Shearman & Sterling LLP | U.S. International Arbitration Digest | US International Arbitration
U.S. International Arbitration Digest
This links to the home page
US International Arbitration

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

FILTER BY:
AND/OR
  • Metso Minerals Canada, Inc. v. Arcelormittal Exploitation Miniere Canada, No. 1:19-CV-03379-LAP (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2019) 
    March 1, 2017

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award and denied cross-motion to vacate the award on the grounds of manifest disregard of the law. Court found that the FAA required great deference to the decision of the arbitration panel, and that respondents failed to demonstrate vacatur was proper under the circumstances.

  • Golden v. O’Melveny & Myers LLP, No. 2:14-CV-08725-CAS (C.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2019) 
    11/01/2019

    Court denied petitioners motion to vacate arbitration award based on arbitrator bias. The court found that the evident partiality standard of the FAA, 9 USC § 10(a)(2), did not require vacatur where: the arbitrator’s son had applied for work with both respondent and the firm representing respondent and been rejected; after closing arguments, the arbitrator was hired by respondent’s counsel on an unrelated litigation matter; and petitioner identified other rulings made by the arbitrator in the course of arbitration which were adverse to said party.

  • OI European Group B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 1;16-CV-01533-ABJ (D.D.C. Nov. 1, 2019) 
    11/01/2019

    Court granted motion to register judgement under 28 USC § 1963 and motion for leave to seek attachment and execution under 28 USC § 1610(c) for collection on an ICSID award rendered four-years prior. The court rejected Venezuela’s argument that five months was an unreasonably short period of time to wait to seek attachment against a foreign government under § 1610(c), and rejected the argument that plaintiff should not be allowed to seek attachment until such time as the political uncertainty relating to the power struggle between the Maduro and Guaido regimes is resolved. 

  • Sayre v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., No. 18-55411 (9th Cir. Oct. 24, 2019)
    10/24/2019

    Court of appeals reversed district court’s denial of a motion to vacate an arbitration award.  Court held that this was one of the rare cases that an award must be vacated based on the arbitrator’s arbitrary denial of a reasonable request for a postponement.  Court held that the arbitration panel’s denial of a continuance requested in light of plaintiff’s counsel’s medical emergency was arbitrary. 

  • Lagsit v. International Coffee and Tea LLC, No. 19-55143 (9th Cir. Oct. 23, 2019)
    10/23/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of a motion to vacate an arbitration award, and its confirmation of the award. Court agreed with the district court that the petitioner failed to establish any of the limited grounds on which an arbitration award may be vacated.

  • Edward Jones & Co., v. Martin, No. 2:19-CV-06776-AB-KS (C.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2019)
    10/23/2019

    Court granted an unopposed motion to confirm an arbitration award rendered in a FINRA arbitration.  The judgment incorporated the arbitrators ruling, finding that the claimant did not meet the burden of proof to establish their claims.

  • Eaton Partners, LLC v. Azimuth Capital Management IV, Ltd., No. 1:18-CV-11112-ER (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2019) 
    10/18/2019

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award and denied respondent’s motion to vacate the award, finding that the arbitrator was not guilty of misconduct when he excluded evidence from an unavailable witness – as arbitrators enjoy latitude under the AAA Rules to exclude evidence that is cumulative or irrelevant.  Court denied respondent’s request to enter judgment in its favor, finding that courts may not review an arbitrator’s decision on the merits. 

  • Entes Industrial Plants, Construction and Erection Contraction Co. Inc. v. The Kyrgyz Republic, No. 1:18-CV-02228-RC (D.D.C. Oct. 17, 2019)
    10/17/2019

    Court granted in part petitioner’s petition to confirm an arbitration award and denied respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition for forum non conveniens, finding that courts should not dismiss a petition when a foreign entity attempts to enforce an award against another foreign entity that might hold property in the United States.  Court rejected petitioner’s argument that a forum non conveniens defense is necessarily precluded in actions to enforce an award under the New York Convention because it is not listed as one of the limited grounds to deny enforcement.  Court requested additional briefing on the question of whether the sovereign respondent was an appropriate party to the action when it did not sign the arbitration agreement.

  • Doud v. Gold, No. 1:19-CV-06561-KPF (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2019)
    10/16/2019

    Court granted petitioners’ motion for summary judgment on their unopposed petition to confirm an arbitration award, finding that (i) petitioners met the low standard of showing “a barely colorable justification for the arbitrator’s conclusion,” (ii) the grounds for the arbitral award were readily discernable from the contents of the award, and (iii) there were no grounds for setting aside or modifying the award.

