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.

  • Servotronics, Inc. v. Rolls-Royce PLC and The Boeing Company, No. 19-1847 (7th Cir. Sept. 22, 2020) 

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s decision finding that 28 U.S.C. § 1782 does not authorize courts to compel discovery for use in private foreign arbitration.  Court found that the Supreme Court’s decision in Intel did not authorize courts to provide discovery assistance in private foreign arbitrations and noted that interpreting § 1782 to include private foreign arbitral tribunals would conflict with the FAA.

  • In re: Ex Parte Application of Axion Holding Cyprus Ltd. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for Leave to Take Discovery for use in Foreign Proceedings, No. 1:20-MC-00290-MN (D. Del. Sept. 18, 2020) 

    Court denied petitioner’s ex parte application for leave to take discovery for use in two private LCIA arbitrations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782.  Court found that although the Third Circuit has not determined whether private commercial arbitrations are “tribunals” within the meaning of the statute, it agreed with the recent district court cases holding that private commercial arbitrations are not “tribunals.”  Court rejected petitioner’s argument that the LCIA acts with the authority of the state because the tribunals are governed by the U.K. Arbitration Act of 1996 and the parties may seek judicial review.

  • In re the Application of the Fund for Protection of Investor Rights in Foreign State Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, No. 1::1199-MC-0000440011-AT (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2020)

    Court granted petitioner’s application to seek discovery of third parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, finding that although private commercial arbitrations do not qualify as “foreign or international tribunals” under the statute, recent precedent suggests that arbitrations conducted pursuant to a bilateral investment treaty do qualify.

  • Ullrich v. Ullrich, No. 20-CV-23505 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 25, 2020)

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief in aid of an impending international arbitration, finding that the vague possibility that defendant would close on a transaction relevant to the arbitration was insufficient to allege that immediate and irreparable harm would occur absent injunctive relief.

  • In re: Application of Atvos Agroindustrial Investimentos, S.A. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, No. 1:20 MC-00211-GBD-SDA (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2020)

    Court granted in part respondents’ motion to quash subpoenas issued under petitioner’s motion to take discovery from third parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 in furtherance of arbitral and injunction proceedings, finding inter alia that petitioner was not entitled to take discovery for use in an arbitral proceeding as it was not “a foreign or international tribunal.”

  • In Re Petition of the Republic of Turkey, No. 2:19-CV-20107-ES-SCM (D.N.J. Cal. July 17, 2020)

    Court denied petition seeking an order directing discovery pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782.  Court found that the petitioner met the statutory requirements of § 1782, rejecting respondent’s contention that§ 1782 prohibited discovery because the petitioner was seeking discovery not only to defend itself in international arbitration, but also to gather evidence for a criminal trial against respondent.  However, the court found that one of the intel factors, whether the requests are intrusive and burdensome, required the court to deny the petition because respondent asserted his fifth amendment privilege and because respondent has indefinite asylum in the United States. Court thus exercised its discretion to deny the petition.

  • La Dolce Vita Fine Dining Company Limited v. Lan, No. 1:20-MC-00200-VEC (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 2020) 

    Court granted petitioners’ motion for an order of attachment in aid of two arbitrations pending before the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (“CIETAC”).  Court found petitioners met requirements for attachment under New York CPLR § 7502(c) and Article 62, because petitioners had a cause of action in the form of the arbitrations; a likelihood of success on the merits, as they were already awarded arbitral awards against the respondents; the awards may be ineffectual without the attachment; and respondents had no pending counterclaims against petitioners.

  • In re Ex Parte Petition of the Republic of Turkey for an Order Directing Discovery from Hamit Cicek Pursuant to 28 USC § 1782, No. 2:19-CV-20107-ES-SCM (D.N.J. May 18, 2020) 

    Court denied motions to vacate, quash, compel discovery, and issue sanctions against the Republic of Turkey and granted the Republic’s motion to enforce subpoenas issued pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 for use in an ICSID arbitration.  Court found that the ex parte application did not deny the subpoena recipient due process, the Republic was not barred from § 1782 discovery because of pending criminal charges against the subpoena recipient, and granting assistance did not circumvent US public policy.

