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

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

  09/19/2018

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

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

  09/19/2018

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

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

  09/18/2018

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

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

  09/17/2018

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

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

  09/14/2018

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

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

  09/14/2018

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

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

  09/14/2018

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

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

  09/14/2018

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

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

  09/12/2018

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

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

  09/12/2018

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

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

  09/11/2018

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

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

  09/11/2018

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

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

  09/11/2018

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

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

  09/11/2018

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

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

  09/10/2018

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

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

  09/10/2018

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

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

  09/07/2018

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

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

  09/07/2018

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

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

  08/23/2018

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

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

  08/23/2018

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

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

  08/23/2018

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

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

  08/23/2018

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

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

  08/22/2018

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

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

  08/21/2018

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

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

  08/21/2018

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

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

  08/20/2018

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

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

  08/20/2018

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

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

  08/17/2018

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

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

  08/16/2018

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

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

  08/16/2018

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

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

  08/16/2018

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

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

  08/16/2018

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

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

  08/15/2018

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

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

  08/15/2018

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

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

  08/15/2018

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

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

  08/15/2018

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

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

  08/14/2018

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

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

  08/14/2018

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

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

  08/14/2018

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

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

  08/14/2018

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

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

  08/13/2018

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

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

  08/13/2018

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

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

  08/13/2018

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

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

  08/13/2018

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

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

  08/13/2018

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

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

  08/13/2018

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

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

  08/10/2018

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

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

  08/10/2018

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

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

  08/07/2018

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

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

  08/07/2018

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

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

  08/06/2018

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

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

  08/06/2018

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

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

  08/03/2018

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

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

  08/03/2018

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

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

  08/02/2018

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

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

  08/02/2018

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

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

  08/02/2018

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

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

  08/02/2018

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

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

  08/01/2018

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

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

  08/01/2018

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

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

  08/01/2018

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

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

  08/01/2018

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

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

  08/01/2018

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

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

  08/01/2018

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

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

  07/31/2018

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

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

  07/30/2018

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

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

  07/30/2018

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

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

  07/30/2018

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

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

  07/30/2018

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

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

  07/26/2018

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

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

  07/26/2018

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

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

  07/26/2018

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

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

  07/26/2018

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

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

  07/26/2018

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

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

  07/26/2018

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

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

  07/25/2018

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

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

  07/25/2018

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

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

  07/24/2018

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

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

  07/24/2018

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

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

  07/24/2018

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

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

  07/24/2018

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

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

  07/24/2018

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

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

  07/23/2018

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

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

  07/23/2018

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

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

  07/23/2018

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

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

  07/20/2018

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

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

  07/20/2018

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

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

  07/20/2018

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

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

  07/19/2018

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

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

  07/19/2018

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

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

  07/19/2018

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

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

  07/19/2018

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

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

  07/18/2018

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

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

  07/18/2018

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

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

  07/18/2018

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

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

  07/17/2018

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

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

  07/16/2018

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

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

  07/16/2018

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

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

  07/13/2018

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

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

  07/13/2018

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

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

  07/13/2018

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

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

  07/12/2018

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

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

  07/12/2018

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

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

  07/12/2018

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

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

  07/12/2018

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

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

  07/11/2018

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

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

  07/11/2018

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

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

  07/11/2018

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

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

  07/11/2018

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

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

  07/10/2018

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

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

  07/10/2018

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

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

  07/10/2018

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

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

  07/09/2018

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

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

  07/06/2018

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

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

  07/06/2018

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

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

  07/06/2018

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

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

  07/06/2018

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

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

  07/05/2018

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

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

  07/05/2018

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

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

  07/05/2018

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

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

  07/05/2018

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

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

  07/05/2018

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

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

  07/02/2018

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

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

  07/02/2018

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

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

  07/02/2018

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

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

  07/02/2018

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

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

  07/02/2018

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

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

  07/02/2018

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

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

  06/29/2018

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

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

  06/29/2018

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

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

  06/29/2018

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

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

  06/28/2018

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

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

  06/28/2018

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

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

  06/28/2018

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

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

  06/27/2018

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

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

  06/27/2018

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

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

  06/26/2018

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

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

  06/26/2018

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

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

  06/26/2018

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

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

  06/26/2018

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

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

  06/26/2018

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

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

  06/25/2018

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

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

  06/22/2018

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

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

  06/22/2018

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

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

  06/22/2018

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

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

  06/22/2018

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

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

  06/21/2018

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

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

  06/21/2018

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

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

  06/21/2018

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

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

  06/21/2018

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

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

  06/21/2018

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

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

  06/20/2018

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

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

  06/20/2018

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

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

  06/20/2018

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

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

  06/20/2018

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

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

  06/20/2018

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

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

  06/19/2018

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

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

  06/19/2018

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

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

  06/19/2018

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

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

  06/18/2018

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

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

  06/18/2018

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

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

  06/18/2018

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

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

  06/16/2018

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

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

  06/14/2018

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

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

  06/14/2018

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

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

  06/13/2018

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

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

  06/13/2018

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

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

  06/13/2018

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

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

  06/13/2018

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

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

  06/12/2018

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

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

  06/12/2018

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

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

  06/11/2018

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

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

  06/08/2018

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

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

  06/07/2018

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

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

  06/07/2018

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

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

  06/06/2018

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

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

  06/06/2018

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

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

  06/06/2018

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

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

  06/05/2018

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

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

  06/05/2018

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

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

  06/04/2018

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

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

  06/04/2018

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

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

  06/04/2018

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

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

  06/01/2018

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

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

  05/31/2018

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

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

  05/31/2018

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

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

  05/31/2018

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

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

  05/31/2018

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

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

  05/31/2018

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

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

  05/31/2018

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

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

  05/31/2018

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

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

  05/30/2018

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

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

  05/29/2018

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

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

  05/24/2018

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

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

  05/24/2018

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

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

  05/23/2018

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

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

  05/23/2018

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

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

  05/22/2018

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

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

  05/22/2018

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

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

  05/21/2018

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

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

  05/21/2018

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

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

  05/21/2018

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

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

  05/18/2018

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

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

  05/18/2018

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

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

  05/17/2018

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

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

  05/16/2018

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

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

  05/16/2018

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

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

  05/16/2018

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

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

  05/15/2018

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

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

  05/15/2018

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

• Smith v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-00195-A (N.D. Tex. May 15, 2018)

  05/15/2018

  Court granted defendant’s unopposed motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff’s claim was subject to an arbitration agreement signed by plaintiff when defendant employed her.

• Abugeith v. Flowers Foods, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-02934 (S. D. Tex. May 15, 2015)

  05/15/2018

  Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel individual arbitration.  Court held that plaintiffs entered into a binding and valid arbitration agreement with an enforceable class-action waiver and that plaintiffs did not specifically challenge the enforceable delegation clause submitting issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

• Cody v. Chase Professionals, No. 5:18-CV-06025-ODS (W.D. Mo. May 15, 2018)

  05/15/2018

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held there was no mutual assent to the arbitration agreement where plaintiff signed the employment contract but defendant failed to provide an explanation for why one of its representative’s did not.

• Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. House, No. 17-60164 (5th Cir. May 14, 2018)

  05/14/2018

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s grant of motion to compel arbitration.  Though some parties were not signatories to the arbitration agreement, and Mississippi law generally does not permit non-signatories to enforce an arbitration agreement, court held that an exception exists for “substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct.”  Court also held that the parties had agreed to delegate questions regarding arbitrability to the arbitrator by incorporating the JAMS rules into their agreement.

• Ceder v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00422-NT (D. Me. May 14, 2018)

  05/14/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s Maine Human Rights Act claims of sexual harassment, sex discrimination, and retaliation.  Court held that plaintiff employee signed agreement to arbitrate, regardless of whether plaintiff remembered reading it as only assent to be bound was required, that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate, and that all claims were arbitrable.

• Samsung Electronics America, Inc., v. Ramirez, No. 1:17-CV-01462-AWI-SAB (E.D. Cal. May 14, 2018)

  05/14/2018

  Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration and defendant’s motion to stay federal proceedings in favor of defendant’s state court proceedings.  Court held that it was obliged to exercise jurisdiction as plaintiff was entitled to bring a petition to compel arbitration in federal court, though plaintiff appeared to file after defendant had voluntarily dismissed a state court filing and prior to defendant’s refiling in California state court.  Court also held that the arbitration agreement was not enforceable as the consumer was not on notice of the contractual nature of the arbitration provision that was provided within a product guidebook for the exploding telephone. 

• Terlizzi v. Altitude Marketing, Inc. No. 1:16-CV-01712-WJM-STV (D. Co. May 14, 2018)

  05/14/2018

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that an arbitration agreement existed between the parties that governed the disputes at issue, referred the parties to arbitration, and stayed the court proceedings.  Court held that plaintiffs had accepted by their conduct an agreement containing an arbitration clause which assigned questions of whether the clause was enforceable to the arbitrator.

• Castro v. ABM Industries, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-03026-YGR (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2018)

  05/14/2018

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that defendant had not waived its rights to arbitrate even though it did not notify plaintiffs until nearly two years after the collective bargaining agreements at issue became effective and three years after initiation of the litigation in which both parties had engaged.  Court further held that the arbitration clause in the collective bargaining agreements applied only to claims arising after the effective date of the relevant agreements.

• Iysheh v. Cellular Sales of Tennessee, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00542-TWP (E.D. Tenn. May 14, 2018)

  05/14/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff presented no evidence that the agreement to arbitrate lacked mutual assent where agreement contained a plain and bold warning about the arbitration provision that plaintiff accepted while in defendant’s employ, that the agreement was neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable, and that plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the agreement to arbitrate.   Court further held that the JAMS rules were not procedurally unconscionable or that the arbitration would be prohibitively costly to plaintiff.

• Nguyen v. MarketSource, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-02063-AJB-JLB (S.D. Cal. May 11, 2018)

  05/11/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to stay all proceedings pending anticipated U.S. Supreme Court ruling on which the matter before the court depended.  Court declined to consider motion until Supreme Court considered circuit split of whether an employment agreement requiring an employee and employer to resolve employment disputes through individual arbitration is enforceable under the FAA. 

• Reyes v. Gracefully, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-09328-VEC (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2018)

  05/11/2018

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff signed the arbitration agreement, plaintiff’s claims fell within its scope, and the agreement was enforceable notwithstanding plaintiff’s assertion that he did not have time to examine it, his alleged inability to read or understand English, and that the employment was conditioned on acceptance of the agreement.  Court also severed a 60-day notification period from the agreement as it would prevent the “effective vindication” of plaintiff’s rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

• Wilson v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. 3:17-CV-2054-SI (D. Or. May 11, 2018)

  05/11/2018

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the arbitration agreement language applied to claims existing before plaintiff entered into the agreement, and that the agreement was enforceable and not void as unconscionable.

• Gonsales v. Acosta, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-05767-VC (N.D. Cal. May 11, 2018)

  05/11/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Plaintiff did not show that the arbitration agreement was procedurally or substantively unconscionable.

• Noye v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 1:15-CV-02382-YK (M.D. Pa. May 11, 2018)

  05/11/2018

  Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff was not estopped from avoiding arbitration when defendant, a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, had not shown that equitable estoppel applied to plaintiff’s claims as they were not “intimately founded in and intertwined with the underlying contract obligations,” even if the court were to find that a close relationship existed between the defendant entities.

• Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. 16-16820 (11th Cir. May 10, 2018)

  05/10/2018

  Court of appeals vacated the district court’s decision that the defendant had waived its right to compel arbitration against unnamed plaintiffs. In conducting a two-part inquiry to determine whether the defendant waived its right to compel arbitration, the court found that the defendant had not acted inconsistently with it arbitration rights and its actions did not prejudice the other parties. Court remanded the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with its opinion.

• Delgado v. Ally Financial, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-02189-BEN-JMA (S.D. Cal. May 8, 2018)

  05/08/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss action, finding that the parties entered into an arbitration agreement and the claims at issue fall within the agreement’s scope. Additionally, the court held that a bankruptcy discharge does not render an arbitration agreement unenforceable since such extinguishes the debtor’s obligation to pay, but the other contractual provisions, including the arbitration agreement, remain enforceable.

• Castro v. Castro-Harrison, No. 3:16-CV-02731-CCC (D.P.R. May 8, 2018)

  05/08/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings, finding that the plaintiff’s claims are arbitrable under the subject arbitration agreement. Court also found that the non-signatory’s claims were “intertwined” with the contract at issue, and therefore the plaintiff was equitably estopped from avoid the arbitration agreement contained therein.

• Key Contracting, Inc. v. Contech International, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-01599-SI (D. Or. May 7, 2018)

  05/07/2018

  Court granted motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to stay proceedings and compel arbitration. Court held that, although the plaintiffs are non-signatories to the arbitration agreement, their claims rely are intertwined with and arise out of the contact containing the arbitration agreement. As such, the defendants may therefore rely on the agreement’s arbitration provision to compel arbitration of the plaintiffs’ claims.

• Viehweg v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 3:17-CV-03140-SEM-TSH (C.D. Ill. May 7, 2018)

  05/07/2018

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings because plaintiff’s defamation claims are not subject or related to the arbitration agreement and therefore do not fall within its scope.

• Caporicci U.S.A. Corp. v. Prada S.p.A., No. 1:18-CV-20859-CMA (S.D. Fla. May 7, 2018)

  05/07/2018

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration under the New York Convention. Court held that the defendants satisfied the four jurisdictional prerequisites under the New York Convention – (1) the arbitration agreement was in writing; (2) the arbitration agreement provided for arbitration in the territory of a signatory to the Convention; (3) the arbitration agreement arises out of a commercial relationship; and (4) one or more of the parties is not an American citizen – to compel arbitration of the dispute to the Chamber of National and International Arbitration in Milan.

• Perkins Delaware, LLC v. MF Cornhusker Member, LLC, No. 8:17-CV-00332-RFR-CRZ (D. Neb. May 6, 2018)

  05/06/2018

  Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff’s claims are beyond the scope of the arbitration provision and are not subject to arbitration absent the current and mutual consent of the parties.

• Alixander v. Group Health of Washington, No. 2:17-CV-01224-RSL (W.D. Wash. May 4, 2018)

  05/04/2018

  Court denied motions to dismiss or compel arbitration, finding that the court must, in first instance, determine (a) whether a valid arbitration agreement exists and (b) whether the particular dispute falls within the scope of that agreement. Here, while there is a valid arbitration agreement, the plaintiff’s statutory claims do not fall within the scope of the agreement.

• Giraud v. Woof Gang Bakery, Inc., No. 8:17-CV-02442-RAL-AEP (M.D. Fla. May 3, 2018)

  05/03/2018

  Court adopted the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that (i) plaintiffs failed to show why prejudice would result from compelling the arbitral claims of the designated four plaintiffs; (ii) the arbitration agreement covered any controversy over the construction or application of the agreement even though it did not include the language “arising out of”; and (iii) nothing indicated that the agreement was unconscionable.

• Sung v. Sacor Financial, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01317-ERK-VMS (E.D.N.Y. May. 2, 2018)

  05/02/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding frivolous plaintiff’s argument that he was not bound thereby and, in any case, determining that the plaintiff was estopped from making that argument having relied on the agreement elsewhere.   Court declined that any right to arbitration was waived, holding that there was no evidence of intent to do so or  any prejudicial delay.

• Schoemehl v. Unwin, No. 4:18-CV-00031-JAR (W.D. Mo. May 1, 2018)

  05/01/2018

  Court granted motions to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings. Court held that, because the  plaintiff argued that the entire contract was fraudulently induced, and not just the arbitration clause by itself, the FAA requires a claim to be submitted to arbitration.

• Kung v. Experian Information Solutions Inc., No. 3:18-CV-00452-WHA (N.D. Cal. May 1, 2018)

  05/01/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the parties’ agreement  constituted interstate commerce and, thus, the FAA, and not the California Arbitration Act, governs the parties’ arbitration agreement.  Additionally, the “gateway” issue of arbitrability was “clearly and unmistakably” delegated to the arbitrator per the inclusion of AAA Rule 7(a) in the parties’ arbitration agreement.

• Robinson v. OnStar, LLC, No. 16-56412 (9th Cir. May 1, 2018)

  05/01/2018

  Court of appeals amended prior memorandum disposition filed on March 15, 2018, and with those amendments denied the petition for panel rehearing.  Court reversed and remanded district court’s dismissal of plaintiff-appellant’s complaint on the basis of an arbitration agreement.   Court of appeals held that the parties’ agreement when formed did not include an arbitration provision, and defendant’s subsequent inclusion of one by mailing was an offer to modify the agreement, which the plaintiff did not accept by retaining the service to which plaintiff was entitled under the original agreement. 

• Bowie’s Priority Care Pharmacy L.L.C. v. CaremarkPCS, L.L.C., No. 6:18-CV-00300-LSC (N.D. Al. Apr. 26, 2018)

  04/26/2018

  Court granted motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration. Court found a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate existed under Alabama law despite plaintiff’s argument that it had not signed the contract. Court reasoned that plaintiff revealed through its conduct and behavior that it had adopted the contract.

• Peregrine Falcon, LLC  v. Piaggio America, Inc., No. 16-CV-35773 (9th Cir. Apr. 26, 2018)

  04/26/2018

  Court of appeals confirmed district court’s denial of appellant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or in the alternative to compel arbitration. Court found that non-signatory respondent was not a party to the arbitration clause, but was a third party beneficiary and had not consented to arbitration.

• Edwards v. Doordash, Inc., No. 17-CV-20082 (5th Cir. Apr. 25, 2018)

  04/25/2018

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order granting a motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the district court did not err in finding that a challenge to the validity of an arbitration agreement should be decided by arbitration when that agreement delegates questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

• Sakyi  v. Estee Lauder Companies, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01863-BAH (D.D.C. Apr. 25, 2018)

  04/25/2018

  Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.  Court found that a valid arbitration agreement existed as to one defendant, and that the other defendants were able to enforce the agreement based on equitable estoppel since they sought to resolve issues intertwined with the agreement. Court further held that the arbitration clause delegated “gateway” questions of arbitrability, such as class arbitration, or plaintiff’s status as an employee, to the arbitrator.

• Farrell v. Road Ready Used Cars, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-02030-JCH (D. Conn. Apr. 24, 2018)

  04/24/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding the dispute was governed by a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement. While plaintiff argued that the contract containing the arbitration agreement was superseded by a contract without an arbitration clause, the court found that plaintiff’s claims relied on the original contract and thus defendants could avail themselves of the arbitration clause.

• Zyppah, Inc. v. Allemeier, No. 2:17-CV-02840-JAD-PAL (D. Nev. Apr. 24, 2018)

  04/24/2018

  Court dismissed petition to compel arbitration in Nevada and enjoin arbitration in California. Court found that petitioner was not an “aggrieved” party under the FAA because opposing party had not “failed, neglected, or refused to arbitrate,” and therefore could not compel arbitration. Court further found that the issue of venue was committed to the arbitrators.

• Britto v. St. Joseph Health Services of Rhode Island, No. 1:17-CV-00234-WES-LDA (D.R.I. Apr. 23, 2018)

  04/23/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable.  Court held that the mutual promise to arbitrate was not illusory despite employer’s right to unilaterally change the terms of the agreement, and that continued employment was adequate consideration to support the agreement.

• MD Helicopters v. The Boeing Company, No. 2:17-CV-02598-JAT (D. Ariz. Apr. 23, 2018)

  04/23/2018

  Court dismissed certain counterclaims pursuant to the FAA, finding that they fell within the scope of an enforceable arbitration agreement.  Court rejected the argument that subsequent agreements superseded the arbitration agreement.  While the court dismissed the claims, it did not compel arbitration.

• Inception Mining  v. Danzig, LTD., No. 2:17-CV-00944-DN (D. Utah Apr. 23, 2018)

  04/23/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss in favor of an ongoing arbitration in Boston.  Although the arbitration agreement required the arbitration to be held in Salt Lake City, the court found that issues of arbitrability were delegated to the arbitrator and therefore the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining portion of claims.

• Whitlow v. Crescent Consulting, LLC., No. 5:16-CV-01330-R (W.D. Okla. Apr. 23, 2018)

  04/23/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration.  Court found the agreement to be enforceable despite plaintiff’s arguments that fee-splitting provision rendered arbitration agreement unenforceable, and that the agreement was invalid for want of consideration.

• MHA, LLC v. UnitedHealth Group Inc., et al., No. 2:17-CV-02759-ES-JAD (D.N.J. Apr. 20, 2018)

  04/20/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court noted that derivative claims are arbitrable where the parties’ agreement demonstrates an intent to arbitrate such claims.  Moreover, plaintiff was asserting first-party and not third-party claims.

• American Trucking and Transportation Insurance Company v. Nelson, No. 9:16-CV-00160-DLC (D. Mont. Apr. 20, 2018)

  04/20/2018

  Court denied defendant insurer’s motion to compel arbitration finding, pursuant to Montana law, that by failing initially to defend the insured it is later estopped from asserting a right to arbitrate under an otherwise enforceable arbitration agreement.

• Gomez v. PDS Tech, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-12351-WJM-MF (D.N.J. Apr. 19, 2018)

  04/19/2018

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that (i) plaintiff had not responded with additional facts that placed the agreement to arbitrate in issue; (ii) the agreement was unquestionably subject to federal law; (iii) plaintiff’s claims fell under the scope of the agreement; and (iv) defendants were third-party beneficiaries to the agreement, so plaintiff’s claims against them were subject to the arbitration clause.

• Teschendorf v. RIIS, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-13967-AC-SDD (E.D. Mich. Apr. 18, 2018)

  04/18/2018

  Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration agreement did not constitute a binding contract because it explicitly said it did not create a binding contract.  Additionally, the promise to arbitrate was illusory since the agreement allowed the company to unilaterally change the handbook containing the arbitration agreement.

• Lynch v. SSC Glen Burnie Operating Co., LLC, No. 1:17-CV-01328-JKB (D. Md. Apr. 17, 2018)

  04/17/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the arbitration agreement was valid and defendant did not waive its right to enforce.  Court found that (i) defendant presented sufficient evidence to authenticate the alleged arbitration agreement by presenting an arbitration agreement that was signed by both parties; (ii) plaintiffs failed to show that one of the signatories was cognitively impaired when signing the agreement; (iii) defendant did not engage in much delay in the case; and (iv) some degree of participation in a judicial proceeding is acceptable before a party will be deemed to have waived its right to arbitrate.

• Aptim Corp. v. McCall, No. 17-30772 (5th Cir. Apr. 17, 2018)

  04/17/2018

  Court of appeals affirmed the district court decision to compel arbitration and stay the state-court proceeding.  Court concluded that plaintiff did not waive its arbitration rights as it did not substantially invoke the judicial process, having filed nothing regarding the merits or asking for damages.  Additionally, defendant could not demonstrate the time, expense, or disadvantage in litigating position required to show the prejudice necessary for waiver.

• Brown v. Charter Communications, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00670-LJO-JLT (E.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2018)

  04/16/2018

  Court adopted in full the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations to deny defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Magistrate judge had determined that the agreement plaintiff signed contained a valid arbitration agreement, but this agreement did not apply to plaintiff by virtue of a carve-out notice provision.

• Kelleher v. Dream Catcher, L.L.C., No. 17-7104 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 16, 2018)

  04/16/2018

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of motion to stay and compel arbitration, finding that the right to arbitrate was forfeited when defendant filed an answer rather than a motion to dismiss and did not invoke its right to arbitrate in the answer.

• Kabba v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., No. 17-1595 (4th Cir. Apr. 13, 2018)

  04/13/2018

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s refusal to compel arbitration on summary judgment, agreeing that the parties had not clearly manifested their intent to delegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator and that genuine questions of material fact precluded summary judgment on this question by the court itself.

• Caldarera & Company, Inc. v. Complex Management, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00917-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss. Apr. 13, 2018)

  04/13/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that both defendants were bound by an agreement to arbitrate, the second – though a non-signatory – through its subsequent ratification of the overall contract through its actions.  Court also rejected defendants’ waiver argument.

• Appel v. Concierge Auctions, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-02263-BAS-MDD (S.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2018)

  04/13/2018

  Court granted in part motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings.  Court ruled that the claims sufficiently touched on interstate commerce to fall under the FAA and that the parties delegated questions of arbitrability by incorporating AAA rules into their agreement, rejecting the plaintiffs’ formation and unconscionability arguments as to the alleged unenforceability of the agreement.  Court noted that it had power to compel arbitration only in its district and held this to be an adequate alternative to the relief requested.

• Tennessee Tractor, LLC v. WH Administrators, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-02829-STA-EGB (W.D. Tenn. Apr. 13, 2018)

  04/13/2018

  Court denied defendant’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s order granting in part and denying in part defendant’s third motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that defendant had, at best, satisfied plaintiffs’ burden by creating a genuine dispute of fact as to whether plaintiffs had sufficient access to the documents to accept their terms.

• Krogstadt v. Loan Payment Administration LLC, No. 2:16-CV-00465-APG-CWH (D. Nev. Apr. 13, 2017)

  04/13/2018

  Court granted third-party defendant’s motion to dismiss claims because they were covered by a valid arbitration agreement.  Court rejected third-party plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration provision was invalid because of a class-action waiver.

• Parkridge Limited v. Indyzen, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-07387-JSW (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2018)

  04/13/2018

  Court granted defendant’s petition to compel arbitration. Court found that the non-signatories were sufficiently interrelated and interdependent on conduct governed by the agreement containing the arbitration provision. Accordingly, court held that the doctrine of collateral estoppel enabled it to find that the non-signatories may be bound by the agreement despite not having signed it.

• Namisnak v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 17-CV-06124-RS (N.D. Cal. April 13, 2018)

  04/13/2018

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration for claims against non-parties to the arbitration agreement, holding that equitable estoppel could not enforce an arbitration agreement against a non-signatory. Court granted motion to compel arbitration for claims against party to the arbitration agreement, holding that the agreement was enforceable and the dispute fell within the scope of the agreement.

• Fuller v. Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-07901 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 11, 2018)

  04/11/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings, finding that an arbitration agreement existed, had been validly assigned, and had covered the scope of the dispute.  Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the defendants had waived their right to arbitration.

• Cristo v. The Charles Schwab Corporation, No. 3:17-CV-01843-GPC-MDD (S.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2018)

  04/11/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings.  Court held that the plaintiff’s signed application constituted a valid arbitration agreement between the parties and that it applied to all of the plaintiff’s claims.  Court further held that although the plaintiff demonstrated a low level of procedural unconscionability in the contract, he did not demonstrate any substantive unconscionability and therefore could not evade arbitration.

• Pompliano v. Snap, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-03664-DMG-JPR (C.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2018)

  04/11/2018

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, concluding that: (i) the parties’ dispute plainly fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement; (ii) the delegation clause was neither ambiguous nor unconscionable; and (iii) the agreement as a whole was not unconscionable.

• DeMidio v. REV Recreation Group, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00326-WCL-SLC (N.D. Ind. Apr. 10, 2018)

  04/10/2018

  Court rejected motion to compel arbitration, finding that there was no valid arbitration agreement among the parties where the document containing the provision was not provided to the claimants until after they executed the sales agreement.

• Anderson v. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society, No. 6:18-CV-02008-MWB (N.D. Iowa Apr. 10, 2018)

  04/10/2018

  Court, applying a de novo standard of review, rejected in part magistrate judge’s recommendation, declining to stay proceedings on one of the plaintiff’s claims, but agreeing to compel arbitration with respect to the other.

• LegalForce RAPC Worldwide, P.C. v. LegalZoom.Com, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-07194-MMC (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2018)

  04/10/2018

  Court granted in part motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings.  Court held that one of the plaintiffs was party to the arbitration agreement and therefore bound thereby, while the other was not, and left challenges as to the agreement’s validity to the arbitrator.  Court further held that all of the claims before it were subject to arbitration. 

• Folck v. Lennar Corporation, No. 3:17-CV-00992-L-NLS (S.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2018)

  04/10/2018

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration pending jury trial on the issue of whether the plaintiff consented to an arbitration agreement.  Court reasoned there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the plaintiff consented to an arbitration agreement and its authenticity, but denied the plaintiff’s arguments that the defendants had waived any existing right to arbitration or that the agreement was unconscionable because of its provisions for confidentiality, attorneys’ fees, limitations on discovery, and unilateral modification.

• Aimiuwu v. AT&T Services, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-03952-CAP (N.D. Ga. Apr. 9, 2018)

  04/09/2018

  Magistrate judge recommended granting motion to compel arbitration, finding that a valid arbitration governed the dispute and rejecting the plaintiff’s challenges as to its authenticity.

• Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Rahimzadeh, No. 3:17-CV-02126-JCH (D. Conn. Apr. 9, 2018)

  04/09/2018

  Court granted petition to compel arbitration.  Court rejected arguments that it lacked jurisdiction to compel arbitration, that the agreement was void as a matter of state franchise law, or that the underlying claims (filed in state court) did not arise from the agreement containing the arbitration provision.

• Lee v. Brock Services, No. 1:17-CV-00272-LG-RHW (S.D. Miss. Apr. 9, 2018)

  04/09/2018

  Court granted unopposed motion to compel arbitration and dismissed proceedings with prejudice upon finding that all claims at issue were subject to the arbitration agreement.

• The Queen's Medical Center v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, No. 1:17-CV-00361-JMS-RLP (D. Haw. Apr. 9, 2018)

  04/09/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Court rejected arguments that the parties’ agreement was not governed by the FAA or was otherwise invalid because it lacked certain terms.  Court likewise did not find persuasive the defendant’s argument that the plaintiff’s appointed arbitrator had a disqualifying conflict, noting that courts lack the power to disqualify an arbitrator before the arbitration is complete, but may only act to vacate an award for bias after one is rendered.

• Hudgins v. Total Quality Logistics, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-07331 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 9, 2018)

  04/09/2018

  Court granted motion to dismiss claims of two plaintiffs in a class action for whom arbitration agreements had been belatedly found.  Court reasoned that there had been no waiver of the right to arbitrate, as there had been no prejudice and defendant had promptly requested arbitration upon locating the agreements and agreed to toll the statute of limitations.

• Aguirre v. Vivint Solar Developer, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-01197-JLT (E.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2018)

  04/09/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings, finding that a valid arbitration agreement governed the claims at issue.  Court held that even though the agreement was procedurally oppressive, it was not substantively unconscionable. 

• Milfort v. Comcast Cable Communications Management, No. 0:17-CV-62576-KMM (S.D. Fla. April 9, 2018)

  04/09/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding that the agreement between the parties contained a valid arbitration clause, which survived the termination of services by defendant.

• Metayer v. IEC US Holdings, Inc., No. 0:18-CV-60545-UU (S.D. Fla. April 9, 2018)

  04/09/2018

  Court ordered a stay of litigation pending the resolution of arbitration in response to a joint motion of the parties pursuant to § 3 of the FAA. Court found claims before it to be arbitrable and that the parties had a valid arbitration agreement that extended to additional non-signatory defendant who had agreed to arbitrate claims.

• Brown v Credit One Bank, N.A., No. 2:17-CV-00786-JAD-VCF (D. Nev. Apr. 6, 2018)

  04/06/2018

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration.  Court denied to enforce an arbitration agreement against a non-signatory under a theory of estoppel, finding that the claims at issue did not arise from that agreement and that the claimant had not benefitted therefrom.

• Rahmany v. Subway Sandwich Shops, INC., No. 17-35094 (9th Cir. Apr. 5, 2018)

  04/05/2018

  Court of appeals reversed district court’s order granting motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the case.  Court reasoned that because the defendant was a non-signatory to the agreement on which it sought to rely to compel arbitration, and because the plaintiff’s claims, in any case, did not arise therefrom, the district court erred in compelling arbitration.

• Golden Gate National Senior Care, LLC v. Brown, 5:17-CV-00153-JMH (E.D. Ky. Apr. 5, 2018)

  04/05/2018

  Court, inter alia, granted motion to compel arbitration.  Court rejected argument that the arbitration agreement did not sufficiently involve interstate commerce to be actionable under the FAA or that it was unconscionable as a contract of adhesion that imposed higher costs on plaintiffs and truncated discovery.  However, the court declined to compel non-signatory plaintiff to arbitrate his independent claim.

• Youssofi v. Credit One Financial, No. 17-55275 (9th Cir. Apr. 4, 2018)

  04/04/2018

  Court of appeals affirmed judgment compelling arbitration, holding that the constitutional first amendment right to petition was not implicated by enforcement of arbitration agreements, as no state action is involved.

• Fireman's Fund Insurance Company v. Regions Insurance, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00195-GHD-DAS (N.D. Miss. Apr. 3, 2018)

  04/03/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, but declined to dismiss proceedings in light of remaining claims not subject to arbitration, staying the case instead.  Court noted that parties did not dispute the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and ruled that the dispute fell within its broad scope.  Court further granted motion to compel arbitration of a cross-claim brought by a third-party non-signatory on the theory of direct-benefit estoppel.

• Cornell University v. Illumina Inc., 1:10-CV-00433-LPS-MPT (D. Del. Apr. 3, 2018)

  04/03/2018

  Court adopted magistrate judge’s recommendation to compel arbitration, rejecting arguments that the arbitration agreement did not sufficiently cover the dispute.

• Lagrone v. Omnova Solutions, No. 1:16-CV-00159-SA-DAS (N.D. Miss Mar. 31, 2018)

  03/31/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that plaintiffs’ claims were covered by the arbitration contract.  Court held that disputes as to whether conditions precedent to arbitration had been satisfied were presumptively for the arbitrator to decide.

• In Re Samsung Galaxy Smartphone Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, 5:16-CV-06391-BLF (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2018)

  03/30/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration with respect to those plaintiffs who had assented to – but not for those who had opted out of – arbitration agreements and stayed all claims.  Court granted motion to dismiss class action claims for those plaintiffs subject to valid arbitration agreement.

• Smith v. Medidata Solutions, Inc., 3:16-CV-01689-L-JLB (S.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2018)

  03/30/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the arbitration agreement was supported by consideration and therefore valid, and that the dispute fell within its scope.  Court then rejected plaintiff’s various objections to the enforceability of the arbitration agreement, finding, inter alia, that even though the contract was one of adhesion it did not suffer from substantive unconscionability because it carved out defendant’s right to file certain claims in court, imposed certain costs, and

• Best Effort First Time, LLC v. Southside Oil, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00825-GLR (D. Md. Mar. 30, 2018)

  03/30/2018

  Court granted with respect to certain claims motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that although the parties had delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator by incorporating AAA rules, the claim that the dispute fell within an arbitration clause was so frivolous that it need not leave the question to the arbitrator.  Court then ruled that the agreement was valid, but applied only to some of the claims brought by plaintiffs.

• Bracey v. Lancaster Foods LLC, No. 1:17-CV-01826-RDB (D. Md. Mar. 30, 2018)

  03/30/2018

  Court granted motion to dismiss proceedings upon finding that the claims at issue had to be arbitrated.  Court rejected, inter alia, plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable as unconscionable because it imposed  a shorter statute of limitations than the applicable legislation.

• Wardlow v. U-Haul International, Inc., No. 6:17-CV-01100-AA (D. Or. Mar. 30, 2018)

  03/30/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings.  Court held that the arbitration clause covered the dispute at issue and rejected plaintiff’s argument that it could not be applied because it was unconscionable.  Specifically, court held that mere inequality of bargaining power did not render an agreement procedurally unconscionable, that the agreement was not so inconspicuous as to constitute an improper surprise, and that the agreement was not so unfair and one-sided as to be substantively unconscionable. 

• Thunderbird Resorts Inc. v. Zimmer, No. 3:15-CV-01304-JAH-BGS (S.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2018)

  03/30/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, ruling that the arbitration agreement was sufficiently broad to cover all claims at issue, and held that motion to domesticate a Hong Kong ICC arbitration award between plaintiff and one of the defendants was therefore premature.

• Ohio Valley Aluminum Company, LLC v. Hydratech Industries US, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00051-GFVT (E.D. Ky. Mar. 30, 2018)

  03/30/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the arbitration agreement was valid and rejected plaintiff’s argument that arbitration in Denmark would be unduly burdensome (treating it as a contention as to the contract’s unconscionability).  Court declined to stay proceedings, as all issues before it were arbitrable, and dismissed the matter.

• Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC v. Insurance Company of North America, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00715-DLC (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2018)

  03/29/2018

  Court ruled that claims before it must be submitted to arbitration and stayed proceedings.  Court held that although the presumption that it is for the arbitrator to decide questions of waiver could be reversed, because the conduct of which plaintiff complained occurred entirely outside the court, it remained for the arbitrator to adjudicate.  Court further ruled that by incorporating AAA rules, the parties had delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator as well.

• Coots v. Western Refining Retail, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00838-JCH-LF (D.N.M. Mar. 29, 2018)

  03/29/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court held that a valid arbitration agreement governed the dispute, rejecting plaintiff’s argument that the agreement was unsupported by consideration.  Court further rejected plaintiff’s argument that the agreement was unconscionable, finding that he had not met his burden of proof.

• Garcia v. TEMPOE, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-02106-SDW-LDW (D.N.J. Mar. 29, 2018)

  03/29/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, rejecting plaintiffs’ argument that the agreement was unconscionable because it precluded treble damages, potential punitive damages, and one-way fee shifting available under the applicable statutes in court.

• Maher v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 1:17-CV-00753 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 29, 2018)

  03/29/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration after determining that the parties had mutually agreed to arbitrate and that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration clause.

• Border Area Mental Health, Inc. v. United Behavioral Health, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01213-MV-SCY (D.N.M. Mar. 28, 2018)

  03/28/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Court rejected as irrelevant plaintiffs’ argument that their claims fell outside the scope of the arbitration agreement, finding that because the parties had incorporated AAA rules they had agreed to delegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

• Blackberry Limited v. Nokia Corporation, No. 1:17-CV-00155-RGA (D. Del. Mar. 28, 2018)

  03/28/2018

  Court denied without prejudice motion to compel arbitration.  Court reasoned that the agreement did not cover claims against a third party beneficiary, further rejecting defendants’ equitable estoppel theory for why the court should nevertheless compel arbitration.

• Davis v. USA Nutra Labs, No. 1:15-CV-01107-MV-SCY (D.N.M. Mar. 28, 2018)

  03/28/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, rejecting plaintiff’s arguments that she had not entered into the arbitration agreement or that it was otherwise unconscionable, as well as her contention that the claims at issue did not fall within the scope of the agreement.

• Continental Casualty Company v. Hopeman Brothers, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00688-ALC (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2018)

  03/27/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, determining that the arbitration agreement was sufficiently broad to cover the scope of the parties’ dispute.  Court rejected plaintiffs arguments that defendant had waived its right to arbitrate by initiating proceedings against other plaintiffs in the dispute who were not parties to the arbitration agreement.

• Fields v. Trans Union, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-02939-CDJ (E.D. Pa. Mar. 27, 2018)

  03/27/2018

  Court granted a defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of the claims filed against it.  Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable as unconscionable, finding unpersuasive her contention that the form of the agreement was so convoluted as to be procedurally unconscionable or that the cost and discovery consequences of arbitrating her claims made it substantively unconscionable.  Nor did the court agree that the agreement was one-sided.

• MDL 2048 Cox Enterprises, Inc., No. 5:12-ML-02048-C (W.D. Okla. Mar. 27, 2018)

  03/27/2018

  Court denied motion for leave to file an amended complaint in a multi-district litigation as futile upon finding that each of the proposed substitute plaintiffs was subject to arbitration.  Court rejected arguments that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable as a contract of adhesion given the way it was presented to plaintiffs.

• Airtourist Holdings LLC v. HNA Group, No. 4:17-CV-04989-JSW (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2018)

  03/27/2018

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court found that plaintiffs’ claims were subject to the broad arbitration clauses in the agreements, as each of the formative contracts contained broadly-worded dispute resolution provisions requiring mandatory arbitration of “[a]ny unresolved controversy or claim arising out of or relating to” the parties’ contracts. Court also held that defendants were entitled to enforce the agreements against non-signatories pursuant to the agency doctrine and as third-party beneficiaries of the agreements.

• Golden Gate National Senior Care, LLC v. Stambaugh, No. 5:17-CV-00161-KKC (E.D. Ky. Mar. 26, 2018)

  03/26/2018

  Court denied motion to dismiss complaint seeking to compel defendant estate to arbitrate claims the estate had filed in state court.  Court dismissed argument that it lacked diversity jurisdiction to hear the complaint or that the FAA was inapplicable because the claim did not sufficiently concern interstate commerce.  Court further rejected arguments that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable because it was part of a mass-produced contract, incorporated JAMS rules, and would truncate discovery.

• Call v. Harris Stowe State University, No. 4:17-CV-01548-HEW (W.D. Mo. Mar. 26, 2018)

  03/26/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that defendants had waived their right to arbitrate, holding that the case had seen little activity since being commenced and that plaintiff had herself amended her complaint to add a claim that led defendants to remove the action to federal court and to move to compel arbitration.

• Campbell Investments, LLC v. Dickey's Barbecue Restaurants, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00832-DB (D. Utah Mar. 26, 2018)

  03/26/2018

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that defendant failed to demonstrate that plaintiffs had agreed to arbitrate the claims.  Specifically, court rejected arguments that an agreement that bound the previous owners of a franchise locations or that specifically applied to a wholly separate location (that was also not in existence at the time) could bind plaintiffs to arbitrate.

• Jesmar Energy, Inc.. v. Range Resources – Appalachia, LLC., No. 2:17-CV-00928-LPL (W.D. Pa. Mar. 26, 2018)

  03/26/2018

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court held that no valid arbitration agreement existed, rejecting a reading of an assignment agreement that would have incorporated arbitration obligations contained in the assigned lease.

• Willett v. Ally Bank, No. 2:17-CV-02472-JAR-GLR (D. Kan. Mar. 26, 2018)

  03/26/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement was valid under Arkansas state law.

• Thomas v. PFG Transco, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00785-ALM (E.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2018)

  03/25/2018

  Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court rejected a unified theory for treating the allegedly intertwined claims against two defendants, only one of whom was a signatory to an arbitration agreement.  Court reasoned that parties to the agreement had delegated the arbitrability decision and granted motion to compel those claims, staying related proceedings; however, court declined to compel arbitration against remaining non-signatory defendants and ordered that they proceed.

• Zoller v. UBS Securities LLC, No. 1:16-CV-11277 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 23, 2018)

  03/23/2018

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration with respect to one claimant and to dismiss the claims of another, reasoning that the arbitration agreement did not apply to putative class and collective action claims by operation of FINRA Rule 13209, which it deemed incorporated into the arbitration agreements.  Court, however, rejected plaintiffs’ parallel theories based on the argument that a FINRA arbitration would be “prohibitively expensive,” that they had been fraudulently induced to accept the arbitration clause itself, and that the defendant had waived its right to litigate.

• H.H. Franchising Systems, Inc. v. Pawson, No. 1:17-CV-00368-SJD (S.D. Ohio Mar. 23, 2018)

  03/23/2018

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court agreed that the arbitration agreement expressly included a large claim exception to arbitration and ruled that the exception applied, and was neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable.  Court further held that its conclusion regarding large claims mooted the defendants’ argument that only claims seeking injunctive relief could be excluded from arbitration under the contractual exemption of injunctive claims from the arbitration agreement.

• Restea v. Brown Harris Stevens LLC, No. 1:17-CV-04801-VEC-GWG (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2018)

  03/23/2018

  Magistrate judge recommended that motion to compel be granted and the case dismissed.  Court determined that a valid arbitration agreement governed the parties’ dispute and dismissed contrary arguments.  Court further held that dismissal was proper as neither party had requested a stay.

• Remington v. Shwinco Architectural Products, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00750-TFM (M.D. Ala. Mar. 23, 2018)

  03/23/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, reasoning that a valid arbitration agreement appeared to govern the dispute, but that, in any case, the parties’ joint stipulation as to arbitration filed with the court constituted a valid agreement to arbitrate the claims at issue.

• Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner &  Smith Incorporated v. Thompson, No. 2:17-CV-02648-CM-KGS (D. Kan. Mar. 23, 2018)

  03/23/2018

  Court, inter alia, granted motion to compel FINRA arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that a valid arbitral agreement governed the parties’ dispute.

• Begole v. North Mississippi Medical Center, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00033-SA-DAS (N.D. Miss. Mar. 23, 2018)

  03/23/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the parties had a valid agreement to arbitrate plaintiff’s claims.  Court found that, even reading the arbitration clause narrowly, plaintiff’s claims arose from duties imposed by the contract and were therefore subject to arbitration.  Court also found that the individual defendant, as the corporate defendant’s agent, had the right to compel arbitration.

• Sidney v. Verizon Communications, No. 1:17-CV-01850-RJD-RLM (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2018)

  03/23/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, holding that plaintiff failed to substantiate his complaint of unconscionability and did not otherwise challenge the validity of the applicable arbitration agreement, and that the parties’ dispute fell within the agreement’s scope.  Court noted that where arbitration agreements are valid and enforceable, so are any class action waivers contained therein.

• Andreoli v. Youngevity International, Inc., 3:16-CV-02922-BTM-JLB (S.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2018)

  03/23/2018

  Among its other dispositions, court denied without prejudice motion to compel one of the claims, holding that defendants failed to satisfy their burden of proving the existence of an agreement when they submitted a blank contract with no signatures or names.

• Oliver v. First Century Bank, N.A., No. 3:17-CV-00620-MMA-KSC (S.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2018)

  03/22/2018

  Court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of its order compelling arbitration.  Court explained that if plaintiff did not challenge a delegation clause specifically, then the court must treat it as valid under FAA § 2, and enforce it under §§ 3 and 4, leaving any challenge to the validity of the agreement as a whole for the arbitrator.  Court also determined that under Rent-A-Ctr., W., Inc. v. Jackson, 51 U.S. 63 (2010), the party seeking to avoid arbitration bears the burden of raising specific arbitrability challenges, including a challenge to the enforceability of the delegation clause.

• GGNSC Louisville St. Matthews LLC v. Badgett, No. 17-5963 (6th Cir. Mar. 22, 2018)

  03/22/2018

  Court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court, which denied petitioners-appellants’ motion to compel arbitration.  The deceased had signed an arbitration agreement at one nursing home, but later disclaimed an identical agreement at a facility owned by the same parent company.  Court explained that because the second arbitration agreement was a novation of the first agreement and clearly expressed the intent of the parties, no valid arbitration agreement existed.

• A.D. v. Credit One Bank, N.A., No. 17-1486 (7th Cir. Mar. 22, 2018)

  03/22/2018

  Court of appeals reversed the judgment of the district court, which granted defendant-appellee’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff-appellant was not bound by the terms of the agreement to arbitrate, as she did not directly benefit from the agreement such that equitable principles convinced the court to apply the arbitration clause against her.  Additionally, court found that plaintiff-appellant had not consented to arbitration and did not have legal capacity to enter into a contractual relationship with defendant-appellee.

• Nieto v. 2249 Corp., No. 1:16-CV-07947-LAP (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2018)

  03/22/2018

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration, reasoning that the plaintiffs had raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether an arbitration agreement had been made and ordered that the court would proceed summarily to a trial addressing this question.

• Stroman v. Barefoot, No. 3:17-CV-02760-CMC (D.S.C. Mar. 21, 2018)

  03/21/2018

  Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration.  Court concluded that (i) nothing in plaintiff’s arguments suggested that defendants waived the right to enforce the arbitration agreement by offering a pre-litigation alternative dispute resolution option or by any action they took during mediation; (ii) it was enough that plaintiff understood that she was accepting an agreement by her actions, even if she was discouraged from reading the agreement; (iii) plaintiff’s unconscionability argument was based on speculation as to possible total costs of arbitration, which was insufficient to establish unconscionability; and (iv) enforcement of a private agreement under the FAA does not raise due process or other constitutional concerns.

• Lee v. Burlington Coat Factory of Missouri, LLC, No. 4:17-CV-02467-AGF (E.D. Mo. Mar. 21, 2018)

  03/21/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff accepted the offer to arbitrate by failing to opt out in a timely fashion and that the agreement was supported by valid consideration in the form of mutual promises to arbitrate claims.  Court also noted that, although plaintiff did not explicitly assert one, it would also reject any legal argument based on the prominence (or alleged lack thereof) of the terms of the arbitration agreement.

• Van Rooyen v. Greystone Home Builders, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-10895-RHC-MKM (N.D. Tex. Mar. 19, 2018)

  03/19/2018

  Court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or improper venue, and granted their alternative motion to transfer.  Court noted that the fifth circuit has recognized six theories for binding a non-signatory to a contract’s arbitration clause:  incorporation by reference, assumption, agency, veil-piercing ego, estoppel, and third party beneficiary theory.  Court concluded that the principle of estoppel made the contract’s forum-selection clause binding on the non-signatories, as the claims against the remaining defendants were intertwined with and dependent upon the contract containing the forum-selection clause.

• Matalka v. Home Point Financial Corporation, No. 2:17-CV-00155-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio Mar. 19, 2018)

  03/19/2018

  Court denied the motion to compel arbitration, concluding that the parties agreed to arbitrate claims relating to plaintiff’s work as a branch manager, but not plaintiff’s work as a regional manager.  Court rejected defendant’s contention that the arbitrator was to decide the arbitrability of the case, as plaintiff’s claims did not arise out of or relate, directly or indirectly, to the branch manager agreement.

• Developers Surety and Indemnity Co. v. Carothers Construction, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00875-JBA (D. Conn. Mar. 19, 2018)

  03/19/2018

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied defendant’s request to transfer.  Court concluded that the arbitration provision in question did not cover the plaintiff, as it referenced the subcontractor but not the surety, i.e. plaintiff.  Court also rejected defendant’s argument that plaintiff was estopped from seeking to avoid arbitration, noting that defendant presented little evidence of plaintiff having received a direct benefit from the agreement.

• Walker v. Huyandai Capital America, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00045-WTM-GRS (S.D. Ga. Mar. 15, 2018)

  03/15/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that assignee of lender in car loan agreement was entitled to rely on arbitration agreement in car purchase agreement executed at same time.

• Bankers Conseco Life Insurance Company v. Feuer, No. 1:16-CV-07646-ER (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2018)

  03/15/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that signatory was required to arbitrate claims against a non-signatory under a theory of equitable estoppel.

• Ayala v. Ace Cash Express, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-02166-AJB-WVG (S.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2018)

  03/15/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that arbitral agreement was not procedurally or substantively unconscionable.

• Jordan v. Integrity First Financial Group, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-02994-RBH (D.S.C. Mar. 14, 2018)

  03/14/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that it was substantively unopposed, except with respect to dismissal.  Court also dismissed proceedings, noting that such dismissal was proper where all claims at issue were subject to the arbitration agreement.

• Roberts v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 3:15-CV-03418-EMC (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2018)

  03/14/2018

  Reconsidering its former ruling, court denied motion to compel arbitration as to California residents (while granting it as to an Alabama resident), finding that arbitration clause containing a clause waiving the right to seek the statutory remedy of public injunctive relief was invalid under newly issued California Supreme Court case.

• Simmons v. First Premier Bank, N.A., No. 5:17-CV-00376-CAR (M.D. Ga. Mar. 14, 2018)

  03/14/2018

  Court granted in part joint motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that, when all claims are subject to arbitration, the proper course of actions is not to stay all proceedings, but to dismiss without prejudice.

• Garnick v. Interstate Batteries, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-12026-SFC-APP (E.D. Mich. Mar. 14, 2018)

  03/14/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate and Plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial.

• Campos v. DXP Enterprises, Inc., No. 8:18-CV-00103-JLS-DFM (C.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2018)

  03/14/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of wage dispute, and stayed the action pursuant to the FAA. Court found that the plaintiff must show both procedural and substantive unconscionability, however the only argument plaintiff made concerning substantive unconscionability was that the agreement contained “unlawful waivers of plaintiff’s right to bring collective and representative actions,” an argument that was recently rejected by the Supreme Court’s holding in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis. Thus following Supreme Court precedent, the court found the agreement to arbitrate was not unconscionable and enforced it.

• Welk Resort Sales v. Bryant, No. 6:17-CV-03197-SWH (W.D. Mo. Mar. 13, 2018)

  03/13/2018

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that movant had not established than an arbitration agreement was formed, and that trial should be set to determine outstanding factual issues as to contract formation.

• Aetna Inc. v. The People’s Choice Hospital, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-04354-BMS (E.D. Pa. Mar. 13, 2018)

  03/13/2018

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff had not established that non-signatory defendant was agent of signatory to arbitral agreement, and that arbitral agreement was not binding on defendant under an equitable estoppel theory since the claims in the litigation were “far afield” from the contractual obligations subject to arbitration.

• Rivera-Gómez v. Luxury Hotels International of Puerto Rico, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-03087-ADC (D.P.R. Mar. 13, 2018)

  03/13/2018

  Court granted motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that non-signatory defendant could invoke arbitration agreement signed by other entity in its corporate group.

• Giddings v. Media Lodge, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-04068-RAL (D.S.D. Mar. 13, 2018)

  03/13/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that (i) defendant had waived right to rely on delegation clause by failing to raise it; (ii) arbitration clause was not unconscionable; and (iii) statutory USERRA claims were within the scope of the arbitration clause and could be arbitrated.

• Castellanos v. Raymours Furniture Company, Inc., No 2:17-CV-01923-JFB-ARL (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2018)

  03/12/2018

  Court stayed pending arbitration and rejected request to sever FLSA claims, finding that arbitration agreement’s statute of limitations provision shortening period in which FLSA claims may be brought was unenforceable.

• Egan v. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00445-MRH (W.D. Pa. Mar. 12, 2018)

  03/12/2018

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration for claim that failure to offer wheelchair-accessible seating during online ticket presales violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, finding that agreement to arbitrate the instant dispute was not formed by acceptance of terms of service in previous, unrelated online ticket purchase, or by logging into account to attempt to make online purchase at issue.

• Tennessee Tractor, LLC v. WH Administrators, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-02829-STA-EGB (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 12, 2018)

  03/12/2018

  Court granted in part and denied in part motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff who had not signed arbitration agreement was not bound to arbitrate under it, since he was asserting ERISA claims and not claims under the agreement subject to arbitration.

• Burke v. Borough of Red Bank, No. 3:17-CV-01800-BRM-LHG (D.N.J. Mar. 12, 2018)

  03/12/2018

  Court granted motion to dismiss, insofar as claims arose from Collective Bargaining Agreement subject to arbitration.

• Olivas v. The Hertz Corporation, No. 3:17-CV-01083-BAS-NLS (S.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2018)

  03/12/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that (i) car renter had accepted rental contract (with its arbitration clause) through the conduct of renting the car, and (ii) question of whether dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration clause was delegated to the arbitrator.

• Hilton v. Fluent, LLC, No. 9:17-CV-81270-DMM (S.D. Fla. Mar. 12, 2018)

  03/12/2018

  Court deferred defendants’ motions to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiffs raised an issue of fact as to whether an arbitration agreement between the parties existed.  Court found that plaintiffs’ sworn denials that they visited the websites and completed the registration forms depicted in defendants’ screenshots placed at issue the existence of binding agreements, particularly considered in conjunction with the “curious circumstances” under which plaintiffs’ phone numbers came to be associated with other purportedly inaccurate personal data.

• Binienda v. Atwells Realty Corp., No. 1:15-CV-00253-WES-PAS (D.R.I. Mar. 9, 2018)

  03/09/2018

  Court denied motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that question whether defendant waived its right to compel arbitration due to its litigation conduct was presumptively for court to decide, and that defendant had waived its right to compel arbitration by litigating for two years before asserting it.

• Harris v. Fujitsu America International, No. 2:17-CV-02563-SHM-CGC (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 9, 2018)

  03/09/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that arbitration agreement could be considered in deciding a motion to dismiss notwithstanding that it was not attached to the complaint, and that plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration.

• Henderson v. A&D Interests, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00096 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 9, 2018)

  03/09/2018

  Court granted motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, rejecting challenges that the arbitration agreement was illusory and unconscionable, and finding that the agreement had a valid delegation clause.

• Biggs.  v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00340-JFB-ARL (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2018)

  03/09/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration on an individual basis pursuant to the FAA. Court followed Supreme Court precedent to find that the class action waiver in the agreement was enforceable.

• Williams-Jackson v. Innovative Senior Care Home Health of Edmond, LLC, No. 17-6168 (10th Cir. Mar. 8, 2018)

  03/08/2018

  Circuit court vacated district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Court found that the mutual promise to arbitrate was not illusory or unsupported by adequate consideration because terms of the agreement were equally binding on both parties, and defendant could not modify the terms unilaterally without giving notice.

• Union de Tronquistas de Puerto Rico, Local 901, No. 3:17-CV-01288-SEC (D.P.R. Mar. 8, 2018)

  03/08/2018

  Court granted summary judgment against claim to vacate arbitral award, finding that the award was not unfounded in reason or fact.

• Price  v. UBS Financial Services, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-01882-WJM-MF (D.N.J. Mar. 8, 2018)

  03/08/2018

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding under third circuit precedent the defendant had waived its right to seek arbitration because the initial motion to dismiss did not include an arbitration claim and defendant waited over eight months to file this motion to compel.

• Rideout v. CashCall, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-02817-RFB-VCF (D. Nev. Mar. 8, 2018)

  03/08/2018

  Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration. Court found the agreement was procedurally and substantively unconscionable and therefore no valid agreement to arbitrate existed. Court further held that the arbitration agreement was invalid because it required exclusive application of Cheyenne River Sioux law, which would cause plaintiff to waive federal statutory rights.

• Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC v. Calvin, No. 16-3833-CV (2d Cir. Mar. 7, 2018)

  03/07/2018

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of defendant’s petition seeking to compel bilateral rather than class arbitration. Court determined the question of whether contract permitted class arbitration should be determined by the arbitrator and not the court.

• Cavlovic v. J.C. Penney Corporation, No. 17-3174 (10th Cir. Mar. 7, 2018)

  03/07/2018

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the plaintiff’s allegations were outside the scope of the agreement at issue.

• Emericare, Inc.  v. Calvin, No. 1:16-CV-00446-RM-KMT (D. Colo. Mar. 6, 2018)

  03/06/2018

  Magistrate Judge recommended court find in favor of plaintiff’s by compelling arbitration pursuant to the FAA and reject defendant’s request to allow state courts to decide arbitrability.

• Gergeni.  v. The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society, No. 5:17-CV-04037-LRR (N.D. Iowa. Mar. 6, 2018)

  03/06/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court found that questions of arbitrability had been delegated to arbitrators by incorporation of the AAA arbitration rules, thus the issue of whether the arbitration agreement was procedurally or substantively unconscionable should be decided by arbitrators.

• Doyle v. AD Astra Recovery Services, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-05233-NLH-AMD (D.N.J. Mar. 6, 2018)

  03/06/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court held that while defendant was not party to the arbitration agreement, defendant was a “related party” as contemplated in the agreement.

• Capitol City Amusements, Inc. v. Zamperla, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-01567-KJM-KJN (E.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2018)

  03/06/2018

  Court denied without prejudice defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Court found that there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether plaintiff had signed a version of the contract that contained the arbitration clause, and thus defendant had not met its burden of establishing the existence of a valid arbitration agreement.

• Petersen-Dean, Inc. v. Solarworld Americas, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-07326-WHO (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2018)

  03/05/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding the dispute subject to valid agreement to arbitrate.

• Abdullayeva v. Attending Homecare Services, LLC., No. 1:17-CV-05951-JBW-SJB (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2018)

  03/05/2018

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding that the language of the arbitration clause governing this dispute was permissive not mandatory, therefore the plaintiff may choose whether to arbitrate.

• Meyer v. Kalanick, No. 1:15-CV-09796-JSR (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2018)

  03/05/2018

  Court, on remand from the second circuit, granted motion to compel arbitration as to one defendant and motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the other. Plaintiff argued that the right to arbitration had been waived, but court found that a defendant who had been added as a necessary party had not waived its right to arbitration, and the claims could not continue in that party’s absence.

• Rancher v. Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00941-LSC (N.D. Ala. Mar. 5, 2018)

  03/05/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that arbitration would limit her statutory rights by potentially requiring her to pay fees in excess of the court filing fee.

• Plummer v. Nicor Energy Services Company, No. 1:17-CV-02177-WTL-MPB (S.D. Ind. Mar. 5, 2018)

  03/05/2018

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the mailing of terms and conditions containing an arbitration clause to plaintiff several days after plaintiff had agreed to a price over telephone was insufficient to establish an agreement to arbitrate disputes under Indiana law.

• Smith v. Altisource Solutions, No. 17-1501 (6th Cir. Mar. 2, 2018)

  03/02/2018

  Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s order denying in part the motion to compel arbitration because several of the claims did not fall within the scope of the arbitral agreement.

• Morton v. Darden Restaurants, Inc., No. 8:17-CV-01865-HMH-KFM (D.S.C. Mar. 2, 2018)

  03/02/2018

  Magistrate judge recommended granting motion to compel arbitration and dismiss proceedings.  Judge reasoned that even in the absence of a signed arbitration agreement, defendant had demonstrated plaintiff’s agreement to arbitrate.  On March 28, the district court, finding that no objection had been filed to the magistrate’s findings and that there was no clear error on the face of the recommendation, compelled arbitration and dismissed proceedings.

• Chambers v. Hampden Coal, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-02744 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 1, 2018)

  03/01/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court found there was an enforceable arbitration agreement between the parties even though the agreement mistakenly referred to a different employee and the agreement explicitly stated it was not a contract.  Court concluded that the claim on improper termination based on age could be referred to arbitration.

• Agviq, LLC v. Right Way Environmental Contractors, No. 3:17-CV-02034-WGY (D.P.R. Mar. 1, 2018)

  03/01/2018

  Plaintiff sought preliminary injunction to enjoin arbitration proceedings, arguing that the dispute fell within an exception to the arbitration provision. The agreement delegated the question of arbitrability to the court, and Court held the dispute was arbitrable under the agreement granting summary judgment for defendant.

• Oyola v. Midland Funding, LLC, No. 4:17-CV-40040-TSH (D. Mass. Feb. 28, 2018)

  02/28/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, dismiss the case, and strike class allegations, finding the delegation clause and arbitration agreement were valid.

• Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. El Turk, No. 3:17-CV-02019-JCH (D. Conn. Feb. 28, 2018)

  02/28/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that a party may be “aggrieved” for the purposes of the FAA and federal standing even if it is not party to an underlying litigation. Court also held that it had jurisdiction to compel arbitration even though underlying litigation was in Ohio, because the FAA allows petitions to compel arbitration to be filed in any district court with subject matter jurisdiction. Based on the language of the agreement, court held that the plaintiff could bring any claims arising out of the agreement it wished to arbitrate, and that further decisions about arbitrability of claims should be decided by the arbitrator.

• MacDonald v. Cashcall Inc., No. 17-2161 (D. Md. Feb. 27, 2018)

  02/27/2018

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that the arbitration agreement, including the delegation clause, was unenforceable because the agreement directed arbitration to an illusory forum and the forum selection clause was an integral, non-severable part of the arbitral agreement.

• Management Registry, Inc. v. A.W. Companies, Inc., No. 0:17-CV-05009-JRT-FLN (D. Minn. Feb. 27, 2018)

  02/27/2018

  Court granted motion to compel AAA arbitration finding the mandatory arbitration provision was a valid agreement to arbitrate, and stayed proceedings pending arbitration pursuant to the FAA on a determination that arbitration will not likely resolve all issues between the parties.

• Jemiri v. Public Service Enterprise Group Corporation (PSEG), No. 2:17-CV-04518-ADS-AKT (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2018)

  02/27/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending the resolution of arbitration.  Pursuant to the FAA, court found a valid arbitration agreement between the plaintiff and employer existed, and concluded that because the disputes were intertwined the entire case should be sent to arbitration including claims against non-signatories to the agreement that are factually intertwined with the dispute between the signatories. 

• Kroat v. Pizza Hut of Maryland, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-02035-RDB (D. Md. Feb. 27, 2018)

  02/27/2018

  Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding plaintiff had entered into an agreement with his employer to arbitrate all employment-related disputes.  Court found a stay was not appropriate because all plaintiff’s claims were arbitrable.

• Athas Health LLC v. Giuffre, No. 3:17-CV-00300-L (N.D. Tex. Feb. 23, 2018)

  02/23/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration under §4 of the FAA. Court held that because the claims arose while the contract was in effect, and because arbitration agreements are separable and therefore enforceable after a contract comes to an end, the court must enforce a specific agreement to arbitrate.  Additionally, a challenge to the enforceability or unconscionability of the underlying contract is left to the arbitrator to decide.

• Norfolk Southern Railway v. Sprint Communications Company L.P., No. 16-2107 (4th Cir. Feb. 22, 2018)

  02/22/2018

  Court of appeals reversed the district court’s order granting a motion to confirm an arbitration award. Court held that the award failed to resolve an issue presented by the parties to the arbitrators, and therefore it is not “mutual, final, and definite” as required by the FAA.

• Clarke v. Alltran Financial LP f/k/a United Recovery Systems LP, No. 2:17-CV-03330-JFB-AYS (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2018)

  02/22/2018

  Court granted non-signatory defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action pending conclusion of the arbitration. Court held that the plain language of the contract at issue allows the defendant to compel arbitration because the arbitration agreement does not expressly limit the right to compel arbitration to the signatories.  Moreover, the arbitration provision states that it is to be interpreted in “the broadest way the law will allow it to be interpreted.”

• International Corrugated and Packing Supplies, Inc. v. Lear Corporation, No. 3:15-CV-00405-DCG (W.D. Tex. Feb. 22, 2018)

  02/22/2018

  On remand from the fifth circuit, the court continued to deny the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that under Texas law, in order to incorporate an unsigned contract into another contract, the latter contract must be signed by the party sought to be charged. Here, because the defendant was attempting to incorporate by reference unsigned terms and conditions containing an arbitration clause into unsigned purchase orders, the defendant failed to prove there was a valid agreement to arbitrate.

• Tassy v. Lindsay Entertainment Enterprises, Inc., No. 17-5375 (6th Cir. Feb. 22, 2018)

  02/22/2018

  Court of appeals vacated order denying motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration and remanded for further proceedings.  Court of appeals held that district court had erred by failing to summarily proceed to trial in order to resolve a factual dispute over the existence of an arbitration agreement and instead denying a motion to compel arbitration.

• Lett v. Classic Buick GMC Cadillac, No. 2:17-CV-00373-SRW (M.D. Ala. Feb. 22, 2018)

  02/22/2018

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that, plaintiff having omitted by amendment his federal claim, court no longer had federal question jurisdiction; the case was therefore dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

• LPF II, LLC v. Cornerstone Systems, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-02417-DDC-JPO  (D. Kan. Feb. 21, 2018)

  02/21/2018

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration based on the record before it and concluded that a summary trial was necessary to determine whether the parties’ contract requires them to arbitrate their disputes.

• Lionsbrood Enterprises, LLC v. Installation Solutions, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01507-WJM-MJW (D. Colo. Feb. 20, 2018)

  02/20/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that, because both statutory rights and common law claims may be resolved in arbitration, all claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and thus the agreement was binding and enforceable.

• ATT Mobility Services LLC v. Payne, No. 3:17-CV-00649-CRS (W.D. Ky. Feb. 16, 2018)

  02/16/2018

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration of state court claims and for a preliminary injunction enjoining the state court proceedings.  Court held that a valid and enforceable contract between the parties exists under Kentucky law and that the defendant accepted the plaintiff’s offer to arbitrate future claims.  Additionally, the court found that enjoining the state court proceedings, in light of the finding that a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement existed, would prevent irreparable harm against the movant by avoiding the expense and delay of trial.

• Jenkins v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-1999-MMA-BGS (S.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2018)

  02/16/2018

  Court granted in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that a valid agreement to arbitrate all but one of the claims existed and that the agreement was not procedurally unconscionable under California law.  Court stayed one claim in the interest of efficiency, pending completion of the arbitration.

• Smith v. Kellogg Co., No. 2:17-CV-01914-APG-GWF (D. Nev. Feb. 15, 2018)

  02/15/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the parties’ arbitration agreement clearly and unmistakably delegated the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator by incorporation of the JAMS rules, and that such delegation provision was not unconscionable.
   

• Kingsbury v. Lyft, Inc., No.1:17-CV-02272-SDY (N.D. Ill. Feb. 15, 2018)

  02/15/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiffs agreed to broad arbitration clauses on multiple occasions and that their claims fell squarely within the scope of those clauses. 

• Adkins v. Comcast Corp., No. 3:17-CV-06477-VC (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2018)

  02/15/2018

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement contained an unenforceable waiver under California law of an individual’s right to bring a public injunctive relief claim in any forum.  Court further held that the agreement included language that invalidated the entire arbitration clause if the waiver was invalidated.

• Rhoades v. Duke University, No. 5:17-CV-00446-FWL (E.D.N.C. Feb. 13, 2018)

  02/14/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed between the parties with respect to the claims plaintiff asserted.

• Rose v. Humana Insurance Co., No. 3:17-CV-08107-DGC (D. Ariz. Feb. 14, 2018)

  02/14/2018

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendants failed to establish a valid arbitration agreement existed when they did not establish under Arizona law that plaintiff knew about or assented to the unilateral modification to the agreement requiring arbitration.
   

• Dasher v. RBC Bank (USA), No. 15-13871 (11th Cir. Feb. 13, 2018)

  02/13/2018

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that defendant failed to show that plaintiff agreed to the addition of the arbitration provision in dispute.
   

• Ridgeway v. Nabors Completion & Production Services Co., No. 2:15-CV-03436-DDP-JPR (9th Cir. Feb. 13, 2018)

  02/13/2018

  Court of appeals reversed district court decision and remanded with instructions. Court concluded that the district court correctly held that the arbitration agreement involved a moderate level of procedural unconscionability because it was a nonnegotiable requirement of plaintiff’s employment. However, the provisions at issue were substantively unconscionable, with two exceptions relating to shifting discovery costs and expert fees.

• Charging Bison, L.L.C. v. Interstate Battery Franchising & Development Inc., No. 17-10509 (5th Cir. Feb. 12, 2018)

  02/12/2018

  Court of appeals affirmed district court order denying a stay of arbitration.  Court held that district court properly ruled in favor of arbitration where the carveout provision in the arbitration agreement did not cover anticipatory terminations of the franchise agreement.

• Dooley v. Federated Law Group, PLLC, No. 1:16-CV-04703-SCJ (N.D. Ga. Feb. 12, 2018)

  02/12/2018

  Court adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge to grant defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Magistrate judge found that (i) defendants established by a preponderance of the evidence that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate, as evidenced by the credit member agreement attached to the affidavit of the records custodian; (ii) defendants could enforce the arbitration agreement even though they were not one of the original signatories; (iii) plaintiff’s individual claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement; and (iv) the Eleventh Circuit has held that arbitration agreements precluding class action relief are valid and enforceable.

• Johnson v. Cach, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00383-BLW (D. Idaho Feb. 9, 2018)

  02/09/2018

  Court denied plaintiff’s motion to reopen the case or appoint an arbitrator. Court held that, despite the unavailability of the National Arbitration Forum as an arbitration forum, the language of the arbitration agreement at issue contemplated the use of other arbitral forums and provides guidance for doing so.

• Rogers v. SWEPI LP, No. 2:16-CV-00999-JLG-KAJ (S.D. Ohio Feb. 9, 2018)

  02/09/2018

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that while a broad arbitration clause existed, the plaintiff’s agreement to arbitration was subject to a condition precedent that was not fulfilled.

• Kimble v. Jamieson, P.C., No. 2:17-CV-02187-SHM-TMP (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 9, 2018)

  02/09/2018

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that the plain language of the arbitration provision in the contract did not apply to defendant’s or plaintiff’s claims as defendant was not a party to the contract.

• Atkins v. CGI Technologies and Solutions, Inc., No. 17-5506 (6th Cir. Feb. 9, 2018)

  02/09/2018

  Court of appeals vacated the district court’s order denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and remanded for further proceedings.  Court held that that reverse-preemption by state law regulating insurance business pursuant to the McCarran-Ferguson Act did not did not preclude enforcement of the contractual arbitration clause under the FAA.

