Shearman & Sterling LLP | U.S. International Arbitration Digest | US International Arbitration
U.S. International Arbitration Digest
This links to the home page
US International Arbitration

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

FILTER BY:
AND/OR
  • Katz v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, No. 18-1436 (2d Cir. Mar. 12, 2019)
    03/12/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court decision confirming an arbitral award, finding that the standard of review imposed by the FAA does not violate the Fifth Amendment due process right to judicial review, since a private party’s agreement to arbitrate does not constitute state action.

  • Bracey v. Lancaster Foods LLC, No. 1:17-CV-01826-RDB (D. Md. Mar. 12, 2019)
    03/12/2019

    Court denied motion for reconsideration of decision granting motion to compel arbitration, finding, inter alia, that evidence of minimum interstate travel by truck driver did not render him an interstate transportation worker for purposes of the exemption under § 1 of the FAA.

  • Doe v. Virginia College, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-00023-RP (W.D. Tex. Mar. 12, 2019)
    03/12/2019

    Court granted unopposed motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that an arbitration existed and covered the claims at issue.

  • Partners 3190, LLC v. Signature Building Systems, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-01475-JMM (M.D. Penn. Mar. 12, 2019)
    03/12/2019

    Court denied petition to vacate arbitral award and granted cross-petition to confirm the award, finding that the claim submitted in arbitration was a breach of contract claim and not subject to an exclusion from the arbitration agreement for warranty claims.

  • Stone v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 1:18-CV-02526-ELH (D. Md. Mar. 11, 2019)
    03/11/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed action, finding that (i) in a contract between a Fortune 500 company and a consumer, a cross-reference to application of the AAA rules does not provide clear and unmistakeable evidence of the consumer’s intent to arbitrate arbitrability; (ii) the claims were within the scope of the arbitration agreement; and (iii) the appropriate remedy when all issues presented in a lawsuit are referred to arbitration is dismissal.           

  • Butcher v. Teamsters Local 955, No. 2:18-CV-02424-JAR-KGG (D. Kan. Mar. 11, 2019)
    03/11/2019

    Court denied motion to stay pending arbitration of related claim against another defendant, finding that (i) FAA did not provide authority for staying a non-arbitrable claim pending arbitration of a separate arbitrable claim; and (ii) the claims were not so intertwined as to justify an exercise of the court’s discretionary power to stay.

  • Agarunova v. The Stella Orton Home Care Agency, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00638-MKB-RLM (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2019)
    03/11/2019

    Court denied motion for conditional class certification, finding that class certification would be premature in light of pending decision on motion to compel arbitration and appeal in different case of legal question of whether an arbitration clause agreed by the union is binding on union members. 

  • Pierce County v. M.A. Mortenson Company, No. 3:19-CV-05041-RJB (W.D. Wash. Mar. 11, 2019)
    03/11/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and denied cross-motion for preliminary injunction to stay arbitration, finding that party’s objection to the availability of declaratory relief in arbitration did not constitute a waiver of the right to arbitrate.

  • Kensu v. JPay, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-11086-SFC-PTM (E.D. Mich. Mar. 11, 2019)
    03/11/2019

    Court adopted Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation in favor of arbitration and rejected objections thereto, finding that: (i) speculation that JAMS will decline to arbitrate the case does not prevent referral to arbitration, since if JAMS does decline the FAA provides for appointment of an alternate arbitrator; (ii) unconscionability argument went to the contract as a whole rather than the arbitration clause specifically and therefore was for the arbitrator to address; (iii) plaintiff cannot avoid arbitration agreement by re-characterizing his status as a third-party beneficiary of another contract that does not have an arbitration agreement; and (iv) plaintiff is not entitled to jury trial on issue of whether he entered into arbitration agreement, as there is no genuine factual issue on the point.

