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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • In re Application of Luis Javier Martinez Sampedro for an Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to Conduct Discovery for Use in a Foreign Proceeding, No. 3:18-MC-00047-JBA (D. Conn. Oct. 30, 2018)

    Court denied respondents’ motions to quash subpoenaed documents pursuant to a Section 1782 order for discovery related to ongoing litigation in Spain and ICC arbitration, but granted respondents’ motions to quash subpoenaed testimony since the Spanish court could compel respondents’ testimony. Court declined to prohibit petitioner from using discovered material in the ICC Arbitration, since there was no evidence that petitioner’s request for discovery for the Spanish litigation was a ruse for obtaining evidence for the arbitration. Court directed parties to meet and confer on the breadth of document production and denied respondents’ request for reciprocal discovery.

  • O’Quinn, P.C. v. Lexington Insurance Company, No. 16-20224 (5th Cir. Oct 18, 2018)

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment that plaintiff-appellants’ claims were not covered under its policy with defendant-appellee. The claims arose when an arbitration panel issued an award against plaintiff-appellants in a fee dispute with plaintiff-appellants’ former clients. Plaintiff-appellants sought to recover a portion of the award amount from its professional liability insurance carrier, defendant-appellee. The findings of the arbitral tribunal characterized plaintiff-appellants’ actions as such that they were not covered by its insurance policy.

  • Symphony FS Limited v. Thompson, No. 5:18-CV-03904-JFL (E.D. Pa. Oct. 17, 2018)

    Court denied defendant’s motion to quash two subpoenas, including one directed to JAMS, rejecting the defendant’s argument that JAMS rules treat information relating to pending arbitration proceedings as confidential. Court found that defendant did not meet his burden to prove any particular harm that will result from the disclosure of pending arbitrations.

  • Garcia v. Keith and Kal, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01230-AWI-JLT (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2018)

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss and request for a protective order, finding that the defendant wished to litigate this case, instead of joining the related arbitration proceedings, in aid of an indemnity dispute with a third party, Specifically, the court found that defendant was perpetuating the action in order to take plaintiffs’ depositions, since obtaining them during arbitration discovery would be unlikely, and so the court also quashed defendant’s deposition notices.

  • Stemcor USA Incorporated v. CIA Siderurgica Do Para Cosipar, No. 16-30984 (5th Cir. Oct. 17, 2018)

    Court of Appeals exercised certification privilege requesting the Louisiana Supreme Court to resolve the question whether, as a matter of Louisiana law, the state non-resident attachment statute allows for attachment in a suit to compel arbitration. Court requested a precise meaning of the phrase “action for a money judgment.”

  • Nevarez v. Forty Niners Football Company, LLC, et al., No. 5:16-CV-007013-LHK (N.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2018)

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents and deposition of third parties, which were originally defendants in the suit; court dismissed the third-parties pursuant to a motion to compel arbitration. Court dismissed third parties’ argument that the motion was an attempt to circumvent the discovery restrictions in the arbitration proceedings and stipulated that any documents or depositions produced in this action were not to be used in the arbitration.

  • Esso Exploration and Production Nigeria Limited v. Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, No. 1:14-CV-08445-WHP (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2018)

    Court granted petitioners’ motion for additional discovery in a suit seeking to enforce an arbitration award against the respondent state-owned oil company. Court found that respondent’s general manager and two additional employees would be deposed on the subject of whether the respondent company is an alter ego of the Nigerian government. Court also held that respondent must identify recipients of documents on its privilege log or produce those documents.

  • Petty v. Ashcroft, No. 2:18-CV-01323-JAD-VCF (D. Nev. Oct. 12, 2018)

    Court granted a stipulated protective order that all disclosure and discovery activity was entitled to confidential treatment extending to the court action and through the subsequent arbitration.