• Atkins v. CGI Technologies & Solutions, Inc., No. 17-5506 (6th Cir. Feb. 9, 2018)

  02/09/2018

  Court of appeals vacated and remanded district court’s order denying motion to compel arbitration, finding that reverse-preemption poses no obstacles to the enforcement of the contractual arbitration clause at issue.

• Beltsville Land, LLC v. Conaboy, No. 1:17-CV-00551-WS-B (S.D. Ala. Feb. 8, 2018)

  02/08/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration but denied motion to dismiss and stayed the claim.  Court held that a clear and unmistakable agreement to arbitrate exists and that the arbitrator shall resolve objections as to the existence, scope and validly of such agreement.  Additionally, under eleventh circuit precedent, the claims are to be stayed, not dismissed, pending arbitration.

• Smith v. JRK Residential Group, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01586-MPS (D. Conn. Feb. 8, 2018)

  02/08/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action. Applying the second circuit’s four-factor test for determining whether parties are compelled to arbitrate, the court held that (1) the parties agreed to arbitrate the claims at issue; (2) the claims fell within the scope of the agreement; (3) the claims can be resolved through arbitration; and, (4) the court action will be stayed pending the conclusion of the arbitration.

• Dixon v. Wilora Lake Healthcare LLC, 3:17-CV-00713-FDW-DCK (W.D.N.C. Feb. 8, 2018)

  02/08/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay the action, holding that the plaintiff’s claims fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement at issue. Additionally, the alleged rescission of the contract, and whether the parties satisfied any procedural preconditions to arbitration, is an issue of substantive arbitrability and thus reviewable in the arbitration.

• Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated v. Middleton, No. 3:17-CV-01259-HES-JRK (M.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2018)

  02/07/2018

  Court granted defendants’ motion to stay proceedings and compel FINRA arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Plaintiff had brought an action to enjoin defendant, a previous employee from arbitrating claims that his portfolio had been devalued through fraud, but the court found that the dispute was within arbitration provisions in both the employee agreement and the customer agreement.

• Virtu KCG Holdings LLC v. LI, No. 2:17-CV-08296 (D.N.J. Feb. 6, 2018)

  02/06/2018

  Court denied motion compel arbitration, finding that under the FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) standard a valid agreement to arbitrate exists, but that the issues in dispute do not fall within the scope of that agreement.

• Koby v. ARS National Services, Inc., No. 3:09-CV-00780-KSC (S.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2018)

  02/05/2018

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that the evidence proffered by the non-signatory defendant to establish its ability to enforce the arbitration agreement in question was inadmissible.

• Payne v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00076 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 5, 2018)

  02/05/2018

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Court held that the plaintiff’s claims under state law are not sufficient for subject matter jurisdiction, particularly since neither the FAA nor a motion to compel arbitration under the FAA confers subject matter jurisdiction on federal courts.

• 2020 Communications, Inc. v. Blevins, No. 17-10160 (5th Cir. Feb. 5, 2018)

  02/05/2018

  Court of appeals denied an appeal of an order denying a preliminary injunction for lack of jurisdiction. Court held that under §16(b)(4) of the FAA, with limited exceptions inapplicable in the current case, it was not permitted to consider appeals from interlocutory orders that refuse to enjoin arbitrations.

• Sherrard v. Macy’s System and Technology Inc., No. 17-11766 (11th Cir. Feb. 5, 2018)

  02/05/2018

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order compelling arbitration, finding that minor participation in litigation prior to moving to compel arbitration was insufficient to constitute a finding of waiver of the right to arbitrate.

• Hancock Mechanical LLC v. McClain Contracting Company Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00054 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 2, 2018)

  02/02/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case, holding that pursuant to the FAA and Mississippi contract law, as well as the parties’ conduct, all the elements necessary for formation of a contract and the associated arbitration agreement are present.  Court also held that the breach of contract claim against the defendant falls within the parameters of the arbitration agreement.

• Group III Mgt., Inc. v. Dragados USA Inc., No. 7:17-CV-00240-D (E.D.N.C. Feb. 2, 2018)

  02/02/2018

  Court granted motion to stay the action pending mediation and arbitration, finding that all of the plaintiff’s claims arise from and depend on a written contract that contains a valid and enforceable arbitration provision.

• Mandviwala v. Five Star Quality Care, Inc., No. 16-55084 (9th Cir. Feb. 2, 2018)

  02/02/2018

  Court of appeals affirmed in part and remanded to the district court to order arbitration of victim-specific relief, finding that putative class claims under California Private Attorney General Act were not arbitrable and could not be waived, but that labor law claims for unpaid wages could be arbitrated.

• Method, LLC v. Make It Right Foundation, No. 9:17-CV-00025-DLC (D. Mont. Feb. 1, 2018)

  02/01/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Pursuant to the FAA, court found a valid arbitration agreement and that defendants had not waived their rights to arbitration, concluding that although defendants knew of the right to arbitrate they did not behave inconsistently with this right and plaintiffs did not establish that they had been prejudiced.  Court also denied plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions for defendants’ failure to engage in ADR in good faith during the litigation, finding there was no evidence of conduct rising to the level of bad faith to justify sanctions.

• Brenco Enterprises, INC. v. Bitesquad.com, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-01263-TSE-IDD (E.D. Va. Jan. 31, 2018)

  01/31/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, noting that the parties made clear that they intended for the arbitrator to evaluate questions of arbitrability by incorporating AAA rules into the agreement.

• Cook v. Northstar Location Services, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-04186-MHC (N.D. Ga. Jan. 31, 2018)

  01/31/2018

  Court approved and adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge to grant defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay action.  Magistrate judge concluded that defendant had proven that the agreement was valid; the record was clear that Barclays offered an account to plaintiff via the agreement, plaintiff was aware of the terms of the agreement, and she agreed with those terms (as evidenced by her use).  Magistrate judge further concluded that defendant’s valid assignment from Barclays enabled defendant to enforce the arbitration clause contained in the agreement.

• Domain Vault LLC v. Rightside Group Ltd, No. 3:17-CV-00789-B (N.D. Tex. Jan. 30, 2018)

  01/30/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding under the FAA that plaintiff assented to the online agreement to arbitrate.  Even though defendant was not a party to the arbitration agreement, court concluded that the doctrine of equitable estoppel applied and the defendant could compel arbitration.
  
   

• Credit Acceptance Corporation v. McDonald, No. 3:17-CV-00644-TSL-RHW (S.D. Miss. Jan. 30, 2018)

  01/30/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Pursuant to the FAA, court found a valid arbitration agreement and concluded that defendant’s intentional tort claims fell within the broad scope of the arbitration clause.

• Jackson Laboratory v. Nanjing University, No. 1:17-CV-00363-GZS (D. Me. Jan. 29, 2018)

  01/29/2018

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve process via email and personal service on three defendants domiciled in China under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) and 4(h) in relation to a petition to compel arbitration.  Concluding that the proposed service comported with requirements of Rule 4(f)(3) and due process, court noted that 4(f) does not require compliance with the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents (“Hague Service Convention”) or mandate exhaustion of other service methods before seeking court-ordered service.  Court also found service by email appropriate where the signatory country objects to service by postal channels under Article 10 of the Hague Service Convention.

• Knight v. Idea Buyer, LLC, No. 17-3539 (6th Cir. Jan. 29, 2018) 

  01/29/2018

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision dismissing the class action suit on the merits but found that a motion to dismiss pursuant to an arbitration agreement should be construed as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) not 12(b)(1) as pleaded by defendant.  Under the FAA, court held that plaintiffs’ claim that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because the overarching “Fast Track Agreement” was invalid should be addressed by the arbitrator because it was a challenge to the contract as a whole not just the arbitration provision.  Court determined the American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA) claims were arbitrable, concluding there was no evidence of a clear congressional intent to make AIPA claims nonarbitrable.
   

• Unite Here Local 30 v. Volume Services, Inc., No. 16-55528 (9th Cir. Jan. 26, 2018)

  01/26/2018

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s rejection of motion to compel arbitration, finding that district court did not err in concluding that arbitration was not required where a mediator issued a decision that is final and binding.

• Ben-Salah v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc. of Delaware, No. 3:17-CV-00907-YY (D. Or. Jan. 25, 2018)

  01/25/2018

  Court adopted the magistrate’s judge’s findings and recommendations and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss or in the alternative to stay proceedings and compel arbitration.  Court agreed with the magistrate judge that (i) the question of equitable tolling was presumptively for the arbitrator to decide, (ii) plaintiff’s challenges to the arbitration based on arguments about formation of contract should be rejected, and (iii) plaintiff’s fraudulent inducement and unconscionability arguments are not specific to the arbitration clause and therefore not for the court to decide.

• Keller v. T-Mobile, No. 2:16-CV-02143-CM-GLR (D. Kan. Jan. 25, 2018)

  01/25/2018

  Court denied plaintiff’s motion to remove case from arbitration and proceed with a case management order or compel a new arbitration proceeding.  Pursuant to the FAA, court found that there was no evidence of arbitrator bias and that the plaintiff received a fundamentally fair hearing.

• Warciak v. Subway Restaurants, Inc., No. 17-1956 (7th Cir. Jan. 25, 2018)

  01/25/2018

  Court of appeals reversed and remanded district court’s ruling granting a motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that Illinois state law rather than federal law applied when determining whether a contract’s arbitration clause binds a non-signatory, and that defendant restaurant chain was therefore unable to rely on estoppel to enforce the arbitration agreement in the contract when plaintiff was neither a signatory nor a party to the contract.

• West African Ventures Limited v. Ranger Offshore, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00548 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 24, 2018)

  01/24/2018

  Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss and stayed defendant’s counterclaims in favor of arbitration.  Court concluded that all of defendant Ranger’s counterclaims were subject to the arbitration agreement, and plaintiffs did not waive arbitration by bringing suit to enforce guarantees, which did not contain an arbitration provision.

• McIntosh v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-03273 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 24, 2018)

  01/24/2018

  Court granted Uber’s motion to compel in part and denied it in part.  Court found that (i) plaintiff’s challenges to contract formation did not have merit, and (ii) because plaintiff was challenging the arbitration provision as a whole, rather than the delegation clause specifically, plaintiff’s unconscionability arguments were for the arbitrator to decide.

• Inception Mining, Inc. v. Danzig, Ltd., No. 2:17-CV-00944-DN (D. Utah Jan. 24, 2018)

  01/24/2018

  Court denied in part and granted in part defendants’ motion to dismiss.  Court held that subject matter jurisdiction existed and venue was proper to determine if plaintiffs may be required to arbitrate.  However, since issues of arbitrability were to be decided by the arbitrator, the motion to dismiss was granted in part.

• Huron Consulting Group, Inc. v. Gruner, No. 1:17-CV-06042 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 24, 2018)

  01/24/2018

  Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss for improper venue or, in the alternative, lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Court noted that while the parties designated an arbitral forum (JAMS), they failed to incorporate the JAMS rules, and therefore defendant failed to present the requisite clear and unmistakable evidence of the parties’ intent to arbitrate arbitrability.

• Roberts v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 3:15-CV-03418-EMC (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018)

  01/23/2018

  Court granted motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration in light of plaintiffs’ argument that there is a new legal basis establishing that arbitration should not be compelled.  Since the court’s prior order, the California Supreme Court determined in McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 2 Cal. 5th 945 (2017) that (i) holding that an arbitration agreement waives the right to seek the statutory remedy of public injunctive relief is contrary to public policy and therefore unenforceable, and (ii) there is no FAA preemption of that California rule.

• Bartels v. Saber Healthcare Group, LLC, No. 16-2247 (4th Cir. Jan. 23, 2018)

  01/23/2018

  Court vacated and remanded for further proceedings on the question of whether all of the defendants are bound by the forum-selection clause.  In reaching its decision, court noted that it had previously explained in the arbitration context that if the charges against the parent company and its subsidiary are based on the same facts and are inherently inseparable, a court may refer claims against the parent to arbitration even though the parent is not formally a party to the arbitration agreement.  Similarly, under the well-established common law principles of estoppel and alter-ego theories, a non-signatory can be bound by a contractual clause executed by a third party.

• Olstad v. Chase Auto Finance Corporation, No. 3:17-CV-00236-WMC (W.D. Wis. Jan. 22, 2018)

  01/22/2018

  Court granted defendants’ motion to stay the action and compel arbitration.  Court held that the issue of arbitrability was for the arbitrator to decide, as plaintiffs had conceded that the arbitration clause was enforceable as to all of its claims save one, and the arbitration clause delegated the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator.  Court further held that a stay was more appropriate than a dismissal as “it is possible, if unlikely, that the arbitrator may find that plaintiffs’ conversation claim is not arbitrable.

• Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Repins, No. 3:17-CV-00323-JCH (D. Conn. Jan. 22, 2018)

  01/22/2018

  Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration, concluding that defendant’s arguments were matters delegated to the arbitrator by the delegation provision in the parties’ agreement.

• Citi Cars, Inc. v. Cox Enterprises, Inc., 1:17-CV-22190-KMM (S.D. Fla. Jan. 22, 2018)

  01/22/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings.  Court rejected argument that the applicable arbitration clauses were unconscionable given their lack of true mutuality and limitations on damages and prehearing discovery, ruling that plaintiff failed to substantiate its procedural unconscionability contentions, such that the rest of its argument on this point was therefore foreclosed.  Court further held that it was up to the arbitrator to determine whether certain provisions in the arbitration clauses were void because they contravened related anti-trust laws and that, in any case, they were severable and did not render the entire arbitration agreement invalid.  Finally, court held that even the non-signatory defendants could move to compel arbitration as plaintiff’s claims against them were “inextricably intertwined” with its claims against the other defendants. 

• Castellanos v. Mariner Finance, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-03168-MJG (D. Md. Jan. 19, 2018)

  01/19/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to stay action.  Court found that there was no undue delay and no “trial-oriented activity” that would warrant a finding of prejudice, and although defendant filed a collection action against plaintiff in small claims court, such action was not subject to arbitration under the parties’ agreement.

• Capax Discovery, Inc. v. AEP RSD Investors, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00500-CCR (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2018)

  01/19/2018

  Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss, strike, and to compel arbitration.  Court found that the only disputes that the parties’ intended to be resolved by an independent accountant were those arising from the value of the earn-out provisions or Zovy’s present book value.  This was evidenced by (i) the narrow focus of the agreement on resolving disputed values related to the earn-out provision, (ii) the direction that the dispute be resolved by an independent accountant who was to act “as an expert and not arbitrator,” and (iii) the New York choice of law and forum selection clause.

• Little v. Cellco Partnership, No. 1:17-CV-03931 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 19, 2018)

  01/19/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, rejecting plaintiff’s argument that incorporation by reference of arbitration agreement in another document was insufficient to provide notice of arbitration provision, since the executed document gave independent notice of the arbitration clause.

• On v. Vannucci, M.D., Inc., et al., No. 214-cv-02714-TLN-CMK (E.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2018)

  01/19/2018

  Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in favor of compulsory arbitration.  Court found that plaintiffs failed to show that they were prejudiced by the four month period between the date plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint adding defendant SAVI and the date defendants SAVI and NVDC filed their motion to compel.  With respect to defendant NVDC, court found that plaintiffs failed to show that (i) NVDC delayed its right to compel arbitration for three years, (ii) NVDC’s actions were inconsistent with any right to arbitrate, or (iii) plaintiffs were prejudiced by NVDC’s actions.

• Ewell v. John C. Heath, Attorney at Law PLLC, No. 4:17-CV-11876-LVP-EAS (E.D. Mich. Jan. 18, 2018)

  01/18/2018

  Court granted motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, finding that a party may not avoid arbitration by arguing that the contract as a whole (rather than the arbitration clause specifically) is void.

• Ferrari v. Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, No. 4:17-CV-00018-YGR (N.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2018)

  01/18/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendants could invoke the arbitration clause as intended third-party beneficiaries.

• Freeman v. Smartpay Leasing, LLC, No. 6:17-CV-00938-GAP-GJK (M.D. Fla. Jan. 18, 2018)

  01/18/2018

  Court granted motion to vacate order compelling arbitration, finding that company who refused to pay filing fee as required under the consumer arbitration procedures of JAMS – a forum expressly designated as acceptable in the agreement drafted by the company – waived its right to rely on the arbitration clause.

• KCG Holdings, Inc. v. Rohit Khandekar, No. 1:17-CV-03533-AJN-GWG (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2018)

  01/18/2018

  Court granted motion to stay in favor of a pending arbitration, finding that, although the litigation concerned different claims than the arbitration, there was significant factual overlap between the proceedings.

• Marriott International, Inc. v. Danna, No. 2:17-CV-10590-ILRL-DEK (E.D. La. Jan. 18, 2018)

  01/18/2018

  Court denied plaintiff's motion to compel arbitration and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that there was no controversy since defendant had not yet asserted any claims in court.

• Degidio v. Crazy Horse Saloon and Restaurant Inc, No. 17-1145 (4th Cir. Jan. 18, 2018)

  01/18/2018

  Court of appeals affirmed denial of motion to compel arbitration, finding that party who had pursued a merits-based litigation strategy three years before asking the court to compel arbitration had waived its right to arbitration.

• Dorman v. Charles Schwab & Co. Inc., No. 17-CV-00285-CW (N.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2018)

  01/18/2018

  Court rejected motion to compel arbitration, finding that (i) named plaintiff was not bound by arbitration agreement in retirement plan document since that document was issued after named plaintiff terminated his participation in the plan; (ii) no other arbitration agreement covered the claims at issue; and (iii) in any event, the named plaintiff could not waive rights that belong to the plan, such as the right to file an ERISA claim in court.

• Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Miller, No. 3:16-CV-00311-WHB-JCG (S. D. Miss. Jan, 18, 2017)

  01/18/2018

  Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the parties agreed to arbitrate all claims arising out of or relating to any relationship in the sales contract at issue, that the non-signatory plaintiffs could compel arbitration of a valid agreement under Mississippi law, that the agreement contained a delegation provision by which the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitratability, including claims contesting the enforceability, scope, or conscionability of that agreement.

• Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Mathis, No. 3:16-CV-00315-WHB-JCG (S.D. Miss. Jan. 17, 2017)

  01/17/2018

  Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that a valid arbitration agreement existed between the arbitration plaintiffs, non-signatories to the agreement, and the defendant under Mississippi law, that issues of whether the agreement was enforceable, who were proper parties to the agreement, unconscionability, and whether pre-arbitration mediation was required, have been clearly and unmistakably delegated to the arbitrator as the agreement adopts the JAMS rules which provide a delegation provision.

• Galilea, LLC v. AGCS Marin Insurance Company, No. 16-35474 (9th Cir. Jan. 16, 2018)

  01/16/2018

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s grant of motion to compel arbitration of certain claims and reversed its denial of motion to compel arbitration of other claims, finding that: (i) although state law normally preempts federal law as to insurance contracts, an insurance policy insuring maritime interests against maritime risks is a maritime contract subject to federal maritime law, not state law, and therefore the FAA applies; and (ii) the parties delegated arbitrability issues to the arbitrator.

• Chavez v. Get It Now, LLC d/b/a Home Choice, No. 0:17-CV-01490-DWF-HB (D. Minn. Jan. 16, 2018)

  01/16/2018

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that, although a bankruptcy discharge did not render the arbitration agreement unenforceable, enforcing it would be contrary to the bankruptcy code where the claims arise from the creditor’s attempts to collect the discharged debt.

• Edmondson v. Lilliston Ford Inc, No. 17-1991 (3d Cir. Jan. 11, 2018)

  01/11/2018

  Court of appeals affirmed district court order denying motion to vacate an arbitral award and granting cross-motion to confirm the award, finding that the arbitration clause’s validity was not affected by a business’s statement that it had “severed its ties with the AAA” or its failure to register the arbitration clause with the AAA prior to the filing of a demand for arbitration.

• Fatt Katt Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Granite Transformations of Atlanta v. Rocksolid Granit (USA), Inc., No. 1:17-CV-1900-MHC (N.D. Ga. Jan. 11, 2018)

  01/11/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to stay or dismiss and to compel arbitration.  Court found that the arbitrability of the parties’ agreement should be decided by an arbitrator because the parties expressly agreed to arbitrate, and plaintiff’s claim of unconscionability relates to the contract as a whole and not specifically to the delegation provision within the arbitration clause.

• Arnold v. HomeAway, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00374-LY (W.D. Tex. Jan. 10, 2017)

  01/10/2018

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that (i) website user with multiple accounts was subject to arbitration agreement in updated terms and conditions since he accepted the updated terms on one of his accounts, notwithstanding that he did not accept them for the account at issue; but (ii) under Texas law, an agreement to arbitrate is illusory and unenforceable if it permits a party to unilaterally abolish or modify the arbitration provision.

• Visual Creations Inc. v. IDL Worldwide Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00405-WES-PAS (D.R.I. Jan. 9, 2018)

  01/09/2018

  Court denied request to deny plaintiff’s request for a jury, as opposed to bench, trial on the issue of whether there exists a binding agreement to arbitrate. Court held that the plaintiff’s timely request should be granted because §4 of the FAA explicitly provides for a jury trial on the issue of an arbitration agreement’s existence when the party allegedly in default requests such.

• DiMucci v. Zenimax Media Inc., No. 3:17-CV-03789-EMC (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2018)

  01/09/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement relied on by the defendant is applicable and that as sophisticated parties to a commercial contract who agreed to the AAA Voluntary Arbitration Rules, issues of arbitrability should be decided by the arbitrator.

• Everest Biosynthesis Group v. Biosynthesis Pharma Group Ltd., No. 3:17-CV-01466-JM-BGS (S.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2018)

  01/08/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration of claims against the first defendant and stay the action as to the remainder of the defendants pending conclusion of the anticipated arbitration.  Court held the parties’ arbitration agreement is clear and concise and evidences an intent to arbitrate any and all disputes under the subject agreement via HKIAC arbitration.  Further, the arbitration agreement was neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable as it was bargained for by the parties and that delegating arbitration in Hong Kong, as opposed to the US, is not so one-sided as to shock the conscience or be overly harsh or oppressive.

• Wilson-Davis Co. v. Mirgliotta, No. 17-3496 (6th Cir. Jan. 8, 2018)

  01/08/2018

  Court of appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision refusing to enjoin certain of the defendant-appellee’s claims in FINRA arbitration.

• Donado v. MRC Express, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-24032-RNS (S.D. Fla. Jan. 4, 2018)

  01/04/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case, determining that the language of the agreement at issue did not contain any temporal limitations and, therefore, it’s arbitration agreement could apply retroactively to all of the plaintiff’s claim. Could also held that the fee sharing and attorney fee provisions were not unconscionable.

• DTC Energy Group, Inc. v. Hirschfeld, No. 1:17-CV-01718-PAB-KLM (D. Colo. Jan. 4, 2018)

  01/04/2018

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding the plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief expressly falls outside the scope of the parties’ arbitration agreement.

• American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus v. Hubbard, No. 4:17-CV-00246-CDL (M.D. Ga. Jan. 3, 2018)

  01/03/2018

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court rejected defendants’ arguments that plaintiff had previously breached the arbitration agreement and that plaintiff had waived right to arbitration.

• Thanh Do v. Toyota Motor North America, No. 2:17-CV-12984-GCS-EAS (E.D. Mich. Jan. 3, 2018)

  01/03/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the complaint, finding that allegations of discrimination in violation of Title VII were within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

• Dreibrodt v. McClinton Energy Group, LLC, No. 7:16-CV-00340-RAJ (W.D. Tex. Jan. 3, 2017)

  01/03/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss claims and compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court found that fee-splitting provision was severable and did not render arbitration agreement unenforceable. Court therefore struck fee-splitting provision and ordered defendants be responsible for costs of arbitration.

• Spinner v. Credit One Bank, N.A., No. 6:17-CV-00340-RBD-TBS (M.D. Fla. Dec. 29, 2017)

  12/29/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, denying plaintiff’s argument that defendant had waived right to arbitrate by participating in litigation.

• Partridge v. American Hospital Management Company, LLC., No. 17-0248-RC (D.D.C. Dec. 29, 2017)

  12/29/2017

  Court dismissed defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding inter alia that defendant had waived right to arbitration through active participation in litigation.

• Nygaard v. Property Damage Appraisers, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-02184-VC (E.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 2017)

  12/28/2017

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that because California law rendered the arbitration provisions of the parties’ agreement unenforceable no valid arbitration agreement existed.

• Leslie v. Hooters of America, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-02873-SEB-MJD (S.D. Ind. Dec. 28, 2017)

  12/28/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings.  Court rejected arguments that the arbitration agreement was invalid as unconscionable merely because it was a contract of adhesion and because the parties’ bargaining power had been unequal.

• Faggiano v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-03773-JFB-GRB (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2017)

  12/28/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court disposed of plaintiff’s argument that a class action waiver rendered the arbitration agreement unenforceable, reasoning that the waiver clause was severable from the agreement.

• Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Worldwide Shrimp Co., No. 1:17-CV-04723 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 28, 2017)

  12/28/2017

  Magistrate judge recommended that district court find plaintiff waived its right to arbitration as it failed to carry its burden that dismissal of the action was warranted.  Magistrate judge determined that plaintiff elected to proceed before a non-arbitral tribunal, acted in a manner inconsistent with the right to arbitrate, and that dismissal would prejudice the defendants.

• Aqualucid Consultants, Inc. v. Zeta Corp., No. 17-1217 (6th Cir. Dec. 27, 2017)

  12/27/2017

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order compelling arbitration.  Court agreed that the arbitration agreement covered the dispute and held that the plaintiff’s failed to challenge its validity or demonstrate that the defendants had invalidated it by purportedly refusing to arbitrate prior to commencement of the litigation.  Court further ruled that the defendants had not waived their right to enforce the arbitration clause, finding no prejudice to the plaintiffs from any delays in asserting the arbitration defense.

• Gambrell v. Needham, No. 2:17-CV-02884-WB (E.D. Pa. Dec. 22, 2017)

  12/22/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and sua sponte stayed proceedings.  Court determined that the FAA applied to the parties’ agreement because it implicated interstate commerce and held that the defendant had not waived her right to compel arbitration by neglecting to make a corresponding motions in her initial filings seeking dismissal of the suit.  Court further ruled that the agreement covered the parties’ dispute.

• Corchado v. Foulke Management Corp., No. 17-1433 (3d Cir. Dec. 21, 2017)

  12/21/2017

  Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of appellant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that appellees’ defense of fraudulent inducement to sign the arbitration agreement was sufficient grounds for the district court to deny the motion to compel arbitration.

• Archer and White Sales, Inc. v. Henry Schein, Inc., No. 16-41674 (5th Cir. Dec. 21, 2017)

  12/21/2017

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s ruling that it had authority to rule on question of arbitrability despite existence of agreement to arbitrate in accordance with the AAA rules, finding that (i) under the express terms of the arbitration agreement, the parties had not agreed to submit claims for injunctive relief to arbitration in accordance with the AAA rules; and (ii) even if the parties had agreed to submit questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator , a court need not do so where the assertion of arbitrability is wholly groundless.

• Santti v. Menard, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-01243-BYP (N.D. Ohio Dec. 21, 2017)

  12/21/2017

  Court agreed to stay proceedings pending resolution of a Supreme Court case evaluating whether labor agreements requiring waiver of class and collective action proceedings are enforceable under the FAA.

• Sienkaniec v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 0:17-CV-4489-PJS-FLN (D. Minn. Dec. 18, 2017)

  12/18/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action pending arbitrator’s decision.   Court held that the parties must arbitrate the question of whether the transportation-worker exemption of the FAA applied to the plaintiff because the contract contained a delegation clause requiring the parties to arbitrate issues of enforceability of the arbitration provisions, and the arbitration provisions were not unconscionable.

• Turner v. Fiserv Solutions, No. 4:16-CV-02158-HEA (W.D. Mo. Dec. 15, 2017)

  12/15/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay the action, holding that the dispute between the parties falls within the terms of the arbitration agreement at issue and that staying the action will ensure the timely arbitration of the dispute.

• JTH Tax, Inc. v. Hines, No. 2:15-CV-00558-RBS-RJK (E.D. Va. Dec. 15, 2017)

  12/15/2017

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration pursuant to §2 of the FAA and Virginia Law. Court enforced the arbitration clause even though defendant had alleged the contract was a product of fraud because defendant did not allege the same about the arbitration clause.

• Simply Wireless, Inc. v. T-Mobile US, Inc., No. 16-1123 (4th Cir. Dec. 13, 2017)

  12/13/2017

  Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of Simply Wireless’s complaint in favor of arbitration but did so on alternate grounds.  As a matter of first impression, the court held that, in the context of a commercial contract between sophisticated parties, the incorporation of JAMS Arbitration Rules into the arbitration agreement serves as “clear and unmistakable” evidence of the parties’ intent to arbitrate questions of arbitrability.  

• Cargill Incorporated v. WDS Incorporated, No. 3:17-CV-00848-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C. Dec. 13, 2017)

  12/13/2017

  Court denied motion to stay claim pending arbitration, holding the movant was not a party to the arbitration agreement relied on in support and, therefore, she did not sufficiently demonstrate she is entitled to enforce the arbitration provision before the court.

• Alderman v. GC Services Limited Partnership, No. 2:16-CV-14508-RLR (S.D. Fla. Dec. 13, 2017)

  12/13/2017

  Court denied motion to dismiss claim or compel arbitration.  Court held that the plaintiff is not a signatory to the arbitration agreement at issue and, in the circumstances, equitable estoppel does permit the non-signatory to compel arbitration.

• Dylag v. West Las Vegas Surgery Center, LLC., No. 16-15869 (9th Cir. Dec. 13, 2017)

  12/13/2017

  Court of Appeals reversed an order of district court compelling arbitration as to one defendant, and affirmed the order compelling arbitration as to the other defendants. Court found that while joint defendants were co-employers of plaintiff, there was no contractual relationship, and thus no arbitration agreement, between employee and the one defendant.

• Dye, Jr. v. Sexton, No. 1:16-CV-00035-LMM (N.D. Ga. Dec. 13, 2017)

  12/13/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that a valid arbitration agreement existed between the parties and that under binding Eleventh Circuit precedent the court must send the matter to arbitration for the arbitrator to determine his or her own jurisdiction.

• Rodriguez-Depena v. Parts Authority, Inc., No. 16-3396 (2d Cir. Dec. 12, 2017)

  12/12/2017

  Court of appeals affirmed district court order.  Appellate court held that the plaintiff-appellant’s claims of individual rights conferred under a federal statute, the Fair Labor Standards Act, are arbitrable as there was no congressional intent to preclude a waiver of judicial remedies for those statutory rights.

• Haasbroek v. Princess Cruise Lines Ltd., No. 1:17-CV-22370-KMM (S.D. Fla. Dec. 12, 2017)

  12/12/2017

  Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and plaintiff’s motion for remand.  Court held that plaintiff’s rape, sexual assault and harassment claims fell within the arbitration clause of a Shipboard Employment Agreement (the “SEA’), governed under the laws of the Bahamas, and that defendants had timely removed to federal court those claims on the grounds that the matter was subject to arbitration pursuant to the New York Convention, thereby providing one defendant (and two others the plaintiff did not contest) the right to compel the plaintiff, a South African citizen, to arbitration.  The court remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction certain claims for two remaining defendants who were non-signatories of the SEA and thus could not enforce the arbitration clause with respect to those claims.

• Carter v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., No. 16-15835 (9th Cir. Dec. 12, 2017)

  12/12/2017

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to compel arbitration, finding that a class action waiver in an arbitration agreement did not render the agreement unconscionable.

• La Force v. Gosmith, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-05101-YGR (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2017)

  12/12/2017

  Court granted defendants motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that it had never entered into an agreement, finding that plaintiff used a website which provided a check box for indicating agreement to the terms of use including an arbitration provision. Court held that this was adequate to show plaintiff’s agreement to arbitrate.

• Hamed v. Fry’s Electronics, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00675-ALM (E.D. Tex. Dec. 11, 2017)

  12/11/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding the parties’ agreement was valid and enforceable and that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration clause.

• Roberts v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 16-16915 (9th Cir. Dec. 11, 2017)

  12/11/2017

  Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s order compelling arbitration of putative class action claims against defendant-appellee.   Court held that there was no state action, thereby rejecting plaintiffs’ argument on First Amendment grounds that the FAA policy encouraging arbitration renders defendant’s action attributable to the state. 

• Agnesian Healthcare Inc. v. Cerner Corporation, No. 2:17-CV-01254-JPS (E.D. Wis. Dec. 8, 2017)

  12/08/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss complaint, but could not compel arbitration in another district. The arbitration agreement in question required a party to initiate any dispute in the state of the principal place of business of the non-petitioning party. As defendant was the non-petitioning party, arbitration would be proper in defendant’s home state of Missouri.

• Evans v. North Pointe Assisted Living, No. 8:17-CV-00951-DCC (D.S.C. Dec. 8, 2017)

  12/08/2017

  Court declined to compel arbitration of a survival action, holding that an agreement to arbitrate was never concluded because the signatory lacked authority to bind the decedent and did not bind herself individually.  Court rejected arguments that equitable estoppel nevertheless bound the parties under state law.

• Evans v. North Pointe Assisted Living, No. 8:17-CV-00950-DCC (D.S.C. Dec. 8, 2017)

  12/08/2017

  Court declined to compel arbitration of a survival action, holding that an agreement to arbitrate was never concluded because the signatory lacked authority to bind the decedent and did not bind herself individually.  Court rejected arguments that equitable estoppel nevertheless bound the parties under state law.

• Richardson v. Coverall North America Inc., No. 1:17-CV-02405-TWT (N.D. Ga. Dec. 7, 2017)

  12/07/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss or stay the action. Court held that the arbitration agreement contained a delegation clause and, as plaintiff made no direct challenges to that clause, all disputes concerning the validity of the agreement should be properly decided by the arbitrator.

• Matthews v. Priority Energy Services, LLC, No. 6:15-CV-00448-PWS-KNM (E.D. Tex. Dec. 7, 2017)

  12/07/2017

  Court adopted magistrate judge’s recommendation and denied motion to vacate order compelling arbitration or, in the alternative, enforce the arbitration agreement as written.  Court rejected the defendants’ argument that the arbitration agreement – which they initially sought to compel – was invalid because it reflected no meeting of the minds by the parties as to cost allocations.  Instead, the court found that the applicable AAA rules empowered the arbitrator to make any necessary decisions as to costs.

• Andrio v. Kennedy Rig Services, LLC, No. 4:17-CV-01194 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 6, 2017)

  12/06/2017

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court found indemnity provision, allowing one party to recover fees regardless of the outcome, was unconscionable and not severable from the arbitration agreement, and therefore refused to enforce the arbitration agreement.

• Hamlin v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-02648-PMD (D.S.C. Dec. 6, 2017)

  12/06/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, stayed the action, and denied as moot defendant’s motion to dismiss.  Court found that the agreement was supported by adequate consideration under South Carolina state law, and was not unconscionable because the agreement selected JAMS rules which were not one-sided. Thus, court compelled arbitration pursuant to the FAA.

• Meduri Farms, Inc. v. DutchTecSource BV, No. 3:17-CV-00906-SI (D. Or. Dec. 5, 2017)

  12/05/2017

  Court granted preliminary injunction, enjoining defendant from further pursuit of ICC arbitration, and denied defendant’s motion to refer the case to arbitration and stay proceedings. Court concluded that the operative agreement between the parties did not contain a mandatory arbitration clause.

• Sharp Corporation v. Hisense USA Corporation, No. 4:17-CV-03341-YGR (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2017)

  12/05/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court found that the FAA preempted a state law precluding arbitration of a statutory claim without a clear waiver. Thus, the court held the dispute was within the scope of a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement.

• Ewing v. Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00222-BEN-WVG (S.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2017)

  12/05/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the action. Court found that the plaintiff’s request to opt out of the arbitration agreement was not timely and plaintiff was subject to a valid, irrevocable, and enforceable arbitration agreement.

