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
  • Hill-Smith v. Silver Dollar Cabaret, Inc., No. 5:18-CV-05145-PKH (W.D. Ark. Dec. 13, 2018)
    12/14/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint finding that the arbitration agreement was enforceable and that plaintiff’s claims fell squarely within the terms of the arbitration provision and the entire controversy would be resolved by the arbitrator. 

  • Local Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas v. Mirage Casino-Hotel, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-01225-GMN-PAL (9th Circ. Dec. 13, 2018)
    12/13/2018

    Court of appeals reversed district court’s decision confirming an arbitration award.  Court concluded the arbitrator blurred the line between arbitrability and merits because, although the arbitrator did not have authority to decide the question of substantive arbitrability, the arbitrator concluded the claims were not arbitrable.  Court of appeals held the arbitrator’s analysis contravened foundational principles of the arbitral process by overlooking the limits the Supreme Court has placed on the arbitrator’s presumptive powers. 

  • Banks v. Barclays Bank Credit Services, No. 1:17-CV-00096-CCC (M.D. Pa. Dec. 13, 2018)
    12/13/2018

    Court granted defendant’s renewed motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending the outcome of the arbitration.  Court noted the plaintiff did not object and concluded there was no clear error on the face of the record thereby granting defendant’s motion. 

  • Hicks v. Comcast Cable Communication LLC, No. 0:18-CV-61384-BB (S.D. Fla. Dec. 13, 2018)
    12/13/2018

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay action as well as motion to stay discovery and pretrial proceedings.  Court held that a bench trial will be held pursuant to 9 USC § 4 to determine the existence of a binding arbitration agreement between the parties. 

  • McNamara v. S.I. Logistics, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-12523-ADB (D. Mass. Dec. 13, 2018)
    12/13/2018

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint, finding that the parties’ agreement to arbitrate was illusory from the outset because one of the parties had the right to modify the agreement to arbitrate at any moment.  Thus, no agreement to arbitrate was formed between the parties. 

  • Werner v. Waterstone Mortgage Corporation, No. 3:17-CV-00608-JDP (W.D. Wis. Dec. 13, 2018)
    12/13/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the case and compel arbitration, finding that plaintiffs waived their right to arbitrate by filing the claims before federal court and litigating for more than a year before seeking to compel arbitration. 

  • Winkler v. Total Quality Logistics, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-03707 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 13, 2018)
    12/13/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint. Court held the parties entered into a binding arbitration agreement and plaintiff’s three claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.  Court also concluded the arbitration agreement was neither unconscionable nor otherwise materially flawed. 

  • Winters v. Aimco/Bethesda Holdings Inc., No. 3:18-CV-01937-JAH-MDD (S.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2018)
    12/13/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to remand to state court and denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay proceeding, finding that defendant failed to meet the burden of establishing complete diversity of citizenship.  As a result, court held defendant’s motion to compel arbitration was moot. 

  • National Dentex, LLC v. Gold, No. 1:18-CV-10484-LTS (D. Mass. Dec. 12, 2018)
    12/12/2018

    Court denied defendant’s renewed motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss or stay the case.  Court held plaintiff’s claims arise under related, but separate agreements, neither of which contained or incorporated an arbitration clause.

  • Wilson v. CPB Foods, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-00014-CHB-CHL (W.D. Ky. Dec. 12, 2018)
    12/12/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation, finding that the claims before it fell squarely within the scope of the arbitration agreement and that defendant did not waive its right to arbitration. 

  • Smith v. General Information Solutions, LLC No. 3:18-CV-02534-MGL (D.S.C. Dec. 11, 2018)
    12/11/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice.  Court held the language of the arbitration agreement provided clear and unmistakable evidence the parties have chosen to give arbitrability questions to an arbitrator, concluding the parties should be compelled to arbitration because it appeared a valid arbitration agreement existed. 

  • Armstrong v. Michael Stores, Inc., No. 5:17-CV-06540-LHK (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2018)
    12/11/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stays the lawsuit, finding that plaintiff assented to the arbitration agreement twice and that defendant did not waive its right to compel arbitration. 

