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
  • Pyciak v. Credit One Bank, N.A., No. 2:17-CV-11415-GCS-RSW (E.D. Mich. Oct. 4, 2018)
    10/04/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that plaintiff was not bound by the arbitration clause under an estoppel theory as (i) plaintiff did not directly benefit from the cardholder agreement, (ii) defendant’s argument that plaintiff was an authorized user was not persuasive, and (iii) defendant did not cite legal authority for its proposition that plaintiff was an intended third-party beneficiary.

  • New York City District Council of Carpenters v. American Flooring Concepts, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-02657-AMD-RLM (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2018)
    10/04/2018

    Court adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge to confirm the arbitration award. Magistrate concluded that there was more than a barely colorable justification for the arbitrator’s outcome and awards. Magistrate also concluded that because respondent failed to appear before the Court—let alone raise any argument regarding vacatur, modification, or correction—and no defense is apparent from the record, confirmation is mandatory.

  • Alexander v. Possible Productions, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-05532-DAB (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2018)
    10/04/2018

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and motion to dismiss. Court found that the non-discrimination provisions were clearly exempt from the arbitration provisions, so plaintiff could not be compelled to arbitrate her discrimination claims.

  •  Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Republic of Yemen, No. 1:16-CV-01383-DLF (D.D.C. Oct. 3, 2018)
    10/03/2018

    Court granted petitioners’ motion for default judgment and confirmation of arbitral award and confirmed the final arbitral award issued by the ICC.

  • Hobon v. Pizza Hut of Southern Wisconsin, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00947-SLC (W.D. Wis. Oct. 3, 2018)
    10/03/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed defendants’ motion to strike until after plaintiffs had an opportunity to file an amended complaint.  Court found that defendants’ conduct in the case did not support a finding of waiver, and plaintiff was not prejudiced by the delay in moving to compel arbitration.

  • Romo v. CBRE Group, Inc., No. 8:18-CV-00237-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2018)
    10/03/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, struck the class action allegations, and stayed the proceedings pending arbitration.  Court concluded that (i) defendant showed that the parties entered into a clear agreement to arbitrate and plaintiff manifested his assent to the terms of the Offer Letter by clicking the check box on the Candidate Gateway and thereafter pursuing his employment with defendant; (ii) plaintiff cannot avoid the terms of the arbitration agreement under California Labor Code § 229; (iii) plaintiff’s Private Attorney General Act claim for civil penalties is outside of the scope of the arbitration agreement and shall remain pending; and (iv) while plaintiff showed some degree of procedural unconscionability, plaintiff failed to show any substantive unconscionability arising from the arbitration agreement.

  • Trudeau v. Google LLC, No. 5:18-CV-00947-BLF (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2018)
    10/03/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the arbitration provision was valid and enforceable and covered the claims at issue, such that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration must be granted and its motion to dismiss must be granted as to the claim for declaratory relief that the arbitration provision is unconscionable.

  • Steele v. Lending Club Corporation, No. 3:18-CV-02023-RS (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2018)
    10/03/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that plaintiff showed no basis for concluding the parties did not enter into an agreement to arbitrate and the agreement covered plaintiff’s claims. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments on procedural unconscionability and substantive unconscionability.

  • Shaw v. Baker Hughes Incorporated, No. 6:17-CV-00284-JHP (E.D. Okla. Oct. 3, 2018)
    10/03/2018

    Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge granting defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismiss or stay proceedings. Magistrate judge stated that the court could not conclude that defendants acted inconsistent with asserting its rights under the arbitration clause, because much of the protracted duration of the case was due to the reassignment of the litigation to multiple different judges.

  • Rozas v. AIG Employee Services, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-01158-KAD (D. Conn. Oct. 3, 2018)
    10/03/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court found that (i) the plaintiff, in accepting employment with the defendant, agreed to arbitration of any employment related disputes; (ii) the plaintiff’s claims brought in this action fall within the scope of that agreement as they each arise out of her employment with the defendant; and (iii) the plaintiff has offered no argument or authority that Congress intended the plaintiff’s claims to be nonarbitrable.

  • Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Gopi Hospitality, LLC, No. 8:18-CV-01680-DKC (D. Md. Oct. 2, 2018)
    10/02/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for default judgment as to the corporate defendant and denied the motion as to the individual defendants.  Court noted that the entry of default as to the individual defendants had been vacated, and therefore the motion for default judgment could only apply to the corporate defendant.  Court then concluded that, by failing to answer or otherwise respond to plaintiff’s application, the corporate defendant failed to demonstrate grounds for vacating the arbitration award.

  • Dickens v. GC Services Limited Partnership, No. (M.D. Fla. Oct. 2, 2018)
    10/02/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.  Court stated that it was wholly unpersuaded by the request given defendant’s active involvement in the litigation.

  • Ventrice v. Lexington Insurance Co., No. 2:16-CV-00660-CCC-JBC (D.N.J. Oct. 2, 2018)
    10/02/2018

    Court administratively terminated plaintiff’s motion to confirm the arbitration award without prejudice, and denied plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and defendant’s motion to bifurcate trial and discovery.  Court noted that whether the court will vacate, modify, or correct the award is dependent on whether plaintiffs are entitled to coverage under the relevant policy, which is an issue pending before the court.

  • Randle v. Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, No. 4:18-CV-01770 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 1, 2018)
    10/01/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court concluded that (i) the arbitration clauses were not illusory as there were bilateral promises to arbitrate; (ii) the unconscionable language challenged by plaintiff was not in the arbitration clauses and could not be a basis for denying the motion to compel arbitration; (iii) non-signatory Metro can compel arbitration under the direct-benefits estoppel theory; and (iv) since the parties’ agreements had broad arbitration clauses and plaintiff’s claims have a significant relationship to those agreements, the claims must be resolved in arbitration.

  • Doe v. George Street Photo & Video, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-02698-TSH (N.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2018)
    10/01/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s request to lift the stay and denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the arbitration order as moot.  Court explained that an arbitration terminated under agreed-upon rules is deemed to have “proceeded pursuant to the parties’ agreement” to arbitrate and thus to have satisfied the FAA.  Because Defendant voluntarily requested the arbitration be terminated under the AAA’s rules, and it did not seek relief from the court based on any failure, neglect, or refusal to participate on Plaintiff’s part, court found that the arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement.

  • Appel v. Concierge Auctions, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-02263-BAS-MDD (S.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2018)
    10/01/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion for reconsideration.  Court rejected defendant’s argument that after Epic Systems v. Lewis, 138 S.Ct. 1612 (2018), district courts in the Ninth Circuit must now enforce parties’ arbitration agreements as written, noting that this was not a new holding from the Supreme Court but an interpretation of part of the Arbitration Act.

  • Newmont Mining Corp. v. Anglogold Ashanti Limited, No. 1:17-CV-08065-RA (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2018)
    09/30/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that the parties’ agreement expressly required them to submit any disputes with respect to the correctness of defendant's calculations to an accounting firm “for resolution.”

  • Meridian Autonomous Inc. v. Coast Autonomous LLC, No. 1:17-CV-05846-VSB (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2018)
    09/30/2018

    Court granted in part defendants’ motion to dismiss.  Court found that plaintiffs did not contest (and therefore conceded) that certain claims are subject to the arbitration clause.

  •  Hudgins v. Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-03125-S (N.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2018)
    09/30/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s application to vacate and granted defendant’s counter-motion to confirm the arbitration award.  Court concluded that (i) a denial in part of a discovery request after full and thorough consideration does not amount to procurement of an award by corruption, fraud, or undue means; (ii) plaintiff did not carry her burden in supporting a claim that there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators; and (iii) plaintiff did not allege any facts to support her claim that the members of the arbitration panel were guilty of misconduct or misbehavior that prejudiced her rights.

  • Griggs v. S.G.E. Management, L.L.C., No. 17-50655 (4th Cir. Sept. 27, 2018)
    09/27/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s dismissal without prejudice of case for failure to prosecute where motion to compel arbitration had been granted and plaintiff failed to arbitrate, finding that dismissal was within the district court’s discretion.  Circuit court did not review district court’s holdings as to the applicability of the arbitration clause, noting that the FAA forecloses interlocutory reviews of orders compelling arbitration.

  • Bestway (USA), Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00205-HSG (N.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2018)
    09/27/2018

    Court granted motion for preliminary injunction enjoining an ongoing arbitration pursued in violation of prior grant of temporary restraining order.

  • HRB Professional Resources LLC v. Bello, No. 7:17-CV-07443-KMK (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2018)
    09/27/2018

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award, finding that respondent’s failure to object to the motion within ninety precluded him from raising objections and that his proposed objections were in any event not meritorious.

  • Turner v. Efinancial, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-00292-CMA-GPG (D. Col. Sept. 27, 2018)
    09/27/2018

    Court stayed proceedings pending outcome of parallel arbitration and denied motion to stay arbitration, finding that plaintiff’s assertions that she had not visited website or submitted webform agreeing to arbitration were not credible.

  • National Resident Matching Program v. Alashry, No. 1:17-CV-02557-RDM (D.D.C. Sept. 27, 2018)

    09/27/2018

    Court denied motion to vacate arbitral award and granted cross-motion to confirm, finding that arbitrator did not exceed his authority in vacating sanctions imposed against a participant in a program, where the arbitration agreement permitted him to “modify” the sanctions.

  • Unión Insular de Trabajadores Industriales y Construcciones Eléctricas, Inc. v. Onelink Communications, No. 3:15-CV-02074-ADC (D.P.R. Sept. 27, 2018)
    09/27/2018

    Court denied motion for vacatur of arbitral award, finding that the arbitrator reasonably construed the operative agreement, did not exceed her authority, and did not fail to resolve the dispute submitted to her.

  • Iraq Middle Market Development Foundation v. Harmoosh, No. 1:15-CV-01124-GLR (D. Md. Sept. 27, 2018)
    09/27/2018

    Court granted motion for summary judgment and to compel arbitration, finding that party did not waive right to enforce arbitration clause by failing to assert it in summary Iraq proceeding.

  • Gulledge v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, No. 2:18-CV-06657-JCZ-KWR (E.D. La. Sept. 27, 2018)

    09/27/2018

    Court denied motion to remand, finding that dispute fell within the scope of the New York Convention and that state law barring mandatory arbitration of insurance disputes was preempted by New York Convention.

  • Richardson v. Coverall North America, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-00532-MAS-TJB (D.N.J. Sept. 27, 2018)
    09/27/2018

    Court partially granted and partially denied motion to compel arbitration.  As to one plaintiff, Court found that reference to AAA rules in agreement with unsophisticated party was not an agreement to arbitrate arbitrability and that party had not adequately been put on notice that it was waiving statutory rights.  As to other plaintiff, Court found that arbitration agreement clearly required arbitration of arbitrability.

  • Spikener v. Noble Food Group Inc., No. 3:18-CV-02855-LB (N.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2018)

    09/27/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings, finding that arbitration agreement was not procedurally unconscionable since it had an opt out provision and that it was not substantively unconscionable since employer had offered to pay cost and fees of arbitration.

  • Sharbat v. Muskat, No. 1:17-CV-04776-KAM-CLP (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2018)

    09/27/2018

    Court granted motion to dismiss petition to confirm arbitral award, finding that the interim arbitral award anticipating further proceedings following discovery was non-final.

  • Penneco Pipeline Corporation v. K. Petroleum, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-01364-DSC (W.D. Penn. Sept. 27, 2018)

    09/27/2018

    Court denied motion to vacate arbitral award, finding that the arbitrator’s decision drew its essence from the parties’ agreement.

  • American Airlines, Inc. v. Mawhinney, No. 16-36638 (9th Cir. Sept. 26, 2018)
    09/26/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order compelling arbitration of the plaintiff’s claim against his employer, and reversed its order compelling arbitration of the plaintiff’s claim against his union. Circuit court found that (i) employer did not waive right to arbitrate by waiting to move to compel until after an agency investigation was complete; and (ii) union was not a party to the arbitration agreement and could not it under agency law.

  • Khath v. Midland Funding, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-10727-MLW (D. Mass. Sept. 26, 2018)
    09/26/2018

    Court partially modified magistrate judge’s order compelling arbitration in respect of one plaintiff, finding that (i) question of whether arbitration agreements existed was to be decided by the court; (ii) as to one plaintiff there was no triable issue of fact as to whether an arbitration agreement existed but the validity of the class action waiver should be determined before arbitration agreement is enforced; and (iii) as to another plaintiff there was a triable issue of fact as to whether an arbitration agreement existed.

  • Dickey v. National Football League, No. 1:17-CV-12295-IT (D. Mass. Sept. 26, 2018)
    09/26/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that claims did not come within the scope of the arbitration clause.

  • GGNSC Louisville Hillcreek, LLC v. Estate of Bramer, No. 3:17-CV-00439-DJH (W.D. Ky. Sept. 26, 2018)
    09/26/2018

    Court denied petition to compel arbitration, finding that presentation of a new arbitration agreement, which plaintiff did not sign, extinguished prior arbitration agreement as to new claims.

  • DIAS Analytic Corporation v. Soex (Hong Kong) Industry & Investment Co. Ltd., No. 8:18-CV-01458-WFJ-TGW (M.D. Fla. Sept. 26, 2018)
    09/26/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings pursuant to the terms of the applicable contract, finding that the dispute resolution provisions of an employment agreement were irrelevant given that the employee was not a party to the dispute.

  • Skin Consultants, LLC v. Textron Aviation, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00166-SA-RP (N.D. Miss. Sept. 26, 2018)
    09/26/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings, finding that it had personal jurisdiction over the defendant under Mississippi’s long-arm statute and that the claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreements.

  • Andersen v. Equity Trust Company, No. 0:18-CV-00471-DWF-LIB (D. Minn. Sept. 26, 2018)
    09/26/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings, rejecting argument that arbitration agreement had been superseded by other agreements that plaintiff did not sign and that plaintiff’s initiation of suit did not waive right to enforce arbitration agreement since motion to compel arbitration was brought promptly upon suit being removed to federal court.

  • National Resident Matching Program v. Alashry, No 1:17-CV-02557-RDM (D.D.C. Sept. 26, 2018)
    09/26/2018

    Court denied motion for remand, finding that action to vacate arose under the New York Convention because one of the parties was an Egyptian citizen, and thus federal subject matter jurisdiction existed.

  • Ukshini v. Comity Realty Corporation, No. 1:15-CV-06214-PKC-KNF (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2018)
    09/26/2018

    Court denied motion to vacate arbitral award, finding that there was no basis to vacate the award under the Federal Arbitration Act.

  • Grigsby v. Income Property USA, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-01110-RJS-PMW (D. Utah Sept. 26, 2018)
    09/26/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that reference to arbitration before the American Arbitration Association was insufficient to establish intent that the parties intended to delegate question of arbitrability to arbitrators pursuant to the American Arbitration Association rules, and that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable.

  • Hebei Hengbo New Materials Technology Co., Ltd. v. Apple, Inc., No. 5:18-CV-00468-LHK (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2018)
    09/26/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that party had waived right to rely on arbitration clause by arguing that contract had been rescinded.

  • Doerman v. Meijer, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00571-MRB (S.D. Oh. Sept. 25, 2018)
    09/25/2018

    Court denied motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that arbitration agreement was unenforceable because it permitted an employer to make unilateral changes without providing advance notice to employees, and there was no evidence that plaintiff agreed to subsequent arbitration agreement requiring advance notice.

  • Prasad v. Pinnacle Property Management Services, LLC, No. 5:17-CV-02794-VKD (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2018)
    09/25/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings, finding that, although there was “some procedural unconscionability” in how the arbitration agreement was presented, and certain provisions were substantively unconscionable, those provisions were severable and the arbitration agreement could be enforced without them.

  • Lanza v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), No. 1:18-CV-10859-PBS (D. Mass. Sept. 25, 2018)
    09/25/2018

    Court granted motion to dismiss action against FINRA alleging breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing due to arbitrators’ dismissal of claim in unreasoned, two-sentence decision. Court found that an alleged failure to provide sufficient reasons for an arbitral award (as opposed to a failure to issue any award at all) fell within the scope of arbitral immunity, and that arbitrators’ failure to provide a reasoned decision was not a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing since FINRA rules require reasoned decisions only when jointly requested by the parties.

  • Ranson v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00105-SNLJ (E.D. Mo. Sept. 25, 2018)
    09/25/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that there was no genuine issue of fact as to the making of the arbitration agreement (which was signed by the plaintiff) and that parties’ reciprocal agreements to arbitrate constituted sufficient mutual consideration.

  • O’Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 14-16078 (9th Cir. Sept. 25, 2018)
    09/25/2018

    Court of appeals reversed district court denial of motion to compel arbitration, finding that lead plaintiff could not constructively opt out of arbitration on behalf of entire class and that the Supreme Court’s decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S.Ct. 1612 (2018) foreclosed argument that arbitration agreements were unenforceable because they violation the National Labor Relations Act.

  • Pictet Overseas Inc. v. Helvetia Trust, No. 17-12279 (11th Cir. Sept. 24, 2018)
    09/24/2018

    Court of appeals confirmed district court ruling that claims were not subject to mandatory FINRA arbitration under FINRA Rule 12200, finding that Rule 12200 was intended to bind a FINRA member’s associated persons to arbitrate disputes only when the dispute arises in connection with the business activities of the associated person undertaken in his or her capacity as an associated person of the FINRA member.

  • De Angelis v. Nolan Enterprises, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00926-ALM-EPD (S.D. Oh. Sept. 24, 2018)
    09/24/2018

    Court denied motion to stay or dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that agreement to delegate questions of arbitrability to arbitrator was illusory since one party retained the ability to modify contract without notice.

  • Freeman v. Rochester Psychiatric Center, No. 6:16-CV-06668-MAT-MWP (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2018)
    09/24/2018

    Court denied motion to vacate arbitral award, finding that the Plaintiff’s attacks on the award amounted to disagreements with the arbitrator’s weighing of evidence and did not establish manifest disregard of the law.

  • Thompson v. AT&T Services, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-03607 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 24, 2018)
    09/24/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration without prejudice, finding that defendant had failed to establish that plaintiff was an agent of a party to the arbitration agreement, and permitted further discovery on the question.

  • Diversant, LLC v. Carino, No. 3:18-CV-03155-AET-DEA (D.N.J. Sept. 24, 2018)
    09/24/2018

    Court dismissed motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, finding that party’s pursuant of parallel arbitral proceedings for compensatory damages did not preclude it from also pursuing a court action for injunctive relief, as such an action was permitted by the arbitration agreement.

  • Harris v. TD Ameritrade Inc., No. 1:17-CV-06033-LTS-BCM (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2018)
    09/24/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that nothing in the arbitration agreement precluded arbitration of constitutional due process claim, and the claim was improper in any event.

  • Landry v. Thomson Reuters Corporation, No. 1:16-CV-00507-SM (D.N.H. Sept. 24, 2018)
    09/24/2018

    Court granted motion to stay proceedings pending conclusion of parallel arbitration. Court found that plaintiff had standing to bring statutory claims against background reporting company for breach of Fair Credit Reporting Act with respect to an incorrect background report, but that the plaintiff’s request for money damages resulting from his dismissal from employment allegedly as a result of the report overlapped with factual issues being addressed in a separate arbitration against the plaintiff’s former employer arising from the dismissal.

  • Brown v. Firstsource Advantage, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-05760-GJP (E.D. Penn. Sept. 21, 2018)
    09/21/2018

    Court granted motion to intervene as defendant in action again debt collector, finding inter alia that credit card company had an interest in seeking to enforce arbitration provision in debt agreement.

  • Johnson v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-05468 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 20, 2018
    09/20/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, dismissing class claims and staying the case.  Court found that plaintiff had agreed to the arbitration clause in the terms of service when he created an Uber account, regardless of whether he followed the link to read the terms of service.  Court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that certain claims were outside the scope of the arbitration clause, holding that once it is clear that the parties have agreed to arbitrate, any doubt concerning the scope of arbitration is resolved in favor of arbitration.

  • Akinlemibola v. Dohardmoney.com, No. 1:17-CV-03998-TWP-DML (S.D. Ind. Sept. 19, 2018)
     
    09/19/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for improper venue, finding that an arbitration clause in the contract required the claims be arbitrated. Court rejected plaintiffs argument that defendant had waived its right to object to venue based on making two motions to extend time.

  • Davis v. Macy's Retail Holdings, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01807-JBA (D. Conn. Sept. 19, 2018)
     
    09/19/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the agreement was invalid because it was induced by fraudulent misrepresentations, finding that plaintiff failed to establish that defendant knew certain representations to be false.

  • Beres v. Wilbanks Securities, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01024-KLM (D. Colo. Sept. 19, 2018)
    09/19/2018

    Court granted petition to confirm an arbitration award, finding that the arbitration panel was justified in refusing to postpone an evidentiary hearing after having postponed it on two prior occasions. Court further found that an incorrect application of a state’s statute of limitations did not rise to the level of manifest disregard of the law.

  • De Rendon v. Ventura, No. 1:17-CV-24380-FAM (S.D. Fla. Sept. 19 2018)
    09/19/2018

    Court adopted report and recommendation of magistrate judge confirming a foreign arbitration award pursuant to the New York Convention.  Court rejected respondent’s argument that the award was invalid under Articles V(1)(a) and V(1)(d) of the Convention because the appointed arbitrators were not Columbian nationals, finding that respondent’s had agreed to arbitration under the rules of the ICC which provides for ICC appointment of arbitrators. 

  • JPay, Inc. v. Kobel, No. 17-13611 (11th Cir. Sept. 19, 2018) 
    09/19/2018

    Court of appeals reversed and remanded district court decision denying a motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the availability of class arbitration is a question of arbitrability that is for the court to decide absent express language in the agreement that evidenced a clear and unmistakable intent to arbitrate the issue, and found that here the language used by the parties expressed a clear intent to arbitrate gateway questions of arbitrability. 

  • Tianjin Port Free Trade Zone International Trade Service Co. Ltd. v. Tiancheng International Inc. USA, No. 5:17-CV-021127-PA-SHK (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2018)
    09/18/2018

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm a CIETAC arbitration award issued in a contract dispute, finding that respondent failed to satisfy its burden to establish a defense under the New York Convention. Court stated that the review of foreign awards is limited and enforcement could only be refused if the court found one of the seven grounds set out in Article V of the New York Convention. Court found that allegations of forgery of the underlying contract were matters to be exclusively determined by the arbitrator, and even if accepted as true, fall short of establishing a defense under the New York Convention.

  • Munger v. Cascade Steel Rolling Mills Inc., No. 3:18-CV-00970-SI (D. Or. Sept. 18, 2018)
     
    09/18/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss certain claims that had previously been arbitrated for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Court rejected defendant’s argument that a valid agreement to arbitrate divests the court of jurisdiction to hear claims subject to the agreement. Although defendant’s did not make a motion to compel arbitration, court further found that a motion to compel arbitration could not have been brought under FRCP 12(b)(1).

  • Youll v. Estherville IA Assisted Living Facility, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-03051-CJW (N.D. Iowa Sept. 18, 2018)
    09/18/2018

    Court granted defendant’s unresisted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court found that the arbitration clause at issue was part of a valid contract and that the present dispute was within the scope of the arbitration, and thus compelled arbitration pursuant to the FAA.

  • Covington  v. Kanan Enterprises, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-01453-TMP (N.D. Ohio Sept. 17, 2018) 
    09/17/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.  Court followed sixth circuit test and determined that plaintiff’s claims were subject to the parties’ agreement to arbitrate.

  • Zambrano v. Strategy Delivery Solutions, LLC, No. 1:15-CV-08410-ER (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2018) 
    09/17/2018

    Court denied defendants’ motion to confirm an arbitration award.  Court found that the parties had not agreed to proceed to arbitration because the plaintiff had stipulated to all the defendant’s assertions, leaving no real question or dispute for the arbitrator to resolve.  Court stated that the declaratory relief defendant sought after plaintiff’s concession amounted to an advisory opinion that plaintiff had neither agreed to arbitrate nor to pay for.

  • Unison Co., Ltd., v. Juhl Energy Development, Inc., No. 0:13-CV-03342-BRT (D. Minn. Sept. 17, 2018)
    09/17/2018

    Court granted defendants motion to confirm an arbitration award. Court denied plaintiff’s motions, both to modify the award under section 11 of the FAA, and to vacate the award under § 10 of the FAA. Court held that the arbitration panel did not exceed its authority, and that the prescribed method elected for granting relief was to be treated with great deference.

  • Color Events, BV v. Multi-Talent Agency, Inc., No. 6:18-CV-00648-RBD-DCI (M.D. Fla. Sept. 17, 2018)
    09/17/2018

    Court adopted and confirmed the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to grant petitioner’s motion for final default judgment to confirm an ICDR award.  Magistrate judge found that (i) the well-pled allegations of the petition, the attached documents, and the affidavit in support of the motion adequately establish the basis for a default judgment; (ii) the court had jurisdiction under the FAA; and (iii) venue was properly served.

  • Nanko Shipping, Guinea v. Alcoa, Inc., No. 1:14-CV-01301-RMC (D.D.C. Sept. 14, 2018)
    09/14/2018

    Court denied in part motion to dismiss dispute based on argument that plaintiff could be bound by arbitration clause of an agreement to which it was not a party. Court held that because the arbitration clause in the applicable agreement required that any party to which rights were assigned under the agreement had to stipulate its acceptance of the arbitration clause contained in that agreement, no arbitration obligations existed in the absence of such a stipulation by the plaintiff.

  • National Federation of the Blind v. Container Store, Inc., No. 16-2112 (1st Cir. Sept. 14, 2018)
    09/14/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration. Court agreed that because the plaintiffs challenged the validity of the arbitration provision, rather than the overall contract, it was the proper forum to consider arbitrability. Court further affirmed the district court’s rejection of defendant’s arguments that the clause had been valid and binding on the plaintiffs.

  • Environmental Chemical Corporation v. Coastal Environmental Group, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-03082-GHW-GWG (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2018)
    09/14/2018

    Court denied motion to vacate arbitration award and granted cross-motion to confirm it. Court rejected arguments that the award could be vacated based on several section of the FAA because plaintiff had been unaware that the attorneys for the defendant in fact represented an entity to the defendant had assigned its rights and that the arbitrators purportedly exceeding their authority by applying the doctrine of estoppel to its calculation of damages.

  • Innotec LLC v. Visiontech Sales, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00007-GEC-JCH (W.D. Va. Sept. 14, 2018)
    09/14/2018

    Court granted motion to stay proceedings for a renewable period of 120 days during pendency of an arbitration it had compelled by an earlier ruling. Court reasoned that considerations of judicial economy militated in favor of a stay given the relevance of the questions at issue in the arbitration to the resolution of the remaining claims. Court retained jurisdiction over pending motion of sanctions and the enforcement of the parties’ existing discovery obligations.

  • Niagara Blower Company v. Shopmen’s Local Union 576, No. 1:16-CV-00262-LJV-HKS (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2018) 
    09/14/2018

    Court denied petition to vacate arbitration award, finding that the arbitrator’s decision to reinstate a terminated employee was rooted in the authority granted by the collective bargaining agreement. Court found that by submitting the question of whether the employee’s discharge was proper to the arbitrator, the parties granted the arbitrator authority to reinstate the employee. Court also rejected respondent’s argument that reinstating an employee terminated for being intoxicated at work was contrary to public policy.

  • Joy  v. Onemain Financial Services, Inc., No. 8:18-CV-01428-VMC-JSS (M.D. Fla. Sept. 14, 2018)
    09/14/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the claims fell outside the scope of the arbitration clause, and found that the agreement delegated questions as to the scope of the arbitration clause to the arbitrator.

  • Cree, Inc.  v. BHP Energy Mexico, No. 2:16-CV-01508-PP (E.D. Wis. Sept. 14, 2018
    09/14/2018

    Court issued order enjoining defendant from further pursuing litigation in Mexico and compelling arbitration.  Court found that a valid arbitration agreement existed, that an ongoing litigation in Mexico was within the scope of the agreement, and that plaintiff had not waived its rights under the agreement.

  • Crafty Productions, Inc. v. Fuqing Sanxing Crafts Co. Ltd., No. 3:15-CV-00719-BAS-JLB (S.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2018)
    09/13/2018

    Court granted in part petition to confirm arbitration award, declining only to award costs. Court denied motion to stay execution of award pending related proceedings.

  • Sayta v. Martin, No. 3:16-CV-03775-LB (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2018)
    09/12/2018

    Court granted motion to confirm JAMS arbitration award. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that he could not be bound by an arbitration award because he was entitled to a new trial as wholly without merit and likewise rejected arguments that the award was void or irrationally rendered. Court awarded interest on the amount owed and deferred ruling on the motion for attorney’s fees pending further documentation.

  • Overdorff v. NAU Country Insurance Company, No. 2:18-CV-00750-MPK (W.D. Pa. Sept. 12, 2018)
    09/12/2018

    Court denied motion to vacate an arbitration award, finding that there was no basis for concluding that the arbitrator had exceeded the authority granted under the agreement at issue, which denied relief where a claim was not timely submitted.

  • Rasin v. MacDougall Arts, Ltd., No. 2:18-CV-04612-SDW-LDW (D. N.J. Sept. 12, 2018)
    09/12/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed between the parties.

  • Wade v. Home Depot U.S.A. Inc., No. 3:18-CV-00739-TAD-KLH (W.D. La. Sept. 12, 2018)
    09/12/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismiss certain claims subject to a valid arbitration agreement and stayed proceedings with respect to other claims not dismissed for unrelated reasons.

  • Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. v. Brady, No. 1:18-CV-10337-DPW (D. Mass. Sept. 11, 2018)
    09/11/2018

    Court granted motion to vacate an arbitration award to the extent it purported to assess attorney fees against petitioner. Court considered all four of the statutory grounds for vacatur under the FAA, but accepted only petitioner’s argument that the award of attorneys’ fees had either exceeded the panel’s power or had been in manifest disregard of the applicable state arbitration law.

  • Yiru v. Worldventures Holdings, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-02155-S (N.D. Tex. Sept. 11, 2018)
    09/11/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that a valid contract that included an arbitration provision bound the parties, including because a “click” was sufficient to manifest assent under Texas law.  Court further held that the parties had delegated any arbitrability decisions with respect to scope to the arbitrator by incorporating the AAA rules and that the “wholly groundless” exception to that general rule did not apply.   Court ruled that plaintiff’s further validity challenges must consequently be submitted to the arbitrator.

  • Taylor v. Shutterfly, Inc., No. 5:18-CV-00266-BLF (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2018)
    09/11/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court held that the parties had delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrators by incorporating AAA rules into their agreement.  Court further held that even if the Ninth Circuit had a rule allowing courts to retain jurisdiction over claims where the assertion of arbitrability is “wholly groundless,” the plaintiff had failed to make her case.

  • Atkins v. CGI Technologies and Solutions, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00037-GFVT (E.D. Ky. Sept. 11, 2018)
    09/11/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings. Court held that parties were not required to comply with state requirements before seeking such relief under the FAA and that a valid arbitration agreement applied to the dispute and bound the non-signatory plaintiff, as it sought to benefit from the rest of the underlying contract.

  • Beam Partners, LLC v. Atkins, No. 3:17-CV-00004-GFVT (E.D. Ky. Sept. 11, 2018)
    09/11/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the existence of parallel liquidation proceedings did not preclude the application of the FAA to enforce the applicable arbitration agreement.  Court held that a valid arbitration agreement was broad enough to cover the dispute and stayed proceedings.

  • Burnley v. Conifer Health Solutions, No. 3:17-CV-00769-CRS (W.D. Ky. Sept. 10, 2018)
    09/10/2018

    Court granted motion to dismiss claim in favor of arbitration, finding that a valid arbitral agreement governed the dispute.

  • Parks v. Port of Oakland, No. 4:16-CV-04061-HSG (N.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2018)
    09/10/2018

    Court granted summary judgment for certain claims upon finding that those claims were subject to a valid arbitration agreement.

  • Laprime v. Extra Space Storage, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-04092-LMA-MBN (W.D. La. Sept. 7, 2018)
    09/07/2018

    Court granted motion to stay litigation pending arbitration, holding that the parties’ dispute fell within the scope of an arbitration agreement the validity of which was not contested.

  • Pharmaniaga Berhad v. E*Healthline.com, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-02672-MCE-EFB (E.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2018)
    09/07/2018

    Court granted motion to compel foreign arbitral award, denying cross-motions to dismiss and vacate. Court rejected as unsupported both of the defendant’s non-enforcement arguments under the New York Convention Articles V(1)(e) and V(1)(b). Court further held that the New York Convention provided the sole bases for setting aside foreign awards, but that, in any case, none of the defendant’s arguments under Section 10 of the FAA (alleging denial of a fair hearing and bias) were supported. Finally, court rejected defendant’s argument that the award as not final because the tribunal had accepted jurisdiction over only some of the claims, finding that no such rule exists.

  • Paxton v. Macy's West Stores, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00132-LJO-SKO (E.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2018)
    09/07/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that he had not assented to the agreement where the opt-out provisions were clear or that the contract had been procedurally unconscionable because he had not reviewed the contract and it was a contract of adhesion. Court likewise held that defendant did not demonstrate that the contract was substantively unconscionable to a significant degree by pointing to limitations on discovery, ability to recover litigation costs, and of mutuality in obligation. Finally, court rejected arguments that the dispute fell outside the scope of the arbitration agreement or that defendant had waived its right to arbitration.

  • Banco Bradesco S.A. v. Steadfast Insurance Company, No. 1:18-CV-00331-LAP (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2018)
    09/07/2018

    Court denied motion to vacate award, rejecting petitioner’s argument that it had been rendered in manifest disregard of the law because of the panel’s evidentiary decisions.

  • Alonso v. AuPairCare, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-00970-JD (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2018)
    08/23/2018

    Court granted in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of plaintiffs’ non-Private Attorney General Act claims pursuant to the FAA.  Court found that the arbitration clause in one plaintiff’s contract was so one-sided, since the defendant alone could determine the arbitrator and the rules of arbitration, as to make it procedurally and substantively unconscionable under California law.  However, court compelled the other plaintiff to arbitrate, because that agreement delegated decisions on arbitrability to the arbitrator.

  • Revitch v. DirecTV, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-01127-JCS (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2018
    08/23/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel AAA arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court found plaintiff’s arbitral agreement with AT&T Mobility did not bind him to arbitrate with affiliated defendant, because plaintiff did not intend to enter the arbitral agreement with defendant, who only became affiliated with AT&T Mobility after plaintiff entered into the agreement.

  • Crystallex International Corporation v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 17-MC-151-LPS (D. Del. Aug. 23, 2018)
    08/23/2018

    Court granted petitioner’s request to seize shares of a Delaware company held by an alter ego of Venezuela to begin enforcement of petitioner’s $1.2 billion judgment against Venezuela.  Court stayed sale of shares until it issues a separate order of sale.

  • Smith v. General Information Solutions, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-00230-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio Aug. 23, 2018)
    08/23/2018

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to transfer venue to the District of South Carolina, finding that the balance of the public and private interests weighed in favor of transfer and concluding that it was “appropriate and in the interest of judicial economy” to address the venue question before reaching the motion to compel arbitration.

  • PDC Machines Inc. v. Nel Hydrogen A/S, No. 2:17-CV-05399-JS (E.D. Pa. Aug. 22, 2018)
    08/22/2018

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration in Denmark and stay the case pending completion of arbitration pursuant to the New York Convention and the FAA.  Court held that defendants waived their right to arbitration by participating in the litigation for several months before seeking to compel arbitration and regardless, concluded plaintiff’s claims, all related to the misappropriation of trade secrets, did not fall within the scope of the arbitral agreement.

  • Jones v. Home Buyers Warranty Corporation and National Home Insurance Company (A Risk Retention Group), No. 1:17-CV-00773-JFB-SRF (D. Del. Aug. 21, 2018) 
    08/21/2018

    Court rejected plaintiffs’ objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation denying their motion to remand the action to vacate the arbitral award to state court. Court held that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 because, although the plaintiffs only requested declaratory relief, the amount in controversy is determined by the value of the underlying cause of action arbitrated not just the amount sought in the demand for arbitration.

  • Whitworth v. Solarcity Corp., No. 3:16-CV-01540-JSC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2018) 
    08/21/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration of individual claims following the Supreme Court’s decision in Epic Systems but denied motion to compel arbitration of PAGA claims.  Court granted motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration.

  • Balvin v. Rain and Hail, LLC, No. 4:18-CV-04049-LLP (D.S.D. Aug. 21, 2018)
    08/21/2018

    Court granted in part plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitration award.  Pursuant to Section 10(a) of the FAA, the court held that the arbitrator did not commit misconduct in refusing to hear evidence, concluding that both parties had an adequate opportunity to present evidence, and found the arbitrator did not exceed his power in interpreting the meaning of “good farming practices.”  However, court held that arbitrator exceeded his authority in interpreting the “appraised value” on the basis of un-signed appraisal worksheets without submitting the disputes to the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation as mandated by the insurance policy and ordered a determination of the proper procedure in these circumstances.

  • Dish Network LLC v. Ray, No. 17-1013 (10th Cir. Aug. 21, 2018)
    08/21/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of a petition to vacate a construction arbitration award.  Court concluded that the agreement demonstrated the parties intended to delegate all issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator and found the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law or impermissibly base his decision on public policy.

  • Geiger v. H&H Franchising Systems, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00738-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C. Aug. 21, 2018)
    08/21/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay the action pending arbitration, pursuant to the FAA, against those plaintiffs who signed the employment agreement containing the arbitration clause and class action waiver.

  • Sherwood Marketing Group, LLC v. Intertek Testing Services, N.A., Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00782-BEN-NLS (S.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2018)
    08/20/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss or stay pending arbitration.  Pursuant to the FAA and the broad language of the arbitral agreement, court held that plaintiff’s claim fell within the scope of the arbitral provision and must be arbitrated.  Court concluded the second amended complaint should be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim.

  • Willcock v. My Goodness! Games, Inc., No. 8:16-CV-04020-PWG (D. Md. Aug. 20, 2018)
    08/20/2018

    Court transferred the case to the Western District of Texas for that court to compel AAA arbitration after finding that it could not compel arbitration in Texas pursuant to Section 4 of the FAA, which courts have interpreted to mean a court cannot compel arbitration outside its own district, and concluding that the standing preliminary injunction could not survive dismissal of the case.

  • Fox Bend Development Associates, Ltd. v. Ennis, No. 3:17-CV-3137-N (N.D. Tex. Aug. 17, 2018) 
    08/17/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss holding plaintiffs’ claims were subject to arbitration.  Pursuant to the FAA, the court rejected plaintiffs’ contention that the arbitration clause was invalid because defendant fraudulently induced them to enter into the contract, since the alleged fraudulent conduct related to the contract as a whole and not the arbitration clause itself; and court found that plaintiffs’ claims were connected to the contract and therefore, fell within the scope of the broad arbitration agreement.  Court found the High Court of Ireland’s decision to appoint a liquidator and wind up the company did not terminate defendant’s right to compel plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims, as that right arose prior to the termination.

  • Drywall Tapers and Pointers of Greater New York Local Union 1974, IUPAT, AFL-CIO v. MAIA MP Construction, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-05506-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018)
    08/17/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s unopposed petition to confirm arbitral award, holding there was no justification for vacating the award under Section 10(a) of the FAA.

  • En Pointe Technologies Sales, LLC v. Ovex Technologies (Private) Limited, No. 2:18-CV-03235-PSG-SK (C.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2018)
    08/17/2018

    Court granted motion to confirm JAMS arbitral award against defendant by default as defendant failed to respond or otherwise defend itself pursuant to Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Court held defendant was properly served pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Hague Service Convention.  Court entered judgment against defendant in the full amount of the final partial award plus any additional amounts to be ordered by the arbitrator in the arbitration, including attorney’s fees and post-judgment interest.

  • Octaform Systems Inc. v. Johnston., No. 2:16-CV-02500-APG-PAL (D. Nev. Aug. 17, 2018)
    08/17/2018

    Court granted narrowed discovery requests and ordered plaintiff to produce all non-privileged documents related to an arbitration pending in Canada between plaintiff and a Chinese manufacturer and its principal and a second arbitration in Canada between plaintiff and defendants related to their employment contracts.

  • Taylor v. Samsung Electronics America, No. 3:16-CV-50313 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 16, 2018)
    08/16/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court concluded that there was an enforceable agreement to arbitrate. Court also concluded that because all of the disputes arose from the “sale, condition, or performance” of the phone, they fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • Santana v. A.I. Recovery, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-00016-JFC (W.D. Pa. Aug. 16, 2018)
    08/16/2018

    ​Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court concluded that (i) a reasonable person would find that the parties manifested an intent to be bound by the CSO Agreement; (ii) the terms of the arbitration provision were sufficiently definite and required plaintiff to arbitrate claims that fell within its scope; and (iii) the arbitration provision was supported by consideration because both parties agreed to arbitrate claims relating to the CSO agreement.

  • Reddy v. Buttar, No. 3:18-CV-00172-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C. Aug. 16, 2018)
    08/16/2018

    Court denied in part and deferred in part defendant’s motion to dismiss the petition, denied as moot plaintiff’s conditional motion to continue and grant jurisdictional discovery, and denied without prejudice plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend.  Court held that district courts have subject matter jurisdiction over cases brought to enforce arbitration awards issued under the New York Convention.  Court further concluded that limited discovery was warranted to explore jurisdictional facts, and that plaintiff must ultimately prove the existence of personal jurisdiction over the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence.

  • Lyles v. Brennan, No. 1:15-CV-00354-CLC-CHS (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 16, 2018)
    08/16/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment.  Court found that because the arbitrator never considered whether defendant honestly believed plaintiff was at blame for the accident—which was defendant’s nondiscriminatory reason for terminating plaintiff—defendant was not collaterally estopped from relying on the accident against plaintiff’s Title VII allegations.  Court also concluded that it remained free to accord the appropriate weight to the arbitration decision, taking into account (1) the degree of the procedural fairness at arbitration, (2) the adequacy of the record with respect to the issue of discrimination, (3) the special competence of particular arbitrators, and (4) whether the issue was solely one of fact, specifically addressed by the parties and decided by the arbitrator on the basis of an adequate record.

  • Fitzgibbons v. Atkinson, No. 8:17-CV-02092-AMQ-JDA (D.S.C. Aug. 16, 2018)
    08/16/2018

    Court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to deny defendants’ motion to dismiss.  Court concluded that (i) there was no error in the magistrate judge’s report regarding personal jurisdiction; (ii) the magistrate judge correctly concluded that defendants failed to meet their burden of proof to transfer venue; (iii) the magistrate judge correctly identified the applicable legal principles for motions relating to alleged necessary and indispensable parties, and correctly analyzed the facts relating to those motions; and (iv) there was no error in the magistrate judge’s recommendation that defendants’ motions to dismiss and compel arbitration be denied.

  • Augustine v. TLC Resorts Vacation Club, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-01120-H-JMA (S.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2018)
    08/16/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court concluded that (i) defendant carried its burden to show the existence of an agreement to arbitrate; (ii) plaintiff failed to show the existence of procedural and substantive unconscionability; and (iii) plaintiff had not established a genuine issue of material fact as to the existence of the agreement or the agreement’s applicability to the instant dispute.

  • Arthur v. Evansville Anesthesia Associates, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-00116-JMS-MPB (S.D. Ind. Aug. 16, 2018)
    08/16/2018

    Court ordered that the matter be remanded to the Vanderburgh Circuit Court.  Court concluded that it was not obvious that the FAA applied to the arbitration agreement and defendants provided no explanation or argument as to why it might.  However, even assuming that the FAA applied generally, defendants provided no basis upon which the court could conclude that Section 4 of the FAA applies to them, a non-aggrieved party seeking to prevent arbitration where there is no Section 4 petition.

  • Sultanate of Oman v. Al Tamimi, No. 1:18-CV-11291-LTS (D. Mass. Aug. 16, 2018)
    08/16/2018

    Clerk of court entered an order of default for defendant’s failure to plead or defend himself in a suit claiming he failed to pay a $5.6 million ICSID arbitration award pursuant to Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

  • Williams v. Dearborn Motors 1, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-12724-NGE-DRG (E.D. Mich. Aug. 15, 2018)
    08/15/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of court’s order granting defendant’s motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration.  Court concluded that requiring the availability of classwide arbitration interfered with the fundamental attributes of arbitration; that there was no substantive statutory right to bring a “pattern-or-practice class claim”; and that there was no contrary command in Title VII, the ADA, or the ADEA that overrode the FAA’s mandate towards favoring arbitration agreements.

  • Spirit Airlines, Inc. v. Maizes, No. 17-14415 (11th Cir. Aug. 15, 2018)
    08/15/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court ruling that the agreement’s choice of AAA rules designated the arbitrator to decide whether the arbitration agreement permitted class arbitration.  Following the Supreme Court’s decision in First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (1995), court concluded that the parties’ agreement plainly chose AAA rules, which included the AAA’s Supplementary Rules for Class Arbitrations.  As such, this was clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties chose to have an arbitrator decide whether their agreement provided for class arbitration.

