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
  • Hill-Smith v. Silver Dollar Cabaret, Inc., No. 5:18-CV-05145-PKH (W.D. Ark. Dec. 13, 2018)
    12/14/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint finding that the arbitration agreement was enforceable and that plaintiff’s claims fell squarely within the terms of the arbitration provision and the entire controversy would be resolved by the arbitrator. 

  • McNamara v. S.I. Logistics, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-12523-ADB (D. Mass. Dec. 13, 2018)
    12/13/2018

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint, finding that the parties’ agreement to arbitrate was illusory from the outset because one of the parties had the right to modify the agreement to arbitrate at any moment.  Thus, no agreement to arbitrate was formed between the parties. 

  • Banks v. Barclays Bank Credit Services, No. 1:17-CV-00096-CCC (M.D. Pa. Dec. 13, 2018)
    12/13/2018

    Court granted defendant’s renewed motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending the outcome of the arbitration.  Court noted the plaintiff did not object and concluded there was no clear error on the face of the record thereby granting defendant’s motion. 

  • Hicks v. Comcast Cable Communication LLC, No. 0:18-CV-61384-BB (S.D. Fla. Dec. 13, 2018)
    12/13/2018

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay action as well as motion to stay discovery and pretrial proceedings.  Court held that a bench trial will be held pursuant to 9 USC § 4 to determine the existence of a binding arbitration agreement between the parties. 

  • Winters v. Aimco/Bethesda Holdings Inc., No. 3:18-CV-01937-JAH-MDD (S.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2018)
    12/13/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to remand to state court and denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay proceeding, finding that defendant failed to meet the burden of establishing complete diversity of citizenship.  As a result, court held defendant’s motion to compel arbitration was moot. 

  • Werner v. Waterstone Mortgage Corporation, No. 3:17-CV-00608-JDP (W.D. Wis. Dec. 13, 2018)
    12/13/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the case and compel arbitration, finding that plaintiffs waived their right to arbitrate by filing the claims before federal court and litigating for more than a year before seeking to compel arbitration. 

  • Winkler v. Total Quality Logistics, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-03707 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 13, 2018)
    12/13/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint. Court held the parties entered into a binding arbitration agreement and plaintiff’s three claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.  Court also concluded the arbitration agreement was neither unconscionable nor otherwise materially flawed. 

  • National Dentex, LLC v. Gold, No. 1:18-CV-10484-LTS (D. Mass. Dec. 12, 2018)
    12/12/2018

    Court denied defendant’s renewed motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss or stay the case.  Court held plaintiff’s claims arise under related, but separate agreements, neither of which contained or incorporated an arbitration clause.

  • Wilson v. CPB Foods, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-00014-CHB-CHL (W.D. Ky. Dec. 12, 2018)
    12/12/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation, finding that the claims before it fell squarely within the scope of the arbitration agreement and that defendant did not waive its right to arbitration. 

  • Smith v. General Information Solutions, LLC No. 3:18-CV-02534-MGL (D.S.C. Dec. 11, 2018)
    12/11/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice.  Court held the language of the arbitration agreement provided clear and unmistakable evidence the parties have chosen to give arbitrability questions to an arbitrator, concluding the parties should be compelled to arbitration because it appeared a valid arbitration agreement existed. 

  • Armstrong v. Michael Stores, Inc., No. 5:17-CV-06540-LHK (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2018)
    12/11/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stays the lawsuit, finding that plaintiff assented to the arbitration agreement twice and that defendant did not waive its right to compel arbitration. 

  • ECI Software Solutions, Inc. v. Sheridan, No. 3:18-CV-00511-N (N.D. Tex. Dec. 11, 2018)
    12/11/2018

    Court granted one defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case against another defendant for lack of personal jurisdiction.  Court found there was a valid arbitration agreement, the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement and that no federal statute of policy rendered the claims nonarbitrable. 

  • Elite Air Conditioning Inc. v. BVB Construction, Inc., No. 5:18-CV-01956-MWF-SP (C.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2018)
    12/11/2018

    Court ordered the parties to arbitration and stayed the case until completion of arbitration pursuant to the parties’ stipulation and agreement to submit all claims between them arising out of the contract in question to arbitration under the auspices of the American Arbitration Association. 

