Shearman & Sterling LLP | U.S. International Arbitration Digest | US International Arbitration
U.S. International Arbitration Digest
This links to the home page
US International Arbitration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Davis v. Cintas Corporation, No. 2:18-CV-01200-MRH (W.D. Pa. May 23, 2019)
    05/23/2019

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending arbitration.  Court held there was a valid agreement to arbitrate, the claims here were within the scope of that agreement, and no statutory exceptions nor issues of unconscionability prevented defendant from compelling arbitration.

  • Soojay v. Worldventures Marketing LLC, No. 4:18-CV-00580-ALM-KPJ (E.D. Tex. May 23, 2019)
    05/23/2019

    Court concurred with the report and recommendation from the Magistrate Judge recommending that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay court proceedings pending resolution of arbitral proceedings be granted. 

  • Brooks v. N.A.R. Inc, No. 3:18-CV-00362-JJH (N.D. Ohio May 22, 2019)
    05/22/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration of a non-signatory of the contract containing an arbitration agreement finding that as an assignee of the contract, defendant could compel arbitration of plaintiff’s claim based on the language of the arbitration agreement. 

  • Campanile Investments LLC v. Westmoreland Equity Fund LLC, No. 5:17-CV-00337-FB-ESC (W.D. Tex. May 22, 2019)
    05/22/2019

    Court denied defendants’ motions to compel arbitration and to dismiss or stay proceedings, finding that the valid agreement to arbitrate was unenforceable because it was procured by fraud. 

  • Kadish v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 2:18-CV-00371-PPS-JEM (N.D. Ind. May 22, 2019).
    05/22/2019

    Court granted defendants motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.  Court found there was a valid arbitration agreement and that the claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and as a result, dismissed the case.

  • Kana Energy Services Inc. v. Jiangsu Jinshi Machinery Group Co. LTD., No. 4:19-CV-00213 (S.D. Tex. May 22, 2019)
    05/22/2019

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for remand despite finding subject matter jurisdiction over a dispute with an arbitration agreement falling under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards.  Court held that remand was appropriate in this case because the state court had already ruled against arbitrability and no federal questions remained for the court’s determination.

  • Caldwell, Wright Enterprises, Inc. v. Avadim Health, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-002090-MR-WCM (W.D.N.C. May 22, 2019)
    05/22/2019

    Court denied without prejudice defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, noting that this motion may be renewed after a determination on validity of the agreement is made.

  • McNeil v. LVMH Inc., No. 1:18-CV-11751-PAE (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2019)
    05/21/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and to stay the case pending arbitration.  Court held plaintiff’s claims of material breach of an arbitration agreement amounting to a waiver were premature because they were in the present case properly asserted, in the first instance, before the arbitrator.

  • Beattie v. TTEC Healthcare Solutions, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-03098-RM-NRN (D. Colo. May 21, 2019)
    05/21/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel individual arbitration and stayed the case with respect to two plaintiffs, finding they manifested their assent to arbitration agreement electronically.

  • Soffiantini v. Fitness International, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-23854-JLK (S.D. Fla. May 21, 2019)
    05/21/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration, finding that there was a valid arbitration agreement and that plaintiff failed to establish the arbitration provision was substantially or procedurally unconscionable.

  • Osborne v. Charter Communications, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-01801-HEA (E.D. Mo. May 17, 2019)
    05/17/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the entire controversy between the parties was subject to and must be resolved by arbitration.  Court held plaintiff accepted employment arbitration through not opting out of an agreement and considered that the claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • Perfect Fit, LLC v. Aronowitz, No. 1:19-CV-00160-NT (D. Me. May 16, 2019)
    05/16/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss or stay and to compel arbitration.  Court found that defendant’s brief delay of less than one month (eight days of which were attributable to scheduling orders) did not amount to a waiver of his right to proceed to arbitration.  Court further found that the plaintiff’s claims were subject to arbitration, as the arbitration clause contained broad language to which there attaches a strong presumption of arbitrability.

  • Lance v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-04933-MAK (E.D. Pa. May 16, 2019)
    05/16/2019

    Court granted defendant’s renewed motion to compel individual arbitration and stay of the action pending arbitration.  Applying a summary judgment standard, court concluded that (i) pursuant to the purchase agreement, defendant bought all of the rights to plaintiff’s account, which included the right to arbitration; (ii) plaintiff’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claim fell within the scope of that arbitration clause; and (iii) defendant did not waive its right to compel arbitration.

  • Larkin v. Day, No. 2:18-CV-02636-TLP-dkv (W.D. Tenn. May 15, 2019)
    05/15/2019

    Court granted defendants’ request to compel arbitration as to plaintiff Chad Larkin and denied the motion to dismiss as to plaintiff Genny Larkin.  Noting that, under the FAA, valid arbitration clauses are severable and enforceable even if the rest of the contract is void, court found that an valid arbitration agreement existed and that it was severable from the rest of the contract.  Court further found that the scope of the arbitration agreement encompassed all of Chad Larkin’s claims, but not those of Genny Larkin, as there was no evidence that she signed an agreement containing an arbitration provision.

  • Cook-Bolden v. DG TRC Management, No. 1:19-CV-03425-KMW (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2019)
    05/15/2019

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the AAA Arbitration filed by defendants.  Court found that (i) the FAA applied to the asset purchase agreement; (ii) the asset purchase agreement demonstrated the parties’ clear and unmistakable intent to have an arbitrator, rather than a court, resolve threshold arbitrability questions; (iii) since plaintiff did not challenge the delegation provision or argue that it was rendered unconscionable, it must be treated as valid and enforceable under the FAA.