  • Michigan Nurses Assoc. v. Bay Area Medical Center, No. 1:18-CV-01221-WCG (E.D. Wis. Aug. 15, 2018)
    08/15/2018

    Court denied the petition for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in aid of arbitration.  Court held that consummation of the transaction at issue would not result in irreparable harm to petitioner nor vitiate the arbitration process, and that the hardships claimed by the petitioner did not outweigh the hardships claimed by the respondent.

  • Gaffers v. Kelly Services, Inc., No. 16-2210 (6th Cir. Aug. 15, 2018)
     
    08/15/2018

    Court of appeals reversed the district court’s denial of defendant-appellant’s motion to compel arbitration, and remanded the action for proceedings consistent with the opinion.  Court of appeals held that neither the National Labor Relations Act nor the Fair Labor Standards Act were obstacles to arbitration agreements in the instant case.

  • Air Center Helicopters, Inc. v. Starlite Investments Ireland Limited, et al., No. 4:18-CV-00599-O (N.D. Tex. Aug. 15, 2018)
    08/15/2018

    Court granted defendants’ cross motion to confirm the award.  Court noted that circuits addressing whether an arbitration award granting temporary injunctive relief constitutes a “final order” or whether a district court has jurisdiction to vacate or confirm the temporary award have concluded that where an interim award is in the nature of a preliminary injunction, a district court’s determination whether to vacate or confirm the award is permissible to “make final relief meaningful.”

  • Stanley v. A Better Way Wholesale Autos, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01215-MPS (D. Conn. Aug. 15, 2018)
    08/15/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the action. Court found that the arbitration provisions, which appear in two contracts drafted by defendant, must be read together and, because the combined agreement is ambiguous as to the identity of the arbitrator, must be construed in plaintiff’s favor. As such, AAA was the proper arbitration panel, and defendant forfeited its right to arbitrate by refusing to participate in the AAA arbitration.

  • Weirton Medical Center, Inc. v. Quorum Health Resources, LLC, No. 18-1058 (4th Cir. Aug. 14, 2018)
    08/14/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court confirming an arbitration award. Court of appeals held that the second arbitrator’s finding was not inconsistent with the first arbitrator’s findings, and therefore petitioner failed to establish that the second arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law in reaching his decision.

  • Wartsila North America, Inc. v. International Centre for Dispute Resolution, No. 4:18-CV-01531 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 14, 2018)
    08/14/2018

    Court granted defendant ICDR’s motion to dismiss, finding that it was protected by arbitral immunity. Court explained that that if the resolution of the arbitrability issue was not facially obvious, as it was not here, then immunity should apply to the administrative stages prior to an official appointment of an arbitrator or panel of arbitrators. Court also granted defendant Hartford’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that plaintiffs failed to present a prima facie case of specific jurisdiction with regard to the breach of contract and tortious interference claims.

  • United Food and Commercial Workers Union 8-Golden State v. Gibson Wine Company, No. 1:17-CV-01674-AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2018)
    08/14/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its motion to compel arbitration. Court concluded that defendant failed to demonstrate how issues raised in the grievances were “representative issues,” and failed to identify portions of the record in support of its mootness and waiver arguments. Court also concluded that no genuine issue of material fact existed concerning the parties’ agreement to arbitrate.

  • Steadfast Insurance Co. v. Frost Bank, No. 5:17-CV-01222-XR (W.D. Tex. Aug. 14, 2018)
    08/14/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s opposed motion to stay pending arbitration. Following Fonesca v. USG Insurance Services, Inc., 467 F. App’x 260 (5th Cir. 2012), court determined that it would exercise its discretion to stay the case to preserve a forum for redress in the event the arbitration failed to resolve the claims.

  • Pitino v. Adidas America, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00639-DJH (W.D. Ky Aug. 14, 2018)
    08/14/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss. Court found that by providing for arbitration before the AAA, the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability. However, since the parties’ agreement specified that arbitration would take place in Oregon, only a district court in that forum would have jurisdiction to compel arbitration.

  • Clymer v. Jetro Cash and Carry Enterprises, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-05530-NIQA (E.D. Pa. Aug. 14, 2018)
    08/14/2018

    Court severed two unconscionable provisions of the arbitration agreement and granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court determined that the arbitration costs provision and the one-year limitation for requesting arbitration were unconscionable as applied, but since they were severable the matter should still go to arbitration.

  • Bettin’ on Blue Farms, LLC v. Dole Berry Company, No. 8:18-CV-00755-SDM-JSS (M.D. Fla. Aug. 14, 2018)
    08/14/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that the parties included in the agreement two provisions that delegated to the arbitrator the power to resolve a dispute about arbitrability.

  • Alemayehu v. Gemignani, No. 1:18-CV-00212-CMA-MJW (D. Colo. Aug. 14, 2018)
    08/14/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to dissolve stay. Court agreed with defendants’ argument that Tenth Circuit precedent requires a stay pending the appeal of a denial of a petition to compel arbitration. Court also concluded that, even if the court’s stay was discretionary, it would be appropriate because defendants have made a sufficiently strong showing of necessity.

  • Huertas v. Foulke Management Corp., No. 1:17-CV-01891-RMB-AMD (D.N.J. Aug. 13, 2018)
    08/13/2018

    Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion to amend.  Court had previously ruled that claims against Foulke Management were subject to arbitration, but since Capital One was a nonsignatory, the same analysis did not necessarily apply to Capital One.  Court therefore concluded that it could not rule, on the present record, that plaintiff’s proposed claims against Capital One were futile on the basis that the claims, or issue of arbitrability of the claims, were subject to arbitration.

  • Hazen v. Citibank, N.A., No. 1:18-CV-00103-BLW (D. Idaho Aug. 13, 2018)
    08/13/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court concluded that it was evident that Citi presented its Employee Arbitration Policy as an explicit condition to plaintiff, that plaintiff acknowledged that policy, and agreed to its terms when he continued to work at Citi.  Court also found that the arbitration policy was not procedurally unconscionable on the grounds that it differed significantly from the 2006 arbitration policy and, while one of the provisions was substantively unconscionable, there was a severability provision that prevented the invalidation of the arbitration policy as a whole.

  • Guest v. Air Liquide America Specialty Gasses, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-01969-AC (D. Or. Aug. 13, 2018)
    08/13/2018

    Court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to grant defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that (i) the magistrate judge corrected concluded that the arbitration agreement validly waived plaintiff’s right to a jury trial; (ii) plaintiff’s attempt to characterize his claims as not arising out of his employment with defendant was unavailing; (iii) the unambiguous text of the arbitration agreement could not reasonably be read to imply a time-limited one-year term; and (iv) the arbitration agreement was not procedurally or substantively unconscionable.

  • Coleman v. Bristol Care, No. 2:18-cv-04069-MDH (W.D. Mo. Aug. 13, 2018)
    08/13/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.  Court found that defendant offered, in consideration for plaintiff’s assent, its own assent to resolve employment claims via binding arbitration, and that this exchange of ironclad promises was sufficient consideration to support the contract.  Court also found that issues in the lawsuit at least touched on matters related to plaintiff’s employment application and consideration for employment, and therefore her claims were within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • Tecnimont S.P.A. v. Holtec International, No. 1:17-CV-05167-JBS-KMW (D.N.J. Aug. 13, 2018)
    08/13/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion in favor of arbitration. Court concluded that the parties agreed to arbitration pursuant to a broad arbitration clause that covers the claims at issue here. Court also concluded that the duress claimed by plaintiffs did not relate to the formation of the arbitration clause.

  • Stinson v. Best Buy Co., Inc., No. 0:18-CV-00295-JNE-KMM (D. Minn. Aug. 13, 2018)
    08/13/2018

    Court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to grant defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Magistrate judge concluded that (i) defendant Best Buy could enforce the arbitration agreement even though it was a nonsignatory; (ii) the arbitration agreement was valid; and (iii) the dispute raised in the complaint fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • Smith v. RJC, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-00830-JHE (N.D. Ala. Aug. 13, 2018)
    08/13/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss. Court found that there was an existence of a written agreement to arbitrate claims, a nexus to interstate commerce, and coverage of the claims by the arbitration clause. Court also concluded that the action should be dismissed because there were no substantive issues left pending before the district court.

  • Richland Equipment Co., Inc. v. Deere & Company, No. 17-60631 (5th Cir. Aug. 13, 2018)
    08/13/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court decision that arbitration must be compelled when a contract providing for arbitration of “any dispute” between the parties and containing a valid delegation clause is terminated and the claims thereunder are removed from a complaint but the claims under related contracts are preserved. Court concluded that there is no evidence that the parties intended for disputes to be resolved in arbitration before the termination of the contract and in court afterward, and thus the parties are subject to a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement.

  • Penn Outdoor Services LLC v. JK Consultants, No. 2:17-CV-02791-NIQA (E.D. Pa. Aug. 10.2018)
    08/10/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court concluded that plaintiff’s underlying declaratory judgment action must be submitted to binding arbitration pursuant to the arbitration provision contained in the parties’ agreement because it challenged only the validity of the contract as a whole, and not the arbitration provision directly.

  • Khaliquzzaman v. Equifax Information Services LLC, No. 1:17-CV-01450-ENV-JO (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2018)
    08/10/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court concluded that there was no genuine issue of fact regarding the validity and applicability of the revised agreement, including its terms compelling the arbitration of related disputes.  Court further concluded that because plaintiff’s claim relates to the reporting of credit information, which is related to his credit account, it is clear that the claim falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • Crystallex International Corporation v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 1:17-MC-00151-LPS (D. Del. Aug. 10, 2018)
    08/10/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for an order authorizing the issuance of a writ of attachment.  Court concluded that plaintiff rebutted the presumption of separateness, showing that PDVSA may be deemed the alter ego of Venezuela and proving the applicability of an exception to PDVSA’s sovereign immunity.  Court also concluded that plaintiff overcame the immunities embodied in the FSIA relating to attachment and execution on property held by foreign sovereigns in the U.S.

  • Carlson v. Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Ltd., No. 3:13-CV-00115-CVG-RM (D.V.I. Aug. 10, 2018)
    08/10/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to vacate the arbitration award.  Court found that because the remand of the original award was not under one of the three circumstances that would have permitted the arbitrator to revisit and revise her original award, the arbitrator was without power to enter her second award.  Accordingly, the court must vacate the second award.

  • Soaring Wind Energy LLC v. Catic USA, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-04033-K (N.D. Tex. Aug. 9, 2018)
    08/09/2018

    Court granted movants’ motion to confirm the arbitration award against respondent.  Court found that (i) the method by which the arbitrators was selected was in accordance with the exact process agreed to by the parties in their arbitration agreement, and therefore the panel did not exceed their powers; (ii) common law grounds such as public policy and due process are no longer valid to support vacatur under the FAA; (iii) the panel did not exceed its authority by identifying an ambiguity in the contract that neither party identified or submitted; (iv) respondent failed to meet is burden to prove that the panel committed misconduct; and (v) respondent failed to show that the panel exceeded its powers in awarding damages and attorneys’ fees and in exercising jurisdiction over derivative claims.

  • Landry v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00507-SM (D.N.H. Aug. 9, 2018)

    08/09/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration in party, finding that the fact of the plaintiff’s execution of the arbitration agreement had been established and that requiring arbitration and class action waiver as a condition of employment was not unconscionable. However, the Court deferred decision on claim that class action wavier was an unfair labor practice in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, as the matter was pending before the Supreme Court in N.R.L.B. v. Murphy Oil.

  • Parm v. Arce, No. 17-1931 (8th Cir. Aug. 7, 2018)
    08/07/2018

    Court of appeals reversed district court’s partial denial of motion to compel arbitration and ordered arbitration of all claims, finding that a “broad” arbitration clause covered state-law usury claims, state and federal financial-disclosure claims, and state-law unjust enrichment claims.

  • Reading Health System v. Bear Sterns & Co., No. 16-4234 (3d Cir. Aug. 7, 2018)
    08/07/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court judgment compelling arbitration finding, inter alia, that forum selection clause did not waive right to arbitrate under FINRA Rule 12200.

  • Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, and Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund v. Nguyen Custom Woodworking LLC, No. 1:18-CV-05793-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 2018)
    08/07/2018

    Court granted unopposed petition to confirm arbitral award, treating it as akin to a motion for summary judgment and finding no genuine issue of material fact precluding confirmation.

  • Hebbronville Lone Star Rentals, L.L.C. v. Sunbelt Rentals Industrial Services, L.L.C., No. 17-50613 (5th Cir. Aug. 6, 2018)
    08/06/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court judgment vacating an arbitral award that reformed the contract, finding that the arbitration agreement did not grant the arbitrator the power to decide reformation.

  • Golden Gate National Senior Care, LLC v. Killian, No. 2:17-CV-02732-JD (E.D. Penn. Aug. 6, 2018)
    08/06/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that respondent had the capacity to execute the arbitration agreement and that the agreement was not unconscionable.

  • Plump Engineering, Inc. v. Westshore Design Engineers, P.C., No. 1:18-CV-00027-BKS-DJS (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2018)
    08/06/2018

    Court granted in part and denied in part motion to compel arbitration as to arbitrable claims and stay non-arbitrable claims, finding that arbitration clause carving out claims for injunctive relief did not preclude remaining claims.

  • Discullo v. Allstate Insurance Company, No. 3:17-CV-00234-MPS (D. Conn. Aug. 3, 2018)
    08/03/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that claimant waived right to arbitrate by litigating her case for fourteen months.

  • McFadden v. Van Chevrolet-Cadillac, LLC, No. 4:18-00395-CV-W-BP (W.D. Mo. Aug. 3, 2018)
    08/03/2018

    Court denied motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, finding that mutual assent was lacking because the defendant did not sign the arbitration agreement or otherwise establish its assent.

  • Moreno v. Progistics Distribution, No. 1:18-CV-01833 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 2, 2018)
    08/02/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court found that plaintiff’s continued employment after being notified of an arbitration policy constituted acceptance of the agreement and consideration under Illinois law.  Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the agreement was vague and unconscionable and thus compelled arbitration pursuant to the FAA.

  • Schwartz v. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-03751-GJP (E.D. Pa. Aug. 2, 2018)
    08/02/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings of a claim for age discrimination pursuant to the FAA.  Court found that plaintiff’s employment agreement contained a valid arbitration provision, and that plaintiff’s age discrimination claims were within the scope of that provision.

  • Patton  v. Johnson, No. 1:17-CV-00259-WES-PAS (D.R.I. Aug. 2, 2018)
    08/02/2018

    ​Court adopted magistrate’s judge’s report and recommendation that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration should be denied.  An earlier arbitration award had found that plaintiff did not agree to arbitrate disputes arising from the agreements in question.  Defendant sought vacatur of this decision and to compel arbitration of the present claims.  Magistrate judge found no basis for vacating the arbitrator’s decision, and concluded that defendant was collaterally estopped from re-litigating the precise issue, thus he recommended that the court deny defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.

  • District 1199NM v. Christus St. Vincent Regional Medical Center, No. 1:16-CV-00774-MV-JHR (D.N.M. Aug. 2, 2018) 
    08/02/2018

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award and request for injunctive relief, denying respondent’s motion to vacate.  Court held that the arbitrator’s factual findings were beyond its review and therefore denied respondent’s argument that the arbitrator’s findings show the award did not draw its essence from the agreement.  Court also rejected respondent’s argument that the arbitrator exceeded the issues submitted by the parties.

  • Morgan v. UMH Properties, No. 1:18-CV-00948-DCN (N.D. Ohio Aug. 1, 2018) 
    08/02/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed plaintiff’s claims without prejudice.  Court found that the arbitration agreement which delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrators was not unconscionable under Ohio law and thus deferred the question of the validity of the agreement to the arbitrators.

  • Bergeron  v. Monex Deposit Company, No. 8:17-CV-01968-JVS-DFM (C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2018) 
    08/01/2018

    Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss but granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court found that the parties clearly and unmistakably intended to delegate arbitrability to an arbitrator, and that an assertion of arbitrability was not wholly groundless, thus they deferred to the arbitrators to consider plaintiff’s argument that the value of his claims put them outside the scope of the agreement.

  • Garcia v. NRI USA, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-08355-ODW-GJS (C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2018)
    08/01/2018

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration in a wage class action against several defendants. While court found that defendants had met their burden in establish that plaintiff entered into a binding agreement to arbitrate, the only defendant remaining in the case was not a party to the arbitration and could not enforce the agreement.

  • Zean v. Comcast Broadband Security, LLC, No. 0:17-CV-05117-WMW-KMM (D. Minn. Aug. 01, 2018)
    08/01/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that a contract existed under Minnesota state law and it contained a valid arbitration agreement which governed this dispute. Court thus compelled arbitration and stayed the proceedings pursuant to the FAA.

  • Diabetic Care RX, LLC v. Express Scripts, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-01176-CDP (E.D. Mo. Aug. 01, 2018)
    08/01/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case, removing a previously instated temporary restraining order. Court found that the parties’ contract left no doubt that the dispute was governed by an arbitration agreement, and the FAA required that they compel arbitration. Court found defendant had not waived its right to arbitrate by removing to federal court or by its motion to remove a temporary restraining order.

  • Internaves de Mexico S.A. DE C.V. v. Andromeda Steamship Corporation, No. 17-12164 (11th Cir. Aug. 01, 2018)
    08/01/2018

    Court of appeals reversed a district court decision to compel arbitration of an admiralty and maritime dispute in Miami, finding that the parties had agreed to arbitrate in London. The contract named both London and New York as potential sites for arbitration, under English law and US law respectively. The district court could not determine which was the appropriate forum and compelled arbitration in their own district in accordance with Chapter 1 of the FAA. The appellate court found that the New York Convention, codified as Chapter 2 of the FAA, created a strong presumption in favor of directing arbitration to be held in any forum provided for in the arbitration agreement. The appellate court then used general principals of contract interpretation to determine that the parties had intended to arbitrate disputes in London, under English law.

  • Chuang v. OD Expense LLC, No. 17-1774 (3rd Cir. Aug. 01, 2018)
    08/01/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration. Appellate court, reviewing de novo, agreed that defendants were not a party to the mandatory arbitration agreement they had sought to enforce, instead the arbitration provision defendant was party to permitted actions to be brought in Delaware.

  • Limon v. AMB Industry Groups, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-00701-MMA-JMA (S.D. Cal. July 31, 2018)
    07/31/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that a valid arbitration agreement existed and that neither the plaintiff’s alleged inability to understand English, nor the fact the agreement did not append the AAA arbitration rules, rendered the agreement unconscionable.

  • Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC v. Sappington, No. 1:16-CV-08956-VEC (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2018)
    07/31/2018

    Court denied petitioner’s motion to vacate an arbitration award. Court rejected petitioner’s arguments that the arbitrator exceeded his authority, finding that the arbitrator did not consider issues which were prohibited or beyond those submitted for his consideration. Court further rejected petitioner’s argument that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law, finding that the arbitrator explored and reviewed relevant case law, and simply interpreted it differently than petitioner.

  • Wolfinger  v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-03099-NGG-PK (E.D.N.Y. July 31, 2018)
    07/31/2018

    Court dismissed with prejudice plaintiff’s petition to vacate an arbitration award. Plaintiff sought vacatur of an award that had been arbitrated on his behalf by a union. Court found that plaintiff was not a party and did not have standing to challenge the award.

  • Overdroff v. NAU Country Insurance Company, No. 2:18-CV-00079-MPK (W.D. Pa. July 31, 2018)
    07/31/2018

    Court dismissed a complaint seeking to vacate an arbitration award. Court found that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers and thus held that plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

  • Smagin v. Yegiazaryan, No. 16-55502 (9th Cir. July 31, 2018)
    07/31/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s post judgment injunction to freeze movement of assets but vacated district court’s award of attorney’s fees and remanded for court to consider the award under the appropriate standard. Court denied request for judicial reassignment on remand.

  • Polyone Corporation v. Westlake Vinyls, Inc., No. 5:18-CV-00107-TBR (W.D. Ky. July 30, 2018)
    07/30/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent the parties from arbitrating a dispute scheduled for hearing on August 6, 2018. Court found that there was not a substantial likelihood that plaintiff would prevail in showing the arbitration provision was invalid and unenforceable, and that allowing arbitration served the public interest.

  • Tianjin Free Trade Zone Yongxing Parallel Imported Automotive Trading Co. Ltd. v. Executive Coach Builders, Inc., No. 6:18-CV-03070-MDH (W.D. Mo. July 30, 2018)
    07/30/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Court found the issues raised by plaintiff, that the arbitration clause was not contained in the agreement in question, and not all defendants were signatories to that agreement, were matters for the arbitrators to decide.

  • Nosbaum v. J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-06202 (N.D. Ill. July 30, 2018)
    07/30/2018

    Court denied petition to vacate a FINRA arbitration award, and granted cross-petition to confirm the award, converting it to a final judgment in favor of respondent. Court found that arbitrators’ evidentiary ruling that excluded certain evidence did not amount to a refusal to hear evidence which would be grounds for vacatur under the FAA. Court further found that and adverse ruling did not itself support allegations of partiality.

  • Megacorp Logistics LLC, v. Turvo, Inc., No. 18-01240-EMC (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2018)
    07/30/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court found the parties had clearly and unmistakably delegated questions of the scope of arbitration to the arbitrators. Court also found that claims based on agreements that did not contain arbitration clauses were sufficiently related to agreements that did contain an arbitration clause, such that defendants’ assertion of arbitrability for all claims was not groundless.

  • High Country Dealerships , Inc. v. Polaris Sales, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00078-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C. July 30, 2016)
    07/30/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion compel arbitration, and stayed proceedings. Court found that pursuant to the FAA they must compel arbitration when (1) a dispute exists, (2) that is governed by a valid arbitration provision, (3) the transaction is related to interstate commerce, and (4) a party fails or refuses to arbitrate.

  • Barr v. HSS, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-12820-DML-MKM (E.D. Mich. July 30, 2016)
    07/30/2018

    Court granted in part a motion to dismiss an employment dispute, dismissing the dispute but compelling arbitration. Defendant argued that the claims should be dismissed entirely because they were subject to a mandatory arbitration provision, but that the one year limitation for demanding arbitration had passed. The court referred all questions of timeliness to the arbitrator.

  • Buhannic v. Tradingscreen, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-07993-ER (S.D.N.Y. July 27, 2018)
    07/27/2018

    Court denied petitioners’ motion to vacate, and granted and granted Respondents’ cross-motion to confirm an arbitration award. Court rejected petitioners’ arguments that the arbitration panel was impartial, refused to hear certain evidence, and issued the award in manifest disregarded of the law, finding the Arbitrator’s decision consistent with applicable law and the facts presented at the hearing.

  • Daniel v. eBay, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-01294-EGS (D.D.C. July 26, 2018)
    07/26/2018

    Court declined to adopt magistrate judge’s recommendation to compel arbitration and denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation. Court found that plaintiff did not consent to arbitration by agreeing to the change-in-terms provision in the contract thirteen years before the arbitral agreement was added and defendant failed to prove plaintiff was notified of the revised agreement.

  • Greer v. Sterling Jerlers, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00480-LJO-SKO (E.D. Cal. July 26, 2018)
    07/26/2018

    Court granted motion to dismiss the claim pursuant to the FAA, finding that there was no reason to stay the action because all claims were arbitrable.

  • Maravilla v. Gruma Corporation, No. 4:18-CV-01309 (S.D. Tex. July 26, 2018)
    07/26/2018

    Court granted motion to dismiss and compel JAMS arbitration, holding there was a valid agreement to arbitrate, the clause delegating decisions of arbitrability to the arbitrator was valid, and the class-action waiver was enforceable.

  • Nathaniel v. Darden Restaurants, Inc., No. 6:18-CV-06022-PKH (W.D. Ark. July 26, 2018)
    07/26/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Epic Systems, upholding arbitration agreements for individual proceedings. Court denied motion to stay, as all claims were subject to the arbitral agreement.

  • Guerrero v. Haliburton Energy Services, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01300-LJO-JLT (E.D. Cal. July 26, 2018)
    07/26/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that a provision purporting to waive plaintiff’s right to bring certain claims was both potentially unconscionable, and severable. Once that provision was severed, court found the remainder of the arbitration provision was enforceable pursuant to the FAA.

  • United Merchandise Wholesale Inc. v. Direct Containers Inc, No. 2:18-CV-00617-KM-JBC (D.N.J. July 26, 2018)
    07/26/2018

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to confirm an arbitration award, and denied defendants’ motion to vacate. Court found that evidence presented by Defendants of two attenuated relationships between counsel and the arbitrator was not sufficient to meet the burden of establishing evident partiality. Court refused to apply the BMW v. Gore standard for punitive damages in the “far more deferential context of review of an arbitration award.

  • Ray v. NPRTO Flordia, LLC., No. 18-10188 (11th Cir. July 26, 2018)
    07/26/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss. Appellate court refused to consider defendant’s arguments that Florida law would allow a non-signatory to be bound by a broadly drafted arbitration clause, finding that defendant had relied solely on federal law in its district court motion.

  • DFM Investments, LLC v. Brandspring Solutions, LLC, No. 17-2447 (8th Cir. July 25, 2018)
    07/25/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to affirm arbitral award pursuant to the FAA. Court found that district court did not err in its characterization of the award and even if it had, it would be insufficient to reverse the court’s decision and that the award could not be vacated based on arbitrator’s refusal to consider certain evidence as the evidence at issue was not material.

  • Fin Associates LP v. Hudson Specialty Insurance Company, No. 16-3541 (3d Cir. July 25, 2018)
    07/25/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings pending arbitration. Pursuant to the FAA, court found all prerequisites to arbitration had been met and plaintiffs’ claim for compensatory damages fell within the scope of the agreement. Court determined that plaintiff consented to the arbitral agreement through his attorney-in-fact, the agreement was not unconscionable, and defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate.

  • Copper Mesa Mining Corporation v. The Republic of Ecuador, No. 1:17-CV-00394-TNM (D.D.C. July 25, 2018)
    07/25/2018

    Court granted parties’ joint motion to stay proceedings related to enforcement of a $25 million arbitration award rendered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration pending completion of settlement agreement terms.

  • Mansour v. Kmart Corporation, Inc., No. 8:17-CV-02440-PWG (D. Md. July 25, 2018)
    07/25/2018

    Court denied motion to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration, finding a genuine dispute of material fact existed with regard to whether plaintiff accepted the arbitration agreement. Court ordered limited discovery on whether the plaintiff agreed to arbitrate the dispute.

  • Payne v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-02313-PMD (D.S.C. July 25, 2018)
    07/25/2018

    Court granted defendants motion to compel arbitration of a class personal injury action, and dismissed the case.  Court disagreed with plaintiffs’ arguments that the arbitration provision should be evaluated under South Carolina law, citing a choice of law provision in the agreement which named Washington Law.  Court further found that defendant’s placement of a disclaimer next to the “Place your order” button, which stated that by placing an order a user agrees to the conditions of use, was sufficient to provide plaintiff with adequate notice that he would be bound by the arbitration provision.  Court also found that the arbitration provision was enforceable against a nonsignatory who brought claims under the contract.

  • Lovelady v. Five Star Quality Care-VA, LLC, No. 4:18-CV-00018-MSD-DEM (E.D. Va. July 25, 2018)
    07/24/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings pending arbitration. Pursuant to the FAA, court found all prerequisites to arbitration had been met and plaintiffs’ claim for compensatory damages fell within the scope of the agreement. Court determined that plaintiff consented to the arbitral agreement through his attorney-in-fact, the agreement was not unconscionable, and defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate.

  • Shaut v. Hatch, No. 1:18-CV-00420-DCN (N.D. Ohio July 24, 2018)
    07/24/2018

    Court granted motion to dismiss motion to vacate the arbitration award, finding respondents were not properly served pursuant to the FAA, the motion to vacate was time barred, and the motion was barred by res judicata as the arbitral award had already been confirmed.

  • Alderson v. Devere USA, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-05081-JFK (S.D.N.Y. July 24, 2018)
    07/24/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction as moot. Pursuant to the FAA and the arbitration agreement, the court found it must compel AAA or JAMS arbitration and that questions of arbitrability were for the arbitrator to decide.

  • Egan v. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00445-MRH (W.D. Pa. July 24, 2018)
    07/24/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to stay proceedings pending appeal of its denial of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that it maintained jurisdiction of the matter because the issues on appeal were frivolous.

  • McClellan v. Fitbit, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00036-JD (N.D. Cal. July 24, 2018)
    07/24/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s requests to be relieved of the AAA arbitration agreement and to strike it down for all of defendant’s users, finding that the slow payment of arbitration fees by defendant did not result in a material breach of obligation rising to the level of terminating its right to compel arbitration. Nevertheless, the court held defendant and its lawyers accountable for their bad-faith litigation tactics, ordering defendant to compensate plaintiff for its attorney’s fees and costs related to the misconduct and mandating that defendant file a copy of this decision in all cases where it seeks to compel arbitration with consumers.

  • Munro v. University of Southern California, No. 17-55550 (9th Cir. July 24, 2018)
    07/24/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court concluded that current and former employees of USC were not compelled to arbitrate their collective claims for breach of fiduciary responsibility against the defendants for the administration of two ERISA plans, finding that these claims fell outside the scope of the arbitration clauses in the employees’ general employment contracts.

  • Trevino v. Acosta, Inc., No. 5:17-CV-06529-NC (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2018)
    07/23/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay action, finding pursuant to the Supreme Court’s Epic Systems decision that the class action waiver in the arbitral agreement was enforceable. Court also found sufficient evidence to establish that there was mutual assent to the arbitration clause and that the agreement was not unconscionable under California law.

  • Buchanan v. Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd., No. 4:15-CV-01696-YGR (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2018)
    07/23/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of certain class members’ claims pursuant to the FAA, finding defendant did not waive its right to demand arbitration and concluding there was no impermissible prospective waiver of employees’ federal antidiscrimination rights. Court also granted defendant’s motion to bifurcate the claims of plaintiff Buchanan from the class, finding that the pattern and practice method of proof of discrimination is not available to private plaintiffs, that the factual overlap of the plaintiff’s claims relative to the class were minimal, bifurcation would avoid confusion and prejudice, and would not impact judicial economy or efficiency. Court denied defendant’s motion for decertification of the class, but modified and limited its definition.

  • Judd v. Keypoint Government Solutions, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00327-RM-STV (D. Colo. July 23, 2018)
    07/23/2018

    Magistrate judge recommended granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Pursuant to the FAA, court found the arbitration agreement was valid, concluding that the opt-out form plaintiff signed related to the scope of the arbitral agreement not to its validity and that under the AAA rules, the scope of an arbitration agreement must be determined by the arbitrator.

  • Academy of Allergy & Asthma in Primary Care v. Superior Healthplan, Inc., No. 5:17-CV-01122-FB-HJB (W.D. Tex. Jul. 23, 2018)
    07/23/2018

    Court accepted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge to grant in part, deny in part, and deny as moot in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and alternative motion to dismiss.  Court found that, while plaintiff AAAPC made claims in direct reference to the agreements at issue, plaintiff UAS could not be compelled to arbitrate its claims under the direct-benefits-estoppel theory or the “intertwined claims” theory.  Court also noted that the Provider Plaintiffs already filed demands in the arbitration proceeding, and therefore the motion to compel arbitration as to those claims is moot.

  • AOA of the Moorings, Inc. v. Dongbu Insurance Co., LTD., No. 16-16666 (9th Cir. July 20, 2018)
    07/20/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed judgment of district court confirming an arbitral award including attorney’s fees to the prevailing party. Court reviewed decision de novo and found that the fees were included within the coverage of the insurance policy at issue.

  • Innotec LLC v. Visiontech Sales, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00007-GEC-JCH (W.D. Va. July 20, 2018)
    07/20/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion in the alternative to compel arbitration finding that pursuant to the FAA its role was limited to determining arbitrability and that it was necessary to decide this issue before considering the primary motion to dismiss or any other defenses raised by the parties. Court found that a non-signatory plaintiff was equitably estopped from denying the existence of an agreement to arbitrate where it had sought to enforce particular terms of the contract containing the arbitration agreement against defendant. Court also held that defendant had not waived its right to arbitration by failing to raise the arbitration clause at an earlier point in the proceedings.

  • CIP Construction Company v. Western Surety Company, No 1:18-CV-00058-TDS-JLW (M.D.N.C. July 20, 2018)
    07/20/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, but granted defendant’s alternative motion for a discretionary stay of judicial proceedings in construction dispute between general contractor and surety of a subcontractor pending the outcome of an ongoing arbitration between plaintiff and its subcontractor. Court found that, where a performance bond containing a judicial resolution clause incorporated by reference the subcontract containing an arbitration clause, and that arbitration clause had a narrow scope and made no reference to defendant surety, the surety was not a party to the arbitration agreement. Court held that a discretionary stay was appropriate as issues of fact related to the action may be settled in the pending arbitration between plaintiff and its subcontractor.

  • Sharp v. Terminix International, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-02072-SHM-DKV (W.D. Tenn. July 20, 2018)
    07/20/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of employment dispute where arbitration agreement was unsigned, but incorporated by reference into the signed employment agreement. Court found that while the agreement to arbitrate was procedurally unconscionable, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it was substantively unconscionable, and the agreement to arbitrate was therefore valid.

  • Mbau v. Baker Hughes, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-00101-JED-FHM (N.D. Okla. July 19, 2018)
    07/19/2018

    Court granted motion to stay plaintiff’s claims pending arbitration. Court found arbitration provision that stated that either party “may” request that the dispute be subjected to binding arbitration was binding once either party elected to arbitrate and served proper notice thereof upon the opposing party.

  • CaringOnDemand, LLC v. Ventive LLC, No. 9:18-CV-80211-BB (S.D. Fla. July 19, 2018)
    07/19/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of an order compelling arbitration and the appointment of an arbitrator. Court rejected plaintiff’s attempt to have the court appoint an arbitrator after plaintiff failed to request that relief in their initial motion. Court held that a Rule 59(e) motion could not be used to raise issues that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.

  • Boves v. Aarons, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00005-HBP (S.D.N.Y. July 19, 2018)
    07/19/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s New York state law employment discrimination claims. Pursuant to the FAA and First Options, court applied New York state contract law to determine that a valid arbitration agreement did exist. The court also held that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and dismissed plaintiff’s multiple arguments to the contrary.

  • Middletown Borough v. Middletown Water Joint Venture LLC, No. 1:18-CV-00861-CCC (M.D. Pa. July 19, 2018)
    07/19/2018

    Court rejected plea for preliminary injunctive relief pending the outcome of an ongoing arbitration. Court found that plaintiff failed to prove their likelihood of success on the merits of the arbitration and failed to prove that irreparable harm would follow the failure of the court to issue injunctive relief.

  • Triangle River, LLC v. Caroline Square Realty, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-01078-TJC-MCR (M.D. Fla. July 19, 2018)
    07/19/2018

    Magistrate judge recommended that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration be granted pursuant to the FAA, concluding a valid agreement to arbitrate existed, plaintiff’s claim fell within the scope of the agreement, and plaintiff did not demonstrate that the right to arbitration had been waived. Court recommended the action be stayed pending arbitration and that the parties submit periodic reports on the status of arbitration.

  • Starnes v. Conduent Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00495-WO-LPA (M.D.N.C. July 18, 2018)
    07/18/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay litigation and compel arbitration. Court rejected all arguments of plaintiff as to the improper formation of the contract containing the agreement to arbitrate and found all requirements of the FAA were met to compel arbitration.

  • Commodities & Minerals Enterprise LTD. v. CVG Ferrominera Orinoco, C.A., No. 1:17-CV-20196-JEM (S.D. Fla. July 18, 2018)
    07/18/2018

    Court granted petition to confirm partial final award in an arbitration between foreign parties in Miami pursuant to the Society of Maritime Arbitrators Rules. Court found that, pursuant to the New York Convention, its review of the award was “extremely limited,” none of the grounds for vacatur under the FAA were present, and that the arbitrators had competence to determine arbitrability under the arbitration agreement according to the standard in First Options. In confirming the award, court held there was no reason to remand the partial award to the arbitral panel until after resolution of jurisdictional phase of that proceeding.

  • Youngevity International Corp. v. Smith, No. 3:16-CV-00704-BTM-JLB (S.D. Cal. July 18, 2018)
    07/18/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration of defendant’s counter-claims. Court held that counter-claimants’ arguments had not met “a heavy burden of proof” that plaintiff had waived their right to arbitration. Specifically, defendants and counter-claimants had not shown that plaintiff had knowledge of the right to compel arbitration, acted inconsistently with that right, or that resulting prejudice to defendants had followed.

  • Bow v. Ad Astra Recovery Services, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-00510-G (N.D. Tex. July 18, 2018)
    07/18/2018

    Court granted motion to stay and compel arbitration filed by defendant, a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement in question. Court found that, regardless of theories of equitable estoppel, the terms of the relevant loan agreement clearly identified that plaintiff may be compelled to arbitrate with a non-signatory affiliate entity of the signatory. Court held that defendant was an affiliate and that plaintiff’s statutory claims fell within the broad scope of the loan agreement.

  • Balkan Energy Ltd. v. Republic of Ghana, No. 1:17-CV-00584-APM (D.D.C. July 17, 2018)
    07/17/2018

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to authorize attachment and execution on a judgment rendered four-months prior, confirming an arbitral award rendered in prior investor-state arbitration. Court found Ghana’s fear that it may be subject to duplicative enforcement was misplaced where another party that had retained the right to pursue award confirmation and enforcement had not yet moved to authorize or attach assets under 28 USC §1610(c).

  • Sistem v. Kyrgyz Republic, No. 16-4153 (2d Cir. July 17, 2018)
    07/17/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed decision of district court confirming ICSID Additional Facility arbitral award, clarifying that the action was actually one of “recognition and enforcement” rather than “confirmation”. Court found that defendant waived its right to challenge the jurisdiction of the tribunal by failing to raise the issue during the arbitration. Court emphasized that, under the FSIA and on the record before them, the District of Colombia may have been the proper venue, but held that defendant failed to timely raise a venue objection and thus was precluded from doing so on appeal.

  • Garcia Saz v. Church of Scientology Religious Trust, No. 8:13-CV-00220-JDW-TBM (M.D. Fla. July 17, 2018)
    07/17/2018

    Court denied motion to vacate arbitration award in ecclesiastical arbitration conducted pursuant to Church of Scientology ethics and justice policies. Plaintiff alleged the arbitrators exhibited partiality towards the Church, and engaged in misconduct by: refusing to hear evidence, refusing to consider fraud claims, allowing the Church to have ex parte conduct with the panel, refusing to allow plaintiff’s counsel to attend the arbitration, and failing to provide sufficient findings for the court to review. Finding that heightened deference must be given to a religious arbitration, court held none of the four grounds for vacatur under the FAA were met.

  • Crowe v. CGNSC Ripley, No. 3:17-CV-00171-MPM-RP (N.D. Miss. July 17, 2018)
    07/17/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to § 4 of the FAA. Court considered conflict between state contract law precedent clearly limiting the ability of informal agents to enter into valid arbitration agreements on behalf of their wards, and Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedent which disapproved of nominally neutral rules that in practice “would have a disproportionate impact on arbitration agreements”. Court found that the facts before it did not represent a distinction from Fifth Circuit precedent and held the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable.

  • AT&T Mobility Services LLC v. Jean-Baptiste, No. 2:17-CV-11962-MCA-MAH (D.N.J. July 16, 2018)
    07/16/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration where employment contract stipulated that a failure to follow the procedure for opt-out would effect a submission to a binding arbitration agreement. Court followed New Jersey law precedent in stating that, because plaintiff did not condition defendant’s continued employment on participation in its arbitration program, her affirmative consent was necessary to effect the arbitration agreement.

  • Armstrong County Memorial Hospital v. Penn. Assoc. of Staff Nurses & Allied Professionals, No. 2:18-CV-00048-AJS (W.D. Pa. July 16, 2018)
    07/16/2018

    Court enforced arbitration award in favor of employees seeking overtime pay. Court found the award to be rationally based upon and drawing its essence from the language of the CBA underlying the arbitration, and that the arbitrator did thus not exceed his jurisdiction.

  • Denver Global Products, Inc. v. Leon, No. 5:17-CV-00102 (W.D.N.C. July 16, 2018)
    07/16/2018

    Court affirmed recommendation of magistrate judge confirming arbitration award and entering final judgment against award debtor to Chinese counter-party. Court overruled defendant’s objections to the magistrate judge’s factual findings, holding that no genuine dispute as to the formation and validity of the arbitration agreement existed on the facts. Court also overruled defendant’s objections to the legal conclusion of the magistrate where his decision was based on a precedential opinions expressing a very narrow judicial review of arbitral awards.

  • Hessong v. Cape Securities, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00500-RDB (D. Md. July 16, 2018)
    07/16/2018

    Court refused motion to vacate FINRA arbitration award. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the award be vacated under FRCP 60(b) and applied grounds for vacatur of the FAA. Court held that plaintiff’s motion to vacate was not timely under the FAA’s three-month tolling period as they did not file for thirteen-months after the award was served upon them.

  • Mattox v. Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC., No. 3:18-CV-00119-JAM (D. Conn. July 16, 2018)
    07/16/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration of employment agreement. Employee argued that the agreement was unenforceable as he received no consideration for submitting to arbitration. Court found that reciprocal commitment of parties to arbitration constituted adequate consideration.

  • Daniels v. Painter, No. 2:16-CV-03782-RSWL (C.D. Cal. July 16, 2018)
    07/16/2018

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award, holding the arbitrator did not act in manifest disregard of the law simply because he took an interpretation of the law that defendants cited as incorrect. Court likewise held that the arbitrator did not act in manifest disregard of the law by holding non-signatory jointly and severally liable nor did he act in manifest disregard of the law by failing to reduce an award of future damages to present value. Court dismissed plaintiffs request for attorney’s fees.

  • Edible International, LLC v. Google, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-00216-MPS (D. Conn. July 13, 2018)
    07/13/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration with respect to all of the plaintiff’s claims. Court found that claims fell within the “broad” scope of the arbitration agreement and that plaintiff failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that disputed issues were “collateral” to the agreement.

  • Let’s Go Aero, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00710-CMA-MJW (D. Colo. July 13, 2018)
    07/13/2018

    Court granted stay of proceedings and administrative closure pending the outcome of a related arbitration. Court held that the lawsuit and arbitration were duplicative, the parties to be “substantially the same”, the actions asserted to be “nearly identical”, thus the first-filed rule thus favored deference to the pending arbitration.

  • Hermosillo v. Davey Tree Surgery Co., No. 1:18-CV-00393-LHK (N.D. Cal. July 13, 2018)
    07/13/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s six contract claims while severing what it found to be a substantively unconscionable six-month limitations period term from the agreement. Applying California law pursuant to First Options of Chi., Inc., the court found that an agreement to arbitrate did exist in the employment agreement between plaintiff and defendant. In granting the motion to compel, the court engaged in a protracted discussion of procedural and substantive unconscionability, ultimately finding the agreement to arbitrate to be enforceable.

  • United Nations Int. School v. United Nations Int. School Staff Assoc., No. 1:17-CV-04811-ERK (E.D.N.Y. July 13, 2018)
    07/13/2018

    Court refused to vacate arbitration award granting teacher right to return to work. Court found sentences at issue in arbitrator’s award to meet the threshold standard of a “barely colorable justification” and that the award drew its essence from the CBA containing the arbitration agreement.

  • Lagrasso v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America, No. 4:18-CV-11497-LVP-RSW (E.D. Mich. July 12, 2018)
    07/12/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion for stay pending arbitration. Court held that the plaintiff’s claims were inseparable from those asserted in arbitration and that allowing the action to proceed would result in litigation of arbitrable issues. Court further held that the plaintiff failed to show that staying the matter would cause undue hardship, prejudice or inequity.

  • Market America, Inc. v. Yang, No. 1:17-CV-897 (M.D.N.C. July 12, 2018)
    07/12/2018

    Court denied respondent’s motion to dismiss and to strike petitioner’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that (i) special circumstances justified an exception to the ‘first to file rule’; (ii) the court had subject-matter jurisdiction; (iii) in light of the forum selection clause in the arbitration agreement, the forum was appropriate; and (iv) the respondent consented to the arbitration agreement, which was neither illusory nor unconscionable.

  • PKT Associates, Inc. v. Granum Group, LLC, No. 18-CV-1169-VEC (S.D.N.Y July 12, 2018)
    07/12/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s petition to enforce a foreign arbitration award. Court held that it had jurisdiction because the parties relationship, “involves property located abroad, envisages performance or enforcement abroad, or has some other reasonable relation with one or more foreign states,” pursuant to 9 USC § 202. Court further held that the defendant failed to show there should be an exception to enforcement. Court granted costs to the plaintiff due to the defendant’s failure to pay the arbitral award which caused the plaintiff to incur the cost of initiating the lawsuit.

  • Technical Products, Inc. v. Bellsouth Telecommunications, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-02996-RWS (N.D. Ga. July 12, 2018)
    07/12/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the plaintiff conceded it was bound to the arbitration agreement, and the agreement applied broadly to cover all the plaintiff’s claims and not just to the claims related to the agreement.

