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.

• Julabo USA, Inc. v. Juchheim, No. 5:19-CV-01412-JDW (E.D. Pa. June 9, 2021)

  06/09/2021

  Court granted motion to compel ICDR arbitration and stay the litigation pursuant to the FAA.

• Bryon Stafford v. Rite Aid Corporation, No. 20-55333 (9th Cir. May 21, 2021)

  05/21/2021

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order denying motion to compel arbitration in putative class action, holding that equitable estoppel did not apply to bind lead plaintiff to the arbitration agreements in contracts between defendant and third parties.

• Peiran Zheng v. Live Auctioneers LLC, No. 20-CV-9744 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2021)

  05/21/2021

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay the litigation, finding that “clickwrap” agreement on defendant’s website created a binding contract to arbitrate.

• Uttam Chand Rakesh Kumar v. Derco Associates Inc., No. 1:21-CV-00692-DAD (E.D. Cal. May. 17, 2021)

  05/17/2021

  Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in a contract dispute case where plaintiffs were seeking a declaratory judgment that the arbitration agreement between the parties was unenforceable.  Court held that plaintiffs had not demonstrated that they were likely to succeed on the merits of the action because they had breached the contract and the question of whether the arbitration clause had been terminated or repudiated is a matter for the arbitrator to decide.

• Cube Infrastructure Fund SICAV v. Kingdom of Spain, 1:20-CV-01708-EGS (D. D.C. May. 17, 2021)

  05/17/2021

  Court granted defendant’s motion for a stay and denied without prejudice defendant’s motion for to dismiss in an enforcement case.  Court held that the most efficient and fairest course was to stay the case while defendant’s pending application to annul the award was resolved by the ICSID, reasoning that considerations of international comity also weighed in favor of a stay given that the case involved addressing a conflict between decades-old treaties and newly minted EU case law.

• Midwest Air Technologies, Inc. v. JC US Inc., No. 21-CV-00337 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 29, 2021)

  04/29/2021

  Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for improper venue.  The Court found that the parties’ inclusion of the AAA rules in the arbitration clause constituted a clear agreement by the parties to arbitrate threshold arbitrability issues.

• The WE Project, Inc. v. Relavistic, LLC, No. 20-CV-02873-JG (N.D. Ohio Apr. 28, 2021)

  04/28/2021

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Analyzing Maryland law as selected by the contracting parties, court found that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable for want of mutual consideration.  Court held that the agreement provided for arbitration at the sole discretion of defendant.

• Stauber v. Per Mar Security and Research Corp, No. 20-CV-00775-JDP (W.D. Wis. Apr. 27, 2021)

  04/27/2021

  Court ordered a hearing on defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Pro se plaintiff argued that the arbitration agreement was invalid or unconscionable.  In reading the pro se filing generously, the court found plaintiff’s allegations raised a plausible concern that the signed agreement was a product of fraud.

• Phillips v. Weatherford US, LP, No. 20-CV-01104 -RP (W.D. Tex. Apr. 27, 2021)

  04/27/2021

  Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss, or in the alternative to stay, and compel arbitration concluding that there remained a genuine fact issue as to the validity of the arbitration agreement.  Court held that defendant failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish that plaintiff, a former employee, received notice of the company’s dispute resolution program, which mandates arbitration.

• Healey v. Elliot, P.C., No. 20-CV-13209-MAG-RSW (E.D. Mich. Apr. 27, 2021)

  04/27/2021

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to take limited discovery to respond to defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  The court noted that limited discovery requests of this kind are entertained by the Sixth Circuit because motions to compel arbitration are evaluated similarly to motions for summary judgment.

• In re Stubhub Refund Litigation, No. 20-MD-02951-MSG (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2021)

  04/27/2021

  Court provided defendant leave to amend its motion to compel arbitration after plaintiff introduced new evidence at the motion’s hearing.  Plaintiffs argued that the existence of an agreement to arbitrate may depend on whether plaintiffs purchased tickets from the website or the mobile application.  The court granted defendants time to file a supplemental brief to respond to this argument.

• Jackson v. EK Real Estate Servs. of NY, LLC, No. 20-CV-03867 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 27, 2021)

  04/27/2021

  Court vacated a memorandum and opinion denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration because the parties agreed to settle.  The court found that vacatur was in the public interest as the case involved an indigent homeowner facing eviction represented by pro bono counsel.

• Unitech Composites, Inc. v. Avcorp Industries Inc., No. 3:18-CV-1399-YY (D. Or. Apr. 17, 2021)

  04/17/2021

  Court declined to adopt magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation to grant defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendant waived its right to arbitration.

