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

• Abeona Therapeutics, Inc. v. EB Research Partnership, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-10889-DLC (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2019)

  02/14/2019

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding the parties’ agreement contained a broad arbitration clause and the plaintiff’s challenge to the validity of the overall agreement was irrelevant to the motion to compel.  Court further held that, in any event, even if the plaintiff’s argument that the agreement lacked consideration could be directed at its arbitration clause, it would fail.

• Dornaus v. Best Buy Co., Inc., No. 4:18-CV-04085-PJH (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2019)

  02/14/2019

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings, holding that a valid arbitration agreement governed the parties’ dispute.  Court agreed with the plaintiff that a provision of the agreement prohibiting adjudication of claims for public injunctive relief was invalid under California law, but held that it could be severed from the rest of the agreement, such that the court would retain jurisdiction over adjudicating any such requests and compel arbitration with respect to any other claims.

• Charlie's Project LLC v. T2B LLC, No. 1:18-CV-11240-IT (D. Mass. Feb. 13, 2019)

  02/13/2019

  Court denied in part and allowed in part motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.  Court compelled arbitration with respect to intellectual property claims included in the scope of the arbitration agreement and held that any related defenses must be evaluated by the arbitrator, as the agreement delegated questions of arbitrability by incorporating AAA rules.  However, the court declined to hold that other claims were so intertwined with the intellectual property claims that they had to be arbitrated as well even though they did not fall within the scope of the arbitral agreement.

• Sheehan v. Sparks Black Bear, LLC, 3:18- CV-00510-HDM-CBC (D. Nev. Feb. 13, 2019)

  02/13/2019

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Court rejected arguments that the arbitration agreements were procedurally or substantively unconscionable based on assertions of unequal bargaining argument, format of the text, failure to supply arbitral rules, proposed location of the arbitration, and purportedly unequal burdens and rights. Court further declined to hold that the arbitration clauses violated public policy by containing class action waivers.

• Mahoney v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 8:19-CV-00118-WFJ-SPF (M.D. Fla. Feb. 13, 2019)

  02/13/2019

  Court denied motion to refer matter to arbitration and stay proceedings, reasoning that defendant had failed to show that a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement could be compelled to arbitrate.

• E. Hedinger AG v. Brainwave Science, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-00538-MN (D. Del. Feb. 13, 2019)

  02/13/2019

  Court granted motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.  Court rejected arguments that an oral exchange at a hearing constituted waiver of the defendants’ right to arbitrate or that the claims at issue were outside the scope of the arbitral agreement.  Court further held that the parties had evidenced an intention to arbitrate even though their agreement referenced a non-existent arbitral institution.

• Brown v. Firstsource Advantage, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-05760-GJP (E.D. Pa. Feb. 12, 2019)

  02/12/2019

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, rejecting the plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration agreement was invalid as “overly broad.”  Court further held that the parties’ dispute fell within the scope of that agreement.

• Valley Tool & Die, Inc. v. Fastenal Company, No. 1:18-CV-02682-CAB (N.D. Ohio Feb. 12, 2019)

  02/12/2019

  Court granted motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration.  Court held that the parties’ dispute was within the scope of their arbitration agreement, which the court found to be “extremely” broad.

• Schuster v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 8:18-CV-02389-MSS-JSS (M.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2019)

  02/07/2019

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court held that because the parties’ arbitration agreement clearly delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, it was for the arbitrator to consider the plaintiff’s argument that the dispute fell outside the scope of that agreement.

• Health Integrated, Inc. v. Community Health Plan of Washington, No. 2:18-CV-01522-RSM (W.D. Wash. Jan. 31, 2019)

  01/31/2019

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that an arbitration agreement providing that parties “may” request arbitration did not bar defendant from seeking arbitration after plaintiff filed an action in court.

• In Re: Midland Credit Management, Inc. Telephone Consumer Protection Litigation, No. 3:16-CV-02157-MMA-MDD (S.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2019)

  01/31/2019

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement authorized defendants – as assignees of the agreement – to seek arbitration of plaintiffs’ claims.  Court also found that the parties clearly and unmistakably intended to arbitrate arbitrability.

• Shapiro v. Logitech, Inc., No. 3:17-00673-FLW-TJB (D.N.J. Jan. 31, 2019)

  01/31/2019

  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the benefit of an arbitration clause contained in the conditions of use for an online marketplace did not extend to defendant – a third-party retailer.

• Price v. Petaluma Health Center, No. 4:17-CV-05428-HSG (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2019)

  01/31/2019

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and denied defendant’s motion to dismiss, rejecting defendant’s request that the motion to dismiss be decided first.  Court found that where a defendant moves in part to compel, the court’s inquiry is limited to whether the claims at issue are covered under a valid arbitration agreement – only after that determination may a court dismiss a plaintiff’s claims.

• Sanders v. Shadow Mountain Behavioral Health System, LLC, No. 4:18-00574-CVE-FHM (N.D. Okla. Jan. 31, 2019)

  01/31/2019

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding inter alia that defendants did not waive their right to request arbitration when they filed their motion one year after plaintiff’s demand for compensation indicating her intent to bring a subsequent lawsuit.  Court found that defendants’ motion was timely when they filed the motion one month after plaintiff actually filed suit.