• Clayborne v. Lithia Motors, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00588-AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2017)

  12/05/2017

  Court granted motion to stay proceedings and to compel arbitration, holding that the clause delegating authority to determine “applicability, enforceability, or formation” of the arbitration agreement to arbitratosr was not unconscionable.

• Essex v. The Children’s Place, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-05621-JMV-MF (D.N.J. Dec. 4, 2017)

  12/04/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration for certain opt-in plaintiffs in a collective labor dispute. Pursuant to the FAA, the court held that the opt-in plaintiffs had entered a valid arbitration agreement and the present dispute fell within the scope of that agreement.

• Steadfast Insurance Company v. Palmetto Civil Group, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-01119-PMD (D.S.C. Dec. 1, 2017)

  12/01/2017

  Court granted defendant and third-party plaintiff’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration of a dispute arising out of an airport construction project.  Pursuant to the FAA, the court determined that the insurer was bound by the arbitration agreement between the contractor and subcontractor and concluded defendant and third-party plaintiff had not waived its right to seek arbitration.

• Bounty Minerals, LLC v. Chesapeake Exploration, LLC, No. 5:17-CV-01695-SL (E.D. Ohio Dec. 1, 2017)

  12/01/2017

  Court denied defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration in a dispute related to oil and gas leases, only one of which contained an arbitration clause. After the court granted plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint plaintiff removed its request to recover on the particular lease that contained the arbitration clause, leaving no arbitration clause in the agreements at issue. Court rejected arguments that it should still stay proceedings pending the arbitration of the other lease agreement.

• Conduragis v. Prospect Chartercare, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00272-JJM-PAS (D.R.I. Dec. 1, 2017)

  12/01/2017

  Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Applying Rhode Island state law, the court determined no valid agreement existed because the agreement lacked consideration.

• Yang v. Majestic Blue Fisheries, LLC & Dongwon Industries Co., Ltd., No. 15-16881 (9th Cir. Nov. 30, 2017)

  11/30/2017

  Court of appeal affirmed district court’s order denying motion to compel arbitration arising from a claim related to the death of a seaman on a fishing vessel.  Court held that an arbitral clause must be signed by the parties to be enforceable under Art. II(2) of the New York Convention and determined that it could not compel arbitration of a non-signatory or non-party.  Additionally, the court concluded it could not compel arbitration under the FAA, because the statute expressly exempts employment contracts of seamen from its scope.

• Ngo v. Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., No. 1:17-CV-1727-GHW (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2017)

  11/30/2017

  Court held that the arbitration agreement in question was valid and enforceable, and granted motion to stay but denied motion to dismiss.  Court held that second circuit precedent requires the court to stay, but not dismiss, the proceedings when requested.

• NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., d/b/a Norwegian Cruise Line v. O.W. Bunker USA, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01327-CSH (D. Conn. Nov. 29, 2017)

  11/29/2017

  Court entered a second order granting a preliminary injunction enjoining the arbitration in London conducting the analysis under the traditional test for an injunction.  Court found plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, a likelihood of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction, that the balance of hardships tipped in the plaintiff’s favor, and that the public interest would not be harmed by the injunction.

• NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. v. O.W. Bunker USA, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-1327 (D. Conn. Nov. 29, 2017)

  11/29/2017

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion to stay the arbitration proceedings and enjoin defendants from proceeding with arbitration.  Applying English law, court held that the arbitration provision had been superseded, and therefore plaintiff was not under any binding agreement to arbitrate its disputes.  Court also found that an injunction was warranted since (i) the parties had not agreed to arbitrate, (ii) plaintiff would be irreparably harmed by being forced to expend time and resources arbitrating an issue that is not arbitrable, and for which any award would not be enforceable; and (iii) plaintiff showed a likelihood of success on the issue of superseding the arbitration clause.

• Green Tree Servicing, L.L.C. v. Miller, No. 17-60108 (5th Cir. Nov. 28, 2017)

  11/28/2017

  Court of appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the district court’s order compelling arbitration was not a final appealable order when a matter involving the same parties and essentially the same dispute is stayed pending arbitration.

• Zhu v. Hakkasan NYC LLC & Hakkasan Holdings, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-05589-KPF (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 2017)

  11/28/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement valid and enforceable and concluding plaintiffs’ claims fell within its scope pursuant to the FAA.  Court determined the availability of collective arbitration and the validity of the confidentiality clause were questions for the arbitrator.

• Borecki v. Raymours Furniture Co. Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01188-LAK-SN (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 2017)

  11/28/2017

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings, finding that the dispute did not fall within the narrow scope of the arbitral clause.

• Inferno Group Holdings, LLC v. 1000 Degrees Pizzeria Franchise, Inc., No. 9:17-CV-80983-BB (S.D. Fla. Nov. 28, 2017)

  11/28/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the parties’ incorporation of AAA rules meant that both the validity of the arbitration agreement and its scope was for the arbitrator to decide.

• Ali, Cole, Collins, Norman, Renfroe, & Torry v. Vehi-Ship, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-02688 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 27, 2017)

  11/27/2017

  Court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) for lack of venue.  Finding that the AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules’ delegation clause, granting the arbitrator the power to decide questions of arbitrability, was incorporated by reference in the agreement, the court held that the arbitrator should determine the validity and scope of the arbitration agreement.

• Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Haynes, No. 17-60113 (5th Cir. Nov. 27, 2017)

  11/27/2017

  Court dismissed the appeal, holding that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the district court’s order compelling arbitration, because the judgment also stayed the substantive claims in the underlying lawsuit between the parties.

• Marquez v. The Finish Line, No. 5:16-CV-01038-DAE (W.D. Tex. Nov. 27, 2017)

  11/27/2017

  Court granted plaintiff’s unopposed motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case without prejudice. Court found that parties had a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate, and the FAA required the case be referred to arbitration.

• Ouadani v. TF Final Mile LLC, No. 17-1583 (5th Cir. Nov. 21, 2017)

  11/21/2017

  Court of appeal affirmed the district court decision denying defendant-appellant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court concluded that the non-signatory plaintiff-appellee was not required to submit his claims to arbitration because (i) he was not an agent of one of the signatories, (ii) he was not equitably estopped from refusing to arbitrate because the benefits of the arbitration clause accrued to the contracting signatories and not to plaintiff-appellee, and (iii) he is not a third-party beneficiary of the agreement.

• Schroder v. Teufel, No. 1:17-CV-06119 (E.D. Ill. Nov. 20, 2017)

  11/20/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for improper venue and stayed the litigation pending arbitration.  Court held that because the parties agreed that the AAA rules would govern their pending arbitration, and those rules unequivocally state that the arbitrator has the authority to decide the validity of an arbitration agreement, the parties “clearly and unmistakably” expressed their intent to arbitrate the validity of the arbitration agreement.

• Owners Management Co. v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., No. 1:17-CV-00881-CAB (N.D. Ohio Nov. 20, 2017)

  11/20/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss.  Court found that (i) the arbitration provision was broadly worded to cover “any dispute relating to this Agreement,” (ii) it did not expressly exclude any specific disputes, and (iii) the instant case “absolutely cannot be resolved without reference to the Agreement.”  As such, the court concluded that the arbitration of plaintiff’s claims was appropriate.

• Meierhenry Sargent LLP v. Williams, No. 4:16-CV-04180-LLP (D.S.D. Nov. 20, 2017)

  11/20/2017

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion for relief from stay and motion for order to declare the scope of arbitration proceedings.  Court held that arbitrability was an issue for the court to decide because the arbitration provision of the contract was silent on whether the arbitrator or the court would decide the issue and plaintiff clearly did not agree to submit the question to the arbitrator.

• Cunningham v. Henry Ford Health System, No. 2:17-CV-11015-SJM-APP (E.D. Mich. Nov. 20, 2017)

  11/20/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss or stay the proceeding and to compel arbitration.  Court found that (i) plaintiff received adequate notice and signed the agreement, thus knowingly and voluntarily waiving her right to a jury trial; (ii) plaintiff’s claims fell within the ambit of the arbitration agreement’s clear language; (iii) nothing in the record suggested that Congress intended the ADA to preclude waiver of the judicial forum through arbitration agreements; and (iv) the entirety of plaintiff’s complaint is subject to arbitration, and therefore it is proper for the court to dismiss.

• Gamble v. New England Auto Finance, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-02979-LMM (N.D. Ga. Nov. 20, 2017)

  11/20/2017

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the action, concluding that plaintiff’s claim was not within the scope of arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff’s claim did not “arise from” the loan agreement because (i) even though the claim was based on loan applicants’ refusal to sign a provision in that agreement, the unsigned provision did not create any rights and obligations and no agreement on this basis occurred; and (ii) defendant’s actions would have harmed plaintiff regardless of whether plaintiff had entered into the agreement.  Court also concluded that plaintiff’s claim does not “touch” the loan agreement because it does not arise from any right implicated by the agreement.

• McAllister v. The St. Louis Rams, LLC, No. 4:16-CV-00172-SNLJ (E.D. Mo. Nov. 17, 2017)

  11/17/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that incorporation of AAA Rules constituted agreement to arbitrate arbitrability.

• Mizra v. Cachet Hotel Group Limited Cayman L.P., No. 2:17-CV-07140-RGK-KS (C.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2017)

  11/17/2017

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that the arbitration clause was incapable of being performed because it required arbitration before the HKIAC in accordance with the ICC rules.

• Memorial Hermann Health System v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas, No. 4:17-CV-02661 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 17, 2017)

  11/17/2017

  Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss for improper venue and motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that (i) the parties had a valid arbitration agreement, (ii) the scope of the arbitration agreement was for the court to determine, and (iii) certain of the plaintiff’s claims did not fall within the scope of the narrow arbitration agreement.

• Burrell v. 911 Restoration Franchise Inc., No. 1:17-CV-02278-JKB (D. Md. Nov. 17, 2017)

  11/17/2017

  Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim in part, interpreting that part of the motion as a motion to compel arbitration.  Court explained that the FAA requires the demonstration of four elements to compel arbitration, and found that there was no genuine dispute of material fact with regard to three of those elements:  the existence of a dispute, its relationship to interstate commerce, and the failure of the plaintiffs to arbitrate the dispute.  On the final element, the existence of a written agreement that includes an arbitration provision which purports to cover the dispute, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the rescission of the contract meant rescission of the arbitration clause, finding that the arbitration clause survived rescission.

• Brown v. David Stanley Chevrolet, Inc., No. 5:17-CV-00190-D (W.D. Okla. Nov. 17, 2017)

  11/17/2017

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay the action.  Court held that the agreements plaintiffs signed should be construed together, rejecting plaintiffs’ argument that one of the contracts—which contained a merger clause but no arbitration agreement—superseded the dispute resolution clause.  Court also found that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate and that plaintiffs’ arguments related to fraud in the inducement of the contract of as a whole, which was for the arbitrator and not the court to decide.

• Armstead v. Starbucks Corp., No. 2:17-CV-01163-PKC (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2017)

  11/17/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceeding.  Court found that the arbitration agreement was presented in a manner that required two separate steps of viewing and electronically signing the agreement, the webpage was neatly organized, and the arbitration agreement was expressly identified.  Thus, court concluded that the plaintiff electronically consented to the arbitration of her claims and had not come forward with evidence that would permit a reasonable trier of fact to conclude that the consent was not effective. 

• WDCD, LLC v. iSTAR, INC., No. 1:17-CV-00301-DKW-RLP (D. Haw. Nov. 16, 2017)

  11/16/2017

  Court granted motion to stay in favor of arbitration, finding that non-signatory could invoke arbitration clause in the agreement under which the claims against it arose.

• Ross v. Quality Homes of McComb, No. 5:17-CV-00046-DCB-MTP (S.D. Miss. Nov. 16, 2017)

  11/16/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings, finding that (i) an arbitration agreement in a form contract was not procedurally unconscionable; (ii) neither the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act nor the National Manufactured Housing and Construction and Safety Standards act preclude arbitration of claims arising thereunder; (iii) non-signatory defendants can invoke an arbitration provision in a contract under which the plaintiff’s claim arise; and (iv) question of whether claims are within the scope of the arbitration agreement was delegated to the arbitrator.

• Oliver v. First Century Bank, N.A., No. 3:17-CV-00620-MMA-KSC (S.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2017)

  11/16/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that question of arbitrability was delegated to the arbitrator.

• Edwards v. Doordash, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-02255 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 16, 2017)

  11/16/2017

  Court adopted the magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation to grant defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.  Magistrate judge found that plaintiff Lupo signed the same independent contractor agreement on the same basis as the named plaintiff, which was previously found by the court to contain a valid arbitration clause.  For plaintiffs Hicks and Williams, who signed a second version of the independent contractor agreement, court also found that a valid arbitration agreement existed, and that the adoption of the AAA rules by the parties indicated that they intended to delegate arbitrability rules to the arbitrator.

• KDDI Global LLC v. Fisk Telecom LLC, No. 3:17-CV-05445-BRM-DEA (D.N.J. Nov. 15, 2017)

  11/15/2017

  Court granted motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, finding that agreement to arbitrate in accordance with the AAA’s Commercial Arbitration Rules, which grant the arbitrator “the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction”, constitutes an agreement to arbitrate arbitrability.

• Walkwell International, Inc. v. DJO Global, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00270-EJL-REB (D. Idaho Nov. 15, 2017)

  11/15/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that party had failed to establish that arbitration would be cost prohibitive and that arbitration clause was “broad and far reaching” and therefore covered all related claims arising out of the dispute.

• GGNSC Greensburg, LLC v. Smith, No. 1:17-CV-00150-GNS (W.D. Ky. Nov. 15, 2017)

  11/15/2017

  Court partially granted motion to compel arbitration and enjoined parallel state proceedings, finding that (i) no basis existed for federal abstention in favor of parallel state court proceedings; (ii) a nursing home admission agreement is a contract involving interstate commerce within the federal court jurisdiction; (iii) that the decedent’s attorney-in-fact was authorized to bind the decedent’s estate to pursue any claims in arbitration; (iv) an arbitration agreement in a nursing home admission agreement is not unconscionable; and (v) enjoining parallel state proceedings would not violate the anti-injunction act.  However, court denied motion to compel arbitration as to a wrongful death claim, since that claim belonged to decedent’s beneficiaries, and decedent’s attorney-in-fact did not have authority to bind them to arbitration.

• Finsa Portafolios, S.A. de C.V. v. Opengate Capital, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-04360-RGK-E (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2017)

  11/15/2017

  Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of decision to dismiss the action on grounds of forum non conveniens and compel arbitration in Mexico, finding where the contract contains a forum selection clause, plaintiffs have the burden to show the forum was not an adequate alternative forum; concluding the court is not required to impose conditions on dismissal unless there is reason to doubt a party with comply with the foreign forum; and determining plaintiffs could not raise the new argument that a Mexican judge or arbitrator could not assert jurisdiction over the defendant. Court also denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended complaint, finding an amended complaint would be futile because the fraud claims fell within the scope of the forum selection and arbitration clauses.

• Parish v. Macy’s Retail Holdings, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00120-A (N.D. Tex. Nov. 14, 2017)

  11/14/2017

  Court denied motion to stay and compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff had waived her right to invoke arbitration by prosecuting her claim in court

• Abel v. All Green Building Services of New York LLC, No. 1:16-CV-08522-JPO (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2017)

  11/14/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed case, finding that arbitration provision of collective bargaining agreement was applicable to employee’s religious discrimination claims.

• Ralph v. Haj, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01332- JM-JMA (S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2017)

  11/13/2017

  Court provisionally granted in part and denied in part motion to compel arbitration and stayed entire action, finding that, although a ninth circuit decision in Morris v. Ernst & Young found that collective action waivers were impermissible for claims under the Fair Labor Standard Act, the Supreme Court had granted certiorari to review that decision.  It was therefore appropriate to stay the entire action pending the Supreme Court’s decision to prevent a situation where some claims were heard in arbitration and others before the court.

• Rohde v. Family Dollar Stores of Indiana, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00225-TLS-SLC (N.D. Ind. Nov. 13, 2017)

  11/13/2017

  Court granted motion to dismiss action to vacate arbitral award, finding that plaintiff had not established gross error in the arbitrator’s findings that there were non-political grounds for plaintiff’s termination and that the plaintiff’s complaints were untimely.

• James Shackelford Heating and Cooling, LC v. AT&T Corporation, No. 4:17-CV-00663-ODS (W.D. Mo. Nov. 11, 2017)

  11/11/2017

  Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, rejecting their argument that the non-signatory plaintiff was a third-party beneficiary of the written agreement and therefore required to arbitrate.  Court explained that a signatory to an agreement seeking to arbitrate with a non-signatory must establish one of five theories—that is, (i) incorporation by reference, (ii) assumption, (iii) agency, (iv) veil-piercing/alter ego, and (v) estoppel—and that simply being a third-party beneficiary is not sufficient.  Court further concluded that, even if the arbitration agreement could be enforced, it did not encompass plaintiff’s claims, which arose from actions separate from the agreement.

• Dillard v. Dolgen Corp. LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00112-NCT-JFP (M.D.N.C. Nov. 9, 2017)

  11/09/2017

  Magistrate judge recommended that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration be granted.  Plaintiff brought claims alleging discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.  Court found that defendant’s claims were subject to arbitration pursuant to a valid arbitration agreement that the plaintiff had signed when presented with his employment documents.

• Daley v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-02693-JCM-CWH (D. Nev. Nov. 9, 2017)

  11/09/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case.  Court found that there was a valid arbitration agreement between the parties that required them to arbitrate any employment-related claims.  Because plaintiff’s discrimination claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement and the question of arbitrability was one for the arbitrator, the court granted the motion to compel arbitration.

• Daley v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-02693-JCM-CWH (D. Nev. Nov. 9, 2017)

  11/09/2017

  Court granted motions to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that an arbitration agreement exists that vests the power to rule on the question of arbitrability in an arbitrator.

• Tellez v. Madrigal, No. 3:15-CV-00304-KC (W.D. Tex. Nov. 9, 2017)

  11/09/2017

  Court denied motion to stay arbitration, finding that (i) litigation-conduct waiver of arbitration is presumptively an issue for the court to decide; (ii) litigation conduct-waiver was not addressed in arbitration agreement; and (iii) defendant waived right to move to compel arbitration by substantially invoking the judicial process through his detailed and substantive motion to dismiss and related filings, and these actions prejudiced the plaintiff through delays and costs.

• Delta Stone Products, Inc. v. Eurostone Machine USA, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00737-TS (D. Utah Nov. 8, 2017)

  11/08/2017

  Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment and instead stayed the case pending arbitration.  The parties had entered into a sales contract for the supply of stone in a time-sensitive project, but initiated the present case when there were delays that allegedly led to lost profits and other damages.  However, court found that the arbitration clause within the sales contract was valid and the issues at hand were within its scope, and thus compelled the parties to arbitrate their dispute. 

• Conde v. Open Door Marketing, LLC, No. 4:15-CV-04080-KAW (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017)

  11/08/2017

  Court stayed defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris.  Plaintiffs brought the case following a labor dispute over misclassification as independent contractors and resulting wages.  At issue is whether an arbitration agreement signed by the plaintiffs is valid given the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Morris v. Ernst & Young, which states that class action waivers in employment agreements are illegal under the NLRA. 

• Laurich v. Red Lobster Restaurants, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00150-JB-KRS (D.N.M. Nov. 8, 2017)

  11/08/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the proceeding pending the arbitration’s resolution.  Court found that the arbitration agreement contained in an employment contract between the parties was not illusory or procedurally unconscionable.  Court also found that whether defendant had breached the arbitration agreement in such a way that precluded it from enforcing it was a question for the arbitrator and not the court. 

• Hart v. Charter Communications, No. 8:17-CV-00556-DOC (C.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017)

  11/08/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that (i) reference in billing statement to new terms of service containing arbitration was reasonably conspicuous; (ii) entity resulting from merger may invoke pre-merger entity’s right to arbitration; and (iii) issues of arbitrability were expressly delegated to the arbitrator.

• Employment Solutions Management, Inc. v. Partners Personnel-Central Valley, Corp., No. 8:17-CV-01044-JLS-JCG (C.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017)

  11/08/2017

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that the court, rather than the arbitrator, should determine whether the parties had agreed to arbitrate, that the defendants were third-party beneficiaries under either Delaware or California law and thus able to compel arbitration, and that plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration clause

• Alvarez v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-02864-BJM (D.P.R. Nov. 7, 2017)

  11/07/2017

  Court dismissed the claims against some of the defendants’ and instructed the parties to pursue them in arbitration pursuant to a valid arbitration agreement between the parties. 

• Zeringue v. Monster Energy Company, No. 2:17-CV-06023-SSV-JCW (E.D. La. Nov. 6, 2017)

  11/06/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the case.  Plaintiff was an employee of defendant who had signed employment agreement that included a binding arbitration clause.  Court found that plaintiff’s claim based on sexual harassment as a violation of the Civil Rights Act was within the scope of the arbitration clause. 

• Pyle v. VXI Global Solutions, Inc., No. 5:17-CV-00220-SL (N.D. Ohio Nov. 6, 2017)

  11/06/2017

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint.  Plaintiff signed an arbitration agreement through which he agreed to submit any employment-related claims to arbitration and was therefore precluded from bringing the present collective action.

• Van den Heuvel v. Expedia Travel, No. 2:16-CV-00567-JAM-AC (E.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2017)

  11/06/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case.  Court found that the parties had entered into a valid arbitration agreement when plaintiff purchased an airline ticket from defendant.  Because the claims at issue were within the scope of that agreement, the parties were compelled to arbitrate and the case was dismissed.

• Noye v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 1:15-CV-02382-YK (M.D. Pa. Nov. 6, 2017)

  11/06/2017

  Court granted one of the defendants’ renewed motion to compel arbitration and to stay the case pending completion of arbitration.  Court found that plaintiff completed an online job application that included a valid arbitration agreement and therefore was forced to arbitrate his dispute with one of the defendants.  In regards to a second defendant, the court refused to rule on a motion to compel arbitration and instead asked that the parties submit briefs regarding the applicability of equitable estoppel in light of recent Third Circuit case law.

• Holtec International v. Pandjiris Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00397-MPK (W.D. Pa. Nov. 3, 2017)

  11/03/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to stay all claims and compelled arbitration.  According to the court, the terms and conditions in a purchase order between the parties contained a valid arbitration provision and therefore their dispute had to be arbitrated in Ohio.  Additionally, the court held that in this case the theory of equitable estoppel did not apply to a non-signatory to the arbitration provision and therefore that third party was not forced to arbitrate.

• Patientpoint Royalty Holdings, Inc. v. Healthgrid Coordinated Care Solutions, Inc., No. 6:17-CV-01051-GAP-DCI (M.D. Fla. Nov. 3, 2017)

  11/03/2017

  Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to compel arbitration.  Court found that, while there was a valid arbitration clause between the parties, it was a narrow provision that did not cover the issues disputed in this case.

• Dome Technology, LLC v. Golden Sands General Contractors, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-01607-VAB (D. Conn. Nov. 3, 2017)

  11/03/2017

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending arbitration.  Court found that two contracts at issue did not conflict with each other and that the parties had agreed to arbitrate claims within the scope of one of those contracts.

• Edens v. Synovus Financial Corporation, No. 3:17-CV-00806-MBS (D.S.C. Nov. 2, 2017)

  11/02/2017

  Court granted in part and denied in part motion to compel arbitration, holding that a binding arbitration agreement covered claims of fraud and misrepresentation brought by an investor company, but not claims of breach of fiduciary duty individually by the head of the company, and that the agreement was not void for unconscionability.  Court found that the individual plaintiff was a sophisticated businessman and was not required to enter into the contract, and that a provision limiting punitive damages for both plaintiffs and defendants did not render the arbitration agreement unconscionable.

• Finger v. Jacobson, No. 2:17-CV-02893-JTM-DEK (E.D. LA. Nov. 2, 2017)

  11/02/2017

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that there was no enforceable arbitration agreement between plaintiff and defendants.  Court rejected defendants’ argument that the arbitration agreement in an employment contract was broad enough to encompass a claim of fraudulent inducement to the contract against a non-signatory.  Court found that plaintiff’s tort claims did not arise out of or rely on the terms of the employment agreement, and that plaintiff made no allegations of misconduct against the signatory.

• Boyton v. Xerox Commercial Solutions LLC, No. 3:17-CV-505-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C. Nov. 1, 2017)

  11/01/2017

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that motion was moot as defendants could re-file a similar motion in response to plaintiff’s amended complaint.  Court found that plaintiff had filed a timely amended complaint, which superseded the original pleading and rendered defendant’s motion moot. 

• Robledo v. Randstad US, L.P., No. 5:17-CV-01003-BLF (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2017)

  11/01/2017

  Court granted motion to stay proceedings and terminated without prejudice motion to compel arbitration, holding that the outcome of the Supreme Court’s review of the decision in Morris v. Ernst & Young LLP, 834 F. 3d 975 (9^th Cir. 2016) will directly impact the court’s determination of the motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that motion required a determination of whether the National Labor Relations Act  invalidates class action waivers, an issue currently pending before the Supreme Court.  Court found plaintiffs had not shown that a stay of a few months prejudice plaintiffs and, conversely, that denying the stay would risk a waste of judicial resources.

• Dennis v. United Van Lines, No. 4:17-CV-01614-RLW (E.D. Mo. Nov. 1, 2017)

  11/01/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that equitable estoppel applied to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s disputes with defendant, who was not a party to the arbitration agreement.  Court found that plaintiff’s claims depended on his classification as an independent contractor and the work he performed under an employment contract with a third party, which provided a broad arbitration clause.  Court also found that, under the employment contract, plaintiff was an independent contractor and not an employee, and plaintiff did not fall within the FAA exclusion for contracts of employment for transportation workers.

• AFS Logistics, LLC v. Cochran, No. 3:16-CV-3139 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 31, 2017)

  10/31/2017

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration of claims concerning alleged misappropriation of trade secrets, holding that plaintiff had waived its right to arbitration.  Court found plaintiff’s conduct inconsistent with any reliance on a right to arbitrate and that allowing plaintiff to now rely on an arbitration clause would substantially prejudice defendants. 

• Goodwin v. Branch Banking & Trust Company, No. 17-1412 (4th Cir. Oct. 31, 2017)

  10/31/2017

  Court affirmed decision to deny motion to compel arbitration, upholding the district court’s finding that the arbitration provision was unconscionable under state law and its refusal to sever unconscionable terms.  Court did not provide further information on the facts of the case or what made the arbitration terms unconscionable and non-severable.

• SBMH Group DMCC v. Noadiam USA, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-22605-CMA (S.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2017)

  10/27/2017

  Court granted in part a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the New York Convention, finding that it could only compel arbitration against signatories to the arbitration agreement and that the claims concerning the non-signatories should be stayed pending the arbitration.  Court held that, although the arbitration agreement delegates issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator, it only does so with respect to disputes between signatories and the court cannot extend the delegation provision beyond its plain terms to include non-signatories.  Further, the United Arab Emirates legal principles applicable to the contract at issue do not permit the non-signatories in this action to compel, or be compelled to, arbitration.   

• Pierre-Louis v. CC Solutions, LLC, No. 0:17-CV-60781-BB (S.D. Fla. Oct. 25, 2017)

  10/25/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings.  Court held that defendants had not waited so long to assert their right to arbitrate as to have waived it, notwithstanding some small prejudice to plaintiff.

• Curtis International Ltd v. Pacific Logistics Corp., No. 2:17-CV-01968-PA-JEM (C.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2017)

  10/25/2017

  Court granted joint motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the case, finding that a valid arbitration agreement governed the dispute.

• Thomas v. Progressive Leasing, No. 1:17-CV-01249-RDB (D. Md. Oct. 25, 2017)

  10/25/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case, holding that plaintiff who was not a signatory to the arbitration agreement could nevertheless be bound thereby under a theory of equitable estoppel since he had benefited from the primary contract.

• Blair v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-02335-WHA (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2017)

  10/25/2017

  Court granted in part and denied in part a motion to compel arbitration, and declined to stay remaining proceedings.  Court held that although a valid arbitration agreement governed the dispute, it was inoperable with respect to those claims subject to state laws whose public purpose would be contravened by an agreement to arbitrate. Court declined to issue a stay pending arbitration of the claim not subject to such laws upon finding that the applicable law was sufficiently distinct and any overlap between the arbitrable and nonarbitrable claims was “minor.”

• Manor v. Copart, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-02585 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 24, 2017)

  10/24/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court declined to consider arguments that defendants had waived the right to arbitrate by waiting to invoke the agreement or that they were estopped from arbitrating by an alleged failure to disclose the existence of the agreement to plaintiff, reasoning that this was for the arbitrator to decide.  Court likewise rejected plaintiff’s argument that defendants could not benefit from the arbitration agreement because one was not her employer and the other was not a signatory thereto.

• Noonan v. Comcast Corp., No. 3:16-CV-00458-PGS-LHG (D.N.J. Oct. 24, 2017)

  10/24/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, determining that the language of the parties’ agreement indicated that they intended to arbitrate and that their dispute fell within the scope of that agreement.

• Tate v. Progressive Finance Holdings, LLC., No. 2:17-CV-01589-ODW-AS (C.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2017)

  10/24/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case.  Court held that the otherwise uncontested arbitration agreement was broad enough to cover the dispute.  Based on that finding, court, as a matter of discretion, declined to stay proceedings and dismissed the claim.

• Marcario v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00414-ADS-ARL (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2017)

  10/23/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case.  Court held that a valid arbitration agreement applied to the dispute and that defendants benefited from the agreement as assignees of the underlying contract.  Court rejected plaintiff’s claims that he had never received such an agreement, holding that plaintiff had made a contrary judicial admission at an earlier point and, in any case, that defendants had sufficiently demonstrated the agreement’s existence and transmission to plaintiff.

• Nelson  v. Synchrony Bank, No. 2:16-CV-00703-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla. Oct. 20, 2017)

  10/20/2017

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff had waived its right to arbitrate by waiting to file its motion for over a year and substantively participating in litigation during the interim, both factors that prejudiced the plaintiff.

• Richards v. The Krystal Company, No. 1:17-CV-00228-TAV-CHS (E.D. Tenn. Oct. 20, 2017)

  10/20/2017

  Court denied motion to remand, ruling that the parties must arbitrate the validity of the underlying agreement instead.  Court held that the agreement indicated the parties’ intent to delegate arbitrability questions to the arbitrator.

• Banks v. Barclays Bank Credit Services, No. 1:17-CV-00096-CCC-SES (M.D. Pa. Oct. 20, 2017)

  10/20/2017

  Court adopted magistrate’s recommendation and denied motion to compel arbitration without prejudice, granting discovery limited to the question of the validity of the purported arbitration agreement.  Court reasoned that precedent required such discovery where underlying agreement was not clear with respect to arbitration.

• Roundtree v. Primeflight Aviation Services, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-9609-CCC-MF (D.N.J. Oct. 19, 2017)

  10/19/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the complaint.  Court dismissed plaintiffs’ argument that the arbitration agreement was not valid because it did not sufficiently make clear that by agreeing to arbitrate they waived their right to a jury, as required by New Jersey law.  Court further held that the agreement was sufficiently broad to cover the dispute.

• Emerson Software Solutions, Inc. v. Regions Financial Corp., No. 2:17-CV-00287-JHE (N.D. Ala. Oct. 19, 2017)

  10/19/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court held that the arbitration agreement was sufficiently broad to cover the claim in dispute and that plaintiff had expressly waived any equitable relief.

• Richland Equipment Company, Inc. v. Deere & Company, No. 5:17-CV-00088-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss. Oct. 19, 2017)

  10/19/2017

  Court denied motion for an injunction pending appeal of its earlier order compelling arbitration.  Court reasoned that although delegation agreements need not be enforced by courts where the dispute plainly falls outside that agreement, the plaintiff could not meet its burden to demonstrate that this was the case.

• Mason v. Athletic & Therapeutic Institute OF Naperville, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-02222-JMS-MJD (S.D. Ind. Oct. 19, 2017)

  10/19/2017

  Court dismissed claim, finding that an arbitration agreement governed the dispute.  Court rejected arguments that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because it imposed a time limit on filing a claim and did not mandate that attorney’s fees be awarded to the prevailing party.

• Driver v. Pro AG Management, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-01959 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 18, 2017)

  10/18/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, holding the parties were bound by a valid arbitration agreement.

• Bankwitz v. Ecolab, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-02924-EMC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2017)

  10/17/2017

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration in light of ninth circuit decision in Morris v. Ernst & Young LLP holding that arbitration agreements requiring employees to pursue work-related claims individually are unenforceable, but stayed proceedings pending outcome of appeal of Morris before Supreme Court.

• McFadden v. E.A. Renfroe & Company, Inc., No. 15-55886 (9th Cir. Oct. 17, 2017)

  10/17/2017

  Court of appeal reversed district court’s ruling that arbitration agreement is unenforceable, finding that unconscionable terms were severable.

• Hawkins v. Fishbeck, No. 3:17-CV-00032-NKM-JCH (W.D. Va. Oct. 16, 2017)

  10/16/2017

  Court granted motion to dismiss in part and compelled arbitration, finding that trade secret and copyright infringement claims fell within the scope of an arbitration agreement.

• McArthur v. BNSF Railway Company, No. 17-CV-01314-JCC (W.D. Wash. Oct. 16, 2017)

  10/16/2017

  Court granted motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, finding that terminated employee’s claim for compensation for unused vacation time required interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement and could only be resolved in arbitration.

• Harper v. Academy of Training School, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-01266-UDJ-KK (W.D. La. Oct. 16, 2017)

  10/16/2017

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendant had waived its right to arbitrate by substantially invoking the judicial process, including by filing an answer, briefing motions, and engaging in written discovery.

• Kirby McInerney LLP v. Lee Medical, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-04760-KBF (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2017)

  10/16/2017

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

• U.S. Pipelining LLC v. Johnson Controls, Inc., No. 16-00132 HG-RLP (D. Haw. Oct. 16, 2017)

  10/16/2017

  Court denied plaintiff’s motion to stay arbitration and granted defendant’s countermotion to stay judicial proceedings, concluding that defendant did not waive its right to arbitration by moving for summary judgment a year before it demanded arbitration.  Court noted that the motion for summary judgment challenged plaintiff’s right to bring suit, and defendant has consistently stated that plaintiff’s claims are subject to arbitration and that it retains the right to seek arbitration.  Court further concluded that plaintiff was not prejudiced by defendant’s actions, as (i) the motion for summary judgment did not involve the merits of the claims subject to arbitration, (ii) plaintiff was on notice that defendant intended to seek arbitration, and (iii) plaintiff failed to demonstrate how it had been prejudiced by the limited discovery that had taken place in the case.

• Anderson Group Co., Inc. v. MC Hotels, LLC, No. 0:17-CV-01564-TLW (D.S.C. Oct. 16, 2017)

  10/16/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss to the extent it seeks to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s claims.  Court held that the relevant provision in the subcontract provided for arbitration, and whether the same provision required the parties to mediate as a condition precedent to arbitration was a matter for the arbitrators to decide. 

• Hawkins v. Fishbeck, No. 3:17-CV-00032 (W.D. Va. Oct. 16, 2017)

  10/16/2017

  Court granted in part motion to compel arbitration, finding that the agreement containing the arbitration clause was sufficiently related to the claims at issue.

• Ruiz v. AH 2005 Management, No. 3:17-CV-00197-PRM (W.D. Tex. Oct. 13, 2017)

  10/13/2017

  Court granted motion to dismiss and compelled arbitration, finding that employer’s right to amend arbitration agreement did not render it illusory, since it applied only to prospective disputes.

• Knezovich v. DIRECTV, L.L.C., No. 4:17-CV-00165-MWB (D. Idaho Oct. 13, 2017)

  10/13/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed claim, finding that arbitration procedure containing provisions governing the scope of arbitrable claims was validly incorporated by reference in an arbitration agreement, even if it was not provided to employee at time of signing.

• Credit Acceptance Corporation v. Vansteenburgh, No. 1:17-CV-00040-GHD-DAS (N.D. Miss. Oct. 12, 2017)

  10/12/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed claim, finding that claim for tort of conversion for repossession of loan collateral fell within the scope of the loan agreement's arbitration clause.

