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.

  • Trawick v. McCuthchen, No. 2:19-CV-01199-ACA (N.D. Ala. Jan. 29, 2020)

    Court granted petition to confirm an arbitration award and denied motion to vacate.  Court rejected respondent’s arguments that the arbitrators had exceeded their authority by denying a motion to dismiss claims which respondent argued were untimely, holding that even if the arbitrators made a mistake this is not a basis for vacatur.  Court further rejected respondent’s argument that participation of the chair of the arbitration panel in a “mock arbitration” biased him against respondent.

  • Teverbaugh v. Lima One Capital, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-00159-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss. Jan. 28, 2020)

    Court denied an unopposed motion to confirm an arbitration award awarded by SITCOMM Arbitration Association.  Court found that it could not confirm an award where petitioner had failed to attach the underlying agreement to arbitrate, as required by the FAA, since it could not determine if the award was made pursuant to a valid agreement.  Court further threatened petitioner with Rule 11 Sanctions if she submitted an agreement to arbitrate similar to one recently discussed in Imperial Industrial Supply Company v. Thomas, a case involving the same suspect arbitrators who issued petitioners award.

  • Laborers’ Local Union Nos. 472 & 172  v. Tarheel Enterprises, Inc., No. 3:19-CV-20624-AET-LHG (D.N.J. Jan. 28, 2020)

    Court granted unopposed motion to confirm arbitration award.  Court found that pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 9, it must confirm an arbitration award “[i]f the parties in their agreement have agreed that a judgment of the court shall be entered upon the award made pursuant to the arbitration.” 

  • Capone v. Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company, No. 19-3760 (6th Cir. Jan. 27, 2020)

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s granting of defendant’s motion to dismiss claims that had previously been resolved in arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff was seeking a vacatur of the previous arbitration award and that there were no grounds for vacating the award.

  • Novenergia II – Energy & Environment (SCA) v. The Kingdom of Spain, No. 1:18-CV-01148-TSC (D. D.C. Jan. 27, 2020)

    Court granted respondent’s motion to stay the proceedings of an action seeking to enforce a € 53.3 million SCC arbitral award issued against the Kingdom of Spain.  Court did not decide whether it had jurisdiction, holding that this question was dependent on a determination of whether the parties decided to arbitrate their dispute which, in turn, was currently the question before an appellate court in Sweden. Thus, without deciding whether the court had jurisdiction, the court determined that the principals of judicial economy and international comity weighed in favor of granting a stay.  Court further found that because it had not ruled on its own jurisdiction, it could not grant petitioner’s request that respondent be required to post a bond for the amount of the award under the New York Convention.

  • Summers Laboratories, Inc. v. Shionogi Inc., No. 1:19-CV-02754-AT (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2020)

    Court granted motion to confirm an arbitration award and denied respondent’s petition to partially vacate the award with respect to attorney’s fees.  Court rejected respondent’s arguments that claims for attorney’s fees were not set forth in petitioner’s demand for arbitration, that the panel exceeded its authority, and that the agreement allowing for attorney’s fees had become void.  Court also awarded post-award pre-judgment interest at nine percent per annum.

  • Zandman v. Citibank, N.A., No. 7:18-CV-00791-NSR-PED (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2020)

    Court confirmed defendant’s unopposed motion to confirm an arbitration award, finding that there was “a barely colorable justification” for the outcome reached in the award and no other grounds for vacatur existed.

  • Dynacolor, Incorporated v. Razberi Technologies Incorporated, No. 19-10720 (5th Cir. Jan. 9, 2020) 

    Court of appeals affirmed order confirming arbitration award, finding that defendant had failed to demonstrate that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded controlling law. Court further noted a circuit split as to whether manifest disregard was a justifiable grounds for vacatur of an arbitration award, but stated that it did not need to decide this issue as defendant had not met the rigorous standard for demonstrating manifest disregard of law.

  • Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund v. South City Motors, Inc., No. 18-16170 (9th Cir. Jan. 9, 2020) 

    Court of appeals affirmed district court order finding that an arbitrator did not err in several legal and procedural determinations during the course of the arbitration. Court stated it would review arbitrators findings of law de novo, his findings of fact for clear error, and his award of attorney’s fees for abuse of discretion. Court affirmed each of the arbitrator’s findings.

  • Soaring Wind Energy, LLC. v. Catic USA Incorporated, No. 18-11192 (5th Cir. Jan. 7, 2020)

    Fifth Circuit affirmed decision confirming arbitral award, finding that the arbitration panel was fairly constituted and did not exceed its authority. Court found that pursuant to arbitration agreement, arbitral panel had authority to order defendant’s divestiture from plaintiff LLC. Court further found that this divestiture order, which would defeat diversity jurisdiction, would not be effective until a judicial order fully enforced the award. Court also held that a foreign entity’s actions triggering breach of an agreement, and a finding that a foreign affiliate of a party was jointly and severally liable for damages awarded in an arbitral award provided a sufficient foreign nexus to trigger federal jurisdiction under the New York Convention. 

