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
  • Shenzhen Yunzhongge Technology Co. Ltd., v. Amazon.com Services LLC, No. 2:23-CV-01693-TL (W.D. Wash. Apr. 17, 2024)
    04/17/2024

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate an arbitration award under the FAA for liquidated damages in connection with plaintiff’s alleged violation of defendant’s online sales policies.  Court held that the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law, the award did not violate public policy, and the award was not a completely irrational interpretation of the underlying contract.  Court granted defendant’s cross-motion to confirm the award.

  • Foundation Church Inc. v. Independent Specialty Insurance Company, No. 23-CV-02847-CEH-J_S (M.D. Fla. Apr. 11, 2024)
    04/11/2024

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay the case pending arbitration where the parties’ insurance contract contained an arbitration clause, and the four jurisdictional factors were satisfied under the New York Convention.

  • Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership, v. Qin, No. 23-0747 (2d Cir. Apr. 10, 2024)
    04/10/2024

    Court of appeals affirmed district court judgment granting motion for summary judgment to confirm a CIETAC arbitration award under the New York Convention and denying a motion for reconsideration where petitioner was provided adequate notice of arbitration.

  • Royal White Cement, Inc. v. Weco Holli M/V, No. 23-CV-00788-BSL-DPC (E.D. La. Apr. 9, 2024)
    04/09/2024

    Court granted in part motions to compel arbitration and to stay case pursuant to the New York Convention and denied in part motions to stay, insofar as they sought to stay the case in its entirety as to claims and parties not subject to the arbitration agreement. 

  • Lam v. Rise Huge Corporation Ltd., No. 22-CV-06094-TLT (N.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2024)
    04/08/2024

    Court dismissed action to uphold international arbitration award under the New York Convention for lack of personal jurisdiction where a Hong Kong defendant’s only contact with California was a contract for a one time stock purchase with a California defendant.

  • Urangesellschaft MBH v. Nynco Trading Ltd, No. 23-CV-07713-DEH (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2024)
    04/05/2024

    Court granted motion to confirm ICC arbitration award rendered in Switzerland under the New York Convention, where respondent did not oppose the motion. Court awarded petitioner’s attorney’s fees and costs, and pre-judgment interest at a rate of nine percent, finding it was common practice within courts in the Second Circuit.

  • Wilson v. Carnival Corp., No. 23-10122 (11th Cir. Apr. 4, 2024)
    04/04/2024

    Court of Appeals affirmed district’s court decision to dismiss plaintiff’s motion to vacate arbitration award with its legal seat in Panama, finding under the Panama Convention that only courts with primary jurisdiction, the legal seat of the arbitration, can vacate an arbitral award.

  • Bua International Limited v. Domtec International LLC., No. 23-CV-00206-DCN (D. Idaho Apr. 1, 2024)
    04/01/2024

    Court denied petitioner’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs, finding that while the arbitrator ordered respondent to pay for petitioner’s costs of the arbitration, it did not award future costs such as attorneys’ fees incurred in confirming the award.

  • Seagen Inc. v. Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd., 22-CV-01613-JLR (W.D. Wash. Apr. 1, 2024)
    04/01/2024

    Court denied plaintiff’s petition to vacate and granted defendant’s cross-motion to confirm  arbitration award.  Court found arbitrator plausibly interpreted the parties’ agreement and did not disregard the applicable law, nor act irrationally, where the arbitrator explicitly addressed, but denied, plaintiff’s claims.

  • St. James Parish School Board v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, No. 23-CV-06638-BSL-MBN (E.D. La. Apr. 1, 2024)
    04/01/2024

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation where all four factors of the New York Convention had been met: the parties entered into a written agreement to arbitrate, the agreement provides for arbitration in a New York Convention signatory nation, the agreement arises out of a commercial legal relationship, and the respondent is a non-American citizen and party to the arbitration agreement. 

  • Sunbelt Innovative Plastics, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London, 23-CV-06194-BSL-JVM (E.D. La. Apr. 1, 2024)
    04/01/2024

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation where it found all four factors of the New York Convention had been met: the parties entered into a written agreement to arbitrate, the agreement provides for arbitration in a New York Convention signatory nation, the agreement arises out of a commercial legal relationship, and respondent is a non-American citizen and party to the arbitration agreement. 

  • Jubilant Generics Limited v. Dechra Veterinary Products, LLC, 2:23-CV-00237-JDL (D. Me. Mar. 28, 2024)
    03/28/2024

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel ICC arbitration of defendant’s counterclaims, holding the issue of waiver was for the court to decide because it was based on litigation conduct and that plaintiff had not waived its right to compel arbitration because its claims fell within an exemption to the arbitration provision in the parties’ underlying agreement, and the parties were required to litigate in two forums to give effect to the arbitration agreement under the FAA.

  • Chifici Enterprise D/B/A Deanie’s Seafood v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 2:23-CV-05764-JTM-MBN (E.D. La. Mar. 27, 2024)
    03/27/2024

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings, holding that all four requirements of the New York Convention were met. Although at least one party to the agreement was not a foreign or non-American citizen, court granted the motion, holding that plaintiffs were equitably estopped from objecting to arbitration because their underlying claims alleged misconduct among the various defendants, who included foreign citizens, that was interdependent and in concert.

  • Deutsch Telekom AG v. Republic of India, No. 1:21-CV-01070-RJL (D.D.C. Mar. 27, 2024)
    03/27/2024

    Court granted petition to confirm a Swiss arbitral award, rejecting respondent’s forum non conveniens argument because the doctrine is unavailable in proceedings to confirm foreign arbitration awards in the D.C. Circuit. Court held it had jurisdiction under the arbitration exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and rejected respondent’s argument that it was entitled to additional briefing on its merits defenses under the New York Convention.

  • Landbridge Port Services (Hong Kong) Ltd. v. Notarc Port Investment LLC, 1:24-CV-00254-GBW (D. Del. Mar. 27, 2024)
    03/27/2024

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to remand to Delaware state court, holding, in agreement with the Second Circuit, that § 205 of the FAA does not independently confer subject matter jurisdiction. Court found that it also did not have federal question jurisdiction under § 203 of the FAA, because it was an action to enjoin an arbitration in Panama instead of a motion to compel arbitration or enforce an award.

  • Stonelake Condominium Association, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 3:23-CV-00279-JWD-SDJ (M.D. La. Mar. 27, 2024)
    03/27/2024

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings, holding that the arbitration agreement was covered by the New York Convention and thus could not be reverse preempted by a Louisiana state statute prohibiting arbitration clauses in insurance contracts. Court held further that the New York Convention was applicable to all defendants, including US citizen defendants, because the underlying claims alleged that all defendants acted “interdependently and in concert.”

  • Vitol, Inc., v. Copape Produtos de Petroleo LTDA, No. 22-CV-10569-JPC (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2024)
    03/21/2024

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to compel arbitration and denied respondent’s cross-motion to dismiss the action. Court found that, although respondent was not a signatory to the relevant contracts, respondent was estopped from refusing to be bound by the arbitration clauses contained therein because it directly benefited from the contracts.

  • Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin, No. 23-0747 (2d Cir. Mar. 20, 2024)
    03/20/2024

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s confirmation of CIETAC arbitral award pursuant to the New York Convention, rejecting defendant’s argument that he was not provided adequate notice of the arbitration and was therefore unable to participate in the selection of arbitrators. Court of appeals concluded that plaintiff made sufficient efforts that were reasonably calculated to provide notice to defendant.

  • Concept Engineering LLC v. Pinterest, Inc., No. 21-CV-01465-MN (D. Del. Mar. 20, 2024)
    03/20/2024

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay action pending arbitration finding whether a non-signatory can compel plaintiff to arbitrate is a question of arbitrability which was delegated to the arbitrator by “clear and unmistakable” evidence.

  • Allianz Risk Transfer (Bermuda) Limited, v. High Lonesome Wind Power, LLC, No. 22-CV-05133-GHW (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2024)
    03/19/2024

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding the parties’ arbitration agreement unambiguously requires the arbitration of their dispute regarding the calculation of the amount due under the contract.

  • Employers’ Innovative Network, LLC v. Bridgeport Benefits, Inc., No. 18-CV-01082 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 18, 2024)
    03/19/2024

    Court granted defendants’ joint motion to confirm and enforce arbitration award under the New York Convention, finding plaintiffs failed to prove that confirmation of the award would be contrary to public policy considering the arbitrator’s failure to disclose a potential conflict of interest. Court concluded that plaintiffs’ failure to challenge the arbitrator in Bermuda foreclosed their public policy defense and regardless, plaintiffs failed to conclusively offer proof of, or prejudice resulting from, the arbitrator’s perceived partiality.

  • Simplot India LLC v. Himalaya Food International LTD, No. 23-CV-01612-RK-TJB (D.N.J. Mar. 15, 2024)
    03/15/2024

    Court denied petitioners’ motion to confirm foreign arbitral award, holding there was no personal jurisdiction over respondent. Court found unpersuasive petitioners’ argument that a related domestic company was respondent’s alter ego; that respondent consented to general jurisdiction by registering to do business in New Jersey and accepting service by its designated agent; or that court may exercise quasi in rem jurisdiction over the related domestic company’s debts owed to respondent, because respondent lacked sufficient interest or control in the property.

  • McBurnie v. RAC Acceptance East, LLC, No. 22-16868 (9th Cir. Mar. 14, 2024)
    03/14/2024

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration finding that defendant’s arbitration agreement was unenforceable under a California law invalidating contracts that waive the right to seek injunctive relief on behalf of the general public, and that California law was not preempted by the FAA. Court of Appeals further found that its prior decision was not abrogated by the subsequent Supreme Court decision in Viking River because that decision dealt with a different California law.

  • Anhui Powerguard Technology Company, Limited v. DRE Health Corporation, No. 23-1820 (8th Cir. Mar. 14, 2024)
    03/14/2024

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of motion to stay litigation and compel arbitration under the FAA.  Court of appeals determined that the parties did not agree to submit their dispute to arbitration where the arbitration agreement included a condition precedent which was not satisfied.

  • Vamed Management und Service GMBH v. Gabonese Republic, No. 22-CV-03737-RJL (D.D.C. Mar. 13, 2024)
    03/13/2024

    Court granted motion for a default judgment and confirmation of the underlying arbitration award against respondent, where Gabon had not filed an appearance in the matter or otherwise participated in the confirmation proceedings.  Shearman & Sterling is counsel for Vamed Management und Service GMBH in connection with this case.

  • Metropolitan Municipality of Lima v. Rutas de Lima S.A.C., No. 20-CV-02155-ACR (D.D.C. Mar. 12, 2024)
    03/12/2024

    Court denied petition to vacate two arbitration awards and granted cross-motions to confirm them, where grounds for refusal or deferral of recognition or enforcement of the awards under the New York Convention were not met. Court noted that two independent tribunals had rejected claims of bribery related to an underlying infrastructure contract to build, improve, and maintain urban highways in Peru and declined to accept petitioner’s argument that denial of the bribery before the tribunal was fraudulent. Court also disagreed that the second arbitral tribunal committed misconduct in admitting some, but not the annexes, to a prosecutorial indictment it introduced after the close of evidence.

  • Cowin Technology Co., Ltd. v. Amazon.com Services LLC, No. 23-CV-03054-ALC (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2024)
    03/12/2024

    Court denied petition to vacate arbitral award and granted respondents’ cross-motion to confirm the award, where petitioner had not demonstrated that one of the seven exclusive grounds for refusal or deferral of recognition or enforcement of the award under Article V of the New York Convention applied.

  • In re: Application of Bonsens.org for an Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to Conduct Discovery for Use in a Foreign Proceeding, No. 23-380 (2d. Cir. Mar. 11, 2024)
    03/11/2024

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of application seeking discovery under 28 USC § 1782 from Pfizer Inc. for use in a suit applicant initiated against the French government in France. Court of appeals determined that the requested discovery was irrelevant to the jurisdictional issue on appeal in France and that the prospect of a merits review in that proceeding was too speculative to satisfy the statutory requirement that the discovery be “for use” in the French proceeding.

  • Shenzhen Gooloo E-Commerce Co., Ltd. v. Pilot, Inc., No. 23-CV-00854-PAB-SBP (D. Colo. Mar. 8, 2024)
    03/08/2024

    Court granted motion to dismiss petition to vacate arbitration award and ordered that the arbitration award be confirmed, where petitioner did not sufficiently allege that the arbitration award was in manifest disregard of the law or that the arbitrator exceeded his authority under the terms of the arbitration agreement.

  • Bufkin Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, No. 23-30171 (5th Cir. Mar. 4, 2024)
    03/04/2024

    Court of appeals reversed district court’s denial of appellants’ motion to compel arbitration under the New York Convention. Court of appeals found that the doctrine of equitable estoppel under Louisiana law compelled arbitration because the appellee signatory to the arbitration agreement raised allegations of substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct by both non-signatory appellants and one or more of the signatory appellants to the arbitration agreement, even though the complaint later dismissed the signatory appellants as defendants.

  • Thales Avionics, Inc. v. L3 Technologies, Inc., No. 24-CV-00112-JGK-RFT (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2024)
    02/27/2024

    Court granted preliminary injunction in aid of arbitration to enjoin defendant from selling stake in parties’ joint venture, finding that plaintiff demonstrated sufficiently serious questions going to the merits of its claim, irreparable harm, and that the balance of hardships weighed decidedly in its favor.
     

  • Valentino S.p.A. v. Mrinalini, Inc., No. 23-CV-02319-MKV (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2024)
    02/26/2024

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award, finding that respondent failed to prove grounds under Article V of the New York Convention to refuse or defer the recognition of the award.  Court denied petitioner’s request for attorneys’ fees, finding that respondent’s actions did not warrant that exceptional award but found petitioner’s expenses would be allowed to the extent that costs are available to the prevailing party.

  • Chicken Mart, Inc. v. Independent Specialty Insurance Company, No. 23-CV-06661-EEF-JVM (E.D. La. Feb. 23, 2024)
    02/23/2024

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed litigation pending arbitration, finding that the requirements of the New York Convention were satisfied.  Court compelled arbitration between foreign and domestic defendants because plaintiff was alleging intertwined conduct on the part of all defendants.

  • Apex Hospitality Group, LLC v. Independent Specialty Insurance Company, No. 23-CV-02060-JTM-JVM (E.D. La. Feb. 23, 2024)
    02/23/2024

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the requirements of the New York Convention were satisfied.  Court found that plaintiff was equitably estopped from objecting to arbitration against domestic defendant, a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, because plaintiff alleged conduct that was interdependent and concerted with signatory foreign defendant.  Court also held that arbitration clauses are forum or venue selection clauses and application of equitable estoppel was thus not precluded by Louisiana law.

  • Stonex Markets LLC v. Cooperativa de Caficultores del Suroeste de Antioquia, No. 23-CV-00513-JGLC-OTW (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2024)
    02/21/2024

    No. 23-CV-00513-JGLC-OTW (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2024)
    Court accepted magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to enter a motion for default judgment to confirm arbitration award finding the recommendation to be well reasoned and grounded in fact and law.

  • Hoeg v. Samsung Electronics of America, Inc., No. 23-CV-01951 (E.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2024)
    02/20/2024

    Court found under § 4 of the FAA, that it may grant an order to compel arbitration where a duly initiated arbitral proceeding was previously administratively closed due to the opposition’s failure to pay its fees.  To hold otherwise would lead to a “never-ending game of cat-and-mouse” where the parties continue to initiate arbitration proceedings and one-party refuses to pay.

  • Telecom Business Solutions, LLC v. Terra Towers Corp., No. 22-CV-01761-LAK (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2024)
    02/20/2024

    Court granted motion for an anti-suit injunction against defendant where a foreign litigation would frustrate the arbitration process by seeking to re-litigate issues already resolved by an arbitral tribunal and undermine the court’s confirmation of the arbitration award.

  • Cameron Parish Recreation #6 v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, No. 23-30181 (5th Cir. Feb. 19, 2024)
    02/19/2024

    Court of Appeals vacated a discovery order and remanded to the district court to immediately grant a stay pending its decision on arbitration.  Court of appeals found discovery was improper in this case, where determining if a valid arbitration agreement existed between the parties was purely a matter of law.

  • Chemaly v. Lampert, No. 23-CV-24257-BB (S.D. Fla. Feb. 16, 2024)
    02/16/2024

    Court granted in part and denied in part motions to compel arbitration pursuant to the New York Convention and to remand to state court, finding certain claims reasonably arose out of the arbitration agreement and remanding to state court the tort claims that did not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement and did not arise under federal law.

  • Port of Vancouver USA v. BNSF Railway Company, No. 3:23-CV-05560-DGE (W.D. Wash. Feb. 15, 2024)
    02/15/2024

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration under the FAA as to claims that defendant was not complying with an arbitration award against it that had been confirmed by a federal court.  Court reasoned that whether it could enforce the terms of the arbitration award was a “question of arbitrability” it could not resolve because the award was ambiguous.

  • FGI Industries, Inc. v. Tangshan Ayers Bath Equipment Co., Ltd., No. 14-CV-00188-HDV-RAO (C.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2024)
    02/13/2024

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding defendant waived that right by actively seeking to litigate the underlying merits of the case, including filing five motions to dismiss and multiple other procedural and substantive motions over the past twelve years.

  • Carriage Court Condominiums Owners Association v. Renaissance Re, No. 23-CV-05544-LMA-MBN (E.D. La. Feb. 7, 2024)
    02/07/2024

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration finding the insurance policy included a valid arbitration agreement enforceable pursuant to the New York Convention and the FAA. Plaintiff failed to file a timely opposition.

  • Cedar Ridge, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 23-CV-07350-SSV-JVM (E.D. La. Feb. 7, 2024)
    02/07/2024

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings finding arbitration is mandated under the plaintiff’s insurance policy and the dispute is governed by the New York Convention.  Plaintiff did not oppose the motion.

  • First United Methodist Church of Houma v. Underwriters at Lloyds of London, No. 23-CV-00610-JTM-JVM (E.D. La. Feb. 7, 2024)
    02/07/2024

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration finding the plaintiff’s insurance policy included a valid and enforceable arbitration clause. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that defendants had waived their right to arbitration finding that defendants did not evince a desire to resolve the dispute through litigation rather than arbitration by admitting venue and jurisdiction were proper in their answer, raising affirmative defenses but not the issue of arbitration, conducting discovery and providing initial disclosures, participating in mediation, and the passage of significant time since plaintiff filed its petition in state court.

  • Telecom Business Solution, LLC v. Terra Towers Corp., No. 23-144 (2d Cir. Feb. 6, 2024)
    02/06/2024

    Court of Appeals affirmed district court’s ruling confirming the arbitration award because the claims were rightfully governable by the binding arbitration provision in the shareholders’ agreement.  Court of Appeals found defendants failed to establish either that the arbitration panel displayed a manifest disregard for the law or that the arbitration procedure was fundamentally unfair.  Court of Appeals concluded that the panel’s “last-minute switch” from New York law to the AAA rules was not fundamentally unfair because defendants were on notice that the arbitration would be conducted in accordance with the AAA rules.

  • New Frontier Investment AG v. BitCenter, Inc., No. 23-MC-80154-PHK (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2024)
    02/06/2024

    Court denied petition to partially vacate arbitration award under the provisions of the FAA and the New York Convention finding that petitioner failed to show the arbitrator manifestly disregarded Hungarian law, or that the award was completely irrational in light of the parties’ contractual agreement or violated the public policy of either the forum state—California—or the United States.

  • Devas Multimedia Private Limited v. Antrix Corp. Ltd., No. 20-36024 (9th Cir. Feb. 6, 2024)
    02/06/2024

    Court of Appeals denied petitions for rehearing en banc, finding, contrary to all other federal circuit courts, that in addition to fulfilling the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act requirements, plaintiffs must prove “minimum contacts” to assert personal jurisdiction over a foreign state, including when enforcing an international arbitration award.

  • Voltage Pictures, LLC v. Gussi, S.A. de C.V., No. 23-55123 (9th Cir. Feb. 5, 2024)
    02/05/2024

    Court of Appeals affirmed district court’s confirmation of an arbitral award holding that (1) district court had jurisdiction under § 203 of Chapter 2 of the FAA and 28 USC § 1331; (2) district court erred in ruling that California law governed service because federal procedural law generally governs service when a party files in federal district court, however, under federal law, plaintiff sufficiently served defendant; and (3) district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to extend comity to a purported Mexican court order enjoining plaintiff from seeking to confirm the award because defendant did not certify the genuineness of document or the translation.

  • Parish of Lafourche v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, No. 23-CV-03472-SM-MBN, Dkt. No. 33 (E.D. La. Feb. 2, 2024)
    02/02/2024

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to remand to state court finding abstention was inappropriate, namely, because the cause of action arose under federal law under the New York Convention and FAA, and the dispute did not involve vital state interests.

  • Parish of Lafourche v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, No. 23-CV-03472-SM-MBN, Dkt. No. 34 (E.D. La. Feb. 2, 2024)
    02/02/2024

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings finding the service-of-suit clause did not constitute a waiver of defendants’ right to compel arbitration.  Instead, the clause complemented the arbitration agreement by establishing a forum where the parties may enforce an arbitration award.

  • Dryades YMCA v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London, No. 23-CV-03411-JTN-MBN (E.D. La. Jan. 31, 2024)
    01/31/2024

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings finding that Louisiana state law does not prevent the enforcement of arbitration clauses in insurance contracts as to foreign insurers.  Court found that the New York Convention superseded the Louisiana state law seeking to supersede federal laws regulating the business of insurance.

  • Conti 11. Container Schiffarts-GMBH & Co. KG M.S., MSC Flaminia v. MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A., No. 22-30808 (5th Cir. Jan. 29, 2024)
    01/29/2024

    Court of appeals reversed district court’s decision to confirm a $200 million London arbitration award, finding the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over defendant.  Court of appeals agreed that when assessing personal jurisdiction to confirm an arbitration award under the New York Convention, a court should consider contacts related to the underlying dispute, not just the arbitration itself.  However, it found defendant had not waived its personal jurisdiction defense and that the sole contact with the forum, the loading of tanks in New Orleans, did not confer specific personal jurisdiction over defendant.

  • Regal Games, LLC v. SellerX Eight GMBH, No. 1:22-CV-07455-ER  (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2024)
    01/25/2024

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding that the parties formed a valid agreement to arbitrate even when the underlying agreement did not expressly contain the words arbitration or arbitrator and where the arbitrator was a non-legal expert.  Court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the arbitration.

  • Bayport Financial Service (USA) Inc. v. Bayboston Managers, LLC, No. 22-CV-21306-JEM (S.D. Fla. Jan. 24, 2024)
    01/24/2024

    Magistrate judge recommended that motion to compel arbitration be granted pursuant to the New York Convention, finding that an alter ego analysis was inapplicable here and thus, one defendant’s engagement in litigation could not waive the arbitral rights of another defendant.

  • The Resource Group International Limited v. Chishti, No. 23-286 (2d Cir. Jan. 22, 2024)
    01/22/2024

    Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the district court’s order finding it relied on an erroneous view of the law in concluding that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims and irreparable harm absent a preliminary injunction.  Court of Appeals found (1) district court erroneously concluded that a later-executed agreement that did not specifically mention arbitration likely did not supersede the arbitration agreement, and, as a result, failed to determine the scope of the agreement or otherwise identify which claims are arbitrable in the first instance; and (2) district court erred in concluding that being forced to arbitrate an inarbitrable claim cannot constitute irreparable harm.

  • General Mill Supplies, Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, No. 2:23-CV-06464-NJB-KWR (E.D. La. Jan. 19, 2024)
    01/19/2024

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendants satisfied their burden to show that plaintiff’s claims were subject to a valid arbitration agreement pursuant to the parties’ insurance policy subject to the New York Convention.  Court also found that plaintiffs failed to show that the underlying arbitration agreement was null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed.  Court stayed proceedings pending arbitration.

  • Siddiqui Enterprises, LLC v. Independent Specialty Insurance Company, No. 2:23-CV-04329-CJB-JVM  (E.D. La. Jan. 19, 2024)
    01/19/2024

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement was enforceable under the New York Convention because there was a written agreement to arbitrate, the agreement provided for arbitration in a New York Convention signatory nation, the agreement arose out of a commercial legal relationship, and at least one party to the agreement was not an American citizen.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that, pursuant to the McCarran-Ferguson Act, a local Louisiana law reverse-preempted the enforceability of the arbitration clause.

  • Watershape, Inc. v. The Association of Pool and Spa Professionals, No. 2:23-CV-00466-JCM-EJY (D. Nev. Jan. 19, 2024)
    01/19/2024

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding the language of the arbitration clause was broad in scope and thus plaintiff’s dispute concerning how the underlying agreement must be interpreted fell within the scope of the arbitration clause.

  • LLC SPC Stileks v. The Republic of Moldova, No. 14-CV-01921-CRC (D.D.C. Jan. 19, 2024)
    01/19/2024

    Court denied respondent’s motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without prejudice.  Although the court was inclined to agree that such relief was warranted, it held that it would be premature to grant the motion given that plaintiff may appeal the Paris Court of Appeals’ decision vacating arbitration award against respondent in favor of plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest.

  • Equipav S.A. Pavimentação, Engenharia e Comercio Ltda. v. Bertin, No. 22-CV-04594-PGG (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2024)
    01/18/2024

    Court granted motion to confirm order of attachment as to respondent’s assets, finding that (i) there was a cause of action; (ii) it was probable that petitioner would succeed on the merits; (iii) one or more grounds for attachment pursuant to NY CPLR § 6201 existed; (iv) the amount demanded from respondent exceeded all counterclaims known to petitioner; and (v) the attachment was needed to obtain jurisdiction and also appropriate to secure payment from respondent.  Court also granted petitioner’s motion to confirm arbitration award against respondent and nonparty and denied respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding it had quasi in rem jurisdiction over respondent’s property located in its district.  Court also denied respondent’s motion for a stay, finding that the Europcar factors weighed in favor of denying a stay.

  • Causeway Partners, L.L.C. v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, No. 23-CV-06108-SM-JVM (E.D. La. Jan. 17, 2024)
    01/17/2024

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings, finding that the requirements of the New York Convention were satisfied.  As to domestic defendants, court found that (i) the doctrine of equitable estoppel applied to non-signatories to the arbitration provision; and (ii) Louisiana law did not prohibit the domestic defendants from enforcing the arbitration clause found in each of their contracts.  Court noted that although Louisiana law ordinarily prohibits enforcement of arbitration clauses as forum or venue selection clauses, Louisiana law grants an exception to surplus line insurance policies like that issued by defendants.

  • Zhongtie Dacheng (Zhuhai) Investment Management Co Ltd v. Yan, No. 8:22-CV-00461-KK-ADS (C.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2024)
    01/12/2024

    Court confirmed an arbitral award pursuant to the New York Convention, holding that service was proper because respondents were mailed notice of the proceedings to their last known addresses listed on publicly available documents and their government-issued IDs. 

  • Epicenter Loss Recovery LLC v. Burford Capital Limited, No. 18-CV-03300-DJH (D. Ariz. Jan. 9, 2024)
    01/10/2024

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss following the issuance of a final arbitration award from the LCIA.  Court, having previously stayed litigation pending a final award, did not maintain continued jurisdiction under the LCIA Rules or the FAA, where plaintiff challenged the validity of the award, finding the primary jurisdiction in which to challenge the award would be in the English courts.

  • In re Refinería de Cartagena S.A.S., No. 23-MC-00455-JPC (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2024) 
    01/08/2024

    Court granted 28 USC § 1782 request for leave to serve document and deposition subpoenas on defendants.  Court reasoned that the discovery requests were relevant and “for use” in foreign restructuring proceedings, and that petitioner qualified as an interested party, as the proposed restructuring plans could discharge debtors from amounts owed to petitioner under an arbitration award.  In weighing the discretionary Intel factors, court did not find the discovery requests to be overly intrusive or burdensome in light of the court ordered modifications limiting the scope of each request.

  • Anhui Light Industries International Co., Ltd. v. Dream Express Inc., 23-CV-05942-RGK-PD (C.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2024)
    01/05/2024

    Court denied petition to confirm a CIETAC arbitration award under the New York Convention, finding respondent was not a party to the contracts, which were entered into fraudulently in respondent’s name, and therefore, did not consent to arbitration.  

  • Patterson v. Jump Trading LLC, No. 22-CV-03600-PCP (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2024)
    01/04/2024

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration because defendant was not a party to the arbitration agreement between plaintiffs and former defendant. Court concluded that lead plaintiff’s arbitration agreement did not delegate issues of arbitrability to an arbitrator, and the arbitration agreement did not compel arbitration against non-signatory defendant. 

  • BBC Chartering Carriers GMBH & Co., KG, v. Hsin Silk Road Shipping Limited, No. 23-CV-06043-KK-MRW (C.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2024)
    01/04/2024

    Court granted motion to confirm foreign arbitral award and motion for default judgment pursuant to the award.

  • Battle v. General Motors, LLC, No. 22-CV-10783-MAG-KGA (E.D. Mich. Jan. 4, 2024)
    01/04/2024

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration on the grounds that the question of arbitrability as to the claims involving defendant—as a non-party to the agreement containing the arbitration provision—was properly delegated to the arbitrator.

  • Jiakeshu Technology Limited v. Amazon.com Services, LLC, No. 22-CV-10119-JGLC (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2024)
    01/03/2024

    Court denied petitioner’s petition to vacate the arbitral award and granted defendant’s motion to confirm the award, finding petitioner did not rely on any of the grounds under the New York Convention or the FAA on which courts may vacate an arbitral award, instead relying on the “severely limited” manifest disregard standard and other unrecognized bases in the Second Circuit such as “complete irrationality” and violation of “strong public policy.”

  • Andonian v. Soleimani, No. 23-CV-06817-JGLC (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2024)
    01/03/2024

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to remand to state court finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, because there was no arbitral award at issue governed by the New York Convention since the award had already been converted into a judgment.  Court also found that, even if it possessed both subject-matter and removal jurisdiction, it would still abstain from hearing the case because the State of New York had a strong interest in the issues.

  • Lanesborough 2000, LLC v. Nextres, LLC, No. 23-CV-07584-PKC (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 1, 2024)
    01/01/2024

    Court denied petitioner’s emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against defendant’s state court action to vacate an arbitration award, finding petitioner failed to show irreparable harm would ensue in the time necessary to adjudicate the motion.

  • Nicholas Services, LLC v. Bombardier Inc., 3:23-CV-00251-MPM-RP (N.D. Miss. Dec. 26, 2023)
    12/26/2023

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed the proceedings after determining that it should decide threshold issues of arbitrability, despite AAA’s letter to the parties stating that AAA had made an administrative determination that claimant met the filing requirements.  Court acknowledged that the fact that plaintiffs had not signed the arbitration agreement was a significant obstacle to defendants’ case but nonetheless accepted defendants’ arguments that the at-issue warranty transferred with the product when the original purchaser resold the product to plaintiffs. 

  • TotalEnergies Renewables USA LLC v. Trina Solar (U.S.), Inc., No. 22-16763 (9th Cir. Dec. 21, 2023)
    12/21/2023

    Court of appeals dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction under 28 USC § 1447(d) review of district court’s order denying motion to compel arbitration and remanding the case to state court.  Court of appeals found district court’s order could be “colorably characterized” as a remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and thus, the order remanding the case was unreviewable on appeal.

  • Nipro Corporation v. Verner, No. 19-CV-62121-AHS (S.D. Fla. Dec. 21, 2023)
    12/21/2023

    Court denied motion to dismiss where an ICC tribunal determined it did not have jurisdiction to decide the merits of plaintiff’s claims against defendants, and court retained jurisdiction to hear claims based on diversity jurisdiction.

  • ConocoPhillips Petrozuata B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 22-MC-00464-LPS (D. Del. Dec. 20, 2023) 
    12/20/2023

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for a writ of attachment fieri facias against the shares of PDV Holding, Inc. owned by Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. and denied intervenor’s motion to dismiss.  Court found plaintiff was not judicially estopped from asserting that PDVSA and Venezuela are alter egos because of a position taken in an ICSID arbitration.

  • Union Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church v. Independent Specialty Insurance Company, No. 2:23-CV-05455-LMA-KWR (E.D. La. Dec. 20, 2023)
    12/20/2023

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration where Louisiana law does not prohibit the enforcement of arbitration clauses in surplus lines insurance policies and where plaintiff alleged substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct by foreign and domestic insurers.

  • America Chung Nam, LLC v. Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd., No. 2:23-CV-07676-SB-JPR (C.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2023)
    12/19/2023

    Court denied motion to remand to state court and granted motion to compel arbitration where a valid arbitration agreement existed under the New York Convention and the claims at issue related to that agreement.  

  • Yunnan Duobang Network Technology Co. Ltd. v. Amazon.com Services LLC, No. 23-CV-01137-JCC (W.D. Wash. Dec. 18, 2023)
    12/18/2023

    Court denied motion to vacate arbitration award under the FAA and granted cross-motion to confirm the award, finding arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law and the arbitration award did not violate public policy.

  • Transportation Consultants, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 2:23-CV-06585-EEF-MBN (E.D. La. Dec. 15, 2023)
    12/15/2023

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration of an insurance dispute and stay litigation pursuant to the New York Convention, where there was a written agreement to arbitrate, the arbitration clause required arbitration take place in a signatory nation, the agreement stemmed from a commercial legal relationship, and at least one defendant was a foreign citizen.

  • Li v. Longview Capital Holdings, LLC, No. 3:23-CV-00939-DRL-MGG (N.D. Ind. Dec. 15, 2023) 
    12/15/2023

    Court granted motion to remand to state court, finding it did not have subject matter jurisdiction under 9 USC § 205.  Court concluded that although the relevant settlement agreement contained an arbitration provision falling under the New York Convention, the parties were not asking the court to compel arbitration or to confirm an award and they had specifically agreed that if the lender initiated litigation, which he did, no arbitral tribunal would have jurisdiction over the dispute. 

  • Jiangxi Zhengao Recycled Textile Industry Co., Ltd. v. Amazon.com Services, LLC, No. 1:23-CV-09692-JGLC (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2023)
    12/15/2023

    Court denied plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to stay an AAA arbitration, where plaintiff argued that arbitrator’s failure to disclose a prior arbitration ruling involving defendant demonstrated the arbitrator’s partiality and impaired plaintiff’s rights to a fair hearing and due process.  Court found plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits for several reasons, including because the motion was predicated on a non-existent statute; the motion was premature as the court could not entertain a challenge to arbitrator partiality until after the conclusion of the arbitration and rendition of the award; and its challenge to the arbitrator was meritless under the applicable AAA Rules.

  • Longyan Junkai Information Technology Co., Ltd. v. Amazon.com Services LLC., No. 1:23-CV-04869-JGK (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2023)
    12/12/2023

    Court denied petitioner’s motion to vacate and granted respondents’ cross-motion to confirm ICDR arbitral award.  Court declined to remand to state court, finding it had subject matter jurisdiction under the New York Convention, because plaintiff is a foreign corporation.  Court rejected petitioner’s arguments that the award should be vacated because it was irrational, in manifest disregard of the law, and violated public policy. 

  • Valores Mundiales, S.L., and Consorcio Andino, S.L., v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 23-7077 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 8, 2023)
    12/08/2023

    Court of appeals affirmed decision enforcing arbitral award pursuant to the ISCID Convention and 22 USC §1650a.  Court of appeals rejected appellant’s argument that it had been deprived of due process because the ICSID annulment committee declined to recognize counsel designated by a new political regime in Venezuela.

  • Ten G, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 22-CV-04426-WBV-MBN (E.D. La. Nov. 30, 2023)
    11/30/2023

    Court rejected plaintiff’s motion for certification of interlocutory appeal to review prior decision to compel arbitration pursuant to the New York Convention.  Court found that the question of whether a dispute falls within the scope of an arbitration agreement is not a “controlling question of law” for the purposes of certification under § 1292(b).  Court decided plaintiff also failed to demonstrate substantial grounds for difference of opinion as to the controlling question of law.

  • Doe v. VGW Malta Ltd., No. 23-CV-03226-TWT (N.D. Ga. Nov. 28, 2023)
    11/28/2023

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding an arbitration agreement exists between the parties and there are no grounds on which to deny enforcement of the agreement.  Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration agreement was void because it was made pursuant to a gambling contract which is illegal under Georgia law, and that plaintiff was fraudulently induced to enter the contract, finding both allegations are questions to be resolved by the arbitrator.

  • Marseille-Kliniken AG v. Republic of Equatorial Guinea, No. 20-CV-03572-RJL (D.D.C. Nov. 17, 2023)
    11/17/2023

    Court confirmed petitioner’s arbitration award, dismissing defendant’s argument that the parties agreed to litigate in an Equatoguinean court before using arbitration as an appeal tribunal.  Court concluded that such procedural preconditions to arbitration were for the arbitrators to decide and that the arbitrators’ decision that they had jurisdiction over the claim should not be disturbed.

  • Galaxia Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Luxmax, U.S.A., 2:16-CV-05144-JAK-GJS (C.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2023)
    11/16/2023

    Court entered a default judgment against defendants, including for attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest arising out of the parties’ prior international arbitration proceeding. 

  • Insurance Company of Greater New York v. Kinsale Insurance Company, 1:23-CV-03577-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 15, 2023)
    11/15/2023

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, although plaintiff was not a signatory to the policy at issue, reasoning that plaintiff was bound by the arbitration clause because plaintiff sought to enforce other provisions of the policy against defendant.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the policy contained a “service of suit” provision, finding that the clause applies only when a party seeks to compel arbitration or enforce an arbitration award.  Court similarly rejected plaintiff’s argument that defendant waived its right to compel arbitration by delaying its motion to compel until a month after the suit was filed and a few days after removal to federal court.  Court stayed the proceedings pending resolution of the arbitration.

  • National Casualty Company v. Continental Insurance Company, 1:23-CV-03143 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 15, 2023)
    11/15/2023

    Court granted defendant’s cross-motion to compel arbitration of claims relating to the interpretation of a contractual provision that was the subject of previous arbitrations between the same parties that were confirmed in federal court.  Court held that the preclusive effect of the previous arbitrations on the pending proceedings was appropriate for an arbitration panel to decide.  Court dismissed the case without prejudice, concluding that all of the claims were subject to arbitration.

  • Kelemen v. Olah, 1:22-CV-00566-JGLC (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2023)
    11/14/2023

    Court appointed an arbitrator after the parties failed to agree to a neutral and sent the court proposed qualifications for the arbitrator.  Court selected an arbitrator who met the proposed qualifications and who it found to be best suited for the case based on her experience in New York.

  • Jean Lafitte Condominium, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 2:23-CV-03415-SSV-KWR (E.D. La. Nov. 14, 2023)
    11/14/2023

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings pending arbitration.  Court found that the requirements of the New York Convention were satisfied and that the issue of arbitrability was for the arbitrators given the arbitration clause’s broad language encompassing all matters in difference, including those relating to the arbitrability of any dispute.  Court stayed the proceedings and declined to exercise its discretion to dismiss the action, finding that defendants had not adequately justified that a dismissal, rather than a stay, was the proper action.

  • Morningstar v. Amazon.com, 23-60367 (5th Cir. Nov. 14, 2023)
    11/14/2023

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed as frivolous his appeal from the district court’s grant of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissal of the case, noting that plaintiff had not shown he was fraudulently induced into agreeing to the arbitration provisions at issue.

  • Next Level Ventures LLC v. Avid Holdings Ltd., 2:23-MC-00052-LK (W.D. Wash. Nov. 14, 2023)
    11/14/2023

    Court denied plaintiff’s application for a writ of execution for the United States Marshal to take possession of and sell certain of defendant’s personal property—including intellectual property, contract rights, or claims of compensation—after court confirmed ICDR award, and defendant appealed the court’s confirmation of the arbitrator’s award without moving for a stay.  Court reasoned that granting a writ of execution would be unjust because plaintiff could in theory purchase the rights at issue through the Marshal’s sale while also destroying the opposing party’s appeal by becoming its owner through enforcement of the very judgment under review.  Court also expressed hesitancy to issue a writ when plaintiff’s application did not specify whether the subject property is located within the state and indicated that the writ would be improper since plaintiff had not given a pre-sale notice to the debtor.

  • City Beverages LLC v. Crown Imports LLC, No. 3:22-CV-05756-DGE (W.D. Wash. Nov. 9, 2023)
    11/09/2023

    Court denied motion for a temporary restraining order preventing transfer of distribution rights until after compensation for the distribution rights had been determined by agreement or arbitration where petitioner failed to establish the likelihood of irreparable damage and that the injunction was in the public interest.

  • La Belle Maison Associates, LLC v. Amrisc LP, No. 2:23-CV-06440-BWA-MBN (E.D. La. Nov. 9, 2023)
    11/09/2023

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings where the insurance policy at issue contained an arbitration clause that fell under the New York Convention and required all claims to be arbitrated in New York.

  • Shenzhen Zongheng Domain Network Co., Ltd. v. Amazon.com Services LLC, No. 1:23-CV-03334-JLR (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2023)
    11/07/2023

    Court denied petition to vacate arbitration award and granted cross-motion to confirm the award where there was no basis to confirm that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law and where there was no public policy ground to vacate the award.

  • Baker Hughes Saudi Arabia Co. Ltd. v. Dynamic Industries, Inc., No. 2:23-CV-01396-GGG-KWR (E.D. La. Nov. 6, 2023)
    11/06/2023

    Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens or to compel arbitration where the parties’ agreed upon arbitration center, the Dubai International Financial Center London Court of International Arbitration, was replaced by the Dubai International Arbitration Center and was therefore no longer available.

  • RSM Production Corp. v. Gaz du Cameroun, S.A., No. 4:22-CV-03611 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2023)
    11/04/2023

    Court granted motion to partially vacate portion of arbitration award reducing recovery by roughly $4 million, and confirm the remaining portions of the award where the tribunal reversed course on a substantive legal issue it previously decided.

  • Allco Finance Limited, Inc. v. Trina Solar (U.S.) Inc., No. 9:23-CV-81111-RLR (S.D. Fla. Nov. 2, 2023)
    11/02/2023

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court found that the parties agreed to arbitrate and the dispute potentially fell within the scope of the arbitration agreements.  Court also found that the arbitration agreements delegated the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator by incorporating the AAA rules.

  • Barcadia Bar & Grill of New Orleans, LLC v. Independent Specialty Insurance Company, No. 2:23-CV-03125-EEF-JVM (E.D. La. Nov. 2, 2023)
    11/02/2023

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that defendants did not waive the arbitration clause because there was no evidence that defendants evinced a desire to resolve the dispute through litigation and because litigation was in its initial stages.  Court also found that the arbitration clause was enforceable under Article II of the New York Convention and Fifth Circuit precedent, although it was not signed by plaintiff.

  • Mayes v. International Markets Live, No. 2:22-CV-01269-TL (W.D. Wash. Nov. 2, 2023)
    11/02/2023

    Court granted, in part, defendants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court found that plaintiff’s claims arising after he signed the arbitration agreement were subject to mandatory arbitration and compelled arbitration of those claims.  Court did not rule on the validity of the arbitration provision, finding that it must be reviewed by arbitrator.

  • Dow Olefinverbund GmbH v. Trinseo Deutschland GmbH, No. 1:23-CV-07794-LAK (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 2023)
    11/01/2023

    Court confirmed ICDR arbitration award pursuant to the New York Convention where respondent failed to respond, finding petitioner had met its burden of demonstrating that the award should be confirmed.

  • Supercooler Technologies, Inc. v. The Coca-Cola Company, No. 6:23-CV-00187-CEM-RMN (M.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2023)
    10/27/2023

    Magistrate judge recommended the court grant in part defendants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Magistrate judge found respondent did not establish clear and unmistakable evidence of the parties’ intent to delegate the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator, because even though the AAA rules were incorporated by reference, there was a further carve-out provision in the agreement.  Magistrate judge determined that some the plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement while others did not and recommended staying the case pending arbitration.

  • GIC Re, India, Corporate Member Limited v. Tyson International Company, Ltd., No. 23-CV-09175-DEH (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2023)
    10/24/2023

    Court granted request for stay of petition to compel arbitration while High Court of England and Wales addressed whether English courts were the appropriate forum to resolve dispute between the parties.

  • The People of the State of Illinois v. Monsanto Company, 1:22-CV-05339 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 24, 2023)
    10/24/2023

    Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion to compel the production of certain documents produced in alternative dispute resolution proceedings in England, Missouri, and California for use in US litigation. Court granted plaintiff’s motion as to English arbitration proceedings, holding that an implied obligation of confidentiality under English law could not serve as a basis for defendant to withhold relevant documents because otherwise international companies could mandate England as the venue for all arbitrations and preclude the production of relevant documents from those proceedings in US litigation. As to the Missouri and California proceedings, court held that mediation privileges in those jurisdictions covered the at-issue proceedings, except that California law did not apply to arbitrations.

  • Fujian Shenda Investment Management Co., Ltd. v. Yunxin, No. 23-CV-05888-SB-BFM (C.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2023)
    10/23/2023

    Court ordered petitioner to show cause why action seeking to confirm foreign arbitral award should not be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction over respondent, an individual residing in China.  Court requested petitioner respond providing authority for its position that the court may consider the objective of the lawsuit, to obtain a judgment and seek enforcement of an award by pursuing proceeds of a real estate sale in California, when analyzing specific jurisdiction.

  • All Premium Contractors, Inc. v. Sunlight Financial LLC, No. 1:23-CV-05059-JLR (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2023)
    10/19/2023

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration under the FAA finding the plain meaning of the parties’ contractual amendments did not render the arbitration agreement void where they expressly maintained all terms in the main body of the agreement.  Court found that the agreement’s broad arbitration agreement may be reasonably reconciled with the forum selection clause by providing exclusive jurisdiction to New York courts for purposes of related litigation.

  • UBS Financial Services Inc. v. Gutiérrez, No. 3:21-CV-01277-GMM (D.P.R. Oct. 18, 2023)
    10/18/2023

    Court denied petitioner’s motion to vacate arbitration award and granted defendants’ cross motion to confirm the award.  While one arbitrator failed to disclose five other legal proceedings in which he brought legal actions against large corporations similar to petitioner, the failure to disclose was insufficient to substantiate impartiality that materially prejudiced the arbitration proceedings.  Court further found that there was no manifest disregard for the law in the tribunal’s grant of a recession remedy where petitioner could not show that the arbitrators acted “intentionally in a manner so outside the realm of reasonable legality.”

  • Bequest Funds, LLC v. Magnolia Financial Group LLC, No. 3:23-CV-00886-B (N.D. Tex. Oct. 17, 2023)
    10/17/2023

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA only with respect to the signatories of the parties’ arbitration agreement.  Court reasoned that non-signatories may only be bound to an arbitration agreement where the parties’ expressed their intent to be bound to the agreement through principles of Texas state law.  Non-signatory defendants did not put forward any argument to show their intent to be bound, and thus the arbitration agreement was not enforceable for them.

  • Noble Prestige Limited v. Galle, No. 22-11520 (11th Cir. Oct. 16, 2023)
    10/16/2023

    Court of appeals found it lacked jurisdiction to review district court’s finding on subject matter jurisdiction over a petition to confirm a foreign arbitral award where its decision only dismissed petitioner’s claims against one respondent but left its claims against other respondents pending.  Court of appeals determined it had jurisdiction to review district court’s temporary restraining order, finding that it was actually a preliminary injunction subject to immediate review.  Court of appeals vacated the district court’s order, finding it violated the prior exclusive jurisdiction doctrine, since a Colorado probate court already exercised exclusive jurisdiction over respondents’ property, and the district court lacked the authority to issue a preliminary injunction freezing respondents’ assets under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.

  • Exclusive Trim, Inc. v. Kastamonu Romania, S.A., No. 23-CV-03410-ALC (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2023)
    10/12/2023

    Court granted petitioner’s petition to confirm and enforce foreign ICDR arbitration award under the New York Convention on the ground that there was no genuine issue of material fact precluding judgment in favor of enforcement, and because respondent neither appeared in the action nor opposed the petition.

  • Strong v. Cashbet Alderney Limited, No. 23-CV-02081-JSC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2023)
    10/11/2023

    Court granted respondents’ motion to dismiss petitioner’s petition to confirm and enforce foreign ICDR arbitration award under the New York Convention on the ground that petitioner lacked Article III standing.  Court found that petitioner failed to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement for Article III standing because the arbitration award was fully satisfied long before the petition was filed.

  • BUA International Limited v. Domtec International LLC, No. 23-CV-00206-DCN (D. Idaho Oct. 11, 2023)
    10/11/2023

    Court granted petitioners’ petition to confirm foreign arbitral award and for an entry of judgment on the ground that respondent failed to explicitly invoke any of the seven grounds for refusal in Article V of the New York Convention, and even those defenses that could be implied were without any showing of proof.

  • Eletson Holdings, Inc. and Eletson Corporation v. Levona Holdings Ltd., No. 23-CV-07331-LJL (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2023)
    10/10/2023

    Court denied respondent’s motion for an order referring the proceeding to enforce a foreign arbitration award to the bankruptcy court on the grounds that respondent is not a debtor or creditor in the bankruptcy proceeding it references; respondent does not contend that the confirmation of an arbitration award is a core proceeding as to which the bankruptcy court has the power to enter a final judgment; and respondent invokes no authority for an Article III court to refer the matter to the bankruptcy court, which does not have Article III powers.

  • BBC Chartering Carriers GMBH & Co. KG v. HSIN Silk Road Shipping Ltd., No. 23-CV-06043-MWF-MRW (C.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2023)
    10/10/2023

    Court ordered petitioner to show cause why action seeking to confirm, recognize, and enforce foreign arbitral award should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution, requesting either respondent respond to the outstanding petition, or petitioner submit an application to enter default.

  • EDE LLC v. Utopia Music AG, No. 23-CV-08015-CM (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2023)
    10/10/2023

    Court found it proper to stay the action pending arbitration even though plaintiffs did not move to stay, because plaintiff’s motion for attachment in aid of arbitration had the same effect as a motion to stay arbitration in that it requires the court maintain jurisdiction of the matter pending a decision on the attachment motion.

  • SinSin Europe Solar Asset Limited Partnership v. SPI Energy Co. Ltd., 2:22-CV-01991-MCE-JDP (E.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2023)
    10/02/2023

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitration awards under the New York Convention.  Court awarded attorneys’ fees to petitioner based on respondent’s refusal to pay valid arbitral awards, forcing petitioners to bring the instant action.  Court declined to order injunctive relief in the form of a worldwide asset freeze until petitioners could show that respondent is refusing to comply with the court’s orders after judgment has been entered.

  • Gresham v. Safeguard Metals, LLC, 2:23-CV-06036-SVW-MRW (C.D. Cal. Sep. 28, 2023)
    09/28/2023

    Court granted petition to confirm an arbitration award pursuant to the FAA where respondents accepted service but declined to respond to the petition.

  • McGuire v. Safeguard Metals, LLC, 2:23-CV-05874-SVW-MRW (C.D. Cal. Sep. 28, 2023)
    09/28/2023

    Court granted petition to confirm an arbitration award pursuant to the FAA where respondents accepted service but declined to respond to the petition.

  • In re: Application of Caterpillar Credito, No. 1:22-MC-00412-GBW (D. Del. Sep. 28, 2023)
    09/28/2023

    Court granted in part an application pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 for leave to serve subpoenas on credit card companies seeking records for use in an action pending in Curaçao court where the statutory factors were met and the discretionary factors weighed in favor of granting discovery.  Court limited petitioner’s use of the records to the Curaçao proceeding and prohibited their use in an ongoing ICC arbitration.  Court denied in part the application where the time requested for the subpoenas was overly broad.

  • Magual v. Dager, No. 1:23-CV-23491-RAR (S.D. Fla. Sep. 27, 2023)
    09/27/2023

    Court granted application to confirm an ICC arbitral award under the Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration, where none of the grounds for refusal or deferral of recognition of the award existed.  Court found that petitioners were entitled to recover their costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in confirming the award, because respondent demonstrated bad faith conduct in his refusal to abide by the award and through his conduct in the ICC arbitration.

  • Fasano v. Li, No. 1:16-CV-08759-KPF (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 27, 2023)
    09/27/2023

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration where plaintiffs did not impliedly or expressly waive their right to arbitrate their common-law claims and there had been almost no litigation on the merits of the dispute.  Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss and stayed the case pending the completion of the arbitration.

  • First Kuwaiti General Trading & Contracting W.L.L. v. Kellogg Brown & Root International, Inc., No. 1:23-MC-00001-AJT-WEF (E.D. Va. Sep. 22, 2023)
    09/22/2023

    Court granted motion to confirm five partial arbitration awards, two joint stipulations, and a final award, finding that the limitations period for confirmation began to run from the date of the final award and therefore, the motion to confirm was timely pursuant to the FAA and the New York Convention.  Court denied interest on the two stipulations where interest was not contemplated by the parties.

  • Global Gaming Philippines, LLC v. Razon, 1:21-CV-02655-LGS-SN (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 12, 2023)
    09/12/2023

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to confirm a foreign arbitral award against debtor defendants and enforce the award against their alleged alter ego without prejudice.  As to personal jurisdiction over the debtor defendants, the court reasoned that neither the doctrine of issue preclusion nor judicial estoppel applied to the arbitral tribunal’s findings as to those defendants’ alleged contacts in New York, an agreement allegedly signed in New York, and a road show that allegedly took place in New York.  Court found there were disputed issues as to whether the defendants transacted business in New York under New York’s long arm statute and whether they were alter egos of the third defendant.  Court held that those two defendants did not consent to personal jurisdiction through the at-issue agreement, and there was no jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2).  As to the third defendant, court held there were disputed issues regarding his status as the alter ego for purposes of enforcing the award and denied cross-motions for summary judgment on that basis.

  • Wallrich v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 1:19-CV-04560 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 12, 2023)
    09/12/2023

    Court granted in part respondent’s motion to dismiss, in part, and held that several petitioners seeking relief under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act failed to plead proper venue.  Court denied respondent’s motion to dismiss as to the remaining petitioners by taking “judicial notice of today’s norm that smartphone users use their smartphone where they live and travel and likely purchased it nearby” and inferring from that fact, plus the pleadings, that those petitioners had established venue.  Court found it had subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim under the New York Convention, since it involved compelling arbitration with a foreign party under a commercial arbitration agreement.  Court granted petitioners’ motion to compel arbitration, as to the properly-venued petitioners, finding that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate with a scope covering the dispute, and that respondent had refused to arbitrate by refusing to pay administrative fees owed to AAA.  Court further ordered respondent to pay the fees owed to AAA.

  • Office Create Corporation v. Planet Entertainment, LLC, 1:22-CV-08848-ER (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 11, 2023)
    09/11/2023

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitral award and denied respondents’ cross-petition to vacate the award pursuant to the FAA and New York Convention.  Court found that respondents’ arguments did not fit within the limited circumstances in which the court may vacate the award because the award was the product of the parties’ agreements to submit to arbitration; the parties were represented by counsel and actively participated in the arbitration; and the tribunal’s award as to both jurisdiction and the merits were based on detailed reasoning that did not constitute a manifest disregard of the law.

  • Salzgitter Mannesmann International (USA) Inc. v. Esmark, Inc., 3:22-CV-00030 (S.D. Tex. Sep. 11, 2023)
    09/11/2023

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award and denied respondents’ motion to vacate the arbitration award under the New York Convention.  Court held that the disclosure by one of the arbitrators of his daughter’s employment as a non-lawyer at the law firm representing the petitioner did not constitute a significant compromising relationship; and the arbitration panel did not display actual bias through its decisions made during the final hearing.  Court also rejected one respondent’s argument that the award could not be enforced because the final award listed the name of an entity different from the name of respondent, reasoning that a technical defect in an arbitration award, such as misnaming a party, does not prevent confirmation of the award.

  • Terris v. Sprint Corporation, 8:23-CV-01033-WFJ-AAS (M.D. Fla. Sep. 11, 2023)
    09/11/2023

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that it had waived its arbitration rights by demonstrating a clear intent to litigate prior to asserting any arbitration rights.  Court acknowledged that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., cast doubt on the import of prejudice in the Eleventh Circuit’s test for waiver of arbitration rights, but nonetheless found that plaintiff was prejudiced by defendant’s belated assertion of arbitration rights.

  • Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A. v. Republic of Haiti, No. 22-CV-07503-PKC (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2023)
    09/07/2023

    Court denied respondent’s motion for stay of enforcement of arbitration award pending appeal, finding that respondent did not make a strong showing that its appeal was likely to succeed on the merits; respondent did not demonstrate it would suffer irreparable injury absent a stay pending appeal; there was little likelihood of substantial injury to nonmoving party; and public policy considerations did not weigh in favor of stay.  Court granted respondent a temporary administrative stay of fourteen days to allow it to seek relief under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a).

  • Telecom Business Solution, LLC v. Terra Towers Corp., No. 22-CV-1761-LAK (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 6, 2023)
    09/06/2023

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award and denied respondents’ cross-petition to vacate the award pursuant to the FAA, finding that the tribunal did not manifestly disregard the law; respondents failed to identify any evidence that they were prevented from presenting in the arbitration and likewise failed to establish any misconduct by the tribunal that rendered the arbitration fundamentally unfair; the tribunal did not exceed its scope of powers; and the arbitration award was not the product of “evident partiality” of the tribunal.

  • FG Hemisphere Associates, LLC v. Democratic Republic of Congo, 22-CV-02369-PJM (D. Md. Sept. 5, 2023)
    09/05/2023

    Court denied motion to dismiss complaint seeking, among other things, that a constructive trust be imposed upon certain assets of defendants for the execution on two judgments arising out of International Court of Arbitration awards.  Court found that plaintiff had standing; there was no statute of limitations issue on the face of the complaint; and plaintiff pleaded sufficient facts to permit defendants to respond and for the case to go forward.  Court granted motion for writ of attachment before judgment, finding that plaintiff was entitled to attachment before judgment and was not required to proceed by way of garnishment pursuant to Maryland law.

  • United States v. Water Quality Insurance Syndicate, No. 8:22-CV-02158-TBP-CPT (M.D. Fla. Aug. 31, 2023)
    08/31/2023

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the New York Convention, finding the non-signatory defendant was a party to an arbitration agreement through the “direct benefits estoppel” theory.  Defendant sought payment and indemnity under the contract containing an arbitration agreement between the vessel operator and insurer, thus embracing the contract, and consenting to arbitration.  Considering the binding arbitration agreement, court denied third party defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding it more appropriate to stay the proceedings pending arbitration.

  • W.J. Deutsch & Sons Ltd. v. Diego Zamora S.A., No. 1:21-CV-11003-LTS (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2023)
    08/30/2023

    Court granted petitioner’s motion for alternative service nunc pro tunc, finding previous attempts to serve the respondent by email, certified mail, Federal Express, and the Spanish Central Authority, were not prohibited by international agreement and comported with constitutional notions of due process.  Court also granted respondents’ motion to dismiss and denied petitioner’s application to vacate the parties’ arbitration award, where there was no evidence to show the arbitral tribunal ignored principles of collateral estoppel in issuing its award.

  • Ivan v. Interactive Brokers LLC, No. 22-CV-03999-LTS (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2023)
    08/25/2023

    Court denied petitioners motion to vacate FINRA arbitration award finding petitioners’ arguments unavailing that the arbitrator exceeded its authority and violated public policy, failed to provide for fundamental fairness during the proceedings, and acted in manifest disregard of the law.  Court granted respondent’s cross-motion to confirm the award under the New York Convention.

  • Athene Holding Ltd. v. Dang, No. 1:23-MC-00171-JHR-SLC (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2023)
    08/21/2023

    Magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part an application for discovery pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 seeking documents and records from three arbitration proceedings and an action in New York Supreme Court for use in a civil action in Bermuda.  The magistrate judge ordered the parties to meet and confer to determine which documents and testimony are relevant to the claims in Bermuda.

  • Fitzgerald v. Wildcat, Sr., No. 3:20-CV-00044-NKM-JCH (W.D. Va. Aug. 18, 2023)
    08/18/2023

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration finding that a valid arbitration agreement did not exist pursuant to the FAA where loan agreements waived all state substantive rights and remedies in violation of public policy.  Although there was a clause delegating questions of arbitrability to arbitration, the court assessed the enforceability of the delegation clause given plaintiff’s challenge to its validity.

  • Andes Petroleum Ecuador Ltd. v. Occidental Exploration and Production Co., No. 21-3039 (2d. Cir. Aug. 18, 2023)
    08/18/2023

    Court of appeals affirmed judgment of district court in part and vacated in part.  Court of appeals upheld district court’s confirmation of the arbitration award as there was no evidence in the record that an arbitrator’s nondisclosure of a professional connection to petitioner’s counsel from an unrelated prior arbitration and arbitration conferences interfered with the composition of the arbitral authority.  Court of appeals vacated the district court’s award of pre-judgment interest because it was not confident that the district court accurately calculated the compound interest.

  • Grupo Unidos Por El Candel S.A. v. Autoridad Del Canal de Panama, No. 21-14408 (11th Cir. Aug. 18, 2023)
    08/18/2023

    Court of appeals affirmed the denial of vacatur under Chapter of the FAA and the confirmation of two arbitral awards under the New York Convention where arbitrators failed to disclose their involvement in unrelated arbitrations.  Court of appeals agreed with the district court that the losing party presented nothing near the high threshold required for vacatur.

  • In re Application of Alpene, Ltd. for an order directing discovery from McGaul pursuant to 28 USC § 1782, No. 1:21-MC-02547-MKB-RML (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2023)
    08/15/2023

    Court adopted magistrate judge’s order quashing and granting a protective order as to petitioner’s discovery requests for use in an ICSID arbitration pursuant to 28 USC § 1782.  Court found that the ICSID arbitration panel did not qualify as a foreign or international tribunal within the meaning of § 1782, so petitioner was not entitled to seek discovery.

  • Keller North America, Inc. and Hampton Roads Connector Partners v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, No. 23-CV-00056-MSD-LRL (E.D. Va. Aug. 15, 2023)
    08/15/2023

    Court granted defendants’ motion to stay and compel arbitration finding that Virginia’s McCarran-Ferguson Act, which prohibits enforcement of arbitration agreements in insurance contracts, does not apply to cases involving arbitration agreements with foreign parties that are subject to the New York Convention, and therefore, arbitration was the appropriate venue.

  • Assuranceforeningen Skuld (Gjensidig) and Skuld Mutual Protection and Indemnity Association (Bermuda) Ltd. v. M&F Fishing, Inc., No. 2:23-CV-00960-JCM-BNW (D. Nev. Aug. 11, 2023)
    08/11/2023

    Court granted petition to confirm foreign arbitral award pursuant to the New York Convention, finding that none of the grounds for refusal or deferral of recognition of the award existed and concluding that respondent’s failure to oppose the petition constituted consent to granting the motion under the court’s local rules.

  • Pezold v. Republic of Zimbabwe, No. 21-CV-02004-APM (D.D.C. Aug. 9, 2023)
    08/09/2023

    Court denied Zimbabwe’s motions to dismiss petitioner’s action to recognize ICSID arbitration awards, finding that it had subject matter jurisdiction where none of the FSIA exceptions applied to Zimbabwe, forum non conveniens was inapplicable in an action to enforce arbitral awards against a foreign nation, Zimbabwe was not able to show that petitioners failed to state a claim, and the petitioners were able to demonstrate standing.  Court requested a briefing schedule for the parties’ summary judgment motions, prior to deciding the enforcement issue.

  • DAK Property Holdings, Inc. v. Independent Specialty Insurance Company, No. 2:23-CV-00497-SPC-KCD (M.D. Fla. Aug. 8, 2023)
    08/08/2023

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the New York Convention, finding plaintiff had not shown the parties’ agreement was null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed.  Court further stayed the proceedings pending arbitration.

  • Compagnie Des Grands Hôtels D’Afrique S.A., v. Starman Hotel Holdings LLC and Starwood Capital Group Global I, No. 1:18-CV-00654-SB-SRF (D. Del. Aug. 8, 2023)
    08/08/2023

    Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiff did not sufficiently justify the extreme remedy of veil piercing to recover its arbitral award.

  • Shenzhen Zongheng Domain Network Co., Ltd. v. Amazon.com Services LLC, No. 1:23-CV-03334-JLR (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2023)
    08/04/2023

    Court denied petitioner’s motion to remand the case to state court, finding that the court had subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 9 USC § 203, because petitioner is a Chinese company with its principal place of business in China, and thus the dispute is not “entirely domestic.”

  • Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty SE v. HBC US Holdings Inc., No. 1:23-CV-00553-JLR (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2023)
    08/04/2023

    Court granted the petition to appoint an umpire in pending arbitration, pursuant to the FAA and appointed a neutral umpire.

  • Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Alkermes PLC., No. 1:23-CV-00223-NRM (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2023)
    08/04/2023

    Court denied plaintiff’s petition to modify arbitration award in part and confirmed the award in its entirety.  Court found plaintiff’s argument that the tribunal manifestly disregarded applicable and preemptive federal law unpersuasive citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Hall St. Assocs., LLC v. Mattel, Inc., which cast doubt on the viability of the manifest disregard doctrine.  Further, the court concluded that while the Second Circuit has recognized the doctrine, it has done so only as a basis for vacatur, not modification.

  • SolarPark Korea Co., Ltd. v. Solaria Corporation, No. 3:23-CV-01181-AMO (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2023)
    08/02/2023

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction enjoining defendants from using, or providing access to, plaintiff’s trade secrets, but denied plaintiff’s motion to enjoin allegedly defamatory speech.  Court granted defendants’ motion to stay the litigation pending arbitration.  The court concluded that it could consider the merits of the motions because the parties’ arbitration agreement provides an exception to arbitration for certain claims of equitable relief, such as the injunctions sought by plaintiff for trade secret misappropriation and defamation.  Court found that plaintiff properly brought claims to the court that were not within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and thus, dismissal was not warranted, but issued a stay pending arbitration.

  • Hidroeléctrica Santa Rita, S.A., v. Corporación AIC, S.A., No. 1:21-CV-23807-RNS (S.D. Fla. July 28, 2023)
    07/28/2023

    Court granted plaintiff’s petition to confirm an arbitration award under the Inter-American Convention, applying the New York Convention’s case law to interpret its provisions.  Court applied § 208 of the FAA to determine that defendants failed to overcome the high hurdle required for vacatur of an arbitration award on the basis that arbitrators exceeded their powers.

  • Lee Construction, LLC v. Bratton, 1:22-CV-00196-CEA-SKL (E.D. Tenn. Jul. 28, 2023)
    07/28/2023

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff waived its right to arbitration by commencing the litigation.  Under the Morgan v. Sundance analysis set forth by the Supreme Court, court held that by filing this litigation without mentioning arbitration in the complaint, plaintiff “demonstrated a clear and unequivocal intent to disregard the arbitration agreement” and waived the ability to compel arbitration.

  • Kora Pack Private Limited v. Motivating Graphics LLC, No. 4:22-CV-00377-BP (N.D. Tex. July 27, 2023)
    07/27/2023

    Court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, holding that having strategically declined to participate in arbitration, waiting nearly twenty months after the selection of arbitrators was too late to object to the manner of appointment.  Court granted plaintiff’s motion to enforce an arbitration award under the NY Convention’s secondary jurisdiction, finding that defendants objected to the composition of the arbitration panel too late, failed to show the arbitration agreement was invalid as a matter of law, and failed to show that the award either exceeded the scope of the agreement or was contrary to US public policy.

  • Seifert v. United Built Homes, LLC, No. 3:22-CV-01360-E (N.D. Tex. July 27, 2023)
    07/27/2023

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding a valid agreement to arbitrate and a valid delegation clause under the FAA.  Court found that defendant’s issuing a notice of default did not meet the Fifth Circuit’s requirements for waiver of arbitration because it did not inflict prejudice or detriment on the opposing party.

  • Sgromo v. Scott, No. 22-15199 (9th Cir. July 24, 2023)
    07/24/2023

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s judgment confirming the arbitration award pursuant to the FAA.  Court of appeals held that the district court properly determined that the motion to vacate was time-barred under 9 USC § 12.  Because the award was not vacated, modified, or corrected, court of appeals held that the district court properly granted the motion to confirm the arbitration award.

  • Rabinowitz v. Kelman, No. 22-1747 (2d Cir. July 24, 2023)
    07/24/2023

    Court of appeals vacated district court’s dismissal of petition to confirm arbitral award and remanded for further proceedings. Court of appeals found the petition adequately pleaded subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship and that the forum selection clause in the parties’ arbitration agreement did not bar the action from proceeding in federal court.

  • Navajo Transitional Energy Company, LLC v. BNSF Railway Company, No. 22-CV-00146-SPW-KLD (D. Mont. July 24, 2023)
    07/24/2023

    Magistrate judge recommended granting a motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings pending arbitration pursuant to the FAA, concluding that because the two agreements between the parties, only one of which included an arbitration clause, were closely intertwined and operationally linked, plaintiff’s broad allegations necessarily involved the agreement with the arbitration clause.

  • Jiangsu Beier Decoration Materials Co., Ltd. v. Angle World LLC, No. 21-CV-02845-AB (E.D. Pa. July 18, 2023
    07/18/2023

    Court denied petition to confirm the CIETAC arbitral award and dismissed the case, finding arbitration agreement was unsigned between the parties and that petitioner had not established an “exchange of letters” had occurred agreeing to an arbitration clause, a prerequisite for enforcement under the New York Convention.

  • Zhongzhi Hi-Tech Overseas Investment Ltd. v. Wenyong Shi, No. 22-CV-06977-LAP (S.D.N.Y. July 17, 2023
    07/17/2023

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss petition to confirm and enforce foreign arbitral award and for entry of judgment, finding petitioner failed to make a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction over respondent and that it would be futile to permit petitioner to amend his petition.

  • Zaklady Farmaceutycyne Polpharma, S.A. v. Kartha Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 3:21-CV-00133-MOC-DCK (W.D.N.C. July 14, 2023)
    07/14/2023

    Court granted motion to enforce arbitration award pursuant to the New York Convention where none of the grounds for refusing to confirm the award applied to the case.  Court also dismissed the case with prejudice, since plaintiff had no claims pending before the court other than its request for a preliminary injunction, which became moot with the award.

  • Baker Hughes Services International, LLC v. Joshi Technologies International, Inc., No. 21-5072 (10th Cir. July 13, 2023)
    07/13/2023

    Court of appeals affirmed in part order enforcing a foreign arbitral award in favor of plaintiff pursuant to the New York Convention.  Court of appeals rejected defendant’s arguments that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the parties never agreed to arbitrate their dispute, and the district court improperly awarded the attorney’s fees.  Court of appeals vacated and remanded for reconsideration district’s court award of prejudgment interest.

  • Norkunas v. PayPal, Inc., No. 1:22-CV-05695-KMW-EAP (D.N.J. July 12, 2023)
    07/12/2023

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court found that the parties’ arbitration agreement was a valid and enforceable clickwrap agreement and that plaintiff’s claims fell squarely within the scope of the arbitration agreement.  Court stayed the case pending arbitration.

  • Olin Holdings Limited v. State of Libya, No. 22-825 (2d Cir. July 12, 2023)
    07/12/2023

    Court of appeals affirmed order granting petition to confirm ICC arbitration award pursuant to the New York Convention.  Court of appeals found that Libya was not entitled to de novo review of the arbitrability of petitioner’s claim before confirmation of the award because it clearly and unmistakably agreed to submit questions of arbitrability to the arbitrators by signing a treaty providing for the option of resolving disputes under the ICC rules.

  • Amadeaus IT Group, S.A. v. Ebix, Inc., No. 1:22-CV-04109-SEG (N.D. Ga. July 10, 2023)
    07/10/2023

    Court entered judgment on a petition to confirm arbitral award, finding the awarded interest did not apply to the costs and fees portion of the award. Court applied interest to the principal damages component of the award and calculated the total amount in US dollars using the European Central Bank’s rate, because it was the rate adopted by the tribunal in the award.

  • Bayron-Paz v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and B&Z Auto Enterprises, LLC d/b/a DBA Eastchester, No. 1:22-CV-06122-DLC (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2023)
    07/07/2023

    Court granted petitioners’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding that the contract between the parties contained an agreement to arbitrate.  Court rejected the argument that a valid arbitration agreement did not exist because respondent was prevented from reading the contract before signing it.  Court also rejected respondent’s argument that petitioners had waived their right to compel arbitration.  Court stayed the case pending arbitration.

  • Prodigy Finance CM2021-1 DAC v. Sohi, No. 5:23-CV-00840-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2023)
    07/07/2023

    Court granted petition to confirm a foreign arbitral award pursuant to the New York Convention.  Court found that none of the grounds for refusal or deferral of recognition of the award existed.

  • Endurance Specialty Insurance Limited v. Horseshoe Re Limited, No. 23-CV-01831-JGK (S.D.N.Y. July 5, 2023)
    07/05/2023

    Court denied motion to remand petition to remove presiding arbitrator for bias, finding that it had federal subject matter jurisdiction over the action pursuant to § 203 of the FAA.  Court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a claim, finding that the court was without authority to remove a sitting arbitrator in an arbitration proceeding under Bermuda procedural law, and in any event, the petition failed on the merits.

  • 6101 Tullis Drive, LLC v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, No. 23-CV-01314-SM-DPC (E.D. La. June 30, 2023)
    06/30/2023

    Court granted motion to reconsider order denying motion to compel arbitration and underlying motion, finding that (i) the New York Convention’s requirement to arbitrate superseded local rule requirement that the parties participate in the court’s settlement program and that (ii) the four criteria in the New York Convention requiring the court to enforce the arbitration clause in the parties’ contract were met.  Court also stayed the matter pending arbitration.

  • Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A. v. Republic of Haiti, Bureau de Monétisation des Programmes d’Aide au Développement, No. 1:22-CV-07503-PKC (S.D.N.Y. June 29, 2023)
    06/29/2023

    Court confirmed petitioner’s foreign arbitral award against respondents under the New York Convention and denied respondents’ cross-motion to dismiss or vacate the award.  Court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the Bureau under 28 USC §§ 1605(a)(1), (a)(6) and determined Haiti was not entitled to FSIA immunity.  Court had personal jurisdiction over respondents under FSIA’s service rules.

  • Citigroup Inc. v. Sayeg, No. 1:21-CV-10413-JPC (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2023)
    06/26/2023

    Court confirmed petitioner’s unopposed motion to confirm a final arbitration award.  Court considered the Panama Convention’s grounds for recognition refusal, as petitioner is a US corporation and respondent is a Mexican citizen, finding none of the refusal grounds applied.  Court also found no grounds for vacatur under § 10(a) of the FAA.

  • MSK Covertech, Inc. v. Fevisa Industrial, S.A. de C.V., No. 3:23-CV-00741-DMS-MSB (S.D. Cal. June 26, 2023)
    06/26/2023

    Court partially granted plaintiff’s request for a letter rogatory seeking international assistance to serve Mexican defendant with notice of an application for confirmation of arbitration award.  Court found a letter rogatory appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(1) and the Hague Service Convention but ordered plaintiff to amend the proposed letter prior to issuance.

  • Trithorn Bulk A/S v. Duron Capital LLC, No. 1:22-CV-09628-JPC (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2023)
    06/23/2023

    Court confirmed unopposed arbitration award, finding the parties’ contract satisfied New York Convention’s jurisdictional requirements and no genuine issue of material fact precluded confirmation.  Court also considered potential defenses and grounds for vacatur, finding nothing in the record precluded confirmation of the arbitral award.

  • Pereira v. Nucor Corporation, No. 3:23-MC-00024-FDW-SCR (W.D.N.C. June 22, 2023)
    06/22/2023

    Court denied petitioner’s 28 USC § 1782 discovery application, finding that, pursuant to the parties’ binding arbitration, the evidence requested would be used in a private foreign arbitration, not a before a “foreign tribunal” as required by § 1782.  Court also considered discretionary factors in denying petitioner’s application, including that the party from whom discovery was being sought is a party to the proceeding and petitioner was attempting to collect pretrial discovery that would be barred under Brazilian law.

  • Jones v. AT&T Mobility Services, LLC, No. 1:21-CV-04600 (N.D. Ill. June 22, 2023)
    06/22/2023

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending arbitration.  Court rejected plaintiff’s contention that the agreement to arbitrate was not valid because plaintiff did not know what she was agreeing to when she electronically signed the arbitration agreement.

  • Yegiazaryan v. Smagin, No. 22-381 (S. Ct. June 22, 2023)
    06/22/2023

    The Supreme Court found that foreign defendant’s alleged injury—his inability to collect judgment on his arbitration award—was sufficient to establish a domestic injury as required for private civil RICO suits.  Supreme Court held that “a plaintiff has alleged a domestic injury for purposes of [RICO] when the circumstances surrounding the injury indicate it arose in the United States,” and that defendant’s allegation “that he was injured in California because his ability to enforce a California judgment in California against a California resident was impaired by racketeering activity that largely occurred in or was directed from and targeted at California” was sufficient to state a domestic injury.

  • Amadeaus IT Group, S.A. v. Ebix, Inc., No. 1:22-CV-04109-SEG (N.D. Ga. June 22, 2023)
    06/22/2023

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award under the New York Convention, finding that the underlying arbitral award did not exceed the scope of the arbitration agreement by awarding costs and fees to petitioner. Court declined to grant attorneys fees in connection with the petition to confirm the award and directed petitioner to submit further briefing to clarify whether the interest it was awarded applied to the costs and fees portion of the arbitration award.

  • OnPointe Community Care LV LLC v. Charter Health Holdings, Inc., No. 2:22-CV-01235-GMN-DJA (D. Nev. June 20, 2023)
    06/20/2023

    Court deferred ruling on defendant’s motion to enforce review and dispute procedure, finding that it would be premature to decide plaintiff’s condition precedent argument because defendant seemingly agreed to resolve the issue by completing the necessary conditions precedent to utilize the contracted arbitration provision.

  • Park West Galleries, Inc., v. ALP, Inc., No. 2:20-CV-11603-DPH-PSW (E.D. Mich. June 15, 2023)
    06/15/2023

    Court granted defendant’s motion to confirm arbitration award pursuant to the FAA finding the arbitrator did not engage in misconduct in his review and interpretation the parties’ settlement agreement and court was prohibited from reviewing the merits of the award. 

  • Andes Petroleum Ecuador Ltd. v. Occidental Exploration and Production Company, No. 21-3039 (2d Cir. June 15, 2023)
    06/15/2023

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s confirmation of an arbitral award, holding that the alleged undisclosed partiality of one of the arbitrators was not supported by the evidence and therefore, did not violate the FAA.  Court of appeals also applied the New York Convention in determining that there was no evidence the arbitrator’s alleged partiality “interfered with the ‘composition’ of the arbitral authority.” Court of appeals vacated the district court’s calculation of pre-judgment interest and remanded for the court to adequately explain its calculation.

  • United States v. PetroSaudi Oil Services (Venezuela) Ltd., No. 21-56228 (9th Cir. June 13, 2023)
    06/13/2023

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s order authorizing the seizure of any money released from an arbitration award fund held in an account controlled by a UK court on the grounds that it derived from illegal proceeds.  Court rejected defendant’s arguments that the FSIA and prior exclusive jurisdiction doctrine precluded the district court from exercising jurisdiction over the arbitration award fund.  Court of appeals further found that the district court had in rem jurisdiction over the fund and could issue a protective order requiring defendant to deposit funds from the arbitration award fund with the court.

  • Wanahao North America, LLC v. Zhejiang Weibin San Wei Technology Co. Ltd., No. 5:23-CV-00509-F (W.D. Okla. June 12, 2023)
    06/12/2023

    Court directed plaintiff to submit an amended petition to confirm an arbitration award under the New York Convention articulating sufficient allegations to rely on diversity jurisdiction by identifying each of its members, the state of citizenship of those members, and location of defendant’s principal place of business.

  • Industrial Access Inc. v. Praetorian Holdings Group LLC, No. 1:22-CV-00626-JLS-MJR (W.D.N.Y. June 6, 2023)
    06/06/2023

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA in a breach of contract action, finding that the parties did not have an enforceable and mandatory agreement to arbitrate.  Court agreed with plaintiff that it was the court and not the arbitrator who must make the threshold determination of arbitrability.  Court granted plaintiff’s cross-motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent arbitration from proceeding.

  • Antoine’s Restaurant, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, No. 2:23-CV-00229-WBV-KWR (E.D. La. June 1, 2023)
    06/01/2023

    Court denied a motion for reconsideration of order and reasons and, in the alternative, a motion to stay arbitration pending judgment by the Fifth Circuit of related decisions, filed after the same court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the New York Convention.  Court found plaintiffs’ argument that there was split authority in the district on enforcement of arbitration provisions in insurance contracts unpersuasive.

  • Ainstein AI, Inc. v. ADAC Plastics, Inc., No. 2:23-CV-11273-SMJ-KGA (D. Kan. May 31, 2023)
    05/31/2023

    Court granted defendant’s motion to transfer venue based on an arbitration agreement, finding that a carveout for certain equitable relief and references to waiver of jury trial in the parties’ agreement did not undermine the fundamental agreement to arbitrate.  Because the Tenth Circuit holds that only district courts in the forum identified in the parties’ agreement have authority to compel arbitration, the court transferred the case to the district identified in the agreement.

  • Elk Energy Holdings, LLC v. Lippelmann Partners, LLC, No. 6:22-CV-01057-DDC-KGG (D. Kan. May 31, 2023)
    05/31/2023

    Court granted in part defendants’ joint motion to dismiss based on an existing agreement’s arbitration clause, finding that, even in the face of fraudulent inducement claims, the enforceability of the contract was a question for the arbitrator.

  • Spinx Games, Ltd. v. Viel, No. 3:23-CV-01337-WHO (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2023)
    05/31/2023

    Court denied cross-motions to compel arbitration where both defendants agreed to the arbitrability of the dispute, but could not agree on location.  Defendant wished for combined arbitration in San Francisco, which was identified in the agreement’s venue provision, but the claims were filed with the AAA in five different states, and neither party inquired of AAA whether virtual hearings were possible.  Court found that, as the claims had been filed with AAA in other states, it had no jurisdiction and defendant would need to go to the arbitrators or district court in each of those states to enforce the venue provisions in the agreement.

  • Mousebelt Labs Pte. Ltd. v. Armstrong, No. 4:22-CV-04847-JST (N.D. Cal. May 24, 2023)
    05/24/2023

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the New York Convention, finding defendants had not waived their right to arbitration by participating in state court litigation on the merits, because defendants previously lacked knowledge of a right to arbitrate.  Court also found the relationship between the parties justified equitably estopping plaintiff from repudiating the arbitration clause and required plaintiff to arbitrate its claims.

  • In re Application of Caterpillar Crédito, Sociedad Anónima de Capital Variable, No. 1:22-MC-00273-JGK-BCM (S.D.N.Y. May 24, 2023)
    05/24/2023

    Magistrate judge recommended that application to serve a subpoena pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 seeking records for use in a proceeding pending before the Court of First Instance of Curaçao be granted in part.  The magistrate found that it need not determine whether the records would establish the proof necessary under foreign law, but only needed to determine whether the applicant demonstrated that the sought-after materials could be made use of in the foreign proceeding to increase its chances of success.  The magistrate held that applicant had established the required de minimis showing of relevance.

  • Commissions Import Export S.A. v. Republic of the Congo and Ecree LLC, 19-MC-00195-KPF (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2023)
    05/23/2023

    Court granted the Republic of the Congo’s (“Republic”) motion to dismiss a petition for the turnover of property brought by judgment creditors premised on two arbitration awards.  Court reasoned that it did not have ancillary jurisdiction over the case because the judgment creditors did not sufficiently allege that the Republic fraudulently conveyed the property in question in order to avoid the judgments.  Court found further that dismissal was appropriate because the at-issue property was immune from execution under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act.

  • Green Enterprises, LLC v. Hiscox Syndicates Limited at Lloyd’s of London, No. 21-1542 (1st Cir. May 19, 2023)
    05/19/2023

    Court of appeals upheld the district court’s grant of a motion to compel arbitration, holding that the New York Convention limits the applicability of a Puerto Rican state law that “renders unenforceable any provision in an insurance policy that would channel the resolution of a coverage dispute to a forum other than the courts.”  Court of appeals reasoned that Article II(3) of the New York Convention is self-executing based on the plain text and the treaty’s ratification history, and it therefore preempts the Puerto Rican law.  Court of appeals also determined that the at-issue arbitration agreement was not “incapable of being performed” on public policy grounds.

  • Bright v. Brookdale Senior Living, Inc., No. 3:19-CV-00374 (M.D. Tenn. May 18, 2023
    05/18/2023

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding a power of attorney did not authorize the plaintiff to waive a trial by jury, so it did not authorize plaintiff to agree to binding arbitration.

  • Stephenson v. Rackspace Technology, Inc., 22-CV-01296-XR (W.D. Tex. May 18, 2023)
    05/18/2023

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel individual arbitration and dismiss the consolidated, putative class action cases arising from a cybersecurity incident.  Court found that the arbitration agreement was enforceable because plaintiffs continued use of defendant’s services was sufficient evidence of an intent to be bound by the terms of the agreement, and the contract was not the result of economic duress, was not unconscionable or illusory, and did not preclude injunctive relief, and because an arbitration forum would not be prohibitively costly.  Court also held that any questions concerning the arbitrability of the claims are reserved for the arbitrator.

  • T.T. International Co., LTD. v. BMP International, Inc., No. 22-CV-01876-WFJ-JSS (M.D. Fla. May 15, 2023
    05/15/2023

    Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration, finding that defendants waived any right to arbitration that they might have had under the agreement at issue by waiting until judgment had been entered in a related action and participating in three years of litigation prior to seeking to compel arbitration.

  • Valores Munidales, S.L. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 19-CV-00046-ACR-RMM (D.D.C. May 15, 2023
    05/15/2023

    Court granted, without objection, Venezuela’s motion to set aside default judgment and granted petitioners’ motion for summary judgment to confirm an ICSID arbitration award issued against Venezuela.  Court found that the ICSID annulment committee did not violate Venezuela’s right to be heard by declining to recognize a representative of the Guaidó government in the annulment proceedings and therefore, no due process violation occurred.  Court further found that in enforcing the award, it was not recognizing any regime as the current official government of Venezuela.

  • Generali España de Seguros y Reaseguros, S.A. v. Speedier Shipping, Inc., No. 22-1150 (2d Cir. May 11, 2023)
    05/11/2023

    Court of appeals affirmed order enforcing two foreign arbitration awards in favor of petitioner-appellee pursuant to the New York Convention.  Court of appeals rejected appellant’s arguments that it was not a party to the governing agreement and that the arbitration violated appellant’s due process rights.

  • Bach v. The Andersons, Inc., No. 5:22-CV-00226-KKC (E.D. Ky. May 8, 2023)
    05/08/2023

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA in a breach of contract action, finding that the parties had a valid agreement to arbitrate and the dispute fell within the scope of arbitration.  Court stayed the case pending arbitration.

  • Republic of Guatemala v. IC Power Asia Development LTD., No. 22-CV-00394-CM-JW (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2023)
    05/05/2023

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to compel post-judgment discovery requests in connection with an arbitration award recognized pursuant to the FAA and the New York Convention.  Court found that documents requested by petitioner clearly fell within the wide range of permitted post-judgment discovery, as they related to the assets and liabilities of the judgment creditor.  Court also granted petitioner’s request for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in making the motion to compel pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

  • Alacrity Solutions Group, LLC v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Company, No. 23-CV-0074-SDD-EWD (M.D. La. May 4, 2023)
    05/04/2023

    Court granted petition to compel arbitration, finding that parties had a valid agreement to arbitrate and the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.  Court rejected respondent’s argument that the arbitration provision was invalidated under Louisiana insurance law, finding that the agreement in question was not an insurance contract but a services contract relating to insurance.

  • MSK Covertech, Inc. v. Fevisa Industrial, S.A. de C.V., No. 23-CV-00741-DMS-MSB (S.D. Cal. May 4, 2023)
    05/04/2023

    Court denied requests to file under seal petition to confirm foreign arbitration award and ex parte application for preliminary relief, finding that plaintiff articulated no compelling reason to justify sealing the filings.  Court rejected plaintiff’s conclusory argument that the filings should be sealed as they contain information that defendant alleged or may allege constitutes trade secret and proprietary information, because to overcome the strong presumption in favor of access, plaintiff must specify the trade secrets and proprietary information contained within the filings and articulate how their public disclosure might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.

  • DotC United, Inc. v. Google Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd., No. 22-CV-04990-JSC (N.D. Cal. May 1, 2023)
    05/01/2023

    Court found that, where the parties did not agree to submit the arbitrability question to arbitration, the standard of review of an arbitration panel’s jurisdictional finding is “independent review” and not clear error, without deference to the panel’s findings.  In addition, court found that federal substantive law governed the arbitrability question in this action brought under the New York Convention given the need for uniformity in the application of international arbitration agreements.  Court further found that the Federal Rules of Evidence governed the court’s determination of arbitrability.

  • The Pointe on Westshore, LLC v. Certain Underwriters of Lloyd’s London, No. 22-CV-02478-KKM-SPF (M.D. Fla. Apr. 27, 2023)
    04/27/2023

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the requirements of the New York Convention were satisfied and that service-of-suit clause amendments did not repeal the arbitration agreement between the parties.  Court also held that plaintiff’s request for preliminary relief prohibiting defendants from appointing arbitrator was not before the court because plaintiff never moved for a preliminary injunction, and even if it was, the court would deny it because plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on the merits. 

  • Polska Fundacja Narodowa v. Athlete Benefits Group, LLC, No. 22-CV-05725-LGS (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2023)
    04/21/2023

    Court confirmed a foreign arbitral award, finding respondents did not meet their burden of proving any defenses to enforcement under Art. V of the New York Convention.  Court found respondents failed to show that the signatures of the engagement agreement were altered, that petitioner’s action was untimely, that petitioner executed a settlement agreement, that the arbitrator was unqualified, or that the COVID-19 pandemic impacted service.

  • Amadeaus IT Group, S.A. v. Ebix, Inc., No. 1:22-CV-04109-SEG (N.D. Ga. Apr. 18, 2023)
    04/18/2023

    Court granted respondent’s motion to set aside a default judgment, holding that: respondent did not willfully default; petitioner would not suffer any prejudice from respondent’s failure to timely respond to a summons and rejected petitioner’s argument that respondent had unlawfully retained approximately $15 million of its money deriving from an arbitral award for more than three years; and respondent had potentially meritorious defenses to the underlying substantive claims, which were premised on contentions that the arbitrators exceeded their authority under ICC rules, and the award exceeded the scope of the arbitration agreement under the New York Convention.

  • Iraq Telecom Limited v. IBL Bank S.A.L., No. 22-832 (2d Cir. Apr. 17, 2023)
    04/17/2023

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order denying petition to stay enforcement of arbitral award pursuant to the New York Convention, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioner’s motion despite an ongoing annulment proceeding in Lebanon.

  • Corporación AIC, SA v. Hidroeléctrica Santa Rita S.A., No. 20-13039 (11th Cir. April 13, 2023)
    04/13/2023

    Court of appeals sitting en banc vacated and remanded district court’s determination that it could not vacate an arbitration award on the grounds that the tribunal exceeded its powers pursuant to Chapter 1 of the FAA, because the grounds for vacatur are limited to those in Article V of the New York Convention under Eleventh Circuit precedent.  Court of appeals overruled its prior precedent and held that in a New York Convention case, where the arbitration is seated in the US or where US law governs the conduct of the arbitration, Chapter 1 of the FAA provides the grounds for vacatur of an arbitration award. 

  • Ribadeneira v. New Balance Athletics, Inc., No. 21-1831 (1st Cir. Apr. 6, 2023)
    04/06/2023

    Court of appeals reversed district court decision to vacate two foreign arbitral awards finding that non-signatories were bound to the arbitration agreement by theories of assumption and equitable estoppel.  Court of appeals found that the first plaintiff was subject to the arbitrator’s jurisdiction, because as a successor-in-interest to the signatory company, it assumed the obligation to arbitrate.  Court of appeals concluded that the second plaintiff was estopped from avoiding the arbitration clause, where the plaintiff sought to enforce the terms of the agreement in Peruvian court and therefore, knowingly received direct benefits of the agreement.

  • Arbors on the Lake 2018, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 23-CV-00192-GGG-KWR (E.D. La. Apr. 5, 2023)
    04/05/2023

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the New York Convention, where the plaintiff failed to file any opposition contesting the motion.  Court found there was a written agreement to arbitrate, the agreement provided for arbitration in a New York Convention signatory nation, the agreement arose out of a commercial relationship, and a party to the agreement was not a U.S. citizen.

  • Cube Infrastructure Fund SICAV v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 20-CV-01708-EGS-MAU (D.D.C. March 31, 2023)
    03/31/2023

    Magistrate judge recommended that Spain’s motion to dismiss action to confirm arbitration award be denied, finding that (i) the court had subject matter jurisdiction under FSIA because plaintiffs had made a prima facie showing of the three required jurisdictional facts to invoke FSIA’s arbitration exception, (ii) Spain did not rebut the presumption that the treaty and notice of arbitration constituted an agreement to arbitrate, (iii) the arbitration award was entitled to full faith and credit, (iv) the foreign sovereign compulsion doctrine did not apply and, in any event, Spain could not claim compulsion where it had willfully submitted to and participated in the ICSID process, and (v) the doctrine of forum non conveniens is not available in proceedings to confirm a foreign arbitration award.  Magistrate judge, therefore, recommended plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion be granted, considering the exceptionally limited role the courts have in enforcing ICSID awards.

  • A.D. Trade Belgium S.P.R.L. v. Republic of Guinea, No. 22-CV-00245-RJL (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2023)
    03/31/2023

    Court granted default judgment and confirmed two foreign arbitral awards, finding it had subject matter jurisdiction over Guinea under the arbitration exception to immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and had personal jurisdiction as service was compliant with 28 USC § 1608.  Court confirmed the two awards under the New York Convention, because Guinea had not asserted any defenses to enforcement.  Court concluded that through its absence Guinea waived any statute of limitation defenses, so it did not address petitioner’s argument that the petition for confirmation was timely because the time to file was equitably tolled by Guinea’s appeal for annulment in France.

  • Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Qin, No. 21-CV-09221-KPF (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2023)
    03/31/2023

    Court rejected respondent’s Rule 60(b)(1) motion to vacate a final judgment enforcing a foreign arbitral award where respondent could not establish that he did not receive proper notice of the underlying arbitration.

  • County of Monmouth and Scavello v. Rite Aid Corporation, No. 2:20-CV-02024-MSG (E.D. Pa. March 31, 2023)
    03/31/2023

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that equitable estoppel did not bind non-signatory plaintiff to the arbitration agreement in a contract between defendant and a third party.  Court found that plaintiff’s tort claims were not efforts to enforce that contract, nor was her position such that she was bound to the agreements through obtaining or seeking to obtain benefits of the contract. 

  • Drip Capital, Inc. v. M/S. Goodwill Apparels, No. 22-CV-02806-ALC (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2023)
    03/30/2023

    Court confirmed foreign arbitral award, finding Art. V(1)(e) of the New York inapplicable as respondent had not shown that any court set aside or suspended the award.  Court further declined to stay the decision on enforcement where a parallel case to appeal the award was pending in India given the delays the respondent had caused in the case.

  • Blasket Renewable Investments, LLC v. The Kingdom of Spain, No. 21-CV-03249-RJL (D.D.C. Mar. 29, 2023)
    03/29/2023

    Court granted Spain’s motion to dismiss action to enforce foreign arbitral award.  Court found it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case under the arbitration exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), because Spain established that it lacked the legal authority to enter into an agreement to arbitrate with petitioners as a matter of EU law.  Court also rejected petitioners’ argument that that subject matter jurisdiction existed under FSIA’s waiver exception, finding that the Spain’s agreement to arbitrate was a prerequisite.

  • Hong Kong Continental Trade Co. Limited v. Natural Balance Pet Foods, Inc., No. 22-CV-00571-JAK-AFM (C.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2023)
    03/28/2023

    Court compelled arbitration finding (1) issues of arbitrability are governed by federal law where the arbitration agreement is covered by the FAA and the parties did not clearly agree otherwise, (2) the agreement delegated issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator, and (3) a court may not override a contract that clearly and unmistakably delegated issues of arbitrability.

  • Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v. Belmont Commons L.L.C., No. 22-CV-03874-EEF-MBN (E.D. La. Mar. 23, 2023)
    03/23/2023

    Court denied defendants’ second motion for reconsideration of order granting motion to compel arbitration, finding that the Western District of Louisiana’s recent decision not to compel arbitration was distinguishable because claims against foreign insurers in that case had been dismissed with prejudice, while potential claims against foreign insurers remained here, so the New York Convention was still implicated.  Court granted defendant’s alternative request to certify the order compelling arbitration as appealable pursuant to 28 USC § 1292(b), finding that it involved a controlling question of law.

  • LLC SPC Stileks v. The Republic of Moldova, No. 14-CV-01921-CRC (D.D.C. Mar. 23, 2023)
    03/23/2023

    Court granted motion for an order under 28 USC § 1610(c) authorizing enforcement of judgment confirming arbitration award, finding that (i) the notice requirements described in 28 USC § 1608(e) did not apply in the case; (ii) a reasonable period of time had elapsed following the entry of judgment; and (iii) the court was a proper forum to issue a 28 USC § 1610(c) order.  Court also granted motion to compel discovery relating to Moldova’s assets with the exception of one request for production of documents.

  • OI European Group B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 21-MC-00481-LPS (D. Del. Mar. 23, 2023)
    03/23/2023

    Court granted motions for a writ of attachment of the shares of PDV Holding, Inc. held by Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (“PDVSA”) and other similar motions filed by judgment creditors of Venezuela (including creditors holding judgments on arbitral awards), finding that the creditors rebutted the presumption that Venezuela and PDVSA are separate and proved that PDVSA had been and is the alter ego of Venezuela, at all pertinent times.

  • The United Mexican States v. Nelson, No. 22-CV-04047-CJW-KEM (N.D. Iowa Mar. 23, 2023)
    03/23/2023

    Court granted petition for recognition and enforcement of arbitration award, finding that res judicata barred defendant’s claims in resistance to enforcement of the arbitration award.  Court also found that even if it were to entertain defendant’s claims, it would enforce the award because the arbitral tribunal afforded defendant due process and did not otherwise prevent him from presenting his case.

  • Amaplat Mauritius LTD. v. Zimbabwe Mining Development Corporation, No. 22-CV-00058-CRC (D.D.C. Mar. 22, 2023)
    03/22/2023

    Court granted motion to dismiss proceeding for recognition of a foreign court judgment enforcing an arbitration award as to the Republic of Zimbabwe and the Zimbabwe Mining Development Corporation on jurisdictional grounds, finding plaintiffs failed to adequately plead an alter ego relationship between the two.  Court, however, denied motion to dismiss proceedings as to third defendant, the Chief Mining Commissioner of the Zimbabwean Ministry of Mines, finding that it had jurisdiction over the Commissioner.

  • Foresight Energy, LLC v. Ace American Insurance Company, No. 22-CV-00887-JAR (E.D. Mo. Mar. 21, 2023)
    03/21/2023

    Court held that insurance policy arbitration clauses falling under the New York Convention were enforceable against a Missouri insured notwithstanding Missouri’s anti-arbitration statute, finding that the McCarran-Ferguson Act applies only to domestic legislation and does not contemplate the preemption of international treaties.  Court, therefore, referred plaintiff’s claims to arbitration and stayed the case pending arbitration.

  • Tulare Golf Course, LLC v. Vantage Tag, Inc., No. 21-CV-00505-JLT-SKO (E.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2023)
    03/21/2023

    Court granted in part motion to compel arbitration, finding that (i) defendant who opposed the motion was not a party to the relevant arbitration agreement; and (ii) certain exceptions to compel non-signatories to arbitration did not apply.

  • Adcock Property Management, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 22-CV-00306-HSO-BWP (S.D. Miss. Mar. 20, 2023)
    03/20/2023

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation on the grounds that all four conditions under the New York Convention were satisfied: (1) a written agreement to arbitrate all matters existed; (2) the arbitration provision provided for the seat of arbitration in New York; (3) the complaint made clear that the parties’ dispute arose out of a commercial relationship—namely the insurance agreement; and (4) defendants sufficiently demonstrated that several parties are not US citizens.

  • Various Insurers, Reinsurers and Retrocessionaires v. General Electric International, Inc., No. 21-CV-04751-VMC (N.D. Ga. Mar. 17, 2023)
    03/17/2023

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration under the New York Convention, finding that (i) enforcement of arbitration agreement under a third-party beneficiary doctrine was warranted under the facts of the case; and (ii) the agreement delegated questions of arbitrability, including scope, to the arbitrator.

  • Perenco Ecuador Ltd. v. Republic of Ecuador, No. 1:19-CV-02943-JMC (D.D.C. Mar. 16, 2023)
    03/16/2023

    Court granted motion to confirm an arbitration award pursuant to the ICSID Convention.  Court rejected respondent’s request to set off and stay the award pending resolution of the parties’ tax dispute.  Court agreed with respondent that post-judgment interest should be calculated pursuant to 28 USC § 1961 rather than the ICSID award.

  • JLR Global, LLC v. Paypal Holding Co., No. 4:22-CV-00559-ALM (E.D. Tex. Mar. 15, 2023)
    03/15/2023

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court rejected respondents’ arguments that there was no enforceable arbitration agreement between the parties and that the dispute fell outside the scope of the arbitration clause.  Court stayed all litigation in the lawsuit pending arbitration.

  • Manuel Alvarez, Sr. v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-03343-JS-JMW (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2023)
    03/15/2023

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to compel arbitration involving alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), New York Fair Credit Reporting Act (“NYFCRA”), and New York General Business Law §§ 380 et seq.  Court found that the parties entered into a valid arbitration agreement, the dispute was encompassed by the arbitration agreement, and the petitioner did not waive its right to pursue arbitration through its conduct in litigation.

  • Marilyn Azuz v. Accucom Corporation, d/b/a InfoTracer, No. 1:21-CV-01182 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 15, 2023)
    03/15/2023

    Court denied petitioner’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA in an action involving alleged violations of Illinois Rights of Publicity Act.  Court rejected petitioner’s arguments that respondent’s agent had actual or apparent authority to enter into an arbitration agreement on behalf of the respondent and that, alternatively, respondent was bound by the arbitration agreement through ratification.

  • Shansby v. Edrington, USA, Inc., No. 22-CV-06907-JSC (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2023)
    03/09/2023

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding first that the incorporation of JAMS rules of arbitration into the parties’ arbitration agreement empowered the arbitrator to decide arbitrability and second that plaintiff’s argument that there was no good faith basis that the arbitration agreement governed the parties’ dispute was without merit. 

  • Roblox Corp. v. Wowwee Group Limited, No. 22-CV-04476-SI (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2023)
    03/09/2023

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration against non-US residents where the arbitration agreement clearly set out that it was only applicable to US residents.  Court compelled arbitration for the US residents, finding the overall action seeks non-injunctive relief and therefore the injunctive relief exception under the contract was not applicable. 

  • Ipsen Biopharm Ltd. v. Galderma Labortories, L.P., No. 4:22-CV_00662-O (N.D. Tex. Mar. 8, 2023)
    03/08/2023

    Court granted motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, finding principles of forum non conveniens is the appropriate way to enforce a forum-selection clause included in an arbitration agreement and subject to the New York Convention.

  • AALFS Family Partnership v. GSL Holdings, SA de CV, No. 22-2568 (8th Cir. 2023)
    03/06/2023

    Court affirmed the district court’s decision to confirm an arbitration award, having found no evidence of impartiality or misconduct by the arbitrator in refusing to hear evidence material to the controversy. 

  • Mrinalini, Inc. v. Valentino S.p.A., No. 22-CV-02453-MKV (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2023)
    03/01/2023

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to enjoin the arbitration pending in Italy, concluding that the parties’ arbitration agreement clearly and unmistakably assigned the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator.  For the same reason, court granted defendant’s motion seeking to compel arbitration and stay the case pending arbitration pursuant to the FAA.

  • Hawthorne Industrial Products Inc. v. M/V Tac Imola, No. 22-CV-01376-RDB (D. Md. Feb. 16, 2023) 
    02/16/2023

    Court denied without prejudice defendants’ motion to stay litigation in favor of arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court found it inequitable to bind plaintiff to an arbitration clause in the booking note, because defendants did not prove it was validly incorporated into the bills of lading.  Court concluded that the question of the arbitration clause’s applicability could be addressed again after the conclusion of discovery.

  • 9REN Holding S.A.R.L. v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 19-CV-018-71-TSC (D.D.C. Feb. 15, 2023)
    02/15/2023

    Court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining defendant from seeking relief in a pending Luxembourg action, finding the express and primary purpose of the Luxembourg action was to terminate the present action to confirm a foreign arbitral award. 

  • Doraleh Container Terminal SA v. Republic of Djibouti, No. 20-02571-TFH (D.D.C. Feb. 15, 2023)
    02/15/2023

    Court confirmed two arbitration awards, rejecting defendant’s argument that a court only has subject matter jurisdiction under 9 USC § 207 if the petition is made by a “party to the arbitration” and finding no basis to deny confirmation under the New York Convention. 

  • Nextera Energy Global Holdings B.V. v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 19-CV-01618-TSC (D.D.C. Feb. 15, 2023)
    02/15/2023

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss finding it has jurisdiction under the FSIA and granted plaintiff’s preliminary injunction, finding the express and primary purpose of a pending action in the Netherlands was to terminate the present action to confirm a foreign arbitral award. 

  • Phoenix East II Association, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Llyod’s, No. 22-00436-CG-N (S.D. Ala. Feb. 13, 2023)
    02/13/2023

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration finding the arbitration agreement which provided for the application of New York law did not conflict with an Alabama state law that held all insurance contracts executed within the state be governed by Alabama law.

  • La Dolce Vita Fine Dining Co. Ltd. v. Zhang Lan, No. 21-CV-3071-LAK (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2023)
    02/10/2023

    Court confirmed an arbitral award against defendant, finding defendant’s procedural arguments unpersuasive and further finding there was no ground to dismiss on the basis of Article 5 of the New York Convention.  Court adopted the position of the arbitral panel and the Beijing court that the appointment of arbitrators was proper where the failure to comply with the parties’ agreement was due to defendant’s bad faith.

  • Silent Gliss Inc. v. Silent Gliss International Ltd., No. 22-CV-00522-EK-MMH (E.D.N.Y. Feb 9, 2023)
    02/09/2023

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that (i) plaintiff failed to allege and substantiate that it was fraudulently induced to enter into agreement to arbitrate; (ii) the parties agreed to arbitrate questions of arbitrability; (iii) defendants did not waive their right to pursue arbitration, and (iv) plaintiff could arbitrate claim against defendants that did not sign the agreement to arbitrate.  Court denied motion to dismiss the case, noting that it will retain jurisdiction and stay the proceedings pending resolution of the arbitration.

  • High Hope Zhongtian Corporation v. Sunbird USA Inc, No. 22-CV-07569-PKC (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2023) 
    02/09/2023

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitral award, finding that (i) the arbitration proceedings fully accorded with the NY Convention; (ii) the arbitral award did not violate public policy; and (iii) there was no other defense to enforcement appearing on the face of the record.

  • Hebei Mighty Synthetic Rubber and Plastic Co. Ltd. v. Global Syn-Turf, Inc., No. 21-CV-10674-PAE (S.D.N.Y. Feb 8, 2023)
    02/08/2023

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award, treating motion as one for summary judgment.  Court found that (i) petitioner showed that there was no material issue of fact in dispute; (ii) arbitrator acted within the scope of the authority granted by the parties; and (iii) there was more than a colorable justification for the outcome reached.

  • Heimburger S.A.S. v. Brands Within Reach LLC, No. 22-CV-06194-JLR (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2023)
    02/06/2023

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award, treating motion as one for summary judgment.  Court found that (i) there was no genuine issue of material fact in dispute precluding summary judgment for petitioner; and (ii) there was more than a colorable justification for the arbitrator’s award.

  • In Re Application of Alpene Ltd., No. 21-MC-02547-MKB-RML (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2022)
    02/03/2023

    Court stayed motion to vacate order granting discovery in aid of foreign proceeding pursuant to 28 USC. § 1782 pending Supreme Court’s decision on whether arbitrations conducted pursuant to bilateral investment treaties qualify as international tribunals under 28 USC. § 1782.

  • Zhongshan Fucheng Industrial Investment Co., Ltd. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, No. 1:22-CV-00170-BAH (D.D.C. Jan. 26, 2023)
    01/26/2023

    Court denied Nigeria’s motion to dismiss rejecting its novel argument that bilateral investment treaties between state actors were inherently non-commercial.

  • Sikousis Legacy Inc. v. B-Gas Limited, No. 3:22-CV-03273-CRB (N.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2023)
    01/19/2023

    Court denied attachment of property to satisfy plaintiffs’ $7.5 million arbitration award against defendants where plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the property’s owner was an alter ego against whom judgment could be collected and where plaintiffs failed to demonstrate veil piercing was appropriate to recover the debt.

  • Telecom Business Solution, LLC v. Terra Towers Corp., No. 22-CV_1761-LAK (S.D.N.Y Jan. 18, 2023)
    01/18/2023

    Court denied respondents motion to vacate an arbitration award where respondents could not show the tribunal acted in a manifest disregard for the law when applying New York specific performance law; nor did respondents prove that the arbitrators acted with impartiality to vacate the award.

  • Kronlage Family Limited Partnership v. Independent Specialty Insurance Co., No. 22-CV-01013-NJB-MBN (E.D. La. Jan. 18, 2023)
    01/18/2023

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate plaintiff’s claims and that application of equitable estoppel was warranted.  Court also granted motion to stay litigation pending arbitration rather than dismissing plaintiff’s claims because defendants did not explain why dismissal was warranted.

  • Academy of the Sacred Heart of New Orleans v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 22-CV-04401-LMA-DPC (E.D. La. Jan. 18, 2023)
    01/18/2023

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement between the parties was valid and enforceable.  Court also found that equitable estoppel applied, and that plaintiff must arbitrate its claims against all the defendants, domestic and international.

  • Smarter Tools Inc. v. Chongqing Senci Import  Export Trade Co. Ltd., No. 21-00724 (2nd. Cir. Jan. 17, 2023)
    01/17/2023

    Court of Appeals affirmed order denying petition to vacate an arbitral award and granting cross petition to confirm such award, finding that the district court did not err in (i) remanding for the arbitrator to issue a reasoned award and (ii) not concluding that the arbitrator acted in manifest disregard of the law.

  • CBF Indústria de Gusa S.A. v. Amci Holdings, Inc., No. 13-CV-02581-PKC-JLC (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2023)
    01/13/2023

    Court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment to dismiss petitioner’s claim for enforcement of the arbitral award under the New York Convention.  Court found defendants did not establish a grounds for refusing enforcement of the award, as the respondent in the arbitration was not under an incapacity or otherwise unable to present a case and was not deprived of proper notice, and determined that a reasonable jury could conclude defendants are alter egos of the respondent in the arbitration.

  • Compania De Inversiones v. Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua, No. 21-01196 (10th Cir. Jan 10, 2023)
    01/10/2023

    Court of appeals affirmed denial of motion to vacate order confirming arbitral award finding, among other things, that (i) district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to vacate its confirmation judgment as US public policy concerns about enforcing Bolivian court orders outweighed comity to those orders; and (ii) defendant’s conduct supported denial of relief under New York Convention Rule 60(b)(5). In addition, Court of appeals affirmed order requiring defendant to turn over assets located in Mexico to satisfy arbitral award, finding that the district court did not err in (i) applying Colorado Rule 69(g) to defendants’ assets held by related third parties abroad; (ii) concluding that the order did not implicate the presumption against extraterritoriality; and (iii) finding that the order did not violate principles of comity.

  • 419 Carondelet, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, No. 22-CV-04311-WMV-DPC (E.D. La. Jan. 10, 2023)
    01/10/2023

    Court granted defendants’ motion to reconsider denial of defendants’ motion to compel arbitration in order to prevent manifest injustice.  Court found that although Louisiana law ordinarily prohibits enforcement of arbitration clauses concerning insurance disputes, the Fifth Circuit has held that the New York Convention supersedes state law.  Court determined that the requirements of the New York Convention were met and therefore, it was required to grant defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.

  • Companía de Inversiones Mercantiles S.A. v. Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua S.A.B. de C.V., No. 21-1196 (10th Cir. Jan. 10, 2023)
    01/10/2023

    Court of appeals found that district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to vacate the confirmation of an $36 million foreign arbitration award under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5) even though the Bolivian courts annulled the award.  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order for respondent to turn over assets located in Mexico to satisfy the award under Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 69(g), finding the order did not violate the principles of extraterritoriality and international comity.

  • Estate of Ke Zhengguang v. Stephany, No. 20-CV-02260-PX (D. Md. Jan. 9, 2023)
    01/09/2023

    Court entered a final judgment awarding all amounts in two foreign arbitration awards, which were enforced under the New York Convention.  Applying the “breach day rule,” court used the date of the award to calculate the exchange rate for pre-award interest and attorneys’ fees and costs.  Court declined to award interest for the period between the arbitration award and the final judgment, because the award was silent on the point and the tribunal declined to expressly include prejudgment interest when the petitioner requested clarification post-award.

  • APG Worldwide Ltd v. Passfeed Inc., No. 1:22-CV-03078-MKV (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2022)
    12/29/2022

    Court granted motions to compel arbitration and to stay litigation action pending arbitration, finding there was no genuine dispute between the parties regarding either motion.

  • Hayday Farms Inc. v. Feedx Holdings Inc., No. 21-55650 (9th. Cir. Dec. 19, 2022)
    12/19/2022

    Court of appeals affirmed in part, and reversed in part, district court’s order confirming in part an arbitration award, finding, among other things, that (i) there was no complete diversity of citizenship; (ii) the parties’ failure to assert federal question jurisdiction did not deprive the district court of subject matter jurisdiction; and (iii) the award did not exhibit a manifest disregard of law or reflected a completely irrational interpretation of the parties’ agreements.

  • In Re Application of Webuild S.P.A. and Sacyr S.A., No. 22-MC-00140-LAK (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2022)
    12/19/2022

    Court granted motions to vacate order granting ex parte application for discovery pursuant to 28 USC. § 1782 and quash subpoena, finding that petitioner failed to satisfy the statutory requirements of 28 USC. § 1782 because ICSID is not a foreign or international tribunal within the meaning of the statute.

  • The Federal Republic of Nigeria v. VR Advisory Services, Ltd., No. 21-MC-00007-JGK-VF (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2022)
    12/12/2022

    Court ordered respondents to produce documents from a shareholder arbitration pursuant to 28 USC § 1782, finding that petitioner had demonstrated the documents are relevant to the issue of the fraudulent arbitration award and that petitioner was not required to exhaust opportunities for discovery before the foreign tribunal.

  • Valores Mundiales, S.L. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 19-CV-00046-FYP-RMM (D.D.C. Aug. 3, 2022)
    12/07/2022

    Court recommended set aside of a default judgment given findings that Venezuela’s default was not willful, the plaintiff would not be prejudiced, Venezuela alleged a meritorious defense, and Venezuela is a foreign sovereign which has indicated its willingness to respond.  Court further recommended plaintiff’s summary judgment motion be granted, as the federal court is to enforce ICSID awards in the same manner it would state court final judgments.

  • America Steel Trade Corporation v. Metalhouse, LLC, No. 6:22-CV-00915-RBD-EJK (M.D. Fla. Nov. 17, 2022)
    12/07/2022

    Court found that default judgment is proper where defendant was properly served at its principal place of business and defendant failed to show any reason under Article V of the NY Convention that could overcome the presumption of confirmation.

  • Canobinoti, LLC v. Woods, No. 20-CV-25081-MGC (S.D. Fla. July 26, 2022)
    12/07/2022

    Court found a provision designating the International Arbitration Center as the arbitral forum was not integral to the agreement as it does not “pervade” the agreement.  Accordingly, the court recommends the appointment of a substitute arbitrator pursuant to § 5 of the FAA.

  • Gui Cai v. CMB Export LLC, No. 22-CV-02025-MWF-JPRx (C.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2022)
    12/05/2022

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that the scope of the arbitration agreement between the parties did not encompass the dispute before the court.

  • Samsung Electronics Latinoamerica (Zona Libre), S.A. v. VA Technosolutions and Services, LLC., No. 22-CV-21341-MB (S.D. Fla. Nov. 21, 2022)
    11/30/2022

    Court granted petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and modification of the order setting civil trial date.  Court concluded that the action, relating to enforcement of an international arbitration award under the Inter-American Convention, was subject to summary proceedings and cancelled the trial date.

  • Llagas v. Sealift Holdings Inc., No. 17-CV-00472-JDC-KK (W.D. La. November 8, 2022)
    11/08/2022

    Court granted motion to recognize and enforce arbitral award, finding that (i) plaintiff contractually agreed to resolve all disputes, including United States statutory claims, in arbitration in the Philippines; (ii) plaintiff was not denied a forum and opportunity to raise his claims; and (iii) it was not contrary to public policy for the court to recognize and enforce defendants’ arbitral award.

  • Haarslev Holding, S.A.R.L. v. Claus Oestergaard Nielsen, No. 4:19-CV_00343-BCW (W.D. Mo. Nov. 4, 2022)
    11/04/2022

    Court confirmed foreign arbitral award finding defendant did not meet its burden in showing that a potentially unlimited non-compete clause violated Missouri public policy. 

  • Hawaiian Host, Inc. v. Citadel Pacific Ltd., No. 22-CV-00077-JMS-RT (D. Haw. Oct. 31, 2022)
    11/03/2022

    Court granted motion to confirm non-domestic arbitration award pursuant to the New York Convention.  Court found that none of the grounds in Article V of the New York Convention applied for refusal to recognize or enforce the award.  Court also denied respondent’s cross-motion to vacate under the FAA, finding that the award was not procured by fraud or in manifest disregard of the law.

  • In re Application of Alpene, Ltd., No. 21-MC-02547-MKB-RML (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2022)
    11/03/2022

    Court granted respondent’s motion to vacate and quash petitioner’s document and deposition subpoenas issued pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 for use in an ICSID arbitration.  Using the Supreme Court’s reasoning from AlixPartners, Court found that the ICSID arbitration panel did not qualify as a “foreign or international tribunal” under 28 USC § 1782, because there was insufficient evidence that the treaty parties at issue indicated an intent to imbue the ICSID arbitration panel with governmental authority.

  • Huzhou Chuangtai Rongyuan Investment Management Partnership v. Hu Qin, No. 21-Civ.-09221-KPF (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28. 2022)
    10/28/2022

    Court granted a motion to dissolve an automatic stay of proceedings to enforce the court’s judgment which confirmed a foreign arbitral award.  Court found respondent’s questionable asset transfers and failure to participate in litigation created a well-founded risk that respondent was concealing or will conceal assets to avoid collection.

  • Commodities & Minerals Enterprise Ltd. v. CVG Orinoco, C.A., No. 20-4248 (2d Cir. Oct.3, 2022)
    10/03/2022

    Court of appeals found that a party is not required to serve a summons in order to confirm a foreign arbitral award under the N.Y. Convention.  Court of appeals further found that the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorneys’ fees to petitioner, determining that respondent did not act without justification in refusing to abide by the arbitrator’s decision.

  • Green Renewable Organic and Water Holdings, LLC v. Bloomfield Investments, LLC, No. 21-CV-07181-HSG (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2022)
    09/22/2022

    Court stayed decision on the motions to confirm two LCIA arbitration awards until the conclusion of the parallel English set-aside proceedings, finding that the Europcar factors supported granting an Article VI stay under the New York Convention.  It also stayed the separate litigation proceedings requesting a declaratory judgment that claimants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the LCIA.

  • Global Industrial Investment Limited, v. 1955 Capital Fund I GP LLC, No. 4:21-CV-08924-HSG (N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2022)
    09/21/2022

    Court granted petitioners’ motion to confirm an arbitration award, finding respondents waived any argument that the underlying arbitration was barred under res judicata and that the arbitrator did not exceed its authority in dissolving respondents’ funds where the arbitration clause to the parties’ agreement permitted such action.

  • Sprint Corporation v. Shichinin, 3:21-CV_02308-N (N.D. Tex. Sept. 20, 2022)
    09/20/2022

    Court denied defendant’s motion to vacate an arbitration award under 9 USC § 10(a)(2) and (4) as defendant failed to show that arbitrators were evidently partial or exceeded their authority.

  • Arcelormittal North America Holdings LLC v. Essar Global Fund Limited, 1:21-CIV-06975-KPG (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2022)
    09/19/2022

    Court denied motion to dismiss plaintiff’s case for enforcement of a foreign arbitral award.  Court determined that (1) forum non conveniens should not apply as substantial deference should be given to the plaintiff’s choice of forum and (2) principles of international comity did not warrant dismissal without “exceptional circumstances.”

  • Farmers Rice Milling Company, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 21-CV-00503-SDD-SDJ (M.D. La. Sep. 14, 2022)
    09/14/2022

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation under the FAA, finding that (i) there was a valid agreement to arbitrate and (ii) the specific dispute fell within the substantive scope of the arbitration agreement.  Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss and stay arbitration proceedings.

  • The Federal Republic of Nigeria v. VR Advisory Services, Ltd., No. 21-MC-00007-JGK-VF (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2022)
    09/14/2022

    Court granted the Federal Republic of Nigeria’s request for discovery for use in an upcoming fraud trial before the English High Court of Justice in London to set aside a $10 billion arbitration award pursuant to 28 USC § 1782.  Court found that petitioner’s application satisfied the mandatory and discretionary elements of the statute.  It further held that res judicata did not bar the application, finding that nothing prevents petitioner from filing two separate applications to obtain discovery for use in separate foreign proceedings.

  • The University of Notre Dame (USA) in England v. TJAC Waterloo, LLC, No. 21-1558 (1st Cir. Sept. 13, 2022)
    09/13/2022

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s confirmation of the arbitrator’s liability judgment against appellants pursuant to the New York Convention.  Court of appeals found that appellee’s petition for confirmation of the arbitration awards at issue was not time-barred, ruling that the three-year limitations period in 9 USC § 207 only began to run on the issuance of the final arbitral award and not on the issuance of the interim awards.

  • Dominicana Renovables, S.L. v. The Dominican Republic, No. 21-CV-21796-BB (S.D. Fla. Sept. 9, 2022)
    09/09/2022

    Court enforced judgment confirming arbitration award against the Dominican Republic.  Court, however, declined to “order[] execution to issue for this Final Judgment,” as 28 USC § 1610(c) prohibits a court from ordering execution against the property of a foreign state until a reasonable period of time has elapsed following entry of judgment.

  • In the Matter of the Arbitration between Energía Costa Azul, S. DE R.L. DE C.V. v. Shell México Gas Natural S. DE R.L. DE C.V., No. 22-CV-06988 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 6, 2022)
    09/06/2022

    Court granted motion for ex parte attachment in aid of arbitration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64, finding that petitioner had demonstrated that ex parte relief was necessary due to the possibility that respondent, a non-domiciliary entity, would remove or dissipate assets if notice of the request for attachment were given.

  • Temsa Ulasim Araclari Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S. v. CH Bus Sales, LLC, No. 1:22-CV-00492-JPC (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2022)
    09/01/2022

    Court granted petitioner’s unopposed motion to confirm an arbitration award under the New York Convention.  Court found the agreement was non-domestic and fell within the scope of the New York Convention, because it dealt with a commercial transaction with a Turkish company.  Court found that nothing in the record suggested that any of the defenses listed in the New York Convention or in the FAA would preclude confirmation.

  • Sistem Mühendislik Insaat Sanayi Ve Ticaret, A.Ş. v. The Kyrgyz Republic, No. 12-CV-4502-ALC-RWL (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2022)
    08/31/2022

    Court issued a second interim sanctions judgment against the Kyrgyz Republic following a repeated and continuing failure to comply with previous orders to pay the plaintiff in accordance with an enforceable arbitration award

  • HDI Global SE v. Phillips 66 Company, No. 1:22-CV-00807-VEC (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2022)
    08/26/2022

    Court granted petitioner’s request to confirm arbitration award relating to a claim for repayment, finding that it was a final award because it dealt with a separate and independent claim.  Court denied petitioner’s request to confirm a second arbitration award, because it was an intermediate procedural decision and therefore, a partial award.

  • Panajoti Consulting, LLC v. BuyHive USA, Inc., No. 22-10487-GSC-CI (E.D. Mich. Aug. 24, 2022)
    08/24/2022

    Following Sixth Circuit precedent, court determined that the arbitrator must first decide questions of jurisdiction despite a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement being invoked in the action.

  • Chiejina v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, No. 21-2241-RJL (D.D.C. Aug. 24, 2022)
    08/24/2022

    Court denied Nigeria’s motion to dismiss action to enforce arbitration award for failure to properly serve, finding there were no issues with service of process and that the arbitration award should be enforced.  Plaintiff properly served Nigeria by sending a copy of the summons and complaint and a notice of suit with translation by mail to the head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Nigeria.

  • TIG Insurance Company v. Republic of Argentina, No. 18-MC-00129-DLF (D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2022)
    08/23/2022

    Court found that Argentina had not impliedly waived its sovereign immunity because transferring assets and liabilities of Caja (a state-owned corporation) and providing that the government would handle legal claims and arbitration was not enough to meet the “subjective intent” standard for a foreign sovereign to waive immunity.

  • In the Matter of the Application of New Pax Martime Ltd., No. 22-MC-197 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2022)
    08/22/2022

    Court granted application under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to take discovery in the United States for use in a reasonably contemplated proceeding to enforce an arbitration award before a foreign tribunal.

  • Conocophillips Petrozuata B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 1:19-CV-0683-CJN (D.D.C. Aug. 19, 2022)
    08/19/2022

    Court granted petitioners’ motion for default judgment and confirmed a foreign arbitral award against Venezuela after petitioners effected service, presented satisfactory evidence to the court, and Venezuela failed to enter an appearance.

  • Heavenseven GMBH v. LoveTurner, Inc., No. 2:22-CV-03464-MEMF-SKX (C.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2022)
    08/17/2022

    Court confirmed a foreign arbitral award directing costs and attorneys’ fees be paid to the prevailing party.  The underlying arbitration was only instituted to determine whether the tribunal had jurisdiction.  The arbitrator found that it did not have jurisdiction, but nonetheless issued an award for costs and attorneys’ fees.  Court found that the arbitrator had authority to determine its own jurisdiction, and thus could issue an award out of that limited proceeding.

  • Trajkovski Invest AB v. I.AM.PLUS, Electronics, Inc., No. 2:21-CV-04246-ODW-JEMx, (C.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2022)
    08/09/2022

    Court denied respondent’s motion for relief from final judgment.  Court determined that that a foreign corporation that fails to pay taxes in California forfeits its status as a registered corporation and therefore suspends its right to litigate in the forum.  If respondent rectifies its forfeited status, it may bring its claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), alleging that the lower court committed clear error in granting petitioners’ motion to enforce judgment for failure to comply with Article IV of the New York Convention.

  • Republic of Guatemala v. IC Power Asia Development Ltd., No. 1:22-CV-00394-CM (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2022)
    08/05/2022

    Court denied Guatemala’s motion for entry of default judgment because Guatemala failed to properly effect service of process on the defendant foreign corporation under New York Business Corporation Law § 307.  Court held that to effect service of process, Guatemala not only had to personally deliver the papers to the New York Secretary of State, but also send copies to defendant by registered mail with return receipt requested to the appropriate address, as defined by § 307.

  • Iraq Telecom Ltd. v. IBL Bank S.A.L., No. 22-540-CV (2d Cir. August 5, 2022)
    08/05/2022

    Court affirmed the district court’s decision to consider extraordinary circumstances, including the impact of attachment on the Lebanese economy, when deciding whether petitioner established the statutory requirements for attachment in aid of arbitration.  However, the district court abused its discretion in reducing the attachment amount in three respects: failing to consider alternative attachment amounts, concluding that the greater culpability of one of the wrongdoers was a reason to reduce the attachment, and applying a “conceivable” rather than “probable” legal standard in assessing petitioner’s probability of success.

  • Valores Mundiales S.L. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 19-CV-46-FYP-RMM (D.D.C. Aug. 3, 2022)
    08/03/2022

    Magistrate judge recommended that the district court grant Venezuela’s motion to set aside a default judgment enforcing an ICSID award as Venezuela proved its default was not willful, but caused by extraordinary political circumstances.  Magistrate judge further recommended summary judgement be granted in favor of plaintiffs as Venezuela was not denied due process during ICSID annulment proceedings by Interim President Guaidó’s governments lack of participation.

  • Ortis v. Goya Foods, Inc., No. 19-CV-19003-SRC-CLW (D.N.J. Aug. 3, 2022)
    08/03/2022

    Court denied defendant’s motion for class certification excluding putative class members who signed an arbitration amendment to the underlying agreement.  Court found that due to the limited number of remaining putative class members, joinder would be more practicable.

  • Burley Foods, LLC v. Bluegrass Ingredients, Inc., No. 21-CV-02160-SRN-LIB (D. Minn. Aug. 2, 2022)
    08/02/2022

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that the arbitration provision of the agreement between the parties was void and unenforceable under the Minnesota Termination of Sales Representatives Act.

  • Warrington v. Rocky Patel Premium Cigars, Inc., No. 22-CV-00077-JES-KCD (M.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2022)
    08/01/2022

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that defendants had waived their right to arbitrate by filing a state action, thereby seeking to avail themselves of the litigation machinery instead of arbitration.

  • Jones Day v. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, No. 21-16642 (9th Cir. Aug. 1, 2022)
    08/01/2022

    Court reversed district court’s order denying Jones Day’s petitions to compel Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, to comply with an arbitrator’s subpoena requiring two Orrick partners to appear at a hearing in an international arbitration conducted pursuant to Chapter 2 of the FAA.  Court held that the district court had original jurisdiction to enforce the arbitral summonses because the proceedings related to an arbitration agreement falling under the New York Convention.

  • HBT Bio Corp. v. Emcure Pharmaceuticals, LTD, No. 22-CV-00334-JLR (W.D. Wash. Jul. 29, 2022)
    07/29/2022

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss without prejudice in a case alleging “theft of trade secrets” in connection with the development of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.  Court found that the record provided an insufficient basis for the court to determine personal jurisdiction, so denied the motion and ordered the parties to conduct jurisdictional discovery.

  • Micula v. Government of Romania, No. 20-7116 (D.C. Cir. July 27, 2022)
    07/27/2022

    Court of appeals denied appellant’s petition for panel rehearing of its ruling affirming district court’s post-judgment order, which denied Romania’s motion for relief from satisfaction of the district court’s judgment and ordered Romania to pay outstanding amounts on an ICSID award.

  • Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A. v. Republic of Haiti, No. 21-CV-09040-PKC (S.D.N.Y. July 27, 2022)
    07/27/2022

    Court granted intervenor’s motion to vacate the maritime attachments of two bank accounts in relation to an arbitration award rendered against the Republic of Haiti, finding that the accounts were immune from attachment under the FSIA, because the intervenor, a commercial bank, was wholly owned by the Republic of Haiti.  The attachment did not meet the exception to the FSIA for arbitral awards because the attachment applied not to property of Haiti but to property owned by a legally distinct and autonomous commercial bank.  Court also denied plaintiff’s request for additional discovery.

  • 245 Park Member LLC v. HNA Group (International) Company Limited, No. 22-CV-05136-JGK (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2022)
    07/25/2022

    Court confirmed a non-domestic arbitral award under the New York Convention finding that although the arbitrator did not permit discovery or hold an evidentiary hearing, she adequately considered submissions such that it was not fundamentally unfair or contrary to the parties’ arbitration agreement.

  • Molecular Dynamics Ltd. v. Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited, No. 22-CV-04332-PAE (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2022)
    07/22/2022

    Court dissolved preliminary injunction that enjoined defendants from enforcing an arbitral award outside of New York based on a forum selection clause in one of the parties’ agreements. Court found that the doctrine of judicial estoppel would likely bar plaintiff’s claims, because plaintiff had previously asserted in another court that an award in its favor would be enforceable outside of New York.

  • Tecnicas Reunidas de Talara S.A.C. v. SSK Ingenieria y Construccion S.A.C., No. 21-13776 (11th Cir. July 22, 2022)
    07/22/2022

    Court of appeals affirmed confirmation of an arbitral award under the Panama Convention rejecting petitioner’s argument that the award should be vacated because two of its attorneys withdrew and became employed at the opposing party’s law firm during the arbitration. Court of appeals held that because the petitioner had prior knowledge of this change but waited to object until it received an adverse award, it had waived its right to a public-policy defense.

  • Trividia Health, Incorporated vs. Nipro Corporation, No. 20-CV-08450-VEC (S.D.N.Y. July 21, 2022)
    07/21/2022

    Court declined to reconsider and reduce prejudgment interest in arbitral award from the New York State statutory rate to the federal rate or the rate chosen by the arbitration panel.  Court determined that such relief should only be granted in extraordinary circumstances, and none were present, especially because movant could have made this argument earlier.

  • Terra Towers Corp. and TBS Management, S.A. v. Gelber Schachter & Greenberg, P.A., No. 22-CV-06150-VEC (S.D. Fla. July 18, 2022)
    07/18/2022

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for remand and granted defendants’ motion to transfer venue to the Southern District of New York, finding that the previous removal to this court was proper under the New York Convention and that transfer was warranted because the case had strong ties to S.D.N.Y. such as ongoing related arbitration and litigation in New York.

  • Equipav S.A. Pavimentção Engenharia e Comercia Ltda. v. Bertin, No. 22-CV-4594-PGG (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2022)
    07/14/2022

    Court granted permission to serve respondent with petition to confirm arbitration award through an alternative service method via email to respondent’s various counsel.  Court found that service via email was not prohibited by any applicable international agreement and did not offend due process.  Petitioner reasonably attempted to effectuate service by initiating the process under the Hague Convention, but because this service method would unnecessarily delay the case seven to twelve months, court intervention was warranted and necessary.

  • Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A. v. BB Energy USA, LLC, No. 22-20021 (5th Cir. July 14, 2022)
    07/14/2022

    Court reversed and vacated writ of attachment because lower court erroneously determined that defendant, a Haitian government agency, had explicitly waived its sovereign immunity from prejudgment attachment.  Regardless of whether a contract contains language waiving sovereign immunity from suit generally, waiver of prejudgment attachment must be express, clear, and unambiguous.

  • GBM Global Holding Company Limited v. 91 Individuals Attached to Schedule A, No. 21-CV. 6284-AKH (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2022)
    07/13/2022

    Court confirmed a foreign arbitration award, finding there were no enumerated grounds for refusing or deferring recognition or enforcement of the award under the New York Convention, where respondents failed to appear before both the arbitral tribunal and motion to confirm the foreign arbitral award.

  • Fantastic Films International, LLC v. Screen Media Ventures, LLC et al., No. 22-CV-01014-FWS-AGR (C.D. Cal. Jul. 12, 2022)
    07/12/2022

    Court granted a motion to compel arbitration in a copyright infringement case. Court found that arbitration provisions in license agreements at issue did not terminate with the expiration of the underlying agreements.

  • Outokumpu Stainless Steel USA, LLC v. Coverteam SAS, No. 17-10944 (11th Cir. July 8, 2022)
    07/08/2022

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s decision for a non-signatory to enforce an arbitration agreement where the non-signatory was a defined party covered by the arbitration clause.

  • Esso Exploration and Production Nigeria Limited v. Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation., No. 19-3159 (L) (2d Cir. July 8, 2022)
    07/08/2022

    Court of appeals held that it was only obligated to afford comity to the parts of the award which the Nigerian court’s judgment previously set aside.  The case was remanded to the district court to determine precisely which aspects of the award are enforceable under the Nigerian judgment, and then enter a partial enforcement order based on that determination.

  • The Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic v. Baldwin, No. 20-CV-00195-CRK (D. Idaho July 1, 2022)
    07/01/2022

    Court denied defendants’ motion to stay further proceedings in the enforcement of an arbitral award pending resolution of three foreign proceedings, concluding that a stay was not warranted under either its inherent power to stay cases or under Article VI of the New York Convention.

  • Hydro Energy 1, S.A.R.L. v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 21-CV-2463-RJL (D.D.C. June 28, 2022)
    06/28/2022

    Court granted Spain’s motion to stay the proceedings to enforce an arbitral award until a pending ICSID annulment proceeding is concluded based on its inherent power to control the disposition of actions on its docket.  Further, the court noted that at least six similarly-situated petitioners have sought to enforce arbitral awards against Spain in the district and each had been stayed.  Court denied Spain’s motion to dismiss without prejudice.

  • The Cornfeld Group, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, No. 21-CV-62510-FAM (S.D. Fla. June 27, 2022)
    06/27/2022

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to remand the action to state court and granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration under the New York Convention.  Court found it had jurisdiction under the New York Convention, because plaintiff’s bad faith claim was conceivably related to the parties’ insurance relationship and may fall within the arbitration clause.  Court found that the provision’s delegation clause saved the question of arbitrability for the arbitrator.

  • Micula v. Government of Romania, No. 20-7116 (D.C. Cir. June 24, 2022)
    06/24/2022

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s post-judgment order denying Romania’s motion for relief from satisfaction of the district court’s judgment, which ordered Romania to pay amounts outstanding under an ICSID award, by paying a less valuable Romanian judgment relating to the same award.  Court of appeals also affirmed the grant of petitioners’ motion for civil contempt and sanctions for Romania’s defiance of a post-judgment discovery order.

  • Reddy v. Buttar, No. 20-1633 (4th Cir. June 24, 2022)
    06/24/2022

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to enforce arbitration award under the New York Convention.  Court of appeals found the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 9 USC § 203, holding along with the Second and Ninth Circuits that a plaintiff’s failure to establish the specific requirements of an enforceable arbitration agreement or award under the New York Convention is a merits question that does not affect subject-matter jurisdiction.  It further found that the court had personal jurisdiction over respondent who conceded that he was domiciled in North Carolina when the action was commenced, and affirmed the court’s entry of summary judgment, finding respondent did not present evidence to support his contention that the underlying agreement was a forgery.

  • Salzgitter Mannesmann International (USA) Inc. v. Sun Steel Company LLC, No. 22-CV-00030 (S.D. Tex. June 24, 2022)
    06/24/2022

    Court denied respondents’ motion to dismiss motion to confirm arbitral award, finding it had subject matter jurisdiction under the New York Convention.  Court concluded that the award arose out of a legal relationship with a reasonable relationship to a foreign state as required by 9 USC § 202, because the parties’ contract required petitioner to purchase steel from a Canadian company.

  • Rachan Reddy v. Rashid Buttar, No. 20-1633, (4th Cir. June 24, 2022)
    06/24/2022

    Court rejected arguments on appeal that court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the arbitration award was not enforceable under the New York Convention, lacked personal jurisdiction because defendant was domiciled in New Zealand, and entered summary judgment improperly because there were genuine disputes of material fact regarding arbitration agreement.

  • Kuehne + Nagel Inc. v. Baker Hughes, No. 21-CV-8470-KPF (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2022)
    06/23/2022

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay instant action under the FAA.  Court found the arbitration agreement was enforceable, that the dispute fell within its scope, and that the issue of arbitrability was delegated to the arbitrator by incorporation of the ICC and CPR rules.  Court found the arbitration provision was mandatory, although the agreement stated that either party “may” refer the dispute to arbitration 30 days after commencing mediation.

  • UAB Skyroad Leasing v. OJSC Tajik Air, The Republic of Tajikistan, No. 21-7015 (D.C. Cir. June 17, 2022)
    06/17/2022

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s judgment dismissing a petition to enforce an arbitral award for lack of personal jurisdiction under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.  Court of appeals found that appellant failed to rebut the presumption of separateness between appellee, an instrumentality, and the Republic of Tajikistan, holding that Tajikistan’s sole ownership of appellee did not establish the level of control required to show that a principal-agent relationship existed.

  • Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Novartis AG, No. 22-CV-04162-CM (S.D.N.Y. June 14, 2022)
    06/14/2022

    Court denied respondent’s unopposed motion to seal in its entirety—or in the alternative, file a heavily redacted version of—a final arbitration award, except to the extent that the redactions covered proprietary or confidential business information.  Court held that when a party seeks confirmation of an arbitration award, the award becomes a judicial document subject to the presumption of public access, pursuant to the First Amendment and common law right to access judicial documents and proceedings.

  • Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company, LLC v. Mahalaxmi Continental Limited, No. 22-CV-00781-WSH (W.D. Pa. June 14, 2022)
    06/14/2022

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) enjoining defendants from pursuing and the AAA from further processing defendants’ demand for arbitration.  Court found that plaintiff had established more than a reasonable probability of success on the merits that it never agreed to submit to arbitration, that a TRO was necessary to prevent immediate and irreparable harm, that the balance of harms clearly and strongly weighed in favor of plaintiff, and that granting of a TRO was in the public interest.

  • Gebre v. Kyrgyz Republic, No. 20-CV-01795-ABJ (D.D.C. June 14, 2022)
    06/14/2022

    Court granted petitioner’s motion for default judgment and confirmed the arbitral award against the Kyrgyz Republic.  Court found that given it had jurisdiction under the FAA, respondent was not immune under the FSIA, petitioner properly served respondent, and none of the grounds for denying recognition of an arbitral award under the New York Convention were applicable.

  • ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd., No. 21-401 (S. Ct. June 13, 2022)
    06/13/2022

    Supreme Court, in a consolidated appeal, reversed the district court’s order in ZF Automotive denying the motion to quash a 28 USC §1782 application and reversed the judgment of the court of appeals in AlixPartners that affirmed the district court’s order granting a discovery request.  Supreme Court unanimously held that neither the tribunal under the auspices of the German Institution of Arbitration, nor the ad hoc tribunal under the UNCITRAL arbitration rules, fell within the scope of the term “tribunal” in 28 USC §1782(a).  Court held that only a governmental or intergovernmental adjudicative body constituted a “foreign or international tribunal,” reasoning that although a “tribunal” need not be a formal court, attached to the modifiers “foreign or international,” the phrase is best understood to refer to an adjudicative body that exercises governmental authority.

  • Smagin v. Yegiazaryan, No. 21-55537 (9th Cir. June 10, 2022)
    06/10/2022

    Court of appeals reversed and remanded the district court’s dismissal for lack of statutory standing in a civil action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), in which plaintiff-appellant alleged that defendants engaged in illegal activities to thwart execution of a US district court judgment confirming a foreign arbitral award pursuant to the New York Convention.  Consistent with the Second and Third Circuits, but disagreeing with the Seventh Circuit’s residency-based test for domestic injuries involving intangible property, court of appeals held that the alleged injuries to a judgment obtained by plaintiff from a US district court in California were domestic injuries to property such that plaintiff had statutory standing under RICO.

  • Oriental Republic of Uruguay v. Italba Corporation, No. 21-CV-24264-MD (S.D. Fla. June 8, 2022)
    06/08/2022

    Court granted in part and denied in part petitioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, in which petitioner sought to enforce an arbitration award.  Pursuant to the ICSID Convention and its enabling statute, 22 USC § 1650a, the court ordered that the pecuniary obligations in the arbitral award be recognized and entered as judgment.  Court denied petitioner’s claim for prejudgment interest, because the arbitral award rejected petitioner’s request for interest on the costs award.

  • Trividia Health Inc. v. Nipro Corporation, No. 20-CV-08450-VEC (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2022)
    05/31/2022

    Court granted in part a motion for an entry of an order awarding attorney’s fees, costs, and interest following the award of a non-domestic arbitration award.  Court found that the petitioner was entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and that its requests were mostly reasonable but declined to award costs associated with its use of a legal research search engine, which it found was an overhead law firm cost.

  • Corporacion AIC, SA, v. Hidroelectrica Santa Rita S.A., No. 20-13039 (11th Cir. May 27, 2022)
    05/27/2022

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s determination that it could not vacate an arbitral award under the New York Convention on the exceeding ground under 9 USC § 10(a)(4) of the FAA.  Court of appeals noted that although it believes that the 11th Circuit precedent is out of line with Supreme Court precedent on this point, their hands are tied until an en banc panel takes up the issue and holds that they can review international arbitration awards based on Chapter 1 of the FAA under Article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention when the United States has primary jurisdiction.

  • State of Libya v. Strabag SE, No. 21-7128 (D.C. Cir. May 27, 2022)
    05/27/2022

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to confirm arbitral award relating to contract disputes arising out of unfished construction projects due to the force majeure declared after the onset of the Libyan Civil War.  Court of appeals held the FAA does not provide for modification of arbitration awards that require relitigating the merits.

  • Cheim and Read, LLC v. Faurschou Projects APS, No. 1:21-CV-06540-RA (S.D.N.Y. May 18, 2022)
    05/18/2022

    Court granted petition to confirm an arbitration award under the FAA and New York Convention where respondent did not oppose the petition.

  • Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Republic of Yemen, No. 19-MC-0547-RA (S.D.N.Y. May 18, 2022)
    05/18/2022

    Court denied petitioners’ motion to compel post-judgment discovery in relation to collection on an ICC award against the Republic of Yemen from non-party, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (“Fed”), regarding accounts held by non-party, the Central Bank of Yemen.  Court rejected the Fed’s argument that the FSIA precluded the information subpoena but agreed that the current subpoena was overbroad because it was not tailored to discovering information relevant to locating the judgment debtors’ assets.

  • Generali Espana de Seguros y Reaseguros, S.A. v. Speedier Shipping, Inc., No. 1:21-CV-04080-RLM (E.D.N.Y. May 17, 2022)
    05/17/2022

    Court granted petitioner’s application to enforce two foreign arbitration awards, which had been assigned to it by its insured, under the New York Convention.  Court rejected respondent’s argument that the arbitration clause was invalid and that it did not agree to or participate in the arbitration.

  • General Marine II, LLC v. Kelly, No. 3:21-CV-01425-W-DEB (S.D. Cal. May 9, 2022)
    05/09/2022

    Court confirmed the foreign arbitration award under the New York Convention.  Court found that the restrictions in travel due to the COVID-19 pandemic did not meet the public policy exception, and that respondent’s incapacity defense failed, as it was improperly directed at an inability to perform the underlying contract instead of incapacity preventing fair arbitration proceedings.

  • Phoenix III Association, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, No. 1:21-CV-00514-TFM-M (S.D. Ala. Apr. 26, 2022)
    04/26/2022

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding the four jurisdictional requirements of the New York Convention were satisfied, as there was an agreement in writing; the arbitration agreement provided for arbitration in New York, a territory of a signatory of the New York Convention; the dispute arose out of an insurance agreement, which is commercial in nature; and at least one of the parties to the insurance agreement was not an American.  Court denied request to dismiss the matter but granted a stay pending arbitration pursuant to the FAA.

  • Uni-Top Asia Investment Ltd. v. Sinopec International Petroleum Exploration and Production Corp., No. 1:20-CV-01770-DLF (D.D.C. Apr. 22, 2022)
    04/22/2022

    Court granted motion to dismiss petition to confirm arbitral award.  Court found the venue was improper under Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, because petitioner failed to show that respondent did business in the district which is necessary for venue over an instrumentality or agency of a foreign state under 28 USC § 1391(f)(3).  Court denied petitioner’s motion for jurisdictional discovery as moot.

  • Washington Schools Risk Management Pool v. American Re-Insurance Company, No. 21-CV-00874-LK (W.D. Wash. Apr. 21, 2022)
    04/21/2022

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration after considering whether Washington state law barred application of the New York Convention.  Washington law bars enforcement of certain arbitration clauses in insurance contracts.  Federal statute, by way of the McCarran-Ferguson Act, provides that state insurance law reverse-preempts federal law.  Court found that the New York Convention is not an ‘Act of Congress’ subject to reverse-preemption by the McCarran-Ferguson Act and granted the motion because the arbitration clause was enforceable and the claims arbitrable.

  • In re Application of Newbrook Shipping Corporation and Falcon Confidence Shipping Ltd., No. 20-2268 (4th Cir. Apr. 20, 2022)
    04/20/2022

    Court of appeals found district court erred in granting the entire application for discovery under 28 USC § 1782, finding that the court should have restricted the evidence sought to what would be “for use” in the one proceeding that satisfied the foreign proceeding requirement.  Court of appeals also remanded to the district court to address whether an appropriate agent was served with the subpoenas pursuant to Rule 4(h)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Maryland Rule 2-124(d).

  • Conner v. Regions Bank, No. 3:22-CV-00159 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 19, 2022)
    04/19/2022

    Court found defendant did not waive its agreement to arbitrate, where plaintiff waited to invoke its right to arbitrate for several months until case was transferred to the state circuit court.

  • Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation v. Oceltip Aviation 1 Pty Ltd., No. 20-11080 (11th Cir. Apr. 18, 2022)
    04/18/2022

    Court of appeals affirmed district court decision to confirm AAA arbitration award in a contract dispute involving the sale of a jet aircraft.  Court of appeals agreed with the district court’s finding that the FAA review standards, rather than Georgia state law, applied, and that the district court had correctly confirmed the award.

  • Spliethoff Transport B.V. v. Phyto-Charter Inc., No. 21-1359 (2d Cir. Apr. 15, 2022)
    04/15/2022

    Court of appeals dismissed case for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the district court’s order was not a final appealable decision within the meaning of the FAA because it had deferred a decision on petitioner’s request that the court appoint an arbitrator in the event the parties were unable to agree. 

  • Caston v. McAfee, No. 3:21-CV-1890-G-BK (N.D. Tex. Apr. 13, 2022)
    04/13/2022

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims and compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court dismissed the action, rather than stay the proceedings, as all the issues raised by plaintiff were to be submitted to arbitration.

  • Aalfs Family Partnership v. GSL Holdings, S.A. de C.V., No. 5:21-CV-04038-CJW-KEM (N.D. Iowa Apr. 11, 2022)
    04/11/2022

    Court confirmed arbitration award and denied respondents’ motion to vacate, finding there was no misconduct or impartiality on the part of the arbitrators.  Court determined that the New York Convention grounds for vacatur applied, because the award was issued in Iowa between US citizens and a Mexican corporation, as well as the FAA grounds for vacatur, as the arbitration award was issued in the US and the petitioners were seeking enforcement in the United States.

  • PT Rahajasa Media Internet v. Telecommunication and Informatics Financing Provider and Management Centre, No. 1:20-CV-11035-PGG-OTW (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2022)
    04/01/2022

    Court denied petitioner’s application to confirm a foreign arbitration award against an agency of the Republic of Indonesia under the New York Convention.  Court found that petitioner failed to timely file the application within the three-year statute of limitations in 9 U.S.C. § 207.  It further found that petitioner had not shown that it was reasonably diligent in pursuing its rights or that extraordinary circumstances prevented it from filing the application in a timely manner to equitably toll the limitations period.

  • Ball v. Tesla Motors, Inc., No. 2:22-CV-00005-LA (E.D. Wis. Mar. 31, 2022)
    03/31/2022

    Court granted respondent’s motion to compel arbitration under the FAA, finding that claims of “fraud in the inducement of the contract generally,” as opposed to the arbitration clause itself, must be submitted to the arbitrator.  Court stayed the action pending arbitration.

  • Iraq Telecom Limited v. IBL Bank S.A.L., No. 21-CV-10940-DLC (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2022)
    03/16/2022

    Court confirmed, in part, the order granting $100 million attachment in aid of arbitration pursuant to CPLR 7502(c) to the extent of $3 million and granted cross-motion to vacate such order as to the remaining $97 million.  Court found that petitioner showed that it was likely to succeed on request to confirm $3 million arbitral award but failed to show that it was likely to receive arbitral award of $97 million in separate arbitration.

  • Skymark Properties Corporation, Inc. v. Katebian, No. 2:20-CV-12372-SFC-DRG (E.D. Mich. March 14, 2022)
    03/14/2022

    Court issued a report and recommendation denying defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and grant in part and deny as moot in part defendants’ motions to dismiss in a RICO case.  Court found that because the arbitration agreement provided for arbitration in California, the proper course of action was to dismiss claims covered by the agreement without prejudice.  Court found that plaintiffs had failed to sufficiently plead causation for the remaining claims.

  • Process and Industrial Developments Limited v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, No. 21-7003 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 11, 2022)
    03/11/2022

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to deny motion to dismiss petition to confirm arbitral award against foreign sovereign.  Court of appeals found that (i) the arbitration exception to sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applied, and (ii) a foreign court’s order ostensibly setting aside an arbitral award has no bearing on the district court’s jurisdiction and is instead an affirmative defense properly suited for consideration at the merits stage.

  • Tethyan Copper Company PTY Limited v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, No. 19-CV-02424-TNM (D.D.C. Mar. 10, 2022)
    03/10/2022

    Court denied motion for a stay of enforcement of ICSID award, finding that a stay would not benefit judicial economy, denying a stay would not irreparably harm defendant, and granting a stay would prejudice plaintiff.  Court also denied motion to dismiss petition to enforce ICSID award, finding that it had jurisdiction and the arbitral award merited full faith and credit.

  • Kondot S.A. v. Duron LLC, No. 21-CV-03744-ER (S.D.N.Y. Fla. Feb. 22, 2022)
    02/22/2022

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm the third partial final arbitration award under the New York Convention, finding respondent failed to show that any of the grounds for refusal of recognition of the award applied.  Court found that there was more than a barely colorable justification to support a finding that the arbitrators conducted the proceedings in accordance with the parties agreed-upon procedure, determined that respondent had ample opportunity to be heard in the arbitration, and found respondent failed to prove the public policy defense.

  • Full Moon Logistics v. Bald Eagle Logistics, Inc., No. 8:21-CV-02695-WFJ-AAS (M.D. Fla. Feb. 16, 2022)
    02/16/2022

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties and plaintiffs did not demonstrate procedural and substantive unconscionability.

  • The Branch of Citibank, N.A. Established in the Republic of Argentina v. De Nevares, No. 1:21-CV-06125-VM (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2022)
    02/13/2022

    Court found that a foreign branch of a banking entity had standing and capacity to bring an action under Rule 12(b)(1) and 17(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Court granted plaintiff’s request to compel arbitration and issued a preliminary injunction on defendant’s claim in an Argentine court.

  • Republic of Kazakhstan v. Chapman, No. 1:21-CV-03507-JGK (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2022)
    02/11/2022

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to remand to state court as to claims by Kazakhstan, but denied the motion as to the remaining plaintiff, finding that the subject matter jurisdiction clause under 9 USC § 203 and remand provision under 9 USC § 205 must be read separately.  Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration under the New York Convention as to the remaining plaintiff, finding that an agreement had been formed between the parties and the agreement clearly and unmistakably delegated the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator. 

  • Bartlit Beck LLP v. Okada, No. 21-1633 (7th Cir. Feb. 8, 2022)
    02/08/2022

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to confirm arbitration award.  Court of appeals declined to decide whether both Article V(1)(b) of the New York Convention and § 10 of the FAA applied to defendant’s application to vacate the award, finding that there appeared to be no conflict between the provisions for purposes of the case.  Court of appeals held that defendant was not denied a fundamentally fair proceeding, particularly as he refused to participate in the arbitration.

  • CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd v. Air India Ltd., No. 1:21-CV-09155-PGG (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2022)
    02/04/2022

    Court stayed proceedings until pending motions to dismiss in related cases in the District Court for the District of Columbia are resolved.  Court, assuming defendant was the alter ego of the Republic of India for the purposes of confirmation of a foreign arbitration award, found the issues raised in the Republic of India’s motions to dismiss in the District of Columbia actions substantially overlap with the issues presented to the Court in connection with its subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

  • The Federal Republic of Nigeria v. VR Advisory Services Ltd., No. 20-3909 (2d Cir. Feb. 3, 2022)
    02/03/2022

    Court of appeals vacated and remanded district court’s judgment in which it had vacated its previous ex parte grant of Nigeria’s application to compel discovery for use in a foreign proceeding pursuant to 28 USC § 1782.  Court of appeals found the district court erred in concluding that the US-Nigeria MLAT restricted Nigeria’s use of other lawful means to access evidence in the US for use in criminal matters.

  • Pao Tatneft v. Ukraine, No. 1:17-CV-00582-CKK (D.D.C. Feb. 2, 2022)
    02/02/2022

    Court denied respondent’s request for an abeyance or extension of time to produce discovery in relation to petitioner’s interrogatories and document requests in aid of execution of arbitration award and deferred ruling on the motion for protective order until briefing was complete.  Court ruled that due to security concerns petitioner was to treat all produced information as for outside counsel’s eyes only.

  • AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals AG v. Pharmaessentia Corporation, No. 1:20-CV-12066-MLW (D. Mass. Jan. 28, 2022)
    01/28/2022

    Court denied plaintiff’s request for sanctions in a case involving a discovery dispute over jurisdiction in relation to enforcement of an arbitration award.  Court found that defendant’s stipulation to jurisdiction and payment of plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees relating to the motion for sanctions was sufficient remedy for defendant’s earlier violation.

  • Thyssenkrupp Materials, LLC v. Triumph Group, Inc., No. 4:20-CV-11087-MFL-EAS (E.D. Mich. Jan. 26, 2022)
    01/26/2022

    Court denied defendants’ motion to vacate arbitration award pursuant to the FAA.  Court found that defendants had raised reasonable questions about the correctness of the arbitration award but had not met their burden of showing that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law.

  • Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A. v. Republic of Haiti, No. 21-CV-06704-PKC (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2022)
    01/26/2022

    Court granted petition to recognize, confirm, and enforce partial final arbitration award, finding that (i) the issue of arbitrability could not be relitigated; (ii) respondents failed to show lack of due process in the arbitration; (iii) respondents failed to show that the composition of the arbitration panel was not in accordance with the parties’ agreements; and (iv) enforcement of the award would not violate public policy.

  • Richard Green v. Dinh Hoang Phuong, No. 21-35146 (9th. Cir. Jan 26, 2022)
    01/26/2022

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision dismissing action to enforce arbitration award because the action was barred under the Younger abstention doctrine, and even assuming that the New York Convention applied, it did not require that said action be brought in federal court.

  • Leo Middle East FZE v. Zhe Zhang, No. 21-CV-03985-CRB (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2022)
    01/24/2022

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiffs and cross-defendants waived their right to arbitration via participation in litigation, and to the extent parallel proceedings might result in inconsistent rulings, plaintiffs and cross defendants created such problem by waiving their right to arbitrate.

  • Iraq Telecom Limited v. IBL Bank S.A.L, No. 21-CV-10940-DLC (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2022)
    01/19/2022

    Court granted petitioner’s renewed motion for an ex parte order of attachment in aid of enforcement of a foreign arbitration award in the amount of $100 million.  Court found that since its previous motion, petitioner had satisfied the grounds for an ex parte attachment pursuant to the New York Civil Practice Law and Rule § 1602(1) and § 7502, including by showing that without such attachment, an arbitration award may be rendered ineffectual.

  • Brands United Ltd. v. Universal Studios Licensing LLC, No. 2:21-CV-08764-SB-KS (C.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2022)
    01/14/2022

    Court denied petition to vacate arbitration award under the FAA, rejecting petitioner’s arguments that the award was procured by undue means.  Court found nothing improper about ex parte communications between the arbitrator and a party, when petitioner declined to participate in the arbitration, and concluded that the service requirements of the Hague Convention did not apply as the petitioner agreed to service by email and mail in its agreement to arbitration.

  • China Railway No. 10 Engineering Group Co. Ltd. v. Triorient, LLC, No. 1:21-CV-05941-RMB (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2022)
    01/14/2022

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award under the New York Convention.  Respondent did not appear or participate in confirmation proceedings, but court found that the award was valid and well-reasoned, and therefore should be confirmed.  Court denied petitioner’s application for legal fees and costs without prejudice, as petitioner did not request a specific amount of attorney’s fees or submit any records justifying its costs.

  • Binh v. King & Spalding LLP, No. 4:21-CV-02234 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 10, 2022)
    01/10/2022

    Court granted motion to dismiss and compel arbitration under the New York Convention, finding that the dispute fell within the scope of the parties’ agreement, and that because the agreement had a broad delegation clause, the issue of arbitrability should be resolved by arbitration.

  • Trajkovski Invest AB v. I.Am.Plus Electronics, Inc., No. 2:21-CV-04246-ODW-JEM (C.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2021)
    12/29/2021

    Court granted petitioners’ motion to enforce a foreign arbitral award.  Court found it had subject matter jurisdiction under the New York Convention and that petitioners sufficiently applied for recognition of the award under the New York Convention by ultimately filing the original award and agreement in their unredacted forms.

  • Pao Tatneft v. Ukraine, No. 20-7091 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 28, 2021)
    12/28/2021

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to enforce an arbitral award against Ukraine, rejecting arguments that the court should have declined to enforce the award under the New York Convention and dismissed the petition on the basis of forum non conveniens.  Court of appeals found Ukraine failed to timely raise one of its arguments, that the district court did not exceed its authority in modifying the final award because the award was not internally inconsistent, and that none of the exceptions to enforcement applied.  Court of appeals also confirmed that forum non conveniens is unavailable in proceedings to confirm a foreign arbitral award because only US courts can attach foreign commercial assets found in the United States.

  • Universal Properties Management Use, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 1:21-CV-23509-JLK (S.D. Fla. Dec. 21, 2021)
    12/21/2021

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to remand, finding that the arbitration agreement was governed by the New York Convention, and thus the court had jurisdiction.  Court found that the signed application for the insurance policy constituted an agreement in writing.

  • Air-Con Inc. v. Daikin Applied Latin America LLC, No. 19-2248 (1st Cir. Dec. 20, 2021)
    12/20/2021

    Court of appeals reversed district court’s order compelling arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding that the district court impermissibly placed the burden of disproving the existence of a valid arbitral agreement on the non-moving party and did not comply with the requirement to draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.  Court of appeals concluded that moving party failed to demonstrate the existence of a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate the dispute.

  • Hatfield v. MM Imports Inc., No. 7:21-CV-00055-REW-EBA (E.D. Ky. Dec. 15, 2021)
    12/15/2021

    Court granted motions to dismiss and compel arbitration under the FAA, finding a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate.

  • Trividia Health, Inc. v. Nipro Corporation, No. 1:20-CV-08450 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2021)
    12/10/2021

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an ICC arbitration award pursuant to the New York Convention.  Court rejected respondent’s argument that it was deprived of due process and found none of the exceptional circumstances for vacatur applied.

  • Arabian Motors Group W.L.L. v. Ford Motor Company, No. 20-2152 (6th Cir. Dec. 3, 2021)
    12/03/2021

    Court of appeals reversed district court’s decision to dismiss an action without prejudice rather than stay it.  Court of appeals held that § 3 of the FAA conclusively establishes defendant’s right to stay an action pending arbitration of the remaining arbitrable claims, and that the FAA’s language that a district court “shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action” conveys a mandatory obligation.

  • Commodities & Minerals Enterprise Ltd. v. CVG Ferrominera Orinoco, C.A., No. 1:19-CV-25217-DPG (S.D. Fla. Dec. 2, 2021)
    12/02/2021

    Court granted petition to confirm, recognize and enforce arbitration award and to enter judgment under the New York Convention.  Court found respondent’s arguments against confirmation were barred, because it failed to provide notice or to move to vacate, modify, or correct the arbitral award within three months of its delivery.

  • Al-Qarqani v. Saudi Arabian Oil Company, No. 21-20034 (5th Cir. Dec. 2, 2021)
    12/02/2021

    Court of appeals vacated judgment of the district court, finding that there was no valid agreement to arbitrate; and therefore, the case must be dismissed on remand for lack of jurisdiction as the defendant is an instrumentality of a foreign state and is immune from suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

  • Newell v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., No. 18-CV-20743-CMA (S.D. Fla. Nov. 23, 2021)
    11/23/2021

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the New York Convention for counts falling within the parties’ mandatory arbitration clause between plaintiff and one of the defendants but not the other.  Court found that the arbitration clause at issue was broad enough to encompass the plaintiff’s negligence claims, as the claims could not exist absent her employment and were premised on the employer’s duty to provide reasonable care and a safe environment in the workplace.  Court found the defendant, non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, had not made a sufficient showing of equitable estoppel such that it could compel arbitration of plaintiff’s claims against it.

  • Ukraine v. Pao Taftnet, No. 21-MC-00376-JGK-SN (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2021)
    11/22/2021

    Court affirmed magistrate judge’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion to quash non-party subpoenas regarding post-judgment discovery following Plaintiff’s avoidance of payment of an arbitral award confirmed by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.  Court overruled all five of Plaintiff’s objections, finding in particular that the magistrate judge properly applied precedent regarding a foreign sovereign’s standing to dispute the relevance of non-party subpoenas and did not avoid or discount Ukraine’s interests or treat those interests as equivalent to individual or corporate interests.

  • CPR Management S.A. v. Devon Park Bioventures L.P., Nos. 20-2343 20-2344 (3d Cir. Nov. 22, 2021)
    11/22/2021

    Court affirmed the confirmation of an arbitration award by the district court.  Court found that the district court properly struck Defendant-appellant’s application for interpleader because it was procedurally not permitted under the FAA as a pleading, not a motion; that the district court properly confirmed the arbitration award because none of the four grounds for vacating an award applied; and that the court properly awarded prejudgment interest because Defendant-appellant’s argument that prejudgment interest should be eliminated failed to meet one of the three grounds for the modification of an arbitration award as the “promotion of justice” alone is insufficient.  Court also admonished Defendant-appellant for prematurely quitting the arbitration.

  • LLC SPC Stileks v. Republic of Moldova, No. 14-CV-01921-CRC (D.D.C. Nov. 16, 2021)
    11/16/2021

    Court denied defendant’s motion to stay confirmation proceedings, finding that the Europcar factors did not favor a stay, particularly considering the protracted nature of the proceedings.

  • Andes Petroleum Ecuadro Limited v. Occidental Exploration and Production Company, No. 21-CV-03930-AKH (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 15, 2021)
    11/15/2021

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm arbitration award and denied defendant’s motion to vacate the award, finding that defendant failed to establish fraud, material partiality, denial of fundamental fairness, or that the arbitrator exceeded the scope of his authority.

  • CMB Infrastructure Group IX LP v. Cobra Energy Investment Finance Inc., No. 21-CV-00214-JAD-DJA (D. Nev. Nov. 15, 2021)
    11/15/2021

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that (i) an arbitration agreement existed, (ii) the dispute fell within the scope of such agreement, and (iii) both signatory and nonsignatory parties to the agreement may compel or be compelled to arbitrate the claims in the case.

  • CMB Infrastructure Group IX, LP v. Cobra Energy Investment Finance, Incorporated, No. 21-CV-00214-JAD-DJA (D. Nev. Nov. 15, 2021)
    11/15/2021

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration for certain claims, finding that the arbitration clause remained active after termination of the agreement and that both signatory and non-signatory defendants could compel arbitration.

  • Rohm Semiconductor USA LLC v. Maxpower Semiconductor Inc., No. 21-1709 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 12, 2021)
    11/12/2021

    Court of appeal affirmed decision compelling arbitration and dismissing declaratory judgment action, finding that (i) the underlying agreement was not ambiguous; (ii) the dispute was international; and (iii) the parties intended to delegate arbitrability to an arbitrator.

  • ADT, L.L.C. v. Richmond, No. 21-10023 (5th Cir. Nov. 11, 2021)
    11/11/2021

    Court vacated lower court’s dismissal for want of diversity jurisdiction, holding that between the parties there was a binding agreement to arbitrate. Court remanded the case for the district court to determine if a third-party who might defeat diversity jurisdiction should be joined as indispensable.

  • FMC Corporation v. Syngenta Crop Protection AG, No. 21-CV-00487 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 11, 2021)
    11/11/2021

    Court granted motion to dismiss ruling in a patent dispute case.  Court held that the arbitration clause in the parties’ collaboration agreement clearly required the parties to submit their claims to binding arbitration.

  • Micula v. Government of Romania, No. 17-CV-02332-APM (D.D.C. Nov. 8, 2021)
    11/08/2021

    Court granted motion to enter judgment in favor of petitioners for accrued sanctions.  Court found that by not answering petitioners’ interrogatories within 14 days, respondent had failed to fulfill the conditions that would allow them to avoid imposition of at least some of the accrued sanctions.

  • Zaklady Farmaceutyczne Polpharma S.A. v. Kartha Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 21-CV-00129-MOC-DCK (W.D.N.C. Nov. 8, 2021)
    11/08/2021

    Court granted motion to amend protective order to aid in a related Swiss arbitration.  Court found that allowing the Swiss arbitration counsel to access and use discovery that had been exchanged by the parties in U.S. litigation would reduce costs for all involved.

  • Hermes of Paris, Inc. v. Swain, No. 20-3451 (2nd Cir. Nov. 8, 2021)
    11/08/2021

    Court affirmed lower court’s confirmation of arbitration award dismissing respondent-appellant’s claims as untimely.  Court found that limitations defenses were arbitrable under the parties’ arbitration agreement because the presumption of arbitrability was not rebutted by any express language in the contract. Court also upheld an anti-filing injunction given petitioner-appellees history of vexatious and duplicative litigation.

  • In Re Ex Parte Application of Iraq Telecom Limited For An Order To Obtain Discovery, No. 19-MC-00175-RBS (M.D. Pa. Nov. 5, 2021)
    11/05/2021

    Court granted motion in part and denied in part a motion to compel production of documents in a limited discovery for use in a foreign proceeding.  Court held that all of the documents listed in the privilege log, except for three, were not protected by privilege and should be produced.

  • Hawley v. Boysen, No. 20-CV-02562-JWL-TJJ (D. Kan. Nov. 4, 2021)
    11/04/2021

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration in a breach of contract case.  Court found that there was no meeting of the minds on the question of mandatory arbitration and that therefore there was no arbitration agreement to enforce.

  • Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A. v. BB Energy USA, LLC, No. 21-20534 (5th Cir. Nov. 4, 2021)
    11/04/2021

    Court denied motion to stay discovery order in garnishment case involving a sovereign immunity defense.  Instead, court ordered the district court to limit discovery “only to verify allegations of specific fact crucial to an immunity determination.”

  • Jiangsu Beier Decoration Materials Co., Ltd. v. Angle World LLC, No. 2:21-CV-02845-AB (E.D. Pa. Oct. 28, 2021)
    10/28/2021

    Court denied petition to confirm a CIETAC arbitration award.  Court found it could not enforce the award under the New York Convention, because there was not an agreement to arbitrate signed by both parties or shown in an exchange of letters, even though the CEITAC found a valid arbitration agreement under Chinese law and the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods.

  • Nu-X Ventures v. SBL LLC dba Global Cannabinoids, No. 21-CV-0354-GNS (W.D .Ky. October 21, 2021)
    10/21/2021

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in a contract dispute regarding the shipment of cannabinoid gummies.  Court found the arbitration clause was validly part of the contract and plaintiff could not rebut the presumption that the arbitration clause was enforceable because the clause mirrored one in another contract signed by plaintiff and plaintiffs’ business was sophisticated enough to have read the arbitration clause despite the fact that it was not conspicuous.

  • Sutton v. DST Systems Inc., No. 21-CV-9052 (W.D. Mo. October 20, 2021)
    10/20/2021

    Court granted each plaintiffs’ motion to confirm an arbitration award following AAA arbitration proceedings.  Court found that no special circumstances permitted the court to deny such a motion, considering factors like defendant’s inconsistent litigation and arbitration positions, judicial estoppel, and unfair advantage.

  • C.N. Romtehnica S.A. v. P.W. Arms Inc., No. 21-CV-00953-JCC (W.D. Wash. October 19, 2021)
    10/19/2021

    Court denied respondent’s motion to dismiss a petition to enforce an arbitration award issued by a Romanian arbitrator.  Court found that the petition was not time-barred because petitioner filed its motion within three years of both the date the arbitrator sent the notice of the award and the date petitioner received the award. 

  • Cota v. Art Brand Studios LLC, No. 21-CV-01519-LJL (S.D.N.Y. October 15, 2021)
    10/15/2021

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration.  Court found defendant eliminated its ability to arbitrate by allowing the arbitration to terminate after an arbitration panel gave it the option to cover the arbitration costs of both parties or cease the proceedings and it chose the latter.

  • Weinstein v. Katapult Group Inc., No. 21-CV-05175-PJH (N.D. Cal. October 15, 2021)
    10/15/2021

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in a contract dispute arising out of an acquisition.  Court found no “hint” of the parties’ intent to arbitrate disputes in the acquisition documents.

  • Vale S.A. v. BSG Resources Limited, No. 19-CV-03619-VSB-RWL (S.D.N.Y. October 15, 2021)
    10/15/2021

    Court compelled alter ego of defendant to comply with discovery requests in aid of execution of plaintiff’s judgment arising from the Court’s enforcement of a London Court of International Arbitration award.

  • Martinique Properties LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, No. 21-CV-00209-BCB-SMB (D. Neb. October 15, 2021)
    10/15/2021

    Court held appraisal provision in insurance policy constituted an arbitration agreement under the FAA.  Court also found that complainant failed to sufficiently allege grounds to vacate the insurance award under the New York Convention because complainant failed to allege incapacity, improper notice, or that the award did not accord with the relevant agreement.

  • Global Gaming Philippines, LLC v. Enrique K. Razon, No. 21-CV-02655-LGS-SN (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2021)
    10/12/2021

    Court overruled defendants’ objections to magistrate judge’s order denying defendants’ motion to compel discovery of documents to support defendants’ anticipated defense against plaintiff’s attempt to enforce arbitration award, finding that discovery should be limited to avoid undermining the twin goals of arbitration: settling disputes efficiently and avoiding long and expensive litigation.

  • Cheruvoth v. Seadream Yacht Club Inc., No. 20-14450 (11th Cir. Oct. 6, 2021)
    10/06/2021

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order compelling arbitration under the New York Convention.  Court of appeals found written agreements existed between the parties, as the conditions precedent to contract formation were substantially complied with and a copy of the executed agreements was supplied to defendants.

  • Neptune Shipmanagement Services PTE v. Dahiya, No. 20-30776 (5th Cir. Oct. 1, 2021)
    10/01/2021

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to confirm an Indian arbitration award under the New York Convention.  Court of appeals held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to confirm the arbitral award, finding that an earlier remand to state court did not preclude the district court from hearing a separate action premised on new factual developments.  Court of appeals also found that the arbitration clause was enforceable and accepted state court’s judgment barring appellant from litigating against other parties.

  • Podgorny v. Ally Finance, No. 21-CV-00288 (D. Ariz. Sept. 23, 2021)
    09/23/2021

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and granted motion to dismiss with leave to amend in a case involving pro se plaintiffs.  Court found that it could not determine whether the disputes were covered by an arbitration agreement until the plaintiffs had filed a complaint with sufficient factual allegations to determine whether arbitration was necessary.

  • Tieszen v. Ebay Inc., No. 21-CV-04002-KES (D.S.D. Sept. 21, 2021)
    09/21/2021

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in a product liability suit.  Court found that there was a valid and enforceable arbitration clause in the user agreement consented to by the plaintiff and that the claim fell within its scope.

  • Compania de Inversiones Mercantoles S.A. v. Grupo Cementos de Chihuaua S.A.B de C.V., No. 15-CV-02120 (D. Colo. Sept 20, 2021)
    09/20/2021

    Court granted Motion to Compel in part and denied it in part in post-judgment discovery for a party seeking to confirm an arbitral award.  Court held that petitioner was entitled to an order compelling respondent to answer interrogatories but was not entitled leave to serve an unlimited number of additional interrogatories on a rolling basis until respondent complied with the judgment.

  • Absolute Nevada LLC v. Grand Majestic Riverboat Company LLC, No. 21-CV-11479-PKC (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2021)
    09/17/2021

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral awards against respondent in a case arising out of a shipping charter dispute.  Court stayed motion to confirm arbitral award against third party pending outcome of an appeal.

  • Brice v. Plain Green LLC, No. 19-15707 (9th Cir. September 16, 2021)
    09/16/2021

    Court reversed district court’s order denying defendants’ motion to compel arbitration in a RICO action and remanded with instructions to stay the case and compel the parties to proceed with arbitration.  Court concluded an agreement delegating to an arbitrator the question of whether an arbitration agreement is enforceable must be upheld unless the delegation provision itself is unenforceable.  Court found that the delegation provision was not an invalid prospective waiver and therefore arbitration could proceed.

  • Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. Bonta, No. 20-15291 (9th Cir. Sept. 15, 2021)
    09/15/2021

    Court held that California Government Code § 12953 and Labor Code § 433 were preempted to the extent that they applied to executed arbitration agreements covered by the FAA.  Court also vacated district court’s preliminary injunction, holding that Section § 432.6 was not preempted by the FAA because it applied only in the absence of an agreement to arbitrate and expressly provided for the validity and enforceability of agreements to arbitrate.

  • Synopsys, Inc. v. Avatar Integrated Systems, Inc., No. 20-CV-04151-WHO (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2021)
    09/09/2021

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay the entire action under the FAA, including a stay of non-arbitrable issues, finding that even though it was not apparent that the FAA mandated a stay of the entire action, the conservation of judicial resources from a discretionary stay of the entire action outweighed any potential harm to plaintiff.

  • Goldgroup Resources, Inc. v. DynaResource de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. et al., No. 16-CV-02547-RM-KMT (D. Colo. Sept. 3, 2021)
    09/03/2021

    Court denied defendant’s motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, finding that defendant failed to meet its burden of showing that the court should grant relief.  Additionally, the court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion for contempt, finding that only part of a confirmed arbitration award was violated.

  • Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A. v. Republic of Haiti et al., No. 21-CV-04960-PKC (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 3, 2021)
    09/03/2021

    Court granted non-party central bank’s motion to intervene in action seeking a maritime attachment in aid of arbitration against foreign state.  Court vacated the attachment, finding that plaintiff did not rebut the presumption that the central bank’s account was immune from attachment under Section 1611(b)(1) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.  Court additionally granted central bank’s motion to quash subpoena and protective order.

  • Ullrich v. Ullrich, No. 3:21-CV-00147-TJC-PDB (M.D. Fla. Sept. 3, 2021)
    09/03/2021

    Court denied in part and granted in part a motion to compel arbitration between parties subject to different arbitration agreements.  Court’s decision turned on whether the parties had “clear and unmistakable evidence of the parties” intent to submit questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator. 

  • Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A. v. Republic of Haiti, No. 4:21-CV-01953 (S.D. Tex. Sep. 3, 2021)
    09/03/2021

    Court granted motion to stay attachment proceedings, pending a decision on plaintiff’s action to confirm and enforce the partial final arbitral award in New York federal district court.

  • Baker Hughes Services International, LLC v. Joshi Technologies International, Inc., No. 20-CV-00626-TCK-SH (N.D. Okla. Sept. 2, 2021)
    09/02/2021

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award, finding that petitioner complied with the requirements of the New York Convention.  Court found that respondent failed to show that the arbitration agreement was invalid or that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

  • Nordic Water Products AB v. Veolia Water Solutions Technologies Support, No. 21-CV-317-FL (E.D.N.C. Sept. 1, 2021)
    09/01/2021

    Court granted motions to compel arbitration in related cases arising out of a patent dispute. Court found that the issues raised by the plaintiffs were subject to arbitration under the terms of the parties’ arbitration agreement. 

  • Top Jet Enterprises Ltd. v. Skyblueocean Ltd. and Jet Midwest Group, LLC., No. 4:21-CV-00096-FJG (W.D. Mo. Aug. 31, 2021)
    08/31/2021

    Court granted plaintiff’s petition to confirm and enforce an HKIAC arbitral award under the FAA.  Court rejected defendants’ argument that the petition should be denied because plaintiff could have filed a single confirmation proceeding instead of separate proceedings for the merits judgment and the cost judgment.  Court also found no support for defendants’ argument that the tribunal failed to consider the reasonableness of the attorneys’ fees or that the amount of the fees was against public policy.

  • ArtiCure Inc. v. Meng No. 19-4067, No. 19-4067 (6th Cir. Aug. 27, 2021)
    08/27/2021

    Court considered whether Ohio law permitted defendants to enforce an arbitration clause even though they did not sign the contract.  Court agreed with district court in rejecting defendant’s equitable estoppel argument and one of their agency arguments but remanded for reconsideration of defendants’ second agency claim.

  • Iberoamericana de Hidrocarburos S.A. v. Exterran Corporation, No. 4:21-CV-01840 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2021)
    08/19/2021

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel ICC arbitration and to stay the case pending arbitration.  Pursuant to the FAA, court found a valid agreement to arbitrate and concluded that the dispute fell within the scope of the agreement.

  • Cathay Capital Holdings II, LP v. Zheng, No. 3:20-CV-01365-JBA (D. Conn. Aug. 18, 2021)
    08/18/2021

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the case.  Court found that the parties intended to delegate the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator by incorporating the UNCITRAL and HKAIC rules into the agreements.  Court denied plaintiff’s motion to remand to state court, finding the action related to arbitration agreements subject to the New York Convention, which confers subject matter jurisdiction on the court.

  • Koch Minerals SARL v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 1:17-CV-02559-ZMF (D.D.C. Aug. 18, 2021)
    08/18/2021

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and confirmed the ICSID Award pursuant to 22 USC § 1650a.  Court concluded that defendant presented no grounds to contest the authenticity of the award nor raised concerns about the award’s finality in light of the annulment proceedings.

  • J.M. Aquino P.C. v. Imperial Pacific International (CNMI), LLC, No. 1:20-CV-00009 (D.N. Mar. Is. Aug. 18, 2021)
    08/18/2021

    Court granted motion to strike under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) all claims based on an agreement subject to a valid arbitration clause. 

  • Lin v. Ant Bicycle Inc., No. 1:21-CV-10510-GAO (D. Mass. August 17, 2021)
    08/17/2021

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment in relation to an arbitration award against defendants and ordered defendants to pay the award and to transfer all interests in the company to plaintiffs.

  • Luxshare, Ltd. v. ZF Automotive US, Inc., No. 2:20-MC-51245-LJM-APP (E.D. Mich. Aug. 17, 2021)
    08/17/2021

    Court denied respondent’s motion to stay the case pending appeal, finding that respondent had not demonstrated any irreparable harm, that respondent had little likelihood of success considering that Sixth Circuit precedent permits discovery under § 1782 for private arbitration, that petitioner could suffer harm if discovery is stayed, and that the public interest weighed against a stay.  Court granted petitioner’s motion to compel discovery under § 1782 and ordered respondent to comply with the subpoenas.

  • Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd., No. 2:18-CV-01360-TSZ (W.D. Wash. Aug. 16, 2021)
    08/16/2021

    Court granted in part and denied in part intervenors’ motion to compel discovery, finding the intervenors were entitled to discovery as to respondent’s assets and relationships in relation to recovering amounts due under a foreign arbitration award but modified intervenors’ requests.  Court granted respondent’s motion for a protective order in part with regard to specific interrogatories and requests for production, which it found to be overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to reveal executable assets.

  • Heirs of Khalid Abu Al-Qarqani, et al v. Chevron Corporation, et al, No. 19-17074 (9th Cir. Aug. 12, 2021)
    08/12/2021

    Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a petition to enforce a foreign arbitration award for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Court found that only the five heirs named on the notice of appeal sufficiently appealed the district court’s order such that the Court had jurisdiction and that the Court did have subject matter jurisdiction, but that the district court should have dismissed the petition on the merits.   Court concluded that, while there was a binding agreement to arbitrate between the parties, the heirs could not establish a right to enforce the arbitration clause and, even if they could, by the time they obtained interest in the land, the rights had been assigned to another party thus Chevron’s predecessor was no longer bound by the arbitration agreement.

  • Republic of Kazakhstan v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, No. 18-CV-00409-DWF-TNL (D. Minn. Aug. 12, 2021)
    08/12/2021

    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.

  • CLMS Management Services Limit, et al v. Amwins Brokerage of Georgia LL, et al, No. 20-35428 (9th Cir. Aug. 12, 2021)
    08/12/2021

    Court affirmed district court’s order compelling arbitration in an insurance dispute involving U.S. policy-holders and a U.K. insurance company following the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey in 2017.  Court found that the McCarran-Ferguson Act, a Washington law that prohibits the enforcement of arbitration clauses in insurance contracts, does not prohibit enforcement of the New York Convention such that Washington law controls, because the Convention is self-executing and therefore not reverse-preempted by the McCarran-Ferguson Act.

  • Cruz v. Mercedes-Benz USA LLC, No. 21-CV-00809-JGB-SHK (C.D. Cal. August 12, 2021)
    08/12/2021

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding defendant did not have standing to enforce the arbitration clause as a third-party beneficiary to a lease.  Court held that the parties clearly chose to include successors or assigns in the arbitration clause but that this did not include defendant.

  • MarkDutchCo 1 B.V., et al v. Zeta Interactive Corp, No. 19-3845 (3rd Cir. Aug. 10, 2021)
    08/10/2021

    Court affirmed confirmation of an arbitral award in a dispute arising out of an interest purchase agreement between the parties.  Court found that defendant did not meet the “heavy burden” imposed by the FAA and the New York Convention because the parties bargained for an IPA that committed to resolving all disputes, procedural and substantive, before an arbitrator and reaffirmed that commitment when engaging in arbitration.

  • Takiedine v. 7-Eleven Inc., No. 17-CV-04518 (E.D. Pa. Jul. 29, 2021)
    07/29/2021

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of a previous order compelling arbitration.  Court found on reconsideration that the arbitration agreement at issue was invalid.  Court allowed the motion despite it being untimely because it found that denying reconsideration would leave the parties in legal limbo.

  • Gerlach v. Tickmark Inc., No. 21-CV-02768 (N.D.Cal. July. 28, 2021)
    07/28/2021

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration in a contract dispute.  Court found that the parties entered into a valid arbitration agreement and “clearly and unmistakably” intended to delegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

  • Mitas Endustri Sanayi Ticaret A.S. v. Valmont Industries Inc., No. 20-CV-01285-CFC (D. Del. Jul. 27, 2021)
    07/27/2021

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of claims alleging misappropriation of trade secrets and deceptive trade practices. Court found that there was a valid arbitration provision in a Non-Disclosure Agreement between the parties.

  • JTH Tax LLC dba Liberty Tax Service v. Pitcairn Franchise Development, LLC., No. 21-CV-00135-RAJ-DEM (E.D. Va. Jul. 27, 2021)
    07/27/2021

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award and denied defendant’s motion to vacate.  Court ruled that the alleged errors made by the arbitrator were unfounded and did not support vacatur.

  • Lavvan Inc. v. Amyris Inc., No. 20-CV-07386 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 26, 2021)
    07/26/2021

    Court denied a motion to compel arbitration of claims alleging trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement.  Court found that there was an explicit agreement between the parties that intellectual property disputes would be determined by a court and that requiring the parties to arbitrate would ignore the clear language of the parties’ agreement.

  • CW Baice Limited v. The Wisdomobile Group Limited, No. 5:20-CV-03526-LHK (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2021)
    07/20/2021

    Court denied defendants’ motion to dissolve preliminary injunction on the dissipation of defendants’ assets pending an arbitration before the HKIAC, finding that a Hong Kong court’s decision to dissolve a similar injunction did not change the balance of equities which led the U.S. court to issue the injunction in question.

  • Nidec Corporation v. Seargate Technology LLC, No. 1:21-CV-00052-RGA (D. Del. July 20, 2021)
    07/20/2021

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending arbitration of the issue of arbitrability, finding that the parties unmistakably delegated to the issue of arbitrability to an arbitrator when the parties incorporated the JAMS International Arbitration Rules into their agreement.

  • Fischer v. Instant Checkmate LLC, No. 1:19-CV-04892 (N.D. Ill. July 19, 2021)
    07/19/2021

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff’s registration on defendant’s website and clicking “Continue” constituted acceptance of defendant’s Terms of Use, which included an arbitration agreement.

  • Zitan Technologies, LLC v. Yu, No. 3:18-CV-00395-RCJ-WGC (D. Nev. July 16, 2021)
    07/16/2021

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to confirm an arbitration award and granted in part their motion for attorneys fees and costs incurred in the process of acquiring preliminary and permanent injunctions.  Court found that attorneys fees incurred in the process of acquiring a permanent injunction in the arbitral forum were barred by contract provision stating that the parties shall bear their own attorneys fees in arbitration.

  • In re Ex Parte Application of Eni S.p.A. for an Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for Granting Leave to Obtain Discovery for Use in Foreign Proceedings, No. 1:20-MC-00334-MN (D. Del. July 15, 2021)
    07/15/2021

    Court denied respondents’ motion for re-argument and reconsideration, finding that respondents did not provide a compelling reason for reconsideration of its decision to grant discovery for use in the Italian criminal proceeding and the ICSID proceeding pursuant to 28 USC § 1782.  Court also rejected respondents’ request to narrow the subpoenas to apply only to the respondent with a financial interest in the proceedings, concluding that respondents should have raised the argument earlier.  Court denied petitioner’s motion for sanctions, finding that petitioner was not entitled to costs of responding to the motion.

  • The Application of the Fund for Protection of Investor Rights in Foreign States Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for an Order granting Leave to Obtain Discovery for use in a Foreign Proceeding, No. 20-2653 (2d Cir. July 15, 2021)
    07/15/2021

    Court of appeals affirmed the District Court’s order granting petitioners’ application pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 to obtain discovery from a third party for use in an arbitration proceeding between plaintiff and the Republic of Lithuania under the bilateral investment treaty between Lithuania and Russia.  Court of appeals found that the proceeding was before a foreign or international tribunal because the arbitration was between an investor and foreign state party to a bilateral investment treaty and the tribunal was established by that treaty; that plaintiff qualified as an interested person under § 1782 because it is a party to the arbitration; and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the relevant factors.

  • The Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic v. Baldwin, No. 2:20-CV-00195-CRK (D. Idaho July 15, 2021)
    07/15/2021

    Court granted plaintiff’s third motion to amend the complaint to enforce a PCA and ICSID award issued against defendants in order to add a new party and to plead causes of action relating to fraudulent transfers under Idaho law.  Court found the proposed amendments would not be prejudicial and that there was no undue delay.

  • Saint Gobain Performance Plastics Europe v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 1:20-CV-00129-RC (D.D.C. July 13, 2021)
    07/13/2021

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion pursuant to 28 USC § 1610(c) to attach the property of a foreign state located in the US, finding four months was a reasonable period of time since the arbitral award judgment and considering that respondent failed to proffer evidence of efforts to pay the judgment.  Court also granted plaintiff’s motion to register the judgment in any judicial district under 28 USC § 1963, concluding that good cause exists since respondent lacks assets in the District of Columbia but retains assets elsewhere.

  • Hamilton v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines, No. 1:21-CV-20906-JEM (S.D. Fla. July 13, 2021)
    07/13/2021

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate ICDR arbitral award pursuant to § 10 of the FAA on grounds of evident partiality, finding that grounds for vacatur under the FAA were not applicable to the non-domestic commercial arbitration and that the plaintiff failed to provide any defenses against enforcement under the New York Convention.  Court further found that even if the FAA applied, plaintiff had not met the standard to establish evident partiality.  Court confirmed the award but denied defendant’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs, since the plaintiff had marshalled some support for its position, although it was weak.

  • Commodities & Minerals Enterprise Ltd. v. CVG Ferrominera Orinoco, C.A., No. 1:19-CV-25217-DPG (S.D. Fla. July 8, 2021)
    07/08/2021

    Court granted motion to vacate the final default judgment granting petition to confirm arbitration award because service of process was insufficient under 28 USC § 1608.  Since petitioner failed to serve a summons, court found that it did not comply with the requirements for service on an instrumentality of a foreign state and rejected petitioner’s contention that service was excused by actual notice.

  • Tuckman v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 20-11242 (11th Cir. July 7, 2021)
    07/07/2021

    Court of appeals affirmed district court decision denying appellants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement was not enforceable as to plaintiff where: (1) plaintiff did not sign the agreement in his individual capacity and (2) no equitable considerations existed to allow non-signatory defendants to enforce the agreement.

  • Harren & Partner Ship Management De Mexico S.A.P.I. v. American Bureau of Shipping, No. 1:21-CV-05361-LGS (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2021)
    07/07/2021

    Court granted petitioners’ request to preliminary enjoin the arbitration before the Society of Maritime Arbitrators, finding that the petitioners established a likelihood of success on the merits that there was no arbitration agreement in force between the parties under the New York Convention, since there was no written arbitral agreement and they could not be bound by estoppel.  Court found that petitioners showed a likelihood of irreparable harm absent relief, that the balance of equities favored the petitioners, and that an injunction was not against the public interest.

  • PPT Research Inc. v. Solvay USA Inc., No. 20-CV-02645-JLS (E.D. Pa. July 7, 2021)
    07/07/2021

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed the matter pending arbitration.  Court found the arbitration provision in the reciprocal confidentiality agreement signed between the parties properly delegated the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator and the use of the word “may” in the arbitration provision did not render the clause permissive. Court also addressed plaintiff’s “effective vindication” argument finding plaintiff was “disingenuous” in claiming financial distress while simultaneously seeking to proceed in federal court litigation.

  • Setty v. Shrinivas Sugandhalaya LLP, No. 18-35573 (9th Cir. July 7, 2021)
    07/07/2021

    Court affirmed the district court’s order denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to grant a stay pending arbitration on remand from the Supreme Court.  In applying federal common law, the Court found the claims have no relationship to the partnership deed containing the arbitration agreement at issue in the appeal.  The ownership issue at question does not stem from the partnership deed and therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting defendants’ argument for equitable estoppel or denying its motion to compel.

  • University of Notre Dame (USA) in England v. TJAC Waterloo LLC, No. 16-CV-10150-ADB (D. Mass. Jul. 7, 2021)
    07/07/2021

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm the damages award and recognition of an English court’s judgment awarding costs to petitioner in connection with an arbitration in England.  Court found the damages, which had been divided into subcategories during bifurcated proceedings, were not time-barred for confirmation because the clock did not begin to run until the last award.  Court also held defendants misinterpreted the “revenue rule” which is not applicable here, because the Court was merely enforcing a decision rather than interpreting English law.

  • Prodigy Finance Limited v. Funsho, No. 19-CV-06458-WFK-RER (E.D.N.Y. July 6, 2021)
    07/06/2021

    Court confirmed petitioner’s arbitration award and granted petitioner’s motion for summary judgment.  Court found respondent failed to respond to the arbitration proceedings and to the Court, and that the record in the case supports the arbitrator’s decision.

  • Jiajing (Beijing) Tourism Co., Inc. v. Aeroballoon USA, Inc., No. 20-CV-11313-MBB (D. Mass. July 1, 2021)
    07/01/2021

    Court denied petitioner’s motion for a separate judgment against respondent to recognize and confirm a foreign arbitration award under Rule 54(b).  Court found there was a final judgment, but there was a just reason for delay because respondents may have to duplicate their efforts regarding discovery in a separate proceeding and could be forced to litigate in two forums if Rule 54(b) certification were allowed.

  • Infrared Environmental Infrastructure GP Limited v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 20-CV-00817-JDB (D.D.C. June 29, 2021)
    06/29/2021

    Court denied the Kingdom of Spain’s motion to dismiss action to enforce an ICSID arbitral award and plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment without prejudice, finding that its ruling would directly and prematurely contradict the judgment of the ICSID tribunal, pending the resolution of ICSID annulment proceedings.  Court also granted Spain’s motion to stay pending resolution of the annulment proceedings, holding that the balance of hardships favored a stay.  Court also denied plaintiffs’ request that Spain be ordered to provide a bond to secure the ICSID award, finding that such an order would undermine the court’s decision not to rule on the validity of the ICSID award.

  • NIPRO Corporation v. Verner, No. 19-CV-62121-MGC (S.D. Fla. June 24, 2021)
    06/24/2021

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to remand and granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the New York Convention.  Court found that given that there was a valid arbitration agreement, that the issue of arbitrability was for the arbitrator, and that the arbitration clause encompassed plaintiff’s tort claims.  Additionally, court also held that equitable estoppel required the parties to arbitrate the dispute, and that plaintiff could be compelled to arbitrate under principles of agency or assumption.

  • Gater Asset Limited v. Ao Moldovagaz, No. 19-3550 (2d. Cir. Jun. 22, 2021)
    06/22/2021

    Court vacated district court’s judgment in petitioner’s renewal action and remanded with instructions to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction but affirmed district court’s original default judgment in dispute about Moldovan gas debts.  Court found it unnecessary to vacate the earlier default judgment because the respondents had relied heavily on facts that postdated the default judgment when asking the court to vacate for lack of jurisdiction.

  • Boyd-Holsinger v. Peloton College LLC., No. 19-CV-01686 (N.D.Tex. Jun. 21, 2021)
    06/21/2021

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of claims brought under the False Claims Act.  Court found that there were valid agreements to arbitrate between the parties that encompassed the claims at issue.

  • CKR Law LLP v. Anderson Investments International, LLC, No. 20-CV-07937 (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 21, 2021)
    06/21/2021

    Court granted petitioner’s motion for default judgment in a petition to compel arbitration under the FAA.  Court declined to inquire into personal jurisdiction at this stage, reasoning that the Second Circuit required such petitions to be ‘decided with dispatch’ and that a respondent would have opportunities later to appear and contest jurisdiction.

  • Daredevil, Inc. v. ZTE Corporation, No. 19-3769 (8th Cir. Jun. 18, 2021)
    06/18/2021

    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.

  • Julabo USA, Inc. v. Juchheim, No. 5:19-CV-01412-JDW (E.D. Pa. June 9, 2021)
    06/09/2021

    Court granted motion to compel ICDR arbitration and stay the litigation pursuant to the FAA.

  • International Energy Ventures Management L.L.C. v. United Energy Group Limited, No. 20-20221 (4th Cir. May 28, 2021)
    05/28/2021

    Court reversed the district court’s finding that International Energy Ventures Management’s (“IEVM”) pursuit of litigation did not prevent it from returning to arbitration, after the dispute bounced between three courts and two arbitrations over the course of seven years.  Court found that two arbitrators exceeded their powers in violation of the FAA when they determined that IEVM waived its right to arbitrate through litigation-conduct, as that determination is presumptively a judicial matter, and the parties failed to contract around the general rule that courts resolve litigation-conduct waivers. Court held that IEVM substantially invoked the judicial process to United Energy Group’s detriment.

  • Government of the Cook Island v. Hubbart, No. 21-CV-21395-FAM (S.D. Fl. May 28, 2021)
    05/28/2021

    Court granted petition to recognize and enforce a foreign arbitral award because respondent failed to file a response to the petition.  Court found petitioner satisfied the statutory conditions for recognition and enforcement of the award and respondent failed to provide any response to establish its burden that the New York Convention’s grounds for refusal had been met.

  • Luxshare, Ltd. v. Zf Automotive US, Inc., No. 2:20-MC-51245 (E.D. Mich. May 27, 2021)
    05/27/2021

    Magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part motion to quash subpoenas in connection with discovery for use in foreign proceedings, finding that plaintiff met the statutory requirements of 28 USC 1782(a) but ordering that the discovery be circumscribed.

  • Bunge S.A. v. Pacific Gulf Shipping (Singapore) PTE LTD., Pacific Gulf Shipping Co. Limited, No. 3:19-CV-00491-IM (D. Or. May 21, 2020)
    05/21/2021

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for bill of costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920 for action to enforce arbitral award under the New York Convention relating to the fees for filing the complaint, serving the complaint and summons, and the docket fees and denied the motion regarding fees for pro hac vice motions, cost of serving the motion for default judgment, and cost of purchasing a transcript.  Court granted request for attorney’s fees for the action to enforce the award but declined to award attorney’s fees for the underlying arbitration, as the award stated that fees were to be determined by the tribunal or the High Court in England and Wales.  Court granted plaintiff’s request to amend the judgment to include pre-judgment interest consistent with the arbitral award and request to include post-judgment interest at the rate of 0.15% from the date of entry of the original judgment.

  • Bryon Stafford v. Rite Aid Corporation, No. 20-55333 (9th Cir. May 21, 2021)
    05/21/2021

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order denying motion to compel arbitration in putative class action, holding that equitable estoppel did not apply to bind lead plaintiff to the arbitration agreements in contracts between defendant and third parties.

  • Peiran Zheng v. Live Auctioneers LLC, No. 20-CV-9744 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2021)
    05/21/2021

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay the litigation, finding that “clickwrap” agreement on defendant’s website created a binding contract to arbitrate.

  • Food Delivery Holding 12 S.A.R.L. v. Barnes Thornburg LLP, No. 2:21-MC-00137-JFW (C.D. Cal. May. 17, 2021) 
    05/17/2021

    Court denied petitioner’s application for discovery for use in a foreign proceeding.  Court held that, in the absence of binding authority on whether private arbitrations qualify as “foreign or international tribunals, it would join lower courts in the Circuit in concluding that private arbitrations are not “tribunals” for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1782.

  • Uttam Chand Rakesh Kumar v. Derco Associates Inc., No. 1:21-CV-00692-DAD (E.D. Cal. May. 17, 2021)
    05/17/2021

    Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in a contract dispute case where plaintiffs were seeking a declaratory judgment that the arbitration agreement between the parties was unenforceable.  Court held that plaintiffs had not demonstrated that they were likely to succeed on the merits of the action because they had breached the contract and the question of whether the arbitration clause had been terminated or repudiated is a matter for the arbitrator to decide.

  • Cube Infrastructure Fund SICAV v. Kingdom of Spain, 1:20-CV-01708-EGS (D. D.C. May. 17, 2021)
    05/17/2021

    Court granted defendant’s motion for a stay and denied without prejudice defendant’s motion for to dismiss in an enforcement case.  Court held that the most efficient and fairest course was to stay the case while defendant’s pending application to annul the award was resolved by the ICSID, reasoning that considerations of international comity also weighed in favor of a stay given that the case involved addressing a conflict between decades-old treaties and newly minted EU case law.

  • In re Application of Food Delivery Holding 12 S.A.R.L., No. 1:21-MC-00005-GMH (D.D.C. May 10, 2021)
    05/10/2021

    Court granted applicant’s application for an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for testimonial and documentary evidence for use in an international arbitration before the DIFC-LCIA.  Court declined to find whether Section 1782 discovery is available in private commercial arbitrations, finding instead that discovery was proper where the DIFC-LCIA was state-sponsored by the United Arab Emirates.

  • Andes Petroleum Ecuador Ltd. v. Occidental Exploration and Exploring Company, No. 1:21-CV-03930-GHW (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2021)
    05/05/2021

    Court ordered petitioner to file and serve a statement pursuant to Local Rule 56.1 to support its petition to confirm arbitral award, noting that proceedings to confirm an arbitral award must be treated as a motion for summary judgment.

  • D’Amico Dry D.A.C. v. Tremond Metals Corporation, No. 1:20-CV-06256-JPC (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2021)
    05/05/2021

    Court granted petition to confirm two arbitration awards issued by a sole arbitrator in a London-seated arbitration, finding that defendant failed to prove that any of the grounds in Article V of the New York Convention applied to permit the court to refuse to recognize the awards.

  • Compania de Inversiones Mercantiles S.A. v. Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua, S.A.B. de C.V., No. 1:15-CV-02120-JLK (D. Colo. April 30, 2021)
    04/30/2021

    Court denied motion to vacate final judgment confirming an arbitral award pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5) where the award had been annulled through a series of Bolivian court orders.  Court held that vacating the judgment would be unjust, considering that defendants acted inequitably throughout the litigation and that the annulment proceedings were untimely.

  • Vale S.A. v. BSG Resources Limited, No. 1:19-CV-03619-VSB (S.D.N.Y. April 29, 2021)
    04/29/2021

    Court granted application for leave to file a memorandum of law and accompanying affidavit to provide evidence of the alter ego relationship between defendant and defendant’s owner in support of the execution of plaintiff’s $2 billion judgment against defendant arising from an LCIA award.

  • Midwest Air Technologies, Inc. v. JC US Inc., No. 21-CV-00337 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 29, 2021)
    04/29/2021

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for improper venue.  The Court found that the parties’ inclusion of the AAA rules in the arbitration clause constituted a clear agreement by the parties to arbitrate threshold arbitrability issues.

  • Luciano v. Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America, No. 15-CV-06726-MAS-DEA (D.N.J. Apr. 28, 2021)
    04/28/2021

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm arbitration award and to reopen the case.  The court concluded that the arbitrator correctly held that the language of plaintiff’s deceased-husband’s retirement agreement was unambiguous and capable of only one interpretation and that the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the appropriate standard of review.

  • The WE Project, Inc. v. Relavistic, LLC, No. 20-CV-02873-JG (N.D. Ohio Apr. 28, 2021)
    04/28/2021

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Analyzing Maryland law as selected by the contracting parties, court found that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable for want of mutual consideration.  Court held that the agreement provided for arbitration at the sole discretion of defendant.

  • Stauber v. Per Mar Security and Research Corp, No. 20-CV-00775-JDP (W.D. Wis. Apr. 27, 2021)
    04/27/2021

    Court ordered a hearing on defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Pro se plaintiff argued that the arbitration agreement was invalid or unconscionable.  In reading the pro se filing generously, the court found plaintiff’s allegations raised a plausible concern that the signed agreement was a product of fraud.

  • Phillips v. Weatherford US, LP, No. 20-CV-01104 -RP (W.D. Tex. Apr. 27, 2021)
    04/27/2021

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss, or in the alternative to stay, and compel arbitration concluding that there remained a genuine fact issue as to the validity of the arbitration agreement.  Court held that defendant failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish that plaintiff, a former employee, received notice of the company’s dispute resolution program, which mandates arbitration.

  • Healey v. Elliot, P.C., No. 20-CV-13209-MAG-RSW (E.D. Mich. Apr. 27, 2021)
    04/27/2021

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to take limited discovery to respond to defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  The court noted that limited discovery requests of this kind are entertained by the Sixth Circuit because motions to compel arbitration are evaluated similarly to motions for summary judgment.

  • In re Stubhub Refund Litigation, No. 20-MD-02951-MSG (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2021)
    04/27/2021

    Court provided defendant leave to amend its motion to compel arbitration after plaintiff introduced new evidence at the motion’s hearing.  Plaintiffs argued that the existence of an agreement to arbitrate may depend on whether plaintiffs purchased tickets from the website or the mobile application.  The court granted defendants time to file a supplemental brief to respond to this argument.

  • Jackson v. EK Real Estate Servs. of NY, LLC, No. 20-CV-03867 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 27, 2021)
    04/27/2021

    Court vacated a memorandum and opinion denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration because the parties agreed to settle.  The court found that vacatur was in the public interest as the case involved an indigent homeowner facing eviction represented by pro bono counsel.

  • B. F., et al v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 20-35359 (9th Cir. Apr. 23, 2021)
    04/23/2021

    Court affirmed district court’s denial of Amazon’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that minor plaintiffs were not bound by their parents’ consent to arbitration because plaintiffs brought statutory claims that do not depend on their parents’ contracts.  

  • Sperring v. LLR, Inc., No. 19-56295 (9th Cir. Apr. 23, 2021)
    04/23/2021

    Court dismissed an appeal from the district court’s order compelling arbitration of their putative class action for lack of jurisdiction.  Appellants voluntarily dismissed their action with prejudice to obtain an appealable final judgment following an order to compel arbitration. The court held that a voluntary dismissal did not constitute an appealable final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

  • Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC v. Insurance Company of North America, Inc., No. 18-CV-00715-DLC (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2021)
    04/23/2021

    Court granted defendants’ motion to confirm an arbitration award in an insurance dispute.  The court found no reason to hold the motion to confirm in abeyance because the award was not ambiguous and plaintiff did not move to vacate, modify, or correct the award.

  • Lukis v. Whitepages Incorporated, No. 19-CV-04871 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 23, 2021)
    04/23/2021

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration under § 4 of the FAA.  The Court found that Whitepages waived its right to enforce a “browsewrap” dispute resolution provision on its website, which included an arbitration clause, by waiting too long to bring its motion.

  • TIG Insurance Company v. American Home Assurance Company, No. 21-CV-02504-NRB (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 22, 2021)
    04/22/2021

    Court confirmed a final arbitration award and ordered previously-sealed documents to remain under seal and redacted where appropriate. Respondents did not object before the deadline to object to the award was filed.

  • CesFin Ventures LLC v. Al Ghaith Holding Company PJSC, No. 20-1106-CV (2nd Cir. Apr. 22, 2021)
    04/22/2021

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order confirming arbitration award relating to guarantee agreements, finding that the tribunal did not manifestly disregard the law.

  • Eaton Partners, LLC v. Azimuth Capital Management IV, LTD., No. 19-4365-CV (2nd Cir. Apr. 20, 2021)
    04/20/2021

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order confirming arbitration award relating to a placement agreement, finding that the arbitrator did not engage in misconduct.

  • Unitech Composites, Inc. v. Avcorp Industries Inc., No. 3:18-CV-1399-YY (D. Or. Apr. 17, 2021)
    04/17/2021

    Court declined to adopt magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation to grant defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendant waived its right to arbitration.

  • Goldgroup Resources Inc. v. Dynaresource de Mexico S.A. de C.V., No. 20-1143 (10th Cir. Apr. 16, 2021)
    04/16/2021

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of a motion to vacate an arbitration award.  Court found that the New York Convention did not provide the exclusive grounds for vacatur where the subject award was rendered in the United States or under U.S. arbitral law.  Accordingly, the appellee properly raised grounds for vacatur provided by the FAA.

  • Goldgroup Resources, Inc. v. DynaResource de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., No. 1:16-CV-02547-RM-KMT (10th Cir. Apr. 16, 2021)
    04/16/2021

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order confirming arbitration award relating to an option agreement.  Court of appeals found that appellant failed to preserve issue concerning waiver of right to arbitrate, that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers, and that a Mexican court’s order could not preemptively annul a US award not yet rendered.

  • Cargill Inc. v. Triorient LLC, No. 20-CV-10058 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2021) 
    04/15/2021

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm a final arbitral award in a case relating to a breach of a charter party.  Court found no genuine factual dispute as to the propriety of the final award and duly confirmed. 

  • Pfeil v. Discover Bank, 2:20-CV-01813-GMS (D. Ariz. Apr. 15, 2021)
    04/15/2021

    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. 

  • Diaz v. Popular Securities, LLC, No. 3:19-CV-01065-JAG (D.P.R. Apr. 12, 2021) 
    04/12/2021

    Court denied petitioner’s petition to vacate arbitration award and granted respondent’s cross-motion to confirm the award.  Court found that petitioner had failed to show fraud on the arbitral tribunal, partiality, or arbitrator misbehavior to justify vacating the award. 

  • Balwin v. Beeche, No. 4:20-CV-00639-ALM (E.D. Tex. Apr. 12, 2021)
    04/12/2021

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration in a contract dispute.  Court held that the claims were within the scope of the arbitration agreement and plaintiffs could be compelled to arbitrate the case in Costa Rica. 

  • Fort Washington Investment Advisors, Inc., v. Adkins, No. 1:19-CV-00685-DRC (S.D. Ohio Apr. 12, 2021)
    04/12/2021

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court rejected defendants’ arguments that equitable estoppel compelled arbitration and that plaintiff was an intended third-party beneficiary and therefore bound by the arbitration agreement. 

  • National Oilwell Verco v. Smith International, Inc., No. 4:21-MC-00655 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 12, 2021) 
    04/12/2021

    Court denied plaintiffs’ motions for transfer and for appointment of a third arbitrator.  The court held that under the language of the parties’ agreement the court had discretion as to whether to choose a third arbitrator or to leave it to the AAA. 

  • F.T. Maritime Services. Ltd., v. Lambda Shipholding Ltd., No. 1:20-CV-02111-ER (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2021) 
    04/12/2021

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration and appoint an arbitrator holding that plaintiff’s claim was barred by collateral estoppel.  Court went on to say that, even if the plaintiff’s claim was not collaterally estopped, it would fail on the merits because it was not clear that any version of plaintiff’s terms and conditions were incorporated into the agreement at issue. 

  • JPaulJones, L.P. v. Zurich General Insurance Co. (China) Ltd., No. 3:20-CV-01767 (D. Or. Apr. 9, 2021)
    04/09/2021

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens.  Court held that arbitration and forum selection clauses were valid, unambiguous, and did not violate plaintiff’s right to trial by jury under the Oregon Constitution.

  • KPA Promotion Awards Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase Co., No. 1:20-CV-03910-NRB (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2021)
    04/08/2021

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the parties’ incorporation of the JAMS and AAA Rules constituted clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties intended to delegate issues of arbitrability to an arbitrator.  Accordingly, court declined to consider plaintiffs’ arguments regarding the scope of the arbitration agreement. 

  • McFarlane v. Rolls-Royce Motor Cars NA, LLC., No. 20-CV09275-AB-JPR (C.D.Cal. Apr. 8, 2021)
    04/08/2021

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to stay proceedings.  Court found that because defendant was not a party to the agreement at issue, it could not enforce the arbitration provision.

  • Rowland v. Sandy Morris Financial Estate Planning Services LLC, No. 20-1187 (4th Cir. Apr. 7, 2021)
    04/07/2021

    Court of appeals affirmed lower court order denying motion to compel arbitration, finding that the parties had not agreed to arbitrate where there were material differences between the versions of the contract signed by each party.  Court found that even though there was a delegation clause in the underlying arbitration agreement, the court continued to have a duty to decide threshold issues of contract formation.

  • In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., No. 19-14097 (11th Cir. Apr. 07, 2021)
    04/07/2021

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s enforcement of arbitration clauses in the account agreements of five classes of former and current customers in a class action against a bank relating to overdraft fees.  Court held that gateway questions about unconscionability were not for the district court to decide because they had been delegated to the arbitrator under a delegation clause.

  • Credit Suisse AG v. Graham, No. 1:21-CV-00951-LJL (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 2021)
    04/07/2021

    Court denied petitioners’ petition for an order enjoining arbitration and granted respondent’s motion to compel arbitration of claims arising out of a failed joint venture.  Court held that it should be up to the arbitrator and not the court to decide whether a second arbitration is barred by res judicata. 

  • Hearn v. Comcast Cable Communications LLC, No. 19-14455 (11th Cir. Apr. 5, 2021)
    04/05/2021

    Court of appeals reversed lower court decision denying motion to compel arbitration, finding that an arbitration provision applying to all disputes “relating to [defendant]” was applicable where plaintiff’s claim pertained to the underlying agreement even where the dispute arose after the agreement was terminated.

  • Norris v. Aon PLC, No.3:21-CV-00932-CRB (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2021)
    04/02/2021

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that the presence of a delegation clause constituted clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties intended gateway issues of arbitrability to be determined by an arbitrator.  

  • Synopsys, Inc. v. Siemens Industry Software Inc., No. 3:20-CV-04151-WHO (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2021)
    04/02/2021

    Court denied defendants’ motion to stay arbitration under Section 3 of the FAA where the parties admitted that the conditions precedent to arbitration had not been met – thus staying or ordering arbitration would be premature.  Court noted that had there been a question of whether the conditions precedent had been met, this would be a question for an arbitrator under the parties’ agreement. 

  • Chen v. Kyoto Sushi, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-07398-DLI-RER (E.D.N.Y. April 1, 2021) 
    04/01/2021

    Court denied motion to modify AAA arbitration award to include reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses.  Court found petitioner did not meet his burden to demonstrate the arbitrator made an evident material mistake by failing to award attorney’s fees or costs.

  • Servotronics, Inc. v. Rolls-Royce PLC, No. 0:20-MC-00081-JRT-KMM (D. Minn. April 1, 2021) 
    04/01/2021

    Court sua sponte entered order staying the matter for an application to take discovery for use in foreign proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, pending Supreme Court’s review of the issue.

  • Maine Community Health Options v. Albertsons Companies, Inc., No. 20-35931 (9th Cir. March 31, 2021) 
    03/31/2021

    Court of appeals reversed district court’s order dismissing action for enforcement of a third-party subpoena issued by arbitrators for want of subject matter jurisdiction and remanded for further proceedings, finding that the alleged subpoenaed information would likely impact more than $75,000 of petitioner’s claims in the arbitration.

  • RREEF Infrastructure (G.P.) Limited v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 1:19-CV-03783-CJN (D.D.C. March 31, 2021) 
    03/31/2021

    Court granted motion to stay the application to recognize and enforce an ICSID arbitral award, pending ICSID’s ruling on the Kingdom of Spain’s annulment application.  

  • Xi’an Television Copyright Exchange Center Co., Ltd. v. Dong, No. 2:20-08412-RGK-JC (C.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2021)
    03/29/2021

    Court denied petitioner’s motion to confirm foreign arbitration award under the New York Convention, because petitioner failed to submit an original or certified copy of the agreement containing the arbitration clause and failed to provide respondent with proper notice of the arbitral proceeding.  Court declined to address respondent’s argument that the award had not yet become binding on the parties, because it is under appeal in China.

  • China Fortune Land Development v. 1955 Capital Fund I GP LLC, No. 20-15269 (9th Cir. March 26, 2021) 
    03/26/2021

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order confirming arbitration award pursuant to the FAA, finding that the arbitrators did not exceed their powers and that the award did not exhibit manifest disregard of the law.

  • Leonard A. Sacks & Associates, P.C. v. International Monetary Fund, No. 1:20-CV-02266-TJK (D.D.C. March 26, 2021) 
    03/26/2021

    Court granted motion to dismiss lawsuit seeking to modify an arbitration award for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, finding the International Monetary Fund was immune from suit and had not waived immunity by incorporating the AAA rules in the contract, because the parties’ contract specifically affirmed that submission of a dispute to arbitration did not waive immunity.

  • Mazlin Trading Corp. v. WJ Holding Ltd., No. 1:19-CV-07652-LTS (S.D.N.Y. March 26, 2021) 
    03/26/2021

    Court granted respondents’ motion to dismiss petition for confirmation of two LCIA awards pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) by abstaining from exercising subject matter jurisdiction, because the action was parallel to two pending state court actions and further declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over petitioners’ remaining state law claims.

  • Northtrop and Johnson Yachts-Ships, Inc. v. Royal Van Lent Skipyard, B.V., No. 20-13442 (11th Cir. March 26, 2021) 
    03/26/2021

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order compelling arbitration under the New York Convention, finding plaintiff agreed in writing to arbitrate its claims.  Court of appeals found the reference in the parties’ agreement to a specified commission for the construction of a second yacht was sufficient to bind the parties to the arbitration clause and that the tort and contract claims fell within the broad scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • China Fortune Land Development v. 1955 Capital Fund I GP, LLC., No. 20-15269 (9th Cir. Mar. 26, 2021)
    03/26/2021

    Court affirmed district court’s order confirming an arbitration award finding that the award was neither completely irrational nor did it exhibit a manifest disregard of the law, and that the arbitrator did not exceed the scope of his authority. 

  • Brito v. Major Energy Electric Services LLC, No. 20-CV-00230-ELJ (D. Md. March 18, 2021)
    03/18/2021

    Court dismissed a suit finding plaintiff agreed to arbitrate.  Court found plaintiff agreed to be bound by an arbitration agreement by consenting to a contract through her silence.

  • Tarek A. Fouad v. The State of Qatar, No. 20-55531 (9th Cir. Feb. 16, 2021)
    02/16/2021

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s dismissal of complaint for forum non conveniens, finding that the relevant forum selection clause was enforceable and that plaintiff waived its ability to contest the district court’s order denying its motion to compel arbitration and ruling on the arbitrability of the dispute.

  • Spector v. Barclays Bank Delaware, No. 20-CV-24300-UU (S.D. Fla. Feb. 16, 2021)
    02/16/2021

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay action.  Court found that the agreement between the parties contained an express arbitration provision and that defendant had not waived its right to arbitrate despite some substantive participation in litigation.

  • Caillet v. Newman, No. 3:19-CV-00515-JWD-RLB (M.D. La. Feb. 5, 2021)
    02/05/2021

    Court denied plaintiff’s petition to vacate arbitration award. Plaintiff argued that its award should be vacated because it was unable to attend because of a medical emergency.  Court found that plaintiff had failed to meet burden of establishing any prejudice to her rights. 

  • Axiall Canada Inc. v. MECS Inc., No. 20-CV-01535-JDC-KK (W.D. La. Feb. 5, 2021)
    02/05/2021

    Court denied motion to dismiss and compel arbitration in a contract dispute.  Court found that the arbitration clause did not become part of the parties’ agreement and that therefore the court had no grounds to stay or dismiss the matter or compel arbitration.

  • Cognac Ferrand S.A.S. v. Mystique Brands LLC, No. 20-CV-05933-PAE (S.D.N.Y. January 7, 2021)
    01/07/2021

    Court denied Cognac Ferrand’s application for a temporary restraining order preventing Mystique Brands from moving forward with its enforcement of an arbitral award in France. Court found no serious question going to the merits necessary to support a temporary restraining order noting that review of an arbitral award is severely limited, and Ferrand did not provide evidence that would support vacatur of the award.

  • Quamina v. U.S. Bank National Association, No. 20-CV-61637-RAR (S.D. Fla. Dec. 23, 2020)
    12/23/2020

    Court denied petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award and dismissed the action with prejudice.  Petitioner argued that a written agreement containing an arbitration award which respondents “refused to answer or purposely ignored” became a binding contract that led to a final arbitration award by petitioner’s “tacit acceptance.”  Court found that respondents had met their burden of proving that petitioner’s arbitration award was procured by fraud and must be vacated.

  • Berk v. Coinbase, Inc., No. 19-16594 (9th Cir. Dec. 23, 2020) 
    12/23/2020

    Court of appeals reversed district court’s dismissal of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that even though plaintiffs framed their claim as one for negligence sounding in tort, the claim related to the interpretation and performance of defendant’s user agreement and was therefore subject to the arbitration clause contained within it.

  • Inga v. Nature’s Bounty Company, No. 20-CV-81513-WM (S.D. Fla. Dec. 7, 2020)
    12/07/2020

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration with regard to one defendant and stayed proceedings regarding the other.  Court considered timing and found that the alternative, arbitrating after the expenditure of significant judicial resources litigating, would be inefficient.

  • Newterra, Inc. v. Foley Cellulose LLC, No. 4:20-CV-00077-WS-MAF (N.D. Fla. Dec. 1, 2020)
    12/01/2020

    Court denied third-party defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that it did not have the authority to compel the foreign arbitration because it was not governed by the New York Convention.  The arbitration agreement was between two US citizens and the parties’ commercial relationship did not have a reasonable relation with one or more foreign states.

  • Hulley Enterprises Ltd. v. the Russian Federation, No. 1:14-CV-01996-BAH (D.D.C. Nov. 20, 2020)
    11/20/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to impose a second stay of the enforcement proceedings for three arbitration awards rendered under the Energy Charter Treaty against the Russian Federation pending resolution of set-aside proceedings in the Dutch Supreme Court, finding judicial economy, the balance of hardships and international comity favored a stay.  Court denied plaintiffs’ request that defendant be required to post a security of US$ 7,000,000,000.

  • Keystone Food Holdings Ltd. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-03888-ALC (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2020) 
    09/30/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to stay proceedings in a contract dispute.  Court found that the disputes at issue were purchase price disputes as opposed to alleged breaches of representations and warranties and were therefore within the scope of the arbitration clause.

  • Kwik Ticket Inc. v. Spiewak, No. 1:20-CV-01201-FB-SJB (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2020)
    09/23/2020

    Court denied defendants’ motion for a preliminary injunction to stay litigation pending court’s ruling on motion to compel arbitration and to stay magistrate judge’s order requiring the parties to participate in a settlement conference and initiate discovery.  Court found defendants did not show irreparable harm or a likelihood of success on the merits of the motion to compel arbitration.

  • Simpson v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., No. 1:20-CV-07630-VEC (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2020) 
    09/22/2020

    Court denied petitioner’s request to file under seal documents subject to a protective order issued by the AAA without prejudice to the parties explaining how the AAA opinion is not a “judicial document.”  In the alternative, Court directed that if particular aspects of the opinion are legitimately confidential, the parties are to propose more narrow redactions.

  • Herrington v. Waterstone Mortgage Corporation, No. 3:11-CV-00779-bbc (W.D. Wis. Sept. 22, 2020) 
    09/22/2020

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award pursuant to the FAA.  Court rejected defendant’s arguments that the award should be vacated because the arbitrator retained jurisdiction over the proceedings after a remand from a vacated collective arbitration award, did not allow additional discovery, and considered evidence presented in the prior arbitral proceeding.

  • Servotronics, Inc. v. Rolls-Royce PLC and The Boeing Company, No. 19-1847 (7th Cir. Sept. 22, 2020) 
    09/22/2020

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s decision finding that 28 U.S.C. § 1782 does not authorize courts to compel discovery for use in private foreign arbitration.  Court found that the Supreme Court’s decision in Intel did not authorize courts to provide discovery assistance in private foreign arbitrations and noted that interpreting § 1782 to include private foreign arbitral tribunals would conflict with the FAA.

  • Goobich v. Excelligence Learning Corporation, No. 5:19-CV-06771-EJD (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2020) 
    09/18/2020

    Court granted motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 3, finding that defendant had not breached the arbitration agreement by refusing to pay the disproportionate filing fee and did not waive the right to compel arbitration by participating in the litigation.

  • In re: Ex Parte Application of Axion Holding Cyprus Ltd. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for Leave to Take Discovery for use in Foreign Proceedings, No. 1:20-MC-00290-MN (D. Del. Sept. 18, 2020) 
    09/18/2020

    Court denied petitioner’s ex parte application for leave to take discovery for use in two private LCIA arbitrations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782.  Court found that although the Third Circuit has not determined whether private commercial arbitrations are “tribunals” within the meaning of the statute, it agreed with the recent district court cases holding that private commercial arbitrations are not “tribunals.”  Court rejected petitioner’s argument that the LCIA acts with the authority of the state because the tribunals are governed by the U.K. Arbitration Act of 1996 and the parties may seek judicial review.

  • Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd., No. 2:18-CV-01360-TSZ (W.D. Wash. Sept. 17, 2020) 
    09/17/2020

    Court granted motion to lift stay, finding that under the Europcar factors the stay was no longer warranted, particularly considering the protracted nature of the proceedings to set-aside the arbitration award in India.  Court granted oral argument on motion to confirm arbitration award under the New York Convention.  

  • Gherardi v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc., No. 18-CV-13181 (11th Cir. Sept. 17, 2020)
    09/17/2020

    Court of appeal reversed district court order vacating arbitration award relating to an employment dispute.  Court of appeal held that the parties agreed to arbitrate all disputes relating to appellant’s employment and that the arbitrators did not exceed their powers.

  • Diverse Enterprises, Limited Company, L.L.C. v. Beyond International, Incorporated, No. 19-CV-51121 (5th Cir. Sept. 17, 2020)
    09/17/2020

    Court of appeal affirmed district court order confirming arbitration award relating to a distribution agreement.  Court of appeal held that the arbitrators did not exceed their powers in awarding attorneys’ fees.

  • Tyler v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-03492-ABJ (D.D.C. Sept. 17, 2020)
    09/17/2020

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of employment-related claims.  Court rejected plaintiff’s contention that its claims were exempted by the FAA on the basis that it was a transportation worker.

  • Cianchetta v. BMW of North America, LLC, No. 2:20-CV-00241-KJM (E.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2020)
    09/17/2020

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims alleging violations of consumer protection laws.  Court held that plaintiff’s claims against non-signatory defendant were not arbitrable under the terms of the arbitration agreement.

  • Sanders v. Allenbrooke Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC, No. 2:20-CV-02001-SHM (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 17, 2020)
    09/17/2020

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of wrongful death claims. Court held that no arbitration agreement had been formed in circumstances where the agreement was signed by a healthcare surrogate before the party on whose behalf the agreement was signed had been determined to lack capacity.

  • Convergen Energy LLC v. Brooks, No. 1:20-CV-03746-LJL (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2020)
    09/16/2020

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims relating to the sale of a power plant.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the contract containing the arbitration agreement was not concluded because plaintiff’s signatory did not have authority to bind it.  Court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that the forum selection clause in another agreement between the parties controlled the subject matter of the dispute.  Court held that the claims at issue fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • Fedor v. United Healthcare, Inc., No. 19-CV-2066 (10th Cir. Sept. 16, 2020)
    09/16/2020

    Court of appeal vacated district court order granting motion to compel arbitration of claims alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New Mexico’s wage law.  Court of appeal held that the district court erred by failing to first determine whether an agreement to
    arbitrate was formed before sending the case to the arbitrator.

  • Grantham v. TA Operating, LLC, No. 1:20-CV-01108-RMB (D. N.J. Sept. 16, 2020)
    09/16/2020

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims brought under the Family Medical Leave Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration agreement was void as against the public policy of New Jersey.

  • Hermès of Paris, Inc. v. Swain, No. 1:16-CV-06255-CM (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2020)
    09/16/2020

    Court granted plaintiff’s petition to confirm arbitration award relating to employment claims.  Court held that the arbitrator did not exceed its powers by deciding that defendant’s claims were time-barred.

  • International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1393 v. Carroll White Rural Electric Membership Corporation, No. 1:20-CV-1689-JMS (S.D. Ind. Sept. 16, 2020)
    09/16/2020

    Court granted petition to compel arbitration of claims arising under a collective bargaining agreement.  Court held that the terms of the collective bargaining agreement were wide enough to encompass the claims at issue.

  • Arnaud v. Doctor’s Associates, Inc., No. 19-CV-3057 (2d Cir. Sept. 15, 2020)
    09/15/2020

    Court of appeal affirmed district court order denying motion to compel arbitration of claims alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  Court of appeal held that no arbitration agreement existed between the parties because the terms and conditions of the alleged agreement were not reasonably clear and conspicuous on the online form relied upon by defendant-appellant.

  • Cheatham v. Virginia College, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-04481-SDG (N.D. Ga. Sept. 15, 2020)
    09/15/2020

    Court grated defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims brought by students against a private college.  Court held that the parties delegated the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

  • Clayco Construction Co., Inc. v. Miles Construction Group, Inc., No. 4:20-MC-00524-HEA (E.D. Mo. Sept. 15, 2020)
    09/15/2020

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm arbitration award relating to construction subcontracts.  Court found that plaintiff failed to cite any grounds under the FAA to vacate the award.

  • Johnson v. Westlake Portfolio Management, LLC, No. 8:20-CV-00749-SCB (M.D. Fla. Sept. 15, 2020)
    09/15/2020

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of consumer debt claims.  Court held that plaintiff, who was a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, was not equitably estopped from avoiding the arbitration agreement because its claims fell outside the contract containing the arbitration agreement.

  • USA Volleyball v. Tatham, No. 1:17-CV-03162-MEH (D. Colo. Sept. 15, 2020)
    09/15/2020

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for order confirming arbitration award relating to trademark infringement claims.  Court rejected defendants’ allegation that the arbitrator engaged in misconduct by refusing to hear relevant evidence.

  • Allen v. Shutterlfy, Inc., No. 5:20-CV-02448-BLF (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2020)
    09/14/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of fraud claims.  Court held that the arbitration agreement delegated gateway questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator and that the plaintiff assented to the online arbitration agreement.

  • Tetronics (International) Limited v. BlueOak Arkansas LLC, No. 4:20-CV-00530-SWW (E.D. Ark. Sept. 14, 2020)
    09/14/2020

    Court denied defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and refuse recognition of foreign arbitration award.  Court held that defendant’s appeal in France in relation to the award was not a sufficient reason to stay confirmation proceedings and that the discretionary factors for a stay were not met.  Court also held that no grounds for non-recognition under Article V of the New York Convention applied.

  • Carillo v. ROICOM USA, LLC, No. 3:20-CV-00147-ATB (W.D. Tex. Sept. 14, 2020)
    09/14/2020

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of claims brought under the False Claims Act.  Court held that the arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable because plaintiff, a Spanish speaker, was incapable of understanding the contents of the English-language agreement and because of misrepresentations by defendant regarding the arbitration agreement.

  • Kingsbury Capital, Inc. v. Kappel, No. 1:20-CV-00800 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 14, 2020)
    09/14/2020

    Court denied plaintiff’s petition to vacate arbitration award relating to employee compensation claims.  Court rejected plaintiff’s allegations that the arbitral tribunal showed partiality toward defendant, exceeded its authority, rendered an award in the absence of an arbitration agreement, and violated public policy.

  • OOGC America, L.L.C. v. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., No. 19-CV-20002 (5th Cir. Sept. 14, 2020)
    09/14/2020

    Court of appeal vacated district court order vacating arbitration award for “evident partiality” based on the arbitrator’s failure to disclose connections with certain non-parties to the dispute.  Court of appeal held that the circumstances fell short of a “concrete, not speculative” showing of a significant, compromising connection to the parties required for vacatur.

  • Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. v. Corporacion de Television y Microonda Rafa, S.A., No. 1:19-CV-08669-MKV (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2020)
    09/14/2020

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment confirming foreign arbitration award relating to a television rights dispute.  Court rejected defendant’s argument that the tribunal was not properly constituted because the arbitrator selection process was flawed.  Court also rejected defendant’s allegation that the arbitrator erred in awarding attorney’s fees in the final award.

  • MZM Construction Company, Inc. v. New Jersey Building Laborers Statewide Benefit Funds, No. 18-CV-03791 (3d Cir. Sept. 14, 2020)
    09/14/2020

    Court of appeal affirmed district court order enjoining arbitration of employee benefits claims pending resolution of factual issues bearing upon whether fraud in the execution vitiated the formation or existence of the contract containing the arbitration provision.  Court of appeal held that pursuant to 9 USC § 4, the validity of the arbitration agreement concerned questions about the “making of the agreement to arbitrate” and was therefore a matter for the courts to decide in the absence of the parties having clearly and unmistakably referred those issues to arbitration in a written contract whose formation was not in issue.

  • United Government Security Officers of America International Union v. G4S Regulated Security Solutions, No. 1:19-CV-10373-ADB (D. Mass. Sept. 14, 2020)
    09/14/2020

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration of overtime compensation claims brought under a collective bargaining agreement.  Court held that the overtime claims fell with the scope of the collective bargaining agreement and the arbitration agreement contained in it.

  • Caputo v. Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, No. 3:19-CV-17204-FLW (D. N.J. Sept. 11, 2020)
    09/11/2020

    Court denied petitioner’s motion to reconsider court’s order denying a motion to vacate an award rendered by a panel of FINRA arbitrators.  Court rejected petitioner’s argument that the award conflicted with certain public policies against the forfeiture of earned wages.

  • Yeomans v. World Financial Group Insurance Agency, Inc., No. 3:19-CV-00792-EMC (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2020)
    09/11/2020

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of employment-related claims.  Court held that the arbitrability issue was governed by the FAA because the dispute affected interstate commerce.  Court also held that four of the five plaintiffs were properly put on notice of the arbitration agreements in their employment contracts, but that one of the plaintiffs was not.  Court found that the arbitration agreement was procedurally and substantively unconscionable.

  • Morris CM Enterprises, LLC v. Wingstop Franchising, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-02306-KJM (E.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2020)
    09/11/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay the case pending arbitration of claims relating to franchise agreements.  Court found that the parties had agreed to delegate to the arbitrators the issue of arbitrability, including the plaintiff’s allegation that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable.

  • Mattos v. National Western Life Insurance Company, No. 1:20-CV-22887-DPG (S.D. Fla. Aug. 30, 2020)
    08/30/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the parties manifested a clear and unmistakable intent to arbitrate gateway issues of arbitrability when they provided a valid delegation clause.  Court declined to address plaintiffs’ challenges to the arbitration agreement, finding that it was not appropriate where there was no challenge to the delegation provision specifically.

  • McCoy v. The Buccaneer, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-00033-WAL-GWC (D.V.I. Aug. 28, 2020)
    08/28/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration provision was enforceable despite lacking a method for selecting the arbitrator or relevant rules governing the proceedings.  Court found that absent certain terms, parties can rely on gap-filling provisions provided by the FAA.

  • Westfall v. USAA Savings Bank, No. 2:19-CV-02093-GMN-DJA (D. Nev. Aug. 27, 2020)
    08/27/2020

    Court granted defendant’s unopposed motions dismiss and to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff agreed to the terms of the arbitration agreement after conducting his first transaction using defendant bank’s credit card.  Court found that plaintiff’s failure to exhaust non-judicial remedies, including pursuing arbitration, made dismissal without prejudice appropriate.

  • Kandavilli v. Gadiyaram, No. 1:19-CV-03306-ADC (D. Md. Aug. 26, 2020)
    08/26/2020

    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.

  • Manville v. United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union and Local Union No. 216M, No. 3:19-CV-00788-E (N.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2020)
    08/26/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to confirm an arbitration award and denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate the award, finding that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority by resolving ambiguities in an agreement.  Court found that although the FAA does not provide for attorney’s fees to a successful party in an action to confirm an arbitration award, such fees may be provided if the counterparty’s reasons for challenging the award are without merit or justification.

  • Colonial Oaks Assisted Living Lafayette, LLC v. Hannie Development, Inc., No. 19-30995 (5th Cir. Aug. 25, 2020)
    08/25/2020

    Court of appeals affirmed district court order finding that fraud claims were properly severed from the underlying arbitration and that non-fraud claims were properly dismissed as arbitrable, when the arbitration agreement exempted claims for fraud from its scope.  Court found that non-fraud claims that were decided in the underlying arbitration could not be relitigated in the courts.

  • In re the Application of the Fund for Protection of Investor Rights in Foreign State Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, No. 1::1199-MC-0000440011-AT (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2020)
    08/25/2020

    Court granted petitioner’s application to seek discovery of third parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, finding that although private commercial arbitrations do not qualify as “foreign or international tribunals” under the statute, recent precedent suggests that arbitrations conducted pursuant to a bilateral investment treaty do qualify.

  • Ullrich v. Ullrich, No. 20-CV-23505 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 25, 2020)
    08/25/2020

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief in aid of an impending international arbitration, finding that the vague possibility that defendant would close on a transaction relevant to the arbitration was insufficient to allege that immediate and irreparable harm would occur absent injunctive relief.

  • Hickerson v. Pool Corporation, No. 1:19-CV-02229-CMA-STV (D. Colo. Aug. 25, 2020)
    08/25/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the underlying arbitration provision was enforceable notwithstanding an absence of defendant’s signature when defendant manifested its intent to be bound by the provision.

  • KBFA Investment Group, Inc. v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., No. 19-51068 (5th Cir. Aug. 24, 2020)
    08/24/2020

    Court of appeals affirmed district court order confirming arbitration award, finding that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority so long as the award was not so unfounded in reason that it could be considered an “infidelity to the obligation of an arbitrator.”

  • Russo v. Trans Union, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-04007-GEKP (E.D. Pa. Aug. 24, 2020)
    08/24/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate when it waited eight months to file its motion to compel arbitration but did not engage in any non-merits motion practice.  Court found that defendant’s invocation of the arbitration agreement in its answer weighed against a finding of waiver.

  • Treasury Two Trust v. Teras Breakbulk Ocean Navigation Enterprise LLC, No. 1:20-CV-04089-GHW (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2020)
    08/24/2020

    Court granted petitioner’s petition to confirm an arbitration award, finding that the arbitral panel acted within its authority when it decided the arbitration on the papers alone, according to the parties’ agreement.  Court granted petitioners’ request for pre- and post-judgment interest finding nothing to rebut the Second Circuit’s presumption in favor of granting pre-judgment interest.

  • Arkin v. DoorDash, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-04357-NGG-RER (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2020)
    08/24/2020

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that broad language regarding the scope of the arbitration agreement evidenced clear and unmistakable intent to arbitrate issues of arbitrability.  Court found that plaintiff’s arguments concerning the validity of the arbitration agreement were subject to arbitration.

  • Goulart v. Edgewell Personal Care Company, No. 4:19-CV-02568-RLW (E.D. Mo. Aug. 24, 2020)
    08/24/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the parties’ incorporation of the JAMS rules evidenced an intent to arbitrate issues of arbitrability.

  • In re: Application of Atvos Agroindustrial Investimentos, S.A. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, No. 1:20 MC-00211-GBD-SDA (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2020)
    08/24/2020

    Court granted in part respondents’ motion to quash subpoenas issued under petitioner’s motion to take discovery from third parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 in furtherance of arbitral and injunction proceedings, finding inter alia that petitioner was not entitled to take discovery for use in an arbitral proceeding as it was not “a foreign or international tribunal.”

  • Namisnak v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 18-15860 (9th Cir. Aug. 24, 2020)
    08/24/2020

    Court of appeals affirmed district court order denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of federal statutory claims, finding that two plaintiffs did not download defendant’s mobile application or agreed to defendant’s terms and conditions.  Court reasoned nonsignatory plaintiffs could not be equitably estopped from bringing federal statutory claims when those claims were not “dependent upon or inextricably intertwined with the obligations imposed by the contract containing the arbitration clause.”

  • Bay Shore Power Company v. Oxbow Energy Solutions, LLC, No. 20-3119 (6th Cir. Aug. 13, 2020) 
    08/13/2020

    Court of appeals reversed the district court’s judgment denying attorneys’ fees and remanded for an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to the parties’ contract.  Court of appeals found that there was no obstacle to the court allowing evidence on attorneys’ fees because the motion for attorneys’ fees was not a part of the proceeding confirming the arbitration award governed by the FAA, but rather was a separate contract action.

  • BLC Lexington SNF, LLC v. Craig., No. 5:19-CV-00376-REW-MAS (E.D. Ky. Aug. 13, 2020) 
    08/13/2020

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and enjoin defendant from further pursuing its claims in state court, finding the arbitration clause was valid and all claims fell within its scope.  Court rejected defendant’s argument for abstention, finding the FAA expresses a preference for federal litigation and the circumstances did not provide justification for court to surrender jurisdiction, and it stayed the action pending arbitration.

  • Boyles v. Langmore Capital, LLC, No. 1:20-CV-00545-CCE-LPA (M.D.N.C. Aug. 13, 2020) 
    08/13/2020

    Court ordered a trial to decide the motion to compel arbitration pursuant to § 4 of the FAA, finding there was a disputed question of material fact as to whether plaintiff signed the arbitration agreements.

  • ConocoPhillips Gulf of Paria B.V. v. Corporacion Venezolana del Petroleo, S.A., No. 1:19-CV-07304-LGS (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2020) 
    08/13/2020

    Court remanded action to arbitral tribunal to clarify whether the interest rate was simple or compound, finding the award was ambiguous and rejecting the parties’ arguments that court had the authority to modify the award under 9 U.S.C. § 11(c).  Court also concluded petitioner did not waive its argument that a compound interest rate should be applied in the underlying arbitration.  Court denied petitioners’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs and denied the request to stay execution of the judgment as moot.

  • Bautista v. Juul Labs Inc., No. 4:20-CV-01613-HSG (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2020) 
    08/12/2020

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings, finding the plaintiffs’ labor code claims did not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • Broome and Salsman v. American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus, No. 1:19-CV-01967-MN (D. Del. Aug. 12, 2020)
    08/12/2020

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to meet the FAA’s statutory requirements for service of motion to vacate an arbitration award, finding defendants’ method of service was insufficient and untimely. 

  • Interactive Brokers LLC v. Saroop, No. 19-1077 (4th Cir. Aug. 12, 2020)
    08/12/2020

    Court of appeals vacated district court’s judgment and remanded for confirmation of the modified arbitration award, finding the arbitrators did not manifestly disregard the law.

  • Ma v. Gross, No. 2:20-CV-00081-RSM (W.D. Wash. Aug. 12, 2020)
    08/12/2020

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the action, finding that the language of the arbitration agreement clearly and unambiguously selected the AAA to serve as the administrator.

  • Ballantine v. Dominican Republic, No. 1:19-CV-03598-TJK (D.D.C. Aug. 11, 2020)
    08/11/2020

    Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to vacate arbitration award pursuant to the FAA, finding the motion was untimely as the notice of vacatur was not served within three months of delivery of the award and plaintiffs failed to complete service on defendant under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act until several weeks after the deadline lapsed.

  • Born and Chauhan v. Progrexion Teleservices, Inc., No. 2:20-CV-00107-RJS-DAO (D. Utah Aug. 11, 2020) 
    08/11/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court found that the issue of waiver by litigation conduct was for the court to decide and that defendant had not waived its right to arbitrate.  However, court concluded the parties clearly and unmistakably agreed to submit the issues of unconscionability and class arbitration to the arbitrator by incorporation of the AAA Rules in the arbitration agreement. 

  • Diversicare Leasing Corp. v. Robinson, No. 0:19-CV-00117-HRW (E.D. Ky. Aug. 11, 2020) 
    08/11/2020

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable and defendant’s claims fell within the scope of the agreement.  Court granted motion to enjoin defendant from proceeding with a parallel action in state court.

  • Ely v. East Coast Restaurant and Night Clubs, LLC, No. 1:20-CV-00442-JD (D.N.H. Aug. 11, 2020) 
    08/11/2020

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding that the delegation provision meant the question of whether the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable was for the arbitrator.

  • First World Limited v. MIBC Holdings, LTD., No. 2:18-CV-01997-KJD-VCF (D. Nev. Aug. 10, 2020) 
    08/10/2020

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding pursuant to the FAA that the arbitration agreement was valid and plaintiff’s pending claims fell within its scope.  Court held that parties’ choice of ICC arbitration and the selection of Nevada substantive law did not render the arbitral provision ambiguous or impossible to enforce.

  • Phillips v. NCL Corporation Ltd., No. 19-12463 (11th Cir. Aug. 10, 2020) 
    08/10/2020

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s grant of the motion to compel arbitration finding the claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.  Court of appeals found that the class action waiver in the arbitration agreement applied, so the district court did not err in dismissing the class allegations.

  • Great American Insurance Company v. Johnson Controls, Inc., No. 1:20-CV-00096-DRC (S.D. Ohio Aug. 7, 2020) 
    08/07/2020

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that a valid arbitration clause existed because the bond incorporated the subcontract which contained the arbitration provision.  Court held it did not need to determine the scope of the arbitration agreement or whether the dispute was arbitrable, because the incorporation of the AAA Construction Rules provided clear and unmistakable evidence of the parties delegation of the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

  • Bishop v. Boral Industries, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-02701-RTB (S.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2020)
    08/06/2020

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration finding that a valid arbitration agreement existed and that it applied to plaintiffs’ claims.

  • Carrone v. UnitedHealth Group Inc., No. 3:20-CV-05138-FLW (D.N.J. Aug. 6, 2020)
    08/06/2020

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of employment discrimination claims.  Court held that defendants presented clear and unmistakable evidence of an agreement to arbitrate gateway arbitrability issues.

  • A Grade Above Others, LLC v. BCVP2 Baileys Run, LLC, No. 0:20-CV-01727-JMC (D.S.C. Aug. 5, 2020)
    08/05/2020

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of construction-related claims, holding that the parties’ contract clearly and unmistakably delegated the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrators.

  • Convergen Energy LLC v. Brooks, No. 1:20-CV-03746-LJL (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2020)
    08/05/2020

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to stay arbitration of claims relating to the sale of a power plant.  Court rejected plaintiffs’ argument the parties’ agreement was tainted by fraud and therefore rendered the arbitration agreement in it unenforceable.  Court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that a stay of the arbitration was warranted in circumstances where the same issues were to be resolved in ongoing court litigation.

