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
  • 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.

  • Ebbe v. Concorde Investment Services, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-10289-PBS (D. Mass. July 18, 2019)
    07/18/2019

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm an arbitral award against two defendants and denied motion to vacate award against two other defendants.  Court considered the arbitrators did not act in manifest disregard of the law and that parties received adequate notice of the arbitration.

  • Russ v. United Services Automobile Association, No. CV-18-04222-PHX-SMB (D. Ariz. July 15, 2019)
    07/15/2019

    Court dismissed both parties’ motions considering it lacked jurisdiction over plaintiff’s motion to vacate arbitrator dismissal decision as well as over defendants’ cross-motion to confirm dismissal.

  • Gibbens v. Optumrx, Inc., No. 18-6292 (6th Cir. July 15. 2019)
    07/15/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order confirming an arbitration award, holding that the arbitrator’s findings were not in manifest disregard of the law.

  • Sabre GLBL, Inc. v. Shan, No. 18-2079 (3d Cir. July 3, 2019) 
    07/03/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s confirmation of the award of head start damages and reversed the judgment vacating the award of attorney’s fees, concluding there was no basis to disturb the arbitrator’s award.  Pursuant to the FAA, court held the arbitrator did not exceed his powers, did not deprive the parties of a fair hearing, and did not exhibit evident partiality.  Court declined to decide whether manifest disregard of the law remains a valid basis for vacatur, finding the parties had not briefed the issue and regardless, appellee had not shown relief would be warranted.
     

  • Silver Betty, Inc. v. Technology Training Systems, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-04029-RA (S.D.N.Y. July 3, 2019) 
    07/03/2019

    Court granted motion to confirm the AAA arbitral award, finding that the award was appropriate and the arbitrator acted within the scope of his authority.

  • Cardno International PTY, Ltd. v. Jacome, No. 1:17-CV-23964-RNS (S.D. Fla. July 2, 2019) 
    07/02/2019

    Court granted motion to dismiss action for confirmation of arbitral award, concluding that as an agent or instrumentality of Ecuador, the moving party was immune from suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) where petitioner did not identify any exceptions to the FSIA.  Court denied petitioner’s motion for leave to substitute deceased defendant’s estate as a party to the action under Rule 25 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but instead granted petitioner the opportunity to amend the complaint to join the proper party.

  • Tradeline Enterprises PVT. Ltd. v. Jess Smith & Sons Cotton, LLC, No. 18-56101 (9th Cir. July 2, 2019) 
    07/02/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order confirming an arbitral award.  Court of appeals concluded that the district court did not err in allowing non-signatories to invoke the arbitration clause because under the applicable Arizona state law, a non-signatory may compel arbitration with a signatory to an arbitral agreement if the claims are intimately intertwined in the underlying contractual obligations.  

  • In re the Petition of Galaxy Energy and Resources Co. Pte. Ltd. for Discovery Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, No. 1:19-MC-00287-LTS (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2019) 
    07/01/2019

    Court denied petitioner’s ex parte petition to conduct discovery pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 to aid in recognition and enforcement as well as attachment and garnishment proceedings it has initiated or will initiate in Singapore to enforce an arbitral award.  Court found petitioner was an “interested person” and that the New York banks from which discovery would be requested did properly reside in the district for purposes of § 1782.  However, the court concluded that the proposed actions did not satisfy the “foreign proceeding” requirement as the merits of the controversy were already decided by the foreign tribunal in the arbitration, so the proceedings were not adjudicative in nature.

  • Superior Energy Services Columbia S.A.S. v. Premium Petroleum Services S. de R.L., No. 1:18-CV-07704-ALC (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2019) 
    06/28/2019

    Court granted petition for confirmation of arbitral award and denied motion to vacate the award under the FAA and the New York Convention.  Court found that respondent was fully able to present its case, the arbitrator did not exhibit a manifest disregard of the law, and the award was not a punishment or penalty but rather appropriate damages and as such, did not violate public policy.

  • Intellisystem, LLC v. McHenry, No. 2:19-CV-01359-RBS (E.D. Pa. June 26, 2019) 
    06/26/2019

    Court granted petitioners’ motion to confirm an AAA arbitral award, treating it as an unopposed motion for summary judgment where the respondent failed to file a response.  Court found no reason to vacate the award under the FAA and awarded costs associated with filing of the petition as well as post-judgment interest.

  • New York City & Vicinity District Council of Carpenters v. Hi-Tek Building Renovation Inc., No. 1:19-CV-04682-JMF (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2019)
    06/25/2019

    Court granted petitioner’s unopposed petition to confirm the arbitral award.  Court found no genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment as to all portions of the award, as the arbitrator’s decision provided more than a “barely colorable justification for the outcome reached.”