  • Tanis v. Southwest Airlines, Co., No. 3:18-CV-02333-BAS-BGS (S.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2019)
    03/11/2019

    Court granted in part motion to compel arbitration, finding that (i) challenge to the arbitration agreement specifically, rather than to arbitration agreement as a whole, was to be determined by the court; (ii) there was no material fact as to whether plaintiff clicked web box agreeing to arbitration; (iii) the arbitration agreement was not inconspicuous, since text accompanying the webform alerted her to the content of the agreement and linked to it; and (iv) the plaintiff’s dispute is encompassed within the terms of the arbitration agreement.

  • Lowery v. N.A.R., Inc., No. 2:18-CV-00480-JNP-PMW (D. Utah Mar. 8, 2019)
    03/08/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and referred to arbitration request to strike class claims, finding that questions of arbitrability were to be determined by the court and the claims at issue fell within the broad arbitration agreement, but that the question of whether to strike class claims was for the arbitrator to decide.

  • Peterson v. Binncacle Capital Services LLC, No. 4:18-CV-40088-TSH (D. Mass. Mar. 8, 2019)
    03/08/2019

    Court granted in part and denied in part motion to compel arbitration, finding (i) challenges to the validity of the entire contract should be resolved in arbitration; (ii) the parties’ mutual promises to arbitrate are adequate consideration; (iii) since Vermont law favors arbitration, the clause at issue should be read as containing both an agreement to arbitrate and an agreement to waive class and collective actions, rather than as a narrow agreement to arbitrate individual claims; and (iv) the arbitration clause could be enforced by a defendant who was a party to the agreement, but not by another defendant who was not a party to the agreement.

  • United Food & Commercial Workers’ Union, Local No. 293 v. Nebraska Prime Group, LLC, No. 8:18-CV-00466-RFR-SMB (D. Neb. Mar. 8, 2019)
    03/08/2019

    Court ordered defendant to show cause why it should not be held in civil contempt and sanctioned for failing to comply with terms of arbitration award confirmed by the court, finding that appeal of confirmation order did not divest the district court of jurisdiction absent a stay of proceedings.

  • Diversant, LLC v. Mitchelle Carino, No. 3:18-CV-03155-AET-DEA (D.N.J. Mar. 8, 2019)
    03/08/2019

    Court denied motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, finding that although fees and costs pertained to representation in court proceedings for injunctive relief (as such proceedings were excluded from the arbitration clause), there was no explicit exception from the arbitration clause for claims for attorneys’ fees and costs, and that the claim must therefore be brought in arbitration.

  • New Jersey Building Construction Laborers District Council v. Innovative Masonry LLC, No. 2:18-CV-14979-WJM-MF (D.N.J. Mar. 8, 2019) 
    03/08/2019

    Court confirmed an ICC arbitration award for a Japanese company awarding payments due it by the Tanzanian Ministry of Works under a contract to upgrade a stretch of roads.  Court found it had jurisdiction because the four requirements of the New York Convention were satisfied: (i) the award arose from a commercial legal relationship; (ii) there was a written agreement to arbitrate; (iii) the agreement provided for the arbitration to take place in a signatory country; and (iv) at least one of the parties was not an American citizen.  Court ignored Tanzania’s argument that the award had already been satisfied by a tax set off and thus confirmation of the award would be contrary to public policy, finding that this situation did not offend the forum state’s most basic notions of morality and justice.

  • Konoike Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ministry of Works, Tanzania, No. 1:17-CV-01986-RJL (D.D.C. Mar. 7, 2019)
    03/07/2019

    Court confirmed an ICC arbitration award for a Japanese company awarding payments due it by the Tanzanian Ministry of Works under a contract to upgrade a stretch of roads.  Court found it had jurisdiction because the four requirements of the New York Convention were satisfied: (i) the award arose from a commercial legal relationship; (ii) there was a written agreement to arbitrate; (iii) the agreement provided for the arbitration to take place in a signatory country; and (iv) at least one of the parties was not an American citizen.  Court ignored Tanzania’s argument that the award had already been satisfied by a tax set off and thus confirmation of the award would be contrary to public policy, finding that this situation did not offend the forum state’s most basic notions of morality and justice.
     