  • Rogers v. Swepi LP, No. 18-3229 (6th Cir. Dec. 10, 2018)
    12/10/2018

    Court of appeals reversed the district court’s denial of defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and remanded the case for entry of an order compelling arbitration and a decision on whether the agreement allows for class-wide arbitration.  Court rejected plaintiff’s defense against arbitration, because he attacked more than just the arbitration agreement.  Court concluded the district court erred in assuming it had the power to rule on arbitrability, which should have been reserved for the arbitrator.

  • Velazquez v. Midland Funding, LLC., No. 1:18-CV-00043-CWD (D. Idaho Dec. 10, 2018)
    12/10/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and issue a protective order, but granted plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint.  Court determined that defendant did not acquire the right to arbitrate the issues in dispute and found the claim did not fall within the terms of the arbitration clause.

  • Lothan Van Hook DeStefano Architecture v. SB Yen Management Group, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00275 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 10, 2018)
    12/10/2018

    Court granted defendant’s request to compel mediation and arbitration, but denied defendant’s request to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.  Court held the claim was subject to arbitration and that an arbitration agreement existed requiring the parties to endeavor to resolve claims by mediation and then by arbitration if mediation was unsuccessful. 

  • Globalone Management Group Limited v. Tempus Applied Solutions, LLC., No. 4:18-CV-00059-RGD-LRL (E.D. Va. Dec. 7, 2018)
    12/07/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motions to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, but dismissed defendant’s motion to dismiss without prejudice.  Court determined that it must compel arbitration and stay proceedings pursuant to §§  3 and 4 of the FAA because the express incorporation of the ICC Rules into an arbitration provision constitutes clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to arbitrate issues of arbitrability.  Court also held defendant’s assertion that all the parties’ disputes are subject to arbitration was not frivolous or illegitimate, concluding that all threshold questions of arbitrability must be referred to arbitration.

  • Collins v. Discover Financial Services, No. 8:17-CV-03011-PX (D. Md. Dec. 7, 2018)
    12/07/2018

    Court denied motion for reconsideration to alter judgment compelling arbitration.  Court held that plaintiffs provided no reason to find that the provisions in the agreements referring to AAA and JAMS rules were not binding and confirmed prior decision compelling to arbitration.  Court also deferred the question of scope of the arbitration agreements to the arbitrator. 

  • Zendon v. Grandison Management, Inc., No. 2:18-CV_04545-ARR-JO (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2018)
    12/07/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel the arbitration of plaintiff’s claims pursuant to the parties’ 2015 Employment Agreement.  Court held the arbitration agreement was valid and plaintiff’s claims clearly constituted a dispute between the parties within the meaning of the arbitration provision.  Court also held defendant did not waive its right to demand arbitration because the filing and withdrawal of a state court action does not constitute “protracted litigation.” 

  • Ege v. Express Messenger Systems Inc., No. 17-35123 (9th Circ. Dec. 7, 2018)
    12/07/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s dismissal of appellants’ complaint in favor of arbitration.  Court held one of the appellants was a third-party beneficiary, appellants’ claims were arbitrable, and arbitration was the proper forum in which to adjudicate the claims. 

  • Sagicor Life Insurance Company v. Houchins, No. 5:17-CV-02189-AKK (N.D. Ala. Dec. 6, 2018)
    12/06/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding that claims arising outside the scope of arbitration agreement were irrelevant to determining parties’ intent to arbitrate.  Court held that defendants did not waive their right to arbitrate, notwithstanding defendants’ intent to amicably resolve the dispute and decision to wait several months into the litigation process before filing their motion to compel arbitration.

  • SteppeChange, LLC v. VEON, Ltd., No. 3:18-CV-04842-WHO (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2018)
    12/05/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration on the issue of arbitrability, finding that invocation of LCIA rules in the arbitration agreement presented a clear and unmistakable intent to leave arbitrability to the arbitrator.  Court stayed proceedings for both defendants pending arbitrator’s determination.

