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
  • Robinson v. Virginia College, LLC, No. 19-11864 (11th Cir. Oct. 16, 2019)
    10/16/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order denying defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff’s claims – as a student and former employee of one defendant – against defendants resulting from the latter’s loss of college accreditation fell outside of plaintiff’s employment-related arbitration agreement.  Court found that because plaintiff’s claims arose from his role as a student, rather than an employee, rendered the claims not arbitrable.

  • Nicholas v. Wayfair Inc., No. 1:19-CV-01974-JBW-LB (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2019)
    10/16/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff agreed to arbitrate her claims when she acquiesced to defendants’ website terms and conditions.  Court found that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable when the website text clearly indicated that submission of plaintiff’s order would result in her agreement to the terms and conditions.

  • Cooper v. Adobe Systems Incorporated, No. 5:18-CV-06472-BLF (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2019)
    10/11/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that notwithstanding plaintiff’s challenges to the formation of the arbitration agreement, the parties agreed to arbitrate issues of arbitrability by incorporating the JAMS rules.

  • Rainey v. Citigroup, Incorporated, No. 19-10036 (5th Cir. Oct. 7, 2019)
    10/07/2019

    Court of appeals held that defendant’s service of process complied with FRCP 5(b)(2)(C) and that dismissal, as opposed to a stay pending arbitration, is proper “when all of the issues raised in the district court must be submitted to arbitration.”

  • Marisco, Ltd. v. GL Engineering & Construction PTE., Ltd, No. 1:18-CV-00211-SOM (D. Haw. Oct. 3, 2019)
    10/03/2019

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims relating to the construction of a dry dock.  Court held that although there was a valid arbitration agreement, plaintiff’s claims did not fall within its scope.

  • Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. The City of Fresno, No. 2:16-CV-00495-JAM (E.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2019)
    10/03/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to vacate order compelling arbitration of an insurance coverage dispute.  Court held that the arbitration it previously compelled was now moot as a result of a summary judgment order in favor of defendant by a California Court in a related action. 

  • Phillips v. Neutron Holdings, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-03382-KGS (N.D. Tex. Oct. 2, 2019)
    10/02/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims arising from an electric scooter accident.  Court held that the ‘sign-in-wrap’ online user agreement at issue, which contained an arbitration agreement, was enforceable and that it was for the arbitral tribunal to decide whether the claims asserted fell within the scope of the agreement.

  • Morrison v. Home Depot, No. 2:19-CV-00517-GCS (S.D. Ohio Oct. 2, 2019)
    10/02/2019


    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims relating to credit card transactions.  Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the motion was untimely, that it was entitled to a trial by jury and that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable. 

  • Izett v. Crown Asset Management, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-05224-EMC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2019)
    10/01/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims relating to the debt collection practices of defendants.  Court held that defendants did not waive their right to arbitrate the subject matter of the dispute despite having previously successfully pursued collection of the debt in state court.  Court also held that the question of whether the state court judgment extinguished the defendants’ right to arbitrate should be directed to the arbitral tribunal.

  • Enel Green Power North America, Inc. v. Geronimo Energy, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-05882-AJN (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2019)
    09/30/2019


    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of a claim relating to an alleged breach of a partnership agreement.  Court held that the claim was not subject to an earlier agreement between the parties to arbitrate because the later agreements upon which the claim was based included mandatory forum selection clauses choosing New York courts as the exclusive jurisdiction.

  • Gibbs v. Stinson, No. 3:18-CV-00676-MHL (E.D. Va. Sept. 30, 2019)
    09/30/2019

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims relating to an alleged unlawful lending operation.  Court held that certain of the arbitration agreements at issue were unenforceable because they sought to apply Native American tribal law to the exclusion of federal law.  Court also held that the other arbitration agreement at issue was enforceable because it did not disavow federal law wholesale and instead contemplated application of federal law to the arbitral proceedings.

