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

• Powell v. United Rentals (North America), Inc., No. 2:17-CV-01573-JLP (W.D. Wash. Apr. 3, 2019)

  04/03/2019

  Court declined to rule on defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding improper venue when the agreement was subject to a forum selection clause mandating resolution in Connecticut.  Court found, inter alia, that while it had subject matter jurisdiction over the action, this did not allow the court to ignore the forum selection clause.

• United States of America, ex rel. v. Singulex, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-05241-KAW (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2019)

  04/03/2019

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding, inter alia, that the arbitration provision was not unconscionable when plaintiff had 48 hours to review the agreement and the provision incorporated the AAA Rules, but did not provide a copy of the rules.  Court additionally found that a one-sided contract is not necessarily substantively unconscionable, and that provisions under such contract may be severed to enforce the agreement. 

• Abraham v. Jetsmarter Inc., No. 2:18-CV-01647-WED (E.D. Wis. Apr. 2, 2019)

  04/02/2019

  Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in favor of mandatory arbitration, finding that plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate when they clicked the button next to a phrase stating that they accept the terms and conditions of the agreement containing the arbitration clause.  Court found that the agreement was neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable when defendants were able to negotiate the terms and the agreement contained a class action waiver.

• Bellevue v. Exxon Mobile Corporation, No. 1:19-CV-00652-BMC-LB (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2019)

  04/02/2019

  Court granted defendants’ motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement contained in the terms of a co-branded credit card was valid even when the agreement referred to only one of the two defendants offering the card.  Court held that the provision including claims made by or against anyone “connected with” the mentioned defendant was sufficient to include claims by the unmentioned defendant. 

• Moskalenko v. Carnival PLC, No. 1:17-CV-06947-NGG-CLP (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2019)
   

  03/29/2019

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration under the New York Convention and the FAA, finding that plaintiff was bound to an agreement to arbitrate when she signed a contract incorporating the arbitration clause by reference but did not sign the referenced agreement.  Court noted that federal arbitration law controlled the question of whether an U.S. non-signatory to an arbitration agreement can be bound to arbitrate under the Convention.

• iiiTec, Limited v. Weatherford Technology Holdings, LLC, No. 4:18-CV-01191 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2019)

  03/29/2019

  Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration where defendants were not signatories to the arbitration agreement.  Court held that defendants did not have a sufficiently close relationship to a signatory of the contract nor did they receive a direct benefit under the agreement that would make the arbitration clause binding on defendants.  

• Passmore v. SSC Kerrville Hilltop Village Operating Company LLC, No. 5:18-CV-00782-FB-ESC (W.D. Tex. March 28, 2019)

  03/28/2019

  Court denied motion to stay proceedings pending appeal of district court’s denial of defendants’ motion to compel arbitration to the Fifth Circuit.  Court found that there was not a substantial legal question involved; the public interest did not favor the issuance of a stay; defendants did not show that plaintiffs would not be injured by the stay; and defendants did not make a strong showing of a likelihood of success on the merits.

• Herndon v. Sherwood Construction Co., Inc., No. 4:19-CV-00028-CVE-JFJ (N.D. Okla. March 28, 2019)

  03/28/2019

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pursuant to the FAA.  Court found that there was a valid arbitral agreement and the breach of contract and negligence claims fell within the scope of the contract.

• W.P. Carey, Inc. v. Bigler, No. 1:18-CV-00585-KPF (S.D.N.Y. March 27, 2019) 

  03/27/2019

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration under the FAA and granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.  Court found plaintiff who was a non-signatory to the arbitral agreement was not bound to arbitrate under the theories of assumption, agency, veil-piercing, or estoppel.  

• Baugh v. Allied Professionals Insurance Company, No. 1:18-CV-00074-DB-EJF (D. Utah March 26, 2019) 

  03/26/2019

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings under the FAA, concluding that the parties delegated the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator.  Court granted attorneys’ fees to defendant for the motion to compel pursuant to the agreement between the parties.