  • Tradeline Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. V. Jess Smith & Sons Cotton, LLC, No. 2:15-CV-08048-JAK-RAO (C.D. Cal. July 12, 2018)
    07/12/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to confirm the arbitration award, holding that the plaintiff brought parallel arguments against the motion to confirm the award and the motion to compel arbitration. Court further held that the plaintiff had not offered any new evidence or shown any change in controlling law which would indicate that the previous order was wrong.

  • KT Corporation v. ABS Holdings Ltd., No. 1:17-CV-07859-LGS (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2018)
    07/12/2018

    Court granted motion to confirm award rendered in ICC arbitration between foreign companies. Court found that its review of the award was severely limited, and that neither grounds for vacatur under the FAA nor grounds for refusal of confirmation under the New York Convention were present.

  • Lester v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-00267-VEH (N.D. Ala. July 11, 2018)
    07/11/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that defendant failed to provide evidence that, as an assignee of the right to collect debt from the plaintiff, it also received the assignor’s right to demand arbitration.

  • Li v. Wok 88 Inc., No. 1:17-CV-08715-GHW (S.D.N.Y. July 11, 2018)
    07/11/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration agreement was valid and the plaintiff’s claim was within its scope. Court denied defendant’s motion for sanctions under 28 USC § 1927, holding that while the plaintiff’s refusal to comply with the arbitration agreement did cause unnecessary delays and expenditures, it did not demonstrate bad faith.

  • New York City & Vicinity District Council of Carpenters v. A.J.S. Project Management, No. 1:16-CV-08818-VSB (S.D.N.Y. July 11, 2018)
    07/11/2018

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm arbitration award, holding that (i) the respondent failed to demonstrate that the claims in the two relevant arbitrations were identical, (ii) different parties initiated the two arbitrations, and (iii) the respondent did not raise the issue of preclusion at the second arbitration. Court therefore found that the award did not violate public policy.

  • Stemcor USA Inc. v. Cia Siderurgica do Para Cosipar, No. 16-30984 (5th Cir. July 11, 2018)
    07/11/2018

    Court of appeals granted plaintiff’s motion for panel rehearing, and substituted its prior decision. Court held that plaintiff-appellant failed to comply with the procedural requirements which would have allowed for attachments to issue in aid of arbitration.

  • Garren v. CVS Health Corporation, No. 3:17-CV-149 (E.D. Tenn. July 11, 2018)
    07/11/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that the plaintiff showed a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether he opted out of the arbitration agreement.

  • Heidrich v. Pennymac Financial Services, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-02821-TLN-EFB (E.D. Cal. July 11, 2018)
    07/11/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement was valid and that the dispute fell within the scope of the agreement. Court held that the agreement therefore had to be enforced, despite a waiver which the plaintiff alleged to be illegal.

  • Gomez v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-01528-KM-SCM (D.N.J. July 10, 2018)
    07/10/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that the defendant met its burden of demonstrating that the parties formed an arbitration agreement covering the dispute.

  • Greer v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00480-LJO-SKO (E.D. Cal. July 10, 2018)
    07/10/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable and contained the “essential bilaterality of an arbitration agreement between an employer and employee.” Court, however, severed the requirement that the plaintiff comply with pre-arbitration procedures as a prerequisite to arbitration, holding that the requirement was substantively unconscionable.

  • Driver v. BPV Market Place Investors, LLC, No. 4:17-CV-01607-CAS (E.D. Mo. July 10, 2018)
    07/10/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, finding the existence of a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement. Court held that the plaintiff’s challenges to the agreement should be decided by an arbitrator because the agreement contains a valid delegation provision.

  • KT Corporation v. ABS Holdings, Ltd., No. 1:17-CV-07859-LGS (S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2018)
    07/10/2018

    Court granted the petition to confirm a partial ICC arbitration award, holding that the arbitral tribunal did not exceed its authority and its decision did not lack “any colorable justification.” Court also held that enforcement of the award would not be contrary to public policy, and that respondents could recover attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the action because the parties contractually agreed to such.

  • Venco Imtiaz Construction Company v. Symbion Power LLC, No. 17-7102 (D.C. Cir. July 10, 2018)
    07/10/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to confirm the ICC arbitration award, finding no merit to the argument that the arbitration decision contravened principles of collateral estoppel.

  • Kiobel v. Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, No. 17-424 (2d Cir. July 10, 2018)
    07/10/2018

    Court of appeals reversed district court’s decision to grant petition seeking leave to subpoena under 28 USC § 1782. Court held that the district court’s decision was an abuse of discretion where the documents sought from a foreign company’s US counsel would be unreachable in foreign proceedings. Court held that this would threaten the US policy of promoting open communications between lawyers and their clients.

  • Electrum Partners, LLC v. Johnston, No. 2:17-CV-03106-JAD-CWH (D. Nev. July 9, 2018)
    07/09/2018

    Court denied petition to compel arbitration without prejudice, holding that the petitioner had not supplied sufficient evidence to establish that a valid arbitration agreement existed with the respondent. Court stated that the petitioner needed a preponderance of evidence to compel the respondent, a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, to participate in arbitration.

  • Pineview Extended Care Center, Inc. v. Ade, No. 8:18-CV-00307-PX (D. Md. July 9, 2018)
    07/09/2018

    Court held the motion to alter the judgment denying stay of proceedings in conveyance until the state court decided the motion, stating that FAA does not specifically authorize federal courts to stay proceedings pending in state courts. Court denied motion to reconsider judgment granting petition to compel arbitration, since the respondent had not provided any basis for the court to change its prior decision.

  • Andre v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00142-VAC-CJB (D. Del. July 6, 2018) 
    07/06/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration without prejudice, holding that the plaintiff had cited sufficient facts to bring into question whether a valid arbitration existed. Court ordered limited discovery on that question.

  • FinTech Fund, F.L.P. v. Horne, No. 4:18-CV-01125 (S.D. Tex. July 6, 2018)
    07/06/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that it was not the proper court to compel arbitration given that the arbitration agreement was under the jurisdiction of England and Wales.

  • United States of America, ex rel. v. United Dairies, L.L.P., No. 0:16-CV-03092 (D. Minn. July 6, 2018)
    07/06/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to stay arbitration and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss. Court noted that it lacked the authority to stay the arbitration, and found that the arbitration agreement was valid and covered the allegations at issue. Court found that the joinder provision in the agreement was insufficient to override the arbitration provision.

  • Chatziplis v. PriceWaterhouseCoopers, L.L.P., No. 1:17-CV-049109-ER (S.D.N.Y. July 6, 2018)
    07/06/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable and the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement. Court concluded that, having found a valid arbitration argument covering this dispute, it was bound to direct the parties to proceed to arbitration.

  • Spikener v. Olive Garden Holdings, LLC, No. 5:18-CV-00188-DCR (E.D. Ky. July 5, 2018) 
    07/05/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding pursuant to the FAA that the arbitration agreement was valid since the plaintiff had been aware of and consented to the agreement.

  • Anytime Labor-Kansas LLC v. Anderson, No. 4:17-CV-00573-RK (W.D. Mo. July 5, 2018)
    07/05/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for declaratory summary judgment that defendant was party to a valid arbitration agreement that only allowed individual, not class, arbitration. Court further granted a permanent injunction against defendant pursuing class arbitration with plaintiff.

  • O’Callaghan v. Uber Corporation of California, No. 1:17-CV-02094-ER (S.D.N.Y. July 5, 2018)
    07/05/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding pursuant to §4 of the FAA that the parties were bound by their agreement to arbitrate and that the agreement contained clear and unmistakable evidence they intended to submit the issue of arbitrability to an arbitrator.

  • Shasha v. Malkin, No. 1:14-CV-09989-AT-RWL (S.D.N.Y. July 5, 2018)
    07/05/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to enforce two subpoenas issued by arbitrators to two non-party witnesses. Pursuant to §7 of the FAA, court concluded that the arbitrators had greater familiarity with what non-party testimony was material and therefore, the witnesses should appear to testify.

  • Siracusa v. Marriott International Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01145-FAB (D.P.R. July 5, 2018)
    07/05/2018

    Court granted one defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and denied another defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding pursuant to the FAA the first defendant signed a valid arbitration agreement with the plaintiff. The second defendant, however, failed to demonstrate a valid arbitration agreement as it did not meet the requirements of a joint employer, and therefore, was not party to the arbitration agreement.

  • Vivint, Inc. v. NorthStar Alarm Services, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-00106-JNP-EJF (D. Utah July 5, 2018)
    07/05/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to bifurcate trial to determine if some matters were arbitrable, holding that the plaintiff had waived its right to arbitration. Court stated that plaintiff’s actions were inconsistent with the right to arbitrate and that it did not follow the procedures dictated by the FAA for compelling arbitration by first filing a motion for summary judgment and to bifurcate the trial.

  • Directors Guild of America, Inc. v. Superstition Dog With A Bone, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-02719-CAS-SK (C.D. Cal. July 5, 2018)
    07/05/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s petition to confirm the arbitration award. Court noted that it must accord considerable deference to arbitrators’ judgments. Court found that the arbitration award was support by the record, and that the defendant did not demonstrate that the arbitrator exceeded his scope of authority or was completely erroneous in his findings.

  • Clientron Corp. v. Devon It, Inc., No. 16-3432 (3d Cir. July 5, 2018)
    07/05/2018

    Court of appeals vacated district court’s order holding defendants liable for the breach of contract damages and monetary sanctions in relation to an award rendered by the Chinese Arbitration Association. Court determined that plaintiffs’ evidence was insufficient to pierce the corporate veil and that it would not pierce the veil on the basis of discovery sanctions.

  • Republic of Argentina v. AWG Group Ltd., No. 16-7134 (D.C. Cir. July 3, 2018)
    07/03/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed the arbitration award pursuant to the FAA and the New York Convention, rejecting Argentina’s objections that a member of the ICSID panel had shown “evident partiality” and that the panel determination had exceeded its authority. Court held that the arbitrator’s seat on the board of directors of a company that invested in two of the parties was not more than a trivial interest to the company, thereby implicating no disclosure duties. Court also ruled that the panel had not exceeded its authority because the panel had provided sufficient explanation of its decision and the panel’s decision on damages complied with a good-faith understanding of the arbitration agreement.

  • Scottsdale Capital Advisors Incorporated v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Incorporated, No. 2:18-MC-00035-GMS (D. Ariz. July 3, 2018)
    07/03/2018

    Court declined to enforce subpoena in arbitration that would require a non-party to provide pre-hearing document discovery. Court also declined to enforce a subpoena that would require FINRA witnesses to appear at a hearing, as the witnesses did not meet the location requirement for subpoenas set out in FRCP 45(c)(1)(A).

  • UBS Financial Services, Inc. v. Reeves, No. 2:17-CV-00832-MHT-SRW (M.D. Ala. July 3, 2018)
    07/03/2018

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award pursuant to §9 of the FAA, holding the award accorded with the parties’ agreement.

  • Ploetz v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC, No. 17-2405 (8th Cir. July 2, 2018)
    07/02/2018

    Court of appeals found error but affirmed on partially different grounds the denial of a motion to vacate an arbitration award where plaintiff had alleged “evident partiality” pursuant to §10 of the FAA. Court found that the district court had erred when it applied the wrong standard for finding “evident partiality.” Applying the correct standard, the court found no sign of “evident partiality” in the arbitrator’s failure to disclose one instance of a relationship with the opposing party when the arbitrator had disclosed ten other instances, nor did the court consider procedural violations of FINRA rules to support a finding of bias.

  • Bestway (USA), Inc. v. Sgromo, 4:17-CV-00205-HSG (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2018)
    07/02/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and granted cross-claimants motion for summary judgment, holding that the defendant had through his conduct throughout the litigation waived his right to arbitrate and that compelling arbitration would prejudice plaintiffs and cross-claimants who had expended considerable resources in the current lawsuit. Court noted that allowing defendant to compel arbitration after progressing sixteen months into litigation just before a decision on summary judgment would reward poor litigation conduct. The court also held that cross-claimants were entitled to royalties from two license agreements.

  • Brumfield v. Kindred Healthcare Inc., 2:18-CV-00591-DCN (D.S.C. July 2, 2018)
    07/02/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, holding that pursuant to the FAA and recent Supreme Court precedent that the plaintiffs are prohibited from this collective action. Court also held pursuant to § 4 of the FAA that it cannot compel several plaintiffs to arbitration because they are bound to arbitrate in different states, so the court transferred their cases to the relevant district courts. Court further held that because a plaintiff did not challenge the delegation clause stating an arbitrator would decide arbitrability, the court was required to transfer the case so that another district court could compel arbitration.

  • Carter v. Brookdale Senior Living Communities Inc., 6:17-CV-02457-DCC (D.S.C. July 2, 2018)
    07/02/2018

    Court adopted a modified ruling of the report made by a magistrate judge and granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that the plaintiff did not raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the validity of an arbitration agreement by arguing that she had signed two other contemporary but different agreements. Court also found that the plaintiff’s employment had a sufficient relationship with interstate commerce to bring it under the FAA.

  • Hicks v. Brookdale Senior Living Communities Inc., 6:17-CV-02462-DCC (D.S.C. July 2, 2018)
    07/02/2018

    Court adopted the ruling of the report made by a magistrate judge and granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that the first of plaintiff’s objections was based only on scrivener’s error on the part of the defendant, that the plaintiff’s employment had a sufficient relationship with interstate commerce to bring it under the FAA, and that the confidentiality agreement did not undermine Title VII because plaintiff could bring claims with an administrative agency if provided for by law.

  • Pacific Media Workers Guild, CWA Local 39521 v. San Francisco Chronicle, 4:17-CV-05953-HSG (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2018)
    07/02/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of arbitrability, holding pursuant to the FAA that the arbitration agreement between the parties required that the arbitrator decide issues of arbitrability. Court also held that the notice requirements of the agreement had plausibly been met and did not give rise to procedural violations that would cause two grievances to be non-arbitrable.

  • Thompson v. Body Sculpt International, LLC, 2:18-CV-01001-ARR-GRB (E.D.N.Y. July 2, 2018)
    07/02/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and denied motion for conditional certification, holding that the plaintiffs must arbitrate as none of the agreements signed by the plaintiffs were unconscionable and that the plaintiffs must arbitrate individually and not as a class. Court ruled that the successive arbitration agreements were not unconscionably forced on the plaintiffs though their employment was conditioned on signing. Court cited recent Supreme Court precedent to establish that parties must expressly agree in contract to class arbitration for it to be an option.

  • Montalvo v. SBH-El Paso, LLC d/b/a Peak Behavioral Health Services, No. 2:18-CV-00048-KG-GBW (D.N.M. June 29, 2018)
    06/29/2018

    Court granted motion to dismiss and compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court concluded the arbitral clause was valid and enforceable and required plaintiff to arbitrate employment claims.

  • VanDeHey v. Real Social Dynamics, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-02230-JAD-NJK (D. Nev. June 29, 2018)
    06/29/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that a written arbitration agreement existed between plaintiff and Real Social Dynamics, though not the other defendants, and enforced the agreement despite plaintiff’s claims that doctrines of unclean hands and futility militated against enforcement. Court further found that issues of arbitrability were to be decided by the arbitrator per the parties’ agreement.

  • Farmer v. Stafford County Hospital, No. 6:17-CV-01284-EFM-GLR (D. Kan. June 29, 2018)
    06/29/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings pursuant to the FAA because plaintiff’s claims did not arise out of or relate to the agreement. Court distinguished between hospital bylaws which governed the plaintiff’s claims and a separate agreement plaintiff had made with hospital board of trustees that included an agreement to arbitrate but did not apply to the present claims.

  • Webb v. Oaktree Medical Center, P.C., No. 3:18-CV-00924-JMC (D.S.C. June 28, 2018)
    06/28/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay litigation and compel arbitration. Court found that the agreement at issue affected interstate commerce, as required under §2 of the FAA. Court also concluded that plaintiff’s claims were covered by the broad arbitration provision in the employment agreement because they had a “significant relationship” to the employment agreement and because courts had previously construed similarly worded arbitration clauses to cover employment discrimination claims.

  • The McDonnel Group LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 2:18-CV-02804-LMA-KWR (E.D. La. June 28, 2018)
    06/28/2018

    Court granted the underwriters’ motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration. Court found that (i) the insurance policy contained a written agreement to arbitrate; (ii) the agreement required arbitration to take place in the territory of a New York Convention signatory; (iii) the underwriters were not U.S. citizens; and (iv) the agreement arose out of a commercial relationship.

  • LegalForce RAPC Worldwide P.C. v. Swyers, No. 3:17-CV-07318-MMC (N.D. Cal. June 28, 2018)
    06/28/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to transfer or, alternatively, to compel arbitration. Court concluded that defendants failed to show that plaintiffs were parties to the terms of service at issue or that they were estopped from avoiding either the forum selection clause or the arbitration clause. Court noted that the non-signatory plaintiffs did not seek relief under the agreement containing the arbitration provision, and neither plaintiff had or ever had duties or obligations thereunder.

  • Moyet v. Lugo-Sánchez, No. 3:18-MC-00394-FAB (D.P.R. June 27, 2018)
    06/27/2018

    Court granted motion to compel compliance with FINRA arbitral subpoenas and ordered respondents to attend arbitration hearings after they failed to establish undue hardship. Pursuant to §7 of the FAA, court rejected respondents’ claim that arbitrators residing in a different state and present by means of video-conferencing technology were not “sitting” in the appropriate jurisdiction. Court expressly relied on FINRA rules for determining the arbitral seat, not the arbitrator’s physical location, and further rejected the claim that only a district court where the arbitrators sit may compel arbitral subpoenas.

  • Cortes-Ramos v. Martin Morales, No. 16-2456 (1st Cir. June 27, 2018)
    06/27/2018

    Court of appeals reversed the lower court decision dismissing plaintiff’s claims based on the arbitration provision. Court held that the arbitration provision contained an exception to the requirement to arbitrate that suggests that the provision simply did not apply to a dispute involving the defendant. Court also rejected the argument that defendant was “intrinsically linked to” the contest, concluding that the agreement to arbitrate did not reveal the requisite intent by the parties to benefit the defendant with the kind of “special clarity” required.

  • Serrano v. Tuition Options, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-24443-DPG (S.D. Fla. June 27, 2018)
    06/27/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss or stay the case. Court found that the arbitration agreement contained a valid delegation provision. As such, the arbitrator needed to resolve in the first instance all disputed issues as to arbitrability or the existence, validity, construction, or enforceability of the arbitration agreement.

  • Southern Industrial Contractors, LLC v. Neel-Schaffer, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00255-LG-JCG (S.D. Miss. June 26, 2018)
    06/26/2018

    Court stayed lawsuit pending the appeal of the decision ordering arbitration. Court held that (i) the FAA governed the arbitration clause; and (ii) allowing the instant litigation to proceed would risk inconsistent results and substantively impact the arbitration because the arbitrator would necessarily be strongly influenced to follow the court’s determination.

  • Robertson v. Fiesta Restaurant Group, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00384 (S.D. Tex. June 26, 2018)
    06/26/2018

    Court adopted the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Magistrate judge found that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed. Magistrate judge also held that plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement, as it was quite broad and specifically covered the Title VII claims brought by plaintiff.

  • Legalforce RAPC Worldwide, P.C. v. Trademark Engine LLC, No. 3:17-CV-07303-MMC (N.D. Cal. June 26, 2018)
    06/26/2018

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court found that the non-signatories to the arbitration agreement were not bound by it, as defendants’ arguments relied on allegations contained in the plaintiffs’ initial complaint, which were meant to refer solely to a former named plaintiff whose claims were subsequently dismissed. Court also held that, because the non-signatories had not sought relief under the agreement containing the arbitration provision, the non-signatories were not equitably estopped from avoiding arbitration.

  • Fiorilla v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-05123-PKC (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2018)
    06/26/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. Court held that plaintiff’s claims fell squarely within the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and therefore it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over them. Court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that Supreme Court of the State of New York, which previously vacated an arbitration award in plaintiff’s favor on grounds of manifest disregard of the law, acted contrary to the FAA and New York law, and “strip[ped]” the arbitrators of their jurisdiction.

  • Experian Information Solutions, Inc. v. Berger, No. 1:18-CV-00297-TJM (N.D.N.Y. June 26, 2018)
    06/26/2018

    Court granted petition to confirm the arbitration award. Court found that the award had not been vacated, modified or corrected, and that the documentation presented to the court permitted it to conclude that the arbitrator had sufficient grounds to find in petitioner’s favor.

  • Church v. Hotels.com L.P., No. 2:18-CV-00018-RMG (D.S.C. June 26, 2018)
    06/26/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. Court found that a valid arbitration agreement existed between the parties, as the plaintiff needed to affirmatively consent to the Terms of Service before making a reservation. Court also held that plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration provision because they were “arising out of or relating to” the Terms of Service governing the parties’ transaction at the time.

  • Applications Software Technology LLC v. Kapadia, No. 1:18-CV-00822 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2018)
    06/26/2018

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that there was an enforceable arbitration agreement, but only plaintiff Serene AST, LLC’s claims against defendant Kapadia must be arbitrated. Court rejected defendant’s argument that non-signatories could be bound by the arbitration provision, as it relied on an expanded interpretation of equitable estoppel that had been recognized by various federal courts but rejected in Illinois.

  • Wang v. Precision Extrusion, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00350-FJS-DJS (N.D.N.Y. June 26, 2018)
    06/26/2018

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. Following the Second Circuit’s four prong analysis for determining whether a dispute is governed by an arbitration clause, court concluded that (i) the parties agreed to arbitrate; (ii) the arbitration clause was broad and carried a presumption of arbitrability that plaintiff had not overcome; (iii) Congress did not intend for the claims to be nonarbitrable; and (iv) defendants did not waive their right to arbitration when they failed to raise the arbitrability defense with the New York State Division of Human Rights or in the proceeding before the New York State Supreme Court.

  • Hurn v. Macy’s Inc., No. 17-3055 (7th Cir. June 25, 2018)
    06/25/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to confirm the arbitration award, finding nothing in the record to support a valid ground for vacating the award. Court held that (i) the arbitrator’s decision not to allow one of plaintiff-appellant’s questions was not “misbehavior” under § 10(a)(3) of the FAA because it was the kind of procedural decision arbitrators may permissibly make; (ii) the arbitrator allegedly falling asleep during the hearing was an insufficient reason to vacate the award, as plaintiff-appellant failed to show that the arbitrator’s sleeping was prejudicial; and (iii) an adverse ruling alone is not direct, definite, and demonstrable bias sufficient to constitute evident partiality.

  • Cullinane v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 16-2023 (1st Cir. June 25, 2018)
    06/25/2018

    Court of appeals reversed the district court’s grant of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. Court concluded that plaintiffs were not reasonably notified of the terms of the agreement, as the screens linking to the “Terms of Service & Privacy Policy” were filled with other noticeable terms that diminished the conspicuousness of the notice and hyperlink.

  • USG Companies, Inc. v. Advantage Sales & Marketing LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00861-CCC (D. Del. June 25, 2018)
    06/25/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss. Court held that, in light of the broad language used in the arbitration clause and the presumption of arbitrability, the claims fell within the scope of the arbitration provision and should have been raised during the arbitration. Since they were not, those claims were barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion.

  • Pearsall v. Delta Career Education Corporation, No. 7:17-CV-00226-FL (E.D.N.C. June 25, 2018)
    06/25/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and confirmed the arbitration award. Court concluded that plaintiff’s filings demonstrated that the arbitration award was valid, and no challenge to the factual premise of this conclusion was before the court.

  • Boston Scientific Corporation v. Acacia Research Group, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-01144-RGA (D. Del. June 25, 2018)
    06/25/2018

    Court granted respondent’s motion to confirm the final arbitration award. Petitioner argued that one of the three arbitrators did not meet the qualifications set forth in the relevant agreement, and therefore the panel had no power to resolve the parties’ dispute. Court rejected this argument, noting that the agreement only required that each of the three arbitrators be “experienced in intellectual property contracts and issues,” but did not indicate how much experience or what kind of experience.

  • The Shipman Agency, Inc. v. TheBlaze Inc., No. 4:18-CV-00772 (S.D. Tex. June 22, 2018)
    06/22/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that (i) there was a valid arbitration agreement; (ii) the arbitration agreement was not illusory, as defendants did not have the power to avoid arbitration under the License Agreement by unilaterally changing its terms; (iii) the limitation on remedies was unconscionable, but could be severed from the arbitration provision; and (iv) because the arbitration provision governed all disputes “relating to” the License Agreement, it must be construed broadly to include disputes that “touch” matters covered by the agreement.

  • H20 Resources, LLC v. Oilfield Tracking Services, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-01164-RK (E.D. Pa. June 22, 2018)
    06/22/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement because all of the allegations pertained to services that plaintiff was providing under the parties’ agreement. Court also determined that, in deciding whether claims fall within the scope of an arbitration clause, it must look only to the facts underlying the claims and not the actual legal theories themselves, and therefore the fact that plaintiff pleaded torts rather than claims of breach of contract was irrelevant to the determination of whether the claims fell within the scope of the arbitration clause.

  • Federated Mutual Insurance Company. v. Federated National Holding Company, Inc., No. 0:18-CV-00714-PAM-DTS (D. Minn. June 22, 2018)
    06/22/2018

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm the arbitration award. Court explained that the FAA confers no federal jurisdiction, but instead requires an independent jurisdictional basis. Applying the “look-through approach”—which looks through to the underlying dispute, here, a claim under federal trademark laws—the court concluded that it had federal question jurisdiction over the petition. Court also concluded that, even if there was no federal question jurisdiction, it was satisfied that diversity jurisdiction existed because the injunctive relief granted had at least $75,000 in economic value to the petitioner.

  • CaringOnDemand, LLC v. Ventive LLC, No. 9:18-CV-80211-BB (S.D. Fla. June 22, 2018)
    06/22/2018

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration. Since the parties agreed to submit “all disputes” to binding arbitration, court held that the arbitration provision expresses that any dispute whatsoever between the parties must be arbitrated, regardless of whether the dispute is substantive or procedural.

  • Premier Paint & Drywall, Inc. v. Designed to Build, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-00155-MHT-DAB (M.D. Ala. June 22, 2018)
    06/22/2018

    Court adopted the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Magistrate judge concluded that, given the unambiguous arbitration provision contained in the parties’ contract and the parties’ agreement that the dispute was subject to the arbitration provision, there was no doubt that arbitration was appropriate.

  • Goplin v. WeConnect, Incorporated, No. 18-1193 (7th Cir. June 21, 2018)
    06/21/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order denying a motion to compel arbitration, finding that respondent was not a party to the arbitration agreement it sought to enforce.

  • Laver v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, No. 3:18-CV-00828-WHO (N.D. Cal. June 21 2018)
    06/21/2018

    Court granted motion to dismiss, finding that parties had entered into a binding arbitration agreement and claims were therefore subject to arbitration.

  • Purus Plastics GmbH v. Eco Terr Distributing, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-00277-JLR (W.D. Wash. June 21, 2018)
    06/21/2018

    Court confirmed foreign arbitration award and denied motion to dismiss, finding that defendants failed to successfully assert a defense pursuant to 9 USC § 207 to refuse recognition of the award, and that the award was final and binding.

  • Setty v. Shrinivas Sugandhalaya LLP, No. 2:17-CV-01146-RAJ (W.D. Wash. June 21, 2018)
    06/21/2018

    Court denied motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, finding that under theories of equitable estoppel the non-signatory claimants were not parties to the deed containing arbitration clause and could therefore not compel arbitration.

  • Johnston v. Electrum Partners LLC et al, No. 1:17-CV-07823-KPF (S.D.N.Y. June 21, 2018)
    06/21/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion for a stay pending arbitration. Court held that (i) plaintiff failed to create a triable issue of fact as to whether the parties entered into a separate oral agreement where the parties did not agree to arbitrate disputes arising under that contract; (ii) the non-signatory plaintiff was bound by the arbitration agreement under agency, estoppel, and alter ego theories; (iii) plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement; and (iv) the arbitration agreement was not void under Nevada law.

  • Frompovicz, Jr. v. PTS Realty Holdings, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-00261-WB (E.D. Pa. June 21, 2018)
    06/21/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Court held that, although the arbitration award was not yet confirmed, it was undisputed that plaintiff did not appeal it, and therefore the award issued in defendant’s favor was a final judgment that may be used for purposes of general res judicata. Court also held that collateral estoppel barred plaintiff’s misrepresentation and fraud claims, and technical res judicata extinguished all of plaintiff’s remaining claims, as they should have been litigated in the arbitration.

  • Vail Services Group, LLC v. Dines, No. 1:17-CV-02428-CMA-KLM (D. Colo. June 21, 2018)
    06/21/2018

    Court granted motion to stay pending arbitration, finding the arbitration proceedings to be sufficiently parallel to warrant a stay under the Colorado River doctrine.

  • ACE American Insurance Company v. Guerriero, No. 17-2893 (3d Cir. June 20, 2018)
    06/20/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order granting motion to compel arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement to be valid and enforceable.

  • Moreno v. Expedia, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-00105 (W.D.N.C. June 20, 2018)
    06/20/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the claim was within the scope of the arbitration agreement and therefore arbitrable.

  • Chacon v. Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC, No. 17-CV-8434 (N.D. Ill. June 20, 2018)
    06/20/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation, finding that the dispute at issue fell outside the scope of the parties’ arbitration agreement.

  • Appleyard v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01188-JDB-EGB (W.D. Tenn. June 20, 2018)
    06/20/2018

    Court granted motion to stay pending the outcome of individual arbitration pursuant to 9 USC § 3, finding the claims to be arbitrable.

  • Zacher v. Comcast Cable Communications LLC, No. 17-CV-7256 (N.D. Ill. June 20, 2018)
    06/20/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the agreement entered into by the parties was valid and enforceable and the parties delegated the issue of the arbitration clause’s scope to the arbitrator.

  • Slawson Exploration Company, Inc. v. U.S. Energy Development Corporation, No. 1:17-CV-01248-PAB-KMT (D. Colo. June 20, 2018)
    06/20/2018

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award, finding jurisdiction was proper and failing to find grounds on which to vacate, modify, or correct the award.

  • Traf Intercontinental Elektronik-Handels GMbH v. Sonocine, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00672-LRH-WGC (D. Nev. June 19, 2018
    06/19/2018

    Court denied motions to remand and for judgment on the pleadings. Court held that it had jurisdiction under the New York Convention because it concerns an award arising from a dispute and the an alleged legal relationship not entirely between United States citizens.

  • Assad v. Josefsson, No. 2:18-CV-02470-PSG-JPR (C.D. Cal. June 19, 2018
    06/19/2018

    Court denied motion to remand, finding that, while the subject matter of the underlying arbitration was sufficiently connected to the arbitration agreement for removal purposes, the parties did not waive their right to arbitrate and thus removal was not warranted.

  • Grupo Unidos Por El Canal, S.A. v. Autoridad del Canal de Panama, No. 1:17-CV-23996-RNS (S.D. Fla. June 19, 2013
    06/19/2018

    Court granted in part motion to confirm arbitration award, finding that, since petitioners failed to successfully assert one of the seven defenses against enforcement of the ICC award enumerated in Article V of the New York Convention, respondent was entitled to confirmation of the award, but not prejudgment interest. Petitioners’ motion to vacate the award was found to be time-barred under 9 USC 12 and thus denied.

  • Sorensen Companies, Inc. v. B.J. Burns Incorporated, No. 3:17-CV-01095-MMH-JRK (M.D. Fla. June 19, 2018)
    06/19/2018

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award on the basis of a magistrate judge’s report, finding that award was valid and that petitioner’s application for its confirmation was timely.

  • Fielding v. Dolgen, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00561-JAG (E.D. Va. June 19, 2018)
    06/19/2018

    Court granted motion for partial summary judgment, finding that plaintiff’s electronic signature on an arbitration agreement constituted undisputed evidence plaintiff intended to be bound by that agreement.

  • Amobi v. Brown, No. 1:08-CV-01501-KBJ (D.D.C. June 19, 2018)
    06/19/2018

    Court granted in part and denied in part motion in limine to disallow the introduction of evidence from prior arbitration proceedings, allowing the introduction of witness testimony from that proceeding but denying the introduction of the arbitrator’s opinion, holding that doing so would be prejudicial.

  • ASARCO LLC v. United Steel, Paper and Forest, No. 2:15-CV-00117-SMM (9th Circ. June 19, 2018)
    06/19/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s order to confirm an arbitration award. Court held that the petitioner conceded the arbitrator had jurisdiction, and that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority and the award did not contravene public policy.

  • Miller v. AT&T Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, No. 6:18-CV-06008-SOH (W.D. Ark. June 18, 2018)
    06/18/2018

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award, finding that plaintiff failed to overcome the burden of demonstrating partiality on behalf of the arbitrator, and that the arbitrator’s decision was proper and therefore not subject to vacatur.

  • Liu Luwei v. Phyto Tech Corporation, No. 2:18-CV-02174-JFW-GJS (C.D. Cal. June 18, 2019)
    06/18/2018

    Court granted order to recognize, confirm, and enforce arbitration award, finding that the arbitration agreement was valid between the parties and that, the New York Convention being applicable, court could assert subject matter jurisdiction over the action. Citing approval of the agreement by Chinese regulatory authorities and the arbitral tribunal’s application of Chinese contract law, the court declined to hold the award violated public policy. Court further rejected denial of due process claims, finding that the tribunal neither acted improperly nor exceeded the scope of issues for arbitration.

  • Thomas v. Right Choice Staffing Group, LLC, No. 4:15-CV-10055-LVP-MKM (E.D. Mich. June 18, 2018)
    06/18/2018

    Court denied motion to vacate arbitration award, finding the award to be valid as defendants failed to establish partiality on behalf of the arbitrator.

  • Untershine v. Advanced Call Center Technologies, LLC, No. 18-CV-77 (E.D. Wis. June 18, 2018
    06/18/2018

    Court denied motion to dismiss or stay and compel arbitration, finding that a non-signatory third party could not invoke otherwise valid arbitration and class waiver provisions for its own benefit.

  • Catlin Syndicate 2003 v. Traditional Air Conditioning, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-02406-JFB-AYS (E.D.N.Y. June 18, 2018)
    06/18/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that the arbitration provision was sufficiently broad so as to support a presumption of arbitrability and that plaintiff’s claim was subject to arbitration.

  • Cooper Tire & Rubber Company v. Premium Tire & Parts Corp., No. 3:17-02085-DRD (D.P.R. June 18, 2018)
    06/18/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that a valid and binding arbitration clause existed between the parties.

  • Wiatrek v. Flower Foods Inc., No. 5:17-CV-00772-XR (W.D. Tex. June 16, 2018)
    06/16/2018

    Court granted motion to compel individual arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement to be neither illusory nor unconscionable and therefore valid.

  • Part-Time Faculty Association at Columbia College Chicago v. Columbia College Chicago, No. 17-3492 (7th Cir. June 15, 2018)
    06/15/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed order granting motion to vacate arbitration award, finding that rulings by the National Labor Relations Board take precedence over rulings by an arbitral tribunal.

  • CBF Industria De Gusa SA v. Amci Holdings Inc., No. 1:13-CV-02581-RWS (S.D.N.Y. June 15, 2018)
    06/15/2018

    Court denied motion to dismiss enforcement of an arbitration award, finding sufficient allegations of fraud or wrong to justify piercing defendants’ corporate veil and establish liability on an alter ego theory. Court held the arbitration agreement was valid because defendants offered no evidence of their incapacity at the time the contracts at issue were entered into.

  • Lindsey v. Punta Vista Bahia SA, No. 2:17-CV-04596-JJT (D. Ariz. June 15, 2018)
    06/15/2018

    Court granted motion to dismiss confirmation of arbitration award, finding that plaintiffs’ only federal claim was time barred under FAA § 207 since three years had elapsed since the award was issued. Court also held that the plaintiffs failed to show the extraordinary circumstances required for equitable tolling. Absent a federal question, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims.

  • Magno v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-05478 (W.D. Wash. June 14, 2018)
    06/14/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration clause encompassed the dispute at issue and that, despite failure to plead arbitration as an affirmative defense eight month delay in bringing motion to compel arbitration, defendant had not waived its right to arbitrate.

  • Hubbell v. NCR Corporation, No. 2:17-CV-00807-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio June 14, 2018)

    06/14/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that unconscionability challenge was not specific to the delegation clause but rather applied to the agreement as a whole and was therefore to be determined by the arbitrator.

  • United States of America ex. rel. Debra’s Glass Inc. v. The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, No. 8:17-cv-03564-PX (D. Md. June 13, 2018)
    06/13/2018

    Court granted motion to stay pending arbitration, finding that pending arbitration between contractor and subcontractor on payment dispute should be resolved prior to adjudication of Miller Act claim by subcontractor against contractor’s surety for the disputed payment.

  • J.O.C. Farms, LLC v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, No. 15-2368 (4th Cir. June 13, 2018
    06/13/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order granting motion to dismiss, finding that the arbitrator was properly tasked with determining whether plaintiff timely commenced arbitration, and that the district court properly dismissed the outstanding state law claims.

  • Pitlor v. Charles Schwab Corporation, No. 8:18-CV-00196-JFB-CRZ (D. Neb. June 13, 2018)
    06/13/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that plaintiff’s unconscionability argument was not supported by the facts or any citations to applicable law, and therefore plaintiff failed to carry his burden and demonstrate that arbitration was improper due to unconscionability. Court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration provision could not be enforced if the contract was repudiated and abandoned, as a breach or repudiation of the underlying agreement is not a repudiation of the arbitration provision.

  • De Dios v. Brand Energy and Infrastructure Services, No. 5:18-CV-04011-MWB (N.D. Iowa June 13, 2018)
    06/13/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that (i) the agreement to arbitrate was not unconscionable due to a display of bargaining power, substantive unfairness, or surprise; and (ii) the agreement to arbitrate was supported by adequate consideration, as the defendant agreed to consider plaintiff’s employment application in exchange for his agreement to arbitrate.

  • J.O.C. Farms, L.L.C. v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, No. 15-2268 (4th Cir. June 13, 2018)
    06/12/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s dismissal of state law claims as barred by arbitrator’s finding that plaintiff did not timely commence arbitration.

  • Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Alemayehu, No. 3:18-CV-00276-JCH (D. Conn. June 12, 2018)
    06/12/2018

    Court denied petition to compel arbitration, finding that arbitration provision in franchise application was unsupported by mutual consideration.

  • Regional Local Union No. 846 v. Gulf Coast Rebar, No. 16-35651 (9th Cir. June 12, 2018)
    06/12/2018

    Court of appeals dismissed appeal of order rejecting motion to compel arbitration, finding that it lacked appellate jurisdiction because the district court had not yet entered a final judgment.

  • Weckesser v. Knight Enterprises S.E., LLC, No. 17-1247 (4th Cir. June 12, 2018)
    06/12/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration, finding, in a de novo review, that where an arbitration rider was signed between an independent contractor and a parent company, a third-party subsidiary of that parent could not avail itself of the agreement.

  • Weckesser  v. Knight Enterprises, S.E., LLC, No. 17-1247 (4th Cir. June 12, 2018) 
    06/12/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s refusal to compel arbitration.   Court held that South Carolina contract law required them to enforce a contract as written, and because the arbitration agreement was between plaintiff and defendant’s parent rather than defendant, court could not conclude that plaintiff agreed to arbitrate disputes with defendant.  Court rejected defendant’s contention that it was a third party beneficiary to the arbitration agreement.  Court concluded that the district court had not abused its discretion when refusing to compel arbitration.

  • Huckaba v. Ref-Chem, L.P., No. 17-50341 (5th Cir. June 11, 2018)
    06/11/2018

    Court of appeals reversed a district court order compelling arbitration because the express language of the agreement required that it be signed by both parties and appellee had not signed it. Court noted that Texas has no presumption in favor of arbitration and that the federal policy in favor of arbitration did not apply because the current matter concerned the validity of the contract.

  • Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers Local Union No. 1, B.A.C.I.U., AFL-CIO v. Heavy Metal Corp., No. 1:17-CV-06816-DLI-RER (E.D.N.Y. June 8, 2018)
    06/08/2018

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award and compel arbitration against respondent in default. As to the petition to confirm, the court found that there was no indication that the award was made arbitrarily, decided contrary to applicable law, or that the tribunal exceeded its authority. As to the petition to compel, the court found that there was an unambiguous agreement to arbitrate and that the respondent had refused to arbitrate additional claims.

  • Sanchez v. Homebridge Financial Services, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01267-AWI-EPG (E.D. Cal. June 8, 2018)
    06/08/2018

    After granting motion to compel arbitration and staying proceedings, court dismissed case without prejudice to arbitration due to plaintiff’s failure to initiate arbitration within the time limit set in its prior order. Court found that plaintiff was responsible for paying arbitration filing fees and that there was no authority for ordering defendant to initiate arbitration.

  • Prospect Funding Holdings (NY), LLC v. Ronald J. Palagi, PC LLC, No. 8:18-CV-00015-JMG-MDN (D. Neb. June 8, 2018)
    06/08/2018

    Court granted motion to delay confirmation of a pair of arbitration awards where defendants alleged they had not received proper notice of either the arbitration proceedings underlying the awards or the awards themselves. Opposing party had emailed petitioners both the notice of arbitration and the award itself. Defendants also filed a cross petition to vacate the award more than three-months after receiving the email notice of the award. Court found an open question existed as to whether, under FAA §12, this untimeliness constituted a waiver of defendant’s arguments to vacate the award.

  • Teamsters Local 439 v. Leprino Foods Company, No. 2:18–CV–0280–MCE–CKD (E.D. Cal. June 8, 2018)
    06/08/2018

    Court granted motion to dismiss, finding that arbitration clause excluded arbitration of the grievance at issue.

  • SOTI v. Impartner, No. 2:18-CV-00295-RJS (D. Utah June 7, 2018)
    06/07/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate existed. In granting motion, court held terms of use including arbitration agreement were validly incorporated by reference through URL link in the underlying contract. Court refused to decide on other issues with regard to the contract itself, noting these must be resolved by an arbitrator.

  • Certain Underwriting Members of Lloyds of London v. Insurance Company of the Americas, No. 17-1137-CV (2d Cir. June 7, 2018)
    06/07/2018

    Court of appeals reversed district court’s vacatur of arbitral award for evident partiality under the FAA, holding that a party seeking to vacate an award under § 10(a)(2) of the FAA had to sustain a higher burden to prove evident partiality on the part of a party-appointed arbitrator. The panel remanded the case for a determination by clear and convincing evidence whether the failure by the arbitrator to disclose his relationships violated the contractual requirement of disinterestedness or had a prejudicial impact on the award.

  • Hardy Exploration & Production India v. Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, No. 1:16-CV-00140-RC (D.D.C. June 7, 2018)
    06/07/2018

    Court denied petition to confirm foreign arbitral award that ordered specific performance of contractual obligations against Government of India. Citing the Europcar factors, court first dismissed Government of India’s request to stay proceedings pending the resolution of enforcement proceedings in India. Court then declined to enforce portions of award ordering specific performance and punitive interest, citing Article V of the New York Convention. The court noted that a strong US public policy exists respecting sovereign immunity against orders of specific performance, especially extraterritorially.

  • Zyppah, Inc. v. Allemeier, No. 2:17-CV-02840-JAD-PAL (D. Nev. June 7, 2018)
    06/07/2018

    Court denied motion for attorney’s fees without prejudice, holding that, once arbitration has begun, responsibility for ruling on request for attorney’s fees and costs lies with the arbitrator.

  • Davis v. Red Eye Jack’s Sports Bar, No. 3:17-CV-01111-BEN-JMA (S.D. Cal. June 7, 2018)
    06/07/2018

    Court vacated its preceding order denying motion to compel arbitration in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, finding that an arbitration agreement containing a concerted action waiver now is valid and enforceable.

  • Arabian Motors Group, W.L.L. v. Ford Motor Company, No. 2:16-CV-13655-MFL-EAS (E.D. Mich. June 6, 2018)
    06/06/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate and granted defendant’s cross motion to confirm ICDR arbitration award pursuant to §§ 9 and 207 of the FAA.

  • Taylor v. Prince, No. 2:18-CV-02053-KHV-GLR (D. Kan. June 6, 2018)

    06/06/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss or compel mediation, ordering a stay of litigation and compelling mediation pursuant to Kansas contract law.  Court found that where parties had tiered dispute resolution clause mandating mediation prior to arbitration, and defendant sought to compel mediation rather than arbitration, the FAA did not apply.

  • Curatola v. TitleMax of Tennessee Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01263-JDB-EGB (W.D. Tenn. June 6, 2018)
    06/06/2018

    Court reversed magistrate judge’s order dismissing motion to compel arbitration and granted defendant’s motion.  Court found that a motion to compel arbitration was to be interpreted as a request for injunctive relief, and thus, the magistrate judge’s order denying the motion was to be reviewed de novo.  Court held, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, that an employment agreement containing an arbitration clause mandating bilateral arbitration was valid and enforceable under the FAA.