  • Sampedro v. Silver Point Capital, L.P., No. 19-272 (2d Cir. May. 1, 2020)

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision denying motion to compel discovery under 28 USC § 1782. Court found that district court did not need to consider procedural parity with respect to all possible foreign proceedings when determining whether to grant party reciprocal discovery under the section.

  • Washington National Insurance Co. v. OBEX Group LLC, No. 19-225-CV (2d Cir. May. 1, 2020)

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision denying motions to dismiss petitions to enforce arbitration summonses requiring non-parties to the arbitration to testify at a hearing and produce certain documents in the arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act 9 USC § 7. Court found that district court had subject matter jurisdiction and that various requirements for the enforcement of the petitions were met.

  • In re Empresa Publica de Hidrocarburos del Ecuador – EP Petroecuador v. Worleyparsons International, Inc., No. 4:19-MC-02534 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 13, 2020)

    Court denied respondent’s motion to vacate and quash a subpoena granted under 28 U.S.C. 1782, finding that applicant’s petition met the statutory requirements.  Court rejected, inter alia, respondent’s argument that applicant, as an Ecuadorian state-owned entity, was attempting to circumvent discovery procedures in a pending arbitration between Ecuador and respondent – finding that applicant was a non-party to that arbitration and that there was no evidence that applicant was operating as an instrumentality of the Ecuadorian government. 

  • Foresight Luxembourg Solar 1 S.A.R.L, v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 1:19-CV-03171-ER (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2020)

    Court granted respondent’s motion to transfer the action seeking to confirm an arbitration award to the District Court for the District of Columbia (D.D.C.) and referred all other pending motions to that court.  The award was rendered by the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce pursuant to the dispute resolution provisions of the Energy Charter Treaty. Petitioner sought to confirm it under the New York Convention while respondent argued that the motion should be stayed pending set aside proceedings in Sweden.  Court reasoned that venue transfer was appropriate because the D.D.C. was designated by congress as the dedicated venue for civil cases involving foreign states, and a transfer would promote judicial economy as there were parallel actions before the D.D.C.

  • Servotronics, Inc. v. The Boeing Company, No. 18-2454 (4th Cir. Mar. 30, 2020)

    Court of appeals reversed and remanded a district court’s denial of an application to obtain testimony pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 in aid of an arbitration in the United Kingdom.  Court found that a U.K. arbitral panel in a private arbitration was a “foreign or international tribunal” under § 1782, reasoning that even under a more restrictive definition of “entities acting with the authority of the State” the U.K. arbitral panel qualifies because of the governmental regulation and oversight of arbitration under U.K. law.  Court also rejected the argument that this holding would give foreign arbitrations more extensive discovery than is available to domestic arbitrations under the FAA, clarifying that § 1782 does not authorize discovery but merely permits a district court to effectively act as a surrogate for a foreign tribunal receiving testimony and documents for use in the proceeding before the tribunal.

  • In re Application of EWE Gasspeicher GmbH, No. 1:19-MC-00109-RGA (D. Del. Mar. 17, 2020)

    Court granted motion to vacate an order for discovery pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 obtained ex parte, finding that the ambit of § 1782 did not extend to arbitral proceedings arising from a private commercial contract, which were not proceedings before a foreign court or a quasi-judicial agency.

  • Petersen-Dean, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA., No. 1:19-CV-11299-AKH (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2020)

    Court denied motion to vacate prehearing security award granted by arbitral tribunal, finding that the arbitral tribunal was authorized to award interim security, and that it had properly exercised its power to do so.

  • In re Bio Energias Comercializadora de energia LTDA, No. 1:19-CV-24497 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2020)

    Court granted respondent’s motion to quash a subpoena issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to obtain discovery in aid of an arbitration in Brazil.  While court assumed that the foreign arbitration qualified as a foreign or international tribunal, it found that the Intel factors weighed in favor of quashing the subpoenas.