  • Ryan v. Salisbury, No. 1:18-CV-00406-ACK-RT (D. Haw. May 14, 2019)
    05/14/2019

    Court granted in part and stayed in part defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.  Court noted that a number of district courts have found that, where there were sophisticated parties to commercial contracts, the incorporation of arbitration rules (including JAMS, AAA, and UNCITRAL) constituted clear and unmistakable evidence of the parties’ intent to submit the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator.  Court further concluded that, since plaintiff failed to specifically challenge the delegation clause, it would not consider its validity.

  • Abellard v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 0:19-CV-60099-BB (S.D. Fla. May 14, 2019)
    05/14/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss or stay case.  Court concluded that plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration clauses, noting that (i) plaintiff did not dispute the validity of the arbitration provisions, both of which delegate issues of arbitrability and enforceability to the arbitrator; and (ii) even if plaintiff’s contention was properly decided by the court, the arbitration provisions expressly include statutory claims like the ones brought by plaintiff.

  • eTouch LV, LLC v. eTouch Menu, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-02066-JCM-NJK (D. Nev. May 13, 2019)
    05/13/2019

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration and rejected defendants’ argument that the arbitration clause is void. Court explained that the FAA compels courts to stay litigation of arbitrable issues regardless of whether those issues intertwine with non-arbitrable issues.

  • Davidow v. H&R Block, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-01022-ODS (W.D. Mo. May 13, 2019)
    05/13/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion to strike. Court found a valid arbitration agreement existed and that it encompassed plaintiff’s Sherman Act claims. Court also concluded that, while non-signatory defendants may not have been specifically identified in the agreements, there is an irrefutable affiliation between defendants and signatory H&R Block Eastern Enterprises.

  • Austin Freight Systems, Inc. v. West Wind Logistics, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-04832 (N.D. Ill. May 13, 2019)
    05/13/2019

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration, concluding that the parties’ agreement confined the universe of arbitrable claims to those arising out of that agreement, and therefore it did not govern the parties’ entire commercial relationship.

  • Schultz, Jr. v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-04415-JLL-SCM (D.N.J. May 13, 2019)
    05/13/2019

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and strike class claims. Court found that defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate as, with the exception of defendant’s decision to prioritize its arguments for dismissal on the merits rather than its arguments for compelling arbitration, defendant has been proceeding as a party seeking to arbitrate should proceed, i.e. by invoking its right to arbitrate early and often and objecting to further litigation of the dispute (including discovery) pending an adjudication of the arbitration issue. However, court found that the existence of an enforceable arbitration agreement was not apparent, and directed the parties to conduct limited discovery on the narrow issue of whether an enforceable arbitration agreement exists.

  • McDonnel Group, L.L.C. v. Great Lakes Insurance SE, UK Branch, No. 18-30817 (5th Cir. May 13, 2019)
    05/13/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed a district court decision in favor of the insurers, determining that the insurance policy’s “conformity to statute” provision did not negate the agreement to arbitrate. Court found that because the Louisiana state statute was preempted by the New York Convention, the statue does not and cannot apply to plaintiff-appellant’s policy, and therefore there is no conflict between the policy and the state statute. As such, the conformity provision was not triggered, and its inapplicability leads only to the conclusion that the arbitration provision survives.

  • Whoop, Inc. v. Ascent International Holdings, Ltd., No. 1:19-CV-10210-LTS (D. Mass. May 10, 2019)
    05/10/2019

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court found that the arbitration agreement constituted a material alteration, and therefore it was not part of the parties’ contract.

  • Vargas v. Bay Terrace Plaza LLC, No. 1:17-CV-07385-PKC-SJB (E.D.N.Y. May 10, 2019)
    05/10/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and to stay the proceedings. Court noted that, while plaintiffs disputed the overall validity of the arbitration agreements, they did not dispute that the agreements delegated the question of enforceability to the arbitrator.

  • McCullough v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., No. 1:16-CV-20194-DPG (S.D. Fla. May 10, 2019)
    05/10/2019

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss plaintiffs’ third amended complaint. Following Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC v. Converteam SAS, 902 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2018) – which plainly rejected using arbitration by estoppel and other equitable theories to bind non-signatories to arbitration in cases arising under the New York Convention – court concluded that there was no agreement signed by both parties and therefore plaintiffs cannot be compelled to arbitrate.

  • Furlough v. Capstone Logistics, LLC, No. 5:18-CV-02990-SVK (N.D. Cal. May 10, 2019)
    05/10/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment that an arbitration agreement exists. Court concluded that (i) defendants established by a preponderance of the evidence that plaintiff completed and e-signed an onboarding form acknowledging that he read the arbitration agreement and received the associate handbook; (ii) plaintiff consented to arbitration and therefore an arbitration agreement exists; and (iii) because plaintiff did not directly transport goods while working for the defendant and has not shown that defendant is in the transportation industry itself, plaintiff is not a transportation worker falling within an exemption from the FAA.

  • Asberry-Jones v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. 2:19-CV-00083-MAK (E.D. Pa. May 10, 2019)
    05/10/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Applying a motion to dismiss standard, court concluded that there was a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement. Court found that (i) both parties agreed to be mutually bound by arbitration and so there was adequate consideration, and (ii) the arbitration agreement clearly and unambiguously required arbitration of all claims “arising out of” plaintiff’s employment, including but not limited to the claims at issue in the case.

  • Monfared v. St. Luke’s University Health Network, No. 18-2850 (3d Cir. May 10, 2019)
    05/10/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed lower court decision to confirm an arbitration award. In determining whether the claims were subject to arbitration, court concluded that the phrase “if a dispute or claim should arise” was best understood as functionally equivalent to more standard language that would sweep in any claim relating to the plaintiff’s employment.

View All