  • Mercy Medical Center v. Oregon Nurses Association, No. 16-35435 (9th Cir. June 6, 2018)
    06/06/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed confirmation of arbitration award, finding that the arbitrator looked at and construed the contract and was thus owed significant deference.

  • Buckley v. Pinnacle Community Services Limited Partnership, 2:16-CV-02326-GMN-PAL (D. Nev. June 6, 2018)
    06/06/2018

    Court dismissed case after determining pursuant to § 3 of the FAA and circuit precedent that the parties no longer warranted a continued stay due to their lack of diligence in pursuing arbitration. The court noted that parties had had more than nineteen months to arbitrate and had been given repeated warnings. The court deemed this delay unreasonable and that it had interfered with the court’s ability to efficiently manage its docket.

  • Young Men’s Christian Association of Honolulu v. Aloha Kai Development LLC, No. 1:18-CV-00086-ACK-KSC (D. Haw. June 5, 2018)
    06/05/2018

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award under Hawaiian Uniform Arbitration Act. Court found that express language in the arbitration agreement was sufficient to defeat presumption that FAA governed enforcement of the arbitration award and that the HUAA applied instead.

  • Gomez v. MLB Enterprises, Corp., No. 1:15-CV-03326-CM (S.D.N.Y. June 5, 2018)
    06/05/2018

    Court granted in part and denied in part cross-motions for summary judgment, finding that, where defendants materially breached the arbitration agreements, they could not subsequently selectively enforce them against plaintiffs.

  • Gramercy Wrecking and Environmental Contractors v. Trucking Employees of North Jersey Welfare Fund, No. 1:17-CV-07101-BMC (E.D.N.Y. June 5, 2018)
    06/05/2018

    Court granted motion to dismiss without prejudice, finding that, although petitioner did not sign collective bargaining agreement containing the arbitration clause supporting jurisdiction, the collective bargaining agreement was incorporated by reference.

  • Pioneer Roofing Organization v. Local Joint Adjustment Smart Board Local Union No. 104, No. 17-15296 (9th Cir. June 4, 2018)

    06/04/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court summary judgment granting labor union’s counterclaim to enforce arbitration award.  Court found that appellant failed to preserve arbitrability issue for judicial review because it had not made any objections or reservations as to jurisdiction or the arbitrator’s authority during the arbitration.  Court also found award did not constitute a manifest disregard of law where nothing in the record demonstrated the arbitrator recognized and ignored controlling law.

  • Rose v. Central USA Wireless, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-02673-SHM (W.D. Tenn. June 4, 2018)
    06/04/2018

    Court dismissed defendant’s motion to vacate an arbitration award and request for oral argument, and granted plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to the FAA.  Court held that none of defendant’s nine asserted affirmative defenses established grounds for vacating the award under the FAA, but rather invited de novo review which the court refused to conduct.

  • Boroditskiy v. European Specialties LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00689-VSB (S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2018)

    06/04/2018

    Court granted petition to stay arbitration where respondents sought to compel petitioners to arbitrate, in their individual capacities, certain claims relating to a distribution agreement.  Court concluded that respondents failed to demonstrate that petitioners either acted as the alter ego of their LLC or that they should be estopped from avoiding arbitration.

  • Lopez v. Kane Beef Processors LLC, No. 2:18-CV-00080 (S.D. Tex. June 4, 2018)

    06/04/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay lawsuit pending arbitration, finding that plaintiff’s employment action alleging statutory violations fell within the scope of a valid agreement to arbitrate between the parties. Court dismissed plaintiff’s argument that defendant was a non-signatory, finding that he had failed to demonstrate that defendant was a separate legal entity from the employer with whom he agreed to arbitrate and that plaintiff had agreed to arbitrator’s determination on arbitrability in that agreement.

  • Crooks v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 3:18-CV-00219-DMS-JLB (S.D. Cal. June 4, 2018)
    06/04/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the parties had delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator and that the assertion of arbitrability was not wholly groundless.

  • Delek Refining, Limited v. Local 202, United Steel, No. 17-40593 (5th Cir. June 1, 2018)

    06/01/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court decision dismissing challenge to arbitration award interpreting a collective bargaining agreement between the parties, finding that a court’s review of arbitral awards interpreting labor agreements is “exceedingly deferential”.  Court thus refused to scrutinize arbitrator’s explanation of award that did not directly contravene the CBA.  Court further granted appellee attorney’s fees for having to defend the award in court, finding that appellant’s challenge was in substance a challenge to the merits, even though it was pled as challenging the arbitrator’s “power to make the award”.

  • Graham v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-03148-CCB (D. Md. June 1, 2018)

    06/01/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel non-class arbitration. Pursuant to the FAA, the court found that a valid written agreement existed, the scope of which covered the dispute in question.  Court also found plaintiff’s arguments, that defendant was not properly assigned the right to arbitrate the dispute and that alternatively defendant itself had assigned the right to arbitrate the dispute to a third party, unavailing by the language of the agreement.

  • Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC v. Walker, No. 2:17-CV-05635-JCJ (E.D. Pa. June 1, 2018)

    06/01/2018

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award and denied respondent’s challenge to the award under FAA § 10(a)(3). Court was not persuaded by assertion that failure to consider respondent’s spoliation claim in a preliminary hearing rendered the hearing fundamentally unfair under this section of the FAA or that the arbitral tribunal’s handling of this spoliation claim amounted to a manifest disregard of law.

  • EGI-VSR LLC v. Coderch Mitjans, No. 1:15-CV-20098-RNS (S.D. Fla. June 1, 2018)

    06/01/2018

    Court granted motion to confirm an award rendered in an arbitration conducted in Chile between a Delaware company and a Chilean citizen.  Pursuant to the Panama Convention, the court found its review of the award was circumscribed, and that the Convention manifested a general pro-enforcement bias. Pursuant to the Inter-American Convention on Letters Rogatory, the court deferred to the determination of the Superior Judicial Tribunal in Brazil that respondent had been properly served with process.  Court dismissed defendant’s arguments as to improper venue, lack of personal jurisdiction, and forum non conveniens.  Finally, the court determined that a Florida statute limiting recognition of out-of-country judgments to monetary judgments did not apply because defendant failed to prove that the final arbitration award was a “judgment.”

  • Pelligrino v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC, No. 1:17-CV-07865-RA (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2018)
    05/31/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court was unpersuaded by the plaintiff’s argument that he did not consent to a mandatory arbitration agreement that was sent to his email and gave him an opportunity to opt-out because he was on vacation when the email was sent. Court held that the plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of a valid arbitration agreement.

  • Gamble v. New England Auto Finance, No. 17-15343 (11th Cir. May 31, 2018)
    05/31/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to deny defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that the dispute arose under rights granted by a federal law, and was not within the scope of the loan agreement which contained the arbitration provision.

  • Barranco v. 3D Systems Corporation, No. 17-01744 (4th Cir. May 31, 2018)
    05/31/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court order denying appellant’s motion to vacate or modify an arbitration award entered in favor of appellee.  Court found arbitrator’s ruling on a term beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement did not affect his calculation of damages based on three other breaches and that an amendment to the award which contained only minor changes for purposes of clarification did not violate functus officio or AAA Commercial Arbitration Rule 50.

  • Camilo v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-09508-AKH (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2018)
    05/31/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement in question was valid and conscionable. Court also found that the class action waivers in the agreement were valid under second circuit and Supreme Court precedent.

  • Ralph v. Hosseini, No. 3:17-CV-01332-JM-JMA (S.D. Cal. May 31, 2018)
    05/31/2018

    Court had previously deferred ruling on a motion to compel arbitration of a FLSA claim pending Supreme Court’s ruling in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis.  Following Supreme Court’s holding that collective action waivers in arbitration agreements must be enforced in FLSA claims, the court compelled those claims to arbitration.

  • Gamble v. New England Auto Finance Inc., No. 1:17-CV-02979-LMM (11th Cir. May 31, 2018)

    05/31/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court decision dismissing defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s class action claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  Court found that the agreement to arbitrate did not cover plaintiffs TCPA claim which was based on rights and obligations created by Congress and not the Loan Agreement between the parties.

  • Camillo v. Uber Technologies Inc., No. 1:17-CV-09508-AKH (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2018)

    05/31/2018

    Pursuant to the FAA, court granted defendant’s motions to compel arbitration and to dismiss plaintiff’s class action employment suit on the basis of the arbitration and class waiver clause contained in plaintiff’s agreement with Uber. Court found that the agreement at issue was not procedurally unconscionable and that it was valid and enforceable.

  • Viorel Angheloiu v. Peacehealth, No. 3:17-CV-05891-BHS (W.D. Wash. May 31, 2018)

    05/31/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration and denied plaintiff’s motion to compel discover and to continue.  Court found defendant met its burden under the FAA to compel arbitration and that plaintiff’s argument of procedural unconscionability.

  • Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC v. Deutsch, No. 17-CV-05778-NRB (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2018)
    05/31/2018

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitral award, finding that the defendants had not identified any arbitrator misconduct or manifest disregard of the law that would merit vacatur.

  • Schmell v. Morgan Stanley & Co., No. 1:17-CV-13080-AET-LHG (D.N.J. May 30, 2018)
    05/30/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of whether plaintiff was properly noticed under the arbitration agreement.  Court found that plaintiff had signed two separate arbitration agreements, and although one provided for the arbitration of questions of arbitrability, this did not permit questions of arbitrability arising under the separate agreement to be submitted to arbitration.

  • Tianjin Port Free Trade Zone International Trade Service Co., Ltd. v. Tiancheng Chempharm, Inc. USA, No. 2:17-CV-04130-AYS (E.D.N.Y. May 30, 2018)
    05/30/2018

    Court confirmed an arbitration award and denied respondent’s motion to dismiss. Court rejected respondent’s arguments that they were not properly noticed of the CIETAC arbitration and that petitioner did not attempt to resolve the dispute before commencing arbitration. Court further found that poisoners argument that the underlying contract was a forgery was a question to be resolved by the arbitral tribunal.

  • Shirk v. Gonzales, No. 1:17-CV-01129-MCA-KK (D.N.M. May 29, 2018)
    05/29/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the FAA could not apply because the transaction did not implicate “interstate commerce” and found this language of the FAA should be read broadly to provide enforcement of all agreements within reach of the commerce clause.

  • Owa v. Fred Meyer Stores Inc., No. 2:16-CV-01236-RAJ (W.D. Wash. May 29, 2018)
    05/29/2018

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award.  Court held that any vacatur sought by plaintiff would be procedurally deficient because plaintiff failed to notice defendants of any challenge to the validity to the award within the three months. Court further found that the record did not support plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitrator’s award of attorney’s fees was in manifest disregard to the law.

  • Sprint Communications Company v. Albany County, New York, No. 1:17-CV-01271-BKS-CFH (N.D.N.Y. May 25, 2018)
    05/25/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to appoint an arbitrator pursuant to § 5 of the FAA.  Court held that congress had enacted § 5 to prevent indefinite delays in the arbitration process, and that the six month delay warranted court intervention and appointment of arbitrators. 

  • New York City District Council of Carpenters v. Namow, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-10098-GHW (S.D.N.Y. May 25, 2018)
    05/25/2018

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award.  Court found no grounds to invalidate the award under the FAA, finding no indication of fraud or dishonesty in procuring the award, and that the arbitrator had not acted in disregard to the law or outside the scope of his broad powers.

  • Marshall v. Rogers, No. 2:18-CV-00078-JAD-CWH (D. Nev. May 24, 2018)
    05/24/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding defendant did not provide sufficient evidence to support its claims.  Pursuant to the FAA, court found a valid arbitration agreement, but could not determine whether the parties had agreed to arbitrate or whether the dispute fell within the agreement’s scope.

  • Williams v. FCA US LLC, No. 2:17-CV-10097-LJM-EAS (E.D. Mich. May 24, 2018)
    05/24/2018

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and denied defendant’s motion to dismiss or motion to strike class allegations in the second amended complaint.  Pursuant to the FAA and the Supreme Court’s decision in Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, the court compelled all but two plaintiffs to arbitrate.

  • Cardno International PTY, Ltd. v. Merino, No. 1:17-CV-23964-RNS (S.D. Fla. May 23, 2018)
    05/23/2018

    Court granted motion to confirm ICDR arbitration award pursuant to the FAA and the Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration.  Although defendants were not time barred from seeking vacatur, court denied motion to vacate, rejecting defendants’ claims that the tribunal exceeded its authority under §10 of the FAA and lacked jurisdiction over the dispute under Article V of the Convention.  Court rejected petitioner’s motion to enter default judgment against one of the defendants, who died prior to initiation of the confirmation proceedings, concluding that he had not been properly served.

  • Bezek v. NBC Universal, No. 3:17-CV-01087-JCH (D. Conn. May 23, 2018)
    05/23/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and confirm arbitration award, which was issued before the parties finished briefing the motion to compel.  Pursuant to §10 of the FAA, court denied motion to vacate award, rejecting plaintiff’s claims of fraud and undue means, finding no evident partiality or arbitrator misconduct, and concluding arbitrator did not exceed his authority.  Court further denied plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint to add claims of libel and slander, finding the amendment would be futile.

  • Juhasz v. Menard, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-10708-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich. May 23, 2018)
    05/23/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pursuant to the FAA.  Court concluded the arbitral clause was valid and enforceable, and its terms unambiguously mandated arbitration.

  • Williams v. Wellshire Financial Services, LLC, No. 5:18-CV-00219-XR (W.D. Tex. May 23, 2018)
    05/23/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Pursuant to the FAA, court found a valid agreement to arbitrate and determined the claims related to a settlement agreement fell within the scope of the broad language of the arbitral clause.

  • Franklin v. H&R Block, No. 4:16-CV-00666-JAR (E.D. Mo. May 23, 2018)

    05/23/2018

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award. Pursuant to the FAA, court found that respondent had not filed any petition to vacate or modify within 90 days of the award and was precluded from raising any defenses.

  • Qualls v. EOG Resources, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-00666 (S.D. Tex. May 22, 2018)
    05/22/2018

    Court granted motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration and tolled the statute of limitations for Fair Labor Standards Act opt-in plaintiffs during the stay.

  • Micula v. Government of Romania, No. 1:17-CV-02332-APM (D.D.C. May 22, 2018)
    05/22/2018

    Court denied Romania’s motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process, finding service was successful under Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention, since Romania had not objected to service by mail.  Court also rejected respondent’s objections to service under Articles 3, 5, and 6 of the Hague Service Convention, determining that petitioners’ counsel was a “competent authority” to forward the service documents to Romania’s Central Authority, finding use of a private courier was proper, and concluding petitioners could not be at fault for failing to secure a certificate of service where Romania twice declined to issue a certificate after being properly served.

  • Alfa Adhesives v. A. Duie Pyle Inc., No. 2:18-CV-03689-JLL-CLW (D.N.J. May. 22, 2018)
    05/22/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed proceedings, finding that a valid arbitration agreement governed the dispute.

  • Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, No. 16-285 (U.S. May 21, 2018)
    05/21/2018

    Supreme Court reversed the judgments of the Seventh and Ninth Circuits and affirmed that of the Fifth Circuit, holding that employer-employee arbitration agreements providing for individual proceedings must be enforced.  Court determined that neither the savings clause of the FAA nor the National Labor Relations Act indicate that arbitration agreements that prohibit collective action proceedings are unenforceable.

  • Himber v. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-05001-JS-GRB (E.D.N.Y. May 21, 2018)
    05/21/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay the action.  Pursuant to the FAA, court found an agreement to arbitrate existed and concluded arbitration was the proper forum for determining whether the dispute fell within the scope of the agreement.

  • Voltage Pictures, LLC v. Gulf Film, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-00696-VAP-SK (C.D. Cal. May 21, 2018)
    05/21/2018

    Court confirmed arbitral award of the IFTA International Arbitration Tribunal and awarded attorneys’ fees and costs in connection with enforcement of the arbitration award and determined the post-judgment interest terms.

  • International Bancshares Corporation v. Ochoa, No. 5:17-CV-00238 (S.D. Tex. May 21, 2018)
    05/21/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration.  Pursuant to the FAA, court found it lacked jurisdiction to intervene in the dispute over the proper number of arbitrators as the arbitration was ongoing and there was no mechanical breakdown in the arbitration process.

  • Spikener v. Olive Garden Holdings, LLC, No. 5:18-CV-00188-DCR (E.D. Ky. May 18, 2018)
    05/18/2018

    Court ordered an evidentiary hearing prior to ruling on defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, and decided that it must determine whether an enforceable arbitration agreement existed not the arbitrator.  Applying the FAA and Kentucky law, court concluded additional facts were needed to determine whether the plaintiff had notice of and assented to the arbitration clause.

  • Smagin v. Yegiazaryan, Nos. 16-56749, 17-56467 (9th Cir. May 18, 2018)

    05/18/2018

    Court of appeals vacated the award of attorneys’ fees and turnover order against respondent but affirmed a post-judgment injunction against him.  Court remanded the attorneys’ fees order holding that it was an abuse of discretion for the district court to award them without any finding of bad faith, vacated the turnover order of assets to satisfy the arbitration award against respondent as premature where resolution of certain questions of Liechtenstein trust law were still spending in the Supreme Court of Liechtenstein, and upheld the post-judgment injunctive relief to freeze assets respondent had received from an unrelated arbitration award given the district court finding that respondent might evade jurisdiction or contravene its judgment by dissipating or moving funds. 

  • Hawk Advisers, Inc. v. Gillenwater, No. 7:18-CV-00145 (W.D. Va. Tex. May 18, 2018)
    05/18/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pursuant to the FAA.  Court found the plain language of the arbitration clause mandated arbitration and interpreted references to litigation therein to mean litigation is available for nonarbitrable disputes or to enforce an arbitral award or compel arbitration.  Court determined the claims fell within the scope of the arbitral agreement, finding the clause did not expressly carve out injunctive relief from its scope and the arbitral agreement was broad, and found arbitration would not be a hollow formality, concluding an award of money damages would be adequate.

  • Windward Development, Inc., v. Thomas, No. 3:17-CV-01762-CSH (D. Conn. May 17, 2018)

    05/17/2018

    Court ordered any party believing federal subject matter jurisdiction existed over their cross petitions to confirm or vacate certain arbitration awards to file a statement of the basis for it.  Court held that the FAA did not provide an independent basis for federal jurisdiction and the record provided no discernable basis for the court to exercise it in the absence of any cited federal statute or diversity of citizenship.

  • Lawson v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc., No. 2:17-CV-1461-KOB (N.D. Ala. May 17, 2018)

    05/17/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff did not dispute that her claims fell within a voluntarily-entered, binding arbitration agreement, and defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate by failing to raise arbitration with the EEOC and did not delay in raising it in the litigation.

  • Strong v. Davidson, No. 17-4085 (10th Cir. May 16, 2018)

    05/16/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court denial of defendant’s motion to arbitrate.  Court held that district court properly found that defendant, who paid his arbitration fees, but whose co-defendants’ had not, had waived his right to arbitrate by remaining silent while the pending arbitration collapsed for failure of others to pay.  Court held that defendant’s conduct was inconsistent with the right to arbitrate as plaintiff was prejudiced by the defendant’s delay in indicating that he wanted to continue to arbitrate. 

  • Wilson v. Alorica, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-02182-TMP (N.D. Ala. May 16, 2018)

    05/16/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and directed plaintiff to initiate arbitration should he wish to pursue his claims.  Court held a valid agreement to arbitrate plaintiff’s employment claims existed as the FAA only requires “a written provision” for arbitration (9 USC § 2), and under the applicable Alabama state contract law the lack of a “wet” signature was not a barrier to the formation of a contract.  Court held that the defendant’s production of an electronic record demonstrating plaintiff’s unique login and password was used to affirm the arbitration agreement was sufficient to form a valid arbitration agreement.  Court further held that the scope of the arbitration provision was sufficiently broad to encompass plaintiff’s Americans with Disabilities Act claims but that the ultimate scope of the provision would be determined by an arbitrator.

  • Wolkenstein v. Citibank, No. 3:17-CV-01295-ARC (M.D. Pa. May 16, 2018)

    05/16/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that where plaintiff did not dispute that a valid arbitration agreement existed between the parties or that his claims fell under its terms, and showed no prejudice in being required to pursue his claim through arbitration, defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate which it had asserted in its answer filed three months after the filing of the complaint, though the motion to compel arbitration was filed eight months later. 

  • Mantooth v. Bavaria Inn Restaurant, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01150-WJM-MEH (D. Colo. May 16, 2018)

    05/16/2018

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held plaintiffs’ must submit their claims to arbitration because they did not attack the delegation clause by which the parties intended to delegate arbitrability of their agreements, including the validity of the contracts, unconscionability and class action waiver.  Court further held under Colorado law that the fee-shifting, cost-sharing requirement for certain plaintiffs, and the industry expert arbitrator selection requirement provisions, must be severed from the arbitration clause of the agreements for the effective vindication of plaintiffs’ rights. 

  • Arnold v. Homeaway, Inc., Seim v. Homeaway, Inc., Nos. 17-50088, 17-50102 (5th Cir. May 15, 2018)

    05/15/2018

    Court of appeals reversed the district court decision in Arnold, affirmed it in Seim, and remanded both cases to compel arbitration.  Court held plaintiff Arnold’s contention that the agreement to arbitrate was illusory under Texas law because it gave the defendant a unilateral right to avoid arbitration at any point without notice was a challenge to the validity of the contract as a whole, rather than the formation of the contract.  Plaintiff Arnold, however, did not specifically challenge the delegation clause, by which the parties clearly and unmistakably intended to delegate questions regarding the validity and scope of the arbitration provision, and therefore under Supreme Court precedent validity challenges must be sent to an arbitrator.  Court further held that plaintiff Seim did not specifically challenge the same delegation clause and therefore district court correctly ordered arbitration but should not have assessed the threshold questions of the scope of the provision. 

  • Benincasa v. Jack Daniels Audi of Upper Saddle River, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-06322-KM-MAH (D.N.J. May 15, 2018)

    05/15/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to refer the matter to arbitration.  Court held that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed despite plaintiff’s “opportunistic post hoc quibbles about the wording of its title” since it was an agreement between plaintiff and his employer by which plaintiff intended to be bound, and plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the agreement.

  • EB Safe, LLC v. Hurley, No. 1:17-CV-06163-ALC (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2018)

    05/15/2018

    Court denied petitioner’s motion to vacate arbitral award and denied respondent’s motion for attorneys’ fees.  Court held that the arbitral decision did not reflect a “manifest disregard of the evidence” under Delaware law, which was not a proper basis for vacatur as courts should not engage in an impermissible reassessment of the evidentiary record, and was without merit as panel cited the correct Delaware laws.  Court further held that the language of the parties’ agreement reflected that expenses were intended to be limited to those incurred during the arbitration, not thereafter, and there was no equitable bases for awarding attorneys’ fees to respondent.

  • Smith v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-00195-A (N.D. Tex. May 15, 2018)

    05/15/2018

    Court granted defendant’s unopposed motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff’s claim was subject to an arbitration agreement signed by plaintiff when defendant employed her.

  • Abugeith v. Flowers Foods, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-02934 (S. D. Tex. May 15, 2015)

    05/15/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel individual arbitration.  Court held that plaintiffs entered into a binding and valid arbitration agreement with an enforceable class-action waiver and that plaintiffs did not specifically challenge the enforceable delegation clause submitting issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

  • New York City & Vicinity District Council of Carpenters v. S & N Builders, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-02911-JMF (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2018)

    05/15/2018

    Court granted petitioner’s unopposed motion to confirm an arbitration award.  Court held there was no genuine issue of fact precluding summary judgment as to all portions of the Award where the arbitrator’s decision provided justification for the award and no reason existed to vacate it.

  • Cody v. Chase Professionals, No. 5:18-CV-06025-ODS (W.D. Mo. May 15, 2018)

    05/15/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held there was no mutual assent to the arbitration agreement where plaintiff signed the employment contract but defendant failed to provide an explanation for why one of its representative’s did not.

  • AJU Small but Great Fund 5 v. Apache Golf, Inc., No. 8:17-CV-01063-DOC-KES (C.D. Cal. May 15, 2018)
    05/15/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s petition to confirm arbitral award rendered by the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board.

  • Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. House, No. 17-60164 (5th Cir. May 14, 2018)

    05/14/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s grant of motion to compel arbitration.  Though some parties were not signatories to the arbitration agreement, and Mississippi law generally does not permit non-signatories to enforce an arbitration agreement, court held that an exception exists for “substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct.”  Court also held that the parties had agreed to delegate questions regarding arbitrability to the arbitrator by incorporating the JAMS rules into their agreement.

  • Ceder v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00422-NT (D. Me. May 14, 2018)

    05/14/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s Maine Human Rights Act claims of sexual harassment, sex discrimination, and retaliation.  Court held that plaintiff employee signed agreement to arbitrate, regardless of whether plaintiff remembered reading it as only assent to be bound was required, that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate, and that all claims were arbitrable.

  • Samsung Electronics America, Inc., v. Ramirez, No. 1:17-CV-01462-AWI-SAB (E.D. Cal. May 14, 2018)

    05/14/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration and defendant’s motion to stay federal proceedings in favor of defendant’s state court proceedings.  Court held that it was obliged to exercise jurisdiction as plaintiff was entitled to bring a petition to compel arbitration in federal court, though plaintiff appeared to file after defendant had voluntarily dismissed a state court filing and prior to defendant’s refiling in California state court.  Court also held that the arbitration agreement was not enforceable as the consumer was not on notice of the contractual nature of the arbitration provision that was provided within a product guidebook for the exploding telephone. 

  • Terlizzi v. Altitude Marketing, Inc. No. 1:16-CV-01712-WJM-STV (D. Co. May 14, 2018)

    05/14/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that an arbitration agreement existed between the parties that governed the disputes at issue, referred the parties to arbitration, and stayed the court proceedings.  Court held that plaintiffs had accepted by their conduct an agreement containing an arbitration clause which assigned questions of whether the clause was enforceable to the arbitrator.

  • Castro v. ABM Industries, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-03026-YGR (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2018)

    05/14/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that defendant had not waived its rights to arbitrate even though it did not notify plaintiffs until nearly two years after the collective bargaining agreements at issue became effective and three years after initiation of the litigation in which both parties had engaged.  Court further held that the arbitration clause in the collective bargaining agreements applied only to claims arising after the effective date of the relevant agreements.

  • Iysheh v. Cellular Sales of Tennessee, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00542-TWP (E.D. Tenn. May 14, 2018)

    05/14/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff presented no evidence that the agreement to arbitrate lacked mutual assent where agreement contained a plain and bold warning about the arbitration provision that plaintiff accepted while in defendant’s employ, that the agreement was neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable, and that plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the agreement to arbitrate.   Court further held that the JAMS rules were not procedurally unconscionable or that the arbitration would be prohibitively costly to plaintiff.

  • Nguyen v. MarketSource, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-02063-AJB-JLB (S.D. Cal. May 11, 2018)

    05/11/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay all proceedings pending anticipated U.S. Supreme Court ruling on which the matter before the court depended.  Court declined to consider motion until Supreme Court considered circuit split of whether an employment agreement requiring an employee and employer to resolve employment disputes through individual arbitration is enforceable under the FAA. 

  • Reyes v. Gracefully, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-09328-VEC (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2018)

    05/11/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff signed the arbitration agreement, plaintiff’s claims fell within its scope, and the agreement was enforceable notwithstanding plaintiff’s assertion that he did not have time to examine it, his alleged inability to read or understand English, and that the employment was conditioned on acceptance of the agreement.  Court also severed a 60-day notification period from the agreement as it would prevent the “effective vindication” of plaintiff’s rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

  • Wilson v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. 3:17-CV-2054-SI (D. Or. May 11, 2018)

    05/11/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the arbitration agreement language applied to claims existing before plaintiff entered into the agreement, and that the agreement was enforceable and not void as unconscionable.

  • State of Hawaii v. United States Marine Corps, No. 1:18-CV-00128-LEK-KJM (D. Haw. May 11, 2018)

    05/11/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order to maintain the status quo until the arbitration panel renders its decision.  Court held that plaintiff made a timely request for arbitration, would be able to have an arbitration panel consider its challenges, was likely to succeed on the merits, and that the balance of equities favored granting the TRO as plaintiff would face a concrete, imminent and severe injury from great financial harm that would be irreparable as the Marine Corps’ sovereign immunity would preclude the plaintiff from recovering any monetary damages while the arbitration was pending, whereas any injury to the Marine Corps would be primarily economic.

  • Gonsales v. Acosta, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-05767-VC (N.D. Cal. May 11, 2018)

    05/11/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Plaintiff did not show that the arbitration agreement was procedurally or substantively unconscionable.

  • Noye v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 1:15-CV-02382-YK (M.D. Pa. May 11, 2018)

    05/11/2018

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff was not estopped from avoiding arbitration when defendant, a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, had not shown that equitable estoppel applied to plaintiff’s claims as they were not “intimately founded in and intertwined with the underlying contract obligations,” even if the court were to find that a close relationship existed between the defendant entities.

  • Flores v. Dignity Health, No. 2:18-CV-02471-JFW-AGR (C.D. Cal. May 11, 2018)

    05/11/2018

    Court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss petition to confirm an arbitration award without leave to amend.  Court held that petitioner, an employee and third party beneficiary of the agreement, was not a party to the arbitration and therefore lacked standing under California law to petition the court to confirm the arbitration award. 

  • Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. 16-16820 (11th Cir. May 10, 2018)
    05/10/2018

    Court of appeals vacated the district court’s decision that the defendant had waived its right to compel arbitration against unnamed plaintiffs. In conducting a two-part inquiry to determine whether the defendant waived its right to compel arbitration, the court found that the defendant had not acted inconsistently with it arbitration rights and its actions did not prejudice the other parties. Court remanded the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with its opinion.

  • Cooperativa Agraria Industrial Naranjillo Ltda. v. Transmar Commodity Group Ltd., No. 16-3532 (2d Cir. May 9, 2018)
    05/09/2018

    Court of appeals vacated and remanded the district court’s decision to vacate an arbitration award under §10(a)(4) of the FAA. Court held that the district court erred by relying on New York Law and not the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG); and erred as a matter of law by relying primarily on the face of the contract and the document allegedly incorporated by reference, whereby it should have also considered extrinsic evidence: “Because additional fact finding will be required in order to adduce such evidence, the district court abused its discretion in failing to allow discovery, hold an evidentiary hearing, or both.”

  • Southside Hospital v. New York State Nurses Association, No. 17-0990 (2d Cir. May 9, 2018)
    05/09/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed the judgement of the district court to confirm an arbitral award in favor of the respondent-appellee. Court held that, because the parties’ agreement expressly incorporated the AAA Arbitration Rules, they delegated the power to decide issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator. In that context, there was nothing in what the arbitrator did that would require the court to abandon the substantial deference accorded to an arbitrator’s decision.

  • Marshall Square, LLC v. Bette, No. 5:17-CV-00425-M (W.D. Okla. May 8, 2018)
    05/08/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion for an expedited protective order staying discovery pending a ruling on a motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the interests of judicial economy would be advanced by a temporary stay of discovery, particularly in circumstances where the motion to compel arbitration could dispose of the entire action.

  • Delgado v. Ally Financial, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-02189-BEN-JMA (S.D. Cal. May 8, 2018)
    05/08/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss action, finding that the parties entered into an arbitration agreement and the claims at issue fall within the agreement’s scope. Additionally, the court held that a bankruptcy discharge does not render an arbitration agreement unenforceable since such extinguishes the debtor’s obligation to pay, but the other contractual provisions, including the arbitration agreement, remain enforceable.

  • Castro v. Castro-Harrison, No. 3:16-CV-02731-CCC (D.P.R. May 8, 2018)
    05/08/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings, finding that the plaintiff’s claims are arbitrable under the subject arbitration agreement. Court also found that the non-signatory’s claims were “intertwined” with the contract at issue, and therefore the plaintiff was equitably estopped from avoid the arbitration agreement contained therein.

  • Key Contracting, Inc. v. Contech International, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-01599-SI (D. Or. May 7, 2018)

    05/07/2018

    Court granted motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to stay proceedings and compel arbitration. Court held that, although the plaintiffs are non-signatories to the arbitration agreement, their claims rely are intertwined with and arise out of the contact containing the arbitration agreement. As such, the defendants may therefore rely on the agreement’s arbitration provision to compel arbitration of the plaintiffs’ claims.

  • Viehweg v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 3:17-CV-03140-SEM-TSH (C.D. Ill. May 7, 2018)

    05/07/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings because plaintiff’s defamation claims are not subject or related to the arbitration agreement and therefore do not fall within its scope.

  • Caporicci U.S.A. Corp. v. Prada S.p.A., No. 1:18-CV-20859-CMA (S.D. Fla. May 7, 2018)

    05/07/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration under the New York Convention. Court held that the defendants satisfied the four jurisdictional prerequisites under the New York Convention – (1) the arbitration agreement was in writing; (2) the arbitration agreement provided for arbitration in the territory of a signatory to the Convention; (3) the arbitration agreement arises out of a commercial relationship; and (4) one or more of the parties is not an American citizen – to compel arbitration of the dispute to the Chamber of National and International Arbitration in Milan.

  • Perkins Delaware, LLC v. MF Cornhusker Member, LLC, No. 8:17-CV-00332-RFR-CRZ (D. Neb. May 6, 2018)

    05/06/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff’s claims are beyond the scope of the arbitration provision and are not subject to arbitration absent the current and mutual consent of the parties.

  • Alixander v. Group Health of Washington, No. 2:17-CV-01224-RSL (W.D. Wash. May 4, 2018)

    05/04/2018

    Court denied motions to dismiss or compel arbitration, finding that the court must, in first instance, determine (a) whether a valid arbitration agreement exists and (b) whether the particular dispute falls within the scope of that agreement. Here, while there is a valid arbitration agreement, the plaintiff’s statutory claims do not fall within the scope of the agreement.

  • Giraud v. Woof Gang Bakery, Inc., No. 8:17-CV-02442-RAL-AEP (M.D. Fla. May 3, 2018)
    05/03/2018

    Court adopted the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that (i) plaintiffs failed to show why prejudice would result from compelling the arbitral claims of the designated four plaintiffs; (ii) the arbitration agreement covered any controversy over the construction or application of the agreement even though it did not include the language “arising out of”; and (iii) nothing indicated that the agreement was unconscionable.

  • Sung v. Sacor Financial, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01317-ERK-VMS (E.D.N.Y. May. 2, 2018)
    05/02/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding frivolous plaintiff’s argument that he was not bound thereby and, in any case, determining that the plaintiff was estopped from making that argument having relied on the agreement elsewhere.   Court declined that any right to arbitration was waived, holding that there was no evidence of intent to do so or  any prejudicial delay.

  • Schoemehl v. Unwin, No. 4:18-CV-00031-JAR (W.D. Mo. May 1, 2018)

    05/01/2018

    Court granted motions to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings. Court held that, because the  plaintiff argued that the entire contract was fraudulently induced, and not just the arbitration clause by itself, the FAA requires a claim to be submitted to arbitration.

  • Kung v. Experian Information Solutions Inc., No. 3:18-CV-00452-WHA (N.D. Cal. May 1, 2018)

    05/01/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the parties’ agreement  constituted interstate commerce and, thus, the FAA, and not the California Arbitration Act, governs the parties’ arbitration agreement.  Additionally, the “gateway” issue of arbitrability was “clearly and unmistakably” delegated to the arbitrator per the inclusion of AAA Rule 7(a) in the parties’ arbitration agreement.

  • Robinson v. OnStar, LLC, No. 16-56412 (9th Cir. May 1, 2018)

    05/01/2018

    Court of appeals amended prior memorandum disposition filed on March 15, 2018, and with those amendments denied the petition for panel rehearing.  Court reversed and remanded district court’s dismissal of plaintiff-appellant’s complaint on the basis of an arbitration agreement.   Court of appeals held that the parties’ agreement when formed did not include an arbitration provision, and defendant’s subsequent inclusion of one by mailing was an offer to modify the agreement, which the plaintiff did not accept by retaining the service to which plaintiff was entitled under the original agreement. 

  • Bowie’s Priority Care Pharmacy L.L.C. v. CaremarkPCS, L.L.C., No. 6:18-CV-00300-LSC (N.D. Al. Apr. 26, 2018)
    04/26/2018

    Court granted motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration. Court found a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate existed under Alabama law despite plaintiff’s argument that it had not signed the contract. Court reasoned that plaintiff revealed through its conduct and behavior that it had adopted the contract.

  • Peregrine Falcon, LLC  v. Piaggio America, Inc., No. 16-CV-35773 (9th Cir. Apr. 26, 2018)
    04/26/2018

    Court of appeals confirmed district court’s denial of appellant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or in the alternative to compel arbitration. Court found that non-signatory respondent was not a party to the arbitration clause, but was a third party beneficiary and had not consented to arbitration.

  • Edwards v. Doordash, Inc., No. 17-CV-20082 (5th Cir. Apr. 25, 2018)
    04/25/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order granting a motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the district court did not err in finding that a challenge to the validity of an arbitration agreement should be decided by arbitration when that agreement delegates questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

  • Sakyi  v. Estee Lauder Companies, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01863-BAH (D.D.C. Apr. 25, 2018)
    04/25/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.  Court found that a valid arbitration agreement existed as to one defendant, and that the other defendants were able to enforce the agreement based on equitable estoppel since they sought to resolve issues intertwined with the agreement. Court further held that the arbitration clause delegated “gateway” questions of arbitrability, such as class arbitration, or plaintiff’s status as an employee, to the arbitrator.

  • Trustees of the Northeast Carpenters Health, Pension, Annuity, Apprenticeship, and Labor Management Cooperation Funds v. Architectural Building & Design Inc., No. 2:17-CV-05968-ADS-SIL (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2018)
    04/24/2018

    Court granted petitioners unopposed motion to confirm award.  Court treated the unanswered motion as an unopposed summary judgment motion and found no issues of material fact, and that petitioners were entitled to confirmation of the award.

  • Farrell v. Road Ready Used Cars, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-02030-JCH (D. Conn. Apr. 24, 2018)
    04/24/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding the dispute was governed by a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement. While plaintiff argued that the contract containing the arbitration agreement was superseded by a contract without an arbitration clause, the court found that plaintiff’s claims relied on the original contract and thus defendants could avail themselves of the arbitration clause.

  • Republic of Kazakhstan v. Stati, No. 1:17-CV-02067-ABJ (D.D.C. Apr. 24, 2018)
    04/24/2018

    Republic of Kazakhstan brought a RICO claim against a group of defendants alleging that defendants had obtained a foreign arbitral award through fraud and civil conspiracy.  While a clerk had entered default judgment against two defendants who failed to respond, the court granted the motion to vacate default judgment of these two defendants finding, among other things, that the complaint fails to allege a prima facie RICO claim because the majority of the activity was lawful and occurred outside of the United States.

  • Zyppah, Inc. v. Allemeier, No. 2:17-CV-02840-JAD-PAL (D. Nev. Apr. 24, 2018)
    04/24/2018

    Court dismissed petition to compel arbitration in Nevada and enjoin arbitration in California. Court found that petitioner was not an “aggrieved” party under the FAA because opposing party had not “failed, neglected, or refused to arbitrate,” and therefore could not compel arbitration. Court further found that the issue of venue was committed to the arbitrators.

  • Sabre GLBL, Inc.  v. Shan, No. 2:15-CV-08900-WJM-MF (D.N.J. Apr. 23, 2018)
    04/23/2018

    Court confirmed an award for damages and injunctive relief but vacated an award of attorneys’ fees. Court found the arbitrator “exceeded his power” under §10 of the FAA because the parties’ agreement explicitly stated each party would bear their own attorneys’ fees.

  • Britto v. St. Joseph Health Services of Rhode Island, No. 1:17-CV-00234-WES-LDA (D.R.I. Apr. 23, 2018)
    04/23/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable.  Court held that the mutual promise to arbitrate was not illusory despite employer’s right to unilaterally change the terms of the agreement, and that continued employment was adequate consideration to support the agreement.

  • MD Helicopters v. The Boeing Company, No. 2:17-CV-02598-JAT (D. Ariz. Apr. 23, 2018)
    04/23/2018

    Court dismissed certain counterclaims pursuant to the FAA, finding that they fell within the scope of an enforceable arbitration agreement.  Court rejected the argument that subsequent agreements superseded the arbitration agreement.  While the court dismissed the claims, it did not compel arbitration.

  • Inception Mining  v. Danzig, LTD., No. 2:17-CV-00944-DN (D. Utah Apr. 23, 2018)
    04/23/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss in favor of an ongoing arbitration in Boston.  Although the arbitration agreement required the arbitration to be held in Salt Lake City, the court found that issues of arbitrability were delegated to the arbitrator and therefore the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining portion of claims.

  • Whitlow v. Crescent Consulting, LLC., No. 5:16-CV-01330-R (W.D. Okla. Apr. 23, 2018)
    04/23/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration.  Court found the agreement to be enforceable despite plaintiff’s arguments that fee-splitting provision rendered arbitration agreement unenforceable, and that the agreement was invalid for want of consideration.

  • MHA, LLC v. UnitedHealth Group Inc., et al., No. 2:17-CV-02759-ES-JAD (D.N.J. Apr. 20, 2018)

    04/20/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court noted that derivative claims are arbitrable where the parties’ agreement demonstrates an intent to arbitrate such claims.  Moreover, plaintiff was asserting first-party and not third-party claims.

  • American Trucking and Transportation Insurance Company v. Nelson, No. 9:16-CV-00160-DLC (D. Mont. Apr. 20, 2018)
    04/20/2018

    Court denied defendant insurer’s motion to compel arbitration finding, pursuant to Montana law, that by failing initially to defend the insured it is later estopped from asserting a right to arbitrate under an otherwise enforceable arbitration agreement.

  • MEMC II, LLC v. Cannon Storage Systems, Inc., No. 5:18-CV-00143-C (W.D. Okla. Apr. 19, 2018)

    04/19/2018

    Court denied plaintiffs’ motion and application for relief regarding an arbitration award.  Court found that the arbitrator’s conclusions in the award were well within her purview as the fact finder, and she was not exceeding her powers or dispensing her own brand of justice by awarding damages for what the arbitrator found to be a breach of the parties’ contract.

  • Gomez v. PDS Tech, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-12351-WJM-MF (D.N.J. Apr. 19, 2018)

    04/19/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that (i) plaintiff had not responded with additional facts that placed the agreement to arbitrate in issue; (ii) the agreement was unquestionably subject to federal law; (iii) plaintiff’s claims fell under the scope of the agreement; and (iv) defendants were third-party beneficiaries to the agreement, so plaintiff’s claims against them were subject to the arbitration clause.

  • McCurdy v. Virginia College, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00562-TJC-JBT (M.D. Fla. Apr. 19, 2018)

    04/19/2018

    Court adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge to deny plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitration award.  Magistrate judge found that (i) the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law by ignoring the enrollment and tuition agreement between the parties, having noted in the award that the agreement was offered as an exhibit; (ii) the arbitrator did not erroneously apply Florida law rather than Alabama law, as the arbitrator analyzed the claim under both and found it deficient under both; (iii) § 10(a)(3) of the FAA does not warrant vacatur where the arbitrator merely made an erroneous discovery or evidentiary ruling, and plaintiff failed to show any bad faith or affirmative conduct that would have deprived her of a fundamentally fair proceeding.

  • MEMC II LLC v. Cannon Storage Systems Inc., No. 5:18-CV-00143-C (W.D. Okla. Apr. 19, 2018)

    04/19/2018

    Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for relief regarding an arbitration award and, in doing so, refused to vacate or disturb the award. Court held that the arbitrator did not exceed her power or dispense with her own brand of justice by awarding damages to the defendant and that she acted within the scope of contractual delegated authority.

  • Tribal Casino Gaming Enterprise v. W.G. Yates & Sons Construction Co., No. 1:16-CV-00132-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C. Apr. 18, 2018)

    04/18/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm an arbitration award and ordered plaintiff to file a satisfaction of judgment.  Defendant had asked the court to confirm the award but dismiss the action because defendant had already paid the award.  Court explained that this is not allowed under the FAA, which requires the court to confirm the award and docket the judgment.

  • Teschendorf v. RIIS, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-13967-AC-SDD (E.D. Mich. Apr. 18, 2018)

    04/18/2018

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration agreement did not constitute a binding contract because it explicitly said it did not create a binding contract.  Additionally, the promise to arbitrate was illusory since the agreement allowed the company to unilaterally change the handbook containing the arbitration agreement.

  • Bea Mountain Mining Corp. v. International Construction & Engineering (Seychelles), No. 1:17-CV-01374-LO-MSN (E.D. Va. Apr. 18, 2018)

    04/18/2018

    Court adopted the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge to grant plaintiff’s motion for default judgment.  Magistrate judge concluded that none of the grounds for refusal or deferral of recognition applied, and therefore the court should confirm the award pursuant to the court’s authority under the New York Convention and 9 USC § 207.