  • Acqupart Holding AG v. Rivada Networks, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-03945-LGS (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2019)
    06/25/2019

    Court granted the petition to confirm the arbitral award, finding that the arbitrator’s decision could be inferred from the facts of the case and because the arbitrator acted within the scope of her authority.

  • Benegas v. Byram, No. 1:18-CV-00893-RP (W.D. Tex. June 20, 2019)
    06/20/2019

    Court granted the motion for default judgment to confirm the arbitration award.  Court found that plaintiff met the requirements under Section 9 of the FAA by (i) alleging and submitting documentation showing that the parties’ contract provided that the place of arbitration would be Austin, Texas and that the award would be issued at the place of arbitration; (ii) plaintiffs brought the action within the appropriate time limit specified by statute; and (iii) the court found no reason to vacate or modify the final arbitration award.

  • Schusterman v. Mazzone, No. 1:19-CV-00212-PAE (S.D.N.Y. June 19, 2019)
    06/19/2019

    Court confirmed a FINRA arbitration award and denied a motion to dismiss the action seeking confirmation.  Court ignored argument that the action to confirm the award was moot because the award had been paid, holding that prior compliance with an award is not a ground for refusal of confirmation.
     

  • Ledermann v. Kibrik, No. 1:19-CV-01961-GHW (S.D.N.Y. June 17, 2019)
    06/17/2019

    Court granted petition to confirm a FINRA arbitration award, finding that the decision of the FINRA panel was well grounded in fact and law.  Court received a letter from respondent asking for dismissal because petitioner was required to arbitrate.  Court found that petitioner had complied with that requirement but that respondent had failed to appear before the FINRA panel of arbitrators.

  • SMD Hospitality, LLC, v. A Royal Touch, Inc., No. 5:19-CV-00128-BO (W.D.N.C. June 17, 2019) 
    06/17/2019

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award.  Court found that there was no indication of any defect in the arbitration proceedings and that the scope of review for arbitration awards was limited to determining whether the arbitrators did the job they were asked, not whether they did it correctly.

  • Zeon Chemicals, L.P. v. United Food and Commercial Works, No. 3:18-CV-00376-GNS (W.D. Ky. June 17, 2019)
    06/17/2019

    Court vacated the decision of an arbitrator in an employment dispute.  While the court recognized that the review of an arbitration award is extremely narrow, court found that although the arbitrator had quoted language from the agreement, he ruled in a manner that appeared not to be connected to the agreement.  Specifically, court found that the arbitrator’s reading of substantive due process rights into the contract that were not explicit within the language amounted to the arbitrator entirely disregarding the language of the CBA and improperly imposing his personal notion of industrial justice.

  • Mike Rose’s Auto Body Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-01864-EMC (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2019)
    06/17/2019

    Court granted in part petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award, vacating only certain provisions.  Court had previously refused to confirm the award, remanding it to the arbitrator who, on remand, had increased the interest rate on the award.  Respondent argued that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by increasing the interest rate, which was outside the limited scope of issues to be considered on remand.  Court agreed and vacated the portion of the remand award that increased the interest rate.

  • Huntington Ingalls Incorporated v. Ministry of Defense of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 1:18-CV-00469-KBJ (D.D.C. June 13, 2019)
    06/13/2019

    Court denied petitioner’s petition to recognize and enforce an arbitration award when the Southern District of Mississippi – which compelled the arbitration in 2010 – specifically retained jurisdiction to conclude the matter after arbitration.  Court found that petitioner showed no good cause for the court to “inject itself” into a pending matter in Mississippi by turning the award into a D.C. judgment.

  • Craddock v. LeClairRyan, A Professional Corporation, No. 3:16-CV-00011-REP (E.D. Va. June 11, 2019)
    06/11/2019

    Court vacated a revised final award issued in favor of petitioner and remanded the case to the arbitration panel to properly apply Supreme Court precedent on fee enhancements.  Court found that the arbitration panel manifestly disregarded the law when it enhanced petitioner’s attorneys’ fees by 25% - an amount exceeding the “lodestar” figure that would result from the methodology courts should use to calculate reasonable attorneys’ fees.

  • Tradiverse Corporation v. Luzar Trading, S.A., No. 1:18-CV-08194-RMB (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2019)
    06/11/2019

    Court denied respondent’s motion to vacate an interim award and granted petitioner’s cross-motion to confirm the interim award, finding that a court is required to enforce an arbitration award so long as there is a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached.  Court found that there was a “barely colorable justification” where the arbitrator found that petitioner raised several potentially valid claims, service of process by mail was sufficient, and respondent failed to show that the arbitrator did not provide respondent with a fair hearing.