  • Nichols v. US Bank, National Association, No. 2:19-MC-00162-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss. Jan. 6, 2020) 

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to confirm arbitration award where plaintiff failed to provide any evidence that there was an arbitration agreement between the parties.  

  • Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. M.C.F. Associates, No. 1:19-cv-07783-JGK (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2020) 

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award where defendant failed repeatedly to respond to plaintiff’s petition. Court also awarded costs and fees to plaintiff. 

  • Geo-logic Associates, Inc. v. Metal Recovery Solutions, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00563-MMD-WGC (D. Nev. Jan. 6, 2020)

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award, finding that party requesting vacatur failed to demonstrate that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law in rendering his award.  

  • National Motors, Inc. v. Universal Warranty Corporation, No. 1:19-CV-00052-ELH (D. Md. Jan. 3, 2020)

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Court found that arbitration clause was not unconscionable and that because it was susceptible of an interpretation that covered the asserted dispute, it also was not impermissibly vague. 

  • Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Carlson, No. 4:19-CV-01470 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 2, 2020)

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award, finding respondent had failed to establish evident partiality. Specifically, presiding arbitrator did not disclose to parties that he had been retained as counsel in unrelated proceedings in which the adverse party was represented by the same firm as the respondent’s counsel in the arbitration. Court found that while a reasonable person could conclude that the presiding arbitrator was partial, that was insufficient to meet the stringent burden required to overturn an arbitration award based on evident partiality. Court also found that the arbitral tribunal’s decisions in relation to evidentiary matters did not deprive respondent of a fair hearing.

  • Meekins v. Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 3:19-CV-501-DJN (E.D. Va. Dec. 30, 2019)

    Court denied motion to confirm arbitral award, finding petitioner had failed to provide any evidence that respondents entered into a binding arbitration agreement or assented to arbitration of disputes arising under a mortgage facility.

  • UBS Financial Services, Inc. v. Asociación de Empleados del Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico, No. 3:16-CV-02237-WGY (D. Mass. Dec. 19, 2019) 

    Court denied motion to vacate the arbitration award, finding pursuant to the FAA that defendants failed to meet their burden of establishing evident partiality or misbehavior of the arbitrators.

  • Zean v. Comcast Broadband Security, LLC and Southwest Credit Systems, L.P., No. 0:17-CV-05117-WMW-KMM (D. Minn. Dec. 17, 2019) 

    Court adopted magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny the motion to vacate the award but rejected the recommendation to confirm the award, because no party had moved the court for such relief.

  • Galilea, LLC and Kittler v. AGCS Marine Insurance Company, No. 1:19-CV-05768-VEC (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2019)

    Court denied motion to vacate the arbitration award and granted petition to confirm the award under the FAA.  Court found the tribunal did not exceed its authority, concluding New York was the appropriate forum for the arbitration and the ICDR was the proper governing body pursuant to the forum selection clause and determining that the arbitration agreement covered all claims decided by the tribunal.  Court held the tribunal did not exhibit a manifest disregard for the law in admitting the insurance application and found that the arbitrators were not biased.

  • Orman v. Central Loan Administration & Reporting, No. 2:19-CV-04756-DWL (D. Ariz. Dec. 16, 2019)

    Court denied motion to confirm an arbitration award under the FAA, finding that there was no agreement to arbitrate between the parties.  Court granted respondents’ motion to vacate concluding that the arbitrators exceeded their powers by premising the award on a non-existent contract.  Court imposed sanctions on petitioner’s counsel and on petitioner.

  • Brown v. Sperber-Porter, No. 2:16-CV-02801-SRB (D. Ariz. Dec. 14, 2016)

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award, dismissing respondents’ complaints about the arbitral tribunal’s conduct of the arbitration and its substantive decision.

  • Reynolds & Reynolds Company, Inc. v. Alan Vines Automotive of Jackson, LLC, No. 3:19-CV-00276-TMR (S.D. Ohio Dec. 13, 2019)

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitral award, finding that it had subject matter and personal jurisdiction, and that the award had not been vacated, modified, or corrected, nor had a motion been filed seeking such relief.

  • Prime Pork, LLC v. NBO3 Technologies, LLC, No. 0:19-CV-01074-WMW-KMM (D. Minn. Dec. 13, 2019)

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award, finding that the award was sufficiently reasoned to merit confirmation. Court denied petitioners request to enforce the award jointly and severally with respect to third-party defendant where arbitrator had not addressed the liability of this party in his award. Court found that this request would amount to a modification of the award, which it was without legal authority to grant.

  • Damian Dalla-Longa v. Magnetar Capital LLC, No. 1:19-CV-11246-LGS (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2019)

    Court denied motion to seal petition to vacate arbitral award where the parties’ arbitration agreement contained a confidentiality provision. Court found that petitions to vacate are judicial documents to which the presumption of public access attaches. Court held that it had discretion to grant specific redactions, but refused to seal the entire action.

