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.

  • Local Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas v. Mirage Casino-Hotel, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-01225-GMN-PAL (9th Circ. Dec. 13, 2018)

    Court of appeals reversed district court’s decision confirming an arbitration award.  Court concluded the arbitrator blurred the line between arbitrability and merits because, although the arbitrator did not have authority to decide the question of substantive arbitrability, the arbitrator concluded the claims were not arbitrable.  Court of appeals held the arbitrator’s analysis contravened foundational principles of the arbitral process by overlooking the limits the Supreme Court has placed on the arbitrator’s presumptive powers. 

  • OJSC Ukrnafta v. Carpatsky Petroleum Corporation, No. 4:09-CV-00891 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 6, 2018)

    Court entered a final judgment dismissing claims against defendants and finalizing confirmation of a $147 million arbitration award issued by a Stockholm arbitration panel against plaintiff.  Court severed claims against one defendant and allowed those claims to proceed. 

  • International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail & Transp. Workers v. CSX Transp., Inc., No. 18-3323 (6th Cir. Dec. 5, 2018)

    Court of appeals upheld decision confirming arbitration award, finding that the award met highly deferential standard that arbitrator was arguably construing the collective bargaining agreement.  Court found that interpretation was arguably correct where arbitrator relied on the text of the disputed provision, surrounding language, and previous, similar awards.

  • OOGC America LLC v. Chesapeake Exploration, LLC, No. 4:17-CV-00248 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2018)

    Court vacated arbitration awards, finding evident partiality where arbitrator failed to disclose decade-long business and investing relationship with an affiliate of the party who appointed him. 

  • ASARCO LLC v. United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Services Works International Union, No. 16-16363 (9th Cir. Dec. 4, 2018)

    Court of appeals affirmed confirmation of arbitration award, holding that the arbitrator acted within his authority when crafting a remedy for the parties’ mutual mistake, notwithstanding a provision in the arbitration agreement barring an arbitrator from altering such agreement.

  • Davison Design & Development, Inc. v. Frison, No. 2:17-CV-01468-JFC (W.D. Pa. Dec. 4, 2018)

    Court denied motion to vacate or modify arbitration award, holding that plaintiff failed to meet the “tremendous obstacle” of showing that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded contract law.  Court found that so long as any legally plausible line of argument supports an award, then it must be confirmed.  Court concluded that there was no evidently material miscalculation of damages or material mistake sufficient to warrant modifying the award.

  • S&O Construction Services, Inc. v. APS Contracting, Inc., No. 7:18-CV-05836-CS (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2018)

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award, finding, inter alia, that parties’ adoption of AAA rules showed clear and unmistakable intention for the arbitrator to decide arbitrability. 

  • Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Parabia, No. 8:18-CV-00177-TDC (D. Md. Dec. 3, 2018)

    Court granted motion for default judgment confirming arbitration award.  Court found that it need not specifically award post-judgment interest as plaintiff was entitled to it by statute.

  • International Union of Operating Engineers v. Ohio Contractors Association, No. 1:18-CV-00722-JG (N.D. Ohio Nov. 30, 2018)

    Court denied motion to vacate – and granted motion to confirm – an arbitration award, finding that award met the “low standard” of whether the arbitrator was arguably construing or applying the disputed contract.  Court found that an arbitrator sufficiently interprets a contract where he refers to and analyzes relevant provisions and does not indicate that he was doing more than trying to reach a good-faith interpretation of the contract.

  • American Brokerage Network v. American General Life Ins. Co., No. 17-16371 (9th Cir. Nov. 30, 2018)

    Court of appeals reversed and remanded vacatur of an arbitration award for arbitrator’s alleged evident partiality due to her failure to disclose relationships that she was unaware of.  Court held that arbitrator’s disclosure that an entity was a former client of her law firm gave appellees a duty to inquire about the nature of the relationship, and that there was no reasonable impression of partiality in arbitrator’s non-disclosure in light of the relationships she did disclose.

  • Drake v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc., No. 18-3020 (6th Cir. Nov. 30, 2018)

    Court of appeals remanded the issue of whether an arbitration award should be vacated, holding that it did not have appellate jurisdiction under the FAA where the district court declined to rule on the issue of vacatur.  Court also held that district court’s finding that arbitration was non-binding did not implicitly vacate the award.

