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
  • Marketti v. The Cordish Companies, No. 1:19-CV-00904-RSL (D. Md. June 21, 2019)
    06/21/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the case.  Court found that all claims were subject to arbitration pursuant to the agreement and that no useful purpose would be served by staying the proceedings.

  • Drake v. Conn’s HomePlus, No. 2:18-CV-02773-DLR (D. Ariz. June 21, 2019)
    06/21/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration of Title VII claims.  Court found that the parties entered a valid and enforceable agreement that delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.  Court held that because the plaintiff did not specifically allege that the delegation clause was unconscionable, all questions of unconscionability should be delegated to the arbitrator in the first instance.

  • Yuan v. Howng, No. 3:18-CV-01960-MSB (S.D. Cal. June 20, 2019)
    06/20/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed claims related to fraud and data protection issues. Court rejected plaintiff’s contention that the motion to compel was untimely, finding that plaintiff had not met its burden in proving defendant waived its right to arbitration.  Court further rejected plaintiff’s contention that the claims were outside the scope of the arbitration agreement. 

  • Tecnocap LLC, v. Graphic Communications Conference, No. 18-3340 (6th Cir. June 20, 2019)
    06/20/2019

    6th Circuit affirmed a district court’s vacatur of an arbitration award.  Appellate court agreed with district court’s finding that the arbitrator had exceeded his authority by issuing an award that required employer to rehire an employee with back pay.  Arbitrator held that an employer had terminated a worker without just cause in violation of a collective bargaining agreement, ignoring a subsequent controlling agreement that gave employer authority to terminate the employee for any absence during a probationary period.

  • Schusterman v. Mazzone, No. 1:19-CV-00212-PAE (S.D.N.Y. June 19, 2019)
    06/19/2019

    Court confirmed a FINRA arbitration award and denied a motion to dismiss the action seeking confirmation.  Court ignored argument that the action to confirm the award was moot because the award had been paid, holding that prior compliance with an award is not a ground for refusal of confirmation.
     

  • Bowles v. Onemain Financial Group, L.L.C., No. 18-60749 (5th Cir. June 19, 2019) 
    06/19/2019

    5th Circuit court reversed and vacated district court’s order compelling arbitration of age discrimination claims.  District court held that procedural unconscionability was a question of the enforceability of an agreement, not of formation, and was delegated to the arbitrator under the agreement.  Appellate court found that district court had plainly erred, holding that procedural unconscionability arguments challenge the formation of the arbitration agreement. 

  • In Re Application of Moneyonmobile, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-80128-VKD (N.D. Ca. June 18, 2019)
    06/18/2019

    Court granted a petition for discovery in support of a foreign proceeding pursuant to 28 USC § 1782(a).  Court found that applicant met the statutory criteria authorizing service of a proposed subpoena. Court further found all four of the Intel factors weighed in favor of the court granting the petition: 1) the discovery sought was outside the jurisdiction of the foreign tribunal; 2) the LCIA was likely to be receptive to U.S. judicial assistance; 3) the LCIA did not have any restrictions to gathering the evidence sought; and 4) that the nine document requests were not unduly burdensome.

  • HPG, LLC v. Kerrigan, No. 2:18-CV-01872-RSL (W.D. Wash. June 18, 2019
    06/18/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and refused to resolve a pending motion for preliminary injunction.  Court disagreed with plaintiff’s contention that requests for preliminary relief did not fall within the scope of arbitration, and applying Washington state-law principles of contract interpretation, ordered plaintiff to submit requests for a preliminary injunction to the arbitrator.

  • Welch v. EZ Loan Auto Sales, No. 1:18-CV-01168-EAW (W.D.N.Y. June 18, 2019) 
    06/18/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.  Court found that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed and that the dispute was within the scope of that agreement.  Court found additionally that plaintiff had previously been permanently barred from filing lawsuits in the W.D.N.Y. and that he could instead pursue his claims in arbitration.

