A collection of the most recent US international arbitration decisions is available here. Decisions can be quickly retrieved by using the filter tools below.
-
Beattie v. TTEC Healthcare Solutions, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-03098-RM-NRN (D. Colo. May 21, 2019)05/21/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel individual arbitration and stayed the case with respect to two plaintiffs, finding they manifested their assent to arbitration agreement electronically.
-
OI European Group B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 1:16-CV-01533-ABJ (D.D.C. May 21, 2019)05/21/2019
Court confirmed an arbitral award of more than US$ 400 million rendered under the auspices of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) in favor of plaintiff. Court decided to enter judgment for the plaintiff noting defendant’s opposition pertained only to the applicable post-judgment interest rate.
-
Soffiantini v. Fitness International, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-23854-JLK (S.D. Fla. May 21, 2019)05/21/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration, finding that there was a valid arbitration agreement and that plaintiff failed to establish the arbitration provision was substantially or procedurally unconscionable.
-
Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Genrus Corp., No. 1:17-CV-02193-VSB-BCM (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2019)05/20/2019
Court granted plaintiffs’ unopposed petition to confirm an arbitration award, finding the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge to confirm the award did not have any clear error.
-
Osborne v. Charter Communications, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-01801-HEA (E.D. Mo. May 17, 2019)05/17/2019
Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the entire controversy between the parties was subject to and must be resolved by arbitration. Court held plaintiff accepted employment arbitration through not opting out of an agreement and considered that the claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.
-
Vantage Deepwater Company v. Petrobras America Inc., No. 4:18-CV-02246 (S.D. Tex. May 17, 2019)05/17/2019
Court granted plaintiff’s petition to confirm arbitration award and rejected defendant’s motion to vacate. With respect to defendant’s motion to vacate, court held that (i) defendant did not meet its burden of showing that a significant compromising connection existed between plaintiff and an arbitrator that would merit vacatur; (ii) the treatment given by one of the arbitrator to defendant’s witness and counsel does not amount to the standard of evident partiality necessary to grant vacatur; (iii) defendant did not show the tribunal denied it an adequate opportunity to present its evidence and arguments in the course of the arbitration (iv) the tribunal did not exceed its powers by failing to issue a reasoned award, and (v) the record did not support the position that defendant was denied a fair arbitration or that the arbitration was fundamentally flawed. With respect to confirmation of the final award, the court held that (i) defendant could not use the public policy defense under Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention to question the merits of the final award and re-litigate its bribery claims; (ii) there was no violation of Article V(1)(b) of the New York Convention because defendant’s dislike for one of the arbitrators cannot lead to the conclusion that the composition of the arbitral authority was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties.
-
eTouch LV, LLC v. eTouch Menu, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-02066-JCM-NJK (D. Nev. May 13, 2019)05/13/2019
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration and rejected defendants’ argument that the arbitration clause is void. Court explained that the FAA compels courts to stay litigation of arbitrable issues regardless of whether those issues intertwine with non-arbitrable issues.
-
Davidow v. H&R Block, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-01022-ODS (W.D. Mo. May 13, 2019)05/13/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion to strike. Court found a valid arbitration agreement existed and that it encompassed plaintiff’s Sherman Act claims. Court also concluded that, while non-signatory defendants may not have been specifically identified in the agreements, there is an irrefutable affiliation between defendants and signatory H&R Block Eastern Enterprises.
-
Austin Freight Systems, Inc. v. West Wind Logistics, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-04832 (N.D. Ill. May 13, 2019)05/13/2019
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration, concluding that the parties’ agreement confined the universe of arbitrable claims to those arising out of that agreement, and therefore it did not govern the parties’ entire commercial relationship.
-
Schultz, Jr. v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-04415-JLL-SCM (D.N.J. May 13, 2019)05/13/2019
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and strike class claims. Court found that defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate as, with the exception of defendant’s decision to prioritize its arguments for dismissal on the merits rather than its arguments for compelling arbitration, defendant has been proceeding as a party seeking to arbitrate should proceed, i.e. by invoking its right to arbitrate early and often and objecting to further litigation of the dispute (including discovery) pending an adjudication of the arbitration issue. However, court found that the existence of an enforceable arbitration agreement was not apparent, and directed the parties to conduct limited discovery on the narrow issue of whether an enforceable arbitration agreement exists.