  • Millrock Technology, Inc. v. Pixar Bio Corp., No. 1:18-CV-00666-GTS (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2018)

    Court granted an unanswered motion to confirm arbitration award, holding plaintiff met its burden of showing entitlement to the relief requested, which is “modest” when a party fails to appear.  The amount prayed for in plaintiff’s motion aggregated the damages from a breach of contract claim along with attorney’s fees, reimbursement for arbitration fees, and a nine percent per annum interest rate.  Court declined plaintiffs’ motion for interest on attorney’s fees and arbitration fees where the award granted interest only in relation to the breach of contract damages.

  • General Re Life Corp. v. Lincoln National Life Ins., No. 17-2496 (2d Cir.  Nov. 28, 2018)

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court judgment granting the cross-petition to confirm the award issued after the arbitral panel clarified the original award.  Court recognized an exception to the doctrine of functus officio, holding that arbitrators retain their authority to clarify an award where an arbitration award is ambiguous.

  • Bagadiya Brothers PVT Limited v. Churchgate Nigeria Limited, No. 1:14-CV-05656-ER (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 27, 2018)

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm and enforce an arbitration award.  Court concluded that (i) there was no indication that the arbitrator’s decision was made capriciously, exceeded the arbitrator’s jurisdiction under the contracts, or was contrary to law; (ii) there was no evidence that the award was procured by fraud, that the arbitrator was biased or guilty of misconduct, or that he exceeded his powers; and (iii) there was at least “a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached.”

  • Harris v. Wells Fargo Clearing Services LLC, No. 1:18-CV-04625-GDB (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2018)

    Court denied plaintiff’s petition to vacate an award entered against him in a FINRA arbitration and granted defendant’s cross-petition to confirm the award rejecting plaintiff’s arguments he did not receive proper notice.  Court held due process does not require perfect or actual notice and that in the present case the mailing of notifications to plaintiff’s residential address in FINRA’s records was a means reasonably calculated to apprise plaintiff of the pendency of the arbitration. 

  • Fang v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-06071-JD (N.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2018)

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitrator’s award. Court found that (i) the award was not the product of corruption, fraud, and undue means; (ii) the arbitrators did not exceed their authority by continuing the arbitration after plaintiff decided to pursue a class action in court; and (iii) plaintiff failed to show that the arbitrators were “completely irrational” or guilty of “a manifest disregard of law.”

  • Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Patel, No. 8:18-CV-00758-GJH (D. Md. Nov. 20, 2018)

    Court granted motion for default judgement against defendant that had defaulted in both the underlying arbitration and the enforcement proceedings, finding that the claims had been properly before the arbitrator and there was no reason to question the validity of the arbitration agreement or award.

  • Sequip Participaçôes S.A. v. Marinho, No. 1:15-MC-23737-JAL (S.D. Fla. Nov. 19, 2018)

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award, finding that no basis for denying enforcement under the New York Convention existed.

  • Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, and Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund v. M&B Builders Group Inc., No. 1:18-CV-05074-GHW (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 19, 2018)

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award, finding that there was no indication that the arbitrator’s award was procured through fraud or dishonesty or that the arbitrator was acting in disregard of the Agreement or outside the scope of his broad authority to resolve any dispute between the parties regarding contributions.

  • International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers v. JDD, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-00121-GZS (D. Me. Nov. 14, 2018)

    Magistrate judge recommended that plaintiff’s motion to vacate an arbitration award based on the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement be denied.  Magistrate judge disregarded plaintiff’s argument that the arbitrator had ignored the plain language of the agreement, finding the arbitrator’s interpretation was within his authority.

  • LLC Energoalliance v. Republic of Moldova, No. 1:14-CV-01921-CRC (D.D.C. Nov. 13, 2018)

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to lift a stay on an action seeking to confirm a foreign arbitration award pursuant to the New York Convention. Petitioner originally sought confirmation in 2014 of an award that was rendered by an ad hoc tribunal in an arbitration arising under the ECT. The court had previously stayed the confirmation proceedings pending review of the award first by the Paris Court of Appeal, which set aside the award because the tribunal lacked jurisdiction under the ECT, and then by the Cour de Cassation which reversed the Paris Court of Appeal and remanded for a new decision. The court stated that while this district had not explicitly adopted the Europcar factors set by Second Circuit precedent, they would still use these factors to determine whether the stay should be lifted. The court determined that the balance of the factors weighed in favor of lifting the stay.