• Cargill Inc. v. Triorient LLC, No. 20-CV-10058 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2021) 

  04/15/2021

  Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm a final arbitral award in a case relating to a breach of a charter party.  Court found no genuine factual dispute as to the propriety of the final award and duly confirmed. 

• Diaz v. Popular Securities, LLC, No. 3:19-CV-01065-JAG (D.P.R. Apr. 12, 2021) 

  04/12/2021

  Court denied petitioner’s petition to vacate arbitration award and granted respondent’s cross-motion to confirm the award.  Court found that petitioner had failed to show fraud on the arbitral tribunal, partiality, or arbitrator misbehavior to justify vacating the award. 

• Balwin v. Beeche, No. 4:20-CV-00639-ALM (E.D. Tex. Apr. 12, 2021)

  04/12/2021

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration in a contract dispute.  Court held that the claims were within the scope of the arbitration agreement and plaintiffs could be compelled to arbitrate the case in Costa Rica. 

• Fort Washington Investment Advisors, Inc., v. Adkins, No. 1:19-CV-00685-DRC (S.D. Ohio Apr. 12, 2021)

  04/12/2021

  Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court rejected defendants’ arguments that equitable estoppel compelled arbitration and that plaintiff was an intended third-party beneficiary and therefore bound by the arbitration agreement. 

• F.T. Maritime Services. Ltd., v. Lambda Shipholding Ltd., No. 1:20-CV-02111-ER (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2021) 

  04/12/2021

  Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration and appoint an arbitrator holding that plaintiff’s claim was barred by collateral estoppel.  Court went on to say that, even if the plaintiff’s claim was not collaterally estopped, it would fail on the merits because it was not clear that any version of plaintiff’s terms and conditions were incorporated into the agreement at issue. 

• JPaulJones, L.P. v. Zurich General Insurance Co. (China) Ltd., No. 3:20-CV-01767 (D. Or. Apr. 9, 2021)

  04/09/2021

  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens.  Court held that arbitration and forum selection clauses were valid, unambiguous, and did not violate plaintiff’s right to trial by jury under the Oregon Constitution.

• KPA Promotion Awards Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase Co., No. 1:20-CV-03910-NRB (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2021)

  04/08/2021

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the parties’ incorporation of the JAMS and AAA Rules constituted clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties intended to delegate issues of arbitrability to an arbitrator.  Accordingly, court declined to consider plaintiffs’ arguments regarding the scope of the arbitration agreement. 

• Rowland v. Sandy Morris Financial Estate Planning Services LLC, No. 20-1187 (4th Cir. Apr. 7, 2021)

  04/07/2021

  Court of appeals affirmed lower court order denying motion to compel arbitration, finding that the parties had not agreed to arbitrate where there were material differences between the versions of the contract signed by each party.  Court found that even though there was a delegation clause in the underlying arbitration agreement, the court continued to have a duty to decide threshold issues of contract formation.

• In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., No. 19-14097 (11th Cir. Apr. 07, 2021)

  04/07/2021

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s enforcement of arbitration clauses in the account agreements of five classes of former and current customers in a class action against a bank relating to overdraft fees.  Court held that gateway questions about unconscionability were not for the district court to decide because they had been delegated to the arbitrator under a delegation clause.

• Credit Suisse AG v. Graham, No. 1:21-CV-00951-LJL (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 2021)

  04/07/2021

  Court denied petitioners’ petition for an order enjoining arbitration and granted respondent’s motion to compel arbitration of claims arising out of a failed joint venture.  Court held that it should be up to the arbitrator and not the court to decide whether a second arbitration is barred by res judicata. 

• Hearn v. Comcast Cable Communications LLC, No. 19-14455 (11th Cir. Apr. 5, 2021)

  04/05/2021

  Court of appeals reversed lower court decision denying motion to compel arbitration, finding that an arbitration provision applying to all disputes “relating to [defendant]” was applicable where plaintiff’s claim pertained to the underlying agreement even where the dispute arose after the agreement was terminated.

• Norris v. Aon PLC, No.3:21-CV-00932-CRB (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2021)

  04/02/2021

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that the presence of a delegation clause constituted clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties intended gateway issues of arbitrability to be determined by an arbitrator.  