  • Georgia Southern University Housing Foundation One, LLC v. Capstone Development Corp v. Capstone Building Corp., No. 6:11-CV-00104-RSB-JEG (S.D. Ga. Oct. 12, 2018)

    Court found the statutes of limitations and repose had passed on the non-party’s claims and therefore denied the non-party’s motion to amend complaint and dismissed the non-party’s motion to enjoin arbitration.

  • Crawley v. Macy’s Retail Holdings, Inc., 1:15-CV-02228-KPF (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 2018)

    Court granted motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff’s lone claim was subject to both claim and issue preclusion as the AAA arbitrator had addressed the question pending before the court and rejected the claim.  Court recognized the arbitrator under AAA had competent jurisdiction over the case.

  • Dish Network v. Ghosh, No. 18-1131 (10th Cir. Oct. 11, 2018)

    Court of appeals affirmed order confirming arbitration, rejecting appellant’s argument that the award could not be enforced against him because he was not a party to the arbitration. Court found relevant that plaintiff had appeared in the arbitration and acknowledged that the arbitral decision would be binding, and that the he specifically litigated before the arbitrator whether his personal guarantee to the losing party was valid.

  • Acosta v. EuroAmerican Propagators, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00131-H-RBB (S.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2017)

    Court granted the motion submitted by one defendant to compel arbitration for another defendant’s cross-complaint, because the cross-complaining defendant did not oppose.

  • Ventrice v. Lexington Insurance Co., No. 2:16-CV-00660-CCC-JBC (D.N.J. Oct. 2, 2018)

    Court administratively terminated plaintiff’s motion to confirm the arbitration award without prejudice, and denied plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and defendant’s motion to bifurcate trial and discovery.  Court noted that whether the court will vacate, modify, or correct the award is dependent on whether plaintiffs are entitled to coverage under the relevant policy, which is an issue pending before the court.

  • Doe v. George Street Photo & Video, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-02698-TSH (N.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2018)

    Court granted plaintiff’s request to lift the stay and denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the arbitration order as moot.  Court explained that an arbitration terminated under agreed-upon rules is deemed to have “proceeded pursuant to the parties’ agreement” to arbitrate and thus to have satisfied the FAA.  Because Defendant voluntarily requested the arbitration be terminated under the AAA’s rules, and it did not seek relief from the court based on any failure, neglect, or refusal to participate on Plaintiff’s part, court found that the arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement.

  • Appel v. Concierge Auctions, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-02263-BAS-MDD (S.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2018)

    Court denied defendant’s motion for reconsideration.  Court rejected defendant’s argument that after Epic Systems v. Lewis, 138 S.Ct. 1612 (2018), district courts in the Ninth Circuit must now enforce parties’ arbitration agreements as written, noting that this was not a new holding from the Supreme Court but an interpretation of part of the Arbitration Act.

  • Griggs v. S.G.E. Management, L.L.C., No. 17-50655 (4th Cir. Sept. 27, 2018)

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s dismissal without prejudice of case for failure to prosecute where motion to compel arbitration had been granted and plaintiff failed to arbitrate, finding that dismissal was within the district court’s discretion.  Circuit court did not review district court’s holdings as to the applicability of the arbitration clause, noting that the FAA forecloses interlocutory reviews of orders compelling arbitration.

  • Lanza v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), No. 1:18-CV-10859-PBS (D. Mass. Sept. 25, 2018)

    Court granted motion to dismiss action against FINRA alleging breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing due to arbitrators’ dismissal of claim in unreasoned, two-sentence decision. Court found that an alleged failure to provide sufficient reasons for an arbitral award (as opposed to a failure to issue any award at all) fell within the scope of arbitral immunity, and that arbitrators’ failure to provide a reasoned decision was not a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing since FINRA rules require reasoned decisions only when jointly requested by the parties.

