Shearman & Sterling LLP | U.S. International Arbitration Digest | US [PDF]

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. 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.

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.

Rusoro Mining Limited v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 1:16-CV-02020-RJL (D.D.C. Mar. 2, 2018) 03/02/2018

Court granted petition to confirm an ICSID Additional Facility arbitration award. In rejecting the respondent’s argument that under Art. V(1)(c) of the New York Convention the award should not be confirmed because the tribunal exceeded its scope of its consent to arbitrate, the court held that the issue of arbitrability was assigned to the tribunal and the court must give substantial deference to that decision and not second-guess the tribunal’s construction of the Canada-Venezuela BIT. Further, the arbitral tribunal did not exceed its authority in its damages calculation and reached a reasonable quantum of damages. Finally, the court held that applying the Europcar factors supported an immediate confirmation.

BSH Hausgerate GMBH v. Kamhi, No. 1:17-CV-05776-RWS (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2018) 03/02/2018

Court granted petition to confirm award pursuant to the New York Convention, rejecting respondent’s arguments that the award was ambiguous or contrary to the laws governing the arbitration.

Chambers v. Hampden Coal, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-02744 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 1, 2018) 03/01/2018

Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court found there was an enforceable arbitration agreement between the parties even though the agreement mistakenly referred to a different employee and the agreement explicitly stated it was not a contract. Court concluded that the claim on improper termination based on age could be referred to arbitration.

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.

Shaw v. ROI Land Investments Ltd., No. 2:17-CV-01165 (D. Nev. Mar. 1, 2018) 03/01/2018

Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award pursuant to the FAA, finding that arbitrator’s decision did not show a manifest disregard for the law and that the arbitrator did not engage in misconduct.

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.

20/20 Communications v. Crawford, No. 4:17-CV-00929-A (N.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2018) 02/28/2018

Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate an arbitral award. Court held that because the arbitrator interpreted the agreement he did not exceed his authority even if he was incorrect about the law. Thus, plaintiff failed to show existence of one of the limited grounds for vacating awards under the FAA.

MacDonald v. Cashcall Inc., No. 17-2161 (D. Md. Feb. 27, 2018) 02/27/2018

Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court found that the arbitration agreement, including the delegation clause, was unenforceable because the agreement directed arbitration to an illusory forum and the forum selection clause was an integral, non-severable part of the arbitral agreement.

Management Registry, Inc. v. A.W. Companies, Inc., No. 0:17-CV-05009-JRT-FLN (D. Minn. Feb. 27, 2018) 02/27/2018

Court granted motion to compel AAA arbitration finding the mandatory arbitration provision was a valid agreement to arbitrate, and stayed proceedings pending arbitration pursuant to the FAA on a determination that arbitration will not likely resolve all issues between the parties.

Jemiri v. Public Service Enterprise Group Corporation (PSEG), No. 2:17-CV-04518-ADS-AKT (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2018) 02/27/2018

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending the resolution of arbitration. Pursuant to the FAA, court found a valid arbitration agreement between the plaintiff and employer existed, and concluded that because the disputes were intertwined the entire case should be sent to arbitration including claims against non-signatories to the agreement that are factually intertwined with the dispute between the signatories.

Kroat v. Pizza Hut of Maryland, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-02035-RDB (D. Md. Feb. 27, 2018) 02/27/2018

Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding plaintiff had entered into an agreement with his employer to arbitrate all employment-related disputes. Court found a stay was not appropriate because all plaintiff’s claims were arbitrable.

Choice Hotels International Inc. v. Khan, No. 8:17-CV-03572-DKC (D. Md. Feb. 26, 2018) 02/26/2018

Court confirmed arbitration award and granted motion for default judgment, concluding that defendant had not demonstrated any ground for vacating the award under the FAA.

Sayre v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., No. 3:17-CV-00449-JLS-MDD (S.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2018) 02/26/2018

Court denied petition to vacate or modify the arbitral award, holding there was no “manifest disregard for the law” or violation of the FAA in the tribunal’s refusal to postpone a hearing, which consisted of opposing counsel’s closing statements, when petitioner and his counsel could not be present. Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint which alleged claims that could have been brought in arbitration, finding they were barred by res judicata. Athas Health LLC v. Giuffre, No. 3:17-CV-00300-L (N.D. Tex. Feb. 23, 2018) 02/23/2018

Court granted motion to compel arbitration under §4 of the FAA. Court held that because the claims arose while the contract was in effect, and because arbitration agreements are separable and therefore enforceable after a contract comes to an end, the court must enforce a specific agreement to arbitrate. Additionally, a challenge to the enforceability or unconscionability of the underlying contract is left to the arbitrator to decide. International Corrugated and Packing Supplies, Inc. v. Lear Corporation, No. 3:15-CV-00405-DCG (W.D. Tex. Feb. 22, 2018) 02/22/2018

On remand from the fifth circuit, the court continued to deny the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that under Texas law, in order to incorporate an unsigned contract into another contract, the latter contract must be signed by the party sought to be charged. Here, because the defendant was attempting to incorporate by reference unsigned terms and conditions containing an arbitration clause into unsigned purchase orders, the defendant failed to prove there was a valid agreement to arbitrate. Norfolk Southern Railway v. Sprint Communications Company L.P., No. 16-2107 (4th Cir. Feb. 22, 2018) 02/22/2018

Court of appeals reversed the district court’s order granting a motion to confirm an arbitration award. Court held that the award failed to resolve an issue presented by the parties to the arbitrators, and therefore it is not “mutual, final, and definite” as required by the FAA. Clarke v. Alltran Financial LP f/k/a United Recovery Systems LP, No. 2:17-CV-03330-JFB-AYS (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2018) 02/22/2018

Court granted non-signatory defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action pending conclusion of the arbitration. Court held that the plain language of the contract at issue allows the defendant to compel arbitration because the arbitration agreement does not expressly limit the right to compel arbitration to the signatories. Moreover, the arbitration provision states that it is to be interpreted in “the broadest way the law will allow it to be interpreted.” ACE Insurance Company of Puerto Rico v. Nolasco Communications Inc., No. 1:15-CV-00052-WAL-GWC (D.V.I. Feb. 22, 2018) 02/22/2018

Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm a AAA construction industry arbitration award under the FAA. Court held that it had jurisdiction to confirm the award and, as the defendant did not allege any of the statutory bases for vacating the award, confirmation of the award was appropriate. Court also awarded post-judgment interest pursuant to 28 USC § 1961, which applies to money judgments entered in federal courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction. LPF II, LLC v. Cornerstone Systems, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-02417-DDC-JPO (D. Kan. Feb. 21, 2018) 02/21/2018

Court denied motion to compel arbitration based on the record before it and concluded that a summary trial was necessary to determine whether the parties’ contract requires them to arbitrate their disputes. Independent Laboratory Employees’ Union, Inc. v. ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company, No. 3:17-CV-11858-PGS-LHG (D.N.J. Feb. 20, 2018) 02/20/2018

Court granted motion to enforce a AAA arbitration award, finding that the arbitrator’s award did not disregard the “zipper clause” nor manifestly ignore the plain language of the collective bargaining agreement at issue. ATT Mobility Services LLC v. Payne, No. 3:17-CV-00649-CRS (W.D. Ky. Feb. 16, 2018) 02/16/2018

Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration of state court claims and for a preliminary injunction enjoining the state court proceedings. Court held that a valid and enforceable contract between the parties exists under Kentucky law and that the defendant accepted the plaintiff’s offer to arbitrate future claims. Additionally, the court found that enjoining the state court proceedings, in light of the finding that a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement existed, would prevent irreparable harm against the movant by avoiding the expense and delay of trial. DCK World Wide LLC v. Pacifica Riverplace, LP., No. 1:16-CV-00666-SS (W.D. Tex. Feb. 16, 2018) 02/16/2018

Court granted motion to confirm an arbitration award under §9 of the FAA. Court found that it, rather than the arbitrator, had the authority to determine whether a non-signatory was bound to the arbitration agreement; and that the non-signatory plaintiff was bound by the arbitration agreement on equitable grounds of implied assumption and direct benefits estoppel. Having determined that the arbitrator correctly found that the non-signatory was required to arbitrate, the court held that the arbitrator did not exceed its authority and therefore no grounds for vacatur existed. Jenkins v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-1999-MMA-BGS (S.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2018) 02/16/2018

Court granted in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that a valid agreement to arbitrate all but one of the claims existed and that the agreement was not procedurally unconscionable under California law. Court stayed one claim in the interest of efficiency, pending completion of the arbitration. Diaz v. Intuit, Inc., No. 5:15-CV-01778-EJD (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2018) 02/16/2018

Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to certify for appeal the court’s order granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that an interlocutory appeal would not materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation but rather delay the arbitration. Penneco Oil Co., Inc. v. Energy Corp. of America, No. 2:16-CV-01918-JFC (W.D. Pa. Feb. 15, 2018) 02/15/2018

Court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment against the confirmation of plaintiff’s arbitration award, granted plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitrator’s unexplained denial of plaintiff’s attorney’s fees for lack of procedural fairness, and remanded the case to the arbitrator to determine plaintiff’s reasonable fees. Adkins v. Comcast Corp., No. 3:17-CV-06477-VC (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2018) 02/15/2018

Court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment against the confirmation of plaintiff’s arbitration award, granted plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitrator’s unexplained denial of plaintiff’s attorney’s fees for lack of procedural fairness, and remanded the case to the arbitrator to determine plaintiff’s reasonable fees. Adkins v. Comcast Corp., No. 3:17-CV-06477-VC (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2018) 02/15/2018

Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement contained an unenforceable waiver under California law of an individual’s right to bring a public injunctive relief claim in any forum. Court further held that the agreement included language that invalidated the entire arbitration clause if the waiver was invalidated.

Pfeffer v. Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, No. 17-1819 (2d Cir. Feb. 15, 2018) 02/15/2018

Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s confirmation of an arbitration award and denial of motion to vacate that award. Court found no error in the district court decision that plaintiff failed to meet her burden to demonstrate that vacatur was appropriate under the FAA.

Smith v. Kellogg Co., No. 2:17-CV-01914-APG-GWF (D. Nev. Feb. 15, 2018) 02/15/2018

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the parties’ arbitration agreement clearly and unmistakably delegated the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator by incorporation of the JAMS rules, and that such delegation provision was not unconscionable.

Kingsbury v. Lyft, Inc., No.1:17-CV-02272-SDY (N.D. Ill. Feb. 15, 2018) 02/15/2018

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiffs agreed to broad arbitration clauses on multiple occasions and that their claims fell squarely within the scope of those clauses.

OOO FC Grand Capital v. International Pharmaceutical Services Ltd., No. 2:16-CV-06156-JS-SIL (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2018) 02/14/2018

Court adopted Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation to grant plaintiff’s motion to confirm an arbitration award in its favor, finding it to be comprehensive and free of clear error, and that all objections were deemed waived as no party timely objected to the report.

Rhoades v. Duke University, No. 5:17-CV-00446-FWL (E.D.N.C. Feb. 13, 2018) 02/14/2018

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed between the parties with respect to the claims plaintiff asserted.

Brown v. Sperber-Porter, No. 17-15121 (9th Cir. Feb. 14, 2018) 02/14/2018

Court of appeals affirmed district court’s confirmation of an arbitration award. Court held that under Arizona law the arbitrator’s refusal to postpone the hearing did not provide a basis for setting aside the award in circumstances where the plaintiffs failed to show sufficient cause for the postponement, nor did the award conflict with the express guidelines or standards set forth in the arbitration agreement.

Rose v. Humana Insurance Co., No. 3:17-CV-08107-DGC (D. Ariz. Feb. 14, 2018) 02/14/2018

Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendants failed to establish a valid arbitration agreement existed when they did not establish under Arizona law that plaintiff knew about or assented to the unilateral modification to the agreement requiring arbitration.

Goldgroup Resources, Inc. v. DynaResource de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., No. 1 :16-CV-02547-RM-KMT (D. Colo. Feb. 13, 2018) 02/13/2018

Magistrate judge recommended that district court deny plaintiff’s application to confirm an arbitration award and grant defendants’ petition for nonrecognition of the award and that the award be vacated. Magistrate judge found that the arbitrator exceeded his authority to proceed with arbitration without one of the defendants’ participation and when a Mexican court ordered the arbitration to not proceed. Further, the defendants had not engaged in improper forum shopping since they brought the case in Mexico City to contest the legality and applicability of the arbitration clause under Mexican law.

Dasher v. RBC Bank (USA), No. 15-13871 (11th Cir. Feb. 13, 2018) 02/13/2018

Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that defendant failed to show that plaintiff agreed to the addition of the arbitration provision in dispute. Charging Bison, L.L.C. v. Interstate Battery Franchising & Development Inc., No. 17-10509 (5th Cir. Feb. 12, 2018) 02/12/2018

Court of appeals affirmed district court order denying a stay of arbitration. Court held that district court properly ruled in favor of arbitration where the carveout provision in the arbitration agreement did not cover anticipatory terminations of the franchise agreement. Singh v. Peters, No. 3:09-CV-00181-CVG-RM (D.V.I. Feb. 12, 2018) 02/12/2018

Court adopted Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation to grant in part plaintiff’s motion to show cause. Court held that defendant shall appear to show cause why he should not be held in civil contempt for failure to appear for an examination in aid of execution of judgment on an order confirming an arbitral award. DDRA Capital, Inc. v. KPMG, LLP, No. 1:04-CV-00158-AET (D.V.I. Feb. 9, 2018) 02/09/2018

Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss RICO arbitration claims for failure to prosecute. Court held that the Third Circuit’s six equitable factors to be considered for motions to dismiss weighed on balance in favor of dismissal. Kimble v. Jamieson, P.C., No. 2:17-CV-02187-SHM-TMP (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 9, 2018) 02/09/2018

Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that the plain language of the arbitration provision in the contract did not apply to defendant’s or plaintiff’s claims as defendant was not a party to the contract. 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. Beltsville Land, LLC v. Conaboy, No. 1:17-CV-00551-WS-B (S.D. Ala. Feb. 8, 2018) 02/08/2018

Court granted motion to compel arbitration but denied motion to dismiss and stayed the claim. Court held that a clear and unmistakable agreement to arbitrate exists and that the arbitrator shall resolve objections as to the existence, scope and validly of such agreement. Additionally, under eleventh circuit precedent, the claims are to be stayed, not dismissed, pending arbitration. Smith v. JRK Residential Group, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01586-MPS (D. Conn. Feb. 8, 2018) 02/08/2018

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action. Applying the second circuit’s four-factor test for determining whether parties are compelled to arbitrate, the court held that (1) the parties agreed to arbitrate the claims at issue; (2) the claims fell within the scope of the agreement; (3) the claims can be resolved through arbitration; and, (4) the court action will be stayed pending the conclusion of the arbitration. Dixon v. Wilora Lake Healthcare LLC, 3:17-CV-00713-FDW-DCK (W.D.N.C. Feb. 8, 2018) 02/08/2018

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay the action, holding that the plaintiff’s claims fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement at issue. Additionally, the alleged rescission of the contract, and whether the parties satisfied any procedural preconditions to arbitration, is an issue of substantive arbitrability and thus reviewable in the arbitration. Ranger Offshore Mexico, S. De R.L. De C.V. v. Grupo Tradeco, S.A. de C.V., No. 4:15-CV-00635 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2018) 02/07/2018

Court denied a motion for vacatur of an international arbitration award. In doing so, the court held that the arbitral tribunal did not exceed its authority in granting fees and costs, the arbitral award was final and not conditional, and that the arbitral tribunal reasonably denied the defendants’ request to postpone a hearing.

Eddystone Rail Company LLC v. Jamex Transfer Services LLC, No. 1:17-CV-01266 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2018) 02/07/2018

Court denied motion to intervene and challenge an arbitration award against the defendant that the interveners’ feared would be enforced against them. Court held that the interveners, as a nonparty to an underlying arbitration, may not intervene in a federal proceeding for the purpose of challenging the validity of an arbitration award because they, inter alia, failed to demonstrate a substantial interest in the arbitration.

Ohio River Valley Associates, LLC v. PST Services, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00628-GNS (W.D. Ky. Feb. 7 2018) 02/07/2018

Court granted motions for preliminary injunction to enjoin defendant from arbitrating the dispute between the parties and to conduct limited discovery. Court held that all four factors relevant to determining whether a preliminary injunction weigh in favor of the motion.