  • Allen v. Brookdale Senior Living, No. 5:19-CV-00125-TES (M.D. Ga. June 18, 2019)
     
    06/18/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings in an employment dispute.  Court rejected plaintiff’s contention that the arbitration agreement could not be enforced by one of the defendants because he had not signed the agreement, finding that the agreement was enforceable by a nonsignatory through equitable estoppel.  Court also disregarded plaintiff’s argument that defendants waived their right to arbitrate because they failed to arbitrate before they terminated her employment.  

  • In Re Uber Text Messaging, No. 1:18-CV-02931-HSG (N.D. Ca. June 18, 2019)
    06/18/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings in an employment dispute.  Court rejected plaintiff’s contention that the arbitration agreement could not be enforced by one of the defendants because he had not signed the agreement, finding that the agreement was enforceable by a nonsignatory through equitable estoppel.  Court also disregarded plaintiff’s argument that defendants waived their right to arbitrate because they failed to arbitrate before they terminated her employment. 

  • Bi-State Insulation, Inc., v. Geiler Co., No. 1:19-CV-00040-SJD-KLL (S. D. Ohio June 17, 2019)
    06/17/2019

    Magistrate judge recommended defendants’ motion to compel be granted and the case be dismissed without prejudice.  Magistrate judge found that although the subcontractor contract did not have an arbitration agreement, this contract incorporated a master contract which did include an arbitration clause.  Magistrate judge found plaintiff’s argument that it did not know of the existence of the arbitration clause was not sufficient to meet the burden of showing a genuine dispute of fact as to the validity of the agreement.

  • Echevarria v. Aerotek, Inc., No. 5:16-CV-04041-BLF (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2019)
    06/17/2019

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel individual arbitration and granted plaintiff’s motion to remand.  Court held that an arbitration agreement’s waiver of class actions is not enforceable to bar such claims under California’s Private Attorney General Act, which the court found was not preempted by the FAA.

  • Ledermann v. Kibrik, No. 1:19-CV-01961-GHW (S.D.N.Y. June 17, 2019)
    06/17/2019

    Court granted petition to confirm a FINRA arbitration award, finding that the decision of the FINRA panel was well grounded in fact and law.  Court received a letter from respondent asking for dismissal because petitioner was required to arbitrate.  Court found that petitioner had complied with that requirement but that respondent had failed to appear before the FINRA panel of arbitrators.

  • SMD Hospitality, LLC, v. A Royal Touch, Inc., No. 5:19-CV-00128-BO (W.D.N.C. June 17, 2019) 
    06/17/2019

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award.  Court found that there was no indication of any defect in the arbitration proceedings and that the scope of review for arbitration awards was limited to determining whether the arbitrators did the job they were asked, not whether they did it correctly.

  • Royal Merchant Holdings, LLC, v. Traeger Pellet Grills, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-00108-EHF (D. Utah June 17, 2019) 
    06/17/2019

    Magistrate judge recommended the dismissal of a petition seeking to compel compliance with an arbitral subpoena under Section 7 of the FAA for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Magistrate judge recognized that the FAA does not confer federal question jurisdiction and an independent basis must exist.  Magistrate judge rejected the argument that the FAA required the court to ‘look through’ the Section 7 petition to the underlying arbitration to determine diversity and amount in controversy.  

  • Zeon Chemicals, L.P. v. United Food and Commercial Works, No. 3:18-CV-00376-GNS (W.D. Ky. June 17, 2019)
    06/17/2019

    Court vacated the decision of an arbitrator in an employment dispute.  While the court recognized that the review of an arbitration award is extremely narrow, court found that although the arbitrator had quoted language from the agreement, he ruled in a manner that appeared not to be connected to the agreement.  Specifically, court found that the arbitrator’s reading of substantive due process rights into the contract that were not explicit within the language amounted to the arbitrator entirely disregarding the language of the CBA and improperly imposing his personal notion of industrial justice.

  • Mike Rose’s Auto Body Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-01864-EMC (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2019)
    06/17/2019

    Court granted in part petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award, vacating only certain provisions.  Court had previously refused to confirm the award, remanding it to the arbitrator who, on remand, had increased the interest rate on the award.  Respondent argued that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by increasing the interest rate, which was outside the limited scope of issues to be considered on remand.  Court agreed and vacated the portion of the remand award that increased the interest rate.

