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
  • In re Bio Energias Comercializadora de energia LTDA, No. 1:19-CV-24497 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2020)
    01/31/2020

    Court granted respondent’s motion to quash a subpoena issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to obtain discovery in aid of an arbitration in Brazil.  While court assumed that the foreign arbitration qualified as a foreign or international tribunal, it found that the Intel factors weighed in favor of quashing the subpoenas.

  • Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company v. Anthem, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-03589 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 31, 2020)
    01/31/2020

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings and granted plaintiff’s motion to stay the arbitration.  Court found that the agreement obligated the parties to submit their dispute to only one of two possible methods of ADR, and having submitted the dispute to mediation, defendant could not now also compel plaintiffs to arbitrate. Court further found that there was a question of fact as to whether the parties’ participation in mediation in a forum different from that specified in their agreement modified the agreement, thus they could not grant the motion to compel under the summary judgment standard. 

  • Kelch v. Pyramid Hotel Group, No. 1:18-CV-00707-TSB (S.D. Ohio Jan. 30, 2020)
    01/30/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case.  Plaintiff did not oppose the motion to compel arbitration but argued that the case should be stayed rather than dismissed.  Court disagreed and held that because all claims were subject to arbitration, dismissal was appropriate.

  • Benson v. Double Down Interactive, LLC, No. 18-36015 (9th Cir. Jan. 29, 2020)
    01/29/2020

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of putative class claims related to the downloading through the Apple app store and playing of a mobile game.  Court found that under Washington state law the terms of use containing the arbitration provision were not sufficiently conspicuous to give a reasonably prudent user constructive notice and thus there was no mutual assent to arbitrate.

  • Trawick v. McCuthchen, No. 2:19-CV-01199-ACA (N.D. Ala. Jan. 29, 2020)
    01/29/2020

    Court granted petition to confirm an arbitration award and denied motion to vacate.  Court rejected respondent’s arguments that the arbitrators had exceeded their authority by denying a motion to dismiss claims which respondent argued were untimely, holding that even if the arbitrators made a mistake this is not a basis for vacatur.  Court further rejected respondent’s argument that participation of the chair of the arbitration panel in a “mock arbitration” biased him against respondent.

  • Borror Property Management, LLC v. Oro Karric North, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-04375-ALM-EPD (D. Ohio Jan. 29, 2020)
    01/29/2020

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, holding that defendants had waived their right to compel arbitration when they wrote to plaintiff threatening to sue and indicated that their reading of the arbitration agreement did not “limit litigation exclusively to arbitration.”  Defendants’ letter further invited plaintiff to waive any right it had to compel arbitration.  Court found that it would prejudice plaintiffs to allow defendants to invoke the arbitration provisions.

  • Falkner v. Dolgencorp, LLC., No. 2:19-CV-00598-GMB (N.D. Ala. Jan. 29, 2020)
    01/29/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings of various tort claims against plaintiff’s former employer.  Court rejected plaintiff’s contention that she had not seen or signed an arbitration agreement, finding that there was no dispute of material fact after considering the evidence of an initialed agreement provided by defendant.

  • Villa v. Gruma Corporation, No. 1:19-CV-01721-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2020)
    01/28/2020

    Court granted defendant’s unopposed motion to compel arbitration and dismiss a wrongful termination claim.  Court found that defendant met its burden in demonstrating that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed and covered the dispute at issue.  Court further found that because all claims were subject to arbitration, dismissal was appropriate.

  • Teverbaugh v. Lima One Capital, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-00159-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss. Jan. 28, 2020)
    01/28/2020

    Court denied an unopposed motion to confirm an arbitration award awarded by SITCOMM Arbitration Association.  Court found that it could not confirm an award where petitioner had failed to attach the underlying agreement to arbitrate, as required by the FAA, since it could not determine if the award was made pursuant to a valid agreement.  Court further threatened petitioner with Rule 11 Sanctions if she submitted an agreement to arbitrate similar to one recently discussed in Imperial Industrial Supply Company v. Thomas, a case involving the same suspect arbitrators who issued petitioners award.