Virtu KCG Holdings LLC v. LI, No. 2:17-CV-08296 (D.N.J. Feb. 6, 2018) 02/06/2018

Court denied motion compel arbitration, finding that under the FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) standard a valid agreement to arbitrate exists, but that the issues in dispute do not fall within the scope of that agreement.

Citizen Potawatomi Nation v. State of Oklahoma, No. 16-6224 (10th Cir. Feb. 6, 2018) 02/06/2018

Court of appeals remanded to district court to enter an order vacating the arbitration award. In accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Hall Street Associates, LLC v. Mattel, Inc., court found the FAA precludes parties to an arbitration agreement from contracting for de novo review of legal determinations in an arbitral award, and therefore, the agreement’s de novo review provision was invalid. Because the de novo review provision was a material aspect of the parties’ agreement to arbitrate disputes, court held the provision could not be separated from the agreement and the obligation to arbitrate was unenforceable.

Koby v. ARS National Services, Inc., No. 3:09-CV-00780-KSC (S.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2018) 02/05/2018

Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that the evidence proffered by the non-signatory defendant to establish its ability to enforce the arbitration agreement in question was inadmissible.

Payne v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00076 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 5, 2018) 02/05/2018

Court denied motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Court held that the plaintiff’s claims under state law are not sufficient for subject matter jurisdiction, particularly since neither the FAA nor a motion to compel arbitration under the FAA confers subject matter jurisdiction on federal courts.

2020 Communications, Inc. v. Blevins, No. 17-10160 (5th Cir. Feb. 5, 2018) 02/05/2018

Court of appeals denied an appeal of an order denying a preliminary injunction for lack of jurisdiction. Court held that under §16(b)(4) of the FAA, with limited exceptions inapplicable in the current case, it was not permitted to consider appeals from interlocutory orders that refuse to enjoin arbitrations.

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.

Leidos, Inc. v. Hellenic Republic, No. 17-7082 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 2, 2018) 02/02/2018

Court of appeals reversed district court’s grant of petitioner’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to convert an arbitral award rendered against the Hellenic Republic from euros into U.S. dollars based on the exchange rate on the date of the original arbitral award. Court found the district court incorrectly concluded that the Rule 59(e) prohibition on raising new issues did not apply to petitioner because it was not a ‘losing party’ and determined that it was not manifestly unjust to award petitioner’s judgment in euros.

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.

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.

Visteon Corporation v. Leuliette, No. 4:16-CV-11180-TGB-EAS (E.D. Mich. Jan. 30, 2018) 01/30/2018

Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award and granted in part motion to seal. Court denied motion to partially vacate the award, finding pursuant to the FAA and sixth circuit precedent the proper provision of the FAA for partial vacatur was § 11 not § 10, as argued by petitioners and regardless, there was no valid basis to disturb the award. Court held that to satisfy the public interest the arbitration award must be unsealed, but the remainder of the record could remain under seal.

Domain Vault LLC v. Rightside Group Ltd, No. 3:17-CV-00789-B (N.D. Tex. Jan. 30, 2018) 01/30/2018

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding under the FAA that plaintiff assented to the online agreement to arbitrate. Even though defendant was not a party to the arbitration agreement, court concluded that the doctrine of equitable estoppel applied and the defendant could compel arbitration.

Jackson Laboratory v. Nanjing University, No. 1:17-CV-00363-GZS (D. Me. Jan. 29, 2018) 01/29/2018

Court granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve process via email and personal service on three defendants domiciled in China under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) and 4(h) in relation to a petition to compel arbitration. Concluding that the proposed service comported with requirements of Rule 4(f)(3) and due process, court noted that 4(f) does not require compliance with the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents (“Hague Service Convention”) or mandate exhaustion of other service methods before seeking court-ordered service. Court also found service by email appropriate where the signatory country objects to service by postal channels under Article 10 of the Hague Service Convention.

Knight v. Idea Buyer, LLC, No. 17-3539 (6th Cir. Jan. 29, 2018) 01/29/2018

Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision dismissing the class action suit on the merits but found that a motion to dismiss pursuant to an arbitration agreement should be construed as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) not 12(b)(1) as pleaded by defendant. Under the FAA, court held that plaintiffs’ claim that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because the overarching “Fast Track Agreement” was invalid should be addressed by the arbitrator because it was a challenge to the contract as a whole not just the arbitration provision. Court determined the American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA) claims were arbitrable, concluding there was no evidence of a clear congressional intent to make AIPA claims nonarbitrable.

Byk v. Spira, No. 1:16-CV-05612-KBF (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2018) 01/26/2018

Court lifted stay on confirmation of arbitral award after an Israeli court confirmed the award. Court rejected respondent’s arguments that the court should maintain the stay while respondent pursues an appeal. YPF S.A. v. Apache Overseas, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00178 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 25, 2018) 01/25/2018

Court denied petitioner’s emergency motion to stay arbitration, or in the alternative to enjoin arbitration. Petitioner YPF and respondent Apache submitted their dispute to KPMG for arbitration, after which Apache initiated an ICC arbitration against KPMG. Noting that the FAA “exists in part to ensure that courts cannot undermine contractual agreements to arbitrate disputes,” the court concluded that Apache had a contractual right to arbitrate its dispute with KPMG, and that it would not be appropriate for the court to interfere with that right by issuing a stay or injunction. Court further noted that should the ICC arbitration result in an outcome that undermines court orders, FAA § 10(a)(4) authorizes a federal court to set aside an arbitral award “where the arbitrators exceeded their powers.” LLC International, Inc. v. Torgerson, No. 2:17-CV-02508-DDC-TJJ (D. Kan. Jan. 25, 2018) 01/25/2018

Court denied petition to vacate, rejecting petitioner’s assertion that the arbitrator exceeded his authority. Court concluded that (i) it had jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s request to vacate the arbitrator’s order, even though the arbitration was ongoing; (ii) the arbitrator never held that the AAA Supplementary Rules did not apply and therefore did not exceed his authority; and (iii) in denying petitioner’s motion for clause construction award, the arbitrator never “strayed from his delegated task” and petitioner’s arguments to the contrary “simply address how well he performed his task of interpreting the Agreement.” Ben-Salah v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc. of Delaware, No. 3:17-CV-00907-YY (D. Or. Jan. 25, 2018) 01/25/2018

Court adopted the magistrate’s judge’s findings and recommendations and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss or in the alternative to stay proceedings and compel arbitration. Court agreed with the magistrate judge that (i) the question of equitable tolling was presumptively for the arbitrator to decide, (ii) plaintiff’s challenges to the arbitration based on arguments about formation of contract should be rejected, and (iii) plaintiff’s fraudulent inducement and unconscionability arguments are not specific to the arbitration clause and therefore not for the court to decide.

Keller v. T-Mobile, No. 2:16-CV-02143-CM-GLR (D. Kan. Jan. 25, 2018) 01/25/2018

Court denied plaintiff’s motion to remove case from arbitration and proceed with a case management order or compel a new arbitration proceeding. Pursuant to the FAA, court found that there was no evidence of arbitrator bias and that the plaintiff received a fundamentally fair hearing.

Warciak v. Subway Restaurants, Inc., No. 17-1956 (7th Cir. Jan. 25, 2018) 01/25/2018

Court of appeals reversed and remanded district court’s ruling granting a motion to compel arbitration. Court held that Illinois state law rather than federal law applied when determining whether a contract’s arbitration clause binds a non-signatory, and that defendant restaurant chain was therefore unable to rely on estoppel to enforce the arbitration agreement in the contract when plaintiff was neither a signatory nor a party to the contract. West African Ventures Limited v. Ranger Offshore, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00548 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 24, 2018) 01/24/2018

Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss and stayed defendant’s counterclaims in favor of arbitration. Court concluded that all of defendant Ranger’s counterclaims were subject to the arbitration agreement, and plaintiffs did not waive arbitration by bringing suit to enforce guarantees, which did not contain an arbitration provision. McIntosh v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-03273 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 24, 2018) 01/24/2018

Court granted Uber’s motion to compel in part and denied it in part. Court found that (i) plaintiff’s challenges to contract formation did not have merit, and (ii) because plaintiff was challenging the arbitration provision as a whole, rather than the delegation clause specifically, plaintiff’s unconscionability arguments were for the arbitrator to decide. Inception Mining, Inc. v. Danzig, Ltd., No. 2:17-CV-00944-DN (D. Utah Jan. 24, 2018) 01/24/2018

Court denied in part and granted in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. Court held that subject matter jurisdiction existed and venue was proper to determine if plaintiffs may be required to arbitrate. However, since issues of arbitrability were to be decided by the arbitrator, the motion to dismiss was granted in part. Huron Consulting Group, Inc. v. Gruner, No. 1:17-CV-06042 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 24, 2018) 01/24/2018

Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss for improper venue or, in the alternative, lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Court noted that while the parties designated an arbitral forum (JAMS), they failed to incorporate the JAMS rules, and therefore defendant failed to present the requisite clear and unmistakable evidence of the parties’ intent to arbitrate arbitrability. Roberts v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 3:15-CV-03418-EMC (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018) 01/23/2018

Court granted motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration in light of plaintiffs’ argument that there is a new legal basis establishing that arbitration should not be compelled. Since the court’s prior order, the California Supreme Court determined in McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 2 Cal. 5th 945 (2017) that (i) holding that an arbitration agreement waives the right to seek the statutory remedy of public injunctive relief is contrary to public policy and therefore unenforceable, and (ii) there is no FAA preemption of that California rule. Berkowitz v. Republic of Costa Rica, No. 1:17-CV-00148-RJL (D.D.C. Jan. 23, 2018) 01/23/2018

Court denied claimants’ petition to vacate the interim arbitration award and dismissed petitioners’ case with prejudice. Court held that it did not have jurisdiction to review the interim award because it was not final, noting that it is generally improper for a district court to interfere with an international arbitration before the tribunal issues a final ruling and that other circuits have similarly held that the FAA precludes review of interlocutory arbitration decisions. Bartels v. Saber Healthcare Group, LLC, No. 16-2247 (4th Cir. Jan. 23, 2018) 01/23/2018

Court vacated and remanded for further proceedings on the question of whether all of the defendants are bound by the forum-selection clause. In reaching its decision, court noted that it had previously explained in the arbitration context that if the charges against the parent company and its subsidiary are based on the same facts and are inherently inseparable, a court may refer claims against the parent to arbitration even though the parent is not formally a party to the arbitration agreement. Similarly, under the well-established common law principles of estoppel and alter-ego theories, a non-signatory can be bound by a contractual clause executed by a third party. Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Repins, No. 3:17-CV-00323-JCH (D. Conn. Jan. 22, 2018) 01/22/2018

Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration, concluding that defendant’s arguments were matters delegated to the arbitrator by the delegation provision in the parties’ agreement. Olstad v. Chase Auto Finance Corporation, No. 3:17-CV-00236-WMC (W.D. Wis. Jan. 22, 2018) 01/22/2018

Court granted defendants’ motion to stay the action and compel arbitration. Court held that the issue of arbitrability was for the arbitrator to decide, as plaintiffs had conceded that the arbitration clause was enforceable as to all of its claims save one, and the arbitration clause delegated the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Court further held that a stay was more appropriate than a dismissal as “it is possible, if unlikely, that the arbitrator may find that plaintiffs’ conversation claim is not arbitrable. Holl v. United Parcel Service, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-05856-HSG (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2018) 01/22/2018

Court denied plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the order granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court noted that there is “clear Ninth Circuit authority” holding that the FAA requires federal district courts to stay judicial proceedings and compel arbitration of claims covered by a written and enforceable arbitration agreement. On v. Vannucci, M.D., Inc., et al., No. 214-cv-02714-TLN-CMK (E.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2018) 01/19/2018

Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in favor of compulsory arbitration. Court found that plaintiffs failed to show that they were prejudiced by the four month period between the date plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint adding defendant SAVI and the date defendants SAVI and NVDC filed their motion to compel. With respect to defendant NVDC, court found that plaintiffs failed to show that (i) NVDC delayed its right to compel arbitration for three years, (ii) NVDC’s actions were inconsistent with any right to arbitrate, or (iii) plaintiffs were prejudiced by NVDC’s actions. Castellanos v. Mariner Finance, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-03168-MJG (D. Md. Jan. 19, 2018) 01/19/2018

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to stay action. Court found that there was no undue delay and no “trial-oriented activity” that would warrant a finding of prejudice, and although defendant filed a collection action against plaintiff in small claims court, such action was not subject to arbitration under the parties’ agreement. Capax Discovery, Inc. v. AEP RSD Investors, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00500-CCR (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2018) 01/19/2018

Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss, strike, and to compel arbitration. Court found that the only disputes that the parties’ intended to be resolved by an independent accountant were those arising from the value of the earn-out provisions or Zovy’s present book value. This was evidenced by (i) the narrow focus of the agreement on resolving disputed values related to the earn-out provision, (ii) the direction that the dispute be resolved by an independent accountant who was to act “as an expert and not arbitrator,” and (iii) the New York choice of law and forum selection clause. McAllister v. St. Louis Rams, LLC, No. 4:16-CV-00172-SNLJ (E.D. Mo. Jan. 19, 2018) 01/19/2018

Court denied third party defendant’s motion to participate in discovery. Plaintiff McAllister filed a complaint against the St. Louis Rams, who in turn filed a third party complaint against the Regional Convention and Visitors Commission (“CVC”). The proceeding between the Rams and the CVC was then stayed as required by the FAA. Court found that because the CVC agreed to arbitration “and all of its appurtenant circumstances,” it also consented to a situation where it would not be able to participate in the discovery occurring between plaintiff and the Rams. Little v. Cellco Partnership, No. 1:17-CV-03931 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 19, 2018) 01/19/2018

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, rejecting plaintiff’s argument that incorporation by reference of arbitration agreement in another document was insufficient to provide notice of arbitration provision, since the executed document gave independent notice of the arbitration clause. MediaNews Group, Inc. v. Daily Gazette Company, No. 2:17-CV-03921 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 19, 2018) 01/19/2018

Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award, finding that the scope of judicial review as established by the FAA is mandatory and cannot be expanded by contract, and that purported “clear legal error” is not reviewable under the “manifest disregard of law” standard. Dorman v. Charles Schwab & Co. Inc., No. 17-CV-00285-CW (N.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2018) 01/18/2018

Court rejected motion to compel arbitration, finding that (i) named plaintiff was not bound by arbitration agreement in retirement plan document since that document was issued after named plaintiff terminated his participation in the plan; (ii) no other arbitration agreement covered the claims at issue; and (iii) in any event, the named plaintiff could not waive rights that belong to the plan, such as the right to file an ERISA claim in court. Ewell v. John C. Heath, Attorney at Law PLLC, No. 4:17-CV-11876-LVP-EAS (E.D. Mich. Jan. 18, 2018) 01/18/2018

Court granted motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, finding that a party may not avoid arbitration by arguing that the contract as a whole (rather than the arbitration clause specifically) is void. Ferrari v. Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, No. 4:17-CV-00018-YGR (N.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2018) 01/18/2018

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendants could invoke the arbitration clause as intended third-party beneficiaries. Freeman v. Smartpay Leasing, LLC, No. 6:17-CV-00938-GAP-GJK (M.D. Fla. Jan. 18, 2018) 01/18/2018

Court granted motion to vacate order compelling arbitration, finding that company who refused to pay filing fee as required under the consumer arbitration procedures of JAMS – a forum expressly designated as acceptable in the agreement drafted by the company – waived its right to rely on the arbitration clause. KCG Holdings, Inc. v. Rohit Khandekar, No. 1:17-CV-03533-AJN-GWG (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2018) 01/18/2018

Court granted motion to stay in favor of a pending arbitration, finding that, although the litigation concerned different claims than the arbitration, there was significant factual overlap between the proceedings. Marriott International, Inc. v. Danna, No. 2:17-CV-10590-ILRL-DEK (E.D. La. Jan. 18, 2018) 01/18/2018

Court denied plaintiff's motion to compel arbitration and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that there was no controversy since defendant had not yet asserted any claims in court. In re Stati v. State Street Corporation, No. 1:15-MC-91059-LTS (D. Mass. Jan. 18, 2018) 01/18/2018