  • The New York City District Council of Carpenters  v. Nguyen Custom Woodworking LLC, No. 1:18-CV-03970-AJN (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2018)

    Court granted petitioners unopposed motion to confirm an arbitration award.  Court found that an unopposed motion for confirmation of an arbitration award would be treated as an unopposed motion for summary judgment and must be granted if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact.  Court found that petitioner demonstrated the arbitration was appropriate and that the arbitrator acted within the scope of his authority, and thus petitioner was entitled to confirmation of the award. 

  • Gibbens v. OptumRx, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00723 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 13, 2018)

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate and granted defendant’s motion to confirm an arbitration award. The court found that the arbitrator had not manifestly disregarded the law in dismissing a claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, or in finding another claim untimely. Because manifest disregard of the law was the only for vacatur advanced by the plaintiff, the court confirmed the award.

  • Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Kapil, LLC, No. 8:18-CV-01232-TDC (D. Md. Nov. 13, 2018)

    Court entered a default judgment confirming an arbitration award which granted damages for a breach of a franchise agreement. Court found that defendant failed to show any of the limited grounds for vacating the award under the FAA.

  •, Inc. v. Glenn, No. 2:18-CV-01289-MJP (W.D. Wash. Nov. 13, 2018)

    Court confirmed an arbitration award pursuant to the FAA, awarding attorney and arbitration fees. Court held that the petitioner sought relief within one year in the appropriate jurisdiction and served proper notice on the respondent, thus fulfilling the requirements for confirmation under the FAA.

  • Neal v. Asta Funding, Inc., No. 17-1115 (3d Cir. Nov. 8, 2018)

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of appellee in a dispute over the validity of an arbitration award in favor of appellee. In the arbitration proceedings, appellants argued that the claims against them were not arbitrable because they neither signed the agreement meant to contain the arbitration agreement and because the question of arbitrability must be resolved by a court, not the arbitrator. The arbitrator disagreed, finding that the appellants were subject to the arbitration agreement under a veil-piercing and alter-ego theory. The district court found the claims against appellants were arbitrable and granted summary judgment to appellee. Court of appeals affirmed, rejecting appellants’ arguments that the district court erred by applying federal law instead of state law and that the types of damages awarded against them were not authorized by the underlying agreements.

  • Bofi Federal Bank v. Golub, No. 3:18-CV-00816-LAB-LL (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2018)

    Court dismissed an action in which petitioner and respondent had filed cross-motions to confirm and vacate an arbitration award. on the basis that the FAA does not independently confer jurisdiction.

  • Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Kustwan, No. 8:18-CV-01231-TDC (D. Md. Nov. 8, 2018)

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, confirming the arbitration award.

  • Huntington Hospital v. Huntington Hospital Nurses’ Association, No. 2:18-CV-02628-SJF-ARL (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2018)

    Court granted respondent’s cross-petition to confirm the arbitration award, directing the clerk to enter judgment in the respondent’s favor, and denied the petitioner’s petition to vacate the award. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the arbitrator exceeded her powers by re-writing the collective bargaining agreement.

  • 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.

  • Hodgson Williams v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., No. 1:18-CV-22774-KMW (S.D. Fla. Nov. 6, 2018)

    Magistrate judge recommended plaintiff’s motion to vacate an arbitral award be denied, and defendant’s cross-motion to confirm be granted and the final award be affirmed. Magistrate judge found that plaintiff did not provide sufficient basis for vacatur, because plaintiff’s challenges were based on disagreements with legal and evidentiary determinations made by the arbitrator, not on one of the seven defenses to enforcement enumerated in the New York Convention.

  • Gidding v. Fitz, No. 18-1106 (10th Cir. Nov. 6, 2018)

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of petitioner-appellant’s motion to vacate an arbitration award and grant of respondent-appellee’s motion to confirm the award. Petitioner-appellant limited his participation in the arbitration proceedings underlying the arbitral award and the arbitrator issued an award in the respondent-appellee’s favor. On appeal, the petitioner-appellant argued the arbitration proceeding was fundamentally unfair as the arbitrator was appointed before petitioner-appellant joined the arbitration. Court of appeals rejected this argument and affirmed.