  • Arabian Motors Group, W.L.L., v. Ford Motor Company, No. 18-1748 (6th Cir. May 30, 2019)
    05/30/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s confirmation of the arbitral award, finding held that the arbitrator showed no manifest disregard for the law in his interpretation of the requirement for consent to arbitration.

  • Tatneft v. Ukraine, No. 18-7057 (D.C. Cir. May 28, 2019)
    05/29/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision confirming an arbitration award, finding that the waver exception of foreign sovereignty immunity applied to Ukraine here because Ukraine and the United States have both signed the New York Convention.  Court further declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the forum non conveniens issue, which was neither inextricably intertwined with the immunity issues nor necessary to ensure meaningful review of those issues.

  • Trustees of the Metal Lathers Local 46 Pension Fund v. Regal USA Construction Inc., No. 1:19-CV-03148-JMF (S.D.N.Y. May 28, 2019)
    05/28/2019

    Court granted plaintiff’s unopposed petition to confirm an arbitration award, finding there was no genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment as to all portions of the award, as the arbitrator’s decision provides more than a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached.  Court further held there was no justification under section 10(a) of the FAA for vacating the award.

  • YPF S.A. v. Apache Overseas, Incorporated, No. 17-20802 (5th Cir. May 24, 2019)
    05/24/2019

    Court affirmed district court’s confirmation of an arbitration award, finding that the arbitrators did not exceed their powers and that the award was reasoned.

  • Choice Hotels International, INC. v. K B H LLC., No. 8:18-CV-02929-GJH (D. Md. May 22, 2019)
    05/22/2019

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for default judgment regarding the confirmation of an arbitral award.  Court held that there was no reason to question validity of the arbitration agreement or arbitrators conduct where defendant was properly notified of commencement of arbitration and failed to appear or answer.

  • Hermandad Independiente de Empleados Telefonicos v. Puerto Rico Telephone Company, No. 3:18-CV-01220-BJM (D.P.R. May 21, 2019)
    05/21/2019

    Court granted the defendants motion for summary judgement against plaintiff’s challenge to the validity of the arbitral award.  Court held that following a highly deferential standard there were no grounds for challenging the arbitral award.

  • Kimsaprincess Inc. v. Hillair Capital Management LLC, No. 2.19-00952-JVS-DFM (C.D. Cal. May 21, 2019)
    05/21/2019

    Court granted a motion to remand to state court and denied as moot the motions to confirm and vacate the arbitral award.  Court held remand was appropriate in this case because defendants failed to show that removal was proper pursuant to section 205 of the FAA.

  • OI European Group B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 1:16-CV-01533-ABJ (D.D.C. May 21, 2019)
    05/21/2019

    Court confirmed an arbitral award of more than US$ 400 million rendered under the auspices of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) in favor of plaintiff.  Court decided to enter judgment for the plaintiff noting defendant’s opposition pertained only to the applicable post-judgment interest rate.

  • Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Genrus Corp., No. 1:17-CV-02193-VSB-BCM (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2019)
    05/20/2019

    Court granted plaintiffs’ unopposed petition to confirm an arbitration award, finding the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge to confirm the award did not have any clear error.

  • Vantage Deepwater Company v. Petrobras America Inc., No. 4:18-CV-02246 (S.D. Tex. May 17, 2019)
    05/17/2019

    Court granted plaintiff’s petition to confirm arbitration award and rejected defendant’s motion to vacate.  With respect to defendant’s motion to vacate, court held that (i) defendant did not meet its burden of showing that a significant compromising connection existed between plaintiff and an arbitrator that would merit vacatur; (ii) the treatment given by one of the arbitrator to defendant’s witness and counsel does not amount to the standard of evident partiality necessary to grant vacatur; (iii) defendant did not show the tribunal denied it an adequate opportunity to present its evidence and arguments in the course of the arbitration (iv) the tribunal did not exceed its powers by failing to issue a reasoned award, and (v) the record did not support the position that defendant was denied a fair arbitration or that the arbitration was fundamentally flawed.  With respect to confirmation of the final award, the court held that (i) defendant could not use the public policy defense under Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention to question the merits of the final award and re-litigate its bribery claims; (ii) there was no violation of Article V(1)(b) of the New York Convention because defendant’s dislike for one of the arbitrators cannot lead to the conclusion that the composition of the arbitral authority was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties.