Court partially granted motion to compel discovery for use in foreign arbitral award enforcement proceedings under 28 USC § 1782, finding that the request fell within the scope of § 1782 since the foreign enforcement proceedings are adjudicative in nature (rather than prosecutorial), but that the petitioners had not yet established that documents sought were in the possession, custody, or control of the respondent and would be limited to conducting a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition to determine whether the control requirement was met. 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. Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, and Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund v. Premier Concrete Services Inc., No. 1:17-CV-06036-VEC (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2018) 01/18/2018

Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award against non-appearing party, finding that an unopposed confirmation petition must be granted unless the undisputed facts fail to show that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The New York City District Council of Carpenters, Local 4112 v. Modivative Flooring Systems, Inc., No. 1:14-CV-01792-ER (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 17, 2018) 01/17/2018

Court granted unopposed motion for summary judgment to confirm arbitral award, finding that there was at least a barely colorable justification for the award. However, court vacates arbitrator’s prospective award of attorney’s fees in the event of non-compliance of the award, and instead granted attorney’s fees at the reasonable amount actually incurred. Salus Capital Partners, LLC v. Moser, No. 1:17-CV-05536-NRB (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2018) 01/16/2018

Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm the arbitration award, finding that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers under FAA § 10(a). Court explained that the relevant standard for vacatur is whether the arbitrator lacked the authority to impose an award, not simply if the arbitrator misidentified the authority under which he was empowered to act. Galilea, LLC v. AGCS Marin Insurance Company, No. 16-35474 (9th Cir. Jan. 16, 2018) 01/16/2018

Court of appeals affirmed district court’s grant of motion to compel arbitration of certain claims and reversed its denial of motion to compel arbitration of other claims, finding that: (i) although state law normally preempts federal law as to insurance contracts, an insurance policy insuring maritime interests against maritime risks is a maritime contract subject to federal maritime law, not state law, and therefore the FAA applies; and (ii) the parties delegated arbitrability issues to the arbitrator. Chavez v. Get It Now, LLC d/b/a Home Choice, No. 0:17-CV-01490-DWF-HB (D. Minn. Jan. 16, 2018) 01/16/2018

Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that, although a bankruptcy discharge did not render the arbitration agreement unenforceable, enforcing it would be contrary to the bankruptcy code where the claims arise from the creditor’s attempts to collect the discharged debt. TRW Automotive U.S. LLC v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural, Implement Workers of America (UAW), No. 2:13-CV-12160-DPH-MKM (E.D. Mich. Jan. 16, 2018) 01/16/2018

Court denied motion to vacate award and granted cross-motion to affirm, finding that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority by fashioning a remedy substituting a different health care plan for the plan named in the collective bargaining agreement. Jock v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., No. 1:08-CV-02875-JSR (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2018) 01/16/2018

Court granted motion to vacate arbitrator’s class certification award, finding that arbitrator may not bind non-parties to a class arbitration procedure where the court has found the arbitration agreement does not permit class arbitration procedures.

International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural, Implement Workers of America (UAW) v. TRW Automotive U.S. LLC, No. 2:11-CV-14630-DPH-MKM (E.D. Mich. Jan. 16, 2018) 01/16/2018

Court rejected motion to strike, finding, inter alia, that since arbitrator decided only contractual claims, the plaintiffs were free to pursue related statutory claims in federal court and were not constrained to challenge the award under the FAA. Walker v. USA Swimming, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00825 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 12, 2018) 01/12/2018

Court denied petition to vacate arbitral award, finding that arbitrator’s decision not to adjudicate a dispute de novo, but rather apply a deferential standard of review to the prior determination of a professional organization’s internal judicial body, did not constitute a refusal to hear evidence material and pertinent to the controversy warranting vacatur under the FAA. Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, and Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund v. Regal USA Construction Inc., No. 1:17-CV-04594-AJN (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2018) 01/12/2018

Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award against non-appearing party, finding that grounds for the arbitrator’s decision could be inferred from the record and were justifiable. Heritage Capital Corporation v. Christie’s, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-03404-D (N.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2018) 01/12/2018

Court denied motion for attorney’s fees, finding that a party who succeeds in compelling arbitration of copyright infringement claims is not a “prevailing party” entitled to attorney’s fees under the copyright act, since compelling arbitration is a procedural victory that does not materially alter the legal relationship between the parties. Edmondson v. Lilliston Ford Inc, No. 17-1991 (3d Cir. Jan. 11, 2018) 01/11/2018

Court of appeals affirmed district court order denying motion to vacate an arbitral award and granting cross-motion to confirm the award, finding that the arbitration clause’s validity was not affected by a business’s statement that it had “severed its ties with the AAA” or its failure to register the arbitration clause with the AAA prior to the filing of a demand for arbitration. Fatt Katt Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Granite Transformations of Atlanta v. Rocksolid Granit (USA), Inc., No. 1:17-CV-1900-MHC (N.D. Ga. Jan. 11, 2018) 01/11/2018

Court granted defendant’s motion to stay or dismiss and to compel arbitration. Court found that the arbitrability of the parties’ agreement should be decided by an arbitrator because the parties expressly agreed to arbitrate, and plaintiff’s claim of unconscionability relates to the contract as a whole and not specifically to the delegation provision within the arbitration clause. Arnold v. HomeAway, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00374-LY (W.D. Tex. Jan. 10, 2017) 01/10/2018

Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that (i) website user with multiple accounts was subject to arbitration agreement in updated terms and conditions since he accepted the updated terms on one of his accounts, notwithstanding that he did not accept them for the account at issue; but (ii) under Texas law, an agreement to arbitrate is illusory and unenforceable if it permits a party to unilaterally abolish or modify the arbitration provision. Visual Creations Inc. v. IDL Worldwide Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00405-WES-PAS (D.R.I. Jan. 9, 2018) 01/09/2018

Court denied request to deny plaintiff’s request for a jury, as opposed to bench, trial on the issue of whether there exists a binding agreement to arbitrate. Court held that the plaintiff’s timely request should be granted because §4 of the FAA explicitly provides for a jury trial on the issue of an arbitration agreement’s existence when the party allegedly in default requests such. DiMucci v. Zenimax Media Inc., No. 3:17-CV-03789-EMC (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2018) 01/09/2018

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement relied on by the defendant is applicable and that as sophisticated parties to a commercial contract who agreed to the AAA Voluntary Arbitration Rules, issues of arbitrability should be decided by the arbitrator. Everest Biosynthesis Group v. Biosynthesis Pharma Group Ltd., No. 3:17-CV-01466-JM-BGS (S.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2018) 01/08/2018

Court granted motion to compel arbitration of claims against the first defendant and stay the action as to the remainder of the defendants pending conclusion of the anticipated arbitration. Court held the parties’ arbitration agreement is clear and concise and evidences an intent to arbitrate any and all disputes under the subject agreement via HKIAC arbitration. Further, the arbitration agreement was neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable as it was bargained for by the parties and that delegating arbitration in Hong Kong, as opposed to the US, is not so one-sided as to shock the conscience or be overly harsh or oppressive. Wilson-Davis Co. v. Mirgliotta, No. 17-3496 (6th Cir. Jan. 8, 2018) 01/08/2018

Court of appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision refusing to enjoin certain of the defendant-appellee’s claims in FINRA arbitration.

Sanchez v. Elizondo, No. 16-17345 (9th Cir. Jan. 5, 2018) 01/05/2018

Court of Appeals reversed district court’s order vacating an arbitration award and remanding for a new arbitration, and remanded to the district court for further proceedings. Court held that the district court erred in finding that the arbitrator exceeded his powers and that the arbitrator exhibited a manifest disregard of the law. Court also joined other circuits in holding that it had jurisdiction pursuant to § 16 of the FAA where a motion for vacatur is accompanied by an order remanding for a new arbitration. DTC Energy Group, Inc. v. Hirschfeld, No. 1:17-CV-01718-PAB-KLM (D. Colo. Jan. 4, 2018) 01/04/2018

Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding the plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief expressly falls outside the scope of the parties’ arbitration agreement.

Donado v. MRC Express, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-24032-RNS (S.D. Fla. Jan. 4, 2018) 01/04/2018

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case, determining that the language of the agreement at issue did not contain any temporal limitations and, therefore, it’s arbitration agreement could apply retroactively to all of the plaintiff’s claim. Could also held that the fee sharing and attorney fee provisions were not unconscionable.

Thanh Do v. Toyota Motor North America, No. 2:17-CV-12984-GCS-EAS (E.D. Mich. Jan. 3, 2018) 01/03/2018

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the complaint, finding that allegations of discrimination in violation of Title VII were within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus v. Hubbard, No. 4:17-CV-00246-CDL (M.D. Ga. Jan. 3, 2018) 01/03/2018

Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court rejected defendants’ arguments that plaintiff had previously breached the arbitration agreement and that plaintiff had waived right to arbitration.

Crystallex International Corp v. Petroleos de Venezuela SA, No. 16-4012 (3rd Cir. Jan. 3, 2018) 01/03/2018

Court of appeals reversed and remanded a Delaware district court decision that a subsidiary of Petroleos de Venezuela SA, a non-debtor to an ICSID award against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, was liable under the Delaware Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act’s (DUFTA). Court held that while the transfer resulted in assets being put out of the reach of creditors by virtue of international law, a transfer from a non-debtor, the subsidiary of Petroleos de Venezuela SA, to a debtor, Venezuela, is not covered by DUFTA.

Dreibrodt v. McClinton Energy Group, LLC, No. 7:16-CV-00340-RAJ (W.D. Tex. Jan. 3, 2017) 01/03/2018

Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss claims and compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court found that fee-splitting provision was severable and did not render arbitration agreement unenforceable. Court therefore struck fee-splitting provision and ordered defendants be responsible for costs of arbitration.

Seldin v. Seldin, No. 17-1045 (8th Cir. Jan. 2, 2018) 01/02/2018

Court of appeals reversed and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. Court held that (i) a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not an appropriate mechanism to attempt to compel arbitration, and a 12(b)(6) or Rule 56 motion should be used instead; (ii) the existence of an arbitration agreement alone does not deprive the federal courts of jurisdiction; and (iii) the district court erred when it found that res judicata and collateral estoppel were sufficient grounds to grant a Rule 12(b)(1) motion because preclusion is not a jurisdictional matter.

Spinner v. Credit One Bank, N.A., No. 6:17-CV-00340-RBD-TBS (M.D. Fla. Dec. 29, 2017) 12/29/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, denying plaintiff’s argument that defendant had waived right to arbitrate by participating in litigation.

Partridge v. American Hospital Management Company, LLC., No. 17-0248-RC (D.D.C. Dec. 29, 2017) 12/29/2017

Court dismissed defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding inter alia that defendant had waived right to arbitration through active participation in litigation.

Faggiano v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-03773-JFB-GRB (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2017) 12/28/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court disposed of plaintiff’s argument that a class action waiver rendered the arbitration agreement unenforceable, reasoning that the waiver clause was severable from the agreement.

Schilling Livestock, Inc., v. Umpqua Bank, FKA Sterling Savings Bank, No. 15-35995 (9th Cir. Dec. 28, 2017) 12/28/2017

Court of appeals denied appeal of district court order confirming an arbitration award, holding that the record did not satisfy the high standard for vacatur. Nygaard v. Property Damage Appraisers, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-02184-VC (E.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 2017) 12/28/2017

Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that because California law rendered the arbitration provisions of the parties’ agreement unenforceable no valid arbitration agreement existed. American, Etc., Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-03660-DMR (N.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 2017) 12/28/2017

Court denied motion to vacate arbitration award and granted cross-motion to confirm it. Court rejected arguments that vacatur was merited under the FAA based on allegations that the arbitrator had exceeded his powers by ordering the petitioner to pay certain premiums to a non-party and considering certain claims by that non-party. Four Star Beauty Supply Corp. v. GIB, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-01351-WCG (E.D. Wis. Dec. 28, 2017) 12/28/2017

Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award and denied cross-motion to vacate it under the FAA and Wisconsin state law. Court rejected arguments that the arbitrator had manifestly disregarded the law, and held that a public policy defense to enforcement was not available under the FAA and that the plaintiff had failed to satisfy the standard under state law. Leslie v. Hooters of America, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-02873-SEB-MJD (S.D. Ind. Dec. 28, 2017) 12/28/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings. Court rejected arguments that the arbitration agreement was invalid as unconscionable merely because it was a contract of adhesion and because the parties’ bargaining power had been unequal. J&J Sports Productions Inc. v. Toetz Enterprises LLC, 2:15-CV-01411-JPS (E.D. Wis. Dec. 28, 2017) 12/28/2017

Court denied motion to modify the arbitrator’s award and dismissed the case. Court reasoned that the modification provision of the FAA concerned only arithmetic-type errors, and not disagreements as to the arbitrator’s methodology or findings of fact. Drywall Tapers and Pointers of Greater New York Local Union 1974, IUPAT, AFL-CIO v. Falcon & Son Corp, No. 1:17-CV-09148-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2017) 12/28/2017

Court granted unopposed motion to confirm an arbitration award, finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact nor any grounds for vacatur under the FAA.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Worldwide Shrimp Co., No. 1:17-CV-04723 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 28, 2017) 12/28/2017

Magistrate judge recommended that district court find plaintiff waived its right to arbitration as it failed to carry its burden that dismissal of the action was warranted. Magistrate judge determined that plaintiff elected to proceed before a non-arbitral tribunal, acted in a manner inconsistent with the right to arbitrate, and that dismissal would prejudice the defendants. Aqualucid Consultants, Inc. v. Zeta Corp., No. 17-1217 (6th Cir. Dec. 27, 2017) 12/27/2017

Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order compelling arbitration. Court agreed that the arbitration agreement covered the dispute and held that the plaintiff’s failed to challenge its validity or demonstrate that the defendants had invalidated it by purportedly refusing to arbitrate prior to commencement of the litigation. Court further ruled that the defendants had not waived their right to enforce the arbitration clause, finding no prejudice to the plaintiffs from any delays in asserting the arbitration defense. Egonjic v. Princess Cruise Line, Ltd., No. 1:17-CV-24118-RNS (S.D. Fla. Dec. 27, 2017) 12/27/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the matter. Court reasoned that dismissal was the proper remedy under the FAA because the contract’s broad arbitration provision meant that all of the issues presented to the court were arbitrable. The plaintiff did not challenge the arbitrability of the dispute. Willett v. Ally Bank, No. 2:17-CV-02472-JAR-GLR (D. Kan. Dec. 26, 2017) 12/26/2017

Court denied the plaintiff’s motion to stay its consideration of a motion to compel arbitration in order to grant limited discovery. Court reasoned that discovery regarding the possible existence of additional arbitration agreements would be unduly burdensome in light of the defendant’s assurance that no such agreements existed beyond the one submitted by the defendant to the Court and provided to the plaintiff. Gambrell v. Needham, No. 2:17-CV-02884-WB (E.D. Pa. Dec. 22, 2017) 12/22/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and sua sponte stayed proceedings. Court determined that the FAA applied to the parties’ agreement because it implicated interstate commerce and held that the defendant had not waived her right to compel arbitration by neglecting to make a corresponding motions in her initial filings seeking dismissal of the suit. Court further ruled that the agreement covered the parties’ dispute. Brown v. David Stanley Chevrolet, Inc., No. 5:17-CV-00190-D (W.D. Okla. Dec. 22, 2017) 12/22/2017

Court declined to reconsider its Nov. 11, 2017 order compelling arbitration, holding that an evidentiary hearing was not required for its ruling and that the plaintiffs had not presented any previously unavailable evidence nor pointed to changes in controlling law.