  • Hedges v. United Parcel Service of America, Inc., No. 1:20-CV-00870-BMC (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2020)
    08/04/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of claims alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that defendant lacked authority to enter into “unenforceable side agreements” with its employees that were said to conflict with their collective bargaining agreement.

  • MBA Community Loans PLC v. Castellani, No. 3:20-CV-02359-MMC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2020)
    08/04/2020

    Court granted plaintiff’s uncontested motion for order confirming a foreign arbitration award relating to a loan agreement.  Court held that no grounds for non-recognition under Chapter 2 of the FAA applied.

  • Wallace v. Grubhub Holdings, Inc., Nos. 19-1564 & 19-2156 (7th Cir. Aug. 4, 2020)
    08/04/2020

    Court of appeals upheld district court orders granting defendants’ motions to compel arbitration of claims brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Court held that defendants’ employees were not transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce because they were not actually engaged in the movement of goods in interstate commerce.

  • Dalla-Longa v. Magnetar Capital LLC, No. 1:19-CV-11246-LGS (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2020)
    08/03/2020

    Court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss petition to vacate an arbitration award.  Court held that petitioner failed to serve respondent with proper and timely notice of the petition as required by 9 USC § 12.

  • Meyer v. Kalanick, No. 1:15-CV-09796-JSR (S.D.N.Y. Aug 3, 2020)
    08/03/2020

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate arbitration award relating to alleged violations of antitrust laws.  Court rejected plaintiff’s contention that the arbitrator manifested “evident partiality” toward defendant. 

  • JE Dunn Construction Co. v. Owell Precast LLC, No. 4:20-CV-00158-BLW (D. Idaho Aug. 3, 2020)
    08/03/2020

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration of claims relating to construction contracts.  Court rejected defendant’s argument that the arbitration agreement was invalid because plaintiff did not properly authenticate the contract for the purpose of entering it into the record.  Court also rejected defendant’s argument that plaintiff was not a “party aggrieved” by defendant’s refusal to arbitrate.

  • Juric v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc., No. 2:20-CV-00651-MJH (W.D. Pa. Aug. 3, 2020)
    08/03/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of overtime compensation claims brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Court rejected plaintiffs’ allegation that they did not receive a copy of the arbitration agreement, which was provided electronically via human resources software.  Court also rejected plaintiffs’ contention that the arbitration agreement was invalid because defendant did not sign it.  Plaintiffs also sought to invalidate the arbitration agreement on grounds that defendant pressured them into signing it, which the court rejected.

  • Mannapova v. P.S.C. Community Services, Inc., 1:18-CV-04146-FB (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2020)
    08/03/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of wage claims brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Court held that the arbitration agreement in the collective bargaining agreement was mandatory based on a Second Circuit decision in a related case.  Court rejected plaintiffs’ contention that the collective bargaining agreement was not binding on its members, that the arbitration agreement did not cover claims arising before the collective bargaining agreement took effect and that the arbitration agreement had expired.

  • Sullivan v. Feldman, No. 4:20-CV-02236-LHR (S.D. Tex. Aug. 3, 2020)
    08/03/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of claims against law firm for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, tort, legal malpractice, and breach of professional obligations.  Court held that companies affiliated with plaintiffs could be compelled to arbitrate their claims because under terms of the parties’ agreement “affiliates” of plaintiff were bound by the arbitration agreement.

  • Schafer v. Allied Interstate LLC, No. 1:17-CV-233-JTN (W.D. Mich. Aug. 2, 2020)
    08/02/2020

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act.  Court held that defendants waived their right to arbitration by filing pleadings and moving for summary judgment on the merits in court litigation.

  • Vierican, LLC v. Midas International, LLC, 1:19-CV-00620-JAO (D. Haw. July 31, 2020)
    07/31/2020

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of claims relating to franchise agreements.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable and found that the dispute was arbitrable.  Court nevertheless denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration on the basis that it could not compel arbitration outside of its district (in this case Florida). 

  • Jin v. Parsons Corporation, No. 19-7019 (D.C. Cir. July 24, 2020)
    07/24/2020

    Court of appeal reversed and remanded a district court opinion denying a motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that when the existence of an arbitration agreement is in dispute the FAA requires the court to proceed to a limited trial on the question of whether an arbitration agreement exists.

  • Hanna v. Ivy Funding Company, LLC, No. 3:20-CV-00231-L (N.D. Tex. July 23, 2020)
    07/23/2020

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court found that the claims were arbitrable and the parties agreed that the claims were in the scope of the arbitration provision, the court compelled arbitration.

  • Nemecek v. Finger One, Inc., No. 3:20-CV-00048-DMS-LL (S.D. Cal. July 23, 2020)
    07/23/2020

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed employment related claims.  The parties agreed that the claims were within the scope of a valid agreement to arbitrate and court found it had discretion over whether to grant a stay or dismiss the claims.

  • Watkins v. Vision Academy Charter School, No. 2:20-CV-00656-JCJ (E.D. Pa. July 23, 2020)
    07/23/2020

    Court denied defendants motion to compel arbitration of employment discrimination claims and ordered the parties to engage in limited discovery regarding the question of arbitrability.  Court found that the plaintiffs argument that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable because it required the plaintiff to pay for half of the mediation and arbitration fees and to pay defendant’s attorneys fees in the event that the plaintiff’s claims are unsuccessful was sufficient to create a dispute of material fact over whether there was a valid agreement to arbitrate.

  • Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, v. Ocean Marine Development Corp., No. 1:19-CV-06164-RA (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2020)
    07/23/2020

    Court granted unopposed petition to confirm an arbitration award, but modified the amount of attorneys’ fees sought.  Court found that the petitioners demonstrated that there was no material issue of fact that would preclude enforcement of the award.  Court also confirmed the attorneys’ fees, but found that the rates charged for the associate were slightly higher than reasonable.

  • CEF Energia, B.V. v. Italian Republic, No. 1:19-CV-03443-K (D.D.C. July 23, 2020)
    07/23/2020

    Court granted temporary stay of petition seeking to confirm two arbitration awards in the interest of judicial economy and international comity.  The awards were rendered under the ECT by arbitration panels both based in Stockholm, Sweden.  The tribunal had ignored Italy’s argument that the panels lacked jurisdiction because of a recent CJEU ruling that intra-EU treaty arbitration are invalid to the extent they prohibit judicial review of EU law by EU courts, finding that Italy’s regulations reduced the value of petitioner’s investments. The court neglected to issue a stay pursuant to Article VI of the New York Convention because they did not determine whether they had jurisdiction and instead stayed under the courts inherent powers.

  • United States of America v. B.L. Harbert International, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-00173-JRH-BKE (S.D. Ga. July 23, 2020)
    07/23/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of construction dispute claims related to a government contract for the United States Army.  Court found that a valid agreement to arbitrate governed the dispute and rejected the Plaintiff’s argument that the agreements were unconscionable because arbitration only permits limited discovery.

  • Chess v. CF Arcis IX LLC., No. 3:20-01625 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2020)
    07/22/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed claims related to a golf club membership agreement.  Court rejected plaintiffs’ arguments that the arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable because it was presented on a take it or leave it basis and procedurally unconscionable because the modification allegedly frustrated the purpose of the contract.  Court also rejected plaintiffs’ argument that they were non-signatories to the arbitration agreement because the modification that added the arbitration agreement was a new contract.

  • Bush v. Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-01004-NR (
    07/22/2020

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of employee discrimination claims.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the agreements were unconscionable because they required arbitration, and court also rejected the argument that defendant materially breached the arbitration agreement by refusing to arbitrate claim, finding that the record did not support the contention that plaintiff previously demanded arbitration.

  • Kahuna Group, LLC v. Bunker Capital, LLC, No. 3:19-CV-00552-GCM (W.D.N.C. July 21, 2020)
    07/21/2020

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and rejected plaintiff’s argument that the defendant should not be able to compel arbitration because they were non-signatories to the agreement, finding that under Florida law a non-signatory can compel signatories to arbitration when the proceedings concerns actions allegedly taken by a non-signatory agent of a signatory.

  • Aquino v. BT’s On the River, LLC, No. 1:20-CV-20090-RNS (S.D. Fla. July 21, 2020)
    07/21/2020

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration of an employment dispute. Court rejected plaintiffs’ arguments that the agreements were substantively unconscionable because they found that certain offensive terms in the contract were severable from the agreement to arbitrate.  Court also rejected plaintiffs’ procedural unconscionability arguments as not being supported by evidence.

  • Bush v. Comcast Corporation, No. 1:18-16090-RBK-KMW (D.N.J. July 21, 2020)
    07/21/2020

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration of employment related claims.  Court found that the arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable because plaintiff was forced to accept the agreement or quit his job, but rejected plaintiffs arguments that the agreement was substantively unconscionable because arbitration limits discovery and is an inherently biased forum.  Court held that because plaintiff was unable to show substantive unconscionability, he is bound to arbitrate.

  • CMH Manufacturing, Inc. v. Caruthers, No. 3:20-00387 (S.D.W.V. July 21, 2020)
    07/21/2020

    Court granted petitioner’s motion for a order compelling arbitration of contract claims in West Virginia state court but denied a motion to stay claims in the state court proceeding because doing so would raise serious concerns for federalism and comity.  Court found compelling arbitration was appropriate because that there was (1) a dispute between the parties, (2) covered by a written agreement to arbitrate, (3) the dispute concerned interstate commerce, and (4) the respondent refused to arbitrate.

  • Gibbs v. Haynes Investments, LLC, No. 19-1434 (4th Cir. July 21, 2020)
    07/21/2020

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration of class claims and RICO claims connected to pay day loans.  The pay day loan companies were owned by sovereign Native American tribes and the arbitration agreement specified that it was governed by tribal law and the arbitrator should apply tribal law.  Court held that although plaintiffs did not mention the delegation provision, they may rely on the same arguments they employed to challenge the other arbitration provisions, and thus it was appropriate for the district court to consider the validity of the delegation provision.  Court also agreed with district court that the choice of law provision that provided tribal law should preempt federal law waived the plaintiffs’ rights to federal statutory remedies and were therefore unenforceable.

  • Gibbs v. Sequoia Capital Operations, LLC, No. 19-2108 (4th Cir. July 21, 2020)
    07/21/2020

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration of class claims and RICO claims connected to pay day loans.  The pay day loan companies were owned by sovereign Native American tribes and the arbitration agreement specified that it was governed by tribal law and the arbitrator should apply tribal law.  Court held that although plaintiffs did not mention the delegation provision, they may rely on the same arguments they employed to challenge the other arbitration provisions, and thus it was appropriate for the district court to consider the validity of the delegation provision.  Court also agreed with district court that the choice of law provision that provided tribal law should preempt federal law waived the plaintiffs’ rights to federal statutory remedies and were therefore unenforceable.

  • Jones v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., No. 4:19-00811-BRW (E.D. Ark. July 20, 2020)
    07/20/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of a putative class dispute arising out of an automobile purchase. Court rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments that the agreements were not valid because defendant failed to execute them, and that the arbitration clauses violated the requirement of mutuality because Arkansas recently put arbitration agreements outside the requirement of mutuality.

  • Banuelos v. Alorica, Inc., No. 3:20-00065 (W.D. Tex. July 20, 2020)
    07/20/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of employee discrimination claims. Court found that defendant met its burden of showing that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed, rejecting the plaintiff’s arguments that defendant’s evidence was insufficient.  Court reasoned that any print out that accurately reflects the contents of an electronic file can be considered an original of that file, and noted that a printout of defendant’s log was admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.

  • Jackson v. The Aleria Companies, Inc., No. 2:19-01281-BJR (W.D. Wash. July 20, 2020)
    07/20/2020

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of a putative class action related to health insurance plans.  Court found that because defendants waited nearly a year to compel arbitration and had engaged in discovery conferences, filed motions to dismiss, entered a protective order and joint stipulations, and were working with plaintiffs’ counsel to set a case management schedule, they had taken advantage of the federal forum and therefore waived their right to compel arbitration.

  • Levi Strauss & Co. v. Aqua Dynamics Systems, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-04718-WHO (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2020)
    07/20/2020

    Court granted petition to confirm an arbitration award and denied a petition to vacate.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that an arbitration award issued by JAMS should be vacated on the grounds that the panel was evidently partial because two of the three arbitrators were undisclosed shareholders in JAMS and JAMS engaged in undisclosed business with one of the parties. Court found that the business was trivial and that the parties and that the JAMS arbitration was not forced but jointly selected by both parties.

  • Nicaragua Tobacco Imports, Inc. v. Yam Export & Import LLC, No. 1:19-CV-23164-MGC (S.D. Fla. July 20, 2020)
    07/20/2020

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding the parties expressed their intent for the arbitrator to decide issues of arbitrability by incorporating the AAA rules into their arbitration agreement.  Court further rejected plaintiff’s attempt to avoid arbitration because certain defendants were non-signatories to the arbitration agreement, determining that under Florida’s doctrine of equitable estoppel, plaintiff may not seek to avoid arbitration with non-signatories while simultaneously asserting claims against them.

  • Nicholas v. Uber, No. 4:19-CV-08228-PJH (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2020)
    07/17/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of most of the putative class claims related to employment by defendant’s ride sharing app, staying plaintiffs’ PAGA claim until the resolution of the arbitration.  Court found that plaintiffs had the opportunity to opt out of arbitration but had not done so, and that the questions of arbitrability of the claims had been delegated to the arbitrator by the agreement.

  • In Re Petition of the Republic of Turkey, No. 2:19-CV-20107-ES-SCM (D.N.J. Cal. July 17, 2020)
    07/17/2020

    Court denied petition seeking an order directing discovery pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782.  Court found that the petitioner met the statutory requirements of § 1782, rejecting respondent’s contention that§ 1782 prohibited discovery because the petitioner was seeking discovery not only to defend itself in international arbitration, but also to gather evidence for a criminal trial against respondent.  However, the court found that one of the intel factors, whether the requests are intrusive and burdensome, required the court to deny the petition because respondent asserted his fifth amendment privilege and because respondent has indefinite asylum in the United States. Court thus exercised its discretion to deny the petition.

  • Waithaka v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 19-1848 (1st Cir. July 17, 2020)
    07/17/2020

    Court of appeal affirmed district court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration.  Court extended the exception for transportation workers in the FAA to those transportation workers who operate within the flow of interstate commerce, not just those who cross state lines. Court found that the exception applied to independent contractors like the plaintiffs following the Supreme Court’s decision in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, 139 S. Ct. 532, 544 (2019), and further held that the statute provided an exception for workers “engaged in… interstate commerce” not merely those who crossed state lines.

  • Saponjic v. BMW of North America, LLC, No. 3:20-CV-00703-BAS-RBB (S.D. Cal. July 16, 2020)
    07/16/2020

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court found that defendant had standing to enforce the arbitration agreement since it was an affiliate and managing entity of an assignee of the underlying lease.  Although there was partial procedural unconscionability, court concluded the plaintiff failed to meet its burden in demonstrating substantive unconscionability since the terms of the agreement were not overly harsh, unduly oppressive, or so one-sided as to shock the conscience.

  • Teamsters Local 177 v. United Parcel Service, No. 19-3510 (3d Cir. July 16, 2020)
    07/16/2020

    Court of appeals reversed district court’s order denying petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award.  Court of appeals found there was sufficient Art. III “case or controversy” to confer subject-matter jurisdiction on district court to confirm the arbitration award, since under the FAA a party’s injury was only fully remedied by the entry of a confirmation order.

  • Vantage Deepwater Company v. Petrobas America, Incorporated, No. 19-20435 (5th Cir. July 16, 2020)
    07/16/2020

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order confirming an arbitration award pursuant to the FAA and the Panama Convention.  Court found that, by properly deferring to arbitrators’ finding that defendants’ bribery objection was waived due to their ratification of the underlying agreement, district court correctly concluded the arbitration award did not violate public policy.  Court of appeals also determined that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying discovery from a dissenting arbitrator and the AAA.

  • Precision Castparts Corp. v. Schultz Holding GMBH & Co. KG, No. 1:20-CV-03029-LJL (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 2020)
    07/15/2020

    Court granted motion to confirm an arbitration award pursuant to the FAA and the New York Convention.  Court found the tribunal did not manifestly disregard Delaware law’s rehash doctrine in determining that petitioners’ fraud claim was not identical to but broader than the breach claim.  Court also determined that respondents failed to establish the tribunal exceeded its power under § 10(a)(4) of the FAA.

  • Schulz v. BMW of North America, LLC, No. 5:20-CV-01697 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2020)
    07/15/2020

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding that the defendant may not compel arbitration under the doctrine of equitable estoppel since plaintiff’s breach claims were not intimately founded in and intertwined with the purchase agreement.  Court also determined that it may decide the question of arbitrability since defendant did not have the contractual right to enforce the delegation clause.

  • East River Capital Inc. and ERC Access, Inc. v. VLD Access Inc., Dunn, Route Consultant Inc., and Rummy Inc., No. 3:19-CV-01398-JPG (S.D. Ill. July 15, 2020)
    07/15/2020

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding that the arbitration agreement was valid and a challenge to the underlying contract as a whole was for the arbitrator to decide.  Court also determined that the arbitration clause itself was not too vague to be enforced and that the plaintiff’s non-signatory, successor was bound by the contractual obligation to arbitrate. 

  • Hansen v. Elon Musk; TESLA Inc.; TESLA Motors, Inc.; US Security Associates, No. 3:19-CV-00413-LRH-WGC (D. Nev. July 15, 2020)
    07/15/2020

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court found that non-signatory party may compel arbitration since plaintiff raised allegations of “substantially interdependent and concerted” misconduct by both the non-signatory and the signatory.  Court also determined that plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the agreement’s broad arbitration clause which contained no express provision excluding specific disputes.

  • Anderson v. Charter Communications and Christopher Cornett, No. 3:20-CV-00005-CRS (W.D. Ky. July 14, 2020)
    07/14/2020

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court found that since the underlying contract was itself an arbitration agreement to which the parties consented, and not simply an arbitration clause within a broader contract, any challenge to its validity and scope was for the arbitrator to decide.

  • Kantz v. AT&T, Inc. and AT&T Services, Inc., No. 2:20-CV-00531-JCJ (E.D. Pa. July 14, 2020)
    07/14/2020

    Court stayed motion to compel arbitration to allow limited discovery on the question of whether there was a valid arbitration agreement, since, from the face of the complaint and supporting documents upon which the complaint relied, no such agreement was apparent. 

  • The Charlotte Mecklenburg Board of Education v. 34 ED, LC d/b/a CENTEGIX, No. 3:20-CV-00259-GCM (W.D.N.C. July 14, 2020)
    07/14/2020

    Court granted motion to enjoin arbitration proceedings.  Court found that plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits because plaintiff’s agent had no actual or apparent authority to bind it to an arbitration provision and defendant could not have reasonably believed the agent had any such authority.  Court also determined that plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if injunction was not granted, the balance of equities favored plaintiff’s position, and the relief sought was in the public interest.

  • Williams; Stermel v. Medley Opportunity Fund II, LP, No. 19-2058 (3d Cir. July 14, 2020)
    07/14/2020

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order denying defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court of appeals found that because plaintiffs were allowed to raise disputes in arbitration only under tribal law, and such limitations constituted a prospective waiver of their statutory rights, the arbitration agreement violated public policy and was thus unenforceable.

  • Ciccio v. SmileDirectClub, LLC, No. 3:19-CV-00845 (M.D. Tenn. July 13, 2020)
    07/13/2020

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff was entitled to pursue the claim in court following the AAA’s rejection of arbitration of the dispute based on a due process review pursuant to AAA Rules.

  • Collazo v. Prime Fight of DE, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-21312-KM-JBC (D.N.J. July 13, 2020)
    07/13/2020

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court found that the arbitration agreement, explicitly waiving the right to bring lawsuit in court, did not need to specifically waive the right to trial by jury to satisfy the notice requirement and was, thus, valid.

  • Baker v. Comcast Corporation, No. 2:19-CV-00652-HCN-CMR (D. Utah July 10, 2020)
    07/10/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court found that the arbitration agreement was valid because it was supported by consideration and because plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly signed a service order that contained the arbitration provision.  Court also determined that plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • Danford v. Lowe’s Companies, Inc. and Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC, No. 5:19-CV-00041-KDB-DCK (W.D.N.C. July 10, 2020)
    07/10/2020

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA and dismissed opt-in plaintiffs from the case.  Court found that the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable since no signature was required for the contract to be binding, an arbitration agreement could be accepted through performance, such as continued employment, and mutual promise to arbitrate formed sufficient consideration for the agreement.

  • Levy and Brouard v. Republic of Guinea, No. 1:19-CV-02405-DLF (D.D.C. July 10, 2020)
    07/10/2020

    Court granted petitioners’ motion for default judgment recognizing and enforcing arbitration award pursuant to the ICSID Convention and 22 USC § 1650a.  Court found that the respondent was properly served under the FSIA and that copies of the tribunal’s award constituted sufficient evidence to show that petitioners were entitled to the claimed amounts as the creditor of a final ICSID award.

  • Trout v. Organizacion Mundial De Boxeo, Inc., No. 19-1068 (1st Cir. July 10, 2020)
    07/10/2020

    Court of Appeals vacated and remanded district court’s order granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court of appeals found that the arbitration-selection provision, granting defendant exclusive control over the appointment of the arbitrators, was unconscionable, rendering the arbitration agreement invalid and unenforceable under Puerto Rican contract law.

  • J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. v. Steadfast Insurance Company, No. 5:20-CV-05049-TLB (W.D. Ark. July 1, 2020)
    07/01/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA and the New York Convention and stayed proceedings pending arbitration.  Court found that Art. II, § 3 of the New York Convention, as a self-executing provision of an international treaty, is not an Act of Congress under the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which permits state insurance laws to reverse-preempt federal laws.  Court also found that the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable and that the defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate.

  • Mullen Technologies, Inc. v. Qiantu Motor (Suzhou) Ltd., No. 3:19-CV-01979-W-DEB (S.D. Cal. July 1, 2020)
    07/01/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA and the New York Convention and stayed proceedings pending arbitration.  Court found the arbitration agreement was valid under the New York Convention since the contract was commercial in nature and the arbitration agreement was in writing, designated a signatory country as venue for arbitration, and involved a foreign entity.  Court also concluded the agreement was enforceable as plaintiff failed to demonstrate any duress, mistake, fraud, or waiver associated with the arbitration clause.

  • Carusone v. Nintendo of America, Inc., No. 5:19-CV-01183-LCB (N.D. Ala. June 30, 2020)
    06/30/2020

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court concluded the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable based on parties’ mutual assent manifested in plaintiff’s ratification of the contract; sufficient consideration in the form of parties’ mutual obligation to arbitrate; plaintiff’s ability to return the product; and the absence of alleged inconsistencies in the arbitration agreement.  Court found there was no dispute as to whether plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • Reed v. Royal Sonesta, Inc., No. 2:20-CV-00384-WBV-KWR (E.D. La. June 30, 2020)
    06/30/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding that an arbitration agreement’s limits on discovery did not render the agreement invalid and that the delegation clause required the court to refer the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator.  Court concluded that no federal statutes or policy rendered plaintiff’s claims non-arbitrable.

  • Mason v. Lowe’s Companies, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-00973-CB (W.D. Pa. June 30, 2020)
    06/30/2020

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding that the parties’ obligation to arbitrate provides sufficient consideration for the arbitration agreement to be valid and enforceable.  Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the agreement was otherwise unenforceable because of procedural or substantive unconscionability, contract of adhesion, equitable estoppel, breach of good faith and fair dealing, coercion, or fraud.

  • BI-LO, LLC v. Parker, No. 5:19-CV-03213-JMC (D.S.C. June 29, 2020)
    06/29/2020

    Court denied petitioner’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court found that the arbitration clause was invalid and unenforceable due to insufficient evidence as to whether the respondent consented to the terms of the agreement.  Court also concluded that none of the respondent’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration clause.

  • O’Quinn v. TransCanada USA Services, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-00844 (S.D.W. Va. June 29, 2020)
    06/29/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel certain opt-in plaintiffs to arbitration, severed their respective claims, and stayed the proceedings pending arbitration.  Court found that there was a valid arbitration agreement, since opt-in plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate against a third-part beneficiary of the arbitration agreement, and that the claims fell within the scope of the agreement.

  • Armijo v. Cositas Ricas Ecuatorianas Corp., No. 1:19-CV-02893-FB-JO (E.D.N.Y. June 29, 2020)
    06/29/2020

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA and stayed the litigation pending arbitration.  Court ruled that the arbitration agreements were neither unconscionable nor fraudulently induced, since the plaintiff was informed of the agreements’ purpose and he was not entitled to have the agreements translated into his native language.  Court found the arbitration agreements were valid and enforceable and that plaintiff’s claim fell within their scope.

  • The United States of America, for the use and benefit of The New IEM, LLC v. Tri-Technic, Inc., No. 3:20-CV-01505-VC (N.D. Cal. June 27, 2020)
    06/27/2020

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel AAA arbitration, finding the broad arbitration clause clearly encompassed the claims and that, by affirmatively seeking arbitration, plaintiff waived its ability to deny the existence of the arbitration agreement.  Court stayed the case pending arbitration.

  • EGI-VSR, LLC v. Coderch, No. 18-12615 (11th Cir. June 25, 2020)
    06/25/2020

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s confirmation of an arbitration award under the Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration, but remanded with instructions to correct two errors.  Court of appeals found the district court used the incorrect date of conversion under the “breach day” rule and failed to order appellee to tender its shares on payment as required in the Shareholders’ Agreement.

  • Cipolla v. Team Enterprises, LLC, 3:18-CV-06867-WHA (9th Cir. June 24, 2020)
    06/24/2020

    Court of appeals reversed district court order denying appellant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the district court erred in denying appellant’s motion to compel without addressing the effect of the delegation clause in the parties’ contract under which any questions regarding the validity or enforcement of the contract’s dispute resolution provisions were to be delegated and submitted to the arbitrator. 

  • Iheanacho v. Air Liquide Large Industries U.S. L.P., 3:19-CV-00532-SDD (M.D. La. June 24, 2020)
    06/24/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of employment discrimination claims.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration agreement was not enforceable because defendant did not sign the agreement containing the arbitration clause.

  • Martin v. NTT Data, Inc., 2:20-CV-00686-JCJ (E.D. Pa. June 23, 2020)
    06/23/2020

    Court granted defendant’s petition to confirm an arbitration award and denied plaintiff’s petition to vacate the award in an employment discrimination dispute.  Court refused to vacate the award based on plaintiff’s argument that the award was invalid on the grounds of evident partiality or corruption on the part of the arbitrator, misconduct in refusing to postpone hearings and in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the dispute between the parties.

  • Ward v. Ernst & Young U.S. LLP, 1:19-CV-06667-JGK (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2020)
    06/23/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of employment discrimination claims, which were the subject of an ongoing arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff’s argument, pursuant to the “effective vindication” doctrine, that the arbitration agreement had been invalidated because of a ruling by the arbitral tribunal that ordered the parties split the fees and costs of the arbitration was a matter for the tribunal to decide.

  • Process and Industrial Development Limited v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, No. 18-7154 (D.C. Cir. June 19, 2020)
    06/19/2020

    Court of appeals denied district court’s order requiring that a foreign sovereign, in its response to a petition to confirm an arbitral award against it, brief the merits before resolving a colorable assertion of immunity.  Court of appeals found that the FAA imposed no such limitation and that the FSIA required a threshold immunity determination before a sovereign could be compelled to litigate merits.

  • American Institute for Foreign Study, Inc. v. Fernandez-Jimenez, 1:20-CV-10920-NMG (D. Mass. June 19, 2020)
    06/19/2020

    Court denied granted, in part, plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining defendant from pursuing wage claims on a class basis in a AAA arbitration.  Court held that the parties did not agree to arbitrate claims on a class basis in the arbitration agreement by virtue of the selection of AAA arbitration. 

  • Process of Industrial Developments Limited v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, No. 18-07154 (D.C. Cir. June 19, 2020)
    06/19/2020

    Court of appeals reversed and remanded lower court judgment ordering Nigeria to brief the merits of a petition to confirm arbitration while its foreign sovereign immunity defense was pending.  Court found that because Nigeria’s immunity defense was colorable, the lower court impermissibly ordered Nigeria to brief the merits of the dispute.

  • Scutt v. ALTRES Staffing Inc., No. 1:20-CV-00045-SOM-RT (D. Haw. June 18, 2020)
    06/18/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that an arbitration provision was valid and not substantively unconscionable when the agreement contained a fee-shifting provision requiring plaintiff to bear costs of arbitration.

  • Blanton v. Domino’s Pizza Franchising, LLC, No. 19-02388 (6th Cir. June 17, 2020)
    06/17/2020

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s ruling that the parties agreed to submit issues of arbitrability to an arbitrator.  Court found that parties’ incorporation of the AAA Rules was clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties intended to arbitrate arbitrability – finding agreement among 11 out of 12 circuit courts of appeal.

  • Tenaris S.A. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 1:18-CV-01372-CRC (D.D.C. June 17, 2020)
    06/17/2020

    Court granted in part and denied in part petition to recognize and enforce an ICSID arbitration award against Venezuela.  Court found that despite petitioners’ arguments regarding discussion of post-judgment interest in the award, the applicable rate of 9% compounded semi-annually from the date of the award is set by federal law and is mandatory.  Court declined to award petitioners attorneys’ fees due to “the country’s dire political and economic situation.” 

  • Williams v. Conduent Human Services LLC, No. 3:19-CV-01061-DRL-MCG (N.D. Ind. June 17, 2020)
    06/17/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the parties intended arbitrate the issue of arbitrability when the arbitration agreement contained a delegation clause encompassing claims that any part of the underlying contract is void or voidable.

  • Ocean World Lines, Inc. v. Transocean Shipping Transportagentur GesmbH, No. 1-19-CV-00043-AT (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2020)
    06/16/2020

    Court granted petitioner’s petition to confirm an arbitration award, finding that no defense under the New York Convention was applicable nor was there any evidence of manifest disregard of the law.

  • Hidalgo v. Amateur Athletic Union of the United States, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-10545-JGK (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2020)
    06/16/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff was on reasonable notice of the arbitration provision when completing an online application for membership in defendant’s organization which conditioned membership on assent to terms and conditions that contained an arbitration provision.  Court found that the parties intended to have issues of arbitrability submitted to arbitration when the arbitration provision explicitly stated so.

  • Belton v. GE Capital Retail Bank, No. 19-648 (2d Cir. June 16, 2020)
    06/16/2020

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order affirming decision of the bankruptcy court to deny appellant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court of appeals found that a dispute concerning the violation of a bankruptcy discharge order was not arbitrable. Although it considered the silence of the Bankruptcy Code and the legislative history, court of appeals concluded it was bound to follow the Second Circuit’s precedent which found an inherent conflict between the code and the FAA.

  • Hidalgo v. Amateur Athletic Union of the United States, Inc., 1:19-CV-10545-JGK (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2020)
    06/16/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of claims relating to data breaches that allegedly resulted in financial losses, identity theft, and other injuries to plaintiff.  Court held that plaintiff had reasonable notice of the web-based arbitration agreement, which was accessible via hyperlink.  Court also held that the issue of arbitrability had been delegated to the arbitrator.

  • Cheng v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., No. #:20-CV-01551-BMC (E.D.N.Y. June 15, 2020)
    06/15/2020

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that claims relating to a contract not containing the relevant arbitration provision were not subject to arbitration.  Court found that the arbitration clause was narrow when language in another portion of the contract set rules for judicial treatment other than arbitration.

  • Magee v. Francesca’s Holding Corp., No. #:17-00565-RBK-JS (D.N.J. June 15, 2020)
    06/15/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment, finding that defendants did not waive the right to arbitration when engaging in non-merits motion practice, acquiescing to pretrial orders, and participating in discovery disputes. 

  • Montgomery v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. 3:19-CV-19948-FLW-DEA (D.N.J. June 15, 2020)
    06/15/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that a valid arbitration agreement existed and was not unconscionable when the contract was presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis and could require plaintiff to pay defendant’s costs and fees.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that providing arbitration as the only forum denied plaintiff an appropriate forum for her claims.

  • Burries v. Sea Island Company, No. 2:19-CV-00081-JRH-BWC (S.D. Ga. June 15, 2020)
    06/15/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that federal discrimination claims were arbitrable when such claims were specifically contemplated by an arbitration clause. 

  • Pestarino v. Ford Motor Company, No. 5:19-CV-07890-BLF (N.D. Cal. June 15, 2020)
    06/15/2020

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that a non-signatory defendant could not invoke the arbitration agreement based on an alleged agency relationship with a signatory party.  Court found that doctrine of equitable estoppel could not be applied to allow a non-signatory to invoke an arbitration agreement against a signatory to that agreement.  

  • Prime Venture Corporation v. Fennix Global Holdings, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-01473-RAM (D.P.R. June 15, 2020)
    06/15/2020

    Court denied defendant’s request for declaratory judgment to enforce an arbitration agreement in Florida when the agreement provided for arbitration in Panama or Puerto Rico.  Court found that although a valid arbitration agreement existed and the parties’ dispute fell under the New York Convention, the court could not “rewrite the arbitration clause” and compel arbitration in a forum other than those enumerated in the arbitration agreement.

  • Ruiz v. Millennium Square Residential Association, No. 1:19-CV-03765-TNM (D.D.C. June 11, 2020)
    06/11/2020

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement could enforce an arbitration agreement based on the doctrine of estoppel because the claims against all defendants were intertwined with the claims against the defendant who was party to an arbitration agreement covering this dispute.

  • White v. WeWork Companies, Inc., No. 1:20-CV-01800-CM (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2020)
    06/11/2020

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that her claims were not arbitrable under New York Law, finding that the FAA governs the question of arbitrability.

  • Constellium Rolled Products Ravenswood, LLC v. United Steel International Union, No. 2:18-CV-01404 (S.D.W.V. June 11, 2020)
    06/11/2020

    Court denied motion to vacate an arbitration award.  Court denied petitioner’s arguments that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law by not applying the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel because the record showed that the arbitrator considered both of these issues before rendering a decision.

  • Millner v. Bock, No. 3:20-CV-01564 (N.D. Cal. June 11, 2020)
    06/11/2020

    Court denied motion to vacate an arbitration award and confirmed the FINRA arbitration award.  Court denied respondent’s arguments that the arbitration panel improperly denied a motion to postpone a hearing and that the panel gave the parties too little time to conduct discovery according to the FINRA rules.  Court found that the panel had a reasonable basis to deny the motion to postpone because the respondent failed to identify materials it needed but did not have, and failed to meet and confer in good faith.

  • Carman v. Signature Healthcare, LLC, No. 4:19-CV-00087-JHM (W.D. Ky. June 10, 2020)
    06/10/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding a valid arbitration agreement existed and that the agreement contained a delegation agreement.  Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the agreement (1) violated the FAA’s effective vindication doctrine, (2) represented a mutual mistake, (3) was unconscionable, and (4) violated state law.  Court found that none of the arguments specifically targeted the delegation provision and that they should be decided by the arbitrator. As to the state law arguments, court found these were pre-empted by the FAA.

  • Hill v. Employee Resource Group, LLC, No. 18-2009 (4th Cir. June 9, 2020)
    06/09/2020

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of a motion to compel the arbitration of a class action employment dispute.  Court found that defendant failed to meet it’s burden of providing clear and convincing evidence of the existence of an arbitration agreement where the defendant was unable to produce the arbitration agreements in question.  Court found that the result was the same under the four separate state law standards that were applicable to the class.

  • Rechnitz v. Kutner, No. 1:20-CV-01607-KAM-VMS (E.D.N.Y. June 8, 2020)
    06/08/2020

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award related to a loan dispute, including an attachment in aid of arbitration and denied a motion to vacate.  Court found no evidence in the record to vacate the award on any of the grounds permitted under the FAA. Court also denied the respondent’s argument that the arbitrator lacked authority to resolve certain disputes because the parties only agreed to arbitrate one dispute, finding that when parties agree to arbitrate a dispute there is a presumption that they agree to arbitrate their various live disputes.

  • Denver Global Products v. Leon, No. 18-1853 (4th Cir. June 5, 2020)
    06/05/2020

    Court of appeals affirmed district court decision granting a motion to compel and confirming an arbitration award pursuant to the New York Convention. Court rejected the appellant’s arguments that an award rendered in China was invalid because there was not a valid agreement to arbitrate, or because he was “unable to present his case” in China, finding that appellant never moved the arbitration panel to delay proceedings or allow him to participate remotely.

  • Biller v. S-H OpCo Greenwich Bay Manor, LLC, No. 19-01865 (1st Cir. June 5, 2020)
    06/05/2020

    Court of appeals reversed district court judgment denying arbitration, finding that although the underlying residency agreement expired, the arbitration agreement was severable and remained valid.  Court found that it could determine the issue of arbitrability absent clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties intended to delegate the issue to an arbitrator.  Court additionally found that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable when it split arbitration costs between the parties and plaintiff had no opportunity to negotiate the terms of the agreement.

  • Goulart v. Edgewell Personal Care Co., No. 4:19-CV-02559-SEP (E.D. Mo. June 4, 2020)
    06/04/2020

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration finding that: (1) plaintiff assented to the arbitration agreement when making a purchase on defendants’ website and (2) the parties’ incorporation of the JAMS Rules indicated clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties intended to arbitrate the issue of arbitrability.

  • Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 19-01833 (2d Cir. June 4, 2020)
    06/04/2020

    Court of appeals affirmed district court judgment granting a motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the case.  Court found that plaintiff was bound to the arbitration agreement when he was on inquiry notice of the agreement by making various purchases.  Court found that plaintiff’s challenge of the validity of the contract was not a threshold issue of arbitrability, and thus should be considered by the arbitrator in the first instance.

  • Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Inc. v. The Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Venezuela, No. 1:02-CV-00785-HSO-RHW (S.D. Miss. June 4, 2020)
    06/04/2020

    Court granted plaintiff’s request for entry of final judgment on a confirmed arbitration award, finding that plaintiff was entitled to a judgment in the full amount of the award notwithstanding amounts already paid to plaintiff on behalf of defendant.

  • Rizvi v. BMW of North America LLC, No. 5:20-CV-00229-EJD (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2020)
    06/04/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding that: (1) plaintiff assented to the arbitration provision contained in a lease agreement when he entered into a lease transfer agreement and (2) a third party beneficiary to the lease agreement was entitled to compel arbitration.

  • Union Fenosa Gas, S.A. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, No. 1:18-CV-02395-JEB (D.D.C. June 4, 2020)
    06/04/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay and set aside entry of default and denied plaintiff’s motion for default judgment of an ICSID Award under appeal, finding inter alia that: (1) the possibility that the award will be annulled was more than wishful thinking and (2) the balance of hardships favored defendant due to the burden it would face by having to attack the validity of the award in two forums.

  • Jordan v. Sugartree Homes Association of Louis County, No. 4:19-CV-02144-JAR (W.D. Mo. June 3, 2020)
    06/03/2020

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding inter alia that plaintiffs’ claims were subject to arbitration.  Court found that defendants did not waive their right to arbitrate when they did not file any motions other than the motion to dismiss, nor did they undertake any discovery.  Consequently, court found that defendants acted consistently with the right to arbitrate.

  • Action Industries, Inc. v. Innophos, Inc., No. 3:19-CV-00509-BAJ-RLB (M.D. La. June 3, 2020)
    06/03/2020

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed upon accepting a purchase order incorporating by reference a company’s terms and conditions which contained an arbitration provision.

  • Wang v. NYZ Management Services, LLC, No. 3:19-CV-00064-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C. June 3, 2020)
    06/03/2020

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, finding that the presence of a clause permitting litigation in North Carolina state and federal courts did not preempt the application of a broad arbitration clause.  Court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the arbitration.

  • Teco Guatemala Holdings, LLC v. Republic of Guatemala, No. 1:17-CV-00102-RDM (D.D.C. June 2, 2020)
    06/02/2020

    Court granted an order for petitioner execute US property of a foreign sovereign under Section 1610(c) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, finding that a period of six months after the court entered final judgment was sufficient to satisfy the requirement under Section 1610(c) that a “reasonable period of time” pass before execution can be issued.

  • DSNR Media Group Ltd. v. Vdopia, Inc., No. 3:19-CV-07833-WHO (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2020)
    06/02/2020

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss finding that plaintiffs’ claims for provisional relief and pre-judgment attachment were arbitrable when specifically the arbitration agreement specifically granted the arbitrator the power to grant temporary and provisional relief.

  • Lobster 207, LLC v. Pettegrow, No. 1:19-CV-00552-LEW (D. Me. June 1, 2020)
    06/01/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding that plaintiff’s breach of contract claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.  Court found that defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate when it filed its motion to compel arbitration four months after the Complaint was filed. 

  • GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS Corp. v. Outokumpu Stainless USA LLC, No. 18-1048 (U.S. June 1, 2020)
    06/01/2020

    Supreme Court an Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision in finding that the New York Convention does not preclude the application of domestic law permitting non-signatories to enforce an international arbitration agreement.  Consequently, Court found that a non-signatory French company could compel arbitration of an Alabama steel plant.

  • The Pharma Partners, LTD v. Liposeuticals, No. 1:19-CV-05735-AJN (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2020)
    06/01/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss finding that, despite an arbitration provision submitting disputes to binding arbitration in New York, court did not have personal jurisdiction over defendant for a case unrelated to the arbitration clause.

  • Wright v. NH Thornton Place, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-02063-DDC-GEB (D. Kan. June 1, 2020)
    06/01/2020

    Court granted defendant’s unopposed application for order confirming arbitration award finding that neither plaintiff nor the court expressed a reason to vacate the award under Section 10 of the FAA.

  • Blash v. BCS Placements, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-06321-AJN (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2020)
    05/31/2020

    Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to preliminary enjoin an arbitration where plaintiffs argued that the underlying claims were not arbitrable.  Court found that the parties manifested clear and unmistakable intent to arbitrate arbitrability where the agreement (1) submitted “all claims, disputes, and other matters” to arbitration and (2) incorporated the AAA Rules.

  • Tolliver v. Covington Credit, No. 3:19-CV-02655-M (N.D. Tex. May 31, 2020)
    05/31/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding that plaintiffs’ statutory claims were not explicitly excluded from an arbitration clause encompassing “any dispute with the exception of those outlined below.”  Court stayed the action pending arbitration finding it mandatory to do so when an issue is referable to arbitration.

  • Charter Communications, Inc. v. Taylor, No. 4:20-CV-00233-HEA (E.D. Mo. May 29, 2020)
    05/29/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff did not waive its right to arbitrate when it first invoked one arbitration agreement as the basis of the arbitration but ultimately brought an action under another.  Court found that inconsistency with the right to arbitrate must exist with regard with the right itself, not which agreement is invoked.

  • CPR Management, S.A. v. Devon Park Bioventures, L.P., No. 2:18-CV-01973-CMR (E.D. Pa. May 29, 2020)
    05/29/2020

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award, and denied respondents’ cross motion to vacate, finding that none of the grounds for vacating an award under Section 10 of the FAA applied.  Court found that applying the FAA was appropriate where: (1) the arbitration was brought in the United States and (2) there was no conflict between the New York Convention and the domestic FAA, reasoning that Article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention allows awards to be “set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country in which that award was made.”  Court refused to impose additional prejudgment interest finding that such interest is not a penalty and that the good or bad faith of a losing party is not of dispositive significance.

  • Hutt v. Xpressbet, LLC, No. 2:20-CV-00494-JD (E.D. Pa. May 29, 2020)
    05/29/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding inter alia that a non-signatory plaintiff was subjected to the terms of the arbitration agreement when he sought to enforce the terms of the underlying contract.  Court found that both contract and tort claims were arbitrable where the arbitration agreement was broad and placed no restriction on arbitrable disputes.

  • Kahapea v. Pennymac Loan Services, LLC, No. 1:19-MC-00028-MV (D.N.M. May 29, 2020)
    05/29/2020

    Court dismissed without prejudice petitioner’s action to confirm an arbitration award, finding that petitioner failed to fulfill the jurisdiction requirements of Section 9 of the FAA when he did not demonstrate that the arbitration agreement explicitly or implicitly intended that the parties have a judgment entered on the arbitration award.

  • IMAX Corporation v. Giencourt Investments, S.A., No. 20-10491 (11th Cir. May 28, 2020)
    05/28/2020

    Court of appeals affirmed a district court decision denying appellant’s motion to vacate arbitration awards, finding that appellant failed to carry its burden to establish any defense under the New York Convention or prove that the arbitral tribunal exceeded its powers under the FAA.

  • Teco Guatemala Holdings, LLC v. Republic of Guatemala, No. 19-7153 (D.C. Cir. May 21, 2020) 
    05/21/2020

    Court of appeals denied motion for stay of enforcement of arbitral award, finding appellant did not satisfy the stringent requirements for a stay pending appeal.

  • Bayco Products, Inc. v. ProTorch Company, Inc., No. 4:19-CV-00648-ALM (E.D. Tex. May 21, 2020) 
    05/21/2020

    Court granted motion to dismiss and compel arbitration finding the arbitration clause in the agreement was governed by the New York Convention.  Court concluded that the non-signatory defendants could use the theory of estoppel to enforce the arbitral clause under the New York Convention and plaintiff’s asserted causes of action fell within the scope of the provision.  Court denied as moot plaintiff’s emergency motion for an anti-suit injunction.

  • Vergara v. Nintendo of America Inc., No. 1:19-CV-06374 (N.D. Ill. May 21, 2020) 
    05/21/2020

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding that by incorporating the AAA’s Commercial Arbitration Rules the arbitration agreement delegated the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator.  Court stayed the suit pending arbitration and denied plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended compliant as moot.

  • Washington Lift Truck Corp. v. Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift America, Inc., No. 2:20-CV-00655-WED (E.D. Wis. May 21, 2020) 
    05/21/2020

    Court granted motion to dismiss, finding that the arbitral provision which prohibited an arbitrator from ordering specific performance was not incompatible with the applicable Wisconsin law and the parties would still obtain the relief they were seeking through arbitration.  Pursuant to § 4 of the FAA, court found it could not compel arbitration as the arbitration was to take place in the Southern District of Texas but noted that defendant could file its motion in the appropriate district.  Court denied the motion for preliminary injunction, finding the harm plaintiff was seeking to avoid was not immediate and that it could seek preliminary injunctive relief from the arbitral tribunal. 

  • Ameriprise Financial Services, LLC v. George, No. 1:20-CV-00215-DDD-SKC (D. Colo. May 20, 2020) 
    05/20/2020

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award pursuant to the FAA and entered default judgment as defendant never moved to modify or vacate the award.

  • Bogard v. Blackstone, No. 5:20-CV-00080-XR (W.D. Tex. May 20, 2020) 
    05/20/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s motion to confirm arbitration award.  Court found that a state official sued in her official capacity was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity and therefore, court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to consider plaintiff’s motion to confirm the arbitral award.

  • McKie v. Bridgecrest Credit Company LLC, No. 1:19-CV-00097-JRH-BKE (S.D. Ga. May 20, 2020) 
    05/20/2020

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay the matter pending arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court found the arbitration agreement was valid and that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitral clause.

  • La Dolce Vita Fine Dining Company Limited v. Lan, No. 1:20-MC-00200-VEC (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 2020) 
    05/19/2020

    Court granted petitioners’ motion for an order of attachment in aid of two arbitrations pending before the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (“CIETAC”).  Court found petitioners met requirements for attachment under New York CPLR § 7502(c) and Article 62, because petitioners had a cause of action in the form of the arbitrations; a likelihood of success on the merits, as they were already awarded arbitral awards against the respondents; the awards may be ineffectual without the attachment; and respondents had no pending counterclaims against petitioners.

  • Micula v. Government of Romania, No. 19-7127 (D.C. Cir. May 19, 2020) 
    05/19/2020

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order confirming arbitration award against the Government of Romania.  Court of appeals found the district court did not improperly resolve disputes of material fact and did not abuse its discretion by denying Romania’s request for an extension of time on the day its responsive filing was due.

  • Murray v. Grocery Delivery E-Services USA Inc., No. 1:19-CV-12608-WGY (D. Mass. May 19, 2020) 
    05/19/2020

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration where an arbitration clause was added to the defendant’s policy two years after plaintiff agreed to the terms and conditions, and plaintiff had not received valid notice of the new terms.

  • In re Ex Parte Petition of the Republic of Turkey for an Order Directing Discovery from Hamit Cicek Pursuant to 28 USC § 1782, No. 2:19-CV-20107-ES-SCM (D.N.J. May 18, 2020) 
    05/18/2020

    Court denied motions to vacate, quash, compel discovery, and issue sanctions against the Republic of Turkey and granted the Republic’s motion to enforce subpoenas issued pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 for use in an ICSID arbitration.  Court found that the ex parte application did not deny the subpoena recipient due process, the Republic was not barred from § 1782 discovery because of pending criminal charges against the subpoena recipient, and granting assistance did not circumvent US public policy.

  • Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company v. Anthem, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-03589-JRS-MJD (S.D. Ind. May 18, 2020) 
    05/18/2020

    Court set aside magistrate judge’s order and compelled arbitration and stayed the case pursuant to the FAA.  Court found there was an agreement to arbitrate with clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to delegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.  Court held magistrate judge erred in concluding that the ambiguity of non-essential terms had to be resolved before determining whether to compel arbitration and found that the incorporation of the JAMS International rules was clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to delegate arbitrability to the arbitrator.

  • Bacon v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., No. 18-3780 (3d. Cir. May 18, 2020) 
    05/18/2020

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order denying defendants’ motion to compel plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims.  Pursuant to the FAA, court of appeals determined it had appellate jurisdiction over the denial of motions to compel arbitration regardless of whether they were final orders.  Court of appeals found that the U.S. plaintiffs did not assent to the arbitration provision for rental jackets where they were not adequately incorporated into the U.S. Agreements and that there were questions of fact concerning whether the Costa Rican plaintiff had reasonable notice of the arbitration agreement.

  • Canfornav Inc. v. TDE Group USA Inc., No. 2:19-CV-11906-BAF-DRG (E.D. Mich. May 18, 2020) 
    05/18/2020

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award pursuant to the New York Convention, where defendant had not responded to the motion.  Court also granted motion for summary judgment for breach of contract based on defendant’s failure to indemnify plaintiff.

  • Mobile Real Estate, LLC v. Newpoint Media Group, LLC., No. 7:19-CV-11475-KMK (S.D.N.Y. May 18, 2020)
    05/18/2020

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay the case, finding that the incorporation of the AAA rules was clear evidence that the question of arbitrability was delegated to the arbitrator.  Court further concluded that the arbitration agreement in the first contract was not superseded by the forum selection clause in the second contract because the agreements covered different subject matter.  Court found that there was a sufficient relationship between the non-signatory defendants and the other entities to delegate the question of whether non-signatory defendants were subject to arbitration to the arbitrator.

  • Gore v. The Buccaneer, Inc., No. 1:20-CV-00011-WAL-GWC (D.V.I. May 15, 2020) 
    05/15/2020

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding the arbitral agreement was enforceable and valid as the plaintiff signed it as a condition of her stay at the hotel.  Court concluded that the agreement was not unconscionable.

  • In re: Pacific Fertility Center Litigation, No. 19-15885 (9th Cir. May 15, 2020) 
    05/15/2020

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order denying the motion to compel arbitration as to one appellant while reversing its order as to the others.  Court of appeals found the claims against one of the non-signatory appellants were not founded in or intertwined with the terms of the contract, so the appellant could not be compelled to arbitrate on grounds of equitable estoppel.  Court of appeals reversed the district court’s order denying the motion to compel arbitration with regard to the other non-signatory appellants on the grounds that the claims raised against them were founded in and inextricably intertwined with the terms of the contract.

  • Zhejiang Topoint Photovoltaic Co., Ltd. v. G&S Solar Installers, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-16578-KM-JBC (D.N.J. May 15, 2020)
    05/15/2020

    Court granted motion to confirm ICDR arbitration award and denied cross-motion to vacate the award, finding defendant was collaterally estopped from seeking to vacate the award because it had the opportunity to litigate the arbitrability issue and declined to do so.  Court held that the award must be confirmed pursuant to the FAA.

  • Scarso Enterprises, Inc. v. Honor Yoga Management, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-02927-JG (N.D. Ohio May 14, 2020)
    05/14/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion for a stay pending arbitration of various claims relating to yoga studio franchises.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration agreement was invalid because the contract between the parties had been rescinded.  Court held that this was an issue for the arbitrator to consider, not the Court.  Court also held that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement. 

  • Sysco Minnesota, Inc. v. Teamsters Local 120, No. 19-CV-3491 (8th Cir. May 13, 2020)
    05/13/2020

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s summary judgment order in a dispute regarding a collective bargaining agreement between a union and a distribution company.  Court held that the union waived the arbitration provisions in the collective bargaining agreement by participating in court litigation through to the discovery phase.

  • HDI Global SE v. Philips 66 Co., No. 20-CV-00631-RMB (S.D.N.Y. May 12, 2020)
    05/12/2020

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate award relating to insurance claims and granted defendant’s motion to confirm the award.   Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the arbitrators exceeded their authority and manifestly disregarded the law in their construction of the insurance policy at issue.

  • Crooms v. Southwest Airlines Co., 1:19-CV-02149-SCS (N.D. Ill. May 12, 2020)
    05/12/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of claims brought by airline ramp supervisors alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.  Court held that the ramp supervisors did not fall under the exception in the Federal Arbitration Act for contracts of employment of transportation workers.  Court also found that the parties agreed to arbitrate the question of arbitrability.

  • Local 387 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Navopache Electric Cooperative, Inc., No. 18-CV-04108-SRB (9th Cir. May 12, 2020)
    05/12/2020

    Court of appeals affirmed district court order compelling arbitration of dispute regarding collective bargaining agreement.  Court rejected appellant’s argument that the arbitration agreement at issue was permissive and not mandatory. 

  • PB Life & Annuity Co. v. Universal Life Insurance Co., No. 1:20-CV-02284-LJL (S.D.N.Y. May 12, 2020)
    05/12/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of breach of contract claims relating to reinsurance contracts and rejected plaintiff’s motion seeking a permanent injunction to enjoin defendant from arbitrating the claims.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the reinsurance contract, along with the arbitration clause in it, was superseded by a subsequent trust agreement between the parties that provided for court litigation. 

  • Bonzani v. Goshen Health Systems, Inc., No. 3:19-CV-00586-DRL (N.D. Ind. May 11, 2020)
    05/11/2020

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of various claims relating to an employment termination contract.  Court held that the arbitration agreement in plaintiff’s original employment contract lost its force and effect once it was terminated by the parties.  Court found that the contract termination agreement did not include an arbitration agreement nor did it incorporate the arbitration agreement in the terminated employment contract.

  • Drazic v. NCR Corp., No. 8:19-CV-00511-RFR (D. Neb. May 11, 2020)
    05/11/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of employment discrimination claims.  Court held that even though defendant was a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, it could rely upon the arbitration agreement in plaintiff’s employment contract as the successor entity to plaintiff’s counterparty in the employment contract.

  • George v. Rushmore Service Center, No. 2:18-CV-13698-WJM (D.N.J. May 11, 2020)
    05/11/2020

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  Court held that even though certain of the defendants were non-signatories to the arbitration agreement, the agreement nevertheless applied to them in their capacity as agents of the signatory party.

  • Pacelli v. Augustus Intelligence, Inc., No. 1:20-CV-01011-LJL (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2020)
    05/11/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of fraudulent inducement and breach of contract claims in connection with employment contracts relating to an artificial intelligence venture.  Court held that a valid arbitration agreement existed among the parties, that the parties delegated to the arbitrators the question of arbitrability and that the arbitration agreement’s scope covered the claims in issue.  Court also held that defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate the claims by initiating, and then subsequently dismissing, state court proceedings.

  • Star Development Group v. Darwin National Assurance Co., No. 19-CV-1042 (4th Cir. May 8, 2020)
    05/08/2020

    Court of appeals denied appeal of District Court order denying petition to vacate an arbitration award relating to a delayed construction project.  Following a choice of law analysis, Court held that the Maryland Uniform Arbitration Act, as opposed to the Federal Arbitration Act, applied to the award.  Court held that the award was valid under the Maryland Uniform Arbitration Act because the arbitrators did not manifestly disregard the law and their award was not “completely irrational,” as alleged by the appellants.

  • J Cumby Construction, Inc. v. Mastin’s, Inc., No. 2:20-CV-00018 (M.D. Tenn. May 4, 2020)
    05/04/2020

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff had not waived right to arbitrate dispute by filing the lawsuit in court since it moved to compel arbitration shortly after and no prejudice was caused.

  • Liu v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-06764-NGG-CLP (E.D.N.Y. May 4, 2020)
    05/04/2020

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration in part, finding that claims related to trading account between plaintiff-customer and defendant fell within arbitration clause in brokerage account agreement.

  • Marine Development, Inc. v. Huffman Construction, LLC, No. 4:19-CV-00681-CVE-FHM (N.D. Okla. May. 1, 2020)
    05/01/2020

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that claims brought by plaintiff against surety did not fall within arbitration clause in contract between plaintiff and principal defendant.

  • Sampedro v. Silver Point Capital, L.P., No. 19-272 (2d Cir. May. 1, 2020)
    05/01/2020

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision denying motion to compel discovery under 28 USC § 1782. Court found that district court did not need to consider procedural parity with respect to all possible foreign proceedings when determining whether to grant party reciprocal discovery under the section.

  • Washington National Insurance Co. v. OBEX Group LLC, No. 19-225-CV (2d Cir. May. 1, 2020)
    05/01/2020

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision denying motions to dismiss petitions to enforce arbitration summonses requiring non-parties to the arbitration to testify at a hearing and produce certain documents in the arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act 9 USC § 7. Court found that district court had subject matter jurisdiction and that various requirements for the enforcement of the petitions were met.

  • Sign & Graphics Operations LLC, v. Begotten Son Corp., No. 19-CV-12727-PDB-APP (E.D. Mich. Apr. 29, 2020)
    04/29/2020

    Court granted motion for default judgment to confirm an arbitration award.  Court found that enforcing default judgment was consistent with the FAA which required confirmation of an award unless the award was vacated, modified, or corrected.

  • Dreamstyle Remodeling, Inc. v. Renewal by Andersen, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-01086-KG-JFR (D.N.M. Apr. 29, 2020)
    04/29/2020

    agreement.  Court found that the claims must be heard in arbitration because the agreement between the parties designated that the rules of the AAA would apply and thus any issues of arbitrability would be reserved for the arbitrator.  Court did not compel arbitration, however, because the agreement of the party required arbitration in another jurisdiction.

  • Anderson v. Skolnick, No. 3:19-CV-18138-MAS-DEA (D.N.J. Apr. 29, 2020)
    04/29/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings of an employment dispute.  Court found that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate and that by incorporating the rules of the AAA, the agreement delegated the question of arbitrability to the arbitrators.

  • O’Shaughnessy v. Young Living Essential Oils, L.C., No. 19-51169 (5th Cir. Apr. 28, 2020)
    04/28/2020

    Court of appeal affirmed district court’s denial of a motion to compel the arbitration.  Court reasoned that a valid agreement to arbitrate did not exist because the choice of law provision in the agreement was in direct conflict with the provision requiring arbitration and because the agreements could not be harmonized, the court concluded that there was no meeting of the minds between the parties as to the subject of arbitration.

  • Elder v. Albertson’s, LLC, No. 3:19-CV-02464-K (N.D. Tex. Apr. 28, 2020)
    04/28/2020

    Court granted defendants’ motion to confirm an arbitration order awarding summary judgment and denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate.  Court found that plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitrator had exceeded his power by finding plaintiff’s submission to arbitration untimely were waived because they had not been raised to the arbitrator.  Court further found that the arbitrator’s order was “grounded in reason and fact.”

  • HeathplanCRM, LLC, v. Avmed, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-01357-NR (W.D. Pa. Apr. 28, 2020)
    04/28/2020

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration of claims arising out of the use of plaintiff’s software.  Court found that both defendants were bound by the agreement to arbitrate and that questions of arbitrability were delegated to the arbitrator as evidenced by incorporation of the AAA rules.  Court rejected defendant’s arguments that the court lacked personal jurisdiction because they found that the parties agreed to arbitrate in the Western District of Pennsylvania.  Court also rejected the argument that one defendant was not a party to the agreement, finding that arbitration could be compelled through estoppel. 

  • Bufkin v. Scottrade, Inc., No. 19-12003 (11th Cir. Apr. 28, 2020)
    04/28/2020

    Court of appeal affirmed district court’s grant of a motion to compel arbitration of tort and contract claims arising out of defendant turning a portion of plaintiff’s trading account to the IRS to satisfy an alleged tax liability.  Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that compelling arbitration had been improper because the government parties to the dispute were essential parties but were not subject to the arbitration provision, finding that arbitrable claims must be compelled to arbitration even if it results in piecemeal litigation.  Court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the central issue of the case was whether or not he “volunteered to be a taxpayer” and was not arbitrable under FINRA rules, finding instead that the claims against defendant were breach of contract claims and were subject to the arbitration agreement.

  • Richardson v. Coverall North America, Inc., No. 18-3393 (3d Cir. Apr. 28, 2020)
    04/28/2020

    Court of appeal reversed, vacated, and remanded a district court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration.  Third Circuit found that the incorporation of the AAA rules clearly and unmistakably delegated the question of arbitrability to the arbitrators, finding this to be true even for “unsophisticated” parties. 

  • New York Bay Capital, LLC v. Cobalt Holdings, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-03618-GHW (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2020)
    04/27/2020

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to enjoin FINRA arbitration and denied defendant’s motion to compel.  Court found that while FINRA rules require members to arbitrate disputes when requested by a customer, the parties’ contract contained a forum selection clause that unambiguously required the parties to litigate disputes in the S.D.N.Y.  Court reasoned that this forum selection clause superseded plaintiff’s obligation to arbitrate as a FINRA member.

  • Three Brothers Trading, LLC v. Generex Biotechnology Corp., No. 1:18-CV-11585-KPF (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2020)
    04/24/2020

    Court granted respondent’s motion to vacate an arbitration award, finding that the award was not final and should be remanded when the arbitrator did not fully determine the issue of damages due to post-hearing evidentiary developments.

  • Peter v. DoorDash, Inc., No. 4:19-CV-06098-JST (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2020)
    04/23/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiffs did not opt out of the arbitration agreement within the contractually required period and that the parties agreed to arbitrate the issue of arbitrability.

  • Sportvision, Inc. v. MLB Advanced Media, LP, No. 1:18-CV-03025-PGG-DCF (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2020)
    04/23/2020

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiffs’ misappropriation of trade secrets claims fell outside the scope of the arbitration agreement as they did not arise out of “the operation of the [project].”  Court found that arbitration agreement limiting arbitrable disputes to those arising out of the operation of the project was narrow.

  • Stover v. Blackhawk Mining LLC, No. 2:20-CV-00096 (S.D.W. Va. Apr. 23, 2020)
    04/23/2020

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel individual arbitration, finding that the parties did not explicitly consent to class arbitration in the arbitration agreement.  Court additionally found that language limiting the scope of the arbitration agreement to disputes “between the Parties” evidenced the lack of consent to class arbitration.

  • Entes Industrial Plants, Construction and Erection Contracting Co. Inc. v. The Kyrgyz Republic, No. 1:18-CV-02228-RC (D.D.C. Apr. 22, 2020)
    04/22/2020

    Court confirmed petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award against a foreign sovereign that was not a party to the underlying arbitration, finding that: (1) a ministry that was a party to the arbitration was not entitled to a presumption of separateness from the foreign sovereign and (2) the ministry was acting as the foreign sovereign’s agent.

  • Ward v. Discover Bank, No. 3:19-CV-02124-SAL (D.S.C. Apr. 21, 2020)
    04/21/2020

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration finding, inter alia, that the parties’ incorporation of the AAA and JAMS Rules presented clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties intended to arbitrate the issue of arbitrability. 

  • Fenger v. Jeffrey’s Auto Resale, Inc., No. 2:20-CV-10074-GCS-DRG (E.D. Mich. Apr. 21, 2020)
    04/21/2020

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, finding that plaintiff timely objected to the arbitration provision by sending a letter to defendant within the time specified by the arbitration provision.

  • Patel v. Regions Bank, No. 19-30582
    04/21/2020

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of appellant’s motion to compel arbitration against non-signatory defendants, finding that the district court’s application of Fifth Circuit precedent yielded the same result as applying Alabama state law on equitable estoppel.  Court found that neither non-signatory defendant had claims it sought to resolve by arbitration and that non-signatory defendants were not otherwise third-party beneficiaries to the arbitration agreement.

  • Hardaway v. Quince Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-02464 (W.D. Tenn. Apr. 20, 2020)
    04/20/2020

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration finding, inter alia, that a non-signatory third-party could be compelled to arbitrate pursuant to the arbitration agreement unless that party sought to enforce his rights under the agreement. 

  • Sonico v. Charter Communicationsonico-v-charter-communications-llc-no-319s, LLC, No. 3:19-CV-01842-BAS-LL (S.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2020)
    04/20/2020

  • In re Empresa Publica de Hidrocarburos del Ecuador – EP Petroecuador v. Worleyparsons International, Inc., No. 4:19-MC-02534 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 13, 2020)
    04/13/2020

    Court denied respondent’s motion to vacate and quash a subpoena granted under 28 U.S.C. 1782, finding that applicant’s petition met the statutory requirements.  Court rejected, inter alia, respondent’s argument that applicant, as an Ecuadorian state-owned entity, was attempting to circumvent discovery procedures in a pending arbitration between Ecuador and respondent – finding that applicant was a non-party to that arbitration and that there was no evidence that applicant was operating as an instrumentality of the Ecuadorian government. 

  • In re Application of Storag Etzel GMBH, No. 19-MC-00209-CFC (D. Del. Apr. 13, 2020)
    04/13/2020

    Court denied plaintiff’s § 1782 application for an order to obtain discovery for use in a private arbitration in Germany, finding a private arbitral tribunal was not the type of “tribunal” intended by the text of the statute.

  • Engen v. Grocery Delivery E- Services USA Inc. doing business as Hello Fresh, No. 0:19-CV-02433-ECT-TNL (D. Minn. Apr. 10, 2020) 
    04/10/2020

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel individual arbitration of plaintiff’s claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  Under the FAA, court found plaintiff did not agree to arbitrate, as defendant failed to show that plaintiff manifested assent to the revised arbitration provisions.

  • B.F. and A.A. v. Amazon.com, No. 2:19-CV-00910-RAJ-MLP (W.D. Wash. Apr. 9, 2020)
    04/09/2020

    Court adopted magistrate judge’s report and recommendation denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss plaintiffs’ claims.  Pursuant to the FAA, court found plaintiffs, who were non-signatories to the arbitration agreement, were not compelled to arbitrate under the theory of equitable estoppel as plaintiffs did not knowingly exploit the agreement.

  • Mode v. S-L Distribution Company, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-00150-KDB-DSC (W.D.N.C Apr. 9, 2020) 
    04/09/2020

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding the arbitral clauses were valid and enforceable and that it did not need to resolve counterclaims and third-party complaints before determining arbitrability.

  • Taylor v. Pilot Corporation, No. 18-6270 (6th Cir. Apr. 9, 2020) 
    04/09/2020

    Court of appeals dismissed appeal of district court’s decision to deny defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to reconsider order compelling discovery finding that it lacked jurisdiction.  Court of appeals determined that there was no immediate right to appeal the order denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration without prejudice under the FAA.

  • Cornelius v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 1:19-CV-11043-LJL (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2020) 
    04/08/2020

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration on an individual basis and to stay the proceedings under the FAA.  Court found defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate.

  • Doe v. The Trump Corporation, No. 1:18-CV-09936-LGS (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2020)
    04/08/2020

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration based on an arbitration agreement to which the defendants are not a party.  Court found that plaintiffs did not agree to arbitrate with defendants under the theories of equitable estoppel or agency, and even if they had, defendants had waived their right to compel arbitration by waiting eight months and until a substantial portion of the litigation occurred to request arbitration.

  • Machul v. State of Florida, No. 3:20-CV-00078-WHR-MJN (S.D. Ohio Apr. 8, 2020)
    04/08/2020

    Magistrate judge recommended that plaintiffs’ motion to confirm an arbitration award be denied, finding that court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the FAA because plaintiff did not show that defendants signed an agreement to arbitrate.  Even if defendants agreed to arbitrate, court found that any confirmation of the alleged arbitral award would have to occur in the district where the award was made.

  • East River Capital, Inc. and ERC Access, Inc. v. VLD Access, Inc., No. 3:19-CV-01398-JPG (S.D. Ill. Apr. 7, 2020)
    04/07/2020

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and denied without prejudice its motion to compel arbitration, finding that although the arbitration clause in the agreement covered any dispute in the case between the parties bound to the agreement, it was not clear who was a party to the agreement.

  • 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) 
    04/07/2020

    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.

  • Texas Brine Company, L.L.C. v. American Arbitration Association, Incorporated, No. 18-31184 (5th Cir. Apr. 7, 2020)
    04/07/2020

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of remand and grant of defendants’ motion to dismiss.  Court of appeals found the non-forum defendant was permitted to remove the case to federal court even when the other defendant was a citizen of the forum state and had yet to be properly served.  It found district court was correct to dismiss plaintiff’s challenge to the AAA, considering the relief requested, purported harm, and alleged wrongdoing showed that the claims were essentially an impermissible collateral attack on the arbitration award.

  • Wells Fargo Bank National Association v. Hyflo Limited Partnership, No. 2:19-CV-02054-GMN-VCF (D. Nev. Apr. 7, 2020)
    04/07/2020

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award pursuant to the FAA, as defendant had not moved to vacate, modify or correct the award.

  • Two Rivers Water & Farming Company v. America 2030 Capital Limited., No. 1:19-CV-01640-CMA-STV (D. Colo. Apr. 6, 2020)
    04/06/2020

    Court denied without prejudice plaintiff’s motion to dismiss or stay an ongoing arbitration proceeding in the Federation of St. Kitts and Nevis, finding that plaintiff failed to address whether the court had jurisdiction to dismiss or stay those proceedings.  In its independent research, the court found that it may lack jurisdiction to grant plaintiff the requested relief, noting that it may have jurisdiction if the foreign country is a signatory to the New York Convention.

  • Bright v. Brookdale Senior Living, Inc., No. 3:19-CV-00374 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 6, 2020) 
    04/06/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings under the FAA.  Court held that the parties entered into a valid agreement to arbitrate, concluding that the plaintiff could not selectively invalidate the arbitral provision on the basis of lack of capacity and found that she could pursue her claims in arbitration.

  • Catalina Holdings (Bermuda) Limited v. Muriel, No. 1:18-CV-05642 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 6, 2020) 
    04/06/2020

    Court granted plaintiff’s petition to confirm the arbitral award, holding the tribunal did not exceed its authority.  Court declined to determine whether a party may bring an action under Chapter 1 of the FAA to vacate an award issued by an arbitrator in a U.S. jurisdiction, since both the FAA and the New York Convention allow the defense that the tribunal exceeded its authority.  Court denied plaintiff’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions.

  • CBF Industria de Gusa S/A v. AMCI Holdings, Inc.., No. 1:13-CV-02581-PKC-JLC (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2020)
    04/06/2020

    Court denied defendants’ motion to partially dismiss the third amended complaint seeking to enforce an arbitration award against defendants, finding the fraudulent transfer claim was not barred by the six-year limitations period because the amendment related back to the initial compliant.

  • Leany v. Zurich American Insurance Company, No. 18-17056 (9th Cir. Apr. 6, 2020) 
    04/06/2020

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to deny motion to pierce the corporate veil and force the president, sole board-member, and majority shareholder into arbitration, finding that appellant failed to establish that adhering to the corporate form would sanction a fraud or promote injustice.

  • OJSC Ukrnafta v. Carpatsky Petroleum Corporation, No. 19-20011 (5th Cir. Apr. 6, 2020) 
    04/06/2020

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order affirming $147 million arbitration award against plaintiff-appellant issued by the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce.  Court of appeals held jurisdiction was proper under 9 U.S.C. § 205, and found the plaintiff-appellant’s arguments against recognition failed under the New York Convention, as the signatory had the capacity to bind defendant-appellee to the arbitration agreement, the plaintiff-appellant had waived its argument that the agreement was nonbinding by submitting to the arbitration, the award was not contrary to public policy, and manifest disregard is not a ground for nonrecognition of international arbitral awards.

  • ExxonMobil Canada Holdings ULC v. Lasco Development LLC (15), No. 4:19-CV-01471 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 3, 2020)
    04/03/2020

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding the defendants were bound by the arbitral provision in the agreement.

  • G.G. v. Valve Corporation, No. 19-35345 (9th Cir. Apr. 3, 2020)
    04/03/2020

    Court of appeals found district court erred in compelling parents to arbitrate their claims because they were not signatories to the relevant agreement, were not bound based on equitable estoppel as they did not seek to exploit the agreement by enforcing it, and their claims were statutory tort claims unrelated to the agreement.  Court of appeals did affirm district court’s decision to dismiss the claims parents brought on behalf of their teenage children who were bound by the arbitral agreement.

  • Ashford v. PriceWaterHouseCoopers LLP, No. 18-1958 (4th. Cir. Apr. 3, 2020)
    04/03/2020

    Court of appeals reversed and remanded district court decision that denied a motion to compel arbitration of Title VII claims.  Court found that the employment agreement in question should be construed as to require arbitration of Title VII claims and that the arbitration provision was neither substantively or procedurally unconscionable.

  • ExxonMobil Canada Holdings ULC v. Lasco Development LLC, No. 4:19-CV-01471 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 3, 2020)
    04/03/2020

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court rejected the defendant’s motion that it cannot be bound by the arbitration agreement because it is not a party to the agreement, finding that the defendant was a designated nominee under the agreement attempting to enforce rights to certain interest amounts under the agreement.

  • Indocarb Corporation, Inc. v. Madhavan, No. 2:19-CV-00889-MPK (W.D. Penn. Apr. 2, 2020)
    04/02/2020

    Court adopted magistrate judge’s recommendation to compel arbitration of a trade secrets dispute.  Court found that the magistrate judge was not in clear error when he found that a valid arbitration agreement existed and that the agreement delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.  Court reasoned that the parties had a valid arbitration agreement that incorporate the rules of the AAA, and incorporating these rules was clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

  • Trina Solar US, Inc. v. Jasmin Solar PTY LTD, No. 17-572-CV (2d Cir. Apr. 2, 2020)
    04/02/2020

    Court of appeals reversed and remanded district court’s confirmation of an arbitration award and denial of a motion for limited discovery on the question of whether a party was bound by the arbitration clause at issue.  District court had found that a nonsignatory was bound to the arbitration agreement through agency theory.  The Second Circuit found that the nonsignatory could not be bound by the arbitration agreement because the contract explicitly excluded it as a party.

  • Morris v. Conifer Health Solutions LLC, No. 3:20-CV-05181-RJB (W.D. Wash. Apr. 2, 2020)
    04/02/2020

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of racial discrimination, harassment, and wrongful termination claims.  Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration agreements were substantively and procedurally unconscionable and found that a valid arbitration agreement governed the dispute.

  • Dunbar v. Airbnb, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-00648-JMS-WRP (D. Haw. Apr. 1, 2020)
    04/01/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the proceedings, holding that the arbitration clause clearly and unmistakably delegated the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator and that the arbitration provision was not substantively or procedurally unconscionable and must be enforced.

  • Seaborn v. Larry H. Miller Mercedes Benz, No. 2:19-CV-00941-TS (D. Utah Apr. 1, 2020)
    04/01/2020

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the dispute.  Court found that the arbitration agreement was broad and was thus entitled to a strong presumption of arbitrability for the claims.  Court also found that individual defendants who were not signatories to the arbitration provision were entitled to compel arbitration under agency theory, estoppel theory, or as third-party beneficiaries.

  • BLW motors, LLC v. Vicksburg Ford Lincoln Mercury, Inc., No. 3:19-CV-00557-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss. Apr. 1, 2020)
    04/01/2020

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay contract dispute claims as to one defendant and denied the motion to stay claims against a second defendant.  Court found that a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement could not compel another non-signatory to arbitrate.  Further, the arbitration clause was written to limit its application solely to the signatories and rejected the defendants’ arguments that arbitration could be compelled through incorporation by reference, because plaintiffs were alter egos of each other, as third party beneficiaries, or through estoppel.

  • Satcomm v. Paypal, No. 5:19-MC-00010-MTT (M.D. Ga. Apr. 1, 2020)
    04/01/2020

    Court denied petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss and vacate the arbitration award, and awarded respondent attorney’s fees as sanctions for petitioner’s pursuit to confirm a fraudulent arbitration award.  Court found that the respondent met their burden of proving that the arbitration award was procured by fraud and that the entity Satcomm was a sham entity being run by an inmate.

  • Bunge S.A. v. Pacific Gulf Shipping (Singapore) PTE Ltd., No. 3:19-CV-00419-SB (D. Or. Mar. 31, 2020)
    03/31/2020

    Court entered a default judgment to confirm an arbitration award pursuant to the New York Convention.  Court found that it had quasi in rem jurisdiction because the award had been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, a London arbitration tribunal, and petitioner sought property within the jurisdiction of the District of Oregon in satisfaction of the judgment.  Court noted that intangible property could support quasi in rem jurisdiction in the state of Oregon.

  • Stoetzer v. Novation IQ, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-02670-SAC-GEB (D. Kan. Mar. 31, 2020)
    03/31/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings of Title VII employment discrimination claims.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because it was illusory.  Court found that agreement did not give defendant any authority to unilaterally change any written term in the employment agreement and thus the agreement to arbitration was not illusory.

  • Stumbo, Inc., v. Coin Data, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-00168-GNS (W.D. Ky. Mar. 31, 2020)
    03/31/2020

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismiss an action seeking declaratory relief that the arbitration agreement is not enforceable.  Court ignored plaintiff’s argument that the court did not have jurisdiction because defendants could not prove that the amount in controversy was greater than $75,000, finding that in an action seeking declaratory judgment that the parties are not required to arbitrate, the arbitration demand determines the amount in controversy.  Court further found that the arbitration agreements in question adopted the rules of the AAA, and thus they evinced the parties intent to delegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.  Finally, court found that it was immaterial under state law that the plaintiff was an assignee of the contract rather than an original party.

  • American Family Life Assurance Company of New York, v. Baker, No. 1:17-CV-07054-LDH-RLM (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2020)
    03/31/2020

    Court granted petitioner’s motion for an order compelling individual arbitration. On remand court considered whether a provision in an arbitration agreement that prohibited parties from pursuing certain state and federal statutory claims rendered the agreement unconscionable.  Court found however, that petitioner’s waiving of unconscionable terms cured any potential defects in the enforceability of the arbitration provision.

  • Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Inc., v. The Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Venezuela, No. 1:02-CV-00785-HSO-RHW (S.D. Miss. Mar. 31, 2020)
    03/31/2020

    Court affirmed an arbitration award made in Brazil under Venezuelan arbitration law pursuant to the Panama Convention and the New York Convention.  Court found that it was a court with secondary jurisdiction and was therefore limited in its review to the grounds for refusal of enforcement provided in the conventions.  The court rejected the argument that the award should be vacated under Article V(1)(d) of the Panama Convention because the tribunal did not carry out the procedure in accordance with the terms of the parties agreement when it held the arbitration in Rio di Janeiro.  Court found that the tribunal applied Venezuelan arbitration law which permitted it to choose the location of the arbitration if the parties did not agree.

  • Salerno v. Credit One Bank, N.A., No. 1:15-CV-00516-LJV-LGF (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2020)
    03/31/2020

    Court denied defendant’s motion to vacate an arbitration award related to violations of the TCPA.  Court rejected defendant’s argument that the award should be vacated because the arbitrators had manifestly disregarded the law by not following recent second circuit precedent, finding that the recent precedent was distinguishable.

  • Crypto Asset Fund, LLC v. Medcredits, Inc., No. 3:19-CV-0189-LAB-MDD (S.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2020)
    03/30/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed case including various claims related to the solicitation of an investment in a crypto currency “token sale.”  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that one of the related agreements between the parties did not contain an arbitration clause, finding that none of plaintiff’s claims relied specifically on that agreement.  Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments relating to unconscionability, finding that these questions of arbitrability were delegated to the arbitrator.

  • Foresight Luxembourg Solar 1 S.A.R.L, v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 1:19-CV-03171-ER (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2020)
    03/30/2020

    Court granted respondent’s motion to transfer the action seeking to confirm an arbitration award to the District Court for the District of Columbia (D.D.C.) and referred all other pending motions to that court.  The award was rendered by the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce pursuant to the dispute resolution provisions of the Energy Charter Treaty. Petitioner sought to confirm it under the New York Convention while respondent argued that the motion should be stayed pending set aside proceedings in Sweden.  Court reasoned that venue transfer was appropriate because the D.D.C. was designated by congress as the dedicated venue for civil cases involving foreign states, and a transfer would promote judicial economy as there were parallel actions before the D.D.C.

  • Servotronics, Inc. v. The Boeing Company, No. 18-2454 (4th Cir. Mar. 30, 2020)
    03/30/2020

    Court of appeals reversed and remanded a district court’s denial of an application to obtain testimony pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 in aid of an arbitration in the United Kingdom.  Court found that a U.K. arbitral panel in a private arbitration was a “foreign or international tribunal” under § 1782, reasoning that even under a more restrictive definition of “entities acting with the authority of the State” the U.K. arbitral panel qualifies because of the governmental regulation and oversight of arbitration under U.K. law.  Court also rejected the argument that this holding would give foreign arbitrations more extensive discovery than is available to domestic arbitrations under the FAA, clarifying that § 1782 does not authorize discovery but merely permits a district court to effectively act as a surrogate for a foreign tribunal receiving testimony and documents for use in the proceeding before the tribunal.

  • Commercial Flooring System, Inc. v. Hunt Construction Group, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-01012 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2020)
    03/30/2020

    Magistrate judge recommended granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss claims related to a hotel construction contract.  Magistrate judge found that an arbitration provision that gave defendant exclusive right to select between two options of dispute resolution was not illusory because it did not grant defendant the ability to unilaterally amend or terminate the arbitration agreement.

  • Raymond James & Associates, Inc. v. Barlow, No. 3:19-CV-00394-CWR-LRA (S.D. Miss. Mar. 27, 2020)
    03/27/2020

    Court denied motion to vacate and affirmed the award.  Court found that there was no basis for vacating the award, rejecting the argument that the arbitrators manifestly disregarded the law because they did not follow one Mississippi case that favored the respondent in the arbitration.  Court further rejected the argument that an arbitrator’s comment about a state court judge leaving the bench soon was indicative of any bias against respondent.

  • EGI-VSR, LLC v. Huber, No. 1:19-CV-06099-ER (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2020)
    03/27/2020

    Court granted a motion to dismiss a petition to recognize a foreign arbitration award pursuant to the Panama Convention.  Court found that the petitioner made its petition seven years after the arbitral award was made and thus the petition must be dismissed as time barred pursuant to the FAA’s three year statute of limitations.  The court found that a tolling agreement between the parties that attempted to toll the statute of limitations indefinitely was invalid under New York law.

  • Fenton v. Criterion Worldwide, No. 1:18-CV-10224-ER (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2020)
    03/27/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action related to a wage dispute.  Court found that there were two relevant arbitration agreements and that defendant could compel arbitration pursuant to either agreement.  Court was not persuaded by plaintiff’s argument that she had not read the agreement before signing, finding that under New York law that was not a basis for invalidating the agreement.

  • Chen-Oster v. Goldman Sachs & Co., No. 1:10-CV-06950-RWL (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2020)
    03/26/2020

    Court granted, in part, defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of class action sex discrimination claims brought by former employees of Goldman Sachs.  Court held that four of the categories of arbitration agreements at issue were enforceable and rejected plaintiffs’ argument that defendants waived their right to compel arbitration under the agreements.  Court also held that the arbitration clauses in equity compensation agreements were tainted by procedural unconscionability but not substantive unconscionability and therefore could not be voided.

  • Allstate Insurance Company v. Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company, No. 1:19-CV-04341-JLA (N.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2020)
    03/25/2020

    Court granted defendants’ motion to confirm an arbitration award relating to reinsurance contracts connected to underlying asbestos claims.  Court also denied plaintiff’s motion to confirm interim award rendered in the same arbitration proceeding.  Court determined that the interim award only dealt with certain issues in dispute in connection with the scope of the costs covered by the reinsurance policy on a provisional basis and left to the final award the resolution of the full extent of the claims at issue.

  • Solis v. ZEP LLC, No. 1:19-CV-04230-JGK (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2020)
    03/24/2020

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of wage claims brought by delivery workers under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Court determined that there was no meeting of the minds between the parties regarding an agreement to arbitrate because plaintiffs did not understand the employment contracts they signed, which were not translated into Spanish, their native language.

  • Flores v. RK Trailer Repair, No. 2:19-CV-00114-TLS (N.D. Ind. Mar. 24, 2020)
    03/24/2020

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of employment disability claims.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because it limited its right to recover damages and precluded it from appealing the arbitrator’s decision.

  • JR. Food Stores v. Hartland Construction Group, No. 1:19-CV-00076-GNS (W.D. Ky. Mar. 24, 2020)
    03/24/2020

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration of claims against a contractor relating to the construction of a grocery store but denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration of its claims against the contractor’s lender.  Court held that the contractor clearly agreed to arbitrate claims arising under the construction contract but that the lender was not a party to the contract containing the arbitration clause and instead agreed to litigate claims arising under the lending documents. 

  • Stouthard v. Newcomb Oil, No. 3:18-cv-00803-CRS (W.D. Ky. Mar. 24, 2020)
    03/24/2020

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of employment-related claims.  Court held that the arbitration agreement did not meet the basic elements to qualify as an “agreement” under the Federal Arbitration Act because it committed the parties to “alternative dispute resolution” and referred to arbitration merely as an example of such dispute resolution.

  • Dekker v. Vivint Solar, No. 19-CV-07918-WHA (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2020)
    03/24/2020

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of unfair business practices claims relating to the purchase and sale of residential solar panel installations.  Court found that the arbitration clauses at issue were invalid insofar as they purported to waive plaintiffs’ rights to seek public injunctive relief.  Court nevertheless held that the issue of the validity of the arbitration clauses was a matter for the arbitrator.  Court further held that one of the arbitration agreements at issue was not agreed to by one of the plaintiffs because he was a Spanish speaker and defendants’ had not provided him with a copy of the agreement in Spanish.

  • Ebbe v. Concorde Investment Services, No. 19-1819 (1st Cir. Mar. 24, 2020)
    03/24/2020

    Court affirmed district court’s order confirming a FINRA arbitration award and denying appellant’s motion to vacate the award relating to claims alleging negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and violations of FINRA rules and regulations against deceptive securities practices.  Court rejected appellant’s argument that the arbitrators manifestly disregarded the law.

  • Lanza v. FINRA, Nos. 18-2057, 18-2181 (1st Cir. Mar. 24, 2020)
    03/24/2020

    Court affirmed district court’s order dismissing claims against FINRA relating to a FINRA arbitration award rendered against the appellants.  Court rejected appellants’ argument that the arbitrators’ failure to issue an explained decision in their award violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, holding that appellants’ complaint failed to state a plausible claim for breach of the implied covenant.

  • Lawrence v. Bob Moore Auto Group, No. 19-CV-00395-PRW (W.D. Okla. Mar. 23, 2020)
    03/23/2020

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims relating to purchases of luxury cars.  Court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that defendants’ failure to affix handwritten signatures to one of the arbitration agreements at issue rendered the agreement ineffective.  Court also rejected plaintiffs’ contention that the arbitration agreements merely gave the parties an option to arbitrate.

  • Morgan Stanley v. Babu, No. 19-CV-00489-GJH (D. Md. Mar. 23, 2020)
    03/23/2020

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration of third-party claim for contribution and indemnification relating to an improper transfer of funds from a bank account.  Court rejected defendant’s argument that its claims did not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • Resch v. Catlin Indemnity Company, No. 19-CV-08699-KSH (D. N.J. Mar. 23, 2020)
    03/23/2020

    Court denied plaintiff’s petition to vacate arbitration award relating to an insurance dispute.  Court held that the umpire did not exceed his powers by going beyond the issues submitted to him.  Court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that the award was indefinite because the umpire’s report left the door open for further evaluation prior to the close of the proceedings.

  • Cho v. Cinereach, No. 1:19-CV-00513-JGK (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2020)
    03/23/2020

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration agreement was not binding and that one of the defendants, as a non-signatory, could not compel arbitration of the claims advanced against it.

  • International Energy Ventures Management v. United Energy Group, No. 4:17-CV-02262-LNH (S.D. Tex. Mar. 20, 2020)
    03/20/2020

    Court granted motions to vacate two arbitral awards and to compel arbitration of claims relating to consulting services in connection with the purchase and sale of oil and gas assets in Pakistan.  Court held that the arbitrators acted outside of their authority in deciding whether plaintiff waived arbitration by taking action in the courts in connection with the dispute.  Court then decided that the plaintiff did not waive arbitration by taking steps in the courts and in turn granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration.

  • Cunix Automotive Group v. Larry Dimmitt Cadillac, No. 2:19-CV-3941-GCS (S.D. Ohio Mar. 20, 2020)
    03/20/2020

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration of claims relating to the purchase and sale of a luxury sports car brought by the seller.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that it was not a party to the arbitration agreement.

  • ResCap Liquidating Trust v. LendingTree, No. 0:19-CV-02360-SRN (D. Minn. Mar. 20, 2020)
    03/20/2020

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of contractual indemnification claims relating to residential mortgage backed securities.  Court found that plaintiff was not a party to the arbitration agreement and rejected defendants’ argument that plaintiff, as a third party beneficiary under the relevant contract, was estopped from avoiding arbitration.

  • R&C Oilfield Services v. American Wind Transport Group, No. 2:19-CV-01201-WSS (W.D. Pa. Mar. 20, 2020)
    03/20/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of breach of contract claim relating to the hauling of wind energy components.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration agreement at issue was invalid because, as an independent contractor, it was exempt from compelled arbitration relating to an alleged contract of employment for interstate transportation workers.

  • Nelson v. Kunkle, No. 8:19-CV-00329-BCB (D. Neb. Mar. 20, 2020)
    03/20/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of employment-related claims.  Court held that even though defendant was a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, the agreement nevertheless applied to the defendant in its capacity as an agent of the signatory party.

  • Brittain v. Navient Solutions, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-10529-FMO-AGR (C.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2020)
    03/20/2020

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that statutory claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 USC § 227, among others, fell within scope of arbitration agreement in student loan documents.

  • People Source Staffing Professionals, LLC v. Robertson, No. 3:19-CV-00430-TAD-KLH (W.D. La. Mar. 19, 2020)
    03/19/2020

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the claims against one defendant were subject to a valid arbitration agreement, and there were no reasons to deny arbitration. Court permitted the claims against the other defendants to proceed.

  • Taylor v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-04526 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 15, 2020)
    03/19/2020

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendants had not waived right to arbitration by filing motion to compel arbitration only four months after they had removed case to federal court, and after they had participated in Rule 16 conference. Court also found that arbitration agreement was not non-mutual or unconscionable. 

  • Asia Maritime Pacific Chartering Ltd. v. A. Cayume Hakh & Sons, No. 1:19-CV-24919-BB (S.D. Fla. Mar. 16, 2020)
    03/19/2020

    Court construed motion to dismiss as a motion to compel arbitration and granted motion, finding that defendant had not waived right to arbitrate by requesting a dismissal of the complaint instead of filing a motion to compel arbitration. Court held that although defendant had filed a motion to dismiss, it was more properly viewed as a motion to compel arbitration. Court also held that defendant had not waived its right to arbitration because defendant’s conduct had not been inconsistent with the right to arbitration, nor had defendant substantially invoked the litigation machinery.

  • Boss Worldwide LLC v. Beau Crabill, No. 7:19-CV-02363-VB (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2020)
    03/19/2020

    Court construed motion to dismiss as a motion to compel arbitration and granted motion, finding that the statutory claims under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. § 512(f) fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and that there was no indication that Congress precluded such claims from arbitration.

  • Card v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 3:19-CV-1515-SI (D. Or. Mar. 16, 2020)
    03/19/2020

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that there was a genuine dispute of material fact over the existence of the arbitration agreement since defendant had not established, among others, that the customer agreements containing the arbitration agreement had been delivered to plaintiff or brought to plaintiff’s attention. Court directed an evidentiary hearing to determine whether a valid arbitration agreement existed.

  • Arena v. Intuit Inc., No. 3:19-CV-02546-CRB (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2020)
    03/19/2020

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding that defendant’s terms of service were too inconspicuous to give plaintiffs constructive notice of the arbitration provision, and thus there was no agreement to the provision.

  • Christmas Lumber Company, Inc. v. NWH Roof & Floor Truss Systems, LLC, No. 3:19-CV-00055-HBG (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 12, 2020)
    03/19/2020

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the agreement containing the arbitration provision was separate from the contract under which plaintiff’s claims were brought.  Court found that the arbitration agreement made no reference to the disputed contract and thus that plaintiff’s claims were not subject to arbitration.

  • First National Petroleum Corporation v. OAO Tyumenneftegaz, No. 4:19-CV-00097 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 12, 2020)
    03/19/2020

    Court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and denied petitioner’s petition to confirm an arbitral award where responded was a Russian oil company subject to an agreement and joint venture in Russia to develop a Russian oil field.  Court found that notwithstanding respondent’s visits to Houston, the “hub of the parties’ activities” was outside of Texas.  Court further found that the New York Convention did not prevent the court from refusing to confirm an award for lack of personal jurisdiction. 

  • Brickstructures, Inc. v. Coaster Dynamix, Inc., No. 19-2187 (7th Cir. Mar. 11, 2020)
    03/19/2020

    Court of appeals affirmed judgment denying motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendant’s withdrawal of an arbitration demand in response to plaintiff’s threat of sanctions constituted a waiver of defendant’s right to arbitrate. 

  • Marroquin v. Dan Ryan Builders Mid-Atlantic, LLC, No. 5:19-CV-00083-EKD (W.D. Va. Mar. 11, 2020)
    03/19/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding that an arbitration clause which allowed defendant to initiate arbitration in any United States jurisdiction was not sufficiently one-sided to be considered unconscionable. 

  • Vinjarapu v. Gadiyaram, No. 1:19-CV-03306-ADC (D. Md. Mar. 11, 2020)
    03/19/2020

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration finding that nonsignatory defendants had an independent right to compel plaintiff’s claims to arbitration when the claims related to the operation of the contract containing the arbitration agreement. Court additionally found that the issue of whether the arbitration agreement was entered into fraudulently was for the arbitrator to decide. 

  • Drasal v. Pilot Traveling Centers, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-00981-KWR-CG (D.N.M. Mar. 10, 2020)
    03/19/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding that a valid arbitration agreement existed when, inter alia, plaintiff signed other documents contingent on assent to the arbitration agreement and plaintiff performed under the employment contract containing the arbitration clause. 

  • Leja v. Brosseau Management Co., LLC, No. 3:19-CV-00269-BAJ-EWD (M.D. La. Mar. 10, 2020)
    03/19/2020

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration finding, inter alia, that defendants waived their right to arbitrate by ignoring correspondence from plaintiff seeking to initiate arbitration proceedings. 

  • Federico v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, No. 1:20-CV-00027-DAP (N.D. Ohio Mar. 9, 2020)
    03/19/2020

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff’s claims were arbitrable when there was a mutual waiver of trial rights.  Court additionally found that plaintiff’s claims against a nonsignatory of the arbitration agreement were arbitrable when there was an agency relationship between the signatory defendant and the nonsignatory defendant.

  • Whispering Pines West Condominium Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 1:19-CV-03238-REB-MEH (D. Colo. Mar. 6, 2020)
    03/19/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that language submitting disputes “regarding any aspect of this Policy” covered the plaintiff’s statutory claims.  Court found that where the parties did not expressly agree to arbitrate arbitrability, the issue of arbitrability was one for the court.

  • Herskovic v. Verizon Wireless, No. 1:19-CV-03372-AMD-RML (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2020)
    03/19/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding, inter alia, that reference to the FAA evidences that parties’ intent for the Act to apply to the arbitration agreement. Court additionally found that defendant’s removal of the case to federal court was not sufficient participation in litigation to constitute waiver of the right to arbitrate.

  • Compañía de Inversiones Mercantiles S.A. v. Grupo Cementos De Chihuahua de C.V., No. 1:15-CV-02120-JLK (D. Colo. Mar. 25, 2019)
    03/19/2020

    Court granted petition to confirm foreign arbitral award, finding that the merits award had not been set aside in the seat of the arbitration, and that the damages award was binding and enforceable notwithstanding the ongoing challenge to the award in the seat of the arbitration. Court found that the circumstances did not warrant the grant of a stay against enforcement pending the challenge to the damages award. 

  • Rain Forest Adventures (Holdings) Ltd. v. AIG Insurance Hong Kong Limited, No. 1:19-CV-23698-DPG (S.D. Fla. Mar. 18, 2020)
    03/18/2020

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the question whether a clause in policy between insurer and insured barred the bringing of claims in arbitration was a matter for the arbitral tribunal to determine, since the arbitration agreement in the insurance policy expressly delegated threshold questions of arbitrability to the arbitral tribunal.

  • DePuy Synthes Sales, Inc. v. OrthoLA, Inc., No. 19-2765 (7th Cir. Mar. 18, 2020)
    03/18/2020

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to stay action pending resolution of related California state court action. Court of appeals found that the district court had reasonably weighed various incommensurable factors in granting the stay of federal court proceedings, including its concern that DePuy was pursuing a second bite at the apple in federal court.

  • Henricks v. Flywheel Sports, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-00895-PGG (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2020)
    03/18/2020

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that claims brought by plaintiff under Telephone Consumer Protection Act (for sending unwanted text messages) fell within scope of a valid arbitration agreement between plaintiff customer and defendant proprietor of indoor cycling workout classes.

  • Elsasser v. DV Trading, LLC, No. 17-CV-04825 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 17, 2020)
    03/17/2020

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that even though plaintiffs were non-signatories to arbitration agreement in the operating agreement between their trading companies and defendant, they were estopped from avoiding the arbitration agreements because they sought to benefit directly from the operating agreement.

  • Gonzales v. Credit One Bank, N.A., No.  19-CV-00733-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2020)
    03/17/2020

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that a valid arbitration agreement had been concluded between plaintiff and defendant. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that court should not compel arbitration because plaintiff had also brought claims against third-party vendors who were not privy to the arbitration agreement.

  • In re Application of EWE Gasspeicher GmbH, No. 1:19-MC-00109-RGA (D. Del. Mar. 17, 2020)
    03/17/2020

    Court granted motion to vacate an order for discovery pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 obtained ex parte, finding that the ambit of § 1782 did not extend to arbitral proceedings arising from a private commercial contract, which were not proceedings before a foreign court or a quasi-judicial agency.

  • Pierce County v. MA Mortenson Company, No.  19-35257 (9th Cir. Mar. 17, 2020)
    03/17/2020

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision granting motion to compel arbitration, finding that the dispute was arbitrable and that the question whether the claims had been deemed waived was a question for the arbitral tribunal to decide.

  • Simons v. Brown, No. 2:19-CV-05074-GAM (E.D. Pa. Mar. 16, 2020)
    03/16/2020

    Court denied motion to vacate arbitration award, by which arbitrator granted summary judgment in favor of respondent after extensive discovery during the arbitration process. Court found that arbitrator heard all material and pertinent evidence, did not exceed her powers, and did not act in manifest disregard of the law.

  • Lentz v. Parkland Legal Group, PL, No. 19-06031-KMS (S.D. Miss. Mar. 12, 2020)
    03/12/2020

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement was valid and binding between the parties, and that the determination of the claims arising under 11 USC §§ 542 and 548 in arbitration would not conflict with the purpose of the Bankruptcy Code.

  • Brightstar Corp. v. Euler Hermes World Agency S.A.S., No. 1:19-CV-20955-KMM (S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2020)
    02/26/2020

    Court granted motion to stay proceedings pending the result of a German-seated arbitration.  Court reasoned that where there is an ongoing dispute between the parties as to which of its arbitration agreements applies to the underlying action, a stay would be appropriate in the interest of promoting judicial economy, avoiding conflicting results, and considering the advanced stage of the arbitration.

  • In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, No. 19-1150 (6th Cir. Feb. 24, 2020)
    02/24/2020

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision denying motion to compel arbitration, finding that parties had not concluded a valid arbitration agreement because the arbitration agreement in the relevant contractual documents did not, on its terms, apply to plaintiffs.

  • Roberts v. Harley Davidson Financial Services, Inc., No. 4:19-CV-00841-SRB (W.D. Mo. Feb. 13, 2020)
    02/13/2020

    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.

  • Marbaker v. Statoil USA Onshore Properties, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01528 (3d Cir. Feb. 13, 2020)
    02/13/2020

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of motion to compel class arbitration, finding that bilateral arbitration clause in lease agreement between defendant and plaintiffs did not provide consent necessary for court to compel class arbitration to resolve disputes across multiple similar leases as a class.

  • Calderon v. Sixt Rent A Car, LLC, No. 0:19-CV-6408-AHS (S.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2020)
    02/12/2020

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that arbitration agreement did not bind defendant car rental companies. One plaintiff reserved and rented a car from defendants through a website operated by a third party. Court found that arbitration agreement in terms of use between third party and the plaintiff did not bind defendants, who were not party to terms of use.

  • Abgara v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, No. 1:19-CV01823-TSC (D.D.C. Feb. 11, 2020)
    02/11/2020

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff’s negligence claim and statutory claim under the Cable Communications Policy Act fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement between plaintiff and defendants.

  • Petersen-Dean, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA., No. 1:19-CV-11299-AKH (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2020)
    02/11/2020

    Court denied motion to vacate prehearing security award granted by arbitral tribunal, finding that the arbitral tribunal was authorized to award interim security, and that it had properly exercised its power to do so.

  • PolyOne Corporation v. Westlake Vinyls, Inc., No. 5:19-CV00121-TBR (W.D. Ky. Feb. 11, 2020)
    02/11/2020

    Court denied motion to vacate arbitration award and granted motion to confirm, finding that the arbitral tribunal had not exceeded their power or decided the matter in manifest disregard of the law, nor was the arbitration award contrary to public policy.

  • Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Earth Construction Corp., No. 1:19-CV-05411-ALC (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2020)
    02/10/2020

    Court granted unopposed petition to confirm arbitration award, finding that there was at least a ‘barely colorable’ justification for each component of the arbitrator’s award. Court also granted claim for pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

  • Jolen, Inc. v. Kundan Rice Mills, Ltd., No. 1:19-CV-01296-PKC (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2020)
    02/10/2020

    Court granted unopposed petition to confirm arbitration award, finding that arbitrator’s decision was well-grounded in fact and law.

  • Climbzone, LLC v. Clifford Washington, No. 8:18-CV-02732-GJH (D. Md. Feb. 10, 2020)
    02/10/2020

    Court granted unopposed motion to confirm arbitration award, finding that, although plaintiff filed its complaint nearly three years after arbitration award was entered, defendant’s failure to appear resulted in its forfeiture any statute of limitations-based defense defendant may have had to the enforcement of the arbitration award, to the extent that one was available.

  • PNY Technologies, Inc. v. Netac Technology Co., Ltd., No. 2-13-CV-06799 (3d Cir. Feb. 10, 2020)
    02/10/2020

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to confirm arbitral award. Court rejected appellant’s contentions that arbitrator’s damages figure was completely irrational and that arbitration manifestly disregarded the law, finding that appellant had failed to meet the high standard for court intervention.

  • Troia v. Tinder, Inc., No. 4:19-CV-01647-RLW (E.D. Mo. Feb. 10, 2020)
    02/10/2020

    Court granted motion to compel individual arbitration, finding that claims against Tinder for discriminatory pricing and use of unconscionable contract provisions were arbitral, and that question of whether enforcement of arbitration agreement was unconscionable had been delegated to arbitrator. Court held that plaintiff was bound by arbitration agreement in the terms of use, which plaintiff had agreed to when creating his account.

  • Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. Becerra, No. 2:19-CV-02456-KJM-DB (E.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2020)
    02/07/2020

    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.

  • TIG Insurance Company v. American Home Assurance Company, No. 1:18-CV-10183-VSB (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2020)
    02/07/2020

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that dispute between plaintiff and two of three defendants fell within scope of broad arbitration agreement between those parties. Court stayed action against remaining defendant, which was not party to the arbitration agreement, pending completion of arbitration.

  • Neubauer-Perkins, Inc. v. Jason Walters & Associates, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-00821 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 7, 2020)
    02/07/2020

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendant (“Associates”) was bound by arbitration agreement in related contracts between plaintiffs and other defendants. Even though contract between plaintiffs and Associates contained a forum selection clause requiring all litigation to proceed in the state or federal courts in Cook County, court found that it could not have been the intent of the parties to require plaintiffs to pursue claims against Associates in federal court while they pursued same theories of liability against other defendants under related contracts in arbitration.

  • Edmonds v. Nexus RV LLC, No. 2:19-CV-05348-JCJ (E.D. Pa. Feb. 7, 2020)
    02/07/2020

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that dispute between plaintiff purchaser and defendant dealer fell within arbitration clause in contract of sale.

  • In re Bio Energias Comercializadora de energia LTDA, No. 1:19-CV-24497 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2020)
    01/31/2020

    Court granted respondent’s motion to quash a subpoena issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to obtain discovery in aid of an arbitration in Brazil.  While court assumed that the foreign arbitration qualified as a foreign or international tribunal, it found that the Intel factors weighed in favor of quashing the subpoenas.

  • Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company v. Anthem, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-03589 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 31, 2020)
    01/31/2020

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings and granted plaintiff’s motion to stay the arbitration.  Court found that the agreement obligated the parties to submit their dispute to only one of two possible methods of ADR, and having submitted the dispute to mediation, defendant could not now also compel plaintiffs to arbitrate. Court further found that there was a question of fact as to whether the parties’ participation in mediation in a forum different from that specified in their agreement modified the agreement, thus they could not grant the motion to compel under the summary judgment standard. 

  • Kelch v. Pyramid Hotel Group, No. 1:18-CV-00707-TSB (S.D. Ohio Jan. 30, 2020)
    01/30/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case.  Plaintiff did not oppose the motion to compel arbitration but argued that the case should be stayed rather than dismissed.  Court disagreed and held that because all claims were subject to arbitration, dismissal was appropriate.

  • Benson v. Double Down Interactive, LLC, No. 18-36015 (9th Cir. Jan. 29, 2020)
    01/29/2020

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of putative class claims related to the downloading through the Apple app store and playing of a mobile game.  Court found that under Washington state law the terms of use containing the arbitration provision were not sufficiently conspicuous to give a reasonably prudent user constructive notice and thus there was no mutual assent to arbitrate.

  • Trawick v. McCuthchen, No. 2:19-CV-01199-ACA (N.D. Ala. Jan. 29, 2020)
    01/29/2020

    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.

  • Borror Property Management, LLC v. Oro Karric North, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-04375-ALM-EPD (D. Ohio Jan. 29, 2020)
    01/29/2020

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, holding that defendants had waived their right to compel arbitration when they wrote to plaintiff threatening to sue and indicated that their reading of the arbitration agreement did not “limit litigation exclusively to arbitration.”  Defendants’ letter further invited plaintiff to waive any right it had to compel arbitration.  Court found that it would prejudice plaintiffs to allow defendants to invoke the arbitration provisions.

  • Falkner v. Dolgencorp, LLC., No. 2:19-CV-00598-GMB (N.D. Ala. Jan. 29, 2020)
    01/29/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings of various tort claims against plaintiff’s former employer.  Court rejected plaintiff’s contention that she had not seen or signed an arbitration agreement, finding that there was no dispute of material fact after considering the evidence of an initialed agreement provided by defendant.

  • Villa v. Gruma Corporation, No. 1:19-CV-01721-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2020)
    01/28/2020

    Court granted defendant’s unopposed motion to compel arbitration and dismiss a wrongful termination claim.  Court found that defendant met its burden in demonstrating that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed and covered the dispute at issue.  Court further found that because all claims were subject to arbitration, dismissal was appropriate.

  • Teverbaugh v. Lima One Capital, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-00159-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss. Jan. 28, 2020)
    01/28/2020

    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)
    01/28/2020

    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)
    01/27/2020

    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.

  • Republic of Kazakhstan v. Lawler, No. 2:20-CV-00090-DWL (D. Ariz. Jan. 27, 2020)
    01/27/2020

    Court granted a motion to quash a subpoena previously authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 1782.  Court noted that Kazakhstan was involved in a dispute under a BIT and was looking for information regarding whether a Nevada corporation was controlled by non-U.S. nationals which may preclude the corporation from asserting claims under the BIT.  Court held that because the petition to serve the subpoena was granted on an ex parte basis with the understanding that the subpoenaed party would be free to challenge it, the court should reexamine the § 1782 factors in considering the motion to quash. Court considered the Intel factors and found that they weighed in favor of granting the motion to quash.

  • Willis  v. Fitbit, Inc., No. 3:19-CV-01377 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2020)
    01/27/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration agreements were procedurally and substantively unconscionable, that the language in the parties’ agreements evidenced a clear an unmistakable intent to delegate threshold issues like arbitrability to the arbitrators, and the arguments related to unconscionability were not specific to the delegation provision.

  • Novenergia II – Energy & Environment (SCA) v. The Kingdom of Spain, No. 1:18-CV-01148-TSC (D. D.C. Jan. 27, 2020)
    01/27/2020

    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)
    01/27/2020

    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.

  • Wainwright v. Melaleuca, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-02330-JAM-DB (E.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2020)
    01/27/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss a putative class action alleging violations of the California labor code.  Court found that the contract clearly delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

  • MGP Electronics, Inc. v. Electronic Design & Sales, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-00483-HAB-SLC (D. Ind. Jan. 24, 2020)
    01/24/2020

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration of defendant’s counterclaims and stayed the proceedings.  Parties agreed a valid arbitration agreement governed the contract, and court rejected defendant’s argument that it’s counterclaim for defamation arose after the agreement was terminated and was thus outside the scope of the arbitration clause.  Court found that the alleged defamation arose from the parties business relationship which was subject to the arbitration agreement. 

  • Katz v. The Rittenhouse Organization, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-00546-MN (D. Del. Jan. 23, 2020)
    01/23/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding that plaintiff’s claims must be arbitrated when the agreement provided that either party may request arbitration, and rejecting plaintiff’s argument that his claims must be litigated because he chose litigation in lieu of arbitration.

  • Doe v. Epic Games, Inc., No. 4:19-CV-03629-YGR (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2020)
    01/23/2020

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that a minor plaintiff validly disaffirmed the arbitration agreement after sending letters with the intent to repudiate the binding force of the agreement and subsequently filed suit.

  • Solo v. United Parcel Service Co., No. 17-2244 (6th Cir. Jan. 23, 2020)
    01/23/2020

    Court of appeals confirmed a district court’s denial of appellant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the parties did not intend to arbitrate claims predating the arbitration agreement.  Court held that district court properly concluded that appellant waived its right to arbitrate when it filed a motion to dismiss seeking a decision on the merits.

  • Veolia Water Solutions & Technologies Support v. Westech Engineering, Inc., No. 5:19-CV-00344-FL (E.D.N.C. Jan. 22, 2020)
    01/22/2020

    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.

  • Connell v. Apex Systems, LLC, No. 3:19-CV-00299-JAG (E.D. Va. Jan. 21, 2020)
    01/21/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding that defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate when it filed a motion to compel arbitration one month after plaintiffs filed their complaint.  Court further found that defendant’s use of the discovery process did not result in a waiver of its right to arbitrate, as defendant did not file any dispositive motions or otherwise attempt to litigate the matter on the merits.

  • Zandman v. Citibank, N.A., No. 7:18-CV-00791-NSR-PED (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2020)
    01/21/2020

    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.

  • Givens-Keefer v. American Express Company, No. 1:18-CV-04164-JPO (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2020)
    01/21/2020

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration finding that plaintiff agreed to arbitrate all disputes with her employer when she received an offer letter containing an arbitration provision and she continued working at defendants’ company.

  • National Partitions, Inc. v. LJH Commercial Contracting, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-00470-HBG (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 17, 2020)
    01/17/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding that defendant did not waive its right to compel arbitration when it waited 11 months to file its motion.  Court found that defendant provided plaintiff sufficient notice of defendant’s intent to arbitrate, including raising arbitration as an affirmative defense in its answer.     

  • Hunter v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., No. 3:19-CV-01053-WHO (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2020)
    01/17/2020

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration finding that an arbitration clause resulting from a contract of adhesion was not sufficiently procedurally unconscionable to deny enforcement of the arbitration clause.  Court found that fee-shifting provisions precluding plaintiff from seeking attorneys’ fees or arbitration costs were substantively unconscionable and severed such provisions as unenforceable.  Court further found that plaintiff’s claims could not be arbitrated on a class-wide basis without an explicit statement to that effect in the arbitration agreement.

  • Dynacolor, Incorporated v. Razberi Technologies Incorporated, No. 19-10720 (5th Cir. Jan. 9, 2020) 
    01/09/2020

    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) 
    01/09/2020

    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.

  • Harrison v. Macy, Inc., No. 18-11424 (11th Cir. Jan. 9, 2020)
    01/09/2020

    Court of appeals vacated district court order compelling arbitration and remanded for litigation on the merits where party seeking to force arbitration voluntarily waived right to arbitrate plaintiff’s claims while appeal was pending.

  • Coleman v. Alaska USA Federal Credit Union, No. 3:19-CV-00229-HRH (D. Alaska Jan. 9, 2020)
    01/09/2020

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration agreement added by defendant by addendum to the contract was ineffective. Court found that the Account Agreement between the parties required defendant to provide notice to plaintiff before making “adverse changes” to the agreement by addenda, and that the addition of a mandatory arbitration provision was such an “adverse” change. Court held that because defendant failed to provide proper notice of this change, the arbitration provision was ineffective pursuant to general contract principles. 

  • Psara Energy, Ltd. v. Advantage Arrow Shipping, LLC, No. 19-40071 (5th Cir. Jan. 9, 2020)
    01/09/2020

    Court of appeals dismissed appeal of a district court Order granting a motion to compel arbitration, finding that the order, which administratively closed the case, was not a final, appealable order under the FAA.   

  • DynaColor, Inc. v. Razberi Technologies, Inc., No. 19-10720 (5th Cir. Jan. 9, 2020)
    01/09/2020

    Court denied motion to vacate arbitration award, finding that plaintiff had not demonstrated that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law applicable to the merits of the dispute.

  • Davis v. White, No. 19-11760 (11th Cir. Jan. 7, 2020)
    01/07/2020

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision denying motion to compel arbitration filed eighteen months into the litigation. Court found that defendant had waived its right to arbitration because it had ample opportunity to demand arbitration at an earlier point in the proceedings, but failed to do so, and chose to wait until litigating in federal court proved unfavorable.

  • SFM LLC v. Best Roast Coffee LLC, No. 2:19-CV-04820-JAT (D. Ariz. Jan. 7, 2020) 
    01/07/2020

    Court granted in part defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that mandatory arbitration agreement between the parties governed a portion of plaintiff’s claims. Court held that it had jurisdiction over plaintiff’s requests for injunctive relief, but that damages claims were controlled by mandatory arbitration provision in agreement. 

  • Gonzales v. Sitel Operating Corporation, No. 2:19-CV-00876-GMN-VCF (D. Nev. Jan. 7, 2020)
    01/07/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration but denied motion to stay case, electing instead to dismiss the case without prejudice. Court found there were no remaining issues that would require the court’s attention after compelling arbitration.

  • Weiss v. American Express National bank, No. 1:19-CV-04720-JPO (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2020) 
    01/07/2020

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration where arbitration clause was permissive rather than mandatory, and defendant had failed to comply with the notice procedures in the agreement for initiating an arbitration prior to litigation. 

  • Border Area Mental Health, Inc. v. United Behavioral Health, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01213-MV-SCY (D.N.M. Jan. 7, 2020) 
    01/07/2020

    Court denied motion for reconsideration of an order dismissing plaintiff’s claims where an arbitrator had found those claims were subject to mandatory arbitration. Court found that dismissal of claims would not preclude plaintiffs from pursuing those claims through arbitration, so there was no manifest injustice that could warrant reconsideration under FRCP Rule 59 (e).  

  • Davis v. White, No. 19-11760 (11th Cir. Jan. 7, 2020)
    01/07/2020

    Eleventh Circuit affirmed denial of motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendant had waived their right to arbitrate where it had waited 18 months from the filing of complaints to file its motion to compel arbitration. Court found that defendant had acted inconsistently with its right to arbitrate by filing motions to dismiss which sought to resolve the parties’ dispute on the merits. Court also found defendant had prejudiced plaintiffs in this delay, by forcing them to spend resources contesting the motion to dismiss, and by waiting to raise arbitration until litigation in federal court proved unfavorable. 

  • Soaring Wind Energy, LLC. v. Catic USA Incorporated, No. 18-11192 (5th Cir. Jan. 7, 2020)
    01/07/2020

    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) 
    01/06/2020

    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) 
    01/06/2020

    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. 

  • Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP v. World Class Capital Group, LLC, No. 1:20-CV-00054-PKC (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2020)
    01/06/2020

    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.

  • Kamineni v. Tesla, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-14288-RBK-KMW (D.N.J. Jan. 6, 2020)
    01/06/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that although New Jersey’s Lemon Law referenced the possibility of bringing a claim in a judicial forum, such references are insufficient to establish a legal intent to preclude arbitration. 

  • Geo-logic Associates, Inc. v. Metal Recovery Solutions, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00563-MMD-WGC (D. Nev. Jan. 6, 2020)
    01/06/2020

    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)
    01/03/2020

    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. 

  • Law Offices of Joseph L. Manson III v. Aoki., No. 1:19-CV-04392-LTS-GWG (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2020) 
    01/03/2020

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings pending outcome of arbitration, but denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration where seat of arbitration mandated by arbitration agreement was Washington, D.C. Court found that a valid agreement to arbitrate did exist, but that it did not have power under the FAA § 4 to compel arbitration proceedings which occur outside of the Southern District of New York. 

  • Ostrolenk Faber LLP v. Lagassey, No. 1:18-CV-01533-RA (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2020)
    01/02/2020

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that there was a valid obligation to arbitrate, and that the pro se defendant did not, by his delay, waive his right to compel arbitration.

  • Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Carlson, No. 4:19-CV-01470 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 2, 2020)
    01/02/2020

    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)
    12/30/2019

    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.

  • Wayland Kathan v. Autovest, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-00486-TC-CMR (D. Utah Dec. 30, 2019)
    12/30/2019

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to lift stay of court action pending arbitration. Court found that AAA’s initial (erroneous) refusal to administer the arbitration was not a proper reason to lift the stay, since AAA eventually agreed to administer the arbitration. Court also found that defendant had made clear throughout the process that it was willing and able to resolve any issues identified by AAA and to arbitrate the case.

  • Doctor’s Associates, LLC v. Tripathi, No. 16-4329-CV (2d Cir. Dec. 23, 2019)
    12/23/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision granting injunction to enjoin California state-court action commenced by defendants in breach of arbitration clause, finding that arbitration clause had clearly delegated gateway issues for the arbitrator’s determination in the first instance.

  • Wilson v. Huuuge, Inc., No. 18-36017 (9th Cir. Dec. 20, 2019) 
    12/20/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration against a smartphone app user, finding that defendant did not provide reasonable notice of the arbitration agreement.  Since plaintiff had neither actual nor constructive notice of the agreement he was not bound by the arbitration clause. 

  • Jamieson v. Securities America, Inc., No. 7:19-CV-01817-VB (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2019) 
    12/20/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding the plaintiffs’ agreed to arbitrate and the arbitral agreements applied to the new accounts at issue by incorporation.  Court determined that all plaintiffs did not have to agree to the same terms of arbitration for all of their accounts and that the plaintiffs’ claims fell within the scope of the arbitral agreements.  Court stayed proceedings pending arbitration.

  • National Union Fire Insurance v. BMC Stock Holdings, Inc., No. 18-3851-CV (2d Cir. Dec. 20, 2019)
    12/20/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision granting motion to compel arbitration, finding that agreement between parties had incorporated by reference arbitration clause in respondent’s general liability insurance policies

  • 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) 
    12/19/2019

    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.

  • JR. Food Stores, Inc. v. Hartland Construction Group, LLC and Peoples Bank, No. 1:19-CV-00076-GNS-RSE (W.D. Ky. Dec. 19, 2019) 
    12/19/2019

    Court granted motion to compel mediation and arbitration and to stay proceedings pursuant to the FAA.  Court found it was undisputed that the plaintiff and one of the defendants entered into a valid agreement to arbitrate.  Court concluded that the other defendant, a non-signatory issuer of a performance bond for a construction contract, was compelled to arbitrate, where the performance bond made reference to the contract and the disputes between the parties were intertwined with the underlying contract.

  • Zean v. Comcast Broadband Security, LLC and Southwest Credit Systems, L.P., No. 0:17-CV-05117-WMW-KMM (D. Minn. Dec. 17, 2019) 
    12/19/2019

    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.

  • Citadel Servicing Corporation v. Castle Placement, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-03212-KPF (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2019) 
    12/19/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA and denied plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin defendants from enforcing the arbitration clause.  Court found that it was for the arbitrator to determine whether non-signatory defendants were agents of the signatory and therefore, could enforce the arbitral agreement.  Court considered that the incorporation of the FINRA Rules, which empower the arbitrator to decide issues of arbitrability, provided further support for the parties’ intent to delegate issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

  • Bestway (USA), Inc., v. Scott, No. 18-16228 (9th Cir. Dec. 18, 2019) 
    12/18/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that he had waived his right to arbitrate. 

  • Banks v. Waitr Holdings, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-00898-TAD-KK (W.D. La. Dec. 17, 2019) 
    12/17/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding there was a valid agreement to arbitrate and that the statutory claims fell within the scope of the agreement.  Court denied motion to dismiss the claims with prejudice and instead, administratively closed the case.

  • Flores v. Adir International, LLC, No. 18-55959 (9th Cir. Dec. 17, 2019) 
    12/17/2019

    Court affirmed district court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration, finding plaintiff had waived the right to arbitrate.

  • Hobbs v. Apollo Interactive, Inc., No. 4:19-CV-00057-CDL (M.D. Ga. Dec. 17, 2019) 
    12/17/2019

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the action in favor of arbitration.  Court found that there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether the parties had entered into an agreement to arbitrate and at the early stage in the proceedings, the court could not conclude as a matter of law that the parties had a valid agreement to arbitrate.  

  • Galilea, LLC and Kittler v. AGCS Marine Insurance Company, No. 1:19-CV-05768-VEC (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2019)
    12/16/2019

    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)
     
    12/16/2019

    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.

  • Republic of Kazakhstan v. Lawler, No. 2:19-MC-00035-DWL (D. Ariz. Dec. 16, 2019)
    12/16/2019

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to seal its response to respondent’s motion to quash a subpoena to compel testimony and production of evidence in a pending investor-state arbitration pursuant to 28 USC § 1782.

  • Henry v. Educational Financial Service, No. 18-20809 (5th. Cir. Dec. 16, 2019)
    12/16/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed bankruptcy court’s decision denying motion to compel arbitration, finding that bankruptcy courts have discretion to refuse to compel arbitration in proceedings seeking enforcement of a discharge injunction between debtor and creditor.

  • Brown v. Sperber-Porter, No. 2:16-CV-02801-SRB (D. Ariz. Dec. 14, 2016)
    12/14/2019

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

  • Story v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated and Bank of America Corporation, No. 2:19-CV-02301-SSV-JVM (E.D. La. Dec. 13, 2019)
    12/13/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court found the arbitral agreement was valid with regard to a non-signatory parent company where its subsidiary was a signatory to the arbitral agreement. Court also found the dispute fell within the scope of the agreement and concluded that the question of whether a settlement in a related suit mooted the present dispute was an issue for the arbitrator.

  • Bowman v. Phoenix Trinity Manufacturing, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-00332-TMR-MJN (S.D. Ohio Dec. 13, 2019)
    12/13/2019

    Magistrate judge recommended that court grant motion to compel arbitration where plaintiffs asserted that defendant had waived right to arbitrate by filing an answer to plaintiffs’ complaint with no mention of an arbitration agreement, and by further engaging in litigation for over one year. Court found that plaintiff had failed to cite to precedent or to demonstrate that it was prejudiced by defendant’s delay in filing motion to compel arbitration.

  • Reynolds & Reynolds Company, Inc. v. Alan Vines Automotive of Jackson, LLC, No. 3:19-CV-00276-TMR (S.D. Ohio Dec. 13, 2019)
    12/13/2019

    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)
    12/13/2019

    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.

  • Raeis Constructors, LLC v. Circle K Stores, Inc., No. 5:18-CV-240-FL (E.D. N.C. Dec. 13, 2019)
    12/13/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration between defendant and third-party defendant, and denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration with third-party defendant finding that plaintiff had waived its right to arbitrate by substantially utilizing the litigation process.

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

    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.

  • Golomb Mercantile Company LLC v. Marks Paneth LLP, No. 1:18-CV-03845-JFK-SLC (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2019) 
    12/12/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration between non-signatory defendant and signatory plaintiff under principle of estoppel. 

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

    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).

  • Galloway v. Priority Imports Richmond, LLC., No. 3:19-CV-00209-JAG (E.D. Va. Dec. 12, 2019)
    12/12/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, concluding that the parties entered into a valid agreement to arbitrate and that a prohibition against the award of punitive damages in the agreement did not violate public policy. 

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

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

  • Chuck Willis v. Tower Loan of Mississippi, L.L.C., No. 18-60344 (5th Cir. Dec. 12, 2019)
    12/12/2019

    Court of appeals reversed decision of district court and bankruptcy court to deny a motion to compel arbitration and remanded the case with instructions to refer it to arbitration. Court held that the parties had reached a valid agreement to arbitrate and had delegated threshold arbitrability issues to the arbitrator. In particular, where the lower courts had determined that procedural differences in two separate arbitration agreements between the parties rendered the agreement to arbitrate insufficiently definite, the court held that the agreements did in fact evidence an “unmistakable” intention to submit disputes to arbitration and that the arbitrator should decide on the procedural issues.

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

    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)
    12/12/2019

    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.

  • Tower Loan of Mississippi, LLC v. Willis, No. 18-60344 (5th. Cir. Dec. 12, 2019)
    12/12/2019

    Court of appeals reversed district court’s decision denying motion to compel arbitration, finding that, notwithstanding conflicting procedural details in the applicable arbitration clauses of two related contracts, the parties had reached a valid agreement to arbitrate all disputes and had delegated threshold arbitrability issues to the arbitrator.

  • Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. v. Silverman, No. 1:19-CV-07812-NRB (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2019)
    12/11/2019

    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)
    12/11/2019

    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.

  • Graphic Communications Conference v. McDonald & Eudy Printers, Inc., No. 8:18-CV-03830-PWG (D. Md. Dec. 10, 2019)
    12/10/2019

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss based on procedural untimeliness where defendant argued plaintiff had allowed a five-day window in which to commence arbitration to lapse. Court held that this was not a question of arbitrability for the court, but a threshold procedural issue for the arbitrator.

  • Local 1982, Int. Longshoremen’s Association v. Midwest Terminals of Toledo, Int. Inc., No. 19-3319 (6th Cir. Dec. 10, 2019) 
    12/10/2019

    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.

  • W&W-AFCO Steel, LLC v. SME Steel Contractors., No. 4:19-CV-03042-SBA (W.D. Okla. Dec. 10, 2019) 
    12/10/2019

    Court granted motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration where District Court in Utah had just granted motion to compel arbitration between the same parties, and defendant had requested a stay of the proceedings pending the outcome of both that decision and an on-going AAA arbitration. 

  • The Republic of Kazakhstan v. Lawler., No. 2:19-MC-00035-DWL (D. Ariz. Dec. 10, 2019)
    12/10/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to seal with regard to particular exhibits it was required to provide in assistance of an investor-state arbitration pursuant to a §1782 motion that had been won by plaintiff. Court found that, upon review, the redactions dealing with the procedure and findings of the arbitral tribunal were appropriate. Court further held that the interest in maintaining confidentiality for the requisite parties in light of a confidentiality order issued by the tribunal outweighed public policy favoring disclosure. 

  • Brown v. Ally Financial., No. 18-CV-00070-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss. Dec. 10, 2019) 
    12/10/2019

    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. 

  • Moore v. Performance of Brentwood., No. 3:19-CV-00606 –WLC (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 10, 2019
    12/10/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that a modification provision in the arbitration agreement allowing defendant to unilaterally make “changes that promote the agreement’s purpose” did not render defendant’s promise to arbitrate illusory.

  • Napoleone v. S2k Financial, LLC., No. 1:18-CV-03124-DAB (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2019) 
    12/09/2019

    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. 

  • North Phoenix Road, LLC v. IMortgage.com, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-00676-MC (D. Or. Dec. 9, 2019) 
    12/09/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration in commercial office lease dispute, where there was no dispute that the lease contained a valid arbitration agreement. Court found defendant had not waived their right to arbitrate because their conduct was consistent with the right to compel arbitration and plaintiff failed to meet its burden to show prejudice arising from said conduct. 

  • Oliveira v. New Prime, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-10603-PBS (D. Mass. Dec. 9, 2019)
     
    12/09/2019

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that defendant had waived its right to arbitrate under the state arbitration law of Missouri. Court found defendant had “substantially invoked the litigation machinery” by litigating for four years their assertion that the FAA applied to the controversy, rather than attempting to compel arbitration under the requisite state arbitration law at the beginning of their suit.
     

  • Franklin v. Community Regional Medical Center., No. 4:19-CV-03042-SBA (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2019) 
    12/09/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding non-signatory defendant was entitled to rely on the arbitration agreement between plaintiff and third-party under the doctrine of equitable estoppel. 

  • Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company v. New England Reinsurance Corporation, No. 19-1805 (3d Cir. Dec. 6, 2019)
    12/06/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order compelling arbitration of the consolidated disputes in question before a new panel of arbitrators. 

  • Fairfield Processing Corp. v. Best Made Toys International, ULC, No. 4:19-MC-00310-JAR (E.D. Mo. Dec. 6, 2019)
    12/06/2019

    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. 

  • Transworld Medical Devices LLC v. The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, No. 3:18-CV-00580-GCM (W.D.N.C. Dec. 6, 2019)
    12/06/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings under the FAA and compelled plaintiff to begin, if it has not already done so, arbitration of its claims for breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, breach of contract, tortious interference, and conspiracy within 60 days.

  • City of Almaty, Kazakhstan v. Sater, No. 1:19-CV-02645-AJN-KHP (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2019)
    12/06/2019

    Court denied motion to stay litigation as to defendant Sater pending outcome of an ongoing AAA arbitration. Court found an agreement to arbitrate did not exist where movant was a non-signatory in his personal capacity, but an officer of a signatory to the contract containing the arbitration agreement, and the issues being litigated related to actions taken in movant’s personal capacity. The court also held that movant did not meet his burden to demonstrate that he was an intended third-party beneficiary of the contract containing an arbitration provision. 

  • Flynn v. Sanchez Oil & Gas Corporation, No. 5:19-CV-00867-JKP-ESC (W.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2019)
    12/05/2019

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendant had not established that it was a third-party beneficiary with authority to enforce the arbitration agreement at issue.

  • Rogers v. Clayton Homes Florence, No. 4:19-CV-00570-DCC (D.S.C. Dec. 5, 2019)
    12/05/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, holding that a valid arbitration agreement existed, and that all the claims presented fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • Pollak v. Keybank, N.A., No. 1:19-CV-01866-DCN (N.D. Ohio Dec. 5, 2019)
    12/05/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that the arbitration provision was valid and enforceable, and that the claim at issue fell within the scope of the arbitration provision.

  • Ibarra v. Navient Solutions, LLC, No. 8:19-CV-01764-JLS-DFM (C.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2019)
    12/05/2019

    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)
    12/05/2019

    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.

  • Integrand Assurance Company v. Everest Reinsurance Company, No. 3:19-CV-01111-DRD (D.P.R. Dec. 4, 2019)
    12/04/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and held that the arbitration clause encompasses the present suit, and considering the strong presumption in favor of arbitration, the court ordered the parties to arbitrate the dispute

  • International Bancshares Corporation v. Paola Ochoa, No. 5:19-CV-00062 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 3, 2019)
    12/03/2019

    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.

  • Intralox LLC v. System Solutions of Kentucky No. 19-CV-01653 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 25, 2019)
    11/25/2019

    Court granted in part and denied in part motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration in a contract dispute. Court found that it was proper for the arbitrator to decide the merits of the motion to dismiss.

  • Forby v. One Technologies, LP, No. 3:16-CV-00856-L (N.D. Tex. Nov. 8, 2019)
    11/08/2019

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendants had waived right to arbitrate by moving to dismiss plaintiff’s claims filed in court, among others. Court held that plaintiff’s filing of an amended complaint alleging new cause of action did not thereby ‘revive’ the defendants’ previously waived arbitration rights.

  • AtriCure, Inc. v. Dr. Jian Meng, No. 1:19-CV-00054-MPB (S.D. Ohio Nov. 4, 2019) 
    11/04/2019

    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.

  • Metso Minerals Canada, Inc. v. Arcelormittal Exploitation Miniere Canada, No. 1:19-CV-03379-LAP (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2019) 
    11/04/2019

    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.

  • Brice v. 7HBF No. 2 LTD., No. 19-CV-01481-WHO (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2019) 
    11/04/2019

    Court denied defendant’s motions to stay litigation and to compel arbitration where plaintiffs brought a variety of federal and state statutory claims relating to a lender’s rent-a-tribe scheme to evade state usury laws. Despite the presence of a provision in the arbitration agreement, expressly delegating the question of scope and enforceability to the arbitrator, the court found that arbitration agreement was unenforceable because it acted as a prospective waiver of plaintiffs’ statutory rights and remedies in contravention of public policy. 

  • Golden v. O’Melveny & Myers LLP, No. 2:14-CV-08725-CAS (C.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2019) 
    11/01/2019

    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) 
    11/01/2019

    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. 

  • Davila v. UBS Financial Services Incorporated of Puerto Rico, Inc., No. 3:19-CV-01689-CCC (D.P.R. Nov. 1, 2019).
    11/01/2019

    Court granted unopposed motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss claims where financial services contract contained written agreement to Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitration. Court found that arbitration agreement was sufficiently broad to cover all of plaintiff’s causes of actions relating to UBS’s alleged mismanagement or breach of duties related to plaintiff’s accounts held with the firm. 

  • Robertson v. T-Mobile US, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-02567-RDB (D. Md. Nov. 1, 2019).
    11/01/2019

    Court granted petition to enforce a subpoena duces tecum issued by an AAA arbitrator against a non-party to the arbitration proceeding. Court found that arbitrator was authorized to issue the subpoena under §7 of the FAA and that the court had authority under the FAA to enforce the arbitrator’s subpoena, as petitioner had demonstrated that the information sought was integral to his claim and otherwise unavailable, giving rise to a special need for the information.

  • In Re Bio Energia Comercializadora de Energia LTDA., No. 1:19-MC-24497-BB (S.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 2019).
    11/01/2019

    Court granted ex parte application, pursuant to 28 USC §1782, for an order to serve subpoenas on two US-based executives for documents relevant to a pending arbitration seated in Sao Paulo. The court did not supply reasoning in its order, but noted that motions to quash the subpoenas may be addressed pursuant to the procedures set forth in the FRCP. 

  • Laccinole v. Trans Union Risk and Alternative Data Solutions, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-00221-JM-LDA (D.R.I. Oct. 31, 2019) 
    10/31/2019

    Court denied petition to compel arbitration against third party pursuant to a service agreement containing an arbitration provision. Court found that third party was not subject to the provisions of the service agreement, and thus could not be forced to arbitrate their dispute with petitioner. 

  • McGee v. Armstrong, No. 18-3886 (6th Cir. Oct. 29, 2019)
    10/29/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court decision granting defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, denying plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitration award, and granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment regarding plaintiff’s breach of contract claims.  In coming to its decision, court found that all questions of arbitrability must be referred to arbitration, the arbitrators did not exceed their powers by entering a decision on defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and plaintiff’s four-paragraph, conclusory affidavit in opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment did not establish any issue of material fact.

  • Martinez-Gonzales v. Elkhorn Packing Co., LLC, No. 3:18-CV-05226-EMC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2019)
    10/29/2019

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement was the product of both economic duress and undue influence.  Court found that plaintiff had no “reasonable alternative” but to sign the documents, as he reasonably believed he could not seek work with another employer, did not have another place to live should his employment with defendant end, and did not have his own means of transportation by which to return to Mexico.  Court also found that many of the factors of undue influence listed in Odorizzi v. Bloomfield Sch. Dist., 246 Cal. App. 2d 123 (Ct. App. 1996) were met, including that the presentation of new-hire documents came at an unusual or inappropriate time, the consummation of the contract occurred in an unusual place, defendant made insistent demands that the signing of the documents be completed rapidly, and there were no third-party advisors to assist the employees.

  • Terminal Properties, LLC v. 54 Chevy, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-01238-CAB (N.D. Ohio Oct. 29, 2019)
    10/29/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and ordered plaintiff to arbitrate his claims against defendant.  Court found that the arbitration provision was valid and binding and broad in scope as to cover the claims in the instant case.

  • Republic of Kazakhstan v. Lawler, No. 2:19-MC-00035-DWL (D. Ariz. Oct. 28, 2019)
    10/28/2019

    Court granted petitioner’s ex parte application under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for leave to serve a subpoena on respondent.  Court found that all three criteria under 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) were satisfied, as (i) Lawler resided in Arizona and had a business address in Arizona; (ii) the purpose of the application was to acquire information for use in an arbitration proceeding; and (iii) petitioner was a party to the arbitration at issue.  Court also found that the four discretionary factors listed in Supreme Court decision Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 264 (2004) weighed in favor of granting the application.

  • Hitchcock Independent School District v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, No. 3:19-CV-00198 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2019)
    10/28/2019

    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.”

  • Hall v. Affordable Care, LLC, No. 4:19-CV-00335-ALM (E.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2019)
    10/28/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court noted that while the arbitration provision was susceptible to either a broad or narrow construction, it would nevertheless encompass plaintiffs’ fraudulent inducement claim.  Court also concluded that plaintiffs’ tortious interference claim fell within the scope of the arbitration provision.
     

  • Termini v. Group 1 Automotive, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-02196-KHV-JPO (D. Kan. Oct. 25, 2019)
    10/25/2019

    Court sustained plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that (i) the record contained sufficient evidence of an enforceable agreement to arbitration, (ii) defendants failed to demonstrate the clear and express mutual intention of both parties not to enforce the arbitration agreement, (iii) defendants failed to show that plaintiff intentionally relinquished or abandoned his right to arbitration, and (iv) defendants failed to satisfy its heavy burden of demonstrating that plaintiff’s conduct foreclosed his right to arbitration.

  • Larue v. Collateral Recovery Team LLC, No 4:19-CV-01039 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 25, 2019)
    10/25/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that the agreement’s language unambiguously demonstrated that the parties agreed to arbitrate and plaintiff’s claims were within the scope of the arbitration clause.  Court noted that even if the language of the arbitration agreement were ambiguous, the ambiguity would be resolved in favor of arbitration.

  • Atricure, Inc. v. Dr. Jian Meng, No. 1:19-CV-00054-MRB (S.D. Ohio Oct. 25, 2019)
    10/25/2019

    Court denied defendants’ motion for an immediate stay of all judicial proceedings pending international arbitration.  Court concluded that (i) defendants’ failure to challenge the availability of arbitration did not rise to the level of conduct found to constitute a waiver by the Sixth Circuit; (ii) defendants cannot enforce the arbitration provision via agency or estoppel theories and therefore defendants cannot invoke Section 3 of the FAA and a mandatory stay is not required; and (iii) a discretionary stay is not appropriate in light of the prejudice plaintiffs will suffer if a stay is granted.

  • Foss v. Spencer Brewery, No. 4:19-CV-40098-TSH (D. Mass. Oct. 25, 2019)
    10/25/2019

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court noted that plaintiff voluntarily filed two civil actions in the court system, and the court entered judgment against plaintiff in both actions.  Only then did plaintiff file a demand for arbitration.  Court concluded that, by choosing to litigate in the court system instead of demanding arbitration in the first instance, plaintiff waived her right to arbitration.

  • Sayre v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., No. 18-55411 (9th Cir. Oct. 24, 2019)
    10/24/2019

    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. 

  • Spok, Inc., v. Goel, No. 1:19-CV-02096-DSD-DTS (D. Minn. Oct. 24, 2019)
    10/24/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of claims related to a contract dispute.  Court held that where an arbitration agreement incorporates the AAA rules, it provides clear and mistakable evidence that the parties delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.  Court was not persuaded by plaintiff’s argument that because the arbitration agreement had mandated that certain disputes be resolved by the courts and not the arbitrators this showed that the parties did not intend to delegate all questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

  • Calzadillas, v. The Wonderful Company, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-00172-DAD-JLT (E.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2019)
    10/24/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of wage dispute claims for a putative class and dismissed the case.  After an opportunity for limited discovery, the plaintiff did not contend defendant’s evidence that it was a third party beneficiary of an agreement containing an arbitration provision. Thus court held that defendant as a third party beneficiary could enforce the arbitration agreement.

  • Baron v. Sprint Corporation, No. 1:19-CV-01255-JKB (D. Md. Oct. 24, 2019)
    10/24/2019

    Court granted each of four defendants’ motions to compel arbitration of putative class action claims related to major mobile carriers allegedly selling geolocation data.  Court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the arbitration clauses were substantively unconscionable under Maryland law because they would prevent plaintiffs from litigating as a class and would allow defendants to escape public scrutiny.  Court found that pursuant to Supreme Court and fourth circuit precedent, it may not invalidate an arbitration clause on a theory that features inherent to arbitration are unconscionable. 

  • Morrison v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 1:19-CV-01257-JKB (D. Md. Oct. 24, 2019)
    10/24/2019

    Court granted each of four defendants’ motions to compel arbitration of putative class action claims related to major mobile carriers allegedly selling geolocation data.  Court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the arbitration clauses were substantively unconscionable under Maryland law because they would prevent plaintiffs from litigating as a class and would allow defendants to escape public scrutiny.  Court found that pursuant to Supreme Court and fourth circuit precedent, it may not invalidate an arbitration clause on a theory that features inherent to arbitration are unconscionable. 

  • Morrison v. Verizon Communications Inc., No. 1:19-CV-01298-JKB (D. Md. Oct. 24, 2019)
    10/24/2019

    Court granted each of four defendants’ motions to compel arbitration of putative class action claims related to major mobile carriers allegedly selling geolocation data.  Court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the arbitration clauses were substantively unconscionable under Maryland law because they would prevent plaintiffs from litigating as a class and would allow defendants to escape public scrutiny.  Court found that pursuant to Supreme Court and fourth circuit precedent, it may not invalidate an arbitration clause on a theory that features inherent to arbitration are unconscionable. 

  • Ray v. T-Mobile US, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-01299-JKB (D. Md. Oct. 24, 2019)
    10/24/2019

    Court granted each of four defendants’ motions to compel arbitration of putative class action claims related to major mobile carriers allegedly selling geolocation data.  Court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the arbitration clauses were substantively unconscionable under Maryland law because they would prevent plaintiffs from litigating as a class and would allow defendants to escape public scrutiny.  Court found that pursuant to Supreme Court and fourth circuit precedent, it may not invalidate an arbitration clause on a theory that features inherent to arbitration are unconscionable.  

  • Dowdy v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-01386-SAG (D. Md. Oct. 24, 2019)
    10/24/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of claims related to the purchase of a used vehicle.  Court rejected all of plaintiffs four arguments: 1) that the claims were related to a different agreement than the agreement that contained the arbitration provision; 2) defendant could not enforce the arbitration provision because defendant was an assignee, not the original signatory; 3) defendant cannot enforce the arbitration provision because defendant assigned the agreement upon which plaintiff’s claim is based to another party; and 4) when the district court dismissed an earlier case against plaintiff, it extinguished the rights under that agreement, including the right to compel arbitration.

  • Johnson, v. SSC Houston Northwest Operating Company LLC, No. 4:19-CV-01221 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 23, 2019)
    10/23/2019

    Court granted defendant’s unopposed motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s medical negligence claims.  Court agreed with magistrate judge’s opinion that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate and that these claims were within the scope of that agreement.

  • Peterson v. Minerva Surgical, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-02050-KHV-TJJ (D. Kans. Oct. 23, 2019)
    10/23/2019

    Court granted defendants motion to compel arbitration of employment discrimination claims related to plaintiff’s disability.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration provision was procedurally unconscionable because it was a contract of adhesion, finding the contract was governed by California law and that under California law, adhesion contracts are not procedurally unconscionable without some additional procedural deficiency.  Court also found that plaintiff’s argument that the forum selection clause was substantively unconscionable did not challenge the arbitration agreement specifically and thus the arbitration agreement should be enforced.

  • GC Services limited Partnership v. Little, No. 4:19-CV-01180 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 23, 2019)
    10/23/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s discrimination claims and enjoined her from pursuing these claims in state court.  Plaintiff’s only challenge to the agreement was that she had not signed the agreement.  Court held in a bench trial that plaintiff had signed the agreement and the parties had formed a valid and broad agreement to arbitration all disputes.

  • Lagsit v. International Coffee and Tea LLC, No. 19-55143 (9th Cir. Oct. 23, 2019)
    10/23/2019

    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.

  • Plummer v. McSweeney, No. 18-03059 (8th Cir. Oct. 23, 2019)
    10/23/2019

    Court of appeals reversed and remanded district court’s refusal to enforce an arbitration provision between a law firm and its client. District court refused to enforce arbitration because they found that the agreement to arbitrate was substantively and procedurally unconscionable.  Court found that defendant’s post hoc offer to pay plaintiff’s arbitration costs cured the substantive unconscionability, and that the agreement was not procedurally unconscionable merely because there was time pressure put on plaintiff and the plaintiff did not read the agreement.

  • Edward Jones & Co., v. Martin, No. 2:19-CV-06776-AB-KS (C.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2019)
    10/23/2019

    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.

  • Chicago Insurance Company, v. General Reinsurance Corporation, No. 1:18-CV-10450 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2019)
    10/22/2019

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings of a different arbitration. Court reasoned that the arbitration panel constituted in a previous dispute between the parties had retained jurisdiction for any dispute related to the final award.  Court therefore rejected plaintiff’s argument that the prior arbitration panel’s authority over the dispute had ended pursuant to the doctrine of functus officio.  Court found that the question of whether the present dispute was related to the previous award, and therefore within the jurisdiction of the previous arbitration panel was a question for the arbitrators to decide.

  • St. Theresa Specialty Hospital, LLC v. Indian Harbor Insurance, No. 2:19-CV-12126-MLCF-JCW (E.D. La. Oct. 22, 2019)
    10/22/2019

    Court granted defendant’s unopposed motion to compel arbitration pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 206.  Court further compelled plaintiff to produce certain documents in aid of arbitration within 30 days and appointed an arbitrator.  Court reasoned that the contract allowed for the party seeking arbitration to appoint the arbitrator if the responding party failed to respond within 30 days.

  • Kiawah Island Utility, Inc. v. Westport Insurance Corporation, No. 1:19-CV-09775-JGK (D.S.C. Oct. 22, 2019)
    10/22/2019

    Court granted defendants motion to compel arbitration and transferred the dispute to the S.D.N.Y. so that arbitration could be compelled in New York City as called for in the arbitration agreement.  Court found that because plaintiff sought a declaration that it was entitled to coverage under an insurance policy, under the theory of direct benefit estoppel plaintiff could not avoid the arbitration clause in the policy merely because it was not a signatory.  Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that South Carolina state law prevented the court from enforcing a forum selection clause outside of the state, finding that the FAA preempts state law.

  • Norred v. Cotton Patch Café, LLC, No. 3:19-CV-01010-G (N.D. Tex. Oct. 22, 2019)
    10/22/2019

    Court granted defendants motion to compel arbitration of a dispute related to the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the arbitration provision was not valid because plaintiffs did not assent to it and there was no consideration.  Court found a notice signed by plaintiffs incorporated the arbitration provision by reference, and that the mutual promise to arbitrate was valid consideration.  Court also rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the promise to arbitrate was illusory, finding that under Texas law only arbitration provisions that require arbitration from one party while giving the other party the option of whether or not to arbitrate are illusory. 

  • Scott Environmental Services, Inc. v. Newfield Exploration Company, No. 2:19-CV-00026-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex. Oct. 22, 2019)
    10/22/2019

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of claims related to the alleged breach of a non-disclosure agreement. Court held that under Texas contract law, the parties had not agreed to arbitrate disputes under the NDA.

  • Monster Energy Company v. City Beverages, LLC, No. 17-55813, 17-56082 (9th Cir. Oct. 22, 2019)
    10/22/2019

    Court of appeals reversed and vacated a district court’s affirming of an arbitration award, and award of post-arbitration fees.  Court found that the district court erred in confirming the award because the arbitrator was a co-owner of JAMS and therefor has an ongoing business relationship with Monster who is a repeat player at arbitration and that this rendered the arbitrator potentially biased.  Judge Friedland dissented, arguing that this sort of information would not have made a material biases in an evaluation of the arbitrator’s bias.

  • Adams v. Postmates, Inc., No. 4:19-CV-03042-SBA (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2019) 
    10/22/2019

    Court granted dual motions to compel arbitration, but declined to decide whether plaintiffs were obliged to engage in individual, rather than consolidated arbitrations or whether defendant was obligated to pay AAA filing fees in excess of 9 million USD, holding that these were questions of arbitrability to be determined by the arbitrator.


  • Byars, v. Dart Transit Company, No. 3:19-CV-00541 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 21, 2019)
    10/21/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of putative class claims related to a wage dispute.  Court considered two arguments plaintiff made as to the validity of the arbitration provision, first that the potential pool of arbitrators and the arbitration rules were biased in favor of defendants and second that the arbitration provisions were unconscionable. Court rejected these arguments finding that a party cannot avoid arbitration merely by alleging that an arbitration panel will be biased before the panel is constituted, and that the contract was not unconscionable merely because it was a contract of adhesion.

  • Chang v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-02091-LAP (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2019)
    10/21/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of claims related alleged discrimination.  Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration provisions expired when plaintiff singed a new agreement, that the provisions were unconscionable, that defendant could not enforce because it was not a signatory to the arbitration agreement, and that the claims were outside the scope of the arbitration clause. Court found that the arbitration provision had a survivability clause and that the new agreement signed by plaintiff indicated that certain obligations would survive from the previous agreement.  Court further held that Defendant could enforce the agreement as a non-signatory under the theory of estoppel.

  • Hearn v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-01198-TWT (N.D. Ga. Oct. 21, 2019)
    10/21/2019

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of a class action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.  Court found that the dispute was not tied to the parties’ agreement and declined to enforce the broad language that referred any claim “related to” the defendant to arbitration.  Court said that this was an issue of contract interpretation and that no reasonable customer would have understood himself to be signing over his right to pursue any claim against defendant in perpetuity by signing a service agreement.

  • In Re Papa John’s Employee and Franchise Employee Antitrust Litigation, No. 3:18-CV-00825-JHM-RSE (W.D. Ken. Oct. 21, 2019)
    10/21/2019

    Court of appeals reversed and vacated a district court’s affirming of an arbitration award, and award of post-arbitration fees.  Court found that the district court erred in confirming the award because the arbitrator was a co-owner of JAMS and therefor has an ongoing business relationship with Monster who is a repeat player at arbitration and that this rendered the arbitrator potentially biased.  Judge Friedland dissented, arguing that this sort of information would not have made a material biases in an evaluation of the arbitrator’s bias.

  • Williams v. Eaze Solutions , Inc., No. 3:18-CV-02598-JD (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2019)
    10/21/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of claims related to a marijuana company’s alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that because the defendant’s business was illegal under federal law, a contract was never formed between the parties.  Court found that illegality merely renders a contract void, it does not negate formation, and that the arbitration provision is severable form a voided contract. Court further found that the contract delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, and thus refused to consider plaintiff’s arguments past the formation issue.

  • Barone v. LAZ Parking Ltd, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-01545-VLB (D. Conn. Oct. 20, 2019)
    10/20/2019

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of wage dispute claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  While court found that defendant had not waived the right to compel arbitration by not raising it at the conditional certification stage. Court found that because the class had not yet been identified it was not possible to consider whether the individual members had signed arbitration agreements that precluded class resolution of their claims, but noted that the defendant could raise the issue again at the second stage of the certification process.

  • Eaton Partners, LLC v. Azimuth Capital Management IV, Ltd., No. 1:18-CV-11112-ER (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2019) 
    10/18/2019

    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. 

  • O’Shaugnessy v. Young Living Essential Oils, LC, No. 1:19-CV-00412-LY (W.D. Tex. Oct. 18, 2019)
    10/18/2019

    Court denied defendants’ motions to compel arbitration, finding that the conflicting nature of the forum selection clause and arbitration clause of the underlying contract demonstrated that there was no meeting of the minds with regard to arbitration.  Court rejected defendants’ argument that the forum selection clause only dealt with those claims not subject to arbitration, finding that no language in the contract supported defendants’ interpretation.

  • 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)
    10/17/2019

    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.

  • Strange v. Select Management Resources, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-00321-CCF-JFP (M.D.N.C. Oct. 17, 2019)
    10/17/2019

    Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration as to a non-signatory defendant, finding that the non-signatory was merely an affiliate company of the other defendants and that no additional evidence supported binding the non-signatory to the arbitration agreement.  Court compelled arbitration with respect to all signatory defendants.

  • Robinson v. Virginia College, LLC, No. 19-11864 (11th Cir. Oct. 16, 2019)
    10/16/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order denying defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff’s claims – as a student and former employee of one defendant – against defendants resulting from the latter’s loss of college accreditation fell outside of plaintiff’s employment-related arbitration agreement.  Court found that because plaintiff’s claims arose from his role as a student, rather than an employee, rendered the claims not arbitrable.

  • Doud v. Gold, No. 1:19-CV-06561-KPF (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2019)
    10/16/2019

    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.

  • Nicholas v. Wayfair Inc., No. 1:19-CV-01974-JBW-LB (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2019)
    10/16/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff agreed to arbitrate her claims when she acquiesced to defendants’ website terms and conditions.  Court found that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable when the website text clearly indicated that submission of plaintiff’s order would result in her agreement to the terms and conditions.

  • Cooper v. Adobe Systems Incorporated, No. 5:18-CV-06472-BLF (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2019)
    10/11/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that notwithstanding plaintiff’s challenges to the formation of the arbitration agreement, the parties agreed to arbitrate issues of arbitrability by incorporating the JAMS rules.

  • Buhannic v. Tradingscreen, Inc., No. 18-2274 (2d Cir. Oct. 11, 2019)
    10/11/2019

    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)
    10/10/2019

    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.

  • 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)
    10/07/2019

    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.

  • Rainey v. Citigroup, Incorporated, No. 19-10036 (5th Cir. Oct. 7, 2019)
    10/07/2019

    Court of appeals held that defendant’s service of process complied with FRCP 5(b)(2)(C) and that dismissal, as opposed to a stay pending arbitration, is proper “when all of the issues raised in the district court must be submitted to arbitration.”

  • Capital & Security Management, Inc. v. Telthorster, No. 2:19-CV-01677-MMB (E.D. Pa. Oct 3, 2019)
    10/03/2019

    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. 
     

  • Marisco, Ltd. v. GL Engineering & Construction PTE., Ltd, No. 1:18-CV-00211-SOM (D. Haw. Oct. 3, 2019)
    10/03/2019

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims relating to the construction of a dry dock.  Court held that although there was a valid arbitration agreement, plaintiff’s claims did not fall within its scope.

  • Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. The City of Fresno, No. 2:16-CV-00495-JAM (E.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2019)
    10/03/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to vacate order compelling arbitration of an insurance coverage dispute.  Court held that the arbitration it previously compelled was now moot as a result of a summary judgment order in favor of defendant by a California Court in a related action. 

  • Phillips v. Neutron Holdings, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-03382-KGS (N.D. Tex. Oct. 2, 2019)
    10/02/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims arising from an electric scooter accident.  Court held that the ‘sign-in-wrap’ online user agreement at issue, which contained an arbitration agreement, was enforceable and that it was for the arbitral tribunal to decide whether the claims asserted fell within the scope of the agreement.

  • Sarah Adult Day Services, Inc. v. Beyda Adult Day Care Center, LLC, No. 5:19-CV-00614-SL (N.D. Ohio Oct. 2, 2019)
    10/02/2019

    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.

  • Morrison v. Home Depot, No. 2:19-CV-00517-GCS (S.D. Ohio Oct. 2, 2019)
    10/02/2019


    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims relating to credit card transactions.  Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the motion was untimely, that it was entitled to a trial by jury and that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable. 

  • Izett v. Crown Asset Management, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-05224-EMC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2019)
    10/01/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims relating to the debt collection practices of defendants.  Court held that defendants did not waive their right to arbitrate the subject matter of the dispute despite having previously successfully pursued collection of the debt in state court.  Court also held that the question of whether the state court judgment extinguished the defendants’ right to arbitrate should be directed to the arbitral tribunal.

  • TECO Guatemala Holdings, LLC v. Republic of Guatemala, No. 1:17-CV-00102 (D.D.C. October 1, 2019)
    10/01/2019

    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.

  • Enel Green Power North America, Inc. v. Geronimo Energy, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-05882-AJN (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2019)
    09/30/2019


    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of a claim relating to an alleged breach of a partnership agreement.  Court held that the claim was not subject to an earlier agreement between the parties to arbitrate because the later agreements upon which the claim was based included mandatory forum selection clauses choosing New York courts as the exclusive jurisdiction.

  • Gibbs v. Stinson, No. 3:18-CV-00676-MHL (E.D. Va. Sept. 30, 2019)
    09/30/2019

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims relating to an alleged unlawful lending operation.  Court held that certain of the arbitration agreements at issue were unenforceable because they sought to apply Native American tribal law to the exclusion of federal law.  Court also held that the other arbitration agreement at issue was enforceable because it did not disavow federal law wholesale and instead contemplated application of federal law to the arbitral proceedings.

  • In re Application of NJSC Naftogaz of Ukraine, No. 3:18-MC-00092-SAL (N.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2019)
    09/30/2019

    Court granted application under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for discovery from auditors in the U.S. in aid of a contemplated court proceeding in the Netherlands to enforce an arbitral award rendered against Gazprom in an arbitration seated in Stockholm, Sweden.  Court held that the application met all of the requirements of § 1782.

  • Dhaliwal v. Mallinckdrodt PLC, No. 1:18-CV-03146-VSB (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2019)
    09/30/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of a whistleblower retaliation action.  Court held that although the defendants were not parties to the arbitration agreement entered into with the plaintiff by a company they had acquired, the subject matter of the plaintiff’s claims were intertwined with the scope of the arbitration agreement and that it would be inequitable for the plaintiff to refuse to arbitrate on the ground that it had made no agreement with the defendants.

  • Drake v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., No. 1:13-DP-20140-JJH (N.D. Ohio Sept. 30, 2019)
    09/30/2019

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to vacate arbitration award relating to fees allegedly payable under an attorney representation agreement.  Court held that the arbitration proceeding in which the award was rendered did not comply with the arbitral procedures agreed between the parties in the operative agreement to arbitrate.

  • Galvez v. Jet Smarter, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-10311-VSB (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2019)
    09/30/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stays proceedings pending arbitration in a breach of contract and fraud action relating to a membership agreement for private jet services.  Court held that there was a valid agreement between the parties to arbitrate in the terms and conditions of service which were accepted by the plaintiff at the time he purchased his membership. 

  • Kathan v. Autovest, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-00486-TC (D. Utah Sept. 30, 2019)
    09/30/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in connection with a claim alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  Court held that the defendant had not waived its right to compel arbitration by previously filing a debt collection action in state court.

  • Lotsoff v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 3:18-CV-02033-AJB (S.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2019)
    09/30/2019

    Court denied defendant Wells Fargo’s motion to compel arbitration of claims relating to Wells Fargo’s practice of charging overdraft fees on checking accounts.  Court held that the arbitration agreement at issue was invalid and unenforceable because it precluded the plaintiffs’ ability to seek public injunctive relief against Wells Fargo in any forum.

  • Sadler v. General Electric Company, No. 3:17-CV-00328-RGJ (W.D. Ky. Sept. 30, 2019)
    09/30/2019

    Court denied in part and grants in part defendant GE’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that there was insufficient consideration to form a binding agreement to arbitrate holding that there was sufficient consideration because the agreement was an exchange of promises between the parties that bound each party to submit their disputes to arbitration.  Court also found that it had insufficient evidence to find that certain of the plaintiffs consented to the arbitration agreement and ordered the parties to supplement the record with evidence on this issue.

  • Buhannic v. American Arbitration Association (AAA), No. 1:18-CIV-02430-ER (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2019)
    09/27/2019

    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.

  • Gorin v. Vivint Solar Developer LLC, No. 1:19-CV-01207 (D. Md. Sept. 27, 2019)Gorin
    09/27/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay court proceedings in breach of warranty case relating to the design and installation of a residential solar power system.  Court held that the regulations enacted by the Federal Trade Commission requiring parties to enter into non-binding dispute resolution before a warrantor can insist on binding arbitration did not apply to the warranty claims at issue.

  • Imagetec, L.P. v. Lexmark International, Inc., No. 5:18-CV-00011-CHB (E.D. Ky. Sept. 27, 2019)
    09/27/2019

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in dispute regarding software and dealer agreements relating to commercial printing.  Court held than an agreement to arbitrate in a dealer agreement did not fall within the scope of a subsequent software agreement between the parties, which included an integration clause but no arbitration agreement, and that claims falling under the latter agreement were not subject to arbitration.  Court also decided to stay the non-arbitrable claims falling under the software agreement pending arbitration of the claims arising under the dealer agreement.

  • Jackson v. Rushmore Service Center, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-04587-SJF (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2019)
    09/27/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and to stay court action alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in connection with allegedly misleading credit card collection letters.  Court held that an agreement between the parties to arbitrate existed, which was the sole matter in dispute in relation to arbitrability.

  • Aerpio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Quaggin, No. 1:18-CV-00794-SJD-KLL (S.D. Ohio Sept. 26, 2019)
    09/26/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding clear and unmistakable evidence of parties’ intent to delegate gateway arbitrability issues to arbitral tribunal. Court held that carve-out in arbitration provision providing for specific remedies in the event of breach did not create any ambiguity as to the delegation.

  • KG Schifffahrtsgesellschaft MS Pacific Winter MBH & Co. v. Safesea Transport Inc., No. 2:19-CV-04869-CCC-SCM (D.N.J. Sept. 26, 2019)
    09/26/2019

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award, finding that alleged error of law committed by arbitral tribunal’s failure to apply limitation defense, even if established, would not warrant non-confirmation of arbitral award on public policy grounds.

  • Lomeli v. Midland Funding, LLC., No. 5:19-CV-01141-LHK (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2019)
    09/26/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that assignee of rights under credit card agreement was entitled to enforce arbitration provision against plaintiff. Court also held that third-party debt collection agency engaged by assignee was entitled to enforce arbitration provision because of broad language in arbitration provision requiring arbitration of any disputes involving entities “claiming through” the parties to credit card agreement.

  • Fambrough v. Green, No. 4:19-00158-CV-RK (W.D. Mo. Sept. 26, 2019)
    09/26/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that parties had delegated gateway issues concerning the arbitrability of the dispute to the arbitral tribunal, and, therefore, that defendant’s claim that agreement was procured by duress had to be determined by the tribunal.

  • First Student, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 959, No. 3:18-CV-00305-SLG (D. Alaska Sept. 26, 2019)
    09/26/2019

    Court dismissed motion to vacate arbitral award, finding that the timeliness of the award was not a ground for vacatur; that the arbitral tribunal did not exceed the scope of its authority; and that there was no basis to interfere with the merits of the arbitral tribunal’s decision, which was entitled to deference.

  • Hallam v. Southaven R.V. Center, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-220-DMB-RP (N.D. Miss. Sept. 25, 2019)
    09/25/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed court action against non-signatory pending arbitration between signatories to the arbitration provision. Plaintiffs brought action against the seller and the manufacturer of a motor home, but only the seller was a signatory to the arbitration provision in the sale contract with plaintiffs. Court granted motion to compel arbitration between plaintiffs and the seller, and held that it would stay the action against the manufacturer pending arbitration, since the claims both involved the same primary question of fact, namely, whether the motor home had numerous defects.

  • Johnson & Johnson International v. Puerto Rico Hospital Supply, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01405-FAB (D.P.R. Sept. 25, 2019)
    09/25/2019

    Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to vacate an arbitral award and granted defendants’ motion to confirm the award, finding that the arbitral tribunal had not issued the award in manifest disregard of the law. Court found that there was no evidence on the record that the arbitral tribunal ignored the law; to the contrary, the award set forth a well-reasoned and methodical approach to the law and the evidence.

  • Mohazzabi v. Wells Fargo, N.A., No. 2:18-CV-02137-RFB-VCF (D. Nev. Sept. 25, 2019)
    09/25/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that parties had entered into a binding contract to arbitrate, and that the contract was not unconscionable under Nevada law.

  • Park Avenue Life Insurance Company v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, No. 1:19-CV-01089-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2019)
    09/25/2019

    Court denied both parties’ motions to confirm an arbitral award and remanded the arbitral award to the arbitral tribunal for clarification. Parties both moved to confirm arbitral award but each party had a different interpretation of the effect of the award. Court found that ambiguity in the arbitral award “goes to the very heart of the dispute” and was not merely a matter of semantics, therefore the arbitral award had to be remanded to arbitral tribunal.

  • Johnson & Johnson International v. Puerto Rico Hospital Supply, No. 3:17-CV-01405-FAB (D.P.R. Sep. 25, 2019)
    09/25/2019

    Court denied motion to vacate arbitral award, finding that there was no serious error or manifest disregard of law that warranted intervention in the arbitral tribunal’s decision.

  • Al-Qarqani v. Chevron Corporation, No. 4:18-CV-03297-JSW (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2019)
    09/24/2019

    Court granted motion to dismiss petition to confirm a foreign arbitral award, finding that petitioners failed to demonstrate an operative agreement to arbitration between themselves and respondents. Court also held that other independent grounds precluded confirmation of the arbitral award, including: petitioners’ failure to produce an authenticated or certified English copies of the contract or arbitral award; substantial irregularities in the conduct of arbitral proceedings, including the choice of venue and arbitrator selection process; and non-arbitrability of the dispute.

  • SFM LLC v. Best Roast Coffee LLC, No. 2:19-CV-04820-JAT (D. Ariz. Sept. 24, 2019)
    09/24/2019

    Court dismissed motion to compel arbitration, finding that dispute did not fall within arbitration clause in a contract between the parties. Court held that the claims, which concerned trademark infringement, cybersquatting, false endorsement, or false advertising, did not “relate to or arise from the terms of” a Non-Circumvention Agreement that was limited to matters such as trade secrets or the use of business opportunities.

  • Sheinfeld v. BMW Financial Services NA, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-02083-JAD-EJY (D. Nev. Sept. 24, 2019)
    09/24/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the claims-resolution procedure in the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act 15 USC § 2301, which allows consumers to bring warranty claims in respect of certain consumer products, did not prohibit the enforcement of a binding arbitration agreement.

  • Eaton Partners, LLC v. Azimuth Capital Management IV, Ltd., No. 1:18-CV-11112-ER (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2019)
    09/24/2019

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award, finding that arbitrator was not guilty of misconduct by refusing to postpone hearing when respondent’s witness became unavailable, and by refusing to accept additional witness testimony from another of respondent’s witnesses

  • Parker v. Resurgent Capital Services LP, No. 4:19-CV-50-BO (E.D.N.C. Sept. 23, 2019)
    09/23/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff was bound by the arbitration provision in a credit card agreement, notwithstanding that defendant was the assignee of the account and not the original party to the agreement with plaintiff.

  • Cerner Middle East Limited v. iCapital, LLC, No. No. 17-35514 (9th Cir. Sept. 23, 2019) 
    09/23/2019

    Court of appeals reversed district court’s order dismissing the case and refusing to enforce an arbitral award against respondent’s property on the basis that a court had not confirmed that the respondent was within the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction. Subsequent to the district court’s decision, the Paris Court of Appeal, which had jurisdiction over respondent, confirmed that respondent was subject to the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction. Court recognized the Paris Court of Appeal’s decision under the principles of international comity and remanded the case for further proceedings.

  • Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Rahi Corp., No. 8:18-CV-02955-GJH (D. Md. Sept. 23, 2019)
     
    09/23/2019

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award, finding that there was no reason in the record to question the validity of the contract containing the arbitration provision or the conduct of tribunal. 

  • Arredondo v. Southwestern & Pacific Specialty Finance, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-01737-DAD-SKO (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2019) 
    09/23/2019

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff had validly opted out of arbitration provision in a dispute resolution agreement, which superseded a prior dispute resolution agreement that plaintiff had signed two years earlier. 

  • The Monongolia County Coal Company v. United Mine Works of America, No. 1:18-CV-00176-TSK (N.D.W. Va. Sept. 23, 2019)
    09/23/2019

    Court granted motion to vacate arbitral award, finding that the award did not draw its essence from the contract. Recognizing its “extremely limited” role in deciding arbitration disputes, court decided that tribunal’s decision ignored the plain language of the contract it was required to construe, and reached factual conclusions without any evidentiary basis.

  • Customs and Tax Consultancy LLC v. The Democratic Republic of the Congo, No. 1:18-CV-01408-RJL (D.D.C. Sept. 23, 2019)
    09/23/2019

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral awards and enter default judgment against respondent, finding that it had subject matter and personal jurisdiction over respondent, and that petitioner had provided satisfactory evidence for the arbitral awards to be confirmed.

  • Twin Falls NSC, LLC v. Southern Idaho Ambulatory Surgery Center, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-00009-DCN (D. Idaho Sept. 23, 2019)
    09/23/2019

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award and dismissed motion to vacate arbitral award, finding that tribunal had not committed misconduct by refusing to compel production of supplemental discovery, by providing a short briefing schedule for the arbitration, by excluding the evidence from defendant’s expert, or by purportedly not considering pertinent and material evidence. Court also did not accept that tribunal acted in manifest disregard of the law

  • Nandorf, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-05285 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 23, 2019) 
    09/23/2019

    Court converted motion to compel arbitration to a motion to dismiss, and granted motion to dismiss, holding that, while it did not have authority to compel arbitration in a forum outside its district, it had authority to dismiss the complaint if the claims were subject to arbitration. Court found that even though there was a dispute over the enforceability of the arbitration agreement, there was clear and unmistakable evidence of parties’ intent to delegate threshold arbitrability questions to arbitral tribunal.

  • ERISA Funds v. Piccini MNM, Inc, No. 1:18-CV-08202-ALC (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2019)
    09/23/2019

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award, finding that tribunal acted within the scope of its authority, and that there were justifications for each component of the award.

  • Ruiz v. New Avon LLC, No. 1:18-CV-09033-VSB (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2019) 
    09/22/2019

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding that the arbitration agreement signed by an employee was superseded by the terms of a subsequent employment agreement that contained a mandatory forum selection clause requiring all disputes related to plaintiff’s employment to be submitted to the “sole exclusive jurisdiction” of the New York federal or state courts. 

  • Solar Leasing, Inc. v. Hutchinson, No. 3:17-CV-00076-WAL-RM (D.V.I. Sept. 20, 2019) 
    09/20/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of claims related to defendant’s personal guaranty of payments under a licensing agreement.  Court found although the personal guaranty did not contain an arbitration agreement, the parties intended the terms of the lease agreement, including the arbitration provision, to apply to the personal guaranty.  Court further found that the agreement to arbitrate was valid, the plaintiff’s claims were within the scope of the agreement, and the agreement required the parties to submit the dispute informally to nonbinding mediation prior to commencing arbitration.

  • Northeast Natural Energy LLC v. Larson, No. 3:18-CV-240 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 20, 2019)
    09/20/2019

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate arbitral award, finding that arbitral tribunal’s decisions were justified and were not a “manifest disregard for the law.”

  • Hofer v. Emley, No. 3:19-CV-02205-JSC (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2019) 
    09/20/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding that the non-signatory plaintiff was bound by the arbitration agreement as a consequence of equitable estoppel under California law

  • Krohn v. Spectrum Gulf Coast, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-2722-S (N.D. Tex. Sept. 19, 2019)
    09/19/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, holding that an employment contract was validly modified to incorporate an arbitration agreement under Texas law.  Plaintiff had been given notice of contract modification by email, which provided for binding arbitration unless plaintiff opted-out. Plaintiff accepted modification by continuing to work with knowledge of the modified employment terms.

  • Barclays Capital Inc. v. Urquidi, No. 1:15-CV-21850-JEM (11th Cir. Sept. 19, 2019) 
    09/19/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion to vacate an arbitration award forgiving the debt that claimants owed to the respondents.  Court of appeals found that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers, rejecting the argument that the arbitrator ignored the plain language of, or modified impermissibly, the underlying agreements. The panel had given no written reasons for its award, but the court inferred that the panel had agreed with the claimant’s position that respondents’ conduct had rendered the loan notes unenforceable.  The court said that determining whether this decision was legally or factually erroneous was beyond their limited scope of review.

  • Abdil Latif Jameel Transportation Company Limited v. FedEx Corporation, No. 19-5315 (6th Cir. Sept. 19, 2019)
     
    09/19/2019

    Court of appeals reversed and remanded a district court’s denial of an application for discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) for use in a foreign arbitration proceeding.  Petitioner sought discovery for use in two simultaneous arbitration proceedings, one under the rules of the Dubai International Financial Centre-London Court of International Arbitration (DIFC-LCIA), and the other under the rules and laws of Saudi Arabia.  The district court held that neither the Saudi nor the DIFC-LCIA arbitration panel constituted a “foreign or international tribunal” under § 1782(a).  Court of appeals, considered the definition of “tribunal” in dictionaries, legal writing, and other sources and determined that the text, context, and structure of § 1782(a) gave no reason to doubt that the word “tribunal” includes private commercial arbitral panels.  Court of appeals also found that Court of appeals was persuaded that because the Saudi arbitration had been dismissed, the question of discovery under § 1782(a) was moot. 
     

  • Daly v. Citigroup Inc., No. 18-665 (2d Cir. Sept. 19, 2019)
    09/19/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to compel arbitration of whistleblower and gender discrimination claims and to dismiss claims related to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.  Court of appeals agreed with the district court that claims arising under Title VII. the Equal Pay Act, and Dodd-Frank are arbitrable.  Court of appeals noted that while claims related to Sarbanes-Oxley are not arbitrable, they were properly dismissed because the plaintiff had not met the jurisdictional prerequisite of exhausting administrative remedies.

  • Townsend v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-05939-AJN (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2019)
    09/19/2019

    Court denied motion to vacate a FINRA arbitration award.  Court rejected petitioner’s argument that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law by issuing an award when FINRA had failed to properly serve notice on Petitioner, finding that petitioner did ot meet his demanding burden of proof because he introduced no evidence that he was actually unaware of the arbitration against him.  Court also found that the awarding of fees was not improper.

  • Stover v. Valley Rubber, LLC, No. 5:18-CV-01795-LCB (N.D. Ala. Sept. 19, 2019)
     
    09/19/2019

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims related to employee discrimination.  Court found that under Alabama law, an arbitration agreement must be in writing but is not required to be signed.  However, here explicit language in a company policy evidenced that only the General Manager had authority to enter into contracts affecting terms of employment, and any such contract must be signed by the General Manager and employee, and thus the lack of a signature from the General Manager on the arbitration agreement rendered the agreement unenforceable.

  •  Managed Care Advisory Group, LLC, v. Cigna Healthcare, Inc., No. 17-13761 (11th Cir. Sept. 18, 2019)
    09/18/2019

    Court of appeals reversed and remanded district court’s decision to enforce arbitration summonses.  Court of appeals held that 9 U.S.C § 7 (FAA) authorized federal courts to enforce arbitration summonses that required non-parties to present documents and testimony in the physical presence of the arbitrator, where the summons enforced by the district court required the non-parties to appear via video conference from locations across the country while the arbitrator sat in Miami, Florida.

  • Davis v. TMC Restaurant of Charlotte, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-00313-DCK (W.D.N.C. Sept. 18, 2019)
    09/18/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration as to two defendants and denied it as to one defendant.  Court found that because one defendant did not sign an arbitration policy, an agreement to arbitrate was not formed and the court could not compel her to arbitrate labor dispute claims.

  • Valentin v. ADECCO, No. 18-3489 (3d Cir. Sept. 18, 2019)
    09/18/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s granting of a motion to compel arbitration of employment disputes.  Court found that there was a valid agreement and that the dispute related to claims of employee discrimination that fell within the scope of the agreement.

  • The Harrison County Coal Company v. United Mine Workers of America, No. 1:18-CV-00138-TSK (N.D.W.V. Sept. 18, 2019)
    09/18/2019

    Court confirmed an arbitration award made for labor grievances related to the construction of mining equipment.  The court rejected arguments that the award should be vacated because it failed to draw its essence from the agreement because the damages awarded were punitive and not permitted under the agreement, concluding that the damages were compensatory.

  • Accordant Communications, LLC, v. Sayers Construction, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-00401-LY (W.D. Tex. Sept. 18, 2019)
    09/18/2019

    Magistrate judge recommended denying a motion to dismiss a petition for confirmation of an arbitration award, and confirm the award.  Magistrate judge rejected arguments that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction or that the matter was not ripe because at the time confirmation of the award was sought, the arbitrator had only issued a partial award.  Magistrate judge found that the court had diversity jurisdiction and did not rely on the FAA for jurisdiction.  Magistrate judge further found that, here any lack of ripeness had been cured by the arbitrator’s issuance of a final award, but regardless the partial award could be enforced because the arbitrator had reached a final determination on the merits of all the issues relevant to the partial award (having not yet considered the issue of attorney’s fees and costs).

  • Torlay v. Nelligan, No. 3:19-CV-06589-AET-LHG (D.N.J. Sept. 18, 2019
    09/18/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings of claims related to a contract dispute.  Court found that there were two arbitration at issue, and that plaintiff was non-signatories to the first, and defendants were non-signatories to the second but that by applying the theory of equitable estoppel to both agreements, all of plaintiff’s claims could be compelled to arbitration.

  • Masdar Solar & Wind Cooperatief U.A. v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 1:18-CV-02254-JEB (D.D.C. Sept. 18, 2019) 
    09/18/2019

    Court granted petition to stay enforcement of ICSID award pending resolution of ongoing ICSID proceedings to annul the award, holding that considerations of judicial economy and comity favored the stay.  Court noted that the case raised thorny questions concerning a conflict between decades-old treaties and recent European Union case law. 

  • Samsung Electronics America, Inc., v. Ramirez, No. 18-16094 (9th Cir. Sept. 17, 2019)
    09/17/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s refusal to compel arbitration of claims related to severe burns allegedly caused by a mobile phone.  Court found that under California law, the terms and conditions contained in a poorly titled booklet packaged with the phone, and references to the terms and conditions on the phone’s packaging, were insufficient to put a reasonable consumer on notice of the arbitration provision.

  • Velasquez-Reyes v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 17-56556 (9th Cir. Sept. 17, 2019)
    09/17/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s refusal to compel arbitration of claims stemming from Samsung’s alleged false advertising.  Court found that under California law, the terms and conditions contained in a poorly titled booklet packaged with the phone, and references to the terms and conditions on the phone’s packaging, were insufficient to put a reasonable consumer on notice of the arbitration provision. 

  • Katz v. BMW of North America, LLC, No. 4:19-CV-01553-KAW (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2019)
    09/17/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of contract claims connected with a vehicle lease agreement.  Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the defendant did not have standing to enforce agreement and that compelling a buyer to arbitrate claims under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act is unconscionable. Court held that although the defendant was not a signatory to the agreement, it had standing as an affiliate of the Lessor’s assignee, or could enforce the agreement under a theory of equitable estoppel.  Court also held that the requirement to pay to arbitrate some consumer claims does not automatically give rise to substantive unconscionability.

  • Frazier v. Papa John’s USA, Inc., No. 4:19-CV-00892-CDP (E.D. Mo. Sept. 17, 2019)
    09/17/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of claims related to alleged employment discrimination.  Court found that the arbitration agreement expressly delegated all issues of contract formation to the arbitrator, however, because the plaintiff specifically challenged the validity of the delegation clause, the court considered its validity.  Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration agreement and delegation clause were invalid because (1) the agreement was not signed by defendant, (2) plaintiff did not handwrite his signature, and (3) the plaintiff had no recollection of signing the provision.  Court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that the agreement was an illusory promise because the defendant retained the right to unilaterally modify the terms by giving thirty days’ notice.  Court held, following Missouri Supreme Court precedent, that as long as the delegation clause standing alone is valid, the arbitrator should be allowed to determine whether the clause contains illusory provisions.

  • Krause v. Expedia Group, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-00123-BJR (W.D. Wash. Sept. 17, 2019)
    09/17/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings of wage dispute claims arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that an indemnification provision that allowed defendant to collect attorney’s fees from plaintiff even if plaintiff was victorious rendered the agreement unconscionable. Court found that this question was delegated to the arbitrator by the terms of the agreement.  Court also found that defendants could enforce the arbitration provision as third-party beneficiaries, rejecting plaintiff’s argument that defendants could not enforce the arbitration agreement as non-signatories.

  • 1199 SEIU united Healthcare Workers East v. Alaris Health Hamilton Park, No. 18-2898 (2d Cir. Sept. 17, 2019)
    09/17/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to confirm an arbitration award rendered in a dispute related to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA).  Court rejected defendants’ arguments that the award violated public policy and that the arbitrator did not draw its essence from the CBA.

  • In re HomeAdvisor Inc. Litigation, No. 1:16-CV-01849-PAB-KLM (D. Colo. Sept. 17, 2019)
    09/17/2019

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court rejected defendant’s argument that the plaintiffs had manifested assent to arbitration of disputes related to an independent contractor agreement when they verbally manifested assent to the contract over the phone, or through their continued employment.  Court found that plaintiffs were not given reasonable notice of the terms of the agreement over the phone at the time of contract formation and the materials sent to them subsequently did not detail the terms and conditions or mention the arbitration clause.

  • Bayless Engineering, Inc., v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc., No. 18-55249 (9th Cir. Sept. 16, 2019)
    09/16/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of a motion to vacate an arbitration award.  Court found that district court correctly held that the arbitrator had not exceeded his powers, finding that there was nothing in the record to establish that the arbitrator had correctly stated the law but intentionally disregarded it. Court also found that the law petitioner claimed was disregarded was not, according to the court, well defined and clearly applicable at the time of the award. 

  • Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc., v. Barker Management, Inc., No. 17-56856 (9th Cir. Sept. 16, 2019)
    09/16/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of a motion to vacate an arbitration award.  Court found that district court correctly held that the arbitrator had not exceeded his powers, finding that there was nothing in the record to establish that the arbitrator had correctly stated the law but intentionally disregarded it.  Court also found that the law petitioner claimed was disregarded was not, according to the court, well defined and clearly applicable at the time of the award. 

  • Hanberry v. First Premier Bank, No. 2:19-CV-10235-KWR (E.D. La. Sept. 16, 2019)
    09/16/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceeding of a pro se dispute under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).  Court held that the FAA governed the dispute and that threshold questions of arbitrability had not been unmistakably delegated to the arbitrator.  The court followed 5th Circuit precedent and found that plaintiff’s FCRA claims “touch[ed] matters” covered by the credit card contracts containing the arbitration agreements, and the disputes were sufficiently within the scope of the agreement to enforce arbitration.

  • Rock Roofing, LLC, v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America., No. 2:18-CV-01193-RB-GBW (D.N.M. Sept. 16, 2019)
    09/16/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of a contract dispute.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the defendant was not a party to the subcontract containing the arbitration provision, finding that a non-signatory could compel arbitration under the theory of equitable estoppel because the plaintiff relied on the terms of the agreement in making its claim against the non-signatory defendant.

  • Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. S&S Kings Corp., No. 1:19-CV-01052-RA (S.D.N.Y Sept. 16, 2019)
    09/16/2019

    Court granted an unopposed petition to confirm an arbitration award made in a labor dispute.  Court found that there was no material issue of fact in dispute to preclude enforcing the arbitration award.

  • Pimental v. Ricotta & Marks, P.C., No. 1:19-CV-07437-CM (S.D.N.Y Sept. 13, 2019)
    09/13/2019

    Court declined to enforce an arbitration award for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Court held that the FAA did not provide independent means for jurisdiction and that New York courts “look through” to the underlying claims in the arbitration.  Here those claims were based on state law and did not provide federal jurisdiction. 

  • Loewen v. John McDonnell, III, No. 4:19-CV-07437-CM (S.D.N.Y Sept. 13, 2019)
    09/13/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings.  Court found that by incorporating arbitration rules in their agreement that stated the tribunal “may rule on its own jurisdiction” the parties had given clear and unmistakable evidence of their intent to delegate gateway issues to the arbitrator.

  • MED TRUST Handelsges.m.b.H. v. Intrinsyk Medical Devices, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-00220-AJ (D.N.H. Sept. 13, 2019) 
    09/13/2019

    Court recommended district judge grant plaintiff’s motion for default judgment in relation to enforcement of an arbitral award issued by the Vienna International Arbitral Center.

  • Inversiones y Procesadora Tropical Inprosta, S.A., No. 18-14807 (11th Cir. Sept. 5, 2019)
    09/05/2019

    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.

  • EPRO Services, Inc., v. Regenesis Bioremediation Products, No. 6:19-CV-01220-EFM-KGG (D. Kan. Sept. 4, 2019)
    09/04/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and rejected plaintiff’s argument that the court should retain jurisdiction over requests for preliminary injunctive relief—pending arbitration.  Court found that because it had already dissolved plaintiff’s prior temporary restraining order, it saw no reason to grant a subsequent request for preliminary injunctive relief.  Court thus compelled arbitration of all claims and stayed further proceedings.

  • Esso Exploration and Production Nigeria Limited v. Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, No. 1:14-CV-08445-WHP (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2019)
    09/04/2019

    Court denied petition to confirm a Nigerian arbitration award under the New York Convention, when the award was set aside in a Nigerian court.  Court also found that it had personal jurisdiction over respondent because respondent was an alter ego of Nigeria; the two shared property and Nigeria controlled respondent’s day-to-day operations. 

  • Maravilla v. Gruma Corporation, No. 18-20570 (5th Cir. Sept. 4, 2019)
    09/04/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order compelling arbitration, finding that the parties’ incorporation of the JAMS rules showed clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to arbitrate the issue of arbitrability.  Court found that defendant’s unconscionability argument was inapplicable when it encompassed the contract as a whole, rather than the arbitration agreement itself or the delegation clause therein.

  • Luster-Malone v. Cook County, Illinois, No. 18-3544 (7th Cir. Sept. 3, 2019)
    09/03/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s claims, finding that plaintiff’s claims were foreclosed by a prior arbitration decision and that her request for arbitration was untimely.

  • Nager v. Tesla Motors, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-02382-JAR-JPO (D. Kan. Sept. 3, 2019)
    09/03/2019

    Court reserved judgment on defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, pending evidence produced by the parties at a hearing or trial on the issue of whether plaintiffs agreed to the arbitration agreement.

  • Chevron Mining Inc., et al. v. Skanska USA Civ. W. Rocky Mountain Dist., Inc., No. 3:19-CV-04144-LB (N.D. Cal. Sept. 3. 2019)
    09/03/2019

    Court denied plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction compelling the production of the pleadings, transcripts, and reports from a related arbitration as moot, granting plaintiff’s motion for expedited discovery instead. 

  • Swanson v. Wilford, Gesk, & Cook, No. 19-CV-117-DWF-LIB (D. Minn. August 30, 2019) 
    08/30/2019

    District court granted defendants’ motion to vacate arbitration award, finding that plaintiff failed to discharge his burden to demonstrate the existence of any valid arbitration agreement with defendants.

  • Floyd v. Kelly Services, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-02247-K (N.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 2019)
    08/30/2019

    Magistrate judge recommended dismissal of plaintiff’s putative class claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and recommended that plaintiff be compelled to arbitrate her claims on an individual basis.  Magistrate judge rejected plaintiff’s argument that she never assented to the arbitration clause, finding that under Texas law the act of starting work indicated acceptance of the employment terms and thus there was a valid agreement to arbitrate.  Magistrate judge further found that the agreement contained a valid delegation clause and any threshold questions of arbitrability should be delegated to the arbitrator, thus she recommended dismissal of the case.

  • Brownlee v. Jacob, No. 4:19-CV-00208-JM (E.D. Ark. Aug. 26, 2019)
    08/26/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and strike plaintiff’s class allegations, finding that defendants as assignees had the right to enforce the arbitration provision.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the Supreme Court’s decision in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela precludes assignment of the right to arbitrate.

  • Gulf Haulage Heavy Lift Co. v. Swanberg International Ltd., No. 4:18-CV-04392 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2019)
    08/26/2019

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to enforce and denied respondent’s motion to vacate arbitration award rendered in Saudi Arabia pursuant to the New York Convention.  Court rejected respondent’s argument that enforcement would violate public policy because one of the arbitrators was not impartial and it, therefore, was unable to present its case, finding that vacatur under an argument of “evident partiality” is not a ground for vacatur specified in the New York Convention.  Further, court rejected respondent’s argument that the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties because the plain language of the agreement allowed for a panel of arbitrators and stated that Arabic was the official language of the arbitration.

  • Ionescu v. Extra Space Storage Inc., No. 4:19-CV-02226-YGR (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2019)
    08/23/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding that California law did not preclude arbitration of claims for injunctive relief when the arbitration provision expressly contemplated claims from the California statute providing for such relief.

  • LLC Energoalliance v. Republic of Moldova, No. 1:14-CV-01921 (D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2019)
    08/23/2019

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award, finding that foreign-sovereign respondent did not meet its substantial burden of resisting confirmation under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT).  Court rejected respondent’s argument that there was no valid agreement to arbitrate when the claims arbitrated allegedly were not contemplated by the arbitration agreement—finding that respondent’s argument did not go to jurisdiction.  Court also rejected two of respondent’s defenses under the New York Convention, finding that there was adequate due process and that the claims arbitrated fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • Pro Drive Outboards, LLC v. Cruzani, Inc., No. 6:18-CV-01241-MJJ-CBW (W.D.La. Aug. 23, 2019)
    08/23/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to transfer venue from the District Court for the Western District of Louisiana to the District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, finding that no public interest factors outweighed an arbitration clause’s mandate that all claims would be arbitrated in Oklahoma.

  • L2 Wireless, LLC v. Sprint Solutions, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-02729-K (N.D. Tex. Aug. 22, 2019)
    08/22/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the case pursuant to the FAA.  Court found that the arbitral agreement was valid and was not unconscionable.  Court concluded plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the agreement and that the determination of whether the contract’s limits on liability and damages were enforceable was a question for the arbitrator.

  • Lovelace v. Showroom Auto, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-04978-ERK-CLP (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2019)
    08/22/2019

    Court granted motion for attorneys’ fees and costs for a proceeding to confirm or vacate an arbitral award.  Although confirmation proceedings are summary in nature, the court concluded they still qualified as an “action” capable of an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.

  • Ayeni-Aarons v. Best Buy Credit Services/CBNA, No. 2:18-CV-01625-MCE-KJN (E.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2019)
    08/21/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration finding the arbitral provision in the credit card agreement fell within the scope of the FAA because it involved interstate commerce.  Court found a valid arbitral agreement existed and decided the determination of whether plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the agreement was for the arbitrator.

  •  Jia v. Nerium International, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-03057-S (N.D. Tex. Aug. 21, 2019) 
    08/21/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to reopen the case and clarify the prior order, explaining that the order compelled arbitration on an individual, not collective, basis.  Court denied as moot defendants’ motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction staying the class arbitration.

  • Scaba v. Jetsmarter, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-17262-MAS-DEA (D.N.J. Aug. 21, 2019) 
    08/21/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed the matter pending completion of arbitration.  Applying the FAA and Florida law, the court determined the clickwrap arbitral agreement was valid and that the issue of arbitrability should be submitted to the arbitrator.  Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a prejudgment writ of attachment on defendant’s assets, finding that it was unable to determine the likelihood of plaintiffs’ success at the early stage in the proceedings or conclude that any attachable assets existed in the jurisdiction.

  • Compere v. Nusret Miami, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-20277-KMM (S.D. Fla. Aug. 20, 2019) 
    08/20/2019

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motions to compel AAA arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court found there was no valid arbitral agreement for several of the plaintiffs as defendants failed to produce evidence of acceptance of an arbitral agreement.  Court held a valid arbitral agreement did exist for one of the plaintiffs and that defendants had not waived their right to arbitrate by participating in litigation and submitted the claims to the tribunal to determine the arbitrability pursuant to the delegation clause.

  • Dorman v. The Charles Schwab Corporation, No. 18-15281 (9th Cir. Aug. 20, 2019) 
    08/20/2019

    Court of appeals reversed district court’s opinion, finding plaintiff’s ERISA claims were subject to mandatory individual arbitration.  Court of appeals found the arbitral agreement was enforceable as it did not violate the National Labor Relations Act and determined that the absence of an agreement to collective arbitration meant the claims must be arbitrated on an individual basis.

  • Tessemae’s LLC v. Atlantis Capital LLC, No. 1:18-CV-04902-KHP (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2019) 
    08/20/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration as to certain claims and granted defendants’ motion to stay pending arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court found there was a valid arbitral agreement that was not procedurally or substantively unconscionable; however, it concluded the scope of the agreement only covered some of the claims in the action.

  • Altamirano v. Bodega Latina Corporation, No. 2:19-CV-01660-JJT (D. Ariz. Aug. 20, 2019)
    08/20/2019

    Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court found there was a valid agreement to arbitrate and the plaintiff’s claims of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) fell within the scope of the agreement.

  • PPS Service Group, LLC v. Eckert, No. 1:18-CV-00727-MRB-SKB (S.D. Ohio Aug. 20, 2019)
    08/20/2019

    Magistrate judge recommended the denial of the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court found that the defendant had waived its right to arbitration by participating substantially in the litigation, by filing numerous pre-trial motions, participating in discovery, and moving for summary judgment without asserting a right to arbitration.

  • Waithaka v. Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Logistics, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-40150-TSH (D. Mass. Aug. 20, 2019)
    08/20/2019

    Court denied the defendants’ motion to move to compel arbitration.  Concluding that the plaintiff fell within the transportation worker exemption to the FAA, the court applied Massachusetts state law and held that the arbitral agreement was unenforceable because state public policy prohibited class action waivers in arbitral agreements.  Court granted the defendants’ motion to transfer to the Western District of Washington pursuant to the first-to-file rule.

  • Gupta v. Morgan Stanley, No. 18-3584 (7th Cir. Aug. 19, 2019)
    08/19/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s grant of motion to compel arbitration.  Pursuant to the FAA and Illinois contract law, the court of appeals held that the parties’ conduct indicated mutual assent to mandatory arbitration where the employee had not signed the arbitral agreement, finding the employee’s silence and continued employment constituted acceptance of when he had been given reasonable opportunity to opt-out and was instructed that silence and continued employment would reflect acceptance.  Court of appeals concluded that the employee’s claims for discrimination, retaliation, and defamation fell within the scope of the arbitral agreement.

  • Mobile Now, Inc. v. Sprint Corporation, No. 1:19-CV-00918-JDB (D.D.C. Aug. 19, 2019)
    08/19/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate under the FAA and D.C. law.  Court held that the plaintiff was not fraudulently induced to enter into the arbitral agreement and that there was no procedural or substantive unconscionability.

  • Williams v. Cavalry SPV I LLC, No. 1:18-CV-01479-CAB (N.D. Ohio Aug. 19, 2019)
    08/19/2019

    Court denied the defendants’ motions to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court found that the defendants failed to bear their burden of proving that the contractual terms binding the plaintiff to an arbitral agreement had been assigned to them and therefore, were not entitled to enforce the arbitration agreement against the plaintiff.

  • Archer and White Sales, Inc. v. Henry Schein, Inc., No. 16-41674 (5th Cir. Aug. 14, 2019)
    08/14/2019

    Court of appeals had previously affirmed the district court decision to dismiss a motion to compel arbitration on the grounds that it was unnecessary for the court to determine whether the issue of arbitrability had been delegated to the arbitrator because the assertion of arbitrability was “wholly groundless” because there was no plausible argument that the arbitration clause applied to an action for incentive relief.  The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the “wholly groundless” exception was contrary to the FAA. Here, on remand, the court of appeals considered the question of whether the question of arbitrability had been delegated to the arbitrator. Court of appeals, reviewing de novo, found that there was a valid arbitration agreement between the parties.  However the court of appeals rejected the argument that incorporation of the AAA rules into the arbitration provision manifested the parties assent to a delegate questions of arbitrability of claims seeking injunctive relieve to the arbitrators.  Court held that because the arbitration agreement specifically carved out actions seeking injunctive relief, there was not “clear and unmistakable” evidence that the parties delegated the question of arbitrability for claims seeking injunctive relief.

  • August Resource Funding, Inc., v. Procorp, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-01011-JDP (W.D. Wis. Aug. 09, 2019)
    08/09/2019

    Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration of breach of contract claims.  Court found that the parties had executed a valid arbitration provision, but that they subsequently executed agreements which contradicted the arbitration provision through their forum selection clauses which stated that any action related to the documents “must be litigated in courts within the State of Wisconsin.”  Thus, court found the arbitration provision had been supplanted and could not be enforced.

  • Townsend v. Stand Up Management Inc., No. 1:18-CV-02884-CAB (N.D. Ohio Aug. 8, 2019)
    08/08/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss a purported class action related to wage dispute claims.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that because his employer was not named on the arbitration agreement the agreement could not be enforced finding that there was no dispute as to who plaintiff’s employer had been.  Court further rejected plaintiff’s argument that arbitration should not be compelled because not every employee in the class signed an arbitration agreement, finding that plaintiffs in the class were estopped from pursuing collective claims that were subject to arbitration for some class members.  Court also found that through the arbitration agreements plaintiffs had waived their rights to trail by a jury, and to collective resolution of their dispute.

  • Young v. Exeter Finance Corp., No. 3:19-CV-00636 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 8, 2019)
    08/08/2019

    Magistrate judge recommended that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of pro se civil claims be granted.  Magistrate judge found that arbitration should be compelled pursuant to the FAA, rejecting plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration agreement should not be enforced because the contracts at issue were either assigned or breached.

  • Transworld Medical Devices LLC, v. The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, No. 3:18-CV-00580-KDB-DSC (W.D.N.C. Aug. 8, 2019)
    08/08/2019

    Magistrate judge recommended granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and tortious interference claims related to a licensing agreement.  Magistrate judge found that all of plaintiff’s claims arose from or related to the parties licensing agreement and were therefore subject to the broad arbitration agreement therein.

  • Maldonado, v. SecTek, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-00693-MMB (E.D. Penn. Aug. 8, 2019)
    08/08/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of claims related to employment discrimination.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that arbitration could not be compelled because plaintiff was no longer an employee, subject to the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) containing the arbitration provision.  Court found that the question of whether plaintiff was an “employee” as defined in the CBA and therefor subject to the arbitration provision was for the arbitrator to decide.  Court also compelled arbitration of plaintiff’s federal statutory claims finding that the language in the CBA clearly and unmistakably waived plaintiff’s rights to litigate ADA and PHRA claims in federal court.

  • Infrastructure Servs. Luxembourg S.A.R.L. v. Kingdom of Spain, No. 1:18-CV-01753-EGS (D.D.C. Aug. 8, 2019) 
    08/08/2019

    Court granted respondent’s motion to stay proceedings in a suit to enforce an arbitral award while the ICSID decided whether to annul the award. Court reasoned that enforcing an award that may later be annulled would not serve interests in efficiency and would result in hardship to the respondent. 

  • Nygaard v. Property Damage Appraisers, Inc., No. 18-15055 (9th Cir. Aug. 7, 2019)
    08/07/2019

    9th Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration. Court found that it was bound by former precedent set by the California Court of Appeals in Winter v. Windows Fashions Professionals to find that a lack of meeting of the minds with respect to the venue selection clause for the arbitration rendered the agreement unenforceable.  Judge Smith dissented, arguing that a lack of assent about where to arbitrate should not preclude the court from compelling arbitration, and that this rule should be preempted by the FAA.

  • 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.

  • Taboada A. v. AmFirst Insurance Co., No. 3:18-CV-00883-TSL-RHW (S.D. Miss. Aug. 6, 2019)
    08/06/2019

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration of claims related to an insurance policy.  Defendant argued that another entity had assumed the insurance policy with the arbitration agreement and it was no longer enforceable against the defendant.  Court found this argument went to the validity of the contract as a whole, not specifically to the arbitration clause, and thus should be decided by the arbitrator.  Court also refused to direct AAA to administer the arbitration when it had declined, deciding to appoint an arbitrator to administer under the AAA rules agreed to in the arbitration agreement.

  • Gravestone Entertainment LLC v. Maxim Media Marketing Inc., No. 2:19-CV-03385-GMS (D. Ariz. Aug. 6, 2019)
    08/06/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration of claims that defendant violated plaintiff’s copyright by continuing to distribute two horror films after the termination of their licensing agreement.  Court found these claims sufficiently connected to the licensing agreement to fall within the scope of the agreement’s arbitration provision, and further found that the arbitration provision survived the termination of the agreement.

  • 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.

  • Nasrabadi v. Kameli, No. 1:18-CV-08514 (N.D. Ill. Aug 6, 2019)
    08/06/2019

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty claims.  Court rejected defendant’s argument that he could compel arbitration as an “affiliate” of a fund whose operating agreement contained an arbitration provision.  Court held that plaintiff’s claims were based on an attorney-client relationship with defendant distinct from plaintiff’s contractual relationship with the fund.

  • Chen v. Sierra Trading Post, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-01581-RAJ (W.D. Wash. Aug. 6, 2019)
    08/06/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration of a dispute related to an online purchase, finding that an agreement existed and encompassed the parties’ dispute.  Court rejected the argument that the terms containing the arbitration agreement were too inconspicuously placed, finding that the website employed a modified clickwrap agreement that gave plaintiff constructive notice of the terms of service and required an affirmative action to demonstrate assent.

  • 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.

  • 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.   

  • Big Squid, Inc. v. Domo Inc., No. 2:19-CV-00193-EJF (D. Utah Aug. 5, 2019)
    08/05/2019

    Court denied defendants motion to compel arbitration of certain claims arising out of a software publisher agreement.  Court found that the broad arbitration clause required it to compel arbitration of all disputes connected to the action.  The defendant, however, conditionally waived its right to arbitration in the event the court reached such a conclusion, therefore the court denied the motion to compel.

  • Wise v. Maximus Federal Services, Inc., No. 18-CV-07454-LHK (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2019)
    08/05/2019

    Court granted a defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss certain ERISA related cross-claims.  Court rejected the argument that an ERISA claim was not arbitrable, finding that a valid arbitration agreement existed and the FAA required it to compel arbitration.

  • 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.”

  • Iliev v. Elavon, Inc., No. 18-CV-08208-MFK (N.D. Ill. July 31, 2019)
    07/31/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motions to compel arbitration.  Court rejected one defendant’s contention that plaintiff was estopped from pursuing claims in court because these claims were tied to claims against the other defendant that were subject to arbitration.  The court stated that estoppel was a matter of state law, and that the defendant had not provided cited any Illinois precedent.  The court, however, found that the claims against both defendants were subject to separate arbitration agreements, and thus granted the motion as to all claims. 

  • Caporicci U.S.A. Corp. v. Prada S.p.A., No. 18-CV-20859-CMA (S.D. Fla. July 30, 2019)
    07/30/2019

    Court granted defendant’s petition for confirmation and enforcement of the foreign arbitral award under the New York Convention.  Court denied plaintiff’s motion to stay confirmation pending the outcome of its claims against other defendants not raised in the arbitration, because the court had previously ordered that plaintiff submit all those claims to the arbitration.

  • Clemons v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-16883-NLH-AMD (D.N.J. July 25, 2019)
    07/25/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that defendant was assigned the right to enforce the arbitration agreement.  Court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that defendant could not invoke the arbitration agreement because the agreement did not explicitly mention assignees.

  • King Torres v. Air Resources Americas, LLC., No. 19-CV-00526 (S.D. Tex. July 25, 2019)
    07/25/2019

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration in a labor dispute.  Court found that there were a valid and enforceable arbitration agreements between certain of the plaintiffs and the defendants, whereas the agreements between the others were illusory because they were not supported by consideration.

  • I3 Triple Crown Holdings, LLC v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC, No. 5:19-CV-00057-JMH (E.D. Ky. July 24, 2019)
    07/24/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss or compel arbitration, holding that an arbitration agreement was not unconscionable when it incorporated pages of the contract that were not provided to plaintiff.  Court additionally rejected plaintiff’s argument that the agreement was unconscionable because it was offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

  • Newirth v. Aegis Senior Communities, LLC, No. 17-17227 (9th Cir. July 24, 2019)
    07/24/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court order finding that defendant-appellant waived its right to arbitrate.  Court found that defendant-appellant waived its right to arbitrate when it (1) significantly engaged in the discovery process and (2) filed a motion to compel arbitration more than a year after withdrawing a prior motion to compel arbitration.

  • Core v. Lighthouse Ins. Group, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-01186-DAP (N.D. Ohio July 23, 2019)
    07/23/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that an arbitration agreement was not unconscionable when it included a cost-splitting provision. Court additionally found that dismissal of plaintiff’s claims without prejudice was most appropriate when all of plaintiffs’ claims were submitted to arbitration.

  • 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.

  • Blevins v. Teletech Holdings, Inc., No. 6:19-CV-03121-DPR (W.D. Mo. July 22, 2019)
    07/22/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel individual arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable when there was an inequality in bargaining power.  Court also found that the issue of arbitrability was explicitly delegated to the arbitrator.

  • 20/20 Communications, Inc. v. Crawford, No. 18-10260 (5th Cir. July 22, 2019)
    07/22/2019

    Court of appeals remanded the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint, finding that, absent clear and unmistakable language to the contrary, the availability of class arbitration is a gateway issue for courts to decide rather than arbitrators.  Court found that the parties did not provide clear and unmistakable language authorizing arbitrators to order class arbitration, where the arbitration agreement specifically prohibited arbitrators from “fashion[ing] a proceeding as a class or collective action.”

  • 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.

  • Miller Legal, LLP v. Miller, No. 1:18-CV-01007-RC (D.D.C. July 19, 2019)
    07/19/2019

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff waived its right to arbitrate when it engaged in litigation activity for seven months and failed to invoke the right to arbitrate until defendants filed counterclaims.

  • Maher v. Northland Group, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-02957-KM-JBC (D.N.J. July 19, 2019)
    07/19/2019

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendant waived the right to arbitrate by nearly two years of litigation conduct before state courts.

  • United States of America, for the use and benefit of Simpson Unlimited, Inc. v. The Whiting-Turner Contracting Co., No. 1:19-CV-01400-SAG (D. Md. July 18, 2019)
    07/18/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to stay proceedings.  Court held it would grant discretionary stay even if the claims, with respect to one of the parties, were not referable to arbitration after weighing the competing interests presented, considerations of judicial economy, efficient use of the parties’ time, effort, and resources, and the lack of prejudice to the non-moving party.

  • 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.

  • Smiley v. American Family Care, Inc. No. 3:18-CV-00994 (M.D. Tenn. July 18, 2019)
    07/18/2019

    Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, but stayed the proceedings pending arbitration.  Court found the underlying agreement was not a contract of adhesion and that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable.  Court further held that although the arbitration agreement was enforceable, it lacked jurisdiction to compel arbitration because court is located outside of the district in which the arbitration took place.

  • 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.

  • Yorke v. TSE Group LLC, No. 1:18-CV-05268-JMF (S.D.N.Y. July 17, 2019)
    07/17/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration clause in an employee handbook.  Court held defendants made a prima facie showing that plaintiff agreed to arbitrate his claims by submitting a signed agreement containing an arbitration clause and plaintiff offered no evidence to challenge the making of that agreement.

  • Shift4 Payments, LLC v. Smith, No. 5:19-CV-00330-JFL (E.D. Pa. July 17, 2019)
    07/17/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that all of the claims brought by plaintiff were subject to a valid arbitration agreement.  Court further held that although one of the defendants was a non-signatory to the underlying contract he could compel arbitration under traditional agency theories.

  • Petrie v. Gosmith, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-01528-CMA-MEH (D. Colo. July 17, 2019)
    07/17/2019

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to reconsider an order granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held an arbitration existed and that plaintiff assented to it.  Court also found that reconsideration of the original order was not justified because it did not create manifest injustice.

  • Kraseman v. Scholastic Incorporated, No. 3:18-CV-08313-DWL (D. Ariz. July 17, 2019)
    07/17/2019

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, finding that it could not conclude at that point in the litigation that plaintiffs were required to arbitrate their disputes under agency or third-party beneficiary theories.

  • Erdheim v. Harris, No. 1:18-CV-08601-LGS (S.D.N.Y. July 17, 2019)
    07/17/2019

    Court dismissed plaintiff’s motion to confirm in part and modify in part an arbitration award regarding a disputed contract assignment.  Court found it did not have jurisdiction.

  • Perales v. SFM, LLC, No. 4:18-CV-02224 (S.D. Tex. July 16, 2019)
    07/16/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that the parties’ arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable.

  • CBF Indústria de Gusa S/A v. AMCI Holdings, Inc.  No. 1:13-CV-02581-PKC-JLC (S.D.N.Y. July 16, 2019)
    07/16/2019

    Court confirmed order of attachment in aid of arbitration for the plaintiff.  It secured an amount of $48,413,462.00 considering it was probable that plaintiff would succeed on the merits of its claims.

  • American Family Life Assurance Company of New York v. Baker, No. 18-1960 (2d Cir. July 16, 2019)
    07/16/2019

    Court of appeals vacated district court’s decision granting petition to compel arbitration.  Court found the record needed further development regarding the unconscionability issue and that this argument would be better addressed by the district court in the first instance. 

  • Allen v. W&T Offshore, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-00305 (S.D. Tex. July 16, 2019)
    07/16/2019

    Court adopted the memorandum and opinion of the magistrate judge granting defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss or abate. 

  • Shockley v. PrimeLendinc, a PlainsCapital Company, No. 18-1235 (8th Cir. July 15, 2019)
    07/15/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision denying defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that the parties never entered into a contract relating to arbitration or a delegation provision.

  • 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.

  • Moore v. Seven Seas Cruises S. De R.I., LLC, No. 1:19-CV-22085-FAM (S.D. Fla. July 15, 2019)
    07/15/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and to compel arbitration, holding there was a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement.

  • Koons v. Jetsmarter, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-16723-MAS-DEA (D.N.J. July 15, 2019)
    07/15/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration in part staying the matter pending completion of arbitration pursuant to Section 3 of the FAA.  Court found the arbitration provision was valid and that the scope of the arbitration agreement was an issue for arbitrator’s review pursuant to a delegation of arbitrability provision.

  • 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.

  • Davimos v. Jetsmarter, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-15144-MAS-DEA (D.N.J. July 15, 2019)
    07/15/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration in part staying the matter pending completion of arbitration pursuant to § 3 of the FAA.  Court found the arbitration provision was valid and that the scope of the arbitration agreement was an issue for arbitrator’s review pursuant to a delegation of arbitrability provision.

  • Compagnie des Grands Hotels d’Afrique S.A. v. Starman Hotel Holdings LLC, No. 1:18-CV-00654-RGA-SRF (D. Del. July 15, 2019)
    07/15/2019

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for issuance of a letter of request in aid of arbitration and denied defendant’s proposed alterations.  Court considered that plaintiff made a reasonable showing that the evidence sought could be material or lead to the discovery of material regarding an alter ego theory at issue in enforcement proceedings related to an arbitration award.

  • Cetera Advisor Networks LLC v. Protective Property 7 Casualty Insurance Company, No. 2:19-CV-00299-JAM-EFB (E.D. Cal. July 15, 2019)
    07/15/2019

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration of counterclaims.  Court took note that both parties agreed the counterclaims fell within the scope of the arbitration provision and considered plaintiff did not waive the right to arbitrate counterclaims. 

  • BJ’s Electric, Inc., v. The Cherokee 8A Group, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-01383-SMD-EPD (S.D. Ohio July 15, 2019)
    07/15/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to stay pending arbitration and dismissed one of the defendant’s from the proceedings because all of the claims against this defendant would be addressed by arbitration.  Court further held there was no basis for refusing to enforce an arbitration agreement under the FAA based on inconvenience.

  • Taylor v. Rothschild, No. C18-5863-BHS (W.D. Wash. July 12, 2019)
    07/12/2019

    Court granted defendants’ second motion to compel arbitration finding the claims were within the scope of the arbitration agreement and that the agreement was valid, irrevocable and enforceable. 

  • Orn v. Alltran Financial, L.P., No. 18-3802 (3d Cir. July 12, 2019)
    07/12/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order denying defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court found there were no factual basis for defendant to invoke the theories of agent or third-party beneficiary to enforce the arbitration agreement as a non-signatory.

  • Andre v. Mattress Firm, No. 7:18-CV-08244-VB (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2019)
    07/12/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending arbitration.  Court held that a valid arbitration agreement existed disagreeing with the four theories raised by plaintiff, namely (i) lack of knowing consent; (ii) duress; (iii) unconscionability; and (iv) unilateral mistake induced by fraud.

  • A.C. Dellovade, Inc. v. Walsh Federal/Alberici Joint Venture, No. 5:19-CV-00163-C (W.D. Okla. July 3, 2019) 
    07/03/2019

    Court granted motion to stay litigation pending arbitration, concluding that the contract did not lack consideration so the agreement was not illusory and the arbitral agreement was neither manifestly unfair nor unconscionable.

  • Cunico Corporation v. Custom Alloy Corporation, No. 18-55047 (9th Cir. July 3, 2019)
     
    07/03/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order compelling arbitration and dismissing the complaint.  Pursuant to the FAA, court found a valid arbitral agreement, the agreement was neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable, and appellee did not waive its right to arbitrate by removing to federal court before filing its motion to compel arbitration.

  • Hubbard v. Comcast Corporation, No. 1:18-CV-16090-RBK-KMW (D.N.J. July 3, 2019)
     
    07/03/2019

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration without prejudice, finding that the complaint lacked the necessary clarity to establish that the parties had a valid agreement to arbitrate.  Court concluded that after limited discovery on whether a valid arbitration agreement existed, it would entertain a renewed motion to compel arbitration.
     

  • 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.

  • Abdullayeva v. Attending Homecare Services LLC, No. 18-0651 (2d Cir. July 2, 2019) 
    07/02/2019

    Court of appeals reversed the district court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that the district court erred in applying the clear and unmistakable standard to determine whether an arbitration agreement existed.  It concluded that the arbitral clause in the collective bargaining agreement mandated arbitration, plaintiff-appellee’s claims fell within the scope of the agreement, and the selection of the arbitrator did not deny due process to defendant-appellant’s employees.

  • 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.

  • Rollins v. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, No. 1:18-CV-07162-ER (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 2019)
    07/02/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate under both the laws of New York and the United Kingdom and plaintiff’s Securities Exchange Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and state law claims of fraudulent inducement and defamation fell within the scope of the agreement.

  • 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.  

  • Wilson v. Starbucks Corporation, No. 5:19-CV-00087-JMH (E.D. Ky. July 2, 2019) 
    07/02/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement was enforceable under Kentucky law as a recently enacted statutory provision retroactively permitted employers to require employees to agree to mandatory arbitration as a condition of future or continued employment.

  •  Maro v. Commuter Advertising, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-06802 (N.D. Ill. July 1, 2019) 
    07/01/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA and stay proceedings, finding a valid arbitral agreement and concluding plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the agreement.  Court held defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate by removing to federal court before moving to compel arbitration.

  • Baker v. CMH Homes, Inc., No. 3:19-CV-05311-RJB-JRC (W.D. Wash. July 1, 2019)
     
    07/01/2019

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding that no valid agreement to arbitrate existed as a new contract had replaced the original agreement with the relevant arbitral clause.

  • Global Graphic Resources LLC v. Triunfo, Inc., No. 0:18-CV-02710-WMW-SER (D. Minn. July 1, 2019) 
    07/01/2019

    Court granted respondent’s motion to transfer venue and declined to address petitioners’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that given the valid forum-selection clause and the lack of an arbitration agreement between the parties, the motion to transfer had to be decided before the motion to compel arbitration.

  • 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.

  • Auyeung v. Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-00278 (N.D. Ill. July 1, 2019)
    07/01/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court concluded that there was a valid arbitration agreement and that plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of this agreement, noting that plaintiff relied on “cherry-picked language, lifted from unrelated portions of the license agreement” that did not alter the meaning of the agreement’s most pertinent language.  Court also found that the arbitration agreement was neither procedurally unconscionable (since the agreement was available online and plaintiff was never required to download and use the application to access the many features outside of third-party applications) or substantively unconscionable due to a limitation of liability provision or the class action waiver.

  • 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.

  • Anand v. Heath, No. 1:19-CV-00016 (N.D. Ill. June 28, 2019) 
    06/28/2019

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding defendants failed to show that plaintiff assented to an arbitration agreement on defendants’ website.  Pursuant to the FAA and state contract law, the court concluded that plaintiff did not have actual notice of the arbitration agreement and plaintiff was not placed on reasonable notice of manifesting assent to the agreement.

  • 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.

  • Daewoo International Corporation v. America Metals Trading L.L.P., No. 16-30984 (5th Cir. June 25, 2019)
    06/25/2019

    Court of appeals vacated the judgment of the district court remanding for trial, finding that, contrary to the court of first instance decision, Louisiana’s non-resident attachment statute allow for attachment in aid of arbitration.

  • Villasenor v. Community Child Care Council of Santa Clara County, Inc., No. 5:18-CV-06628-BLF (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2019)
    06/25/2019

    Court denied without prejudice defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that “good faith discussion and negotiation,” which was a predicate to arbitration, had not occurred, and therefore the purported agreement to arbitrate was not yet implicated.

  • Stemcor USA Incorporated v. CIA Siderurgica Do Para Cosipar, No. 16-30984 (5th Cir. June 25, 2019)
    06/25/2019

    Court of appeals vacated the judgment of the district court, which had held that Louisiana’s non-resident attachment statute does not allow for attachment in aid of arbitration, and remanded.  Court of appeals determined that the arbitration agreements were covered by the New York Convention, and that that the instant case was related to the arbitration agreements because plaintiff-appellant was seeking an attachment to facilitate the arbitration.  Court of appeals further concluded that Louisiana state law allows parties to seize assets while pursuing arbitration for monetary damages.

  • Safe Step Walk-In Tub Co. v. CKH Industries, Inc., No. 7:15-CV-07543-NSR-LMS (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2019)
    06/25/2019

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court held that plaintiff engaged in significant motion practice and caused substantial delay, which resulted in prejudice to the defendant. Court also held that plaintiff’s conduct suggested a questionable disingenuousness, if not gamesmanship, which the FAA did not protect.

  • 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.”

  • George v. Midland Funding, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-15830-WJM-MF (D.N.J. June 25, 2019)
    06/25/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, concluding that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate and that it covered the claims in the complaint.  Court found that the arbitration agreement broadly incorporated any claim related to the agreement, including claims against debt collectors or assignees like defendants.  Court further found that the agreement contained a class action waiver and required any questions of arbitrability to be decided by the arbitrator.

  • Air-Con, Inc. v. Daikin Applied Latin America, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-01800-GAG (D.P.R. June 25, 2019)
    06/25/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court concluded that (i) there was a binding agreement to arbitrate; (ii) defendant was a party to the agreement and therefore entitled to invoke the arbitration clause; (iii) it was uncontested that plaintiff was also a signatory to the agreement and was therefore bound by it; (iv) plaintiff’s claims clearly related to a dispute arising between the parties in connection with the agreement and therefore fell within the scope of the arbitration clause.

  • 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.

  • Silverman v. Move Inc, No. 5:18-CV-05919-BLF (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2019)
    06/24/2019

    Court granted defendant NAR’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and granted defendant Move Inc.’s amended motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that the parties’ contract clearly and unmistakably delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator and that the arbitrator must decide if the contract covers the time period and events at issue in the instant case.  Court also found that plaintiff had notice of and agreed to the terms of the contract, which were not an unenforceable browsewrap agreement.

  • Ramirez v. Midland Funding, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-02626 (N.D. Ill. June 21, 2019)
    06/21/2019

    Court denied the motion to compel arbitration.  Court concluded that (i) plaintiffs’ claims were within the scope of the arbitration agreements, which applied to “any claim . . . arising out of or related to [the plaintiffs’] accounts”; and (ii) Midland, as an assignee of the accounts, could enforce the arbitration agreement.  However, court found that defendants had waived any right to arbitrate the claims in the case, as their conduct suggested that defendants’ original plan was to litigate the claims in court but they changed their minds once plaintiffs’ claims were threatening to be litigated as a class action.

  • Lovig v. Best Buy Stores LP, No. 4:18-CV-02807-PJH (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2019)
    06/21/2019

    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.

  • Marketti v. The Cordish Companies, No. 1:19-CV-00904-RSL (D. Md. June 21, 2019)
    06/21/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss the litigation.  While plaintiffs did not oppose defendants’ request to compel arbitration, they did oppose the dismissal of the action and demanded a stay.  Court noted that while Section 3 of the FAA required the district court to stay judicial proceedings, the Fourth Circuit has held that a stay is not the sole remedy available.  Court concluded that no useful purpose would be served by staying the proceedings pending arbitration, and therefore dismissal would be the appropriate remedy.

  • Drake v. Conn’s HomePlus, No. 2:18-CV-02773-DLR (D. Ariz. June 21, 2019)
    06/21/2019

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, stay proceedings and compel arbitration.  Court concluded that (i) the parties’ contract expressly provided that the arbitration would be conducted according to the rules of the AAA, which was clear and unmistakable evidence of an express agreement to arbitrate arbitrability; (ii) since plaintiff did not challenge the delegation provision as being unconscionable, the court must treat the delegation provision as valid and leave any challenge to be decided by the arbitrator; and (iii) the action should be stayed, consistent with the Ninth circuit’s preference for staying an action pending arbitration rather than dismissing it.

  • Yuan v. Howng, No. 3:18-CV-01960-MSB (S.D. Cal. June 20, 2019)
    06/20/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed claims related to fraud and data protection issues. Court rejected plaintiff’s contention that the motion to compel was untimely, finding that plaintiff had not met its burden in proving defendant waived its right to arbitration.  Court further rejected plaintiff’s contention that the claims were outside the scope of the arbitration agreement. 

  • Tecnocap LLC, v. Graphic Communications Conference, No. 18-3340 (6th Cir. June 20, 2019)
    06/20/2019

    6th Circuit affirmed a district court’s vacatur of an arbitration award.  Appellate court agreed with district court’s finding that the arbitrator had exceeded his authority by issuing an award that required employer to rehire an employee with back pay.  Arbitrator held that an employer had terminated a worker without just cause in violation of a collective bargaining agreement, ignoring a subsequent controlling agreement that gave employer authority to terminate the employee for any absence during a probationary period.

  • 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.
     

  • Bowles v. Onemain Financial Group, L.L.C., No. 18-60749 (5th Cir. June 19, 2019) 
    06/19/2019

    5th Circuit court reversed and vacated district court’s order compelling arbitration of age discrimination claims.  District court held that procedural unconscionability was a question of the enforceability of an agreement, not of formation, and was delegated to the arbitrator under the agreement.  Appellate court found that district court had plainly erred, holding that procedural unconscionability arguments challenge the formation of the arbitration agreement. 

  • Cheshire v. Fitness & Sports Clubs, LLC, No. 0:18-CV-61904-WPD (S.D. Fla. June 19, 2019)
    06/19/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that a third-party had the apparent authority to bind plaintiff to the arbitration provision when he signed the agreement in plaintiff’s presence.  Court additionally found that defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate when it filed an Answer reserving such right.

  • In Re Application of Moneyonmobile, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-80128-VKD (N.D. Ca. June 18, 2019)
    06/18/2019

    Court granted a petition for discovery in support of a foreign proceeding pursuant to 28 USC § 1782(a).  Court found that applicant met the statutory criteria authorizing service of a proposed subpoena. Court further found all four of the Intel factors weighed in favor of the court granting the petition: 1) the discovery sought was outside the jurisdiction of the foreign tribunal; 2) the LCIA was likely to be receptive to U.S. judicial assistance; 3) the LCIA did not have any restrictions to gathering the evidence sought; and 4) that the nine document requests were not unduly burdensome.

  • HPG, LLC v. Kerrigan, No. 2:18-CV-01872-RSL (W.D. Wash. June 18, 2019
    06/18/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and refused to resolve a pending motion for preliminary injunction.  Court disagreed with plaintiff’s contention that requests for preliminary relief did not fall within the scope of arbitration, and applying Washington state-law principles of contract interpretation, ordered plaintiff to submit requests for a preliminary injunction to the arbitrator.

  • Welch v. EZ Loan Auto Sales, No. 1:18-CV-01168-EAW (W.D.N.Y. June 18, 2019) 
    06/18/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.  Court found that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed and that the dispute was within the scope of that agreement.  Court found additionally that plaintiff had previously been permanently barred from filing lawsuits in the W.D.N.Y. and that he could instead pursue his claims in arbitration.

  • Allen v. Brookdale Senior Living, No. 5:19-CV-00125-TES (M.D. Ga. June 18, 2019)
     
    06/18/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings in an employment dispute.  Court rejected plaintiff’s contention that the arbitration agreement could not be enforced by one of the defendants because he had not signed the agreement, finding that the agreement was enforceable by a nonsignatory through equitable estoppel.  Court also disregarded plaintiff’s argument that defendants waived their right to arbitrate because they failed to arbitrate before they terminated her employment.  

  • In Re Uber Text Messaging, No. 1:18-CV-02931-HSG (N.D. Ca. June 18, 2019)
    06/18/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings in an employment dispute.  Court rejected plaintiff’s contention that the arbitration agreement could not be enforced by one of the defendants because he had not signed the agreement, finding that the agreement was enforceable by a nonsignatory through equitable estoppel.  Court also disregarded plaintiff’s argument that defendants waived their right to arbitrate because they failed to arbitrate before they terminated her employment. 

  • Bi-State Insulation, Inc., v. Geiler Co., No. 1:19-CV-00040-SJD-KLL (S. D. Ohio June 17, 2019)
    06/17/2019

    Magistrate judge recommended defendants’ motion to compel be granted and the case be dismissed without prejudice.  Magistrate judge found that although the subcontractor contract did not have an arbitration agreement, this contract incorporated a master contract which did include an arbitration clause.  Magistrate judge found plaintiff’s argument that it did not know of the existence of the arbitration clause was not sufficient to meet the burden of showing a genuine dispute of fact as to the validity of the agreement.

  • Echevarria v. Aerotek, Inc., No. 5:16-CV-04041-BLF (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2019)
    06/17/2019

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel individual arbitration and granted plaintiff’s motion to remand.  Court held that an arbitration agreement’s waiver of class actions is not enforceable to bar such claims under California’s Private Attorney General Act, which the court found was not preempted by the FAA.

  • 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.

  • Royal Merchant Holdings, LLC, v. Traeger Pellet Grills, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-00108-EHF (D. Utah June 17, 2019) 
    06/17/2019

    Magistrate judge recommended the dismissal of a petition seeking to compel compliance with an arbitral subpoena under Section 7 of the FAA for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Magistrate judge recognized that the FAA does not confer federal question jurisdiction and an independent basis must exist.  Magistrate judge rejected the argument that the FAA required the court to ‘look through’ the Section 7 petition to the underlying arbitration to determine diversity and amount in controversy.  

  • 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.

  • Gold Coast Property Management Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 1:18-CV-23693-DPG (S.D. Fla. June 14, 2019)
    06/14/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that a “service of suit” clause within an insurance contract reserving defendant’s right to commence a lawsuit did not supersede an arbitration clause within the same contract. 

  • Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 1:14-CV-04513-ILG-LB (E.D.N.Y. June 14, 2019)
    06/14/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding, inter alia, that plaintiff was bound to an agreement to arbitrate when her friend signed her up for defendant’s service.  Court found that an agency relationship existed when plaintiff gave her friend permission to sign her up for the service.  Court additionally found that plaintiff, through her agent, had inquiry notice of the arbitration agreement when it provided that plaintiff acknowledged her agreement to the terms and conditions of the service by signing up.

  • Brundage v. Pension Associates Retirement Planning, LLC, No. 7:18-CV-02473-NSR (S.D.N.Y. June 13, 2019)
    06/13/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that a contract was not unconscionable even though the portion containing the arbitration clause was missing.  Court reasoned that because the signature page made clear reference to the arbitration clause, plaintiffs would have noticed that a portion of the contract was missing had they reviewed the document.

  • 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.

  • Scaccia v. Uber Technologies, No. 3:18-CV-00418-TMR-SLO (S.D. Ohio June 13, 2019)
    06/13/2019

    Magistrate judge recommended that defendants’ motion to compel arbitration be granted and the wrongful termination case be dismissed.  Magistrate judge found that the plaintiff’s contention that he never agreed to arbitrate was a threshold issue delegated to the arbitrator by the agreement.  Court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that he was a “worker engaged in … interstate commerce” and was exempted from the FAA through 9 U.S.C. § 1, finding that this narrow exception only applied to those transportation workers who moved goods through interstate commerce. 

  • Badgerow v. REJ Properties, Inc., No. 17-CV-09492 (W.D. La. Jun. 12, 2019)
    06/12/2019

    Court granted Defendant’s motion to confirm an arbitration award.  Court held that plaintiff failed to establish a causal nexus between the fraud she alleged occurred during the arbitration and the basis of the arbitration panel’s decision.

  • 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.

  • Sponheim v. Citibank, N.A., No. SACV 8:19-00264-JVS-ADS (C.D. Cal. June 10, 2019)
    06/10/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the proceedings.  Court found that plaintiff was not primarily seeking public injunctive relief, which would exempt this dispute from arbitration under California’s McGill rule.  Court considered that this claim was merely an incidental benefit to his primary aim of gaining compensation for his injury and that the arbitration agreement was thus enforceable.

  • Church v. Expedia Inc., No. 2:18-CV-01812-JLR (W.D. Wash. June 10, 2019)
    06/10/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the case, finding that defendants could invoke the arbitration clause as third-party beneficiaries of the agreement.  Court found that the terms of the arbitration agreement contemplated defendants when they referred to a party’s “affiliates,” “affiliated companies,” “partners” and “suppliers.”

  • East v. CD Baby Inc., No. 2:19-CV-00168-GMS (D. Ariz. June 10, 2019)
    06/10/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when a valid arbitration agreement existed between plaintiff and defendants.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration clause was procedurally unconscionable when it was offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, finding that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he was surprised by the agreement or that he was placed under duress or otherwise manipulated into signing the arbitration agreement.

  • Kernick v. N.A.R. Inc., No. 2:18-CV-01505-CB (W.D. Pa. June 10, 2019)
    06/10/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendant could invoke the right to arbitrate as an assignee of the cardholder agreement containing the arbitration clause.

  • Capitalplus Equity, LLC, v. Tutor Perini Corporation, No. 3:18-CV-178-TAV-DCP (E.D. Tenn. May 31, 2019)
    05/31/2019

    Court issued a report and recommendation to deny plaintiff’s motion to intervene in an arbitration.  Court found plaintiff did not explain any legal or factual basis for intervening in the arbitration.

  • Nuvasive, Inc. v. Absolute Medical, LLC, No. 6:17-CV-2206-CEM-GJK (M.D. Fla. May 31, 2019)
    05/31/2019

    Plaintiff brought claims against a corporate defendant for breach of a sales agreement, and against owners of the corporate defendant for breach of their employment agreements. Plaintiff also sought to impose liability an owner for corporate defendant’s breaches. Court granted motion to compel arbitration in part, finding that plaintiff’s claim against corporate defendant fell within arbitration clause in sales agreement. Court did not grant motion to compel arbitration of claims against owners, who were not party to sales agreement. Court however stayed pending arbitration plaintiff’s attempt to hold an owner personally responsible for corporate defendant’s breaches since it was premised on the same factual allegations as the arbitrable claim.

  • Farmers of North America, Inc., v. Mann, No. 17-3456 (8th Cir. May 31, 2019)
    05/31/2019

    Court of appeals dismissed plaintiffs’ interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction.  Court noted district court previously found that where an arbitration agreement specified AAA arbitration rules but did not specify an arbitral institution, an arbitrator outside of the AAA could be used.  Court held that where a case was merely stayed and not dismissed because the district court’s decision was not effectively unreviewable since the underlying petition to arbitrate was not denied.

  • 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.

  • Lincoln National Life Insurance Company v. Sussman, No. 17-10436 (11th Cir. May 30, 2019)
    05/30/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision granting summary judgement in favor of plaintiff and denying defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that failure of the pro se defendant to address the district court’s conclusion that he waived his right to arbitrate by engaging in litigation on appeal foreclosed his ability to challenge that conclusion.

  • Reo v. Palmer Administrative Services, No. 18-3924 (6th Cir. May 30, 2019)
    05/30/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision granting a motion to compel arbitration, finding there was privity between plaintiff and a previous litigant bound by an arbitration agreement with defendant.

  • 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.

  • Emeric v. Florida Fine Cars, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-20987-DPG (S.D. Fla. May 28, 2019)
    05/29/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff’s objections related essentially to scope of the arbitration agreement and arbitrability, issues that the parties clearly and unmistakably agreed to arbitrate.  Court further held the arbitration clause was enforceable.
     

  • Santa Fe Community Housing Trust v. Maes, No. 1:18-CV-00054-RB-KBM (D.N.M. May 28, 2019)
    05/28/2019

    Court granted motion to appoint arbitrator and denied motion to stay, finding that the parties agreed to arbitrate their disputes, but failed to include in the arbitration agreement a method to select an arbitrator.  Thus, court ordered the parties to submit a list of five acceptable arbitrators,

  • 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.

  • Axia Netmedia Corporation v. Massachusetts Technology Park Corporation, No. 4:17-CV-10482-TSH (D. Mass. May 28, 2019)
    05/28/2019

    Court granted defendants motion to vacate in part and modify the arbitral award and denied plaintiffs motion to confirm the award.  Court held that the arbitrator exceeded his powers by re-writing the terms of the contract between the parties and altering the relationship between them.

  • Carnes v. AT&T, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-01639-ACA (N.D. Ala. May 28, 2019)
    05/28/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding there was a valid arbitration agreement and that plaintiff’s claims fell with the scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • Border Area Mental Health, Inc. v. United Behavioral Health, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01213-MV-SCY (D.N.M. May 28, 2019)
    05/28/2019

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to set aside the opinion of the arbitrator, finding the arbitrator’s decision must stand because he did not stray from his delegated task of interpreting the contract.  Court further held the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law.

  • Prizler v. Charter Communications, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-01724-L-MSB (S.D. Cal. May 27, 2019)
    05/27/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding there was a valid arbitration agreement because plaintiff failed to opt out from the arbitration agreement and that the agreement was not procedurally unconscionable.

  • Ben-Salah v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., No. 18-35140 (9th Cir. May 24, 2019)
    05/24/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order compelling arbitration and finding of no procedural unconscionability.  Court held that the district court was within the scope of its authority to decide on procedural questions and provided a reasonable basis for its decision.

  • Johnson v. Smyth Automotive Inc., No. 2:18-CV-01384-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio May 24, 2019)
    05/24/2019

    Court granted defendants motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pending arbitration.  Court held non-signatories may compel a signatory to abide by an arbitration agreement where, as here, there is a close relationship between the signatory and non-signatory party and the claims arise under the subject matter of the underlying agreement.

  • Royal v. CEC Entertainment, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-00302-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga. May 24, 2019)
    05/24/2019

    Court granted the defendants motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Court found that a mutual arbitration agreement between employee and employer covering discrimination disputes was valid and enforceable as the dispute was within its scope and all aspects of contract formation were met. 

  • 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.

  • Berkeley County School District v. HUB International Limited, No. 2:18-CV-00151-DCN (D.S.C. May 23, 2019)
    05/23/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to stay pending appeal of court’s order denying defendants previous motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that fourth circuit precedent requires a stay during pendency of an appeal of an order denying a motion to compel arbitration wherever the appeal is not frivolous.

  • Fisher v. Trans Union, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-00679-GJP (E.D. Pa. May 23, 2019)
    05/23/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to stay proceedings pending the outcome of the arbitration.  Court held that a bankruptcy discharge does not render an underlying arbitration agreement between a debtor and his creditor unenforceable following federal policy in favor of arbitration.

  • Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Bachman, No. 4:18-CV-01496-JCH (E.D. Mo. May 23, 2019)
    05/23/2019

    Court granted plaintiff’s petition to compel arbitration and denied petition for related injunctive relief.  Court found that by incorporating AAA Rules, the parties agreed to allow the arbitrator to determine questions of arbitrability.  Because plaintiff did not argue that the delegation provision itself lacked legal consideration, court must treat it as valid, and leave plaintiff’s formation challenge to the arbitrator.

  • Hoober v. Movement Mortgage, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-06001-BHS (W.D. Wash. May 23, 2019)
    05/23/2019

    Court granted defendants motion to compel arbitration on an individual basis and stayed proceedings pending conclusion of the arbitration.  Court held that there was no procedural unconscionability and severed substantially unconscionable provisions in the contract holding the remainder of the agreement valid.

  • 360 Mortgage Group, LLC v. Castle Mortgage Corporation, No. 1:18-CV-00332-RP (W.D. Tex. May 23, 2019)
    05/23/2019

    Magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation that the court grant defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, deny as moot plaintiffs motion to compel, and dismiss the case without prejudice, finding  that all of plaintiff’s claims  were subject to arbitration.  

  • Davis v. Cintas Corporation, No. 2:18-CV-01200-MRH (W.D. Pa. May 23, 2019)
    05/23/2019

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending arbitration.  Court held there was a valid agreement to arbitrate, the claims here were within the scope of that agreement, and no statutory exceptions nor issues of unconscionability prevented defendant from compelling arbitration.

  • Soojay v. Worldventures Marketing LLC, No. 4:18-CV-00580-ALM-KPJ (E.D. Tex. May 23, 2019)
    05/23/2019

    Court concurred with the report and recommendation from the Magistrate Judge recommending that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay court proceedings pending resolution of arbitral proceedings be granted. 

  • Brooks v. N.A.R. Inc, No. 3:18-CV-00362-JJH (N.D. Ohio May 22, 2019)
    05/22/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration of a non-signatory of the contract containing an arbitration agreement finding that as an assignee of the contract, defendant could compel arbitration of plaintiff’s claim based on the language of the arbitration agreement. 

  • Campanile Investments LLC v. Westmoreland Equity Fund LLC, No. 5:17-CV-00337-FB-ESC (W.D. Tex. May 22, 2019)
    05/22/2019

    Court denied defendants’ motions to compel arbitration and to dismiss or stay proceedings, finding that the valid agreement to arbitrate was unenforceable because it was procured by fraud. 

  • 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.

  • Kadish v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 2:18-CV-00371-PPS-JEM (N.D. Ind. May 22, 2019).
    05/22/2019

    Court granted defendants motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.  Court found there was a valid arbitration agreement and that the claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and as a result, dismissed the case.

  • Kana Energy Services Inc. v. Jiangsu Jinshi Machinery Group Co. LTD., No. 4:19-CV-00213 (S.D. Tex. May 22, 2019)
    05/22/2019

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for remand despite finding subject matter jurisdiction over a dispute with an arbitration agreement falling under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards.  Court held that remand was appropriate in this case because the state court had already ruled against arbitrability and no federal questions remained for the court’s determination.

  • Caldwell, Wright Enterprises, Inc. v. Avadim Health, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-002090-MR-WCM (W.D.N.C. May 22, 2019)
    05/22/2019

    Court denied without prejudice defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, noting that this motion may be renewed after a determination on validity of the agreement is made.

  • Singh Management Company, LLC v. Singh Development Company Inc., No. 18-1566 (6th Cir. May 20, 2019)
    05/22/2019

    Court of appeals vacated the denial of a motion to clarify or amend judgment related to the confirmation of an arbitral award.  Court found inconsistencies in the district court’s orders first confirming an arbitral award followed by a decision entering injunctive relief.  Court held it was not possible to discern an explanation for these inconsistencies and vacated the denial motion remanding the case for further proceedings.  

  • 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.

  • Parkcrest Builders, LLC v. Housing Authority of New Orleans, No. 2:15-CV-00150-NJB-JVM (E.D. La. May 21, 2019)
    05/21/2019

    Court granted a motion to lift the stay on proceedings for the limited purpose of addressing a third party’s motion to intervene in arbitration and anticipated motion to compel evidence production, finding that lifting the stay would not delay arbitration or  prevent defendant from preparing for the arbitration. 

  • McNeil v. LVMH Inc., No. 1:18-CV-11751-PAE (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2019)
    05/21/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and to stay the case pending arbitration.  Court held plaintiff’s claims of material breach of an arbitration agreement amounting to a waiver were premature because they were in the present case properly asserted, in the first instance, before the arbitrator.

  • 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.

  • Beattie v. TTEC Healthcare Solutions, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-03098-RM-NRN (D. Colo. May 21, 2019)
    05/21/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel individual arbitration and stayed the case with respect to two plaintiffs, finding they manifested their assent to arbitration agreement electronically.

  • 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.

  • Soffiantini v. Fitness International, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-23854-JLK (S.D. Fla. May 21, 2019)
    05/21/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration, finding that there was a valid arbitration agreement and that plaintiff failed to establish the arbitration provision was substantially or procedurally unconscionable.

  • Constellium Rolled Products Ravenswood, LLC v. United Steel, Paper, and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, No. 2:18-CV-01404 (S.D.W. Va. May 20, 2019)
    05/20/2019

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend judgment granting an injunction that prevented plaintiff from taken certain actions prior to arbitration, finding that court did not commit a clear error of law in its decision.

  • 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.

  • Osborne v. Charter Communications, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-01801-HEA (E.D. Mo. May 17, 2019)
    05/17/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the entire controversy between the parties was subject to and must be resolved by arbitration.  Court held plaintiff accepted employment arbitration through not opting out of an agreement and considered that the claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • 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.

  • Espiritu Santo Holdings, LP, v. Libero Partners, LP., No. 1:19-CV-03930-CM (S.D.N.Y. May 16, 2019)
    05/16/2019

    Court ordered that respondent, its principals and all persons acting in concert with them are enjoined from taking certain actions while ICC arbitration is pending.  Court considered that the injunction shall continue in place until such time as the ICC shall enter any provisional or final award in connection with the ICC Arbitration, which award would by its terms supplant this injunction in aid of arbitration.

  • Perfect Fit, LLC v. Aronowitz, No. 1:19-CV-00160-NT (D. Me. May 16, 2019)
    05/16/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss or stay and to compel arbitration.  Court found that defendant’s brief delay of less than one month (eight days of which were attributable to scheduling orders) did not amount to a waiver of his right to proceed to arbitration.  Court further found that the plaintiff’s claims were subject to arbitration, as the arbitration clause contained broad language to which there attaches a strong presumption of arbitrability.

  • Lance v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-04933-MAK (E.D. Pa. May 16, 2019)
    05/16/2019

    Court granted defendant’s renewed motion to compel individual arbitration and stay of the action pending arbitration.  Applying a summary judgment standard, court concluded that (i) pursuant to the purchase agreement, defendant bought all of the rights to plaintiff’s account, which included the right to arbitration; (ii) plaintiff’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claim fell within the scope of that arbitration clause; and (iii) defendant did not waive its right to compel arbitration.

  • Larkin v. Day, No. 2:18-CV-02636-TLP-dkv (W.D. Tenn. May 15, 2019)
    05/15/2019

    Court granted defendants’ request to compel arbitration as to plaintiff Chad Larkin and denied the motion to dismiss as to plaintiff Genny Larkin.  Noting that, under the FAA, valid arbitration clauses are severable and enforceable even if the rest of the contract is void, court found that an valid arbitration agreement existed and that it was severable from the rest of the contract.  Court further found that the scope of the arbitration agreement encompassed all of Chad Larkin’s claims, but not those of Genny Larkin, as there was no evidence that she signed an agreement containing an arbitration provision.

  • 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.

  • Cook-Bolden v. DG TRC Management, No. 1:19-CV-03425-KMW (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2019)
    05/15/2019

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the AAA Arbitration filed by defendants.  Court found that (i) the FAA applied to the asset purchase agreement; (ii) the asset purchase agreement demonstrated the parties’ clear and unmistakable intent to have an arbitrator, rather than a court, resolve threshold arbitrability questions; (iii) since plaintiff did not challenge the delegation provision or argue that it was rendered unconscionable, it must be treated as valid and enforceable under the FAA.

  • Ryan v. Salisbury, No. 1:18-CV-00406-ACK-RT (D. Haw. May 14, 2019)
    05/14/2019

    Court granted in part and stayed in part defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.  Court noted that a number of district courts have found that, where there were sophisticated parties to commercial contracts, the incorporation of arbitration rules (including JAMS, AAA, and UNCITRAL) constituted clear and unmistakable evidence of the parties’ intent to submit the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator.  Court further concluded that, since plaintiff failed to specifically challenge the delegation clause, it would not consider its validity.

  • 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.

  • Abellard v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 0:19-CV-60099-BB (S.D. Fla. May 14, 2019)
    05/14/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss or stay case.  Court concluded that plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration clauses, noting that (i) plaintiff did not dispute the validity of the arbitration provisions, both of which delegate issues of arbitrability and enforceability to the arbitrator; and (ii) even if plaintiff’s contention was properly decided by the court, the arbitration provisions expressly include statutory claims like the ones brought by plaintiff.

  • Dylan 140 LLC v. Figueroa, No. 1:19-CV-02897-LAK-DCF (S.D.N.Y. May 14, 2019)
    05/14/2019

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary stay of scheduled arbitration until after the court had an opportunity to determine whether the plaintiff is required to arbitrate.

  • eTouch LV, LLC v. eTouch Menu, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-02066-JCM-NJK (D. Nev. May 13, 2019)
    05/13/2019

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration and rejected defendants’ argument that the arbitration clause is void. Court explained that the FAA compels courts to stay litigation of arbitrable issues regardless of whether those issues intertwine with non-arbitrable issues.