  • Focus Music Entertainment LLC v. Streamify LLC, No. 1:18-CV-01241-ELH (D. Md. Dec. 5, 2018)
    12/05/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration and transferred case to the District Court for the Southern District of Texas finding that, notwithstanding a valid arbitration agreement, court could not compel arbitration in a different jurisdiction than was contemplated by the agreement, pursuant to § 4 of the FAA.

  • Thomas v. National Collector’s Mint, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-00348 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 4, 2018)
    12/04/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and denied motion to dismiss, staying proceedings until plaintiff’s claims against two defendants were arbitrated, because the third defendant had not consented to arbitration.  Court held that the clause in arbitration agreement restricting recovery of attorney’s fees was severable and did not render the agreement unconscionable.

  • National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA. v. BMC Stock Holdings, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-05777-JPO (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2018)
    12/03/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration of a payment dispute arising from an insurance policy, holding that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate notwithstanding conflicting provisions concerning whether a court or an arbitrator would determine arbitrability.  Court declined to entertain merits-based arguments when parties unequivocally agreed to arbitrate disagreements about payment obligations under the policy.

  • Styczynski v. Marketsource, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-02662-GAM (E.D. Pa. Nov. 30, 2018)
    11/30/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration of employment claims, holding that neither limitations on discovery nor mere difference in bargaining power were sufficient to render a contract procedurally or substantively unconscionable under the FAA.

  • Ahlstrom v. DHI Mortgage Company, No. 5:17-CV-04383-BLF, (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2018)
    11/30/2018

    Court granted motion to dismiss suit and compel arbitration, holding that there was a valid arbitration agreement and that defendant accepted the agreement upon signing notwithstanding its efforts to terminate acceptance according to the terms of the agreement.  Court held that the issue of whether defendant properly terminated its acceptance of the arbitration agreement is delegated to the arbitrator, under the contract’s delegation clause.

  • AMC Pinnacle Inc. v. Jeunesse, LLC, No: 6:18-CV-1102-Orl-40DCI (M.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2018)
    11/30/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion for preliminary injunction, notwithstanding a finding that incorporating AAA rules into a contract created a valid delegation clause, on grounds that the arbitration provision did not allow defendants to bypass arbitration altogether by seeking injunction.   The contract, requiring all disputes to be submitted to arbitration except that a party may apply to the court for preliminary injunction to “protect its interest prior to, during or following the filing of any arbitration,” did not mean defendant could seek injunctive relief to protect its “interest in accessing the courts” as such an interpretation would render the arbitration provision meaningless.

  • Miner v. Ecolab, Inc., No. 17-56183 (9th Cir. Nov. 30, 2018)           
    11/30/2018

    Court of appeals vacated and remanded district court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration of federal and state wage and hour claims, in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612, 1632 (2018) that class and collective action waivers must be enforced as written under the FAA.  

  • Rowe v. Affordable Motors, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01592-VAB (D. Conn. Nov. 30, 2018)
    11/30/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay all proceeding. Court concluded that (i) a valid agreement to arbitrate was formed, as defendant submitted evidentiary facts showing an agreement to arbitrate and plaintiffs failed to submit facts showing a dispute; and (ii) the claims made in the complaint “touch[ed] matters covered” by the arbitration clause and therefore fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • Patterson v. Nine Energy Services, No. 17-CV-01116-JB-GBW (D.N.M. Nov. 29, 2018)
    11/29/2018

    Court reaffirmed its determination that the substantively unconscionable injunctive relief provision in the arbitration agreement was severable, and declined to certify the question to the Supreme Court of New Mexico for its determination. Court noted that, consistent with its prior determination, the unilateral relief provision was severable because it was not central to the arbitration scheme. Court further concluded that the lack of a savings clause did not indicate the parties’ manifested intent to discard the entire arbitration agreement if a provision is found unconscionable

  • Lowell v. Lyft, Inc., No. 7:17-CV-06251-NSR (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2018)
    11/29/2018

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  Court rejected defendant’s argument that direct benefits estoppel required the non-signatory plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims, explaining that requiring them to do so would hold them to an arbitration clause in agreement that they neither signed up for nor benefited from.