  • Brumley v. Austin Centers for Exceptional Students Incorporated, No. 2:18-CV-00662-DLR (D. Ariz. Mar. 7, 2019) 
    03/07/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Following ninth circuit precedent, court found that the agreement incorporation of the AAA rules constituted clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to delegate issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator.  Court disagreed with plaintiff’s argument that this precedent should not apply where one of the parties was unsophisticated.  Court also found that because plaintiff argued that the entire agreement was unconscionable, but did not challenge the arbitration clause specifically, this issue must be resolved by the arbitrator. 

  • Vieczorek v. Khorrami, No. 3:17-CV-01118-TJC-JBT (M.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2019) 
    03/07/2019

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that defendants had waived their right to arbitration by litigating the case for six months of “tortured motion practice” and that granting the motion would prejudice the plaintiffs. 

  • Bernardino v. Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc., No. 18-00607 (2d Cir. Mar. 7, 2019)
    03/07/2019

    Court of appeals denied the appeal of a granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that it did not have jurisdiction under the FAA.  Court found that under the FAA an appeal may not be taken from an interlocutory order granting a stay or compelling arbitration. 

  • Interceptor Ignition Interlocks, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility Services LLC, No. 1:18-CV-04289-PKC-GWG (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2019)
    03/07/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed all pending claims.  Court found that the parties’ agreement incorporated the AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules and, under these rules, issues of arbitrability, such as the scope of the arbitration agreement, were delegated to the arbitrator. 

  • Varner v. Sunrun Installation Services, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00328-JAO-KJM (D. Hawaii Mar. 6, 2019) 
    03/06/2019

    ​Court granted defendant’s unopposed motion to compel arbitration of all employment-related claims, and dismissed case without prejudice.

  • Widmer Enterprises, LLC v. Falck USA, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-11138-SDD (E.D. Mich. Mar. 6, 2019)
    03/06/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that the dispute fell within a narrow arbitration provision.  The dispute centered on whether the correct purchase price had been paid in a transaction where the target had understated its bad debt reserves.  Court held that this was the sort of dispute which was delegated to an accounting expert by the arbitration agreement.

  • International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America  v. TRW Automotive U.S. LLC, No.18-1160/1161 (6th Cir. Mar. 5, 2019)
    03/05/2019

    Court of appeals overturned a district court’s denial of a motion to partially vacate an arbitral award.  The arbitrator had ordered TRW to reinstate healthcare coverage under a specific provider and TRW claimed that the arbitrator did not arguably construe the agreement and this remedy was outside the scope of his authority.  Court agreed and found that the district court should have partially vacated the award.

  • Freeman v. Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC, No. 3:18-CV-00947-G (N.D. Tex. Mar. 5, 2019) 
    03/05/2019

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel FINRA arbitration, finding that plaintiffs were not signatories to the agreement containing the arbitration clause.  Court rejected defendant’s argument that the plaintiff was bound to the agreement with the arbitration clause under a theory of estoppel, finding instead that plaintiff had not sought benefits under that agreement, nor had they attempted to enforce rights under that agreement.  

  • Adell v. Cellco Partnership, No. 1:18-CV-00623-CAB (N.D. Ohio Mar. 5, 2019)
    03/05/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings under the FAA.  Court rejected plaintiffs arguments that her consent to the arbitration was not voluntary and that the Class Action Fairness Act and FAA are in conflict. Court found that plaintiff’s consent was voluntary because they had the choice to take their business elsewhere.
     

  • UDI Management v. Tremblay, 1:13-CV-00085-HWW (D.V.I. Mar. 6, 2019) 
    03/05/2019

    Court denied motion to vacate an arbitration award and confirmed the award.  Court found that although the courts in the Virgin Islands recognize the manifest disregard standard, petitioner did not meet its burden of proving that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law in making the award.

  • Snow v. ADT, LLC, No. 5:19-CV-00021-JGB-SHK (C.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2019) 
    03/05/2019

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court rejected defendant’s argument that plaintiff’s continued employment after the initiation of an arbitration policy with an opt-out provision was sufficient to establish plaintiff implied-in-fact assent to arbitrate, finding that plaintiff was on leave when the policy was initiated and thus never received it and could not assent.