  • Davidow v. H&R Block, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-01022-ODS (W.D. Mo. May 13, 2019)
    05/13/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion to strike. Court found a valid arbitration agreement existed and that it encompassed plaintiff’s Sherman Act claims. Court also concluded that, while non-signatory defendants may not have been specifically identified in the agreements, there is an irrefutable affiliation between defendants and signatory H&R Block Eastern Enterprises.

  • Austin Freight Systems, Inc. v. West Wind Logistics, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-04832 (N.D. Ill. May 13, 2019)
    05/13/2019

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration, concluding that the parties’ agreement confined the universe of arbitrable claims to those arising out of that agreement, and therefore it did not govern the parties’ entire commercial relationship.

  • Schultz, Jr. v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-04415-JLL-SCM (D.N.J. May 13, 2019)
    05/13/2019

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and strike class claims. Court found that defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate as, with the exception of defendant’s decision to prioritize its arguments for dismissal on the merits rather than its arguments for compelling arbitration, defendant has been proceeding as a party seeking to arbitrate should proceed, i.e. by invoking its right to arbitrate early and often and objecting to further litigation of the dispute (including discovery) pending an adjudication of the arbitration issue. However, court found that the existence of an enforceable arbitration agreement was not apparent, and directed the parties to conduct limited discovery on the narrow issue of whether an enforceable arbitration agreement exists.

  • McDonnel Group, L.L.C. v. Great Lakes Insurance SE, UK Branch, No. 18-30817 (5th Cir. May 13, 2019)
    05/13/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed a district court decision in favor of the insurers, determining that the insurance policy’s “conformity to statute” provision did not negate the agreement to arbitrate. Court found that because the Louisiana state statute was preempted by the New York Convention, the statue does not and cannot apply to plaintiff-appellant’s policy, and therefore there is no conflict between the policy and the state statute. As such, the conformity provision was not triggered, and its inapplicability leads only to the conclusion that the arbitration provision survives.

  • Whoop, Inc. v. Ascent International Holdings, Ltd., No. 1:19-CV-10210-LTS (D. Mass. May 10, 2019)
    05/10/2019

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court found that the arbitration agreement constituted a material alteration, and therefore it was not part of the parties’ contract.

  • Vargas v. Bay Terrace Plaza LLC, No. 1:17-CV-07385-PKC-SJB (E.D.N.Y. May 10, 2019)
    05/10/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and to stay the proceedings. Court noted that, while plaintiffs disputed the overall validity of the arbitration agreements, they did not dispute that the agreements delegated the question of enforceability to the arbitrator.

  • 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.

  • McCullough v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., No. 1:16-CV-20194-DPG (S.D. Fla. May 10, 2019)
    05/10/2019

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss plaintiffs’ third amended complaint. Following Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC v. Converteam SAS, 902 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2018) – which plainly rejected using arbitration by estoppel and other equitable theories to bind non-signatories to arbitration in cases arising under the New York Convention – court concluded that there was no agreement signed by both parties and therefore plaintiffs cannot be compelled to arbitrate.

  • Furlough v. Capstone Logistics, LLC, No. 5:18-CV-02990-SVK (N.D. Cal. May 10, 2019)
    05/10/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment that an arbitration agreement exists. Court concluded that (i) defendants established by a preponderance of the evidence that plaintiff completed and e-signed an onboarding form acknowledging that he read the arbitration agreement and received the associate handbook; (ii) plaintiff consented to arbitration and therefore an arbitration agreement exists; and (iii) because plaintiff did not directly transport goods while working for the defendant and has not shown that defendant is in the transportation industry itself, plaintiff is not a transportation worker falling within an exemption from the FAA.

  • Asberry-Jones v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. 2:19-CV-00083-MAK (E.D. Pa. May 10, 2019)
    05/10/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Applying a motion to dismiss standard, court concluded that there was a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement. Court found that (i) both parties agreed to be mutually bound by arbitration and so there was adequate consideration, and (ii) the arbitration agreement clearly and unambiguously required arbitration of all claims “arising out of” plaintiff’s employment, including but not limited to the claims at issue in the case.

  • Monfared v. St. Luke’s University Health Network, No. 18-2850 (3d Cir. May 10, 2019)
    05/10/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed lower court decision to confirm an arbitration award. In determining whether the claims were subject to arbitration, court concluded that the phrase “if a dispute or claim should arise” was best understood as functionally equivalent to more standard language that would sweep in any claim relating to the plaintiff’s employment.

  • Green Biologics, Inc. v. Easy Energy Systems, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-01121-JLG-EPD (S.D. Ohio May 9, 2019)
    05/09/2019

    Court granted motion to compel alternative dispute resolution, first to mediation and, if necessary, to arbitration. Court held that a valid alternative dispute resolution agreement existed and that the claims at issue fall within the remit of that agreement. 

  • Goldgroup Resources, Inc. v. DynaResource de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., No. 1:16-CV-02547-RM-KMT (D. Colo. May 9, 2019)
    05/09/2019

    Court rejected magistrate judge’s recommendation and granted application to confirm the arbitration award and denied motion to vacate, amongst other findings.

  • Smith v. BCDJ, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-02081-CM-GEB (D. Kan. May 7, 2019)
    05/07/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and granted stay of the case pending arbitration, finding that a stay – rather than dismissal – is the appropriate result in light of tenth circuit case law and FAA § 3.

  • CCC Information Services Inc. v. Tractable Inc., No. 1:18-CV-07246 (N.D. Ill. May 7, 2019)
    05/07/2019

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that an issue exists as to whether an agreement between the plaintiff and defendants exists at all, and that issue is for the court to decide. 

  • Miller v. UBS Financial Services Inc., No. 1:18-CV-08415-JPO (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2019)
    05/06/2019

    Court denied petition to vacate an arbitration award in favor the respondents, holding that the petitioner failed to satisfy “the heavy burden” of proving the existence of grounds for vacatur of an award in excess of the arbitrators’ powers under FAA § 10(a)(4) and (2).

  • Roth v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, No. 1:18-CV-10383-RA (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2019)
    05/06/2019

    Court granted petitioners’ unopposed motion to confirm an arbitration award entered by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Office of Arbitration. 

  • Paysafe Partners LP v. Merchant Payment Group LLC, No. 1:19-CV-00495-LGS (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2019)
    05/06/2019

    Court granted motion to confirm an arbitration award pursuant to FAA § 9 and awarded petitioner reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs enforcing the award, as well as pre and post-judgment interest.

  • Gutierrez v. Friendfinder Networks Inc., No. 5:18-CV-05918-BLF (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2019)
    05/03/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and to stay the case, finding that plaintiff agreed to be bound by the defendant’s on-line terms that contained an arbitration agreement. Court also found that the arbitration agreement establishes that the parties intended to have the arbitrator decide questions of arbitrability and that the delegation provision is not substantively unconscionable. 

  • Warren v. Geller, No. 2:11-CV-02282-NJB-SS (W.D. La. May 3, 2019)
    05/03/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to confirm an arbitration award and denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate. Court held that plaintiff’s motion for vacatur fails on a theory of manifest disregard of the law and, having no other grounds to vacate, modify, or correct the award, the Court confirmed the award pursuant to the FAA.

  • Freeman v. Smartpay Leasing, LLC, No. 18-10380 (11th Cir. May 3, 2019)
    05/03/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s finding that the defendant waived its right to arbitration by failing to pay the required arbitration fees and, in doing so, prejudiced the plaintiff’s ability to arbitrate the dispute. Court also held that an order lifting a stay of a civil action is functionally equivalent to an order refusing a stay and is, therefore, immediately appealable pursuant FAA § 16(a)(1)(A).

  • Boon v. Indyzen, Inc., No. 18-71347 (9th Cir. May 3, 2019)
    05/03/2019

    Court of appeals denied petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to direct a district court to vacate its order compelling third parties to arbitration of claims related to a software licensing agreement.  Court analyzed Bauman factors, and found, in particular, that petitioner had other adequate means of relief and would not suffer prejudice by the arbitration proceedings, thus the court did not issue the writ of mandamus. 

  • Wilbur v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., No. 4:19-CV-00176-SRB (W.D. Mo. May 3, 2019) 
    05/03/2019

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of a age discrimination claims. Court held that a bilateral promise to arbitrate claims must be assented to by both parties and that because there was no signature or other indication to show that the defendant had assented to the arbitration agreement, it could not be enforced.  Court rejected defendant’s argument that it assented to the agreement when it presented the agreement to the plaintiff through HR personnel.

  • Shams v. CVS Health Corporation, No. 2:18-CV-08158-SK (C.D. Cal. May 2, 2019)
     
    05/02/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of employment discrimination claims. Court held that although plaintiff argued that certain provisions awarding costs and attorney fees made the arbitration provision unconscionable, the provision contained a delegation clause that plaintiff did not challenge and thus the question of whether the claims were arbitrable was properly reserved for the arbitrator.

  • 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

  • Ford v. Account Control Technology, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-00203-AWI-JLT (E.D. Cal. May 2, 2019)
    05/02/2019

    Court stayed proceedings and compelled arbitration on an individual basis.  Court followed Supreme Court precedent in holding that ambiguous language in an arbitration agreement cannot be the basis for determining that the parties agreed to class arbitration.

  • Garrett v. Rothschild, No. 3:18-CV-05863-BHS (W.D. Wash. May 2, 2019)
    05/02/2019

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration without prejudice.  While the court agreed that defendant would be able to enforce an arbitration provision as a non-signatory, the court held that defendant failed to meet his burden to establish that an arbitration provision existed and applied to the dispute at issue. 

  • Munger v. Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-00970-SB (D. Or. May 1, 2019)
    05/01/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss wrongful termination claims, but denied defendant’s motion to dismiss statutory employment claims that had already been the subject of a binding arbitration.  Court recognized that arbitration decisions can have res judicata or collateral estoppel effect, but followed the Supreme Court in holding that an adverse arbitration decision does not prevent an employee from re-litigating statutory claims.

  • 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.

  • Moorman v. Charter Communications, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-00820-WMC (W.D. Wis. May 1, 2019)
    05/01/2019

    Court stayed case and granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of wage dispute claims.  Court found plaintiff’s argument that the agreement was unconscionable under Wisconsin law unpersuasive, and found that the FAA required the court to compel arbitration where a dispute falls within a valid agreement to arbitrate.  Court further found that even if plaintiff were permitted to amend the complaint to include claims predating the arbitration agreement, the question of whether those claims were arbitrable or not would be delegated to the arbitrator by the agreement.

  • Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance USA, Inc. v. Denham-Blythe Company, Inc., No. 5:18-CV-00152-JMH (E.D. Ky. May 1, 2019)
    05/01/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss a design and build contract claim.  Court held that the contract contained a clear dispute resolution clause that required first an attempt to mediate, and then, if mediation failed, to arbitrate.  Court found that plaintiff brought this action instead of mediating the dispute and ordered plaintiff to comply with the dispute resolution clause.

  • 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. 

  • Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Pletcher, No. 3:18-CV-00949-JD-MGG (N.D. Ind. May 1, 2019)
    05/01/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration as to one defendant but denied the motion as to another defendant.  Court found that first defendant, and insurance agency, had a valid agreement to arbitrate and that the claims arose out of the contract governed by that agreement.  The second defendant, an employee of the insurance agency, was not a signatory to the agreement and did not provide the court with any basis for enforcing the arbitration clause as a non-signatory.

  • Wilson v. Mercury Casualty Co.., No. 1:18-CV-11014-OTW (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2019)
    04/30/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation related to a lost wages and retaliatory termination case.  Plaintiff conceded that the arbitration agreement would be valid on its own, but challenged the validity of the agreement as a whole to which the arbitration provision was a part, however the Court found that the arbitration agreement was severable and could be enforced. Court further found that to the extent that certain defendants were non signatories, they could still invoke the arbitration clause under equitable estoppel.

  • Christensen v. Barclays Bank Delaware, No. 1:18-CV-12280-ADB (D. Mass. Apr. 30, 2019) 
    04/30/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration of putative class claims related to credit card debt collection practices.  Court found that challenges to the agreement as a whole and not specific to the arbitration provision should properly be submitted to the arbitrator.  Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that arbitration had been waived by seeking to collect the credit card debt through litigation.  Court likewise rejected plaintiff contention that the arbitration clause was not part of the controlling agreement or that the clause did not cover her credit card account.

  • King v. AxleHire Inc., No. 3:18-CV-01621-JD (N.D. Cal. April 30, 2019) 
    04/30/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration of claims in a putative employment class action.  Plaintiff contended that he never assented to a contract to arbitrate, because defendant had no record of his signature.  Court rejected defendant’s argument that the question of contract formation should be delegated to the arbitrator, finding that the delegation provision could not be valid if a contract was not formed, however Court found that defendant presented sufficient evidence to show an agreement was formed under California law, and compelled arbitration.  

  • Textron Aviation, Inc. v. Superior Air Charter, LLC, No. 6:18-CV-01187-JWB-JPO (D. Kan. Apr. 30, 2019) 
    04/30/2019

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of a dispute related to an consignment agreement.  Court agreed with plaintiff that the dispute was not within the scope of an arbitration provision in an additional agreement the parties had entered into, and further found that the claims alleged in the complaint fell within an exception to the governing arbitration provision.

  • Mitschele v. Municipal Parking Services, No. 0:18-CV-00878-BRT (D. Minn. Apr. 30, 2019)
    04/30/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of breach of contract and shareholder claims.  Court found that the shareholder claims were subject to an arbitration clause in a separate agreement which extended to all pending and incidental disputes between the parties.  Courts also held that because plaintiff had previously chosen to arbitrate similar claims in a still pending arbitration proceeding, it was now bound by that decision and could not now argue the claims were not subject to arbitration.

  • American Airlines, Inc. v. Mawhinney, No. 3:18-CV-00731-BTM-WVG (S.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2019)
    04/29/2019

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award.  Court found that respondent had missed the three month window to challenge the award and his opposition was not timely.  Court also rejected respondent’s argument that the award should not be confirmed because the underlying decision to compel arbitration was erroneous.

  • Fantis v. Flywheel Sports, Inc., No. 18-CV-24934-UU (S.D. Fla. Apr. 29, 2019)
    04/29/2019

    Court ratified affirmed and adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denied defendants motion to compel arbitration, finding there was insufficient mutual assent to the arbitration agreement to compel arbitration.

  • Roberts v. Obelisk, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-02898-LAB-BGS (S.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2019) 
    04/29/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of a putative class claims relating to the sale of cryptocurrency miners.  Court found that a click wrap agreement was sufficient to establish plaintiffs’ assent to the arbitration agreement under Massachusetts law.  Court rejected plaintiffs’ arguments that it did not agree to arbitrate against certain defendants who were not parties to the arbitration agreement, finding that arbitration with these defendants was proper under the doctrine of equitable estoppel.

  • Bachewicz v. Jetsmarter, Inc., No. 0:18-CV-62570-BB (S.D. Fla. Apr. 29, 2019)
    04/29/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration of breach of contract claims.  Court held that a click wrap agreement containing an arbitration clause was valid and enforceable under Florida law.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that Illinois law should apply, finding that the agreement contained a choice of law provision which named Florida law and plaintiff relied on Florida law in his briefings to the court.  Court further found that defendant was not required to identify the exact version of the agreement that to which the plaintiff assented in order to provide sufficient proof that the parties actually agreed to arbitrate.

  • Laine v. Jetsmarter, Inc., No. 0:18-CV-62969-BB (S.D. Fla. Apr. 29, 2019)
    04/29/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration of breach of contract claims.  Court held that a click wrap agreement containing an arbitration clause was valid and enforceable under Florida law.  Court denied plaintiffs’ argument because defendant could not produce a version of the agreement that contained a name or date to which plaintiffs were tied the arbitration agreement was not valid.

  • Turan Petroleum, Inc. v. Ministry of Oil and Gas of Kazakhstan, No. 1:10-CV-02102-RBW (D.D.C Apr. 26, 2019) 
    04/26/2019

    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.

  • Vantage Commodities Financial Services I, LLC v. Assured Risk Transfer PCC, LCC, No. 1:17-CV-01451-TNM (D.D.C. Apr. 26, 2019) 
    04/26/2019

    Court denied defendant’s motion challenging the sufficiency of plaintiff’s amended complaint as the alleged facts were sufficient to proceed and denied the motion to compel arbitration or stay the proceedings pending arbitration against a third party pursuant to the FAA.  Court held that it could not conclude whether an implied agreement to arbitrate existed and declined to stay the litigation. 

  • Gonzalez v. AA Varco Moving & Storage, Inc., No. 0:18-CV-62988-FAM (S.D. Fla. Apr. 26, 2019)
    04/26/2019

    Court affirmed and adopted magistrate judge’s unopposed report and recommendation granting defendants’ motion to dismiss regarding plaintiff’s FLSA claims and ordered arbitration of those claims and denied defendants motion to dismiss in all other respects. 

  • Kingrey v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-00205-WCO-JCF (N.D. Ga. Apr. 26, 2019)
    04/26/2019

    Court approved and adopted magistrate judge’s unopposed report and recommendations granting defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed the proceedings pending arbitration.

  • Thrivest Specialty Funding LLC v. White, No. 18-1639 (3d Cir. Apr. 26, 2019)
    04/26/2019

    Court of appeals vacated district court’s order enjoining plaintiffs from pursuing arbitration and remanded for further proceedings.  Court held that decisions on enforceability of funding agreements should be litigated or arbitrated in the appropriate fora.

  • BOKF, NA v. Wise, No. 3:18-CV-00794-N (N.D. Tex.. Apr. 25, 2019)
    04/25/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed court proceedings until arbitration was resolved. Court proceedings were brought by two plaintiffs, only one of which was a signatory to an arbitration agreement with defendant. Court found that claims by both plaintiffs were so intertwined that allowing non-signatory plaintiff to proceed with litigation would be destructive of defendant’s right to arbitration of claims with signatory plaintiff.

  • Borgonia v. G2 Secure Staff, LLC, No. 3:19-CV-00914-LB (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2019)
    04/25/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the case.  Court found that plaintiffs were not exempt from application of the FAA under the transportation workers exception in 9 USC § 1 because plaintiffs only provided ancillary aviation services in a confined geographic area.  Court held plaintiffs failed to show that the arbitral agreements were procedurally or substantively unconscionable.

  • Atencio v. Tunecore, Inc., No. 16-56625 (9th Cir. Apr. 25, 2019) 
    04/25/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order partially denying its motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that although the arbitration clause in the underlying agreement was broad, there was no indication that the parties intended it to apply retroactively to disputes arising prior to the agreement.

  • Hale v. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., No. 4:18-CV-02217-BYP (N.D. Ohio Apr. 25, 2019) 
    04/25/2019

    Court confirmed arbitration award in its entirety under the FAA.  Court rejected petitioner’s arguments in favor of vacatur, finding that the tribunal did not exceed its powers and did not manifestly disregard the law in construing the underlying contracts in favor of respondents.

  • Lee v. Postmates, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-03421-JCS (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2019) 
    04/25/2019

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to certify an interlocutory appeal related to two orders compelling arbitration.  Court concluded that although the FAA does not generally permit a party to appeal an order granting arbitration, it found the appeal fell within the 28 USC § 1292(b) exception because the order involved a controlling question of law as to which there was a substantial ground for difference of opinion and an immediate appeal may materially advance the termination of litigation.

  • Light-Age, Incorporated v. Ashcroft-Smith, No. 18-20098 (5th Cir. Ohio Apr. 25, 2019)
    04/25/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed confirmation of arbitral award, finding that petitioner waived its challenge to the constitution of the panel by failing to object at the time of the hearing.  Court concluded that a party to arbitration must preserve any argument it wants to raise on later review.

  • NTCH-WA, Inc. v. ZTE Corporation, No. 17-35833 (9th Cir. Apr. 25, 2019) 
    04/25/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal of petitioner’s claims against respondent.  Court concluded confirmation of the arbitral award under the FAA barred petitioner from pursuing its claims under the law of claim preclusion because petitioner was seeking the same remedy as it sought in arbitration, the evidence needed to prove its claims was the same, and petitioner is in privity with its wholly-owned subsidiary, and is suing in the same capacity as they did in the arbitration.

  • Betts v. United Airlines, Inc., No. 18-3336 (7th Cir. Apr. 24, 2019)
    04/24/2019

    Court affirmed the district courts confirmation of the arbitral award terminating plaintiff pilot’s employment.  Court found that plaintiff did not raise any basis for challenging the award as it was clear the arbitrator engaged in interpreting the “last chance agreement” and diverging interpretations did not create grounds for a challenge to the award.  Court noted the 7th Circuit has never disturbed an award on public policy grounds and refused to do so here.

  • Science Applications International Corporation v. The Hellenic Republic, No. 1:18-MC-00327-AT-GWG (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2019) 
    04/24/2019

    Court granted petitioner’s motion for an order that a “reasonable period of time” had elapsed following the entry of judgment enforcing an arbitral award against a foreign state, concluding that eleven months satisfied the standard.

  • Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, No. 17-988 (S. Ct. Apr. 24, 2019) 
    04/24/2019

    Supreme Court affirmed the ninth circuit’s decision that it had subject matter jurisdiction as the decision was final and defendant, who had requested individual arbitration, did not secure the relief it sought when the court ordered class arbitration. However, it reversed the ninth circuit’s decision related to class arbitration and held that under the FAA, an ambiguous agreement cannot provide the necessary contractual basis for compelling class arbitration.

  • Gingras v. Think Finance, Inc., No. 16-2019 (2d Cir. Apr. 24, 2019) 
    04/24/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of defendants’ motion to dismiss on grounds of tribunal sovereign immunity and motion to compel arbitration under the FAA.  Court held that plaintiffs could sue tribunal officers for injunctive relief on violations of state and federal law for activity occurring off tribal lands and held that the loan agreements’ arbitral clauses were unenforceable and unconscionable because they exclusively required application of tribal law, waiving the right to pursue federal statutory remedies, and restricted review of awards to a tribal court. 

  • Kennedy v. LVNV Funding LLC, No. 2:18-CV-10695-JMV-CLW (D.N.J. Apr. 24, 2019)
    04/24/2019

    Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court concluded that it was unclear whether an arbitration agreement existed between the parties and compelled discovery to determine whether defendants were successors or assigns of the underlying contract.

  • Safra Securities, LLC, v. Gonzales, No. 18-2343 (2d Cir. Apr. 23, 2019)
    04/23/2019

    Second Circuit affirmed a district courts order dismissing defendant’s motion to enjoin pending arbitration.  Court ignored plaintiff’s argument that they were coerced by the FINRA administrator to agree to arbitration, finding that these allegations did not undermine a conclusion that the parties agreed to submit disputes to arbitration.

  • Inversiones y Procesadora Tropical Inprotsa, S.A. v. Del Monte International GMBH, No. 16-17623 (11th Cir. Apr. 23, 2019) 
    04/23/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s orders denying petition to vacate and confirming an ICC arbitration award, finding the award did not offend public policy.  Court of appeals confirmed that district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the petition to vacate the award because it fell under the New York Convention and upheld the dismissal of the petition since none of the New York Convention grounds for vacatur were raised.   

  • Rittmann v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-01554-JCC (W.D. Wash. Apr. 23, 2019) 
    04/23/2019

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration.  Court found the FAA was inapplicable to plaintiffs, as they fell within the transportation worker exemption under § 1 of the FAA.  Court held the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because the governing law provision specifically stated that the FAA applied and excluded application of Washington state law; and therefore, concluded that there was not a valid agreement to arbitrate as it was unclear what law should apply.
     

  • Rubis Caribbean Holdings, Inc. v. Be Tag Holdings Limited and Blue Equity International, LLC, No. 1:15-CV-24369-JLK (S.D. Fla. Apr. 23, 2019) 
    04/23/2019

    Court granted motion to confirm AAA arbitral award and denied motion to vacate the award under § 10 of the FAA.  Court held respondents had not met their burden of demonstrating evident partiality, finding that there was no financial relationship between the arbitrator and counsel and the arbitrator’s involvement in a matter undertaken by counsel was not suggestive as a potential conflict as the arbitrator had disclosed his involvement.

  • The Shakespeare Globe Trust v. Kultur International Films, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-16297-AET-LHG (D.N.J. Apr. 22, 2019) 
    04/22/2019

    Court granted motion for preliminary injunction and held that the arbitration agreement could not be enforced, because the underlying contract had been terminated and the dispute arose after the termination of the contract.

  • Thomas v. V.I. Terminal Services, LLC, No. 3:15-CV-00016-WAL-RM (D.V.I. Apr. 19, 2019)
    04/19/2019

    Court granted defendant’s unopposed motion to confirm an arbitration award when it was properly filed in a federal court of competent jurisdiction within one year, pursuant to the parties’ agreement and § 9 of the FAA. 

  • Stati v. Republic of Kazakhstan, No. 1:14-CV-01638 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 19, 2019)
    04/19/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to grant plaintiff’s petition to confirm an arbitral award rendered under the auspices of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce in Sweden.  Court found defendant failed to show that any exceptions to enforceability of arbitral awards under the New York Convention were appropriate in this case.

  • National Indemnity Company v. IRB Brasil Resseguros S.A., No. 18-534-CV (2d Cir. Apr. 18, 2019) 
    04/18/2019

    Court of appeals vacated district court’s order granting motion to enforce arbitral award, concluding that a settlement agreement between petitioner and intervenor did not establish liability of non-party respondent, but rejected respondent’s argument that the settlement agreement exonerated it from any further liability under the arbitral award. 

  • Davison Design & Development, Inc. v. Frison, No. 2:17-CV-01468-JFC (W.D. Pa. Apr. 18, 2019)
    04/18/2019

    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.  

  • Guia v. World CDJR LLC, No. 2:18-CV-04294-AB (E.D. Pa. Apr. 17, 2019)
    04/17/2019

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that discovery was necessary to ascertain whether the parties agreed to arbitrate when it was unclear which of two sets of documents controlled the disputed transaction.  Court found that without such discovery, it could not engage in the conflict of law analysis that would ultimately be necessary to determine whether the parties agreed to arbitrate.

  • Guia v. World CDJR LLC, No. 2:18-CV-04294-AB (E.D. Pa. Apr. 17, 2019)
    04/17/2019

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that discovery was necessary to ascertain whether the parties agreed to arbitrate when it was unclear which of two sets of documents controlled the disputed transaction.  Court found that without such discovery, it could not engage in the conflict of law analysis that would ultimately be necessary to determine whether the parties agreed to arbitrate.

  • Halliburton Energy Services v. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company, No. 17-20768 (5th Cir. Apr. 17, 2019)
    04/17/2019

    Court of appeals reversed, inter alia, lower court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that even though defendant was a non-signatory to the agreement, it still had the right enforce the agreement through its rights to subrogation.  Court found that the parties intended for the issue of subrogation rights to be arbitrated when they incorporated the AAA Rules.

  • Harris v. Equifax Information Services, No. 2:18-CV-00558 (S.D.W. Va. Apr. 17, 2019)
    04/17/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding a valid agreement to arbitrate where there was a delegation clause submitting the issue of arbitrability to an arbitrator.  Court found that arbitration was appropriate notwithstanding plaintiff’s claims as to the scope of the agreement and whether defendant was an intended party, given that the agreement left such issues to be decided by an arbitrator.

  • LifeTree Trading Pte. Ltd. v. Washakie Renewable Energy LLC, No. 18-1458 (2d Cir. Apr. 17, 2019)
    04/17/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed, inter alia, lower court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that incorporation of industry-standard provisions which mention arbitration in London under English law, contradicted the choice-of-law provision in the underlying contract mandating dispute resolution in New York and under New York law.  Court additionally found that defendant waived its right to arbitrate when it actively litigated the action for three years and affirmatively requested a jury trial.

  • Doe v. Stoneridge Homes, Inc., No. 5:18-CV-02101-CLS (N.D. Ala. Apr. 16, 2019)
    04/16/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, declining plaintiffs’ argument that there was no mutual assent to the arbitration clause when the clause required arbitration “by and pursuant to” a nonexistent arbitration provision from another agreement.  Court found that the arbitration clause standing alone – notwithstanding the reference to the other provision – demonstrated a clear intent to arbitrate.

  • Benedict v. Amgen USA, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-00113-SO (N.D. Ohio Apr. 15, 2019)
    04/15/2019

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate an arbitration award, and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process, finding that plaintiff failed to comply with the service requirements of § 12 of the FAA when she notified defendant via email.   Court found that § 12 requires service by marshal, and, even if it did not, service by email would not be sufficient.

  • Harris v. Chelan County Sheriff’s Department, No. 2:17-CV-0137-JTR (E.D. Wash. Apr. 15, 2019)
    04/15/2019

    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.

  • Livingston v. The Progressive Eldercare Service – Cleveland Inc., No. 5:19-CV-00044-JM (E.D. Ark. Apr. 15, 2019)
    04/15/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement was enforceable – despite lacking defendant’s signature – when defendant clearly manifested consent to the agreement. Court additionally found that plaintiffs’ employment as healthcare providers did not preclude application of the FAA.

  • Loyola v. American Credit Acceptance LLC, No. 2:19-CV-00002-SMJ (E.D. Wash. Apr. 15, 2019)
    04/15/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that Plaintiffs’ challenges to enforceability were subject to arbitration and thus would not be considered under § 2 of the FAA.

  • Lerner v. Citigroup, No. 2:16-CV-01573 (D.N.J. Apr. 12, 2019)
    04/12/2019

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate an arbitration award, declining merits-based arguments as courts are not authorized to reconsider the merits of an arbitral award.  Court found that no conflict of interest existed between the AAA and the defendant when defendant’s counsel served as a board member of the AAA and had previously advised defendant in over a dozen cases.

  • Griffin v. Portaro Group, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-02786 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 12, 2019)
    04/12/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay a class and collective action, pending the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela – which will determine whether the FAA forecloses a state-law interpretation of whether an arbitration agreement authorizes class arbitration based solely on general language commonly used in such agreements.  Because Plaintiffs signed an arbitration agreement that was silent as to authorization of class arbitrations, Lamps Plus would determine whether the case should proceed through court of through arbitration.

  • Ballinasmalla Holdings Limited v. FCStone Merchant Services, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-12254-PKC (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 2019)
    04/11/2019

    Court denied petitioners’ claim to vacate an arbitration award under the New York Convention, and granted respondents’ counter-claim to confirm the award, when the arbitrator acted within the scope of his powers and did not manifestly disregard the law.  Court found that the award was final and definite when it decided liability and damages, despite potentially being subject to subsequent litigation pending a decision by a New York appellate court.  Court found that the arbitrator’s decision not to stay the case did not manifestly disregard New York law or the AAA Rules. 

  • Abner v. Convergys Corporation, No. 1:18-CV-00442 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 11, 2019)
    04/11/2019

    Court denied defendant’s motion to strike collective and class action claims, finding that the Sixth Circuit deems a class or collective action waiver invalid in an employment agreement, when such waiver is presented without an arbitration provision.

  • Mitsui Sumimoto Insurance USA, Inc. v. Denham-Blythe Company, Inc., No. 5:18-CV-00152-JMH (E.D. Ky. Apr. 11, 2019)
    04/11/2019

    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.

  • Rowland v. Carmax Auto Superstores California, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-02135-VC (E.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2019)
    04/11/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case without prejudice, denying plaintiff’s argument that enforcement of an arbitration agreement is a state action implicating the First and Fifth Amendments.  Court also found that the agreement was not substantively unconscionable when it expressly reserved plaintiff’s right to seek relief from any government agency.

  • CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. v. Gas Workers Union, No. 17-01322 (8th Cir. Apr. 10, 2019)
    04/10/2019

    Appellate Court reversed district court’s vacatur of an arbitration award and directed that they affirm on remand.  District court had held that the arbitrator disregarded the plain language of the contract by reading in “basic notions of fairness and due process,” but the appellate court found that the arbitrator had found that these were implicit to articles in the agreement. Thus, the appellate court determined that the arbitrator’s views, right or wrong, were an interpretation of the contract and were not grounds for vacatur.

  • Neumayer v. Allstate Insurance Company, No. 17-56469 (9th Cir. Apr. 10, 2019)
    04/10/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s breach of contract claim based on an alleged “sham” arbitration which resulted in an award for defendants.  The court found that plaintiff failed to state a claim when she failed to challenge the arbitration award through a petition to vacate or correct the award.

  • In re Application of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan for an Order Permitting Discovery Pursuant to 28 USC. § 1782 v. Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, No. 1:18-MC-00103-RMC (D.D.C. Apr. 10, 2019)
    04/10/2019

    Court granted in part and denied in part a foreign sovereign petitioner’s application for an order permitting discovery pursuant to 28 USC § 1782.  The court rejected respondent’s argument that the ICSID Tribunal – or any other “supra-national arbitral institution” – is not a foreign tribunal contemplated by § 1782, finding that arbitrations pursuant to bilateral investment treaties are sanctioned by governments, who also participate in such arbitrations.  The court found that discretionary factors weighed against permitting discovery where respondent claimed that it had no access to sought-after electronic records.  Notwithstanding, the court also found that respondent could respond to petitioner’s interrogatories when they would not require burdensome document recovery, review, and production. 

  • Jolen, Inc. v. Kundan Rice Mills, Ltd., No. 1:19-CV-01296-PKC (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2019)
    04/10/2019

    Court confirmed petitioner’s unopposed petition to confirm an arbitration award, finding that an arbitrator’s partial award as to liability, but not as to damages, was “final” for the purposes of confirming an award under § 10(a)(4) of the FAA.

  • Ingenieria, Maquinaria y Equipos de Colombia S.A. v. Aviation Technology & Turbine Service, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-03624-JBS-JS (D.N.J. April 9, 2018) 
    04/09/2019

    Court granted in part and denied in part respondent’s motion to stay execution of judgment pending appeal and waive the bond requirement or alternatively, approve a supersedes bond pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(b).  Court found bond requirement should not be waived as respondent did not satisfy the factors related to complexity of the collection process or the amount of time to obtain an appeal.  Court stayed execution of judgment and set the bond at the amount of the arbitration award.

  • In re: Application of CA Investment (Brazil) S.A., No. 0:19-MC-00022-MJD-SER (D. Minn. Apr. 9, 2019)
    04/09/2019

    Court granted a Brazilian corporation’s ex parte application for an order to take discovery for use in foreign proceedings under 28 USC § 1782, granting applicant discovery for use in proceedings including an ICC arbitrations in Brazil.  The court granted the application, finding that the targeted bank conducted business within the judicial district, the discovery sought would be used in several foreign proceedings, and that applicant was an “interested person” given that it was a participant in such proceedings.

  • Sanchez v. Gruma Corporation, No. 3:19-CV-00794-WHO (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2019)
    04/09/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement was enforceable because it did not contain any substantively unconscionable provisions – despite plaintiff’s arguments that the agreement was procedurally unconscionable.  The court found that substantive unconscionability did not exist when, inter alia, the contract contained provisions incorporating the JAMS fee-shifting rules.

  • Broom v. Mydatt Services, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00358 (D. Haw. Apr. 8, 2019)
    04/08/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that the agreement was not substantively unconscionable when it incorporated fee-splitting provisions of the AAA Rules.  The court found that because an agreement must be both substantively and procedurally unconscionable to not be enforced, it did not need to reach plaintiff’s argument that the agreement was procedurally unconscionable for having a print smaller than the size found on other documents signed during his application process. 

  • Cilliers v. Cobalt Holdings, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-02428 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 8, 2019)
    04/08/2019

    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.

  • Paisley Park Enterprises, Inc. v. Boxill, No. 0:17-CV-01212-WMW-TNL (D. Minn. Apr. 8, 2019)
    04/08/2019

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to confirm an arbitration award, and denied defendant’s motion to vacate the award, finding that the arbitrator neither committed misconduct nor exceeded her authority where defendant disagreed with the arbitrator’s legal conclusion.  The court declined defendant’s argument that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law, citing that the Eighth Circuit no longer recognizes manifest disregard for the law as a basis to vacate an arbitration award.

  • Wood v. Team Enterprises, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-06867-WHA (N.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2019)
    04/07/2019

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration in a putative class action, finding that the arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable when plaintiffs lacked equal bargaining power and the agreement was offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.  The court additionally found that the agreement was substantively unconscionable where several provisions conflicted with rights under California law such as placing a one-year statute of limitations on arbitration claims.

  • Carpio v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., No. 18-CV-22923 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 4, 2019)
    04/04/2019

    Court granted a motion to remand in a wrongful death suit. Court found that it no longer had original jurisdiction over the case and declined the defendant’s request to stay the litigation pending the outcome of arbitration and exercise supplemental jurisdiction for convenience reasons.

  • Anderson v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-00706-JDP (W.D. Wis. Apr. 4, 2019)
    04/04/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable when plaintiff failed to demonstrate unequal bargaining power and where the agreement contained a class action waiver.  The court additionally found that neither the scope of an arbitration provision nor its choice of institutional forum renders such provision unconscionable.

  • Noye v. Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc., No. 18-2197 (3d Cir. Apr. 4, 2019)
    04/04/2019

    Court of appeals vacated lower court order denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding a sufficiently close relationship between defendant and the signatories to the arbitration agreement to allow defendant to enforce the agreement as a non-signatory.  The court found that a close relationship existed when, inter alia, a signatory was authorize to use the defendant’s logos and trademarks on employment forms including the document containing the arbitration agreement.

  • Trident Atlanta, LLC v. Charlie Graingers Franchising, LLC, No. 7:18-CV-00010-BO (E.D.N.C. Apr. 4, 2019)
    04/04/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiffs did not show that they suffered any prejudice when defendants filed their motion after a year of pursuing litigation.  The court found that plaintiffs did not suffer any prejudice when defendants only moved to dismiss and the discovery process had recently begun. 

  • Thompson v. Sutherland Global Services, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-03607 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 3, 2019)
    04/03/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration provision was enforceable when the defendant was neither a party nor a signatory to the agreement.  The court found that the agreement was enforceable by defendant when it was included in a list of affiliates defining parties to the agreement.  The court further found that defendant could enforce the agreement because a non-signatory may enforce an arbitration agreement when acting as the agent of a signatory.

  • Powell v. United Rentals (North America), Inc., No. 2:17-CV-01573-JLP (W.D. Wash. Apr. 3, 2019)
    04/03/2019

    Court declined to rule on defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding improper venue when the agreement was subject to a forum selection clause mandating resolution in Connecticut.  Court found, inter alia, that while it had subject matter jurisdiction over the action, this did not allow the court to ignore the forum selection clause.

  • United States of America, ex rel. v. Singulex, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-05241-KAW (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2019)
    04/03/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding, inter alia, that the arbitration provision was not unconscionable when plaintiff had 48 hours to review the agreement and the provision incorporated the AAA Rules, but did not provide a copy of the rules.  Court additionally found that a one-sided contract is not necessarily substantively unconscionable, and that provisions under such contract may be severed to enforce the agreement. 

  • Abraham v. Jetsmarter Inc., No. 2:18-CV-01647-WED (E.D. Wis. Apr. 2, 2019)
    04/02/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in favor of mandatory arbitration, finding that plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate when they clicked the button next to a phrase stating that they accept the terms and conditions of the agreement containing the arbitration clause.  Court found that the agreement was neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable when defendants were able to negotiate the terms and the agreement contained a class action waiver.

  • Bellevue v. Exxon Mobile Corporation, No. 1:19-CV-00652-BMC-LB (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2019)
    04/02/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement contained in the terms of a co-branded credit card was valid even when the agreement referred to only one of the two defendants offering the card.  Court held that the provision including claims made by or against anyone “connected with” the mentioned defendant was sufficient to include claims by the unmentioned defendant. 

  • I.D. Images, LLC v. Meritan Health, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-02177-JG (N.D. Ohio Apr. 1, 2019)
    04/01/2019

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm an arbitration award, and denied defendant’s motion to vacate the award, finding that the arbitrator arguably construed a contract in making his decision.  Court declined plaintiff’s argument that the arbitrator did not arguably construe the contract when the arbitrator failed to address plaintiff’s interpretation. 

  • CRT Capital Group LLC v. SLS Capital, S.A., No. 1:18-CV-03986-VSB (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2019)
    03/31/2019

    Court granted petitioner’s petition to confirm an arbitration award and denied respondent’s cross-petition to vacate the award. Court held that the arbitral tribunal’s decision to exclude rebuttal expert testimony did not warrant vacatur under § 10(a)(3) of the FAA.  Court also found that there was a reasonable basis for the panel to exclude rebuttal expert testimony when its decision was based on petitioner’s arguments to exclude the testimony. 

  • Republic of Kazakhstan v. Stati, No. 1:17-CV-02067-ABJ (D.D.C. Mar. 30, 2019)
    03/30/2019

    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.”

  • Spruce Environmental Technologies, Inc. v. Festa Radon Technologies, Co., No. 1:18-CV-11828-NMG (D. Mass. Mar. 30, 2019)
    03/30/2019

    Court denied defendant’s motion to vacate an arbitration award and granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm the award, finding no manifest disregard for the law when, inter alia, the arbitrator rendered the arbitration award one day later than the thirty days required by the JAMS rules. 

  • Moskalenko v. Carnival PLC, No. 1:17-CV-06947-NGG-CLP (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2019)
     
    03/29/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration under the New York Convention and the FAA, finding that plaintiff was bound to an agreement to arbitrate when she signed a contract incorporating the arbitration clause by reference but did not sign the referenced agreement.  Court noted that federal arbitration law controlled the question of whether an U.S. non-signatory to an arbitration agreement can be bound to arbitrate under the Convention.

  • Business Credit & Capital II LLC v. Neuronexus, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-03374-ALC (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2019)
    03/29/2019

    Court granted petitioner’s application to confirm an arbitration award, and denied respondents’ motion to vacate the award and dismiss the action, finding that the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law and that the court had jurisdiction over respondents.  Court found that the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law when he considered cases cited by respondents but interpreted them differently than respondents.  Court additionally held that it had jurisdiction over respondents when the underlying arbitration agreement and forum selection clause subjected respondents to the jurisdiction of any federal court in New York. 

  • iiiTec, Limited v. Weatherford Technology Holdings, LLC, No. 4:18-CV-01191 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2019)
    03/29/2019

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration where defendants were not signatories to the arbitration agreement.  Court held that defendants did not have a sufficiently close relationship to a signatory of the contract nor did they receive a direct benefit under the agreement that would make the arbitration clause binding on defendants.  

  • Passmore v. SSC Kerrville Hilltop Village Operating Company LLC, No. 5:18-CV-00782-FB-ESC (W.D. Tex. March 28, 2019)
    03/28/2019

    Court denied motion to stay proceedings pending appeal of district court’s denial of defendants’ motion to compel arbitration to the Fifth Circuit.  Court found that there was not a substantial legal question involved; the public interest did not favor the issuance of a stay; defendants did not show that plaintiffs would not be injured by the stay; and defendants did not make a strong showing of a likelihood of success on the merits.

  • Herndon v. Sherwood Construction Co., Inc., No. 4:19-CV-00028-CVE-JFJ (N.D. Okla. March 28, 2019)
    03/28/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pursuant to the FAA.  Court found that there was a valid arbitral agreement and the breach of contract and negligence claims fell within the scope of the contract.

  • W.P. Carey, Inc. v. Bigler, No. 1:18-CV-00585-KPF (S.D.N.Y. March 27, 2019) 
    03/27/2019

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration under the FAA and granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.  Court found plaintiff who was a non-signatory to the arbitral agreement was not bound to arbitrate under the theories of assumption, agency, veil-piercing, or estoppel.  

  • Hoolahan v. IBC Advanced Alloys Corp., No. 1:17-CV-11949-GAO (D. Mass. March 27, 2019)
    03/27/2019

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award under the FAA.  Although the court assumed the validity of the manifest disregard doctrine, it concluded no manifest disregard occurred and denied the motion to vacate the award.

  • Adam Joseph Resources (M) SDN BHD. v. CNA Metals Limited, No. 17-20685 (5th Cir. March 26, 2019) 
    03/26/2019

    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.

  • G.G., A.L., and B.S. v. Valve Corporation, No. 2:16-CV-01941-JCC (W.D. Wash. March 26, 2019) 
    03/26/2019

    Court granted motion to lift stay and dismissed the case with prejudice, as the AAA tribunal had issued awards dispositive of plaintiffs’ claims and the arbitration proceedings were closed.  Pursuant to the FAA, the court denied plaintiffs’ challenges contesting the enforcement of the awards on public policy grounds and claims the arguments did not fall within the scope of the arbitral agreement.  Court rejected plaintiffs’ claims that the awards should be vacated under § 10 of the FAA.

  • Smarter Tools Inc. v. Chongqing SENCI Import & Export Trade Co., Ltd., No. 1:18-CV-02714-AJN (S.D.N.Y. March 26, 2019) 
    03/26/2019

    Court denied petitioner’s motion to vacate an arbitration award and denied respondent’s cross-petition for confirmation of the award and remanded the issue to the arbitrator for clarification of the award.  Court found that the arbitrator exceeded its authority in failing to issue a reasoned award, where the award contained no reason for rejecting petitioner’s claims, but rejected petitioner’s argument that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law in failing to apply the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods.  Court concluded the proper remedy for failure to issue a reasoned award was not to vacate the award but to remand to the arbitrator.

  • Baugh v. Allied Professionals Insurance Company, No. 1:18-CV-00074-DB-EJF (D. Utah March 26, 2019) 
    03/26/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings under the FAA, concluding that the parties delegated the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator.  Court granted attorneys’ fees to defendant for the motion to compel pursuant to the agreement between the parties.

  • Knepper v. Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., No. 2:19-CV-00527-JVS-ADS (C.D. Cal. March 26, 2019) 
    03/26/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay all proceedings pursuant to the FAA, finding that although plaintiff did not sign the arbitration agreement, she was on notice that it would become binding unless she signed an opt-out agreement.  Court held the class action waiver in the arbitral agreement was valid and denied the motion to amend to add additional plaintiffs.  Court granted motion for leave to amend to add a claim for breach of fiduciary duty.

  • Compania de Inversiones Mercantiles S.A. v. Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua, S.A.B. de C.V., No. 1:15-CV-02120-JLK (D. Colo. March 25, 2019)
     
    03/25/2019

    Court granted motion to confirm foreign arbitral award under the New York Convention.  Court found that the merits award was not set aside by a competent authority in Bolivia and that the damages award was binding under the New York Convention despite an ongoing annulment proceeding.  Court held a stay was unwarranted.

  • Alvarez-Mauras v. Banco Popular of Puerto Rico, No. 18-1051 (1st Cir. March 25, 2019)
    03/25/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed the decision of the district court that plaintiff’s RICO claims against one defendant must be pursued in arbitration because they fell within the scope of a binding arbitration agreement.  Court concluded that claims against the defendant’s wife were subject to arbitration because they were derivative of the claims against him.  Court held that plaintiff’s RICO claims were time barred under the four-year statute of limitations as applied to the defendant non-party to the arbitration agreement.

  • Vine v. PLS Financial Services, Inc. and PLS Loan Store of Texas, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-00450-ALM (E.D. Tex. March 25, 2019)
    03/25/2019

    Court denied defendants’ motion to reconsider denial of motion to compel arbitration.  Court declined to reconsider the Fifth Circuit’s affirmance of the district court’s orders to deny the motion to compel arbitration because defendants had substantially invoked the judicial process under the law-of-the-case doctrine, concluding that the new Texas Supreme Court decision was not an intervening change in law.

  • Williamson v. Dillard’s, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-00451-CVE-FHM (N.D. Okla. March 25, 2019)
    03/25/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration under the FAA.  Court found plaintiff’s claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act fell within the scope of the arbitral agreement and that the agreement was enforceable because the arbitration agreement did not lack consideration as the arbitration of disputes arising out of plaintiff’s employment was a valuable benefit to both parties.

  • Postal Police Officers Association v. United States Postal Service, No. 2:18-CV-11457-MOB-APP (E.D. Mich. Mar. 25, 2019).
    03/25/2019

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for an order confirming an arbitration award and for summary judgment.  Court held the arbitrator did not exceed his authority and decided that there was no basis to set aside the arbitrator’s decision on arbitrability issues under the deferential standard that governs this inquiry.

  • Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v. Black Diamond Capital Management, LLC., No. 1:18-CV-07620 (S.D.N.Y. March 22, 2019) 
    03/22/2019

    Court granted petition to vacate the amended final award and confirm the final award under the New York Convention.  Court held that the arbitral panel exceeded its powers and exhibited manifest disregard of the law when it changed its method for calculating the interest due from the final award to the amended final award.

  • Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Bucsek, No. 17-881 (2d Cir. Mar. 22, 2019)
    03/22/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision granting plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction barring defendant from pursuing claims in arbitration before FINRA.  Court held the district court correctly decided the question whether plaintiff was obligated to arbitrate the dispute was to be decided by a court, rather than an arbitrator and that plaintiff’s claims did not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement. 

  • Lance v. Midland Credit Management Inc., No. 2-18-CV-04933-MAK (E.D. Pa. Mar. 22, 2019)
    03/22/2019

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration as the issues concerning the terms of an assignment either precluded defendants’ right to compel arbitration or were ambiguous requiring further discovery before court could determine consent to arbitration existed. 

  • Garcia v. Trademark Construction Co., Inc., No. 3:18-CV-01214-JLS-WVG (S.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2019)
    03/22/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s individual claims, dismissed plaintiff’s class claim and stayed plaintiff’s PAGA claims pending resolution of the arbitration of plaintiff’s individual claims.  Court held the arbitration agreement was enforceable and encompassed plaintiff’s individual claims, rejecting claims of procedural and substantive unconscionability. 

  • Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance USA, Inc., v. Denham-Blythe Company, Inc., No. 5:18-CV-00152-JMH (E.D. Ky. Mar. 21, 2019) 
    03/21/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the action without prejudice, directing plaintiff to comply with the dispute resolution provisions set forth in the contract requiring the parties to mediate their claims and eventually submit them to arbitration. 

  • Johnson v. Oracle America, Inc., No. 17-17489 (9th Cir. Mar. 21, 2019)
    03/21/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order compelling arbitration in an employment dispute.  Court held that the district court correctly ruled it was for the arbitrator to determine which contract defined the scope of the arbitration. 

  • Smith v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-01351-LJO-JLT (E.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2019)
    03/21/2019

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss or in the alternative to stay proceedings and compel arbitration.  Court held the defendant did not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff signed the electronic agreement, which contained an arbitration agreement. 

  • Esparza v. Smartpay Leasing, Inc., 17-17175 (9th Cir. Mar. 21, 2019)
    03/21/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the district court correctly determined that plaintiff’s claims did not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • Walker v. Dillard’s, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00657-MV-KK (D.N.M. Mar. 20, 2019)
    03/20/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay this lawsuit, finding the evidence established that the parties entered into an agreement to arbitrate.  Court further held it was for the arbitrator to decide whether the arbitration agreement is unenforceable for lack of consideration.

  • Life Care Centers of America Inc. v. Estate of Fannie Deal, No. 1:18-CV-00187-MV-KK (D.N.M. Mar. 20, 2019)
    03/20/2019

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement was valid and that court should not abstain from exercising jurisdiction over plaintiff’s action to compel arbitration and that the defendant was bound to the arbitration agreement because it was a third-party beneficiary to the agreement.  Court further held the provision of the arbitration agreement that prohibited an award of fees and costs in connection with defendant’s claim, and the provision of the arbitration agreement that prohibited an award of exemplary or punitive damages were unenforceable and, therefore, severed these provisions from the arbitration agreement.

  • Alkatib v. Progressive Paralegal Services LLC, No. 1:18-CV-02859-JG (N.D. Ohio Mar. 20, 2019)
    03/20/2019

    Court granted in part defendant’s motion to stay and compel arbitration, finding the defendant did not waive arbitration and that thirteen out of fourteen counts were within the scope of the arbitration agreement and plaintiff should be ordered to arbitrate these claims.

  • Mitchell v. Diversicare of Batesville, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-00278-SA-RP (N.D. Miss. Mar. 20, 2019)
    03/20/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration by agreement of the parties.

  • Shepherd v. LPL Financial LLC, No. 5:17-CV-150-D (W.D.N.C. Mar. 20, 2019)
    03/20/2019

    Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and confirmed an arbitration award entered in plaintiff’s favor.  Court held plaintiffs could not show the arbitrator was partial and that plaintiffs did not meet their burden of proof under 9 USC § 10(a)(l) concerning an allegation defendant failed to produce relevant documents during the arbitration.

  • Quintero v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, No. 1:19-CV-00261-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2019)
    03/20/2019

    Court granted the parties joint stipulation to stay the matter while they engage in arbitration and requested the parties to file a joint status report every ninety days informing the court of the status of the arbitration.

  • SS White Burs, Inc. v. Guidance Endodontics, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-00698-WJ-KBM (D.N.M. Mar. 19, 2019)
    03/19/2019

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend a prior decision entering a memorandum opinion and order denying plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss case.  Court found that district court did not err in failing to apply motion to dismiss standard and it did not misapprehend the facts.

  • Sunmonu v. Chase Bank, N.A. No. 1:18-CV-01695-GLR (D. Md. Mar. 19, 2019)
    03/19/2019

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunctive relief and granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held defendant made the necessary showing of the four requirements to compel arbitration, namely (i) the existence of a dispute between the parties; (ii) a written agreement that includes an arbitration provision which purports to cover the dispute; (iii) the relationship of the transaction, which is evidenced by the agreement, to interstate or foreign commerce; and (iv) the failure, neglect or refusal of the defendant to arbitrate the dispute. 

  • Hanson v. Tmx Finance, LLC No. 2:18-CV-00616-RFB-CWB (D. Nev. Mar. 19, 2019)
    03/19/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the introduction of claims before courts could not amount to an opt out of the arbitration agreement under the terms of the underlying contract because it contained specific requirements that plaintiff did not comply with. 

  • Ithaca Capital Investments I, S.A. v. Trump Panama Hotel Management LLC No. 1:18-CV-00390-ER (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2019)
    03/19/2019

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to stay the action pending the resolution of a related arbitration, finding that several of the defendant’s claims would not be resolved by arbitration and plaintiffs have failed to show that the arbitration would conclude in a reasonable amount of time. 

  • State Enterprise Research-Industrial Complex “Pavlograd Chemical Plant” v. Petroleum & Materials LLC No. 2:18-CV-02510-ADS-AKT (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2019)
    03/19/2019

    Court concurred with the report and recommendation from the Magistrate Judge recommending that (i) default judgment be granted in favor of the petitioner; and (ii) the award issued by the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce on June 20, 2017 be confirmed.

  • Thibault v. Heartland Recreational Vehicles, LLC No. 2:18-CV-00732-GCS-EPD (S.D. Ohio Mar. 19, 2019) 
    03/19/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, finding that (i) defendant did not waive the right to compel arbitration, (ii) the parties agreed to arbitration, (iii) plaintiff’s claims are within the scope of the arbitration agreement, (iv) the claims were arbitrable, (v) the non-signatory defendants could enforce the arbitration agreement. 

  • Anderson v. American General Life Insurance, No. 4:17-CV-00117-LGW-CLR (S.D. Ga. Mar. 19, 2019)
    03/19/2019

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate arbitration award, finding that the arbitrator did not refuse to hear “pertinent and material” evidence and that the plaintiff could not show prejudice, partiality, misbehavior by the arbitrator or that he exceeded his powers or committed a manifest disregard of law.

  • Crump v. Metasource Acquisitions LLC, No. 2:18-CV-03313-WB (E.D. Pa. Mar. 19, 2019)
    03/19/2019

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, concluding the arbitration agreement was unenforceable.  Court held the arbitration agreement was illusory because the defendants had the unfettered discretion to modify their arbitration obligations and the arbitration agreement was not supported by sufficient consideration in the form of continued employment. 

  • SRC Construction Corp. of Monroe v. Atlantic City Housing Authority No. 1:10-CV-03461-RMB-AMD (D.N.J. Mar. 18, 2019)
    03/18/2019

    Court denied defendant’s motion to vacate final arbitration award and plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and bond motion, finding that there was no evidence of partiality or bias in the tribunal’s final decision and that the tribunal did not manifestly disregard the law. 

  • Lowell Daniels v. Diamond Resorts Financial Services, Inc. No. 2:18-CV-00561 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 18, 2019)
    03/18/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the complaint without prejudice, finding that defendant could enforce the arbitration agreement because it was an affiliate of the signatory of the underlying contract.  Court further held that the claims in question fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement. 

  • Riverbay Corporation v. Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ No. 1:18-CV-04660-RA (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2019)
    03/18/2019

    Court denied plaintiff’s petition to vacate the award and granted defendant’s cross petition to confirm the award.  Court held the allegations the award was not final because the arbitrator failed to decide all issues submitted by plaintiff as well as that the arbitrator exceeded the scope of his authority were unsupported.  Further, court held plaintiff did not identify any other basis to vacate the award, thereby granting the petition to confirm the award. 

  • Fedor v. United Healthcare, Inc. No. 1:17-CV-00013-MV-KBM (D.N.M. Mar. 18, 2019) 
    03/18/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, strike class and collective action claims and compel arbitration and dismissed the case, finding the underlying contract unmistakably delegated to the arbitrator any dispute as to the application and enforceability of the contract.  Given that the plaintiff only challenged the validity of the contract as a whole without mentioning the delegate provision, Court considered it was constrained to treat the delegate provision as valid and enforce it. 

  • Butler v. AT&T No. 1:18-CV-01749-PAB-SKC (D. Colo. Mar. 18, 2019)
    03/18/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings.  Court found the contract was binding between the parties and that the mutual promise to arbitrate was sufficient consideration to support the agreement.  Further, court held the parties’ agreement covered the claims asserted in this matter and that as a result the arbitration agreement was enforceable. 

  • State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v. Marrero No. 5:18-CV-00433-HSP (E.D. Pa. Mar. 15, 2019)
    03/15/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration holding that the arbitration agreement must be enforced because it unambiguously encompassed the subrogation dispute in question.  

  • Papalote Creek II, L.L.C. v. Lower Colorado River Authority No. 17-50852 (5th Cir. Mar. 15, 2019)
    03/15/2019

    Court reversed the district court’s order compelling arbitration and remanded for further proceedings, finding that the dispute did not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement because the arbitration agreement required that disputes about performance of the agreement be subject to arbitration, while in the case at hand it was an interpretative dispute. 

  • Jiangsu Guotai International Group Guomao Corporation, Limited v. Jad International Corporation No. 1:18-CV-02699-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2019)
    03/15/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss based on an agreement between the principal parties to arbitrate their disputes before CIETAC.  Court held the claims fell within the broad scope of the arbitration agreement and that a non-signatory was also bound to arbitrate because the claims were intertwined with the agreements between the signatories. 

  • Lunn v. Allianz Global Corporate and Specialty SE No. 2:19-CV-00347-RGK-PJW (C.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2019)
    03/15/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the non-signatories parties could enforce the arbitration agreement because they were third-party beneficiaries or agents and because they did not waive the right to compel arbitration. 

  • FCCI Insurance Company v. Nicholas County Library No. 5:18-CV-00038-JMH (E.D. Ky. Mar. 15, 2019) 
    03/15/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.  Court held plaintiff had to submit its claims to an arbitrator because the parties agreed to let the arbitrator rule on his or her own jurisdiction and as a result determined to dismiss the action without prejudice. 

  • Board of County Commissioners of the County of Bernalillo v. Bok Financial Securities, Inc. No. 1:17-cv-00948-PJK-KBM (D.N.M. Mar. 15, 2019)
    03/15/2019

    Court granted defendant’s request to confirm arbitral award with the exception of one issue related to prejudgment interest, finding the arbitration panel acted within the scope of the parties’ arbitration agreement by awarding costs and attorney’s fees to defendant. 

  • Abbott v. Crossfit Inc. No. 3:18-CV-02364-WQH-MDD (S.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2019)
    03/15/2019

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate arbitration award and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiff failed to allege facts showing an arbitration effectively took place as well as subject matter jurisdiction.

  • Dickey’s Barbecue Restaurants, Inc. v. Campbell Investments, LLC, No. 4:18-CV-00491-ALM-KPJ (E.D. Tex. Mar. 15, 2019)
    03/15/2019

    Court overruled objections to magistrate judge’s recommendation and ordered parties to submit disputes to arbitration, finding that (i) another court’s interpretation of arbitration provisions in other agreements did not create collateral estoppel or res judicata; (ii) party’s failure in the other proceedings to rely on arbitration clause in the contract giving rise to claims at issue in the present litigation was not the sort of “overt act” waiving right to arbitrate under that clause; and (iii) the question of whether the claims fall within the scope of the arbitration clause should be determined by the arbitrator.

  • Boves v. Aaron’s Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00005-HBP (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2019)
    03/14/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings, finding that employee was bound by an arbitration agreement that he received and failed to opt out of, and that the enforcement of that agreement would not breach the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

  • Dimension Service Corporation v. Bayview Ford Lincoln, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-00489-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio Mar. 14, 2019)
    03/14/2019

    Court denied motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction but granted request to arbitrate, finding that the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable.

  • Stacy v. Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd. No. 2:18-CV-13243-KM-JBC (D.N.J. Mar. 14, 2019)
    03/14/2019

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint, finding that the parties were entitled to discovery.  Court held that after focused discovery on the arbitrability issue was complete, it would accept a motion for partial summary judgment to compel arbitration. 

  • Grayton v. San Diego County Credit Union, No. 3:18-CV-02254-WQH-WVG (S.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2019)
    03/14/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings, finding that the arbitration agreement was valid, the claims were within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and that there were no valid bases for challenging enforcement.

  • Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company v. Everest Reinsurance Company, No. 1:18-MC-00653-JEJ (M.D. Pa. Mar. 14, 2019)
    03/14/2019

    Court granted one party’s motion to compel arbitration before a new arbitral panel and denied the other party’s motion to compel arbitration before an existing arbitral panel, finding that question of whether contract required consolidated arbitral proceedings was a question of arbitral procedure that should be decided in arbitration.

  • Bell-Sparrow v. SFP*Proschoicebeauty, No. 4:18-CV-06707-YGR (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2019)
    03/14/2019

    Court granted one defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action as to that defendant alone, finding that (i) question of arbitrability was for court to decide since defendant had not argued that it had been delegated; (ii) credit card agreement containing arbitration clause was validly accepted by the defendant’s use of the credit card, notwithstanding that she did not sign the agreement; (iii) the arbitration agreement was not substantively unconscionable since it did not have terms that shocked the conscience; (iv) the arbitration agreement was not procedurally unconscionable since it provided an opt out mechanism; (v) the arbitration agreement was part of a bargained-for exchange, whereby the plaintiff received and used a credit card; (vi) the plaintiff had not shown that enforcement of the arbitration agreement would be prohibitively expensive in violation of the Seventh Amendment, since the defendant had offered to pay the arbitration fees; and (vii) the claims were within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • Fialek v. I.C. Systems, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-00136-BJD-MCR (M.D. Fla. Mar. 14, 2019)
    03/14/2019

    Court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation granting defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action pending arbitration, finding no plain error in the magistrate judge’s report.

  • Shore Point Distributing Company v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 701 No. 17-3684 (3d Cir. Mar. 13, 2019)
    03/13/2019

    Court of appeals held it did not have jurisdiction to review an order that sent parties back to an arbitration that had already begun because pursuant to 9 USC § 16(b)(2) a court of appeals may not consider an appeal from an interlocutory order directing arbitration to proceed. 

  • Joia v. Jozon Enterprises. Inc No. 1:18-CV-00365-WES-PAS (D.R.I. Mar. 13, 2019)
    03/13/2019

    Magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation that the court lacks statutory and constitutional subject matter jurisdiction over the case, and recommended that the court dismiss Plaintiff’s petition to compel arbitration.  Court held the petition failed to establish subject-matter jurisdiction and that there was no case or controversy to be decided by the court because the plaintiff did not request arbitration and the defendant did not refuse to arbitrate. 

  • Egan Jones Ratings Company v. Pruette No. 17:3415 (3d Cir. Mar. 13, 2019)
    03/13/2019

    Court affirmed the district court decision denying to vacate a final partial arbitration award and granting cross-petition to confirm the award.  Court considered it is not proper for a reviewing court to reexamine the evidence when reviewing an arbitration award and errors in fact finding do not justify reversal and held the arbitrator’s findings were the result of proper weighing of conflicting evidence and no justifiable grounds for vacating the partial final award existed. 

  • Bekele v. Lyft, Inc., No. 16-2109 (1st Cir. Mar. 13, 2019)
    03/13/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to grant motion to compel individual arbitration, finding that (i) party waived argument that no arbitration agreement had been formed by not raising it in his opening brief; (ii) the arbitration clause does not impose substantively unconscionable fees because they do not exceed the potential recovery and because the defendant has offered to pay plaintiff’s share of the fees.

  • Fidelity Brokerage Services v. Deutsch, No. 18-1774 (2d Cir. Mar. 13, 2019)
    03/13/2019

    Court of appeals dismissed appeal of district court’s order rejecting motion to vacate arbitration award on the basis it was incomplete and directing parties back to arbitration.  Circuit court found that the district court had jurisdiction to order the parties back to arbitration since the “complete arbitration” rule was prudential and not jurisdictional, but that there was no appellate jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal of an order directing an arbitration to proceed.

  • Lyon v. Neustar, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-00371-KJM-KJN (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2019)
    03/13/2019

    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.
     

  • Freeman v. River Manor Corp., No. 1:17-CV-05162-RJD-RER (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2019)
    03/13/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed statutory claims, finding that the claims were “inextricably intertwined” with consideration of the applicable collective bargaining agreement and thus must be in accordance with the agreement’s grievance and arbitration procedure.

  • Brecher v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-03142-ERK-JO (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2019)
    03/13/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration on an individual basis and dismissed class action claims, finding that a valid agreement to arbitrate claims arising from credit card debt existed since the debtor was assumed to have received the credit card agreement in the normal course and to have agreed to it by her continued use of the card.

  • Oldcastle Precast, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, No. 7:16-CV-01914-NSR (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2019)
    03/13/2019

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award and denied cross-motion to vacate portions of the award, finding that (i) claims of arbitral misconduct and manifest disregard for the law had not been established; (ii) in the absence of a transcript of the arbitral hearing, a party challenging the proceedings has a heavy burden to establish what transpired; and (iii) the objections had been waived since they were not timely raised in the arbitration.

  • Standard Security Life Insurance Company of New York v. FCE Benefit Administrators, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-00064 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 13, 2019)
    03/13/2019

    Court dismissed action seeking confirmation of arbitral award finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the award was not a complete determination of all the issues submitted to the panel.

  • Katz v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, No. 18-1436 (2d Cir. Mar. 12, 2019)
    03/12/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court decision confirming an arbitral award, finding that the standard of review imposed by the FAA does not violate the Fifth Amendment due process right to judicial review, since a private party’s agreement to arbitrate does not constitute state action.

  • Bracey v. Lancaster Foods LLC, No. 1:17-CV-01826-RDB (D. Md. Mar. 12, 2019)
    03/12/2019

    Court denied motion for reconsideration of decision granting motion to compel arbitration, finding, inter alia, that evidence of minimum interstate travel by truck driver did not render him an interstate transportation worker for purposes of the exemption under § 1 of the FAA.

  • Doe v. Virginia College, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-00023-RP (W.D. Tex. Mar. 12, 2019)
    03/12/2019

    Court granted unopposed motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that an arbitration existed and covered the claims at issue.

  • Partners 3190, LLC v. Signature Building Systems, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-01475-JMM (M.D. Penn. Mar. 12, 2019)
    03/12/2019

    Court denied petition to vacate arbitral award and granted cross-petition to confirm the award, finding that the claim submitted in arbitration was a breach of contract claim and not subject to an exclusion from the arbitration agreement for warranty claims.

  • Stone v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 1:18-CV-02526-ELH (D. Md. Mar. 11, 2019)
    03/11/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed action, finding that (i) in a contract between a Fortune 500 company and a consumer, a cross-reference to application of the AAA rules does not provide clear and unmistakeable evidence of the consumer’s intent to arbitrate arbitrability; (ii) the claims were within the scope of the arbitration agreement; and (iii) the appropriate remedy when all issues presented in a lawsuit are referred to arbitration is dismissal.           

  • Butcher v. Teamsters Local 955, No. 2:18-CV-02424-JAR-KGG (D. Kan. Mar. 11, 2019)
    03/11/2019

    Court denied motion to stay pending arbitration of related claim against another defendant, finding that (i) FAA did not provide authority for staying a non-arbitrable claim pending arbitration of a separate arbitrable claim; and (ii) the claims were not so intertwined as to justify an exercise of the court’s discretionary power to stay.

  • Agarunova v. The Stella Orton Home Care Agency, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00638-MKB-RLM (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2019)
    03/11/2019

    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. 

  • Pierce County v. M.A. Mortenson Company, No. 3:19-CV-05041-RJB (W.D. Wash. Mar. 11, 2019)
    03/11/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and denied cross-motion for preliminary injunction to stay arbitration, finding that party’s objection to the availability of declaratory relief in arbitration did not constitute a waiver of the right to arbitrate.

  • Kensu v. JPay, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-11086-SFC-PTM (E.D. Mich. Mar. 11, 2019)
    03/11/2019

    Court adopted Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation in favor of arbitration and rejected objections thereto, finding that: (i) speculation that JAMS will decline to arbitrate the case does not prevent referral to arbitration, since if JAMS does decline the FAA provides for appointment of an alternate arbitrator; (ii) unconscionability argument went to the contract as a whole rather than the arbitration clause specifically and therefore was for the arbitrator to address; (iii) plaintiff cannot avoid arbitration agreement by re-characterizing his status as a third-party beneficiary of another contract that does not have an arbitration agreement; and (iv) plaintiff is not entitled to jury trial on issue of whether he entered into arbitration agreement, as there is no genuine factual issue on the point.

  • Tanis v. Southwest Airlines, Co., No. 3:18-CV-02333-BAS-BGS (S.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2019)
    03/11/2019

    Court granted in part motion to compel arbitration, finding that (i) challenge to the arbitration agreement specifically, rather than to arbitration agreement as a whole, was to be determined by the court; (ii) there was no material fact as to whether plaintiff clicked web box agreeing to arbitration; (iii) the arbitration agreement was not inconspicuous, since text accompanying the webform alerted her to the content of the agreement and linked to it; and (iv) the plaintiff’s dispute is encompassed within the terms of the arbitration agreement.

  • Lowery v. N.A.R., Inc., No. 2:18-CV-00480-JNP-PMW (D. Utah Mar. 8, 2019)
    03/08/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and referred to arbitration request to strike class claims, finding that questions of arbitrability were to be determined by the court and the claims at issue fell within the broad arbitration agreement, but that the question of whether to strike class claims was for the arbitrator to decide.

  • Peterson v. Binncacle Capital Services LLC, No. 4:18-CV-40088-TSH (D. Mass. Mar. 8, 2019)
    03/08/2019

    Court granted in part and denied in part motion to compel arbitration, finding (i) challenges to the validity of the entire contract should be resolved in arbitration; (ii) the parties’ mutual promises to arbitrate are adequate consideration; (iii) since Vermont law favors arbitration, the clause at issue should be read as containing both an agreement to arbitrate and an agreement to waive class and collective actions, rather than as a narrow agreement to arbitrate individual claims; and (iv) the arbitration clause could be enforced by a defendant who was a party to the agreement, but not by another defendant who was not a party to the agreement.

  • 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)
    03/08/2019

    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)
    03/08/2019

    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.

  • New Jersey Building Construction Laborers District Council v. Innovative Masonry LLC, No. 2:18-CV-14979-WJM-MF (D.N.J. Mar. 8, 2019) 
    03/08/2019

    Court confirmed an ICC arbitration award for a Japanese company awarding payments due it by the Tanzanian Ministry of Works under a contract to upgrade a stretch of roads.  Court found it had jurisdiction because the four requirements of the New York Convention were satisfied: (i) the award arose from a commercial legal relationship; (ii) there was a written agreement to arbitrate; (iii) the agreement provided for the arbitration to take place in a signatory country; and (iv) at least one of the parties was not an American citizen.  Court ignored Tanzania’s argument that the award had already been satisfied by a tax set off and thus confirmation of the award would be contrary to public policy, finding that this situation did not offend the forum state’s most basic notions of morality and justice.

  • Konoike Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ministry of Works, Tanzania, No. 1:17-CV-01986-RJL (D.D.C. Mar. 7, 2019)
    03/07/2019

    Court confirmed an ICC arbitration award for a Japanese company awarding payments due it by the Tanzanian Ministry of Works under a contract to upgrade a stretch of roads.  Court found it had jurisdiction because the four requirements of the New York Convention were satisfied: (i) the award arose from a commercial legal relationship; (ii) there was a written agreement to arbitrate; (iii) the agreement provided for the arbitration to take place in a signatory country; and (iv) at least one of the parties was not an American citizen.  Court ignored Tanzania’s argument that the award had already been satisfied by a tax set off and thus confirmation of the award would be contrary to public policy, finding that this situation did not offend the forum state’s most basic notions of morality and justice.
     

  • Brumley v. Austin Centers for Exceptional Students Incorporated, No. 2:18-CV-00662-DLR (D. Ariz. Mar. 7, 2019) 
    03/07/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Following ninth circuit precedent, court found that the agreement incorporation of the AAA rules constituted clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to delegate issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator.  Court disagreed with plaintiff’s argument that this precedent should not apply where one of the parties was unsophisticated.  Court also found that because plaintiff argued that the entire agreement was unconscionable, but did not challenge the arbitration clause specifically, this issue must be resolved by the arbitrator. 

  • Vieczorek v. Khorrami, No. 3:17-CV-01118-TJC-JBT (M.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2019) 
    03/07/2019

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that defendants had waived their right to arbitration by litigating the case for six months of “tortured motion practice” and that granting the motion would prejudice the plaintiffs. 

  • Bernardino v. Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc., No. 18-00607 (2d Cir. Mar. 7, 2019)
    03/07/2019

    Court of appeals denied the appeal of a granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that it did not have jurisdiction under the FAA.  Court found that under the FAA an appeal may not be taken from an interlocutory order granting a stay or compelling arbitration. 

  • Interceptor Ignition Interlocks, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility Services LLC, No. 1:18-CV-04289-PKC-GWG (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2019)
    03/07/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed all pending claims.  Court found that the parties’ agreement incorporated the AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules and, under these rules, issues of arbitrability, such as the scope of the arbitration agreement, were delegated to the arbitrator. 

  • Varner v. Sunrun Installation Services, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00328-JAO-KJM (D. Hawaii Mar. 6, 2019) 
    03/06/2019

    ​Court granted defendant’s unopposed motion to compel arbitration of all employment-related claims, and dismissed case without prejudice.

  • Widmer Enterprises, LLC v. Falck USA, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-11138-SDD (E.D. Mich. Mar. 6, 2019)
    03/06/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that the dispute fell within a narrow arbitration provision.  The dispute centered on whether the correct purchase price had been paid in a transaction where the target had understated its bad debt reserves.  Court held that this was the sort of dispute which was delegated to an accounting expert by the arbitration agreement.

  • Egan v. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc., No. 18-1794 (3d Cir. Mar. 6, 2019)
    03/06/2019

    Court of appeals vacated district court order’s denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and remanded the case for trial on the existence of an arbitration agreement.  Court found that the district court relied on an incorrect summary-judgement standard when it should have held a trial to resolve the dispute of material fact concerning whether plaintiff had agreed to the arbitration clause. 

  • International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America  v. TRW Automotive U.S. LLC, No.18-1160/1161 (6th Cir. Mar. 5, 2019)
    03/05/2019

    Court of appeals overturned a district court’s denial of a motion to partially vacate an arbitral award.  The arbitrator had ordered TRW to reinstate healthcare coverage under a specific provider and TRW claimed that the arbitrator did not arguably construe the agreement and this remedy was outside the scope of his authority.  Court agreed and found that the district court should have partially vacated the award.

  • Freeman v. Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC, No. 3:18-CV-00947-G (N.D. Tex. Mar. 5, 2019) 
    03/05/2019

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel FINRA arbitration, finding that plaintiffs were not signatories to the agreement containing the arbitration clause.  Court rejected defendant’s argument that the plaintiff was bound to the agreement with the arbitration clause under a theory of estoppel, finding instead that plaintiff had not sought benefits under that agreement, nor had they attempted to enforce rights under that agreement.  

  • Adell v. Cellco Partnership, No. 1:18-CV-00623-CAB (N.D. Ohio Mar. 5, 2019)
    03/05/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings under the FAA.  Court rejected plaintiffs arguments that her consent to the arbitration was not voluntary and that the Class Action Fairness Act and FAA are in conflict. Court found that plaintiff’s consent was voluntary because they had the choice to take their business elsewhere.
     

  • UDI Management v. Tremblay, 1:13-CV-00085-HWW (D.V.I. Mar. 6, 2019) 
    03/05/2019

    Court denied motion to vacate an arbitration award and confirmed the award.  Court found that although the courts in the Virgin Islands recognize the manifest disregard standard, petitioner did not meet its burden of proving that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law in making the award.

  • Snow v. ADT, LLC, No. 5:19-CV-00021-JGB-SHK (C.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2019) 
    03/05/2019

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court rejected defendant’s argument that plaintiff’s continued employment after the initiation of an arbitration policy with an opt-out provision was sufficient to establish plaintiff implied-in-fact assent to arbitrate, finding that plaintiff was on leave when the policy was initiated and thus never received it and could not assent.

  • Mutka v. Top Hat Imports, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-00539-SPC-MRM (M.D. Fla. Mar. 4, 2019)
    03/04/2019

    Magistrate judge issued recommendation that court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case.  Plaintiff argued that that the defendant was not a party to the arbitration agreement signed between himself and his employer, a car dealership, and thus defendant could not enforce it.  Magistrate judge found that while the term “dealership” was not defined in the agreement, extrinsic evidence resolved that ambiguity and showed that defendant was a party to the agreement. 

  • Pang v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-01882-PJH (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2019) 
    03/04/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, staying proceedings as to one plaintiff, but declined to stay proceedings for plaintiffs who had opted out of the arbitration agreement.  Court found that pursuant to California law, an offer to arbitrate future disputes that was written on a brochure included in the packaging of a portable phone was not conspicuous enough that a reasonable person would be on notice of their obligation to either arbitrate future claims or opt out of the arbitration agreement.  However, court held that a consumer who sought to invoke a limited warranty within the arbitration agreement’s 30 day opt out period would be on notice, and thus said plaintiff had an obligation to arbitrate. 

  • Economy Linen and Towel Service v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, No.18-3369 (6th Cir. Mar. 1, 2019)
    03/01/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s confirmation of an arbitration award.  Court ignored petitioner’s arguments that the arbitrator exceeding his authority by interpreting the bargaining agreement, finding that an arbitrator’s interpretive errors were beyond the reach of the deferential review Federal courts may give an arbitration award. 

  • Wallace v. Communications Unlimited, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-00503-JAR (E.D. Mo. Mar. 1, 2019) 
    03/01/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings.  Court ignored plaintiff’s argument that an arbitration agreement was unenforceable because it lacked sufficient acceptance to form a contract, instead finding pursuant to Missouri state law that this challenge should be presented in arbitration because the agreement delegated issues of contract formation to the arbitrator.  The court also noted that plaintiff’s did not challenge an earlier agreement which contained an identical arbitration provision. 

  • Camilo v. Lyft, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-09116-ALC (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2019)
    03/01/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case.  Court found a valid arbitration agreement, which expressly contemplated potential claims arising out of state or federal wage-hour laws at issue.  Court further affirmed validity of arbitration agreements requiring individualized arbitration, following Epic Systems.

  • CAA Sports LLC v. Dogra, No. 4:18-CV-01887-SNLJ (E.D. Mo. Feb. 28, 2019) 
    02/28/2019

    Court declined to either confirm or vacate an arbitration award, and dismissed the case without prejudice.  Court followed the eighth circuit’s “complete arbitration rule,” and found that it was premature to decide the issues before it because there was not a final award.  Court reasoned that the award was not final because there is still a dispute over the amount of the award that must be resolved by the arbitrator.

  • Ellington v. Hayward Baker, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-03436-DCN (D.S.C. Feb. 28, 2019) 
    02/28/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the case.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that a conflict between two agreements, one of which did not contain an arbitration provision, evinced a lack of agreement to arbitrate.  Court found that none of the provisions in the agreements were in conflict with the arbitration provision.
     

  • Kourembanas v. Intercoast Colleges, No. 2:17-CV-00331-JAW (D. Maine Feb. 28, 2019) 
    02/28/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration of dispute alleging breach of contract and deceptive trade practices of a nursing school.   Court found that an agreement to arbitrate existed under Maine law.  Plaintiffs argued that the arbitration clause itself was unconscionable, but court found that under Maine law, the clause was neither substantively nor procedurally unconscionable.   

  • Chong v. 7-Eleven, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-01542-SNLJ (E.D. Penn. Feb. 28, 2019) 
    02/28/2019

    Court stayed several of plaintiff’s claims finding that they fell within the scope of an arbitration provision contained in a franchise agreement. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that defendant had waived its right to arbitration because its motion to stay arbitrable claims was filed five months after the original complaint.  Court found that defendant’s motion to stay related only to claims in plaintiff’s amended complaint and, because defendant made that motion within three weeks of the amended complaint, there was no undue delay and defendant had not waived its right to arbitration. 

  • Struss v. Rural Community Insurance Services, No. 2:18-CV-02187-DDC-GEB (D. Kan. Feb. 28, 2019)
    02/28/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings as to one defendant who was not bound to arbitrate claims until the conclusion of the arbitration.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that only certain claims should be compelled to arbitration, finding that because the agreement elected that the AAA’s rules should control, the agreement delegated all issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator and the arbitrator should decide which claims were subject to arbitration.
     

  • The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society v. Moreno, No. 2:16-CV-01355-JB-KRS (D.N.M. Feb. 28, 2019)
    02/28/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to appoint a neutral arbitrator pursuant to the FAA.  Court found that the parties failed to agree on an arbitrator and that arbitration agreement did not provide a method for appointing an arbitrator in the event that the parties failed to agree.  Thus, court had authority to appoint an arbitrator pursuant to 9 USC § 5.

  • Wanamaker Nursery, Inc. v. John Deere Risk Protection, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00077-CHS (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 28, 2019)
    02/28/2019

    Court dismissed a case seeking vacatur of an arbitration award.  Plaintiffs and defendant had previously arbitrated a dispute related to claims made on an insurance policy significant insect damage to plaintiff’s nursery.  Defendants determined plaintiffs were entitled to recovery under only one of seven policies and the arbitrator issued an award finding defendant had properly paid all amounts owed.  Court found that plaintiffs did not establish any grounds by which the court could overturn the award. 

  • Farm v. Diversified Crop Insurance Services, No. 18-1463 (4th Cir. Feb. 27, 2019)
    02/27/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision vacating an award.  Court held that despite the strong presumption in favor of confirming arbitration awards pursuant to the FAA, the appellee met its heavy burden to prove that the arbitrator exceeded her powers by awarding extra-contractual damages.

  • Castro v. Tri Marine Fish Company LLC, No. 2 :17-CV-00008-RSL (9th Cir. Feb. 27, 2019)
    02/27/2019

    Court of appeals reversed in part and vacated in part district court’s order treating an order issued by an arbitrator in the Philippines as a foreign arbitral award and confirming the arbitrator’s order under the New York Convention.  Court held there were several unique aspects of these proceedings that led it to conclude that the order was not an arbitral award within the meaning of the Convention.

  • Jackson v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd, No. 3:18-CV-01699-S-BH (N.D. Tex Feb. 26, 2019)
    02/26/2019

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.  Court found there was no explicit or implicit agreement to arbitrate.

  • Medina v. BFI Waste Services of Texas, LP, No. 5:17-CV-00906-DAE (W.D. Tex. Feb. 23, 2018)
    02/23/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed claims of work related negligence.  Court found a valid arbitration agreement existed and that the claims were in the scope of the agreement.  Plaintiff did not respond to the motion, but court did not find any issues of unconscionability, fraud or duress that might invalidate the agreement.

  • Al-Ali v. Ken Garff Automotive Group, No. 2:18-CV-12687-PDB-MKM (E.D. Mich. Feb. 22, 2019)
    02/22/2019

    Court adopted magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, converted defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration to a motion for summary judgment, and granted defendants’ motion.  Magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff agreed to arbitrate claims arising from her employment, and nothing suggested that Congress intended plaintiff’s claims to be non-arbitrable or that it should be invalidated by generally applicable state-law contract defenses.  Magistrate judge also concluded that because all of plaintiff’s claims were subject to arbitration, the court should dismiss plaintiff’s complaint.

  • Campos v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, No. 3:18-CV-06169-JSC (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2019)
    02/21/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case without prejudice.  Court concluded that (i) the arbitration agreement was valid and covered the claims at issue; (ii) the adhesive nature of the agreement presented only a minimal degree of procedural unconscionability, and plaintiff failed to show additional factors of oppression or surprise that would render the agreement procedurally improper; (iii) plaintiff failed to demonstrate that defendant’s ability to amend or terminate the agreement was substantively unconscionable; and (iv) the discovery guideline provision was not substantively unconscionable as plaintiff failed to demonstrate that she would be unable to vindicate her rights under the agreement’s guideline limitations on discovery and the provision was not overly “harsh,” “unduly oppressive,” “one-sided as to shock the conscious,” or “unfairly one-sided.”

  • Gallagher v. Pepe Auto Group, No. 7:18-CV-03433-VB (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2019)
    02/21/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration as to plaintiff’s ADEA, OWBPA, NYSHRL, breach of contract, wrongful discharge, and breach of fiduciary duty claims, and denied as to plaintiff’s intentional interference with contractual relationship, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, injurious falsehood, and libel per se claims.  Court found that the second set of claims required examination of different evidence and did not require interpretation of or reference to the Employment Agreement.

  • Perez-Tejada v. Mattress Firm, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-12448-DJC (D. Mass. Feb. 21, 2019)
    02/21/2019

    Court allowed defendants’ motion to compel individual arbitration.  Court concluded that (i) the parties agreed to the material terms of the arbitration agreements and had a present intention to be bound by the agreements; (ii) defendants met their burden to show adequate consideration for the agreement; (iii) defendants were entitled to invoke the arbitration agreement; (iv) the agreement was not unconscionable; and (v) the collective action waiver was enforceable.

  • Getz v. DIRECTTV, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-22802-JEM (S.D. Fla. Feb. 20, 2019)
    02/20/2019

    Court denied defendant ViaSat, Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that the plaintiff’s claim arose from post-agreement conduct that allegedly violates a separate, distinct federal law and is not covered by the arbitration agreement.

  • Smith v. SMX, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-01903-JD (N.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2019)
    02/20/2019

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that plaintiff knew or should have known about the arbitration clause, yet continued to actively litigate her claims for a long time and failed to demonstrate any reason why she should be allowed to renounce her election to prosecute her claims in court and not in arbitration.  Court also found the delay prejudicial to the defendant.

  • Connor v. Midland Credit Management, No. 1:18-CV-23023-JG (S.D. Fla. Feb. 20, 2019)
    02/20/2019

    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. 

  • Charles v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, No. 3:17-CV-00955-YY (D. Or. Feb. 20, 2019)
    02/20/2019

    Court adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Magistrate judge found that (i) defendant met its burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, the existence of—and plaintiff’s assent to—the arbitration agreement; (ii) defendant established its right to invoke the arbitration provision by a preponderance of the evidence; (iii) the scope of the arbitration encompassed plaintiff’s claim; (iv) the private attorney general and class action waivers found in the arbitration provision were valid; and, (v) plaintiff had not met his burden of showing that he is entitled to a jury trial under the FAA.

  • Cuker v. Berezofsky, No. 2:18-CV-02356-MAK (E.D. Pa. Feb. 19, 2019)
    02/19/2019

    Court granted Ms. Berezofsky’s motion to confirm the final arbitration award.  Court concluded that (i) the panel did not deprive Mr. Cuker of a fair hearing by ruling on the dispositive motions without affording him a right to take discovery, as summary disposition of claims are allowed in arbitration and Mr. Cuker agreed to the discovery procedures; (ii) Mr. Cuker had full opportunity to fully brief and argue his motion for summary disposition; and (iii) the final arbitration award was not in manifest disregard of contract law.

  • Sterling Equipment, Inc. v. St. John’s Ship Building, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-00504-MMH-MCR (M.D. Fla. Feb. 19, 2019)
    02/19/2019

    Court adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and granted in part and denied in part petitioner’s motion for default judgment and confirmation of arbitration award.  Magistrate judge concluded that respondent failed to respond to the instant motion, the time for filing a response had long passed, and it did not appear that the award had been or should be vacated, modified, or corrected.  However, post-judgment interest should be from the date of entry of the judgment rather than from the date of the award as the arbitrator concluded.

  • Local 2110, Technical, Office and Professional Union, UAW, AFL-CIO v. Teachers College, Columbia University, No. 1:17-CV-03095-WHP (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 19, 2019)
    02/19/2019

    Court denied the motion to confirm the arbitration award, finding that although there was no dispute about whether the award should be confirmed, there was a dispute over the interpretation of the award and that it would be a “fool’s errand” to confirm an award that is ambiguous.

  • In re Application of Hulley Enterprises, Ltd., No. 1:18-MC-00435-GBD-GWG (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 19, 2019)
    02/19/2019

    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.

  • Swift Financial, LLC v. Alabar Construction, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-02009-SU (D. Or. Feb. 15, 2019)
    02/15/2019

    Court adopted magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation to confirm the arbitration award.  Applying the seven factors articulated in Eitel v. McCool, 78 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986), magistrate judge found that six of the Eitel factors favored entry of default judgment. 

  • Taylor v. Comcast’s Corporate Executive Directors, No. 2:18-CV-01230-PJP-RCM (W.D. Pa. Feb. 15, 2019)
    02/15/2019

    Court adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  The magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff’s claims fell within the definition of “dispute” as set forth in the Subscriber Agreement.  This, combined with plaintiff’s failure to opt out of the arbitration agreement suggested that the complaint does not provide a legal basis for rejecting defendant’s affirmative defense of arbitration.

  • McDonald v. Halliburton, No. 2:18-CV-00585-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio Feb. 15, 2019)
    02/15/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the action.  Analyzing plaintiff’s unconscionability claims under Ohio law, court found that plaintiff failed to establish that any of the terms were substantively unconscionable.

  • Thompson v. Ford of Augusta, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-02512-JAR-KGG (D. Kan. Feb. 15, 2019)
    02/15/2019

    Court, upon construing the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as a motion to compel arbitration, granted the latter.  Court rejected argument that the defendant lost the right to compel arbitration by failing to pay AAA fees and forcing the plaintiff into small claims court.  Court further held that any inconsistency between the agreement and AAA rules R-9 did not render the agreement invalid.

  • Ocean M, LTD. v. Dorr, No. 1:18-CV-24530-UU (S.D. Fla, Feb. 15, 2019)
    02/15/2019

    Magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation denying defendants’ motions to compel arbitration and dismiss complaint, finding that neither party was a signatory to the arbitration agreement and that none of the state law theories which would allow for non-signatories to be bound to arbitrate were applicable.  Magistrate judge also found that the breach of fiduciary duty claim at issue was not within the scope of the arbitration clause.

  • Zhang v. UnitedHealth Group, No. 0:18-CV-01454-MJD-KMM (D. Minn. Feb. 14, 2019)
    02/14/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Court rejected argument that the agreement was illusory because it allowed the defendant-employer to unilaterally modify or terminate the underlying policy.  Court likewise declined to hold that the agreement was unconscionable based on the plaintiff’s assertion that he had been in an unequal bargaining position when accepting the agreement, that he was not provided with a copy of the AAA Rules, that the defendant was allowed to unilaterally modify the underlying policy, and that the agreement limited discovery.

  • Hamilton v. Navient Solutions, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-05432-PAC (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2019)
    02/14/2019

    Court granted motion to compel AAA arbitration award and denied cross motion to vacate same.  Court held that the petition to vacate the award was improper as it was filed one day after the three-month limitations period contained in the FAA.  Court further held that, in any case, none of the petitioner’s arguments for vacatur held any merit.

  • Trustees of Northeast Carpenters Health, Pension, Annuity, Apprenticeship and Labor Management Cooperation Funds v. The Espinosa Group, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-03257-DRH-GRB (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2019) 
    02/14/2019

    Court granted unanswered petition to confirm arbitral award.  Court also granted interest and attorneys’ fees.

  • Crystallex International Corp. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 17-7068 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 14, 2019)
    02/14/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court judgment affirming an arbitral award against a sovereign state.  Court held that none of the three arguments asserted “comes close to securing a withdrawal,” reasoning that the district court had sufficiently considered all of the defendant’s arguments under the FAA, appropriately reviewed the arbitral tribunal’s method for calculating damages, and committed no errors in analyzing the award.  Court further sanctioned the defendant for conduct it viewed as misleading to the court.

  • Abeona Therapeutics, Inc. v. EB Research Partnership, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-10889-DLC (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2019)
    02/14/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding the parties’ agreement contained a broad arbitration clause and the plaintiff’s challenge to the validity of the overall agreement was irrelevant to the motion to compel.  Court further held that, in any event, even if the plaintiff’s argument that the agreement lacked consideration could be directed at its arbitration clause, it would fail.

  • Dornaus v. Best Buy Co., Inc., No. 4:18-CV-04085-PJH (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2019)
    02/14/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings, holding that a valid arbitration agreement governed the parties’ dispute.  Court agreed with the plaintiff that a provision of the agreement prohibiting adjudication of claims for public injunctive relief was invalid under California law, but held that it could be severed from the rest of the agreement, such that the court would retain jurisdiction over adjudicating any such requests and compel arbitration with respect to any other claims.

  • Charlie's Project LLC v. T2B LLC, No. 1:18-CV-11240-IT (D. Mass. Feb. 13, 2019)
    02/13/2019

    Court denied in part and allowed in part motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.  Court compelled arbitration with respect to intellectual property claims included in the scope of the arbitration agreement and held that any related defenses must be evaluated by the arbitrator, as the agreement delegated questions of arbitrability by incorporating AAA rules.  However, the court declined to hold that other claims were so intertwined with the intellectual property claims that they had to be arbitrated as well even though they did not fall within the scope of the arbitral agreement.

  • Next Level Planning & Wealth Management, LLC v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, No. 2:18-MC-00065-PP (E.D. Wis. Feb. 13, 2019)
    02/13/2019

    Court denied petition to enforce a FINRA arbitration subpoena.  Court evaluated the motion to compel compliance with the subpoena as a petition under § 7 of the FAA to compel a non-party witness to appeal.  Court reasoned that arbitration differed from litigation by providing for circumscribed discovery procedures and that Section 7 allowed an arbitrator to require production of documents in connection with an evidentiary hearing but not within 30 days of receiving a subpoena.

  • Sheehan v. Sparks Black Bear, LLC, 3:18- CV-00510-HDM-CBC (D. Nev. Feb. 13, 2019)
    02/13/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Court rejected arguments that the arbitration agreements were procedurally or substantively unconscionable based on assertions of unequal bargaining argument, format of the text, failure to supply arbitral rules, proposed location of the arbitration, and purportedly unequal burdens and rights. Court further declined to hold that the arbitration clauses violated public policy by containing class action waivers.

  • Mahoney v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 8:19-CV-00118-WFJ-SPF (M.D. Fla. Feb. 13, 2019)
    02/13/2019

    Court denied motion to refer matter to arbitration and stay proceedings, reasoning that defendant had failed to show that a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement could be compelled to arbitrate.

  • First Capital Real Estate Investments, L.L.C. v. SDDCO Brokerage Advisors, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-02013-JGK (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2019)
    02/13/2019

    Court denied motion to vacate FINRA arbitral award and granted cross-motion to confirm and award reasonable attorneys’ fees and prejudgment interest.  Court rejected arguments that the award could be vacated because the proceedings were conducted in accordance with rules for intra-industry disputes, that one of the arbitrators was allegedly not qualified, and that the panel imposed discovery sanctions improperly.

  • E. Hedinger AG v. Brainwave Science, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-00538-MN (D. Del. Feb. 13, 2019)
    02/13/2019

    Court granted motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.  Court rejected arguments that an oral exchange at a hearing constituted waiver of the defendants’ right to arbitrate or that the claims at issue were outside the scope of the arbitral agreement.  Court further held that the parties had evidenced an intention to arbitrate even though their agreement referenced a non-existent arbitral institution.

  • Ytech 180 Units Miami Beach Investments LLC v. Certain Underwriters At Lloyd's, London, No. 1:18-CV-24770-DLG (S.D. Fla. Feb. 13, 2019)
    02/13/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed proceedings.  Court rejected argument that purported ambiguity in the structure of the parties’ agreement meant there was no written agreement to arbitrate. Court further held that the parties had agreed to delegate to the arbitrator questions of arbitrability.

  • Doscher v. Sea Port Group Securities, LLC, No. 18-0054-CV (2d Cir. Feb. 12, 2019)
    02/12/2019

    Court of appeal affirmed district court’s order denying petition to vacate and modify an arbitral award. Court held that district court had correctly reasoned that it had no basis for determining that the arbitral panel had acted in a way that violated fundamental fairness.

  • Valley Tool & Die, Inc. v. Fastenal Company, No. 1:18-CV-02682-CAB (N.D. Ohio Feb. 12, 2019)
    02/12/2019

    Court granted motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration.  Court held that the parties’ dispute was within the scope of their arbitration agreement, which the court found to be “extremely” broad.

  • MEMC II v. Cannon Storage Systems, Inc., No. 18-6079 (10th Cir. Feb. 12, 2019)
    02/12/2019

    Court of appeal affirmed district court’s denial or relief from AAA arbitral award.  Court held that the arbitrator had not exceeded her powers by declining to find that the breach of contract at issue was material and thus precluded recovery.

  • Nippon Yusen Kaisha (N.Y.K. Line) v. Sea Central Shipping, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-06153-DAB (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2019)
    02/12/2019

    Court granted unopposed petition to confirm an arbitral award.  Court, upon a limited review of the underlying contract and award, held that the arbitrator had acted within the scope of her authority and that no ground existed to vacate her award.

  • Brown v. Firstsource Advantage, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-05760-GJP (E.D. Pa. Feb. 12, 2019)
    02/12/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, rejecting the plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration agreement was invalid as “overly broad.”  Court further held that the parties’ dispute fell within the scope of that agreement.

  • Patton v. Jonson, No. 18-1750 (1st Cir. Feb. 11, 2019) 
    02/11/2019

    Court of appeals reviewed de novo a magistrate judge’s denial of plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration and affirmed.  Plaintiff sought to compel arbitration based on an agreement which had previously been found by a JAMS arbitrator not to be binding on the parties.  Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitrator exceeded his powers because the agreement did not delegate issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator, finding that the parties to the original arbitration delegated these issues during arbitration.

  • Schuster v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 8:18-CV-02389-MSS-JSS (M.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2019)
    02/07/2019

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court held that because the parties’ arbitration agreement clearly delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, it was for the arbitrator to consider the plaintiff’s argument that the dispute fell outside the scope of that agreement.

  • Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Vintage Grand Condominium Association, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-10382-CM (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2019)
    02/06/2019

    Court denied all parties’ applications for relief and dismissed the petition to appoint a neutral arbitrator and the cross-petition seeking to disqualify one of the party arbitrators.  Court noted that it was guided by two governing principles:  (i) courts have little business interfering in arbitrations; and (ii) the parties have made an agreement, which should be construed according to its plain terms and in accordance with the settled maxims of contract construction.  Court dismissed the petition because Section 5 of the FAA clearly requires that whatever method for naming an arbitrator is provided in the arbitration agreement must be followed, and denied the cross-petition on the grounds that the party arbitrator met the qualifications for membership on the tribunal that was specified in the arbitration clause.

  • Hudson v. P.I.P. Inc., No. 0:18-CV-61877-FAM (S.D. Fla. Feb. 6, 2019)
    02/06/2019

    Magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation denying defendants’ motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, finding that language requiring each party to cover their own costs of arbitration regardless of the outcome contravened the Fair Labor Standards Act, which rendered the arbitration agreement unenforceable.

  • Romero v. Titlemax of New Mexico, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00775-KG-SCY (10th Cir. Feb. 5, 2019)
    02/05/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision granting a motion to compel arbitration because some of plaintiff’s claims were subject to arbitration.  Court considered defendant’s position would inappropriately render an entire clause of an agreement meaningless and concluded the alternative theories raised by defendant to compel arbitration were either premature of procedurally improper.

  • Great American Insurance Company v. Russell, No. 17-2441 (8th Cir. Jan. 31, 2019)
    01/31/2019

    Court of appeals vacated district court’s decision to vacate an arbitration award, finding that the arbitration panel’s failure to break down the award by county did not justify vacatur as the award was sufficiently mutual, final, and definite.

  • Health Integrated, Inc. v. Community Health Plan of Washington, No. 2:18-CV-01522-RSM (W.D. Wash. Jan. 31, 2019)
    01/31/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that an arbitration agreement providing that parties “may” request arbitration did not bar defendant from seeking arbitration after plaintiff filed an action in court.

  • In Re: Midland Credit Management, Inc. Telephone Consumer Protection Litigation, No. 3:16-CV-02157-MMA-MDD (S.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2019)
    01/31/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement authorized defendants – as assignees of the agreement – to seek arbitration of plaintiffs’ claims.  Court also found that the parties clearly and unmistakably intended to arbitrate arbitrability.

  • Shapiro v. Logitech, Inc., No. 3:17-00673-FLW-TJB (D.N.J. Jan. 31, 2019)
    01/31/2019

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the benefit of an arbitration clause contained in the conditions of use for an online marketplace did not extend to defendant – a third-party retailer.

  • Price v. Petaluma Health Center, No. 4:17-CV-05428-HSG (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2019)
    01/31/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and denied defendant’s motion to dismiss, rejecting defendant’s request that the motion to dismiss be decided first.  Court found that where a defendant moves in part to compel, the court’s inquiry is limited to whether the claims at issue are covered under a valid arbitration agreement – only after that determination may a court dismiss a plaintiff’s claims.

  • Sanders v. Shadow Mountain Behavioral Health System, LLC, No. 4:18-00574-CVE-FHM (N.D. Okla. Jan. 31, 2019)
    01/31/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding inter alia that defendants did not waive their right to request arbitration when they filed their motion one year after plaintiff’s demand for compensation indicating her intent to bring a subsequent lawsuit.  Court found that defendants’ motion was timely when they filed the motion one month after plaintiff actually filed suit.

  • Global Gold Mining LLC v. Caldera Resources, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-04419-KPF (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2019)
    01/30/2019

    Court granted plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to confirm an arbitration award, finding that the grounds for the award were clear when arbitrator provided factual support for each financial component.  Court also found that the parties’ selection of New York law in the arbitration agreement did not supplant the federal post-judgment interest rate applicable to federal judgments.

  • Resourcing Edge I, LLC v. CBA Service Corporation, No. 3:19-CV-00174-L (N.D. Tex. Jan. 30, 2019)
    01/30/2019

    Court dismissed plaintiff’s motion to confirm an arbitration award for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding inter alia that invoking the FAA was not sufficient to confer federal question jurisdiction on the court.

  • FW Associates LLC v. WM Associates LLC, No. 1:18-CV-05081(N.D. Ill. Jan. 28, 2019)
    01/28/2019

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendants’ counterclaims, finding that those claims were precluded by an arbitrator’s ruling.  Court found the arbitrator’s ruling preclusive when it decided the issue of substantial performance of a contract and defendant’s counterclaims sought to enforce terms of that already-litigated contract.

  • Prospect CCMC, LLC v. CCNA/Pennsylvania Association of Staff Nurses and Allied Professionals, No. 2:18-CV-04039-GAM (E.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2019)
    01/28/2019

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate an arbitration award, finding inter alia that “manifest disregard” of federal law, rather than ordinary legal error, would be required for vacating the award.  Court found that manifest disregard of federal law did not exist when an arbitrator “simply reached a different result” on the facts presented.

  • Aspic Engineering and Construction Company v. ECC Centcom Constructors LLC, No. 17-16510 (9th Cir. Jan. 28, 2019)
    01/28/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s ruling vacating an arbitration award, finding that the arbitrator exceeded his powers when he disregarded contract provisions to achieve a desired result.  Court found that the arbitrator’s ruling that certain contractual provisions did not apply was unreasonable when neither party argued the inapplicability of the provisions.

  • Thoma v. CBRE Group, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-06040-CBM-AJW (C.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2017)
    01/26/2019

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that the class, collective or representative action waiver referring disputes to arbitration was unenforceable because it interfered with a substantive federal right protected by the NLRA’s Section 7. 

  • Dropp v. Diamond Resorts International, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-00247-APG-GWF (D. Nev. Jan. 25, 2019)
    01/25/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motions to compel arbitration and dismiss, finding that plaintiffs’ claims were subject to a valid arbitration agreement when there was no inherent conflict between the FAA and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.  Court found it proper to decide the issue of enforceability when it dealt solely with the arbitration provision and not the contracts as a whole, as validity of the contracts would be decided by an arbitrator.

  • In Re: Dealer Management Systems Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:18-CV-00864 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 25, 2019)
    01/25/2019

    Court denied defendants’ motions to compel arbitration and dismiss plaintiffs’ claims where plaintiff was a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement and defendants failed to show sufficient detrimental reliance to bind plaintiffs to the agreement.  Court found that defendants waived their right to arbitrate when they waited nine months assert their intent to arbitrate.

  • Hogan v. SPAR Group, Inc., No. 18-1286 (1st Cir. Jan. 25, 2019)
    01/25/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendant was not subject to an arbitration agreement when it was a non-signatory to said agreement.  Court also found that defendant was not a third-party beneficiary of the arbitration agreement when the agreement was limited to disputes “between the parties.”

  • McGovern v. U.S. Bank N.A., No. 3:18-CV-01794-CAB-LL (S.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2019)
    01/25/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding inter alia that the savings clause of the FAA preempted a state law rule when it stood as an obstacle to the FAA’s objectives.

  • MB Financial, Inc. v. Hart, No. 1:17-CV-08866 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 24, 2019)
    01/24/2019

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration of defendant’s counterclaim where that claim fell under the scope of an agreement to arbitrate.  Although plaintiffs engaged in litigation on other claims, the court found that plaintiffs’ conduct did not waive their right to arbitrate defendant’s counterclaim.

  • Sultan v. Coinbase, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00934-FB-ST (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2019)
    01/24/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff’s claims were subject to mandatory arbitration per defendant’s user agreement.  Court also found that plaintiff had inquiry notice of the arbitration agreement when he clicked “I agree” to its terms and conditions when creating an account on defendant’s interface.

  • Inversiones y Procesadora Tropical Inprotsa S.A. v. Del Monte International GMBH, No. 1:16-CV-24275-FAM (S.D. Fla. Jan. 24, 2019)
    01/24/2019

    Magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation denying plaintiff’s motion to abstain in deference to parallel enforcement proceedings in Costa Rica and granting in part defendant’s motion to enforce order and final judgment confirming final arbitral award among other rulings.  Magistrate judge considered there were no grounds to abstain to foreign proceedings because while the court has already made several rulings exercising jurisdiction over this matter for two years, foreign proceedings did not meaningfully begun.  Magistrate judge further considered that post-award damages should not be granted because there was no precedent involving a court awarding damages for violation of an injunction that occurred prior to confirmation the award and entry of final judgment

  • Producers Credit Corporation v. Fletcher, No. 5:18-CV-00150-MTT (M.D. Ga. Jan. 23, 2019)
    01/23/2019

    Court denied third-party defendants’ motion to stay the case pending arbitration and compel arbitration, finding that third-party defendants waived their contractual rights to arbitration when they substantially participated in litigation – through filing an answer and engaging in discovery – without raising the issue of arbitration.

  • Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, and Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund v. Bar-Mac Construction of NJ Inc., No. 1:18-CV-06284-RA (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2019)
    01/23/2019

    Court granted petitioners’ motion to confirm an arbitration award, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, where respondent failed to file an opposition.  Court found that in the absence of a filed opposition, the court must treat petitioners’ motion as an unopposed motion for summary judgment.

  • Chen v. Premier Financial Alliance, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-03771-YGR (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2019)
    01/22/2019

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendants failed to establish the existence of an arbitration agreement where they failed to show that their website’s design would put plaintiffs on inquiry notice of an arbitration agreement.

  • HTC Corporation v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, No. 6:18-CV-00243-JRG (E.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 2019)
    01/22/2019

    Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to sever, stay, and compel arbitration, finding that plaintiffs waived their right to arbitrate by seeking a decision on the merits before attempting arbitration.  Court found that the parties substantially invoked the judicial process – so as to waive arbitration – where parties completed fact and expert discovery on claims not already submitted to arbitration, and where plaintiff affirmatively moved for dismissal and for summary judgment.  Court found that it could properly determine the issue of waiver where the parties did not “clearly and unmistakably” intend to delegate determination of waiver to an arbitrator.

  • Partners 3190, LLC v. Signature Building Systems, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-01475-JMM (M.D. Pa. Jan. 22, 2019)
    01/22/2019

    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.

  • F & D Defense, LLC v. East Texas Machining & Manufacturing, LLC, No. 6:18-CV-00060-RAW (E.D. Okla. Jan. 22, 2019) 
    01/22/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings.  Court found that while the invoice of certain gun manufacturing products did not contain an arbitration clause, the dispute fell within the scope of a separate licensing agreement between the parties. 

  • Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. Rodriguez Morillo, No. 2:18-CV-01773-JPS (E.D. Wis. Jan. 18, 2019)
    01/18/2019

    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.

  • Katz v. Feldman, No. 1:18-CV-00213-MN (D. Del. Jan. 18, 2019)
    01/18/2019

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate an AAA Award Order, finding that the court had no personal jurisdiction over pro se parties acting on behalf of corporations as only the corporations were named parties in the underlying arbitration.  Court also found that plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the arbitration award because the interests of a corporation may only be represented by licensed counsel in federal courts.

  • Washington National Insurance Company v. Obex Group LLC, No. 7:18-CV-09693-VB (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2019)
    01/18/2019

    Court granted petitioner’s motions to enforce two arbitration summonses and denied respondents’ motions to quash the summonses.  Court found, inter alia, that pre-hearing discovery was proper under § 7 of the FAA where respondents were summoned to a hearing  rather than a deposition, the arbitral panel was prepared to rule on evidentiary issues, and the hearing would be recorded as part of the arbitration record for the panel to use in its determination of the dispute.

  • Jordan-Rowell v. Fairway Supermarket, No. 1:18-CV-01938-VEC (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2019)
    01/16/2019

    Magistrate judge recommended compelling arbitration and dismissing the claim upon holding that one of the parties’ agreements contained an arbitration provision binding on the dispute. 

  • New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, No. 17-340 (U.S. Jan. 15, 2019)
    01/15/2019

    Supreme Court affirmed a first circuit decision finding that (1) a court should decide whether an arbitration agreement falls under the FAA before compelling arbitration; and (2) § 1 of the FAA – which excludes certain “contracts of employment” from its purview – applies to both employer-employee contractors and those involving independent contractors.

  • Starke v. SquareTrade, Inc., No. 17-2474-CV (2d Cir. Jan. 10, 2019)
    01/10/2019

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff-appellee did not manifestly assent to the arbitration clause of an online-based contract, nor did he have reasonable notice of the clause.  Court found that notwithstanding the general rule that actual notice is not necessary to render an arbitration clause binding, plaintiff-appellee did not have reasonable notice where, inter alia, the design of the confirmation page did not provide the terms and conditions in a “clear and conspicuous” way.  Court found little justification for enforcing the arbitration clause where it would have been “virtually costless” for defendant-appellant to appropriately provide the governing terms and conditions to plaintiff-appellee before he purchased a product protection plan.

  • Southwest Airlines Company v. Local 555, Transport workers of America AFL-CIO, No. 18-10122 (5th Cir. Jan. 9, 2019)
    01/09/2019

    Court of appeals reversed and remanded district court’s ruling confirming an arbitration award.  Court found that the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction, and thus vacatur was appropriate, when the arbitration award conflicted with the plain language of the arbitration agreement.

  • 20/20 Communications, Inc. v. Blevins, No. 4:16-CV-00810-Y (N.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2019)
    01/08/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that an arbitrator – rather than the court – was to determine whether the matter would be resolved with a single class-arbitration or eighteen separate arbitrations, due to an unambiguous delegation clause in the arbitration agreement. 

  • Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., No. 17-1272 (U.S. Jan. 8, 2019)
    01/08/2019

    Supreme Court held that when an arbitration agreement delegates the question of the arbitrability of a particular dispute to an arbitrator a court may not override the parties’ arbitration agreement, even if the court considers the argument that the arbitration agreement applies to a dispute is wholly groundless.

  • Wolfe v. Carnival Corporation, No. 1:18-CV-23463-KMW (S.D. Fla. Jan. 4, 2019)
    01/04/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and to compel arbitration, finding claimants’ only argument that the arbitration agreement does not fall within the scope of the arbitration clause was incorrect.

  • Voorhees v. Tolia No. 18-1949 (3d Cir. Jan. 4, 2019)
    01/04/2019

    Court of appeals vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded for further proceedings.  Court held the district court did not address whether or why any of the plaintiff’s claims were subject to the arbitration agreement concluding it was not immediately apparent that all of them were. 

  • 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. Jan. 3, 2019)
    01/03/2019

    Court overruled defendants’ objection to the ruling on defendants’ motion to compel reciprocal discovery.  Court found it could not set aside the order of the magistrate judge because defendant did not show the magistrate judge’s decision was beyond the scope of the court’s discretion or that it was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

  • Amazon Digital Services, LLC v. Green Publishing, Ltd., No. 2:18-CV-00475-RAJ (W.D. Wash. Jan. 2, 2019)
    01/02/2019

    Court ordered judgment be entered in favor of plaintiff confirming an arbitral award rendered on 11 January 2018 and enjoining defendants from performing certain actions.  Court held the conditions for confirming the award were found and noted the defendants made no arguments that the arbitrator exceeded her powers in this this case or that she strayed from interpretation and application of the parties’ agreement. 

  • Continental Insurance Company v. Axa Versicherung AG, No. 1:18-CV-07349-VEC (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2019)
    01/02/2019

    Court granted unopposed petition to confirm a final arbitration award, finding that plaintiff met the statutory requirements for confirming the award.

  • Wells Fargo Advisors LLC v. Tucker, No. 1:18-CV-06757-PAE (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2019)
    01/02/2019

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate an arbitral award rendered under the auspices of the American Arbitration Association.  Court found the arbitrator neither exceeded her powers nor manifestly disregarded the law.

  • Austin v. J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc. No. 2:18-CV-02207-JAR-TJJ (D. Kan. Jan. 2, 2019)
    01/02/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to stay the case pending arbitration, holding that the parties entered into a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement, defendants did not waive their right to enforce the arbitration agreement, and plaintiff’s claims are arbitrable under the arbitration agreement.

  • Elerath v. Vitorino, No. 2:18-CV-04058-JTM-DEK (E.D. La. Jan. 2, 2019)
    01/02/2019

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.  Court found all plaintiffs, including non-signatory plaintiffs, were bound by the arbitration agreement and the dispute in question fell within the scope of that agreement.  Court also considered plaintiffs’ objection to the validity of the arbitration agreement was ill-conceived because claiming the agreement as a whole is a relative nullity does not challenge the making of the arbitration agreement. 

  • Esanbock v. Weyerhaeuser Company, No. 0:17-CV-03702-SRN-DTS (D. Minn. Jan. 2, 2019)
    01/02/2019

    Court adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss or stay the claims, holding that the type of dispute at issue was not subject to arbitration.

  • Mondelez Global LLC v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, District 8, Local Lodge 1202, No. 1:17-CV-08628 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 2, 2019)
    01/02/2019

    Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the arbitrator’s decision was not contrary to a well-defined and dominant public policy.  Court further directed the clerk to enter judgment in favor of defendant, confirming the August 21, 2016 arbitration award and directing plaintiff to comply with the terms of the arbitration award.

  • Castello v. AY&T Mobility Services, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-01874 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 28, 2018)
    12/28/2018

    Court entered and continued motion to compel arbitration, holding that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether an arbitration agreement existed.  Court found that a trial was necessary to determine whether an agreement was offered and accepted by the parties.

  • Czech Republic v. A11Y Ltd., No. 1:18-CV-07565-NRB (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2018)
    12/28/2018

    Court ordered judgment granting plaintiff’s petition to confirm arbitral award in favor of the Czech Republic.  Court undertook an independent review of the record in the absence of defendant’s response and determined the facts entitled the petitioner to the relief requested as a matter of law.

  • Dillion v. Bet Information Systems, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-04717-JST (N.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 2018)
    12/28/2018

    Court ordered parties to show cause why the case should not be stayed, including the resolution of the pending motion to compel arbitration, until the issuance of a decision in Henry Schein.  Court considered this necessary because the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Henry Schein, 138 S. Ct. 2678, to address the following question: “Whether the Federal Arbitration Act permits a court to decline to enforce an agreement delegating questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator if the court concludes the claim of arbitrability is ‘wholly groundless.’” 

  • Spencer v. XPO Logistics, No. 2:17-CV-14084-VAR-MKM (E.D. Mich. Dec. 28, 2018)
    12/28/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss finding there was no basis on which the arbitration provision could be deemed unenforceable.  Court also found it could not order the parties to arbitration because the court is located in the Eastern District of Michigan and the arbitration agreement provided for arbitration in North Carolina.

  • Williams v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 5:18-CV-00915-EEF-MLH (W.D. La. Dec. 28, 2018)
    12/28/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding plaintiff executed a valid agreement to arbitrate his employment-related disputes and decided to dismiss the case because the agreement assigned the question of arbitratibility to the arbitrator.

  • Berisha v. Stan, Inc., No. 0:18-CV-62114-MGC (S.D. Fla. Dec. 27, 2018)
    12/27/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pending the resolution of this case by an arbitrator.  Plaintiff did not oppose defendants’ motion and court noted FLSA claims can be arbitrated and federal policy favors arbitration.

  • Temple v. Best Rate Holdings LLC, No. 8:18-CV-00176-CEH-JSS (M.D. Fla. Dec. 27, 2018)
    12/27/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court declined to defer to the arbitrator on the question of arbitrability, holding that because the agreement was narrow, its reference to AAA rules did not constitute an unambiguous intent of the parties for such judicial deference. Court nevertheless held that the arbitration agreement was enforceable and applicable to the scope of the parties’ dispute. Finally, court held that non-signatory defendant could likewise enforce the arbitration agreement based on a theory of estoppel.

  • Stevens v. Jiffy Lube International, Inc., No. 17-15965 (9th Cir. Dec. 27, 2018)
    12/27/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed denial of petition to vacate arbitral award, holding that the petition of vacatur could not be granted because it was filed one day after the three-month deadline established by the FAA.

  • Amazon Digital Services, LLC v. Green Publishing, Ltd., No. 2:18-CV-00475-RAJ (W.D. Wash. Dec. 27, 2018)
    12/27/2018

    Court granted unopposed motion to confirm AAA arbitration award, finding that no arguments based on grounds available under the FAA for its invalidity had been presented.

  • Bank Luemi, USA v. Miramax Distribution Services, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-07574-SVW-KS (C.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2018) 
    12/27/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the portion of the agreement which contained the arbitration clause was not implicated by their dispute, finding that the clauses was broadly written to include all disputes under the agreement.  Court also found that language in the arbitration agreement which included “the determination of the scope or applicability of this agreement to arbitrate” provided clear and unmistakable evidence of the parties’ intention to delegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

  • Global Empire Corporation v. Flower Tech Center, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-08795-ES-SCM (D.N.J. Dec. 21, 2018)
    12/21/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the proceeding.  Court held the parties entered into a valid arbitration agreement in accordance with Alberta, Canada law and found no reason to void a clear arbitration provision which was the product of an arm’s length negotiation by two sophisticated commercial entities.

  • NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. v. O.W. Bunker USA, Inc., 17-4028-CV (2d Cir. Dec. 19, 2018)
    12/19/2018

    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.

  • Hill-Smith v. Silver Dollar Cabaret, Inc., No. 5:18-CV-05145-PKH (W.D. Ark. Dec. 13, 2018)
    12/14/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint finding that the arbitration agreement was enforceable and that plaintiff’s claims fell squarely within the terms of the arbitration provision and the entire controversy would be resolved by the arbitrator. 

  • Local Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas v. Mirage Casino-Hotel, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-01225-GMN-PAL (9th Circ. Dec. 13, 2018)
    12/13/2018

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

  • Banks v. Barclays Bank Credit Services, No. 1:17-CV-00096-CCC (M.D. Pa. Dec. 13, 2018)
    12/13/2018

    Court granted defendant’s renewed motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending the outcome of the arbitration.  Court noted the plaintiff did not object and concluded there was no clear error on the face of the record thereby granting defendant’s motion. 

  • Hicks v. Comcast Cable Communication LLC, No. 0:18-CV-61384-BB (S.D. Fla. Dec. 13, 2018)
    12/13/2018

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay action as well as motion to stay discovery and pretrial proceedings.  Court held that a bench trial will be held pursuant to 9 USC § 4 to determine the existence of a binding arbitration agreement between the parties. 

  • McNamara v. S.I. Logistics, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-12523-ADB (D. Mass. Dec. 13, 2018)
    12/13/2018

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint, finding that the parties’ agreement to arbitrate was illusory from the outset because one of the parties had the right to modify the agreement to arbitrate at any moment.  Thus, no agreement to arbitrate was formed between the parties. 

  • Werner v. Waterstone Mortgage Corporation, No. 3:17-CV-00608-JDP (W.D. Wis. Dec. 13, 2018)
    12/13/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the case and compel arbitration, finding that plaintiffs waived their right to arbitrate by filing the claims before federal court and litigating for more than a year before seeking to compel arbitration. 

  • Winkler v. Total Quality Logistics, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-03707 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 13, 2018)
    12/13/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint. Court held the parties entered into a binding arbitration agreement and plaintiff’s three claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.  Court also concluded the arbitration agreement was neither unconscionable nor otherwise materially flawed. 

  • Winters v. Aimco/Bethesda Holdings Inc., No. 3:18-CV-01937-JAH-MDD (S.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2018)
    12/13/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to remand to state court and denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay proceeding, finding that defendant failed to meet the burden of establishing complete diversity of citizenship.  As a result, court held defendant’s motion to compel arbitration was moot. 

  • National Dentex, LLC v. Gold, No. 1:18-CV-10484-LTS (D. Mass. Dec. 12, 2018)
    12/12/2018

    Court denied defendant’s renewed motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss or stay the case.  Court held plaintiff’s claims arise under related, but separate agreements, neither of which contained or incorporated an arbitration clause.

  • Wilson v. CPB Foods, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-00014-CHB-CHL (W.D. Ky. Dec. 12, 2018)
    12/12/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation, finding that the claims before it fell squarely within the scope of the arbitration agreement and that defendant did not waive its right to arbitration. 

  • Smith v. General Information Solutions, LLC No. 3:18-CV-02534-MGL (D.S.C. Dec. 11, 2018)
    12/11/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice.  Court held the language of the arbitration agreement provided clear and unmistakable evidence the parties have chosen to give arbitrability questions to an arbitrator, concluding the parties should be compelled to arbitration because it appeared a valid arbitration agreement existed. 

  • Armstrong v. Michael Stores, Inc., No. 5:17-CV-06540-LHK (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2018)
    12/11/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stays the lawsuit, finding that plaintiff assented to the arbitration agreement twice and that defendant did not waive its right to compel arbitration. 

  • ECI Software Solutions, Inc. v. Sheridan, No. 3:18-CV-00511-N (N.D. Tex. Dec. 11, 2018)
    12/11/2018

    Court granted one defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case against another defendant for lack of personal jurisdiction.  Court found there was a valid arbitration agreement, the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement and that no federal statute of policy rendered the claims nonarbitrable. 

  • Elite Air Conditioning Inc. v. BVB Construction, Inc., No. 5:18-CV-01956-MWF-SP (C.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2018)
    12/11/2018

    Court ordered the parties to arbitration and stayed the case until completion of arbitration pursuant to the parties’ stipulation and agreement to submit all claims between them arising out of the contract in question to arbitration under the auspices of the American Arbitration Association. 

  • Liggins v. Gmri, Inc. No. 2:18-CV-09000-DSF-AFM (C.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2018) 
    12/11/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to stay all civil proceedings pending arbitration, finding that defendants could enforce the arbitration agreement because they were either third-party beneficiaries of the contract or agents of one another. 

  • Rogers v. Swepi LP, No. 18-3229 (6th Cir. Dec. 10, 2018)
    12/10/2018

    Court of appeals reversed the district court’s denial of defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and remanded the case for entry of an order compelling arbitration and a decision on whether the agreement allows for class-wide arbitration.  Court rejected plaintiff’s defense against arbitration, because he attacked more than just the arbitration agreement.  Court concluded the district court erred in assuming it had the power to rule on arbitrability, which should have been reserved for the arbitrator.

  • Velazquez v. Midland Funding, LLC., No. 1:18-CV-00043-CWD (D. Idaho Dec. 10, 2018)
    12/10/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and issue a protective order, but granted plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint.  Court determined that defendant did not acquire the right to arbitrate the issues in dispute and found the claim did not fall within the terms of the arbitration clause.

  • Lothan Van Hook DeStefano Architecture v. SB Yen Management Group, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00275 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 10, 2018)
    12/10/2018

    Court granted defendant’s request to compel mediation and arbitration, but denied defendant’s request to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.  Court held the claim was subject to arbitration and that an arbitration agreement existed requiring the parties to endeavor to resolve claims by mediation and then by arbitration if mediation was unsuccessful. 

  • Globalone Management Group Limited v. Tempus Applied Solutions, LLC., No. 4:18-CV-00059-RGD-LRL (E.D. Va. Dec. 7, 2018)
    12/07/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motions to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, but dismissed defendant’s motion to dismiss without prejudice.  Court determined that it must compel arbitration and stay proceedings pursuant to §§  3 and 4 of the FAA because the express incorporation of the ICC Rules into an arbitration provision constitutes clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to arbitrate issues of arbitrability.  Court also held defendant’s assertion that all the parties’ disputes are subject to arbitration was not frivolous or illegitimate, concluding that all threshold questions of arbitrability must be referred to arbitration.

  • Collins v. Discover Financial Services, No. 8:17-CV-03011-PX (D. Md. Dec. 7, 2018)
    12/07/2018

    Court denied motion for reconsideration to alter judgment compelling arbitration.  Court held that plaintiffs provided no reason to find that the provisions in the agreements referring to AAA and JAMS rules were not binding and confirmed prior decision compelling to arbitration.  Court also deferred the question of scope of the arbitration agreements to the arbitrator. 

  • Zendon v. Grandison Management, Inc., No. 2:18-CV_04545-ARR-JO (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2018)
    12/07/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel the arbitration of plaintiff’s claims pursuant to the parties’ 2015 Employment Agreement.  Court held the arbitration agreement was valid and plaintiff’s claims clearly constituted a dispute between the parties within the meaning of the arbitration provision.  Court also held defendant did not waive its right to demand arbitration because the filing and withdrawal of a state court action does not constitute “protracted litigation.” 

  • Ege v. Express Messenger Systems Inc., No. 17-35123 (9th Circ. Dec. 7, 2018)
    12/07/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s dismissal of appellants’ complaint in favor of arbitration.  Court held one of the appellants was a third-party beneficiary, appellants’ claims were arbitrable, and arbitration was the proper forum in which to adjudicate the claims. 

  • OJSC Ukrnafta v. Carpatsky Petroleum Corporation, No. 4:09-CV-00891 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 6, 2018)
    12/06/2018

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

  • Sagicor Life Insurance Company v. Houchins, No. 5:17-CV-02189-AKK (N.D. Ala. Dec. 6, 2018)
    12/06/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding that claims arising outside the scope of arbitration agreement were irrelevant to determining parties’ intent to arbitrate.  Court held that defendants did not waive their right to arbitrate, notwithstanding defendants’ intent to amicably resolve the dispute and decision to wait several months into the litigation process before filing their motion to compel arbitration.

  • In re: Zetia (Ezetimibe) Antitrust Litigation No. 2:18-CV-00071-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. Dec. 6, 2018)
    12/06/2018

    Court overruled defendant’s objection  and adopted and approved the findings and recommendations set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation stating that the contract did not unambiguously delegate questions of enforceability to the arbitrator and contained clear waivers regarding certain statutory remedies, and therefore did not require the arbitration of the plaintiffs’ antitrust claims

  • International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail & Transp. Workers v. CSX Transp., Inc., No. 18-3323 (6th Cir. Dec. 5, 2018)
    12/05/2018

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

  • OOGC America LLC v. Chesapeake Exploration, LLC, No. 4:17-CV-00248 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2018)
    12/05/2018

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

  • SteppeChange, LLC v. VEON, Ltd., No. 3:18-CV-04842-WHO (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2018)
    12/05/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration on the issue of arbitrability, finding that invocation of LCIA rules in the arbitration agreement presented a clear and unmistakable intent to leave arbitrability to the arbitrator.  Court stayed proceedings for both defendants pending arbitrator’s determination.

  • Focus Music Entertainment LLC v. Streamify LLC, No. 1:18-CV-01241-ELH (D. Md. Dec. 5, 2018)
    12/05/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration and transferred case to the District Court for the Southern District of Texas finding that, notwithstanding a valid arbitration agreement, court could not compel arbitration in a different jurisdiction than was contemplated by the agreement, pursuant to § 4 of the FAA.

  • ASARCO LLC v. United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Services Works International Union, No. 16-16363 (9th Cir. Dec. 4, 2018)
    12/04/2018

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

  • Davison Design & Development, Inc. v. Frison, No. 2:17-CV-01468-JFC (W.D. Pa. Dec. 4, 2018)
    12/04/2018

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

  • S&O Construction Services, Inc. v. APS Contracting, Inc., No. 7:18-CV-05836-CS (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2018)
    12/04/2018

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

  • Thomas v. National Collector’s Mint, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-00348 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 4, 2018)
    12/04/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and denied motion to dismiss, staying proceedings until plaintiff’s claims against two defendants were arbitrated, because the third defendant had not consented to arbitration.  Court held that the clause in arbitration agreement restricting recovery of attorney’s fees was severable and did not render the agreement unconscionable.

  • Judd v. Keypoint Government Solutions, Inc No. 1:18-CV-00327-RM-STV (D. Colo. Dec. 4, 2018)
    12/04/2018

    Court accepted the magistrate judge recommendation to grant defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Pursuant to the FAA, court found the arbitration agreement was valid, concluding that the opt-out form plaintiff signed related to the scope of the arbitral agreement not to its validity and that under the AAA rules, the scope of an arbitration agreement must be determined by the arbitrator.

  • Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Parabia, No. 8:18-CV-00177-TDC (D. Md. Dec. 3, 2018)
    12/03/2018

    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.

  • National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA. v. BMC Stock Holdings, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-05777-JPO (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2018)
    12/03/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration of a payment dispute arising from an insurance policy, holding that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate notwithstanding conflicting provisions concerning whether a court or an arbitrator would determine arbitrability.  Court declined to entertain merits-based arguments when parties unequivocally agreed to arbitrate disagreements about payment obligations under the policy.

  • International Union of Operating Engineers v. Ohio Contractors Association, No. 1:18-CV-00722-JG (N.D. Ohio Nov. 30, 2018)
    11/30/2018

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

  • Styczynski v. Marketsource, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-02662-GAM (E.D. Pa. Nov. 30, 2018)
    11/30/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration of employment claims, holding that neither limitations on discovery nor mere difference in bargaining power were sufficient to render a contract procedurally or substantively unconscionable under the FAA.

  • Ahlstrom v. DHI Mortgage Company, No. 5:17-CV-04383-BLF, (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2018)
    11/30/2018

    Court granted motion to dismiss suit and compel arbitration, holding that there was a valid arbitration agreement and that defendant accepted the agreement upon signing notwithstanding its efforts to terminate acceptance according to the terms of the agreement.  Court held that the issue of whether defendant properly terminated its acceptance of the arbitration agreement is delegated to the arbitrator, under the contract’s delegation clause.

  • AMC Pinnacle Inc. v. Jeunesse, LLC, No: 6:18-CV-1102-Orl-40DCI (M.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2018)
    11/30/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion for preliminary injunction, notwithstanding a finding that incorporating AAA rules into a contract created a valid delegation clause, on grounds that the arbitration provision did not allow defendants to bypass arbitration altogether by seeking injunction.   The contract, requiring all disputes to be submitted to arbitration except that a party may apply to the court for preliminary injunction to “protect its interest prior to, during or following the filing of any arbitration,” did not mean defendant could seek injunctive relief to protect its “interest in accessing the courts” as such an interpretation would render the arbitration provision meaningless.

  • American Brokerage Network v. American General Life Ins. Co., No. 17-16371 (9th Cir. Nov. 30, 2018)
    11/30/2018

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

  • Drake v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc., No. 18-3020 (6th Cir. Nov. 30, 2018)
    11/30/2018

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

  • Millrock Technology, Inc. v. Pixar Bio Corp., No. 1:18-CV-00666-GTS (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2018)
    11/30/2018

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

  • Miner v. Ecolab, Inc., No. 17-56183 (9th Cir. Nov. 30, 2018)           
    11/30/2018

    Court of appeals vacated and remanded district court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration of federal and state wage and hour claims, in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612, 1632 (2018) that class and collective action waivers must be enforced as written under the FAA.  

  • Rowe v. Affordable Motors, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01592-VAB (D. Conn. Nov. 30, 2018)
    11/30/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay all proceeding. Court concluded that (i) a valid agreement to arbitrate was formed, as defendant submitted evidentiary facts showing an agreement to arbitrate and plaintiffs failed to submit facts showing a dispute; and (ii) the claims made in the complaint “touch[ed] matters covered” by the arbitration clause and therefore fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • Patterson v. Nine Energy Services, No. 17-CV-01116-JB-GBW (D.N.M. Nov. 29, 2018)
    11/29/2018

    Court reaffirmed its determination that the substantively unconscionable injunctive relief provision in the arbitration agreement was severable, and declined to certify the question to the Supreme Court of New Mexico for its determination. Court noted that, consistent with its prior determination, the unilateral relief provision was severable because it was not central to the arbitration scheme. Court further concluded that the lack of a savings clause did not indicate the parties’ manifested intent to discard the entire arbitration agreement if a provision is found unconscionable

  • McCormick v. America Online, Inc., No. 17-1542 (4th Cir. Nov. 29, 2018)
    11/29/2018

    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.

  • Lowell v. Lyft, Inc., No. 7:17-CV-06251-NSR (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2018)
    11/29/2018

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  Court rejected defendant’s argument that direct benefits estoppel required the non-signatory plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims, explaining that requiring them to do so would hold them to an arbitration clause in agreement that they neither signed up for nor benefited from.

  • Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. v. Lunera Lighting, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-05091-EMC (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2018)
    11/28/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration.  Relying on Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc., 175 F.3d 716, court concluded that once a court determines that all disputes are subject to arbitration pursuant to a binding arbitration clause, it is improper for a district court to grant preliminary relief where provisional relief is available from an arbitral tribunal.

  • Dickson v. Gospel for Asia, Inc., No. 5:16-CV-05027-PKH (W.D. Ark. Nov. 28, 2018)
    11/28/2018

    Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to compel arbitration and stay, ordering the parties to engage in arbitration but not entering a stay. Court noted that the court of appeals had determined that binding arbitration agreements exist and that the parties’ disagreement fell within the scope of those agreements. Court also found that, because the arbitration agreement controlled the entirety of the dispute, the weight of authority supported dismissal of the action.

  • Matalka v. Home Point Financial Corporation, No. 18-3333 (6th Cir. Nov. 28, 2018)
    11/28/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed decision denying motion to compel arbitration, holding that claims arising from an unrelated oral contract were not subject to an arbitration clause in a prior written contract where the former made no reference to the latter.  Court found the FAA presumption in favor of arbitration need not apply when a claim falls outside the scope of an arbitration agreement. 

  • Sheridan v. Page, No. 1:18-CV-00449-LM (D.N.H. Nov. 28, 2018)
    11/28/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss or stay plaintiff’s claims against it pending mandatory arbitration.  Court concluded that, given the broad language of the arbitration clauses and the policy favoring arbitration, both of plaintiffs’ claims fell within the scope of the arbitration clauses.

  • General Re Life Corp. v. Lincoln National Life Ins., No. 17-2496 (2d Cir.  Nov. 28, 2018)
    11/28/2018

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

  • Forby v. One Technologies, L.P., No. 17-10883 (5th Cir. Nov. 28, 2018)
    11/28/2018

    Court of appeals reversed the district court judgment granting defendant-appellee’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court of appeals concluded that defendant-appellee waived its right to arbitrate, as it substantially invoked the judicial process and that plaintiff-appellant was prejudiced thereby.

  • Droney v. Vivint Solar, No. 1:18-CV-00849-RBK-KMW (D.N.J. Nov. 28, 2018)
    11/28/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court concluded that a Rule 56 standard applied because arbitrability was not apparent on the face of the complaint.  Court further concluded that there was a genuine issue as to whether the parties ever entered into a valid agreement.

  • Rodriguez v. SSC San Antonio West Operating Company LLC, No. 5:18-CV-00741-OLG (W.D. Tex. Nov. 28, 2018)
    11/28/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding there was a valid arbitration agreement that covered the scope of all of plaintiff’s claims and there was no basis on which the agreement to arbitrate should not be enforced.

  • Mendez v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-00189-PRM (W.D. Tex. Nov. 28, 2018)
    11/28/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the Federal Arbitration Act was applicable and the arbitration agreement was valid.

  • Oglethorpe Power Corp. v. Ethosenergy Power Plant Services, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-00072-CDL (Nov. 27, 2018 N.D. Ga.)
    11/27/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court concluded that the parties agreed to arbitrate disputes only if they entered into a separate written agreement to do so.  Since it was undisputed that no such separate written agreement to arbitrate existed, the parties had not agreed to arbitrate their dispute.

  • Elliott v. NTAN LLC, No. 3:18-CV-00638 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 27, 2018)
    11/27/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration or, in the alternative, to stay proceedings and compel arbitration is granted.  Court concluded that (i) plaintiffs mutually assented to the agreement when they signed it; (ii) the agreement was not an adhesive contract and plaintiffs failed to establish any grounds supporting procedural or substantive unconscionability; and (iii) the agreement was not insufficiently definite to allow for effective vindication of plaintiff’s statutory rights.

  • Bagadiya Brothers PVT Limited v. Churchgate Nigeria Limited, No. 1:14-CV-05656-ER (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 27, 2018)
    11/27/2018

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

  • Peak Pipe and Supply, LLC v. UMW Oilfield (L) International Ltd., No. 3:18-CV-00410-L (N.D. Tex. Nov. 27, 2018)
    11/27/2018

    Court accepted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge that plaintiff is equitably required to arbitrate its claims and granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. The court determined that the magistrate judge, in applying the first prong of the test set out in Noble Drilling Servs., Inc. v. Certex USA, Inc., 620 F.3d 469, 473 (5th Cir. 2010), correctly determined that the non-signatory plaintiff is required to arbitrate its claims against UMW, and, accordingly, overruled plaintiff’s objection.

  • Donaldson v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC No. 2:18-CV-00530-UA-UAM (M.D. Fla. Nov. 27, 2018) 
    11/27/2018

    Court recommended granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and that the entire case be stayed under 9 USC § 3 pending completion of arbitration.  Court found that a valid arbitration agreement as well as arbitrable issues existed and that defendant did not waive the right to arbitration. 

  • Herboroso v. Pollo Operations, Inc. No. 1:18-CV-21960-JEM (S.D. Fla. Nov. 27, 2018) 
    11/27/2018

    Magistrate Judge recommended defendants’ motion to compel arbitration be granted and the case be dismissed without prejudice, finding that there was an enforceable agreement to arbitrate and that all of plaintiff’s claims were subject to arbitration. 

  • Williamson v. Grano, No. 1:18-CV-00432-WJ-SCY (D.N.M. Nov. 26, 2018)
    11/26/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to strike several pleadings relating to plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration. Court noted that (i) defendants cannot rely on Rule 12—or any other federal procedural rule—to excuse their failure to file a response to plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration; (ii) defendants were mistaken that plaintiffs’ amendment of the complaint requires that the motion to compel be stricken and then re-filed; and (iii) defendants were mistaken that a party is excused from complying with briefing deadlines when that party has raised a jurisdictional challenge in another motion.

  • Orn v. Alltran Financial, LP, No. 3:18-CV-00599-JMM (M.D. Penn. Nov. 26, 2018)
    11/26/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that no agreement to arbitrate existed between plaintiff and the non-signatory defendant. Court concluded that defendant could not enforce the agreement between plaintiff and non-party Citibank because (i) Citibank did not clearly intend to benefit defendant under the Card Agreement, as there is no evidence that defendant received any benefit from the underlying contract that contained the arbitration provision; (ii) plaintiff’s claim is not related to the Card Agreement containing the arbitration clause, so defendant cannot compel arbitration on agency principles; and (iii) there is no alleged interdependent misconduct with Citibank that would bind defendant to the contract as a non-signatory, so there is an insufficient connection between defendant and the Card Agreement.

  • Harris v. Wells Fargo Clearing Services LLC, No. 1:18-CV-04625-GDB (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2018)
    11/26/2018

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

  • Fang v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-06071-JD (N.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2018)
    11/23/2018

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

  • Earth Science Tech, Inc. v. Impact UA, Inc., No. 9:14-CV-81622-RLR (S.D. Fla. Nov. 21, 2018)
    11/21/2018

    Magistrate judge recommended that defendant’s motion to confirm arbitration award be granted and that plaintiff’s cross-motion to partially vacate the award be denied, finding that all of the claims submitted to arbitration fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.  Magistrate Judge further considered court could not modify the arbitration award because it was not a situation of mathematical error appearing on the face of the award.

  • Senderovic v. Lasership, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-00250-VLB (D. Conn. Nov. 21, 2018)
    11/21/2018

    Magistrate judge recommended granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding the parties clearly agreed to submit to arbitration all disputes relating to any relationship between them and that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable.

  • Howes v. New York Life Insurance Company., No. 8:18-CV-00431-GJH (D. Md. Nov. 20, 2018)
    11/20/2018

    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.

  • Curtis v. Contractor Management Services, LLC, No. 1:15-CV-00487-NT (D. Me. Nov. 20, 2018)
    11/20/2018

    Court granted motions to compel arbitration, finding that cost-splitting and confidentiality provisions in arbitration clause in employment agreement were not unconscionable, and that one party’s covenant not to enforce the provision’s cost-splitting, forum selection, and confidentiality provisions mooted potential unconscionability arguments with respect to those provisions.

  • Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Patel, No. 8:18-CV-00758-GJH (D. Md. Nov. 20, 2018)
    11/20/2018

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

  • Garcia v. MaineGeneral Health, No. 1:18-CV-00019-NT (D. Me. Nov. 20, 2018)
    11/20/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that an agreement to arbitrate was formed, it was not unconscionable, and the defendant had not waived its right to rely on it by waiting until litigation had been filed to seek to arbitrate.  Court also found that questions of whether agreement as a whole was unconscionable or whether pre-conditions to arbitration clause had been met would fall to the arbitrator to decide.

  • The Pike Company v. Tri-Krete Limited, No. 6:18-CV-06311-EAW (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2018)
    11/20/2018

    Court denied motion for preliminary injunction to stay arbitration, granted motion to compel arbitration as to claims under the New York Prompt Payment Act (PPA) and stayed litigation on contractual claims, finding that determining whether irreparable harm would result from arbitration turned on whether the dispute was arbitrable, that the contract’s dispute resolution provisions were voided by the PPA; that claims under the PPA may be brought in arbitration; that the defendant’s arguments for the non-applicability of the PPA were defenses on the merits to the PPA claims and did not constitute not reasons not to arbitrate; and that the contractual claims would be stayed pending determination of the claims under the PPA since factual determinations made in arbitration may resolve the contractual claims.

  • Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Kirksey, No. 3:18-CV-00963-JCH (D. Conn. Nov. 20, 2018)
    11/20/2018

    Court granted petition to compel arbitration, finding that parties had delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

  • Psara Energy, Ltd. v. Space Shipping, Ltd., No. 1:18-CV-00178-MAC-ZJH (E.D. Tex. Nov. 20, 2018)
    11/20/2018

    Magistrate judge recommended that the court grant defendants’ motion for referral to arbitration and direct the parties to arbitrate their dispute in London.  Magistrate judge found that this maritime dispute between two non US entities was governed by the New York Convention.  Magistrate judge found that court could compel a non-signatory to arbitrate under both federal common law and Texas state law theories of equitable estoppel.

  • Sequip Participaçôes S.A. v. Marinho, No. 1:15-MC-23737-JAL (S.D. Fla. Nov. 19, 2018)
    11/19/2018

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

  • Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, and Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund v. M&B Builders Group Inc., No. 1:18-CV-05074-GHW (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 19, 2018)
    11/19/2018

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

  • Mongoya v. AET MVC Beta, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-08827-MLCF-KWR (E.D. La. Nov. 19, 2018)
    11/19/2018

    Court granted motion to remand to state court for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction under the New York Convention, finding that (1) foreign court’s determination that the Convention did not apply was not dispositive, since it was based on fact that foreign country has not enacted the Convention into domestic law, whereas the US has; and (2) parties’ non-signatory status does not affect whether arbitration clause falls under the Convention; but (3) claims asserting defamation arising from statements in enforcement pleadings and seeking injunction against further enforcement proceedings did not relate to the arbitration agreement.

  • Primoris Energy Services Corporation v. New Day Aluminum, No. 2:18-CV-05839-SSV-MBN (E.D. La. Nov. 19, 2018)
    11/19/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, interpreting arbitration clause providing that disputes “may” be submitted to arbitration as a binding agreement to arbitrate.

  • Consolo v. Com-Corp. Industries, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00742-CAB (N.D. Ohio Nov. 19, 2018)
    11/19/2018

    Court compelled arbitration of issues of arbitrability sua sponte, finding that parties’ dispute as to whether preconditions for arbitration had been met should be determined by arbitrator.

  • Peterson v. Lyft, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-07343-LB (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2018)
    11/19/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that (1) the parties entered into a binding agreement that contains an arbitration provision, (2) the parties in their arbitration provision delegated questions about the arbitrability of disputes to the arbitrator, and (3) the arbitration provision is enforceable and not unconscionable.

  • Reinhart v. Asset Managing Group, Inc, No. 3:16-CV-00439-BJD-MCR (M.D. Fla. Nov. 19, 2018)
    11/19/2018

    Magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation to grant in part and deny without prejudice in part plaintiff’s motion for confirmation of an arbitration award, finding that there was no apparent reason why the award should be vacated, modified or corrected.  Magistrate Judge noted that although the arbitrator found plaintiffs to be entitled to their “reasonable costs,” neither the basis for awarding costs nor the amount of such costs were presented to the court and as result denied this specific request for reasonable costs without prejudice.

  • Buckley v. National Football League, No. 1:18-CV-03309-LGS (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2018)
    11/16/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that non-signatories were estopped from denying obligation to arbitrate since they accepted benefits under the contract, their claims fall within the scope of the arbitration clause, their challenge to contract formation was to the contract as a whole rather than the arbitration clause specifically, and there was no basis to refuse to enforce the arbitration clause on public policy grounds.

  • Agostino v. Ally Financial Inc., No. 8:18-CV-01202-CEH-TGW (M.D. Fla. Nov. 16, 2018)
    11/16/2018

    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)
    11/16/2018

    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)
    11/16/2018

    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)
    11/16/2018

    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)
    11/16/2018

    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.

  • Cuevas v. Verizon Wireless Personal Communications, LLP, No. 2:18-CV-00371-UA-CM (M.D. Fla. Nov. 16, 2018) 
    11/16/2018

    Court granted motion for reconsideration of a previously denied motion to compel arbitration and upon reconsideration again denied motion to compel arbitration.  Court considered defendant’s new basis for enforcing arbitration – a provision that required the parties to resolve disputes by “arbitration, small claims court, or any other means not including jury trials” – and found that, construing ambiguous language against the drafter, this did not require mandatory arbitration.

  • Great American Insurance Company v. Gemma Power Systems, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-00213-TSB (S.D. Ohio Nov. 15, 2018)
    11/15/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel intervenor-plaintiff to arbitrate and stayed proceedings of a construction dispute, finding that a valid arbitration provision existed that applied to the dispute.  The court determined that an arbitrator should decide whether the requirement that the companies senior officers attempt to settle any dispute prior to arbitration had been met. The court further rejected the intervenor-plaintiff’s argument that Ohio state law should void the arbitration provision based on a forum selection clause outside of Ohio.

  • Setty v. Shrinivas Sugandhalaya LLP, No. 2:17-CV-01146-RAJ (W.D. Wash. Nov. 15, 2018)
    11/15/2018

    Court granted motion to stay pending an appeal but denied motion to stay pending the outcome of an arbitration in India.  Court reasoned that it was not clear whether all of the claims were subject to arbitration, whether the claims would actually come before the arbitrator, or how the proceedings in India might affect plaintiff’s claims and thus granting a stay would be prejudicial to defendants.  Court rejected defendant’s assertion that § 3 of the FAA required a stay when an a separate arbitration proceeding would cover an issue involved in the dispute, clarifying that a stay pending an arbitration is required if it the parties have agreed in writing to arbitrate an issue underlying the proceeding. 

  • Augustin v. Cubesmart, L.P., No. 0:18-CV-61918-WPD (S.D. Fla. Nov. 15, 2018)
    11/15/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, or in the alternative, to compel arbitration.  Court concluded that plaintiff failed to rebut defendant’s evidence that she electronically received and completed the arbitration agreement.

  • Wolf v. Altitude Costa LLC, No. 3:18-CV-01422-WGY (D.P.R. Nov. 14, 2018)
    11/14/2018

    Court dismissed petition to compel arbitration for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.   The court held that a member of an LLC could not sue the LLC on the basis of diversity, and thus the court did not have sufficient jurisdiction to compel arbitration pursuant to chapter 2 of the FAA. 

  • Turnipseed v. APMT, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-05187-CJB-KWR (E.D. La. Nov. 14, 2018) 
    11/14/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of a Fair Housing Act claim.  Court found that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed and that there was no conflict with the FHA that would prohibit arbitration.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that a rental real estate contract was beyond Congress’s regulatory powers and not subject to the FAA.

  • International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers v. JDD, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-00121-GZS (D. Me. Nov. 14, 2018)
    11/14/2018

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

  • LLC Energoalliance v. Republic of Moldova, No. 1:14-CV-01921-CRC (D.D.C. Nov. 13, 2018)
    11/13/2018

    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.

  •  Wilson v. HUUUGE, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-05276-RBL (W.D. Wash. Nov. 13, 2018)
    11/13/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in a class action to recover money lost through online gambling websites.  Court found that while defendant’s terms of service contained an arbitration clause, the display of the link to the terms of service when downloading or using the app was not sufficient to put the plaintiff on notice of an obligation to arbitrate.  Court rejected defendant’s argument that modern users assume apps they download come with binding terms and provisions and this should alter the standard for reasonable inquiry notice. 

  • The New York City District Council of Carpenters  v. Nguyen Custom Woodworking LLC, No. 1:18-CV-03970-AJN (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2018)
     
    11/13/2018

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

  • Gibbens v. OptumRx, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00723 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 13, 2018)
    11/13/2018

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

  • Astarita v. Menard, Inc., No. 5:17-CV-06151-RK (W.D. Mo. Nov. 13, 2018
    11/13/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pursuant to the FAA. Court found plaintiff’s arguments that an arbitration provision was not valid – because it had not signed by the defendant, and because it had irreconcilable differences with a previous agreement – both implicated the validity of the contract itself, and should be delegated to the arbitrator under the AAA rules.

  • Helmuth v. ARS National Services, Inc., No. 9:11-CV-81044-KAM (S.D. Fla. Nov. 13, 2018)
    11/13/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and strike class allegations. Court found that although a valid arbitration agreement existed, and the dispute was within the scope of that agreement, defendant had waived its right to arbitration. Court held that defendant’s actions in filing an answer, engaging in scheduling conferences, conducting discovery and mediation, and filing motions showed intent to litigate and not to arbitrate.

  • Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Kapil, LLC, No. 8:18-CV-01232-TDC (D. Md. Nov. 13, 2018)
    11/13/2018

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

  • Amazon.com, Inc. v. Glenn, No. 2:18-CV-01289-MJP (W.D. Wash. Nov. 13, 2018)
    11/13/2018

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

  • Kincaid v. Ditech Financial LLC, No. 2:18-CV-00085-JPB (N.D.W. Va. Nov. 13, 2018)
    11/13/2018

    Court granted defendants motion to compel arbitration, finding that it need not determine whether this putative class action was a case involving a single claimant case, which required arbitration under the agreement, or a case involving multiple transactions, which did not, because threshold questions of arbitrability had been delegated to the arbitrator under the agreement.

  • Arment v. Dolgencorp, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-00026-CDP (E.D. Mo. Nov. 13, 2018)
    11/13/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case. Court found that the agreement delegated questions of the validity of the arbitration agreement to the arbitrator, and thus did not consider plaintiffs arguments that the arbitration agreement was invalid under Missouri law.

  • Cordoba v. DIRECTV, LLC, 1:15-CV-03755-MHC (N.D. Ga. Nov. 9, 2018)
    11/09/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, holding that a valid agreement existed between the parties.  However, the court determined that the claim at issue was not covered thereby.

  • DetailXPerts Franchise Systems, LLC, v. TKTM Enterprises, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-11823-VAR-DRG (E.D. Mich. Nov. 9, 2018)
    11/09/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss counterclaims that were subject to an arbitration provision in a franchise agreement. Court rejected defendants arguments that the franchise agreement was fraudulently induced, finding that without specific allegations as to fraud in the inducement of the arbitration provision, the court could not decide the validity of the franchise agreement in the first instance.

  • Roasting Plant of Michigan JV, LLC v. Roasting Plant, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-10295-BAF-RSW (E.D. Mich. Nov. 09, 2018)
    11/09/2018

    Court granted motion to dismiss pursuant to the FAA, holding that if the plaintiffs wished to arbitrate their claims they must do so in New York in accordance with the terms of the arbitration provision. Court found that the FAA preempted the Michigan Franchise Investment Law which prohibited against extra territorial arbitration agreements.

  • Neal v. Asta Funding, Inc., No. 17-1115 (3d Cir. Nov. 8, 2018)
    11/08/2018

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

  • Parks IP Law, LLC v. Wood, No. 18-11178 (11th Cir. Nov. 8, 2018)
    11/08/2018

    Court of appeals reversed district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and remanded. Defendant-appellant had signed a separation agreement and release including an arbitration clause with previous employer plaintiff-appellee. Plaintiff-appellee brought suit on the basis of a promissory note between the parties when defendant-appellant left its employ to start his own firm. District court denied defendant-appellant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the promissory note contained no arbitration clause and no reference to the separation agreement. Court of appeals held that the separation agreement and the promissory note were executed contemporaneously as part of the same transaction and should be construed together.

  • Bofi Federal Bank v. Golub, No. 3:18-CV-00816-LAB-LL (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2018)
    11/08/2018

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

  • Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Kustwan, No. 8:18-CV-01231-TDC (D. Md. Nov. 8, 2018)
    11/08/2018

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

  • Cotton Exchange Investment v. Xcel Air Conditioning, No. 2:16-CV-17543-EEF-MBN (E.D. La. Nov. 8, 2018)
    11/08/2018

    Court granted in part and denied in part third-party defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss third-party plaintiff’s complaint, or alternatively to stay the action pending arbitration, staying third-party plaintiff’s claims against third-party defendant pending arbitration, and denying to dismiss.

  • Huntington Hospital v. Huntington Hospital Nurses’ Association, No. 2:18-CV-02628-SJF-ARL (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2018)
    11/08/2018

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

  • Layman v. City of Peoria, Illinois, No. 1:18-CV-01269-JBM-JEH (C.D. Ill. Nov. 8, 2018)
    11/08/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s request for declaratory judgment and dismissed case. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument for relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act, as parallel arbitration proceedings were ongoing on the same issues between the same parties.

  • Wedi Corp. v. Seattle Glass Block Window, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-00636-TSZ (W.D. Wash. Nov. 7, 2018)
    11/07/2018

    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.

  • HTC Corporation v. Telefonaktiebolaget Ericsson, No. 6:18-CV-00243-JRG (E.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2018)
    11/07/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to sever, stay, and compel arbitration plaintiff’s “past refund” claims under prior licensing agreements and motion to compel arbitration plaintiff’s antitrust claims. Court found valid arbitration agreements within each of the prior license agreements at issue between the parties and found the plaintiff’s claims were arbitrable. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments for denial of defendant’s motion on the bases that the defendant waived its right to arbitration by substantially invoking the judicial process.

  • Crafty Productions, Inc. v. Fuqing Sanxing Crafts Co. Ltd., No. 3:15-CV-00719-BAS-JLB (S.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2018)
    11/07/2018

    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.

  • Greene v. Onemain Financial Group, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00848-LCB-LPA (M.D.N.C. Nov. 7, 2018)
    11/07/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in a wrongful termination case, finding that plaintiff electronically signed a certificate agreement to submit covered disputes to binding arbitration. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that there was no assent, no mutuality of agreement, and no meeting of the minds and that, in any case, the arbitration agreement is not enforceable due to lack of consideration.

  • State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co. v. Rod & Reel, Inc., No. 8:18-CV-00340-PWG (D. Md. Nov. 7, 2018)
    11/07/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s petition to modify an arbitration award and denied plaintiff’s petition to vacate the arbitral award. Court held that the award provided for plaintiff insurer to pay compensation to defendant insured outside of the scope of coverage. Court modified the arbitral award to cover only the covered month-to-month calculations.

  • Gidding v. Fitz, No. 18-1106 (10th Cir. Nov. 6, 2018)
    11/06/2018

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

  • Feldman v. Norman, No. 1:18-CV-04662 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 6, 2018)
    11/06/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay litigation pending arbitration of plaintiffs’ claims against a related party, the law firm owned by defendants. Court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that because defendants are not signatories to the employment agreement between the plaintiffs and the law firm, which contained an arbitration provision, defendants are not entitled to a stay. Court found that plaintiffs’ claims in the present case arise from the same set of facts as the claims against the law firm at arbitration.

  • Bayonne Energy Center, LLC v. Power Engineers, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-02726-SDW-LDW (D.N.J. Nov. 6, 2018)
    11/06/2018

    Court denied third-party defendant’s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint or, alternatively, to stay proceeding pending arbitration on the basis of an arbitration agreement between plaintiff and third-party defendant. Court rejected third-party defendant’s only argument that plaintiff filed the action to circumvent the arbitration agreement, holding that the court would not speculate as to why plaintiff did not pursue claims in arbitration or otherwise.

  • Hodgson Williams v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., No. 1:18-CV-22774-KMW (S.D. Fla. Nov. 6, 2018)
    11/06/2018

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

  • In re: Servotronics, Inc., No. 2:18-MC-00364-DCN (D.S.C. Nov. 6, 2018)
    11/06/2018

    Court denied an ex parte application pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 to take discovery for use in a foreign arbitration, where the incident giving rise to the arbitration occurred in a U.S. state but the parties agreed to private arbitration in England. Court held a private arbitration body does not fall within the § 1782 definition of “tribunal” and, thus, found that it did not have jurisdiction to grant the application.

  • Marchant v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., No 2:18-CV-02757-RMG (D.S.C. Nov. 5, 2018)
    11/05/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding a valid arbitration agreement existed between plaintiff employee and defendant former employer. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that she did not enter the arbitration agreement knowingly and that the contract containing the arbitration agreement was unconscionable as a contract of adhesion.

  • Smiley v. Forcepoint Federal, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-00026-JAG (E.D. Va. Nov. 5, 2018)
    11/05/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration on the basis of an arbitration agreement within plaintiff’s employment contract. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the prohibitive costs of arbitration render the arbitration clause unconscionable and that defendant defaulted on its right to compel arbitration by failing to mention arbitration in its answer and for waiting seven months to invoke the arbitration agreement.

  • Befort v. Farm Bureau Property & Casualty Insurance Company, No. 2:18-CV-02564-RM (D. Ariz. Nov. 5, 2018)
    11/05/2018

    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.

  • Garcia v. Kakish, No. 1:17-CV-00374-LJO-JLT (E.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2018)
    11/05/2018

    Court ordered the parties to submit an order to show cause of why the parties failed to comply with the court’s order to file a joint status report.  The parties had been ordered to file a joint status report regarding the parallel arbitration proceedings, on which the stay of the action had been granted.

  • Hunt v. Potter County, No. 4:16-CV-01729-MWB (M.D. Pa. Nov. 5, 2018)
    11/05/2018

    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.

  • Zitan Technologies, LLC v. Yu, No. 3:18-CV-00395-RCJ-WGC (D. Nev. Nov. 5, 2018)
    11/05/2018

    Court ordered discovery in this action to be stayed pending resolution of the parties’ dispute in the arbitration forum.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that discovery in the federal action is relevant to plaintiff’s sought-after injunctive relief in the arbitration forum and accepted defendant’s argument that discovery should proceed solely in the arbitration forum.

  • Dye v. Tamko Building Products, Inc., No. 17-14052 (11th Cir. Nov. 2, 2018)
    11/02/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to grant defendant-appellee’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court concluded that defendant-appellee made a valid offer to arbitrate by printing a mandatory arbitration clause on the packaging of its product, and that offer was accepted when the product was opened and retained.  Court further concluded that, even though it was the roofers that opened the packaging, the homeowners would nevertheless be bound to arbitrate their disputes under agency-law principles.

  • Texas Brine Company, LLC v. American Arbitration Association, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-06610-SSV-MBN (E.D. La. Nov. 2, 2018)
    11/02/2018

    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.

  • Dye v. Tamko Building Products, Inc., No. 17-14052 (11th Cir. Nov. 2, 2018)
    11/02/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to grant defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss plaintiff’s complaint.  Court of appeals found that homeowners whose roofers ordered, opened, and installed shingles were bound by a mandatory arbitration provision included in the product-purchase agreement displayed on the exterior wrapping of every package of shingles, holding that the packaging sufficed to convey an offer of contract terms, the unwrapping and use of shingles was a reasonable means of acceptance of those terms, and the homeowners’ grant of authority to their roofers to buy and install the shingles included the acceptance of the purchase terms on the homeowners’ behalf.

  • Gartly v. Selip & Stylianou LLP, No. 1:18-CV-01806-ARR-VMS (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2018)
    11/02/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration where defendant bank presented unrebutted evidence that a credit card agreement contained a broad arbitration clause.  Court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that the affidavit in which defendant claimed to have sent plaintiff the credit card and amendments to the agreement should be excluded as hearsay and that the defendant did not provide sufficient proof that plaintiff accepted the agreement.

  • In re Regions Morgan Keegan Securities, Derivative and ERISA Litigation, No. 2:07-CV-02830-SHM-DKV (W.D. Tenn. Nov. 2, 2018)
    11/02/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to enjoin a FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Association) arbitration and emergency motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin the same arbitration.  Court rejected defendant’s argument that claimant could not separately bring arbitration because the court had approved class certification and accepted plaintiff’s argument that it was not bound by class certification because it had opted out of the class.

  • Kater v. Churchill Downs Downs Incorporated, No. 2:15-CV-00612-RBL (W.D. Wash. Nov. 2, 2018)
    11/02/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration after three years and three months of litigation, rejecting the defendant’s argument that it did not waive its right to enforce the arbitration agreement in its Terms of Use because its only substantive action was filing a motion to dismiss.  Court found that plaintiff met the heavy burden of proof to establish that defendant waived its right to compel arbitration on the basis of a three-prong test: (1) defendant’s knowledge of an existing right to compel arbitration; (2) defendant’s acts inconsistent with that existing right; and (3) prejudice to the party opposing arbitration resulting from such inconsistent acts.

  • Trustees of the Northeast Carpenters Health, Pension, Annuity, Apprenticeship, and Labor Management Funds v. Excel Installations, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-03635-JMA-AYS (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2018)
    11/02/2018

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

  • Ratcliffe v. Dorsey School of Business, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-10524-LVP-EAS (E.D. Mich. Nov. 2, 2018)
    11/02/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pending arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court found there was a valid arbitral agreement, the dispute fell within the scope of that agreement, and none of the claims were nonarbitrable.

  • Berryman v. Newalta Environmental Services, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-00793-NBF (W.D. Pa. Nov. 1, 2018)
    11/01/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding that non-signatory defendant had standing to compel arbitration, because it was a third-party beneficiary under the contract. Court held a valid arbitral agreement existed, the claims fell within the scope of that agreement, and the defendant had not waived its right to arbitration by filing a third-party complaint in the action, as it moved to compel arbitration during the initial pleading stages.

  • Process and Industrial Developments Limited v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, No. 1:18-CV-00594-CRC (D.D.C Nov. 1, 2018)
    11/01/2018

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

  • Higgins v. Ally Financial Inc., No. 4:18-CV-0417-SRB (W.D. Mo. Nov. 1, 2018)
    11/01/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration based on a car purchase contract containing an arbitration provision.  Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that defendant was not a party to the car purchase agreement and therefore not authorized to enforce the arbitration provision and that the arbitration provision was unenforceable because it lacked consideration as a matter of law.

  • Brayman v. Keypoint Government Solutions, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00550-WJM-NRN (D. Colo. Nov. 1, 2018)
    11/01/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification as a collective action and court-authorized notice. Court rejected defendant’s argument that similarly situated persons who had signed arbitration agreements should be excluded from the collective action definition and granted the conditional certification for all persons who fit the proposed collective action definition, including those with arbitration provisions.

  • Process and Industrial Developments Limited v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, No. 1:18-CV-00594-CRC (D.D.C. Nov. 1, 2018)
    11/01/2018

    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.

  • Heredia v. Sunrise Senior Living LLC, No. 4:18-CV-00616-HSG (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2018)
    10/31/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, as the plaintiffs had responded with a statement of non-opposition.

  • Shoals v. Owens & Minor Distribution, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-02355-WBS-EFB (E.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2018)
    10/31/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pending the outcome of arbitration, as the plaintiff initialed an arbitration agreement as part of the electronic employment onboarding process.  Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration agreement was invalid due to procedural unconscionability because it was a contract of adhesion and because a copy of the applicable arbitration rules had not been provided to him.  Court further rejected that the arbitration agreement was invalid due to substantive unconscionability because it failed to provide for adequate discovery, because defendant and its counsel would have an inequitable advantage in arbitration as “repeat players,” and because it contained an illegal waiver of representative claims under the Private Attorney General Act.

  • The Cincinnati Specialty Underwriters Insurance Company v. C.F.L.P. 1, LLC, No. 17-6498 (6th Cir. Oct. 31, 2018)
    10/31/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s selection of a third party appraiser, reaffirmation of that appraiser in face of allegations of bias, denial of appellant’s motion to rescind the appraisal process, refusal to instruct appraiser that cosmetic matching was required under the contract, and grant of summary judgment for appellee on appellants’ extracontractual claims. Court noted that even if the district court was incorrect in applying the FAA to the proceedings, the result would be the same.

  • Torres v. Rushmore Service Center, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-09236-SDW-LDW (D.N.J. Oct. 31, 2018)
    10/31/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration and ordered parties to conduct limited discovery on the issue of arbitrability. Court concluded that the question of arbitrability could not be resolved without considering evidence extraneous to the pleadings, so it would be inappropriate to apply the Rule 12(b)(6) standard in deciding the motion.

  • Axia Netmedia Corporation v. Massachusetts Technology Park Corporation, No. 4:17-CV-10482-TSH (D. Mass. Oct. 31, 2018)
    10/31/2018

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

  • Blackberry Limited v. Nokia Corporation, No. 1:17-CV-00155-RGA (D. Del. Oct. 31, 2018)
    10/31/2018

    Court denied motion for preliminary injunctive relief limiting the arbitration that defendants commenced in Sweden, finding that the Swedish arbitration related to issues outside of the patent claim before the court and that comity concerns weighed against enjoining the arbitration.

  • Sistem Muhendislik Insaat Sanayi Ve Ticaret, A.S. v. The Kyrgyz Republic, No. 1:12-CV-04502-ALC-RWL (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2018)
    10/31/2018

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

  • Tuttle v. Credit Acceptance Corporation, No. 8:18-CV-02181-SDM-JSS (M.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2018)
    10/31/2018

    Magistrate judge recommended defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss the case or, in the alternative, to stay all proceedings be granted, finding that the parties entered into a valid written agreement to arbitrate, which clearly encompassed all of the claims in this matter.

  • Hauser v. Westlake Services, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-00143-BJD-JRK (M.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2018)
    10/31/2018

    Magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation to grant the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay action, finding defendant did not waive arbitration because its conduct did not amount to substantial participation in litigation and defendant’s participation in mediation was not inconsistent with intent to arbitrate.

  • Summit Emergency Holdings LLC v. Michael J. Camlinde and Associates, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-03080-G-BN (N.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2018)
    10/30/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings pending arbitration pursuant to the FAA as the agreement involved a transaction affecting interstate commerce. Court found there was a valid agreement to arbitrate, the dispute fell within the scope of the agreement, and defendant had not waived its right to arbitration after engaging in discovery and filing the motion to compel arbitration ten months after the case was initiated.

  • 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)
    10/30/2018

    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.

  • Global Gold Corporation v. Amarant Mining, Ltd. and Alluvia Mining, Ltd., No. 7:18-CV-04723-CS (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 29, 2018)
    10/29/2018

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

  • Trustees for the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. Prime Construction Co. of NY, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-05696-PAE (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 29, 2018) 
    10/29/2018

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

  • Diag Human S.E. v. Czech Republic-Ministry of Health, No. 17-7154 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 26, 2018) 
    10/26/2018

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

  • Fox v. Transunion, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00362-TSB (S.D. Ohio Oct. 26, 2018) 
    10/26/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation pursuant to the FAA, holding the parties agreed to arbitrate, the defamation and Fair Credit Reporting Act claims fell within the scope of the agreement, and those claims were arbitrable.

  • In re Remicade Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:18-CV-00303-JCJ (E.D. Pa. Oct. 26, 2018) 
    10/26/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel individual arbitration and stay proceedings.  Even though the scope of the arbitral clause was broad, the court held plaintiff’s antitrust claims did not arise out of the agreement as the alleged anticompetitive conduct lacked a significant relationship to the agreement.

  • International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 618 v. Henkel Consumer Products, No. 4:18-CV-00185-SNLJ (E.D. Mo. Oct. 26, 2018)
     
    10/26/2018

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

  • Ross Dress for Less Inc. v. VIWP, L.P., No. 17-3145 (3d Cir. Oct. 24, 2018)
     
    10/24/2018

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

  • Smith v. GC Services Limited Partnership, No. 18-1361 (7th Cir. Oct. 22, 2018)
    10/22/2018

    Court of appeal affirmed the district court decision to deny defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. The court of appeal agreed with the lower court that by waiting to seek arbitration until after defendant had litigated several discovery motions and a motion to dismiss, the defendant had waived its right to arbitration.

  • Herrington v. Waterstone Mortgage Corporation, No. 17-3609 (7th Cir. Oct. 22, 2018)
    10/22/2018

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

  • Kensu v. Jpay, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-11086-SFC-PTM (E.D. Mich. Oct. 22, 2018)
    10/22/2018

    Magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation in favor of defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and request to dismiss without prejudice, finding that there was a valid arbitration agreement and that all claims were within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • Westburg v. Good Life Advisors, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-00248-LAB-MDD (S.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2018)
    10/19/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to stay pending arbitration, denying defendant’s argument that plaintiff former employees had agreed to arbitrate any disputes with defendant employer by signing an arbitration agreement with a non-party partner company. Court found that the plaintiff’s allegations did not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • Skiba v. Sasser, et al., No. 1:16-CV-00444-HSO-JCG (S.D. Miss. Oct. 19, 2018)
    10/19/2018

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

  • Cottonwood Centers Incorporated v. Klearman, No. 4:18-CV-00252-CKJ (D. Ariz. Oct. 18, 2018)
    10/18/2018

    Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, denying the defendants’ argument that the arbitration agreement was incorporated by reference to the overall agreement where the overall agreement referred to an attached document and the document was not physically attached, but was one of multiple attachments to an email. Court found that there was no evidence that plaintiff viewed the other attachments to the email, including the arbitration agreement, prior to signing the overall agreement. Further, court found there was no acknowledgement of incorporation that would indicate plaintiff’s consent.

  • Dynamic Int’l of Wisconsin v. SMEC Co., Ltd., No. 18-CV-582-PP (E.D. Wis. Oct. 18, 2018)
    10/18/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to stay arbitration pending the court’s disposition of parties’ competing motions. Plaintiff filed motion to stay arbitration when the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB) ruled that it had jurisdiction; defendant refused to stipulate a stay of arbitration proceedings and KCAB refused to stay the proceedings. Court found that, under the effective schedule, the plaintiff would have the court’s decision on the substantive motion before being required to file before KCAB.

  • O’Quinn, P.C. v. Lexington Insurance Company, No. 16-20224 (5th Cir. Oct 18, 2018)
    10/18/2018

    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.

  • Titus v. Zestfinance Inc., No. 3:18-CV-05373-RJB (W.D. Wash. Oct. 18, 2018)
    10/18/2018

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding the “effective vindication” exception applied because the arbitration agreement was a prospective waiver of plaintiff’s rights to pursue federal statutory remedies. Court agreed with plaintiff’s argument that the only way to interpret a loan agreement was to conclude that Tribal law applied, barring the application of federal law. Court acknowledged that the arbitration agreement created a conflict between the FAA’s requirement that contracts to arbitration be enforced on their terms and the enforcement provisions of federal statutes that plaintiff could not pursue under the contract.

  • Tyler v. Timothy E. Baxter & Associates, P.C., No. 2:17-CV-13740-NGE-RSW (E.D. Mich. Oct. 18, 2018)
    10/18/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, rendering moot its alternative motion to compel arbitration. Court found that the defendant had not provided evidence to satisfy a determination that the parties agreed to arbitrate, that a valid arbitration agreement existed, and therefore there was no basis on which to find the defendant could compel arbitration.

  • WTA Tour, Inc. v. Super Slam Limited, No. 1:18-CV-05601-JSR (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2018)
    10/18/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and enjoined respondents from proceeding with the action pending in Cyprus until the completion of the arbitration proceedings ordered. Court denied respondents’ arguments that several parties to the foreign litigation are not signatories to the agreement containing the arbitration agreement and that none of the claims at issue in the foreign lawsuits fall within the scope of the arbitration clause. Court found that the non-signatories to the arbitration agreement were estopped from denying the obligation to arbitration because it received a direct benefit from the contract containing the arbitration clause.

  • YTC America Inc. v. Grigorian, No. 2:18-CV-07875-CAS-AGR (C.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2018)
    10/18/2018

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

  • Konz v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-05181-GBD (S.D.N.Y. Oct 17, 2018)
    10/17/2018

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

  • Commercial Lubricants, LLC v. Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc., No. 1:14-CV-07483-MKB-RLM (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2018)
    10/17/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the agreement at issue was terminated and plaintiff could not recover post-termination damages. Court found that the defendant had waived its right to arbitration under the arbitration clause contained within the agreement by waiting seven months to raise the arbitration issue, by engaging in the action, by making motions to the court, and by conducting significant discovery.

  • Von Maack v. Wyckoff Heights Medical Center, No. 17-3211-CV (2d Cir. Oct. 17, 2018)
    10/17/2018

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

  • Symphony FS Limited v. Thompson, No. 5:18-CV-03904-JFL (E.D. Pa. Oct. 17, 2018)
    10/17/2018

    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.

  • Stemcor USA Incorporated v. CIA Siderurgica Do Para Cosipar, No. 16-30984 (5th Cir. Oct. 17, 2018)
    10/17/2018

    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.”

  • Li v. Stockx.com, No. 1:18-CV-00911-JKB (D. Md. Oct. 17, 2018)
    10/17/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings in a putative class action against defendant online marketplace. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration clause contained within the terms of service was not valid under Michigan contract law on the grounds that it lacked consideration and mutuality of obligation, that defendant materially misrepresented the terms, that the arbitration agreement is unconscionable, and that the agreement to arbitrate was an illusory contract.

  • Rivera v. Petsmart, Inc. and Medical Management International, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-02121-MMB (E.D. Pa. Oct. 17, 2018)
    10/17/2018

    Court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement contained within plaintiff’s employment contract to be valid and enforceable. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the employment contract was an unenforceable contract for adhesion, finding that the contract was procedurally conscionable and substantively conscionable and that plaintiff did not allege sufficient facts suggesting a lack of consideration.

  • Garcia v. Keith and Kal, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01230-AWI-JLT (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2018)
    10/17/2018

    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.

  • Diamond Resorts U.S. Collection Development, LLC v. Johnson, No. 6:18-CV-00090-RBD-TBS (M.D. Fla. Oct. 17, 2018)
    10/17/2018

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

  • Lifetime Products, Inc. v. Maxchief Investments, Ltd, No. 8:18-CV-01230-JVS-ADS (C.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2018)
    10/16/2018

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

  • Eisenbach v. Ernst & Young U.S. LLP, No. 2:18-CV-01679 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 16, 2018)
    10/16/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay action, finding a valid arbitration agreement was contained within plaintiff’s employment agreement. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration agreement was not signed by defendant, was fraudulently induced, was procedurally unconscionable, and was substantively unconscionable.

  • Nevarez v. Forty Niners Football Company, LLC, et al., No. 5:16-CV-007013-LHK (N.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2018)
    10/16/2018

    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.

  • Sequip Participações S.A. v. Franco Marinho, No. 1:15-MC-23737-JAL (S.D. Fla. Oct. 16, 2018)
    10/16/2018

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

  • In re: Apple Inc. Device Performance Litigation, No. 5:18-MD-02827-EJD (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2018)
    10/15/2018

    Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that cases in which defendants proposed arbitration agreements to putative class members during the pendency of litigation were found to threaten litigation apply to the present case, because plaintiff had not presented such an agreement to putative class members.

  • BPP Retail Properties, LLC v. North American Roofing Services, Inc., No. 313-CV-01259-FAB (D.P.R. Oct. 15, 2018)
    10/15/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, denying plaintiff’s motion to enforce obligations pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement.  Court found that the defendant sufficiently demonstrated the four requirements necessary to compel arbitration, as the plaintiff did not challenge the validity of the arbitration clause and did not deny either party’s status as a signatory to the arbitration agreement, and the dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration clause.

  • Claussen v. American Family Life Assurance Company, No. 418-CV-04087 (D.S.D. Oct. 15, 2018)
    10/15/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, upholding strong federal and state policy favoring arbitration, as the plaintiff did not meet her burden to prove either that the arbitration agreement was invalid or that her claims did not fall within the arbitration agreement.  Court denied dismissing the action, in favor of staying the action, stating the discretionary authority to dismiss should be used sparingly.

  • Keystone Mountain Lakes Regional Council of Carpenters v. Angelo’s Construction Company, No. 2:18-CV-11313-JLL-SCM (D.N.J. Oct. 15, 2018)
    10/15/2018

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm the arbitration award, denying respondents’ arguments that the arbitration award is void because a judge later found the ordinance on which the arbitration award was based to be void or, in the alternative, because the arbitration award did not draw its findings from the ordinance or evidence in the record.

  • Lee v. Postmates Inc., No. 3:18-CV-03421-JCS (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2018)
    10/15/2018

    Court granted the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in a class action regarding employee misclassification of couriers as independent contractors.  Court held that any claim that the class action waiver is unenforceable must be determined by a court and cannot be determined by an arbitrator.

  • Pullam v. Apria Healthcare, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-02649-JAR-GEB (D. Kan. Oct. 15, 2018)
    10/15/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to stay the case and compel arbitration on the basis of an arbitration agreement that the plaintiff purportedly entered into during the course of her employment with the defendant.  Defendant introduced an arbitration agreement to its employees through a required online training course; plaintiff denied that she had completed the course or become aware of the arbitration agreement or of the opt-out election.  Court found that the defendant did not meet its burden to prove that plaintiff had completed the online course that would have served to bind plaintiff by the arbitration agreement.

  • Rushing v. Viacom Inc., No. 3:17-CV-04492-JD (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2018)
    10/15/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to stay or dismiss the plaintiff’s claims pending arbitration, finding an arbitration agreement did not exist between the parties.  Court found that plaintiff received neither actual notice nor constructive notice of the arbitration agreement contained within the end user license agreement when downloading a mobile application.

  • Schmell v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., No. 3:17-CV-13080-AET-LHG (D.N.J. Oct. 15, 2018)
    10/15/2018

    Court granted defendant’s renewed motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings on the basis of an arbitration agreement in which all employees were automatically enrolled and provided with an opt-out system.  Court denied the initial motion to compel and ordered limited discovery on the question of whether the plaintiff had notice of the arbitration agreement.  Court found that plaintiff had adequate notice given that the arbitration agreement appeared in his work email during working hours combined with the expectation of employment that plaintiff would read his work email.

  • Trustees for the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Annuity Fund, and Training Program Fund v. Shorecon-NY, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-04012-PAE (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2018)
    10/15/2018

    Court confirmed the arbitration award in favor of the petitioners and issued a monetary judgment, despite that the respondent did not appear at the arbitration hearing.  Court evaluated the motion to confirm the arbitration award against a party that has failed to appear in the action under the standards applicable to a motion for summary judgment and found that the petitioners showed there was no material issue of fact in dispute.

  • Ameren Illinois Company v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 51, No. 18-1591 (7th Cir. Oct. 12, 2018)
    10/12/2018

    Court of appeals reversed the district court’s judgment vacating the arbitration award and upheld the arbitrator’s award. Court held that, although the arbitrator’s analysis was incomplete, the arbitrator was permitted to apply external law because the collective bargaining agreement explicitly suspends any part of the collective bargaining agreement that conflicts with state law.

  • 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)
    10/12/2018

    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.

  • Anderson v. Monterey Financial Services, LLC, No. 4:18-CV-02040-DMR (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2018)
    10/12/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the plaintiff signed a contract containing an arbitration agreement and denying that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable as a contract of adhesion and therefore unenforceable.

  • Petty v. Ashcroft, No. 2:18-CV-01323-JAD-VCF (D. Nev. Oct. 12, 2018)
    10/12/2018

    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.

  • Ventive, LLC v. Caring People LLC, No. 1:18-CV-00120-DCN (D. Idaho Oct. 12, 2018)
    10/12/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to appoint an arbitrator, rejecting defendant’s initial argument that the collateral attack doctrine barred any relief plaintiff seeks.  Subsequently, defendants joined plaintiff’s motion to appoint an arbitrator and so, the court granted and required the parties to submit a joint list of no more than three potential arbitrators.

  • Esso Exploration and Production Nigeria Limited v. Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, No. 1:14-CV-08445-WHP (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2018)
    10/12/2018

    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.

  • Crawley v. Macy’s Retail Holdings, Inc., 1:15-CV-02228-KPF (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 2018)
    10/11/2018

    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)
    10/11/2018

    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.

  • Amos v. North Hill Nursing and Rehabilitation Center LLC, No. 2:18-CV-00217-AKK (N.D. Ala. Oct. 10, 2018)
    10/10/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court held that because the signatory on the agreement containing the arbitration provision did not have the legal authority to execute it, no valid arbitral agreement existed.

  • Bolden v. AT&T Services, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-02306-JWL-JPO (D. Kan. Oct. 10, 2018)
    10/10/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court held that valid arbitration agreement applied to the parties dispute, rejecting plaintiff arguments regarding purported insufficiency of contract formation and consideration given. Further, court held that plaintiff could be deemed to have accepted the agreement to arbitrate.

  • Cintron v. Monterey Financial Services, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-11537-CCC-CLW (D. N.J. Oct. 10, 2018)
    10/10/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed proceedings, holding that a valid arbitration agreement governed the dispute. Court rejected plaintiff’s challenges to the validity of his signature.

  • Dogan v. KeyBank, N.A., No. 1:18-CV-00205-MAD-DJS (N.D. N.Y. Oct. 10, 2018)
    10/10/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that a valid arbitration agreement governed the dispute.

  • CJ’s Sales and Service of Ocala, Inc. v. Howard, No. 5:18-CV-00194-JSM-PRL (M.D. Fla. Oct. 10, 2018)
    10/10/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, concluding there was no clear, explicit and unequivocal language in the contract evidencing an agreement to arbitrate and there was no meeting of the minds to form an arbitration agreement.

  • Temsa Ulasim Araclari Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. CH Bus Sales LLC, No. 1:18-CV-00698-RGA (D. Del. Oct. 9, 2018)
    10/09/2018

    Court stayed motion to enjoin arbitration pending arbitral decision on equivalent question of jurisdiction. Court reasoned that the parties’ incorporation of AAA rules into their agreement left questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

  • New York City District Council of Carpenters v. American Flooring Concepts, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-02657-AMD-RLM (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2018)
    10/04/2018

    Court adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge to confirm the arbitration award. Magistrate concluded that there was more than a barely colorable justification for the arbitrator’s outcome and awards. Magistrate also concluded that because respondent failed to appear before the Court—let alone raise any argument regarding vacatur, modification, or correction—and no defense is apparent from the record, confirmation is mandatory.

  • Acosta v. EuroAmerican Propagators, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00131-H-RBB (S.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2017)
    10/04/2018

    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.

  • Alexander v. Possible Productions, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-05532-DAB (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2018)
    10/04/2018

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and motion to dismiss. Court found that the non-discrimination provisions were clearly exempt from the arbitration provisions, so plaintiff could not be compelled to arbitrate her discrimination claims.

  • Pyciak v. Credit One Bank, N.A., No. 2:17-CV-11415-GCS-RSW (E.D. Mich. Oct. 4, 2018)
    10/04/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that plaintiff was not bound by the arbitration clause under an estoppel theory as (i) plaintiff did not directly benefit from the cardholder agreement, (ii) defendant’s argument that plaintiff was an authorized user was not persuasive, and (iii) defendant did not cite legal authority for its proposition that plaintiff was an intended third-party beneficiary.

  •  Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Republic of Yemen, No. 1:16-CV-01383-DLF (D.D.C. Oct. 3, 2018)
    10/03/2018

    Court granted petitioners’ motion for default judgment and confirmation of arbitral award and confirmed the final arbitral award issued by the ICC.

  • Trudeau v. Google LLC, No. 5:18-CV-00947-BLF (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2018)
    10/03/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the arbitration provision was valid and enforceable and covered the claims at issue, such that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration must be granted and its motion to dismiss must be granted as to the claim for declaratory relief that the arbitration provision is unconscionable.

  • Steele v. Lending Club Corporation, No. 3:18-CV-02023-RS (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2018)
    10/03/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that plaintiff showed no basis for concluding the parties did not enter into an agreement to arbitrate and the agreement covered plaintiff’s claims. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments on procedural unconscionability and substantive unconscionability.

  • Shaw v. Baker Hughes Incorporated, No. 6:17-CV-00284-JHP (E.D. Okla. Oct. 3, 2018)
    10/03/2018

    Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge granting defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismiss or stay proceedings. Magistrate judge stated that the court could not conclude that defendants acted inconsistent with asserting its rights under the arbitration clause, because much of the protracted duration of the case was due to the reassignment of the litigation to multiple different judges.

  • Rozas v. AIG Employee Services, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-01158-KAD (D. Conn. Oct. 3, 2018)
    10/03/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court found that (i) the plaintiff, in accepting employment with the defendant, agreed to arbitration of any employment related disputes; (ii) the plaintiff’s claims brought in this action fall within the scope of that agreement as they each arise out of her employment with the defendant; and (iii) the plaintiff has offered no argument or authority that Congress intended the plaintiff’s claims to be nonarbitrable.

  • Hobon v. Pizza Hut of Southern Wisconsin, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00947-SLC (W.D. Wis. Oct. 3, 2018)
    10/03/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed defendants’ motion to strike until after plaintiffs had an opportunity to file an amended complaint.  Court found that defendants’ conduct in the case did not support a finding of waiver, and plaintiff was not prejudiced by the delay in moving to compel arbitration.

  • Romo v. CBRE Group, Inc., No. 8:18-CV-00237-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2018)
    10/03/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, struck the class action allegations, and stayed the proceedings pending arbitration.  Court concluded that (i) defendant showed that the parties entered into a clear agreement to arbitrate and plaintiff manifested his assent to the terms of the Offer Letter by clicking the check box on the Candidate Gateway and thereafter pursuing his employment with defendant; (ii) plaintiff cannot avoid the terms of the arbitration agreement under California Labor Code § 229; (iii) plaintiff’s Private Attorney General Act claim for civil penalties is outside of the scope of the arbitration agreement and shall remain pending; and (iv) while plaintiff showed some degree of procedural unconscionability, plaintiff failed to show any substantive unconscionability arising from the arbitration agreement.

  • Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Gopi Hospitality, LLC, No. 8:18-CV-01680-DKC (D. Md. Oct. 2, 2018)
    10/02/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for default judgment as to the corporate defendant and denied the motion as to the individual defendants.  Court noted that the entry of default as to the individual defendants had been vacated, and therefore the motion for default judgment could only apply to the corporate defendant.  Court then concluded that, by failing to answer or otherwise respond to plaintiff’s application, the corporate defendant failed to demonstrate grounds for vacating the arbitration award.

  • Dickens v. GC Services Limited Partnership, No. (M.D. Fla. Oct. 2, 2018)
    10/02/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.  Court stated that it was wholly unpersuaded by the request given defendant’s active involvement in the litigation.

  • Ventrice v. Lexington Insurance Co., No. 2:16-CV-00660-CCC-JBC (D.N.J. Oct. 2, 2018)
    10/02/2018

    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.

  • Randle v. Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, No. 4:18-CV-01770 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 1, 2018)
    10/01/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court concluded that (i) the arbitration clauses were not illusory as there were bilateral promises to arbitrate; (ii) the unconscionable language challenged by plaintiff was not in the arbitration clauses and could not be a basis for denying the motion to compel arbitration; (iii) non-signatory Metro can compel arbitration under the direct-benefits estoppel theory; and (iv) since the parties’ agreements had broad arbitration clauses and plaintiff’s claims have a significant relationship to those agreements, the claims must be resolved in arbitration.

  • Doe v. George Street Photo & Video, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-02698-TSH (N.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2018)
    10/01/2018

    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)
    10/01/2018

    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.

  • Newmont Mining Corp. v. Anglogold Ashanti Limited, No. 1:17-CV-08065-RA (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2018)
    09/30/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that the parties’ agreement expressly required them to submit any disputes with respect to the correctness of defendant's calculations to an accounting firm “for resolution.”

  • Meridian Autonomous Inc. v. Coast Autonomous LLC, No. 1:17-CV-05846-VSB (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2018)
    09/30/2018

    Court granted in part defendants’ motion to dismiss.  Court found that plaintiffs did not contest (and therefore conceded) that certain claims are subject to the arbitration clause.

  •  Hudgins v. Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-03125-S (N.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2018)
    09/30/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s application to vacate and granted defendant’s counter-motion to confirm the arbitration award.  Court concluded that (i) a denial in part of a discovery request after full and thorough consideration does not amount to procurement of an award by corruption, fraud, or undue means; (ii) plaintiff did not carry her burden in supporting a claim that there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators; and (iii) plaintiff did not allege any facts to support her claim that the members of the arbitration panel were guilty of misconduct or misbehavior that prejudiced her rights.

  • Griggs v. S.G.E. Management, L.L.C., No. 17-50655 (4th Cir. Sept. 27, 2018)
    09/27/2018

    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.

  • Bestway (USA), Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00205-HSG (N.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2018)
    09/27/2018

    Court granted motion for preliminary injunction enjoining an ongoing arbitration pursued in violation of prior grant of temporary restraining order.

  • HRB Professional Resources LLC v. Bello, No. 7:17-CV-07443-KMK (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2018)
    09/27/2018

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award, finding that respondent’s failure to object to the motion within ninety precluded him from raising objections and that his proposed objections were in any event not meritorious.

  • Turner v. Efinancial, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-00292-CMA-GPG (D. Col. Sept. 27, 2018)
    09/27/2018

    Court stayed proceedings pending outcome of parallel arbitration and denied motion to stay arbitration, finding that plaintiff’s assertions that she had not visited website or submitted webform agreeing to arbitration were not credible.

  • Unión Insular de Trabajadores Industriales y Construcciones Eléctricas, Inc. v. Onelink Communications, No. 3:15-CV-02074-ADC (D.P.R. Sept. 27, 2018)
    09/27/2018

    Court denied motion for vacatur of arbitral award, finding that the arbitrator reasonably construed the operative agreement, did not exceed her authority, and did not fail to resolve the dispute submitted to her.

  • Iraq Middle Market Development Foundation v. Harmoosh, No. 1:15-CV-01124-GLR (D. Md. Sept. 27, 2018)
    09/27/2018

    Court granted motion for summary judgment and to compel arbitration, finding that party did not waive right to enforce arbitration clause by failing to assert it in summary Iraq proceeding.

  • Gulledge v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, No. 2:18-CV-06657-JCZ-KWR (E.D. La. Sept. 27, 2018)
    09/27/2018

    Court denied motion to remand, finding that dispute fell within the scope of the New York Convention and that state law barring mandatory arbitration of insurance disputes was preempted by New York Convention.

  • Richardson v. Coverall North America, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-00532-MAS-TJB (D.N.J. Sept. 27, 2018)
    09/27/2018

    Court partially granted and partially denied motion to compel arbitration.  As to one plaintiff, Court found that reference to AAA rules in agreement with unsophisticated party was not an agreement to arbitrate arbitrability and that party had not adequately been put on notice that it was waiving statutory rights.  As to other plaintiff, Court found that arbitration agreement clearly required arbitration of arbitrability.

  • Spikener v. Noble Food Group Inc., No. 3:18-CV-02855-LB (N.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2018)
    09/27/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings, finding that arbitration agreement was not procedurally unconscionable since it had an opt out provision and that it was not substantively unconscionable since employer had offered to pay cost and fees of arbitration.

  • Sharbat v. Muskat, No. 1:17-CV-04776-KAM-CLP (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2018)
    09/27/2018

    Court granted motion to dismiss petition to confirm arbitral award, finding that the interim arbitral award anticipating further proceedings following discovery was non-final.

  • Penneco Pipeline Corporation v. K. Petroleum, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-01364-DSC (W.D. Penn. Sept. 27, 2018)
    09/27/2018

    Court denied motion to vacate arbitral award, finding that the arbitrator’s decision drew its essence from the parties’ agreement.

  • Moyer v. Wells Fargo, No. 3:17-CV-02088-RDM (M.D. Pa. Sept. 27, 2018)
    09/27/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration on the basis of an arbitration agreement within the brokerage agreement.  Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments of fraud, duress, and unconscionability, as well as fraudulent inducement, differentiating that while plaintiff may have been fraudulently induced to enter the revised brokerage agreement, he was not fraudulently induced to arbitrate.

  • Hebei Hengbo New Materials Technology Co., Ltd. v. Apple, Inc., No. 5:18-CV-00468-LHK (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2018)
    09/26/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that party had waived right to rely on arbitration clause by arguing that contract had been rescinded.

  • American Airlines, Inc. v. Mawhinney, No. 16-36638 (9th Cir. Sept. 26, 2018)
    09/26/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order compelling arbitration of the plaintiff’s claim against his employer, and reversed its order compelling arbitration of the plaintiff’s claim against his union. Circuit court found that (i) employer did not waive right to arbitrate by waiting to move to compel until after an agency investigation was complete; and (ii) union was not a party to the arbitration agreement and could not it under agency law.

  • Khath v. Midland Funding, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-10727-MLW (D. Mass. Sept. 26, 2018)
    09/26/2018

    Court partially modified magistrate judge’s order compelling arbitration in respect of one plaintiff, finding that (i) question of whether arbitration agreements existed was to be decided by the court; (ii) as to one plaintiff there was no triable issue of fact as to whether an arbitration agreement existed but the validity of the class action waiver should be determined before arbitration agreement is enforced; and (iii) as to another plaintiff there was a triable issue of fact as to whether an arbitration agreement existed.

  • Dickey v. National Football League, No. 1:17-CV-12295-IT (D. Mass. Sept. 26, 2018)
    09/26/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that claims did not come within the scope of the arbitration clause.

  • GGNSC Louisville Hillcreek, LLC v. Estate of Bramer, No. 3:17-CV-00439-DJH (W.D. Ky. Sept. 26, 2018)
    09/26/2018

    Court denied petition to compel arbitration, finding that presentation of a new arbitration agreement, which plaintiff did not sign, extinguished prior arbitration agreement as to new claims.

  • DIAS Analytic Corporation v. Soex (Hong Kong) Industry & Investment Co. Ltd., No. 8:18-CV-01458-WFJ-TGW (M.D. Fla. Sept. 26, 2018)
    09/26/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings pursuant to the terms of the applicable contract, finding that the dispute resolution provisions of an employment agreement were irrelevant given that the employee was not a party to the dispute.

  • Skin Consultants, LLC v. Textron Aviation, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00166-SA-RP (N.D. Miss. Sept. 26, 2018)
    09/26/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings, finding that it had personal jurisdiction over the defendant under Mississippi’s long-arm statute and that the claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreements.

  • Andersen v. Equity Trust Company, No. 0:18-CV-00471-DWF-LIB (D. Minn. Sept. 26, 2018)
    09/26/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings, rejecting argument that arbitration agreement had been superseded by other agreements that plaintiff did not sign and that plaintiff’s initiation of suit did not waive right to enforce arbitration agreement since motion to compel arbitration was brought promptly upon suit being removed to federal court.

  • Ukshini v. Comity Realty Corporation, No. 1:15-CV-06214-PKC-KNF (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2018)
    09/26/2018

    Court denied motion to vacate arbitral award, finding that there was no basis to vacate the award under the Federal Arbitration Act.

  • Grigsby v. Income Property USA, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-01110-RJS-PMW (D. Utah Sept. 26, 2018)
    09/26/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that reference to arbitration before the American Arbitration Association was insufficient to establish intent that the parties intended to delegate question of arbitrability to arbitrators pursuant to the American Arbitration Association rules, and that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable.

  • Lanza v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), No. 1:18-CV-10859-PBS (D. Mass. Sept. 25, 2018)
    09/25/2018

    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.

  • Ranson v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00105-SNLJ (E.D. Mo. Sept. 25, 2018)
    09/25/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that there was no genuine issue of fact as to the making of the arbitration agreement (which was signed by the plaintiff) and that parties’ reciprocal agreements to arbitrate constituted sufficient mutual consideration.

  • Doerman v. Meijer, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00571-MRB (S.D. Oh. Sept. 25, 2018)
    09/25/2018

    Court denied motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that arbitration agreement was unenforceable because it permitted an employer to make unilateral changes without providing advance notice to employees, and there was no evidence that plaintiff agreed to subsequent arbitration agreement requiring advance notice.

  • Prasad v. Pinnacle Property Management Services, LLC, No. 5:17-CV-02794-VKD (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2018)
    09/25/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings, finding that, although there was “some procedural unconscionability” in how the arbitration agreement was presented, and certain provisions were substantively unconscionable, those provisions were severable and the arbitration agreement could be enforced without them.

  • O’Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 14-16078 (9th Cir. Sept. 25, 2018)
    09/25/2018

    Court of appeals reversed district court denial of motion to compel arbitration, finding that lead plaintiff could not constructively opt out of arbitration on behalf of entire class and that the Supreme Court’s decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S.Ct. 1612 (2018) foreclosed argument that arbitration agreements were unenforceable because they violation the National Labor Relations Act.

  • Pictet Overseas Inc. v. Helvetia Trust, No. 17-12279 (11th Cir. Sept. 24, 2018)
    09/24/2018

    Court of appeals confirmed district court ruling that claims were not subject to mandatory FINRA arbitration under FINRA Rule 12200, finding that Rule 12200 was intended to bind a FINRA member’s associated persons to arbitrate disputes only when the dispute arises in connection with the business activities of the associated person undertaken in his or her capacity as an associated person of the FINRA member.

  • Harris v. TD Ameritrade Inc., No. 1:17-CV-06033-LTS-BCM (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2018)
    09/24/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that nothing in the arbitration agreement precluded arbitration of constitutional due process claim, and the claim was improper in any event.

  • Landry v. Thomson Reuters Corporation, No. 1:16-CV-00507-SM (D.N.H. Sept. 24, 2018)
    09/24/2018

    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.

  • Diversant, LLC v. Carino, No. 3:18-CV-03155-AET-DEA (D.N.J. Sept. 24, 2018)
    09/24/2018

    Court dismissed motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, finding that party’s pursuant of parallel arbitral proceedings for compensatory damages did not preclude it from also pursuing a court action for injunctive relief, as such an action was permitted by the arbitration agreement.

  • De Angelis v. Nolan Enterprises, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00926-ALM-EPD (S.D. Oh. Sept. 24, 2018)
    09/24/2018

    Court denied motion to stay or dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that agreement to delegate questions of arbitrability to arbitrator was illusory since one party retained the ability to modify contract without notice.

  • Freeman v. Rochester Psychiatric Center, No. 6:16-CV-06668-MAT-MWP (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2018)
    09/24/2018

    Court denied motion to vacate arbitral award, finding that the Plaintiff’s attacks on the award amounted to disagreements with the arbitrator’s weighing of evidence and did not establish manifest disregard of the law.

  • Thompson v. AT&T Services, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-03607 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 24, 2018)
    09/24/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration without prejudice, finding that defendant had failed to establish that plaintiff was an agent of a party to the arbitration agreement, and permitted further discovery on the question.

  • Brown v. Firstsource Advantage, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-05760-GJP (E.D. Penn. Sept. 21, 2018)
    09/21/2018

    Court granted motion to intervene as defendant in action again debt collector, finding inter alia that credit card company had an interest in seeking to enforce arbitration provision in debt agreement.

  • Johnson v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-05468 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 20, 2018
    09/20/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, dismissing class claims and staying the case.  Court found that plaintiff had agreed to the arbitration clause in the terms of service when he created an Uber account, regardless of whether he followed the link to read the terms of service.  Court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that certain claims were outside the scope of the arbitration clause, holding that once it is clear that the parties have agreed to arbitrate, any doubt concerning the scope of arbitration is resolved in favor of arbitration.

  • De Rendon v. Ventura, No. 1:17-CV-24380-FAM (S.D. Fla. Sept. 19 2018)
    09/19/2018

    Court adopted report and recommendation of magistrate judge confirming a foreign arbitration award pursuant to the New York Convention.  Court rejected respondent’s argument that the award was invalid under Articles V(1)(a) and V(1)(d) of the Convention because the appointed arbitrators were not Columbian nationals, finding that respondent’s had agreed to arbitration under the rules of the ICC which provides for ICC appointment of arbitrators. 

  • JPay, Inc. v. Kobel, No. 17-13611 (11th Cir. Sept. 19, 2018) 
    09/19/2018

    Court of appeals reversed and remanded district court decision denying a motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the availability of class arbitration is a question of arbitrability that is for the court to decide absent express language in the agreement that evidenced a clear and unmistakable intent to arbitrate the issue, and found that here the language used by the parties expressed a clear intent to arbitrate gateway questions of arbitrability. 

  • Akinlemibola v. Dohardmoney.com, No. 1:17-CV-03998-TWP-DML (S.D. Ind. Sept. 19, 2018)
     
    09/19/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for improper venue, finding that an arbitration clause in the contract required the claims be arbitrated. Court rejected plaintiffs argument that defendant had waived its right to object to venue based on making two motions to extend time.

  • Davis v. Macy's Retail Holdings, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01807-JBA (D. Conn. Sept. 19, 2018)
     
    09/19/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the agreement was invalid because it was induced by fraudulent misrepresentations, finding that plaintiff failed to establish that defendant knew certain representations to be false.

  • Beres v. Wilbanks Securities, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01024-KLM (D. Colo. Sept. 19, 2018)
    09/19/2018

    Court granted petition to confirm an arbitration award, finding that the arbitration panel was justified in refusing to postpone an evidentiary hearing after having postponed it on two prior occasions. Court further found that an incorrect application of a state’s statute of limitations did not rise to the level of manifest disregard of the law.

  • Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers, International Union AFL-CIO; Local Union No. 3-G v. Kellogg Company, No. 17-2449 (6th Cir. Sept. 19, 2018)
    09/19/2018

  • Tianjin Port Free Trade Zone International Trade Service Co. Ltd. v. Tiancheng International Inc. USA, No. 5:17-CV-021127-PA-SHK (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2018)
    09/18/2018

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm a CIETAC arbitration award issued in a contract dispute, finding that respondent failed to satisfy its burden to establish a defense under the New York Convention. Court stated that the review of foreign awards is limited and enforcement could only be refused if the court found one of the seven grounds set out in Article V of the New York Convention. Court found that allegations of forgery of the underlying contract were matters to be exclusively determined by the arbitrator, and even if accepted as true, fall short of establishing a defense under the New York Convention.

  • Munger v. Cascade Steel Rolling Mills Inc., No. 3:18-CV-00970-SI (D. Or. Sept. 18, 2018)
     
    09/18/2018

    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).

  • Youll v. Estherville IA Assisted Living Facility, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-03051-CJW (N.D. Iowa Sept. 18, 2018)
    09/18/2018

    Court granted defendant’s unresisted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court found that the arbitration clause at issue was part of a valid contract and that the present dispute was within the scope of the arbitration, and thus compelled arbitration pursuant to the FAA.

  • Cook v. General Nutrition Corp., No. 17-3216 (3d Cir. Sept. 17, 2018)
    09/17/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s order granting the motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.  Amongst other things, appellant argued that the district court erred by granting the motion to compel arbitration.  Court of appeals concluded that it was unable to consider this argument as the FAA limits appellate review to final orders.

  • Unison Co., Ltd., v. Juhl Energy Development, Inc., No. 0:13-CV-03342-BRT (D. Minn. Sept. 17, 2018)
    09/17/2018

    Court granted defendants motion to confirm an arbitration award. Court denied plaintiff’s motions, both to modify the award under section 11 of the FAA, and to vacate the award under § 10 of the FAA. Court held that the arbitration panel did not exceed its authority, and that the prescribed method elected for granting relief was to be treated with great deference.

  • Covington  v. Kanan Enterprises, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-01453-TMP (N.D. Ohio Sept. 17, 2018) 
    09/17/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.  Court followed sixth circuit test and determined that plaintiff’s claims were subject to the parties’ agreement to arbitrate.

  • Zambrano v. Strategy Delivery Solutions, LLC, No. 1:15-CV-08410-ER (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2018) 
    09/17/2018

    Court denied defendants’ motion to confirm an arbitration award.  Court found that the parties had not agreed to proceed to arbitration because the plaintiff had stipulated to all the defendant’s assertions, leaving no real question or dispute for the arbitrator to resolve.  Court stated that the declaratory relief defendant sought after plaintiff’s concession amounted to an advisory opinion that plaintiff had neither agreed to arbitrate nor to pay for.

  • Color Events, BV v. Multi-Talent Agency, Inc., No. 6:18-CV-00648-RBD-DCI (M.D. Fla. Sept. 17, 2018)
    09/17/2018

    Court adopted and confirmed the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to grant petitioner’s motion for final default judgment to confirm an ICDR award.  Magistrate judge found that (i) the well-pled allegations of the petition, the attached documents, and the affidavit in support of the motion adequately establish the basis for a default judgment; (ii) the court had jurisdiction under the FAA; and (iii) venue was properly served.

  • Johnson v. Nissan North America, Inc., 3:17-CV-00517-WHO (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2018)
    09/14/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration with respect to a non-signatory, reasoning that it was not included as a third party beneficiary to the contract.  Court likewise denied equivalent argument under the principle of equitable estoppel, holding that the claims asserted did not require reliance on the contract containing the arbitration clause.

  • Niagara Blower Company v. Shopmen’s Local Union 576, No. 1:16-CV-00262-LJV-HKS (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2018) 
    09/14/2018

    Court denied petition to vacate arbitration award, finding that the arbitrator’s decision to reinstate a terminated employee was rooted in the authority granted by the collective bargaining agreement. Court found that by submitting the question of whether the employee’s discharge was proper to the arbitrator, the parties granted the arbitrator authority to reinstate the employee. Court also rejected respondent’s argument that reinstating an employee terminated for being intoxicated at work was contrary to public policy.

  • Joy  v. Onemain Financial Services, Inc., No. 8:18-CV-01428-VMC-JSS (M.D. Fla. Sept. 14, 2018)
    09/14/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the claims fell outside the scope of the arbitration clause, and found that the agreement delegated questions as to the scope of the arbitration clause to the arbitrator.

  • Cree, Inc.  v. BHP Energy Mexico, No. 2:16-CV-01508-PP (E.D. Wis. Sept. 14, 2018
    09/14/2018

    Court issued order enjoining defendant from further pursuing litigation in Mexico and compelling arbitration.  Court found that a valid arbitration agreement existed, that an ongoing litigation in Mexico was within the scope of the agreement, and that plaintiff had not waived its rights under the agreement.

  • Nanko Shipping, Guinea v. Alcoa, Inc., No. 1:14-CV-01301-RMC (D.D.C. Sept. 14, 2018)
    09/14/2018

    Court denied in part motion to dismiss dispute based on argument that plaintiff could be bound by arbitration clause of an agreement to which it was not a party. Court held that because the arbitration clause in the applicable agreement required that any party to which rights were assigned under the agreement had to stipulate its acceptance of the arbitration clause contained in that agreement, no arbitration obligations existed in the absence of such a stipulation by the plaintiff.

  • National Federation of the Blind v. Container Store, Inc., No. 16-2112 (1st Cir. Sept. 14, 2018)
    09/14/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration. Court agreed that because the plaintiffs challenged the validity of the arbitration provision, rather than the overall contract, it was the proper forum to consider arbitrability. Court further affirmed the district court’s rejection of defendant’s arguments that the clause had been valid and binding on the plaintiffs.

  • Environmental Chemical Corporation v. Coastal Environmental Group, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-03082-GHW-GWG (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2018)
    09/14/2018

    Court denied motion to vacate arbitration award and granted cross-motion to confirm it. Court rejected arguments that the award could be vacated based on several section of the FAA because plaintiff had been unaware that the attorneys for the defendant in fact represented an entity to the defendant had assigned its rights and that the arbitrators purportedly exceeding their authority by applying the doctrine of estoppel to its calculation of damages.

  • Innotec LLC v. Visiontech Sales, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00007-GEC-JCH (W.D. Va. Sept. 14, 2018)
    09/14/2018

    Court granted motion to stay proceedings for a renewable period of 120 days during pendency of an arbitration it had compelled by an earlier ruling. Court reasoned that considerations of judicial economy militated in favor of a stay given the relevance of the questions at issue in the arbitration to the resolution of the remaining claims. Court retained jurisdiction over pending motion of sanctions and the enforcement of the parties’ existing discovery obligations.

  • Crafty Productions, Inc. v. Fuqing Sanxing Crafts Co. Ltd., No. 3:15-CV-00719-BAS-JLB (S.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2018)
    09/13/2018

    Court granted in part petition to confirm arbitration award, declining only to award costs. Court denied motion to stay execution of award pending related proceedings.

  • Sayta v. Martin, No. 3:16-CV-03775-LB (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2018)
    09/12/2018

    Court granted motion to confirm JAMS arbitration award. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that he could not be bound by an arbitration award because he was entitled to a new trial as wholly without merit and likewise rejected arguments that the award was void or irrationally rendered. Court awarded interest on the amount owed and deferred ruling on the motion for attorney’s fees pending further documentation.

  • Overdorff v. NAU Country Insurance Company, No. 2:18-CV-00750-MPK (W.D. Pa. Sept. 12, 2018)
    09/12/2018

    Court denied motion to vacate an arbitration award, finding that there was no basis for concluding that the arbitrator had exceeded the authority granted under the agreement at issue, which denied relief where a claim was not timely submitted.

  • Rasin v. MacDougall Arts, Ltd., No. 2:18-CV-04612-SDW-LDW (D. N.J. Sept. 12, 2018)
    09/12/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed between the parties.

  • Wade v. Home Depot U.S.A. Inc., No. 3:18-CV-00739-TAD-KLH (W.D. La. Sept. 12, 2018)
    09/12/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismiss certain claims subject to a valid arbitration agreement and stayed proceedings with respect to other claims not dismissed for unrelated reasons.

  • Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. v. Brady, No. 1:18-CV-10337-DPW (D. Mass. Sept. 11, 2018)
    09/11/2018

    Court granted motion to vacate an arbitration award to the extent it purported to assess attorney fees against petitioner. Court considered all four of the statutory grounds for vacatur under the FAA, but accepted only petitioner’s argument that the award of attorneys’ fees had either exceeded the panel’s power or had been in manifest disregard of the applicable state arbitration law.

  • Yiru v. Worldventures Holdings, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-02155-S (N.D. Tex. Sept. 11, 2018)
    09/11/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that a valid contract that included an arbitration provision bound the parties, including because a “click” was sufficient to manifest assent under Texas law.  Court further held that the parties had delegated any arbitrability decisions with respect to scope to the arbitrator by incorporating the AAA rules and that the “wholly groundless” exception to that general rule did not apply.   Court ruled that plaintiff’s further validity challenges must consequently be submitted to the arbitrator.

  • Taylor v. Shutterfly, Inc., No. 5:18-CV-00266-BLF (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2018)
    09/11/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court held that the parties had delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrators by incorporating AAA rules into their agreement.  Court further held that even if the Ninth Circuit had a rule allowing courts to retain jurisdiction over claims where the assertion of arbitrability is “wholly groundless,” the plaintiff had failed to make her case.

  • Atkins v. CGI Technologies and Solutions, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00037-GFVT (E.D. Ky. Sept. 11, 2018)
    09/11/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings. Court held that parties were not required to comply with state requirements before seeking such relief under the FAA and that a valid arbitration agreement applied to the dispute and bound the non-signatory plaintiff, as it sought to benefit from the rest of the underlying contract.

  • Beam Partners, LLC v. Atkins, No. 3:17-CV-00004-GFVT (E.D. Ky. Sept. 11, 2018)
    09/11/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the existence of parallel liquidation proceedings did not preclude the application of the FAA to enforce the applicable arbitration agreement.  Court held that a valid arbitration agreement was broad enough to cover the dispute and stayed proceedings.

  • Burnley v. Conifer Health Solutions, No. 3:17-CV-00769-CRS (W.D. Ky. Sept. 10, 2018)
    09/10/2018

    Court granted motion to dismiss claim in favor of arbitration, finding that a valid arbitral agreement governed the dispute.

  • Parks v. Port of Oakland, No. 4:16-CV-04061-HSG (N.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2018)
    09/10/2018

    Court granted summary judgment for certain claims upon finding that those claims were subject to a valid arbitration agreement.

  • Banco Bradesco S.A. v. Steadfast Insurance Company, No. 1:18-CV-00331-LAP (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2018)
    09/07/2018

    Court denied motion to vacate award, rejecting petitioner’s argument that it had been rendered in manifest disregard of the law because of the panel’s evidentiary decisions.

  • Laprime v. Extra Space Storage, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-04092-LMA-MBN (W.D. La. Sept. 7, 2018)
    09/07/2018

    Court granted motion to stay litigation pending arbitration, holding that the parties’ dispute fell within the scope of an arbitration agreement the validity of which was not contested.

  • Pharmaniaga Berhad v. E*Healthline.com, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-02672-MCE-EFB (E.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2018)
    09/07/2018

    Court granted motion to compel foreign arbitral award, denying cross-motions to dismiss and vacate. Court rejected as unsupported both of the defendant’s non-enforcement arguments under the New York Convention Articles V(1)(e) and V(1)(b). Court further held that the New York Convention provided the sole bases for setting aside foreign awards, but that, in any case, none of the defendant’s arguments under Section 10 of the FAA (alleging denial of a fair hearing and bias) were supported. Finally, court rejected defendant’s argument that the award as not final because the tribunal had accepted jurisdiction over only some of the claims, finding that no such rule exists.

  • Paxton v. Macy's West Stores, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00132-LJO-SKO (E.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2018)
    09/07/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that he had not assented to the agreement where the opt-out provisions were clear or that the contract had been procedurally unconscionable because he had not reviewed the contract and it was a contract of adhesion. Court likewise held that defendant did not demonstrate that the contract was substantively unconscionable to a significant degree by pointing to limitations on discovery, ability to recover litigation costs, and of mutuality in obligation. Finally, court rejected arguments that the dispute fell outside the scope of the arbitration agreement or that defendant had waived its right to arbitration.

  • In Re: Zetia (Ezetimibe) Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:18-CV-00071-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. Sept. 6, 2018)
    09/06/2018

    Magistrate judge recommended denying motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that the contract did not unambiguously delegate questions of enforceability to the arbitrator and contained clear waivers regarding certain statutory remedies, and therefore did not require the arbitration of the plaintiffs’ antitrust claims.

  • Medidata Solutions, Inc. v. Veeva Systems Inc., No. 17-2694 (2d Cir. Sept. 6, 2018)
    09/06/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed denial of motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the remaining defendant had never entered into an arbitration agreement with the plaintiff and lacked a basis for compelling arbitration under a theory of equitable estoppel.

  • Vero Water, Inc. v. Shymanski, No. 1:17-CV-23320-JEM (S.D. Fla. Aug. 30, 2018)
    08/30/2018

    Magistrate judge recommended granting in part motion to compel arbitration.  Judge held that only the defendant with whom an arbitration agreement existed could compel litigation.  Judge recommended that proceedings against the other defendant be stayed pending arbitration.  Court later accepted these recommendations.

  • Greenberg v. Doctors Associates, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-22505-UU (S.D. Fla. Aug. 29, 2018)
    08/29/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, rejecting arguments regarding the applicability of the terms and conditions and terms of use that contained the arbitration agreement.

  • Singh v. Mednax Services Inc., No. 0:17-CV-61792-JEM (S.D. Fla. Aug. 28, 2018)
    08/28/2018

    Magistrate judge recommended that motion to compel arbitration be granted.  Court held that although the defendants had engaged in conduct suggesting they had waived their right to arbitrate, the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that their conduct had prejudiced her.

  • Plummer v. McSweeny, No. 4:18-CV-00063-JM (E.D. Ark. Aug. 27, 2018
    08/27/2018

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court rejected plaintiff’s first two arguments – that there was no contract because it was only signed by plaintiff and that certain agents of the signatory to the arbitration agreement could not compel arbitration of claims against them because they were non-signatories.  However, court found that the agreement was unconscionable because defendants were sophisticated attorneys who called the uneducated plaintiff’s cell phone and told her she would die unless she had certain surgical procedures and that she would have to sign the agreement containing the arbitration provision before she could have the lifesaving procedure.  

  • Alonso v. AuPairCare, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-00970-JD (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2018)
    08/23/2018

    Court granted in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of plaintiffs’ non-Private Attorney General Act claims pursuant to the FAA.  Court found that the arbitration clause in one plaintiff’s contract was so one-sided, since the defendant alone could determine the arbitrator and the rules of arbitration, as to make it procedurally and substantively unconscionable under California law.  However, court compelled the other plaintiff to arbitrate, because that agreement delegated decisions on arbitrability to the arbitrator.

  • Revitch v. DirecTV, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-01127-JCS (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2018
    08/23/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel AAA arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court found plaintiff’s arbitral agreement with AT&T Mobility did not bind him to arbitrate with affiliated defendant, because plaintiff did not intend to enter the arbitral agreement with defendant, who only became affiliated with AT&T Mobility after plaintiff entered into the agreement.

  • Crystallex International Corporation v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 17-MC-151-LPS (D. Del. Aug. 23, 2018)
    08/23/2018

    Court granted petitioner’s request to seize shares of a Delaware company held by an alter ego of Venezuela to begin enforcement of petitioner’s $1.2 billion judgment against Venezuela.  Court stayed sale of shares until it issues a separate order of sale.

  • Smith v. General Information Solutions, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-00230-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio Aug. 23, 2018)
    08/23/2018

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to transfer venue to the District of South Carolina, finding that the balance of the public and private interests weighed in favor of transfer and concluding that it was “appropriate and in the interest of judicial economy” to address the venue question before reaching the motion to compel arbitration.

  • PDC Machines Inc. v. Nel Hydrogen A/S, No. 2:17-CV-05399-JS (E.D. Pa. Aug. 22, 2018)
    08/22/2018

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration in Denmark and stay the case pending completion of arbitration pursuant to the New York Convention and the FAA.  Court held that defendants waived their right to arbitration by participating in the litigation for several months before seeking to compel arbitration and regardless, concluded plaintiff’s claims, all related to the misappropriation of trade secrets, did not fall within the scope of the arbitral agreement.

  • Orihuela-Knott v. The Salvation Army, No. 2:18-CV-01060-KJM-DB (E.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2018)
    08/21/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration upon finding that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable.  Court held that the agreement was not unconscionable because it was presented as a condition of employment.  Court likewise rejected plaintiffs’ arguments that the agreement was substantively unconscionable because it restricted discovery, contained a confidentiality clause, and waived the application of the Private Attorneys General Act.

  • Jones v. Home Buyers Warranty Corporation and National Home Insurance Company (A Risk Retention Group), No. 1:17-CV-00773-JFB-SRF (D. Del. Aug. 21, 2018) 
    08/21/2018

    Court rejected plaintiffs’ objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation denying their motion to remand the action to vacate the arbitral award to state court. Court held that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 because, although the plaintiffs only requested declaratory relief, the amount in controversy is determined by the value of the underlying cause of action arbitrated not just the amount sought in the demand for arbitration.

  • Whitworth v. Solarcity Corp., No. 3:16-CV-01540-JSC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2018) 
    08/21/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration of individual claims following the Supreme Court’s decision in Epic Systems but denied motion to compel arbitration of PAGA claims.  Court granted motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration.

  • Balvin v. Rain and Hail, LLC, No. 4:18-CV-04049-LLP (D.S.D. Aug. 21, 2018)
    08/21/2018

    Court granted in part plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitration award.  Pursuant to Section 10(a) of the FAA, the court held that the arbitrator did not commit misconduct in refusing to hear evidence, concluding that both parties had an adequate opportunity to present evidence, and found the arbitrator did not exceed his power in interpreting the meaning of “good farming practices.”  However, court held that arbitrator exceeded his authority in interpreting the “appraised value” on the basis of un-signed appraisal worksheets without submitting the disputes to the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation as mandated by the insurance policy and ordered a determination of the proper procedure in these circumstances.

  • Dish Network LLC v. Ray, No. 17-1013 (10th Cir. Aug. 21, 2018)
    08/21/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of a petition to vacate a construction arbitration award.  Court concluded that the agreement demonstrated the parties intended to delegate all issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator and found the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law or impermissibly base his decision on public policy.

  • Geiger v. H&H Franchising Systems, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00738-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C. Aug. 21, 2018)
    08/21/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay the action pending arbitration, pursuant to the FAA, against those plaintiffs who signed the employment agreement containing the arbitration clause and class action waiver.

  • Sherwood Marketing Group, LLC v. Intertek Testing Services, N.A., Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00782-BEN-NLS (S.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2018)
    08/20/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss or stay pending arbitration.  Pursuant to the FAA and the broad language of the arbitral agreement, court held that plaintiff’s claim fell within the scope of the arbitral provision and must be arbitrated.  Court concluded the second amended complaint should be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim.

  • Willcock v. My Goodness! Games, Inc., No. 8:16-CV-04020-PWG (D. Md. Aug. 20, 2018)
    08/20/2018

    Court transferred the case to the Western District of Texas for that court to compel AAA arbitration after finding that it could not compel arbitration in Texas pursuant to Section 4 of the FAA, which courts have interpreted to mean a court cannot compel arbitration outside its own district, and concluding that the standing preliminary injunction could not survive dismissal of the case.

  • Fox Bend Development Associates, Ltd. v. Ennis, No. 3:17-CV-3137-N (N.D. Tex. Aug. 17, 2018) 
    08/17/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss holding plaintiffs’ claims were subject to arbitration.  Pursuant to the FAA, the court rejected plaintiffs’ contention that the arbitration clause was invalid because defendant fraudulently induced them to enter into the contract, since the alleged fraudulent conduct related to the contract as a whole and not the arbitration clause itself; and court found that plaintiffs’ claims were connected to the contract and therefore, fell within the scope of the broad arbitration agreement.  Court found the High Court of Ireland’s decision to appoint a liquidator and wind up the company did not terminate defendant’s right to compel plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims, as that right arose prior to the termination.

  • Drywall Tapers and Pointers of Greater New York Local Union 1974, IUPAT, AFL-CIO v. MAIA MP Construction, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-05506-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018)
    08/17/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s unopposed petition to confirm arbitral award, holding there was no justification for vacating the award under Section 10(a) of the FAA.

  • En Pointe Technologies Sales, LLC v. Ovex Technologies (Private) Limited, No. 2:18-CV-03235-PSG-SK (C.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2018)
    08/17/2018

    Court granted motion to confirm JAMS arbitral award against defendant by default as defendant failed to respond or otherwise defend itself pursuant to Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Court held defendant was properly served pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Hague Service Convention.  Court entered judgment against defendant in the full amount of the final partial award plus any additional amounts to be ordered by the arbitrator in the arbitration, including attorney’s fees and post-judgment interest.

  • Octaform Systems Inc. v. Johnston., No. 2:16-CV-02500-APG-PAL (D. Nev. Aug. 17, 2018)
    08/17/2018

    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.

  • Sultanate of Oman v. Al Tamimi, No. 1:18-CV-11291-LTS (D. Mass. Aug. 16, 2018)
    08/16/2018

    Clerk of court entered an order of default for defendant’s failure to plead or defend himself in a suit claiming he failed to pay a $5.6 million ICSID arbitration award pursuant to Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

  • Taylor v. Samsung Electronics America, No. 3:16-CV-50313 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 16, 2018)
    08/16/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court concluded that there was an enforceable agreement to arbitrate. Court also concluded that because all of the disputes arose from the “sale, condition, or performance” of the phone, they fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • Santana v. A.I. Recovery, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-00016-JFC (W.D. Pa. Aug. 16, 2018)
    08/16/2018

    ​Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court concluded that (i) a reasonable person would find that the parties manifested an intent to be bound by the CSO Agreement; (ii) the terms of the arbitration provision were sufficiently definite and required plaintiff to arbitrate claims that fell within its scope; and (iii) the arbitration provision was supported by consideration because both parties agreed to arbitrate claims relating to the CSO agreement.

  • Reddy v. Buttar, No. 3:18-CV-00172-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C. Aug. 16, 2018)
    08/16/2018

    Court denied in part and deferred in part defendant’s motion to dismiss the petition, denied as moot plaintiff’s conditional motion to continue and grant jurisdictional discovery, and denied without prejudice plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend.  Court held that district courts have subject matter jurisdiction over cases brought to enforce arbitration awards issued under the New York Convention.  Court further concluded that limited discovery was warranted to explore jurisdictional facts, and that plaintiff must ultimately prove the existence of personal jurisdiction over the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence.

  • Lyles v. Brennan, No. 1:15-CV-00354-CLC-CHS (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 16, 2018)
    08/16/2018

    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.

  • Fitzgibbons v. Atkinson, No. 8:17-CV-02092-AMQ-JDA (D.S.C. Aug. 16, 2018)
    08/16/2018

    Court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to deny defendants’ motion to dismiss.  Court concluded that (i) there was no error in the magistrate judge’s report regarding personal jurisdiction; (ii) the magistrate judge correctly concluded that defendants failed to meet their burden of proof to transfer venue; (iii) the magistrate judge correctly identified the applicable legal principles for motions relating to alleged necessary and indispensable parties, and correctly analyzed the facts relating to those motions; and (iv) there was no error in the magistrate judge’s recommendation that defendants’ motions to dismiss and compel arbitration be denied.

  • Augustine v. TLC Resorts Vacation Club, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-01120-H-JMA (S.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2018)
    08/16/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court concluded that (i) defendant carried its burden to show the existence of an agreement to arbitrate; (ii) plaintiff failed to show the existence of procedural and substantive unconscionability; and (iii) plaintiff had not established a genuine issue of material fact as to the existence of the agreement or the agreement’s applicability to the instant dispute.

  • Arthur v. Evansville Anesthesia Associates, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-00116-JMS-MPB (S.D. Ind. Aug. 16, 2018)
    08/16/2018

    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.

  • Air Center Helicopters, Inc. v. Starlite Investments Ireland Limited, et al., No. 4:18-CV-00599-O (N.D. Tex. Aug. 15, 2018)
    08/15/2018

    Court granted defendants’ cross motion to confirm the award.  Court noted that circuits addressing whether an arbitration award granting temporary injunctive relief constitutes a “final order” or whether a district court has jurisdiction to vacate or confirm the temporary award have concluded that where an interim award is in the nature of a preliminary injunction, a district court’s determination whether to vacate or confirm the award is permissible to “make final relief meaningful.”

  • Michigan Nurses Assoc. v. Bay Area Medical Center, No. 1:18-CV-01221-WCG (E.D. Wis. Aug. 15, 2018)
    08/15/2018

    Court denied the petition for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in aid of arbitration.  Court held that consummation of the transaction at issue would not result in irreparable harm to petitioner nor vitiate the arbitration process, and that the hardships claimed by the petitioner did not outweigh the hardships claimed by the respondent.

  • Gaffers v. Kelly Services, Inc., No. 16-2210 (6th Cir. Aug. 15, 2018)
     
    08/15/2018

    Court of appeals reversed the district court’s denial of defendant-appellant’s motion to compel arbitration, and remanded the action for proceedings consistent with the opinion.  Court of appeals held that neither the National Labor Relations Act nor the Fair Labor Standards Act were obstacles to arbitration agreements in the instant case.

  • Williams v. Dearborn Motors 1, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-12724-NGE-DRG (E.D. Mich. Aug. 15, 2018)
    08/15/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of court’s order granting defendant’s motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration.  Court concluded that requiring the availability of classwide arbitration interfered with the fundamental attributes of arbitration; that there was no substantive statutory right to bring a “pattern-or-practice class claim”; and that there was no contrary command in Title VII, the ADA, or the ADEA that overrode the FAA’s mandate towards favoring arbitration agreements.

  • Spirit Airlines, Inc. v. Maizes, No. 17-14415 (11th Cir. Aug. 15, 2018)
    08/15/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court ruling that the agreement’s choice of AAA rules designated the arbitrator to decide whether the arbitration agreement permitted class arbitration.  Following the Supreme Court’s decision in First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (1995), court concluded that the parties’ agreement plainly chose AAA rules, which included the AAA’s Supplementary Rules for Class Arbitrations.  As such, this was clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties chose to have an arbitrator decide whether their agreement provided for class arbitration.

  • Stanley v. A Better Way Wholesale Autos, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01215-MPS (D. Conn. Aug. 15, 2018)
    08/15/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the action. Court found that the arbitration provisions, which appear in two contracts drafted by defendant, must be read together and, because the combined agreement is ambiguous as to the identity of the arbitrator, must be construed in plaintiff’s favor. As such, AAA was the proper arbitration panel, and defendant forfeited its right to arbitrate by refusing to participate in the AAA arbitration.

  • Alemayehu v. Gemignani, No. 1:18-CV-00212-CMA-MJW (D. Colo. Aug. 14, 2018)
    08/14/2018

    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.

  • Wartsila North America, Inc. v. International Centre for Dispute Resolution, No. 4:18-CV-01531 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 14, 2018)
    08/14/2018

    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.

  • United Food and Commercial Workers Union 8-Golden State v. Gibson Wine Company, No. 1:17-CV-01674-AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2018)
    08/14/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its motion to compel arbitration. Court concluded that defendant failed to demonstrate how issues raised in the grievances were “representative issues,” and failed to identify portions of the record in support of its mootness and waiver arguments. Court also concluded that no genuine issue of material fact existed concerning the parties’ agreement to arbitrate.

  • Steadfast Insurance Co. v. Frost Bank, No. 5:17-CV-01222-XR (W.D. Tex. Aug. 14, 2018)
    08/14/2018

    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.

  • Pitino v. Adidas America, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00639-DJH (W.D. Ky Aug. 14, 2018)
    08/14/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss. Court found that by providing for arbitration before the AAA, the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability. However, since the parties’ agreement specified that arbitration would take place in Oregon, only a district court in that forum would have jurisdiction to compel arbitration.

  • Clymer v. Jetro Cash and Carry Enterprises, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-05530-NIQA (E.D. Pa. Aug. 14, 2018)
    08/14/2018

    Court severed two unconscionable provisions of the arbitration agreement and granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court determined that the arbitration costs provision and the one-year limitation for requesting arbitration were unconscionable as applied, but since they were severable the matter should still go to arbitration.

  • Bettin’ on Blue Farms, LLC v. Dole Berry Company, No. 8:18-CV-00755-SDM-JSS (M.D. Fla. Aug. 14, 2018)
    08/14/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that the parties included in the agreement two provisions that delegated to the arbitrator the power to resolve a dispute about arbitrability.

  • Weirton Medical Center, Inc. v. Quorum Health Resources, LLC, No. 18-1058 (4th Cir. Aug. 14, 2018)
    08/14/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court confirming an arbitration award. Court of appeals held that the second arbitrator’s finding was not inconsistent with the first arbitrator’s findings, and therefore petitioner failed to establish that the second arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law in reaching his decision.

  • Hazen v. Citibank, N.A., No. 1:18-CV-00103-BLW (D. Idaho Aug. 13, 2018)
    08/13/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court concluded that it was evident that Citi presented its Employee Arbitration Policy as an explicit condition to plaintiff, that plaintiff acknowledged that policy, and agreed to its terms when he continued to work at Citi.  Court also found that the arbitration policy was not procedurally unconscionable on the grounds that it differed significantly from the 2006 arbitration policy and, while one of the provisions was substantively unconscionable, there was a severability provision that prevented the invalidation of the arbitration policy as a whole.

  • Coleman v. Bristol Care, No. 2:18-cv-04069-MDH (W.D. Mo. Aug. 13, 2018)
    08/13/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.  Court found that defendant offered, in consideration for plaintiff’s assent, its own assent to resolve employment claims via binding arbitration, and that this exchange of ironclad promises was sufficient consideration to support the contract.  Court also found that issues in the lawsuit at least touched on matters related to plaintiff’s employment application and consideration for employment, and therefore her claims were within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • Guest v. Air Liquide America Specialty Gasses, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-01969-AC (D. Or. Aug. 13, 2018)
    08/13/2018

    Court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to grant defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that (i) the magistrate judge corrected concluded that the arbitration agreement validly waived plaintiff’s right to a jury trial; (ii) plaintiff’s attempt to characterize his claims as not arising out of his employment with defendant was unavailing; (iii) the unambiguous text of the arbitration agreement could not reasonably be read to imply a time-limited one-year term; and (iv) the arbitration agreement was not procedurally or substantively unconscionable.

  • Huertas v. Foulke Management Corp., No. 1:17-CV-01891-RMB-AMD (D.N.J. Aug. 13, 2018)
    08/13/2018

    Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion to amend.  Court had previously ruled that claims against Foulke Management were subject to arbitration, but since Capital One was a nonsignatory, the same analysis did not necessarily apply to Capital One.  Court therefore concluded that it could not rule, on the present record, that plaintiff’s proposed claims against Capital One were futile on the basis that the claims, or issue of arbitrability of the claims, were subject to arbitration.

  • Tecnimont S.P.A. v. Holtec International, No. 1:17-CV-05167-JBS-KMW (D.N.J. Aug. 13, 2018)
    08/13/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion in favor of arbitration. Court concluded that the parties agreed to arbitration pursuant to a broad arbitration clause that covers the claims at issue here. Court also concluded that the duress claimed by plaintiffs did not relate to the formation of the arbitration clause.

  • Stinson v. Best Buy Co., Inc., No. 0:18-CV-00295-JNE-KMM (D. Minn. Aug. 13, 2018)
    08/13/2018

    Court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to grant defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Magistrate judge concluded that (i) defendant Best Buy could enforce the arbitration agreement even though it was a nonsignatory; (ii) the arbitration agreement was valid; and (iii) the dispute raised in the complaint fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • Smith v. RJC, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-00830-JHE (N.D. Ala. Aug. 13, 2018)
    08/13/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss. Court found that there was an existence of a written agreement to arbitrate claims, a nexus to interstate commerce, and coverage of the claims by the arbitration clause. Court also concluded that the action should be dismissed because there were no substantive issues left pending before the district court.

  • Richland Equipment Co., Inc. v. Deere & Company, No. 17-60631 (5th Cir. Aug. 13, 2018)
    08/13/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court decision that arbitration must be compelled when a contract providing for arbitration of “any dispute” between the parties and containing a valid delegation clause is terminated and the claims thereunder are removed from a complaint but the claims under related contracts are preserved. Court concluded that there is no evidence that the parties intended for disputes to be resolved in arbitration before the termination of the contract and in court afterward, and thus the parties are subject to a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement.

  • Carlson v. Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Ltd., No. 3:13-CV-00115-CVG-RM (D.V.I. Aug. 10, 2018)
    08/10/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to vacate the arbitration award.  Court found that because the remand of the original award was not under one of the three circumstances that would have permitted the arbitrator to revisit and revise her original award, the arbitrator was without power to enter her second award.  Accordingly, the court must vacate the second award.

  • Crystallex International Corporation v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 1:17-MC-00151-LPS (D. Del. Aug. 10, 2018)
    08/10/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for an order authorizing the issuance of a writ of attachment.  Court concluded that plaintiff rebutted the presumption of separateness, showing that PDVSA may be deemed the alter ego of Venezuela and proving the applicability of an exception to PDVSA’s sovereign immunity.  Court also concluded that plaintiff overcame the immunities embodied in the FSIA relating to attachment and execution on property held by foreign sovereigns in the U.S.

  • Khaliquzzaman v. Equifax Information Services LLC, No. 1:17-CV-01450-ENV-JO (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2018)
    08/10/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court concluded that there was no genuine issue of fact regarding the validity and applicability of the revised agreement, including its terms compelling the arbitration of related disputes.  Court further concluded that because plaintiff’s claim relates to the reporting of credit information, which is related to his credit account, it is clear that the claim falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • Penn Outdoor Services LLC v. JK Consultants, No. 2:17-CV-02791-NIQA (E.D. Pa. Aug. 10.2018)
    08/10/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court concluded that plaintiff’s underlying declaratory judgment action must be submitted to binding arbitration pursuant to the arbitration provision contained in the parties’ agreement because it challenged only the validity of the contract as a whole, and not the arbitration provision directly.

  • Soaring Wind Energy LLC v. Catic USA, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-04033-K (N.D. Tex. Aug. 9, 2018)
    08/09/2018

    Court granted movants’ motion to confirm the arbitration award against respondent.  Court found that (i) the method by which the arbitrators was selected was in accordance with the exact process agreed to by the parties in their arbitration agreement, and therefore the panel did not exceed their powers; (ii) common law grounds such as public policy and due process are no longer valid to support vacatur under the FAA; (iii) the panel did not exceed its authority by identifying an ambiguity in the contract that neither party identified or submitted; (iv) respondent failed to meet is burden to prove that the panel committed misconduct; and (v) respondent failed to show that the panel exceeded its powers in awarding damages and attorneys’ fees and in exercising jurisdiction over derivative claims.

  • Landry v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00507-SM (D.N.H. Aug. 9, 2018)
    08/09/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration in party, finding that the fact of the plaintiff’s execution of the arbitration agreement had been established and that requiring arbitration and class action waiver as a condition of employment was not unconscionable. However, the Court deferred decision on claim that class action wavier was an unfair labor practice in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, as the matter was pending before the Supreme Court in N.R.L.B. v. Murphy Oil.

  • FaradayFuture Inc. v. Evelozcity Inc., No. 18-CV-00727 (C.D.Cal. Aug. 8, 2018)
    08/08/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration of claims involving the alleged theft of trade secrets from an artificial intelligence electric vehicles company.  Court found that because defendant was not a signatory to the underlying employment agreements between plaintiff and its former employees it could not compel arbitration.

  • Parm v. Arce, No. 17-1931 (8th Cir. Aug. 7, 2018)
    08/07/2018

    Court of appeals reversed district court’s partial denial of motion to compel arbitration and ordered arbitration of all claims, finding that a “broad” arbitration clause covered state-law usury claims, state and federal financial-disclosure claims, and state-law unjust enrichment claims.

  • Reading Health System v. Bear Sterns & Co., No. 16-4234 (3d Cir. Aug. 7, 2018)
    08/07/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court judgment compelling arbitration finding, inter alia, that forum selection clause did not waive right to arbitrate under FINRA Rule 12200.

  • Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, and Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund v. Nguyen Custom Woodworking LLC, No. 1:18-CV-05793-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 2018)
    08/07/2018

    Court granted unopposed petition to confirm arbitral award, treating it as akin to a motion for summary judgment and finding no genuine issue of material fact precluding confirmation.

  • Hebbronville Lone Star Rentals, L.L.C. v. Sunbelt Rentals Industrial Services, L.L.C., No. 17-50613 (5th Cir. Aug. 6, 2018)
    08/06/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court judgment vacating an arbitral award that reformed the contract, finding that the arbitration agreement did not grant the arbitrator the power to decide reformation.

  • Golden Gate National Senior Care, LLC v. Killian, No. 2:17-CV-02732-JD (E.D. Penn. Aug. 6, 2018)
    08/06/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that respondent had the capacity to execute the arbitration agreement and that the agreement was not unconscionable.

  • Plump Engineering, Inc. v. Westshore Design Engineers, P.C., No. 1:18-CV-00027-BKS-DJS (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2018)
    08/06/2018

    Court granted in part and denied in part motion to compel arbitration as to arbitrable claims and stay non-arbitrable claims, finding that arbitration clause carving out claims for injunctive relief did not preclude remaining claims.

  • Discullo v. Allstate Insurance Company, No. 3:17-CV-00234-MPS (D. Conn. Aug. 3, 2018)
    08/03/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that claimant waived right to arbitrate by litigating her case for fourteen months.

  • McFadden v. Van Chevrolet-Cadillac, LLC, No. 4:18-00395-CV-W-BP (W.D. Mo. Aug. 3, 2018)
    08/03/2018

    Court denied motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, finding that mutual assent was lacking because the defendant did not sign the arbitration agreement or otherwise establish its assent.

  • Conklin v. Onebeacon America Insurance Company No. 6:18-CV-00636-PGB-TBS (M.D. Fla. Aug. 2, 2018)
    08/02/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration ordering the parties shall proceed to arbitration in accordance with the terms of their arbitration agreement.

  • Moreno v. Progistics Distribution, No. 1:18-CV-01833 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 2, 2018)
    08/02/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court found that plaintiff’s continued employment after being notified of an arbitration policy constituted acceptance of the agreement and consideration under Illinois law.  Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the agreement was vague and unconscionable and thus compelled arbitration pursuant to the FAA.

  • Schwartz v. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-03751-GJP (E.D. Pa. Aug. 2, 2018)
    08/02/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings of a claim for age discrimination pursuant to the FAA.  Court found that plaintiff’s employment agreement contained a valid arbitration provision, and that plaintiff’s age discrimination claims were within the scope of that provision.

  • Patton  v. Johnson, No. 1:17-CV-00259-WES-PAS (D.R.I. Aug. 2, 2018)
    08/02/2018

    ​Court adopted magistrate’s judge’s report and recommendation that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration should be denied.  An earlier arbitration award had found that plaintiff did not agree to arbitrate disputes arising from the agreements in question.  Defendant sought vacatur of this decision and to compel arbitration of the present claims.  Magistrate judge found no basis for vacating the arbitrator’s decision, and concluded that defendant was collaterally estopped from re-litigating the precise issue, thus he recommended that the court deny defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.

  • District 1199NM v. Christus St. Vincent Regional Medical Center, No. 1:16-CV-00774-MV-JHR (D.N.M. Aug. 2, 2018) 
    08/02/2018

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award and request for injunctive relief, denying respondent’s motion to vacate.  Court held that the arbitrator’s factual findings were beyond its review and therefore denied respondent’s argument that the arbitrator’s findings show the award did not draw its essence from the agreement.  Court also rejected respondent’s argument that the arbitrator exceeded the issues submitted by the parties.

  • Morgan v. UMH Properties, No. 1:18-CV-00948-DCN (N.D. Ohio Aug. 1, 2018) 
    08/02/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed plaintiff’s claims without prejudice.  Court found that the arbitration agreement which delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrators was not unconscionable under Ohio law and thus deferred the question of the validity of the agreement to the arbitrators.

  • Bergeron  v. Monex Deposit Company, No. 8:17-CV-01968-JVS-DFM (C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2018) 
    08/01/2018

    Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss but granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court found that the parties clearly and unmistakably intended to delegate arbitrability to an arbitrator, and that an assertion of arbitrability was not wholly groundless, thus they deferred to the arbitrators to consider plaintiff’s argument that the value of his claims put them outside the scope of the agreement.

  • Garcia v. NRI USA, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-08355-ODW-GJS (C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2018)
    08/01/2018

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration in a wage class action against several defendants. While court found that defendants had met their burden in establish that plaintiff entered into a binding agreement to arbitrate, the only defendant remaining in the case was not a party to the arbitration and could not enforce the agreement.

  • Diabetic Care RX, LLC v. Express Scripts, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-01176-CDP (E.D. Mo. Aug. 01, 2018)
    08/01/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case, removing a previously instated temporary restraining order. Court found that the parties’ contract left no doubt that the dispute was governed by an arbitration agreement, and the FAA required that they compel arbitration. Court found defendant had not waived its right to arbitrate by removing to federal court or by its motion to remove a temporary restraining order.

  • Internaves de Mexico S.A. DE C.V. v. Andromeda Steamship Corporation, No. 17-12164 (11th Cir. Aug. 01, 2018)
    08/01/2018

    Court of appeals reversed a district court decision to compel arbitration of an admiralty and maritime dispute in Miami, finding that the parties had agreed to arbitrate in London. The contract named both London and New York as potential sites for arbitration, under English law and US law respectively. The district court could not determine which was the appropriate forum and compelled arbitration in their own district in accordance with Chapter 1 of the FAA. The appellate court found that the New York Convention, codified as Chapter 2 of the FAA, created a strong presumption in favor of directing arbitration to be held in any forum provided for in the arbitration agreement. The appellate court then used general principals of contract interpretation to determine that the parties had intended to arbitrate disputes in London, under English law.

  • Zean v. Comcast Broadband Security, LLC, No. 0:17-CV-05117-WMW-KMM (D. Minn. Aug. 01, 2018)
    08/01/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that a contract existed under Minnesota state law and it contained a valid arbitration agreement which governed this dispute. Court thus compelled arbitration and stayed the proceedings pursuant to the FAA.