  • ECI Software Solutions, Inc. v. Sheridan, No. 3:18-CV-00511-N (N.D. Tex. Dec. 11, 2018)
    12/11/2018

    Court granted one defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case against another defendant for lack of personal jurisdiction.  Court found there was a valid arbitration agreement, the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement and that no federal statute of policy rendered the claims nonarbitrable. 

  • Elite Air Conditioning Inc. v. BVB Construction, Inc., No. 5:18-CV-01956-MWF-SP (C.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2018)
    12/11/2018

    Court ordered the parties to arbitration and stayed the case until completion of arbitration pursuant to the parties’ stipulation and agreement to submit all claims between them arising out of the contract in question to arbitration under the auspices of the American Arbitration Association. 

  • Velazquez v. Midland Funding, LLC., No. 1:18-CV-00043-CWD (D. Idaho Dec. 10, 2018)
    12/10/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and issue a protective order, but granted plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint.  Court determined that defendant did not acquire the right to arbitrate the issues in dispute and found the claim did not fall within the terms of the arbitration clause.

  • Lothan Van Hook DeStefano Architecture v. SB Yen Management Group, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00275 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 10, 2018)
    12/10/2018

    Court granted defendant’s request to compel mediation and arbitration, but denied defendant’s request to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.  Court held the claim was subject to arbitration and that an arbitration agreement existed requiring the parties to endeavor to resolve claims by mediation and then by arbitration if mediation was unsuccessful. 

  • Rogers v. Swepi LP, No. 18-3229 (6th Cir. Dec. 10, 2018)
    12/10/2018

    Court of appeals reversed the district court’s denial of defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and remanded the case for entry of an order compelling arbitration and a decision on whether the agreement allows for class-wide arbitration.  Court rejected plaintiff’s defense against arbitration, because he attacked more than just the arbitration agreement.  Court concluded the district court erred in assuming it had the power to rule on arbitrability, which should have been reserved for the arbitrator.

  • Globalone Management Group Limited v. Tempus Applied Solutions, LLC., No. 4:18-CV-00059-RGD-LRL (E.D. Va. Dec. 7, 2018)
    12/07/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motions to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, but dismissed defendant’s motion to dismiss without prejudice.  Court determined that it must compel arbitration and stay proceedings pursuant to §§  3 and 4 of the FAA because the express incorporation of the ICC Rules into an arbitration provision constitutes clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to arbitrate issues of arbitrability.  Court also held defendant’s assertion that all the parties’ disputes are subject to arbitration was not frivolous or illegitimate, concluding that all threshold questions of arbitrability must be referred to arbitration.

  • Collins v. Discover Financial Services, No. 8:17-CV-03011-PX (D. Md. Dec. 7, 2018)
    12/07/2018

    Court denied motion for reconsideration to alter judgment compelling arbitration.  Court held that plaintiffs provided no reason to find that the provisions in the agreements referring to AAA and JAMS rules were not binding and confirmed prior decision compelling to arbitration.  Court also deferred the question of scope of the arbitration agreements to the arbitrator. 

  • Zendon v. Grandison Management, Inc., No. 2:18-CV_04545-ARR-JO (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2018)
    12/07/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel the arbitration of plaintiff’s claims pursuant to the parties’ 2015 Employment Agreement.  Court held the arbitration agreement was valid and plaintiff’s claims clearly constituted a dispute between the parties within the meaning of the arbitration provision.  Court also held defendant did not waive its right to demand arbitration because the filing and withdrawal of a state court action does not constitute “protracted litigation.” 

  • Ege v. Express Messenger Systems Inc., No. 17-35123 (9th Circ. Dec. 7, 2018)
    12/07/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s dismissal of appellants’ complaint in favor of arbitration.  Court held one of the appellants was a third-party beneficiary, appellants’ claims were arbitrable, and arbitration was the proper forum in which to adjudicate the claims. 