  • Dhaliwal v. Mallinckdrodt PLC, No. 1:18-CV-03146-VSB (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2019)
    09/30/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of a whistleblower retaliation action.  Court held that although the defendants were not parties to the arbitration agreement entered into with the plaintiff by a company they had acquired, the subject matter of the plaintiff’s claims were intertwined with the scope of the arbitration agreement and that it would be inequitable for the plaintiff to refuse to arbitrate on the ground that it had made no agreement with the defendants.

  • Galvez v. Jet Smarter, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-10311-VSB (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2019)
    09/30/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stays proceedings pending arbitration in a breach of contract and fraud action relating to a membership agreement for private jet services.  Court held that there was a valid agreement between the parties to arbitrate in the terms and conditions of service which were accepted by the plaintiff at the time he purchased his membership. 

  • Kathan v. Autovest, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-00486-TC (D. Utah Sept. 30, 2019)
    09/30/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in connection with a claim alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  Court held that the defendant had not waived its right to compel arbitration by previously filing a debt collection action in state court.

  • Lotsoff v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 3:18-CV-02033-AJB (S.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2019)
    09/30/2019

    Court denied defendant Wells Fargo’s motion to compel arbitration of claims relating to Wells Fargo’s practice of charging overdraft fees on checking accounts.  Court held that the arbitration agreement at issue was invalid and unenforceable because it precluded the plaintiffs’ ability to seek public injunctive relief against Wells Fargo in any forum.

  • Sadler v. General Electric Company, No. 3:17-CV-00328-RGJ (W.D. Ky. Sept. 30, 2019)
    09/30/2019

    Court denied in part and grants in part defendant GE’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that there was insufficient consideration to form a binding agreement to arbitrate holding that there was sufficient consideration because the agreement was an exchange of promises between the parties that bound each party to submit their disputes to arbitration.  Court also found that it had insufficient evidence to find that certain of the plaintiffs consented to the arbitration agreement and ordered the parties to supplement the record with evidence on this issue.

  • Gorin v. Vivint Solar Developer LLC, No. 1:19-CV-01207 (D. Md. Sept. 27, 2019)Gorin
    09/27/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay court proceedings in breach of warranty case relating to the design and installation of a residential solar power system.  Court held that the regulations enacted by the Federal Trade Commission requiring parties to enter into non-binding dispute resolution before a warrantor can insist on binding arbitration did not apply to the warranty claims at issue.

  • Imagetec, L.P. v. Lexmark International, Inc., No. 5:18-CV-00011-CHB (E.D. Ky. Sept. 27, 2019)
    09/27/2019

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in dispute regarding software and dealer agreements relating to commercial printing.  Court held than an agreement to arbitrate in a dealer agreement did not fall within the scope of a subsequent software agreement between the parties, which included an integration clause but no arbitration agreement, and that claims falling under the latter agreement were not subject to arbitration.  Court also decided to stay the non-arbitrable claims falling under the software agreement pending arbitration of the claims arising under the dealer agreement.

  • Jackson v. Rushmore Service Center, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-04587-SJF (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2019)
    09/27/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and to stay court action alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in connection with allegedly misleading credit card collection letters.  Court held that an agreement between the parties to arbitrate existed, which was the sole matter in dispute in relation to arbitrability.

  • Aerpio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Quaggin, No. 1:18-CV-00794-SJD-KLL (S.D. Ohio Sept. 26, 2019)
    09/26/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding clear and unmistakable evidence of parties’ intent to delegate gateway arbitrability issues to arbitral tribunal. Court held that carve-out in arbitration provision providing for specific remedies in the event of breach did not create any ambiguity as to the delegation.

  • Lomeli v. Midland Funding, LLC., No. 5:19-CV-01141-LHK (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2019)
    09/26/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that assignee of rights under credit card agreement was entitled to enforce arbitration provision against plaintiff. Court also held that third-party debt collection agency engaged by assignee was entitled to enforce arbitration provision because of broad language in arbitration provision requiring arbitration of any disputes involving entities “claiming through” the parties to credit card agreement.

  • Fambrough v. Green, No. 4:19-00158-CV-RK (W.D. Mo. Sept. 26, 2019)
    09/26/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that parties had delegated gateway issues concerning the arbitrability of the dispute to the arbitral tribunal, and, therefore, that defendant’s claim that agreement was procured by duress had to be determined by the tribunal.