  • Buhannic v. Tradingscreen, Inc., No. 18-2274 (2d Cir. Oct. 11, 2019)
    10/11/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court order confirming an arbitration award, finding meritless petitioner’s claims that the arbitral panel had improper connections with the respondents.  Court additionally refused to consider documentary exhibits not presented to the district court, finding that no obvious injustice or extraordinary circumstance justified the consideration of new allegations and evidence.

  • Murillo v. A Better Way Wholesale Autos, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01883-VLB (D. Conn. Oct. 10, 2019)
    10/10/2019

    Court denied defendant’s motion to reconsider a judgment confirming an arbitration award, finding that the award did not manifestly disregard the law when it granted punitive damages in addition to the amount claimed.  Court additionally found that nothing in the arbitration agreement set a cap on the damages an arbitrator may order.  Court declined defendant’s argument that it was denied due process because it defended the case based on the belief that damages were capped at the amount claimed.

  • Capital & Security Management, Inc. v. Telthorster, No. 2:19-CV-01677-MMB (E.D. Pa. Oct 3, 2019)
    10/03/2019

    Court denied petitioners’ motion to vacate arbitration award relating to an investment contract, thereby rejecting petitioners’ argument that the arbitral tribunal acted in manifest disregard of the law. 
     

  • Sarah Adult Day Services, Inc. v. Beyda Adult Day Care Center, LLC, No. 5:19-CV-00614-SL (N.D. Ohio Oct. 2, 2019)
    10/02/2019

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm arbitration award issued by the American Arbitration Association in connection with a franchise agreement relating to adult day care services.  Court held that the award was enforceable in all respects.

  • TECO Guatemala Holdings, LLC v. Republic of Guatemala, No. 1:17-CV-00102 (D.D.C. October 1, 2019)
    10/01/2019

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in action to enforce an ICSID award against the Republic of Guatemala.  Court rejected as an attempt to revisit the merits of the underlying dispute Guatemala’s argument that the award was procured by fraud.  Court also rejected Guatemala’s argument that the doctrines of issue preclusion and claim preclusion deprived the ICSID tribunal of jurisdiction to render the award and rejected Guatemala’s contention that the award was not final due to an ongoing related arbitration between the parties in connection with related claims.

  • Drake v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., No. 1:13-DP-20140-JJH (N.D. Ohio Sept. 30, 2019)
    09/30/2019

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to vacate arbitration award relating to fees allegedly payable under an attorney representation agreement.  Court held that the arbitration proceeding in which the award was rendered did not comply with the arbitral procedures agreed between the parties in the operative agreement to arbitrate.

  • KG Schifffahrtsgesellschaft MS Pacific Winter MBH & Co. v. Safesea Transport Inc., No. 2:19-CV-04869-CCC-SCM (D.N.J. Sept. 26, 2019)
    09/26/2019

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award, finding that alleged error of law committed by arbitral tribunal’s failure to apply limitation defense, even if established, would not warrant non-confirmation of arbitral award on public policy grounds.

  • First Student, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 959, No. 3:18-CV-00305-SLG (D. Alaska Sept. 26, 2019)
    09/26/2019

    Court dismissed motion to vacate arbitral award, finding that the timeliness of the award was not a ground for vacatur; that the arbitral tribunal did not exceed the scope of its authority; and that there was no basis to interfere with the merits of the arbitral tribunal’s decision, which was entitled to deference.

  • Johnson & Johnson International v. Puerto Rico Hospital Supply, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01405-FAB (D.P.R. Sept. 25, 2019)
    09/25/2019

    Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to vacate an arbitral award and granted defendants’ motion to confirm the award, finding that the arbitral tribunal had not issued the award in manifest disregard of the law. Court found that there was no evidence on the record that the arbitral tribunal ignored the law; to the contrary, the award set forth a well-reasoned and methodical approach to the law and the evidence.

  • Park Avenue Life Insurance Company v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, No. 1:19-CV-01089-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2019)
    09/25/2019

    Court denied both parties’ motions to confirm an arbitral award and remanded the arbitral award to the arbitral tribunal for clarification. Parties both moved to confirm arbitral award but each party had a different interpretation of the effect of the award. Court found that ambiguity in the arbitral award “goes to the very heart of the dispute” and was not merely a matter of semantics, therefore the arbitral award had to be remanded to arbitral tribunal.