  • OJSC Ukrnafta v. Carpatsky Petroleum Corporation, No. 4:09-CV-00891 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 6, 2018)
    12/06/2018

    Court entered a final judgment dismissing claims against defendants and finalizing confirmation of a $147 million arbitration award issued by a Stockholm arbitration panel against plaintiff.  Court severed claims against one defendant and allowed those claims to proceed. 

  • Sagicor Life Insurance Company v. Houchins, No. 5:17-CV-02189-AKK (N.D. Ala. Dec. 6, 2018)
    12/06/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding that claims arising outside the scope of arbitration agreement were irrelevant to determining parties’ intent to arbitrate.  Court held that defendants did not waive their right to arbitrate, notwithstanding defendants’ intent to amicably resolve the dispute and decision to wait several months into the litigation process before filing their motion to compel arbitration.

  • International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail & Transp. Workers v. CSX Transp., Inc., No. 18-3323 (6th Cir. Dec. 5, 2018)
    12/05/2018

    Court of appeals upheld decision confirming arbitration award, finding that the award met highly deferential standard that arbitrator was arguably construing the collective bargaining agreement.  Court found that interpretation was arguably correct where arbitrator relied on the text of the disputed provision, surrounding language, and previous, similar awards.

  • OOGC America LLC v. Chesapeake Exploration, LLC, No. 4:17-CV-00248 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2018)
    12/05/2018

    Court vacated arbitration awards, finding evident partiality where arbitrator failed to disclose decade-long business and investing relationship with an affiliate of the party who appointed him. 

  • SteppeChange, LLC v. VEON, Ltd., No. 3:18-CV-04842-WHO (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2018)
    12/05/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration on the issue of arbitrability, finding that invocation of LCIA rules in the arbitration agreement presented a clear and unmistakable intent to leave arbitrability to the arbitrator.  Court stayed proceedings for both defendants pending arbitrator’s determination.

  • Focus Music Entertainment LLC v. Streamify LLC, No. 1:18-CV-01241-ELH (D. Md. Dec. 5, 2018)
    12/05/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration and transferred case to the District Court for the Southern District of Texas finding that, notwithstanding a valid arbitration agreement, court could not compel arbitration in a different jurisdiction than was contemplated by the agreement, pursuant to § 4 of the FAA.

  • ASARCO LLC v. United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Services Works International Union, No. 16-16363 (9th Cir. Dec. 4, 2018)
    12/04/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed confirmation of arbitration award, holding that the arbitrator acted within his authority when crafting a remedy for the parties’ mutual mistake, notwithstanding a provision in the arbitration agreement barring an arbitrator from altering such agreement.

  • Davison Design & Development, Inc. v. Frison, No. 2:17-CV-01468-JFC (W.D. Pa. Dec. 4, 2018)
    12/04/2018

    Court denied motion to vacate or modify arbitration award, holding that plaintiff failed to meet the “tremendous obstacle” of showing that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded contract law.  Court found that so long as any legally plausible line of argument supports an award, then it must be confirmed.  Court concluded that there was no evidently material miscalculation of damages or material mistake sufficient to warrant modifying the award.

  • S&O Construction Services, Inc. v. APS Contracting, Inc., No. 7:18-CV-05836-CS (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2018)
    12/04/2018

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award, finding, inter alia, that parties’ adoption of AAA rules showed clear and unmistakable intention for the arbitrator to decide arbitrability. 

  • Thomas v. National Collector’s Mint, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-00348 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 4, 2018)
    12/04/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and denied motion to dismiss, staying proceedings until plaintiff’s claims against two defendants were arbitrated, because the third defendant had not consented to arbitration.  Court held that the clause in arbitration agreement restricting recovery of attorney’s fees was severable and did not render the agreement unconscionable.

  • Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Parabia, No. 8:18-CV-00177-TDC (D. Md. Dec. 3, 2018)
    12/03/2018

    Court granted motion for default judgment confirming arbitration award.  Court found that it need not specifically award post-judgment interest as plaintiff was entitled to it by statute.