  • Trustees of the Northeast Carpenters Health, Pension, Annuity, Apprenticeship, and Labor Management Funds v. Excel Installations, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-03635-JMA-AYS (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2018)

    Court granted petitioner’s petition to confirm and enforce arbitration award and directed the clerk of the court to enter judgment against the respondent.  As the petition was unopposed, the court treated it as an unopposed motion for summary judgment.

  • Process and Industrial Developments Limited v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, No. 1:18-CV-00594-CRC (D.D.C. Nov. 1, 2018)

    Court denied petitioner’s motion to certify respondent’s appeal as invalid or frivolous, retain jurisdiction, and lift stay.  Previously, court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss petitioner’s action to seek confirmation of an arbitral award on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction under the FSIA.  Petitioner objected to the motion to dismiss on the grounds that the FAA requires single petitions to enforce an arbitral award and defendant improperly sought to bifurcate.  Court agreed and ordered defendant to file a petition with all jurisdictional and substantive defenses.  Instead of complying with that order, defendant appealed on sovereign immunity grounds, and petitioner moved for the court to certify appeal as invalid or frivolous.

  • Process and Industrial Developments Limited v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, No. 1:18-CV-00594-CRC (D.D.C Nov. 1, 2018)

    Court denied petitioner’s motion to certify respondents’ appeal as invalid or frivolous, retain jurisdiction, and lift stay on proceedings. Court found respondents’ appeal of a procedural order denying bifurcation of confirmation proceedings of arbitration award under NY Convention was not so baseless as to allow the district court to assert jurisdiction despite the notice of appeal.

  • Axia Netmedia Corporation v. Massachusetts Technology Park Corporation, No. 4:17-CV-10482-TSH (D. Mass. Oct. 31, 2018)

    Court granted motion to dissolve injunction concluding the partial arbitral award was final because the only issue currently in arbitration was fee and cost shifting which was subsidiary to the partial award and concluded an award did not need to be confirmed to be considered final. Court found petitioner was not entitled to a bond for wrongful injunction.

  • Sistem Muhendislik Insaat Sanayi Ve Ticaret, A.S. v. The Kyrgyz Republic, No. 1:12-CV-04502-ALC-RWL (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2018)

    Court adopted magistrate judge’s recommendation to issue civil contempt sanctions against respondent of $5,000 a day for its failure to comply with post-judgment discovery orders related to enforcement of an arbitration award.

  • Global Gold Corporation v. Amarant Mining, Ltd. and Alluvia Mining, Ltd., No. 7:18-CV-04723-CS (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 29, 2018)

    Court granted motion to confirm ICDR arbitration awards and entered default judgment against respondents for failing to timely answer the petition and complaint. Court enjoined respondents from transferring or alienating any assets pending payment to petitioner and ordered respondents to provide petitioner all documents relating to whether respondents have diverted funds which could have been used to pay petitioner.

  • Trustees for the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. Prime Construction Co. of NY, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-05696-PAE (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 29, 2018) 

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award pursuant to the FAA where the respondent failed to appear.  Court denied request for attorneys’ fees and costs for bringing the action but granted request for post-judgment interest on the award. 

  • Diag Human S.E. v. Czech Republic-Ministry of Health, No. 17-7154 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 26, 2018) 

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision refusing to enforce a foreign arbitral award under Article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention.  Court held the award was not binding on the respondent and therefore unenforceable because a review panel, instituted under Czech arbitration law, issued a resolution discontinuing the arbitration and invalidating the final award.  Court also found the district court did not err in failing to set aside the review panel’s nullification of the award on public policy grounds under the New York Convention.

  • International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 618 v. Henkel Consumer Products, No. 4:18-CV-00185-SNLJ (E.D. Mo. Oct. 26, 2018)

    Court confirmed arbitration award and granted summary judgment, finding the arbitrator did not exceed his authority by ignoring the language of the collective bargaining agreement at issue or by ruling on an issue implicitly presented in the hearing and related to the subject matter of the arbitration.  Court found arbitrator’s decision to extend time limit on written warnings for disciplinary events did not amount to double jeopardy.