-
McDonnel Group, L.L.C. v. Great Lakes Insurance SE, UK Branch, No. 18-30817 (5th Cir. May 13, 2019)05/13/2019
Court of appeals affirmed a district court decision in favor of the insurers, determining that the insurance policy’s “conformity to statute” provision did not negate the agreement to arbitrate. Court found that because the Louisiana state statute was preempted by the New York Convention, the statue does not and cannot apply to plaintiff-appellant’s policy, and therefore there is no conflict between the policy and the state statute. As such, the conformity provision was not triggered, and its inapplicability leads only to the conclusion that the arbitration provision survives.
-
Whoop, Inc. v. Ascent International Holdings, Ltd., No. 1:19-CV-10210-LTS (D. Mass. May 10, 2019)05/10/2019
Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court found that the arbitration agreement constituted a material alteration, and therefore it was not part of the parties’ contract.
-
Vargas v. Bay Terrace Plaza LLC, No. 1:17-CV-07385-PKC-SJB (E.D.N.Y. May 10, 2019)05/10/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and to stay the proceedings. Court noted that, while plaintiffs disputed the overall validity of the arbitration agreements, they did not dispute that the agreements delegated the question of enforceability to the arbitrator.
-
McCullough v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., No. 1:16-CV-20194-DPG (S.D. Fla. May 10, 2019)05/10/2019
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss plaintiffs’ third amended complaint. Following Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC v. Converteam SAS, 902 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2018) – which plainly rejected using arbitration by estoppel and other equitable theories to bind non-signatories to arbitration in cases arising under the New York Convention – court concluded that there was no agreement signed by both parties and therefore plaintiffs cannot be compelled to arbitrate.
-
Furlough v. Capstone Logistics, LLC, No. 5:18-CV-02990-SVK (N.D. Cal. May 10, 2019)05/10/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment that an arbitration agreement exists. Court concluded that (i) defendants established by a preponderance of the evidence that plaintiff completed and e-signed an onboarding form acknowledging that he read the arbitration agreement and received the associate handbook; (ii) plaintiff consented to arbitration and therefore an arbitration agreement exists; and (iii) because plaintiff did not directly transport goods while working for the defendant and has not shown that defendant is in the transportation industry itself, plaintiff is not a transportation worker falling within an exemption from the FAA.
-
Asberry-Jones v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. 2:19-CV-00083-MAK (E.D. Pa. May 10, 2019)05/10/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Applying a motion to dismiss standard, court concluded that there was a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement. Court found that (i) both parties agreed to be mutually bound by arbitration and so there was adequate consideration, and (ii) the arbitration agreement clearly and unambiguously required arbitration of all claims “arising out of” plaintiff’s employment, including but not limited to the claims at issue in the case.
-
Monfared v. St. Luke’s University Health Network, No. 18-2850 (3d Cir. May 10, 2019)05/10/2019
Court of appeals affirmed lower court decision to confirm an arbitration award. In determining whether the claims were subject to arbitration, court concluded that the phrase “if a dispute or claim should arise” was best understood as functionally equivalent to more standard language that would sweep in any claim relating to the plaintiff’s employment.
-
Green Biologics, Inc. v. Easy Energy Systems, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-01121-JLG-EPD (S.D. Ohio May 9, 2019)05/09/2019
Court granted motion to compel alternative dispute resolution, first to mediation and, if necessary, to arbitration. Court held that a valid alternative dispute resolution agreement existed and that the claims at issue fall within the remit of that agreement.
-
Goldgroup Resources, Inc. v. DynaResource de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., No. 1:16-CV-02547-RM-KMT (D. Colo. May 9, 2019)05/09/2019
Court rejected magistrate judge’s recommendation and granted application to confirm the arbitration award and denied motion to vacate, amongst other findings.