  • Hallam v. Southaven R.V. Center, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-220-DMB-RP (N.D. Miss. Sept. 25, 2019)
    09/25/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed court action against non-signatory pending arbitration between signatories to the arbitration provision. Plaintiffs brought action against the seller and the manufacturer of a motor home, but only the seller was a signatory to the arbitration provision in the sale contract with plaintiffs. Court granted motion to compel arbitration between plaintiffs and the seller, and held that it would stay the action against the manufacturer pending arbitration, since the claims both involved the same primary question of fact, namely, whether the motor home had numerous defects.

  • Mohazzabi v. Wells Fargo, N.A., No. 2:18-CV-02137-RFB-VCF (D. Nev. Sept. 25, 2019)
    09/25/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that parties had entered into a binding contract to arbitrate, and that the contract was not unconscionable under Nevada law.

  • SFM LLC v. Best Roast Coffee LLC, No. 2:19-CV-04820-JAT (D. Ariz. Sept. 24, 2019)
    09/24/2019

    Court dismissed motion to compel arbitration, finding that dispute did not fall within arbitration clause in a contract between the parties. Court held that the claims, which concerned trademark infringement, cybersquatting, false endorsement, or false advertising, did not “relate to or arise from the terms of” a Non-Circumvention Agreement that was limited to matters such as trade secrets or the use of business opportunities.

  • Sheinfeld v. BMW Financial Services NA, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-02083-JAD-EJY (D. Nev. Sept. 24, 2019)
    09/24/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the claims-resolution procedure in the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act 15 USC § 2301, which allows consumers to bring warranty claims in respect of certain consumer products, did not prohibit the enforcement of a binding arbitration agreement.

  • Parker v. Resurgent Capital Services LP, No. 4:19-CV-50-BO (E.D.N.C. Sept. 23, 2019)
    09/23/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff was bound by the arbitration provision in a credit card agreement, notwithstanding that defendant was the assignee of the account and not the original party to the agreement with plaintiff.

  • Arredondo v. Southwestern & Pacific Specialty Finance, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-01737-DAD-SKO (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2019) 
    09/23/2019

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff had validly opted out of arbitration provision in a dispute resolution agreement, which superseded a prior dispute resolution agreement that plaintiff had signed two years earlier. 

  • Nandorf, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-05285 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 23, 2019) 
    09/23/2019

    Court converted motion to compel arbitration to a motion to dismiss, and granted motion to dismiss, holding that, while it did not have authority to compel arbitration in a forum outside its district, it had authority to dismiss the complaint if the claims were subject to arbitration. Court found that even though there was a dispute over the enforceability of the arbitration agreement, there was clear and unmistakable evidence of parties’ intent to delegate threshold arbitrability questions to arbitral tribunal.

  • Ruiz v. New Avon LLC, No. 1:18-CV-09033-VSB (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2019) 
    09/22/2019

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding that the arbitration agreement signed by an employee was superseded by the terms of a subsequent employment agreement that contained a mandatory forum selection clause requiring all disputes related to plaintiff’s employment to be submitted to the “sole exclusive jurisdiction” of the New York federal or state courts. 

  • Solar Leasing, Inc. v. Hutchinson, No. 3:17-CV-00076-WAL-RM (D.V.I. Sept. 20, 2019) 
    09/20/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of claims related to defendant’s personal guaranty of payments under a licensing agreement.  Court found although the personal guaranty did not contain an arbitration agreement, the parties intended the terms of the lease agreement, including the arbitration provision, to apply to the personal guaranty.  Court further found that the agreement to arbitrate was valid, the plaintiff’s claims were within the scope of the agreement, and the agreement required the parties to submit the dispute informally to nonbinding mediation prior to commencing arbitration.

  • Hofer v. Emley, No. 3:19-CV-02205-JSC (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2019) 
    09/20/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding that the non-signatory plaintiff was bound by the arbitration agreement as a consequence of equitable estoppel under California law

  • Krohn v. Spectrum Gulf Coast, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-2722-S (N.D. Tex. Sept. 19, 2019)
    09/19/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, holding that an employment contract was validly modified to incorporate an arbitration agreement under Texas law.  Plaintiff had been given notice of contract modification by email, which provided for binding arbitration unless plaintiff opted-out. Plaintiff accepted modification by continuing to work with knowledge of the modified employment terms.

