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.

  • Republic of Kazakhstan v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, No. 18-CV-00409-DWF-TNL (D. Minn. Aug. 12, 2021)

    Court granted Kazakhstan’s consent motion for supplemental authority seeking authority to subpoena Wells Fargo to produce a witness for deposition in aid of a foreign proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 1782.  Court concluded Wells Fargo was not a participant in the foreign proceedings, it may have evidence that would aid in the proceedings that is not likely to be rejected by foreign tribunals, Kazakhstan was not attempting to circumvent foreign tribunals’ procedures, and compliance with the discovery request would not be unduly burdensome.

  • Daredevil, Inc. v. ZTE Corporation, No. 19-3769 (8th Cir. Jun. 18, 2021)

    Court affirmed lower court’s ruling that claims against a parent company were precluded by an arbitration award involving its subsidiary.  Court determined that there was privity between the parent company and its wholly owned subsidiary that met the identity of the parties requirement for issue preclusion, and that the claims were nearly identical in this case as to those made during the previous arbitration.

  • Pfeil v. Discover Bank, 2:20-CV-01813-GMS (D. Ariz. Apr. 15, 2021)

    Court denied petitioner’s motion to reinstate case to vacate an arbitral award on the basis that the court did not have an independent basis for jurisdiction because it had did not have either diversity or federal question jurisdiction over the case. 

  • Kandavilli v. Gadiyaram, No. 1:19-CV-03306-ADC (D. Md. Aug. 26, 2020)

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s remaining two claims after fifteen claims were submitted to arbitration, finding that there was not a sufficient amount in controversy when accounting for the claims compelled to arbitration.

  • Northport Health Services of Arkansas, LLC v. United States Department of Health and Human Services., No. 5:19-CV-05168-TLB (W.D. Ark. Apr. 7, 2020) 

    Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granted defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment, finding a new government rule placing requirements on the use of arbitration agreements did not violate the FAA because it did not undermine the validity or enforceability of the agreements and only placed conditions on entities voluntarily participating in a federally funded program.

  • Roberts v. Harley Davidson Financial Services, Inc., No. 4:19-CV-00841-SRB (W.D. Mo. Feb. 13, 2020)

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding no reason to reopen state court’s prior dismissal of motion to compel arbitration. Prior to removal of case to federal court, defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration, which was dismissed by state court. Defendant did not appeal against state court’s decision. Defendant filed a second motion to compel arbitration after removal. Court held that, in view of law-of-the-case doctrine, it would not exercise its discretion to reopen state court’s prior order.

  • Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. Becerra, No. 2:19-CV-02456-KJM-DB (E.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2020)

    Court granted preliminary injunction restraining state officials from enforcing California Assembly Bill 51 (“AB 51”), which was signed into law on October 10, 2019, finding that there was a serious question whether the challenged statute was preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). AB 51 prohibited California employers from requiring prospective and current employees to “waive any right, forum, or procedure” for a violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act or the California Labor Code. Court found that plaintiffs had discharged their burden of showing that there were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that AB 51 was preempted by the FAA, and that the circumstances were appropriate for the grant of preliminary injunctive relief.

  • Veolia Water Solutions & Technologies Support v. Westech Engineering, Inc., No. 5:19-CV-00344-FL (E.D.N.C. Jan. 22, 2020)

    Court denied respondents’ petition to compel arbitration, finding that it lacked the power to compel arbitration or enjoin litigation when a parallel action—determining the same issues between the same parties—was filed in a Utah district court before the North Carolina action.  Court found that only the district where the litigation commenced has the authority to compel arbitration and enjoin litigation.

  • Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP v. World Class Capital Group, LLC, No. 1:20-CV-00054-PKC (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2020)

    Court ordered petitioner to amend petition where petition facially failed to assert a basis for federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. Court found that FAA is not in and of itself a grant of subject matter jurisdiction.

  • 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.

  • International Bancshares Corporation v. Paola Ochoa, No. 5:19-CV-00062 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 3, 2019)

    Court granted parties’ joint motion to reinstate the case.  Both parties had secured a final arbitration award and jointly moved to reopen the case.  In support of their motion, the parties submitted that the award should be confirmed under the FAA, and subject to approval under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

  • AtriCure, Inc. v. Dr. Jian Meng, No. 1:19-CV-00054-MPB (S.D. Ohio Nov. 4, 2019) 

    Court denied in part motion to stay all proceedings pending appeal to the sixth circuit court of appeals, considering the question of whether an appeal of a denial of a motion to compel arbitration automatically divests the district court of jurisdiction over all further proceedings in the matter. The court found that it retained discretionary jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction in the matter.