  • Chuang v. OD Expense LLC, No. 17-1774 (3rd Cir. Aug. 01, 2018)
    08/01/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration. Appellate court, reviewing de novo, agreed that defendants were not a party to the mandatory arbitration agreement they had sought to enforce, instead the arbitration provision defendant was party to permitted actions to be brought in Delaware.

  • Limon v. AMB Industry Groups, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-00701-MMA-JMA (S.D. Cal. July 31, 2018)
    07/31/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that a valid arbitration agreement existed and that neither the plaintiff’s alleged inability to understand English, nor the fact the agreement did not append the AAA arbitration rules, rendered the agreement unconscionable.

  • Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC v. Sappington, No. 1:16-CV-08956-VEC (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2018)
    07/31/2018

    Court denied petitioner’s motion to vacate an arbitration award. Court rejected petitioner’s arguments that the arbitrator exceeded his authority, finding that the arbitrator did not consider issues which were prohibited or beyond those submitted for his consideration. Court further rejected petitioner’s argument that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law, finding that the arbitrator explored and reviewed relevant case law, and simply interpreted it differently than petitioner.

  • Wolfinger  v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-03099-NGG-PK (E.D.N.Y. July 31, 2018)
    07/31/2018

    Court dismissed with prejudice plaintiff’s petition to vacate an arbitration award. Plaintiff sought vacatur of an award that had been arbitrated on his behalf by a union. Court found that plaintiff was not a party and did not have standing to challenge the award.

  • Overdroff v. NAU Country Insurance Company, No. 2:18-CV-00079-MPK (W.D. Pa. July 31, 2018)
    07/31/2018

    Court dismissed a complaint seeking to vacate an arbitration award. Court found that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers and thus held that plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

  • Smagin v. Yegiazaryan, No. 16-55502 (9th Cir. July 31, 2018)
    07/31/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s post judgment injunction to freeze movement of assets but vacated district court’s award of attorney’s fees and remanded for court to consider the award under the appropriate standard. Court denied request for judicial reassignment on remand.

  • Air Center Helicopters v. Starlite Investments Ireland Limited, No. 4:18-CV-00599-O (N.D. Tex. July 30, 2018)
    07/30/2018

  • Polyone Corporation v. Westlake Vinyls, Inc., No. 5:18-CV-00107-TBR (W.D. Ky. July 30, 2018)
    07/30/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent the parties from arbitrating a dispute scheduled for hearing on August 6, 2018. Court found that there was not a substantial likelihood that plaintiff would prevail in showing the arbitration provision was invalid and unenforceable, and that allowing arbitration served the public interest.

  • Tianjin Free Trade Zone Yongxing Parallel Imported Automotive Trading Co. Ltd. v. Executive Coach Builders, Inc., No. 6:18-CV-03070-MDH (W.D. Mo. July 30, 2018)
    07/30/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Court found the issues raised by plaintiff, that the arbitration clause was not contained in the agreement in question, and not all defendants were signatories to that agreement, were matters for the arbitrators to decide.

  • Nosbaum v. J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-06202 (N.D. Ill. July 30, 2018)
    07/30/2018

    Court denied petition to vacate a FINRA arbitration award, and granted cross-petition to confirm the award, converting it to a final judgment in favor of respondent. Court found that arbitrators’ evidentiary ruling that excluded certain evidence did not amount to a refusal to hear evidence which would be grounds for vacatur under the FAA. Court further found that and adverse ruling did not itself support allegations of partiality.

  • Megacorp Logistics LLC, v. Turvo, Inc., No. 18-01240-EMC (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2018)
    07/30/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court found the parties had clearly and unmistakably delegated questions of the scope of arbitration to the arbitrators. Court also found that claims based on agreements that did not contain arbitration clauses were sufficiently related to agreements that did contain an arbitration clause, such that defendants’ assertion of arbitrability for all claims was not groundless.

  • High Country Dealerships , Inc. v. Polaris Sales, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00078-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C. July 30, 2016)
    07/30/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion compel arbitration, and stayed proceedings. Court found that pursuant to the FAA they must compel arbitration when (1) a dispute exists, (2) that is governed by a valid arbitration provision, (3) the transaction is related to interstate commerce, and (4) a party fails or refuses to arbitrate.

  • Barr v. HSS, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-12820-DML-MKM (E.D. Mich. July 30, 2016)
    07/30/2018

    Court granted in part a motion to dismiss an employment dispute, dismissing the dispute but compelling arbitration. Defendant argued that the claims should be dismissed entirely because they were subject to a mandatory arbitration provision, but that the one year limitation for demanding arbitration had passed. The court referred all questions of timeliness to the arbitrator.

  • La Amapola, Inc. v. Honeyville, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-01946-AB-AS (C.D. Cal. July 28, 2017)
    07/28/2018

    Court denied defendant Gavilon Grain, LLC’s motion to dismiss the third party complaint or to compel arbitration and stay the third-party claims. Court found that Honeyville did not agree to arbitrate, as (i) the terms and conditions containing the arbitration clause were not incorporated into the contract between the parties; (ii) the mailbox rule was irrelevant here because it only resolves whether receipt has been accomplished, and Honeyville has admitted receipt; (iii) defendant Gavilon’s claim that Honeyville assented to the terms and conditions as additional terms under Section 2207 of the California Commercial Code fails because the arbitration agreement materially altered the contract.

  • Buhannic v. Tradingscreen, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-07993-ER (S.D.N.Y. July 27, 2018)
    07/27/2018

    Court denied petitioners’ motion to vacate, and granted and granted Respondents’ cross-motion to confirm an arbitration award. Court rejected petitioners’ arguments that the arbitration panel was impartial, refused to hear certain evidence, and issued the award in manifest disregarded of the law, finding the Arbitrator’s decision consistent with applicable law and the facts presented at the hearing.

  • Guerrero v. Haliburton Energy Services, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01300-LJO-JLT (E.D. Cal. July 26, 2018)
    07/26/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that a provision purporting to waive plaintiff’s right to bring certain claims was both potentially unconscionable, and severable. Once that provision was severed, court found the remainder of the arbitration provision was enforceable pursuant to the FAA.

  • United Merchandise Wholesale Inc. v. Direct Containers Inc, No. 2:18-CV-00617-KM-JBC (D.N.J. July 26, 2018)
    07/26/2018

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to confirm an arbitration award, and denied defendants’ motion to vacate. Court found that evidence presented by Defendants of two attenuated relationships between counsel and the arbitrator was not sufficient to meet the burden of establishing evident partiality. Court refused to apply the BMW v. Gore standard for punitive damages in the “far more deferential context of review of an arbitration award.

  • Ray v. NPRTO Flordia, LLC., No. 18-10188 (11th Cir. July 26, 2018)
    07/26/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss. Appellate court refused to consider defendant’s arguments that Florida law would allow a non-signatory to be bound by a broadly drafted arbitration clause, finding that defendant had relied solely on federal law in its district court motion.

  • Daniel v. eBay, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-01294-EGS (D.D.C. July 26, 2018)
    07/26/2018

    Court declined to adopt magistrate judge’s recommendation to compel arbitration and denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation. Court found that plaintiff did not consent to arbitration by agreeing to the change-in-terms provision in the contract thirteen years before the arbitral agreement was added and defendant failed to prove plaintiff was notified of the revised agreement.

  • Greer v. Sterling Jerlers, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00480-LJO-SKO (E.D. Cal. July 26, 2018)
    07/26/2018

    Court granted motion to dismiss the claim pursuant to the FAA, finding that there was no reason to stay the action because all claims were arbitrable.

  • Maravilla v. Gruma Corporation, No. 4:18-CV-01309 (S.D. Tex. July 26, 2018)
    07/26/2018

    Court granted motion to dismiss and compel JAMS arbitration, holding there was a valid agreement to arbitrate, the clause delegating decisions of arbitrability to the arbitrator was valid, and the class-action waiver was enforceable.

  • Nathaniel v. Darden Restaurants, Inc., No. 6:18-CV-06022-PKH (W.D. Ark. July 26, 2018)
    07/26/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Epic Systems, upholding arbitration agreements for individual proceedings. Court denied motion to stay, as all claims were subject to the arbitral agreement.

  • Copper Mesa Mining Corporation v. The Republic of Ecuador, No. 1:17-CV-00394-TNM (D.D.C. July 25, 2018)
    07/25/2018

    Court granted parties’ joint motion to stay proceedings related to enforcement of a $25 million arbitration award rendered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration pending completion of settlement agreement terms.

  • Mansour v. Kmart Corporation, Inc., No. 8:17-CV-02440-PWG (D. Md. July 25, 2018)
    07/25/2018

    Court denied motion to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration, finding a genuine dispute of material fact existed with regard to whether plaintiff accepted the arbitration agreement. Court ordered limited discovery on whether the plaintiff agreed to arbitrate the dispute.

  • DFM Investments, LLC v. Brandspring Solutions, LLC, No. 17-2447 (8th Cir. July 25, 2018)
    07/25/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to affirm arbitral award pursuant to the FAA. Court found that district court did not err in its characterization of the award and even if it had, it would be insufficient to reverse the court’s decision and that the award could not be vacated based on arbitrator’s refusal to consider certain evidence as the evidence at issue was not material.

  • Fin Associates LP v. Hudson Specialty Insurance Company, No. 16-3541 (3d Cir. July 25, 2018)
    07/25/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings pending arbitration. Pursuant to the FAA, court found all prerequisites to arbitration had been met and plaintiffs’ claim for compensatory damages fell within the scope of the agreement. Court determined that plaintiff consented to the arbitral agreement through his attorney-in-fact, the agreement was not unconscionable, and defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate.

  • Payne v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-02313-PMD (D.S.C. July 25, 2018)
    07/25/2018

    Court granted defendants motion to compel arbitration of a class personal injury action, and dismissed the case.  Court disagreed with plaintiffs’ arguments that the arbitration provision should be evaluated under South Carolina law, citing a choice of law provision in the agreement which named Washington Law.  Court further found that defendant’s placement of a disclaimer next to the “Place your order” button, which stated that by placing an order a user agrees to the conditions of use, was sufficient to provide plaintiff with adequate notice that he would be bound by the arbitration provision.  Court also found that the arbitration provision was enforceable against a nonsignatory who brought claims under the contract.

  • Lovelady v. Five Star Quality Care-VA, LLC, No. 4:18-CV-00018-MSD-DEM (E.D. Va. July 25, 2018)
    07/24/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings pending arbitration. Pursuant to the FAA, court found all prerequisites to arbitration had been met and plaintiffs’ claim for compensatory damages fell within the scope of the agreement. Court determined that plaintiff consented to the arbitral agreement through his attorney-in-fact, the agreement was not unconscionable, and defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate.

  • Shaut v. Hatch, No. 1:18-CV-00420-DCN (N.D. Ohio July 24, 2018)
    07/24/2018

    Court granted motion to dismiss motion to vacate the arbitration award, finding respondents were not properly served pursuant to the FAA, the motion to vacate was time barred, and the motion was barred by res judicata as the arbitral award had already been confirmed.

  • Alderson v. Devere USA, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-05081-JFK (S.D.N.Y. July 24, 2018)
    07/24/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction as moot. Pursuant to the FAA and the arbitration agreement, the court found it must compel AAA or JAMS arbitration and that questions of arbitrability were for the arbitrator to decide.

  • Egan v. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00445-MRH (W.D. Pa. July 24, 2018)
    07/24/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to stay proceedings pending appeal of its denial of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that it maintained jurisdiction of the matter because the issues on appeal were frivolous.

  • McClellan v. Fitbit, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00036-JD (N.D. Cal. July 24, 2018)
    07/24/2018

    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.

  • Munro v. University of Southern California, No. 17-55550 (9th Cir. July 24, 2018)
    07/24/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court concluded that current and former employees of USC were not compelled to arbitrate their collective claims for breach of fiduciary responsibility against the defendants for the administration of two ERISA plans, finding that these claims fell outside the scope of the arbitration clauses in the employees’ general employment contracts.

  • Trevino v. Acosta, Inc., No. 5:17-CV-06529-NC (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2018)
    07/23/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay action, finding pursuant to the Supreme Court’s Epic Systems decision that the class action waiver in the arbitral agreement was enforceable. Court also found sufficient evidence to establish that there was mutual assent to the arbitration clause and that the agreement was not unconscionable under California law.

  • Buchanan v. Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd., No. 4:15-CV-01696-YGR (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2018)
    07/23/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of certain class members’ claims pursuant to the FAA, finding defendant did not waive its right to demand arbitration and concluding there was no impermissible prospective waiver of employees’ federal antidiscrimination rights. Court also granted defendant’s motion to bifurcate the claims of plaintiff Buchanan from the class, finding that the pattern and practice method of proof of discrimination is not available to private plaintiffs, that the factual overlap of the plaintiff’s claims relative to the class were minimal, bifurcation would avoid confusion and prejudice, and would not impact judicial economy or efficiency. Court denied defendant’s motion for decertification of the class, but modified and limited its definition.

  • Judd v. Keypoint Government Solutions, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00327-RM-STV (D. Colo. July 23, 2018)
    07/23/2018

    Magistrate judge recommended granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Pursuant to the FAA, court found the arbitration agreement was valid, concluding that the opt-out form plaintiff signed related to the scope of the arbitral agreement not to its validity and that under the AAA rules, the scope of an arbitration agreement must be determined by the arbitrator.

  • Academy of Allergy & Asthma in Primary Care v. Superior Healthplan, Inc., No. 5:17-CV-01122-FB-HJB (W.D. Tex. Jul. 23, 2018)
    07/23/2018

    Court accepted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge to grant in part, deny in part, and deny as moot in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and alternative motion to dismiss.  Court found that, while plaintiff AAAPC made claims in direct reference to the agreements at issue, plaintiff UAS could not be compelled to arbitrate its claims under the direct-benefits-estoppel theory or the “intertwined claims” theory.  Court also noted that the Provider Plaintiffs already filed demands in the arbitration proceeding, and therefore the motion to compel arbitration as to those claims is moot.

  • AOA of the Moorings, Inc. v. Dongbu Insurance Co., LTD., No. 16-16666 (9th Cir. July 20, 2018)
    07/20/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed judgment of district court confirming an arbitral award including attorney’s fees to the prevailing party. Court reviewed decision de novo and found that the fees were included within the coverage of the insurance policy at issue.

  • Innotec LLC v. Visiontech Sales, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00007-GEC-JCH (W.D. Va. July 20, 2018)
    07/20/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion in the alternative to compel arbitration finding that pursuant to the FAA its role was limited to determining arbitrability and that it was necessary to decide this issue before considering the primary motion to dismiss or any other defenses raised by the parties. Court found that a non-signatory plaintiff was equitably estopped from denying the existence of an agreement to arbitrate where it had sought to enforce particular terms of the contract containing the arbitration agreement against defendant. Court also held that defendant had not waived its right to arbitration by failing to raise the arbitration clause at an earlier point in the proceedings.

  • CIP Construction Company v. Western Surety Company, No 1:18-CV-00058-TDS-JLW (M.D.N.C. July 20, 2018)
    07/20/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, but granted defendant’s alternative motion for a discretionary stay of judicial proceedings in construction dispute between general contractor and surety of a subcontractor pending the outcome of an ongoing arbitration between plaintiff and its subcontractor. Court found that, where a performance bond containing a judicial resolution clause incorporated by reference the subcontract containing an arbitration clause, and that arbitration clause had a narrow scope and made no reference to defendant surety, the surety was not a party to the arbitration agreement. Court held that a discretionary stay was appropriate as issues of fact related to the action may be settled in the pending arbitration between plaintiff and its subcontractor.

  • Sharp v. Terminix International, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-02072-SHM-DKV (W.D. Tenn. July 20, 2018)
    07/20/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of employment dispute where arbitration agreement was unsigned, but incorporated by reference into the signed employment agreement. Court found that while the agreement to arbitrate was procedurally unconscionable, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it was substantively unconscionable, and the agreement to arbitrate was therefore valid.

  • Mbau v. Baker Hughes, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-00101-JED-FHM (N.D. Okla. July 19, 2018)
    07/19/2018

    Court granted motion to stay plaintiff’s claims pending arbitration. Court found arbitration provision that stated that either party “may” request that the dispute be subjected to binding arbitration was binding once either party elected to arbitrate and served proper notice thereof upon the opposing party.

  • CaringOnDemand, LLC v. Ventive LLC, No. 9:18-CV-80211-BB (S.D. Fla. July 19, 2018)
    07/19/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of an order compelling arbitration and the appointment of an arbitrator. Court rejected plaintiff’s attempt to have the court appoint an arbitrator after plaintiff failed to request that relief in their initial motion. Court held that a Rule 59(e) motion could not be used to raise issues that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.

  • Boves v. Aarons, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00005-HBP (S.D.N.Y. July 19, 2018)
    07/19/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s New York state law employment discrimination claims. Pursuant to the FAA and First Options, court applied New York state contract law to determine that a valid arbitration agreement did exist. The court also held that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and dismissed plaintiff’s multiple arguments to the contrary.

  • Middletown Borough v. Middletown Water Joint Venture LLC, No. 1:18-CV-00861-CCC (M.D. Pa. July 19, 2018)
    07/19/2018

    Court rejected plea for preliminary injunctive relief pending the outcome of an ongoing arbitration. Court found that plaintiff failed to prove their likelihood of success on the merits of the arbitration and failed to prove that irreparable harm would follow the failure of the court to issue injunctive relief.

  • Triangle River, LLC v. Caroline Square Realty, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-01078-TJC-MCR (M.D. Fla. July 19, 2018)
    07/19/2018

    Magistrate judge recommended that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration be granted pursuant to the FAA, concluding a valid agreement to arbitrate existed, plaintiff’s claim fell within the scope of the agreement, and plaintiff did not demonstrate that the right to arbitration had been waived. Court recommended the action be stayed pending arbitration and that the parties submit periodic reports on the status of arbitration.

  • Starnes v. Conduent Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00495-WO-LPA (M.D.N.C. July 18, 2018)
    07/18/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay litigation and compel arbitration. Court rejected all arguments of plaintiff as to the improper formation of the contract containing the agreement to arbitrate and found all requirements of the FAA were met to compel arbitration.

  • Commodities & Minerals Enterprise LTD. v. CVG Ferrominera Orinoco, C.A., No. 1:17-CV-20196-JEM (S.D. Fla. July 18, 2018)
    07/18/2018

    Court granted petition to confirm partial final award in an arbitration between foreign parties in Miami pursuant to the Society of Maritime Arbitrators Rules. Court found that, pursuant to the New York Convention, its review of the award was “extremely limited,” none of the grounds for vacatur under the FAA were present, and that the arbitrators had competence to determine arbitrability under the arbitration agreement according to the standard in First Options. In confirming the award, court held there was no reason to remand the partial award to the arbitral panel until after resolution of jurisdictional phase of that proceeding.

  • Youngevity International Corp. v. Smith, No. 3:16-CV-00704-BTM-JLB (S.D. Cal. July 18, 2018)
    07/18/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration of defendant’s counter-claims. Court held that counter-claimants’ arguments had not met “a heavy burden of proof” that plaintiff had waived their right to arbitration. Specifically, defendants and counter-claimants had not shown that plaintiff had knowledge of the right to compel arbitration, acted inconsistently with that right, or that resulting prejudice to defendants had followed.

  • Bow v. Ad Astra Recovery Services, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-00510-G (N.D. Tex. July 18, 2018)
    07/18/2018

    Court granted motion to stay and compel arbitration filed by defendant, a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement in question. Court found that, regardless of theories of equitable estoppel, the terms of the relevant loan agreement clearly identified that plaintiff may be compelled to arbitrate with a non-signatory affiliate entity of the signatory. Court held that defendant was an affiliate and that plaintiff’s statutory claims fell within the broad scope of the loan agreement.

  • Balkan Energy Ltd. v. Republic of Ghana, No. 1:17-CV-00584-APM (D.D.C. July 17, 2018)
    07/17/2018

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to authorize attachment and execution on a judgment rendered four-months prior, confirming an arbitral award rendered in prior investor-state arbitration. Court found Ghana’s fear that it may be subject to duplicative enforcement was misplaced where another party that had retained the right to pursue award confirmation and enforcement had not yet moved to authorize or attach assets under 28 USC §1610(c).

  • Sistem v. Kyrgyz Republic, No. 16-4153 (2d Cir. July 17, 2018)
    07/17/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed decision of district court confirming ICSID Additional Facility arbitral award, clarifying that the action was actually one of “recognition and enforcement” rather than “confirmation”. Court found that defendant waived its right to challenge the jurisdiction of the tribunal by failing to raise the issue during the arbitration. Court emphasized that, under the FSIA and on the record before them, the District of Colombia may have been the proper venue, but held that defendant failed to timely raise a venue objection and thus was precluded from doing so on appeal.

  • Garcia Saz v. Church of Scientology Religious Trust, No. 8:13-CV-00220-JDW-TBM (M.D. Fla. July 17, 2018)
    07/17/2018

    Court denied motion to vacate arbitration award in ecclesiastical arbitration conducted pursuant to Church of Scientology ethics and justice policies. Plaintiff alleged the arbitrators exhibited partiality towards the Church, and engaged in misconduct by: refusing to hear evidence, refusing to consider fraud claims, allowing the Church to have ex parte conduct with the panel, refusing to allow plaintiff’s counsel to attend the arbitration, and failing to provide sufficient findings for the court to review. Finding that heightened deference must be given to a religious arbitration, court held none of the four grounds for vacatur under the FAA were met.

  • Crowe v. CGNSC Ripley, No. 3:17-CV-00171-MPM-RP (N.D. Miss. July 17, 2018)
    07/17/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to § 4 of the FAA. Court considered conflict between state contract law precedent clearly limiting the ability of informal agents to enter into valid arbitration agreements on behalf of their wards, and Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedent which disapproved of nominally neutral rules that in practice “would have a disproportionate impact on arbitration agreements”. Court found that the facts before it did not represent a distinction from Fifth Circuit precedent and held the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable.

  • Daniels v. Painter, No. 2:16-CV-03782-RSWL (C.D. Cal. July 16, 2018)
    07/16/2018

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award, holding the arbitrator did not act in manifest disregard of the law simply because he took an interpretation of the law that defendants cited as incorrect. Court likewise held that the arbitrator did not act in manifest disregard of the law by holding non-signatory jointly and severally liable nor did he act in manifest disregard of the law by failing to reduce an award of future damages to present value. Court dismissed plaintiffs request for attorney’s fees.

  • AT&T Mobility Services LLC v. Jean-Baptiste, No. 2:17-CV-11962-MCA-MAH (D.N.J. July 16, 2018)
    07/16/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration where employment contract stipulated that a failure to follow the procedure for opt-out would effect a submission to a binding arbitration agreement. Court followed New Jersey law precedent in stating that, because plaintiff did not condition defendant’s continued employment on participation in its arbitration program, her affirmative consent was necessary to effect the arbitration agreement.

  • Armstrong County Memorial Hospital v. Penn. Assoc. of Staff Nurses & Allied Professionals, No. 2:18-CV-00048-AJS (W.D. Pa. July 16, 2018)
    07/16/2018

    Court enforced arbitration award in favor of employees seeking overtime pay. Court found the award to be rationally based upon and drawing its essence from the language of the CBA underlying the arbitration, and that the arbitrator did thus not exceed his jurisdiction.

  • Denver Global Products, Inc. v. Leon, No. 5:17-CV-00102 (W.D.N.C. July 16, 2018)
    07/16/2018

    Court affirmed recommendation of magistrate judge confirming arbitration award and entering final judgment against award debtor to Chinese counter-party. Court overruled defendant’s objections to the magistrate judge’s factual findings, holding that no genuine dispute as to the formation and validity of the arbitration agreement existed on the facts. Court also overruled defendant’s objections to the legal conclusion of the magistrate where his decision was based on a precedential opinions expressing a very narrow judicial review of arbitral awards.

  • Hessong v. Cape Securities, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00500-RDB (D. Md. July 16, 2018)
    07/16/2018

    Court refused motion to vacate FINRA arbitration award. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the award be vacated under FRCP 60(b) and applied grounds for vacatur of the FAA. Court held that plaintiff’s motion to vacate was not timely under the FAA’s three-month tolling period as they did not file for thirteen-months after the award was served upon them.

  • Mattox v. Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC., No. 3:18-CV-00119-JAM (D. Conn. July 16, 2018)
    07/16/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration of employment agreement. Employee argued that the agreement was unenforceable as he received no consideration for submitting to arbitration. Court found that reciprocal commitment of parties to arbitration constituted adequate consideration.

  • Mattox v. Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-00119-JAM (D. Conn. July 16, 2018)
    07/16/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action pending arbitration after finding sufficient consideration for the arbitration agreement through both mutual obligations to arbitrate disputes and continued employment.

  • Hermosillo v. Davey Tree Surgery Co., No. 1:18-CV-00393-LHK (N.D. Cal. July 13, 2018)
    07/13/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s six contract claims while severing what it found to be a substantively unconscionable six-month limitations period term from the agreement. Applying California law pursuant to First Options of Chi., Inc., the court found that an agreement to arbitrate did exist in the employment agreement between plaintiff and defendant. In granting the motion to compel, the court engaged in a protracted discussion of procedural and substantive unconscionability, ultimately finding the agreement to arbitrate to be enforceable.

  • United Nations Int. School v. United Nations Int. School Staff Assoc., No. 1:17-CV-04811-ERK (E.D.N.Y. July 13, 2018)
    07/13/2018

    Court refused to vacate arbitration award granting teacher right to return to work. Court found sentences at issue in arbitrator’s award to meet the threshold standard of a “barely colorable justification” and that the award drew its essence from the CBA containing the arbitration agreement.

  • Edible International, LLC v. Google, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-00216-MPS (D. Conn. July 13, 2018)
    07/13/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration with respect to all of the plaintiff’s claims. Court found that claims fell within the “broad” scope of the arbitration agreement and that plaintiff failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that disputed issues were “collateral” to the agreement.

  • Let’s Go Aero, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00710-CMA-MJW (D. Colo. July 13, 2018)
    07/13/2018

    Court granted stay of proceedings and administrative closure pending the outcome of a related arbitration. Court held that the lawsuit and arbitration were duplicative, the parties to be “substantially the same”, the actions asserted to be “nearly identical”, thus the first-filed rule thus favored deference to the pending arbitration.

  • Weiss v. Macy’s Retail Holdings, Inc., No. 17-2219 (2d Cir. Jul. 12, 2018)
    07/12/2018

    Court of appeals vacated the district court judgment denying the motion to compel arbitration and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the order.  Court of appeals concluded that plaintiff-appellee’s failure to send back the arbitration opt-out form and continued work for defendant would constitute an agreement to arbitrate.  However, the district court did not resolve the contested factual issue as to whether plaintiff received the mailings that would have allowed him to opt out of mandatory arbitration, and therefore remand was appropriate to determine whether plaintiff received the documents.

  • Lagrasso v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America, No. 4:18-CV-11497-LVP-RSW (E.D. Mich. July 12, 2018)
    07/12/2018

    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)
    07/12/2018

    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.

  • PKT Associates, Inc. v. Granum Group, LLC, No. 18-CV-1169-VEC (S.D.N.Y July 12, 2018)
    07/12/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s petition to enforce a foreign arbitration award. Court held that it had jurisdiction because the parties relationship, “involves property located abroad, envisages performance or enforcement abroad, or has some other reasonable relation with one or more foreign states,” pursuant to 9 USC § 202. Court further held that the defendant failed to show there should be an exception to enforcement. Court granted costs to the plaintiff due to the defendant’s failure to pay the arbitral award which caused the plaintiff to incur the cost of initiating the lawsuit.

  • Technical Products, Inc. v. Bellsouth Telecommunications, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-02996-RWS (N.D. Ga. July 12, 2018)
    07/12/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the plaintiff conceded it was bound to the arbitration agreement, and the agreement applied broadly to cover all the plaintiff’s claims and not just to the claims related to the agreement.

  • Tradeline Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. V. Jess Smith & Sons Cotton, LLC, No. 2:15-CV-08048-JAK-RAO (C.D. Cal. July 12, 2018)
    07/12/2018

    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.

  • KT Corporation v. ABS Holdings Ltd., No. 1:17-CV-07859-LGS (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2018)
    07/12/2018

    Court granted motion to confirm award rendered in ICC arbitration between foreign companies. Court found that its review of the award was severely limited, and that neither grounds for vacatur under the FAA nor grounds for refusal of confirmation under the New York Convention were present.

  • Garren v. CVS Health Corporation, No. 3:17-CV-149 (E.D. Tenn. July 11, 2018)
    07/11/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that the plaintiff showed a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether he opted out of the arbitration agreement.

  • Heidrich v. Pennymac Financial Services, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-02821-TLN-EFB (E.D. Cal. July 11, 2018)
    07/11/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement was valid and that the dispute fell within the scope of the agreement. Court held that the agreement therefore had to be enforced, despite a waiver which the plaintiff alleged to be illegal.

  • Lester v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-00267-VEH (N.D. Ala. July 11, 2018)
    07/11/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that defendant failed to provide evidence that, as an assignee of the right to collect debt from the plaintiff, it also received the assignor’s right to demand arbitration.

  • Li v. Wok 88 Inc., No. 1:17-CV-08715-GHW (S.D.N.Y. July 11, 2018)
    07/11/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration agreement was valid and the plaintiff’s claim was within its scope. Court denied defendant’s motion for sanctions under 28 USC § 1927, holding that while the plaintiff’s refusal to comply with the arbitration agreement did cause unnecessary delays and expenditures, it did not demonstrate bad faith.

  • New York City & Vicinity District Council of Carpenters v. A.J.S. Project Management, No. 1:16-CV-08818-VSB (S.D.N.Y. July 11, 2018)
    07/11/2018

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm arbitration award, holding that (i) the respondent failed to demonstrate that the claims in the two relevant arbitrations were identical, (ii) different parties initiated the two arbitrations, and (iii) the respondent did not raise the issue of preclusion at the second arbitration. Court therefore found that the award did not violate public policy.

  • Stemcor USA Inc. v. Cia Siderurgica do Para Cosipar, No. 16-30984 (5th Cir. July 11, 2018)
    07/11/2018

    Court of appeals granted plaintiff’s motion for panel rehearing, and substituted its prior decision. Court held that plaintiff-appellant failed to comply with the procedural requirements which would have allowed for attachments to issue in aid of arbitration.

  • Gomez v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-01528-KM-SCM (D.N.J. July 10, 2018)
    07/10/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that the defendant met its burden of demonstrating that the parties formed an arbitration agreement covering the dispute.

  • Greer v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00480-LJO-SKO (E.D. Cal. July 10, 2018)
    07/10/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable and contained the “essential bilaterality of an arbitration agreement between an employer and employee.” Court, however, severed the requirement that the plaintiff comply with pre-arbitration procedures as a prerequisite to arbitration, holding that the requirement was substantively unconscionable.

  • Driver v. BPV Market Place Investors, LLC, No. 4:17-CV-01607-CAS (E.D. Mo. July 10, 2018)
    07/10/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, finding the existence of a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement. Court held that the plaintiff’s challenges to the agreement should be decided by an arbitrator because the agreement contains a valid delegation provision.

  • KT Corporation v. ABS Holdings, Ltd., No. 1:17-CV-07859-LGS (S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2018)
    07/10/2018

    Court granted the petition to confirm a partial ICC arbitration award, holding that the arbitral tribunal did not exceed its authority and its decision did not lack “any colorable justification.” Court also held that enforcement of the award would not be contrary to public policy, and that respondents could recover attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the action because the parties contractually agreed to such.

  • Venco Imtiaz Construction Company v. Symbion Power LLC, No. 17-7102 (D.C. Cir. July 10, 2018)
    07/10/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to confirm the ICC arbitration award, finding no merit to the argument that the arbitration decision contravened principles of collateral estoppel.

  • Kiobel v. Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, No. 17-424 (2d Cir. July 10, 2018)
    07/10/2018

    Court of appeals reversed district court’s decision to grant petition seeking leave to subpoena under 28 USC § 1782. Court held that the district court’s decision was an abuse of discretion where the documents sought from a foreign company’s US counsel would be unreachable in foreign proceedings. Court held that this would threaten the US policy of promoting open communications between lawyers and their clients.

  • Rodero v. Signal Finance Company LLC No. 1:18-CV-21807-JG (S.D. Fla. Jul. 10, 2018) 
    07/10/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that a court cannot compel arbitration when the making of the arbitration agreement has been put in issue.  As a result, court ordered the case should proceed to a jury trial to determine whether the parties entered into an arbitration agreement.

  • Halcón Operating Co., Inc. C. Rez Rock N Water, LLC No. 1:17-CV-00202-DLH-CSM (D.N.D. Jul. 9 2018)
    07/09/2018

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction enjoining defendants from prosecuting any lawsuits against plaintiff before the Fort Berthold District Court and prohibiting the Forth Berthold District Court from exercising jurisdiction over the plaintiffs in a Tribal Court case.  Court found plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits and a preliminary injunction was warranted.

  • Electrum Partners, LLC v. Johnston, No. 2:17-CV-03106-JAD-CWH (D. Nev. July 9, 2018)
    07/09/2018

    Court denied petition to compel arbitration without prejudice, holding that the petitioner had not supplied sufficient evidence to establish that a valid arbitration agreement existed with the respondent. Court stated that the petitioner needed a preponderance of evidence to compel the respondent, a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, to participate in arbitration.

  • Pineview Extended Care Center, Inc. v. Ade, No. 8:18-CV-00307-PX (D. Md. July 9, 2018)
    07/09/2018

    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)
    07/06/2018

    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.

  • United States of America, ex rel. v. United Dairies, L.L.P., No. 0:16-CV-03092 (D. Minn. July 6, 2018)
    07/06/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to stay arbitration and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss. Court noted that it lacked the authority to stay the arbitration, and found that the arbitration agreement was valid and covered the allegations at issue. Court found that the joinder provision in the agreement was insufficient to override the arbitration provision.

  • Chatziplis v. PriceWaterhouseCoopers, L.L.P., No. 1:17-CV-049109-ER (S.D.N.Y. July 6, 2018)
    07/06/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable and the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement. Court concluded that, having found a valid arbitration argument covering this dispute, it was bound to direct the parties to proceed to arbitration.

  • Andre v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00142-VAC-CJB (D. Del. July 6, 2018) 
    07/06/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration without prejudice, holding that the plaintiff had cited sufficient facts to bring into question whether a valid arbitration existed. Court ordered limited discovery on that question.

  • Spikener v. Olive Garden Holdings, LLC, No. 5:18-CV-00188-DCR (E.D. Ky. July 5, 2018) 
    07/05/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding pursuant to the FAA that the arbitration agreement was valid since the plaintiff had been aware of and consented to the agreement.

  • Anytime Labor-Kansas LLC v. Anderson, No. 4:17-CV-00573-RK (W.D. Mo. July 5, 2018)
    07/05/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for declaratory summary judgment that defendant was party to a valid arbitration agreement that only allowed individual, not class, arbitration. Court further granted a permanent injunction against defendant pursuing class arbitration with plaintiff.

  • O’Callaghan v. Uber Corporation of California, No. 1:17-CV-02094-ER (S.D.N.Y. July 5, 2018)
    07/05/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding pursuant to §4 of the FAA that the parties were bound by their agreement to arbitrate and that the agreement contained clear and unmistakable evidence they intended to submit the issue of arbitrability to an arbitrator.

  • Shasha v. Malkin, No. 1:14-CV-09989-AT-RWL (S.D.N.Y. July 5, 2018)
    07/05/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to enforce two subpoenas issued by arbitrators to two non-party witnesses. Pursuant to §7 of the FAA, court concluded that the arbitrators had greater familiarity with what non-party testimony was material and therefore, the witnesses should appear to testify.

  • Siracusa v. Marriott International Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01145-FAB (D.P.R. July 5, 2018)
    07/05/2018

    Court granted one defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and denied another defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding pursuant to the FAA the first defendant signed a valid arbitration agreement with the plaintiff. The second defendant, however, failed to demonstrate a valid arbitration agreement as it did not meet the requirements of a joint employer, and therefore, was not party to the arbitration agreement.

  • Vivint, Inc. v. NorthStar Alarm Services, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-00106-JNP-EJF (D. Utah July 5, 2018)
    07/05/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to bifurcate trial to determine if some matters were arbitrable, holding that the plaintiff had waived its right to arbitration. Court stated that plaintiff’s actions were inconsistent with the right to arbitrate and that it did not follow the procedures dictated by the FAA for compelling arbitration by first filing a motion for summary judgment and to bifurcate the trial.

  • Directors Guild of America, Inc. v. Superstition Dog With A Bone, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-02719-CAS-SK (C.D. Cal. July 5, 2018)
    07/05/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s petition to confirm the arbitration award. Court noted that it must accord considerable deference to arbitrators’ judgments. Court found that the arbitration award was support by the record, and that the defendant did not demonstrate that the arbitrator exceeded his scope of authority or was completely erroneous in his findings.

  • Clientron Corp. v. Devon It, Inc., No. 16-3432 (3d Cir. July 5, 2018)
    07/05/2018

    Court of appeals vacated district court’s order holding defendants liable for the breach of contract damages and monetary sanctions in relation to an award rendered by the Chinese Arbitration Association. Court determined that plaintiffs’ evidence was insufficient to pierce the corporate veil and that it would not pierce the veil on the basis of discovery sanctions.

  • Republic of Argentina v. AWG Group Ltd., No. 16-7134 (D.C. Cir. July 3, 2018)
    07/03/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed the arbitration award pursuant to the FAA and the New York Convention, rejecting Argentina’s objections that a member of the ICSID panel had shown “evident partiality” and that the panel determination had exceeded its authority. Court held that the arbitrator’s seat on the board of directors of a company that invested in two of the parties was not more than a trivial interest to the company, thereby implicating no disclosure duties. Court also ruled that the panel had not exceeded its authority because the panel had provided sufficient explanation of its decision and the panel’s decision on damages complied with a good-faith understanding of the arbitration agreement.

  • Scottsdale Capital Advisors Incorporated v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Incorporated, No. 2:18-MC-00035-GMS (D. Ariz. July 3, 2018)
    07/03/2018

    Court declined to enforce subpoena in arbitration that would require a non-party to provide pre-hearing document discovery. Court also declined to enforce a subpoena that would require FINRA witnesses to appear at a hearing, as the witnesses did not meet the location requirement for subpoenas set out in FRCP 45(c)(1)(A).

  • UBS Financial Services, Inc. v. Reeves, No. 2:17-CV-00832-MHT-SRW (M.D. Ala. July 3, 2018)
    07/03/2018

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award pursuant to §9 of the FAA, holding the award accorded with the parties’ agreement.

  • Ploetz v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC, No. 17-2405 (8th Cir. July 2, 2018)
    07/02/2018

    Court of appeals found error but affirmed on partially different grounds the denial of a motion to vacate an arbitration award where plaintiff had alleged “evident partiality” pursuant to §10 of the FAA. Court found that the district court had erred when it applied the wrong standard for finding “evident partiality.” Applying the correct standard, the court found no sign of “evident partiality” in the arbitrator’s failure to disclose one instance of a relationship with the opposing party when the arbitrator had disclosed ten other instances, nor did the court consider procedural violations of FINRA rules to support a finding of bias.

  • Bestway (USA), Inc. v. Sgromo, 4:17-CV-00205-HSG (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2018)
    07/02/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and granted cross-claimants motion for summary judgment, holding that the defendant had through his conduct throughout the litigation waived his right to arbitrate and that compelling arbitration would prejudice plaintiffs and cross-claimants who had expended considerable resources in the current lawsuit. Court noted that allowing defendant to compel arbitration after progressing sixteen months into litigation just before a decision on summary judgment would reward poor litigation conduct. The court also held that cross-claimants were entitled to royalties from two license agreements.

  • Brumfield v. Kindred Healthcare Inc., 2:18-CV-00591-DCN (D.S.C. July 2, 2018)
    07/02/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, holding that pursuant to the FAA and recent Supreme Court precedent that the plaintiffs are prohibited from this collective action. Court also held pursuant to § 4 of the FAA that it cannot compel several plaintiffs to arbitration because they are bound to arbitrate in different states, so the court transferred their cases to the relevant district courts. Court further held that because a plaintiff did not challenge the delegation clause stating an arbitrator would decide arbitrability, the court was required to transfer the case so that another district court could compel arbitration.

  • Carter v. Brookdale Senior Living Communities Inc., 6:17-CV-02457-DCC (D.S.C. July 2, 2018)
    07/02/2018

    Court adopted a modified ruling of the report made by a magistrate judge and granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that the plaintiff did not raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the validity of an arbitration agreement by arguing that she had signed two other contemporary but different agreements. Court also found that the plaintiff’s employment had a sufficient relationship with interstate commerce to bring it under the FAA.

  • Hicks v. Brookdale Senior Living Communities Inc., 6:17-CV-02462-DCC (D.S.C. July 2, 2018)
    07/02/2018

    Court adopted the ruling of the report made by a magistrate judge and granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that the first of plaintiff’s objections was based only on scrivener’s error on the part of the defendant, that the plaintiff’s employment had a sufficient relationship with interstate commerce to bring it under the FAA, and that the confidentiality agreement did not undermine Title VII because plaintiff could bring claims with an administrative agency if provided for by law.

  • Pacific Media Workers Guild, CWA Local 39521 v. San Francisco Chronicle, 4:17-CV-05953-HSG (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2018)
    07/02/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of arbitrability, holding pursuant to the FAA that the arbitration agreement between the parties required that the arbitrator decide issues of arbitrability. Court also held that the notice requirements of the agreement had plausibly been met and did not give rise to procedural violations that would cause two grievances to be non-arbitrable.

  • Thompson v. Body Sculpt International, LLC, 2:18-CV-01001-ARR-GRB (E.D.N.Y. July 2, 2018)
    07/02/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and denied motion for conditional certification, holding that the plaintiffs must arbitrate as none of the agreements signed by the plaintiffs were unconscionable and that the plaintiffs must arbitrate individually and not as a class. Court ruled that the successive arbitration agreements were not unconscionably forced on the plaintiffs though their employment was conditioned on signing. Court cited recent Supreme Court precedent to establish that parties must expressly agree in contract to class arbitration for it to be an option.

  • Montalvo v. SBH-El Paso, LLC d/b/a Peak Behavioral Health Services, No. 2:18-CV-00048-KG-GBW (D.N.M. June 29, 2018)
    06/29/2018

    Court granted motion to dismiss and compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court concluded the arbitral clause was valid and enforceable and required plaintiff to arbitrate employment claims.

  • VanDeHey v. Real Social Dynamics, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-02230-JAD-NJK (D. Nev. June 29, 2018)
    06/29/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that a written arbitration agreement existed between plaintiff and Real Social Dynamics, though not the other defendants, and enforced the agreement despite plaintiff’s claims that doctrines of unclean hands and futility militated against enforcement. Court further found that issues of arbitrability were to be decided by the arbitrator per the parties’ agreement.

  • Farmer v. Stafford County Hospital, No. 6:17-CV-01284-EFM-GLR (D. Kan. June 29, 2018)
    06/29/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings pursuant to the FAA because plaintiff’s claims did not arise out of or relate to the agreement. Court distinguished between hospital bylaws which governed the plaintiff’s claims and a separate agreement plaintiff had made with hospital board of trustees that included an agreement to arbitrate but did not apply to the present claims.

  • Webb v. Oaktree Medical Center, P.C., No. 3:18-CV-00924-JMC (D.S.C. June 28, 2018)
    06/28/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay litigation and compel arbitration. Court found that the agreement at issue affected interstate commerce, as required under §2 of the FAA. Court also concluded that plaintiff’s claims were covered by the broad arbitration provision in the employment agreement because they had a “significant relationship” to the employment agreement and because courts had previously construed similarly worded arbitration clauses to cover employment discrimination claims.

  • The McDonnel Group LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 2:18-CV-02804-LMA-KWR (E.D. La. June 28, 2018)
    06/28/2018

    Court granted the underwriters’ motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration. Court found that (i) the insurance policy contained a written agreement to arbitrate; (ii) the agreement required arbitration to take place in the territory of a New York Convention signatory; (iii) the underwriters were not U.S. citizens; and (iv) the agreement arose out of a commercial relationship.

  • LegalForce RAPC Worldwide P.C. v. Swyers, No. 3:17-CV-07318-MMC (N.D. Cal. June 28, 2018)
    06/28/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to transfer or, alternatively, to compel arbitration. Court concluded that defendants failed to show that plaintiffs were parties to the terms of service at issue or that they were estopped from avoiding either the forum selection clause or the arbitration clause. Court noted that the non-signatory plaintiffs did not seek relief under the agreement containing the arbitration provision, and neither plaintiff had or ever had duties or obligations thereunder.

  • Moyet v. Lugo-Sánchez, No. 3:18-MC-00394-FAB (D.P.R. June 27, 2018)
    06/27/2018

    Court granted motion to compel compliance with FINRA arbitral subpoenas and ordered respondents to attend arbitration hearings after they failed to establish undue hardship. Pursuant to §7 of the FAA, court rejected respondents’ claim that arbitrators residing in a different state and present by means of video-conferencing technology were not “sitting” in the appropriate jurisdiction. Court expressly relied on FINRA rules for determining the arbitral seat, not the arbitrator’s physical location, and further rejected the claim that only a district court where the arbitrators sit may compel arbitral subpoenas.

  • Cortes-Ramos v. Martin Morales, No. 16-2456 (1st Cir. June 27, 2018)
    06/27/2018

    Court of appeals reversed the lower court decision dismissing plaintiff’s claims based on the arbitration provision. Court held that the arbitration provision contained an exception to the requirement to arbitrate that suggests that the provision simply did not apply to a dispute involving the defendant. Court also rejected the argument that defendant was “intrinsically linked to” the contest, concluding that the agreement to arbitrate did not reveal the requisite intent by the parties to benefit the defendant with the kind of “special clarity” required.

  • Serrano v. Tuition Options, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-24443-DPG (S.D. Fla. June 27, 2018)
    06/27/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss or stay the case. Court found that the arbitration agreement contained a valid delegation provision. As such, the arbitrator needed to resolve in the first instance all disputed issues as to arbitrability or the existence, validity, construction, or enforceability of the arbitration agreement.

  • Southern Industrial Contractors, LLC v. Neel-Schaffer, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00255-LG-JCG (S.D. Miss. June 26, 2018)
    06/26/2018

    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.

  • Robertson v. Fiesta Restaurant Group, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00384 (S.D. Tex. June 26, 2018)
    06/26/2018

    Court adopted the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Magistrate judge found that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed. Magistrate judge also held that plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement, as it was quite broad and specifically covered the Title VII claims brought by plaintiff.

  • Legalforce RAPC Worldwide, P.C. v. Trademark Engine LLC, No. 3:17-CV-07303-MMC (N.D. Cal. June 26, 2018)
    06/26/2018

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court found that the non-signatories to the arbitration agreement were not bound by it, as defendants’ arguments relied on allegations contained in the plaintiffs’ initial complaint, which were meant to refer solely to a former named plaintiff whose claims were subsequently dismissed. Court also held that, because the non-signatories had not sought relief under the agreement containing the arbitration provision, the non-signatories were not equitably estopped from avoiding arbitration.

  • Fiorilla v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-05123-PKC (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2018)
    06/26/2018

    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.

  • Experian Information Solutions, Inc. v. Berger, No. 1:18-CV-00297-TJM (N.D.N.Y. June 26, 2018)
    06/26/2018

    Court granted petition to confirm the arbitration award. Court found that the award had not been vacated, modified or corrected, and that the documentation presented to the court permitted it to conclude that the arbitrator had sufficient grounds to find in petitioner’s favor.

  • Church v. Hotels.com L.P., No. 2:18-CV-00018-RMG (D.S.C. June 26, 2018)
    06/26/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. Court found that a valid arbitration agreement existed between the parties, as the plaintiff needed to affirmatively consent to the Terms of Service before making a reservation. Court also held that plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration provision because they were “arising out of or relating to” the Terms of Service governing the parties’ transaction at the time.

  • Applications Software Technology LLC v. Kapadia, No. 1:18-CV-00822 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2018)
    06/26/2018

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that there was an enforceable arbitration agreement, but only plaintiff Serene AST, LLC’s claims against defendant Kapadia must be arbitrated. Court rejected defendant’s argument that non-signatories could be bound by the arbitration provision, as it relied on an expanded interpretation of equitable estoppel that had been recognized by various federal courts but rejected in Illinois.

  • Vanede, LLC v. Oxley, No. 2:17-CV-02865-SHM-cgc (W.D. Tenn. June 26, 2018)
    06/26/2018

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that, under the language of the parties’ agreement, fraud claims and claims for equitable relief were exempt from arbitration, but a claim for breach of contract fell squarely within the scope of the arbitration provision.

  • Wang v. Precision Extrusion, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00350-FJS-DJS (N.D.N.Y. June 26, 2018)
    06/26/2018

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. Following the Second Circuit’s four prong analysis for determining whether a dispute is governed by an arbitration clause, court concluded that (i) the parties agreed to arbitrate; (ii) the arbitration clause was broad and carried a presumption of arbitrability that plaintiff had not overcome; (iii) Congress did not intend for the claims to be nonarbitrable; and (iv) defendants did not waive their right to arbitration when they failed to raise the arbitrability defense with the New York State Division of Human Rights or in the proceeding before the New York State Supreme Court.

  • Hurn v. Macy’s Inc., No. 17-3055 (7th Cir. June 25, 2018)
    06/25/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to confirm the arbitration award, finding nothing in the record to support a valid ground for vacating the award. Court held that (i) the arbitrator’s decision not to allow one of plaintiff-appellant’s questions was not “misbehavior” under § 10(a)(3) of the FAA because it was the kind of procedural decision arbitrators may permissibly make; (ii) the arbitrator allegedly falling asleep during the hearing was an insufficient reason to vacate the award, as plaintiff-appellant failed to show that the arbitrator’s sleeping was prejudicial; and (iii) an adverse ruling alone is not direct, definite, and demonstrable bias sufficient to constitute evident partiality.

  • Cullinane v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 16-2023 (1st Cir. June 25, 2018)
    06/25/2018

    Court of appeals reversed the district court’s grant of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. Court concluded that plaintiffs were not reasonably notified of the terms of the agreement, as the screens linking to the “Terms of Service & Privacy Policy” were filled with other noticeable terms that diminished the conspicuousness of the notice and hyperlink.

  • USG Companies, Inc. v. Advantage Sales & Marketing LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00861-CCC (D. Del. June 25, 2018)
    06/25/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss. Court held that, in light of the broad language used in the arbitration clause and the presumption of arbitrability, the claims fell within the scope of the arbitration provision and should have been raised during the arbitration. Since they were not, those claims were barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion.

  • Pearsall v. Delta Career Education Corporation, No. 7:17-CV-00226-FL (E.D.N.C. June 25, 2018)
    06/25/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and confirmed the arbitration award. Court concluded that plaintiff’s filings demonstrated that the arbitration award was valid, and no challenge to the factual premise of this conclusion was before the court.

  • Boston Scientific Corporation v. Acacia Research Group, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-01144-RGA (D. Del. June 25, 2018)
    06/25/2018

    Court granted respondent’s motion to confirm the final arbitration award. Petitioner argued that one of the three arbitrators did not meet the qualifications set forth in the relevant agreement, and therefore the panel had no power to resolve the parties’ dispute. Court rejected this argument, noting that the agreement only required that each of the three arbitrators be “experienced in intellectual property contracts and issues,” but did not indicate how much experience or what kind of experience.

  • The Shipman Agency, Inc. v. TheBlaze Inc., No. 4:18-CV-00772 (S.D. Tex. June 22, 2018)
    06/22/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that (i) there was a valid arbitration agreement; (ii) the arbitration agreement was not illusory, as defendants did not have the power to avoid arbitration under the License Agreement by unilaterally changing its terms; (iii) the limitation on remedies was unconscionable, but could be severed from the arbitration provision; and (iv) because the arbitration provision governed all disputes “relating to” the License Agreement, it must be construed broadly to include disputes that “touch” matters covered by the agreement.

  • H20 Resources, LLC v. Oilfield Tracking Services, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-01164-RK (E.D. Pa. June 22, 2018)
    06/22/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement because all of the allegations pertained to services that plaintiff was providing under the parties’ agreement. Court also determined that, in deciding whether claims fall within the scope of an arbitration clause, it must look only to the facts underlying the claims and not the actual legal theories themselves, and therefore the fact that plaintiff pleaded torts rather than claims of breach of contract was irrelevant to the determination of whether the claims fell within the scope of the arbitration clause.

  • Federated Mutual Insurance Company. v. Federated National Holding Company, Inc., No. 0:18-CV-00714-PAM-DTS (D. Minn. June 22, 2018)
    06/22/2018

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm the arbitration award. Court explained that the FAA confers no federal jurisdiction, but instead requires an independent jurisdictional basis. Applying the “look-through approach”—which looks through to the underlying dispute, here, a claim under federal trademark laws—the court concluded that it had federal question jurisdiction over the petition. Court also concluded that, even if there was no federal question jurisdiction, it was satisfied that diversity jurisdiction existed because the injunctive relief granted had at least $75,000 in economic value to the petitioner.

  • CaringOnDemand, LLC v. Ventive LLC, No. 9:18-CV-80211-BB (S.D. Fla. June 22, 2018)
    06/22/2018

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration. Since the parties agreed to submit “all disputes” to binding arbitration, court held that the arbitration provision expresses that any dispute whatsoever between the parties must be arbitrated, regardless of whether the dispute is substantive or procedural.

  • Premier Paint & Drywall, Inc. v. Designed to Build, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-00155-MHT-DAB (M.D. Ala. June 22, 2018)
    06/22/2018

    Court adopted the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Magistrate judge concluded that, given the unambiguous arbitration provision contained in the parties’ contract and the parties’ agreement that the dispute was subject to the arbitration provision, there was no doubt that arbitration was appropriate.

  • Johnston v. Electrum Partners LLC et al, No. 1:17-CV-07823-KPF (S.D.N.Y. June 21, 2018)
    06/21/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion for a stay pending arbitration. Court held that (i) plaintiff failed to create a triable issue of fact as to whether the parties entered into a separate oral agreement where the parties did not agree to arbitrate disputes arising under that contract; (ii) the non-signatory plaintiff was bound by the arbitration agreement under agency, estoppel, and alter ego theories; (iii) plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement; and (iv) the arbitration agreement was not void under Nevada law.

  • Frompovicz, Jr. v. PTS Realty Holdings, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-00261-WB (E.D. Pa. June 21, 2018)
    06/21/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Court held that, although the arbitration award was not yet confirmed, it was undisputed that plaintiff did not appeal it, and therefore the award issued in defendant’s favor was a final judgment that may be used for purposes of general res judicata. Court also held that collateral estoppel barred plaintiff’s misrepresentation and fraud claims, and technical res judicata extinguished all of plaintiff’s remaining claims, as they should have been litigated in the arbitration.

  • Vail Services Group, LLC v. Dines, No. 1:17-CV-02428-CMA-KLM (D. Colo. June 21, 2018)
    06/21/2018

    Court granted motion to stay pending arbitration, finding the arbitration proceedings to be sufficiently parallel to warrant a stay under the Colorado River doctrine.

  • Goplin v. WeConnect, Incorporated, No. 18-1193 (7th Cir. June 21, 2018)
    06/21/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order denying a motion to compel arbitration, finding that respondent was not a party to the arbitration agreement it sought to enforce.

  • Laver v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, No. 3:18-CV-00828-WHO (N.D. Cal. June 21 2018)
    06/21/2018

    Court granted motion to dismiss, finding that parties had entered into a binding arbitration agreement and claims were therefore subject to arbitration.

  • Purus Plastics GmbH v. Eco Terr Distributing, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-00277-JLR (W.D. Wash. June 21, 2018)
    06/21/2018

    Court confirmed foreign arbitration award and denied motion to dismiss, finding that defendants failed to successfully assert a defense pursuant to 9 USC § 207 to refuse recognition of the award, and that the award was final and binding.

  • Setty v. Shrinivas Sugandhalaya LLP, No. 2:17-CV-01146-RAJ (W.D. Wash. June 21, 2018)
    06/21/2018

    Court denied motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, finding that under theories of equitable estoppel the non-signatory claimants were not parties to the deed containing arbitration clause and could therefore not compel arbitration.

  • ACE American Insurance Company v. Guerriero, No. 17-2893 (3d Cir. June 20, 2018)
    06/20/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order granting motion to compel arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement to be valid and enforceable.

  • Moreno v. Expedia, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-00105 (W.D.N.C. June 20, 2018)
    06/20/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the claim was within the scope of the arbitration agreement and therefore arbitrable.

  • Chacon v. Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC, No. 17-CV-8434 (N.D. Ill. June 20, 2018)
    06/20/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation, finding that the dispute at issue fell outside the scope of the parties’ arbitration agreement.

  • Appleyard v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01188-JDB-EGB (W.D. Tenn. June 20, 2018)
    06/20/2018

    Court granted motion to stay pending the outcome of individual arbitration pursuant to 9 USC § 3, finding the claims to be arbitrable.

  • Zacher v. Comcast Cable Communications LLC, No. 17-CV-7256 (N.D. Ill. June 20, 2018)
    06/20/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the agreement entered into by the parties was valid and enforceable and the parties delegated the issue of the arbitration clause’s scope to the arbitrator.

  • Slawson Exploration Company, Inc. v. U.S. Energy Development Corporation, No. 1:17-CV-01248-PAB-KMT (D. Colo. June 20, 2018)
    06/20/2018

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award, finding jurisdiction was proper and failing to find grounds on which to vacate, modify, or correct the award.

  • Amobi v. Brown, No. 1:08-CV-01501-KBJ (D.D.C. June 19, 2018)
    06/19/2018

    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.

  • Campagna v. GGNSC Louisville Hillcreek, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00507-DJH-CHL (W.D. Ky. June 19, 2018)
    06/19/2018

    Court granted in part motion to compel arbitration on all but plaintiff’s wrongful-death claim, finding that the arbitration agreement was neither unconscionable nor invalidly entered into and thus valid.

  • Traf Intercontinental Elektronik-Handels GMbH v. Sonocine, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00672-LRH-WGC (D. Nev. June 19, 2018
    06/19/2018

    Court denied motions to remand and for judgment on the pleadings. Court held that it had jurisdiction under the New York Convention because it concerns an award arising from a dispute and the an alleged legal relationship not entirely between United States citizens.

  • Assad v. Josefsson, No. 2:18-CV-02470-PSG-JPR (C.D. Cal. June 19, 2018
    06/19/2018

    Court denied motion to remand, finding that, while the subject matter of the underlying arbitration was sufficiently connected to the arbitration agreement for removal purposes, the parties did not waive their right to arbitrate and thus removal was not warranted.

  • Grupo Unidos Por El Canal, S.A. v. Autoridad del Canal de Panama, No. 1:17-CV-23996-RNS (S.D. Fla. June 19, 2013
    06/19/2018

    Court granted in part motion to confirm arbitration award, finding that, since petitioners failed to successfully assert one of the seven defenses against enforcement of the ICC award enumerated in Article V of the New York Convention, respondent was entitled to confirmation of the award, but not prejudgment interest. Petitioners’ motion to vacate the award was found to be time-barred under 9 USC 12 and thus denied.

  • Sorensen Companies, Inc. v. B.J. Burns Incorporated, No. 3:17-CV-01095-MMH-JRK (M.D. Fla. June 19, 2018)
    06/19/2018

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award on the basis of a magistrate judge’s report, finding that award was valid and that petitioner’s application for its confirmation was timely.

  • Fielding v. Dolgen, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00561-JAG (E.D. Va. June 19, 2018)
    06/19/2018

    Court granted motion for partial summary judgment, finding that plaintiff’s electronic signature on an arbitration agreement constituted undisputed evidence plaintiff intended to be bound by that agreement.

  • ASARCO LLC v. United Steel, Paper and Forest, No. 2:15-CV-00117-SMM (9th Circ. June 19, 2018)
    06/19/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s order to confirm an arbitration award. Court held that the petitioner conceded the arbitrator had jurisdiction, and that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority and the award did not contravene public policy.

  • Catlin Syndicate 2003 v. Traditional Air Conditioning, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-02406-JFB-AYS (E.D.N.Y. June 18, 2018)
    06/18/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that the arbitration provision was sufficiently broad so as to support a presumption of arbitrability and that plaintiff’s claim was subject to arbitration.

  • Cooper Tire & Rubber Company v. Premium Tire & Parts Corp., No. 3:17-02085-DRD (D.P.R. June 18, 2018)
    06/18/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that a valid and binding arbitration clause existed between the parties.

  • Daley v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-02693-JCM-CWH (9th Cir. June 18, 2018)
    06/18/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to compel arbitration, finding that the parties entered a valid arbitration agreement which encompassed the issue of arbitrability.

  • Miller v. AT&T Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, No. 6:18-CV-06008-SOH (W.D. Ark. June 18, 2018)
    06/18/2018

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award, finding that plaintiff failed to overcome the burden of demonstrating partiality on behalf of the arbitrator, and that the arbitrator’s decision was proper and therefore not subject to vacatur.

  • Liu Luwei v. Phyto Tech Corporation, No. 2:18-CV-02174-JFW-GJS (C.D. Cal. June 18, 2019)
    06/18/2018

    Court granted order to recognize, confirm, and enforce arbitration award, finding that the arbitration agreement was valid between the parties and that, the New York Convention being applicable, court could assert subject matter jurisdiction over the action. Citing approval of the agreement by Chinese regulatory authorities and the arbitral tribunal’s application of Chinese contract law, the court declined to hold the award violated public policy. Court further rejected denial of due process claims, finding that the tribunal neither acted improperly nor exceeded the scope of issues for arbitration.

  • Thomas v. Right Choice Staffing Group, LLC, No. 4:15-CV-10055-LVP-MKM (E.D. Mich. June 18, 2018)
    06/18/2018

    Court denied motion to vacate arbitration award, finding the award to be valid as defendants failed to establish partiality on behalf of the arbitrator.

  • Untershine v. Advanced Call Center Technologies, LLC, No. 18-CV-77 (E.D. Wis. June 18, 2018
    06/18/2018

    Court denied motion to dismiss or stay and compel arbitration, finding that a non-signatory third party could not invoke otherwise valid arbitration and class waiver provisions for its own benefit.

  • Wiatrek v. Flower Foods Inc., No. 5:17-CV-00772-XR (W.D. Tex. June 16, 2018)
    06/16/2018

    Court granted motion to compel individual arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement to be neither illusory nor unconscionable and therefore valid.

  • CBF Industria De Gusa SA v. Amci Holdings Inc., No. 1:13-CV-02581-RWS (S.D.N.Y. June 15, 2018)
    06/15/2018

    Court denied motion to dismiss enforcement of an arbitration award, finding sufficient allegations of fraud or wrong to justify piercing defendants’ corporate veil and establish liability on an alter ego theory. Court held the arbitration agreement was valid because defendants offered no evidence of their incapacity at the time the contracts at issue were entered into.

  • Lindsey v. Punta Vista Bahia SA, No. 2:17-CV-04596-JJT (D. Ariz. June 15, 2018)
    06/15/2018

    Court granted motion to dismiss confirmation of arbitration award, finding that plaintiffs’ only federal claim was time barred under FAA § 207 since three years had elapsed since the award was issued. Court also held that the plaintiffs failed to show the extraordinary circumstances required for equitable tolling. Absent a federal question, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims.

  • Part-Time Faculty Association at Columbia College Chicago v. Columbia College Chicago, No. 17-3492 (7th Cir. June 15, 2018)
    06/15/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed order granting motion to vacate arbitration award, finding that rulings by the National Labor Relations Board take precedence over rulings by an arbitral tribunal.

  • Magno v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-05478 (W.D. Wash. June 14, 2018)
    06/14/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration clause encompassed the dispute at issue and that, despite failure to plead arbitration as an affirmative defense eight month delay in bringing motion to compel arbitration, defendant had not waived its right to arbitrate.

  • Hubbell v. NCR Corporation, No. 2:17-CV-00807-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio June 14, 2018)
    06/14/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that unconscionability challenge was not specific to the delegation clause but rather applied to the agreement as a whole and was therefore to be determined by the arbitrator.

  • Curtis v. Contractor Management Services, LLC, No. 16-2273 (1st Cir. June 14, 2018)
    06/14/2018

    Court of appeals vacated the district court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration and remanded for the district court to reconsider the motion consistent with a recent Supreme Court decision in Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis.

  • United States of America ex. rel. Debra’s Glass Inc. v. The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, No. 8:17-cv-03564-PX (D. Md. June 13, 2018)
    06/13/2018

    Court granted motion to stay pending arbitration, finding that pending arbitration between contractor and subcontractor on payment dispute should be resolved prior to adjudication of Miller Act claim by subcontractor against contractor’s surety for the disputed payment.

  • De Dios v. Brand Energ​y and Infrastructure Services, No. 5:18-CV-04011-MWB (N.D. Iowa June 13, 2018)
    06/13/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that (i) arbitration agreement was not unconscionable since employer agreed to cover most of the costs, and (ii) arbitration agreement in employment application was supported by consideration in the form of the employer’s agreement to consider the application.

  • Pitlor v. Charles Schwab Corporation, No. 8:18-CV-00196-JFB-CRZ (D. Neb. June 13, 2018)
    06/13/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable, and that the arbitration agreement survived the contract.

  • Pitlor v. Charles Schwab Corporation, No. 8:18-CV-00196-JFB-CRZ (D. Neb. June 13, 2018)
    06/13/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that plaintiff’s unconscionability argument was not supported by the facts or any citations to applicable law, and therefore plaintiff failed to carry his burden and demonstrate that arbitration was improper due to unconscionability. Court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration provision could not be enforced if the contract was repudiated and abandoned, as a breach or repudiation of the underlying agreement is not a repudiation of the arbitration provision.

  • J.O.C. Farms, LLC v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, No. 15-2368 (4th Cir. June 13, 2018
    06/13/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order granting motion to dismiss, finding that the arbitrator was properly tasked with determining whether plaintiff timely commenced arbitration, and that the district court properly dismissed the outstanding state law claims.

  • De Dios v. Brand Energy and Infrastructure Services, No. 5:18-CV-04011-MWB (N.D. Iowa June 13, 2018)
    06/13/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that (i) the agreement to arbitrate was not unconscionable due to a display of bargaining power, substantive unfairness, or surprise; and (ii) the agreement to arbitrate was supported by adequate consideration, as the defendant agreed to consider plaintiff’s employment application in exchange for his agreement to arbitrate.

  • Weckesser v. Knight Enterprises S.E., LLC, No. 17-1247 (4th Cir. June 12, 2018)
    06/12/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration, finding, in a de novo review, that where an arbitration rider was signed between an independent contractor and a parent company, a third-party subsidiary of that parent could not avail itself of the agreement.

  • Aliments Krispy Kernels, Inc. v. Nichols Farms, No. 3:13-CV-05995-PGS-DEA (D.N.J. June 12, 2018)
    06/12/2018

    Court denied cross-motions for summary judgment, finding there were material issues of fact as to whether the parties agreed to arbitrate where sales confirmation was never signed by purchaser and there were differing accounts of whether version of confirmation with arbitration clause was used.

  • Winn v. Cucci, No. 16-CV-00043-BAJ-RLB (M.D. La. June 12, 2018)
    06/12/2018

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award, finding that FAA is not an independent grant of federal subject matter jurisdiction, but that dismissed claims could contribute to meeting the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction.

  • Weckesser v. Knight Enterprises S.E., LLC, No. 17-1247 (4th Cir. June 12, 2018)
    06/12/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s rejection of petition to compel arbitration, finding that arbitration agreement was signed with the defendant’s parent company, not the defendant itself, and that the defendant could not enforce it as a third-party beneficiary.

  • Friends for Health:  Supporting the North Shore Health Center v. Paypal, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01542 (N.D. Ill. June 12, 2018)
    06/12/2018

    Court granted motion to stay and compel arbitration, finding that arbitration agreement was formed by acceptance of user agreement containing arbitration provision when opening online account.  As to plaintiff that opened account prior to amendment to user agreement providing for mandatory arbitration, court found that unilateral amendment pursuant to terms of user agreement was enforceable because it merely altered terms of prior dispute resolution provision, rather than furnished a dispute resolution provision for the first time. 

  • Scripps v. Agency for the Performing Arts, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-00381 (M.D. Tenn. June 12, 2018)
    06/12/2018

    Court overruled objection to magistrate judge recommendation in favor of temporary injunction in advance of arbitration, finding that court was deprived of jurisdiction since arbitrator had now been appointed and any motions for temporary injunction could be resolved before the arbitrator.

  • Campbell v. Garcia, No. 1:18-CV-00162 (N.D. Ohio June 12, 2018)
    06/12/2018

    Court rejected motion to dismiss, finding that state court’s prior order requiring arbitration of a different claim under the same agreement did not create issue preclusion since issue was the applicability of the arbitration agreement to a different claim, and because state court had ordered arbitration in a one-sentence order without any reasoning allowing the court to determine what issues had been litigated and decided.

  • J.O.C. Farms, L.L.C. v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, No. 15-2268 (4th Cir. June 13, 2018)
    06/12/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s dismissal of state law claims as barred by arbitrator’s finding that plaintiff did not timely commence arbitration.

  • Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Alemayehu, No. 3:18-CV-00276-JCH (D. Conn. June 12, 2018)
    06/12/2018

    Court denied petition to compel arbitration, finding that arbitration provision in franchise application was unsupported by mutual consideration.

  • Regional Local Union No. 846 v. Gulf Coast Rebar, No. 16-35651 (9th Cir. June 12, 2018)
    06/12/2018

    Court of appeals dismissed appeal of order rejecting motion to compel arbitration, finding that it lacked appellate jurisdiction because the district court had not yet entered a final judgment.

  • Weckesser  v. Knight Enterprises, S.E., LLC, No. 17-1247 (4th Cir. June 12, 2018) 
    06/12/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s refusal to compel arbitration.   Court held that South Carolina contract law required them to enforce a contract as written, and because the arbitration agreement was between plaintiff and defendant’s parent rather than defendant, court could not conclude that plaintiff agreed to arbitrate disputes with defendant.  Court rejected defendant’s contention that it was a third party beneficiary to the arbitration agreement.  Court concluded that the district court had not abused its discretion when refusing to compel arbitration.

  • Unison Co., Ltd. v. Juhl Energy Development, Inc., No. 13-CV-3342-ADM-BRT (D. Minn. June 11, 2018)
    06/11/2018

    Court denied motion to confirm arbitration award, holding that the motion is premature since 90-day period for challenge under Section 12 of the FAA had not yet tolled.

  • Huckaba v. Ref-Chem, L.P., No. 17-50341 (5th Cir. June 11, 2018)
    06/11/2018

    Court of appeals reversed a district court order compelling arbitration because the express language of the agreement required that it be signed by both parties and appellee had not signed it. Court noted that Texas has no presumption in favor of arbitration and that the federal policy in favor of arbitration did not apply because the current matter concerned the validity of the contract.

  • Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers Local Union No. 1, B.A.C.I.U., AFL-CIO v. Heavy Metal Corp., No. 1:17-CV-06816-DLI-RER (E.D.N.Y. June 8, 2018)
    06/08/2018

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award and compel arbitration against respondent in default. As to the petition to confirm, the court found that there was no indication that the award was made arbitrarily, decided contrary to applicable law, or that the tribunal exceeded its authority. As to the petition to compel, the court found that there was an unambiguous agreement to arbitrate and that the respondent had refused to arbitrate additional claims.

  • Sanchez v. Homebridge Financial Services, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01267-AWI-EPG (E.D. Cal. June 8, 2018)
    06/08/2018

    After granting motion to compel arbitration and staying proceedings, court dismissed case without prejudice to arbitration due to plaintiff’s failure to initiate arbitration within the time limit set in its prior order. Court found that plaintiff was responsible for paying arbitration filing fees and that there was no authority for ordering defendant to initiate arbitration.

  • Prospect Funding Holdings (NY), LLC v. Ronald J. Palagi, PC LLC, No. 8:18-CV-00015-JMG-MDN (D. Neb. June 8, 2018)
    06/08/2018

    Court granted motion to delay confirmation of a pair of arbitration awards where defendants alleged they had not received proper notice of either the arbitration proceedings underlying the awards or the awards themselves. Opposing party had emailed petitioners both the notice of arbitration and the award itself. Defendants also filed a cross petition to vacate the award more than three-months after receiving the email notice of the award. Court found an open question existed as to whether, under FAA §12, this untimeliness constituted a waiver of defendant’s arguments to vacate the award.

  • Teamsters Local 439 v. Leprino Foods Company, No. 2:18–CV–0280–MCE–CKD (E.D. Cal. June 8, 2018)
    06/08/2018

    Court granted motion to dismiss, finding that arbitration clause excluded arbitration of the grievance at issue.

  • Zyppah, Inc. v. Allemeier, No. 2:17-CV-02840-JAD-PAL (D. Nev. June 7, 2018)
    06/07/2018

    Court denied motion for attorney’s fees without prejudice, holding that, once arbitration has begun, responsibility for ruling on request for attorney’s fees and costs lies with the arbitrator.

  • Davis v. Red Eye Jack’s Sports Bar, No. 3:17-CV-01111-BEN-JMA (S.D. Cal. June 7, 2018)
    06/07/2018

    Court vacated its preceding order denying motion to compel arbitration in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, finding that an arbitration agreement containing a concerted action waiver now is valid and enforceable.

  • SOTI v. Impartner, No. 2:18-CV-00295-RJS (D. Utah June 7, 2018)
    06/07/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate existed. In granting motion, court held terms of use including arbitration agreement were validly incorporated by reference through URL link in the underlying contract. Court refused to decide on other issues with regard to the contract itself, noting these must be resolved by an arbitrator.

  • Certain Underwriting Members of Lloyds of London v. Insurance Company of the Americas, No. 17-1137-CV (2d Cir. June 7, 2018)
    06/07/2018

    Court of appeals reversed district court’s vacatur of arbitral award for evident partiality under the FAA, holding that a party seeking to vacate an award under § 10(a)(2) of the FAA had to sustain a higher burden to prove evident partiality on the part of a party-appointed arbitrator. The panel remanded the case for a determination by clear and convincing evidence whether the failure by the arbitrator to disclose his relationships violated the contractual requirement of disinterestedness or had a prejudicial impact on the award.

  • Hardy Exploration & Production India v. Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, No. 1:16-CV-00140-RC (D.D.C. June 7, 2018)
    06/07/2018

    Court denied petition to confirm foreign arbitral award that ordered specific performance of contractual obligations against Government of India. Citing the Europcar factors, court first dismissed Government of India’s request to stay proceedings pending the resolution of enforcement proceedings in India. Court then declined to enforce portions of award ordering specific performance and punitive interest, citing Article V of the New York Convention. The court noted that a strong US public policy exists respecting sovereign immunity against orders of specific performance, especially extraterritorially.

  • Arabian Motors Group, W.L.L. v. Ford Motor Company, No. 2:16-CV-13655-MFL-EAS (E.D. Mich. June 6, 2018)
    06/06/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate and granted defendant’s cross motion to confirm ICDR arbitration award pursuant to §§ 9 and 207 of the FAA.

  • Taylor v. Prince, No. 2:18-CV-02053-KHV-GLR (D. Kan. June 6, 2018)
    06/06/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss or compel mediation, ordering a stay of litigation and compelling mediation pursuant to Kansas contract law.  Court found that where parties had tiered dispute resolution clause mandating mediation prior to arbitration, and defendant sought to compel mediation rather than arbitration, the FAA did not apply.

  • Curatola v. TitleMax of Tennessee Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01263-JDB-EGB (W.D. Tenn. June 6, 2018)
    06/06/2018

    Court reversed magistrate judge’s order dismissing motion to compel arbitration and granted defendant’s motion.  Court found that a motion to compel arbitration was to be interpreted as a request for injunctive relief, and thus, the magistrate judge’s order denying the motion was to be reviewed de novo.  Court held, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, that an employment agreement containing an arbitration clause mandating bilateral arbitration was valid and enforceable under the FAA.

  • Mercy Medical Center v. Oregon Nurses Association, No. 16-35435 (9th Cir. June 6, 2018)
    06/06/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed confirmation of arbitration award, finding that the arbitrator looked at and construed the contract and was thus owed significant deference.

  • Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v. Phelps Dunbar, LLP, No. 2:17-CV-05232-JAK (C.D. Cal. Jun. 6, 2018)
    06/06/2018

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of a malpractice claim.  Court found that there was no enforceable arbitration agreement between the parties and therefore no subject matter jurisdiction under the FAA. 

  • Buckley v. Pinnacle Community Services Limited Partnership, 2:16-CV-02326-GMN-PAL (D. Nev. June 6, 2018)
    06/06/2018

    Court dismissed case after determining pursuant to § 3 of the FAA and circuit precedent that the parties no longer warranted a continued stay due to their lack of diligence in pursuing arbitration. The court noted that parties had had more than nineteen months to arbitrate and had been given repeated warnings. The court deemed this delay unreasonable and that it had interfered with the court’s ability to efficiently manage its docket.

  • Gomez v. MLB Enterprises, Corp., No. 1:15-CV-03326-CM (S.D.N.Y. June 5, 2018)
    06/05/2018

    Court granted in part and denied in part cross-motions for summary judgment, finding that, where defendants materially breached the arbitration agreements, they could not subsequently selectively enforce them against plaintiffs.

  • Gramercy Wrecking and Environmental Contractors v. Trucking Employees of North Jersey Welfare Fund, No. 1:17-CV-07101-BMC (E.D.N.Y. June 5, 2018)
    06/05/2018

    Court granted motion to dismiss without prejudice, finding that, although petitioner did not sign collective bargaining agreement containing the arbitration clause supporting jurisdiction, the collective bargaining agreement was incorporated by reference.

  • Young Men’s Christian Association of Honolulu v. Aloha Kai Development LLC, No. 1:18-CV-00086-ACK-KSC (D. Haw. June 5, 2018)
    06/05/2018

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award under Hawaiian Uniform Arbitration Act. Court found that express language in the arbitration agreement was sufficient to defeat presumption that FAA governed enforcement of the arbitration award and that the HUAA applied instead.

  • Pioneer Roofing Organization v. Local Joint Adjustment Smart Board Local Union No. 104, No. 17-15296 (9th Cir. June 4, 2018)
    06/04/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court summary judgment granting labor union’s counterclaim to enforce arbitration award.  Court found that appellant failed to preserve arbitrability issue for judicial review because it had not made any objections or reservations as to jurisdiction or the arbitrator’s authority during the arbitration.  Court also found award did not constitute a manifest disregard of law where nothing in the record demonstrated the arbitrator recognized and ignored controlling law.

  • Rose v. Central USA Wireless, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-02673-SHM (W.D. Tenn. June 4, 2018)
    06/04/2018

    Court dismissed defendant’s motion to vacate an arbitration award and request for oral argument, and granted plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to the FAA.  Court held that none of defendant’s nine asserted affirmative defenses established grounds for vacating the award under the FAA, but rather invited de novo review which the court refused to conduct.

  • Boroditskiy v. European Specialties LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00689-VSB (S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2018)
    06/04/2018

    Court granted petition to stay arbitration where respondents sought to compel petitioners to arbitrate, in their individual capacities, certain claims relating to a distribution agreement.  Court concluded that respondents failed to demonstrate that petitioners either acted as the alter ego of their LLC or that they should be estopped from avoiding arbitration.

  • Lopez v. Kane Beef Processors LLC, No. 2:18-CV-00080 (S.D. Tex. June 4, 2018)
    06/04/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay lawsuit pending arbitration, finding that plaintiff’s employment action alleging statutory violations fell within the scope of a valid agreement to arbitrate between the parties. Court dismissed plaintiff’s argument that defendant was a non-signatory, finding that he had failed to demonstrate that defendant was a separate legal entity from the employer with whom he agreed to arbitrate and that plaintiff had agreed to arbitrator’s determination on arbitrability in that agreement.

  • Crooks v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 3:18-CV-00219-DMS-JLB (S.D. Cal. June 4, 2018)
    06/04/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the parties had delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator and that the assertion of arbitrability was not wholly groundless.

  • Delek Refining, Limited v. Local 202, United Steel, No. 17-40593 (5th Cir. June 1, 2018)
    06/01/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court decision dismissing challenge to arbitration award interpreting a collective bargaining agreement between the parties, finding that a court’s review of arbitral awards interpreting labor agreements is “exceedingly deferential”.  Court thus refused to scrutinize arbitrator’s explanation of award that did not directly contravene the CBA.  Court further granted appellee attorney’s fees for having to defend the award in court, finding that appellant’s challenge was in substance a challenge to the merits, even though it was pled as challenging the arbitrator’s “power to make the award”.

  • Graham v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-03148-CCB (D. Md. June 1, 2018)
    06/01/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel non-class arbitration. Pursuant to the FAA, the court found that a valid written agreement existed, the scope of which covered the dispute in question.  Court also found plaintiff’s arguments, that defendant was not properly assigned the right to arbitrate the dispute and that alternatively defendant itself had assigned the right to arbitrate the dispute to a third party, unavailing by the language of the agreement.

  • Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC v. Walker, No. 2:17-CV-05635-JCJ (E.D. Pa. June 1, 2018)
    06/01/2018

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award and denied respondent’s challenge to the award under FAA § 10(a)(3). Court was not persuaded by assertion that failure to consider respondent’s spoliation claim in a preliminary hearing rendered the hearing fundamentally unfair under this section of the FAA or that the arbitral tribunal’s handling of this spoliation claim amounted to a manifest disregard of law.

  • EGI-VSR LLC v. Coderch Mitjans, No. 1:15-CV-20098-RNS (S.D. Fla. June 1, 2018)
    06/01/2018

    Court granted motion to confirm an award rendered in an arbitration conducted in Chile between a Delaware company and a Chilean citizen.  Pursuant to the Panama Convention, the court found its review of the award was circumscribed, and that the Convention manifested a general pro-enforcement bias. Pursuant to the Inter-American Convention on Letters Rogatory, the court deferred to the determination of the Superior Judicial Tribunal in Brazil that respondent had been properly served with process.  Court dismissed defendant’s arguments as to improper venue, lack of personal jurisdiction, and forum non conveniens.  Finally, the court determined that a Florida statute limiting recognition of out-of-country judgments to monetary judgments did not apply because defendant failed to prove that the final arbitration award was a “judgment.”

  • Gamble v. New England Auto Finance Inc., No. 1:17-CV-02979-LMM (11th Cir. May 31, 2018)
    05/31/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court decision dismissing defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s class action claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  Court found that the agreement to arbitrate did not cover plaintiffs TCPA claim which was based on rights and obligations created by Congress and not the Loan Agreement between the parties.

  • Camillo v. Uber Technologies Inc., No. 1:17-CV-09508-AKH (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2018)
    05/31/2018

    Pursuant to the FAA, court granted defendant’s motions to compel arbitration and to dismiss plaintiff’s class action employment suit on the basis of the arbitration and class waiver clause contained in plaintiff’s agreement with Uber. Court found that the agreement at issue was not procedurally unconscionable and that it was valid and enforceable.

  • Viorel Angheloiu v. Peacehealth, No. 3:17-CV-05891-BHS (W.D. Wash. May 31, 2018)
    05/31/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration and denied plaintiff’s motion to compel discover and to continue.  Court found defendant met its burden under the FAA to compel arbitration and that plaintiff’s argument of procedural unconscionability.

  • Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC v. Deutsch, No. 17-CV-05778-NRB (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2018)
    05/31/2018

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitral award, finding that the defendants had not identified any arbitrator misconduct or manifest disregard of the law that would merit vacatur.

  • Pelligrino v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC, No. 1:17-CV-07865-RA (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2018)
    05/31/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court was unpersuaded by the plaintiff’s argument that he did not consent to a mandatory arbitration agreement that was sent to his email and gave him an opportunity to opt-out because he was on vacation when the email was sent. Court held that the plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of a valid arbitration agreement.

  • Gamble v. New England Auto Finance, No. 17-15343 (11th Cir. May 31, 2018)
    05/31/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to deny defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that the dispute arose under rights granted by a federal law, and was not within the scope of the loan agreement which contained the arbitration provision.

  • Barranco v. 3D Systems Corporation, No. 17-01744 (4th Cir. May 31, 2018)
    05/31/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court order denying appellant’s motion to vacate or modify an arbitration award entered in favor of appellee.  Court found arbitrator’s ruling on a term beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement did not affect his calculation of damages based on three other breaches and that an amendment to the award which contained only minor changes for purposes of clarification did not violate functus officio or AAA Commercial Arbitration Rule 50.

  • Camilo v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-09508-AKH (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2018)
    05/31/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement in question was valid and conscionable. Court also found that the class action waivers in the agreement were valid under second circuit and Supreme Court precedent.

  • Ralph v. Hosseini, No. 3:17-CV-01332-JM-JMA (S.D. Cal. May 31, 2018)
    05/31/2018

    Court had previously deferred ruling on a motion to compel arbitration of a FLSA claim pending Supreme Court’s ruling in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis.  Following Supreme Court’s holding that collective action waivers in arbitration agreements must be enforced in FLSA claims, the court compelled those claims to arbitration.

  • Schmell v. Morgan Stanley & Co., No. 1:17-CV-13080-AET-LHG (D.N.J. May 30, 2018)
    05/30/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of whether plaintiff was properly noticed under the arbitration agreement.  Court found that plaintiff had signed two separate arbitration agreements, and although one provided for the arbitration of questions of arbitrability, this did not permit questions of arbitrability arising under the separate agreement to be submitted to arbitration.

  • Tianjin Port Free Trade Zone International Trade Service Co., Ltd. v. Tiancheng Chempharm, Inc. USA, No. 2:17-CV-04130-AYS (E.D.N.Y. May 30, 2018)
    05/30/2018

    Court confirmed an arbitration award and denied respondent’s motion to dismiss. Court rejected respondent’s arguments that they were not properly noticed of the CIETAC arbitration and that petitioner did not attempt to resolve the dispute before commencing arbitration. Court further found that poisoners argument that the underlying contract was a forgery was a question to be resolved by the arbitral tribunal.

  • Shirk v. Gonzales, No. 1:17-CV-01129-MCA-KK (D.N.M. May 29, 2018)
    05/29/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the FAA could not apply because the transaction did not implicate “interstate commerce” and found this language of the FAA should be read broadly to provide enforcement of all agreements within reach of the commerce clause.

  • Owa v. Fred Meyer Stores Inc., No. 2:16-CV-01236-RAJ (W.D. Wash. May 29, 2018)
    05/29/2018

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award.  Court held that any vacatur sought by plaintiff would be procedurally deficient because plaintiff failed to notice defendants of any challenge to the validity to the award within the three months. Court further found that the record did not support plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitrator’s award of attorney’s fees was in manifest disregard to the law.

  • Sprint Communications Company v. Albany County, New York, No. 1:17-CV-01271-BKS-CFH (N.D.N.Y. May 25, 2018)
    05/25/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to appoint an arbitrator pursuant to § 5 of the FAA.  Court held that congress had enacted § 5 to prevent indefinite delays in the arbitration process, and that the six month delay warranted court intervention and appointment of arbitrators. 

  • New York City District Council of Carpenters v. Namow, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-10098-GHW (S.D.N.Y. May 25, 2018)
    05/25/2018

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award.  Court found no grounds to invalidate the award under the FAA, finding no indication of fraud or dishonesty in procuring the award, and that the arbitrator had not acted in disregard to the law or outside the scope of his broad powers.

  • Marshall v. Rogers, No. 2:18-CV-00078-JAD-CWH (D. Nev. May 24, 2018)
    05/24/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding defendant did not provide sufficient evidence to support its claims.  Pursuant to the FAA, court found a valid arbitration agreement, but could not determine whether the parties had agreed to arbitrate or whether the dispute fell within the agreement’s scope.

  • Williams v. FCA US LLC, No. 2:17-CV-10097-LJM-EAS (E.D. Mich. May 24, 2018)
    05/24/2018

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and denied defendant’s motion to dismiss or motion to strike class allegations in the second amended complaint.  Pursuant to the FAA and the Supreme Court’s decision in Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, the court compelled all but two plaintiffs to arbitrate.

  • Franklin v. H&R Block, No. 4:16-CV-00666-JAR (E.D. Mo. May 23, 2018)

    05/23/2018

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award. Pursuant to the FAA, court found that respondent had not filed any petition to vacate or modify within 90 days of the award and was precluded from raising any defenses.

  • Cardno International PTY, Ltd. v. Merino, No. 1:17-CV-23964-RNS (S.D. Fla. May 23, 2018)
    05/23/2018

    Court granted motion to confirm ICDR arbitration award pursuant to the FAA and the Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration.  Although defendants were not time barred from seeking vacatur, court denied motion to vacate, rejecting defendants’ claims that the tribunal exceeded its authority under §10 of the FAA and lacked jurisdiction over the dispute under Article V of the Convention.  Court rejected petitioner’s motion to enter default judgment against one of the defendants, who died prior to initiation of the confirmation proceedings, concluding that he had not been properly served.

  • Bezek v. NBC Universal, No. 3:17-CV-01087-JCH (D. Conn. May 23, 2018)
    05/23/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and confirm arbitration award, which was issued before the parties finished briefing the motion to compel.  Pursuant to §10 of the FAA, court denied motion to vacate award, rejecting plaintiff’s claims of fraud and undue means, finding no evident partiality or arbitrator misconduct, and concluding arbitrator did not exceed his authority.  Court further denied plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint to add claims of libel and slander, finding the amendment would be futile.

  • Juhasz v. Menard, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-10708-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich. May 23, 2018)
    05/23/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pursuant to the FAA.  Court concluded the arbitral clause was valid and enforceable, and its terms unambiguously mandated arbitration.

  • Williams v. Wellshire Financial Services, LLC, No. 5:18-CV-00219-XR (W.D. Tex. May 23, 2018)
    05/23/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Pursuant to the FAA, court found a valid agreement to arbitrate and determined the claims related to a settlement agreement fell within the scope of the broad language of the arbitral clause.

  • Micula v. Government of Romania, No. 1:17-CV-02332-APM (D.D.C. May 22, 2018)
    05/22/2018

    Court denied Romania’s motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process, finding service was successful under Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention, since Romania had not objected to service by mail.  Court also rejected respondent’s objections to service under Articles 3, 5, and 6 of the Hague Service Convention, determining that petitioners’ counsel was a “competent authority” to forward the service documents to Romania’s Central Authority, finding use of a private courier was proper, and concluding petitioners could not be at fault for failing to secure a certificate of service where Romania twice declined to issue a certificate after being properly served.

  • Qualls v. EOG Resources, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-00666 (S.D. Tex. May 22, 2018)
    05/22/2018

    Court granted motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration and tolled the statute of limitations for Fair Labor Standards Act opt-in plaintiffs during the stay.

  • Alfa Adhesives v. A. Duie Pyle Inc., No. 2:18-CV-03689-JLL-CLW (D.N.J. May. 22, 2018)
    05/22/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed proceedings, finding that a valid arbitration agreement governed the dispute.

  • Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, No. 16-285 (U.S. May 21, 2018)
    05/21/2018

    Supreme Court reversed the judgments of the Seventh and Ninth Circuits and affirmed that of the Fifth Circuit, holding that employer-employee arbitration agreements providing for individual proceedings must be enforced.  Court determined that neither the savings clause of the FAA nor the National Labor Relations Act indicate that arbitration agreements that prohibit collective action proceedings are unenforceable.

  • Himber v. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-05001-JS-GRB (E.D.N.Y. May 21, 2018)
    05/21/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay the action.  Pursuant to the FAA, court found an agreement to arbitrate existed and concluded arbitration was the proper forum for determining whether the dispute fell within the scope of the agreement.

  • Voltage Pictures, LLC v. Gulf Film, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-00696-VAP-SK (C.D. Cal. May 21, 2018)
    05/21/2018

    Court confirmed arbitral award of the IFTA International Arbitration Tribunal and awarded attorneys’ fees and costs in connection with enforcement of the arbitration award and determined the post-judgment interest terms.

  • International Bancshares Corporation v. Ochoa, No. 5:17-CV-00238 (S.D. Tex. May 21, 2018)
    05/21/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration.  Pursuant to the FAA, court found it lacked jurisdiction to intervene in the dispute over the proper number of arbitrators as the arbitration was ongoing and there was no mechanical breakdown in the arbitration process.

  • Spikener v. Olive Garden Holdings, LLC, No. 5:18-CV-00188-DCR (E.D. Ky. May 18, 2018)
    05/18/2018

    Court ordered an evidentiary hearing prior to ruling on defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, and decided that it must determine whether an enforceable arbitration agreement existed not the arbitrator.  Applying the FAA and Kentucky law, court concluded additional facts were needed to determine whether the plaintiff had notice of and assented to the arbitration clause.

  • Smagin v. Yegiazaryan, Nos. 16-56749, 17-56467 (9th Cir. May 18, 2018)

    05/18/2018

    Court of appeals vacated the award of attorneys’ fees and turnover order against respondent but affirmed a post-judgment injunction against him.  Court remanded the attorneys’ fees order holding that it was an abuse of discretion for the district court to award them without any finding of bad faith, vacated the turnover order of assets to satisfy the arbitration award against respondent as premature where resolution of certain questions of Liechtenstein trust law were still spending in the Supreme Court of Liechtenstein, and upheld the post-judgment injunctive relief to freeze assets respondent had received from an unrelated arbitration award given the district court finding that respondent might evade jurisdiction or contravene its judgment by dissipating or moving funds. 

  • Hawk Advisers, Inc. v. Gillenwater, No. 7:18-CV-00145 (W.D. Va. Tex. May 18, 2018)
    05/18/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pursuant to the FAA.  Court found the plain language of the arbitration clause mandated arbitration and interpreted references to litigation therein to mean litigation is available for nonarbitrable disputes or to enforce an arbitral award or compel arbitration.  Court determined the claims fell within the scope of the arbitral agreement, finding the clause did not expressly carve out injunctive relief from its scope and the arbitral agreement was broad, and found arbitration would not be a hollow formality, concluding an award of money damages would be adequate.

  • Windward Development, Inc., v. Thomas, No. 3:17-CV-01762-CSH (D. Conn. May 17, 2018)

    05/17/2018

    Court ordered any party believing federal subject matter jurisdiction existed over their cross petitions to confirm or vacate certain arbitration awards to file a statement of the basis for it.  Court held that the FAA did not provide an independent basis for federal jurisdiction and the record provided no discernable basis for the court to exercise it in the absence of any cited federal statute or diversity of citizenship.

  • Lawson v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc., No. 2:17-CV-1461-KOB (N.D. Ala. May 17, 2018)

    05/17/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff did not dispute that her claims fell within a voluntarily-entered, binding arbitration agreement, and defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate by failing to raise arbitration with the EEOC and did not delay in raising it in the litigation.

  • Mantooth v. Bavaria Inn Restaurant, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01150-WJM-MEH (D. Colo. May 16, 2018)
    05/16/2018

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held plaintiffs’ must submit their claims to arbitration because they did not attack the delegation clause by which the parties intended to delegate arbitrability of their agreements, including the validity of the contracts, unconscionability and class action waiver.  Court further held under Colorado law that the fee-shifting, cost-sharing requirement for certain plaintiffs, and the industry expert arbitrator selection requirement provisions, must be severed from the arbitration clause of the agreements for the effective vindication of plaintiffs’ rights. 

  • Strong v. Davidson, No. 17-4085 (10th Cir. May 16, 2018)
    05/16/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court denial of defendant’s motion to arbitrate.  Court held that district court properly found that defendant, who paid his arbitration fees, but whose co-defendants’ had not, had waived his right to arbitrate by remaining silent while the pending arbitration collapsed for failure of others to pay.  Court held that defendant’s conduct was inconsistent with the right to arbitrate as plaintiff was prejudiced by the defendant’s delay in indicating that he wanted to continue to arbitrate. 

  • Wilson v. Alorica, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-02182-TMP (N.D. Ala. May 16, 2018)
    05/16/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and directed plaintiff to initiate arbitration should he wish to pursue his claims.  Court held a valid agreement to arbitrate plaintiff’s employment claims existed as the FAA only requires “a written provision” for arbitration (9 USC § 2), and under the applicable Alabama state contract law the lack of a “wet” signature was not a barrier to the formation of a contract.  Court held that the defendant’s production of an electronic record demonstrating plaintiff’s unique login and password was used to affirm the arbitration agreement was sufficient to form a valid arbitration agreement.  Court further held that the scope of the arbitration provision was sufficiently broad to encompass plaintiff’s Americans with Disabilities Act claims but that the ultimate scope of the provision would be determined by an arbitrator.

  • Wolkenstein v. Citibank, No. 3:17-CV-01295-ARC (M.D. Pa. May 16, 2018)
    05/16/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that where plaintiff did not dispute that a valid arbitration agreement existed between the parties or that his claims fell under its terms, and showed no prejudice in being required to pursue his claim through arbitration, defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate which it had asserted in its answer filed three months after the filing of the complaint, though the motion to compel arbitration was filed eight months later. 

  • Arnold v. Homeaway, Inc., Seim v. Homeaway, Inc., Nos. 17-50088, 17-50102 (5th Cir. May 15, 2018)
    05/15/2018

    Court of appeals reversed the district court decision in Arnold, affirmed it in Seim, and remanded both cases to compel arbitration.  Court held plaintiff Arnold’s contention that the agreement to arbitrate was illusory under Texas law because it gave the defendant a unilateral right to avoid arbitration at any point without notice was a challenge to the validity of the contract as a whole, rather than the formation of the contract.  Plaintiff Arnold, however, did not specifically challenge the delegation clause, by which the parties clearly and unmistakably intended to delegate questions regarding the validity and scope of the arbitration provision, and therefore under Supreme Court precedent validity challenges must be sent to an arbitrator.  Court further held that plaintiff Seim did not specifically challenge the same delegation clause and therefore district court correctly ordered arbitration but should not have assessed the threshold questions of the scope of the provision. 

  • Benincasa v. Jack Daniels Audi of Upper Saddle River, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-06322-KM-MAH (D.N.J. May 15, 2018)

    05/15/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to refer the matter to arbitration.  Court held that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed despite plaintiff’s “opportunistic post hoc quibbles about the wording of its title” since it was an agreement between plaintiff and his employer by which plaintiff intended to be bound, and plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the agreement.

  • EB Safe, LLC v. Hurley, No. 1:17-CV-06163-ALC (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2018)
    05/15/2018

    Court denied petitioner’s motion to vacate arbitral award and denied respondent’s motion for attorneys’ fees.  Court held that the arbitral decision did not reflect a “manifest disregard of the evidence” under Delaware law, which was not a proper basis for vacatur as courts should not engage in an impermissible reassessment of the evidentiary record, and was without merit as panel cited the correct Delaware laws.  Court further held that the language of the parties’ agreement reflected that expenses were intended to be limited to those incurred during the arbitration, not thereafter, and there was no equitable bases for awarding attorneys’ fees to respondent.

  • Smith v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., No. 4:18-CV-00195-A (N.D. Tex. May 15, 2018)
    05/15/2018

    Court granted defendant’s unopposed motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff’s claim was subject to an arbitration agreement signed by plaintiff when defendant employed her.

  • Abugeith v. Flowers Foods, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-02934 (S. D. Tex. May 15, 2015)
    05/15/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel individual arbitration.  Court held that plaintiffs entered into a binding and valid arbitration agreement with an enforceable class-action waiver and that plaintiffs did not specifically challenge the enforceable delegation clause submitting issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

  • New York City & Vicinity District Council of Carpenters v. S & N Builders, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-02911-JMF (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2018)
    05/15/2018

    Court granted petitioner’s unopposed motion to confirm an arbitration award.  Court held there was no genuine issue of fact precluding summary judgment as to all portions of the Award where the arbitrator’s decision provided justification for the award and no reason existed to vacate it.

  • Cody v. Chase Professionals, No. 5:18-CV-06025-ODS (W.D. Mo. May 15, 2018)
    05/15/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held there was no mutual assent to the arbitration agreement where plaintiff signed the employment contract but defendant failed to provide an explanation for why one of its representative’s did not.

  • AJU Small but Great Fund 5 v. Apache Golf, Inc., No. 8:17-CV-01063-DOC-KES (C.D. Cal. May 15, 2018)
    05/15/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s petition to confirm arbitral award rendered by the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board.

  • Iysheh v. Cellular Sales of Tennessee, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00542-TWP (E.D. Tenn. May 14, 2018)
    05/14/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff presented no evidence that the agreement to arbitrate lacked mutual assent where agreement contained a plain and bold warning about the arbitration provision that plaintiff accepted while in defendant’s employ, that the agreement was neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable, and that plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the agreement to arbitrate.   Court further held that the JAMS rules were not procedurally unconscionable or that the arbitration would be prohibitively costly to plaintiff.

  • Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. House, No. 17-60164 (5th Cir. May 14, 2018)

    05/14/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s grant of motion to compel arbitration.  Though some parties were not signatories to the arbitration agreement, and Mississippi law generally does not permit non-signatories to enforce an arbitration agreement, court held that an exception exists for “substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct.”  Court also held that the parties had agreed to delegate questions regarding arbitrability to the arbitrator by incorporating the JAMS rules into their agreement.

  • Ceder v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00422-NT (D. Me. May 14, 2018)
    05/14/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s Maine Human Rights Act claims of sexual harassment, sex discrimination, and retaliation.  Court held that plaintiff employee signed agreement to arbitrate, regardless of whether plaintiff remembered reading it as only assent to be bound was required, that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate, and that all claims were arbitrable.

  • Samsung Electronics America, Inc., v. Ramirez, No. 1:17-CV-01462-AWI-SAB (E.D. Cal. May 14, 2018)

    05/14/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration and defendant’s motion to stay federal proceedings in favor of defendant’s state court proceedings.  Court held that it was obliged to exercise jurisdiction as plaintiff was entitled to bring a petition to compel arbitration in federal court, though plaintiff appeared to file after defendant had voluntarily dismissed a state court filing and prior to defendant’s refiling in California state court.  Court also held that the arbitration agreement was not enforceable as the consumer was not on notice of the contractual nature of the arbitration provision that was provided within a product guidebook for the exploding telephone. 

  • Terlizzi v. Altitude Marketing, Inc. No. 1:16-CV-01712-WJM-STV (D. Co. May 14, 2018)
    05/14/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that an arbitration agreement existed between the parties that governed the disputes at issue, referred the parties to arbitration, and stayed the court proceedings.  Court held that plaintiffs had accepted by their conduct an agreement containing an arbitration clause which assigned questions of whether the clause was enforceable to the arbitrator.

  • Castro v. ABM Industries, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-03026-YGR (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2018)
    05/14/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that defendant had not waived its rights to arbitrate even though it did not notify plaintiffs until nearly two years after the collective bargaining agreements at issue became effective and three years after initiation of the litigation in which both parties had engaged.  Court further held that the arbitration clause in the collective bargaining agreements applied only to claims arising after the effective date of the relevant agreements.

  • Nguyen v. MarketSource, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-02063-AJB-JLB (S.D. Cal. May 11, 2018)

    05/11/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay all proceedings pending anticipated U.S. Supreme Court ruling on which the matter before the court depended.  Court declined to consider motion until Supreme Court considered circuit split of whether an employment agreement requiring an employee and employer to resolve employment disputes through individual arbitration is enforceable under the FAA. 

  • Reyes v. Gracefully, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-09328-VEC (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2018)
    05/11/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff signed the arbitration agreement, plaintiff’s claims fell within its scope, and the agreement was enforceable notwithstanding plaintiff’s assertion that he did not have time to examine it, his alleged inability to read or understand English, and that the employment was conditioned on acceptance of the agreement.  Court also severed a 60-day notification period from the agreement as it would prevent the “effective vindication” of plaintiff’s rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

  • Wilson v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. 3:17-CV-2054-SI (D. Or. May 11, 2018)
    05/11/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the arbitration agreement language applied to claims existing before plaintiff entered into the agreement, and that the agreement was enforceable and not void as unconscionable.

  • State of Hawaii v. United States Marine Corps, No. 1:18-CV-00128-LEK-KJM (D. Haw. May 11, 2018)

    05/11/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order to maintain the status quo until the arbitration panel renders its decision.  Court held that plaintiff made a timely request for arbitration, would be able to have an arbitration panel consider its challenges, was likely to succeed on the merits, and that the balance of equities favored granting the TRO as plaintiff would face a concrete, imminent and severe injury from great financial harm that would be irreparable as the Marine Corps’ sovereign immunity would preclude the plaintiff from recovering any monetary damages while the arbitration was pending, whereas any injury to the Marine Corps would be primarily economic.

  • Gonsales v. Acosta, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-05767-VC (N.D. Cal. May 11, 2018)
    05/11/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Plaintiff did not show that the arbitration agreement was procedurally or substantively unconscionable.

  • Noye v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 1:15-CV-02382-YK (M.D. Pa. May 11, 2018)
    05/11/2018

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff was not estopped from avoiding arbitration when defendant, a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, had not shown that equitable estoppel applied to plaintiff’s claims as they were not “intimately founded in and intertwined with the underlying contract obligations,” even if the court were to find that a close relationship existed between the defendant entities.

  • Flores v. Dignity Health, No. 2:18-CV-02471-JFW-AGR (C.D. Cal. May 11, 2018)

    05/11/2018

    Court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss petition to confirm an arbitration award without leave to amend.  Court held that petitioner, an employee and third party beneficiary of the agreement, was not a party to the arbitration and therefore lacked standing under California law to petition the court to confirm the arbitration award. 

  • Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. 16-16820 (11th Cir. May 10, 2018)
    05/10/2018

    Court of appeals vacated the district court’s decision that the defendant had waived its right to compel arbitration against unnamed plaintiffs. In conducting a two-part inquiry to determine whether the defendant waived its right to compel arbitration, the court found that the defendant had not acted inconsistently with it arbitration rights and its actions did not prejudice the other parties. Court remanded the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with its opinion.

  • Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Cutting Edge Services Limited, No. 3:18-CV-00735-JZ (N.D. Ohio May 10, 2018)
    05/10/2018

    Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order.  Court concluded that the requirements for personal jurisdiction over the defendant was satisfied, both to preserve the bargained-for benefit of arbitration and based on the defendant’s contacts with the forum state.  Court also concluded that it should enforce the noncompetition agreement because doing so would not substantially harm the defendant, but it would not compel additional disclosures because plaintiff would not be irreparably harmed absent the additional disclosures it sought.

  • Cooperativa Agraria Industrial Naranjillo Ltda. v. Transmar Commodity Group Ltd., No. 16-3532 (2d Cir. May 9, 2018)
    05/09/2018

    Court of appeals vacated and remanded the district court’s decision to vacate an arbitration award under §10(a)(4) of the FAA. Court held that the district court erred by relying on New York Law and not the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG); and erred as a matter of law by relying primarily on the face of the contract and the document allegedly incorporated by reference, whereby it should have also considered extrinsic evidence: “Because additional fact finding will be required in order to adduce such evidence, the district court abused its discretion in failing to allow discovery, hold an evidentiary hearing, or both.”

  • Southside Hospital v. New York State Nurses Association, No. 17-0990 (2d Cir. May 9, 2018)
    05/09/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed the judgement of the district court to confirm an arbitral award in favor of the respondent-appellee. Court held that, because the parties’ agreement expressly incorporated the AAA Arbitration Rules, they delegated the power to decide issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator. In that context, there was nothing in what the arbitrator did that would require the court to abandon the substantial deference accorded to an arbitrator’s decision.

  • Marshall Square, LLC v. Bette, No. 5:17-CV-00425-M (W.D. Okla. May 8, 2018)
    05/08/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion for an expedited protective order staying discovery pending a ruling on a motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the interests of judicial economy would be advanced by a temporary stay of discovery, particularly in circumstances where the motion to compel arbitration could dispose of the entire action.

  • Delgado v. Ally Financial, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-02189-BEN-JMA (S.D. Cal. May 8, 2018)
    05/08/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss action, finding that the parties entered into an arbitration agreement and the claims at issue fall within the agreement’s scope. Additionally, the court held that a bankruptcy discharge does not render an arbitration agreement unenforceable since such extinguishes the debtor’s obligation to pay, but the other contractual provisions, including the arbitration agreement, remain enforceable.

  • Castro v. Castro-Harrison, No. 3:16-CV-02731-CCC (D.P.R. May 8, 2018)
    05/08/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings, finding that the plaintiff’s claims are arbitrable under the subject arbitration agreement. Court also found that the non-signatory’s claims were “intertwined” with the contract at issue, and therefore the plaintiff was equitably estopped from avoid the arbitration agreement contained therein.

  • Key Contracting, Inc. v. Contech International, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-01599-SI (D. Or. May 7, 2018)
    05/07/2018

    Court granted motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to stay proceedings and compel arbitration. Court held that, although the plaintiffs are non-signatories to the arbitration agreement, their claims rely are intertwined with and arise out of the contact containing the arbitration agreement. As such, the defendants may therefore rely on the agreement’s arbitration provision to compel arbitration of the plaintiffs’ claims.

  • Viehweg v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 3:17-CV-03140-SEM-TSH (C.D. Ill. May 7, 2018)
    05/07/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings because plaintiff’s defamation claims are not subject or related to the arbitration agreement and therefore do not fall within its scope.

  • Caporicci U.S.A. Corp. v. Prada S.p.A., No. 1:18-CV-20859-CMA (S.D. Fla. May 7, 2018)
    05/07/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration under the New York Convention. Court held that the defendants satisfied the four jurisdictional prerequisites under the New York Convention – (1) the arbitration agreement was in writing; (2) the arbitration agreement provided for arbitration in the territory of a signatory to the Convention; (3) the arbitration agreement arises out of a commercial relationship; and (4) one or more of the parties is not an American citizen – to compel arbitration of the dispute to the Chamber of National and International Arbitration in Milan.

  • Perkins Delaware, LLC v. MF Cornhusker Member, LLC, No. 8:17-CV-00332-RFR-CRZ (D. Neb. May 6, 2018)
    05/06/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff’s claims are beyond the scope of the arbitration provision and are not subject to arbitration absent the current and mutual consent of the parties.

  • Alixander v. Group Health of Washington, No. 2:17-CV-01224-RSL (W.D. Wash. May 4, 2018)
    05/04/2018

    Court denied motions to dismiss or compel arbitration, finding that the court must, in first instance, determine (a) whether a valid arbitration agreement exists and (b) whether the particular dispute falls within the scope of that agreement. Here, while there is a valid arbitration agreement, the plaintiff’s statutory claims do not fall within the scope of the agreement.

  • Giraud v. Woof Gang Bakery, Inc., No. 8:17-CV-02442-RAL-AEP (M.D. Fla. May 3, 2018)
    05/03/2018

    Court adopted the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that (i) plaintiffs failed to show why prejudice would result from compelling the arbitral claims of the designated four plaintiffs; (ii) the arbitration agreement covered any controversy over the construction or application of the agreement even though it did not include the language “arising out of”; and (iii) nothing indicated that the agreement was unconscionable.

  • Sung v. Sacor Financial, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01317-ERK-VMS (E.D.N.Y. May. 2, 2018)
    05/02/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding frivolous plaintiff’s argument that he was not bound thereby and, in any case, determining that the plaintiff was estopped from making that argument having relied on the agreement elsewhere.   Court declined that any right to arbitration was waived, holding that there was no evidence of intent to do so or  any prejudicial delay.

  • Robinson v. OnStar, LLC, No. 16-56412 (9th Cir. May 1, 2018)
    05/01/2018

    Court of appeals amended prior memorandum disposition filed on March 15, 2018, and with those amendments denied the petition for panel rehearing.  Court reversed and remanded district court’s dismissal of plaintiff-appellant’s complaint on the basis of an arbitration agreement.   Court of appeals held that the parties’ agreement when formed did not include an arbitration provision, and defendant’s subsequent inclusion of one by mailing was an offer to modify the agreement, which the plaintiff did not accept by retaining the service to which plaintiff was entitled under the original agreement. 

  • Schoemehl v. Unwin, No. 4:18-CV-00031-JAR (W.D. Mo. May 1, 2018)
    05/01/2018

    Court granted motions to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings. Court held that, because the  plaintiff argued that the entire contract was fraudulently induced, and not just the arbitration clause by itself, the FAA requires a claim to be submitted to arbitration.

  • Kung v. Experian Information Solutions Inc., No. 3:18-CV-00452-WHA (N.D. Cal. May 1, 2018)
    05/01/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the parties’ agreement  constituted interstate commerce and, thus, the FAA, and not the California Arbitration Act, governs the parties’ arbitration agreement.  Additionally, the “gateway” issue of arbitrability was “clearly and unmistakably” delegated to the arbitrator per the inclusion of AAA Rule 7(a) in the parties’ arbitration agreement.

  • Peregrine Falcon, LLC  v. Piaggio America, Inc., No. 16-CV-35773 (9th Cir. Apr. 26, 2018)
    04/26/2018

    Court of appeals confirmed district court’s denial of appellant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or in the alternative to compel arbitration. Court found that non-signatory respondent was not a party to the arbitration clause, but was a third party beneficiary and had not consented to arbitration.

  • Bowie’s Priority Care Pharmacy L.L.C. v. CaremarkPCS, L.L.C., No. 6:18-CV-00300-LSC (N.D. Al. Apr. 26, 2018)
    04/26/2018

    Court granted motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration. Court found a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate existed under Alabama law despite plaintiff’s argument that it had not signed the contract. Court reasoned that plaintiff revealed through its conduct and behavior that it had adopted the contract.

  • Edwards v. Doordash, Inc., No. 17-CV-20082 (5th Cir. Apr. 25, 2018)
    04/25/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order granting a motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the district court did not err in finding that a challenge to the validity of an arbitration agreement should be decided by arbitration when that agreement delegates questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

  • Sakyi  v. Estee Lauder Companies, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01863-BAH (D.D.C. Apr. 25, 2018)
    04/25/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.  Court found that a valid arbitration agreement existed as to one defendant, and that the other defendants were able to enforce the agreement based on equitable estoppel since they sought to resolve issues intertwined with the agreement. Court further held that the arbitration clause delegated “gateway” questions of arbitrability, such as class arbitration, or plaintiff’s status as an employee, to the arbitrator.

  • Arabian Motors Group W.L.L. v. Ford Motor Company, No. 2:16-CV-13655-MFL-EAS (E.D. Mich. Apr. 25, 2018)
    04/25/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate arbitration award and granted defendant’s cross-motion to confirm arbitration award. Court held the arbitrator did not make any error – and certainly did not show a “manifest disregard for the law” – when, like the court, the arbitrator concluded that the Fairness Act did not apply to the parties’ contract and when, based upon that conclusion, the arbitrator rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction.

  • Trustees of the Northeast Carpenters Health, Pension, Annuity, Apprenticeship, and Labor Management Cooperation Funds v. Architectural Building & Design Inc., No. 2:17-CV-05968-ADS-SIL (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2018)
    04/24/2018

    Court granted petitioners unopposed motion to confirm award.  Court treated the unanswered motion as an unopposed summary judgment motion and found no issues of material fact, and that petitioners were entitled to confirmation of the award.

  • Farrell v. Road Ready Used Cars, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-02030-JCH (D. Conn. Apr. 24, 2018)
    04/24/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding the dispute was governed by a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement. While plaintiff argued that the contract containing the arbitration agreement was superseded by a contract without an arbitration clause, the court found that plaintiff’s claims relied on the original contract and thus defendants could avail themselves of the arbitration clause.

  • Republic of Kazakhstan v. Stati, No. 1:17-CV-02067-ABJ (D.D.C. Apr. 24, 2018)
    04/24/2018

    Republic of Kazakhstan brought a RICO claim against a group of defendants alleging that defendants had obtained a foreign arbitral award through fraud and civil conspiracy.  While a clerk had entered default judgment against two defendants who failed to respond, the court granted the motion to vacate default judgment of these two defendants finding, among other things, that the complaint fails to allege a prima facie RICO claim because the majority of the activity was lawful and occurred outside of the United States.

  • Zyppah, Inc. v. Allemeier, No. 2:17-CV-02840-JAD-PAL (D. Nev. Apr. 24, 2018)
    04/24/2018

    Court dismissed petition to compel arbitration in Nevada and enjoin arbitration in California. Court found that petitioner was not an “aggrieved” party under the FAA because opposing party had not “failed, neglected, or refused to arbitrate,” and therefore could not compel arbitration. Court further found that the issue of venue was committed to the arbitrators.

  • Sabre GLBL, Inc.  v. Shan, No. 2:15-CV-08900-WJM-MF (D.N.J. Apr. 23, 2018)
    04/23/2018

    Court confirmed an award for damages and injunctive relief but vacated an award of attorneys’ fees. Court found the arbitrator “exceeded his power” under §10 of the FAA because the parties’ agreement explicitly stated each party would bear their own attorneys’ fees.

  • Britto v. St. Joseph Health Services of Rhode Island, No. 1:17-CV-00234-WES-LDA (D.R.I. Apr. 23, 2018)
    04/23/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable.  Court held that the mutual promise to arbitrate was not illusory despite employer’s right to unilaterally change the terms of the agreement, and that continued employment was adequate consideration to support the agreement.

  • MD Helicopters v. The Boeing Company, No. 2:17-CV-02598-JAT (D. Ariz. Apr. 23, 2018)
    04/23/2018

    Court dismissed certain counterclaims pursuant to the FAA, finding that they fell within the scope of an enforceable arbitration agreement.  Court rejected the argument that subsequent agreements superseded the arbitration agreement.  While the court dismissed the claims, it did not compel arbitration.

  • Inception Mining  v. Danzig, LTD., No. 2:17-CV-00944-DN (D. Utah Apr. 23, 2018)
    04/23/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss in favor of an ongoing arbitration in Boston.  Although the arbitration agreement required the arbitration to be held in Salt Lake City, the court found that issues of arbitrability were delegated to the arbitrator and therefore the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining portion of claims.

  • Whitlow v. Crescent Consulting, LLC., No. 5:16-CV-01330-R (W.D. Okla. Apr. 23, 2018)
    04/23/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration.  Court found the agreement to be enforceable despite plaintiff’s arguments that fee-splitting provision rendered arbitration agreement unenforceable, and that the agreement was invalid for want of consideration.

  • American Trucking and Transportation Insurance Company v. Nelson, No. 9:16-CV-00160-DLC (D. Mont. Apr. 20, 2018)
    04/20/2018

    Court denied defendant insurer’s motion to compel arbitration finding, pursuant to Montana law, that by failing initially to defend the insured it is later estopped from asserting a right to arbitrate under an otherwise enforceable arbitration agreement.

  • MHA, LLC v. UnitedHealth Group Inc., et al., No. 2:17-CV-02759-ES-JAD (D.N.J. Apr. 20, 2018)
    04/20/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court noted that derivative claims are arbitrable where the parties’ agreement demonstrates an intent to arbitrate such claims.  Moreover, plaintiff was asserting first-party and not third-party claims.

  • McCurdy v. Virginia College, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00562-TJC-JBT (M.D. Fla. Apr. 19, 2018)
    04/19/2018

    Court adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge to deny plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitration award.  Magistrate judge found that (i) the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law by ignoring the enrollment and tuition agreement between the parties, having noted in the award that the agreement was offered as an exhibit; (ii) the arbitrator did not erroneously apply Florida law rather than Alabama law, as the arbitrator analyzed the claim under both and found it deficient under both; (iii) § 10(a)(3) of the FAA does not warrant vacatur where the arbitrator merely made an erroneous discovery or evidentiary ruling, and plaintiff failed to show any bad faith or affirmative conduct that would have deprived her of a fundamentally fair proceeding.

  • MEMC II, LLC v. Cannon Storage Systems, Inc., No. 5:18-CV-00143-C (W.D. Okla. Apr. 19, 2018)
    04/19/2018

    Court denied plaintiffs’ motion and application for relief regarding an arbitration award.  Court found that the arbitrator’s conclusions in the award were well within her purview as the fact finder, and she was not exceeding her powers or dispensing her own brand of justice by awarding damages for what the arbitrator found to be a breach of the parties’ contract.

  • Gomez v. PDS Tech, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-12351-WJM-MF (D.N.J. Apr. 19, 2018)
    04/19/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that (i) plaintiff had not responded with additional facts that placed the agreement to arbitrate in issue; (ii) the agreement was unquestionably subject to federal law; (iii) plaintiff’s claims fell under the scope of the agreement; and (iv) defendants were third-party beneficiaries to the agreement, so plaintiff’s claims against them were subject to the arbitration clause.

  • MEMC II LLC v. Cannon Storage Systems Inc., No. 5:18-CV-00143-C (W.D. Okla. Apr. 19, 2018)
    04/19/2018

    Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for relief regarding an arbitration award and, in doing so, refused to vacate or disturb the award. Court held that the arbitrator did not exceed her power or dispense with her own brand of justice by awarding damages to the defendant and that she acted within the scope of contractual delegated authority.

  • Tribal Casino Gaming Enterprise v. W.G. Yates & Sons Construction Co., No. 1:16-CV-00132-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C. Apr. 18, 2018)
    04/18/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm an arbitration award and ordered plaintiff to file a satisfaction of judgment.  Defendant had asked the court to confirm the award but dismiss the action because defendant had already paid the award.  Court explained that this is not allowed under the FAA, which requires the court to confirm the award and docket the judgment.

  • Teschendorf v. RIIS, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-13967-AC-SDD (E.D. Mich. Apr. 18, 2018)
    04/18/2018

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration agreement did not constitute a binding contract because it explicitly said it did not create a binding contract.  Additionally, the promise to arbitrate was illusory since the agreement allowed the company to unilaterally change the handbook containing the arbitration agreement.

  • Bea Mountain Mining Corp. v. International Construction & Engineering (Seychelles), No. 1:17-CV-01374-LO-MSN (E.D. Va. Apr. 18, 2018)
    04/18/2018

    Court adopted the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge to grant plaintiff’s motion for default judgment.  Magistrate judge concluded that none of the grounds for refusal or deferral of recognition applied, and therefore the court should confirm the award pursuant to the court’s authority under the New York Convention and 9 USC § 207.

  • Voltage Pictures, LLC v. Gulf Film, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-00696-VAP-SK (C.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2018)
    04/17/2018

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award, finding no basis to vacate, modify, or correct the award.  Court concluded that (i) the arbitrator did not exceed her authority by rejecting respondent’s demand for offsetting credits or funds owed by plaintiffs; (ii) the arbitrator did not exceed her authority by rejecting respondent’s argument regarding waiver and estoppel; and (iii) respondent was not denied a fundamentally fair hearing.

  • Lynch v. SSC Glen Burnie Operating Co., LLC, No. 1:17-CV-01328-JKB (D. Md. Apr. 17, 2018)
    04/17/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the arbitration agreement was valid and defendant did not waive its right to enforce.  Court found that (i) defendant presented sufficient evidence to authenticate the alleged arbitration agreement by presenting an arbitration agreement that was signed by both parties; (ii) plaintiffs failed to show that one of the signatories was cognitively impaired when signing the agreement; (iii) defendant did not engage in much delay in the case; and (iv) some degree of participation in a judicial proceeding is acceptable before a party will be deemed to have waived its right to arbitrate.

  • Katz v. Cellco Partnership, No. 7:12-CV-09193-VB (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2018)
    04/17/2018

    Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion to partially confirm and partially vacate the arbitrator’s decisions of October 28, 2016 and June 29, 2017.  Court held that (i) the arbitrator did not exceed his authority by ruling that New York General Business Law Section 349 does not permit general injunctive relief; (ii) the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law by holding that plaintiff was not entitled to general injunctive relief; (iii) the arbitrator did not exceed his authority by awarding attorney’s fees; (iv) the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law by ruling that defendant must pay plaintiff $1,500 without interest; (iv) the arbitrator was not guilty of misconduct by denying plaintiff the right to take limited discovery and then opining that plaintiff wanted discovery so that he could use it in another case against defendant; and (iv) plaintiff failed to show that there was evident partiality on the part of the arbitrator because defendant paid his fees.

  • Aralar v. Scott McRae Automotive Group, LLLP, No. 3:16-CV-00146-TJC-JBT (M.D. Fla. Apr. 17, 2018)
    04/17/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitration award.  Court explained that the previously recognized non-statutory grounds for vacatur are no longer viable, and the court’s authority to vacate an arbitration decision is narrowly limited to the four circumstances outlined in the FAA.  Court concluded that the arbitrator’s decision did not contravene any of the FAA’s enumerated vacatur justifications, and therefore the court could not disturb it.

  • Aptim Corp. v. McCall, No. 17-30772 (5th Cir. Apr. 17, 2018)
    04/17/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court decision to compel arbitration and stay the state-court proceeding.  Court concluded that plaintiff did not waive its arbitration rights as it did not substantially invoke the judicial process, having filed nothing regarding the merits or asking for damages.  Additionally, defendant could not demonstrate the time, expense, or disadvantage in litigating position required to show the prejudice necessary for waiver.

  • Brown v. Charter Communications, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00670-LJO-JLT (E.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2018)
    04/16/2018

    Court adopted in full the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations to deny defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Magistrate judge had determined that the agreement plaintiff signed contained a valid arbitration agreement, but this agreement did not apply to plaintiff by virtue of a carve-out notice provision.

  • XPO Last Mile, Inc. v. Anessa’s Transport Inc., No. 3:18-CV-00709-SK (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2018)
    04/16/2018

    Court directed petitioner to file a response showing cause why the matter should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Petitioner sought to confirm an arbitration award that provided the respondent with nothing.  Court explained that, to establish diversity jurisdiction, plaintiff needed to show that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.  Court held that, since neither party was seeking to reopen the arbitration proceedings, the amount in controversy was the amount of the arbitration award (zero) rather than the amount in controversy in the underlying arbitration. 

  • Kelleher v. Dream Catcher, L.L.C., No. 17-7104 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 16, 2018)
    04/16/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of motion to stay and compel arbitration, finding that the right to arbitrate was forfeited when defendant filed an answer rather than a motion to dismiss and did not invoke its right to arbitrate in the answer.

  • Krogstadt v. Loan Payment Administration LLC, No. 2:16-CV-00465-APG-CWH (D. Nev. Apr. 13, 2017)
    04/13/2018

    Court granted third-party defendant’s motion to dismiss claims because they were covered by a valid arbitration agreement.  Court rejected third-party plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration provision was invalid because of a class-action waiver.

  • Tennessee Tractor, LLC v. WH Administrators, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-02829-STA-EGB (W.D. Tenn. Apr. 13, 2018)
    04/13/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s order granting in part and denying in part defendant’s third motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that defendant had, at best, satisfied plaintiffs’ burden by creating a genuine dispute of fact as to whether plaintiffs had sufficient access to the documents to accept their terms.

  • In re Application of Pola Maritime Ltd., No. 4:16-CV-00333-WTM-GRS (S.D. Ga. Apr. 13, 2018)
    04/13/2018

    Court overruled respondents’ objection to magistrate judge’s order.  Court concluded that the order at issue was procedural, and therefore the court’s review was governed by FRCP Rule 72, which requires modification or set aside of the parts of the order that are clearly erroneous or contrary to law.  Court held that it was unable to conclude that the magistrate judge’s order was either a clear error or contrary to law.

  • Kabba v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., No. 17-1595 (4th Cir. Apr. 13, 2018)
    04/13/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s refusal to compel arbitration on summary judgment, agreeing that the parties had not clearly manifested their intent to delegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator and that genuine questions of material fact precluded summary judgment on this question by the court itself.

  • Caldarera & Company, Inc. v. Complex Management, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00917-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss. Apr. 13, 2018)
    04/13/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that both defendants were bound by an agreement to arbitrate, the second – though a non-signatory – through its subsequent ratification of the overall contract through its actions.  Court also rejected defendants’ waiver argument.

  • Appel v. Concierge Auctions, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-02263-BAS-MDD (S.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2018)
    04/13/2018

    Court granted in part motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings.  Court ruled that the claims sufficiently touched on interstate commerce to fall under the FAA and that the parties delegated questions of arbitrability by incorporating AAA rules into their agreement, rejecting the plaintiffs’ formation and unconscionability arguments as to the alleged unenforceability of the agreement.  Court noted that it had power to compel arbitration only in its district and held this to be an adequate alternative to the relief requested.

  • Parkridge Limited v. Indyzen, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-07387-JSW (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2018)
    04/13/2018

    Court granted defendant’s petition to compel arbitration. Court found that the non-signatories were sufficiently interrelated and interdependent on conduct governed by the agreement containing the arbitration provision. Accordingly, court held that the doctrine of collateral estoppel enabled it to find that the non-signatories may be bound by the agreement despite not having signed it.

  • Namisnak v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 17-CV-06124-RS (N.D. Cal. April 13, 2018)
    04/13/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration for claims against non-parties to the arbitration agreement, holding that equitable estoppel could not enforce an arbitration agreement against a non-signatory. Court granted motion to compel arbitration for claims against party to the arbitration agreement, holding that the agreement was enforceable and the dispute fell within the scope of the agreement.

  • Fuller v. Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-07901 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 11, 2018)
    04/11/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings, finding that an arbitration agreement existed, had been validly assigned, and had covered the scope of the dispute.  Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the defendants had waived their right to arbitration.

  • Wells Fargo Clearing Services, LLC v. Foster, No. 3:18-CV-00032-MMD-VPC (D. Nev. Apr. 11, 2018)
    04/11/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration as moot because the plaintiff had already commenced a FINRA arbitration and granted motion to stay proceedings.

  • Myrvold v. Raibow Fiberglass & Boat Repair, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00245-SLG (D. Alaska Apr. 11, 2018)
    04/11/2018

    Court interpreted the defendant’s motion to dismiss as a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA and denied it.  Court noted that the question of whether a valid arbitration agreement existed was disputed by the parties, who therefore had to present evidence for the court to evaluate before deciding whether arbitration was proper.

  • Cristo v. The Charles Schwab Corporation, No. 3:17-CV-01843-GPC-MDD (S.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2018)
    04/11/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings.  Court held that the plaintiff’s signed application constituted a valid arbitration agreement between the parties and that it applied to all of the plaintiff’s claims.  Court further held that although the plaintiff demonstrated a low level of procedural unconscionability in the contract, he did not demonstrate any substantive unconscionability and therefore could not evade arbitration.

  • Pompliano v. Snap, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-03664-DMG-JPR (C.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2018)
    04/11/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, concluding that: (i) the parties’ dispute plainly fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement; (ii) the delegation clause was neither ambiguous nor unconscionable; and (iii) the agreement as a whole was not unconscionable.

  • DeMidio v. REV Recreation Group, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00326-WCL-SLC (N.D. Ind. Apr. 10, 2018)
    04/10/2018

    Court rejected motion to compel arbitration, finding that there was no valid arbitration agreement among the parties where the document containing the provision was not provided to the claimants until after they executed the sales agreement.

  • Anderson v. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society, No. 6:18-CV-02008-MWB (N.D. Iowa Apr. 10, 2018)
    04/10/2018

    Court, applying a de novo standard of review, rejected in part magistrate judge’s recommendation, declining to stay proceedings on one of the plaintiff’s claims, but agreeing to compel arbitration with respect to the other.

  • LegalForce RAPC Worldwide, P.C. v. LegalZoom.Com, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-07194-MMC (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2018)
    04/10/2018

    Court granted in part motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings.  Court held that one of the plaintiffs was party to the arbitration agreement and therefore bound thereby, while the other was not, and left challenges as to the agreement’s validity to the arbitrator.  Court further held that all of the claims before it were subject to arbitration. 

  • KT Corporation v. ABS Holdings, Ltd., No. 1:17-CV-07859-LGS (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2018)
    04/10/2018

    Court denied petition to vacate partial ICC award and granted cross-petition to confirm the award and recoup related attorneys’ fees and costs. Court rejected arguments that the arbitral panel had exceeded its authority or otherwise acted in manifest disregard of the law.

  • Robinson v. American Family Care, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-00116-SGC (N.D. Ala. Apr. 10, 2018)
    04/10/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and responsive motion to stay proceedings.  Court reasoned that plaintiff’s bringing a claim did preclude it from obtaining a stay under the FAA.

  • Folck v. Lennar Corporation, No. 3:17-CV-00992-L-NLS (S.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2018)
    04/10/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration pending jury trial on the issue of whether the plaintiff consented to an arbitration agreement.  Court reasoned there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the plaintiff consented to an arbitration agreement and its authenticity, but denied the plaintiff’s arguments that the defendants had waived any existing right to arbitration or that the agreement was unconscionable because of its provisions for confidentiality, attorneys’ fees, limitations on discovery, and unilateral modification.

  • Aguirre v. Vivint Solar Developer, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-01197-JLT (E.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2018)
    04/09/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings, finding that a valid arbitration agreement governed the claims at issue.  Court held that even though the agreement was procedurally oppressive, it was not substantively unconscionable. 

  • Aimiuwu v. AT&T Services, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-03952-CAP (N.D. Ga. Apr. 9, 2018)
    04/09/2018

    Magistrate judge recommended granting motion to compel arbitration, finding that a valid arbitration governed the dispute and rejecting the plaintiff’s challenges as to its authenticity.

  • Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Rahimzadeh, No. 3:17-CV-02126-JCH (D. Conn. Apr. 9, 2018)
    04/09/2018

    Court granted petition to compel arbitration.  Court rejected arguments that it lacked jurisdiction to compel arbitration, that the agreement was void as a matter of state franchise law, or that the underlying claims (filed in state court) did not arise from the agreement containing the arbitration provision.

  • Lee v. Brock Services, No. 1:17-CV-00272-LG-RHW (S.D. Miss. Apr. 9, 2018)
    04/09/2018

    Court granted unopposed motion to compel arbitration and dismissed proceedings with prejudice upon finding that all claims at issue were subject to the arbitration agreement.

  • Altruist, LLC v. Medex Patient Transport, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-01179 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 9, 2018)
    04/09/2018

    Court granted motion to confirm AAA arbitration award.  Court denied argument that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law in his determination on whether rescission was proper, calculation of related damages, reading of the franchise agreement, application of relevant state law, and imposition of joint and several liability.  Court denied attorney’s feels in connection with the confirmation proceedings but granted post-judgment interest.

  • The Queen's Medical Center v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, No. 1:17-CV-00361-JMS-RLP (D. Haw. Apr. 9, 2018)
    04/09/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Court rejected arguments that the parties’ agreement was not governed by the FAA or was otherwise invalid because it lacked certain terms.  Court likewise did not find persuasive the defendant’s argument that the plaintiff’s appointed arbitrator had a disqualifying conflict, noting that courts lack the power to disqualify an arbitrator before the arbitration is complete, but may only act to vacate an award for bias after one is rendered.

  • Hudgins v. Total Quality Logistics, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-07331 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 9, 2018)
    04/09/2018

    Court granted motion to dismiss claims of two plaintiffs in a class action for whom arbitration agreements had been belatedly found.  Court reasoned that there had been no waiver of the right to arbitrate, as there had been no prejudice and defendant had promptly requested arbitration upon locating the agreements and agreed to toll the statute of limitations.

  • Milfort v. Comcast Cable Communications Management, No. 0:17-CV-62576-KMM (S.D. Fla. April 9, 2018)
    04/09/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding that the agreement between the parties contained a valid arbitration clause, which survived the termination of services by defendant.

  • Metayer v. IEC US Holdings, Inc., No. 0:18-CV-60545-UU (S.D. Fla. April 9, 2018)
    04/09/2018

    Court ordered a stay of litigation pending the resolution of arbitration in response to a joint motion of the parties pursuant to § 3 of the FAA. Court found claims before it to be arbitrable and that the parties had a valid arbitration agreement that extended to additional non-signatory defendant who had agreed to arbitrate claims.

  • Tassy v. Lindsay Entertainment Enterprises, Inc., 3:16-CV-00077-TBR (W.D. Ky. Apr. 6, 2018)
    04/06/2018

    Court granted motion to compel the discovery necessary to resolve the threshold issue of arbitrability.

  • Rogers v. SWEPI LP, No. 2:16-CV-00999-JLG-KAJ (S.D. Ohio Apr. 6, 2018)
    04/06/2018

    Court granted motion to stay proceedings pending interlocutory appeal of its decision to deny motion to compel arbitration, reasoning that it was without jurisdiction to hear further proceedings until the question of arbitrability was resolved.

  • Brown v Credit One Bank, N.A., No. 2:17-CV-00786-JAD-VCF (D. Nev. Apr. 6, 2018)
    04/06/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration.  Court denied to enforce an arbitration agreement against a non-signatory under a theory of estoppel, finding that the claims at issue did not arise from that agreement and that the claimant had not benefitted therefrom.

  • Moody v. Navient Solutions, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-01805-BYP (N.D. Ohio Apr. 6, 2018)
    04/06/2018

    Court granted unopposed motion to confirm arbitration award, finding that under AAA Rules and the FAA, the arbitrator’s decision to modify the award to correct a typographical error, while denying a petition to revisions that he viewed as a substantive challenge to the award, was proper.

  • Rahmany v. Subway Sandwich Shops, INC., No. 17-35094 (9th Cir. Apr. 5, 2018)
    04/05/2018

    Court of appeals reversed district court’s order granting motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the case.  Court reasoned that because the defendant was a non-signatory to the agreement on which it sought to rely to compel arbitration, and because the plaintiff’s claims, in any case, did not arise therefrom, the district court erred in compelling arbitration.

  • Cvoro v. Carnival Corporation, No. 1:16-CV-21559-FAM (S.D. Fla. Apr. 5, 2018)
    04/05/2018

    Court denied petition to vacate arbitral award, holding that arbitrator’s refusal to offer a remedy available by US statute but not under Panamanian law, which governed the arbitration, did not violate US public policy.

  • Coyne v. Hewlett-Packard Company, No. 1:16-CV-01694-RCL (D.D.C. Apr. 5, 2018)
    04/05/2018

    Court denied motion to vacate arbitration award and granted sealed motion to confirm it.  Court rejected petitioner’s arguments that the arbitrator had exceeded his powers or manifestly disregarded the applicable law of unjust enrichment.

  • Hubbell v. NCR Corporation, No. 2:17-CV-00807-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio Apr. 5, 2018)
    04/05/2018

    Court granted motion for a stay pending limited discovery in support of the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, determining that factors within the court’s discretion favored a limited stay.

  • Golden Gate National Senior Care, LLC v. Brown, 5:17-CV-00153-JMH (E.D. Ky. Apr. 5, 2018)
    04/05/2018

    Court, inter alia, granted motion to compel arbitration.  Court rejected argument that the arbitration agreement did not sufficiently involve interstate commerce to be actionable under the FAA or that it was unconscionable as a contract of adhesion that imposed higher costs on plaintiffs and truncated discovery.  However, the court declined to compel non-signatory plaintiff to arbitrate his independent claim.

  • Youssofi v. Credit One Financial, No. 17-55275 (9th Cir. Apr. 4, 2018)
    04/04/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed judgment compelling arbitration, holding that the constitutional first amendment right to petition was not implicated by enforcement of arbitration agreements, as no state action is involved.

  • Elmy v. Western Express, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01199 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 4, 2018)
    04/04/2018

    Court granted motion to stay proceedings in connection with a motion to compel arbitration pending resolution of a case before the Supreme Court.  Court reasoned that because the pending case implicated considerations at issue in the proceedings before it (namely, (i) whether the applicability of the FAA is a threshold question a court must determine before compelling arbitration and (ii) whether certain transportation-worker agreements trigger its application), a stay was appropriate, as it would further judicial efficiency without undue prejudice.

  • Fireman's Fund Insurance Company v. Regions Insurance, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00195-GHD-DAS (N.D. Miss. Apr. 3, 2018)
    04/03/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, but declined to dismiss proceedings in light of remaining claims not subject to arbitration, staying the case instead.  Court noted that parties did not dispute the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and ruled that the dispute fell within its broad scope.  Court further granted motion to compel arbitration of a cross-claim brought by a third-party non-signatory on the theory of direct-benefit estoppel.

  • 16th Street Investments, LLC v. KTJ 216, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00174-WGY-ARS (D.N.D. Apr. 3, 2018)
    04/03/2018

    Court confirmed arbitration award, declining to permit a third party complaint by defendant seeking indemnity and contribution from non-diverse third parties and rejecting defendant’s argument that its award obligation should be reduced because it had previously tendered partial payment.

  • Freedom Investors Corp. v. Gantan, No. 4:17-CV-03914-SBA (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2018)
    04/03/2018

    Court denied petition to vacate FINRA arbitration award and granted cross-petition to confirm it, rejecting petitioner’s  argument that the arbitrators had exceeded their authority or ignored controlling law.

  • BEA Mountain Mining Corporation v. International Construction & Engineering (Seychelles), No. 1:17-CV-01374-LO-MSN (E.D. Va. Apr. 3, 2018)
    04/03/2018

    Magistrate judge recommended confirmation of an arbitral award, finding that plaintiff had met all requirements under the New York convention.  Court recommended against awarding costs, as plaintiff requested costs generically, but failed to provide specific amounts.

  • Virtu KCG Holdings LLC v. Li, No. 2:17-CV-08296-SDW-CLW (D.N.J. Apr. 3, 2018)
    04/03/2018

    Court granted motion for automatic stay pending the defendant’s appeal of its denial of its earlier motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court noted that such appeals automatically stayed proceedings unless frivolous or forfeited.

  • Chelsea Grand, LLC v. New York Hotel and Motel Trades Council, AFL-CIO, No. 17-1711-CV (2d Cir. Apr. 3, 2018)
    04/03/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s confirmation of an arbitration award, ruling that the arbitrator had acted within the scope of his authority.

  • Cornell University v. Illumina Inc., 1:10-CV-00433-LPS-MPT (D. Del. Apr. 3, 2018)
    04/03/2018

    Court adopted magistrate judge’s recommendation to compel arbitration, rejecting arguments that the arbitration agreement did not sufficiently cover the dispute.

  • Vision Healthcare Systems (International) PTY, LTD v. Vision Software Technologies, Inc., 3:15-CV-00175 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 2, 2018)
    04/02/2018

    Court granted application of entry of arbitration award as final judgment, rejecting defendant’s argument that arbitrator had exceeded his powers by allegedly misinterpreting the contract, because it was clear that the arbitrator had analyzed the relevant provision.

  • Lagrone v. Omnova Solutions, No. 1:16-CV-00159-SA-DAS (N.D. Miss Mar. 31, 2018)
    03/31/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that plaintiffs’ claims were covered by the arbitration contract.  Court held that disputes as to whether conditions precedent to arbitration had been satisfied were presumptively for the arbitrator to decide.

  • In Re Samsung Galaxy Smartphone Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, 5:16-CV-06391-BLF (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2018)
    03/30/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration with respect to those plaintiffs who had assented to – but not for those who had opted out of – arbitration agreements and stayed all claims.  Court granted motion to dismiss class action claims for those plaintiffs subject to valid arbitration agreement.

  • Smith v. Medidata Solutions, Inc., 3:16-CV-01689-L-JLB (S.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2018)
    03/30/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the arbitration agreement was supported by consideration and therefore valid, and that the dispute fell within its scope.  Court then rejected plaintiff’s various objections to the enforceability of the arbitration agreement, finding, inter alia, that even though the contract was one of adhesion it did not suffer from substantive unconscionability because it carved out defendant’s right to file certain claims in court, imposed certain costs, and

  • Best Effort First Time, LLC v. Southside Oil, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00825-GLR (D. Md. Mar. 30, 2018)

    03/30/2018

    Court granted with respect to certain claims motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that although the parties had delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator by incorporating AAA rules, the claim that the dispute fell within an arbitration clause was so frivolous that it need not leave the question to the arbitrator.  Court then ruled that the agreement was valid, but applied only to some of the claims brought by plaintiffs.

  • Bracey v. Lancaster Foods LLC, No. 1:17-CV-01826-RDB (D. Md. Mar. 30, 2018)
    03/30/2018

    Court granted motion to dismiss proceedings upon finding that the claims at issue had to be arbitrated.  Court rejected, inter alia, plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable as unconscionable because it imposed  a shorter statute of limitations than the applicable legislation.

  • Wardlow v. U-Haul International, Inc., No. 6:17-CV-01100-AA (D. Or. Mar. 30, 2018)
    03/30/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings.  Court held that the arbitration clause covered the dispute at issue and rejected plaintiff’s argument that it could not be applied because it was unconscionable.  Specifically, court held that mere inequality of bargaining power did not render an agreement procedurally unconscionable, that the agreement was not so inconspicuous as to constitute an improper surprise, and that the agreement was not so unfair and one-sided as to be substantively unconscionable. 

  • Thunderbird Resorts Inc. v. Zimmer, No. 3:15-CV-01304-JAH-BGS (S.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2018)
    03/30/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, ruling that the arbitration agreement was sufficiently broad to cover all claims at issue, and held that motion to domesticate a Hong Kong ICC arbitration award between plaintiff and one of the defendants was therefore premature.

  • Ohio Valley Aluminum Company, LLC v. Hydratech Industries US, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00051-GFVT (E.D. Ky. Mar. 30, 2018)
    03/30/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the arbitration agreement was valid and rejected plaintiff’s argument that arbitration in Denmark would be unduly burdensome (treating it as a contention as to the contract’s unconscionability).  Court declined to stay proceedings, as all issues before it were arbitrable, and dismissed the matter.

  • Christus St. Vincent Regional Medical Center v. District 1199NM, National Union of Hospital and Healthcare Employees, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, No. 1:17-CV-00452-JB-KK (D.N.M. Mar. 30, 2018)
    03/30/2018

    Court denied petition to vacate arbitration award and granted motion to confirm it, finding that plaintiff had not demonstrated that the arbitrator had exceeded his authority or that the award was contrary to public policy.  However, court denied motion to award attorneys’ fees or costs in connection with the petition, finding that plaintiff had not acted in bad faith in bringing it.

  • Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC v. Insurance Company of North America, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00715-DLC (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2018)
    03/29/2018

    Court ruled that claims before it must be submitted to arbitration and stayed proceedings.  Court held that although the presumption that it is for the arbitrator to decide questions of waiver could be reversed, because the conduct of which plaintiff complained occurred entirely outside the court, it remained for the arbitrator to adjudicate.  Court further ruled that by incorporating AAA rules, the parties had delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator as well.

  • Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association, INC. v. Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association of San Diego, INC., No. 3:17-CV-01690-BTM-JLB (S.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2018)
    03/29/2018

    Court granted application to confirm a JAMS arbitration award.  Court denied argument that such a request may only be filed as a motion (rather than application) and likewise rejected respondent’s argument that the arbitrator had exceeded the scope of his authority.

  • Coots v. Western Refining Retail, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00838-JCH-LF (D.N.M. Mar. 29, 2018)
    03/29/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court held that a valid arbitration agreement governed the dispute, rejecting plaintiff’s argument that the agreement was unsupported by consideration.  Court further rejected plaintiff’s argument that the agreement was unconscionable, finding that he had not met his burden of proof.

  • Garcia v. TEMPOE, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-02106-SDW-LDW (D.N.J. Mar. 29, 2018)
    03/29/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, rejecting plaintiffs’ argument that the agreement was unconscionable because it precluded treble damages, potential punitive damages, and one-way fee shifting available under the applicable statutes in court.

  • Maher v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 1:17-CV-00753 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 29, 2018)
    03/29/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration after determining that the parties had mutually agreed to arbitrate and that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration clause.

  • Border Area Mental Health, Inc. v. United Behavioral Health, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01213-MV-SCY (D.N.M. Mar. 28, 2018)
    03/28/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Court rejected as irrelevant plaintiffs’ argument that their claims fell outside the scope of the arbitration agreement, finding that because the parties had incorporated AAA rules they had agreed to delegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

  • Blackberry Limited v. Nokia Corporation, No. 1:17-CV-00155-RGA (D. Del. Mar. 28, 2018)
    03/28/2018

    Court denied without prejudice motion to compel arbitration.  Court reasoned that the agreement did not cover claims against a third party beneficiary, further rejecting defendants’ equitable estoppel theory for why the court should nevertheless compel arbitration.

  • Davis v. USA Nutra Labs, No. 1:15-CV-01107-MV-SCY (D.N.M. Mar. 28, 2018)
    03/28/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, rejecting plaintiff’s arguments that she had not entered into the arbitration agreement or that it was otherwise unconscionable, as well as her contention that the claims at issue did not fall within the scope of the agreement.

  • Star Development Group, LLC v. Constructure Management, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01246-RDB (D. Md. Mar. 28, 2018)

    03/28/2018

    Court granted motion to compel AAA arbitral award and award attorneys’ fees, denying plaintiffs’ petition to vacate.  Court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the arbitral tribunal had manifestly disregarded the law or made irrational fact-findings in denying their delay damages and granting one of defendants’ claims.

  • Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Professional Installations, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-04591-DAB (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2018)
    03/27/2018

    Court granted the petition to confirm the arbitration award.  Court concluded that the arbitrator was acting within the scope of his authority, as granted by the agreements.  Based on the record provided, court found that there was no disputed material issue of fact, and therefore confirmed the arbitration award.

  • Continental Casualty Company v. Hopeman Brothers, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00688-ALC (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2018)
    03/27/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, determining that the arbitration agreement was sufficiently broad to cover the scope of the parties’ dispute.  Court rejected plaintiffs arguments that defendant had waived its right to arbitrate by initiating proceedings against other plaintiffs in the dispute who were not parties to the arbitration agreement.

  • Hearn v. Oriole Shipping, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-02759-MMB (E.D. Pa. Mar. 27, 2018)
    03/27/2018

    Court denied without prejudice motion to stay any contribution or indemnity action relating to an admiralty action pending arbitration, reasoning that such contribution or indemnity fell outside the relevant contract.

  • Wholesalecars.com v. Hutcherson, No. 2:16-CV-00155 (N.D. Ala. Mar. 27, 2018)
    03/27/2018

    Court denied motion to vacate arbitration award obtained by defendant in her own name, in spite of having initiated bankruptcy proceedings, reasoning that her failure to inform creditors and the bankruptcy estate of her action and corresponding lack of standing did not affect the arbitrator’s decision and thus did not constitute fraud for purposes of invalidating the award under the FAA.  However, court agreed to estop defendant from enforcing the award for those same reasons, including her denial under oath of the suit.

  • Fields v. Trans Union, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-02939-CDJ (E.D. Pa. Mar. 27, 2018)
    03/27/2018

    Court granted a defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of the claims filed against it.  Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable as unconscionable, finding unpersuasive her contention that the form of the agreement was so convoluted as to be procedurally unconscionable or that the cost and discovery consequences of arbitrating her claims made it substantively unconscionable.  Nor did the court agree that the agreement was one-sided.

  • MDL 2048 Cox Enterprises, Inc., No. 5:12-ML-02048-C (W.D. Okla. Mar. 27, 2018)
    03/27/2018

    Court denied motion for leave to file an amended complaint in a multi-district litigation as futile upon finding that each of the proposed substitute plaintiffs was subject to arbitration.  Court rejected arguments that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable as a contract of adhesion given the way it was presented to plaintiffs.

  • Airtourist Holdings LLC v. HNA Group, No. 4:17-CV-04989-JSW (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2018)
    03/27/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court found that plaintiffs’ claims were subject to the broad arbitration clauses in the agreements, as each of the formative contracts contained broadly-worded dispute resolution provisions requiring mandatory arbitration of “[a]ny unresolved controversy or claim arising out of or relating to” the parties’ contracts. Court also held that defendants were entitled to enforce the agreements against non-signatories pursuant to the agency doctrine and as third-party beneficiaries of the agreements.

  • Willett v. Ally Bank, No. 2:17-CV-02472-JAR-GLR (D. Kan. Mar. 26, 2018)
    03/26/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement was valid under Arkansas state law.

  • Golden Gate National Senior Care, LLC v. Stambaugh, No. 5:17-CV-00161-KKC (E.D. Ky. Mar. 26, 2018)
    03/26/2018

    Court denied motion to dismiss complaint seeking to compel defendant estate to arbitrate claims the estate had filed in state court.  Court dismissed argument that it lacked diversity jurisdiction to hear the complaint or that the FAA was inapplicable because the claim did not sufficiently concern interstate commerce.  Court further rejected arguments that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable because it was part of a mass-produced contract, incorporated JAMS rules, and would truncate discovery.

  • Call v. Harris Stowe State University, No. 4:17-CV-01548-HEW (W.D. Mo. Mar. 26, 2018)
    03/26/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that defendants had waived their right to arbitrate, holding that the case had seen little activity since being commenced and that plaintiff had herself amended her complaint to add a claim that led defendants to remove the action to federal court and to move to compel arbitration.

  • Campbell Investments, LLC v. Dickey's Barbecue Restaurants, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00832-DB (D. Utah Mar. 26, 2018)
    03/26/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that defendant failed to demonstrate that plaintiffs had agreed to arbitrate the claims.  Specifically, court rejected arguments that an agreement that bound the previous owners of a franchise locations or that specifically applied to a wholly separate location (that was also not in existence at the time) could bind plaintiffs to arbitrate.

  • Jesmar Energy, Inc.. v. Range Resources – Appalachia, LLC., No. 2:17-CV-00928-LPL (W.D. Pa. Mar. 26, 2018)
    03/26/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court held that no valid arbitration agreement existed, rejecting a reading of an assignment agreement that would have incorporated arbitration obligations contained in the assigned lease.

  • Thomas v. PFG Transco, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00785-ALM (E.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2018)
    03/25/2018

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court rejected a unified theory for treating the allegedly intertwined claims against two defendants, only one of whom was a signatory to an arbitration agreement.  Court reasoned that parties to the agreement had delegated the arbitrability decision and granted motion to compel those claims, staying related proceedings; however, court declined to compel arbitration against remaining non-signatory defendants and ordered that they proceed.

  • Sidney v. Verizon Communications, No. 1:17-CV-01850-RJD-RLM (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2018)

    03/23/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, holding that plaintiff failed to substantiate his complaint of unconscionability and did not otherwise challenge the validity of the applicable arbitration agreement, and that the parties’ dispute fell within the agreement’s scope.  Court noted that where arbitration agreements are valid and enforceable, so are any class action waivers contained therein.

  • Andreoli v. Youngevity International, Inc., 3:16-CV-02922-BTM-JLB (S.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2018)
    03/23/2018

    Among its other dispositions, court denied without prejudice motion to compel one of the claims, holding that defendants failed to satisfy their burden of proving the existence of an agreement when they submitted a blank contract with no signatures or names.

  • Stati v. Republic of Kazakhstan, No. 1:14-CV-01638-ABJ (D.D.C. Mar. 23, 2018)
    03/23/2018

    Court denied the defendant’s motion to reconsider its request to submit additional defense grounds and confirmed arbitration award.  Court held that the arbitral seat had already denied the defendant’s arguments that the award had been fraudulently obtained and that the court itself had committed no error either in law or in fact in rejecting the defendant’s fraud-based defense to enforcement.  Court then held that none of the NY Convention grounds for declining to enforce the award applied and granted motion to confirm arbitral award.

  • Zoller v. UBS Securities LLC, No. 1:16-CV-11277 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 23, 2018)
    03/23/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration with respect to one claimant and to dismiss the claims of another, reasoning that the arbitration agreement did not apply to putative class and collective action claims by operation of FINRA Rule 13209, which it deemed incorporated into the arbitration agreements.  Court, however, rejected plaintiffs’ parallel theories based on the argument that a FINRA arbitration would be “prohibitively expensive,” that they had been fraudulently induced to accept the arbitration clause itself, and that the defendant had waived its right to litigate.

  • H.H. Franchising Systems, Inc. v. Pawson, No. 1:17-CV-00368-SJD (S.D. Ohio Mar. 23, 2018)
    03/23/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court agreed that the arbitration agreement expressly included a large claim exception to arbitration and ruled that the exception applied, and was neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable.  Court further held that its conclusion regarding large claims mooted the defendants’ argument that only claims seeking injunctive relief could be excluded from arbitration under the contractual exemption of injunctive claims from the arbitration agreement.

  • Restea v. Brown Harris Stevens LLC, No. 1:17-CV-04801-VEC-GWG (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2018)
    03/23/2018

    Magistrate judge recommended that motion to compel be granted and the case dismissed.  Court determined that a valid arbitration agreement governed the parties’ dispute and dismissed contrary arguments.  Court further held that dismissal was proper as neither party had requested a stay.

  • Remington v. Shwinco Architectural Products, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00750-TFM (M.D. Ala. Mar. 23, 2018)
    03/23/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, reasoning that a valid arbitration agreement appeared to govern the dispute, but that, in any case, the parties’ joint stipulation as to arbitration filed with the court constituted a valid agreement to arbitrate the claims at issue.

  • Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner &  Smith Incorporated v. Thompson, No. 2:17-CV-02648-CM-KGS (D. Kan. Mar. 23, 2018)
    03/23/2018

    Court, inter alia, granted motion to compel FINRA arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that a valid arbitral agreement governed the parties’ dispute.

  • Franklin v. H&R Block, No. 4:16-CV-00666-JAR (W.D. Mo. Mar. 23, 2018)
    03/23/2018

    Court granted motion to enforce arbitration award under the FAA, noting that it had been timely filed and that the plaintiff had waived her right to proffer any defenses to such enforcement by her failure to timely file a motion to vacate or modify the award under the FAA.

  • Rodriguez v. Echosphere, L.L.C., No. 3:18-CV-00063-DCG (W.D. Tex. Mar. 23, 2018)
    03/23/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to remand, which asserted that defendant failed to prove complete diversity of citizenship or that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs.  The parties’ contract contained a stipulation that barred recovery in excess of $74,999, which defendant contended was not truly binding because the arbitration clause expressly withdrew all the limitations on damages.  Court noted that the parties only located two cases addressing this precise issue nationwide, both of which held that the stipulation was binding.

  • Begole v. North Mississippi Medical Center, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00033-SA-DAS (N.D. Miss. Mar. 23, 2018)
    03/23/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the parties had a valid agreement to arbitrate plaintiff’s claims.  Court found that, even reading the arbitration clause narrowly, plaintiff’s claims arose from duties imposed by the contract and were therefore subject to arbitration.  Court also found that the individual defendant, as the corporate defendant’s agent, had the right to compel arbitration.

  • Oliver v. First Century Bank, N.A., No. 3:17-CV-00620-MMA-KSC (S.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2018)
    03/22/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of its order compelling arbitration.  Court explained that if plaintiff did not challenge a delegation clause specifically, then the court must treat it as valid under FAA § 2, and enforce it under §§ 3 and 4, leaving any challenge to the validity of the agreement as a whole for the arbitrator.  Court also determined that under Rent-A-Ctr., W., Inc. v. Jackson, 51 U.S. 63 (2010), the party seeking to avoid arbitration bears the burden of raising specific arbitrability challenges, including a challenge to the enforceability of the delegation clause.

  • GGNSC Louisville St. Matthews LLC v. Badgett, No. 17-5963 (6th Cir. Mar. 22, 2018)
    03/22/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court, which denied petitioners-appellants’ motion to compel arbitration.  The deceased had signed an arbitration agreement at one nursing home, but later disclaimed an identical agreement at a facility owned by the same parent company.  Court explained that because the second arbitration agreement was a novation of the first agreement and clearly expressed the intent of the parties, no valid arbitration agreement existed.

  • Balkan Energy Limited v. Republic of Ghana, No. 1:17-CV-00584-APM (D.D.C. Mar. 22, 2018)
    03/22/2018

    Court granted the petition to confirm a foreign arbitral award rendered against the Republic of Ghana by the Permanent Court of Arbitration.  Court held that (i) the FSIA arbitration exception applied, (ii) the forum non conveniens doctrine did not apply to actions in the US to enforce arbitral awards against foreign nations, and (iii) petitioners had standing to seek confirmation and enforcement of the award.  Court also found that none of Ghana’s arguments—that the arbitration agreement was invalid under Ghanian law, that the parties did not agree to submit the question of the validity of the arbitration clause to the tribunal, and that recognition of the award would be contrary to US public policy—supplied a defense to the confirmation of the award.

  • A.D. v. Credit One Bank, N.A., No. 17-1486 (7th Cir. Mar. 22, 2018)
    03/22/2018

    Court of appeals reversed the judgment of the district court, which granted defendant-appellee’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff-appellant was not bound by the terms of the agreement to arbitrate, as she did not directly benefit from the agreement such that equitable principles convinced the court to apply the arbitration clause against her.  Additionally, court found that plaintiff-appellant had not consented to arbitration and did not have legal capacity to enter into a contractual relationship with defendant-appellee.

  • Nieto v. 2249 Corp., No. 1:16-CV-07947-LAP (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2018)
    03/22/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, reasoning that the plaintiffs had raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether an arbitration agreement had been made and ordered that the court would proceed summarily to a trial addressing this question.

  • Vyas v. Doctor’s Associates, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01774-JCH (D. Conn. Mar. 21, 2018)
    03/21/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitration award and granted defendant’s motion to confirm.  Court held that (i) the arbitrator’s denial of plaintiff’s requests to arbitrate did not constitute misconduct sufficient to vacate the ex parte award, (ii) the arbitrator’s reservation of judgment with respect to plaintiff’s motion to preclude claimant from calling undisclosed witnesses did not constitute prejudicial behavior pursuant to FAA § 10(a)(3), and (iii) plaintiff failed to show that the arbitrator’s denial of the motion to compel testimony from a certain witness constituted misconduct.  Court also held that neither the process by which the arbitrator was appointed nor the appointment of the arbitrator himself violated FAA § 10(a)(4).

  • Stroman v. Barefoot, No. 3:17-CV-02760-CMC (D.S.C. Mar. 21, 2018)
    03/21/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration.  Court concluded that (i) nothing in plaintiff’s arguments suggested that defendants waived the right to enforce the arbitration agreement by offering a pre-litigation alternative dispute resolution option or by any action they took during mediation; (ii) it was enough that plaintiff understood that she was accepting an agreement by her actions, even if she was discouraged from reading the agreement; (iii) plaintiff’s unconscionability argument was based on speculation as to possible total costs of arbitration, which was insufficient to establish unconscionability; and (iv) enforcement of a private agreement under the FAA does not raise due process or other constitutional concerns.

  • Lee v. Burlington Coat Factory of Missouri, LLC, No. 4:17-CV-02467-AGF (E.D. Mo. Mar. 21, 2018)
    03/21/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff accepted the offer to arbitrate by failing to opt out in a timely fashion and that the agreement was supported by valid consideration in the form of mutual promises to arbitrate claims.  Court also noted that, although plaintiff did not explicitly assert one, it would also reject any legal argument based on the prominence (or alleged lack thereof) of the terms of the arbitration agreement.

  • Tallakoy LP v. Black Fire Energy, Inc., No. 7:14-CV-00180-KKC-EBA (E.D. Ky. Mar. 20, 2018)
    03/20/2018

    Court granted plaintiffs’ renewed motion to confirm the arbitration award following remand.  Sixth Circuit had disagreed with the district court’s conclusion that issuance by an arbitrator, without more, deemed an award “filed” or “delivered” under the FAA.  On remand, court found that defendants’ challenge to the arbitration award was untimely and the court’s analysis of the effect of that untimeliness and of the general validity of the award was undisturbed.

  • Perry v. Kingsland Capital Management LLC, No. 1:16-CV-04305-DAB (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2018)
    03/20/2018

    Court denied petition to vacate arbitration award and granted motion to confirm it.  Court denied argument that the arbitrator had exceeded his powers or manifestly disregarded the terms of the parties’ agreement in reaching his decision regarding fees.

  • Van Rooyen v. Greystone Home Builders, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-10895-RHC-MKM (N.D. Tex. Mar. 19, 2018)
    03/19/2018

    Court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or improper venue, and granted their alternative motion to transfer.  Court noted that the fifth circuit has recognized six theories for binding a non-signatory to a contract’s arbitration clause:  incorporation by reference, assumption, agency, veil-piercing ego, estoppel, and third party beneficiary theory.  Court concluded that the principle of estoppel made the contract’s forum-selection clause binding on the non-signatories, as the claims against the remaining defendants were intertwined with and dependent upon the contract containing the forum-selection clause.

  • Pao Tatneft v. Ukraine, No. 1:17-CV-00582-CKK (D.D.C. Mar. 19, 2018)
    03/19/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss, motion for leave to take jurisdictional discovery, and motion to stay, holding in abeyance plaintiff’s petition for enforcement of the arbitration award.  Court rejected defendant’s argument that the FSIA arbitration exception did not apply to the instant case because plaintiff is a state-controlled entity and declined to stay the action while an appeal in France was ongoing because the proceeding had been “deactivated” due to an unpaid order of legal costs.  Court asked for additional briefing from plaintiff in response to defendant’s opposition to the enforcement of the award, which argued that the tribunal was improperly constituted and that the award was contrary to US public policy.

  • Matalka v. Home Point Financial Corporation, No. 2:17-CV-00155-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio Mar. 19, 2018)
    03/19/2018

    Court denied the motion to compel arbitration, concluding that the parties agreed to arbitrate claims relating to plaintiff’s work as a branch manager, but not plaintiff’s work as a regional manager.  Court rejected defendant’s contention that the arbitrator was to decide the arbitrability of the case, as plaintiff’s claims did not arise out of or relate, directly or indirectly, to the branch manager agreement.

  • Dodson International Parts, Inc. v. Williams International Co., No. 2:16-CV-02212-JAR-KGS (D. Kan. Mar. 19, 2018)
    03/19/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for modification of stay order, which asked the court to permit the parties to issue subpoenas for the purpose of compelling witnesses to attend depositions and provide documents.  Court determined that it need not decide whether FAA § 7 permits the discovery plaintiff seeks, as plaintiff should have petitioned another court (the district court for the district in which the arbitrator sits).

  • DISH Network L.L.C. v. Open Orbit Corporation, No. 1:16-CV-02083-LTB (D. Colo. Mar. 19, 2018)
    03/19/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s application to confirm an arbitration award, holding that the award could be enforced against individual defendant.  Court noted that, even though the defendant was not a party to the arbitration, he had notice of the arbitration and participated in it.

  • Developers Surety and Indemnity Co. v. Carothers Construction, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00875-JBA (D. Conn. Mar. 19, 2018)
    03/19/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied defendant’s request to transfer.  Court concluded that the arbitration provision in question did not cover the plaintiff, as it referenced the subcontractor but not the surety, i.e. plaintiff.  Court also rejected defendant’s argument that plaintiff was estopped from seeking to avoid arbitration, noting that defendant presented little evidence of plaintiff having received a direct benefit from the agreement.

  • Peco Foods Inc. v. Retail Wholesale and Department Store Union Mid-South Council, No. 17-13269 (11th Cir. Mar. 15, 2018)
    03/15/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of motion to vacate arbitral award, finding award did not violate public policy and that arbitrator did not exceed his authority by finding that party waived its challenge to the timeliness of request for arbitration.

  • Walker v. Huyandai Capital America, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00045-WTM-GRS (S.D. Ga. Mar. 15, 2018)
    03/15/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that assignee of lender in car loan agreement was entitled to rely on arbitration agreement in car purchase agreement executed at same time.

  • Bankers Conseco Life Insurance Company v. Feuer, No. 1:16-CV-07646-ER (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2018)
    03/15/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that signatory was required to arbitrate claims against a non-signatory under a theory of equitable estoppel.

  • Ayala v. Ace Cash Express, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-02166-AJB-WVG (S.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2018)
    03/15/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that arbitral agreement was not procedurally or substantively unconscionable.

  • Roberts v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 3:15-CV-03418-EMC (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2018)
    03/14/2018

    Reconsidering its former ruling, court denied motion to compel arbitration as to California residents (while granting it as to an Alabama resident), finding that arbitration clause containing a clause waiving the right to seek the statutory remedy of public injunctive relief was invalid under newly issued California Supreme Court case.

  • Simmons v. First Premier Bank, N.A., No. 5:17-CV-00376-CAR (M.D. Ga. Mar. 14, 2018)
    03/14/2018

    Court granted in part joint motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that, when all claims are subject to arbitration, the proper course of actions is not to stay all proceedings, but to dismiss without prejudice.

  • Garnick v. Interstate Batteries, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-12026-SFC-APP (E.D. Mich. Mar. 14, 2018)
    03/14/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate and Plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial.

  • Kent Building Services, LLC v. Kessler, No. 1:17-CV-03509-JPO (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2018)
    03/14/2018

    Court denied motion to vacate arbitral award and granted cross-motion to confirm it, finding that the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard New York contract law in finding a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

  • Medic Ambulance Services, Inc. v. United EMS Workers, AFSCME, Local 4911, No. 2:17-CV-01859-KJM-KJN (E.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2018)
    03/14/2018

    Court denied motion to vacate arbitral award and granted cross-motion to confirm it, finding that (i) timing for filing a motion to vacate is governed by California law, not the FAA; and (ii) the arbitrator did not exceed her authority by issuing a precedential award or considering past practice.

  • BOKF, NA v. Estes, No. 3:17-CV-00694-LRH-WGC (D. Nev. Mar. 14, 2018)
    03/14/2018

    After denying motion for preliminary anti-arbitration injunction, court denied motion for an injunction pending appeal, finding that appellant had not established it was likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal; that its claim of irreparable harm was insufficient; and that the balance of the equities was against the injunction.

  • The Centercap Group, LLC v. Optio, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-09823-DAB (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2018)
    03/14/2018

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award and denied cross-motion for vacatur.  Court rejected arguments that the arbitrator had engaged in misconduct or manifestly disregarded the terms of the parties’ agreements.

  • Jordan v. Integrity First Financial Group, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-02994-RBH (D.S.C. Mar. 14, 2018)
    03/14/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that it was substantively unopposed, except with respect to dismissal.  Court also dismissed proceedings, noting that such dismissal was proper where all claims at issue were subject to the arbitration agreement.

  • Campos v. DXP Enterprises, Inc., No. 8:18-CV-00103-JLS-DFM (C.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2018)
    03/14/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of wage dispute, and stayed the action pursuant to the FAA. Court found that the plaintiff must show both procedural and substantive unconscionability, however the only argument plaintiff made concerning substantive unconscionability was that the agreement contained “unlawful waivers of plaintiff’s right to bring collective and representative actions,” an argument that was recently rejected by the Supreme Court’s holding in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis. Thus following Supreme Court precedent, the court found the agreement to arbitrate was not unconscionable and enforced it.

  • International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union No. 639 v. Airgas, Incorporated, No. 17-1349 (4th Cir. Mar. 13, 2018)
    03/13/2018

    Court of appeals dismissed appeal from preliminary injunction pending arbitration as moot, since award was issued in the interim.

  • Smith v. Rooney, No. 2:17-CV-01730-JMV-JBC (D.N.J. Mar. 13, 2018)
    03/13/2018

    Court found that arbitrator’s decision was not entitled to preclusive effect under doctrine of collateral estoppel since the arbitrator’s decision did not concern the contractual provisions at issue.

  • Welk Resort Sales v. Bryant, No. 6:17-CV-03197-SWH (W.D. Mo. Mar. 13, 2018)
    03/13/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that movant had not established than an arbitration agreement was formed, and that trial should be set to determine outstanding factual issues as to contract formation.

  • Aetna Inc. v. The People’s Choice Hospital, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-04354-BMS (E.D. Pa. Mar. 13, 2018)
    03/13/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff had not established that non-signatory defendant was agent of signatory to arbitral agreement, and that arbitral agreement was not binding on defendant under an equitable estoppel theory since the claims in the litigation were “far afield” from the contractual obligations subject to arbitration.

  • Nexteer Automotive Corporation v. Korea Delphi Automotive Systems Corporation, No. 2:13-CV-15189-GCS-LJM (E.D. Mich. Mar. 13, 2018)
    03/13/2018

    Court denied motion for attorney fees, finding that provision that attorney fees may be awarded in arbitration agreement did not cover fees and costs of enforcing arbitral award.

  • Rivera-Gómez v. Luxury Hotels International of Puerto Rico, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-03087-ADC (D.P.R. Mar. 13, 2018)
    03/13/2018

    Court granted motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that non-signatory defendant could invoke arbitration agreement signed by other entity in its corporate group.

  • Giddings v. Media Lodge, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-04068-RAL (D.S.D. Mar. 13, 2018)
    03/13/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that (i) defendant had waived right to rely on delegation clause by failing to raise it; (ii) arbitration clause was not unconscionable; and (iii) statutory USERRA claims were within the scope of the arbitration clause and could be arbitrated.

  • Local Union No. 164, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO and IBEW Local 164 Benefit Funds, No. 3:17-CV-11817-FLW-LHG (D.N.J. Mar. 13, 2018)
    03/13/2018

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitral award, finding that an alleged “post-award accord” did not bear on question of whether arbitral award was final and binding.

  • Burke v. Borough of Red Bank, No. 3:17-CV-01800-BRM-LHG (D.N.J. Mar. 12, 2018)
    03/12/2018

    Court granted motion to dismiss, insofar as claims arose from Collective Bargaining Agreement subject to arbitration.

  • Olivas v. The Hertz Corporation, No. 3:17-CV-01083-BAS-NLS (S.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2018)
    03/12/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that (i) car renter had accepted rental contract (with its arbitration clause) through the conduct of renting the car, and (ii) question of whether dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration clause was delegated to the arbitrator.

  • Transocean Offshore Gulf of Guinea VII Limited v. Erin Energy Corporation, No. 4:17-CV-02623 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 12, 2018)
    03/12/2018

    Court granted petition to enforce arbitral award, finding that consent awards are enforceable under the New York Convention.

  • Castellanos v. Raymours Furniture Company, Inc., No 2:17-CV-01923-JFB-ARL (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2018)
    03/12/2018

    Court stayed pending arbitration and rejected request to sever FLSA claims, finding that arbitration agreement’s statute of limitations provision shortening period in which FLSA claims may be brought was unenforceable.

  • Egan v. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00445-MRH (W.D. Pa. Mar. 12, 2018)
    03/12/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration for claim that failure to offer wheelchair-accessible seating during online ticket presales violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, finding that agreement to arbitrate the instant dispute was not formed by acceptance of terms of service in previous, unrelated online ticket purchase, or by logging into account to attempt to make online purchase at issue.

  • Tennessee Tractor, LLC v. WH Administrators, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-02829-STA-EGB (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 12, 2018)
    03/12/2018

    Court granted in part and denied in part motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff who had not signed arbitration agreement was not bound to arbitrate under it, since he was asserting ERISA claims and not claims under the agreement subject to arbitration.

  • International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers-Transportation Division, ET v. CSX Transportation, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-02554-CAB (N.D. Ohio Mar. 12, 2018)
    03/12/2018

    Court granted motion for summary judgment upholding arbitration award of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, finding that the Board was interpreting the relevant agreements and therefore acting within its jurisdiction.

  • Hilton v. Fluent, LLC, No. 9:17-CV-81270-DMM (S.D. Fla. Mar. 12, 2018)
    03/12/2018

    Court deferred defendants’ motions to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiffs raised an issue of fact as to whether an arbitration agreement between the parties existed.  Court found that plaintiffs’ sworn denials that they visited the websites and completed the registration forms depicted in defendants’ screenshots placed at issue the existence of binding agreements, particularly considered in conjunction with the “curious circumstances” under which plaintiffs’ phone numbers came to be associated with other purportedly inaccurate personal data.

  • Teamsters Local Union No. 135 v. Sysco Indianapolis, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00176-WTL-DLP (S.D. Ind. Mar. 9, 2018)
    03/09/2018

    Court granted summary judgment in award enforcement action, finding that award debtor could not raise defenses to the validity of the award after the period for challenging the award through a vacatur action had expired.

  • Binienda v. Atwells Realty Corp., No. 1:15-CV-00253-WES-PAS (D.R.I. Mar. 9, 2018)
    03/09/2018

    Court denied motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that question whether defendant waived its right to compel arbitration due to its litigation conduct was presumptively for court to decide, and that defendant had waived its right to compel arbitration by litigating for two years before asserting it.

  • Harris v. Fujitsu America International, No. 2:17-CV-02563-SHM-CGC (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 9, 2018)
    03/09/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that arbitration agreement could be considered in deciding a motion to dismiss notwithstanding that it was not attached to the complaint, and that plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration.

  • Henderson v. A&D Interests, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00096 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 9, 2018)
    03/09/2018

    Court granted motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, rejecting challenges that the arbitration agreement was illusory and unconscionable, and finding that the agreement had a valid delegation clause.

  • Finastra USA Corporation v. Zepecki, No. 3:18-CV-00725-WHO (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2018)
    03/09/2018

    Court granted temporary restraining order enjoining former employee from participating in state employment agency hearing, finding that employer’s motion to compel arbitration was likely to succeed and that proceeding with state agency hearings would cause irreparable harm.  Court found unpersuasive employee’s argument that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable and that employer had waived its right to arbitrate by refusing mediation.

  • Biggs.  v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00340-JFB-ARL (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2018)
    03/09/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration on an individual basis pursuant to the FAA. Court followed Supreme Court precedent to find that the class action waiver in the agreement was enforceable.

  • Williams-Jackson v. Innovative Senior Care Home Health of Edmond, LLC, No. 17-6168 (10th Cir. Mar. 8, 2018)
    03/08/2018

    Circuit court vacated district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Court found that the mutual promise to arbitrate was not illusory or unsupported by adequate consideration because terms of the agreement were equally binding on both parties, and defendant could not modify the terms unilaterally without giving notice.

  • Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters v. Upright Shoring & Scaffold, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01509-WQH-NLS (S.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2018)
    03/08/2018

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award as to the respondent that was a party to the arbitration proceedings and denying it as to other respondents, finding that respondents who were not party to the arbitration proceedings were not bound by the arbitrator’s determination that they were alter egos of the award debtor.

  • Union de Tronquistas de Puerto Rico, Local 901, No. 3:17-CV-01288-SEC (D.P.R. Mar. 8, 2018)
    03/08/2018

    Court granted summary judgment against claim to vacate arbitral award, finding that the award was not unfounded in reason or fact.

  • Price  v. UBS Financial Services, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-01882-WJM-MF (D.N.J. Mar. 8, 2018)
    03/08/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding under third circuit precedent the defendant had waived its right to seek arbitration because the initial motion to dismiss did not include an arbitration claim and defendant waited over eight months to file this motion to compel.

  • Rideout v. CashCall, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-02817-RFB-VCF (D. Nev. Mar. 8, 2018)
    03/08/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration. Court found the agreement was procedurally and substantively unconscionable and therefore no valid agreement to arbitrate existed. Court further held that the arbitration agreement was invalid because it required exclusive application of Cheyenne River Sioux law, which would cause plaintiff to waive federal statutory rights.

  • Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC v. Calvin, No. 16-3833-CV (2d Cir. Mar. 7, 2018)
    03/07/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of defendant’s petition seeking to compel bilateral rather than class arbitration. Court determined the question of whether contract permitted class arbitration should be determined by the arbitrator and not the court.

  • Cavlovic v. J.C. Penney Corporation, No. 17-3174 (10th Cir. Mar. 7, 2018)
    03/07/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the plaintiff’s allegations were outside the scope of the agreement at issue.

  • Mohammed v. Uber Technologies Inc., No. 1:16-CV-02537 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 7, 2018)
    03/07/2018

    Court had previously denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and held trial on question of whether valid arbitration agreement existed. Finding that a valid agreement did exist, court compelled arbitration pursuant to the FAA.

  • Hall v. CVS Health Corporation, No. 2:17-CV-00289-JOB (N.D. Ala. Mar. 07, 2018)
    03/07/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, holding that there was a genuine dispute of material facts over whether a valid arbitration agreement was formed that required a trial.

  • Pattison v. Great-West Financial Retirement Plan Services, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-02136-GEB (D. Kan. Mar. 7, 2018)
    03/07/2018

    Court denied third-party defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Court found the operative arbitration agreement in this dispute had an exception for certain causes of action including the one presently before the court.

  • Perei v. Arrigo DCJ Sawgrass, Inc., No. 0:18-CV-60091-BB (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2018)
    03/07/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration. Plaintiff argued that the dispute fell outside the scope of the arbitration agreement but court found that the agreement delegated the interpretation of the scope of the agreement to the arbitrators and court was required to enforce the agreement under the FAA.

  • Money Concepts Capital Corp v. Schryer, No. 9:17-CV-80922-DMM (S.D. Fla. March 7, 2018)
    03/07/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment.  Plaintiff securities broker-dealer sought reimbursement from defendant prior employee for settlements with customers whose accounts were handled by defendant.  Defendant refused and brought arbitration proceedings before FINRA in Los Angeles.  The FINRA arbitration panel heard plaintiff’s motion to transfer the Los Angeles arbitration to Palm Beach County, Florida pursuant to the venue-selection clause in the parties’ agreement and ordered the arbitration to remain in Los Angeles.  Plaintiff then initiated the action to compel arbitration in Palm Beach County, Florida and to stay arbitration proceedings in Los Angeles, California.  Court accepted defendants’ argument that arbitration proceedings must proceed in Los Angeles based on the arbitration panel’s order, despite the order being inconsistent with the parties’ venue-selection provision.

  • Capitol City Amusements, Inc. v. Zamperla, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-01567-KJM-KJN (E.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2018)
    03/06/2018

    Court denied without prejudice defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Court found that there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether plaintiff had signed a version of the contract that contained the arbitration clause, and thus defendant had not met its burden of establishing the existence of a valid arbitration agreement.

  • Emericare, Inc.  v. Calvin, No. 1:16-CV-00446-RM-KMT (D. Colo. Mar. 6, 2018)
    03/06/2018

    Magistrate Judge recommended court find in favor of plaintiff’s by compelling arbitration pursuant to the FAA and reject defendant’s request to allow state courts to decide arbitrability.

  • Gergeni.  v. The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society, No. 5:17-CV-04037-LRR (N.D. Iowa. Mar. 6, 2018)
    03/06/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court found that questions of arbitrability had been delegated to arbitrators by incorporation of the AAA arbitration rules, thus the issue of whether the arbitration agreement was procedurally or substantively unconscionable should be decided by arbitrators.

  • Doyle v. AD Astra Recovery Services, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-05233-NLH-AMD (D.N.J. Mar. 6, 2018)
    03/06/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court held that while defendant was not party to the arbitration agreement, defendant was a “related party” as contemplated in the agreement.

  • Meyer v. Kalanick, No. 1:15-CV-09796-JSR (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2018)
    03/05/2018

    Court, on remand from the second circuit, granted motion to compel arbitration as to one defendant and motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the other. Plaintiff argued that the right to arbitration had been waived, but court found that a defendant who had been added as a necessary party had not waived its right to arbitration, and the claims could not continue in that party’s absence.

  • Rancher v. Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00941-LSC (N.D. Ala. Mar. 5, 2018)
    03/05/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that arbitration would limit her statutory rights by potentially requiring her to pay fees in excess of the court filing fee.

  • Plummer v. Nicor Energy Services Company, No. 1:17-CV-02177-WTL-MPB (S.D. Ind. Mar. 5, 2018)
    03/05/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the mailing of terms and conditions containing an arbitration clause to plaintiff several days after plaintiff had agreed to a price over telephone was insufficient to establish an agreement to arbitrate disputes under Indiana law.

  • Petersen-Dean, Inc. v. Solarworld Americas, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-07326-WHO (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2018)
    03/05/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding the dispute subject to valid agreement to arbitrate.

  • Abdullayeva v. Attending Homecare Services, LLC., No. 1:17-CV-05951-JBW-SJB (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2018)
    03/05/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding that the language of the arbitration clause governing this dispute was permissive not mandatory, therefore the plaintiff may choose whether to arbitrate.

  • Nelson v. Klaas No. 1:16-CV-00042-DLH-CSM (D.N.D. Mar. 5, 2018)
    03/05/2018

    Court denied defendants’ motion to join additional counter-defendant in connection with confirmation proceedings of an arbitral award, finding the inclusion of the additional defendant would destroy diversity. 

  • Morton v. Darden Restaurants, Inc., No. 8:17-CV-01865-HMH-KFM (D.S.C. Mar. 2, 2018)
    03/02/2018

    Magistrate judge recommended granting motion to compel arbitration and dismiss proceedings.  Judge reasoned that even in the absence of a signed arbitration agreement, defendant had demonstrated plaintiff’s agreement to arbitrate.  On March 28, the district court, finding that no objection had been filed to the magistrate’s findings and that there was no clear error on the face of the recommendation, compelled arbitration and dismissed proceedings.

  • Smith v. Altisource Solutions, No. 17-1501 (6th Cir. Mar. 2, 2018)
    03/02/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s order denying in part the motion to compel arbitration because several of the claims did not fall within the scope of the arbitral agreement.

  • Rusoro Mining Limited v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 1:16-CV-02020-RJL (D.D.C. Mar. 2, 2018)
    03/02/2018

    Court granted petition to confirm an ICSID Additional Facility arbitration award.  In rejecting the respondent’s argument that under Art. V(1)(c) of the New York Convention the award should not be confirmed because the tribunal exceeded its scope of its consent to arbitrate, the court held that the issue of arbitrability was assigned to the tribunal and the court must give substantial deference to that decision and not second-guess the tribunal’s construction of the Canada-Venezuela BIT.  Further, the arbitral tribunal did not exceed its authority in its damages calculation and reached a reasonable quantum of damages.  Finally, the court held that applying the Europcar factors supported an immediate confirmation.

  • BSH Hausgerate GMBH v. Kamhi, No. 1:17-CV-05776-RWS (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2018)
    03/02/2018

    Court granted petition to confirm award pursuant to the New York Convention, rejecting respondent’s arguments that the award was ambiguous or contrary to the laws governing the arbitration. 

  • Chambers v. Hampden Coal, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-02744 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 1, 2018)
    03/01/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court found there was an enforceable arbitration agreement between the parties even though the agreement mistakenly referred to a different employee and the agreement explicitly stated it was not a contract.  Court concluded that the claim on improper termination based on age could be referred to arbitration.

  • Shaw v. ROI Land Investments Ltd., No. 2:17-CV-01165 (D. Nev. Mar. 1, 2018)
    03/01/2018

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award pursuant to the FAA, finding that arbitrator’s decision did not show a manifest disregard for the law and that the arbitrator did not engage in misconduct.

  • Agviq, LLC v. Right Way Environmental Contractors, No. 3:17-CV-02034-WGY (D.P.R. Mar. 1, 2018)
    03/01/2018

    Plaintiff sought preliminary injunction to enjoin arbitration proceedings, arguing that the dispute fell within an exception to the arbitration provision. The agreement delegated the question of arbitrability to the court, and Court held the dispute was arbitrable under the agreement granting summary judgment for defendant.

  • 20/20 Communications  v. Crawford, No. 4:17-CV-00929-A (N.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2018)
    02/28/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate an arbitral award. Court held that because the arbitrator interpreted the agreement he did not exceed his authority even if he was incorrect about the law. Thus, plaintiff failed to show existence of one of the limited grounds for vacating awards under the FAA.

  • Oyola v. Midland Funding, LLC, No. 4:17-CV-40040-TSH (D. Mass. Feb. 28, 2018)
    02/28/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, dismiss the case, and strike class allegations, finding the delegation clause and arbitration agreement were valid.

  • Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. El Turk, No. 3:17-CV-02019-JCH (D. Conn. Feb. 28, 2018)
    02/28/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that a party may be “aggrieved” for the purposes of the FAA and federal standing even if it is not party to an underlying litigation. Court also held that it had jurisdiction to compel arbitration even though underlying litigation was in Ohio, because the FAA allows petitions to compel arbitration to be filed in any district court with subject matter jurisdiction. Based on the language of the agreement, court held that the plaintiff could bring any claims arising out of the agreement it wished to arbitrate, and that further decisions about arbitrability of claims should be decided by the arbitrator.

  • MacDonald v. Cashcall Inc., No. 17-2161 (D. Md. Feb. 27, 2018)
    02/27/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that the arbitration agreement, including the delegation clause, was unenforceable because the agreement directed arbitration to an illusory forum and the forum selection clause was an integral, non-severable part of the arbitral agreement.

  • Management Registry, Inc. v. A.W. Companies, Inc., No. 0:17-CV-05009-JRT-FLN (D. Minn. Feb. 27, 2018)
    02/27/2018

    Court granted motion to compel AAA arbitration finding the mandatory arbitration provision was a valid agreement to arbitrate, and stayed proceedings pending arbitration pursuant to the FAA on a determination that arbitration will not likely resolve all issues between the parties.

  • Jemiri v. Public Service Enterprise Group Corporation (PSEG), No. 2:17-CV-04518-ADS-AKT (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2018)
    02/27/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending the resolution of arbitration.  Pursuant to the FAA, court found a valid arbitration agreement between the plaintiff and employer existed, and concluded that because the disputes were intertwined the entire case should be sent to arbitration including claims against non-signatories to the agreement that are factually intertwined with the dispute between the signatories. 

  • Kroat v. Pizza Hut of Maryland, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-02035-RDB (D. Md. Feb. 27, 2018)
    02/27/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding plaintiff had entered into an agreement with his employer to arbitrate all employment-related disputes.  Court found a stay was not appropriate because all plaintiff’s claims were arbitrable.

  • Choice Hotels International Inc. v. Khan, No. 8:17-CV-03572-DKC (D. Md. Feb. 26, 2018)
    02/26/2018

    Court confirmed arbitration award and granted motion for default judgment, concluding that defendant had not demonstrated any ground for vacating the award under the FAA.

  • Sayre v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., No. 3:17-CV-00449-JLS-MDD (S.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2018)
    02/26/2018

    Court denied petition to vacate or modify the arbitral award, holding there was no “manifest disregard for the law” or violation of the FAA in the tribunal’s refusal to postpone a hearing, which consisted of opposing counsel’s closing statements, when petitioner and his counsel could not be present.  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint which alleged claims that could have been brought in arbitration, finding they were barred by res judicata.                                                                

  • Athas Health LLC v. Giuffre, No. 3:17-CV-00300-L (N.D. Tex. Feb. 23, 2018)
    02/23/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration under §4 of the FAA. Court held that because the claims arose while the contract was in effect, and because arbitration agreements are separable and therefore enforceable after a contract comes to an end, the court must enforce a specific agreement to arbitrate.  Additionally, a challenge to the enforceability or unconscionability of the underlying contract is left to the arbitrator to decide.

  • International Corrugated and Packing Supplies, Inc. v. Lear Corporation, No. 3:15-CV-00405-DCG (W.D. Tex. Feb. 22, 2018)
    02/22/2018

    On remand from the fifth circuit, the court continued to deny the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that under Texas law, in order to incorporate an unsigned contract into another contract, the latter contract must be signed by the party sought to be charged. Here, because the defendant was attempting to incorporate by reference unsigned terms and conditions containing an arbitration clause into unsigned purchase orders, the defendant failed to prove there was a valid agreement to arbitrate.

  • Norfolk Southern Railway v. Sprint Communications Company L.P., No. 16-2107 (4th Cir. Feb. 22, 2018)
    02/22/2018

    Court of appeals reversed the district court’s order granting a motion to confirm an arbitration award. Court held that the award failed to resolve an issue presented by the parties to the arbitrators, and therefore it is not “mutual, final, and definite” as required by the FAA.

  • Clarke v. Alltran Financial LP f/k/a United Recovery Systems LP, No. 2:17-CV-03330-JFB-AYS (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2018)
    02/22/2018

    Court granted non-signatory defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action pending conclusion of the arbitration. Court held that the plain language of the contract at issue allows the defendant to compel arbitration because the arbitration agreement does not expressly limit the right to compel arbitration to the signatories.  Moreover, the arbitration provision states that it is to be interpreted in “the broadest way the law will allow it to be interpreted.”

  • ACE Insurance Company of Puerto Rico v. Nolasco Communications Inc., No. 1:15-CV-00052-WAL-GWC (D.V.I. Feb. 22, 2018)
    02/22/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm a AAA construction industry arbitration award under the FAA. Court held that it had jurisdiction to confirm the award and, as the defendant did not allege any of the statutory bases for vacating the award, confirmation of the award was appropriate. Court also awarded post-judgment interest pursuant to 28 USC § 1961, which applies to money judgments entered in federal courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction.

  • Tassy v. Lindsay Entertainment Enterprises, Inc., No. 17-5375 (6th Cir. Feb. 22, 2018)
    02/22/2018

    Court of appeals vacated order denying motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration and remanded for further proceedings.  Court of appeals held that district court had erred by failing to summarily proceed to trial in order to resolve a factual dispute over the existence of an arbitration agreement and instead denying a motion to compel arbitration.

  • Lett v. Classic Buick GMC Cadillac, No. 2:17-CV-00373-SRW (M.D. Ala. Feb. 22, 2018)
    02/22/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that, plaintiff having omitted by amendment his federal claim, court no longer had federal question jurisdiction; the case was therefore dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

  • LPF II, LLC v. Cornerstone Systems, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-02417-DDC-JPO  (D. Kan. Feb. 21, 2018)
    02/21/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration based on the record before it and concluded that a summary trial was necessary to determine whether the parties’ contract requires them to arbitrate their disputes.

  • Independent Laboratory Employees’ Union, Inc. v. ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company, No. 3:17-CV-11858-PGS-LHG (D.N.J. Feb. 20, 2018)
    02/20/2018

    Court granted motion to enforce a AAA arbitration award, finding that the arbitrator’s award did not disregard the “zipper clause” nor manifestly ignore the plain language of the collective bargaining agreement at issue.

  • Lionsbrood Enterprises, LLC v. Installation Solutions, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01507-WJM-MJW (D. Colo. Feb. 20, 2018)
    02/20/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that, because both statutory rights and common law claims may be resolved in arbitration, all claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and thus the agreement was binding and enforceable.

  • ATT Mobility Services LLC v. Payne, No. 3:17-CV-00649-CRS (W.D. Ky. Feb. 16, 2018)
    02/16/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration of state court claims and for a preliminary injunction enjoining the state court proceedings.  Court held that a valid and enforceable contract between the parties exists under Kentucky law and that the defendant accepted the plaintiff’s offer to arbitrate future claims.  Additionally, the court found that enjoining the state court proceedings, in light of the finding that a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement existed, would prevent irreparable harm against the movant by avoiding the expense and delay of trial.

  • DCK World Wide LLC v. Pacifica Riverplace, LP., No. 1:16-CV-00666-SS (W.D. Tex. Feb. 16, 2018)
    02/16/2018

    Court granted motion to confirm an arbitration award under §9 of the FAA. Court found that it, rather than the arbitrator, had the authority to determine whether a non-signatory was bound to the arbitration agreement; and that the non-signatory plaintiff was bound by the arbitration agreement on equitable grounds of implied assumption and direct benefits estoppel. Having determined that the arbitrator correctly found that the non-signatory was required to arbitrate, the court held that the arbitrator did not exceed its authority and therefore no grounds for vacatur existed.

  • Jenkins v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-1999-MMA-BGS (S.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2018)
    02/16/2018

    Court granted in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that a valid agreement to arbitrate all but one of the claims existed and that the agreement was not procedurally unconscionable under California law.  Court stayed one claim in the interest of efficiency, pending completion of the arbitration.

  • Diaz v. Intuit, Inc., No. 5:15-CV-01778-EJD (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2018)
    02/16/2018

    Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to certify for appeal the court’s order granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that an interlocutory appeal would not materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation but rather delay the arbitration. 

  • Penneco Oil Co., Inc. v. Energy Corp. of America, No. 2:16-CV-01918-JFC (W.D. Pa. Feb. 15, 2018)
    02/15/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment against the confirmation of plaintiff’s arbitration award, granted plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitrator’s unexplained denial of plaintiff’s attorney’s fees for lack of procedural fairness, and remanded the case to the arbitrator to determine plaintiff’s reasonable fees.

  • Adkins v. Comcast Corp., No. 3:17-CV-06477-VC (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2018)

    02/15/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment against the confirmation of plaintiff’s arbitration award, granted plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitrator’s unexplained denial of plaintiff’s attorney’s fees for lack of procedural fairness, and remanded the case to the arbitrator to determine plaintiff’s reasonable fees.

  • Adkins v. Comcast Corp., No. 3:17-CV-06477-VC (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2018)

    02/15/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement contained an unenforceable waiver under California law of an individual’s right to bring a public injunctive relief claim in any forum.  Court further held that the agreement included language that invalidated the entire arbitration clause if the waiver was invalidated.

  • Pfeffer v. Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, No. 17-1819 (2d Cir. Feb. 15, 2018)
    02/15/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s confirmation of an arbitration award and denial of motion to vacate that award.  Court found no error in the district court decision that plaintiff failed to meet her burden to demonstrate that vacatur was appropriate under the FAA. 

  • Smith v. Kellogg Co., No. 2:17-CV-01914-APG-GWF (D. Nev. Feb. 15, 2018)
    02/15/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the parties’ arbitration agreement clearly and unmistakably delegated the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator by incorporation of the JAMS rules, and that such delegation provision was not unconscionable.
     

  • Kingsbury v. Lyft, Inc., No.1:17-CV-02272-SDY (N.D. Ill. Feb. 15, 2018)
    02/15/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiffs agreed to broad arbitration clauses on multiple occasions and that their claims fell squarely within the scope of those clauses. 

  • OOO FC Grand Capital v. International Pharmaceutical Services Ltd., No. 2:16-CV-06156-JS-SIL (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2018)
    02/14/2018

    Court adopted Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation to grant plaintiff’s motion to confirm an arbitration award in its favor, finding it to be comprehensive and free of clear error, and that all objections were deemed waived as no party timely objected to the report.

  • Rhoades v. Duke University, No. 5:17-CV-00446-FWL (E.D.N.C. Feb. 13, 2018)
    02/14/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed between the parties with respect to the claims plaintiff asserted.

  • Brown v. Sperber-Porter, No. 17-15121 (9th Cir. Feb. 14, 2018)
    02/14/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s confirmation of an arbitration award.  Court held that under Arizona law the arbitrator’s refusal to postpone the hearing did not provide a basis for setting aside the award in circumstances where the plaintiffs failed to show sufficient cause for the postponement, nor did the award conflict with the express guidelines or standards set forth in the arbitration agreement.
     

  • Rose v. Humana Insurance Co., No. 3:17-CV-08107-DGC (D. Ariz. Feb. 14, 2018)
    02/14/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendants failed to establish a valid arbitration agreement existed when they did not establish under Arizona law that plaintiff knew about or assented to the unilateral modification to the agreement requiring arbitration.
     

  • Goldgroup Resources, Inc. v. DynaResource de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., No. 1 :16-CV-02547-RM-KMT (D. Colo. Feb. 13, 2018)
    02/13/2018

    Magistrate judge recommended that district court deny plaintiff’s application to confirm an arbitration award and grant defendants’ petition for nonrecognition of the award and that the award be vacated.  Magistrate judge found that the arbitrator exceeded his authority to proceed with arbitration without one of the defendants’ participation and when a Mexican court ordered the arbitration to not proceed. Further, the defendants had not engaged in improper forum shopping since they brought the case in Mexico City to contest the legality and applicability of the arbitration clause under Mexican law.

  • Dasher v. RBC Bank (USA), No. 15-13871 (11th Cir. Feb. 13, 2018)
    02/13/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that defendant failed to show that plaintiff agreed to the addition of the arbitration provision in dispute.
     

  • Ridgeway v. Nabors Completion & Production Services Co., No. 2:15-CV-03436-DDP-JPR (9th Cir. Feb. 13, 2018)
    02/13/2018

    Court of appeals reversed district court decision and remanded with instructions. Court concluded that the district court correctly held that the arbitration agreement involved a moderate level of procedural unconscionability because it was a nonnegotiable requirement of plaintiff’s employment. However, the provisions at issue were substantively unconscionable, with two exceptions relating to shifting discovery costs and expert fees.

  • Dooley v. Federated Law Group, PLLC, No. 1:16-CV-04703-SCJ (N.D. Ga. Feb. 12, 2018)
    02/12/2018

    Court adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge to grant defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Magistrate judge found that (i) defendants established by a preponderance of the evidence that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate, as evidenced by the credit member agreement attached to the affidavit of the records custodian; (ii) defendants could enforce the arbitration agreement even though they were not one of the original signatories; (iii) plaintiff’s individual claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement; and (iv) the Eleventh Circuit has held that arbitration agreements precluding class action relief are valid and enforceable.

  • Charging Bison, L.L.C. v. Interstate Battery Franchising & Development Inc., No. 17-10509 (5th Cir. Feb. 12, 2018)

    02/12/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court order denying a stay of arbitration.  Court held that district court properly ruled in favor of arbitration where the carveout provision in the arbitration agreement did not cover anticipatory terminations of the franchise agreement.

  • Singh v. Peters, No. 3:09-CV-00181-CVG-RM (D.V.I. Feb. 12, 2018)
    02/12/2018

    Court adopted Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation to grant in part plaintiff’s motion to show cause.  Court held that defendant shall appear to show cause why he should not be held in civil contempt for failure to appear for an examination in aid of execution of judgment on an order confirming an arbitral award.

  • DDRA Capital, Inc. v. KPMG, LLP, No. 1:04-CV-00158-AET (D.V.I. Feb. 9, 2018)

    02/09/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss RICO arbitration claims for failure to prosecute.  Court held that the Third Circuit’s six equitable factors to be considered for motions to dismiss weighed on balance in favor of dismissal.

  • Kimble v. Jamieson, P.C., No. 2:17-CV-02187-SHM-TMP (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 9, 2018)
    02/09/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that the plain language of the arbitration provision in the contract did not apply to defendant’s or plaintiff’s claims as defendant was not a party to the contract.

  • Atkins v. CGI Technologies and Solutions, Inc., No. 17-5506 (6th Cir. Feb. 9, 2018)
    02/09/2018

    Court of appeals vacated the district court’s order denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and remanded for further proceedings.  Court held that that reverse-preemption by state law regulating insurance business pursuant to the McCarran-Ferguson Act did not did not preclude enforcement of the contractual arbitration clause under the FAA.

  • Johnson v. Cach, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00383-BLW (D. Idaho Feb. 9, 2018)
    02/09/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to reopen the case or appoint an arbitrator. Court held that, despite the unavailability of the National Arbitration Forum as an arbitration forum, the language of the arbitration agreement at issue contemplated the use of other arbitral forums and provides guidance for doing so.

  • Rogers v. SWEPI LP, No. 2:16-CV-00999-JLG-KAJ (S.D. Ohio Feb. 9, 2018)
    02/09/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that while a broad arbitration clause existed, the plaintiff’s agreement to arbitration was subject to a condition precedent that was not fulfilled.

  • Atkins v. CGI Technologies & Solutions, Inc., No. 17-5506 (6th Cir. Feb. 9, 2018)
    02/09/2018

    Court of appeals vacated and remanded district court’s order denying motion to compel arbitration, finding that reverse-preemption poses no obstacles to the enforcement of the contractual arbitration clause at issue.

  • Beltsville Land, LLC v. Conaboy, No. 1:17-CV-00551-WS-B (S.D. Ala. Feb. 8, 2018)
    02/08/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration but denied motion to dismiss and stayed the claim.  Court held that a clear and unmistakable agreement to arbitrate exists and that the arbitrator shall resolve objections as to the existence, scope and validly of such agreement.  Additionally, under eleventh circuit precedent, the claims are to be stayed, not dismissed, pending arbitration.

  • Smith v. JRK Residential Group, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01586-MPS (D. Conn. Feb. 8, 2018)
    02/08/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action. Applying the second circuit’s four-factor test for determining whether parties are compelled to arbitrate, the court held that (1) the parties agreed to arbitrate the claims at issue; (2) the claims fell within the scope of the agreement; (3) the claims can be resolved through arbitration; and, (4) the court action will be stayed pending the conclusion of the arbitration.

  • Dixon v. Wilora Lake Healthcare LLC, 3:17-CV-00713-FDW-DCK (W.D.N.C. Feb. 8, 2018)
    02/08/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay the action, holding that the plaintiff’s claims fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement at issue. Additionally, the alleged rescission of the contract, and whether the parties satisfied any procedural preconditions to arbitration, is an issue of substantive arbitrability and thus reviewable in the arbitration.

  • Ranger Offshore Mexico, S. De R.L. De C.V. v. Grupo Tradeco, S.A. de C.V., No. 4:15-CV-00635 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2018)
    02/07/2018

    Court denied a motion for vacatur of an international arbitration award. In doing so, the court held that the arbitral tribunal did not exceed its authority in granting fees and costs, the arbitral award was final and not conditional, and that the arbitral tribunal reasonably denied the defendants’ request to postpone a hearing.

  • Eddystone Rail Company LLC v. Jamex Transfer Services LLC, No. 1:17-CV-01266 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2018)
    02/07/2018

    Court denied motion to intervene and challenge an arbitration award against the defendant that the interveners’ feared would be enforced against them.  Court held that the interveners, as a non-party to an underlying arbitration, may not intervene in a federal proceeding for the purpose of challenging the validity of an arbitration award because they, inter alia, failed to demonstrate a substantial interest in the arbitration.

  • Ohio River Valley Associates, LLC v. PST Services, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00628-GNS (W.D. Ky. Feb. 7 2018)
    02/07/2018

    Court granted motions for preliminary injunction to enjoin defendant from arbitrating the dispute between the parties and to conduct limited discovery. Court held that all four factors relevant to determining whether a preliminary injunction weigh in favor of the motion.
     

  • Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated v. Middleton, No. 3:17-CV-01259-HES-JRK (M.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2018)
    02/07/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to stay proceedings and compel FINRA arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Plaintiff had brought an action to enjoin defendant, a previous employee from arbitrating claims that his portfolio had been devalued through fraud, but the court found that the dispute was within arbitration provisions in both the employee agreement and the customer agreement.

  • Virtu KCG Holdings LLC v. LI, No. 2:17-CV-08296 (D.N.J. Feb. 6, 2018)
    02/06/2018

    Court denied motion compel arbitration, finding that under the FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) standard a valid agreement to arbitrate exists, but that the issues in dispute do not fall within the scope of that agreement.

  • Citizen Potawatomi Nation v. State of Oklahoma, No. 16-6224 (10th Cir. Feb. 6, 2018)
    02/06/2018

    Court of appeals remanded to district court to enter an order vacating the arbitration award.  In accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Hall Street Associates, LLC v. Mattel, Inc., court found the FAA precludes parties to an arbitration agreement from contracting for de novo review of legal determinations in an arbitral award, and therefore, the agreement’s de novo review provision was invalid.  Because the de novo review provision was a material aspect of the parties’ agreement to arbitrate disputes, court held the provision could not be separated from the agreement and the obligation to arbitrate was unenforceable.

  • Koby v. ARS National Services, Inc., No. 3:09-CV-00780-KSC (S.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2018)
    02/05/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that the evidence proffered by the non-signatory defendant to establish its ability to enforce the arbitration agreement in question was inadmissible.

  • Payne v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00076 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 5, 2018)
    02/05/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Court held that the plaintiff’s claims under state law are not sufficient for subject matter jurisdiction, particularly since neither the FAA nor a motion to compel arbitration under the FAA confers subject matter jurisdiction on federal courts.

  • 2020 Communications, Inc. v. Blevins, No. 17-10160 (5th Cir. Feb. 5, 2018)
    02/05/2018

    Court of appeals denied an appeal of an order denying a preliminary injunction for lack of jurisdiction. Court held that under §16(b)(4) of the FAA, with limited exceptions inapplicable in the current case, it was not permitted to consider appeals from interlocutory orders that refuse to enjoin arbitrations.

  • Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC v. Abel, No. 3:18-CV-00141-MMH-MCR (M.D. Fla. Feb. 5, 2018)
    02/05/2018

    Court granted emergency motion to stay proceedings pending FINRA arbitration, agreeing to extent a temporary restraining order until the hearing commenced.

  • Sherrard v. Macy’s System and Technology Inc., No. 17-11766 (11th Cir. Feb. 5, 2018)
    02/05/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order compelling arbitration, finding that minor participation in litigation prior to moving to compel arbitration was insufficient to constitute a finding of waiver of the right to arbitrate.

  • Leidos, Inc. v. Hellenic Republic, No. 17-7082 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 2, 2018)
    02/02/2018

    Court of appeals reversed district court’s grant of petitioner’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to convert an arbitral award rendered against the Hellenic Republic from euros into U.S. dollars based on the exchange rate on the date of the original arbitral award.  Court found the district court incorrectly concluded that the Rule 59(e) prohibition on raising new issues did not apply to petitioner because it was not a ‘losing party’ and determined that it was not manifestly unjust to award petitioner’s judgment in euros. 

  • Mandviwala v. Five Star Quality Care, Inc., No. 16-55084 (9th Cir. Feb. 2, 2018)
    02/02/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed in part and remanded to the district court to order arbitration of victim-specific relief, finding that putative class claims under California Private Attorney General Act were not arbitrable and could not be waived, but that labor law claims for unpaid wages could be arbitrated.

  • Hancock Mechanical LLC v. McClain Contracting Company Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00054 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 2, 2018)
    02/02/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case, holding that pursuant to the FAA and Mississippi contract law, as well as the parties’ conduct, all the elements necessary for formation of a contract and the associated arbitration agreement are present.  Court also held that the breach of contract claim against the defendant falls within the parameters of the arbitration agreement.

  • Group III Mgt., Inc. v. Dragados USA Inc., No. 7:17-CV-00240-D (E.D.N.C. Feb. 2, 2018)
    02/02/2018

    Court granted motion to stay the action pending mediation and arbitration, finding that all of the plaintiff’s claims arise from and depend on a written contract that contains a valid and enforceable arbitration provision.

  • Method, LLC v. Make It Right Foundation, No. 9:17-CV-00025-DLC (D. Mont. Feb. 1, 2018)
    02/01/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Pursuant to the FAA, court found a valid arbitration agreement and that defendants had not waived their rights to arbitration, concluding that although defendants knew of the right to arbitrate they did not behave inconsistently with this right and plaintiffs did not establish that they had been prejudiced.  Court also denied plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions for defendants’ failure to engage in ADR in good faith during the litigation, finding there was no evidence of conduct rising to the level of bad faith to justify sanctions.

  • Cook v. Northstar Location Services, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-04186-MHC (N.D. Ga. Jan. 31, 2018)
    01/31/2018

    Court approved and adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge to grant defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay action.  Magistrate judge concluded that defendant had proven that the agreement was valid; the record was clear that Barclays offered an account to plaintiff via the agreement, plaintiff was aware of the terms of the agreement, and she agreed with those terms (as evidenced by her use).  Magistrate judge further concluded that defendant’s valid assignment from Barclays enabled defendant to enforce the arbitration clause contained in the agreement.

  • Brenco Enterprises, INC. v. Bitesquad.com, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-01263-TSE-IDD (E.D. Va. Jan. 31, 2018)
    01/31/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, noting that the parties made clear that they intended for the arbitrator to evaluate questions of arbitrability by incorporating AAA rules into the agreement.

  • Visteon Corporation v. Leuliette, No. 4:16-CV-11180-TGB-EAS (E.D. Mich. Jan. 30, 2018)
    01/30/2018

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award and granted in part motion to seal.  Court denied motion to partially vacate the award, finding pursuant to the FAA and sixth circuit precedent the proper provision of the FAA for partial vacatur was § 11 not § 10, as argued by petitioners and regardless, there was no valid basis to disturb the award.  Court held that to satisfy the public interest the arbitration award must be unsealed, but the remainder of the record could remain under seal.

  • Domain Vault LLC v. Rightside Group Ltd, No. 3:17-CV-00789-B (N.D. Tex. Jan. 30, 2018)
    01/30/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding under the FAA that plaintiff assented to the online agreement to arbitrate.  Even though defendant was not a party to the arbitration agreement, court concluded that the doctrine of equitable estoppel applied and the defendant could compel arbitration.

     

  • Credit Acceptance Corporation v. McDonald, No. 3:17-CV-00644-TSL-RHW (S.D. Miss. Jan. 30, 2018)
    01/30/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Pursuant to the FAA, court found a valid arbitration agreement and concluded that defendant’s intentional tort claims fell within the broad scope of the arbitration clause.

  • Jackson Laboratory v. Nanjing University, No. 1:17-CV-00363-GZS (D. Me. Jan. 29, 2018)
    01/29/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve process via email and personal service on three defendants domiciled in China under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) and 4(h) in relation to a petition to compel arbitration.  Concluding that the proposed service comported with requirements of Rule 4(f)(3) and due process, court noted that 4(f) does not require compliance with the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents (“Hague Service Convention”) or mandate exhaustion of other service methods before seeking court-ordered service.  Court also found service by email appropriate where the signatory country objects to service by postal channels under Article 10 of the Hague Service Convention.

  • Knight v. Idea Buyer, LLC, No. 17-3539 (6th Cir. Jan. 29, 2018) 
    01/29/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision dismissing the class action suit on the merits but found that a motion to dismiss pursuant to an arbitration agreement should be construed as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) not 12(b)(1) as pleaded by defendant.  Under the FAA, court held that plaintiffs’ claim that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because the overarching “Fast Track Agreement” was invalid should be addressed by the arbitrator because it was a challenge to the contract as a whole not just the arbitration provision.  Court determined the American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA) claims were arbitrable, concluding there was no evidence of a clear congressional intent to make AIPA claims nonarbitrable.
     

  • Byk v. Spira, No. 1:16-CV-05612-KBF (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2018)
    01/26/2018

    Court lifted stay on confirmation of arbitral award after an Israeli court confirmed the award.  Court rejected respondent’s arguments that the court should maintain the stay while respondent pursues an appeal.

  • Unite Here Local 30 v. Volume Services, Inc., No. 16-55528 (9th Cir. Jan. 26, 2018)
    01/26/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s rejection of motion to compel arbitration, finding that district court did not err in concluding that arbitration was not required where a mediator issued a decision that is final and binding.

  • YPF S.A. v. Apache Overseas, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00178 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 25, 2018)
    01/25/2018

    Court denied petitioner’s emergency motion to stay arbitration, or in the alternative to enjoin arbitration.  Petitioner YPF and respondent Apache submitted their dispute to KPMG for arbitration, after which Apache initiated an ICC arbitration against KPMG.  Noting that the FAA “exists in part to ensure that courts cannot undermine contractual agreements to arbitrate disputes,” the court concluded that Apache had a contractual right to arbitrate its dispute with KPMG, and that it would not be appropriate for the court to interfere with that right by issuing a stay or injunction.  Court further noted that should the ICC arbitration result in an outcome that undermines court orders, FAA § 10(a)(4) authorizes a federal court to set aside an arbitral award “where the arbitrators exceeded their powers.”

     

  • LLC International, Inc. v. Torgerson, No. 2:17-CV-02508-DDC-TJJ (D. Kan. Jan. 25, 2018)
    01/25/2018

    Court denied petition to vacate, rejecting petitioner’s assertion that the arbitrator exceeded his authority.  Court concluded that (i) it had jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s request to vacate the arbitrator’s order, even though the arbitration was ongoing; (ii) the arbitrator never held that the AAA Supplementary Rules did not apply and therefore did not exceed his authority; and (iii) in denying petitioner’s motion for clause construction award, the arbitrator never “strayed from his delegated task” and petitioner’s arguments to the contrary “simply address how well he performed his task of interpreting the Agreement.”

  • Ben-Salah v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc. of Delaware, No. 3:17-CV-00907-YY (D. Or. Jan. 25, 2018)
    01/25/2018

    Court adopted the magistrate’s judge’s findings and recommendations and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss or in the alternative to stay proceedings and compel arbitration.  Court agreed with the magistrate judge that (i) the question of equitable tolling was presumptively for the arbitrator to decide, (ii) plaintiff’s challenges to the arbitration based on arguments about formation of contract should be rejected, and (iii) plaintiff’s fraudulent inducement and unconscionability arguments are not specific to the arbitration clause and therefore not for the court to decide.

  • Keller v. T-Mobile, No. 2:16-CV-02143-CM-GLR (D. Kan. Jan. 25, 2018)
    01/25/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to remove case from arbitration and proceed with a case management order or compel a new arbitration proceeding.  Pursuant to the FAA, court found that there was no evidence of arbitrator bias and that the plaintiff received a fundamentally fair hearing.

  • Warciak v. Subway Restaurants, Inc., No. 17-1956 (7th Cir. Jan. 25, 2018)
    01/25/2018

    Court of appeals reversed and remanded district court’s ruling granting a motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that Illinois state law rather than federal law applied when determining whether a contract’s arbitration clause binds a non-signatory, and that defendant restaurant chain was therefore unable to rely on estoppel to enforce the arbitration agreement in the contract when plaintiff was neither a signatory nor a party to the contract.

  • West African Ventures Limited v. Ranger Offshore, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00548 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 24, 2018)
    01/24/2018

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss and stayed defendant’s counterclaims in favor of arbitration.  Court concluded that all of defendant Ranger’s counterclaims were subject to the arbitration agreement, and plaintiffs did not waive arbitration by bringing suit to enforce guarantees, which did not contain an arbitration provision.

  • McIntosh v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-03273 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 24, 2018)
    01/24/2018

    Court granted Uber’s motion to compel in part and denied it in part.  Court found that (i) plaintiff’s challenges to contract formation did not have merit, and (ii) because plaintiff was challenging the arbitration provision as a whole, rather than the delegation clause specifically, plaintiff’s unconscionability arguments were for the arbitrator to decide.

  • Inception Mining, Inc. v. Danzig, Ltd., No. 2:17-CV-00944-DN (D. Utah Jan. 24, 2018)
    01/24/2018

    Court denied in part and granted in part defendants’ motion to dismiss.  Court held that subject matter jurisdiction existed and venue was proper to determine if plaintiffs may be required to arbitrate.  However, since issues of arbitrability were to be decided by the arbitrator, the motion to dismiss was granted in part.

  • Huron Consulting Group, Inc. v. Gruner, No. 1:17-CV-06042 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 24, 2018)
    01/24/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss for improper venue or, in the alternative, lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Court noted that while the parties designated an arbitral forum (JAMS), they failed to incorporate the JAMS rules, and therefore defendant failed to present the requisite clear and unmistakable evidence of the parties’ intent to arbitrate arbitrability.

  • Blackstone Consulting, Inc., v. R&R Food Services L.L.C., No. 5:17-CV-011118-HE (W.D. Okla. 24 Jan. 2018)
    01/24/2018

    Court granted a party’s request to intervene in this case in order to protect its interest in recovering compensation awarded in arbitration against one of the defendants.  Court found the third party interest could be impeded or impaired by allowing the litigation to continue without it and, as a result, granted the motion to intervene.

  • Roberts v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 3:15-CV-03418-EMC (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018)
    01/23/2018

    Court granted motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration in light of plaintiffs’ argument that there is a new legal basis establishing that arbitration should not be compelled.  Since the court’s prior order, the California Supreme Court determined in McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 2 Cal. 5th 945 (2017) that (i) holding that an arbitration agreement waives the right to seek the statutory remedy of public injunctive relief is contrary to public policy and therefore unenforceable, and (ii) there is no FAA preemption of that California rule.

  • Berkowitz v. Republic of Costa Rica, No. 1:17-CV-00148-RJL (D.D.C. Jan. 23, 2018)
    01/23/2018

    Court denied claimants’ petition to vacate the interim arbitration award and dismissed petitioners’ case with prejudice.  Court held that it did not have jurisdiction to review the interim award because it was not final, noting that it is generally improper for a district court to interfere with an international arbitration before the tribunal issues a final ruling and that other circuits have similarly held that the FAA precludes review of interlocutory arbitration decisions.

  • Bartels v. Saber Healthcare Group, LLC, No. 16-2247 (4th Cir. Jan. 23, 2018)
    01/23/2018

    Court vacated and remanded for further proceedings on the question of whether all of the defendants are bound by the forum-selection clause.  In reaching its decision, court noted that it had previously explained in the arbitration context that if the charges against the parent company and its subsidiary are based on the same facts and are inherently inseparable, a court may refer claims against the parent to arbitration even though the parent is not formally a party to the arbitration agreement.  Similarly, under the well-established common law principles of estoppel and alter-ego theories, a non-signatory can be bound by a contractual clause executed by a third party.

  • Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Repins, No. 3:17-CV-00323-JCH (D. Conn. Jan. 22, 2018)
    01/22/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration, concluding that defendant’s arguments were matters delegated to the arbitrator by the delegation provision in the parties’ agreement.

  • Olstad v. Chase Auto Finance Corporation, No. 3:17-CV-00236-WMC (W.D. Wis. Jan. 22, 2018)
    01/22/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to stay the action and compel arbitration.  Court held that the issue of arbitrability was for the arbitrator to decide, as plaintiffs had conceded that the arbitration clause was enforceable as to all of its claims save one, and the arbitration clause delegated the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator.  Court further held that a stay was more appropriate than a dismissal as “it is possible, if unlikely, that the arbitrator may find that plaintiffs’ conversation claim is not arbitrable.

  • Holl v. United Parcel Service, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-05856-HSG (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2018)
    01/22/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the order granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court noted that there is “clear Ninth Circuit authority” holding that the FAA requires federal district courts to stay judicial proceedings and compel arbitration of claims covered by a written and enforceable arbitration agreement.

  • Citi Cars, Inc. v. Cox Enterprises, Inc., 1:17-CV-22190-KMM (S.D. Fla. Jan. 22, 2018)
    01/22/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings.  Court rejected argument that the applicable arbitration clauses were unconscionable given their lack of true mutuality and limitations on damages and prehearing discovery, ruling that plaintiff failed to substantiate its procedural unconscionability contentions, such that the rest of its argument on this point was therefore foreclosed.  Court further held that it was up to the arbitrator to determine whether certain provisions in the arbitration clauses were void because they contravened related anti-trust laws and that, in any case, they were severable and did not render the entire arbitration agreement invalid.  Finally, court held that even the non-signatory defendants could move to compel arbitration as plaintiff’s claims against them were “inextricably intertwined” with its claims against the other defendants. 

  • Tidewater Investment SRL v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 1:15-CV-01960-ALC (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2018)
    01/22/2018

    Court granted respondent’s motion to vacate the ex parte order recognizing the ICSID arbitration award.  Court explained that the Second Circuit has held in Mobil Cerro Negro, Ltd. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, 863 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2017) that ICSID award creditors can only enforce their awards against foreign states in the U.S. by commencing a plenary action that complies with all the jurisdictional and procedural requirements of the FSIA.

  • On v. Vannucci, M.D., Inc., et al., No. 214-cv-02714-TLN-CMK (E.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2018)
    01/19/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in favor of compulsory arbitration.  Court found that plaintiffs failed to show that they were prejudiced by the four month period between the date plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint adding defendant SAVI and the date defendants SAVI and NVDC filed their motion to compel.  With respect to defendant NVDC, court found that plaintiffs failed to show that (i) NVDC delayed its right to compel arbitration for three years, (ii) NVDC’s actions were inconsistent with any right to arbitrate, or (iii) plaintiffs were prejudiced by NVDC’s actions.

  • Castellanos v. Mariner Finance, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-03168-MJG (D. Md. Jan. 19, 2018)
    01/19/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to stay action.  Court found that there was no undue delay and no “trial-oriented activity” that would warrant a finding of prejudice, and although defendant filed a collection action against plaintiff in small claims court, such action was not subject to arbitration under the parties’ agreement.

  • Capax Discovery, Inc. v. AEP RSD Investors, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00500-CCR (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2018)
    01/19/2018

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss, strike, and to compel arbitration.  Court found that the only disputes that the parties’ intended to be resolved by an independent accountant were those arising from the value of the earn-out provisions or Zovy’s present book value.  This was evidenced by (i) the narrow focus of the agreement on resolving disputed values related to the earn-out provision, (ii) the direction that the dispute be resolved by an independent accountant who was to act “as an expert and not arbitrator,” and (iii) the New York choice of law and forum selection clause.

  • McAllister v. St. Louis Rams, LLC, No. 4:16-CV-00172-SNLJ (E.D. Mo. Jan. 19, 2018)
    01/19/2018

    Court denied third party defendant’s motion to participate in discovery.  Plaintiff McAllister filed a complaint against the St. Louis Rams, who in turn filed a third party complaint against the Regional Convention and Visitors Commission (“CVC”).  The proceeding between the Rams and the CVC was then stayed as required by the FAA.  Court found that because the CVC agreed to arbitration “and all of its appurtenant circumstances,” it also consented to a situation where it would not be able to participate in the discovery occurring between plaintiff and the Rams.

  • Little v. Cellco Partnership, No. 1:17-CV-03931 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 19, 2018)
    01/19/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, rejecting plaintiff’s argument that incorporation by reference of arbitration agreement in another document was insufficient to provide notice of arbitration provision, since the executed document gave independent notice of the arbitration clause.

  • MediaNews Group, Inc. v. Daily Gazette Company, No. 2:17-CV-03921 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 19, 2018)
    01/19/2018

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award, finding that the scope of judicial review as established by the FAA is mandatory and cannot be expanded by contract, and that purported “clear legal error” is not reviewable under the “manifest disregard of law” standard.

  • Dorman v. Charles Schwab & Co. Inc., No. 17-CV-00285-CW (N.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2018)
    01/18/2018

    Court rejected motion to compel arbitration, finding that (i) named plaintiff was not bound by arbitration agreement in retirement plan document since that document was issued after named plaintiff terminated his participation in the plan; (ii) no other arbitration agreement covered the claims at issue; and (iii) in any event, the named plaintiff could not waive rights that belong to the plan, such as the right to file an ERISA claim in court.

  • Ewell v. John C. Heath, Attorney at Law PLLC, No. 4:17-CV-11876-LVP-EAS (E.D. Mich. Jan. 18, 2018)
    01/18/2018

    Court granted motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, finding that a party may not avoid arbitration by arguing that the contract as a whole (rather than the arbitration clause specifically) is void.

  • Ferrari v. Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, No. 4:17-CV-00018-YGR (N.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2018)
    01/18/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendants could invoke the arbitration clause as intended third-party beneficiaries.

  • Freeman v. Smartpay Leasing, LLC, No. 6:17-CV-00938-GAP-GJK (M.D. Fla. Jan. 18, 2018)
    01/18/2018

    Court granted motion to vacate order compelling arbitration, finding that company who refused to pay filing fee as required under the consumer arbitration procedures of JAMS – a forum expressly designated as acceptable in the agreement drafted by the company – waived its right to rely on the arbitration clause.

  • KCG Holdings, Inc. v. Rohit Khandekar, No. 1:17-CV-03533-AJN-GWG (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2018)
    01/18/2018

    Court granted motion to stay in favor of a pending arbitration, finding that, although the litigation concerned different claims than the arbitration, there was significant factual overlap between the proceedings.

  • Marriott International, Inc. v. Danna, No. 2:17-CV-10590-ILRL-DEK (E.D. La. Jan. 18, 2018)
    01/18/2018

    Court denied plaintiff's motion to compel arbitration and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that there was no controversy since defendant had not yet asserted any claims in court.

  • In re Stati v. State Street Corporation, No. 1:15-MC-91059-LTS (D. Mass. Jan. 18, 2018)
    01/18/2018

    Court partially granted motion to compel discovery for use in foreign arbitral award enforcement proceedings under 28 USC § 1782, finding that the request fell within the scope of § 1782 since the foreign enforcement proceedings are adjudicative in nature (rather than prosecutorial), but that the petitioners had not yet established that documents sought were in the possession, custody, or control of the respondent and would be limited to conducting a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition to determine whether the control requirement was met.

  • Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, and Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund v. Premier Concrete Services Inc., No. 1:17-CV-06036-VEC (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2018)
    01/18/2018

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award against non-appearing party, finding that an unopposed confirmation petition must be granted unless the undisputed facts fail to show that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

  • Degidio v. Crazy Horse Saloon and Restaurant Inc, No. 17-1145 (4th Cir. Jan. 18, 2018)
    01/18/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed denial of motion to compel arbitration, finding that party who had pursued a merits-based litigation strategy three years before asking the court to compel arbitration had waived its right to arbitration.

  • Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Miller, No. 3:16-CV-00311-WHB-JCG (S. D. Miss. Jan, 18, 2017)
    01/18/2018

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the parties agreed to arbitrate all claims arising out of or relating to any relationship in the sales contract at issue, that the non-signatory plaintiffs could compel arbitration of a valid agreement under Mississippi law, that the agreement contained a delegation provision by which the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitratability, including claims contesting the enforceability, scope, or conscionability of that agreement.

  • The New York City District Council of Carpenters, Local 4112 v. Modivative Flooring Systems, Inc., No. 1:14-CV-01792-ER (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 17, 2018)
    01/17/2018

    Court granted unopposed motion for summary judgment to confirm arbitral award, finding that there was at least a barely colorable justification for the award.  However, court vacates arbitrator’s prospective award of attorney’s fees in the event of non-compliance of the award, and instead granted attorney’s fees at the reasonable amount actually incurred.

  • Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Mathis, No. 3:16-CV-00315-WHB-JCG (S.D. Miss. Jan. 17, 2017)
    01/17/2018

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that a valid arbitration agreement existed between the arbitration plaintiffs, non-signatories to the agreement, and the defendant under Mississippi law, that issues of whether the agreement was enforceable, who were proper parties to the agreement, unconscionability, and whether pre-arbitration mediation was required, have been clearly and unmistakably delegated to the arbitrator as the agreement adopts the JAMS rules which provide a delegation provision.

  • Salus Capital Partners, LLC v. Moser, No. 1:17-CV-05536-NRB (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2018)
    01/16/2018

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm the arbitration award, finding that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers under FAA § 10(a).  Court explained that the relevant standard for vacatur is whether the arbitrator lacked the authority to impose an award, not simply if the arbitrator misidentified the authority under which he was empowered to act.

  • Galilea, LLC v. AGCS Marin Insurance Company, No. 16-35474 (9th Cir. Jan. 16, 2018)
    01/16/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s grant of motion to compel arbitration of certain claims and reversed its denial of motion to compel arbitration of other claims, finding that: (i) although state law normally preempts federal law as to insurance contracts, an insurance policy insuring maritime interests against maritime risks is a maritime contract subject to federal maritime law, not state law, and therefore the FAA applies; and (ii) the parties delegated arbitrability issues to the arbitrator.

  • Chavez v. Get It Now, LLC d/b/a Home Choice, No. 0:17-CV-01490-DWF-HB (D. Minn. Jan. 16, 2018)
    01/16/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that, although a bankruptcy discharge did not render the arbitration agreement unenforceable, enforcing it would be contrary to the bankruptcy code where the claims arise from the creditor’s attempts to collect the discharged debt.

  • TRW Automotive U.S. LLC v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural, Implement Workers of America (UAW), No. 2:13-CV-12160-DPH-MKM (E.D. Mich. Jan. 16, 2018)
    01/16/2018

    Court denied motion to vacate award and granted cross-motion to affirm, finding that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority by fashioning a remedy substituting a different health care plan for the plan named in the collective bargaining agreement.

  • Jock v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., No. 1:08-CV-02875-JSR (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2018)
    01/16/2018

    Court granted motion to vacate arbitrator’s class certification award, finding that arbitrator may not bind non-parties to a class arbitration procedure where the court has found the arbitration agreement does not permit class arbitration procedures.

  • International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural, Implement Workers of America (UAW) v. TRW Automotive U.S. LLC, No. 2:11-CV-14630-DPH-MKM (E.D. Mich. Jan. 16, 2018)
    01/16/2018

    Court rejected motion to strike, finding, inter alia, that since arbitrator decided only contractual claims, the plaintiffs were free to pursue related statutory claims in federal court and were not constrained to challenge the award under the FAA.

  • Bryant v. CFRA Holdings, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-01469-RWS (N.D. Ga. Jan. 16, 2018)
    01/16/2018

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate or modify the arbitration award.  Court held that (i) the arbitrator clearly interpreted and applied the terms of the agreement and therefore did not exceed his power in issuing the arbitration award; (ii) the reasoning in the award was greater than what was required, since the controlling agreement did not specify the form of the award and the parties did not request that the arbitrator provide findings of fact and conclusions of law; and (iii) plaintiff’s arguments that the award was arbitrary and capricious, that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law, and that enforcing the award was against public policy were judicially-created grounds for vacatur that are no longer valid.

  • Walker v. USA Swimming, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00825 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 12, 2018)
    01/12/2018

    Court denied petition to vacate arbitral award, finding that arbitrator’s decision not to adjudicate a dispute de novo, but rather apply a deferential standard of review to the prior determination of a professional organization’s internal judicial body, did not constitute a refusal to hear evidence material and pertinent to the controversy warranting vacatur under the FAA.

  • Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, and Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund v. Regal USA Construction Inc., No. 1:17-CV-04594-AJN (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2018)
    01/12/2018

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award against non-appearing party, finding that grounds for the arbitrator’s decision could be inferred from the record and were justifiable.

  • Heritage Capital Corporation v. Christie’s, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-03404-D (N.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2018)
    01/12/2018

    Court denied motion for attorney’s fees, finding that a party who succeeds in compelling arbitration of copyright infringement claims is not a “prevailing party” entitled to attorney’s fees under the copyright act, since compelling arbitration is a procedural victory that does not materially alter the legal relationship between the parties.

  • Open Sea Investment, S.A. v. Credit Agricole Corporation, No. 1:17-CV-22366-KMW (S.D. Fla. Jan. 12, 2018)
    01/12/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay action, finding a binding arbitration agreement existed within the terms and conditions incorporated by reference into an application to open a bank account.  Court rejected the plaintiff’s two-fold claim that there was no “agreement in writing” to arbitrate on the bases that the arbitration agreement was not properly incorporated by reference because it was not sufficiently described in the application and that the arbitration agreement directly conflicts with the forum selection clause in the application.

  • Shockley v. Primelending, A Plainscapital Company, No. 4:17-CV-00763-ODS (W.D. Mo. Jan. 12, 2018) 
    01/12/2018

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding that no contract was formed between the parties. Court found that providing an employee a handbook containing an arbitration provision, with not language suggesting the handbook was a contract does not create an obligation to arbitrate disputes. 

  • Edmondson v. Lilliston Ford Inc, No. 17-1991 (3d Cir. Jan. 11, 2018)
    01/11/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed district court order denying motion to vacate an arbitral award and granting cross-motion to confirm the award, finding that the arbitration clause’s validity was not affected by a business’s statement that it had “severed its ties with the AAA” or its failure to register the arbitration clause with the AAA prior to the filing of a demand for arbitration.

  • Fatt Katt Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Granite Transformations of Atlanta v. Rocksolid Granit (USA), Inc., No. 1:17-CV-1900-MHC (N.D. Ga. Jan. 11, 2018)
    01/11/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay or dismiss and to compel arbitration.  Court found that the arbitrability of the parties’ agreement should be decided by an arbitrator because the parties expressly agreed to arbitrate, and plaintiff’s claim of unconscionability relates to the contract as a whole and not specifically to the delegation provision within the arbitration clause.

  • Arnold v. HomeAway, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00374-LY (W.D. Tex. Jan. 10, 2017)
    01/10/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that (i) website user with multiple accounts was subject to arbitration agreement in updated terms and conditions since he accepted the updated terms on one of his accounts, notwithstanding that he did not accept them for the account at issue; but (ii) under Texas law, an agreement to arbitrate is illusory and unenforceable if it permits a party to unilaterally abolish or modify the arbitration provision.

  • Visual Creations Inc. v. IDL Worldwide Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00405-WES-PAS (D.R.I. Jan. 9, 2018)
    01/09/2018

    Court denied request to deny plaintiff’s request for a jury, as opposed to bench, trial on the issue of whether there exists a binding agreement to arbitrate. Court held that the plaintiff’s timely request should be granted because §4 of the FAA explicitly provides for a jury trial on the issue of an arbitration agreement’s existence when the party allegedly in default requests such.

  • DiMucci v. Zenimax Media Inc., No. 3:17-CV-03789-EMC (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2018)
    01/09/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement relied on by the defendant is applicable and that as sophisticated parties to a commercial contract who agreed to the AAA Voluntary Arbitration Rules, issues of arbitrability should be decided by the arbitrator.

  • Everest Biosynthesis Group v. Biosynthesis Pharma Group Ltd., No. 3:17-CV-01466-JM-BGS (S.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2018)
    01/08/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration of claims against the first defendant and stay the action as to the remainder of the defendants pending conclusion of the anticipated arbitration.  Court held the parties’ arbitration agreement is clear and concise and evidences an intent to arbitrate any and all disputes under the subject agreement via HKIAC arbitration.  Further, the arbitration agreement was neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable as it was bargained for by the parties and that delegating arbitration in Hong Kong, as opposed to the US, is not so one-sided as to shock the conscience or be overly harsh or oppressive.

  • Wilson-Davis Co. v. Mirgliotta, No. 17-3496 (6th Cir. Jan. 8, 2018)
    01/08/2018

    Court of appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision refusing to enjoin certain of the defendant-appellee’s claims in FINRA arbitration.

  • Sanchez v. Elizondo, No. 16-17345 (9th Cir. Jan. 5, 2018)
    01/05/2018

    Court of Appeals reversed district court’s order vacating an arbitration award and remanding for a new arbitration, and remanded to the district court for further proceedings. Court held that the district court erred in finding that the arbitrator exceeded his powers and that the arbitrator exhibited a manifest disregard of the law. Court also joined other circuits in holding that it had jurisdiction pursuant to § 16 of the FAA where a motion for vacatur is accompanied by an order remanding for a new arbitration.

  • DTC Energy Group, Inc. v. Hirschfeld, No. 1:17-CV-01718-PAB-KLM (D. Colo. Jan. 4, 2018)
    01/04/2018

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding the plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief expressly falls outside the scope of the parties’ arbitration agreement.

  • Donado v. MRC Express, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-24032-RNS (S.D. Fla. Jan. 4, 2018)
    01/04/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case, determining that the language of the agreement at issue did not contain any temporal limitations and, therefore, it’s arbitration agreement could apply retroactively to all of the plaintiff’s claim. Could also held that the fee sharing and attorney fee provisions were not unconscionable.

  • Thanh Do v. Toyota Motor North America, No. 2:17-CV-12984-GCS-EAS (E.D. Mich. Jan. 3, 2018)
    01/03/2018

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the complaint, finding that allegations of discrimination in violation of Title VII were within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus v. Hubbard, No. 4:17-CV-00246-CDL (M.D. Ga. Jan. 3, 2018)
    01/03/2018

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court rejected defendants’ arguments that plaintiff had previously breached the arbitration agreement and that plaintiff had waived right to arbitration.

  • Crystallex International Corp v. Petroleos de Venezuela SA, No. 16-4012 (3rd Cir. Jan. 3, 2018)
    01/03/2018

    Court of appeals reversed and remanded a Delaware district court decision that a subsidiary of Petroleos de Venezuela SA, a non-debtor to an ICSID award against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, was liable under the Delaware Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act’s (DUFTA).  Court held that while the transfer resulted in assets being put out of the reach of creditors by virtue of international law, a transfer from a non-debtor, the subsidiary of Petroleos de Venezuela SA, to a debtor, Venezuela, is not covered by DUFTA.

  • Dreibrodt v. McClinton Energy Group, LLC, No. 7:16-CV-00340-RAJ (W.D. Tex. Jan. 3, 2017)
    01/03/2018

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss claims and compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court found that fee-splitting provision was severable and did not render arbitration agreement unenforceable. Court therefore struck fee-splitting provision and ordered defendants be responsible for costs of arbitration.

  • Seldin v. Seldin, No. 17-1045 (8th Cir. Jan. 2, 2018)
    01/02/2018

    Court of appeals reversed and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.  Court held that (i) a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not an appropriate mechanism to attempt to compel arbitration, and a 12(b)(6) or Rule 56 motion should be used instead; (ii) the existence of an arbitration agreement alone does not deprive the federal courts of jurisdiction; and (iii) the district court erred when it found that res judicata and collateral estoppel were sufficient grounds to grant a Rule 12(b)(1) motion because preclusion is not a jurisdictional matter.

  • Spinner v. Credit One Bank, N.A., No. 6:17-CV-00340-RBD-TBS (M.D. Fla. Dec. 29, 2017)
    12/29/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, denying plaintiff’s argument that defendant had waived right to arbitrate by participating in litigation.

  • Partridge v. American Hospital Management Company, LLC., No. 17-0248-RC (D.D.C. Dec. 29, 2017)
    12/29/2017

    Court dismissed defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding inter alia that defendant had waived right to arbitration through active participation in litigation.

  • Faggiano v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-03773-JFB-GRB (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2017)
    12/28/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court disposed of plaintiff’s argument that a class action waiver rendered the arbitration agreement unenforceable, reasoning that the waiver clause was severable from the agreement.

  • Schilling Livestock, Inc., v. Umpqua Bank, FKA Sterling Savings Bank, No. 15-35995 (9th Cir. Dec. 28, 2017)
    12/28/2017

    Court of appeals denied appeal of district court order confirming an arbitration award, holding that the record did not satisfy the high standard for vacatur.

  • Nygaard v. Property Damage Appraisers, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-02184-VC (E.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 2017)
    12/28/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that because California law rendered the arbitration provisions of the parties’ agreement unenforceable no valid arbitration agreement existed.

  • American, Etc., Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-03660-DMR (N.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 2017)
    12/28/2017

    Court denied motion to vacate arbitration award and granted cross-motion to confirm it.  Court rejected arguments that vacatur was merited under the FAA based on allegations that the arbitrator had exceeded his powers by ordering the petitioner to pay certain premiums to a non-party and considering certain claims by that non-party.

  • Four Star Beauty Supply Corp. v. GIB, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-01351-WCG (E.D. Wis. Dec. 28, 2017)
    12/28/2017

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award and denied cross-motion to vacate it under the FAA and Wisconsin state law.  Court rejected arguments that the arbitrator had manifestly disregarded the law, and held that a public policy defense to enforcement was not available under the FAA and that the plaintiff had failed to satisfy the standard under state law.

  • Leslie v. Hooters of America, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-02873-SEB-MJD (S.D. Ind. Dec. 28, 2017)
    12/28/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings.  Court rejected arguments that the arbitration agreement was invalid as unconscionable merely because it was a contract of adhesion and because the parties’ bargaining power had been unequal.

  • J&J Sports Productions Inc. v. Toetz Enterprises LLC, 2:15-CV-01411-JPS (E.D. Wis. Dec. 28, 2017)
    12/28/2017

    Court denied motion to modify the arbitrator’s award and dismissed the case.  Court reasoned that the modification provision of the FAA concerned only arithmetic-type errors, and not disagreements as to the arbitrator’s methodology or findings of fact.

  • Drywall Tapers and Pointers of Greater New York Local Union 1974, IUPAT, AFL-CIO v. Falcon & Son Corp, No. 1:17-CV-09148-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2017)
    12/28/2017

    Court granted unopposed motion to confirm an arbitration award, finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact nor any grounds for vacatur under the FAA.

  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Worldwide Shrimp Co., No. 1:17-CV-04723 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 28, 2017)
    12/28/2017

    Magistrate judge recommended that district court find plaintiff waived its right to arbitration as it failed to carry its burden that dismissal of the action was warranted.  Magistrate judge determined that plaintiff elected to proceed before a non-arbitral tribunal, acted in a manner inconsistent with the right to arbitrate, and that dismissal would prejudice the defendants.

  • Steel, LLC v. Sauer Group, Inc., No. 6:17-CV-01812-KRS (M.D. Fla. Dec. 28, 2017)
    12/28/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the claim. Court denied plaintiff’s arguments that certain claims were not the type which plaintiff agreed to arbitrate because any potential damages may actually be the responsibility of a third party. Court determined that this question was one of arbitrability and had been delegated to the arbitrators under the agreement.

  • Aqualucid Consultants, Inc. v. Zeta Corp., No. 17-1217 (6th Cir. Dec. 27, 2017)
    12/27/2017

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order compelling arbitration.  Court agreed that the arbitration agreement covered the dispute and held that the plaintiff’s failed to challenge its validity or demonstrate that the defendants had invalidated it by purportedly refusing to arbitrate prior to commencement of the litigation.  Court further ruled that the defendants had not waived their right to enforce the arbitration clause, finding no prejudice to the plaintiffs from any delays in asserting the arbitration defense.

  • Egonjic v. Princess Cruise Line, Ltd., No. 1:17-CV-24118-RNS (S.D. Fla. Dec. 27, 2017)
    12/27/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the matter.  Court reasoned that dismissal was the proper remedy under the FAA because the contract’s broad arbitration provision meant that all of the issues presented to the court were arbitrable.  The plaintiff did not challenge the arbitrability of the dispute.

  • Willett v. Ally Bank, No. 2:17-CV-02472-JAR-GLR (D. Kan. Dec. 26, 2017)
    12/26/2017

    Court denied the plaintiff’s motion to stay its consideration of a motion to compel arbitration in order to grant limited discovery.  Court reasoned that discovery regarding the possible existence of additional arbitration agreements would be unduly burdensome in light of the defendant’s assurance that no such agreements existed beyond the one submitted by the defendant to the Court and provided to the plaintiff.

  • Gambrell v. Needham, No. 2:17-CV-02884-WB (E.D. Pa. Dec. 22, 2017)
    12/22/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and sua sponte stayed proceedings.  Court determined that the FAA applied to the parties’ agreement because it implicated interstate commerce and held that the defendant had not waived her right to compel arbitration by neglecting to make a corresponding motions in her initial filings seeking dismissal of the suit.  Court further ruled that the agreement covered the parties’ dispute.

  • Brown v. David Stanley Chevrolet, Inc., No. 5:17-CV-00190-D (W.D. Okla. Dec. 22, 2017)
    12/22/2017

    Court declined to reconsider its Nov. 11, 2017 order compelling arbitration, holding that an evidentiary hearing was not required for its ruling and that the plaintiffs had not presented any previously unavailable evidence nor pointed to changes in controlling law.

  • In re: King Baby Marine LLC, No. 1:17-MC-00488-LAK (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2017)
    12/22/2017

    Court denied without prejudice petitioner’s ex parte application for discovery pursuant to 28 USC § 1782, finding that there was no current foreign proceeding to enforce the arbitration awards and that petitioner’s need for the requested discovery was only speculative.

  • Skyline Restoration, Inc. v. First Baptist Church, No. 1:17-CV-01234 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 21, 2017)
    12/21/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, rejecting the plaintiff’s argument that the defendant had waived its right to arbitrate, finding that the plaintiff had yet to ask the Court to take any action in its favor.

  • Health Professionals & Allied Employees AFT/AFL-CIO v. MHA, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-13301-JMV-MF (D.N.J. Dec. 21, 2017)
    12/21/2017

    Court granted motion for a temporary restraining order against the sale of assets.  Court reasoned that because the defendant had failed to satisfy a valid arbitration award, its disposition of certain assets could frustrate the arbitral process.  Court limited its restraint to such assets as were necessary to enforce the arbitral award.

  • Corchado v. Foulke Management Corp., No. 17-1433 (3d Cir. Dec. 21, 2017)
    12/21/2017

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of appellant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that appellees’ defense of fraudulent inducement to sign the arbitration agreement was sufficient grounds for the district court to deny the motion to compel arbitration.

