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

• Kwik Ticket Inc. v. Spiewak, No. 1:20-CV-01201-FB-SJB (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2020)

  09/23/2020

  Court denied defendants’ motion for a preliminary injunction to stay litigation pending court’s ruling on motion to compel arbitration and to stay magistrate judge’s order requiring the parties to participate in a settlement conference and initiate discovery.  Court found defendants did not show irreparable harm or a likelihood of success on the merits of the motion to compel arbitration.

• Simpson v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., No. 1:20-CV-07630-VEC (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2020) 

  09/22/2020

  Court denied petitioner’s request to file under seal documents subject to a protective order issued by the AAA without prejudice to the parties explaining how the AAA opinion is not a “judicial document.”  In the alternative, Court directed that if particular aspects of the opinion are legitimately confidential, the parties are to propose more narrow redactions.

• Herrington v. Waterstone Mortgage Corporation, No. 3:11-CV-00779-bbc (W.D. Wis. Sept. 22, 2020) 

  09/22/2020

  Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award pursuant to the FAA.  Court rejected defendant’s arguments that the award should be vacated because the arbitrator retained jurisdiction over the proceedings after a remand from a vacated collective arbitration award, did not allow additional discovery, and considered evidence presented in the prior arbitral proceeding.

• Servotronics, Inc. v. Rolls-Royce PLC and The Boeing Company, No. 19-1847 (7th Cir. Sept. 22, 2020) 

  09/22/2020

  Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s decision finding that 28 U.S.C. § 1782 does not authorize courts to compel discovery for use in private foreign arbitration.  Court found that the Supreme Court’s decision in Intel did not authorize courts to provide discovery assistance in private foreign arbitrations and noted that interpreting § 1782 to include private foreign arbitral tribunals would conflict with the FAA.

• Goobich v. Excelligence Learning Corporation, No. 5:19-CV-06771-EJD (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2020) 

  09/18/2020

  Court granted motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 3, finding that defendant had not breached the arbitration agreement by refusing to pay the disproportionate filing fee and did not waive the right to compel arbitration by participating in the litigation.

• In re: Ex Parte Application of Axion Holding Cyprus Ltd. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for Leave to Take Discovery for use in Foreign Proceedings, No. 1:20-MC-00290-MN (D. Del. Sept. 18, 2020) 

  09/18/2020

  Court denied petitioner’s ex parte application for leave to take discovery for use in two private LCIA arbitrations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782.  Court found that although the Third Circuit has not determined whether private commercial arbitrations are “tribunals” within the meaning of the statute, it agreed with the recent district court cases holding that private commercial arbitrations are not “tribunals.”  Court rejected petitioner’s argument that the LCIA acts with the authority of the state because the tribunals are governed by the U.K. Arbitration Act of 1996 and the parties may seek judicial review.

• Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd., No. 2:18-CV-01360-TSZ (W.D. Wash. Sept. 17, 2020) 

  09/17/2020

  Court granted motion to lift stay, finding that under the Europcar factors the stay was no longer warranted, particularly considering the protracted nature of the proceedings to set-aside the arbitration award in India.  Court granted oral argument on motion to confirm arbitration award under the New York Convention.  

• Gherardi v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc., No. 18-CV-13181 (11th Cir. Sept. 17, 2020)

  09/17/2020

  Court of appeal reversed district court order vacating arbitration award relating to an employment dispute.  Court of appeal held that the parties agreed to arbitrate all disputes relating to appellant’s employment and that the arbitrators did not exceed their powers.

• Diverse Enterprises, Limited Company, L.L.C. v. Beyond International, Incorporated, No. 19-CV-51121 (5th Cir. Sept. 17, 2020)

  09/17/2020

  Court of appeal affirmed district court order confirming arbitration award relating to a distribution agreement.  Court of appeal held that the arbitrators did not exceed their powers in awarding attorneys’ fees.

• Tyler v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-03492-ABJ (D.D.C. Sept. 17, 2020)

  09/17/2020

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of employment-related claims.  Court rejected plaintiff’s contention that its claims were exempted by the FAA on the basis that it was a transportation worker.

• Cianchetta v. BMW of North America, LLC, No. 2:20-CV-00241-KJM (E.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2020)

  09/17/2020

  Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims alleging violations of consumer protection laws.  Court held that plaintiff’s claims against non-signatory defendant were not arbitrable under the terms of the arbitration agreement.

• Sanders v. Allenbrooke Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC, No. 2:20-CV-02001-SHM (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 17, 2020)

  09/17/2020

  Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of wrongful death claims. Court held that no arbitration agreement had been formed in circumstances where the agreement was signed by a healthcare surrogate before the party on whose behalf the agreement was signed had been determined to lack capacity.

