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

• Inversiones y Procesadora Tropical Inprosta, S.A., No. 18-14807 (11th Cir. Sept. 5, 2019)

  09/05/2019

  Court of appeals affirmed that district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s motion to vacate an arbitration award.  Court also affirmed lower court’s issuance of sanctions against plaintiff, finding that plaintiff attacked the arbitration award without a legal basis for doing so and thus acted in bad faith.

• EPRO Services, Inc., v. Regenesis Bioremediation Products, No. 6:19-CV-01220-EFM-KGG (D. Kan. Sept. 4, 2019)

  09/04/2019

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and rejected plaintiff’s argument that the court should retain jurisdiction over requests for preliminary injunctive relief—pending arbitration.  Court found that because it had already dissolved plaintiff’s prior temporary restraining order, it saw no reason to grant a subsequent request for preliminary injunctive relief.  Court thus compelled arbitration of all claims and stayed further proceedings.

• Esso Exploration and Production Nigeria Limited v. Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, No. 1:14-CV-08445-WHP (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2019)

  09/04/2019

  Court denied petition to confirm a Nigerian arbitration award under the New York Convention, when the award was set aside in a Nigerian court.  Court also found that it had personal jurisdiction over respondent because respondent was an alter ego of Nigeria; the two shared property and Nigeria controlled respondent’s day-to-day operations. 

• Maravilla v. Gruma Corporation, No. 18-20570 (5th Cir. Sept. 4, 2019)

  09/04/2019

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order compelling arbitration, finding that the parties’ incorporation of the JAMS rules showed clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to arbitrate the issue of arbitrability.  Court found that defendant’s unconscionability argument was inapplicable when it encompassed the contract as a whole, rather than the arbitration agreement itself or the delegation clause therein.

• Luster-Malone v. Cook County, Illinois, No. 18-3544 (7th Cir. Sept. 3, 2019)

  09/03/2019

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s claims, finding that plaintiff’s claims were foreclosed by a prior arbitration decision and that her request for arbitration was untimely.

• Nager v. Tesla Motors, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-02382-JAR-JPO (D. Kan. Sept. 3, 2019)

  09/03/2019

  Court reserved judgment on defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, pending evidence produced by the parties at a hearing or trial on the issue of whether plaintiffs agreed to the arbitration agreement.

• Brownlee v. Jacob, No. 4:19-CV-00208-JM (E.D. Ark. Aug. 26, 2019)

  08/26/2019

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and strike plaintiff’s class allegations, finding that defendants as assignees had the right to enforce the arbitration provision.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the Supreme Court’s decision in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela precludes assignment of the right to arbitrate.

• Ionescu v. Extra Space Storage Inc., No. 4:19-CV-02226-YGR (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2019)

  08/23/2019

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding that California law did not preclude arbitration of claims for injunctive relief when the arbitration provision expressly contemplated claims from the California statute providing for such relief.

• LLC Energoalliance v. Republic of Moldova, No. 1:14-CV-01921 (D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2019)

  08/23/2019

  Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award, finding that foreign-sovereign respondent did not meet its substantial burden of resisting confirmation under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT).  Court rejected respondent’s argument that there was no valid agreement to arbitrate when the claims arbitrated allegedly were not contemplated by the arbitration agreement—finding that respondent’s argument did not go to jurisdiction.  Court also rejected two of respondent’s defenses under the New York Convention, finding that there was adequate due process and that the claims arbitrated fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

• Pro Drive Outboards, LLC v. Cruzani, Inc., No. 6:18-CV-01241-MJJ-CBW (W.D.La. Aug. 23, 2019)

  08/23/2019

  Court granted defendant’s motion to transfer venue from the District Court for the Western District of Louisiana to the District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, finding that no public interest factors outweighed an arbitration clause’s mandate that all claims would be arbitrated in Oklahoma.

• L2 Wireless, LLC v. Sprint Solutions, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-02729-K (N.D. Tex. Aug. 22, 2019)

  08/22/2019

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the case pursuant to the FAA.  Court found that the arbitral agreement was valid and was not unconscionable.  Court concluded plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the agreement and that the determination of whether the contract’s limits on liability and damages were enforceable was a question for the arbitrator.