  • National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA. v. BMC Stock Holdings, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-05777-JPO (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2018)
    12/03/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration of a payment dispute arising from an insurance policy, holding that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate notwithstanding conflicting provisions concerning whether a court or an arbitrator would determine arbitrability.  Court declined to entertain merits-based arguments when parties unequivocally agreed to arbitrate disagreements about payment obligations under the policy.

  • International Union of Operating Engineers v. Ohio Contractors Association, No. 1:18-CV-00722-JG (N.D. Ohio Nov. 30, 2018)
    11/30/2018

    Court denied motion to vacate – and granted motion to confirm – an arbitration award, finding that award met the “low standard” of whether the arbitrator was arguably construing or applying the disputed contract.  Court found that an arbitrator sufficiently interprets a contract where he refers to and analyzes relevant provisions and does not indicate that he was doing more than trying to reach a good-faith interpretation of the contract.

  • Styczynski v. Marketsource, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-02662-GAM (E.D. Pa. Nov. 30, 2018)
    11/30/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration of employment claims, holding that neither limitations on discovery nor mere difference in bargaining power were sufficient to render a contract procedurally or substantively unconscionable under the FAA.

  • Ahlstrom v. DHI Mortgage Company, No. 5:17-CV-04383-BLF, (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2018)
    11/30/2018

    Court granted motion to dismiss suit and compel arbitration, holding that there was a valid arbitration agreement and that defendant accepted the agreement upon signing notwithstanding its efforts to terminate acceptance according to the terms of the agreement.  Court held that the issue of whether defendant properly terminated its acceptance of the arbitration agreement is delegated to the arbitrator, under the contract’s delegation clause.

  • AMC Pinnacle Inc. v. Jeunesse, LLC, No: 6:18-CV-1102-Orl-40DCI (M.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2018)
    11/30/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion for preliminary injunction, notwithstanding a finding that incorporating AAA rules into a contract created a valid delegation clause, on grounds that the arbitration provision did not allow defendants to bypass arbitration altogether by seeking injunction.   The contract, requiring all disputes to be submitted to arbitration except that a party may apply to the court for preliminary injunction to “protect its interest prior to, during or following the filing of any arbitration,” did not mean defendant could seek injunctive relief to protect its “interest in accessing the courts” as such an interpretation would render the arbitration provision meaningless.

  • American Brokerage Network v. American General Life Ins. Co., No. 17-16371 (9th Cir. Nov. 30, 2018)
    11/30/2018

    Court of appeals reversed and remanded vacatur of an arbitration award for arbitrator’s alleged evident partiality due to her failure to disclose relationships that she was unaware of.  Court held that arbitrator’s disclosure that an entity was a former client of her law firm gave appellees a duty to inquire about the nature of the relationship, and that there was no reasonable impression of partiality in arbitrator’s non-disclosure in light of the relationships she did disclose.

  • Drake v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc., No. 18-3020 (6th Cir. Nov. 30, 2018)
    11/30/2018

    Court of appeals remanded the issue of whether an arbitration award should be vacated, holding that it did not have appellate jurisdiction under the FAA where the district court declined to rule on the issue of vacatur.  Court also held that district court’s finding that arbitration was non-binding did not implicitly vacate the award.

  • Millrock Technology, Inc. v. Pixar Bio Corp., No. 1:18-CV-00666-GTS (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2018)
    11/30/2018

    Court granted an unanswered motion to confirm arbitration award, holding plaintiff met its burden of showing entitlement to the relief requested, which is “modest” when a party fails to appear.  The amount prayed for in plaintiff’s motion aggregated the damages from a breach of contract claim along with attorney’s fees, reimbursement for arbitration fees, and a nine percent per annum interest rate.  Court declined plaintiffs’ motion for interest on attorney’s fees and arbitration fees where the award granted interest only in relation to the breach of contract damages.

  • Miner v. Ecolab, Inc., No. 17-56183 (9th Cir. Nov. 30, 2018)           
    11/30/2018

    Court of appeals vacated and remanded district court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration of federal and state wage and hour claims, in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612, 1632 (2018) that class and collective action waivers must be enforced as written under the FAA.  