-
Smith v. BCDJ, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-02081-CM-GEB (D. Kan. May 7, 2019)05/07/2019
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and granted stay of the case pending arbitration, finding that a stay – rather than dismissal – is the appropriate result in light of tenth circuit case law and FAA § 3.
-
CCC Information Services Inc. v. Tractable Inc., No. 1:18-CV-07246 (N.D. Ill. May 7, 2019)05/07/2019
Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that an issue exists as to whether an agreement between the plaintiff and defendants exists at all, and that issue is for the court to decide.
-
Miller v. UBS Financial Services Inc., No. 1:18-CV-08415-JPO (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2019)05/06/2019
Court denied petition to vacate an arbitration award in favor the respondents, holding that the petitioner failed to satisfy “the heavy burden” of proving the existence of grounds for vacatur of an award in excess of the arbitrators’ powers under FAA § 10(a)(4) and (2).
-
Roth v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, No. 1:18-CV-10383-RA (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2019)05/06/2019
Court granted petitioners’ unopposed motion to confirm an arbitration award entered by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Office of Arbitration.
-
Paysafe Partners LP v. Merchant Payment Group LLC, No. 1:19-CV-00495-LGS (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2019)05/06/2019
Court granted motion to confirm an arbitration award pursuant to FAA § 9 and awarded petitioner reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs enforcing the award, as well as pre and post-judgment interest.
-
Gutierrez v. Friendfinder Networks Inc., No. 5:18-CV-05918-BLF (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2019)05/03/2019
Court granted motion to compel arbitration and to stay the case, finding that plaintiff agreed to be bound by the defendant’s on-line terms that contained an arbitration agreement. Court also found that the arbitration agreement establishes that the parties intended to have the arbitrator decide questions of arbitrability and that the delegation provision is not substantively unconscionable.
-
Warren v. Geller, No. 2:11-CV-02282-NJB-SS (W.D. La. May 3, 2019)05/03/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to confirm an arbitration award and denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate. Court held that plaintiff’s motion for vacatur fails on a theory of manifest disregard of the law and, having no other grounds to vacate, modify, or correct the award, the Court confirmed the award pursuant to the FAA.
-
Freeman v. Smartpay Leasing, LLC, No. 18-10380 (11th Cir. May 3, 2019)05/03/2019
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s finding that the defendant waived its right to arbitration by failing to pay the required arbitration fees and, in doing so, prejudiced the plaintiff’s ability to arbitrate the dispute. Court also held that an order lifting a stay of a civil action is functionally equivalent to an order refusing a stay and is, therefore, immediately appealable pursuant FAA § 16(a)(1)(A).
-
Boon v. Indyzen, Inc., No. 18-71347 (9th Cir. May 3, 2019)05/03/2019
Court of appeals denied petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to direct a district court to vacate its order compelling third parties to arbitration of claims related to a software licensing agreement. Court analyzed Bauman factors, and found, in particular, that petitioner had other adequate means of relief and would not suffer prejudice by the arbitration proceedings, thus the court did not issue the writ of mandamus.
-
Wilbur v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., No. 4:19-CV-00176-SRB (W.D. Mo. May 3, 2019)05/03/2019
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of a age discrimination claims. Court held that a bilateral promise to arbitrate claims must be assented to by both parties and that because there was no signature or other indication to show that the defendant had assented to the arbitration agreement, it could not be enforced. Court rejected defendant’s argument that it assented to the agreement when it presented the agreement to the plaintiff through HR personnel.
-
Shams v. CVS Health Corporation, No. 2:18-CV-08158-SK (C.D. Cal. May 2, 2019)
05/02/2019Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of employment discrimination claims. Court held that although plaintiff argued that certain provisions awarding costs and attorney fees made the arbitration provision unconscionable, the provision contained a delegation clause that plaintiff did not challenge and thus the question of whether the claims were arbitrable was properly reserved for the arbitrator.