  • Republic of Kazakhstan v. Lawler, No. 2:20-CV-00090-DWL (D. Ariz. Jan. 27, 2020)

    Court granted a motion to quash a subpoena previously authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 1782.  Court noted that Kazakhstan was involved in a dispute under a BIT and was looking for information regarding whether a Nevada corporation was controlled by non-U.S. nationals which may preclude the corporation from asserting claims under the BIT.  Court held that because the petition to serve the subpoena was granted on an ex parte basis with the understanding that the subpoenaed party would be free to challenge it, the court should reexamine the § 1782 factors in considering the motion to quash. Court considered the Intel factors and found that they weighed in favor of granting the motion to quash.

  • UBS Securities LLC, v. Prowse, No. 1:20-CV-00217 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2020)

    Court granted a preliminary injunction and a petition to compel arbitration, preventing respondent from pursuing claims under Section 120 of New York’s compensation law.  Court rejected respondent’s argument that the employment agreement was unconscionable and therefore unenforceable.  Court further found that the question of whether the Section 120 claims were within the scope of the agreement had been clearly and unmistakably delegated to the arbitrators.

  • Republic of Kazakhstan v. Lawler, No. 2:19-MC-00035-DWL (D. Ariz. Dec. 16, 2019)

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to seal its response to respondent’s motion to quash a subpoena to compel testimony and production of evidence in a pending investor-state arbitration pursuant to 28 USC § 1782.

  • Robertson v. T-Mobile US, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-02567-RDB (D. Md. Nov. 1, 2019).

    Court granted petition to enforce a subpoena duces tecum issued by an AAA arbitrator against a non-party to the arbitration proceeding. Court found that arbitrator was authorized to issue the subpoena under §7 of the FAA and that the court had authority under the FAA to enforce the arbitrator’s subpoena, as petitioner had demonstrated that the information sought was integral to his claim and otherwise unavailable, giving rise to a special need for the information.

  • In Re Bio Energia Comercializadora de Energia LTDA., No. 1:19-MC-24497-BB (S.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 2019).

    Court granted ex parte application, pursuant to 28 USC §1782, for an order to serve subpoenas on two US-based executives for documents relevant to a pending arbitration seated in Sao Paulo. The court did not supply reasoning in its order, but noted that motions to quash the subpoenas may be addressed pursuant to the procedures set forth in the FRCP. 

  • Republic of Kazakhstan v. Lawler, No. 2:19-MC-00035-DWL (D. Ariz. Oct. 28, 2019)

    Court granted petitioner’s ex parte application under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for leave to serve a subpoena on respondent.  Court found that all three criteria under 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) were satisfied, as (i) Lawler resided in Arizona and had a business address in Arizona; (ii) the purpose of the application was to acquire information for use in an arbitration proceeding; and (iii) petitioner was a party to the arbitration at issue.  Court also found that the four discretionary factors listed in Supreme Court decision Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 264 (2004) weighed in favor of granting the application.

  • In re del Valle Ruiz for an Order to Take Discovery for Use in Foreign Proceedings Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, No. 18-3226 (2d Cir. Oct. 7, 2019)

    Court of appeals held that the language in 28 U.S.C. § 1782 that requires that a person or entity "resides or is found" within the district in which discovery is sought extends the reach of § 1782 to the limits of personal jurisdiction consistent with due process. However, Court held that the contacts at issue within the Southern District of New York were insufficient to subject it to the district court’s personal jurisdiction.

  • In re Application of NJSC Naftogaz of Ukraine, No. 3:18-MC-00092-SAL (N.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2019)

    Court granted application under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for discovery from auditors in the U.S. in aid of a contemplated court proceeding in the Netherlands to enforce an arbitral award rendered against Gazprom in an arbitration seated in Stockholm, Sweden.  Court held that the application met all of the requirements of § 1782.

