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.

  • Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. v. Lunera Lighting, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-05091-EMC (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2018)

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration.  Relying on Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc., 175 F.3d 716, court concluded that once a court determines that all disputes are subject to arbitration pursuant to a binding arbitration clause, it is improper for a district court to grant preliminary relief where provisional relief is available from an arbitral tribunal.

  • Government Employees Insurance Company v. Mayzenberg, No. 1:17-CV-02802-ILG-LB (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2018)

    Court, inter alia, granted temporary stay of defendants’ 180 no-fault insurance collection arbitrations filed against insurer, finding that it would frustrate the purpose of the FAA and judicial economy if the FAA were interpreted to preclude granting stay.

  • Genosource, LLC v. Inguran, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-00113-CJW-KEM (N.D. Iowa, Nov. 16, 2018)

    Court granted motion for temporary restraining order, rejecting argument that such action was barred by arbitration agreement, since (i) the plaintiff did not sign the arbitration agreement but was alleged to have accepted it through its actions; and (ii) precedent barring preliminary injunctions in actions subject to arbitration did not necessarily apply to temporary restraining orders.

  • Setty v. Shrinivas Sugandhalaya LLP, No. 2:17-CV-01146-RAJ (W.D. Wash. Nov. 15, 2018)

    Court granted motion to stay pending an appeal but denied motion to stay pending the outcome of an arbitration in India.  Court reasoned that it was not clear whether all of the claims were subject to arbitration, whether the claims would actually come before the arbitrator, or how the proceedings in India might affect plaintiff’s claims and thus granting a stay would be prejudicial to defendants.  Court rejected defendant’s assertion that § 3 of the FAA required a stay when an a separate arbitration proceeding would cover an issue involved in the dispute, clarifying that a stay pending an arbitration is required if it the parties have agreed in writing to arbitrate an issue underlying the proceeding. 

  • Layman v. City of Peoria, Illinois, No. 1:18-CV-01269-JBM-JEH (C.D. Ill. Nov. 8, 2018)

    Court denied plaintiff’s request for declaratory judgment and dismissed case. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument for relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act, as parallel arbitration proceedings were ongoing on the same issues between the same parties.

  • State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co. v. Rod & Reel, Inc., No. 8:18-CV-00340-PWG (D. Md. Nov. 7, 2018)

    Court granted plaintiff’s petition to modify an arbitration award and denied plaintiff’s petition to vacate the arbitral award. Court held that the award provided for plaintiff insurer to pay compensation to defendant insured outside of the scope of coverage. Court modified the arbitral award to cover only the covered month-to-month calculations.

  • Feldman v. Norman, No. 1:18-CV-04662 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 6, 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.

  • In re: Servotronics, Inc., No. 2:18-MC-00364-DCN (D.S.C. Nov. 6, 2018)

    Court denied an ex parte application pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 to take discovery for use in a foreign arbitration, where the incident giving rise to the arbitration occurred in a U.S. state but the parties agreed to private arbitration in England. Court held a private arbitration body does not fall within the § 1782 definition of “tribunal” and, thus, found that it did not have jurisdiction to grant the application.

  • Garcia v. Kakish, No. 1:17-CV-00374-LJO-JLT (E.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2018)

    Court ordered the parties to submit an order to show cause of why the parties failed to comply with the court’s order to file a joint status report.  The parties had been ordered to file a joint status report regarding the parallel arbitration proceedings, on which the stay of the action had been granted.

  • Zitan Technologies, LLC v. Yu, No. 3:18-CV-00395-RCJ-WGC (D. Nev. Nov. 5, 2018)

    Court ordered discovery in this action to be stayed pending resolution of the parties’ dispute in the arbitration forum.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that discovery in the federal action is relevant to plaintiff’s sought-after injunctive relief in the arbitration forum and accepted defendant’s argument that discovery should proceed solely in the arbitration forum.

  • In re Regions Morgan Keegan Securities, Derivative and ERISA Litigation, No. 2:07-CV-02830-SHM-DKV (W.D. Tenn. Nov. 2, 2018)

    Court denied defendant’s motion to enjoin a FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Association) arbitration and emergency motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin the same arbitration.  Court rejected defendant’s argument that claimant could not separately bring arbitration because the court had approved class certification and accepted plaintiff’s argument that it was not bound by class certification because it had opted out of the class.