• Cheytac USA, LLC v. Nextgen Tactical, LLC and Omanoff, No. 0:17-CV-60925-CMA (S.D. Fla. Oct. 12, 2017) 

  10/12/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that because the parties incorporated the AAA rules into their agreement the question of whether a valid arbitration agreement existed was an issue for arbitration.  Court also found the question of whether the carve-out provision removed claims from an arbitrator’s jurisdiction was also an issue for arbitration.  Court held defendants had not waived their right to arbitrate the dispute.

• Preferred Care of Delaware Inc. v Hewgley, No. 1:17-CV-00127-GNS (W.D. Ky. Oct. 6, 2017)

  10/06/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration except with respect to respondent’s wrongful death claims, and granted in part and denied in part motion to dismiss. Court rejected respondent’s various jurisdictional defenses, finding, in particular, that the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable even though it was executed by a court-appointed guardian. Further, court found that neither the boiler-plate language, nor execution as part of a series of documents, renders the arbitration agreement procedurally unconscionable and that the alleged disparity in bargaining power and the non-disclosure of the costs of arbitration does not make it substantively unconscionable.

• Cusolito v. Citibank, N.A., No. 0:17-CV-60963-WPD (S.D. Fla. Oct. 6, 2017)

  10/06/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff’s argument as to whether she entered into the agreement was to be decided by the arbitrator and not the court.  Court also held that plaintiff’s claims fell clearly within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and that plaintiff could not place the existence of the arbitration agreement in issue by merely denying its existence.

• Scales v. SSC Winston-Salem Operating Company, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00539-WO-I PA (M.D.N.C. Oct. 5, 2017)

  10/05/2017

  Court denied in part and granted in part arbitration motion, dismissing as premature defendant’s request to compel arbitration and granting request to conduct discovery regarding the formation and performance of the parties’ agreement.

• Baker v. The Academy of Art University Foundation, No. 3:17-CV-03444-JSC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2017)

  10/05/2017

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings, rejecting plaintiff’s defense that the main agreement containing the arbitration provision was cancelled. Could also held that the arbitration agreement was not procedurally unconscionable since plaintiff had failed to demonstrate any oppression or surprise beyond that inherent in any adhesion contract, and also denied the allegation that the arbitration agreement was substantively unconscionable.

• Scales v. SCC Winston-Salem Operating Company, No. 1:17-CV-00539 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 5, 2017)

  10/05/2017

  Court denied without prejudice request to compel arbitration and stay proceedings on the ground that it was premature and granted request to conduct discovery regarding the formation and performance of the arbitration agreement.

• Wuest v. Comcast Corp., No. 4:17-CV-04063-JSW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 05, 2017)

  10/05/2017

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation. Pursuant to the FAA, court found the arbitration clause was valid but concluded the claims did not fall within the scope of the provision because plaintiff was not a customer of defendant at the time the dispute arose.

• Kelleher v. Dream Catcher, L.L.C., No. 1:16-CV-02092-APM (D.D.C. Oct. 4, 2017)

  10/04/2017

  Court denied defendants’ application to stay pending arbitration, finding defendants had forfeited their right to arbitrate by failing to invoke arbitration at the earliest available opportunity and that defendants’ application for stay and any subsequent appeal was “frivolous” since it was based on a flawed legal theory and moreover wholly ignored controlling Supreme Court precedent and other pertinent cases.

• Rocha v. Macy's Retail Holdings, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00073-PRM (W.D. Tex. Oct. 3, 2017)

  10/03/2017

  Court denied defendant’s motion to abate and compel arbitration finding that defendant failed to provide evidence that plaintiff consented to arbitration.

• Esparza v. Smartpay Leasing, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-03421-WHA (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2017)

  10/03/2017

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration in putative class action finding that plaintiff’s claims fall outside of the scope of the arbitration clause on which plaintiff relied.

• Fundamental Administrative Services v. Cohen, No. 17-2025 (10th Cir. Oct. 3, 2017)

  10/03/2017

  Court of appeal affirmed district court order dismissing complaint to compel arbitration, finding the case was precluded by res judicata since it had been previously decided in state court proceedings.

• Blair v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-02335-WHA (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2017)

  10/03/2017

  Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that, while three of plaintiff’s claims were not arbitrable under McGill v. Citibank, N.A., according to which arbitration agreements prohibiting plaintiffs from exercising a statutory right to seek a public injunction are invalid— a rule not preempted by the FAA—, with respect to plaintiff’s remaining claim the arbitration agreement was valid.  Court rejected defendant’s request to stay the proceedings on the ground that plaintiff’s arbitration claim was sufficiently distinct from its court claims so that parallel proceedings would not be unduly duplicative or burdensome.

• Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society v. Telles, No. 2:17-CV-00207-MCA-GJF (D.N.M. Sept. 30, 2017)

  09/30/2017

  Court granted complaint to compel arbitration and petition for appointment of arbitrator, as well as related motion and memorandum of law, compelled arbitration, and dismissed action.  Court found that the parties’ arbitration agreement contained a clear delegation clause, rejecting defendant’s allegation that the delegation clause was procedurally unconscionable and noting that defendant had not specifically challenged the delegation clause on substantive unconscionability grounds.

• Pain Treatment Centers of Illinois v. SpectraLab Scientific, Incorporated, No. 1:15-CV-01012 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 30, 2017)

  09/30/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for improper venue finding that the parties’ agreement contained a valid arbitration clause and rejecting plaintiffs’ allegations that the arbitration  clause was substantively unconscionable since it lacked specificity, was impossible to comply with, and failed to mention the costs of the arbitration, as well as that it was procedurally unconscionable because plaintiffs did not have an opportunity to negotiate it.

• Allen v. SSC Lexington Operating Company LLC, No. 1:16-CV-01080 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 29, 2017)

  09/29/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel individual arbitration and stay court proceedings, denied as moot plaintiff’s motion for putative class action certification and defendant’s partial motion to dismiss, and stayed court proceedings under § 3 of the FAA pending arbitration.  Court found that, while the language of the agreement raised doubts as to whether the parties intended their agreement to include a waiver of class or collective action, such doubts had to be resolved in favor or arbitration.

• Bradley v. The Hertz Corporation, No. 3:15-CV-00652-NJR-RJD (S.D. Ill. Sept. 29, 2017)

  09/29/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the parties’ arbitration agreement was valid and that the scope of that agreement was for the arbitrator to decide, per the delegation clause contained in the arbitration agreement.

• Johns, Jr. v. Pluckers, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00553-SS (W.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2017)

  09/29/2017

  Court granted defendants’ motion in part and denied it in part, compelling arbitration but finding that the question whether the dispute may be arbitrated as a collective action is for the arbitrator to decide, and staying the case pending final decision by the arbitrator.

• Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society v. Hatton, No. 2:16-CV-01355-JB-KRS, No. 19 (D.N.M. Sept. 29, 2017)

  09/29/2017

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement that had been signed by the decedent’s temporary legal guardian was valid and binding on the personal representative of the decedent’s wrongful death estate, and denying motion to compel discovery regarding the temporary legal guardian’s authority to bind decedent to arbitration, which was an issue for the arbitrator to decide.

• Humphreys v. Houston Pizza Ventures, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00935 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2017)

  09/29/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed, as well as administratively closed, case pending arbitration, finding that the parties entered into a valid and binding agreement to arbitrate under Texas law. 

• Powers v. Charles River Laboratories, Inc., No. 2-16-CV-13668-PDB-SDD (E.D. Mich. Sept. 29, 2017)

  09/29/2017

  District court adopted magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and, amongst others, granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss or compel arbitration, finding that magistrate judge had correctly concluded that the parties agreed to arbitration, that plaintiff had failed to show a genuine issue of material fact as to the validity of the arbitration agreement or as to whether defendant was a successor party to the agreement, and that the applicability of the contractual time bar contained in the arbitration agreement was for the arbitrator, not the court, to decide. 

• Eurotec Vertical Flight Solutions, LLC v. Turbomeca, S.A., No. 3:15-CV-03454-B (N.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2016)

  09/29/2017

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings and granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion to refer only issues of arbitrability to arbitration and stay action pending arbitrators’ decision on arbitrability.  Court found that the parties’ arbitration agreement contained a valid and enforceable delegation clause so that the issue of arbitrability was one of the issues that would have to be decided by arbitration, while rejecting plaintiff’s assertion that a court could initially refer only arbitrabilty issues to arbitration.

• Ford v. Combined Insurance Company of America, No. 5:17-CV-00103-RH-GRJ (N.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2017)

  09/28/2017

  Court adopted magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and granted motion to compel arbitration in part.  Court held that the plaintiff signed a binding arbitration agreement that applied to plaintiff’s claims and ordered the parties to present their dispute to arbitration in accordance with their agreement.

• Hubbard v. Dolgencorp, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-01133-SA-egb (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 28, 2017)

  09/28/2017

  Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the named plaintiffs, except Hubbard, were bound to arbitrate their claims.  Court further held that because in the sixth circuit the class action waiver found in the arbitration agreement was void as against public policy and unenforceable under the FAA, and yet severable, the court would compel plaintiffs to bring their claims to arbitration but they could do so collectively as a class.

• Chruby v. Global Tel*Link Corp., No. 5:15-CV-05136-TLB (W.D. Ark. Sept. 28, 2017)

  09/28/2017

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings.  Court held that all three elements of waiver of the right to arbitrate were satisfied with respect to each of the arbitrating plaintiffs as the defendant knew of an existing right to arbitrate, acted inconsistently with that right by having waited over a year and a half after the litigation began to attempt to compel arbitration, and prejudiced the plaintiffs who were forced to defend against other motions.

• CMH Homes, Inc. v. Pyke, No. 2:17-CV-00077-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss. Sept. 28, 2017)

  09/28/2017

  Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and improper venue.  Court held that plaintiffs had filed their petition under § 4 of the FAA seeking an order to compel arbitration and that the underlying dispute was ripe for adjudication as no further factual development was needed and the issues warranted judicial review. 

• Pineda v. Oceania Cruises, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-20544-RNS (S.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2017)

  09/28/2017

  Court remanded case to state court, holding that the arbitration agreement relied upon by the defendants to remove the case to federal court was inapplicable to plaintiff’s claims as there was no agreement to arbitrate between the parties and therefore subject matter jurisdiction was lacking.

• Allied World Insurance Company v. New Paradigm Property Management LLC, No. 2:16-CV-02992-MCE-GGH (E.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2017)

  09/28/2017

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss plaintiff’s complaint, or alternatively stay action, finding that, while the arbitration agreement applied to plaintiff as surety, the scope of the arbitration agreement did not encompass the controversy at issue.

• Sanders v. JGWPT Holdings, LLC, No. 1:14-CV-09188-SLE (N.D. Ill.  Sept. 27, 2017)

  09/27/2017

  Court granted defendant motion to compel arbitration, holding that the parties do not dispute that the arbitration clauses are mandatory and that plaintiffs failed to establish a defense to arbitration. 

• Barboza v. Adecco USA, Inc., No. 5:16-CV-01113-EJD (N.D. Cal. Sept. 27. 2017)

  09/27/2017

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, holding that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed and that plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the agreement.

• Larsen v. Citibank FSB, Nos. 15-10779, 10-12957 (11th Cir. Sept. 26, 2017)

  09/26/2017

  Court of appeal reversed district court’s order denying defendant KeyBank’s motion to compel on grounds of unconscionability and remanded case to district court with instruction to compel arbitration.  Court addressed multiple issues on appeal and found no reason to relieve plaintiff Johnson from his obligation to arbitrate under Ohio law, the parties’ agreed choice-of-law provision. 

• Brne v. Inspired eLearning, No. 1:17-CV-02712-AJS (N.D. Ill. Sept. 26. 2017)

  09/26/2017

  Court granted defendant’s FRCP 12(b)(3) motion to dismiss for improper venue and ordered plaintiff to pursue his arbitration claims in Texas rather than Illinois.  Court held the arbitration clause in plaintiff’s employment agreement was enforceable as there was no showing of procedural unconscionability, the cost sharing provision of the arbitration agreement was valid, and that the substantively unconscionable clause requiring the parties to pay their own attorneys’ fees regardless of the outcome of arbitration was invalid, but was properly severed under both Illinois and Texas law as the agreement expressly allowed for severance of unenforceable provisions.

• Massaad v. CVS RX Services, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01064-JG (N.D. Ohio Sept. 26, 2017)

  09/26/2017

  Court denied motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint and defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that at the motion to dismiss stage of litigation it was required to draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor, including that plaintiff mailed his opt-out letter and as a result opted out of the defendant’s arbitration policy.

• Stephens v. Charter Communications Holdings, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00354-JHM (W.D. Ky. Sept. 26, 2017)

  09/26/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that agreement to arbitrate would be enforced as plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of a valid and binding arbitration agreement between the parties, there were no federal claims that could be nonarbitrable, nor were only some of the state law claims subject to arbitration. 

• Golden Gate National Senior Care, LLC v. Hudson, No. 3:17-CV-00431-JHM (W.D. Ky. Sept. 26, 2017)

  09/26/2017

  Court granted petitioners’ motion to expedite consideration of their motion to compel arbitration and granted the motion in part.  Court held the parties entered into an agreement to arbitrate, that the agreement covered the decedent’s personal claims respondent raised in state court, that there were no federal claims asserted that were precluded from arbitration, and thus the parties were ordered to arbitrate all claims except a wrongful death claim that could proceed in state court as it was not required to be arbitrated because the beneficiaries to whom that claim belonged did not consent to arbitrate. 

• Finsa Portafolios, S.A. de C.V. v. OpenGate Capital, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-04360-RGK-E (C.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2017)  

  09/26/2017

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss for forum non conveniens.  Court held that parties were sophisticated corporations that chose an arbitration clause that incorporated AAA language in their commercial agreement and that the arbitrator should decide disputes relating to the validity and scope of the arbitration clause.  Court also upheld the forum selection clauses at issue and held the plaintiffs’ fraud and tort claims to be within their scope.

• Gibson v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., No. 4:17-00577-RMG (D.S.C. Sept. 26, 2017)

  09/26/2017

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.   Court held that, accepting the complaint allegations as true, the arbitration agreement in the original warranty did not provide for binding arbitration, was not enforceable with regard to the warranty enhancement, and defendant’s argument that an arbitration agreement in a vehicle lease agreement should be enforced against anyone who purchased the used vehicle after the expiration of the lease lacked merit.

• Northrop and Johnson Holding Company, Inc. v. Caryn Leahy, No. 0:16-CV-63008-BB (S.D. Fla. Sept. 25, 2017)

  09/25/2017

  Court denied motion to dismiss second amended complaint for failure to arbitrate.  Court held that at the motion to dismiss stage, plaintiff had plausibly pled that it terminated the agreement that would have required it to arbitrate.

• Sutherland v. Amerifirst Financial, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-01676-JAH-WVG (S.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2017)

  09/25/2017

  Court granted defendants’ motion to transfer venue.  Court held that the parties entered into a valid arbitration agreement, the agreement included the dispute at issue and should be enforced, and that the parties agreed upon a venue in Maricopa County, Arizona.  Court held that, because § 4 of the FAA does not permit the court to compel arbitration outside of the district, the appropriate remedy was to transfer the case to the district of Arizona. 

• Cochlear Ltd. v. Oticon Medical AB, No. 1:16-CV-01700-PAB-KMT (D. Colo. Sept. 25, 2017)

  09/25/2017

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims and denied the motion to stay the action.  Court held that the arbitration agreement between the parties did not limit or exclude any types of claims and that the parties’ dispute was within the scope of the arbitration clause and should be sent to arbitration.

• Farrow Road Dental Group, P.A. v. AT&T, Corp., No. 3:17-CV-01615-CMC (D.S.C. Sept. 22, 2017)

  09/22/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay the action. Court held that the arbitration agreement at issue was enforceable and, on balance, favors reference to arbitration. Further, the plaintiff’s obligation to arbitrate did not end when the parties’ relationship ended since arbitration clauses are separable from the contracts in which they are embedded.

• Chen v. Kyoto Sushi, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-07398-DLI-JO (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2017)

  09/22/2017

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and denied plaintiffs’ request for class certification.  Court held that plaintiffs consented to the arbitration agreement, that their Fair Labor Standards Act claims and state and local wage and hour law claims were arbitrable, that the arbitration agreement did not violate federal law and was not unconscionable under New York State law, nor a product of economic duress. 

• Diaz v. Intuit, Inc., No. 5:15-CV-01778-EJD (N.D.Cal. Sept. 29, 2017)

  09/22/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the incorporation of the AAA Rules in the parties’ arbitration agreement was clear and unmistakable evidence of the parties’ intention to delegate arbitrability to the arbitrator irrespective of the sophistication of the parties and determining, upon plaintiffs’ request, that the assertion of arbitrability was not “wholly groundless.” 

• Novic v. Midland Funding, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00177-RDB (D. Md Sept. 21, 2017)

  09/21/2017

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay the litigation, finding that, subsequent to the assignment of the underlying contract, the defendant no longer holds the right to compel the plaintiff to arbitrate the dispute. Court also held that, in any event, because the defendant took part in litigation proceedings against the plaintiff it defaulted on its right to arbitrate as a matter of federal law.

• Beltran v. InterExchange, Inc., No. 1:14-CV-03074-CMA-KMT (D. Colo. Sept. 21, 2017)

  09/21/2017

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss or stay the action. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that defendant had waived right to arbitrate, but found that there was not a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement because the agreements were unconscionable.

• Oglala Lakota College v. Hudson Insurance Company, No. 5:16-CV-05093-JLV (D.S.D. Sept. 20, 2017)

  09/20/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed the suit pending resolution of the arbitration. Court held that the arbitration agreement is not ambiguous, and therefore, the parties are obligated under the FAA to proceed to arbitration to resolve their dispute.

• Alvarez v. Amgen Manufacturing, Limited, No. 3:16-CV-02205-PAD-SCC (D.P.R. Sept. 18, 2017)

  09/18/2017

  Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss action and compel arbitration, adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation that the plaintiff failed to opt-out of the arbitration agreement in question and that the agreement covered the claims asserted.

• Johnson v. Oracle America, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-05157-EDL (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2017)

  09/17/2017

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court explained that determining which of two competing arbitration agreements applied to the dispute was a gateway issue of arbitrability, which could be answered by determining whether there was a clear delegation of issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator.  Court concluded that since the parties clearly and unmistakably delegated the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator, the motion to compel arbitration should be granted.

• McMahan v. Byrider Sales of Indiana S, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00064-GNS (W.D. Ky. Sept. 14, 2017)

  09/14/2017

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court found that (i) the contract clearly indicated that plaintiff agreed to arbitrate any claim arising from a dispute between her and the defendant (and its assignee), (ii) the broad terms of the contract required plaintiff to arbitrate her claims and allowed defendant to require arbitration even after it assigned its rights under the contract, (iii) there is no indication that Congress intended to preclude the arbitration of Fair Credit Reporting Act claims, and (iv) the arbitration provision survived plaintiff’s bankruptcy discharge.

• Lake Cumberland Regional Hospital, LLC v. Coventry Health & Life Insurance Co., No. 6:16-CV-00268-KKC (E.D. Ky. Sept. 14, 2017)

  09/14/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel. Court found that the parties’ agreement contained an arbitration provision that required arbitration of claims arising out of or relating to that agreement.  As such, court concluded that there was a valid arbitration agreement and plaintiff’s claims fell within that provision’s “broad purview.”

• Royal Alliance Associates, Inc. v. Mooney, No. 16-56468 (9th Cir. Sept. 14. 2017)

  09/14/2017

  Court of appeal reversed district court’s grant of motion to compel arbitration, finding that claimants had not discharged their burden of showing that an arbitration agreement existed, since account transfer documents left ambiguous the question of whether the claimants were clients of the respondent.

• Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers v. Kellogg Company, No. 1:16-CV-01180-GJQ-RSK (W.D. Mich. Sept. 13, 2017)

  09/13/2017

  Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration, finding no merit to the defendant’s argument that, because plaintiffs took an inconsistent position in a separate case, they were judicially-estopped from arguing that the arbitration provisions applied.  Court also held that the agreements the parties entered into reinforced their understanding that the arbitration provisions did not apply to casual employees.

• IQ Products Company v. WD-40 Company, No. 16-20595 (5th Cir. Sept. 13, 2017)

  09/13/2017

  Court of appeal affirmed the district court’s order compelling arbitration and final judgment. Court held that plaintiff waived its challenge to the district court’s conclusion on the existence of a delegation clause by conceding it before the district court; and the assertion of arbitrability was not “wholly groundless,” which the court noted was “extremely rare.”

• Velasquez-Reyes v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 5:16-CV-01953-DMG-KK (C.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2017)

  09/13/2017

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss the complaint. Court held that plaintiff did not expressly agree to Samsung’s arbitration provision, and that there was no indication that plaintiff’s silence and failure to opt out of the arbitration procedures were intended to be taken as assent. Court also noted that the disclaimer on the box of the phone that plaintiff purchased did not expressly provide that opening the box or using the phone constituted consent to the terms contained inside the Warranty Guide, which itself was inside the box.e box.

• Lockard v. EYM King of Kansas, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-02181-JAR-JPO (D. Kan. Sept. 12, 2017)

  09/12/2017

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and to stay the action.  Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration agreement was illusory because it was part of a handbook containing a conflicting revocation and modification clause, and that there was no meeting of the minds because the arbitration agreement failed to specify arbitration procedures.  Court explained that (i) the arbitration agreement itself is separate and distinct from the handbook, (ii) even if there were ambiguity, this was a question for the arbitrator to decide, and (ii) the lack of arbitral procedures in the arbitration agreement does not invalidate the agreement.

• Hunter v. NHCash.com, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00348-HEH (E.D. Va. Sept. 12, 2017)

  09/12/2017

  Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss to the extent defendants seek to compel arbitration. Court found that the doctrine of equitable estoppel was applicable in this case, which allows all defendants—even non-signatories—to move to compel arbitration. Court additionally found that, even if equitable estoppel were not appropriate, the scope of the arbitration provision was sufficiently broad to encompass plaintiff’s claims against all defendants.

• United States ex rel. Welch v. My Left Foot Children’s Therapy, LLC, No. 16-16070 (9th Cir. Sept. 11, 2017)

  09/11/2017

  Court of appeal affirmed the district court’s denial of defendants’ motion to compel arbitration on an alternate ground.  Court held that the plain text of the arbitration agreement—which Welch signed when she applied for employment with the defendant corporation—was not broad enough to encompass the instant False Claims Act case, and therefore the lawsuit was not arbitrable.

• Barron v. Best Buy Co., Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00690-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss. Sept. 11, 2017)

  09/11/2017

  Court granted defendants’ motion to stay, finding that one of the threshold issues in the instant case would be the subject of a pending arbitration, and thus it would be in the interest of judicial economy to stay the case pending the arbitration award.

• Skiba v. Sasser, No. 1:16-CV-00444-HSO-JCG (S.D. Miss. Sept. 11, 2017)

  09/11/2017

  Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss or to compel arbitration.  Court found that there was a valid arbitration agreement between the parties as it was undisputed that the parties signed the agreement.  Court additionally found that there was a valid delegation clause that granted the authority to determine the arbitrability of plaintiff’s claims to the arbitrator.

• Chin v. Boehringer Ingelham Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-03703-JSC (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2017)

  09/11/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel and stay the action.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration agreement was contrary to public policy because it forced plaintiff to waive certain rights, finding that the arbitrator was not precluded from awarding plaintiff legal fees and costs.  Court also held that the mere fact that the arbitration agreement is a contract of adhesion is insufficient to establish procedural unconscionability, and that the agreement did not lack mutuality and therefore was not substantively unconscionable.

• Hallsted v. JPMorgan Chase and Company, No. 8:17-CV-00822-JVS-JDE (C.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2017)

  09/11/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings.  Court rejected arguments that the arbitration agreement was rendered invalid as unconscionable because the contract was one of adhesion, did not attach the applicable AAA rules, lacked mutuality, limited discovery, and waived rights to a jury trial.

• Ford v. Midland Funding LLC., No. 4:16-CV-12612-TGB-SDD (E.D. Mich. Sept. 8, 2017)

  09/08/2017

  Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether an arbitration agreement existed.  Court explained that because the making of the arbitration agreement was in issue, under the FAA, the case should proceed in court rather than in arbitration.

• Hinkle v. Southpointe Motorcars, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-01391-TWP-DML (S.D. Ind. Sept. 8, 2017)

  09/08/2017

  Court approved and adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, which stated that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to stay the action should be granted.  Court further found that, since the parties agreed that the defendant corporation would pay the filing fee under these circumstances, the plaintiff may file his claim with the AAA by simply stating that there is an agreement that the defendant will pay all of the filing fee.

• Judge v. Unigroup, Inc., 8:17-CV-00201-SDM-TBM (M.D. Fla. Sept. 8, 2017)

  09/08/2017

  Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss and granted in part defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that the FAA applied because (i) federal law strongly favors arbitration and (ii) plaintiffs reserved discretion that was characteristic of a contractor, and thus could not benefit from the transportation-worker exemption from arbitration.  Court further found that the non-party defendants with contracts under Florida law could compel arbitration, but not those under Ohio, Virginia, or New Jersey law.

• Orbital ATK, Inc. v. Heckler & Koch GmbH, No. 0:17-CV-00250-DSD-FLN (D. Minn. Sept. 8, 2017)

  09/08/2017

  Court granted in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  The parties had entered into a subcontract and a Teaming Agreement.  Court found that most claims were subcontract claims, which were expressly excluded from the dispute resolution process in the Teaming Agreement.  However, one claim—the failure to deliver intellectual property pursuant to the Teaming Agreement—was subject to the arbitration provision and should be submitted to arbitration.

• Treinish v. BorrowsFirst, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01371-JG (N.D. Ohio Sept. 8, 2017)

  09/08/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding the arbitration provision to be valid and enforceable.  Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the claims are not arbitrable because she terminated the contract.  Court explained that the arbitration provision contained an explicit survival clause, and thus the contract is not “completely expired” and the full presumption in favor of arbitration applies.

• Alabama Municipal Insurance Corp. v. Munich Reinsurance America Inc., No. 2:16-CV-948-WHA-SRW (M.D. Ala. Sept. 7, 2017)

  09/07/2017

  Court granted motion to stay pending arbitration, holding that plaintiff had not waived the right to arbitrate.  Court found that actions taken toward litigation prior to filing the amended complaint should not be considered waiver of the right to seek arbitration, as the amended complaint was the first time plaintiff alleged breach of a contract which contained an arbitration clause.  Additionally, subsequently complying with a scheduling order did not waive the right to arbitrate.

• Poole-Ward v. Affiliates for Women’s Health, P.A., No. 4:17-CV-00885 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 7, 2017)

  09/07/2017

  Court granted motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, holding that a valid arbitration agreement existed and covered the plaintiff’s statutory discrimination and state common law contract claims.  Court found that invalidating the arbitration agreement would permit the plaintiff to litigate the types of claims she clearly and validly agreed to arbitrate. 

• Gibson-Dalton v. Carnival Corp. & PLC, No. 2:16-CV-02457-DCN (D.S.C. Sept. 7, 2017)

  09/07/2017

  Court granted motion to dismiss claims for failure to comply with the arbitration clause, holding that there was no issue in dispute as to whether parties were bound by an arbitration agreement.  Court held that plaintiff failed to present any evidence suggesting she was not bound by the contract containing the arbitration clause.

• Hoover v. Sears Holding Corp., No. 3:16-CV-04520-AET-TJB (D.N.J. Sept. 7, 2017)

  09/07/2017

  Court denied motion for reconsideration of order compelling arbitration, holding that the arbitration clause in the contract was severable and non-illusory, and that any issue regarding contract validity should be considered by the arbitrator.  Court found that plaintiff had not argued that the clause allowing defendant to alter terms and conditions was within the arbitration provision, or that the arbitration clause was not severable.  Court found that a unilateral change provision pertained only to a rewards program, not to the arbitration provision or other parts of the contract.

• Ortiz Bey v. XPO Logistics, Inc., No. 6:16-CV-02195-RBD-KRS (M.D. Fla. Sept. 7, 2017)

  09/07/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that defendant had not waived its right to arbitrate and that plaintiff had not demonstrated that the delegation provision was unconscionable.  Court found that the sixth month delay in demanding arbitration, without any other substantial conduct inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate, did not amount to waiver.  Court also found that plaintiffs failed to include detail of litigation expenses incurred, and failed to show prejudice as a result of delay, and that plaintiffs had failed to challenge the delegation provision specifically as unconscionable, and the enforceability of the arbitration agreement as a whole was a determination left to the arbitrator.

• Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC v. Rocine, No. 4:17-CV-04993-PJH (N.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2017)

  09/07/2017

  Court granted temporary restraining order (TRO) restricting defendants’ use of plaintiff’s customer information, and ordered that plaintiff to initiate expedited FINRA arbitration.  Court found that defendant had compiled a list of customer information after his departure from plaintiff’s company, and there was a likelihood of significant irreparable harm if defendants were not enjoined from using this information.

• Petrobras America, Inc. v. Vicinay Cadenas, S.A., No. 4:12-CV-00888 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 6, 2017)

  09/06/2017

  Court granted motion for jury trial, and denied motion to stay lawsuit pending arbitration, holding that non-signatory plaintiffs were not bound by the arbitration clause.  Court found that the direct-benefits estoppel doctrine did not apply, as plaintiffs’ claims were not based on the purchase order containing the arbitration clause, but rather from pre-purchase representations and duties under Louisiana law.

• Solo v. United Parcel Service Co., No. 2:14-CV-12719-DPH-RSW (E.D. Mich. Sept. 6, 2017)

  09/06/2017

  Court denied motion to stay or dismiss proceedings, holding that defendant had waived its right to arbitration by acting inconsistently with reliance on arbitration and delayed its assertion of the need to arbitrate, to the actual prejudice of plaintiffs.  Court found that defendant did not seek to compel arbitration until more than two years after the complaint was filed, moving instead for dismissal on the merits.  Court found that defendant had not filed this motion regarding the arbitration provision until eight months after the Sixth Circuit remanded the case.

• Baldwin v. Wittle, No. 1:17-CV-00823-JMS-DML (S.D. Ind. Sept. 6, 2017)

  09/06/2017

  Court denied motion to dismiss, holding that there was no valid arbitration agreement between the parties.  Court found no privity between parties to the security contract, containing the arbitration clause, and the insurance contract, which did not.  Court found that there was not sufficient relatedness between the two contracts to justify estoppel. 

• Glass, Molders, Pottery, Plastics, & Allied Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC v. Tecnocap LLC, No. 5:17-CV-00006-JPB (N.D.W. Va. Sept. 6, 2017)

  09/06/2017

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, holding that parties must arbitrate grievances in accordance with the Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”).  Court found that there is a presumption of arbitrability where there is a broad arbitration agreement.  Court found that, according to precedent, it had no license to examine whether the demand for arbitration had been timely made, as the defendant had refused the demand.

• White v. Sunoco, Inc., No. 16-2808 (3d Cir. Sept. 5, 2017)

  09/05/2017

  Court affirmed decision to deny motion to compel arbitration, holding that defendant, as a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, could not compel plaintiff to arbitrate.  Court held that the principles of equitable estoppel could not be invoked since there was no alleged concerted conduct on the part of defendant and a signatory party.  Court also found that the claims asserted against defendant did not rely on any terms in the contract containing the arbitration agreement.

• In re Anthony Henson and William Cintron, No. 16-71818 (9th Cir. Sept. 5, 2017)

  09/05/2017

  Court granted petition for a writ of mandamus and vacated order granting motion to compel arbitration, holding that a non-signatory  “middle man” for internet-based advertisements could not invoke an arbitration provision contained in a contract between plaintiffs and their wireless service provider.  Court found that the customer agreement provided only that the subscriber and the internet service provider agreed to resolve disputes by arbitration.  Court found that estoppel was not available, as the claims against defendant were not based on the contract containing the arbitration agreement, and there was no evidence of interdependent and concerted conduct.

• Taylor v. Frontier Communications Corporation, No. 8:17-CV-00476-PA-DTB (C.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2017)

  09/05/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff entered into a contractual agreement with defendant’s predecessor-in-interest, which included an arbitration provision that encompasses the claims at issue in the present action. Court also found that plaintiff consented to the granting of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.

• Carriere v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC., No. 2:17-CV-00325-UDJ-KK (W.D. La. Sept. 1, 2017)

  09/01/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceeding, holding that there was a valid arbitration agreement, which delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.  Court found that, even if Louisiana law required consideration for arbitration agreements between at-will employees and employers, a mutual agreement to arbitrate claims was sufficient consideration. 

• Doe #1 v. Déjà Vu Consulting, No. 3 :17-CV-00040 (M.D. Tenn. Sept. 1, 2017)

  09/01/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the action without prejudice, holding that there was an enforceable arbitration agreement covering all disputes.  Court found that, according to precedent and § 3 of the FAA, a motion to compel arbitration must take precedence over and be considered before virtually any other pending motion.  Further, the broad delegation clause conferred authority to resolve disputes regarding waiver and estoppel to the arbitrator, and the  plaintiff was estopped from asserting that she did not agree to arbitrate with non-signatory defendants, as she had argued that these defendants were alter egos of the signatory defendant. 

• Lublin v. American Automobile Association of Northern California, Nevada & Utah, No. 2:17-CV-00021-GMN-PAL (D. Nev. Aug. 31, 2017)

  08/31/2017

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration and dismiss, holding that plaintiff had sufficiently raised an issue of material fact regarding the formation of the arbitration agreement.  Court found that plaintiff’s sworn affidavit stating that he was never presented with the arbitration agreement was sufficient to raise this issue, and that defendant had failed to show evidence regarding any electronic system of signature or otherwise provide evidence establishing chain of custody.

• Broussard v. GameStop, Inc., No. 5:16-CV-06075-EJD (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2017)

  08/31/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that an arbitration agreement providing an employee the opportunity to opt out of arbitration was neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable.

• Townsend Ventures, LLC v. Hybrid Kinetic Group Limited, No. 1:17-CV-00130-GLR (D. Md. Aug. 31, 2017)

  08/31/2017

  Court granted motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, finding that reference in the arbitration agreement to rules of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) evidences an agreement to arbitrate arbitrability.

• Employer Trustees of Western Pennsylvania Teamsters v. Union Trustees of Western Pennsylvania Teamsters, No. 16-3359 (3d Cir. Aug. 31, 2017)

  08/31/2017

  Court of appeal reversed district court’s denial of petition to appoint arbitrator, finding that the district erred in finding that a contested right was not provided for in the contract and thus not subject to arbitration, since the interpretation of the contract was a matter for the arbitrator to determine.

• Clack v. United Services Automobile Association (USAA), No. 5:16-CV-01069-RCL (W.D. Tex. Aug. 31, 2017)

  08/31/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff had agreed to mandatory binding arbitration and no defense had been established.

• Luciano v. Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America-College Retirement Equities Fund, No. 3:15-CV-06726-MAS-DEA (D.N.J. Aug. 31, 2017)

  08/31/2017

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that, after successful motion to compel arbitration brought by all defendants, a sub-set of those defendants was not estopped from arguing that they were not parties to the arbitration agreement.

• AbbVie Inc. v. Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc., No. 17-CV-01815-EMC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2017)

  08/31/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration agreement covered patent disputes.  Court found that the license agreement was reasonably susceptible to the interpretation advanced by Novartis, namely that patent disputes were arbitrable, and was therefore ambiguous.  Further, if the parties had intended to carve out an exception to arbitration for patent disputes, they would have done so more clearly.  Court also found that Congress made clear that patent validity may be determined in arbitration if the parties so choose.

• Ziglar v. Express messenger Systems Inc., No. 2:16-CV-02726-SRB (D. Ariz. Aug. 31, 2017)

  08/31/2017

  Court dismissed defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement to be unconscionable because of provisions prohibiting the awarding of attorney’s fees and requiring cost-splitting.

• Lipinski v. Jones, No. 8:17-CV-02031-VMC-TGW (M.D. Fla. Aug. 30, 2017)

  08/30/2017

  Court dismissed petition to compel arbitration, finding that there was no federal jurisdiction over the claim.  Court held that the FAA alone did not supply it with subject matter jurisdiction over the claim as the FAA supplies substantive law but does not itself establish federal subject matter jurisdiction.