• Convergen Energy LLC v. Brooks, No. 1:20-CV-03746-LJL (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2020)

  09/16/2020

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims relating to the sale of a power plant.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the contract containing the arbitration agreement was not concluded because plaintiff’s signatory did not have authority to bind it.  Court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that the forum selection clause in another agreement between the parties controlled the subject matter of the dispute.  Court held that the claims at issue fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

• Fedor v. United Healthcare, Inc., No. 19-CV-2066 (10th Cir. Sept. 16, 2020)

  09/16/2020

  Court of appeal vacated district court order granting motion to compel arbitration of claims alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New Mexico’s wage law.  Court of appeal held that the district court erred by failing to first determine whether an agreement to
  arbitrate was formed before sending the case to the arbitrator.

• Grantham v. TA Operating, LLC, No. 1:20-CV-01108-RMB (D. N.J. Sept. 16, 2020)

  09/16/2020

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims brought under the Family Medical Leave Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration agreement was void as against the public policy of New Jersey.

• Hermès of Paris, Inc. v. Swain, No. 1:16-CV-06255-CM (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2020)

  09/16/2020

  Court granted plaintiff’s petition to confirm arbitration award relating to employment claims.  Court held that the arbitrator did not exceed its powers by deciding that defendant’s claims were time-barred.

• International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1393 v. Carroll White Rural Electric Membership Corporation, No. 1:20-CV-1689-JMS (S.D. Ind. Sept. 16, 2020)

  09/16/2020

  Court granted petition to compel arbitration of claims arising under a collective bargaining agreement.  Court held that the terms of the collective bargaining agreement were wide enough to encompass the claims at issue.

• Arnaud v. Doctor’s Associates, Inc., No. 19-CV-3057 (2d Cir. Sept. 15, 2020)

  09/15/2020

  Court of appeal affirmed district court order denying motion to compel arbitration of claims alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  Court of appeal held that no arbitration agreement existed between the parties because the terms and conditions of the alleged agreement were not reasonably clear and conspicuous on the online form relied upon by defendant-appellant.

• Cheatham v. Virginia College, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-04481-SDG (N.D. Ga. Sept. 15, 2020)

  09/15/2020

  Court grated defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims brought by students against a private college.  Court held that the parties delegated the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

• Clayco Construction Co., Inc. v. Miles Construction Group, Inc., No. 4:20-MC-00524-HEA (E.D. Mo. Sept. 15, 2020)

  09/15/2020

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm arbitration award relating to construction subcontracts.  Court found that plaintiff failed to cite any grounds under the FAA to vacate the award.

• Johnson v. Westlake Portfolio Management, LLC, No. 8:20-CV-00749-SCB (M.D. Fla. Sept. 15, 2020)

  09/15/2020

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of consumer debt claims.  Court held that plaintiff, who was a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, was not equitably estopped from avoiding the arbitration agreement because its claims fell outside the contract containing the arbitration agreement.

• USA Volleyball v. Tatham, No. 1:17-CV-03162-MEH (D. Colo. Sept. 15, 2020)

  09/15/2020

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion for order confirming arbitration award relating to trademark infringement claims.  Court rejected defendants’ allegation that the arbitrator engaged in misconduct by refusing to hear relevant evidence.

• Allen v. Shutterlfy, Inc., No. 5:20-CV-02448-BLF (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2020)

  09/14/2020

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of fraud claims.  Court held that the arbitration agreement delegated gateway questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator and that the plaintiff assented to the online arbitration agreement.

• Tetronics (International) Limited v. BlueOak Arkansas LLC, No. 4:20-CV-00530-SWW (E.D. Ark. Sept. 14, 2020)

  09/14/2020

  Court denied defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and refuse recognition of foreign arbitration award.  Court held that defendant’s appeal in France in relation to the award was not a sufficient reason to stay confirmation proceedings and that the discretionary factors for a stay were not met.  Court also held that no grounds for non-recognition under Article V of the New York Convention applied.

• Carillo v. ROICOM USA, LLC, No. 3:20-CV-00147-ATB (W.D. Tex. Sept. 14, 2020)

  09/14/2020

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of claims brought under the False Claims Act.  Court held that the arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable because plaintiff, a Spanish speaker, was incapable of understanding the contents of the English-language agreement and because of misrepresentations by defendant regarding the arbitration agreement.

• Kingsbury Capital, Inc. v. Kappel, No. 1:20-CV-00800 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 14, 2020)

  09/14/2020

  Court denied plaintiff’s petition to vacate arbitration award relating to employee compensation claims.  Court rejected plaintiff’s allegations that the arbitral tribunal showed partiality toward defendant, exceeded its authority, rendered an award in the absence of an arbitration agreement, and violated public policy.