  • Rowe v. Affordable Motors, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01592-VAB (D. Conn. Nov. 30, 2018)
    11/30/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay all proceeding. Court concluded that (i) a valid agreement to arbitrate was formed, as defendant submitted evidentiary facts showing an agreement to arbitrate and plaintiffs failed to submit facts showing a dispute; and (ii) the claims made in the complaint “touch[ed] matters covered” by the arbitration clause and therefore fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • Patterson v. Nine Energy Services, No. 17-CV-01116-JB-GBW (D.N.M. Nov. 29, 2018)
    11/29/2018

    Court reaffirmed its determination that the substantively unconscionable injunctive relief provision in the arbitration agreement was severable, and declined to certify the question to the Supreme Court of New Mexico for its determination. Court noted that, consistent with its prior determination, the unilateral relief provision was severable because it was not central to the arbitration scheme. Court further concluded that the lack of a savings clause did not indicate the parties’ manifested intent to discard the entire arbitration agreement if a provision is found unconscionable

  • McCormick v. America Online, Inc., No. 17-1542 (4th Cir. Nov. 29, 2018)
    11/29/2018

    Court of appeals vacated and remanded the district court’s order of dismissal based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Court of appeals explained that the court that has jurisdiction to compel arbitration under FAA § 4 also has jurisdiction to supervise the arbitration’s procedures and to confirm, vacate, modify, and enforce the resulting arbitration award. Court of appeals concluded that because the claim could, absent the arbitration agreement, be litigated in federal court under its federal-question jurisdiction, controversies regarding the arbitration of his claim should likewise be resolved in federal court.

  • Lowell v. Lyft, Inc., No. 7:17-CV-06251-NSR (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2018)
    11/29/2018

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  Court rejected defendant’s argument that direct benefits estoppel required the non-signatory plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims, explaining that requiring them to do so would hold them to an arbitration clause in agreement that they neither signed up for nor benefited from.

  • Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. v. Lunera Lighting, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-05091-EMC (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2018)
    11/28/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration.  Relying on Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc., 175 F.3d 716, court concluded that once a court determines that all disputes are subject to arbitration pursuant to a binding arbitration clause, it is improper for a district court to grant preliminary relief where provisional relief is available from an arbitral tribunal.

  • Dickson v. Gospel for Asia, Inc., No. 5:16-CV-05027-PKH (W.D. Ark. Nov. 28, 2018)
    11/28/2018

    Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to compel arbitration and stay, ordering the parties to engage in arbitration but not entering a stay. Court noted that the court of appeals had determined that binding arbitration agreements exist and that the parties’ disagreement fell within the scope of those agreements. Court also found that, because the arbitration agreement controlled the entirety of the dispute, the weight of authority supported dismissal of the action.

  • Matalka v. Home Point Financial Corporation, No. 18-3333 (6th Cir. Nov. 28, 2018)
    11/28/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed decision denying motion to compel arbitration, holding that claims arising from an unrelated oral contract were not subject to an arbitration clause in a prior written contract where the former made no reference to the latter.  Court found the FAA presumption in favor of arbitration need not apply when a claim falls outside the scope of an arbitration agreement. 

  • Sheridan v. Page, No. 1:18-CV-00449-LM (D.N.H. Nov. 28, 2018)
    11/28/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss or stay plaintiff’s claims against it pending mandatory arbitration.  Court concluded that, given the broad language of the arbitration clauses and the policy favoring arbitration, both of plaintiffs’ claims fell within the scope of the arbitration clauses.

  • General Re Life Corp. v. Lincoln National Life Ins., No. 17-2496 (2d Cir.  Nov. 28, 2018)
    11/28/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court judgment granting the cross-petition to confirm the award issued after the arbitral panel clarified the original award.  Court recognized an exception to the doctrine of functus officio, holding that arbitrators retain their authority to clarify an award where an arbitration award is ambiguous.

View All