• Lovelace v. Showroom Auto, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-04978-ERK-CLP (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2019)

  08/22/2019

  Court granted motion for attorneys’ fees and costs for a proceeding to confirm or vacate an arbitral award.  Although confirmation proceedings are summary in nature, the court concluded they still qualified as an “action” capable of an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.

• Ayeni-Aarons v. Best Buy Credit Services/CBNA, No. 2:18-CV-01625-MCE-KJN (E.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2019)

  08/21/2019

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration finding the arbitral provision in the credit card agreement fell within the scope of the FAA because it involved interstate commerce.  Court found a valid arbitral agreement existed and decided the determination of whether plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the agreement was for the arbitrator.

•  Jia v. Nerium International, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-03057-S (N.D. Tex. Aug. 21, 2019) 

  08/21/2019

  Court granted defendants’ motion to reopen the case and clarify the prior order, explaining that the order compelled arbitration on an individual, not collective, basis.  Court denied as moot defendants’ motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction staying the class arbitration.

• Scaba v. Jetsmarter, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-17262-MAS-DEA (D.N.J. Aug. 21, 2019) 

  08/21/2019

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed the matter pending completion of arbitration.  Applying the FAA and Florida law, the court determined the clickwrap arbitral agreement was valid and that the issue of arbitrability should be submitted to the arbitrator.  Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a prejudgment writ of attachment on defendant’s assets, finding that it was unable to determine the likelihood of plaintiffs’ success at the early stage in the proceedings or conclude that any attachable assets existed in the jurisdiction.

• Compere v. Nusret Miami, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-20277-KMM (S.D. Fla. Aug. 20, 2019) 

  08/20/2019

  Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motions to compel AAA arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court found there was no valid arbitral agreement for several of the plaintiffs as defendants failed to produce evidence of acceptance of an arbitral agreement.  Court held a valid arbitral agreement did exist for one of the plaintiffs and that defendants had not waived their right to arbitrate by participating in litigation and submitted the claims to the tribunal to determine the arbitrability pursuant to the delegation clause.

• Dorman v. The Charles Schwab Corporation, No. 18-15281 (9th Cir. Aug. 20, 2019) 

  08/20/2019

  Court of appeals reversed district court’s opinion, finding plaintiff’s ERISA claims were subject to mandatory individual arbitration.  Court of appeals found the arbitral agreement was enforceable as it did not violate the National Labor Relations Act and determined that the absence of an agreement to collective arbitration meant the claims must be arbitrated on an individual basis.

• Tessemae’s LLC v. Atlantis Capital LLC, No. 1:18-CV-04902-KHP (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2019) 

  08/20/2019

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration as to certain claims and granted defendants’ motion to stay pending arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court found there was a valid arbitral agreement that was not procedurally or substantively unconscionable; however, it concluded the scope of the agreement only covered some of the claims in the action.

• Altamirano v. Bodega Latina Corporation, No. 2:19-CV-01660-JJT (D. Ariz. Aug. 20, 2019)

  08/20/2019

  Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court found there was a valid agreement to arbitrate and the plaintiff’s claims of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) fell within the scope of the agreement.

• PPS Service Group, LLC v. Eckert, No. 1:18-CV-00727-MRB-SKB (S.D. Ohio Aug. 20, 2019)

  08/20/2019

  Magistrate judge recommended the denial of the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court found that the defendant had waived its right to arbitration by participating substantially in the litigation, by filing numerous pre-trial motions, participating in discovery, and moving for summary judgment without asserting a right to arbitration.

• Waithaka v. Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Logistics, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-40150-TSH (D. Mass. Aug. 20, 2019)

  08/20/2019

  Court denied the defendants’ motion to move to compel arbitration.  Concluding that the plaintiff fell within the transportation worker exemption to the FAA, the court applied Massachusetts state law and held that the arbitral agreement was unenforceable because state public policy prohibited class action waivers in arbitral agreements.  Court granted the defendants’ motion to transfer to the Western District of Washington pursuant to the first-to-file rule.