• Knepper v. Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., No. 2:19-CV-00527-JVS-ADS (C.D. Cal. March 26, 2019) 

  03/26/2019

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay all proceedings pursuant to the FAA, finding that although plaintiff did not sign the arbitration agreement, she was on notice that it would become binding unless she signed an opt-out agreement.  Court held the class action waiver in the arbitral agreement was valid and denied the motion to amend to add additional plaintiffs.  Court granted motion for leave to amend to add a claim for breach of fiduciary duty.

• Alvarez-Mauras v. Banco Popular of Puerto Rico, No. 18-1051 (1st Cir. March 25, 2019)

  03/25/2019

  Court of appeals affirmed the decision of the district court that plaintiff’s RICO claims against one defendant must be pursued in arbitration because they fell within the scope of a binding arbitration agreement.  Court concluded that claims against the defendant’s wife were subject to arbitration because they were derivative of the claims against him.  Court held that plaintiff’s RICO claims were time barred under the four-year statute of limitations as applied to the defendant non-party to the arbitration agreement.

• Vine v. PLS Financial Services, Inc. and PLS Loan Store of Texas, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-00450-ALM (E.D. Tex. March 25, 2019)

  03/25/2019

  Court denied defendants’ motion to reconsider denial of motion to compel arbitration.  Court declined to reconsider the Fifth Circuit’s affirmance of the district court’s orders to deny the motion to compel arbitration because defendants had substantially invoked the judicial process under the law-of-the-case doctrine, concluding that the new Texas Supreme Court decision was not an intervening change in law.

• Williamson v. Dillard’s, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-00451-CVE-FHM (N.D. Okla. March 25, 2019)

  03/25/2019

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration under the FAA.  Court found plaintiff’s claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act fell within the scope of the arbitral agreement and that the agreement was enforceable because the arbitration agreement did not lack consideration as the arbitration of disputes arising out of plaintiff’s employment was a valuable benefit to both parties.

• Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Bucsek, No. 17-881 (2d Cir. Mar. 22, 2019)

  03/22/2019

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision granting plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction barring defendant from pursuing claims in arbitration before FINRA.  Court held the district court correctly decided the question whether plaintiff was obligated to arbitrate the dispute was to be decided by a court, rather than an arbitrator and that plaintiff’s claims did not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement. 

• Lance v. Midland Credit Management Inc., No. 2-18-CV-04933-MAK (E.D. Pa. Mar. 22, 2019)

  03/22/2019

  Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration as the issues concerning the terms of an assignment either precluded defendants’ right to compel arbitration or were ambiguous requiring further discovery before court could determine consent to arbitration existed. 

• Garcia v. Trademark Construction Co., Inc., No. 3:18-CV-01214-JLS-WVG (S.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2019)

  03/22/2019

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s individual claims, dismissed plaintiff’s class claim and stayed plaintiff’s PAGA claims pending resolution of the arbitration of plaintiff’s individual claims.  Court held the arbitration agreement was enforceable and encompassed plaintiff’s individual claims, rejecting claims of procedural and substantive unconscionability. 

• Smith v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-01351-LJO-JLT (E.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2019)

  03/21/2019

  Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss or in the alternative to stay proceedings and compel arbitration.  Court held the defendant did not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff signed the electronic agreement, which contained an arbitration agreement. 

• Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance USA, Inc., v. Denham-Blythe Company, Inc., No. 5:18-CV-00152-JMH (E.D. Ky. Mar. 21, 2019) 

  03/21/2019

  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the action without prejudice, directing plaintiff to comply with the dispute resolution provisions set forth in the contract requiring the parties to mediate their claims and eventually submit them to arbitration. 

• Johnson v. Oracle America, Inc., No. 17-17489 (9th Cir. Mar. 21, 2019)

  03/21/2019

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order compelling arbitration in an employment dispute.  Court held that the district court correctly ruled it was for the arbitrator to determine which contract defined the scope of the arbitration. 