• OOGC America, L.L.C. v. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., No. 19-CV-20002 (5th Cir. Sept. 14, 2020)

  09/14/2020

  Court of appeal vacated district court order vacating arbitration award for “evident partiality” based on the arbitrator’s failure to disclose connections with certain non-parties to the dispute.  Court of appeal held that the circumstances fell short of a “concrete, not speculative” showing of a significant, compromising connection to the parties required for vacatur.

• Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. v. Corporacion de Television y Microonda Rafa, S.A., No. 1:19-CV-08669-MKV (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2020)

  09/14/2020

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment confirming foreign arbitration award relating to a television rights dispute.  Court rejected defendant’s argument that the tribunal was not properly constituted because the arbitrator selection process was flawed.  Court also rejected defendant’s allegation that the arbitrator erred in awarding attorney’s fees in the final award.

• MZM Construction Company, Inc. v. New Jersey Building Laborers Statewide Benefit Funds, No. 18-CV-03791 (3d Cir. Sept. 14, 2020)

  09/14/2020

  Court of appeal affirmed district court order enjoining arbitration of employee benefits claims pending resolution of factual issues bearing upon whether fraud in the execution vitiated the formation or existence of the contract containing the arbitration provision.  Court of appeal held that pursuant to 9 USC § 4, the validity of the arbitration agreement concerned questions about the “making of the agreement to arbitrate” and was therefore a matter for the courts to decide in the absence of the parties having clearly and unmistakably referred those issues to arbitration in a written contract whose formation was not in issue.

• United Government Security Officers of America International Union v. G4S Regulated Security Solutions, No. 1:19-CV-10373-ADB (D. Mass. Sept. 14, 2020)

  09/14/2020

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration of overtime compensation claims brought under a collective bargaining agreement.  Court held that the overtime claims fell with the scope of the collective bargaining agreement and the arbitration agreement contained in it.

• Caputo v. Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, No. 3:19-CV-17204-FLW (D. N.J. Sept. 11, 2020)

  09/11/2020

  Court denied petitioner’s motion to reconsider court’s order denying a motion to vacate an award rendered by a panel of FINRA arbitrators.  Court rejected petitioner’s argument that the award conflicted with certain public policies against the forfeiture of earned wages.

• Yeomans v. World Financial Group Insurance Agency, Inc., No. 3:19-CV-00792-EMC (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2020)

  09/11/2020

  Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of employment-related claims.  Court held that the arbitrability issue was governed by the FAA because the dispute affected interstate commerce.  Court also held that four of the five plaintiffs were properly put on notice of the arbitration agreements in their employment contracts, but that one of the plaintiffs was not.  Court found that the arbitration agreement was procedurally and substantively unconscionable.

• Morris CM Enterprises, LLC v. Wingstop Franchising, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-02306-KJM (E.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2020)

  09/11/2020

  Court granted defendant’s motion to stay the case pending arbitration of claims relating to franchise agreements.  Court found that the parties had agreed to delegate to the arbitrators the issue of arbitrability, including the plaintiff’s allegation that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable.

• Mattos v. National Western Life Insurance Company, No. 1:20-CV-22887-DPG (S.D. Fla. Aug. 30, 2020)

  08/30/2020

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the parties manifested a clear and unmistakable intent to arbitrate gateway issues of arbitrability when they provided a valid delegation clause.  Court declined to address plaintiffs’ challenges to the arbitration agreement, finding that it was not appropriate where there was no challenge to the delegation provision specifically.

• McCoy v. The Buccaneer, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-00033-WAL-GWC (D.V.I. Aug. 28, 2020)

  08/28/2020

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration provision was enforceable despite lacking a method for selecting the arbitrator or relevant rules governing the proceedings.  Court found that absent certain terms, parties can rely on gap-filling provisions provided by the FAA.

• Westfall v. USAA Savings Bank, No. 2:19-CV-02093-GMN-DJA (D. Nev. Aug. 27, 2020)

  08/27/2020

  Court granted defendant’s unopposed motions dismiss and to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff agreed to the terms of the arbitration agreement after conducting his first transaction using defendant bank’s credit card.  Court found that plaintiff’s failure to exhaust non-judicial remedies, including pursuing arbitration, made dismissal without prejudice appropriate.

• Kandavilli v. Gadiyaram, No. 1:19-CV-03306-ADC (D. Md. Aug. 26, 2020)

  08/26/2020

  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s remaining two claims after fifteen claims were submitted to arbitration, finding that there was not a sufficient amount in controversy when accounting for the claims compelled to arbitration.

• Manville v. United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union and Local Union No. 216M, No. 3:19-CV-00788-E (N.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2020)

  08/26/2020

  Court granted defendant’s motion to confirm an arbitration award and denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate the award, finding that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority by resolving ambiguities in an agreement.  Court found that although the FAA does not provide for attorney’s fees to a successful party in an action to confirm an arbitration award, such fees may be provided if the counterparty’s reasons for challenging the award are without merit or justification.