  • Mutka v. Top Hat Imports, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-00539-SPC-MRM (M.D. Fla. Mar. 4, 2019)
    03/04/2019

    Magistrate judge issued recommendation that court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case.  Plaintiff argued that that the defendant was not a party to the arbitration agreement signed between himself and his employer, a car dealership, and thus defendant could not enforce it.  Magistrate judge found that while the term “dealership” was not defined in the agreement, extrinsic evidence resolved that ambiguity and showed that defendant was a party to the agreement. 

  • Pang v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-01882-PJH (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2019) 
    03/04/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, staying proceedings as to one plaintiff, but declined to stay proceedings for plaintiffs who had opted out of the arbitration agreement.  Court found that pursuant to California law, an offer to arbitrate future disputes that was written on a brochure included in the packaging of a portable phone was not conspicuous enough that a reasonable person would be on notice of their obligation to either arbitrate future claims or opt out of the arbitration agreement.  However, court held that a consumer who sought to invoke a limited warranty within the arbitration agreement’s 30 day opt out period would be on notice, and thus said plaintiff had an obligation to arbitrate. 

  • Economy Linen and Towel Service v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, No.18-3369 (6th Cir. Mar. 1, 2019)
    03/01/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s confirmation of an arbitration award.  Court ignored petitioner’s arguments that the arbitrator exceeding his authority by interpreting the bargaining agreement, finding that an arbitrator’s interpretive errors were beyond the reach of the deferential review Federal courts may give an arbitration award. 

  • Wallace v. Communications Unlimited, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-00503-JAR (E.D. Mo. Mar. 1, 2019) 
    03/01/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings.  Court ignored plaintiff’s argument that an arbitration agreement was unenforceable because it lacked sufficient acceptance to form a contract, instead finding pursuant to Missouri state law that this challenge should be presented in arbitration because the agreement delegated issues of contract formation to the arbitrator.  The court also noted that plaintiff’s did not challenge an earlier agreement which contained an identical arbitration provision. 

  • CAA Sports LLC v. Dogra, No. 4:18-CV-01887-SNLJ (E.D. Mo. Feb. 28, 2019) 
    02/28/2019

    Court declined to either confirm or vacate an arbitration award, and dismissed the case without prejudice.  Court followed the eighth circuit’s “complete arbitration rule,” and found that it was premature to decide the issues before it because there was not a final award.  Court reasoned that the award was not final because there is still a dispute over the amount of the award that must be resolved by the arbitrator.

  • Ellington v. Hayward Baker, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-03436-DCN (D.S.C. Feb. 28, 2019) 
    02/28/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the case.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that a conflict between two agreements, one of which did not contain an arbitration provision, evinced a lack of agreement to arbitrate.  Court found that none of the provisions in the agreements were in conflict with the arbitration provision.
     

  • Kourembanas v. Intercoast Colleges, No. 2:17-CV-00331-JAW (D. Maine Feb. 28, 2019) 
    02/28/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration of dispute alleging breach of contract and deceptive trade practices of a nursing school.   Court found that an agreement to arbitrate existed under Maine law.  Plaintiffs argued that the arbitration clause itself was unconscionable, but court found that under Maine law, the clause was neither substantively nor procedurally unconscionable.   

  • Chong v. 7-Eleven, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-01542-SNLJ (E.D. Penn. Feb. 28, 2019) 
    02/28/2019

    Court stayed several of plaintiff’s claims finding that they fell within the scope of an arbitration provision contained in a franchise agreement. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that defendant had waived its right to arbitration because its motion to stay arbitrable claims was filed five months after the original complaint.  Court found that defendant’s motion to stay related only to claims in plaintiff’s amended complaint and, because defendant made that motion within three weeks of the amended complaint, there was no undue delay and defendant had not waived its right to arbitration. 