  • Landry v. Thomson Reuters Corporation, No. 1:16-CV-00507-SM (D.N.H. Sept. 24, 2018)

    Court granted motion to stay proceedings pending conclusion of parallel arbitration. Court found that plaintiff had standing to bring statutory claims against background reporting company for breach of Fair Credit Reporting Act with respect to an incorrect background report, but that the plaintiff’s request for money damages resulting from his dismissal from employment allegedly as a result of the report overlapped with factual issues being addressed in a separate arbitration against the plaintiff’s former employer arising from the dismissal.

  • Munger v. Cascade Steel Rolling Mills Inc., No. 3:18-CV-00970-SI (D. Or. Sept. 18, 2018)

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss certain claims that had previously been arbitrated for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Court rejected defendant’s argument that a valid agreement to arbitrate divests the court of jurisdiction to hear claims subject to the agreement. Although defendant’s did not make a motion to compel arbitration, court further found that a motion to compel arbitration could not have been brought under FRCP 12(b)(1).

  • Octaform Systems Inc. v. Johnston., No. 2:16-CV-02500-APG-PAL (D. Nev. Aug. 17, 2018)

    Court granted narrowed discovery requests and ordered plaintiff to produce all non-privileged documents related to an arbitration pending in Canada between plaintiff and a Chinese manufacturer and its principal and a second arbitration in Canada between plaintiff and defendants related to their employment contracts.

  • Lyles v. Brennan, No. 1:15-CV-00354-CLC-CHS (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 16, 2018)

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment.  Court found that because the arbitrator never considered whether defendant honestly believed plaintiff was at blame for the accident—which was defendant’s nondiscriminatory reason for terminating plaintiff—defendant was not collaterally estopped from relying on the accident against plaintiff’s Title VII allegations.  Court also concluded that it remained free to accord the appropriate weight to the arbitration decision, taking into account (1) the degree of the procedural fairness at arbitration, (2) the adequacy of the record with respect to the issue of discrimination, (3) the special competence of particular arbitrators, and (4) whether the issue was solely one of fact, specifically addressed by the parties and decided by the arbitrator on the basis of an adequate record.

  • Arthur v. Evansville Anesthesia Associates, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-00116-JMS-MPB (S.D. Ind. Aug. 16, 2018)

    Court ordered that the matter be remanded to the Vanderburgh Circuit Court.  Court concluded that it was not obvious that the FAA applied to the arbitration agreement and defendants provided no explanation or argument as to why it might.  However, even assuming that the FAA applied generally, defendants provided no basis upon which the court could conclude that Section 4 of the FAA applies to them, a non-aggrieved party seeking to prevent arbitration where there is no Section 4 petition.

  • Wartsila North America, Inc. v. International Centre for Dispute Resolution, No. 4:18-CV-01531 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 14, 2018)

    Court granted defendant ICDR’s motion to dismiss, finding that it was protected by arbitral immunity. Court explained that that if the resolution of the arbitrability issue was not facially obvious, as it was not here, then immunity should apply to the administrative stages prior to an official appointment of an arbitrator or panel of arbitrators. Court also granted defendant Hartford’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that plaintiffs failed to present a prima facie case of specific jurisdiction with regard to the breach of contract and tortious interference claims.

  • Steadfast Insurance Co. v. Frost Bank, No. 5:17-CV-01222-XR (W.D. Tex. Aug. 14, 2018)

    Court granted plaintiff’s opposed motion to stay pending arbitration. Following Fonesca v. USG Insurance Services, Inc., 467 F. App’x 260 (5th Cir. 2012), court determined that it would exercise its discretion to stay the case to preserve a forum for redress in the event the arbitration failed to resolve the claims.

  • Alemayehu v. Gemignani, No. 1:18-CV-00212-CMA-MJW (D. Colo. Aug. 14, 2018)

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to dissolve stay. Court agreed with defendants’ argument that Tenth Circuit precedent requires a stay pending the appeal of a denial of a petition to compel arbitration. Court also concluded that, even if the court’s stay was discretionary, it would be appropriate because defendants have made a sufficiently strong showing of necessity.