• Colonial Oaks Assisted Living Lafayette, LLC v. Hannie Development, Inc., No. 19-30995 (5th Cir. Aug. 25, 2020)

  08/25/2020

  Court of appeals affirmed district court order finding that fraud claims were properly severed from the underlying arbitration and that non-fraud claims were properly dismissed as arbitrable, when the arbitration agreement exempted claims for fraud from its scope.  Court found that non-fraud claims that were decided in the underlying arbitration could not be relitigated in the courts.

• In re the Application of the Fund for Protection of Investor Rights in Foreign State Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, No. 1::1199-MC-0000440011-AT (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2020)

  08/25/2020

  Court granted petitioner’s application to seek discovery of third parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, finding that although private commercial arbitrations do not qualify as “foreign or international tribunals” under the statute, recent precedent suggests that arbitrations conducted pursuant to a bilateral investment treaty do qualify.

• Ullrich v. Ullrich, No. 20-CV-23505 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 25, 2020)

  08/25/2020

  Court denied plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief in aid of an impending international arbitration, finding that the vague possibility that defendant would close on a transaction relevant to the arbitration was insufficient to allege that immediate and irreparable harm would occur absent injunctive relief.

• Hickerson v. Pool Corporation, No. 1:19-CV-02229-CMA-STV (D. Colo. Aug. 25, 2020)

  08/25/2020

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the underlying arbitration provision was enforceable notwithstanding an absence of defendant’s signature when defendant manifested its intent to be bound by the provision.

• KBFA Investment Group, Inc. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., No. 19-51068 (5th Cir. Aug. 24, 2020)

  08/24/2020

  Court of appeals affirmed district court order confirming arbitration award, finding that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority so long as the award was not so unfounded in reason that it could be considered an “infidelity to the obligation of an arbitrator.”

• Russo v. Trans Union, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-04007-GEKP (E.D. Pa. Aug. 24, 2020)

  08/24/2020

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate when it waited eight months to file its motion to compel arbitration but did not engage in any non-merits motion practice.  Court found that defendant’s invocation of the arbitration agreement in its answer weighed against a finding of waiver.

• Treasury Two Trust v. Teras Breakbulk Ocean Navigation Enterprise LLC, No. 1:20-CV-04089-GHW (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2020)

  08/24/2020

  Court granted petitioner’s petition to confirm an arbitration award, finding that the arbitral panel acted within its authority when it decided the arbitration on the papers alone, according to the parties’ agreement.  Court granted petitioners’ request for pre- and post-judgment interest finding nothing to rebut the Second Circuit’s presumption in favor of granting pre-judgment interest.

• Arkin v. DoorDash, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-04357-NGG-RER (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2020)

  08/24/2020

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that broad language regarding the scope of the arbitration agreement evidenced clear and unmistakable intent to arbitrate issues of arbitrability.  Court found that plaintiff’s arguments concerning the validity of the arbitration agreement were subject to arbitration.

• Goulart v. Edgewell Personal Care Company, No. 4:19-CV-02568-RLW (E.D. Mo. Aug. 24, 2020)

  08/24/2020

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the parties’ incorporation of the JAMS rules evidenced an intent to arbitrate issues of arbitrability.

• In re: Application of Atvos Agroindustrial Investimentos, S.A. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, No. 1:20 MC-00211-GBD-SDA (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2020)

  08/24/2020

  Court granted in part respondents’ motion to quash subpoenas issued under petitioner’s motion to take discovery from third parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 in furtherance of arbitral and injunction proceedings, finding inter alia that petitioner was not entitled to take discovery for use in an arbitral proceeding as it was not “a foreign or international tribunal.”

• Namisnak v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 18-15860 (9th Cir. Aug. 24, 2020)

  08/24/2020

  Court of appeals affirmed district court order denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of federal statutory claims, finding that two plaintiffs did not download defendant’s mobile application or agreed to defendant’s terms and conditions.  Court reasoned nonsignatory plaintiffs could not be equitably estopped from bringing federal statutory claims when those claims were not “dependent upon or inextricably intertwined with the obligations imposed by the contract containing the arbitration clause.”

• Bay Shore Power Company v. Oxbow Energy Solutions, LLC, No. 20-3119 (6th Cir. Aug. 13, 2020) 

  08/13/2020

  Court of appeals reversed the district court’s judgment denying attorneys’ fees and remanded for an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to the parties’ contract.  Court of appeals found that there was no obstacle to the court allowing evidence on attorneys’ fees because the motion for attorneys’ fees was not a part of the proceeding confirming the arbitration award governed by the FAA, but rather was a separate contract action.