  • Gold Coast Property Management Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 1:18-CV-23693-DPG (S.D. Fla. June 14, 2019)
    06/14/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that a “service of suit” clause within an insurance contract reserving defendant’s right to commence a lawsuit did not supersede an arbitration clause within the same contract. 

  • Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 1:14-CV-04513-ILG-LB (E.D.N.Y. June 14, 2019)
    06/14/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding, inter alia, that plaintiff was bound to an agreement to arbitrate when her friend signed her up for defendant’s service.  Court found that an agency relationship existed when plaintiff gave her friend permission to sign her up for the service.  Court additionally found that plaintiff, through her agent, had inquiry notice of the arbitration agreement when it provided that plaintiff acknowledged her agreement to the terms and conditions of the service by signing up.

  • Brundage v. Pension Associates Retirement Planning, LLC, No. 7:18-CV-02473-NSR (S.D.N.Y. June 13, 2019)
    06/13/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that a contract was not unconscionable even though the portion containing the arbitration clause was missing.  Court reasoned that because the signature page made clear reference to the arbitration clause, plaintiffs would have noticed that a portion of the contract was missing had they reviewed the document.

  • Huntington Ingalls Incorporated v. Ministry of Defense of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 1:18-CV-00469-KBJ (D.D.C. June 13, 2019)
    06/13/2019

    Court denied petitioner’s petition to recognize and enforce an arbitration award when the Southern District of Mississippi – which compelled the arbitration in 2010 – specifically retained jurisdiction to conclude the matter after arbitration.  Court found that petitioner showed no good cause for the court to “inject itself” into a pending matter in Mississippi by turning the award into a D.C. judgment.

  • Scaccia v. Uber Technologies, No. 3:18-CV-00418-TMR-SLO (S.D. Ohio June 13, 2019)
    06/13/2019

    Magistrate judge recommended that defendants’ motion to compel arbitration be granted and the wrongful termination case be dismissed.  Magistrate judge found that the plaintiff’s contention that he never agreed to arbitrate was a threshold issue delegated to the arbitrator by the agreement.  Court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that he was a “worker engaged in … interstate commerce” and was exempted from the FAA through 9 U.S.C. § 1, finding that this narrow exception only applied to those transportation workers who moved goods through interstate commerce. 

  • Craddock v. LeClairRyan, A Professional Corporation, No. 3:16-CV-00011-REP (E.D. Va. June 11, 2019)
    06/11/2019

    Court vacated a revised final award issued in favor of petitioner and remanded the case to the arbitration panel to properly apply Supreme Court precedent on fee enhancements.  Court found that the arbitration panel manifestly disregarded the law when it enhanced petitioner’s attorneys’ fees by 25% - an amount exceeding the “lodestar” figure that would result from the methodology courts should use to calculate reasonable attorneys’ fees.

  • Tradiverse Corporation v. Luzar Trading, S.A., No. 1:18-CV-08194-RMB (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2019)
    06/11/2019

    Court denied respondent’s motion to vacate an interim award and granted petitioner’s cross-motion to confirm the interim award, finding that a court is required to enforce an arbitration award so long as there is a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached.  Court found that there was a “barely colorable justification” where the arbitrator found that petitioner raised several potentially valid claims, service of process by mail was sufficient, and respondent failed to show that the arbitrator did not provide respondent with a fair hearing.

  • Church v. Expedia Inc., No. 2:18-CV-01812-JLR (W.D. Wash. June 10, 2019)
    06/10/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the case, finding that defendants could invoke the arbitration clause as third-party beneficiaries of the agreement.  Court found that the terms of the arbitration agreement contemplated defendants when they referred to a party’s “affiliates,” “affiliated companies,” “partners” and “suppliers.”