  • Abdil Latif Jameel Transportation Company Limited v. FedEx Corporation, No. 19-5315 (6th Cir. Sept. 19, 2019)

    Court of appeals reversed and remanded a district court’s denial of an application for discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) for use in a foreign arbitration proceeding.  Petitioner sought discovery for use in two simultaneous arbitration proceedings, one under the rules of the Dubai International Financial Centre-London Court of International Arbitration (DIFC-LCIA), and the other under the rules and laws of Saudi Arabia.  The district court held that neither the Saudi nor the DIFC-LCIA arbitration panel constituted a “foreign or international tribunal” under § 1782(a).  Court of appeals, considered the definition of “tribunal” in dictionaries, legal writing, and other sources and determined that the text, context, and structure of § 1782(a) gave no reason to doubt that the word “tribunal” includes private commercial arbitral panels.  Court of appeals also found that Court of appeals was persuaded that because the Saudi arbitration had been dismissed, the question of discovery under § 1782(a) was moot. 

  •  Managed Care Advisory Group, LLC, v. Cigna Healthcare, Inc., No. 17-13761 (11th Cir. Sept. 18, 2019)

    Court of appeals reversed and remanded district court’s decision to enforce arbitration summonses.  Court of appeals held that 9 U.S.C § 7 (FAA) authorized federal courts to enforce arbitration summonses that required non-parties to present documents and testimony in the physical presence of the arbitrator, where the summons enforced by the district court required the non-parties to appear via video conference from locations across the country while the arbitrator sat in Miami, Florida.

  • Torlay v. Nelligan, No. 3:19-CV-06589-AET-LHG (D.N.J. Sept. 18, 2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings of claims related to a contract dispute.  Court found that there were two arbitration at issue, and that plaintiff was non-signatories to the first, and defendants were non-signatories to the second but that by applying the theory of equitable estoppel to both agreements, all of plaintiff’s claims could be compelled to arbitration.

  • CBF Indústria de Gusa S/A v. AMCI Holdings, Inc.  No. 1:13-CV-02581-PKC-JLC (S.D.N.Y. July 16, 2019)

    Court confirmed order of attachment in aid of arbitration for the plaintiff.  It secured an amount of $48,413,462.00 considering it was probable that plaintiff would succeed on the merits of its claims.

  • Compagnie des Grands Hotels d’Afrique S.A. v. Starman Hotel Holdings LLC, No. 1:18-CV-00654-RGA-SRF (D. Del. July 15, 2019)

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for issuance of a letter of request in aid of arbitration and denied defendant’s proposed alterations.  Court considered that plaintiff made a reasonable showing that the evidence sought could be material or lead to the discovery of material regarding an alter ego theory at issue in enforcement proceedings related to an arbitration award.

  • Daewoo International Corporation v. America Metals Trading L.L.P., No. 16-30984 (5th Cir. June 25, 2019)

    Court of appeals vacated the judgment of the district court remanding for trial, finding that, contrary to the court of first instance decision, Louisiana’s non-resident attachment statute allow for attachment in aid of arbitration.

  • Stemcor USA Incorporated v. CIA Siderurgica Do Para Cosipar, No. 16-30984 (5th Cir. June 25, 2019)

    Court of appeals vacated the judgment of the district court, which had held that Louisiana’s non-resident attachment statute does not allow for attachment in aid of arbitration, and remanded.  Court of appeals determined that the arbitration agreements were covered by the New York Convention, and that that the instant case was related to the arbitration agreements because plaintiff-appellant was seeking an attachment to facilitate the arbitration.  Court of appeals further concluded that Louisiana state law allows parties to seize assets while pursuing arbitration for monetary damages.

  • Royal Merchant Holdings, LLC, v. Traeger Pellet Grills, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-00108-EHF (D. Utah June 17, 2019) 

    Magistrate judge recommended the dismissal of a petition seeking to compel compliance with an arbitral subpoena under Section 7 of the FAA for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Magistrate judge recognized that the FAA does not confer federal question jurisdiction and an independent basis must exist.  Magistrate judge rejected the argument that the FAA required the court to ‘look through’ the Section 7 petition to the underlying arbitration to determine diversity and amount in controversy.  