  • Blackberry Limited v. Nokia Corporation, No. 1:17-CV-00155-RGA (D. Del. Oct. 31, 2018)

    Court denied motion for preliminary injunctive relief limiting the arbitration that defendants commenced in Sweden, finding that the Swedish arbitration related to issues outside of the patent claim before the court and that comity concerns weighed against enjoining the arbitration.

  • Dynamic Int’l of Wisconsin v. SMEC Co., Ltd., No. 18-CV-582-PP (E.D. Wis. Oct. 18, 2018)

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to stay arbitration pending the court’s disposition of parties’ competing motions. Plaintiff filed motion to stay arbitration when the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB) ruled that it had jurisdiction; defendant refused to stipulate a stay of arbitration proceedings and KCAB refused to stay the proceedings. Court found that, under the effective schedule, the plaintiff would have the court’s decision on the substantive motion before being required to file before KCAB.

  • Stemcor USA Incorporated v. CIA Siderurgica Do Para Cosipar, No. 16-30984 (5th Cir. Oct. 17, 2018)

    Court of Appeals exercised certification privilege requesting the Louisiana Supreme Court to resolve the question whether, as a matter of Louisiana law, the state non-resident attachment statute allows for attachment in a suit to compel arbitration. Court requested a precise meaning of the phrase “action for a money judgment.”

  • Garcia v. Keith and Kal, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01230-AWI-JLT (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2018)

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss and request for a protective order, finding that the defendant wished to litigate this case, instead of joining the related arbitration proceedings, in aid of an indemnity dispute with a third party, Specifically, the court found that defendant was perpetuating the action in order to take plaintiffs’ depositions, since obtaining them during arbitration discovery would be unlikely, and so the court also quashed defendant’s deposition notices.

  • Petty v. Ashcroft, No. 2:18-CV-01323-JAD-VCF (D. Nev. Oct. 12, 2018)

    Court granted a stipulated protective order that all disclosure and discovery activity was entitled to confidential treatment extending to the court action and through the subsequent arbitration.

  • Bestway (USA), Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00205-HSG (N.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2018)

    Court granted motion for preliminary injunction enjoining an ongoing arbitration pursued in violation of prior grant of temporary restraining order.

  • Innotec LLC v. Visiontech Sales, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00007-GEC-JCH (W.D. Va. Sept. 14, 2018)

    Court granted motion to stay proceedings for a renewable period of 120 days during pendency of an arbitration it had compelled by an earlier ruling. Court reasoned that considerations of judicial economy militated in favor of a stay given the relevance of the questions at issue in the arbitration to the resolution of the remaining claims. Court retained jurisdiction over pending motion of sanctions and the enforcement of the parties’ existing discovery obligations.

  • Michigan Nurses Assoc. v. Bay Area Medical Center, No. 1:18-CV-01221-WCG (E.D. Wis. Aug. 15, 2018)

    Court denied the petition for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in aid of arbitration.  Court held that consummation of the transaction at issue would not result in irreparable harm to petitioner nor vitiate the arbitration process, and that the hardships claimed by the petitioner did not outweigh the hardships claimed by the respondent.

  • Polyone Corporation v. Westlake Vinyls, Inc., No. 5:18-CV-00107-TBR (W.D. Ky. July 30, 2018)

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent the parties from arbitrating a dispute scheduled for hearing on August 6, 2018. Court found that there was not a substantial likelihood that plaintiff would prevail in showing the arbitration provision was invalid and unenforceable, and that allowing arbitration served the public interest.

  • Middletown Borough v. Middletown Water Joint Venture LLC, No. 1:18-CV-00861-CCC (M.D. Pa. July 19, 2018)

    Court rejected plea for preliminary injunctive relief pending the outcome of an ongoing arbitration. Court found that plaintiff failed to prove their likelihood of success on the merits of the arbitration and failed to prove that irreparable harm would follow the failure of the court to issue injunctive relief.

  • Stemcor USA Inc. v. Cia Siderurgica do Para Cosipar, No. 16-30984 (5th Cir. July 11, 2018)

    Court of appeals granted plaintiff’s motion for panel rehearing, and substituted its prior decision. Court held that plaintiff-appellant failed to comply with the procedural requirements which would have allowed for attachments to issue in aid of arbitration.