  • Laborers’ Local Union Nos. 472 & 172  v. Tarheel Enterprises, Inc., No. 3:19-CV-20624-AET-LHG (D.N.J. Jan. 28, 2020)
    01/28/2020

    Court granted unopposed motion to confirm arbitration award.  Court found that pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 9, it must confirm an arbitration award “[i]f the parties in their agreement have agreed that a judgment of the court shall be entered upon the award made pursuant to the arbitration.” 

  • UBS Securities LLC, v. Prowse, No. 1:20-CV-00217 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2020)
    01/27/2020

    Court granted a preliminary injunction and a petition to compel arbitration, preventing respondent from pursuing claims under Section 120 of New York’s compensation law.  Court rejected respondent’s argument that the employment agreement was unconscionable and therefore unenforceable.  Court further found that the question of whether the Section 120 claims were within the scope of the agreement had been clearly and unmistakably delegated to the arbitrators.

  • Capone v. Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company, No. 19-3760 (6th Cir. Jan. 27, 2020)
    01/27/2020

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s granting of defendant’s motion to dismiss claims that had previously been resolved in arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff was seeking a vacatur of the previous arbitration award and that there were no grounds for vacating the award.

  • Republic of Kazakhstan v. Lawler, No. 2:20-CV-00090-DWL (D. Ariz. Jan. 27, 2020)
    01/27/2020

    Court granted a motion to quash a subpoena previously authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 1782.  Court noted that Kazakhstan was involved in a dispute under a BIT and was looking for information regarding whether a Nevada corporation was controlled by non-U.S. nationals which may preclude the corporation from asserting claims under the BIT.  Court held that because the petition to serve the subpoena was granted on an ex parte basis with the understanding that the subpoenaed party would be free to challenge it, the court should reexamine the § 1782 factors in considering the motion to quash. Court considered the Intel factors and found that they weighed in favor of granting the motion to quash.

  • Willis  v. Fitbit, Inc., No. 3:19-CV-01377 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2020)
    01/27/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration agreements were procedurally and substantively unconscionable, that the language in the parties’ agreements evidenced a clear an unmistakable intent to delegate threshold issues like arbitrability to the arbitrators, and the arguments related to unconscionability were not specific to the delegation provision.

  • Novenergia II – Energy & Environment (SCA) v. The Kingdom of Spain, No. 1:18-CV-01148-TSC (D. D.C. Jan. 27, 2020)
    01/27/2020

    Court granted respondent’s motion to stay the proceedings of an action seeking to enforce a € 53.3 million SCC arbitral award issued against the Kingdom of Spain.  Court did not decide whether it had jurisdiction, holding that this question was dependent on a determination of whether the parties decided to arbitrate their dispute which, in turn, was currently the question before an appellate court in Sweden. Thus, without deciding whether the court had jurisdiction, the court determined that the principals of judicial economy and international comity weighed in favor of granting a stay.  Court further found that because it had not ruled on its own jurisdiction, it could not grant petitioner’s request that respondent be required to post a bond for the amount of the award under the New York Convention.

  • Summers Laboratories, Inc. v. Shionogi Inc., No. 1:19-CV-02754-AT (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2020)
    01/27/2020

    Court granted motion to confirm an arbitration award and denied respondent’s petition to partially vacate the award with respect to attorney’s fees.  Court rejected respondent’s arguments that claims for attorney’s fees were not set forth in petitioner’s demand for arbitration, that the panel exceeded its authority, and that the agreement allowing for attorney’s fees had become void.  Court also awarded post-award pre-judgment interest at nine percent per annum.

  • Wainwright v. Melaleuca, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-02330-JAM-DB (E.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2020)
    01/27/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss a putative class action alleging violations of the California labor code.  Court found that the contract clearly delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

  • MGP Electronics, Inc. v. Electronic Design & Sales, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-00483-HAB-SLC (D. Ind. Jan. 24, 2020)
    01/24/2020

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration of defendant’s counterclaims and stayed the proceedings.  Parties agreed a valid arbitration agreement governed the contract, and court rejected defendant’s argument that it’s counterclaim for defamation arose after the agreement was terminated and was thus outside the scope of the arbitration clause.  Court found that the alleged defamation arose from the parties business relationship which was subject to the arbitration agreement. 

