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
  • Helmuth v. ARS National Services, Inc., No. 9:11-CV-81044-KAM (S.D. Fla. Nov. 13, 2018)
    11/13/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and strike class allegations. Court found that although a valid arbitration agreement existed, and the dispute was within the scope of that agreement, defendant had waived its right to arbitration. Court held that defendant’s actions in filing an answer, engaging in scheduling conferences, conducting discovery and mediation, and filing motions showed intent to litigate and not to arbitrate.

  • Kincaid v. Ditech Financial LLC, No. 2:18-CV-00085-JPB (N.D.W. Va. Nov. 13, 2018)
    11/13/2018

    Court granted defendants motion to compel arbitration, finding that it need not determine whether this putative class action was a case involving a single claimant case, which required arbitration under the agreement, or a case involving multiple transactions, which did not, because threshold questions of arbitrability had been delegated to the arbitrator under the agreement.

  • Arment v. Dolgencorp, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-00026-CDP (E.D. Mo. Nov. 13, 2018)
    11/13/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case. Court found that the agreement delegated questions of the validity of the arbitration agreement to the arbitrator, and thus did not consider plaintiffs arguments that the arbitration agreement was invalid under Missouri law.

  • DetailXPerts Franchise Systems, LLC, v. TKTM Enterprises, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-11823-VAR-DRG (E.D. Mich. Nov. 9, 2018)
    11/09/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss counterclaims that were subject to an arbitration provision in a franchise agreement. Court rejected defendants arguments that the franchise agreement was fraudulently induced, finding that without specific allegations as to fraud in the inducement of the arbitration provision, the court could not decide the validity of the franchise agreement in the first instance.

  • Roasting Plant of Michigan JV, LLC v. Roasting Plant, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-10295-BAF-RSW (E.D. Mich. Nov. 09, 2018)
    11/09/2018

    Court granted motion to dismiss pursuant to the FAA, holding that if the plaintiffs wished to arbitrate their claims they must do so in New York in accordance with the terms of the arbitration provision. Court found that the FAA preempted the Michigan Franchise Investment Law which prohibited against extra territorial arbitration agreements.

  • Parks IP Law, LLC v. Wood, No. 18-11178 (11th Cir. Nov. 8, 2018)
    11/08/2018

    Court of appeals reversed district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and remanded. Defendant-appellant had signed a separation agreement and release including an arbitration clause with previous employer plaintiff-appellee. Plaintiff-appellee brought suit on the basis of a promissory note between the parties when defendant-appellant left its employ to start his own firm. District court denied defendant-appellant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the promissory note contained no arbitration clause and no reference to the separation agreement. Court of appeals held that the separation agreement and the promissory note were executed contemporaneously as part of the same transaction and should be construed together.

  • Cotton Exchange Investment v. Xcel Air Conditioning, No. 2:16-CV-17543-EEF-MBN (E.D. La. Nov. 8, 2018)
    11/08/2018

    Court granted in part and denied in part third-party defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss third-party plaintiff’s complaint, or alternatively to stay the action pending arbitration, staying third-party plaintiff’s claims against third-party defendant pending arbitration, and denying to dismiss.

  • HTC Corporation v. Telefonaktiebolaget Ericsson, No. 6:18-CV-00243-JRG (E.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2018)
    11/07/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to sever, stay, and compel arbitration plaintiff’s “past refund” claims under prior licensing agreements and motion to compel arbitration plaintiff’s antitrust claims. Court found valid arbitration agreements within each of the prior license agreements at issue between the parties and found the plaintiff’s claims were arbitrable. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments for denial of defendant’s motion on the bases that the defendant waived its right to arbitration by substantially invoking the judicial process.

  • Greene v. Onemain Financial Group, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00848-LCB-LPA (M.D.N.C. Nov. 7, 2018)
    11/07/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in a wrongful termination case, finding that plaintiff electronically signed a certificate agreement to submit covered disputes to binding arbitration. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that there was no assent, no mutuality of agreement, and no meeting of the minds and that, in any case, the arbitration agreement is not enforceable due to lack of consideration.