• Esparza v. Smartpay Leasing, Inc., 17-17175 (9th Cir. Mar. 21, 2019)

  03/21/2019

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the district court correctly determined that plaintiff’s claims did not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

• Walker v. Dillard’s, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00657-MV-KK (D.N.M. Mar. 20, 2019)

  03/20/2019

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay this lawsuit, finding the evidence established that the parties entered into an agreement to arbitrate.  Court further held it was for the arbitrator to decide whether the arbitration agreement is unenforceable for lack of consideration.

• Mitchell v. Diversicare of Batesville, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-00278-SA-RP (N.D. Miss. Mar. 20, 2019)

  03/20/2019

  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration by agreement of the parties.

• Quintero v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, No. 1:19-CV-00261-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2019)

  03/20/2019

  Court granted the parties joint stipulation to stay the matter while they engage in arbitration and requested the parties to file a joint status report every ninety days informing the court of the status of the arbitration.

• Life Care Centers of America Inc. v. Estate of Fannie Deal, No. 1:18-CV-00187-MV-KK (D.N.M. Mar. 20, 2019)

  03/20/2019

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement was valid and that court should not abstain from exercising jurisdiction over plaintiff’s action to compel arbitration and that the defendant was bound to the arbitration agreement because it was a third-party beneficiary to the agreement.  Court further held the provision of the arbitration agreement that prohibited an award of fees and costs in connection with defendant’s claim, and the provision of the arbitration agreement that prohibited an award of exemplary or punitive damages were unenforceable and, therefore, severed these provisions from the arbitration agreement.

• Alkatib v. Progressive Paralegal Services LLC, No. 1:18-CV-02859-JG (N.D. Ohio Mar. 20, 2019)

  03/20/2019

  Court granted in part defendant’s motion to stay and compel arbitration, finding the defendant did not waive arbitration and that thirteen out of fourteen counts were within the scope of the arbitration agreement and plaintiff should be ordered to arbitrate these claims.

• SS White Burs, Inc. v. Guidance Endodontics, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-00698-WJ-KBM (D.N.M. Mar. 19, 2019)

  03/19/2019

  Court denied plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend a prior decision entering a memorandum opinion and order denying plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss case.  Court found that district court did not err in failing to apply motion to dismiss standard and it did not misapprehend the facts.

• Crump v. Metasource Acquisitions LLC, No. 2:18-CV-03313-WB (E.D. Pa. Mar. 19, 2019)

  03/19/2019

  Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, concluding the arbitration agreement was unenforceable.  Court held the arbitration agreement was illusory because the defendants had the unfettered discretion to modify their arbitration obligations and the arbitration agreement was not supported by sufficient consideration in the form of continued employment. 

• Sunmonu v. Chase Bank, N.A. No. 1:18-CV-01695-GLR (D. Md. Mar. 19, 2019)

  03/19/2019

  Court denied plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunctive relief and granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held defendant made the necessary showing of the four requirements to compel arbitration, namely (i) the existence of a dispute between the parties; (ii) a written agreement that includes an arbitration provision which purports to cover the dispute; (iii) the relationship of the transaction, which is evidenced by the agreement, to interstate or foreign commerce; and (iv) the failure, neglect or refusal of the defendant to arbitrate the dispute. 

• Hanson v. Tmx Finance, LLC No. 2:18-CV-00616-RFB-CWB (D. Nev. Mar. 19, 2019)

  03/19/2019

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the introduction of claims before courts could not amount to an opt out of the arbitration agreement under the terms of the underlying contract because it contained specific requirements that plaintiff did not comply with. 