In re: King Baby Marine LLC, No. 1:17-MC-00488-LAK (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2017) 12/22/2017

Court denied without prejudice petitioner’s ex parte application for discovery pursuant to 28 USC § 1782, finding that there was no current foreign proceeding to enforce the arbitration awards and that petitioner’s need for the requested discovery was only speculative. CVS Health Corporation v. Vividus, LLC, FKA HM Componding Services, LLC, No. 16-16187 (9th Cir. Dec. 21, 2017) 12/21/2017

Circuit court affirmed district court’s denial of a petition to enforce a subpoena issued pre-hearing by an arbitrational panel against a company that was not a party to the arbitration, finding that the FAA does not grant arbitrators the power to compel the production of documents from third parties outside of a hearing. Archer and White Sales, Inc. v. Henry Schein, Inc., No. 16-41674 (5th Cir. Dec. 21, 2017) 12/21/2017

Court of appeals affirmed district court’s ruling that it had authority to rule on question of arbitrability despite existence of agreement to arbitrate in accordance with the AAA rules, finding that (i) under the express terms of the arbitration agreement, the parties had not agreed to submit claims for injunctive relief to arbitration in accordance with the AAA rules; and (ii) even if the parties had agreed to submit questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator , a court need not do so where the assertion of arbitrability is wholly groundless. Skyline Restoration, Inc. v. First Baptist Church, No. 1:17-CV-01234 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 21, 2017) 12/21/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, rejecting the plaintiff’s argument that the defendant had waived its right to arbitrate, finding that the plaintiff had yet to ask the Court to take any action in its favor. Health Professionals & Allied Employees AFT/AFL-CIO v. MHA, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-13301-JMV-MF (D.N.J. Dec. 21, 2017) 12/21/2017

Court granted motion for a temporary restraining order against the sale of assets. Court reasoned that because the defendant had failed to satisfy a valid arbitration award, its disposition of certain assets could frustrate the arbitral process. Court limited its restraint to such assets as were necessary to enforce the arbitral award.

Corchado v. Foulke Management Corp., No. 17-1433 (3d Cir. Dec. 21, 2017) 12/21/2017

Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of appellant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that appellees’ defense of fraudulent inducement to sign the arbitration agreement was sufficient grounds for the district court to deny the motion to compel arbitration. Integrity National Corporation, Inc. v. DSS Services, Inc., No. 8:17-CV-00160-PWG (D. Md. Dec. 19, 2017) 12/19/2017

Court granted motion confirming an arbitration award. Court held that because the plaintiff filed a timely motion to confirm, and the defendant did not timely file a motion to vacate the award, pursuant to §9 of the FAA the court must grant the motion.

Sienkaniec v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 0:17-CV-4489-PJS-FLN (D. Minn. Dec. 18, 2017) 12/18/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action pending arbitrator’s decision. Court held that the parties must arbitrate the question of whether the transportation-worker exemption of the FAA applied to the plaintiff because the contract contained a delegation clause requiring the parties to arbitrate issues of enforceability of the arbitration provisions, and the arbitration provisions were not unconscionable. Turner v. Fiserv Solutions, No. 4:16-CV-02158-HEA (W.D. Mo. Dec. 15, 2017) 12/15/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay the action, holding that the dispute between the parties falls within the terms of the arbitration agreement at issue and that staying the action will ensure the timely arbitration of the dispute.

Uretek, ICR Mid-Atlantic, Inc. v. Adams Robinson Enterprises, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00004-GEC (W.D. Va. Dec. 14, 2017) 12/14/2017

Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award, finding that (i) arbitrators did not exceed their authority by looking beyond the four corners of the contract to interpret the contract; (ii) the arbitrators were at least arguably interpreting the contract; and (iii) implying obligations from the duty of good faith and fair dealing is not a manifest disregard of the law. Simply Wireless, Inc. v. T-Mobile US, Inc., No. 16-1123 (4th Cir. Dec. 13, 2017) 12/13/2017

Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of Simply Wireless’s complaint in favor of arbitration but did so on alternate grounds. As a matter of first impression, the court held that, in the context of a commercial contract between sophisticated parties, the incorporation of JAMS Arbitration Rules into the arbitration agreement serves as “clear and unmistakable” evidence of the parties’ intent to arbitrate questions of arbitrability. Cargill Incorporated v. WDS Incorporated, No. 3:17-CV-00848-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C. Dec. 13, 2017) 12/13/2017

Court denied motion to stay claim pending arbitration, holding the movant was not a party to the arbitration agreement relied on in support and, therefore, she did not sufficiently demonstrate she is entitled to enforce the arbitration provision before the court. Alderman v. GC Services Limited Partnership, No. 2:16-CV-14508-RLR (S.D. Fla. Dec. 13, 2017) 12/13/2017

Court denied motion to dismiss claim or compel arbitration. Court held that the plaintiff is not a signatory to the arbitration agreement at issue and, in the circumstances, equitable estoppel does permit the non-signatory to compel arbitration.

Dylag v. West Las Vegas Surgery Center, LLC., No. 16-15869 (9th Cir. Dec. 13, 2017) 12/13/2017

Court of Appeals reversed an order of district court compelling arbitration as to one defendant, and affirmed the order compelling arbitration as to the other defendants. Court found that while joint defendants were co-employers of plaintiff, there was no contractual relationship, and thus no arbitration agreement, between employee and the one defendant.

Dye, Jr. v. Sexton, No. 1:16-CV-00035-LMM (N.D. Ga. Dec. 13, 2017) 12/13/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that a valid arbitration agreement existed between the parties and that under binding Eleventh Circuit precedent the court must send the matter to arbitration for the arbitrator to determine his or her own jurisdiction.

Carter v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., No. 16-15835 (9th Cir. Dec. 12, 2017) 12/12/2017

Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision to compel arbitration, finding that a class action waiver in an arbitration agreement did not render the agreement unconscionable. Rodriguez-Depena v. Parts Authority, Inc., No. 16-3396 (2d Cir. Dec. 12, 2017) 12/12/2017

Court of appeals affirmed district court order. Appellate court held that the plaintiff-appellant’s claims of individual rights conferred under a federal statute, the Fair Labor Standards Act, are arbitrable as there was no congressional intent to preclude a waiver of judicial remedies for those statutory rights. Ronco Consulting Corp. v. Leading Edge Ventures, LLC, No. 8:17-CV- 00305-PWG (D. Md. Dec. 12, 2017) 12/12/2017

Court granted defendant’s petition to confirm its arbitration award. Court held that plaintiff failed to serve on defendant a timely notice of its application to vacate the award because the service procedures of Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not supplant those provided in 9 USC § 12 of the FAA governing service of a notice of a motion to vacate an arbitration award. Haasbroek v. Princess Cruise Lines Ltd., No. 1:17-CV-22370-KMM (S.D. Fla. Dec. 12, 2017) 12/12/2017

Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and plaintiff’s motion for remand. Court held that plaintiff’s rape, sexual assault and harassment claims fell within the arbitration clause of a Shipboard Employment Agreement (the “SEA’), governed under the laws of the Bahamas, and that defendants had timely removed to federal court those claims on the grounds that the matter was subject to arbitration pursuant to the New York Convention, thereby providing one defendant (and two others the plaintiff did not contest) the right to compel the plaintiff, a South African citizen, to arbitration. The court remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction certain claims for two remaining defendants who were non-signatories of the SEA and thus could not enforce the arbitration clause with respect to those claims. AMCI Holdings, Inc. v. CBF Industria De Gusa S/A., No. 17-481 (Dec. 11, 2017 U.S.) 12/11/2017

United States Supreme Court denied petitioners’ cert petition from a second circuit decision holding that the respondents, the award creditors, could enforce a foreign arbitral award under the New York Convention directly against a non-party award-debtor’s alter egos or successors in interest without first having the award confirmed and entered as a judgment prior to enforcement. Hamed v. Fry’s Electronics, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00675-ALM (E.D. Tex. Dec. 11, 2017) 12/11/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding the parties’ agreement was valid and enforceable and that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration clause. National Dairy Association v. Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund, No. 2:17-CV-00214-RSL (W.D. Wash. Dec. 11, 2017) 12/11/2017

Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to vacate or modify the interim arbitration award, and granted defendant’s motion for dispositive relief on jurisdictional grounds. Court held it lacked jurisdiction to intervene in an arbitration proceeding that was not yet final under either the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act or the FAA. Roberts v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 16-16915 (9th Cir. Dec. 11, 2017) 12/11/2017

Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s order compelling arbitration of putative class action claims against defendant-appellee. Court held that there was no state action, thereby rejecting plaintiffs’ argument on First Amendment grounds that the FAA policy encouraging arbitration renders defendant’s action attributable to the state. Application for an Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1782 to Conduct Discovery for Use in a Foreign Proceeding, No. 1:17-MC-01466 (D.D.C. Dec. 9, 2017) 12/09/2017

Court denied motion to reconsider prior decision denying petitioners’ request to issue a subpoena for discovery of a partner and law firm for use in the set-aside appeal of a $50 billion arbitral award. Court held that none of the reasons proffered by the petitioners for reconsideration could overcome the court’s prior determination that that the law firm should not have to conduct a burdensome search given the limited, if any, relevance of the discovery sought to the foreign proceeding. Shearman & Sterling LLP served as counsel for the petitioners. Ingenieria, Maquinaria Y Equipos de Colombia S.A. v. ATTS, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-03624-JBS-JS (D.N.J. Dec. 8, 2017) 12/08/2017

Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award issued by the Center for Mediation and Arbitration of the Chamber of Commerce of Cali. Court found that under Colombian or New Jersey law, which did not apply, the arbitration clause was valid, and that respondent waived its right to challenge the validity of the parties’ agreement when it chose not to appear at the arbitration proceedings.

Agnesian Healthcare Inc. v. Cerner Corporation, No. 2:17-CV-01254-JPS (E.D. Wis. Dec. 8, 2017) 12/08/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss complaint, but could not compel arbitration in another district. The arbitration agreement in question required a party to initiate any dispute in the state of the principal place of business of the non-petitioning party. As defendant was the non-petitioning party, arbitration would be proper in defendant’s home state of Missouri.

Richardson v. Coverall North America Inc., No. 1:17-CV-02405-TWT (N.D. Ga. Dec. 7, 2017) 12/07/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss or stay the action. Court held that the arbitration agreement contained a delegation clause and, as plaintiff made no direct challenges to that clause, all disputes concerning the validity of the agreement should be properly decided by the arbitrator.

Andrio v. Kennedy Rig Services, LLC, No. 4:17-CV-01194 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 6, 2017) 12/06/2017

Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found indemnity provision, allowing one party to recover fees regardless of the outcome, was unconscionable and not severable from the arbitration agreement, and therefore refused to enforce the arbitration agreement.

Doscher v. Sea port Group Securities, LLC, No. 1:15-CV-00384-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2017) 12/06/2017

Court denied motion to vacate or modify an arbitral award. Court found arbitral tribunal was owed broad deference and that plaintiff did not meet burden of showing that the tribunal engaged in misconduct that denied him “fundamental fairness.” Thus, plaintiff failed to establish any of the limited grounds for vacating or modifying the award.

Hamlin v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-02648-PMD (D.S.C. Dec. 6, 2017) 12/06/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, stayed the action, and denied as moot defendant’s motion to dismiss. Court found that the agreement was supported by adequate consideration under South Carolina state law, and was not unconscionable because the agreement selected JAMS rules which were not one-sided. Thus, court compelled arbitration pursuant to the FAA.

Love v. BMW Financial Services NA, LLC, No. 1:15-CV-00124-SMG (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2017) 12/05/2017

Court confirmed an arbitration award, granting pre-judgment interest and attorney’s fees. Court reasoned that none of plaintiff’s arguments provided a basis for the court to vacate the award, or to decline to affirm it.

Meduri Farms, Inc. v. DutchTecSource BV, No. 3:17-CV-00906-SI (D. Or. Dec. 5, 2017) 12/05/2017

Court granted preliminary injunction, enjoining defendant from further pursuit of ICC arbitration, and denied defendant’s motion to refer the case to arbitration and stay proceedings. Court concluded that the operative agreement between the parties did not contain a mandatory arbitration clause.

Sharp Corporation v. Hisense USA Corporation, No. 4:17-CV-03341-YGR (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2017) 12/05/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court found that the FAA preempted a state law precluding arbitration of a statutory claim without a clear waiver. Thus, the court held the dispute was within the scope of a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement.

Ewing v. Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00222-BEN-WVG (S.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2017) 12/05/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the action. Court found that the plaintiff’s request to opt out of the arbitration agreement was not timely and plaintiff was subject to a valid, irrevocable, and enforceable arbitration agreement.

Clayborne v. Lithia Motors, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00588-AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2017) 12/05/2017

Court granted motion to stay proceedings and to compel arbitration, holding that the clause delegating authority to determine “applicability, enforceability, or formation” of the arbitration agreement to arbitratosr was not unconscionable.

Laborers’ International Union of North America v. MEK Enterprises, No. 3:17-CV-01614-BEN-NLS (S.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2017) 12/05/2017

Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award, granting pre-judgment interest but denying attorney’s fees. Court stated that respondent bears burden of showing why award should not be confirmed and, since the respondent did not appear, the court confirmed the award. Greene v. Frost Brown Todd, LLC, Nos. 16-6761, 16-6763, 16-6772 (6th Cir. Dec. 4, 2017) 12/04/2017

Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment in each of three cases. Court affirmed the district court judgment in case No. 16-6772 granting summary judgment to the defendants on Greene’s complaint to vacate an arbitrator’s award. Court held that Greene failed to present evidence to support vacating the arbitrator’s award on any ground permissible under the Railway Labor Act.

Herrington v. Waterstone Mortgage Corporation, No. 3:11-CV-00779-BBC (W.D. Wis. Dec. 4, 2017) 12/04/2017

Court confirmed an arbitration award and denied motion to vacate. In doing so, the court concluded that, according to precedent and § 10(a) of the FAA, defendant had not overcome the presumption of validity granted an arbitration award with clear and convincing evidence of the arbitrator’s alleged bias and misconduct.

Essex v. The Children’s Place, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-05621-JMV-MF (D.N.J. Dec. 4, 2017) 12/04/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration for certain opt-in plaintiffs in a collective labor dispute. Pursuant to the FAA, the court held that the opt-in plaintiffs had entered a valid arbitration agreement and the present dispute fell within the scope of that agreement.

Steadfast Insurance Company v. Palmetto Civil Group, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-01119-PMD (D.S.C. Dec. 1, 2017) 12/01/2017

Court granted defendant and third-party plaintiff’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration of a dispute arising out of an airport construction project. Pursuant to the FAA, the court determined that the insurer was bound by the arbitration agreement between the contractor and subcontractor and concluded defendant and third-party plaintiff had not waived its right to seek arbitration.

Bounty Minerals, LLC v. Chesapeake Exploration, LLC, No. 5:17-CV-01695-SL (E.D. Ohio Dec. 1, 2017) 12/01/2017

Court denied defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration in a dispute related to oil and gas leases, only one of which contained an arbitration clause. After the court granted plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint plaintiff removed its request to recover on the particular lease that contained the arbitration clause, leaving no arbitration clause in the agreements at issue. Court rejected arguments that it should still stay proceedings pending the arbitration of the other lease agreement.

Conduragis v. Prospect Chartercare, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00272-JJM-PAS (D.R.I. Dec. 1, 2017) 12/01/2017

Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Applying Rhode Island state law, the court determined no valid agreement existed because the agreement lacked consideration.

Ngo v. Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., No. 1:17-CV-1727-GHW (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2017) 11/30/2017

Court held that the arbitration agreement in question was valid and enforceable, and granted motion to stay but denied motion to dismiss. Court held that second circuit precedent requires the court to stay, but not dismiss, the proceedings when requested.

Yang v. Majestic Blue Fisheries, LLC & Dongwon Industries Co., Ltd., No. 15-16881 (9th Cir. Nov. 30, 2017) 11/30/2017

Court of appeal affirmed district court’s order denying motion to compel arbitration arising from a claim related to the death of a seaman on a fishing vessel. Court held that an arbitral clause must be signed by the parties to be enforceable under Art. II(2) of the New York Convention and determined that it could not compel arbitration of a non-signatory or non-party. Additionally, the court concluded it could not compel arbitration under the FAA, because the statute expressly exempts employment contracts of seamen from its scope.

Global Colocation Services, LLC v. Hibernia Express (Ireland) Limited, No. 1:17-CV-09027 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2017) 11/29/2017

Court denied plaintiff’s application for a temporary restraining order to enjoin defendant from terminating plaintiff’s access to its undersea transatlantic cable. Pursuant to New York law, the court determined that the pending arbitration would not be rendered ineffectual without the temporary relief, finding that plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits and that a temporary restraining order would interfere with the ongoing arbitration.

NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., d/b/a Norwegian Cruise Line v. O.W. Bunker USA, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01327-CSH (D. Conn. Nov. 29, 2017) 11/29/2017

Court entered a second order granting a preliminary injunction enjoining the arbitration in London conducting the analysis under the traditional test for an injunction. Court found plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, a likelihood of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction, that the balance of hardships tipped in the plaintiff’s favor, and that the public interest would not be harmed by the injunction.

BSG Resources (Guinea) Limited, BSG Resources (Guinea) Sarl, & BSG Resources Limited v. Soros, No. 1:17-CV-02726-JFK-AJP (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2017) 11/29/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to stay the proceeding pending the outcome of an ICSID arbitration between the plaintiffs and Guinea. Although defendants were not a party to the arbitration, court concluded that the same key issues were integral to both disputes, the stay would not hinder the arbitration, the arbitration would be resolved within a reasonable time, and the delay would not cause undue hardship. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. v. O.W. Bunker USA, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-1327 (D. Conn. Nov. 29, 2017) 11/29/2017

Court granted plaintiff’s motion to stay the arbitration proceedings and enjoin defendants from proceeding with arbitration. Applying English law, court held that the arbitration provision had been superseded, and therefore plaintiff was not under any binding agreement to arbitrate its disputes. Court also found that an injunction was warranted since (i) the parties had not agreed to arbitrate, (ii) plaintiff would be irreparably harmed by being forced to expend time and resources arbitrating an issue that is not arbitrable, and for which any award would not be enforceable; and (iii) plaintiff showed a likelihood of success on the issue of superseding the arbitration clause.

Borecki v. Raymours Furniture Co. Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01188-LAK-SN (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 2017) 11/28/2017

Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings, finding that the dispute did not fall within the narrow scope of the arbitral clause.

Hyatt Franchising, L.L.C. v. Shen Zhen New World I, LLC & Shen Zhen New World Investment (USA) Inc., No. 17-2071 (7th Cir. Nov. 28, 2017) 11/28/2017

Court of appeal denied motion to vacate arbitration award, finding the arbitrator’s decision not to disqualify counsel was not misbehavior within the meaning of § 10(a)(3) of the FAA and that the arbitrator’s interpretation of the contract did not exceed the arbitrator’s power under § 10(a)(4).

Green Tree Servicing, L.L.C. v. Miller, No. 17-60108 (5th Cir. Nov. 28, 2017) 11/28/2017

Court of appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the district court’s order compelling arbitration was not a final appealable order when a matter involving the same parties and essentially the same dispute is stayed pending arbitration.

Zhu v. Hakkasan NYC LLC & Hakkasan Holdings, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-05589-KPF (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 2017) 11/28/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement valid and enforceable and concluding plaintiffs’ claims fell within its scope pursuant to the FAA. Court determined the availability of collective arbitration and the validity of the confidentiality clause were questions for the arbitrator.

Ali, Cole, Collins, Norman, Renfroe, & Torry v. Vehi-Ship, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-02688 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 27, 2017) 11/27/2017

Court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) for lack of venue. Finding that the AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules’ delegation clause, granting the arbitrator the power to decide questions of arbitrability, was incorporated by reference in the agreement, the court held that the arbitrator should determine the validity and scope of the arbitration agreement.

Frye, Ndege Ndogo Inc., & Graf, v. Wild Bird Centers of America, No. 17-1346 (4th Cir. Nov. 27, 2017) 11/27/2017

Court affirmed District Court’s denial of petition to vacate arbitral award entered in favor of the appellee and confirmation of the award pursuant to the FAA and common law. Court concluded that the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law, exceed his powers, or draw the award from the essence of the agreement.

Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Haynes, No. 17-60113 (5th Cir. Nov. 27, 2017) 11/27/2017

Court dismissed the appeal, holding that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the district court’s order compelling arbitration, because the judgment also stayed the substantive claims in the underlying lawsuit between the parties.

TIC Seven Bar 12, LLC v. Core Seven Bar H., LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00450-RB-SCY (D.N.M. Nov. 27, 2017) 11/27/2017

Court confirmed and entered judgment on an AAA arbitration award as revised after remand to the arbitrator with the supplemental final award. Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, and Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Education and Industry Fund, No. 1:17-CV-01106-PAE (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2017) 11/22/2017

Court confirmed the arbitral award and ordered interest, fees, and costs. Court found that the arbitrator’s decision contained an apparent scrivener’s error and, based on supplemental briefing, court was satisfied that the award was amply justified by the factual record. Court also awarded interest, as the FAA bears interest from the date of the award until judgment confirming it and the parties had not contracted out of the post-judgment interest rate established by 28 USC § 1961.

Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. Simply Wireless, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-24565-FAM (S.D. Fla. Nov. 22, 2017) 11/22/2017

Court denied plaintiff’s motion to enjoin the arbitration and granted in part defendants’ motion to stay. Court found that by incorporating the AAA rules into their arbitration agreement, the parties agreed that the arbitrator should decide whether the arbitration agreement encompassed the claims before him. Court also concluded that, because there are issues involved in the suit that are subject to arbitration, it would stay the action, consistent with the requirements of the FAA. Laborers’ Local Union Nos. 472 & 172 v. Tri-State Erosion Control, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01792-JBS-AMD (D.N.J. Nov. 22, 2017) 11/22/2017

Court granted petitioners’ motion to confirm an arbitration award. Court concluded that (i) contrary to respondent’s assertion that the arbitrator disregarded documents and improperly granted benefits beyond the termination date of the collective bargaining agreement, the arbitrator did consider evidence presented by both parties and did not irrationally decide to award benefits for work performed after termination; (ii) the FAA does not require the arbitrator to explain his or her reasoning for an award; (iii) there is no support in case law for prescribing a more searching review for awards issued by a permanently assigned arbitrator. Ouadani v. TF Final Mile LLC, No. 17-1583 (5th Cir. Nov. 21, 2017) 11/21/2017

Court of appeal affirmed the district court decision denying defendant-appellant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court concluded that the non-signatory plaintiff-appellee was not required to submit his claims to arbitration because (i) he was not an agent of one of the signatories, (ii) he was not equitably estopped from refusing to arbitrate because the benefits of the arbitration clause accrued to the contracting signatories and not to plaintiff-appellee, and (iii) he is not a third-party beneficiary of the agreement.

YPF S.A. v. Apache Overseas, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00178 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 21, 2017) 11/21/2017

Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award pursuant to the FAA, denying respondent’s motion to vacate the award or stay confirmation pending a final award. Court concluded that the award was final and binding, found that the arbitrators did not exceed their powers, and determined that a stay was inappropriate where the ongoing mediation proceedings did not involve the petitioner as a party. Wuest v. Comcast Corporation, No. 4:17-CV-04063-JSW (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2017) 11/20/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to stay pending the outcome of the appeal of the court’s order denying arbitration. Court found that defendants would be irreparably harmed if it did not stay the action, noting that when a party is denied the opportunity to arbitrate, “the advantages of arbitration—speed and economy—are lost forever.” Gamble v. New England Auto Finance, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-02979-LMM (N.D. Ga. Nov. 20, 2017) 11/20/2017

Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the action, concluding that plaintiff’s claim was not within the scope of arbitration. Court held that plaintiff’s claim did not “arise from” the loan agreement because (i) even though the claim was based on loan applicants’ refusal to sign a provision in that agreement, the unsigned provision did not create any rights and obligations and no agreement on this basis occurred; and (ii) defendant’s actions would have harmed plaintiff regardless of whether plaintiff had entered into the agreement. Court also concluded that plaintiff’s claim does not “touch” the loan agreement because it does not arise from any right implicated by the agreement. In the Matter of the Arbitration Between Holton B. Shepherd v. LPL Financial LLC, No. 5:17-CV-00150-D (W.D.N.C. Nov. 20, 2017) 11/20/2017

Court denied defendant’s motion for a protective order and to stay discovery. Court noted that, as a general matter, a limited scope of judicial review and restricted inquiry into factual issues support the strong federal policy favoring arbitrability, and allowing “full-blown discovery” would undermine that policy. However, these principles fail to justify the “preemptive ban” defendant sought on all discovery, and therefore court denied defendant’s motion. Schroder v. Teufel, No. 1:17-CV-06119 (E.D. Ill. Nov. 20, 2017) 11/20/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for improper venue and stayed the litigation pending arbitration. Court held that because the parties agreed that the AAA rules would govern their pending arbitration, and those rules unequivocally state that the arbitrator has the authority to decide the validity of an arbitration agreement, the parties “clearly and unmistakably” expressed their intent to arbitrate the validity of the arbitration agreement. Owners Management Co. v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., No. 1:17-CV-00881-CAB (N.D. Ohio Nov. 20, 2017) 11/20/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss. Court found that (i) the arbitration provision was broadly worded to cover “any dispute relating to this Agreement,” (ii) it did not expressly exclude any specific disputes, and (iii) the instant case “absolutely cannot be resolved without reference to the Agreement.” As such, the court concluded that the arbitration of plaintiff’s claims was appropriate. Meierhenry Sargent LLP v. Williams, No. 4:16-CV-04180-LLP (D.S.D. Nov. 20, 2017) 11/20/2017

Court granted plaintiff’s motion for relief from stay and motion for order to declare the scope of arbitration proceedings. Court held that arbitrability was an issue for the court to decide because the arbitration provision of the contract was silent on whether the arbitrator or the court would decide the issue and plaintiff clearly did not agree to submit the question to the arbitrator. Johnson v. RCO Legal, P.S., No. 2:17-CV-00512-RAJ (W.D. Wash. Nov. 20, 2017) 11/20/2017

Court granted plaintiff’s application to confirm an arbitration award and denied defendant’s motion to vacate. Court concluded that, despite defendant’s arguments to the contrary, (i) the arbitrator did consider Section 237 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts and decided it was not dispositive; (ii) the arbitrator did consider defendant’s “after acquired evidence”; (iii) the arbitrator did not interpret the agreement in an unjust manner; and (iv) the court is not authorized to review the arbitrator’s decision on the merits. Cunningham v. Henry Ford Health System, No. 2:17-CV-11015-SJM-APP (E.D. Mich. Nov. 20, 2017) 11/20/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss or stay the proceeding and to compel arbitration. Court found that (i) plaintiff received adequate notice and signed the agreement, thus knowingly and voluntarily waiving her right to a jury trial; (ii) plaintiff’s claims fell within the ambit of the arbitration agreement’s clear language; (iii) nothing in the record suggested that Congress intended the ADA to preclude waiver of the judicial forum through arbitration agreements; and (iv) the entirety of plaintiff’s complaint is subject to arbitration, and therefore it is proper for the court to dismiss. McAllister v. The St. Louis Rams, LLC, No. 4:16-CV-00172-SNLJ (E.D. Mo. Nov. 17, 2017) 11/17/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that incorporation of AAA Rules constituted agreement to arbitrate arbitrability. Mizra v. Cachet Hotel Group Limited Cayman L.P., No. 2:17-CV-07140-RGK-KS (C.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2017) 11/17/2017

Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that the arbitration clause was incapable of being performed because it required arbitration before the HKIAC in accordance with the ICC rules. Memorial Hermann Health System v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas, No. 4:17-CV-02661 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 17, 2017) 11/17/2017

Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss for improper venue and motion to compel arbitration. Court found that (i) the parties had a valid arbitration agreement, (ii) the scope of the arbitration agreement was for the court to determine, and (iii) certain of the plaintiff’s claims did not fall within the scope of the narrow arbitration agreement. Original Appalachian Artworks, Inc. v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc., No. 17-11513 (11th Cir. Nov. 17, 2017) 11/17/2017

Court of appeal affirmed district court’s grant of motion to confirm arbitral award and rejected motion to partially vacate the award. Court held that (i) the mere failure to apply the law (as opposed to intentional failure) or legal error is insufficient to show manifest disregard; (ii) the arbitrator did not impermissibly decide a matter not properly before him; (iii) the arbitrator interpreted the contract, but did not modify it; and (iv) the award could not be challenged for mere insufficiency of evidence. Burrell v. 911 Restoration Franchise Inc., No. 1:17-CV-02278-JKB (D. Md. Nov. 17, 2017) 11/17/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim in part, interpreting that part of the motion as a motion to compel arbitration. Court explained that the FAA requires the demonstration of four elements to compel arbitration, and found that there was no genuine dispute of material fact with regard to three of those elements: the existence of a dispute, its relationship to interstate commerce, and the failure of the plaintiffs to arbitrate the dispute. On the final element, the existence of a written agreement that includes an arbitration provision which purports to cover the dispute, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the rescission of the contract meant rescission of the arbitration clause, finding that the arbitration clause survived rescission. Brown v. David Stanley Chevrolet, Inc., No. 5:17-CV-00190-D (W.D. Okla. Nov. 17, 2017) 11/17/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay the action. Court held that the agreements plaintiffs signed should be construed together, rejecting plaintiffs’ argument that one of the contracts—which contained a merger clause but no arbitration agreement—superseded the dispute resolution clause. Court also found that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate and that plaintiffs’ arguments related to fraud in the inducement of the contract of as a whole, which was for the arbitrator and not the court to decide. Armstead v. Starbucks Corp., No. 2:17-CV-01163-PKC (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2017) 11/17/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceeding. Court found that the arbitration agreement was presented in a manner that required two separate steps of viewing and electronically signing the agreement, the webpage was neatly organized, and the arbitration agreement was expressly identified. Thus, court concluded that the plaintiff electronically consented to the arbitration of her claims and had not come forward with evidence that would permit a reasonable trier of fact to conclude that the consent was not effective. Edwards v. Doordash, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-02255 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 16, 2017) 11/16/2017

Court adopted the magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation to grant defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Magistrate judge found that plaintiff Lupo signed the same independent contractor agreement on the same basis as the named plaintiff, which was previously found by the court to contain a valid arbitration clause. For plaintiffs Hicks and Williams, who signed a second version of the independent contractor agreement, court also found that a valid arbitration agreement existed, and that the adoption of the AAA rules by the parties indicated that they intended to delegate arbitrability rules to the arbitrator. WDCD, LLC v. iSTAR, INC., No. 1:17-CV-00301-DKW-RLP (D. Haw. Nov. 16, 2017) 11/16/2017

Court granted motion to stay in favor of arbitration, finding that non-signatory could invoke arbitration clause in the agreement under which the claims against it arose. Ross v. Quality Homes of McComb, No. 5:17-CV-00046-DCB-MTP (S.D. Miss. Nov. 16, 2017) 11/16/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings, finding that (i) an arbitration agreement in a form contract was not procedurally unconscionable; (ii) neither the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act nor the National Manufactured Housing and Construction and Safety Standards act preclude arbitration of claims arising thereunder; (iii) non-signatory defendants can invoke an arbitration provision in a contract under which the plaintiff’s claim arise; and (iv) question of whether claims are within the scope of the arbitration agreement was delegated to the arbitrator. Oliver v. First Century Bank, N.A., No. 3:17-CV-00620-MMA-KSC (S.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2017) 11/16/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that question of arbitrability was delegated to the arbitrator. Myers v. TRG Customer Solutions, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00052 (N.D. Tenn. Nov. 15, 2017) 11/15/2017

Court granted motion to compel individual arbitration, finding that a collective action asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standard Act does not qualify as concerted activity protected by the National Labor Relations Act, but refused to dismiss the action, since there was an open question whether other opt-in plaintiffs had signed valid and enforceable arbitration agreements. KDDI Global LLC v. Fisk Telecom LLC, No. 3:17-CV-05445-BRM-DEA (D.N.J. Nov. 15, 2017) 11/15/2017

Court granted motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, finding that agreement to arbitrate in accordance with the AAA’s Commercial Arbitration Rules, which grant the arbitrator “the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction”, constitutes an agreement to arbitrate arbitrability. Walkwell International, Inc. v. DJO Global, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00270-EJL-REB (D. Idaho Nov. 15, 2017) 11/15/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that party had failed to establish that arbitration would be cost prohibitive and that arbitration clause was “broad and far reaching” and therefore covered all related claims arising out of the dispute. GGNSC Greensburg, LLC v. Smith, No. 1:17-CV-00150-GNS (W.D. Ky. Nov. 15, 2017) 11/15/2017