  • Al-Qarqani v. Chevron Corporation, No. 4:18-CV-03297-JSW (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2019)
    09/24/2019

    Court granted motion to dismiss petition to confirm a foreign arbitral award, finding that petitioners failed to demonstrate an operative agreement to arbitration between themselves and respondents. Court also held that other independent grounds precluded confirmation of the arbitral award, including: petitioners’ failure to produce an authenticated or certified English copies of the contract or arbitral award; substantial irregularities in the conduct of arbitral proceedings, including the choice of venue and arbitrator selection process; and non-arbitrability of the dispute.

  • Eaton Partners, LLC v. Azimuth Capital Management IV, Ltd., No. 1:18-CV-11112-ER (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2019)
    09/24/2019

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award, finding that arbitrator was not guilty of misconduct by refusing to postpone hearing when respondent’s witness became unavailable, and by refusing to accept additional witness testimony from another of respondent’s witnesses

  • Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Rahi Corp., No. 8:18-CV-02955-GJH (D. Md. Sept. 23, 2019)
     
    09/23/2019

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award, finding that there was no reason in the record to question the validity of the contract containing the arbitration provision or the conduct of tribunal. 

  • The Monongolia County Coal Company v. United Mine Works of America, No. 1:18-CV-00176-TSK (N.D.W. Va. Sept. 23, 2019)
    09/23/2019

    Court granted motion to vacate arbitral award, finding that the award did not draw its essence from the contract. Recognizing its “extremely limited” role in deciding arbitration disputes, court decided that tribunal’s decision ignored the plain language of the contract it was required to construe, and reached factual conclusions without any evidentiary basis.

  • Customs and Tax Consultancy LLC v. The Democratic Republic of the Congo, No. 1:18-CV-01408-RJL (D.D.C. Sept. 23, 2019)
    09/23/2019

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral awards and enter default judgment against respondent, finding that it had subject matter and personal jurisdiction over respondent, and that petitioner had provided satisfactory evidence for the arbitral awards to be confirmed.

  • Twin Falls NSC, LLC v. Southern Idaho Ambulatory Surgery Center, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-00009-DCN (D. Idaho Sept. 23, 2019)
    09/23/2019

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award and dismissed motion to vacate arbitral award, finding that tribunal had not committed misconduct by refusing to compel production of supplemental discovery, by providing a short briefing schedule for the arbitration, by excluding the evidence from defendant’s expert, or by purportedly not considering pertinent and material evidence. Court also did not accept that tribunal acted in manifest disregard of the law

  • ERISA Funds v. Piccini MNM, Inc, No. 1:18-CV-08202-ALC (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2019)
    09/23/2019

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award, finding that tribunal acted within the scope of its authority, and that there were justifications for each component of the award.

  • Northeast Natural Energy LLC v. Larson, No. 3:18-CV-240 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 20, 2019)
    09/20/2019

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate arbitral award, finding that arbitral tribunal’s decisions were justified and were not a “manifest disregard for the law.”

  • Townsend v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-05939-AJN (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2019)
    09/19/2019

    Court denied motion to vacate a FINRA arbitration award.  Court rejected petitioner’s argument that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law by issuing an award when FINRA had failed to properly serve notice on Petitioner, finding that petitioner did ot meet his demanding burden of proof because he introduced no evidence that he was actually unaware of the arbitration against him.  Court also found that the awarding of fees was not improper.

  • Masdar Solar & Wind Cooperatief U.A. v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 1:18-CV-02254-JEB (D.D.C. Sept. 18, 2019) 
    09/18/2019

    Court granted petition to stay enforcement of ICSID award pending resolution of ongoing ICSID proceedings to annul the award, holding that considerations of judicial economy and comity favored the stay.  Court noted that the case raised thorny questions concerning a conflict between decades-old treaties and recent European Union case law. 

  • The Harrison County Coal Company v. United Mine Workers of America, No. 1:18-CV-00138-TSK (N.D.W.V. Sept. 18, 2019)
    09/18/2019

    Court confirmed an arbitration award made for labor grievances related to the construction of mining equipment.  The court rejected arguments that the award should be vacated because it failed to draw its essence from the agreement because the damages awarded were punitive and not permitted under the agreement, concluding that the damages were compensatory.

