass. May 19, 2020) 

  05/19/2020

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration where an arbitration clause was added to the defendant’s policy two years after plaintiff agreed to the terms and conditions, and plaintiff had not received valid notice of the new terms.

• In re Ex Parte Petition of the Republic of Turkey for an Order Directing Discovery from Hamit Cicek Pursuant to 28 USC § 1782, No. 2:19-CV-20107-ES-SCM (D.N.J. May 18, 2020) 

  05/18/2020

  Court denied motions to vacate, quash, compel discovery, and issue sanctions against the Republic of Turkey and granted the Republic’s motion to enforce subpoenas issued pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 for use in an ICSID arbitration.  Court found that the ex parte application did not deny the subpoena recipient due process, the Republic was not barred from § 1782 discovery because of pending criminal charges against the subpoena recipient, and granting assistance did not circumvent US public policy.

• Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company v. Anthem, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-03589-JRS-MJD (S.D. Ind. May 18, 2020) 

  05/18/2020

  Court set aside magistrate judge’s order and compelled arbitration and stayed the case pursuant to the FAA.  Court found there was an agreement to arbitrate with clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to delegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.  Court held magistrate judge erred in concluding that the ambiguity of non-essential terms had to be resolved before determining whether to compel arbitration and found that the incorporation of the JAMS International rules was clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to delegate arbitrability to the arbitrator.

• Bacon v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., No. 18-3780 (3d. Cir. May 18, 2020) 

  05/18/2020

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order denying defendants’ motion to compel plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims.  Pursuant to the FAA, court of appeals determined it had appellate jurisdiction over the denial of motions to compel arbitration regardless of whether they were final orders.  Court of appeals found that the U.S. plaintiffs did not assent to the arbitration provision for rental jackets where they were not adequately incorporated into the U.S. Agreements and that there were questions of fact concerning whether the Costa Rican plaintiff had reasonable notice of the arbitration agreement.

• Canfornav Inc. v. TDE Group USA Inc., No. 2:19-CV-11906-BAF-DRG (E.D. Mich. May 18, 2020) 

  05/18/2020

  Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award pursuant to the New York Convention, where defendant had not responded to the motion.  Court also granted motion for summary judgment for breach of contract based on defendant’s failure to indemnify plaintiff.

• Mobile Real Estate, LLC v. Newpoint Media Group, LLC., No. 7:19-CV-11475-KMK (S.D.N.Y. May 18, 2020)

  05/18/2020

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay the case, finding that the incorporation of the AAA rules was clear evidence that the question of arbitrability was delegated to the arbitrator.  Court further concluded that the arbitration agreement in the first contract was not superseded by the forum selection clause in the second contract because the agreements covered different subject matter.  Court found that there was a sufficient relationship between the non-signatory defendants and the other entities to delegate the question of whether non-signatory defendants were subject to arbitration to the arbitrator.

• Gore v. The Buccaneer, Inc., No. 1:20-CV-00011-WAL-GWC (D.V.I. May 15, 2020) 

  05/15/2020

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding the arbitral agreement was enforceable and valid as the plaintiff signed it as a condition of her stay at the hotel.  Court concluded that the agreement was not unconscionable.

• In re: Pacific Fertility Center Litigation, No. 19-15885 (9th Cir. May 15, 2020) 

  05/15/2020

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order denying the motion to compel arbitration as to one appellant while reversing its order as to the others.  Court of appeals found the claims against one of the non-signatory appellants were not founded in or intertwined with the terms of the contract, so the appellant could not be compelled to arbitrate on grounds of equitable estoppel.  Court of appeals reversed the district court’s order denying the motion to compel arbitration with regard to the other non-signatory appellants on the grounds that the claims raised against them were founded in and inextricably intertwined with the terms of the contract.

• Zhejiang Topoint Photovoltaic Co., Ltd. v. G&S Solar Installers, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-16578-KM-JBC (D.N.J. May 15, 2020)

  05/15/2020

  Court granted motion to confirm ICDR arbitration award and denied cross-motion to vacate the award, finding defendant was collaterally estopped from seeking to vacate the award because it had the opportunity to litigate the arbitrability issue and declined to do so.  Court held that the award must be confirmed pursuant to the FAA.