• Myers v. Credit One Bank, N.A., No. 5:16-CV-05214-JLS (E.D. Pa. Aug. 30, 2017)

  08/30/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case, declining to decide objections over agreement validity because the parties had agreed to defer questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.  Court dismissed plaintiff’s claim of waiver through delay in responding to her claim as factually unsupported.

• Dykes v. Cleveland Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, No. 4:15-CV-00076-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss Aug. 30, 2017)

  08/30/2017

  Court denied renewed motion to compel arbitration after determining that it could do so without a hearing.  Court held that, because defendants could not prove that the signatory of the applicable agreement was empowered to act as the principle’s agent, no binding agreement to arbitrate existed.

• Spano v. V & J National Enterprises, LLC, No. 6:16-CV-06419-EAW-MWP (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2017)

  08/30/2017

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that (i) the non-signatory defendants were bound to arbitrate as agents/alter-egos, but that (ii) the defendants had waived their right to compel arbitration by failing to participate in the parallel arbitration proceedings.

• Fraternal Order of Police Metro Transit Police Labor Committee, Inc. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), No. 1:17-CV-00644-TSE-MSN (E.D. Va. Aug. 30, 2017)

  08/30/2017

  Court granted motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, finding that claim for breach of a settlement agreement was subject to arbitration since the settlement agreement was “inextricably intertwined” with a collectively-bargained labor contract containing an arbitration clause.

• Axia NetMedia Corporation v. Massachusetts Technology Park Corporation, No. 4:17-CV-10482-TSH (D. Mass. Aug. 29, 2017)

  08/29/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, rejecting argument that the applicable arbitration agreement was illusory and thus invalid because it contained a unilateral right for defendant to elect arbitration.

• Griffin v. Senior Living Properties, LLC, 6:17-CV-00190-ILRL-KWR (E.D. Tex. Aug. 29, 2017)

  08/29/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court rejected arguments that defendant had waived its right by failing to timely raise the issue, reasoning that defendant had acted defensively, promptly, and without prejudice to plaintiff; or was precluded from arbitrating because it failed to first seek mediation, finding that the mediation provisions of the agreement were not mandatory and had, in any event, been bypassed by plaintiffs themselves.  Court likewise held that the arbitration agreement was not made unconscionable by its provisions concerning the applicable statute of limitations, limitations on discovery, or provision for attorney’s fees associated with compelling arbitration.

• Russell v. Dunlap & Kyle Tire Co., Inc. (Tennessee), No. 3:17-CV-00843 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 29, 2017)

  08/29/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the case.  Court held that the contested arbitration agreement between the parties bound plaintiff, rejecting challenges to its form.

• Tierra Verde Escape, LLC v. The Brittingham Group, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00100-GJQ-PJG (W.D. Mich. Aug. 28, 2017)

  08/28/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration in Hong Kong and stay proceedings, holding that it had the authority to compel a foreign arbitration because the envisaged performance was abroad.  Court rejected challenges to the validity of the underlying memorandum of understanding as failing to contest the arbitration clause itself.  Court also did not view the arbitration agreement’s reference to a non-existing arbitration association rules as fatal, holding this element to be severable from the underlying agreement to arbitrate.

• Hall v. The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00193-JHM-CHL (W.D. Ky. Aug. 28, 2017)

  08/28/2017

  Court held that under applicable state and federal precedent, beneficiaries’ claims for wrongful death were not subject to the arbitration agreement binding on the decedent.  However, any claims arising from the decedent’s right were subject to arbitration based on a valid agreement to arbitrate entered into under power of attorney and, therefore, granted in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, staying all claims.  Court rejected plaintiffs’ challenge to the validity of that arbitration agreement based on alleged deficiencies of that power of attorney.

• Legacy Carbon, LLC v. Potter, No. 1:17-CV-00231-SOM-KSC (D. Hawaii Aug. 28, 2017)

  08/28/2017

  Court denied without prejudice petition to compel arbitration against a third party, inviting petitioner to amend its submission with supplemental facts.  Court held that it was within its power to determine whether claims against third party defendant were arbitrable because the parties to the arbitration agreement had not clearly delegated such decisions to the arbitrator.  However, the court determined that it lacked sufficient basis in facts to determine whether the non-signatory third party (the president of an entity bound by the otherwise applicable arbitration agreement) could be compelled to arbitrate under theories of assumption, agency, and estoppel.

• Ford v. Combined Insurance Company of America, No. 5:17-CV-00103-RH-GRJ (N.D. Fla. Aug. 28, 2017)

  08/28/2017

  Magistrate judge recommended that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration be granted, concluding that challenges to the contract itself were reserved for the arbitrator since a valid arbitral agreement existed.  Although the original agreement was entered into between defendant’s parent company and plaintiff, court concluded the agreement applied to defendant-subsidiary, because the arbitration agreement explicitly indicated it included subsidiaries, successors and assigns.

• JusTours, Inc. v. Bogenius Group, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-00078-GMN-CWH (D. Nev. Aug. 25, 2017)

  08/25/2017

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the dispute was subject to the arbitration clause of the parties’ agreement, rejecting plaintiffs’ arguments that the agreement had been rescinded.  Court likewise rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the arbitration clause was invalid as a matter of state law, holding that any such law was preempted by the FAA.

• Johnson v. Retirement Plan of General Mills, Inc, No. 4:16-CV-00151-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind. Aug. 25, 2017)

  08/25/2017

  District court overruled objections to Magistrate Judge’s Opinion and Order and granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, rejecting an argument that the arbitration agreement was unsupported by consideration because it only required plaintiff to arbitrate her claims.  Court further held that defendant could enforce the agreement as an affiliate of its signatory or, in the alternative, as a third party beneficiary that was intended to benefit from the agreement.   Further, the court rejected arguments that a dispute over disability retirement benefits fell outside the broad scope the arbitration clause that covered “all” claims. Nor did the court find persuasive arguments that the agreement’s application had been waived, holding that defendant’s failure to respond to plaintiff’s query made after signing the agreement regarding its application to the disability claim did not constitute waiver and that defendant had not participated in litigation in a manner that would waive its rights to arbitrate. 

• Allen v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company, No. 6:16-cv-01603-RBD-KRS (M.D. Fla. Aug. 25, 2017)

  08/25/2017

  Court granted motion to dismiss labor claim without prejudice, holding that they had to be arbitrated instead.  Court rejected plaintiffs’ contentions regarding the enforceability of the arbitration agreement, holding that the parties had manifested a clear intent to arbitrate any such questions of arbitrability by incorporating the AAA Employment Dispute Resolution Rules, which set out that the arbitrator shall have the power to arbitrate the validity of the underlying arbitration agreement.

• Ace American Insurance Co. v. Guerriero, No. 2:17-CV-00820-CCC-JBC (D.N.J. Aug. 24, 2017)

  08/24/2017

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that the parties had a valid agreement to arbitrate, the defendant’s claims fell within the scope of the agreement, and the agreement was enforceable. 

• Wolin v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-06996-LDW-AYS (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2017)

  08/24/2017

  Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that it could not conclude that one plaintiff agreed to arbitrate any dispute and denied the motion to compel that plaintiff’s claims.  Court granted the motion to compel arbitration as to the other plaintiff who did agree to the arbitration provision in the credit card agreement because the provision clearly covered that plaintiff’s claims.

• Opie v. CVS Caremark, No. 1:16-CV-00159-SPW-TJC (D. Mont. Aug. 24, 2017)

  08/24/2017

  Court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and denied defendant’s motion to dismiss but granted its motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff consented to the arbitration agreement and that Montana’s reasonable expectations and fundamental rights rule did not apply here because the ninth circuit held the FAA preempts general state law contract defenses that have a disproportionate effect on arbitration.

• Developers Surety and Indemnity Co. v. Carothers Construction Inc., No. 2:17-CV-02292-JWL-KGG (D. Kan. Aug. 24, 2017)

  08/24/2017

  Court denied both plaintiff’s motion to remand the case to state court and defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer.  Court, applying the tenth circuit rule in cases seeking to compel arbitration that courts should look to the possible award in the arbitration to determine the amount in controversy to this suit seeking to enjoin defendant’s arbitration, held that the jurisdictional amount to remain in federal court was satisfied as the defendant in arbitration sought an amount exceeding $75,000.  Court further held that the plaintiff did not consent to arbitration of any claims on the bonds by defendant, the FAA did not require the plaintiff submit to arbitration of the underlying claims, and the plaintiff should not be estopped from opposing enforcement of the arbitration provision. 

• Mahamedi IP Law, LLP v. Paradice, No. 5:16-cv-02805-EJD (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2017)

  08/24/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the claim, finding that the dispute fell within the scope of a valid arbitration agreement. Court rejected plaintiffs’ proposal that it interpret the arbitration clause narrowly, reading it to have a broad application covering the dispute instead.  Court rejected argument that defendant had waived its right to arbitrate by initiating an earlier action in state court, holding that the resulting dismissal without prejudice did not constitute a judgment on the merits and thus did not prejudice plaintiffs.

• Arctic Glacier USA, Inc. v. Principal Life Insurance Company, No. 8:17-CV-00214-RFR-MDN (D. Neb. Aug. 24, 2017)

  08/24/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings.  Court reasoned that plaintiffs, which were not signatories to the arbitration agreement with defendant, could nevertheless enforce under successor and third party beneficiary theories.

• Rappley v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, No. 5:17-CV-00108-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2017)

  08/24/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that ordering arbitration would not contravene a fundamental public policy of California and the arbitration provision encompassed the dispute.

• Rappley v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, No. 5:17-CV-00108-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2017)

  08/24/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that there was a valid arbitration agreement which covered plaintiff’s claims.  Court found that plaintiff was not seeking public injunctive relief, as the class of persons plaintiff sought to represent was comprised of persons who were subjected to purportedly unlawful debt collection efforts; as such, there was no basis to conclude that enforcement of the arbitration agreement would violate fundamental California policy.  Court found that the terms of the arbitration were broad and encompassed any statutory claims.

• GGNSC Louisville St. Matthews v. Grevious, No. 3:16-CV-00829-DJH (W.D. Ky. Aug. 23, 2017)

  08/23/2017

  Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that it had jurisdiction and, on balance, abstention in favor of state court was not warranted.  Court then held the parties were compelled to arbitrate the claims asserted by defendant in state court pursuant to the terms of an alternative dispute resolution agreement and stayed the case pending arbitration.

• Lancaster v. Comcast Communications Management LLC, No. 2:16-CV-14446-DPH-MKM (E.D. Mich. Aug. 23, 2017)

  08/23/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held there was a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate and that plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

• Beckham v. Copart of Connecticut, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00603-CMC (D.S.C. Aug. 22, 2017)

  08/22/2017

  Court adopted the magistrate judge’s report recommending that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s complaint be granted and granted the motion.  Court held that plaintiff signed and agreed to be bound by her employer’s dispute resolution policy and agreement. 

• Chand v. Checksmart Financial LLC, No. 3:17-CV-03895-JSC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2017)

  08/22/2017

  Court granted defendant’s unopposed motion to compel arbitration, holding plaintiff agreed to arbitrate his claims and that the arbitration policy was not unconscionable.

• Fowler v. Omnova Solutions, No. 1:16-CV-00160-NBB-DAS (N.D. Miss. Aug 22, 2017)

  08/22/2017

  Court granted plaintiff’s summary judgment motion demanding arbitration.  Court held plaintiff’s claim fell within the scope of the arbitration provision in the employment agreement between the parties, that arbitration was mandatory, not permissive, and that plaintiff’s inability to submit his claim to the company grievance committee did not preclude his demand for arbitration.

• Rivera-Colon v. AT&T Mobility Puerto Rico, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01675-FAB (D.P.R. Aug. 21, 2017) 

  08/21/2017

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that pursuant to the FAA and first circuit precedent there was a valid agreement to arbitrate, the moving party was entitled to invoke the arbitration clause, the third-party was bound by the agreement, and the claim fell within the scope of the clause. As all claims were arbitrable, the court dismissed the case with prejudice.

• Maynard v. Valley Christian Academy, Inc., No. 5:16-CV-01889-KBB (N.D. Ohio Aug. 21, 2017)

  08/21/2017

  Magistrate judge granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, holding plaintiff’s five theories of unenforceability of her employment contract were not persuasive as the arbitration clause between the parties was valid and should be enforced. 

• Roman v. UBS Financial Services, Inc. of Puerto Rico, No. 3:12-CV-01663-CCC (D.P.R. Aug. 21, 2017)

  08/21/2017

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, holding that a valid agreement containing an arbitration provision existed between the parties, the defendants were entitled to invoke the arbitration clause, and the plaintiffs’ claim fell within the clause and must be arbitrated.

• Rahm v. TCF National Bank, No. 4:17-CV-04018-LLP (D.S.D. Aug. 21, 2017)

  08/21/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the parties entered into a valid agreement to arbitrate under South Dakota contract law and that plaintiff’s employment claims should be sent to arbitration. 

• Netplanner Systems, Inc. v. GSC Construction Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00150-CDL (M.D. Ga. Aug. 17, 2017)

  08/17/2017

  Court confirmed its prior ruling denying defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that defendants waived their right to compel arbitration by engaging in conduct inconsistent with insisting on their right to arbitrate the dispute, including waiting until the last minute before trial to raise the issue, which prejudiced the plaintiff.

• Cooper v. DST Systems, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01900-WHP (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2017)

  08/15/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration finding that the claims at issue fall squarely within the scope of the arbitration agreement; and that the defendant, as a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, may compel the plaintiff to arbitrate his claims under the doctrine of equitable estoppel.

• Manios Properties LLC v. Riverport Insurance Company of California, No. 2:17-CV-01700 (D. Ariz. Aug. 15, 2017)

  08/15/2017

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay the case. Court found that pursuant to §2 of the FAA, the court must find that a valid agreement to arbitrate exists and that the agreement encompasses the dispute at issue. Here, while there was a valid agreement to arbitrate, it did not encompass the dispute at issue because the agreement only applies to the “meaning or effect of any provision,” not the parties’ dispute of when the loss occurred.

• Crespo v. Matco Tools Corp., No. 3:17-CV-01394-GAG (D.P.R. Aug. 15, 2017)

  08/15/2017

  Court granted motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that parties had a valid agreement, plaintiffs’ claims fell within the scope of its clear and specific arbitration clause, and plaintiffs’ immediate termination did not trigger an exception to arbitration.  

• Dell’Oro Group, Inc. v. Weckel, No. 3:17-CV-00750-JD (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2017)

  08/14/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and administratively closed the case.  Court held the defendants did not waive their right to arbitration by engaging in litigation conduct comprised of a case management conference and the motion at issue, neither of which demonstrates that defendants acted inconsistently with their arbitration demand or prejudiced the plaintiff. Further, the non-signatory defendant is not absolutely barred from invoking the arbitration agreement since California law expressly allows non-signatories to enforce arbitration agreements on equitable estoppel grounds when the claims against the non-signatory “are dependent on or inextricably bound up with” the agreement featuring arbitration.

• Pagano v. GFI Securities, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-04728 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2017)

  08/14/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that there was an enforceable arbitration agreement between the parties which covered the dispute.  Court found that the arbitration agreement was broad.  Court found that whether res judicata and collateral estoppel precluded termination of employment was a merits argument that went beyond the threshold question of arbitrability, and that such arguments should be raised in arbitration.

• Minnieland Private Day School, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-01695-AJT-IDD (4th Cir. Aug. 11, 2017)

  08/11/2017

  Court of appeal affirmed the district court decision denying Applied Underwriters’ motion to compel arbitration, but found the lower court erred in applying the doctrine of judicial estoppel to hold the agreement at issue constituted an insurance contract.  Court held that, inter alia, a delegation provision within an arbitration agreement constitutes an additional, antecedent agreement to arbitrate, and therefore federal courts must consider challenges to delegation provisions before ordering compliance with such.  Because under Virginia law arbitration provisions, including delegation provisions, are void in putative insurance contracts, the district court did not err in denying the motion to compel.

• Potapowicz v. Gregerson Management Services, No. 4:16-CV-01999 (N.D. Ala. Aug. 11, 2017)

  08/11/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration on the basis that the type of claim asserted by the plaintiff is subject to mandatory arbitration pursuant to §2 of the FAA because (1) a valid agreement to arbitrate exists; (2) the claims fall within the scope of that agreement; and (3) the underlying contract evidences a transaction involving interstate commerce.

• Dye v. Tamko Building Products, Inc., No. 8:17-CV-590-T-35AEP (M.D. Fla. Aug. 11, 2017)

  08/11/2017

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the proceedings.  The putative class action arose out of allegedly defective shingles that the plaintiffs’ purchased from defendant, Tamko.  But, because the product’s limited warranty contained a valid arbitration clause, all parties were forced to arbitrate their claims.

• Disher v. Tamko Building Products, No. 3:14-CV-00740-SMY-SCW (S.D. Ill. Aug. 11, 2017)

  08/11/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that a non-signatory plaintiff seeking to enforce a contract it did not sign was estopped from avoiding the arbitration provision of that contract.

• GGNSC Louisville St. Mathews, LLC v. Phillips, No. 3:17-CV-00406-JHM-CHL (W.D. Ky. Aug. 10, 2017)

  08/10/2017

  Court granted petition to compel arbitration finding there was a valid arbitration agreement enforceable under the FAA and that all claims fell within the scope of the agreement.  Court rejected the motion to dismiss finding there was no necessity to join the administrator and enjoined defendants from proceeding in state court against the plaintiffs pending conclusion of arbitration.

• Brittania-U Nigeria Ltd. v. Chevron USA Inc., No. 16-20690 (5th Cir. Aug. 9, 2017)

  08/09/2017

  Court of appeal affirmed district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s case finding no error in the district court’s recognition that the parties signed a confidentiality agreement containing an arbitration provision that delegates arbitrability to the arbitrators.  Court also held that the arbitration provision’s adoption of UNCITRAL arbitration rules clearly and unmistakably delegated arbitrability.   

• GGNSC Louisville Camelot, LLC v. Coppedge, No. 3:16-CV-00834-TBR (W.D. Ky. Aug. 9, 2017)

  08/09/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding the FAA applied to the transaction, determining that the power of attorney was sufficiently broad to include an arbitration agreement, and concluding that the agreement was not unconscionable.  Court denied motion to dismiss, concluding that it had subject matter jurisdiction and enjoined defendants from pursing further claims against plaintiffs with the exception of loss of consortium.

• International Corrugated and Packing Supplies, Inc. v. Lear Corp., No. 17-50139 (5th Cir. Aug. 9, 2017)

  08/09/2017

  Court of appeal vacated district court’s denial of a motion to reconsider its order denying defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the district court incorrectly applied the FRCP Rule 59 standard for review of its decision rather than a proper Rule 54(b) analysis that the court recently clarified regarding reconsideration of an interlocutory order, and therefore remanded the case for reconsideration under the appropriate standard. 

• Klein v. Verizon Communications, Inc., No. 1:12-CV-00757-LMB-IDD (E.D. Va. Aug. 9, 2017)

  08/09/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings, reasoning that a modification providing for arbitration validly changed the parties’ agreement to require arbitration of the underlying claim.

• Commercial Lubricants, LLC v. Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc., No. 1:14-CV-07483-MKB-RLM (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2017)

  08/08/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment but reserved judgment on claim involving agreement with provision to arbitrate.  Court noted that defendant first raised the agreement’s arbitration clause seven months after plaintiff filed its claim and instructed plaintiff to brief any prejudice should the court decide to sever and refer the claim to arbitration.

• Wheeler v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., No. 6:17-CV-00847-RGJ-PJH (W.D. La. Aug. 8, 2017)

  08/08/2017

  Court deferred resolution of defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.  Court held that more discovery was necessary to determine whether a valid arbitration agreement was entered into by the parties.

• Byrne v. K12 Services Inc., No. 2:17-CV-04311-SDW-LDW (D.N.J. Aug. 8, 2017)

  08/08/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the complaint.  Pursuant to the FAA, the court found a valid agreement to arbitrate and determined that the wrongful termination dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration clause.

• Carlton Energy Group LLC v. Cliveden Petroleum Company Limited, Case 4:13-cv-00095 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 8, 2017)
   

  08/08/2017

  Court issued order adopting magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation of June 23, 2017, staying the proceedings pending arbitration where the non-signatories to the arbitration agreement stipulated consent to be bound by the arbitral clause.

• Dumas v. Warner Literary Group, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00518-RM-NYW (D. Colo. Aug. 8, 2016)

  08/08/2017

  Magistrate judge granted motion to compel and stay proceedings, recommending that the matter be administratively closed.  Court determined that the dispute was subject to a valid arbitration agreement, rejecting plaintiff’s contention that the agreement was ambiguous and thus unenforceable.  Court likewise rejected a claim that the agreement had been fraudulently induced, reasoning that it did not challenge the arbitration clause itself, but the agreement as a whole.  Nor did the court agree that any statute or policy rendered the claim non-arbitrable.

• Jones v. Waffle House, Inc., No. 16-15574 (11th Cir. Aug. 7, 2017)

  08/07/2017

  Court of appeal vacated the district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel and remanded with instructions to stay the case pending arbitration.   Court held that the delegation provision in the agreement between the parties was valid and that the agreement evinced the parties’ intent to arbitrate all gateway issues.

• Reliable Energy Solutions v. Amalfi Apartment Corporation, No. 4:16-CV-03346 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 7, 2017)

  08/07/2017

  Court adopted magistrate judge’s June 30, 2017 memorandum and recommendation and granted the motion to compel arbitration staying proceedings pending completion of arbitration. 

• Arevalo Tortilleria, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc., No. 15-56830 (9th Cir. Aug. 4, 2017)

  08/04/2017

  Court of appeal vacated district court’s judgment dismissing the case and compelling arbitration.  Court remanded to the district court for a trial on whether plaintiff executed the arbitration agreement, noting that, under the FAA, a party that raises a genuine issue of fact with respect to the execution of agreements is entitled to a trial.

• Senter v. Equifax Information Services LLC, No. 5:16-CV-00875-SL (N.D. Ohio Aug. 4, 2017)

  08/04/2017

  Court denied plaintiffs’ petition to compel arbitration, holding that plaintiffs could not establish that the parties had a valid arbitration agreement or that any claim plaintiffs had was within the scope of any purported arbitration agreement.

• Amergent Techs, LLC v. Transatlantic Lines, LLC, No. 3-16-CV-01140-JLS-JLB (S.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2017)

  08/04/2017

  Court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss petition to compel arbitration.  Court held it did not have personal jurisdiction over the respondent, who did not purposefully avail itself of the benefits of the forum’s jurisdiction.  The formation of the contract containing the arbitration clause was not alone sufficient to establish minimum contacts with the state. 

• McAllister  v. The St. Louis Rams, LLC, No. 4:16-CV-00172-SNLJ, No. 4:16-CV-00189, No. 4:16-CV-00262, No. 4:16-CV-00297 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 4, 2017)

  08/04/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion for stay pending arbitration in part.  Court held that both Missouri state law and § 3 of the FAA requires courts to stay any suit with an issue referable to arbitration.  Court further held that the remainder of the claims in litigation between the non-arbitrating plaintiff groups and the defendant was discretionary and declined to stay the litigation based on three factors, including the risk of inconsistent rulings, the extent to which parties will be bound by the arbiters’ decision, and the prejudice that could result from delays.

• Iberiabank v. Previty Surgical PLLC, No. 4:17-CV-00160 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 4, 2017)

  08/04/2017

  Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court denied as untimely defendants’ motion, filed five months after plaintiff filed suit and three weeks after the court’s dispositive motion deadline, as it would cause undue delay and unfairly prejudice the plaintiff. 

• Chassen v. Fidelity National Financial Inc., No. 15-2814 (3rd Cir. Aug. 3, 2017)

  08/03/2017

  Court of appeal affirmed district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Circuit court agreed that plaintiffs had not consented to arbitration when they signed an owner’s policy that included an arbitration provision that was later amended to require both parties to consent to arbitration before arbitration could be compelled.  Court rejected appellant’s arguments that the amendment to the arbitration agreement had resulted from mutual mistake or that it should not apply because two agreements at issue were not incorporated.

• Valenzuela v. Crest-Mex Corporation, No. 3:16-CV-01129-D (N.D. Tex. Aug. 3, 2017)

  08/03/2017

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, but denied defendants’ motion to dismiss.  Court found there were valid agreements to arbitrate because plaintiffs had received notice of their employer’s arbitration policy and continued to work and accept pay, which constituted an acceptance under Texas law.  Court also found that plaintiffs’ claims were within the scope of the arbitration agreements; that the agreements were not unconscionable; and that plaintiffs had to arbitrate their claims against all defendants, even those who were not parties to the arbitration agreements.

• Morgan v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00869-JAM-KJN (E.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2017)

  08/03/2017

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that there was a valid arbitration agreement and the dispute at issue fell within the scope of that agreement.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that defendant had waived its right to compel arbitration, noting that plaintiff had not met the “heavy burden” in showing the waiver elements. 

• Adams v. Conn Appliances Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00362-DLR (D. Ariz. Aug. 3, 2017)

  08/03/2017

  Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss, but granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration finding that the parties entered into a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate questions of arbitrability.  Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable and that defendant waived its right to arbitrate.

• Starke v. Squaretrade, Inc., No. 1-16-CV-07036-NGG (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2017)

  08/03/2017

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that defendant failed to establish an enforceable arbitration agreement with the plaintiff where the arbitration provision appeared in a terms and conditions document provided by hyperlink in an email confirming plaintiff’s purchase.

• Varela v. Lamps Plus, Inc., No. 16-56085 (9th Cir. Aug. 3, 2017)

  08/03/2017

  Circuit court, in split decision, affirmed district court holding that defendants agreed to class arbitration.  Circuit court held that because the agreement was capable of two reasonable constructions, the district court correctly found ambiguity and that state contract principles required construction against the drafter of the adhesive agreement.

• Dahir v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., No. 3:16-CV-00292-GCH (S.D. Tex. Aug. 2, 2017)

  08/02/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held the New York Convention controlled an arbitration agreement between two United States citizens, as plaintiff was not exempt from arbitration because of his status as a Jones Act seaman.  Unlike § 1 of the FAA that exempts seamen’s employment contracts from arbitration, the New York Convention provides no such exemption and the FAA applies only to the extent it is not in conflict with the New York Convention.

• Nelson v. Carl Black Chevrolet of Nashville, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00687-WDC (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 2, 2017)

  08/02/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion for a stay pending arbitration.  Court held the defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate by failing to raise arbitration as an affirmative defense in its answer.  Court further held the agreement between the parties reserved gateway issues of arbitrability and enforceability to the arbitrator -- who could determine whether the agreement applied to the plaintiff’s second period of employment with the defendant, and that the plaintiff’s whistleblowing and retaliation claims were not beyond the scope of the agreement. 

• Daniels v. Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01851-CBS (D. Colo. Aug. 1, 2017)

  08/01/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, stayed the case pending completion of arbitration, and directed plaintiff to show cause as to why he could not bear the costs of arbitration.  In making its decision, the court discussed the tensions between the “arbitrability doctrine” and the “effective vindication doctrine,” which allows the striking down of arbitration agreements that operate as a “prospective waiver of a party’s right to pursue statutory remedies.”

• Goodly v. Check-6 Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00334-GKF-TLW (N.D. Okla. Aug. 1, 2017)

  08/01/2017

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitratio, finding that defendant had waived its right to demand arbitration.  Fourteen months after the lawsuit was filed, and over six weeks after the class action opt-in period closed, defendant filed its motion to compel arbitration, arguing that each opt-in plaintiff had signed an agreement containing an arbitration clause.  Court held that, per the Tenth Circuit’s Peterson decision, defendant had waived its right to arbitration.

• Sugick v. New York Life Insurance Company, No. 2:17-CV-10211-RHC-RSW (E.D. Mich. July 31, 2017)

  07/31/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss complaint pursuant to the FAA.  Court held that plaintiff’s argument that his assent to the employment contract was obtained through fraud goes to the question of the contract’s validity, which should be decided by the arbitrator.

• Yeransian v. Markel Corporation, No. 1:16-CV-00808-GMS (D. Del. July 31, 2017)

  07/31/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to stay litigation and compel arbitration finding that, even though the contract between the parties did not contain a traditional arbitration agreement, it was nevertheless an agreement to arbitrate and the present dispute fell within the scope of that agreement.  Court also found that plaintiff’s arguments that defendant had either waived its right to invoke arbitration or should be estopped from doing so were not applicable.

• Elsadig v. Luxottica Retail North America, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-02055-L (N.D. Tex. July 31, 2017)

  07/31/2017

  Court adopted magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations that defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration be granted.  Court found that all of plaintiff’s claims were subject to arbitration under the agreements between the parties.  Therefore, finding no other reason to retain jurisdiction over the matter, the court dismissed the action with prejudice.

• Golden Gate National Senior Care, LLC v. Newkam, No. 1:16-CV-01791-JEJ (M.D. Pa. July 31, 2017)

  07/31/2017

  Court granted Golden Gate’s motion for summary judgment, finding that no genuine issue of material fact existed in that Newkam agreed to arbitrate and that the agreement was valid and enforceable.  Court disagreed with Newkman’s argument that the arbitration agreement was substantively and procedurally unconscionable.  Finally, court found that a wrongful death claim could be severed from other claims covered by the arbitration clause and that an arbitration agreement does not need to be dated to be valid.

• Aikens v. Johnson, No. 3:16-CV-00729-SDD-EWD (M.D. La. July 31, 2017)

  07/31/2017

  Court stayed the action pending arbitration finding that the Individual Retirement Account (IRA) Custodial Agreement at issue contained a valid arbitration agreement whose scope extended to the present matter.  Court noted that plaintiff had failed to provide any proper legal challenge to the existence of the arbitration clause and found that the presence of a co-defendant did not foreclose a stay pending arbitration.

• Catamaran Corp. v. Towncrest Pharmacy, 16-03275 (8th Cir. July 28, 2017)

  07/28/2017

  Circuit court reversed and remanded district court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.  Circuit court held, in case of first impression in the circuit, that absent clear and unmistakable language to the contrary, the question of class arbitration is for the courts to determine as a substantive question of arbitrability.  Circuit court further held that the parties’ agreements did not delegate the issue of class arbitration to an arbitrator, and thus remanded case for district court to determine whether a contractual basis of class arbitration exists in the parties’ agreements.

• Rajapakse v. Credit Acceptance Corporation, No. 2:16-CV-13144-MFL-SDD (E.D. Mich. July 28, 2017)

  07/28/2017

  Magistrate judge recommended that motion to compel arbitration be granted and the matter dismissed without prejudice because the claim was subject to a valid arbitration agreement.  Magistrate judge also recommended against a stay, finding that all of the claims presented were subject to arbitration.

• Tarazi  v. Truehope, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-01038-LAK-RWL (S.D.N.Y. July 28, 2017)

  07/28/2017

  Magistrate judge recommended granting in part defendant’s motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration. Pursuant to the FAA the magistrate judge found that the contract contained a valid, enforceable arbitration agreement, and that it was proper to dismiss all claims except claims for unjust enrichment.

• Cassity v. GCI, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00004 (D. Alaska Jul. 27, 2017)

  07/27/2017

  
  Court granted motion to compel arbitration in part, finding that the parties had entered into a valid arbitration agreement that covered all but one of petitioner’s claims and rejecting petitioner’s arguments of fraud, duress, unconscionability, and waiver, while declining to find that federal law precluded arbitration of the claims in question.

• American Process Inc. v. GranBio Investimentos S.A., No. 1:16-CV-4234-MHC (N.D. Ga. July 26, 2017)

  07/26/2017

  Court denied motion for an injunction and granted cross-motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that by incorporating AAA rules the parties had delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, including the scope of the contractual carve-out for court-issued injunctive relief.

• Pinto v. USAA Insurance Agency Incorporated of Texas (FN), No. 2:17-CV-00873-DGC (July 26, 2017 D. Ariz.)

  07/26/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that an electronic signature was not required for consent to arbitration where the plaintiff had been made aware in writing of the arbitration provision and rejecting plaintiff’s defenses based on unconscionability and waiver.

• Davis v. Uber Technologies, INC., No. 2:16-CV-06122-MMB (E.D. Pa. Jul. 25, 2017)

  07/25/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the parties’ contract clearly delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator and that, because plaintiff had failed specifically to challenge the validity of the delegation clause, the gateway issue of arbitrability was to be decided by the arbitrator.

• Jeffries v. Wells Fargo & Company, No. 2:16-CV-01987-LSC (N.D. Ala. Jul. 25, 2017)

  07/25/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that it could not decide challenges to the arbitration agreement’s validity, since the parties had delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator and plaintiffs had failed to specifically challenge that delegation, and that defendants had not waived their right to arbitrate by settling in related litigation.

• Morrison v. Credit One Bank, No. 2:16-CV-03353-JS (E.D. Pa. Jul. 25, 2017)

  07/25/2017

  Court granted renewed motion to compel arbitration, both because plaintiff had failed to oppose the motion and because he had not provided any evidence that his claim falls outside the parties’ arbitration agreement.

• Raju v. Murphy, No. 3:17-CV-00357-CWR-LRA (S.D. Miss. Jul. 25, 2017)

  07/25/2017

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that plaintiff had waived his right to arbitrate by filing the action before the court.

• Barreto v. Jec II, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-09729-KBF (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 25, 2017)

  07/25/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed case, finding that, even if the arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable, it was not substantively unconscionable and therefore enforceable, and that principles of estoppel required the plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims against even those defendants who were not signatories to the arbitration agreement.

• Henry Controls, Inc. v. Ultra Electronics, No. 1:17-CV-00276-SS (W.D. Tex. Jul. 25, 2017)

  07/25/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case, finding that since the parties’ dispute was subject to a broad arbitration agreement, it is for the arbitrator, and not the court, to determine whether petitioner’s claims are frivolous, and rejecting the petitioner’s argument that defendant had waived its right to appoint an arbitrator.

• O'Meara v. Intepros Incorporated, No. 3:16-CV-01840-HBF (D. Conn. Jul. 24, 2017)

  07/24/2017

  District court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings during its pendency, finding that the arbitration forum and choice of law provisions were not unconscionable and that defendant had not waived its right to arbitrate.

• Amuchie v. Carmax Auto Superstores Inc, No. 6:16-CV-03074-TMC (D.S.C. Jul. 24, 2017)

  07/24/2017

  District court adopted magistrate’s recommendation to compel arbitration and dismiss the claim, finding that plaintiff had failed to show that there was no valid arbitration agreement between the parties.

• Grant v. Performance Contracting, INC., No. 3:17-CV-00008-RLY-MPB (S.D. Ind. Jul. 24, 2017)

  07/24/2017

  District court granted in part motion to compel arbitration, rejecting it with respect to a claim of discrimination upon holding that it was not within the scope of the arbitration agreement; court stayed proceedings pending arbitration with respect to all claims, finding that the facts at issue in the arbitration were pivotal to the non-arbitrable claim as well.

• Lathan v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 16-CV-794 (E.D. Wis. July 24, 2017)

  07/24/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that the parties’ arbitration agreement covered the dispute and that the challenge to the arbitration agreement’s validity was for the arbitrator to decide, since the parties’ agreement contained a valid and enforceable delegation clause to that effect.

• Bradford v. Flagship Facility Services Inc., No. 5:17-CV-01245-LHK (N.D. Cal. Jul. 24, 2017)

  07/24/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the action, finding that it had jurisdiction to rule on the question of arbitrability, since the parties had not delegated this question to arbitration, and rejecting arguments that the arbitration agreement was substantively or procedurally unconscionable or that compelling arbitration would result in impermissible claim splitting.

• Armenta v. Staffworks, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00011-BAS-NLS (S.D. Cal. Jul. 21, 2017)

  07/21/2017

  District court denied  motion to compel arbitration and strike class claims, finding that the arbitration agreement is unenforceable, since by failing to provide for class arbitration, it unlawfully undercuts an employee’s right to concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act.