  • CVS Health Corporation v. Vividus, LLC, FKA HM Componding Services, LLC, No. 16-16187 (9th Cir. Dec. 21, 2017)
    12/21/2017

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s denial of a petition to enforce a subpoena issued pre-hearing by an arbitrational panel against a company that was not a party to the arbitration, finding that the FAA does not grant arbitrators the power to compel the production of documents from third parties outside of a hearing.

  • Archer and White Sales, Inc. v. Henry Schein, Inc., No. 16-41674 (5th Cir. Dec. 21, 2017)
    12/21/2017

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s ruling that it had authority to rule on question of arbitrability despite existence of agreement to arbitrate in accordance with the AAA rules, finding that (i) under the express terms of the arbitration agreement, the parties had not agreed to submit claims for injunctive relief to arbitration in accordance with the AAA rules; and (ii) even if the parties had agreed to submit questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator , a court need not do so where the assertion of arbitrability is wholly groundless.

  • Santti v. Menard, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-01243-BYP (N.D. Ohio Dec. 21, 2017)
    12/21/2017

    Court agreed to stay proceedings pending resolution of a Supreme Court case evaluating whether labor agreements requiring waiver of class and collective action proceedings are enforceable under the FAA.

  • Integrity National Corporation, Inc. v. DSS Services, Inc., No. 8:17-CV-00160-PWG (D. Md. Dec. 19, 2017)
    12/19/2017

    Court granted motion confirming an arbitration award. Court held that because the plaintiff filed a timely motion to confirm, and the defendant did not timely file a motion to vacate the award, pursuant to §9 of the FAA the court must grant the motion.

  • Sienkaniec v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 0:17-CV-4489-PJS-FLN (D. Minn. Dec. 18, 2017)
    12/18/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action pending arbitrator’s decision.   Court held that the parties must arbitrate the question of whether the transportation-worker exemption of the FAA applied to the plaintiff because the contract contained a delegation clause requiring the parties to arbitrate issues of enforceability of the arbitration provisions, and the arbitration provisions were not unconscionable.

  • Ray v. NPRTO Florida, LLC, No. 5:17-CV-00415-JSM-PRL (M.D. Fla. Dec. 18, 2017)
    12/18/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration against non-signatory third party. Court reasoned that where the third party had accepted a benefit under an agreement but was not basing any claims on that agreement, that party could not be bound by its arbitration provisions.

  • Peppers v. Credit One Bank N.A., No. 2:17-CV-02190-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill. Dec. 18, 2017)
    12/18/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding the doctrine of estoppel did not apply in this case to bind a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement because the third party did not knowingly seek the benefits of the underlying contract containing an arbitration clause.

  • Turner v. Fiserv Solutions, No. 4:16-CV-02158-HEA (W.D. Mo. Dec. 15, 2017)
    12/15/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay the action, holding that the dispute between the parties falls within the terms of the arbitration agreement at issue and that staying the action will ensure the timely arbitration of the dispute.

  • Cunico Corporation v. Custom Alloy Corporation, No. 2:14-CV-01234-PA-AJW (C.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2017)
    12/15/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that a valid arbitration agreement governed the dispute. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments as to contract formation and incorporation of Terms and Conditions. Court likewise rejected as unsubstantiated plaintiff’s arguments as to agreement invalidity as unconscionable.

  • JTH Tax, Inc. v. Hines, No. 2:15-CV-00558-RBS-RJK (E.D. Va. Dec. 15, 2017)
    12/15/2017

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration pursuant to §2 of the FAA and Virginia Law. Court enforced the arbitration clause even though defendant had alleged the contract was a product of fraud because defendant did not allege the same about the arbitration clause.

  • Uretek, ICR Mid-Atlantic, Inc. v. Adams Robinson Enterprises, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00004-GEC (W.D. Va. Dec. 14, 2017)
    12/14/2017

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award, finding that (i) arbitrators did not exceed their authority by looking beyond the four corners of the contract to interpret the contract; (ii) the arbitrators were at least arguably interpreting the contract; and (iii) implying obligations from the duty of good faith and fair dealing is not a manifest disregard of the law.

  • Association of Equipment Manufacturers v. Burgum, No. 1:17-CV-00151-DLH-CSM (D.N.D. Dec. 14, 2017)
    12/14/2017

    Court granted motion for preliminary injunction enjoining North Dakota from enforcing state statute retroactively prohibiting arbitration clauses in certain contracts, finding inter alia that there was a probability of success on the merits as to petitioner’s argument that the statute was preempted by the FAA.

  • Dylag v. West Las Vegas Surgery Center, LLC., No. 16-15869 (9th Cir. Dec. 13, 2017)
    12/13/2017

    Court of Appeals reversed an order of district court compelling arbitration as to one defendant, and affirmed the order compelling arbitration as to the other defendants. Court found that while joint defendants were co-employers of plaintiff, there was no contractual relationship, and thus no arbitration agreement, between employee and the one defendant.

  • Simply Wireless, Inc. v. T-Mobile US, Inc., No. 16-1123 (4th Cir. Dec. 13, 2017)
    12/13/2017

    Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of Simply Wireless’s complaint in favor of arbitration but did so on alternate grounds.  As a matter of first impression, the court held that, in the context of a commercial contract between sophisticated parties, the incorporation of JAMS Arbitration Rules into the arbitration agreement serves as “clear and unmistakable” evidence of the parties’ intent to arbitrate questions of arbitrability.  

  • Cargill Incorporated v. WDS Incorporated, No. 3:17-CV-00848-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C. Dec. 13, 2017)
    12/13/2017

    Court denied motion to stay claim pending arbitration, holding the movant was not a party to the arbitration agreement relied on in support and, therefore, she did not sufficiently demonstrate she is entitled to enforce the arbitration provision before the court.

  • Alderman v. GC Services Limited Partnership, No. 2:16-CV-14508-RLR (S.D. Fla. Dec. 13, 2017)
    12/13/2017

    Court denied motion to dismiss claim or compel arbitration.  Court held that the plaintiff is not a signatory to the arbitration agreement at issue and, in the circumstances, equitable estoppel does permit the non-signatory to compel arbitration.

  • Dye, Jr. v. Sexton, No. 1:16-CV-00035-LMM (N.D. Ga. Dec. 13, 2017)
    12/13/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that a valid arbitration agreement existed between the parties and that under binding Eleventh Circuit precedent the court must send the matter to arbitration for the arbitrator to determine his or her own jurisdiction.

  • Carter v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., No. 16-15835 (9th Cir. Dec. 12, 2017)
    12/12/2017

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to compel arbitration, finding that a class action waiver in an arbitration agreement did not render the agreement unconscionable.

  • Rodriguez-Depena v. Parts Authority, Inc., No. 16-3396 (2d Cir. Dec. 12, 2017)

    12/12/2017

    Court of appeals affirmed district court order.  Appellate court held that the plaintiff-appellant’s claims of individual rights conferred under a federal statute, the Fair Labor Standards Act, are arbitrable as there was no congressional intent to preclude a waiver of judicial remedies for those statutory rights.

  • Ronco Consulting Corp. v. Leading Edge Ventures, LLC, No. 8:17-CV- 00305-PWG (D. Md. Dec. 12, 2017)
    12/12/2017

    Court granted defendant’s petition to confirm its arbitration award.  Court held that plaintiff failed to serve on defendant a timely notice of its application to vacate the award because the service procedures of Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not supplant those provided in 9 USC § 12 of the FAA governing service of a notice of a motion to vacate an arbitration award.

  • Haasbroek v. Princess Cruise Lines Ltd., No. 1:17-CV-22370-KMM (S.D. Fla. Dec. 12, 2017)
    12/12/2017

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and plaintiff’s motion for remand.  Court held that plaintiff’s rape, sexual assault and harassment claims fell within the arbitration clause of a Shipboard Employment Agreement (the “SEA’), governed under the laws of the Bahamas, and that defendants had timely removed to federal court those claims on the grounds that the matter was subject to arbitration pursuant to the New York Convention, thereby providing one defendant (and two others the plaintiff did not contest) the right to compel the plaintiff, a South African citizen, to arbitration.  The court remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction certain claims for two remaining defendants who were non-signatories of the SEA and thus could not enforce the arbitration clause with respect to those claims.

  • La Force v. Gosmith, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-05101-YGR (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2017)
    12/12/2017

    Court granted defendants motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that it had never entered into an agreement, finding that plaintiff used a website which provided a check box for indicating agreement to the terms of use including an arbitration provision. Court held that this was adequate to show plaintiff’s agreement to arbitrate.

  • AMCI Holdings, Inc. v. CBF Industria De Gusa S/A., No. 17-481 (Dec. 11, 2017 U.S.)
    12/11/2017

    United States Supreme Court denied petitioners’ cert petition from a second circuit decision holding that the respondents, the award creditors, could enforce a foreign arbitral award under the New York Convention directly against a non-party award-debtor’s alter egos or successors in interest without first having the award confirmed and entered as a judgment prior to enforcement. 

  • Hamed v. Fry’s Electronics, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00675-ALM (E.D. Tex. Dec. 11, 2017)
    12/11/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding the parties’ agreement was valid and enforceable and that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration clause.

  • National Dairy Association v. Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund, No. 2:17-CV-00214-RSL (W.D. Wash. Dec. 11, 2017)
    12/11/2017

    Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to vacate or modify the interim arbitration award, and granted defendant’s motion for dispositive relief on jurisdictional grounds.  Court held it lacked jurisdiction to intervene in an arbitration proceeding that was not yet final under either the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act or the FAA.

  • Roberts v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 16-16915 (9th Cir. Dec. 11, 2017)
    12/11/2017

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s order compelling arbitration of putative class action claims against defendant-appellee.   Court held that there was no state action, thereby rejecting plaintiffs’ argument on First Amendment grounds that the FAA policy encouraging arbitration renders defendant’s action attributable to the state. 

  • Application for an Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1782 to Conduct Discovery for Use in a Foreign Proceeding, No. 1:17-MC-01466 (D.D.C. Dec. 9, 2017)
    12/09/2017

    Court denied motion to reconsider prior decision denying petitioners’ request to issue a subpoena for discovery of a partner and law firm for use in the set-aside appeal of a $50 billion arbitral award.  Court held that none of the reasons proffered by the petitioners for reconsideration could overcome the court’s prior determination that that the law firm should not have to conduct a burdensome search given the limited, if any, relevance of the discovery sought to the foreign proceeding.  Shearman & Sterling LLP served as counsel for the petitioners.

  • Ingenieria, Maquinaria Y Equipos de Colombia S.A. v. ATTS, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-03624-JBS-JS (D.N.J. Dec. 8, 2017)
    12/08/2017

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award issued by the Center for Mediation and Arbitration of the Chamber of Commerce of Cali.  Court found that under Colombian or New Jersey law, which did not apply, the arbitration clause was valid, and that respondent waived its right to challenge the validity of the parties’ agreement when it chose not to appear at the arbitration proceedings.

  • Agnesian Healthcare Inc. v. Cerner Corporation, No. 2:17-CV-01254-JPS (E.D. Wis. Dec. 8, 2017)
    12/08/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss complaint, but could not compel arbitration in another district. The arbitration agreement in question required a party to initiate any dispute in the state of the principal place of business of the non-petitioning party. As defendant was the non-petitioning party, arbitration would be proper in defendant’s home state of Missouri.

  • Evans v. North Pointe Assisted Living, No. 8:17-CV-00951-DCC (D.S.C. Dec. 8, 2017)
    12/08/2017

    Court declined to compel arbitration of a survival action, holding that an agreement to arbitrate was never concluded because the signatory lacked authority to bind the decedent and did not bind herself individually.  Court rejected arguments that equitable estoppel nevertheless bound the parties under state law.

  • Evans v. North Pointe Assisted Living, No. 8:17-CV-00950-DCC (D.S.C. Dec. 8, 2017)
    12/08/2017

    Court declined to compel arbitration of a survival action, holding that an agreement to arbitrate was never concluded because the signatory lacked authority to bind the decedent and did not bind herself individually.  Court rejected arguments that equitable estoppel nevertheless bound the parties under state law.

  • Richardson v. Coverall North America Inc., No. 1:17-CV-02405-TWT (N.D. Ga. Dec. 7, 2017)
    12/07/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss or stay the action. Court held that the arbitration agreement contained a delegation clause and, as plaintiff made no direct challenges to that clause, all disputes concerning the validity of the agreement should be properly decided by the arbitrator.

  • Matthews v. Priority Energy Services, LLC, No. 6:15-CV-00448-PWS-KNM (E.D. Tex. Dec. 7, 2017)
    12/07/2017

    Court adopted magistrate judge’s recommendation and denied motion to vacate order compelling arbitration or, in the alternative, enforce the arbitration agreement as written.  Court rejected the defendants’ argument that the arbitration agreement – which they initially sought to compel – was invalid because it reflected no meeting of the minds by the parties as to cost allocations.  Instead, the court found that the applicable AAA rules empowered the arbitrator to make any necessary decisions as to costs.

  • Andrio v. Kennedy Rig Services, LLC, No. 4:17-CV-01194 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 6, 2017)
    12/06/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court found indemnity provision, allowing one party to recover fees regardless of the outcome, was unconscionable and not severable from the arbitration agreement, and therefore refused to enforce the arbitration agreement.

  • Doscher v. Sea port Group Securities, LLC, No. 1:15-CV-00384-JMF  (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2017)
    12/06/2017

    Court denied motion to vacate or modify an arbitral award.  Court found arbitral tribunal was owed broad deference and that plaintiff did not meet burden of showing that the tribunal engaged in misconduct that denied him “fundamental fairness.” Thus, plaintiff failed to establish any of the limited grounds for vacating or modifying the award.

  • Hamlin v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-02648-PMD (D.S.C. Dec. 6, 2017)
    12/06/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, stayed the action, and denied as moot defendant’s motion to dismiss.  Court found that the agreement was supported by adequate consideration under South Carolina state law, and was not unconscionable because the agreement selected JAMS rules which were not one-sided. Thus, court compelled arbitration pursuant to the FAA.

  • Love v. BMW Financial Services NA, LLC, No. 1:15-CV-00124-SMG (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2017)
    12/05/2017

    Court confirmed an arbitration award, granting pre-judgment interest and attorney’s fees. Court reasoned that none of plaintiff’s arguments provided a basis for the court to vacate the award, or to decline to affirm it.

  • Meduri Farms, Inc. v. DutchTecSource BV, No. 3:17-CV-00906-SI (D. Or. Dec. 5, 2017)
    12/05/2017

    Court granted preliminary injunction, enjoining defendant from further pursuit of ICC arbitration, and denied defendant’s motion to refer the case to arbitration and stay proceedings. Court concluded that the operative agreement between the parties did not contain a mandatory arbitration clause.

  • Sharp Corporation v. Hisense USA Corporation, No. 4:17-CV-03341-YGR (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2017)
    12/05/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court found that the FAA preempted a state law precluding arbitration of a statutory claim without a clear waiver. Thus, the court held the dispute was within the scope of a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement.

  • Ewing v. Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00222-BEN-WVG (S.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2017)
    12/05/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the action. Court found that the plaintiff’s request to opt out of the arbitration agreement was not timely and plaintiff was subject to a valid, irrevocable, and enforceable arbitration agreement.

  • Clayborne v. Lithia Motors, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00588-AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2017)
    12/05/2017

    Court granted motion to stay proceedings and to compel arbitration, holding that the clause delegating authority to determine “applicability, enforceability, or formation” of the arbitration agreement to arbitratosr was not unconscionable.

  • Laborers’ International Union of North America v. MEK Enterprises, No. 3:17-CV-01614-BEN-NLS (S.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2017)
    12/05/2017

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award, granting pre-judgment interest but denying attorney’s fees. Court stated that respondent bears burden of showing why award should not be confirmed and, since the respondent did not appear, the court confirmed the award.

  • Greene v. Frost Brown Todd, LLC, Nos. 16-6761, 16-6763, 16-6772 (6th Cir. Dec. 4, 2017)
    12/04/2017

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment in each of three cases.  Court affirmed the district court judgment in case No. 16-6772 granting summary judgment to the defendants on Greene’s complaint to vacate an arbitrator’s award.  Court held that Greene failed to present evidence to support vacating the arbitrator’s award on any ground permissible under the Railway Labor Act.

  • Herrington v. Waterstone Mortgage Corporation, No. 3:11-CV-00779-BBC (W.D. Wis. Dec. 4, 2017)
    12/04/2017

    Court confirmed an arbitration award and denied motion to vacate. In doing so, the court concluded that, according to precedent and § 10(a) of the FAA, defendant had not overcome the presumption of validity granted an arbitration award with clear and convincing evidence of the arbitrator’s alleged bias and misconduct.

  • Essex v. The Children’s Place, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-05621-JMV-MF (D.N.J. Dec. 4, 2017)
    12/04/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration for certain opt-in plaintiffs in a collective labor dispute. Pursuant to the FAA, the court held that the opt-in plaintiffs had entered a valid arbitration agreement and the present dispute fell within the scope of that agreement.

  • Conduragis v. Prospect Chartercare, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00272-JJM-PAS (D.R.I. Dec. 1, 2017)
    12/01/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Applying Rhode Island state law, the court determined no valid agreement existed because the agreement lacked consideration.

  • Steadfast Insurance Company v. Palmetto Civil Group, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-01119-PMD (D.S.C. Dec. 1, 2017)
    12/01/2017

    Court granted defendant and third-party plaintiff’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration of a dispute arising out of an airport construction project.  Pursuant to the FAA, the court determined that the insurer was bound by the arbitration agreement between the contractor and subcontractor and concluded defendant and third-party plaintiff had not waived its right to seek arbitration.

  • Bounty Minerals, LLC v. Chesapeake Exploration, LLC, No. 5:17-CV-01695-SL (E.D. Ohio Dec. 1, 2017)
    12/01/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration in a dispute related to oil and gas leases, only one of which contained an arbitration clause. After the court granted plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint plaintiff removed its request to recover on the particular lease that contained the arbitration clause, leaving no arbitration clause in the agreements at issue. Court rejected arguments that it should still stay proceedings pending the arbitration of the other lease agreement.

  • Ngo v. Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., No. 1:17-CV-1727-GHW (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2017)
    11/30/2017

    Court held that the arbitration agreement in question was valid and enforceable, and granted motion to stay but denied motion to dismiss.  Court held that second circuit precedent requires the court to stay, but not dismiss, the proceedings when requested.

  • Yang v. Majestic Blue Fisheries, LLC & Dongwon Industries Co., Ltd., No. 15-16881 (9th Cir. Nov. 30, 2017)
    11/30/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed district court’s order denying motion to compel arbitration arising from a claim related to the death of a seaman on a fishing vessel.  Court held that an arbitral clause must be signed by the parties to be enforceable under Art. II(2) of the New York Convention and determined that it could not compel arbitration of a non-signatory or non-party.  Additionally, the court concluded it could not compel arbitration under the FAA, because the statute expressly exempts employment contracts of seamen from its scope.

  • Global Colocation Services, LLC v. Hibernia Express (Ireland) Limited, No. 1:17-CV-09027 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2017)
    11/29/2017

    Court denied plaintiff’s application for a temporary restraining order to enjoin defendant from terminating plaintiff’s access to its undersea transatlantic cable.  Pursuant to New York law, the court determined that the pending arbitration would not be rendered ineffectual without the temporary relief, finding that plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits and that a temporary restraining order would interfere with the ongoing arbitration.

  • NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., d/b/a Norwegian Cruise Line v. O.W. Bunker USA, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01327-CSH (D. Conn. Nov. 29, 2017)
    11/29/2017

    Court entered a second order granting a preliminary injunction enjoining the arbitration in London conducting the analysis under the traditional test for an injunction.  Court found plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, a likelihood of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction, that the balance of hardships tipped in the plaintiff’s favor, and that the public interest would not be harmed by the injunction.

  • BSG Resources (Guinea) Limited, BSG Resources (Guinea) Sarl, & BSG Resources Limited  v. Soros, No. 1:17-CV-02726-JFK-AJP (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2017)
    11/29/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to stay the proceeding pending the outcome of an ICSID arbitration between the plaintiffs and Guinea.  Although defendants were not a party to the arbitration, court concluded that the same key issues were integral to both disputes, the stay would not hinder the arbitration, the arbitration would be resolved within a reasonable time, and the delay would not cause undue hardship.

  • NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. v. O.W. Bunker USA, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-1327 (D. Conn. Nov. 29, 2017)
    11/29/2017

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to stay the arbitration proceedings and enjoin defendants from proceeding with arbitration.  Applying English law, court held that the arbitration provision had been superseded, and therefore plaintiff was not under any binding agreement to arbitrate its disputes.  Court also found that an injunction was warranted since (i) the parties had not agreed to arbitrate, (ii) plaintiff would be irreparably harmed by being forced to expend time and resources arbitrating an issue that is not arbitrable, and for which any award would not be enforceable; and (iii) plaintiff showed a likelihood of success on the issue of superseding the arbitration clause.

  • Borecki v. Raymours Furniture Co. Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01188-LAK-SN (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 2017)
    11/28/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings, finding that the dispute did not fall within the narrow scope of the arbitral clause.

  • Hyatt Franchising, L.L.C. v. Shen Zhen New World I, LLC & Shen Zhen New World Investment (USA) Inc., No. 17-2071 (7th Cir. Nov. 28, 2017)
    11/28/2017

    Court of appeal denied motion to vacate arbitration award, finding the arbitrator’s decision not to disqualify counsel was not misbehavior within the meaning of § 10(a)(3) of the FAA and that the arbitrator’s interpretation of the contract did not exceed the arbitrator’s power under § 10(a)(4).

  • Green Tree Servicing, L.L.C. v. Miller, No. 17-60108 (5th Cir. Nov. 28, 2017)
    11/28/2017

    Court of appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the district court’s order compelling arbitration was not a final appealable order when a matter involving the same parties and essentially the same dispute is stayed pending arbitration.

  • Zhu v. Hakkasan NYC LLC & Hakkasan Holdings, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-05589-KPF (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 2017)
    11/28/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement valid and enforceable and concluding plaintiffs’ claims fell within its scope pursuant to the FAA.  Court determined the availability of collective arbitration and the validity of the confidentiality clause were questions for the arbitrator.

  • Inferno Group Holdings, LLC v. 1000 Degrees Pizzeria Franchise, Inc., No. 9:17-CV-80983-BB (S.D. Fla. Nov. 28, 2017)
    11/28/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the parties’ incorporation of AAA rules meant that both the validity of the arbitration agreement and its scope was for the arbitrator to decide.

  • Ali, Cole, Collins, Norman, Renfroe, & Torry v. Vehi-Ship, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-02688 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 27, 2017)
    11/27/2017

    Court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) for lack of venue.  Finding that the AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules’ delegation clause, granting the arbitrator the power to decide questions of arbitrability, was incorporated by reference in the agreement, the court held that the arbitrator should determine the validity and scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • Frye, Ndege Ndogo Inc., & Graf, v. Wild Bird Centers of America, No. 17-1346 (4th Cir. Nov. 27, 2017)
    11/27/2017

    Court affirmed District Court’s denial of petition to vacate arbitral award entered in favor of the appellee and confirmation of the award pursuant to the FAA and common law.  Court concluded that the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law, exceed his powers, or draw the award from the essence of the agreement.

  • Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Haynes, No. 17-60113 (5th Cir. Nov. 27, 2017)
    11/27/2017

    Court dismissed the appeal, holding that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the district court’s order compelling arbitration, because the judgment also stayed the substantive claims in the underlying lawsuit between the parties.

  • TIC Seven Bar 12, LLC v. Core Seven Bar H., LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00450-RB-SCY (D.N.M. Nov. 27, 2017)
    11/27/2017

    Court confirmed and entered judgment on an AAA arbitration award as revised after remand to the arbitrator with the supplemental final award.

  • Marquez v. The Finish Line, No. 5:16-CV-01038-DAE (W.D. Tex. Nov. 27, 2017)
    11/27/2017

    Court granted plaintiff’s unopposed motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case without prejudice. Court found that parties had a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate, and the FAA required the case be referred to arbitration.

  • Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc. v. International Union, No. 2:17-CV-05122-PSG-SK (C.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2017)
    11/27/2017

    Court denied motion to dismiss proceedings to vacate arbitration award, rejecting respondent’s argument that the award was not sufficiently final because the arbitrator retained jurisdiction in the event of a dispute over implementation of the remedy.

  • Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, and Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Education and Industry Fund, No. 1:17-CV-01106-PAE (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2017)
    11/22/2017

    Court confirmed the arbitral award and ordered interest, fees, and costs.  Court found that the arbitrator’s decision contained an apparent scrivener’s error and, based on supplemental briefing, court was satisfied that the award was amply justified by the factual record.  Court also awarded interest, as the FAA bears interest from the date of the award until judgment confirming it and the parties had not contracted out of the post-judgment interest rate established by 28 USC § 1961.

  • Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. Simply Wireless, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-24565-FAM (S.D. Fla. Nov. 22, 2017)
    11/22/2017

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to enjoin the arbitration and granted in part defendants’ motion to stay.  Court found that by incorporating the AAA rules into their arbitration agreement, the parties agreed that the arbitrator should decide whether the arbitration agreement encompassed the claims before him.  Court also concluded that, because there are issues involved in the suit that are subject to arbitration, it would stay the action, consistent with the requirements of the FAA.

  • Laborers’ Local Union Nos. 472 & 172 v. Tri-State Erosion Control, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01792-JBS-AMD (D.N.J. Nov. 22, 2017)
    11/22/2017

    Court granted petitioners’ motion to confirm an arbitration award.  Court concluded that (i) contrary to respondent’s assertion that the arbitrator disregarded documents and improperly granted benefits beyond the termination date of the collective bargaining agreement, the arbitrator did consider evidence presented by both parties and did not irrationally decide to award benefits for work performed after termination; (ii) the FAA does not require the arbitrator to explain his or her reasoning for an award; (iii) there is no support in case law for prescribing a more searching review for awards issued by a permanently assigned arbitrator.

  • Ouadani v. TF Final Mile LLC, No. 17-1583 (5th Cir. Nov. 21, 2017)
    11/21/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed the district court decision denying defendant-appellant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court concluded that the non-signatory plaintiff-appellee was not required to submit his claims to arbitration because (i) he was not an agent of one of the signatories, (ii) he was not equitably estopped from refusing to arbitrate because the benefits of the arbitration clause accrued to the contracting signatories and not to plaintiff-appellee, and (iii) he is not a third-party beneficiary of the agreement.

  • YPF S.A. v. Apache Overseas, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00178 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 21, 2017)
    11/21/2017

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award pursuant to the FAA, denying respondent’s motion to vacate the award or stay confirmation pending a final award.  Court concluded that the award was final and binding, found that the arbitrators did not exceed their powers, and determined that a stay was inappropriate where the ongoing mediation proceedings did not involve the petitioner as a party.

  • In the Matter of the Arbitration Between Holton B. Shepherd v. LPL Financial LLC, No. 5:17-CV-00150-D (W.D.N.C. Nov. 20, 2017)
    11/20/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion for a protective order and to stay discovery.  Court noted that, as a general matter, a limited scope of judicial review and restricted inquiry into factual issues support the strong federal policy favoring arbitrability, and allowing “full-blown discovery” would undermine that policy.  However, these principles fail to justify the “preemptive ban” defendant sought on all discovery, and therefore court denied defendant’s motion.

  • Schroder v. Teufel, No. 1:17-CV-06119 (E.D. Ill. Nov. 20, 2017)
    11/20/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for improper venue and stayed the litigation pending arbitration.  Court held that because the parties agreed that the AAA rules would govern their pending arbitration, and those rules unequivocally state that the arbitrator has the authority to decide the validity of an arbitration agreement, the parties “clearly and unmistakably” expressed their intent to arbitrate the validity of the arbitration agreement.

  • Owners Management Co. v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., No. 1:17-CV-00881-CAB (N.D. Ohio Nov. 20, 2017)
    11/20/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss.  Court found that (i) the arbitration provision was broadly worded to cover “any dispute relating to this Agreement,” (ii) it did not expressly exclude any specific disputes, and (iii) the instant case “absolutely cannot be resolved without reference to the Agreement.”  As such, the court concluded that the arbitration of plaintiff’s claims was appropriate.

  • Meierhenry Sargent LLP v. Williams, No. 4:16-CV-04180-LLP (D.S.D. Nov. 20, 2017)
    11/20/2017

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for relief from stay and motion for order to declare the scope of arbitration proceedings.  Court held that arbitrability was an issue for the court to decide because the arbitration provision of the contract was silent on whether the arbitrator or the court would decide the issue and plaintiff clearly did not agree to submit the question to the arbitrator.

  • Johnson v. RCO Legal, P.S., No. 2:17-CV-00512-RAJ (W.D. Wash. Nov. 20, 2017)
    11/20/2017

    Court granted plaintiff’s application to confirm an arbitration award and denied defendant’s motion to vacate.  Court concluded that, despite defendant’s arguments to the contrary, (i) the arbitrator did consider Section 237 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts and decided it was not dispositive; (ii) the arbitrator did consider defendant’s “after acquired evidence”; (iii) the arbitrator did not interpret the agreement in an unjust manner; and (iv) the court is not authorized to review the arbitrator’s decision on the merits.

  • Cunningham v. Henry Ford Health System, No. 2:17-CV-11015-SJM-APP (E.D. Mich. Nov. 20, 2017)
    11/20/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss or stay the proceeding and to compel arbitration.  Court found that (i) plaintiff received adequate notice and signed the agreement, thus knowingly and voluntarily waiving her right to a jury trial; (ii) plaintiff’s claims fell within the ambit of the arbitration agreement’s clear language; (iii) nothing in the record suggested that Congress intended the ADA to preclude waiver of the judicial forum through arbitration agreements; and (iv) the entirety of plaintiff’s complaint is subject to arbitration, and therefore it is proper for the court to dismiss.

  • Wuest v. Comcast Corporation, No. 4:17-CV-04063-JSW (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2017)
    11/20/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to stay pending the outcome of the appeal of the court’s order denying arbitration.  Court found that defendants would be irreparably harmed if it did not stay the action, noting that when a party is denied the opportunity to arbitrate, “the advantages of arbitration—speed and economy—are lost forever.”

  • Gamble v. New England Auto Finance, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-02979-LMM (N.D. Ga. Nov. 20, 2017)
    11/20/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the action, concluding that plaintiff’s claim was not within the scope of arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff’s claim did not “arise from” the loan agreement because (i) even though the claim was based on loan applicants’ refusal to sign a provision in that agreement, the unsigned provision did not create any rights and obligations and no agreement on this basis occurred; and (ii) defendant’s actions would have harmed plaintiff regardless of whether plaintiff had entered into the agreement.  Court also concluded that plaintiff’s claim does not “touch” the loan agreement because it does not arise from any right implicated by the agreement.

  • Gray v. Petrossian, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-06870-PSG-PJW (C.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2017)
    11/20/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.  Court further rejected plaintiff’s argument that the agreement could not be enforced as unconscionable based on purported deficiencies with respect to, inter alia, one-sidedness, discovery, and recovery.

  • McAllister v. The St. Louis Rams, LLC, No. 4:16-CV-00172-SNLJ (E.D. Mo. Nov. 17, 2017)
    11/17/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that incorporation of AAA Rules constituted agreement to arbitrate arbitrability.

  • Mizra v. Cachet Hotel Group Limited Cayman L.P., No. 2:17-CV-07140-RGK-KS (C.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2017)
    11/17/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that the arbitration clause was incapable of being performed because it required arbitration before the HKIAC in accordance with the ICC rules.

  • Memorial Hermann Health System v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas, No. 4:17-CV-02661 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 17, 2017)
    11/17/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss for improper venue and motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that (i) the parties had a valid arbitration agreement, (ii) the scope of the arbitration agreement was for the court to determine, and (iii) certain of the plaintiff’s claims did not fall within the scope of the narrow arbitration agreement.

  • Original Appalachian Artworks, Inc. v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc., No. 17-11513 (11th Cir. Nov. 17, 2017)
    11/17/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed district court’s grant of motion to confirm arbitral award and rejected motion to partially vacate the award. Court held that (i) the mere failure to apply the law (as opposed to intentional failure) or legal error is insufficient to show manifest disregard; (ii) the arbitrator did not impermissibly decide a matter not properly before him; (iii) the arbitrator interpreted the contract, but did not modify it; and (iv) the award could not be challenged for mere insufficiency of evidence.

  • Burrell v. 911 Restoration Franchise Inc., No. 1:17-CV-02278-JKB (D. Md. Nov. 17, 2017)
    11/17/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim in part, interpreting that part of the motion as a motion to compel arbitration.  Court explained that the FAA requires the demonstration of four elements to compel arbitration, and found that there was no genuine dispute of material fact with regard to three of those elements:  the existence of a dispute, its relationship to interstate commerce, and the failure of the plaintiffs to arbitrate the dispute.  On the final element, the existence of a written agreement that includes an arbitration provision which purports to cover the dispute, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the rescission of the contract meant rescission of the arbitration clause, finding that the arbitration clause survived rescission.

  • Brown v. David Stanley Chevrolet, Inc., No. 5:17-CV-00190-D (W.D. Okla. Nov. 17, 2017)
    11/17/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay the action.  Court held that the agreements plaintiffs signed should be construed together, rejecting plaintiffs’ argument that one of the contracts—which contained a merger clause but no arbitration agreement—superseded the dispute resolution clause.  Court also found that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate and that plaintiffs’ arguments related to fraud in the inducement of the contract of as a whole, which was for the arbitrator and not the court to decide.

  • Armstead v. Starbucks Corp., No. 2:17-CV-01163-PKC (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2017)
    11/17/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceeding.  Court found that the arbitration agreement was presented in a manner that required two separate steps of viewing and electronically signing the agreement, the webpage was neatly organized, and the arbitration agreement was expressly identified.  Thus, court concluded that the plaintiff electronically consented to the arbitration of her claims and had not come forward with evidence that would permit a reasonable trier of fact to conclude that the consent was not effective. 

  • McAllister v. St. Louis Rams, LLC, No. 16-CV-00172-SNLJ (W.D.Mo. Nov. 17, 2017)
    11/17/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, including as to the threshold question of arbitrability.  The parties’ contract included an arbitration provision in accordance with the rules of the AAA.  The court found that the Rule 7(a) of the AAA requires disputes regarding the jurisdiction of the arbitrator be resolved in arbitration.

  • Edwards v. Doordash, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-02255 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 16, 2017)
    11/16/2017

    Court adopted the magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation to grant defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.  Magistrate judge found that plaintiff Lupo signed the same independent contractor agreement on the same basis as the named plaintiff, which was previously found by the court to contain a valid arbitration clause.  For plaintiffs Hicks and Williams, who signed a second version of the independent contractor agreement, court also found that a valid arbitration agreement existed, and that the adoption of the AAA rules by the parties indicated that they intended to delegate arbitrability rules to the arbitrator.

  • WDCD, LLC v. iSTAR, INC., No. 1:17-CV-00301-DKW-RLP (D. Haw. Nov. 16, 2017)
    11/16/2017

    Court granted motion to stay in favor of arbitration, finding that non-signatory could invoke arbitration clause in the agreement under which the claims against it arose.

  • Ross v. Quality Homes of McComb, No. 5:17-CV-00046-DCB-MTP (S.D. Miss. Nov. 16, 2017)
    11/16/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings, finding that (i) an arbitration agreement in a form contract was not procedurally unconscionable; (ii) neither the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act nor the National Manufactured Housing and Construction and Safety Standards act preclude arbitration of claims arising thereunder; (iii) non-signatory defendants can invoke an arbitration provision in a contract under which the plaintiff’s claim arise; and (iv) question of whether claims are within the scope of the arbitration agreement was delegated to the arbitrator.

  • Oliver v. First Century Bank, N.A., No. 3:17-CV-00620-MMA-KSC (S.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2017)
    11/16/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that question of arbitrability was delegated to the arbitrator.

  • Myers v. TRG Customer Solutions, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00052 (N.D. Tenn. Nov. 15, 2017)
    11/15/2017

    Court granted motion to compel individual arbitration, finding that a collective action asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standard Act does not qualify as concerted activity protected by the National Labor Relations Act, but refused to dismiss the action, since there was an open question whether other opt-in plaintiffs had signed valid and enforceable arbitration agreements.

  • KDDI Global LLC v. Fisk Telecom LLC, No. 3:17-CV-05445-BRM-DEA (D.N.J. Nov. 15, 2017)
    11/15/2017

    Court granted motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, finding that agreement to arbitrate in accordance with the AAA’s Commercial Arbitration Rules, which grant the arbitrator “the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction”, constitutes an agreement to arbitrate arbitrability.

  • Walkwell International, Inc. v. DJO Global, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00270-EJL-REB (D. Idaho Nov. 15, 2017)
    11/15/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that party had failed to establish that arbitration would be cost prohibitive and that arbitration clause was “broad and far reaching” and therefore covered all related claims arising out of the dispute.

  • GGNSC Greensburg, LLC v. Smith, No. 1:17-CV-00150-GNS (W.D. Ky. Nov. 15, 2017)
    11/15/2017

    Court partially granted motion to compel arbitration and enjoined parallel state proceedings, finding that (i) no basis existed for federal abstention in favor of parallel state court proceedings; (ii) a nursing home admission agreement is a contract involving interstate commerce within the federal court jurisdiction; (iii) that the decedent’s attorney-in-fact was authorized to bind the decedent’s estate to pursue any claims in arbitration; (iv) an arbitration agreement in a nursing home admission agreement is not unconscionable; and (v) enjoining parallel state proceedings would not violate the anti-injunction act.  However, court denied motion to compel arbitration as to a wrongful death claim, since that claim belonged to decedent’s beneficiaries, and decedent’s attorney-in-fact did not have authority to bind them to arbitration.

  • United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial & Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Essentia Health, No. 0:17-CV-04753-WMW-LIB (D. Minn. Nov. 15, 2017)
    11/15/2017

    Court denied motion for expedited preliminary injunction, finding that it had not been established that arbitration would be rendered a meaningless ritual if policy requiring employees to receive flu vaccine were implemented pending ruling in arbitration on whether policy is subject to bargaining under collective bargaining agreement.

  • Finsa Portafolios, S.A. de C.V. v. Opengate Capital, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-04360-RGK-E (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2017)
    11/15/2017

    Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of decision to dismiss the action on grounds of forum non conveniens and compel arbitration in Mexico, finding where the contract contains a forum selection clause, plaintiffs have the burden to show the forum was not an adequate alternative forum; concluding the court is not required to impose conditions on dismissal unless there is reason to doubt a party with comply with the foreign forum; and determining plaintiffs could not raise the new argument that a Mexican judge or arbitrator could not assert jurisdiction over the defendant. Court also denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended complaint, finding an amended complaint would be futile because the fraud claims fell within the scope of the forum selection and arbitration clauses.

  • Parish v. Macy’s Retail Holdings, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00120-A (N.D. Tex. Nov. 14, 2017)
    11/14/2017

    Court denied motion to stay and compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff had waived her right to invoke arbitration by prosecuting her claim in court

  • Abel v. All Green Building Services of New York LLC, No. 1:16-CV-08522-JPO (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2017)
    11/14/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed case, finding that arbitration provision of collective bargaining agreement was applicable to employee’s religious discrimination claims.

  • Nano Gas Technologies, Inc. v. Roe, No. 1:17-CV-01738 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 14, 2017)
    11/14/2017

    Court denied petition to vacate arbitral award, finding that (i) the arbitrator did not exceed his authority by ruling on a matter that were not addressed in the counterclaim; (ii) the award was final and definite notwithstanding its failure to provide a specific factual description; (iii) the award was not internally inconsistent; (iv) the award was not in manifest disregard of the law, since it did not direct any party to violate the law; and (v) the award was not against public policy.

  • Bowers v. Northern Two Cayes Company Limited, No. 1:15-CV-00029-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C. Nov. 14, 2017)
    11/14/2017

    Court granted unopposed motion to enter judgment on arbitral award but denied motion to certify the award under the New York Convention, finding that New York Convention applied only to foreign arbitral awards, and that the court judgment itself could be domesticated abroad.

  • Shore Point Distributing Company v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 701, No. 3:17-CV-01950-PGS-DEA (D.N.J. Nov. 14, 2017)
    11/14/2017

    Court denied motion to vacate arbitration award without prejudice and remanded proceedings to arbitrator to finalize the remedy, finding that it was premature to determine whether arbitral award should be vacated since arbitrator had retained jurisdiction over the application of the remedial formula set forth in the award.

  • Green Tree Servicing, L.L.C. v. Dove, No. 17-60116 (5th Cir. Nov. 14, 2017)
    11/14/2017

    Circuit court dismissed appeal, finding that a district court’s order compelling arbitration and dismissing the case with prejudice was not a final appealable order since a case involving the same parties and essentially the same dispute was stayed in the district court pending arbitration.

  • Green Tree Servicing, L.L.C. v. Ducksworth, No. 17-60109 (5th Cir. Nov. 14, 2017)
    11/14/2017

    Circuit court dismissed appeal, finding that a district court’s order compelling arbitration and dismissing the case with prejudice was not a final appealable order since a case involving the same parties and essentially the same dispute was stayed in the district court pending arbitration.

  • TMCO Ltd. v. Green Light Energy Solutions R&D Corp., No. 4:17-CV-00997-KAW (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2017)
    11/14/2017

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award and enter judgment, finding that questions regarding the feasibility of specific performance were premature at the confirmation stage, and that potential impossibility of counter-performance did not fall within the public policy exception.

  • SCL Basilisk AG v. Agribusiness United Savannah Logistics LLC, No. 16-15535 (11th Cir. Nov. 14, 2017)
    11/14/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed district court’s denial of petition for security in aid of pending arbitration, finding that (i) such relief is not authorized by Rule B of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions where not used to secure jurisdiction; (ii) applicable Georgia law did not permit a court to create new substantive remedies in favor of arbitration; and (iii) court’s inherent admiralty powers did not support exercise of power or attachment where not used to secure jurisdiction.

  • Luster-Malone v. Cook County, No. 1:16-CV-02903 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 14, 2017)
    11/14/2017

    Court granted motion to dismiss action to vacate arbitral award, finding that plaintiff had not established gross error in the arbitrator’s findings that there were non-political grounds for plaintiff’s termination and that the plaintiff’s complaints were untimely.

  • Rohde v. Family Dollar Stores of Indiana, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00225-TLS-SLC (N.D. Ind. Nov. 13, 2017)
    11/13/2017

    Court granted motion to dismiss action to vacate arbitral award, finding that plaintiff had not established gross error in the arbitrator’s findings that there were non-political grounds for plaintiff’s termination and that the plaintiff’s complaints were untimely.

  • Sharp Corporation v. Hisense USA Corporation, No. 1:17-CV-01648-JEB (D.D.C. Nov. 13, 2017)
    11/13/2017

    Court granted motion to dismiss action seeking a preliminary injunction against enforcement in the United States of an interim arbitral award enjoining a party from making disruptive or disparaging statements against about the other party or the dispute pending the outcome of the arbitration.  Court found that, although there was subject matter jurisdiction to grant such a declaratory judgment, there was no personal jurisdiction over the foreign defendant, although the latter question was a “close call” in light of the connection between the court action and speech in the jurisdiction.  On the merits, the court determined that free speech concerns would not prevent enforcement of the interim award (and thus did not merit a preliminary injunction against enforcement), since court enforcement of private agreements does not fulfill the state action requirement under the First Amendment or its underlying public policy.  In any event, the court would exercise its discretion not to award the declaratory judgment, since the interim award was subject to a pending motion to vacate at the seat of the arbitration.

  • Ralph v. Haj, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01332- JM-JMA (S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2017)
    11/13/2017

    Court provisionally granted in part and denied in part motion to compel arbitration and stayed entire action, finding that, although a ninth circuit decision in Morris v. Ernst & Young found that collective action waivers were impermissible for claims under the Fair Labor Standard Act, the Supreme Court had granted certiorari to review that decision.  It was therefore appropriate to stay the entire action pending the Supreme Court’s decision to prevent a situation where some claims were heard in arbitration and others before the court.

  • S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Ghersy Group Integrated Communications, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-22380-KMW (S.D. Fla. Nov. 13, 2017)
    11/13/2017

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award, as defendant filed no response in opposition to the motion.

  • James Shackelford Heating and Cooling, LC v. AT&T Corporation, No. 4:17-CV-00663-ODS (W.D. Mo. Nov. 11, 2017)
    11/11/2017

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, rejecting their argument that the non-signatory plaintiff was a third-party beneficiary of the written agreement and therefore required to arbitrate.  Court explained that a signatory to an agreement seeking to arbitrate with a non-signatory must establish one of five theories—that is, (i) incorporation by reference, (ii) assumption, (iii) agency, (iv) veil-piercing/alter ego, and (v) estoppel—and that simply being a third-party beneficiary is not sufficient.  Court further concluded that, even if the arbitration agreement could be enforced, it did not encompass plaintiff’s claims, which arose from actions separate from the agreement.

  • Kershaw, P.C. v. Shannon L. Spangler P.C., No. 1:16-CV-01351-MEH (D. Colo. Nov. 10, 2016)
    11/10/2017

    Court granted application to confirm arbitration award, finding that it had not been demonstrated that the arbitrator exceeded his authority or acted in manifest disregard of the law.

  • Daley v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-02693-JCM-CWH (D. Nev. Nov. 9, 2017)
    11/09/2017

    Court granted motions to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that an arbitration agreement exists that vests the power to rule on the question of arbitrability in an arbitrator.

  • Dillard v. Dolgen Corp. LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00112-NCT-JFP (M.D.N.C. Nov. 9, 2017)
    11/09/2017

    Magistrate judge recommended that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration be granted.  Plaintiff brought claims alleging discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.  Court found that defendant’s claims were subject to arbitration pursuant to a valid arbitration agreement that the plaintiff had signed when presented with his employment documents.

  • Daley v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-02693-JCM-CWH (D. Nev. Nov. 9, 2017)
    11/09/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case.  Court found that there was a valid arbitration agreement between the parties that required them to arbitrate any employment-related claims.  Because plaintiff’s discrimination claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement and the question of arbitrability was one for the arbitrator, the court granted the motion to compel arbitration.

  • Tellez v. Madrigal, No. 3:15-CV-00304-KC (W.D. Tex. Nov. 9, 2017)
    11/09/2017

    Court denied motion to stay arbitration, finding that (i) litigation-conduct waiver of arbitration is presumptively an issue for the court to decide; (ii) litigation conduct-waiver was not addressed in arbitration agreement; and (iii) defendant waived right to move to compel arbitration by substantially invoking the judicial process through his detailed and substantive motion to dismiss and related filings, and these actions prejudiced the plaintiff through delays and costs.

  • Diversicare Leasing Corporation v. Hall, No. 16-6373 (6th Cir. Nov. 8, 2017)
    11/08/2017

    Court of appeal dismissed Hall’s appeal of the district court’s decision to compel arbitration, noting that, except as “otherwise provided in Section 1292(b) of title 28, an appeal may not be taken from an interlocutory order” directing litigants to arbitrate their action.  Therefore, the court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over Hall’s appeal and granted Diversicare’s motion to dismiss.

  • Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, No. 1:69-CV-02145 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 8, 2017)
    11/08/2017

    Court granted a plaintiffs’ motion to confirm an arbitration award and disagreed with defendant’s claims that the arbitrator had based his decision on gross errors of law and fact.  The dispute arose out of a labor matter and the arbitrator issued a decision finding that this particular plaintiff had been subjected to unlawful retaliation after a Supplemental Relief Order was issued against defendant.  Court found no reason to disturb the arbitrator’s findings and confirmed the award as well as an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.

  • Delta Stone Products, Inc. v. Eurostone Machine USA, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00737-TS (D. Utah Nov. 8, 2017)
    11/08/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment and instead stayed the case pending arbitration.  The parties had entered into a sales contract for the supply of stone in a time-sensitive project, but initiated the present case when there were delays that allegedly led to lost profits and other damages.  However, court found that the arbitration clause within the sales contract was valid and the issues at hand were within its scope, and thus compelled the parties to arbitrate their dispute. 

  • Conde v. Open Door Marketing, LLC, No. 4:15-CV-04080-KAW (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017)
    11/08/2017

    Court stayed defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris.  Plaintiffs brought the case following a labor dispute over misclassification as independent contractors and resulting wages.  At issue is whether an arbitration agreement signed by the plaintiffs is valid given the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Morris v. Ernst & Young, which states that class action waivers in employment agreements are illegal under the NLRA. 

  • Laurich v. Red Lobster Restaurants, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00150-JB-KRS (D.N.M. Nov. 8, 2017)
    11/08/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the proceeding pending the arbitration’s resolution.  Court found that the arbitration agreement contained in an employment contract between the parties was not illusory or procedurally unconscionable.  Court also found that whether defendant had breached the arbitration agreement in such a way that precluded it from enforcing it was a question for the arbitrator and not the court. 

  • Aptim v. Dorsey McCall, No. 2:17-CV-08081-JTM-MBN (E.D. La. Nov. 8, 2017)
    11/08/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the proceeding pending the arbitration’s resolution.  Court found that the arbitration agreement contained in an employment contract between the parties was not illusory or procedurally unconscionable.  Court also found that whether defendant had breached the arbitration agreement in such a way that precluded it from enforcing it was a question for the arbitrator and not the court. 

  • Hart v. Charter Communications, No. 8:17-CV-00556-DOC (C.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017)
    11/08/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that (i) reference in billing statement to new terms of service containing arbitration was reasonably conspicuous; (ii) entity resulting from merger may invoke pre-merger entity’s right to arbitration; and (iii) issues of arbitrability were expressly delegated to the arbitrator.

  • Employment Solutions Management, Inc. v. Partners Personnel-Central Valley, Corp., No. 8:17-CV-01044-JLS-JCG (C.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017)
    11/08/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that the court, rather than the arbitrator, should determine whether the parties had agreed to arbitrate, that the defendants were third-party beneficiaries under either Delaware or California law and thus able to compel arbitration, and that plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration clause

  • Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Coastal Environment Group, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-04667-KPF (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2017)
    11/07/2017

    Court granted petitioners’ motion to confirm and enforce an arbitration award issued against the respondent pursuant to the Labor Management Relations Act.  Because the respondent did not dispute any of the arbitrator’s findings or the contents of the award (and would not have had any ground to do so), the court confirmed the award.  Court also awarded attorney’s fees and some of the costs to petitioners.

  • Alvarez v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-02864-BJM (D.P.R. Nov. 7, 2017)
    11/07/2017

    Court dismissed the claims against some of the defendants’ and instructed the parties to pursue them in arbitration pursuant to a valid arbitration agreement between the parties. 

  • Zeringue v. Monster Energy Company, No. 2:17-CV-06023-SSV-JCW (E.D. La. Nov. 6, 2017)
    11/06/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the case.  Plaintiff was an employee of defendant who had signed employment agreement that included a binding arbitration clause.  Court found that plaintiff’s claim based on sexual harassment as a violation of the Civil Rights Act was within the scope of the arbitration clause. 

  • Pyle v. VXI Global Solutions, Inc., No. 5:17-CV-00220-SL (N.D. Ohio Nov. 6, 2017)
    11/06/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint.  Plaintiff signed an arbitration agreement through which he agreed to submit any employment-related claims to arbitration and was therefore precluded from bringing the present collective action.

  • Van den Heuvel v. Expedia Travel, No. 2:16-CV-00567-JAM-AC (E.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2017)
    11/06/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case.  Court found that the parties had entered into a valid arbitration agreement when plaintiff purchased an airline ticket from defendant.  Because the claims at issue were within the scope of that agreement, the parties were compelled to arbitrate and the case was dismissed.

  • Noye v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 1:15-CV-02382-YK (M.D. Pa. Nov. 6, 2017)
    11/06/2017

    Court granted one of the defendants’ renewed motion to compel arbitration and to stay the case pending completion of arbitration.  Court found that plaintiff completed an online job application that included a valid arbitration agreement and therefore was forced to arbitrate his dispute with one of the defendants.  In regards to a second defendant, the court refused to rule on a motion to compel arbitration and instead asked that the parties submit briefs regarding the applicability of equitable estoppel in light of recent Third Circuit case law.

  • Dome Technology, LLC v. Golden Sands General Contractors, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-01607-VAB (D. Conn. Nov. 3, 2017)
    11/03/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending arbitration.  Court found that two contracts at issue did not conflict with each other and that the parties had agreed to arbitrate claims within the scope of one of those contracts.

  • Zakarin v. Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-01088-JMV-JBC (D.N.J. Nov. 3, 2017)
    11/03/2017

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate a 2016 FINRA arbitration award and instead granted defendant’s motion to confirm the award.  Court found that there were insufficient grounds on which to vacate, modify, or correct the award and therefore confirmed the award pursuant to 9 USC § 9.

  • Holtec International v. Pandjiris Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00397-MPK (W.D. Pa. Nov. 3, 2017)
    11/03/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay all claims and compelled arbitration.  According to the court, the terms and conditions in a purchase order between the parties contained a valid arbitration provision and therefore their dispute had to be arbitrated in Ohio.  Additionally, the court held that in this case the theory of equitable estoppel did not apply to a non-signatory to the arbitration provision and therefore that third party was not forced to arbitrate.

  • Patientpoint Royalty Holdings, Inc. v. Healthgrid Coordinated Care Solutions, Inc., No. 6:17-CV-01051-GAP-DCI (M.D. Fla. Nov. 3, 2017)
    11/03/2017

    Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to compel arbitration.  Court found that, while there was a valid arbitration clause between the parties, it was a narrow provision that did not cover the issues disputed in this case.

  • Enron Nigeria Power Holding, Ltd. V. Federal Republic of Nigeria, No. 1:13-CV-01106-CRC (D.D.C. Nov. 2, 2017)
    11/02/2017

    Court granted in part motion for attorneys’ fees and nontaxable expenses, holding that plaintiff had established that it was entitled to an award under the contract that gave rise to the underlying dispute.  Court found that plaintiff’s affidavits provided sufficient evidence to determine prevailing market rates for experienced commercial litigators in Houston, and that plaintiff’s counsel had established that he could command market rates.

  • Edens v. Synovus Financial Corporation, No. 3:17-CV-00806-MBS (D.S.C. Nov. 2, 2017)
    11/02/2017

    Court granted in part and denied in part motion to compel arbitration, holding that a binding arbitration agreement covered claims of fraud and misrepresentation brought by an investor company, but not claims of breach of fiduciary duty individually by the head of the company, and that the agreement was not void for unconscionability.  Court found that the individual plaintiff was a sophisticated businessman and was not required to enter into the contract, and that a provision limiting punitive damages for both plaintiffs and defendants did not render the arbitration agreement unconscionable.

  • Northeast Regional Council of Carpenters, et al. v. John Butler & Sons Construction LLC, No. 3:17-CV-02835-MAS-DEA (D.N.J. Nov. 2, 2017)
    11/02/2017

    Court denied without prejudice motion to compel arbitration, requiring petitioners to refile their motion, holding that the motion incorrectly cited the date of the arbitral award, and that the arbitral award contained errors regarding dates of events in dispute.  Court found that, in light of the obvious error in the arbitration award, petitioners must submit a legal brief in support of their motion, instead of a statement that no brief was necessary.

  • Finger v. Jacobson, No. 2:17-CV-02893-JTM-DEK (E.D. LA. Nov. 2, 2017)
    11/02/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that there was no enforceable arbitration agreement between plaintiff and defendants.  Court rejected defendants’ argument that the arbitration agreement in an employment contract was broad enough to encompass a claim of fraudulent inducement to the contract against a non-signatory.  Court found that plaintiff’s tort claims did not arise out of or rely on the terms of the employment agreement, and that plaintiff made no allegations of misconduct against the signatory.

  • Whaley v. Pacific Seafood Group, No. 1:10-CV-03057-MC (D. Or. Nov. 1, 2017)
    11/01/2017

    Court granted motion to stay arbitration pending an appeal of an order appointing another federal judge as a replacement arbitrator, after the initial judge retired, holding that appellant had made sufficient showing that it may prevail on appeal.  Court found that movant had raised a serious question as to whether parties intended to appoint the initial arbitrator, regardless of whether he remained a federal judge.  Court found that parties could be harmed without a stay, as if the Ninth Circuit granted the appeal, parties would have wasted time and resources during arbitration in front of the replacement arbitrator.

  • Dennis v. United Van Lines, No. 4:17-CV-01614-RLW (E.D. Mo. Nov. 1, 2017)
    11/01/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that equitable estoppel applied to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s disputes with defendant, who was not a party to the arbitration agreement.  Court found that plaintiff’s claims depended on his classification as an independent contractor and the work he performed under an employment contract with a third party, which provided a broad arbitration clause.  Court also found that, under the employment contract, plaintiff was an independent contractor and not an employee, and plaintiff did not fall within the FAA exclusion for contracts of employment for transportation workers.

  • Unitil Corporation and Northern Utilities, Inc. v. Utility Workers Union of America Local 341, No. 2:16-CV-00443-JAW (D. Me. Nov. 1, 2017)
    11/01/2017

    Court denied motion to partially vacate an arbitration award on grounds that arbitrator acted outside her authority and made a manifest error of law, holding that this case did not meet the standard to disturb the award.  Court found that the award was a reasonable response to the submissions, based on a plausible interpretation of the underlying contract and facts.

  • In the matter of Arbitration between Shepherd v. LPL Financial LLC, No. 5:17-CV-00150-D (E.D.N.C. Nov. 1, 2017)
    11/01/2017

    Court granted motion to quash subpoenas of arbitrators in relation to plaintiffs’ petition to vacate an arbitration award.  Court found that plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate clear evidence of impropriety to justify post-award discovery from an arbitrator.  Court further found that the undisclosed relationship between a lawyer and the arbitrator was strictly professional, and the circumstances surrounding the arbitrator’s non-disclosures did not give the impression of clear impropriety, particularly when plaintiffs won the arbitral award unanimously.   Court found that alleged impropriety by one arbitrator did not give grounds to “double-check” the other panelists.

  • Boyton v. Xerox Commercial Solutions LLC, No. 3:17-CV-505-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C. Nov. 1, 2017)
    11/01/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that motion was moot as defendants could re-file a similar motion in response to plaintiff’s amended complaint.  Court found that plaintiff had filed a timely amended complaint, which superseded the original pleading and rendered defendant’s motion moot. 

  • Robledo v. Randstad US, L.P., No. 5:17-CV-01003-BLF (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2017)
    11/01/2017

    Court granted motion to stay proceedings and terminated without prejudice motion to compel arbitration, holding that the outcome of the Supreme Court’s review of the decision in Morris v. Ernst & Young LLP, 834 F. 3d 975 (9th Cir. 2016) will directly impact the court’s determination of the motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that motion required a determination of whether the National Labor Relations Act  invalidates class action waivers, an issue currently pending before the Supreme Court.  Court found plaintiffs had not shown that a stay of a few months prejudice plaintiffs and, conversely, that denying the stay would risk a waste of judicial resources.

  • AFS Logistics, LLC v. Cochran, No. 3:16-CV-3139 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 31, 2017)
    10/31/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration of claims concerning alleged misappropriation of trade secrets, holding that plaintiff had waived its right to arbitration.  Court found plaintiff’s conduct inconsistent with any reliance on a right to arbitrate and that allowing plaintiff to now rely on an arbitration clause would substantially prejudice defendants. 

  • Goodwin v. Branch Banking & Trust Company, No. 17-1412 (4th Cir. Oct. 31, 2017)
    10/31/2017

    Court affirmed decision to deny motion to compel arbitration, upholding the district court’s finding that the arbitration provision was unconscionable under state law and its refusal to sever unconscionable terms.  Court did not provide further information on the facts of the case or what made the arbitration terms unconscionable and non-severable.

  • Global eBusiness Services, Inc. v. Interactive Brokers LLC, No. 3:16-CV-01264-JD (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2017)
    10/30/2017

    Court denied petition to vacate arbitration award issued by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), holding that plaintiff had not established any of the limited grounds in FAA § 10.  Court found that plaintiff provided no evidence to show that arbitrators refused to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy in order to satisfy FAA § 10(a)(3).  Court also found that plaintiff had not identified any governing law that was arguably even incorrectly applied by the panel, and could not therefore meet the standard of FAA § 10(a)(4).

  • Egan Jones Ratings Company v. Steven Pruette, No. 2:16-MC-00105-JLS (E.D. Pa. Oct. 30, 2017)
    10/30/2017

    Court denied petition to vacate partial final arbitration award on liability, and confirmed cross-petition to confirm award.  Court found authorities were split on the applicability of a statute of limitations defense to an arbitration proceeding, and arbitrator’s failure to reach this defense was not a manifest disregard of the law.  Court also found that arbitrator’s contractual interpretation was based on a proper weighing of conflicting evidence, and that the arbitrator limited his determination to breach of contract, thus remaining within the scope of his authority.

  • National Football League Management Council v. National Football League Players Association, No. 1:17-CV-06761-KPF (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2017)
    10/30/2017

    Court denied the National Football League Players Association (“NFLPA”) motion for preliminary injunction and vacatur of an award which upheld the National Football League Commissioner’s six-game suspension of Ezekiel Elliott.  Court found that the arbitrator gave the player ample opportunity, in terms of both proceedings and evidence, to challenge the Commissioner’s decision before the arbitrator, and that the arbitration agreement did not permit the arbitrator to compel testimony from certain witnesses.

  • Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Patel, No. 8:17-CV-01260-TDC (D. Md. Oct. 30, 2017)
    10/30/2017

    Court granted default judgment in application to confirm arbitration award, holding that the FAA requirements for confirmation were met.  Court found that the claims for breach of contract were within the scope of the arbitration clause, that defendants were served and received notice of the motion, but failed to file an answer or otherwise make a showing of any grounds for vacating the award.

  • Lifetree Trading PTE., Ltd. V. Washakie Renewable Energy, No. 1:14-CV-09075-JPO (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2017)
    10/27/2017

    Court denied motion for a stay, pending the appeal of a decision to deny a motion to compel arbitration, holding that defendant had waived its right to arbitrate.  Court found that (i) the case had been in federal court for almost three years, (ii) the litigation was in its advanced stages, with trial scheduled in one month’s time, (iii) defendant had engaged in prejudicial and sanctionable conduct to prolong the litigation, and (iv) defendant had twice explicitly submitted to the court’s jurisdiction, and had engaged in discovery practice without taking steps to bifurcate the case.  

  • Letom Management Inc. v. Centaur Gaming, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-03793-PAE (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2017)
    10/27/2017

    Court granted motion to dismiss, holding that it had no jurisdiction over the defendant.  Court found that defendant’s “waiver” of an arbitration process, which would have applied Indiana Law, by electing to apply New York choice of law in its brief seeking dismissal did not grant specific jurisdiction.  Court found that defendant had to rely on New York authorities, as plaintiff had filed in the SDNY, and rejected plaintiff’s contention that this amounted to the defendant availing itself of the laws of New York.   

  • Holsum Bakery Incorporated v. Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers, Local 232, No: 16-16422 (9th Cir. Oct. 27, 2017)
    10/27/2017

    Court of appeal reversed and remanded a district court’s decision to vacate an arbitration award.  Court also instructed the district court to confirm the award because it had erred in concluding that the arbitrator’s award did not “draw its essence” from the collective bargaining agreement at issue.  Court also found that the district court erred in concluding that the arbitrator’s award was “so inconsistent and full of mistakes” that it was practically impossible to apply.

  • Edmund I. Shamsi v. Ofer Levin, G.T.I. Global Ltd., No. 9:17-CV-80372-DMM (S.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2017)
    10/27/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration of all claims and stay action, rejecting the plaintiff’s argument that a single defendant cannot enforce the arbitration agreement as a non-signatory.  Court held that the equitable estoppel exception to the general rule that only signatories to an arbitration agreement can enforce the agreement applied, because all claims “arise out of and relate directly” to the joint venture agreement in which the arbitration agreement is contained and each claim “raises allegations of substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct” against both a signatory and non-signatory based on “inherently inseparable” facts.

  • Johnson & Johnson International v. Puerto Rico Hospital Supply, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01405-FAB (D.P.R. Oct. 26, 2017)
     
    10/26/2017

    Court denied motion for reconsideration of opinion and order compelling arbitration and staying all claims pending completion of arbitration, holding that plaintiffs’ arguments were based on formerly available evidence or arguments which had already been submitted to the court in earlier motions.  

  • Pierre-Louis v. CC Solutions, LLC, No. 0:17-CV-60781-BB (S.D. Fla. Oct. 25, 2017)
    10/25/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings.  Court held that defendants had not waited so long to assert their right to arbitrate as to have waived it, notwithstanding some small prejudice to plaintiff.

  • Curtis International Ltd v. Pacific Logistics Corp., No. 2:17-CV-01968-PA-JEM (C.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2017)
    10/25/2017

    Court granted joint motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the case, finding that a valid arbitration agreement governed the dispute.

  • Thomas v. Progressive Leasing, No. 1:17-CV-01249-RDB (D. Md. Oct. 25, 2017)
    10/25/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case, holding that plaintiff who was not a signatory to the arbitration agreement could nevertheless be bound thereby under a theory of equitable estoppel since he had benefited from the primary contract.

  • Blair v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-02335-WHA (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2017)
    10/25/2017

    Court granted in part and denied in part a motion to compel arbitration, and declined to stay remaining proceedings.  Court held that although a valid arbitration agreement governed the dispute, it was inoperable with respect to those claims subject to state laws whose public purpose would be contravened by an agreement to arbitrate. Court declined to issue a stay pending arbitration of the claim not subject to such laws upon finding that the applicable law was sufficiently distinct and any overlap between the arbitrable and nonarbitrable claims was “minor.”

  • MacRury v. American Steamship Company, No. 1:16-CV-13889-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich. Oct. 25, 2017)
    10/25/2017

    Court granted motion to lift stay on proceedings pending arbitration upon being presented with an amended claim alleging facts falling outside the scope of an existing arbitration.  Court reasoned that for such related, but independent claims, arbitration was not appropriate.

  • International Longshore v. Columbia Grain, Inc., No. 15-35620 (9th Cir. Oct. 25, 2017)
    10/25/2017

    Court affirmed decision to deny motion to compel arbitration, holding that the question of whether there was an agreement to arbitrate was for the court, not the arbitrator, to decide, and that plaintiff’s claim to compel arbitration was foreclosed by settlement.  Court found that a memorandum of agreement between the union and plaintiff, which settled “any and all claims” by members, foreclosed plaintiff’s claim to compel arbitration of its grievances.

  • Manor v. Copart, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-02585 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 24, 2017)
    10/24/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court declined to consider arguments that defendants had waived the right to arbitrate by waiting to invoke the agreement or that they were estopped from arbitrating by an alleged failure to disclose the existence of the agreement to plaintiff, reasoning that this was for the arbitrator to decide.  Court likewise rejected plaintiff’s argument that defendants could not benefit from the arbitration agreement because one was not her employer and the other was not a signatory thereto.

  • Noonan v. Comcast Corp., No. 3:16-CV-00458-PGS-LHG (D.N.J. Oct. 24, 2017)
    10/24/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, determining that the language of the parties’ agreement indicated that they intended to arbitrate and that their dispute fell within the scope of that agreement.

  • Tate v. Progressive Finance Holdings, LLC., No. 2:17-CV-01589-ODW-AS (C.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2017)
    10/24/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case.  Court held that the otherwise uncontested arbitration agreement was broad enough to cover the dispute.  Based on that finding, court, as a matter of discretion, declined to stay proceedings and dismissed the claim.

  • Choice Hotels International , Inc. v. Gurnee Property Management, Inc., No. 8:17-CV-00225-PX (D. Md. Oct. 24, 2017)
    10/24/2017

    Court granted default motion to confirm an arbitral award, finding no reason to vacate it.  Court likewise granted plaintiff’s motion for the costs of bringing an action to confirm the award, noting that the law did not provide for post-judgment interest and thus declining to award it.

  • In re Application of Hulley Enterprises Ltd., No. 2:17-CV-07100-PA-E (C.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2017)
    10/23/2017

    Court declined to reverse magistrate’s denial of petitioners’ motion for leave to serve a subpoena by “alternative means” in 28 USC 1782 application, ruling that it was neither “clearly erroneous” nor “contrary to law.”  Shearman & Sterling is counsel for the petitioners in this case.

  • Marcario v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00414-ADS-ARL (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2017)
    10/23/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case.  Court held that a valid arbitration agreement applied to the dispute and that defendants benefited from the agreement as assignees of the underlying contract.  Court rejected plaintiff’s claims that he had never received such an agreement, holding that plaintiff had made a contrary judicial admission at an earlier point and, in any case, that defendants had sufficiently demonstrated the agreement’s existence and transmission to plaintiff.

  • Madrigal v. Zuniga, No. 1:16-CV-09415-RMB-JS (D.N.J. Oct. 23, 2017)
    10/23/2017

    Court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint for enforcement of an arbitration decision by the New Jersey Fee Arbitration Committee, inter alia, for lack of jurisdiction. Court determined that there was no diversity of citizenship among the parties and ruled that the FAA does not create independent federal question jurisdiction.

  • Micula v. Government of Romania, No. 15-3109-CV (2d Cir. Oct. 23, 2017)
    10/23/2017

    Court reversed and vacated district court orders and judgment confirming in ex parte proceedings an ICSID arbitration award against a sovereign state, and remanding the case with instructions to dismiss the petition without prejudice. Court held that the district court erred in determining that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act did not apply to proceedings to confirm ICSID awards and that venue in the Southern District of New York is not proper under that act.

  • Nelson  v. Synchrony Bank, No. 2:16-CV-00703-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla. Oct. 20, 2017)
    10/20/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff had waived its right to arbitrate by waiting to file its motion for over a year and substantively participating in litigation during the interim, both factors that prejudiced the plaintiff.

  • Richards v. The Krystal Company, No. 1:17-CV-00228-TAV-CHS (E.D. Tenn. Oct. 20, 2017)
    10/20/2017

    Court denied motion to remand, ruling that the parties must arbitrate the validity of the underlying agreement instead.  Court held that the agreement indicated the parties’ intent to delegate arbitrability questions to the arbitrator.

  • Banks v. Barclays Bank Credit Services, No. 1:17-CV-00096-CCC-SES (M.D. Pa. Oct. 20, 2017)
    10/20/2017

    Court adopted magistrate’s recommendation and denied motion to compel arbitration without prejudice, granting discovery limited to the question of the validity of the purported arbitration agreement.  Court reasoned that precedent required such discovery where underlying agreement was not clear with respect to arbitration.

  • Roundtree v. Primeflight Aviation Services, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-9609-CCC-MF (D.N.J. Oct. 19, 2017)
    10/19/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the complaint.  Court dismissed plaintiffs’ argument that the arbitration agreement was not valid because it did not sufficiently make clear that by agreeing to arbitrate they waived their right to a jury, as required by New Jersey law.  Court further held that the agreement was sufficiently broad to cover the dispute.

  • Huitt v. Wilbanks Securities, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00919-STV (D. Colo. Oct. 19, 2017)
    10/19/2017

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award.  Court rejected arguments that award was not valid, reasoning that the challenged jurisdictional question was within the tribunal’s competence, that defendant had not demonstrated the tribunal had manifestly disregarded the law, and that the tribunal was not obligated to explain its award of punitive damages.

  • Emerson Software Solutions, Inc. v. Regions Financial Corp., No. 2:17-CV-00287-JHE (N.D. Ala. Oct. 19, 2017)
    10/19/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court held that the arbitration agreement was sufficiently broad to cover the claim in dispute and that plaintiff had expressly waived any equitable relief.

  • Richland Equipment Company, Inc. v. Deere & Company, No. 5:17-CV-00088-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss. Oct. 19, 2017)
    10/19/2017

    Court denied motion for an injunction pending appeal of its earlier order compelling arbitration.  Court reasoned that although delegation agreements need not be enforced by courts where the dispute plainly falls outside that agreement, the plaintiff could not meet its burden to demonstrate that this was the case.

  • Mason v. Athletic & Therapeutic Institute OF Naperville, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-02222-JMS-MJD (S.D. Ind. Oct. 19, 2017)
    10/19/2017

    Court dismissed claim, finding that an arbitration agreement governed the dispute.  Court rejected arguments that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because it imposed a time limit on filing a claim and did not mandate that attorney’s fees be awarded to the prevailing party.

  • Driver v. Pro AG Management, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-01959 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 18, 2017)
    10/18/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, holding the parties were bound by a valid arbitration agreement.

  • BSH Hausgerate, GMBH v. Kamhi,  No. 1:17-CV-05776 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2017)
    10/18/2017

    Court granted motion to confirm the attachment of real property in support of payment on a $ 2.7 million ICC award.  Court held that all grounds for an attachment of property were met, rejecting respondent’s contention that the award might not be confirmed because of its challenges to underlying notice and procedure.

  • Bankwitz v. Ecolab, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-02924-EMC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2017)
    10/17/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration in light of ninth circuit decision in Morris v. Ernst & Young LLP holding that arbitration agreements requiring employees to pursue work-related claims individually are unenforceable, but stayed proceedings pending outcome of appeal of Morris before Supreme Court.

  • McFadden v. E.A. Renfroe & Company, Inc., No. 15-55886 (9th Cir. Oct. 17, 2017)
    10/17/2017

    Court of appeal reversed district court’s ruling that arbitration agreement is unenforceable, finding that unconscionable terms were severable.

  • Espinoza v. Galardi South Enterprises, Inc., No. 14-CV-21244-JG (S.D. Fla. Oct. 17, 2017)
    10/17/2017

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration. Court rejected defendant’s argument that plaintiffs should be estopped from compelling arbitration based on their earlier opposition to arbitration. Court also found that the defendant’s inability to pay the arbitration costs of the arbitration vendor they selected was not a legitimate basis for the court to refuse to enforce the arbitration agreement.

  • Harper v. Academy of Training School, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-01266-UDJ-KK (W.D. La. Oct. 16, 2017)
    10/16/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendant had waived its right to arbitrate by substantially invoking the judicial process, including by filing an answer, briefing motions, and engaging in written discovery.

  • Kirby McInerney LLP v. Lee Medical, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-04760-KBF (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2017)
    10/16/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case, holding that a valid arbitration agreement governed the dispute.

  • World of Beer Franchising, Inc. v. MWB Development I, LLC, No. 17-12870 (11th Cir. Oct. 16, 2017)
    10/16/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed district court’s denial of preliminary injunction pending arbitration, finding that under contractual scheme, court motion for preliminary injunction could only be brought simultaneously with arbitration, and after mediation had concluded.

  • Hawkins v. Fishbeck, No. 3:17-CV-00032-NKM-JCH (W.D. Va. Oct. 16, 2017)
    10/16/2017

    Court granted motion to dismiss in part and compelled arbitration, finding that trade secret and copyright infringement claims fell within the scope of an arbitration agreement.

  • McArthur v. BNSF Railway Company, No. 17-CV-01314-JCC (W.D. Wash. Oct. 16, 2017)
    10/16/2017

    Court granted motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, finding that terminated employee’s claim for compensation for unused vacation time required interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement and could only be resolved in arbitration.

  • U.S. Pipelining LLC v. Johnson Controls, Inc., No. 16-00132 HG-RLP (D. Haw. Oct. 16, 2017)
    10/16/2017

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to stay arbitration and granted defendant’s countermotion to stay judicial proceedings, concluding that defendant did not waive its right to arbitration by moving for summary judgment a year before it demanded arbitration.  Court noted that the motion for summary judgment challenged plaintiff’s right to bring suit, and defendant has consistently stated that plaintiff’s claims are subject to arbitration and that it retains the right to seek arbitration.  Court further concluded that plaintiff was not prejudiced by defendant’s actions, as (i) the motion for summary judgment did not involve the merits of the claims subject to arbitration, (ii) plaintiff was on notice that defendant intended to seek arbitration, and (iii) plaintiff failed to demonstrate how it had been prejudiced by the limited discovery that had taken place in the case.

  • Anderson Group Co., Inc. v. MC Hotels, LLC, No. 0:17-CV-01564-TLW (D.S.C. Oct. 16, 2017)
    10/16/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss to the extent it seeks to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s claims.  Court held that the relevant provision in the subcontract provided for arbitration, and whether the same provision required the parties to mediate as a condition precedent to arbitration was a matter for the arbitrators to decide. 

  • Hawkins v. Fishbeck, No. 3:17-CV-00032 (W.D. Va. Oct. 16, 2017)
    10/16/2017

    Court granted in part motion to compel arbitration, finding that the agreement containing the arbitration clause was sufficiently related to the claims at issue.

  • Ruiz v. AH 2005 Management, No. 3:17-CV-00197-PRM (W.D. Tex. Oct. 13, 2017)
    10/13/2017

    Court granted motion to dismiss and compelled arbitration, finding that employer’s right to amend arbitration agreement did not render it illusory, since it applied only to prospective disputes.

  • Knezovich v. DIRECTV, L.L.C., No. 4:17-CV-00165-MWB (D. Idaho Oct. 13, 2017)
    10/13/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed claim, finding that arbitration procedure containing provisions governing the scope of arbitrable claims was validly incorporated by reference in an arbitration agreement, even if it was not provided to employee at time of signing.

  • Credit Acceptance Corporation v. Vansteenburgh, No. 1:17-CV-00040-GHD-DAS (N.D. Miss. Oct. 12, 2017)
    10/12/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed claim, finding that claim for tort of conversion for repossession of loan collateral fell within the scope of the loan agreement's arbitration clause.

  • National Football League Players Association v. National Football League, No. 17-40936 (5th Cir. Oct. 12, 2017)
    10/12/2017

    Court of Appeal vacated district court’s preliminary injunction, finding that court was without jurisdiction to issue preliminary injunction under the Labor Relations Management Act so long as arbitral or other grievance proceeds had not concluded.

  • Nexteer Automotive Corporation v. Korea Delphi Automotive Systems Corporation, No. 2:13-CV-15189-GCS-LJM (E.D. Mich. Oct. 12, 2017)
    10/12/2017

    Court ordered and confirmed award rendered by Singapore International Arbitration Center, that defendant make payment of outstanding amounts due under award (including prejudgment interest) and pay royalties on certain past and future sales. Court also held that plaintiff shall have the right to audit the sales and other financial records of defendant, that all payments are to be made by wire transfer in U.S. currency, that plaintiff is not precluded from applying for recovery of fees and costs incurred after the entry of the award, and that entry of judgment does not restart the automatic stay period under Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(a).

  • Rosenberg v. TIG Insurance Company, No. 2:16-CV-958-WHA (M.D. Ala. Oct. 12, 2017)
    10/12/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment in action to recover on an arbitral award from the award debtor’s insurer, finding that the occurrence underlying the arbitral award was not covered by the award debtor’s insurance policy.

  • Cheytac USA, LLC v. Nextgen Tactical, LLC and Omanoff, No. 0:17-CV-60925-CMA (S.D. Fla. Oct. 12, 2017) 
    10/12/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that because the parties incorporated the AAA rules into their agreement the question of whether a valid arbitration agreement existed was an issue for arbitration.  Court also found the question of whether the carve-out provision removed claims from an arbitrator’s jurisdiction was also an issue for arbitration.  Court held defendants had not waived their right to arbitrate the dispute.

  • Darren Bagert Productions LLC v. Pulse Evolution Corporation, No. 1:17-CV-05391-GHW (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 2017)
    10/11/2017

    Court confirmed petition to confirm arbitration award against party in default, finding that a court should treat an unopposed petition to confirm an arbitration award as akin to a motion for summary judgment and that there was no indication that the award was procured through fraud, dishonesty, or manifest disregard of the law, or that any other bases for vacating or modifying the award exist.

  • Bergheim v. Sirona Dental Systems, Inc., No. 17-548-CV (2d Cir. Oct. 11, 2017)

    10/11/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed district court judgment confirming arbitral award on damages and rejecting appellants’ allegation that award should have been vacated on the ground that arbitrator disregarded the plain terms of the agreement and manifestly disregarded Delaware’s prohibition on speculative damages.

  • Dastime Group Limited v. Moonvale Investments Limited, No. 4:17-CV-01859-JSW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2017)
    10/11/2017

    Court denied motion to vacate and granted petition to confirm arbitration award as to first respondent, denying that arbitrator would have exceeded her authority by awarding petitioners attorney’s fees or would have violated respondent’s due process rights. Court further found there was just reason for delaying entering judgment until the claims against all respondents have been resolved, rejected petitioners’ request for entry of separate judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), ordered petitioners to file a motion for default against second respondent who had failed to appear in this action, and denied without prejudice petitioners’ request for attorney’s fees incurred in brining action to confirm arbitration award.

  • Benson v. Enloe Medical Center, No. 2:15-CV-02053-JAM-CMK (E.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2017)
    10/11/2017

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award.  Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary, finding that they were either veiled challenges to the substance of the arbitrator’s decision or had been waived and otherwise disposed of in the arbitration.

  • Webb v. Farmers of North America, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00080-FJG (W.D. Mo. Oct. 10, 2017)
    10/10/2017

    Court, having compelled arbitration pursuant to AAA rules, responded in the negative to letter disputing whether AAA was required to administer the arbitration, ordering that the parties work jointly to find a mutually acceptable arbitrator.  Court reasoned that the agreement’s mention of AAA rules did not mandate AAA as the arbitration administrator.

  • Preferred Care of Delaware Inc. v Hewgley, No. 1:17-CV-00127-GNS (W.D. Ky. Oct. 6, 2017)
    10/06/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration except with respect to respondent’s wrongful death claims, and granted in part and denied in part motion to dismiss. Court rejected respondent’s various jurisdictional defenses, finding, in particular, that the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable even though it was executed by a court-appointed guardian. Further, court found that neither the boiler-plate language, nor execution as part of a series of documents, renders the arbitration agreement procedurally unconscionable and that the alleged disparity in bargaining power and the non-disclosure of the costs of arbitration does not make it substantively unconscionable.

  • Cusolito v. Citibank, N.A., No. 0:17-CV-60963-WPD (S.D. Fla. Oct. 6, 2017)
    10/06/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff’s argument as to whether she entered into the agreement was to be decided by the arbitrator and not the court.  Court also held that plaintiff’s claims fell clearly within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and that plaintiff could not place the existence of the arbitration agreement in issue by merely denying its existence.

  • Baker v. The Academy of Art University Foundation, No. 3:17-CV-03444-JSC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2017)
    10/05/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings, rejecting plaintiff’s defense that the main agreement containing the arbitration provision was cancelled. Could also held that the arbitration agreement was not procedurally unconscionable since plaintiff had failed to demonstrate any oppression or surprise beyond that inherent in any adhesion contract, and also denied the allegation that the arbitration agreement was substantively unconscionable.

  • Scales v. SCC Winston-Salem Operating Company, No. 1:17-CV-00539 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 5, 2017)
    10/05/2017

    Court denied without prejudice request to compel arbitration and stay proceedings on the ground that it was premature and granted request to conduct discovery regarding the formation and performance of the arbitration agreement.

  • Bynum v. Maplebear, Inc., No. 16-3348 (2d Cir. Oct. 5, 2017)
    10/05/2017

    Court of appeal dismissed appeal from district court judgment dismissing plaintiff-appellant’s case upon plaintiff’s motion to end stay of court proceedings pending arbitration and dismiss action on the merits, with the district court having confirmed that plaintiff wished to waive her right to arbitration.  Court found that it lacked jurisdiction since the FAA bars interlocutory appeals from the grant of a motion to compel arbitration, which plaintiff could not circumvent by agreeing to dismiss her claims rather than proceeding to arbitration.

  • Scales v. SSC Winston-Salem Operating Company, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00539-WO-I PA (M.D.N.C. Oct. 5, 2017)
    10/05/2017

    Court denied in part and granted in part arbitration motion, dismissing as premature defendant’s request to compel arbitration and granting request to conduct discovery regarding the formation and performance of the parties’ agreement.

  • Ambulatory Surgical Center of Somerset et al v. Allstate Fire Casualty Insurance Company, No. 3:16-CV-05378-AET-LHG (D.N.J. Oct. 5, 2017)
    10/05/2017

    Court granted motion for reconsideration under FRCP 59(e), finding that court had overlooked amendments to the relevant dispute resolution provision that empowered any party to a dispute to compel arbitration.

  • Wuest v. Comcast Corp., No. 4:17-CV-04063-JSW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 05, 2017)
    10/05/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation. Pursuant to the FAA, court found the arbitration clause was valid but concluded the claims did not fall within the scope of the provision because plaintiff was not a customer of defendant at the time the dispute arose.

  • Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund et al v. Interior Cinema Inc., No. 1:17-CV-06530-KBF (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2017)
    10/04/2017

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award, as well as plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees and costs and post-judgment interest.  Court treated plaintiff’s petition as an unopposed motion for summary judgment since defendant had not filed an opposition to defendant’s petition to confirm award, and concluded there are no triable issues of material fact and that plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

  • Kelleher v. Dream Catcher, L.L.C., No. 1:16-CV-02092-APM (D.D.C. Oct. 4, 2017)
    10/04/2017

    Court denied defendants’ application to stay pending arbitration, finding defendants had forfeited their right to arbitrate by failing to invoke arbitration at the earliest available opportunity and that defendants’ application for stay and any subsequent appeal was “frivolous” since it was based on a flawed legal theory and moreover wholly ignored controlling Supreme Court precedent and other pertinent cases.

  • Exploraciones y Perforadora Central, S.A. de C.V. v. Axxis Drilling, No. 17-cv-2833 (E.D. La. Oct. 4, 2017)
    10/04/2017

    Court confirmed the arbitration award, awarded pre-judgment interest in the amount of 12% per annum and post-judgment interest at the statutory rate, and recognized an offset for amounts due to defendant.  Court held that the 12% interest awarded in the arbitration applied to the period prior to confirmation and entry of judgment, after which post-judgment interest would apply.

  • Rocha v. Macy's Retail Holdings, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00073-PRM (W.D. Tex. Oct. 3, 2017)
    10/03/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to abate and compel arbitration finding that defendant failed to provide evidence that plaintiff consented to arbitration.

  • Esparza v. Smartpay Leasing, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-03421-WHA (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2017)
    10/03/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration in putative class action finding that plaintiff’s claims fall outside of the scope of the arbitration clause on which plaintiff relied.

  • Fundamental Administrative Services v. Cohen, No. 17-2025 (10th Cir. Oct. 3, 2017)
    10/03/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed district court order dismissing complaint to compel arbitration, finding the case was precluded by res judicata since it had been previously decided in state court proceedings.

  • Blair v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-02335-WHA (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2017)
    10/03/2017

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that, while three of plaintiff’s claims were not arbitrable under McGill v. Citibank, N.A., according to which arbitration agreements prohibiting plaintiffs from exercising a statutory right to seek a public injunction are invalid— a rule not preempted by the FAA—, with respect to plaintiff’s remaining claim the arbitration agreement was valid.  Court rejected defendant’s request to stay the proceedings on the ground that plaintiff’s arbitration claim was sufficiently distinct from its court claims so that parallel proceedings would not be unduly duplicative or burdensome.

  • Wedi Corp. v. Wright, No. 2:15-CV-00671-TSZ (W.D. Wash. Oct. 3, 2017)
    10/03/2017

    Court granted in part and denied in part motion to correct or modify arbitral award, modifying the award to omit a sentence inconsistent with the arbitrator’s direction that the parties wait until after the award was issued to submit a petition for attorney’s fees, but denying that plaintiff may seek reimbursement of attorney’s fees in a subsequent court motion since the arbitrator had ruled that attorney’s fees would not be awarded to either side.

  • OJSC Ukrnafta v. Carpatsky Petroleum Corporation, No. 4:09-CV-00891 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 2, 2017)
    10/02/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to confirm arbitration award, rejecting plaintiff’s allegations that defendants had failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Art. IV of the New York Convention, as well as plaintiff’s various defenses under Art. V of the New York Convention, finding, moreover, that plaintiff’s arguments under Art. II of the New York Convention could only be considered to the extent they intertwined with its Art. V arguments.  Court dismissed without prejudice defendants’ motion to dismiss all of plaintiff’s claims on res judicata and collateral estoppel grounds, finding it did not have the information required to rule on this request.

  • Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society v. Telles, No. 2:17-CV-00207-MCA-GJF (D.N.M. Sept. 30, 2017)
    09/30/2017

    Court granted complaint to compel arbitration and petition for appointment of arbitrator, as well as related motion and memorandum of law, compelled arbitration, and dismissed action.  Court found that the parties’ arbitration agreement contained a clear delegation clause, rejecting defendant’s allegation that the delegation clause was procedurally unconscionable and noting that defendant had not specifically challenged the delegation clause on substantive unconscionability grounds.

  • Landau v. Rheinold, No. 1:15-CV-04811-CBA-VMS (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2017)
    09/30/2017

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award issued by a Rabbinical Court, finding that, while the FAA does not confer subject matter jurisdiction, under a “look through approach,” it had subject matter jurisdiction regarding the petition because the underlying dispute involved a question of trademark law which the court would have had jurisdiction to hear under 28 USC 1338.  Court rejected the allegation that confirmation ought to be sought in state court, finding that the language of the parties’ forum selection clause was not mandatory and denied  respondent’s challenge of the merits of the award on the ground that the FAA’s limitations period for vacating the award had run.

  • Pain Treatment Centers of Illinois v. SpectraLab Scientific, Incorporated, No. 1:15-CV-01012 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 30, 2017)
    09/30/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for improper venue finding that the parties’ agreement contained a valid arbitration clause and rejecting plaintiffs’ allegations that the arbitration  clause was substantively unconscionable since it lacked specificity, was impossible to comply with, and failed to mention the costs of the arbitration, as well as that it was procedurally unconscionable because plaintiffs did not have an opportunity to negotiate it.

  • Allen v. SSC Lexington Operating Company LLC, No. 1:16-CV-01080 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 29, 2017)
    09/29/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel individual arbitration and stay court proceedings, denied as moot plaintiff’s motion for putative class action certification and defendant’s partial motion to dismiss, and stayed court proceedings under § 3 of the FAA pending arbitration.  Court found that, while the language of the agreement raised doubts as to whether the parties intended their agreement to include a waiver of class or collective action, such doubts had to be resolved in favor or arbitration.

  • Bradley v. The Hertz Corporation, No. 3:15-CV-00652-NJR-RJD (S.D. Ill. Sept. 29, 2017)
    09/29/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the parties’ arbitration agreement was valid and that the scope of that agreement was for the arbitrator to decide, per the delegation clause contained in the arbitration agreement.

  • Johns, Jr. v. Pluckers, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00553-SS (W.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2017)
    09/29/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion in part and denied it in part, compelling arbitration but finding that the question whether the dispute may be arbitrated as a collective action is for the arbitrator to decide, and staying the case pending final decision by the arbitrator.

  • Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society v. Hatton, No. 2:16-CV-01355-JB-KRS, No. 19 (D.N.M. Sept. 29, 2017)
    09/29/2017

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement that had been signed by the decedent’s temporary legal guardian was valid and binding on the personal representative of the decedent’s wrongful death estate, and denying motion to compel discovery regarding the temporary legal guardian’s authority to bind decedent to arbitration, which was an issue for the arbitrator to decide.

  • Green Tree Servicing, L.L.C. v. Charles, No. 17-60165 (5th Cir.  Sept. 29, 2017)
    09/29/2017

    Court of appeal dismissed defendant-appellant’s appeal of district court’s grant of plaintiffs-appellees’ motion to compel arbitration and to stay the claims of another civil action involving the same parties and same dispute.  Court held the district court’s order was not a final decision as it stayed the claims still pending between the parties in the district court in the other civil action and therefore the appellate court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. 

  • Humphreys v. Houston Pizza Ventures, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00935 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2017)
    09/29/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed, as well as administratively closed, case pending arbitration, finding that the parties entered into a valid and binding agreement to arbitrate under Texas law. 

  • Powers v. Charles River Laboratories, Inc., No. 2-16-CV-13668-PDB-SDD (E.D. Mich. Sept. 29, 2017)
    09/29/2017

    District court adopted magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and, amongst others, granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss or compel arbitration, finding that magistrate judge had correctly concluded that the parties agreed to arbitration, that plaintiff had failed to show a genuine issue of material fact as to the validity of the arbitration agreement or as to whether defendant was a successor party to the agreement, and that the applicability of the contractual time bar contained in the arbitration agreement was for the arbitrator, not the court, to decide. 

  • Eurotec Vertical Flight Solutions, LLC v. Turbomeca, S.A., No. 3:15-CV-03454-B (N.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2016)

    09/29/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings and granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion to refer only issues of arbitrability to arbitration and stay action pending arbitrators’ decision on arbitrability.  Court found that the parties’ arbitration agreement contained a valid and enforceable delegation clause so that the issue of arbitrability was one of the issues that would have to be decided by arbitration, while rejecting plaintiff’s assertion that a court could initially refer only arbitrabilty issues to arbitration.

  • Allied World Insurance Company v. New Paradigm Property Management LLC, No. 2:16-CV-02992-MCE-GGH (E.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2017)
    09/28/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss plaintiff’s complaint, or alternatively stay action, finding that, while the arbitration agreement applied to plaintiff as surety, the scope of the arbitration agreement did not encompass the controversy at issue.

  • Durr v. Adams Beverages, Inc., No. 16-15285 (11th Cir. Sept. 28, 2017)
    09/28/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed in part and dismissed in part the district court’s order dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice and entering judgment for the defendant.  Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in setting a deadline to enforce and grant defendant’s motion to dismiss when plaintiff showed no signs of challenging the arbitration award at issue.  Court further held it lacked jurisdiction to consider plaintiff-appellant’s challenge of the denial of his post-judgment motions seeking to vacate the arbitration award.

  • Ford v. Combined Insurance Company of America, No. 5:17-CV-00103-RH-GRJ (N.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2017)
    09/28/2017

    Court adopted magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and granted motion to compel arbitration in part.  Court held that the plaintiff signed a binding arbitration agreement that applied to plaintiff’s claims and ordered the parties to present their dispute to arbitration in accordance with their agreement.

  • Hubbard v. Dolgencorp, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-01133-SA-egb (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 28, 2017)
    09/28/2017

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the named plaintiffs, except Hubbard, were bound to arbitrate their claims.  Court further held that because in the sixth circuit the class action waiver found in the arbitration agreement was void as against public policy and unenforceable under the FAA, and yet severable, the court would compel plaintiffs to bring their claims to arbitration but they could do so collectively as a class.

  • Imperial Crane Sales, Inc. v. Sany America, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-00859 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2017)
    09/28/2017

    Court denied a motion to vacate the majority of plaintiff’s arbitration award, confirmed plaintiff’s award and granted reasonable attorney’s fees to plaintiff in defense of the motion to vacate.  Court held that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers in issuing his ruling, considered all the relevant contracts and based the final award on them, and properly limited the award to direct damages.  Court further held that though the FAA does not provide for attorney fees to the party who successfully confirms an arbitration award in federal court, the parties’ contractual agreement did and thus plaintiff was entitled to recover its fees.

  • Chruby v. Global Tel*Link Corp., No. 5:15-CV-05136-TLB (W.D. Ark. Sept. 28, 2017)
    09/28/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings.  Court held that all three elements of waiver of the right to arbitrate were satisfied with respect to each of the arbitrating plaintiffs as the defendant knew of an existing right to arbitrate, acted inconsistently with that right by having waited over a year and a half after the litigation began to attempt to compel arbitration, and prejudiced the plaintiffs who were forced to defend against other motions.

  • CMH Homes, Inc. v. Pyke, No. 2:17-CV-00077-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss. Sept. 28, 2017)
    09/28/2017

    Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and improper venue.  Court held that plaintiffs had filed their petition under § 4 of the FAA seeking an order to compel arbitration and that the underlying dispute was ripe for adjudication as no further factual development was needed and the issues warranted judicial review. 

  • Pineda v. Oceania Cruises, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-20544-RNS (S.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2017)
    09/28/2017

    Court remanded case to state court, holding that the arbitration agreement relied upon by the defendants to remove the case to federal court was inapplicable to plaintiff’s claims as there was no agreement to arbitrate between the parties and therefore subject matter jurisdiction was lacking.

  • Townsend v. Central Pony Express Inc., No. 5-17-CV-00552-OLG (W.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2017)
    09/28/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of an employment dispute and to dismiss the case. Court found that because defendant had the ability to unilaterally modify the entire employee handbook, including the arbitration provision, the agreement to arbitrate disputes was illusory and unenforceable.

  • Diag Human S.E. v. Czech Republic-Ministry of Health, No. 1:13-CV-00355-ABJ (D.D.C. Sept. 27, 2017)
    09/27/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the case. Court held that based on the parties’ arbitration agreement and resolution, the 2008 arbitration decision was not a final arbitration award enforceable under the New York Convention.  The terms of the parties’ own arbitration agreement indicate that the 2008 final award never took effect because an application to review the award was submitted within the deadline and thus the award never became binding on the parties. 

  • Bowers v. Northern Two Cayes Company Ltd., No. 1:15-CV-00029-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C. Sept. 27, 2017)
    09/27/2017

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm an arbitration award but denied plaintiff’s motions to remand for clarification and for consideration of new facts.  Court held the parties agreed to arbitrate their dispute, that the contract, taken as a whole, required binding arbitration, and that the plaintiff’s filing complied with the FAA and established the basis to confirm the final award, but no further clarification of the arbitration award was necessary.

  • Johnson v. Dentsply Sirona Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00520-CVE-PJC (N.D. Okla. Sept. 27, 2017)
    09/27/2017

    Court granted motion to confirm the arbitrator’s preliminary injunction, holding it was proper to review interim arbitral awards and to confirm the arbitrator’s interim award of equitable relief in this case and enjoin plaintiff from breaching the confidentiality and non-compete provision of the parties’ agreement while the arbitration was pending.

  • Sanders v. JGWPT Holdings, LLC, No. 1:14-CV-09188-SLE (N.D. Ill.  Sept. 27, 2017)
    09/27/2017

    Court granted defendant motion to compel arbitration, holding that the parties do not dispute that the arbitration clauses are mandatory and that plaintiffs failed to establish a defense to arbitration. 

  • Barboza v. Adecco USA, Inc., No. 5:16-CV-01113-EJD (N.D. Cal. Sept. 27. 2017)
    09/27/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, holding that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed and that plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the agreement.

  • Del Monte International, GMBH v. Ticofrut S.A., No. 1:16-CV-23894-JEM (S.D. Fla. Sept. 27, 2017)
    09/27/2017

    Court denied motion to remand, holding that federal jurisdiction over the matter existed because it pertained to an ICC arbitral award and thus “relate[d] to” the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards under 9 USC § 205.

  • Gyptec S.A. v. Hakim-Daccach, No. 1:16-CV-20810-KMW (S.D. Fla. Sept. 27, 2017) 
    09/27/2017

    Court denied respondent’s motions to strike a majority of petitioner’s sur-reply and to quash subpoena and to vacate the court’s order granting petitioner’s application for discovery under 28 USC § 1782 for use in an ongoing litigation in Colombia.  Court concluded that petitioner met the statutory elements of 28 USC § 1782 and determined that the discretionary factors weighed in favor of petitioner, finding that there is no exhaustion requirement that petitioner must first seek discovery in Colombia, that whether the discovery will ultimately be admissible is of no import to the analysis, that petitioner was not seeking to circumvent Colombian procedures, and that the discovery request was not burdensome.  

  • Gas Natural Aprovisionamientos SDG, S.A. v. Atlantic LNG Company of Trinidad and Tobago, No. 1:17-CV-00110-LAK (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2017)
    09/26/2017

    Court granted respondent’s motion to confirm two arbitration awards issued by the same tribunal and denied petitioner’s motion to vacate an award.  Court held petitioner’s arguments to vacate failed because the arbitral tribunal did not act in manifest disregard of law and nearly all of petitioner’s arguments disputed the tribunal’s interpretation of the underlying contract, which is not open to judicial review.

  • Massaad v. CVS RX Services, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01064-JG (N.D. Ohio Sept. 26, 2017)
    09/26/2017

    Court denied motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint and defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that at the motion to dismiss stage of litigation it was required to draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor, including that plaintiff mailed his opt-out letter and as a result opted out of the defendant’s arbitration policy.

  • Stephens v. Charter Communications Holdings, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00354-JHM (W.D. Ky. Sept. 26, 2017)
    09/26/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that agreement to arbitrate would be enforced as plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of a valid and binding arbitration agreement between the parties, there were no federal claims that could be nonarbitrable, nor were only some of the state law claims subject to arbitration. 

  • Golden Gate National Senior Care, LLC v. Hudson, No. 3:17-CV-00431-JHM (W.D. Ky. Sept. 26, 2017)
    09/26/2017

    Court granted petitioners’ motion to expedite consideration of their motion to compel arbitration and granted the motion in part.  Court held the parties entered into an agreement to arbitrate, that the agreement covered the decedent’s personal claims respondent raised in state court, that there were no federal claims asserted that were precluded from arbitration, and thus the parties were ordered to arbitrate all claims except a wrongful death claim that could proceed in state court as it was not required to be arbitrated because the beneficiaries to whom that claim belonged did not consent to arbitrate. 

  • Finsa Portafolios, S.A. de C.V. v. OpenGate Capital, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-04360-RGK-E (C.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2017)  
    09/26/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss for forum non conveniens.  Court held that parties were sophisticated corporations that chose an arbitration clause that incorporated AAA language in their commercial agreement and that the arbitrator should decide disputes relating to the validity and scope of the arbitration clause.  Court also upheld the forum selection clauses at issue and held the plaintiffs’ fraud and tort claims to be within their scope.

  • Gibson v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., No. 4:17-00577-RMG (D.S.C. Sept. 26, 2017)
    09/26/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.   Court held that, accepting the complaint allegations as true, the arbitration agreement in the original warranty did not provide for binding arbitration, was not enforceable with regard to the warranty enhancement, and defendant’s argument that an arbitration agreement in a vehicle lease agreement should be enforced against anyone who purchased the used vehicle after the expiration of the lease lacked merit.

  • Larsen v. Citibank FSB, No. 15-10779 (11th Cir. Sept. 26, 2017)
    09/26/2017

    Court of appeal reversed district court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration, finding that requirement that arbitral award be kept confidential was unconscionable in that it favored the bank as a repeat participant in the arbitration process, but this provision could be severed and the agreement was not otherwise procedurally or substantively unconscionable.

  • Larsen v. Citibank FSB, Nos. 15-10779, 10-12957 (11th Cir. Sept. 26, 2017)
    09/26/2017

    Court of appeal reversed district court’s order denying defendant KeyBank’s motion to compel on grounds of unconscionability and remanded case to district court with instruction to compel arbitration.  Court addressed multiple issues on appeal and found no reason to relieve plaintiff Johnson from his obligation to arbitrate under Ohio law, the parties’ agreed choice-of-law provision. 

  • Brne v. Inspired eLearning, No. 1:17-CV-02712-AJS (N.D. Ill. Sept. 26. 2017)
    09/26/2017

    Court granted defendant’s FRCP 12(b)(3) motion to dismiss for improper venue and ordered plaintiff to pursue his arbitration claims in Texas rather than Illinois.  Court held the arbitration clause in plaintiff’s employment agreement was enforceable as there was no showing of procedural unconscionability, the cost sharing provision of the arbitration agreement was valid, and that the substantively unconscionable clause requiring the parties to pay their own attorneys’ fees regardless of the outcome of arbitration was invalid, but was properly severed under both Illinois and Texas law as the agreement expressly allowed for severance of unenforceable provisions.

  • Northrop and Johnson Holding Company, Inc. v. Caryn Leahy, No. 0:16-CV-63008-BB (S.D. Fla. Sept. 25, 2017)
    09/25/2017

    Court denied motion to dismiss second amended complaint for failure to arbitrate.  Court held that at the motion to dismiss stage, plaintiff had plausibly pled that it terminated the agreement that would have required it to arbitrate.

  • Primrose Retirement Communities, L.L.C. v. Omni Construction Company, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01007-RAL (D.S.D. Sept. 25, 2017)
    09/25/2017

    Court confirmed plaintiffs’ arbitration award and denied defendant’s motion to vacate or modify the award.  Court held that the FAA requires the court to confirm the award since both parties received a fair arbitration hearing, there was no basis to conclude that the arbitrators engaged in misconduct that would justify vacatur of the award, and the arbitrators provided a final and reasoned decision. 

  • Raju v. Murphy, No. 3:17-CV-00357-CWR (S.D. Miss. Sept. 25, 2017)
    09/25/2017

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to stay proceedings pending interlocutory appeal.  Court held that in the fifth circuit stays pending appeal from a denial of a motion to compel arbitration are not automatic, that plaintiff had not met his burden to show that the balance of equities weighed heavily in favor of a stay, and that in the discretion of the court the public interest favored denying the stay.   

  • Sutherland v. Amerifirst Financial, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-01676-JAH-WVG (S.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2017)
    09/25/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to transfer venue.  Court held that the parties entered into a valid arbitration agreement, the agreement included the dispute at issue and should be enforced, and that the parties agreed upon a venue in Maricopa County, Arizona.  Court held that, because § 4 of the FAA does not permit the court to compel arbitration outside of the district, the appropriate remedy was to transfer the case to the district of Arizona. 

  • Cochlear Ltd. v. Oticon Medical AB, No. 1:16-CV-01700-PAB-KMT (D. Colo. Sept. 25, 2017)
    09/25/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims and denied the motion to stay the action.  Court held that the arbitration agreement between the parties did not limit or exclude any types of claims and that the parties’ dispute was within the scope of the arbitration clause and should be sent to arbitration.

  • S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. and S.C. Johnson & Son de Venezuela S.C.A. v. Ghersy Group Integrated Communications, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-22380-KMW (S.D. Fla. Sept. 25, 2017)
    09/25/2017

    Court further explained reasons for granting motion to confirm arbitration award, stating that parties agreed to a final and binding consent award, arbitrator entered such an award, defendant failed to make the payments required by the award and did not seek to vacate the award.  Court held that it must confirm arbitration awards unless they are vacated, modified, or corrected.

  • Diaz v. Intuit, Inc., No. 5:15-CV-01778-EJD (N.D.Cal. Sept. 29, 2017)
    09/22/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the incorporation of the AAA Rules in the parties’ arbitration agreement was clear and unmistakable evidence of the parties’ intention to delegate arbitrability to the arbitrator irrespective of the sophistication of the parties and determining, upon plaintiffs’ request, that the assertion of arbitrability was not “wholly groundless.” 

  • Bradley v. Centraarchy Restaurant Management Company, No. 2:15-CV-01218-PMD (D.S.C. Sept. 22, 2017)
    09/22/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to confirm the arbitration award.  Court held that the parties’ arbitration agreement specified that the arbitration award must be confirmed by a court, that plaintiffs filed no opposition to defendant’s motion, and that the arbitrator did her job.

  • Chen v. Kyoto Sushi, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-07398-DLI-JO (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2017)
    09/22/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and denied plaintiffs’ request for class certification.  Court held that plaintiffs consented to the arbitration agreement, that their Fair Labor Standards Act claims and state and local wage and hour law claims were arbitrable, that the arbitration agreement did not violate federal law and was not unconscionable under New York State law, nor a product of economic duress. 

  • Farrow Road Dental Group, P.A. v. AT&T, Corp., No. 3:17-CV-01615-CMC (D.S.C. Sept. 22, 2017)
    09/22/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay the action. Court held that the arbitration agreement at issue was enforceable and, on balance, favors reference to arbitration. Further, the plaintiff’s obligation to arbitrate did not end when the parties’ relationship ended since arbitration clauses are separable from the contracts in which they are embedded.

  • Perez v. DirecTV Group Holdings, LLC, No. 8:16-CV-01440-JLS-DFM (C.D. Cal. Sep. 22, 2017)
    09/22/2017

  • Everman’s Electric Company v. J.J. Sosa & Associates, Inc., No. 1:14-CV-00440-LG-RHW (S.D. Miss. Sept. 22, 2017)
    09/22/2017

    Court affirmed arbitration award and denied plaintiff’s request to reduce attorneys’ fees and interest on the award and costs.

  • Novic v. Midland Funding, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00177-RDB (D. Md Sept. 21, 2017)
    09/21/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay the litigation, finding that, subsequent to the assignment of the underlying contract, the defendant no longer holds the right to compel the plaintiff to arbitrate the dispute. Court also held that, in any event, because the defendant took part in litigation proceedings against the plaintiff it defaulted on its right to arbitrate as a matter of federal law.

  • Beltran v. InterExchange, Inc., No. 1:14-CV-03074-CMA-KMT (D. Colo. Sept. 21, 2017)
    09/21/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss or stay the action. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that defendant had waived right to arbitrate, but found that there was not a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement because the agreements were unconscionable.

  • Uretek, ICR Mid-Atlantic, Inc. v. Adams Robinson Enterprises, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00004-GEC (W.D. Va. Sept. 20, 2017)
    09/20/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to strike the plaintiff’s motion to confirm the arbitration award and to transfer venue to the Southern District of Ohio.  Court found that the forum selection clause, even when viewed in the entire context of the arbitration agreement, is permissive and therefore does not deprive the court of jurisdiction or otherwise compel the court to strike the plaintiff’s motion to confirm the arbitration award. Court therefore held it is a proper forum for reviewing the motion to confirm the arbitration award.

  • Oglala Lakota College v. Hudson Insurance Company, No. 5:16-CV-05093-JLV (D.S.D. Sept. 20, 2017)
    09/20/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed the suit pending resolution of the arbitration. Court held that the arbitration agreement is not ambiguous, and therefore, the parties are obligated under the FAA to proceed to arbitration to resolve their dispute.

  • Ross Dress for Less, Inc. v. VIWY, L.P., No. 2:12-CV-00131-JS (E.D. Pa. Sept. 19, 2017)
    09/19/2017

    Court granted motion to confirm the arbitration award, finding that, even if manifest disregard of the law remains a valid ground for vacating an arbitration award, the arbitral tribunal did not do so because, inter alia, the improper application of a statute of limitations typically falls short of a manifest disregard of the law. Similarly, the tribunal did not exceed its powers under the §10(a)(4) of the FAA even if failed to apply the statute of limitations under Pennsylvania law.

  • Pacanowski v. United Recovery Systems, LP, No. 3:16-CV-01778-KM (M.D. Pa. Sept. 19, 2017)
    09/19/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the suit. Court held that, although all the requisite elements for contract formation exist, and valid arbitration agreement exists between the plaintiff and third-party, the defendant was not a party to the arbitration agreement and therefore could not compel arbitration under the agreement.

  • Anoruo v. Tenet Healthsystem Hanhemann, DBA Hahnemann University Hospital, No. 17-1945 (3d Cir. Sept. 19, 2017)
    09/19/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed district court’s order granting defendant’s motion to confirm an arbitration award and denying plaintiff’s motion to vacate that award.  Circuit court held that the appellant failed to establish any basis to vacate the arbitrator’s ruling.

  • Wiseley v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 15-56799 (9th Cir. Sept. 19, 2017)
    09/19/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed district court’s order granting defendant-appellee’s motion to compel arbitration.  Circuit court held that there was no procedural unconscionability in the arbitration clause or the incorporation by reference of the AAA rules, and that plaintiff-appellant’s three arguments for substantive unconscionability lacked merit. 

  • Alvarez v. Amgen Manufacturing, Limited, No. 3:16-CV-02205-PAD-SCC (D.P.R. Sept. 18, 2017)
    09/18/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss action and compel arbitration, adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation that the plaintiff failed to opt-out of the arbitration agreement in question and that the agreement covered the claims asserted.

  • Johnson v. Oracle America, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-05157-EDL (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2017)
    09/17/2017

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court explained that determining which of two competing arbitration agreements applied to the dispute was a gateway issue of arbitrability, which could be answered by determining whether there was a clear delegation of issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator.  Court concluded that since the parties clearly and unmistakably delegated the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator, the motion to compel arbitration should be granted.

  • McMahan v. Byrider Sales of Indiana S, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00064-GNS (W.D. Ky. Sept. 14, 2017)
    09/14/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court found that (i) the contract clearly indicated that plaintiff agreed to arbitrate any claim arising from a dispute between her and the defendant (and its assignee), (ii) the broad terms of the contract required plaintiff to arbitrate her claims and allowed defendant to require arbitration even after it assigned its rights under the contract, (iii) there is no indication that Congress intended to preclude the arbitration of Fair Credit Reporting Act claims, and (iv) the arbitration provision survived plaintiff’s bankruptcy discharge.

  • Lake Cumberland Regional Hospital, LLC v. Coventry Health & Life Insurance Co., No. 6:16-CV-00268-KKC (E.D. Ky. Sept. 14, 2017)
    09/14/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel. Court found that the parties’ agreement contained an arbitration provision that required arbitration of claims arising out of or relating to that agreement.  As such, court concluded that there was a valid arbitration agreement and plaintiff’s claims fell within that provision’s “broad purview.”

  • Royal Alliance Associates, Inc. v. Mooney, No. 16-56468 (9th Cir. Sept. 14. 2017)
    09/14/2017

    Court of appeal reversed district court’s grant of motion to compel arbitration, finding that claimants had not discharged their burden of showing that an arbitration agreement existed, since account transfer documents left ambiguous the question of whether the claimants were clients of the respondent.

  • Velasquez-Reyes v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 5:16-CV-01953-DMG-KK (C.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2017)
    09/13/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss the complaint. Court held that plaintiff did not expressly agree to Samsung’s arbitration provision, and that there was no indication that plaintiff’s silence and failure to opt out of the arbitration procedures were intended to be taken as assent. Court also noted that the disclaimer on the box of the phone that plaintiff purchased did not expressly provide that opening the box or using the phone constituted consent to the terms contained inside the Warranty Guide, which itself was inside the box.e box.

  • IQ Products Company v. WD-40 Company, No. 16-20595 (5th Cir. Sept. 13, 2017)
    09/13/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed the district court’s order compelling arbitration and final judgment. Court held that plaintiff waived its challenge to the district court’s conclusion on the existence of a delegation clause by conceding it before the district court; and the assertion of arbitrability was not “wholly groundless,” which the court noted was “extremely rare.”

  • Haberer Foods International, Inc. v. Goya de Puerto Rico, No. 0:17-CV-00080-JRT-LIB (D. Minn. Sept. 13, 2017)
    09/13/2017

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to confirm the arbitration award, finding that factual questions remained over whether the parties entered into an arbitration agreement. Court held that, where there is a plausible challenge to the existence of an arbitration agreement that would bring the dispute into the realm of the FAA, a party does not lose its ability to raise its challenge by failing to participate or raise the defense during arbitration. Court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that defendant is barred from challenging arbitrability by the equitable doctrines of equitable estoppel and laches, finding no evidence of a specific misrepresentation on which plaintiff justifiably relied or evidence defendant inexcusably delayed in its assertion of its defense.

  • Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers v. Kellogg Company, No. 1:16-CV-01180-GJQ-RSK (W.D. Mich. Sept. 13, 2017)
    09/13/2017

    Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration, finding no merit to the defendant’s argument that, because plaintiffs took an inconsistent position in a separate case, they were judicially-estopped from arguing that the arbitration provisions applied.  Court also held that the agreements the parties entered into reinforced their understanding that the arbitration provisions did not apply to casual employees.

  • In re Application of Hulley Enterprises Ltd., et al., No. 2:17-MC-00088-UA-E (C.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2017)
    09/13/2017

    Court denied petitioners’ motion for leave to serve a subpoena by “alternative means.”  Court found that Rule 45(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure required personal service rather than delivery “to the named person’s doorstep, mailbox or son.”  Shearman & Sterling is counsel for the petitioners in connection with this case.

  • Lockard v. EYM King of Kansas, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-02181-JAR-JPO (D. Kan. Sept. 12, 2017)
    09/12/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and to stay the action.  Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration agreement was illusory because it was part of a handbook containing a conflicting revocation and modification clause, and that there was no meeting of the minds because the arbitration agreement failed to specify arbitration procedures.  Court explained that (i) the arbitration agreement itself is separate and distinct from the handbook, (ii) even if there were ambiguity, this was a question for the arbitrator to decide, and (ii) the lack of arbitral procedures in the arbitration agreement does not invalidate the agreement.

  • Hunter v. NHCash.com, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00348-HEH (E.D. Va. Sept. 12, 2017)
    09/12/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss to the extent defendants seek to compel arbitration. Court found that the doctrine of equitable estoppel was applicable in this case, which allows all defendants—even non-signatories—to move to compel arbitration. Court additionally found that, even if equitable estoppel were not appropriate, the scope of the arbitration provision was sufficiently broad to encompass plaintiff’s claims against all defendants.

  • Lawson-Jackson v. Rosenhaus, No. 8:16-CV-04049-TDC (D. Md. Sept. 12, 2017)
    09/12/2017

    Court granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the amended petition to vacate the arbitration award. Court held that the petition was not timely served pursuant to the FAA, which specifies a three-month deadline for a party to both move to vacate the arbitration award and serve opposing party with that motion.

  • Barron v. Best Buy Co., Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00690-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss. Sept. 11, 2017)
    09/11/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to stay, finding that one of the threshold issues in the instant case would be the subject of a pending arbitration, and thus it would be in the interest of judicial economy to stay the case pending the arbitration award.

  • Skiba v. Sasser, No. 1:16-CV-00444-HSO-JCG (S.D. Miss. Sept. 11, 2017)
    09/11/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss or to compel arbitration.  Court found that there was a valid arbitration agreement between the parties as it was undisputed that the parties signed the agreement.  Court additionally found that there was a valid delegation clause that granted the authority to determine the arbitrability of plaintiff’s claims to the arbitrator.

  • NTCH-WA, Inc. v. ZTE Corporation, No. 2:12-CV-03110-TOR (E.D. Wash. Sept. 11, 2017)
    09/11/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment.  Court found that (i) the arbitration award had the same force and effect as a final judgment on the merits as entered by the federal court, (ii) the defendant and its wholly-owned subsidiary were in privity for the purposes of claim preclusion, and (iii) the undisputed evidence clearly showed that all current claims were or could have been raised during the arbitration proceedings.

  • Chin v. Boehringer Ingelham Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-03703-JSC (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2017)
    09/11/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel and stay the action.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration agreement was contrary to public policy because it forced plaintiff to waive certain rights, finding that the arbitrator was not precluded from awarding plaintiff legal fees and costs.  Court also held that the mere fact that the arbitration agreement is a contract of adhesion is insufficient to establish procedural unconscionability, and that the agreement did not lack mutuality and therefore was not substantively unconscionable.

  • United States ex rel. Welch v. My Left Foot Children’s Therapy, LLC, No. 16-16070 (9th Cir. Sept. 11, 2017)
    09/11/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed the district court’s denial of defendants’ motion to compel arbitration on an alternate ground.  Court held that the plain text of the arbitration agreement—which Welch signed when she applied for employment with the defendant corporation—was not broad enough to encompass the instant False Claims Act case, and therefore the lawsuit was not arbitrable.

  • Hallsted v. JPMorgan Chase and Company, No. 8:17-CV-00822-JVS-JDE (C.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2017)
    09/11/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings.  Court rejected arguments that the arbitration agreement was rendered invalid as unconscionable because the contract was one of adhesion, did not attach the applicable AAA rules, lacked mutuality, limited discovery, and waived rights to a jury trial.

  • Ford v. Midland Funding LLC., No. 4:16-CV-12612-TGB-SDD (E.D. Mich. Sept. 8, 2017)
    09/08/2017

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether an arbitration agreement existed.  Court explained that because the making of the arbitration agreement was in issue, under the FAA, the case should proceed in court rather than in arbitration.

  • Hinkle v. Southpointe Motorcars, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-01391-TWP-DML (S.D. Ind. Sept. 8, 2017)
    09/08/2017

    Court approved and adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, which stated that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to stay the action should be granted.  Court further found that, since the parties agreed that the defendant corporation would pay the filing fee under these circumstances, the plaintiff may file his claim with the AAA by simply stating that there is an agreement that the defendant will pay all of the filing fee.

  • Judge v. Unigroup, Inc., 8:17-CV-00201-SDM-TBM (M.D. Fla. Sept. 8, 2017)
    09/08/2017

    Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss and granted in part defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that the FAA applied because (i) federal law strongly favors arbitration and (ii) plaintiffs reserved discretion that was characteristic of a contractor, and thus could not benefit from the transportation-worker exemption from arbitration.  Court further found that the non-party defendants with contracts under Florida law could compel arbitration, but not those under Ohio, Virginia, or New Jersey law.

  • Medchoice Risk Retention Grp., Inc. v. Katz, No. 2:17-CV-00387-TSZ (W.D. Wash. Sept. 8, 2017)
    09/08/2017

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and confirmed the arbitrator’s final award.  Court found that the FAA applied to the enforcement of the award and that the arbitrator did not engage in misconduct by postponing the hearing and by refusing to consider the additional evidence defendants were ordered to produce during the arbitration.

  • National Football League Players Assoc. v. National Football League, No. 4:17-CV-00615-ALM (E.D. Tex. Sept. 8, 2017)
    09/08/2017

    Court granted petitioner’s emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.  Court determined that running back Ezekiel Elliot did not receive a fundamentally fair arbitration hearing, and his suspension should be enjoined until the court’s final ruling.  Court explained that, under the FAA, there is a narrow exception to the general deference toward arbitrators, which allows courts to intervene and vacate an award when a hearing is not fundamentally fair.

  • Orbital ATK, Inc. v. Heckler & Koch GmbH, No. 0:17-CV-00250-DSD-FLN (D. Minn. Sept. 8, 2017)
    09/08/2017

    Court granted in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  The parties had entered into a subcontract and a Teaming Agreement.  Court found that most claims were subcontract claims, which were expressly excluded from the dispute resolution process in the Teaming Agreement.  However, one claim—the failure to deliver intellectual property pursuant to the Teaming Agreement—was subject to the arbitration provision and should be submitted to arbitration.

  • Pointstreak, Inc. v. Colorado Amateur Hockey Assoc., No. 3:16-CV-00690-RJC-DSC (W.D.N.C. Sept. 8, 2017)
    09/08/2017

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and motion for confirmation of the arbitration award.  Court explained that an arbitration award may be vacated only when an arbitrator strays from interpreting and applying the agreement, and effectively dispenses his own brand of justice.  Here, defendant did not respond to plaintiff’s motions, and thus the court found no reason to disturb the arbitrator’s award, particularly under “the incredibly deferential standard of review.”

  • Treinish v. BorrowsFirst, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01371-JG (N.D. Ohio Sept. 8, 2017)
    09/08/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding the arbitration provision to be valid and enforceable.  Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the claims are not arbitrable because she terminated the contract.  Court explained that the arbitration provision contained an explicit survival clause, and thus the contract is not “completely expired” and the full presumption in favor of arbitration applies.

  • Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC v. Rocine, No. 4:17-CV-04993-PJH (N.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2017)
    09/07/2017

    Court granted temporary restraining order (TRO) restricting defendants’ use of plaintiff’s customer information, and ordered that plaintiff to initiate expedited FINRA arbitration.  Court found that defendant had compiled a list of customer information after his departure from plaintiff’s company, and there was a likelihood of significant irreparable harm if defendants were not enjoined from using this information.

  • Alabama Municipal Insurance Corp. v. Munich Reinsurance America Inc., No. 2:16-CV-948-WHA-SRW (M.D. Ala. Sept. 7, 2017)
    09/07/2017

    Court granted motion to stay pending arbitration, holding that plaintiff had not waived the right to arbitrate.  Court found that actions taken toward litigation prior to filing the amended complaint should not be considered waiver of the right to seek arbitration, as the amended complaint was the first time plaintiff alleged breach of a contract which contained an arbitration clause.  Additionally, subsequently complying with a scheduling order did not waive the right to arbitrate.

  • Poole-Ward v. Affiliates for Women’s Health, P.A., No. 4:17-CV-00885 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 7, 2017)
    09/07/2017

    Court granted motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, holding that a valid arbitration agreement existed and covered the plaintiff’s statutory discrimination and state common law contract claims.  Court found that invalidating the arbitration agreement would permit the plaintiff to litigate the types of claims she clearly and validly agreed to arbitrate. 

  • Gibson-Dalton v. Carnival Corp. & PLC, No. 2:16-CV-02457-DCN (D.S.C. Sept. 7, 2017)
    09/07/2017

    Court granted motion to dismiss claims for failure to comply with the arbitration clause, holding that there was no issue in dispute as to whether parties were bound by an arbitration agreement.  Court held that plaintiff failed to present any evidence suggesting she was not bound by the contract containing the arbitration clause.

  • Hoover v. Sears Holding Corp., No. 3:16-CV-04520-AET-TJB (D.N.J. Sept. 7, 2017)
    09/07/2017

    Court denied motion for reconsideration of order compelling arbitration, holding that the arbitration clause in the contract was severable and non-illusory, and that any issue regarding contract validity should be considered by the arbitrator.  Court found that plaintiff had not argued that the clause allowing defendant to alter terms and conditions was within the arbitration provision, or that the arbitration clause was not severable.  Court found that a unilateral change provision pertained only to a rewards program, not to the arbitration provision or other parts of the contract.

  • Ortiz Bey v. XPO Logistics, Inc., No. 6:16-CV-02195-RBD-KRS (M.D. Fla. Sept. 7, 2017)
    09/07/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that defendant had not waived its right to arbitrate and that plaintiff had not demonstrated that the delegation provision was unconscionable.  Court found that the sixth month delay in demanding arbitration, without any other substantial conduct inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate, did not amount to waiver.  Court also found that plaintiffs failed to include detail of litigation expenses incurred, and failed to show prejudice as a result of delay, and that plaintiffs had failed to challenge the delegation provision specifically as unconscionable, and the enforceability of the arbitration agreement as a whole was a determination left to the arbitrator.

  • Freedom Investors Corp. v. Gantan, No. 4:17-CV-03914-SBA (N.D. Cal. Sep. 7, 2017)
    09/07/2017

    Magistrate judge recommended denying petition to vacate FINRA arbitration award, finding unpersuasive petitioner’s claims of arbitrator misconduct and abuse of power.

  • Petrobras America, Inc. v. Vicinay Cadenas, S.A., No. 4:12-CV-00888 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 6, 2017)
    09/06/2017

    Court granted motion for jury trial, and denied motion to stay lawsuit pending arbitration, holding that non-signatory plaintiffs were not bound by the arbitration clause.  Court found that the direct-benefits estoppel doctrine did not apply, as plaintiffs’ claims were not based on the purchase order containing the arbitration clause, but rather from pre-purchase representations and duties under Louisiana law.

  • Solo v. United Parcel Service Co., No. 2:14-CV-12719-DPH-RSW (E.D. Mich. Sept. 6, 2017)
    09/06/2017

    Court denied motion to stay or dismiss proceedings, holding that defendant had waived its right to arbitration by acting inconsistently with reliance on arbitration and delayed its assertion of the need to arbitrate, to the actual prejudice of plaintiffs.  Court found that defendant did not seek to compel arbitration until more than two years after the complaint was filed, moving instead for dismissal on the merits.  Court found that defendant had not filed this motion regarding the arbitration provision until eight months after the Sixth Circuit remanded the case.

  • Baldwin v. Wittle, No. 1:17-CV-00823-JMS-DML (S.D. Ind. Sept. 6, 2017)
    09/06/2017

    Court denied motion to dismiss, holding that there was no valid arbitration agreement between the parties.  Court found no privity between parties to the security contract, containing the arbitration clause, and the insurance contract, which did not.  Court found that there was not sufficient relatedness between the two contracts to justify estoppel. 

  • Glass, Molders, Pottery, Plastics, & Allied Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC v. Tecnocap LLC, No. 5:17-CV-00006-JPB (N.D.W. Va. Sept. 6, 2017)
    09/06/2017

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, holding that parties must arbitrate grievances in accordance with the Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”).  Court found that there is a presumption of arbitrability where there is a broad arbitration agreement.  Court found that, according to precedent, it had no license to examine whether the demand for arbitration had been timely made, as the defendant had refused the demand.

  • White v. Sunoco, Inc., No. 16-2808 (3d Cir. Sept. 5, 2017)
    09/05/2017

    Court affirmed decision to deny motion to compel arbitration, holding that defendant, as a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, could not compel plaintiff to arbitrate.  Court held that the principles of equitable estoppel could not be invoked since there was no alleged concerted conduct on the part of defendant and a signatory party.  Court also found that the claims asserted against defendant did not rely on any terms in the contract containing the arbitration agreement.

  • In re Anthony Henson and William Cintron, No. 16-71818 (9th Cir. Sept. 5, 2017)
    09/05/2017

    Court granted petition for a writ of mandamus and vacated order granting motion to compel arbitration, holding that a non-signatory  “middle man” for internet-based advertisements could not invoke an arbitration provision contained in a contract between plaintiffs and their wireless service provider.  Court found that the customer agreement provided only that the subscriber and the internet service provider agreed to resolve disputes by arbitration.  Court found that estoppel was not available, as the claims against defendant were not based on the contract containing the arbitration agreement, and there was no evidence of interdependent and concerted conduct.

  • Taylor v. Frontier Communications Corporation, No. 8:17-CV-00476-PA-DTB (C.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2017)
    09/05/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff entered into a contractual agreement with defendant’s predecessor-in-interest, which included an arbitration provision that encompasses the claims at issue in the present action. Court also found that plaintiff consented to the granting of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.

  • Stemcor USA Incorporated v. CIA Siderurgica do Para Cosipar, No. 16-30984 (5th Cir. Sept. 1, 2017)
    09/01/2017

    Court of appeal reversed district court’s order vacating a pre-arbitration attachment under Louisiana’s non-resident attachment statute, finding that, although the requirement that attachment support an action for a money judgment would not permit attachment in support of an action to compel arbitration, attachment could nevertheless be ordered in support of a future action to confirm the arbitral award.

  • Interactive Brokers LLC v. Saroop, No. 3:17-CV-00127-REP (E.D. Va. Sept. 1, 2017)
    09/01/2017

    Court denied motion to vacate and motion to confirm arbitration award, and remanded matter to arbitration panel for clarification, holding that without reasoning, the court could not judicially examine the award under § 10 of the FAA.   Court found that the award did not explain the reasons for compensatory damages, and it was impossible to discern which theory of liability corresponded with the amount of damages awarded.

  • Doe #1 v. Déjà Vu Consulting, No. 3 :17-CV-00040 (M.D. Tenn. Sept. 1, 2017)
    09/01/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the action without prejudice, holding that there was an enforceable arbitration agreement covering all disputes.  Court found that, according to precedent and § 3 of the FAA, a motion to compel arbitration must take precedence over and be considered before virtually any other pending motion.  Further, the broad delegation clause conferred authority to resolve disputes regarding waiver and estoppel to the arbitrator, and the  plaintiff was estopped from asserting that she did not agree to arbitrate with non-signatory defendants, as she had argued that these defendants were alter egos of the signatory defendant. 

  • Carriere v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC., No. 2:17-CV-00325-UDJ-KK (W.D. La. Sept. 1, 2017)
    09/01/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceeding, holding that there was a valid arbitration agreement, which delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.  Court found that, even if Louisiana law required consideration for arbitration agreements between at-will employees and employers, a mutual agreement to arbitrate claims was sufficient consideration. 

  • Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited v. APR Energy Holding Limited, No. 1:17-MC-00216-GHW (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2017)
    09/01/2017

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to quash subpoena issued pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 for discovery for use in a foreign arbitral proceeding against Australia conducted under the UNCITRAL arbitration rules and the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement and denied defendant’s request for limited jurisdictional discovery.  Although court noted that it was unclear whether the 28 USC § 1782 statutory requirement that the person from whom discovery is requested “resides or is found” in the district equated to a requirement of personal jurisdiction, it held that the Constitution’s due process protections applied and it lacked personal jurisdiction.  General jurisdiction was not satisfied because plaintiff was not “at home” in New York and compliance with the International Banking Act of 1978 did not amount to consent to jurisdiction, and there was no specific personal jurisdiction as there was no nexus between plaintiff’s New York contacts and the subject matter of the discovery sought.

  • Kropke v. Dunbar, No. 2:16-CV-08753-MWF-FFM (C.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2017)
    09/01/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to confirm the arbitration award. Court concluded that the result reached by the arbitrator was not precluded by well-defined, explicit, and clearly applicable law. Court also found that the arbitrator was not evidently partial.

  • Lublin v. American Automobile Association of Northern California, Nevada & Utah, No. 2:17-CV-00021-GMN-PAL (D. Nev. Aug. 31, 2017)
    08/31/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration and dismiss, holding that plaintiff had sufficiently raised an issue of material fact regarding the formation of the arbitration agreement.  Court found that plaintiff’s sworn affidavit stating that he was never presented with the arbitration agreement was sufficient to raise this issue, and that defendant had failed to show evidence regarding any electronic system of signature or otherwise provide evidence establishing chain of custody.

  • Broussard v. GameStop, Inc., No. 5:16-CV-06075-EJD (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2017)
    08/31/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that an arbitration agreement providing an employee the opportunity to opt out of arbitration was neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable.

  • Townsend Ventures, LLC v. Hybrid Kinetic Group Limited, No. 1:17-CV-00130-GLR (D. Md. Aug. 31, 2017)
    08/31/2017

    Court granted motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, finding that reference in the arbitration agreement to rules of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) evidences an agreement to arbitrate arbitrability.

  • Employer Trustees of Western Pennsylvania Teamsters v. Union Trustees of Western Pennsylvania Teamsters, No. 16-3359 (3d Cir. Aug. 31, 2017)
    08/31/2017

    Court of appeal reversed district court’s denial of petition to appoint arbitrator, finding that the district erred in finding that a contested right was not provided for in the contract and thus not subject to arbitration, since the interpretation of the contract was a matter for the arbitrator to determine.

  • District Council No. 9 International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, A.F.L.-C.I.O. v. Siler Line Décor, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-05765-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2017)
    08/31/2017

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award, finding that, although unopposed, it should be treated as a motion for summary judgment, and no genuine issue of material fact existed.

  • Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Sandhu Hospitality, Inc., No. 8:16-CV-03330-TDC (D. Md. Aug. 31, 2017)
    08/31/2017

    Court granted motion for default judgment on petition to confirm arbitration award, finding that plaintiff had shown it is entitled to confirmation as a matter of law and nothing in the record suggested any grounds for vacating the award.

  • Clack v. United Services Automobile Association (USAA), No. 5:16-CV-01069-RCL (W.D. Tex. Aug. 31, 2017)
    08/31/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff had agreed to mandatory binding arbitration and no defense had been established.

  • Luciano v. Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America-College Retirement Equities Fund, No. 3:15-CV-06726-MAS-DEA (D.N.J. Aug. 31, 2017)
    08/31/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that, after successful motion to compel arbitration brought by all defendants, a sub-set of those defendants was not estopped from arguing that they were not parties to the arbitration agreement.

  • AbbVie Inc. v. Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc., No. 17-CV-01815-EMC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2017)
    08/31/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration agreement covered patent disputes.  Court found that the license agreement was reasonably susceptible to the interpretation advanced by Novartis, namely that patent disputes were arbitrable, and was therefore ambiguous.  Further, if the parties had intended to carve out an exception to arbitration for patent disputes, they would have done so more clearly.  Court also found that Congress made clear that patent validity may be determined in arbitration if the parties so choose.

  • Ziglar v. Express messenger Systems Inc., No. 2:16-CV-02726-SRB (D. Ariz. Aug. 31, 2017)
    08/31/2017

    Court dismissed defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement to be unconscionable because of provisions prohibiting the awarding of attorney’s fees and requiring cost-splitting.

  • United States of America for the Use of Magnum Contracting, Inc. v. Mason & Hanger, Inc. No. 3:14-CV-00112-RRE-ARS (D.N.D. Aug. 31, 2017)
    08/31/2017

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm an arbitration award and denied defendant’s motion to vacate the award, finding the arbitrator was clearly authorized to decide the issue of whether the claim for arbitration was time-barred by the contract and that she she did not exceed her powers.

  • Lipinski v. Jones, No. 8:17-CV-02031-VMC-TGW (M.D. Fla. Aug. 30, 2017)
    08/30/2017

    Court dismissed petition to compel arbitration, finding that there was no federal jurisdiction over the claim.  Court held that the FAA alone did not supply it with subject matter jurisdiction over the claim as the FAA supplies substantive law but does not itself establish federal subject matter jurisdiction.

  • Myers v. Credit One Bank, N.A., No. 5:16-CV-05214-JLS (E.D. Pa. Aug. 30, 2017)
    08/30/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case, declining to decide objections over agreement validity because the parties had agreed to defer questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.  Court dismissed plaintiff’s claim of waiver through delay in responding to her claim as factually unsupported.

  • Dykes v. Cleveland Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, No. 4:15-CV-00076-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss Aug. 30, 2017)
    08/30/2017

    Court denied renewed motion to compel arbitration after determining that it could do so without a hearing.  Court held that, because defendants could not prove that the signatory of the applicable agreement was empowered to act as the principle’s agent, no binding agreement to arbitrate existed.

  • The Children's Mercy Hospital v. Alliance for Community Health, LLC, No. 4:17-MC-00552-NKL (W.D. Mo. Aug. 30, 2017)
    08/30/2017

    Court granted unopposed motion to compel arbitration, noting the limited nature of judicial review available under the FAA.

  • Hart v. ITC Service Group, Inc., No. 4:15-CV-00599-DGK (W.D. Mo. Aug. 30, 2017)
    08/30/2017

    Court summarily granted joint motion for an order confirming arbitrator’s approval of a collective labor settlement, noting the limited nature of judicial review available under the FAA.

  • Spano v. V & J National Enterprises, LLC, No. 6:16-CV-06419-EAW-MWP (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2017)
    08/30/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that (i) the non-signatory defendants were bound to arbitrate as agents/alter-egos, but that (ii) the defendants had waived their right to compel arbitration by failing to participate in the parallel arbitration proceedings.

  • Fraternal Order of Police Metro Transit Police Labor Committee, Inc. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), No. 1:17-CV-00644-TSE-MSN (E.D. Va. Aug. 30, 2017)
    08/30/2017

    Court granted motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, finding that claim for breach of a settlement agreement was subject to arbitration since the settlement agreement was “inextricably intertwined” with a collectively-bargained labor contract containing an arbitration clause.

  • Griffin v. Senior Living Properties, LLC, 6:17-CV-00190-ILRL-KWR (E.D. Tex. Aug. 29, 2017)
    08/29/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court rejected arguments that defendant had waived its right by failing to timely raise the issue, reasoning that defendant had acted defensively, promptly, and without prejudice to plaintiff; or was precluded from arbitrating because it failed to first seek mediation, finding that the mediation provisions of the agreement were not mandatory and had, in any event, been bypassed by plaintiffs themselves.  Court likewise held that the arbitration agreement was not made unconscionable by its provisions concerning the applicable statute of limitations, limitations on discovery, or provision for attorney’s fees associated with compelling arbitration.

  • Russell v. Dunlap & Kyle Tire Co., Inc. (Tennessee), No. 3:17-CV-00843 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 29, 2017)
    08/29/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the case.  Court held that the contested arbitration agreement between the parties bound plaintiff, rejecting challenges to its form.

  • In Re: Application of Pola Maritime Ltd. for an Order Pursuant to 28 USC 1782 to Conduct Discovery for Use in Foreign Proceedings, No. 4:16-CV-00333-WTM-GRS (S.D. Ga. Aug. 29, 2017)
    08/29/2017

    Court denied motion to quash a 28 USC 1782 subpoena and deferred motion to compel compliance with same, pending a party meet and confer.  Court held that the formal statutory factors for granting a §1782 subpoena were satisfied, including because a London Maritime Arbitrators Association tribunal qualified as a “foreign on international tribunal” for purposes of the statute.  Court further held that related discretionary factors identified by the U.S. Supreme Court largely favored the requested discovery, noting that any concerns with over-breadth could be resolved through conference among counsel and deferring a final ruling pending such conference.

  • Progressive Health Supply & Source Corp. v. Biosense Medical Devices LLC, No. 3:16-CV-04965-AET-DEA (D. N.J. Aug. 29, 2017)
    08/29/2017

    Court denied without prejudice motion to compel arbitration and dismiss proceedings.  Court, upon determining that a summary judgment standard applied, held that it had insufficient information to adjudicate whether an agreement with a non-party allegedly relating to one of the claims was sufficient to require arbitration, noting that defendant could renew its motion within 21 days.

  • Axia NetMedia Corporation v. Massachusetts Technology Park Corporation, No. 4:17-CV-10482-TSH (D. Mass. Aug. 29, 2017)
    08/29/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, rejecting argument that the applicable arbitration agreement was illusory and thus invalid because it contained a unilateral right for defendant to elect arbitration.

  • Tierra Verde Escape, LLC v. The Brittingham Group, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00100-GJQ-PJG (W.D. Mich. Aug. 28, 2017)
    08/28/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration in Hong Kong and stay proceedings, holding that it had the authority to compel a foreign arbitration because the envisaged performance was abroad.  Court rejected challenges to the validity of the underlying memorandum of understanding as failing to contest the arbitration clause itself.  Court also did not view the arbitration agreement’s reference to a non-existing arbitration association rules as fatal, holding this element to be severable from the underlying agreement to arbitrate.

  • Hall v. The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00193-JHM-CHL (W.D. Ky. Aug. 28, 2017)
    08/28/2017

    Court held that under applicable state and federal precedent, beneficiaries’ claims for wrongful death were not subject to the arbitration agreement binding on the decedent.  However, any claims arising from the decedent’s right were subject to arbitration based on a valid agreement to arbitrate entered into under power of attorney and, therefore, granted in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, staying all claims.  Court rejected plaintiffs’ challenge to the validity of that arbitration agreement based on alleged deficiencies of that power of attorney.

  • Legacy Carbon, LLC v. Potter, No. 1:17-CV-00231-SOM-KSC (D. Hawaii Aug. 28, 2017)
    08/28/2017

    Court denied without prejudice petition to compel arbitration against a third party, inviting petitioner to amend its submission with supplemental facts.  Court held that it was within its power to determine whether claims against third party defendant were arbitrable because the parties to the arbitration agreement had not clearly delegated such decisions to the arbitrator.  However, the court determined that it lacked sufficient basis in facts to determine whether the non-signatory third party (the president of an entity bound by the otherwise applicable arbitration agreement) could be compelled to arbitrate under theories of assumption, agency, and estoppel.

  • Ford v. Combined Insurance Company of America, No. 5:17-CV-00103-RH-GRJ (N.D. Fla. Aug. 28, 2017)
    08/28/2017

    Magistrate judge recommended that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration be granted, concluding that challenges to the contract itself were reserved for the arbitrator since a valid arbitral agreement existed.  Although the original agreement was entered into between defendant’s parent company and plaintiff, court concluded the agreement applied to defendant-subsidiary, because the arbitration agreement explicitly indicated it included subsidiaries, successors and assigns.

  • JusTours, Inc. v. Bogenius Group, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-00078-GMN-CWH (D. Nev. Aug. 25, 2017)
    08/25/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the dispute was subject to the arbitration clause of the parties’ agreement, rejecting plaintiffs’ arguments that the agreement had been rescinded.  Court likewise rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the arbitration clause was invalid as a matter of state law, holding that any such law was preempted by the FAA.

  • Johnson v. Retirement Plan of General Mills, Inc, No. 4:16-CV-00151-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind. Aug. 25, 2017)
    08/25/2017

    District court overruled objections to Magistrate Judge’s Opinion and Order and granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, rejecting an argument that the arbitration agreement was unsupported by consideration because it only required plaintiff to arbitrate her claims.  Court further held that defendant could enforce the agreement as an affiliate of its signatory or, in the alternative, as a third party beneficiary that was intended to benefit from the agreement.   Further, the court rejected arguments that a dispute over disability retirement benefits fell outside the broad scope the arbitration clause that covered “all” claims. Nor did the court find persuasive arguments that the agreement’s application had been waived, holding that defendant’s failure to respond to plaintiff’s query made after signing the agreement regarding its application to the disability claim did not constitute waiver and that defendant had not participated in litigation in a manner that would waive its rights to arbitrate. 

  • Allen v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company, No. 6:16-cv-01603-RBD-KRS (M.D. Fla. Aug. 25, 2017)
    08/25/2017

    Court granted motion to dismiss labor claim without prejudice, holding that they had to be arbitrated instead.  Court rejected plaintiffs’ contentions regarding the enforceability of the arbitration agreement, holding that the parties had manifested a clear intent to arbitrate any such questions of arbitrability by incorporating the AAA Employment Dispute Resolution Rules, which set out that the arbitrator shall have the power to arbitrate the validity of the underlying arbitration agreement.

  • Alvarez v. Amgen Manufacturing Limited, No. 3:16-CV-02205-PAD (D.P.R. Aug. 25, 2017)
    08/25/2017

    Magistrate judge recommended the court grant defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding the parties had entered into a valid arbitration agreement during the course of employment. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that after initially signing an arbitration agreement in 2006, she signed a new agreement in 2014 in which she opted out of the arbitration agreement, constituting a novation.

  • Mahamedi IP Law, LLP v. Paradice, No. 5:16-cv-02805-EJD (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2017)
    08/24/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the claim, finding that the dispute fell within the scope of a valid arbitration agreement. Court rejected plaintiffs’ proposal that it interpret the arbitration clause narrowly, reading it to have a broad application covering the dispute instead.  Court rejected argument that defendant had waived its right to arbitrate by initiating an earlier action in state court, holding that the resulting dismissal without prejudice did not constitute a judgment on the merits and thus did not prejudice plaintiffs.

  • Re: Jersey Shore University Medical Center v. Local 5058 Health Professionals and Allied Employees, AFT/AFL-CIO, No. 3:16-CV-04840-MAS-DEA (D. N.J. August 24, 2017)
    08/24/2017

    Court declined to award attorney’s fees sought in connection with an action to enforce an arbitration award, holding that there was no evidence that the annulment challenge to the award had been in bad faith.

  • Arctic Glacier USA, Inc. v. Principal Life Insurance Company, No. 8:17-CV-00214-RFR-MDN (D. Neb. Aug. 24, 2017)
    08/24/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings.  Court reasoned that plaintiffs, which were not signatories to the arbitration agreement with defendant, could nevertheless enforce under successor and third party beneficiary theories.

  • Ace American Insurance Co. v. Guerriero, No. 2:17-CV-00820-CCC-JBC (D.N.J. Aug. 24, 2017)
    08/24/2017

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that the parties had a valid agreement to arbitrate, the defendant’s claims fell within the scope of the agreement, and the agreement was enforceable. 

  • Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc. v. Harkness, No. 2:17-CV-00222-PP (E.D. Wisc. Aug. 24, 2017)
    08/24/2017

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm the arbitration award.  Court found that it had subject matter and personal jurisdiction, the award had not been modified or vacated, and that defendant had not entered an appearance or responded to the motion to confirm.

  • Wolin v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-06996-LDW-AYS (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2017)
    08/24/2017

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that it could not conclude that one plaintiff agreed to arbitrate any dispute and denied the motion to compel that plaintiff’s claims.  Court granted the motion to compel arbitration as to the other plaintiff who did agree to the arbitration provision in the credit card agreement because the provision clearly covered that plaintiff’s claims.

  • Opie v. CVS Caremark, No. 1:16-CV-00159-SPW-TJC (D. Mont. Aug. 24, 2017)
    08/24/2017

    Court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and denied defendant’s motion to dismiss but granted its motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff consented to the arbitration agreement and that Montana’s reasonable expectations and fundamental rights rule did not apply here because the ninth circuit held the FAA preempts general state law contract defenses that have a disproportionate effect on arbitration.

  • Developers Surety and Indemnity Co. v. Carothers Construction Inc., No. 2:17-CV-02292-JWL-KGG (D. Kan. Aug. 24, 2017)
    08/24/2017

    Court denied both plaintiff’s motion to remand the case to state court and defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer.  Court, applying the tenth circuit rule in cases seeking to compel arbitration that courts should look to the possible award in the arbitration to determine the amount in controversy to this suit seeking to enjoin defendant’s arbitration, held that the jurisdictional amount to remain in federal court was satisfied as the defendant in arbitration sought an amount exceeding $75,000.  Court further held that the plaintiff did not consent to arbitration of any claims on the bonds by defendant, the FAA did not require the plaintiff submit to arbitration of the underlying claims, and the plaintiff should not be estopped from opposing enforcement of the arbitration provision. 

  • Rappley v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, No. 5:17-CV-00108-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2017)
    08/24/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that ordering arbitration would not contravene a fundamental public policy of California and the arbitration provision encompassed the dispute.

  • Rappley v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, No. 5:17-CV-00108-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2017)
    08/24/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that there was a valid arbitration agreement which covered plaintiff’s claims.  Court found that plaintiff was not seeking public injunctive relief, as the class of persons plaintiff sought to represent was comprised of persons who were subjected to purportedly unlawful debt collection efforts; as such, there was no basis to conclude that enforcement of the arbitration agreement would violate fundamental California policy.  Court found that the terms of the arbitration were broad and encompassed any statutory claims.

  • GGNSC Louisville St. Matthews v. Grevious, No. 3:16-CV-00829-DJH (W.D. Ky. Aug. 23, 2017)
    08/23/2017

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that it had jurisdiction and, on balance, abstention in favor of state court was not warranted.  Court then held the parties were compelled to arbitrate the claims asserted by defendant in state court pursuant to the terms of an alternative dispute resolution agreement and stayed the case pending arbitration.

  • Lancaster v. Comcast Communications Management LLC, No. 2:16-CV-14446-DPH-MKM (E.D. Mich. Aug. 23, 2017)
    08/23/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held there was a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate and that plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • NTT DoCoMo, Inc. v. Tata Sons Limited, No. 1:16-CV-07809-PGG (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2017)
    08/23/2017

    Court granted the parties’ joint request for an extension until December 31, 2017 of a stay of the proceedings reviewing an arbitral award.  Shearman & Sterling is counsel for Tata Sons Limited in connection with this case.

  • Rite Aid of New York, Inc. v. 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East, No. 16-3342 (2d Cir. Aug. 22, 2017)
    08/22/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed district court judgment confirming arbitration award in part.  Court held district court did not err in denying petition to vacate an arbitration award, but dismissed the appeal from the grant of attorneys’ fees for lack of appellate jurisdiction as the district court did not compute the fees owed and therefore that order was not final and ripe for review.

  • Hispasat, S.A. v. Bantel Telecom, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-20534-KMW (S.D. Fla. Aug. 22, 2017)
    08/22/2017

    Court adopted the magistrate judge’s report recommending that petitioner’s petition to confirm and enforce a foreign arbitral award be granted.  Court found that respondent filed no objections to the report and that respondent’s argument that the mediator should have recused was without merit.

  • Dialysis Access Center, LLC v. RMS Lifeline, Inc., No. 3:13-CV-01796-PAD (D. P.R. Aug. 22, 2017)
    08/22/2017

    Court adopted the magistrate judge’s report recommending that plaintiff’s petition to vacate be denied and affirmed the arbitration award in favor of the defendant.  Court held that the Magistrate Judge’s findings and conclusions were well supported.

  • Beckham v. Copart of Connecticut, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00603-CMC (D.S.C. Aug. 22, 2017)
    08/22/2017

    Court adopted the magistrate judge’s report recommending that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s complaint be granted and granted the motion.  Court held that plaintiff signed and agreed to be bound by her employer’s dispute resolution policy and agreement. 

  • Chand v. Checksmart Financial LLC, No. 3:17-CV-03895-JSC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2017)
    08/22/2017

    Court granted defendant’s unopposed motion to compel arbitration, holding plaintiff agreed to arbitrate his claims and that the arbitration policy was not unconscionable.

  • Oracle Corp. v. Wilson, No. 1:17-CV-00554-ER (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2017)
    08/22/2017

    Court denied petitioner’s motion to vacate an arbitration award and respondent’s request to modify the rate of interest applied to the award.  Court held that vacatur under §10(a)(3) of the FAA was unwarranted as there was no evidence that the arbitrator prevented petitioner from presenting pertinent and material evidence before issuing the award.  Court further held that modification of the award pursuant to Section 11 of the FAA to reflect a pre-judgment statutory interest rate of 9 percent under New York Law instead of the arbitrator’s award of 3 percent was unwarranted as the court should not replace the judgment of the arbitrator with its own judgment.

  • Fowler v. Omnova Solutions, No. 1:16-CV-00160-NBB-DAS (N.D. Miss. Aug 22, 2017)
    08/22/2017

    Court granted plaintiff’s summary judgment motion demanding arbitration.  Court held plaintiff’s claim fell within the scope of the arbitration provision in the employment agreement between the parties, that arbitration was mandatory, not permissive, and that plaintiff’s inability to submit his claim to the company grievance committee did not preclude his demand for arbitration.

  • Roman v. UBS Financial Services, Inc. of Puerto Rico, No. 3:12-CV-01663-CCC (D.P.R. Aug. 21, 2017)
    08/21/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, holding that a valid agreement containing an arbitration provision existed between the parties, the defendants were entitled to invoke the arbitration clause, and the plaintiffs’ claim fell within the clause and must be arbitrated.

  • Rahm v. TCF National Bank, No. 4:17-CV-04018-LLP (D.S.D. Aug. 21, 2017)
    08/21/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the parties entered into a valid agreement to arbitrate under South Dakota contract law and that plaintiff’s employment claims should be sent to arbitration. 

  • Maynard v. Valley Christian Academy, Inc., No. 5:16-CV-01889-KBB (N.D. Ohio Aug. 21, 2017)
    08/21/2017

    Magistrate judge granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, holding plaintiff’s five theories of unenforceability of her employment contract were not persuasive as the arbitration clause between the parties was valid and should be enforced. 

  • Kangsong Ye v. Fujian South Coast Bioengineering Co., Ltd., No. 2:16-CV-04385-TJH-JEM (C.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2017)
    08/21/2017

    Court granted petitioners’ ex parte application for post judgment relief.  Court allowed petitioners to enforce its amended order of June 28, 2017 confirming a China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) award of an equity transfer of Renminbi $25 million in corporate stock.  Court held respondent failed to comply with the order, that future attempts to enforce the award would be futile, that respondent’s corporate shares were located where the corporation is located  (within the district), and that respondent’s shares should be conveyed by the issuance of new share certificates to petitioners in partial satisfaction of the court’s prior order.

  • Rivera-Colon v. AT&T Mobility Puerto Rico, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01675-FAB (D.P.R. Aug. 21, 2017) 
    08/21/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that pursuant to the FAA and first circuit precedent there was a valid agreement to arbitrate, the moving party was entitled to invoke the arbitration clause, the third-party was bound by the agreement, and the claim fell within the scope of the clause. As all claims were arbitrable, the court dismissed the case with prejudice.

  • Citigroup, Inc. v. Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, No. 1:17-CV-01528-PKC (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2017) 
    08/18/2017

    Court granted parties’ requests to confirm an ICDR arbitration award pursuant to the §203 of the FAA and the New York Convention.

  • Enron Nigeria Power Holding, Ltd. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, No. 1:13-CV-1106-CRC (D.D.C. Aug. 18, 2017) 
    08/18/2017

    Court denied petitioner’s motion for attorney’s fees and nontaxable expenses associated with enforcing an ICC arbitral award against Nigeria, concluding that petitioner did not adequately support the reasonableness of its fee request. Court also declined petitioner’s request for fees incurred from the United Kingdom enforcement action, finding that English courts would be better positioned to assess the reasonableness of the fees and necessity of the parallel enforcement action and questioning whether the court even has jurisdiction to order a fee award for an action in a foreign court.

  • CRM Limited v. Supreme Risk Management FZE, No. 1:16-CV-01344-AJT-MSN (E.D. Va. Aug. 18, 2017)
    08/18/2017

    Court granted motion for issuance of subpoenas and letters of request and granted in part motion to extend time to complete discovery to determine whether the court has jurisdiction to enforce an arbitral award issued by the Dubai International Arbitration Center.

  • In re Application for an Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to Conduct Discovery for Use in a Foreign Proceeding, No. 1:17-MC-01466-BAH (D.D.C. Aug. 18, 2017)
    08/18/2017

    Court denied request to issue subpoenas under 28 USC § 1782 for deposition testimony and production of documents for use in an appeal to reinstate arbitral awards totaling over $50 billion issued against the Russian Federation in an ongoing proceeding in the Court of Appeal of The Hague.  Although the request fulfilled the statute’s mandatory requirements, the court exercised its discretion to deny the application, concluding that the request’s relevance to the appellate proceedings was tenuous and the burden on the witnesses would be substantial.  Shearman & Sterling is counsel for petitioners in connection with this case.

  • Hagan v. Katz Communications, Inc., No. 1:12-CV-05987-RA (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2017)
    08/18/2017

    Court denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of court’s order denying petitioner’s motion to vacate an arbitral award entered in favor of respondent.  Court held that petitioner’s three arguments for reconsideration lacked merit as the first two reiterated her prior argument and the third was inapplicable as the arbitrator’s decision was not an abuse of his authority and did not manifestly disregard federal law.

  • Netplanner Systems, Inc. v. GSC Construction Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00150-CDL (M.D. Ga. Aug. 17, 2017)
    08/17/2017

    Court confirmed its prior ruling denying defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that defendants waived their right to compel arbitration by engaging in conduct inconsistent with insisting on their right to arbitrate the dispute, including waiting until the last minute before trial to raise the issue, which prejudiced the plaintiff.

  • A. Miner Contracting, Inc. v. Dana Kepner Company, Inc., No. 16-15209 (9th Cir. Aug. 17, 2017)
    08/17/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed denial of petition to vacate arbitration award, holding that the petition was time barred by § 12 FAA, that equitable tolling did not apply, and that appellant had not shown evident partiality in the arbitrator.  Court found appellant did not act with due diligence in discovering information earlier that was freely available online. Court found that a connection with the attorney for appellant’s opponent in an unrelated litigation was too attenuated and insubstantial to create the necessary impression of partiality required by §10(a)(2) FAA.

  • Veolia Transportation Service, Inc. v. United Transportation Union, No. 16-16811 (11th Cir. Aug. 16, 2017)
    08/16/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed lower court’s decision to grant summary judgment declining to vacate an arbitral award. Court held that, in light of the highly deferential standard of review applicable to arbitral awards,  the plaintiff-appellant’s contentions are meritless.

  • W.J. O’Neill Co. v. Shepley, Bulfinch, Richardson & Abbot, Inc., No. 16-2228 (6th Cir. Aug. 15, 2017)
    08/15/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed district court’s grant of summary judgment, agreeing that claims were barred by collateral estoppel (issue preclusion), having been decided in an unconfirmed arbitration award.  Court held that plaintiff had had a fair opportunity to actually litigate the issue raised.  Court further confirmed that mutuality of estoppel (same party) requirements were relaxed where issue preclusion is asserted defensively.

  • Demuth v. Navient Solutions, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-00675-NBF (W.D. Pa. Aug. 15, 2017)
    08/15/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s attempt to confirm a AAA arbitration award, without prejudice to the plaintiff’s right to challenge a final award. Court held that the motion to confirm the arbitration award was premature because defendant had availed itself of the AAA Optional Appellate Rules and the appeal proceedings were ongoing, therefore the award was not final and ripe for confirmation.

  • Cooper v. DST Systems, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01900-WHP (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2017)
    08/15/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration finding that the claims at issue fall squarely within the scope of the arbitration agreement; and that the defendant, as a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, may compel the plaintiff to arbitrate his claims under the doctrine of equitable estoppel.

  • Manios Properties LLC v. Riverport Insurance Company of California, No. 2:17-CV-01700 (D. Ariz. Aug. 15, 2017)
    08/15/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay the case. Court found that pursuant to §2 of the FAA, the court must find that a valid agreement to arbitrate exists and that the agreement encompasses the dispute at issue. Here, while there was a valid agreement to arbitrate, it did not encompass the dispute at issue because the agreement only applies to the “meaning or effect of any provision,” not the parties’ dispute of when the loss occurred.

  • Crespo v. Matco Tools Corp., No. 3:17-CV-01394-GAG (D.P.R. Aug. 15, 2017)
    08/15/2017

    Court granted motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that parties had a valid agreement, plaintiffs’ claims fell within the scope of its clear and specific arbitration clause, and plaintiffs’ immediate termination did not trigger an exception to arbitration.  

  • Dell’Oro Group, Inc. v. Weckel, No. 3:17-CV-00750-JD (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2017)
    08/14/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and administratively closed the case.  Court held the defendants did not waive their right to arbitration by engaging in litigation conduct comprised of a case management conference and the motion at issue, neither of which demonstrates that defendants acted inconsistently with their arbitration demand or prejudiced the plaintiff. Further, the non-signatory defendant is not absolutely barred from invoking the arbitration agreement since California law expressly allows non-signatories to enforce arbitration agreements on equitable estoppel grounds when the claims against the non-signatory “are dependent on or inextricably bound up with” the agreement featuring arbitration.

  • Pagano v. GFI Securities, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-04728 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2017)
    08/14/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that there was an enforceable arbitration agreement between the parties which covered the dispute.  Court found that the arbitration agreement was broad.  Court found that whether res judicata and collateral estoppel precluded termination of employment was a merits argument that went beyond the threshold question of arbitrability, and that such arguments should be raised in arbitration.

  • Potapowicz v. Gregerson Management Services, No. 4:16-CV-01999 (N.D. Ala. Aug. 11, 2017)
    08/11/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration on the basis that the type of claim asserted by the plaintiff is subject to mandatory arbitration pursuant to §2 of the FAA because (1) a valid agreement to arbitrate exists; (2) the claims fall within the scope of that agreement; and (3) the underlying contract evidences a transaction involving interstate commerce.

  • System4, LLC v. Ribeiro, No. 1:17-CV-10455-RWZ (D. Mass. Aug. 11, 2017)
    08/11/2017

    Court denied a motion pursuant to §10 of the FAA to vacate a AAA arbitration award and granted the cross-motion to confirm the award.  The allegation of evident partiality by the arbitrator failed because, inter alia, such a claim was not raised during the arbitral proceeding; petitioner did not identify any evidence in the record that the arbitrator failed to disclose a pre-existing bias or conflict of interest; and, in any event, no reasonable person would conclude that the arbitrator was partial to the respondent. Further, the court held that the arbitrator did not exceed her powers under the terms of the agreement or by acting in manifest disregard of the law.

  • Minnieland Private Day School, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-01695-AJT-IDD (4th Cir. Aug. 11, 2017)
    08/11/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed the district court decision denying Applied Underwriters’ motion to compel arbitration, but found the lower court erred in applying the doctrine of judicial estoppel to hold the agreement at issue constituted an insurance contract.  Court held that, inter alia, a delegation provision within an arbitration agreement constitutes an additional, antecedent agreement to arbitrate, and therefore federal courts must consider challenges to delegation provisions before ordering compliance with such.  Because under Virginia law arbitration provisions, including delegation provisions, are void in putative insurance contracts, the district court did not err in denying the motion to compel.

  • Dye v. Tamko Building Products, Inc., No. 8:17-CV-590-T-35AEP (M.D. Fla. Aug. 11, 2017)
    08/11/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the proceedings.  The putative class action arose out of allegedly defective shingles that the plaintiffs’ purchased from defendant, Tamko.  But, because the product’s limited warranty contained a valid arbitration clause, all parties were forced to arbitrate their claims.

  • Disher v. Tamko Building Products, No. 3:14-CV-00740-SMY-SCW (S.D. Ill. Aug. 11, 2017)
    08/11/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that a non-signatory plaintiff seeking to enforce a contract it did not sign was estopped from avoiding the arbitration provision of that contract.

  • GGNSC Louisville St. Mathews, LLC v. Phillips, No. 3:17-CV-00406-JHM-CHL (W.D. Ky. Aug. 10, 2017)
    08/10/2017

    Court granted petition to compel arbitration finding there was a valid arbitration agreement enforceable under the FAA and that all claims fell within the scope of the agreement.  Court rejected the motion to dismiss finding there was no necessity to join the administrator and enjoined defendants from proceeding in state court against the plaintiffs pending conclusion of arbitration.

  • Treto v. Princess Cruise Lines Ltd., No. 1:17-CV-20790-KMM (S.D. Fla. Aug. 10, 2017)
    08/10/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  In rejecting plaintiff’s argument that there was not an agreement in writing within the meaning of the New York Convention, court found that the arbitration provisions contained in the collective bargaining agreement, which were incorporated into the parties’ contract, continued to apply to plaintiff’s work on the ninth cruise aboard the Sun Princess, including the alleged injury occurring on May 13, 2013.

  • Coconut Coast Partners, L. P. v. Aqua Hospitality LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00212-LEK-KSC (D. Haw. Aug. 10, 2017)
    08/10/2017

    Court granted plaintiff’s unopposed motion to compel arbitration, finding that there was a valid arbitration agreement that encompasses all of the claims submitted by plaintiff.

  • Amazon.com, Inc. v. Arobo Trade, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00804-JLR (W.D. Wash. Aug. 9, 2017)
    08/09/2017

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award even though respondent failed to respond to the petition.  Court concluded that under the FAA petitioner did not have to affect service via United States marshal on a nonresident respondent and held that service by process server in accordance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was effective.

  • United Media Holdings, NV, v. Forbes Media, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-05926-PKC (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2017)
    08/09/2017

    Court denied petition to vacate arbitral award pursuant to the FAA and the New York Convention.  Court found that the arbitrator acted reasonably and within his broad discretion in denying petitioners’ request for adjournments; concluded that neither the arbitration nor the award violated Executive Order 13660 since they were authorized by the Office of Foreign Asset Control (“OFAC”); determined that the petitioners were not under any incapacity at the time the arbitration agreement was made as necessitated by Article V(1)(a) of the New York Convention; and held that the award was not contrary to public policy under Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention or under New York or Federal Law.  Court also denied petitioners’ motion for post-award discovery and leave to amend, concluding that petitioners’ assertions that the award was based on illegal proceedings and fraud were untimely and meritless.

  • Brittania-U Nigeria Ltd. v. Chevron USA Inc., No. 16-20690 (5th Cir. Aug. 9, 2017)
    08/09/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s case finding no error in the district court’s recognition that the parties signed a confidentiality agreement containing an arbitration provision that delegates arbitrability to the arbitrators.  Court also held that the arbitration provision’s adoption of UNCITRAL arbitration rules clearly and unmistakably delegated arbitrability.   

  • Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP v. Engagepoint, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-01163-KJM-KJN (E.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2017)
    08/09/2017

    Court granted unopposed petition to confirm an arbitration award pursuant to §9 of the FAA, finding that the petition was filed within one year of entry of the arbitration award and petitioner provided the arbitration agreement and the award itself.

  • GGNSC Louisville Camelot, LLC v. Coppedge, No. 3:16-CV-00834-TBR (W.D. Ky. Aug. 9, 2017)
    08/09/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding the FAA applied to the transaction, determining that the power of attorney was sufficiently broad to include an arbitration agreement, and concluding that the agreement was not unconscionable.  Court denied motion to dismiss, concluding that it had subject matter jurisdiction and enjoined defendants from pursing further claims against plaintiffs with the exception of loss of consortium.

  • International Corrugated and Packing Supplies, Inc. v. Lear Corp., No. 17-50139 (5th Cir. Aug. 9, 2017)
    08/09/2017

    Court of appeal vacated district court’s denial of a motion to reconsider its order denying defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the district court incorrectly applied the FRCP Rule 59 standard for review of its decision rather than a proper Rule 54(b) analysis that the court recently clarified regarding reconsideration of an interlocutory order, and therefore remanded the case for reconsideration under the appropriate standard. 

  • Klein v. Verizon Communications, Inc., No. 1:12-CV-00757-LMB-IDD (E.D. Va. Aug. 9, 2017)
    08/09/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings, reasoning that a modification providing for arbitration validly changed the parties’ agreement to require arbitration of the underlying claim.

  • Protective Insurance Company v. State Farm General Insurance Company, No. 1:16-CV-00038-MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla. Aug. 9, 2017)
    08/09/2017

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award pursuant to the FAA.  Court determined that the parties agreed the arbitrator’s decision would be final and binding; that even though the confirmation was not sought within the one-year time period, defendant waived the issue by failing to raise it in its pleadings, as the confirmation period functions as a statute of limitation and not a jurisdictional bar; and that defendant failed to timely move to vacate, modify, or correct the award.

  • Byrne v. K12 Services Inc., No. 2:17-CV-04311-SDW-LDW (D.N.J. Aug. 8, 2017)
    08/08/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the complaint.  Pursuant to the FAA, the court found a valid agreement to arbitrate and determined that the wrongful termination dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration clause.

  • Carlton Energy Group LLC v. Cliveden Petroleum Company Limited, Case 4:13-cv-00095 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 8, 2017)
     
    08/08/2017

    Court issued order adopting magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation of June 23, 2017, staying the proceedings pending arbitration where the non-signatories to the arbitration agreement stipulated consent to be bound by the arbitral clause.

  • TIC Seven Bar 12, LLC, v. Core Seven Bar H, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00450-RB-SCY (D.N.M. Aug. 8, 2017)
    08/08/2017

    Court denied in part plaintiff’s motion to confirm the arbitration award, remanding for clarification of the award and deferring its decision pending clarification.  Finding there was more than one reasonable interpretation of the interest ownership portion of the arbitration award, the court remanded to the arbitrator for clarification.  Court denied plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs.

  • Dumas v. Warner Literary Group, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00518-RM-NYW (D. Colo. Aug. 8, 2016)
    08/08/2017

    Magistrate judge granted motion to compel and stay proceedings, recommending that the matter be administratively closed.  Court determined that the dispute was subject to a valid arbitration agreement, rejecting plaintiff’s contention that the agreement was ambiguous and thus unenforceable.  Court likewise rejected a claim that the agreement had been fraudulently induced, reasoning that it did not challenge the arbitration clause itself, but the agreement as a whole.  Nor did the court agree that any statute or policy rendered the claim non-arbitrable.

  • Crystallex International Corp. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 1:17-mc-00205-VEC (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2017)
    08/08/2017

    Court granted ex parte application for a writ of execution against sovereign defendant’s property held in the district.  Court summarily concluded that its ruling was proper because (1) a reasonable amount of time had elapsed since entry of judgment; (2) execution was sought against defendant’s property that was located in the district and used for commercial activity; and (3) all requirements of 28 USC § 1610(1) had been met.  Court further held that its order was to remain under seal for 14 days so that service could be effectuated without prior notice.

  • Crystallex International Corp. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 1:16-CV-00661-RC (D.D.C. Aug. 8, 2017)
    08/08/2017

    Court denied respondent’s motion to stay execution of judgment pending appeal of previously confirmed arbitral award.  Court held that petitioner’s interests would be endangered if court were to grant a stay without requiring the foreign sovereign, which may be either unwilling or unable to satisfy the full judgment, to post a supersedeas bond.

  • Commercial Lubricants, LLC v. Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc., No. 1:14-CV-07483-MKB-RLM (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2017)
    08/08/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment but reserved judgment on claim involving agreement with provision to arbitrate.  Court noted that defendant first raised the agreement’s arbitration clause seven months after plaintiff filed its claim and instructed plaintiff to brief any prejudice should the court decide to sever and refer the claim to arbitration.

  • Wheeler v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., No. 6:17-CV-00847-RGJ-PJH (W.D. La. Aug. 8, 2017)
    08/08/2017

    Court deferred resolution of defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.  Court held that more discovery was necessary to determine whether a valid arbitration agreement was entered into by the parties.

  • Life Flights Network, LLC v. Metro Aviation, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00028-AC (D. Or. Aug. 8, 2017)
    08/08/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees.  Court held that plaintiff waived its right to attorney’s fees when it waived the arbitration clause because that was the only part of the Agreement that provided for the award of attorney’s fees.

  • In re Kleimar N.V. v. Benxi Iron And Steel America, Ltd., No. 1:17-CV-01287 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 8, 2017)
    08/08/2017

    Court denied respondent’s motion to vacate and quash subpoenas issued pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 for production of documents and deposition testimony for use in proceedings before the London Maritime Arbitration Association (“LMAA”).  Court concluded that respondent had standing to challenge its own subpoena and the order because petitioner had commenced arbitral proceedings against entities affiliated with respondent.  But, respondent did not have standing to challenge the subpoena served on the other third-party entity.  Court held that the requested discovery was “for use” in a foreign proceeding; the LMMA was a foreign tribunal for purposes of § 1782 because its decisions are judicial reviewable by the English courts pursuant to the English Arbitration Act 1996; and the document production requests were not unduly intrusive and burdensome.

  • Charleston Equities, Inc. v. Winslett, No. 3:17-CV-00137-JFA (D.S.C. Aug. 8, 2017)
    08/08/2017

    Court ordered defendant’s third-party claims for civil conspiracy and breach of fiduciary duty to be submitted to arbitration.  Court found that defendant’s claim for breach of fiduciary duty is significantly related to the arbitration provisions in the operating agreements and is therefore subject to arbitration.

  • Jones v. Waffle House, Inc., No. 16-15574 (11th Cir. Aug. 7, 2017)
    08/07/2017

    Court of appeal vacated the district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel and remanded with instructions to stay the case pending arbitration.   Court held that the delegation provision in the agreement between the parties was valid and that the agreement evinced the parties’ intent to arbitrate all gateway issues.

  • In re Kleimar N. V. v. Benxi Iron and Steel America, Ltd. (Chicago), No. 1:17-CV-01287-JRB (N.D. Ill. Aug. 7, 2017)
    08/07/2017

    Court denied motion to vacate and quash subpoenas issued pursuant to ex parte order for discovery pursuant to 28 USC § 1782.  Court held the requested discovery was “for use” in a foreign proceeding, that the London Maritime Arbitration Association constituted a “foreign tribunal” under the statute, and that the discovery was neither untimely nor burdensome.

  • Reliable Energy Solutions v. Amalfi Apartment Corporation, No. 4:16-CV-03346 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 7, 2017)
    08/07/2017

    Court adopted magistrate judge’s June 30, 2017 memorandum and recommendation and granted the motion to compel arbitration staying proceedings pending completion of arbitration. 

  • In re Ex Parte Application of Anz Commodity Trading Pty Ltd., No. 4:17-MC-80070-DMR (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2017)
    08/04/2017

    Court granted ex parte application for an order to obtain discovery for use in foreign proceedings pursuant to 28 USC § 1782.  Court found the application met the mandatory requirements, determining that the witnesses reside or were found in the district, the discovery was for use before foreign tribunals, and the applicant, as party to the anticipated litigation, was “interested person.”  Court held the discretionary factors weighed in favor of issuing the subpoena because none of the witnesses were intended to be parties in the foreign proceedings, there was nothing to suggest that the applicant was attempting to circumvent foreign proof-gathering restrictions, and the discovery sought was not unduly burdensome.  Shearman & Sterling is counsel for the petitioners in connection with this case.

  • Senter v. Equifax Information Services LLC, No. 5:16-CV-00875-SL (N.D. Ohio Aug. 4, 2017)
    08/04/2017

    Court denied plaintiffs’ petition to compel arbitration, holding that plaintiffs could not establish that the parties had a valid arbitration agreement or that any claim plaintiffs had was within the scope of any purported arbitration agreement.

  • Amergent Techs, LLC v. Transatlantic Lines, LLC, No. 3-16-CV-01140-JLS-JLB (S.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2017)
    08/04/2017

    Court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss petition to compel arbitration.  Court held it did not have personal jurisdiction over the respondent, who did not purposefully avail itself of the benefits of the forum’s jurisdiction.  The formation of the contract containing the arbitration clause was not alone sufficient to establish minimum contacts with the state. 

  • McAllister  v. The St. Louis Rams, LLC, No. 4:16-CV-00172-SNLJ, No. 4:16-CV-00189, No. 4:16-CV-00262, No. 4:16-CV-00297 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 4, 2017)
    08/04/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion for stay pending arbitration in part.  Court held that both Missouri state law and § 3 of the FAA requires courts to stay any suit with an issue referable to arbitration.  Court further held that the remainder of the claims in litigation between the non-arbitrating plaintiff groups and the defendant was discretionary and declined to stay the litigation based on three factors, including the risk of inconsistent rulings, the extent to which parties will be bound by the arbiters’ decision, and the prejudice that could result from delays.

  • Iberiabank v. Previty Surgical PLLC, No. 4:17-CV-00160 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 4, 2017)
    08/04/2017

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court denied as untimely defendants’ motion, filed five months after plaintiff filed suit and three weeks after the court’s dispositive motion deadline, as it would cause undue delay and unfairly prejudice the plaintiff. 

  • Arevalo Tortilleria, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc., No. 15-56830 (9th Cir. Aug. 4, 2017)
    08/04/2017

    Court of appeal vacated district court’s judgment dismissing the case and compelling arbitration.  Court remanded to the district court for a trial on whether plaintiff executed the arbitration agreement, noting that, under the FAA, a party that raises a genuine issue of fact with respect to the execution of agreements is entitled to a trial.

  • Venco Imtiaz Construction Company v. Symbion Power LLC, No. 1:16-CV-01737-JDB (D.D.C. August 4, 2017)
    08/04/2017

    Court granted protective order stipulated by both parties in regard to discovery in aid of execution of the ICC award confirmed by this Court on May 31, 2017.

  • The Sales Group Inc. v. Realm Wireless Corp., No. 17-CV-02347-JAK-FFM (C.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2017)
    08/04/2017

    Court denied motions to dismiss based on a claimed arbitration agreement in dispute over payment of sales commissions.  Court found that an arbitration clause in a written contract that did not cover the time period of the dispute was not adopted or incorporated by a subsequent oral contract and therefore did not apply to the dispute in question.

  • Valenzuela v. Crest-Mex Corporation, No. 3:16-CV-01129-D (N.D. Tex. Aug. 3, 2017)
    08/03/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, but denied defendants’ motion to dismiss.  Court found there were valid agreements to arbitrate because plaintiffs had received notice of their employer’s arbitration policy and continued to work and accept pay, which constituted an acceptance under Texas law.  Court also found that plaintiffs’ claims were within the scope of the arbitration agreements; that the agreements were not unconscionable; and that plaintiffs had to arbitrate their claims against all defendants, even those who were not parties to the arbitration agreements.

  • Morgan v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00869-JAM-KJN (E.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2017)
    08/03/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that there was a valid arbitration agreement and the dispute at issue fell within the scope of that agreement.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that defendant had waived its right to compel arbitration, noting that plaintiff had not met the “heavy burden” in showing the waiver elements. 

  • Adams v. Conn Appliances Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00362-DLR (D. Ariz. Aug. 3, 2017)
    08/03/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss, but granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration finding that the parties entered into a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate questions of arbitrability.  Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable and that defendant waived its right to arbitrate.

  • Chassen v. Fidelity National Financial Inc., No. 15-2814 (3rd Cir. Aug. 3, 2017)
    08/03/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Circuit court agreed that plaintiffs had not consented to arbitration when they signed an owner’s policy that included an arbitration provision that was later amended to require both parties to consent to arbitration before arbitration could be compelled.  Court rejected appellant’s arguments that the amendment to the arbitration agreement had resulted from mutual mistake or that it should not apply because two agreements at issue were not incorporated.

  • Starke v. Squaretrade, Inc., No. 1-16-CV-07036-NGG (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2017)
    08/03/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that defendant failed to establish an enforceable arbitration agreement with the plaintiff where the arbitration provision appeared in a terms and conditions document provided by hyperlink in an email confirming plaintiff’s purchase.

  • Varela v. Lamps Plus, Inc., No. 16-56085 (9th Cir. Aug. 3, 2017)
    08/03/2017

    Circuit court, in split decision, affirmed district court holding that defendants agreed to class arbitration.  Circuit court held that because the agreement was capable of two reasonable constructions, the district court correctly found ambiguity and that state contract principles required construction against the drafter of the adhesive agreement.

  • Dahir v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., No. 3:16-CV-00292-GCH (S.D. Tex. Aug. 2, 2017)
    08/02/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held the New York Convention controlled an arbitration agreement between two United States citizens, as plaintiff was not exempt from arbitration because of his status as a Jones Act seaman.  Unlike § 1 of the FAA that exempts seamen’s employment contracts from arbitration, the New York Convention provides no such exemption and the FAA applies only to the extent it is not in conflict with the New York Convention.

  • Nelson v. Carl Black Chevrolet of Nashville, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00687-WDC (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 2, 2017)
    08/02/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion for a stay pending arbitration.  Court held the defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate by failing to raise arbitration as an affirmative defense in its answer.  Court further held the agreement between the parties reserved gateway issues of arbitrability and enforceability to the arbitrator -- who could determine whether the agreement applied to the plaintiff’s second period of employment with the defendant, and that the plaintiff’s whistleblowing and retaliation claims were not beyond the scope of the agreement. 

  • Trader Joe’s Co. v. Hallatt, No. 2-13-CV-00768-BJR (W.D. Wash. Aug. 2, 2017)
    08/02/2017

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm and enforce an arbitration award.  Court upheld the arbitration award as defendant did not argue and none of the factors existed to permit vacatur of an arbitration award under the FAA.

  • Hispasat, S.A. v. Bantel Telecom, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-20534-KMW (S.D. Fla. Aug. 2, 2017)
    08/02/2017

    Magistrate judge recommended that Hispasat’s petition to confirm and enforce a foreign arbitral award be granted.  Bantel argued that the award should not be confirmed because the arbitrator’s appointment by the ICC violated that institution’s rules and the arbitration agreement between the parties.  But magistrate judge found that Bantel did not meet the heavy burden of proving any of the seven defenses to enforcement under the New York Convention and therefore the arbitral award should be confirmed and enforced.

  • Mendel v. Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc., No. 16-17587 (11th Cir. Aug. 2, 2017)
    08/02/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed district court’s refusal to reopen discovery for plaintiff on remand as not an abuse of discretion.  Circuit court held that the district court had provided plaintiff a three month discovery period within which to seek evidence that the arbitrator knew of a potential conflict to vacate an award under § 10(a)(2) of the FAA for partiality of an arbitrator.  Court held that plaintiff’s failure to do so was unreasonable, even where the district court erroneously applied Alabama state law, rather than the controlling federal law to interpret that provision of the FAA, because the lower court had explained to plaintiff under the correct standard governing the case that plaintiff would need to provide evidence that the arbitrator had actual knowledge of a potential conflict to vacate the award. 

  • Wendt v. The Bondfactor Company LLC, No. 1:16-CV-07751-DLC (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2017)
    08/02/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss finding that existing arbitration awards barred the complaint under the doctrine of res judicata.  Court found that an outstanding issue as to one of the plaintiffs’ claims regarding wages owed was collateral and did not impact the finality of the arbitrator’s adjudication of plaintiffs’ remaining claims.  Court also found that all members of defendant’s board of directors could invoke res judicata, even if they had not been parties to the arbitration proceedings; and that res judicata applied to plaintiffs’ retaliation claims under Dodd-Frank that could have been litigated in arbitration.

  • Daniels v. Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01851-CBS (D. Colo. Aug. 1, 2017)
    08/01/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, stayed the case pending completion of arbitration, and directed plaintiff to show cause as to why he could not bear the costs of arbitration.  In making its decision, the court discussed the tensions between the “arbitrability doctrine” and the “effective vindication doctrine,” which allows the striking down of arbitration agreements that operate as a “prospective waiver of a party’s right to pursue statutory remedies.”

  • Goodly v. Check-6 Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00334-GKF-TLW (N.D. Okla. Aug. 1, 2017)
    08/01/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitratio, finding that defendant had waived its right to demand arbitration.  Fourteen months after the lawsuit was filed, and over six weeks after the class action opt-in period closed, defendant filed its motion to compel arbitration, arguing that each opt-in plaintiff had signed an agreement containing an arbitration clause.  Court held that, per the Tenth Circuit’s Peterson decision, defendant had waived its right to arbitration.

  • Gold v. Opera Solutions, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-08121-JPO (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2017)
    08/01/2017

    Court denied the motion to modify the award and granted the motion to confirm the award pursuant to the FAA.  Court found the award could not be modified under FAA § 11(a) because there was no clear mathematical error in damages calculations, but rather the petitioner was seeking modification on substantive grounds.  Court also rejected petitioners’ argument the award should be modified on public policy grounds.

  • Aikens v. Johnson, No. 3:16-CV-00729-SDD-EWD (M.D. La. July 31, 2017)
    07/31/2017

    Court stayed the action pending arbitration finding that the Individual Retirement Account (IRA) Custodial Agreement at issue contained a valid arbitration agreement whose scope extended to the present matter.  Court noted that plaintiff had failed to provide any proper legal challenge to the existence of the arbitration clause and found that the presence of a co-defendant did not foreclose a stay pending arbitration.

  • Sugick v. New York Life Insurance Company, No. 2:17-CV-10211-RHC-RSW (E.D. Mich. July 31, 2017)
    07/31/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss complaint pursuant to the FAA.  Court held that plaintiff’s argument that his assent to the employment contract was obtained through fraud goes to the question of the contract’s validity, which should be decided by the arbitrator.

  • Yeransian v. Markel Corporation, No. 1:16-CV-00808-GMS (D. Del. July 31, 2017)
    07/31/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay litigation and compel arbitration finding that, even though the contract between the parties did not contain a traditional arbitration agreement, it was nevertheless an agreement to arbitrate and the present dispute fell within the scope of that agreement.  Court also found that plaintiff’s arguments that defendant had either waived its right to invoke arbitration or should be estopped from doing so were not applicable.

  • Elsadig v. Luxottica Retail North America, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-02055-L (N.D. Tex. July 31, 2017)
    07/31/2017

    Court adopted magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations that defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration be granted.  Court found that all of plaintiff’s claims were subject to arbitration under the agreements between the parties.  Therefore, finding no other reason to retain jurisdiction over the matter, the court dismissed the action with prejudice.

  • Golden Gate National Senior Care, LLC v. Newkam, No. 1:16-CV-01791-JEJ (M.D. Pa. July 31, 2017)
    07/31/2017

    Court granted Golden Gate’s motion for summary judgment, finding that no genuine issue of material fact existed in that Newkam agreed to arbitrate and that the agreement was valid and enforceable.  Court disagreed with Newkman’s argument that the arbitration agreement was substantively and procedurally unconscionable.  Finally, court found that a wrongful death claim could be severed from other claims covered by the arbitration clause and that an arbitration agreement does not need to be dated to be valid.

  • Castro v. Tri Marine Fish Company, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-00008-RSL (W.D. Wash. July 31, 2017)
    07/31/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to enforce a foreign arbitral award certifying a 2014 settlement and release of claims between the parties.  Upon reviewing the arbitral award, the court found that defendants had ensured plaintiff understood the rights he was waiving and held that the arbitral award did not offend the U.S.’ “most basic notions of morality and justice.”

  • Fuentes v. Security Forever LLC, No. 1:16-CV-20483-RNS (S.D.  Fla. July 28, 2017)
    07/28/2017

    Court adopted magistrate judge’s recommendation granting defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Even though defendants filed their motion to compel arbitration almost a year after the initial complaint was filed, the magistrate judge found that while defendants had “acted inconsistently with arbitration,” plaintiffs had not been “substantially prejudiced.”  In reviewing de novo, Court found that none of the plaintiffs’ objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendations were persuasive and instead adopted the totality of the magistrate judge’s recommendations and stayed the case pending arbitration.

  • Rajapakse v. Credit Acceptance Corporation, No. 2:16-CV-13144-MFL-SDD (E.D. Mich. July 28, 2017)
    07/28/2017

    Magistrate judge recommended that motion to compel arbitration be granted and the matter dismissed without prejudice because the claim was subject to a valid arbitration agreement.  Magistrate judge also recommended against a stay, finding that all of the claims presented were subject to arbitration.

  • Catamaran Corp. v. Towncrest Pharmacy, 16-03275 (8th Cir. July 28, 2017)
    07/28/2017

    Circuit court reversed and remanded district court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.  Circuit court held, in case of first impression in the circuit, that absent clear and unmistakable language to the contrary, the question of class arbitration is for the courts to determine as a substantive question of arbitrability.  Circuit court further held that the parties’ agreements did not delegate the issue of class arbitration to an arbitrator, and thus remanded case for district court to determine whether a contractual basis of class arbitration exists in the parties’ agreements.

  • Tarazi  v. Truehope, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-01038-LAK-RWL (S.D.N.Y. July 28, 2017)
    07/28/2017

    Magistrate judge recommended granting in part defendant’s motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration. Pursuant to the FAA the magistrate judge found that the contract contained a valid, enforceable arbitration agreement, and that it was proper to dismiss all claims except claims for unjust enrichment.

  • Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. DGN Construction Corp, No. 1:17-CV-01659-LGS (S.D.N.Y. July 27, 2017)
    07/27/2017

    Court granted petitioners’ motion to confirm a 2016 arbitration award, finding that there were no genuine issues of material fact and the award drew its essence from the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the parties.  Court also granted petitioners’ request for attorney’s fees and costs because, despite DGN signing the CBA, it failed to participate in the arbitration, did not satisfy the arbitration award, and failed to oppose the petition at hand.

  • Cassity v. GCI, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00004 (D. Alaska Jul. 27, 2017)
    07/27/2017


    Court granted motion to compel arbitration in part, finding that the parties had entered into a valid arbitration agreement that covered all but one of petitioner’s claims and rejecting petitioner’s arguments of fraud, duress, unconscionability, and waiver, while declining to find that federal law precluded arbitration of the claims in question.

  • Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, and Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund v. Baywood Concrete Corp., No. 1:17-CV-01800-ER (July 26, 2017 S.D.N.Y)
    07/26/2017

    Court granted unopposed motion to confirm a labor arbitration award under the FAA upon conducting a limited review of the award and finding that the arbitrator had acted within the scope of his authority.

  • Pinto v. USAA Insurance Agency Incorporated of Texas (FN), No. 2:17-CV-00873-DGC (July 26, 2017 D. Ariz.)
    07/26/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that an electronic signature was not required for consent to arbitration where the plaintiff had been made aware in writing of the arbitration provision and rejecting plaintiff’s defenses based on unconscionability and waiver.

  • 2017.07.26 Neal v. Asta Funding, Inc., No. 2:13-CV-06981-KM-MAH (July 26, 2017 D. N.J.)
    07/26/2017

    District court dismissed motion for relief from summary judgment affirming an arbitral award under Rule 60(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Court held that petitioner was effectively asking it to reconsider the award itself and declined to do so, ruling that it had been offered no clear and convincing evidence of fraud that prevented the petitioner from presenting his case to the arbitrator.  Court noted that the issues brought up by the petitioners were properly decided by the arbitrator and known to him at that time, and therefore not reviewable by a court absent such a showing.

  • 2017.07.26 Neal v. Asta Funding, Inc., No. 2:14-CV-03550-KM-MAH (July 26, 2017 D. N.J.)
    07/26/2017

    District court dismissed motion for relief from summary judgment affirming an arbitral award under Rule 60(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Court held that petitioner was effectively asking it to reconsider the award itself and declined to do so, ruling that it had been offered no clear and convincing evidence of fraud that prevented the petitioner from presenting his case to the arbitrator.  Court noted that the issues brought up by the petitioners were properly decided by the arbitrator and known to him at that time, and therefore not reviewable by a court absent such a showing.

  • 2017.07.26 Coyne v. Asta Funding, Inc., No. 2:14-CV-03932-KM-JBC (July 26, 2017 D. N.J.)
    07/26/2017

  • American Process Inc. v. GranBio Investimentos S.A., No. 1:16-CV-4234-MHC (N.D. Ga. July 26, 2017)
    07/26/2017

    Court denied motion for an injunction and granted cross-motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that by incorporating AAA rules the parties had delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, including the scope of the contractual carve-out for court-issued injunctive relief.

  • Talhelm v. Diamond Resorts Hawaii Collection Development LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00593-LEK-KSC (D. Hawaii Jul. 26, 2017)
    07/26/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and to stay the action.  Court found that, since plaintiff challenged only the arbitration clause and not the incorporation of the AAA rules, which constitutes the delegation provision in the contract, any question about the validity of the arbitration clause must be decided by the arbitrator.

  • Henry Controls, Inc. v. Ultra Electronics, No. 1:17-CV-00276-SS (W.D. Tex. Jul. 25, 2017)
    07/25/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case, finding that since the parties’ dispute was subject to a broad arbitration agreement, it is for the arbitrator, and not the court, to determine whether petitioner’s claims are frivolous, and rejecting the petitioner’s argument that defendant had waived its right to appoint an arbitrator.

  • Barreto v. Jec II, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-09729-KBF (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 25, 2017)
    07/25/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed case, finding that, even if the arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable, it was not substantively unconscionable and therefore enforceable, and that principles of estoppel required the plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims against even those defendants who were not signatories to the arbitration agreement.

  • THI of New Mexico at Vida Encantada, LLC v. Lovato, No. 16-2041 (10th Cir. Jul. 25, 2017)
    07/25/2017

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s confirmation of arbitration award, finding that arbitrator had not exceeded his authority or manifestly disregarded the law, since the plain language of the arbitration agreement covered the contested award on costs and interest.

  • Davis v. Uber Technologies, INC., No. 2:16-CV-06122-MMB (E.D. Pa. Jul. 25, 2017)
    07/25/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the parties’ contract clearly delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator and that, because plaintiff had failed specifically to challenge the validity of the delegation clause, the gateway issue of arbitrability was to be decided by the arbitrator.

  • Jeffries v. Wells Fargo & Company, No. 2:16-CV-01987-LSC (N.D. Ala. Jul. 25, 2017)
    07/25/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that it could not decide challenges to the arbitration agreement’s validity, since the parties had delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator and plaintiffs had failed to specifically challenge that delegation, and that defendants had not waived their right to arbitrate by settling in related litigation.

  • Morrison v. Credit One Bank, No. 2:16-CV-03353-JS (E.D. Pa. Jul. 25, 2017)
    07/25/2017

    Court granted renewed motion to compel arbitration, both because plaintiff had failed to oppose the motion and because he had not provided any evidence that his claim falls outside the parties’ arbitration agreement.

  • Raju v. Murphy, No. 3:17-CV-00357-CWR-LRA (S.D. Miss. Jul. 25, 2017)
    07/25/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that plaintiff had waived his right to arbitrate by filing the action before the court.

  • Lathan v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 16-CV-794 (E.D. Wis. July 24, 2017)
    07/24/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that the parties’ arbitration agreement covered the dispute and that the challenge to the arbitration agreement’s validity was for the arbitrator to decide, since the parties’ agreement contained a valid and enforceable delegation clause to that effect.

  • Bradford v. Flagship Facility Services Inc., No. 5:17-CV-01245-LHK (N.D. Cal. Jul. 24, 2017)
    07/24/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the action, finding that it had jurisdiction to rule on the question of arbitrability, since the parties had not delegated this question to arbitration, and rejecting arguments that the arbitration agreement was substantively or procedurally unconscionable or that compelling arbitration would result in impermissible claim splitting.

  • Jock v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc., No. 15-3947-CV (2d Cir. Jul. 24, 2017)
    07/24/2017

    Circuit court vacated judgment confirming arbitral award and remanded case, holding that district court erred in finding existing case law conclusively resolved the question whether arbitrator had the authority to certify a class containing absent class members.

  • O'Meara v. Intepros Incorporated, No. 3:16-CV-01840-HBF (D. Conn. Jul. 24, 2017)
    07/24/2017

    District court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings during its pendency, finding that the arbitration forum and choice of law provisions were not unconscionable and that defendant had not waived its right to arbitrate.

  • Amuchie v. Carmax Auto Superstores Inc, No. 6:16-CV-03074-TMC (D.S.C. Jul. 24, 2017)
    07/24/2017

    District court adopted magistrate’s recommendation to compel arbitration and dismiss the claim, finding that plaintiff had failed to show that there was no valid arbitration agreement between the parties.

  • Grant v. Performance Contracting, INC., No. 3:17-CV-00008-RLY-MPB (S.D. Ind. Jul. 24, 2017)
    07/24/2017

    District court granted in part motion to compel arbitration, rejecting it with respect to a claim of discrimination upon holding that it was not within the scope of the arbitration agreement; court stayed proceedings pending arbitration with respect to all claims, finding that the facts at issue in the arbitration were pivotal to the non-arbitrable claim as well.

  • Kelleher v. Dream Catcher, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-02092-APM (D.D.C. Jul. 24, 2017)
    07/24/2017

    District court determined that it retained jurisdiction over case pending party’s appeal of its decision not to compel arbitration upon finding that its appeal was frivolous.

  • Armenta v. Staffworks, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00011-BAS-NLS (S.D. Cal. Jul. 21, 2017)
    07/21/2017

    District court denied  motion to compel arbitration and strike class claims, finding that the arbitration agreement is unenforceable, since by failing to provide for class arbitration, it unlawfully undercuts an employee’s right to concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act.

  • Guerrero v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01300-LJA LJT (E.D. Cal. Jul. 21, 2017)
    07/21/2017

    District court stayed proceedings and held defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in abeyance pending a forthcoming Supreme Court decision regarding the enforceability of agreements requiring an employee to arbitrate claims against an employer on an individual, rather than collective, basis.

  • Shoebacca LTD v. K-2 Corp., No. 3:17-CV-00473-G (N.D. Tex. Jul. 21, 2017)
    07/21/2017

    District Court granted motion to dismiss, finding that even though the arbitration agreement was a narrow one, plaintiff had failed to overcome the presumption in favor of arbitration, since it had not provided clear evidence that the parties did not intend for the claim to be arbitrable.

  • McGhee v. North American Bancard, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00586-AJB-KSC (S.D. Cal. Jul. 21, 2017)
    07/21/2017

    District court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff had not manifested his assent to arbitration, since the agreement containing the arbitration clause could not be qualified as a (modified) “clickwrap” agreement.

  • Odeon Capital Group LLC v. Ackerman, No. 16-1717-CV(XAP) (2nd Cir. July 21, 2017)
    07/21/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed district court’s refusal to vacate an arbitral award and vacated and remanded the court’s denial of Ackerman’s motion for attorneys’ fees.  Court found that the arbitral award did not warrant vacatur because Odeon had not sufficiently demonstrated that Ackerman’s alleged perjury was material to the award.  However, the court found that the district court had applied the wrong legal standard in denying Ackerman’s fee request and that, under New York law, employees who prevail against their employer on a claim of unpaid wages are entitled to all reasonable attorneys’ fees.

  • Mathis v. Lendmark Financial Services, LLC, No. 7:16-CV-00355-FL (E.D.N.C. July 20, 2017)
    07/20/2017

    Court granted motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, finding that, although there were missing pages in the version of the operative note, it had been adequately established that an arbitration agreement was in the original version signed by the plaintiff.

  • Thai-Lao Lignite (Thailand) Co., Ltd. v. Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, No. 14-597 (2d Cir. July 20, 2017)
    07/20/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed district court’s vacatur of prior judgment confirming an arbitration award that had since been set aside, finding that a court should analyze the full range of considerations for vacatur under FRCP Rule 60(b) and give significant weight to concerns of international comity.  Although the district court had failed to do so, and instead ruled on the ground that the New York Convention required vacatur, the court found that consideration of these factors would not have materially changed the outcome.

  • Gridsmart Technologies, Inc. v. Marlin Controls, Inc., No. 17-5121 (6th Cir. July 20, 2017)
    07/20/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed district court’s vacatur of arbitration award, finding that, following termination of the contract, no enforceable contract existed as to matters at issue, and the arbitration clause did not survive termination.

  • Eagle Rebar & Cable Company, Inc. v. Southern Industrial Contractors, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00025-LG-RHW (S.D. Miss. July 20, 2017)
    07/20/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that a valid arbitration agreement covering the dispute at issue existed based on the record before it, and in light of the fact that the party against whom the agreement was to be enforced had not filed opposition papers or presented any reason for denying the motion.  However, the court refused to grant the motion as to claims against a defendant who had not appeared in the lawsuit.

  • Kaufman v. Sony Pictures Television, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-12027-LTS (D. Mass. July 20, 2017)
    07/20/2017

    Court granted motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, finding that the arbitration clause in an agreement governing the plaintiff’s participation on a TV show was (i) not procedurally unconscionable, as it was clearly disclosed in bold, capital letters on a page the plaintiff initialed, and (ii) not substantively unconscionable since it was not one sided.

  • Lopez v. YourPeople Incorporated, No. 2:16-CV-03982-JZB (D. Ariz. July 20, 2017)
    07/20/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that question of arbitrability was delegated to the arbitrator and that the arbitration agreement, including the delegation clause, was not procedurally or substantively unconscionable.

  • Frank N. Magid Associates, Inc. v. Marrs, No. 1:16-CV-00198-LRR (N.D. Iowa July 20, 2017)
    07/20/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding (i) that, although dispute resolution provisions allowed one party to choose between three fora and required the other party to pursue arbitration, it was not unconscionable; and (ii) that question of whether counterclaims fall within the scope of the arbitration is one of arbitrability delegated to the arbitrator to decide.

  • Farley v. Eaton Corporation, No. 16-3893 (6th Cir. July 20, 2017)
    07/20/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed district court judgment confirming arbitral award which construed the language of an indemnification provision. Court found that petitioner provided no evidence that the award did not “draw its essence” from the contract, thus it was appropriate for the district court to confirm the award.

  • Mamouzette v. Jerome, No. 1:13-CV-00117-WAL-GWC (D.V.I. July 19, 2017)
    07/19/2017

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitral award, finding that:  (i) although the defendant had already filed an action to vacate the award in superior court, Colorado River abstention was unwarranted in the absence of exceptional circumstances; and (ii) the respondent was estopped from raising defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies, since it had previously represented to the court that arbitration was the sole avenue for resolution of the dispute, and that the court’s findings in that regard when compelling arbitration are the law of the case.

  • EmployBridge LLC v. Riven Rock Staffing, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00833-WJ-KK (D.N.M. July 19, 2017)
    07/19/2017

    Court granted motion to stay pending arbitration, finding that non-arbitrable claims were intertwined with arbitral claims.

  • Aspic Engineering and Construction Company v. ECC CENTCOM Constructors, LLC, No. 4:17-CV-00224-YGR (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2017)
    07/18/2017

    Court granted motion to vacate arbitral award under the FAA, finding that arbitrator exceeded its powers when determining that a party should not be held to a “strict interpretation” of certain contractual provisions since they did not reflect a “true meeting of the minds.”

  • Developers Surety and Indemnity Company v. Carothers Construction Inc., No. 9:17-CV-01419-RMG (D.S.C. July 18, 2017)
    07/18/2017

    Court denied motion to dismiss claim seeking declaration that third party was not bound to arbitrate and transferred to jurisdiction of seat to compel arbitration, finding that a surety company’s liability is subordinate to that of the principal and thus is bound by the principle’s agreement to arbitrate.

  • General Re Life Corporation v. Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, No. 3:15-CV-01860-VAB (D. Conn. July 18, 2017)
    07/18/2017

    Court denied petition for reconsideration of the terms of its confirmation of arbitral award, finding that it did not have authority under the FAA to enter judgment for a sum certain when the award did not calculate the amount due thereunder.

  • Mason v. Regions Bank, No. 1:16-CV-01299-RP (W.D. Tex. July 18, 2017)
    07/18/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that an assignee may invoke the assignors right to compel arbitration.

  • Goulds Pumps, Inc. v. DXP Enterprises, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-07427-VSB (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2017)
    07/18/2017

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitral award, in light of parties’ agreement that award should be confirmed and the court’s “independent review” that all of the requirements of § 9 of the FAA were met.

  • Presta v. Omni Hotels Management Corporation, No. 4:17-CV-00912 (S.D. Tex. July 18, 2017)
    07/18/2017

    Court granted motion for partial summary judgment and denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement was illusory since it was subject to a savings clause that allowed the employer to unilaterally modify or revoke the agreement after a dispute had arisen but before a claim had been filed.

  • Cox v. Perfect Building Maintenance Corp., No. 1:16-cv-07474-VEC (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2017)
    07/18/2017

    Court granted motion to dismiss statutory employment discrimination claims, finding that prior arbitral award was res judicata on the matter, since the arbitration agreement expressly included statutory discrimination claims within its scope and such claims were in fact raised in the arbitration (even though they were not decided in the award).

  • Bechtel Infrastructure Corp. v. S & N Communications, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01221-LMM (N.D. Ga. July 18, 2017)
    07/18/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that defendant did not waive its right to arbitration, that arbitration provisions were not permissive but provided the parties with a choice to continue a dispute in arbitration, and the rights at issue fell within the arbitration provisions such that all the claims should go to arbitration.

  • National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA v. Beelman Truck Company, No. 1:17-CV-02946-VEC (S.D.N.Y. July 17, 2017)
    07/17/2017

    Court granted petition to select an umpire, finding that, in the absence of agreement among the party-appointed arbitrators as to who the umpire would be, the FAA and arbitration agreement empowered the court to appoint the umpire. 

  • Bamberger Rosenheim Ltd. v. OA Development, Inc., No. 16-16163 (11th Cir. July 17, 2017)
    07/17/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed district court’s confirmation of international arbitral award, finding that questions of arbitral venue are presumptively for the arbitrator to decide, and that the arbitrator arguably interpreted the arbitral-venue provision at issue.

  • Scheurer v. Fromm Family Foods LLC, No. 16-3327 (7th Cir. July 17, 2017)
    07/17/2017

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration, finding that third-party had no standing to invoke arbitration agreement under Wisconsin contract law doctrine of equitable estoppel.

  • Dlorah, Inc. v. KLE Construction, LLC, No. 5:16-CV-05102-JLV (D.S.D. July 17, 2017)
    07/17/2017

    Court granted motion to stay the case pending arbitration, finding that question of whether procedural prerequisites to arbitration had been met was for the arbitrator to decide, and that arbitration agreement was mandatory in nature notwithstanding the existence of procedural prerequisites.

  • Money Mailer LLC v. Brewer, No. 2:15-CV-01215-RSL (W.D. Wash. July 17, 2017)
    07/17/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that party had waived its rights under the arbitration agreement by initiating litigation through its alter ego.

  • Laschkewitsch v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company, No. 5:14-CV-00632-D (E.D.N.C. July 17, 2017)
    07/17/2017

    Court denied motion to reconsider prior order rejecting motion to modify or correct arbitration award, finding that it did not clearly err in concluding that an arbitration agreement existed and no recognized ground for enforcing the award existed under the FAA or common law.

  • Guzy v. Guzy, No. 1:17-CV-00228-RP (W.D. Tex. July 17, 2017)
    07/17/2017

    Court granted motion to dismiss petition to confirm arbitral award, finding that litigation and appeals on motion to vacate the award before the Nevada state courts did not toll statute of limitations to confirm award under the FAA, and that equitable tolling was unavailable since confirmation action could have been brought notwithstanding parallel litigation before the Nevada state courts.

  • McKee v. Audible, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-1941-GW-E (C.D. Cal. July 17, 2017)
    07/17/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration by one of defendants, holding that it had not demonstrated that a valid arbitration agreement existed between that defendant and the plaintiff, rejecting arguments that it could benefit from the arbitration agreement of its affiliate co-defendant.  However, court granted that co-defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, denying plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable as a contract of adhesion or substantively unconscionable because it permitted unilateral modification, contained certain carve-outs, prohibited public injunctive relief, and contained a class action waiver.  Court agreed that the agreement’s limit on liability was one-sided and arbitrary and thus substantively unconscionable, severing the offending provision. 

  • Olivares v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-06062-JLA (N.D. Ill. July 15, 2017)
    07/15/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff entered into valid and enforceable arbitration agreements, did not “opt out” of the arbitration provisions, and defendant’s delegation clause is clear and unmistakable evidence that plaintiff agreed to arbitrate threshold issues. 

  • Weiss v. Macy’s Retail Holdings Inc., No. 1:16-CV-07660-AKH (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2017)
    07/14/2017

    Court rejected motion to compel arbitration, finding that no binding arbitration agreement was formed as program that allowed employee to opt out of arbitration did not state or imply that acceptance of arbitration was a mandatory condition of employment, and thus employee’s silence was not acceptance of arbitration.

  • Carr v. Air Line Pilots Association, International, No. 16-20578 (5th Cir. July 14, 2017)
    07/14/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed summary judgment, holding the Air Line Pilots Association’s conduct in organizing arbitration did not lead to an erroneous outcome, and that there was no evidence that ex parte communications with arbitrator caused it to breach its duty of representation.  Court found that the final list created by arbitrators contained a full explanation of the factors considered. Court found that appellants failed to make a connection between unprofessional statements about the proceeding and bad faith. 

  • Mountain Valley Property, Inc. v. Applied Risk Services, Inc., No. 16-2189 (1st Cir. July 13, 2017)
    07/13/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed denial of motion to vacate arbitrator’s decision that the dispute was not arbitrable, finding that the arbitrator issued a well-reasoned award and therefore did not manifestly disregard the law in determining that, under the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 USC §§ 1011-1015, the Nebraska Uniform Arbitration Act reverse preempts the Federal Arbitration Act in matters of insurance, and the Nebraska Uniform Arbitration Act bans arbitration or insurance-related cases regardless of the parties’ intent.

  • Webb v. Farmers of North America, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00080-FJG (W.D. Mo. July 13, 2017)
    07/13/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that reference to AAA rules and broad arbitration clause evidenced a clear intent to submit questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

  • Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association v. Southwest Airlines Co., No. 3:15-CV-03642-L (N.D. Tex. July 13, 2017)
    07/13/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and rejected petition to vacate award, finding that the petitioner could rely on a previous award that the arbitrator had determined was inapplicable to the dispute. 

  • International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 15, AFL-CIO v. R.W. Dunteman, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00076-MFK (N.D. Ill. July 13, 2017)
    07/13/2017

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, vacated the arbitration award, and remanded for further arbitration proceedings.  Court held that although review of an award was extremely limited, the arbitrator’s award did not “draw its essence” from the construction agreement at issue.

  • In re Application of Barnwell Enterprises Ltd., No. 1:16–MC–02581-RC-GMH (D.D.C. July 13, 2017)
    07/13/2017

    Court granted petitioners’ application for expedited discovery pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 for use in litigation pending before courts in Uganda and Mauritius with court imposed time and subject-matter restrictions to alleviate the burdensomeness of the original requests.  Court determined that petitioners’ met the statutory requirements and that the four Intel factors weighed in favor of petitioners.

  • Franlogic Scout Development, LLC v. Scott Holdings, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-05042-JHS (E.D. Pa. July 12, 2017)
    07/12/2017

    Court denied petition to compel arbitration and granted motion to dismiss, finding that, although the subject matter of the dispute related to an agreement with an arbitration clause, the parties had agreed that another agreement without an arbitration clause would control in the event of conflict, and the pre-conditions for arbitration under the first agreement were in any event not met.

  • Unite Here International Union v. Shingle Springs Bank of Miwok Indians, No. 2:16-CV-00384-TLN-EFB (E.D. Cal. July 12, 2017)
    07/12/2017

    Court granted petitioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in action to compel arbitration, finding that an agreement to arbitrate “any disputes over the interpretation or application of” the operative agreement was sufficiently broad to require questions of arbitrability to be submitted to the arbitrator.

  • Powers Distributing Company, Inc. v. Grenzebach Corporation, No. 4:16-CV-12740-TGB-EAS (E.D. Mich. July 12, 2017)
    07/12/2017

    Court granted motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, finding that the plaintiff’s common law and other claims could not be maintained without reference to obligations whose scope is determined by contracts subject to arbitration.

  • McHale v. Taylored Services, LLC, No. 16-3196 (3d Cir. July 12, 2017)
    07/12/2017

    Court of appeal reversed district court’s modification of an arbitration award to grant appellee attorney’s fees.  Court held that under New Jersey law, absent an agreement by the parties to expand judicial review, a court could only modify an award if the arbitrator made an award on a claim not submitted to the arbitrator.  Court held that the arbitrator had reviewed the issues properly before it when it concluded that neither party prevailed more than the other to award attorney’s fees to appellee, and that, at most, the conclusion was an error of law unreviewable by the district court. 

  • Milestone Systems A/S v. On-Net Surveillance Systems, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-05724-JMF (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2017)
    07/12/2017

    Court confirmed two partial and final foreign arbitral awards in favor of petitioner and with the consent of the respondent. 

  • Sanum Investment Ltd. v. San Marco Capital Partners LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00320-SLR (D. Del. July 12, 2017)
    07/12/2017

    Court granted motion to dismiss, holding that defendants, as non-signatories to a deed, could enforce an arbitration clause therein against the signatory plaintiffs because the defendants had a sufficiently close relationship to the other executing party to the deed and all of the claims were intertwined with the deed.  Court also held the plaintiffs were estopped from avoiding arbitration with the non-signatories. 

  • Homeland Munitions LLC v. Purple Shovel, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-00207-DB (D. Utah July 12, 2017)
    07/12/2017

    Court granted motion for confirmation of a final arbitration award rendered by the International Institute of Conflict Prevention and Resolution as a judgment of the Court.  Court held that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate circumstances sufficient under § 10 of the FAA to vacate the award.

  • Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. IEC Corporation, No. 8:16-CV-00295-DOC-AJW (C.D. Cal. July 12, 2017)
    07/12/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that it was premature to determine plaintiff’s right to arbitrate counsel’s fee dispute at this time.  Court found that plaintiff may move to compel arbitration of fees upon a favorable ruling on the remaining substantive issues in dispute.

  • McHale v. Taylored Services, LLC, No. 16 -3196 (3d Cir. July 12, 2017)
    07/12/2017

    Court of appeals reversed district court’s modification adding attorney’s fees to an arbitration award, reasoning that a court has very limited authority to vacate or modify an arbitration award.

     

  • UBS Financial Services, Inc. v. Zimmerman, No. 5:16-CV-00155-FL (W.D.N.C. July 11, 2017)
    07/11/2017

    Court granted motion for permanent injunction requiring defendant to withdraw arbitration, finding that permitting an arbitration to proceed in the absence of an arbitration agreement would cause irreparable injury.

  • Big City Small World Bakery Café, LLC v. Francis David Corp., No. 16-CV-12652-DML (E.D. Mich. July 11, 2017)
    07/11/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, holding that the arbitration clause contained with plaintiff’s signed credit card merchant agreement was not unconscionable and therefore plaintiff must pursue its dispute in an arbitral forum.

  • Mobil Cerro Negro Ltd. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 15-707 (2d Cir. July 11, 2017)
    07/11/2017

    Court of appeal reversed an order denying respondent’s motion, vacated the judgment and remanded the case with instruction to dismiss the ex parte petition brought by petitioner to confirm a $1.6 billion ICSID award in accordance with the ICSID Convention.  Court held that the district court’s reliance on New York’s CPLR Art. 54, to import into 22 USC § 1650a a procedural mechanism by which to convert an arbitral award into a federal judgment and thereby exercise subject matter and personal jurisdiction over the foreign sovereign, was in error.  Court held that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) provides the sole basis for subject matter jurisdiction over foreign sovereigns and requires serving the sovereign with process in compliance with the FSIA and meeting venue requirements before seeking entry of a federal judgment, and that Section 1650a “mandates enforcement of ICSID awards in federal court through an action on the award and not through an ex parte order.”  

  • Davis v. BSH Home Appliances Corp., No. 4:15-CV-00103-FL (E.D.N.C. July 11, 2017)
    07/11/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to confirm arbitration award, holding there existed no basis to vacate, modify, or correct the arbitration award and plaintiff could not show that arbitration was improper.  

  • Creasy v. Seelbach and Co., Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00742-AAT (M.D. Tenn. July 11, 2017)
    07/11/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff did not challenge the validity or applicability of the agreement to arbitrate, and therefore, when presented with an issue that is referable to arbitration pursuant to a valid arbitration agreement, on the application of either party, the court must stay the suit and compel arbitration.

  • MacRury v. Am. Steamship Co., No. 1:16-CV-13889-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich. July 11, 2017)
    07/11/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay and compel arbitration.  Court, applying the sixth circuit’s four-factor test to determine if a case should be dismissed or stayed and arbitration compelled, held that because of the federal policy favoring arbitration, and the broad scope of the arbitration agreement, it would compel arbitration because the plaintiff’s complaint is either governed by the agreement as it relates to a preexisting injury or fails to state a claim because any injury was new.    

  • Coleman v. Sys. Dialing LLC, No. 1:15-CV-03868-DLC (S.D.N.Y. July 11, 2017)
    07/11/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute his claims.  Court held that FRCP 41(b) permits the court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute, even though the FAA requires that federal courts stay rather than dismiss a case when all claims are referred to arbitration and a stay is requested.  Court held that dismissal with prejudice was warranted in this case where the legal guardian of the plaintiff was on notice regarding his pattern of delay in commencing ordered arbitration proceedings, where no status letter had been received a year later, and where defendants had been substantially prejudiced. 

  • Privacy-Assured Inc. v. AccessData Corp., Ltd., No. 2:14-CV-00722-CW (D. Utah July 11, 2017)
    07/11/2017

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to join Access Data Group, Inc. as a judgment debtor with defendant pursuant to FRCP 21.  Court held that where the court’s original jurisdiction arose under the New York Convention and was limited to confirmation of a foreign arbitration award, the court’s federal question jurisdiction did not extend to joining another party as a judgment debtor under a theory of alter ego liability.  Court held it had independent diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC 1332(a)(2), which provides for alienage jurisdiction, and thus had broad discretion over whether to add a judgment debtor as an alter ego of defendant even after judgment had been entered, but to do so here would be inappropriate  because of concerns of due process, judicial economy and inconsistent judgments. 

  • Cho v. Mallon & McCool, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00453-KBJ (D.D.C. July 11, 2017)
    07/11/2017

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the case.  Court held that the D.C. Circuit requires a party’s request to stay proceedings referable to arbitration under § 3 of the FAA to be invoked at the first available opportunity or the right is presumptively forfeited; court also held that plaintiff had repeatedly acted inconsistently with the intent to exercise any right to arbitration that he may have possessed and in doing so plaintiff’s litigation activities had imposed substantial costs on the defendants and the court. 

  • Drayton v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, No. 3:16-CV-00046-BJD-JBT (M.D. Fla. July 11, 2016)
    07/11/2017

    Magistrate judge recommended (and court later adopted) that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration be denied because the contract between the parties did not contain an arbitration provision.  Additionally, defendant could not subscribe to an arbitration agreement in a related contract because, under Florida law, a non-party to an arbitration agreement cannot compel arbitration, and exceptions under equitable estoppel and the scope of the arbitration provision did not apply in the present case.

  • DDR Construction Services, Inc. v. Schlesinger Electrical Contractors, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-04454-DRH-ARL (E.D.N.Y. July 11, 2017)
    07/11/2017

    Court modified and confirmed an AAA arbitration award granting interest. Court found arbitrator exceeded his powers by granting an award including certain claims not submitted to arbitration. Court denied petition to vacate the award, but did vacate those portions of the claims outside the scope of arbitration, confirming a modified award.

  • Soskin v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., No. 17-CV-21663 (S.D. Fla. July 7, 2017)
    07/11/2017

    Court denied respondent’s motion for a pre-judgment bond against the petitioner in the amount awarded in arbitration proceedings.  Court found the respondent’s motion to be deficient because it presented no authority for why a security bond should be issued in connections with the facts present and because it made only conclusory allegations and vague references that the petitioner represents a substantial risk of prejudicing the full payment of the arbitration award.

  • Forby v. One Techs, LP, No. 3:16-CV-856-L (N.D. Tex. July 10, 2017)
    07/10/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case with prejudice.  Court held that there was no dispute over the existence of a valid arbitration clause and that the dispute fell within that clause.  Court further held that even though defendants substantially invoked the judicial process by seeking a decision on the merits before attempting to arbitrate and waiting nearly thirteen months after the transfer of the case to compel arbitration, plaintiff failed to establish she suffered sufficient prejudice from defendants’ actions to the extent required by existing precedent and Fifth Circuit authority.

  • Kutluca v. PQ New York Inc., No. 1:16-CV-03070-VSB (S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2017)
    07/10/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the plaintiff’s agreed to arbitrate by agreed to create accounts, and that the plaintiff’s statutory claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreements.

  • Portland Gen. Elec. Co. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., No. 16-35628 (9th Cir. July 10, 2017)
    07/10/2017

    Court of appeals vacated the judgment of the district court which had entered a preliminary injunction prohibiting the appellant sureties from pursuing claims against the plaintiff-appellee in arbitration and denied a mandatory stay of the judicial proceeding under § 3 of the FAA.  Circuit court held that the arbitration agreement incorporated the ICC Rules and thus constituted a clear and unmistakable delegation of gateway arbitrability issues to the arbitrator to determine the scope of the arbitration clause, and remanded to the district court for further proceedings.  

  • A. Kershaw, P.C. v. Shannon L. Spangler, P.C., No. 16-1483 (10th Cir. July 10, 2017)
    07/10/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed district court’s confirmation of an arbitration award, finding that petitioner-appellant had not satisfied the exceptional showing required to upset the finality of arbitration.  Court held that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers or so imperfectly execute them so as to create a ground for vacating the award under section 10(a) of the FAA.

  • Layne Winters v. AT & T Mobility Services, LLC, No. 4:17-CV-04053-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill. July 10, 2017)
    07/10/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that FAA governs federal courts’ treatment of litigants’ arbitration agreements and that Illinois contract law applied to plaintiff’s contention that she did not enter into the unambiguous electronic contract containing both an arbitration clause and an “opt-out” provision.  Court held plaintiff offered no evidence to suggest she had attempted to “opt out” and “in failing to do so, manifested her intent to be bound by the terms of the arbitration agreement, which must be enforced.”

  • Johnson & Johnson International v. Puerto Rico Hospital Supply, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01405-FAB (D.P.R. July 10, 2017)
    07/10/2017

    Court granted one defendant’s motion to compel arbitration but denied the other defendant’s, as the latter was neither a party to, nor a third-party beneficiary of, the agreement at issue.  Court held that there was a valid agreement that contained an arbitration provision, that only claims implicating the agreement are arbitrable, and that while one defendant is entitled to invoke the arbitration while the other was not, it was in the interest of justice to stay all claims pending arbitration.

  • Freeman v. Progress Residential Prop. Manager, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00356-GCH (S.D. Tex. July 10, 2017)
    07/10/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, holding that where one party has unilateral authority to terminate an arbitration agreement, under Texas law the agreement is unenforceable because it is “not supported by consideration and must be considered illusory.”  

  • Dennie v. Medimmune, Inc., No. 8:16-CV-03643-PX (D. Md. July 10, 2017)
    07/10/2017

    Court granted one defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the action.  Court held that the arbitration clause applied to the defendant who was a nonsignatory to the agreement and that the clause covered the conduct at issue in dispute.  Court concluded that as all the issues in the lawsuit were arbitrable, the FAA requires a court to stay judicial proceedings involving issues covered by written arbitration agreement. 

  • Kelleher v. Dream Catcher, L.L.C., No. 1:16-CV-02092-APM (D.D.C. July 10, 2017)
    07/10/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s prior opinion and order denying defendant’s motion to stay and compel arbitration.  Court held that defendant had forfeited its right to arbitrate plaintiff’s claims by waiting nearly six months to move for arbitration and not timely invoking its right to arbitrate at the earliest opportunity, which caused plaintiff to incur costs. 

  • Hargen-Rodriguez v. UBS Trust Co. of Puerto Rico, No. 3:16-CV-02340-FAB (D.P.R. July 7, 2017)
    07/07/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case without prejudice.  Court held defendants demonstrated the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, plaintiffs’ unelaborated conclusion that the arbitration clause is unconscionable was waived, and that plaintiffs’ claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreements.  Court dismissed the case under the first circuit’s holding that a court may dismiss rather than stay a case pursuant to § 3 of the FAA.

  • Getma International v. Republic of Guinea, No. 16-7087 (D.C. Cir. July 7, 2017)
    07/07/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed district court’s decision not to enforce an arbitral award that had been annulled by the Common Court of Justice and Arbitration of the Organization for the Harmonization of Business Law in Africa (CCJA).  Court determined that an annulled foreign award should only be enforced if the annulment was “repugnant to fundamental notions of what is decent and just,” and the alleged errors of law – including changes in fee schedules and an unsubstantiated allegation that there was a biased judge –  were insufficient to meet such a high bar.

  • Burch v. P.J. Cheese, Inc., No. 2:09-CV-01640-SLB (11th Cir. July 7, 2017)
    07/07/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed district court’s order compelling arbitration, finding that the specific procedures provided in § 4 of the FAA for “demanding a jury trial on arbitrability issues displace the general procedures for demanding a jury trial.”  Court noted that plaintiff had ample time and opportunity to proceed to trial and refused to create a bright line rule that the court loses authority to compel arbitration after some specified time. 

  • Lesneski v. Ross Stores, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00754-GCM (W.D.N.C. July 7, 2017)
    07/07/2017

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss or to compel arbitration by staying the judicial proceedings pending arbitration.  Court held that the dispute resolution agreement entered into by the parties was supported by adequate consideration and was not procedurally or substantively unconscionable and therefore directed the parties to proceed to arbitration.

  • TWC Administration LLC v. Cathey, No. 4:17-CV-00235-BCW (W.D. Mo. July 6, 2017)
    07/06/2017

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration, holding an arbitration clause the defendant had signed electronically was valid under Missouri law, and that enforcement of the arbitration clause would not harm defendant and that plaintiff would be irreparably harmed by further litigation. 

  • Adams v. Anytime Labor-Kansas LLC, No. 4:16-00448-CV-RK (W.D. Mo. July 6, 2017)
    07/06/2017

    Court had previously ordered plaintiffs to submit their claims to individual arbitration instead of class arbitration.  Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration asking the court, for the first time, to allow an arbitrator to determine whether the arbitration agreement allowed for class arbitration.  Court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration finding that plaintiffs had waived the argument of “who decides” by not raising it when defendant’s motion to compel arbitration was briefed.

  • Young v. Brahmbhatt, No. 8:15-CV-03290-PWG (D. Md. July 6, 2017)
    07/06/2017

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for default judgment confirming an arbitration award by a FINRA arbitration panel.  Because the defendant did not respond or demonstrate any basis for vacating the award, the court found that it had jurisdiction and cause to confirm the arbitration award.  Court also denied prejudgment interest on the non-compensatory components of the award, but found that, as a matter of law, plaintiff was entitled to post-judgment interest.

  • Bey v. Citi Health Card, No. 2:15-CV-06533-JHS (E.D. Pa. July 6, 2017)
    07/06/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, holding there was a valid arbitration agreement and that the dispute was within the agreement’s scope.

  • The Geo Group, Inc., v. United Government Security Officers of America International Union, No. 1:16-CV-02288-RBJ (D. Colo. July 6, 2017)
    07/06/2017

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate an arbitrator’s initial and supplemental awards.  Given the narrow standard for reviewing an arbitrator’s decision, the court held that the arbitrator’s awards “drew their essence” from the parties’ collective bargaining agreement and were valid.  Court granted defendant’s counterclaims and confirmed the arbitration awards.

  • Sempa Systems GmbH v. Wacker Polysilicon North America, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00348-CHS (E.D. Tenn. July 6, 2017)
    07/06/2017

    Magistrate judge granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration thereby ordering plaintiff to arbitrate its dispute.  Court held that the arbitration clause in the prime contract had been incorporated into the subcontract between the parties, and that defendant had not waived its right to arbitrate when it appeared in a Virginia court to assert that court’s lack of personal jurisdiction. 

  • TWC Administration LLC v. Cathey, No. 4:17-CV-00235-BCW (W.D. Mo. July 6, 2017)
    07/06/2017

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration and for a preliminary injunction to enjoin defendant from pursuing further litigation in any venue other than arbitration.  Court held that the defendant’s electronic acceptance of the arbitration agreement was valid and granted the right of Plaintiff to compel arbitration.

  • Unite Here Local 1 v. Hyatt Corporation, No. 15-3668 (7th Cir. July 6, 2017)
    07/06/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed district court’s judgment confirming two arbitration awards that instructed defendant to cease and desist from further violations of a collective bargaining agreement with the plaintiff.  Defendants argued that enforcement of such awards would constitute “prospective enforcement” effectively nullifying the parties’ agreement to arbitrate and inviting plaintiffs to bring all future disputes directly to the court by way of a contempt petition.  Court disagreed with defendants and found that there was no attempt on plaintiff’s part to bypass the arbitration process.

  • Burton Way Hotels, Ltd. v. Four Seasons Hotels Ltd. No. 2:11-CV-00303-PSG-PLA (C.D. Cal. July 5, 2017)
    07/05/2017

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and rendered moot defendant’s motion to appoint arbitrators.  Defendant asked the court to interpret the scope of an October 2016 ninth circuit ruling reversing part of a previous arbitration award’s confirmation.  Court, however, found that per the current arbitration agreement, “jurisdictional and arbitrability disputes” should be decided by the arbitral tribunal. 

  • Union de Tronquistas de Puerto Rico, Local 901 v. Cadillac Uniform & Linen Supply, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-01795-GAG (D.P.R. July 5, 2017)
    07/05/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, finding that plaintiff’s petition to vacate an arbitral award was meritless.  Plaintiff argued that the arbitral award should be vacated on the basis that the arbitrator erred in concluding plaintiff’s complaints were “not procedurally arbitrable” and by failing to provide a written decision of the judgment.  Court disagreed, noting that issues of “procedural arbitrability” were for the arbitrator to decide, not the court, and that the collective bargaining agreement in question did not require a more detailed judgment than the arbitrator had already issued.

  • Webb v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, No. 1:16-CV-04664 (N.D. Ill. July 5, 2017)
    07/05/2017

    Court granted defendant's motion to dismiss finding that the defendant was entitled to arbitral immunity.  Citing relevant case law, court found that defendant was “carrying out its normal administrative functions in support of an arbitration” and that it was therefore appropriate to extend arbitral immunity.  As a result, plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims against FINRA were dismissed with prejudice. 

  • Mawhinney v. American Airlines, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-00259-MMA-BLM (9th Cir. July 3, 2017)
    07/03/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed district court’s judgment denying Mawhinney’s petition to vacate an arbitration award and instead granted American Airlines’ petition to confirm the award.  Court agreed with the lower court’s finding that Mawhinney’s allegations of arbitrator misconduct and disagreements with the arbitration process and results were not sufficient to establish any of the statutory grounds for vacating an arbitral award under the FAA.

  • Zetor North America, Inc. v. Ridgeway Enterprises, No. 16-2125 (5th Cir. July 3, 2017)
    07/03/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed lower court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  A 2008 trademark infringement settlement agreement between the parties contained an arbitration clause, which defendant sought to enforce in the current case.  However, the court found that the trademark infringement claims in the present case were independent of the claims covered by the 2008 settlement agreement and therefore did not fall under the scope of that agreement’s arbitration clause. 

  • TravelPass Group, LLC v. Benjamin & Brothers, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-00247-JNP-PMW (D. Utah July 3, 2017)
    07/03/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay litigation pending the outcome of arbitration between plaintiff and Expedia, a non-party to the present case.  Citing relevant case law, the court noted that a motion to stay is appropriate where a closely related arbitration has the potential to resolve all or a significant portion of the disputes before the court, “even if the moving party is a nonsignatory to the arbitration agreement” or party to the pending arbitration.  Court concluded that the TravelPass-Expedia arbitration would likely resolve several of TravelPass’s claims and, in the interest of judicial economy and avoiding inconsistent results, stayed the present litigation.

  • Capili v. The Finish Line, Inc., No. 15-16657 (9th Cir. Jul. 3, 2017)
    07/03/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed the district court decision denying defendant-appellant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that the district court properly concluded that the arbitration agreement was adhesive, or at least minimally procedurally unconscionable, and that it did not abuse its discretion by declining to sever the unconscionable portions of the arbitration agreement.  Court explained that, although the FAA articulates a preference for the enforcement of arbitration agreements, employers may not “stack the deck unconscionably in their favor to discourage claims” and then force the court to “assume the role of contract author rather than interpreter.”

  • Clicksoftware, Inc. v. Honeywell International Inc., No. 1:16-CV-12522-NMG (D. Mass. June 30, 2017)
    06/30/2017

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration in Massachusetts, but denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in New York.  Court held that, even though two contracts (one calling for arbitration in Massachusetts and the other calling for arbitration in New York) “apparently arose out of the same set of negotiations,” they were still separate and independent because neither contract incorporated or referenced the other.  Therefore, given that the dispute at issue arose out of the contract calling for arbitration in Massachusetts, arbitration should take place in Massachusetts.

  • Perkins v. Dish Network, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-02039 (S.D.W. Va. June 30, 2017)
    06/30/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the plaintiff’s employment contract contained a valid arbitration clause.  According to the court, there were no problems of validity or unconscionability with the arbitration agreement and, therefore, the plaintiff’s claim concerning racial and gender discrimination in the course of her employment was arbitrable.  Court also noted that the NLRB’s finding that the arbitration agreement violated the National Labor Relations Act had no impact on the court’s decision.

  • Lovelance v. Dekra N. Am. Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00318-BR (D. Or. June 30, 2017)
    06/30/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the matter without prejudice.  Court held that the arbitration agreement was indisputably signed by the parties, that plaintiff was a sophisticated employee who negotiated the terms of her employment,  and that the agreement was neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable under Oregon law as plaintiff asserted. 

  • Reliable Energy Solutions v. Amalfi Apartment Corporation, No. 4:16-CV-03346 (S.D. Tex. June 30, 2017)
    06/30/2017

    Magistrate judge recommended granting the motion to compel arbitration and staying proceedings pending completion of arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  The judge found that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate because, although respondent was not a signatory to the agreement, it was an intended third-party beneficiary and the court found the parties intended to be bound by the agreement.  Court concluded the quantum meruit and unjust enrichment claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • Ultra Lane Management v. McKellar, No. 9:17-CV-00076-RC (E.D. Tex. June 30, 2017)
    06/30/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims.  Court held that dismissal was proper as plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of a valid arbitration clause and no federal statute or policy rendered plaintiff’s claims non-arbitrable.

  • In re Ex Parte Application of the Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, No. 1:15-MC-08232-EJL-REB (D. Idaho. June 30, 2017)
    06/30/2017

    Court granted motion to quash subpoena issued pursuant to 28 USC § 1782.  Court concluded that the criminal investigation did not constitute a proceeding before a foreign tribunal, although the two bilateral treaty arbitrations did qualify.  However, court found based on the updated record that the requested discovery would likely not be permitted in the bilateral treaty arbitrations.

  • Opie v. CVS Health Corporation, No. 1:16-CV-00159-SPW-TJC (D. Mont. June 30, 2017)
    06/30/2017

    Court recommended defendant’s motion to compel arbitration be granted in a wrongful termination and age discrimination suit, pursuant to defendant’s binding arbitration policy.  To implement the policy, defendant invited all employees to take an online training course and provided information about opt-out election.  Court found that the plaintiff acknowledged receipt of the arbitration agreement and did not opt-out within the thirty day period for doing so.

  • De Alba v. Brinker International, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-03486-FMO-JC (C.D. Cal. June 30, 2017)
    06/30/2017

    Court granted the motion to compel arbitration. Court concluded that, while the three arbitration agreements amounted to adhesion contracts, there was no other indication of oppression or surprise so the degree of procedural unconscionability was low. Court also concluded that the 2006 iteration of the arbitration agreement was not substantively unconscionable because it did not require plaintiffs to incur any type of expense other than may similarly be paid in court, and that the cost-splitting provisions in the 2008 and 2011 agreements could be severed from the arbitration agreement if those provisions were determined to be unconscionable.

  • Hunt v. Moore Brothers, Inc., No. 16-2055 (7th Cir. June 29, 2017)
    06/29/2017

    Court of appeals affirmed district court order of sanctions under 28 USC § 1927 and dismissing action without prejudice, holding that the arbitration agreement was enforceable and that it was within the district court’s discretion to impose a sanction for the lawyer’s role in seeking to avoid arbitration and multiplying “the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously.”  Court also held that leaving for later negotiations the selection of the arbitrator did not render the arbitration agreement unenforceable.

  • Drury-Jenkins v. Regency Furniture of Brandywine, Inc., No. 8:16-CV-03066-TDC (D. Md. June 29, 2017)
    06/29/2017

    Court granted in part and denied in part motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration agreement reserved questions of arbitrability for the arbitrator.  Court also found that the question of whether an appeal provision rendered the agreement unenforceable was a question of arbitrability reserved for the arbitrator.

  • Horne v. Starbucks Corp., No. 2:16-CV-02727-MCE-CKD (E.D. Cal. June 29, 2017)
    06/29/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration agreement was not unenforceable and substantively unconscionable by virtue of the provisions on discovery.  Court found that plaintiff was not limited to two depositions under the arbitration agreement, but could take as many depositions as desired within two eight-hour days, and distinguished other cases finding unconscionable discovery limitations in an arbitration agreement.  Court also found that, should additional discovery be required, the arbitrator was empowered to issue such an order.

  • Matos v. Coggin Automotive Corp., No. 3:16-CV-00956-BJD-PDB (M.D. Fla. Jun. 29, 2017)
    06/29/2017

    Court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to grant defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Magistrate judge had determined that, under the FAA, if there is no challenge to whether an agreement was concluded, whether it was enforceable, and whether it was broad enough to cover the claims plaintiff brings, then the court must “rigorously” enforce the parties’ agreement to arbitrate.

  • Wussow v. Bruker Corp., No. 3:16-CV-00444-WMC (W.D. Wis. June 28, 2017)
    06/28/2017

    Court granted in part and denied in part motion to compel arbitration, holding that the Dodd-Frank retaliation claim was arbitrable, but that the SOX retaliation claim was not arbitrable and should proceed in parallel judicial proceedings.  Court found that, while both statutes addressed retaliation for whistleblowing, the text and structure of Dodd-Frank compelled the conclusion that these claims were not exempt from arbitration agreements, while the SOX Anti-Arbitration Provision expressly exempted SOX retaliation claims from arbitration.  Court found that, despite criticism, Congress had not chosen to address this inconsistency by expressly expanding the SOX Anti-Arbitration Provision to Dodd-Frank whistleblower claims.  

  • Mounts v. Midland Funding LLC, No. 3:15-CV-00572-TAV-HBG (E.D. Tenn. June 28, 2017)
    06/28/2017

    Court granted in part and denied in part motion to compel arbitration, holding that parties had agreed to arbitrate claims under the terms of their credit card agreements, and that questions as to arbitrability of certain claims were delegated to the arbitrator.  Court found that, by referencing the AAA and NAF rules, the parties had clearly and unmistakably delegated issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator.  Court found that § 4 of the FAA and its notice requirements did not apply to cases where the plaintiff has already brought an action in court; instead, § 3 of the FAA, which did not have a notice requirement, applied. 

  • Dome Technology, LLC v. Golden Sands General Contractors, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00069-GEC (W.D. Va. June 28, 2017)
    06/28/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the merger and forum selection clauses in a later agreement between the parties did not supersede the original agreement’s arbitration clause.  Court reasoned that, under Virginia law, the two contracts should be “harmonize[d]” to give “effect to each when reasonably possible,” and concluded that there was a valid arbitration agreement whose scope covered the dispute in question. 

  • The University of Notre Dame (USA) in England v. TJAC Waterloo, LLC, No. 16-1397 (1st Cir. June 28, 2017)
    06/28/2017

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s determination that the arbitrator’s decision on liability was final and that a contractor was bound as a party to the arbitration agreement. Court held, that under the FAA, a bifurcated decision on liability could be treated as final where the parties agreed to treat liability and damages separately. Court found that the parties had so informally agreed, and that the law was no different under the New York Convention. Court also found that neither party had objected when the arbitrator described the conclusions on liability as “binding,” that the contract referred to contractor as one of the three parties, and that the contractor had behaved as a party by participating in arbitral proceedings.

  • Bailey v. Affinitylifestyles.com, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-02684-JAD-VCF (D. Nev. June 28, 2017)
    06/28/2017

    Court granted motion to stay all pre-trial obligations, including discovery, pending a decision on a motion to compel arbitration, holding that the risk that a stay would cause prejudice to the parties and to case administration did not outweigh the serious and irreparable prejudice, including the loss of advantages of arbitration from the failure to grant a stay.  Court found that continued discovery would involve considerable expense.

  • GGNSC Frankfort, LLC v. Moore, No. 3:17-CV-00045-GFVT (E.D. Ky. June 28, 2017)
    06/28/2017

    Court denied motion to dismiss and granted in part and denied in part motion to compel arbitration, holding that a binding arbitration agreement covered all disputes except for the wrongful death claim. Court found that power of attorney authorized plaintiff to enter into binding arbitration agreements and that pre-printed nature of the arbitration agreement was insufficient to render it unconscionable. Court also found that estate was not a party to the arbitration agreement, and thus the estate’s wrongful death claim was not within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • Levy v. Lytx, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-03090-BAS-BGS (S.D. Ca. June 28, 2017)
    06/28/2017

    Court granted in part and denied in part motion to compel individual arbitration and dismiss class claims, holding that the arbitration agreement’s reference to the AAA arbitration rules clearly and unmistakably evidence the parties’ intention to delegate the question of availability of class proceedings to the arbitrator. Court found that, by agreeing to resolve disputes according to AAA rules, parties also agreed to follow the supplementary rules, which delegate the question of class arbitration to the arbitrator.

  • Dome Technology, LLC v. Golden Sands General Contractors, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00069-GEC (W.D. Va. June 28, 2017)
    06/28/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration clause was not superseded by a later agreement between the parties, and that the payment dispute was sufficiently related to the agreement so as to bring it within the scope of the arbitration clause. Court found that neither the merger clause, nor the forum selection clause, nor any other provision of a subsequent agreement between the parties indicated the intent to supersede or repudiate the prior arbitration agreement. Court also found that the arbitration clause extended to “[a]ny dispute, claim, or controversy arising … out of or relating to” the interpretation, construction, performance, breach, or enforcement of the contract, and that this embraced every dispute between the parties having a significant relationship to the contract.

  • Dowton v. Equity Lifestyle Properties, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00659-KM (M.D. Pa. June 28, 2017)
    06/28/2017

    Court granted in part and denied in part motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration clause was valid and binding, and applied to the plaintiff’s claims, but that parties had thirty days to conduct limited discovery on whether plaintiff intended to be bound by the arbitration clause, when she had not signed the agreement but had paid related fees due. Court found that the arbitration clause applied to “[a]ny dispute or claim arising out of [the] [a]greement,” which would include any tort claims. Court found that contract pertained to voluntary recreational activities and was thus not a contract of adhesion, but further evidence was required on arbitrability.

  • Matoza v. Thor Industries, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01971-MMC (N.D. Ca. June 28, 2017)
    06/28/2017

    Court denied without prejudice motion to dismiss, holding that that the court cannot ordinarily resolve an evidentiary dispute on a motion to dismiss, and that the filing of a petition to compel arbitration was required, where parties disputed the existence of a binding arbitration agreement. Court found that there was disputed evidence as to whether an arbitration agreement bound the parties.

  • Sanford v. Bracewell LLP, No. 2:13-CV-01205-JHS (E.D. Pa. June 27, 2017)
    06/27/2017

    Court withheld ruling on motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiffs should have the opportunity to return to arbitration and pay the associated fees. Court found that plaintiffs continued to violate a prior order that they produce financial documentation to demonstrate their claimed inability to afford the cost of arbitration, as partial tax returns, partial bank statements, and a list of properties owned were insufficient to show this. Court found that this failure to comply had prejudiced defendants by imposing excessive and irremediable costs, and that plaintiffs had acted in bad faith.

  • Personacare of Reading, Inc. v. Lengel, No. 5:16-CV-01965-JLS (E.D. Pa. June 27, 2017)
    06/27/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, ordered survival claims in the state court matter proceed to arbitration, and stayed pending state court proceedings, holding that the arbitrator could proceed on arbitrable claims, bifurcated from non-arbitrable claims, even where the agreement provided for arbitration of “all disputes.” Court found that the arbitration agreement’s provision that a third party service “may” conduct the arbitration, unless the parties chose not to select them, did not amount to fraud.

  • Cochrane v. Open Text Corporation, No. 15-16322 (9th Cir. June 27, 2017)
    06/27/2017

    Court affirmed district court order confirming arbitral award, holding that the district court had correctly determined that parties had agreed to arbitrate arbitrability, and that neither the arbitrator’s determination that he had jurisdiction to determine the amount of compensation nor the determination of the amount was completely irrational or exhibited a manifest disregard of the law. Court found that parties had designated the arbitrator to determine arbitrability by incorporating the AAA’s Rules into the employment agreement. Court found that the arbitrator’s decisions derived from the language of the contracts and representations made by the parties.

  • Conde v. Open Door Marketing, LLC., No. 4:15-CV-04080-KAW (N.D. Ca. April 27, 2017)
    06/27/2017

    Court granted motion to deny class certification as to individuals who had not signed the arbitration agreement, denied motion to deny class certification with respect to individuals who had signed the agreement, and granted in part and denied in part motion to expand collective action to include individuals who signed a later arbitration agreement with a class action waiver clause. Court found that because some plaintiffs did not sign the arbitration agreement, they had no interest in its enforceability, and could not satisfy the typicality requirement of class certification. Court found that co-defendants who had not signed the arbitration agreement lacked an interest to enforce or rely on such agreement. Court found that the fact that some class members had signed arbitration agreements with class action waivers did not preclude conditional certification under the lenient standard at this point of litigation.

  • Garcia v. Kakish, No. 1:17-CV-00374-JLT (E.D. Cal. June 27, 2017)
    06/27/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that parties agreed to arbitration and that the claims are factually and legally intertwined with the contract containing the arbitration provision.  Court found that the arbitration agreement did not contain a waiver of the right to seek public injunctive relief, but left the interpretation and scope of the agreement to the arbitrator.  Court also found that the procedural unconscionability of the arbitrator selection clause, which provided for one party’s approval of the arbitral body, did not permeate the entire agreement.   Further, the non-signatory plaintiff’s claims were intimately founded in and intertwined with the signatory plaintiff’s claims, and thus subject to arbitration.

  • Leonard v. Delaware North Companies Sport Service, Inc., No. 16-3246 (8th Cir. June 27, 2017)
    06/27/2017

    Court of appeals affirmed district court order compelling arbitration and dismissing case without prejudice, holding that the arbitration agreement was valid and not unconscionable.  Court found that plaintiff’s contract was easily understood, negotiable, and did not threaten basic necessities.  Court also found that the language “any dispute arising from the Activity” in the arbitration agreement covered the underlying factual allegations.

  • Alexander Dubose Jefferson & Townsend LLP v. Vance, No. 1:17-CV-00133-RP (W.D. Tex. June 27, 2017)
    06/27/2017

    Court denied motion for reconsideration of denial of motion to compel arbitration, holding that the motion provided no newly discovered evidence and therefore did not meet the standard required under FRCP rules 54(b) and 59(e).  Court found that the declarations regarding conversations that took place in 2016 did not constitute newly discovered evidence.

  • Aviation Alliance Insurance Risk Retention Group, Inc. v. Polaris Enterprise Group, Inc., No. 9:17-CV-00035-DWM (D. Mont. June 27, 2017)
     
    06/27/2017

    Court granted in part and denied in part motion to compel arbitration, holding that, to the extent that plaintiff’s claims arose under a terminated contract, they remained subject to a “zombie” arbitration provision post-expiration.  Court found nothing in the agreement indicating intent to eliminate the duty to arbitrate as of the date of the agreement’s termination.