  • Seneca Nation of Indians v. State of New York, No. 1:19-CV-00735-WMS (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2019)

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to stay judgment pending appeal, as petitioner proffered a securities account that exceeded the amount of the arbitral award. Court found the account adequately secured the judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(b).

  • Trustees for the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. Bonanza., No. 1:19-CV-02158 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2019) 

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitral award where defendant failed to make an appearance in the arbitration and before the court.

  • Crystallex International Corp. v. PDV Holding, Inc., No. 15-CV-1082-LPS (D. Del. Dec. 12, 2019)

    Court issued stay of proceedings to collect on debts owed by the Republic of Venezuela on all arbitration related matters before it, pending the conclusion of proceedings in the Supreme Court on the matter. The Third Circuit had affirmed the district court’s initial writ of attachment and denied requests by Venezuela for rehearing, leading to the expiration of their stay on the matters. Further, the Supreme Court had yet to issue a writ of certiorari nor had the parties yet requested one. However, the court found that public interest, including “the interest of furthering the expressed foreign policy of the United States, as determined by the Executive Branch”, strongly supported the issuance of a stay.

  • Mchaney v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 1:19-MC-00027-RB (D. Minn. Dec. 12, 2019)

    Court denied motion to confirm arbitration award where plaintiff did not file a copy of the arbitration agreement between the parties with the court. Court held that plaintiff had thus failed to show that the court had jurisdiction over the matter of confirmation pursuant to the FAA.

  • Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. v. Silverman, No. 1:19-CV-07812-NRB (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2019)

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award and held that attorneys’ fees granted under the award did not contradict an express and unambiguous term of the contract between the parties. Court thus held that there was no manifest disregard of law, which could defeat confirmation.

  • Dish Network, LLC v. Albertis, Inc.., No. 1:19-CV-02179-DDD-NRN (D. Colo. Dec. 11, 2019)

    Court granted motion for default judgement to confirm arbitration award where defendant was in default in the action to confirm the award. Court found subject matter jurisdiction, venue, and personal jurisdiction were proper where, inter alia, the underlying arbitration had been conducted in the forum state encompassed by the district court and the contract was governed by the law of the forum state.

  • Local 1982, Int. Longshoremen’s Association v. Midwest Terminals of Toledo, Int. Inc., No. 19-3319 (6th Cir. Dec. 10, 2019) 

    Court of appeals affirmed district court order compelling parties to proceed with grievance and arbitration procedures set forth in collective bargaining agreement, in order to give effect to an award which had previously been confirmed by the court, but for which the parties sought further clarification from the initial arbitral tribunal. Defendant argued that the award was unenforceable because it could not be clarified by the initial tribunal where both parties allowed the time for appeal of the award to lapse. Court rejected this argument, finding that to allow such lapse to defeat the possibility of clarification would be improper where: defendant refused to participate in the initial arbitration, plaintiff had no reason to appeal a favorable award rendered in said arbitration, and the lower courts had already affirmed the legitimacy of the proceeding.

  • Brown v. Ally Financial., No. 18-CV-00070-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss. Dec. 10, 2019) 

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to confirm arbitration award and granted defendant’s motion to vacate award where it found plaintiff failed to support her motion with proper evidence that defendant ever received notice of the arbitration and where plaintiff failed to comply with the procedures mandated in the arbitration agreement for procuring said award. Court further ordered plaintiff to show cause why she should not be sanctioned for presenting her motion to the court in such manner. 

  • Napoleone v. S2k Financial, LLC., No. 1:18-CV-03124-DAB (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2019) 

    Court denied motion to vacate arbitration award, holding that movant was judicially estopped from asserting that arbitrator acted in manifest disregard of law in refusing counter-party’s request that the arbitration be heard by a three-member panel where movant had opposed that same request in the arbitration. 

  • Fairfield Processing Corp. v. Best Made Toys International, ULC, No. 4:19-MC-00310-JAR (E.D. Mo. Dec. 6, 2019)

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm the arbitration award because defendant had not filed a motion to vacate or modify the award and the time for doing so has expired. 

  • Ibarra v. Navient Solutions, LLC, No. 8:19-CV-01764-JLS-DFM (C.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2019)

    Court confirmed the arbitration award.  Court found that the three-arbitrator appellate panel did not exceed its powers through its construction of the arbitration agreement’s “de novo” language, nor did the panel exceed its powers in granting post-award interest.

  • Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company, LLC v. A.F.L.-CIO Local 675, No. 2:19-CV-08853-CJC-MRW (C.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2019)

    Court granted motion to dismiss action to vacate arbitral award for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court found the arbitral award was not sufficiently final where important details of the awarded remedy remained unresolved, and thus movant’s motion to vacate the award was not sufficiently ripe to vest the court with subject matter jurisdiction.

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

    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) 

    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) 

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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) 

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    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.

View All