Court partially granted motion to compel arbitration and enjoined parallel state proceedings, finding that (i) no basis existed for federal abstention in favor of parallel state court proceedings; (ii) a nursing home admission agreement is a contract involving interstate commerce within the federal court jurisdiction; (iii) that the decedent’s attorney-in-fact was authorized to bind the decedent’s estate to pursue any claims in arbitration; (iv) an arbitration agreement in a nursing home admission agreement is not unconscionable; and (v) enjoining parallel state proceedings would not violate the anti-injunction act. However, court denied motion to compel arbitration as to a wrongful death claim, since that claim belonged to decedent’s beneficiaries, and decedent’s attorney-in-fact did not have authority to bind them to arbitration. United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial & Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Essentia Health, No. 0:17-CV-04753-WMW-LIB (D. Minn. Nov. 15, 2017) 11/15/2017

Court denied motion for expedited preliminary injunction, finding that it had not been established that arbitration would be rendered a meaningless ritual if policy requiring employees to receive flu vaccine were implemented pending ruling in arbitration on whether policy is subject to bargaining under collective bargaining agreement. Parish v. Macy’s Retail Holdings, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00120-A (N.D. Tex. Nov. 14, 2017) 11/14/2017

Court denied motion to stay and compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff had waived her right to invoke arbitration by prosecuting her claim in court Abel v. All Green Building Services of New York LLC, No. 1:16-CV-08522-JPO (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2017) 11/14/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed case, finding that arbitration provision of collective bargaining agreement was applicable to employee’s religious discrimination claims. Nano Gas Technologies, Inc. v. Roe, No. 1:17-CV-01738 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 14, 2017) 11/14/2017

Court denied petition to vacate arbitral award, finding that (i) the arbitrator did not exceed his authority by ruling on a matter that were not addressed in the counterclaim; (ii) the award was final and definite notwithstanding its failure to provide a specific factual description; (iii) the award was not internally inconsistent; (iv) the award was not in manifest disregard of the law, since it did not direct any party to violate the law; and (v) the award was not against public policy. Bowers v. Northern Two Cayes Company Limited, No. 1:15-CV-00029-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C. Nov. 14, 2017) 11/14/2017

Court granted unopposed motion to enter judgment on arbitral award but denied motion to certify the award under the New York Convention, finding that New York Convention applied only to foreign arbitral awards, and that the court judgment itself could be domesticated abroad. Shore Point Distributing Company v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 701, No. 3:17-CV-01950-PGS-DEA (D.N.J. Nov. 14, 2017) 11/14/2017

Court denied motion to vacate arbitration award without prejudice and remanded proceedings to arbitrator to finalize the remedy, finding that it was premature to determine whether arbitral award should be vacated since arbitrator had retained jurisdiction over the application of the remedial formula set forth in the award. Green Tree Servicing, L.L.C. v. Dove, No. 17-60116 (5th Cir. Nov. 14, 2017) 11/14/2017

Circuit court dismissed appeal, finding that a district court’s order compelling arbitration and dismissing the case with prejudice was not a final appealable order since a case involving the same parties and essentially the same dispute was stayed in the district court pending arbitration. Green Tree Servicing, L.L.C. v. Ducksworth, No. 17-60109 (5th Cir. Nov. 14, 2017) 11/14/2017

Circuit court dismissed appeal, finding that a district court’s order compelling arbitration and dismissing the case with prejudice was not a final appealable order since a case involving the same parties and essentially the same dispute was stayed in the district court pending arbitration. TMCO Ltd. v. Green Light Energy Solutions R&D Corp., No. 4:17-CV-00997-KAW (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2017) 11/14/2017

Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award and enter judgment, finding that questions regarding the feasibility of specific performance were premature at the confirmation stage, and that potential impossibility of counter-performance did not fall within the public policy exception. SCL Basilisk AG v. Agribusiness United Savannah Logistics LLC, No. 16-15535 (11th Cir. Nov. 14, 2017) 11/14/2017

Court of appeal affirmed district court’s denial of petition for security in aid of pending arbitration, finding that (i) such relief is not authorized by Rule B of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions where not used to secure jurisdiction; (ii) applicable Georgia law did not permit a court to create new substantive remedies in favor of arbitration; and (iii) court’s inherent admiralty powers did not support exercise of power or attachment where not used to secure jurisdiction. Luster-Malone v. Cook County, No. 1:16-CV-02903 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 14, 2017) 11/14/2017

Court granted motion to dismiss action to vacate arbitral award, finding that plaintiff had not established gross error in the arbitrator’s findings that there were non-political grounds for plaintiff’s termination and that the plaintiff’s complaints were untimely. Rohde v. Family Dollar Stores of Indiana, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00225-TLS-SLC (N.D. Ind. Nov. 13, 2017) 11/13/2017

Court granted motion to dismiss action to vacate arbitral award, finding that plaintiff had not established gross error in the arbitrator’s findings that there were non-political grounds for plaintiff’s termination and that the plaintiff’s complaints were untimely. Sharp Corporation v. Hisense USA Corporation, No. 1:17-CV-01648-JEB (D.D.C. Nov. 13, 2017) 11/13/2017

Court granted motion to dismiss action seeking a preliminary injunction against enforcement in the United States of an interim arbitral award enjoining a party from making disruptive or disparaging statements against about the other party or the dispute pending the outcome of the arbitration. Court found that, although there was subject matter jurisdiction to grant such a declaratory judgment, there was no personal jurisdiction over the foreign defendant, although the latter question was a “close call” in light of the connection between the court action and speech in the jurisdiction. On the merits, the court determined that free speech concerns would not prevent enforcement of the interim award (and thus did not merit a preliminary injunction against enforcement), since court enforcement of private agreements does not fulfill the state action requirement under the First Amendment or its underlying public policy. In any event, the court would exercise its discretion not to award the declaratory judgment, since the interim award was subject to a pending motion to vacate at the seat of the arbitration. Ralph v. Haj, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01332- JM-JMA (S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2017) 11/13/2017

Court provisionally granted in part and denied in part motion to compel arbitration and stayed entire action, finding that, although a ninth circuit decision in Morris v. Ernst & Young found that collective action waivers were impermissible for claims under the Fair Labor Standard Act, the Supreme Court had granted certiorari to review that decision. It was therefore appropriate to stay the entire action pending the Supreme Court’s decision to prevent a situation where some claims were heard in arbitration and others before the court. James Shackelford Heating and Cooling, LC v. AT&T Corporation, No. 4:17-CV-00663-ODS (W.D. Mo. Nov. 11, 2017) 11/11/2017

Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, rejecting their argument that the non-signatory plaintiff was a third-party beneficiary of the written agreement and therefore required to arbitrate. Court explained that a signatory to an agreement seeking to arbitrate with a non-signatory must establish one of five theories—that is, (i) incorporation by reference, (ii) assumption, (iii) agency, (iv) veil-piercing/alter ego, and (v) estoppel—and that simply being a third-party beneficiary is not sufficient. Court further concluded that, even if the arbitration agreement could be enforced, it did not encompass plaintiff’s claims, which arose from actions separate from the agreement. Kershaw, P.C. v. Shannon L. Spangler P.C., No. 1:16-CV-01351-MEH (D. Colo. Nov. 10, 2016) 11/10/2017

Court granted application to confirm arbitration award, finding that it had not been demonstrated that the arbitrator exceeded his authority or acted in manifest disregard of the law. Daley v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-02693-JCM-CWH (D. Nev. Nov. 9, 2017) 11/09/2017

Court granted motions to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that an arbitration agreement exists that vests the power to rule on the question of arbitrability in an arbitrator. Tellez v. Madrigal, No. 3:15-CV-00304-KC (W.D. Tex. Nov. 9, 2017) 11/09/2017

Court denied motion to stay arbitration, finding that (i) litigation-conduct waiver of arbitration is presumptively an issue for the court to decide; (ii) litigation conduct-waiver was not addressed in arbitration agreement; and (iii) defendant waived right to move to compel arbitration by substantially invoking the judicial process through his detailed and substantive motion to dismiss and related filings, and these actions prejudiced the plaintiff through delays and costs. Dillard v. Dolgen Corp. LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00112-NCT-JFP (M.D.N.C. Nov. 9, 2017) 11/09/2017

Magistrate judge recommended that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration be granted. Plaintiff brought claims alleging discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Court found that defendant’s claims were subject to arbitration pursuant to a valid arbitration agreement that the plaintiff had signed when presented with his employment documents.

Daley v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-02693-JCM-CWH (D. Nev. Nov. 9, 2017) 11/09/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case. Court found that there was a valid arbitration agreement between the parties that required them to arbitrate any employment-related claims. Because plaintiff’s discrimination claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement and the question of arbitrability was one for the arbitrator, the court granted the motion to compel arbitration. Diversicare Leasing Corporation v. Hall, No. 16-6373 (6th Cir. Nov. 8, 2017) 11/08/2017

Court of appeal dismissed Hall’s appeal of the district court’s decision to compel arbitration, noting that, except as “otherwise provided in Section 1292(b) of title 28, an appeal may not be taken from an interlocutory order” directing litigants to arbitrate their action. Therefore, the court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over Hall’s appeal and granted Diversicare’s motion to dismiss. Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, No. 1:69-CV-02145 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 8, 2017) 11/08/2017

Court granted a plaintiffs’ motion to confirm an arbitration award and disagreed with defendant’s claims that the arbitrator had based his decision on gross errors of law and fact. The dispute arose out of a labor matter and the arbitrator issued a decision finding that this particular plaintiff had been subjected to unlawful retaliation after a Supplemental Relief Order was issued against defendant. Court found no reason to disturb the arbitrator’s findings and confirmed the award as well as an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. Delta Stone Products, Inc. v. Eurostone Machine USA, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00737-TS (D. Utah Nov. 8, 2017) 11/08/2017

Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment and instead stayed the case pending arbitration. The parties had entered into a sales contract for the supply of stone in a time-sensitive project, but initiated the present case when there were delays that allegedly led to lost profits and other damages. However, court found that the arbitration clause within the sales contract was valid and the issues at hand were within its scope, and thus compelled the parties to arbitrate their dispute. Conde v. Open Door Marketing, LLC, No. 4:15-CV-04080-KAW (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017) 11/08/2017

Court stayed defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris. Plaintiffs brought the case following a labor dispute over misclassification as independent contractors and resulting wages. At issue is whether an arbitration agreement signed by the plaintiffs is valid given the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Morris v. Ernst & Young, which states that class action waivers in employment agreements are illegal under the NLRA. Laurich v. Red Lobster Restaurants, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00150-JB-KRS (D.N.M. Nov. 8, 2017) 11/08/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the proceeding pending the arbitration’s resolution. Court found that the arbitration agreement contained in an employment contract between the parties was not illusory or procedurally unconscionable. Court also found that whether defendant had breached the arbitration agreement in such a way that precluded it from enforcing it was a question for the arbitrator and not the court. Aptim v. Dorsey McCall, No. 2:17-CV-08081-JTM-MBN (E.D. La. Nov. 8, 2017) 11/08/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the proceeding pending the arbitration’s resolution. Court found that the arbitration agreement contained in an employment contract between the parties was not illusory or procedurally unconscionable. Court also found that whether defendant had breached the arbitration agreement in such a way that precluded it from enforcing it was a question for the arbitrator and not the court. Hart v. Charter Communications, No. 8:17-CV-00556-DOC (C.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017) 11/08/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that (i) reference in billing statement to new terms of service containing arbitration was reasonably conspicuous; (ii) entity resulting from merger may invoke pre-merger entity’s right to arbitration; and (iii) issues of arbitrability were expressly delegated to the arbitrator.

Employment Solutions Management, Inc. v. Partners Personnel-Central Valley, Corp., No. 8:17-CV-01044-JLS-JCG (C.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017) 11/08/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that the court, rather than the arbitrator, should determine whether the parties had agreed to arbitrate, that the defendants were thirdparty beneficiaries under either Delaware or California law and thus able to compel arbitration, and that plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration clause Alvarez v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-02864-BJM (D.P.R. Nov. 7, 2017) 11/07/2017

Court dismissed the claims against some of the defendants’ and instructed the parties to pursue them in arbitration pursuant to a valid arbitration agreement between the parties.

Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Coastal Environment Group, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-04667-KPF (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2017) 11/07/2017

Court granted petitioners’ motion to confirm and enforce an arbitration award issued against the respondent pursuant to the Labor Management Relations Act. Because the respondent did not dispute any of the arbitrator’s findings or the contents of the award (and would not have had any ground to do so), the court confirmed the award. Court also awarded attorney’s fees and some of the costs to petitioners. Zeringue v. Monster Energy Company, No. 2:17-CV-06023-SSV-JCW (E.D. La. Nov. 6, 2017) 11/06/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the case. Plaintiff was an employee of defendant who had signed employment agreement that included a binding arbitration clause. Court found that plaintiff’s claim based on sexual harassment as a violation of the Civil Rights Act was within the scope of the arbitration clause. Pyle v. VXI Global Solutions, Inc., No. 5:17-CV-00220-SL (N.D. Ohio Nov. 6, 2017) 11/06/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint. Plaintiff signed an arbitration agreement through which he agreed to submit any employment-related claims to arbitration and was therefore precluded from bringing the present collective action. Van den Heuvel v. Expedia Travel, No. 2:16-CV-00567-JAM-AC (E.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2017) 11/06/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case. Court found that the parties had entered into a valid arbitration agreement when plaintiff purchased an airline ticket from defendant. Because the claims at issue were within the scope of that agreement, the parties were compelled to arbitrate and the case was dismissed. Noye v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 1:15-CV-02382-YK (M.D. Pa. Nov. 6, 2017) 11/06/2017

Court granted one of the defendants’ renewed motion to compel arbitration and to stay the case pending completion of arbitration. Court found that plaintiff completed an online job application that included a valid arbitration agreement and therefore was forced to arbitrate his dispute with one of the defendants. In regards to a second defendant, the court refused to rule on a motion to compel arbitration and instead asked that the parties submit briefs regarding the applicability of equitable estoppel in light of recent Third Circuit case law. Dome Technology, LLC v. Golden Sands General Contractors, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-01607-VAB (D. Conn. Nov. 3, 2017) 11/03/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending arbitration. Court found that two contracts at issue did not conflict with each other and that the parties had agreed to arbitrate claims within the scope of one of those contracts. Zakarin v. Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-01088-JMV-JBC (D.N.J. Nov. 3, 2017) 11/03/2017

Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate a 2016 FINRA arbitration award and instead granted defendant’s motion to confirm the award. Court found that there were insufficient grounds on which to vacate, modify, or correct the award and therefore confirmed the award pursuant to 9 USC § 9.

Holtec International v. Pandjiris Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00397-MPK (W.D. Pa. Nov. 3, 2017) 11/03/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to stay all claims and compelled arbitration. According to the court, the terms and conditions in a purchase order between the parties contained a valid arbitration provision and therefore their dispute had to be arbitrated in Ohio. Additionally, the court held that in this case the theory of equitable estoppel did not apply to a non-signatory to the arbitration provision and therefore that third party was not forced to arbitrate.

Patientpoint Royalty Holdings, Inc. v. Healthgrid Coordinated Care Solutions, Inc., No. 6:17-CV-01051-GAP-DCI (M.D. Fla. Nov. 3, 2017) 11/03/2017

Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to compel arbitration. Court found that, while there was a valid arbitration clause between the parties, it was a narrow provision that did not cover the issues disputed in this case.

Enron Nigeria Power Holding, Ltd. V. Federal Republic of Nigeria, No. 1:13-CV-01106-CRC (D.D.C. Nov. 2, 2017) 11/02/2017

Court granted in part motion for attorneys’ fees and nontaxable expenses, holding that plaintiff had established that it was entitled to an award under the contract that gave rise to the underlying dispute. Court found that plaintiff’s affidavits provided sufficient evidence to determine prevailing market rates for experienced commercial litigators in Houston, and that plaintiff’s counsel had established that he could command market rates.

Edens v. Synovus Financial Corporation, No. 3:17-CV-00806-MBS (D.S.C. Nov. 2, 2017) 11/02/2017

Court granted in part and denied in part motion to compel arbitration, holding that a binding arbitration agreement covered claims of fraud and misrepresentation brought by an investor company, but not claims of breach of fiduciary duty individually by the head of the company, and that the agreement was not void for unconscionability. Court found that the individual plaintiff was a sophisticated businessman and was not required to enter into the contract, and that a provision limiting punitive damages for both plaintiffs and defendants did not render the arbitration agreement unconscionable.