-
Ralco, LLC v. R. J. Corman Railroad Company/Carolina Lines, LLC, No. 5:17-CV-00429-D (E.D.N.C. May 2, 2019)05/02/2019
Court confirmed arbitration award pursuant to the FAA and FRCP 7(B) and dismissed the action with prejudice
-
Ford v. Account Control Technology, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-00203-AWI-JLT (E.D. Cal. May 2, 2019)05/02/2019
Court stayed proceedings and compelled arbitration on an individual basis. Court followed Supreme Court precedent in holding that ambiguous language in an arbitration agreement cannot be the basis for determining that the parties agreed to class arbitration.
-
Garrett v. Rothschild, No. 3:18-CV-05863-BHS (W.D. Wash. May 2, 2019)05/02/2019
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration without prejudice. While the court agreed that defendant would be able to enforce an arbitration provision as a non-signatory, the court held that defendant failed to meet his burden to establish that an arbitration provision existed and applied to the dispute at issue.
-
Landau v. Rheinold, No. 17-3963 (2d Cir. May 1, 2019)05/01/2019
Court of appeals confirmed a district court’s decision to confirm an arbitration award granted by a rabbinical tribunal. Court found that to confirm an arbitration award under § 9 of the FAA, a district court should “look through” to the underlying controversy to determine whether there is subject matter jurisdiction. Court found that district court had properly determined it had subject matter jurisdiction and confirmed the award.
-
Moorman v. Charter Communications, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-00820-WMC (W.D. Wis. May 1, 2019)05/01/2019
Court stayed case and granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of wage dispute claims. Court found plaintiff’s argument that the agreement was unconscionable under Wisconsin law unpersuasive, and found that the FAA required the court to compel arbitration where a dispute falls within a valid agreement to arbitrate. Court further found that even if plaintiff were permitted to amend the complaint to include claims predating the arbitration agreement, the question of whether those claims were arbitrable or not would be delegated to the arbitrator by the agreement.
-
Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance USA, Inc. v. Denham-Blythe Company, Inc., No. 5:18-CV-00152-JMH (E.D. Ky. May 1, 2019)05/01/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss a design and build contract claim. Court held that the contract contained a clear dispute resolution clause that required first an attempt to mediate, and then, if mediation failed, to arbitrate. Court found that plaintiff brought this action instead of mediating the dispute and ordered plaintiff to comply with the dispute resolution clause.
-
Bailey Shipping Ltd. v American Bureau of Shipping, No. 1:12-CV-05959-KPF (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2019)05/01/2019
Court granted petitioner’s unopposed motion to confirm an arbitration award pursuant to the New York Convention. Respondent had initiated arbitration proceedings against petitioner alleging negligent misrepresentation concerning the condition of a vessel. Arbitrators held that respondent failed to meet its burden in proving negligent misrepresentation and found in favor of petitioner awarding certain fees and costs. Court found no grounds for setting aside the final award and granted the full amount of the award plus post-award, pre-judgment interest.
-
Trustees for the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. Minelli Construction Co. Inc., No. 1:19-CV-02700-JMF (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2019)05/01/2019
Court granted petitioner’s unopposed motion to confirm an arbitration award. Court found that there was no genuine dispute of material fact precluding the confirmation of the award, nor any reason under FAA § 10(a) for vacating the award.
-
Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Pletcher, No. 3:18-CV-00949-JD-MGG (N.D. Ind. May 1, 2019)05/01/2019
Court granted motion to compel arbitration as to one defendant but denied the motion as to another defendant. Court found that first defendant, and insurance agency, had a valid agreement to arbitrate and that the claims arose out of the contract governed by that agreement. The second defendant, an employee of the insurance agency, was not a signatory to the agreement and did not provide the court with any basis for enforcing the arbitration clause as a non-signatory.
-
Munger v. Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-00970-SB (D. Or. May 1, 2019)05/01/2019
Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss wrongful termination claims, but denied defendant’s motion to dismiss statutory employment claims that had already been the subject of a binding arbitration. Court recognized that arbitration decisions can have res judicata or collateral estoppel effect, but followed the Supreme Court in holding that an adverse arbitration decision does not prevent an employee from re-litigating statutory claims.