  • Feldman v. Norman, No. 1:18-CV-04662 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 6, 2018)
    11/06/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay litigation pending arbitration of plaintiffs’ claims against a related party, the law firm owned by defendants. Court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that because defendants are not signatories to the employment agreement between the plaintiffs and the law firm, which contained an arbitration provision, defendants are not entitled to a stay. Court found that plaintiffs’ claims in the present case arise from the same set of facts as the claims against the law firm at arbitration.

  • Bayonne Energy Center, LLC v. Power Engineers, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-02726-SDW-LDW (D.N.J. Nov. 6, 2018)
    11/06/2018

    Court denied third-party defendant’s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint or, alternatively, to stay proceeding pending arbitration on the basis of an arbitration agreement between plaintiff and third-party defendant. Court rejected third-party defendant’s only argument that plaintiff filed the action to circumvent the arbitration agreement, holding that the court would not speculate as to why plaintiff did not pursue claims in arbitration or otherwise.

  • Hodgson Williams v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., No. 1:18-CV-22774-KMW (S.D. Fla. Nov. 6, 2018)
    11/06/2018

    Magistrate judge recommended plaintiff’s motion to vacate an arbitral award be denied, and defendant’s cross-motion to confirm be granted and the final award be affirmed. Magistrate judge found that plaintiff did not provide sufficient basis for vacatur, because plaintiff’s challenges were based on disagreements with legal and evidentiary determinations made by the arbitrator, not on one of the seven defenses to enforcement enumerated in the New York Convention.

  • Marchant v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., No 2:18-CV-02757-RMG (D.S.C. Nov. 5, 2018)
    11/05/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding a valid arbitration agreement existed between plaintiff employee and defendant former employer. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that she did not enter the arbitration agreement knowingly and that the contract containing the arbitration agreement was unconscionable as a contract of adhesion.

  • Smiley v. Forcepoint Federal, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-00026-JAG (E.D. Va. Nov. 5, 2018)
    11/05/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration on the basis of an arbitration agreement within plaintiff’s employment contract. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the prohibitive costs of arbitration render the arbitration clause unconscionable and that defendant defaulted on its right to compel arbitration by failing to mention arbitration in its answer and for waiting seven months to invoke the arbitration agreement.

  • Hunt v. Potter County, No. 4:16-CV-01729-MWB (M.D. Pa. Nov. 5, 2018)
    11/05/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment.  In its discussion, court rejected defendant’s argument that plaintiff’s claims were preempted by plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the administrative remedies available to him by not entering binding arbitration.  Court found that exhaustion of remedies is not a prerequisite to action, but granted summary judgment on other grounds.

  • Dye v. Tamko Building Products, Inc., No. 17-14052 (11th Cir. Nov. 2, 2018)
    11/02/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to grant defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss plaintiff’s complaint.  Court of appeals found that homeowners whose roofers ordered, opened, and installed shingles were bound by a mandatory arbitration provision included in the product-purchase agreement displayed on the exterior wrapping of every package of shingles, holding that the packaging sufficed to convey an offer of contract terms, the unwrapping and use of shingles was a reasonable means of acceptance of those terms, and the homeowners’ grant of authority to their roofers to buy and install the shingles included the acceptance of the purchase terms on the homeowners’ behalf.

  • Gartly v. Selip & Stylianou LLP, No. 1:18-CV-01806-ARR-VMS (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2018)
    11/02/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration where defendant bank presented unrebutted evidence that a credit card agreement contained a broad arbitration clause.  Court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that the affidavit in which defendant claimed to have sent plaintiff the credit card and amendments to the agreement should be excluded as hearsay and that the defendant did not provide sufficient proof that plaintiff accepted the agreement.

  • Kater v. Churchill Downs Downs Incorporated, No. 2:15-CV-00612-RBL (W.D. Wash. Nov. 2, 2018)
    11/02/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration after three years and three months of litigation, rejecting the defendant’s argument that it did not waive its right to enforce the arbitration agreement in its Terms of Use because its only substantive action was filing a motion to dismiss.  Court found that plaintiff met the heavy burden of proof to establish that defendant waived its right to compel arbitration on the basis of a three-prong test: (1) defendant’s knowledge of an existing right to compel arbitration; (2) defendant’s acts inconsistent with that existing right; and (3) prejudice to the party opposing arbitration resulting from such inconsistent acts.