• Gupta v. Morgan Stanley, No. 18-3584 (7th Cir. Aug. 19, 2019)

  08/19/2019

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s grant of motion to compel arbitration.  Pursuant to the FAA and Illinois contract law, the court of appeals held that the parties’ conduct indicated mutual assent to mandatory arbitration where the employee had not signed the arbitral agreement, finding the employee’s silence and continued employment constituted acceptance of when he had been given reasonable opportunity to opt-out and was instructed that silence and continued employment would reflect acceptance.  Court of appeals concluded that the employee’s claims for discrimination, retaliation, and defamation fell within the scope of the arbitral agreement.

• Mobile Now, Inc. v. Sprint Corporation, No. 1:19-CV-00918-JDB (D.D.C. Aug. 19, 2019)

  08/19/2019

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate under the FAA and D.C. law.  Court held that the plaintiff was not fraudulently induced to enter into the arbitral agreement and that there was no procedural or substantive unconscionability.

• Williams v. Cavalry SPV I LLC, No. 1:18-CV-01479-CAB (N.D. Ohio Aug. 19, 2019)

  08/19/2019

  Court denied the defendants’ motions to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court found that the defendants failed to bear their burden of proving that the contractual terms binding the plaintiff to an arbitral agreement had been assigned to them and therefore, were not entitled to enforce the arbitration agreement against the plaintiff.

• Young v. Exeter Finance Corp., No. 3:19-CV-00636 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 8, 2019)

  08/08/2019

  Magistrate judge recommended that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of pro se civil claims be granted.  Magistrate judge found that arbitration should be compelled pursuant to the FAA, rejecting plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration agreement should not be enforced because the contracts at issue were either assigned or breached.

• Townsend v. Stand Up Management Inc., No. 1:18-CV-02884-CAB (N.D. Ohio Aug. 8, 2019)

  08/08/2019

  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss a purported class action related to wage dispute claims.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that because his employer was not named on the arbitration agreement the agreement could not be enforced finding that there was no dispute as to who plaintiff’s employer had been.  Court further rejected plaintiff’s argument that arbitration should not be compelled because not every employee in the class signed an arbitration agreement, finding that plaintiffs in the class were estopped from pursuing collective claims that were subject to arbitration for some class members.  Court also found that through the arbitration agreements plaintiffs had waived their rights to trail by a jury, and to collective resolution of their dispute.

• Nygaard v. Property Damage Appraisers, Inc., No. 18-15055 (9th Cir. Aug. 7, 2019)

  08/07/2019

  9th Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration. Court found that it was bound by former precedent set by the California Court of Appeals in Winter v. Windows Fashions Professionals to find that a lack of meeting of the minds with respect to the venue selection clause for the arbitration rendered the agreement unenforceable.  Judge Smith dissented, arguing that a lack of assent about where to arbitrate should not preclude the court from compelling arbitration, and that this rule should be preempted by the FAA.

• Stevens v. Conn’s, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00309-ALM (E.D. Tex. Aug. 7, 2019)

  08/07/2019

  Court confirmed an arbitration award related to a dispute that had previously been compelled to arbitration.  Court rejected respondent’s argument that the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to confirm the award because during the arbitration the plaintiff had revised its claim to remove the only federal claim.  Court held that while the FAA does not independently establish federal-question arbitration the court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims that arose out of the same controversy as its previous federal claims.

• Taboada A. v. AmFirst Insurance Co., No. 3:18-CV-00883-TSL-RHW (S.D. Miss. Aug. 6, 2019)

  08/06/2019

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration of claims related to an insurance policy.  Defendant argued that another entity had assumed the insurance policy with the arbitration agreement and it was no longer enforceable against the defendant.  Court found this argument went to the validity of the contract as a whole, not specifically to the arbitration clause, and thus should be decided by the arbitrator.  Court also refused to direct AAA to administer the arbitration when it had declined, deciding to appoint an arbitrator to administer under the AAA rules agreed to in the arbitration agreement.

• Gravestone Entertainment LLC v. Maxim Media Marketing Inc., No. 2:19-CV-03385-GMS (D. Ariz. Aug. 6, 2019)

  08/06/2019

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration of claims that defendant violated plaintiff’s copyright by continuing to distribute two horror films after the termination of their licensing agreement.  Court found these claims sufficiently connected to the licensing agreement to fall within the scope of the agreement’s arbitration provision, and further found that the arbitration provision survived the termination of the agreement.