  • Accordant Communications, LLC, v. Sayers Construction, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-00401-LY (W.D. Tex. Sept. 18, 2019)
    09/18/2019

    Magistrate judge recommended denying a motion to dismiss a petition for confirmation of an arbitration award, and confirm the award.  Magistrate judge rejected arguments that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction or that the matter was not ripe because at the time confirmation of the award was sought, the arbitrator had only issued a partial award.  Magistrate judge found that the court had diversity jurisdiction and did not rely on the FAA for jurisdiction.  Magistrate judge further found that, here any lack of ripeness had been cured by the arbitrator’s issuance of a final award, but regardless the partial award could be enforced because the arbitrator had reached a final determination on the merits of all the issues relevant to the partial award (having not yet considered the issue of attorney’s fees and costs).

  • 1199 SEIU united Healthcare Workers East v. Alaris Health Hamilton Park, No. 18-2898 (2d Cir. Sept. 17, 2019)
    09/17/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to confirm an arbitration award rendered in a dispute related to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA).  Court rejected defendants’ arguments that the award violated public policy and that the arbitrator did not draw its essence from the CBA.

  • Bayless Engineering, Inc., v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc., No. 18-55249 (9th Cir. Sept. 16, 2019)
    09/16/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of a motion to vacate an arbitration award.  Court found that district court correctly held that the arbitrator had not exceeded his powers, finding that there was nothing in the record to establish that the arbitrator had correctly stated the law but intentionally disregarded it. Court also found that the law petitioner claimed was disregarded was not, according to the court, well defined and clearly applicable at the time of the award. 

  • Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc., v. Barker Management, Inc., No. 17-56856 (9th Cir. Sept. 16, 2019)
    09/16/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of a motion to vacate an arbitration award.  Court found that district court correctly held that the arbitrator had not exceeded his powers, finding that there was nothing in the record to establish that the arbitrator had correctly stated the law but intentionally disregarded it.  Court also found that the law petitioner claimed was disregarded was not, according to the court, well defined and clearly applicable at the time of the award. 

  • Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. S&S Kings Corp., No. 1:19-CV-01052-RA (S.D.N.Y Sept. 16, 2019)
    09/16/2019

    Court granted an unopposed petition to confirm an arbitration award made in a labor dispute.  Court found that there was no material issue of fact in dispute to preclude enforcing the arbitration award.

  • Pimental v. Ricotta & Marks, P.C., No. 1:19-CV-07437-CM (S.D.N.Y Sept. 13, 2019)
    09/13/2019

    Court declined to enforce an arbitration award for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Court held that the FAA did not provide independent means for jurisdiction and that New York courts “look through” to the underlying claims in the arbitration.  Here those claims were based on state law and did not provide federal jurisdiction. 

  • Inversiones y Procesadora Tropical Inprosta, S.A., No. 18-14807 (11th Cir. Sept. 5, 2019)
    09/05/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed that district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s motion to vacate an arbitration award.  Court also affirmed lower court’s issuance of sanctions against plaintiff, finding that plaintiff attacked the arbitration award without a legal basis for doing so and thus acted in bad faith.

  • Esso Exploration and Production Nigeria Limited v. Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, No. 1:14-CV-08445-WHP (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2019)
    09/04/2019

    Court denied petition to confirm a Nigerian arbitration award under the New York Convention, when the award was set aside in a Nigerian court.  Court also found that it had personal jurisdiction over respondent because respondent was an alter ego of Nigeria; the two shared property and Nigeria controlled respondent’s day-to-day operations. 

  • Swanson v. Wilford, Gesk, & Cook, No. 19-CV-117-DWF-LIB (D. Minn. August 30, 2019) 
    08/30/2019

    District court granted defendants’ motion to vacate arbitration award, finding that plaintiff failed to discharge his burden to demonstrate the existence of any valid arbitration agreement with defendants.

  • LLC Energoalliance v. Republic of Moldova, No. 1:14-CV-01921 (D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2019)
    08/23/2019

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award, finding that foreign-sovereign respondent did not meet its substantial burden of resisting confirmation under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT).  Court rejected respondent’s argument that there was no valid agreement to arbitrate when the claims arbitrated allegedly were not contemplated by the arbitration agreement—finding that respondent’s argument did not go to jurisdiction.  Court also rejected two of respondent’s defenses under the New York Convention, finding that there was adequate due process and that the claims arbitrated fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • Lovelace v. Showroom Auto, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-04978-ERK-CLP (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2019)
    08/22/2019

    Court granted motion for attorneys’ fees and costs for a proceeding to confirm or vacate an arbitral award.  Although confirmation proceedings are summary in nature, the court concluded they still qualified as an “action” capable of an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.