  • Ross Dress for Less Inc. v. VIWP, L.P., No. 17-3145 (3d Cir. Oct. 24, 2018)

    Court of appeals granted motion to confirm arbitration award pursuant to the FAA, holding that the AAA tribunal did not exceed its powers under § 10(a)(4) of the FAA or act in manifest disregard of Pennsylvania law in its application of the statute of limitations.  Court noted that because respondents failed to demonstrate the tribunal manifestly disregarded Pennsylvania law, it would not decide whether manifest disregard as an independent grounds for vacatur survives the Supreme Court’s decision in Hall Street Associates L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 584 (2008).

  • Herrington v. Waterstone Mortgage Corporation, No. 17-3609 (7th Cir. Oct. 22, 2018)

    Court of appeal vacated a district court order confirming an arbitration award. Court of appeal followed recent Supreme Court precedent in Epic Systems Corp. to determine that a waiver clause that forbids collective arbitration of claims is valid. Court further held that the availability of collective arbitration is a threshold question of arbitrability and on remand the district court, and not the arbitrator, should determine if the arbitration agreement permitted the collective arbitration of plaintiff’s claims.

  • Skiba v. Sasser, et al., No. 1:16-CV-00444-HSO-JCG (S.D. Miss. Oct. 19, 2018)

    Court denied the motions to set aside judgment and to vacate arbitration award. Court denied plaintiff’s arguments (1) that the arbitrator exceeded his powers by only allowing plaintiff to pursue claims against her actual employer; (2) that the award was procured by corruption, fraud, and undue means, because the arbitrator was not licensed in Mississippi; and (3) that the award was procured in violation of plaintiff’s constitutional right to prepare her case, because defendants failed to respond to her discovery requests.

  • YTC America Inc. v. Grigorian, No. 2:18-CV-07875-CAS-AGR (C.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2018)

    Court confirmed the stipulated final arbitration award, as the parties agreed that the court would enter the order and a judgment on the award, including the permanent injunction it contained, enjoining the respondent from disseminating various confidential information.

  • Diamond Resorts U.S. Collection Development, LLC v. Johnson, No. 6:18-CV-00090-RBD-TBS (M.D. Fla. Oct. 17, 2018)

    Court granted petitioners’ motion to strike respondent’s affirmative defense asserting that the arbitration award should be vacated since the respondent failed to assert a recognized basis for vacatur. Court held that as the arbitration award was not yet confirmed, the respondent’s attempt to seek an offset in the amount was premature and permitted the respondent to petition the court for post-judgment relief if the court should confirm the award.

  • Von Maack v. Wyckoff Heights Medical Center, No. 17-3211-CV (2d Cir. Oct. 17, 2018)

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s motion to vacate an arbitration award against plaintiff-appellant, finding that the claims were time-barred and did not merit equitable tolling or else failed to state a claim. Court denied plaintiff’s argument that the district court had applied the wrong legal standard in failing to construe the facts liberally.

  • Konz v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-05181-GBD (S.D.N.Y. Oct 17, 2018)

    Court granted respondent’s cross-petition to confirm an arbitration award issued by a FINRA panel and denied petitioner’s motion to vacate. Court rejected petitioner’s argument that the arbitrators exceeded their powers on the grounds that they were not appointed in accordance with the procedures agreed upon by the parties because the petitioner did not object to their appointment during the arbitration proceedings upon receiving the panel’s disclosures.

  • Sequip Participações S.A. v. Franco Marinho, No. 1:15-MC-23737-JAL (S.D. Fla. Oct. 16, 2018)

    Court denied respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and ordered respondent to show cause, if any, why petition to confirm arbitration award should not be confirmed. Court found that the respondent engaged in substantial and not isolated activity, permitting personal jurisdiction on the bases of several extended visits, the purchase and sale of multiple properties, memberships at local clubs, and local corporate investments. Court permitted petitioner to proceed in pursuant of its petition to confirm arbitration award and prejudgment writ of attachment against respondent.

  • Lifetime Products, Inc. v. Maxchief Investments, Ltd, No. 8:18-CV-01230-JVS-ADS (C.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2018)

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm the arbitration award and motion to enter judgment.

View All