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.

  • 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. 

  • 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.

  • 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.

View All