• Harper v. Charter Communications, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-00902-WBS-DMC (E.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2019)

  08/06/2019

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm a JAMS arbitration award which found that wage-and-hour claims were inarbitrable, and denied defendants’ motions to vacate the award and to compel arbitration.  Court rejected defendants’ arguments that it could not enforce an award based on an agreement that had been terminated, that the agreement to arbitrate did not expressly provide for court enforcement of awards, and that the JAMS arbitration award was not final because it did not resolve the merits of plaintiff’s claims.  Court held that it could enforce the award because defendant voluntarily participated in the arbitration, the agreement incorporated JAMS rules which explicitly provided for court enforcement, and that a ruling on arbitrability is a confirmable final award.

• Nasrabadi v. Kameli, No. 1:18-CV-08514 (N.D. Ill. Aug 6, 2019)

  08/06/2019

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty claims.  Court rejected defendant’s argument that he could compel arbitration as an “affiliate” of a fund whose operating agreement contained an arbitration provision.  Court held that plaintiff’s claims were based on an attorney-client relationship with defendant distinct from plaintiff’s contractual relationship with the fund.

• Chen v. Sierra Trading Post, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-01581-RAJ (W.D. Wash. Aug. 6, 2019)

  08/06/2019

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration of a dispute related to an online purchase, finding that an agreement existed and encompassed the parties’ dispute.  Court rejected the argument that the terms containing the arbitration agreement were too inconspicuously placed, finding that the website employed a modified clickwrap agreement that gave plaintiff constructive notice of the terms of service and required an affirmative action to demonstrate assent.

• Red Lion Hotels Franchising, Inc. v. Century-Omaha Land, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-00131-TOR (E.D. Wash. Aug. 6, 2019)

  08/06/2019

  Court granted petition to confirm an arbitration award, finding no basis for vacatur or modification of the award.  Court rejected defendant’s contention that the award should be vacated because the arbitrator failed to cite the legal authority as the basis of his decision.

• Savine v. Interactive Brokers, LLC, No. 18-CV-01846-KAD (D. Conn. Aug. 5, 2019)

  08/05/2019

  Court dismissed a petition to vacate a foreign arbitration award.  Court held that it did not have jurisdiction, finding that the award was made in the United Kingdom and thus Article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention required that vacatur be sought exclusively in the United Kingdom.  Court rejected petitioner’s argument that it could exercise jurisdiction on public policy grounds, holding that the New York Convention does not provide an independent basis for vacatur by a country of secondary jurisdiction.  Court further found that the United States as a country of secondary jurisdiction and thus it could merely refuse to enforce rather than vacate an award on the grounds of public policy.   

• Big Squid, Inc. v. Domo Inc., No. 2:19-CV-00193-EJF (D. Utah Aug. 5, 2019)

  08/05/2019

  Court denied defendants motion to compel arbitration of certain claims arising out of a software publisher agreement.  Court found that the broad arbitration clause required it to compel arbitration of all disputes connected to the action.  The defendant, however, conditionally waived its right to arbitration in the event the court reached such a conclusion, therefore the court denied the motion to compel.

• Wise v. Maximus Federal Services, Inc., No. 18-CV-07454-LHK (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2019)

  08/05/2019

  Court granted a defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss certain ERISA related cross-claims.  Court rejected the argument that an ERISA claim was not arbitrable, finding that a valid arbitration agreement existed and the FAA required it to compel arbitration.

• Hannie Development Inc. v. Colonial Oaks Assisted Living Lafayette, LLC, No. 6:19-CV-00833-TAD (W.D. La. Aug. 2, 2019)

  08/02/2019

  Court denied an application to modify or partially vacate an arbitration award.   Court rejected the applicants’ argument that the award was based on claims that were not arbitrable and found that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority in rendering the “partial final award.”  Court also rejected the argument that the award should be vacated pursuant to 9 USC §10(a)(4) because it was not final and definite.  Court held that an arbitration award is final and definite for purposes of that statute if it is “sufficiently specific as to be capable of implementation.”