-
Wilson v. Mercury Casualty Co.., No. 1:18-CV-11014-OTW (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2019)04/30/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation related to a lost wages and retaliatory termination case. Plaintiff conceded that the arbitration agreement would be valid on its own, but challenged the validity of the agreement as a whole to which the arbitration provision was a part, however the Court found that the arbitration agreement was severable and could be enforced. Court further found that to the extent that certain defendants were non signatories, they could still invoke the arbitration clause under equitable estoppel.
-
Christensen v. Barclays Bank Delaware, No. 1:18-CV-12280-ADB (D. Mass. Apr. 30, 2019)04/30/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration of putative class claims related to credit card debt collection practices. Court found that challenges to the agreement as a whole and not specific to the arbitration provision should properly be submitted to the arbitrator. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that arbitration had been waived by seeking to collect the credit card debt through litigation. Court likewise rejected plaintiff contention that the arbitration clause was not part of the controlling agreement or that the clause did not cover her credit card account.
-
King v. AxleHire Inc., No. 3:18-CV-01621-JD (N.D. Cal. April 30, 2019)04/30/2019
Court granted motion to compel arbitration of claims in a putative employment class action. Plaintiff contended that he never assented to a contract to arbitrate, because defendant had no record of his signature. Court rejected defendant’s argument that the question of contract formation should be delegated to the arbitrator, finding that the delegation provision could not be valid if a contract was not formed, however Court found that defendant presented sufficient evidence to show an agreement was formed under California law, and compelled arbitration.
-
Textron Aviation, Inc. v. Superior Air Charter, LLC, No. 6:18-CV-01187-JWB-JPO (D. Kan. Apr. 30, 2019)04/30/2019
Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of a dispute related to an consignment agreement. Court agreed with plaintiff that the dispute was not within the scope of an arbitration provision in an additional agreement the parties had entered into, and further found that the claims alleged in the complaint fell within an exception to the governing arbitration provision.
-
Mitschele v. Municipal Parking Services, No. 0:18-CV-00878-BRT (D. Minn. Apr. 30, 2019)04/30/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of breach of contract and shareholder claims. Court found that the shareholder claims were subject to an arbitration clause in a separate agreement which extended to all pending and incidental disputes between the parties. Courts also held that because plaintiff had previously chosen to arbitrate similar claims in a still pending arbitration proceeding, it was now bound by that decision and could not now argue the claims were not subject to arbitration.
-
American Airlines, Inc. v. Mawhinney, No. 3:18-CV-00731-BTM-WVG (S.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2019)04/29/2019
Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award. Court found that respondent had missed the three month window to challenge the award and his opposition was not timely. Court also rejected respondent’s argument that the award should not be confirmed because the underlying decision to compel arbitration was erroneous.
-
Roberts v. Obelisk, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-02898-LAB-BGS (S.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2019)04/29/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of a putative class claims relating to the sale of cryptocurrency miners. Court found that a click wrap agreement was sufficient to establish plaintiffs’ assent to the arbitration agreement under Massachusetts law. Court rejected plaintiffs’ arguments that it did not agree to arbitrate against certain defendants who were not parties to the arbitration agreement, finding that arbitration with these defendants was proper under the doctrine of equitable estoppel.
-
Bachewicz v. Jetsmarter, Inc., No. 0:18-CV-62570-BB (S.D. Fla. Apr. 29, 2019)04/29/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration of breach of contract claims. Court held that a click wrap agreement containing an arbitration clause was valid and enforceable under Florida law. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that Illinois law should apply, finding that the agreement contained a choice of law provision which named Florida law and plaintiff relied on Florida law in his briefings to the court. Court further found that defendant was not required to identify the exact version of the agreement that to which the plaintiff assented in order to provide sufficient proof that the parties actually agreed to arbitrate.
-
Laine v. Jetsmarter, Inc., No. 0:18-CV-62969-BB (S.D. Fla. Apr. 29, 2019)04/29/2019
Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration of breach of contract claims. Court held that a click wrap agreement containing an arbitration clause was valid and enforceable under Florida law. Court denied plaintiffs’ argument because defendant could not produce a version of the agreement that contained a name or date to which plaintiffs were tied the arbitration agreement was not valid.