• FW Associates LLC v. WM Associates LLC, No. 1:18-CV-05081(N.D. Ill. Jan. 28, 2019)

  01/28/2019

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendants’ counterclaims, finding that those claims were precluded by an arbitrator’s ruling.  Court found the arbitrator’s ruling preclusive when it decided the issue of substantial performance of a contract and defendant’s counterclaims sought to enforce terms of that already-litigated contract.

• Dropp v. Diamond Resorts International, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-00247-APG-GWF (D. Nev. Jan. 25, 2019)

  01/25/2019

  Court granted defendants’ motions to compel arbitration and dismiss, finding that plaintiffs’ claims were subject to a valid arbitration agreement when there was no inherent conflict between the FAA and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.  Court found it proper to decide the issue of enforceability when it dealt solely with the arbitration provision and not the contracts as a whole, as validity of the contracts would be decided by an arbitrator.

• In Re: Dealer Management Systems Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:18-CV-00864 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 25, 2019)

  01/25/2019

  Court denied defendants’ motions to compel arbitration and dismiss plaintiffs’ claims where plaintiff was a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement and defendants failed to show sufficient detrimental reliance to bind plaintiffs to the agreement.  Court found that defendants waived their right to arbitrate when they waited nine months assert their intent to arbitrate.

• Hogan v. SPAR Group, Inc., No. 18-1286 (1st Cir. Jan. 25, 2019)

  01/25/2019

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendant was not subject to an arbitration agreement when it was a non-signatory to said agreement.  Court also found that defendant was not a third-party beneficiary of the arbitration agreement when the agreement was limited to disputes “between the parties.”

• McGovern v. U.S. Bank N.A., No. 3:18-CV-01794-CAB-LL (S.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2019)

  01/25/2019

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding inter alia that the savings clause of the FAA preempted a state law rule when it stood as an obstacle to the FAA’s objectives.

• MB Financial, Inc. v. Hart, No. 1:17-CV-08866 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 24, 2019)

  01/24/2019

  Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration of defendant’s counterclaim where that claim fell under the scope of an agreement to arbitrate.  Although plaintiffs engaged in litigation on other claims, the court found that plaintiffs’ conduct did not waive their right to arbitrate defendant’s counterclaim.

• Sultan v. Coinbase, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00934-FB-ST (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2019)

  01/24/2019

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff’s claims were subject to mandatory arbitration per defendant’s user agreement.  Court also found that plaintiff had inquiry notice of the arbitration agreement when he clicked “I agree” to its terms and conditions when creating an account on defendant’s interface.

• Producers Credit Corporation v. Fletcher, No. 5:18-CV-00150-MTT (M.D. Ga. Jan. 23, 2019)

  01/23/2019

  Court denied third-party defendants’ motion to stay the case pending arbitration and compel arbitration, finding that third-party defendants waived their contractual rights to arbitration when they substantially participated in litigation – through filing an answer and engaging in discovery – without raising the issue of arbitration.

• Chen v. Premier Financial Alliance, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-03771-YGR (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2019)

  01/22/2019

  Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendants failed to establish the existence of an arbitration agreement where they failed to show that their website’s design would put plaintiffs on inquiry notice of an arbitration agreement.

• HTC Corporation v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, No. 6:18-CV-00243-JRG (E.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 2019)

  01/22/2019

  Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to sever, stay, and compel arbitration, finding that plaintiffs waived their right to arbitrate by seeking a decision on the merits before attempting arbitration.  Court found that the parties substantially invoked the judicial process – so as to waive arbitration – where parties completed fact and expert discovery on claims not already submitted to arbitration, and where plaintiff affirmatively moved for dismissal and for summary judgment.  Court found that it could properly determine the issue of waiver where the parties did not “clearly and unmistakably” intend to delegate determination of waiver to an arbitrator.

• New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, No. 17-340 (U.S. Jan. 15, 2019)

  01/15/2019

  Supreme Court affirmed a first circuit decision finding that (1) a court should decide whether an arbitration agreement falls under the FAA before compelling arbitration; and (2) § 1 of the FAA – which excludes certain “contracts of employment” from its purview – applies to both employer-employee contractors and those involving independent contractors.

• Starke v. SquareTrade, Inc., No. 17-2474-CV (2d Cir. Jan. 10, 2019)

  01/10/2019

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff-appellee did not manifestly assent to the arbitration clause of an online-based contract, nor did he have reasonable notice of the clause.  Court found that notwithstanding the general rule that actual notice is not necessary to render an arbitration clause binding, plaintiff-appellee did not have reasonable notice where, inter alia, the design of the confirmation page did not provide the terms and conditions in a “clear and conspicuous” way.  Court found little justification for enforcing the arbitration clause where it would have been “virtually costless” for defendant-appellant to appropriately provide the governing terms and conditions to plaintiff-appellee before he purchased a product protection plan.