  • Ratcliffe v. Dorsey School of Business, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-10524-LVP-EAS (E.D. Mich. Nov. 2, 2018)
    11/02/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pending arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court found there was a valid arbitral agreement, the dispute fell within the scope of that agreement, and none of the claims were nonarbitrable.

  • Berryman v. Newalta Environmental Services, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-00793-NBF (W.D. Pa. Nov. 1, 2018)
    11/01/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding that non-signatory defendant had standing to compel arbitration, because it was a third-party beneficiary under the contract. Court held a valid arbitral agreement existed, the claims fell within the scope of that agreement, and the defendant had not waived its right to arbitration by filing a third-party complaint in the action, as it moved to compel arbitration during the initial pleading stages.

  • Higgins v. Ally Financial Inc., No. 4:18-CV-0417-SRB (W.D. Mo. Nov. 1, 2018)
    11/01/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration based on a car purchase contract containing an arbitration provision.  Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that defendant was not a party to the car purchase agreement and therefore not authorized to enforce the arbitration provision and that the arbitration provision was unenforceable because it lacked consideration as a matter of law.

  • Brayman v. Keypoint Government Solutions, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00550-WJM-NRN (D. Colo. Nov. 1, 2018)
    11/01/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification as a collective action and court-authorized notice. Court rejected defendant’s argument that similarly situated persons who had signed arbitration agreements should be excluded from the collective action definition and granted the conditional certification for all persons who fit the proposed collective action definition, including those with arbitration provisions.

  • Heredia v. Sunrise Senior Living LLC, No. 4:18-CV-00616-HSG (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2018)
    10/31/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, as the plaintiffs had responded with a statement of non-opposition.

  • Shoals v. Owens & Minor Distribution, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-02355-WBS-EFB (E.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2018)
    10/31/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pending the outcome of arbitration, as the plaintiff initialed an arbitration agreement as part of the electronic employment onboarding process.  Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration agreement was invalid due to procedural unconscionability because it was a contract of adhesion and because a copy of the applicable arbitration rules had not been provided to him.  Court further rejected that the arbitration agreement was invalid due to substantive unconscionability because it failed to provide for adequate discovery, because defendant and its counsel would have an inequitable advantage in arbitration as “repeat players,” and because it contained an illegal waiver of representative claims under the Private Attorney General Act.

  • Torres v. Rushmore Service Center, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-09236-SDW-LDW (D.N.J. Oct. 31, 2018)
    10/31/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration and ordered parties to conduct limited discovery on the issue of arbitrability. Court concluded that the question of arbitrability could not be resolved without considering evidence extraneous to the pleadings, so it would be inappropriate to apply the Rule 12(b)(6) standard in deciding the motion.

  • Summit Emergency Holdings LLC v. Michael J. Camlinde and Associates, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-03080-G-BN (N.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2018)
    10/30/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings pending arbitration pursuant to the FAA as the agreement involved a transaction affecting interstate commerce. Court found there was a valid agreement to arbitrate, the dispute fell within the scope of the agreement, and defendant had not waived its right to arbitration after engaging in discovery and filing the motion to compel arbitration ten months after the case was initiated.

  • Fox v. Transunion, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00362-TSB (S.D. Ohio Oct. 26, 2018) 
    10/26/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation pursuant to the FAA, holding the parties agreed to arbitrate, the defamation and Fair Credit Reporting Act claims fell within the scope of the agreement, and those claims were arbitrable.

  • In re Remicade Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:18-CV-00303-JCJ (E.D. Pa. Oct. 26, 2018) 
    10/26/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel individual arbitration and stay proceedings.  Even though the scope of the arbitral clause was broad, the court held plaintiff’s antitrust claims did not arise out of the agreement as the alleged anticompetitive conduct lacked a significant relationship to the agreement.