  • Hebbronville Lone Star Rentals, LLC, v. Sunbelt Rentals Industrial Services, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00856-RP (W.D. Tex. June 27, 2017)
    06/27/2017

    Court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and findings that the court should vacate the portion of the arbitration award reforming an agreement between the parties on the basis of mutual mistake.  Court held defendants’ objections did not raise any arguments not considered by the magistrate judge and that plaintiffs’ motion for vacatur was granted.  

  • Cochrane v. Open Text Corporation, No. 3:15-CV-01234-WHA (9th Cir. June 27, 2017)
    06/27/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed district court’s judgment confirming an arbitration award.  Court agreed with the lower court’s finding that the parties, through their employment agreement and its incorporation of AAA rules, had agreed to arbitrate the issue of arbitrability.   Moreover, the court found that neither the arbitrator’s determinations as to jurisdiction or amount of compensation were “completely irrational or exhibit[ed] a manifest disregard of the law” and therefore the arbitral award should be upheld.

  • In re application of EISER Infrastructure Ltd. for Recognition and Enforcement of an Arbitration Award against Kingdom of Spain, No. 1:17-CV-03808-LAK (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2017)
    06/26/2017

    Court recognized and entered as a judgment the arbitral award, and ordered that Spain pay to petitioners the award amount of $128 million Euro plus interest, holding that petitioners had complied with the requirements under New York CPLR §§ 5401 et seq., for recognition of judgments entitled to full faith and credit.

  • Applebaum v. Lyft, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-07062-JGK (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2017)
    06/26/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that, by clicking “I accept” on the terms of service in a subsequent agreement, where the terms were expressly presented as a legally binding agreement, the plaintiff assented to the arbitration clause.  Court found that, regarding an earlier agreement, a reasonably prudent consumer would not have been on inquiry notice of the terms of service, as the text was small and difficult to read, and would not lead a reasonable consumer to understand that it hyperlinked to a contract. 

  • Thompson v. AT&T Mobility Services LLC, No. 5:17-CV-139-FL (E.D.N.C. June 26, 2017)
    06/26/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that plaintiff had agreed to arbitrate “any claim that [she] may have against [defendants]”, and that all of plaintiff’s claims were arbitrable.

  • In re Document Technologies Litigation, No. 1:17-CV-02405-JSR (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2017)
    06/26/2017

    Court explained its reasons for an earlier bench order granting defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Plaintiff argued that defendants had waived their right to arbitration because they unreasonably delayed filing a motion to compel arbitration, engaged in protracted discovery, and “evidenced a preference for litigation.”  In rejecting those arguments, court held that defendants had filed their motions to compel arbitration shortly after plaintiff filed its suit and that they had not waived their right to arbitration.  Court also denied a co-defendant’s motion to compel arbitration because it was not a signatory to the arbitration agreements and did not have the requisite “close relationship” with the parties to allow it to compel arbitration.

  • Carlton Energy Group, LLC v. Cliveden Petroleum Co. Ltd., No. 4:13-CV-00095 (S.D. Tex. June 23, 2017)
    06/23/2017

    Court recommended that non-signatory defendants’ suggestion of mootness and motion to stay pending arbitration be granted, holding that non-signatory defendants submitted to the jurisdiction of the arbitrators in Texas pursuant to the arbitration provision, and accordingly to the Texas court’s jurisdiction, by stipulating that they were proper parties to the arbitration.  Court found that this implied consent extended to any post-arbitration enforcement action. Court found that to determine issues beyond this question would constitute a decision on the merits and exceed the court’s authority, and these must be decided by the arbitrator.

  • Storagecraft Technology Corp. v. Storagecraft UK, No. 2.13-CV-01005-DN (D. Utah June 23, 2017)
    06/23/2017

    Court granted unopposed petition to confirm arbitration award, finding that parties had agreed to submit to arbitration any dispute, controversy, or claim arising out of, relating to, or in connection with the contract or the subject thereof, and that the final ICDR award had not been modified, corrected, or vacated.

  • Caribbean Bottlers (Trinidad & Tobago) Limited v. Alexander, Norona, & Expedient Ship Chandler of Panama, S.A., No. 1:17-CV-21740-UU (S.D. Fla. June 23, 2017)
    06/23/2017

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award rendered by the American Arbitration Association pursuant to the §9 of the FAA.

  • Information Systems Audit and Control Association, Inc. v. Telecommunications Systems, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-02066 (N.D. Ill. June 23, 2017)
    06/23/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and denied dismissal of the complaint, holding that arbitrability was an issue for the arbitrator, and claims fell within the scope of the arbitration clause, notwithstanding the equitable relief sought.  Court found that the arbitration clause incorporated the AAA’s Commercial Arbitration Rules, which expressly provide that an arbitrator will adjudicate on arbitrability.  Court also found that the equitable nature of the relief sought did not alter the fact that plaintiff’s breach of contract claims went to the heart of the arbitration clause’s subject matter.

  • TK Services, Inc. v. RWD Consulting, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-01152-ABJ (D.D.C. June 23, 2017)
    06/23/2017

    Court granted motion compel arbitration and dismiss complaint, and denied as moot the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction in aid of arbitration. Court found that the arbitration clause was broad, covering “[a]ny controversy or claim between the [parties] arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, including any claim concerning an alleged breach,” which thus included claims for injunctive relief.  Court also found that plaintiff had not shown risk of irreparable harm and had not shown that the integrity of the arbitration was at risk or that defendants will be unable to fund an award.

  • Burcham v. Ford Motor Credit Company, LLC., No. 3:16-CV-00943-DRH (S.D. Ill June 23, 2017)
    06/23/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the delegation clause in the arbitration agreement rendered the issue of whether the claim was within the scope of the arbitration agreement one for the arbitrator to decide.  Court found that the delegation clause was unambiguous, requiring parties to arbitrate “[c]laims regarding the interpretation, scope, or validity of [the arbitration] clause, or arbitrability of any issue.”

  • DataStrait Networks, Inc. v. S2 Security Corp., No. 0:17-CV-01355-DWF-FLN (D. Minn. June 23, 2017)
    06/23/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and denied motion to dismiss, holding that whether the dispute was covered by the arbitration agreement was an issue for the arbitrator.  Court found that the arbitration agreement provided that the arbitrator will decide “any disputes or questions arising hereunder, including the construction or application of this Agreement,” and incorporated by reference the AAA rules, which provide that an arbitrator determines whether a dispute falls within an arbitration agreement.

  • Clos la Chance Wines, Inc. V. AV Brands, Inc., No. 5 :16-CV-04047-EJD (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2017)
    06/23/2017

    Court granted application for order to confirm arbitral award and enter judgment, holding (i) the arbitrator did not exceed his powers or manifestly disregard the law by awarding damages for time and costs associated with capturing market share; and (ii) the respondent has not shown the final arbitration award was procured through undue means or fraud.  Court found arbitrator’s finding on damages for loss of market position, as a “natural and necessary” consequence of respondent’s breach, was not something that could be overturned and was based on the arbitrator’s consideration of concrete evidence.  Court also found it had no authority to re-weigh the evidence before the arbitrator, and that petitioner had cited no evidence demonstrating fraud on the part of petitioner or its expert.

  • Alvarez v. National Debt Relief, LLC, 1:16-CV-04156-CM (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2017)
    06/23/2017

  • In re Application of Hulley Enterprises Ltd., Yukos Universal Ltd., and Veteran Petroleum Ltd., No. 1:17-MC-01466-BAH (D.D.C. June 23, 2017)
    06/23/2017

    Court denied petitioners’ ex parte application to issue subpoenas pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 to conduct discovery for use in a foreign proceeding, finding notice to recipients would streamline the proceedings and an order to show cause was appropriate given the likelihood of privileged material at issue.  Court denied petitioners’ request for waiver of notice requirements for related cases, concluding that even if there was a reasonable concern that notification would result in spoliation of evidence, the risk would not be meaningfully mitigated by suspending immediate notice since petitioners would have to provide notice when issuing subpoenas.  Shearman & Sterling is counsel for the petitioners in connection with this case.

  • In re Application of Hulley Enterprises Ltd., Yukos Universal Ltd., and Veteran Petroleum Ltd., No. 2:17-MC-00088-UA-E (C.D. Cal. June 22, 2017)
    06/22/2017

    Court granted petitioners’ application for an ex parte order pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 to conduct discovery for use in a foreign proceeding.  Shearman & Sterling is counsel for the petitioners in connection with this case.

  • AGCS Marine Insurance Company v. Hymel & Associates, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-06899 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2017)
    06/22/2017

    Court granted in part and denied in part petition to compel arbitration, holding that the agreement to arbitrate was effective as to Mr. Hymel, but not with respect to Hymel & Associates (“H&A”).  Court found that H&A had not signed the insurance application containing the arbitration clause, and petitioners had not demonstrated a valid basis to compel H&A to attend arbitration.  Court found that the arbitration agreement did not require an insured non-party to the agreement to arbitrate, requiring only that “the parties hereto” submit to arbitration.  Court found no indication that Mr. Hymel signed the application as an agent for H&A.  Court declined to find that a choice of law clause served to limit the application of the arbitration clause to instances where New York law applied.

  • Pompeo v. AD Astra Recovery Services, Inc., No 1:16-cv-01371-MCA-KK (D.N.M. June 22, 2017)
    06/22/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration agreement was binding and encompassed plaintiff’s claims.  Court found that the binding arbitration agreement defined “claim” broadly, and was not on its face faulty because it is illusory, unconscionable, or otherwise invalid.

  • Trustees for the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Annuity Fund, and Training Program Fund v. Super, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-06387-PKC (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2017)
    06/22/2017

    Court granted petitioners’ motion to confirm the arbitral award pursuant to the FAA, the Labor Management Relations Act, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.  Court found there was no genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment confirming the award.

  • Kane International Corp. v. US Polymers-Accurez LLC, No. 4:17-CV-01625-RLW (E.D. Mo. June 21, 2017)
    06/21/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the parties had agreed to arbitrate and that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration clause.  Court found that defendants had previously relied on the arbitration agreement, in responding to the application for a temporary restraining order, and that any dispute regarding the scope of the arbitration provision was for the arbitrator to resolve.

  • Hobzek v. Homeaway.com, Inc., No. 17-50144 (5th Cir. June 21, 2017)
    06/21/2017

    Circuit court per curiam dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.  Court held that the district court’s order compelling arbitration was not a final appealable order over which the court had jurisdiction as the case was stayed pending a decision by the arbitrator.

  • Maxson v. Beazer Homes Holdings Corp., No. 8:17-CV-00583-DOC-AFM (C.D. Cal. June 21, 2017)
    06/21/2017

    Court granted the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court concluded that defendant’s “multistate nature” was sufficient for it to find that the FAA applied to the agreement. Court also concluded that, although there was a modest level of procedural unconscionability because the agreement was a contract of adhesion, plaintiff failed to establish substantive unconscionability and therefore the agreement was not unconscionable.

  • GGNSC Louisville St. Matthews, LLC v. Badgett, No. 3:17-CV-00188-TBR (W.D. Ky. July 20, 2017)
    06/20/2017

    Court denied petition to compel arbitration, finding that a respondent who signed an arbitration agreement upon admission to one nursing home but later disclaimed an identical agreement upon admission to another nursing home owned by the same parent company had novated the contract and was not bound to arbitrate.

  • Webco Industries, Inc. v. Texas Tubular Products, Inc., No. 4:15-CV-00704-JED-FHM (N.D. Okla. June 20, 2016)
    06/20/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Pursuant to the FAA, court found a valid agreement to arbitrate and determined that the subject matter of the dispute fell within the scope of the agreement.

  • Al Azzawi v. International Centre for Dispute Resolution Organization, Kellogg Brown and Roots Services, Inc., No. 16-3965 (2d Cir. June 20, 2017)
    06/20/2017

    Court of appeal granted appellees’ motions for summary affirmance of the district court’s ruling that plaintiff lacked standing to assert claims of an alleged violation of the ICDR Arbitration Ruels in an underlying arbitration and dismissed the appeal as lacking “an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”

  • Optimum Laboratory Services LLC v. East El Paso Physicians’ Medical Center, LLC, No.  5:17-CV-00411-R (W.D. Okla. June 20, 2017)
    06/20/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Pursuant to the FAA, court found the delegation provision in the arbitration agreement was clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to arbitrate issues of arbitrability, and under state contract law, the court found the clause valid and enforceable.

  • Sentry Select Insurance Company v. Ruiz, No. 3:16-CV-00376-DCG (W.D. Tex. June 20, 2017)
    06/20/2017

    Court granted and denied in part motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate and found no evidence of a federal statute or policy that rendered the claims nonarbitrable.  Court found counterclaims against plaintiff were not subject to arbitration, but stayed proceedings as to those claims pending arbitration.

  • JPay Inc. v. Salim, No. 1:16-CV-20107-DLG (S.D. Fla. June 20, 2017)
    06/20/2017

    Court affirmed a AAA arbitration award and denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate. Court disagreed with plaintiff’s argument that a determination on class arbitration exceeded the arbitrator’s powers.

  • Taylor v. Pilot Corporation, Pilot Travel Centers LLC, No. 16-5326 (6th Cir. June 19, 2017)
    06/19/2017

    Court of appeal denied defendants’ interlocutory appeal, finding that the FAA did not provide jurisdiction to resolve the class certification issue because it was not a final judgment on the merits.  Court found defendants’ jurisdictional arguments under the FAA to be unpersuasive, concluding that §16(a)(1)(A) of the FAA only granted the court authority to consider the denial of stay and that §16(a)(1)(B) only applied to a petition to compel arbitration, which was not present here.  Court held it had jurisdiction only over the denial of the request for stay, but affirmed the district court’s decision to deny the request pursuant to the FAA, finding the request premature.

  • Steinmann v. ZTE Corporation, ZTE (USA) Inc., No. 16-55109 (9th Cir. June 19, 2017)
    06/19/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed district court’s confirmation of an ICDR award, holding that plaintiffs’ waived their right to challenge the award because plaintiffs’ neglected to request a clarification or correction from the arbitrator when the issue arose, and thus waived their right to do so pursuant to Article 25 of the ICDR Arbitration Rules.

  • Amos v. Lincoln Property Company, No. 3:17-CV-00037 (M.D. Tenn. June 19, 2017)
    06/19/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pursuant to the FAA.  Court found there was no valid agreement to arbitrate that would bind the plaintiff as there was no evidence she was ever informed that her acceptance of an arbitration agreement was a condition of employment.

  • Mahanandigari & Mahanandigari v. Tata Consultancy Services, No. 2:16-CV-08746-JLL-SCM (D.N.J. June 19, 2017)
    06/19/2017

    Court granted motion to dismiss and compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding a valid agreement to arbitrate and concluding the employment dispute fell within the scope of the agreement. 

  • Arctic Glavier U.S.A., Inc., v. Principal Life Insurance Company, No. 8:16-CV-03555-PX (D. Md. June 19, 2017)
    06/19/2017

    Court transferred the petition to compel arbitration to the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska pursuant to the arbitration clause in the agreement.  Court found jurisdiction pursuant to the FAA and concluded the petitioners had standing to enforce the arbitration agreement.  While court held it had diversity jurisdiction, it  found venue was improper based on the forum selection clause in the agreement pursuant to § 4 of the FAA.

  • Marchand v. Northrop Grumman Corporation, No. 5:16-CV-06825-BLF (N.D. Cal. June 19, 2017)
     
    06/19/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration of all non-Title VII claims and stayed the case pending outcome of arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement enforceable pursuant to the FAA.  Court concluded defendant did not waive or abrogate its right to enforce the agreement, finding that defendant did not fail to timely demand arbitration; defendant did not waive its right to compel arbitration by failing to complete the dispute resolution process requested or by failing to proceed with arbitration after plaintiff withdrew her demand for arbitration; and the arbitration agreement has not expired.  Court concluded the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable, finding at most modest procedural unconscionability, but no substantive unconscionability.

  • Slavin v. Imperial Parking (U.S.), LLC, No. 8:16-CV-02511-PWG (D. Md. June 19, 2017)
    06/19/2017

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award and ordered the lawsuit to proceed on the remaining claims.  Court held the FAA applied based on the choice of law provision in the agreement and concluded that the three month limitations period to vacate the award applied, but the respondent failed to make the request within that period.  Court concluded the respondent’s fraud claims were also outside the time limitations and held that the respondent was a party to the arbitration.

  • 2151 Michelson, L.P. v. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, No. 8:17-CV-0781-DOC-DFM (C.D. Cal. June 16, 2017)
    06/16/2017

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to remand and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court found the issue of whether the previous state court judgment had preclusive effect was not subject to arbitration, but all other claims were and defendant had not waived its right to compel arbitration. 

  • Fox v. Forest River Inc., No. 1:16-CV-0770-GTS-DJS (N.D.N.Y. June 16, 2017)
    06/16/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration of all claims and cross-claims pursuant to the FAA. Court found moot the cross-defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s claims as the parties had stipulated to dismissal of those claims and denied the motion to compel arbitration of the remaining claims, finding that there was no evidence of a contractual arbitration agreement with the cross-defendant.  Court held defendants had not established that a stay was warranted under the FAA.

  • Green v. Broker Solutions, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00844-RLW (E.D. Mo. June 16, 2017)
    06/16/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court found the defendant non-signatory had standing to compel arbitration, that the agreement was a bilateral contract with adequate consideration under Missouri law that was not procedurally unconscionable.

  • In Re: Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation., No. 4:13-MD-02420-YGR (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2017)
    06/16/2017

    Court granted motion for issuance of letter rogatory to obtain discovery for use in an arbitration proceeding in Finland.  Court found the discovery requested is relevant and discoverable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, finding the individual from which discovery was requested may possess information directly relevant to their claims.

  • Olson v. MBO Partners Inc., No. 3:15-CV-02216-HZ (D. Or. June 15, 2017)
    06/15/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and denied motion to stay pending arbitration.  Court held the arbitration clause is valid and found unpersuasive arguments that the provision violated Oregon law, was unconscionable, resulted from the plaintiff’s signature under duress, or was the result of misrepresentation or fraudulent inducement.  Court found plaintiff provided no reason to stay the case and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss.

  • Clearfield v. HCL America Inc., No. 1:17-CV-02933-JMF (S.D.N.Y. June 15,2017)
    06/15/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the plaintiff received and agreed to the arbitration agreement at issue and was therefore bound by its terms.

  • Mesa Power Group LLC v. Government of Canada, No. 1:16-CV-01101-JDB (D.D.C. June 15, 2017)
    06/15/2017

    Court denied petition to vacate the arbitration award, granted the counter-petition to enforce, and denied the request to award attorney’s fees. In rejecting the petition to vacate, the court held that there is nothing in the tribunal’s award or the dissent to indicate that the tribunal engaged in “misbehavior by which the rights” of the petitioner “were prejudiced” under FAA §10(3)(a) or that the tribunal exceeded its powers under §10(4)(a). Additionally, the court held that while it has the inherent authority to award attorney’s fees when the losing party’s actions were frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, even though not brought in bad faith, the petitioner’s petition did not rise to this level.

  • Fontana v. The Chefs’ Warehouse, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-06521-HSG (N.D. Cal. June 15, 2017)
    06/15/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action pending resolution of the arbitration. Court found that the original arbitration agreement between the parties controlled because a later in time agreement, which provided for resolution of the dispute by a court of competent jurisdiction, was not executed by both parties and therefore not legally binding.  Moreover, to the extent there was a lingering doubt as to whether arbitration is appropriate, the arbitration agreement contained a delegation clause giving the arbitrator the authority to resolve such a dispute.

  • New York Hotel & Motel Trades Council, AFL-CIO v. CF 43 Hotel LLC, No. 1:16-CV-05997-RMB (S.D.N.Y. June 14, 2017)
    06/14/2017

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm two arbitration awards and denied respondents’ cross-motion to dismiss. Court further ordered the respondents’ to pay petitioners’  attorneys’ fees and expenses in pursuit of this petition because the respondents failed to comply with the awards and presented no timely justification for contesting the awards.

  • Colon v. Conchetta, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00959-RK (E.D. Pa. June 14, 2017)
    06/14/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, dismiss the proceedings, and stay discovery.  Under the FAA, the court determined the parties clearly agreed to arbitrate arbitrability, determined all defendants will be ordered to arbitration, and stayed the case pending the resolution of arbitration.

  • Hoover v. Sears Holding Corporation, No. 3:16-CV-0450-AET-TJB (D.N.J. June 14, 2017)
    06/14/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court found there was reasonable notice for a valid agreement to arbitrate and the dispute fell within the scope of the agreement.

  • Singer v. Stuerke, No. 2:16-CV-02526-KJD-GWF (D. Nev. June 14, 2017)
    06/14/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the first amended petition and ordered plaintiffs to file a second amended petition.  Pursuant to the FAA, court found the parties had a valid agreement to arbitrate and the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.  Court also held it had specific personal jurisdiction over the defendant, but lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims because there was no federal question or diversity jurisdiction.  Court denied defendant’s motion to strike but found the allegations were irrelevant to plaintiffs’ claims and thus should not be included in an amended petition.

  • USA for the use and benefit of Bright Future Electric, LLC v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, No. 9:16-CV-81457-WJZ (S.D. Fla. June 14, 2017)
    06/14/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion for stay of litigation pending arbitration.  In the arbitration, general contractor claimed damages related to delays in the project’s completion and prime sub-contractor claimed outstanding payments owed by general contractor.  In the present action, secondary sub-contractor brings suit against prime sub-contractor’s surety company for outstanding payments.  Court rejected defendant’s arguments that the arbitration concerned the same core facts and claims as the action and that a stay would abate the risk of inconsistent judgments.

  • Silfee v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc., No. 16-3725 (3d Cir. June 13, 2017)
    06/13/2017

    Court of appeals vacated and remanded the district court’s prior order denying motions to compel arbitration and dismiss the suit. Court held that since arbitrability is a gateway issue under §4 of the FAA, if a party moves to compel arbitration based on an authentic arbitration agreement that is attached to the complaint, a Rule(b)(6) summary judgment standard is appropriate unless the other party responds with additional facts sufficient to place the agreement to arbitrate at issue. Here, there were no facts presented at the outset of the litigation to place the arbitration agreement at issue and therefore the lower court failed to analyze the parties’ competing arguments regarding arbitrability.

  • Sterling Merchant Finance, Ltd. v Republic of Cabo Verde, No. 1:16-CV-01285-ESH (D.D.C June 13, 2017)
    06/13/2017

    Court issued a default judgment confirming a Permanent Court of Arbitration award against the Republic of Cape Verde pursuant to the New York Convention and the FAA.

  • Willcock v. My Goodness Games, Inc., No. 8:16-CV-04020-PWG (D. Md. June 12, 2017)
    06/12/2017

    Court stayed the action pending a decision by the arbitrator on the arbitrability of the claims because the parties’ incorporation of the AAA Arbitration Rules presents clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed the arbitrator would decide questions of arbitrability and not the court.

  • National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh v. Seneca Family of Agencies, No. 1:17-CV-01061-JGK (S.D.N.Y. June 12, 2017)
    06/12/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration in part, finding that California statute alleged to preempt arbitration agreement only applied to claims arising after a certain date, and thus earlier arbitration agreement was not preempted as to earlier claims.  Court denied without prejudice motion to compel arbitration as to later claims so that California court could determine question of whether California statute preempted the arbitration agreement, and by extension reverse preempted the FAA. 

  • Bacon v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-05939 (D.N.J. June 9, 2017)
    06/09/2017

    Court denied the motions to compel arbitration, finding that the issue of whether the arbitration agreement was incorporated into the principle agreement, and thus a mutual consent to arbitrate, required further development of the factual record so the motions can be decided on a summary judgment standard.

  • Internaves De Mexico s.a. de C.V. v. Andromeda Steamship Corporation, No. 9:16-CV-81719-DMM (S.D. Fla. June 9, 2017)
    06/09/2017

    Court denied defendants’ motion for stay pending appeal.  Referencing the four factors identified in Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (1987), court found that the defendants (i) failed to show that they are likely to succeed on the merits; (ii) failed to identify any concrete harm that would befall them outside of a courtroom; (iii) it is not likely that plaintiff will be substantially injured by granting a stay; and (iv) it is not against public policy to compel arbitration while a dissatisfied party pursues an appeal.

  • Toth v. GSF Mortgage Corporation, No. 5:16-CV-02101-BYP (E.D. Ohio June 8, 2017)
    06/08/2017

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that there was, at the very least, a genuine dispute of material fact as to the existence of a contract and the arbitration provision therein.

  • Kim v. CashCall, Inc., No. 8:17-CV-00076-DOC-DFM (C.D. Cal. June 8, 2017) 
    06/08/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel individual arbitration and stayed the proceedings pending the Supreme Court’s disposition of Morris v. Ernst & Young.  Court rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable, but did not resolve plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration clause violated the NLRA because that very question was central to a case, Morris, currently pending before the Supreme Court.

  • Quality Plus Services, Inc. v. AGY Aiken LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00727-MHL (E.D. Va. June 7, 2017)
    06/07/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and denied as moot the motion to dismiss or transfer.  Court found that the parties agreed to the arbitration clause and the arbitration clause applied to all claims arising out of purchase orders, including plaintiff’s.  Court also determined that because the court found all of plaintiff’s claims subject to arbitration, it would exercise its discretion to dismiss the case without prejudice.

  • Gold Mine Jewelry Shoppes, Inc. v. Lise Aagaard Copenhagen, A/S, No. 5:16-CV-00135-BR (E.D.N.C. Mar. 7, 2017)
    06/07/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the suit, finding that the arbitration agreement at issues was enforceable and the dispute fell within the scope of that agreement, and therefore are not for the court to decide.

  • Demartini v. Johns, No. 16-15078 (9th Cir. June 7, 2017)
    06/07/2017

    Court of appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the district court’s order denying defendants’ motion to vacate an arbitration award.  Court found that it could not conclude from the record that the arbitrator’s decision, while perhaps an erroneous application of California law, constituted a manifest disregard of the law. Could also found defendants’ public policy argument would require the court to revisit the arbitrator’s findings of fact and conclusions of law and so the court could not vacate on that ground.

  • Mayton v. Tempoe, LLC, No. 5:17-CV-00179-XR (W.D. Tex. June 7, 2017)
    06/07/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismiss.  Court found that (i) there was a valid agreement to arbitrate between the parties; (ii) the agreement to arbitrate covered the dispute in question; (iii) there were no legal constraints external to the parties’ agreement that would foreclose arbitration of plaintiff’s claims; (iv) there is a “tight relatedness of the parties, contracts and controversies” sufficient to compel plaintiff to arbitration with respect to his claims against a non-party to the contract; and (v) dismissal of the case, rather than a stay, would be appropriate as plaintiff presented no justification for a stay.

  • Trustees of the Northeast Carpenters, Health, Pension, Annuity, Apprenticeship v. Tiki Industries, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-04487-DRH-ARL (E.D.N.Y. June 6, 2017)
    06/06/2017

    Court adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge recommending that petitioners’ motion to confirm the arbitration award be granted.  Magistrate judge held that petitioners satisfied their burden in establishing that the arbitration award should be confirmed, as the award was plausibly grounded in the parties’ agreement and there was no issue of material fact precluding summary judgment.

  • Wilhelm v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-01148-ILRL-KWR (E.D. La. June 5, 2017)
    06/05/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration.  Court held that (i) the fact that a representative of the defendant failed to sign the document did not invalidate the arbitration agreement; (ii) the FAA preempted any state law that attempted to prohibit the enforcement of otherwise valid arbitration agreements; and (iii) the misconduct alleged by the plaintiff against the signatory defendant and the non-signatory defendant was sufficiently interdependent to allow a non-signatory to compel arbitration against the signatories.

  • Benhenni v. Bayesian Efficient Strategic Trading, LLC, No. 16-3949 (3d Cir. June 5, 2017)
    06/05/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed the district court’s denial of pro se appellant’s petition to vacate an arbitral award. Court found that appellant filed a non-compliant appellate brief devoid of references to the record and citations to legal authority in support of his arguments, which failed to identify why the district court’s order should be disturbed. Court also found that appellant’s arguments amounted to assertions that the arbitrator’s interpretation was flawed, a basis upon which the court could not vacate the arbitrator’s award.

  • Evans v. Building Materials Corporation of America, No. 16-2427 (Fed. Cir. June 5, 2017)
    06/05/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed the district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss or stay action pending arbitration, finding defendant’s assertion that the dispute was covered by the arbitration agreement to be “wholly groundless.”

  • Xome Holdings LLC v. Derbonne, No. 4:16-CV-00550-ALM (E.D. Tex. June 2, 2017)
    06/02/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, rejecting defendants’ argument that the arbitration agreement is unconscionable.  Court held that the action fell squarely within the plain language of the arbitration clause, and thus, the parties should resolve their disputes in arbitration pursuant to their agreement.

  • Robinson v. PNC Bank, No. 2:13-CV-07818-SRC-CLW (D.N.J. June 2, 2017)
    06/02/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to reopen the case, confirm the arbitration award, and enter judgment. The FAA provides that a district court must grant a motion to confirm an arbitration award if four conditions are met: (i) the parties agreed that a judgment would be entered after an arbitration award is made; (ii) a party to the arbitration has moved to confirm the award within one year after the award is entered; (iii) the motion to confirm is brought in the district court specified in the agreement or in a district court in the district within which the arbitration award was made; and (iv) there must be no grounds on which to vacate, modify, or correct an arbitration award. As all four conditions were satisfied in the instant case, the court found that it must grant defendant’s motion to confirm the arbitration award.

  • Forbes v. Seaworld Parks & Entertainment, No. 4:16-CV-00172-MSD-LRL (E.D. Va. June 2, 2017)
    06/02/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that the dispute resolution program was not “outdated” the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable. Additionally, court held that defendant did not waive its right to arbitration by failing to “bring up arbitration” in response to settlement requests and failing to respond to certain emails, and plaintiff’s allegations of harassment do not provide sufficient justification to ignore the parties’ valid agreement to arbitrate their disputes

  • Cochran v. Nabors Drilling Technologies USA Inc., No. 2:16-CV-01633-JTT-KK (W.D. La. June 2, 2017)
    06/02/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss plaintiff’s complaint.  Court held that plaintiff failed to establish that defendant waived its right to arbitrate because plaintiff provided no evidence that the defendant took an overt action manifesting an intent to resolve the dispute through litigation.  Court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that defendant should be equitably estopped from enforcing the arbitration agreement, as plaintiff cited no law supporting the proposition that the state law doctrine of equitable estoppel can be the basis of a party being “in default” under the FAA.

  • Bakon v. Rushmore Service Center, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-06137-ILG-SMG (E.D.N.Y. June 2, 2017)
    06/02/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to enforce an arbitration agreement between plaintiff and a third party, finding that plaintiff entered into a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement with the third-party that defendant (as an affiliate of the third party) is entitled to invoke.  Court also determined that the regular use of a credit card constitutes sufficient evidence of a card user’s consent to the terms of the agreement governing the account and that the FAA does not require arbitration agreements to be signed to be enforceable.

  • Golden Temple of Oregon, LLC v. Puri, No. 3:11-CV-01358-HZ (D. Or. June 2, 2017)
    06/02/2017

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for order confirming arbitration award and denied defendant’s motion to vacate.  Court found that (i) defendant did not show that the panel manifestly disregarded the law by implicitly rejecting defendant’s standing argument and by awarding relief to a party that did not participate in the arbitration; (ii) the panel did not exceed its power by not including foreign and other intellectual property in the award; and (iii) the plaintiff was the prevailing party because it prevailed on claims as alleged in the complaint, and so the panel did not exceed its power in awarding plaintiff reasonable attorney fees and costs.

  • GGNSC Louisville Mt. Holly, LLC v. Mohamed-Vall, No. 16-5606 (6th Cir. June 2, 2017)
    06/02/2017

    Court of appeals affirmed lower court’s order compelling arbitration and enjoining defendants from proceeding with litigation in state court. Court of appeals held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the dispute because the district court’s order compelling arbitration was not a final decision as required by the FAA. Court further declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction to hear defendant’s challenge to the district court’s injunction.

  • Ortiz v. Volt Management Corp., No. 4:16-CV-07096-YGR (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2017)
    06/02/2017

    Court granted a non-signatory defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that the plaintiff had signed an employment agreement with the staffing company that contained a broad arbitration provision, and that the staffing company had assigned plaintiff to work for the non-signatory defendant. As such, the plaintiff’s claims were intimately founded in and intertwined with his employment relationship with the staffing company and it was appropriate to allow arbitration.

  • North American Deer Registry, Inc. v. DNA Solutions, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00062-ALM (E.D. Tex. June 2, 2017)
    06/02/2017

    Court granted plaintiff’s application for a preliminary injunction, finding that (i) the arbitration clause was narrow and did not encompass injunctive relief, (ii) the contract did not provide any means by which the arbitrator could resolve a dispute as to the non-contract claims, and (iii) the FAA did not apply to bar a preliminary injunction because the non-contract claims were not subject to arbitration.

  • Nexteer Automotive Corporation v. Korea Delphi Automotive Systems Corporation, No. 2:13-CV-15189-GCS-LJM (E.D. Mich. June 2, 2017)
    06/02/2017

    Court confirmed in part a SIAC arbitral award. Court held that (i) although the New York Convention authorized the court to stay enforcement, such a stay would be inappropriate here because the parties agreed to be bound by the arbitrator’s decision and waived their right to appeal; (ii) that while it would be prudent to await a decision from the Singapore court on some parts of the award, the defendant did not level a serious challenge to the non-derivative royalty provisions of the arbitral award and so it was not necessary to stay enforcement of those portions; and (iii) the six Europcar factors established by second circuit precedent weighed in favor of denying a stay.

  • Madden v. Ally Financial Inc., No. 5:16-CV-00172-JMH-EBA (E.D. Ky. June 2, 2017)
    06/02/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the only action defendant took that could be considered inconsistent with reliance on the arbitration agreement was filing an answer that did not include the arbitration agreement as a specific affirmative defense. However, since defendant moved to compel arbitration soon after discovery of the arbitration clause, this was not “completely inconsistent” with an intent to rely on the arbitration clause.

  • Kelleher v. Dream Catcher, L.L.C., No. 1:16-CV-02902-APM (D.D.C. June 2, 2017)
    06/02/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to stay pending arbitration, holding that the defendant failed to overcome the presumption that it had forfeited its right to arbitrate since it failed to invoke that right at the earliest opportunity and instead waiting more than five months to do so.

  • Oren Enterprises, Inc.  v. Stefanie Cove & Co., No. 2:17-CV-03619-PA-AFM (C.D. Cal June 2, 2017)
    06/02/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of trade secret claims and dismissed the case. Court found that claims related to post employment conduct were within the scope of an arbitration clause contained in an employee agreement. Court further found that a non-signatory to the agreement could compel arbitration under California state law where a signatory relies on the terms of the agreement in asserting its claims against the non-signatory.

  • Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Soskin, No. 1:17-CV-21663-KMW (S.D. Fla. June 2, 2017)
    06/02/2017

    Court granted motion to consolidate enforcement action and vacatur action of the same arbitral award so as not to risk inconsistent awards, denying respondent-petitioner’s motion to stay the enforcement action until the vacatur action was decided.  Court also granted respondent-petitioner’s motion to submit excerpts of recording of the arbitration hearing and corresponding transcripts, because he did not provide explanation for why requested recordings are not cumulative of transcript excerpts already in the record.

  • Price v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00706-SEB-MJD (S.D. Ind. June 1, 2017)
    06/01/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, holding that the class action waiver contained in the arbitration clause did not violate the National Labor Relations Act and was enforceable.

  • Moise v. Family Dollar Stores of New York, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-06314-RA-GWG (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2017)
    06/01/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings.  Court found that (i) claiming that one does not recall receiving the arbitration agreement does not create a genuine dispute as to whether the plaintiff signed it; (ii) plaintiff’s claim that he did not read or fully understand the agreement does not demonstrate a genuine dispute as to the formation of an arbitration agreement; (iii) plaintiff cannot avoid the binding effects of the agreement by asserting that he signed it “under economic duress and coercion;” and (iv) the argument that the arbitration agreement is unconscionable under New York law is for the arbitrator to decide.

  • Jock v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., No. 16-1731 (2d Cir. June 1, 2017)
    06/01/2017

    Court of appeals dismissed appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Court of appeals held that the FAA only provides that an appeal may be taken in limited circumstances, including from “an order” confirming or denying confirmation of an award or partial award. According to the court of appeals, because the lower court did not confirm or deny an arbitrator's decision, but rather dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, the court of appeals lacked appellate jurisdiction under the FAA.

  • La Frontera Center, Inc. v. United States Behavioral Health, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00187-JB-WPL (D.N.M. June 1, 2017)
    06/01/2017

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration and to stay the proceedings. Court held that plaintiff entered into an enforceable arbitration agreement with defendants and that plaintiff’s claims against defendants were subject to the arbitration clause.

  • Leidel v. Coinbase, Inc., No. 9:16-CV-81992-KAM (S.D. Fla. June 1, 2017)
    06/01/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that although plaintiff entered into a valid arbitration agreement, plaintiff’s claims did not fall within the scope of the arbitration clause.

  • Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company v. LaFerrera, No. 7:15-CV-02350-LSC (N.D. Ala. June 1, 2016)
    06/01/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings as to one of the defendants (CCG) and held that it was moot as to the other defendants.  Court found that the language of the arbitration agreement was sufficiently restrictive to preclude CCG, a nonsignatory to the arbitration agreement, from enforcing the agreement through the doctrine of equitable estoppel. 

  • Wright v. Sirius XM radio Inc., No. 8:16-CV-01688-JVS-JCG (C.D. Cal. June 1, 2017)
    06/01/2017

    Court granted motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that defendant’s documentary evidence of mailing the agreement to plaintiff was sufficient to establish that plaintiff received the agreement and had notice of the arbitration provision.

  • Venco Imtiaz Construction Company v. Symbion Power LLC, No. 1:16-CV-01737-JDB (D.D.C. May 31, 2017)
    05/31/2017

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to enforce an arbitration award and denied defendant’s motion for a stay and security. Court held that defendant had not established that issue preclusion arising from parallel proceedings in the U.K. courts was warranted and thus, had not established that the public policy exception to the New York Convention applied to the disputed arbitration award. Court further held that after balancing the factors established in applicable precedent, it would not be appropriate to stay the enforcement proceedings pending the outcome of an appeal before the U.K. courts.

  • Cavallo v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-04264-FLW-DEA (D.N.J. May 31, 2017)
    05/31/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that, contrary to plaintiff’s arguments, the arbitration agreement did not violate the National Labor Relations Act and the arbitration agreement’s class waiver did not violate the Norris-LaGuardia Act. Court further held that the arbitration agreement contained an enforceable delegation clause which established that the arbitrator would decide the question of arbitrability.

  • Tradewinds Ltd. v. Grupo Dolphin Discovery, No. 2:17-CV-01292-RGK-RAO (C.D. Cal. May 31, 2017)
    05/31/2017

    Court granted petitioner’s petition to confirm an arbitration award, holding that the arbitral panel did not manifestly disregard the law by concluding that petitioner was not acting as an unregistered broker or deal in violation of federal and California law

  • Trustees of the Northeast Carpenters Health, Pension, Annuity, Apprenticeship, and Labor Management Cooperation Funds v. All State Furniture Technicians Corp., No. 2:17-CV-00722-SJF-AKT (E.D.N.Y. May 31, 2017)
    05/31/2017

    Court granted petitioners’ unopposed petition to confirm an arbitration award. Court held that because the arbitration award “draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement” at issue, the court must affirm the award.

  • Lower Colorado River Authority v. Papalote Creek II, LLC, No. 16-50317 (5th Cir. May 31, 2017)
    05/31/2017

    Court of appeals vacated the lower court’s decision to compel arbitration. Court held that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to compel arbitration because the dispute was not sufficiently ripe to constitute a “case “or “controversy.” Court further held that events occurring after the lower court’s decision which caused the dispute to become ripe would not retroactively resurrect the district court’s lack of jurisdiction.

  • NCR Corporation v. Goh, No. 2:16-CV-00127-BJR (W.D. Wa. May 31, 2017)
    05/31/2017

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for (i) de novo review of an arbitrator’s decision on the arbitrability of the dispute and (ii) vacatur of the arbitrator's ruling. Court held that plaintiff was not entitled to challenge the arbitrator’s decision on arbitrability because plaintiff had previously agreed to submit the question to the arbitrator. Court further held that vacatur was not warranted because defendant failed to show that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law.

  • Rearick v. Clearwater 2008 Note Program, LLC, No. 4:15-CV-02265-YK (M.D. Pa. May 31, 2017)
    05/31/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the parties had entered into a valid agreement to arbitrate and that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration clause. Court further declined to defer its decision pending limited discovery and held that plaintiff failed to establish that she would incur prohibitive arbitration costs sufficient to invalidate the arbitration agreement.

  • Rearick v. Clearwater 2008 Note Program, LLC, No. 4:15-CV-02265-YK (M.D. Pa. May 31, 2017)
    05/31/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that (i) plaintiff’s request for additional discovery was untimely; (ii) plaintiff failed to adduce substantiated evidence of prohibitive arbitration costs to invalidate the arbitration clause; (iii) plaintiff failed to adduce sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to the validity of the arbitration agreement; and (iv) plaintiff’s breach of contract claim undoubtedly arises under, and relates to, the contract containing the arbitration agreement. 

  • McDougle v. Kemper Corporate Services, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00231-WHB-JCG (S.D. Miss. May 31, 2017)
    05/31/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that the subject insurance policy and the incorporated arbitration agreement involved interstate commerce as the term is applied to the FAA and therefore could be enforced thereunder.  Court also held that the arbitration agreement was valid under Mississippi law and the issue of whether the agreement was enforceable was delegated to the arbitrator.

  • Iota Shipholding Ltd. v. Starr Indemnity and Liability Company, No. 1:16-CV-04881-KPF (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2017)
    05/31/2017

    Court granted petitioners’ motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that no valid arbitration agreement between the parties existed and a stay of a parallel arbitration. Court held that the arbitration clause in question did not bind the petitioners because the petitioners did not execute the agreement and the text of the arbitration clause did not purport to bind nonsignatories.

  • Ungava Technologies Inc. v. Innerspec Technologies, Inc., No. 6:17-CV-00006-NKM-RSB (W.D. Va. May, 31, 2017)
    05/31/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding the parties had entered into a valid arbitration agreement and that the plaintiff’s interpretation of the agreement was inconsistent with the language of the arbitration clause.

  • Prowant v. Federal National Mortgage Association, No. 1:14-CV-3799-AT (N.D. Ga. May 31, 2017)
    05/31/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in this collective action case brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime provisions.  Court held that defendant had waived its right to compel arbitration with respect to opt-in plaintiffs and that its new arbitration agreement, which purportedly replaced the prior dispute resolution policy, did not apply as to opt-in plaintiffs.

  • Michigan Health Information Network Shared Services v. Notarycam, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00342-RJJ-PJG (W.D. Mich. May 31, 2016)
    05/31/2017

    Court granted in part defendant’s motion arbitrate, but stayed the case instead of dismissing it pending resolution of the arbitration.  Court held that the parties agreed to arbitrate, the claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and defendant had not waived its right to invoke arbitration.

  • Adams v. Energy Transfer Partners, No. 2:16-CV-00400 (S.D. Tex. May 30, 2017)
    05/30/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings pending the outcome of the arbitration. Court held that plaintiff failed to state a reason for why the motion to compel arbitration should not be granted and, upon review of the agreement, found that it was free of errors or was not contrary to law.

  • Bigham v. Genz-Ryan Plumbing & Heating Co., No. 0:16-CV-00280-DWF-SER (D. Minn. May 30, 2017)
    05/30/2017

    Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment seeking to vacate an arbitration award. Court held that the arbitrator did not err by failing to give preclusive effect to an earlier decision in the federal courts because the earlier decision was not a final determination. Court further held that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the arbitrator committed a clear error when assessing the evidence presented in the arbitration.

  • New York Dialysis Services, Inc. v. New York State Nurses Association, No. 1:17-CV-00469-JSR (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2017)
    05/30/2017

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to stay the arbitration. Court held that the parties could not be forced to arbitrate a dispute pursuant to an expired arbitration agreement, notwithstanding the fact that the arbitration agreement unmistakably delegated the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

  • Local 1982 International Longshoremen's Assoc. v. Midwest Terminals of Toledo International, Inc., No. 16-04004 (6th Cir. May 30, 2017)
    05/30/2017

    Court of appeals affirmed lower court’s decision to remand an arbitration award to an arbitral panel for further clarification.  Court of appeals held that the arbitration award was ambiguous and that, contrary to defendant’s arguments, the same arbitral panel should clarify the award.

  • Albtelecom SH.A v. UNIFI Communications, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-09001-PAE (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2017)
    05/30/2017

    Court confirmed an arbitration award and entered judgment for plaintiff.  Court held that the fact that an arbitration award was entered into by consent of the parties, as opposed to being based on an arbitrator’s resolution of the factual and legal disputes, had no bearing on whether the award was binding under the New York Convention.  Court further held that it lacked sufficient evidence to determine whether, as requested by plaintiff, defendant breached the terms of the arbitration award.

  • Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Patel, No. 8:15-CV-02968-TDC (D. Md. May 30, 2017)
    05/30/2017

    Court granted plaintiff’s application to confirm an arbitration award against defendants, holding that the parties entered into a valid arbitration agreement and that there were no grounds to vacate the arbitration award.

  • Redeemer Committee of Highland Credit Strategies Funds v. Highland Capital Management, L.P., No. 1:16-CV-02668-JSR (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2017)
    05/30/2017

    Court denied joint motions to vacate preceding decisions confirming arbitration award and dismiss complaint with prejudice, holding that vacatur and dismissal or preceding decisions was not warranted on the sole basis that parties had settled the case.  Court found that no exceptional circumstances existed to vacate the award on the basis of settlement.

  • Robredo v. Metro Honda, No. 16-3317 (3d Cir. May 26, 2017)
    05/26/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant, finding that the parties agreed to arbitrate all claims arising out of or relating to automobile purchase/lease transactions and the evidence did not support plaintiff’s claims that the arbitration proceedings were unfair or biased. 

  • National Labor Relations Board v. Alternative Entertainment, Inc., No. 16-1385 (6th Cir. May 26, 2017)
    05/26/2017

    Court of appeal held that an arbitration provision requiring employees covered by the National Labor Relations Act to individually arbitrate all employment-related claims is not enforceable, finding that such a provision violates the NLRA’s right to collective action and therefore falls within the FAA’s saving clause.

  • Davis v. Fenton, No. 16-2121 (7th Cir. May 26, 2017)
    05/26/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed district court’s default judgment granting plaintiff’s motion to confirm arbitration award.  Court held that district court, which enforced defendants’ request for arbitration, retained jurisdiction over any request to confirm or vacate an arbitral award, not a state court. 

  • GGNSC Louisville St. Matthews v. Madison, No. 3:16-CV-00830-TBR (W.D. Ky. May 26, 2017)
    05/26/2017

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held inter alia that (i) a power of attorney was sufficient authority for a representative to bind an infirm patient to an arbitration agreement; (ii) the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable; and (iii) federal law did not require or otherwise advise the court to refrain from enjoining the parties from litigating in state court.

  • Sauberman v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., LLC, No. 2:17-CV-00756-WJM-MF (D.N.J. May 26, 2017 2017)
    05/26/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration without prejudice.  Court held that it could not determine whether the parties had entered into an agreement to arbitrate and therefore ordered the parties to engage in limited discovery on the issue of whether an arbitration agreement existed.

  • Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Kinsale Ins. Co., No. 2:17-CV-00350-ER (E.D. Pa. May 26, 2017)
    05/26/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff, a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement, could be compelled to arbitrate the dispute because plaintiff’s claims against defendant were dependent on defendant’s obligation to provide insurance coverage as part of an agreement that contained an arbitration clause.

  • Karimov v. OBK Center Corp d/b/a Bahor Restaurant, No. 1:17-CV-20314-DPG (S.D. Fla. May 26, 2017)
    05/26/2017

    Magistrate judge recommended granting defendants’ motion to stay proceedings and to compel arbitration, rejecting plaintiff’s argument that defendants waived their right to compel arbitration by participating in litigation, as the defendants only participated in mediation.

  • Conway Family Trust v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, No. 16-3289 (7th Cir. May 25, 2017)
    05/25/2017

    Court of appeals denied petitioner’s petition for review.  Court held that petitioner’s request for equitable tolling and an opportunity to pursue its claims against defendant were, in fact, an attempt to collaterally attack an arbitration award that was barred by the FAA.  Court further held that the arbitration award in question had nothing to do with equitable tolling.

  • Ploetz v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC, No. 0:17-CV-01112-PAM-DTS (D. Minn. May 25, 2017)
    05/25/2017

    Court denied petitioner’s petition to vacate an arbitration award.  Court held that an arbitrator’s failure to disclose that he mediated a dispute involving the defendant at the time the parties selected him to be chair of the arbitral panel was not evidence of “evident partiality” or arbitrator misbehavior because the arbitrator had disclosed six other arbitrations involving defendant over which he had presided.  Accordingly, court found that the arbitrator’s conduct was not sufficient to vacate the award.

  • Schmidt v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 2:16-01725-JCC (W.D. Wash. May 25, 2017)
    05/25/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that under both Washington and California law plaintiffs assented to arbitration where they were provided with notice on the outside of the box and in a brochure for a Samsung device that additional terms and conditions applied to use of the device.  Court further found that a Texas choice of law provision in the arbitration agreement was substantively unconscionable because plaintiffs had no connection to Texas, nor was there another basis for which Texas law might reasonably apply, and therefore the provision was severed.

  • Samenow v. Citicorp Credit Services, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01346-CKK (D.D.C. May 25, 2017)
    05/25/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action, finding that plaintiff assented to arbitration agreements contained in credit card agreements governing plaintiff’s five credit card accounts and that there was no unconscionability with respect to the arbitration agreements.

  • Crawley v. Macy’s Retail Holdings, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-02228-KPF (S.D.N.Y. May 25, 2017)
    05/25/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action, finding that plaintiff unambiguously agreed to arbitrate any employment disputes with the defendant and that the scope of the arbitration provision in the employer’s dispute resolution program encompassed plaintiff’s claim.

  • Branch v. Mays, No. 3:16-CV-00249-HSM-CCS (E.D. Tenn. May 25, 2017)
    05/25/2017

    Court granted motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, finding that the existence of both an arbitration clause and forum selection clause in an agreement does not render the forum selection clause invalid, but rather gives the courts in the selected forum exclusive jurisdiction to hear actions complimentary to the arbitral proceedings

  • Nepomuceno v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., No. 2:14-CV-05719-SDW-SCM (D.N.J. May 24, 2017)
    05/24/2017

    Court denied defendants’ request to compel arbitration, holding that defendants’ unnecessary two-year delay in seeking arbitration and the expense of litigating the matter over the course of the prolonged time period had caused sufficient prejudice to the plaintiff such as to waive any right the defendants may have had to compel arbitration.

  • Webb v. Frawley, No. 16-3336 (7th Cir. May 24, 2017)
    05/24/2017

    Court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part district court’s order compelling arbitration.  Court held that arbitration provisions in plaintiffs’ employment contracts were merely venue provisions, and that the court could only order plaintiffs to arbitrate under FINRA rules if they had so agreed.  Court therefore found that plaintiff who had agreed to arbitrate under FINRA rules must do so, whereas other plaintiff who did not agree was not so required.

  • Simmons v. Rush Trucks Centers of Idaho, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00450-EJL (D. Idaho May 24, 2017)
    05/24/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss lawsuit, finding a valid arbitration agreement supported by mutual assent and consideration and lacking indications of unconscionability. Court held that arbitration agreement constituted an offer that was accepted upon plaintiff’s signature binding both parties to its terms, even if defendant did not sign the agreement. Court further held that agreement was supported by consideration in the mutuality of obligation to arbitrate, and in the employment relationship governed by the agreement.

  • Fuentes v. Security Forever LLC, No. 1:16-CV-20483-RNS (S.D. Fla. May 24, 2017)
    05/24/2017

    Magistrate recommended grant of motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendants had not waived their right to arbitrate.  Magistrate held that even though defendants had acted inconsistently with an intent to arbitrate, the delay in seeking arbitration was not prejudicial.

  • Anderson v. Credit One Bank, National Association, No. 3:16-CV-03125-MMA-AGS (S.D. Cal. May 23, 2017)
    05/23/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding insufficient evidence that the parties agreed to arbitrate any dispute.  Court held that factual disputes existed as to plaintiff’s assent to the terms of a cardholder agreement where plaintiff contended that he never received the agreement, was unaware of the agreement, and did not consent to any arbitration agreement.

  • Pfeffer  v. Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, No. 7:16-CV-08321-VB (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2017)
    05/23/2017

    Court denied motion to vacate award issued by FINRA arbitral panel and confirmed the award.  Court held that the award was not obtained through undue means, there were no allegations of partiality among the arbitrators, and there was no misconduct on the part of the arbitration panel.

  • Hiller v. Schwartz & Feinsod, No. 7:16-CV-05447-VB (S.D.N.Y.  May 23, 2017)
    05/23/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the action.  Court held that the expansive scope of the National Football League Players Association Regulations and the language of its arbitration provision encompassed the parties’ wage and hour disputes. Court also declined to rule that the Regulations’ six-month limitations period was unenforceable as a matter of law, as the general rule in the second circuit is that the arbitrator decides statute of limitations issues.

  • Scudieri v. Chapman Chevrolet Chandler, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-01988-JWS (D. Ariz. May 23, 2017)
    05/23/2017

    Court ordered parties to proceed to arbitration in accordance with terms of their arbitration agreement.  Court held that because plaintiff had no evidence showing the likely costs of arbitration and had decided to forego discovery, plaintiff would be unable to establish that arbitration costs would be so prohibitively expensive such as to permit him to effectively resist arbitration.

  • Liquidx Inc. v. Brooklawn Capital, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-05528WHP (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2017)
    05/23/2017

    Court denied declaratory relief, holding that under New York law, successor was alter ego of predecessor company and thus could be compelled to join arbitration proceedings between creditor and predecessor.  Court found that the predecessor and successor were virtually indistinguishable, and the latter was a new company in name only.  Court found the successor took responsibility for the predecessor’s financing and legal disputes, offices and employees, and that this domination and control was not displaced by discrepancies in share ownership.  Court found ample evidence that this control was used to commit fraud or wrongdoing.

  • Alexander Dubose Jefferson & Townsend LLP v. Vance, No. 1:17-CV-133-RP (W.D. Tex. May 22, 2017)
    05/22/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff failed to establish that defendant received sufficient express or implied notice creating a valid agreement to arbitrate. Court held that law firm did not provide direct notice of an arbitration agreement where it informed employees of the existence and online availability of the firm’s dispute resolution program by email, but did not use the word “arbitration” and did not attach the policy.  Court further held there was no implied notice of the arbitration agreement because the email from the firm did not suggest that the firm was implementing a binding arbitration policy to which continued employment would constitute acquiescence, so as to impose a duty to further investigate the policy’s terms. 

  • National Water Services, LLC v. ACC Construction Co., Inc., No. 3:12-CV-00792-DJH-DW (W.D. Ken. May 22, 2017)
    05/22/2017

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award, finding no reason to vacate, modify, or correct the award. 

  • Atkinson v. Harpeth Financial Services, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-504 (M.D. Tenn. May 22, 2017)
    05/22/2017

    Court granted defendants’ petition to compel arbitration and to stay the action pending arbitration.  Pursuant to principles of severability, court held that plaintiff failed to advance any specific and unique challenge to the delegation provision of an arbitration agreement in a loan agreement.  Court also held that plaintiff’s duress defense and unconscionability arguments relating to the loan agreement were not sufficiently specific or unique to the delegation provision to effectively contest its enforceability.

  • Pershing LLC v. Kiebach, No. 2:14-CV-02549-LMA-MBN (E.D. La. May 22, 2017)
    05/22/2017

    Court confirmed arbitration award in favor of plaintiffs. Court held that defendants had waived the right to seek vacatur because they did not raise the issue of alleged impartiality of the tribunal during the arbitral proceedings; that defendants failed to satisfy burden for proving panel bias; and manifest disregard of the law was not recognized by the fifth circuit as a ground for vacatur.

  • Gloucester Terminals, LLC v. Teamsters Local Union 929, No. 2:16-CV-05322-BMS (E.D. Pa. May 22, 2017)
    05/22/2017

    Court enforced arbitration award in favor of defendants, deferring to arbitrator’s determination of his own jurisdiction and to his conclusions regarding which of two agreements applied to the dispute.  Court also found that arbitrator did not exercise manifest disregard for the operative agreement. 

  • Arabian Motors Group W.L.L. v. Ford Motor Co., No. 2:16-CV-13655-MFL-SDD (E.D. Mich. May 22, 2017)
    05/22/2017

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to certify for interlocutory appeal court’s order requiring plaintiff to arbitrate breach of contract claims pursuant to Motor Vehicle Franchise Contract Arbitration Fairness Act.  Court held that such an appeal would not ultimately resolve plaintiff’s dispute with the defendant as the proposed question on appeal was not a controlling question of law at the instant point in the case.  Court also held because an appellate ruling in plaintiff’s favor would lead to additional litigation regarding whether arbitration may proceed, an interlocutory appeal would not materially advance resolution of the litigation.

  • Vine v. PLS Financial Services, Inc., No. 16-50847 (5th Cir. May 19, 2017)
    05/19/2017

    Court of appeals affirmed lower court’s denial of appellants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.  Court held that the lower court did not err in concluding that appellants waived their right to compel arbitration by litigating the dispute in the federal courts and initially seeking to avoid arbitration.  Court also held that the lower court retained the authority to determine the scope of the arbitration clause.

  • Plocher Construction Co. v. Overseas Lease Group, Inc., No. 4:17-MC-156-JAR (E.D. Miss. May 19, 2017)
    05/19/2017

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award, holding that defendant’s failure to timely move to vacate the arbitration award under §12 of the FAA precludes it from asserting any defenses to confirmation of the award.

  • Verasonics, Inc. v. Alpinion Medical Systems Co., No. C14-1820-JCC (W.D. Wash. May 19, 2017)
    05/19/2017

    Court granted plaintiff’s unopposed motion to confirm arbitration award.  Court held that none of the conditions permitting vacation, modification, or correction of the award under the FAA were present.  Court also held that none of the seven grounds for refusal or deferral of enforcement under the New York Convention applied.

  • Columbus LTACH Management, LLC & Columbus LTACH, LLC v. Quantum LTACH Holdings, LLC & Quantum Int’l Income Corp., No. 16-6510 (D.N.J. May 19, 2017)
    05/19/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s case, the sole purpose of which was to compel arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff’s complaint failed to plead facts showing that defendant, a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, should be compelled to arbitrate under theories of contract or agency law.  Court further denied plaintiff’s request in the alternative to stay the proceedings as court’s decision that defendant was not compelled to arbitrate left nothing for the court to stay.

  • Preferred Care, Inc. v. Roberts, No. 5:16-CV-00203-KKC (E.D. Ky. May 19, 2017)
    05/19/2017

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to reconsider an earlier ruling that certain claims against nonparties to an arbitration agreement would have to be arbitrated.  Court held that there was no reason to alter its earlier decision and that plaintiff improperly raised new arguments that plaintiff could have raised before judgment. 

  • West Charleston Lofts III, LLC v. Farina, No. 2:16-CV-02491-JAD-VCF (D. Nev. May 19, 2017)
    05/19/2017

    Court dismissed plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration, holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the dispute because, in a case filed under diversity jurisdiction, defendants and one plaintiff were citizens of the same state. 

  • Westberry v. St. Operated School District of Newark, No. 2:15-CV-07998-JMV-JBC (D.N.J. May 19, 2017)
    05/19/2017

    Court dismissed plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims, holding that the collective bargaining agreement’s use of the word “may” did not render arbitration a permissive step in the grievance process but rather offered plaintiffs the opportunity to either pursue their grievances through arbitration or abandon their claims altogether.  Accordingly, because plaintiffs failed to pursue their grievances through arbitration, the court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims arising from alleged breaches of the collective bargaining agreement.

  • Winfrey v. Kmart Corp., No. 16-55184 (9th Cir. May 19, 2017)
    05/19/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed district court decision declining to stay litigation of claims pending arbitration of the employee’s claims under the labor code.  Court held that that district court acted within its discretion by declining to stay plaintiff’s claims pending arbitration as a stay of litigation under § 3 of the FAA was mandatory for arbitrable claims but discretionary for nonarbitrable claims and issues. 

  • Division Six Sports, Inc. v. Levi Strauss Asia Pacific Division Pte. Ltd., No. 2:17-CV-02768-MWF-AFM (C.D. Cal. May. 19, 2017)
    05/19/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the action.  Court declined to dismiss the motion based on the defendant’s failure to first comply with a local timing rule and held that the parties’ agreement governed the claims at issue.  Court further held that the parties had delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator by adopting the UNCITRAL rules and declined to deny the petition as wholly groundless notwithstanding such delegation. 

  • Burgos v. Trans Union, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-06338-JCJ (E.D. Pa. May 18, 2017)
    05/18/2017

    Court granted the parties a thirty day period to supplement the record regarding a pending motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that, after finding that the parties had entered into an arbitration agreement, the agreement was not unconscionable and that defendant waived its right to enforce the agreement.  However, the court concluded that it required further input from the parties regarding the appropriate standard to rule on motions to compel arbitration.

  • Jones v. SCO Silver Care Operations LLC, No. 16-1101 (3d Cir. May 18, 2017)
    05/18/2017

    Court of appeals affirmed decision denying motion to dismiss or to stay proceedings pending arbitration, holding that the collective bargaining agreement did not provide a clear and unmistakable waiver of the right to judicial recourse for statutory claims, and that neither of the claims depended on interpretation of the agreement.  Court found plaintiffs’ claims were based on statutory and factual analysis, and did not depend on a disputed term of the contract.

  • GGNSC Louisville St. Matthews, LLC v. Saunders, No. 3:17-CV-00185-CRS-CHL (W.D. Ky. May 18, 2017)
    05/18/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ petition to compel arbitration, and granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s petition to compel arbitration of claims currently pending in state court.  In denying defendant’s motion to dismiss, court held that diversity jurisdiction existed, plaintiffs did not fail to join indispensable parties, and there was a valid arbitration agreement.  In granting petition to compel arbitration, court held that arbitration agreement was enforceable and the scope of the agreement encompassed only certain of plaintiffs’ claims.

  • Promptu Systems Corp. v. Comcast Corp., No. 2:16-CV-06516-LDD (E.D. Pa. May 18, 2017)
    05/18/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay pending arbitration.  Court held that clear and unmistakable evidence of the parties’ intent to refer arbitrability to the arbitrator is demonstrated under Delaware law when an arbitration clause incorporates arbitration rules (here the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the AAA) that empower arbitrators to decide substantive arbitrability and provide for arbitration of all disputes. 

  • Jacks v. CMH Homes, Inc., No. 15-6197 (10th Cir. May 17, 2017)
    05/17/2017

    Court of appeals affirmed decision to deny motion to compel arbitration, holding that non-signatory beneficiaries were not bound by an arbitration agreement where they had neither accepted the benefit nor sought to enforce the terms of the contract.  Court found no authority for binding the non-signatory beneficiaries under contract law, and estoppel did not apply where a signatory defendant sought to compel arbitration with a non-signatory plaintiff.  

  • Greenway Energy, LLC v. Ardica Tech., Inc., No. 1:17-819-RMG (D.S.C. May 17, 2017)
    05/17/2017

    Court ordered parties to arbitrate their dispute and dismissed the complaint.  Because the parties agreed that all claims arising out of the contract must be arbitrated, court held that the only issues before the court were selection of the arbitral forum and the arbitrator, which the court duly selected.  Court dismissed complaint given that entire dispute was within the scope of the arbitration clause.

  • North American Deer Registry, Inc. v. DNA Solutions, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00062-ALM (E.D. Tex. May 16, 2017)
    05/16/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that claims of unfair competition, misappropriation of trade secrets, constructive trust, and unjust enrichment fell outside the scope of the arbitration agreement.  Court found that the scope of the arbitration clause was narrow, as parties had only agreed to arbitrate disputes “concerning the interpretation” of the contract.

  • Del Monte International, GMBH v. Ticofrut S.A., No. 1:16-CV-23894-JEM (S.D. Fla. May 16, 2017)
    05/16/2017

    Court affirmed and adopted magistrate’s recommendation to deny request to garnish debt to satisfy an unconfirmed arbitral award which had not yet been converted to a judgment.
     

  • Oberhansly v. Assoc. of Better Living and Education International, No. 1:15-CV-00073-PLM (W.D. Mich. May 16, 2017)
    05/16/2017

    Court granted motion to dismiss, holding that the contract containing the arbitration agreement was valid and the arbitration clause was enforceable.  Court found that the arbitration clause was broad and, in light of the presumption of enforceability, applied to all of plaintiff’s causes of action connected to the defendant’s facility, staff, and program. 

  • Kindred Nursing Centers Limited Partnership v. Clark, No. 16-32 (U.S. May 15, 2017)
    05/15/2017

    Supreme Court reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded denial of motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, holding that Kentucky’s “clear-statement rule,” which requires a specific rather than a general grant of authority to enter into an arbitration agreement for someone else, violates the FAA by singling out arbitration agreements for disfavored treatment.  Court found that the FAA applies not only to the enforcement of arbitration agreements, but also to questions of initial validity and formation.

  • Battle v. Reinhart Foodservice Louisiana, LLC., No. 5:14-CV-03191-DEW-MLH (W.D. La. May 15, 2017)
    05/15/2017

    Court denied motion to vacate the arbitration award and reopen the case, holding that plaintiff had failed to identify which of the exclusive grounds set forth in § 10 of the FAA justified the motion.  Court found that the arbitrator’s award clearly demonstrated analysis of the text of the arbitration agreement and conclusions framed in terms of the contract’s meaning.

  • Whitworth v. Solarcity Corp., No. 3:16-CV-01540-JSC (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2017)
    05/15/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration as to newly added plaintiffs, holding that employment arbitration agreements containing class action waivers are invalid and unenforceable under the National Labor Relations Act).  Court found that it was bound by ninth circuit precedent which had reached this conclusion, and that the arbitration agreements contained unenforceable Private Attorney General Act, was prohibited by California law.

  • Vega v. New Forest Home Cemetary, LLC., No. 16-3119 (7th Cir. May 15, 2017)
    05/15/2017

    Court reversed award of summary judgment, holding that the collective bargaining agreement did not “clearly and unmistakably” require an employee to exhaust the grievance procedure, which included arbitration, to resolve statutory claims.  Court found that employee had independent statutory rights in addition to the contractual claims, and the law required a “clear and unmistakable” indication in the contract that statutory rights must be resolved through a contractual dispute resolution process.

  • Gaspar Salas v. GE Oil & Gas, No. 16-20379 (5th Cir. May 12, 2017)
    05/12/2017

    Court vacated and remanded decision to withdraw prior order compelling arbitration, holding that (i) by withdrawing the order, the lower court did deny an application to compel arbitration, thus conferring FAA appellate jurisdiction, and (ii) that the district court lacked jurisdiction to withdraw its order compelling arbitration and reopen the case due to a default in the arbitral process.  Court found that the order exceeded the court’s authority under the FAA, as it neither enforced nor determined the validity of the arbitration agreement.

  • Oliveira v. New Prime, Inc., No. 15-2364 (1st Cir. May 12, 2017)
    05/12/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed district court’s order denying motion to compel arbitration and dismissed appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, holding that (i) the applicability of the FAA is a threshold question for the court to determine before compelling arbitration; and (ii) § 1 of the FAA’s exemption for employment contracts of transportation workers applies to a transportation-worker agreement that establishes an independent-contractor relationship.  Court found that whether § 1 of the FAA applies was a question of the district court’s authority to compel arbitration, not a question of arbitrability, and rejected a narrow reading of “contracts of employment.”

  • Monongalia County Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers of America, No. 1:16-CV-00004-IMK (N.D.W. Va. May 12, 2017)
    05/12/2017

    Court denied motion seeking reconsideration of order vacating arbitral award, holding there was no ambiguity in the arbitral award, and thus neither remand to the arbitrator nor judicial reconsideration were warranted.  Court upheld the decision that the arbitrator’s finding that the work at issue was repair and maintenance, not construction, contradicted significant arbitral precedent.

  • Anderson v. American General Insurance, No. 16-15909 (11th Cir. May 11, 2017)
    05/11/2017

    Court upheld district court’s grant of a motion to compel arbitration and dismiss, finding the agreement to arbitrate was not illusory and declining to address the claim that the district court was required to stay the action instead of dismiss. 

  • Lillegard v. Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-08075 (N.D. Ill. May 11, 2017)
    05/11/2017

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration without prejudice.  Court held defendants had not waived their right to arbitration by their conduct in litigation; however, court determined that “genuine issues remained as to the existence of the parties’ agreement to arbitrate,” so it could not determine that the parties formed an arbitral agreement at that stage.

  • Ortiz v. Volt Management Corp., No. 4:16-CV-07096-YGR (N.D. Cal. May 11, 2017)
    05/11/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court found arbitration agreement was slightly procedurally unconscionable but was not substantively unconscionable, and thus, was enforceable.

  • Ross v. P.J. Pizza San Diego, LLC., No. 3:16-CV-02330-L-JMA (S.D. Cal. May 11, 2017)
    05/11/2017

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel plaintiff to submit his claims to arbitration on an individual basis.  Pursuant to the FAA, court found the class action waiver invalid since it precluded the plaintiff from engaging in at least one of the concerted actions the National Labor Relations Act protects.

  • Stockade Companies, LLC v. Kelly Restaurant Group, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00143-RP (W.D. Tex. May 11, 2017)
    05/11/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration since it was not demonstrate by clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to arbitrate the question of arbitrability.  However, court concluded trademark infringement, false designation of origin claims, and breach of non-competition covenant fell within the exclusion clause and the parties were not compelled to arbitrate.

  • Waymo v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00939-WHA (N.D. Cal. May 11, 2017)
    05/11/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that defendants were not party to any applicable arbitration agreement, and that the doctrine of equitable estoppel did not apply.  Court found that plaintiffs had not relied on their third party arbitration agreement, having only made reference to it, and defendants’ claims were not “dependent on or inextricably bound up with the contractual obligations of the agreement[s] containing the arbitration clause,” so as to trigger equitable estoppel.

  • Long v. Miller, No. 0:17-CV-00424-DSD-FLN (D. Minn. May 11, 2017)
    05/11/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the question of arbitrability was one for the arbitrator, notwithstanding the absence of an arbitration clause in the loan documents underlying the disputed transaction.  Court found that the parties had broadly agreed to arbitrate some disputes in related stock purchase agreements and the shareholder agreement, and had incorporated the AAA rules into their dispute resolution procedures, thereby evincing an intent to reserve the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

  • Clarke v. Upwork Global, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00560-AJN (S.D.N.Y. May 10, 2017)
    05/10/2017

    Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin defendant’s arbitration claims.  Court found that the plaintiffs failed to persuade the court of their likelihood of success on the merits and that the balance of the equities weighed in their favor since they eschewed almost six months of opportunities to object to the arbitration.

  • Dillon v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., No. 16-1362 (4th Cir. May 10, 2017)
    05/10/2017

    Court affirmed district court’s order denying motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court held the choice of law provision providing for application of the “laws of the Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians,” but forbidding an arbitrator from applying any state or federal law, functioned as a prospective waiver of federal statutory rights and, thus, was unenforceable as a violation of public policy.  Court denied a request to sever the choice of law provision, finding the provision went to the essence of the arbitration agreement.

  • Century III Mall PA LLC v. Sears Roebuck and Co., No. 2:16-CV-01839-LPL (W.D. Pa. May 10, 2017)
    05/10/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding plaintiff’s vacatur motion failed to set forth a claim as a matter of law.  Court held that plaintiff’s assertions – that the award departed from the terms of the Lease, exceeded the arbitrator’s authority, and was irrational error requiring vacatur – failed as they do meet the applicable standard of review under the FAA and FRCP Rule 12(b)(6).

  • Coudert Brothers LLP v. Rupert X. LI, No. 7:16-CV-08237-KMK (S.D.N.Y. May 10, 2017)
    05/10/2017

    Court denied order compelling arbitration, finding the defendant had not been properly served.  Court determined that where a party to an arbitration agreement is not within the US service is not governed by the FAA but FRCP Rule 4.  In the instant case, the plaintiff failed to properly effect service under any of the possibilities under FRCP Rule 4.

  • Fairhope Piggly Wiggly-Inc. v. PS 2 LED, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00031-KD-N (S.D. Ala. May 10, 2017)
    05/10/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration at the current time and ordered a trial on the issue, finding there was a genuine dispute of material fact over the existence of an agreement to arbitration pursuant to the FAA.

  • Ouadani v. Dynamex Operations East, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-12306-PBS (D. Mass. May 10, 2017)
    05/10/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s putative class action claims for violations of the Fair Labor standards Act and state wage laws under the FAA.  Court held the non-signatory was not bound to arbitrate on traditional agency principals or equitable estoppel, and the agreement did not create third-party beneficiary status.

  • Metter v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-06652 (N.D. Cal. May 10, 2017)
    05/10/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion for reconsideration of the order denying its motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s putative class claims.  Court denied defendant’s argument that the court should have ordered trial on the material issue of consent pursuant to the FAA because defendant did not raise the issue of material fact in connection with its motion to compel arbitration.

  • Sunvalley Solar, Inc. v. CEEG (Shanghai) Solar Science & Technology Co., No. 15-56802 (9th Cir. May 10, 2017)
    05/10/2017

    Court of appeals affirmed grant of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that distribution contract between the parties that was silent as to arbitration should not be read in isolation, but rather the arbitration clauses contained in specific purchase orders governing each transaction in dispute applied.

  • Energy Operations, Inc. v. United Government Security Officers of America International Union, No. 16-1219 (8th Cir. May 9, 2017)
    05/09/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed decision to uphold arbitrator’s award, holding (i) that reinstatement of terminated officer would not violate public policy, as would warrant overturning arbitration award ordering reinstatement; and (ii) the arbitrator did not exceed his authority under the collective bargaining agreement.  Court found that any violation of federal regulations could be avoided by employing officer in a different role, and that the arbitrator had analyzed this question in the context of the agreement’s provisions, and therefore acted within his authority. 

  • Ambulatory Services of Puerto Rico, LLC v. Sankar Nephrology Group, LLC., No. 4:17-CV-230-A (N.D. Tex. May 9, 2017)
    05/09/2017

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to stay arbitration and granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action pursuant to resolution of the issue of arbitrability.  Court held parties clearly and unmistakably delegated authority to the arbitrator to determine issues of arbitrability.

  • Rivera v. Saul Chevrolet, Inc., No. 5:16-CV-05966-LHK (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2017)
    05/09/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration on an individual basis.  Court found the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because it interfered with plaintiff’s right to “engage in…concerted activities for the purpose of…mutual aid or protection” under the National Labor Relations Act and acted as an express class action waiver.  Court also held the pendency of an action waiver issue before the United States Supreme Court offered no basis to grant the motion.

  • James River Insurance Co. v. Atlantic Building Systems, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-01981-MSK-NYW (D. Colo. May 9, 2017)
    05/09/2017

    Magistrate judge recommended motion to dismiss be granted and the case stayed pending completion of arbitration pursuant to the FAA.  Court found arbitration provision was enforceable and the provision was mandatory not permissive, and therefore the arbitrator must resolve the claim alleging invalidity of the policies as a whole based on fraudulent misrepresentation or inducement.

  • Smallish v. Meijer, Inc., No. 2:12-CV-11457-VAR-MKM (E.D. Mich. May 8, 2017)
    05/08/2017

    Court confirmed the arbitral award and dismissed motion to vacate.  Court held that plaintiff failed to establish facts to indicate partiality of the arbitrator and, in any event, had waived the claim by waiting to raise the alleged conflict of interest until after the award was rendered in circumstances where the plaintiff was previously aware of its existence.

  • Wilson v. 5 Choices, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-10659-RHC-MKM (E.D. Mich. May 8, 2017)
    05/08/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice, pending the outcome of arbitration or litigation, finding the arbitration and forum selection provisions were enforceable.  Court concluded plaintiffs’ Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations claims fell under the scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • Knight v. Idea Buyer, LLC., No. 2:16-CV-01175-GCS-TPK (S.D. Ohio May 8, 2017)
    05/08/2017

    Court granted motion to dismiss and compel arbitration and denied the motion to stay as moot.  Court found review of the validity of the plaintiffs’ claims and enforceability of the agreements were issues for arbitration and plaintiffs should proceed in individual arbitral proceedings since the arbitration provision did not address class arbitration.  Under the FAA, the claim should be dismissed and not stayed because all plaintiffs’ claims were arbitrable.

  • Habliston v. FINRA Dispute Resolution, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-02225-ABJ (D.D.C. May 8, 2017)
    05/08/2017

    Court denied motion for reconsideration of order dismissing case with prejudice and motion for leave to file a substituted amended complaint, holding that the court had no jurisdiction over the proposed amended complaint.  Court found that suits brought under the FAA required an independent jurisdictional basis, as the statute was not jurisdictional, and that claims were barred by the doctrine of arbitral immunity, as defendant was immune from suit.

  • Sullivan v. Endeavor Air, Inc., No. 16-1653 (8th Cir. May 8, 2017)
    05/08/2017

    Court of appeals affirmed the lower court’s denial of defendant-appellee’s petition to vacate an arbitration award. Court held that, contrary to defendant-appellee’s claims, (i) the arbitration award did not violate due process or any other form of public policy; (ii) the arbitrator did not exceed his jurisdiction; and (iii) the arbitration award did not fail to draw its essence from the contract.

  • Cross Link, Inc. DBA Westar Marine Services v. Salt River Construction Corporation, No. 16-CV-05412-JSW (W.D. Ark. May 8, 2017)
    05/08/2017

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award, finding that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers by issuing an award in favor of petitioner, since respondent had failed to provide evidence to support its assertion that arbitrator lacked jurisdiction and because respondent had not previously moved to stay the arbitration.

  • Garcia v. Midland Funding, No. 1:15-6119-RBK-KMW (D.N.J. May 5, 2017)
    05/05/2017

    Court denied motion to compel individual arbitration under the FAA.  Court found that while there was a valid arbitration agreement, defendant did not have the broad right to compel arbitration for any dispute or claim under the assigned agreement.  Court granted and denied in part defendant’s motion to seal, allowing for public access to a redacted version of the underlying agreement.

  • Janus Distributors LLC v. Roberts, No. 1:16-CV-2130 (D. Colo. May 5, 2017)
    05/05/2017

    Court granted motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, finding the FAA does not provide a federal cause of action to ground the petition to vacate the arbitral award.  Court concluded that there was not another independent basis for federal jurisdiction under the Securities and Exchange Act based on a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority claim, finding that plaintiff’s petition did not require the resolution of a federal issue.

  • Lasseigne v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-16925-LMA-MBN (E.D. La. May 5, 2017)
    05/05/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant, holding there was a valid agreement between the parties and the dispute fell within the scope of the agreement.  Court did not find plaintiff’s claim that she did not electronically sign the arbitration provision to be credible, concluding it was more likely than not that she signed the agreement.  Court stayed and administratively closed the action pending arbitration.

  • McCauley v. America’s Pizza Co., No. 2:16-CV-253 (S.D. Ohio May 5, 2017)
    05/05/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to consolidate for discovery purposes but denied motion to consolidate in all other respects, reasoning that the cases were at different stages and the plaintiffs were seeking to represent different distinguished classes partially by issue of an arbitration agreement.

  • The Sanwan Trust v. Lindsay, No. 1:16-CV-12469-RWZ (D. Mass. May 5, 2017)
    05/05/2017

    Court denied petition to vacate arbitral award and granted petition to confirm.  Court held that plaintiff’s grounds for vacatur on manifest disregard of the law and public policy were not an appropriate basis for vacatur.

  • Nadeau v. Equity Residential Properties Management Corp., No. 7:16-CV-07986-VB (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2017)
    05/04/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay the action pending arbitration.  Court found defendant materially breached the arbitration agreement by refusing to arbitrate before the AAA and thus waived its right to subsequently compel arbitration. 

  • NV Petrus SA v. LPG Trading Corp., No. 14-CV-03138-NGG-PK (E.D.N.Y. May 4, 2017)
    05/04/2017

    Court denied motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens in favor of an LCIA arbitration.  Court found defendants had waived their right to arbitrate by waiting nearly three years to request arbitration and actively participating in litigation. Court also held that defendants waived their argument that English law governed the action where defendants impliedly consented to state law governing the dispute by consistently relying on state law in their memoranda of law.

  • Olazabal v. Service Keepers Maintenance, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-20660-JAL (S.D. Fla. May 4, 2017)
    05/04/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that a valid written agreement to arbitrate existed and that the statutory claims for unpaid overtime wages were arbitrable.  Court found that plaintiff had signed a binding arbitration agreement, which contained a collective action waiver barring judicial recourse for these claims.

  • Bogar v. Ameriprise Financial Services., No. 1:16-CV-7199-GHW (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2017)
    05/04/2017

    Court denied petition to vacate arbitral award under the FAA and granted motion to confirm the award. Court rejected allegations that the arbitrator exceeded his authority, declining to consider the circumstances where a violation of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority could provide a basis for vacatur and dismissing as meritless the allegations of the insufficiency of evidence at arbitration.

  • Kambala Wa Kambala v. Checchi and Company Consulting, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00451-APM (D.D.C. May 4, 2017)
    05/04/2017

    Court granted motion to enjoin arbitration, finding that plaintiff waived its right to arbitrate by filing simultaneous court and arbitration actions.

  • Doctor’s Associates v. Repins, No. 3:17-CV-00323-JCH (D. Conn. May 4, 2017)
    05/04/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the parties delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

  • T&S Brass and Bronze Works, Inc. v. Slanina, No. 6:16-CV-03687-MGL (D.S.C. May 4, 2017)
    05/04/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding an individual was entitled to enforce an arbitration agreement that she signed as an agent of the party to the agreement.

  • Vanwechel v. Regions Bank, No. 8:17-CV-00738-SDM-AAS (M.D. Fla. May 3, 2017)
    05/03/2017

    Court granted motions to compel arbitration and stayed the action pending arbitral decision.  Court held that sufficient consideration supported the arbitration agreement; the claim fell under the arbitral agreement; the agreement was not unconscionable; the plaintiffs could not invoke the alternative jurisdiction provision; and the defendants did not waive the right to compel arbitration by removing the action.  Additionally, equitable estoppel required arbitration of the claims even where a party was a non-signatory to the agreement.

  • Hamilton-Warwick v. Verizon Wireless, No. 0:16-CV-03461-JRT-BRT (D. Minn. May 3, 2017)
    05/03/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay the action, adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendations finding that a valid arbitration existed, the dispute fell within its scope, and the arbitration agreement did not become void due to a breach of the contract which contained it.

  • Pataky v. The Brigantine, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00352-GPC-AGS (S.D. Cal. May 3, 2017)
    05/03/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration and request for stay, finding that, although an arbitration agreement existed, the class action waiver was inconstant with statutory rights under the National Labor Relations Act and therefore unenforceable under ninth circuit precedent.

  • Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Shive, LLC, No. 8:16-CV-03560-PX (D. Md. May 3, 2017)
    05/03/2017

    Court granted motion for default judgment on action to confirm an arbitration award, finding that review of an arbitration award is “severely circumscribed.”

  • Rogers v. Nelson, No. 3:16-CV-00955-L-RBB (S.D. Cal. May 3, 2017)
    05/03/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that an arbitration clause in “boilerplate” language is enforceable and that the arbitration clause was neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable.

  • Armenta v. Go-Staff, Inc., Rogers v. Nelson, No. 3:16-CV-02548-JLS-AGS (S.D. Cal. May 3, 2017)
    05/03/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the question whether the mandatory class action waiver is enforceable is to be determined by the arbitrator.

  • Theo’s Pizza v. Integrity Brands, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-0039-MBS (D.S.C. May 3, 2017)
    05/03/2017

    Court denied motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and to compel arbitration, finding that, where the parties had not explicitly agreed to arbitrate, no such agreement could be imputed.

  • Donner v. GFI Capital Resources Group, No. 1:16-CV-09581 (S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2017)
    05/02/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and plaintiff’s request for a stay, finding that broad arbitration clause in employment agreement encompassed plaintiff’s claims.  Court further found that a non-signatory to the agreement could join in compelling arbitration given the close nexus between him and the employment agreement, and because the claims brought against him and the signatory were closely intertwined.

  • Trustees for the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. Briscoe Sunrise Corporation, No. 1:16-CV-07680 (S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2017)
    05/02/2017

    Court granted motion for summary judgment to confirm arbitration award, finding that the arbitrator construed and applied the applicable agreement and the undisputed facts supported confirmation.

  • Inversiones y Procesadora Tropical Inprotsa v. Del Monte International GMBH, No. 1:16-CV-24275-FAM (S.D. Fla. May 2, 2017)
    05/02/2017

    Court granted cross-petition to confirm arbitral award, finding, inter alia, that (1) the New York Convention and FAA provided federal subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying action to vacate the arbitral award and thus the cross-petition to confirm; (2) the argument that the underlying contract had been obtained by fraud had already been addressed and rejected on the facts during the arbitration and could not be “rehashed” in the guise of a public policy argument; and (3) petitioner’s failure to effect service of petition to vacate award within the statutory time limit had the effect of barring it from asserting the award’s invalidity as an affirmative defense to the cross-petition for confirmation of the arbitral award.

  • Ortega v. Uber Technologies Inc., No. 1:15-CV-07387-NGG-JO (E.D.N.Y. May 2, 2017)
    05/02/2017

    Court denied motion for reconsideration or clarification of its prior order granting motion to compel arbitration, finding that question of whether arbitration agreement covers disputes that arose prior to its conclusion is a question of arbitrability that was delegated to the arbitrators.

  • Graham v. Chubb Insurance Company, No. 1:17-CV-01793 (E.D. Ill. May 2, 2017)
    05/02/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration clause was permissive, and not mandatory.

  • Gemini Insurance Company v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London Subscribing to Policy No. B0973MA1305152 Issued Through the Offices of Osprey Underwriting Agency Ltd., No. 4:17-CV-01044 (S.D. Tex. May 2, 2017)
    05/02/2017

    Court granted motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration in a one-paragraph order referencing the reasoning in its April 13, 2017 order dissolving a state court’s temporary restraining order barring defendants from pursuing arbitration in England (covered separately on the Shearman & Sterling US International Arbitration Digest).

  • International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 18 v. Ohio Contractors Association, No. 16-4040 (6th Cir. May 2, 2017)
    05/02/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed grant of summary judgment on action to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration clause delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

  • Horton v. FedChoice Federal Credit Union, No. 16-3960 (3d Cir. May 2, 2017)
    05/02/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed denial of motion to dismiss or stay in favor of arbitration, finding that the district court did not err in determining that the complaint and incorporated documents are not clear on their face as to an agreement to arbitrate, and thus that the non-movant is entitled to conduct limited discovery on the narrow issue concerning the validity of the arbitration agreement.

  • Perez v. Directv Group Holdings, LLC., No. 8:16-CV-01440-JLS-DFM (C.D. Cal. May 1, 2017)
    05/01/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that the parties had not entered into a valid agreement to arbitrate, and in any event, the circumstances demonstrated procedural and substantive unconscionability.  Court found that defendant withheld the arbitration clause in a separate document from the consumer-plaintiff at the time the contract was signed, and thus the clause had not been incorporated into the contract and the procedure was unconscionable.  Court found that the exemption of some of defendant’s claims from arbitration was one-sided and lacking in mutuality.

  • Heritage Capital Corporation v. Christie’s, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-03404-D (N.D. Tex. May 1, 2017)
    05/01/2017

    Court granted motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that the plaintiff was bound to arbitrate under a theory of equitable estoppel and that broad language of the arbitration agreement covered statutory claims. 

  • O’Sullivan v. Sunil Gupta, M.D., LLC, No. 2:17-CV-00609-LMA-JVL (E.D. La. May 1, 2017)
    05/01/2017

    Court granted motion to dismiss and compel arbitration as to certain claims, finding that (i) the existence of additional claims carved out from the arbitration clause did not justify refusal to compel arbitration of claims that were not carved out, and (ii) a forum selection clause did not conflict with the arbitration clause.

  • Crystallex International Corp. v. Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., No. 1:15-CV-01082-LPS (D. Del. May 1, 2017)
    05/01/2017

    Court granted motion to dismiss claims against defendant Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA) (“Venezuela's state-owned oil company and, undisputedly, an "agency or instrumentality" of Venezuela”) under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). Court held that the claimant failed to establish the “commercial activities” exception to the FSIA because the alleged conduct by PDVSA was extraterritorial or insubstantially connected to the US, and the conduct had no direct effect in the US given that the arbitration at issue did not relate to the US and the award had not yet been issued, much less confirmed, in the US when the conduct took place. PDVSA was therefore dismissed as a party to the suit.

  • Meierhenry Sargeant LLP v. Williams, No. 4:16-CV-04180-LLP (D.S.D. May 1, 2017)
    05/01/2017

    Court granted motion to stay action and compel arbitration, finding that a party’s repudiation of the underlying contract did not prevent the arbitration clause from applying to claims arising from the repudiation.

  • Gold v. Maurer, No. 1:17-CV-00734-CKK (D.D.C. May 1, 2017)
    05/01/2017

    Court denied motion for a temporary restraining order and injunction in aid of arbitration, finding that none of the preliminary injunction factors weighed in favor of granting the motion.

  • Daisley v. Blizzard Music Ltd., No. 2:17-CV-01500-CAS-AS (C.D. Cal. May 1, 2017)
    05/01/2017

    Court granted motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, finding that a party who invoked contractual rights against a non-party was bound to arbitrate its claims under the terms of the contract, and that the non-party was an alter ego of a party to the contract.

  • Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C. v. Scout Petroleum , LLC, No. 4:14-CV-00620-MWB (M.D. Pa. Apr. 28, 2017)
    04/28/2017

    Court granted motion for summary judgment on action for declaration that the contracts at issue do not permit class arbitration, finding that where the arbitration clause is silent as to class arbitration, class arbitration is excluded.

  • Finn v. Estate of Gennaro R. Schiavo, No. 1:15-CV-02409-NLH-KMW (D.N.J. Apr. 28, 2017)
    04/28/2017

    Court granted motion to enjoin arbitration, finding that movant had not submitted to arbitration and was not bound under theories of judicial estoppel or equitable estoppel.

  • MacDonald v. Cashcall, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-02781-MCA-LDW (D.N.J. Apr. 28, 2017)
    04/28/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that the contract’s wholesale waiver of the application of federal and state law made it invalid, and that arbitration to which no law applies is a sham dispute settlement procedure.

  • Wilson-Davis & Co., Inc. v. Mirgliotta, No. 1:16-CV-03056-PAG (N.D. Ohio Apr. 28, 2017)
    04/28/2017

    Court granted motion for preliminary injunction and declaratory judgment enjoining ongoing arbitration proceedings in part, finding that claims arising out of losses suffered while the defendants were clients of the plaintiff were arbitrable, but losses suffered before the client relationship was formed were not subject to arbitration.

  • Gibbs v. Cappo Management VII, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00073-BO (E.D.N.C. Apr. 28, 2017)
    04/28/2017

    Court granted motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, finding that an arbitration provision in an employment contract signed a month after employment began did not give rise to procedural or substantive unconscionability.

  • International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 465 v. ABM Government Services, LLC, No. 5:16-CV-0029-BO (E.D.N.C., Apr. 28, 2017)
    04/28/2017

    Court granted motion to confirm and enforce arbitration award, finding that no significant ambiguity existed to justify remanding the award to the arbitrator for clarification, and that additional challenges to confirmation of the award relied on arguments that could have been, but were not, raised in the arbitration.

  • Quiles v. Union Pacific Railroad Company Incorporated, No. 8:16-CV-00330-JFB-SMB (D. Neb. Apr. 28, 2017)
    04/28/2017

    Court denied motion to stay and compel arbitration, finding that no agreement to arbitrate was formed since the plaintiff was never provided a copy of the arbitration agreement, and, if an agreement was formed under such circumstances, it would be procedurally unconscionable.

  • National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 189 Labor Committee, No. 16-7004 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 28, 2017)
    04/28/2017

    Court affirmed the vacatur of the arbitrator’s award, finding that collective bargaining agreements may not regulate an Inspector General’s investigatory authority and that federal courts may refuse to enforce contracts that violate law or public policy. Dissent characterized the decision as being based on a “judicially fashioned ‘public policy’ exception,” warning that this “contradicts decades of precedent delineating a narrow public policy exception and threatens…to destabilize many, if not most arbitral awards.” Dissent further noted that the impact “may reach beyond labor arbitration to commercial arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act.”

  • Hilton v. Midland Funding, LLC, No. 16-1557 (6th Cir. Apr. 28, 2017)
    04/28/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed the district court’s dismissal and vacated the district court’s judgment that defendants did not waive their right to arbitrate. Court held that because neither party requested a stay, the district court did not err by dismissing the case without prejudice. Court also held that the district court should not have ruled on the issue of waiver because the arbitration provision delegated this question to the arbitrator.

  •  Kabba v. Rent-A-Center, No. 8:17-CV-00211-PWG (D. Md. Apr. 27, 2017)
    04/27/2017

    Court denied motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, treating it as a motion for summary judgment and finding that there was a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the parties’ failure to include an arbitration provision in a renewed employment contract constituted repudiation of the arbitration provisions applicable to prior periods of employment.

  • Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Gigi Jordan and the Hawk Mountain LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00199-RGA (D. Del. Apr. 27, 2017)
    04/27/2017

    Court denied requests for preliminary injunctions to enjoin ongoing arbitration, finding that question of whether the dispute was arbitrable under FINRA rules was to be determined in FINRA arbitration and that there had been no waiver by conduct of the arbitration agreement.

  • Marciano v. DCH Auto Group, No. 7:11-CV-09635-KMK (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2017)
    04/27/2017

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award and denied motion to vacate, finding, inter alia, that the arbitrator had not shown manifest partiality, any ex parte communications were non-prejudicial, the arbitrator was justified in excluding evidence submitted out of time, and there was no manifest disregard of the law.

  • Conde v. Open Door Marketing, LLC, No. 4:15-CV-04080-KAW (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2017)
    04/27/2017

    Court granted in part motion to deny class certification, finding that the fact that some individuals signed an arbitration agreement prevented certification as to those individuals, but also granted in part motion to expand the scope of the collective action to include a group with some individuals who signed an arbitration agreement, finding that conditional certification was a more lenient standard than eventual class certification.

  • Ibrahim v. ABM Government Services, LLC, No. 4:16-CV-00102-JHM-HBB (W.D. Ky. Apr. 26, 2017)
    04/26/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement covered claims arising before it was concluded.

  • Guidotti v. Global Client Solutions, LLC, No. 1:11-CV-01219-JBS-KMW (D.N.J. Apr. 26, 2017)
    04/26/2017

    Court denied motion in limine, finding that question of whether a party agreed to arbitrate was a factual question to be submitted to the jury, and not a legal one for the Court.
     

  • Thomas v. Fiserv Solutions, No. 4:16-CV-02157-CEJ (E.D. Mo. Apr. 26, 2017)
    04/26/2017

    Court granted defendant’s unopposed motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Court held that the parties had entered into a valid arbitration agreement and that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration clause.

  • Edmondson v. Lilliston Ford, Inc., No. 1:13-CV-07704-RMB-JS (D.N.J. Apr. 26, 2017)
    04/26/2017

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitration award and granted defendant’s cross-motion to confirm the arbitration award. Court found that that plaintiff had jumped to the unfounded conclusion that the arbitrator was engaging in ex parte communications. Court also rejected plaintiff’s arguments that defendant’s initial failure to pay the requisite fees to the AAA rendered the arbitration agreement unenforceable under FAA § 4.

  • Xu v. China Sunergy (US) Clean Tech Inc., No. 5:15-CV-04823-HRL (N.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2017)
    04/26/2017

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm the arbitration award.  Court rejected defendant’s argument that it should not be subject to the award because it neither signed an arbitration agreement nor consented to arbitration, finding that the parties intended to delegate the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator and the arbitrator properly considered the question of whether these non-signatories were the alter-egos of signatories.  Court also rejected defendant’s argument that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the parties’ agreement and the relevant law, as the arbitrator made his decision after considering respondents’ shared directors and officers and shared decision-making structures.

  • Stuart v. Camp Korey, No. 2:16-CV-01815-RSM (W.D. Wash. Apr. 26, 2017)
    04/26/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, plaintiff’s motion to strike, and plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment.  Court found that the record did not support a finding that the non-signatory plaintiff personally received a benefit from the agreement, and thus equitable estoppel did not require plaintiff to arbitrate his claims.  Court also found that the instant situation was not similar to an employer binding its employees to arbitrate or a subsidiary binding its parent company to arbitration, so agency law did not require plaintiff to arbitrate his claims either.

  • Glover v. Comenity Capital Bank, No. 3:16-CV-01785-BEN-BLM (S.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2017)
    04/25/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that a preliminary factual question existed as to whether the arbitration agreement was concluded by an imposter, and that this question would be determined at trial.

  • Celltrane Communications Limited v. Acacia Research Corporation, Nos. 16-2006, 16-2326 (2d Cir. Apr. 25, 2017)
    04/25/2017

    Court of appeal vacated and remanded part of the lower court’s judgment, finding that the lower court erred in dismissing instead of staying the case when it granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court noted that when “all claims are referred to arbitration and a stay is requested,” the FAA requires a stay of proceedings.  Court therefore vacated the lower court’s dismissal and instructed it to enter an order staying the proceedings.

  • Integr8 Fuels Inc. v. Daelim Corp., No. 1:17-CV-02191-LTS (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2017)
    04/25/2017

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order enjoining defendant from pursuing arbitration.  Court found that plaintiff did not demonstrate a likelihood of success, or even sufficiently serious questions going to the merits, on its claim that it is not a party to an agreement to arbitrate.  Court also found that the arbitration clause was broad and the claims are at least “incidental to” the contract, thus falling within the scope of the arbitration clause.

  • Meridian Imaging Solutions, Inc. v. Omni Business Solutions, LLC No. 1:17-CV-00186-TSE-JFA (E.D. Va. Apr. 25, 2017)
    04/25/2017

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court found that although defendant was a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, he could nevertheless compel arbitration against signatory Meridian because Meridian’s claims were based on his conduct as an agent of another signatory.  Court also found that neither agency nor estoppel principles supported the enforcement of the arbitration provision against another non-signatory, but that it was appropriate to stay the proceedings between the non-signatories because the issues were so closely intertwined with those being decided in the arbitration.

  • B&B Jewelry, Inc. v. Pandora Jewelry LLC, No. 1:17-CV-20198-UU (S.D. Fla. Mar. 23, 2017)
    04/23/2017

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to remand, holding that defendants failed to meet their burden in proving the existence of a valid agreement in writing within the meaning of the New York Convention.

  • Sunvison v. Rentokil North America, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-02151-PK (D. Or. April 21, 2017)
    04/21/2017

    Court recommended granting motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration agreement was enforceable and plaintiff had not demonstrated procedural unfairness.  Court found that the arbitration clause described the rights waived, was contained in a single-document employment agreement, and that the “take-it-or-leave-it” nature of the contract was insufficient to render it unenforceable for procedural unconscionability, where plaintiff had not shown he was surprised, misled, or deprived of adequate time to read the contract.

  • Pope v. Integrated Associates of Denver, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-02588-JLK (D. Colo. Apr. 21, 2017)
    04/21/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration for all but one of plaintiff’s claims. Court reasoned that plaintiff’s claim under Colorado Wage Claim Act was statutorily guaranteed a right to trial, and Court further refused to stay proceedings of this claim pending arbitration of other claims.

  • Ormonde v. Allied International Credit Corporation, No. 4:16-CV-01763-HEA (E.D. Mo. Apr. 21, 2017)
    04/21/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that although defendant was a non-signatory, it was able to invoke the arbitration agreement between plaintiff and eBay as an agent of eBay.

  • Bonner v. Michigan Logistics Incorporated, No. 2:16-CV-03662- GMS (D. Ariz. Apr. 20, 2017)
    04/20/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration in part, finding that ADR provision survived the termination of the agreement, that non-signatories could invoke the arbitration/ADR provisions as a matter of estoppel, and that concerted action waiver provision was severable and therefore did not prevent enforcement of the arbitration/ADR agreements even if the concerted action waiver provision was unenforceable.

  • Daelim Industrial Co. Ltd v. ECC International LLC, No. 3:17-cv-00775-MEJ (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2017)
    04/20/2017

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to stay the action pending arbitration. Court found that it must grant the stay under FAA § 3 and that the court had discretion to stay the action even though one of the defendants was not a party to the arbitration agreement.

  • Torres v. E-Land World, Ltd., No. 1:16-CV-00004 (D.N. Mar. Is Apr. 20, 2017)
    04/20/2017

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and granted plaintiff’s motion to remand back to state court.  Since the claims at issue were based on state-law and independent from the agreement containing the parties’ arbitration clause, court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 

  • Local 689, Amalgamated Transit Union v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, No. 1:16-CV-01482-JEB (D.D.C. Apr. 19, 2017)
    04/19/2017

    Court granted motion to confirm award, finding that the arbitrator’s interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement could not be challenged, that the award was not arbitrary and capricious, and that it was not against public policy.

  • GCIU-Employer Retirement Fund v. Quad/Graphics, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-03391-ODW-AFM (C.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2017)
    04/19/2017

    Court affirmed in part and vacated in part an arbitral award, finding that questions of law in arbitration under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 are reviewed de novo and that arbitrator incorrectly found that obligation to contribute to a multiemployer pension plan survived termination of the agreement.

  • Wulfe v. Valero Refining Company-California, No. 16-55824 (9th Cir. Apr. 19, 2017)
    04/19/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed lower court’s decision declining to vacate the arbitration award on the basis that intervening law could not provide a basis for vacatur. Court held that, at the time the arbitration award was rendered the law relating to the plaintiff’s claim was unsettled, and the arbitrator’s failure to correctly predict future judicial decisions and the change in the law does not mean she acted in “manifest disregard” of the existing law.

  • Hyatt Franchising, LLC v. Shen Zhen New World I, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-08306 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 19)
    04/19/2017

    Court granted motion to confirm the arbitration award and, conversely, denied motion to vacate. Court held that there was no evidence of misbehavior by the arbitrator by which the right of any party had been prejudiced, as required to vacate an arbitral award pursuant to §10(a)(3) of the FAA, nor was there a manifest disregard for the law or authority to vacate the award on public policy grounds.

  • The Knabb Partnership v. Home Income Equity, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-00373-GAM (E.D. Pa. Apr. 19, 2017)
    04/19/2017

    Court granted motion to confirm the arbitration award and denied motion to vacate. Court determined that, while the third circuit has not taken a position on whether “manifest disregard of the law” remains a viable standard, it remains a viable basis for vacatur. Nonetheless, the respondent failed to carry the heavy burden of proving that the arbitrator willfully ignored controlling law.

  • JDA Software, Inc. v. Sabert Holding Corp., No. 2:17-CV-00373 (D. Ariz. Apr. 19, 2017)
    04/19/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay case pending arbitration of plaintiff’s claims, which the court construed as a motion to compel arbitration, and denied plaintiff’s motion to stay the pending arbitration until the case was resolved.  Court concluded that the parties’ incorporation of the AAA arbitration rules into their arbitration agreement means the question of arbitrability falls to the arbitrator to decide and not the court.

  • In re: Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:15-CV-03001-MOB-MKM (E.D. Mich. Apr. 18, 2017)
    04/18/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss and stay several claims pending arbitration in relation to an alleged conspiracy amongst defendants to fix prices.  In relation to defendants that were signatories to an arbitration agreement, court held that the doctrine of equitable estoppel applied to compel arbitration of claims by a non-signatory plaintiff arising from damages attributable to the signatories’ purchases and sales under this contract.  In relation to a non-signatory defendant whose sales were made through signatory defendants, court held that the doctrine of equitable estoppel equally applied and compelled arbitration accordingly. 

  • Marshall v. SSC Nashville Operating Co., LLC, No. 16-5751 (6th Cir. Apr. 18, 2017)
    04/18/2017

    Court of appeals affirmed lower court’s decision denying plaintiff’s motion to vacate or modify the arbitrator’s decision.  In holding that the plaintiff had not established any of the exceptions to enforcement of an arbitration award under the FAA, court noted that a review of an arbitrator’s decision is “one of the narrowest standards of judicial review in all of American jurisprudence.”

  • Parkridge Limited v. Indyzen, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-07387-KAW (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2017)
    04/18/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings. Court held that the parties’ incorporation of the AAA rules left questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator and declined to assess whether the agreement covered all the scope at issue, holding that, in any case, the clause was sufficiently broad. Court further held that nonsignatory plaintiff was equitably estopped from seeking to benefits of the agreement while avoiding its arbitration provision.

  • Metter v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-06652-RS (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2017)
    04/17/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration in light of plaintiff establishing a genuine issue of fact as to whether he assented to defendant’s terms of service and the arbitration agreement therein. 

  • Roach v. Asbury Automotive Group, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-04215-CC (N.D. Ga. Apr. 14, 2017)
    04/14/2017

    Court recommended motion to compel arbitration and stay pending arbitration be granted in part and denied in part, holding that all of plaintiff’s claims were subject to arbitration, as plaintiff had not established fraud in the factum, and dismissal of the claim was warranted.  Court found that plaintiff did not allege she did not understand the contract containing the arbitration agreement, nor that plaintiff presented any evidence that defendant prevented her from reviewing the contract before signing it.

  • Pharmacy Corp. of America, Inc. v. Health Care at College Park, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-04790-LMM (Apr. 14, 2017 N.D. Ga.)
    04/14/2017

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held plaintiffs’ claims for payment of money due were carved out of the arbitration clause, and that defendants’ arbitrable counterclaim did not require plaintiffs’ excluded claims to go to arbitration.

  • McLeod v. General Mills, Inc., No. 15-3540 (8th Cir. Apr. 14, 2017)
    04/14/2017

    Court of appeals reversed and remanded lower court’s decision denying General Mills’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the arbitration agreement at issue is broad enough to establish the parties’ intent to arbitrate both the release of claims and stand-alone claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).  Further, court held that no “contrary congressional command” existed to override the FAA’s mandate to enforce the parties’ agreement to arbitrate substantive ADEA claims.

  • Bordelon Marine, LLC v. Bibby Subsea ROV, LLC, No. 16-30847 (5th Cir. Apr. 14, 2017)
    04/14/2017

    Court of appeal dismissed plaintiff-appellant’s appeal of the lower court’s decision as to the selection of arbitrators due to lack of appellate jurisdiction.  Court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction because (1) the lower court never entered final judgment or dismissed the state-law claims, as required for an appeal under §16(a)(3) of the FAA; and (2) appellate jurisdiction does not exist under §16(a)(1)(B) of the FAA for a motion relating to the selection of arbitrators under §5 of the FAA.

  • Albertson v. Art Institute of Atlanta, No. 1:16-CV-03922-WSD (N.D. Ga. Apr. 14, 2017)
    04/14/2017

    Court approved magistrate’s recommendation to dismiss labor claim and compel arbitration.  Court held that a valid arbitration agreement applied to the dispute and rejected argument that mere inequality of bargaining power in concluding that agreement rendered it unconscionable.  Court denied request for attorneys’ fees, holding that mere refusal to dismiss claim and proceed to arbitration did not constitute sufficiently egregious conduct to warrant bad faith subject to sanctions.

  • Mitchell v. Precision Motor Cars, Inc., No. 8:17-CV-00376-SCB-AAS (M.D. Fla. Apr. 14, 2017)
    04/14/2017

    Court granted motion for an evidentiary hearing on a motion to compel arbitration.  Court reasoned that the existence of a valid written agreement to arbitrate is a threshold issue in compelling arbitration under the FAA.  Because party seeking to compel arbitration could not locate the credit agreement allegedly containing the arbitration clause and the claimant categorically denied the existence of any such provision in the contract she signed, a genuine issue of fact existed.  Court further held that the sufficiency of consideration for the contract went to the existence of the contract, which was a threshold question for the court to decide, and determined that adequate consideration existed under applicable state law.

  • Hernandez v. Goldfarb Properties, Inc, No. 1:13-CV-08640-LGS (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2017)
    04/14/2017

    Court granted motion to compel an arbitration award.  Court determined that the motion was effectively unopposed because no motion for vacatur or modification of the award was filed within the FAA’s three-month limit to do so, but held that it was nevertheless required to consider the merits.  However, court ruled that in the absence of any challenge of the award or of the arbitrator’s findings of fact, summary judgment to confirm the award was appropriate.

  • Minute Med Clinic Group, LLC v. Absolute MD, LLC, No. 6:17-CV-0025 (W.D. La. Apr. 13, 2017)
    04/13/2017

    Magistrate judge recommended defendants’ motion to dismiss be denied and motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings be granted.  Court found there was a valid arbitral agreement, the claim for fraud in the inducement of the contract was arbitrable, and no federal statute or policy rendered the claims non-arbitrable.  Court concluded action should be stayed because it was unclear whether defendant intended to arbitrate all claims in the petition.

  • Gonzalez v. Coverall North America, Inc., No. 5:16-CV-02287-JGB-KK (C.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2017)
    04/13/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court found that the agreement delegated issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator, and that the delegation clause was not unconscionable.

  • Science Applications International Corporation v. Hellenic Republic, No. 1:13-CV-01070-GK (D.D.C. Apr. 13, 2017)
    04/13/2017

    Court corrected an entry of judgment following its January 5, 2017 confirmation of an arbitral award granted to petitioner in a contract dispute regarding Greece’s failure to pay for the design and installation of a public safety infrastructure system.  In correcting the clerical mistakes, court held that petitioner had not waived its right to have the award granted in dollars, and, after tacking on interest, arbitration fees, and an adjustment to the exchange rate, increased the award from €39.8 million ($42.2 million) to $63 million.  Court noted that federal courts generally enter judgment in U.S. dollars partly to protect aggrieved parties from having their award devalued by currency fluctuations, as had been the case here.

  • Gemini Insurance Company v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London Subscribing to Policy No. B0973MA1305152 Issued Through the Offices of Osprey Underwriting Agency Ltd., No. 4:17-CV-01044 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 13, 2017)
    04/13/2017

    Court dissolved a state court’s temporary restraining order barring defendants from pursuing arbitration in London.  Court also denied a preliminary injunction finding that there was a valid arbitration agreement under the New York Convention.  Finally, the court held that the arbitration agreement’s incorporation of English law was an implicit delegation clause and therefore any threshold arbitrability questions would be sent to the arbitrators. 

  • Doctor’s Associates Inc. v. Nijjar, No. 3:16-CV-01944-JCH (D. Conn. Apr. 13, 2017)
    04/13/2017

    Court denied plaintiff’s petition to compel arbitration finding that, because defendant’s Virginia lawsuit was only seeking to enforce an existing arbitration award, the arbitration clauses found in separate franchise agreements did not apply to the present case.

  • UBS Financial Services, Inc. v. Bounty Gain Enterprises, Inc., No. 9:14-CV-81603-WM (S.D. Fla. Apr. 12, 2017)
    04/12/2017

    Magistrate judge denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment finding that there were disputed material issues of fact that should go to trial before a final decision on arbitrability could be made.  One of the questions at hand would revisit whether non-signatories to a contract can compel arbitration, which the magistrate judge noted depends on the facts of each case.

  • Lockett v. Conn Appliances, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-703-ALM-CAN (E.D. Tex. April 11, 2017)
    04/11/2017

    Court recommended that motion to compel arbitration be granted and suit stayed pending an arbitral ruling on arbitrability, holding that the arbitration agreement evidenced a clear intent to submit disputes regarding arbitrability to arbitration.  Court found that parties had incorporated the AAA rules and the arbitration clause specifically stated that disputes regarding “the scope and validity of this arbitration clause (including disputes as to the matters subject to arbitration)” must be submitted to arbitration.  Further, court found that this agreement was not unconscionable merely by virtue of being a contract of adhesion.

  • BOSC v. Board of County Commissioners of the Country of Bernalillo, No. 1:15-CV-01042-KG-LF (10th Cir. Apr. 11, 2017)
    04/11/2017

    Court of appeals affirmed lower court’s judgment holding that the Board of County Commissioners had not waived its right to demand FINRA arbitration when it filed a state court action.  Court rejected the existence of a bright-line rule under federal law that a party who files litigation intentionally abandons its right to arbitrate; and applied the Peterson factors to find that the Board of County Commissioners had not waived its right to arbitrate through its conduct.

  • Lefoldt for Natchez Regional Medical Center Liquidation Trust v. Horne, No. 16-60245 (4th Cir. Apr. 11, 2017)
    04/11/2017

    Court of appeals vacated and remanded lower court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration as to one of the three engagement letters at issue.  The primary legal question was whether Mississippi’s “minutes rule,” which requires the board of trustees of a community hospital to “keep minutes of its official business,” pertains to the validity of a contract.  Court thus remanded to lower court suggesting that the minutes rule is one of contract formation and thus should be addressed by the courts, not by arbitrators.  Court also held that §2 of the FAA did not foreclose application of the minutes rule because there was no indication of the rule being applied selectively to arbitration provisions.

  • Hudson v. BAH Shoney’s Corporation, No. 3:16-CV-03016 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 11, 2017)
    04/11/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay all proceedings regarding plaintiff’s claims of discrimination and retaliation against defendant as her employer Court refused to enforce the arbitration agreement because it found that three of the four factors in determining whether a waiver is “knowing and voluntary” weighed strongly against enforcement.

  • Stevens v. Jiffy Lube International, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-07175-EMC (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2017)
    04/11/2017

    Court denied petitioners’ motion for new judgment or to alter or amend a judgment vacating an arbitration award in favor of respondent.  Court found that the FAA provision allowing a court to vacate an arbitration award “where there was evident partiality of corruption in the arbitrators” did not apply in the present case because there was insufficient evidence to show a “reasonable impression of partiality.”

  • Keraplast Technology v. Bath and Kitchen Distributors LLC, No. 2:17-CV-01562 (D.N.J. Apr. 10, 2017)
    04/10/2017

    Court confirmed an arbitration award issued by the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukraine Chamber of Commerce and Industry.  Court held that it had jurisdiction pursuant to the FAA and the New York Convention and that defendant had not filed any opposition to petitioner’s efforts to confirm the award.

  • Simmons v. Simpson House, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-06636-GJP (E.D. Pa. Apr. 10, 2017)
    04/10/2017

    Court granted one of the defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims and enforce an arbitration agreement as to claims filed on behalf of decedent, but denied defendant’s motion with respect to plaintiff’s wrongful death claim.  Defendant Kindred argued, and the court agreed, that decedent, through her attorney and legal guardian, agreed to arbitrate any dispute between Kindred and decedent and that such an arbitration agreement was valid even if it cited to the now-defunct National Arbitration Forum as the arbitration entity.  However, the court agreed that plaintiff, decedent’s son, had not signed the arbitration agreement and therefore he and his wrongful death claim were not subject to arbitration.

  • Novosad v. Broomall Operating Company LP, No. 16-2089 (3d Cir. Apr. 10, 2017)
    04/10/2017

    Court of appeals affirmed lower court’s judgment holding that an arbitration clause that covered “only claims by individuals and [did] not cover class or collective actions” excluded a putative class and collective action for overtime pay from arbitration.  Court found that despite a strong federal policy favoring arbitration, in this case, the arbitration clause unmistakably excluded class and collective actions from mandatory arbitration.

  • Evans v. Midland Funding, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00421-GNS-DW (W.D. Ky. Apr. 10, 2017)
    04/10/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding there was no issue of material fact as to the validity of the arbitration agreement since the plaintiff signed a credit agreement that contained an arbitration clause and failed to respond to the defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.  Court also found that all of the plaintiff’s claims where within the scope of the arbitration clause, that the credit agreement prohibited class-based claims, and the defendant was an appropriate successor-in-interest to the credit agreement’s original parties.

  • Emam v. CVS Foundation Inc., No. 5:16-CV-897-D (E.D.N.C. Apr. 10, 2017)
    04/10/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration but denied motion to dismiss.  Court found that there was a valid “arbitration policy” that required CVS employees to arbitrate disputes and, because the arbitration clause had not been obtained fraudulently, neither North Carolina public policy nor contract law invalidated it. Further, all of plaintiff’s claims were arbitrable.  

  • Villarreal v. Perfection Pet Foods, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-01661-LJO-EPG (E.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2017)
    04/10/2017

    Magistrate judge recommended that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration be granted based on a finding that there was a binding agreement that was not unconscionable; that under ninth circuit case law Private Attorneys General Act claims were arbitrable; and that the arbitration could include class claims because there was no enforceable class waiver.

  • Charging Bison, LLC v. Interstate Battery Franchising & Development, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-03479-G-BN (N.D. Tex. Apr. 7, 2017)
    04/07/2017

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to stay an arbitration pending before JAMS.  Court found that it had jurisdiction to decide the issue of arbitrability, and in doing so, held that the plaintiff’s right to terminate a franchise agreement due to defendant’s alleged misrepresentations was a dispute that fell within the scope of the parties’ arbitration clause.

  • Hallock v. Kia Motors Finance, No. 8:17-CV-00417-RAL-TBM (M.D. Fla. Apr. 7, 2017)
    04/07/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and motion to stay, noting that, under eleventh circuit precedent, even if a court decides to compel arbitration, “it is error to dismiss [an] appeal.”  Instead, upon compelling arbitration, a court should stay court proceedings.

  • Enron Nigeria Power Holding Ltd. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, No. 1:13-CV-01106 (D.D.C. Apr. 7, 2017)
    04/07/2017

    Court added approximately $2.6 million in exchange rate fluctuations and interest on fees to plaintiff’s arbitration award. because the pound-dollar exchange rate has declined 22 percent since the 2012 London-seated arbitration panel issued the award, the court issued its decision to allow plaintiff to receive a “judgment that reflects the true value in dollars of the Final Award at the time it was issued instead of the significantly diminished value resulting from Nigeria’s success in delaying the entry of final judgment.”  The decision also left open the possibility for plaintiff to pursue legal fees related to the confirmation of the award, as long as it files a motion to do so within 14 days.

  • Patton v. Volkswagen Group of America Chattanooga Operations, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00327-TAV-CHS (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 6, 2017)
    04/06/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint. Court found that the arbitration agreement’s delegation provision clearly communicates the parties’ intent to displace state law and to submit the gateway issue of arbitrability to arbitration; and plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily entered into the agreement with defendant.

  • Dimattei v. Diskin Motors, No. 2:16-CV-05183-GEKP (E.D. Pa. Apr. 6, 2017)
    04/06/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in light of an arbitration agreement between the parties. Claimant failed to raise any argument that the dispute was outside the scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • Ciprianni v. Omni La Costa Resort  Spa LLC, No. 3:16-CV-01002-L-BGS (S.D. Cal. Apr. 6 2017)
    04/06/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the FAA applied since the contract between the parties involves interstate commerce; the presence of additional defendants who are not a party to the arbitration agreement cannot defeat a motion to compel arbitration with a party to the arbitration agreement; the defendant did not waive its right to compel arbitration; and a valid arbitration agreement covered the claim.

  • Clark v. Cellco Partnership, No. 3:16-CV-00720-GCM (W.D.N.C. Apr. 6 2017)
    04/06/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the litigation pending arbitration. Court held that defendant did not substantially utilize the litigation machinery such that plaintiff suffered actual prejudice.

  • Khashaki v. Lowe’s HIW, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00526-R-JC (C.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2017)
    04/06/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings upon finding that the dispute was subject to a valid arbitration agreement. Court held that plaintiff’s failure to specifically initial the arbitration provision was not fatal and rejected his arguments that the agreement was unconscionable.

  • Barron v. Best Buy Co., Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00690-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss. Apr. 5, 2017)
    04/05/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that contract between parties contained an arbitration provision and that plaintiff’s Fair Credit Reporting Act claims were subject to arbitration.

  • Herrera v. West Flagler Associates, Ltd., No. 1:17-CV-20872-CMA (S.D. Fla. April 5, 2017)
    04/05/2017

    Court granted in part defendant’s motion to dismiss complaint and compel arbitration, staying the labor action pending arbitration. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments (1) that the FAA does not provide a basis for the court to require him to comply with any condition precedent to bringing his FLSA claims; (2) that the FLSA does not permit an employer to impose conditions precedent by contract; (3) that defendants’ pre-arbitration grievance process is illusory and unenforceable; (4) that defendants seek incorrect relief whether they advocate for dismissal instead of relief; (5) that plaintiff’s claims against the different defendants are not inextricably intertwined and so the non-signatories to the arbitration agreement are not entitled to enforce the arbitration agreement; and (6) that the arbitration agreements’ limitations on discovery render the agreement unconscionable.

  • Glover v. Citibank, N.A., No. 3:16-CV-01786-BEN-BLM (S.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2017)
    04/05/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and motion to file documents under seal. Court held that there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff consented to the arbitration agreement, which was a question in need of resolution by trial.

  • Nugussie v. HMS Host North America, No. 2:16-CV-00268-RSL (W.D. Wash. Apr. 5, 2017)
    04/05/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding no justification for invalidating the agreement to arbitrate based on communication from defendants’ while a class action was pending. Court directed plaintiff to submit her individual claims to binding arbitration in accordance with the arbitration agreement.

  • Spencer v. CVS, 1:16-CV-07593-RBK-AMD (D.N.J. Apr. 5, 2017)
    04/05/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss complaint and to compel arbitration.  Court held that there was a binding arbitration agreement between the parties and that plaintiff was aware of that agreement and did not opt out of it.  Plaintiff was therefore barred from asserting her discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims before any court and had to submit them to arbitration.

  • Hudson v. Windows USA, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00596-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss. Apr. 5, 2017)
    04/05/2017

    Court granted defendant Wells Fargo National Bank’s motion to compel arbitration, but denied Wells Fargo’s request for dismissal.  Court found that there was a valid arbitration agreement, noting that plaintiffs’ argument that the credit-card agreement containing the arbitration clause had been procured by fraud-in-the-factum was not sufficient to challenge the arbitration clause within that agreement.  Court set oral argument and sought additional briefing from the parties on whether other non-signatory defendants could join in Wells Fargo’s motion to compel arbitration.

  • Schambon v. Orkin, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00130-GNS (W.D. Ky. Apr. 5, 2017)
    04/05/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration finding that plaintiff had knowingly and voluntarily entered into an agreement to arbitrate any dispute arising out of his employment relationship with Orkin, LLC.  Court noted, among other things, that plaintiff’s experience, background, and education, as well as the time and opportunity that he had to review the agreement and consult with a lawyer, weighed in favor of finding that he executed a knowing and voluntary waiver to a jury trial. 

  • Vega v. CVS, No. 1:16-CV-07594-RBK-AMD (D.N.J. Apr. 5, 2017)
    04/05/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss complaint.  Court held that there was a binding arbitration agreement between the parties and that plaintiff was aware of that agreement and did not opt out of it.  Plaintiff was therefore bound to arbitrate her claims for discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

  • Ipock v. Manor Care of Tulsa OK, LLC, No. 17-CV-0106-CVE-TLW (N.D. Okla. Apr. 4, 2017)
    04/04/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings as to plaintiff’s negligence claim and denied motion as to plaintiff’s wrongful death claim.  Court held that under Oklahoma supreme court precedent, plaintiff cannot be compelled to arbitrate a wrongful death claim based on an arbitration agreement that the plaintiff, as decedent’s next of kin, did not sign, even if the decedent’s husband signed the arbitration agreement on behalf of the decedent.  Court also held that, per the US Supreme Court Concepcion test, the Federal Arbitration Act did not preempt the cited Oklahoma Supreme Court case. 

  • Gray v. Midland Funding, LLC, No. 5:16-CV-00036-TBR (W.D. Ky. Apr. 4, 2017)
    04/04/2017

    Court found that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the validity of the arbitration agreement and decided to hold an evidentiary hearing on this issue.  The arbitration clause was embedded in a credit agreement that plaintiff claimed she did not sign as she allegedly opened her account via phone.  However, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for the court to order discovery and a jury trial on the issue of the agreement’s validity.

  • G.G., A.L., and B.S. v. Valve Corporation, No. 2:16-CV-01941-JCC (W.D. Wash. Apr. 3, 2017)
    04/03/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court concluded that the that the arbitration agreement was conspicuous and each party had an opportunity to understand the terms,  therefore plaintiffs’ procedural unconscionability argument was unpersuasive. Further, the plaintiff parents of the minors who entered into the contract were bound by the arbitration agreement on grounds of equitable estoppel.

  • Schreiber v. Friedman, No. 1:15-CV-06861-CBA-JO (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2017) 
    03/31/2017

    Court denied in-part defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and concluded a stay would be inappropriate because the majority of claims were non-arbitrable.  Contrary to Supreme Court precedent but consistent with Second Circuit decisions, court determined that the issue of whether defendants’ pre-litigation and litigation conduct waived their rights to arbitrate was a question for the court rather than arbitration.  Court held signatory defendant had waived his right to compel arbitration based on his pre-litigation refusals to arbitrate and denied non-signatory defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, concluding that the defendants failed to establish the close relationship required to prove equitable estoppel, but granted in part some of the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  

  • Rimel v. Uber Technologies, Inc.,  No. 6:15-CV-02191-CEM-KRS (M.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2017)
    03/31/2017

    Court adopted and confirmed magistrate judge’s recommendation, granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and strike class action allegations and stayed case pending arbitration, finding that the arbitration provision and the delegation clause are valid and enforceable under Florida law, which the magistrate judge correctly applied in the absence of a choice-of-law provision in the arbitration provision.  Court further found that the California choice of law provision in the main agreement was inapplicable, since the arbitration provision  is severable from that agreement, that its decision however would not be altered even if California law did apply, and that the class-action waiver in the arbitration agreement did not render the arbitration agreement substantively unconscionable, since plaintiff had the right to opt out of arbitration.

  • Weickert v. Natural Products Ass’n, No. 1:16-CV-00142-RJL (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2017)
    03/31/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held plaintiff made a binding contract with defendants to arbitrate his employment claims and that any contract defenses regarding the validity of the agreement are within the purview of the arbitrator under the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (JAMS) Rules and Procedures incorporated therein.

  • Reis Robotics (China) Co., Ltd. v. Miasole, Inc., No. 5:15-CV-06112-HRL (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2017)
    03/31/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, holding that inclusion of an arbitration agreement separate to the parties’ main contract did not cause the plaintiff to suffer surprise or hardship and became one of the parties’ agreed terms.

  • Commissions Import Export S.A. v. Republic of the Congo, No. 1:13-CV-00713-RJL (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2017)
    03/31/2017

    Court granted petitioner’s motion for sanctions and counsel for respondent’s motion to withdraw.  Court held Republic of the Congo in civil contempt for failure to respond to post-judgment interrogatories for collection on a previously confirmed arbitration award. 

  • Belize Bank Ltd. v. Government of Belize, Nos. 16-7089, 16-7094 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 31, 2017)
    03/31/2017

    Circuit court affirmed district court decision enforcing an arbitration award as consistent with the New York Convention.  Circuit court held that enforcement of the award against Belize was not contrary to US public policy under New York Convention Art. V(2)(b).  Court also held that Belize did not allege conduct that would warrant denial of enforcement of the award in challenging the LCIA’s decision to not disqualify LCIA-appointed member of tribunal. Even if it had, court held this would not have violated the “most basic notions of morality and justice,” the standard set forth in TermoRio required to set aside an award.

  • Certain Underwriting Members at Lloyd’s of London v. Insurance Company of the Americas, No. 1:16-CV-00374-VSB (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2017)
    03/31/2017

    Court granted motion to vacate the arbitration award, finding that the undisclosed relationships of the party arbitrator for respondent ICA were significant enough to demonstrate evident partiality.  In his disclosures, the arbitrator claimed that his only connection to the respondent was a failed business venture that had occurred ten years ago, failing to mention his close business relationships with numerous principals of ICA, the number and variety of which suggested that he was personally acquainted with some of these individuals over a number of years.  Further, the arbitrator failed to acknowledge that he knew the treasurer, secretary, and director of ICA during the three-day arbitration, evincing an apparent willful avoidance that suggested that he was hiding their relationship from the other arbitrators and petitioner’s representatives.

  • Johnson v. Miami-Bade County, No. 1:16-CV-21658-KMW (S.D. Fla. Mar. 30, 2017)
    03/30/2017

    Court granted motion to dismiss in part, finding, inter alia, that the arbitration clause could be enforced after expiry of the agreement in which it formed a part, and that arbitration applied to some matters not all.

  • Firdous v. Credit Acceptance Corporation, No. 1:17-CV-00215-RJJ-PJG (W.D. Mich. Mar. 30, 2017)
    03/30/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that arbitration clause was not unconscionable since there were conspicuous notices regarding the arbitration clause right above the signature line and the contract gave the plaintiff the option to reject the arbitration clause.

  • Brendel v. Meyrowitz, No. 3:15-CV-01928-SAF (N.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2017)
    03/30/2017

    Court granted in part plaintiff’s motion to confirm an arbitration award.  Court held that defendants’ contention that arbitrator improperly considered records and manifestly disregarded Florida law did not correspond to any ground for vacatur of an award recognized in the Fifth Circuit.

  • Johnson v. Drake, No. 3:16-CV-01993-L-BF (N.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2017)
    03/30/2017

    Court accepted as modified magistrate judge’s report recommending that the court grant respondent’s motion to dismiss without prejudice for failure to effect service on respondent.  Court held § 9 of the FAA applied to service in proceedings such as this one to confirm an arbitration award.  Court also held failure to effect service was curable defect for which it provided petitioner with additional time.

  • Arabian Gas & Oil Dev. Co. v. Wisdom Marines Lines, S.A., No. 4:16-CV-03801-DMR (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2017)
    03/30/2017

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to increase plaintiff’s undertaking while arbitration proceedings were pending in London.  Court held that plaintiff’s undertaking should be increased to provide defendants with security for a potential wrongful attachment claim in the event the plaintiff did not recover judgment.

  • McElrath v. Uber Tech., Inc., No. 3:16-CV-07241-JSC (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2017)
    03/30/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings pending a Supreme Court ruling that may foreclose plaintiff’s class action claim. Court held that the entire arbitration agreement was unenforceable under current ninth circuit law, and whether the case could proceed as a class action turns squarely on the outcome of the Supreme Court’s upcoming review in Ernst & Young v. Morris, 2017 WL 125665 (Jan. 13, 2017). 

  • Moore v. America Online Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01561-GBL-MSN (E.D. Va. Mar. 29, 2017) 
    03/29/2017

    Court dismissed plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitral award, finding that the FAA does not create federal question jurisdiction and plaintiff did not have independent subject matter jurisdiction because he did not meet the amount in controversy.  Court explained that although the Fourth Circuit had not adopted an approach to establish the amount in controversy in arbitral award challenges and that there was a split among the circuit courts regarding the appropriate methodology, plaintiff did not meet the amount in controversy under any of the approaches.

  • Seaman v. Private Placement Capital Notes II, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00578-BAS-DHB (S.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2017)
    03/29/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration in part and to stay the case pending arbitration. Court held that by incorporating the AAA Rules into their arbitration agreement, the parties clearly and unmistakably delegated the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator.  Court further held that conflicting terms of Section 4 of the FAA provide that the forum will be both “in accordance with the terms of the agreement,” in this case Colorado, but also “shall be within the district in which the petition of an order directing such arbitration is filed, which the court held to be the southern district of California.  Court also denied a transfer to the contractually-designated forum under 28 USC § 1404(a) for public interest factors.

  • James v. Global Tellink Corp., No. 16-1555 (3d Cir. Mar. 29, 2017)
    03/29/2017

    Circuit court affirmed district court ruling denying motion to compel arbitration against plaintiff and putative class.  Circuit court held that appellees did not agree to arbitrate their dispute with appellants and a party cannot be required to arbitrate without consent.

  • Great Lengths Universal Hair Extensions S.r.L v. Gold, No. 1:16-CV-00193-GBD (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2017)
    03/29/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court held that undisputed, valid arbitration clause in agreement applies to non-signatory plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs are estopped from avoiding the clause when they receive a direct benefit from the contract containing it by seeking to enforce the provisions contained therein.

  • Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. MAA Laxmi, LLC, No. 8:16-CV-02322-PX (D. Md. Mar. 29, 2017)
    03/29/2017

    Court granted plaintiff’s request to enter default judgment confirming its arbitration award.  Court held that plaintiff’s pleadings demonstrated that the award can and should be confirmed.  

  • Johnson v. Retirement Plan of General Mills, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00151-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind. Mar. 29, 2017)
    03/29/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay litigation and proceed to arbitration.  Court held that agreement between the parties was enforceable and required plaintiff to arbitration questions regarding the right to enforce it and whether it covered her claims. 

  • Westcode, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Electric Corp., No. 3:15-CV-01474-MAD (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2017)
    03/29/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion for reconsideration of prior order denying motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that defendant failed to demonstrate any of the three possible grounds upon which a motion to reconsider may be granted.  Court also declined to send the entire case to arbitration when in the prior order court held that defendant waived it right to compel arbitration and plaintiff suffered prejudice as a result of defendant’s litigation.

  • UBS Financial Services Inc, v. Asociación de Empleados del Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico, No. 3:16-02017-GAG (D.P.R. Mar. 28, 2017)
    03/28/2017

    Court granted petitioner’s petition to confirm its arbitration award, holding that respondent did not provide any evidence or argument for the application of any of the FAA’s statutorily defined exceptions to confirming an arbitration award.  

  • Jackson v. Diversicare Humble, LLC, No. 4:16-CV-02776-SL (S.D. Tex. Mar. 28, 2017)
    03/28/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pending arbitration.  Court held the parties are subject to binding and valid arbitration agreement.

  • Cesca Therapeutics Inc. v. Syngen Inc., No. 2:14-CV-02085-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2017)
    03/28/2017

    Court denied defendants’ motion to stay proceedings pending appeal of prior order denying motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the defendants did not meet a threshold showing of the requisite individualized irreparable harm they would suffer but for a stay of proceedings or their likelihood of success on the merits, and a stay would injure plaintiff’s interests in preserving evidence.  Court further held that the strong public policy support for arbitration did not outweigh these three reasons against the granting of a stay.

  • Carlson v. Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Ltd., No. 2013-CV-00115-CVG (D.V.I. Mar. 28, 2017)
    03/28/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to vacate arbitration award.  Court remanded case to arbitration for proceedings consistent with its prior order holding that arbitrator had committed misconduct in refusing to hear material evidence, and stayed matter pending completion of arbitration.

  • UBS Financial Services Inc. v. Associacion de Empleados Del Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico, No. 3:16-CV-02017-GAG (D.P.R. Mar. 28, 2017)
    03/28/2017

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm arbitration award, holding that respondent presented no evidence or argument for the application of any FAA exception to confirming the award. 

  • Internaves de Mexico s.a. de C.V. v. Andromeda Steamship Corp., No. 9:16-CV-81719-DMM (S.D. Fla. Mar. 28, 2017)
    03/28/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration but denied motion to compel arbitration in London, England under English law.  Court held that because plaintiff challenged the entire agreement, and not the making of the arbitration agreement in particular, an arbitrator must decide plaintiff’s allegation of fraud.  Court further held it lacked jurisdiction to compel arbitration in a particular forum where the contract contained contradictory forum provisions resulting in an ambiguity.  

  • Weirton Medical Center, Inc. v. QHR Intensive Resources, LLC, No. 16-1647 (4th Cir. Mar. 28, 2017)
    03/28/2017

    Circuit Court affirmed district court’s order denying plaintiff-appellant’s motion to vacate arbitration award and confirming defendant-appellee’s arbitration award.  Court held that plaintiff-appellant had plenty of opportunity to uncover misconduct of witnesses and to demonstrate a causal connection between such and the result of the arbitration, which it did not.

  • Lenhardt v. Sysco Corp., No. 1:16-CV-00153-SPW (D. Mont. Mar. 28, 2017)
    03/28/2017

    Court adopted magistrate judge’s findings in part and modified in part.  Court refrained from deciding defendant’s motion to dismiss until after arbitration, as plaintiff agreed to arbitrate any claim arising from certain protective covenants, including her non-compete agreement. Court therefore stayed the case pending arbitration. 

  • UBS Financial Services, Inc. v. Zimmerman, No. 5:16-CV-00155-FL (E.D.N.C. Mar. 28, 2017)
    03/28/2017

    Court enjoined defendant from pursuing arbitration against plaintiff in prior order and expanded that injunction to include other affiliated corporate entities provided they are joined in the action.  Court held that the defendant is not a customer of any of these entities and they do not have a written arbitration agreement with defendant. 

  • Jefferson v. Baptist Health System, Inc., Nos. 2:14-CV-01028, 2:14-CV-1094-KOB (N.D. Ala. Mar. 28, 2017)
    03/28/2017

    Court awarded attorney’s fees and costs to plaintiff.  Court held that where defendant challenged the plaintiff’s arbitration award in court, plaintiff was entitled to fees and costs for those proceedings concerning the enforceability of the arbitration award. 

  • Murillo v. Coryell County Tradesmen, LLC, No. 2:15-CV-03641 (E.D. La. Mar. 28, 2017)
    03/28/2017

    Court stayed litigation of cross-claim plaintiff against one defendant pending the outcome of arbitration.  Court held that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed, that the cross-claim fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and that the court would stay rather than dismiss the action pending resolution of the arbitration.

  • Song v. Charter Commc’ns, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00325-JTM (S.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2017)
    03/28/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that under ninth circuit precedent, clear and unmistakable language in the agreement between the parties requires the arbitrator to determine which claims are arbitrable or belong in court.

  • Sport Collectors Guild Incorporated v. Bank of America NA, No. 2:16-CV-02229-ROS (D. Ariz. Mar. 27, 2017)
    03/27/2017

    Court found that claim for breach of contract for failure to arbitrate was not barred by res judicata or collaterally estopped by prior court decision that was dismissed without prejudice.

  • The National Retirement Fund v. Metz Culinary Management, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-02408-VEC (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2017)
    03/27/2017

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the final arbitration award and denied defendant’s motion to confirm the award.  Court held that the arbitrator made a legal determination rather than a factual finding when it decided that various assumptions continued from one pension plan year to the next, and that such determination was reviewable de novo by the court and in error.

  • Echevarria-Hernandez v. Affinitylifestyles.com, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00943-GMN (D. Nev. Mar. 27, 2017)
    03/27/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the terms of the arbitration policy in plaintiff’s employment agreement were presented clearly, that plaintiff had a meaningful opportunity to agree or not with the terms, and that the policy was neither substantively or procedurally unconscionable nor unenforceable.

  • Local 30, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO v. Wood Group Power Operations LLC, No. 2:13-CV-02499-JS-GRB (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2017)
    03/27/2017

    Court adopted as modified magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to grant petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award against respondent.  Court overruled both petitioner’s and respondent’s objections to conclude that respondent must comply with the award, that petitioner may not use the award to collect damages beyond the scope of the award, and that petitioner was granted leave to apply for an award of fees and costs.

  • Carey v. Uber Tech., Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01058-SEL (N.D. Ohio Mar. 27, 2017)
    03/27/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to strike plaintiff’s class allegations as moot.  Court held that plaintiff accepted defendant’s employment agreement that contained a valid delegation clause that was clear and unmistakable and was not unconscionable under Ohio state law.

  • Pierre v. University of Dayton, No. 3:15-CV-00362-TMR (S.D. Ohio Mar. 27, 2017)
    03/27/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim. Court held, inter alia, that there is no written contract between the parties requiring controversies to be settled through arbitration and that plaintiff had not asserted any claim under the Ohio Arbitration Act.

  • Tritsis v. BankFinancial Corp., No. 1:16-CV-02052-SJC (N.D. Ill. Mar. 27, 2017)
    03/27/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss case for lack of venue based on an arbitration clause in the parties’ employment agreement. Court held that payment by employee plaintiff of only the initial case management fee pursuant to the JAMS Endispute Employment Arbitration Rules and Procedures is not so burdensome as to render the arbitration clause unenforceable.

  • Carey v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01058-SL (N.D. Ohio Mar. 27, 2017)
    03/27/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss complaint or compel arbitration and strike plaintiff’s class allegations.  Court found that the language of the delegation provision in the parties’ valid agreement clearly and unmistakably evinces the parties’ intent to submit all issues to the arbitrator, including issues of arbitrability.  Court further held that Ohio state law governed the delegation provision which was not procedurally unconscionable and could therefore not be both procedurally and substantively unconscionable as required to be invalid.

  • Inversiones y Procesadora Tropical INPROTSA, S.A. v. Del Monte International GMBH, No. 16-17623 (11th Cir. Mar. 27, 2017)
    03/27/2017

    Circuit court granted defendant-appellee-cross-appellant’s motion for a limited remand for further proceedings to resolve defendant’s cross-petition to confirm an arbitration award. Circuit court held it has no jurisdiction over the appeal until the district court clarifies its order.

  • McGrew v. VCG Holding Corp., No. 3:16-CV-00397-TBR (W.D. Ky. Mar. 27, 2017)
    03/27/2017

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that under New York law, the arbitration provisions are substantively unconscionable and void as against public policy where they would require plaintiff to forego his rights and remedies under the applicable U.S. securities laws.

  • Eisen v. Venulum Ltd., No. 1:16-CV-00461-EAW (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2017)
    03/27/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismiss.  Court held that plaintiffs’ claims are subject to arbitration on an individual, non-class basis because each signed multiple arbitration agreements that cover their claims while employed with defendants.  Neither the Fair Labor Standards Act nor the National Labor Relations Act overrides the FAA’s clear mandate to enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms.

  • Brock Industrial Services, LLC v. Laborers International Union of North America, Construction & General Laborers Local #100, No. 3:16-CV-00780-NJR-DGW (S.D. Ill. Mar. 27, 2017)
    03/27/2017

    Court denied four interrelated motions to dismiss, vacate, and enforce a grievance decision of a labor dispute between the parties.  Court held there are clearly disputed issues of fact which prevented the court from determining whether the decision should be enforced or vacated as the court must decide which arbitration agreement and procedure is applicable, which will have the effect of determining the merits of the underlying dispute and the arbitration award. 

  • Pershing LLC v. Kiebach, No. 2:14-CV-02549-LMA-MBN (E.D. La. Mar. 27, 2017)
    03/27/2017

    Court ordered defendant to produce some but not all documents to defendant in an action under the FAA to confirm a FINRA dispute resolution panel arbitration award.  Court held that the mere fact that certain documents are not privileged does not make them discoverable, and yet, even though rare in an action to confirm an arbitration award, discovery is not prohibited and certain relevant documents should be produced. 

  • Crystallex International Corporation v. Venezuela, No. 1:16-CV-00661-RC (D.D.C. Mar. 25, 2017)
    03/25/2017

    Court granted petition to confirm, and denied motion to vacate, and arbitral award. Court found that arbitrability issues were delegated to the tribunal by clear and unmistakable evidence based on the language of the BIT and the arbitration rules, and therefore deferentially reviewed the tribunal’s decisions. Court held that the tribunal did not exceed its powers under Article V(1)(c) of the New York Convention by ruling on certain claims or using certain calculation methods.  Additionally, court refused to vacate the award based on Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention, finding that its confirmation was not contrary to public policy. Finally, court rejected Venezuela’s independent argument that the award is in manifest disregard of the law, casting doubt on whether that doctrine is even “still good law.”

  • Clark-Williams v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, No. 1:14-CV-00099-RDM (D.D.C. Mar. 25, 2017)
    03/25/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment and denied plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment.  Court held that defendants’ demonstrated that no genuine question of material fact existed as to whether they breached the collective bargaining agreement with plaintiff, including its grievance and arbitration process.

  • Voorhees v. Ace American Insurance Co., No. 2:15-CV-01193-PP (E.D. Wis. Mar. 24, 2017)
    03/24/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation. Court found that the defendant showed the existence of both an agreement to arbitrate and a dispute that falls within the scope of that agreement, as well as a refusal by the plaintiff to proceed to arbitration. Additionally, court held that the issue of whether the moving party waived its right to arbitration was one for the arbitrator to decide.

  • Tweatherford, Inc. v. 3D Systems Corporation, No. 1:16-CV-00783-WTL-DML (S.D. Ind. Mar. 24, 2017)
    03/24/2017

    Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss for improper venue but granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Court, applying New York law to determine whether the parties agreed to submit to arbitrate the disputes, held that unambiguous arbitration clause in the agreement cannot apply to disputes and that venue was not improper. 

  • CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-11803-IT (D. Mass. Mar. 24, 2017)
    03/24/2017

    Court granted in part defendant’s motion to dismiss or stay plaintiff’s non-patent claims pending arbitration.  Court held that defendant, a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, may invoke the equitable estoppel provisions of the arbitration agreement to refer three claims to arbitration and stayed plaintiffs’ claims pending arbitration.

  • Physicians Healthsource, Inc. v. Allscripts Health Solutions, Inc., No. 1:12-CV-03233 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 23, 2017)
    03/23/2017

    Court took judicial notice of an AAA interim award that found defendants’ claims to be time-barred and that plaintiffs would be entitled to recover reasonable costs incurred in the arbitration.  Court explained that, for an arbitration to be judicially recognized, there must be a showing that it has some significance in the present case.  Court determined that, while “it could be argued [that the arbitration ruling] may not now be a fit subject for the exercise of discretion to take judicial notice,” the defendant did not object to plaintiff’s motion, and therefore the court would take judicial notice.

  • Sader v. Griswold, No. 2:15-CV-02874 (E.D. La. Mar. 23, 2017)
    03/23/2017

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel joinder of one defendant in his individual capacity.  Court urged the parties to submit the entire case to arbitration but held that if the defendant, a non-signatory to the agreement requiring arbitration, would not consent to such, that the plaintiff, also a non-signatory, would not be subject to the AAA tribunal’s jurisdiction in his individual capacity.

  • Baltimore/Washington Constr. and Public Emp. Laborer’s Dist. Council v. Whiting-Turner Contracting Co., No. 16-CV-3722-JKB (D. Md. Mar. 23, 2017)
    03/23/2017

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to compel arbitration under the Labor Management Relations Act and denied as moot the motion to compel under the FAA.  Court held petitioner filed timely motion and its grievance was contemplated under the arbitration provision contained in the Project Labor Agreement between the parties. 

  • MHA, LLC v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-07825-ES (D.N.J. Mar. 23, 2017)
    03/23/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to direct the arbitration panel to determine whether plaintiff’s claims are arbitrable and stayed action.  Court held that the parties clearly and unmistakably agreed to submit the question of arbitrability of plaintiff’s claims to arbitration. 

  • Mohebbi v. Khazen, No. 5:13-CV-03044-BLF (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2017)
    03/23/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to partially lift a stay of claims where court had previously granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay remaining claims. Court held that lifting the stay for a single defendant who joined the motion to compel arbitration would be contrary to the FAA’s mandate, prejudicial to other defendants, and unwarranted where the completion of the arbitration was imminent and furthered the goal of efficiency for both the judiciary and the litigants.

  • White v. Four Seasons Hotel and Resorts, No. 1:13-CV-01399-JEB (D.D.C. Mar. 23, 2017)
    03/23/2017

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitration award against defendant and granted defendant’s motion to confirm the award.  Court held that plaintiff could not meet demanding standard for vacatur under the FAA where arbitrator’s discovery-related decisions did not amount to misconduct that denied plaintiff with a fundamentally fair hearing.

  • Tully Construction Co., Inc. v. Canam Steel Corp., No. 16-1324 (2d Cir. Mar. 23, 2017)
    03/23/2017

    Court of appeals affirmed the decision of the lower court’s confirmation of an arbitral award and denial of vacatur.  Court held that the award was not in manifest disregard of the law or the parties’ agreement, that the award was reasoned, and that the lower court was correct in reducing the damages only by the principal amount in escrow instead of principal and accrued interest.

  • Chelsea Grand LLC v. New York Hotel & Motel Trades Council, AFL-CIO, No. 1:16-CV-05301-PAC (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2017)
    03/23/2017

    Court denied petition to vacate an arbitration award.  Court held that the arbitral award did not manifestly disregard the law by ignoring the statute of limitations to confirm arbitral awards or by providing impermissible remedies.

  • Glenwright v. Carbondale Nursing Home, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00926-MEM (M.D. Pa. Mar. 23, 2017)
    03/23/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, as a valid arbitration agreement existed between the parties and the issue of whether the plaintiff waived her right to arbitrate is an issue for the arbitrator to decide. Court also refused to grant more time for discovery where the parties had already been engaged in several months of discovery and the plaintiff had not submitted or attempted to submit any additional evidence or briefing to support her arguments on the issue of arbitrability.

  • Deosaran v. ACE Cash Express, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00919-O-BP (N.D. Tex. Mar. 23, 2017)
    03/23/2017

    Magistrate judge recommended, and the district court later agreed, to grant a motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss action as to one of the plaintiffs, but denied the motion as to a second plaintiff.  Court found that one of the defendants, Goodwin, had entered into a valid loan agreement containing an arbitration clause that did not restrict plaintiff’s substantive rights regarding damages and that he should therefore be forced to arbitrate his claims.  However, as to Deosaran, the court held that she never signed a valid arbitration agreement and estoppel did not compel her to arbitrate her claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

  • Munro v. University of Southern California, No. 2:16-CV-06191-VAP-E (C.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2017)
    03/23/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) are arbitrable; but, although the plaintiffs-employees agreed to arbitrate in their personal capacities, their ERISA claims were brought on behalf of certain retirement plans, which did not agree to arbitrate.

  • Amsurg Glendale, Inc. v. Glendale Surgery Partners, No. 3:16-CV-00862 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 22, 2017)
    03/22/2017

    Court confirmed the arbitration award and denied respondent’s motions to vacate.  Looking at the grounds for vacatur under FAA § 10(a), the court concluded that respondent was not entitled to set aside the award for having been procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means because (i) petitioner was not complicit in the alleged wrong-doing by its attorneys, and (ii) respondent had not shown that due diligence would have failed to uncover the alleged wrongdoing prior to or during the arbitration.

  • Broadcom Corp. v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 8:16-CV-01774-JVS-JCG (C.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2017)
    03/22/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that an amendment to the parties’ agreement superseded the prior contract and did not provide for arbitration.  Court further held that, in any case, corporate entities that were part of a corporate families but not themselves party to the agreement could not be compelled to arbitrate.

  • Burton Way Hotels, Ltd. v. Four Seasons Hotels Ltd., No. 2:11-CV-00303-PSG-PLA (C.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2017)
    03/22/2017

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to void the parties’ arbitration agreement.  Court held that the recusal and unavailability of a judge who was specifically named in the arbitration agreement did not invalidate the agreement because the judge’s involvement was not integral or central to the arbitration agreement, particularly in circumstances where the agreement provided that JAMS was to be the arbitral forum.

  • Madrigal v. Zuniga, No. 1:16-CV-09415-RMB (D.N.J. Mar. 22, 2017)
    03/22/2017

    Court terminated pro se complaint of prisoner who filed action without paying the filing fee or completing an application to proceed without prepayment of fees in a case in which plaintiff was awarded fees against an attorney by the Supreme Court of New Jersey District 1 Fee Arbitration Committee.   The Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to enforce plaintiff’s fee determination when it did not meet the amount in controversy given that the FAA does not create independent federal question jurisdiction.

  • Donald v. National Truck Funding, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00403-HSO-JCG (S.D. Miss. Mar. 22, 2017)
    03/22/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case.  Court found that the parties agreed to arbitrate and that the dispute fell within the scope of the agreement and there were no external legal constraints that foreclosed arbitration.

  • Hite v. Lush Internet Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01533-JBS-AMD (D.N.J. Mar. 22, 2017)
    03/22/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration but dismissed the case on other grounds.  Court found that the terms of a website—including and arbitration provision—were not displayed conspicuously enough to website users and therefore there was no valid contract created under New Jersey law.

  • Chuang v. OD Expense, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00915-RGA (D. Del. Mar. 22, 2017)
    03/22/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay the action.  Court found that of the two arbitration agreements that potentially applied to the dispute, one was too ambiguous to enforce, and the other did not cover the defendants in the case.

  • Adams v. John M. O’Quinn & Associates, PLLC, No. 4:16-CV-00071-GHD-JMV (N.D. Miss. Mar. 22, 2017)
    03/22/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the signatories of the arbitration agreement were bound to it under principles of contract law, while non-signatories were bound to the arbitration agreement based on the “intertwined claims” theory of estoppel, which prevents a signatory plaintiff from bringing a case in court against a non-signatory defendant based on a contract that contains an arbitration provision.

  • Crumpton v. Hurstbourne Healthcare, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00478-DJH (W.D. Ky. March 22, 2017)
    03/22/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed between the parties which covered the dispute within its scope, and stayed the action pending arbitration.

  • G&G Close Circuit Events, LLC v. Castillo, No. 1:14-CV-02073 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 22, 2017)
    03/22/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration of third-party claims filed by the defendants.  Court found that the third-party claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement, especially given the FAA’s rule that doubt over the scope of the arbitration clause should be resolved in favor of arbitrability.

  • Liebman v. Better Way Wholesale Autos, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-01263-JBA (D. Conn. March 21, 2017)
    03/21/2017

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for judgment based on the arbitral award issued in plaintiffs’ favor, and denied defendant’s motion to vacate the arbitral award.  Court held that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority and did not act in manifest disregard of the law.

  • Aliments Krispy Kernels, Inc. v. Nichols Farms, No. 16-1975 (3d Cir. Mar. 21, 2017)
    03/21/2017

    Court of appeals vacated district court’s judgment denying plaintiff’s petition to confirm an arbitration award and granted defendant’s petition to vacate the award.  Court found that issues of material fact existed as to whether the parties agreed to engage in arbitration proceedings, which defendant refused to attend. Court remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.

  • Johnson v. Pizza Hut, No. 1:16-CV-01089-SOH –BAB (W.D. Ark. Mar. 21, 2017)
    03/21/2017

    Court adopted magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, granting the motion to compel arbitration and staying the action without prejudice to the parties to re-open the proceedings to enforce the arbitration award.  Court found that the contract-formation defenses advanced by the plaintiff were not persuasive and that the contract was valid under Arkansas law.

  • La Frontera Center, Inc. v. United Behavioral Health, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00187-JB-WPL (D.N.M. Mar. 20, 2017)
    03/20/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff entered an enforceable arbitration agreement and that each of plaintiff’s claims against each defendant was subject to mandatory arbitration.

  • Grant v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC, No. 9:16-CV-81924-KAM (S.D. Fla. Mar. 20, 2017)
    03/20/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to stay the action.  Court held that the fact that the employee did not open the email regarding the expansion of the mandatory arbitration program by his employer did not render the arbitration agreement invalid, especially because the employee received a follow-up email about it.

  • Erwin v. Citibank, N.A., No. 3:16-CV-03040-GPC-KSC (S.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2017)
    03/20/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration since there was a question as to whether the plaintiff opted out of a more recent arbitration agreement sent to him by his credit card company. Court granted the parties 60 days leave to take limited discovery on the issue, which the court stated would be dispositive of the arbitrability of the dispute.

  • Kelly v. Credit Acceptance, No. 1:16-CV-00223-SA-DAS (N.D. Miss. Mar. 20, 2017)
    03/20/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding the plaintiff’s electronic signature on the arbitration agreement meant he agreed to arbitrate the claim and that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • Ameriprise Financial Services Inc. v. Ekweani, No. 2:14-CV-00935-DGC (9th Cir. Mar. 20, 2017)
    03/20/2017

    Court of appeals affirmed the lower court’s summary judgment order granting attorney’s fees in Ameriprise’s declaratory judgment action.  Court found that the lower court properly granted summary judgment for Ameriprise because it had demonstrated Ekweani’s “knowledge of an existing right to arbitrate, acts inconsistent with that right, and prejudice” to Ameriprise.  Court disagreed with Ekweani’s argument that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute because the underlying substantive question involved arbitration of damages in cases of intentional discrimination in employment.

  • Roach v. Tate Publishing & Enterprises, LLC, No. 1:15-CV-00917-SAB (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2017)
    03/20/2017

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to lift the stay.  Court concluded that defendants’ failure to pay the costs of arbitration has resulted in the claims not having an expeditious resolution, and defendants should not be allowed to indefinitely postpone litigation while they do not comply with arbitration.

  • Mooneyham v. BRSI, LLC, d/b/a Big Red Kia, No. 15-6221 (10th Cir. Mar. 17, 2017)
    03/17/2017

    Court of appeals reversed district court’s decision that the parties’ arbitration agreement did not govern the dispute, holding that the arbitration agreement between the parties was not superseded by a set of documents that were signed after the arbitration agreement was executed and that the terms of the arbitration agreement clearly governed the dispute.

  • Al Maya Trading Establishment v. Global Export Mktg. Co., Ltd., No. 1:16-CV-02140-RA (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2017)
    03/17/2017

    Court granted petition to confirm an arbitral award and denied respondent’s motion to vacate the award and denied petitioner’s motion for sanctions.  Court held that there was no evidence to indicate that the arbitral tribunal’s decision to exclude evidence met the standard of misconduct required to vacate the award.  Court further held that, consistent with petitioner’s claim, the award should be adjusted to include $74,000 in damages that the arbitral tribunal inadvertently left out of its award and post-award interest. 

  • Hanson v. Prime Communications LP, No. 1:17-CV-00161-VEH (N.D. Ala. Mar. 17, 2017)
    03/17/2017

    Court granted an unopposed motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings.  Court held that although the motion was unopposed it was required to assess whether the parties had in fact entered into a valid agreement to arbitrate and that the dispute at issue fell within the scope of the provision.  Upon review of the arbitration agreement and the parties’ submissions, the court concluded that the agreement was valid and should be enforced.

  • Personacare of Reading, Inc. d/b/a Kindred Transitional Care and Rehabilitation – Wyomissing v. Lengel, No. 5:16-CV-01965-JLS (E.D. Pa. Mar. 17, 2017)
    03/17/2017

    Court denied defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that, contrary to defendants’ assertions, a motion to strike the motion to compel arbitration was inappropriate because the motion to compel arbitration was not a pleading.

  • Fozard v. C.R. England, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-01334 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 17, 2017)
    03/17/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that a valid arbitration agreement existed, but found that it did not need to address the question of whether the dispute fell within the scope of the agreement because the agreement contained language clearly and unmistakably reserving gateway issues for the arbitrators, including “interpretation, scope, and enforceability” of the agreement.

  • Zorilla v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00615 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 16, 2017)
    03/16/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration.  Court held that (i) the arbitration agreement clearly and unmistakably delegated issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator, (ii) plaintiffs’ claims that the delegation provision was substantively unconscionable due to the significantly greater costs of arbitration are “entirely speculative,” and (ii) plaintiffs were under no pressure or obligation to enter into the arbitration agreement, and thus it was not procedurally unconscionable.

  • Bright-Asante v. Saks & Co., Inc., No. 1:15-CV-05876-ER (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2017)
    03/16/2017

    Court inter alia denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate an arbitration award and denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff was unable to meet the standard to vacate an arbitration award because plaintiff did not assert any of the grounds available for vacating an award.  Court further held, with respect to defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, that plaintiff’s statutory claims were not subject to arbitration because there was no “clear and unmistakable” statement that the parties intended to arbitrate such claims.

  • Creech v. JEM Pizza Group, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-03087-PMD (D.S.C. Mar. 16, 2017)
    03/16/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff had validly executed an arbitration agreement because the evidence presented to the court demonstrated that in order to be hired by defendants, plaintiff had to fill out an online application that included an arbitration provision.  Court also found plaintiff’s other argument—that someone else executed the arbitration agreement on her behalf and without her knowledge—unpersuasive because, according to the court, plaintiff was not a credible witness.

  • Cubria v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00544-SS (W.D. Tex. Mar. 16, 2017)
    03/16/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and ordered the case stayed pending the outcome of the arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff had agreed to an arbitration clause and that the clause evinced a clear and unmistakable intent to delegate arbitrability to an arbitrator.

  • Evans v. Affiliated Computer Services Inc., No. 15-55453 (9th Cir. Mar. 16, 2017)
    03/16/2017

    Court of appeals affirmed the lower court’s judgment holding appellant in contempt and dismissing her action for failure to comply with court-ordered arbitration.  Court held that the lower court properly determined that appellant’s claims should proceed to arbitration.  Further, the lower court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion for contempt where, on more than one occasion, appellant violated the district court’s order to arbitrate her employment-based claims.

  • Jersey Shore University Medical Center v. Local 5058, Health Professionals & Allied Employees, AFT/ALF-CIO, No. 3:16-CV-04840-MAS-DEA (D.N.J. Mar. 16, 2017)
    03/16/2017

    Court denied petitioner’s motion to vacate an arbitration award and granted respondent’s petition to confirm the arbitration award.  Court held that, contrary to petitioner’s assertions, an arbitrator’s decision to rely on evidence that had been previously deemed inadmissible during the arbitration hearing did not rise to the level of misconduct justifying vacature because petitioner failed to establish that it had been prejudiced as a result of the alleged misconduct.   Court further held that the arbitrator’s alleged failings did not satisfy the standard that the arbitrator engaged in a manifest disregard of the law.

  • Knight v. Dandy RV Superstore, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00229-JHE (N.D. Ala. Mar. 16, 2017)
    03/16/2017

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that, contrary to defendants’ contention, it was proper for the court to consider whether the arbitration agreement between the parties was enforceable prior to deciding defendants’ motion to dismiss.  Upon examination of the parties’ agreement, court further held that the parties had entered into a valid arbitration agreement and that the subject of the dispute fell within the scope of the provision.

  • O’Connor v. Maritime Mgmt. Corp., No. 2:16-CV-16201-KDE-JCW (E.D. La. Mar. 16, 2017)
    03/16/2017

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for remand.  Court held that remand to the state court was improper and that defendant’s removal of the case to the federal district court was appropriate.  Specifically, court explained that defendant, a foreign insurer, was entitled to invoke the removal provision of the New York Convention and remove the case to federal court because of the existence of an arbitration provision which defendant claimed covered the dispute.  Court further rejected plaintiff’s defenses finding that (i) proof of a valid arbitration agreement was not required for purposes of establishing that removal was justified and (ii) that plaintiff’s efforts to attack the enforceability of the arbitration agreement were premature for purposes of deciding the motion to remand.

  • Sanders v. Concorde Career Colleges, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-01974-HZ (D. Or. Mar. 16, 2017)
    03/16/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.   Court held that the parties had entered into valid arbitration agreement which covered the subject of the dispute and that plaintiff’s defenses, that the agreement was ambiguous and that she never signed the agreement, were belied by the evidence.  Court further held that contrary to plaintiff’s assertions, the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable because there was no evidence that the agreement was oppressive or would impose a severe financial burden.

  • Hernandez v. DMSI Staffing, LLC, No. 15-15366 (9th Cir. Feb. 16, 2017)
    03/16/2017

    Court of appeals affirmed lower court’s order to deny appellants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the lower court correctly applied precedent which stated that any that claims under the California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act could not be waived by an employment agreement and that applicable law was not preempted by the FAA.

  • Sawgrass Mutual Insurance Company v. Endurance Specialty Insurance Ltd., No. 4:16-CV-00449-MW-CAS (N.D. Fla. Mar. 15, 2017)
    03/15/2017

    Court remanded defendant’s motions to compel arbitration and confirm the ex-parte arbitral award to state court, finding the FAA does not confer subject matter jurisdiction on federal courts and there was no independent basis for jurisdiction.

  • BCI Construction, Inc. v. 797 Broadway Group., LLC, No. 1:16-CV-017077-FJS (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2017)
    03/15/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to remand case to state court and denied defendant’s motion to confirm/modify an arbitration award as moot.  Court held that it lacked federal subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiff’s complaint seeking to vacate an arbitration award failed to assert that the award was rendered in manifest disregard of federal law or that the underlying dispute involved a federal question.

  • Hammer v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., No. 8:16-CV-03553-EAK-AAS (M.D. Fla. Mar. 15, 2017)
    03/15/2017

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.   Court held that plaintiff was bound to an unsigned arbitration agreement because an arbitration agreement is enforceable regardless of whether it is signed when, as was the case in the present dispute, the agreement stated that plaintiff accepted the agreement’s terms as a condition of continued employment.

  • Hebbronville Lone Star Rentals, LLC v. Sunbelt Rentals Industrial Services, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00856-RP (W.D. Tex. Mar. 15, 2017)
    03/15/2017

    Magistrate judge recommended that court grant plaintiffs’ motion to vacate an arbitration award.  Magistrate judge concluded that, although an arbitrator had in fact decided the issue of arbitrability, the parties had not expressly intended for the arbitrator to determine his jurisdiction and that therefore, the court would have to independently determine whether the dispute at issue was arbitrable. Upon review of the parties’ claims, magistrate judge determined that the issue in dispute was outside the scope of the arbitration agreement and that the arbitrator had therefore exceeded his authority in issuing an award.

  • National Hockey League v. National Hockey League Players’ Association, No. 1:16-CV-04287-AJN (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2017)
    03/15/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss a complaint seeking to vacate an arbitration award and granted defendant’s motion to confirm the award.  Court held that dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint was not warranted simply because plaintiff elected not to initiate the action as a motion to vacate.   Court further held that, contrary to plaintiff’s assertions, arbitrator did not exceed his authority when interpreting the standard of review that the collective bargaining agreement required him to apply.

  • Owensboro Health Facilities, L.P. v. Canary, No. 4:16-CV-00166-JHM-HBB (W.D. Ky. Mar. 15, 2017)
    03/15/2017

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration and to stay the proceedings in part.  Court held that defendants, the representatives of a deceased resident of plaintiffs’ nursing and rehabilitation center, were required to litigate their case through arbitration because plaintiffs and deceased had entered into an arbitration agreement that covered all of defendants’ claims except for defendants’ wrongful death claim.  Court further held that defendants’ wrongful death claim was not subject to the arbitration provision because controlling state law established that wrongful death claims do not derive from a claim on behalf of a decedent but belonged to the beneficiaries (i.e., defendants in the present case).

  • Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace v. Spirit Aerosystems, Inc., No. 16-3022 (10th Cir. Mar. 15, 2017)
    03/15/2017

    Court of appeals reversed the lower court’s decision to grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that an individual employee’s grievance had challenged a company-wide policy and thus, was not subject to arbitration under the parties’ collective bargaining agreement.  Court of appeals held that the collective bargaining agreement contained a valid agreement to arbitrate and that the terms of the arbitration provision did not disqualify the dispute from arbitration simply because the dispute would likely affect other employees.

  • Woo v. Ochiai Georgia, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00086-TAV-HBG (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 15, 2017)
    03/15/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  After finding that the parties had not expressly intended for an arbitrator to decide the issue of arbitrability, court held that plaintiff, a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement, could not be compelled to arbitrate the dispute because traditional principles of contract or agency law did not establish that plaintiff intended to be bound by the arbitration agreement in question.

  • JPay, Inc. v. Salim, No. 1:16-CV-20107-DLG (S.D. Fla. Mar. 15, 2017)
    03/15/2017

    Court denied without prejudice application to vacate arbitration award, finding the court was without jurisdiction to rule on the application while appeal of motion compelling arbitration was pending.

  • West Georgia Wireless, LLC v. Southwestco Wireless, LP, No. 3:16-CV-00196-TCB (N.D. Ga. Mar. 14, 2017)
    03/14/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, but denied motion to stay discovery as moot.  Court  found unsupported the plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable or should not be enforced because arbitration would be overly costly.

  • Limitless Beauty Partners, LLC v. Skinmedica, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-02824-JAG (D.P.R. Mar. 14, 2017) 
    03/14/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of a contract dispute.  Court held that claims that arose out of events that occurred after a written distribution agreement had expired and been extended by oral agreement were within the scope of the arbitration clause in the original agreement.  

  • Greerwalker, LLP v. Jackson, No. 3:15-CV-00235-GCM (W.D.N.C. Mar. 14, 2017)
    03/14/2017

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment to enjoin the defendants from arbitrating their malpractice claims.  Court held that there was no evidence to support defendants claim that an engagement letter containing an arbitration clause between plaintiff and a pharmaceutical company had been modified by plaintiff to make defendants, shareholders of the pharmaceutical company, party to the agreement. 

  • Wexler v. Solemates Marine, Ltd., No. 0:16-CV-62704-BB (S.D. Fla. Mar. 14, 2017)
    03/14/2017

    Court inter alia granted one of two defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.  Court held that, contrary to plaintiff’s assertions, plaintiff’s personal injury claims were immediate and foreseeable results of the performance of contractual duties and therefore fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement between the parties.

  • B&Z Auto Enterprises, LLC v. Autotrader.com, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-02313-MHC (N.D. Ga. Mar. 13, 2017)
    03/13/2017

  • Hurst v. Monitronics Int’l, Inc., No. 16-11177 (11th Cir. Mar. 13, 2017)
    03/13/2017

    Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of appellant’s motion to compel arbitration since appellant’s initial brief did not challenge the district court’s decision not to compel arbitration.

  • Roberts v. Lame Deer Public Schools, No. 14-36038 (9th Cir. Mar. 13, 2017)
    03/13/2017

    Court of appeals denied appellant’s challenge to an arbitral award.  Court held that the district court correctly found that appellant’s attempt to vacate the arbitration award was barred as a result of claim preclusion.  Court of appeals also held that, contrary to appellant’s claims, even if claim preclusion did not apply, the district court correctly concluded that the appellant had been afforded adequate procedural due process.

  • Umbach v. Carrington Investment Partners (US), LP, No. 15-1285-CV (2d Cir. Mar. 13, 2017)
    03/13/2017

    Court affirmed lower court’s decision to permit plaintiff the opportunity to amend his complaint to request damages.  Court held that although the parties’ agreement included a provision that subjected claims for damages to mandatory arbitration, defendants waived their right to rely on the arbitration agreement as an affirmative defense because defendants offered no evidence to show they moved to compel arbitration before the lower court.

  • Carroll v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. 3:15-CV-02321-EMC (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2017)
    03/13/2017

    Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendants’ affirmative defense—that certain members of the putative class were barred from becoming members of the class because of their agreements to arbitrate employment disputes with the defendants.  Court held that defendants’ had not waived their right to arbitrate the disputes in question because (i) a year-long delay in raising the prospect of arbitration was not sufficient to bar the defense and (ii) the plaintiffs would not be prejudiced if certain members of the class were required to arbitrate their disputes with the defendants.

  • Horner v. American Airlines, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00665-D (N.D. Tex. Mar. 13, 2017)
    03/13/2017

    Court denied plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order against the commencement of an arbitration hearing between plaintiffs and defendants.  Court held that a temporary restraining order was not justified because plaintiffs did not show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.  Specifically, court found that plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that the court had jurisdiction to hear the dispute under the Railway Labor Act.

  • Choice Hotels Int’l, Inc. v. Shree Sai Properties, No. 8:16-CV-00231 (D. Md. Mar. 13, 2017)
    03/13/2017

    Court granted motion to enforce the arbitration award.  Court construed defendants’ motion to dismiss as a motion to vacate, and proceeded to reject it because it was untimely under §9 of the FAA.  Court also found that the defendants’ claim that they were not properly notified of the arbitration proceedings unpersuasive since they were given notices reasonably calculated to inform them of the action and had an opportunity to present their objections.

  • Johnson v. Uber Tech., Inc., No. 1:16-CV-05468-JZL (N.D. Ill. Mar. 13, 2017)
    03/13/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff to arbitrate without prejudice.  Court held that defendant failed to provide to the court facts that would establish that plaintiff was meaningfully informed of an arbitration agreement to which he assented and that parties should engage in discovery on the formation of the arbitration agreement. 

  • Dine Dev. Corp. v. Fletcher, No. 1:17-CV-0015-JB-KBM (D.N.M. March 10, 2017)
    03/10/2017

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order and enjoined defendant from proceeding with arbitration against defendant.  Court held that inter alia plaintiffs were entitled to sovereign immunity because they were corporations organized under the laws of the Navajo Nation.  As a result, plaintiffs were immune from the claims that defendant planned to bring in arbitration.

  • Arkwright Advanced Coating, Inc. v. MJ Solutions GmbH, No. 0:14-CV-05030-DSD-TNL (D. Minn. Mar. 10, 2017)
    03/10/2017

    Court granted in part petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment.  Court held that petitioner should be relieved of the injunctive relief imposed by an arbitration award which prohibited the petitioner from infringing on a patent held by respondent.  Court found that under applicable precedent, the injunction imposed by the arbitration award should not apply because the patent in question had expired. 

  • Trs. of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labor Management Cooperation, Pension and Welfare Funds v. Duncan & Son Carpentry, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-02843-JS-AYS (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2017)
    03/10/2017

    Court granted magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to inter alia (i) grant a petition to confirm and enforce an arbitration award and (ii) direct the clerk of the court to enter judgment in favor of the petitioners.  Court held that it should adopt the magistrate judge’s recommendation because the report and recommendation was free of clear error and the parties failed to submit objections to the magistrate judge’s rulings.

  • Golden Gate National Senior Care LLC v. Bateman, No. 1:16-CV-00898-YK (M.D. Penn. Mar. 10, 2017)
    03/10/2017

    Court denied, without prejudice, petitioners’ motion to compel arbitration and stay court proceedings.  Court held that respondent made more than a “naked assertion” that the petitioners did not intend to be bound by the arbitration agreement and that the parties should be entitled to conduct discovery on the question of arbitrability before the court entertained further briefing on the question.

  • Jaeger v. Peak Medical Montana Operations, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-00030-SHE (D. Mont. Mar. 10, 2017)
    03/10/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings.  Court held that the terms of the arbitration agreement at issue were not unconscionable under Montana law.  In determining that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable, court stated the agreement to arbitrate (i) was a standalone document; (ii) stated in multiple places that the agreement was voluntary; (iii) permitted cancellation by plaintiff within thirty days of execution; (iv) stated that trial by judge or jury would be waived three separate times (twice in capitalized type); and (v) included a signature page that restated certain provisions in capitalized type.

  • Goodwin v. Branch Banking and Trust Co., No. 5:16-CV-10501 (S.D. W.Va. Mar. 10, 2017)
    03/10/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to inter alia compel arbitration.  Court held that the arbitration agreement between the parties was unenforceable because it was unconscionable under West Virginia law, namely, because (i) plaintiff was not offered the opportunity to opt out of the arbitration provision; (ii) plaintiff was rushed when she executed the agreement; (iii) plaintiff was an unsophisticated consumer; and (iv) the terms of the arbitration agreement heavily favored defendant.

  • Fujifilm North America Corporation v. Geleshmall Enterprises LLC, No. 1:16-CV-05677-BMC (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2017)
    03/10/2017

    Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion to dismiss and denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration on the “gray markets claims.”  Court held that the counterclaims fell within the arbitration clause, but—contrary to plaintiff’s argument for dismissal—a stay of the counterclaims was mandatory.  Court also found that the arbitration agreement was not broad enough to encompass the gray market claims, which exist separate and apart from the subject of the arbitration agreement.

  • Bright-Asante v. Saks & Co., Inc., No. 1:15-CV-05876-ER (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2017)
    03/09/2017

    Court inter alia denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate an arbitration award and denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff was unable to meet the standard to vacate an arbitration award because plaintiff did not assert any of the grounds available for vacating an award.  Court further held, with respect to defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, that plaintiff’s statutory claims were not subject to arbitration because there was no “clear and unmistakable” statement that the parties intended to arbitrate the plaintiff’s statutory claims.

  • Hill v. Assuranceforeningen Skuld, No. 1:15-CV-00025 (D. Guam Mar. 9, 2017)
    03/09/2017

    Court adopted the recommendation of the magistrate judge that the parties’ dispute should be arbitrated in Norway and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for an alternative forum.

  • Huttsell v. Radcliff Co., Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00796-CRS (W.D. Ky. Mar. 9, 2017)
    03/09/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay the proceedings and compel the claims into arbitration.  Court found that plaintiff’s claims were subject to arbitration because they could not be resolved without reference to the dispute resolution and were specifically mentioned within the agreement to arbitrate.

  • McAdoo v. New Line Transport, LLC, No. 8:16-CV-01917-JDW-AEP (M.D. Fla. Mar. 9, 2017)
    03/09/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint and compel arbitration.  Court held that, contrary to the plaintiffs’ claims, the arbitration agreement in question was not unconscionable and the issues in dispute were subject to the terms of the arbitration agreement.

  • Roy v. Buffalo Philharmonic Orchestra Society, Inc., No. 16-717 (2d Cir. Mar. 9, 2017)
    03/09/2017

    Court of appeals affirmed lower court’s decision to deny appellant’s motion to vacate an arbitration award.  Court held that, contrary to the appellant’s claims, the arbitrator had not (i) committed misconduct by refusing to admit into evidence certain recordings and transcripts; (ii) exceeded his powers by hearing testimony concerning complaints and concerns over the appellant’s performance and competence; (iii) improperly considered the testimony of the appellees’ witnesses over those who supported the appellant; and (iv) issued an award that was contrary to public policy.  Court of appeals further held that appellant failed to proffer sufficient evidence to establish that his union breached its duty to fairly represent the appellant during the arbitration.

  • Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB v. Universitas Education, LLC, No. 3:15-CV-00911-VLB (D. Conn. Mar. 9, 2017)
    03/09/2017

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s decision to compel arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff failed to (i) offer “newly discovered” evidence for purpose of a motion for reconsideration and (ii) establish that the court did not resolve material factual disputes in its decision.

  • Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, No. 1:69-CV-02145 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 9, 2017)
    03/09/2017

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate an arbitration award.  Court held that, contrary to plaintiff’s claims, there was no evidence to support a finding that the arbitrator had made gross errors of law and fact that were apparent on the face of the arbitration award.

  • Thoma v. CBRE Group, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-06040-CBM-AJW (C.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2017)
    03/09/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, strike collective actions claims and stay claim pending arbitration.  Court found that a waiver in the arbitration agreement violated the NLRA by precluding plaintiff from engaging in concerted activity and was therefore unenforceable.  Court further held the waiver was not severable from the remainder of the arbitration agreement concluding the parties did not agree to arbitrate class-wide, collective or representative claims.

  • Mumin v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-06143-NGG-JO (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2017)
    03/08/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration agreement delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, and that this was not procedurally unconscionable.  Court found that there was no inconsistency between the arbitration provision and a later forum selection clause, which explicitly governed disputes not subject to the arbitration clause and provided for enforcement of an award or the agreement.  Court found that the employers were told that the arbitration agreement was not a mandatory condition of their contractual relationship with Uber.

  • Int’l Brotherhood of Elec. Workers Local 31 v. Allete, Inc., No. 0:16-CV-00523-PAM-LIB (D. Minn. Mar. 8, 2017)
    03/08/2017

    Court granted plaintiff’s petition to compel arbitration.  Court held that a collective bargaining agreement between the parties contained a valid agreement to arbitrate and that the issues in dispute were subject to the terms of the provision.

  • Mumim v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 1:15-CV-07387-NGG-JO (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2017)
    03/08/2017

    Court inter alia granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the arbitration agreement in question provided clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties intended to delegate the issue of arbitrability to an arbitrator and that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable.  Court further held that the class action waiver included in the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable.

  • Wright v. SSC Nashville Operating Co. LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00768 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 8, 2017)
    03/08/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the lawsuit, rejecting plaintiff’s arguments that the agreement was improperly signed and that the integration clause superseded the dispute resolution provision.

  • Palmiste Group., LLC v. Prakash, No. 3:16-CV-05763-BRM-TJB (D.N.J. Mar. 8, 2017)
    03/08/2017

    Court denied petitioner’s motion to vacate the arbitration award.  Court found that petitioner failed to allege it was denied a fundamentally fair hearing as a result of the arbitrator’s alleged refusal to review evidence.  Court noted that no evidence was excluded by the arbitrator and neither party was prohibited from proffering evidence.

  • Spurgeon v. Marriot Int’l, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-24612-CMA (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2017)
    03/07/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and to stay.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable and found that non-signatory defendants in the instant case were allowed to compel arbitration under the doctrine of equitable estoppel. 

  • Johnson v. CRC Holdings, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-02937-JKB (D. Md. Mar. 7, 2017)
    03/07/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration.  Court noted that although the parties did not expressly address whether the arbitration would be binding, it would be sufficient to conclude that the agreement’s silence on the issue did not render it unenforceable, especially given the parties’ clearly expressed intention to allow the defendant to submit disputes to arbitration.

  • Parton v. FCA US LLC, No. 5:16-CV-00262-M (W.D. Okla. Mar. 7, 2017)
    03/07/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings because plaintiffs met their burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that they were fraudulently induced into signing the dispute resolution clause.  Court found that defendant’s agent owed plaintiffs a duty of full disclosure because he chose to speak regarding the dispute resolution clause, and the partial disclosure conveyed a false impression of the purpose and content of that clause.

  • Chebar v. Oak Financial Group, Inc., No. 2:14-CV-02982-LDW-GRB (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2017)
    03/07/2017

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings pending the completion of arbitration.  Court held that, contrary to defendant’s claims, that plaintiffs had not waived their right to arbitration because (i) a delay of approximately two and one-half months between the commencement of litigation and the filing of plaintiff’ request for arbitration did not by itself constitute waiver; (ii) defendants would not suffer substantive prejudice and prejudice in terms of excess costs and delay if forced to arbitrate the dispute; and (iii) even if the plaintiffs’ conduct was inconsistent, the mere filing of litigation before a request for arbitration does not constitute waiver.

  • Pro’s Choice Beauty Care, Inc. v. Local 2013, No. 2:16-CV-02318-ADS-ARL (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2017)
    03/07/2017

    Court granted petitioner’s petition to vacate an arbitration award and denied respondent’s cross-petition to confirm the arbitration award.  Court held that the arbitration award should be vacated on the grounds that a portion of the award violated public policy codified in the Immigration Reform and Control Act.

  • Luperon-Garcia v. Mexican Gastronomy International, LLC, No. 16-24598-CIV-JEM (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2017)
    03/07/2017

    Magistrate judge recommended that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration be granted, rejecting plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration provisions at issue violated the National Labor Relations Act because they do not permit collective arbitration or collective action.  Magistrate judge noted that, despite circuits being split on the issue, under eleventh circuit law, the right to collective action is a procedural one, not a substantive one and therefore arbitration agreements with class and collective action waivers are valid and enforceable under the FAA.

  • Mecum v. Weilert Custom Homes, LLC, No. 1:15-CV-08548 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 6, 2017)
    03/06/2017

    Court entered and continued motion to compel arbitration, holding that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether an arbitration agreement existed.  Court found that there was conflicting evidence as to whether parties received a letter containing the arbitration agreement, and whether there was a preexisting oral agreement. Court found that a trial was necessary to determine whether an agreement was offered and accepted by the parties.

  • Morgan v. Sears Holdings Mgmt. Corp., No. 1:16-CV-06871 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 6, 2017)
    03/06/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in part, ordering one plaintiff’s claim be submitted to arbitration and staying further proceedings on that claim pending arbitration.  Court first reasoned that the arbitration agreement itself was not void ab initio, as the subject matter of the agreement – including the existence of a collective action waiver – was not illegal.  It next determined that, for two of the plaintiffs, the existence of a factual dispute regarding whether the two plaintiffs opted out of the arbitration agreement, required an evidentiary hearing.  For the remaining plaintiff, however, the court held that it was required to compel arbitration because defendant had met its burden of showing the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate, a dispute within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and a refusal to arbitrate by the plaintiff.

  • Rightnour v. Tiffany and Co., No. 1:16-CV-03527-JGK (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2017)
    03/06/2017

    Court denied defendant’s petition for an order compelling arbitration.  Court found that plaintiff’s continued employment was not conclusive and irrebutable evidence of her intent to be bound by the dispute resolution agreement.  Rather, plaintiff’s written notice to defendant stating that she rejected the terms of the agreement plainly constituted an objective manifestation of her intent not to be bound by the Dispute Resolution Agreement.

  • Int’l Union v. Monongalia County Coal Company, No. 1:16-CV-00056-IMK (N.D. W. Va. Mar. 6, 2017)
    03/06/2017

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and ordered the arbitration award to be enforced.  Court found that (i) the company’s defenses to the award were not time-barred under 9 USC § 12, as the three month statute of limitation was for challenges to the validity of the award, not the enforceability, (ii) the well-reasoned and factually supported award drew its essence from the contract and conformed with the prevailing common law of the shop, and (iii) the award did not violate any explicit public policy.

  • Hayford v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. 2:16-CV-04480-JJT (D. Ariz. Mar. 3, 2017)
    03/03/2017

    Court granted defendants motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pursuant to the FAA, finding the claim was within the scope of a valid arbitration agreement.

  • Choice Hotels Int’l, Inc. v. Grewal Props. LLC, No. 8:16-CV-01318-PX (D. Md. Mar. 3, 2017)
    03/03/2017

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and confirmation of an arbitral award.  Court held that, as neither the grounds enumerated in the Federal Arbitration Act nor manifest disregard for the law were valid bases for vacatur, the award should be confirmed.

  • Wholesalecars.com v. Hutcherson, No. 2:16-CV-00155-KOB (N.D. Ala. Mar. 3, 2017)
    03/03/2017

    Court rejected plaintiff’s contention that the case before it should be dismissed, and instead ordered the parties to brief the court on the questions of whether the arbitration award at issue should be vacated because it was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means and whether defendant should be judicially estopped from enforcing the award or otherwise pursuing her claim (including whether the judicial estoppel defense is arbitrable).  Court first held that the arbitration award, having made a final judgment as to liability, actual damages, and defendant’s entitlement to attorney’s fees, was final and subject to review by the courts, and that the amount of those fees remained outstanding did not compel a different conclusion.  Court further held that the action before it should not be dismissed at this time on the basis of judicial estoppel because plaintiff had properly moved to vacate the arbitration award on the basis it was obtained through fraud and such decision remains outstanding.

  • United States ex rel Fisher v. Homeward Residential, Inc., No. 4:12-CV-00461-ALM (E.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2017)
    03/03/2017

    Court denied movants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that, while an arbitration agreement existed, the statutory attorney’s fee dispute did not fall within the scope of the agreed arbitration provision because, inter alia, the review of attorney’s fees is statutorily assigned to the court under the False Claims Act and, in any event, was agreed to be submitted to the court by the parties in their mediated settlement agreement.

  • Southside Hospital v. New York State Nurse’s Association., No. 2:15-CV-02282-JS-GRB (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2017)
    03/03/2017

    Court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in its entirety, thereby denying petitioner’s motion for summary judgment and confirming the arbitration award.  Court held that the parties’ collective bargaining agreement did not include clear language excluding the underlying dispute from arbitration, thus requiring that it be arbitrated.  Further, the court accepted the magistrate judge’s determination that the agreement’s incorporation of the rules of an arbitration association evidenced that the issue of arbitrability was to be referred to the arbitrator.  As the arbitrators had considered and rejected petitioner’s arguments regarding arbitrability, and petitioner had not objected to the confirmation of the award, such determination is final.

  • Noble v. Samsung Electronics, America, Inc., No. 16-1903 (3d Cir. Mar. 3, 2017)
    03/03/2017

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s order denying motion to compel arbitration. Court found that a consumer could not be bound to arbitrate claims by an arbitration agreement that the consumer was unaware of, which was found buried within an approximately 100 page brochure.

  • Valdez v. Terminix International Company Limited Partnership, No. 15-56236 (9th Cir. Mar. 3, 2017)
    03/03/2017

    Circuit court reversed district court’s order denying motion to compel arbitration and remanded case to the district court to consider whether to dismiss or stay the action pending arbitration. Court found that the district court had erred in finding that cases under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) categorically could not proceed to arbitration. The court then found that the PAGA claim at issue fell within the scope of the arbitration clause.

  • CBF Indústria de Gusa v. AMCI Holdings, Inc., No. 15-1133 (2d Cir. Mar. 2, 2017)
    03/02/2017

    Circuit court granted petition for rehearing and vacated district court’s judgment dismissing the action to enforce award. Court found that district court had erred in determining that New York Convention and FAA require appellants to seek confirmation of a foreign arbitral award before the award may be enforced by a United States District Court, and erred in holding that appellants’ fraud claims should be dismissed prior to discovery on the ground of issue preclusion, as issue preclusion is an equitable doctrine and appellants plausibly alleged that appellees engaged in fraud.

  • In re Global Tel*Link Corporation ICS Litigation, No. 5:14-CV-05275-TLB (W.D. Ark. Mar. 2, 2017)
    03/02/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that the question of whether an arbitration agreement was agreed in the first place is a question that is “presumptively committed to judicial determination” under eighth circuit precedent.  Court determined that a reasonable layperson in plaintiff’s position would not have understood the automated message received prior to funding an account with defendant to be referring to the terms of any contract, thus eliminating the essential element of mutual assent requisite to establishing plaintiff’s agreement to arbitrate his claims.

  • Smith v. Dolgencorp, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00338-VEH (N.D. Ala. Mar. 2, 2017)
    03/02/2017

    Court granted motion to sever claims and compel arbitration. Court found that one of two plaintiffs’ claims were subject to mandatory arbitration under the FAA, and therefore severed these claims and compelled arbitration.

  • East El Paso Physicians’ Medical Center, LLC, v. Aetna Health Inc. and Aetna Life Insurance Company, No. 3:16-CV-00044-KC (W.D. Tex. Mar. 2, 2017)
    03/02/2017

    Court granted Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court first held that, as both Douglas factors (the parties “clearly and unmistakably” intended to delegate the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator, and the assertion of arbitrability is not “wholly groundless”) favor arbitrating arbitrability, the question of arbitrability of plaintiff’s claims must be resolved by the arbitrator.  Court next held that ERISA neither preempts the Federal Arbitration Act nor renders unenforceable the arbitration provision in the parties’ agreement.

  • Chelmowski v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, Nos. 16‐1855 & 16‐3539 (7th Cir. Mar. 2, 2017)
    03/02/2017

    Circuit Court affirmed the district court’s denial of plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) motion to reopen the district court’s prior judgment denying his motion to vacate an arbitration award and granting defendant’s motion to confirm, finding that it was nothing more than an effort to relitigate matters conclusively resolved by the arbitrator.  Circuit court also affirmed a separate judge’s denial of plaintiff’s motion to vacate a second arbitration award involving the same essential dispute with defendant.  As this second arbitration was barred by the preclusion doctrine, plaintiff had no basis to argue that the arbitrator committed misconduct or otherwise exceeded his or her powers per the Federal Arbitration Act.

  • Sherrard v. Macy’s System and Technology, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-03322-CC (N.D. Ga. Mar. 1, 2017)
    03/01/2017

    Magistrate judge recommended that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration be granted and rejected plaintiff’s argument that the defendant had waived its right to arbitration and noted that the FAA requires a court to enforce agreements to arbitrate.

  • Haugh v. Barrett Business Services, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-02121-VC (E.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2017)
    03/01/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding plaintiff’s failure to understand the arbitration agreement was insufficient to show unconscionability.  Court also noted that even if the arbitration provision were unconscionable, plaintiff’s claims would still be compelled to arbitration because the problematic injunctive relief provision was severable from the arbitration agreement.

  • Millennium Operations, Inc. v. SuperValu, Inc., No. 15-1786 (8th Cir. Mar. 1, 2017)
    03/01/2017

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s finding that defendants who were non-signatories to an arbitration agreement could not compel arbitration. The Court held, as the district court had, that the defendants could not succeed in compelling arbitration based on a successors-in-interest theory or based on the alternate theory that the defendants could directly enforce their previous arbitration agreements because some of the conduct at issue occurred when the previous agreements were still in effect.

  • Bayer Cropscience AG v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, No. 16-1530 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 1, 2017)
    03/01/2017

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s decision to confirm arbitral award and vacated district court’s decision denying motion to amend the judgment. Court found that the district court abused its discretion regarding post-judgment interest by denying the defendant’s motion to amend the judgment to use the federal statutory rate for post-judgment interest for the period beginning with the entry of the district court’s judgment.

  • Hayes v. Reinhart Ford Service, LLC, No. 5:16-CV-02264-JLS (E.D. Pa. Mar. 1, 2017)
    03/01/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable and, contrary to plaintiff’s arguments, was not a contract of adhesion, and found that the FAA applies to Title VII cases.

  • Walker v. USA Swimming, No. 3:16-0825 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 1, 2017)
    03/01/2017

    Court denied motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in relation to a motion to vacate an arbitration award. Court found that pursuant to the Sports Act, it had federal question jurisdiction over the issue of whether USA Swimming and the arbitrator properly implemented USA Swimming’s own rules and regulations in imposing the lifetime ban upon the plaintiff.

  • Preferred Care of Delaware, Inc. v. Crocker, No. 16-6179 (6th Cir. Feb. 28, 2017)
    02/28/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed district court’s judgment dismissing appellants’ complaint to compel arbitration.  Court held that the district court had correctly given preclusive effect to a state trial court’s ruling that the arbitration agreement between the parties was not enforceable because all of the elements of issue preclusion were satisfied. 

  • Epic Driving & Marine Services, LLC v. Ranger Offshore, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00386-KMH (S.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2017)
    02/28/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay the proceedings until a full and final award was granted by the arbitration tribunal.  Court held that judicial economy would be best served by permitting the arbitral tribunal to make all final decisions prior to ruling on plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment motion.

  • Hillyard v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc., No. 6:17-CV-06062-SJ-FJG (W.D. Mo. Feb. 28, 2017)
    02/28/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings. Plaintiff argued that the arbitration agreement was part of an insurance contract and was therefore not enforceable. However, court found that the arbitration clause delegated all questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator and therefore compelled arbitration.

  • Urquhart v. Kurlan, No. 1:16-CV-02301 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 28, 2017)
    02/28/2017

    Court denied motion to confirm the arbitration award and remanded case to arbitration tribunal for clarification on apportionment of award, which it found to be ambiguous because of the award’s shift between “respondent” (singular) and “respondents” (plural), rendering the apportionment of damages ambiguous.

  • Cerner Middle East Limited v. Al-Dhaheri, No. 1:16-CV-11984-FDS (D. Mass. Feb. 28, 2017)
    02/28/2017

    Court denied motion to dismiss action for recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award for lack of personal jurisdiction. Court held that it has jurisdiction over claims where an arbitration agreement could “conceivably affect the outcome of the plaintiff’s case,” and that this was true for the present action.

  • Tallakoy v. Black Fire Energy - Eastern District of Kentucky at Pikeville, No. 15-6322 (6th Cir. Feb. 28, 2017)
    02/28/2017

    Circuit court reversed district court’s prior decision on the basis that the record was inadequate to support a finding that the defendant’s motion to vacate the award under §12 of the FAA was not served “within three months after the award is filed or delivered.”  On remand, the district court is to determine whether evidence supports a finding that the defendant took delivery or had knowledge of the award on dates that would make its motion under §12 of the FAA untimely.

  • LGC USA Holdings Inc. v. Julius Klein Diamonds, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-05294-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2017)
    02/28/2017

    Court granted motion to confirm the arbitration award and denied motions to dismiss, remand, and vacate. Court held (i) it has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to the New York Convention because the parties’ relationship involves property abroad and envisages performance abroad; (ii) the challenges to the award based on arbitrator bias were belated and fell short; and (iii) the substantial deference owed to arbitrators rebutted a finding that the tribunal’s award exceeded its powers or acted in manifest disregard of the law.

  • Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated v. Oliver, No. 16-843-CV (2d Cir. Feb. 27, 2017)
    02/27/2017

    Court of appeal affirmed district court’s judgment enjoining a FINRA arbitration and granting declaratory relief in favor of Merrill Lynch. Court found that where a settlement agreement vested jurisdiction in the courts, and explicitly stated that it superseded previous agreements between the parties, it was sufficient to overcome any initial requirement on the parties to arbitrate.

  • Andresen v. Intepros Federal, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-00446 (D.D.C. Feb. 27, 2017)
    02/27/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action during the pendency of the arbitration.  Court held that while the delegation provision in the parties’ arbitration agreement delegates the question of arbitrability to the arbitral tribunal, because the agreement’s expense-shifting term and the incorporation of the provisions of the AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules risk saddling the plaintiff with prohibitive costs for the federal statutory claims – which is proscribed under Green Tree Financial Corp.– Alabama v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79 (2000) – the defendant is responsible for the arbitral filing fees and the fees and expenses due to the arbitrator for deciding the arbitrability of the federal statutory claims.

  • GoPro Hong Kong Ltd. v. 2B Trading, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-05113-JD (N.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2017)
    02/27/2017

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to seal specific portions of an arbitral award and the contracts in dispute since the petitioner established compelling reasons to overcome a historically strong presumption of access to judicial records.

  • Katsoris v. WME IMG, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00135-RA (S.D.N.Y Feb. 27, 2017)
    02/27/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration. Court found that arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable and that plaintiff did not waive right to arbitrate by waiting five months after filing their complaint to file a formal motion to compel arbitration.

  • Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Oliver, No. 16-0843 (2d Cir. Feb. 27, 2017)
    02/27/2017

    Circuit court affirmed lower court’s judgment enjoining a FINRA arbitration and granting declaratory relief in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the parties’ subsequent settlement agreement released the claims that had been subject to the initial consent to FINRA arbitration.

  • Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company v. Laferrera, No. 16-14519 (11th Cir. Feb. 27, 2017)
    02/27/2017

    Circuit court affirmed lower court’s decision denying defendants’ request for a stay and request to compel arbitration.  Court held that, under Alabama contract law, the non-signatory defendant could not compel arbitration where an agreement to arbitrate limited arbitration to the signing parties, even in circumstances where the nonarbitrable claims are “intimately founded in and intertwined with” arbitrable claims.  Court did, however, vacate the lower court’s refusal to grant a discretionary stay of the nonarbitrable claims against the non-signatory because of the risk of inconsistent results and remanded with instructions to stay the nonarbitrable  claims.

  • Basile v. Los Angeles Film School, LLC, No. 15-56309 (9th Cir. Feb. 27, 2017)
    02/27/2017

    Circuit Court affirmed lower court’s decision denying motion to vacate an arbitration award because the plaintiff failed to establish any of the limited grounds on which an arbitration award can be vacated under § 10 of the FAA.

  • McDougal v. Comcast Corporation, No. 9:16-CV-81906-DMM (S.D. Fla. Feb. 24, 2017)
    02/24/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed proceedings.  Court ruled that plaintiffs were bound by a valid arbitration agreement applicable to their claims that they had failed to opt out of before the stated deadline.  Court rejected arguments that the agreement was invalid as unconscionable, finding no evidence of procedural unconscionability in the opt-out process and declining to consider substantive unconscionability following that determination.

  • Rasmy v. Marriott International, Inc., No. 1:1 6-CV-O4865-AJN (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2017)
    02/24/2017

    Court denied in part defendant’s motion to dismiss complaint for wrongful termination. Court held that provisions in the relevant collective bargaining agreement between the defendant and its employees did not bar the plaintiff’s lawsuit, as the these provisions came nowhere near constituting “clear and unmistakable” waiver of the plaintiff’s rights to pursue Title VII and state and city-law discrimination claims in federal court.

  • Brandenburg Health Facilities v. Ivye Mattingly, No. 16-6168 (6th Cir. Feb. 24, 2017)
    02/24/2017

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss.  Since the district court stayed the case pending arbitration pursuant to the FAA, the court held there was no final order, and thus, it had no jurisdiction over the appeal.

  • DeVries v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-02953 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2017)
    02/24/2017

    Court granted motions to compel arbitration and stay litigation pursuant to the FAA.  Court held plaintiff consented to the agreement and found, pursuant to the delegation clause, that issues of arbitrability were for the arbitrator to decide, save for the question of whether defendant had waived its right to enforce the arbitration provision.  Court concluded defendant had not waived its right to arbitration because it did not know of an existing right to compel arbitration; it did not engage in acts inconsistent with the right to arbitrate; and the plaintiff was not prejudiced by litigation conduct inconsistent with the right to arbitrate.

  • Doe v. Swift Tranp. Co., Inc., No. 2:10-CV-00899 (D. Ariz. Feb. 24, 2017)
    02/24/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion staying the case pending appeal.  Court held the defendants did not show a likelihood of success on the merits but the appeal raised serious legal questions; that defendants would suffer irreparable harm from the increased cost of litigation associated with defending the proposed class action and the loss of the efficiency of arbitration; and that a stay is in the public interest.

  • Fox v. Vision Serv. Plan, No. 2:16-CV-02456 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2017)
    02/24/2017

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo pending a determination of whether the dispute resolution process is legal and enforceable.  Court concluded that the plaintiff showed she was likely to succeed on the merits, she would suffer irreparable harm without preliminary relief, the balance of equities tipped in her favor, and the injunction was in the public interest.

  • Internaves de Mexico v. Andromeda Steamship Corporation, American Navigation, Inc., Pegasus Lines, Ltd. S.A., Panama, and James Karathanos, No. 9:16-CV-81719-DMM (S.D. Fla. Feb. 24, 2017)
    02/24/2017

    Court granted motion to stay proceedings pending resolution of motion to compel arbitration and stayed discovery.  Court found a stay to proceedings to be in the interests of judicial economy and of preventing the defendants from being prejudiced by participating in discovery.

  • AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. v. Lacchini, No. 16 Civ. 2575 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2017)
    02/23/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction on allegations that the foreign defendant arbitrator corruptly presided over the arbitration, including violations of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) and tortious interference with contract under New York law.  Court held it lacked jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2), concluding that defendant did not possess minimum contacts to warrant an exercise of personal jurisdiction pursuant to constitutional standards.

  • G&K Services LUG, LLC v. Talent Creation, Ltd., No. 3:16-CV-00180-WHR (W.D. Ohio Feb. 23, 2017)
    02/23/2017

    Court sustained motion to confirm arbitration award and overruled petition to vacate arbitration award pursuant to the New York Convention.  Court found that the arbitrator did not exceed his scope of powers in awarding damages; that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers in rejecting the laches defense; and that arbitrator did not manifestly disregard Ohio law in rejecting petitioner’s statute of limitations defense.

  • Lakah v. UBS AG, Exporters Insurance Co., Ltd., No. 07-CV-2799-LAP-AJP (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2017)
    02/23/2017

    Court stayed the proceeding pending arbitration and ordered arbitration be held in New York, New York, finding that the petitioners were bound by the arbitration agreement.

  • Peng v. Uber Technologies Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00545 (E.D.N.Y Feb. 23, 2017)
    02/23/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action pending arbitration, finding that plaintiffs assented to the Service Agreements and entered into a valid arbitration clause.  Court concluded the parties clearly delegated the gateway arbitrability issues to the arbitrator; found the delegation clause was not procedurally or substantively unconscionable; and held that the class action waiver was valid and did not violate the National Labor Relations Act.

  • Shenzhen Fenda Technology Co. Ltd. v. Stellé LLC, 8:16-CV-02169-JVS-JCG (C.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2017)
    02/23/2017

    Court granted motion to confirm the final arbitration award and entered a judgment thereon pursuant to §§3 and 9 of FAA. Court found the arbitration agreement was valid and there was no indication the award had been modified, vacated, or corrected.

  • Avilla v. Discover Financial Services., No. 2:16-CV-09232-JFW-RAO (C.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2017)
    02/23/2017

    Court stayed all proceedings pending arbitration pursuant to §3 of the FAA on the stipulation of the parties and ordered the parties to file a joint status report on or before June 26, 2017.

  • Byrnes v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc., No. 1:16-CV-02445 (D. Md. Feb. 23, 2017)
    02/23/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and denied plaintiff’s motion to stay pending arbitration where both parties agreed all of plaintiff’s claims were arbitrable.  Court found plaintiff’s request to stay pending arbitration was unnecessary because plaintiff could request judicial review of the arbitration award and a stay was not required under §3 of the FAA.

  • CMH Homes, Inc. v. Bob’s Home Services, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-10696 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 23, 2017)
    02/23/2017

    Court granted petition to confirm the arbitration award and the motion for entry of default judgment pursuant to the FAA. Court concluded that it had jurisdiction to confirm the award, the plaintiff filed all the necessary documents required by §13 of the FAA, there was a valid arbitration agreement, and the claims fell within the scope of the agreement.

  • IPayment, Inc. v. 1st Americard, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-01904-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2017)
    02/23/2017

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award finding “this [was] a textbook case for application of veil piercing,” granted the application for attorney’s fees, and denied the motion to vacate the award.  Court found it should consider any admissible evidence on the issue of alter ego under a de novo standard, concluding that the corporation easily met the alter ego test and that the defendant’s control of the corporation was used to perpetrate a wrongful act under New York law. The court therefore held the corporate veil should be pierced and the arbitration award confirmed.

  • Chatman v. Jimmy Gray Chevrolet, Incorporated, No. 16-60677 (5th Cir. Feb. 22, 2017)
    02/22/2017

    Court of appeals found that decision compelling arbitration and staying proceedings was not a final appealable order since case remained stayed before the district court.

  • The Casiano-Bel Air Homeowners Association v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance, No. 2:16-CV-08549-SVW-SK (C.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2017)
    02/22/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay claims, finding that the arbitration clause was not unenforceable for unconscionability, was mandatory and not permissive, and encompassed the dispute at issue.

  • Shore v. Johnson & Bell, No. 1:16-CV-04363 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 22, 2017)
    02/22/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to proceed to arbitration and enjoin class arbitration.  Court found the issue of class arbitration was an issue of arbitrability for the court to decide. Pursuant to the FAA, the court held that since the arbitration clause did not explicitly or implicitly authorize class arbitration, the defendant could not be compelled to submit to class arbitration.

  • Danley v. Encore Capital Grp. Inc., No. 16-1670 (6th Cir. Feb. 22, 2017)
    02/22/2017

    Court affirmed district court’s order compelling arbitration but reversed the order denying in part plaintiffs’ motion to unseal documents.  Pursuant to the FAA, the court held that the plaintiffs did not meet the burden of demonstrating that no valid arbitration agreement existed and concluded the “parties ‘clearly and unmistakably’ provided for an arbitrator to determine various ‘gateway issues’ related to their claims.” Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to unseal documents, finding the district court failed to provide adequate and specific reasons for sealing the records.

  • Alfortish v. Greensky, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-15084-ILRL-JVM (E.D. La. Feb. 22, 2017)
    02/22/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, and stayed and administratively closed the case. Court dismissed as moot plaintiffs’ motion to certify class and defendants’ alternative motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ first amended class action complaint.  Court held that under the FAA, the arbitration clause in the loan agreement was valid and enforceable even though the plaintiffs may not have received a copy of the form including the arbitration clause; the dispute fell within the scope of the agreement; and the class action waiver was valid.

  • Reed v. First Premier Bank, No. 2:16-CV-15654-KDE-JVM (E.D. La. Feb. 22, 2017)
    02/22/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA and stayed the action pending completion of arbitration, finding no memoranda was filed in opposition to defendant’s motion.

  • Czech Republic Ministry of Health v. Diag Human SE, No. 16-620 (Feb. 21, 2017)
    02/21/2017

    U.S. Supreme Court denied the Czech Republic’s petition for writ of certiorari challenging the D.C. Circuit’s decision reviving Diag Human SE’s enforcement efforts of a $325 million arbitral award issued by an international tribunal. [NB: No case decision available]

  • Gates v. Northland Group., Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01492-NLH-AMD (D.N.J. Feb. 21, 2017)
    02/21/2017

    Court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint in favor of arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable pursuant to the FAA because a valid arbitration agreement existed between the parties and the dispute fell within the scope of the agreement.  Court also held the plaintiff’s class action claims were subject to the arbitration agreement’s class action waiver clause.

  • McKenzie v. AT&T Services Inc., No. 2:15-CV-02325-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2017)
    02/21/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the motion to vacate or modify an arbitration award pursuant to the FAA.  Court concluded there was no federal-question or diversity jurisdiction.

  • Cova v. Charter Communications, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00469-RLW (E.D. Mo. Feb. 17, 2017)
    02/17/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel individual arbitrations and stay litigation under the FAA.  Court concluded the agreement was valid since plaintiffs were on notice of the arbitral provision and were given an opt-out option.  Court also found the arbitration clause was not unconscionable because the plaintiffs presented no evidence of a disparity in bargaining power and the contract was negotiable based on the opt-out option and the un-prohibitive costs.

  • Anderson v. Walmart Stores Inc., No. 6:16-CV-06488-CJS (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2017)
    02/17/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay and compel arbitration, and denied plaintiff’s motion to remand to state court.  Court found that the FAA applied because the sale of the computers at issue involved interstate commerce, and therefore, New York law prohibiting arbitration clauses involving the sale of consumer goods was inapplicable. However, court held the arbitration agreement was valid, as the consumer was not induced by fraud and a binding arbitration agreement was formed.

  • Choice Hotels, Int’l, Inc. v. Patel, No. 8:16-CV-01316-PWG (D. Md. Feb 17, 2017)   
    02/17/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to confirm the arbitration award and denied plaintiff’s pre-conference request, construed as a motion to dismiss.  Court found that it had subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction and that venue was proper pursuant to the FAA.  Court held that the plaintiff received adequate notice of the arbitration proceedings and that the defendant’s motion to confirm the arbitral award under the FAA properly stated a claim for which relief could be granted.

  • Continental Transfert Technique Ltd. V. Federal Government of Nigeria, No. 1:08-CV-02026-PLF-GMH (D.D.C. Feb. 17, 2017)
    02/17/2017

    Court granted defense counsel’s renewed motion to withdraw, finding counsel’s sealed declaration explaining the rationale for the withdrawal request constituted “new evidence not previously available.”  Court held that the motion to withdrawal would not unduly delay trial of the case since the defendants had failed to comply with any order of the court or the arbitration award issued eight years ago regardless of representation.  Court also found it would not unfairly prejudice the plaintiff because sanctions would still persist for defendants’ failure to respond to the deposition notice regardless of counsel’s withdrawal.

  • Herrera Gollo v. Seaborne Puerto Rico, LLC, No. 3:15-CV-01771-JAG (D.P.R. Feb. 17, 2017)
    02/17/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration under the FAA and pursuant to the arbitration agreement the plaintiff signed.  Court held that (i) the defendant had not waived its right to arbitration by delaying to seek arbitration; and (ii) the defendant could enforce the arbitration agreement even though it was not the entity that signed the agreement because of its close relationship to the signatory and the related nature of the plaintiff’s claims.

  • Ray v. Chafetz, No. 1:16-CV-00428-CKK (D.D.C. Feb. 17, 2017)
    02/17/2017

    Court confirmed the arbitral award and denied the motion to vacate pursuant to the FAA, finding the award was not procured by undue means and there was no evident partiality of misconduct of the arbitrator.  Concluding that the petitioners’ contentions were meritless, court determined it did not need to decide whether “manifest disregard of the law” was still a valid ground for vacatur.  Court also found the respondent was entitled to post-judgment interest, but denied the respondent’s request for attorney’s fees and costs and denied the respondent’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions.

  • Amergence Supply Chain Mgmt. Inc. v. Changhong (Hong Kong) Trading Ltd., No. 2:15-CV-09976-MWF-AFM (C.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2016)
    02/17/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration because the defendant did not have standing as a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement between the plaintiff and Guangdong Changhong Electronics Company, Ltd., and the arbitration clause did not contemplate binding signatories with non-signatories.  Court also found that equitable estoppel did not apply because plaintiff’s claims did not rely on and were not “intimately intertwined” with the terms of the agreement.

  • Hermiz v. Credit Acceptance Corp., No. 2:16-CV-14089-VAR (E.D. Mich. Feb. 16, 2017)
    02/16/2017

  • Csukardi v. Platinum Corral, LLC, No. 6:16-CV-00064-NKM-RSB (W.D. Va. Feb. 16, 2017)
    02/16/2017

    Court dismissed the complaint and ordered the parties to submit their dispute to arbitration.  Court held that the parties entered into an agreement to arbitrate any disputes relating to plaintiff’s employment, including those under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and rejected plaintiff’s arguments that (i) the agreement was not voluntary, (ii) the agreement was missing material terms, and (iii) the agreement lacked consideration.

  • Bailey v. Healthsouth Corp., No. 9:15-CV-00057-RC-KFG (E.D. Tex. Feb. 16, 2017)
    02/16/2017

    Court ordered that magistrate judge’s report and recommendation was adopted and the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration was granted.  Court thus stayed the civil action pending the completion of arbitration, after which the parties were to notify the court of completion of arbitration.

  • Smaller v. JRK Residential Mgmt. Corp., No. 5:16-CV-02066-JLS (E.D. Pa. Feb. 15, 2017)
    02/15/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, rejecting plaintiff’s argument that the agreement was unconscionable because it prevented her from recovering attorneys’ fees and because it lacked consideration.  Court held that the provision in the arbitration agreement requiring plaintiff to pay her own costs and legal fees could be stricken without invalidating the entire agreement and that continued employment was sufficient consideration for entering into the arbitration agreement.

  • C&N Farms v. Producers Agriculture Insurance. Co., No. 2:15-CV-00136-BSM (E.D. Ark. Feb. 15, 2017)
    02/15/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and confirmed the arbitrator’s award.  Court found that plaintiff failed to allege any of the four grounds under the FAA for vacating the arbitral award, and its failure to allege or produce evidence to support its claims meant that there was “no question that [plaintiff] is not entitled to modification.”

  • Corchado v. Foulke Mgmt. Corp., No. 1:15-cv-06600-JBS-JS (D.N.J. Feb. 15, 2017)
    02/15/2017

    Court denied defendants’ appeal of an opinion and order of the magistrate judge, and adopted the magistrate judge’s determination that a court, and not an arbitrator, must make the gateway determination of the existence of an agreement to arbitrate.  Court also adopted the magistrate judge’s finding that limited discovery is necessary to determine the enforceability of such an agreement.

  • LED One Distribution, Inc. v. C.S. Koida, LLC, No. 4:16-CV-04315-PJH (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2017)
    02/15/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the dispute did not arise from or relate to the contract containing the arbitration agreement, and thus there was no agreement to arbitrate.  The contract created a joint venture between the parties, whereas plaintiff’s claims were regarding a failure to pay for certain products and the breach of a personal guaranty.

  • Corchado v. Foulke Management Corporation, No. 1:15-CV-06600-JBS-JS (D.N.J. Feb. 15, 2017)
    02/15/2017

    Court denied defendant’s appeal and upheld the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations, finding, pursuant to the FAA, that the court and not the arbitrator must make the gateway determination of the existence of an arbitral agreement since the “claim is fraud in the inducement of the arbitration clause itself.”  Court granted limited discovery to determine whether there was mutual assent to the arbitration agreement.

  • Mahamedi IP Law LLP v. Paradice & Li LLP, No. 5:16-CV-02805-EJD (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2017)
    02/14/2017

    District court granted in part motion to stay discovery pending decision on a motion to compel arbitration, but allowed a third-party deposition to proceed where that party may be unavailable after the court rules on the motion to compel arbitration.

  • Doherty v. Barclays Bank Delaware, No. 3:16-CV-01131-AJB-NLS (S.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2017)
    02/14/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel individual arbitration.  Noting that questions as to the making of the contract containing the arbitration clause were for the court to decide, court determined that defendant failed to show that plaintiff assented to the card-member agreement when plaintiff used and became an authorized user of a credit card account.

  • Briggs v. Macy’s Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00902-MEM (M.D. Pa. Feb. 14, 2017)
    02/14/2017

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiffs were entitled to discovery on the question of arbitrability.  Court explained that, pursuant to third circuit doctrine, when the issue of arbitrability is not apparent on the face of the complaint, the motion to compel arbitration must be denied pending further development of the factual record.

  • Mohammed v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-02537 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 14, 2017)
    02/14/2017

    Court denied defendants’ motions to compel arbitration.  Court recognized that Supreme Court doctrine delegates challenges to a contract to the arbitrator and challenges to the arbitration agreement itself to the court, but found that plaintiff was raising a third type of challenge as to whether or not a contract existed at all, which was for the court to decide.

  • Lismore v. Societe Generale Energy Corp., No. 1:16-CV-08012-AKH (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2017)
    02/14/2017

    Court denied plaintiff’s petition to vacate the arbitration award and confirmed defendants’ cross-petition to confirm.  Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the chair of the panel was inherently biased against the plaintiff because she was a “repeat player” and “only SocGen has the ability to give [the chair] continuing business” and that the chair failed to make a complete disclosure regarding the number of times she served as an arbitrator in matters involving Societe Generale.  Court also rejected plaintiff’s allegations that the defendant coached its witnesses and instructed them to engage in perjury, and that the tribunal refused to consider pertinent and material evidence because the relevant issues were within the discretion of the panel.

  • Lakah v. UBS AG, No. 1:07-CV-02799-LAP-FM (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2017)
    02/14/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that non-signatories who reap a direct benefit made possible by an agreement cannot avoid the application of an arbitration clause contained therein.

  • Perkins v. M&N Dealership XII, LLC d/b/a Metro Ford of OKC, No. 5:16-CV-00796-M (W.D. Okla. Feb. 13, 2017)
    02/13/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that (i) the arbitration clause was not superseded by a separate contract, which was executed at the same time and covered different terms than the purchase agreement; (ii) the arbitration clause did not contradict any terms in second contract; (iii) arbitration would provide complete relief to the plaintiff; (iv) defendant did not waive its right to arbitration when it rescinded the second contract; (v) plaintiff did not meet her burden of showing that she was fraudulently induced to sign the arbitration clause; and (vi) the arbitration clause was not unconscionable due to its fee-shifting provisions.

  • Mooney v. Jimmy Gray Chevrolet, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00010-DMB-RP (N.D. Miss. Feb. 13, 2017)
    02/13/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, rejecting plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration provision was unconscionable.  Court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that defendant waived its right to enforce the arbitration provision when it instituted criminal theft proceedings against the plaintiff, as this argument was a defense to arbitrability as a whole and the existence of a delegation clause—which delegated issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator—required plaintiff to specifically challenge the delegation clause.

  • Jurado v. Schutz 665 LLC, No. 2:16-CV-05996-CAS-RAO (C.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2017)
    02/13/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that defendants did not waive their right to compel arbitration by filing the current action, as it was still in its early stages and had not yet substantially invoked “the litigation machinery.”  Court also held that there was a valid arbitration agreement, and rejected plaintiff’s arguments that defendants had provided no evidence of plaintiff’s assent and that the clause was unconscionable and unenforceable.

  • Cypress v. Cintas Corp. No. 2, No. 2:16-CV-02478-ADS-ARL (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2017)
    02/11/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and rejected plaintiff’s argument that the employment contracts containing the arbitration agreements were invalid due to lack of consideration.  Court also rejected plaintiff’s claim of fraudulent inducement, as plaintiff only asserted that he was fraudulently induced to enter into one of the arbitration agreements and challenges to the arbitration clause itself do not prevent a court from enforcing a specific agreement to arbitrate.

  • Salini Construttori S.P.A. v. Kingdom of Morocco, No. 1:14-CV-02036-TSC (D.D.C. Feb. 10, 2017)
    02/10/2017

    Court granted motion to enforce ICC arbitration award against the Kingdom of Morocco and denied cross-motion to dismiss.  Court rejected argument that Moroccan courts could annul portion of the award issued by an arbitral panel in France, finding that Morocco was not a primary jurisdiction for purposes of Article V of the New York Convention.  Court likewise rejected Morocco’s estoppel, public policy, comity, and res judicata arguments.

  • Laccinole v. IC System, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-00337-M-LDA (D.R.I. Feb. 10, 2017)
    02/10/2017

    Court granted motion to confirm AAA award and denied cross-motion to vacate, finding there was no evidence that the arbitrator’s summary disposition of the matter was improper.

  • Anglin v. Vertical Group, No. 1:16-CV-03269-KPF (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2017)
    02/10/2017

    Court affirmed FINRA award in its entirety, declining to vacate and revise portion of award denying attorney’s fees.  Court held that request for partial vacatur was not timely because it was not served within three months of the date when the award had been delivered and fell short of meeting the high standard of manifest regard for the law.

  • Olson v. Harland Clarke Corp., No. 14-35586 (9th Cir. Feb. 10, 2017)
    02/10/2017

    Court affirmed district court’s decision to confirm employment arbitration award.  Court reasoned that plaintiff had not demonstrated that the arbitrator had exceeded his powers for purposes of vacatur under the FAA nor was the arbitrator obligated to rule on all evidentiary issues.

  • Lenhardt v. Sysco Corp., No. 1:16-CV-00153-BLG-SPW-TJC (D. Mont. Feb. 9, 2017)
    02/09/2017

    Magistrate judge recommended that Court deny defendant’s motion to dismiss and to grant defendant’s request to stay the case pending mandatory arbitration.  Magistrate Judge noted that the parties’ arbitration agreement encompassed a non-compete provision which applied to the first two counts of the complaint and required resolution prior to the third count before the court.

  • GGNSC Louisville Mt. Holly, LLC v. Turner ex rel. White, No. 3:16-CV-00149-TBR (W.D. Ky. Feb. 9, 2017)
    02/09/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and enjoin defendant from pursuing further litigation in state court.  Court rejected argument that the matter was insufficiently related to interstate commerce to trigger the FAA, reasoning that courts had applied the broadest possible definition.  Nor did the court agree that the agreement had been either procedurally or substantively unconscionable because it had been a contract of adhesion requiring arbitration, or that arbitration of the claim was barred by the Anti-Injunction Act.

  • Rodriguez v. Xerox Business Services, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00041-FM (W.D. Tex. Feb. 9, 2017)
    02/09/2017

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to abate and compel arbitration, finding that a valid arbitration existed and the plaintiff’s claims fell within its scope.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the lack of interstate commerce meant the FAA did not apply, finding that there was no requirement that the contract itself constitute a commercial transaction, that the employee be regularly engaged in interstate commerce in performing her duties, or that the employee was so engaged at the time the cause of action arose.

  • Lewis v. Epic Sys. Corp., No. 3:15-CV-00082-BBC (W.D. Wis. Feb. 8, 2017)
    02/08/2017

    Court granted motion to stay proceedings pending appeal to the Supreme Court of its earlier rejection of a motion to dismiss the case after finding that the arbitration agreement was invalid.  Court held that the balance of harms favored the defendant and a stay.

  • Valdez-Mendoza v. Jovani Fashion Ltd., No. 1:15-CV-07261-ILG-RML (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2017)
    02/08/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismiss proceedings, holding that under the factors enumerated under Genesco, Inc. v. T. Kakiuchi & Co., 815 F.2d 840 (2d Cir. 1987) a valid arbitration agreement covered the claim.

  • Schardan v. Allied Interstate, LLC, No. 4:15-CV-01613-HEA (E.D. Mo. Feb. 8, 2017)
    02/08/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, reasoning that the dispute was covered by a valid arbitration agreement.  Court declined to find that the defendant had waived its rights to arbitrate by participating in the limited pre-trial litigation required by the motions before it.

  • Stevens v. Jiffy Lube International Inc., No. 3:16-CV-07175-EMC (N.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2017)
    02/08/2017

    Court denied motion to vacate AAA arbitration award, holding that plaintiffs did not meet the high burden of proving that the arbitrator had manifestly disregarded the law or was irrational in her reasoning.  Court also noted, but did not decide, challenge to the motion based on its timeliness.

  • HDI Glob. SE v. Lexington Ins. Co., No. 1:16-CV-07241-CM (S.D.N.Y Feb. 7, 2017)
    02/07/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court rejected argument that the parties’ agreement was void for lack of mutual assent or that the court must interpret its applicability, holding that the parties agreed to arbitrate all questions of contract interpretation.  Court noted that the arbitration agreement was, in any case, severable from the rest of the contract and could not be invalidated by a challenge to the contract as a whole.

  • Terra Finance, LLC v. Acrow Corporation of America, No. 2:16-CV-00075-SRC-CLW (D.N.J. Feb. 7, 2017)
    02/07/2017

    Court granted motion to dismiss proceedings and compel arbitration.  Court held that the dispute was subject to a valid arbitration agreement and rejected the plaintiff’s assertions of procedural and substantive accountability, finding that they were mere assertions of impropriety.  Court also refused to substitute an arbitrator, holding that concern with the amount of administrative fees did not satisfy the narrow FAA grounds permitting such judicial intervention.

  • 20/20 Communications, Inc. v. Blevins, No. 4:16-CV-00810-Y (N.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2017)
    02/07/2017

    Court denied motion to issue a preliminary injunction to enjoin arbitration.  Court held that the availability of class arbitration under the parties’ arbitration agreement was a question for the arbitrator because the parties had incorporated a delegation clause, including by agreeing that any arbitration would be governed by AAA rules.

  • Leverage Health Sols., LLC v. Medversant Techs., LLC, No. 2:16-CV-09058-JFW-FFM (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2017)
    02/07/2017

    Court summarily granted petition to confirm AAA arbitration award, including post-award, pre-judgment interest, but not an amount the arbitrator had ordered reimbursed to Respondent for fees paid to the AAA.

  • Bay S. Ltd., Inc. v. Stephens Constr. & Concrete, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00472-WS-C (S.D. Ala. Feb. 7, 2017)
    02/07/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay judicial proceedings.  Court rejected arguments that the Miller Act posed a statutory bar to arbitration or that the motion had been procedurally improper, and held that the parties had clearly and unmistakably agreed to have a AAA arbitrator decide the scope of their arbitral agreement and therefore deferred the question of scope to the arbitrator and stayed proceedings against all defendants.

  • Julian v. Rollins, Inc., No. 8:16-CV-03092-JSM-TBM (M.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2017)
    02/07/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, reasoning that the arbitration clause extended to the dispute under Florida law and that defendant could enforce it as a non-signatory assignee of the underlying finance agreement.  Court further held that by incorporating the AAA rules, the parties agreed to delegate any threshold questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

  • Red Rocks Resources LLC. V. Trident Steel Corporation, No. 5:14-CV-00948-C (W.D. Okla. Feb. 7, 2017)
    02/07/2017

    Court granted in part third-party defendants motion to stay litigation and compel arbitration.  Court held the arbitration agreement had not been waived because the actions taken in terms of discovery would have occurred whether the arbitration agreement had been enforced early in the litigation or at this stage. Thus, there was no wasted or excess effort.

  • Organizacion Ideal, S. DE R.L. DE C.V. v. FHR Mex. Mgmt. Co. S.A. DE C.V., No. 1:15-CV-7728-ER (S.D.N.Y. Feb, 6, 2017)
    02/06/2017

    Court granted motion to confirm ICDR award and entered judgment for the full amount of the award, plus interest.

  • BCB Holdings Ltd. v. Gov’t of Belize, No. 1:14-CV-01123-CKK (D.D.C. Feb. 6, 2017)
    02/06/2017

    Court granted petition under 28 USC § 1610(c) to enforce its earlier judgment enforcing an LCIA arbitral award, reasoning that sufficient time had elapsed and statutory notice had been given.  Court denied without prejudice corresponding motions for anti-suit injunction and temporary restraining order, reasoning that there was no interference with the Court’s jurisdiction at this time.

  • Young v. CitiFinancial Serv. LLC, No. 4:16-CV-01171-CDP (E.D. Mo. Feb. 6, 2017)
    02/06/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the dispute fell within a valid arbitration agreement.  Court found that Plaintiff had presented no evidence that the agreement was invalid or that federal law might prevent arbitration of the claim.

  • Poublon v. C.H. Robinson Co., No. 15-55143 (9th Cir. Feb. 3, 2017)
    02/03/2017

    Circuit court reversed order denying motion to compel arbitration, finding that, although an agreement signed as a condition for receiving an employment bonus qualifies as an adhesion contract, the disputed features of the arbitration provision (including, inter alia, waiver of representative claims, distant location of arbitration, confidentiality requirement, power to award fees and costs, employer’s unilateral right to modify, and limitations on discovery) were not unconscionable.

  • Prime Healthcare Servs. – Landmark LLC v. United Nurses & Allied Prof’ls, Local 5067, No. 16-1161 (1st Cir. Feb. 3, 2017)
    02/03/2017

    Circuit court reversed district court’s order denying motion to compel arbitration, finding that issue of ERISA preemption was not an issue of arbitrability and was for the arbitrator to decide.

  • Celand Constr. Co. v. FutureNet Grp., Inc., No. 9:16-CV-03584-RMG (D.S.C. Feb. 3, 2017)
    02/03/2017

    Court granted motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, holding that plaintiff, by failing to respond to the motion, had not met its burden to show that arbitration agreement was unenforceable.

  • Hobzek v. Homeaway.com, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01058-SS (W.D. Tex. Feb. 3, 2017)
    02/03/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed. Court held that plaintiff’s attacks on the arbitration clause (that it lacked consideration, did not bind a non-signatory, prevented class litigation of statutory civil rights claims, and was illusory as it could be unilaterally amended) were matters of arbitrability that had been delegated to the arbitrator, and their arbitrability was not wholly groundless.

  • Outokumpu Stainless USA LLC v. Converteam SAS, No. 1:16-CV-00378-KD-C (S.D. Ala. Feb. 3, 2017)
    02/03/2017

    Court granted motions to compel arbitration and dismiss, finding that defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate through participating in the proceedings in a limited fashion prior to moving to compel arbitration.

  • D/S Norden A/S v. CHS de Paraguay, SRL, No. 1:16-CV-02274-LTS (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2017)
    02/03/2017

    Court granted motion to dismiss petition to compel arbitration, finding that petitioner had not plausibly pleaded that it was an agent of a party to the arbitration agreement.

  • Plumbers & Pipe Fitters, Local 23 v. Kelsey Excavating, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-50306 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 3, 2017)
    02/03/2017

    Court granted in part and denied in part motion to dismiss action to enforce arbitral award, finding that (1) plaintiffs had adequately pleaded that one defendant was successor-in-interest to party to arbitral agreement; (2) another defendant had dissolved prior to accrual of claims; (3) plaintiffs had adequately pleaded that another defendant was operating as an alter ego to party to arbitral agreement; (4) plaintiffs had not alleged facts sufficient to state a claim for single employer liability as to another defendant; and (5) plaintiffs had not alleged facts sufficient to state a claim for successor liability.

  • Selden v. Airbnb, Inc., No. 16-7139 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 2, 2017)
    02/02/2017

    Court of appeal granted the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.  Court held that the district court’s order compelling arbitration and staying litigation is not appealable, finding pursuant to 28 USC §  1292(a)(1) that the order did not have the effect of denying an injunction that affects all of the merits or would have a serious, perhaps irreparable affect.  Court also found the order was not appealable under a pendent jurisdiction theory or the collateral order doctrine.

  • Wijesinha v. DIRECTV, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-22090-KMM (S.D. Fla. Feb. 02, 2017)
    02/02/2017

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of court’s order granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding that plaintiff’s arguments failed to satisfy any of the grounds upon which a motion for reconsideration should be granted.

  • Iraq Middle Mkt. Dev. Found. v. Harmoosh, No. 16-1403 (4th Cir. Feb. 2, 2017)
    02/02/2017

    Circuit court vacated grant of summary judgment in action to recognize Iraqi judgment and remanded, finding that a genuine issue of material existed as to whether the debtor lost his right to arbitrate by utilizing the Iraqi judicial process.

  • Jefferson v. Baptist Health Sys., Inc., No. 2:16-CV-01094-KOB (N.D. Ala. Feb. 2, 2017)
    02/02/2017

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award and denied motion to vacate. Court held that, where a party filed suit in court within the statute of limitations and the parties later agreed to have action heard in arbitration, the arbitrator did not exceed her authority to find that the claimant’s failure to initiate arbitration within the statute of limitations did not bar suit; and  arbitrator did not exceed her authority under rules requiring a “single award” by issuing two preliminary awards and a final award.

  • Hays v. Jefferson Capital Sys., LLC, No. 1:15-CV-14025-GAO (D. Mass. Feb. 2, 2017)
    02/02/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the existence of an agreement containing an arbitration clause in clear and unmistakable terms had been established without contradiction.

  • Erickson v. Thrivent Ins. Agency Inc., No. 4:16-CV-04044-RAL (D.S.D. Feb. 1, 2017)
    02/01/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay case, finding that, where a contract incorporated a fraternal society’s bylaws by reference, and those bylaws were subsequently amended to include an arbitration clause, party is bound by subsequently added arbitration clause since it does not reduce his benefits under the contract.

  • CFL Pizza LLC v. Hammack, No. 6:16-CV-00968-JA-KRS (M.D. Fla. Feb. 1, 2017)
    02/01/2017

    Court denied petition to compel arbitration in accordance with agreement, finding that issue of whether class arbitration was permitted was to be determined by arbitrator in pending arbitration.

  • Amerisourcebergen Drug Corp. v. Primrose Pharmacy, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-06106-GAM (E.D. Pa. Feb. 1, 2017)
    02/01/2017

    Court denied motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, finding that, where a contract incorporated another instrument by reference and the other instrument contained an arbitration clause expressly limited to disputes between parties to that other instrument, the parties to the contract were not bound by the arbitration clause in the other instrument.

  • Preferred Care, Inc. v. Roberts, No. 5:16-CV-00203-KKC (E.D. Ky. Jan. 31, 2017)
    01/31/2017

    Court partially granted motion to compel arbitration of claims pending in state court, holding, inter alia, that (1) there were insufficient grounds to abstain from exercising jurisdiction in favor of a pending state court proceeding in which a motion to compel arbitration had not been filed; (2) under FAA’s pro-arbitration policy, ambiguity over whether court-appointed guardian had authority to bind nursing home resident to arbitration is resolved in favor of arbitration; (3) delay in filing federal action seeking to compel arbitration, while state action on the merits was proceeding, did not effect a waiver as the delay was not unwarranted; (4) wrongful death claim was not subject to arbitration, as it is brought on behalf of beneficiaries not bound to the arbitration agreement; and (5) no basis existed to permit non-party plaintiffs to invoke arbitration clause.

  • Mellick v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No 5:16-CV-00821-D (E.D.N.C. Jan. 31, 2017)
    01/31/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that no basis existed to hold that arbitration clause was invalid and any ambiguity over whether plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration clause should be resolved in favor of arbitration.

  • Dodson Int’l Parts, Inc. v. Williams Int’l Co., LLC, No. 2:16-CV-02212-JAR-KGS (D. Kan. Jan. 31, 2017)
    01/31/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that question of whether party was fraudulently induced to enter contract was to be determined in arbitration; and the arbitration clause was not unconscionable.

  • Nat’l Indemnity Co. v. IRB Brazil Reseguros S.A., No. 16-1267 (2d Cir. Jan. 31, 2017)
    01/31/2017

    Circuit court affirmed confirmation of arbitral awards, finding that district court had not committed clear error in concluding that an arbitrator had not shown “evident partiality” by accepting an appointment by a related party in another arbitration.

  • Janvey v. Alguire, No. 14-10857 (8th Cir. Jan. 31, 2017)
    01/31/2017

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration, finding that no basis existed for non-signatories to be bound under the arbitration agreement; and the only party that had signed an arbitration agreement had waived its right to assert it by participating in that litigation to the point of obtaining discovery.

  • Gundrum v. Cleveland Integrity Servs., Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00369-WMC (W.D. Wis. Jan. 31, 2017)
    01/31/2017

    Court granted motion to transfer, finding that proper venue for motion to compel arbitration is in the district where forum-selection clause provides that arbitration would occur, and no valid ground for challenging the forum-selection clause existed.

  • Louisiana Dep’t of Nat. Res. ex rel. Coastal Prot. and Restoration Auth. v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, No. 3:16-CV-00586-BAJ-EWD (M.D. La. Jan. 31, 2017)
    01/31/2017

    Court denied motion to vacate arbitral award, finding that panel’s failure to consider certain evidence was not prejudicial.

  • Magee v. WD Servs., LLC, No. 2:16-CV-02132-JAD-VCF (D. Nev. Jan. 30, 2017)
    01/30/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed, holding that there was no evidence creating a genuine dispute about whether the plaintiff agreed to arbitration and it was undisputed that the defendant was either a party to that agreement or an affiliate entitled to enforce it.

  • Simmons v. Hankey, No. 2:16-CV-06125-ODW-JEM (C.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2017)
    01/30/2017

    Court granted defendants’ petition to compel arbitration, finding that: employee’s signature was sufficient to create an arbitration agreement without the employer also needing to sign; the employers’ agents could invoke the arbitration agreement; questions of the arbitration agreement’s scope and whether it is unconscionable are to be determined in arbitration.

  • Bethune v. LendingClub Corp., No. 1:16-CV-02578-NRB (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2017)
    01/30/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration on an individual basis and stay the action, finding that questions of unconscionability and applicability of arbitration clause to non-signatories concerns arbitrability, the question of which was delegated to the arbitrator to decide.

  • GoPro Hong Kong Ltd. v. United World Brands, No. 3:16-CV-05113-JD (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2017)
    01/30/2017

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award, finding that no grounds for non-recognition under the New York Convention existed.

  • J&JB Timberlands, LLC v. Woolsey Energy II, LLC, No. 3:14-CV-01318-SMY-RJD (S.D. Ill. Jan. 30, 2017)
    01/30/2017

    Court granted motion to stay litigation pending arbitration, holding that arbitration provision within a deed conveying land ran with the land and was binding against subsequent tenants in vertical privity to the original grantee.

  • Woody v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00825-HEH (E.D. Va. Jan. 30, 2017)
    01/30/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that arbitration clause required no pre-arbitration notice requirement.

  • Singh v. Uber Techs. Inc., No. 3:16-CV-03044-FLW-DEA (D.N.J. Jan. 30, 2017)
    01/30/2017

    Court granted motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, holding, inter alia, that (1) plaintiff was sufficiently notified of arbitration clause that was in a website agreement to which he was provided a hyperlink; (2) exception to FAA for “transportation employees” is inapplicable to Uber drivers; (3) class waiver was valid in light of plaintiff’s ability to opt out of arbitration clause within 30 days of agreement; and (4) arbitration was not unconscionable in light of plaintiff’s ability to opt out of arbitration clause within 30 days of agreement.

  • Craig v. Total Quality Logistics, LLC, No. 8:16-CV-02970-SCB-AEP (M.D. Fl. Jan. 30, 2017)
    01/30/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability; and arbitration agreement could be enforced against a non-party both under agency principles and due to allegations that the non-party’s misconduct was substantially interdependent and in concert with a party to the agreement.

  • Bordelon Marine, LLC v. Bibby Subsea ROV, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-01106-LMA-DEK (E.D. La. Jan. 30, 2017)
    01/30/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that (1) although Louisiana court previously compelled arbitration of claims brought before it, it does not have authority under FAA to order arbitration in Texas of related claims pending before a Texas court; (2) the All Writs Act did not provide such authority, since there were adequate means to seek order compelling arbitration in the Texas action; and (3) the first to file rule did not provide such authority, since it should have been raised in the Texas action.

  • Outokumpu Stainless USA LLC v. Converteam SAS, No. 1:16-CV-00378-KD-C (S.D. Ala. Jan. 30, 2017)
    01/30/2017

    Court granted motions to compel arbitration and dismiss under the New York Convention, finding that: sub-contractor of party was bound by party’s agreement to arbitrate; and commercial relationship had sufficient relationship to foreign states to justify international arbitration.

  • Opalinski v. Robert Half Int’l Inc., No. 15-4001 (3d Cir. Jan. 30, 2017)
    01/30/2017

    Circuit court affirmed dismissal of collective action complaint, interpreting employment agreements’ silence as to class arbitration as reflecting an intent that class arbitration not be allowed.

  • Bowers v. N. Two Cayes Co. Ltd., No. 1:15-CV-00029-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C. Jan. 30, 2017)
    01/30/2017

    Court denied motion to remand award to arbitrator, finding that it was unable to adjudicate any interests reflected in the ward until a confirmation action had been brought.

  • Muhammad v. Community Coach, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-08344-JLL-JAD (D.N.J. Jan. 30, 2017)
    01/30/2017

    Court granted motion to dismiss, finding, inter alia, that certain of plaintiff’s claims addressed matters that were already decided against him in arbitration, and a motion to vacate would be untimely.

  • Deleon v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00767-CSH (D. Conn. Jan. 30, 2017)
    01/30/2017

    Court granted motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that agreement to arbitrate was supported by consideration since the promise was mutual and because it was a condition of continued employment of an at-will employee; and question of whether arbitration agreement was unconscionable was a question of arbitrability to be determined by the arbitrator.

  • Schneider Electric Building Americas, LLC v. International Mechanical Services, Inc., No. 5:16-CV-00828-DAE (W.D. Tex. Jan. 27, 2017)
    01/27/2017

    Court granted the motions to dismiss or stay federal court proceeding. Court found that a valid arbitration agreement existed and the breach of contract claim fell within the scope of that agreement. Court also concluded that no obvious legal constraints existed—such as unconscionability, duress, fraudulent inducement, revocation, and other defenses to contract formation—and therefore arbitration should be compelled.

  • Richemond v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 1:16-CV-23267-DPG (S.D. Fla. Jan. 27, 2017)
    01/27/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that questions of whether arbitration clause is invalid under the NLRA was delegated in the first instance to the arbitrator.

  • Gunn v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01668-SEB-MJD (S.D. Ind. Jan. 27, 2017)
    01/27/2017

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed action, holding that the FAA applies and questions regarding unconscionability and class waiver and are to be decided by the arbitrator.

  • Trs. of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Installations of Am., Inc., No. 1:15-CV-08316-PAE (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2017)
    01/27/2017

    Court granted unopposed motion for summary judgment and confirmed arbitration award, finding that there was no material issue of fact in dispute.

  • Habilston v. FINRA Regulation, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-02225-ABJ (D.D.C. Jan. 27, 2017)
    01/27/2017

    Court granted motion to dismiss in light of pending arbitration, finding that claims that arbitral forum violated their constitutional rights by unfair arbitration process were not ripe while arbitration was ongoing, and that the arbitral forum was entitled to arbitral immunity.

  • Weckesser v. Knight Enters. S.E., LLC, No. 2:16-CV-02053-RMG (D.S.C. Jan. 27, 2017)
    01/27/2017

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration under the FAA, holding that no valid arbitration agreement bound the actual parties to the dispute.  Court rejected argument that the exclusion of defendant’s specific corporate name from the arbitral agreement was mere clerical error, reasoning that any contractual ambiguities must be construed against it as the drafter.  Court likewise refused to recognize any third party beneficiary right to arbitrate, finding that the arbitral agreement did not identify defendant as such.

  • Patel v. Jack in the Box Inc., No. 3 16-CV-02561-H-JLB (S.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2017)
    01/27/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration because plaintiff’s status as a supervisor meant that he was able to—and did—waive his collective action rights under the National Labor Relations Act, plaintiff was not waiving any rights under the California Private Attorneys General Act because he did not bring claims under the act, and the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable.

  • Daugherty v. SolarCity Corp., No. 3:16-CV-05155-WHA (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2017)
    01/26/2017

    Court granted motion to dismiss action to compel arbitration, holding that, under ninth circuit precedent, class action waivers are impermissible under the NLRA.

  • Trs. for the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. DCM Grp., LLC, No. 7:13-CV-01925-NSR (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2017)
    01/25/2017

    Court granted unopposed motion to confirm and enforce default opinion and arbitration award, finding that the arbitration award should be confirmed because the motion was uncontested and the award was supported by the award and appropriate.

  • Ranieri v. Banco Santander, S.A., No. 2:15-CV-037400-MCA-MAH (D.N.J. Jan. 25, 2017)
    01/25/2017

    Court grants motion to compel arbitration, holding that as the terms of the arbitration agreement are clear the plaintiffs’ manifest intent was to be bound to it.

  • Bergheim v. Sirona Dental Systems, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01692-LTS (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2017)
    01/24/2017

    Court grants petitioners motion for confirmation of an arbitral award and request for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and denies respondents’ cross-motion to vacate the award.  Court held that, in rendering the award, the arbitral tribunal did not exceed its powers, dispense its own brand of justice, or manifestly disregard the terms of the arbitration agreement or the law.

  • Castro v. Macy's Inc., No. 3:16-CV-05991-CRB (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2017)
    01/24/2017

    Court grants defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stays the claim, holding that the plaintiff received the arbitration agreement by mail and implicitly agreed to the arbitration agreement by failing to affirmatively opt out.  As a result, the plaintiff waived her right to a judicial forum for her civil rights claims.

  • Egan Jones Ratings Company v. Pruette, No. 2:16-MC-00105-JLS (E.D. Pa. Jan. 24, 2017)
    01/24/2017

    Court denies respondents motion to dismiss a petition to vacate a partial final award, holding that as there was a formal bifurcation of the arbitration, the partial final award on liability was a final award and the court had jurisdiction to review it.

  • Bruzda v. Sonic Automotive, No. 1:16-CV-02413-MEH (D. Colo. Jan. 23, 2017)
    01/23/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration because the defendant had defaulted in a prior arbitration proceeding.  Plaintiffs initially submitted their discrimination claims to arbitration with the AAA, but defendant failed to pay the AAA administrative fees in full and the AAA closed the case.  Court found that in failing to pay the AAA arbitration fees, defendant had forfeited its ability to enforce the arbitration agreement.

  • Brown & Pipkins, LLC v. Service Employees International Union, Local 32BJ, Nos. 15-1931, 15-1987 (4th Cir. Jan. 23, 2017)
    01/23/2017

    Circuit court affirms district court’s confirmation of four labor arbitration awards, based in large part on the limited scope of review afforded to labor-arbitration decisions pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement.  Court also held that defendant waived its claim for attorneys’ fees by not complying with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54.

  • Bell Products, Inc. v. Hospital Building and Equipment Company, No. 3:16-CV-04515-JSC (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2017)
    01/23/2017

    Court grants defendants motion to stay the arbitration pursuant to § 3 of the FAA and held that the venue provision in the parties’ arbitration agreement is enforceable because the FAA preempts California Code of Civil Procedure § 410.42(a)(1).

  • HCR ManorCare, Inc. v. Carr, No. 3:16-CV-00068 (N.D.W. Va. Jan. 20, 2017)
    01/20/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, abstain, and grants plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that a decedent’s estate, though it is a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, is bound by that agreement because under West Virginia law any potential recovery in a wrongful death action is derivative based upon the decedent’s own ability to recover if alive. 

  • Ortiz-Espinosa v. BBVA Securities of Puerto Rico, Inc., No. 16-1122 (1st Cir. Jan. 20, 2017)
    01/20/2017

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s refusal to vacate arbitral award and instead to confirm it.  Court held that district court’s “look-through” the motion to the underlying dispute approach to determine whether a court has federal jurisdiction was the correct test, that federal jurisdiction existed, and that the lower court did not err in determining the lack of grounds to vacate or modify the award.  