• 20/20 Communications, Inc. v. Blevins, No. 4:16-CV-00810-Y (N.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2019)

  01/08/2019

  Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that an arbitrator – rather than the court – was to determine whether the matter would be resolved with a single class-arbitration or eighteen separate arbitrations, due to an unambiguous delegation clause in the arbitration agreement. 

• Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., No. 17-1272 (U.S. Jan. 8, 2019)

  01/08/2019

  Supreme Court held that when an arbitration agreement delegates the question of the arbitrability of a particular dispute to an arbitrator a court may not override the parties’ arbitration agreement, even if the court considers the argument that the arbitration agreement applies to a dispute is wholly groundless.

• Wolfe v. Carnival Corporation, No. 1:18-CV-23463-KMW (S.D. Fla. Jan. 4, 2019)

  01/04/2019

  Court granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and to compel arbitration, finding claimants’ only argument that the arbitration agreement does not fall within the scope of the arbitration clause was incorrect.

• Voorhees v. Tolia No. 18-1949 (3d Cir. Jan. 4, 2019)

  01/04/2019

  Court of appeals vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded for further proceedings.  Court held the district court did not address whether or why any of the plaintiff’s claims were subject to the arbitration agreement concluding it was not immediately apparent that all of them were. 

• Austin v. J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc. No. 2:18-CV-02207-JAR-TJJ (D. Kan. Jan. 2, 2019)

  01/02/2019

  Court granted defendants’ motion to stay the case pending arbitration, holding that the parties entered into a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement, defendants did not waive their right to enforce the arbitration agreement, and plaintiff’s claims are arbitrable under the arbitration agreement.

• Elerath v. Vitorino, No. 2:18-CV-04058-JTM-DEK (E.D. La. Jan. 2, 2019)

  01/02/2019

  Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.  Court found all plaintiffs, including non-signatory plaintiffs, were bound by the arbitration agreement and the dispute in question fell within the scope of that agreement.  Court also considered plaintiffs’ objection to the validity of the arbitration agreement was ill-conceived because claiming the agreement as a whole is a relative nullity does not challenge the making of the arbitration agreement. 

• Esanbock v. Weyerhaeuser Company, No. 0:17-CV-03702-SRN-DTS (D. Minn. Jan. 2, 2019)

  01/02/2019

  Court adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss or stay the claims, holding that the type of dispute at issue was not subject to arbitration.

• Castello v. AY&T Mobility Services, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-01874 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 28, 2018)

  12/28/2018

  Court entered and continued motion to compel arbitration, holding that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether an arbitration agreement existed.  Court found that a trial was necessary to determine whether an agreement was offered and accepted by the parties.

• Dillion v. Bet Information Systems, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-04717-JST (N.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 2018)

  12/28/2018

  Court ordered parties to show cause why the case should not be stayed, including the resolution of the pending motion to compel arbitration, until the issuance of a decision in Henry Schein.  Court considered this necessary because the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Henry Schein, 138 S. Ct. 2678, to address the following question: “Whether the Federal Arbitration Act permits a court to decline to enforce an agreement delegating questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator if the court concludes the claim of arbitrability is ‘wholly groundless.’” 

• Spencer v. XPO Logistics, No. 2:17-CV-14084-VAR-MKM (E.D. Mich. Dec. 28, 2018)

  12/28/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss finding there was no basis on which the arbitration provision could be deemed unenforceable.  Court also found it could not order the parties to arbitration because the court is located in the Eastern District of Michigan and the arbitration agreement provided for arbitration in North Carolina.

• Williams v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 5:18-CV-00915-EEF-MLH (W.D. La. Dec. 28, 2018)

  12/28/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding plaintiff executed a valid agreement to arbitrate his employment-related disputes and decided to dismiss the case because the agreement assigned the question of arbitratibility to the arbitrator.

• Berisha v. Stan, Inc., No. 0:18-CV-62114-MGC (S.D. Fla. Dec. 27, 2018)

  12/27/2018

  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pending the resolution of this case by an arbitrator.  Plaintiff did not oppose defendants’ motion and court noted FLSA claims can be arbitrated and federal policy favors arbitration.

• Temple v. Best Rate Holdings LLC, No. 8:18-CV-00176-CEH-JSS (M.D. Fla. Dec. 27, 2018)

  12/27/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court declined to defer to the arbitrator on the question of arbitrability, holding that because the agreement was narrow, its reference to AAA rules did not constitute an unambiguous intent of the parties for such judicial deference. Court nevertheless held that the arbitration agreement was enforceable and applicable to the scope of the parties’ dispute. Finally, court held that non-signatory defendant could likewise enforce the arbitration agreement based on a theory of estoppel.

• Global Empire Corporation v. Flower Tech Center, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-08795-ES-SCM (D.N.J. Dec. 21, 2018)

  12/21/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the proceeding.  Court held the parties entered into a valid arbitration agreement in accordance with Alberta, Canada law and found no reason to void a clear arbitration provision which was the product of an arm’s length negotiation by two sophisticated commercial entities.

• 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. 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• 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.