• Guerrero v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01300-LJA LJT (E.D. Cal. Jul. 21, 2017)

  07/21/2017

  District court stayed proceedings and held defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in abeyance pending a forthcoming Supreme Court decision regarding the enforceability of agreements requiring an employee to arbitrate claims against an employer on an individual, rather than collective, basis.

• Shoebacca LTD v. K-2 Corp., No. 3:17-CV-00473-G (N.D. Tex. Jul. 21, 2017)

  07/21/2017

  District Court granted motion to dismiss, finding that even though the arbitration agreement was a narrow one, plaintiff had failed to overcome the presumption in favor of arbitration, since it had not provided clear evidence that the parties did not intend for the claim to be arbitrable.

• McGhee v. North American Bancard, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00586-AJB-KSC (S.D. Cal. Jul. 21, 2017)

  07/21/2017

  District court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff had not manifested his assent to arbitration, since the agreement containing the arbitration clause could not be qualified as a (modified) “clickwrap” agreement.

• Gridsmart Technologies, Inc. v. Marlin Controls, Inc., No. 17-5121 (6th Cir. July 20, 2017)

  07/20/2017

  Court of appeal affirmed district court’s vacatur of arbitration award, finding that, following termination of the contract, no enforceable contract existed as to matters at issue, and the arbitration clause did not survive termination.

• Eagle Rebar & Cable Company, Inc. v. Southern Industrial Contractors, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00025-LG-RHW (S.D. Miss. July 20, 2017)

  07/20/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that a valid arbitration agreement covering the dispute at issue existed based on the record before it, and in light of the fact that the party against whom the agreement was to be enforced had not filed opposition papers or presented any reason for denying the motion.  However, the court refused to grant the motion as to claims against a defendant who had not appeared in the lawsuit.

• Kaufman v. Sony Pictures Television, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-12027-LTS (D. Mass. July 20, 2017)

  07/20/2017

  Court granted motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, finding that the arbitration clause in an agreement governing the plaintiff’s participation on a TV show was (i) not procedurally unconscionable, as it was clearly disclosed in bold, capital letters on a page the plaintiff initialed, and (ii) not substantively unconscionable since it was not one sided.

• Lopez v. YourPeople Incorporated, No. 2:16-CV-03982-JZB (D. Ariz. July 20, 2017)

  07/20/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that question of arbitrability was delegated to the arbitrator and that the arbitration agreement, including the delegation clause, was not procedurally or substantively unconscionable.

• Frank N. Magid Associates, Inc. v. Marrs, No. 1:16-CV-00198-LRR (N.D. Iowa July 20, 2017)

  07/20/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding (i) that, although dispute resolution provisions allowed one party to choose between three fora and required the other party to pursue arbitration, it was not unconscionable; and (ii) that question of whether counterclaims fall within the scope of the arbitration is one of arbitrability delegated to the arbitrator to decide.

• Mathis v. Lendmark Financial Services, LLC, No. 7:16-CV-00355-FL (E.D.N.C. July 20, 2017)

  07/20/2017

  Court granted motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, finding that, although there were missing pages in the version of the operative note, it had been adequately established that an arbitration agreement was in the original version signed by the plaintiff.

• EmployBridge LLC v. Riven Rock Staffing, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00833-WJ-KK (D.N.M. July 19, 2017)

  07/19/2017

  Court granted motion to stay pending arbitration, finding that non-arbitrable claims were intertwined with arbitral claims.

• Developers Surety and Indemnity Company v. Carothers Construction Inc., No. 9:17-CV-01419-RMG (D.S.C. July 18, 2017)

  07/18/2017

  Court denied motion to dismiss claim seeking declaration that third party was not bound to arbitrate and transferred to jurisdiction of seat to compel arbitration, finding that a surety company’s liability is subordinate to that of the principal and thus is bound by the principle’s agreement to arbitrate.

• Mason v. Regions Bank, No. 1:16-CV-01299-RP (W.D. Tex. July 18, 2017)

  07/18/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that an assignee may invoke the assignors right to compel arbitration.

• Presta v. Omni Hotels Management Corporation, No. 4:17-CV-00912 (S.D. Tex. July 18, 2017)

  07/18/2017

  Court granted motion for partial summary judgment and denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement was illusory since it was subject to a savings clause that allowed the employer to unilaterally modify or revoke the agreement after a dispute had arisen but before a claim had been filed.

• Bechtel Infrastructure Corp. v. S & N Communications, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01221-LMM (N.D. Ga. July 18, 2017)

  07/18/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that defendant did not waive its right to arbitration, that arbitration provisions were not permissive but provided the parties with a choice to continue a dispute in arbitration, and the rights at issue fell within the arbitration provisions such that all the claims should go to arbitration.

• Scheurer v. Fromm Family Foods LLC, No. 16-3327 (7th Cir. July 17, 2017)

  07/17/2017

  Circuit court affirmed district court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration, finding that third-party had no standing to invoke arbitration agreement under Wisconsin contract law doctrine of equitable estoppel.

• Dlorah, Inc. v. KLE Construction, LLC, No. 5:16-CV-05102-JLV (D.S.D. July 17, 2017)

  07/17/2017

  Court granted motion to stay the case pending arbitration, finding that question of whether procedural prerequisites to arbitration had been met was for the arbitrator to decide, and that arbitration agreement was mandatory in nature notwithstanding the existence of procedural prerequisites.

• Money Mailer LLC v. Brewer, No. 2:15-CV-01215-RSL (W.D. Wash. July 17, 2017)

  07/17/2017

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that party had waived its rights under the arbitration agreement by initiating litigation through its alter ego.

• Laschkewitsch v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company, No. 5:14-CV-00632-D (E.D.N.C. July 17, 2017)

  07/17/2017

  Court denied motion to reconsider prior order rejecting motion to modify or correct arbitration award, finding that it did not clearly err in concluding that an arbitration agreement existed and no recognized ground for enforcing the award existed under the FAA or common law.

• McKee v. Audible, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-1941-GW-E (C.D. Cal. July 17, 2017)

  07/17/2017

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration by one of defendants, holding that it had not demonstrated that a valid arbitration agreement existed between that defendant and the plaintiff, rejecting arguments that it could benefit from the arbitration agreement of its affiliate co-defendant.  However, court granted that co-defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, denying plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable as a contract of adhesion or substantively unconscionable because it permitted unilateral modification, contained certain carve-outs, prohibited public injunctive relief, and contained a class action waiver.  Court agreed that the agreement’s limit on liability was one-sided and arbitrary and thus substantively unconscionable, severing the offending provision. 

• Olivares v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-06062-JLA (N.D. Ill. July 15, 2017)

  07/15/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff entered into valid and enforceable arbitration agreements, did not “opt out” of the arbitration provisions, and defendant’s delegation clause is clear and unmistakable evidence that plaintiff agreed to arbitrate threshold issues. 

• Weiss v. Macy’s Retail Holdings Inc., No. 1:16-CV-07660-AKH (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2017)

  07/14/2017

  Court rejected motion to compel arbitration, finding that no binding arbitration agreement was formed as program that allowed employee to opt out of arbitration did not state or imply that acceptance of arbitration was a mandatory condition of employment, and thus employee’s silence was not acceptance of arbitration.

• Mountain Valley Property, Inc. v. Applied Risk Services, Inc., No. 16-2189 (1st Cir. July 13, 2017)

  07/13/2017

  Court of appeal affirmed denial of motion to vacate arbitrator’s decision that the dispute was not arbitrable, finding that the arbitrator issued a well-reasoned award and therefore did not manifestly disregard the law in determining that, under the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 USC §§ 1011-1015, the Nebraska Uniform Arbitration Act reverse preempts the Federal Arbitration Act in matters of insurance, and the Nebraska Uniform Arbitration Act bans arbitration or insurance-related cases regardless of the parties’ intent.

• Webb v. Farmers of North America, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00080-FJG (W.D. Mo. July 13, 2017)

  07/13/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that reference to AAA rules and broad arbitration clause evidenced a clear intent to submit questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

• Franlogic Scout Development, LLC v. Scott Holdings, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-05042-JHS (E.D. Pa. July 12, 2017)

  07/12/2017

  Court denied petition to compel arbitration and granted motion to dismiss, finding that, although the subject matter of the dispute related to an agreement with an arbitration clause, the parties had agreed that another agreement without an arbitration clause would control in the event of conflict, and the pre-conditions for arbitration under the first agreement were in any event not met.

• Unite Here International Union v. Shingle Springs Bank of Miwok Indians, No. 2:16-CV-00384-TLN-EFB (E.D. Cal. July 12, 2017)

  07/12/2017

  Court granted petitioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in action to compel arbitration, finding that an agreement to arbitrate “any disputes over the interpretation or application of” the operative agreement was sufficiently broad to require questions of arbitrability to be submitted to the arbitrator.

• Powers Distributing Company, Inc. v. Grenzebach Corporation, No. 4:16-CV-12740-TGB-EAS (E.D. Mich. July 12, 2017)

  07/12/2017

  Court granted motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, finding that the plaintiff’s common law and other claims could not be maintained without reference to obligations whose scope is determined by contracts subject to arbitration.

• Sanum Investment Ltd. v. San Marco Capital Partners LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00320-SLR (D. Del. July 12, 2017)

  07/12/2017

  Court granted motion to dismiss, holding that defendants, as non-signatories to a deed, could enforce an arbitration clause therein against the signatory plaintiffs because the defendants had a sufficiently close relationship to the other executing party to the deed and all of the claims were intertwined with the deed.  Court also held the plaintiffs were estopped from avoiding arbitration with the non-signatories. 

• Creasy v. Seelbach and Co., Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00742-AAT (M.D. Tenn. July 11, 2017)

  07/11/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff did not challenge the validity or applicability of the agreement to arbitrate, and therefore, when presented with an issue that is referable to arbitration pursuant to a valid arbitration agreement, on the application of either party, the court must stay the suit and compel arbitration.

• MacRury v. Am. Steamship Co., No. 1:16-CV-13889-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich. July 11, 2017)

  07/11/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to stay and compel arbitration.  Court, applying the sixth circuit’s four-factor test to determine if a case should be dismissed or stayed and arbitration compelled, held that because of the federal policy favoring arbitration, and the broad scope of the arbitration agreement, it would compel arbitration because the plaintiff’s complaint is either governed by the agreement as it relates to a preexisting injury or fails to state a claim because any injury was new.    

• Coleman v. Sys. Dialing LLC, No. 1:15-CV-03868-DLC (S.D.N.Y. July 11, 2017)

  07/11/2017

  Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute his claims.  Court held that FRCP 41(b) permits the court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute, even though the FAA requires that federal courts stay rather than dismiss a case when all claims are referred to arbitration and a stay is requested.  Court held that dismissal with prejudice was warranted in this case where the legal guardian of the plaintiff was on notice regarding his pattern of delay in commencing ordered arbitration proceedings, where no status letter had been received a year later, and where defendants had been substantially prejudiced. 

• Cho v. Mallon & McCool, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00453-KBJ (D.D.C. July 11, 2017)

  07/11/2017

  Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the case.  Court held that the D.C. Circuit requires a party’s request to stay proceedings referable to arbitration under § 3 of the FAA to be invoked at the first available opportunity or the right is presumptively forfeited; court also held that plaintiff had repeatedly acted inconsistently with the intent to exercise any right to arbitration that he may have possessed and in doing so plaintiff’s litigation activities had imposed substantial costs on the defendants and the court. 

• UBS Financial Services, Inc. v. Zimmerman, No. 5:16-CV-00155-FL (W.D.N.C. July 11, 2017)

  07/11/2017

  Court granted motion for permanent injunction requiring defendant to withdraw arbitration, finding that permitting an arbitration to proceed in the absence of an arbitration agreement would cause irreparable injury.

• Big City Small World Bakery Café, LLC v. Francis David Corp., No. 16-CV-12652-DML (E.D. Mich. July 11, 2017)

  07/11/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, holding that the arbitration clause contained with plaintiff’s signed credit card merchant agreement was not unconscionable and therefore plaintiff must pursue its dispute in an arbitral forum.

• Drayton v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, No. 3:16-CV-00046-BJD-JBT (M.D. Fla. July 11, 2016)

  07/11/2017

  Magistrate judge recommended (and court later adopted) that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration be denied because the contract between the parties did not contain an arbitration provision.  Additionally, defendant could not subscribe to an arbitration agreement in a related contract because, under Florida law, a non-party to an arbitration agreement cannot compel arbitration, and exceptions under equitable estoppel and the scope of the arbitration provision did not apply in the present case.

• Portland Gen. Elec. Co. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., No. 16-35628 (9th Cir. July 10, 2017)

  07/10/2017

  Court of appeals vacated the judgment of the district court which had entered a preliminary injunction prohibiting the appellant sureties from pursuing claims against the plaintiff-appellee in arbitration and denied a mandatory stay of the judicial proceeding under § 3 of the FAA.  Circuit court held that the arbitration agreement incorporated the ICC Rules and thus constituted a clear and unmistakable delegation of gateway arbitrability issues to the arbitrator to determine the scope of the arbitration clause, and remanded to the district court for further proceedings.  

• Layne Winters v. AT & T Mobility Services, LLC, No. 4:17-CV-04053-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill. July 10, 2017)

  07/10/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that FAA governs federal courts’ treatment of litigants’ arbitration agreements and that Illinois contract law applied to plaintiff’s contention that she did not enter into the unambiguous electronic contract containing both an arbitration clause and an “opt-out” provision.  Court held plaintiff offered no evidence to suggest she had attempted to “opt out” and “in failing to do so, manifested her intent to be bound by the terms of the arbitration agreement, which must be enforced.”

• Johnson & Johnson International v. Puerto Rico Hospital Supply, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01405-FAB (D.P.R. July 10, 2017)

  07/10/2017

  Court granted one defendant’s motion to compel arbitration but denied the other defendant’s, as the latter was neither a party to, nor a third-party beneficiary of, the agreement at issue.  Court held that there was a valid agreement that contained an arbitration provision, that only claims implicating the agreement are arbitrable, and that while one defendant is entitled to invoke the arbitration while the other was not, it was in the interest of justice to stay all claims pending arbitration.

• Freeman v. Progress Residential Prop. Manager, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00356-GCH (S.D. Tex. July 10, 2017)

  07/10/2017

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, holding that where one party has unilateral authority to terminate an arbitration agreement, under Texas law the agreement is unenforceable because it is “not supported by consideration and must be considered illusory.”  

• Dennie v. Medimmune, Inc., No. 8:16-CV-03643-PX (D. Md. July 10, 2017)

  07/10/2017

  Court granted one defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the action.  Court held that the arbitration clause applied to the defendant who was a nonsignatory to the agreement and that the clause covered the conduct at issue in dispute.  Court concluded that as all the issues in the lawsuit were arbitrable, the FAA requires a court to stay judicial proceedings involving issues covered by written arbitration agreement. 

• Kelleher v. Dream Catcher, L.L.C., No. 1:16-CV-02092-APM (D.D.C. July 10, 2017)

  07/10/2017

  Court denied defendant’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s prior opinion and order denying defendant’s motion to stay and compel arbitration.  Court held that defendant had forfeited its right to arbitrate plaintiff’s claims by waiting nearly six months to move for arbitration and not timely invoking its right to arbitrate at the earliest opportunity, which caused plaintiff to incur costs. 

• Forby v. One Techs, LP, No. 3:16-CV-856-L (N.D. Tex. July 10, 2017)

  07/10/2017

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case with prejudice.  Court held that there was no dispute over the existence of a valid arbitration clause and that the dispute fell within that clause.  Court further held that even though defendants substantially invoked the judicial process by seeking a decision on the merits before attempting to arbitrate and waiting nearly thirteen months after the transfer of the case to compel arbitration, plaintiff failed to establish she suffered sufficient prejudice from defendants’ actions to the extent required by existing precedent and Fifth Circuit authority.

• Kutluca v. PQ New York Inc., No. 1:16-CV-03070-VSB (S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2017)

  07/10/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the plaintiff’s agreed to arbitrate by agreed to create accounts, and that the plaintiff’s statutory claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreements.

• Lesneski v. Ross Stores, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00754-GCM (W.D.N.C. July 7, 2017)

  07/07/2017

  Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss or to compel arbitration by staying the judicial proceedings pending arbitration.  Court held that the dispute resolution agreement entered into by the parties was supported by adequate consideration and was not procedurally or substantively unconscionable and therefore directed the parties to proceed to arbitration.

• Hargen-Rodriguez v. UBS Trust Co. of Puerto Rico, No. 3:16-CV-02340-FAB (D.P.R. July 7, 2017)

  07/07/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case without prejudice.  Court held defendants demonstrated the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, plaintiffs’ unelaborated conclusion that the arbitration clause is unconscionable was waived, and that plaintiffs’ claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreements.  Court dismissed the case under the first circuit’s holding that a court may dismiss rather than stay a case pursuant to § 3 of the FAA.

• Burch v. P.J. Cheese, Inc., No. 2:09-CV-01640-SLB (11th Cir. July 7, 2017)

  07/07/2017

  Court of appeal affirmed district court’s order compelling arbitration, finding that the specific procedures provided in § 4 of the FAA for “demanding a jury trial on arbitrability issues displace the general procedures for demanding a jury trial.”  Court noted that plaintiff had ample time and opportunity to proceed to trial and refused to create a bright line rule that the court loses authority to compel arbitration after some specified time. 

• Adams v. Anytime Labor-Kansas LLC, No. 4:16-00448-CV-RK (W.D. Mo. July 6, 2017)

  07/06/2017

  Court had previously ordered plaintiffs to submit their claims to individual arbitration instead of class arbitration.  Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration asking the court, for the first time, to allow an arbitrator to determine whether the arbitration agreement allowed for class arbitration.  Court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration finding that plaintiffs had waived the argument of “who decides” by not raising it when defendant’s motion to compel arbitration was briefed.

• Bey v. Citi Health Card, No. 2:15-CV-06533-JHS (E.D. Pa. July 6, 2017)

  07/06/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, holding there was a valid arbitration agreement and that the dispute was within the agreement’s scope.

• Sempa Systems GmbH v. Wacker Polysilicon North America, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00348-CHS (E.D. Tenn. July 6, 2017)

  07/06/2017

  Magistrate judge granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration thereby ordering plaintiff to arbitrate its dispute.  Court held that the arbitration clause in the prime contract had been incorporated into the subcontract between the parties, and that defendant had not waived its right to arbitrate when it appeared in a Virginia court to assert that court’s lack of personal jurisdiction. 

• TWC Administration LLC v. Cathey, No. 4:17-CV-00235-BCW (W.D. Mo. July 6, 2017)

  07/06/2017

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration and for a preliminary injunction to enjoin defendant from pursuing further litigation in any venue other than arbitration.  Court held that the defendant’s electronic acceptance of the arbitration agreement was valid and granted the right of Plaintiff to compel arbitration.

• TWC Administration LLC v. Cathey, No. 4:17-CV-00235-BCW (W.D. Mo. July 6, 2017)

  07/06/2017

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration, holding an arbitration clause the defendant had signed electronically was valid under Missouri law, and that enforcement of the arbitration clause would not harm defendant and that plaintiff would be irreparably harmed by further litigation. 

• Burton Way Hotels, Ltd. v. Four Seasons Hotels Ltd. No. 2:11-CV-00303-PSG-PLA (C.D. Cal. July 5, 2017)

  07/05/2017

  Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and rendered moot defendant’s motion to appoint arbitrators.  Defendant asked the court to interpret the scope of an October 2016 ninth circuit ruling reversing part of a previous arbitration award’s confirmation.  Court, however, found that per the current arbitration agreement, “jurisdictional and arbitrability disputes” should be decided by the arbitral tribunal. 

• Zetor North America, Inc. v. Ridgeway Enterprises, No. 16-2125 (5th Cir. July 3, 2017)

  07/03/2017

  Court of appeal affirmed lower court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  A 2008 trademark infringement settlement agreement between the parties contained an arbitration clause, which defendant sought to enforce in the current case.  However, the court found that the trademark infringement claims in the present case were independent of the claims covered by the 2008 settlement agreement and therefore did not fall under the scope of that agreement’s arbitration clause. 

• Capili v. The Finish Line, Inc., No. 15-16657 (9th Cir. Jul. 3, 2017)

  07/03/2017

  Court of appeal affirmed the district court decision denying defendant-appellant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that the district court properly concluded that the arbitration agreement was adhesive, or at least minimally procedurally unconscionable, and that it did not abuse its discretion by declining to sever the unconscionable portions of the arbitration agreement.  Court explained that, although the FAA articulates a preference for the enforcement of arbitration agreements, employers may not “stack the deck unconscionably in their favor to discourage claims” and then force the court to “assume the role of contract author rather than interpreter.”

• Clicksoftware, Inc. v. Honeywell International Inc., No. 1:16-CV-12522-NMG (D. Mass. June 30, 2017)

  06/30/2017

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration in Massachusetts, but denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in New York.  Court held that, even though two contracts (one calling for arbitration in Massachusetts and the other calling for arbitration in New York) “apparently arose out of the same set of negotiations,” they were still separate and independent because neither contract incorporated or referenced the other.  Therefore, given that the dispute at issue arose out of the contract calling for arbitration in Massachusetts, arbitration should take place in Massachusetts.

• Perkins v. Dish Network, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-02039 (S.D.W. Va. June 30, 2017)

  06/30/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the plaintiff’s employment contract contained a valid arbitration clause.  According to the court, there were no problems of validity or unconscionability with the arbitration agreement and, therefore, the plaintiff’s claim concerning racial and gender discrimination in the course of her employment was arbitrable.  Court also noted that the NLRB’s finding that the arbitration agreement violated the National Labor Relations Act had no impact on the court’s decision.

• Lovelance v. Dekra N. Am. Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00318-BR (D. Or. June 30, 2017)

  06/30/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the matter without prejudice.  Court held that the arbitration agreement was indisputably signed by the parties, that plaintiff was a sophisticated employee who negotiated the terms of her employment,  and that the agreement was neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable under Oregon law as plaintiff asserted. 

• Reliable Energy Solutions v. Amalfi Apartment Corporation, No. 4:16-CV-03346 (S.D. Tex. June 30, 2017)

  06/30/2017

  Magistrate judge recommended granting the motion to compel arbitration and staying proceedings pending completion of arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  The judge found that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate because, although respondent was not a signatory to the agreement, it was an intended third-party beneficiary and the court found the parties intended to be bound by the agreement.  Court concluded the quantum meruit and unjust enrichment claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

• Ultra Lane Management v. McKellar, No. 9:17-CV-00076-RC (E.D. Tex. June 30, 2017)

  06/30/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims.  Court held that dismissal was proper as plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of a valid arbitration clause and no federal statute or policy rendered plaintiff’s claims non-arbitrable.

• Hunt v. Moore Brothers, Inc., No. 16-2055 (7th Cir. June 29, 2017)

  06/29/2017

  Court of appeals affirmed district court order of sanctions under 28 USC § 1927 and dismissing action without prejudice, holding that the arbitration agreement was enforceable and that it was within the district court’s discretion to impose a sanction for the lawyer’s role in seeking to avoid arbitration and multiplying “the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously.”  Court also held that leaving for later negotiations the selection of the arbitrator did not render the arbitration agreement unenforceable.

• Drury-Jenkins v. Regency Furniture of Brandywine, Inc., No. 8:16-CV-03066-TDC (D. Md. June 29, 2017)

  06/29/2017

  Court granted in part and denied in part motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration agreement reserved questions of arbitrability for the arbitrator.  Court also found that the question of whether an appeal provision rendered the agreement unenforceable was a question of arbitrability reserved for the arbitrator.

• Horne v. Starbucks Corp., No. 2:16-CV-02727-MCE-CKD (E.D. Cal. June 29, 2017)

  06/29/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration agreement was not unenforceable and substantively unconscionable by virtue of the provisions on discovery.  Court found that plaintiff was not limited to two depositions under the arbitration agreement, but could take as many depositions as desired within two eight-hour days, and distinguished other cases finding unconscionable discovery limitations in an arbitration agreement.  Court also found that, should additional discovery be required, the arbitrator was empowered to issue such an order.

• Matos v. Coggin Automotive Corp., No. 3:16-CV-00956-BJD-PDB (M.D. Fla. Jun. 29, 2017)

  06/29/2017

  Court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to grant defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Magistrate judge had determined that, under the FAA, if there is no challenge to whether an agreement was concluded, whether it was enforceable, and whether it was broad enough to cover the claims plaintiff brings, then the court must “rigorously” enforce the parties’ agreement to arbitrate.

• The University of Notre Dame (USA) in England v. TJAC Waterloo, LLC, No. 16-1397 (1^st Cir. June 28, 2017)

  06/28/2017

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s determination that the arbitrator’s decision on liability was final and that a contractor was bound as a party to the arbitration agreement. Court held, that under the FAA, a bifurcated decision on liability could be treated as final where the parties agreed to treat liability and damages separately. Court found that the parties had so informally agreed, and that the law was no different under the New York Convention. Court also found that neither party had objected when the arbitrator described the conclusions on liability as “binding,” that the contract referred to contractor as one of the three parties, and that the contractor had behaved as a party by participating in arbitral proceedings.

• Bailey v. Affinitylifestyles.com, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-02684-JAD-VCF (D. Nev. June 28, 2017)

  06/28/2017

  Court granted motion to stay all pre-trial obligations, including discovery, pending a decision on a motion to compel arbitration, holding that the risk that a stay would cause prejudice to the parties and to case administration did not outweigh the serious and irreparable prejudice, including the loss of advantages of arbitration from the failure to grant a stay.  Court found that continued discovery would involve considerable expense.

• GGNSC Frankfort, LLC v. Moore, No. 3:17-CV-00045-GFVT (E.D. Ky. June 28, 2017)

  06/28/2017

  Court denied motion to dismiss and granted in part and denied in part motion to compel arbitration, holding that a binding arbitration agreement covered all disputes except for the wrongful death claim. Court found that power of attorney authorized plaintiff to enter into binding arbitration agreements and that pre-printed nature of the arbitration agreement was insufficient to render it unconscionable. Court also found that estate was not a party to the arbitration agreement, and thus the estate’s wrongful death claim was not within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

• Levy v. Lytx, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-03090-BAS-BGS (S.D. Ca. June 28, 2017)

  06/28/2017

  Court granted in part and denied in part motion to compel individual arbitration and dismiss class claims, holding that the arbitration agreement’s reference to the AAA arbitration rules clearly and unmistakably evidence the parties’ intention to delegate the question of availability of class proceedings to the arbitrator. Court found that, by agreeing to resolve disputes according to AAA rules, parties also agreed to follow the supplementary rules, which delegate the question of class arbitration to the arbitrator.

• Dome Technology, LLC v. Golden Sands General Contractors, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00069-GEC (W.D. Va. June 28, 2017)

  06/28/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration clause was not superseded by a later agreement between the parties, and that the payment dispute was sufficiently related to the agreement so as to bring it within the scope of the arbitration clause. Court found that neither the merger clause, nor the forum selection clause, nor any other provision of a subsequent agreement between the parties indicated the intent to supersede or repudiate the prior arbitration agreement. Court also found that the arbitration clause extended to “[a]ny dispute, claim, or controversy arising … out of or relating to” the interpretation, construction, performance, breach, or enforcement of the contract, and that this embraced every dispute between the parties having a significant relationship to the contract.

• Dowton v. Equity Lifestyle Properties, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00659-KM (M.D. Pa. June 28, 2017)

  06/28/2017

  Court granted in part and denied in part motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration clause was valid and binding, and applied to the plaintiff’s claims, but that parties had thirty days to conduct limited discovery on whether plaintiff intended to be bound by the arbitration clause, when she had not signed the agreement but had paid related fees due. Court found that the arbitration clause applied to “[a]ny dispute or claim arising out of [the] [a]greement,” which would include any tort claims. Court found that contract pertained to voluntary recreational activities and was thus not a contract of adhesion, but further evidence was required on arbitrability.

• Matoza v. Thor Industries, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01971-MMC (N.D. Ca. June 28, 2017)

  06/28/2017

  Court denied without prejudice motion to dismiss, holding that that the court cannot ordinarily resolve an evidentiary dispute on a motion to dismiss, and that the filing of a petition to compel arbitration was required, where parties disputed the existence of a binding arbitration agreement. Court found that there was disputed evidence as to whether an arbitration agreement bound the parties.

• Dome Technology, LLC v. Golden Sands General Contractors, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00069-GEC (W.D. Va. June 28, 2017)

  06/28/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the merger and forum selection clauses in a later agreement between the parties did not supersede the original agreement’s arbitration clause.  Court reasoned that, under Virginia law, the two contracts should be “harmonize[d]” to give “effect to each when reasonably possible,” and concluded that there was a valid arbitration agreement whose scope covered the dispute in question. 

• Wussow v. Bruker Corp., No. 3:16-CV-00444-WMC (W.D. Wis. June 28, 2017)

  06/28/2017

  Court granted in part and denied in part motion to compel arbitration, holding that the Dodd-Frank retaliation claim was arbitrable, but that the SOX retaliation claim was not arbitrable and should proceed in parallel judicial proceedings.  Court found that, while both statutes addressed retaliation for whistleblowing, the text and structure of Dodd-Frank compelled the conclusion that these claims were not exempt from arbitration agreements, while the SOX Anti-Arbitration Provision expressly exempted SOX retaliation claims from arbitration.  Court found that, despite criticism, Congress had not chosen to address this inconsistency by expressly expanding the SOX Anti-Arbitration Provision to Dodd-Frank whistleblower claims.  

• Mounts v. Midland Funding LLC, No. 3:15-CV-00572-TAV-HBG (E.D. Tenn. June 28, 2017)

  06/28/2017

  Court granted in part and denied in part motion to compel arbitration, holding that parties had agreed to arbitrate claims under the terms of their credit card agreements, and that questions as to arbitrability of certain claims were delegated to the arbitrator.  Court found that, by referencing the AAA and NAF rules, the parties had clearly and unmistakably delegated issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator.  Court found that § 4 of the FAA and its notice requirements did not apply to cases where the plaintiff has already brought an action in court; instead, § 3 of the FAA, which did not have a notice requirement, applied. 

• Leonard v. Delaware North Companies Sport Service, Inc., No. 16-3246 (8th Cir. June 27, 2017)

  06/27/2017

  Court of appeals affirmed district court order compelling arbitration and dismissing case without prejudice, holding that the arbitration agreement was valid and not unconscionable.  Court found that plaintiff’s contract was easily understood, negotiable, and did not threaten basic necessities.  Court also found that the language “any dispute arising from the Activity” in the arbitration agreement covered the underlying factual allegations.

• Alexander Dubose Jefferson & Townsend LLP v. Vance, No. 1:17-CV-00133-RP (W.D. Tex. June 27, 2017)

  06/27/2017

  Court denied motion for reconsideration of denial of motion to compel arbitration, holding that the motion provided no newly discovered evidence and therefore did not meet the standard required under FRCP rules 54(b) and 59(e).  Court found that the declarations regarding conversations that took place in 2016 did not constitute newly discovered evidence.

• Aviation Alliance Insurance Risk Retention Group, Inc. v. Polaris Enterprise Group, Inc., No. 9:17-CV-00035-DWM (D. Mont. June 27, 2017)
   

  06/27/2017

  Court granted in part and denied in part motion to compel arbitration, holding that, to the extent that plaintiff’s claims arose under a terminated contract, they remained subject to a “zombie” arbitration provision post-expiration.  Court found nothing in the agreement indicating intent to eliminate the duty to arbitrate as of the date of the agreement’s termination.

• Sanford v. Bracewell LLP, No. 2:13-CV-01205-JHS (E.D. Pa. June 27, 2017)

  06/27/2017

  Court withheld ruling on motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiffs should have the opportunity to return to arbitration and pay the associated fees. Court found that plaintiffs continued to violate a prior order that they produce financial documentation to demonstrate their claimed inability to afford the cost of arbitration, as partial tax returns, partial bank statements, and a list of properties owned were insufficient to show this. Court found that this failure to comply had prejudiced defendants by imposing excessive and irremediable costs, and that plaintiffs had acted in bad faith.

• Personacare of Reading, Inc. v. Lengel, No. 5:16-CV-01965-JLS (E.D. Pa. June 27, 2017)

  06/27/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, ordered survival claims in the state court matter proceed to arbitration, and stayed pending state court proceedings, holding that the arbitrator could proceed on arbitrable claims, bifurcated from non-arbitrable claims, even where the agreement provided for arbitration of “all disputes.” Court found that the arbitration agreement’s provision that a third party service “may” conduct the arbitration, unless the parties chose not to select them, did not amount to fraud.

• Conde v. Open Door Marketing, LLC., No. 4:15-CV-04080-KAW (N.D. Ca. April 27, 2017)

  06/27/2017

  Court granted motion to deny class certification as to individuals who had not signed the arbitration agreement, denied motion to deny class certification with respect to individuals who had signed the agreement, and granted in part and denied in part motion to expand collective action to include individuals who signed a later arbitration agreement with a class action waiver clause. Court found that because some plaintiffs did not sign the arbitration agreement, they had no interest in its enforceability, and could not satisfy the typicality requirement of class certification. Court found that co-defendants who had not signed the arbitration agreement lacked an interest to enforce or rely on such agreement. Court found that the fact that some class members had signed arbitration agreements with class action waivers did not preclude conditional certification under the lenient standard at this point of litigation.

• Garcia v. Kakish, No. 1:17-CV-00374-JLT (E.D. Cal. June 27, 2017)

  06/27/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that parties agreed to arbitration and that the claims are factually and legally intertwined with the contract containing the arbitration provision.  Court found that the arbitration agreement did not contain a waiver of the right to seek public injunctive relief, but left the interpretation and scope of the agreement to the arbitrator.  Court also found that the procedural unconscionability of the arbitrator selection clause, which provided for one party’s approval of the arbitral body, did not permeate the entire agreement.   Further, the non-signatory plaintiff’s claims were intimately founded in and intertwined with the signatory plaintiff’s claims, and thus subject to arbitration.

• Applebaum v. Lyft, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-07062-JGK (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2017)

  06/26/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that, by clicking “I accept” on the terms of service in a subsequent agreement, where the terms were expressly presented as a legally binding agreement, the plaintiff assented to the arbitration clause.  Court found that, regarding an earlier agreement, a reasonably prudent consumer would not have been on inquiry notice of the terms of service, as the text was small and difficult to read, and would not lead a reasonable consumer to understand that it hyperlinked to a contract. 

• Thompson v. AT&T Mobility Services LLC, No. 5:17-CV-139-FL (E.D.N.C. June 26, 2017)

  06/26/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that plaintiff had agreed to arbitrate “any claim that [she] may have against [defendants]”, and that all of plaintiff’s claims were arbitrable.

• In re Document Technologies Litigation, No. 1:17-CV-02405-JSR (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2017)

  06/26/2017

  Court explained its reasons for an earlier bench order granting defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Plaintiff argued that defendants had waived their right to arbitration because they unreasonably delayed filing a motion to compel arbitration, engaged in protracted discovery, and “evidenced a preference for litigation.”  In rejecting those arguments, court held that defendants had filed their motions to compel arbitration shortly after plaintiff filed its suit and that they had not waived their right to arbitration.  Court also denied a co-defendant’s motion to compel arbitration because it was not a signatory to the arbitration agreements and did not have the requisite “close relationship” with the parties to allow it to compel arbitration.

• Information Systems Audit and Control Association, Inc. v. Telecommunications Systems, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-02066 (N.D. Ill. June 23, 2017)

  06/23/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and denied dismissal of the complaint, holding that arbitrability was an issue for the arbitrator, and claims fell within the scope of the arbitration clause, notwithstanding the equitable relief sought.  Court found that the arbitration clause incorporated the AAA’s Commercial Arbitration Rules, which expressly provide that an arbitrator will adjudicate on arbitrability.  Court also found that the equitable nature of the relief sought did not alter the fact that plaintiff’s breach of contract claims went to the heart of the arbitration clause’s subject matter.