  • Hitchcock Independent School District v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, No. 3:19-CV-00198 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2019)

    Court approved and adopted the magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation recommending denial of plaintiff’s motion to remand certain removed claims.  Magistrate judge concluded that removal to federal court was proper under Section 205 of the NY Convention given that plaintiffs’ claims related to the arbitration clause and “easy removal is exactly what Congress intended.”

  • In re del Valle Ruiz for an Order to Take Discovery for Use in Foreign Proceedings Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, No. 18-3226 (2d Cir. Oct. 7, 2019)

    Court of appeals held that the language in 28 U.S.C. § 1782 that requires that a person or entity "resides or is found" within the district in which discovery is sought extends the reach of § 1782 to the limits of personal jurisdiction consistent with due process. However, Court held that the contacts at issue within the Southern District of New York were insufficient to subject it to the district court’s personal jurisdiction.

  • Buhannic v. American Arbitration Association (AAA), No. 1:18-CIV-02430-ER (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2019)

    Court dismissed plaintiff’s claim against the American Arbitration Association (AAA) and several of its arbitrators for alleged improper selection of arbitrators and allegedly defective reviewing procedures on the basis of arbitral immunity.

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

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

  • 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) 

    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.

  • Lovig v. Best Buy Stores LP, No. 4:18-CV-02807-PJH (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2019)

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss certain of its claims without prejudice.  Court concluded that plaintiff’s motion did not comply with the district’s basic requirements of a motion to amend the complaint and the FAA did not permit the plaintiff to amend the complaint.

  • Turan Petroleum, Inc. v. Ministry of Oil and Gas of Kazakhstan, No. 1:10-CV-02102-RBW (D.D.C Apr. 26, 2019) 

    Court granted intervenor’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and denied as futile plaintiffs’ motions to file amended and supplemental complaints.  Court held that it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over defendant, agency of a foreign sovereign, because plaintiffs’ complaints were insufficient to establish that an exception to sovereign immunity applied under the FSIA.  Court found that the arbitration agreement in the concession contracts did not apply as the plaintiffs were not in privity of contract and concluded that the mere fact that the foreign state was a signatory to the ICSID Convention did not waive sovereign immunity as they were not seeking the enforcement of an arbitral award.

  • Davison Design & Development, Inc. v. Frison, No. 2:17-CV-01468-JFC (W.D. Pa. Apr. 18, 2019)

    Court denied defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees when there was no basis under the arbitration agreement or the FAA to overcome the “American Rule” – i.e. the presumption that each party bears its own attorneys’ fees.  Court granted defendant’s request for costs, finding that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) provided a basis for awarding costs where the parties’ agreement and the FAA were silent.  

  • Harris v. Chelan County Sheriff’s Department, No. 2:17-CV-0137-JTR (E.D. Wash. Apr. 15, 2019)

    Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, declining plaintiffs’ argument that defendant was collaterally estopped from presenting evidence or arguing facts contrary to the arbitrator’s ruling.  Court found that, inter alia, the doctrine of collateral estoppel did not apply to an arbitration award because courts are not required to give full faith and credit to arbitration proceedings.

  • Mitsui Sumimoto Insurance USA, Inc. v. Denham-Blythe Company, Inc., No. 5:18-CV-00152-JMH (E.D. Ky. Apr. 11, 2019)

    Court granted in part defendant’s motion to alter or amend a court order to dismiss claims subject to arbitration when it improperly discussed whether a claim was barred by waiver of a subrogation clause.  Court found that the discussion should be omitted from the order, as the court may not consider the merits of a case that the parties agreed to arbitrate.

  • Cilliers v. Cobalt Holdings, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-02428 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 8, 2019)

    Court denied, in part, defendants’ motion to dismiss finding that such a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was not the appropriate mechanism for enforcing an arbitration clause, as the existence of an arbitration agreement is not itself a basis for dismissal.

  • Republic of Kazakhstan v. Stati, No. 1:17-CV-02067-ABJ (D.D.C. Mar. 30, 2019)

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss where plaintiff filed a parallel RICO civil suit while an action to enforce an arbitral award was already pending.  Plaintiff claimed that defendants obtained an arbitral award from the SCC by fraud, and that subsequent actions to enforce the award were unlawful.  Court dismissed plaintiff’s claims finding that a RICO lawsuit was not an appropriate means to “challenge non-frivolous litigation, or in this case, a valid and final arbitral award.”