Northeast Regional Council of Carpenters, et al. v. John Butler & Sons Construction LLC, No. 3:17-CV-02835-MAS-DEA (D.N.J. Nov. 2, 2017) 11/02/2017

Court denied without prejudice motion to compel arbitration, requiring petitioners to refile their motion, holding that the motion incorrectly cited the date of the arbitral award, and that the arbitral award contained errors regarding dates of events in dispute. Court found that, in light of the obvious error in the arbitration award, petitioners must submit a legal brief in support of their motion, instead of a statement that no brief was necessary.

Finger v. Jacobson, No. 2:17-CV-02893-JTM-DEK (E.D. LA. Nov. 2, 2017) 11/02/2017

Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that there was no enforceable arbitration agreement between plaintiff and defendants. Court rejected defendants’ argument that the arbitration agreement in an employment contract was broad enough to encompass a claim of fraudulent inducement to the contract against a non-signatory. Court found that plaintiff’s tort claims did not arise out of or rely on the terms of the employment agreement, and that plaintiff made no allegations of misconduct against the signatory.

Whaley v. Pacific Seafood Group, No. 1:10-CV-03057-MC (D. Or. Nov. 1, 2017) 11/01/2017

Court granted motion to stay arbitration pending an appeal of an order appointing another federal judge as a replacement arbitrator, after the initial judge retired, holding that appellant had made sufficient showing that it may prevail on appeal. Court found that movant had raised a serious question as to whether parties intended to appoint the initial arbitrator, regardless of whether he remained a federal judge. Court found that parties could be harmed without a stay, as if the Ninth Circuit granted the appeal, parties would have wasted time and resources during arbitration in front of the replacement arbitrator.

Dennis v. United Van Lines, No. 4:17-CV-01614-RLW (E.D. Mo. Nov. 1, 2017) 11/01/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that equitable estoppel applied to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s disputes with defendant, who was not a party to the arbitration agreement. Court found that plaintiff’s claims depended on his classification as an independent contractor and the work he performed under an employment contract with a third party, which provided a broad arbitration clause. Court also found that, under the employment contract, plaintiff was an independent contractor and not an employee, and plaintiff did not fall within the FAA exclusion for contracts of employment for transportation workers.

Unitil Corporation and Northern Utilities, Inc. v. Utility Workers Union of America Local 341, No. 2:16-CV-00443-JAW (D. Me. Nov. 1, 2017) 11/01/2017

Court denied motion to partially vacate an arbitration award on grounds that arbitrator acted outside her authority and made a manifest error of law, holding that this case did not meet the standard to disturb the award. Court found that the award was a reasonable response to the submissions, based on a plausible interpretation of the underlying contract and facts.

In the matter of Arbitration between Shepherd v. LPL Financial LLC, No. 5:17-CV-00150-D (E.D.N.C. Nov. 1, 2017) 11/01/2017

Court granted motion to quash subpoenas of arbitrators in relation to plaintiffs’ petition to vacate an arbitration award. Court found that plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate clear evidence of impropriety to justify post-award discovery from an arbitrator. Court further found that the undisclosed relationship between a lawyer and the arbitrator was strictly professional, and the circumstances surrounding the arbitrator’s non-disclosures did not give the impression of clear impropriety, particularly when plaintiffs won the arbitral award unanimously. Court found that alleged impropriety by one arbitrator did not give grounds to “double-check” the other panelists.

Boyton v. Xerox Commercial Solutions LLC, No. 3:17-CV-505-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C. Nov. 1, 2017) 11/01/2017

Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that motion was moot as defendants could re-file a similar motion in response to plaintiff’s amended complaint. Court found that plaintiff had filed a timely amended complaint, which superseded the original pleading and rendered defendant’s motion moot.

Robledo v. Randstad US, L.P., No. 5:17-CV-01003-BLF (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2017) 11/01/2017

Court granted motion to stay proceedings and terminated without prejudice motion to compel arbitration, holding that the outcome of the Supreme Court’s review of the decision in Morris v. Ernst & Young LLP, 834 F. 3d 975 (9th Cir. 2016) will directly impact the court’s determination of the motion to compel arbitration. Court found that motion required a determination of whether the National Labor Relations Act invalidates class action waivers, an issue currently pending before the Supreme Court. Court found plaintiffs had not shown that a stay of a few months prejudice plaintiffs and, conversely, that denying the stay would risk a waste of judicial resources.

AFS Logistics, LLC v. Cochran, No. 3:16-CV-3139 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 31, 2017) 10/31/2017

Court denied motion to compel arbitration of claims concerning alleged misappropriation of trade secrets, holding that plaintiff had waived its right to arbitration. Court found plaintiff’s conduct inconsistent with any reliance on a right to arbitrate and that allowing plaintiff to now rely on an arbitration clause would substantially prejudice defendants.

Goodwin v. Branch Banking & Trust Company, No. 17-1412 (4th Cir. Oct. 31, 2017) 10/31/2017

Court affirmed decision to deny motion to compel arbitration, upholding the district court’s finding that the arbitration provision was unconscionable under state law and its refusal to sever unconscionable terms. Court did not provide further information on the facts of the case or what made the arbitration terms unconscionable and non-severable.

Global eBusiness Services, Inc. v. Interactive Brokers LLC, No. 3:16-CV-01264-JD (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2017) 10/30/2017

Court denied petition to vacate arbitration award issued by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), holding that plaintiff had not established any of the limited grounds in FAA § 10. Court found that plaintiff provided no evidence to show that arbitrators refused to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy in order to satisfy FAA § 10(a)(3). Court also found that plaintiff had not identified any governing law that was arguably even incorrectly applied by the panel, and could not therefore meet the standard of FAA § 10(a)(4).

Egan Jones Ratings Company v. Steven Pruette, No. 2:16-MC-00105-JLS (E.D. Pa. Oct. 30, 2017) 10/30/2017

Court denied petition to vacate partial final arbitration award on liability, and confirmed cross-petition to confirm award. Court found authorities were split on the applicability of a statute of limitations defense to an arbitration proceeding, and arbitrator’s failure to reach this defense was not a manifest disregard of the law. Court also found that arbitrator’s contractual interpretation was based on a proper weighing of conflicting evidence, and that the arbitrator limited his determination to breach of contract, thus remaining within the scope of his authority.

National Football League Management Council v. National Football League Players Association, No. 1:17-CV-06761-KPF (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2017) 10/30/2017

Court denied the National Football League Players Association (“NFLPA”) motion for preliminary injunction and vacatur of an award which upheld the National Football League Commissioner’s sixgame suspension of Ezekiel Elliott. Court found that the arbitrator gave the player ample opportunity, in terms of both proceedings and evidence, to challenge the Commissioner’s decision before the arbitrator, and that the arbitration agreement did not permit the arbitrator to compel testimony from certain witnesses.

Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Patel, No. 8:17-CV-01260-TDC (D. Md. Oct. 30, 2017) 10/30/2017

Court granted default judgment in application to confirm arbitration award, holding that the FAA requirements for confirmation were met. Court found that the claims for breach of contract were within the scope of the arbitration clause, that defendants were served and received notice of the motion, but failed to file an answer or otherwise make a showing of any grounds for vacating the award. Holsum Bakery Incorporated v. Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers, Local 232, No: 16-16422 (9th Cir. Oct. 27, 2017) 10/27/2017

Court of appeal reversed and remanded a district court’s decision to vacate an arbitration award. Court also instructed the district court to confirm the award because it had erred in concluding that the arbitrator’s award did not “draw its essence” from the collective bargaining agreement at issue. Court also found that the district court erred in concluding that the arbitrator’s award was “so inconsistent and full of mistakes” that it was practically impossible to apply. SBMH Group DMCC v. Noadiam USA, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-22605-CMA (S.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2017) 10/27/2017

Court granted in part a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the New York Convention, finding that it could only compel arbitration against signatories to the arbitration agreement and that the claims concerning the non-signatories should be stayed pending the arbitration. Court held that, although the arbitration agreement delegates issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator, it only does so with respect to disputes between signatories and the court cannot extend the delegation provision beyond its plain terms to include non-signatories. Further, the United Arab Emirates legal principles applicable to the contract at issue do not permit the non-signatories in this action to compel, or be compelled to, arbitration.

International Longshore v. Columbia Grain, Inc., No. 15-35620 (9th Cir. Oct. 25, 2017) 10/25/2017

Court affirmed decision to deny motion to compel arbitration, holding that the question of whether there was an agreement to arbitrate was for the court, not the arbitrator, to decide, and that plaintiff’s claim to compel arbitration was foreclosed by settlement. Court found that a memorandum of agreement between the union and plaintiff, which settled “any and all claims” by members, foreclosed plaintiff’s claim to compel arbitration of its grievances. Pierre-Louis v. CC Solutions, LLC, No. 0:17-CV-60781-BB (S.D. Fla. Oct. 25, 2017) 10/25/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings. Court held that defendants had not waited so long to assert their right to arbitrate as to have waived it, notwithstanding some small prejudice to plaintiff. Curtis International Ltd v. Pacific Logistics Corp., No. 2:17-CV-01968-PA-JEM (C.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2017) 10/25/2017

Court granted joint motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the case, finding that a valid arbitration agreement governed the dispute. Thomas v. Progressive Leasing, No. 1:17-CV-01249-RDB (D. Md. Oct. 25, 2017) 10/25/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case, holding that plaintiff who was not a signatory to the arbitration agreement could nevertheless be bound thereby under a theory of equitable estoppel since he had benefited from the primary contract. Blair v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-02335-WHA (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2017) 10/25/2017

Court granted in part and denied in part a motion to compel arbitration, and declined to stay remaining proceedings. Court held that although a valid arbitration agreement governed the dispute, it was inoperable with respect to those claims subject to state laws whose public purpose would be contravened by an agreement to arbitrate. Court declined to issue a stay pending arbitration of the claim not subject to such laws upon finding that the applicable law was sufficiently distinct and any overlap between the arbitrable and nonarbitrable claims was “minor.” MacRury v. American Steamship Company, No. 1:16-CV-13889-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich. Oct. 25, 2017) 10/25/2017

Court granted motion to lift stay on proceedings pending arbitration upon being presented with an amended claim alleging facts falling outside the scope of an existing arbitration. Court reasoned that for such related, but independent claims, arbitration was not appropriate. Manor v. Copart, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-02585 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 24, 2017) 10/24/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court declined to consider arguments that defendants had waived the right to arbitrate by waiting to invoke the agreement or that they were estopped from arbitrating by an alleged failure to disclose the existence of the agreement to plaintiff, reasoning that this was for the arbitrator to decide. Court likewise rejected plaintiff’s argument that defendants could not benefit from the arbitration agreement because one was not her employer and the other was not a signatory thereto. Noonan v. Comcast Corp., No. 3:16-CV-00458-PGS-LHG (D.N.J. Oct. 24, 2017) 10/24/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, determining that the language of the parties’ agreement indicated that they intended to arbitrate and that their dispute fell within the scope of that agreement. Tate v. Progressive Finance Holdings, LLC., No. 2:17-CV-01589-ODW-AS (C.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2017) 10/24/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case. Court held that the otherwise uncontested arbitration agreement was broad enough to cover the dispute. Based on that finding, court, as a matter of discretion, declined to stay proceedings and dismissed the claim. Choice Hotels International , Inc. v. Gurnee Property Management, Inc., No. 8:17-CV-00225-PX (D. Md. Oct. 24, 2017) 10/24/2017

Court granted default motion to confirm an arbitral award, finding no reason to vacate it. Court likewise granted plaintiff’s motion for the costs of bringing an action to confirm the award, noting that the law did not provide for post-judgment interest and thus declining to award it. In re Application of Hulley Enterprises Ltd., No. 2:17-CV-07100-PA-E (C.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2017) 10/23/2017

Court declined to reverse magistrate’s denial of petitioners’ motion for leave to serve a subpoena by “alternative means” in 28 USC 1782 application, ruling that it was neither “clearly erroneous” nor “contrary to law.” Shearman & Sterling is counsel for the petitioners in this case. Marcario v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00414-ADS-ARL (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2017) 10/23/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case. Court held that a valid arbitration agreement applied to the dispute and that defendants benefited from the agreement as assignees of the underlying contract. Court rejected plaintiff’s claims that he had never received such an agreement, holding that plaintiff had made a contrary judicial admission at an earlier point and, in any case, that defendants had sufficiently demonstrated the agreement’s existence and transmission to plaintiff. Madrigal v. Zuniga, No. 1:16-CV-09415-RMB-JS (D.N.J. Oct. 23, 2017) 10/23/2017

Court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint for enforcement of an arbitration decision by the New Jersey Fee Arbitration Committee, inter alia, for lack of jurisdiction. Court determined that there was no diversity of citizenship among the parties and ruled that the FAA does not create independent federal question jurisdiction.

Micula v. Government of Romania, No. 15-3109-CV (2d Cir. Oct. 23, 2017) 10/23/2017

Court reversed and vacated district court orders and judgment confirming in ex parte proceedings an ICSID arbitration award against a sovereign state, and remanding the case with instructions to dismiss the petition without prejudice. Court held that the district court erred in determining that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act did not apply to proceedings to confirm ICSID awards and that venue in the Southern District of New York is not proper under that act.

Nelson v. Synchrony Bank, No. 2:16-CV-00703-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla. Oct. 20, 2017) 10/20/2017

Court denied motion to compel arbitration. Court held that plaintiff had waived its right to arbitrate by waiting to file its motion for over a year and substantively participating in litigation during the interim, both factors that prejudiced the plaintiff.

Richards v. The Krystal Company, No. 1:17-CV-00228-TAV-CHS (E.D. Tenn. Oct. 20, 2017) 10/20/2017

Court denied motion to remand, ruling that the parties must arbitrate the validity of the underlying agreement instead. Court held that the agreement indicated the parties’ intent to delegate arbitrability questions to the arbitrator.

Banks v. Barclays Bank Credit Services, No. 1:17-CV-00096-CCC-SES (M.D. Pa. Oct. 20, 2017) 10/20/2017

Court adopted magistrate’s recommendation and denied motion to compel arbitration without prejudice, granting discovery limited to the question of the validity of the purported arbitration agreement. Court reasoned that precedent required such discovery where underlying agreement was not clear with respect to arbitration.

Roundtree v. Primeflight Aviation Services, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-9609-CCC-MF (D.N.J. Oct. 19, 2017) 10/19/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the complaint. Court dismissed plaintiffs’ argument that the arbitration agreement was not valid because it did not sufficiently make clear that by agreeing to arbitrate they waived their right to a jury, as required by New Jersey law. Court further held that the agreement was sufficiently broad to cover the dispute.

Huitt v. Wilbanks Securities, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00919-STV (D. Colo. Oct. 19, 2017) 10/19/2017

Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award. Court rejected arguments that award was not valid, reasoning that the challenged jurisdictional question was within the tribunal’s competence, that defendant had not demonstrated the tribunal had manifestly disregarded the law, and that the tribunal was not obligated to explain its award of punitive damages.

Emerson Software Solutions, Inc. v. Regions Financial Corp., No. 2:17-CV-00287-JHE (N.D. Ala. Oct. 19, 2017) 10/19/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court held that the arbitration agreement was sufficiently broad to cover the claim in dispute and that plaintiff had expressly waived any equitable relief.

Richland Equipment Company, Inc. v. Deere & Company, No. 5:17-CV-00088-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss. Oct. 19, 2017) 10/19/2017

Court denied motion for an injunction pending appeal of its earlier order compelling arbitration. Court reasoned that although delegation agreements need not be enforced by courts where the dispute plainly falls outside that agreement, the plaintiff could not meet its burden to demonstrate that this was the case.

Mason v. Athletic & Therapeutic Institute OF Naperville, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-02222-JMS-MJD (S.D. Ind. Oct. 19, 2017) 10/19/2017

Court dismissed claim, finding that an arbitration agreement governed the dispute. Court rejected arguments that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because it imposed a time limit on filing a claim and did not mandate that attorney’s fees be awarded to the prevailing party.

