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
  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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).

  • 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.

  • 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. 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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. 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.
     

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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. 

  • 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.

  • 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. 

  • 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.

  • 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.  

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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. 

  • 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. 

  • 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. 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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. 

  • 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. 

  • 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. 

  • 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. 

  • 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. 

  • 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. 

  • 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.

  • 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. 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.           

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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. 

  • 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. 

  • 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. 

  • 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.

  • 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.
     

  • 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. 

  • 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. 

  • 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.
     

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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. 

  • 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.

  • 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. 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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. 

  • 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. 

  • 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. 

  • 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. 

  • 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. 

  • 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. 

  • 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. 

  • 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. 

  • 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. 

  • 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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Gountoumas v. Giaran, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-07720-JFW-PJW (C.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2018)
    11/21/2018

    Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and to stay action.  Court held the parties clearly and unmistakably delegated gateway issues to the arbitrator, including whether there was a valid agreement to arbitrate and whether that agreement covered the dispute.  Court further held the delegation provision was not unconscionable.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  •  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. 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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. 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.  

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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. 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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. 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.”

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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. 

  • 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.

  • 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.
     

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

     

  • 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.
     

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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. 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.