  • Norcia v. Samsung Telecom America, No. 14-16994 (9th Cir. Jan. 19, 2017)
    01/19/2017

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s order denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of a class action complaint concerning the performance of the Galaxy S4 phone.  Court found that arbitration provision included in the warranty brochure with the Galaxy S4 is not binding because the plaintiff’s silence does not constitute consent to arbitration; the brochure was an unenforceable in-the-box contract; and (c) plaintiff did not agree to arbitrate by signing agreements with Verizon Wireless.

  • Martin v. Deutsche Bank Sec. Inc., No. 16-456 (2d Cir. Jan. 19, 2017)
    01/19/2017

    Court affirms district court’s denial of plaintiff’s petition to vacate an arbitration award because plaintiff failed to give defendant timely notice of the petition to vacate as required by the FAA.  Service of the petition via email was inappropriate where the defendant had not agreed in writing to accept service by email.

  • Arabian Motors Group W.L.L. v. Ford Motor Co., No. 2:16-CV-13655 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 19, 2017)
    01/19/2017

    Court denied motion for preliminary injunction to stay arbitration.  Court found that the Motor Vehicle Franchise Contract Arbitration Fairness Act, which requires a written agreement to arbitrate after a dispute arises, does not cover the agreement between the parties because plaintiff is a foreign dealer and the statute is presumed to apply only to domestic entities.  Thus, the parties’ delegation of questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator is enforceable.

  • Malik v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-10477 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 19, 2017)
    01/19/2017

    Court denies motion to allow immediate appeal of the court’s grant of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and subsequent stay of the proceedings. Could held that it conducted a thorough analysis of whether the delegation clause was valid and there is no substantial ground for difference of opinion that could make an immediate appeal appropriate.

  • Dang v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 15-16768 (9th Cir. Jan. 19, 2017)
    01/19/2017

    Circuit court reversed district court order granting motion to compel arbitration, finding that arbitration clause printed on brochure inserted in product box did not create a binding agreement with purchaser who failed to opt out in accordance with its terms.

  • Pioneer Roofing Org. v. Local Joint Adjustment Smart Board Local Union No. 104, No. 3:15-CV-03544 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2017)
    01/18/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment of plaintiff’s suit to vacate an arbitration award favoring defendant. Review of an arbitration decision pursuant to a labor contract is “very limited” and, “[s]o long as the arbitrator is even arguably construing or applying the contract or acting within the scope of his authority”, great deference is given to the arbitrator’s interpretation of the parties’ agreement as well as his findings of fact.

  • CBF Industria De Gusa SA v. Amci Holdings, Inc., No. 15-1133 (2d Cir. Jan. 18, 2017)
    01/18/2017

    Circuit court vacated district court’s dismissal of enforcement action and remands for further proceedings.  Court held that the district court erred in holding that appellants were required to confirm their foreign arbitral award before they could be allowed to enforce it. This is because the New York Convention and Chapter 2 of the FAA require only that the award-creditor of a foreign arbitral award file one action in a federal district court to enforce the foreign arbitral award.

  • Kroma Makeup EU, LLC v. Kimberly Kardashian, No. 15-15060 (11th Cir. Jan. 18, 2017)
    01/18/2017

    Court affirmed district court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the doctrine of equitable estoppel allows non-signatory defendants to invoke the arbitration provision of an agreement only when the claims asserted against those defendants fall within the scope of the clause that the signatories had agreed upon.  Here, the defendants failed to show that they are “parties” to the agreement and therefore cannot enforce an arbitration clause that reads: “the Parties agree that the disputes arising between them concerning the validity, interpretation, termination or performance”.

  • Dickson v. Gospel for ASIA, Inc., No. 5:16-CV-05027 (W.D. Ark. Jan. 18, 2017)
    01/18/2017

    Court denied motions to compel arbitration and dismiss action.  Court found that the relevant agreement, church mission statement and pledges signed by the plaintiff, are invalid because they lack consideration and contain no mutuality of obligation.  Therefore the arbitration provision is an illusory promise that is not binding.

  • Sundquist v. Ubiquity, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-02472-H-DHB (S.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2017)
    01/17/2017

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiffs had entered into a valid arbitration agreement when purchasing Ubiquity, Inc. stock.  Plaintiffs claimed that they had been defrauded by defendants in the course of investing in Ubiquity, but because these claims were within the scope of the arbitration agreement, the court held that the parties had to proceed to arbitration.

  • CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. v. Gas Workers Union, No. 0:16-CV-03543 (D. Minn. Jan. 17, 2017)
    01/17/2017

    Court granted motion to vacate arbitration award.  Court held that arbitrator’s authority in labor disputes is not unlimited.  The arbitrator disregarded the plain language of an unambiguous clause of the collective bargaining agreement, which limits the arbitrator’s authority to determining whether an employee was dishonest or negligent; the arbitrator exceeded this authority by fashioning a remedy following his factual finding. 

  • CPB Contractors Pty. Ltd. v. Chevron Corp., 4:16-CV-05344 (N.D. Cal. Jan 17, 2017)
    01/17/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay pending the resolution of binding arbitration between the plaintiff and Chevron Australia, a non-party to the case. Court found that § 3 of the FAA allows for a stay when “any issue” involved in the suit is referable to arbitration. This is supported by prior decisions holding that district courts have discretion to stay claims where (a) litigation of claims against the non-signatory would adversely affect the signatory’s rights in arbitration and (b) a stay is advisable in view of the claims’ interdependence with claims properly referred to arbitration.  Here, proceeding with the case would interfere with Chevron Australia’s right to have the claims against it decided in arbitration.

  • Laporte v. One Beacon America Ins. Co., No. 3:16-CV-00500 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 17, 2017)
    01/17/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss pending arbitration.  A clear and unambiguous agreement to arbitrate exists and the plaintiff’s claims are within the scope of the arbitration provision.

  • Payne v. Menard Inc, No. 2:15-CV-00317 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 17, 2017)
    01/17/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss.  The arbitration agreement is valid and dismissal is proper where a valid arbitration agreement requires arbitration outside the district where the lawsuit pends.

  • DKS, Inc. v. Corporate Business Solutions, Inc., No.15-16589 (9th Cir. Jan. 17, 2017)
    01/17/2017

    Circuit court affirms district court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration following de novo review of the district court’s interpretation of the relevant contract provisions.  Court concludes that the complaint contains sufficient facts that, if assumed true, constitute “fraud in the inception” and invalidate the agreement.

  • D.A.R.E. New Jersey, INC v. D.A.R.E. America, No. 15-55512 (9th Cir. Jan. 17, 2017)
    01/17/2017

    Circuit court affirms district court’s confirmation of an arbitration award. Court finds that arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law by rejecting plaintiff’s application to amend its complaint on the eve of the hearing, noting that a tribunal’s interpretation of the scope of its powers is entitled to great deference.  Plaintiff also failed to show that an explicit public policy militates against the relief ordered in the arbitration.

  • Trina Solar US, Inc. v. JRC-Services LLC, No. 1:16-CV-02869 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 17, 2017)
    01/17/2017

    Court confirms arbitration award and denies motion to vacate.  Court found that de novo review of arbitrability is warranted because a non-signatory to the agreement preserved its objection to jurisdiction by refusing to participate in the arbitration.  Court holds that the tribunal did not exceed its authority by finding a non-signatory to the agreement jointly and severally liable, having concluded that (a) the signatory to the agreement was an actual and apparent agent of the non-signatory and (b) the non-signatory was estopped from objecting to jurisdiction because it received direct benefits from the agreement.  Moreover, the arbitration proceeding was not fundamentally unfair despite the tribunal’s acceptance of a “skeletal” declaration as satisfying its order of detailed witness statements; this behavior did not render the proceedings fundamentally unfair.

  • Curtis v. Cintas Corp., 2:16-CV-03597 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 17, 2017)
    01/17/2017

    Court grants motion to stay pending the resolution of arbitration.  Even under the “sliding scale approach” of Pennsylvania law, a finding of both substantive and procedural unconscionability is required to deem the arbitration clause invalid.  An arbitration agreement that expressly states that one party will pay the costs of arbitration for the other party is not substantively unconscionable without a showing that the agreement unreasonably or grossly favors the paying party. 

  • Kum Tat Ltd. v Linden Ox Pasture, LLC, No. 14-17472 (9th Cir. Jan. 13, 2017)
    01/13/2017

    Circuit court dismissed interlocutory appeal from district court denial of a motion to compel arbitration.  Circuit court held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal where the arbitration motion relied only on California state arbitration law and was not filed pursuant to the FAA.  Court also declined to treat the appeal as a petition for a writ of mandamus because the district court order was not clearly erroneous in reserving for itself the question of whether the parties agreed to arbitrate or had formed a valid contract.

  • Preferred Care of Delaware Inc. v. Simm VanArsdale, No. 16-5209 (6th Cir. Jan. 13, 2017)
    01/13/2017

    Circuit court affirmed the district court’s abstention in a federal lawsuit brought under the FAA.  Circuit court held that district court’s Colorado River abstention was proper because the federal and state suits were parallel actions as both turned on an identical claim of the enforceability of an underlying arbitration agreement and that the majority of factors to be considered favored abstention.

  • Capelli Enterprises, Inc. v. Fantastic Sams Salons Corp., No. 5:16-CV-03401 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2017)
    01/13/2017

    Having denied plaintiff’s motion for temporary injunction of a AAA arbitration in August 2016, court grants motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the key disagreement between the parties, whether a claim for declaratory relief is subject to the arbitration agreement, should be resolved in arbitration since a valid arbitration clause exists, questions of arbitrability are clearly delegated to the arbitrator, and the arbitration clause evinces an intent to arbitrate arbitrability.  Since the arbitrator may ultimately determine that the issue is not arbitrable, the court stayed the proceedings rather than dismissing the case.

  • Nichols v. Murray Ford of Kingsland, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00069-LGW-RSB (S.D. Ga. Jan. 13, 2017)
    01/13/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration.  Court held Title VII claim was subject to a valid arbitration and enforceable agreement as there was no dispute plaintiff signed the arbitration agreement and the agreement was not unconscionable under Georgia law.  

  • Ventura v. Gov’t Empl. Ins. Co. (GEICO), No. 2:16-CV-08441-JFW-GJS (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2017)
    01/13/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the action without prejudice.  Court held that plaintiffs’ failure to file an opposition pursuant to local rules to defendant’s motion to compel arbitration constituted consent to the granting of the motion.

  • S. Ohio Trenching & Excavating, Inc. v. Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs., Local 181, No. 0:15-CV-00027-HRW (E.D. Ky. Jan. 12, 2017)
    01/12/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate an arbitral award.  Court held that the arbitration clauses within the disputed labor agreements between the parties were enforceable, that the arbitrator had proper jurisdiction, and that no valid reason existed to vacate the award.

  • Stevens-Bratton v. TruGreen, Inc., No. 16-5161 (6th Cir. Jan. 11, 2017)
    01/11/2017

    Circuit court reversed the district court’s judgment compelling arbitration and remanded for further proceedings.  Circuit court held that the agreement requiring arbitration between the parties had expired prior to the material events at the heart of the dispute arose and the contractual right at issue did not survive expiration under normal principles of contract interpretation. 

  • Thick v. Dolgencorp of Tex., Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00733-ALM (E.D. Tex. Jan. 11, 2017)
    01/11/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay pending action.  Court held there was a valid agreement to arbitrate as defendant provided a copy of the agreement containing plaintiff’s electronic signature and last four digits of her social security number, plaintiff produced no evidence otherwise, and plaintiff’s claims fell within the parties’ agreement.

  • Preferred Care of Del., Inc. v. Estate of Marilyn Hopkins, No. 16-6180 (6th Cir. Jan. 11, 2017)
    01/11/2017

    Circuit court dismissed appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction over a district court order enjoining its state court action, compelling arbitration, and staying the case.  Court held that § 16(b)(3) of the FAA forbids it from hearing interlocutory challenges where the federal lawsuit is covered by an arbitration agreement; and where the lower court stayed rather than dismissed the suit, there was no final judgment yet to appeal.

  • CPR Telecom Corp., Inc. v. Bullseye Telecom, Inc., No. 5:16-CV-10732-JEL-RSW (E.D. Mich. Jan. 11, 2017)
    01/11/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to vacate an arbitral award, granted the plaintiffs’ motion to confirm the award and request for attorney fees and costs, and denied plaintiffs’ request for sanctions.  Court held that since the award was derived from a breach relating to the parties’ agreement, and the plaintiffs could be considered the prevailing party, it was rational for the tribunal to award attorney fees and costs.  Court also held the plaintiffs were entitled to attorney fees and costs associated with the challenge to the arbitral award, but denied the plaintiffs’ request to issue sanctions against the defendant under FRCP 11 for a frivolous challenge.

  • Smith v. Credit Acceptance Corp., No. 3:16-CV-01675-RPC (M.D. Pa.  Jan. 11, 2017)
    01/11/2017

    Court stayed the case pending the outcome of arbitration. Court held that plaintiff requested the stay and that the third circuit has concluded that § 3 of the FAA requires a stay of proceedings if requested by a party, even though several other circuits have held that litigation in which all claims are being arbitrated may be dismissed. 

  • Bhakta v. Choice Hotels Int’l, Inc., No. 16-CV-1431-EFM (D. Kan. Jan. 10, 2017)
    01/10/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the case pending arbitration.  Court held that plaintiffs’ claim is within the scope of the valid arbitration provision within the parties’ franchise agreement.

  • Alstom v. Gen. Elec. Co., No. 16-CV-3568-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2017)
    01/10/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel ICC arbitration with the ICC, and granted plaintiff’s motion to compel submission of the dispute to an independent accounting firm.  Court held that where the agreement contains both a broadly worded arbitration clause and a specific arbitration clause assigning the decision to the independent accounting firm, the parties’ intent to arbitrate the question of arbitrability under the broad clause is not clear; the presence of conflicting clauses and ambiguity requires the court to decide arbitrability. 

  • King v. Sullivan, No. 4:16-CV-00695-JLH (E.D. Ark. Jan. 10, 2017)
    01/10/2017

    Court confirmed arbitration award, holding that, where duly-served respondent filed no response in the action and did not request extension of time to respond, respondent admitted all well-pled allegations against her.

  • Ege v. Express Messenger Systems, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-01167-RSL ((W.D.Wash. Jan. 10, 2017)
    01/10/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration.  Court held that defendant was a third-party beneficiary to the agreement, all of plaintiffs’ claims were within the scope of the agreement’s arbitration provision, and that arbitration was the proper forum for those claims to be heard.

  • PT Antam (Persero) TBK v. Airtrol, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00586-HEA (E.D. Mo.  Jan. 10, 2017)
    01/10/2017

    Court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff after finding that arbitrator’s awards were duly filed.

  • Guidotti v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, L.L.C., No. 1:11-CV-01219-JBS-KMW (D.N.J. Jan. 9, 2017)
    01/09/2017

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of prior court order requiring a jury trial to determine whether an agreement to arbitrate under § 4 of the FAA exists.  Court held that plaintiff provided no additional justification that the ruling was a clear error of law and thus did not meet the standard for reconsideration.

  • Massó-Torrellas v. Municipality of Toa Alta, No. 16-1319 (1st Cir. Jan. 9, 2017)
    01/09/2017

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a viable claim because the plaintiffs failed to comply with the mediation/arbitration clause in their contract.  However, circuit court held that the lower court erred in concluding that the mediation/arbitration clause covered the constitutional claims, which the parties agreed were not in the scope of the clause that only encompassed matters relating to the contract. 

  • Zweizig v. Northwest Direct Teleservices, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-02401-HZ (D. Or. Jan. 6, 2017)
    01/06/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss two of plaintiff’s claims. Court found that defendant’s challenge to the existence of an arbitration agreement constituted a petition to raise an arbitration defense within the meaning of § 4 of the FAA, which removes the court’s subject matter jurisdiction if there is a valid, enforceable arbitration clause.  Court held that defendant, in his individual capacity, was a non-signatory to an employment agreement and, in any event, defendant had waived his right to compel arbitration by submitting multiple filings and participating in several hearings.

  • Doe 1 v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., No. 2:10-CV-00899-JWS (D. Ariz. Jan. 6, 2017)
    01/06/2017

    Court denied defendants’ motions for partial summary judgment and granted plaintiffs’ motions for partial summary judgment since plaintiffs had contracts of employment which are exempt from arbitration under § 1 of the FAA and under the AAA.

  • Service Employees International Union, Local 1107 v. Northeastern Nevada Regional Hospital, No. 3:16-CV-00476-HDM-WGC (D. Nev. Jan. 6, 2017)
    01/06/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss because plaintiff stated a claim for which relief may be granted.  Court held that arbitration should be compelled under the collective bargaining agreement because of defendant’s alleged violations of that agreement.

  • Baron v. DIRECTV, LLC, No. 1:16-03145-JKB (D. Md. Jan. 6, 2017)
    01/06/2017

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s affirmative defenses pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(f), including defendant’s claim that the plaintiff’s claims are barred because they are subject to arbitration.  Court held that the validity of the affirmative defense could not be adjudicated prior to discovery and dispositive motions because plaintiff’s contract could have included an arbitration clause.

  • TransAtlantic Lines LLC v. Amergent Techs, LLC, No. 16-CV-3549-PAE (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2017)
    01/06/2017

    Court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss on the ground it lacks personal jurisdiction over the respondent and denied petitioner’s motion to compel arbitration on the same basis.  Court held that agreement contained an arbitration clause that specified the application of Connecticut law but did not specify an arbitral forum.  Court held that plaintiff did not allege that defendant had any contacts within the district or had undertaken activities therein, and therefore court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

  • Harman v. Wilson-Davis & Co., No.2:16-DV-00229-CW (D. Utah Jan. 6, 2017)
    01/06/2017

    Court denied plaintiffs’ petition to vacate an arbitration award.  Court noted that the tenth circuit has not yet addressed a circuit split as to whether a court may “look through” an FAA § 10 petition to vacate an arbitration award to find federal question jurisdiction based on the underlying federal substantive claims in the arbitration.  Court held it had federal question jurisdiction over the petition where the claims subject to arbitration raised federal questions.  Court also held that plaintiff failed to state sufficient grounds to vacate the award under either the public policy exception or the enumerated reasons for vacatur set forth in § 10 of the FAA.

  • Gomez v. Lace Ent., Inc., No. 15-CV-3326-CM (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2017)
    01/06/2017

    Court granted motion for class certification of plaintiff’s claims not subject to arbitration where court had previously denied motion to compel arbitration of one of the plaintiff’s claims.  Court held that sufficiently numerous employees were not subject to arbitration agreements to constitute the proposed class in that plaintiff’s putative class and collective action.

  • Food, Indus. and Beverage Warehouse, Drivers and Clerical Empl. Local 630 v. Barton Brands of Cal., Inc., No. 16-CV-6178-GW (C.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2017)
    01/05/2017

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment to compel arbitration under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act.  Court held that waiver by litigation conduct is a matter for the court to decide unless the parties clearly and unmistakably provided otherwise.  Court further denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration only after it had fully litigated its claim before the NLRB because to permit such would force the defendant to relitigate the issues on the merits.

  • Jones v. Singing River Health Services Foundation, No. 16-60263 (5th Cir. Jan. 5, 2017)
    01/05/2017

    Circuit court affirmed lower court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration. Court held that defendant voluntarily waived the issue of arbitrability because defendant submitted the issue to the court. Court also found that the arbitration provisions could not be enforced against the non-signatory plaintiff because the claims asserted did not “necessarily rely” on the contracts containing the arbitration provisions.

  • Klein v. Verizon Comm., Inc., No. 14-1660 (4th Cir. Jan. 5, 2017)
    01/05/2017

    Circuit court reversed and remanded district court’s determination of choice of law provision that resulted in arbitration.  Circuit court held that district court wrongly applied Maryland rather than Virginia law pursuant to the parties’ clear contractual choice of law provision in their agreement.

  • Science Applications International Corp. v. The Hellenic Republic, No. 1:13-CV-01070-GK (D.D.C. Jan. 5, 2017)
    01/05/2017

    Court granted petition to confirm an award from an ICC arbitration seated in Greece after previously staying the action while annulment proceedings were ongoing in in the Greek courts. Court held that the Europcar factors weighed in favor of enforcement of the award since it had been set aside by an appeals court in Greece but was reinstated by the Greek Supreme Court.

  • Belnap, M.D. v. IASIS Healthcare, No. 15-4010 (10th Cir. Jan. 5, 2017)
    01/05/2017

    Circuit court affirmed in part and reversed in part district court’s ruling on motion to compel arbitration. Court affirmed that claims against parties that were not signatories to the arbitration agreement should not be arbitrated.  However, court reversed lower court’s partial grant of the motion to compel arbitration as to the signatory, and stated that the motion should be granted on the remainder of the claims against that signatory as well, because the parties clearly and unmistakably agreed to delegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrators.

  • Solo Cup Operating Corp. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 528, No. 1:15-CV-00185-JRH-BKE (S.D. Ga. Jan. 4, 2017)
    01/04/2017

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on complaint to vacate or modify the arbitrator’s award. Court found that the arbitrator was arguably construing the collective bargaining agreement in reaching his award and, therefore, the court deferred entirely to the arbitrator’s interpretation.

  • Scott v. Family Dollar Store, Inc., No. 3:08-CV-00540-MOC-DSC (W.D.N.C. Jan. 4, 2017)
    01/04/2017

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that seeking arbitration after fully litigating the class certification issue was contrary to the purpose of arbitration, and defendant therefore waived its right to arbitration.

  • Sherman v. Service Corp. International, No. 3:16-CV-00011-JJH (N.D. Ohio Jan. 4, 2017)
    01/04/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss complaint and compel arbitration. Court found that the only point of contention—whether the agreement was signed—did not invalidate the agreement under principles of contract law, because clicking on an “I Agree” button is a valid electronic signature.

  • Aztec Engineering Group, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., No. 1:16-CV-01657-JMS (S.D. Ind. Jan. 04, 2017)
    01/04/2017

    Court denied third-party entity from intervening to assert a counterclaim against defendant and stay litigation to pursue arbitration.  Court held that if party believed it was entitled to initiate arbitration on allegedly arbitrable claims, no aspect of the litigation prevented it from doing so but the proposed intervention was geared more to delay than the merits of any dispute.

  • Torgerson v. LCC International, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-02495-DDC-TJJ (D. Kan. Jan. 3, 2017)
    01/03/2017

    Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration.  Court held that an appellate decision did not change controlling law sufficient to support reconsideration of a decision to compel arbitration, and even if it did, arbitrability was an issue for the arbitrator not the court.

  • Kirsch v. Dean, No. 3:16-CV-00299-CRS (W.D. Ky. Jan. 3, 2017)
    01/03/2017

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and denied motion to stay arbitration pending a decision on the motion to compel as moot. Court found that the parties agreed to a broad arbitration provision that applied to the claims, and that the defendant was neither estopped from, nor had we waived his right to, arbitrating the claims.

  • NRI Academy of Sciences v. Mukkamala, No. 2:12-CV-15333 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 1, 2017)
    01/01/2017

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award pursuant to the FAA.  Court denied the motion to vacate, concluding that the arbitrator’s discovery decisions were reasonable and the arbitrator acted within his broad authority.

  • Eazy Electronics & Technology, LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-01830-GAG (D.P.R. Dec. 30, 2016)
     
    12/30/2016

    Court granted the motion to dismiss and compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA and the New York Convention.  Court held that the arbitration agreement was subject to enforcement, was not unenforceable based on public policy, and was not unconscionable.  Court found the waiver of discovery clause in the agreement was valid, concluding that discovery was not a fundamental attribute of arbitration and determining that the clause did not contravene the FAA.

  • Sanes v. Treasure Bay (VI) Corp, No. 1:14-CV-00049-WAL-GWC (D.V.I. Dec. 30, 2016)
    12/30/2016

    Court interpreted defendant’s motion to dismiss action in favor of arbitration as request to refer matter to arbitration, which it granted, and stayed action pending arbitration. Court found that it had jurisdiction to grant motion and that defendant did not waive right to arbitration by failing to raise this right in the EEOC proceeding.

  • Fraser v. Perkins & Marie Callender’s LLC, No. 8:16-CV-3226-SDM-AEP (M.D. Fla. Dec. 30, 2016)
    12/30/2016

    Court granted in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the action. While the court agreed that arbitration provision was valid under Florida contract law, it refused to dismiss the action, stating that the Federal Arbitration Act mandated a stay and precluded dismissal.

  • Marcus v. Collins, No. 1:16-CV-04221-GBD-BCM (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2016)
    12/30/2016

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration or an employment discrimination claim, holding that plaintiff was not bound by a written agreement to arbitrate.  Court reasoned that the FAA presumption of arbitrability did not apply to the threshold question of whether an arbitration agreement exists, which must be decided as a matter of state contract law; Court held that defendants failed to demonstrate plaintiff, who had not individually agreed to arbitrate, was covered by a collective bargaining agreement.

  • Orafol Americas Inc. v. Reflex-o-Lite, LTDA, No. 3:16-CV-02070 (VLB) (D. Conn. Dec. 29, 2016)
    12/29/2016

    District court denied without prejudice motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction staying certain arbitration, finding that courts are not ordinarily allowed to interfere with the parties’ agreement to arbitrate and that the movant had failed to make a showing of particularized and irreparable harm from proceeding with the arbitration.

  • DISH Network L.L.C. v. Ray, No. 1:16-CV-00314-LTB (D. Colo. Dec. 28, 2016)
    12/28/2016

    Court denied plaintiffs’ petition to vacate arbitration award. Court found that the arbitrator had jurisdiction to decide whether the arbitration agreement permitted collective or class arbitration, and that the arbitrator’s conclusion that the agreement permitted collective or class arbitration was not in error or manifestly disregarded applicable law so as to vacate the award.

  • Machesky v. United Recovery Systems, LP, No. 4:16-CV-00596 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 28, 2016)
    12/28/2016

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff agreed to a broad arbitration agreement and that no state or federal laws precluded arbitration.

  • Alstom Brasil Energia E Transporte LTDA v. Mitsui Sumitomo Seguros S.A., No. 1:15-CV-08221 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2016)
    12/28/2016

    Court denied petitioners’ motion to hold respondent in contempt and to issue monetary sanctions against it. Court found that refusing to abide with the declaratory relief issued in an arbitral award—and subsequently confirmed by the court—does not rise to level of contempt, as declaratory relief lacks the coercive effect of injunctive relief.  Additionally, the court relied on the arbitrators’ declaration that while the actions in Brazilian courts may overlap with the arbitral award, such a question was not for the tribunal to answer.

  • UBS Financial Services Inc. v. Bounty Gain Enterprises Inc., No. 9:14-CV-81603-WM (S.D. Fla. Dec. 27, 2016)
    12/27/2016

    Court denied defendant’s motion for relief from preliminary injunction, stating that the plaintiff was not required to submit to FINRA arbitration. Court held that both the defendant and the defendant’s employee, who likewise sought FINRA arbitration, failed to establish standing, as the defendant was never a customer of the plaintiff or an associated person of the plaintiff, and the defendant’s employee sought arbitration under the same set of factual circumstances as the defendant.

  • Saporito v. Townes, No. 2:16-CV-01670-JAD-VCF (D. Nev. Dec. 27, 2016)
    12/27/2016

    Court granted plaintiff’s petition to confirm FINRA arbitration award. Court held that it must confirm award, as defendant offered no reason that award should be vacated, modified or corrected, and court found no reason to do so.

  • Enron Nigeria Power Holding Ltd. V. Nigeria, No. 15-7121 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 27, 2016)
    12/27/2016

    Circuit court affirmed district court order enforcing arbitral award. Court rejected Nigeria’s defense against enforcement on the ground that enforcement of the award violated U.S. public policy and should thus be denied pursuant to Art. V(2)(b) of the New York Convention. Court found that the arbitral tribunal’s interpretation of the power purchase agreement was due substantial deference and thus led it to reject Nigeria’s public policy defense.

  • Hudgins v. Total Quality Logistics LLC, No. 1:16-CV-07331 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 23, 2016)
    12/23/2016

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and granted plaintiffs’ motion for conditional class certification. Court held that delegation clause in arbitration agreement did not bar court from determining enforceability of arbitration agreement. However, court found that because the arbitration clause stated that arbitration shall be held in the county and state where the employee most recently worked for the defendant, and none of the employees for whom the defendant sought to compel arbitration worked for the defendant in the court’s district, the court could not compel plaintiffs to pursue arbitration in other districts.

  • Alvarado v. Pacific Motor Trucking Co., No. 14-56823 (9th Cir. Dec. 23, 2016)
    12/23/2016

    Circuit court affirmed lower court’s order to compel arbitration.  Court held that the arbitration clause in question was not unconscionable as a result of fraud in the inducement because, at the time of the contract was executed, defendant had made no material misrepresentations.  Court also held that plaintiffs, a group of long haul drivers, did not fall within the FAA’s exemption for “interstate transportation workers” because the exemption only applied to “contracts of employment” and the contracts in question were not contracts of employment.

  • Campbell v. Nevada Prop. 1 LLC, No. 14-17189 (9th Cir. Dec. 23, 2016)
    12/23/2016

    Circuit court affirmed lower court’s order to confirm an arbitration award.  Court held that appellant failed to show that the arbitrator exceeded the powers afforded by the terms of the arbitration agreement.

  • Trs. of the U.A. Local 38 Defined Benefit Pension Plan v. Trs. of the Plumbers and Pipe Fitters Nat’l Pension Fund, No. 16-15228 (9th Cir. Dec. 23, 2016)
    12/23/2016

    Circuit court affirmed lower court’s order to confirm an arbitration award.  Court held that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority when determining the amount owed to appellee because the arbitration agreement specified that the arbitrator would retain jurisdiction to decide the amount due.  Court also held that the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law because relevant case law clearly supported the arbitrator’s findings.

  • Trs. for the Mason Tenders Dist. Council Welfare Fund v. Earth Const. Corp., No. 1:16:-CV-06068-LGS (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2016)
    12/23/2016

    Court granted plaintiffs’ unopposed petition to confirm an arbitration award, holding that the arbitration award should be confirmed because the petition was uncontested and the decision in the arbitration award could clearly be inferred from the facts of the case.

  • UBS Financial Services, Inc. v. Asociación de Empleados del Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico, No. 3:16-CV-02017-WGY (D.P.R. Dec. 22, 2016)
    12/22/2016

    Court denied respondent’s motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or in the alternative a stay.  Court held that it has federal subject matter jurisdiction because the proper jurisdictional inquiry is to look through a post-arbitration petition to the substance of the dispute and, in this case, the arbitral claims arose under federal law, thus establishing federal question jurisdiction to consider the enforcement of a FINRA award under the FAA.

  • Choice Hotels Int’l, Inc. v. Host Hospitality, LLC, No. 8:16-CV-02321-TDC (D. Md. Dec. 22, 2016)
    12/22/2016

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for default judgment.  Court held that defendants’ failure to respond to plaintiff’s application to confirm an arbitration award justified the default judgment.  Court further held that it was satisfied that the arbitration award met the requirements of the FAA and that it would be confirmed as a result. 

  • Worth v. Worth, No. 2:16-CV-03877-MAK (E.D. Pa. Dec. 22, 2016)
    12/22/2016

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to stay proceedings on a motion to compel arbitration pending the outcome of an interlocutory appeal.  Court held that the pending motion to compel arbitration must be stayed because (i) plaintiff made a strong showing that he was likely to succeed on the merits; (ii) there was a risk that plaintiff would be irreparably injured absent a stay; and (iii) the issuance of a stay would not substantially injure defendants.

  • Lenox Corp. v. Blackshear, No. 2:15-CV-06019-AB (E.D. Pa. Dec. 22, 2016)
    12/22/2016

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of an ongoing arbitration and denied defendants’ motion to enjoin the arbitration.  Court held that the parties were obligated to arbitrate the dispute because there was no dispute that an agreement to arbitrate existed and upon examination of the arbitration clause the parties’ dispute clearly fell within the scope of the provision.

  • Dagnan v. St. John’s Military School, No. 2:16-CV-02246-CM-GEB (D. Kan. Dec. 21, 2016)
    12/21/2016

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the arbitration agreement between the parties was enforceable because (i) contrary to the plaintiff’s assertions, defendants did not retain the right to unilaterally alter the terms of the parties’ agreement and thus render the arbitration provision illusory; (ii) plaintiff’s allegations that arbitration did not allow for effective vindication of plaintiff’s rights was unsupported; (iii) the arbitration clause was not unconscionable under Kansas law; and (iv) the arbitration clause did not violate public policy by compelling arbitration against a minor.

  • Mohamed v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 15-16178 (9th Cir. Dec. 21, 2016)
    12/21/2016

    Circuit court affirmed in part and reversed in part district court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration, finding that the district court had erred in assuming authority  to decide whether the parties’ arbitration agreements were enforceable since the question of arbitrability as to most claims had been delegated to the arbitrator.  Circuit court also affirmed district court’s denial of co-defendant non-signatory’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff’s conclusory allegation that all defendants were each other’s agents was insufficient to entitle co-defendant to invoke arbitration agreement as an agent of the signatory.

  • Meadows v. Dickey’s Barbecue Restaurants Inc., No. 1:15-CV-02139-JST (N.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2016)
    12/21/2016

    Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for order to consolidate arbitrations.  Court held that it did not have jurisdiction to rule on the question of consolidation because consolidation is a procedural question for the arbitrator to decide.

  • Yundt v. Amsurg Holdings, Inc., No. 6:15-CV-01548-MC (D. Or.  Dec. 21, 2016)
    12/21/2016

    Court granted defendant’s motion to confirm and denied plaintiffs’ motion to vacate an arbitration award.  Court held that the arbitral tribunal did not exceed its authority by issuing its award beyond the 30-day deadline mandated by the applicable arbitral rules because neither party objected to nor was prejudiced by the untimely issuance of the award.  Court further held that the arbitral award should not be vacated because the arbitral tribunal did not refuse to hear plaintiffs’ antitrust claims; rather, plaintiffs failed to pursue those claims in arbitration.

  • Youssofi v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Assoc., No. 3:16-CV-01330-MMA-JMA (S.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2016).
    12/21/2016

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to reconsider an order to compel arbitration, holding plaintiff’s decision to execute an agreement containing an arbitration clause that did not expressly provide for a waiver of his right to petition the courts did not violate plaintiff’s First Amendment rights.

  • Allen v. Bloomingdale’s Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00772-WJM-MF (D.N.J. Dec. 21, 2016)
    12/21/2016

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the agreement to arbitrate was enforceable because plaintiffs plainly accepted the terms of the arbitration provision; and that plaintiffs’ contention that the arbitration agreement constitutes an unconscionable contract that defied public policy against racial discrimination was unsupported by legal precedent.

  • Brown v. Comcast Corp., No. 3:16-CV-03649-JST (N.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2016)
    12/21/2016

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the parties should proceed to arbitration because plaintiff did not argue that the arbitration provision was invalid or unenforceable, or that the present dispute fell outside the scope of the arbitration provision.

  • Burgess v. Buddy’s Northwest LLC, No. 3:15-CV-05785-BHS (W.D. Wash. Dec. 21, 2016)
    12/21/2016

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that a defendant, an employee of the company and a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, could enforce the agreement to arbitrate because the agreement stated that it would apply to “the Company . . . [and] its officers, directors, employees, or agents in their capacity as such otherwise.”  Court also held that the arbitration agreement was valid because there was mutual assent to arbitrate the dispute at issue; the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable; and defendants had not waived the right to compel arbitration by proceeding with limited discovery.

  • Calderone v. Sonic Houston JLR, LP, No. 4:15-CV-03699 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 21, 2016)
    12/21/2016

    Court granted motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, holding that the parties were obligated to arbitrate the dispute because plaintiff, a car salesman, did not fall within the FAA’s exempted class of “transportation workers” and that defendant had not waived its right to invoke the arbitration agreement.

  • House v. Rent-A-Center Franchising Int’l, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-06654 (S.D. W. Va. Dec. 21, 2016)
    12/21/2016

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that, contrary to plaintiffs’ claims, the parties’ arbitration agreement should be enforced because, although the defendant’s motion was late, plaintiffs would not be prejudiced if required to arbitrate the dispute, and the delegation provision contained in the arbitration clause was not unconscionable or otherwise invalid.

  • Int’l Corrugated and Packing Supplies, Inc. v. Lear Corp., No. 3:15-CV-00405-DCG (W.D. Tex. Dec. 21, 2016)
    12/21/2016

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that there was no agreement to arbitrate because there was insufficient evidence to conclude that an unsigned document containing an arbitration clause was incorporated by reference into the parties executed agreements.

  • Velazquez v. Corporate Transit of America, Inc., No. 8:16-CV-00948-JDW-AEP (M.D. Fla. Dec. 20, 2016)
    12/20/2016

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Because plaintiff was an independent contractor, court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that agreement was a “contract of employment” that fit within an exception to the FAA and that plaintiff’s had a substantive right to class actions under the NLRA.

  • Roquette Frères S.A. v. Solazyme, Inc., No. 15-4030 and No. 16-1308 (3d Cir. Dec. 20, 2016)
    12/20/2016

    Circuit court of appeals affirmed district court’s order confirming an arbitration award.  Court held that the arbitration clause contained in the parties’ agreement was broad enough to cover the dispute and that there was no evidence that the arbitral tribunal exceeded its authority in rendering its award.  

  • Zurich Ins. Co. a/s/o Adidas Group v. Crowley Latin America Servs., LLC, No. 1:16-CV-01861-JPO (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2016).
    12/20/2016

    Court granted plaintiff’s petition to compel arbitration.  Court held that the parties were bound to submit their dispute to arbitration because (i) arbitration was not barred by Mississippi state insurance law; (ii) defendant’s arguments concerning the doctrine of laches raised issues that should be decided by an arbitrator and not by the court; and (iii) plaintiff, as an equitable subrogee, was not prohibited from enforcing the terms of the agreement against the defendant.

  • National Star Route Mail Contractors Association, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, No. 1:16-CV-02350-CKK (D.D.C. December 19, 2016)
    12/19/2016

    Court held that the matter was not ripe and that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the arbitration award, where it was uncertain whether contracts held by plaintiff’s members would be terminated by defendants in implementing the arbitral award. Court found defendants had not yet made any determinations as to how to implement the arbitration award.

  • Galarza v. Greenway Automotive, Inc., d/b/a Westside Nissan, No. 3:16-CV-01251-TJC-JRK (M.D. Fla. Dec. 19, 2016)
    12/19/2016

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the FAA’s exemption for “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce” did not apply to plaintiff, whose job involved incidental travel across state lines.  Court further held that the case law cited by plaintiff in support of the argument that it would be inequitable for an at-will employee to be bound by an arbitration agreement was inapposite.

  • Dishner v. Zachs, No. 1:16-CV-04191-LGS (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2016)
    12/19/2016

    Court granted plaintiff’s petition to confirm an arbitration award.  Court held that because defendant failed to oppose plaintiff’s petition, plaintiff was entitled to summary confirmation of the award.

  • Doe v. George Street Photo & Video, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-02698-MEJ (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2016)
    12/19/2016

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that, contrary to plaintiff’s assertions, the arbitration agreement between the parties was not procedurally or substantively unconscionable and therefore, was an enforceable agreement to arbitrate the dispute at issue.

  • Kirsch v. Dean, No. 3:16-CV-00299-CRS-DW (W.D. Ky. Dec. 19, 2016)
    12/19/2016

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to dismiss an amended counterclaim that alleged plaintiff breached the parties’ arbitration agreement.  Court held that, contrary to plaintiff’s assertions, defendant (i) was not equitably estopped from relying on the arbitration agreement in her counterclaim; (ii) had alleged facts that would plausibly support a finding that plaintiff breached the arbitration agreement; (iii) did not waive her right to compel arbitration under the arbitration agreement; and (iv) established that there was no support for the assertion that plaintiff was unaware of the arbitration agreement.

  • Seldon v. Airbnb, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00933-CRC (D.D.C. Dec. 19, 2016)
    12/19/2016

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to certify an interlocutory appeal of the court’s order to compel arbitration.  Court held that because plaintiff failed to show that there was substantial ground for a different of opinion on a controlling question of law, plaintiff’s motion to certify an interlocutory appeal should be denied.  Court explained that the moving party to an interlocutory appeal bears a heavy burden to show that exceptional circumstances justify a departure from the basic policy of postponing appellate review until after the entry of final judgment and that this burden is made more stringent given the FAA’s objective of moving the parties to an arbitrable dispute into arbitration as quickly and easily as possible. 

  • Portis v. Ruan Transp. Mgmt. Sys., Inc., No. 7:15-CV-00118-GEC (W.D. Va. Dec. 19, 2016)
    12/19/2016

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate and granted defendant’s request to confirm an arbitration award.  Court held that the arbitrator’s decision was not subject to vacature on the basis of fraud because, even if a witness committed perjury during the course of the arbitration, plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to challenge the witness’s allegedly fraudulent testimony during the arbitration.

  • Astanza Design, LLC v. Giemme Stile, S.p.A., 1:16-CV-01238-TDS-JEP (M.D.N.C. Dec. 16, 2016)
    12/16/2016

    Court denied defendants’ motion to vacate, modify, or correct an arbitration award that granted plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees.  Court held that the arbitrator retained the authority to award attorney’s fees under Article 34 of the ICDR Rules.

  • Eagle Sys. and Servs., Inc. v. Int’l Assoc. of Machinists, District Lodge 725, No. 2:16-CV-02077-JAM-EFB (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2016)
    12/16/2016

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and motion to confirm an arbitration award.  Court held that it was procedurally proper for defendant to combine its motion to dismiss with a motion to confirm the arbitration award.  Court further held that the award was proper under applicable law and that plaintiff’s arguments to vacate the award were unavailing.

  • Hardy Indus. Techs., LLC v. BJB, LLC, No. 1:12-CV-03097-PAG (N.D. Ohio Dec. 16, 2016)
    12/16/2016

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate, modify or correct an arbitration award.  Court held that there was no “evident partiality” on the part of the arbitration panel, no evidence to suggest that the revised list of arbitrators was produced as a result of ex parte communications or was developed other than in accordance with the applicable arbitration rules.  Further, the arbitrators were not guilty of misconduct and there was no manifest disregard of the law by the arbitrators.

  • Johnson v. Cach, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00383-BLW (D. Idaho Dec. 16, 2016)
    12/16/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the language of the arbitration agreement clearly contemplates and predicts a similar fact pattern as the one in this dispute, all parties are explicitly encompassed by the arbitration agreement, and the claims in this case are related to the agreement.

  • Trs. of the New York City Dist. Counc. of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Coastal Envir. Group, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-06004-GHW (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2016)
    12/16/2016

    Court affirmed petitioners’ request to confirm an arbitration award.  Court held that there was no indication that the arbitrator’s award was procured through fraud or dishonesty or that the arbitrator was acting in disregard of the parties’ agreement or outside the scope of his broad authority to resolve any dispute between the parties regarding contributions.

  • Lee v. Doctor’s Assocs., Inc., No. 5:16-CV-00032-KKC (E.D. Ky. Dec. 16, 2016)
    12/16/2016

    Court granted motion to dismiss or stay pending arbitration.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that she is not bound by the agreement’s arbitration provision because she is not a party to it, holding that she is estopped from arguing that such provision does not apply to her given that she is asserting direct benefits from the agreement.

  • Prams Water Shipping, Co., Inc. v. Batca Global, A.S., No. 1:16-CV-22047-JAL (S.D. Fla. Dec. 16, 2016)
    12/16/2016

    Magistrate recommended that award be confirmed and that individuals behind corporate defendant be held liable for the amount owed.  Court reasoned that the owners’ conduct, including in rendering corporate defendant purposefully insolvent, made it proper to pierce the corporate veil.

  • Heston v. GB Capital Holdings, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00912-WQH-AGS (S.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2016)
    12/15/2016

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for relief from court’s prior order compelling arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff failed to provide newly discovered evidence that would change its prior view that the parties’ disputes must be arbitrated.

  • Malhotra v. Copa de Ora Realty, LLC, No. 14-56241 (9th Cir. Dec. 14, 2016)
    12/14/2016

    Ninth circuit affirmed district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion because by its terms, the contract containing the arbitration agreement requires arbitration only of disputes “arising from or connected with” that contract, and plaintiff’s claims do not have a “significant relationship to the contract” nor have “their origin or genesis in the contract.”

  • Careminders Home Care, Inc. v. Kianka, No. 1:15-CV-01224-RWS (11th Cir. Dec. 14, 2016)
    12/14/2016

    Eleventh circuit rejected appellants’ appeal and affirmed district court’s confirmation of arbitral award.  Court held that district court was obligated to confirm the award following appellants’ failure to challenge the award within the statutory 90 day limit.  Moreover, appellants failed to identify any newly discovered evidence, a change in controlling law, or a need to correct a clear error of law or fact that would warrant reconsideration of the district court’s decision, and, having failed to raise any arguments before the district court confirmed the arbitrator’s award, appellants were barred from raising them in a motion to amend.

  • Myricks v. AT&T Servs. Inc., No. 5:16-CV-00169-MTT (M.D. Ga. Dec. 14, 2016)
    12/14/2016

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay litigation and compel arbitration of plaintiff’s claims.  Court held that, given the breadth of the arbitration clause, it was clear that plaintiff had agreed to arbitrate the claims at issue in the case.

  • Roman v. Northrop Grumman Corp., No. 2:16-CV-06848-CAS-GJS (C.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2016)
    12/14/2016

    Court granted in part defendant’s motion to compel bilateral arbitration of plaintiff’s claims and stayed case.  Court held that, prior to the Supreme Court’s resolution of a question arising in a different case, which would thereby resolve a central question in the instant case, a stay is wholly appropriate.

  • Freeman v. Austin Maint. and Constr., Inc., No. 2:16-CV-08588-JTM-JVM (E.D. La. Dec. 14, 2016)
    12/14/2016

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff provided sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate disputes arising out of his employment with defendant, there is nothing onerous or oppressive about requiring an arbitration agreement as a precondition to employment, and the agreement did not constitute an unenforceable waiver of defendant’s federal causes of action.

  • Montero v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., No. 1:14-CV-09053-SEC (N.D. Ill. Dec. 14, 2016)
    12/14/2016

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate courts prior order compelling arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff could have chosen to advance certain arguments that ultimately prevailed in the seventh circuit by appealing the court’s original order or sought a stay of the proceedings pending the outcome of the seventh circuit decision, but plaintiff failed to do so.  There is thus no “extraordinary circumstance” that warrants vacatur of the existing order.

  • Emcon Assocs., Inc. v. Zale Corp., No. 3:16-CV-01985-FLW-DEA (D.N.J. Dec. 14, 2016)
    12/14/2016

    Court granted defendants’ motion to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration.  Court held that the arbitration clause did not fail to specifically give notice that plaintiff’s claims for statutory violations would be determined by arbitration and that plaintiff would thus be deprived of its rights to litigate its disputes and therefore did not offend Ohio’s contract principles.  Court additionally held that two third parties could enforce the arbitration agreement against plaintiff and that nothing about the arbitration provision was unconscionable.

  • Neal v. Asta Funding, Inc., No. 2:14-CV-03550-KM-MAH (D.N.J. Dec. 14, 2016)
    12/14/2016

    Court denied motions to reconsider prior dismissal of plaintiffs’ petition to vacate an arbitration award.  Court held that reconsideration was not warranted as the movant simply repeated the cases and arguments previously analyzed by the court and filed the motion merely to disagree with or re-litigate the court’s initial decision.  No new arguments or ones that could not have been pursued at the time of the initial motions were proffered.

  • Careminders Homecare Inc. v. Kianka, No. 16-10206 (11th Cir. Dec. 14, 2016)
    12/14/2016

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s order confirming arbitral award. Court affirmed the district court’s decision to confirm the award based solely on respondent’s failure to file a motion to vacate within 90 days. Court also found that respondent failed to demonstrate any of the four statutory bases for overturning an arbitrator’s decision and, accordingly, fell short of overcoming the heavy presumption under the FAA that arbitration awards will be enforced.

  • Ozturk v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 2:13-CV-05463-ES-JAD (D.N.J. Dec. 13, 2016)
    12/13/2016

    Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment because, inter alia, plaintiff failed to exhaust the exclusive remedies under the grievance and arbitration provisions of his collective bargaining agreement.

  • Marc v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00579 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 13, 2016)
    12/13/2016

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and strike class action allegations.  Court held that, because the arbitration provision expressly mandates that arbitration proceed on an individual basis and removes the arbitrator’s ability to consider claims or issues dealing with class arbitration, and since plaintiff had raised no objection to the validity or enforceability of the class-action waivers, the court must order the parties to proceed with arbitration in the individual manner set forth in the parties’ agreement.

  • Gessele v. Jack In The Box, Inc., No. 3:14-CV-01092-BR (D. Or. Dec. 13, 2016)
    12/13/2016

    Court granted defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment as to plaintiff’s state and federal claims on the ground that he is required to arbitrate them.  Court held that (i) plaintiff signed the arbitration agreement by clicking “yes” that he agreed to the contract’s terms; (ii) plaintiff was of legal age when he signed and ratified the arbitration agreement; (iii) defendant did not waive his right to enforce the arbitration agreement by failing to file a motion to compel during the short duration of plaintiff’s individual cause of action; and (iv) the arbitration agreement is not illegal under the National Labor Relations Act or the Fair Labor Standards Act.

  • West v. Legacy Motors, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-12101-RHC-RSW (E.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2016)
    12/12/2016

    Court denied motion for reconsideration to compel arbitration.  Court determined that, even if, as plaintiff alleged, the contract containing the arbitration provision was “backdated,” plaintiff still had weeks to read the contract and opt out of the arbitration provision without affecting the balance of the agreement.  Thus, the arbitration clause was not substantively unconscionable.  Similarly, the court rejected plaintiff’s contention that the arbitration clause’s fee-splitting provision tipped the scale in favor of unconscionability, because the provision made arbitration, “if anything, more affordable for Plaintiff than federal litigation.”

  • Sanchez v. Elizondo, No. 3:15-CV-00474-RCJ-VPC (D. Nev. Dec. 12, 2016)
    12/12/2016

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to vacate FINRA arbitration award, holding the arbitrator committed error by proceeding with a single arbitrator over plaintiff’s objection in violation of FINRA’s Rules.

  • Preferred Care of Delaware, Inc. v. Blankenship, No. 4:16-CV-00131-JHM-HBB (W.D. Ky. Dec. 12, 2016)
    12/12/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court held that the parties entered into an agreement to arbitrate that covers the exact type of claims defendant asserted in his state court action.  Moreover, there are no federal claims asserted that are precluded from arbitration, and all, rather than some, of defendant’s claims are subject to arbitration.  Therefore, the arbitration agreement must be enforced.

  • Kailuan (Hong Kong) International Co., Ltd. v. Sino East Minerals, Ltd., No. 16 Civ. 2160-PKC (S.D.N.Y Dec. 9, 2016)
    12/09/2016

    Court denied petitioner’s motion to vacate award. Court held that the arbitral tribunal acted within the scope of its authority since it decided issues covered by the terms of reference and did not intentionally ignore a clear and unambiguous term in the contract or add new terms to it, but instead provided the requisite “barely colorable justification” for its findings.  Court also denied respondent’s request for attorney’s fees and costs incurred in connection with opposing the application.

  • Short v. Grayson, No. 1:16-CV-02150 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 9, 2016)
    12/09/2016

    Court compelled arbitration under 9 USC § 2 since plaintiff conceded that there was a written agreement to arbitrate between her and the attorney defendants, the dispute was within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and plaintiff did not assert facts supporting a finding that the arbitration clause is procedurally unconscionable.  Further, court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration agreement was contrary to Illinois public policy, holding that, while the violation of an attorney’s responsibility to fully inform a client about an arbitration clause may create an attorney discipline issue, it does not satisfy the heavy burden to demonstrate the existence of a public policy bar.

  • Katsil v. Citibank, N.A., No. 3:16-CV-03694-AET-DEA (D.N.J. Dec. 8, 2016)
    12/08/2016

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that there was no evidence of a contract between the parties and, therefore, an arbitration agreement cannot apply.

  • Congdon v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-02499-YGR (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2016)
    12/08/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration with regard to plaintiffs that had entered into arbitration agreements with defendants and stayed the action as to the same. Court held that the issue of arbitrability was for the arbitrator to decide since the arbitration agreement contained a clear and unmistakable delegation clause and that arbitration did not create obstacles in the effective vindication of the these plaintiffs’ rights, since defendants had agreed to pay the full costs of arbitration for plaintiffs.

  • Cicogna v. 33Across Inc., No. 3:16-CV-02012-JLS-WVG (S.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2016)
    12/08/2016

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration agreement is not substantively unconscionable under California law, and stayed the judicial proceedings under 9 USC § 3 pending the outcome of any arbitration.

  • SunLink Corporation v. American Capital Energy Inc., No. 1:15-CV-13606-ADB (D. Mass. Dec. 8, 2016)
    12/08/2016

    Court confirmed arbitration award, holding that defendant had failed to timely contest the award within the requisite time periods under both the FAA and the Massachusetts Arbitration Act.

  • Road to Victory, LLC v. 3rd and Long Productions, LLC, No. 8:16-CV-PWG (D. Md. Dec. 7, 2016)
    12/07/2016

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed plaintiff’s claims, holding that defendant had not met its burden of demonstrating a genuine dispute as to the validity, enforceability, or scope of the relevant arbitration provision.

  • Archer and White Sales, Inc. v. Henry Schein, Inc., No. 2:12-CV-00572-JRG (E.D. Tex. Dec. 7, 2016)
    12/07/2016

    Court reversed and ordered vacatur of magistrate judge’s order, denied motions to compel arbitration and lifted stay of the proceedings.  Court held that there was a “positive assurance” that no reasonable interpretation of the arbitration clause would cover the dispute at issue. Further, the gateway question of arbitrability is for the court, not the arbitrator, to decide since the parties did not clearly and unmistakably agree to arbitrate the arbitrability of the action and defendants’ argument that plaintiff’s claims fall within the scope of the arbitration clause is wholly groundless.

  • Pirtek USA, LLC v. Twillman, No. 6:16-CV-01302-RBD-TBS (M.D. Fla. Dec. 7, 2016)
    12/07/2016

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation and dismissed defendants’ motions.  Court held that defendants had not met their “heavy burden” to show that plaintiff had waived its right to arbitrate claims for permanent injunctive relief by seeking preliminary injunctive relief in court.

  • Savarese v. J.P. Morgan Chase, No. 2:16-CV-00321-JFB-SIL (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2016)
    12/07/2016

    Court adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge to grant motion to compel arbitration and stay the present action.  In granting defendant’s motion, court accepted the magistrate judge’s rejection of each of plaintiff’s arguments, including that his electronic signature was invalid, he did not recall signing the arbitration agreement, and such agreement was signed under duress.  Further, Court accepted that each of the claims fell under the scope of the arbitration agreement and were arbitrable.

  • Inversiones Y Procesadora Tropical Inprotsa S.A. v. Del Monte International GMBH, No. 1:16-CV-24275-FAM (S.D. Fla. Dec. 6, 2016
    12/06/2016

    Court granted motion to dismiss petition to vacate final arbitral award, finding that petitioner failed to raise any New York Convention grounds as necessary to vacate a foreign arbitral award and rejecting petitioner’s reliance on Florida law.

  • Seldin v. Seldin, No. 8:16-CV-00372-JFB-CRZ (D. Neb. Dec. 6, 2016)
    12/06/2016

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, referred case to arbitration, and denied plaintiff’s motions. Court held that plaintiff is collaterally estopped from reasserting his claims in court and that res judicata also applies since plaintiff had already been ordered by a different court to arbitrate his claims under the parties’ valid and enforceable arbitration agreement.  Even if neither collateral estoppel nor res judicata applied, relying on Rule 7 of the AAA Commercial Rules, court held that it would be for the arbitrator, not the court, to determine in the first instance whether the accounting claims at issue are arbitrable.

  • Recom Corp. v. Miller Brothers, a Division of Wampole-Miller, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-03320-SRC-CLW (D.N.J. Dec. 6, 2016)
    12/06/2016

    Court granted respondent’s motion to confirm arbitration award against petitioner and, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 54(b), entered final judgment of confirmation of the award against petitioner.  Court denied petitioner’s only defense to confirmation, finding that the court had already ruled in its order vacating the arbitration award that petitioner did not have standing to assert that the arbitral tribunal exceeded its powers in making the award against not only petitioner, but also its parents, successors, affiliates, and assigns.

  • Peterson v. Islamic Republic, No. 1:01-CV-02094-RCL (D.D.C. Dec. 6, 2016)
    12/06/2016

    Court denied counter motion to compel arbitration, holding plaintiffs did not agree to, or were otherwise bound by, the relevant arbitration agreement, and there are no disputes or petitions before the court which could justify an order to compel arbitration under 9 USC §§ 3 and 4.

  • Ascendant Renewable Energy Corporation v. Soaring Wind Energy, LLC, et al, No. 3:16-CV-750-K (N.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2016)
    12/05/2016

    Court granted motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction movant’s petition to vacate arbitration award and dismissed the case. Court held there is no longer a case or controversy to be decided by it because respondents had issued a covenant making it “absolutely clear” that they will not seek to confirm the arbitration award against movant.

  • McNeill v. Raymour & Flanigan Furniture, No. 6:15-CV-01473-GTS-TWD (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2016)
    12/05/2016

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that defendant had successfully established the existence of valid agreements to arbitrate since plaintiff failed to submit sufficient admissible evidence to the contrary. Moreover, the claims are arbitrable and the arbitration agreements at issue not unconscionable.  Court further stayed the proceedings pending arbitration, finding that, while not mandatory, a stay is appropriate in light of plaintiff’s pro se status.

  • Snedden v. Perkins & Marie Callender's Inc., No. 1:16-CV-668 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 5, 2016)
    12/05/2016

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed civil action under § 3 of the FAA, holding that the parties had concluded a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement.  Court found that arbitration agreement was not illusory since it was not an arbitration disclaimer in an employee handbook but a stand-alone agreement and did not lack consideration in view of the plaintiff’s continued employment by defendant. Further, court held that it was not fatally ambiguous since the method for appointment of arbitrators could be determined under § 5 of the FAA; the terms and scope of discovery was clear based on the agreement’s incorporation of the federal rules of procedure and evidence; and the agreement’s silence as to the arbitration costs is per se insufficient to render an arbitration agreement unenforceable.

  • Nationwide Insurance Company of America v. Marquez, No. 2:16-CV-01978-WHO (E.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2016)
    12/05/2016

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim for declaratory relief, holding that the issue in dispute was not within the scope of the parties’ arbitration agreement. Accordingly, court found it had subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claim.

  • Franklin v. H&R Block, No. 4:16-CV-666-JAR (E.D. Mo. Dec. 2, 2016)
    12/02/2016

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, stayed the proceedings pending arbitration, and denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint.  Court held that the parties’ arbitration agreement is valid and enforceable and the claims at issue are within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • Milan Express Co., Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co., Inc., No. 16-5270 (6th Cir. Dec. 2, 2016)
    12/02/2016

    Court declined to exercise appellate jurisdiction and decide the validity of the arbitration award, holding that the district court’s non-decision on the motion to vacate the arbitration award was not an implied denial of the motion.  Court held that the district court’s silence was consistent with the rationale for its forum-non-conveniens dismissal and the parties’ express agreement to litigate the validity of the award in the courts of Nebraska.  This was also consistent with the FAA, which provides that judgment on the validity of an arbitration award shall be sought in the court specified by the parties in their agreement.

  • Zambrana v. Pressler and Pressler, LLP, No. 1:16-CV-02907-VEC (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2016)
    12/02/2016

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, holding a valid arbitration agreement existed in plaintiff’s cardholder agreement.  Court also held that defendants adequately established plaintiff’s credit card account was assigned to them, and thus the defendants could enforce the arbitration agreement.

  • Trs. for the Mason Tenders Dist. Council Welfare Fund v. Premier Bridging & Scaffolding Ltd., No. 1:16-CV-04921-LGS (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2016)
    12/02/2016

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment to confirm and enforce an arbitration award.  Court found that the arbitrator’s decision could be clearly inferred from the facts of the case, and as such, confirmed the award. 

  • Franklin v. H&R Block, et al., No. 4:16-CV-00666-JAR (E.D. Mo. Dec. 2, 2016)
    12/02/2016

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Applying Missouri state law, court held that a valid offer to arbitrate was extended; plaintiff accepted the offer by signing the arbitration agreement; there was adequate consideration because both parties waived their rights to litigate the employment-related claims; and there was no dispute that the claims arose out of or were related to plaintiff’s employment.

  • Doctor’s Assocs. Inc. v. Pahwa, No. 3:16-CV-00446-JCH (D. Conn. Dec. 2, 2016)
    12/02/2016

    Court affirmed magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant plaintiff’s petition to compel arbitration.  Court held that arbitration was proper because (i) the outstanding issues defendants claimed should be decided by the court before compelling arbitration were issues to be decided by the arbitrator and (ii) the case law cited by defendants was inapposite.

  • Linglong Americas v. Horizon Tire, No. 16-3520 (6th Cir. Dec. 1, 2016)
    12/01/2016

    Court affirmed district court’s refusal to compel arbitration.  Court held that the arbitration clause did not survive the contract, which had expired four years earlier, because the vast majority of events occurred after expiry and there was no contractual right in dispute that survived the contract.

  • Watermill Ventures, LTD. v. Capello Capital Corp., No. 15-55145 (9th Cir. Dec. 1, 2016)
    12/01/2016

    Court affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that the district court correctly concluded that the assignment of rights to the arbitration proceeds was not a material breach of the settlement agreement, and thus did not excuse plaintiff-appellants from their duty to arbitrate under that contract.

  • Asphalt Trader Ltd. v. Taryn Capital Energy, L.L.C., No. 1:16-CV-00054-JNP-EJF (D. Utah Dec. 1, 2016)
    12/01/2016

    Court granted petition to confirm foreign award and enter judgment.  Court also agreed to convert portions of the award originally rendered in British pounds to U.S. dollars because this “is the norm, rather than the exception.”  Court found that the exchange rate on the day the respondent’s obligation to pay costs and fees arose was the applicable rate for conversion.

  • Sadjdlowska v. Guardian Services. Industries, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-03947-PAE (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2016)
    12/01/2016

    Court referred plaintiff’s claims to arbitration and stayed the action pending the outcome of the arbitration.  Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the defendants waived their right to arbitration by unjustifiably delaying arbitration and that an attachment to the agreement allowed plaintiff to bypass arbitration and file the action in federal court. Both these issues are for the arbitrator to decide.

  • International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 2150 v. Nextera Energy Point Beach LLC, (E.D. Wis. November 30, 2016)
    11/30/2016

    Court denied motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, holding that there was no explicit exclusion or positive assurance that parties intended to exclude unescorted access decisions from arbitration. Court found that arbitration clause was broad enough to trigger a presumption of arbitrability. Court found that defendant’s internal review processes for this issue did not provide assurance of a purposeful intent to exclude those determinations from arbitration, and that prior arbitral awards finding to the contrary, particularly involving different parties and arbitration agreements, were not precedential.

  • Gregorius v. NPC Int’l, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-593-FTM-99MRM (M.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2016)
    11/30/2016

    Court compelled individual arbitration .  Court found that the evidence was sufficient to establish the existence of an arbitration agreement, including evidence that plaintiff at least electronically opened the agreement and electronically signed it.  Court also upheld the class arbitration waiver in the arbitration agreement.

  • Singh v. Interactive Brokers LLC, No. 2:16-CV-00277-RGD-DEM (E.D. Va. Nov. 30, 2016)
    11/30/2016

    Court granted motions to compel arbitration, finding that a mandatory arbitration clause was not invalidated by the plaintiffs’ failure to sign the contract.  Court also rejected plaintiffs’ argument that defendant’s failure to comply with FINRA Rule 2268 was sufficient to render null and void an otherwise valid arbitration agreement under the FAA.

  • Shah v. Blue Wake Shipping, No. 2:16-CV-00529-PM-KK (W.D. La. Nov. 30, 2016)
    11/30/2016

    Court adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and denied plaintiff’s motion for remand.  Magistrate judge found that the arbitration agreement, which was contained within an employment contract signed by the plaintiff and an agent of the defendant, was binding and did not limit the type of claim or the parties eligible for arbitration.

  • Hardy Exploration & Prod. (India), Inc. v. Gov’t of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, No. 1:16-CV- 00140-RC (D.D.C. Nov. 30, 2016)
    11/30/2016

    Court granted in part and denied in part motion to dismiss petition to confirm an arbitration award because petitioner had served the respondent using Federal Express, which was insufficient under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act. Court held that petitioner would be given another opportunity to attempt service on the respondent.

  • Global Liquidity Partners, LLC v. Wegher, No. 3:16-CV-02439-MAS-LHG (D.N.J. Nov. 30, 2016)
    11/30/2016

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award and denied cross-motion to vacate the award.  Court rejected respondents’ argument that the arbitrator’s familiarity with petitioners’ counsel constituted bias, and held that the respondents had waived any objection regarding late joinder by specifically stating on record that they had no additional evidence to present in support of their case.

  • Cowsette v. Federal National Mortgage Assoc., No. 3:16-CV-02430-L (N.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2016)
    11/30/2016

    Court accepted the findings of the magistrate judge and granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Magistrate judge employed the fifth circuit’s two-step inquiry for deciding a motion to compel arbitration under the FAA, which looks at (i) whether the parties agreed to arbitrate the issue and (ii) whether any legal restraints external to the agreement foreclose the arbitration of the dispute.  The magistrate judge determined that the arbitration agreement was valid because plaintiff confirmed receipt of the arbitration agreement contained in her employment contract and continued to work for the defendant.

  • Worth v. Worth, No. 2:16-CV-03877-MAK (E.D. Pa. Nov. 29, 2016)
    11/29/2016

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that most of plaintiff’s claims fell within a carve-out in the arbitration clause for “matters related to the operation and management of the company.”  On the remaining minority oppression claim, court found that defendants waived their right to arbitrate after aggressively litigating the claim for nine months.

  • Rossman v. A.R.M. Corp., No. 1:16-CV-00493 WCG (E.D. Wis. Nov. 29, 2016)
    11/29/2016

    Court granted motion to dismiss or stay pending arbitration.  Court determined that whether the arbitration agreement conflicts with a non-waivable statutory right was a question for the court to decide.  In turn, court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable because it was in a weaker bargaining position compared to the other signatory.

  • Pocalyko v. Baker Tilly Virchow Crouse, LLP, No. 2:16-CV-03637-MMB (E.D. Pa. Nov. 29, 2016)
    11/29/2016

    Court granted motion to dismiss complaint and compel arbitration.  Court held that since the plaintiff challenged the agreement as a whole, rather than the delegation of authority to the arbitrator in particular, plaintiff’s challenges to the enforceability and applicability of the arbitration clause should be decided by the arbitrator.

  • Calderon v. Total Wealth Management, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-01632-BEN-NLS (S.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2016)
    11/29/2016

    Court granted motion to dismiss, vacated motion to stay pending arbitration as moot, and dismissed claims. Court held that plaintiff’s challenge to the validity of the parties’ entire contract containing the arbitration clause is to be decided by arbitration under §§ 3 and 4 of the FAA, noting that the plaintiffs did not separately claim that the arbitration clause itself was fraudulently induced. 

  • Reliant Pro Rehab, LLC v. Atkins, No. 3:16-CV-00920-M (N.D. Tex. Nov. 28, 2016)
    11/28/2016

    Court transferred the case to the Middle District of Florida due to lack of personal jurisdiction over non-signatories to the arbitration agreement.  Court held that plaintiff failed to show that the forum selection clause applied to the non-signatories and rejected plaintiff’s arguments based on the intertwined claims theory of estoppel—because it only applies to non-signatories bringing claims against signatories—and found that direct benefits estoppel did not apply.

  • Reading Joint Apprentice and Electric Committee v. Hiester, No. 5:16-CV-04306-JFL (E.D. Pa. Nov. 28, 2016)
    11/28/2016

    Court denied request to confirm arbitration award due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Court held that while § 9 of the FAA allows a party to apply to a court for an order confirming an arbitration award if the parties contemplated doing so in their arbitration agreement, the FAA does not provide a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction to hear an application to confirm an award. Instead, jurisdiction must arise from the questions presented by the § 9 application itself.

  • Trs. of the New York City Dist. Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, v. Jessica Rose Enters. Corp., No. 1:15-CV-09040-RA (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 2016)
    11/28/2016

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award and awarded prejudgment interest and attorney’s fees.  Court confirmed the award after finding that there was no dispute as to whether arbitration was appropriate, whether the arbitrator acted within the scope of his authority, or the amount owed.  Court also determined that, although the FAA does not provide for attorney’s fees in actions to confirm arbitration awards, a district court always can award attorney’s fees where the losing party has acted in bad faith.

  • Servpro Intellectual Property, Inc. v. Stellar Emarketing, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-01267 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 28, 2016)
    11/28/2016

    Court granted a third-party defendant’s motion to stay or dismiss pending arbitration.  Court determined that the third-party defendant did not waive its right to arbitration by filing motions, participating in settlement conferences, and participating in discovery.  Court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that a delay in asserting arbitration rights could be considered a waiver, as there was nothing in the FAA that suggested that a party loses its arbitration rights merely by failing to exercise them at the earliest possible opportunity.

  • Fellows v. Sundahl, No. 2:16-CV-00785-JNP-PMW (D. Utah Nov. 28, 2016)
    11/28/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation.  Court held that plaintiff failed to dispute the existence or applicability of the agreement’s arbitration clause and that the language of the arbitration provision was broad enough to encompass the underlying dispute. 

  • New York City Dist. Council of Carpenters v. Best Made Floors, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-03429-ARR-ST (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 2016)
    11/23/2016

    Court granted motions to confirm two arbitration awards and permitted petitioner to file a new motion seeking to modify a third award, rejecting motions to vacate all three awards.  Court rejected procedural challenges to the awards, primarily relating to the evidentiary record during the arbitrations and the sufficiency of notice.

  • Pine Tree Villa, LLC v. Lasley, No. 3:16-CV-00570-DJH (W.D. Ky. Nov. 23, 2016)
    11/23/2016

    Court granted motion to dismiss petition to confirm arbitration award for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that FAA does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction and that the “underlying substantive controversy” concerned state law.

  • SprinkleBit Holding, Inc. v. MJD Interactive Agency, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-01324-W-BGS (S.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2016)
    11/23/2016

    Court granted motion to stay proceedings pending conclusion of concurrent arbitral proceedings involving related claims and related parties.

  • Davis v. Vanguard Home Care, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-07277 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 22, 2016)
    11/22/2016

    Court rejected motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, finding that seventh circuit precedent barring enforcement of class arbitration waivers in employment contracts was applicable and that, in the absence of a delegation clause, the question was for the court, not the arbitrator, to decide.

  • Martinez v. Utilimap Corp., No. 3:14-CV-00310-JPG-PGW (S.D. Ill. Nov. 22, 2016)
    11/22/2016

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award, finding that the parties delegated the question of class arbitrability to the arbitrator by choosing to arbitrate under AAA arbitration rules, and that arbitrator’s analysis reflected a dutiful interpretation of the arbitration agreement, “whether it be right or wrong.”

  • St. Pierre v. Advanced Call Ctr. Techs., LLC, No. 2:15-CV-02415-JAD-NJK (D. Nev. Nov. 22, 2016)
    11/22/2016

    Court granted motion to dismiss and compelled arbitration, finding that defendant could invoke an arbitration clause in an agreement between the plaintiff and a third party since defendant served as the third party’s agent in performing the acts at issue.

  • Trs. of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labor-Mgm’t Cooperation, Pension & Welfare Funds v. C.R. Edwards Constr. Corp., No. 2:15-CV-05232-JFB-ARL (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2016)
    11/22/2016

    Court granted motion to confirm labor arbitration award, finding that the award drew its essence from the parties’ agreement and was based on uncontroverted evidence.

  • Pacific West Securities, Inc. v. George, No. 14-15628 (9th Cir. Nov. 22, 2016)
    11/22/2016

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s denial of motion to vacate an arbitral award and granting motion to confirm the award, finding that defendants failed to show evident partiality or prejudicial misconduct or misbehavior.

  • UBS Fin. Servs. v. Padussis, No. 15-2148 (4th Cir. Nov. 22, 2016)
    11/22/2016

    Circuit court affirmed denial of motion to vacate an arbitral award, finding that FINRA’s refusal to extend deadline for responses striking arbitrators off of panel lists was within its discretion and applying setoff between the amounts awarded for the claim and counterclaim would impermissibly modify the award.

  • Collier v. RD Am., LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00194-MOC-DSC (W.D.N.C. Nov. 22, 2016)
    11/22/2016

    Court denied motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that plaintiffs adequately alleged that they lacked actual notice of the terms of the arbitration agreement, where, despite signing an acknowledgement that they “have read” and “have received a copy of” the arbitration agreement, they claimed that they never were in fact provided with a copy of the arbitration agreement.

  • Ji’An Grp. Co., Ltd. v. Rock-Tenn CP, LLP, No. 1:15-CV-03258-MHC (N.D. Ga. Nov. 22, 2016)
    11/22/2016

    Court denied petition to confirm arbitration award, finding that petitioner failed to establish that respondent ever received notice of the arbitration, and thus denial pursuant to the New York Convention was proper under grounds relating to lack of notice and improper formation of the tribunal.

  • Local 210 Warehouse & Prod. Emps. Union, AFL-CIO v. Envtl. Servs., Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00756-JFB-SIL (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2016)
    11/22/2016

    Court denied motion to vacate an arbitral award and granted motion for summary judgment confirming the award, finding that arbitrator’s failure to hold an evidentiary hearing did not deprive plaintiffs of fundamental fairness or exceed the arbitrator’s contractual powers despite contractual language stating that the arbitrator shall conduct a hearing. And in any event the argument was waived by the plaintiffs’ failure to raise it in the arbitration.

  • Sandor v. General Electric Co., No. 1:16-CV-01670-JG (N.D. Ohio Nov. 22, 2016)
    11/22/2016

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that employee lacked actual notice that she had agreed to arbitrate given that employer had not informed her that acceptance of employment agreement containing arbitration clause was a condition of continued employment.

  • Trs. of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labor-Mgm’t Cooperation, Pension & Welfare Funds v. Bayview Custom Constr. Corp., No. 2:15-CV-06574-JFB-ARL (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2016)
    11/22/2016

    Court granted motion to confirm labor arbitration award, finding that the award applies the relevant legal provisions “to the letter.”

  • Ragab v. Howard, No. 15-1444 (10th Cir. Nov. 21, 2016)
    11/21/2016

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration, finding that inconsistencies among multiple arbitration provisions in a package of contracts prevented a meeting of the minds.

  • Parnell v. Western Sky Fin., LLC, No. 16-11369 (11th Cir. Nov. 21, 2016)
    11/21/2016

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration, applying controlling precedent concerning same arbitration provision that had found that designated arbitrator was unavailable but “integral” to the loan agreement.

  • Color-Web, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Heavy Indus. Printing & Packaging Mach., Ltd., No. 1:16-CV-01435-DLC (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2016)
    11/21/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that non-signatory defendants could rely on an arbitration clause because the claims against them were the “same dispute” as those against the defendant that signed the contract containing the arbitration clause, and non-signatory plaintiffs were bound by estoppel due to their receipt of a direct benefit from the contract containing the arbitration clause.

  • Greene v. IPA/UPS Sys. Bd. of Adjustment, No. 3:15-CV-00234-TBR (W.D. Ky. Nov. 21, 2016)
    11/21/2016

    Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding that there were no valid grounds for vacating the arbitration award. 

  • Humana Ins. Co. v. Tenet Health Sys., No. 3:16-CV-02919-B (N.D. Tex. Nov. 21, 2016)
    11/21/2016

    Court denied motion for a preliminary injunction pending the arbitration panel’s decision, finding that the movant had failed to make a clear showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits or that it or others are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary injunctive relief.

  • One Man Band Corp. v. Smith, No. 2:14-CV-00221-TS (D. Utah Nov. 21, 2016)
    11/21/2016

    Court granted motion to confirm final arbitration award but rejected motion to transfer property, finding that there was no ground under the FAA for refusing confirmation but that it was premature to seek execution under Fed. R. Civ. P. 70 since additional claims remained for trial.

  • Anheuser-Busch, LLC, v. Local 1, Int’l Bhd. Of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO, No. 4:16-CV-00990-SNLJ (E.D. Mo. Nov. 18, 2016)
    11/18/2016

    Court granted motion for summary judgment and vacated arbitration award, finding that the arbitrator had applied legal provisions that it recognized were inapplicable.

  • Evans v. Nissan Extended Servs. N. Am., Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00628-JLH (E.D. Ark. Nov. 18, 2016)
    11/18/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement did not unconscionably preclude recovery of statutory fees and costs, and that the question of whether plaintiff's claim fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement was a question of arbitrability that the parties agreed to arbitrate.

  • Trs. of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labor-Mgm’t Cooperation, Pension & Welfare Funds v. Allied Design & Constr., LLC, No. 2:15-CV-03854-JFB-GRB (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2016)
    11/18/2016

    Court granted motion to confirm labor arbitration award, finding that the award applies the relevant legal provisions “to the letter.”

  • Tompkins-Cortland Counties Building & Construction Trades Council, Maintenance Division v. Cornell University, No. 5:16-CV-00429-MAD-ATB (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2016)
    11/18/2016

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the claims.  Court held that, although the parties agreed to arbitrate the merits of the underlying dispute, because there is no “clear and unmistakable evidence” that the parties intended to submit the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator, the question of arbitrability is properly before the court.

  • Owens v. American Arbitration Association, No. 16-1055 (8th Cir. Nov. 18, 2016)
    11/18/2016

    Court affirmed dismissal of plaintiff-appellant’s claims based on arbitral immunity.  Owens sued the AAA for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, tortious interference with contract, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage after the AAA removed an arbitrator from a three-member arbitration panel without holding a hearing, consulting the removed arbitrator, or informing Owens.  Appellate court concluded that the removal of arbitrators is protected by arbitral immunity, which protects sponsoring organizations from civil liability at all stages of the arbitration process.

  • Cooper v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00471-JTN-ESC (W.D. Mich. Nov. 18, 2016)
    11/18/2016

    Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration, holding that the collective bargaining agreement at issue only governed the relationship between defendant’s active employees and defendant.  As a result, court concluded that there was no valid agreement to arbitrate between plaintiffs, a group of retired employees, and defendant.

  • Dallas Digital Signs & Graphics v. Bunting Graphics, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00923-A-JM (N.D. Tex. Nov. 17, 2016)
    11/17/2016

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that the contract between the plaintiff and one defendant provided for arbitration, and the other defendant would be liable for any claims unpaid by the defendant and thus bound to arbitrate as well.

  • Purvis v. Cavalry SPV II, LLC., No. 2:15-CV-188 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 17, 2016)
    11/17/2016

    Court granted defendant’s motion to confirm arbitration award pursuant to §9 of the FAA.  Plaintiff who previously opposed defendant’s motion to compel arbitration consented to enforcement.

  • Griggs v. Kenworth of Montgomery, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00406-MHT-GMB (M.D. Ala. Nov. 17, 2016)
    11/17/2016

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court found the arbitration agreement was valid; that plaintiff signed the agreement in his individual capacity not as an agent of a limited liability company, as he did not have the authority to sign in the company’s name; and that the claims fell within the scope of the agreement. Court stayed the action pending arbitration.

  • Infrassure, Ltd. v. First Mutual Transportation Assurance Co., No. 16-306 (2d Cir. Nov. 16, 2016)
    11/16/2016

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s prior decision, finding that, between two competing arbitration agreements executed by the parties, the arbitration agreement in the body of the contract controlled.

  • Trustees for the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. One Ten Restoration Corp., No. 1:15-CV-10000-JPO (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2016)
    11/16/2016

    Court granted motion to confirm a default arbitration award.  Court held the defendant received sufficient notice of the arbitration from both the plaintiffs and the arbitrator, and that the arbitrator had a sufficient basis to conclude that the necessary procedures had been followed and there was no denial of fundamental fairness. 

  • Quiroz v. Cavalry SPV I, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-04779-JFW-E (C.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2016)
    11/16/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that a credit card agreement did not have to be signed to be binding; that failure to provide defendant with allegedly required notice implicated the validity of the credit card agreement as a whole, rather than just the arbitration provision, and thus was a question to be determined in arbitration; and arbitration agreement was not unconscionable since the defendant could have opted out.

  • In re Ex Parte Application of Kleimar N.V., No. 1:16-MC-00355-P1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2016)
    11/16/2016

    Court denied motions to vacate an ex parte discovery order and to quash a subpoena duces tecum.  Court found that third-party lacked standing to vacate the ex parte discovery order directed against the defendant.  As to the subpoena duces tecum, which was directed at the third-party, court held:  (i) third-party had sufficiently significant contacts with New York to be considered a resident for the purposes of 28 USC § 1782; (ii) second circuit precedent holding private foreign arbitrations fall outside the scope of “foreign tribunals” for the purposes of 28 USC § 1782 is no longer determinative in light of subsequent US Supreme Court dicta; (iii) subpoena is neither a confidentiality concern nor an undue burden in light of agreement by party requesting subpoena to narrow its scope and consent to a protective order; and (iv) service on third-party’s in-state agent was sufficient.

  • 20/20 Communications, Inc. v. Blevins, No. 4:16-CV-00810-Y (N.D. Tex. Nov. 15, 2016)
    11/15/2016

    Court denied motion for a temporary restraining order against arbitrating issues in dispute among the parties.  Court held that plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or demonstrate an appropriate balance of party and public interest.

  • John R Fuchs et al v. State Farm General Insurance Company, No. 2:16-CV-01844-RGK-GJS (C.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2016)
    11/14/2016

    Court granted motion to compel appraisal as an equivalent of arbitration.  Court held, however, that only claims relating to the appraisal qualified; the rest did not fall under the relevant agreement.  Court rejected arguments that the defendant had waived its right to arbitrate.  Court further declined to dismiss or stay proceedings, noting that the appraisal was to be performed expeditiously.

  • Linley Invs. v. Jamgotchian, No. 14-56437 (9th Cir. Nov. 14, 2016)
    11/14/2016

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s confirmation of arbitration awards under the New York Convention, rejecting challenges based on sufficiency of notice of the arbitral proceedings, arbitrator appointment, and public policy.

  • Smagin v. Yegiazaryan, No. 2:14-CV-09764-R (C.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2016)
    11/14/2016

    Court granted application for a post-judgment injunction freezing an award debtor’s worldwide assets, finding the award debtor was subject to personal jurisdiction and had a record of concealing the true beneficial of assets.

  • Metlife Securities, Inc. v. Holt, No. 2:16-CV-32 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 14, 2016)
    11/14/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the respondent failed to satisfy the burden of raising a genuine issue of material fact as to the enforceability of an arbitration agreement, and therefore the court must compel arbitration of the relevant claims.

  • GoPro Hong Kong Ltd. v. 2B Trading, Inc., No. 16-CV-05113-JD (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2016)
    11/14/2016

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s petition to enforce the arbitral award. Court held that, inter alia, the presence of federal-law issues related to foreign arbitration weighed in favor the action being heard in federal court in circumstances where the defendant issued state court proceedings to vacate the award.

  • Aria Fire Systems, Inc. v. Sprinkler Fitters UA Local 709, No. 2:16-CV-03522-CAS-RAO (C.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2016)
    11/14/2016

    Court granted motion for summary judgment seeking enforcement of an arbitration award.  Court held that the arbitrator’s interpretation of the agreement must be upheld “as long as the arbitrator is even arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of his authority,” and that the arbitrator properly resolved the issues before him.

  • Osprey Partners RSF LLC v. UBS Financial Services Inc., No. 3:16-CV-04894-WHA (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2016)
    11/14/2016

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration agreement at issue could not be construed to encompass claims that were not within the scope of the underlying contract.

  • Robinson v. EOR-ARK, LLC, No. 15-3406 (8th Cir. Nov. 14, 2016)
    11/14/2016

    Court dismissed complaint and compelled arbitration, holding that arbitration agreement was enforceable under Arkansas law even if none of the arbitral fora foreseen under the arbitration agreement were available, since in that case the arbitrator would be appointed by the court under 9 USC § 5.  Court further held that the arbitration agreement was enforceable even against non-signatory defendants, since they were closely related to the signatory defendants and arbitration therefore is appropriate.

  • Fang v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-06071-JD (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2016)
    11/10/2016

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction requesting the court to dismiss an ongoing arbitration involving the parties.  Court held that injunctive relief was not warranted because plaintiff made no showing that she was likely to suffer irreparable hard in the absence of preliminary relief; that the balance of equities tipped in her favor; and that an injunction was in the public interest.

  • Snyder v. Cach, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00097-ACK-KJM (D. Haw. Nov. 10, 2016)
    11/10/2016

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the parties had entered into a valid arbitration agreement which covered the dispute at issue.  Court also held that plaintiff failed raise a meritorious defense to arbitration.

  • Sopinski v. Lackawanna Cnty., No. 3:16-CV-00466-PDM (M.D. Pa. Nov. 10, 2016)
    11/10/2016

    Court granted motion by an arbitrator to quash a subpoena for deposition.  Court held that, although arbitrators may be deposed on issues of alleged bias or prejudice, where an arbitrator previously disclosed all conflicts of interest to plaintiff, the arbitrator was entitled to assert her testimonial privilege.

  • Elmore v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No 2:16-CV-05603-ODW-AS (C.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2016)
    11/09/2016

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that an arbitration agreement, which states that issues to be arbitrated “include disputes arising out of or relating to the validity, enforceability or breach of this [agreement],” demonstrated the parties’ intent to arbitrate the issue of arbitrability.  Court further held that all of plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the parties’ arbitration agreement.

  • Powers Distrib. Co., Inc. v. Grenzebach Corp., No. 4:16-CV-12740-TGB-EAS (E.D. Mich. Nov. 9, 2016)
    11/09/2016

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss on the grounds that the dispute must be arbitrated.  Court held that although the claims, as drafted, were subject to arbitration, the motion to dismiss should be denied without prejudice because plaintiff requested oral argument and asked to amend its complaint.

  • Trs. of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labor-Management Cooperation, Pension, and Welfare Funds v. Akwesasne Const., Inc., No. 2:15-CV-06449-ADS-AYS (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2016)
    11/08/2016

    Court granted petitioners’ motion to confirm an arbitration award.  Court held that pursuant to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the arbitration award should be confirmed because respondent failed to file any objection to the magistrate judge’s recommendation and the recommendation was free from error.

  • United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 653 v. Fresh Seasons Market, LLC, No. 0:15-CV-03910-PJS-TNL (D. Minn. Nov. 8, 2016)
    11/08/2016

    Court denied defendants’ motion to stay an order compelling arbitration pending the outcome of defendants’ appeal of the court’s order.  Court held a stay was not warranted because (i) defendant failed to make a strong showing that its appeal would be successful; (ii) the cost of submitting to arbitration was not an irreparable harm; (iii) a stay would prejudice plaintiff by further delaying a case that had already lasted several years; and (iv) there is a strong federal policy favoring arbitrating disputes in general and labor disputes in particular.

  • Preferred Care, Inc. v. Bleeker, No. 7:16-CV-00152-ART-EBA (E.D. Ky. Nov. 8, 2016)
    11/08/2016

    Court granted motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims to enforce an arbitration agreement between the parties.  Court held that although the arbitration agreement bound the defendant, the administrator of the deceased’s estate, it did not bind a series of wrongful-death beneficiaries, whom the defendant had raised claims on behalf of, because the beneficiaries were not parties to the arbitration agreement.

  • U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Waterfront Assocs., Inc., No. 1:15-CV-00046-SSB-SKB (S.D. Ohio Nov. 8, 2016)
    11/08/2016

    Court denied third-party defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court held that the arbitration agreement between the plaintiff and third-party defendant did not apply to the issue in dispute because the agreement was made before the events giving rise to the litigation occurred and the plain language of the agreement excluded the issue in dispute from the scope of the arbitration clause.

  • Pinnacle Health Facilities XXXIII, LP v. Crecca, No. 2:15-CV-01062-RB-LAM (D.N.M., Nov. 7, 2016) 
    11/07/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Court accepted theory that non-party defendant was bound by an arbitration agreement as a third-party beneficiary of the underlying contract.  Court was also not persuaded that signatory’s failure to read the contract rendered it procedurally unconscionable, or that she had been unable to decline particular terms.

  • McKinnon v. Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., No. 4:12-CV-04457-YGR (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2016)
    11/07/2016

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to intervene.  Court held inter alia that the existence of an arbitration provision in an agreement between an intervenor and defendants was not sufficient reason to deny plaintiff’s motion.  Court explained that if defendants successfully compelled the intervenor to litigate his claims in arbitration, the court could stay the intervenor’s claims against defendants and proceed to hear the remaining claims that were not subject to arbitration.

  • Oat Solutions, LLC v. Rihko, No. 2:16-CV-01046 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2016)
    11/07/2016

    Court granted motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for forum non conveniens.  Court held that inter alia the existence of an arbitration agreement stating that the parties would resolve disputes arising out of the operative agreement through arbitration in Finland favored dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint on forum non conveniens grounds because arbitration would reduce the burden on local courts to administer the case.

  • Herzfeld v. 1416 Chancellor, Inc., No. 15-2835 (3d Cir. Nov. 7, 2016)
    11/07/2016

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that an arbitration clause that only applied to “dispute[s] aris[ing] out of this agreement” would not govern the dispute because plaintiff’s claims were statutory wage-and-hour claims.

  • PDV Sweeny, Inc. v. ConocoPhilips Co., No. 16-170 (2d Cir. Nov. 7, 2016)
    11/07/2016

    Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of the appellant’s petition to vacate an arbitral award.  Court of appeals held that the New York public policy against penalty provisions in contracts did not preclude the arbitration award because the arbitral tribunal construed the contract clause at issue as a termination provision rather than as a liquidated damages provision. 

  • ABX Air, Inc. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Airline Division, No. 1:16-CV-01039-TSB (S.D. Ohio Nov. 7, 2016)
    11/07/2016

    Court denied motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, and dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.  Court held that the dispute at issue was a “minor dispute” as defined by the Railway Labor Act and, according to the statute, all “minor disputes” must be submitted to arbitration instead of the federal courts.

  • American Healthcare Assoc. v. Burwell, No. 3:16-CV-00233-MPM-RP (N.D. Miss. Nov. 7, 2016)
    11/07/2016

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the defendants from enforcing a new regulation that would bar nursing homes receiving federal funds from entering pre-dispute arbitration agreements with their residents.  Court held that a preliminary injunction was warranted because inter alia it was likely that the new regulation would be barred by the FAA.

  • Romero v. DHL Express (U.S.A.), Inc., No. 1:15-CV-04844-JGK (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2016)
    11/07/2016

    Court granted motion for judgment on the pleadings.  Court held inter alia that plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed because plaintiff failed to submit the dispute to arbitration pursuant to the arbitration clause found in the parties’ collective bargaining agreement.

  • Kobren v. A-1 Limosine Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00516-BRM-DEA (D.N.J. Nov. 7, 2016)
    11/07/2016

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay the action.  Court held that a class/collective action waiver and cost-sharing provision found within an agreement that also contained an arbitration clause did not render the agreement to arbitrate unconscionable.

  • LIN Television Corp. v. Nat’l Assoc. of Broadcast Emps. and Technicians-Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, No. 1:14-CV-01048-WMS-LGF (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2016)
    11/07/2016

    Court denied motion to vacate a labor arbitration award and granted defendants’ motion to enforce the arbitration award and recover attorney’s fees.   Court held that the award should not be vacated because, contrary to the plaintiff’s assertions, the arbitrator did not exceed the scope of his authority and the award did not violate public policy.

  • Archer v. TIC – The Industrial Company, No. 2:16-6649-GHK-SS (C.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2016)
    11/07/2016

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the FAA prescribed arbitration and under California law the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable despite the fact that it was a contract of adhesion.

  • Ankofski v. M&O Marketing, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-10284 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 4, 2016)
    11/04/2016

    Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss for plaintiff’s failure to arbitrate the dispute.  Court held that although it was undisputed that the an arbitration agreement existed between the parties, the agreement was incorporated within a confidentiality and non-solicitation agreement, not an employment contract, and plaintiff’s discrimination and retaliation claims did not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • Move, Inc. v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., No. 14-56650 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016)
    11/04/2016

    Circuit court reversed the district court’s order denying plaintiff’s motion to vacate an arbitration award.  Court held that the FAA’s requirement that a notice of a motion to vacate arbitration award must be submitted within three months of the issuance of an arbitration award would be subject to equitable tolling.  Court also held that the tribunal chairman’s misrepresentation concerning his qualifications as a licensed attorney was sufficient grounds to vacate the award because plaintiff was denied a fundamentally fair hearing.

  • Thomas v. Jenkins, No. 3:16-CV-01830 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 4, 2016)
    11/04/2016

    Court denied defendant’s motion to vacate an arbitration award.  Court held that an arbitration award could not be vacated under the terms of the FAA because defendant moving to vacate the arbitration award was not a party to the arbitration.

  • Mondis Tech. Ltd. v. Wistron Corp., 1:15-CV-02340-RA (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 2016)
    11/03/2016

    Court granted petition for confirmation of arbitral award under the FAA and the New York Convention. Court rejected defendant’s arguments against confirmation, holding that the defendant did not satisfy its obligation under the award and finding the public policy and due process arguments unpersuasive.

  • Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 1:13-CV-01668-LPS (D. Del. Nov. 3, 2016)
    11/03/2016

    Court denied defendants’ motion to stay the proceedings pending arbitration.  Court held that defendants could not invoke the doctrine of equitable estoppel to stay an arbitration to which they were not a party.  Court further held that a discretionary stay of the pending arbitration was unwarranted because a stay would unfairly prejudice the plaintiff and was unlikely to promote judicial economy.

  • Fencemart, Inc. v. Stewart Envtl. Constr., Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00054-MPM-DAS (N.D. Miss. Nov. 3, 2016)
    11/03/2016

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss.  Court held plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed in favor of arbitration because the subcontractor agreement between the parties contained a valid arbitration clause, the dispute at issue fell within the scope of the clause, and there were no legal constraints that would preclude arbitration.

  • Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Tripathi, No. 3:16-CV-00562 (D. Conn. Nov. 3, 2016)
    11/03/2016

    Court granted plaintiff’s petition to compel arbitration. Court held the parties agreed to a broad arbitration provision that clearly and unmistakably delegated issues of arbitrability to the arbitrators, and that gateway issues such as unconscionability were to be determined by the arbitrator in the first instance.

  • Hudson v. Windows USA, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00596-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss. Nov. 3, 2016)
    11/03/2016

    Court denied request for discovery in relation to plaintiffs’ fraud in the factum opposition to motion to compel arbitration, finding that the allegations of fraud could be supported by the plaintiffs’ own testimony and discovery was improper in light of the summary nature of a motion to compel arbitration.

  • Thomas v. Right Choice Staffing Group, LLC, No. 4:15-CV-10055-LVP-MKM (E.D. Mich. Nov. 2, 2016)
    11/02/2016

    Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to render an arbitration clause unenforceable. Court held that, contrary to plaintiffs’ claims, the risk that plaintiffs could be forced to split costs under AAA arbitration rules did not per se render the arbitration agreement unenforceable. Instead, court held that in the event substantial costs and fees were imposed on plaintiffs, the court could engage in a post hoc review of the arbitrator’s award to ensure it conformed to public policy.

  • In re Anderson, No. 7:15-CV-4227-NSR (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2016)
    11/02/2016

    Court denied appellant’s motion to stay bankruptcy proceedings pending an appeal of an order denying appellant’s motion’s to compel arbitration.  Court held that appellant had not satisfied the four factor test required to issue the stay.

  • Ribeiro v. Sedgwick LLP, 3:16-CV-04507-WHA (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2016)
    11/02/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay action.  Court held that, by incorporation of the JAMS Comprehensive Arbitration Rules and Procedures, the parties’ had clearly delegated the arbitrability of the claims and the alleged unconscionability of the arbitration provision to the arbitrator.

  • West v. Legacy Motors, Inc., 2:16-CV-12101 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 2, 2016)
    11/02/2016

    Court granted motions to compel arbitration and dismiss under the FAA, holding that all plaintiff’s claims are subject to arbitration. Court found that the parties agreed to arbitration, the arbitration clause was not unconscionable, the scope of the agreement was broad and there was no evidence that Congress intended to preclude waiver of judicial remedies.

  • Commc’n Workers of America Local 3010, AFL-CIO v. Telephone Tech. Sys., Inc., No. 3:16-CV-02635-GAG (D.P.R. Nov. 1, 2016)
    11/01/2016

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction in aid of arbitration and denied defendant’s motion to dismiss.  Court held that the question of whether the parties’ collective bargaining agreement had expired at the time the dispute arose should be decided by an arbitrator per the terms of the parties’ agreement to arbitrate.  Court also held that a preliminary injunction in aid of arbitration was justified because (1) the parties had entered into a collective bargaining agreement providing for mandatory arbitration; (2) the dispute between the parties was subject to binding arbitration; and (3) traditional principles of equity warranted injunctive relief.

  • Selden v. Airbnb, Inc., 1:16-CV-00933-CRC (D.D.C. Nov. 1, 2016)
    11/01/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that mutual arbitration provisions in electronic contracts are enforceable.  Court rejected arguments that no contract existed and that the arbitration clause did not apply to discrimination suits and was unconscionable.

  • Corporación Mexicana de Mantenimiento Integral, S. De R.L. De C.V., v. Pemex-Exploración Y Producción, No. 13-4022 (2d Cir. Nov. 1, 2016)
    11/01/2016

    Court denied appellant’s petition for rehearing in panel or en banc of its decision to affirm confirmation of an ICC arbitral award vacated by Mexican courts in Corporación Mexicana de Mantenimiento Integral v. Pemex-Exploración Y Producción, No. 13-4022 (2d. Cir. Aug. 2, 2016).

  • Employers Resource v. NLRB, No. 16-60034 (5th Cir. Nov. 1, 2016)
    11/01/2016

    Court granted petition for review and denied cross-application for enforcement of an administrative law judge’s decision that the arbitration provision mandating individual arbitration violates §8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act.  Court declined to overturn earlier Fifth Circuit decisions absent an intervening change in the law, concluding that the FAA mandates enforcement of arbitration provisions requiring individual arbitration.

  • Drill Cuttings Disposal Co., v. Lynn, 5:16-CV-00860-DAE (W.D. Tex. Nov. 1, 2016)
    11/01/2016

    Court granted motion and confirmed arbitration award pursuant to the FAA, holding the arbitrator did not reach his determination in manifest disregard of the law and did not “exceed his powers” under 9 USC §10(a)(4).  Case was earlier transferred from the Western District of Louisiana in Drill Cutting Disposal Co. LLC v. Lynn, No. 6:15-02532 (W.D. La. Apr. 20, 2016).

  • Valencia v. Logan General-Hospital, LLC, 2:16-CV-06597 (S.D.W. Va. Nov. 1, 2016)
    11/01/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Finding that the plaintiff’s claim arises out of and relates to the employment agreement,  court held the claim was arbitrable.

  • Mackall v. Healthsource Global Staffing, Inc., 3:16-CV-03810-WHO (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2016)
    11/01/2016

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration. Court found class waiver was invalid under the National Labor Relations Act and Morris v. Ernest & Young, 2016 WL 4433080 (9th Cir. Aug. 22, 2016).  Finding the class waiver provision could not be severed, the court held the arbitration agreement was unenforceable under the FAA.

  • Fraser v. Brightstar Franchising, LLC, 1:16-CV-08179 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 1, 2016)
    11/01/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that plaintiffs’ claims fell within the scope of the mediation and arbitration provision and not an equitable relief exception.

  • Key Motors Ltd. v. Hyundai Motor Co., No. 1:16-CV-23657-RNS (S.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 2016)
    11/01/2016

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff’s argument, that an oral agreement which made no mention of an agreement to arbitrate governed the parties’ dispute, was unavailing because the mere existence of an oral agreement did not negate the fact that the parties had entered into a written agreement to arbitrate the dispute.  Court further held that defendant’s removal of the case from state court to federal court was proper because the subject matter of the dispute pending in state court related to an arbitration agreement falling under the New York Convention.

  • Borgarding v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, No. 2:16-CV-02485-FMO-RAO (C.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2017)
     
    10/31/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that, although there was a low level of procedural unconscionability there was no substantive unconscionability, and therefore the agreement to arbitrate was valid.

  • DCK N. America, LLC, v. Burns and Roe Servs., Co., 2:16-CV-00994-MRH (W.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2016)
    10/31/2016

    Court granted motions to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings pending arbitration or mediation.  Court first held that since the parties’ failed to sufficiently reference the AAA Arbitration Rules in their arbitration agreement, such that the question of arbitrability would be delegated to the arbitrator, the question of arbitrability was for judicial determination.  In making such a determination, court then held that the parties’ arbitration agreement was broadly drafted and the presumption of arbitrability applied.

  • Clos La Chance Wines, Inc., v. AV Brands, Inc., 5:16-CV-04047 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2016)
    10/31/2016

    Court granted motion for reconsideration and for relief from judgment confirming the arbitral award.  Under FRCP 60(b) and 59(e), respectively, the court found the defendant’s failure to file timely opposition to the motion to confirm the award was a result of excusable neglect and held that manifest injustice would result if relief was not granted.

  • Gonzalez v. Ceva Logistics U.S., Inc., 3:16-CV-04282-WHO (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2016)
    10/31/2016

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA and the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Morris v. Ernst & Young, 2016 WL 4433080 (9th Cir. Aug. 22, 2016).  Court found the arbitration agreement, which waived class claims with no meaningful opportunity to opt out, was unenforceable under §7 of the National Labor Relations Act, and held that severing the class waiver provision would still violate Morris.

  • Howse v. DirecTV, LLC, 6:16-CV-00594-PGB-TBS (M.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2016)
    10/31/2016

    Court granted amended motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable under Florida law and that the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (“EFTA”) claims were arbitrable.  Court found that plaintiff failed to meet his burden of showing a contrary congressional command precluded the waiver of judicial remedies for alleged EFTA violations that would override the strong federal policy in the FAA requiring courts to enforce arbitration agreements. 

  • Matala-De Mazza v. Special Touch Home Care Servs., Inc., 1:16-CV-01185-ARR-RLM (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2016)
    10/31/2016

    Court granted motion to stay and to compel arbitration under FAA. Court found that there was a valid arbitration agreement, that the action fell within the scope of the agreement, and that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of showing the arbitration would be prohibitively expensive.

  • Gamboa v. Citibank, National Association, No. 1:16-CV-02349-MHC (N.D. Ga. Oct. 28, 2016)

    10/28/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed action pending arbitration, finding that, by using defendant’s services plaintiff had accepted defendant’s terms of use, including the arbitration agreement contained therein, and that the broad arbitration agreement encompasses the claims at issue.

  • Lawrence v. Sol G. Atlas Realty Co., Inc., 15-3087 (2d Cir. Oct, 28, 2016)
    10/28/2016

    Court vacated district court’s motion to compel arbitration under the FAA, finding that the collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) does not require arbitration of statutory discrimination claims.  Court held that the CBA did not contain a “clear and unmistakable” waiver of plaintiff’s statutory claims. 

  • Munning v. Gap, 3:16-CV-03804-TEH (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28 2016).
    10/28/2016

    Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s litigation claims as being subject to arbitration.  Under a FAA analysis of the validity and scope of the arbitration agreement, the court found that it was unclear whether an arbitration agreement existed between the parties and held the forum selection clause on defendant’s website was “sufficiently specific” to impute to the parties “the reasonable expectation that they were superseding, displacing or waiving the prior arbitration clause.” 

  • Youssofi v. Credit One Fin., 15-CV-1764-AJB-RBB (S.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2016).
    10/28/2016

    Court granted motion to certify for immediate interlocutory appeal.  Plaintiff challenged court’s ruling that the constitutional waiver test is inapplicable in the context of arbitration agreements.   Court held that (1) the issue of whether the constitutional waiver test applies is a controlling question of law, (2) there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion, and (3) immediate appeal would materially advance the litigation’s end. 

  • Coleman-Reed v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, No. 2:15-CV-13687 (S.D.W. Va. Oct. 28, 2016)
    10/28/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and rejected argument that defendant had waived its right to arbitrate under the default provision in § 3 of the FAA.  Court held that the alleged delay in filing the motion to compel should be measured from the day the defendant became aware or should have become aware of the arbitration provision and not the date of filing of the complaint.  Court also held that filing of minimal responsive pleadings and limited participation in discovery are not actions inconsistent with an intent to pursue arbitration, and concluded that plaintiff failed to show that defendant’s actions resulted in actual prejudice. 

  • Cortes-Ramos v. Martin-Morales, No. 3:16-CV-01223-DRD (D.P.R. Oct. 28, 2016)
    10/28/2016

    Court granted motion to dismiss and remitted the suit to arbitration.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the agreement to arbitrate is not valid because plaintiff had not read the arbitration agreement, and found that plaintiff failed to show that the agreement was induced by fraud.  Moreover, the court rejected the argument that defendant is not covered by the arbitration clause because defendant is a third-party beneficiary of the agreement.

  • Laurence v. Sol G. Atlas Realty Co., Inc., No. 15-3087-CV (2nd Cir. Oct. 28, 2016)
    10/28/2016

    Court vacated district court’s grant of motion to compel arbitration and remands suit. Court held that the wording of the arbitration provision in the collective bargaining agreement is not “clear and unmistakable” as to whether statutory discrimination or retaliation claims must be submitted to arbitration.

  • Mitchell v. Tillett, 3:15-CV-04044-VC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2016)
    10/28/2016

    Court dismissed the petition for vacatur of an arbitral award with prejudice.  Court found the New York Convention, not the FAA, governed the sailor’s employment contract and concluded that the award arose out of a commercial relationship.  Since the New York Convention does not provide for vacatur, the court relied on FAA and state law rules. Court held that regardless of whether state law or FAA rules applied, the petition to vacate was untimely.              

  • ATCi Communications Inc. v. Federal Insurance Company, No. 1:16-CV-23374-CMA (S.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2016)
    10/27/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed the litigation, finding that third party was bound to arbitrate due to equitable estoppel, that the dispute fell within the scope of the broadly worded arbitration clause, and that it had the power to stay litigation even in the absence of a pending arbitration.

  • Haven Beauty Inc. v. Kardashian, No. 8:16-CV-01307-JVS-DFM (C.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2016)
    10/27/2016

    District court denied motion to compel arbitration against defendants who were not party to the arbitration agreement, finding that the estoppel theory articulated by plaintiffs was inapplicable because the non-party defendants had asserted no claims (but only affirmative defenses) relating to the agreement containing the arbitration clauses.

  • Dirse v. Rent-a-Car East, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-23530-FAM (S.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2016)
    10/27/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and entered judgment for petitioner.  Court held that a non-signatory plaintiff, having received benefit from the rental agreement, cannot avoid arbitration where the signatory plaintiff concedes that she entered into a rental agreement and does not deny that she endorsed the arbitration provision expressly referring “any dispute or claim” to arbitration.

  • R&G Student Housing, LLC v. Phoenix Sustainable Group, LLC, No. 6:16-CV-01363-GAP-GJK (M.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2016)
    10/27/2016

    Court granted motion to stay litigation and compel AAA arbitration pursuant to a clause requiring arbitration in a “neutral site in accordance with the rules of the AAA”.  Court held that arbitration “in accordance with the rules of the AAA” requires that the dispute be referred to the AAA as the arbitrating entity.

  • Clinical Solutions, LLC v. Physicians Plan Rx, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00196 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 26, 2016)
    10/26/2016

    Court dismissed case in light of enforceable arbitration provision in parties’ joint venture agreement.  Court held that the validity of the overall agreement should be evaluated by an arbitrator, and plaintiff’s fraudulent inducement argument is not applicable solely to the arbitration clause but to the agreement as a whole. 

  • TWTB, Inc. v. Rampick, No. 2:15-03399 (E.D. La. Oct. 25, 2016)
    10/25/2016

    Court granted motion to stay matter pending arbitration, but denied motion to dismiss, holding that the arbitration agreement was enforceable.  Court found that plaintiffs had made no argument that the arbitration agreement was invalid or unenforceable separate from the contract, and therefore the question of enforceability of the arbitration provision was for the arbitrator and not the court.  Court found that matters not subject to the arbitration clause should be stayed pending arbitration.    

  • South Jersey Sanitation Co., Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co., Inc., No. 14-4010 (3d Cir. Oct. 25, 2016)
    10/25/2016

    Court reversed district court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration because plaintiff’s challenges to the arbitration agreement apply to the parties’ contract as a whole and the validity of the contract is to be determined by the arbitrator.

  • Eagle Aviation Technologies, LLC v. Carson Helicopters, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-05216 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 24, 2016)
    10/24/2016

    Court denied petition to vacate pursuant to § 10(a)(4) of the FAA and confirmed the arbitration award.  Court held the arbitrator made a good faith effort to interpret the parties’ agreement in accordance with the principles of contract law and, therefore, did not exceed its powers.

  • Aldrich v. University of Phoenix, No. 16-5276 (6th Cir. Oct. 24, 2016)
    10/24/2016

    Circuit court affirmed removal of suit to federal court and dismissal of suit in favor of arbitration.  Plaintiffs demonstrated assent to the arbitration agreement under Kentucky law by continuing to work at the university even though they did not execute the form expressly acknowledging the arbitration provision.

  • Trustees of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labor-Management Cooperation, Pension and Welfare Funds v. Lilco Construction, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-03820-JS-GRB (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2016)
    10/24/2016

    Court adopted recommendation of magistrate judge to confirm an arbitration award in favor of plaintiff, award interest, costs and attorney’s fees, and compel respondents to allow an audit as no objections had been raised by either party.  Magistrate judge reviewed the unanswered petition and concluded that there is no genuine issue of material fact preventing the court from issuing summary judgment in favor of petitioner.

  • Canlas v. Olomana Golf Links, Inc, No. 1:15-CV-00243 (D. Haw. Oct. 24, 2016)
    10/24/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that a valid agreement to arbitrate that encompassed her claims is unenforceable because, inter alia, it was a contract of adhesion.  Court held that the provision was not unenforceable despite unequal bargaining power because it merely substituted one forum for another without imposing unequal obligations on one party over the other.  Court also held that the agreement’s coverage of claims is even handed and the agreement’s silence as to the allocation of arbitration expenses is insufficient grounds for finding the agreement unconscionable.

  • Wells Fargo Advisors, L.L.C. v. Tucker, No. 1:15-CV-07722-VEC (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2016)
    10/21/2016

    Having previously denied Plaintiff’s petition to dismiss on-going class-wide arbitration and compel individual arbitration and entered judgment for respondent, court denied respondent’s motion to modify the judgment and stay proceedings pursuant to § 3 of the FAA.  Court holds that § 3 only applies when the underlying dispute is before the court and is not relevant where all issues in dispute are arbitrable as in the instant case.

  • State of Wisconsin Local Government Property Insurance Fund v. Lexington Insurance Company, No. 15-1973 (7th Cir. Oct. 21, 2016)
    10/21/2016

    Seventh circuit confirmed district court’s decision denying appellant’s attempt to intervene in an arbitration proceeding.  Court held that the dispute over the existence of an arbitration agreement was to be decided by the judiciary, and that the policy in favor of arbitration did not apply in this case because the contract unambiguously contained no arbitration provision.

  • Holland v. LVNV Funding, LLC, No. 5:16-CV-00069-TBR (W.D. Ky. Oct. 21, 2016)
    10/21/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding the creditor, which had bought the debt from plaintiff’s credit card company, was entitled to invoke the arbitration agreement between the plaintiff and the credit card company.  Court found that the arbitration provision was valid and that the plaintiff’s suit arising out of the settlement of the debt fell within its scope.

  • Fleming v. J. Crew, No. 1:16-CV-02663-GHW (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2016)
    10/21/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration based upon a finding that the parties entered into an agreement to arbitrate and that the claim fell within the scope of that agreement.

  • Reyna v. International Bank of Commerce, No. 16-40057 (5th Cir. Oct. 20, 2016)
    10/21/2016

    Fifth circuit reversed district court’s decision denying motion to compel arbitration, and remanded with instruction to refer the dispute to arbitration.  Court held that arbitration was a threshold question for the arbitrator to decide because of the agreement’s delegation clause.

  • Spencer v. Midland Funding LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00093-BR (D. Or. Oct. 21, 2016)
    10/21/2016

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motions to compel arbitration, stay case, and strike class allegations.  Court held that the applicability and enforcement of the arbitration provision should be resolved by an arbitrator; that defendants had not waived their right to arbitration by proceeding with litigation in state court; that the applicability and extent of issue preclusion as a result of the state-court decision should be resolved by an arbitrator; and that plaintiff’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claim was subject to arbitration, but plaintiff could only pursue her own claims, not class-action claims.

  • Balberdi v. Fedex Ground Package System, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-00481-LEK-KSC (D. Haw. Oct. 21, 2016)
    10/21/2016

    Court granted defendant’s unopposed motion to confirm the arbitration award, finding that court could no longer vacate, modify or correct the award given that the three-month deadline for filing a notice to modify or correct an arbitration award had long passed.

  • Verizon Pennsylvania LLC v. Communications Workers of America, No. 2:16-CV-03992-GJP (E.D. Pa. Oct. 20, 2016)
    10/20/2016

    Court granted motion to dismiss complaint seeking to vacate arbitration award.  Court found that the arbitration panel’s decision was not final because it ruled on liability but had not yet ruled on remedies.  Court was therefore not willing to entertain a motion to vacate, based on the “complete arbitration rule,” which mandates that courts should not entertain a lawsuit challenging a labor arbitration award until it is final.

  • Bouchard Transportation Co. v. VT Halter Marine, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-11264-NJB-JCW (E.D. La. Oct. 20, 2016)
    10/20/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that as the FAA applied to the dispute, it was required to enforce the arbitration provision.  Additionally, the parties’ incorporation of the AAA rules “clearly and unmistakably” evidenced the parties’ intent to arbitrate issues of arbitrability.

  • Olson v. MBO Partners, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-02216-HZ (D. Or. Oct. 20, 2016)
    10/20/2016

    Court granted motion to dismiss an Americans with Disabilities Act claim.  Court found that the claim was subject to mandatory arbitration as the agreement did not violate Oregon law, it was not unconscionable, it was not a result of misrepresentation or fraud, and plaintiff did not sign it under duress.

  • Trustees for the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Annuity Funds and Training Fund v. TNS Management Services, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01120-AJN (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2016)
    10/20/2016

    Court granted unopposed motion to confirm arbitration award.  Treating the unopposed motion as an unopposed motion for summary judgment, the court found that there was no genuine dispute as to any material fact.

  • Zemel v. Citibank, No. 2:16-CV-03976 (D.N.J. Oct. 20, 2016)
    10/20/2016

    Court denied without prejudice motion to compel arbitration, allowing for renewal of the motion following limited discovery on the question of arbitrability.  Court found that there were genuine questions as to whether an arbitration agreement existed between the parties, with plaintiff contending that he opted out of the arbitration agreement at issue.  Court ordered limited discovery on the question of arbitrability after which defendant may renew its motion to compel arbitration.

  • Ceona PTE Ltd. v. BMT Giant, S.A. DE C.V., No. 1:16-CV-04437-WHP (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2016)
    10/19/2016

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award.  Court held that because the petition was unopposed, it would treat it as a motion for summary judgment which would fail only if the undisputed facts fail to show the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  Additionally, the court found the petitioner to be entitled to pre- and post-judgment interest.

  • Boehm v. Getty Images (US), Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00311-JDP (W.D. Wis. Oct. 19, 2016)
    10/19/2016

    Court granted motions to dismiss complaints.  Court held that the parties “clearly and unmistakably” agreed to have the arbitrator decide threshold questions of arbitrability, but the court could not compel arbitration because the arbitration clause called for arbitration outside the court’s jurisdiction.

  • Metlife Secs., Inc. v. Holt, No. 2:16-CV-00032-RLJ-MCLC (E.D. Tenn. Oct. 19, 2016)
    10/19/2016

    Court granted motion to strike defendant’s jury demand because the demand was untimely.  Under § 4 of the FAA, a party opposing arbitration is entitled to a jury trial only when an issue of material fact exists as to the validity of the arbitration agreement and the demand is made “on or before the return day of the notice of application.”

  • AmTrust North America, Inc. et al. v. Preferred Contractors Ins. Co. Risk Retention Group, L.L.C., No. 1:16-MC-0340 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2006)
    10/18/2016

    Court grants motion to compel defendant to disclose information and orders defendant to refrain from using or transferring funds in its possession that belong to a third-party debtor pursuant to an arbitration award that was confirmed by the court in a separate action.

  • Levy v. Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, No. 2-16-mc-00171 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 18, 2016)
    10/18/2016

    Court dismissed motion to vacate an arbitration award.  Court held that motion filed on the 92nd day after the award was issued is not timely because New York Law requires the motion to be filed within 90 days, and service of the motion is governed by the FAA, which requires service within three months.              

  • Jackson v. Comenity Bank, No. 0-16-cv-01133 (D. Minn. Oct. 18, 2016)
    10/18/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court held that a valid arbitration agreement exists where credit card user failed to reject the arbitration provision in the contract and used the credit account.

  • Burton Ways Hotels, Ltd. v. Four Seasons Hotels Ltd., No. 14-56856 (9th Cir. Oct. 18, 2016)
    10/18/2016

    Circuit court reversed in part and affirmed in part district court’s confirmation of arbitral award.  Court found that the arbitral tribunal erred in determining the correct interpretation of the contract (based on external evidence presented by both sides) at a “summary judgment” phase because California law requires that such finding be made after a full, evidentiary hearing.

  • Scott v. Education Management Corp., No. 15-2225 (3d Cir. Oct. 18, 2016)
    10/18/2016

    Court reversed district court’s dismissal of two age discrimination lawsuits in favor of arbitration.  Court held that there was no consent to arbitrate, especially since Pennsylvania law requires arbitration agreements to be “clear and unmistakable” and discourages finding arbitration agreements “by implication.”

  • Levi Strauss & Co. v. Aqua Dynamics Systems, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-04718-WHO (N.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2016)
    10/18/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that while the party seeking to compel arbitration was not a signatory to the arbitration agreement, it was the successor in interest to a company that had a right to enforce the arbitration agreement.

  • Answers Corp. v. First East Circular, LLC, No. 4:16-CV-01252-RLW (E.D. Mo. Oct. 18, 2016)
    10/18/2016

    Court granted petition to compel arbitration.  Court found that the claims pursued by petitioner fell within the scope of the arbitration provision and that the arbitration provision was valid and binding.

  • United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union v. Phillips 66 Co., No. 15-5119 (10th Cir. Oct. 17, 2016)
    10/17/2016

    Circuit court affirmed lower court’s order compelling arbitration.  Applying a presumption in favor of arbitrability, court found that the broad scope of the arbitration agreement encompassed the grievances and that the presumption in favor of arbitration was not rebutted.

  • Aztec Engineering Group, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., No. 1:16-CV-01657-JMS-TAB (S.D. Ind. Oct. 17, 2016)
    10/17/2016

    Court denied motion to dismiss or to stay litigation and compel arbitration.  Court held the claim arose from an agreement that did not contain an arbitration provision, and that the other potentially related agreement was neither incorporated nor contained an arbitration provision broad enough to encompass the dispute.

  • In re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, No. 1:09-MD-02036-JLK (S.D. Fla. Oct. 17, 2016)
    10/17/2016

    Court denied motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration.  Court found that defendant waived its right to arbitration because it acted inconsistently with any right to arbitrate and, by doing so, it had prejudiced the other parties.  Court also found that class certification did not nullify the defendant’s prior waiver of its arbitration rights and that defendant’s motion was untimely considering the court had twice ordered all defendants to assert any arbitration rights.

  • A&C Discount Pharmacy L.L.C. v. Prime Therapeutics LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00429-D (N.D. Tex. Oct. 17, 2016)
    10/17/2016

    Court denied motion to stay and compel arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff movant had “substantially invoked the judicial process to the detriment or prejudice of the other party” and therefore it had waived its right to arbitration.

  • Ziober v. BLB Resources, Inc., No. 14-56374 (9th Cir. Oct. 14, 2016)
    10/14/2016

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s order compelling arbitration and dismissing an action under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).  Court found that USERRA’s text and legislative history did not evince any intent to override the FAA’s strong pro-arbitration policy, and therefore the arbitration of claims arising under USERRA is not prohibited.

  • TIC Park Centre 9, LLC v. Wojnar, No. 1:16-CV-04302-ARR-JO (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2016)
    10/14/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings pending arbitration.  Court found that an arbitration agreement providing for arbitration of any controversy “arising out of or related to” an agreement was sufficiently broad in scope to trigger “the presumption of arbitrability for collateral agreements.”  Additionally, the court found that plaintiff was estopped from claiming that the arbitration agreement did not apply because defendants were not signatories, since the issues in arbitration were intertwined with the signed agreement.

  • Carmax Auto Superstores, Inc. v. Sibley, No. 8:16-CV-01459-RWT (D. Md. Oct. 14, 2016)
    10/14/2016

    Court granted summary judgment on petition to compel arbitration.  Court found that, in light of its obligation to “rigorously enforce” arbitration agreements according to their terms, the class action waiver and confidentiality provisions were valid as a matter of law and no genuine issue of material fact existed.

  • Peters v. Amazon Services, LLC, No. 14-35294 (9th Cir. Oct. 13, 2016)
    10/13/2016

    Court affirmed district court order compelling arbitration.  Court ruled that dispute was encompassed by a valid arbitration agreement, which superseded any other agreements.

  • Roman v. AutoNation Ford Gulf Freeway, No. 16-20047 (5th Cir. Oct. 13, 2016)
    10/13/2016

    Circuit court vacated district court order to compel arbitration and remanded for further proceedings.  Court reasoned that the district court had failed to establish facts necessary to determine whether it had subject matter jurisdiction in an arbitral action under state law and remanded since jurisdiction is not independently created under the FAA.

  • Nardello v. Boehringer Ingelheim USA Corp., No. 1:15-CV-03792 (D. Md. Oct. 13, 2016)
    10/13/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings.  Court held that arbitration provision reflected the parties’ intent to arbitrate arbitrability and concluded that it was for the arbitrator to determine whether the dispute was arbitrable.  Court noted that it would, in any case, conclude that the dispute was within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh. v. Source One Staffing LLC, No. 1:16-CV-06461 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2016)
    10/13/2016

    Court agreed to appoint arbitral chair.  Court concluded that judicial intervention was proper because the terms of the parties’ arbitration agreement called for judicial appointment of third arbitrator if the parties’ own process had lapsed.  Court made its appointment with reference to the requirements included in the parties’ agreement and considerations of relative experience.

  • Horton v. FedChoice Fed. Credit Union, No. 2:16-CV-00318 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 13, 2016)
    10/13/2016

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, reasoning that parties were entitled to discovery on the question of arbitrability because the arbitration provision was contained in a contract of adhesion raising questions of unconscionability.

  • ACP Inv. Grp., LLC v. Blake, No. 1:15-CV-09364 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2016)
    10/13/2016

    Court granted motion to confirm employment arbitration award under the FAA.  Court held that none of the narrow defenses to arbitral enforcement afforded by the FAA applied.

  • Tompkins v. 23andMe, Inc., No. 14-16405 (9th Cir. Oct. 13, 2016)
    10/13/2016

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s order to compel arbitration.  Court confirmed that arbitration provision was valid, reasoning that the prevailing party clause, forum selection clause, exclusion of intellectual property claims from mandatory arbitration, statute of limitations, and defendant’s unilateral right  to modification contained in the parties’ agreement, were not unconscionable under California law.

  • Wior v. Bellsouth Corp., No. 1:15-CV-02375 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 12, 2016)
    10/12/2016

    Court denied motion for reconsideration of its order to compel arbitration.  Court reasoned that petitioner could not meet the clear error standard applicable in the absence of new evidence or intervening changes of law, but was instead asking the court to revisit its decision.  Court dismissed as moot petitioner’s motion to stay proceedings pending resolution of the motion for reconsideration.

  • Scheurer v. Fromm Family Foods LLC, No. 3:15-CV-00770 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 12, 2016)
    10/12/2016

    Court granted motion to stay proceedings pending appeal of earlier order denying motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that although it did not find defendant’s argument regarding the disputed contract persuasive, it was not frivolous and therefore merited a stay.

  • CFL Pizza LLC v. Hammack, No. 6:16-CV-00968 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 12, 2016)
    10/12/2016

    Court denied motion to enjoin class or collective arbitration pending outcome of earlier motion to compel single claimant arbitration.  Court reasoned that movant had not demonstrated the likelihood of success, irreparable injury, or compelling balance of private and public harms.

  • Burke v. Cumulus Media Inc., No. 1:16-CV-11220 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 11, 2016)
    10/11/2016

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that agreement containing arbitration provisions had been superseded by subsequent agreement and that, in any case, defendant had waived its right to compel arbitration by actively engaging in litigation in a manner “completely inconsistent” with reliance on the arbitration provision.

  • Inomedic-Innovative Health v. Noninvasive Med. Techs., Inc., No. 2:14-CV-01035 (D. Nev. Oct. 11, 2016)
    10/11/2016

    Court confirmed AAA arbitration award and declined to consider a “forthcoming” motion to vacate as untimely.  Court emphasized its narrow reviewing authority and held that there was no evidence that the award should be set aside.  It decided that judgment on the pleadings was appropriate and that it was not required to wait for forthcoming pleadings because they would be barred by the FAA’s three-month limit on filing motions to vacate.

  • Tillman v. Hertz Corp., No. 1:16-CV-04242 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 11, 2016)
    10/11/2016

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the arbitration agreement did not cover the dispute because plaintiff was not party to the agreement.

  • Duncan Telecom, Inc. v. Pond Constructors Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01086 (E.D. Va. Oct. 11, 2016)
    10/11/2016

    Court granted motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration with respect to one of the defendants, but denied it with respect to the other.  Court reasoned that only one of the defendants was bound by the arbitration agreement and concluded that proceedings would continue with respect to the other, even though liability of the two is generally coextensive under the applicable precedent concerning sureties.

  • Providence Health & Servs. – Or. v. Boulder Admin. Servs. Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00745-TSZ (W.D. Wash. Oct. 11, 2016)
    10/11/2016

    Court denied motion to dismiss, but granted alternative motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff was bound by the arbitration clause contained in the contract as an assignee of rights thereunder.

  • Dream Team Holdings LLC v. Alarcon, No. 2:16-CV-01420-DLR (D. Ariz. Oct. 7, 2016)
    10/07/2016

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement did not encompass the dispute at issue, since it required arbitration of claims “arising out of” another agreement that was never concluded.

  • HBR Lewisport, LLC v. Hamilton, No. 4:16-CV-00044 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 7, 2016)
    10/07/2016

    Court authorized limited discovery in aid of a motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that insufficient evidence had been provided as to whether the applicable arbitration agreement had been validly signed through power of attorney.

  • Johnson v. Dentsply Int’l, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00520 (N.D. Okla. Oct. 7, 2016)
    10/07/2016

    Court stayed proceedings pending arbitration, reasoning that broad stays are appropriate where arbitrable claims predominate the dispute and any nonarbitrable claims are of questionable merit.  Court held that the parties’ dispute fell under two broad arbitration clauses and any distinction between them was a procedural question presumptively for the arbitrators to decide.

  • CM South East Texas Houston v. CareMinders Home Care Inc., No. 16-11054 (11th Cir. Oct. 7, 2016)
    10/07/2016

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s confirmation of arbitration award. Court held that arbitrator’s refusal to grant postponement of the proceedings did not mandate vacatur under the FAA, even in circumstances where the parties had mutually agreed to a postponement. Court found that defendant failed to establish that the arbitrator’s refusal to postpone the hearing prejudiced its rights or deprived it of a fair hearing.

  • GGNSC Louisville Mt. Holly LLC v. Stevenson, No. 3:16-CV-00423 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 6, 2016)
    10/06/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, dismissing action without prejudice and enjoining plaintiff from litigating in state court.  Court held that a valid arbitral agreement applied to the claim and rejected proffered defenses, reasoning that lengthy documents and mental weakness in the plaintiff did not create procedural unconscionability; and the agreement contained reasonable terms that were not oppressive or on-sided and was therefore not substantively unconscionable.  Court affirmed its power to issue an injunction against state court action under the Anti-Injunction Act as necessary for protecting its judgment.

  • United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 653 v. Fresh Seasons Mkt., LLC, No. 0:15-CV-03910 (D. Minn. Oct. 6, 2016)
    10/06/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Court rejected a statute of limitations defense, reasoning that the plain text of the applicable statute started tolling when demand for arbitration was refused, regardless of the request’s timeliness.  Court likewise rejected defendant’s claim that it was not a party to the arbitration agreement that had been struck by a multi-employer bargaining unit.

  • N.J. Reg’l Council of Carpenters v. R. Mesmer, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-02881 (D.N.J. Oct. 6, 2016)
    10/06/2016

    Court denied motion to confirm arbitration award issued against a non-party to the arbitration.  Award had been issued against person and entity related to losing arbitral defendant, which was insolvent, but not themselves a party to the arbitration or underlying agreement.  Court held that arbitrator could not issue an award against a non-party absent judicial determination of alter ego status.

  • Welch v. My Left Foot Children’s Therapy, LLC, No. 2:14-CV-01786 (D. Nev. Oct. 6, 2016)
    10/06/2016

    Court denied motion to stay pending appeal of its refusal to compel arbitration.  Court reasoned that defendants did not make a strong showing on the merits for their contention that a non-party to the arbitration agreement could be compelled to arbitrate.  Court also ruled that monetary expenses did not amount to irreparable harm warranting a stay.

  • In re: Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., No. 15-3480 (2d Cir. Oct. 6, 2016)
    10/06/2016

    Court of appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision to deny plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court of appeals held that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration because the dispute at issue was a “core proceeding,” as defined by applicable case law, and compelling arbitration would in this instance jeopardize the objectives of the Bankruptcy Code.

  • Arrowhead General Insurance Agency Inc. v. Lincoln General Insurance Company Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01138-CCC (M.D. Pa. Oct. 5, 2016)
    10/05/2016

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration in light of the third circuit’s express adoption of a narrow exception to the general rule favoring arbitration where res judicata implications of a previous arbitration are at issue. Based on this, court found that confirmation of the prior award was a federal judgment, and therefore res judicata applied.

  • Clarke's Allied Incorporated v. Rail Source Fuel L.L.C., No. 15-41492 No. (5th Cir. Oct. 5, 2016)
    10/05/2016

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s confirmation of arbitral award. Court found that, contrary to the defendant’s arguments, the arbitrator did not exceed his authority, as the award did not: grant an unauthorized rescission remedy; conflict with the terms of the underlying contract; and, impermissibly grant unsegregated costs.

  • Cornoyer v. AT&T Mobility Servs., LLC, 1:15-CV-00474 (D.N.M. Oct. 5, 2016).
    10/05/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pursuant to the FAA and New Mexico law.  Court held there is a binding arbitration agreement and defendant had not waived its right to arbitration through delay in filing its motion. 

  • Roberts v. Petersen Investments, No. 1:16-CV-02525-VM (S.D.N.Y. October 4, 2016)
    10/04/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the three agreements between the parties reflected a common understanding that all disputes would be subject to FINRA arbitration.  Court found unpersuasive claims of a forged signature on one agreement, as plaintiff had subsequently exercised his rights under the contract for two years.

  • Leviege v. Vodafone US Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00374 (E.D. Va. Oct. 4, 2016)
    10/04/2016

    Court granted motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, holding that there was an enforceable arbitration agreement between the parties.  Court found that a letter signed by the employee provided that it was the “entire agreement” between the parties and that any dispute would be resolved exclusively by the binding arbitration procedure set forth in defendant’s ADR policy.

  • Shilman Rocbit, LLC v. American Blasting Consumables, Inc., No. 2-16-CV-06745 (S.D.W. Va. Oct. 4, 2016)
    10/04/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration in South Africa and dismissed the suit with prejudice.  Though both parties are citizens of West Virginia, the court concluded that subject matter jurisdiction is proper under the New York Convention because the state court action “relates to” an agreement that is governed by the Convention.  The court also held that the arbitration clause is enforceable. 

  • Carlos Reyna v. International Bank of Commerce, No. 16-40057 (5th Cir. Oct. 4, 2016)
    10/04/2016

    Circuit court reversed district court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration and remanded with instructions to refer dispute to arbitration.  Court determined that arbitrability was a gateway issue and court was required to consider arbitrability of claim conditionally before certifying class and, based on the delegation clause, arbitrator had authority to determine arbitrability of issue.

  • Pine Tree Villa LLC v. Coulter, No. 3-15-CV-00815 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 4, 2016)
    10/04/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration. Court held the parties had agreed to arbitrate, that the dispute at issue fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and that all claims asserted were subject to arbitration.

  • Nicholas v. N. Phila. Health Sys., No. 2:16-CV-00232 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 4, 2016)
    10/04/2016

    Court denied motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, holding that arbitration agreements are not necessarily binding on third parties like trustees.  Court declined to consider the motion on jurisdictional grounds under FRCP 12(b)(1), noting that contract-based defenses to arbitration speak to the merits of the action and are therefore properly considered under FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 56.

  • InstallIt Inc. v. Carpenters 46 N. Cal. Counties Conf. Board, No. 3:16-CV-01514-TEH (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2016)
    10/04/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration. Court held that both the FAA and the Labor Relations Management Act required arbitration of plaintiff’s claim as the facts underlying the claim were covered by the arbitration agreement and plaintiff failed to meet its burden to demonstrate congressional intent to preclude arbitration of the statutory claim at issue.

  • In re: Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation, No. 4:15-CV-03443-YGR (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2016)
    10/04/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay claims. Court held that incorporation of the ICC Arbitration Rules into the parties’ arbitration agreement constitutes a clear and unmistakable delegation of questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, rather than the court; and given the commercial relationship between the parties and the overlap in the substantive claims, the specific issues in dispute were subject to arbitration.

  • Nelson v. Klaas No. 1:16-CV-00042-DLH-CSM (D.N.D. Oct. 3, 2016)
    10/03/2016

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay the civil action and denied plaintiffs’ motion to stay arbitration.  Court found a valid arbitration agreement existed and that the parties have specifically agreed to leave the question of arbitrability to an arbitrator because the arbitration agreement explicitly incorporates the AAA rules of arbitration.

  • Wexler v. ATT Corp., No. 1:15-CV-00686-FB-PK (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2016)
    10/03/2016

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that scope of agreement to arbitrate was too broad for a reasonable person to think that checking a box accepting terms and conditions of contract would obligate her to arbitrate every possible dispute she might have with the service provider.

  • McClean v. HSBC Finance Corp., No. 2:15-CV-08974-SDW-LDW (D.N.J. Oct. 3, 2016)
    10/03/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration. Despite defendant not having been a signatory to the arbitration agreement at issue, court held that the doctrine of equitable estoppel dictates that plaintiff’s claims proceed to arbitration.

  • Micheletti v. Uber Technologies Inc., No. 5:15-CV-010001-RCL (W.D. Tex. Oct. 3, 2016)
    10/03/2016

    Court granted motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration. Court held the arbitration agreement clearly and unmistakably delegates issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator and is neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable. Court also found that it could not consider whether the larger arbitration agreement violates California public policy, as the interpretation of what claims fall under the arbitration agreement and whether the very terms of the arbitration agreement are enforceable, was clearly and unmistakably delegated to arbitration.

  • Reed v. Darden Rests., Inc., No. 3:16-CV-03872 (S.D.W. Va. Oct. 3, 2016)
    10/03/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed action without prejudice, holding that the parties were bound by a valid arbitration agreement.  Court determined that the agreement was valid even though plaintiff could not produce a copy signed by defendant and that a mutual promise to arbitrate was adequate consideration.  Court declined to consider an unconscionability defense, reasoning that the parties had agreed to delegate arbitrability questions to the arbitrators.

  • Diversicare of Nicholasville, LLC v. Lowry, No. 5:16-CV-00053-JMH (E.D. Ky. Sept. 30, 2016)
    09/30/2016

    Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ motion for expedited consideration of complaint to compel arbitration and enjoin defendant.  Court found the arbitration agreement fell within the scope of the FAA, was not unconscionable, and was not void as against public policy.  Court concluded, however, that the arbitral agreement did not bind wrongful death beneficiaries and declined to compel arbitration of those claims.  Court found an injunction of state court proceeding was not barred under the Anti-Injunction Act and enjoined defendant from pursuing state court claims.

  • Western Surety Co. v. U.S. Engineering Co., No. 1:15-CV-00327-TSC (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2016)
    09/30/2016

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment, finding that plaintiff is not contractually bound to arbitrate dispute over surety bond. Court held that although plaintiff was bound by the defendant’s subcontract as a whole, it was not bound by the subcontract’s arbitration clause.

  • Smith v. Xlibris Publishing Co., No. 1:15-CV-05334-DLI-RER (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2016)
    09/30/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding the plaintiff entered a valid arbitration, the plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration clause, there were no non-arbitrable federal claims, and defendants did not waive their rights to arbitration.

  • Crafty Productions Inc. v. Fuqing Sanxing Crafts. Co. Ltd., No. 3:15-CV-00719-BAS-JLB (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2016)
    09/30/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the parties clearly and unmistakably agreed to delegate the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

  • Helms v. Pioneer Energy Services Corp., No. 5:15-CV-00928-RCL (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2016)
    09/30/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration. Court found that the parties agreed to arbitrate and the Fair Labor Standards Act claims fall within the scope of that agreement and there is no federal statute or policy rendering these claims nonarbitrable.

  • Zylstra v. Matter, No. 0:16-CV-02438-RHK-SER (D. Minn. Sept. 30, 2016)
    09/30/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding the dispute fell within the parties’ arbitration agreement. Court stated that, even if it harbored some doubt on this issue, compelling arbitration still would be appropriate due to the strong federal policy favoring arbitration.

  • PHD@western, LLC v. Rudolf Construction Partners, LLC, No. 9:16-CV-80097-KAM (S.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2016)
    09/30/2016

    Court dismissed petitioner’s petition to compel arbitration. Court found that it did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

  • Hope Christian Fellowship v. Chesapeake Energy Corp. No. 4:15-CV-02275-BYP (N.D. Ohio Sept. 30, 2016)
    09/30/2016

    Court granted motions to compel arbitration and stay the suit. Court held that the parties had a valid arbitration agreement, the dispute fell within the scope of the parties’ agreement, and there is no federal statute barring arbitration of the dispute.

  • Stillwell v. SLH Vista Inc, No. 4:15-CV-01465-HEA (E.D. Mont. Sept. 30, 2016)
    09/30/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration in dispute over plaintiff’s alleged wrongful termination, which court found was within agreement to arbitrate. Court also found that plaintiff bore the burden, but failed, to establish that the arbitration agreement she voluntarily entered into was invalid.

  • Sistem Muhendislik Insaat Sanayi Ve Ticaret v. the Kyrgyz Republic, No. 1:12-CV-04502-ALC-RLE (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2016)
    09/30/2016

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment confirming foreign arbitral award. Court held that defendant failed to meet its burden to show that the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, and that the defendant’s improper venue and forum non conveniens arguments also fell short.

  • Crystallex v. PDVSA, No. 1:15-CV-01082-LPS (D. Del. Sept. 30, 2016)
    09/30/2016

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims that defendant, seeking to repatriate funds to escape enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, engaged in a civil conspiracy and violated the Delaware Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act.  Court dismissed plaintiff’s civil conspiracy claim, but held the plaintiff’s Delaware Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act claims could not be dismissed on the basis of the FSIA and act of state doctrines.

  • Hulley Enterprises Ltd. v. Russian Federation, No. 1:14-CV-01996-BAH (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2016)
    09/30/2016

    Court stayed action to recognize and enforce an arbitral award of $50 billion against the Russian Federation pending appeal of decision to set aside the award by a foreign court at the seat of the arbitration.  Court held that it possessed the inherent authority to stay the action pending the foreign court’s decision and rejected the Russian Federation’s argument that it must first decide whether it possesses subject matter jurisdiction before deciding whether to grant a stay. Court deemed that a stay was judicially efficient and warranted because the outcome of the foreign court decision could affect the legal viability of the award enforcement action in the United States. The court likewise found that the hardships faced by the Russian Federation did not outweigh the benefits that flowed from granting a stay. Shearman & Sterling is counsel for petitioners seeking award enforcement in connection with this case.

  • W. Sur. Co. v. U.S. Eng’g Co., No. 1:15-CV-00327-TSC (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2016)
    09/30/2016

    Court granted motion for partial summary judgment and denied defendant’s motion to dismiss.  Court found that plaintiff was not bound by the arbitration agreement as it contained a limiting clause that meant that only defendant and its subcontractor were bound by the arbitration agreement.

  • Trs. for the Mason Tenders Dist. Council Welfare Fund v. Marlboro Group Int’l, No. 1:16-CV-04776-WHP (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2016)
    09/30/2016

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award.  Court held that there was nothing in the record indicating that the arbitration award should be vacated, modified, or corrected under FAA §§ 10 and 11.  Court further held that the award had substantially more than the “colorable justification” needed to confirm it.

  • TD Ameritrade, Inc. v. Kelley, No. 1:15-CV-00714-PAC-FM (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2016)
    09/30/2016

    Court granted motion to vacate the arbitral award.  Court agreed with the magistrate judge that it was impossible or illegal for the petitioner to comply with the award and thus vacatur was warranted.

  • Smith v. Xlibris Publ’g, No. 1:15-CV-05334-DLI-RER (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2016)
    09/30/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement clearly set forth only one process through which plaintiff could “opt out” of arbitration and plaintiff conceded that he did not follow that process.  Court also held plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration clause, there were no non-arbitrable federal claims given the lack of a clear congressional command indicating that the claims should be non-arbitrable, and defendants did not waive their right to arbitrate by failing to demand arbitration within thirty days, as they were not required to do so.

  • Republic of Argentina v. AWG Group Ltd., No. 1:15-CV-01057-BAH (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2016)
    09/30/2016

    Court denied petition to vacate arbitral award and granted respondent’s petition to confirm the award.  Court held that the challenged arbitrator’s failure to disclose her appointment to the board of UBS, a financial institution invested in the relevant market and a shareholder in one of the AWG claimants, did not amount to “evident partiality” warranting vacatur under FAA § 10(a)(2).  Court also held that the tribunal did not exceed its powers when it awarded damages and elected not to apply the principle of necessity, thus vacatur under FAA § 10(a)(4) was also not warranted.

  • Helms v. Pioneer Energy Servs. Corp., No. 5:15-CV-00928-RCL (W.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2016)
    09/30/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding the parties’ mutual agreement to arbitrate claims was sufficient consideration and the arbitration agreement was not illusory because the defendant could not unilaterally avoid its promise to arbitrate. Court also held the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable because plaintiffs failed to show that arbitration would impose significantly greater costs than litigation. 

  • Crystallex Int’l Corp. v. Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A., No. 1:15-CV-01082-LPS (D. Del. Sept. 30, 2016)
    09/30/2016

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissing defendant CITGO but not defendant PDV Holding, Inc.  Plaintiff had filed suit based on the Delaware Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act and civil conspiracy, alleging that Venezuela had orchestrated transfers to avoid paying a large arbitration award.  Court held that (a) CITGO was not a party to a fraudulent transfer and thus could not be held liable as an accomplice or co-conspirator, (b) plaintiff’s civil conspiracy claim should be dismissed, (c) the suit was not barred under the FSIA, and (d) the motion to dismiss the suit under the act of state doctrine would be denied without prejudice.

  • Chatman v. Jimmy Gray Chevrolet, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00009-NBB-SAA (N.D. Miss. Sept. 30, 2016)
    09/30/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that a valid delegation clause existed, which was not substantively or procedurally unconscionable.  Thus, the arbitrator should resolve the issue of whether the defendant waived its right to arbitrate when it instigated criminal proceedings against the plaintiff.

  • Pacheco v. The Beverage Works NY, Inc., No. 1:14-CV-05763-DLI-MDG (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2016)
    09/30/2016

    Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to vacate various arbitration awards relating to claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York labor law.  Court found: (1) that the arbitrator did not exhibit a manifest disregard of the law in failing to consider plaintiffs’ evidence at the hearing; and (2) that the awards did not violate public policy.

  • Wijesinha v. DIRECTV, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-22090-KMM (S.D. Fla. Sept. 29, 2016)
    09/29/2016

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed between the parties, the arbitration provision remained in effect after termination of the customer agreement, and that plaintiff’s dispute fell under the scope of the arbitration provision.

  • Vujasinovic & Beckcom, PLLC v. Cubillos, No. 4:15-CV-02546 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2016)
    09/29/2016

    Court held that determination of whether client that fired law firm owed the firm attorney fees is a question to be determined in arbitration, not by the court, as the contingent-fee arrangement in the representation agreement required disputes to be resolved through binding arbitration.

  • International Union of Operating Engineers v. Wingra Stone Company, No. Case: 3:15-CV-00236-WMC (W.D. Wisc. Sept. 29, 2016)
    09/29/2016

    Court affirmed arbitration award, denying petitioner’s claim that it should be vacated on the ground that the grievance leading to the arbitration was untimely. Court found that the arbitrator interpreted the relevant statute to allow for the filing of a grievance based on a continuing violation, and the court’s review of an arbitrator’s award does not include consideration of whether such an interpretation was in error. The court likewise declined to review the arbitrator’s factual findings.

  • Hays v. HCA Holdings, Inc, No. 15-51002 (5th Cir. Sept. 29, 2016)
    09/29/2016

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s decision ordering arbitration of plaintiff’s claims against a non-signatory to the contract containing the arbitration agreement. Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that defendant could compel arbitration of plaintiff’s tortious interference claim under direct benefits estoppel. Court also held that plaintiff must arbitrate his wrongful termination, breach of contract, and negligence claims under intertwined claims estoppel, which involves compelling arbitration when a non-signatory has a close relationship with one of the signatories and the claims are “intimately founded in and intertwined with the underlying contract obligations.”

  • Wilson Constr. Co. V. Scheffler Northwest, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-173-YY (D. Or. Sept. 29, 2016)
    09/29/2016

    Court adopted magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation to compel arbitration, deny motion to dismiss and grant alternative motion to stay pending the conclusion of arbitration. Although the parties’ subcontract did not contain an arbitration agreement, it incorporated by reference a contract that did. The magistrate judge held that while the incorporation clause of the subcontract was ambiguous, any doubt should be resolved in favor of arbitration.

  • Transport Workers Union of Am. Local 252 v. Veolia Transportation Servs., Inc., No. 2:14-CV-03837-DRH-ARL (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2016)
    09/29/2016

    In granting a petition to confirm an arbitration award, and denying the counter-petition to vacate the award, the court held that: the arbitrator did not display evident partiality; the arbitrator’s decisions to bifurcate the proceedings and defer ruling on back pay until a proper hearing could be held were not a violation of fundamental fairness; and the arbitrator did not show a manifest disregard for the law.

  • Smith v. Xlibris Publishing, Penguin et al., No. 1:15-CV-05334-DLI-RER (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2016)
    09/29/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed action pending the arbitration. Court found that plaintiff consented to a valid arbitration agreement, plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration clause, there were no non-arbitrable federal claims, and defendants did not waive their right to arbitration.

  • Merryman v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank., No: 1:15-CV-09188-VEC (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2016)
    09/29/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration of all claims, finding that the arbitration agreement was enforceable under the New York Convention and the FAA, and the issue of whether a condition precedent was met was for the arbitrator to decide.

  • Hope Christian Fellowship v. Chesapeake Energy Corp., No. 4:15-CV-02275-BYP (N.D. Ohio Sept. 29, 2016)
    09/29/2016

    Court granted motion to compel individual arbitration.  While defendants were non-signatories to the contract containing the arbitration agreement, because there was an agency relationship between the defendants and a signatory, the claim was inextricably intertwined with the contract and the defendants could compel arbitration.  Court also held that because the arbitration clauses were silent as to class arbitration, class-wide arbitration was not authorized.

  • Fernandez Perez v. UBS Financial Servs., No. 3:15-CV-03081-GAG (D.P.R. Sept. 29, 2016)
    09/29/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that challenges to the arbitration agreement itself would be determined by the court before compelling arbitration, but challenges to the contract as a whole are for the arbitrator to decide.  Court held that New York law applied to the  contract and that plaintiff’s challenge was to the contract as a whole, so the arbitration clause must be enforced.

  • Eurotec Vertical Flight Solutions, LLC v. Turbomeca, S.A., No. 3:15-CV-3454-B (N.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2016)
    09/29/2016

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, and granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion to refer issues of arbitrability to arbitration and stay action pending arbitrator’s decision.  Court found that a valid delegation clause existed directing issues of arbitrability to arbitration.

  • Choice Hotels Intl., Inc. v. Hassanali, No. 8:16-CV-01282-DKC (D. Md. Sept. 29, 2016)
    09/29/2016

    Court granted application to confirm the arbitration award, as defendants had failed to answer or otherwise respond to summonses.  Court found that the burden to prove the existence of one of the grounds for vacating the award is on the party challenging the award, and by failing to answer, defendants did not demonstrate any ground for vacatur.

  • Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C. v. Henceroth, No. 4:16-cv-00150-BYP (N.D. Ohio Sept. 29, 2016)
    09/29/2016

    Court granted motion for summary judgment and denied motion for leave to take discovery on the point of sale and title transfer.  Court held that, under both the FAA and Ohio law, the arbitration clauses in the parties’ leases were silent as to class arbitration, and thus class-wide arbitration was not authorized.

  • Benhenni v. Bayesian Efficient Strategic Trading LLC, No. 2:15-CV-08511-ES-JAD (D.N.J. Sept. 29, 2016)
    09/29/2016

    Court denied motion to vacate arbitration award. Court found plaintiff’s argument that the arbitrator’s contractual interpretation was irrational did not provide the court with a basis for vacating the award and that the arbitrator did not exceed his scope of power.

  • Daniel v. EBAY, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-01294-EGS (D.D.C. Sep. 29, 2016)
    09/29/2016

    Court granted defendants motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings. Court found that the arbitration agreement was broad and that any ambiguity as to arbitrability should be resolved in favor of arbitration under the FAA, and relevant precedent. Court also rejected plaintiff’s arguments that there was not a valid contract because eBay never sent him the contract, and that the arbitration agreement was induced by fraud.

  • Atencio v. TuneCore, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-01925-DMG-MRW (C.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2016)
    09/29/2016

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration with regard to claims arising out of certain agreements and denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration with regard to claims arising out of different agreements.  With respect to the agreements that contained valid arbitration clauses, court found no issues of unconscionability.

  • Green Tree Servicing, LLC et al. v. Clayton, No. 3:16-CV-00059-WHB-JCG (S.D. Miss. Sept. 28, 2016)
    09/28/2016

    Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss and granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that (i) the parties’ underlying contract involved “interstate commerce” as that term is applied to the FAA, (ii) a valid agreement to arbitrate existed because the non-signatory plaintiffs had a close legal relationship with a signatory and there was “substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct” between the signatory and non-signatory plaintiffs, and (iii) the arbitration agreement specifically authorized the arbitrator to resolve “disputes over the formation, existence, validity, interpretation or scope of the agreement under which Arbitration is sought.”

  • V5 Invs., LLC v. Gowaiter Business Holdings, LLC, No. 6:15-CV-2065-Orl-40KRS (M.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2016)
    09/28/2016

    Court confirmed arbitration award and denied plaintiff’s amended complaint for vacatur.  Court held that plaintiffs established no undue means which were not considered and resolved by the arbitrator.  Court also held that the arbitrator acted within his authority by interpreting the parties’ agreements to permit an award of expectation damages.

  • Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Keyes, No. 3:16-CV-00058-WHB-JCG (S.D. Miss. Sept. 28, 2016)
    09/28/2016

    Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that a valid arbitration agreement existed between the parties and that the arbitration agreement contained a delegation provision under which the parties agreed to arbitrate the question of arbitrability.

  • V5 Investments, LLC v. GoWaiter Business Holdings, LLC, No. 6:15-CV-02065-PGB-KRS (M.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2016)
    09/28/2016

    Court granted defendants’ cross motion to confirm the arbitration award, finding no grounds to vacate, modify, or correct the arbitration award.  Court rejected plaintiff’s contention that the award was procured by undue needs, as the issue had already been decided by the arbitrator and plaintiffs demonstrated no undue means which were not discovered prior to or during the arbitration.  Court also rejected plaintiff’s contention that the arbitrator exceeded his powers by awarding damages that exceeded the scope of damages granted by the contract, finding that the arbitrator’s interpretation of what damages were permitted were not expressly contradicted by the language of the contract.

  • Kotchen and Low LLP v. Precision Discovery, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00224-GK (D.D.C. Sept. 28, 2016)
    09/28/2016

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ amended motion to compel arbitration, finding that the language of the retainer agreement showed that it extended to the e-discovery services provided by defendant.  However, the scope of the agreement did not apply to claims arising out of unpaid hosting fees, as these were not sufficiently related to the court-ordered forensic services covered by the retainer agreement.

  • Dockery v. GGNSC Louisville Hillcreek, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00025-DJH (W.D. Ky. Sept. 27, 2016)
    09/27/2016

    Court granted motion to stay case pending the outcome of the parties’ parallel arbitration. Court found that allowing the case to proceed in tandem with the parallel FAA case would likely result in unnecessary duplication and waste of judicial resources, making a stay efficient and appropriate.

  • Larson v. Westwood Inc., No. 2:15-CV-01372-RFB-GWF (D. Nev. Sept. 27, 2016)
    09/27/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, denied motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment, and stayed case pending outcome of arbitration. Court found, that the parties agreed to binding arbitration, and that the scope of the agreement encompasses all of plaintiff’s claims.

  • Africard Co. Ltd. v. Republic of Niger, No. 1:16-CV-00196-ABJ (D.D.C. Sept. 27, 2016)
    09/27/2016

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award and motion for default judgment.  Court held that it had jurisdiction under the FAA and respondent did not enjoy sovereign immunity under the FSIA because “it is well settled that the New York Convention gives rise to jurisdiction under the treaty exception.”  Court also held that respondent was properly served under 28 USC § 1608(a) and that there were no grounds for denying the confirmation of the arbitral award under Art. V of the New York Convention.

  • Schnaudt v. Johncol, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-02619-JLG-EPD (S.D. Ohio Sept. 27, 2016)
    09/27/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration for an individual claim for retaliatory termination and provisionally granted the motion as to the remaining claims that were brought as a putative collective action.  While the court held that the arbitration agreement was enforceable as between the parties, because recent decisions in the seventh and ninth circuits have held that collective action waivers were unenforceable the court withheld an order compelling arbitration for the collective action pending further consideration and developments regarding the issue.

  • GGNSC Louisville Hillcreek, LLC v. Dockery, No. 3:15-CV-00908-DJH (W.D. Ky. Sept. 27, 2016)
    09/27/2016

    Court ordered an evidentiary hearing to determine if the arbitration agreement at issue was a forgery, granted motion to dismiss counterclaims, and denied motion for summary judgment based on the contention that the FAA is unconstitutional since it requires waiver of the right to a trial by jury.  Court held that the counterclaims fell outside the scope of inquiry into a FAA § 4 petition to compel arbitration, and that the right to a jury had not yet attached as the seventh amendment only confers “the right to have a jury hear the case once it is determined that litigation should proceed before a court.” 

  • Asphalt Trader Ltd. V. Taryn Capital Energy, L.L.C., No. 1:16-CV-00054-JNP-EJF (D. Utah Sept. 27, 2016)
    09/27/2016

    Court granted petition to confirm a foreign arbitration award and enter judgment under the New York Convention.  Court held that the petitioner met its burden of production by submitting a signed copy of the arbitration award and the initial charter-party, which contained the arbitration agreement.  Court also held that the award fell under its original jurisdiction since the case was rendered in a foreign nation that was party to the New York Convention and arose out of a commercial agreement.

  • Tribal Casino Gaming Enter. v. W.G. Yates & Sons Construction Co., No. 1:16-CV-00132-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C. Sept. 26, 2016)
    09/26/2016

    Court granted motions to compel arbitration and stay matter.  Court held that the question of whether the arbitration panel exceeded their powers by failing to extend the allegedly “unreasonably short time period” which they were to issue an award was not ripe for consideration since an award had not been issued by the tribunal. 

  • Michel v. Parts Auth., Inc., No. 1:15-CV-05730-ARR-MDG) (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2016)
    09/26/2016

    Court granted  motion to compel arbitration and dismiss action because, even if the FAA did not apply, New York state law would compel arbitration.  Court also held that the plaintiff made no attempt to demonstrate what prohibitive expense would result from compelling arbitration, and thus could not rely on unconscionability to invalidate the arbitration agreement.

  • Lemberg Law, LLC v. Hussin, No. 3:16-CV-01727-JM-WVG (S.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2016)
    09/26/2016

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings because plaintiff had litigated the case for over a year before moving to stay proceedings and compel arbitration.  Court found that by undertaking extensive federal litigation plaintiff waived any right to arbitration.

  • Duge v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., No. 6:16-CV-00114-RP (W.D. Tex. Sept. 26, 2016)
    09/26/2016

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration and dismiss action because the parties’ dispute over whether the plaintiff accepted the defendant’s arbitration agreement was a genuine issue of fact, for which the FAA provides a right to a trial by jury.

  • Dissolved Air Floatation Corp. v. Kothari, No. 1:14-CV-01223-WCG (E.D. Wis. Sept. 26, 2016)
    09/26/2016

    Court granted motion to dismiss on ripeness grounds.  Court rejected the argument that the case was unripe because the purchase agreement underlying the dispute contains a provision requiring disputes to be subject to binding arbitration, but that arbitration had not occurred.  Court held that an arbitration clause does not affect subject matter jurisdiction because parties may always waive a contractual right to arbitrate.

  • Dittmann v. ACS Human Services LLC, No. 2:16-CV-00016-PPS-PRC (N.D. Ind. Sept. 26, 2016)
    09/26/2016

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, rejecting plaintiff’s argument that the dispute resolution plan did not require him to arbitrate disputes where a third party is named.  Court found that the defendants were only seeking arbitration of the disputes against them, and not a third party, and any challenges regarding the interpretation, applicability, or enforceability of the dispute resolution plan or the arbitration agreement was to be decided by the arbitrator.

  • Ybarra et al. v. Texas Migrant Council, No. 5:15-CV-00136 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 23, 2016)
    09/23/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and adopted magistrate judge’s findings, which rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the defendant failed to identify which arbitration agreement it was attempting to enforce, and that the arbitration agreement was illusory and unenforceable.  The magistrate judge also found that the fifth circuit had interpreted the FAA to authorize dismissal of the case when all of the issues raised are submitted to arbitration.

  • Langere v. Verizon Wireless Servs., LLC, No. CV 15-00191 DDP (AJWx) (C.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2016)
    09/23/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration since the arbitration agreement at issue was sufficiently broad to cover plaintiff’s claims.  Court also found that the arbitration agreement was minimally procedurally unconscionable and not accompanied by any substantive unconscionability, and therefore is enforceable.

  • Estate of Johnson Clark v. William Horwich, No. 12-17577 (9th Cir. Sept. 23, 2016)
    09/23/2016

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s dismissal of a motion to compel arbitration since the FAA does not itself confer jurisdiction on federal district courts over actions to compel arbitration, nor create a federal cause of action giving rise to federal question jurisdiction under 28 USC § 1331.

  • Imbruce v. American Arbitration Association, No. 1:15-CV-07508-NRB (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2016)
    09/23/2016

    Court granted AAA’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint based on AAA Rule R-52(D) and the doctrine of arbitral immunity.  Court held that AAA’s failure to collect a counterclaim fee prior to the issuance of the arbitrator’s damages award on that counterclaim is “sufficiently associated with the adjudicative phase of the arbitration to justify immunity.”  Court rejected plaintiffs’ “thinly veiled attempt to evade arbitral immunity” under the functus officio doctrine by basing their case on the alleged post-award collection of a fee by the AAA rather than the AAA’s failure to collect such fees prior to the issuance of the award.  Court also dismissed plaintiffs’ claims for a judgment declaring the AAA’s fee collection void, holding that this was an impermissible attempt to challenge the arbitral award that can only be brought in an action to vacate.

  • Lift Equipment Certification Co., Inc. v. Lawrence Leasing Corp., No. 2:15-CV-01987-JAD-GWF (D. Nev. Sept. 23, 2016)
    09/23/2016

    Court denied motion to modify or partially vacate arbitration award and granted in part and denied in part defendant’s counter motion to confirm and award attorney fees.  Court held that plaintiff failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the arbitrator “manifestly disregarded the law” or that the award was “arbitrary and capricious.”  Court declined to award defendant its legal fees since plaintiff’s claims were “far from frivolous – particularly given the arbitration award’s vagueness.”

  • Montoya v. Comcast Corporation, No. 2:15-CV-02573-TLN-DB (E.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2016)
    09/23/2016

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, denied motion to dismiss as moot, and stayed action pending arbitration.  Court held that, even though plaintiffs were non-signatories to the arbitration agreement, plaintiffs were bound by it since they knowingly exploited defendant’s services and therefore accepted its contract terms, including the arbitration agreement.  The arbitration agreement was not procedurally unconscionable since it lacked a “surprise” element, nor was it substantively unconscionable under California law since it did not lead to “overly harsh” or “one-sided” results.  The dispute was also within the scope of arbitration provision.

  • Flynn v. FCA US, d/b/a Chrysler Group and Harmon International Industries, No. 3:15-CV-00855-MJR-DGW (S.D. Ill. Sept. 23, 2016)
    09/23/2016

    Court granted in part and denied in part motion to compel arbitration.  Court granted the motion in relation to certain claims covered under an arbitration agreement between Chrysler and two of the plaintiffs and stayed such claims pursuant to § 3 of the FAA until arbitration is complete.  Court held Chrysler did not waive its right to arbitrate by participating in the judicial process since, as soon as it discovered the arbitration agreement, it moved to compel arbitration.

  • McGroarty v. U.S. Rare Earths, No. 1:16-CV-02687-GHW (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2016)
    09/23/2016

    Court confirmed arbitration award under the FAA as defendant did not oppose the petition to confirm or otherwise appear in the action and there is no indication of a basis for vacating or modifying the award.  Court applied same standard as applicable to unopposed summary judgment motions.

  • D.A. Nolt Inc. v. Local Union No. 30 United Union of Roofers, No. 15-3697 (3d Cir. Sept. 23, 2016)
    09/23/2016

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of appellees on appellant’s challenge to an arbitration award in favor of appellees.  Court held that district court correctly determined that the arbitrator acted within the scope of his authority in construing the contract and that appellee had failed to show that the arbitration award manifestly disregarded the law or violated public policy.

  • D.A. Nolt, Inc. v. Local Union No. 30, No. 15-3697 (3rd Cir. Sept. 23, 2016)
    09/23/2016

    Court affirmed district court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion to vacate arbitration award.   The arbitrator acted within the scope of his authority in interpreting the agreement and the plaintiff’s argument that the arbitrator disregarded the law or violated public policy was rejected.

  • Gilman v. Walters, No. 3:12-CV-00114-SEB-MPB (S.D. Ind. Sept. 22, 2016)
    09/22/2016

    Court granted motion to recognize AAA arbitration award, denying a cross-motion to vacate that award.  The court rejected arguments that the arbitrator had exceeded his scope of authority, finding that the requested review would amount to revisiting the arbitrator’s arbitrability determinations that were squarely within his purview.

  • Zambrano v. Strategic Delivery Solutions, No. 1:15-CV-08410-ER (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2016)
    09/22/2016

    Court granted in part and denied in part motion to dismiss complaint and compel arbitration, and stayed action pending arbitration.  Court held that plaintiffs are bound to arbitrate their claims since they agreed to arbitration, their claims are within the scope of the arbitration agreement, there is no indication that their claims are nonarbitrable, and the arbitration agreement does not prevent plaintiffs from effectively vindicating their rights.  Even if the plaintiffs’ claims qualified as exempt from the FAA, court held they would be subject to mandatory arbitration under New York law.  Whether the class waiver provision is enforceable, is for the arbitrator to decide.

  • North Atlantic Distribution, Inc. v. International Longshoremen Association, No. 1:16-CV-00067-M-PAS (D.R.I. Sept. 22, 2016)
    09/22/2016

    Court affirmed arbitration award, holding that the parties agreed issues of arbitrability were for the arbitrator to decide, and the arbitrator’s decision that the issue in dispute was arbitrable could not be overturned.  In light of the deference given to arbitration decisions, the court refused to review the merits of the underlying dispute.

  • United States Soccer Federation v. United States National Soccer Team Players Association, No. 15-3402 (7th Cir. Sept. 22, 2016)
    09/22/2016

    Circuit court reversed district court’s judgment confirming arbitration award and remanded case with instructions to vacate award and enter judgment in favor of plaintiff.  Reviewing the arbitration award de novo, circuit court held that arbitrator exceeded his authority by interpreting the parties’ agreement beyond its clear and unambiguous terms, erroneously assuming the terms were silent on the issue in dispute. 

  • Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. SNV Hospitality, No. 8:15-CV-02385-GJH (D. Md. Sept. 22, 2016)
    09/22/2016

    Court granted request for judgment by default based on arbitration award.  Court held that plaintiff is entitled to confirmation of its award under the FAA, finding no reason in the record to question the validity of the parties’ agreement or the conduct of the arbitrator.  Further, court found that the parties agreed an award may be entered against a party which fails to appear if it is properly notified of the proceedings, and that judgment on the award may be entered in any court having jurisdiction.

  • Doss v Nordstrom Inc., No. 3:15-CV-904 (M.D. Tenn. Sept. 22, 2016)
    09/22/2016

    Court accepted magistrate judge’s report and recommendation that defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted and that the parties be ordered to arbitrate their dispute. Court held that the arbitration agreement has not been rendered unenforceable due to allegations of breach of contract, which was a matter for the arbitrator to determine, and that the agreement was not an unconscionable contract of adhesion.

  • Coopertiva Agraria Industria Naranjillo Ltd. v. Transmar Commodity Group. Ltd., No. 1:16-CV-03356-LLS (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2016)
    09/22/2016

    Court granted petition to vacate arbitration award.  Parties entered into six agreements that referenced a standard contract containing an arbitration agreement, which was not furnished or brought to the attention of the petitioner before or at the execution of the six agreements.  Court held that incorporation of the arbitration clauses was never effectively accomplished because petitioner did not know about an implied agreement to arbitrate, nor was it on notice to search for the terms of an arbitration agreement or warned that an arbitration agreement existed.

  • Service Employees International Union National Industry Pension Fund v. Scientific & Commercial Systems Corp., No. 1:13-CV-01705-JEB (D.D.C. Sept. 22, 2016)
    09/22/2016

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, holding that defendant forfeited its right to arbitrate by not requesting arbitration and did not make any overtures to plaintiff to jointly agree to arbitrate.

  • Lee v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 1:15-CV-11756 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 21, 2016)
    09/21/2016

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismiss action.  Court held that questions of enforceability of the parties’ agreement, the collective arbitration prohibition, and unconscionability, should be decided by the arbitrator.  Court also held that the proper procedure was to stay the proceedings rather than dismiss them outright.

  • Lee v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-11756 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 21, 2016)
    09/21/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed case pending outcome of arbitration. Court held that delegation clause in arbitration agreement was clear and unmistakable in delegating the question of arbitrability to an arbitrator and was not unconscionable.

  • Federal National Mortgage Association, a/k/a Fannie Mae v. Teri Prowant and Tamara Mitchell-Johnson, No. 1:14-CV-03799-AT (N.D. Ga. Sept. 21, 2016)
    09/21/2016

    Court granted motion for summary judgment, holding that by filing the court case and “substantially invoking the litigation machinery,” plaintiff waived its right to arbitration and materially breached the parties’ dispute resolution policy.  Court further granted defendants’ request to rescind the dispute resolution policy based on plaintiff’s material breach and denied as moot defendant’s motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration and injunction based on the now extinguished dispute resolution policy. 

  • Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Harikrishna, No. 8:15-CV-03528-GJH (D. Md. Sept. 19, 2016)
    09/19/2016

    Court granted request for judgment by default based on arbitration award.  Court held that plaintiff is entitled to confirmation of its award under the FAA since the parties agreed that judgment shall be entered upon any award made under their agreement and there is no ground for vacating, modifying, or correcting the award under §§ 10 or 11 of the FAA.  Moreover, per the parties’ agreement, an award may be entered against a party, which fails to appear, if it is properly notified of the proceedings.

  • Melody Bynum v. Maplebear dba Instacart, No. 1:15-CV-06263-JBW-CLP (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2016)
    09/19/2016

    Court denied motion for certification for appeal under 28 USC § 1292(b) of court order compelling arbitration and staying litigation.  Court held that the question whether claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act are arbitrable is not “a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion.” 

  • Sturtevant v. Xerox Commercial Solutions, No. 2:16-CV-01158-RSM (W.D. Wash. Sept. 19, 2016)
    09/19/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss claims since, by electronically signing various company policies including defendant’s dispute resolution plan, plaintiff agreed to resolving disputes by arbitration.

  • Air-Con, Inc. v. Daikin Applied Latin America LLC, No. 15-2683 (GAG) (D.P.R., Sep. 19, 2016)
    09/19/2016

    Court granted motion to remand case to state court.  Court denied request to exercise federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 9 USC § 205, holding that from the notice of removal it is not clear that there is a written arbitration agreement as required by the New York Convention..

  • Genz-Ryan Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Sheet Metal Workers’ Local 10 Pension Fund, No. 0:16-CV-00280-DWF (D. Minn. Sept. 19, 2016)
    09/19/2016

    Court denied employer’s motion to dismiss a request for judicial review of an arbitration award.  Court held that arbitration proceeding was complete for purposes of review of the decision and construed the “Petition to Vacate” as a complaint sufficient to begin a civil action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3 and the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act.

  • Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Krieg, No. 2:15-CV-014846  (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2016)
    09/16/2016

    Court granted motion for default judgment and confirmed arbitration award.  Court held that, in the absence of any opposition by plaintiff (as plaintiff had failed to respond to defendant’s petition to confirm the award and also failed to appear at the hearing scheduled for arguments on defendant’s motion for default judgment), affirmation of the arbitration award was appropriate.

  • Salameno v. Gogo Inc., 1:16-CV-00487-JBW-ST (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2016)
    09/15/2016

    Court denied motion for reconsideration of court’s prior order compelling arbitration.  Court held that, as the motion for reconsideration neither presented new evidence nor provided any equitable reason that would cause the court to alter its initial conclusion, the motion for reconsideration must be denied.

  • Strong v. Geringer, No. 2:15-CV-00837-TC (D. Utah Sept. 15, 2016)
    09/15/2016

    Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion to stay the present action and compel arbitration.  Court held that, plaintiff, as liquidation trustee, stands in the shoes of a debtor, and is therefore bound by the parties’ arbitration agreement and plaintiff did not waive the right to pursue arbitration.  Plaintiff is therefore entitled to pursue arbitration against those parties who agreed to arbitrate.

  • Joshua Silfee v. Automated Data Processing and ERG Staffing Service, No. 3:15-CV-00023 (M.D. Pa., Sept. 15, 2016)
    09/15/2016

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation since the complaint and its supporting documents are unclear regarding the agreement to arbitrate and the validity of the arbitration agreement is in dispute.  Court held that it will entertain a renewed motion to compel arbitration once “at the very least ‘discovery on the question of arbitrability’” has taken place.

  • Ray Strong v. Robert D. Geringer, No. 2:15-CV-00837-TC (D. Utah, Sept. 15, 2016)
    09/15/2016

    Court granted in part and denied in part motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration.  Court held that arbitration agreement in question applies to all disputes arising out of the parties’ contract, but it could not apply to creditors and investors who had not signed the arbitration agreement.  Court further held that plaintiff has not waived his right to arbitrate by initially opposing arbitration and then changing course.

  • Patterson v. Raymours Furniture Co., Inc., No. 15-2820-CV (2d Cir. Sept. 14, 2016)
    09/14/2016

    Circuit Court affirmed district court’s grant of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that defendant’s prohibition of class or collective adjudication of work-related claims does not illegally restrict its employees’ substantive rights under the National Labor Relations Act and the Norris-La Guardia Act, and is therefore enforceable  under the FAA.

  • Miller & Son Paving, Inc. v. Teamsters Pension Trust Fund of Phila. and Vicinity, No. 2:15-CV-04869-GAM (E.D. Pa. Sept. 14, 2016)
    09/14/2016

    Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, except for attorneys’ fees, thereby affirming the arbitrator’s opinion and award.  Court held that plaintiff’s withdrawal liability under ERISA was calculated by the arbitrator under a reasonable interpretation of the pension benefit plan and was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

  • Silipigno v. Raymond James Fin. Servs., No. 1:16-CV-00170-MAD (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2016)
    09/14/2016

    Court denied motion to confirm arbitration award.  Court held that, as no proof of notice had been submitted on plaintiff’s motion, which is a requirement under the FAA to retain jurisdiction, the Court had not obtained jurisdiction over defendant.

  • Fletcher v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00302-WHR (S.D. Ohio. Sept. 14, 2016)
    09/14/2016

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration. Court held that defendant did not consent to arbitrate disputes with plaintiffs, who were retirees and no longer employees, and therefore the current dispute did not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement.  Court also rejected argument that the plaintiffs were entitled to rely on the arbitration agreement as third party beneficiaries.

  • Brittania-U Nigeria Ltd. v. Chevron U.S.A Inc.., No. 4:16-CV-01457 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 14, 2016)
    09/14/2016

    Court denied motion to amend the court’s prior dismissal-without-prejudice order to one staying the case pending arbitration.  Court held that a stay is not required because the weight of authority supports dismissal of the case when all of the issues raised in the district court must be submitted to arbitration, which the court determined was the case.

  • Washington Frontier League Baseball LLC v. Zimmerman, No. 1:14-CV-01862-TWP-DML (S.D. Ind. Sept. 14, 2016)
    09/14/2016

    Court denied motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) (dismissal for improper venue).  Court held that the claims asserted against these defendants are subject to the parties’ dispute resolution clause, not the mandatory binding arbitration clause, and therefore may be asserted in court.

  • Dean v. Ad Astra Recovery Services, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-03817-RGK-JEM (C.D. Cal. Sep. 14, 2016)
    09/14/2016

    Court granted an unopposed motion by one of the defendants to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings with respect to that defendant, finding that a valid arbitration agreement covered the scope of the parties’ dispute. Court declined to stay proceedings with respect to the remaining defendants in the exercise of its discretion.

  • Golden Gate Nat’l Senior Care, LLC v. Fleshman, No. 3:15-CV-00891-GNS (W.D. Ky. Sept. 13, 2016)
    09/13/2016

    District court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay court action.  Court held that defendant neither lacked  the capacity to execute the arbitration agreement nor were the terms of the agreement procedurally or substantively unconscionable.

  • Favors v. Triangle Servs., Inc., No. 15-CV-03817-PKC-LB (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 13, 2016)
    09/13/2016

    District court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed the court action pending plaintiff’s participation in the alternative grievance procedure under the parties’ collective bargaining agreement.  Court held that, pursuant to the parties’ agreement, all individual employee claims of discrimination must be arbitrated.

  • Marshall v. Wells Fargo Advisors LLC, No. 16-10497 (11th Cir. Sept. 13, 2016)
    09/13/2016

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s granting of defendant’s motion to strike certain parties from the complaint because they were not represented by an attorney and its motion to dismiss as to another plaintiff because he lacked standing to sue, as he was not party to the arbitration and therefore is not a party to the award.

  • Mascio v. Mullica Twp. Sch. Dist., 1:16-CV-00206-RBK-JS (D. N.J. Sept. 13, 2016)
    09/13/2016

    District court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that defendants violated her rights to procedural due process under the U.S. Constitution, as plaintiff received notice and a hearing before an independent arbitrator.

  • Hermés of Paris Inc. v. Matthew Swain, No. 1:16-CV-06255-CM (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 13, 2016)
    09/13/2016

    Court granted petition to compel arbitration, since – absent any evidence to the contrary – the parties’ arbitration agreement was valid.  Court held it had personal jurisdiction over respondent since a party who agrees to arbitrate in a particular jurisdiction consents to both personal jurisdiction and venue of the courts within that jurisdiction.

  • Johnson v. Sally Beauty Supply, LLC, 2:16-CV-02531-JLL-JAD (D. N.J. Sept. 12, 2016)
    09/12/2016

    District court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the issue raised by plaintiff – whether the arbitration agreement is unconscionable – falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement’s delegation clause, or agreement to arbitrate arbitrability issues, and therefore should be addressed by the arbitrator.

  • Croom v. Elkhart Products Corp., 3:15-CV-00288-RLM-MGG (N.D. Ind. Sept. 12, 2016)
    09/12/2016

    District court granted motion to dismiss defendant’s counterclaim, which sought a declaration that plaintiff’s claims were subject to binding arbitration under the company’s collective bargaining agreement.  Court held that the provisions of that agreement do not explicitly or clearly and unmistakably mandate that federal employment-related discrimination claims must be resolved in arbitration and therefore do not preclude plaintiff from filing statutory claims of discrimination in court.

  • Danielle Chatman v. Jimmy Gray Chevrolet and John Does 1-10 Defendants, No. 3:16-CV-00008-GHD-SAA (N.D. Miss., Sept. 12, 2016)
    09/12/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed case pending arbitration., Court held that parties entered into a valid arbitration agreement that delegated gateway rulings on threshold arbitrability issues to the arbitrator under 9 USC § 3, including whether plaintiff may have waived its right to arbitrate.  Court further enjoined the parties from attempting to judicially prosecute any claims against each other until such time as the arbitrability issue was decided.

  • Golden Gate Nat’l Senior Care, LLC v. Jones, No. 0:16-CV-00049-HRW (E.D. Ky. Sept. 12, 2016)
    09/12/2016

    District Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration and enjoin defendant from pursing claims in any alternative forum.  Court held that the arbitration agreement involved interstate commerce as the nursing home accepted Medicare, that there was nothing suggesting it was one-sided, oppressive, unfairly surprising or the result of unfair bargaining, and that it was not void as against public policy, as wrongful death and loss of consortium claims are arbitrable.

  • Board of Trustees of the Ohio Carpenters’ Pension Fund v. Ramunno Builders, Inc., No. 4:15-CV-00424-BYP (N.D. Ohio Sept. 12, 2016)
    09/12/2016

    District Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.  Court held that, as defendants failed to timely request arbitration, as required by the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980, they waived any defenses to the withdrawal liability assessment under ERISA or any right to assert a counterclaim concerning the assessment process.

  • Leviege v. Vodafone US Inc., No 1:16-CV-00374-LMB-IDD (E.D. Va. Sept. 11, 2016)
    09/11/2016

    Court denied motion for reconsideration of order dismissing action for lack of jurisdiction because plaintiff had signed a binding arbitration agreement with defendant.  Court found that the minor wording adjustments to a policy supplied after the arbitration agreement was signed did not “muddy the crystal clear language” of the arbitration agreement between the parties.  

  • Snyder v. Cach, LLC, No. 16-00097-ACK-KJM (D. Haw. Sept. 9, 2016)
    09/09/2016

    Court granted in part and denied in part motion to stay discovery pending another motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that defendant will incur only minimal time and expense responding to the five discovery requests plaintiff maintains are necessary to oppose the motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that, beyond these five requests, the remaining discovery did not have any arguable impact on the motion to compel arbitration, and that the parties should not be required to endure the expense of that discovery at this time.

  • Patrick v. Rai Serv. Co., No. 3:16-CV-00852-HGD (N.D. Ala. Sept. 9, 2016)
    09/09/2016

    District Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and denied plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, instead staying the case pending resolution of the arbitration.  Court held that there was an implied or constructive contract between plaintiff and defendant to submit employment-related matters to arbitration, that plaintiff had received a copy of the arbitration agreement and was aware of its contents, and that the arbitration agreement covered plaintiff’s claims in this action related to his employment.

  • Dunn v. Dunn, No. 2:14-CV-601-MHT (M.D. Ala. Sept. 9, 2016)
    09/09/2016

    Court granted final approval of the parties’ joint settlement agreement, which contained an arbitration provision, and their request to enter a consent decree.  Court determined that the stipulations negotiated and entered into by the parties were sufficient to alleviate its concerns that any arbitration of disputes arising during the pendency of the consent decree would be binding, mandatory and enforceable.

  • Patrick v. Rai Serv. Co., No. 3:16-CV-00852-HGD (N.D. Ala. Sept. 9, 2016)
    09/09/2016

    Court granted motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that it was possible to imply the existence of an arbitration agreement in the circumstances under the doctrine of quasi-contract, and thus the court did not need to rule on the credibility of plaintiff’s testimony that the electronic signature on the contract was not his.

  • Yox v. Providence Health Plan, Nos. 14-35127, 14-35144 (9th Cir. Sept. 9, 2016)
    09/09/2016

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff, rejecting  defendant’s argument that plaintiff had waived right to sue by agreeing to arbitration.  Court found that the parties’ agreement to have medical insurance claim denials reviewed by an Independent Review Organization did not constitute an agreement to arbitrate but was rather more similar to the practice of obtaining another medical opinion

  • Cortés-Ramos v. Sony Corp. of Am., No. 15-1786 (1st Cir. Sept. 9, 2016)
    09/09/2016

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s grant of petition compelling arbitration, finding that appellant’s appeal concerned issues relating to the merits of its claims and did not impact the district court’s decision that such matters should be decided in arbitration.

  • Boyd v. Springleaf Fin. Serv., Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00814 (D.N.M. Sep. 9, 2016)
    09/09/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, reasoning that the parties were bound by the arbitration provision of their employment contract.  Court noted the pro-arbitration policy enacted via the FAA and rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration agreement was unsupported by consideration, was illusory, was otherwise invalid because she did not know all its terms at the time of signature, or because the parties failed to have a meeting of the minds based on a combination of the three.

  • Smalls v. Five Star Premier Residence of Yonkers, No. 1:13-CV-07757-LGS (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2016)
    09/08/2016

    Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award and denied cross-motion to vacate, finding that plaintiff had not established any grounds for vacatur under § 10 of the FAA.

  • Grynberg v. BP P.L.C., No. 1:08-CV-00301-JDB (D.D.C. Sept. 8, 2016)
    09/08/2016

    Court denied motion to vacate court’s prior dismissal of RICO claims in favor of arbitration under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 60, finding that plaintiff failed to establish that the arbitrator was biased against him at the time it ruled on those claims.

  • Ga.-Pac. Gypsum, LLC v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 117, No. 3:16-CV-05255-BHS (W.D. Wash. Sept. 8, 2016)
    09/08/2016

    Court affirmed arbitral award, finding that arbitrator’s decisions on admissibility of certain evidence and interpretation of governing agreement were not subject to judicial review.

  • Ryan v. Delbert Servs. Corp., No. 5:15-CV-05044-JFL (E.D. Pa. Sept. 8, 2016)
    09/08/2016

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration clause’s choice of tribal law impermissibly renounced the application of federal law to federal law claims and was effectively a “choice of no law clause”; and delegation clause entrusting determination of validity of arbitration clause to the arbitrator was unenforceable since it would impermissibly insulate an unenforceable arbitration clause from attack.

  • Norwin School Bus Drivers Ass’n v. First Student, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00666-RCM (W.D. Pa. Sept. 8, 2016)
    09/08/2016

    Court denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment as to the enforcement of an arbitral award and remanded the matter to the arbitrator for resolution of an ambiguity as to whether federal regulations that appear to impose prerequisites to reinstatement of employment are implicit in the award. 

  • Sbrmcoa, LLC v. Bayside Resort, Inc., No. 3:06-CV-00042-CVG-RM (D.V.I. Sept. 8, 2016)
    09/08/2016

    On writ of mandamus issued by the circuit court, district court reaffirmed previous grant of motion to compel arbitration, finding that presence of ultra vires clause in the contract did not render the arbitration clause ultra vires.

  • Chassen v. Fid. Nat’l Fin., Inc., No. 15-3789 (3d Cir. Sept. 8, 2016)
    09/08/2016

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s grant of motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendant’s delay in moving to compel bilateral arbitration did not effect a waiver since, under controlling law at the time (since overruled), the arbitration clause’s limits on class arbitration would have been considered unconscionable and thus motion would have been futile.

  • Wiregrass Metal Trades Council AFL-CIO v. Shaw Envtl. & Infrastructure, Inc., No. 15-11662 (11th Cir. Sept. 8, 2016)
    09/08/2016

    Circuit court overruled district court’s set-aside of arbitration award, holding that where it is not apparent from an arbitrator’s stated reasoning whether she permissibly interpreted a contract or impermissibly modified it, a court should presume that the award is an interpretation of the contract and enforce it. 

  • SBRMCOA, LLC v. Bayside Resort, Inc., No. 3:06-CV-00042-CVG-RM (D.V.I. Sept. 8, 2016)
    09/08/2016

    On a writ of mandamus issued by the third circuit, the district court found that none of the provisions of the parties’ water supply agreement that plaintiff contended were beyond the authority of the Board of Directors rendered that agreement as a whole, including its arbitration clause, ultra vires, and therefore nothing prevents an arbitrator from addressing the parties’ dispute.

  • Tr. of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labor-Mgmt., Corp., Pension, and Welfare Funds v. All Cnty. Paving Corp., No. 2:15-CV-05688-ADS-ARL (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2016)
    09/08/2016

    Court granted petition to confirm and enforce arbitration award on report and recommendation of magistrate judge dated July 27.  Court accepted magistrate’s holding that, as the respondent had been properly served with notice of the arbitration (although not having participated therein), the arbitration award provided for more than “a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached.”.

  • Chassen v. Fidelity Nat’l Fin., Inc., No. 15-3789 (3d Cir. Sept. 8, 2016)
    09/08/2016

    Circuit court remanded case to district court with instructions to compel individual arbitration of plaintiffs’ arbitrable claims.  Court held that futility can excuse the delayed invocation of the right to compel arbitration and, because any attempt to compel individual arbitration in plaintiffs’ case prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion would have been futile, remand to compel arbitration was therefore in order.

  • Wiregrass Metal Trades Council AFL–CIO v. Shaw Envtl. & Infrastructure, Inc., No. 15-11662 (11th Cir. Sept. 8, 2016)
    09/08/2016

    Circuit court reversed and remanded district court’s decision to set aside arbitral award.  Court, in supporting the broad federal policy supporting enforcement of arbitration awards, held that when it is not apparent from the arbitrator’s stated reasoning (or lack thereof) whether he or she permissibly interpreted a collective bargaining agreement or impermissibly modified it, and one can plausibly read the award either way, the court must resolve the ambiguity by finding that the award is an interpretation of the contract and enforce it.

  • Gillick v. Brown, No. 4:16-CV-00122-RLW (E.D. Mo. Sept. 8, 2016)
    09/08/2016

    Court granted motion for judgment on the pleadings in action seeking court appointing of an impartial umpire, finding that the applicable agreement provided for court appointment in the event the parties could not agree on an impartial umpire.

  • Royal Alliance Assocs., Inc. v. Mooney, No. 2:16-CV-02379-PA-AFM (C.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2016)
    09/07/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed plaintiff’s claims.  Court held that defendants could invoke FINRA’s arbitration rules, which require arbitration where requested by a customer, and that defendants, as a FINRA account holders, were customers of plaintiff.

  • Trs. of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labor-Mgmt. Cooperation, Pension and Welfare Funds v. All Cty. Paving Corp., No. 2:15-CV-05688-ADS-ARL (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2016)
    09/07/2016

    Court granted motion for default judgment on plaintiff’s unopposed petition to confirm and enforce an arbitration award, adopting magistrate judge’s report and recommendations.

  • Patterson v. Raymours Furniture Co., No. 15-2820-CV (2d Cir. Sept. 7, 2016)
    09/07/2016

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s grant of motion to compel arbitration.  While circuit panel “might well be persuaded” that class action waiver in an agreement to arbitrate employment and compensation-related claims is unenforceable in light of collective action protections under federal and state labor law, Second Circuit precedent – not yet overruled by en banc panel or Supreme Court review – compelled rejecting a challenge on this basis.

  • Golden Living Ctr.-Vanceburg v. Reeder, No. 0:16-CV-00009-HRW (E.D. Ky. Sept. 7, 2016)
    09/07/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and enjoin parallel state court proceedings and denied motion to dismiss.  Rejecting the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to join a party, court found that non-diverse individual defendants to a state action are not indispensable parties in a parallel federal court action to compel arbitration.  In rejecting challenge to arbitration agreement, court held that state precedent creating exacting requirements for power of attorney documents purporting to grant an agent authority to enter into an arbitration agreement on behalf of a principle is pre-empted by the FAA and in any event not controlling in cases of guardianship.  In rejecting request to abstain from exercising jurisdiction, court found that applicability of FAA weighs against surrender of federal jurisdiction.  Finally, court held that, although FAA does not authorize federal courts to stay state court proceedings pending arbitration, an injunction to this effect may be issued under an exception to the Anti-Injunction Act.

  • Diversicare Leasing Corp. v. Helmick, No. 0:16-CV-00048-HRW (E.D. Ky. Sept. 7, 2016)
    09/07/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and enjoin parallel state court proceedings and dismissed with prejudice.  In rejecting challenge to arbitration agreement, court held that state precedent creating exacting requirements for power of attorney documents purporting to grant an agent authority to enter into an arbitration agreement on behalf of a principle is pre-empted by the FAA and in any event not applicable where the power of attorney expressly gives authority to execute consents, waivers, and releases of liability.  Court also held that, although FAA does not authorize federal courts to stay state court proceedings pending arbitration, an injunction to this effect may be issued under an exception to the Anti-Injunction Act.

  • Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Ledbetter, No. 1:16-CV-00070-DAS (N.D. Miss. Sept. 7, 2016)
    09/07/2016

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendant’ voluntarily withdrawal of her state court claims did not render motion moot, since they could be reasserted; and defendant was entitled to evidentiary hearing on her contention that her purported signature was inauthentic.

  • Slatten v. Jim Glover Chevrolet Lawton, LLC, No. 5:15-CV-01180-D (W.D. Okla. Sept. 7, 2016)
    09/07/2016

    Court denied motion to reconsider prior denial of motion to compel arbitration. Court held that defendant’s argument that the arbitration agreement’s fee-splitting provision was contrary to the AAA arbitration rules and unenforceable – and that the agreement may thus be enforced without that provision – should have been raised in prior briefing.

  • Ekryss v. Ignite Restaurant Grp., Inc., 6:15-CV-06742-CJS (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2016)
    09/07/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint, finding that the arbitration provision contained in employment guidelines was not illusory since, although employment guidelines could be changed by employer at will, arbitration provision was distinct from the remainder of the guidelines.

  • Noye v. Johnson, No. 1:15-CV-02382-YK (M.D. Pa. Sept. 7, 2016)
    09/07/2016

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, both as to signatory to arbitration agreement and non-signatory co-defendant. Court held that plaintiff had produced sufficient evidence indicating that he did not intend to be bound the arbitration agreement to warrant discovery on the question of arbitrability and further briefing under a summary judgment standard, and that non-signatory co-defendant consequently could not rely on arbitration agreement derivatively.

  • R&G Student Hous., LLC v. Phoenix Sustainable Grp., LLC, No. 6:16-CV-01363-GAP-DAB (M.D. Fla. Sept. 7, 2016)
    09/07/2016

    Court denied emergency motion to enforce the parties’ negotiated arbitration provision, finding that, where parties disagree over proper forum for arbitration, cost of responding to arbitration demand in contested forum is not an irreparable injury warranting a preliminary injunction enjoining the contested proceedings.

  • John of Arc, Inc. v. The Johnny Rockets Group, Inc., No. 8:16-CV-01325-CJC-DFM (C.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2016)
    09/07/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration with respect to one defendant and stayed proceedings with respect to all defendants.  Court held that the claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and that all of the claims were so closely related that efficiency supported a stay of proceedings against all defendants.

  • Cunico v. Custom Alloy Corp., No. 14-56544 (9th Cir. Sept. 6, 2016)
    09/06/2016

    Circuit court reversed district court’s order granting motion to compel arbitration and remanded for further proceedings since district court had not made necessary factual findings as to the parties’ communications, decided the law applicable to contract formation, or stated as a matter of law what constituted the offer, acceptance, or terms of the contract.

  • Sangkharat v. Dr. Reynolds & Assoc., P.C., No. 2:16-CV-10514-DPH-DRG (E.D. Mich. Sept. 6, 2016)
    09/06/2016

    Court granted motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that, where an employment agreement contains a provision requiring compliance with non-discrimination statutes, claims arising under those statutes fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • Harrod v. Signet Jewelers Ltd., No. 6:15-CV-06111-SOH (W.D. Ark. Sept. 6, 2016)
    09/06/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings, adopting magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.  Magistrate judge had found that plaintiff’s challenges to the validity of the arbitration agreement were factually unsupported in light of “recently acquired documentation” submitted by defendant with its reply brief.

  • Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local Union 272, AFL-CIO v. FirstEnergy Generation Corp., 2:16-CV-00360-TFM (W.D. Pa. Sept. 2, 2016)
    09/02/2016

    Court denied motion to vacate arbitration award, finding that arbitrator’s award represented a “serious and fair-minded attempt” to interpret and apply the language of the collective bargaining agreement at issue.

  • GGNSC Stanford, LLC v. Johnson, No. 5:16-CV-00012-KKC (E.D. Ky. Sept. 2, 2016)
    09/02/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration agreement (1) was subject to the FAA since it related to the provision of long-term healthcare and therefore involved interstate commerce; (2) was not procedurally unconscionable since it was contained in a separate document titled in bold and written in capital letters; and (3) it had not been shown to be substantively unconscionable since defendant failed to substantiate its claims that arbitration would be prohibitively expensive and unacceptably truncate discovery.

  • HCR Manorcare, Inc. v. Youngblood, No. 3:16-CV-00032-GMG (N.D. W.Va. Sept. 2, 2016)
    09/02/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration since in wrongful death action arbitration agreement signed with the decedent is enforceable against administrator representing decedent’s estate.

  • Delgado v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC., 1:13-CV-04427-NGG-ST (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2016)
    09/02/2016

    Court denied motion compel arbitration and stay action.  While challenges to a contract as a whole, rather than the arbitration clause specifically, are generally for the arbitrator to decide, challenges to the existence of the contract in the first place (including fraud-in-the-factum allegations) are generally for the court.  Court held that plaintiffs sufficiently substantiated their allegations of fraud-in-the-factum and are entitled to proceed to trial on this point.

  • AlixPartners v. Charles Brewington, No. 16-1027 (6th Cir. Sept. 2, 2016)
    09/02/2016

    Court affirmed district court’s summary judgment order that arbitration clause in plaintiff’s employment agreement did not authorize plaintiff to pursue class-wide arbitration.  The gateway issue, whether the parties’ arbitration agreement permits class-wide arbitration, is reserved for judicial determination since the parties did not “clearly and unmistakably” agree otherwise.

  • Rite Aid of NY, Inc. v. 1999Seiu United Healthcare Workers E., No. 16-cv-1821 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2016)
    09/01/2016

    Court denied petition to vacate labor arbitration award since the challenge was premised entirely on the notion that the arbitrator had erroneously interpreted the agreement at issue. Court held that, even in circumstances where the arbitrator has committed serious error, if the arbitrator is arguably construing or applying the contract within the scope of his authority the decision should be upheld.

  • NCR Corporation v. Goh, No. 2:16-CV-00127-MJP (W.D. Wash. Sept. 1, 2016)
    09/01/2016

    Court granted motion for summary judgment that arbitrator was authorized to decide the dispute.  Court held that the plaintiff had waived its right to challenge the arbitrator’s authority to resolve the dispute and it would be unreasonable to allow the plaintiff to reverse course after voluntarily participating.

  • Altela Inc. v. Arizona Science and Technology Enterprises LLC, No. 2:16-CV-01762-DGC (D. Ariz. Aug. 31, 2016)
    08/31/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismiss action but denied motion to compel negotiation or mediation.  Court held that under the FAA a party’s post-ratification breach of a contract cannot negate a valid arbitration agreement unless the breach pertains to the arbitration provisions itself, and therefore the defendant’s breach of contract does not preclude it from enforcing the arbitration agreement. Court further held that the defendant waived the right to mediate and that the alter ego of the signatory-defendant can enforce the terms of an arbitration agreement to the same extent that the signatory can.

  • Samann v. General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc., No. 15-2277 (6th Cir. Aug. 31, 2016)
    08/31/2016

    Circuit court affirms district court’s order denying a motion to vacate an arbitration award under § 10 of the FAA.  In rejecting the appellant’s arguments in favor of vacating the award, court held that (a) under the terms of the arbitration agreement the arbitrator was not required to rule on a motion for summary disposition within 30 days of the hearing; (b) the arbitrator’s actions were not a sufficient basis for vacatur under the FAA; and (c) the FAA does not allow for vacatur based on the fulfillment of moral and ethical obligations.

  • Amat v. Rey Pizza Corp., No. 1:15-CV-24687-JEM (S.D. Fla. Aug. 31, 2016)
    08/31/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case, finding that the arbitration agreement is neither substantively or procedurally unconscionable and that contested contractual limitation on recovery would be severable if arbitrator finds it to be unlawful.

  • Fitzgerald v. The Bondfactor Co., LLC, No. 1:15-CV-06796-CM (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2016)
    08/31/2016

    Court granted plaintiff’s petition to confirm arbitral award but denied plea for pre-judgment interest at New York’s statutory rate of 9% per annum on the award.  Court held that neither party objected to confirmation of the award nor argued a basis for vacating or modifying it, so the award must be confirmed.  Court rejected plaintiff’s claim for pre-judgment interest because in an action for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, pre-judgment interest may not be awarded in addition to liquidated damages, which is what plaintiff received.

  • Samaan v. General Dynamics Land Sys., Inc., No. 15-2277 (6th Cir. Aug. 31, 2016)
    08/31/2016

    Court affirmed district court’s denial of the motion to vacate the arbitration award pursuant to the FAA. Court held that the arbitrator was not required to rule on the motion for summary disposition within thirty days of motion hearing, concluded that the arbitrator’s alleged actions during the arbitration proceedings were insufficient for vacatur, and found that the FAA does not allow vacatur on the basis of fulfillment of moral or ethical obligations.                

  • Hose v. Washington Inventory Servs., Inc., 3:14- CV-02869-WQH-AGS (S.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2016)
    08/30/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Finding that the electronic signatures were an act attributable to the plaintiffs, court concluded the arbitration agreement was valid.  Inventory associate workers were not exempt from the FAA as transportation employees engaged in interstate commerce.

  • Meditech Inc. v. 360Training.com, Inc., No. 1:14-CV-00023-TC (D. Utah Aug. 30)
    08/30/2016

    Following the court’s September 2014 order compelling arbitration, the defendant refused to pay the deposit on the arbitrator’s fees and the arbitrator cancelled the arbitration.  Court now orders the defendant to pay the arbitrator’s deposit and the plaintiff’s reasonable attorney’s fees to enforce the court order and the arbitration agreement; and re-imposes the stay pending completion of the arbitration.

  • Moss v. First Premier Bank, No. 15-2513-CV (2d Cir. Aug. 29, 2016)
    08/29/2016

    Circuit court affirms district court’s decision that it could not appoint a substitute arbitrator since the parties’ arbitration agreement contemplated arbitration only before the National Arbitration Forum which was no longer accepting consumer arbitrations.  Court held that, where the designated arbitration forum is unavailable and no other option has been agreed by the parties, it must decline under §5 of the FAA to appoint substitute arbitrators or compel arbitration in another forum. Court did however recognize that there is a circuit split on this issue.

  • Parm v. National Bank of California, N.A., No. 15-12509 (11th Cir. Aug. 29, 2016)
    08/29/2016

    Circuit court affirms district court’s decision not to compel arbitration since the arbitration agreement was unconscionable and required the parties to arbitrate in an unavailable forum.  Court held that the arbitration agreement’s forum selection clause mandates the use of an illusory and unavailable arbitral forum, and because this term was integral to the parties’ agreement to arbitrate, the court cannot provide a substitute arbitrator or compel arbitration under §5 of the FAA.

  • D’Cruz v. NCl (Bahamas) Ltd., No. 15-11766 (11th Cir. Aug. 29, 2016)
    08/29/2016

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s order compelling arbitration under the New York Convention.  Following Alberts v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. No. 15-14775 (11th Cir. Aug. 23, 2016), court held that because the plaintiff’s contract envisioned performance abroad the arbitration clause is enforceable under the New York Convention, § 202 of the FAA.

  • Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Sprint Communications Company, L.P., No. 2:15-CV-00016-AWA-RJK (E.D. Va. Aug. 26, 2016)
    08/26/2016

    Court denied motion to vacate arbitration award, finding that there was no valid basis to overturn arbitral tribunal’s majority decision. Court rejected contentions that arbitral tribunal did not follow the parties’ instructions and that it had terminated the arbitral process prematurely.

  • In re Cox Enter., Inc. Set-top Cable Television Antitrust Litig., Nos. 15-6078, 15-6077 (10th Cir. Aug. 26, 2016)
    08/26/2016

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s grant of motion to compel arbitration, finding that dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration clause and defendant did not waive its right to arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff’s argument that defendant’s promises were illusory amounts to a challenge to the contract as a whole and is therefore a question to be determined by the arbitrators.

  • Hawthorne v. BJ's Wholesale Club, No. 3:15-CV-00572 (E.D. Va. Aug. 26, 2016)
    08/26/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Court rejected plaintiff’s contention that the arbitration agreement did not apply to former employees, holding that the plain text of the agreement suggested otherwise.  Court likewise found that there was no evidence of unconscionability since the contract contained an opt-out clause for the arbitration provision.  Court further held that plaintiff’s contention that defendant’s alleged breach made the arbitration provision inapplicable was an issue to be decided by the arbitrators.

  • Capelli Enterprises, Inc. v. Fantastic Sams Salons Corp., No. 5:16-CV-03401 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2016)
    08/26/2016

    Court denied motion for temporary injunction on AAA arbitration.  Court held plaintiffs did not establish a sufficient likelihood of success or serious question to succeed in a temporary restraining order.  Court reasoned that incorporation of AAA arbitration rules indicated delegation of arbitrability questions to the arbitrator.

  • Craddock v. LeClair Ryan, No. 16-1423 (4th Cir. Aug. 26, 2016)
    08/26/2016

    Court dismissed appeal of order directing arbitration.  Court held that a stay order was neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order and thus not subject to appeal.

  • Arnold v. Grill, No. 4:16-CV-00328-GKF-PJC (N.D. Okla. Aug. 25, 2016)
    08/25/2016

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff had not raised a material dispute regarding whether she signed the arbitration agreement at issue.

  • Robinson v. OnStar, LLC, No. 3:15-CV-01731 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2016)
    08/25/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that arbitration agreement, which it determined was valid and applicable to the dispute, was unconscionable.  Court reasoned that defendant’s ability to modify terms unilaterally was irrelevant because it was never exercised; and rejected plaintiffs contentions that the agreement was procedurally unconscionable because it was a contract of adhesion.

  • Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 15-00423-CV (2d Cir. Aug. 25, 2016)
    08/25/2016

    Court vacated district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim because it was allegedly subject to mandatory arbitration and affirmed denial of plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction.  While district court had granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, reasoning that the claim was subject to mandatory arbitration, circuit court held that there remained a reasonable dispute as to whether plaintiff was bound by the arbitration clause.

  • CareMinders Home Care, Inc. v. Concura, Inc., No. 16-10112 (11th Cir. Aug. 25, 2016)
    08/25/2016

    Court affirmed decision confirming arbitration award.  Court held that the district court had not abused its discretion in declining to treat appellant’s cross-motion as a motion to vacate and that, in any case, appellant had failed to allege sufficient grounds for vacatur.

  • Daskalakis v. Forever 21, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-01768 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2016)
    08/25/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Court rejected argument that the agreement was invalid because it was missing key terms, reasoning that where a complete, signed arbitration agreement is presented to the court, missing terms such as the identity of the arbitrator may be filled in by the court if the parties are unable to agree.  Court stayed the action pending arbitration.

  • IQ Products Company v. WD-40 Company, No. 4:12-CV-01652 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 25, 2016)
    08/25/2016

    Court adopted magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation to confirm arbitration award.  Court held that there had been at least a “plausible” reason to compel arbitration and rejected objections to confirmation based on arguments that the order to compel had been “groundless.”

  • Flannery  v. Thermasteel Corp., Inc., No. 1:13-CV-00038 (D.V.I. Aug. 25, 2016)
    08/25/2016

    Court denied alternative motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that a non-party to the agreement could not be compelled to arbitrate.

  • Balfour Beatty Construction, LLC v. ABG Caulking Contractors, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-22041-CMA (S.D. Fla. Aug. 25, 2016)
    08/25/2016

    Court confirmed AAA award, rejecting argument that the award should be modified to reduce it by amounts subsequently withheld from defendant by plaintiff and to account for expected insurance payments.  Court reasoned such arguments might be appropriate at the collections stage, but were not supported by the FAA’s limited grounds for modification.

  • Nascimento v. Anheuser-Busch Cos., LLC, No. 2:15-CV-02017 (D.N.J. Aug. 24, 2016)
    08/24/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that parties were bound by a valid arbitration agreement and therefore subject to arbitration, dismissing defendant’s defenses that agreement was invalid because it did not contain explicit waiver of jury trial (or was not enforceable in this regard), was modifiable and therefore illusory,  or unconscionable because it “unduly” restricted discovery and required parties to keep the award confidential.

  • Nat’l Union Fire Ins. v. Beelman Tuck Co., No. 1:15-CV-08799 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2016)
    08/24/2016

    Court granted motion to compel nine related companies to arbitrate an insurance dispute under the FAA, but denied motion of one company to compel third-party insurance broker to join in the arbitration.  Court held that valid arbitration agreements bind parties thereto, including all subsidiaries and affiliates.  However, a non-signatory third party could not be compelled to arbitrate based on alleged incorporation by reference or estoppel.

  • Merck & Co., Inc. v. Pericor Therapeutics, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00022 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2016)
    08/24/2016

    Court granted petition to confirm and denied petition to vacate AAA arbitral award.  Court held that the challenge to the award did not satisfied the burden of demonstrating arbitrator bias or sufficiently “clear evidence of impropriety” to justify post-arbitration award discovery.  It likewise rejected theories that the arbitrators manifestly disregarded the law or failed to render a final decision.

  • In re Ashley Madison, No. 4:15-MD-02669-JAR (E.D. Mo. Aug 24, 2016)
    08/24/2016

    Court granted in part motion to compel discovery relating to contemplated motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration.  Court reasoned that plaintiffs were entitled to full and complete discovery on questions relevant to the court’s ultimate determination of whether they would be permitted to proceed as a class action or compelled to arbitrate individually.  Requests not “reasonably necessary” to address motion to compel were denied.

  • Sanzone-Ortiz v. Aetna Health of California, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-03334 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2016)
    08/24/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, declining to hear oral argument.  Court had previously ordered to compel arbitration of claimant’s case and held that the new claim presented in the amended complaint was subject to the same logic.  Court emphasized that “under recent Supreme Court decisions, the Department of Labor cannot shield ERISA claims from arbitration absent a clear ‘congressional command.’”

  • Ivie v. Multi-Shot, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-00166 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 24, 2016)
    08/24/2016

    Court granted motion to stay and compel arbitration.  Court rejected defense of substantive unconscionability based on excessive costs of arbitration and procedural unconscionability based on multiple contracts defenses presented by defendant.  Court declined to consider defense that dispute was not within scope of arbitration agreement, finding that parties had agreed to arbitrate arbitrability.

  • Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. TSL Staff Leasing, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-08696 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 24, 2016)
    08/24/2016

    Court granted motion to confirm AAA arbitration award.  Court rejected defenses alleging that arbitrators had exceeded their authority by granting pre-hearing security and  improperly calculating the award amount, or, in the alternative, that the award is unenforceable under Texas law.  It reasoned that arbitrators have broad powers – including as stated in the AAA Rules – to impose interim measures and to fashion remedies.

  • Bamberger Rosenheim, LTD. v. OA Dev., Inc., No. 1:15-CV-04460-ELR (N.D. Ga. Aug. 24, 2016)
    08/24/2016

    Court granted in part and denied in part cross motions to confirm and modify arbitration award.  Court rejected argument that arbitrator had exceeded his authority in considering a defamation counter-claim in a real estate fee dispute.  However, court reduced the award with respect to those defamatory statements the arbitrator stated he would not consider.

  • Engle v. Kisco Senior Living, LLC, No. 6:15-CV-01819 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 24, 2016)
    08/24/2016

    Court denied alternative motion to stay and compel arbitration.  Court refused to permit a non-signatory to an employment contract to compel arbitration on that contract, holding that the asserted agency relationship was not sufficiently close to permit it to invoke the arbitration clause.

  • Recom Corp. v. Miller Bros., Inc., No. 2:16-CV-03320, No. 34 (D.N.J. Aug. 24, 2016)
    08/24/2016

    Court denied motion to vacate arbitration award.  Court held that plaintiff lacked standing to bring vacatur action and dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, declining to reach other alleged grounds.  Court reasoned that petitioner had failed to allege actual injury to itself.

  • Velasquez v. WCA Mgmt. Co, L.P., No. 4:15-CV-02329 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 23, 2016)
    08/23/2016

    Court denied motion in the alternative to dismiss certain claims in favor of arbitration. Court held that arbitration provision was procedurally unconscionable and therefore invalid because, inter alia, plaintiffs, who did not speak English, were not provided with Spanish-language copies of the agreements or explanations in spite of their requests.

  • Tompkins v. 23ANDME, Inc., No. 5:13-CV-05682-LHK (9th Cir. Aug. 23, 2016)
    08/23/2016

    Circuit court affirmed order compelling arbitration.  Court held that arbitration clause was not unconscionable and thus enforceable under the FAA.  Court rejected plaintiffs’ contention that the joint presence of a prevailing party clause, forum selection clause, clause excluding intellectual property claims from arbitration, one year statute of limitations, and clause granting defendant right to modify terms of service, rendered the arbitration agreement unenforceable.

  • Heston v. GB Capital Holdings, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00912 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2016)
    08/23/2016

    Court granted in part motion to compel arbitration and dismissing the action.  Court held that dispute was governed by a valid arbitration agreement and therefore subject to arbitration under the FAA.

  • Alberts v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., No. 15-14775 (11th Cir. Aug. 23, 2016)
    08/23/2016

    Circuit court affirmed order to compel arbitration under the New York Convention.  Upon de novo review, court affirmed that employment contract performed by a US national while traveling to or from a foreign state “envisages performance . . . abroad” and therefore permits recourse to the New York Convention.

  • Alfonso v. Maggies Paratransit Corp., No. 1:16-CV-00363 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2016)
    08/23/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings.  Court held that arbitration agreement was valid and rejected plaintiff’s defenses based on interpretations of labor laws and allegations of unconsionability that effectively restated the former. 

  • Johnson v. Thompson-Smith, No. 16 C 1182 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 23, 2016)
    08/23/2016

    Action seeking damages from arbitrator appointed by Illinois Workers Compensation Commission (IWCC), as well as from two IWCC directors for failing to properly supervise arbitrator, for harms allegedly suffered in connection with the dismissal of an arbitration action dismissed with prejudice.  Court held that arbitrator enjoyed absolute judicial immunity from suit for all acts taken within the scope of her adjudicative duties and that plaintiff has provided nothing to suggest that arbitrator acted “in the clear absence of jurisdiction.” Further, as public officials, the IWCC directors enjoy qualified immunity, since the plaintiff’s complaint fails to allege the violation of a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.  Moreover, even in the absence of immunity, plaintiff has failed to state plausible claims.

  • Ohio Land Management, LLC v. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., No. 4:15-CV-001754 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 22, 2016)
    08/22/2016

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration.  The arbitration provision in an amended lease signed by a party that had filed for bankruptcy prior to executing the document is unenforceable because, at the time the amended lease was executed, that party did not have the interest necessary to effectively execute the agreement.  

  • Gingras v. Rosette, No. 1:15-CV-00101 (D. Vt. Aug. 22, 2016)
    08/22/2016

    Court granted motion to stay proceedings pending appeal of court’s refusal to compel arbitration.  Court held there was no automatic right to stay pending appeal of arbitrability decision but that discretionary factors favored such a stay.

  • Morris v. Ernst & Young, No. 13-16599 (9th Cir. Aug. 22, 2016)
    08/22/2016

    Circuit court vacated district court order compelling individual arbitration.  Circuit court held that FAA savings clause did not compel courts to enforce an arbitration agreement that was improper under the Federal Labor Relations Act.

  • City of New York v. Golden Dev. & Constr. Corp., No. 1:15-CV-04462 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2016)
    08/22/2016

    Court granted motion to confirm award and enter default judgment, including costs and prejudgment interest.  Court found no evidence of arbitral impropriety and confirmed the ex parte arbitral award, noting that the attorney fees requested were “reasonable” and that such awards are “final and binding” for purposes of calculating prejudgment interest.

  • Goldman v. Citigroup Glob. Mkts. Inc., No. 2:12-CV-04469 (3d Cir. Aug. 22, 2016)
    08/22/2016

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s order denying motion to vacate a FINRA arbitral award for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Court affirmed that FAA does not provide a federal cause of action for vacating arbitration awards and agreed with district court that plaintiffs provided no federal cause of action.

  • Gonzalez v. Sterling, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-02127 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 22, 2016)
    08/22/2016

    Court granted motion to dismiss case with prejudice for failure to adhere to arbitration agreement’s limitations requirements.  Court held that plaintiff failed to meet the FAA’s standard for challenging the application of an arbitration agreement, which are limited to “generally applicable contract defenses, such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability,” and rejected plaintiff’s arguments grounded in equity. Because plaintiff had failed to file her claim with the applicable arbitration mechanism within the contractual time limit, court held plaintiff waived her claims.

  • Santos v. Wincor Nixdorf, Inc., 1:16-CV-00440 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2016)
    08/19/2016

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that parties could not be compelled to arbitrate where they had not agreed to do so and declined to find that defendant, who had not signed the arbitration agreement, was nevertheless bound by it based on an intertwined-claims estoppel theory.

  • Preferred Care, Inc. v. Howell, No. 7:16-CV-00013 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 19, 2016)
    08/19/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings.  The court held that the FAA compelled arbitration because the dispute was subject to a valid arbitration agreement.  It declined to enjoin plaintiff from court proceedings and stayed the action instead.

  • Weirton Med. Ctr., Inc. v. QHR Intensive Res., LLC, No. 5:15-CV-00130-FPS (N.D.W. Va. Aug. 19, 2106)
    08/19/2016

    Court granted motion to amend a previously confirmed arbitration award to include continuing interest awarded by the arbitrator and the prejudgment interest stipulated to by the parties. Court held that the final award expressly stated that it was issued in accordance with the findings of fact and conclusions of law which included the award of continuing interest.

  • Sbrmcoa, LLC v. Bayside Resort, Inc. A Corp., No. 3:06-CV-00042-CVG-RM (D.V.I. Aug. 19, 2016)
    08/19/2016

    Court provided reasoning for its earlier grant of motion to dismiss action and refer it to arbitration.  Court reasoned that under the FAA, a court’s inquiry into the validity of the underlying contract is limited to the formation of the contract as a whole or to the validity of the arbitration clause, and held that an ultra vires challenge to different parts of the agreement is a matter for arbitrators to decide.

  • Mercadante v. XE Servs., LLC, No. 1:11-CV-01044-CKK (D.D.C. Aug. 19, 2016)
    08/19/2016

    Court held in abeyance defendants’ motion to dismiss in order to permit plaintiffs a final opportunity to perfect their arbitration demands and to proceed to arbitration before the AAA.  Court held plaintiffs have not moved with alacrity to arbitration as court expected and thus plaintiffs were ordered to file a status report demonstrating continued progress in pursuing arbitration of its claims.

  • Santos v. Wincor Nixdorf, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00440-RP (W.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2016)
    08/19/2016

    Court denies motion to compel arbitration.  In holding that state contract law, rather than federal common law, controls whether a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement can be bound by that agreement, court rejected an estoppel theory based on intertwined claims as basis for compelling a non-signatory to arbitrate.

  • Scott v. Cricket, No. 1:15-CV-03330-GLR (D. Md. Aug. 19, 2016)
    08/19/2016

    Court granted motions to remand to state court where plaintiff initially filed both a putative class action complaint alleging a violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act which defendant removed to federal court, and then a second action “Petition to Stay Threatened Arbitration.”  Court held that defendant failed to prove federal jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence and, absent Class Action Fairness Act or federal question jurisdiction over the complaint, there was no jurisdiction under the “look through” doctrine.

  • Schultz v. Verizon Wireless Servs., LLC, No. 15-2415 (8th Cir. Aug. 19, 2016)
    08/19/2016

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s order compelling arbitration.  Court held that district court did not err in determining that parties did not reach an enforceable settlement agreement of their claims and that district court properly found that parties agreed in their pleadings and prior consent to the matter being sent to arbitration.

  • Preferred Care, Inc. v. Howell, No. 7:16-CV00013-ART-EBA (E.D. Ky. Aug. 19, 2016)
    08/19/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and denied motion to enjoin defendant’s state court action.  Court held that parties agreed to arbitrate and that defendant’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.  Court also held that FAA is silent on whether a court must stop a related state-court proceeding involving the arbitrable issues and that the Anti-Injunction Act would permit such to protect the court’s order, but that the injunction should not be necessary to protect or effectuate the court’s order compelling arbitration.

  • A.D. v. Credit One Bank, N.A., No. 1:14-CV-10106 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 19, 2016)
    08/19/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and denied motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.   Court held that defendant was reasonably diligent as it had no basis until recently to demand arbitration and had not waived its right to arbitrate.  Court also held that minor was an “authorized user” of her mother’s credit card and is therefore bound by the terms of the contract signed by the mother and not the minor.

  • Pralle v. Dollar Gen. Corp., No. 5:16-CV-04057-SAC (D. Kan. Aug. 19, 2016)
    08/19/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay action.  Court noted that whether parties entered into an agreement to arbitrate “is an issue for judicial determination” because the parties have not clearly and unmistakably provided otherwise and, in finding a valid arbitration agreement, entered order to compel arbitration.

  • Trs. of the New York City Dist. Counc. of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Pisgah Builders, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-02259-AJN (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2016)
    08/19/2016

    Court granted petitioners’ petition to confirm an arbitration award.  Court held that where respondent had neither appeared nor responded to oppose the uncontroverted petition, despite a court initiated extension of time, the reasons for the award were justifiable on the record and could be inferred from the arbitrator’s decision.

  • Smith v. Citibank, No. 4:16-CV-00092-SA-JMV (N.D. Miss. Aug. 19, 2016)
    08/19/2016

    Court ordered parties to submit to binding arbitration where parties agreed to arbitration.

  • Abernathy v. Becon Constr. Col., Inc., No. 1:14-CV-466-RC (E.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2016)
    08/18/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration of plaintiffs’ claims and to stay litigation pending arbitration of those claims pursuant to the contested report and recommendation of the magistrate judge. Court held that neither plaintiffs’ objection to the magistrate judge’s findings concerning the employee dispute resolution plan nor defendant’s objections to the motion to compel as untimely could alter the court’s agreement with the magistrate judge. 

  • Fin. Assocs. v. Hudson Specialty Ins. Co., No. 2:15-CV-02245-SDW (D.N.J. Aug. 18, 2016)
    08/18/2016

    Motion granted to compel arbitration.  Court held that the FAA and New York precedent confirming strong federal policy in favor of arbitration in the presence of a valid arbitral agreement compelled arbitration.

  • Jeffreys v. Midland Credit Mngt., Inc., No. 2:15-CV-08470-JLL-JAD (D.N.J. Aug. 18, 2016)
    08/18/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s Fair Debt and Credit Practices Act action.  Court held that defendant, a non-signatory to the cardholder agreement, was assigned the debt and thereby authorized to invoke the provisions of the agreement which were neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable. 

  • Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC v. Sappington, No. 1:16-CV-00878 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2016)
    08/18/2016

    Court denied motion to dismiss or stay pending class arbitration and to compel individual arbitration.  Court held that it was for the arbitrators to decide questions of arbitrability, including whether respondents can proceed on a class-wide basis.

  • Diversicare Leasing Corp. v. Allen, No. 0:15-CV-00060 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 18, 2016)
    08/18/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted.  Determining that the dispute was covered by a valid arbitration agreement that was not unconscionable, court held it was bound by the FAA to compel arbitration.  Court enjoined parallel actions and dismissed the matter with prejudice.

  • Jeffreys v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., No. 2:15-CV-08470 (D.N.J. Aug. 18, 2016)
    08/18/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismiss action.  Court held that the arbitration agreement was valid as between the parties, one of which, while not a signatory, was authorized to invoke the agreement, and was and not unconscionable.

  • Inetianbor v. Cashcall, Inc., No. 0:13-CV-60066-JIC (S.D. Fla. Aug. 18, 2016)
    08/18/2016

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that circuit court’s finding that other plaintiffs’ arbitration agreements were unenforceable applied to instant plaintiffs’ similar arbitration agreements under the “law of the case” doctrine.

  • Star Ins. Co. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, No. 15-1403 (6th Cir. Aug. 18, 2016)
    08/18/2016

    Circuit Court vacated arbitration awards and reversed district court’s judgment confirming them, finding that arbitrator’s ex parte communications with prevailing party, contrary to arbitration agreement and scheduling orders, constituted “misconduct prejudicing a party’s rights” warranting vacatur under Michigan law.

  • Hong v. Belleville Dev’t Group, LLC, No. 1:15-CV-05890-RJS (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2016)
    08/17/2016

    Court granted motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because dispute was governed by mandatory arbitration agreement.    Court found that a valid arbitral agreement governed the dispute even though some of the defendants were not signatories.  Court reasoned that “a signatory may be bound to arbitrate claims it brings against a non-signatory based on ‘the close relationship between the entities involved, as well as the relationship of the alleged wrongs to the non-signatory’s obligations and duties in the contract and the fact that the claims were intertwined with the underlying contractual obligations.’”

  • Cline v. Etsy, Inc., No.2:15-CV-02115-JCM-VCF (D. Nev. Aug. 17, 2016)
    08/17/2016

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for failure to arbitrate.  Court held that plaintiff may use her pre-dispute arbitration agreement or a previously issued court order compelling arbitration to initiate arbitration.

  • Cates v. Crystal Clear Tech., LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00008-AAT (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 17, 2016)
    08/17/2016

    Court granted three motions to dismiss filed by various defendants’ and denied one of those defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation as moot.  Court held because court finds plaintiffs have failed to state a claim with respect to one defendant, the court need not reach defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court further noted that without deciding whether the plaintiffs even entered into any contractual relationship governed by the customer agreements, the conduct giving rise to the action takes place separate and apart from that relationship governed by the terms of the agreement, including an arbitration clause contained therein. 

  • Local 1982, Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n v. Midwest Terminals of Toledo, Int’l, Inc., No. 3:12-CIV-1384-JJH (N.D. Ohio Aug. 16, 2016)
    08/16/2016

    Court granted plaintiff’s request to remand the action to the Joint Grievance Committee for clarification of an arbitral award where the terms were ambiguous.  Court held that award failed to specify details sufficient to support either party’s position.

  • Zurich Ins. PLC v. Ethos Energy (USA) LLC, No., 4:15-CV-03580-MH (S.D. Tex. Aug. 16, 2016)
    08/16/2016

    Court granted motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction to enforce an arbitrator’s subpoena directing a non-party to the arbitration to produce documents pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 7.  Court held §7 of the FAA does not establish federal question jurisdiction and the amount in controversy does not meet the $75,000 threshold amount required for federal diversity jurisdiction.

  • Moomjian v. T.D. Ameritrade, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-00952-SAL (N.D. Tex. Aug. 16, 2016)
    08/16/2016

    Court denied motion to vacate arbitration award and granted motion to confirm award.  Court held that when an agreement contains a clause that designates Texas law but does not exclude the FAA, the Texas Arbitration Act and FAA apply concurrently to govern whether the arbitration award should be vacated or confirmed.  Applying the Fifth Circuit’s “essence test,” court found the arbitrators did not exceed their authority or engage in misconduct by determining that plaintiff’s request for an explained decision was untimely.

  • Central States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund v. Nat’l Concrete Prods. Co., No. 1:15-CV-03739-MSS (N.D. Ill. Aug. 16, 2016)
    08/16/2016

    Court granted motion for summary judgment to collect payment for defendant’s alleged default in contributing to a multiemployer pension plan on behalf of its unionized employees while arbitration between the parties about the amount of withdrawal liability is ongoing.

  • GCIU-Empl. Ret. Fund v. Quad Graphics, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-03391-ODW, No. 2:16-CV-03418-ODW (N.D. Ill. Aug. 16, 2016)
    08/16/2016

    Court consolidated two cases in which both parties were seeking to vacate, modify, or enforce different portions of an arbitrator’s award, where both actions ultimately stemmed from the same arbitration proceeding, and both actions presented common questions of law and fact.

  • Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. v. Regency Heritage Nursing & Rehab. Ctr., No. 15-1883 (3d Cir. Aug. 16, 2016)
    08/16/2016

    Circuit court granted National Labor Relations Board’s application and enforced its order against respondent.  Court held that the case did not need to be sent to arbitration as the dispute was not encompassed by the ongoing arbitration between the parties, and deferral to arbitration was not otherwise required because an arbitration clause does not survive the expiration of the contract unless the dispute arises under the contract. 

  • James v. Comcast Corp., No. 16-CV-02218-EMC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2016)
    08/15/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss putative class action.  Court held that defendant had a new arbitration provision in its service agreement that replaced and superseded any prior agreements that would take effect upon a customer’s continued use of the services unless the user opted out within 30 days after the mailing of the notice of the new agreement. The provision was not unconscionable because of the conspicuous notice, the opt-out provision, the non-essential nature of the service and plausible alternatives, and because the customer could easily terminate the agreement.

  • Gill v. Grewal, No. 4:14-CV-02502-MH (S.D. Tex. Aug. 15, 2016)
    08/15/2016

    Court denied motion to abate and compel arbitration. Court held that fact that plaintiff/counter-defendants’ filed suit and conducted discovery, were aware of arbitration clause, and had delayed more than twelve months until the eve of trial with no reasonable explanation after consolidating cases to compel arbitration, were all factors under Texas law in favor of finding that judicial process had been invoked without asserting arbitration clause.

  • Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund v. K & M Equip., Inc., No. 1:15-CV-11586 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 15, 2016)
    08/15/2016

    Court granted motion for summary judgment, declaring that defendants failed to timely initiate arbitration. But court denied motion for an injunction to compel defendants to dismiss a pending AAA arbitration since the court’s finding that defendant waived its arbitration rights stripped the AAA arbitrator of his jurisdiction and plaintiffs do not face irreparable harm without the injunction.

  • Doss v. Nordstrom, Inc., N.A., No. 3:15-CV-00904-JSB (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 15, 2016)
    08/15/2016

    Magistrate judge issued report and recommendation that the motion to dismiss proceedings and compel arbitration be granted, and that the parties be ordered to arbitrate their dispute in accordance with the arbitration agreement.

  • Broom, Jr. v. AXA Advisors, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-0028-RDP (N.D. Ala. Aug. 15, 2016)
    08/15/2016

    Court granted motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff conceded that claims that accrued after July 1, 2013 were subject to arbitration, and no claims made in the complaint would have accrued prior to that date.

  • Sural (Barbados) Ltd. v. Gov't of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, No. 1:15-CV-22825-KMM (S.D. Fla. Aug. 12, 2016)
    08/12/2016

    Court granted respondent’s cross-motion to confirm arbitration award.  Court held that given the high threshold to overturn an arbitration award under the New York Convention, and the court’s necessarily limited review, the petitioners arguments for vacating the award must fail as a matter of law and the petitioner’s “efforts to vacate the award are merely an attempt to mask an unsuccessful arbitration campaign under the guise of a lack of due process.”

  • Fakhri v. Marriot Int’l Hotels, Inc., No. 8:14-CV-00840-PJM (D. Md. Aug. 12. 2016)
    08/12/2016

    Court granted motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that plaintiff’s suit constituted a collateral attack on an arbitral award.  Court held that the plaintiff was attempting to use the present suit as a means of re-litigating the same damages that were presented to the ICC arbitral tribunal, thus constituting a collateral attack over which the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain under the New York Convention.

  • Carlini Enters., Inc. v. Paul Yaffe Design, Inc., No. 8:13-CV-01671-ODW (C.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2016)
    08/12/2016

    Court grants motion to confirm arbitration award and denies motion to vacate.  Court held it has no authority to re-weigh the evidence or question the arbitrator’s conclusions and that the plaintiffs failed to establish specific facts indicating actual bias of the arbitrator. 

  • Wiles v. Palm Springs Grill, LLC, No. 9:15-CV-81597-KAM (S.D.Fla. Aug. 11, 2016)
    08/11/2016

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed case pending the arbitration.  Court held the agreement between the parties contained a valid arbitration clause that incorporated the commercial arbitration rules of the AAA, and therefore the question of validity and scope of the both the contract and the arbitration agreement are for the arbitrator to decide.  Court also held that plaintiff’s Fair Labor Standards Act claims are subject to arbitration, and that a stay furthers the FAA’s goal of “efficient and speedy dispute resolution.”

  • Jolie Design & Décor, Inc., v. Kathy Van Gogh, No. 2:15-00740-MBN (E.D. La. Aug. 11, 2016)
    08/11/2016

    Magistrate judge recommended the court grant plaintiff’s motion for costs and attorneys' fees in an action filed to enforce an arbitration award under the New York Convention.  The court analyzed the invoices and recommended a reduction for block billing and an additional  reduction for failure to exercise billing judgment.

  • Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC v. Couch, No. 1:15-17092 (9th Cir. Aug. 11, 2016)
    08/11/2016

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s decision to grant motion to preliminarily enjoin FINRA arbitration proceedings commenced by the defendant pending resolution of the plaintiff’s declaratory judgment action.  Court held that, in the absence of any evidence demonstrating the parties’ intent to the contrary, the district court correctly determined both that it had the authority to decide whether defendant had waived its right to arbitrate under an employment contract, and that where the parties had been in litigation for over a year, with discovery closed and dispositive motions due, defendant had waived his arbitration rights.

  • Int’l Assn of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Bath Iron Works, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00257-GZS (D. Me. Aug. 11, 2016)
    08/11/2016

    Court granted motion to dismiss claim that arbitrator was biased as plaintiff both failed to file its complaint within Maine’s 90-day time limit to challenge an arbitral award and, despite knowledge of alleged bias, failed to challenge the arbitrator prior to the arbitrator’s decision.

  • Eggleston v. Marshall Durbin Food Corp., No. 6:16-CV-00217-LSC (N.D. Ala. Aug. 11, 2016)
    08/11/2016

    Court granted motions to confirm an arbitration award and denied motion to vacate award.  Court held that the arbitrator did not exceed her powers by interpreting Rule 40 of the National Rules for the Resolution of Employment Disputes to allow her to reconsider the merits of plaintiff’s claim heard by a prior arbitrator prior to a final award.  Court also held that damages were available under the Fair Labor Standards Act for plaintiff’s retaliatory discharge claim.

  • Gordon v. TBC Retail Group, Inc., No. 2:14-CV-03365-DCN (D.S.C. Aug. 11, 2016)
    08/11/2016

    Court granted in part motion to compel arbitration for opt-in plaintiffs who acknowledged a mutual arbitration agreement through an “electronic onboarding system.”  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration for one named plaintiff and some “opt-in” plaintiffs who did not recall, inter alia, acknowledging or signing the agreement to arbitrate since they could not be compelled to arbitrate given a genuine issue of material facts in dispute.  

  • Vine v. PLS Fin. Servs. Inc., No. 3:15-CV-00031 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 11, 2016)
    08/11/2016

    Court refused to reconsider earlier denial of motion to compel arbitration based on factual challenges to its earlier ruling, holding that it was bound to accept plaintiffs’ allegations as true and that defendants could not rely on an arbitration agreement where they had substantially invoked the judicial process by filing a criminal complaint on related claims.  Court further held that notwithstanding Supreme Court decisions that arbitrators, and not courts, should decide procedural arbitration challenges, courts retain the power to evaluate whether a defendant waived arbitral rights through litigation activities.  Court granted a stay of proceedings pending defendants’ interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit.

  • Ackison Surveying, LLC v. Focus Fiber Sols., LLC, No. 2:15-CV-02044-ALM (S.D. Ohio Aug. 10, 2016)
    08/10/2016

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay judicial proceedings.  Court held that failure to produce contract containing the alleged arbitration provision created a genuine dispute of material fact and a stay would prejudice plaintiffs whose claims were not identical to those raised in an ongoing arbitration proceeding.

  • Torgerson v. LLC Int’l, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-02495-DDC (D. Kan. Aug. 10, 2016)
    08/10/2016

    Court granted request to stay proceedings and ordered parties to proceed to arbitration. Court further declined to grant both defendants’ opposition to and plaintiff’s request for class certification, leaving the question to be presented to an arbitrator. 

  • Grand Resources, Inc. v. Jewel, No. 4:14-CV-00642-JED (N.D. Okla. Aug. 10, 2016)
    08/10/2016

    Court granted motions to dismiss and held that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the case.  Plaintiff acknowledged that arbitration was required and court dismissed the case as refusal to participate in mandatory arbitration does not create a federal jurisdiction.

  • Clouser v. Golden Gate Nat’l Senior Care, LLC, No. 3:15-CV-00033-KRG (W.D. Pa. Aug. 10, 2016)
    08/10/2016

    Court denied motion to stay the trial of plaintiff’s wrongful death claim pending resolution of plaintiff’s survival claim in arbitration.  In weighing the competing interests and the totality of circumstances, including a stay of indefinite duration, court held stay was not appropriate. 

  • Sodexo Mngt., Inc. v. Detroit Public Schools, No. 15-CV-10610 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 10, 2016)
    08/10/2016

    Court confirmed a $24 million arbitration award and denied motion to vacate the award.  Court declined to vacate the award on the grounds of alleged partiality of the AAA-appointed arbitrator where defendant did not demonstrate even an appearance of bias.  Court also held that the defendant did not meet the exacting test that an arbitrator exceeded his or her power as there was a contractual basis for the arbitrator to exercise jurisdiction over a nonparty, and, given the parties’ “threadbare” arbitration clause and contractual provision that Michigan law applies, the arbitrator did not exceed his authority either under the clause or the AAA arbitration rules.

  • Sanchez v. Borelli, No. 3:15-CV-00455-LRH (D. Nev. Aug. 10, 2016)
    08/10/2016

    Court dismissed motion to vacate an arbitration award for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Court held that the FAA does not itself confer federal subject matter jurisdiction; rather, there must be an independent jurisdictional basis.  Here, there was no federal question jurisdiction because the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000 for diversity jurisdiction and did the petition did not indicate any issues with federal law or how the arbitrator handled federal law.

  • Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC v Converteam SAS, No. 1:16-00378-KD-C (S.D. Ala. Aug. 10, 2016)
    08/10/2016

    Court denied motion to stay briefing and consideration of the defendant’s pending motions to compel arbitration and dismiss—to the extent the substance of these motions are inextricably intertwined with plaintiff’s expected motions to remand.

  • Mason Tenders Dist. Counc. of Greater New York v. Emlo Corp., No. 14-CV-8898-LLS (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2016)
    08/10/2016

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration awards against defendant. Court held that arbitrator acted within the scope of his authority in declining to change the schedule of the hearing where defendant refused a seven-day postponement and did not participate further in the arbitration.

  • Neumayer v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 2:16-CV-03508-AB (C.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2016)
    08/09/2016

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for remand and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss. Court held amount in controversy met the $75,000 jurisdictional requirement to prevent remand to state court, but complaint failed to state a claim for breach of contract because plaintiff did not allege that defendant failed to participate in the arbitration process as required by contract or to comply with the arbitration award.

  • Robinson v. Universal Prot. Serv., L.P., No. 2:16-CV-01408-DGC (D.Ariz. Aug. 9, 2016)
    08/09/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the matter.  Court held that the Family Leave and Medical Act does not confer an unqualified right to a judicial forum, as would be required to displace the FAA; nor does an anti-waiver of employee rights provision invalidate an agreement to submit such claim to arbitration.

  • The Robbins Co. v. JCM Northlink LLC, No. 2:16-CV-00646-RSL (W.D. Wash. Aug. 9, 2016)
    08/09/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the matter.  Court held that the Family Leave and Medical Act does not confer an unqualified right to a judicial forum, as would be required to displace the FAA; nor does an anti-waiver of employee rights provision invalidate an agreement to submit such claim to arbitration.

  • Harris v. Halliburton Co., No. 1:16-CV-00281-LJO (E.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2016)
    08/09/2016

    Court adopted magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations to grant  motion to compel arbitration because plaintiff was obligated under the FAA to arbitrate his employment claims.

  • Cooper v. Westend Capital Mgmt., L.L.C., No. 15-31068 (5th Cir. Aug. 9, 2016)
    08/09/2016

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s orders refusing to enjoin arbitration and confirming an award in favor of defendants who had expelled plaintiff from an operating agreement which required binding arbitration of disputes.  Court held that defendants did not substantially invoke the judicial process by filing a TRO and did not waive arbitration when they sought judicial relief.  Court also held that the operating agreement’s choice-of-law provision was insufficient to compel application of California’s arbitration standards.  Court rejected plaintiff’s claim that the arbitrator exceeded his powers in making the award as plaintiff failed to point to any specific bias or prejudice against him.

  • Law Offices of Daniel C. Flint, P.C. v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 2:15-CV-13006 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 9, 2016)
    08/09/2016

    Court denied motion to amend an interlocutory order finding no exceptional circumstances existed to warrant an interlocutory appeal in a case in which the court had granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Court held that its decision to compel arbitration did not “involve[] a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion…”.

  • Switch Commerce, LLC  v. Star Networks, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-4031-B-JJB (N.D. Tex. Aug. 9, 2016)
    08/09/2016

    Court denied  motion for reconsideration of its prior decision in which it held the arbitration provisions of the parties’ agreement enforceable and dismissed the case in favor of arbitration. Court held that the contract was neither unconscionable nor illusory and the case merited dismissal with prejudice.

  • Beattie v. Credit One Bank, No. 5:15-CV-01315-LEK (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2016)
    08/09/2016

    Court granted motion to stay and compel arbitration of a dispute alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  Court held that the claims are subject to arbitration, that plaintiff agreed to the terms of the cardholder agreement requiring arbitration, and that the agreement was not unconscionable. 

  • Bekele v. Lyft, No. 15-11650-FDC (D.Mass. Aug. 9, 2016)
    08/09/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed suit.  Court held that plaintiff agreed to defendant’s Terms of Service Agreement which contained a valid arbitration clause requiring binding individual arbitration.  Court also rejected plaintiff’s affirmative defenses, of procedural and substantive unconscionability under Massachusetts state law and illegality under the FAA’s saving clause, where the undisputed facts sufficiently demonstrated that plaintiff, as a prospective employee, had more than reasonable notice of and assented to defendant’s arbitration provision, and the class action waiver contained within the agreement was not illegal under the National Labor Relations Act.

  • Diag Human S.E. v. Czech Republic Ministry of Health, No. 1:13-CV-00355-ABJ (D.C. Cir. Aug. 8, 2016)
    08/08/2016

    Circuit court denied the Czech Republic’s request for a rehearing en banc of Diag Human S.E.'s enforcement efforts of a $325 million arbitral award issued by an international tribunal.

  • Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C. v. Ostroski, No. 4:16-CV-00050-JEJ (M.D. Pa. Aug. 8, 2016)
    08/08/2016

    Court granted motion for summary judgment, declaring that the lease agreement between the parties did not permit class arbitration and precluding defendants from pursuing any claims on behalf of a purported class. Court held the FAA, not the Pennsylvania Arbitration Act, applied to an interstate agreement; and FAA jurisprudence does not permit defendants to compel class arbitration when the agreement was silent on this point.

  • Diversicare Leasing Corp. v. Wurtland Nursing & Rehab. Ctr., No. 0:15-CV-00029-HRW (N.D. Ky. Aug. 8, 2016)
    08/08/2016

    Court overruled motion for reconsideration of court’s prior order to compel arbitration and enjoin defendant from proceeding in the underlying court case given that none of the grounds for a court to amend its judgment was present.

  • Union de Tronquistas de Puerto Rico, Local 901 v. United Parcel Serv., Inc. No. 3:16-CV-01098-JPG (D.P.R. Aug. 8, 2016)
    08/08/2016

    Court granted motion for summary judgment denying motion to set aside an arbitration award.  Court held the arbitrator had a reasonable basis for his award after holding a hearing in which both parties presented evidence and the arbitrator’s determinations on credibility are not proper grounds for review.

  • Anderson v. AIG Life & Ret., No. 4:14-CV-00278-LGW (S.D. Ga. Aug. 8, 2016)
    08/08/2016

    Court granted motion to dismiss and compel plaintiff to submit claims to arbitration. Court held that the parties’ employment dispute was subject to arbitration where two arbitration agreements broadly covered, with a few exceptions, all disputes “regarding legally protected rights” and expressly mentioned those brought by plaintiff.  Court further held that the FAA and not the Georgia Arbitration Act (requiring the initialing of the provisions) applied, thus preempting the plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration provisions are unenforceable because they are not initialed by the parties.

  • Visteon Corp. v. Leuliette, No. 16-CV-11180-TGB (E.D. Mich. Aug. 5, 2016)
    08/05/2016

    Court stayed the case pending the outcome of arbitration proceedings initiated by defendant, and denied plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction to stay arbitration proceedings.

  • W.J. O’Neill Co. v. Shepley, Bulfinch, Richardson & Abbot, Inc., No. 11-CV-12020-RHC (E.D. Mich. Aug. 5, 2016)
    08/05/2016

    Court granted motions to dismiss since plaintiff and both defendants were parties to a prior arbitration in which various issues already had a full and fair opportunity to be litigated and determined.  Court further held that mutuality of estoppel was not necessary in this case because Michigan law does not require such if collateral estoppel is, as here, asserted defensively, and plaintiff did not provide any authority or evidence that collateral estoppel does not apply when the prior action was an arbitration.  

  • Incredible Foods Group, LLC v. Unifoods, S.A. DE C.V., No. 14-CV-5207-KAM (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2016
    08/05/2016

    Court granted application for attorney’s fees for reasonable rates and hours worked to confirm an arbitration award and oppose motion to vacate the award.

  • The O’Gara Group, Inc. v. UXB Int’l, Inc., No. 7:16-CV-00170-GEC (W.D. Va. Aug. 5, 2016)
    08/05/2016

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award and denied  motion to vacate the award where defendant failed to satisfy its heavy burden of showing that the arbitrator exceeded his authority or manifestly disregarded the law.

  • Ambrosio v. Cogent Commc’ns, Inc., No. 3:14-CV-02182 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2016)
    08/05/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration denied.  Court held defendant had waived its right to compel arbitration.

  • Stati v. Republic of Kazakhstan, No. 1:14-CV-01638-ABJ (D.D.C. Aug. 5, 2016)
    08/05/2016

    Court stayed action to confirm arbitral award. Court held, as a preliminary matter, that it had jurisdiction under the FAA and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. However, given the pendency of a proceeding in Sweden to set aside the arbitral award, the action should be stayed pending resolution of that challenge, pursuant to Art. VI of the New York Convention.

  • Arabian Gas & Oil Dev. Co. v. Wisdom Marines Lines, SA, Nos. 4:16-CV-03801-DMR, 4:16-03872-DMR (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2016)
    08/05/2016

    Court set aside its ex parte order to attach and ordered the immediate release of a vessel that was held to secure an alleged, but not forthcoming, arbitral award under the New York Convention.

  • Jones v. Titlemax of Missouri, Inc., No. 4:15-CV-01361-JAR (E.D. Mo. Aug. 5, 2016)
    08/05/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that delegation clause was valid under Rent-A-Center and therefore it was not the court’s prerogative to answer questions of arbitrability.

  • Brent v. Priority 1 Automotive Group, BMW of Rockville, No. 8:14-CV-01705-PWG (D. Md. Aug. 4, 2016)
    08/04/2016

    Court granted plaintiff’s summary judgment motion to determine that there was no valid agreement to arbitrate.  Applying Maryland state law, the court determined no valid agreement existed because the agreement lacked consideration.

  • Bastida v. Nat’l Holding Corp., No. 16-CV-388-RSL (W.D. Wash. Aug. 4, 2016)
    08/04/2016

    Court granted in part motion to dismiss and denied request for a stay until FINRA arbitration was resolved.  Court held that plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient facts to support the conclusion that defendant had an agency relationship with a party against which plaintiffs had filed claims in arbitration. Court also held that the standards governing FINRA arbitration are substantially different than those of a judicial proceeding, and that any decision would likely have minimal value to the court or promote judicial efficiency.

  • Guidotti v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, L.L.C., No. 1:11-CV-01219 (D.N.J. Aug. 4, 2016)
    08/04/2016

    Court denied motion challenging right to a jury trial to decide whether plaintiff agreed to arbitration.  Court held that §4 of the FAA operates in the absence of a timely jury demand under Fed. R. Civ. P. 38, and therefore §4 of the FAA does not prescribe the exclusive means of providing a jury trial in the context of summary arbitration proceedings.

  • Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-05699-JGK (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2016)
    08/04/2016

    Court granted petition to compel arbitration and to enjoin defendant during the pendency of the arbitration from proceeding with a California state court action where the parties’ dispute was subject to arbitration and the arbitration clauses provide that the parties will arbitrate in New York. 

  • Rimel v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No: 6:15-CV-2191-ORL-41KRS (M.D. Fla. Aug. 4, 2016)
    08/04/2016

    Magistrate judge recommended that the court grant motion to compel arbitration and strike class action allegations. The arbitration provision is not procedurally unconscionable because plaintiff had the right to opt out of the provision.  The waiver of collective and class actions is not substantively unconscionable and invalidation of the waiver is preempted by the FAA under Florida law. 

  • Parker v. ETB Management, L.L.C., No. 15-11128 (5th Cir. Aug. 4, 2016)
    08/04/2016

    Circuit court affirmed the district court’s confirmation of an arbitration award, as plaintiff-appellant had “failed to advance any credible argument to show the arbitrator acted with corruption in violation of the FAA.”  Court rejected plaintiff-appellant’s argument that the arbitrator ignored conflicting statements given by defendants’ witnesses, as this was an inquiry regarding the merits of appellant’s claim and the credibility determinations of the arbitration, which was outside of the court’s “limited” and “exceedingly deferential” review of arbitration decisions.