  • McClellan v. Fitbit, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00036-JD (N.D. Cal. July 24, 2018)

    Court denied plaintiff’s requests to be relieved of the AAA arbitration agreement and to strike it down for all of defendant’s users, finding that the slow payment of arbitration fees by defendant did not result in a material breach of obligation rising to the level of terminating its right to compel arbitration. Nevertheless, the court held defendant and its lawyers accountable for their bad-faith litigation tactics, ordering defendant to compensate plaintiff for its attorney’s fees and costs related to the misconduct and mandating that defendant file a copy of this decision in all cases where it seeks to compel arbitration with consumers.

  • Lagrasso v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America, No. 4:18-CV-11497-LVP-RSW (E.D. Mich. July 12, 2018)

    Court granted defendant’s motion for stay pending arbitration. Court held that the plaintiff’s claims were inseparable from those asserted in arbitration and that allowing the action to proceed would result in litigation of arbitrable issues. Court further held that the plaintiff failed to show that staying the matter would cause undue hardship, prejudice or inequity.

  • Market America, Inc. v. Yang, No. 1:17-CV-897 (M.D.N.C. July 12, 2018)

    Court denied respondent’s motion to dismiss and to strike petitioner’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that (i) special circumstances justified an exception to the ‘first to file rule’; (ii) the court had subject-matter jurisdiction; (iii) in light of the forum selection clause in the arbitration agreement, the forum was appropriate; and (iv) the respondent consented to the arbitration agreement, which was neither illusory nor unconscionable.

  • Tradeline Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. V. Jess Smith & Sons Cotton, LLC, No. 2:15-CV-08048-JAK-RAO (C.D. Cal. July 12, 2018)

    Court granted defendant’s motion to confirm the arbitration award, holding that the plaintiff brought parallel arguments against the motion to confirm the award and the motion to compel arbitration. Court further held that the plaintiff had not offered any new evidence or shown any change in controlling law which would indicate that the previous order was wrong.

  • Pineview Extended Care Center, Inc. v. Ade, No. 8:18-CV-00307-PX (D. Md. July 9, 2018)

    Court held the motion to alter the judgment denying stay of proceedings in conveyance until the state court decided the motion, stating that FAA does not specifically authorize federal courts to stay proceedings pending in state courts. Court denied motion to reconsider judgment granting petition to compel arbitration, since the respondent had not provided any basis for the court to change its prior decision.

  • FinTech Fund, F.L.P. v. Horne, No. 4:18-CV-01125 (S.D. Tex. July 6, 2018)

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that it was not the proper court to compel arbitration given that the arbitration agreement was under the jurisdiction of England and Wales.

  • Southern Industrial Contractors, LLC v. Neel-Schaffer, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00255-LG-JCG (S.D. Miss. June 26, 2018)

    Court stayed lawsuit pending the appeal of the decision ordering arbitration. Court held that (i) the FAA governed the arbitration clause; and (ii) allowing the instant litigation to proceed would risk inconsistent results and substantively impact the arbitration because the arbitrator would necessarily be strongly influenced to follow the court’s determination.

  • Fiorilla v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-05123-PKC (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2018)

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. Court held that plaintiff’s claims fell squarely within the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and therefore it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over them. Court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that Supreme Court of the State of New York, which previously vacated an arbitration award in plaintiff’s favor on grounds of manifest disregard of the law, acted contrary to the FAA and New York law, and “strip[ped]” the arbitrators of their jurisdiction.

  • Amobi v. Brown, No. 1:08-CV-01501-KBJ (D.D.C. June 19, 2018)

    Court granted in part and denied in part motion in limine to disallow the introduction of evidence from prior arbitration proceedings, allowing the introduction of witness testimony from that proceeding but denying the introduction of the arbitrator’s opinion, holding that doing so would be prejudicial.

View All