  • Struss v. Rural Community Insurance Services, No. 2:18-CV-02187-DDC-GEB (D. Kan. Feb. 28, 2019)
    02/28/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings as to one defendant who was not bound to arbitrate claims until the conclusion of the arbitration.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that only certain claims should be compelled to arbitration, finding that because the agreement elected that the AAA’s rules should control, the agreement delegated all issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator and the arbitrator should decide which claims were subject to arbitration.
     

  • The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society v. Moreno, No. 2:16-CV-01355-JB-KRS (D.N.M. Feb. 28, 2019)
    02/28/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to appoint a neutral arbitrator pursuant to the FAA.  Court found that the parties failed to agree on an arbitrator and that arbitration agreement did not provide a method for appointing an arbitrator in the event that the parties failed to agree.  Thus, court had authority to appoint an arbitrator pursuant to 9 USC § 5.

  • Wanamaker Nursery, Inc. v. John Deere Risk Protection, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00077-CHS (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 28, 2019)
    02/28/2019

    Court dismissed a case seeking vacatur of an arbitration award.  Plaintiffs and defendant had previously arbitrated a dispute related to claims made on an insurance policy significant insect damage to plaintiff’s nursery.  Defendants determined plaintiffs were entitled to recovery under only one of seven policies and the arbitrator issued an award finding defendant had properly paid all amounts owed.  Court found that plaintiffs did not establish any grounds by which the court could overturn the award. 

  • Al-Ali v. Ken Garff Automotive Group, No. 2:18-CV-12687-PDB-MKM (E.D. Mich. Feb. 22, 2019)
    02/22/2019

    Court adopted magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, converted defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration to a motion for summary judgment, and granted defendants’ motion.  Magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff agreed to arbitrate claims arising from her employment, and nothing suggested that Congress intended plaintiff’s claims to be non-arbitrable or that it should be invalidated by generally applicable state-law contract defenses.  Magistrate judge also concluded that because all of plaintiff’s claims were subject to arbitration, the court should dismiss plaintiff’s complaint.

  • Campos v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, No. 3:18-CV-06169-JSC (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2019)
    02/21/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case without prejudice.  Court concluded that (i) the arbitration agreement was valid and covered the claims at issue; (ii) the adhesive nature of the agreement presented only a minimal degree of procedural unconscionability, and plaintiff failed to show additional factors of oppression or surprise that would render the agreement procedurally improper; (iii) plaintiff failed to demonstrate that defendant’s ability to amend or terminate the agreement was substantively unconscionable; and (iv) the discovery guideline provision was not substantively unconscionable as plaintiff failed to demonstrate that she would be unable to vindicate her rights under the agreement’s guideline limitations on discovery and the provision was not overly “harsh,” “unduly oppressive,” “one-sided as to shock the conscious,” or “unfairly one-sided.”

  • Gallagher v. Pepe Auto Group, No. 7:18-CV-03433-VB (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2019)
    02/21/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration as to plaintiff’s ADEA, OWBPA, NYSHRL, breach of contract, wrongful discharge, and breach of fiduciary duty claims, and denied as to plaintiff’s intentional interference with contractual relationship, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, injurious falsehood, and libel per se claims.  Court found that the second set of claims required examination of different evidence and did not require interpretation of or reference to the Employment Agreement.

  • Perez-Tejada v. Mattress Firm, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-12448-DJC (D. Mass. Feb. 21, 2019)
    02/21/2019

    Court allowed defendants’ motion to compel individual arbitration.  Court concluded that (i) the parties agreed to the material terms of the arbitration agreements and had a present intention to be bound by the agreements; (ii) defendants met their burden to show adequate consideration for the agreement; (iii) defendants were entitled to invoke the arbitration agreement; (iv) the agreement was not unconscionable; and (v) the collective action waiver was enforceable.

  • Getz v. DIRECTTV, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-22802-JEM (S.D. Fla. Feb. 20, 2019)
    02/20/2019

    Court denied defendant ViaSat, Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that the plaintiff’s claim arose from post-agreement conduct that allegedly violates a separate, distinct federal law and is not covered by the arbitration agreement.