  • Kiobel v. Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, No. 17-424 (2d Cir. July 10, 2018)

    Court of appeals reversed district court’s decision to grant petition seeking leave to subpoena under 28 USC § 1782. Court held that the district court’s decision was an abuse of discretion where the documents sought from a foreign company’s US counsel would be unreachable in foreign proceedings. Court held that this would threaten the US policy of promoting open communications between lawyers and their clients.

  • Anytime Labor-Kansas LLC v. Anderson, No. 4:17-CV-00573-RK (W.D. Mo. July 5, 2018)

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for declaratory summary judgment that defendant was party to a valid arbitration agreement that only allowed individual, not class, arbitration. Court further granted a permanent injunction against defendant pursuing class arbitration with plaintiff.

  • Shasha v. Malkin, No. 1:14-CV-09989-AT-RWL (S.D.N.Y. July 5, 2018)

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to enforce two subpoenas issued by arbitrators to two non-party witnesses. Pursuant to §7 of the FAA, court concluded that the arbitrators had greater familiarity with what non-party testimony was material and therefore, the witnesses should appear to testify.

  • Scottsdale Capital Advisors Incorporated v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Incorporated, No. 2:18-MC-00035-GMS (D. Ariz. July 3, 2018)

    Court declined to enforce subpoena in arbitration that would require a non-party to provide pre-hearing document discovery. Court also declined to enforce a subpoena that would require FINRA witnesses to appear at a hearing, as the witnesses did not meet the location requirement for subpoenas set out in FRCP 45(c)(1)(A).

  • Moyet v. Lugo-Sánchez, No. 3:18-MC-00394-FAB (D.P.R. June 27, 2018)

    Court granted motion to compel compliance with FINRA arbitral subpoenas and ordered respondents to attend arbitration hearings after they failed to establish undue hardship. Pursuant to §7 of the FAA, court rejected respondents’ claim that arbitrators residing in a different state and present by means of video-conferencing technology were not “sitting” in the appropriate jurisdiction. Court expressly relied on FINRA rules for determining the arbitral seat, not the arbitrator’s physical location, and further rejected the claim that only a district court where the arbitrators sit may compel arbitral subpoenas.

  • Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers Local Union No. 1, B.A.C.I.U., AFL-CIO v. Heavy Metal Corp., No. 1:17-CV-06816-DLI-RER (E.D.N.Y. June 8, 2018)

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award and compel arbitration against respondent in default. As to the petition to confirm, the court found that there was no indication that the award was made arbitrarily, decided contrary to applicable law, or that the tribunal exceeded its authority. As to the petition to compel, the court found that there was an unambiguous agreement to arbitrate and that the respondent had refused to arbitrate additional claims.

  • Sanchez v. Homebridge Financial Services, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01267-AWI-EPG (E.D. Cal. June 8, 2018)

    After granting motion to compel arbitration and staying proceedings, court dismissed case without prejudice to arbitration due to plaintiff’s failure to initiate arbitration within the time limit set in its prior order. Court found that plaintiff was responsible for paying arbitration filing fees and that there was no authority for ordering defendant to initiate arbitration.

  • Strong v. Davidson, No. 17-4085 (10th Cir. May 16, 2018)


    Court of appeals affirmed district court denial of defendant’s motion to arbitrate.  Court held that district court properly found that defendant, who paid his arbitration fees, but whose co-defendants’ had not, had waived his right to arbitrate by remaining silent while the pending arbitration collapsed for failure of others to pay.  Court held that defendant’s conduct was inconsistent with the right to arbitrate as plaintiff was prejudiced by the defendant’s delay in indicating that he wanted to continue to arbitrate. 

  • State of Hawaii v. United States Marine Corps, No. 1:18-CV-00128-LEK-KJM (D. Haw. May 11, 2018)


    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order to maintain the status quo until the arbitration panel renders its decision.  Court held that plaintiff made a timely request for arbitration, would be able to have an arbitration panel consider its challenges, was likely to succeed on the merits, and that the balance of equities favored granting the TRO as plaintiff would face a concrete, imminent and severe injury from great financial harm that would be irreparable as the Marine Corps’ sovereign immunity would preclude the plaintiff from recovering any monetary damages while the arbitration was pending, whereas any injury to the Marine Corps would be primarily economic.

  • Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Cutting Edge Services Limited, No. 3:18-CV-00735-JZ (N.D. Ohio May 10, 2018)

    Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order.  Court concluded that the requirements for personal jurisdiction over the defendant was satisfied, both to preserve the bargained-for benefit of arbitration and based on the defendant’s contacts with the forum state.  Court also concluded that it should enforce the noncompetition agreement because doing so would not substantially harm the defendant, but it would not compel additional disclosures because plaintiff would not be irreparably harmed absent the additional disclosures it sought.

  • Marshall Square, LLC v. Bette, No. 5:17-CV-00425-M (W.D. Okla. May 8, 2018)

    Court granted defendants’ motion for an expedited protective order staying discovery pending a ruling on a motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the interests of judicial economy would be advanced by a temporary stay of discovery, particularly in circumstances where the motion to compel arbitration could dispose of the entire action.

  • In re Application of Pola Maritime Ltd., No. 4:16-CV-00333-WTM-GRS (S.D. Ga. Apr. 13, 2018)


    Court overruled respondents’ objection to magistrate judge’s order.  Court concluded that the order at issue was procedural, and therefore the court’s review was governed by FRCP Rule 72, which requires modification or set aside of the parts of the order that are clearly erroneous or contrary to law.  Court held that it was unable to conclude that the magistrate judge’s order was either a clear error or contrary to law.

  • BOKF, NA v. Estes, No. 3:17-CV-00694-LRH-WGC (D. Nev. Mar. 14, 2018)


    After denying motion for preliminary anti-arbitration injunction, court denied motion for an injunction pending appeal, finding that appellant had not established it was likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal; that its claim of irreparable harm was insufficient; and that the balance of the equities was against the injunction.

  • International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union No. 639 v. Airgas, Incorporated, No. 17-1349 (4th Cir. Mar. 13, 2018)


    Court of appeals dismissed appeal from preliminary injunction pending arbitration as moot, since award was issued in the interim.

  • Finastra USA Corporation v. Zepecki, No. 3:18-CV-00725-WHO (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2018)


    Court granted temporary restraining order enjoining former employee from participating in state employment agency hearing, finding that employer’s motion to compel arbitration was likely to succeed and that proceeding with state agency hearings would cause irreparable harm.  Court found unpersuasive employee’s argument that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable and that employer had waived its right to arbitrate by refusing mediation.

  • Money Concepts Capital Corp v. Schryer, No. 9:17-CV-80922-DMM (S.D. Fla. March 7, 2018)

    Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment.  Plaintiff securities broker-dealer sought reimbursement from defendant prior employee for settlements with customers whose accounts were handled by defendant.  Defendant refused and brought arbitration proceedings before FINRA in Los Angeles.  The FINRA arbitration panel heard plaintiff’s motion to transfer the Los Angeles arbitration to Palm Beach County, Florida pursuant to the venue-selection clause in the parties’ agreement and ordered the arbitration to remain in Los Angeles.  Plaintiff then initiated the action to compel arbitration in Palm Beach County, Florida and to stay arbitration proceedings in Los Angeles, California.  Court accepted defendants’ argument that arbitration proceedings must proceed in Los Angeles based on the arbitration panel’s order, despite the order being inconsistent with the parties’ venue-selection provision.

  • ATT Mobility Services LLC v. Payne, No. 3:17-CV-00649-CRS (W.D. Ky. Feb. 16, 2018)


    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration of state court claims and for a preliminary injunction enjoining the state court proceedings.  Court held that a valid and enforceable contract between the parties exists under Kentucky law and that the defendant accepted the plaintiff’s offer to arbitrate future claims.  Additionally, the court found that enjoining the state court proceedings, in light of the finding that a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement existed, would prevent irreparable harm against the movant by avoiding the expense and delay of trial.

  • Diaz v. Intuit, Inc., No. 5:15-CV-01778-EJD (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2018)


    Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to certify for appeal the court’s order granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that an interlocutory appeal would not materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation but rather delay the arbitration. 