• Scarso Enterprises, Inc. v. Honor Yoga Management, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-02927-JG (N.D. Ohio May 14, 2020)

  05/14/2020

  Court granted defendant’s motion for a stay pending arbitration of various claims relating to yoga studio franchises.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration agreement was invalid because the contract between the parties had been rescinded.  Court held that this was an issue for the arbitrator to consider, not the Court.  Court also held that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement. 

• Sysco Minnesota, Inc. v. Teamsters Local 120, No. 19-CV-3491 (8th Cir. May 13, 2020)

  05/13/2020

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s summary judgment order in a dispute regarding a collective bargaining agreement between a union and a distribution company.  Court held that the union waived the arbitration provisions in the collective bargaining agreement by participating in court litigation through to the discovery phase.

• Crooms v. Southwest Airlines Co., 1:19-CV-02149-SCS (N.D. Ill. May 12, 2020)

  05/12/2020

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of claims brought by airline ramp supervisors alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.  Court held that the ramp supervisors did not fall under the exception in the Federal Arbitration Act for contracts of employment of transportation workers.  Court also found that the parties agreed to arbitrate the question of arbitrability.

• Local 387 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Navopache Electric Cooperative, Inc., No. 18-CV-04108-SRB (9th Cir. May 12, 2020)

  05/12/2020

  Court of appeals affirmed district court order compelling arbitration of dispute regarding collective bargaining agreement.  Court rejected appellant’s argument that the arbitration agreement at issue was permissive and not mandatory. 

• PB Life & Annuity Co. v. Universal Life Insurance Co., No. 1:20-CV-02284-LJL (S.D.N.Y. May 12, 2020)

  05/12/2020

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of breach of contract claims relating to reinsurance contracts and rejected plaintiff’s motion seeking a permanent injunction to enjoin defendant from arbitrating the claims.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the reinsurance contract, along with the arbitration clause in it, was superseded by a subsequent trust agreement between the parties that provided for court litigation. 

• HDI Global SE v. Philips 66 Co., No. 20-CV-00631-RMB (S.D.N.Y. May 12, 2020)

  05/12/2020

  Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate award relating to insurance claims and granted defendant’s motion to confirm the award.   Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the arbitrators exceeded their authority and manifestly disregarded the law in their construction of the insurance policy at issue.

• Bonzani v. Goshen Health Systems, Inc., No. 3:19-CV-00586-DRL (N.D. Ind. May 11, 2020)

  05/11/2020

  Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of various claims relating to an employment termination contract.  Court held that the arbitration agreement in plaintiff’s original employment contract lost its force and effect once it was terminated by the parties.  Court found that the contract termination agreement did not include an arbitration agreement nor did it incorporate the arbitration agreement in the terminated employment contract.

• Drazic v. NCR Corp., No. 8:19-CV-00511-RFR (D. Neb. May 11, 2020)

  05/11/2020

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of employment discrimination claims.  Court held that even though defendant was a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, it could rely upon the arbitration agreement in plaintiff’s employment contract as the successor entity to plaintiff’s counterparty in the employment contract.

• George v. Rushmore Service Center, No. 2:18-CV-13698-WJM (D.N.J. May 11, 2020)

  05/11/2020

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  Court held that even though certain of the defendants were non-signatories to the arbitration agreement, the agreement nevertheless applied to them in their capacity as agents of the signatory party.

• Pacelli v. Augustus Intelligence, Inc., No. 1:20-CV-01011-LJL (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2020)

  05/11/2020

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of fraudulent inducement and breach of contract claims in connection with employment contracts relating to an artificial intelligence venture.  Court held that a valid arbitration agreement existed among the parties, that the parties delegated to the arbitrators the question of arbitrability and that the arbitration agreement’s scope covered the claims in issue.  Court also held that defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate the claims by initiating, and then subsequently dismissing, state court proceedings.

• Star Development Group v. Darwin National Assurance Co., No. 19-CV-1042 (4th Cir. May 8, 2020)

  05/08/2020

  Court of appeals denied appeal of District Court order denying petition to vacate an arbitration award relating to a delayed construction project.  Following a choice of law analysis, Court held that the Maryland Uniform Arbitration Act, as opposed to the Federal Arbitration Act, applied to the award.  Court held that the award was valid under the Maryland Uniform Arbitration Act because the arbitrators did not manifestly disregard the law and their award was not “completely irrational,” as alleged by the appellants.