  • Barclays Capital Inc. v. Urquidi, No. 1:15-CV-21850-JEM (11th Cir. Sept. 19, 2019) 
    09/19/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion to vacate an arbitration award forgiving the debt that claimants owed to the respondents.  Court of appeals found that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers, rejecting the argument that the arbitrator ignored the plain language of, or modified impermissibly, the underlying agreements. The panel had given no written reasons for its award, but the court inferred that the panel had agreed with the claimant’s position that respondents’ conduct had rendered the loan notes unenforceable.  The court said that determining whether this decision was legally or factually erroneous was beyond their limited scope of review.

  • Daly v. Citigroup Inc., No. 18-665 (2d Cir. Sept. 19, 2019)
    09/19/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to compel arbitration of whistleblower and gender discrimination claims and to dismiss claims related to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.  Court of appeals agreed with the district court that claims arising under Title VII. the Equal Pay Act, and Dodd-Frank are arbitrable.  Court of appeals noted that while claims related to Sarbanes-Oxley are not arbitrable, they were properly dismissed because the plaintiff had not met the jurisdictional prerequisite of exhausting administrative remedies.

  • Stover v. Valley Rubber, LLC, No. 5:18-CV-01795-LCB (N.D. Ala. Sept. 19, 2019)
     
    09/19/2019

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims related to employee discrimination.  Court found that under Alabama law, an arbitration agreement must be in writing but is not required to be signed.  However, here explicit language in a company policy evidenced that only the General Manager had authority to enter into contracts affecting terms of employment, and any such contract must be signed by the General Manager and employee, and thus the lack of a signature from the General Manager on the arbitration agreement rendered the agreement unenforceable.

  • Davis v. TMC Restaurant of Charlotte, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-00313-DCK (W.D.N.C. Sept. 18, 2019)
    09/18/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration as to two defendants and denied it as to one defendant.  Court found that because one defendant did not sign an arbitration policy, an agreement to arbitrate was not formed and the court could not compel her to arbitrate labor dispute claims.

  • Valentin v. ADECCO, No. 18-3489 (3d Cir. Sept. 18, 2019)
    09/18/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s granting of a motion to compel arbitration of employment disputes.  Court found that there was a valid agreement and that the dispute related to claims of employee discrimination that fell within the scope of the agreement.

  • Samsung Electronics America, Inc., v. Ramirez, No. 18-16094 (9th Cir. Sept. 17, 2019)
    09/17/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s refusal to compel arbitration of claims related to severe burns allegedly caused by a mobile phone.  Court found that under California law, the terms and conditions contained in a poorly titled booklet packaged with the phone, and references to the terms and conditions on the phone’s packaging, were insufficient to put a reasonable consumer on notice of the arbitration provision.

  • Katz v. BMW of North America, LLC, No. 4:19-CV-01553-KAW (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2019)
    09/17/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of contract claims connected with a vehicle lease agreement.  Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the defendant did not have standing to enforce agreement and that compelling a buyer to arbitrate claims under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is unconscionable. Court held that although the defendant was not a signatory to the agreement, it had standing as an affiliate of the Lessor’s assignee, or could enforce the agreement under a theory of equitable estoppel.  Court also held that the requirement to pay to arbitrate some consumer claims does not automatically give rise to substantive unconscionability.

  • Frazier v. Papa John’s USA, Inc., No. 4:19-CV-00892-CDP (E.D. Mo. Sept. 17, 2019)
    09/17/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims related to alleged employment discrimination.  Court found that the arbitration agreement expressly delegated all issues of contract formation to the arbitrator, however, because the plaintiff specifically challenged the validity of the delegation clause, the court considered its validity.  Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration agreement and delegation clause were invalid because (1) the agreement was not signed by defendant, (2) plaintiff did not handwrite his signature, and (3) the plaintiff had no recollection of signing the provision.  Court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that the agreement was an illusory promise because the defendant retained the right to unilaterally modify the terms by giving thirty days’ notice.  Court held, following Missouri Supreme Court precedent, that as long as the delegation clause standing alone is valid, the arbitrator should be allowed to determine whether the clause contains illusory provisions.