  • Voltage Pictures, LLC v. Gulf Film, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-00696-VAP-SK (C.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2018)

    04/17/2018

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award, finding no basis to vacate, modify, or correct the award.  Court concluded that (i) the arbitrator did not exceed her authority by rejecting respondent’s demand for offsetting credits or funds owed by plaintiffs; (ii) the arbitrator did not exceed her authority by rejecting respondent’s argument regarding waiver and estoppel; and (iii) respondent was not denied a fundamentally fair hearing.

  • Lynch v. SSC Glen Burnie Operating Co., LLC, No. 1:17-CV-01328-JKB (D. Md. Apr. 17, 2018)

    04/17/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the arbitration agreement was valid and defendant did not waive its right to enforce.  Court found that (i) defendant presented sufficient evidence to authenticate the alleged arbitration agreement by presenting an arbitration agreement that was signed by both parties; (ii) plaintiffs failed to show that one of the signatories was cognitively impaired when signing the agreement; (iii) defendant did not engage in much delay in the case; and (iv) some degree of participation in a judicial proceeding is acceptable before a party will be deemed to have waived its right to arbitrate.

  • Katz v. Cellco Partnership, No. 7:12-CV-09193-VB (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2018)

    04/17/2018

    Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion to partially confirm and partially vacate the arbitrator’s decisions of October 28, 2016 and June 29, 2017.  Court held that (i) the arbitrator did not exceed his authority by ruling that New York General Business Law Section 349 does not permit general injunctive relief; (ii) the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law by holding that plaintiff was not entitled to general injunctive relief; (iii) the arbitrator did not exceed his authority by awarding attorney’s fees; (iv) the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law by ruling that defendant must pay plaintiff $1,500 without interest; (iv) the arbitrator was not guilty of misconduct by denying plaintiff the right to take limited discovery and then opining that plaintiff wanted discovery so that he could use it in another case against defendant; and (iv) plaintiff failed to show that there was evident partiality on the part of the arbitrator because defendant paid his fees.

  • Aralar v. Scott McRae Automotive Group, LLLP, No. 3:16-CV-00146-TJC-JBT (M.D. Fla. Apr. 17, 2018)

    04/17/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitration award.  Court explained that the previously recognized non-statutory grounds for vacatur are no longer viable, and the court’s authority to vacate an arbitration decision is narrowly limited to the four circumstances outlined in the FAA.  Court concluded that the arbitrator’s decision did not contravene any of the FAA’s enumerated vacatur justifications, and therefore the court could not disturb it.

  • Aptim Corp. v. McCall, No. 17-30772 (5th Cir. Apr. 17, 2018)

    04/17/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court decision to compel arbitration and stay the state-court proceeding.  Court concluded that plaintiff did not waive its arbitration rights as it did not substantially invoke the judicial process, having filed nothing regarding the merits or asking for damages.  Additionally, defendant could not demonstrate the time, expense, or disadvantage in litigating position required to show the prejudice necessary for waiver.

  • XPO Last Mile, Inc. v. Anessa’s Transport Inc., No. 3:18-CV-00709-SK (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2018)

    04/16/2018

    Court directed petitioner to file a response showing cause why the matter should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Petitioner sought to confirm an arbitration award that provided the respondent with nothing.  Court explained that, to establish diversity jurisdiction, plaintiff needed to show that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.  Court held that, since neither party was seeking to reopen the arbitration proceedings, the amount in controversy was the amount of the arbitration award (zero) rather than the amount in controversy in the underlying arbitration. 

  • Brown v. Charter Communications, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00670-LJO-JLT (E.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2018)

    04/16/2018

    Court adopted in full the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations to deny defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Magistrate judge had determined that the agreement plaintiff signed contained a valid arbitration agreement, but this agreement did not apply to plaintiff by virtue of a carve-out notice provision.

  • Kelleher v. Dream Catcher, L.L.C., No. 17-7104 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 16, 2018)
    04/16/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of motion to stay and compel arbitration, finding that the right to arbitrate was forfeited when defendant filed an answer rather than a motion to dismiss and did not invoke its right to arbitrate in the answer.

  • Kabba v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., No. 17-1595 (4th Cir. Apr. 13, 2018)

    04/13/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s refusal to compel arbitration on summary judgment, agreeing that the parties had not clearly manifested their intent to delegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator and that genuine questions of material fact precluded summary judgment on this question by the court itself.

  • Caldarera & Company, Inc. v. Complex Management, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00917-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss. Apr. 13, 2018)

    04/13/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that both defendants were bound by an agreement to arbitrate, the second – though a non-signatory – through its subsequent ratification of the overall contract through its actions.  Court also rejected defendants’ waiver argument.

  • Appel v. Concierge Auctions, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-02263-BAS-MDD (S.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2018)

    04/13/2018

    Court granted in part motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings.  Court ruled that the claims sufficiently touched on interstate commerce to fall under the FAA and that the parties delegated questions of arbitrability by incorporating AAA rules into their agreement, rejecting the plaintiffs’ formation and unconscionability arguments as to the alleged unenforceability of the agreement.  Court noted that it had power to compel arbitration only in its district and held this to be an adequate alternative to the relief requested.

  • Tennessee Tractor, LLC v. WH Administrators, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-02829-STA-EGB (W.D. Tenn. Apr. 13, 2018)

    04/13/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s order granting in part and denying in part defendant’s third motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that defendant had, at best, satisfied plaintiffs’ burden by creating a genuine dispute of fact as to whether plaintiffs had sufficient access to the documents to accept their terms.

  • In re Application of Pola Maritime Ltd., No. 4:16-CV-00333-WTM-GRS (S.D. Ga. Apr. 13, 2018)

    04/13/2018

    Court overruled respondents’ objection to magistrate judge’s order.  Court concluded that the order at issue was procedural, and therefore the court’s review was governed by FRCP Rule 72, which requires modification or set aside of the parts of the order that are clearly erroneous or contrary to law.  Court held that it was unable to conclude that the magistrate judge’s order was either a clear error or contrary to law.

  • Krogstadt v. Loan Payment Administration LLC, No. 2:16-CV-00465-APG-CWH (D. Nev. Apr. 13, 2017)
    04/13/2018

    Court granted third-party defendant’s motion to dismiss claims because they were covered by a valid arbitration agreement.  Court rejected third-party plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration provision was invalid because of a class-action waiver.

  • Parkridge Limited v. Indyzen, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-07387-JSW (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2018)
    04/13/2018

    Court granted defendant’s petition to compel arbitration. Court found that the non-signatories were sufficiently interrelated and interdependent on conduct governed by the agreement containing the arbitration provision. Accordingly, court held that the doctrine of collateral estoppel enabled it to find that the non-signatories may be bound by the agreement despite not having signed it.

  • Namisnak v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 17-CV-06124-RS (N.D. Cal. April 13, 2018)
    04/13/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration for claims against non-parties to the arbitration agreement, holding that equitable estoppel could not enforce an arbitration agreement against a non-signatory. Court granted motion to compel arbitration for claims against party to the arbitration agreement, holding that the agreement was enforceable and the dispute fell within the scope of the agreement.

  • Fuller v. Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-07901 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 11, 2018)

    04/11/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings, finding that an arbitration agreement existed, had been validly assigned, and had covered the scope of the dispute.  Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the defendants had waived their right to arbitration.

  • Wells Fargo Clearing Services, LLC v. Foster, No. 3:18-CV-00032-MMD-VPC (D. Nev. Apr. 11, 2018)

    04/11/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration as moot because the plaintiff had already commenced a FINRA arbitration and granted motion to stay proceedings.

  • Myrvold v. Raibow Fiberglass & Boat Repair, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00245-SLG (D. Alaska Apr. 11, 2018)

    04/11/2018

    Court interpreted the defendant’s motion to dismiss as a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA and denied it.  Court noted that the question of whether a valid arbitration agreement existed was disputed by the parties, who therefore had to present evidence for the court to evaluate before deciding whether arbitration was proper.

  • Cristo v. The Charles Schwab Corporation, No. 3:17-CV-01843-GPC-MDD (S.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2018)

    04/11/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings.  Court held that the plaintiff’s signed application constituted a valid arbitration agreement between the parties and that it applied to all of the plaintiff’s claims.  Court further held that although the plaintiff demonstrated a low level of procedural unconscionability in the contract, he did not demonstrate any substantive unconscionability and therefore could not evade arbitration.

  • Pompliano v. Snap, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-03664-DMG-JPR (C.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2018)
    04/11/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, concluding that: (i) the parties’ dispute plainly fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement; (ii) the delegation clause was neither ambiguous nor unconscionable; and (iii) the agreement as a whole was not unconscionable.

  • DeMidio v. REV Recreation Group, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00326-WCL-SLC (N.D. Ind. Apr. 10, 2018)

    04/10/2018

    Court rejected motion to compel arbitration, finding that there was no valid arbitration agreement among the parties where the document containing the provision was not provided to the claimants until after they executed the sales agreement.

  • Dragonfly Capital Partners, LLC v. Schnaier, No. 1:15-CV-07190-ER (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2018)

    04/10/2018

    Court granted motion to confirm AAA arbitration award, declining to review the arbitrator’s decision on the merits of damages.  Court granted prejudgment interest, as well as attorney’s fees in connection with the motion.

  • Anderson v. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society, No. 6:18-CV-02008-MWB (N.D. Iowa Apr. 10, 2018)

    04/10/2018

    Court, applying a de novo standard of review, rejected in part magistrate judge’s recommendation, declining to stay proceedings on one of the plaintiff’s claims, but agreeing to compel arbitration with respect to the other.

  • LegalForce RAPC Worldwide, P.C. v. LegalZoom.Com, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-07194-MMC (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2018)

    04/10/2018

    Court granted in part motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings.  Court held that one of the plaintiffs was party to the arbitration agreement and therefore bound thereby, while the other was not, and left challenges as to the agreement’s validity to the arbitrator.  Court further held that all of the claims before it were subject to arbitration. 

  • KT Corporation v. ABS Holdings, Ltd., No. 1:17-CV-07859-LGS (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2018)

    04/10/2018

    Court denied petition to vacate partial ICC award and granted cross-petition to confirm the award and recoup related attorneys’ fees and costs. Court rejected arguments that the arbitral panel had exceeded its authority or otherwise acted in manifest disregard of the law.

  • Robinson v. American Family Care, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-00116-SGC (N.D. Ala. Apr. 10, 2018)

    04/10/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and responsive motion to stay proceedings.  Court reasoned that plaintiff’s bringing a claim did preclude it from obtaining a stay under the FAA.

  • Folck v. Lennar Corporation, No. 3:17-CV-00992-L-NLS (S.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2018)

    04/10/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration pending jury trial on the issue of whether the plaintiff consented to an arbitration agreement.  Court reasoned there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the plaintiff consented to an arbitration agreement and its authenticity, but denied the plaintiff’s arguments that the defendants had waived any existing right to arbitration or that the agreement was unconscionable because of its provisions for confidentiality, attorneys’ fees, limitations on discovery, and unilateral modification.

  • Aimiuwu v. AT&T Services, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-03952-CAP (N.D. Ga. Apr. 9, 2018)

    04/09/2018

    Magistrate judge recommended granting motion to compel arbitration, finding that a valid arbitration governed the dispute and rejecting the plaintiff’s challenges as to its authenticity.

  • Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Rahimzadeh, No. 3:17-CV-02126-JCH (D. Conn. Apr. 9, 2018)

    04/09/2018

    Court granted petition to compel arbitration.  Court rejected arguments that it lacked jurisdiction to compel arbitration, that the agreement was void as a matter of state franchise law, or that the underlying claims (filed in state court) did not arise from the agreement containing the arbitration provision.

  • Lee v. Brock Services, No. 1:17-CV-00272-LG-RHW (S.D. Miss. Apr. 9, 2018)

    04/09/2018

    Court granted unopposed motion to compel arbitration and dismissed proceedings with prejudice upon finding that all claims at issue were subject to the arbitration agreement.

  • Altruist, LLC v. Medex Patient Transport, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-01179 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 9, 2018)

    04/09/2018

    Court granted motion to confirm AAA arbitration award.  Court denied argument that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law in his determination on whether rescission was proper, calculation of related damages, reading of the franchise agreement, application of relevant state law, and imposition of joint and several liability.  Court denied attorney’s feels in connection with the confirmation proceedings but granted post-judgment interest.

  • The Queen's Medical Center v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, No. 1:17-CV-00361-JMS-RLP (D. Haw. Apr. 9, 2018)

    04/09/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Court rejected arguments that the parties’ agreement was not governed by the FAA or was otherwise invalid because it lacked certain terms.  Court likewise did not find persuasive the defendant’s argument that the plaintiff’s appointed arbitrator had a disqualifying conflict, noting that courts lack the power to disqualify an arbitrator before the arbitration is complete, but may only act to vacate an award for bias after one is rendered.

  • Hudgins v. Total Quality Logistics, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-07331 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 9, 2018)

    04/09/2018

    Court granted motion to dismiss claims of two plaintiffs in a class action for whom arbitration agreements had been belatedly found.  Court reasoned that there had been no waiver of the right to arbitrate, as there had been no prejudice and defendant had promptly requested arbitration upon locating the agreements and agreed to toll the statute of limitations.

  • Aguirre v. Vivint Solar Developer, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-01197-JLT (E.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2018)

    04/09/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings, finding that a valid arbitration agreement governed the claims at issue.  Court held that even though the agreement was procedurally oppressive, it was not substantively unconscionable. 

  • Milfort v. Comcast Cable Communications Management, No. 0:17-CV-62576-KMM (S.D. Fla. April 9, 2018)

    04/09/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding that the agreement between the parties contained a valid arbitration clause, which survived the termination of services by defendant.

  • Metayer v. IEC US Holdings, Inc., No. 0:18-CV-60545-UU (S.D. Fla. April 9, 2018)

    04/09/2018

    Court ordered a stay of litigation pending the resolution of arbitration in response to a joint motion of the parties pursuant to § 3 of the FAA. Court found claims before it to be arbitrable and that the parties had a valid arbitration agreement that extended to additional non-signatory defendant who had agreed to arbitrate claims.

  • Tassy v. Lindsay Entertainment Enterprises, Inc., 3:16-CV-00077-TBR (W.D. Ky. Apr. 6, 2018)

    04/06/2018

    Court granted motion to compel the discovery necessary to resolve the threshold issue of arbitrability.

  • Rogers v. SWEPI LP, No. 2:16-CV-00999-JLG-KAJ (S.D. Ohio Apr. 6, 2018)

    04/06/2018

    Court granted motion to stay proceedings pending interlocutory appeal of its decision to deny motion to compel arbitration, reasoning that it was without jurisdiction to hear further proceedings until the question of arbitrability was resolved.

  • Brown v Credit One Bank, N.A., No. 2:17-CV-00786-JAD-VCF (D. Nev. Apr. 6, 2018)

    04/06/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration.  Court denied to enforce an arbitration agreement against a non-signatory under a theory of estoppel, finding that the claims at issue did not arise from that agreement and that the claimant had not benefitted therefrom.

  • Moody v. Navient Solutions, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-01805-BYP (N.D. Ohio Apr. 6, 2018)

    04/06/2018

    Court granted unopposed motion to confirm arbitration award, finding that under AAA Rules and the FAA, the arbitrator’s decision to modify the award to correct a typographical error, while denying a petition to revisions that he viewed as a substantive challenge to the award, was proper.

  • Rahmany v. Subway Sandwich Shops, INC., No. 17-35094 (9th Cir. Apr. 5, 2018)

    04/05/2018

    Court of appeals reversed district court’s order granting motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the case.  Court reasoned that because the defendant was a non-signatory to the agreement on which it sought to rely to compel arbitration, and because the plaintiff’s claims, in any case, did not arise therefrom, the district court erred in compelling arbitration.

  • Cvoro v. Carnival Corporation, No. 1:16-CV-21559-FAM (S.D. Fla. Apr. 5, 2018)

    04/05/2018

    Court denied petition to vacate arbitral award, holding that arbitrator’s refusal to offer a remedy available by US statute but not under Panamanian law, which governed the arbitration, did not violate US public policy.

  • Coyne v. Hewlett-Packard Company, No. 1:16-CV-01694-RCL (D.D.C. Apr. 5, 2018)

    04/05/2018

    Court denied motion to vacate arbitration award and granted sealed motion to confirm it.  Court rejected petitioner’s arguments that the arbitrator had exceeded his powers or manifestly disregarded the applicable law of unjust enrichment.

  • Hubbell v. NCR Corporation, No. 2:17-CV-00807-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio Apr. 5, 2018)

    04/05/2018

    Court granted motion for a stay pending limited discovery in support of the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, determining that factors within the court’s discretion favored a limited stay.

  • Golden Gate National Senior Care, LLC v. Brown, 5:17-CV-00153-JMH (E.D. Ky. Apr. 5, 2018)

    04/05/2018

    Court, inter alia, granted motion to compel arbitration.  Court rejected argument that the arbitration agreement did not sufficiently involve interstate commerce to be actionable under the FAA or that it was unconscionable as a contract of adhesion that imposed higher costs on plaintiffs and truncated discovery.  However, the court declined to compel non-signatory plaintiff to arbitrate his independent claim.

  • Youssofi v. Credit One Financial, No. 17-55275 (9th Cir. Apr. 4, 2018)

    04/04/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed judgment compelling arbitration, holding that the constitutional first amendment right to petition was not implicated by enforcement of arbitration agreements, as no state action is involved.

  • Elmy v. Western Express, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01199 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 4, 2018)

    04/04/2018

    Court granted motion to stay proceedings in connection with a motion to compel arbitration pending resolution of a case before the Supreme Court.  Court reasoned that because the pending case implicated considerations at issue in the proceedings before it (namely, (i) whether the applicability of the FAA is a threshold question a court must determine before compelling arbitration and (ii) whether certain transportation-worker agreements trigger its application), a stay was appropriate, as it would further judicial efficiency without undue prejudice.

  • Fireman's Fund Insurance Company v. Regions Insurance, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00195-GHD-DAS (N.D. Miss. Apr. 3, 2018)

    04/03/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, but declined to dismiss proceedings in light of remaining claims not subject to arbitration, staying the case instead.  Court noted that parties did not dispute the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and ruled that the dispute fell within its broad scope.  Court further granted motion to compel arbitration of a cross-claim brought by a third-party non-signatory on the theory of direct-benefit estoppel.

  • 16th Street Investments, LLC v. KTJ 216, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00174-WGY-ARS (D.N.D. Apr. 3, 2018)

    04/03/2018

    Court confirmed arbitration award, declining to permit a third party complaint by defendant seeking indemnity and contribution from non-diverse third parties and rejecting defendant’s argument that its award obligation should be reduced because it had previously tendered partial payment.

  • Freedom Investors Corp. v. Gantan, No. 4:17-CV-03914-SBA (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2018)

    04/03/2018

    Court denied petition to vacate FINRA arbitration award and granted cross-petition to confirm it, rejecting petitioner’s  argument that the arbitrators had exceeded their authority or ignored controlling law.

  • BEA Mountain Mining Corporation v. International Construction & Engineering (Seychelles), No. 1:17-CV-01374-LO-MSN (E.D. Va. Apr. 3, 2018)

    04/03/2018

    Magistrate judge recommended confirmation of an arbitral award, finding that plaintiff had met all requirements under the New York convention.  Court recommended against awarding costs, as plaintiff requested costs generically, but failed to provide specific amounts.

  • Virtu KCG Holdings LLC v. Li, No. 2:17-CV-08296-SDW-CLW (D.N.J. Apr. 3, 2018)

    04/03/2018

    Court granted motion for automatic stay pending the defendant’s appeal of its denial of its earlier motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court noted that such appeals automatically stayed proceedings unless frivolous or forfeited.

  • Chelsea Grand, LLC v. New York Hotel and Motel Trades Council, AFL-CIO, No. 17-1711-CV (2d Cir. Apr. 3, 2018)

    04/03/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s confirmation of an arbitration award, ruling that the arbitrator had acted within the scope of his authority.

  • Cornell University v. Illumina Inc., 1:10-CV-00433-LPS-MPT (D. Del. Apr. 3, 2018)

    04/03/2018

    Court adopted magistrate judge’s recommendation to compel arbitration, rejecting arguments that the arbitration agreement did not sufficiently cover the dispute.

  • Vision Healthcare Systems (International) PTY, LTD v. Vision Software Technologies, Inc., 3:15-CV-00175 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 2, 2018)

    04/02/2018

    Court granted application of entry of arbitration award as final judgment, rejecting defendant’s argument that arbitrator had exceeded his powers by allegedly misinterpreting the contract, because it was clear that the arbitrator had analyzed the relevant provision.

  • Lagrone v. Omnova Solutions, No. 1:16-CV-00159-SA-DAS (N.D. Miss Mar. 31, 2018)

    03/31/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that plaintiffs’ claims were covered by the arbitration contract.  Court held that disputes as to whether conditions precedent to arbitration had been satisfied were presumptively for the arbitrator to decide.

  • In Re Samsung Galaxy Smartphone Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, 5:16-CV-06391-BLF (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2018)

    03/30/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration with respect to those plaintiffs who had assented to – but not for those who had opted out of – arbitration agreements and stayed all claims.  Court granted motion to dismiss class action claims for those plaintiffs subject to valid arbitration agreement.

  • Smith v. Medidata Solutions, Inc., 3:16-CV-01689-L-JLB (S.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2018)

    03/30/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the arbitration agreement was supported by consideration and therefore valid, and that the dispute fell within its scope.  Court then rejected plaintiff’s various objections to the enforceability of the arbitration agreement, finding, inter alia, that even though the contract was one of adhesion it did not suffer from substantive unconscionability because it carved out defendant’s right to file certain claims in court, imposed certain costs, and

  • Best Effort First Time, LLC v. Southside Oil, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00825-GLR (D. Md. Mar. 30, 2018)

    03/30/2018

    Court granted with respect to certain claims motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that although the parties had delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator by incorporating AAA rules, the claim that the dispute fell within an arbitration clause was so frivolous that it need not leave the question to the arbitrator.  Court then ruled that the agreement was valid, but applied only to some of the claims brought by plaintiffs.

  • Bracey v. Lancaster Foods LLC, No. 1:17-CV-01826-RDB (D. Md. Mar. 30, 2018)

    03/30/2018

    Court granted motion to dismiss proceedings upon finding that the claims at issue had to be arbitrated.  Court rejected, inter alia, plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable as unconscionable because it imposed  a shorter statute of limitations than the applicable legislation.

  • Wardlow v. U-Haul International, Inc., No. 6:17-CV-01100-AA (D. Or. Mar. 30, 2018)

    03/30/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings.  Court held that the arbitration clause covered the dispute at issue and rejected plaintiff’s argument that it could not be applied because it was unconscionable.  Specifically, court held that mere inequality of bargaining power did not render an agreement procedurally unconscionable, that the agreement was not so inconspicuous as to constitute an improper surprise, and that the agreement was not so unfair and one-sided as to be substantively unconscionable. 

  • Thunderbird Resorts Inc. v. Zimmer, No. 3:15-CV-01304-JAH-BGS (S.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2018)

    03/30/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, ruling that the arbitration agreement was sufficiently broad to cover all claims at issue, and held that motion to domesticate a Hong Kong ICC arbitration award between plaintiff and one of the defendants was therefore premature.

  • Ohio Valley Aluminum Company, LLC v. Hydratech Industries US, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00051-GFVT (E.D. Ky. Mar. 30, 2018)

    03/30/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the arbitration agreement was valid and rejected plaintiff’s argument that arbitration in Denmark would be unduly burdensome (treating it as a contention as to the contract’s unconscionability).  Court declined to stay proceedings, as all issues before it were arbitrable, and dismissed the matter.

  • Christus St. Vincent Regional Medical Center v. District 1199NM, National Union of Hospital and Healthcare Employees, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, No. 1:17-CV-00452-JB-KK (D.N.M. Mar. 30, 2018)

    03/30/2018

    Court denied petition to vacate arbitration award and granted motion to confirm it, finding that plaintiff had not demonstrated that the arbitrator had exceeded his authority or that the award was contrary to public policy.  However, court denied motion to award attorneys’ fees or costs in connection with the petition, finding that plaintiff had not acted in bad faith in bringing it.

  • Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC v. Insurance Company of North America, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00715-DLC (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2018)

    03/29/2018

    Court ruled that claims before it must be submitted to arbitration and stayed proceedings.  Court held that although the presumption that it is for the arbitrator to decide questions of waiver could be reversed, because the conduct of which plaintiff complained occurred entirely outside the court, it remained for the arbitrator to adjudicate.  Court further ruled that by incorporating AAA rules, the parties had delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator as well.

  • Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association, INC. v. Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association of San Diego, INC., No. 3:17-CV-01690-BTM-JLB (S.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2018)

    03/29/2018

    Court granted application to confirm a JAMS arbitration award.  Court denied argument that such a request may only be filed as a motion (rather than application) and likewise rejected respondent’s argument that the arbitrator had exceeded the scope of his authority.

  • Coots v. Western Refining Retail, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00838-JCH-LF (D.N.M. Mar. 29, 2018)

    03/29/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court held that a valid arbitration agreement governed the dispute, rejecting plaintiff’s argument that the agreement was unsupported by consideration.  Court further rejected plaintiff’s argument that the agreement was unconscionable, finding that he had not met his burden of proof.

  • Garcia v. TEMPOE, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-02106-SDW-LDW (D.N.J. Mar. 29, 2018)

    03/29/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, rejecting plaintiffs’ argument that the agreement was unconscionable because it precluded treble damages, potential punitive damages, and one-way fee shifting available under the applicable statutes in court.

  • Maher v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 1:17-CV-00753 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 29, 2018)

    03/29/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration after determining that the parties had mutually agreed to arbitrate and that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration clause.

  • Border Area Mental Health, Inc. v. United Behavioral Health, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01213-MV-SCY (D.N.M. Mar. 28, 2018)

    03/28/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Court rejected as irrelevant plaintiffs’ argument that their claims fell outside the scope of the arbitration agreement, finding that because the parties had incorporated AAA rules they had agreed to delegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

  • Blackberry Limited v. Nokia Corporation, No. 1:17-CV-00155-RGA (D. Del. Mar. 28, 2018)

    03/28/2018

    Court denied without prejudice motion to compel arbitration.  Court reasoned that the agreement did not cover claims against a third party beneficiary, further rejecting defendants’ equitable estoppel theory for why the court should nevertheless compel arbitration.

  • Davis v. USA Nutra Labs, No. 1:15-CV-01107-MV-SCY (D.N.M. Mar. 28, 2018)

    03/28/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, rejecting plaintiff’s arguments that she had not entered into the arbitration agreement or that it was otherwise unconscionable, as well as her contention that the claims at issue did not fall within the scope of the agreement.

  • Star Development Group, LLC v. Constructure Management, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01246-RDB (D. Md. Mar. 28, 2018)

    03/28/2018

    Court granted motion to compel AAA arbitral award and award attorneys’ fees, denying plaintiffs’ petition to vacate.  Court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the arbitral tribunal had manifestly disregarded the law or made irrational fact-findings in denying their delay damages and granting one of defendants’ claims.

  • Continental Casualty Company v. Hopeman Brothers, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00688-ALC (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2018)

    03/27/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, determining that the arbitration agreement was sufficiently broad to cover the scope of the parties’ dispute.  Court rejected plaintiffs arguments that defendant had waived its right to arbitrate by initiating proceedings against other plaintiffs in the dispute who were not parties to the arbitration agreement.

  • Hearn v. Oriole Shipping, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-02759-MMB (E.D. Pa. Mar. 27, 2018)

    03/27/2018

    Court denied without prejudice motion to stay any contribution or indemnity action relating to an admiralty action pending arbitration, reasoning that such contribution or indemnity fell outside the relevant contract.

  • Wholesalecars.com v. Hutcherson, No. 2:16-CV-00155 (N.D. Ala. Mar. 27, 2018)

    03/27/2018

    Court denied motion to vacate arbitration award obtained by defendant in her own name, in spite of having initiated bankruptcy proceedings, reasoning that her failure to inform creditors and the bankruptcy estate of her action and corresponding lack of standing did not affect the arbitrator’s decision and thus did not constitute fraud for purposes of invalidating the award under the FAA.  However, court agreed to estop defendant from enforcing the award for those same reasons, including her denial under oath of the suit.

  • Fields v. Trans Union, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-02939-CDJ (E.D. Pa. Mar. 27, 2018)

    03/27/2018

    Court granted a defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of the claims filed against it.  Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable as unconscionable, finding unpersuasive her contention that the form of the agreement was so convoluted as to be procedurally unconscionable or that the cost and discovery consequences of arbitrating her claims made it substantively unconscionable.  Nor did the court agree that the agreement was one-sided.

  • MDL 2048 Cox Enterprises, Inc., No. 5:12-ML-02048-C (W.D. Okla. Mar. 27, 2018)

    03/27/2018

    Court denied motion for leave to file an amended complaint in a multi-district litigation as futile upon finding that each of the proposed substitute plaintiffs was subject to arbitration.  Court rejected arguments that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable as a contract of adhesion given the way it was presented to plaintiffs.

  • Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Professional Installations, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-04591-DAB (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2018)

    03/27/2018

    Court granted the petition to confirm the arbitration award.  Court concluded that the arbitrator was acting within the scope of his authority, as granted by the agreements.  Based on the record provided, court found that there was no disputed material issue of fact, and therefore confirmed the arbitration award.

  • Airtourist Holdings LLC v. HNA Group, No. 4:17-CV-04989-JSW (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2018)
    03/27/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court found that plaintiffs’ claims were subject to the broad arbitration clauses in the agreements, as each of the formative contracts contained broadly-worded dispute resolution provisions requiring mandatory arbitration of “[a]ny unresolved controversy or claim arising out of or relating to” the parties’ contracts. Court also held that defendants were entitled to enforce the agreements against non-signatories pursuant to the agency doctrine and as third-party beneficiaries of the agreements.

  • Golden Gate National Senior Care, LLC v. Stambaugh, No. 5:17-CV-00161-KKC (E.D. Ky. Mar. 26, 2018)

    03/26/2018

    Court denied motion to dismiss complaint seeking to compel defendant estate to arbitrate claims the estate had filed in state court.  Court dismissed argument that it lacked diversity jurisdiction to hear the complaint or that the FAA was inapplicable because the claim did not sufficiently concern interstate commerce.  Court further rejected arguments that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable because it was part of a mass-produced contract, incorporated JAMS rules, and would truncate discovery.

  • Call v. Harris Stowe State University, No. 4:17-CV-01548-HEW (W.D. Mo. Mar. 26, 2018)

    03/26/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that defendants had waived their right to arbitrate, holding that the case had seen little activity since being commenced and that plaintiff had herself amended her complaint to add a claim that led defendants to remove the action to federal court and to move to compel arbitration.

  • Campbell Investments, LLC v. Dickey's Barbecue Restaurants, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00832-DB (D. Utah Mar. 26, 2018)

    03/26/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that defendant failed to demonstrate that plaintiffs had agreed to arbitrate the claims.  Specifically, court rejected arguments that an agreement that bound the previous owners of a franchise locations or that specifically applied to a wholly separate location (that was also not in existence at the time) could bind plaintiffs to arbitrate.

  • Jesmar Energy, Inc.. v. Range Resources – Appalachia, LLC., No. 2:17-CV-00928-LPL (W.D. Pa. Mar. 26, 2018)

    03/26/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court held that no valid arbitration agreement existed, rejecting a reading of an assignment agreement that would have incorporated arbitration obligations contained in the assigned lease.

  • Willett v. Ally Bank, No. 2:17-CV-02472-JAR-GLR (D. Kan. Mar. 26, 2018)

    03/26/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement was valid under Arkansas state law.

  • Thomas v. PFG Transco, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00785-ALM (E.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2018)

    03/25/2018

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court rejected a unified theory for treating the allegedly intertwined claims against two defendants, only one of whom was a signatory to an arbitration agreement.  Court reasoned that parties to the agreement had delegated the arbitrability decision and granted motion to compel those claims, staying related proceedings; however, court declined to compel arbitration against remaining non-signatory defendants and ordered that they proceed.

  • Stati v. Republic of Kazakhstan, No. 1:14-CV-01638-ABJ (D.D.C. Mar. 23, 2018)

    03/23/2018

    Court denied the defendant’s motion to reconsider its request to submit additional defense grounds and confirmed arbitration award.  Court held that the arbitral seat had already denied the defendant’s arguments that the award had been fraudulently obtained and that the court itself had committed no error either in law or in fact in rejecting the defendant’s fraud-based defense to enforcement.  Court then held that none of the NY Convention grounds for declining to enforce the award applied and granted motion to confirm arbitral award.

  • Zoller v. UBS Securities LLC, No. 1:16-CV-11277 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 23, 2018)

    03/23/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration with respect to one claimant and to dismiss the claims of another, reasoning that the arbitration agreement did not apply to putative class and collective action claims by operation of FINRA Rule 13209, which it deemed incorporated into the arbitration agreements.  Court, however, rejected plaintiffs’ parallel theories based on the argument that a FINRA arbitration would be “prohibitively expensive,” that they had been fraudulently induced to accept the arbitration clause itself, and that the defendant had waived its right to litigate.

  • H.H. Franchising Systems, Inc. v. Pawson, No. 1:17-CV-00368-SJD (S.D. Ohio Mar. 23, 2018)

    03/23/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court agreed that the arbitration agreement expressly included a large claim exception to arbitration and ruled that the exception applied, and was neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable.  Court further held that its conclusion regarding large claims mooted the defendants’ argument that only claims seeking injunctive relief could be excluded from arbitration under the contractual exemption of injunctive claims from the arbitration agreement.

  • Restea v. Brown Harris Stevens LLC, No. 1:17-CV-04801-VEC-GWG (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2018)

    03/23/2018

    Magistrate judge recommended that motion to compel be granted and the case dismissed.  Court determined that a valid arbitration agreement governed the parties’ dispute and dismissed contrary arguments.  Court further held that dismissal was proper as neither party had requested a stay.

  • Remington v. Shwinco Architectural Products, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00750-TFM (M.D. Ala. Mar. 23, 2018)

    03/23/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, reasoning that a valid arbitration agreement appeared to govern the dispute, but that, in any case, the parties’ joint stipulation as to arbitration filed with the court constituted a valid agreement to arbitrate the claims at issue.

  • Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner &  Smith Incorporated v. Thompson, No. 2:17-CV-02648-CM-KGS (D. Kan. Mar. 23, 2018)

    03/23/2018

    Court, inter alia, granted motion to compel FINRA arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that a valid arbitral agreement governed the parties’ dispute.

  • Franklin v. H&R Block, No. 4:16-CV-00666-JAR (W.D. Mo. Mar. 23, 2018)

    03/23/2018

    Court granted motion to enforce arbitration award under the FAA, noting that it had been timely filed and that the plaintiff had waived her right to proffer any defenses to such enforcement by her failure to timely file a motion to vacate or modify the award under the FAA.

  • Rodriguez v. Echosphere, L.L.C., No. 3:18-CV-00063-DCG (W.D. Tex. Mar. 23, 2018)

    03/23/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to remand, which asserted that defendant failed to prove complete diversity of citizenship or that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs.  The parties’ contract contained a stipulation that barred recovery in excess of $74,999, which defendant contended was not truly binding because the arbitration clause expressly withdrew all the limitations on damages.  Court noted that the parties only located two cases addressing this precise issue nationwide, both of which held that the stipulation was binding.

  • Begole v. North Mississippi Medical Center, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00033-SA-DAS (N.D. Miss. Mar. 23, 2018)

    03/23/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the parties had a valid agreement to arbitrate plaintiff’s claims.  Court found that, even reading the arbitration clause narrowly, plaintiff’s claims arose from duties imposed by the contract and were therefore subject to arbitration.  Court also found that the individual defendant, as the corporate defendant’s agent, had the right to compel arbitration.

  • Sidney v. Verizon Communications, No. 1:17-CV-01850-RJD-RLM (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2018)

    03/23/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, holding that plaintiff failed to substantiate his complaint of unconscionability and did not otherwise challenge the validity of the applicable arbitration agreement, and that the parties’ dispute fell within the agreement’s scope.  Court noted that where arbitration agreements are valid and enforceable, so are any class action waivers contained therein.

  • Andreoli v. Youngevity International, Inc., 3:16-CV-02922-BTM-JLB (S.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2018)

    03/23/2018

    Among its other dispositions, court denied without prejudice motion to compel one of the claims, holding that defendants failed to satisfy their burden of proving the existence of an agreement when they submitted a blank contract with no signatures or names.

  • Oliver v. First Century Bank, N.A., No. 3:17-CV-00620-MMA-KSC (S.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2018)

    03/22/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of its order compelling arbitration.  Court explained that if plaintiff did not challenge a delegation clause specifically, then the court must treat it as valid under FAA § 2, and enforce it under §§ 3 and 4, leaving any challenge to the validity of the agreement as a whole for the arbitrator.  Court also determined that under Rent-A-Ctr., W., Inc. v. Jackson, 51 U.S. 63 (2010), the party seeking to avoid arbitration bears the burden of raising specific arbitrability challenges, including a challenge to the enforceability of the delegation clause.

  • GGNSC Louisville St. Matthews LLC v. Badgett, No. 17-5963 (6th Cir. Mar. 22, 2018)

    03/22/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court, which denied petitioners-appellants’ motion to compel arbitration.  The deceased had signed an arbitration agreement at one nursing home, but later disclaimed an identical agreement at a facility owned by the same parent company.  Court explained that because the second arbitration agreement was a novation of the first agreement and clearly expressed the intent of the parties, no valid arbitration agreement existed.

  • Balkan Energy Limited v. Republic of Ghana, No. 1:17-CV-00584-APM (D.D.C. Mar. 22, 2018)

    03/22/2018

    Court granted the petition to confirm a foreign arbitral award rendered against the Republic of Ghana by the Permanent Court of Arbitration.  Court held that (i) the FSIA arbitration exception applied, (ii) the forum non conveniens doctrine did not apply to actions in the US to enforce arbitral awards against foreign nations, and (iii) petitioners had standing to seek confirmation and enforcement of the award.  Court also found that none of Ghana’s arguments—that the arbitration agreement was invalid under Ghanian law, that the parties did not agree to submit the question of the validity of the arbitration clause to the tribunal, and that recognition of the award would be contrary to US public policy—supplied a defense to the confirmation of the award.

  • A.D. v. Credit One Bank, N.A., No. 17-1486 (7th Cir. Mar. 22, 2018)

    03/22/2018

    Court of appeals reversed the judgment of the district court, which granted defendant-appellee’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff-appellant was not bound by the terms of the agreement to arbitrate, as she did not directly benefit from the agreement such that equitable principles convinced the court to apply the arbitration clause against her.  Additionally, court found that plaintiff-appellant had not consented to arbitration and did not have legal capacity to enter into a contractual relationship with defendant-appellee.

  • Nieto v. 2249 Corp., No. 1:16-CV-07947-LAP (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2018)

    03/22/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, reasoning that the plaintiffs had raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether an arbitration agreement had been made and ordered that the court would proceed summarily to a trial addressing this question.

  • Vyas v. Doctor’s Associates, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01774-JCH (D. Conn. Mar. 21, 2018)

    03/21/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitration award and granted defendant’s motion to confirm.  Court held that (i) the arbitrator’s denial of plaintiff’s requests to arbitrate did not constitute misconduct sufficient to vacate the ex parte award, (ii) the arbitrator’s reservation of judgment with respect to plaintiff’s motion to preclude claimant from calling undisclosed witnesses did not constitute prejudicial behavior pursuant to FAA § 10(a)(3), and (iii) plaintiff failed to show that the arbitrator’s denial of the motion to compel testimony from a certain witness constituted misconduct.  Court also held that neither the process by which the arbitrator was appointed nor the appointment of the arbitrator himself violated FAA § 10(a)(4).

  • Stroman v. Barefoot, No. 3:17-CV-02760-CMC (D.S.C. Mar. 21, 2018)

    03/21/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration.  Court concluded that (i) nothing in plaintiff’s arguments suggested that defendants waived the right to enforce the arbitration agreement by offering a pre-litigation alternative dispute resolution option or by any action they took during mediation; (ii) it was enough that plaintiff understood that she was accepting an agreement by her actions, even if she was discouraged from reading the agreement; (iii) plaintiff’s unconscionability argument was based on speculation as to possible total costs of arbitration, which was insufficient to establish unconscionability; and (iv) enforcement of a private agreement under the FAA does not raise due process or other constitutional concerns.

  • Lee v. Burlington Coat Factory of Missouri, LLC, No. 4:17-CV-02467-AGF (E.D. Mo. Mar. 21, 2018)

    03/21/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff accepted the offer to arbitrate by failing to opt out in a timely fashion and that the agreement was supported by valid consideration in the form of mutual promises to arbitrate claims.  Court also noted that, although plaintiff did not explicitly assert one, it would also reject any legal argument based on the prominence (or alleged lack thereof) of the terms of the arbitration agreement.

  • Tallakoy LP v. Black Fire Energy, Inc., No. 7:14-CV-00180-KKC-EBA (E.D. Ky. Mar. 20, 2018)

    03/20/2018

    Court granted plaintiffs’ renewed motion to confirm the arbitration award following remand.  Sixth Circuit had disagreed with the district court’s conclusion that issuance by an arbitrator, without more, deemed an award “filed” or “delivered” under the FAA.  On remand, court found that defendants’ challenge to the arbitration award was untimely and the court’s analysis of the effect of that untimeliness and of the general validity of the award was undisturbed.

  • Perry v. Kingsland Capital Management LLC, No. 1:16-CV-04305-DAB (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2018)

    03/20/2018

    Court denied petition to vacate arbitration award and granted motion to confirm it.  Court denied argument that the arbitrator had exceeded his powers or manifestly disregarded the terms of the parties’ agreement in reaching his decision regarding fees.

  • Van Rooyen v. Greystone Home Builders, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-10895-RHC-MKM (N.D. Tex. Mar. 19, 2018)

    03/19/2018

    Court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or improper venue, and granted their alternative motion to transfer.  Court noted that the fifth circuit has recognized six theories for binding a non-signatory to a contract’s arbitration clause:  incorporation by reference, assumption, agency, veil-piercing ego, estoppel, and third party beneficiary theory.  Court concluded that the principle of estoppel made the contract’s forum-selection clause binding on the non-signatories, as the claims against the remaining defendants were intertwined with and dependent upon the contract containing the forum-selection clause.

  • Pao Tatneft v. Ukraine, No. 1:17-CV-00582-CKK (D.D.C. Mar. 19, 2018)

    03/19/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss, motion for leave to take jurisdictional discovery, and motion to stay, holding in abeyance plaintiff’s petition for enforcement of the arbitration award.  Court rejected defendant’s argument that the FSIA arbitration exception did not apply to the instant case because plaintiff is a state-controlled entity and declined to stay the action while an appeal in France was ongoing because the proceeding had been “deactivated” due to an unpaid order of legal costs.  Court asked for additional briefing from plaintiff in response to defendant’s opposition to the enforcement of the award, which argued that the tribunal was improperly constituted and that the award was contrary to US public policy.

  • Matalka v. Home Point Financial Corporation, No. 2:17-CV-00155-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio Mar. 19, 2018)

    03/19/2018

    Court denied the motion to compel arbitration, concluding that the parties agreed to arbitrate claims relating to plaintiff’s work as a branch manager, but not plaintiff’s work as a regional manager.  Court rejected defendant’s contention that the arbitrator was to decide the arbitrability of the case, as plaintiff’s claims did not arise out of or relate, directly or indirectly, to the branch manager agreement.

  • Dodson International Parts, Inc. v. Williams International Co., No. 2:16-CV-02212-JAR-KGS (D. Kan. Mar. 19, 2018)

    03/19/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for modification of stay order, which asked the court to permit the parties to issue subpoenas for the purpose of compelling witnesses to attend depositions and provide documents.  Court determined that it need not decide whether FAA § 7 permits the discovery plaintiff seeks, as plaintiff should have petitioned another court (the district court for the district in which the arbitrator sits).

  • DISH Network L.L.C. v. Open Orbit Corporation, No. 1:16-CV-02083-LTB (D. Colo. Mar. 19, 2018)

    03/19/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s application to confirm an arbitration award, holding that the award could be enforced against individual defendant.  Court noted that, even though the defendant was not a party to the arbitration, he had notice of the arbitration and participated in it.

  • Developers Surety and Indemnity Co. v. Carothers Construction, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00875-JBA (D. Conn. Mar. 19, 2018)

    03/19/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied defendant’s request to transfer.  Court concluded that the arbitration provision in question did not cover the plaintiff, as it referenced the subcontractor but not the surety, i.e. plaintiff.  Court also rejected defendant’s argument that plaintiff was estopped from seeking to avoid arbitration, noting that defendant presented little evidence of plaintiff having received a direct benefit from the agreement.