  • Parkcrest Builders, LLC v. Housing Authority of New Orleans, No. 2:15-CV-00150-NJB-JVM (E.D. La. May 21, 2019)

    Court granted a motion to lift the stay on proceedings for the limited purpose of addressing a third party’s motion to intervene in arbitration and anticipated motion to compel evidence production, finding that lifting the stay would not delay arbitration or  prevent defendant from preparing for the arbitration. 

  • Constellium Rolled Products Ravenswood, LLC v. United Steel, Paper, and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, No. 2:18-CV-01404 (S.D.W. Va. May 20, 2019)

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend judgment granting an injunction that prevented plaintiff from taken certain actions prior to arbitration, finding that court did not commit a clear error of law in its decision.

  • Espiritu Santo Holdings, LP, v. Libero Partners, LP., No. 1:19-CV-03930-CM (S.D.N.Y. May 16, 2019)

    Court ordered that respondent, its principals and all persons acting in concert with them are enjoined from taking certain actions while ICC arbitration is pending.  Court considered that the injunction shall continue in place until such time as the ICC shall enter any provisional or final award in connection with the ICC Arbitration, which award would by its terms supplant this injunction in aid of arbitration.

  • Dylan 140 LLC v. Figueroa, No. 1:19-CV-02897-LAK-DCF (S.D.N.Y. May 14, 2019)

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary stay of scheduled arbitration until after the court had an opportunity to determine whether the plaintiff is required to arbitrate.

  • Boon v. Indyzen, Inc., No. 18-71347 (9th Cir. May 3, 2019)

    Court of appeals denied petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to direct a district court to vacate its order compelling third parties to arbitration of claims related to a software licensing agreement.  Court analyzed Bauman factors, and found, in particular, that petitioner had other adequate means of relief and would not suffer prejudice by the arbitration proceedings, thus the court did not issue the writ of mandamus. 

  • Munger v. Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-00970-SB (D. Or. May 1, 2019)

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss wrongful termination claims, but denied defendant’s motion to dismiss statutory employment claims that had already been the subject of a binding arbitration.  Court recognized that arbitration decisions can have res judicata or collateral estoppel effect, but followed the Supreme Court in holding that an adverse arbitration decision does not prevent an employee from re-litigating statutory claims.

  • In re Application of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan for an Order Permitting Discovery Pursuant to 28 USC. § 1782 v. Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, No. 1:18-MC-00103-RMC (D.D.C. Apr. 10, 2019)

    Court granted in part and denied in part a foreign sovereign petitioner’s application for an order permitting discovery pursuant to 28 USC § 1782.  The court rejected respondent’s argument that the ICSID Tribunal – or any other “supra-national arbitral institution” – is not a foreign tribunal contemplated by § 1782, finding that arbitrations pursuant to bilateral investment treaties are sanctioned by governments, who also participate in such arbitrations.  The court found that discretionary factors weighed against permitting discovery where respondent claimed that it had no access to sought-after electronic records.  Notwithstanding, the court also found that respondent could respond to petitioner’s interrogatories when they would not require burdensome document recovery, review, and production. 

  • CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. v. Gas Workers Union, No. 17-01322 (8th Cir. Apr. 10, 2019)

    Appellate Court reversed district court’s vacatur of an arbitration award and directed that they affirm on remand.  District court had held that the arbitrator disregarded the plain language of the contract by reading in “basic notions of fairness and due process,” but the appellate court found that the arbitrator had found that these were implicit to articles in the agreement. Thus, the appellate court determined that the arbitrator’s views, right or wrong, were an interpretation of the contract and were not grounds for vacatur.

  • In re: Application of CA Investment (Brazil) S.A., No. 0:19-MC-00022-MJD-SER (D. Minn. Apr. 9, 2019)

    Court granted a Brazilian corporation’s ex parte application for an order to take discovery for use in foreign proceedings under 28 USC § 1782, granting applicant discovery for use in proceedings including an ICC arbitrations in Brazil.  The court granted the application, finding that the targeted bank conducted business within the judicial district, the discovery sought would be used in several foreign proceedings, and that applicant was an “interested person” given that it was a participant in such proceedings.