• Synopsys, Inc. v. Siemens Industry Software Inc., No. 3:20-CV-04151-WHO (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2021)

  04/02/2021

  Court denied defendants’ motion to stay arbitration under Section 3 of the FAA where the parties admitted that the conditions precedent to arbitration had not been met – thus staying or ordering arbitration would be premature.  Court noted that had there been a question of whether the conditions precedent had been met, this would be a question for an arbitrator under the parties’ agreement. 

• Northtrop and Johnson Yachts-Ships, Inc. v. Royal Van Lent Skipyard, B.V., No. 20-13442 (11th Cir. March 26, 2021) 

  03/26/2021

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order compelling arbitration under the New York Convention, finding plaintiff agreed in writing to arbitrate its claims.  Court of appeals found the reference in the parties’ agreement to a specified commission for the construction of a second yacht was sufficient to bind the parties to the arbitration clause and that the tort and contract claims fell within the broad scope of the arbitration agreement.

• Tarek A. Fouad v. The State of Qatar, No. 20-55531 (9th Cir. Feb. 16, 2021)

  02/16/2021

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s dismissal of complaint for forum non conveniens, finding that the relevant forum selection clause was enforceable and that plaintiff waived its ability to contest the district court’s order denying its motion to compel arbitration and ruling on the arbitrability of the dispute.

• Caillet v. Newman, No. 3:19-CV-00515-JWD-RLB (M.D. La. Feb. 5, 2021)

  02/05/2021

  Court denied plaintiff’s petition to vacate arbitration award. Plaintiff argued that its award should be vacated because it was unable to attend because of a medical emergency.  Court found that plaintiff had failed to meet burden of establishing any prejudice to her rights. 

• Berk v. Coinbase, Inc., No. 19-16594 (9th Cir. Dec. 23, 2020) 

  12/23/2020

  Court of appeals reversed district court’s dismissal of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that even though plaintiffs framed their claim as one for negligence sounding in tort, the claim related to the interpretation and performance of defendant’s user agreement and was therefore subject to the arbitration clause contained within it.

• Keystone Food Holdings Ltd. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-03888-ALC (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2020) 

  09/30/2020

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to stay proceedings in a contract dispute.  Court found that the disputes at issue were purchase price disputes as opposed to alleged breaches of representations and warranties and were therefore within the scope of the arbitration clause.

• Kwik Ticket Inc. v. Spiewak, No. 1:20-CV-01201-FB-SJB (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2020)

  09/23/2020

  Court denied defendants’ motion for a preliminary injunction to stay litigation pending court’s ruling on motion to compel arbitration and to stay magistrate judge’s order requiring the parties to participate in a settlement conference and initiate discovery.  Court found defendants did not show irreparable harm or a likelihood of success on the merits of the motion to compel arbitration.

• Goobich v. Excelligence Learning Corporation, No. 5:19-CV-06771-EJD (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2020) 

  09/18/2020

  Court granted motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 3, finding that defendant had not breached the arbitration agreement by refusing to pay the disproportionate filing fee and did not waive the right to compel arbitration by participating in the litigation.

• Tyler v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-03492-ABJ (D.D.C. Sept. 17, 2020)

  09/17/2020

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of employment-related claims.  Court rejected plaintiff’s contention that its claims were exempted by the FAA on the basis that it was a transportation worker.

• Cianchetta v. BMW of North America, LLC, No. 2:20-CV-00241-KJM (E.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2020)

  09/17/2020

  Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims alleging violations of consumer protection laws.  Court held that plaintiff’s claims against non-signatory defendant were not arbitrable under the terms of the arbitration agreement.

• Sanders v. Allenbrooke Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC, No. 2:20-CV-02001-SHM (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 17, 2020)

  09/17/2020

  Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of wrongful death claims. Court held that no arbitration agreement had been formed in circumstances where the agreement was signed by a healthcare surrogate before the party on whose behalf the agreement was signed had been determined to lack capacity.

• Convergen Energy LLC v. Brooks, No. 1:20-CV-03746-LJL (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2020)

  09/16/2020

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims relating to the sale of a power plant.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the contract containing the arbitration agreement was not concluded because plaintiff’s signatory did not have authority to bind it.  Court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that the forum selection clause in another agreement between the parties controlled the subject matter of the dispute.  Court held that the claims at issue fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

• Fedor v. United Healthcare, Inc., No. 19-CV-2066 (10th Cir. Sept. 16, 2020)

  09/16/2020

  Court of appeal vacated district court order granting motion to compel arbitration of claims alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New Mexico’s wage law.  Court of appeal held that the district court erred by failing to first determine whether an agreement to
  arbitrate was formed before sending the case to the arbitrator.