  • Krause v. Expedia Group, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-00123-BJR (W.D. Wash. Sept. 17, 2019)
    09/17/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings of wage dispute claims arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that an indemnification provision that allowed defendant to collect attorney’s fees from plaintiff even if plaintiff was victorious rendered the agreement unconscionable. Court found that this question was delegated to the arbitrator by the terms of the agreement.  Court also found that defendants could enforce the arbitration provision as third-party beneficiaries, rejecting plaintiff’s argument that defendants could not enforce the arbitration agreement as non-signatories.

  • In re HomeAdvisor Inc. Litigation, No. 1:16-CV-01849-PAB-KLM (D. Colo. Sept. 17, 2019)
    09/17/2019

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court rejected defendant’s argument that the plaintiffs had manifested assent to arbitration of disputes related to an independent contractor agreement when they verbally manifested assent to the contract over the phone, or through their continued employment.  Court found that plaintiffs were not given reasonable notice of the terms of the agreement over the phone at the time of contract formation and the materials sent to them subsequently did not detail the terms and conditions or mention the arbitration clause.

  • Hanberry v. First Premier Bank, No. 2:19-CV-10235-KWR (E.D. La. Sept. 16, 2019)
    09/16/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceeding of a pro se dispute under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).  Court held that the FAA governed the dispute and that threshold questions of arbitrability had not been unmistakably delegated to the arbitrator.  The court followed 5th Circuit precedent and found that plaintiff’s FCRA claims “touch[ed] matters” covered by the credit card contracts containing the arbitration agreements, and the disputes were sufficiently within the scope of the agreement to enforce arbitration.

  • Rock Roofing, LLC, v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America., No. 2:18-CV-01193-RB-GBW (D.N.M. Sept. 16, 2019)
    09/16/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of a contract dispute.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the defendant was not a party to the subcontract containing the arbitration provision, finding that a non-signatory could compel arbitration under the theory of equitable estoppel because the plaintiff relied on the terms of the agreement in making its claim against the non-signatory defendant.

  • Loewen v. John McDonnell, III, No. 4:19-CV-07437-CM (S.D.N.Y Sept. 13, 2019)
    09/13/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings.  Court found that by incorporating arbitration rules in their agreement that stated the tribunal “may rule on its own jurisdiction” the parties had given clear and unmistakable evidence of their intent to delegate gateway issues to the arbitrator.

  • EPRO Services, Inc., v. Regenesis Bioremediation Products, No. 6:19-CV-01220-EFM-KGG (D. Kan. Sept. 4, 2019)
    09/04/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and rejected plaintiff’s argument that the court should retain jurisdiction over requests for preliminary injunctive relief—pending arbitration.  Court found that because it had already dissolved plaintiff’s prior temporary restraining order, it saw no reason to grant a subsequent request for preliminary injunctive relief.  Court thus compelled arbitration of all claims and stayed further proceedings.

  • Maravilla v. Gruma Corporation, No. 18-20570 (5th Cir. Sept. 4, 2019)
    09/04/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order compelling arbitration, finding that the parties’ incorporation of the JAMS rules showed clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to arbitrate the issue of arbitrability.  Court found that defendant’s unconscionability argument was inapplicable when it encompassed the contract as a whole, rather than the arbitration agreement itself or the delegation clause therein.

  • Luster-Malone v. Cook County, Illinois, No. 18-3544 (7th Cir. Sept. 3, 2019)
    09/03/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s claims, finding that plaintiff’s claims were foreclosed by a prior arbitration decision and that her request for arbitration was untimely.

  • Nager v. Tesla Motors, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-02382-JAR-JPO (D. Kan. Sept. 3, 2019)
    09/03/2019

    Court reserved judgment on defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, pending evidence produced by the parties at a hearing or trial on the issue of whether plaintiffs agreed to the arbitration agreement.

View All