  • Peco Foods Inc. v. Retail Wholesale and Department Store Union Mid-South Council, No. 17-13269 (11th Cir. Mar. 15, 2018)

    03/15/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of motion to vacate arbitral award, finding award did not violate public policy and that arbitrator did not exceed his authority by finding that party waived its challenge to the timeliness of request for arbitration.

  • Walker v. Huyandai Capital America, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00045-WTM-GRS (S.D. Ga. Mar. 15, 2018)

    03/15/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that assignee of lender in car loan agreement was entitled to rely on arbitration agreement in car purchase agreement executed at same time.

  • Bankers Conseco Life Insurance Company v. Feuer, No. 1:16-CV-07646-ER (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2018)

    03/15/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that signatory was required to arbitrate claims against a non-signatory under a theory of equitable estoppel.

  • Ayala v. Ace Cash Express, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-02166-AJB-WVG (S.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2018)

    03/15/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that arbitral agreement was not procedurally or substantively unconscionable.

  • The Centercap Group, LLC v. Optio, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-09823-DAB (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2018)

    03/14/2018

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award and denied cross-motion for vacatur.  Court rejected arguments that the arbitrator had engaged in misconduct or manifestly disregarded the terms of the parties’ agreements.

  • Jordan v. Integrity First Financial Group, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-02994-RBH (D.S.C. Mar. 14, 2018)

    03/14/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that it was substantively unopposed, except with respect to dismissal.  Court also dismissed proceedings, noting that such dismissal was proper where all claims at issue were subject to the arbitration agreement.

  • Roberts v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 3:15-CV-03418-EMC (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2018)

    03/14/2018

    Reconsidering its former ruling, court denied motion to compel arbitration as to California residents (while granting it as to an Alabama resident), finding that arbitration clause containing a clause waiving the right to seek the statutory remedy of public injunctive relief was invalid under newly issued California Supreme Court case.

  • Simmons v. First Premier Bank, N.A., No. 5:17-CV-00376-CAR (M.D. Ga. Mar. 14, 2018)

    03/14/2018

    Court granted in part joint motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that, when all claims are subject to arbitration, the proper course of actions is not to stay all proceedings, but to dismiss without prejudice.

  • Garnick v. Interstate Batteries, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-12026-SFC-APP (E.D. Mich. Mar. 14, 2018)

    03/14/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate and Plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial.

  • Kent Building Services, LLC v. Kessler, No. 1:17-CV-03509-JPO (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2018)

    03/14/2018

    Court denied motion to vacate arbitral award and granted cross-motion to confirm it, finding that the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard New York contract law in finding a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

  • Medic Ambulance Services, Inc. v. United EMS Workers, AFSCME, Local 4911, No. 2:17-CV-01859-KJM-KJN (E.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2018)

    03/14/2018

    Court denied motion to vacate arbitral award and granted cross-motion to confirm it, finding that (i) timing for filing a motion to vacate is governed by California law, not the FAA; and (ii) the arbitrator did not exceed her authority by issuing a precedential award or considering past practice.

  • BOKF, NA v. Estes, No. 3:17-CV-00694-LRH-WGC (D. Nev. Mar. 14, 2018)

    03/14/2018

    After denying motion for preliminary anti-arbitration injunction, court denied motion for an injunction pending appeal, finding that appellant had not established it was likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal; that its claim of irreparable harm was insufficient; and that the balance of the equities was against the injunction.

  • Campos v. DXP Enterprises, Inc., No. 8:18-CV-00103-JLS-DFM (C.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2018)
    03/14/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of wage dispute, and stayed the action pursuant to the FAA. Court found that the plaintiff must show both procedural and substantive unconscionability, however the only argument plaintiff made concerning substantive unconscionability was that the agreement contained “unlawful waivers of plaintiff’s right to bring collective and representative actions,” an argument that was recently rejected by the Supreme Court’s holding in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis. Thus following Supreme Court precedent, the court found the agreement to arbitrate was not unconscionable and enforced it.

  • International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union No. 639 v. Airgas, Incorporated, No. 17-1349 (4th Cir. Mar. 13, 2018)

    03/13/2018

    Court of appeals dismissed appeal from preliminary injunction pending arbitration as moot, since award was issued in the interim.

  • Smith v. Rooney, No. 2:17-CV-01730-JMV-JBC (D.N.J. Mar. 13, 2018)

    03/13/2018

    Court found that arbitrator’s decision was not entitled to preclusive effect under doctrine of collateral estoppel since the arbitrator’s decision did not concern the contractual provisions at issue.

  • Welk Resort Sales v. Bryant, No. 6:17-CV-03197-SWH (W.D. Mo. Mar. 13, 2018)

    03/13/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that movant had not established than an arbitration agreement was formed, and that trial should be set to determine outstanding factual issues as to contract formation.

  • Aetna Inc. v. The People’s Choice Hospital, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-04354-BMS (E.D. Pa. Mar. 13, 2018)

    03/13/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff had not established that non-signatory defendant was agent of signatory to arbitral agreement, and that arbitral agreement was not binding on defendant under an equitable estoppel theory since the claims in the litigation were “far afield” from the contractual obligations subject to arbitration.

  • Nexteer Automotive Corporation v. Korea Delphi Automotive Systems Corporation, No. 2:13-CV-15189-GCS-LJM (E.D. Mich. Mar. 13, 2018)

    03/13/2018

    Court denied motion for attorney fees, finding that provision that attorney fees may be awarded in arbitration agreement did not cover fees and costs of enforcing arbitral award.

  • Rivera-Gómez v. Luxury Hotels International of Puerto Rico, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-03087-ADC (D.P.R. Mar. 13, 2018)

    03/13/2018

    Court granted motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that non-signatory defendant could invoke arbitration agreement signed by other entity in its corporate group.

  • Giddings v. Media Lodge, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-04068-RAL (D.S.D. Mar. 13, 2018)

    03/13/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that (i) defendant had waived right to rely on delegation clause by failing to raise it; (ii) arbitration clause was not unconscionable; and (iii) statutory USERRA claims were within the scope of the arbitration clause and could be arbitrated.

  • Local Union No. 164, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO and IBEW Local 164 Benefit Funds, No. 3:17-CV-11817-FLW-LHG (D.N.J. Mar. 13, 2018)

    03/13/2018

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitral award, finding that an alleged “post-award accord” did not bear on question of whether arbitral award was final and binding.

  • Transocean Offshore Gulf of Guinea VII Limited v. Erin Energy Corporation, No. 4:17-CV-02623 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 12, 2018)

    03/12/2018

    Court granted petition to enforce arbitral award, finding that consent awards are enforceable under the New York Convention.

  • Castellanos v. Raymours Furniture Company, Inc., No 2:17-CV-01923-JFB-ARL (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2018)

    03/12/2018

    Court stayed pending arbitration and rejected request to sever FLSA claims, finding that arbitration agreement’s statute of limitations provision shortening period in which FLSA claims may be brought was unenforceable.

  • Egan v. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00445-MRH (W.D. Pa. Mar. 12, 2018)

    03/12/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration for claim that failure to offer wheelchair-accessible seating during online ticket presales violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, finding that agreement to arbitrate the instant dispute was not formed by acceptance of terms of service in previous, unrelated online ticket purchase, or by logging into account to attempt to make online purchase at issue.

  • Tennessee Tractor, LLC v. WH Administrators, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-02829-STA-EGB (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 12, 2018)

    03/12/2018

    Court granted in part and denied in part motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff who had not signed arbitration agreement was not bound to arbitrate under it, since he was asserting ERISA claims and not claims under the agreement subject to arbitration.

  • International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers-Transportation Division, ET v. CSX Transportation, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-02554-CAB (N.D. Ohio Mar. 12, 2018)

    03/12/2018

    Court granted motion for summary judgment upholding arbitration award of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, finding that the Board was interpreting the relevant agreements and therefore acting within its jurisdiction.

  • Burke v. Borough of Red Bank, No. 3:17-CV-01800-BRM-LHG (D.N.J. Mar. 12, 2018)

    03/12/2018

    Court granted motion to dismiss, insofar as claims arose from Collective Bargaining Agreement subject to arbitration.

  • Olivas v. The Hertz Corporation, No. 3:17-CV-01083-BAS-NLS (S.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2018)

    03/12/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that (i) car renter had accepted rental contract (with its arbitration clause) through the conduct of renting the car, and (ii) question of whether dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration clause was delegated to the arbitrator.

  • Hilton v. Fluent, LLC, No. 9:17-CV-81270-DMM (S.D. Fla. Mar. 12, 2018)

    03/12/2018

    Court deferred defendants’ motions to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiffs raised an issue of fact as to whether an arbitration agreement between the parties existed.  Court found that plaintiffs’ sworn denials that they visited the websites and completed the registration forms depicted in defendants’ screenshots placed at issue the existence of binding agreements, particularly considered in conjunction with the “curious circumstances” under which plaintiffs’ phone numbers came to be associated with other purportedly inaccurate personal data.

  • Binienda v. Atwells Realty Corp., No. 1:15-CV-00253-WES-PAS (D.R.I. Mar. 9, 2018)

    03/09/2018

    Court denied motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that question whether defendant waived its right to compel arbitration due to its litigation conduct was presumptively for court to decide, and that defendant had waived its right to compel arbitration by litigating for two years before asserting it.

  • Harris v. Fujitsu America International, No. 2:17-CV-02563-SHM-CGC (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 9, 2018)

    03/09/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that arbitration agreement could be considered in deciding a motion to dismiss notwithstanding that it was not attached to the complaint, and that plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration.

  • Henderson v. A&D Interests, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00096 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 9, 2018)

    03/09/2018

    Court granted motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, rejecting challenges that the arbitration agreement was illusory and unconscionable, and finding that the agreement had a valid delegation clause.

  • Finastra USA Corporation v. Zepecki, No. 3:18-CV-00725-WHO (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2018)

    03/09/2018

    Court granted temporary restraining order enjoining former employee from participating in state employment agency hearing, finding that employer’s motion to compel arbitration was likely to succeed and that proceeding with state agency hearings would cause irreparable harm.  Court found unpersuasive employee’s argument that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable and that employer had waived its right to arbitrate by refusing mediation.

  • Biggs.  v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00340-JFB-ARL (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2018)
    03/09/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration on an individual basis pursuant to the FAA. Court followed Supreme Court precedent to find that the class action waiver in the agreement was enforceable.

  • Teamsters Local Union No. 135 v. Sysco Indianapolis, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00176-WTL-DLP (S.D. Ind. Mar. 9, 2018)

    03/09/2018

    Court granted summary judgment in award enforcement action, finding that award debtor could not raise defenses to the validity of the award after the period for challenging the award through a vacatur action had expired.

  • Williams-Jackson v. Innovative Senior Care Home Health of Edmond, LLC, No. 17-6168 (10th Cir. Mar. 8, 2018)
    03/08/2018

    Circuit court vacated district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Court found that the mutual promise to arbitrate was not illusory or unsupported by adequate consideration because terms of the agreement were equally binding on both parties, and defendant could not modify the terms unilaterally without giving notice.

  • Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters v. Upright Shoring & Scaffold, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01509-WQH-NLS (S.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2018)

    03/08/2018

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award as to the respondent that was a party to the arbitration proceedings and denying it as to other respondents, finding that respondents who were not party to the arbitration proceedings were not bound by the arbitrator’s determination that they were alter egos of the award debtor.

  • Union de Tronquistas de Puerto Rico, Local 901, No. 3:17-CV-01288-SEC (D.P.R. Mar. 8, 2018)

    03/08/2018

    Court granted summary judgment against claim to vacate arbitral award, finding that the award was not unfounded in reason or fact.

  • Price  v. UBS Financial Services, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-01882-WJM-MF (D.N.J. Mar. 8, 2018)
    03/08/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding under third circuit precedent the defendant had waived its right to seek arbitration because the initial motion to dismiss did not include an arbitration claim and defendant waited over eight months to file this motion to compel.

  • Rideout v. CashCall, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-02817-RFB-VCF (D. Nev. Mar. 8, 2018)
    03/08/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration. Court found the agreement was procedurally and substantively unconscionable and therefore no valid agreement to arbitrate existed. Court further held that the arbitration agreement was invalid because it required exclusive application of Cheyenne River Sioux law, which would cause plaintiff to waive federal statutory rights.

  • Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC v. Calvin, No. 16-3833-CV (2d Cir. Mar. 7, 2018)
    03/07/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of defendant’s petition seeking to compel bilateral rather than class arbitration. Court determined the question of whether contract permitted class arbitration should be determined by the arbitrator and not the court.

  • Cavlovic v. J.C. Penney Corporation, No. 17-3174 (10th Cir. Mar. 7, 2018)
    03/07/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the plaintiff’s allegations were outside the scope of the agreement at issue.

  • Mohammed v. Uber Technologies Inc., No. 1:16-CV-02537 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 7, 2018)
    03/07/2018

    Court had previously denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and held trial on question of whether valid arbitration agreement existed. Finding that a valid agreement did exist, court compelled arbitration pursuant to the FAA.

  • Hall v. CVS Health Corporation, No. 2:17-CV-00289-JOB (N.D. Ala. Mar. 07, 2018)
    03/07/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, holding that there was a genuine dispute of material facts over whether a valid arbitration agreement was formed that required a trial.

  • Pattison v. Great-West Financial Retirement Plan Services, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-02136-GEB (D. Kan. Mar. 7, 2018)
    03/07/2018

    Court denied third-party defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Court found the operative arbitration agreement in this dispute had an exception for certain causes of action including the one presently before the court.

  • Perei v. Arrigo DCJ Sawgrass, Inc., No. 0:18-CV-60091-BB (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2018)
    03/07/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration. Plaintiff argued that the dispute fell outside the scope of the arbitration agreement but court found that the agreement delegated the interpretation of the scope of the agreement to the arbitrators and court was required to enforce the agreement under the FAA.

  • Emericare, Inc.  v. Calvin, No. 1:16-CV-00446-RM-KMT (D. Colo. Mar. 6, 2018)
    03/06/2018

    Magistrate Judge recommended court find in favor of plaintiff’s by compelling arbitration pursuant to the FAA and reject defendant’s request to allow state courts to decide arbitrability.

  • Gergeni.  v. The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society, No. 5:17-CV-04037-LRR (N.D. Iowa. Mar. 6, 2018)
    03/06/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court found that questions of arbitrability had been delegated to arbitrators by incorporation of the AAA arbitration rules, thus the issue of whether the arbitration agreement was procedurally or substantively unconscionable should be decided by arbitrators.

  • Doyle v. AD Astra Recovery Services, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-05233-NLH-AMD (D.N.J. Mar. 6, 2018)
    03/06/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court held that while defendant was not party to the arbitration agreement, defendant was a “related party” as contemplated in the agreement.

  • Capitol City Amusements, Inc. v. Zamperla, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-01567-KJM-KJN (E.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2018)
    03/06/2018

    Court denied without prejudice defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Court found that there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether plaintiff had signed a version of the contract that contained the arbitration clause, and thus defendant had not met its burden of establishing the existence of a valid arbitration agreement.

  • Petersen-Dean, Inc. v. Solarworld Americas, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-07326-WHO (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2018)
    03/05/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding the dispute subject to valid agreement to arbitrate.

  • Abdullayeva v. Attending Homecare Services, LLC., No. 1:17-CV-05951-JBW-SJB (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2018)
    03/05/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding that the language of the arbitration clause governing this dispute was permissive not mandatory, therefore the plaintiff may choose whether to arbitrate.

  • Meyer v. Kalanick, No. 1:15-CV-09796-JSR (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2018)
    03/05/2018

    Court, on remand from the second circuit, granted motion to compel arbitration as to one defendant and motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the other. Plaintiff argued that the right to arbitration had been waived, but court found that a defendant who had been added as a necessary party had not waived its right to arbitration, and the claims could not continue in that party’s absence.

  • Rancher v. Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00941-LSC (N.D. Ala. Mar. 5, 2018)
    03/05/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that arbitration would limit her statutory rights by potentially requiring her to pay fees in excess of the court filing fee.

  • Plummer v. Nicor Energy Services Company, No. 1:17-CV-02177-WTL-MPB (S.D. Ind. Mar. 5, 2018)
    03/05/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the mailing of terms and conditions containing an arbitration clause to plaintiff several days after plaintiff had agreed to a price over telephone was insufficient to establish an agreement to arbitrate disputes under Indiana law.

  • Smith v. Altisource Solutions, No. 17-1501 (6th Cir. Mar. 2, 2018)
    03/02/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s order denying in part the motion to compel arbitration because several of the claims did not fall within the scope of the arbitral agreement.

  • Rusoro Mining Limited v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 1:16-CV-02020-RJL (D.D.C. Mar. 2, 2018)
    03/02/2018

    Court granted petition to confirm an ICSID Additional Facility arbitration award.  In rejecting the respondent’s argument that under Art. V(1)(c) of the New York Convention the award should not be confirmed because the tribunal exceeded its scope of its consent to arbitrate, the court held that the issue of arbitrability was assigned to the tribunal and the court must give substantial deference to that decision and not second-guess the tribunal’s construction of the Canada-Venezuela BIT.  Further, the arbitral tribunal did not exceed its authority in its damages calculation and reached a reasonable quantum of damages.  Finally, the court held that applying the Europcar factors supported an immediate confirmation.

  • BSH Hausgerate GMBH v. Kamhi, No. 1:17-CV-05776-RWS (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2018)
    03/02/2018

    Court granted petition to confirm award pursuant to the New York Convention, rejecting respondent’s arguments that the award was ambiguous or contrary to the laws governing the arbitration. 

  • Morton v. Darden Restaurants, Inc., No. 8:17-CV-01865-HMH-KFM (D.S.C. Mar. 2, 2018)

    03/02/2018

    Magistrate judge recommended granting motion to compel arbitration and dismiss proceedings.  Judge reasoned that even in the absence of a signed arbitration agreement, defendant had demonstrated plaintiff’s agreement to arbitrate.  On March 28, the district court, finding that no objection had been filed to the magistrate’s findings and that there was no clear error on the face of the recommendation, compelled arbitration and dismissed proceedings.

  • Shaw v. ROI Land Investments Ltd., No. 2:17-CV-01165 (D. Nev. Mar. 1, 2018)
    03/01/2018

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award pursuant to the FAA, finding that arbitrator’s decision did not show a manifest disregard for the law and that the arbitrator did not engage in misconduct.

  • Chambers v. Hampden Coal, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-02744 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 1, 2018)
    03/01/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court found there was an enforceable arbitration agreement between the parties even though the agreement mistakenly referred to a different employee and the agreement explicitly stated it was not a contract.  Court concluded that the claim on improper termination based on age could be referred to arbitration.

  • Agviq, LLC v. Right Way Environmental Contractors, No. 3:17-CV-02034-WGY (D.P.R. Mar. 1, 2018)
    03/01/2018

    Plaintiff sought preliminary injunction to enjoin arbitration proceedings, arguing that the dispute fell within an exception to the arbitration provision. The agreement delegated the question of arbitrability to the court, and Court held the dispute was arbitrable under the agreement granting summary judgment for defendant.

  • Oyola v. Midland Funding, LLC, No. 4:17-CV-40040-TSH (D. Mass. Feb. 28, 2018)
    02/28/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, dismiss the case, and strike class allegations, finding the delegation clause and arbitration agreement were valid.

  • 20/20 Communications  v. Crawford, No. 4:17-CV-00929-A (N.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2018)
    02/28/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate an arbitral award. Court held that because the arbitrator interpreted the agreement he did not exceed his authority even if he was incorrect about the law. Thus, plaintiff failed to show existence of one of the limited grounds for vacating awards under the FAA.

  • Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. El Turk, No. 3:17-CV-02019-JCH (D. Conn. Feb. 28, 2018)
    02/28/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that a party may be “aggrieved” for the purposes of the FAA and federal standing even if it is not party to an underlying litigation. Court also held that it had jurisdiction to compel arbitration even though underlying litigation was in Ohio, because the FAA allows petitions to compel arbitration to be filed in any district court with subject matter jurisdiction. Based on the language of the agreement, court held that the plaintiff could bring any claims arising out of the agreement it wished to arbitrate, and that further decisions about arbitrability of claims should be decided by the arbitrator.

  • MacDonald v. Cashcall Inc., No. 17-2161 (D. Md. Feb. 27, 2018)
    02/27/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that the arbitration agreement, including the delegation clause, was unenforceable because the agreement directed arbitration to an illusory forum and the forum selection clause was an integral, non-severable part of the arbitral agreement.

  • Management Registry, Inc. v. A.W. Companies, Inc., No. 0:17-CV-05009-JRT-FLN (D. Minn. Feb. 27, 2018)
    02/27/2018

    Court granted motion to compel AAA arbitration finding the mandatory arbitration provision was a valid agreement to arbitrate, and stayed proceedings pending arbitration pursuant to the FAA on a determination that arbitration will not likely resolve all issues between the parties.

  • Jemiri v. Public Service Enterprise Group Corporation (PSEG), No. 2:17-CV-04518-ADS-AKT (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2018)
    02/27/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending the resolution of arbitration.  Pursuant to the FAA, court found a valid arbitration agreement between the plaintiff and employer existed, and concluded that because the disputes were intertwined the entire case should be sent to arbitration including claims against non-signatories to the agreement that are factually intertwined with the dispute between the signatories. 

  • Kroat v. Pizza Hut of Maryland, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-02035-RDB (D. Md. Feb. 27, 2018)
    02/27/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding plaintiff had entered into an agreement with his employer to arbitrate all employment-related disputes.  Court found a stay was not appropriate because all plaintiff’s claims were arbitrable.

  • Choice Hotels International Inc. v. Khan, No. 8:17-CV-03572-DKC (D. Md. Feb. 26, 2018)
    02/26/2018

    Court confirmed arbitration award and granted motion for default judgment, concluding that defendant had not demonstrated any ground for vacating the award under the FAA.

  • Sayre v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., No. 3:17-CV-00449-JLS-MDD (S.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2018)
    02/26/2018

    Court denied petition to vacate or modify the arbitral award, holding there was no “manifest disregard for the law” or violation of the FAA in the tribunal’s refusal to postpone a hearing, which consisted of opposing counsel’s closing statements, when petitioner and his counsel could not be present.  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint which alleged claims that could have been brought in arbitration, finding they were barred by res judicata.                                                                

  • Athas Health LLC v. Giuffre, No. 3:17-CV-00300-L (N.D. Tex. Feb. 23, 2018)

    02/23/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration under §4 of the FAA. Court held that because the claims arose while the contract was in effect, and because arbitration agreements are separable and therefore enforceable after a contract comes to an end, the court must enforce a specific agreement to arbitrate.  Additionally, a challenge to the enforceability or unconscionability of the underlying contract is left to the arbitrator to decide.

  • Norfolk Southern Railway v. Sprint Communications Company L.P., No. 16-2107 (4th Cir. Feb. 22, 2018)

    02/22/2018

    Court of appeals reversed the district court’s order granting a motion to confirm an arbitration award. Court held that the award failed to resolve an issue presented by the parties to the arbitrators, and therefore it is not “mutual, final, and definite” as required by the FAA.

  • Clarke v. Alltran Financial LP f/k/a United Recovery Systems LP, No. 2:17-CV-03330-JFB-AYS (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2018)

    02/22/2018

    Court granted non-signatory defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action pending conclusion of the arbitration. Court held that the plain language of the contract at issue allows the defendant to compel arbitration because the arbitration agreement does not expressly limit the right to compel arbitration to the signatories.  Moreover, the arbitration provision states that it is to be interpreted in “the broadest way the law will allow it to be interpreted.”

  • ACE Insurance Company of Puerto Rico v. Nolasco Communications Inc., No. 1:15-CV-00052-WAL-GWC (D.V.I. Feb. 22, 2018)

    02/22/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm a AAA construction industry arbitration award under the FAA. Court held that it had jurisdiction to confirm the award and, as the defendant did not allege any of the statutory bases for vacating the award, confirmation of the award was appropriate. Court also awarded post-judgment interest pursuant to 28 USC § 1961, which applies to money judgments entered in federal courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction.

  • International Corrugated and Packing Supplies, Inc. v. Lear Corporation, No. 3:15-CV-00405-DCG (W.D. Tex. Feb. 22, 2018)

    02/22/2018

    On remand from the fifth circuit, the court continued to deny the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that under Texas law, in order to incorporate an unsigned contract into another contract, the latter contract must be signed by the party sought to be charged. Here, because the defendant was attempting to incorporate by reference unsigned terms and conditions containing an arbitration clause into unsigned purchase orders, the defendant failed to prove there was a valid agreement to arbitrate.

  • Tassy v. Lindsay Entertainment Enterprises, Inc., No. 17-5375 (6th Cir. Feb. 22, 2018)

    02/22/2018

    Court of appeals vacated order denying motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration and remanded for further proceedings.  Court of appeals held that district court had erred by failing to summarily proceed to trial in order to resolve a factual dispute over the existence of an arbitration agreement and instead denying a motion to compel arbitration.

  • Lett v. Classic Buick GMC Cadillac, No. 2:17-CV-00373-SRW (M.D. Ala. Feb. 22, 2018)
    02/22/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that, plaintiff having omitted by amendment his federal claim, court no longer had federal question jurisdiction; the case was therefore dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

  • LPF II, LLC v. Cornerstone Systems, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-02417-DDC-JPO  (D. Kan. Feb. 21, 2018)

    02/21/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration based on the record before it and concluded that a summary trial was necessary to determine whether the parties’ contract requires them to arbitrate their disputes.

  • Independent Laboratory Employees’ Union, Inc. v. ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company, No. 3:17-CV-11858-PGS-LHG (D.N.J. Feb. 20, 2018)

    02/20/2018

    Court granted motion to enforce a AAA arbitration award, finding that the arbitrator’s award did not disregard the “zipper clause” nor manifestly ignore the plain language of the collective bargaining agreement at issue.

  • Lionsbrood Enterprises, LLC v. Installation Solutions, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01507-WJM-MJW (D. Colo. Feb. 20, 2018)
    02/20/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that, because both statutory rights and common law claims may be resolved in arbitration, all claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and thus the agreement was binding and enforceable.

  • ATT Mobility Services LLC v. Payne, No. 3:17-CV-00649-CRS (W.D. Ky. Feb. 16, 2018)

    02/16/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration of state court claims and for a preliminary injunction enjoining the state court proceedings.  Court held that a valid and enforceable contract between the parties exists under Kentucky law and that the defendant accepted the plaintiff’s offer to arbitrate future claims.  Additionally, the court found that enjoining the state court proceedings, in light of the finding that a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement existed, would prevent irreparable harm against the movant by avoiding the expense and delay of trial.

  • DCK World Wide LLC v. Pacifica Riverplace, LP., No. 1:16-CV-00666-SS (W.D. Tex. Feb. 16, 2018)

    02/16/2018

    Court granted motion to confirm an arbitration award under §9 of the FAA. Court found that it, rather than the arbitrator, had the authority to determine whether a non-signatory was bound to the arbitration agreement; and that the non-signatory plaintiff was bound by the arbitration agreement on equitable grounds of implied assumption and direct benefits estoppel. Having determined that the arbitrator correctly found that the non-signatory was required to arbitrate, the court held that the arbitrator did not exceed its authority and therefore no grounds for vacatur existed.

  • Jenkins v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-1999-MMA-BGS (S.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2018)

    02/16/2018

    Court granted in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that a valid agreement to arbitrate all but one of the claims existed and that the agreement was not procedurally unconscionable under California law.  Court stayed one claim in the interest of efficiency, pending completion of the arbitration.

  • Diaz v. Intuit, Inc., No. 5:15-CV-01778-EJD (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2018)

    02/16/2018

    Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to certify for appeal the court’s order granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that an interlocutory appeal would not materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation but rather delay the arbitration. 

  • Pfeffer v. Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, No. 17-1819 (2d Cir. Feb. 15, 2018)
    02/15/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s confirmation of an arbitration award and denial of motion to vacate that award.  Court found no error in the district court decision that plaintiff failed to meet her burden to demonstrate that vacatur was appropriate under the FAA. 

  • Smith v. Kellogg Co., No. 2:17-CV-01914-APG-GWF (D. Nev. Feb. 15, 2018)
    02/15/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the parties’ arbitration agreement clearly and unmistakably delegated the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator by incorporation of the JAMS rules, and that such delegation provision was not unconscionable.
     

  • Kingsbury v. Lyft, Inc., No.1:17-CV-02272-SDY (N.D. Ill. Feb. 15, 2018)
    02/15/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiffs agreed to broad arbitration clauses on multiple occasions and that their claims fell squarely within the scope of those clauses. 

  • Penneco Oil Co., Inc. v. Energy Corp. of America, No. 2:16-CV-01918-JFC (W.D. Pa. Feb. 15, 2018)

    02/15/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment against the confirmation of plaintiff’s arbitration award, granted plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitrator’s unexplained denial of plaintiff’s attorney’s fees for lack of procedural fairness, and remanded the case to the arbitrator to determine plaintiff’s reasonable fees.

  • Adkins v. Comcast Corp., No. 3:17-CV-06477-VC (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2018)

    02/15/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment against the confirmation of plaintiff’s arbitration award, granted plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitrator’s unexplained denial of plaintiff’s attorney’s fees for lack of procedural fairness, and remanded the case to the arbitrator to determine plaintiff’s reasonable fees.

  • Adkins v. Comcast Corp., No. 3:17-CV-06477-VC (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2018)

    02/15/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement contained an unenforceable waiver under California law of an individual’s right to bring a public injunctive relief claim in any forum.  Court further held that the agreement included language that invalidated the entire arbitration clause if the waiver was invalidated.

  • Rhoades v. Duke University, No. 5:17-CV-00446-FWL (E.D.N.C. Feb. 13, 2018)
    02/14/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed between the parties with respect to the claims plaintiff asserted.

  • Brown v. Sperber-Porter, No. 17-15121 (9th Cir. Feb. 14, 2018)
    02/14/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s confirmation of an arbitration award.  Court held that under Arizona law the arbitrator’s refusal to postpone the hearing did not provide a basis for setting aside the award in circumstances where the plaintiffs failed to show sufficient cause for the postponement, nor did the award conflict with the express guidelines or standards set forth in the arbitration agreement.
     

  • Rose v. Humana Insurance Co., No. 3:17-CV-08107-DGC (D. Ariz. Feb. 14, 2018)
    02/14/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendants failed to establish a valid arbitration agreement existed when they did not establish under Arizona law that plaintiff knew about or assented to the unilateral modification to the agreement requiring arbitration.
     

  • OOO FC Grand Capital v. International Pharmaceutical Services Ltd., No. 2:16-CV-06156-JS-SIL (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2018)
    02/14/2018

    Court adopted Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation to grant plaintiff’s motion to confirm an arbitration award in its favor, finding it to be comprehensive and free of clear error, and that all objections were deemed waived as no party timely objected to the report.

  • Dasher v. RBC Bank (USA), No. 15-13871 (11th Cir. Feb. 13, 2018)
    02/13/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that defendant failed to show that plaintiff agreed to the addition of the arbitration provision in dispute.
     

  • Goldgroup Resources, Inc. v. DynaResource de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., No. 1 :16-CV-02547-RM-KMT (D. Colo. Feb. 13, 2018)
    02/13/2018

    Magistrate judge recommended that district court deny plaintiff’s application to confirm an arbitration award and grant defendants’ petition for nonrecognition of the award and that the award be vacated.  Magistrate judge found that the arbitrator exceeded his authority to proceed with arbitration without one of the defendants’ participation and when a Mexican court ordered the arbitration to not proceed. Further, the defendants had not engaged in improper forum shopping since they brought the case in Mexico City to contest the legality and applicability of the arbitration clause under Mexican law.

  • Ridgeway v. Nabors Completion & Production Services Co., No. 2:15-CV-03436-DDP-JPR (9th Cir. Feb. 13, 2018)
    02/13/2018

    Court of appeals reversed district court decision and remanded with instructions. Court concluded that the district court correctly held that the arbitration agreement involved a moderate level of procedural unconscionability because it was a nonnegotiable requirement of plaintiff’s employment. However, the provisions at issue were substantively unconscionable, with two exceptions relating to shifting discovery costs and expert fees.

  • Charging Bison, L.L.C. v. Interstate Battery Franchising & Development Inc., No. 17-10509 (5th Cir. Feb. 12, 2018)

    02/12/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court order denying a stay of arbitration.  Court held that district court properly ruled in favor of arbitration where the carveout provision in the arbitration agreement did not cover anticipatory terminations of the franchise agreement.

  • Singh v. Peters, No. 3:09-CV-00181-CVG-RM (D.V.I. Feb. 12, 2018)

    02/12/2018

    Court adopted Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation to grant in part plaintiff’s motion to show cause.  Court held that defendant shall appear to show cause why he should not be held in civil contempt for failure to appear for an examination in aid of execution of judgment on an order confirming an arbitral award.

  • Dooley v. Federated Law Group, PLLC, No. 1:16-CV-04703-SCJ (N.D. Ga. Feb. 12, 2018)

    02/12/2018

    Court adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge to grant defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Magistrate judge found that (i) defendants established by a preponderance of the evidence that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate, as evidenced by the credit member agreement attached to the affidavit of the records custodian; (ii) defendants could enforce the arbitration agreement even though they were not one of the original signatories; (iii) plaintiff’s individual claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement; and (iv) the Eleventh Circuit has held that arbitration agreements precluding class action relief are valid and enforceable.

  • Johnson v. Cach, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00383-BLW (D. Idaho Feb. 9, 2018)

    02/09/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to reopen the case or appoint an arbitrator. Court held that, despite the unavailability of the National Arbitration Forum as an arbitration forum, the language of the arbitration agreement at issue contemplated the use of other arbitral forums and provides guidance for doing so.

  • Rogers v. SWEPI LP, No. 2:16-CV-00999-JLG-KAJ (S.D. Ohio Feb. 9, 2018)

    02/09/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that while a broad arbitration clause existed, the plaintiff’s agreement to arbitration was subject to a condition precedent that was not fulfilled.

  • DDRA Capital, Inc. v. KPMG, LLP, No. 1:04-CV-00158-AET (D.V.I. Feb. 9, 2018)

    02/09/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss RICO arbitration claims for failure to prosecute.  Court held that the Third Circuit’s six equitable factors to be considered for motions to dismiss weighed on balance in favor of dismissal.

  • Kimble v. Jamieson, P.C., No. 2:17-CV-02187-SHM-TMP (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 9, 2018)

    02/09/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that the plain language of the arbitration provision in the contract did not apply to defendant’s or plaintiff’s claims as defendant was not a party to the contract.

  • Atkins v. CGI Technologies and Solutions, Inc., No. 17-5506 (6th Cir. Feb. 9, 2018)
    02/09/2018

    Court of appeals vacated the district court’s order denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and remanded for further proceedings.  Court held that that reverse-preemption by state law regulating insurance business pursuant to the McCarran-Ferguson Act did not did not preclude enforcement of the contractual arbitration clause under the FAA.

  • Atkins v. CGI Technologies & Solutions, Inc., No. 17-5506 (6th Cir. Feb. 9, 2018)
    02/09/2018

    Court of appeals vacated and remanded district court’s order denying motion to compel arbitration, finding that reverse-preemption poses no obstacles to the enforcement of the contractual arbitration clause at issue.

  • Beltsville Land, LLC v. Conaboy, No. 1:17-CV-00551-WS-B (S.D. Ala. Feb. 8, 2018)

    02/08/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration but denied motion to dismiss and stayed the claim.  Court held that a clear and unmistakable agreement to arbitrate exists and that the arbitrator shall resolve objections as to the existence, scope and validly of such agreement.  Additionally, under eleventh circuit precedent, the claims are to be stayed, not dismissed, pending arbitration.

  • Smith v. JRK Residential Group, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01586-MPS (D. Conn. Feb. 8, 2018)

    02/08/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action. Applying the second circuit’s four-factor test for determining whether parties are compelled to arbitrate, the court held that (1) the parties agreed to arbitrate the claims at issue; (2) the claims fell within the scope of the agreement; (3) the claims can be resolved through arbitration; and, (4) the court action will be stayed pending the conclusion of the arbitration.

  • Dixon v. Wilora Lake Healthcare LLC, 3:17-CV-00713-FDW-DCK (W.D.N.C. Feb. 8, 2018)

    02/08/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay the action, holding that the plaintiff’s claims fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement at issue. Additionally, the alleged rescission of the contract, and whether the parties satisfied any procedural preconditions to arbitration, is an issue of substantive arbitrability and thus reviewable in the arbitration.

  • Eddystone Rail Company LLC v. Jamex Transfer Services LLC, No. 1:17-CV-01266 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2018)
    02/07/2018

    Court denied motion to intervene and challenge an arbitration award against the defendant that the interveners’ feared would be enforced against them.  Court held that the interveners, as a non-party to an underlying arbitration, may not intervene in a federal proceeding for the purpose of challenging the validity of an arbitration award because they, inter alia, failed to demonstrate a substantial interest in the arbitration.

  • Ohio River Valley Associates, LLC v. PST Services, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00628-GNS (W.D. Ky. Feb. 7 2018)
    02/07/2018

    Court granted motions for preliminary injunction to enjoin defendant from arbitrating the dispute between the parties and to conduct limited discovery. Court held that all four factors relevant to determining whether a preliminary injunction weigh in favor of the motion.
     

  • Ranger Offshore Mexico, S. De R.L. De C.V. v. Grupo Tradeco, S.A. de C.V., No. 4:15-CV-00635 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2018)

    02/07/2018

    Court denied a motion for vacatur of an international arbitration award. In doing so, the court held that the arbitral tribunal did not exceed its authority in granting fees and costs, the arbitral award was final and not conditional, and that the arbitral tribunal reasonably denied the defendants’ request to postpone a hearing.

  • Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated v. Middleton, No. 3:17-CV-01259-HES-JRK (M.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2018)
    02/07/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to stay proceedings and compel FINRA arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Plaintiff had brought an action to enjoin defendant, a previous employee from arbitrating claims that his portfolio had been devalued through fraud, but the court found that the dispute was within arbitration provisions in both the employee agreement and the customer agreement.

  • Virtu KCG Holdings LLC v. LI, No. 2:17-CV-08296 (D.N.J. Feb. 6, 2018)
    02/06/2018

    Court denied motion compel arbitration, finding that under the FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) standard a valid agreement to arbitrate exists, but that the issues in dispute do not fall within the scope of that agreement.

  • Citizen Potawatomi Nation v. State of Oklahoma, No. 16-6224 (10th Cir. Feb. 6, 2018)
    02/06/2018

    Court of appeals remanded to district court to enter an order vacating the arbitration award.  In accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Hall Street Associates, LLC v. Mattel, Inc., court found the FAA precludes parties to an arbitration agreement from contracting for de novo review of legal determinations in an arbitral award, and therefore, the agreement’s de novo review provision was invalid.  Because the de novo review provision was a material aspect of the parties’ agreement to arbitrate disputes, court held the provision could not be separated from the agreement and the obligation to arbitrate was unenforceable.

  • Koby v. ARS National Services, Inc., No. 3:09-CV-00780-KSC (S.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2018)
    02/05/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that the evidence proffered by the non-signatory defendant to establish its ability to enforce the arbitration agreement in question was inadmissible.

  • Payne v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00076 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 5, 2018)
    02/05/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Court held that the plaintiff’s claims under state law are not sufficient for subject matter jurisdiction, particularly since neither the FAA nor a motion to compel arbitration under the FAA confers subject matter jurisdiction on federal courts.

  • 2020 Communications, Inc. v. Blevins, No. 17-10160 (5th Cir. Feb. 5, 2018)
    02/05/2018

    Court of appeals denied an appeal of an order denying a preliminary injunction for lack of jurisdiction. Court held that under §16(b)(4) of the FAA, with limited exceptions inapplicable in the current case, it was not permitted to consider appeals from interlocutory orders that refuse to enjoin arbitrations.

  • Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC v. Abel, No. 3:18-CV-00141-MMH-MCR (M.D. Fla. Feb. 5, 2018)

    02/05/2018

    Court granted emergency motion to stay proceedings pending FINRA arbitration, agreeing to extent a temporary restraining order until the hearing commenced.

  • Sherrard v. Macy’s System and Technology Inc., No. 17-11766 (11th Cir. Feb. 5, 2018)
    02/05/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order compelling arbitration, finding that minor participation in litigation prior to moving to compel arbitration was insufficient to constitute a finding of waiver of the right to arbitrate.

  • Leidos, Inc. v. Hellenic Republic, No. 17-7082 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 2, 2018)
    02/02/2018

    Court of appeals reversed district court’s grant of petitioner’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to convert an arbitral award rendered against the Hellenic Republic from euros into U.S. dollars based on the exchange rate on the date of the original arbitral award.  Court found the district court incorrectly concluded that the Rule 59(e) prohibition on raising new issues did not apply to petitioner because it was not a ‘losing party’ and determined that it was not manifestly unjust to award petitioner’s judgment in euros. 

  • Hancock Mechanical LLC v. McClain Contracting Company Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00054 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 2, 2018)
    02/02/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case, holding that pursuant to the FAA and Mississippi contract law, as well as the parties’ conduct, all the elements necessary for formation of a contract and the associated arbitration agreement are present.  Court also held that the breach of contract claim against the defendant falls within the parameters of the arbitration agreement.

  • Group III Mgt., Inc. v. Dragados USA Inc., No. 7:17-CV-00240-D (E.D.N.C. Feb. 2, 2018)
    02/02/2018

    Court granted motion to stay the action pending mediation and arbitration, finding that all of the plaintiff’s claims arise from and depend on a written contract that contains a valid and enforceable arbitration provision.

  • Mandviwala v. Five Star Quality Care, Inc., No. 16-55084 (9th Cir. Feb. 2, 2018)
    02/02/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed in part and remanded to the district court to order arbitration of victim-specific relief, finding that putative class claims under California Private Attorney General Act were not arbitrable and could not be waived, but that labor law claims for unpaid wages could be arbitrated.

  • Method, LLC v. Make It Right Foundation, No. 9:17-CV-00025-DLC (D. Mont. Feb. 1, 2018)
    02/01/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Pursuant to the FAA, court found a valid arbitration agreement and that defendants had not waived their rights to arbitration, concluding that although defendants knew of the right to arbitrate they did not behave inconsistently with this right and plaintiffs did not establish that they had been prejudiced.  Court also denied plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions for defendants’ failure to engage in ADR in good faith during the litigation, finding there was no evidence of conduct rising to the level of bad faith to justify sanctions.

  • Brenco Enterprises, INC. v. Bitesquad.com, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-01263-TSE-IDD (E.D. Va. Jan. 31, 2018)

    01/31/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, noting that the parties made clear that they intended for the arbitrator to evaluate questions of arbitrability by incorporating AAA rules into the agreement.

  • Cook v. Northstar Location Services, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-04186-MHC (N.D. Ga. Jan. 31, 2018)

    01/31/2018

    Court approved and adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge to grant defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay action.  Magistrate judge concluded that defendant had proven that the agreement was valid; the record was clear that Barclays offered an account to plaintiff via the agreement, plaintiff was aware of the terms of the agreement, and she agreed with those terms (as evidenced by her use).  Magistrate judge further concluded that defendant’s valid assignment from Barclays enabled defendant to enforce the arbitration clause contained in the agreement.

  • Visteon Corporation v. Leuliette, No. 4:16-CV-11180-TGB-EAS (E.D. Mich. Jan. 30, 2018)
    01/30/2018

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award and granted in part motion to seal.  Court denied motion to partially vacate the award, finding pursuant to the FAA and sixth circuit precedent the proper provision of the FAA for partial vacatur was § 11 not § 10, as argued by petitioners and regardless, there was no valid basis to disturb the award.  Court held that to satisfy the public interest the arbitration award must be unsealed, but the remainder of the record could remain under seal.

  • Domain Vault LLC v. Rightside Group Ltd, No. 3:17-CV-00789-B (N.D. Tex. Jan. 30, 2018)
    01/30/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding under the FAA that plaintiff assented to the online agreement to arbitrate.  Even though defendant was not a party to the arbitration agreement, court concluded that the doctrine of equitable estoppel applied and the defendant could compel arbitration.

     

  • Credit Acceptance Corporation v. McDonald, No. 3:17-CV-00644-TSL-RHW (S.D. Miss. Jan. 30, 2018)
    01/30/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Pursuant to the FAA, court found a valid arbitration agreement and concluded that defendant’s intentional tort claims fell within the broad scope of the arbitration clause.

  • Jackson Laboratory v. Nanjing University, No. 1:17-CV-00363-GZS (D. Me. Jan. 29, 2018)
    01/29/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve process via email and personal service on three defendants domiciled in China under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) and 4(h) in relation to a petition to compel arbitration.  Concluding that the proposed service comported with requirements of Rule 4(f)(3) and due process, court noted that 4(f) does not require compliance with the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents (“Hague Service Convention”) or mandate exhaustion of other service methods before seeking court-ordered service.  Court also found service by email appropriate where the signatory country objects to service by postal channels under Article 10 of the Hague Service Convention.