  • East v. CD Baby Inc., No. 2:19-CV-00168-GMS (D. Ariz. June 10, 2019)
    06/10/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when a valid arbitration agreement existed between plaintiff and defendants.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration clause was procedurally unconscionable when it was offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, finding that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he was surprised by the agreement or that he was placed under duress or otherwise manipulated into signing the arbitration agreement.

  • Kernick v. N.A.R. Inc., No. 2:18-CV-01505-CB (W.D. Pa. June 10, 2019)
    06/10/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendant could invoke the right to arbitrate as an assignee of the cardholder agreement containing the arbitration clause.

  • Sponheim v. Citibank, N.A., No. SACV 8:19-00264-JVS-ADS (C.D. Cal. June 10, 2019)
    06/10/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the proceedings.  Court found that plaintiff was not primarily seeking public injunctive relief, which would exempt this dispute from arbitration under California’s McGill rule.  Court considered that this claim was merely an incidental benefit to his primary aim of gaining compensation for his injury and that the arbitration agreement was thus enforceable.

  • Farmers of North America, Inc., v. Mann, No. 17-3456 (8th Cir. May 31, 2019)
    05/31/2019

    Court of appeals dismissed plaintiffs’ interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction.  Court noted district court previously found that where an arbitration agreement specified AAA arbitration rules but did not specify an arbitral institution, an arbitrator outside of the AAA could be used.  Court held that where a case was merely stayed and not dismissed because the district court’s decision was not effectively unreviewable since the underlying petition to arbitrate was not denied.

  • Arabian Motors Group, W.L.L., v. Ford Motor Company, No. 18-1748 (6th Cir. May 30, 2019)
    05/30/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s confirmation of the arbitral award, finding held that the arbitrator showed no manifest disregard for the law in his interpretation of the requirement for consent to arbitration.

  • Lincoln National Life Insurance Company v. Sussman, No. 17-10436 (11th Cir. May 30, 2019)
    05/30/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision granting summary judgement in favor of plaintiff and denying defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that failure of the pro se defendant to address the district court’s conclusion that he waived his right to arbitrate by engaging in litigation on appeal foreclosed his ability to challenge that conclusion.

  • Reo v. Palmer Administrative Services, No. 18-3924 (6th Cir. May 30, 2019)
    05/30/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision granting a motion to compel arbitration, finding there was privity between plaintiff and a previous litigant bound by an arbitration agreement with defendant.

  • Emeric v. Florida Fine Cars, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-20987-DPG (S.D. Fla. May 28, 2019)
    05/29/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff’s objections related essentially to scope of the arbitration agreement and arbitrability, issues that the parties clearly and unmistakably agreed to arbitrate.  Court further held the arbitration clause was enforceable.
     

  • Tatneft v. Ukraine, No. 18-7057 (D.C. Cir. May 28, 2019)
    05/29/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision confirming an arbitration award, finding that the waver exception of foreign sovereignty immunity applied to Ukraine here because Ukraine and the United States have both signed the New York Convention.  Court further declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the forum non conveniens issue, which was neither inextricably intertwined with the immunity issues nor necessary to ensure meaningful review of those issues.

  • Border Area Mental Health, Inc. v. United Behavioral Health, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01213-MV-SCY (D.N.M. May 28, 2019)
    05/28/2019

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to set aside the opinion of the arbitrator, finding the arbitrator’s decision must stand because he did not stray from his delegated task of interpreting the contract.  Court further held the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law.

  • Santa Fe Community Housing Trust v. Maes, No. 1:18-CV-00054-RB-KBM (D.N.M. May 28, 2019)
    05/28/2019

    Court granted motion to appoint arbitrator and denied motion to stay, finding that the parties agreed to arbitrate their disputes, but failed to include in the arbitration agreement a method to select an arbitrator.  Thus, court ordered the parties to submit a list of five acceptable arbitrators,

  • Trustees of the Metal Lathers Local 46 Pension Fund v. Regal USA Construction Inc., No. 1:19-CV-03148-JMF (S.D.N.Y. May 28, 2019)
    05/28/2019

    Court granted plaintiff’s unopposed petition to confirm an arbitration award, finding there was no genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment as to all portions of the award, as the arbitrator’s decision provides more than a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached.  Court further held there was no justification under section 10(a) of the FAA for vacating the award.