  • Katz v. The Rittenhouse Organization, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-00546-MN (D. Del. Jan. 23, 2020)
    01/23/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding that plaintiff’s claims must be arbitrated when the agreement provided that either party may request arbitration, and rejecting plaintiff’s argument that his claims must be litigated because he chose litigation in lieu of arbitration.

  • Doe v. Epic Games, Inc., No. 4:19-CV-03629-YGR (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2020)
    01/23/2020

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that a minor plaintiff validly disaffirmed the arbitration agreement after sending letters with the intent to repudiate the binding force of the agreement and subsequently filed suit.

  • Solo v. United Parcel Service Co., No. 17-2244 (6th Cir. Jan. 23, 2020)
    01/23/2020

    Court of appeals confirmed a district court’s denial of appellant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the parties did not intend to arbitrate claims predating the arbitration agreement.  Court held that district court properly concluded that appellant waived its right to arbitrate when it filed a motion to dismiss seeking a decision on the merits.

  • Veolia Water Solutions & Technologies Support v. Westech Engineering, Inc., No. 5:19-CV-00344-FL (E.D.N.C. Jan. 22, 2020)
    01/22/2020

    Court denied respondents’ petition to compel arbitration, finding that it lacked the power to compel arbitration or enjoin litigation when a parallel action—determining the same issues between the same parties—was filed in a Utah district court before the North Carolina action.  Court found that only the district where the litigation commenced has the authority to compel arbitration and enjoin litigation.

  • Connell v. Apex Systems, LLC, No. 3:19-CV-00299-JAG (E.D. Va. Jan. 21, 2020)
    01/21/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding that defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate when it filed a motion to compel arbitration one month after plaintiffs filed their complaint.  Court further found that defendant’s use of the discovery process did not result in a waiver of its right to arbitrate, as defendant did not file any dispositive motions or otherwise attempt to litigate the matter on the merits.

  • Zandman v. Citibank, N.A., No. 7:18-CV-00791-NSR-PED (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2020)
    01/21/2020

    Court confirmed defendant’s unopposed motion to confirm an arbitration award, finding that there was “a barely colorable justification” for the outcome reached in the award and no other grounds for vacatur existed.

  • Givens-Keefer v. American Express Company, No. 1:18-CV-04164-JPO (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2020)
    01/21/2020

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration finding that plaintiff agreed to arbitrate all disputes with her employer when she received an offer letter containing an arbitration provision and she continued working at defendants’ company.

  • National Partitions, Inc. v. LJH Commercial Contracting, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-00470-HBG (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 17, 2020)
    01/17/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding that defendant did not waive its right to compel arbitration when it waited 11 months to file its motion.  Court found that defendant provided plaintiff sufficient notice of defendant’s intent to arbitrate, including raising arbitration as an affirmative defense in its answer.     

  • Hunter v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., No. 3:19-CV-01053-WHO (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2020)
    01/17/2020

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration finding that an arbitration clause resulting from a contract of adhesion was not sufficiently procedurally unconscionable to deny enforcement of the arbitration clause.  Court found that fee-shifting provisions precluding plaintiff from seeking attorneys’ fees or arbitration costs were substantively unconscionable and severed such provisions as unenforceable.  Court further found that plaintiff’s claims could not be arbitrated on a class-wide basis without an explicit statement to that effect in the arbitration agreement.

  • Dynacolor, Incorporated v. Razberi Technologies Incorporated, No. 19-10720 (5th Cir. Jan. 9, 2020) 
    01/09/2020

    Court of appeals affirmed order confirming arbitration award, finding that defendant had failed to demonstrate that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded controlling law. Court further noted a circuit split as to whether manifest disregard was a justifiable grounds for vacatur of an arbitration award, but stated that it did not need to decide this issue as defendant had not met the rigorous standard for demonstrating manifest disregard of law.

  • Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund v. South City Motors, Inc., No. 18-16170 (9th Cir. Jan. 9, 2020) 
    01/09/2020

    Court of appeals affirmed district court order finding that an arbitrator did not err in several legal and procedural determinations during the course of the arbitration. Court stated it would review arbitrators findings of law de novo, his findings of fact for clear error, and his award of attorney’s fees for abuse of discretion. Court affirmed each of the arbitrator’s findings.

  • Harrison v. Macy, Inc., No. 18-11424 (11th Cir. Jan. 9, 2020)
    01/09/2020

    Court of appeals vacated district court order compelling arbitration and remanded for litigation on the merits where party seeking to force arbitration voluntarily waived right to arbitrate plaintiff’s claims while appeal was pending.

  • Coleman v. Alaska USA Federal Credit Union, No. 3:19-CV-00229-HRH (D. Alaska Jan. 9, 2020)
    01/09/2020

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration agreement added by defendant by addendum to the contract was ineffective. Court found that the Account Agreement between the parties required defendant to provide notice to plaintiff before making “adverse changes” to the agreement by addenda, and that the addition of a mandatory arbitration provision was such an “adverse” change. Court held that because defendant failed to provide proper notice of this change, the arbitration provision was ineffective pursuant to general contract principles. 

  • Psara Energy, Ltd. v. Advantage Arrow Shipping, LLC, No. 19-40071 (5th Cir. Jan. 9, 2020)
    01/09/2020

    Court of appeals dismissed appeal of a district court Order granting a motion to compel arbitration, finding that the order, which administratively closed the case, was not a final, appealable order under the FAA.   

  • SFM LLC v. Best Roast Coffee LLC, No. 2:19-CV-04820-JAT (D. Ariz. Jan. 7, 2020) 
    01/07/2020

    Court granted in part defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that mandatory arbitration agreement between the parties governed a portion of plaintiff’s claims. Court held that it had jurisdiction over plaintiff’s requests for injunctive relief, but that damages claims were controlled by mandatory arbitration provision in agreement. 

  • Gonzales v. Sitel Operating Corporation, No. 2:19-CV-00876-GMN-VCF (D. Nev. Jan. 7, 2020)
    01/07/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration but denied motion to stay case, electing instead to dismiss the case without prejudice. Court found there were no remaining issues that would require the court’s attention after compelling arbitration.

  • Weiss v. American Express National bank, No. 1:19-CV-04720-JPO (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2020) 
    01/07/2020

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration where arbitration clause was permissive rather than mandatory, and defendant had failed to comply with the notice procedures in the agreement for initiating an arbitration prior to litigation. 

  • Border Area Mental Health, Inc. v. United Behavioral Health, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01213-MV-SCY (D.N.M. Jan. 7, 2020) 
    01/07/2020

    Court denied motion for reconsideration of an order dismissing plaintiff’s claims where an arbitrator had found those claims were subject to mandatory arbitration. Court found that dismissal of claims would not preclude plaintiffs from pursuing those claims through arbitration, so there was no manifest injustice that could warrant reconsideration under FRCP Rule 59 (e).  

  • Davis v. White, No. 19-11760 (11th Cir. Jan. 7, 2020)
    01/07/2020

    Eleventh Circuit affirmed denial of motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendant had waived their right to arbitrate where it had waited 18 months from the filing of complaints to file its motion to compel arbitration. Court found that defendant had acted inconsistently with its right to arbitrate by filing motions to dismiss which sought to resolve the parties’ dispute on the merits. Court also found defendant had prejudiced plaintiffs in this delay, by forcing them to spend resources contesting the motion to dismiss, and by waiting to raise arbitration until litigation in federal court proved unfavorable. 

  • Soaring Wind Energy, LLC. v. Catic USA Incorporated, No. 18-11192 (5th Cir. Jan. 7, 2020)
    01/07/2020

    Fifth Circuit affirmed decision confirming arbitral award, finding that the arbitration panel was fairly constituted and did not exceed its authority. Court found that pursuant to arbitration agreement, arbitral panel had authority to order defendant’s divestiture from plaintiff LLC. Court further found that this divestiture order, which would defeat diversity jurisdiction, would not be effective until a judicial order fully enforced the award. Court also held that a foreign entity’s actions triggering breach of an agreement, and a finding that a foreign affiliate of a party was jointly and severally liable for damages awarded in an arbitral award provided a sufficient foreign nexus to trigger federal jurisdiction under the New York Convention. 