  • Knight v. Idea Buyer, LLC, No. 17-3539 (6th Cir. Jan. 29, 2018) 
    01/29/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision dismissing the class action suit on the merits but found that a motion to dismiss pursuant to an arbitration agreement should be construed as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) not 12(b)(1) as pleaded by defendant.  Under the FAA, court held that plaintiffs’ claim that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because the overarching “Fast Track Agreement” was invalid should be addressed by the arbitrator because it was a challenge to the contract as a whole not just the arbitration provision.  Court determined the American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA) claims were arbitrable, concluding there was no evidence of a clear congressional intent to make AIPA claims nonarbitrable.
     

  • Byk v. Spira, No. 1:16-CV-05612-KBF (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2018)
    01/26/2018

    Court lifted stay on confirmation of arbitral award after an Israeli court confirmed the award.  Court rejected respondent’s arguments that the court should maintain the stay while respondent pursues an appeal.

  • Unite Here Local 30 v. Volume Services, Inc., No. 16-55528 (9th Cir. Jan. 26, 2018)
    01/26/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s rejection of motion to compel arbitration, finding that district court did not err in concluding that arbitration was not required where a mediator issued a decision that is final and binding.

  • YPF S.A. v. Apache Overseas, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00178 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 25, 2018)

    01/25/2018

    Court denied petitioner’s emergency motion to stay arbitration, or in the alternative to enjoin arbitration.  Petitioner YPF and respondent Apache submitted their dispute to KPMG for arbitration, after which Apache initiated an ICC arbitration against KPMG.  Noting that the FAA “exists in part to ensure that courts cannot undermine contractual agreements to arbitrate disputes,” the court concluded that Apache had a contractual right to arbitrate its dispute with KPMG, and that it would not be appropriate for the court to interfere with that right by issuing a stay or injunction.  Court further noted that should the ICC arbitration result in an outcome that undermines court orders, FAA § 10(a)(4) authorizes a federal court to set aside an arbitral award “where the arbitrators exceeded their powers.”

     

  • LLC International, Inc. v. Torgerson, No. 2:17-CV-02508-DDC-TJJ (D. Kan. Jan. 25, 2018)

    01/25/2018

    Court denied petition to vacate, rejecting petitioner’s assertion that the arbitrator exceeded his authority.  Court concluded that (i) it had jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s request to vacate the arbitrator’s order, even though the arbitration was ongoing; (ii) the arbitrator never held that the AAA Supplementary Rules did not apply and therefore did not exceed his authority; and (iii) in denying petitioner’s motion for clause construction award, the arbitrator never “strayed from his delegated task” and petitioner’s arguments to the contrary “simply address how well he performed his task of interpreting the Agreement.”

  • Ben-Salah v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc. of Delaware, No. 3:17-CV-00907-YY (D. Or. Jan. 25, 2018)

    01/25/2018

    Court adopted the magistrate’s judge’s findings and recommendations and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss or in the alternative to stay proceedings and compel arbitration.  Court agreed with the magistrate judge that (i) the question of equitable tolling was presumptively for the arbitrator to decide, (ii) plaintiff’s challenges to the arbitration based on arguments about formation of contract should be rejected, and (iii) plaintiff’s fraudulent inducement and unconscionability arguments are not specific to the arbitration clause and therefore not for the court to decide.

  • Keller v. T-Mobile, No. 2:16-CV-02143-CM-GLR (D. Kan. Jan. 25, 2018)
    01/25/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to remove case from arbitration and proceed with a case management order or compel a new arbitration proceeding.  Pursuant to the FAA, court found that there was no evidence of arbitrator bias and that the plaintiff received a fundamentally fair hearing.

  • Warciak v. Subway Restaurants, Inc., No. 17-1956 (7th Cir. Jan. 25, 2018)
    01/25/2018

    Court of appeals reversed and remanded district court’s ruling granting a motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that Illinois state law rather than federal law applied when determining whether a contract’s arbitration clause binds a non-signatory, and that defendant restaurant chain was therefore unable to rely on estoppel to enforce the arbitration agreement in the contract when plaintiff was neither a signatory nor a party to the contract.

  • West African Ventures Limited v. Ranger Offshore, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00548 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 24, 2018)

    01/24/2018

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss and stayed defendant’s counterclaims in favor of arbitration.  Court concluded that all of defendant Ranger’s counterclaims were subject to the arbitration agreement, and plaintiffs did not waive arbitration by bringing suit to enforce guarantees, which did not contain an arbitration provision.

  • McIntosh v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-03273 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 24, 2018)

    01/24/2018

    Court granted Uber’s motion to compel in part and denied it in part.  Court found that (i) plaintiff’s challenges to contract formation did not have merit, and (ii) because plaintiff was challenging the arbitration provision as a whole, rather than the delegation clause specifically, plaintiff’s unconscionability arguments were for the arbitrator to decide.

  • Inception Mining, Inc. v. Danzig, Ltd., No. 2:17-CV-00944-DN (D. Utah Jan. 24, 2018)

    01/24/2018

    Court denied in part and granted in part defendants’ motion to dismiss.  Court held that subject matter jurisdiction existed and venue was proper to determine if plaintiffs may be required to arbitrate.  However, since issues of arbitrability were to be decided by the arbitrator, the motion to dismiss was granted in part.

  • Huron Consulting Group, Inc. v. Gruner, No. 1:17-CV-06042 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 24, 2018)

    01/24/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss for improper venue or, in the alternative, lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Court noted that while the parties designated an arbitral forum (JAMS), they failed to incorporate the JAMS rules, and therefore defendant failed to present the requisite clear and unmistakable evidence of the parties’ intent to arbitrate arbitrability.

  • Roberts v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 3:15-CV-03418-EMC (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018)

    01/23/2018

    Court granted motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration in light of plaintiffs’ argument that there is a new legal basis establishing that arbitration should not be compelled.  Since the court’s prior order, the California Supreme Court determined in McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 2 Cal. 5th 945 (2017) that (i) holding that an arbitration agreement waives the right to seek the statutory remedy of public injunctive relief is contrary to public policy and therefore unenforceable, and (ii) there is no FAA preemption of that California rule.

  • Berkowitz v. Republic of Costa Rica, No. 1:17-CV-00148-RJL (D.D.C. Jan. 23, 2018)

    01/23/2018

    Court denied claimants’ petition to vacate the interim arbitration award and dismissed petitioners’ case with prejudice.  Court held that it did not have jurisdiction to review the interim award because it was not final, noting that it is generally improper for a district court to interfere with an international arbitration before the tribunal issues a final ruling and that other circuits have similarly held that the FAA precludes review of interlocutory arbitration decisions.

  • Bartels v. Saber Healthcare Group, LLC, No. 16-2247 (4th Cir. Jan. 23, 2018)

    01/23/2018

    Court vacated and remanded for further proceedings on the question of whether all of the defendants are bound by the forum-selection clause.  In reaching its decision, court noted that it had previously explained in the arbitration context that if the charges against the parent company and its subsidiary are based on the same facts and are inherently inseparable, a court may refer claims against the parent to arbitration even though the parent is not formally a party to the arbitration agreement.  Similarly, under the well-established common law principles of estoppel and alter-ego theories, a non-signatory can be bound by a contractual clause executed by a third party.

  • Olstad v. Chase Auto Finance Corporation, No. 3:17-CV-00236-WMC (W.D. Wis. Jan. 22, 2018)

    01/22/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to stay the action and compel arbitration.  Court held that the issue of arbitrability was for the arbitrator to decide, as plaintiffs had conceded that the arbitration clause was enforceable as to all of its claims save one, and the arbitration clause delegated the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator.  Court further held that a stay was more appropriate than a dismissal as “it is possible, if unlikely, that the arbitrator may find that plaintiffs’ conversation claim is not arbitrable.

  • Holl v. United Parcel Service, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-05856-HSG (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2018)

    01/22/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the order granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court noted that there is “clear Ninth Circuit authority” holding that the FAA requires federal district courts to stay judicial proceedings and compel arbitration of claims covered by a written and enforceable arbitration agreement.

  • Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Repins, No. 3:17-CV-00323-JCH (D. Conn. Jan. 22, 2018)

    01/22/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration, concluding that defendant’s arguments were matters delegated to the arbitrator by the delegation provision in the parties’ agreement.

  • Citi Cars, Inc. v. Cox Enterprises, Inc., 1:17-CV-22190-KMM (S.D. Fla. Jan. 22, 2018)

    01/22/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings.  Court rejected argument that the applicable arbitration clauses were unconscionable given their lack of true mutuality and limitations on damages and prehearing discovery, ruling that plaintiff failed to substantiate its procedural unconscionability contentions, such that the rest of its argument on this point was therefore foreclosed.  Court further held that it was up to the arbitrator to determine whether certain provisions in the arbitration clauses were void because they contravened related anti-trust laws and that, in any case, they were severable and did not render the entire arbitration agreement invalid.  Finally, court held that even the non-signatory defendants could move to compel arbitration as plaintiff’s claims against them were “inextricably intertwined” with its claims against the other defendants. 

  • Tidewater Investment SRL v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 1:15-CV-01960-ALC (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2018)
    01/22/2018

    Court granted respondent’s motion to vacate the ex parte order recognizing the ICSID arbitration award.  Court explained that the Second Circuit has held in Mobil Cerro Negro, Ltd. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, 863 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2017) that ICSID award creditors can only enforce their awards against foreign states in the U.S. by commencing a plenary action that complies with all the jurisdictional and procedural requirements of the FSIA.

  • Castellanos v. Mariner Finance, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-03168-MJG (D. Md. Jan. 19, 2018)

    01/19/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to stay action.  Court found that there was no undue delay and no “trial-oriented activity” that would warrant a finding of prejudice, and although defendant filed a collection action against plaintiff in small claims court, such action was not subject to arbitration under the parties’ agreement.

  • Capax Discovery, Inc. v. AEP RSD Investors, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00500-CCR (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2018)

    01/19/2018

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss, strike, and to compel arbitration.  Court found that the only disputes that the parties’ intended to be resolved by an independent accountant were those arising from the value of the earn-out provisions or Zovy’s present book value.  This was evidenced by (i) the narrow focus of the agreement on resolving disputed values related to the earn-out provision, (ii) the direction that the dispute be resolved by an independent accountant who was to act “as an expert and not arbitrator,” and (iii) the New York choice of law and forum selection clause.

  • McAllister v. St. Louis Rams, LLC, No. 4:16-CV-00172-SNLJ (E.D. Mo. Jan. 19, 2018)

    01/19/2018

    Court denied third party defendant’s motion to participate in discovery.  Plaintiff McAllister filed a complaint against the St. Louis Rams, who in turn filed a third party complaint against the Regional Convention and Visitors Commission (“CVC”).  The proceeding between the Rams and the CVC was then stayed as required by the FAA.  Court found that because the CVC agreed to arbitration “and all of its appurtenant circumstances,” it also consented to a situation where it would not be able to participate in the discovery occurring between plaintiff and the Rams.

  • Little v. Cellco Partnership, No. 1:17-CV-03931 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 19, 2018)

    01/19/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, rejecting plaintiff’s argument that incorporation by reference of arbitration agreement in another document was insufficient to provide notice of arbitration provision, since the executed document gave independent notice of the arbitration clause.

  • MediaNews Group, Inc. v. Daily Gazette Company, No. 2:17-CV-03921 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 19, 2018)

    01/19/2018

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award, finding that the scope of judicial review as established by the FAA is mandatory and cannot be expanded by contract, and that purported “clear legal error” is not reviewable under the “manifest disregard of law” standard.

  • On v. Vannucci, M.D., Inc., et al., No. 214-cv-02714-TLN-CMK (E.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2018)

    01/19/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in favor of compulsory arbitration.  Court found that plaintiffs failed to show that they were prejudiced by the four month period between the date plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint adding defendant SAVI and the date defendants SAVI and NVDC filed their motion to compel.  With respect to defendant NVDC, court found that plaintiffs failed to show that (i) NVDC delayed its right to compel arbitration for three years, (ii) NVDC’s actions were inconsistent with any right to arbitrate, or (iii) plaintiffs were prejudiced by NVDC’s actions.

  • Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, and Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund v. Premier Concrete Services Inc., No. 1:17-CV-06036-VEC (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2018)

    01/18/2018

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award against non-appearing party, finding that an unopposed confirmation petition must be granted unless the undisputed facts fail to show that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

  • Ewell v. John C. Heath, Attorney at Law PLLC, No. 4:17-CV-11876-LVP-EAS (E.D. Mich. Jan. 18, 2018)

    01/18/2018

    Court granted motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, finding that a party may not avoid arbitration by arguing that the contract as a whole (rather than the arbitration clause specifically) is void.

  • Ferrari v. Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, No. 4:17-CV-00018-YGR (N.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2018)

    01/18/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendants could invoke the arbitration clause as intended third-party beneficiaries.

  • Freeman v. Smartpay Leasing, LLC, No. 6:17-CV-00938-GAP-GJK (M.D. Fla. Jan. 18, 2018)

    01/18/2018

    Court granted motion to vacate order compelling arbitration, finding that company who refused to pay filing fee as required under the consumer arbitration procedures of JAMS – a forum expressly designated as acceptable in the agreement drafted by the company – waived its right to rely on the arbitration clause.

  • KCG Holdings, Inc. v. Rohit Khandekar, No. 1:17-CV-03533-AJN-GWG (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2018)

    01/18/2018

    Court granted motion to stay in favor of a pending arbitration, finding that, although the litigation concerned different claims than the arbitration, there was significant factual overlap between the proceedings.

  • Marriott International, Inc. v. Danna, No. 2:17-CV-10590-ILRL-DEK (E.D. La. Jan. 18, 2018)

    01/18/2018

    Court denied plaintiff's motion to compel arbitration and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that there was no controversy since defendant had not yet asserted any claims in court.

  • In re Stati v. State Street Corporation, No. 1:15-MC-91059-LTS (D. Mass. Jan. 18, 2018)

    01/18/2018

    Court partially granted motion to compel discovery for use in foreign arbitral award enforcement proceedings under 28 USC § 1782, finding that the request fell within the scope of § 1782 since the foreign enforcement proceedings are adjudicative in nature (rather than prosecutorial), but that the petitioners had not yet established that documents sought were in the possession, custody, or control of the respondent and would be limited to conducting a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition to determine whether the control requirement was met.

  • Degidio v. Crazy Horse Saloon and Restaurant Inc, No. 17-1145 (4th Cir. Jan. 18, 2018)

    01/18/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed denial of motion to compel arbitration, finding that party who had pursued a merits-based litigation strategy three years before asking the court to compel arbitration had waived its right to arbitration.

  • Dorman v. Charles Schwab & Co. Inc., No. 17-CV-00285-CW (N.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2018)

    01/18/2018

    Court rejected motion to compel arbitration, finding that (i) named plaintiff was not bound by arbitration agreement in retirement plan document since that document was issued after named plaintiff terminated his participation in the plan; (ii) no other arbitration agreement covered the claims at issue; and (iii) in any event, the named plaintiff could not waive rights that belong to the plan, such as the right to file an ERISA claim in court.

  • Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Miller, No. 3:16-CV-00311-WHB-JCG (S. D. Miss. Jan, 18, 2017)

    01/18/2018

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the parties agreed to arbitrate all claims arising out of or relating to any relationship in the sales contract at issue, that the non-signatory plaintiffs could compel arbitration of a valid agreement under Mississippi law, that the agreement contained a delegation provision by which the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitratability, including claims contesting the enforceability, scope, or conscionability of that agreement.

  • The New York City District Council of Carpenters, Local 4112 v. Modivative Flooring Systems, Inc., No. 1:14-CV-01792-ER (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 17, 2018)

    01/17/2018

    Court granted unopposed motion for summary judgment to confirm arbitral award, finding that there was at least a barely colorable justification for the award.  However, court vacates arbitrator’s prospective award of attorney’s fees in the event of non-compliance of the award, and instead granted attorney’s fees at the reasonable amount actually incurred.

  • Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Mathis, No. 3:16-CV-00315-WHB-JCG (S.D. Miss. Jan. 17, 2017)

    01/17/2018

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that a valid arbitration agreement existed between the arbitration plaintiffs, non-signatories to the agreement, and the defendant under Mississippi law, that issues of whether the agreement was enforceable, who were proper parties to the agreement, unconscionability, and whether pre-arbitration mediation was required, have been clearly and unmistakably delegated to the arbitrator as the agreement adopts the JAMS rules which provide a delegation provision.

  • Galilea, LLC v. AGCS Marin Insurance Company, No. 16-35474 (9th Cir. Jan. 16, 2018)

    01/16/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s grant of motion to compel arbitration of certain claims and reversed its denial of motion to compel arbitration of other claims, finding that: (i) although state law normally preempts federal law as to insurance contracts, an insurance policy insuring maritime interests against maritime risks is a maritime contract subject to federal maritime law, not state law, and therefore the FAA applies; and (ii) the parties delegated arbitrability issues to the arbitrator.

  • Chavez v. Get It Now, LLC d/b/a Home Choice, No. 0:17-CV-01490-DWF-HB (D. Minn. Jan. 16, 2018)

    01/16/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that, although a bankruptcy discharge did not render the arbitration agreement unenforceable, enforcing it would be contrary to the bankruptcy code where the claims arise from the creditor’s attempts to collect the discharged debt.

  • TRW Automotive U.S. LLC v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural, Implement Workers of America (UAW), No. 2:13-CV-12160-DPH-MKM (E.D. Mich. Jan. 16, 2018)

    01/16/2018

    Court denied motion to vacate award and granted cross-motion to affirm, finding that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority by fashioning a remedy substituting a different health care plan for the plan named in the collective bargaining agreement.

  • Jock v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., No. 1:08-CV-02875-JSR (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2018)

    01/16/2018

    Court granted motion to vacate arbitrator’s class certification award, finding that arbitrator may not bind non-parties to a class arbitration procedure where the court has found the arbitration agreement does not permit class arbitration procedures.

  • International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural, Implement Workers of America (UAW) v. TRW Automotive U.S. LLC, No. 2:11-CV-14630-DPH-MKM (E.D. Mich. Jan. 16, 2018)
    01/16/2018

    Court rejected motion to strike, finding, inter alia, that since arbitrator decided only contractual claims, the plaintiffs were free to pursue related statutory claims in federal court and were not constrained to challenge the award under the FAA.

  • Salus Capital Partners, LLC v. Moser, No. 1:17-CV-05536-NRB (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2018)

    01/16/2018

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm the arbitration award, finding that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers under FAA § 10(a).  Court explained that the relevant standard for vacatur is whether the arbitrator lacked the authority to impose an award, not simply if the arbitrator misidentified the authority under which he was empowered to act.

  • Bryant v. CFRA Holdings, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-01469-RWS (N.D. Ga. Jan. 16, 2018)

    01/16/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate or modify the arbitration award.  Court held that (i) the arbitrator clearly interpreted and applied the terms of the agreement and therefore did not exceed his power in issuing the arbitration award; (ii) the reasoning in the award was greater than what was required, since the controlling agreement did not specify the form of the award and the parties did not request that the arbitrator provide findings of fact and conclusions of law; and (iii) plaintiff’s arguments that the award was arbitrary and capricious, that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law, and that enforcing the award was against public policy were judicially-created grounds for vacatur that are no longer valid.

  • Walker v. USA Swimming, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00825 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 12, 2018)

    01/12/2018

    Court denied petition to vacate arbitral award, finding that arbitrator’s decision not to adjudicate a dispute de novo, but rather apply a deferential standard of review to the prior determination of a professional organization’s internal judicial body, did not constitute a refusal to hear evidence material and pertinent to the controversy warranting vacatur under the FAA.

  • Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, and Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund v. Regal USA Construction Inc., No. 1:17-CV-04594-AJN (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2018)

    01/12/2018

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award against non-appearing party, finding that grounds for the arbitrator’s decision could be inferred from the record and were justifiable.

  • Heritage Capital Corporation v. Christie’s, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-03404-D (N.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2018)

    01/12/2018

    Court denied motion for attorney’s fees, finding that a party who succeeds in compelling arbitration of copyright infringement claims is not a “prevailing party” entitled to attorney’s fees under the copyright act, since compelling arbitration is a procedural victory that does not materially alter the legal relationship between the parties.

  • Edmondson v. Lilliston Ford Inc, No. 17-1991 (3d Cir. Jan. 11, 2018)

    01/11/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court order denying motion to vacate an arbitral award and granting cross-motion to confirm the award, finding that the arbitration clause’s validity was not affected by a business’s statement that it had “severed its ties with the AAA” or its failure to register the arbitration clause with the AAA prior to the filing of a demand for arbitration.

  • Fatt Katt Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Granite Transformations of Atlanta v. Rocksolid Granit (USA), Inc., No. 1:17-CV-1900-MHC (N.D. Ga. Jan. 11, 2018)

    01/11/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay or dismiss and to compel arbitration.  Court found that the arbitrability of the parties’ agreement should be decided by an arbitrator because the parties expressly agreed to arbitrate, and plaintiff’s claim of unconscionability relates to the contract as a whole and not specifically to the delegation provision within the arbitration clause.

  • Arnold v. HomeAway, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00374-LY (W.D. Tex. Jan. 10, 2017)

    01/10/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that (i) website user with multiple accounts was subject to arbitration agreement in updated terms and conditions since he accepted the updated terms on one of his accounts, notwithstanding that he did not accept them for the account at issue; but (ii) under Texas law, an agreement to arbitrate is illusory and unenforceable if it permits a party to unilaterally abolish or modify the arbitration provision.

  • Visual Creations Inc. v. IDL Worldwide Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00405-WES-PAS (D.R.I. Jan. 9, 2018)

    01/09/2018

    Court denied request to deny plaintiff’s request for a jury, as opposed to bench, trial on the issue of whether there exists a binding agreement to arbitrate. Court held that the plaintiff’s timely request should be granted because §4 of the FAA explicitly provides for a jury trial on the issue of an arbitration agreement’s existence when the party allegedly in default requests such.

  • DiMucci v. Zenimax Media Inc., No. 3:17-CV-03789-EMC (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2018)

    01/09/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement relied on by the defendant is applicable and that as sophisticated parties to a commercial contract who agreed to the AAA Voluntary Arbitration Rules, issues of arbitrability should be decided by the arbitrator.

  • Everest Biosynthesis Group v. Biosynthesis Pharma Group Ltd., No. 3:17-CV-01466-JM-BGS (S.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2018)

    01/08/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration of claims against the first defendant and stay the action as to the remainder of the defendants pending conclusion of the anticipated arbitration.  Court held the parties’ arbitration agreement is clear and concise and evidences an intent to arbitrate any and all disputes under the subject agreement via HKIAC arbitration.  Further, the arbitration agreement was neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable as it was bargained for by the parties and that delegating arbitration in Hong Kong, as opposed to the US, is not so one-sided as to shock the conscience or be overly harsh or oppressive.

  • Wilson-Davis Co. v. Mirgliotta, No. 17-3496 (6th Cir. Jan. 8, 2018)

    01/08/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision refusing to enjoin certain of the defendant-appellee’s claims in FINRA arbitration.

  • Sanchez v. Elizondo, No. 16-17345 (9th Cir. Jan. 5, 2018)
    01/05/2018

    Court of Appeals reversed district court’s order vacating an arbitration award and remanding for a new arbitration, and remanded to the district court for further proceedings. Court held that the district court erred in finding that the arbitrator exceeded his powers and that the arbitrator exhibited a manifest disregard of the law. Court also joined other circuits in holding that it had jurisdiction pursuant to § 16 of the FAA where a motion for vacatur is accompanied by an order remanding for a new arbitration.

  • Donado v. MRC Express, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-24032-RNS (S.D. Fla. Jan. 4, 2018)
    01/04/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case, determining that the language of the agreement at issue did not contain any temporal limitations and, therefore, it’s arbitration agreement could apply retroactively to all of the plaintiff’s claim. Could also held that the fee sharing and attorney fee provisions were not unconscionable.

  • DTC Energy Group, Inc. v. Hirschfeld, No. 1:17-CV-01718-PAB-KLM (D. Colo. Jan. 4, 2018)

    01/04/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding the plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief expressly falls outside the scope of the parties’ arbitration agreement.

  • American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus v. Hubbard, No. 4:17-CV-00246-CDL (M.D. Ga. Jan. 3, 2018)
    01/03/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court rejected defendants’ arguments that plaintiff had previously breached the arbitration agreement and that plaintiff had waived right to arbitration.

  • Thanh Do v. Toyota Motor North America, No. 2:17-CV-12984-GCS-EAS (E.D. Mich. Jan. 3, 2018)
    01/03/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the complaint, finding that allegations of discrimination in violation of Title VII were within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • Crystallex International Corp v. Petroleos de Venezuela SA, No. 16-4012 (3rd Cir. Jan. 3, 2018)
    01/03/2018

    Court of appeals reversed and remanded a Delaware district court decision that a subsidiary of Petroleos de Venezuela SA, a non-debtor to an ICSID award against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, was liable under the Delaware Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act’s (DUFTA).  Court held that while the transfer resulted in assets being put out of the reach of creditors by virtue of international law, a transfer from a non-debtor, the subsidiary of Petroleos de Venezuela SA, to a debtor, Venezuela, is not covered by DUFTA.

  • Dreibrodt v. McClinton Energy Group, LLC, No. 7:16-CV-00340-RAJ (W.D. Tex. Jan. 3, 2017)
    01/03/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss claims and compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court found that fee-splitting provision was severable and did not render arbitration agreement unenforceable. Court therefore struck fee-splitting provision and ordered defendants be responsible for costs of arbitration.

  • Seldin v. Seldin, No. 17-1045 (8th Cir. Jan. 2, 2018)
    01/02/2018

    Court of appeals reversed and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.  Court held that (i) a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not an appropriate mechanism to attempt to compel arbitration, and a 12(b)(6) or Rule 56 motion should be used instead; (ii) the existence of an arbitration agreement alone does not deprive the federal courts of jurisdiction; and (iii) the district court erred when it found that res judicata and collateral estoppel were sufficient grounds to grant a Rule 12(b)(1) motion because preclusion is not a jurisdictional matter.

  • Spinner v. Credit One Bank, N.A., No. 6:17-CV-00340-RBD-TBS (M.D. Fla. Dec. 29, 2017)
    12/29/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, denying plaintiff’s argument that defendant had waived right to arbitrate by participating in litigation.

  • Partridge v. American Hospital Management Company, LLC., No. 17-0248-RC (D.D.C. Dec. 29, 2017)
    12/29/2017

    Court dismissed defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding inter alia that defendant had waived right to arbitration through active participation in litigation.

  • Schilling Livestock, Inc., v. Umpqua Bank, FKA Sterling Savings Bank, No. 15-35995 (9th Cir. Dec. 28, 2017)
    12/28/2017

    Court of appeals denied appeal of district court order confirming an arbitration award, holding that the record did not satisfy the high standard for vacatur.

  • Nygaard v. Property Damage Appraisers, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-02184-VC (E.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 2017)

    12/28/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that because California law rendered the arbitration provisions of the parties’ agreement unenforceable no valid arbitration agreement existed.

  • American, Etc., Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-03660-DMR (N.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 2017)

    12/28/2017

    Court denied motion to vacate arbitration award and granted cross-motion to confirm it.  Court rejected arguments that vacatur was merited under the FAA based on allegations that the arbitrator had exceeded his powers by ordering the petitioner to pay certain premiums to a non-party and considering certain claims by that non-party.

  • Four Star Beauty Supply Corp. v. GIB, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-01351-WCG (E.D. Wis. Dec. 28, 2017)

    12/28/2017

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award and denied cross-motion to vacate it under the FAA and Wisconsin state law.  Court rejected arguments that the arbitrator had manifestly disregarded the law, and held that a public policy defense to enforcement was not available under the FAA and that the plaintiff had failed to satisfy the standard under state law.

  • Leslie v. Hooters of America, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-02873-SEB-MJD (S.D. Ind. Dec. 28, 2017)

    12/28/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings.  Court rejected arguments that the arbitration agreement was invalid as unconscionable merely because it was a contract of adhesion and because the parties’ bargaining power had been unequal.

  • J&J Sports Productions Inc. v. Toetz Enterprises LLC, 2:15-CV-01411-JPS (E.D. Wis. Dec. 28, 2017)

    12/28/2017

    Court denied motion to modify the arbitrator’s award and dismissed the case.  Court reasoned that the modification provision of the FAA concerned only arithmetic-type errors, and not disagreements as to the arbitrator’s methodology or findings of fact.

  • Drywall Tapers and Pointers of Greater New York Local Union 1974, IUPAT, AFL-CIO v. Falcon & Son Corp, No. 1:17-CV-09148-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2017)

    12/28/2017

    Court granted unopposed motion to confirm an arbitration award, finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact nor any grounds for vacatur under the FAA.

  • Faggiano v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-03773-JFB-GRB (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2017)
    12/28/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court disposed of plaintiff’s argument that a class action waiver rendered the arbitration agreement unenforceable, reasoning that the waiver clause was severable from the agreement.

  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Worldwide Shrimp Co., No. 1:17-CV-04723 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 28, 2017)
    12/28/2017

    Magistrate judge recommended that district court find plaintiff waived its right to arbitration as it failed to carry its burden that dismissal of the action was warranted.  Magistrate judge determined that plaintiff elected to proceed before a non-arbitral tribunal, acted in a manner inconsistent with the right to arbitrate, and that dismissal would prejudice the defendants.

  • Aqualucid Consultants, Inc. v. Zeta Corp., No. 17-1217 (6th Cir. Dec. 27, 2017)

    12/27/2017

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order compelling arbitration.  Court agreed that the arbitration agreement covered the dispute and held that the plaintiff’s failed to challenge its validity or demonstrate that the defendants had invalidated it by purportedly refusing to arbitrate prior to commencement of the litigation.  Court further ruled that the defendants had not waived their right to enforce the arbitration clause, finding no prejudice to the plaintiffs from any delays in asserting the arbitration defense.

  • Egonjic v. Princess Cruise Line, Ltd., No. 1:17-CV-24118-RNS (S.D. Fla. Dec. 27, 2017)

    12/27/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the matter.  Court reasoned that dismissal was the proper remedy under the FAA because the contract’s broad arbitration provision meant that all of the issues presented to the court were arbitrable.  The plaintiff did not challenge the arbitrability of the dispute.

  • Willett v. Ally Bank, No. 2:17-CV-02472-JAR-GLR (D. Kan. Dec. 26, 2017)

    12/26/2017

    Court denied the plaintiff’s motion to stay its consideration of a motion to compel arbitration in order to grant limited discovery.  Court reasoned that discovery regarding the possible existence of additional arbitration agreements would be unduly burdensome in light of the defendant’s assurance that no such agreements existed beyond the one submitted by the defendant to the Court and provided to the plaintiff.

  • Gambrell v. Needham, No. 2:17-CV-02884-WB (E.D. Pa. Dec. 22, 2017)

    12/22/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and sua sponte stayed proceedings.  Court determined that the FAA applied to the parties’ agreement because it implicated interstate commerce and held that the defendant had not waived her right to compel arbitration by neglecting to make a corresponding motions in her initial filings seeking dismissal of the suit.  Court further ruled that the agreement covered the parties’ dispute.

  • Brown v. David Stanley Chevrolet, Inc., No. 5:17-CV-00190-D (W.D. Okla. Dec. 22, 2017)

    12/22/2017

    Court declined to reconsider its Nov. 11, 2017 order compelling arbitration, holding that an evidentiary hearing was not required for its ruling and that the plaintiffs had not presented any previously unavailable evidence nor pointed to changes in controlling law.

  • In re: King Baby Marine LLC, No. 1:17-MC-00488-LAK (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2017)
    12/22/2017

    Court denied without prejudice petitioner’s ex parte application for discovery pursuant to 28 USC § 1782, finding that there was no current foreign proceeding to enforce the arbitration awards and that petitioner’s need for the requested discovery was only speculative.

  • Skyline Restoration, Inc. v. First Baptist Church, No. 1:17-CV-01234 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 21, 2017)

    12/21/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, rejecting the plaintiff’s argument that the defendant had waived its right to arbitrate, finding that the plaintiff had yet to ask the Court to take any action in its favor.

  • Health Professionals & Allied Employees AFT/AFL-CIO v. MHA, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-13301-JMV-MF (D.N.J. Dec. 21, 2017)

    12/21/2017

    Court granted motion for a temporary restraining order against the sale of assets.  Court reasoned that because the defendant had failed to satisfy a valid arbitration award, its disposition of certain assets could frustrate the arbitral process.  Court limited its restraint to such assets as were necessary to enforce the arbitral award.

  • Corchado v. Foulke Management Corp., No. 17-1433 (3d Cir. Dec. 21, 2017)
    12/21/2017

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of appellant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that appellees’ defense of fraudulent inducement to sign the arbitration agreement was sufficient grounds for the district court to deny the motion to compel arbitration.

  • CVS Health Corporation v. Vividus, LLC, FKA HM Componding Services, LLC, No. 16-16187 (9th Cir. Dec. 21, 2017)

    12/21/2017

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s denial of a petition to enforce a subpoena issued pre-hearing by an arbitrational panel against a company that was not a party to the arbitration, finding that the FAA does not grant arbitrators the power to compel the production of documents from third parties outside of a hearing.

  • Archer and White Sales, Inc. v. Henry Schein, Inc., No. 16-41674 (5th Cir. Dec. 21, 2017)

    12/21/2017

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s ruling that it had authority to rule on question of arbitrability despite existence of agreement to arbitrate in accordance with the AAA rules, finding that (i) under the express terms of the arbitration agreement, the parties had not agreed to submit claims for injunctive relief to arbitration in accordance with the AAA rules; and (ii) even if the parties had agreed to submit questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator , a court need not do so where the assertion of arbitrability is wholly groundless.

  • Santti v. Menard, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-01243-BYP (N.D. Ohio Dec. 21, 2017)

    12/21/2017

    Court agreed to stay proceedings pending resolution of a Supreme Court case evaluating whether labor agreements requiring waiver of class and collective action proceedings are enforceable under the FAA.

  • Integrity National Corporation, Inc. v. DSS Services, Inc., No. 8:17-CV-00160-PWG (D. Md. Dec. 19, 2017)

    12/19/2017

    Court granted motion confirming an arbitration award. Court held that because the plaintiff filed a timely motion to confirm, and the defendant did not timely file a motion to vacate the award, pursuant to §9 of the FAA the court must grant the motion.

  • Sienkaniec v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 0:17-CV-4489-PJS-FLN (D. Minn. Dec. 18, 2017)
    12/18/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action pending arbitrator’s decision.   Court held that the parties must arbitrate the question of whether the transportation-worker exemption of the FAA applied to the plaintiff because the contract contained a delegation clause requiring the parties to arbitrate issues of enforceability of the arbitration provisions, and the arbitration provisions were not unconscionable.

  • Turner v. Fiserv Solutions, No. 4:16-CV-02158-HEA (W.D. Mo. Dec. 15, 2017)

    12/15/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay the action, holding that the dispute between the parties falls within the terms of the arbitration agreement at issue and that staying the action will ensure the timely arbitration of the dispute.

  • JTH Tax, Inc. v. Hines, No. 2:15-CV-00558-RBS-RJK (E.D. Va. Dec. 15, 2017)
    12/15/2017

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration pursuant to §2 of the FAA and Virginia Law. Court enforced the arbitration clause even though defendant had alleged the contract was a product of fraud because defendant did not allege the same about the arbitration clause.

  • Uretek, ICR Mid-Atlantic, Inc. v. Adams Robinson Enterprises, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00004-GEC (W.D. Va. Dec. 14, 2017)
    12/14/2017

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award, finding that (i) arbitrators did not exceed their authority by looking beyond the four corners of the contract to interpret the contract; (ii) the arbitrators were at least arguably interpreting the contract; and (iii) implying obligations from the duty of good faith and fair dealing is not a manifest disregard of the law.

  • Association of Equipment Manufacturers v. Burgum, No. 1:17-CV-00151-DLH-CSM (D.N.D. Dec. 14, 2017)
    12/14/2017

    Court granted motion for preliminary injunction enjoining North Dakota from enforcing state statute retroactively prohibiting arbitration clauses in certain contracts, finding inter alia that there was a probability of success on the merits as to petitioner’s argument that the statute was preempted by the FAA.

  • Simply Wireless, Inc. v. T-Mobile US, Inc., No. 16-1123 (4th Cir. Dec. 13, 2017)

    12/13/2017

    Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of Simply Wireless’s complaint in favor of arbitration but did so on alternate grounds.  As a matter of first impression, the court held that, in the context of a commercial contract between sophisticated parties, the incorporation of JAMS Arbitration Rules into the arbitration agreement serves as “clear and unmistakable” evidence of the parties’ intent to arbitrate questions of arbitrability.  

  • Cargill Incorporated v. WDS Incorporated, No. 3:17-CV-00848-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C. Dec. 13, 2017)

    12/13/2017

    Court denied motion to stay claim pending arbitration, holding the movant was not a party to the arbitration agreement relied on in support and, therefore, she did not sufficiently demonstrate she is entitled to enforce the arbitration provision before the court.

  • Alderman v. GC Services Limited Partnership, No. 2:16-CV-14508-RLR (S.D. Fla. Dec. 13, 2017)

    12/13/2017

    Court denied motion to dismiss claim or compel arbitration.  Court held that the plaintiff is not a signatory to the arbitration agreement at issue and, in the circumstances, equitable estoppel does permit the non-signatory to compel arbitration.

  • Dylag v. West Las Vegas Surgery Center, LLC., No. 16-15869 (9th Cir. Dec. 13, 2017)
    12/13/2017

    Court of Appeals reversed an order of district court compelling arbitration as to one defendant, and affirmed the order compelling arbitration as to the other defendants. Court found that while joint defendants were co-employers of plaintiff, there was no contractual relationship, and thus no arbitration agreement, between employee and the one defendant.

  • Dye, Jr. v. Sexton, No. 1:16-CV-00035-LMM (N.D. Ga. Dec. 13, 2017)
    12/13/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that a valid arbitration agreement existed between the parties and that under binding Eleventh Circuit precedent the court must send the matter to arbitration for the arbitrator to determine his or her own jurisdiction.

  • Rodriguez-Depena v. Parts Authority, Inc., No. 16-3396 (2d Cir. Dec. 12, 2017)

    12/12/2017

    Court of appeals affirmed district court order.  Appellate court held that the plaintiff-appellant’s claims of individual rights conferred under a federal statute, the Fair Labor Standards Act, are arbitrable as there was no congressional intent to preclude a waiver of judicial remedies for those statutory rights.

  • Ronco Consulting Corp. v. Leading Edge Ventures, LLC, No. 8:17-CV- 00305-PWG (D. Md. Dec. 12, 2017)

    12/12/2017

    Court granted defendant’s petition to confirm its arbitration award.  Court held that plaintiff failed to serve on defendant a timely notice of its application to vacate the award because the service procedures of Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not supplant those provided in 9 USC § 12 of the FAA governing service of a notice of a motion to vacate an arbitration award.

  • Haasbroek v. Princess Cruise Lines Ltd., No. 1:17-CV-22370-KMM (S.D. Fla. Dec. 12, 2017)

    12/12/2017

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and plaintiff’s motion for remand.  Court held that plaintiff’s rape, sexual assault and harassment claims fell within the arbitration clause of a Shipboard Employment Agreement (the “SEA’), governed under the laws of the Bahamas, and that defendants had timely removed to federal court those claims on the grounds that the matter was subject to arbitration pursuant to the New York Convention, thereby providing one defendant (and two others the plaintiff did not contest) the right to compel the plaintiff, a South African citizen, to arbitration.  The court remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction certain claims for two remaining defendants who were non-signatories of the SEA and thus could not enforce the arbitration clause with respect to those claims.

  • Carter v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., No. 16-15835 (9th Cir. Dec. 12, 2017)
    12/12/2017

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to compel arbitration, finding that a class action waiver in an arbitration agreement did not render the agreement unconscionable.

  • La Force v. Gosmith, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-05101-YGR (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2017)
    12/12/2017

    Court granted defendants motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that it had never entered into an agreement, finding that plaintiff used a website which provided a check box for indicating agreement to the terms of use including an arbitration provision. Court held that this was adequate to show plaintiff’s agreement to arbitrate.

  • AMCI Holdings, Inc. v. CBF Industria De Gusa S/A., No. 17-481 (Dec. 11, 2017 U.S.)

    12/11/2017

    United States Supreme Court denied petitioners’ cert petition from a second circuit decision holding that the respondents, the award creditors, could enforce a foreign arbitral award under the New York Convention directly against a non-party award-debtor’s alter egos or successors in interest without first having the award confirmed and entered as a judgment prior to enforcement. 

  • Hamed v. Fry’s Electronics, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00675-ALM (E.D. Tex. Dec. 11, 2017)

    12/11/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding the parties’ agreement was valid and enforceable and that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration clause.

  • National Dairy Association v. Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund, No. 2:17-CV-00214-RSL (W.D. Wash. Dec. 11, 2017)

    12/11/2017

    Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to vacate or modify the interim arbitration award, and granted defendant’s motion for dispositive relief on jurisdictional grounds.  Court held it lacked jurisdiction to intervene in an arbitration proceeding that was not yet final under either the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act or the FAA.

  • Roberts v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 16-16915 (9th Cir. Dec. 11, 2017)

    12/11/2017

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s order compelling arbitration of putative class action claims against defendant-appellee.   Court held that there was no state action, thereby rejecting plaintiffs’ argument on First Amendment grounds that the FAA policy encouraging arbitration renders defendant’s action attributable to the state. 

  • Application for an Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1782 to Conduct Discovery for Use in a Foreign Proceeding, No. 1:17-MC-01466 (D.D.C. Dec. 9, 2017)

    12/09/2017

    Court denied motion to reconsider prior decision denying petitioners’ request to issue a subpoena for discovery of a partner and law firm for use in the set-aside appeal of a $50 billion arbitral award.  Court held that none of the reasons proffered by the petitioners for reconsideration could overcome the court’s prior determination that that the law firm should not have to conduct a burdensome search given the limited, if any, relevance of the discovery sought to the foreign proceeding.  Shearman & Sterling LLP served as counsel for the petitioners.

  • Agnesian Healthcare Inc. v. Cerner Corporation, No. 2:17-CV-01254-JPS (E.D. Wis. Dec. 8, 2017)
    12/08/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss complaint, but could not compel arbitration in another district. The arbitration agreement in question required a party to initiate any dispute in the state of the principal place of business of the non-petitioning party. As defendant was the non-petitioning party, arbitration would be proper in defendant’s home state of Missouri.

  • Ingenieria, Maquinaria Y Equipos de Colombia S.A. v. ATTS, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-03624-JBS-JS (D.N.J. Dec. 8, 2017)

    12/08/2017

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award issued by the Center for Mediation and Arbitration of the Chamber of Commerce of Cali.  Court found that under Colombian or New Jersey law, which did not apply, the arbitration clause was valid, and that respondent waived its right to challenge the validity of the parties’ agreement when it chose not to appear at the arbitration proceedings.

  • Evans v. North Pointe Assisted Living, No. 8:17-CV-00951-DCC (D.S.C. Dec. 8, 2017)

    12/08/2017

    Court declined to compel arbitration of a survival action, holding that an agreement to arbitrate was never concluded because the signatory lacked authority to bind the decedent and did not bind herself individually.  Court rejected arguments that equitable estoppel nevertheless bound the parties under state law.

  • Evans v. North Pointe Assisted Living, No. 8:17-CV-00950-DCC (D.S.C. Dec. 8, 2017)

    12/08/2017

    Court declined to compel arbitration of a survival action, holding that an agreement to arbitrate was never concluded because the signatory lacked authority to bind the decedent and did not bind herself individually.  Court rejected arguments that equitable estoppel nevertheless bound the parties under state law.

  • Richardson v. Coverall North America Inc., No. 1:17-CV-02405-TWT (N.D. Ga. Dec. 7, 2017)
    12/07/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss or stay the action. Court held that the arbitration agreement contained a delegation clause and, as plaintiff made no direct challenges to that clause, all disputes concerning the validity of the agreement should be properly decided by the arbitrator.

  • Matthews v. Priority Energy Services, LLC, No. 6:15-CV-00448-PWS-KNM (E.D. Tex. Dec. 7, 2017)

    12/07/2017

    Court adopted magistrate judge’s recommendation and denied motion to vacate order compelling arbitration or, in the alternative, enforce the arbitration agreement as written.  Court rejected the defendants’ argument that the arbitration agreement – which they initially sought to compel – was invalid because it reflected no meeting of the minds by the parties as to cost allocations.  Instead, the court found that the applicable AAA rules empowered the arbitrator to make any necessary decisions as to costs.

  • Andrio v. Kennedy Rig Services, LLC, No. 4:17-CV-01194 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 6, 2017)
    12/06/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court found indemnity provision, allowing one party to recover fees regardless of the outcome, was unconscionable and not severable from the arbitration agreement, and therefore refused to enforce the arbitration agreement.