  • Stevens v. Conn’s, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00309-ALM (E.D. Tex. Aug. 7, 2019)
    08/07/2019

    Court confirmed an arbitration award related to a dispute that had previously been compelled to arbitration.  Court rejected respondent’s argument that the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to confirm the award because during the arbitration the plaintiff had revised its claim to remove the only federal claim.  Court held that while the FAA does not independently establish federal-question arbitration the court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims that arose out of the same controversy as its previous federal claims.

  • Red Lion Hotels Franchising, Inc. v. Century-Omaha Land, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-00131-TOR (E.D. Wash. Aug. 6, 2019)
    08/06/2019

    Court granted petition to confirm an arbitration award, finding no basis for vacatur or modification of the award.  Court rejected defendant’s contention that the award should be vacated because the arbitrator failed to cite the legal authority as the basis of his decision.

  • Harper v. Charter Communications, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-00902-WBS-DMC (E.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2019)
    08/06/2019

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm a JAMS arbitration award which found that wage-and-hour claims were inarbitrable, and denied defendants’ motions to vacate the award and to compel arbitration.  Court rejected defendants’ arguments that it could not enforce an award based on an agreement that had been terminated, that the agreement to arbitrate did not expressly provide for court enforcement of awards, and that the JAMS arbitration award was not final because it did not resolve the merits of plaintiff’s claims.  Court held that it could enforce the award because defendant voluntarily participated in the arbitration, the agreement incorporated JAMS rules which explicitly provided for court enforcement, and that a ruling on arbitrability is a confirmable final award.

  • Savine v. Interactive Brokers, LLC, No. 18-CV-01846-KAD (D. Conn. Aug. 5, 2019)
    08/05/2019

    Court dismissed a petition to vacate a foreign arbitration award.  Court held that it did not have jurisdiction, finding that the award was made in the United Kingdom and thus Article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention required that vacatur be sought exclusively in the United Kingdom.  Court rejected petitioner’s argument that it could exercise jurisdiction on public policy grounds, holding that the New York Convention does not provide an independent basis for vacatur by a country of secondary jurisdiction.  Court further found that the United States as a country of secondary jurisdiction and thus it could merely refuse to enforce rather than vacate an award on the grounds of public policy.   

  • Hannie Development Inc. v. Colonial Oaks Assisted Living Lafayette, LLC, No. 6:19-CV-00833-TAD (W.D. La. Aug. 2, 2019)
    08/02/2019

    Court denied an application to modify or partially vacate an arbitration award.   Court rejected the applicants’ argument that the award was based on claims that were not arbitrable and found that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority in rendering the “partial final award.”  Court also rejected the argument that the award should be vacated pursuant to 9 USC §10(a)(4) because it was not final and definite.  Court held that an arbitration award is final and definite for purposes of that statute if it is “sufficiently specific as to be capable of implementation.”

  • Denson v. Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-02690-JMF (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2019)
    07/23/2019

    Court denied plaintiff’s cross-petition to vacate an award in federal court, finding that the cross-petition was precluded by a state-court judgment confirming the award.

  • Capone v. Atlantic Specialty Ins. Co., No. 1:18-CV-02824-CAB (N.D. Ohio July 19, 2019)
    07/19/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiff’s claims were barred by res judicata when an arbitrator issued an award resolving such claims.  Court found that the arbitrator’s award was not reviewable when he arguably construed the underlying contract.

  • United States for the Use and Benefit of Metropower, Inc. v. Darwin National Assurance Company, No. 4:18-CV-00035-CDL (M.D. Ga. July 18, 2019)
    07/18/2019

    Court granted plaintiff’s motions to confirm an arbitration award and rejected defendant’s motion to vacate an arbitration award.  Court found the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law and that there was no other basis for vacating the award.

  • Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Gopi Hospitality, LLC, No. 8:18-CV-01680-DKC (D. Md. July 18, 2019)
    07/18/2019

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, finding there was no genuine dispute of material fact regarding the confirmation of an award because defendant’s request to vacate the award was untimely.  Court further held that plaintiff established there was a valid contract between the parties and that the claims resolved at arbitration were within the scope of the parties’ arbitration agreement.

View All