  • Nichols v. US Bank, National Association, No. 2:19-MC-00162-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss. Jan. 6, 2020) 
    01/06/2020

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to confirm arbitration award where plaintiff failed to provide any evidence that there was an arbitration agreement between the parties.  

  • Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. M.C.F. Associates, No. 1:19-cv-07783-JGK (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2020) 
    01/06/2020

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award where defendant failed repeatedly to respond to plaintiff’s petition. Court also awarded costs and fees to plaintiff. 

  • Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP v. World Class Capital Group, LLC, No. 1:20-CV-00054-PKC (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2020)
    01/06/2020

    Court ordered petitioner to amend petition where petition facially failed to assert a basis for federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. Court found that FAA is not in and of itself a grant of subject matter jurisdiction.

  • Kamineni v. Tesla, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-14288-RBK-KMW (D.N.J. Jan. 6, 2020)
    01/06/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that although New Jersey’s Lemon Law referenced the possibility of bringing a claim in a judicial forum, such references are insufficient to establish a legal intent to preclude arbitration. 

  • Geo-logic Associates, Inc. v. Metal Recovery Solutions, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00563-MMD-WGC (D. Nev. Jan. 6, 2020)
    01/06/2020

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award, finding that party requesting vacatur failed to demonstrate that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law in rendering his award.  

  • National Motors, Inc. v. Universal Warranty Corporation, No. 1:19-CV-00052-ELH (D. Md. Jan. 3, 2020)
    01/03/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Court found that arbitration clause was not unconscionable and that because it was susceptible of an interpretation that covered the asserted dispute, it also was not impermissibly vague. 

  • Law Offices of Joseph L. Manson III v. Aoki., No. 1:19-CV-04392-LTS-GWG (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2020) 
    01/03/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings pending outcome of arbitration, but denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration where seat of arbitration mandated by arbitration agreement was Washington, D.C. Court found that a valid agreement to arbitrate did exist, but that it did not have power under the FAA § 4 to compel arbitration proceedings which occur outside of the Southern District of New York. 

  • Ostrolenk Faber LLP v. Lagassey, No. 1:18-CV-01533-RA (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2020)
    01/02/2020

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that there was a valid obligation to arbitrate, and that the pro se defendant did not, by his delay, waive his right to compel arbitration.

  • Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Carlson, No. 4:19-CV-01470 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 2, 2020)
    01/02/2020

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award, finding respondent had failed to establish evident partiality. Specifically, presiding arbitrator did not disclose to parties that he had been retained as counsel in unrelated proceedings in which the adverse party was represented by the same firm as the respondent’s counsel in the arbitration. Court found that while a reasonable person could conclude that the presiding arbitrator was partial, that was insufficient to meet the stringent burden required to overturn an arbitration award based on evident partiality. Court also found that the arbitral tribunal’s decisions in relation to evidentiary matters did not deprive respondent of a fair hearing.

  • Meekins v. Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 3:19-CV-501-DJN (E.D. Va. Dec. 30, 2019)
    12/30/2019

    Court denied motion to confirm arbitral award, finding petitioner had failed to provide any evidence that respondents entered into a binding arbitration agreement or assented to arbitration of disputes arising under a mortgage facility.

  • Wayland Kathan v. Autovest, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-00486-TC-CMR (D. Utah Dec. 30, 2019)
    12/30/2019

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to lift stay of court action pending arbitration. Court found that AAA’s initial (erroneous) refusal to administer the arbitration was not a proper reason to lift the stay, since AAA eventually agreed to administer the arbitration. Court also found that defendant had made clear throughout the process that it was willing and able to resolve any issues identified by AAA and to arbitrate the case.

  • Doctor’s Associates, LLC v. Tripathi, No. 16-4329-CV (2d Cir. Dec. 23, 2019)
    12/23/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision granting injunction to enjoin California state-court action commenced by defendants in breach of arbitration clause, finding that arbitration clause had clearly delegated gateway issues for the arbitrator’s determination in the first instance.

View All