  • Adam Joseph Resources (M) SDN BHD. v. CNA Metals Limited, No. 17-20685 (5th Cir. March 26, 2019) 

    Court of appeals reversed district court’s dismissal of attorney’s claims for fees related to a foreign arbitration proceeding on grounds of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and remanded for the district court to grant attorney’s motion to intervene and consider his claims on the merits.  Court held that the New York Convention conferred jurisdiction on the court to consider attorney’s claim for contingency fees because his alleged interest in the award for services rendered “relates to” the arbitration award within the meaning of 9 USC § 205.  Court also found attorney met the requirements to intervene as of right.

  • Lyon v. Neustar, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-00371-KJM-KJN (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2019)

    Court issued temporary restraining order temporarily enjoining party from continuing to pursue claims in arbitration, finding that if the arbitration in Virginia proceeded it would to damage the plaintiff’s rights under California law not to be compelled to litigate outside of California.

  • Agarunova v. The Stella Orton Home Care Agency, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00638-MKB-RLM (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2019)

    Court denied motion for conditional class certification, finding that class certification would be premature in light of pending decision on motion to compel arbitration and appeal in different case of legal question of whether an arbitration clause agreed by the union is binding on union members. 

  • United Food & Commercial Workers’ Union, Local No. 293 v. Nebraska Prime Group, LLC, No. 8:18-CV-00466-RFR-SMB (D. Neb. Mar. 8, 2019)

    Court ordered defendant to show cause why it should not be held in civil contempt and sanctioned for failing to comply with terms of arbitration award confirmed by the court, finding that appeal of confirmation order did not divest the district court of jurisdiction absent a stay of proceedings.

  • Diversant, LLC v. Mitchelle Carino, No. 3:18-CV-03155-AET-DEA (D.N.J. Mar. 8, 2019)

    Court denied motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, finding that although fees and costs pertained to representation in court proceedings for injunctive relief (as such proceedings were excluded from the arbitration clause), there was no explicit exception from the arbitration clause for claims for attorneys’ fees and costs, and that the claim must therefore be brought in arbitration.

  • Connor v. Midland Credit Management, No. 1:18-CV-23023-JG (S.D. Fla. Feb. 20, 2019)

    Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, which raised five issues, including whether the FAA’s 90-day statute of limitations bars the claim to vacate the arbitration award.  Court noted that it was uncertain whether § 12 of the FAA applied where a party is claiming that there was no arbitration agreement in the first place, and that defendant had not convinced the court to dismiss plaintiff’s claim based solely on the limitations period.  As such, court concluded that it would not, at that time, dismiss plaintiff’s claim based on the 90-day statute of limitations under § 12. 

  • In re Application of Hulley Enterprises, Ltd., No. 1:18-MC-00435-GBD-GWG (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 19, 2019)

    Court denied petitioner’s application for leave to serve subpoenas on respondents, seeking evidence in connection with the litigation currently pending in the Court of Appeal of the Hague.  Applying the factors from Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (2004), court found that (i) the first Intel factor supported the production of documents generated at the time of respondents’ representation in the 1998-2004 time period because respondents are not a participant in the Dutch proceedings; (ii) the second factor also weighed in favor of production, as petitioner provided examples of cases where the submission of evidence collected through 28 USC § 1782 was admitted; and (iii) there is no exhaustion requirement under §1782 that required petitioners to seek the documents through proceedings in the Netherlands and Russia.  However, court also found that petitioner’s delay disfavored a grant of their §1782 application, and additional considerations under the fourth Intel factor more strongly counseled against granting the application.

  • Partners 3190, LLC v. Signature Building Systems, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-01475-JMM (M.D. Pa. Jan. 22, 2019)

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss or to remand in regard to an action to confirm a $330,509.38 arbitration award.  Court found that plaintiff properly removed the case to federal court where there was diversity between the parties and the amount in controversy – determined here to be the amount of the award – exceeded $75,000.00.

  • Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. Rodriguez Morillo, No. 2:18-CV-01773-JPS (E.D. Wis. Jan. 18, 2019)

    Court granted request to effectuate service on a nonresident with a private process server, finding that service pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is sufficient under § 9 of the FAA.

  • NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. v. O.W. Bunker USA, Inc., 17-4028-CV (2d Cir. Dec. 19, 2018)

    Court of appeals vacated district court’s preliminary injunction of a London arbitration, holding that, while participation in an arbitration to which a party did not consent constitutes irreparable harm, the district court failed to make adequate findings regarding the likelihood of success on the merits.

  • 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.

  • McCormick v. America Online, Inc., No. 17-1542 (4th Cir. Nov. 29, 2018)

    Court of appeals vacated and remanded the district court’s order of dismissal based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Court of appeals explained that the court that has jurisdiction to compel arbitration under FAA § 4 also has jurisdiction to supervise the arbitration’s procedures and to confirm, vacate, modify, and enforce the resulting arbitration award. Court of appeals concluded that because the claim could, absent the arbitration agreement, be litigated in federal court under its federal-question jurisdiction, controversies regarding the arbitration of his claim should likewise be resolved in federal court.