  • Ithaca Capital Investments I, S.A. v. Trump Panama Hotel Management LLC No. 1:18-CV-00390-ER (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2019)

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to stay the action pending the resolution of a related arbitration, finding that several of the defendant’s claims would not be resolved by arbitration and plaintiffs have failed to show that the arbitration would conclude in a reasonable amount of time. 

  • Lyon v. Neustar, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-00371-KJM-KJN (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2019)

    Court issued temporary restraining order temporarily enjoining party from continuing to pursue claims in arbitration, finding that if the arbitration in Virginia proceeded it would to damage the plaintiff’s rights under California law not to be compelled to litigate outside of California.

  • Butcher v. Teamsters Local 955, No. 2:18-CV-02424-JAR-KGG (D. Kan. Mar. 11, 2019)

    Court denied motion to stay pending arbitration of related claim against another defendant, finding that (i) FAA did not provide authority for staying a non-arbitrable claim pending arbitration of a separate arbitrable claim; and (ii) the claims were not so intertwined as to justify an exercise of the court’s discretionary power to stay.

  • The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society v. Moreno, No. 2:16-CV-01355-JB-KRS (D.N.M. Feb. 28, 2019)

    Court granted defendant’s motion to appoint a neutral arbitrator pursuant to the FAA.  Court found that the parties failed to agree on an arbitrator and that arbitration agreement did not provide a method for appointing an arbitrator in the event that the parties failed to agree.  Thus, court had authority to appoint an arbitrator pursuant to 9 USC § 5.

  • Next Level Planning & Wealth Management, LLC v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, No. 2:18-MC-00065-PP (E.D. Wis. Feb. 13, 2019)

    Court denied petition to enforce a FINRA arbitration subpoena.  Court evaluated the motion to compel compliance with the subpoena as a petition under § 7 of the FAA to compel a non-party witness to appeal.  Court reasoned that arbitration differed from litigation by providing for circumscribed discovery procedures and that Section 7 allowed an arbitrator to require production of documents in connection with an evidentiary hearing but not within 30 days of receiving a subpoena.

  • Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Vintage Grand Condominium Association, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-10382-CM (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2019)

    Court denied all parties’ applications for relief and dismissed the petition to appoint a neutral arbitrator and the cross-petition seeking to disqualify one of the party arbitrators.  Court noted that it was guided by two governing principles:  (i) courts have little business interfering in arbitrations; and (ii) the parties have made an agreement, which should be construed according to its plain terms and in accordance with the settled maxims of contract construction.  Court dismissed the petition because Section 5 of the FAA clearly requires that whatever method for naming an arbitrator is provided in the arbitration agreement must be followed, and denied the cross-petition on the grounds that the party arbitrator met the qualifications for membership on the tribunal that was specified in the arbitration clause.

  • Washington National Insurance Company v. Obex Group LLC, No. 7:18-CV-09693-VB (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2019)

    Court granted petitioner’s motions to enforce two arbitration summonses and denied respondents’ motions to quash the summonses.  Court found, inter alia, that pre-hearing discovery was proper under § 7 of the FAA where respondents were summoned to a hearing  rather than a deposition, the arbitral panel was prepared to rule on evidentiary issues, and the hearing would be recorded as part of the arbitration record for the panel to use in its determination of the dispute.

  • In re Application of Luis Javier Martinez Sampedro for an Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to Conduct Discovery for Use in a Foreign Proceeding, No. 3:18-MC-00047-JBA (D. Conn. Jan. 3, 2019)

    Court overruled defendants’ objection to the ruling on defendants’ motion to compel reciprocal discovery.  Court found it could not set aside the order of the magistrate judge because defendant did not show the magistrate judge’s decision was beyond the scope of the court’s discretion or that it was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

  • NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. v. O.W. Bunker USA, Inc., 17-4028-CV (2d Cir. Dec. 19, 2018)

    Court of appeals vacated district court’s preliminary injunction of a London arbitration, holding that, while participation in an arbitration to which a party did not consent constitutes irreparable harm, the district court failed to make adequate findings regarding the likelihood of success on the merits.

View All