  • Westburg v. Good Life Advisors, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-00248-LAB-MDD (S.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2018)
    10/19/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to stay pending arbitration, denying defendant’s argument that plaintiff former employees had agreed to arbitrate any disputes with defendant employer by signing an arbitration agreement with a non-party partner company. Court found that the plaintiff’s allegations did not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • Cottonwood Centers Incorporated v. Klearman, No. 4:18-CV-00252-CKJ (D. Ariz. Oct. 18, 2018)
    10/18/2018

    Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, denying the defendants’ argument that the arbitration agreement was incorporated by reference to the overall agreement where the overall agreement referred to an attached document and the document was not physically attached, but was one of multiple attachments to an email. Court found that there was no evidence that plaintiff viewed the other attachments to the email, including the arbitration agreement, prior to signing the overall agreement. Further, court found there was no acknowledgement of incorporation that would indicate plaintiff’s consent.

  • Titus v. Zestfinance Inc., No. 3:18-CV-05373-RJB (W.D. Wash. Oct. 18, 2018)
    10/18/2018

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding the “effective vindication” exception applied because the arbitration agreement was a prospective waiver of plaintiff’s rights to pursue federal statutory remedies. Court agreed with plaintiff’s argument that the only way to interpret a loan agreement was to conclude that Tribal law applied, barring the application of federal law. Court acknowledged that the arbitration agreement created a conflict between the FAA’s requirement that contracts to arbitration be enforced on their terms and the enforcement provisions of federal statutes that plaintiff could not pursue under the contract.

  • Tyler v. Timothy E. Baxter & Associates, P.C., No. 2:17-CV-13740-NGE-RSW (E.D. Mich. Oct. 18, 2018)
    10/18/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, rendering moot its alternative motion to compel arbitration. Court found that the defendant had not provided evidence to satisfy a determination that the parties agreed to arbitrate, that a valid arbitration agreement existed, and therefore there was no basis on which to find the defendant could compel arbitration.

  • WTA Tour, Inc. v. Super Slam Limited, No. 1:18-CV-05601-JSR (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2018)
    10/18/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and enjoined respondents from proceeding with the action pending in Cyprus until the completion of the arbitration proceedings ordered. Court denied respondents’ arguments that several parties to the foreign litigation are not signatories to the agreement containing the arbitration agreement and that none of the claims at issue in the foreign lawsuits fall within the scope of the arbitration clause. Court found that the non-signatories to the arbitration agreement were estopped from denying the obligation to arbitration because it received a direct benefit from the contract containing the arbitration clause.

  • Commercial Lubricants, LLC v. Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc., No. 1:14-CV-07483-MKB-RLM (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2018)
    10/17/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the agreement at issue was terminated and plaintiff could not recover post-termination damages. Court found that the defendant had waived its right to arbitration under the arbitration clause contained within the agreement by waiting seven months to raise the arbitration issue, by engaging in the action, by making motions to the court, and by conducting significant discovery.

  • Li v. Stockx.com, No. 1:18-CV-00911-JKB (D. Md. Oct. 17, 2018)
    10/17/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings in a putative class action against defendant online marketplace. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration clause contained within the terms of service was not valid under Michigan contract law on the grounds that it lacked consideration and mutuality of obligation, that defendant materially misrepresented the terms, that the arbitration agreement is unconscionable, and that the agreement to arbitrate was an illusory contract.

  • Rivera v. Petsmart, Inc. and Medical Management International, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-02121-MMB (E.D. Pa. Oct. 17, 2018)
    10/17/2018

    Court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement contained within plaintiff’s employment contract to be valid and enforceable. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the employment contract was an unenforceable contract for adhesion, finding that the contract was procedurally conscionable and substantively conscionable and that plaintiff did not allege sufficient facts suggesting a lack of consideration.

  • Eisenbach v. Ernst & Young U.S. LLP, No. 2:18-CV-01679 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 16, 2018)
    10/16/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay action, finding a valid arbitration agreement was contained within plaintiff’s employment agreement. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration agreement was not signed by defendant, was fraudulently induced, was procedurally unconscionable, and was substantively unconscionable.

  • BPP Retail Properties, LLC v. North American Roofing Services, Inc., No. 313-CV-01259-FAB (D.P.R. Oct. 15, 2018)
    10/15/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, denying plaintiff’s motion to enforce obligations pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement.  Court found that the defendant sufficiently demonstrated the four requirements necessary to compel arbitration, as the plaintiff did not challenge the validity of the arbitration clause and did not deny either party’s status as a signatory to the arbitration agreement, and the dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration clause.