  • Smith v. SMX, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-01903-JD (N.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2019)
    02/20/2019

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that plaintiff knew or should have known about the arbitration clause, yet continued to actively litigate her claims for a long time and failed to demonstrate any reason why she should be allowed to renounce her election to prosecute her claims in court and not in arbitration.  Court also found the delay prejudicial to the defendant.

  • Connor v. Midland Credit Management, No. 1:18-CV-23023-JG (S.D. Fla. Feb. 20, 2019)
    02/20/2019

    Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, which raised five issues, including whether the FAA’s 90-day statute of limitations bars the claim to vacate the arbitration award.  Court noted that it was uncertain whether § 12 of the FAA applied where a party is claiming that there was no arbitration agreement in the first place, and that defendant had not convinced the court to dismiss plaintiff’s claim based solely on the limitations period.  As such, court concluded that it would not, at that time, dismiss plaintiff’s claim based on the 90-day statute of limitations under § 12. 

  • Charles v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, No. 3:17-CV-00955-YY (D. Or. Feb. 20, 2019)
    02/20/2019

    Court adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Magistrate judge found that (i) defendant met its burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, the existence of—and plaintiff’s assent to—the arbitration agreement; (ii) defendant established its right to invoke the arbitration provision by a preponderance of the evidence; (iii) the scope of the arbitration encompassed plaintiff’s claim; (iv) the private attorney general and class action waivers found in the arbitration provision were valid; and, (v) plaintiff had not met his burden of showing that he is entitled to a jury trial under the FAA.

  • In re Application of Hulley Enterprises, Ltd., No. 1:18-MC-00435-GBD-GWG (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 19, 2019)
    02/19/2019

    Court denied petitioner’s application for leave to serve subpoenas on respondents, seeking evidence in connection with the litigation currently pending in the Court of Appeal of the Hague.  Applying the factors from Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (2004), court found that (i) the first Intel factor supported the production of documents generated at the time of respondents’ representation in the 1998-2004 time period because respondents are not a participant in the Dutch proceedings; (ii) the second factor also weighed in favor of production, as petitioner provided examples of cases where the submission of evidence collected through 28 USC § 1782 was admitted; and (iii) there is no exhaustion requirement under §1782 that required petitioners to seek the documents through proceedings in the Netherlands and Russia.  However, court also found that petitioner’s delay disfavored a grant of their §1782 application, and additional considerations under the fourth Intel factor more strongly counseled against granting the application.

  • Cuker v. Berezofsky, No. 2:18-CV-02356-MAK (E.D. Pa. Feb. 19, 2019)
    02/19/2019

    Court granted Ms. Berezofsky’s motion to confirm the final arbitration award.  Court concluded that (i) the panel did not deprive Mr. Cuker of a fair hearing by ruling on the dispositive motions without affording him a right to take discovery, as summary disposition of claims are allowed in arbitration and Mr. Cuker agreed to the discovery procedures; (ii) Mr. Cuker had full opportunity to fully brief and argue his motion for summary disposition; and (iii) the final arbitration award was not in manifest disregard of contract law.

  • Sterling Equipment, Inc. v. St. John’s Ship Building, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-00504-MMH-MCR (M.D. Fla. Feb. 19, 2019)
    02/19/2019

    Court adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and granted in part and denied in part petitioner’s motion for default judgment and confirmation of arbitration award.  Magistrate judge concluded that respondent failed to respond to the instant motion, the time for filing a response had long passed, and it did not appear that the award had been or should be vacated, modified, or corrected.  However, post-judgment interest should be from the date of entry of the judgment rather than from the date of the award as the arbitrator concluded.

  • Local 2110, Technical, Office and Professional Union, UAW, AFL-CIO v. Teachers College, Columbia University, No. 1:17-CV-03095-WHP (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 19, 2019)
    02/19/2019

    Court denied the motion to confirm the arbitration award, finding that although there was no dispute about whether the award should be confirmed, there was a dispute over the interpretation of the award and that it would be a “fool’s errand” to confirm an award that is ambiguous.

View All