  • Howes v. New York Life Insurance Company., No. 8:18-CV-00431-GJH (D. Md. Nov. 20, 2018)

    Court granted motion to dismiss action to vacate arbitration award, finding that plaintiff did not serve timely notice of its application in a manner that conformed to the FAA.

  • Agostino v. Ally Financial Inc., No. 8:18-CV-01202-CEH-TGW (M.D. Fla. Nov. 16, 2018)

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration without prejudice, finding that defendant failed to discharge its burden of proof by failing to provide copies of the agreement to arbitrate and assignment, but that due to federal policy in favor or arbitration, denial would be without prejudice so that defendant could refile.

  • Victory Energy Operations, LLC v. Union Carbide Corporation, No. 2:18-CV-00457 (S.D.W. Va. Nov. 16, 2018)

    Court dismissed action in favor of arbitration, finding that, where two contracts governed the parties’ relationship but only one had an arbitration clause, the claims were subject to arbitration because the plaintiffs’ complaint had treated two contracts as “one and the same” and that the claims related to both contracts.

  • Government Employees Insurance Company v. Mayzenberg, No. 1:17-CV-02802-ILG-LB (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2018)

    Court, inter alia, granted temporary stay of defendants’ 180 no-fault insurance collection arbitrations filed against insurer, finding that it would frustrate the purpose of the FAA and judicial economy if the FAA were interpreted to preclude granting stay.

  • Genosource, LLC v. Inguran, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-00113-CJW-KEM (N.D. Iowa, Nov. 16, 2018)

    Court granted motion for temporary restraining order, rejecting argument that such action was barred by arbitration agreement, since (i) the plaintiff did not sign the arbitration agreement but was alleged to have accepted it through its actions; and (ii) precedent barring preliminary injunctions in actions subject to arbitration did not necessarily apply to temporary restraining orders.

  • Great American Insurance Company v. Nelson, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-02283-TLP-CGC (W.D. Tenn., Nov. 16, 2018)

    Court denied motion to dismiss, finding that defendant had waived its right to assert arbitration by agreeing without reservation to court stipulation that it owed money to plaintiffs.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Crafty Productions, Inc. v. Fuqing Sanxing Crafts Co. Ltd., No. 3:15-CV-00719-BAS-JLB (S.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2018)

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of court’s previous dismissal of copyright infringement claims, rejecting the plaintiff’s contention that the arbitrator’s findings in a parallel proceeding were evidence of error by the court.

  • Wedi Corp. v. Seattle Glass Block Window, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-00636-TSZ (W.D. Wash. Nov. 7, 2018)

    Court granted in part and deferred in part defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Court found that regarding plaintiff’s claims of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and misappropriation of trade secrets, plaintiff was barred on res judicata or collateral estoppel grounds from re-litigating these claims against defendant as plaintiff had pursued the same claims against the defendant’s owner in arbitration proceedings. Court deferred plaintiff’s fraud claim against the defendant pending further briefing.

  • Befort v. Farm Bureau Property & Casualty Insurance Company, No. 2:18-CV-02564-RM (D. Ariz. Nov. 5, 2018)

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to remand to state court on the basis that the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000.  To remove to federal court, defendant had relied on Plaintiff’s Certificate Regarding Compulsory Arbitration, which indicated that the action was not subject to compulsory arbitration as the jurisdictional limit for compulsory arbitration in the relevant county is $50,000, and on Plaintiff’s Offer of Judgment for $74,000. Court accepted Plaintiff’s Certificate Regarding Compulsory Arbitration as having certified that the amount in dispute exceeded $50,000.

  • Hunt v. Potter County, No. 4:16-CV-01729-MWB (M.D. Pa. Nov. 5, 2018)

    Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment.  In its discussion, court rejected defendant’s argument that plaintiff’s claims were preempted by plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the administrative remedies available to him by not entering binding arbitration.  Court found that exhaustion of remedies is not a prerequisite to action, but granted summary judgment on other grounds.

  • Texas Brine Company, LLC v. American Arbitration Association, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-06610-SSV-MBN (E.D. La. Nov. 2, 2018)

    Court granted defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, because defendants’ arbitral immunity bars suit against them, and because vacatur is the exclusive remedy to challenge an arbitration award.  Plaintiff brought suit against defendants seeking to recover its arbitration costs in a separate dispute for defendants’ role in appointing allegedly conflicted arbitrators and for refusing to remove an arbitrator from the arbitration panel.

View All