• Iliev v. Elavon, Inc., No. 18-CV-08208-MFK (N.D. Ill. July 31, 2019)

  07/31/2019

  Court granted defendants’ motions to compel arbitration.  Court rejected one defendant’s contention that plaintiff was estopped from pursuing claims in court because these claims were tied to claims against the other defendant that were subject to arbitration.  The court stated that estoppel was a matter of state law, and that the defendant had not provided cited any Illinois precedent.  The court, however, found that the claims against both defendants were subject to separate arbitration agreements, and thus granted the motion as to all claims. 

• Clemons v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-16883-NLH-AMD (D.N.J. July 25, 2019)

  07/25/2019

  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that defendant was assigned the right to enforce the arbitration agreement.  Court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that defendant could not invoke the arbitration agreement because the agreement did not explicitly mention assignees.

• I3 Triple Crown Holdings, LLC v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC, No. 5:19-CV-00057-JMH (E.D. Ky. July 24, 2019)

  07/24/2019

  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss or compel arbitration, holding that an arbitration agreement was not unconscionable when it incorporated pages of the contract that were not provided to plaintiff.  Court additionally rejected plaintiff’s argument that the agreement was unconscionable because it was offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

• Newirth v. Aegis Senior Communities, LLC, No. 17-17227 (9th Cir. July 24, 2019)

  07/24/2019

  Court of appeals affirmed district court order finding that defendant-appellant waived its right to arbitrate.  Court found that defendant-appellant waived its right to arbitrate when it (1) significantly engaged in the discovery process and (2) filed a motion to compel arbitration more than a year after withdrawing a prior motion to compel arbitration.

• Core v. Lighthouse Ins. Group, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-01186-DAP (N.D. Ohio July 23, 2019)

  07/23/2019

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that an arbitration agreement was not unconscionable when it included a cost-splitting provision. Court additionally found that dismissal of plaintiff’s claims without prejudice was most appropriate when all of plaintiffs’ claims were submitted to arbitration.

• Denson v. Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-02690-JMF (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2019)

  07/23/2019

  Court denied plaintiff’s cross-petition to vacate an award in federal court, finding that the cross-petition was precluded by a state-court judgment confirming the award.

• Blevins v. Teletech Holdings, Inc., No. 6:19-CV-03121-DPR (W.D. Mo. July 22, 2019)

  07/22/2019

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel individual arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable when there was an inequality in bargaining power.  Court also found that the issue of arbitrability was explicitly delegated to the arbitrator.

• 20/20 Communications, Inc. v. Crawford, No. 18-10260 (5th Cir. July 22, 2019)

  07/22/2019

  Court of appeals remanded the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint, finding that, absent clear and unmistakable language to the contrary, the availability of class arbitration is a gateway issue for courts to decide rather than arbitrators.  Court found that the parties did not provide clear and unmistakable language authorizing arbitrators to order class arbitration, where the arbitration agreement specifically prohibited arbitrators from “fashion[ing] a proceeding as a class or collective action.”

• Capone v. Atlantic Specialty Ins. Co., No. 1:18-CV-02824-CAB (N.D. Ohio July 19, 2019)

  07/19/2019

  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiff’s claims were barred by res judicata when an arbitrator issued an award resolving such claims.  Court found that the arbitrator’s award was not reviewable when he arguably construed the underlying contract.

• Miller Legal, LLP v. Miller, No. 1:18-CV-01007-RC (D.D.C. July 19, 2019)

  07/19/2019

  Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff waived its right to arbitrate when it engaged in litigation activity for seven months and failed to invoke the right to arbitrate until defendants filed counterclaims.

• Maher v. Northland Group, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-02957-KM-JBC (D.N.J. July 19, 2019)

  07/19/2019

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendant waived the right to arbitrate by nearly two years of litigation conduct before state courts.

• United States of America, for the use and benefit of Simpson Unlimited, Inc. v. The Whiting-Turner Contracting Co., No. 1:19-CV-01400-SAG (D. Md. July 18, 2019)

  07/18/2019

  Court granted defendants’ motion to stay proceedings.  Court held it would grant discretionary stay even if the claims, with respect to one of the parties, were not referable to arbitration after weighing the competing interests presented, considerations of judicial economy, efficient use of the parties’ time, effort, and resources, and the lack of prejudice to the non-moving party.