• Thibault v. Heartland Recreational Vehicles, LLC No. 2:18-CV-00732-GCS-EPD (S.D. Ohio Mar. 19, 2019) 

  03/19/2019

  Court granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, finding that (i) defendant did not waive the right to compel arbitration, (ii) the parties agreed to arbitration, (iii) plaintiff’s claims are within the scope of the arbitration agreement, (iv) the claims were arbitrable, (v) the non-signatory defendants could enforce the arbitration agreement. 

• Lowell Daniels v. Diamond Resorts Financial Services, Inc. No. 2:18-CV-00561 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 18, 2019)

  03/18/2019

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the complaint without prejudice, finding that defendant could enforce the arbitration agreement because it was an affiliate of the signatory of the underlying contract.  Court further held that the claims in question fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement. 

• Fedor v. United Healthcare, Inc. No. 1:17-CV-00013-MV-KBM (D.N.M. Mar. 18, 2019) 

  03/18/2019

  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, strike class and collective action claims and compel arbitration and dismissed the case, finding the underlying contract unmistakably delegated to the arbitrator any dispute as to the application and enforceability of the contract.  Given that the plaintiff only challenged the validity of the contract as a whole without mentioning the delegate provision, Court considered it was constrained to treat the delegate provision as valid and enforce it. 

• Butler v. AT&T No. 1:18-CV-01749-PAB-SKC (D. Colo. Mar. 18, 2019)

  03/18/2019

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings.  Court found the contract was binding between the parties and that the mutual promise to arbitrate was sufficient consideration to support the agreement.  Further, court held the parties’ agreement covered the claims asserted in this matter and that as a result the arbitration agreement was enforceable. 

• State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v. Marrero No. 5:18-CV-00433-HSP (E.D. Pa. Mar. 15, 2019)

  03/15/2019

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration holding that the arbitration agreement must be enforced because it unambiguously encompassed the subrogation dispute in question.  

• Papalote Creek II, L.L.C. v. Lower Colorado River Authority No. 17-50852 (5th Cir. Mar. 15, 2019)

  03/15/2019

  Court reversed the district court’s order compelling arbitration and remanded for further proceedings, finding that the dispute did not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement because the arbitration agreement required that disputes about performance of the agreement be subject to arbitration, while in the case at hand it was an interpretative dispute. 

• Jiangsu Guotai International Group Guomao Corporation, Limited v. Jad International Corporation No. 1:18-CV-02699-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2019)

  03/15/2019

  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss based on an agreement between the principal parties to arbitrate their disputes before CIETAC.  Court held the claims fell within the broad scope of the arbitration agreement and that a non-signatory was also bound to arbitrate because the claims were intertwined with the agreements between the signatories. 

• FCCI Insurance Company v. Nicholas County Library No. 5:18-CV-00038-JMH (E.D. Ky. Mar. 15, 2019) 

  03/15/2019

  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.  Court held plaintiff had to submit its claims to an arbitrator because the parties agreed to let the arbitrator rule on his or her own jurisdiction and as a result determined to dismiss the action without prejudice. 

• Dickey’s Barbecue Restaurants, Inc. v. Campbell Investments, LLC, No. 4:18-CV-00491-ALM-KPJ (E.D. Tex. Mar. 15, 2019)

  03/15/2019

  Court overruled objections to magistrate judge’s recommendation and ordered parties to submit disputes to arbitration, finding that (i) another court’s interpretation of arbitration provisions in other agreements did not create collateral estoppel or res judicata; (ii) party’s failure in the other proceedings to rely on arbitration clause in the contract giving rise to claims at issue in the present litigation was not the sort of “overt act” waiving right to arbitrate under that clause; and (iii) the question of whether the claims fall within the scope of the arbitration clause should be determined by the arbitrator.

• Boves v. Aaron’s Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00005-HBP (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2019)

  03/14/2019

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings, finding that employee was bound by an arbitration agreement that he received and failed to opt out of, and that the enforcement of that agreement would not breach the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

• Dimension Service Corporation v. Bayview Ford Lincoln, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-00489-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio Mar. 14, 2019)

  03/14/2019

  Court denied motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction but granted request to arbitrate, finding that the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable.