  • Dickson v. Gospel for Asia, Inc., No. 5:16-CV-05027-PKH (W.D. Ark. Nov. 28, 2018)
    11/28/2018

    Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to compel arbitration and stay, ordering the parties to engage in arbitration but not entering a stay. Court noted that the court of appeals had determined that binding arbitration agreements exist and that the parties’ disagreement fell within the scope of those agreements. Court also found that, because the arbitration agreement controlled the entirety of the dispute, the weight of authority supported dismissal of the action.

  • Matalka v. Home Point Financial Corporation, No. 18-3333 (6th Cir. Nov. 28, 2018)
    11/28/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed decision denying motion to compel arbitration, holding that claims arising from an unrelated oral contract were not subject to an arbitration clause in a prior written contract where the former made no reference to the latter.  Court found the FAA presumption in favor of arbitration need not apply when a claim falls outside the scope of an arbitration agreement. 

  • Sheridan v. Page, No. 1:18-CV-00449-LM (D.N.H. Nov. 28, 2018)
    11/28/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss or stay plaintiff’s claims against it pending mandatory arbitration.  Court concluded that, given the broad language of the arbitration clauses and the policy favoring arbitration, both of plaintiffs’ claims fell within the scope of the arbitration clauses.

  • Forby v. One Technologies, L.P., No. 17-10883 (5th Cir. Nov. 28, 2018)
    11/28/2018

    Court of appeals reversed the district court judgment granting defendant-appellee’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court of appeals concluded that defendant-appellee waived its right to arbitrate, as it substantially invoked the judicial process and that plaintiff-appellant was prejudiced thereby.

  • Droney v. Vivint Solar, No. 1:18-CV-00849-RBK-KMW (D.N.J. Nov. 28, 2018)
    11/28/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court concluded that a Rule 56 standard applied because arbitrability was not apparent on the face of the complaint.  Court further concluded that there was a genuine issue as to whether the parties ever entered into a valid agreement.

  • Oglethorpe Power Corp. v. Ethosenergy Power Plant Services, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-00072-CDL (Nov. 27, 2018 N.D. Ga.)
    11/27/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court concluded that the parties agreed to arbitrate disputes only if they entered into a separate written agreement to do so.  Since it was undisputed that no such separate written agreement to arbitrate existed, the parties had not agreed to arbitrate their dispute.

  • Elliott v. NTAN LLC, No. 3:18-CV-00638 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 27, 2018)
    11/27/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration or, in the alternative, to stay proceedings and compel arbitration is granted.  Court concluded that (i) plaintiffs mutually assented to the agreement when they signed it; (ii) the agreement was not an adhesive contract and plaintiffs failed to establish any grounds supporting procedural or substantive unconscionability; and (iii) the agreement was not insufficiently definite to allow for effective vindication of plaintiff’s statutory rights.

  • Peak Pipe and Supply, LLC v. UMW Oilfield (L) International Ltd., No. 3:18-CV-00410-L (N.D. Tex. Nov. 27, 2018)
    11/27/2018

    Court accepted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge that plaintiff is equitably required to arbitrate its claims and granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. The court determined that the magistrate judge, in applying the first prong of the test set out in Noble Drilling Servs., Inc. v. Certex USA, Inc., 620 F.3d 469, 473 (5th Cir. 2010), correctly determined that the non-signatory plaintiff is required to arbitrate its claims against UMW, and, accordingly, overruled plaintiff’s objection.

  • Williamson v. Grano, No. 1:18-CV-00432-WJ-SCY (D.N.M. Nov. 26, 2018)
    11/26/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to strike several pleadings relating to plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration. Court noted that (i) defendants cannot rely on Rule 12—or any other federal procedural rule—to excuse their failure to file a response to plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration; (ii) defendants were mistaken that plaintiffs’ amendment of the complaint requires that the motion to compel be stricken and then re-filed; and (iii) defendants were mistaken that a party is excused from complying with briefing deadlines when that party has raised a jurisdictional challenge in another motion.