  • Sophinos v. Quadriga Worldwide Ltd., No. 2:16-CV-01273-MWF-MRW (C.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2016)
    08/04/2016

    Court denied petition to lift stay on proceedings based on the plaintiff’s ex parte submission that the arbitration had been terminated because the defendant had refused to pay the AAA filing fees. Court reasoned that the question of whether the defendant was obligated to pay the fees and had defaulted on the arbitration by its failure to do so was a question to be decided by the arbitrator.

  • Webb v. Frawley, No. 1:15-CV-06406 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 3, 2016)
    08/03/2016

    Motion granted to compel arbitration.  Court held that disputes were subject to mandatory arbitration under FINRA, and therefore the FAA required the court to compel arbitration.  Court refused to stay the proceedings and dismissed the action with leave to reinstate within one year.

  • Thornell v. Performance Imports, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-00397-JHE (N.D. Ala. Aug. 3, 2016)
    08/03/2016

    Court denied motion to appoint arbitrator.  Court held that the arbitration agreement entitled defendant to veto the plaintiff’s selection of an organization other than the American Arbitration Association, not the arbitrator the plaintiff nominated.  Therefore, §5 of the FAA was not applicable.

  • Douglas v. Oceanview Healthcare, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-00225 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 3, 2016)
    08/03/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the claims brought by plaintiff were subject to arbitration, that plaintiff received sufficient notice of the arbitration agreement, and that defendant did not waive its right to compel arbitration simply by removing the case to federal court.

  • Golden v. O’Melveny & Meyers LLP, No. 14-CV-8725-CAS (C.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2016)
    08/03/2016

    Court denied motion for reconsideration and compelled the parties to proceed with arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff had no basis for reconsideration of the court’s prior order sending the parties to arbitration for some claims and staying others pending arbitration.  Court further held that the FAA, not California’s arbitration rules, apply to the arbitration agreement even in circumstances where the agreement provides that it is governed by California law because a general choice-of-law clause does not evidence the parties’ intent to apply state law procedural rules of arbitration sufficiently to overcome the presumption that the FAA applies. 

  • Hagan v. Katz Communications, Inc., No. 1:12-CV-05987-RA (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2016)
    08/03/2016

    Court denied petition to vacate arbitral award since arbitrator did not act in “manifest disregard of federal law” when he imposed a 90-day statute of limitations and found that such period was not equitably tolled.

  • Corporación Mexicana De Mantenimiento Integral v. Pemex-Exploración Y Producción, No. 13-4022 (2d Cir. Aug. 2, 2016)
    08/02/2016

    Circuit court affirmed confirmation of an ICC arbitral award following vacatur of the award by Mexican courts.  While acknowledging “the prudential concern of international comity” and cautioning that “any court should act with trepidation and reluctance in enforcing an arbitral award that has been declared a nullity by the courts having jurisdiction over the forum in which the award was rendered,” the second circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, holding, inter alia, that Mexico’s retroactive application of one of its laws, which had the effect of favoring a state enterprise over a private party, and left that party with no available remedy or potential relief for its claims, violated U.S. public policy and basic standards of justice.

  • Glynn v. Christy, No. 1:14-CV-01924-LTS-RLE (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2016)
    08/02/2016

    Court denied motions to compel arbitration and stay action.  Court held that defendants’ substantial delay in asserting the arbitration clause, until after their participation in litigation in multiple courts and after months of discovery, demonstrated enough prejudice to plaintiff to establish waiver.

  • BMO Harris Bank, N.A. v. Lailer, No. 16-CV-545-JPS (E.D. Wis. Aug. 2, 2016)
    08/02/2016

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay court action.  Court held that the dispute is not arbitrable before FINRA because it was not subject to mandatory arbitration under the FINRA rules.  Further, the doctrine of “direct benefits estoppel,” by which a non-signatory can be forced to arbitrate a claim, did not apply.

  • Andrade v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc., No. 3:12-CV-02724 JLS (MDD) (S.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2016)
    08/02/2016

    Court denied renewed motion to vacate arbitration award.  Court held that the award was not final under the FAA and that cost and delay alone could not constitute “severe irreparable injury” or “manifest injustice” so as to justify review of the arbitrator’s non-final decision.

  • Bosworth v. Cubicon Corp., No. 3:16-CV-02416-WHA (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2016)
    08/02/2016

    Court denied motion to vacate arbitral award and granted petition to confirm.  Court held that the award did not exhibit “manifest disregard of the law” and therefore defendant did not clear the FAA’s high hurdle necessary to vacate an arbitration award.

  • Woods v. Caremark PHC, L.L.C., No. 4:14-CV-583-SRB (W.D. Mo. Aug. 2, 2016)
    08/02/2016

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration because defendants waived their arbitration rights by waiting over a year to file the motion to compel arbitration, during which a “wealth of extensive litigation occurred.”  Court found that there was “little doubt that defendants knew of the right” to arbitration and plaintiffs were prejudiced by “expending large sums of attorney time and money.”

  • Woods v. Caremark PHC, L.L.C., No. 4:14-CV-583-SRB (W.D. Mo. Aug. 2, 2016)
    08/02/2016

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that the plain terms of the relevant arbitration agreement made clear that it did not apply to the dispute at issue, as the dispute preceded the plaintiff’s viewing of the arbitration agreement.

  • Lerner v. Citigroup, No. 2:16-CV-01573-KM-MAH (D.N.J. Aug. 1, 2016)
    08/01/2016

    Motion granted to compel arbitration and action stayed.  Court held that a valid arbitration agreement existed and that all the claims were covered by that agreement.  As such, pursuant to §3 of the FAA, court stayed the proceedings pending arbitration.

  • Royce v. Needle, No. 1:15-CV-00259 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 1, 2016)
    08/01/2016

    Court granted request to compel arbitration. Court found that the arbitration agreement, which specified arbitration by a former Magistrate judge who had since passed away, survived the named arbitrator’s death and remains enforceable.  As the arbitration agreement did not contemplate the death of the named arbitrator, it was the court’s duty to appoint an arbitrator pursuant to section 5 of the FAA.

  • Main v. Gateway Genomics, LLC, No. 3:15-CV-02945-AJB-WVG (S.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2016)
    08/01/2016

    Court denied defendant’s request to compel arbitration. Although the court found that the defendant did not waive its right to arbitration, the plaintiff was not bound by the arbitration provisions because they were contained in contracts to which it is a non-signatory.

  • DCK World Wide, LLC v. Pacifica Riverplace, L.P., No. 1:16-CV-00666-SS (W.D. Tex. July 29, 2016)
    07/29/2016

    Court denied request for a preliminary injunction enjoining parallel arbitration proceedings, finding that the requestor had not established a substantial likelihood that it would succeed in showing that it did not assume obligations or benefits from the underlying agreement and thus that it was not bound by the agreement’s delegation of question of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

  • Lakah v. UBS AG, No. 1:07-CV-02799 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2016)
    07/29/2016

    Court granted request to voluntarily dismiss petition with prejudice, but cross-petition to determine whether petitioners agreed to arbitrate remains pending.  Court held that despite petitioners’ recent consent to arbitration, court retained subject matter jurisdiction because courts must decide whether a party is subject to an arbitration agreement by resolving issues surrounding the making of an arbitration agreement.

  • Moon v. Breathless, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-06297-SDW-LDW (D.N.J. July 29, 2016)
    07/29/2016

    Court granted motion for summary judgment.  Court held that it was for an arbitrator to decide whether the classification of plaintiff as an independent contractor violated New Jersey employment law, since that was a challenge to the whole agreement, not specifically to the arbitration provision.  Additionally, the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable since both parties waived their litigation rights.

  • Tradeline Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Jess Smith & Sons Cotton, LLC, No. 2:15-CV-08048 JAK (C.D. Cal.  July 29, 2016)
    07/29/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed action pending arbitration.  Court held the antitrust claim arose from a licensing agreement with a non-party trade association, and the licensing agreement’s arbitration clause therefore applied even though the defendants were not signatories.

  • Bankers Life & Cas. Ins. v. CBRE, No. 15-1471 (7th Cir. July 29, 2016)
    07/29/2016

    Circuit court reversed and remanded district court decision upholding an arbitration award.  Court held that the arbitrators exceeded their power by basing the award on documents outside the parties’ agreement and ignoring the agreement itself.

  • Bodine v. Cook’s Pest Control Inc., No. 15-13233 (11th Cir. July 29, 2016)
    07/29/2016

    Circuit court affirmed district court decision compelling arbitration.  Court held the FAA and the non-waiver provision of the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act were not in conflict and the district court properly compelled arbitration;  it is, however, the arbitrator, and not the district court, that should determine the validity of the terms of the arbitration agreement.

  • Tigges v. AM Pizza, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-10136-WGY (D. Mass. July 29, 2016)
    07/29/2016

    Court denied motion to dismiss and allowed motion to certify classes.  Court held the class action waiver provision and opt-out provision in an arbitration agreement was invalid because the National Labor Relations Act confers on employees a non-waivable statutory right to act collectively.

  • Meyer v. Kalanick, No. 1:15-CV-09796-JSR (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2016)
    07/29/2016

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that a valid arbitration agreement was not formed because the arbitration agreement was in an electronic form contract that encouraged users to overlook contractual terms in the process of gaining access to a product or service.

  • Berger v. Accounting Fulfillment Svcs., No. 8:16-CV-00744-JSM-JSS (M.D. Fla. July 29, 2016)
    07/29/2016

    Motion granted to stay proceedings pending appeal.  Court held the FAA gives defendants a direct, immediate right to file an interlocutory appeal of an order denying arbitration.

  • Wells Fargo Ins. Servs. USA, Inc. v. King, No. 0:15-CV-04378-PJS-HB (D. Minn. July 29, 2016)
    07/29/2016

    Court granted in part motion to stay discovery pending determination of motion to compel arbitration, permitting discovery to proceed primarily in relation to defendants’ grounds for opposing arbitration.

  • Chelmowski v. AT&T Mobility, LLC., No. 1:15-CV-10980 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 28, 2016)
    07/28/2016

    Court confirmed motion to confirm an AAA arbitration award, denying cross-motion to vacate based on the arbitrator’s alleged bias, misconduct, and exceeding her powers.  Court reasoned that plaintiff failed to present clear and convincing evidence that any of the “narrow grounds” available for overturning an arbitration award under the FAA applied, rejecting plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitrator acted improperly by treating his arguments as legal and not factual, denying requests for discovery and an evidentiary hearing.  Nor, Court held, did the arbitrator make a manifest error of fact or law or violate AAA rules.

  • Langlois v. Amedisys, No. 3:15-CV-00835-SDD-RLB (M.D. La. July 27, 2016)
    07/27/2016

    Motion granted to compel arbitration.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that it could not be compelled to arbitrate because pre-dispute arbitration agreements are null and void under Louisiana law.  The FAA makes pre-dispute arbitration agreements enforceable and pre-empts Louisiana law.

  • Easter v. Prof’l Performance Dev. Group, No. 5:16-CV-00222-DAE (W.D. Tex. July 27, 2016)
    07/27/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration agreement was invalid because the contract lacks mutuality of obligation, finding that although the promises were not identical, the agreement did not provide any party the power to avoid its promise to arbitrate. 

  • Unite Here Int’l Union v. Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, No. 2:16-CV-00384-TLN-EFB (E.D. Cal. July 27, 2016)
    07/27/2016

    Court denied motion to dismiss action.  Court held that ninth circuit and district courts routinely treat petitions to compel arbitrations as capable of instituting a court action, and as a result, respondent failed to establish that dismissal was warranted.

  • Breazeale v. Victim Services Inc., No. 3:14-CV-05266-VC (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2016)
    07/27/2016

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act does not apply to a contract between a local prosecutor and a criminal suspect about how to address a potential state-law criminal violation, and that California law does not allow arbitration of a dispute, between a citizen and the government or its agents, arising out of the exercise of the government’s criminal law enforcement powers.

  • Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc, No. 15-1970 (Fed. Cir. July 26, 2016)
    07/26/2016

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the defendant’s counterclaims were not subject to arbitration because they related to the scope of licensed intellectual property rights, an issue expressly exempted from arbitration in the parties’ agreement.  Court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that counterclaims not involving the license should be severed and sent to arbitration, since the counterclaims were centered on the infringement suit.

  • United States v. SF Green Clean, LLC, No. 15-15254 (9th Cir. July 26, 2016)
    07/26/2016

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s confirmation of an arbitration award and dismissal of defendant’s counterclaims.  Court held defendant had been given the opportunity to participate in the selection of an arbitrator when it chose to sign a lease that set out how the arbitrator would be selected, and therefore no adequate grounds existed for vacating the award under the FAA.  Court also held that while the arbitrator was not empowered to award damages on some of the counterclaims, the counterclaims were properly dismissed on alternative grounds.

  • Clark v. CitiFinancial Servicing, LLC., No. 3:16-CV-00140-MOC-DSC (W.D.N.C. July 26, 2016)
    07/26/2016

    Court granted motion to stay and compel arbitration, finding that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proving that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable.

  • Virginia Van Dusen  v. Swift Transportation Co, No. CB-7121-15-0034-V-1 (9th Cir. July 26, 2016)
    07/26/2016

    Court denied writ of mandamus ordering the district court to vacate its case management order and decide the petition to compel arbitration without discovery or trial. Court weighed factors to determine whether mandamus relief was available and determined that petitioner may appeal once district court issues a decision on whether to compel arbitrator.

  • Robredo v. Metro Honda, 2:15-CV-08135-KM-JBC (D.N.J. July 22, 2016)
    07/22/2016

    Court granted motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action.  Court held that since the claims were arbitrable and the plaintiff had fully participated in the previous arbitration, there was no genuine material issue of fact that would require trial on the claims asserted by the plaintiff.

  • Hillware v. New Orleans Saints, No. 2:14-CV-02964-MVL-KWR (E.D La. July 22, 2016)
    07/22/2016

    Court denied motion to vacate an arbitration award.  Court held that plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the relevant arbitration agreement and the arbitrator did not exceed his authority in issuing an award in defendants’ favor.

  • KAG West, LLC v. Malone, No. 3:15-CV-03827-TEH (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2016)
    07/22/2016

    Motion denied to enjoin the respondent from filing and prosecuting duplicative claims.  Court held that the FAA did not authorize federal courts to stay proceedings pending in state courts. 

  • Keena v. GroupOn, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-00520-GCM (W.D.N.C. July 22, 2016)
    07/22/2016

    Court granted motion to dismiss with prejudice.  Court held that because the plaintiff’s claims were subject to an enforceable arbitration agreement, and plaintiff indicated that she had no intention to pursue arbitration, dismissal was warranted.

  • Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. John Deere Ins. Co., No. 2:15-CV-15-00671-PHX-PGR (D. Ariz. July 22, 2016)
    07/22/2016

    Court granted application for attorney’s fees and costs arising from an action to confirm arbitration award.  Court rejected respondent’s argument that the petitioner was limited to seeking remuneration for attorney’s fees incurred solely in connection with the cross-motion to confirm the arbitration award, and not matters such as filing an answer or responding to a motion to seal the entirety of the proceedings.

  • Sanchez v. General Elec. Co., No. 2:16-CV-00050 (S.D. Tex. July 22, 2016)
    07/22/2016

    Motion granted to compel arbitration.  Court held that it retained the authority to decide whether the parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute because the parties did not delegate the question of arbitrability to an arbitrator.  Court further held that there was sufficient evidence of an enforceable arbitration agreement and the dispute in question fell within the agreement’s scope.

  • Babb v. Credit One Fin., No. 2:16-CV-00266-SPC-CM (M.D. Fla. July 22, 2016)
    07/22/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the parties had agreed to arbitrate all disputes arising out of a consumer cardholder agreement.

  • Hamilton v. Partners Healthcare Sys., Inc., No. 1:09-CV-11725-DPW (D. Ma. July 21, 2016)
    07/21/2016

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings.  Court held inter alia that the Labor Management Relations Act preempted the state law claims raised by two of the three plaintiffs and, as a result, must be dismissed where those plaintiffs failed to exhaust the statute’s mandatory grievance and arbitration procedures.

  • Martin v. Yasuda, No. 15-55696 (9th Cir. July 21, 2016)
    07/21/2016

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s denial of defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the district court retained jurisdiction to decide the question of whether the parties’ dispute was arbitrable because the agreement did not include clear, unmistakable language that issues of waiver would be decided by an arbitrator.  Court further held that defendants’ conduct waived their right to arbitration because defendants spent seventeen months litigating the case before  moving to compel arbitration, and forcing plaintiffs to re-litigate the issues in arbitration would constitute obvious prejudice. 

  • Metlife Secs., Inc. v. Holt, No. 2:16-CV-00032-RLJ-MCLC (E.D. Tenn. July 21, 2016)
    07/21/2016

    Court granted in part petitioners’ motion to compel arbitration and denied Respondent’s motion to dismiss while ordering an evidentiary hearing on the remaining claims.  Court held that, for at least some claims, the evidence did not demonstrate that petitioners waived their right to enforce an arbitration agreement or that the arbitration agreement in question was a contract of adhesion when petitioners did not engage in unfair and oppressive tactics to obtain respondent’s consent.  

  • Razak v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00573-MMB (E.D. Pa. July 21, 2016)
    07/21/2016

    Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.  Court held that plaintiffs indisputably opted out of an arbitration agreement and that, although the agreement delegated questions of enforceability, revocability, and validity of the agreement to an arbitrator, the agreement did not delegate to an arbitrator whether the parties complied with the agreement’s conspicuous opt-out provisions. 

  • Spathos v. Smart Payment Plan, LLC, No. 3:15-CV-08014-MAS-DEA (D.N.J. July 21, 2016)
    07/21/2016

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the dispute arose after the five year term of the agency agreement containing an arbitration clause expired, and the parties did not intend to arbitrate claims arising after the expiration of the agreement.

  • Theerachayavaranont v. Red Lobster Hospitality, LLC, No. 2:15-CV-00188-SPC-MRM (M.D. Fla. July 21, 2016)
    07/21/2016

    Court granted defendant’s unopposed request to stay the case pending the conclusion of arbitration and plaintiff did not oppose arbitration of her employment disputes.

  • Uszak v. AT&T Mobility Servs. LLC, No. 15-4195 (6th Cir. July 21, 2016)
    07/21/2016

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s finding that an arbitration agreement between the parties was enforceable.  Court held that district court properly applied Ohio state law to find that the employee (appellant) entered into an arbitration agreement with his employers (appellee) by virtue of reading an email containing the arbitration agreement, clicking a “Review Completed” button, and never opting out of the terms of the agreement.

  • Valtech Solutions, Inc. v. Davenport, No. 3:15-CV-03361-D (N.D. Tx. July 21, 2016)
    07/21/2016

    Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to remand the action to state court.  Court held that the dispute related to confidentiality agreements containing an arbitration clause falling under the New York Convention; defendants’ removal of the case to federal district court was proper where defendants asserted a non-frivolous argument that the clause provided a defense to the plaintiffs’ claims; and the court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the dispute pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 205.

  • Watson v. Corvias Constr., LLC, No. 5:16-CV-00463-C (W.D. Okla. July 21, 2016)
    07/21/2016

    Court granted defendants’ motion to stay judicial proceedings and refer the case to arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the arbitration agreement was so unfair and one-sided as to meet the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s definition of an unconscionable contract.

  • Varon v. Uber Techs. Inc., No. 1:15-CV-03650-MJG (D. Md. July 20, 2016)
    07/20/2016

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of its decision to grant defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff’s argument, that California rather than Maryland law governed the case, was incorrect, but even if California law applied, the arbitration agreement in question would not be unconscionable. 

  • Xu v. China Sunergy (US) Clean Tech Inc., No. 5:15-CV-04823-HRL (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2016)
    07/20/2016

    Court granted in part respondents’ motion to dismiss in an action seeking confirmation of an arbitral award.  Court held that petitioner’s complaint relied on the wrong cause of action, 9 U.S.C. § 9 instead of 9 U.S.C. § 207, because the arbitration award was governed by the New York Convention, that the Court could exercise jurisdiction where the petition failed to invoke the precise jurisdictional citation, and that petitioner would be granted leave to amend his complaint.

  • Comm’ns Imp. Exp. S.A v. Republic of the Congo, No. 2:16-CV-00404-BSJ (D. Utah July 20, 2016)
    07/20/2016

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance with a subpoena duces tecum against a third-party bank where plaintiff sought information concerning an asset of defendant, a foreign sovereign, to assist in the enforcement of plaintiff’s arbitration award.  Court held that the bank’s concerns over the scope and nature of the subpoena were insufficient to abrogate its duty to respond and that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act does not bar a request for discovery in aid of execution.

  • Erie Operating, LLC v. Foster, No. 1:14-CV-00072-TFM-SPB (W.D. Pa. July 20, 2016)
    07/20/2016

    Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment to dismiss action where plaintiffs sought to compel arbitration.  Court, adopting the recommendations of a magistrate judge, held that because the dispute in question had already been litigated and resolved by a state court, plaintiffs were precluded from re-litigating the dispute in arbitration.

  • Great N. Ins. Co. v. Cornerstone Custom Home Builder, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00071-WLS (M.D. Ga. July 20, 2016)
    07/20/2016

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the defendant had not waived its right to enforce the arbitration clause of the contract prior to the initiation of the lawsuit, and had not delayed in asserting its arbitration right after plaintiff initiated suit.

  • Kennedy v. Am. Airlines Inc., No. 1:15-CV-08058-JBS-KMW (D.N.J. July 20, 2016)
    07/20/2016

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss.  Court held inter alia that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to decide plaintiff’s collective bargaining claims when the Railway Labor Act pre-empts those claims under an agreement that required disputes to be resolved through arbitration. 

  • Kubala v. Supreme Prod. Servs., Inc., No. 15-41507 (5th Cir. July 20, 2016)
    07/20/2016

    Circuit court reversed district court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the district court incorrectly concluded that no valid arbitration agreement existed between the parties where, after employee-appellee filed a Fair Labor Standards Act but before employer-appellant learned of it, appellant provided notice of a newly-imposed arbitration agreement as a term of continued employment.  Court held as a matter of Texas state law, at-will appellee accepted the agreement when he continued working with notice of the new policy, and the agreement contained a valid delegation clause that transferred the authority to decide threshold matters of arbitrability to the arbitrator to determine whether appellee’s claims should be decided in arbitration or court.  

  • Murdock v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., No. 2:15-CV-00268-SPC-CM (M.D. Fla. July 20, 2016)
    07/20/2016

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Adopting the recommendations of a magistrate judge, court ordered the plaintiffs and one defendant to proceed in arbitration pursuant to a valid arbitration agreement.  Court stayed plaintiffs’ remaining claims not subject to the agreement against two other defendants, to promote judicial economy where the arbitrable and non-arbitrable claims arose from similar facts and circumstances.

  • New York City & Vicinity Dist. Council of Carpenters v. Plaza Constr. Group, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01115-GHW (S.D.N.Y. July 19, 2016)
    07/20/2016

    Court granted petitioner’s application for attorney’s fees and costs arising from an action to confirm an arbitration award where the collective bargaining agreement entitled petitioner to recover reasonable fees and costs and where respondent offered no justification for its failure to abide by a court-confirmed arbitration award.

  • Caldwell v. SSC Lebanon Operating Co. LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00036 (M.D. Tenn. July 19, 2016)
    07/19/2016

    Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that defendants failed to establish the existence of an agreement to arbitrate because the counter-party to the agreement, a deceased former nursing home resident, had not formed a valid contract with the defendant.

  • I.B.E.W. Local No. 531 v. TGB Unlimited Inc., No. 2:15-CV-00028-JD (N.D. Ind. July 19, 2016)
    07/19/2016

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment to confirm a labor arbitration award.  Court held that defendant’s failure to challenge the arbitration award within the 90-day statute of limitations period established under Indiana law rendered the award final.

  • KCOM, Inc. v. Emps. Mut. Cas. Co., No. 15-1218 (10th Cir. July 19, 2016)
    07/19/2016

    Appellate court dismissed claimant’s appeal of the lower court’s decision to deny a motion to confirm an insurance appraisal award.  Court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute because claimant’s original motion to confirm the award was made under Colorado state law and a federal court of appeals may grant interlocutory relief only where a movant seeks to confirm an award under FAA § 9.

  • Malik v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, No. 2:16-CV-10477-GCS-SDD (E.D. Mich. July 19, 2016)
    07/19/2016

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the plaintiff’s challenge to the validity of an arbitration agreement was a matter for an arbitrator to decide where the arbitration agreement expressly delegated  “disputes about the validity, enforceability, arbitrability or scope” to the arbitrator and plaintiff failed to raise an issue of material fact concerning whether he exercised the right-to-reject clause of the arbitration agreement.

  • Tr. of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labor-Mgmt., Corp., Pension, and Welfare Funds v. CMI Casework & Millwork, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-05686-DRH-GRB (E.D.N.Y. July 19, 2016)
    07/19/2016

    Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award.  Court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation to confirm where the respondent failed to answer the petitioner’s motion and petitioner demonstrated that there were no issues of material fact precluding summary judgment as to all portions of the award.

  • CEEG (Shanghai) Solar Sci. & Tech. Co. v. Lumos LLC, No. 15-1256 (10th Cir. July 19, 2016)
    07/19/2016

    Appellate court affirmed lower court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s motion to confirm an arbitration award.  Court found that plaintiff’s Chinese-language notice of arbitration was not reasonably calculated to apprise the defendant of the arbitration proceedings because past communications between the parties were only in English, the defendant did not understand Chinese, and the agreement provided for proceedings in English.  Plaintiff’s insufficient notice caused defendant to miss the deadline to appoint a neutral arbitral tribunal, evidences substantial prejudice, and therefore violated the due process exception to enforcement under the New York Convention.

  • Bd. of Trs. of the W. Metal Indus. Pension Fund v. Cent. Machine Works, Inc., No. 2:14-CV-00802-RAJ (W.D. Wash. July 19, 2016)
    07/19/2016

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment following defendants’ failure to arbitrate the dispute in accordance with ERISA.  Court held that ERISA requires all disputes concerning an employer’s failure to appropriate fund employee retirement plans to be resolved through arbitration and an employer’s failure to initiate arbitration within 60 days of a triggering event renders the employer liable for any unfunded withdrawals.

  • Patton v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., No. 4:15-CV-01371 (S.D. Tex. July 19, 2016)
    07/19/2016

    Court granted defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.  Court affirmed magistrate judge’s recommendation that a judgment obtained from arbitration award against a third-party contractor could not be enforced against the defendant-insurer because the arbitrator’s award established that the awarded damages were excluded under the contractor’s insurance policies.

  • CEEG (Shanghai) Solar Science & Tech. Co. v. LUMOS LLC, No. 15-1256 (10th Cir. July 19, 2016)
    07/19/2016

    Tenth circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a petition for recognition and enforcement under the New York Convention of a CIETAC arbitral award. Court held that, because the notice of commencement of arbitration was sent to the US respondent in Chinese instead of in English, the notice was not reasonably calculated to apprise the defendant of arbitration proceedings and prejudiced defendant because it could not participate in the selection of the tribunal. Lack of proper notice is a defence to enforcement under the New York Convention.

  • Britvan. v. Cantor Fitzgerald L.P., No. 2:16-CV-04075-ODW-JPR (C.D. Cal. July 18, 2016).
    07/18/2016

    Court granted defendants’ motion to transfer to the Southern District of New York where the agreement in dispute contained an arbitration provision that required “any disputes, differences or controversies under [the] [a]greement to be adjudicated by a panel of arbitrators sitting in New York City.”  Court rejected plaintiffs’ arguments that the arbitration forum selection clause contravened public policy, was unconscionable, and that defendant could not legally be a party to arbitration in the agreed upon forum.

  • Roes v. SFBSC Mgmt., LLC, No. 15-15437 (9th Cir. July 18, 2016)
    07/18/2016

    Appellate court affirmed the district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that defendant was not a party to the applicable agreement and failed to establish it had standing as a non-signatory to compel arbitration.

  • Performance Dynamics, Inc. v. Flynn, No. 1:13-CV-00298-WTL-TAB (S.D. Ind. July 18, 2016)
    07/18/2016

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to enforce mediation agreement.  Court held that, contrary to defendants’ arguments, the agreement was valid, unambiguous, explicitly contained essential arbitration terms, and was consistent with public policy.

  • Sheet Metal Emp’rs Indus. Promotion Fund, v. Absolute Balancing Co., No. 15-1682 (6th Cir. July 18, 2016)
    07/18/2016

    Appellate court reversed the district court’s denial of cross motions for summary judgment to confirm an arbitral award.  In response to a certified question, court held that federal not state law applies to determine whether a party has assented to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, including its arbitration provision.

  • Jarrie Crawford v. Regions Bank, No. 3:16-CV-00190-DPJ-FKB (N.D. Miss. July 18, 2016)
    07/18/2016

    Court denied without prejudice defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s pro se suit seeking to remand an arbitral award for clarification.  Court held defendant’s arguments that court decline to exercise jurisdiction because of parallel proceeding pending in state court were not compelling where no factors weighed in favor of abstention.

  • SCL Basilisk AG, v. Agribusiness United Savannah Logistics LLC, No. 4:16-CV-00162-WTM-GRS (S.D. Ga. July 18, 2016)
    07/18/2016

    Court denied plaintiffs’ petition and application for an order for security in aid of foreign arbitration.  Court held that plaintiffs’ petition could not seek security pursuant to Georgia’s International Commercial Arbitration Code rather than traditionally applicable but unavailable maritime law provisions because the relief sought would bypass the FAA’s § 8 requirement that entities seek security “according to the usual course of admiralty proceedings.”

  • Dimattina Holdings, LLC v. Steri-Clean, Inc., No. 16-CV-61084-CMA (S.D. Fla. Jul. 18, 2016)
    07/18/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending arbitration.   Court held that an arbitrator must decide matters of procedural arbitrability, including whether conditions precedent to arbitration have been met.  Court also held plaintiff’s fraudulent inducement and deceptive and unfair practices claims are “in connection with” the franchise agreement even if they do not “arise out of” it, and that a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement may compel arbitration when the allegations against him are inextricably intertwined with or mirror those against a signatory such that equitable estoppel applies. 

  • Reflex Media, Inc.  v. Vibe Media, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-02243-PA (C.D. Cal. July 18, 2016
    07/18/2016

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of fraud, trademark infringement, and other claims.  Court found that while the arbitration agreement contained an exception for claims related to trademark infringement, it also delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.  Thus court held that whether trademark infringement claims were subject to the arbitration clause should be decided by the arbitrator in the first instance.

  • Smart Techs. ULC  v. Rapt Touch Ireland Ltd, No. 3:16-CV-03531-VC (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2016)
    07/15/2016

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order where there was no valid reason for a federal court to issue that relief.  Court held parties had agreed that the contract in dispute contained an arbitration clause which afforded the plaintiff the right to request emergency relief from an arbitrator as well as the court.

  • AFSCME Council 25 v. Detroit Med. Ctr., 2:15-CV-12799-AC-DRG (E.D. Mich. July 15, 2016)
    07/15/2016

    Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to enforce arbitral award.  Court held that plaintiff cannot rely on the award to obtain its requested relief where defendant was not a party to the arbitration and plaintiff seeks relief not within the confines of the award.  Court further held that plaintiff inappropriately seeks enforcement of claims not yet settled by the arbitrator.

  • Brockway Mould, Inc. v. United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Mfg., Energy, Allied Indus. and Serv. Workers Int’l Union on behalf of its Local 71, No. 15-2941 and 15-3542 (3d Cir. July 15, 2016)
    07/15/2016

    Appellate court affirmed district court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion to vacate arbitral award and granting of defendant’s motion to enforce the award.  Court held that, regardless of whether the arbitrator’s interpretation of the agreement was correct, plaintiff got what it bargained for—a procedure in which an arbitrator would interpret the agreement.

  • Dr. Robert L. Meinders. D.C. Ltd. v. Unitedhealthcare, Inc., 3:14-CV-00548-DRH-DGW (S.D. Ill. July 15, 2016)
    07/15/2016

    Court granted two defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and to stay litigation as to the remaining non-arbitrating parties pending arbitration.  Court held that non-signatory parties to an agreement had assumed material obligations and performed core duties of a signatory party under the agreement, which thereby authorized those non-signatory defendants to enforce the arbitration clause.

  • Union Trustees of W. PA Teamsters. v. Emps. of W. PA Teamsters., 2:16-CV-00084-TFM (W.D. Pa. July 15, 2016)
    07/15/2016

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment.  Court held that where parties’ trust agreement provides for the appointment of an arbitrator, but that the arbitrator may not amend the agreement’s terms, plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration must be denied when relief plaintiff seeks would require an action the arbitrator is not entitled to take.

  • Benihana, Inc. v. Benihana of Tokyo, LLC, 1:15-CV-07428-PAE (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 2016)
    07/15/2016

    Court denied petitioner’s petition to partially vacate arbitral award, granted respondent’s cross-petition to confirm the award in its entirety, and denied respondent’s motion for sanctions.  Court held that the arbitration panel neither exceeded its authority nor deprived petitioner of fundamental fairness and due process, and acted within its broad authority in issuing the award.

  • Hale v. Heath, 3:15-CV-01676-LAB-JMA (S.D. Cal. Jul. 15, 2016)
    07/15/2016

    Court preliminarily denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pending jury trial.  Court held that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable, but triable issues of fact existed that required a summary trial on the sole issue of whether the parties entered into the arbitration agreement.

  • Crawford v. Pruitthealth-Peake, LLC, 5:16-CV-00157-CAR (M.D. Ga. July 15, 2016)
    07/15/2016

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismissed action with prejudice.  Court held that the arbitration agreement was enforceable as parties conceded, and plaintiff could not point to any fact or law as to why the case would not be resolved entirely by the agreement.

  • Trustees of New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund,  v. High Performance Floors Inc., 1:15-CV-00781-LGS (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 2016)
    07/15/2016

    Court denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration of prior vacatur of arbitral award.  Court held that respondent had not pointed to any previously overlooked controlling decisions or data.

  • Arriola v. Martinez, Jr., No. 5:15-CV-01097-OLG (W.D. Tex. Jul. 15, 2016)
    07/15/2016

    Court denied defendants’ motions to vacate the arbitration award and granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion seeking the partial confirmation and partial vacatur of the final arbitration award.  Court found that (i) defendants failed to allege any corruption, fraud, or other impropriety that touched on the arbitral proceedings; (ii) defendant’s second argument was simply a dispute over a finding of fact reached by the arbitrator, which is not a ground for setting aside an arbitration award; and (iii) the arbitrator’s unwillingness to delay the arbitration to allow the defendant to change counsel was not considered misconduct or misbehavior that prejudiced defendant’s rights.

  • Trustees of Empire State Carpenters Annuity v. Amendola Contracting, Inc., 2:15-CV-04034-ADS-GRB (E.D.N.Y. July 14, 2016)
    07/14/2016

    Court granted petitioners’ petition to confirm and enforce arbitration award.  Court held that, since an unanswered confirmation petition must be treated as a motion for summary judgment based on the movant’s submissions, and no genuine issue of material fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment existed, the arbitrator’s award must be confirmed.

  • Greerwalker, LLP v. Jackson et al., 3:16-CV-00235-GCM (W.D.N.C. July 14, 2016)
    07/14/2016

    Motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin arbitration granted.  Court held that, as defendants were not parties to the engagement letter containing the agreement to arbitrate, there was no “clear and unmistakable” indication that the parties agreed that questions of arbitrability would be decided by the arbitrator and not the court.  Court further held that plaintiff showed it was likely to succeed on its claim that the dispute between the parties was not arbitrable and that it would cause plaintiff irreparable harm if plaintiff were forced to continue with an arbitration on the merits before the issue of arbitrability was determined.

  • Sittner v. Country Club, Inc., 4:15-CV-05043-RBH (D.S.C. July 13, 2016)
    07/13/2016

    Motion to stay and compel arbitration granted.  Court held that a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement existed and the issues in the case were covered by the arbitration agreement.  Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that court should defer ruling on the arbitration agreement’s enforceability prior to determining certification of a class and providing notice to all putative class members, finding it irrelevant whether other individuals received notice of plaintiff’s lawsuit and may have valid arguments against arbitrating their claims.

  • Carmax Auto Superstores, Inc. v. Montgomergy Blair Sidley v. Littler Mendelson, P.C., 8:16-CV-01459-RWT (D. Md. July 13, 2016)
    07/13/2016

    Court granted plaintiff until July 25, 2016 to file a Motion for Summary Judgment on defendant’s petition to compel arbitration.  Court held that, where a party has unambiguously manifested an intention not to arbitrate, a court may compel arbitration.

  • Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co. v. City of Fresno, 2:16-CV-00495-JAM-KJN (E.D. Cal. July 13, 2016)
    07/13/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted.  Court held that, even though defendant was not an official signatory to the policy containing the arbitration agreement, because defendant did not file any opposition to plaintiff’s motion to compel and defendant sought to benefit from the policy, the court can presume that defendant conceded that it is bound by the agreement.  Court further held that the arbitration clause clearly encompassed the dispute in this case.

  • Gorchoff et al. v. Jefferson Capital Sys., LLC, 2:15-CV-09164-DDP-AGR (C.D. Cal. July 13, 2016)
    07/13/2016

    Motion for reconsideration of order granting unopposed motion to compel arbitration denied and matter stayed pending arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff had failed to proffer any explanation for its failure to file a timely opposition and that the substantive claims at issue were arbitrable.

  • Miceli v. Citigroup, Inc., 2:15-CV-01962-GMN-VCF (D. Nev. July 13, 2016)
    07/13/2016

    Motion to dismiss complaint granted.  Court held that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the arbitration policy at issue was procedurally or substantively unconscionable and that all of plaintiff’s claims were subject to the arbitration clause.

  • Reg’l Local Union No. 846 et al. v. Gulf Coast Rebar, Inc., 3:11-CV-00658-AC (D. Or. July 13, 2016)
    07/13/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted and matter remanded to arbitrator.  Court held that, where an award needs clarification, the same arbitrator who made the award should provide the needed clarity.  Court further held that exceptions to the functus officio doctrine applied so as to allow remand to the arbitrator.

  • Riederer v. United Healthcare Serv., Inc., 1:15-CV-01292-WCG (E.D. Wis. July 13, 2016)
    07/13/2016

    Motion to dismiss and compel arbitration of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims denied.  Court held that, pursuant to recent Seventh Circuit precedent, an agreement mandating individual arbitration of FLSA claims brought by groups of employees violated the National Labor Relations Act and was also unenforceable under the FAA.

  • SC&H Group, Inc. v. Altus Group U.S., Inc., WMN-16-1037 (D. Md. July 13, 2016)
    07/13/2016

    Motion to dismiss and compel arbitration granted.  Court held that the agreement was a transaction involving interstate commerce and, therefore, arbitrability is governed by the FAA.  Court further held that the only exclusion to the general arbitration clause involved were disputes regarding certain calculations to the determined by an independent accountant, and that nothing was left to be litigated in court.

  • Redeemer Comm. of Highland Credit Strategies Funds v. Highland Capital Mgmt, L.P., No. 1:16-CV-02668 (S.D.N.Y July 13, 2016)
    07/13/2016

    Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award and denied motion to vacate.  In confirming the award, Court held that the parties agreed that questions of arbitrability would be committed to the arbitrators, the decision to exclude evidence was within the arbitrators’ discretion, and the petitioners’ request for damages permitted the arbitrators to consider granting interest.

  • Enkema v. FTI Consulting, Inc., et al., 1:16-CV-01048-JFM (D. Md. July 12, 2016)
    07/12/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted.  Court held that, as claims did not arise under a section of the contract providing that a party shall not be required to submit certain disputes to arbitration, but otherwise providing for arbitration of any and all disputes, compulsion of arbitration was warranted.

  • Barclays Capital Inc. v. Ramon Manuel Hache, 1:16-CV-00315-LGS (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2016)
    07/12/2016

    Motion to confirm arbitration award granted.  Court held that, as the three month period for raising challenges to the validity of the award had passed and defendant had not raised any legal issue that could deprive the court of the ability to confirm the award, the award must be confirmed.  Court further held that, as the agreement giving rise to the underlying arbitration provided that defendant would pay all expenses incurred, plaintiff was entitled to its costs incurred in seeking confirmation of the award.

  • Eastland Energy, LLC v. Sharpe Energy LLC and Ray Sharpe, 3:15-CV-00595-SMY-SCW (S.D. Ill. July 12, 2016)
    07/12/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted and matter stayed pending resolution of arbitration.  Court held that, given the breadth of the agreed provision and the federal policy favoring arbitration, all of plaintiff’s claims were subject to arbitration.  Court further held that there was no waiver of arbitration by defendants where, upon plaintiff’s filing of the present action, defendants raised the arbitration clause as an affirmative defense.

  • Leonard v. Del. North Cos. Sport Serv., Inc., 4:15-CV-01356-CDP (E.D. Mo. July 11, 2016)
    07/11/2016

    Motion to enforce arbitration agreement and dismiss case granted.  Court held that plaintiff had not demonstrated unconscionability sufficient to overcome the FAA’s strong policy favoring arbitration or the clear intention of the parties expressed in their arbitration agreement.  Court additionally held that the arbitration agreement was sufficiently broad to encompass plaintiff’s claim of fraud.

  • Leonard v. Delaware North Cos. Sport Serv., Inc., 4:15-CV-01356-CDP (E.D. Mo. July 11, 2016)
    07/11/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted.  Court held that plaintiff had not demonstrated unconscionability sufficient to overcome the FAA’s policy favoring arbitration and there was valid consideration for the agreement to arbitrate.  Court further held that all disputed claims are encompassed by that agreement to arbitrate.

  • East Mountain Energy, LLC v. United Mine Workers of America, Local Union 1769, 2:16-CV-00018-DAK (D. Utah July 11, 2016)
    07/11/2016

    Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and compel arbitration denied.  Court held that, as the parties did not clearly and unmistakably agree to arbitrate the question of arbitrability, the question of arbitrability as it pertains to the agreement must be decided by the court.  Court further decided that the dispute at issue was not within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • Univ. of Chicago Med. Ctr. v. Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 743, 1:15-CV-08765 (N.D. Ill. July 11, 2016)
    07/11/2016

    Motion seeking vacatur of arbitration award denied.  Court held that, given the arbitrator’s factual findings, and the narrow scope of the public policy exception, the award could not be vacated on public policy grounds.

  • Westcode, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Elec. Corp., No. 3:15-CV-01474-MAD-DEP (N.D.N.Y. July 11, 2016)
    07/11/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration denied.  Court held that, while the time elapsed prior to defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, standing alone, was not so egregious in length, defendant nevertheless waived its right to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s claims by pursuing substantial and continued in-court litigation.

  • Chu v. Chinese-American Planning Council Home Attendant Program, Inc., 1:16-CV-03569-KBF (S.D.N.Y. July 11, 2016)
    07/11/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration denied.  The Court held that, as it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action, it was required to remand the action to state court, thereby rendering moot defendant’s motion.

  • CNG Fin. Corp. v. Davis, 1:16-CV-00297-SSB-SKB (S.D. Ohio July 11, 2016)
    07/11/2016

    Motion granted to dismiss complaint seeking confirmation of arbitral award and injunctive relief precluding defendant from filing future potential claims.  Court held that plaintiff had not properly pled a basis for the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, as federal courts are not authorized to issue rulings about claims that are not before it.

  • Salberg v. Massage Green Int’l Franchise Corp., 3:15-CV-02805-GPC-WVG (S.D. Cal. July 11, 2016)
    07/11/2016

    Motion to compel individual arbitration granted.  Court held that the agreement to arbitrate was valid and enforceable under the FAA, that the agreement encompassed all relevant claims, and that the clear language of the agreement expressly forbade class certification, thereby requiring that any issues relating to plaintiff’s employment be decided by individual arbitration.

  • Mitsubishi Elec. Corp. v. Westcode, Inc., 3:15-CV-00505-MAD-DEP (N.D.N.Y. July 11, 2016)
    07/11/2016

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration of defendant’s counterclaims.  Court held that, by pursuing substantial litigation of claims that were subject to arbitration, plaintiff waived its right to enforce the arbitration provisions against defendant’s counterclaims arising out of the agreement.

  • Ault v. Centurylink, 1:15-CV-00002-TS (D. Utah July 11, 2016)
    07/11/2016

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration of defendant’s counterclaims. Court held that, by pursuing substantial litigation of claims that were subject to arbitration, plaintiff waived its right to enforce the arbitration provisions against defendant’s counterclaims arising out of the agreement.

  • Williams v. Home Depot USA, Inc., No.3:15-CV-3655-L (N.D. Tex. July 8, 2016)
    07/08/2016

    Motion granted to compel arbitration.  Court held the claims were subject to arbitration; that the defendant did not waive enforcement of the arbitration clause; and that while mediation may have been a condition precedent to arbitration, the effect of not going to mediation is a decision left for the arbitrator to decide.

  • Himark Biogas, Inc. v. Western Plains Energy LLC, 6:14-CV-01070-SAC-KGS (D. Kan. July 8, 2016)
    07/08/2016

    Defendant’s motion for entry of final judgment denied.  Court held that, while its confirmation order of the arbitration award constituted a final judgment as to all claims presented and decided in the arbitration proceedings, there were patent claims related to the claims arbitrated and to the scope of the arbitration proceedings and whose relationship to those proceedings remains unsettled.

  • Dynamic International Airways, LLC v. Air India Limited, No. 1:15-CV-07054-PKC (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2016)
    07/08/2016

    Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in India granted; plaintiff’s cross-motion to compel arbitration in New York and to enjoin defendant from proceeding with arbitration in India denied and action stayed pending the India arbitration.  Court found that New York contract law, rather than India law, applies to the question of whether the two arbitration agreements the parties rely on are enforceable.  Court held that the letter relied on by plaintiff for arbitration in New York was not an enforceable arbitration agreement since it failed to state any material terms of the arbitration, such as the location, forum and rules of the arbitration; whereas the arbitration clause relied on by the defendant for arbitration in India was valid and enforceable since, even though it does not explicitly use the words “arbitration” or “arbitrator,” it contains an unambiguous agreement to settle a controversy.  Plaintiff’s allegation that arbitrator was not impartial was not a prima facie cause to enjoin the arbitration and instead could be raised on a motion to vacate the arbitration award. 

  • Berger v. Accounting Fulfillment Services, LLC, No. 8:16-CV-00744-JSM-JSS (M.D. Fla. July 8, 2016)
    07/08/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration and dismiss action granted in part and denied in part.  Court held that since the parties’ agreement incorporated the AAA Rules the question of arbitrability is delegated to the arbitrator, but arbitration could not be compelled in relation to any claims accruing prior to the execution of the parties’ arbitration agreements.  Court dismissed plaintiffs’ defense that certain defendants had not signed the arbitration agreement on the ground of equitable estoppel, finding that plaintiffs allege “substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct by both the nonsignatory and one or more of the signatories to the contract.”  Court also held that provision requiring plaintiffs to cover their own attorney’s fees, even if they ultimately prevailed, is substantively unconscionable and thus unenforceable as applied to the Fair Labor Standards Act. 

  • Cullinane v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 1:14-CV-14750-DPW (D. Mass. July 8, 2016)
    07/08/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted and case dismissed.  Court held that plaintiffs were put on reasonable notice that signing up to use Uber would bind them to contract terms providing for arbitration. Having concluded that arbitration is not an illusory remedy for the plaintiffs in this case, court left all other issues to the arbitrator to decide.

  • Tassy v. Lindsay Entm’t Enter., Inc., 3:16-CV-00077-TBR (W.D. Ky. July 8, 2016)
    07/08/2016

    Evidentiary hearing ordered prior to deciding upon defendant’s motion to stay pending arbitration.  Court held that there was a triable issue of fact concerning the formation of the agreement.

  • Varela v. Lamps Plus, Inc., No. 5:16-CV-00577-DMG-KS (C.D. Cal. Jul. 7, 2016)
    07/07/2016

    District court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed claims without prejudice.  Having found that plaintiff’s claims were within the broad scope of the arbitration agreement, court declined to find arbitration agreement invalid, ruling that the level of procedural unconscionability was minimal and the arbitration agreement was not substantively unconscionable.  Court further found that a class-wide arbitration was permissible, and denied motion for limited discovery on arbitration-related issues.

  • Emilio v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 1:11-CV-03041-JPO-KNF (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2016)
    07/07/2016

    Motion to dismiss amended complaint denied.  Court held that plaintiff was entitled to equitable tolling given that he proceeded in court only after initiating arbitration under a provision that was not only mandatory, but also penalized plaintiff if he filed in federal court solely to seek a stay, and therefore his claims were timely.

  • Bowers v. Northern Two Cayes Company Limited, No. 1:15-CV-00029-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C. July 7, 2016)
    07/07/2016

    Arbitrator’s order for interim measures confirmed and motion to confirm arbitrator’s opinion that the arbitration is binding denied.  Court held that arbitrator did not act in manifest disregard of the law simply because his order of interim injunctive relief under AAA Rule 37 failed to state the legal standard on which it was based.  Since arbitrator’s opinion that the arbitration is binding was stated in an email communication to the parties, and not in a formal order or award, there was nothing for the court to confirm.

  • Moule v. United Parcel Serv. Co., No. 1:16-CV-00102-JLT (E.D. Cal. July 7, 2016)
    07/07/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted and action stayed pending arbitration.  Court held that the parties validly consented to arbitration, and the provisions of the agreement regarding claims subject to arbitration, taken as a whole, were neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable.  Court also held that the issue in dispute was encompassed within the arbitration provision.

  • Blackman & Co., Inc. v. GE Bus. Fin. Serv., Inc. and Riverwinds Urban Renewal, LLC, No. 1:15-CV-07274-NLH-JS (D.N.J. July 7, 2016)
    07/07/2016

    Court held that the claims at issue were nonarbitrable because they dealt with post-construction defects, whereas the contract’s dispute resolution procedures, including arbitration, solely concerned claims arising during the construction process, and the contract’s language did not clearly and unmistakably establish a waiver of the complainant’s right to a jury trial under New Jersey law.

  • Bordelon Marine, LLC v. Bibby Subsea ROV, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-01106-LMA-DEK (W.D. La. July 7, 2016)
    07/07/2016

    Plaintiff’s motion to re-open and enforce method for appointment of arbitrators denied and defendant’s motion to compel arbitration granted. Since the parties had deadlocked regarding the selection of arbitrators, the court may intervene pursuant to 9 USC § 4 and decide defendant’s challenge to the arbitrator appointment.  In doing so, court held that defendant was unambiguously authorized under the parties’ contract to appoint both the first and the second arbitrator since plaintiff failed to appoint an arbitrator within the contractually agreed time period.  An order compelling arbitration under 9 USC § 4 is warranted since, by refusing to recognize the properly appointed arbitration panel, plaintiff had refused to arbitrate.

  • Rainier DSC 1, L.L.C. v. Rainier Capital Mg, No. 15-20375 (5th Cir. July 7, 2016)
    07/07/2016

    District court’s decision to deny motion to stay litigation relating to non-arbitrating co-defendants pending arbitration affirmed.  A stay under 9 USC § 3 is subject to court discretion and is only warranted if (1) the arbitrated and litigated disputes involve the same operative facts, (2) the claims asserted in the arbitration and litigation were “inherently inseparable,” and (3) the litigation had a “critical impact” on the arbitration.  Court held the non-arbitrating co-defendants had failed to establish these elements or that the district court abused its discretion.

  • Rainier DSC 1, L.L.C. v. Rainier Capital Mg, No. 15-20383 (5th Cir. July 7, 2016)
    07/07/2016

    District court’s confirmation of arbitration award affirmed as plaintiffs failed to identify a basis for vacating the award under 9 USC § 10(a)(3).  Court held that the fact that the arbitrator and the district court reached the same result regarding the merits of the plaintiffs’ claim is not evidence of the arbitrator’s improper bias; the arbitrator did not refuse to hear material evidence, did not otherwise engage in “misconduct,” and did not deprive the plaintiffs of a fair hearing.

  • Salameno v. Gogo Inc., 1:16-CV-00487-JBW-ST (E.D.N.Y. July 7, 2016)
    07/07/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted.  Court held arbitration clause in defendant’s terms of use for internet access services was binding on sophisticated plaintiffs, who are assumed to have consented to defendant’s arbitration clause by repeatedly purchasing and using defendant’s online product; the dispute is within the scope of the broad arbitration clause; and plaintiffs have not asserted any federal claims which the statute made nonarbitrable.

  • Ranier DSC 1, L.L.C. v.  Ranier Capital Mgmt., L.P. (I), No. 15-20375 (5th Cir. July 7, 2016)
    07/07/2016

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s denial of a motion to stay litigation pending arbitration since plaintiffs’ initial brief failed to address the distinction between signatories and non-signatories to an arbitration agreement.  Court held that where parties to litigation include both signatories and non-signatories to an arbitration agreement, stay of non-signatories’ litigation under § 3 of the FAA is subject to the district court’s discretion and only warranted if: (1) the arbitrated and litigated disputes involve the same operative facts; (2) the claims asserted in the arbitration and litigation are “inherently inseparable”; and (3) the litigation has a “critical impact” on the arbitration.

  • Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 of the United Ass’n of Journeymen, et al. v. Aleut Facilities Support Serv., LLC, 1:15-CV-01710-LO-MSN (E.D. Va. July 6, 2016)
    07/06/2016

    Motion for summary judgment to enforce grievance committee decision granted.  Court held that the parties only intended that a dispute be subject to arbitration under two specific circumstances, as provided for in their agreement, and otherwise disputes would be addressed by the grievance procedure found therein.  Court further held that the grievance procedure was final and binding on the parties, as was the grievance committee’s decision.

  • Farley v. Eaton Incorporated, No. 1:16-CV-00690-PAG (N.D. Ohio July 6, 2016)
    07/06/2016

    Motion to vacate arbitration award under 9 USC § 10(a)(4) for excess of powers denied and motion for confirmation of award and entry of final judgment thereon granted.  Court held that an arbitrator’s contract interpretation is entitled to great deference, and petitioner failed to demonstrate that the arbitrator exceeded his powers by rejecting the petitioner’s reading of the contract.  Court emphasized that a party may not re-litigate issues resolved in arbitration under the guise of a motion to vacate.

  • Vane Line Bunkering, Inc. v. Hooper, No. 1:16-MC-23148-FAM (S.D. Fla. July 6, 2016)
    07/06/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that (1) contract to provide benefits to injured seaman does not fall within the “contracts of employment of seamen” exception to the FAA; (2) federal law relating to seamen does not incorporate FELA venue provisions; and (3) arguments regarding the validity of the contract were to be resolved in in the arbitration.

  • Phillip Ngheim v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc., No. 8:16-CV-00097-CJC-DFM (C.D. Cal. July 5, 2016)
    07/05/2016

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that user of automated telephone service had no actual or constructive knowledge of arbitration agreement in terms of use posted the service provider’s website.

  • Christina Bazemore v. Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC, No. 3:14-CV-00115-DHB-BKE (11th Cir. July 5, 2016)
    07/05/2016

    District court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings affirmed as a matter of law.  Court held that defendant failed to prove under the applicable state contract law that plaintiff in fact entered into an arbitration agreement when applying for a credit card with defendant’s predecessor-in-interest.

  • HSGCHG Investments, LLC v. Time Warner Cable Enterprises LLC, No. 4:15-CV-04401-RBH (D.S.C. July 5, 2016)
    07/05/2016

    Motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint and to compel arbitration granted.  Court held that the parties clearly and unmistakably agreed to arbitrate arbitrability and therefore whether the dispute is arbitrable is for the arbitrator, not the court, to decide.  Whether sections within the parties’ contract other than the arbitration agreement are unconscionable is also for the arbitrator to decide.

  • Wells Fargo Advisors, L.L.C. v. Tucker, No. 15-CV-07722-VEC (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2016)
    07/01/2016

    Petition to dismiss or stay pending class arbitration and compel individual arbitration denied.  Court held that it is for the arbitrator, not the court, to determine whether, under the terms of the arbitration clause, respondents are entitled to arbitrate on a collective or class-wide basis.

  • Virk v. Maple-Gate Anesthesiologists, P.C., No. 15-513-CV (2d Cir. July 1, 2016)
    07/01/2016

    District court’s judgment compelling arbitration affirmed in part and remanded in part with instructions to stay the action pending arbitration. Appellate court held that arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable and plaintiff failed to establish that he would be unable to vindicate his statutory rights in arbitration.  Action was however remanded because district court lacked the discretion to dismiss, rather than stay, the action pursuant §3 of the FAA.

  • Gaul v. Chrysler Financial Services Americas, LLC, No. 15-1337 (2d Cir. July 1, 2016)
    07/01/2016

    Appellate court affirms district court judgment compelling arbitration and declining to lift the stay after the AAA refused to conduct the arbitration. Court found that appellees raised no issues of fact contesting that they entered the arbitration agreement and that the dispute was within the scope of the agreement. Court also found that lifting the stay would impermissibly reward appellees for failing to comply with the district court’s order compelling arbitration and the appellees’ campaign of inappropriate, hostile, and threatening emails to the AAA that resulted in its refusal to conduct the arbitration.

  • State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Gates, Shields & Ferguson, P.A., No. 2:14-CV-02392-EFM-GLR (D. Kan. July 1, 2016)
    07/01/2016

    Arbitration defense rejected. Court held that while defendant may have demanded arbitration before plaintiff filed suit, it never filed a motion to compel arbitration in the pending litigation, as required under § 4 of the FAA, and therefore court need not consider whether issues in dispute are covered by the parties’ arbitration agreement.

  • Hotel Investors Inc. v. Modular Steel Systems Inc., No. 4:16-CV-01337-MWB (M.D. Pa. July 1, 2016)
    07/01/2016

    Motion for emergency temporary injunction denied. Court found that although plaintiff showed it was likely to succeed on the merits in the pending arbitration, it failed to show that it would be irreparably injured if defendant were not enjoined from selling, transferring, alienating, or exercising any control over assets relating to the agreement at issue in the arbitration.

  • Trustees for the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. Sukhmany Construction Inc., No. 1:15-CV-07200-PAE (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2016)
    07/01/2016

    Petition to confirm arbitration award granted. Court held it had a duty to review an unopposed motion for confirmation of an arbitration award and, in doing so, found that the arbitrator acted within the scope of the authority granted him by the parties and relied upon “substantial and credible evidence” to support his award.

  • Tribal Casino Gaming Enterprise v. W.G. Yates & Sons Construction Company, No. 1:16-CV-00030-MR-DLH (M.D.N.C. July 1, 2016)
    07/01/2016

    Motions to compel arbitration and stay all pending deadlines in court action granted, and motions to stay, deny, and enjoin arbitration denied. Court held that the parties’ dispute fell within the scope of an arbitration agreement and that the arbitration clause’s requirement that a decision by the arbitral tribunal be issued within 30 days did not render the agreement unenforceable.

  • J. Christopher Reece v. Chambrel at Montrose-Brookdale, No. 5:15-CV-02117-SL (N.D. Ohio June 30, 2016)  
    06/30/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration and stay claim dismissed.  Court refused to compel beneficiaries to arbitrate wrongful death claims where they did not sign the arbitration agreement. Under Ohio law, the wrongful death claim is separate and apart from any claim for injuries sustained by the deceased, whose signature on an arbitration agreement cannot bind her beneficiaries.

  • Cable System Installations Corp. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, No. 1:12-07447 (D.N.J. June 30, 2016)
    06/30/2016

    Motion to confirm arbitration award granted and cross-motion to vacate award denied.  In confirming the award, court held that first cross-petitioner’s claims of bias were insufficient to overcome the strong presumption in favor of enforcing arbitration awards.  However, the award could not be confirmed against the second cross-petitioner because the determination of whether a non-signatory party is an alter ego is a matter for the court and not the arbitrator to decide.

  • A-Tech Concrete Company, Inc. v. Northeast Regional Council of Carpenters, No. 2:15-CV-08055-CCC-MF (D.N.J. June 30, 2016)
    06/30/2016

    Motion to vacate arbitration award denied and cross-motion to confirm arbitration award granted.  Court found that the award drew its essence from the collective bargaining agreement and the arbitrator did not exceed the scope of his powers or demonstrate a manifest disregard for the collective bargaining agreement. Further, since the award related solely to the first petitioner, court rejected petitioners’ allegation that dispute was not substantively arbitrable on the basis that the second petitioner did not have a collective bargaining agreement with the respondent.

  • Cely Tablizo v. City of Las Vegas, No. 2:14-CV-00763-APG-VCF (D. Nev. June 30, 2016)
    06/30/2016

    Motion for summary judgment on res judicata grounds denied. Court held that prior arbitration award in favor of defendant does not bar re-litigation of plaintiff’s claims under federal statutory law.  The arbitration award has no preclusive effect under the Full Faith and Credit Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, since nothing in the record shows it was confirmed by a court, no judicially fashioned rule of claim preclusion applies, and the arbitration grievance procedure in the parties’ collective bargaining agreement clearly and unmistakably does not apply to the federal statutory claims the arbitrator ruled on.

  • Neal v. Asta Funding, Inc., No. 2:14-CV-03550 (D.N.J. June 30, 2016)
    06/30/2016

    Motions to confirm arbitration award and dismiss petition to vacate award granted. Court held plaintiffs were bound to arbitrate under theories of veil piercing, equitable estoppel, and successor interest; and that the arbitrator neither declined to hear relevant evidence nor exceeded his authority, and the award was not procured through fraud or corruption.

  • Richards v. Gibson, 1:15-CV-00007-LG-RHW (S.D. Miss. June 30, 2016)
    06/30/2016

    Motion to confirm arbitration award granted.  Court held that there were no grounds to vacate, modify, or correct the award under §§ 10 or 11 of the FAA, and the court was therefore required to confirm the award.  Court further held that the parties’ agreement to keep the arbitration proceedings confidential did not trump the FAA’s provisions authorizing actions to vacate or confirm the award.

  • Vixicom v. Four Corners Direct, No. 8:16-CV-00703-T-–MSS-JSS (M.D. Fla., June 30, 2016)
    06/30/2016

    Court granted motion for entry of default judgment and confirmed arbitration award.  Court held that it must confirm the arbitration award under the FAA, since by submitting to the commercial rules of the AAA, the parties agreed that judgment should be entered upon the award; plaintiff made its request for confirmation within the applicable one year time limit; and the award had not been vacated, modified, or corrected and the time limit for doing so now had passed. 

  • Ashley Slatten v. Jim Glover Chevrolet Lawton, LLC, No. 5:15-CV-01180-D (W.D. Okla. June 29, 2016)
    06/29/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration and stay court proceedings denied. Court held that enforcement of the arbitration agreement in this case would prevent the effective vindication of plaintiffs’ statutory claims under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act since defendant does not dispute plaintiffs’ assertion that they cannot afford to pay their share of an arbitrator’s fee, nor challenge as insufficient plaintiffs’ showing that enforcement of the arbitration agreement would be cost prohibitive. 

  • Balberdi v. Fedex Ground Package System Inc., No. 1:15-CV-00481 (D. Haw. June 29, 2016)
    06/29/2016

    Motion to vacate arbitration award denied. Court found that arbitrator neither showed evident partiality nor failed to consider material evidence and that the arbitrator did not exceed her powers by apply a civil litigation statute of limitations to the arbitration proceeding.

  • Hidalgo v. Tesla Motors Inc., No. 5:15-CV-05185 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2016)
    06/29/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation granted. Court held arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable, rejecting plaintiff’s argument that it was procedurally and substantively unconscionable. 

  • Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Bronx Base Builders, Ltd., No. 1:15-CV-04438 (S.D.N.Y. June 29, 2016)
    06/29/2016

    Petition to confirm arbitration award granted. Petitioners established there was no genuine issue of material fact and that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law as the arbitrator’s decision was based on review of substantial and credible evidence.

  • Kensington Community, Corporation for Individual Dignity v. National Union of Hospital and Healthcare Employees, No. 2:15-CV-02942-CMR (E.D. Pa. June 29, 2016)
    06/29/2016

    Motion for summary judgment and motion to enforce arbitration award granted. Court held that award did not violate public policy and drew its essence from the collective bargaining agreement.

  • William Charles Const. Co., LLC v. Teamsters Local Union 627, No. 15-01613 (7th Cir. Jun. 29, 2016)
    06/29/2016

    Court of appeals reversed the district court’s decision to grant defendant’s summary judgment motion to enforce a pair of Joint Grievance Committee awards.  Court held that, contrary to the district court’s ruling, plaintiff’s challenge to the Joint Grievance Committee awards was not barred by a statute of limitations because plaintiff did not receive a notice of the awards’ final entry.  Court further held that the greater of the two Joint Grievance Committee awards was void because plaintiff did not agree to arbitration by the Joint Grievance Committee.

  • Miller v. Tri Marine Fish Company, No. 2:16-CV-02203-JAK-SS (C.D. Cal. June 28, 2016)
    06/28/2016

    Motion to remand action to state court denied. Court held that removal of action to federal court was appropriate since the arbitration agreements at issue fell under 9 USC § 205 and the New York Convention and because they related to the subject matter of the plaintiff’s claims.

  • Lozada v. Progressive Leasing, No. 15-CV-2812-KAM-JO (E.D.N.Y. June 28, 2016)
    06/28/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration and stay court action pending arbitration granted.  Court held the parties agreed to arbitration and the plaintiff’s claim falls within the scope of the arbitration provision since the provision applies to “any dispute” and hence is broad in scope and creates a presumption of arbitrability.  Court affirmed its agreement with other courts that have found no indication that Congress intended Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims to be nonarbitrable. 

  • Tajonar v. Echosphere LLC, No. 3:14-CV-02732 (S.D. Cal.  June 28, 2016)
    06/28/2016

    Motion for reconsideration granted. Court directed that plaintiff’s claims were to be presented to AAA arbitrator since the arbitration agreement’s reference to the AAA arbitration rules constitutes clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability.

  • Wior v. BellSouth Corp., No. 1:15-CV-02375-ELR (N.D. Ga. June 28, 2016)
    06/28/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation granted. Court held that FAA, not state law, governed rules of arbitration despite state choice of law provision in arbitration agreement; and that defendant did not waive right to arbitration by delaying approximately six years in bringing forth arbitration.

  • Coleman v. LVNV Funding LLC, No. 1:15-CV-11338 (N.D. Ill. June 28, 2016)
    06/28/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted. Court held that arbitration agreement entered into as part of contract to obtain a credit card was enforceable and covered claims in dispute.

  • Attia v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., No. 8:16-CV-00504-DC-FFM (C.D. Cal. June 27, 2016)
    06/27/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s individual claims and stayed the action to address the one outstanding claim until the completion of arbitration.  Court found the delegation clause unenforceable as both procedurally or substantively unconscionable.

  • South East Color, Inc. v. BASF Corp., No. 3:16-CV-0877 (M.D. Tenn. June 27, 2016)
    06/27/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted. Court held that where an arbitration agreement has not been negated expressly or by clear implication the agreement continues to apply after the expiration of the contract.

  • A & C Discount Pharmacy, L.L.C. v. Caremark, L.L.C., No. 3:16-CV-0264-D (N.D. Tex. June 27, 2016)
    06/27/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted and request for preliminary injunctive relief not decided.   Where court decides to compel arbitration, the parties’ incorporation of the AAA arbitration rules is clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed that the arbitrator has the primary power to decide whether a request for preliminary injunctive relief is arbitrable.

  • Humphrey v. Cheddar’s Casual Café Inc., No. 5:16-CV-00704-CLS (N.D. Ala. June 27, 2016)
    06/27/2016

    Motion to dismiss action and compel arbitration partially granted.  Court held that arbitration agreement signed with an electronic signature was valid and enforceable.  The defendant was not required to prove that the plaintiff’s e-signature was in fact her signature.

  • Esmerald Hamzaraj v. ABM Janitorial Northeast Inc., No. 1:15-CV-02030-ER (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 2016)
    06/27/2016

    Motion to compel mediation and arbitration granted and action stayed pending arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff’s claims were subject to mandatory mediation and arbitration pursuant to the terms of the collective bargaining agreement; and since the claims are arbitrable the action must be stayed pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 3.

  • Adtile Technologies Inc. v. Perion Network Ltd., No. 1:15-CV-01193 (D. Del. June 24, 2016)
    06/24/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration and stay action granted.  An agreement that contains a broad arbitration clause, including the selection of applicable arbitral rules and an express reference to a separate agreement with a merger clause, overrides selection of federal courts in a separate agreement.  Additionally, the arbitrability of each claim should be evaluated by the arbitrator.

  • American University of Antigua v. Leeward Construction Co., No. 1:15-1595 (2d Cir. June 24, 2016)
    06/24/2016

    District court order confirming arbitration award affirmed.  Court rejects defendant’s arguments that arbitrators went beyond the scope of the agreement or manifestly disregarded the law.

  • Leeward Construction Co. v. American University of Antigua, No. 1:13-1708 (2d Cir. June 24, 2016)
    06/24/2016

    District court order confirming arbitration award affirmed.  Court holds that the arbitration panel did not fail to produce a reasoned award; an award need not contain a line-by-line analysis of the damages awarded to be considered reasoned.

  • Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. BNSF Railway Co., No. 8:16-CV-0063 (D. Neb. June 24, 2016)
    06/24/2016

    Court granted motion to dismiss.  Court held that whether or not to consolidate claims is a decision left to the arbitrator, and therefore the court would not enjoin a party from bringing counterclaims to on-going arbitration.

  • Cyber Imaging Sys., Inc. v. Eyelation, Inc., No. 5:14-CV-00901-BO (E.D.N.C. Jun. 24, 2016)
    06/24/2016

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to enforce an arbitration award.  Court held that because the arbitration award had not been vacated, modified, or corrected, it should be confirmed and enforced.

  • NTCH, Inc. and PTA-FLA, Inc. v. Huawei Technologies USA, Inc., No. 3:15-3631 (D.S.C. June 23, 2016)
    06/23/2016

    Motion to confirm AAA arbitration award granted and motion to vacate the award denied.  Court holds that panel did not manifestly disregard the law.

  • Sweet v. ISS Facility Services, Inc., No. 8:15-CV-02849 (M.D. Fla. June 23, 2016)
    06/23/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted and action stayed pending completion of arbitration.  Court finds a clear and unmistakable intent of the parties to require an arbitrator to determine the validity of the arbitration agreement; the claims at issue were therefore “referable to arbitration,” as contemplated by § 3 of the FAA.

  • Adams v. Chrysler LLC FCA, No. 3:15-CV-01044 (N.D. Ohio June 23, 2016)
    06/23/2016

    Motion to confirm arbitration award granted. Court rejected plaintiff’s claim that arbitrator was evidently partial as plaintiff introduced no evidence supporting claim that arbitrator denied him a fair hearing and offered no facts indicative of arbitrator’s improper motives.

  • Westport Resources Management Inc. v. DeLaura, No. 3:16-CV-00873 (D. Conn.  June 23, 2016)
    06/23/2016

    Motion for temporary restraining order granted, enjoining defendant from soliciting or inducing plaintiff’s clients to end their relationship with the plaintiff, pending the outcome of an expedited FINRA arbitration. Court found that the plaintiff had shown a likelihood of success on the merits and a risk of irreparable harm if the restraining order were not granted.

  • Trs. of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labor Management Cooperation, Pension and Welfare Funds v. Pisgah Builders, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-02547-ADS-SIL (E.D.N.Y June 23, 2016)
    06/23/2016

    Magistrate judge recommended and court later adopted the confirmation of a January 22, 2015 arbitration award rendered pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement.  Because respondent failed to appear in this action, the magistrate judge reviewed the proceedings as an unopposed motion for summary judgment and found that the petitioners had “met their burden of demonstrating that there [was] no issue of material fact precluding” confirmation of the award.  Magistrate judge also recommended that petitioners be granted attorneys’ fees and costs.

  • GGNSC Camp Hill West Shore, LP v. Thompson, No. 1:15-CV-00445 (M.D. Pa. June 22, 2016)
    06/22/2016

    Petition to compel arbitration granted following limited discovery on the issues of validity and enforceability of the arbitration agreement.  Court holds that the arbitration agreement is neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable.

  • Golden Gate Nat’l Senior Care, LLC v. Fleshman, No. 3:15-CV-00891 (W.D. Ky. June 22, 2016)
    06/22/2016

    Motion to dismiss suit seeking to compel arbitration denied.  Court refuses to carry out factual inquiries concerning defendant’s competency to sign the arbitration agreement and the alleged unconscionability of the arbitration provision; that analysis is to be carried out when considering the motion to compel arbitration.

  • Diversicare Highlands, LLC v. Lee, No. 3:15-CV-00836 (W.D. Ky. June 22, 2016)
    06/22/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted with respect to all claims except wrongful death.  Court concludes that the arbitration agreement is neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable but holds that the defendant, who signed the arbitration agreement as attorney-in-fact on behalf of her husband, did not have authority to agree to arbitration of the wrongful death suit.

  • GE Transp. Co., Ltd. v. A-Power Energy Generation Sys., Ltd., No. 1:15-CV-06194 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2016)
    06/22/2016

    Petition to recognize an HKIAC award granted.  Judgment entered against the respondent in the underlying arbitration, who is enjoined from transferring or otherwise dissipating its assets pending full payment.  However, court finds that it has no authority to enter judgment against entities related to the respondent under an alter-ego joint and several liability theory.

  • Laudano v. Credit One Bank, No. 1:15-CV-07668 (D.N.J June 22, 2016)
    06/22/2016

    Motion to dismiss without prejudice and compel arbitration denied.  Court holds that arbitrability is not apparent from the face of the complaint and directs the parties to conduct limited discovery on the issue of whether the parties have entered into a valid agreement to arbitrate.

  • Home Buyers Warranty Corp. and Nat’l Home Insurance Co. v. Jones, No. 1:15-MC-00324 (D. Del. June 21, 2016)
    06/21/2016

    Magistrate Judge appropriately recommended that motion to compel arbitration and stay action pending resolution of the arbitration be granted.  Following de novo review, court holds that, inter alia, the agreement to arbitrate arbitrability is valid and enforceable.

  • Citizen Potawatomi Nation v. State of Oklahoma, No. 5:16-CV-00361 (W.D. Okla. June 21, 2016)
    06/21/2016

    Motion to vacate arbitration award on the basis that, inter alia, the arbitrator exceeded his powers by failing to limit the award to enforcing the parties’ agreement denied; application for confirmation of the award granted.

  • UBS Financial Services, Inc. v. Zimmerman, No. 5:16-CV-00155 (E.D.N.C. June 21, 2016)
    06/21/2016

    Motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to compel arbitration dismissed. Court held that defendant is not a customer of the plaintiff and therefore not entitled to FINRA arbitration.  Court compares motion to compel arbitration to a motion for summary judgment, in that it will be granted where there is no genuine dispute despite inferences being drawn in favor of the non-moving party.

  • Verizon New England Inc. v. NLRB, No. 1:15-1062 (D.C. Cir. June 21, 2016)
    06/21/2016

    Following review for abuse of discretion, the court reversed the decision of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) who had overturned an arbitration award. Court held that the NLRB misapplied the highly deferential Spielberg-Olin standard for review of awards in labor arbitration; the award was not “clearly repugnant” to the National Labor Relations Act; and the NLRB decision was unreasonable.  

  • John Hancock Life Ins. Co. (U.S.A) v. Employers Reassurance Corp., No. 1:15-CV-13626 (D. Mass. June 21, 2016)
    06/21/2016

    Petition to remove an arbitrator for lack of qualifications specified by the parties’ agreement denied. Court held that neither § 4 or § 5 of the FAA provide authority to remove an arbitrator timely appointed prior to the conclusion of the arbitration. 

  • Keena v. Groupon Inc., No. 3:15-CV-00520-GCM (W.D.N.C. June 21, 2016)
    06/21/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted.  Court found that the FAA preempts conflicting state law and held that the arbitration agreement was neither illusory nor unconscionable.  Court also rejected policy arguments against enforcing arbitration agreements contained in consumer contracts on the basis that such arguments should be addressed to Congress, not the courts.

  • Von Maack v. Wyckoff Heights Medical Center, No. 1:15-CV-03951 (S.D.N.Y. June 21, 2016)
    06/21/2016

    Motion to vacate arbitration award denied and motion to dismiss complaint granted. Plaintiff failed to serve motion to vacate within three months of receiving award, as required by §9 of the FAA, and doctrine of equitable tolling was not appropriate based on the facts alleged.

  • Holdbrook Pediatric Dental, LLC v. Pro Computer Services, LLC, No. 14-CV-06115-NLH-JS (D.N.J. June 21, 2016)
    06/21/2016

    Court denied without prejudice defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that defendant’s motion was procedurally improper as it failed to make an application pursuant to a summary judgment rather than a motion to dismiss standard, which is required when arbitrability is not apparent on the face of the complaint and a factual record is necessary.

  • Jaludi v. Citigroup, No. 3:15-CV-02076-MEM (M.D. Pa. June 21, 2016)
    06/21/2016

    Magistrate judge recommended defendant’s motion to dismiss the action and compel arbitration be granted for plaintiff’s Racketeer influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) claim pursuant to the FAA and recommended defendant’s motion to compel arbitration for plaintiff’s Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”) claim be denied.  Court found the employment policies created enforceable arbitral agreements, and that the RICO claim but not the SOX claim fell within the scope of the agreements, recommending the SOX claim be denied without prejudice.  Court held the arbitration agreements were not unconscionable as the plaintiff failed to carry its burden of showing there was a lack of meaningful choice formed through oppression or unfair surprise.

  • New York City and Vicinity Dist. Council of the United Bhd. of Carpenters and Joiners of Am. v. Ass’n of Wall–Ceiling and Carpentry Indus. of New York, Inc., 15‐1574‐CV (2d Cir. June 20, 2016)
    06/20/2016

    District court’s judgment vacating arbitral award vacated.  Court held that the award was properly grounded in the arbitrator’s application of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and did not violate the court’s prior order approving the CBA.  Court remanded to permit the district court to reconsider its decision to approve the CBA in light of the arbitrator’s interpretation of that agreement.

  • Roberts Irrigation Co., Inc. v. Hortau Corp. and Hortau, Inc., No. 16-CV-0028 (W.D. Wis. June 20, 2016)
    06/20/2016

    Motion to dismiss or stay action and to compel arbitration dismissed. An arbitration agreement must be in writing and, unlike a new contract, cannot be implied from the parties’ continued course of dealing after the original agreement expired.  The court interprets the arbitration clause of the expired agreement covering “any dispute which arises in the course of or following the performance of the present contract” as applying only to disputes arising from the expired agreement and not disputes arising from the new implied contract.

  • Alstom Brasil Energia E Transporte LTDA et al v. Mitsui Sumitomo Seguros S.A., No. 1:15-CV-08221 (S.D.N.Y. June 20, 2016)
    06/20/2016

    Petition to confirm ICC arbitration award granted and motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction denied because, once federal common law choice of law rules are applied pursuant to the FAA, the arbitration agreement is enforceable against the insurer-subrogee who “stands in the shoes of its insured”.

  • Mathew v. Austin Industrial Services, LP, No. 4:16-CV-00867 (S.D. Tex. June 20, 2016)
    06/20/2016

    Agreed motion to compel arbitration granted.  Rather than granting agreed motion to stay, case is dismissed without prejudice because all issues raised in the litigation are arbitrable.             

  • Brandenburg Health Facilities, LP v. Mattingly, No. 3:15-CV-833 (W.D. Ky. June 20, 2016)
    06/20/2016

    Motion to dismiss suit seeking to enjoin state action and enforce arbitration agreement dismissed; motion to compel arbitration granted for all claims with the exception of wrongful death.  The defendant is enjoined from pursuing all causes of action besides the wrongful-death claim in state court.

  • Abaya v. Total Account Recovery, LLC, No. 2:15-CV-01269 (E.D. Cal. June 20, 2016)
    06/20/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted and matter stayed pending completion of arbitration.  Court holds that parties’ agreement requires gateway issues, including the “validity and scope” of that arbitration agreement, be decided by an arbitrator.

  • Gonzales v. Brinker Intl Payroll Co, LP d/b/a Chili’s Bar & Grill, No. 2:15-CV-00711-MCA-GJF (D.N.M. Jun. 17, 2016)

    06/17/2016

    Court deferred defendant’s motion to compel binding arbitration and to dismiss or stay case pending summary bench trial on the sole issue of whether plaintiff agreed to defendant’s arbitration agreement, finding that the question whether the parties concluded an arbitration agreement could only be resolved by the judicial fact finding process of a trial.

  • REM Directional, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of Am., No. 2:15-CV-152 (S.D. Miss. June 17, 2016)
    06/17/2016

    Motion for summary judgment granted.  The action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations; a court order compelling arbitration does not toll the statute of limitations when the defendant was not party to the proceedings at the time the order compelling arbitration was granted.

  • Gubala v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., No. 15-CV-1078 (E.D. Wis. June 17, 2016)
    06/17/2016

    Amended claim seeking injunctive relief dismissed where plaintiff amends complaint to remove relief that would trigger the mandatory arbitration clause. Court held that elements for injunctive relief are not met because an adequate remedy at law exists despite plaintiff’s decision not to pursue it.

  • General Cable Industries Inc v. Chauffeurs Teamsters Warehousemen and Helpers Union, No. 1:15-CV-00081 (N.D. Ind. June 17, 2016)
    06/17/2016

    Labor arbitration award confirmed. Court held the arbitrator drew his opinion from the essence of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and did not exceed the authority conferred to him by the parties, as required by the FAA.

  • Telecom Decision Makers, Inc. v. Access Integrated Networks Inc., No. 15-6197 (6th Cir. June 17, 2016)
    06/17/2016

    District court decision that claims were subject to and within the scope of a binding arbitration clause affirmed.

  • General Cable Industries Inc. v. Chauffeurs Teamsters Warehousemen and Helpers Union, No. 1:15-CV-00081 (N.D. Ind. June 17, 2016)
    06/17/2016

    Motion to vacate award denied and cross-motion to affirm award granted.  Court held FAA provides sole, limited grounds for vacating arbitral awards, and arbitrator did not exceed his authority or “dispense ‘his own brand of industrial justice.’”

  • Coleman v. System Dialing LLC, No. 1:15-CV-03868 (S.D.N.Y. June 17, 2016)
    06/17/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted. Court held arbitration agreement was supported by consideration.

  • COR Clearing, LLC v. LoBue, No. 5:16-CV-00909-JGB-KK (C.D. Cal. June 16, 2016)
    06/16/2016

    Court granted preliminary injunction enjoining arbitration, finding that plaintiff would likely succeed in showing that it was not bound under FINRA rules to arbitrate with a person who had not opened any accounts from it or received any services from it.

  • CAMOFI Master LDC v. Associated Third Party Administrators, No. 3:16-CV-00855 (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2016)
    06/16/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted in part and denied in part.  Court held that the non-signatory may be compelled to arbitrate where it knowingly received direct benefits from the underlying agreement; but refused to compel arbitration of claims for which no exception applied to the general rule that non-signatories cannot be bound by the arbitral clause of a contract. Court declined to stay arbitration pending outcome of the litigation as this was a decision for the arbitrator.

  • Vesta Corporation v. Amdocs Management Limited, No. 3:14-CV-01142 (D. Or. June 16, 2016)
    06/16/2016

    Motion to dismiss complaint as subject to arbitration agreement denied.  Court held claims were not within scope of arbitration agreement.

  • Celltrace Communications Limited v. Acacia Research Corp., No. 1:15-CV-04746 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2016)
    06/16/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted.  Since the existence of an arbitration agreement was disputed, the court decided the question of arbitrability and held that the parties had a binding agreement to arbitrate under the ICC Rules.

  • Bridgetown Trucking, Inc. v. Acatech Solutions, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00236 (D. Or. June 16, 2016)
    06/16/2016

    Motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration granted.  Court held arbitration agreement encompassed dispute at issue.

  • The Western Sugar Cooperative v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union 190, No. 1:15-CV-00119 (D. Mont. June 16, 2016)
    06/16/2016

    Motion for summary judgment vacating arbitration award denied and cross-motion for summary judgment granted.  Court rejected argument that arbitrator failed to draw his decision from parties’ agreement and dispensed his own brand of justice.

  • Mercado v. Sally Beauty Supply LLC, No. 2:15-CV-02316 (E.D. Cal. June 16, 2016)
    06/16/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration and stay action granted. Court held there is a valid agreement to arbitrate, the agreement covers the dispute, and the plaintiff challenged the arbitration agreement as a whole rather than specifically challenging the specific agreement to arbitrate arbitrability.

  • The Western Sugar Cooperative v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union 190, No. CV 15-119 (D. Mont. June 16, 2016).
    06/16/2016

    Summary judgment granted and suit to vacate a labor arbitration award dismissed. An arbitrator’s decisions are accorded high deference in the labor context, unless (a) the award does not draw its essence from the collective bargaining agreement; (b) the arbitrator exceeds the boundaries of the issues submitted to him; (c) the award is contrary to public policy; or (d) the award is procured by fraud.

  • Clookey v. Citibank, N.A., No. 8:14-CV-01318 (N.D.N.Y. June 16, 2016)
    06/16/2016

    Motion for reconsideration of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration denied because the plaintiff failed to point to any change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice that could reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court. 

  • United Steel Union No. 348 v. Magellan Midstream Holdings, No. 15-3249 (10th Cir. June 16, 2016)
    06/16/2016

    District court order granting summary judgment and compelling arbitration in a labor dispute affirmed.  Court reasoned that reversal is not warranted because (a) the arbitration clause is susceptible to an interpretation that covers the asserted claim, (b) doubts should be resolved in favor of arbitrability, and (c) the arbitration clause is broad and does not expressly exclude the asserted grievance.

  • Ihde v. HME, Inc., No. 4:15-CV-00585-CAN (E.D. Tex. June 16, 2016)
    06/16/2016

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that the parties had not agreed to arbitrate given that the arbitration provision in the subcontract agreement between the parties had not been incorporated by reference into the defendant’s purchase order. Therefore, the court held that the plaintiff should be able to deny the application of the arbitration provision.

  • Tillman v. Tillman, No. 13-56624 (9th Cir. June 15, 2016) 
    06/15/2016

    Dismissal of legal malpractice suit in favor of arbitration by the district court reversed.  Court holds that a valid arbitration agreement exists but, where an arbitration is terminated without judgment after one party ran out of funds, the arbitration occurred for purposes of § 3 of the FAA and nothing in the FAA suggests that dismissal is proper.

  • Beadore v. Conn Appliances, Inc., No. 5:16-CV-00224 (W.D. Tex. June 15, 2016)
    06/15/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pending arbitration granted.  Parties jointly stipulated to applicability of binding arbitration agreement and jointly requested to stay case under § 3 of the FAA.

  • Gatlin v. John M. O'Quinn & Associates, PLLC d-b-a The O'Quinn Law Firm, No. 4:16-CV-00629 (S.D. Tex. June 15, 2016)
    06/15/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration and stay judicial action granted.  Plaintiff did not dispute the existence of a binding arbitration agreement and could not overcome the presumption that the agreement was valid.

  • Jones v. Singing River Health Services Foundation, No. 1:14-CV-00447 (S.D. Miss. June 15, 2016)
    06/15/2016

    Motion to stay proceedings pending outcome of arbitration denied.  Court held that petitioner was not entitled to a mandatory stay under § 3 of the FAA because she was not a signatory to the underlying arbitration agreement.  However, the court granted a discretionary stay pending resolution of an overlapping, but not identical, arbitration in the interest of avoiding inconsistent results.

  • Interstate Distributor Co. v. Ellis, No. 4:15-CV-01781 (S.D. Tex. June 15, 2016)
    06/15/2016

    Motion to recover costs and attorney fees incurred in connection with litigation to vacate an arbitration award denied.  Court held that because the challenge to the award was nonfrivolous and was based on a recognized ground (an undisclosed conflict suggesting possible bias), defendant was not entitled to costs.

  • Fallbrook Hosp. Corp. v. Cal. Nurses Ass’n/Nat’l Nurses Org. Comm. (CAN/NNOC) AFL-CIO, No. 14-56177 (9th Cir. June 15, 2016)
    06/15/2016

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s third amended complaint.  Court held that defendant did not breach an implied agreement to arbitrate all disputes with plaintiff because all of plaintiff’s allegations in support of its contention that the parties entered into such agreement are all conclusory, implausible, or inconsistent with such an implied agreement.  Moreover, as plaintiff’s opening brief did not address its claim that defendant breached an agreement to negotiate in good faith, that argument was therefore waived.

  • Founders Real Estate Investment Trust v. Kinsale Insurance Company, No. 1:16-CV-00086 (N.D. Ohio June 14, 2016)
    06/14/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted.  Court held the right to arbitrate had not been waived through parties’ initial failure to pay the full filing fees, especially since the defendant had subsequently cured any filing defects.  Case dismissed  in its entirety because the parties expressly contracted to resolve this type of dispute by arbitration, the arbitration clause governed all claims at issue, and the arbitrator’s decisions would be final and binding.

  • Smagin v. Yegiazaryan, No. 14-CV-09764-R (C.D. Ca. June 14, 2016)
    06/14/2016

    Motion to stay judicial proceedings pending appeal of arbitral award denied.  The court disagreed with respondent’s argument that the award had been suspended because it was on appeal at the seat of the arbitration and further held that, in any case, courts retain discretion to enforce a suspended award under Article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention.

  • In re Anderson, No. 15-CV-4227 (S.D.N.Y. June 14, 2016)
    06/14/2016

    Bankruptcy Court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration affirmed. Bankruptcy Court properly exercised its discretion to override the arbitration agreement where there is an inherent conflict between the Bankruptcy Code and FAA with respect to a core bankruptcy proceeding.

  • Manning v. Parsons Transportation Grp., Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00390-JLT (E.D. Ca June 13, 2016)
    06/13/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted.  Court held that the FAA applied to the employment agreement because the defendant operated nationwide and further held that the agreement was valid, rejecting plaintiff’s argument that it was procedurally or substantively unconscionable.

  • Welch v. My Left Foot Children's Therapy, LLC, No. 2:14-CV-01786 (D. Nev. June 13, 2016)
    06/13/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration and stay action denied.  Court held the arbitration agreement between the parties, which covered all claims relating to claimant’s employment, must be read broadly to include qui tam claims under the False Claims Act.  However, because the US government was the real party of interest in the action and was not party to the arbitration agreement, requiring arbitration of the claims “would exceed the bounds of the arbitration agreement regardless of whether the government objects to arbitration.”

  • Harris v. Halliburton Co., No. 1:16-CV-00281-LJO-JLT (E.D. Ca. June 13, 2016)
    06/13/2016

    Magistrate judge recommendation to grant motion to compel arbitration.  FAA applied because the employment agreement at issue affected interstate commerce.  Court further held that the agreement was valid, rejecting defenses based on alleged procedural and substgantive unconscionability.

  • Jolie Design & Decor, Inc. v. Van Gogh, No. 2:15-CV-00740 (E.D. La. June 13, 2016)
    06/13/2016

    Motions to confirm arbitration award and grant attorney fees and costs granted and cross-motion to vacate award denied.  US courts have primary jurisdiction over New York Convention awards and must look to § 10 of the FAA for the exclusive grounds for vacating an award, applying a “very differential” standard.  Court held that the arbitrator had not exceeded his authority in finding that a valid arbitration agreement existed, relying on a later agreement to interpret a contract term, and awarding allegedly unreasonable attorney fees.  Motion for attorney fees and costs associated with the litigation granted based on the parties’ agreement.

  • Monica Echavarria v. Adir International, LLC, No. 2:15-CV-09172 (C.D. Cal. June 13, 2016)
    06/13/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings granted.  Court held defendant had not waived its right to arbitrate and that the claims at issue were within the scope of the arbitration agreement between the parties.  Court likewise rejected plaintiff’s argument that the agreement had been oppressive and therefore unconscionable on either procedural or substantive grounds.

  • CVS Health Corp. v. Vividus LLC, No. 2:15-MC-00093-JJT (D. Ariz. June 13, 2016)
    06/13/2016

    Motion to enforce arbitral tribunal’s subpoena ordering a non-party to produce documents prior to hearing denied. In the absence of a decision by the Ninth Circuit expanding the scope of the FAA, 9 USC § 7, the court held that “[t]he plain terms of the statute restrict an arbitrator’s subpoena power to situations where the non-party has been called to appear in the physical presence of the arbitrators and provide the relevant documents at that time.” The issue of whether arbitrators have the authority to order a non-party to testify and produce documents in conjunction with pre-hearing discovery is however not settled between other federal courts.

  • Colton v. Hibbett Sporting Goods, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-04002-NKL (W.D. Mo. June 13, 2016)
    06/13/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration under the FAA granted and case stayed pending the outcome of the arbitration. Court held that the arbitration agreement at issue contains valid consideration and is therefore binding on both parties; and the claim falls within the scope of the agreement. 

  • Campbell v. Adecco USA, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-04059-NKL, (W.D.Mo. Jun. 13, 2016)
    06/13/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration under the FAA denied. Court held that since the defendant held an asymmetrical right to change or modify the terms of the arbitration agreement at any time and without reasonable notice, the promise to arbitrate was therefore illusory and cannot constitute consideration or an enforceable contract. 

  • Gerszberg v. LI & Fung (Trading) Limited, No. 1:16-CV-01182 (S.D.N.Y. June 10, 2016)
    06/10/2016

    Motion to continue preliminary anti-arbitration injunction granted and parties permitted to conduct expedited discovery and additional briefing on the issue of arbitrability. Non-signatory third-party beneficiary is enjoined from proceeding to arbitration since, although the parties’ arbitration agreement delegated the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrators, the issue of whether a party must arbitrate with a non-signatory third-party beneficiary is an issue for the court.

  • Consolidation Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers of Am., No. 1:15-CV-00167-IMK (N.D.W. Va. June 10, 2016)
    06/10/2016

    Court granted motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, finding that an arbitration clause providing that an “employee” shall submit disputes to arbitration also binds the employer to arbitrate disputes.

  • Terracap SC Partners, L.P., v. American Management Services Central, L.L.C., No. 4:16-CV-00037-DW (W.D. Mo. June 10, 2016)
    06/10/2016

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that an arbitration provision that incorporates the Rules of the AAA is, as in this case, a clear and unmistakable expression of the parties’ intent to arbitrate.

  • Zheng v General Electric Company, No. 1:15-CV-01232 (N.D.N.Y.  June 9, 2016)
    06/09/2016

    Motion of compel arbitration and dismiss action granted.  In granting the motion, court held that the parties agreed to arbitrate and all of the claims were within scope of the arbitration agreement and arbitrable.

  • Desimoni v. TBC Corp., 2:15-CV-00366-UA-CM (M.D. Fla. June 9, 2016)
    06/09/2016

    Recommendation that motion to compel arbitration be granted.  Court held that plaintiffs had failed to meet their burden of showing the lack of an agreement to arbitrate and that the inclusion of a waiver of collective actions in the agreement did not render them unenforceable.  Court further held that the contract’s provision requiring that each side pay its own attorney’s fees is severable and therefore it does not affect its decision to compel arbitration.

  • Gerena v. Neurological Surgery, P.C., and Brisman, 2:15-CV-04634-JMA-GRB (E.D.N.Y. June 9, 2016)
    06/09/2016

    Recommendation by Magistrate Judge to grant motion to compel arbitration and stay case pending completion of arbitration.  Court held that, as to the first defendant, because there was clear and unmistakable evidence under New York law that the parties intended that the arbitrator decide the question of arbitrability, such issue must be referred to the arbitrator.  Court further held that, as to the second defendant, the fact that he was a non-signatory did not prevent the court from compelling arbitration on the question of arbitrability.

  • ExxonMobil Corp. v. United Steel Workers Local Union 11-470, No. 1:15-CV-00123-CSO (D. Mont. June 9, 2016)
    06/09/2016

    Order denying motion to vacate and granting cross-motion to enforce labor arbitration award. In reviewing labor arbitration awards, the ninth circuit has held that courts afford a nearly unparalleled degree of deference to the arbitrator’s decision, including the arbitrator’s interpretation of the parties’ agreement and to his findings of fact. In light of this deference, only four circumstances exist where vacatur of a labor arbitration is justified: “(1) when the award does not draw its essence from the collective bargaining agreement and the arbitrator is dispensing his own brand of industrial justice; (2) where the arbitrator exceeds the boundaries of the issues submitted to him; (3) when the award is contrary to public policy; or (4) when the award is procured by fraud.” None of these circumstances were present according to the court.

  • Getma International v. Republic of Guinea, No. 1:14-CV-01616-RBW (D.D.C. June 9, 2016)
    06/09/2016

    Motion to confirm and enforce an annulled arbitration award denied. Where a foreign court has annulled an arbitral award, a court in the US may only ignore that annulment on limited occasions and under extraordinary circumstances, such as where the annulment tends to clearly undermine public interest. Here, where the award issued by a tribunal under the Common Court of Justice (CCJA) Arbitration Rules was subsequently annulled by the CCJA because the tribunal breached the Rules and solicited increased fees despite being ordered not to, the court is not compelled to ignore the annulment.

  • Belize Bank Ltd. v. Government of Belize, No. 1:14-CV-00659-APM (D.D.C. June 8, 2016)
    06/08/2016

    Motion to confirm foreign arbitration award and to enter judgment granted and motion to dismiss denied. Following recent associated cases, court held that an LCIA arbitration award was enforceable since the FSIA’s arbitration exception applied and it had jurisdiction under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 USC § 201.  Court rejected the respondent’s challenges to the award under Art. V of the New York Convention, including a challenge based on the constitution of the arbitral tribunal and the application of the LCIA’s conflict rules.

  • Thomas v. Louis Dreyfus Commodities, LLC, No. 3:15-CV-00394-RLB (M.D. La. June 8, 2016)
    06/08/2016

    Motion to stay action pending arbitration granted. Where a third-party was named as an additional defendant, and a binding arbitration agreement exists between the third-party and the defendant, the court was bound to enforce the arbitration agreement notwithstanding the presence of the plaintiff who is a party to the underlying dispute but not the arbitration agreement.

  • U.S.A. Institutional Tax Credit Fund LXXI, L.P. v. Brownsville Village III, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-20456-KMW (S.D. Fla. June 8, 2016)
    06/08/2016

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the case pursuant to the FAA, finding that the arbitration clause was enforceable, the claims fell within the scope of the arbitration clause, and defendant had not waived its right to arbitrate by waiting to file its motion two months after litigation was commenced but prior to a scheduling order or discovery. Court dismissed the case because plaintiff’s entire claim was subject to arbitration.

  • Mills v. CarMax, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-05018 (D.S.C. June 7, 2016)
    06/07/2016

    Having reviewed, de novo, the Report of the Magistrate Judge, court granted the motion to compel arbitration and held that the action should be stayed pending arbitration.

  • White Oaks Reality, LLC v. Fortress Clay Group, USA, LLC, 2:16-CV-02235-LMA-KWP (W.D. La. June 7, 2016)
    06/07/2016

    Motion for a default judgment granted and court will enter a judgment confirming the arbitration award.  Where parties have agreed to submit to arbitration pursuant to the AAA arbitration rules, they consent to a federal court’s jurisdiction to enforce the arbitration award pursuant to 9 USC § 9.

  • Vine v. PLS Financial Services, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00031-PRM (W.D. Tex. June 6, 2016)
    06/06/2016

    Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss.  Court held that despite a valid agreement to arbitrate under Texas law, lending defendants invoked the judicial process by reporting borrowing plaintiffs to the local district attorneys to investigate through the criminal justice system alleged theft.  Court held defendants thereby waived their arbitral rights as the plaintiffs would be prejudiced if required to arbitrate.

  • Manning v. Parsons Transportation Group, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00390 (E.D. Cal. June 13, 2016)
    06/06/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration and stay action granted because the FAA applies when employment affects interstate commerce, a valid agreement to arbitrate exists, and that agreement encompasses the dispute at issue.

  • Virtualpoint, Inc. v. Poarch Band of Creek Indians, No. 8:15-CV-02025, (C.D. Cal. June 6, 2016)
    06/06/2016

    Motion to dismiss action for declaratory judgment and common law fraud against the National Arbitration Forum, Inc. granted.  Doctrine of “arbitral immunity protects arbitrators and the arbitration process from ‘reprisals by dissatisfied litigants’” so long as they act “‘within the scope of their duties and within their jurisdiction.’”  Allegations of bias, unless “‘systemic, pervasive, and far reaching,’” are insufficient to overcome arbitral immunity.

  • ST Shipping & Transp. PTE, Ltd. v. Agathonissos Special Mar. Enter., No. 1:15-CV-04983-AT (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 2016)
    06/06/2016

    Court denied motion to vacate the arbitration award, rejecting petitioner’s arguments that the panel had refused to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy, warranting vacatur of the award under FAA § 10(a)(3).  Further, contrary to petitioner’s assertions, the arbitration panel had no obligation to hold an oral hearing, and plaintiff could not identify what evidence further discovery and hearing would have adduced.

  • Koch v. Koch, No. 3:16-CV-00037-ARC (M.D. Pa. June 3, 2016)
    06/03/2016

    Motion to dismiss and compel arbitration denied without prejudice. Court held the record was insufficiently developed to rule on plaintiff’s claims of unconscionability and granted the parties limited discovery on the issue of arbitrability.

  • Mitchell v. HCL America, Inc., No. 5:15-CV-565-FL (E.D.N.C. June 2, 2016)
    06/02/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted and action dismissed.  While mandatory arbitration in an employment contract is not unconscionable, the arbitration clause is unconscionable to the extent it provides for arbitration in a location several thousand miles away from the employee’s place of employment and exempts defendant from arbitrating claims arising from plaintiff’s “undertakings.”  Those aspects of the arbitration clause are to be severed.

  • Bumbarger v. Credit One Fin., No. 15-CV-944 (W.D. Pa. June 2, 2016)
    06/02/2016

    Motion to dismiss and compel arbitration denied.  Existence and validity of arbitration agreement was not established on the face of plaintiff’s complaint, requiring discovery into this issue.

  • Franklin Templeton Bank & Tr. v. Butler Family Tr., No. 2:15-CV-435-JNP-EJF (D. Utah June 2, 2016)
    06/02/2016

    Motions to compel arbitration and stay proceedings denied.  Plaintiff who signed agreement with arbitration clause in its capacity as a trustee, was not intended to receive a direct benefit from that agreement in its individual capacity, and is not relying on that agreement, cannot be compelled to arbitrate.

  • Hart v. ITC Service Grp., Inc., No. 15-CV-599-W-DGK (W.D. Mo. June 2, 2016)
    06/02/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted, deferring the question of collective arbitrability to the arbitrator because the parties agreed to conduct arbitration under AAA arbitration rules, which empower arbitrator to decide questions of arbitrability.

  • Flinn v. Bank of America Corp., No. 5:15-CV-00193-GWC (D. Vt. June 1, 2016)
    06/01/2016

    Court denied defendant’s motion for stay.  Court held that under the FAA there was no basis to grant a stay as defendant conceded that it is not a proper party to the arbitration, and defendant did not meet its heavy burden of showing the necessity for a stay because there was no assurance the arbitration would conclude expeditiously. 

  • GAC International, LLC v. Roth Licensing LLC, No. 2:15-CV-02375-JMA-AKT (E.D.N.Y. Jun. 1, 2016)
    06/01/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings.  Court held that the parties’ arbitration clause was broad enough to cover the issues in dispute.  Court further noted that any arguments asking it to resolve substantive issues were ones that were reserved for the arbitrator.

  • Wu v. Prudential Fin., Inc., Nos. 15‐2877 & 15‐2880 (7th Cir. June 1, 2016)
    06/01/2016

    District court acted within its discretion to vacate order to dismiss without prejudice and replace with order to dismiss with prejudice, where order had been granted on the basis of plaintiff’s promise to take case to arbitration and plaintiff failed to initiate arbitration.

  • Haines Caribe, Inc., v. Global Mfrs. & Contractors, S.A., No. 1:15-CV-972 (M.D.N.C. June 1, 2016)
    06/01/2016

    Motion for preliminary anti-suit injunction barring defendant from pursuing foreign court proceedings in contravention of arbitration agreement denied because U.S. court did not have personal jurisdiction over defendant.

  • Grayco Commc’ns, L.P., v. ADB Cos., No. H-16-1029 (S.D. Tex. June 1, 2016)
    06/01/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted and action stayed pending completion of arbitration.  Arbitration clause that provided one party the option to choose arbitration or litigation was not illusory.  “The lack of mutuality of arbitration obligation does not invalidate an arbitration provision in a contract otherwise supported by valid consideration.”

  • Deem v. Baron, No. 2:15-CV-00755-DS (D. Utah June 1, 2016)
    06/01/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted, action stayed, and motion for preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo denied.  Plaintiff’s offer to arbitrate, although not accepted by defendant, was not sufficient to constitute substantial compliance with mandatory mediation / arbitration clause.  Preliminary injunction in arbitrable case not available from court where not provided for in arbitration agreement.

  • Garmin Wurzburg GmbH v. Auto. Imagineering & Mfg., LLC, No. 3:14-CV-02006-PPS-CAN (N.D. Ind. June 1, 2016)
    06/01/2016

    Arbitration award previously issued and confirmed against corporate defendant now confirmed against president and sole member of the corporate defendant since elements for piercing the corporate veil under Michigan law were met.

  • Diag Human S.E. v. Czech Republic, No. 14-7142 (D.C. Cir. May 31, 2016)
    05/31/2016

    Appellate court reverses district court’s decision to dismiss claim for enforcement of a foreign arbitral award for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  An informal arrangement contemplating reciprocal rights and obligations meets the requirement of a “defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not” for the arbitration exception to sovereign immunity under FSIA.  Subject matter jurisdiction under the New York Convention exists because the legal relationship was commercial in nature since it related to the provision of health services.

  • Calumet River Fleeting, Inc. v. Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs, No. 15-3174 (7th Cir. May 31, 2016)
    05/31/2016

    District court’s rejection of claim to compel arbitration confirmed.  Appellant terminated its participation in the operative agreement before the dispute arose and thus was not a party to that agreement’s arbitration clause.

  • Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Dyncorp Int’l LLC, No. 16-1023 (4th Cir. May 31, 2016)
    05/31/2016

    District court’s order compelling arbitration affirmed. Carve-out to collective bargaining agreement’s arbitration clause for security matters was limited to adverse employment actions that touch or concern particularized security issues of importance to the government.

  • LeafGuard of Kentuckiana, Inc. v. LeafGuard of Kentucky, LLC, No. 5:15-CV-00237 (E.D. Ky. May 31, 2016)
    05/31/2016

    Motion to reinstate claims rejected.  Defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate by failing to proceed with arbitration following granting of motion to compel arbitration since plaintiff’s motion to reconsider that decision was pending.

  • Grkman v. 890 Weatherwood Lane Operating Co., No. 2:16-CV-00519 (W.D. Pa. May 31, 2016)
    05/31/2016

    Motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration denied.  Decedent did not have power to agree to arbitrate wrongful death claims arising from his death since such claims belong to his heirs.  While survivorship claims belong to decedent could in principle be subject to an agreement to arbitrate, they could not be severed from wrongful death claim under Pennsylvania law, and FAA did not preempt.

  • Aquino v. Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc., No. 15-CV-05281-JST (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2016)
    05/31/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted and action stayed.  Implied-in-fact agreement to arbitrate existed where employee had notice of employer’s implementation of an arbitration agreement and continued to work for employer after agreement went into effect without opting out.

  • Fusco v. Plastic Surgery Ct’r, P.A., No. 2:15-CV-460-DBH (D. Me. May 31, 2016)
    05/31/2016

    Motion for reconsideration of order compelling arbitration denied.  While high cost structure of AAA arbitration deters employee-plaintiff from seeking relief, first circuit precedent permits plaintiff to challenge whether mandatory arbitration provides an effective vindication of her statutory rights only following final decision of the arbitrator.

  • Wills v. Arizon Structures Worldwide, LLC, No. 15-41166 (5th Cir. May 27, 2016)
    05/27/2016

    Appellate court reverses district court’s rejection of petition to compel arbitration, finding that district court erred in concluding that its prior ruling denying appellants’ employer’s petition to compel arbitration was preclusive against appellants.  Court held that a “shared interest in compelling arbitration, by itself, does not warrant the conclusion that . . . parties are in privity,” such that a ruling on one party’s petition to compel arbitration binds the other party.

  • Henderson v. U.S. Patent Comm’n, Ltd., No. 1:15-CV-03897 (N.D. Ill. May 27, 2016)
    05/27/2016

    Court grants defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff to proceed to arbitration on an individual basis, finding that the availability of class arbitration is a question of arbitrability presumptively for the court, not the arbitrator, to decide; and that under the FAA where an arbitration agreement is silent as to class arbitration an agreement to permit class arbitration will not be presumed.

  • Allscripts Healthcare, LLC v. Etransmedia Technology, Inc., No. 15-c-5754 (N.D. Ill. May 27, 2016)
    05/27/2016

    Motion to stay suit and compel arbitration granted.  Since the arbitration clause provided for arbitration under the AAA arbitration rules, which empower arbitrators to decide upon the arbitrability of any claim or counterclaim, the question of arbitrability is to be determined in arbitration and not by the court.

  • Daniels v. Painter, No. 15-CV-1334 (E.D. Wis. May 27, 2016)
    05/27/2016

    Motion to transfer granted and other motions denied as moot. Where arbitration clause provided for venue in Los Angeles, but plaintiffs’ cause of action was filed in Wisconsin one week before defendants filed in California, Wisconsin court concluded that the enforcement of the parties’ arbitration clause consistent with § 4 of the FAA and the interest of judicial economy were best served by having the California court determine whether to compel arbitration.

  • Savannah Children’s, LLC v. Jarvis Consulting & Inv., Inc., No. 16-MC-203-JAR (D. Kan. May 26, 2016)
    05/26/2016

    Court grants petitioners’ motion to vacate arbitration award, vacates the final award, and remands for arbitration by a new arbitrator because petitioners were denied a fundamentally fair hearing. Court found “sufficient cause” under the FAA to vacate the award where arbitrator refused to postpone a hearing even when petitioners did not receive respondent’s notices of demand for arbitration and the arbitration hearing, and had a medical emergency precluding participation.

  • Castleton Commodities Shipping Co. PTE. Ltd. v. HSL Shipping & Logistics (NA) Inc., No. 4:16-CV-01472 (S.D. Tex. May 26, 2016)
    05/26/2016

    Court orders pre-judgment garnishment of $12,060,232 to ensure a partial award issued by the London Maritime Arbitration Association (LMAA) ordering defendant to provide money in escrow as security.

  • Leslie v. Heath, No. 2:15-CV-00833-PMW (D. Utah May 26, 2016)
    05/26/2016

    Court denies defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss or stay the action. Genuine issue of material facts exist for the court to decide regarding whether plaintiff entered into the arbitration agreement by “clicking” on terms of use containing a “buried arbitration provision.”

  • Mullen-Moore v. REB Enter., Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00935-MMB (E.D. Pa. May 26, 2016)
    05/26/2016 | Mullen-Moore-REB-Enter-Inc

    Motion to compel arbitration granted and proceedings stayed until arbitration is complete. No genuine issue of fact concerning the formation of an arbitration agreement where plaintiff does not contest she signed the agreement or that it calls for arbitration of plaintiff’s claims.

  • Geier v. M-Qube Inc., No. 13-36080 (9th Cir. May 26, 2016)
    05/26/2016

    Appellate court reverses district court’s denial of defendants’ motion to compel and remands for further findings on whether defendants are third-party beneficiaries of an arbitration clause. District court must determine whether plaintiff’s spouse assented to terms and conditions containing a clause compelling arbitration for disputes relating to a service agreement between the subscriber and any of the company’s suppliers, and whether a non-party to the case is a supplier to the defendants.

  • Lewis v. Epic Sys. Corp., No. 15-2997, (7th Cir. May 26, 2016)
    05/26/2016

    Appellate court affirms district court ruling denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court holds that defendant’s arbitration clause, which precludes employees from collective action as a condition of continued employment, violates §§ 7 and 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA); the contract containing the collective action waiver provides that if it is unenforceable, then collective claims must proceed in court. Additionally, because the arbitration clause is unlawful under the NLRA, it meets the criteria of the FAA’s saving clause for nonenforcement.

  • Banks v. Cashcall, Inc., No. 6:14-CV-488-Orl-37TBS (M.D. Fl. May 26, 2016)
    05/26/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted and action stayed.  FAA governs enforcement of the arbitration clause notwithstanding exclusive choice of tribal law and federal law disclaimer in loan agreement and arbitration clause expressly provides for arbitration on questions of arbitrability.

  • Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Top’s Personnel, Inc., No. 8:15-CV-90 (D. Neb. May 26, 2016)
    05/26/2016

    Motion to dismiss or alternatively stay proceedings denied. Court held that following amendment of the complaint, the claims brought by plaintiff stem from an agreement that does not contain an arbitration clause and does not incorporate a valid arbitration agreement.

  • Tribendis v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc., No. 2:14-CV-02765-DMG-PJW (C.D. Cal. May 25, 2016)
    05/25/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration as to the arbitrability of class claims, finding evidence in arbitration agreement that the parties intended to arbitrate the arbitrability of class claims.

  • Malanga v. King Inv. Mgmt., Inc., No. 3:15-CV-02463 (D.N.J. May 25, 2016)
    05/25/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted and cross-motion for summary judgment denied. The dispute falls within the scope of a valid pre-dispute arbitration agreement, and defendant’s claims that the action is barred by the statute of limitations, or waiver and estoppel, are matters for the arbitrator to decide.

  • Colley v. The Scherzinger Corp., No. 1:15-CV-00720-SSB-KLL (S.D. Ohio May 25, 2016)
    05/25/2016

    Motion to dismiss and motion for judgment on the pleadings concerning plaintiff’s claim of fraudulent inducement granted.  Court holds that Ohio Arbitration Act employs language identical to the FAA favoring arbitration and the opt-in plaintiff, who signed agreement to arbitrate employment related claims, fails to state a plausible claim for fraudulent inducement.

  • Pine Tree Villa, LLC v. Coulter, No. 3:15-CV-00815-CRS (W.D. Ky. May 25, 2016)
    05/25/2016

    Motion to dismiss plaintiff’s petition to compel defendant to arbitrate her state law claims denied. The underlying arbitration agreement is held valid because defendant signed a power of attorney authorizing her daughter to bind defendant to arbitration.

  • The Doe Run Resources Corp. v. Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 4:16-CV-585-CDP (E.D. Mo. May 25, 2016)
    05/25/2016

    Having dismissed plaintiff’s claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction after plaintiff voluntarily moved, unopposed, to dismiss certain defendants, court remands case to state court from which the case was removed by these defendants who averred that plaintiff’s claims are subject to arbitration agreements that fall under the New York Convention.

  • Thermal Dynamic Int’l, Inc. v. Safe Haven Enterprises, LLC, No. 1:13-CV-00721-CKK (D.D.C. May 25, 2016)
    05/25/2016

    Motion to confirm arbitration award granted and cross motion to dismiss denied. Defendants failed to file a motion to vacate the award and raise arguments in support of vacatur within three months as required by § 12 of the FAA; even if defendants had timely filed their motion, their arguments that plaintiff committed corruption and fraud are baseless and the request for sanctions is unwarranted.

  • Trustees of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labor-Mgmt. Cooperation, Pension & Welfare Funds v. DiPizio Constr., Inc., No. 2:15-CV-02592-JFB-AYS (E.D.N.Y. May 25, 2016)
    05/25/2016

    Motions to confirm arbitration award and for fees and costs granted. Arbitration award is based upon uncontroverted evidence that defendant failed to pay timely contributions to the petitioner funds. Though neither Labor Management Relations Act nor the FAA authorize an award of attorneys’ fees in actions to confirm arbitration awards, the parties’ agreement requires the payment of such fees and costs incurred to recover untimely contributions.

  • JPay Inc. v. Salim, No. 1:16-CV-20107-DLG (S.D. Fla. May 24, 2016)
    05/24/2016

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court found, despite plaintiff’s argument to the contrary, that the agreement clearly delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrators, including the question of class arbitration.

  • Hunsinger v. Carr, No. 2:14-CV-02302-RK (E.D. Pa. May 24, 2016)
    05/24/2016

    Complaint to confirm FINRA arbitration award granted as there was no basis to vacate, modify or correct it. Court has diversity jurisdiction over subject matter because FAA applies to arbitrations involving interstate commerce, including securities at issue.

  • White v. Sunoco Inc., No. 2:15-CV-04595-PD (E.D. Pa. May 24, 2016)
    05/24/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation denied.  Defendant failed to establish that as a non-signatory it could compel enforcement of the arbitration agreement contained in a cardholder agreement that governs plaintiff’s relationship with its bank and is not intertwined with the use of defendant’s rewards credit card.

  • Goldman Sachs Bank USA v. Moreno, No. 6:15-CV-020188-RFD-CBW (W.D. La. May 24, 2016)
    05/24/2016

    Court denies motion to compel arbitration and motion for leave to file an amended motion to compel arbitration.  The action in dispute does not fall within the scope of the arbitration clauses at issue because under Louisiana law an “executory process” it is not a “court trial” or “trial by jury,” which is what the parties waived in favor of arbitration.

  • Neurosigma, Inc., v. De Salles, No. 2:13-CV-07973-DMG-PJW (C.D. Cal. May 24, 2016)
    05/24/2016

    Court enters judgment pursuant to prior decision to grant defendant’s motion to confirm AAA arbitration award.

  • Avery v. Bagnato, Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00161-LAP (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2016)
    05/23/2016

    Court denied motion to vacate arbitral award, finding that motion was untimely pursuant to the FAA § 12 which provides that a motion to vacate cannot be filed outside the three-month limitation period.

  • Racey v. Jay-Jay Cabaret, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-08228-KPF (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2016)
    05/23/2016

    Court grants plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of collective action and notice to be sent to prospective collection action members over defendants’ challenges, including a claim that certain members of the putative collective action are bound by arbitration agreement that bar them from participating.  Court held that it may have to evaluate the validity of any purported arbitration agreements, but that such inquiry does not prevent conditional certification or notice at this stage.

  • Bruster v. Uber Tech. Inc., No. 1:15-CV-02653-JG (N.D. Ohio May 23, 2015)
    05/23/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration and dismiss action granted.  Plaintiff failed to establish procedural unconscionability in the formation of the arbitration agreement’s delegation of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

  • Jock v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc., No. 1:08-CV-02875-JSR (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2016)
    05/23/2016

    Motion to vacate an arbitrator’s conditional certification award and tolling order denied as the court lacks jurisdiction to review arbitrator’s non-final orders.

  • Muckle v. Healthcare Support Staffing, Inc., No. 6:15-CV-1391-Orl-28TBS (M.D. Fla. May 23, 2016)
    05/23/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration denied. Arbitration agreement was invalid because it was not signed by an agent of the defendant and the conduct of the defendant did not demonstrate an assent to arbitrate.  Even if the arbitration agreement were valid, the plaintiff waived his right to arbitration by commencing two lawsuits covered by the agreement.

  • Pasi of LA, Inc. v. Harry Pepper & Assoc., Inc., No. 1:15-CV-0369HSO-JCG (S.D. Miss. May 23, 2016)
    05/23/2016

    Motion to stay proceedings pending related litigation and arbitration granted pursuant to the court’s inherent authority to control its docket rather than pursuant to 9 USC § 3. Court held that the instant action could not be litigated until a related AAA arbitration was resolved and a pending ruling on the issue of arbitrability was decided by another court in the first instance.

  • McKool Smith, P.C. v. Curtis Int’l Ltd., No. 15-11140 (5th Cir. May 23, 2016)
    05/23/2016

    Appellate court affirms district court’s confirmation of plaintiff’s arbitration award and denial of defendant’s counter-motion to vacate the award.  Court held that plaintiff’s argument, that previously recognized non-statutory grounds for vacatur (i.e. manifest disregard for Texas law and violation of Texas public policy) should be recognized as statutory grounds for vacatur under the FAA, need not be reached when plaintiff failed to show sufficient grounds to overcome the court’s deferential standard of review.

  • Sullivan v. PJ United Inc., No. 15-13114 (11th Cir. May 23, 2016)
    05/23/2016

    Judgment of district court affirmed; the arbitration agreement expressly delegated to the arbitrator issues concerning enforceability of the agreement and arbitrator construed the contract after excising the class arbitration waiver.

  • Cline v. Etsy, No. 2:15-CV-2115 (JCM) (VCF) (D. Nev. May 23, 2016)
    05/23/2016

    Court grants motion to compel arbitration and stays the action pending outcome of the arbitration. Court adopts magistrate judge’s findings that the plaintiff maintained an account with defendant, accepted its terms of use agreement that contained a binding and valid arbitration provision that survived the termination of the agreement.

  • Salas v. Anheuser-Busch Sales of South Bay, Inc., No. 14–55748 (9th Cir. May 23, 2016)
    05/23/2016

    Appellate court reverses district court’s order compelling arbitration because the collective bargaining agreement does not “clearly and unmistakably” require arbitration of statutory discrimination claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

  • Capstone Associated Servs., Ltd. v. Organizational Strategies, Inc., No. H-15-3233 (S.D. Tex. May 20, 2016)
    05/20/2016

    Defendant’s motion for reconsideration of court order granting plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration denied.  Court held that another court’s decision did not have preclusive effect on the court’s decision that the arbitrator should determine the arbitrability of whether various affirmative defenses were waived in the parties’ mediation settlement agreement.

  • Geter v. Magnolia Manor of Columbia, No. 16-1050 (4th Cir. May 20, 2016)
    05/20/2016

    Appellate court affirms district court order, finding no reversible error in order granting the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s employment discrimination action.

  • Ellison v. Canton Long Term Care, LLC, No. 2:15-CV-01650-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex. May 20, 2016)
    05/20/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration denied. A valid arbitration agreement did not exist between the parties because the arbitration agreement could be unilaterally changed by the petitioner and was therefore an illusory agreement.

  • Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters v. Drywall Dynamics, Inc., No. 14-55250 (9th Cir. May 19, 2016)
    05/19/2016

    District court’s order vacating an arbitration award reversed. Court held that the district court exceeded its narrow authority when it found that the arbitrator’s interpretation of the parties’ agreement was implausible and contrary to public policy. The district court erred by evaluating the arbitrator’s interpretation, which was arguably based on the contract.

  • Malik v. F-19 Holdings, LLC, No. 5:15-CV-130-KKC (E.D. Ky. May 19, 2016)
    05/19/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted.  Court held that the FAA compels arbitration of plaintiff’s class action Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims because the agreement between the parties includes a broad arbitration clause and the claim falls within the scope of that clause.

  • 21st Century Fin. Servs., LLC v. Manchester Fin. Bank, 3:15-CV-01848-BTM-BGS (S.D. Cal. May 19, 2016)
    05/19/2016

    In an action to enforce a confirmed arbitration award, court denies plaintiff’s motion to add judgment debtors. Court held that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to enforce a judgment against non-diverse parties under an alter-ego theory of liability.

  • Ideal Co., Inc. v. 1st Merch. Funding, LLC, 2:15-cv-07256-RSWL-GJS (C.D. Cal. May 18, 2016)
    05/18/2016

    Motion to dismiss granted since all claims asserted are arbitrable.  While 9 USC § 3 provides that courts are to stay proceedings until arbitration has been completed, circuit courts, including the ninth circuit, have held that district courts may order dismissal when all the claims are barred by the arbitration clause.

  • Henry v. New Orleans Louisiana Saints L.L.C., No. 2:15-CV-05971-CJB-JCW (E.D. La. May 18, 2016)
    05/18/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted and action stayed pending outcome of the arbitration. Court found that a valid arbitration agreement existed, noting that ambiguous language does not necessarily render it unenforceable. Additionally, since plaintiff failed to show that the arbitrator’s relationship with defendants was undisclosed, unanticipated, or unintended, the appropriate method for contesting any possible bias is through judicial review of the ensuing arbitration award.

  • Gingras v. Rosette, Case No. 5:15-CV-101 (D. Vt. May 18, 2016)
    05/18/2016

    Motions to compel arbitration denied.  Court held that the court, not the arbitrator, should decide the validity of the arbitration clause because the clause does not explicitly delegate authority to the arbitrator and instead sends questions related to arbitrability of class action claims to the tribal court. Additionally, an attack on the delegation clause as unconscionable should be addressed by the court.  The court also held that though the arbitration agreement states it is subject to tribal law, the lack of any relevant tribal law on arbitrability of disputes militates for the application of Vermont law.

  • Orange Middle East & Africa v. Republic of Equatorial Guinea, No. 1:15-CV-00849-RMC (D.D.C. May 18, 2016)
    05/18/2016

    Petition to enforce arbitration award dismissed without prejudice. Court held that proper service was never effected on the respondent foreign state, as required by 28 USC § 1608, since an agreement between the parties about the exchanging of notices was not a “special arrangement for service” as required by the FSIA’s strict service requirements.

  • EEOC v. PJ Utah, LLC, No. 15-4079 (10th Cir. May 18, 2016)
    05/18/2016

    Appeal of the district court’s order compelling arbitration dismissed. Since the order compelling arbitration did not dispose of all claims by all parties, and therefore does not constitute a final decision, the appellate court lacked jurisdiction over that order.

  • Mitchell v. EEG, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-00903-JHM-DW (W.D. Ky. May 18, 2016)
    05/18/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted in part and denied in part. The existence of a delegation clause is clear and unmistakable evidence that parties agreed to submit issues of arbitrability to the arbitral tribunal. However, since one of the plaintiffs alleged her signature was forged the court retained the action on a limited basis and ordered discovery to decide whether an agreement was formed in the first place.

  • Davis v. BSH Home Appliances Corp., No. 4:15-CV-103-FL (E.D.N.C. May 18, 2016)
    05/18/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted. The court held that the parties’ valid arbitration agreement included the dispute in its scope and reference to the AAA arbitration rules was a clear and unmistakable delegation of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

  • Monadnock Construction, Inc. v. Westchester Fire Insurance Co., No. 1:16-CV-00420-JBW-VMS (E.D.N.Y. May 17, 2016)
    05/17/2016

    Action stayed since pending arbitration between parties covered aspects of the court action. Court requested that the arbitrators expedite the proceedings and stated that the magistrate judge may lift the stay to help the parties seek discovery in aid of the arbitration.

  • Komatsu v. NTT Data, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-07007-LGS (S.D.N.Y. May 17, 2016)
    05/17/2016

    In dismissing the complaint, court held that the plaintiff was estopped from avoiding arbitration with a non-signatory party when the plaintiff’s services were provided to the non-signatory party pursuant to the contract containing the arbitration agreement.  Additionally, a federal court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over a petition to compel arbitration after a state court has already ruled on the merits of that petition.

  • Solo v. American Association of University Women, No. 3:15-CV-01356-WQH-JMA (S.D. Cal. May 17, 2016)
    05/17/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration denied. The arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable because it was drafted by the party with the stronger bargaining power, did not provide a meaningful choice, and did not reference the relevant arbitration rules or discuss costs.  The court also held the agreement was substantively unconscionable because it was unreasonably favorable to the defendant with no justification for its one-sided nature.

  • Aiton v. Verizon New Jersey, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-06533-MAS-TJB (D.N.J. May 17, 2016)
    05/17/2016

    Motion to dismiss and compel arbitration granted. A valid arbitration agreement existed and the claim falls within the scope of the arbitration clause.

  • GSS Group Ltd. v. National Port Authority of Liberia, No. 14-7041 (D.C. Cir. May 17, 2016) 
    05/17/2016

    District court dismissal of petition to confirm arbitral award affirmed.  Court held that district court was correct in dismissing petitioner’s second attempt to confirm the same arbitral award because the issue of personal jurisdiction could not be re-litigated. Court further held that the FSIA arbitration exception did not give the district court subject matter jurisdiction over a claim against Liberia itself because the petitioner could demonstrate neither that the port authority was Liberia’s agent nor that treating it as a legally separate entity would perpetuate fraud or injustice.

  • Highland TH, LLC v. City of Terre Haute, No. 2:15-CV-00196-JMS-DKL (S.D. Ind. May 17, 2016) 
    05/17/2016

    Motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration granted. Court held that claims of tortious interference arose from or were in connection with a contract to which a valid arbitration agreement applied.

  • Data Processing Sciences Corp. v. Lumenate Technologies, L.P., No. 1:16-CV-00387-TSB (S.D. Ohio May 16, 2016)
    05/16/2016

    Motion to vacate or modify the arbitration award granted in part and denied in part.  In vacating part of the award, the court held that the arbitrator exceeded his authority in deciding a counterclaim that arose out of a different but related contract to which the arbitration agreement did not apply. The award was enforceable as to the issues that drew their “essence” from the contract containing the arbitration agreement.

  • JPAY, Inc. v. Kobel, No. 1:16-CV-20121-DPG (S.D. Fla. May 16, 2016)
    05/16/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings denied in part. Court held that the differences between class and bilateral arbitration are of enough consequence that the determination of whether class arbitration is available is a substantive question of arbitrability for the court to decide absent clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties intended otherwise.

  • Praxis Capital & Investment Management Ltd. v. Gemini Holdings I, LLC, No. 2:15-CV-02912-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio May 16, 2016)
    05/16/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration denied. The purported arbitration agreement did not require arbitration and therefore was not mandatory.

  • Danley v. Encore Capital Group, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-11535-GCS-EAS (E.D. Mich. May 16, 2016)
    05/16/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration and dismiss action without prejudice granted. Court held that challenges to the arbitration agreements were delegated to the arbitrator.

  • Hedrick v. BNC Nat’l Bank, No. 2:15-CV-09358-JAR (D. Kan. May 16, 2016)
    05/16/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted and action stayed.  Arbitrator must decide the question of whether the arbitration clause allows for class arbitration because the parties agreed to conduct arbitration under AAA arbitration rules, which empower arbitrator to decide questions of arbitrability.

  • BCB Holdings Limited v. Government of Belize, No. 15-7063 (D.C. Cir. May 13, 2016)
    05/13/2016

    District court judgment enforcing arbitral award affirmed.  The Government of Belize failed to provide support for its assertion that the doctrine of international comity is a “rule of procedure” of the US, as provided for in the New York Convention.  Additionally, the public policy interest in international comity does not present a clear-cut case under the New York Convention where enforcement would violate basic notions of morality and justice.  Further, in view of the circumstances presented, the district court’s equitable tolling of the requirement under 9 USC § 207 to enforce an arbitral award within three years was appropriate.

  • Atwood v. Rent-A-Center East, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-1023-MJR-SCW (S.D. Ill. May 13, 2016)
    05/13/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration under the FAA denied, but motion to compel arbitration under the Illinois Uniform Arbitration Act granted. Court held that the employee falls under the transportation-worker exemption to the FAA but that does not preclude arbitration under state law, if available.

  • Goad v. St. David’s Healthcare Partnership, No. 1:16-CV-044-RP (W.D. Tex. May 13, 2016)
    05/13/2016

    Motion to dismiss and compel arbitration denied. Whether the employee received notice of the arbitration agreement presented a genuine issue of fact and under the FAA the parties have a right to a trial by jury on the issue.

  • Minnesota Nurses Association v. North Memorial Health Care, No. 15-2211 (8th Cir. May 13, 2016)
    05/13/2016

    District court order granting in part union’s motion to vacate arbitration award affirmed. District court correctly concluded that the arbitrator exceeded the scope of his authority under the collective bargaining agreement by resolving a dispute not presented by the parties.

  • Newco Ltd. v. Government of Belize, No. 1:08-CV-02010 (D.C. Cir. May 13, 2016)
    05/13/2016

    District court judgment enforcing arbitral award affirmed. The Government of Belize failed to provide support for its assertion that the doctrine of international comity is a “rule of procedure” of the US, as provided for in the New York Convention. Further, the public policy interest in international comity does not present a clear-cut case under the New York Convention where enforcement would violate basic notions of morality and justice.

  • Owensboro Health Facilities, L.P. v. Henderson, No. 4:16-CV-00002-JHM (W.D. Ky. May 13, 2016)
    05/13/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration and enjoin defendant granted in part. Court held that wrongful death beneficiaries are not bound by arbitration agreements to which they are not a party. Court further held that a requirement under Kentucky law that a power of attorney explicitly grants authority to sign arbitration agreements violates and is thus pre-empted by the FAA.

  • Parton v. FCA US LLC, No. 5:15-CV-00262 (W.D. Okla. May 13, 2016)
    05/13/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration denied.  Arbitration agreement requiring car purchasers to pay half of the arbitrator’s fees is unenforceable under the FAA; since the purchasers cannot afford to pay such a fee the arbitration agreement does not provide an effective and accessible alternative forum.

  • U-Save Auto Rental of America, Inc. v. Barton, No. 3:15-CV-00348-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss. May 13, 2016)
    05/13/2016

    Motion to correct judgment as to prejudgment interest under FRCP Rule 60(a) denied.  Setting an earlier accrual date for calculating prejudgment interest was not a clerical-type correction as envisioned by FRCP Rule 60(a), but was a modification of the arbitration award that would require findings of law and fact.

  • Preferred Care, Inc. v. Howell, No. 7:16-CV-00013-ART-EBA (E.D. Ky. May 13, 2016)
    05/13/2016

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to dismiss.  Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ attempt to compel arbitration regarding wrongful death claims where the arbitration agreement is not enforceable against the wrongful-death beneficiaries who were not bound by the agreement.  Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss with respect to the plaintiffs’ remaining claims, as plaintiffs’ arbitration agreement is valid and enforceable with respect to the remaining claims defendant brought in his state court complaint. 

  • Neurosigma, Inc. v. De Salles, No. 2:13-CV-07973-PJW (C.D. Cal. May 12, 2016)
    05/12/2016

    Court granted defendant’s motion to approve the consent judgment arbitration award rendered by the AAA.  Pursuant to FAA, court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate or modify the award, finding the Stock Purchase Agreement was legal, the decision to issue an award of attorney’s fees based on bad faith was legal, and there was no arbitrator misconduct or bias.

  • Consolidated Precision Products Corp. v. General Electric Co., No. 1:15-CV-8721-PKC (S.D.N.Y. May 12, 2016)
    05/12/2016

    Motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction denied, but motion to stay  action pending completion of the arbitration granted. While independent grounds for the court’s subject matter jurisdiction existed, a valid arbitration agreement controlled the dispute, including the challenge to arbitrability.

  • ICC Chemical Corp. v. Nordic Tankers Trading A/S, No. 1:15-CV-09766-KPF (S.D.N.Y. May 12, 2016)
    05/12/2016

    Motion to vacate arbitration award denied, cross-motion to confirm granted. Court held that the arbitral tribunal did not objectively disregard clearly applicable law and therefore petitioner was not entitled to vacating the arbitration award based on manifest disregard of the law.

  • Pinnacle Foods Group, LLC v. United Dairy and Bakery Workers Local 87, No. 2:15-CV-12413 (E.D. Mich. May 12, 2016)
    05/12/2016

    Motion to vacate arbitrator’s award denied and motion for summary judgment enforcing award granted. Since the arbitrator was arguably construing the contract, and in light of the highly deferential standard under which it reviews the award, the court refused to substitute its judgment for that of the arbitrator.

  • Stover-Davis v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., No. 1:15-CV-01938-BAM (E.D. Cal. May 12, 2016)
    05/12/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted. Court held that a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties and that such agreement is not illusory, unilateral, or unconscionable.

  • Weirton Medical Center, Inc. v. QHR Intensive Resources, LLC, No. 5:15-CV-00131 (N.D. W. Va. May 12, 2016)
    05/12/2016

    Motion to vacate arbitration award denied and motion to confirm granted. Court held that the arbitrator did not exceed his power, the award was not in manifest disregard of the law, and the award was not procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means.

  • Lainer v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-09925-BRO-MRW (C.D. Cal. May 11, 2016)
    05/11/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed litigation, finding that a party’s acceptance of the arbitration agreement in the Terms of Service for Uber’s ride sharing application required her to arbitrate claims arising out of unsolicited text messages recruiting her to be an Uber driver.

  • Stati v. Republic of Kazakhstan, No. 14-1638 (ABJ) (D.D.C. May 11, 2016)
    05/11/2016

    Motion for leave to submit additional grounds in support of opposition to confirm an arbitration award denied. Court held respondent’s proposed submissions on evidence of alleged fraud were not relied upon by the Tribunal in making its decision and therefore would not be germane to the petition to confirm the award.

  • Sheridan Healthcare of Louisiana, Inc. v. Progressive Acute Care, LLC, No. 6:15-CV-02509-RGJ-CBW (W.D. La. May 11, 2016)
    05/11/2016

    Motion to confirm arbitration award granted. Court found no basis for vacating or modifying the award.

  • Boule v. Credit One Bank, No. 15-CV-8562 (RJS) (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2016)
    05/11/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration and dismiss action granted. Court finds that plaintiff received and consented to a cardholder agreement, including its arbitration provision, and the dispute over claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act fall within the scope of the agreement; plaintiff’s objection to contract as a whole, and not the arbitration clause in particular, is a matter for the arbitrator to decide.

  • Transatlantic Lines LLC v. Amergent Techs, LLC, No. 3:15-cv-01681-AWT (D. Conn. May 11, 2016)
    05/11/2016

    Court grants defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s petition to compel arbitration in the District of Connecticut.  Since the parties’ arbitration agreement did not specify a venue for the arbitration, the court held that defendant’s commencement of arbitration in California did not constitute its refusal to arbitrate.

  • Leblanc v. Texas Brine Company LLC, No. 2:12-cv-02059-JCZ-MBN (E.D. La. May 10, 2016)
    05/10/2016

    Motions to stay claims pending arbitration granted.  In the fifth circuit the incorporation of the AAA arbitration rules is sufficient to manifest a clear and mistakable agreement to delegate issues of arbitrability to an arbitrator; and while only available in rare circumstances, a non-signatory can invoke equitable estoppel to rely on an arbitration clause where a signatory asserts claims arising from the underlying contract. 

  • Claridge Associates LLC v. Schepis, No. 1:15-CV-04514-KPF (S.D.N.Y. May 10, 2016)
    05/10/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted to decide the arbitrability of defendants’ res judicata defense, and court action stayed pending resolution of the arbitration proceedings. The parties’ broad sweeping agreement to arbitrate all claims that “arise out of” or “relate to” their contract, coupled with express incorporation of the AAA arbitration rules, places the res judicata issue in dispute properly before the arbitrator.

  • Messina v. North Central Distributing, No. 15-2323 (8th Cir. May 10, 2016)
    05/10/2016

    District court’s order denying motion to compel arbitration affirmed.  Defendant-appellant waived right to arbitration because it knew of its right to arbitrate, acted inconsistently with that right, and prejudiced the plaintiff-appellee by its failure to even mention arbitration despite multiple opportunities to do so over eight months of litigation.

  • Suazo v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd., No. 14-15351 (11th Cir. May 10, 2016)
    05/10/2016

    District court’s order compelling the parties to arbitrate affirmed and defendant’s motion for sanctions denied.  Defendant failed to establish an effective vindication defense showing it likely that unaffordable costs will deny him access to the arbitral forum.

  • Dismuke v. McClinton Energy Group, L.L.C., No. 7:16-CV-00023-RAJ (W.D. Tex. May 10, 2016)
    05/10/2016

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and denied plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification. Court held that, under Texas law, plaintiff could not evade the valid arbitration agreement through artful pleading, which plaintiff attempted to do by amending its complaint to remove parties to the arbitration agreement as defendants and to instead name their agent in his individual capacity.

  • Azod v. Robinson, No. 2:16-CV-00440-JFW-E (C.D. Cal. May 10, 2016)
    05/10/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding the arbitration agreement was binding and enforceable and that claims asserted were within the agreement’s scope. 

  • Dry Ground Specialists, Inc. v. Newfield Exploration Company, No. 1:16-CV-00027-DLH-CSM (D.N.D. May 9, 2016)
    05/09/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, rejecting argument that the arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable because of the parties’ unequal bargaining powers or substantively unconscionable because of a clause requiring that the tribunal chair be elected by the party-appointed arbitrators from among the members of an industry group.  Court also rejected the petitioner’s quantum meruit claim because equitable remedies are not available for disputes governed by a valid contract.

  • Butler v. New Horizons Great Lakes Holding Corporation, No. 2:15-CV-01304-RAJ (W.D. Wash. May 9, 2016)
    05/09/2016

    Motion to stay proceedings in favor of arbitration granted.  The arbitration agreement at issue was valid and enforceable, and all claims asserted by plaintiff must be decided in arbitration.  Further, incorporation of the AAA arbitration rules demonstrates the parties’ intent to delegate issues of arbitrability to an arbitrator.

  • Larson v. Ameriprise Financial Services Inc., No. 4:16-CV-03025-JMG-CRZ (D. Neb. May 9, 2016)
    05/09/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted and court action stayed pending arbitration. Nonsignatory who wishes to obtain the benefits of contract must accept the contract’s terms as a whole and cannot avoid application of certain provisions, including the arbitration agreement.

  • Rowan v. Brookdale Senior Living, No. 15-1793 (6th Cir. May 9, 2016)
    05/09/2016

    District court’s order granting motion to compel arbitration and dismiss court action affirmed. 

  • Rowan v. Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc., No. 15-1793 (6th Cir. May 9, 2016)
    05/09/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration affirmed, where court held that arbitration clause was not void since appellant had mental capacity to contract at the time he signed the agreement. The arbitration agreement therefore did not violate public policy by waiving jury-trial rights or limiting liability for gross negligence, and was not unenforceable due to lack of mutual assent, lack of consideration, or for the costs of the arbitration.

  • Linglong Americas, Inc. v. Horizon Tire, Inc., No 1:15-CV-01240-DCN (N.D. Ohio May 6, 2016)
    05/06/2016

    Motion to dismiss or stay pending arbitration denied.  Plaintiff cannot seek to enforce provisions of a contract, including the arbitration agreement, which all parties agree is no longer enforceable and where plaintiff has proceeded in a manner wholly inconsistent with arbitration and prejudices the defendants.

  • James Howden & Co. Ltd. v. Bossart LLC, No. 2:15-CV-01977 (W.D. Wash. May 5, 2016)
    05/05/2016

    Motion for entry of judgment on a monetary foreign arbitration award pursuant to FRCP Rule 58 granted. Court refused requests from both parties to convert the currency of the award since federal law allows for judgment in foreign currency and federal policy weighs strongly against modification of arbitral awards.

  • Sexton v. Karam, No. 15-2599 (2d Cir. May 5, 2016)
    05/05/2016

    District court’s judgment and order confirming an arbitral award affirmed.  Evidence did not sufficiently evince corruption by the arbitrators to warrant vacating the award.

  • Wawock v. CSI Elec. Contractors, Inc., No. 14-56810 (9th Cir. May 5, 2016)
    05/05/2016

    Circuit court held that arbitration clause in collective bargaining agreement (CBA) did not clearly and explicitly waive employee’s right to a judicial forum for his claims. Court found that disputes concerning the meaning of a federal statute are not entitled to a presumption of arbitrability and any CBA requirement to arbitrate them must be particularly clear; because the CBA here did not explicitly require arbitration under these circumstances, it did not waive employee’s right to a judicial forum.

  • Advantage Sales & Marketing LLC v. USG Companies Inc., No. 1:15-CV-01225-RGA (D. Del. May 4, 2016)
    05/04/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration and dismiss complaint granted.  In reaching its decision, the court was guided by cases decided under Delaware law where the FAA applied.

  • Gold Reserve Inc. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 15-7158 (D.C. Cir. May 4, 2016)
    05/04/2016

    Motion to stay a district court judgment pending appeal denied. Appellant failed to satisfy the stringent requirements for a stay pending appeal without posting a supersedeas bond.

  • Nguy v. Cinch Bakery Equipment, LLC, No. 2:13-CV-02283-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal. May 4, 2016)
    05/04/2016

    Motion to confirm arbitration award and dismiss plaintiff’s claim granted.  Plaintiff’s petition to vacate the arbitration award was filed nearly four months after the arbitrator issued the award and was untimely and barred by the statute of limitations.

  • SGC Health Group Inc. v. eClinicalWorks LLC, No. 3:15-CV-04022-M (N.D. Tex. May 4, 2016)
    05/04/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration and dismiss court action granted. A valid agreement to arbitrate exists and the dispute in question falls within the scope of that agreement. The court also held that where the only possible role it would have is to review the arbitration award the case should be dismissed with prejudice rather than stayed.

  • Preferred Care of Delaware, Inc. v. Konicov, No. 5:15-CV-88-KKC-EBA (E.D. Ky. May 4, 2016)
    05/04/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration and enjoin state proceedings granted. Court held that the arbitration agreement provides clear delegation of authority to the arbitrator and that the issues in dispute fall within the arbitration agreement.  Further, disputes within the ambit of an arbitration agreement do not carry a right to trial by jury because no “suit” within the meaning of the Seventh Amendment arises.

  • Suarez v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 8:16-CV-00166 (M.D. Fla. May 4, 2016)
    05/04/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration and strike class and collective allegations granted, and court action dismissed without prejudice. The parties clearly and unmistakably intended to arbitrate questions of arbitrability, and under Florida law the arbitration agreement at issue is not unconscionable.

  • Home Buyers Warranty Corporation v. Jones, No. 1:15-MC-00324-RGA (D. Del. May 4, 2016)
    05/04/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted and court action stayed pending arbitration. Court held that the agreement to arbitrate all claims, including arbitrability, valid and enforceable, and respondents are bound by their agreement to arbitrate.

  • Merkin v. Vonage America, Inc., No. 14-55397 (9th Cir. May 4, 2016)
    05/04/2016

    District Court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration reversed and remanded with instructions to grant motion.  Court held that, even assuming the provision of the agreement that exempted certain categories of claims from arbitration was substantively unconscionable, where only one provision of the agreement is found to be unconscionable and that provision can easily be severed without affecting the remainder of the agreement, the court should do so.  The district court erred in not severing this provision.

  • Boardman v. Pacific Seafood Group, CV-15-0108-MC (9th Cir. May 3, 2016)
    05/03/2016

    District Court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration affirmed.  Court held that plaintiffs’ claims were not within the scope of the purported arbitration provision in the parties’ agreement.

  • Varon v. Uber Technologies Inc., No. 1:15-CV-03650 (D. Md. May 3, 2016)
    05/03/2016

    Motion to compel individual arbitration, dismiss court action, and strike class allegations granted. Court held the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable and provides clear and unmistakable delegation of authority to the arbitrator.

  • InfoSpan Inc. v. Emirates NBD Bank PJSC, No. 8:14-CV-01679 (C.D. Cal. May 3, 2016)
    05/03/2016

    Motion for award of attorney’s fees and costs denied. Court held that a successful motion to compel arbitration is temporary procedural victory rather than an event conferring prevailing party status.

  • Leong v. The Goldman Sachs Group Inc., No. 1:13-CV-08655 (S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2016)
    05/02/2016

    Request for injunctive relief granted to enjoin plaintiff from proceeding with Commodity Futures Trading Commission reparations claim against defendant.  Parties directed to submit any dispute arising out of their agreement to the LCIA, consistent with the court’s order of two years earlier compelling arbitration between the same two parties.

  • Doty v. Dolgencorp, Inc., No. 4:15-CV-01931-RWS (W.D. Mo. May 2, 2016)
    05/02/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted and action stayed pending the outcome of the arbitration. By incorporating the AAA arbitration rules in the arbitration agreement, the parties clearly and unmistakably agreed to allow the arbitrator to determine threshold questions of arbitrability, including challenges to the validity of the agreement.

  • Loney v. USAA Fed. Savings Bank, No. 1:15-CV-00292-CCE-JLW (M.D.N.C. May 2, 2016)
    05/02/2016

    Magistrate judge recommended granting defendant’s motion to confirm arbitral award on the basis that the arbitral award had not been corrected, vacated, or modified and no valid motion to vacate the award was filed within the time allowed under 9 U.S.C. § 9.  

  • Oberweis Securities, Inc. v. Investors Insurance Corp., No. 1:16-CV-04228-EEB (N.D. Ill. Apr. 29, 2016)
    04/29/2016

    Court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint filed for the sole purpose of seeking discovery under § 7 of the FAA to compel the production of documents in response to third-party subpoenas issued by an arbitral panel to nonparties in a FINRA arbitration.   Court held that the FAA does not itself provide federal jurisdiction and absent an independent jurisdictional basis to hear the dispute, the court must dismiss. 

  • Oberweis Securities, Inc. v. Inv’rs Ins. Corp., No. 1:16-CV-04228-EEB (N.D. Ill. Apr. 29, 2016)
    04/29/2016

    Court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint filed for the sole purpose of seeking discovery relief under § 7 of the FAA to compel the production of documents in response to third-party subpoenas issued by an arbitral panel to nonparties in a FINRA arbitration.   Court held that the FAA does not itself provide federal jurisdiction and absent an independent jurisdictional basis to hear the dispute, the court must dismiss. 

  • Cooks v. Hertz Corp., No. 3:15-CV-0652-NJR-PMF (S.D. Ill. Apr. 29, 2016)
    04/29/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration and dismisses related claims granted. Arbitration clause was not unconscionable and expressly provided for the arbitrator to determine matters of arbitrability.

  • Schatz v. Cellco Partnership, No. 1:10-CV-05414-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2016)
    04/28/2016

    Motion to vacate award denied and cross-motion to confirm award granted. Arbitrator fully and finally resolved petitioners’ claim for attorney’s fees and costs; consequently, no basis to vacate the award pursuant to 9 USC § 10(a)(4).

  • Thomas v. Comcast Holdings Corporation, No. 2:14-CV-02428-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2016)
    04/27/2016

    Unopposed motion to compel arbitration granted and court proceedings stayed pending resolution of arbitration.

  • Roberts v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 3:15-CV-03418-EMC (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2016)
    04/27/2016

    Amended order granting motion to compel arbitration granted and court proceedings stayed pending resolution of arbitration. Court held that there was no state action in the instant case and plaintiffs’ lack a viable First Amendment challenge to the arbitration agreements.

  • Schafer v. Multiband Corp., No. 1:12-CV-13152-TLL-CEB (E.D. Mich. Apr. 27, 2016)
    04/27/2016

    Motion to vacate arbitration award granted in part. Matter remanded to arbitrator pursuant to 9 USC § 10(b) to determine plaintiffs’ fraudulent inducement and promissory estoppel claims in the first instance.

  • In Re The Application of TJAC Waterloo, LLC., No. 3:16-MC-00009-CAN (N.D. Ind. April 27, 2016)
    04/27/2016

    Court held it did not have jurisdiction under 28 USC § 1782 to order discovery in the foreign proceeding at issue because the “English Expert Determination” is a private arbitral body. Even if the court had jurisdiction, the discovery request was untimely and seeks information beyond the appropriate scope of discovery.

  • Sophinos v. Quadriga Worldwide Ltd., No. 2:16-CV-01273-MWF-MRW (C.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2016)
    04/27/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that a valid arbitration agreement governed the dispute. Court rejected arguments that the arbitration agreement was either procedurally or substantively unconscionable.

  • Doe v. The New Ritz, No. 1:14-CV-02367-RDB (D. Md. Apr. 26, 2016)
    04/26/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration and dismiss litigation granted as all of plaintiff’s claims are governed by the applicable arbitration agreement.

  • Research and Development Center "Teploenergetika" LLC v. EP International LLC, No. 2:15-CV-362 (E.D. Va. Apr. 26, 2016)
    04/26/2016

    Petition for confirmation of three arbitral awards issued by the International Commercial Arbitration Court at The Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation (ICAC) granted.  Respondents were unable to demonstrate that they were unable to present their case at the arbitration or that enforcement or recognition of the arbitral awards would be contrary to the public policy of the US.

  • Immersion Corp. v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC, No. 16-CV-00857-RMW (N.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2016)
    04/26/2016

    Petition to confirm an arbitration award under the New York Convention granted and motion to vacate the award denied.  In considering the defendant’s arguments for vacating the award under both the New York Convention and the domestic standards for review under the FAA, the court held that public policy did not militate against enforcement of the arbitration award.

  • Impala Platinum Holdings Limited v. A-1 Specialized Services and Supplies Inc., No. 2:13-CV-02930-MMB (E.D. Pa. Apr. 26, 2016) 
    04/26/2016

    Court granted motions to lift previous stay, confirm final LCIA arbitration award, and enter judgment in conformity with award. Court refused to disturb the final award since both parties received the benefit of the bargain struck, including a full and final hearing.

  • Villegas v. US Bank NA, No. 14-15727 (9th Cir. April 26, 2016)
    04/26/2016

    District court’s denial of requests for vacatur of an arbitration award affirmed.  Court held that the arbitrator’s dismissal of plaintiff’s claim for a “public injunction” did not allow the district court to consider such claim on the merits as though it had never been referred to arbitration and plaintiff had otherwise waived all other arguments for vacatur.

  • Marshall v. SCC Nashville Operating Company LLC, No. 3-14-1569 (M.D. Tenn Apr. 25, 2016) 
    04/25/2016

    Motion to vacate or modify, in part, an arbitration award denied and action dismissed. Plaintiff failed to carry the substantial burden of showing that the award should be vacated or modified under §§ 10 or 11 of the FAA.

  • National Football League Management Council v. National Football League Players Association, No. 15-2805 (2d Cir. Apr. 25, 2016) 
    04/25/2016

    Judgment of district court reversed and remanded to confirm arbitration award. Court’s review of labor arbitration awards is narrowly circumscribed and highly deferential, and limited to determining whether the arbitration proceedings and award met the minimum legal standards established by the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 USC § 141 et seq.

  • Ward v. Dillard's, No. 2:15-CV-02499-JPM-CGC (W.D. Tenn. Apr. 25, 2016)
    04/25/2016

    Motion to dismiss curt action granted. Court held it did not need to stay the case and compel arbitration since all of the plaintiff's claims could only be properly brought in arbitration.

  • Arshad v. Transportation Systems Inc., No. 1:15-CV-02138-NRB (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2016)
    04/25/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted and court action stayed pending conclusion of the arbitration. Arbitration agreement at issue unmistakably delegates the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator through the incorporation of the AAA arbitration rules and other clear text requiring the matter therefore be sent to arbitration.

  • Beverly v. Autonation Inc., No. 2:15-CV-00468 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 25, 2016)
    04/25/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted and court action stayed pending conclusion of the arbitration.

  • Vap v. Big Iron, Inc., 4:16-CV-3008 (CRZ Mag.) (D. Neb. Apr. 25, 2016)
    04/25/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration denied by magistrate judge.  Court held that plaintiff’s claims are not subject to arbitration because they are beyond the scope of the arbitration clause.

  • Badinelli v. The Tuxedo Club, No. 7:15-CV-06273 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2016)
    04/25/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration and stay court action granted.  Since the arbitration agreement lacked a description of the arbitral procedure, the court ordered that the parties to confer and appoint an arbitrator, failing which the court would do so.

  • China MediaExpress Holdings, Inc., by Karl P. Barth as Receiver v. Nexus Executive Risks, Ltd., No. 1:15-CV-08429 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2016)
    04/25/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted and court action stayed pending resolution of the arbitration. The policies at issue were subject to arbitration under the FAA and the Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention).

  • Odeon Capital Grp. v. Ackerman, No. 1:16-CV-00274-JSR (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2016)
    04/25/2016

    Court granted defendant’s motion to confirm and denied plaintiffs’ motion to vacate an arbitration award.  Court held that the arbitration award should be confirmed because there was no showing that the tribunal engaged in misconduct or manifestly disregarded the law.

  • International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1357 v. Hawaiian Telecom Inc., No. 1:15-CV-00221-SOM-KJM (D. Haw. Apr. 22, 2016)
    04/22/2016

    Motion for summary judgment that labor dispute must be arbitrated pursuant to an expired collective bargaining agreement denied; factors allowing arbitration clause to survive an expired agreement were not present.

  • Zetor North America Inc. v Rozeboom, No. 3:15-CV-03035-TLB (W.D. Ark. Apr. 22, 2016)
    04/22/2016

    Motions to compel arbitration denied as court held that the arbitration agreement is inapplicable to the claims made in the instant dispute.

  • Herndon v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, No. 4:15-CV-01202 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 22, 2016) 
    04/22/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings granted; an assignee of a mortgage debt can enforce the arbitration agreement with the same rights as the assignor.

  • Johnson v. The FV Kilauea in rem, No. 115-CV-00065 LEK-KJM (D. Haw. Apr. 22, 2016) 
    04/22/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration denied and previous stay lifted. Under Hawai'i law there must be bilateral consideration for an arbitration agreement and it must be in writing; one or both of these elements were not present with respect to each of the plaintiffs.

  • Monfared v. St. Luke's University Health Network, No. 5:15-CV-04017 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 22, 2016)
    04/22/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted. Court held that the claims at issue were arbitrable, but portions of the agreement that ban punitive and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees are inconsistent with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 USC § 1981 and must be severed from the agreement, with the result that the arbitrator is allowed to award such damages.

  • Lower Colorado River Authority v. Papalote Creek II LLC, No. 115-CV-00656 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 22, 2016)
    04/22/2016

    Motion to stay arbitration pending appeal denied. Defendant did not show it was likely to succeed on the merits, ripeness is an issue for the arbitrator and a stay would only delay the resolution of that ripeness question.
     

    See also Lower Colorado River Authority v. Papalote Creek II, LLC, No. A-15-CA-656-SS (W.D. Tex. Feb. 24, 2016)

    Motion to compel arbitration granted; the parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute in question and there are no legal constraints external to the parties that foreclose arbitrating the dispute.

  • Foster v. Aaron’s Incorporated, No. 2:15-CV-01637-SRB (D. Ariz. Apr. 21, 2016)
    04/21/2016

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding that, even if there was an arbitration agreement between the parties, the agreement did not encompass the plaintiff’s claims against the defendant under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. 

  • Collado v. J G Transport Inc., No. 15-14635 (11th Cir. Apr. 21, 2016)
    04/21/2016

    Order of district court denying motion to compel arbitration vacated and remanded; waiver of right to arbitrate federal claim through litigation does not extend to defendant-appellant’s subsequently asserted state claim that remains subject to the arbitration agreement.

  • Eastern Ohio Regional Wastewater Authority v. Utility Workers Union of America AFL-CIO Local Union 436-A, No. 2:15-CV-3027 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 21, 2016) 
    04/21/2016

    Motion to dismiss granted; FAA does not provide independent grounds for court's subject matter jurisdiction.

  • Choice Hotels International Inc. v Capital Hotel Inc., 8:16-CV-00152-DKC (D. Md. Apr. 21, 2016) 
    04/21/2016

    Application to confirm a arbitration award granted. 

  • United Food Commercial Workers Int'l Union Local No. 7 v. King Soopers, No. 13–CV–02335–RM-KMT (D. Colo. Apr. 20, 2016)
    04/20/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted. The court held that the parties' dispute is subject to arbitration and therefore the arbitrator should resolve the dispute in the first instance.

  • Drill Cutting Disposal Co. LLC v. Lynn, No. 6:15-02532 (W.D. La. Apr. 20, 2016)
    04/20/2016

    Motion to transfer venue granted. Plaintiff must bring action to vacate arbitration award in the same court that previously dismissed the action in favor of arbitration; under the FAA, the court that dismissed the action retains jurisdiction over confirmation and vacatur proceedings.

  • Inficon, Inc. v. Verionix, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-08044-RWS (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 19, 2016)
    04/19/2016

    Motion to vacate arbitral award denied and cross-motion to confirm arbitral award granted; arbitrators did not manifestly disregard the law in calculating damages or deny a party fundamental fairness.

  • Bald v. PCPA, LLC, No. 15-CV-219-SM (D.N.H. Apr. 19, 2016)
    04/19/2016

    Summary judgment granted. Sole member of an LLC was not personally bound to an arbitration agreement since under New Hampshire law an authorized member of an LLC is presumed to be executing agreements on the company’s behalf.

  • K&M Installation Inc. v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters, Local 405, No. 3:15-CV-05265-MEJ (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2016)
    04/18/2016

    Motion to confirm arbitration award granted. Arbitrator did not dispense his own brand of industrial justice or exceed his scope of authority, and the award does not violate public policy.

  • Shepperd v. DIRECTV Global Holdings LLC, No. 8:15-CIV-2886-T-EAK-AEP (M.D. Fla. Apr. 18, 2016)
    04/18/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted and action stayed pending completion of the arbitration.

  • AMA Multimedia LLC v. Borjan Solutions SL, No. 2:15-CV-1673 JCM (GWF) (D. Nev. Apr. 15, 2016) 
    04/15/2016

    Motions to compel arbitration and stay action granted following parties’ submission agreement to arbitrate dispute. Court further orders that Honorable Philip M. Pro be selected to arbitrate the matter. 

  • Silgan Containers Corp v. Sheet Metal Workers Int., No. 15-1956 (8th Cir. Apr. 15, 2016) 
    04/15/2016

    Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part. Court affirmed district court's decision to vacate the award because the arbitrator lacked authority to decide the validity and formation of the contract, but district court erred in granting summary judgment to plaintiff-appellee.

  • Golden Horn Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Volnas Shipping Company Limited, No. 114-CV-02168 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2016)
    04/15/2016

    Original writ of attachment and garnishment modified and reduced to reflect amount of damages awarded by LCIA arbitral tribunal.

  • Laborers’ Pension Fund and James Jorgensen v. W.R. Weis Co., Inc., No. 1:15-CV-07867 (N.D. Ill., Apr. 15, 2016)
    04/15/2016

    Arbitration award confirmed by court as award was not clearly erroneous.

  • Gunter v. Sprintcom, Inc., No. 6:16-CV-28-Orl-31TBS (M.D. Fla. Apr. 15, 2016)
    04/15/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted. Court held that a written agreement and arbitral issue existed, and the right to arbitration was not waived.

  • Shapiro v. The L.S. Starrett Company, No. 2:15-CV-00384-RGD-RJK (E.D. Va. Apr. 14, 2016)
    04/14/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration upon determining that the parties’ licensing agreement governed the dispute.

  • Al Azzawi v. Kellogg Brown and Root, No. 2:15-CV-1468 GEB AC (PS) (E.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2016)
    04/14/2016

    Motion to dismiss action granted. Plaintiff, as alleged “owner and corporate officer” of a company, did not have standing to sue based on misconduct which allegedly took place in an arbitration between the defendant and the company.

  • Language Connect International Ltd. v. Iverse Media, No. 15-CV-00236-XR (W.D. Tex. Apr. 14, 2016)
    04/14/2016

    Motion to compel documents from defendant's arbitration with third-party granted subject to in camera review by the court to inspect for relevancy.

  • Probulk Carriers Limited v. Marvel International and Transportation, No. 114-CV-08338 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 13, 2016)
    04/13/2016

    Subpoenas served on Turkish Citizen in an attempt to obtain evidence for the enforcement of a previously confirmed arbitration award modified to account for FRCP Rule 45(c) requirement that the subpoena may command a person to attend a deposition or to produce documents no more than 100 miles from where that person "resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person."

  • Tiffany v. KO Huts Inc., No. 5:15-CV-01190-HE (W.D. Okla. Apr. 13, 2016) 
    04/13/2016

    Motion to strike claim denied and motion for preliminary injunction granted to enjoin parties from further pursuing arbitration until the court decides the gateway arbitrability issues or otherwise modifies the injunction.

  • Law Offices of Daniel C. Flint v. Bank of America NA, No. 2:15-CV-13006 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 13, 2016) 
    04/13/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted and action stayed pending completion of the arbitration. Court held that delegation provision in the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable and issues of arbitrability are for the arbitrator; court rejected plaintiff's argument that waiver of class action arbitration made the agreement unconscionable.

  • American Family Mutual Insurance Company v. TAMKO Building Products, Inc., No. 15-CV-02343-REB-NYW (D. Colo. Apr. 13, 2016)
    04/13/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the action granted. A valid arbitration agreement existed and the dispute fell within the scope of that agreement. Acceptance of terms of a limited warranty that contained the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable under Colorado law.

  • Craddock v. LeClairRyan, P.C., No. 3:16-CV-11 (E.D. Va. Apr. 12, 2016)
    04/12/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the action granted. Plaintiff was bound to the arbitration agreement despite not signing it because, inter alia, plaintiff’s conduct demonstrated acceptance. A written but unsigned contract, otherwise accepted, is sufficient to invoke the FAA.

  • Barrasso v. Macy's Retail Holdings LLC, No. 1:15-CV-13098-ADB (D. Mass. Apr. 12, 2016)
    04/12/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted and action stayed pending completion of the arbitration. Arbitration agreement clearly communicated that employment claims were subject to arbitration and was not void on grounds of unconscionability.

  • Conde v. 2020 Companies LLC, No. 15-CV-04080-KAW (N.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2016)
    04/12/2016

    Motions to compel arbitration and stay action granted.  In following the ninth circuit, court held that "any dispute arising from" language in the arbitration agreement should be construed narrowly and the forum selection clause was therefore inapplicable to the claims at issue.

  • Ortiz v. Spark Energy LLC, No. 15-CV-02326-JSW (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2016)
    04/11/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration and dismiss claim denied. Pursuant to 9 USC § 4, where issue of whether arbitration agreement was made remained in dispute the court is to proceed summarily to a trial on that question.

  • John Hancock Life Insurance Company (USA) v. Leisher, No. 115-CV-13539 (D. Mass. Apr. 11, 2016)
    04/11/2016

    Motion to stay and compel arbitration or dismiss the complaint denied. Parties' settlement agreement was enforceable and summary judgment therefore appropriate.

  • Kenneth Lefoldt, Jr. v. Donald Rentfro, No. 5:15-CV-96-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss. Apr. 11, 2016)
    04/11/2016

    Motion to stay action pending arbitration denied since parties did not agree to arbitrate.

  • Cwick v. First Stop Health LLC, No. 115-CV-06238 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 10, 2016)
    04/10/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted and action stayed pending conclusion of arbitration.  Following parties' agreement to a bench trial pursuant to 9 USC § 4, court determined that claims asserted were properly within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • Galloway v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., No. 15-1392 (4th Cir. Apr. 8, 2016)
    04/08/2016

    Court affirmed district court's decision to enforce the parties' arbitration agreement and order to dismiss plaintiff's action against defendant.

  • Money Mailer LLC v. Wade Brewer, No. C15-1215RSL (W.D. Wash. Apr. 8, 2016)
    04/08/2016

    Motions to compel arbitration and for summary judgment denied. Court held that it was obligated to determine whether a potential waiver of a right to arbitrate had occurred through litigation conduct.

  • Capstone Associated Services Ltd v. Organizational Strategies Inc., No. 4:15-CV-03233 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 8, 2016)
    04/08/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration denied because sole arbitrator selected by agreement of the parties refused to serve as arbitrator. Separate motion to compel arbitration pursuant to different arbitration agreement granted and sole arbitrator selected shall decide which claims, if any, are subject to arbitration. 

  • Suntrust Investment Services Inc. v. Dull, No. 3:15-CV-00531-MOC-DCK (W.D.N.C. Apr. 8, 2016) 
    04/08/2016

    Motion to confirm arbitration award granted. Award was stipulated between the parties and uncontested. 

  • Jefferson Mullins and William Hines v. US Bancorp Investments Inc., No. 1:15-CV-00126-GNS (W.D. Ky. Apr. 8, 2016)
    04/08/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted; parties agreed to arbitrate and their agreement superseded FINRA’s arbitration rules.

  • Chan v. Chinese-Am. Planning Council Home Attendant Program, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-9605 (KBF) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2016)
    04/08/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted. Court holds that there is a valid mandatory arbitration clause in a collective bargaining arbitration agreement and that the dispute falls within the scope of that agreement; court rejects plaintiff’s and putative class members’ claims that the agreement does not apply retroactively to claims that accrued prior to the agreement, when there is no clear language placing a time limit on arbitrability, and that arbitration is cost prohibitive, when the agreement provides that fees between them (all union members) and the defendant are shared equally.

  • Kwest Communications, Inc. v. United Cellular Wireless Inc., No. 1:16-CV-20242-JJO (S.D. Fla. Apr. 7, 2016)
    04/07/2016

    Magistrate judge recommended that defendants’ motion to compel arbitration be granted, finding that valid agreements to arbitrate existed, that a non-signatory may be bound by an arbitration provision as a matter of Florida law, that plaintiff was estopped to deny it is bound by the arbitration provisions contained in the underlying agreements, that the arbitration clause covers plaintiff’s claims, and that one defendant that filed and then quickly sought dismissal of a Texas state court action did not waive its right to arbitrate.

  • Sena v. Uber Technologies Incorporated, No. CV-15-02418-PHX-DLR (D. Ariz. Apr. 7, 2016)
    04/07/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted. Courts apply a presumption of arbitrability when a contract contains an arbitration clause, and plaintiff failed to bear its burden of establishing that the agreement is inapplicable.

  • Ali v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 3:13-CV-01184-JSW (9th Cir. Apr. 7, 2016)
    04/07/2016

    District court’s order denying motion to compel arbitration affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions to compel arbitration.  The court held that the arbitration agreement is not substantively unconscionable and the district court erred in failing to enforce it.

  • Southern Design Mechanical Inc. v. Flowserve US Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01003 (W.D. Ark. Apr. 7, 2016) 
    04/07/2016

    Motions to compel arbitration and dismiss claims granted in part and denied in part; parties directed to proceed to arbitration and action stayed pending outcome of the arbitration.

  • In re Application of the Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic, No. 1:15-MC-00018 (D.N. Mar. Is. Apr. 7, 2016) 
    04/07/2016

    Application for discovery pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 and the United Nations Convention on Corruption denied. As a private arbitral body SIAC does not constitute a "foreign or international tribunal" for the purposes of a discovery application pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 and the potential criminal investigation is not within reasonable contemplation, therefore failing the requirement that the discovery requested would be "for use in a proceeding."

  • The University of Notre Dame (USA) in England v. TJAC Waterloo LLC, No. 6-CV-10150-ADB (D. Mass. Apr. 7, 2016) 
    04/07/2016

    Court grants motions to confirm partial award on liability pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 207 and attachment of defendants' property under FRCP Rule 64 and Massachusetts law. 

  • Ali v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, No. 14-15076 (9th Cir. Apr. 7, 2016)
    04/07/2016

    Circuit court affirmed in part, and denied in part, district court’s order denying motion to compel arbitration, and remanded with instruction to compel arbitration.  Court held that district court correctly concluded that binding arbitration agreement signed by former employee was adhesive and therefore procedurally unconscionable. However, since arbitration agreement was not substantively unconscionable, under California law, the district court erred in failing to enforce it.

  • Pershing LLC v. Kiebach, No. 15-30396 (5th Cir. Apr. 6, 2016)
    04/06/2016

    The amount in controversy for establishing diversity jurisdiction over a petition to confirm an arbitration award is the amount previously sought in the arbitration proceeding, e.g. the "demand approach," and not the amount ultimately awarded by the arbitrator.

  • Sabre GLBL Inc. v. Shan, No. 15-CV-8900 (WJM) (D.N.J. Apr. 6, 2016) 
    04/06/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings granted. Motion for expedited discovery denied where such right is only provided by the arbitration agreement in the context of a preliminary injunction application, which was not asserted.

  • Hatemi v. M & T Bank, No. 113-CV-01103 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2016)
    04/06/2016

    Upon remand from the second circuit, court directs parties to arbitration and stays the case pending the outcome of the arbitration proceedings in light of second circuit's decision in Katz v. Cellco P’ship, 794 F.3d 341, 345 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 596 (2015) that proceedings shall be stayed upon application even if all claims have been referred to arbitration.
     

    See also Hatemi v. M & T Bank, No. 14-4338-CV (2d Cir. Mar. 4, 2016)
    District court’s order denying motion to compel arbitration reversed; agreement that included an arbitration clause for all issues related to a bank account applied to the overdraft account, even though the overdraft account had a separate agreement that did not incorporate an arbitration clause.

  • Hall v. Pacific Sunwear Stores Corporation, No. 115-CV-14220 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 6, 2016) 
    04/06/2016

    Motion to dismiss complaint granted without prejudice to pursue claims through arbitration.

  • Levi Strauss Co. v. Aqua Dynamics Systems Inc., No. 315-CV-04718-WHO (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016)
    04/06/2016

    Motions to dismiss or stay the case pending arbitration and to dismiss for subject matter jurisdiction denied.  Arbitration agreement’s incorporation of JAMS arbitration rules did not establish clear and unmistakable delegation of arbitrability question to arbitrator, leaving court to decide gateway issue of nonsignatory standing. However, non-gateway issue of waiver delegated to arbitrator.

  • Tr. of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labour-Management Cooperation, Pension and Welfare Funds v. Akwesasne Const., Inc., No. 0:15-CV-06449-ADS-AYS (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2016)
    04/06/2016

    Court issued a report and recommendation stating that petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award should be granted.  Court held that the award should be confirmed because there was no indication that the award was made arbitrarily, that it exceeded the arbitrator’s authority, or was otherwise contrary to law.

  • Trs. of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labor Management Cooperation, Pension and Welfare Funds v. Clover Construction of NY, No. 2:15-CV-05689-ADS-AYS (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2016)
    04/06/2016

    Magistrate judge recommended and court later adopted the confirmation of an arbitration award issued in a labor dispute against respondent.  Magistrate judge noted that in this case, the arbitrator had issued an award that drew its essence from the collective bargaining agreement and there was no indication that the award was arbitrary, exceeded the arbitrator’s authority, or was otherwise contrary to law.  Magistrate judge also recommended that petitioners be granted attorneys’ fees and costs.

  • New Skies Satellites B.V. v. Gospel Ministries International, No. 1:15-CV-00027-TRM-SKL (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 5, 2016)
    04/05/2016

    Court denied motion to dismiss petition to confirm Netherlands Arbitration Institute Award.  Court held that the consent-to-confirmation requirement of Section 9 of the FAA is inapplicable to petitions seeking confirmation under the New York Convention.

  • Shepardson v. Adecco USA Inc., No. 15-CV-05102-EMC (N.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2016) 
    04/05/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted, except for those arising under California Private Attorney General Act of 2004, which are stayed pending completion of the arbitration. Class action waiver in the arbitration agreement was not an unlawful restraint on plaintiff‟s right to engage in concerted activity under the NLRA because plaintiff was given the opportunity to opt out.

  • First Federal Finance Corp. v. Clarrion-Concepcion, No. 14-1522 (D.P.R. Apr. 5, 2016)
    04/05/2016

    Motion to vacate arbitration award denied and award confirmed sua sponte by court; arbitrator did not exceed her powers or act in manifest disregard of the law. Motion to modify award denied; application to modify award was time-barred pursuant to 9 USC § 12.

  • Uzoamaka O. Akpele v. Pacific Life Insurance Company, No. 1:12-CV-02170-WSD (11th Cir. Apr. 5, 2016) 
    04/05/2016

    District court's decision to compel arbitration affirmed, arbitration award confirmed, and motion for default judgment denied. Under Georgia law, successor in interest deemed third-party beneficiary bound by arbitration agreement; exclusion of documents was not "manifest injustice" or bad faith by the arbitral tribunal.

  • WeWork Companies Inc. v. Zoumer, No. 16-CV-457 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2016)
    04/05/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted and action stayed except for issues relating to appointment of arbitrator. The failure to include specific details on the procedure of the arbitration is not fatal to the clause’s validity. Court ordered parties to attempt to agree sole arbitrator, failing which, the court would do so.

  • Galilea, LLC v. AGCS Marine Insurance Company, No. CV 15-84-BLG-SPW (D. Mont. Apr. 5, 2016)
    04/05/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted in part and denied in part.  The court retained jurisdiction over certain claims because incorporation of AAA rules in arbitration agreement did not constitute clear and unmistakable evidence of delegation of arbitrability to arbitrator where one party is not a sophisticated party for these purposes. Where an arbitration agreement covers disputes "arising under" the agreement, court held that only those disputes relating to the interpretation and performance of the contract itself are arbitrable.  

  • Spirit Airlines Inc. v. Ass’n of Flight Attendants, No. 15-1821 (6th Cir. Apr. 5, 2016)
    04/05/2016

    District court’s enforcement of the arbitral award and summary judgment affirmed.

  • Brian Leighton v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. No. 1:16-CV-20507-KMM (S.D. Fla. Apr. 5, 2016)
    04/05/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted pursuant to the Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention).

  • Hill v. Assuranceforeningen Skuld, No. CV 15-00025 (D. Guam Apr. 4, 2016)
    04/04/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted, subject to proper service made on the defendant. Plaintiff estopped from seeking the benefits of the contract without shouldering its obligations, including the arbitration agreement.

  • Biogas, Inc. v. Western Plains Energy LLC, No. 14-1070-SAC (D. Kan. Apr. 4, 2016)
    04/04/2016

    Motion to confirm arbitration award granted as there were no grounds for vacatur established, including no evident partiality by the arbitrators.

  • Ranieri v. Banco Santander SA, No. 2:15-CV-03740 (D. N.J. Apr. 4, 2016)
    04/04/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration and dismiss or stay the action denied. Factual ambiguity of the parties' alleged agreement to arbitrate requires discovery on the question of arbitrability before the court can entertain the question of arbitrability.

  • Engle v. Kisco Senior Living LLC, No. 6:15-CV-1819-Orl-40GJK (M.D. Fla Apr. 1, 2016)
    04/01/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration and stay case and discovery denied. Defendant is not a party to the employment contract containing the arbitration clause it alleged applied.

  • Solid Q Holdings v. Arenal Energy, No. 2:15-CV-00419-DN (D.Utah Apr. 1, 2016)
    04/01/2016

    Defendants' motion to compel arbitration denied. Court held that collateral estoppel does not apply to an order denying a motion to compel arbitration; equitable estoppel does not apply because plaintiff did not seek the benefit of the contract while trying to avoid the arbitration clause; and, the plaintiff is not a party to, and the claims fall outside of, the arbitration agreement.

  • Hamilton Park Health Care Center Ltd. v. 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East, No. 15-2595 (3d Cir. Apr. 1, 2016)
    04/01/2016

    District court’s decision denying petition to vacate arbitration award affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The third circuit held that the district court was correct in finding that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority by issuing a multi-year award. The arbitrator did however exceed his authority by including a second generation interest arbitration provision since the parties had not agreed to such an arrangement; the remedy was contrary to the FAA and the National Labor Relations Act.

  • Bank of England v. Barrett and Barret Financial Group LLC, No. 4:15-CV-00683-SWW (E.D. Ark. Mar. 31, 2016)
    03/31/2016

    Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration against both signatory and non-signatory defendants. Court found a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement existed only between plaintiff and signatory defendant. However, because non-signatory defendant was willing to submit to arbitration, it was unnecessary to determine whether compelling the non-signatory would be appropriate.

  • Golden Gate Nat’l Senior Care, LLC v. Sulpizio, No. 1:15-CV-00174 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2016)
    03/31/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted in part. Arbitration agreement not unconscionable, however, one of the claims is not arbitrable under Pennsylvania law and is therefore properly before the court.

  • Soto v. F&M MAFCO, Inc., No. 2014-0024 (D.V.I. Mar. 31, 2016)
    03/31/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted, but motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims on the merits denied without prejudice. Since plaintiff does not challenge arbitration provision at issue specifically, an arbitrator will decide the validity of the arbitration agreement, as well as whether the plaintiff’s other claims are subject to arbitration.

  • International Energy Ventures Mgmt. LLC v. United Energy Group Ltd. No. 14-20552 (5th Cir. Mar. 31, 2016)
    03/31/2016

    Arbitration clause in contract does not act as implied consent to personal jurisdiction.

  • Bridge v. Credit One Financial, No. 2:14-CV-1512-LDG-NJK (D. Nev. Mar. 31, 2016)
    03/31/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted. While plaintiff was a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, he is estopped from pursuing a breach-of-contract claim while simultaneously attempting to disregard that same contract’s arbitration clause.

  • DTC Engineers and Constructors, LLC v. Empresas Sabaer, No 15-1168 (D.P.R. Mar. 31, 2016)
    03/31/2016

    Arbitral award confirmed and respondents’ motion to vacate denied.

  • Dirocco v. Victory Marketing Agency LLC, No. 215-CV-00552 (M.D. Fla Mar. 31, 2016) 
    03/31/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted and court action stayed pending completion of arbitration. Issue of whether this action should proceed to arbitration on a class basis is subsidiary issue for the arbitrator to determine.

  • Hilton v. Midland Funding LLC, No. 15-10322 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 31, 2016)
    03/31/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration of consumer debt collection granted because plaintiff failed to show that congress intended for claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to be nonarbitrable and no express provision excluding the dispute from the scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • Battles v. American Van Lines, Inc., No. 15-CV-62247-BLOOM/Valle (S.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2016)
    03/31/2016

    Request to vacate judgment against plaintiff in the underlying arbitration under §§ 10(a)(3) and 10(a)(4) of the FAA not warranted; arbitrator’s dismissal of plaintiff’s claim with prejudice when plaintiff failed to attend the hearing did not amount to misconduct so egregious as to warrant vacatur.

  • Greenberg v. Ameriprise Financial Services Inc., No. 2:15-CV-03589 (E.D.N.Y. March 31, 2016)
    03/31/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration and stay action granted. Court found that the FAA, not state law, applied to the action based upon the diversity of citizenship of the parties and the events giving rise to the dispute and the fact that it concerned interstate commerce.

  • OI European Group B.V. v. Venezuela, No. 1:15-CV-02178 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2016)
    03/31/2016

    Motion to stay enforcement proceedings of an ICSID award granted while provisional stay imposed by ad hoc ICSID Annulment Committee remained in effect.

  • Bell v. Ryan Trans. Serv., Inc., No. 2:15-CV-09857-JWL-GEB (D. Kan. Mar. 31, 2016)
    03/31/2016

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that plaintiff, a sales representative of a transportation logistics firm, was not a “transportation worker” as defined by the FAA and therefore, the FAA’s exemption of all “contracts of employees of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce” did not apply.  Court also held that, contrary to plaintiff’s claims, certain discovery, attorney fee, and confidentiality provisions from the parties’ arbitration agreement do not limit plaintiff from vindicating his rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act and were therefore enforceable.

  • Iraq Middle Market Development Foundation v. Mohammad Ali Mohammad Harmoosh, 1:15-CV-01124-GLR (D. Md. Mar. 30, 2016)
    03/30/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted; court's dismissal of matter was proper because issue presented was arbitrable.

  • Rolando Renteria-Camacho v. DIRECTV Inc., No. 14-2529-CM (D. Kan. Mar. 30, 2016) 
    03/30/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration and stay the action denied because defendant waived its right to enforce the arbitration agreement by engaging with plaintiff in another related litigation.  Waiver of the right to enforce an arbitration agreement does not require proof of intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.

  • Knatt v. J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-02516 JM(KSC) (S.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2016) 
    03/30/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted in light of plaintiffs’ agreement to arbitrate all disputes “arising from, related to, or asserted after termination of employment.”

  • Garcia-Clara v. AIG Insurance Company, No. 3:15-CV-01784-CCC (D.P.R. Mar. 30, 2016) 
    03/30/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted; a valid agreement to arbitrate was created when the plaintiff received actual notice via emails expressly advising her of the arbitration agreement and giving her 60 days to opt out.

  • Veve v. OFG Bancorp, No. 3:14-CV-01601-CCC (D.P.R. Mar. 30, 2016)
    03/30/2016

    Motion to dismiss granted; arbitration agreement in brokerage account of deceased mother was enforceable against her children as members of the estate.

  • Kuruwa v. Turner Construction Company, No. 15-761 (2d Cir. Mar. 29, 2016)
    03/29/2016

    District court’s confirmation of an arbitral award confirmed.

  • Vincent Sealey v. David R. Johanson, No. 3:15-CV-137-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss. Mar. 29, 2016) 
    03/29/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration denied because the arbitration clause is narrow (covering claims “arising out of” the agreement) and a narrow arbitration clause does not permit a non-signatory to compel arbitration.

  • A.K. Ngai, Inc. v. Xu Yong’an, No. 15-00356 LEK-KSC (D. Haw. Mar. 29, 2016)
    03/29/2016

    Motion to dismiss and compel arbitration granted as to defendant which service had been effected; relevant agreements contain valid, broad arbitration clauses that encompass all of plaintiff’s claims.

  • Larsen v. Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-01512-L-MDD (S.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2016)
    03/29/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted; court held that there was a valid arbitration agreement and the aggregate practice of plaintiff’s economic activity substantially affects interstate commerce for purposes of § 2 of the FAA.

  • Jones v. SRHS, Nos. 1:14CV447-LG-RHW, 1:15CV1-LG-RHW, 1:15CV44-LG-RHW (S.D. Miss. Mar. 29, 2016)
    03/29/2016

    Following consolidation of three putative class actions, motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pending arbitration granted with respect to claims brought by non-signatory plaintiffs that rely on equitable estoppel doctrine and denied with respect to plaintiff whose claims are based purely on common law.

  • Bailey v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 1:15-CV-2818-AT (N.D. Ga. Mar. 29, 2016)
    03/29/2016

    Motion to dismiss plaintiff’s suit seeking to vacate arbitration award granted following evaluation under the FRCP Rule 12(b)(1) standard and court’s conclusion that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim.

  • Equitas Disability Advocates, LLC v. Daley, Debofsky & Bryant, P.C., No. 15-611 (RM) (D.D.C. Mar. 29, 2016)
    03/29/2016

    Motions to remand the case to D.C. superior court and vacate the arbitration award pursuant to D.C.'s Revised Uniform Arbitration Act were denied and defendant’s motion to confirm the award granted.

  • Jarry v. Allied Cash Advance Virginia LLC, 6:15-CV-00045 (W.D. Va. Mar. 29, 2016)
    03/29/2016

    Court granted motion to stay and compel arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement valid and enforceable pursuant to the FAA.  Court concluded that the arbitration agreement covered the statutory dispute, requiring it to be resolved through arbitration, and determined that the arbitration costs do not preclude plaintiff from vindication of her rights.                         

  • Citgo Petroleum Corp. v. Lake Charles Metal Trades Council, No. 2:15-CV-01664 (W.D. La. Mar. 29, 2016)
    03/29/2016

    Court granted summary judgment to employee and union and against employer who brought action to vacate arbitration award.  Court held that, in light of the “extraordinarily narrow” review of arbitral awards allowed by the LMRA and the FAA, the arbitrator acted within the scope of his authority under the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

  • Valuepart, Inc. v. Farquhar, No. 1:14-CV-03004 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 29, 2016)
    03/29/2016

    Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel pre-hearing oral testimony of a non-party to the arbitration pursuant to §7 of the FAA.

  • Union de Tronquistas de Puerto Rico, Local 901 v. United Parcel Service, Inc., No. 15-1362 (GAG) (D.P.R. Mar. 28, 2016)
    03/28/2016

    Arbitration award confirmed; an arbitrator’s interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement must be confirmed if there is any plausible basis for that interpretation within the agreement’s four corners and arbitrator did not manifestly disregard Puerto Rico law.

  • Schrock v. Nomac Drilling, LLC, No. 2:15-CV-1692 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 28, 2016)
    03/28/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration denied; the arbitration agreement provides for arbitration in Oklahoma and the court lacks authority to order arbitration outside its own judicial district.

  • Lezell v. USAA Savings Bank, No. 14-CV-5483 (FB) (PK) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2016)
    03/28/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted; the arbitration addendum at issue was incorporated by direct reference in the main credit card agreements and refers the question of whether plaintiffs’ claims “arise from” or “relate to” their credit card accounts to the arbitrator; agreement to arbitrate claims does not violate plaintiffs’ statutory rights.

  • Socoloff v. LRN Corp., No. 13-57064 (9th Cir. Mar. 28, 2016)
    03/28/2016

    Lower court’s decision to deny defendant’s motion to compel arbitration affirmed where defendant failed to produce a signed copy of the arbitration agreement, could not produce a witness who observed the plaintiff signing or returning the arbitration agreement, and failed to demonstrate valid incorporation of the agreement by reference in other documents.

  • Precision Builders, Inc. v. Olympic Group, LLC, No. 15-30848 (5th Cir. Mar. 28, 2016)
    03/28/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration denied; the court concluded that defendants had substantially invoked the judicial process and plaintiff would be prejudiced by an order compelling arbitration.

  • Ecopetrol S.A. v. Offshore Exploration and Production LLC, No. 14-CV-529 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2016)
    03/28/2016

    Motion for an order of contempt against respondent and respondent's principal denied. An unsatisfied judgment arising from an interim arbitral award and a supplemental interim arbitral award did not give rise to an order of contempt.

  • Knaus v. Scottrade, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-03549 (ES)(JAD) (D.N.J. Mar. 28, 2016) 
    03/28/2016

    Defendant’s FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) motion granted but court cannot compel arbitration under a Rule 12(b)(6) motion because, when the complaint is silent on the issue of arbitrability, the court must apply the Rule 56 summary judgment standard and that standard was not met here.

  • Dell Webb Communities, Inc. v. Carlson, No. 15-1385 (4th Cir. Mar. 28, 2016)
    03/28/2016

    District court’s conclusion that the threshold issue of whether an arbitration clause permits class action is procedural and should be determined by the arbitrator is reversed, vacated and remanded.  Procedural matters arise only once the obligation to arbitrate a matter is established, and the threshold issue at hand is relevant to arbitrability and should be determined by the court.

  • Parnell v. Cashcall, Inc., No. 4:14-CV-00024-HLM (N.D. Ga. Mar. 28, 2016)
    03/28/2016

    Court granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings pending the eleventh circuit’s resolution of defendant’s appeal of the court’s order denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court further denied without prejudice plaintiff’s motion to certify a class.

  • Rio Tinto Plc. v. Vale S.A., et. al., No. 1:14-CV-03042-RMB (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2016)
    03/25/2016

    Court affirmed prior March 9, 2016 Decision and Order of a magistrate judge.
     

    See also Rio Tinto Plc. v. Vale S.A., et. al., No. 1:14-CV-03042-RMB (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2016)
    U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held that it has the power to modify a previously issued protective order and, therefore, approved the request to modify that protective order to allow documents to be produced in an LCIA arbitration.

  • Brooks v. Field, No. 6:14-CV-2267-BHH (D.S.C. Mar. 25, 2016)
    03/25/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration denied since, inter alia, the arbitration clause was inapplicable.

  • Sgouros v. Transunion Corporation, No. 15-1371 (7th Cir. Mar. 25, 2016)
    03/25/2016

    District court’s order denying motion to compel arbitration affirmed. Website failed to provide user reasonable notice that use of the site constitutes assent to an arbitration agreement.

  • Preferred Care of Delaware, Inc. v. Crocker, No. 5:15-CV-0177-TBR (W.D. Ky. Mar. 25, 2016)
    03/25/2016

    Court, inter alia, denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration and request for preliminary injunction against defendant’s negligence claims brought in state court.  Court held that attorney-in-fact had authority to enter arbitration agreement and considered the question of whether she entered that arbitration agreement “freely, voluntarily and knowingly” irrelevant.  The court also concluded that the arbitration agreement was not one-sided, did not lack valid consideration and contained complete and definite terms.

  • Monteverde v. West Palm Beach Food & Beverage, LLC, No. 9:15-CV-81203-Rosenberg/Hopkins (S.D. Fla. Mar. 24, 2016)
    03/24/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted; the court held, inter alia, that arbitration agreements were valid and can be applied retroactively to claims stemming from events that occurred prior to execution of the arbitration agreement.

  • Magnum Gas Pipeline, LLC v. Silver Oak Operating, LLC, No. 11-0056 (W.D. La. Mar. 24, 2016)
    03/24/2016

    Motion to enforce a judgment confirming an arbitration award granted in part and denied in part; plaintiff’s request for damages under the arbitration award granted, but request for specific performance, where such performance is not expressly ordered in the arbitration award, denied and must be addressed by a further arbitration award. 

  • National Casualty Company v. Resolute Reinsurance Company, No. 1:15-CV-9440 (DLC) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2016)
    03/24/2016

    Petition to confirm arbitration award granted because, inter alia, the parties’ arbitration agreement implies consent to confirmation under § 9 of the FAA.

  • Jake Mendel v. Morgan Keegan Company Inc., No. 15-12801 (11th Cir.  Mar. 23, 2016)
    03/23/2016

    District court’s decision to vacate arbitral award on grounds of “evident partiality” of a tribunal member reversed and remanded.  Court found that district court incorrectly relied on the Alabama Supreme Court’s interpretation of 9 USC § 10(a)(2), rather than applying binding Circuit precedent and that plaintiff had not met this court’s narrow evident partiality standard.  Since plaintiff’s allegation that there was an actual conflict could not be considered for the first time on appeal, the award could only be vacated if the arbitrator knew of, but failed to disclose, a potential conflict.  Plaintiff failed to show this was the case.

  • Dillon v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., No. 1:13-CV-00897 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 23, 2016)
    03/23/2016

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration because defendant failed to offer credible, admissible evidence proving a valid agreement to arbitrate existed.  The testimony and documents presented, including plaintiff’s confirmation that personal information shown on the proffered loan agreement was accurate, were not enough to show how the document was created and prove that there was mutual assent to the arbitration provision.

  • Alarcon v. Vital Recovery Services, Inc., No. 15CV992-LAB (KSC) (S.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2016)
    03/22/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted and plaintiff’s suit dismissed because, inter alia, plaintiff’s prior success in litigation brought by the original lender did not extinguish all rights under the loan agreement in light of the arbitration rider survival clause.

  • GCIU-Employer Retirement Fund v. Quad/Graphics, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00100-ODW (AFMx) (C.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2016)
    03/22/2016

    Motion to dismiss or stay pending arbitration granted with respect to the claims that had been sufficiently pleaded; plaintiff granted leave to amend pleading for claim pleaded without sufficient supporting facts.

  • Miceli v. Citigroup, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-01962-GMN-VCF (D. Nev. Mar. 22, 2016)
    03/22/2016

    Motion to stay all pre-trial obligations (including discovery) pending the court’s decision on motion to compel arbitration granted; when considering a motion to compel arbitration a federal court “may consider only issues relating to the making and performance of the agreement to arbitrate.”

  • Hopper v. American Arbitration Association, No. 2:16-CV-01124-RGK-AGR (C.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2016)
    03/22/2016

    Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiff’s claims were barred by arbitral immunity.  Plaintiff argued that the AAA failed to provide a neutral arbitrator because, according to an article in the New York Times and the Employee Rights and Employment Practice Journal, arbitrators are not neutral because they unfairly favor big corporations.  Court explained that arbitration proceedings require the need for independent judgments free from fear of legal action, and so the California and federal courts have held that an arbitrator and his or her sponsoring organization are immune from liability for “partiality” or bias.

  • Sutherland Global Services, Inc. v. Adam Technologies International SA de C.V., No. 12-CV-06439 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2016)
    03/21/2016

    In light of the second circuit's affirmation of the court's decision and order confirming an arbitration award in favor of the plaintiff, court granted plaintiff's motion to compel responses to its post-judgment discovery demands on the defendant pursuant to FRCP Rule 69. 
     

    See also Sutherland Global Services Inc. v. Adam Technologies International SA de C.V., No. 15-1063-CV (2d Cir. Feb. 9, 2016)
    District court’s order confirming an arbitration award affirmed.

  • Unison Co., Ltd. v. Juhl Energy Development Inc., No. 13-CV-3342 (ADM/JJK) (D. Minn. Mar. 21, 2016)
    03/21/2016

    Motion to compel compliance with an arbitral tribunal's disclosure orders pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 7 denied.  Defendants' request to the court went far afield of the powers available under 9 U.S.C. § 7 since the arbitral tribunal had not ordered a witness to appear at a hearing or issued a final decision on the disclosure of documents.

  • Allstate Insurance Co. v. Toll Brothers, No. 5:15-CV-05225 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 21, 2016)
    03/21/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted as to defendant who had arbitration agreement with plaintiff; but subcontractors were not third-party beneficiaries and the plaintiff cannot be forced to arbitrate claims against them.

  • City of Benkelman, Nebraska v. Baseline Engineering Corporation, No. 7:15CV5003 (D. Neb. Mar. 21, 2016)
    03/21/2016

    Motion to dismiss granted; arbitration agreement is enforceable under Colorado law and therefore claims must be submitted to arbitration.

  • Khraibut v.Chahal, No. C15-04463 CRB (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2016)
    03/18/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted and case stayed; incorporation of AAA arbitration rules delegates decision on arbitrability to arbitrators.

  • Hall v. IKEA Property Inc., No. 14-12706 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 17, 2016)
    03/17/2016

    Third-party defendant dismissed as party because defendant’s claims against it were subject to a valid arbitration agreement.

  • Magruder v. Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC, No. 15-1846 (7th Cir. Mar. 17, 2016)
    03/17/2016

    Lower court’s judgment in favor of defendant’s application to enforce arbitrator’s order vacated and remanded; lower court did not have diversity or federal-question jurisdiction over action.

  • Smagin v. Yegiazaryan, No. CV 14-9764-R (C.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2016)
    03/17/2016

    Application for summary judgment and confirmation of an LCIA arbitration award granted under the New York Convention; petition and supporting evidence established that the arbitral award was final and enforceable and that the arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction over the parties and the dispute.

  • Siddiqua v. New York State Dep’t of Health, No. 15-2702 (2d Cir. Mar. 16, 2016)
    03/16/2016

    Circuit court reversed district court to hold that arbitration proceedings regarding contractual claims under a collective bargaining agreement neither precluded a Fair Management Labor Act suit in federal court on subsequent statutory claims arising under federal law, nor an employee’s attempts to vacate an arbitration award in state court where her contractual rights under the collective bargaining agreement were distinctly separate in nature from independent, congressionally-provided statutory rights.

  • Bowers v. Northern Two Cayes Co. Ltd., No. 1:15-CV-00029-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C. Mar. 15, 2016)
    03/15/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted as the arbitration agreement is valid; defendant’s motion to dismiss denied as premature. Parties directed to confer and agree upon an arbitrator. 

  • Casa del Caffe Vergnano S.p.A. v. Italflavors, LLC, No. 13-56091 (9th Cir. Mar. 15, 2016) 
    03/15/2016

    Order granting a petition to compel arbitration reversed. The underlying contract did not constitute a binding agreement under federal common law because there was no mutual intention to be bound and no more than a sham agreement existed, thus leaving the arbitration agreement therein unenforceable.

  • Trustees for The Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund  v. Earth Construction Corp., No. 15-CV-3967 (RA) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2016)
    03/15/2016

    Petition to confirm and enforce arbitration award granted; court held that applying the “very limited review” was appropriate, there is no genuine issue of material fact and petitioners are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

  • Western Security Bank v. Schneider Ltd. Partnership, No. 15-35617 (9th Cir. Mar. 14, 2016) 
    03/14/2016

    Appeal dismissed; interlocutory appeal not appropriate because court lacks jurisdiction where the motion to stay was not seeking to have issues exclusively decided by an arbitrator, and only sought a stay not to compel arbitration.

  • HEI Investments, LLC v. Black Diamond Capital Appreciation Fund, LP, No. 15-746 (ES) (MAH) (D.N.J. Mar. 14, 2016)
    03/14/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration denied; further factual development required since arbitrability not apparent on the face of complaint.

  • Steele v. Citibank, N.A., No. 2:15-CV-01618-TFM (W.D. Pa. Mar. 14, 2016)
    03/14/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration denied as it was not clear on the face of the complaint whether plaintiff agreed to arbitrate; limited discovery on whether there is a valid arbitration agreement ordered.

  • Gross v. GGNSC Southaven, Nos. 15-60124, 15-60248 (5th Cir. Mar. 14, 2016)
    03/14/2016

    Prior orders of the district court denying motion to compel arbitration vacated and remanded for further proceedings.

  • Parnell v. Cashcall, Inc., No. 4:14-CV-00024 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 14, 2016)
    03/14/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration and stay or dismiss proceedings denied. Court held plaintiff’s challenge of the delegation provision within the arbitration clause as void and unenforceable allows the court to adjudicate whether the provision is valid under § 2 of the FAA. Court also held the arbitration clause is generally unenforceable because the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, as the chosen forum and source of applicable rules, was integral to the agreement to arbitrate and invalid because the Tribe does not have dispute rules.

  • Davis v. Lendmark Financial Services, LLC, No. 7:15-CV-000131 (W.D. Va. Mar. 11, 2016)
    03/11/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration denied; since it is disputed whether plaintiff saw offer letter that included arbitration agreement, a jury trial is proper to determine this material fact in dispute.

  • Albaniabeg Ambient SH.P.K. v. Enel S.P.A. and Enelpower S.P.A., No. 1:15-CV-03283-PGG (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2016)
    03/11/2016

    Motion to remand action to the state court granted; 9 U.S.C. § 203 and the New York Convention do not provide subject matter jurisdiction over actions to enforce a foreign court's judgment, even where a party contends that the foreign court's judgment is inconsistent with an earlier arbitration award or an agreement to arbitrate.

  • Maple Leaf Adventures Corp. v. Jet Tern Marine Co. Ltd., No. 15-CV-02504-AJB-BGS (S.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2016)
    03/11/2016

    Order denying petition to confirm arbitral award under the New York Convention denied based on petitioner's inability to establish a prima facie showing of the court's general jurisdiction over respondent. Petitioner's request to conduct jurisdictional discovery against respondent's non-party subsidiary granted.

  • Bentley v. EFN West Palm Motor Sales, LLC, No. 9:16-CV-80453-KAM (S.D. Fla. March 10, 2016)
    03/10/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration agreement was not procedurally or substantively unconscionable.  Court found that the arbitration agreement was a short, legible document, with room underneath for employee’s signature, which expressly stated that acceptance was not a prerequisite to continued employment and gave employee an option to opt out of arbitration for Title VII claims.  Court found that that silence as to costs, or the mere risk of prohibitive costs without a non-speculative estimate, was insufficient to render the agreement substantively unconscionable.

  • National Indemnity Company v. IRB Brasil Resseguros S.A., No. 15 Civ. 3975 (NRB) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2016)
    03/10/2016

    Court granted petition to confirm three awards, finding, inter alia, no "evident partiality" of an umpire so as to warrant vacatur.

  • Yancey & Jamieson, Inc. v. Mapp Construction, L.L.C., No. 3:14-00413-JWD-EWD (M.D. La. Mar. 10, 2016)
    03/10/2016

    Motion to vacate arbitral award denied; plaintiff failed to meet its burden under the Louisiana Binding Arbitration Law to show that truly relevant evidence was ignored or that arbitrators exceeded their powers; the award is sufficiently definite; there is no evidence of gross unfairness.

  • Rogers v. Ausdal Financial Partners, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-12899-FDS (D. Mass. Mar. 9, 2016)
    03/09/2016

    Motion to vacate arbitration award denied and cross-motion to enforce arbitration award granted. The issues in dispute do not fall within one of the narrow statutory grounds that permit an arbitration award to be overturned.

  • Thai-Lao Lignite (Thailand) Co. Ltd. v. Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic, No. 10-CV-5256 (KMW) (DCF) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2016)
    03/09/2016

    Petitioner's motion for leave to commence execution and discovery in aid of its earlier sanctions order against respondent denied.  Respondent was entitled to invoke its statutory set off right in respect of its sanction obligations without first obtaining a judgment from a US court.

  • Rio Tinto Plc. v. Vale S.A., No. 1:14-CV-03042-RMB (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2016)
    03/09/2016

    Court held it has the power to modify a previously issued protective order and, therefore, approved defendant's request to modify that protective order to allow documents to be produced in an LCIA arbitration.
     

    See also Rio Tinto Plc. v. Vale S.A., No. 1:14-CV-03042-RMB (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2016)
    Court affirmed prior March 9, 2016 decision and order of a magistrate judge.

  • Reed v. Johnson, No. 4:14-CV-176-SA-JMV (N.D. Miss. Mar. 9, 2016)
    03/09/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted; the arbitration agreement was not procedurally unconscionable under Mississippi law. 
     

    See also Reed v. Johnson, No. 4:14CV176-SA-JMV (N.D. Miss. Jan. 4, 2016)
    Motion to compel arbitration held in abeyance until court can complete a trial on issue of whether plaintiff signed the arbitration agreement.

  • TGI Systems Corp. v. Jens Giessler, No. 15 C 4341 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 8, 2016)
    03/08/2016

    Defendants motion to dismiss denied. Defendants may not seek advantages of arbitration agreement to which they are non-signatories and have not established any of the exceptions for non-signatories.

  • Navarette v. Silversea Cruises Ltd., No. 1:14-CV-20593 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2016)
    03/07/2016

    Court granted cross-motion to confirm international arbitration award, denying petition to set the award aside.  Court rejected argument that award offended US public policy, disagreeing with the legal interpretation of a Jones Act issue urged by plaintiff and holding that plaintiff could not meet the high threshold imposed by the FAA, regardless.  It noted that “even if the Court disagreed with the result, the finding . . . does not ‘so offend public policy’ that it should be set aside because ‘[a]n arbitrator’s result may be wrong; it may appear unsupported; it may appear poorly reasoned; it may appear foolish. Yet, it may not be subject to court interference.’”

  • Fusco v. Plastic Surgery Center, P.A., No. 2:15-CV-460-DBH (D. Me. Mar. 4, 2016)
    03/04/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted; even though two of the parties may or may not be a party to the arbitration agreement as agents, in the interest of judicial economy, the claims against those two parties were stayed pending arbitration.

  • Hatemi v. M & T Bank, No. 14-4338-CV (2d Cir. Mar. 4, 2016)
    03/04/2016

    District court’s order denying motion to compel arbitration reversed; agreement that included an arbitration clause for all issues related to a bank account applied to the overdraft account, even though the overdraft account had a separate agreement that did not incorporate an arbitration clause.
     

    See also Hatemi v. M & T Bank, No. 113-CV-01103 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2016)
    Upon remand from the second circuit, court directs parties to arbitration and stays the case pending the outcome of the arbitration proceedings in light of second circuit's decision in Katz v. Cellco P’ship, 794 F.3d 341, 345 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 596 (2015) that proceedings shall be stayed upon application even if all claims have been referred to arbitration.

  • Dillon v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., No. 1:13-CV-00897-CCF-LPA (M.D.N.C. Mar. 4, 2016)
    03/04/2016

    Court denied motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, finding that contract contains provisions that “convert a choice of law clause into a choice of no law clause” and that “flatly and categorically renounce the authority of the federal statutes to which [the defendant] is and must remain subject.”

  • Vargas v. Delivery Outsourcing, LLC, No. 15-CV-03408-JST (N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2016)
    03/03/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted. FAA exemption for interstate transportation workers does not apply and arbitrability is for the court because, despite clear language delegating arbitrability, the issue is made ambiguous by other language in the agreement.

  • Superior Energy Services, LLC v. Cabinda Gulf Oil Company Limited, No. 4:13-CV-02056-PJH (9th Cir. Mar. 3, 2016)
    03/03/2016

    Denial of appellant's petition to compel arbitration reversed and remanded for entry of an order compelling arbitration; under California law the appellant was a proper third-party beneficiary permitted to enforce the arbitration agreement at issue.

  • Epic Diving & Marine Services LLC v. Ranger Offshore Inc., No. 4:16-CV-386 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2016)
    03/03/2016

    Request for preliminary injunction to freeze assets of the respondent pending the claimant's application to confirm an arbitration award granted; plaintiff directed to post a bond (or cash in lieu of the bond) before the order became effective.

  • ASARCO, LLC v. United Steel, No. CV-15-117-PHX-SMM (D. Ariz. Mar. 3, 2016)
    03/03/2016

    Motion to confirm arbitration award granted; plaintiff did not waive its argument that arbitrator lacked jurisdiction.

  • Taylor v. Pilot Corp., 2:14-CV-02294-SHL-TMP (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 3, 2016)
    03/03/2016

    District court denied defendants’ motion on arbitration seeking to modify its previous order granting plaintiffs’ motion for conditional class certification.  Court held that, while defendants did not waive their right to compel arbitration as to those putative class members who signed arbitration agreements, the existence of signed arbitration agreements does not alter the potential class encompassed by the court’s original certification order.

  • Guevara v. Seton Med. Ctr., No. 13-17457 (9th Cir. Mar. 3, 2016)
    03/03/2016

    Circuit court affirmed district court dismissal of action where, amongst other reasons, employee failed to exhaust binding arbitration grievance procedures set forth in her contractual bargaining agreement with her union.

  • Taft v. Henley Enterprises, Inc., No. 8:15-CV-01658-JLS-JCG (C.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2016)
    03/02/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration of claims that did not fall under a particular statute and stayed proceedings.  Court held that the parties’ dispute was subject to a valid arbitration agreement, rejecting plaintiff’s contention that defendants were required to authenticate her signature as a threshold matter and finding that the agreement was sufficiently broad to cover plaintiff’s claims.  Court rejected arguments that the agreement was procedurally unconscionable because it was an employment contract of adhesion that had not attached the applicable arbitration rules or that it was substantively unconscionable because it permitted fee-shifting, precluded judicial review, required written notice of arbitration claims, and required arbitration of certain claims.  With respect to the last argument, Court held that to the extent such claims were required to be litigated by law, the provision was severable from the rest of the arbitration agreement and that any such claims would be stayed pending arbitration.

  • Lutin Investments Ltd. v. Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, No. 12-CV-5191 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2016)
    03/02/2016

    Court had previously entered an order of dismissal following the parties’ settlement agreement concerning enforcement of French judgment of an arbitral award. Petitioner's subsequent motion to vacate order of dismissal, under FRCP Rule 60(b) on the basis that the settlement agreement was entered into without authority and under duress, was denied.

  • Apple Inc. v. BYD Co. Ltd., No. 15-CV-04985-RS (N.D.Cal. Mar. 2, 2016)
    03/02/2016

    Application to compel arbitration granted; an agency relationship existed between the non-signatory respondent and the signatory respondent and both were therefore bound by the arbitration agreement that encompassed the parties' dispute.

  • Nelson v. Watch House Int’l, L.L.C., No. 15-10531 (5th Cir. Mar. 2, 2016)
    03/02/2016

    District court’s grant of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration reversed and remanded. Appellate court held that under Texas law the defendant’s unilateral ability to terminate the arbitration agreement without advance notice to the plaintiff renders the arbitration agreement illusory and unenforceable.

  • Unión De Tronquistas De Puerto Rico, Local 901 v. United Parcel Service, Inc., No. 3:15–CV-01362 (D.P.R. March 2, 2016)
    03/02/2016

    Motion for summary judgment dismissing petition for review of arbitration award granted and arbitration award affirmed.  Although plaintiff cast the grounds for vacatur as manifest disregard of the law, court found that the complaint actually alleged factual and legal error by the arbitrator, which the court is not empowered to review.

  • Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. v. Fryar, No. 1:15CV591 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 1, 2016)
    03/01/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration denied; the arbitration agreement clearly stated that disputes over the relevant issue were not to be arbitrated.

  • Gragg v. ITT Technical Institute, No. 14-3315 (C.D. Ill. Feb. 29, 2016)
    02/29/2016

    Motion to dismiss or in the alternative to compel arbitration granted; plaintiffs must file for arbitration to pursue claims; all issues, including arbitrability, are within the scope of a valid arbitration agreement.

  • GGNSC Louisville Hillcreek, LLC v. Watkins, No. 3:15-CV-902-DJH (W.D. Ky. Feb. 29, 2016)
    02/29/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted; a valid arbitration agreement exists and covers all claims asserted by defendant.

  • CEEG (Shanghai) Solar Science and Technology Co. Ltd. v. Sunvalley Solar Inc., No. 2:15-CV-07339-PSG (C.D. Cal. Feb. 29, 2016)
    02/29/2016

    Judgment entered in favor of petitioner's motion to confirm arbitral award issued by Shanghai International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission.

  • Merkin v. Vonage America, Inc., No. 14-55397 (9th Cir. Feb. 29, 2016)
    02/29/2016

    Order of the district court denying defendant-appellant’s motion to compel arbitration reversed and remanded with instructions to grant the motion. The FAA preempts state-law defenses and the defense relied upon by plaintiffs to resist arbitration is such a defense.

  • Odeon Capital Grp., LLC v. Ackerman., No. 1:16-CV-00274-JSR (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 29, 2016)
    02/29/2016

    Court denied motion to remand.  Court held that diversity of citizenship is assessed on the date the motion to vacate is filed, not the date that the underlying arbitration commenced.  Since the parties were diverse on the date the motion was filed, federal jurisdiction existed.

  • Later Link Croup Co-Op, LLC v. Turley, No. 2:16-CV-01096-BRO-GJS (C.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2016)
    02/26/2016

    Court denied plaintiff’s ex parte application for a temporary restraining order.  Court found an arbitration agreement, which exempted claims for injunctive relief, was not unconscionable and held the claim for injunctive relief was exempted from the parties’ agreement to arbitrate.

  • Smalls v. Labor Ready Mid-Atlantic, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-293-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C. Feb. 26, 2016)
    02/26/2016

    Magistrate judge recommended that a motion to compel arbitration be granted and a motion to dismiss be denied.  Magistrate judge found that when plaintiff applied for employment with Labor Ready, a subsidiary of TrueBlue, he agreed to arbitrate all claims arising out of or relating to his employment and the application for that employment.  Magistrate judge further held that the parent company could enforce the arbitration provision even if it was not a signatory to the agreement.

  • Escobar v. Garden Fresh Rest. Corp., No. 8:15-CV-01825-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2016)
    02/26/2016

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration.  Court reasoned that even though Plaintiff had signed an arbitration agreement, he would be exempt from its application if he was a “transportation worker” under § 1 of the FAA, which excludes such persons from the FAA’s coverage.  Court held that a genuine question of fact existed on this point and should be decided by a jury.

  • Mountain Valley Property, Inc. v. Applied Risk Services, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-187-DBH (D. Me. Feb. 25, 2016)
    02/25/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted and action stayed as to defendant as well as to two other defendants not included in arbitration. Even though state law prohibited arbitration of the type at issue, clear and unmistakable language delegating the issue meant arbitrability was for the arbitrator to decide.

  • Bowles v. Receivables Performance, No. 1:15-CV-04991 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 24, 2016)
    02/24/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted. Issues in dispute are within contemplated scope of arbitration agreement, and although a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement defendant was acting as assignee and agent, which gave it standing to enforce arbitration agreement.

  • Lower Colorado River Authority v. Papalote Creek II, LLC, No. A-15-CA-656-SS (W.D. Tex. Feb. 24, 2016)
    02/24/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted; the parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute in question and there are no legal constraints external to the parties that foreclose arbitrating the dispute.
     

    See also Lower Colorado River Authority v. Papalote Creek II LLC, No. 115-CV-00656 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 22, 2016)
    Motion to stay arbitration pending appeal denied. Defendant did not show it was likely to succeed on the merits, ripeness is an issue for the arbitrator and a stay would only delay the resolution of that ripeness question.

  • ISMT, Ltd. v. Fremak Industries, Inc., No. 15–2086 (2d Cir. Feb. 24, 2016)
    02/24/2016

    Court affirms district court’s confirmation of arbitral award, finding that challenge of award does not meet burden to vacate award.

  • Exec. Home Care Franchising LLC v. Marshall Health Corp., No. 15-1887 (3d Cir. Feb. 23, 2016)
    02/23/2016

    Circuit court affirmed district court’s ruling denying motion for a preliminary injunction where plaintiff had failed to establish it would suffer irreparable harm.  Circuit court held that the district court did not commit reversible error by continuing to deny a request for a preliminary injunction after the parties filed a claim with the AAA and all parties agreed to arbitrate all claims, even where defendants may have agreed that plaintiff would be entitled to the preliminary injunction if it established a substantial likelihood of breach or threatened breach of a franchise agreement.

  • TCMS Transparent Beauty, LLC v. Silvernail, No. A-15-CV-926 LY (W.D. Tex. Feb. 22, 2016)
    02/22/2016

    Motion to confirm arbitration award granted. Parties need not expressly consent to judicial confirmation of the award if the contract contains a provision stating that the award is final, binding, and non-appealable; cross-motion to vacate award held untimely, pursuant to the FAA a party must challenge an award within the three-months of it being issued.

  • Hyundai Merchant Marine Co., Ltd. v. ConGlobal Industries, LLC, No. 3:15-CV-3576-G (N.D. Tex. Feb. 22, 2016)
    02/22/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration denied; the purported arbitration clause was a choice-of-law and forum selection clause.

  • Crescendo Maritime Co. v. Bank of Communications Co. Ltd., No. 15 Civ. 4481 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2016)
    02/22/2016

    Petition to confirm three arbitral awards under the New York Convention granted. Dismissal on forum non conveniens not warranted, and while the presence of a defendant's property within a court's jurisdiction is generally insufficient to allow the court to hear claims against the defendant unrelated to that property, an exception applies where a petitioner seeks to recover on a judgment already adjudicated in a forum with personal jurisdiction over the respondent.

  • Vican, Inc. v. Incipio Technologies, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-2720-L (N.D. Tex. Feb. 19, 2016)
    02/19/2016

    Magistrate judge’s report recommending that motion to compel arbitration be granted adopted by court, but court rejects magistrate’s finding that a stay is appropriate because the court may dismiss the action with prejudice when all claims are subject to arbitration.

  • Masso-Torrellas v. Municipality of Toa Alta, No. 15-1522 (PAD) (D.P.R. Feb. 19, 2016)
    02/19/2016

    Motion to dismiss granted; although the agreement in question calls for mediation, it is arbitration in everything but name.

  • Rune v. Masimo Corp., Nos. 14-55556, 14-55725 (9th Cir. Feb. 19, 2016)
    02/19/2016

    District court’s order vacating arbitration award reversed; because the arbitrator did not fail to disclose information that creates a reasonable impression of bias, there was no evident partiality.

  • McMullen v. Synchrony Bank, No.  14-1983 (JEB) (D.D.C.., Feb. 19, 2016)
    02/19/2016

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration. Applying District of Columbia law, court held that defendant had not provided sufficient evidence to support a finding that there was a meeting of minds regarding an enforceable arbitration agreement.

  • Johnson v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. d/b/a Norwegian Cruise Line, No. 2:15-CV-04400-NJB-DEK (E.D. La. Feb. 19, 2016)
    02/19/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings and denied motion to remand.  Court held that the Jones Act claims at issue could be removed pursuant to the New York Convention, which applies to the arbitration clause in plaintiff’s employment agreement, and any argument that the arbitration clause may be void as a matter of public policy is premature.

  • Cline v. Etsy, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-2115-JCM-VCF (D. Nev. Feb. 19, 2016)
    02/19/2016

    Magistrate judge recommended that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration be granted because Etsy’s Terms of Use, a “click-wrap” contract that plaintiff had agreed to, included a valid arbitration clause.  Magistrate judge noted that, despite termination of Etsy’s agreement with Cline, Etsy’s Terms of Use had a survival provision and therefore the arbitration and forum-selection clauses were still enforceable.  Finally, because Cline’s copyright infringement claims were within the scope of Etsy’s arbitration provision, plaintiff was bound to arbitrate her copyright infringement claims against Etsy.

  • Chicago Regional Council of Carpenters v. Resnick, No. 1:15-CV-07614-EEB (N.D. Ill. Feb. 19, 2016)
    02/19/2016

    Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and denied plaintiff’s motion to dismiss.  Court held defendant was not the real party in interest in the dispute for Count I of the complaint as a claim intended to determine if an arbitral body has authority to proceed is in one in which the body has no real interest.  Court further held there was no reason to dismiss an injunctive claim against plaintiff at the pleading stage for failure to establish essential elements regarding whether the agreement requires binding arbitration and the dispute at issue is subject to it.

  • Jewelry Repair Enterprises, Inc. v. Son Le Enterprises, Inc., No. 9:15-CV-81622-Bloom/Valle (S.D. Fla. Feb. 18, 2016)
    02/18/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration denied; even though a valid arbitration agreement existed, the issues were not within the scope of the agreement.

  • Sierra v. Oakley Sales Corp., No. 8:13–CV-00319 (9th Cir. Feb. 18, 2016)
    02/18/2016

    District court order granting motion to compel arbitration reversed on the grounds that the FAA does not preempt a California rule that an employee’s right to bring a Private Attorney General Act action is non-waivable. Case remanded to district court to determine whether arbitration agreement at issue is enforceable.

  • Al Rushaid v. National Oilwell Varco Inc., No. 15-20260 (5th Cir. Feb. 17, 2016)
    02/17/2016

    Appeal from the district court dismissed; the court lacked jurisdiction to consider an appeal of an interlocutory order where the lower court compelled arbitration, albeit not in the appellant's preferred arbitral forum.

  • InterDigital Comm., Inc. v. Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd., No. 15-CV-4485 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2016)
    02/17/2016

    Court stayed petition for an order confirming an ICC arbitration award rendered in Paris where annulment proceedings before the Paris Cour d'Appel were pending. Court found that little delay would result from awaiting a decision in the French annulment action and deferring a decision in this proceeding might avoid inconsistent results.

  • Bayer CropScience v. Dow AgroSciences, No. 2:12-CV-47 (E.D. Va. Feb. 17, 2016)
    02/17/2016

    Motion to amend court's prior judgment rejected. The arbitration award underlying the judgment set forth the manner by which post award interest shall accrue, and the court would not substitute a statutory rate where the parties agreed to binding arbitration and the resultant award, including its determination on post award interest, was confirmed. 
     

    See also Bayer CropScience AG v. Dow AgroSciences LLC, No. 2:12-CV-47 (E.D. Va. Jan. 15, 2016)
    Plaintiff’s motion to confirm an ICC arbitration award granted and defendants' motion to vacate the arbitration award and stay the proceedings denied.  The court held the award must be confirmed absent extraordinary circumstances.

  • Dent v. Encana Oil & Gas Inc., No. 1:15-CV-01800-CMA (D. Colo. Feb. 17, 2016)
    02/17/2016

    Court granted in part and denied in part motion to compel arbitration.  Court found that the arbitration clause signed by the parties authorized the arbitrator to interpret the agreement and determine whether it permits plaintiff’s collective and class actions claims to proceed in arbitration. 

  • Totten v. Kellog Brown & Root LLC, No. 5:15-CV-01876-ODW-KK (C.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2016)
    02/16/2016

    Court granted in part and denied in part motion to compel arbitration, finding that arbitration agreement that excluded Title VII claims did not exclude similar state law claims, and was neither procedurally or substantively unconscionable.

  • Patriot Oilfield Services, LLC v. Greenhunter Water, LLC, No. 1:15CV32 (N.D. W.Va. Feb. 16, 2016)
    02/16/2016

    Motion to dismiss granted; court found it prudent to grant the motion to dismiss based on improper venue.

  • HTG Capital Partners, LLC v. John Doe 1, A, B, and C, No. 15 C 02129 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 2016)
    02/16/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted and action dismissed without prejudice; all parties were party to arbitration agreement; since arbitration agreement includes anonymity provision, court also grants motion to proceed anonymously as to court action, but arbitrator to decide on anonymity for the arbitration proceeding.

  • Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. John Deere Insurance Co., No. 2:15-CV-15-00671-PHX-PGR (D. Ariz. Feb. 16, 2016)
    02/16/2016

    Motion to correct arbitration award denied, cross-motion to confirm award granted.  Since an error is not obvious, the court would have to engage in impermissible speculation to reach a conclusion that there is a miscalculation.

  • Bynum v. Maplebear, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-06263-JBW-CLP (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2016)
    02/12/2016

    Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings, finding that arbitration agreement’s venue, fee-splitting, and fee-sharing provisions were unconscionable but severable.

  • Bernard v. Kabco Builders, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-02023 (W.D. La. Feb. 12, 2016)
    02/12/2016

    Magistrate Judge recommended, and court later granted defendants’ first and supplemental motions to compel arbitration, finding that there were valid arbitration agreements that covered all of plaintiff’s claims.  Court found: (1) that the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act does not prohibit binding arbitration of express warranty claims and therefore one of the arbitration agreements at issue was valid; and (2) a second arbitration agreement in question was not adhesionary because none of the factors taken into consideration (physical characteristics, non-concealment of the agreement, mutuality, and relative difference in bargaining positions) were indicative of such an agreement.

  • Sanato v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., No. 1:15-CV-07486 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 11, 2016)
    02/11/2016

    Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration under the FAA.  Plaintiff argued that he sent defendant a form opting out of arbitration, but defendant argued that it never received such a form.  Court found that plaintiff raised a genuine issue concerning whether he agreed to arbitrate, which precludes arbitration under the FAA. 

  • Chad McAllister v. Alan Halls, No. 2:15-CV-15-02204-PHX-DLR (D. Ariz. Feb. 11, 2016)
    02/11/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted; arbitration agreement delegated gateway issues of arbitrability to arbitrator.

  • Jones v American Credit Acceptance LLC, No. 15-CV-8163 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 11, 2016)
    02/11/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted; court finds dispute at issue falls within scope of arbitration agreement.

  • Davis v BSH Home Appliances Corp., No. 4:15-CV-103-FL (E.D.N.C. Feb. 10, 2016)
    02/10/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration denied; defendant could not establish the validity of the arbitration agreement’s delegation clause.

  • Farina Focaccia & Cucina Italiana, LLC v. 700 Valencia Street, LLC, Nos. 15-CV-02286-JCS, 15-CV-04931-JCS (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2016)
    02/10/2016

    Motions to consolidate and to compel arbitration denied. The arbitration agreement at issue is not governed by the FAA, but rather the California Arbitration Act, which permits the court to determine whether the right to arbitrate has been waived by a party.

  • Golden v. Lim, No. 2:15-CV-10795 (E.D. Mich., Feb. 10, 2016)
    02/10/2016

    Arbitral award confirmed. Respondent’s motion to vacate primarily rests on the court correcting alleged legal or factual errors in the arbitral award, which the court cannot do when asked to confirm or vacate an award.

  • Unite Here Local 100 v. Westchester Hills Golf Club, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-01203-LTS (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2016) 
    02/10/2016

    Court granted motion to confirm, and denied motion to vacate, arbitral award, finding that arbitrator did not exceed his powers or incorrectly fail to consider mitigation in calculating damages.

  • Guidotti v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, No. 1:11-CV-01219 (3d Cir. Feb. 10, 2016)
    02/10/2016

    Circuit court vacated order of district court declining to compel arbitration and remanded for further fact-finding.  Court held that record was insufficiently developed for it to decide whether the FAA preempted state law affecting arbitrability of the dispute.

  • Rubel v. Acclaim Fin. Group, LLC, No. 6:15-CV-859-MHS (E.D. Tex. Feb. 10, 2016)
    02/10/2016

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the parties’ agreement to arbitrate disputes arising out of matters related to their agreement was valid and that plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the plain language of the agreement’s arbitration provision. 

  • Moton v. Maplebear Inc., No. 15 Civ. 8879 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2016)
    02/09/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted; court finds arbitration agreement to be valid and enforceable and plaintiff’s claims to be arbitrable under the agreement.

  • Littlejohn v. Timberquest Park At Magic, LLC, No. 5:14-CV-200 (D. Vt. Feb. 9, 2016)
    02/09/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted; parties’ exchange of motions regarding the exculpatory clause of an arbitration agreement is not the type of extensive pre-trial litigation that constitutes a waiver of arbitration.

  • Strain v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., No. 6:15-CV-3246-MDH (W.D. Mo. Feb. 9, 2016)
    02/09/2016

    Defendant’s motion to dismiss granted; all issues raised by the plaintiff are subject to arbitration.

  • Sutherland Global Services, Inc. v. Adam Technologies International SA de C.V., No. 15-1063-CV (2d Cir. Feb. 9, 2016)
    02/09/2016

    District court’s order confirming an arbitration award affirmed.
     

    See also Sutherland Global Services, Inc. v. Adam Technologies International SA de C.V., No. 12-CV-06439 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2016)
    In light of the second circuit's affirmation of the court's decision and order confirming an arbitration award in favor of the plaintiff, court granted plaintiff's motion to compel responses to its post-judgment discovery demands on the defendant pursuant to FRCP Rule 69.

  • Roy v. Buffalo Philharmonic Orchestra Soc’y, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-00283-MAT-HBS (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2016)
    02/09/2016

    Court denied motion to vacate, and granted motion to confirm, arbitral award, finding that (1) arbitrator did not refuse to hear pertinent evidence; (2) arbitrator did not decide non-arbitrable issues; (3) plaintiff had the opportunity to raise his allegations of fraud and witness perjury at the hearing; and (4) there is no public policy that protects an employee with limited job prospects (in this case, a professional orchestral musician) from discharge for just cause.

  • Walsh v. Zazzali, No. 8:15-CV-01970-JVS-JCG (C.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2016)
    02/08/2016

    Court denied motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that defendant’s claims were not eligible for arbitration before FINRA because defendant was not a “customer,” was not assigned the claims at issue and therefore lacked standing, and waived his right to compel arbitration by litigating claims based on the same underlying conduct at issue.

  • Ggnsc Altoona Hillview LP v. Martz, No. 3:15-32 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 8, 2016)
    02/08/2016

    Motion to dismiss granted based on issue preclusion. Court finds that because a state court already decided the issue of whether the state law tort claims must be compelled to arbitration under the FAA, plaintiffs are precluded from relitigating that issue in federal court.

  • Dalon v. Ruleville Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC, No. 4:15–CV–00086–DMB–JMV (N.D. Miss. Feb. 8, 2016)
    02/08/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration denied; court finds allegations of lack of capacity and unconscionability create questions about the making of the arbitration agreement that should be dealt with by the court.

  • Wright v. SunTrust Bank, Inc., No. 15-1365 (3d Cir. Feb. 8, 2016)
    02/08/2016

    Circuit court affirmed district court dismissal of plaintiff’s claims against defendant and denial of his motion to compel arbitration where claims against a successor were not subject to mandatory arbitration. 

  • Dent v. Encana Oil & Gas, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-01800-CMA (D. Colo. February 7, 2016)
    02/07/2016

    Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration as moot where plaintiff agreed his claims must be arbitrated and had, in fact, initiated arbitration.  Court denied defendant’s request for an order finding plaintiff’s collective and class action claims were not permitted to proceed in arbitration where the arbitration clause in the parties’ agreement authorized the arbitrator to interpret the agreement and make those determinations. 

  • Espinoza v. Galardi South Enterprises, Inc., No. 14-21244-CIV-GOODMAN (S.D. Fla. Feb. 5, 2016)
    02/05/2016

    Motion to stay litigation granted pending resolution of interlocutory appeal on the non-enforcement of an arbitration agreement.

  • Candies Shipbuilders, LLC v. Westport INS. Corp., No. 15-1798 (E.D. La. Feb. 5, 2016)
    02/05/2016

    Third-party defendant’s motion seeking a stay of a third-party’s complaint and referral of claim to arbitration granted; the arbitration agreement at issue was valid and the controversy at issue was within the scope of the agreement.

  • North American Composites Company v Reich, No. 15-CV-3537 (PJS/JJK) (D. Minn. Feb. 5, 2016)
    02/05/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted. Court held that it may resolve a specific challenge to a delegation provision, but a challenge to the arbitration agreement or entire contract is for the arbitrator to resolve.

  • GIB, LLC v. Salon Ware, Inc., No. 14-55399 (9th Cir. Feb. 5, 2016)
    02/05/2016

    District court's grant of the appellee's motion to compel arbitration reversed and remanded; court erred in not resolving the appellant's challenge to the validity of the arbitration agreement.

  • Trustees of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labor-Management Cooperation, Pension and Welfare Funds v. Oneidaview Pile Driving Inc., No. 2:15-CV-03357-JS-AKT (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2016)
    02/05/2016

    Magistrate judge recommended that motion to confirm arbitration award be granted, along with attorney fees and costs, but denied without prejudice petitioners’ request for prejudgment interest pending further documentation.

  • Ostrom v Worldventures Marketing LLC, No. 12-213-JJB-RLB (M.D. LA, Feb. 4, 2016)
    02/04/2016

    Arbitration award confirmed by court, finding that arbitrator was not evidently partial, alleged misconduct of arbitrator did not warrant vacatur of award, and arbitrator did not exceed its authority.

  • Fernandez v. Windmill Distributing Co., No. 1:12-CV-01968 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2016)
    02/04/2016

    Motion to dismiss rejected. A union-negotiated collective bargaining agreement (CBA) cannot waive rights to bring a federal statutory claim in a judicial forum unless that waiver is clear and unmistakable.  Since the CBA at issue did not explicitly reference the statutory rights subject to arbitration the CBA did not waive the right to bring these claims in federal court.

  • Dykes v. Cleveland Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, No. 4:15-CV-00076-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss. Feb. 3, 2016)
    02/03/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration denied. Surrogate for deceased lacked authority to bind the decedent to the arbitration agreement because decedent had capacity at the time the arbitration agreement was entered into.

  • Middlesex Hosp. v. On Assignment Staffing Servs., Inc., 3:14-CV-1138 (AWT) (D. Conn. Feb. 3, 2016)
    02/03/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted and action stayed pending conclusion of arbitration.  Agreement to arbitrate survived termination of original staffing agreement notwithstanding merger clause of subsequent staffing agreement without arbitration provision.

  •  Didio v. Jones, No. 2:13-CV-04949-PSG-AGR (C.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2016)
    02/03/2016

    Court granted plaintiffs’ application to confirm arbitrator’s finding and award. Court rejected defendant’s argument that arbitrator exceeded its powers by failing to reach decision by a set date, when arbitration agreement said only that arbitration must take place by set not, not that a decision must be reached by such date.

  • Guarnero v. Sail Funding Trust II, No. 0:15-CV-62092-BB (S.D. Fla. Feb. 2, 2016)
    02/02/2016

    Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding that there was a valid contract, despite discrepancies in the agreement and fraud allegations.  Court also found that plaintiff was bound by the agreement despite not being a signatory due to principles of agency, contract law, and the agreement’s plain language.  Court also found that the claims at issue could be outside the scope of the agreement containing the arbitration clause, but ultimately decided that the arbitration panel should make that determination. 

  • Bradford Square Nursing, LLC v. Cornett, No. 3:15-CV-00055-GFVT (E.D. Ky. Feb. 2, 2016)
    02/02/2016

    Motion to enforce arbitration agreement and enjoin defendant denied; question of whether alleged incompetency of signatory to arbitration agreement voids the agreement is a question of contract formation that should be determined by the court, not by an arbitrator.

  • Hayes v. Delbert Services Corp., Nos. 15–1170, 15–1217. (4th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016)
    02/02/2016

    Order of district court reversed and remanded. Arbitration agreement at issue held to be unenforceable because it forbids the arbitrator from applying applicable state and federal law “to game the entire system.”

  • Rosenhaus v. Jackson, No. 2:14-CV-03154-MWF-JCG (C.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2016)
    02/02/2016

    Court granted cross-petition to vacate arbitration award and denied petition to confirm arbitration award since arbitrator failed to disclose that he previously served as an arbitrator (and received fees) in a dispute involving one of the parties and was aware of facts reasonably giving the impression that he might be appointed to serve as an arbitrator in future disputes involving that party.

  • J.D. Fields & Co., Inc. v. Nucor-Yamato Steel Co. and Nucor Corp., No. 4:12-CV-00754 (E.D. Ark. Feb. 2, 2016)
    02/02/2016

    Court grants motion to compel arbitration filed by a non-signatory to the agreement having previously found that the signatory had waived its right to arbitrate.  Court holds that non-signatory defendant had not waived its right to arbitrate and, having brought claims against the non-signatory under the agreement, plaintiff is estopped from denying non-signatory’s right to enforce the arbitration clause.

  • PR Group, LLC v. Windmill International, Ltd., No. 14-0401-CV-W-BP (W.D. Mo. Feb. 1, 2016)
    02/01/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration and stay action granted; arbitration clause was not unconscionable because of reference to non-existent "Arbitration Society in London." FAA empowered the court to order the arbitration to be administered by the AAA, and the AAA should determine whether this is an "international matter" or a "US Matter," based on criteria set forth in Art. 1 of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.

  • Sanchez v. MK Industries, Inc., No. 1:15-CV- 272-HSO-JCG (S.D. Miss. Jan. 29, 2016)
    01/29/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted, and case dismissed because all claims presented to the court were arbitrable and would be decided by the arbitrators.

  • Crawl v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., No. 8:15-CV-00097-PJM (D. Md. Jan. 29, 2016)
    01/29/2016

    Court granted a defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case because all of Crawl’s claims—under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and state law for defamation—were subject to arbitration.  Court found that the original terms of contract for plaintiff’s credit card contained a valid arbitration agreement that the plaintiff did not opt out of.

  • Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Team Tankers A.S., No. 14-CV-4036 (2d Cir. Jan. 28, 2016)
    01/28/2016

    District court’s order confirming an arbitration award upheld, but order awarding attorney's fees and costs vacated.

  • 743809 Ontario, Inc. v. Cars of Manheim, LLC, No. 9:15-MC-81346-WPD (S.D. Fla. Jan. 28, 2016)
    01/28/2016

    Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm the arbitration award.  Court explained that in the eleventh circuit, Sections 10 and 11 of the FAA set forth the exclusive grounds for vacating, correcting, or modifying an arbitration award.  Since defendant was arguing for vacatur on grounds of (i) excess of power, (ii) manifest disregard of the law, (iii) arbitrary and capriciousness, and (iv) violation of public policy, three of the four grounds were legally meritless, and its remaining claim on excess of powers was unavailing as long as the arbitrator was “arguably construing” the contract.

  • Streamline Consulting Group LLC v. Legacy Carbon LLC, No. 15-00318 SOM/KSC (D. Haw. Jan. 27, 2016)
    01/27/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted but court retains jurisdiction on question as to which parties are covered by the arbitration agreement.

  • RX Pros, Inc. v. CVS Health Corp, Civ. No. 16-0061 (W.D. La. Jan. 26, 2016)
    01/26/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted and state court’s temporary restraining order is dissolved; incorporation of rules requiring the arbitration of arbitrability is clear and unmistakable evidence that arbitrators should decide arbitrability.

  • Uchikura v. Yoshida Business Solutions, LLC, No. 3:15-CV-2007-AC (D. Or. Jan. 25, 2016)
    01/25/2016

    Arbitration warranted because all but one of the plaintiff’s claims were encompassed by an arbitration agreement; any remaining questions can be determined by the court after an arbitral award is issued.

  • Brendel v. Meyrowitz, No. 3:15-CV-1928-D (N.D. Tex. Jan. 25, 2016)
    01/25/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted; defendants did not waive their rights to arbitration by filing an answer in state court that did not raise arbitration defense.

  • New Orleans Cold Storage & Warehouse Co., Ltd. v. Grenzebach Corp., No. 15-6642 (E.D. La. Jan. 22, 2016)
    01/22/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted; the FAA applies to transactions involving interstate commerce.

  • Nothum Manufacturing Company v. Marel Meat Processing Inc., No. 6:15-CV-03527-MDH (W.D. Mo. Jan. 22, 2016)
    01/22/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted and dismissal of the action, rather than a stay, was appropriate in circumstances where it is clear the entire controversy between the parties will be resolved by arbitration.

  • Whitehead v. Pullman Group, LLC, Nos. 15-1627, 15-1628 (3d Cir. Jan. 22, 2016)
    01/22/2016

    District court’s denial of motion to vacate arbitral award was proper; arbitrators’ refusal to hear testimony was not fundamentally unfair; it is questionable whether the “manifest disregard of the law” standard survived the Supreme Court’s decision in Mattel holding that the FAA provides exclusive grounds for vacating an arbitral award.

  • Reaser v. Credit One Financial, No. 3:15-CV-1765 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 21, 2016)
    01/21/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration denied; if the existence of an arbitration agreement is not clear from the face of the complaint, the parties should be entitled to discovery over the question of arbitrability.

  • Euro Pacific Capital Inc. v. Bohai Pharmaceuticals Group, Inc., No. 15-CV-4410-VM (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2016)
    01/21/2016

    Motions to compel arbitration and stay litigation denied on grounds that the claims at issue did not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

  • Greenawalt v. Archdiocese of San Francisco, No. 15-CV-05077-JCS (N.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2016)
    01/20/2016

    Application to compel arbitration dismissed with leave to amend; movant failed to properly allege a basis for federal jurisdiction.

  • Interdigital Technology Corporation v. Pegatron Corporation, No. 15-CV-02584-LHK (N.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2016)
    01/20/2016

    Motions to compel arbitration and stay litigation granted; parties' incorporation of the AAA rules into their arbitration agreement was a clear and unmistakable intent to delegate questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator and the court's inquiry was therefore limited to whether the assertion of arbitrability was wholly groundless.

  • Estate of Trantham v. SSC Lexington Operating Co., LLC, No. 1:15CV726 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 20, 2016)
    01/20/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings granted due to the presence of a valid arbitration agreement covering the issue in dispute.

  • Montview Blvd. Presbyterian Church v. Church Mutual Insurance Company, No. 14-CV-01635-MSK-KMT (D. Colo. Jan. 20, 2016)
    01/20/2016

    An insurance policy appraisal process is not an arbitration clause subject to provisions of the Colorado Uniform Arbitration Act.

  • Lloyd v. BRSI, LLC, No. CIV-15-964-M (W.D. Okla. Jan. 19, 2016)
    01/19/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted; questions as to the validity of the arbitration agreement are for the arbitrators to decide.

  • Van Buren v. Cargill, Inc., No. 1:10-CV-701S (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2016)
    01/19/2016

    Motion to vacate award denied and counter-motion to confirm award granted.  Party moving to vacate waived bias as a grounds for challenging award because the issue was not raised during the arbitral proceedings and the party continually accepted the procedures and the arbitrators. Cost of arbitration was not too prohibitive as to give rise to unconscionability.

  • Vanquish Worldwide LLC v. United Sadat Transportation and Logistics Company, No. 15-CV-0135-SWS (D. Wyo. Jan. 19, 2016)
    01/19/2016

    ICC arbitration award vacated in part where arbitral tribunal exceeded its authority by awarding payment of damages during the first phase of a bifurcated proceeding on liability.  Award confirmed in all other respects.

  • A Miner Contracting, Inc. v. Dana Kepner Co., Inc., No. 2:15-CV-15-01904-PHX-NVW (D. Ariz. Jan. 15, 2016)
    01/15/2016

    Motion to vacate award denied as untimely under the FAA. Even if motion timely made, the fact that a client of arbitrator’s firm’s opposed plaintiff in a separate proceeding did not constitute bias.

  • Bayer CropScience AG v. Dow AgroSciences LLC, No. 2:12-CV-47 (E.D. Va. Jan. 15, 2016)
    01/15/2016

    Plaintiff’s motion to confirm an ICC arbitration award granted and defendants' motion to vacate the arbitration award and stay the proceedings denied.  The court held the award must be confirmed absent extraordinary circumstances.
     

    See also Bayer CropScience v. Dow AgroSciences, No. 2:12-CV-47 (E.D. Va. Feb. 17, 2016)
    Motion to amend court's prior judgment rejected. The arbitration award underlying the judgment set forth the manner by which post award interest shall accrue, and the court would not substitute a statutory rate where the parties agreed to binding arbitration and the resultant award, including its determination on post award interest, was confirmed.

  • Ruiz v. Millennium Square Residential Association, No. 15-1014 (JDB) (D.D.C. Jan. 13, 2016)
    01/13/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted and action stayed pending arbitration. Arbitration agreement’s failure to require written arbitration decisions or to provide for certain discovery procedures does not render the agreement substantively unconscionable as a whole. The agreement’s arbitrator-selection process was however unconscionable because it assigned the selection power solely to one of the parties and the arbitrator-selection provision could be severed from the agreement.

  • Parkcrest Builders, LLC v. Housing Authority of New Orleans (HANO), No. 15-150 (E.D. La. Jan. 13, 2016)
    01/13/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted; question of whether plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies is an issue of procedural arbitrability to be decided by an arbitrator; the court is authorized to appoint an arbitrator but it is preferable that arbitrators be chosen by the parties.

  • Vector Electric & Controls, Inc. v. ABM Industries Inc., No. 3:15-00252-JWD-RLB (M.D. La. Jan. 11, 2016)
    01/11/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted; the arbitration provision allowing for arbitrating “any dispute” arising out of an agreement is not overly broad; non-signatories to an arbitration agreement may be compelled to arbitrate.

  • Nowak v. Pennsylvania Professional Soccer, LLC, No. 12-4165 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2016) 
    01/11/2016

    Motion to vacate arbitral award denied; the arbitrator did not misapply the law and was not biased; decision would not be overturned on ground that it could not be rationally derived from the evidence.

  • LLOG Exploration Offshore LLC v. Newfield Exploration Co., No. 15-1749 (E.D. La. Jan. 8, 2016)
    01/08/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration denied because the arbitration agreement provided for disposition by a court if the issues can be determined as a matter of law.

  • McCormick v. Citibank, NA, No. 15-CV-46-JTC (W.D.N.Y.  Jan. 8, 2016)
    01/08/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted and stay under 9 USC § 3 entered because the statutory claim at issue was within the scope of the parties’ valid arbitration agreement.

  • Cotton v. GGNSC Batesville, LLC, No. 3:13-CV-00169-DMB-SAA (N.D. Miss. Jan. 7, 2016)
    01/07/2016

    Motion to stay pending appeal (of denial of motion to compel arbitration) denied.

  • Herrera Cedeno v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC, No. 1:15-CV-24244-UU (S.D. Fla. Jan. 6, 2016)
    01/06/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted; plaintiff’s mere denial that he received the arbitration agreement is not sufficient to invalidate agreement when he signed another agreement acknowledging receipt of it.

  • Trailers Intl, LLC v. Mastercraft Tools Florida, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-00767-BR (D. Or. Jan. 6, 2016)
    01/06/2016

    Motions to compel arbitration and stay litigation denied on the grounds that the claims at issue did not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement. 

  • Lee v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 15-CV-05235-EMC (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2016) 
    01/05/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration granted; plaintiff’s failure to respond to the motion is a concession that arbitration is proper.

  • Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC v. Scout Petroleum, LLC, No. 15-1275 (3d Cir. Jan. 5, 2016)
    01/05/2016

    District court’s decision – to vacate arbitrators’ decision that class arbitrability was within their purview – upheld. The incorporation of AAA arbitration rules did not constitute a clear and unmistakable delegation of authority to the arbitrators to decide the question of class arbitrability.

  • Nesbitt v. FCNH, Inc., No. 14-1502 (10th Cir. Jan. 5, 2016)
    01/05/2016

    Order of the district court denying motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration affirmed. The effective vindication exception applied because the arbitration agreement was ambiguous as to whether plaintiff could be awarded costs and fees if she prevailed, therefore discouraging plaintiff from pursuing her claims.

  • Reed v. Johnson, No. 4:14CV176-SA-JMV (N.D. Miss. Jan. 4, 2016)
    01/04/2016

    Motion to compel arbitration held in abeyance until court can complete a trial on issue of whether plaintiff signed the arbitration agreement.
     

    See also Reed v. Johnson, No. 4:14-CV-176-SA-JMV (N.D. Miss. Mar. 9, 2016)
    Motion to compel arbitration granted; the arbitration agreement was not procedurally unconscionable under Mississippi law.