• TK Services, Inc. v. RWD Consulting, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-01152-ABJ (D.D.C. June 23, 2017)

  06/23/2017

  Court granted motion compel arbitration and dismiss complaint, and denied as moot the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction in aid of arbitration. Court found that the arbitration clause was broad, covering “[a]ny controversy or claim between the [parties] arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, including any claim concerning an alleged breach,” which thus included claims for injunctive relief.  Court also found that plaintiff had not shown risk of irreparable harm and had not shown that the integrity of the arbitration was at risk or that defendants will be unable to fund an award.

• Burcham v. Ford Motor Credit Company, LLC., No. 3:16-CV-00943-DRH (S.D. Ill June 23, 2017)

  06/23/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the delegation clause in the arbitration agreement rendered the issue of whether the claim was within the scope of the arbitration agreement one for the arbitrator to decide.  Court found that the delegation clause was unambiguous, requiring parties to arbitrate “[c]laims regarding the interpretation, scope, or validity of [the arbitration] clause, or arbitrability of any issue.”

• DataStrait Networks, Inc. v. S2 Security Corp., No. 0:17-CV-01355-DWF-FLN (D. Minn. June 23, 2017)

  06/23/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and denied motion to dismiss, holding that whether the dispute was covered by the arbitration agreement was an issue for the arbitrator.  Court found that the arbitration agreement provided that the arbitrator will decide “any disputes or questions arising hereunder, including the construction or application of this Agreement,” and incorporated by reference the AAA rules, which provide that an arbitrator determines whether a dispute falls within an arbitration agreement.

• Carlton Energy Group, LLC v. Cliveden Petroleum Co. Ltd., No. 4:13-CV-00095 (S.D. Tex. June 23, 2017)

  06/23/2017

  Court recommended that non-signatory defendants’ suggestion of mootness and motion to stay pending arbitration be granted, holding that non-signatory defendants submitted to the jurisdiction of the arbitrators in Texas pursuant to the arbitration provision, and accordingly to the Texas court’s jurisdiction, by stipulating that they were proper parties to the arbitration.  Court found that this implied consent extended to any post-arbitration enforcement action. Court found that to determine issues beyond this question would constitute a decision on the merits and exceed the court’s authority, and these must be decided by the arbitrator.

• Alvarez v. National Debt Relief, LLC, 1:16-CV-04156-CM (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2017)

  06/23/2017

• Trustees for the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Annuity Fund, and Training Program Fund v. Super, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-06387-PKC (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2017)

  06/22/2017

  Court granted petitioners’ motion to confirm the arbitral award pursuant to the FAA, the Labor Management Relations Act, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.  Court found there was no genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment confirming the award.

• AGCS Marine Insurance Company v. Hymel & Associates, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-06899 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2017)

  06/22/2017

  Court granted in part and denied in part petition to compel arbitration, holding that the agreement to arbitrate was effective as to Mr. Hymel, but not with respect to Hymel & Associates (“H&A”).  Court found that H&A had not signed the insurance application containing the arbitration clause, and petitioners had not demonstrated a valid basis to compel H&A to attend arbitration.  Court found that the arbitration agreement did not require an insured non-party to the agreement to arbitrate, requiring only that “the parties hereto” submit to arbitration.  Court found no indication that Mr. Hymel signed the application as an agent for H&A.  Court declined to find that a choice of law clause served to limit the application of the arbitration clause to instances where New York law applied.

• Pompeo v. AD Astra Recovery Services, Inc., No 1:16-cv-01371-MCA-KK (D.N.M. June 22, 2017)

  06/22/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration agreement was binding and encompassed plaintiff’s claims.  Court found that the binding arbitration agreement defined “claim” broadly, and was not on its face faulty because it is illusory, unconscionable, or otherwise invalid.

• Kane International Corp. v. US Polymers-Accurez LLC, No. 4:17-CV-01625-RLW (E.D. Mo. June 21, 2017)

  06/21/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the parties had agreed to arbitrate and that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration clause.  Court found that defendants had previously relied on the arbitration agreement, in responding to the application for a temporary restraining order, and that any dispute regarding the scope of the arbitration provision was for the arbitrator to resolve.

• Hobzek v. Homeaway.com, Inc., No. 17-50144 (5th Cir. June 21, 2017)

  06/21/2017

  Circuit court per curiam dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.  Court held that the district court’s order compelling arbitration was not a final appealable order over which the court had jurisdiction as the case was stayed pending a decision by the arbitrator.

• Sentry Select Insurance Company v. Ruiz, No. 3:16-CV-00376-DCG (W.D. Tex. June 20, 2017)

  06/20/2017

  Court granted and denied in part motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate and found no evidence of a federal statute or policy that rendered the claims nonarbitrable.  Court found counterclaims against plaintiff were not subject to arbitration, but stayed proceedings as to those claims pending arbitration.

• Optimum Laboratory Services LLC v. East El Paso Physicians’ Medical Center, LLC, No.  5:17-CV-00411-R (W.D. Okla. June 20, 2017)

  06/20/2017

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Pursuant to the FAA, court found the delegation provision in the arbitration agreement was clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to arbitrate issues of arbitrability, and under state contract law, the court found the clause valid and enforceable.

• Webco Industries, Inc. v. Texas Tubular Products, Inc., No. 4:15-CV-00704-JED-FHM (N.D. Okla. June 20, 2016)

  06/20/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Pursuant to the FAA, court found a valid agreement to arbitrate and determined that the subject matter of the dispute fell within the scope of the agreement.

• GGNSC Louisville St. Matthews, LLC v. Badgett, No. 3:17-CV-00188-TBR (W.D. Ky. July 20, 2017)

  06/20/2017

  Court denied petition to compel arbitration, finding that a respondent who signed an arbitration agreement upon admission to one nursing home but later disclaimed an identical agreement upon admission to another nursing home owned by the same parent company had novated the contract and was not bound to arbitrate.

• Taylor v. Pilot Corporation, Pilot Travel Centers LLC, No. 16-5326 (6th Cir. June 19, 2017)

  06/19/2017

  Court of appeal denied defendants’ interlocutory appeal, finding that the FAA did not provide jurisdiction to resolve the class certification issue because it was not a final judgment on the merits.  Court found defendants’ jurisdictional arguments under the FAA to be unpersuasive, concluding that §16(a)(1)(A) of the FAA only granted the court authority to consider the denial of stay and that §16(a)(1)(B) only applied to a petition to compel arbitration, which was not present here.  Court held it had jurisdiction only over the denial of the request for stay, but affirmed the district court’s decision to deny the request pursuant to the FAA, finding the request premature.

• Amos v. Lincoln Property Company, No. 3:17-CV-00037 (M.D. Tenn. June 19, 2017)

  06/19/2017

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pursuant to the FAA.  Court found there was no valid agreement to arbitrate that would bind the plaintiff as there was no evidence she was ever informed that her acceptance of an arbitration agreement was a condition of employment.

• Arctic Glavier U.S.A., Inc., v. Principal Life Insurance Company, No. 8:16-CV-03555-PX (D. Md. June 19, 2017)

  06/19/2017

  Court transferred the petition to compel arbitration to the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska pursuant to the arbitration clause in the agreement.  Court found jurisdiction pursuant to the FAA and concluded the petitioners had standing to enforce the arbitration agreement.  While court held it had diversity jurisdiction, it  found venue was improper based on the forum selection clause in the agreement pursuant to § 4 of the FAA.

• Marchand v. Northrop Grumman Corporation, No. 5:16-CV-06825-BLF (N.D. Cal. June 19, 2017)
   

  06/19/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration of all non-Title VII claims and stayed the case pending outcome of arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement enforceable pursuant to the FAA.  Court concluded defendant did not waive or abrogate its right to enforce the agreement, finding that defendant did not fail to timely demand arbitration; defendant did not waive its right to compel arbitration by failing to complete the dispute resolution process requested or by failing to proceed with arbitration after plaintiff withdrew her demand for arbitration; and the arbitration agreement has not expired.  Court concluded the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable, finding at most modest procedural unconscionability, but no substantive unconscionability.

• 2151 Michelson, L.P. v. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, No. 8:17-CV-0781-DOC-DFM (C.D. Cal. June 16, 2017)

  06/16/2017

  Court denied plaintiff’s motion to remand and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court found the issue of whether the previous state court judgment had preclusive effect was not subject to arbitration, but all other claims were and defendant had not waived its right to compel arbitration. 

• Fox v. Forest River Inc., No. 1:16-CV-0770-GTS-DJS (N.D.N.Y. June 16, 2017)

  06/16/2017

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration of all claims and cross-claims pursuant to the FAA. Court found moot the cross-defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s claims as the parties had stipulated to dismissal of those claims and denied the motion to compel arbitration of the remaining claims, finding that there was no evidence of a contractual arbitration agreement with the cross-defendant.  Court held defendants had not established that a stay was warranted under the FAA.

• Green v. Broker Solutions, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00844-RLW (E.D. Mo. June 16, 2017)

  06/16/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court found the defendant non-signatory had standing to compel arbitration, that the agreement was a bilateral contract with adequate consideration under Missouri law that was not procedurally unconscionable.

• Clearfield v. HCL America Inc., No. 1:17-CV-02933-JMF (S.D.N.Y. June 15,2017)

  06/15/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the plaintiff received and agreed to the arbitration agreement at issue and was therefore bound by its terms.

• Fontana v. The Chefs’ Warehouse, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-06521-HSG (N.D. Cal. June 15, 2017)

  06/15/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action pending resolution of the arbitration. Court found that the original arbitration agreement between the parties controlled because a later in time agreement, which provided for resolution of the dispute by a court of competent jurisdiction, was not executed by both parties and therefore not legally binding.  Moreover, to the extent there was a lingering doubt as to whether arbitration is appropriate, the arbitration agreement contained a delegation clause giving the arbitrator the authority to resolve such a dispute.

• Olson v. MBO Partners Inc., No. 3:15-CV-02216-HZ (D. Or. June 15, 2017)

  06/15/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and denied motion to stay pending arbitration.  Court held the arbitration clause is valid and found unpersuasive arguments that the provision violated Oregon law, was unconscionable, resulted from the plaintiff’s signature under duress, or was the result of misrepresentation or fraudulent inducement.  Court found plaintiff provided no reason to stay the case and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss.

• Hoover v. Sears Holding Corporation, No. 3:16-CV-0450-AET-TJB (D.N.J. June 14, 2017)

  06/14/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court found there was reasonable notice for a valid agreement to arbitrate and the dispute fell within the scope of the agreement.

• Singer v. Stuerke, No. 2:16-CV-02526-KJD-GWF (D. Nev. June 14, 2017)

  06/14/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the first amended petition and ordered plaintiffs to file a second amended petition.  Pursuant to the FAA, court found the parties had a valid agreement to arbitrate and the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.  Court also held it had specific personal jurisdiction over the defendant, but lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims because there was no federal question or diversity jurisdiction.  Court denied defendant’s motion to strike but found the allegations were irrelevant to plaintiffs’ claims and thus should not be included in an amended petition.

• Silfee v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc., No. 16-3725 (3d Cir. June 13, 2017)

  06/13/2017

  Court of appeals vacated and remanded the district court’s prior order denying motions to compel arbitration and dismiss the suit. Court held that since arbitrability is a gateway issue under §4 of the FAA, if a party moves to compel arbitration based on an authentic arbitration agreement that is attached to the complaint, a Rule(b)(6) summary judgment standard is appropriate unless the other party responds with additional facts sufficient to place the agreement to arbitrate at issue. Here, there were no facts presented at the outset of the litigation to place the arbitration agreement at issue and therefore the lower court failed to analyze the parties’ competing arguments regarding arbitrability.

• Willcock v. My Goodness Games, Inc., No. 8:16-CV-04020-PWG (D. Md. June 12, 2017)

  06/12/2017

  Court stayed the action pending a decision by the arbitrator on the arbitrability of the claims because the parties’ incorporation of the AAA Arbitration Rules presents clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed the arbitrator would decide questions of arbitrability and not the court.

• National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh v. Seneca Family of Agencies, No. 1:17-CV-01061-JGK (S.D.N.Y. June 12, 2017)

  06/12/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration in part, finding that California statute alleged to preempt arbitration agreement only applied to claims arising after a certain date, and thus earlier arbitration agreement was not preempted as to earlier claims.  Court denied without prejudice motion to compel arbitration as to later claims so that California court could determine question of whether California statute preempted the arbitration agreement, and by extension reverse preempted the FAA. 

• Bacon v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-05939 (D.N.J. June 9, 2017)

  06/09/2017

  Court denied the motions to compel arbitration, finding that the issue of whether the arbitration agreement was incorporated into the principle agreement, and thus a mutual consent to arbitrate, required further development of the factual record so the motions can be decided on a summary judgment standard.

• Toth v. GSF Mortgage Corporation, No. 5:16-CV-02101-BYP (E.D. Ohio June 8, 2017)

  06/08/2017

  Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that there was, at the very least, a genuine dispute of material fact as to the existence of a contract and the arbitration provision therein.

• Kim v. CashCall, Inc., No. 8:17-CV-00076-DOC-DFM (C.D. Cal. June 8, 2017) 

  06/08/2017

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel individual arbitration and stayed the proceedings pending the Supreme Court’s disposition of Morris v. Ernst & Young.  Court rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable, but did not resolve plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration clause violated the NLRA because that very question was central to a case, Morris, currently pending before the Supreme Court.

• Mayton v. Tempoe, LLC, No. 5:17-CV-00179-XR (W.D. Tex. June 7, 2017)

  06/07/2017

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismiss.  Court found that (i) there was a valid agreement to arbitrate between the parties; (ii) the agreement to arbitrate covered the dispute in question; (iii) there were no legal constraints external to the parties’ agreement that would foreclose arbitration of plaintiff’s claims; (iv) there is a “tight relatedness of the parties, contracts and controversies” sufficient to compel plaintiff to arbitration with respect to his claims against a non-party to the contract; and (v) dismissal of the case, rather than a stay, would be appropriate as plaintiff presented no justification for a stay.

• Quality Plus Services, Inc. v. AGY Aiken LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00727-MHL (E.D. Va. June 7, 2017)

  06/07/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and denied as moot the motion to dismiss or transfer.  Court found that the parties agreed to the arbitration clause and the arbitration clause applied to all claims arising out of purchase orders, including plaintiff’s.  Court also determined that because the court found all of plaintiff’s claims subject to arbitration, it would exercise its discretion to dismiss the case without prejudice.

• Gold Mine Jewelry Shoppes, Inc. v. Lise Aagaard Copenhagen, A/S, No. 5:16-CV-00135-BR (E.D.N.C. Mar. 7, 2017)

  06/07/2017

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the suit, finding that the arbitration agreement at issues was enforceable and the dispute fell within the scope of that agreement, and therefore are not for the court to decide.

• Evans v. Building Materials Corporation of America, No. 16-2427 (Fed. Cir. June 5, 2017)

  06/05/2017

  Court of appeal affirmed the district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss or stay action pending arbitration, finding defendant’s assertion that the dispute was covered by the arbitration agreement to be “wholly groundless.”

• Wilhelm v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-01148-ILRL-KWR (E.D. La. June 5, 2017)

  06/05/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration.  Court held that (i) the fact that a representative of the defendant failed to sign the document did not invalidate the arbitration agreement; (ii) the FAA preempted any state law that attempted to prohibit the enforcement of otherwise valid arbitration agreements; and (iii) the misconduct alleged by the plaintiff against the signatory defendant and the non-signatory defendant was sufficiently interdependent to allow a non-signatory to compel arbitration against the signatories.

• GGNSC Louisville Mt. Holly, LLC v. Mohamed-Vall, No. 16-5606 (6th Cir. June 2, 2017)

  06/02/2017

  Court of appeals affirmed lower court’s order compelling arbitration and enjoining defendants from proceeding with litigation in state court. Court of appeals held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the dispute because the district court’s order compelling arbitration was not a final decision as required by the FAA. Court further declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction to hear defendant’s challenge to the district court’s injunction.

• Ortiz v. Volt Management Corp., No. 4:16-CV-07096-YGR (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2017)

  06/02/2017

  Court granted a non-signatory defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that the plaintiff had signed an employment agreement with the staffing company that contained a broad arbitration provision, and that the staffing company had assigned plaintiff to work for the non-signatory defendant. As such, the plaintiff’s claims were intimately founded in and intertwined with his employment relationship with the staffing company and it was appropriate to allow arbitration.

• Madden v. Ally Financial Inc., No. 5:16-CV-00172-JMH-EBA (E.D. Ky. June 2, 2017)

  06/02/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the only action defendant took that could be considered inconsistent with reliance on the arbitration agreement was filing an answer that did not include the arbitration agreement as a specific affirmative defense. However, since defendant moved to compel arbitration soon after discovery of the arbitration clause, this was not “completely inconsistent” with an intent to rely on the arbitration clause.

• Xome Holdings LLC v. Derbonne, No. 4:16-CV-00550-ALM (E.D. Tex. June 2, 2017)

  06/02/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, rejecting defendants’ argument that the arbitration agreement is unconscionable.  Court held that the action fell squarely within the plain language of the arbitration clause, and thus, the parties should resolve their disputes in arbitration pursuant to their agreement.

• Forbes v. Seaworld Parks & Entertainment, No. 4:16-CV-00172-MSD-LRL (E.D. Va. June 2, 2017)

  06/02/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that the dispute resolution program was not “outdated” the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable. Additionally, court held that defendant did not waive its right to arbitration by failing to “bring up arbitration” in response to settlement requests and failing to respond to certain emails, and plaintiff’s allegations of harassment do not provide sufficient justification to ignore the parties’ valid agreement to arbitrate their disputes

• Cochran v. Nabors Drilling Technologies USA Inc., No. 2:16-CV-01633-JTT-KK (W.D. La. June 2, 2017)

  06/02/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss plaintiff’s complaint.  Court held that plaintiff failed to establish that defendant waived its right to arbitrate because plaintiff provided no evidence that the defendant took an overt action manifesting an intent to resolve the dispute through litigation.  Court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that defendant should be equitably estopped from enforcing the arbitration agreement, as plaintiff cited no law supporting the proposition that the state law doctrine of equitable estoppel can be the basis of a party being “in default” under the FAA.

• Bakon v. Rushmore Service Center, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-06137-ILG-SMG (E.D.N.Y. June 2, 2017)

  06/02/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to enforce an arbitration agreement between plaintiff and a third party, finding that plaintiff entered into a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement with the third-party that defendant (as an affiliate of the third party) is entitled to invoke.  Court also determined that the regular use of a credit card constitutes sufficient evidence of a card user’s consent to the terms of the agreement governing the account and that the FAA does not require arbitration agreements to be signed to be enforceable.

• Kelleher v. Dream Catcher, L.L.C., No. 1:16-CV-02902-APM (D.D.C. June 2, 2017)

  06/02/2017

  Court denied defendant’s motion to stay pending arbitration, holding that the defendant failed to overcome the presumption that it had forfeited its right to arbitrate since it failed to invoke that right at the earliest opportunity and instead waiting more than five months to do so.

• Oren Enterprises, Inc.  v. Stefanie Cove & Co., No. 2:17-CV-03619-PA-AFM (C.D. Cal June 2, 2017)

  06/02/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of trade secret claims and dismissed the case. Court found that claims related to post employment conduct were within the scope of an arbitration clause contained in an employee agreement. Court further found that a non-signatory to the agreement could compel arbitration under California state law where a signatory relies on the terms of the agreement in asserting its claims against the non-signatory.

• La Frontera Center, Inc. v. United States Behavioral Health, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00187-JB-WPL (D.N.M. June 1, 2017)

  06/01/2017

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration and to stay the proceedings. Court held that plaintiff entered into an enforceable arbitration agreement with defendants and that plaintiff’s claims against defendants were subject to the arbitration clause.

• Leidel v. Coinbase, Inc., No. 9:16-CV-81992-KAM (S.D. Fla. June 1, 2017)

  06/01/2017

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that although plaintiff entered into a valid arbitration agreement, plaintiff’s claims did not fall within the scope of the arbitration clause.

• Price v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00706-SEB-MJD (S.D. Ind. June 1, 2017)

  06/01/2017

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, holding that the class action waiver contained in the arbitration clause did not violate the National Labor Relations Act and was enforceable.

• Moise v. Family Dollar Stores of New York, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-06314-RA-GWG (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2017)

  06/01/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings.  Court found that (i) claiming that one does not recall receiving the arbitration agreement does not create a genuine dispute as to whether the plaintiff signed it; (ii) plaintiff’s claim that he did not read or fully understand the agreement does not demonstrate a genuine dispute as to the formation of an arbitration agreement; (iii) plaintiff cannot avoid the binding effects of the agreement by asserting that he signed it “under economic duress and coercion;” and (iv) the argument that the arbitration agreement is unconscionable under New York law is for the arbitrator to decide.

• Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company v. LaFerrera, No. 7:15-CV-02350-LSC (N.D. Ala. June 1, 2016)

  06/01/2017

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings as to one of the defendants (CCG) and held that it was moot as to the other defendants.  Court found that the language of the arbitration agreement was sufficiently restrictive to preclude CCG, a nonsignatory to the arbitration agreement, from enforcing the agreement through the doctrine of equitable estoppel. 

• Wright v. Sirius XM radio Inc., No. 8:16-CV-01688-JVS-JCG (C.D. Cal. June 1, 2017)

  06/01/2017

  Court granted motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that defendant’s documentary evidence of mailing the agreement to plaintiff was sufficient to establish that plaintiff received the agreement and had notice of the arbitration provision.

• Iota Shipholding Ltd. v. Starr Indemnity and Liability Company, No. 1:16-CV-04881-KPF (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2017)

  05/31/2017

  Court granted petitioners’ motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that no valid arbitration agreement between the parties existed and a stay of a parallel arbitration. Court held that the arbitration clause in question did not bind the petitioners because the petitioners did not execute the agreement and the text of the arbitration clause did not purport to bind nonsignatories.

• Ungava Technologies Inc. v. Innerspec Technologies, Inc., No. 6:17-CV-00006-NKM-RSB (W.D. Va. May, 31, 2017)

  05/31/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding the parties had entered into a valid arbitration agreement and that the plaintiff’s interpretation of the agreement was inconsistent with the language of the arbitration clause.

• Rearick v. Clearwater 2008 Note Program, LLC, No. 4:15-CV-02265-YK (M.D. Pa. May 31, 2017)

  05/31/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that (i) plaintiff’s request for additional discovery was untimely; (ii) plaintiff failed to adduce substantiated evidence of prohibitive arbitration costs to invalidate the arbitration clause; (iii) plaintiff failed to adduce sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to the validity of the arbitration agreement; and (iv) plaintiff’s breach of contract claim undoubtedly arises under, and relates to, the contract containing the arbitration agreement. 

• McDougle v. Kemper Corporate Services, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00231-WHB-JCG (S.D. Miss. May 31, 2017)

  05/31/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that the subject insurance policy and the incorporated arbitration agreement involved interstate commerce as the term is applied to the FAA and therefore could be enforced thereunder.  Court also held that the arbitration agreement was valid under Mississippi law and the issue of whether the agreement was enforceable was delegated to the arbitrator.

• Michigan Health Information Network Shared Services v. Notarycam, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00342-RJJ-PJG (W.D. Mich. May 31, 2016)

  05/31/2017

  Court granted in part defendant’s motion arbitrate, but stayed the case instead of dismissing it pending resolution of the arbitration.  Court held that the parties agreed to arbitrate, the claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and defendant had not waived its right to invoke arbitration.

• Prowant v. Federal National Mortgage Association, No. 1:14-CV-3799-AT (N.D. Ga. May 31, 2017)

  05/31/2017

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in this collective action case brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime provisions.  Court held that defendant had waived its right to compel arbitration with respect to opt-in plaintiffs and that its new arbitration agreement, which purportedly replaced the prior dispute resolution policy, did not apply as to opt-in plaintiffs.

• Adams v. Energy Transfer Partners, No. 2:16-CV-00400 (S.D. Tex. May 30, 2017)

  05/30/2017

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings pending the outcome of the arbitration. Court held that plaintiff failed to state a reason for why the motion to compel arbitration should not be granted and, upon review of the agreement, found that it was free of errors or was not contrary to law.

• New York Dialysis Services, Inc. v. New York State Nurses Association, No. 1:17-CV-00469-JSR (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2017)

  05/30/2017

  Court granted petitioner’s motion to stay the arbitration. Court held that the parties could not be forced to arbitrate a dispute pursuant to an expired arbitration agreement, notwithstanding the fact that the arbitration agreement unmistakably delegated the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

• Robredo v. Metro Honda, No. 16-3317 (3d Cir. May 26, 2017)

  05/26/2017

  Court of appeal affirmed district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant, finding that the parties agreed to arbitrate all claims arising out of or relating to automobile purchase/lease transactions and the evidence did not support plaintiff’s claims that the arbitration proceedings were unfair or biased. 

• National Labor Relations Board v. Alternative Entertainment, Inc., No. 16-1385 (6th Cir. May 26, 2017)

  05/26/2017

  Court of appeal held that an arbitration provision requiring employees covered by the National Labor Relations Act to individually arbitrate all employment-related claims is not enforceable, finding that such a provision violates the NLRA’s right to collective action and therefore falls within the FAA’s saving clause.

• GGNSC Louisville St. Matthews v. Madison, No. 3:16-CV-00830-TBR (W.D. Ky. May 26, 2017)

  05/26/2017

  Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held inter alia that (i) a power of attorney was sufficient authority for a representative to bind an infirm patient to an arbitration agreement; (ii) the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable; and (iii) federal law did not require or otherwise advise the court to refrain from enjoining the parties from litigating in state court.

• Sauberman v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., LLC, No. 2:17-CV-00756-WJM-MF (D.N.J. May 26, 2017 2017)

  05/26/2017

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration without prejudice.  Court held that it could not determine whether the parties had entered into an agreement to arbitrate and therefore ordered the parties to engage in limited discovery on the issue of whether an arbitration agreement existed.

• Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Kinsale Ins. Co., No. 2:17-CV-00350-ER (E.D. Pa. May 26, 2017)

  05/26/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff, a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement, could be compelled to arbitrate the dispute because plaintiff’s claims against defendant were dependent on defendant’s obligation to provide insurance coverage as part of an agreement that contained an arbitration clause.

• Schmidt v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 2:16-01725-JCC (W.D. Wash. May 25, 2017)

  05/25/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that under both Washington and California law plaintiffs assented to arbitration where they were provided with notice on the outside of the box and in a brochure for a Samsung device that additional terms and conditions applied to use of the device.  Court further found that a Texas choice of law provision in the arbitration agreement was substantively unconscionable because plaintiffs had no connection to Texas, nor was there another basis for which Texas law might reasonably apply, and therefore the provision was severed.

• Samenow v. Citicorp Credit Services, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01346-CKK (D.D.C. May 25, 2017)

  05/25/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action, finding that plaintiff assented to arbitration agreements contained in credit card agreements governing plaintiff’s five credit card accounts and that there was no unconscionability with respect to the arbitration agreements.

• Crawley v. Macy’s Retail Holdings, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-02228-KPF (S.D.N.Y. May 25, 2017)

  05/25/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action, finding that plaintiff unambiguously agreed to arbitrate any employment disputes with the defendant and that the scope of the arbitration provision in the employer’s dispute resolution program encompassed plaintiff’s claim.

• Branch v. Mays, No. 3:16-CV-00249-HSM-CCS (E.D. Tenn. May 25, 2017)

  05/25/2017

  Court granted motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, finding that the existence of both an arbitration clause and forum selection clause in an agreement does not render the forum selection clause invalid, but rather gives the courts in the selected forum exclusive jurisdiction to hear actions complimentary to the arbitral proceedings

• Nepomuceno v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., No. 2:14-CV-05719-SDW-SCM (D.N.J. May 24, 2017)

  05/24/2017

  Court denied defendants’ request to compel arbitration, holding that defendants’ unnecessary two-year delay in seeking arbitration and the expense of litigating the matter over the course of the prolonged time period had caused sufficient prejudice to the plaintiff such as to waive any right the defendants may have had to compel arbitration.

• Webb v. Frawley, No. 16-3336 (7th Cir. May 24, 2017)

  05/24/2017

  Court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part district court’s order compelling arbitration.  Court held that arbitration provisions in plaintiffs’ employment contracts were merely venue provisions, and that the court could only order plaintiffs to arbitrate under FINRA rules if they had so agreed.  Court therefore found that plaintiff who had agreed to arbitrate under FINRA rules must do so, whereas other plaintiff who did not agree was not so required.

• Simmons v. Rush Trucks Centers of Idaho, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00450-EJL (D. Idaho May 24, 2017)

  05/24/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss lawsuit, finding a valid arbitration agreement supported by mutual assent and consideration and lacking indications of unconscionability. Court held that arbitration agreement constituted an offer that was accepted upon plaintiff’s signature binding both parties to its terms, even if defendant did not sign the agreement. Court further held that agreement was supported by consideration in the mutuality of obligation to arbitrate, and in the employment relationship governed by the agreement.

• Anderson v. Credit One Bank, National Association, No. 3:16-CV-03125-MMA-AGS (S.D. Cal. May 23, 2017)

  05/23/2017

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding insufficient evidence that the parties agreed to arbitrate any dispute.  Court held that factual disputes existed as to plaintiff’s assent to the terms of a cardholder agreement where plaintiff contended that he never received the agreement, was unaware of the agreement, and did not consent to any arbitration agreement.

• Hiller v. Schwartz & Feinsod, No. 7:16-CV-05447-VB (S.D.N.Y.  May 23, 2017)

  05/23/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the action.  Court held that the expansive scope of the National Football League Players Association Regulations and the language of its arbitration provision encompassed the parties’ wage and hour disputes. Court also declined to rule that the Regulations’ six-month limitations period was unenforceable as a matter of law, as the general rule in the second circuit is that the arbitrator decides statute of limitations issues.

• Scudieri v. Chapman Chevrolet Chandler, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-01988-JWS (D. Ariz. May 23, 2017)

  05/23/2017

  Court ordered parties to proceed to arbitration in accordance with terms of their arbitration agreement.  Court held that because plaintiff had no evidence showing the likely costs of arbitration and had decided to forego discovery, plaintiff would be unable to establish that arbitration costs would be so prohibitively expensive such as to permit him to effectively resist arbitration.

• Liquidx Inc. v. Brooklawn Capital, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-05528WHP (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2017)

  05/23/2017

  Court denied declaratory relief, holding that under New York law, successor was alter ego of predecessor company and thus could be compelled to join arbitration proceedings between creditor and predecessor.  Court found that the predecessor and successor were virtually indistinguishable, and the latter was a new company in name only.  Court found the successor took responsibility for the predecessor’s financing and legal disputes, offices and employees, and that this domination and control was not displaced by discrepancies in share ownership.  Court found ample evidence that this control was used to commit fraud or wrongdoing.

• Alexander Dubose Jefferson & Townsend LLP v. Vance, No. 1:17-CV-133-RP (W.D. Tex. May 22, 2017)

  05/22/2017

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff failed to establish that defendant received sufficient express or implied notice creating a valid agreement to arbitrate. Court held that law firm did not provide direct notice of an arbitration agreement where it informed employees of the existence and online availability of the firm’s dispute resolution program by email, but did not use the word “arbitration” and did not attach the policy.  Court further held there was no implied notice of the arbitration agreement because the email from the firm did not suggest that the firm was implementing a binding arbitration policy to which continued employment would constitute acquiescence, so as to impose a duty to further investigate the policy’s terms. 

• Atkinson v. Harpeth Financial Services, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-504 (M.D. Tenn. May 22, 2017)

  05/22/2017

  Court granted defendants’ petition to compel arbitration and to stay the action pending arbitration.  Pursuant to principles of severability, court held that plaintiff failed to advance any specific and unique challenge to the delegation provision of an arbitration agreement in a loan agreement.  Court also held that plaintiff’s duress defense and unconscionability arguments relating to the loan agreement were not sufficiently specific or unique to the delegation provision to effectively contest its enforceability.

• Vine v. PLS Financial Services, Inc., No. 16-50847 (5th Cir. May 19, 2017)

  05/19/2017

  Court of appeals affirmed lower court’s denial of appellants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.  Court held that the lower court did not err in concluding that appellants waived their right to compel arbitration by litigating the dispute in the federal courts and initially seeking to avoid arbitration.  Court also held that the lower court retained the authority to determine the scope of the arbitration clause.

• Columbus LTACH Management, LLC & Columbus LTACH, LLC v. Quantum LTACH Holdings, LLC & Quantum Int’l Income Corp., No. 16-6510 (D.N.J. May 19, 2017)

  05/19/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s case, the sole purpose of which was to compel arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff’s complaint failed to plead facts showing that defendant, a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, should be compelled to arbitrate under theories of contract or agency law.  Court further denied plaintiff’s request in the alternative to stay the proceedings as court’s decision that defendant was not compelled to arbitrate left nothing for the court to stay.

• Preferred Care, Inc. v. Roberts, No. 5:16-CV-00203-KKC (E.D. Ky. May 19, 2017)

  05/19/2017

  Court denied plaintiff’s motion to reconsider an earlier ruling that certain claims against nonparties to an arbitration agreement would have to be arbitrated.  Court held that there was no reason to alter its earlier decision and that plaintiff improperly raised new arguments that plaintiff could have raised before judgment. 

• West Charleston Lofts III, LLC v. Farina, No. 2:16-CV-02491-JAD-VCF (D. Nev. May 19, 2017)

  05/19/2017

  Court dismissed plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration, holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the dispute because, in a case filed under diversity jurisdiction, defendants and one plaintiff were citizens of the same state. 

• Westberry v. St. Operated School District of Newark, No. 2:15-CV-07998-JMV-JBC (D.N.J. May 19, 2017)

  05/19/2017

  Court dismissed plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims, holding that the collective bargaining agreement’s use of the word “may” did not render arbitration a permissive step in the grievance process but rather offered plaintiffs the opportunity to either pursue their grievances through arbitration or abandon their claims altogether.  Accordingly, because plaintiffs failed to pursue their grievances through arbitration, the court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims arising from alleged breaches of the collective bargaining agreement.

• Division Six Sports, Inc. v. Levi Strauss Asia Pacific Division Pte. Ltd., No. 2:17-CV-02768-MWF-AFM (C.D. Cal. May. 19, 2017)

  05/19/2017

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the action.  Court declined to dismiss the motion based on the defendant’s failure to first comply with a local timing rule and held that the parties’ agreement governed the claims at issue.  Court further held that the parties had delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator by adopting the UNCITRAL rules and declined to deny the petition as wholly groundless notwithstanding such delegation. 

• Burgos v. Trans Union, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-06338-JCJ (E.D. Pa. May 18, 2017)

  05/18/2017

  Court granted the parties a thirty day period to supplement the record regarding a pending motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that, after finding that the parties had entered into an arbitration agreement, the agreement was not unconscionable and that defendant waived its right to enforce the agreement.  However, the court concluded that it required further input from the parties regarding the appropriate standard to rule on motions to compel arbitration.

• Jones v. SCO Silver Care Operations LLC, No. 16-1101 (3d Cir. May 18, 2017)

  05/18/2017

  Court of appeals affirmed decision denying motion to dismiss or to stay proceedings pending arbitration, holding that the collective bargaining agreement did not provide a clear and unmistakable waiver of the right to judicial recourse for statutory claims, and that neither of the claims depended on interpretation of the agreement.  Court found plaintiffs’ claims were based on statutory and factual analysis, and did not depend on a disputed term of the contract.

• GGNSC Louisville St. Matthews, LLC v. Saunders, No. 3:17-CV-00185-CRS-CHL (W.D. Ky. May 18, 2017)

  05/18/2017

  Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ petition to compel arbitration, and granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s petition to compel arbitration of claims currently pending in state court.  In denying defendant’s motion to dismiss, court held that diversity jurisdiction existed, plaintiffs did not fail to join indispensable parties, and there was a valid arbitration agreement.  In granting petition to compel arbitration, court held that arbitration agreement was enforceable and the scope of the agreement encompassed only certain of plaintiffs’ claims.

• Promptu Systems Corp. v. Comcast Corp., No. 2:16-CV-06516-LDD (E.D. Pa. May 18, 2017)

  05/18/2017

  Court granted defendant’s motion to stay pending arbitration.  Court held t