  • Doscher v. Sea port Group Securities, LLC, No. 1:15-CV-00384-JMF  (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2017)
    12/06/2017

    Court denied motion to vacate or modify an arbitral award.  Court found arbitral tribunal was owed broad deference and that plaintiff did not meet burden of showing that the tribunal engaged in misconduct that denied him “fundamental fairness.” Thus, plaintiff failed to establish any of the limited grounds for vacating or modifying the award.

  • Hamlin v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-02648-PMD (D.S.C. Dec. 6, 2017)
    12/06/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, stayed the action, and denied as moot defendant’s motion to dismiss.  Court found that the agreement was supported by adequate consideration under South Carolina state law, and was not unconscionable because the agreement selected JAMS rules which were not one-sided. Thus, court compelled arbitration pursuant to the FAA.

  • Love v. BMW Financial Services NA, LLC, No. 1:15-CV-00124-SMG (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2017)
    12/05/2017

    Court confirmed an arbitration award, granting pre-judgment interest and attorney’s fees. Court reasoned that none of plaintiff’s arguments provided a basis for the court to vacate the award, or to decline to affirm it.

  • Meduri Farms, Inc. v. DutchTecSource BV, No. 3:17-CV-00906-SI (D. Or. Dec. 5, 2017)
    12/05/2017

    Court granted preliminary injunction, enjoining defendant from further pursuit of ICC arbitration, and denied defendant’s motion to refer the case to arbitration and stay proceedings. Court concluded that the operative agreement between the parties did not contain a mandatory arbitration clause.

  • Sharp Corporation v. Hisense USA Corporation, No. 4:17-CV-03341-YGR (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2017)
    12/05/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court found that the FAA preempted a state law precluding arbitration of a statutory claim without a clear waiver. Thus, the court held the dispute was within the scope of a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement.

  • Ewing v. Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00222-BEN-WVG (S.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2017)
    12/05/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the action. Court found that the plaintiff’s request to opt out of the arbitration agreement was not timely and plaintiff was subject to a valid, irrevocable, and enforceable arbitration agreement.

  • Clayborne v. Lithia Motors, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00588-AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2017)
    12/05/2017

    Court granted motion to stay proceedings and to compel arbitration, holding that the clause delegating authority to determine “applicability, enforceability, or formation” of the arbitration agreement to arbitratosr was not unconscionable.

  • Laborers’ International Union of North America v. MEK Enterprises, No. 3:17-CV-01614-BEN-NLS (S.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2017)
    12/05/2017

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award, granting pre-judgment interest but denying attorney’s fees. Court stated that respondent bears burden of showing why award should not be confirmed and, since the respondent did not appear, the court confirmed the award.

  • Herrington v. Waterstone Mortgage Corporation, No. 3:11-CV-00779-BBC (W.D. Wis. Dec. 4, 2017)
    12/04/2017

    Court confirmed an arbitration award and denied motion to vacate. In doing so, the court concluded that, according to precedent and § 10(a) of the FAA, defendant had not overcome the presumption of validity granted an arbitration award with clear and convincing evidence of the arbitrator’s alleged bias and misconduct.

  • Essex v. The Children’s Place, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-05621-JMV-MF (D.N.J. Dec. 4, 2017)
    12/04/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration for certain opt-in plaintiffs in a collective labor dispute. Pursuant to the FAA, the court held that the opt-in plaintiffs had entered a valid arbitration agreement and the present dispute fell within the scope of that agreement.

  • Greene v. Frost Brown Todd, LLC, Nos. 16-6761, 16-6763, 16-6772 (6th Cir. Dec. 4, 2017)

    12/04/2017

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment in each of three cases.  Court affirmed the district court judgment in case No. 16-6772 granting summary judgment to the defendants on Greene’s complaint to vacate an arbitrator’s award.  Court held that Greene failed to present evidence to support vacating the arbitrator’s award on any ground permissible under the Railway Labor Act.

  • Steadfast Insurance Company v. Palmetto Civil Group, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-01119-PMD (D.S.C. Dec. 1, 2017)
    12/01/2017

    Court granted defendant and third-party plaintiff’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration of a dispute arising out of an airport construction project.  Pursuant to the FAA, the court determined that the insurer was bound by the arbitration agreement between the contractor and subcontractor and concluded defendant and third-party plaintiff had not waived its right to seek arbitration.

  • Bounty Minerals, LLC v. Chesapeake Exploration, LLC, No. 5:17-CV-01695-SL (E.D. Ohio Dec. 1, 2017)
    12/01/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration in a dispute related to oil and gas leases, only one of which contained an arbitration clause. After the court granted plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint plaintiff removed its request to recover on the particular lease that contained the arbitration clause, leaving no arbitration clause in the agreements at issue. Court rejected arguments that it should still stay proceedings pending the arbitration of the other lease agreement.

  • Conduragis v. Prospect Chartercare, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00272-JJM-PAS (D.R.I. Dec. 1, 2017)
    12/01/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Applying Rhode Island state law, the court determined no valid agreement existed because the agreement lacked consideration.

  • Yang v. Majestic Blue Fisheries, LLC & Dongwon Industries Co., Ltd., No. 15-16881 (9th Cir. Nov. 30, 2017)
    11/30/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed district court’s order denying motion to compel arbitration arising from a claim related to the death of a seaman on a fishing vessel.  Court held that an arbitral clause must be signed by the parties to be enforceable under Art. II(2) of the New York Convention and determined that it could not compel arbitration of a non-signatory or non-party.  Additionally, the court concluded it could not compel arbitration under the FAA, because the statute expressly exempts employment contracts of seamen from its scope.

  • Ngo v. Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., No. 1:17-CV-1727-GHW (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2017)
    11/30/2017

    Court held that the arbitration agreement in question was valid and enforceable, and granted motion to stay but denied motion to dismiss.  Court held that second circuit precedent requires the court to stay, but not dismiss, the proceedings when requested.

  • BSG Resources (Guinea) Limited, BSG Resources (Guinea) Sarl, & BSG Resources Limited  v. Soros, No. 1:17-CV-02726-JFK-AJP (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2017)
    11/29/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to stay the proceeding pending the outcome of an ICSID arbitration between the plaintiffs and Guinea.  Although defendants were not a party to the arbitration, court concluded that the same key issues were integral to both disputes, the stay would not hinder the arbitration, the arbitration would be resolved within a reasonable time, and the delay would not cause undue hardship.

  • Global Colocation Services, LLC v. Hibernia Express (Ireland) Limited, No. 1:17-CV-09027 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2017)
    11/29/2017

    Court denied plaintiff’s application for a temporary restraining order to enjoin defendant from terminating plaintiff’s access to its undersea transatlantic cable.  Pursuant to New York law, the court determined that the pending arbitration would not be rendered ineffectual without the temporary relief, finding that plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits and that a temporary restraining order would interfere with the ongoing arbitration.

  • NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., d/b/a Norwegian Cruise Line v. O.W. Bunker USA, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01327-CSH (D. Conn. Nov. 29, 2017)
    11/29/2017

    Court entered a second order granting a preliminary injunction enjoining the arbitration in London conducting the analysis under the traditional test for an injunction.  Court found plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, a likelihood of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction, that the balance of hardships tipped in the plaintiff’s favor, and that the public interest would not be harmed by the injunction.

  • NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. v. O.W. Bunker USA, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-1327 (D. Conn. Nov. 29, 2017)

    11/29/2017

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to stay the arbitration proceedings and enjoin defendants from proceeding with arbitration.  Applying English law, court held that the arbitration provision had been superseded, and therefore plaintiff was not under any binding agreement to arbitrate its disputes.  Court also found that an injunction was warranted since (i) the parties had not agreed to arbitrate, (ii) plaintiff would be irreparably harmed by being forced to expend time and resources arbitrating an issue that is not arbitrable, and for which any award would not be enforceable; and (iii) plaintiff showed a likelihood of success on the issue of superseding the arbitration clause.

  • Hyatt Franchising, L.L.C. v. Shen Zhen New World I, LLC & Shen Zhen New World Investment (USA) Inc., No. 17-2071 (7th Cir. Nov. 28, 2017)
    11/28/2017

    Court of appeal denied motion to vacate arbitration award, finding the arbitrator’s decision not to disqualify counsel was not misbehavior within the meaning of § 10(a)(3) of the FAA and that the arbitrator’s interpretation of the contract did not exceed the arbitrator’s power under § 10(a)(4).

  • Green Tree Servicing, L.L.C. v. Miller, No. 17-60108 (5th Cir. Nov. 28, 2017)
    11/28/2017

    Court of appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the district court’s order compelling arbitration was not a final appealable order when a matter involving the same parties and essentially the same dispute is stayed pending arbitration.

  • Zhu v. Hakkasan NYC LLC & Hakkasan Holdings, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-05589-KPF (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 2017)
    11/28/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement valid and enforceable and concluding plaintiffs’ claims fell within its scope pursuant to the FAA.  Court determined the availability of collective arbitration and the validity of the confidentiality clause were questions for the arbitrator.

  • Borecki v. Raymours Furniture Co. Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01188-LAK-SN (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 2017)
    11/28/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings, finding that the dispute did not fall within the narrow scope of the arbitral clause.

  • Inferno Group Holdings, LLC v. 1000 Degrees Pizzeria Franchise, Inc., No. 9:17-CV-80983-BB (S.D. Fla. Nov. 28, 2017)

    11/28/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the parties’ incorporation of AAA rules meant that both the validity of the arbitration agreement and its scope was for the arbitrator to decide.

  • Ali, Cole, Collins, Norman, Renfroe, & Torry v. Vehi-Ship, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-02688 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 27, 2017)
    11/27/2017

    Court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) for lack of venue.  Finding that the AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules’ delegation clause, granting the arbitrator the power to decide questions of arbitrability, was incorporated by reference in the agreement, the court held that the arbitrator should determine the validity and scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • Frye, Ndege Ndogo Inc., & Graf, v. Wild Bird Centers of America, No. 17-1346 (4th Cir. Nov. 27, 2017)
    11/27/2017

    Court affirmed District Court’s denial of petition to vacate arbitral award entered in favor of the appellee and confirmation of the award pursuant to the FAA and common law.  Court concluded that the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law, exceed his powers, or draw the award from the essence of the agreement.

  • Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Haynes, No. 17-60113 (5th Cir. Nov. 27, 2017)
    11/27/2017

    Court dismissed the appeal, holding that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the district court’s order compelling arbitration, because the judgment also stayed the substantive claims in the underlying lawsuit between the parties.

  • TIC Seven Bar 12, LLC v. Core Seven Bar H., LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00450-RB-SCY (D.N.M. Nov. 27, 2017)
    11/27/2017

    Court confirmed and entered judgment on an AAA arbitration award as revised after remand to the arbitrator with the supplemental final award.

  • Marquez v. The Finish Line, No. 5:16-CV-01038-DAE (W.D. Tex. Nov. 27, 2017)
    11/27/2017

    Court granted plaintiff’s unopposed motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case without prejudice. Court found that parties had a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate, and the FAA required the case be referred to arbitration.

  • Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, and Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Education and Industry Fund, No. 1:17-CV-01106-PAE (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2017)

    11/22/2017

    Court confirmed the arbitral award and ordered interest, fees, and costs.  Court found that the arbitrator’s decision contained an apparent scrivener’s error and, based on supplemental briefing, court was satisfied that the award was amply justified by the factual record.  Court also awarded interest, as the FAA bears interest from the date of the award until judgment confirming it and the parties had not contracted out of the post-judgment interest rate established by 28 USC § 1961.

  • Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. Simply Wireless, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-24565-FAM (S.D. Fla. Nov. 22, 2017)
    11/22/2017

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to enjoin the arbitration and granted in part defendants’ motion to stay.  Court found that by incorporating the AAA rules into their arbitration agreement, the parties agreed that the arbitrator should decide whether the arbitration agreement encompassed the claims before him.  Court also concluded that, because there are issues involved in the suit that are subject to arbitration, it would stay the action, consistent with the requirements of the FAA.

  • Laborers’ Local Union Nos. 472 & 172 v. Tri-State Erosion Control, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01792-JBS-AMD (D.N.J. Nov. 22, 2017)

    11/22/2017

    Court granted petitioners’ motion to confirm an arbitration award.  Court concluded that (i) contrary to respondent’s assertion that the arbitrator disregarded documents and improperly granted benefits beyond the termination date of the collective bargaining agreement, the arbitrator did consider evidence presented by both parties and did not irrationally decide to award benefits for work performed after termination; (ii) the FAA does not require the arbitrator to explain his or her reasoning for an award; (iii) there is no support in case law for prescribing a more searching review for awards issued by a permanently assigned arbitrator.

  • YPF S.A. v. Apache Overseas, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00178 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 21, 2017)
    11/21/2017

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award pursuant to the FAA, denying respondent’s motion to vacate the award or stay confirmation pending a final award.  Court concluded that the award was final and binding, found that the arbitrators did not exceed their powers, and determined that a stay was inappropriate where the ongoing mediation proceedings did not involve the petitioner as a party.

  • Ouadani v. TF Final Mile LLC, No. 17-1583 (5th Cir. Nov. 21, 2017)

    11/21/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed the district court decision denying defendant-appellant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court concluded that the non-signatory plaintiff-appellee was not required to submit his claims to arbitration because (i) he was not an agent of one of the signatories, (ii) he was not equitably estopped from refusing to arbitrate because the benefits of the arbitration clause accrued to the contracting signatories and not to plaintiff-appellee, and (iii) he is not a third-party beneficiary of the agreement.

  • In the Matter of the Arbitration Between Holton B. Shepherd v. LPL Financial LLC, No. 5:17-CV-00150-D (W.D.N.C. Nov. 20, 2017)

    11/20/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion for a protective order and to stay discovery.  Court noted that, as a general matter, a limited scope of judicial review and restricted inquiry into factual issues support the strong federal policy favoring arbitrability, and allowing “full-blown discovery” would undermine that policy.  However, these principles fail to justify the “preemptive ban” defendant sought on all discovery, and therefore court denied defendant’s motion.

  • Schroder v. Teufel, No. 1:17-CV-06119 (E.D. Ill. Nov. 20, 2017)

    11/20/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for improper venue and stayed the litigation pending arbitration.  Court held that because the parties agreed that the AAA rules would govern their pending arbitration, and those rules unequivocally state that the arbitrator has the authority to decide the validity of an arbitration agreement, the parties “clearly and unmistakably” expressed their intent to arbitrate the validity of the arbitration agreement.

  • Owners Management Co. v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., No. 1:17-CV-00881-CAB (N.D. Ohio Nov. 20, 2017)

    11/20/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss.  Court found that (i) the arbitration provision was broadly worded to cover “any dispute relating to this Agreement,” (ii) it did not expressly exclude any specific disputes, and (iii) the instant case “absolutely cannot be resolved without reference to the Agreement.”  As such, the court concluded that the arbitration of plaintiff’s claims was appropriate.

  • Meierhenry Sargent LLP v. Williams, No. 4:16-CV-04180-LLP (D.S.D. Nov. 20, 2017)

    11/20/2017

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for relief from stay and motion for order to declare the scope of arbitration proceedings.  Court held that arbitrability was an issue for the court to decide because the arbitration provision of the contract was silent on whether the arbitrator or the court would decide the issue and plaintiff clearly did not agree to submit the question to the arbitrator.

  • Johnson v. RCO Legal, P.S., No. 2:17-CV-00512-RAJ (W.D. Wash. Nov. 20, 2017)

    11/20/2017

    Court granted plaintiff’s application to confirm an arbitration award and denied defendant’s motion to vacate.  Court concluded that, despite defendant’s arguments to the contrary, (i) the arbitrator did consider Section 237 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts and decided it was not dispositive; (ii) the arbitrator did consider defendant’s “after acquired evidence”; (iii) the arbitrator did not interpret the agreement in an unjust manner; and (iv) the court is not authorized to review the arbitrator’s decision on the merits.

  • Cunningham v. Henry Ford Health System, No. 2:17-CV-11015-SJM-APP (E.D. Mich. Nov. 20, 2017)

    11/20/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss or stay the proceeding and to compel arbitration.  Court found that (i) plaintiff received adequate notice and signed the agreement, thus knowingly and voluntarily waiving her right to a jury trial; (ii) plaintiff’s claims fell within the ambit of the arbitration agreement’s clear language; (iii) nothing in the record suggested that Congress intended the ADA to preclude waiver of the judicial forum through arbitration agreements; and (iv) the entirety of plaintiff’s complaint is subject to arbitration, and therefore it is proper for the court to dismiss.

  • Wuest v. Comcast Corporation, No. 4:17-CV-04063-JSW (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2017)

    11/20/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to stay pending the outcome of the appeal of the court’s order denying arbitration.  Court found that defendants would be irreparably harmed if it did not stay the action, noting that when a party is denied the opportunity to arbitrate, “the advantages of arbitration—speed and economy—are lost forever.”

  • Gamble v. New England Auto Finance, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-02979-LMM (N.D. Ga. Nov. 20, 2017)

    11/20/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the action, concluding that plaintiff’s claim was not within the scope of arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff’s claim did not “arise from” the loan agreement because (i) even though the claim was based on loan applicants’ refusal to sign a provision in that agreement, the unsigned provision did not create any rights and obligations and no agreement on this basis occurred; and (ii) defendant’s actions would have harmed plaintiff regardless of whether plaintiff had entered into the agreement.  Court also concluded that plaintiff’s claim does not “touch” the loan agreement because it does not arise from any right implicated by the agreement.

  • McAllister v. The St. Louis Rams, LLC, No. 4:16-CV-00172-SNLJ (E.D. Mo. Nov. 17, 2017)

    11/17/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that incorporation of AAA Rules constituted agreement to arbitrate arbitrability.

  • Mizra v. Cachet Hotel Group Limited Cayman L.P., No. 2:17-CV-07140-RGK-KS (C.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2017)

    11/17/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that the arbitration clause was incapable of being performed because it required arbitration before the HKIAC in accordance with the ICC rules.

  • Memorial Hermann Health System v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas, No. 4:17-CV-02661 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 17, 2017)

    11/17/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss for improper venue and motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that (i) the parties had a valid arbitration agreement, (ii) the scope of the arbitration agreement was for the court to determine, and (iii) certain of the plaintiff’s claims did not fall within the scope of the narrow arbitration agreement.

  • Original Appalachian Artworks, Inc. v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc., No. 17-11513 (11th Cir. Nov. 17, 2017)

    11/17/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed district court’s grant of motion to confirm arbitral award and rejected motion to partially vacate the award. Court held that (i) the mere failure to apply the law (as opposed to intentional failure) or legal error is insufficient to show manifest disregard; (ii) the arbitrator did not impermissibly decide a matter not properly before him; (iii) the arbitrator interpreted the contract, but did not modify it; and (iv) the award could not be challenged for mere insufficiency of evidence.

  • Burrell v. 911 Restoration Franchise Inc., No. 1:17-CV-02278-JKB (D. Md. Nov. 17, 2017)

    11/17/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim in part, interpreting that part of the motion as a motion to compel arbitration.  Court explained that the FAA requires the demonstration of four elements to compel arbitration, and found that there was no genuine dispute of material fact with regard to three of those elements:  the existence of a dispute, its relationship to interstate commerce, and the failure of the plaintiffs to arbitrate the dispute.  On the final element, the existence of a written agreement that includes an arbitration provision which purports to cover the dispute, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the rescission of the contract meant rescission of the arbitration clause, finding that the arbitration clause survived rescission.

  • Brown v. David Stanley Chevrolet, Inc., No. 5:17-CV-00190-D (W.D. Okla. Nov. 17, 2017)

    11/17/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay the action.  Court held that the agreements plaintiffs signed should be construed together, rejecting plaintiffs’ argument that one of the contracts—which contained a merger clause but no arbitration agreement—superseded the dispute resolution clause.  Court also found that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate and that plaintiffs’ arguments related to fraud in the inducement of the contract of as a whole, which was for the arbitrator and not the court to decide.

  • Armstead v. Starbucks Corp., No. 2:17-CV-01163-PKC (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2017)

    11/17/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceeding.  Court found that the arbitration agreement was presented in a manner that required two separate steps of viewing and electronically signing the agreement, the webpage was neatly organized, and the arbitration agreement was expressly identified.  Thus, court concluded that the plaintiff electronically consented to the arbitration of her claims and had not come forward with evidence that would permit a reasonable trier of fact to conclude that the consent was not effective. 

  • WDCD, LLC v. iSTAR, INC., No. 1:17-CV-00301-DKW-RLP (D. Haw. Nov. 16, 2017)

    11/16/2017

    Court granted motion to stay in favor of arbitration, finding that non-signatory could invoke arbitration clause in the agreement under which the claims against it arose.

  • Ross v. Quality Homes of McComb, No. 5:17-CV-00046-DCB-MTP (S.D. Miss. Nov. 16, 2017)

    11/16/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings, finding that (i) an arbitration agreement in a form contract was not procedurally unconscionable; (ii) neither the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act nor the National Manufactured Housing and Construction and Safety Standards act preclude arbitration of claims arising thereunder; (iii) non-signatory defendants can invoke an arbitration provision in a contract under which the plaintiff’s claim arise; and (iv) question of whether claims are within the scope of the arbitration agreement was delegated to the arbitrator.

  • Oliver v. First Century Bank, N.A., No. 3:17-CV-00620-MMA-KSC (S.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2017)

    11/16/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that question of arbitrability was delegated to the arbitrator.

  • Edwards v. Doordash, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-02255 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 16, 2017)

    11/16/2017

    Court adopted the magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation to grant defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.  Magistrate judge found that plaintiff Lupo signed the same independent contractor agreement on the same basis as the named plaintiff, which was previously found by the court to contain a valid arbitration clause.  For plaintiffs Hicks and Williams, who signed a second version of the independent contractor agreement, court also found that a valid arbitration agreement existed, and that the adoption of the AAA rules by the parties indicated that they intended to delegate arbitrability rules to the arbitrator.

  • Myers v. TRG Customer Solutions, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00052 (N.D. Tenn. Nov. 15, 2017)

    11/15/2017

    Court granted motion to compel individual arbitration, finding that a collective action asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standard Act does not qualify as concerted activity protected by the National Labor Relations Act, but refused to dismiss the action, since there was an open question whether other opt-in plaintiffs had signed valid and enforceable arbitration agreements.

  • KDDI Global LLC v. Fisk Telecom LLC, No. 3:17-CV-05445-BRM-DEA (D.N.J. Nov. 15, 2017)

    11/15/2017

    Court granted motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, finding that agreement to arbitrate in accordance with the AAA’s Commercial Arbitration Rules, which grant the arbitrator “the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction”, constitutes an agreement to arbitrate arbitrability.

  • Walkwell International, Inc. v. DJO Global, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00270-EJL-REB (D. Idaho Nov. 15, 2017)

    11/15/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that party had failed to establish that arbitration would be cost prohibitive and that arbitration clause was “broad and far reaching” and therefore covered all related claims arising out of the dispute.

  • GGNSC Greensburg, LLC v. Smith, No. 1:17-CV-00150-GNS (W.D. Ky. Nov. 15, 2017)

    11/15/2017

    Court partially granted motion to compel arbitration and enjoined parallel state proceedings, finding that (i) no basis existed for federal abstention in favor of parallel state court proceedings; (ii) a nursing home admission agreement is a contract involving interstate commerce within the federal court jurisdiction; (iii) that the decedent’s attorney-in-fact was authorized to bind the decedent’s estate to pursue any claims in arbitration; (iv) an arbitration agreement in a nursing home admission agreement is not unconscionable; and (v) enjoining parallel state proceedings would not violate the anti-injunction act.  However, court denied motion to compel arbitration as to a wrongful death claim, since that claim belonged to decedent’s beneficiaries, and decedent’s attorney-in-fact did not have authority to bind them to arbitration.

  • United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial & Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Essentia Health, No. 0:17-CV-04753-WMW-LIB (D. Minn. Nov. 15, 2017)

    11/15/2017

    Court denied motion for expedited preliminary injunction, finding that it had not been established that arbitration would be rendered a meaningless ritual if policy requiring employees to receive flu vaccine were implemented pending ruling in arbitration on whether policy is subject to bargaining under collective bargaining agreement.

  • Finsa Portafolios, S.A. de C.V. v. Opengate Capital, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-04360-RGK-E (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2017)
    11/15/2017

    Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of decision to dismiss the action on grounds of forum non conveniens and compel arbitration in Mexico, finding where the contract contains a forum selection clause, plaintiffs have the burden to show the forum was not an adequate alternative forum; concluding the court is not required to impose conditions on dismissal unless there is reason to doubt a party with comply with the foreign forum; and determining plaintiffs could not raise the new argument that a Mexican judge or arbitrator could not assert jurisdiction over the defendant. Court also denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended complaint, finding an amended complaint would be futile because the fraud claims fell within the scope of the forum selection and arbitration clauses.

  • Parish v. Macy’s Retail Holdings, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00120-A (N.D. Tex. Nov. 14, 2017)

    11/14/2017

    Court denied motion to stay and compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff had waived her right to invoke arbitration by prosecuting her claim in court

  • Abel v. All Green Building Services of New York LLC, No. 1:16-CV-08522-JPO (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2017)

    11/14/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed case, finding that arbitration provision of collective bargaining agreement was applicable to employee’s religious discrimination claims.

  • Nano Gas Technologies, Inc. v. Roe, No. 1:17-CV-01738 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 14, 2017)

    11/14/2017

    Court denied petition to vacate arbitral award, finding that (i) the arbitrator did not exceed his authority by ruling on a matter that were not addressed in the counterclaim; (ii) the award was final and definite notwithstanding its failure to provide a specific factual description; (iii) the award was not internally inconsistent; (iv) the award was not in manifest disregard of the law, since it did not direct any party to violate the law; and (v) the award was not against public policy.

  • Bowers v. Northern Two Cayes Company Limited, No. 1:15-CV-00029-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C. Nov. 14, 2017)

    11/14/2017

    Court granted unopposed motion to enter judgment on arbitral award but denied motion to certify the award under the New York Convention, finding that New York Convention applied only to foreign arbitral awards, and that the court judgment itself could be domesticated abroad.

  • Shore Point Distributing Company v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 701, No. 3:17-CV-01950-PGS-DEA (D.N.J. Nov. 14, 2017)

    11/14/2017

    Court denied motion to vacate arbitration award without prejudice and remanded proceedings to arbitrator to finalize the remedy, finding that it was premature to determine whether arbitral award should be vacated since arbitrator had retained jurisdiction over the application of the remedial formula set forth in the award.

  • Green Tree Servicing, L.L.C. v. Dove, No. 17-60116 (5th Cir. Nov. 14, 2017)

    11/14/2017

    Circuit court dismissed appeal, finding that a district court’s order compelling arbitration and dismissing the case with prejudice was not a final appealable order since a case involving the same parties and essentially the same dispute was stayed in the district court pending arbitration.

  • Green Tree Servicing, L.L.C. v. Ducksworth, No. 17-60109 (5th Cir. Nov. 14, 2017)

    11/14/2017

    Circuit court dismissed appeal, finding that a district court’s order compelling arbitration and dismissing the case with prejudice was not a final appealable order since a case involving the same parties and essentially the same dispute was stayed in the district court pending arbitration.

  • TMCO Ltd. v. Green Light Energy Solutions R&D Corp., No. 4:17-CV-00997-KAW (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2017)

    11/14/2017

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award and enter judgment, finding that questions regarding the feasibility of specific performance were premature at the confirmation stage, and that potential impossibility of counter-performance did not fall within the public policy exception.

  • SCL Basilisk AG v. Agribusiness United Savannah Logistics LLC, No. 16-15535 (11th Cir. Nov. 14, 2017)

    11/14/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed district court’s denial of petition for security in aid of pending arbitration, finding that (i) such relief is not authorized by Rule B of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions where not used to secure jurisdiction; (ii) applicable Georgia law did not permit a court to create new substantive remedies in favor of arbitration; and (iii) court’s inherent admiralty powers did not support exercise of power or attachment where not used to secure jurisdiction.

  • Luster-Malone v. Cook County, No. 1:16-CV-02903 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 14, 2017)

    11/14/2017

    Court granted motion to dismiss action to vacate arbitral award, finding that plaintiff had not established gross error in the arbitrator’s findings that there were non-political grounds for plaintiff’s termination and that the plaintiff’s complaints were untimely.

  • Sharp Corporation v. Hisense USA Corporation, No. 1:17-CV-01648-JEB (D.D.C. Nov. 13, 2017)

    11/13/2017

    Court granted motion to dismiss action seeking a preliminary injunction against enforcement in the United States of an interim arbitral award enjoining a party from making disruptive or disparaging statements against about the other party or the dispute pending the outcome of the arbitration.  Court found that, although there was subject matter jurisdiction to grant such a declaratory judgment, there was no personal jurisdiction over the foreign defendant, although the latter question was a “close call” in light of the connection between the court action and speech in the jurisdiction.  On the merits, the court determined that free speech concerns would not prevent enforcement of the interim award (and thus did not merit a preliminary injunction against enforcement), since court enforcement of private agreements does not fulfill the state action requirement under the First Amendment or its underlying public policy.  In any event, the court would exercise its discretion not to award the declaratory judgment, since the interim award was subject to a pending motion to vacate at the seat of the arbitration.

  • Ralph v. Haj, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01332- JM-JMA (S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2017)

    11/13/2017

    Court provisionally granted in part and denied in part motion to compel arbitration and stayed entire action, finding that, although a ninth circuit decision in Morris v. Ernst & Young found that collective action waivers were impermissible for claims under the Fair Labor Standard Act, the Supreme Court had granted certiorari to review that decision.  It was therefore appropriate to stay the entire action pending the Supreme Court’s decision to prevent a situation where some claims were heard in arbitration and others before the court.

  • Rohde v. Family Dollar Stores of Indiana, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00225-TLS-SLC (N.D. Ind. Nov. 13, 2017)

    11/13/2017

    Court granted motion to dismiss action to vacate arbitral award, finding that plaintiff had not established gross error in the arbitrator’s findings that there were non-political grounds for plaintiff’s termination and that the plaintiff’s complaints were untimely.

  • James Shackelford Heating and Cooling, LC v. AT&T Corporation, No. 4:17-CV-00663-ODS (W.D. Mo. Nov. 11, 2017)

    11/11/2017

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, rejecting their argument that the non-signatory plaintiff was a third-party beneficiary of the written agreement and therefore required to arbitrate.  Court explained that a signatory to an agreement seeking to arbitrate with a non-signatory must establish one of five theories—that is, (i) incorporation by reference, (ii) assumption, (iii) agency, (iv) veil-piercing/alter ego, and (v) estoppel—and that simply being a third-party beneficiary is not sufficient.  Court further concluded that, even if the arbitration agreement could be enforced, it did not encompass plaintiff’s claims, which arose from actions separate from the agreement.

  • Kershaw, P.C. v. Shannon L. Spangler P.C., No. 1:16-CV-01351-MEH (D. Colo. Nov. 10, 2016)

    11/10/2017

    Court granted application to confirm arbitration award, finding that it had not been demonstrated that the arbitrator exceeded his authority or acted in manifest disregard of the law.

  • Dillard v. Dolgen Corp. LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00112-NCT-JFP (M.D.N.C. Nov. 9, 2017)

    11/09/2017

    Magistrate judge recommended that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration be granted.  Plaintiff brought claims alleging discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.  Court found that defendant’s claims were subject to arbitration pursuant to a valid arbitration agreement that the plaintiff had signed when presented with his employment documents.

  • Daley v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-02693-JCM-CWH (D. Nev. Nov. 9, 2017)
    11/09/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case.  Court found that there was a valid arbitration agreement between the parties that required them to arbitrate any employment-related claims.  Because plaintiff’s discrimination claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement and the question of arbitrability was one for the arbitrator, the court granted the motion to compel arbitration.

  • Daley v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-02693-JCM-CWH (D. Nev. Nov. 9, 2017)

    11/09/2017

    Court granted motions to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that an arbitration agreement exists that vests the power to rule on the question of arbitrability in an arbitrator.

  • Tellez v. Madrigal, No. 3:15-CV-00304-KC (W.D. Tex. Nov. 9, 2017)

    11/09/2017

    Court denied motion to stay arbitration, finding that (i) litigation-conduct waiver of arbitration is presumptively an issue for the court to decide; (ii) litigation conduct-waiver was not addressed in arbitration agreement; and (iii) defendant waived right to move to compel arbitration by substantially invoking the judicial process through his detailed and substantive motion to dismiss and related filings, and these actions prejudiced the plaintiff through delays and costs.

  • Diversicare Leasing Corporation v. Hall, No. 16-6373 (6th Cir. Nov. 8, 2017)

    11/08/2017

    Court of appeal dismissed Hall’s appeal of the district court’s decision to compel arbitration, noting that, except as “otherwise provided in Section 1292(b) of title 28, an appeal may not be taken from an interlocutory order” directing litigants to arbitrate their action.  Therefore, the court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over Hall’s appeal and granted Diversicare’s motion to dismiss.

  • Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, No. 1:69-CV-02145 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 8, 2017)

    11/08/2017

    Court granted a plaintiffs’ motion to confirm an arbitration award and disagreed with defendant’s claims that the arbitrator had based his decision on gross errors of law and fact.  The dispute arose out of a labor matter and the arbitrator issued a decision finding that this particular plaintiff had been subjected to unlawful retaliation after a Supplemental Relief Order was issued against defendant.  Court found no reason to disturb the arbitrator’s findings and confirmed the award as well as an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.

  • Delta Stone Products, Inc. v. Eurostone Machine USA, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00737-TS (D. Utah Nov. 8, 2017)

    11/08/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment and instead stayed the case pending arbitration.  The parties had entered into a sales contract for the supply of stone in a time-sensitive project, but initiated the present case when there were delays that allegedly led to lost profits and other damages.  However, court found that the arbitration clause within the sales contract was valid and the issues at hand were within its scope, and thus compelled the parties to arbitrate their dispute. 

  • Conde v. Open Door Marketing, LLC, No. 4:15-CV-04080-KAW (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017)

    11/08/2017

    Court stayed defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris.  Plaintiffs brought the case following a labor dispute over misclassification as independent contractors and resulting wages.  At issue is whether an arbitration agreement signed by the plaintiffs is valid given the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Morris v. Ernst & Young, which states that class action waivers in employment agreements are illegal under the NLRA. 

  • Laurich v. Red Lobster Restaurants, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00150-JB-KRS (D.N.M. Nov. 8, 2017)

    11/08/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the proceeding pending the arbitration’s resolution.  Court found that the arbitration agreement contained in an employment contract between the parties was not illusory or procedurally unconscionable.  Court also found that whether defendant had breached the arbitration agreement in such a way that precluded it from enforcing it was a question for the arbitrator and not the court. 

  • Aptim v. Dorsey McCall, No. 2:17-CV-08081-JTM-MBN (E.D. La. Nov. 8, 2017)

    11/08/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the proceeding pending the arbitration’s resolution.  Court found that the arbitration agreement contained in an employment contract between the parties was not illusory or procedurally unconscionable.  Court also found that whether defendant had breached the arbitration agreement in such a way that precluded it from enforcing it was a question for the arbitrator and not the court. 

  • Hart v. Charter Communications, No. 8:17-CV-00556-DOC (C.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017)

    11/08/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that (i) reference in billing statement to new terms of service containing arbitration was reasonably conspicuous; (ii) entity resulting from merger may invoke pre-merger entity’s right to arbitration; and (iii) issues of arbitrability were expressly delegated to the arbitrator.

  • Employment Solutions Management, Inc. v. Partners Personnel-Central Valley, Corp., No. 8:17-CV-01044-JLS-JCG (C.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017)
    11/08/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that the court, rather than the arbitrator, should determine whether the parties had agreed to arbitrate, that the defendants were third-party beneficiaries under either Delaware or California law and thus able to compel arbitration, and that plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration clause

  • Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Coastal Environment Group, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-04667-KPF (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2017)
    11/07/2017

    Court granted petitioners’ motion to confirm and enforce an arbitration award issued against the respondent pursuant to the Labor Management Relations Act.  Because the respondent did not dispute any of the arbitrator’s findings or the contents of the award (and would not have had any ground to do so), the court confirmed the award.  Court also awarded attorney’s fees and some of the costs to petitioners.

  • Alvarez v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-02864-BJM (D.P.R. Nov. 7, 2017)

    11/07/2017

    Court dismissed the claims against some of the defendants’ and instructed the parties to pursue them in arbitration pursuant to a valid arbitration agreement between the parties. 

  • Zeringue v. Monster Energy Company, No. 2:17-CV-06023-SSV-JCW (E.D. La. Nov. 6, 2017)

    11/06/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the case.  Plaintiff was an employee of defendant who had signed employment agreement that included a binding arbitration clause.  Court found that plaintiff’s claim based on sexual harassment as a violation of the Civil Rights Act was within the scope of the arbitration clause. 

  • Pyle v. VXI Global Solutions, Inc., No. 5:17-CV-00220-SL (N.D. Ohio Nov. 6, 2017)

    11/06/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint.  Plaintiff signed an arbitration agreement through which he agreed to submit any employment-related claims to arbitration and was therefore precluded from bringing the present collective action.

  • Van den Heuvel v. Expedia Travel, No. 2:16-CV-00567-JAM-AC (E.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2017)

    11/06/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case.  Court found that the parties had entered into a valid arbitration agreement when plaintiff purchased an airline ticket from defendant.  Because the claims at issue were within the scope of that agreement, the parties were compelled to arbitrate and the case was dismissed.

  • Noye v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 1:15-CV-02382-YK (M.D. Pa. Nov. 6, 2017)

    11/06/2017

    Court granted one of the defendants’ renewed motion to compel arbitration and to stay the case pending completion of arbitration.  Court found that plaintiff completed an online job application that included a valid arbitration agreement and therefore was forced to arbitrate his dispute with one of the defendants.  In regards to a second defendant, the court refused to rule on a motion to compel arbitration and instead asked that the parties submit briefs regarding the applicability of equitable estoppel in light of recent Third Circuit case law.

  • Holtec International v. Pandjiris Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00397-MPK (W.D. Pa. Nov. 3, 2017)
    11/03/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay all claims and compelled arbitration.  According to the court, the terms and conditions in a purchase order between the parties contained a valid arbitration provision and therefore their dispute had to be arbitrated in Ohio.  Additionally, the court held that in this case the theory of equitable estoppel did not apply to a non-signatory to the arbitration provision and therefore that third party was not forced to arbitrate.

  • Patientpoint Royalty Holdings, Inc. v. Healthgrid Coordinated Care Solutions, Inc., No. 6:17-CV-01051-GAP-DCI (M.D. Fla. Nov. 3, 2017)
    11/03/2017

    Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to compel arbitration.  Court found that, while there was a valid arbitration clause between the parties, it was a narrow provision that did not cover the issues disputed in this case.

  • Dome Technology, LLC v. Golden Sands General Contractors, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-01607-VAB (D. Conn. Nov. 3, 2017)

    11/03/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending arbitration.  Court found that two contracts at issue did not conflict with each other and that the parties had agreed to arbitrate claims within the scope of one of those contracts.

  • Zakarin v. Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-01088-JMV-JBC (D.N.J. Nov. 3, 2017)

    11/03/2017

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate a 2016 FINRA arbitration award and instead granted defendant’s motion to confirm the award.  Court found that there were insufficient grounds on which to vacate, modify, or correct the award and therefore confirmed the award pursuant to 9 USC § 9.

  • Enron Nigeria Power Holding, Ltd. V. Federal Republic of Nigeria, No. 1:13-CV-01106-CRC (D.D.C. Nov. 2, 2017)
    11/02/2017

    Court granted in part motion for attorneys’ fees and nontaxable expenses, holding that plaintiff had established that it was entitled to an award under the contract that gave rise to the underlying dispute.  Court found that plaintiff’s affidavits provided sufficient evidence to determine prevailing market rates for experienced commercial litigators in Houston, and that plaintiff’s counsel had established that he could command market rates.

  • Edens v. Synovus Financial Corporation, No. 3:17-CV-00806-MBS (D.S.C. Nov. 2, 2017)
    11/02/2017

    Court granted in part and denied in part motion to compel arbitration, holding that a binding arbitration agreement covered claims of fraud and misrepresentation brought by an investor company, but not claims of breach of fiduciary duty individually by the head of the company, and that the agreement was not void for unconscionability.  Court found that the individual plaintiff was a sophisticated businessman and was not required to enter into the contract, and that a provision limiting punitive damages for both plaintiffs and defendants did not render the arbitration agreement unconscionable.

  • Northeast Regional Council of Carpenters, et al. v. John Butler & Sons Construction LLC, No. 3:17-CV-02835-MAS-DEA (D.N.J. Nov. 2, 2017)
    11/02/2017

    Court denied without prejudice motion to compel arbitration, requiring petitioners to refile their motion, holding that the motion incorrectly cited the date of the arbitral award, and that the arbitral award contained errors regarding dates of events in dispute.  Court found that, in light of the obvious error in the arbitration award, petitioners must submit a legal brief in support of their motion, instead of a statement that no brief was necessary.

  • Finger v. Jacobson, No. 2:17-CV-02893-JTM-DEK (E.D. LA. Nov. 2, 2017)
    11/02/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that there was no enforceable arbitration agreement between plaintiff and defendants.  Court rejected defendants’ argument that the arbitration agreement in an employment contract was broad enough to encompass a claim of fraudulent inducement to the contract against a non-signatory.  Court found that plaintiff’s tort claims did not arise out of or rely on the terms of the employment agreement, and that plaintiff made no allegations of misconduct against the signatory.

  • Unitil Corporation and Northern Utilities, Inc. v. Utility Workers Union of America Local 341, No. 2:16-CV-00443-JAW (D. Me. Nov. 1, 2017)
    11/01/2017

    Court denied motion to partially vacate an arbitration award on grounds that arbitrator acted outside her authority and made a manifest error of law, holding that this case did not meet the standard to disturb the award.  Court found that the award was a reasonable response to the submissions, based on a plausible interpretation of the underlying contract and facts.

  • In the matter of Arbitration between Shepherd v. LPL Financial LLC, No. 5:17-CV-00150-D (E.D.N.C. Nov. 1, 2017)
    11/01/2017

    Court granted motion to quash subpoenas of arbitrators in relation to plaintiffs’ petition to vacate an arbitration award.  Court found that plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate clear evidence of impropriety to justify post-award discovery from an arbitrator.  Court further found that the undisclosed relationship between a lawyer and the arbitrator was strictly professional, and the circumstances surrounding the arbitrator’s non-disclosures did not give the impression of clear impropriety, particularly when plaintiffs won the arbitral award unanimously.   Court found that alleged impropriety by one arbitrator did not give grounds to “double-check” the other panelists.

  • Boyton v. Xerox Commercial Solutions LLC, No. 3:17-CV-505-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C. Nov. 1, 2017)
    11/01/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that motion was moot as defendants could re-file a similar motion in response to plaintiff’s amended complaint.  Court found that plaintiff had filed a timely amended complaint, which superseded the original pleading and rendered defendant’s motion moot. 

  • Robledo v. Randstad US, L.P., No. 5:17-CV-01003-BLF (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2017)
    11/01/2017

    Court granted motion to stay proceedings and terminated without prejudice motion to compel arbitration, holding that the outcome of the Supreme Court’s review of the decision in Morris v. Ernst & Young LLP, 834 F. 3d 975 (9th Cir. 2016) will directly impact the court’s determination of the motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that motion required a determination of whether the National Labor Relations Act  invalidates class action waivers, an issue currently pending before the Supreme Court.  Court found plaintiffs had not shown that a stay of a few months prejudice plaintiffs and, conversely, that denying the stay would risk a waste of judicial resources.

  • Whaley v. Pacific Seafood Group, No. 1:10-CV-03057-MC (D. Or. Nov. 1, 2017)
    11/01/2017

    Court granted motion to stay arbitration pending an appeal of an order appointing another federal judge as a replacement arbitrator, after the initial judge retired, holding that appellant had made sufficient showing that it may prevail on appeal.  Court found that movant had raised a serious question as to whether parties intended to appoint the initial arbitrator, regardless of whether he remained a federal judge.  Court found that parties could be harmed without a stay, as if the Ninth Circuit granted the appeal, parties would have wasted time and resources during arbitration in front of the replacement arbitrator.

  • Dennis v. United Van Lines, No. 4:17-CV-01614-RLW (E.D. Mo. Nov. 1, 2017)
    11/01/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that equitable estoppel applied to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s disputes with defendant, who was not a party to the arbitration agreement.  Court found that plaintiff’s claims depended on his classification as an independent contractor and the work he performed under an employment contract with a third party, which provided a broad arbitration clause.  Court also found that, under the employment contract, plaintiff was an independent contractor and not an employee, and plaintiff did not fall within the FAA exclusion for contracts of employment for transportation workers.

  • AFS Logistics, LLC v. Cochran, No. 3:16-CV-3139 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 31, 2017)
    10/31/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration of claims concerning alleged misappropriation of trade secrets, holding that plaintiff had waived its right to arbitration.  Court found plaintiff’s conduct inconsistent with any reliance on a right to arbitrate and that allowing plaintiff to now rely on an arbitration clause would substantially prejudice defendants.