  • DDRA Capital, Inc. v. KPMG, LLP, No. 1:04-CV-00158-AET (D.V.I. Feb. 9, 2018)


    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss RICO arbitration claims for failure to prosecute.  Court held that the Third Circuit’s six equitable factors to be considered for motions to dismiss weighed on balance in favor of dismissal.

  • Ohio River Valley Associates, LLC v. PST Services, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00628-GNS (W.D. Ky. Feb. 7 2018)

    Court granted motions for preliminary injunction to enjoin defendant from arbitrating the dispute between the parties and to conduct limited discovery. Court held that all four factors relevant to determining whether a preliminary injunction weigh in favor of the motion.

  • YPF S.A. v. Apache Overseas, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00178 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 25, 2018)


    Court denied petitioner’s emergency motion to stay arbitration, or in the alternative to enjoin arbitration.  Petitioner YPF and respondent Apache submitted their dispute to KPMG for arbitration, after which Apache initiated an ICC arbitration against KPMG.  Noting that the FAA “exists in part to ensure that courts cannot undermine contractual agreements to arbitrate disputes,” the court concluded that Apache had a contractual right to arbitrate its dispute with KPMG, and that it would not be appropriate for the court to interfere with that right by issuing a stay or injunction.  Court further noted that should the ICC arbitration result in an outcome that undermines court orders, FAA § 10(a)(4) authorizes a federal court to set aside an arbitral award “where the arbitrators exceeded their powers.”


  • In re Stati v. State Street Corporation, No. 1:15-MC-91059-LTS (D. Mass. Jan. 18, 2018)


    Court partially granted motion to compel discovery for use in foreign arbitral award enforcement proceedings under 28 USC § 1782, finding that the request fell within the scope of § 1782 since the foreign enforcement proceedings are adjudicative in nature (rather than prosecutorial), but that the petitioners had not yet established that documents sought were in the possession, custody, or control of the respondent and would be limited to conducting a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition to determine whether the control requirement was met.

  • Willett v. Ally Bank, No. 2:17-CV-02472-JAR-GLR (D. Kan. Dec. 26, 2017)


    Court denied the plaintiff’s motion to stay its consideration of a motion to compel arbitration in order to grant limited discovery.  Court reasoned that discovery regarding the possible existence of additional arbitration agreements would be unduly burdensome in light of the defendant’s assurance that no such agreements existed beyond the one submitted by the defendant to the Court and provided to the plaintiff.

  • Health Professionals & Allied Employees AFT/AFL-CIO v. MHA, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-13301-JMV-MF (D.N.J. Dec. 21, 2017)


    Court granted motion for a temporary restraining order against the sale of assets.  Court reasoned that because the defendant had failed to satisfy a valid arbitration award, its disposition of certain assets could frustrate the arbitral process.  Court limited its restraint to such assets as were necessary to enforce the arbitral award.

  • CVS Health Corporation v. Vividus, LLC, FKA HM Componding Services, LLC, No. 16-16187 (9th Cir. Dec. 21, 2017)


    Circuit court affirmed district court’s denial of a petition to enforce a subpoena issued pre-hearing by an arbitrational panel against a company that was not a party to the arbitration, finding that the FAA does not grant arbitrators the power to compel the production of documents from third parties outside of a hearing.

  • Association of Equipment Manufacturers v. Burgum, No. 1:17-CV-00151-DLH-CSM (D.N.D. Dec. 14, 2017)

    Court granted motion for preliminary injunction enjoining North Dakota from enforcing state statute retroactively prohibiting arbitration clauses in certain contracts, finding inter alia that there was a probability of success on the merits as to petitioner’s argument that the statute was preempted by the FAA.

  • Application for an Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1782 to Conduct Discovery for Use in a Foreign Proceeding, No. 1:17-MC-01466 (D.D.C. Dec. 9, 2017)


    Court denied motion to reconsider prior decision denying petitioners’ request to issue a subpoena for discovery of a partner and law firm for use in the set-aside appeal of a $50 billion arbitral award.  Court held that none of the reasons proffered by the petitioners for reconsideration could overcome the court’s prior determination that that the law firm should not have to conduct a burdensome search given the limited, if any, relevance of the discovery sought to the foreign proceeding.  Shearman & Sterling LLP served as counsel for the petitioners.

View All