• Grantham v. TA Operating, LLC, No. 1:20-CV-01108-RMB (D. N.J. Sept. 16, 2020)

  09/16/2020

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims brought under the Family Medical Leave Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration agreement was void as against the public policy of New Jersey.

• International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1393 v. Carroll White Rural Electric Membership Corporation, No. 1:20-CV-1689-JMS (S.D. Ind. Sept. 16, 2020)

  09/16/2020

  Court granted petition to compel arbitration of claims arising under a collective bargaining agreement.  Court held that the terms of the collective bargaining agreement were wide enough to encompass the claims at issue.

• Arnaud v. Doctor’s Associates, Inc., No. 19-CV-3057 (2d Cir. Sept. 15, 2020)

  09/15/2020

  Court of appeal affirmed district court order denying motion to compel arbitration of claims alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  Court of appeal held that no arbitration agreement existed between the parties because the terms and conditions of the alleged agreement were not reasonably clear and conspicuous on the online form relied upon by defendant-appellant.

• Cheatham v. Virginia College, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-04481-SDG (N.D. Ga. Sept. 15, 2020)

  09/15/2020

  Court grated defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims brought by students against a private college.  Court held that the parties delegated the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

• Johnson v. Westlake Portfolio Management, LLC, No. 8:20-CV-00749-SCB (M.D. Fla. Sept. 15, 2020)

  09/15/2020

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of consumer debt claims.  Court held that plaintiff, who was a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, was not equitably estopped from avoiding the arbitration agreement because its claims fell outside the contract containing the arbitration agreement.

• Allen v. Shutterlfy, Inc., No. 5:20-CV-02448-BLF (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2020)

  09/14/2020

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of fraud claims.  Court held that the arbitration agreement delegated gateway questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator and that the plaintiff assented to the online arbitration agreement.

• Carillo v. ROICOM USA, LLC, No. 3:20-CV-00147-ATB (W.D. Tex. Sept. 14, 2020)

  09/14/2020

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of claims brought under the False Claims Act.  Court held that the arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable because plaintiff, a Spanish speaker, was incapable of understanding the contents of the English-language agreement and because of misrepresentations by defendant regarding the arbitration agreement.

• MZM Construction Company, Inc. v. New Jersey Building Laborers Statewide Benefit Funds, No. 18-CV-03791 (3d Cir. Sept. 14, 2020)

  09/14/2020

  Court of appeal affirmed district court order enjoining arbitration of employee benefits claims pending resolution of factual issues bearing upon whether fraud in the execution vitiated the formation or existence of the contract containing the arbitration provision.  Court of appeal held that pursuant to 9 USC § 4, the validity of the arbitration agreement concerned questions about the “making of the agreement to arbitrate” and was therefore a matter for the courts to decide in the absence of the parties having clearly and unmistakably referred those issues to arbitration in a written contract whose formation was not in issue.

• United Government Security Officers of America International Union v. G4S Regulated Security Solutions, No. 1:19-CV-10373-ADB (D. Mass. Sept. 14, 2020)

  09/14/2020

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration of overtime compensation claims brought under a collective bargaining agreement.  Court held that the overtime claims fell with the scope of the collective bargaining agreement and the arbitration agreement contained in it.

• Yeomans v. World Financial Group Insurance Agency, Inc., No. 3:19-CV-00792-EMC (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2020)

  09/11/2020

  Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of employment-related claims.  Court held that the arbitrability issue was governed by the FAA because the dispute affected interstate commerce.  Court also held that four of the five plaintiffs were properly put on notice of the arbitration agreements in their employment contracts, but that one of the plaintiffs was not.  Court found that the arbitration agreement was procedurally and substantively unconscionable.

• Morris CM Enterprises, LLC v. Wingstop Franchising, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-02306-KJM (E.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2020)

  09/11/2020

  Court granted defendant’s motion to stay the case pending arbitration of claims relating to franchise agreements.  Court found that the parties had agreed to delegate to the arbitrators the issue of arbitrability, including the plaintiff’s allegation that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable.

• Mattos v. National Western Life Insurance Company, No. 1:20-CV-22887-DPG (S.D. Fla. Aug. 30, 2020)

  08/30/2020

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the parties manifested a clear and unmistakable intent to arbitrate gateway issues of arbitrability when they provided a valid delegation clause.  Court declined to address plaintiffs’ challenges to the arbitration agreement, finding that it was not appropriate where there was no challenge to the delegation provision specifically.