  • Orn v. Alltran Financial, LP, No. 3:18-CV-00599-JMM (M.D. Penn. Nov. 26, 2018)
    11/26/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that no agreement to arbitrate existed between plaintiff and the non-signatory defendant. Court concluded that defendant could not enforce the agreement between plaintiff and non-party Citibank because (i) Citibank did not clearly intend to benefit defendant under the Card Agreement, as there is no evidence that defendant received any benefit from the underlying contract that contained the arbitration provision; (ii) plaintiff’s claim is not related to the Card Agreement containing the arbitration clause, so defendant cannot compel arbitration on agency principles; and (iii) there is no alleged interdependent misconduct with Citibank that would bind defendant to the contract as a non-signatory, so there is an insufficient connection between defendant and the Card Agreement.

  • Curtis v. Contractor Management Services, LLC, No. 1:15-CV-00487-NT (D. Me. Nov. 20, 2018)
    11/20/2018

    Court granted motions to compel arbitration, finding that cost-splitting and confidentiality provisions in arbitration clause in employment agreement were not unconscionable, and that one party’s covenant not to enforce the provision’s cost-splitting, forum selection, and confidentiality provisions mooted potential unconscionability arguments with respect to those provisions.

  • Garcia v. MaineGeneral Health, No. 1:18-CV-00019-NT (D. Me. Nov. 20, 2018)
    11/20/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that an agreement to arbitrate was formed, it was not unconscionable, and the defendant had not waived its right to rely on it by waiting until litigation had been filed to seek to arbitrate.  Court also found that questions of whether agreement as a whole was unconscionable or whether pre-conditions to arbitration clause had been met would fall to the arbitrator to decide.

  • The Pike Company v. Tri-Krete Limited, No. 6:18-CV-06311-EAW (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2018)
    11/20/2018

    Court denied motion for preliminary injunction to stay arbitration, granted motion to compel arbitration as to claims under the New York Prompt Payment Act (PPA) and stayed litigation on contractual claims, finding that determining whether irreparable harm would result from arbitration turned on whether the dispute was arbitrable, that the contract’s dispute resolution provisions were voided by the PPA; that claims under the PPA may be brought in arbitration; that the defendant’s arguments for the non-applicability of the PPA were defenses on the merits to the PPA claims and did not constitute not reasons not to arbitrate; and that the contractual claims would be stayed pending determination of the claims under the PPA since factual determinations made in arbitration may resolve the contractual claims.

  • Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Kirksey, No. 3:18-CV-00963-JCH (D. Conn. Nov. 20, 2018)
    11/20/2018

    Court granted petition to compel arbitration, finding that parties had delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

  • Mongoya v. AET MVC Beta, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-08827-MLCF-KWR (E.D. La. Nov. 19, 2018)
    11/19/2018

    Court granted motion to remand to state court for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction under the New York Convention, finding that (1) foreign court’s determination that the Convention did not apply was not dispositive, since it was based on fact that foreign country has not enacted the Convention into domestic law, whereas the US has; and (2) parties’ non-signatory status does not affect whether arbitration clause falls under the Convention; but (3) claims asserting defamation arising from statements in enforcement pleadings and seeking injunction against further enforcement proceedings did not relate to the arbitration agreement.

  • Primoris Energy Services Corporation v. New Day Aluminum, No. 2:18-CV-05839-SSV-MBN (E.D. La. Nov. 19, 2018)
    11/19/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, interpreting arbitration clause providing that disputes “may” be submitted to arbitration as a binding agreement to arbitrate.

  • Consolo v. Com-Corp. Industries, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00742-CAB (N.D. Ohio Nov. 19, 2018)
    11/19/2018

    Court compelled arbitration of issues of arbitrability sua sponte, finding that parties’ dispute as to whether preconditions for arbitration had been met should be determined by arbitrator.

  • Peterson v. Lyft, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-07343-LB (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2018)
    11/19/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that (1) the parties entered into a binding agreement that contains an arbitration provision, (2) the parties in their arbitration provision delegated questions about the arbitrability of disputes to the arbitrator, and (3) the arbitration provision is enforceable and not unconscionable.

View All