• Stacy v. Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd. No. 2:18-CV-13243-KM-JBC (D.N.J. Mar. 14, 2019)

  03/14/2019

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint, finding that the parties were entitled to discovery.  Court held that after focused discovery on the arbitrability issue was complete, it would accept a motion for partial summary judgment to compel arbitration. 

• Grayton v. San Diego County Credit Union, No. 3:18-CV-02254-WQH-WVG (S.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2019)

  03/14/2019

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings, finding that the arbitration agreement was valid, the claims were within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and that there were no valid bases for challenging enforcement.

• Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company v. Everest Reinsurance Company, No. 1:18-MC-00653-JEJ (M.D. Pa. Mar. 14, 2019)

  03/14/2019

  Court granted one party’s motion to compel arbitration before a new arbitral panel and denied the other party’s motion to compel arbitration before an existing arbitral panel, finding that question of whether contract required consolidated arbitral proceedings was a question of arbitral procedure that should be decided in arbitration.

• Bell-Sparrow v. SFP*Proschoicebeauty, No. 4:18-CV-06707-YGR (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2019)

  03/14/2019

  Court granted one defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action as to that defendant alone, finding that (i) question of arbitrability was for court to decide since defendant had not argued that it had been delegated; (ii) credit card agreement containing arbitration clause was validly accepted by the defendant’s use of the credit card, notwithstanding that she did not sign the agreement; (iii) the arbitration agreement was not substantively unconscionable since it did not have terms that shocked the conscience; (iv) the arbitration agreement was not procedurally unconscionable since it provided an opt out mechanism; (v) the arbitration agreement was part of a bargained-for exchange, whereby the plaintiff received and used a credit card; (vi) the plaintiff had not shown that enforcement of the arbitration agreement would be prohibitively expensive in violation of the Seventh Amendment, since the defendant had offered to pay the arbitration fees; and (vii) the claims were within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

• Shore Point Distributing Company v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 701 No. 17-3684 (3d Cir. Mar. 13, 2019)

  03/13/2019

  Court of appeals held it did not have jurisdiction to review an order that sent parties back to an arbitration that had already begun because pursuant to 9 USC § 16(b)(2) a court of appeals may not consider an appeal from an interlocutory order directing arbitration to proceed. 

• Joia v. Jozon Enterprises. Inc No. 1:18-CV-00365-WES-PAS (D.R.I. Mar. 13, 2019)

  03/13/2019

  Magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation that the court lacks statutory and constitutional subject matter jurisdiction over the case, and recommended that the court dismiss Plaintiff’s petition to compel arbitration.  Court held the petition failed to establish subject-matter jurisdiction and that there was no case or controversy to be decided by the court because the plaintiff did not request arbitration and the defendant did not refuse to arbitrate. 

• Bekele v. Lyft, Inc., No. 16-2109 (1st Cir. Mar. 13, 2019)

  03/13/2019

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to grant motion to compel individual arbitration, finding that (i) party waived argument that no arbitration agreement had been formed by not raising it in his opening brief; (ii) the arbitration clause does not impose substantively unconscionable fees because they do not exceed the potential recovery and because the defendant has offered to pay plaintiff’s share of the fees.

• Freeman v. River Manor Corp., No. 1:17-CV-05162-RJD-RER (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2019)

  03/13/2019

  Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed statutory claims, finding that the claims were “inextricably intertwined” with consideration of the applicable collective bargaining agreement and thus must be in accordance with the agreement’s grievance and arbitration procedure.

• Brecher v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-03142-ERK-JO (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2019)

  03/13/2019

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration on an individual basis and dismissed class action claims, finding that a valid agreement to arbitrate claims arising from credit card debt existed since the debtor was assumed to have received the credit card agreement in the normal course and to have agreed to it by her continued use of the card.