  • Claussen v. American Family Life Assurance Company, No. 418-CV-04087 (D.S.D. Oct. 15, 2018)
    10/15/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, upholding strong federal and state policy favoring arbitration, as the plaintiff did not meet her burden to prove either that the arbitration agreement was invalid or that her claims did not fall within the arbitration agreement.  Court denied dismissing the action, in favor of staying the action, stating the discretionary authority to dismiss should be used sparingly.

  • Lee v. Postmates Inc., No. 3:18-CV-03421-JCS (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2018)
    10/15/2018

    Court granted the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in a class action regarding employee misclassification of couriers as independent contractors.  Court held that any claim that the class action waiver is unenforceable must be determined by a court and cannot be determined by an arbitrator.

  • Pullam v. Apria Healthcare, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-02649-JAR-GEB (D. Kan. Oct. 15, 2018)
    10/15/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to stay the case and compel arbitration on the basis of an arbitration agreement that the plaintiff purportedly entered into during the course of her employment with the defendant.  Defendant introduced an arbitration agreement to its employees through a required online training course; plaintiff denied that she had completed the course or become aware of the arbitration agreement or of the opt-out election.  Court found that the defendant did not meet its burden to prove that plaintiff had completed the online course that would have served to bind plaintiff by the arbitration agreement.

  • Rushing v. Viacom Inc., No. 3:17-CV-04492-JD (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2018)
    10/15/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to stay or dismiss the plaintiff’s claims pending arbitration, finding an arbitration agreement did not exist between the parties.  Court found that plaintiff received neither actual notice nor constructive notice of the arbitration agreement contained within the end user license agreement when downloading a mobile application.

  • Schmell v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., No. 3:17-CV-13080-AET-LHG (D.N.J. Oct. 15, 2018)
    10/15/2018

    Court granted defendant’s renewed motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings on the basis of an arbitration agreement in which all employees were automatically enrolled and provided with an opt-out system.  Court denied the initial motion to compel and ordered limited discovery on the question of whether the plaintiff had notice of the arbitration agreement.  Court found that plaintiff had adequate notice given that the arbitration agreement appeared in his work email during working hours combined with the expectation of employment that plaintiff would read his work email.

  • In re: Apple Inc. Device Performance Litigation, No. 5:18-MD-02827-EJD (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2018)
    10/15/2018

    Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that cases in which defendants proposed arbitration agreements to putative class members during the pendency of litigation were found to threaten litigation apply to the present case, because plaintiff had not presented such an agreement to putative class members.

  • Anderson v. Monterey Financial Services, LLC, No. 4:18-CV-02040-DMR (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2018)
    10/12/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the plaintiff signed a contract containing an arbitration agreement and denying that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable as a contract of adhesion and therefore unenforceable.

  • Amos v. North Hill Nursing and Rehabilitation Center LLC, No. 2:18-CV-00217-AKK (N.D. Ala. Oct. 10, 2018)
    10/10/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court held that because the signatory on the agreement containing the arbitration provision did not have the legal authority to execute it, no valid arbitral agreement existed.

  • Bolden v. AT&T Services, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-02306-JWL-JPO (D. Kan. Oct. 10, 2018)
    10/10/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court held that valid arbitration agreement applied to the parties dispute, rejecting plaintiff arguments regarding purported insufficiency of contract formation and consideration given. Further, court held that plaintiff could be deemed to have accepted the agreement to arbitrate.

  • Cintron v. Monterey Financial Services, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-11537-CCC-CLW (D. N.J. Oct. 10, 2018)
    10/10/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed proceedings, holding that a valid arbitration agreement governed the dispute. Court rejected plaintiff’s challenges to the validity of his signature.

  • Dogan v. KeyBank, N.A., No. 1:18-CV-00205-MAD-DJS (N.D. N.Y. Oct. 10, 2018)
    10/10/2018

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

  • Temsa Ulasim Araclari Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. CH Bus Sales LLC, No. 1:18-CV-00698-RGA (D. Del. Oct. 9, 2018)
    10/09/2018

    Court stayed motion to enjoin arbitration pending arbitral decision on equivalent question of jurisdiction. Court reasoned that the parties’ incorporation of AAA rules into their agreement left questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

View All