  • Axia Netmedia Corporation v. Massachusetts Technology Park Corporation, No. 4:17-CV-10482-TSH (D. Mass. May 28, 2019)
    05/28/2019

    Court granted defendants motion to vacate in part and modify the arbitral award and denied plaintiffs motion to confirm the award.  Court held that the arbitrator exceeded his powers by re-writing the terms of the contract between the parties and altering the relationship between them.

  • Carnes v. AT&T, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-01639-ACA (N.D. Ala. May 28, 2019)
    05/28/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding there was a valid arbitration agreement and that plaintiff’s claims fell with the scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • Prizler v. Charter Communications, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-01724-L-MSB (S.D. Cal. May 27, 2019)
    05/27/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding there was a valid arbitration agreement because plaintiff failed to opt out from the arbitration agreement and that the agreement was not procedurally unconscionable.

  • Ben-Salah v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., No. 18-35140 (9th Cir. May 24, 2019)
    05/24/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order compelling arbitration and finding of no procedural unconscionability.  Court held that the district court was within the scope of its authority to decide on procedural questions and provided a reasonable basis for its decision.

  • Johnson v. Smyth Automotive Inc., No. 2:18-CV-01384-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio May 24, 2019)
    05/24/2019

    Court granted defendants motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pending arbitration.  Court held non-signatories may compel a signatory to abide by an arbitration agreement where, as here, there is a close relationship between the signatory and non-signatory party and the claims arise under the subject matter of the underlying agreement.

  • Royal v. CEC Entertainment, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-00302-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga. May 24, 2019)
    05/24/2019

    Court granted the defendants motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Court found that a mutual arbitration agreement between employee and employer covering discrimination disputes was valid and enforceable as the dispute was within its scope and all aspects of contract formation were met. 

  • YPF S.A. v. Apache Overseas, Incorporated, No. 17-20802 (5th Cir. May 24, 2019)
    05/24/2019

    Court affirmed district court’s confirmation of an arbitration award, finding that the arbitrators did not exceed their powers and that the award was reasoned.

  • Berkeley County School District v. HUB International Limited, No. 2:18-CV-00151-DCN (D.S.C. May 23, 2019)
    05/23/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to stay pending appeal of court’s order denying defendants previous motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that fourth circuit precedent requires a stay during pendency of an appeal of an order denying a motion to compel arbitration wherever the appeal is not frivolous.

  • Fisher v. Trans Union, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-00679-GJP (E.D. Pa. May 23, 2019)
    05/23/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to stay proceedings pending the outcome of the arbitration.  Court held that a bankruptcy discharge does not render an underlying arbitration agreement between a debtor and his creditor unenforceable following federal policy in favor of arbitration.

  • Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Bachman, No. 4:18-CV-01496-JCH (E.D. Mo. May 23, 2019)
    05/23/2019

    Court granted plaintiff’s petition to compel arbitration and denied petition for related injunctive relief.  Court found that by incorporating AAA Rules, the parties agreed to allow the arbitrator to determine questions of arbitrability.  Because plaintiff did not argue that the delegation provision itself lacked legal consideration, court must treat it as valid, and leave plaintiff’s formation challenge to the arbitrator.

  • Hoober v. Movement Mortgage, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-06001-BHS (W.D. Wash. May 23, 2019)
    05/23/2019

    Court granted defendants motion to compel arbitration on an individual basis and stayed proceedings pending conclusion of the arbitration.  Court held that there was no procedural unconscionability and severed substantially unconscionable provisions in the contract holding the remainder of the agreement valid.

  • 360 Mortgage Group, LLC v. Castle Mortgage Corporation, No. 1:18-CV-00332-RP (W.D. Tex. May 23, 2019)
    05/23/2019

    Magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation that the court grant defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, deny as moot plaintiffs motion to compel, and dismiss the case without prejudice, finding  that all of plaintiff’s claims  were subject to arbitration.  

View All