  • Edmondson v. Lilliston Ford Inc., No. 18-2203 (3d Cir. May 15, 2019)
    05/15/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court order denying appellant’s motion to vacate the arbitration award.  Court noted that appellant’s arguments that the arbitration agreement was void ab initio were previously rejected by both the district court and the court of appeals, and that a motion for relief from judgment may not be used to reargue issues that were previously resolved.  Court further found that appellant’s allegations of judicial bias were merely disagreements with the district judge’s rulings.

  • Roth v. The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society, No. 5:15-CV-04074-CJW-MAR (N.D. Iowa May 14, 2019)
    05/14/2019

    Court granted in part and denied in part the parties’ stipulation for an order confirming arbitration decision and directing entry of judgment thereon.  Court found that the arbitrator’s decision was valid as to the Cletus Estate’s claims, but there was no indication that individual plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate their claims, and so the arbitrator’s decision should be given no direct effect as to the individual plaintiffs.

  • Poet Design & Construction, Inc. v. Andritz Inc., No. 4:19-CV-04070 (D.S.D. May 14, 2019)
    05/14/2019

    Court granted the application to confirm the arbitration award.  Court found that, pursuant to the FAA and Section A.4.4.5 of the parties’ contract, claimant properly applied to the court for an entry of judgment confirming the award within one year of the arbitration award being made.  Court also found that, even though respondent had already paid all amounts due under the award, it would enter a separate judgment for the total principal amount of the award consistent with section 13 of the FAA.

  • Hensel Phelps Construction Co. v. Perdomo Industrial, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-01349-AJT-MSN (E.D. Va. May 14, 2019)
    05/14/2019

    Court adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge to grant petitioner’s motion for default judgment and to confirm the arbitration award.  Magistrate judge explained that, under section 9 of the FAA, a court must grant an order to confirm the award unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected.  Magistrate judge found that there was no application under sections 10 or 11 of the FAA to confirm, modify, or correct the award, and so the award must be confirmed.

  • German International School of Fort Lauderdale, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, No. 0:19-CV-60741-RNS (S.D. Fla. May 14, 2019)
    05/14/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.  Relying on the four factors listed in Bautista v. Star Cruises, 396 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2005), court found that the jurisdictional requirements for compelling arbitration under the New York Convention were met.  Court also concluded that all of plaintiff’s claims are arbitrable, and that dismissal of the matter was proper.

  • Streamline Consulting Group LLC v. Legacy Carbon LLC, No. 1:15-CV-00318-SOM-KSC (D. Haw. May 10, 2019)
    05/10/2019

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate or modify the arbitration award and granted defendants’ countermotion to confirm the arbitration award.  Court found that the arbitrator did not make an “evident miscalculation” under 9 USC § 11(a) in awarding each defendant 25 percent of the claimed amount for attorneys’ fees rather than a maximum combined 25 percent of the claimed amount.  Court also concluded that, even if the arbitrator made a miscalculation, he did not exceed his powers for the purposes of 9 USC § 10(a)(4) as this did not constitute an irrational or manifest disregard of the law.

  • Ralco, LLC v. R. J. Corman Railroad Company/Carolina Lines, LLC, No. 5:17-CV-00429-D (E.D.N.C. May 2, 2019) 
    05/02/2019

    Court confirmed arbitration award pursuant to the FAA and FRCP 7(B) and dismissed the action with prejudice

  • Landau v. Rheinold, No. 17-3963 (2d Cir. May 1, 2019) 
    05/01/2019

    Court of appeals confirmed a district court’s decision to confirm an arbitration award granted by a rabbinical tribunal.  Court found that to confirm an arbitration award under § 9 of the FAA, a district court should “look through” to the underlying controversy to determine whether there is subject matter jurisdiction. Court found that district court had properly determined it had subject matter jurisdiction and confirmed the award.

  • Bailey Shipping Ltd. v American Bureau of Shipping, No. 1:12-CV-05959-KPF (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2019) 
    05/01/2019

    Court granted petitioner’s unopposed motion to confirm an arbitration award pursuant to the New York Convention.  Respondent had initiated arbitration proceedings against petitioner alleging negligent misrepresentation concerning the condition of a vessel.  Arbitrators held that respondent failed to meet its burden in proving negligent misrepresentation and found in favor of petitioner awarding certain fees and costs.  Court found no grounds for setting aside the final award and granted the full amount of the award plus post-award, pre-judgment interest.

  • Trustees for the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. Minelli Construction Co. Inc., No. 1:19-CV-02700-JMF (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2019) 
    05/01/2019

    Court granted petitioner’s unopposed motion to confirm an arbitration award.  Court found that there was no genuine dispute of material fact precluding the confirmation of the award, nor any reason under FAA § 10(a) for vacating the award. 

View All