Driver v. Pro AG Management, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-01959 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 18, 2017) 10/18/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, holding the parties were bound by a valid arbitration agreement.

BSH Hausgerate, GMBH v. Kamhi, No. 1:17-CV-05776 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2017) 10/18/2017

Court granted motion to confirm the attachment of real property in support of payment on a $ 2.7 million ICC award. Court held that all grounds for an attachment of property were met, rejecting respondent’s contention that the award might not be confirmed because of its challenges to underlying notice and procedure.

Bankwitz v. Ecolab, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-02924-EMC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2017) 10/17/2017

Court denied motion to compel arbitration in light of ninth circuit decision in Morris v. Ernst & Young LLP holding that arbitration agreements requiring employees to pursue work-related claims individually are unenforceable, but stayed proceedings pending outcome of appeal of Morris before Supreme Court.

McFadden v. E.A. Renfroe & Company, Inc., No. 15-55886 (9th Cir. Oct. 17, 2017) 10/17/2017

Court of appeal reversed district court’s ruling that arbitration agreement is unenforceable, finding that unconscionable terms were severable.

Harper v. Academy of Training School, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-01266-UDJ-KK (W.D. La. Oct. 16, 2017) 10/16/2017

Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that defendant had waived its right to arbitrate by substantially invoking the judicial process, including by filing an answer, briefing motions, and engaging in written discovery.

World of Beer Franchising, Inc. v. MWB Development I, LLC, No. 17-12870 (11th Cir. Oct. 16, 2017) 10/16/2017

Court of appeal affirmed district court’s denial of preliminary injunction pending arbitration, finding that under contractual scheme, court motion for preliminary injunction could only be brought simultaneously with arbitration, and after mediation had concluded.

Hawkins v. Fishbeck, No. 3:17-CV-00032-NKM-JCH (W.D. Va. Oct. 16, 2017) 10/16/2017

Court granted motion to dismiss in part and compelled arbitration, finding that trade secret and copyright infringement claims fell within the scope of an arbitration agreement.

McArthur v. BNSF Railway Company, No. 17-CV-01314-JCC (W.D. Wash. Oct. 16, 2017) 10/16/2017

Court granted motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, finding that terminated employee’s claim for compensation for unused vacation time required interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement and could only be resolved in arbitration.

Kirby McInerney LLP v. Lee Medical, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-04760-KBF (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2017) 10/16/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case, holding that a valid arbitration agreement governed the dispute.

Anderson Group Co., Inc. v. MC Hotels, LLC, No. 0:17-CV-01564-TLW (D.S.C. Oct. 16, 2017) 10/16/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss to the extent it seeks to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s claims. Court held that the relevant provision in the subcontract provided for arbitration, and whether the same provision required the parties to mediate as a condition precedent to arbitration was a matter for the arbitrators to decide. U.S. Pipelining LLC v. Johnson Controls, Inc., No. 16-00132 HG-RLP (D. Haw. Oct. 16, 2017) 10/16/2017

Court denied plaintiff’s motion to stay arbitration and granted defendant’s countermotion to stay judicial proceedings, concluding that defendant did not waive its right to arbitration by moving for summary judgment a year before it demanded arbitration. Court noted that the motion for summary judgment challenged plaintiff’s right to bring suit, and defendant has consistently stated that plaintiff’s claims are subject to arbitration and that it retains the right to seek arbitration. Court further concluded that plaintiff was not prejudiced by defendant’s actions, as (i) the motion for summary judgment did not involve the merits of the claims subject to arbitration, (ii) plaintiff was on notice that defendant intended to seek arbitration, and (iii) plaintiff failed to demonstrate how it had been prejudiced by the limited discovery that had taken place in the case.

Ruiz v. AH 2005 Management, No. 3:17-CV-00197-PRM (W.D. Tex. Oct. 13, 2017) 10/13/2017

Court granted motion to dismiss and compelled arbitration, finding that employer’s right to amend arbitration agreement did not render it illusory, since it applied only to prospective disputes.

Knezovich v. DIRECTV, L.L.C., No. 4:17-CV-00165-MWB (D. Idaho Oct. 13, 2017) 10/13/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed claim, finding that arbitration procedure containing provisions governing the scope of arbitrable claims was validly incorporated by reference in an arbitration agreement, even if it was not provided to employee at time of signing.

Credit Acceptance Corporation v. Vansteenburgh, No. 1:17-CV-00040-GHD-DAS (N.D. Miss. Oct. 12, 2017) 10/12/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed claim, finding that claim for tort of conversion for repossession of loan collateral fell within the scope of the loan agreement's arbitration clause.

National Football League Players Association v. National Football League, No. 17-40936 (5th Cir. Oct. 12, 2017) 10/12/2017

Court of Appeal vacated district court’s preliminary injunction, finding that court was without jurisdiction to issue preliminary injunction under the Labor Relations Management Act so long as arbitral or other grievance proceeds had not concluded. Nexteer Automotive Corporation v. Korea Delphi Automotive Systems Corporation, No. 2:13-CV-15189-GCS-LJM (E.D. Mich. Oct. 12, 2017) 10/12/2017

Court ordered and confirmed award rendered by Singapore International Arbitration Center, that defendant make payment of outstanding amounts due under award (including prejudgment interest) and pay royalties on certain past and future sales. Court also held that plaintiff shall have the right to audit the sales and other financial records of defendant, that all payments are to be made by wire transfer in U.S. currency, that plaintiff is not precluded from applying for recovery of fees and costs incurred after the entry of the award, and that entry of judgment does not restart the automatic stay period under Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(a). Rosenberg v. TIG Insurance Company, No. 2:16-CV-958-WHA (M.D. Ala. Oct. 12, 2017) 10/12/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment in action to recover on an arbitral award from the award debtor’s insurer, finding that the occurrence underlying the arbitral award was not covered by the award debtor’s insurance policy.

Cheytac USA, LLC v. Nextgen Tactical, LLC and Omanoff, No. 0:17-CV-60925-CMA (S.D. Fla. Oct. 12, 2017) 10/12/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that because the parties incorporated the AAA rules into their agreement the question of whether a valid arbitration agreement existed was an issue for arbitration. Court also found the question of whether the carve-out provision removed claims from an arbitrator’s jurisdiction was also an issue for arbitration. Court held defendants had not waived their right to arbitrate the dispute. Darren Bagert Productions LLC v. Pulse Evolution Corporation, No. 1:17-CV-05391-GHW (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 2017) 10/11/2017

Court confirmed petition to confirm arbitration award against party in default, finding that a court should treat an unopposed petition to confirm an arbitration award as akin to a motion for summary judgment and that there was no indication that the award was procured through fraud, dishonesty, or manifest disregard of the law, or that any other bases for vacating or modifying the award exist. Dastime Group Limited v. Moonvale Investments Limited, No. 4:17-CV-01859-JSW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2017) 10/11/2017

Court denied motion to vacate and granted petition to confirm arbitration award as to first respondent, denying that arbitrator would have exceeded her authority by awarding petitioners attorney’s fees or would have violated respondent’s due process rights. Court further found there was just reason for delaying entering judgment until the claims against all respondents have been resolved, rejected petitioners’ request for entry of separate judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), ordered petitioners to file a motion for default against second respondent who had failed to appear in this action, and denied without prejudice petitioners’ request for attorney’s fees incurred in brining action to confirm arbitration award. Bergheim v. Sirona Dental Systems, Inc., No. 17-548-CV (2d Cir. Oct. 11, 2017) 10/11/2017

Court of appeal affirmed district court judgment confirming arbitral award on damages and rejecting appellants’ allegation that award should have been vacated on the ground that arbitrator disregarded the plain terms of the agreement and manifestly disregarded Delaware’s prohibition on speculative damages.

Preferred Care of Delaware Inc. v Hewgley, No. 1:17-CV-00127-GNS (W.D. Ky. Oct. 6, 2017) 10/06/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration except with respect to respondent’s wrongful death claims, and granted in part and denied in part motion to dismiss. Court rejected respondent’s various jurisdictional defenses, finding, in particular, that the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable even though it was executed by a court-appointed guardian. Further, court found that neither the boiler-plate language, nor execution as part of a series of documents, renders the arbitration agreement procedurally unconscionable and that the alleged disparity in bargaining power and the non-disclosure of the costs of arbitration does not make it substantively unconscionable.

Baker v. The Academy of Art University Foundation, No. 3:17-CV-03444-JSC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2017) 10/05/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings, rejecting plaintiff’s defense that the main agreement containing the arbitration provision was cancelled. Could also held that the arbitration agreement was not procedurally unconscionable since plaintiff had failed to demonstrate any oppression or surprise beyond that inherent in any adhesion contract, and also denied the allegation that the arbitration agreement was substantively unconscionable.

Scales v. SCC Winston-Salem Operating Company, No. 1:17-CV-00539 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 5, 2017) 10/05/2017

Court denied without prejudice request to compel arbitration and stay proceedings on the ground that it was premature and granted request to conduct discovery regarding the formation and performance of the arbitration agreement.

Bynum v. Maplebear, Inc., No. 16-3348 (2d Cir. Oct. 5, 2017) 10/05/2017

Court of appeal dismissed appeal from district court judgment dismissing plaintiff-appellant’s case upon plaintiff’s motion to end stay of court proceedings pending arbitration and dismiss action on the merits, with the district court having confirmed that plaintiff wished to waive her right to arbitration. Court found that it lacked jurisdiction since the FAA bars interlocutory appeals from the grant of a motion to compel arbitration, which plaintiff could not circumvent by agreeing to dismiss her claims rather than proceeding to arbitration.

Scales v. SSC Winston-Salem Operating Company, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00539-WO-I PA (M.D.N.C. Oct. 5, 2017) 10/05/2017

Court denied in part and granted in part arbitration motion, dismissing as premature defendant’s request to compel arbitration and granting request to conduct discovery regarding the formation and performance of the parties’ agreement.

Ambulatory Surgical Center of Somerset et al v. Allstate Fire Casualty Insurance Company, No. 3:16-CV-05378-AET-LHG (D.N.J. Oct. 5, 2017) 10/05/2017

Court granted motion for reconsideration under FRCP 59(e), finding that court had overlooked amendments to the relevant dispute resolution provision that empowered any party to a dispute to compel arbitration.

Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund et al v. Interior Cinema Inc., No. 1:17-CV-06530-KBF (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2017) 10/04/2017

Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award, as well as plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees and costs and post-judgment interest. Court treated plaintiff’s petition as an unopposed motion for summary judgment since defendant had not filed an opposition to defendant’s petition to confirm award, and concluded there are no triable issues of material fact and that plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Kelleher v. Dream Catcher, L.L.C., No. 1:16-CV-02092-APM (D.D.C. Oct. 4, 2017) 10/04/2017

Court denied defendants’ application to stay pending arbitration, finding defendants had forfeited their right to arbitrate by failing to invoke arbitration at the earliest available opportunity and that defendants’ application for stay and any subsequent appeal was “frivolous” since it was based on a flawed legal theory and moreover wholly ignored controlling Supreme Court precedent and other pertinent cases. Exploraciones y Perforadora Central, S.A. de C.V. v. Axxis Drilling, No. 17-cv-2833 (E.D. La. Oct. 4, 2017) 10/04/2017

Court confirmed the arbitration award, awarded pre-judgment interest in the amount of 12% per annum and post-judgment interest at the statutory rate, and recognized an offset for amounts due to defendant. Court held that the 12% interest awarded in the arbitration applied to the period prior to confirmation and entry of judgment, after which post-judgment interest would apply.

Esparza v. Smartpay Leasing, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-03421-WHA (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2017) 10/03/2017

Court denied motion to compel arbitration in putative class action finding that plaintiff’s claims fall outside of the scope of the arbitration clause on which plaintiff relied.

Fundamental Administrative Services v. Cohen, No. 17-2025 (10th Cir. Oct. 3, 2017) 10/03/2017

Court of appeal affirmed district court order dismissing complaint to compel arbitration, finding the case was precluded by res judicata since it had been previously decided in state court proceedings.

Blair v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-02335-WHA (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2017) 10/03/2017

Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’ motion to compel arbitration. Court found that, while three of plaintiff’s claims were not arbitrable under McGill v. Citibank, N.A., according to which arbitration agreements prohibiting plaintiffs from exercising a statutory right to seek a public injunction are invalid— a rule not preempted by the FAA—, with respect to plaintiff’s remaining claim the arbitration agreement was valid. Court rejected defendant’s request to stay the proceedings on the ground that plaintiff’s arbitration claim was sufficiently distinct from its court claims so that parallel proceedings would not be unduly duplicative or burdensome. Rocha v. Macy's Retail Holdings, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00073-PRM (W.D. Tex. Oct. 3, 2017) 10/03/2017

Court denied defendant’s motion to abate and compel arbitration finding that defendant failed to provide evidence that plaintiff consented to arbitration.

Wedi Corp. v. Wright, No. 2:15-CV-00671-TSZ (W.D. Wash. Oct. 3, 2017) 10/03/2017

Court granted in part and denied in part motion to correct or modify arbitral award, modifying the award to omit a sentence inconsistent with the arbitrator’s direction that the parties wait until after the award was issued to submit a petition for attorney’s fees, but denying that plaintiff may seek reimbursement of attorney’s fees in a subsequent court motion since the arbitrator had ruled that attorney’s fees would not be awarded to either side.

OJSC Ukrnafta v. Carpatsky Petroleum Corporation, No. 4:09-CV-00891 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 2, 2017) 10/02/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to confirm arbitration award, rejecting plaintiff’s allegations that defendants had failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Art. IV of the New York Convention, as well as plaintiff’s various defenses under Art. V of the New York Convention, finding, moreover, that plaintiff’s arguments under Art. II of the New York Convention could only be considered to the extent they intertwined with its Art. V arguments. Court dismissed without prejudice defendants’ motion to dismiss all of plaintiff’s claims on res judicata and collateral estoppel grounds, finding it did not have the information required to rule on this request.

Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society v. Telles, No. 2:17-CV-00207-MCA-GJF (D.N.M. Sept. 30, 2017) 09/30/2017

Court granted complaint to compel arbitration and petition for appointment of arbitrator, as well as related motion and memorandum of law, compelled arbitration, and dismissed action. Court found that the parties’ arbitration agreement contained a clear delegation clause, rejecting defendant’s allegation that the delegation clause was procedurally unconscionable and noting that defendant had not specifically challenged the delegation clause on substantive unconscionability grounds.

Landau v. Rheinold, No. 1:15-CV-04811-CBA-VMS (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2017) 09/30/2017

Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award issued by a Rabbinical Court, finding that, while the FAA does not confer subject matter jurisdiction, under a “look through approach,” it had subject matter jurisdiction regarding the petition because the underlying dispute involved a question of trademark law which the court would have had jurisdiction to hear under 28 USC 1338. Court rejected the allegation that confirmation ought to be sought in state court, finding that the language of the parties’ forum selection clause was not mandatory and denied respondent’s challenge of the merits of the award on the ground that the FAA’s limitations period for vacating the award had run.

Pain Treatment Centers of Illinois v. SpectraLab Scientific, Incorporated, No. 1:15-CV-01012 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 30, 2017) 09/30/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for improper venue finding that the parties’ agreement contained a valid arbitration clause and rejecting plaintiffs’ allegations that the arbitration clause was substantively unconscionable since it lacked specificity, was impossible to comply with, and failed to mention the costs of the arbitration, as well as that it was procedurally unconscionable because plaintiffs did not have an opportunity to negotiate it.

Allen v. SSC Lexington Operating Company LLC, No. 1:16-CV-01080 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 29, 2017) 09/29/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel individual arbitration and stay court proceedings, denied as moot plaintiff’s motion for putative class action certification and defendant’s partial motion to dismiss, and stayed court proceedings under § 3 of the FAA pending arbitration. Court found that, while the language of the agreement raised doubts as to whether the parties intended their agreement to include a waiver of class or collective action, such doubts had to be resolved in favor or arbitration.

Bradley v. The Hertz Corporation, No. 3:15-CV-00652-NJR-RJD (S.D. Ill. Sept. 29, 2017) 09/29/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the parties’ arbitration agreement was valid and that the scope of that agreement was for the arbitrator to decide, per the delegation clause contained in the arbitration agreement.

Johns, Jr. v. Pluckers, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00553-SS (W.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2017) 09/29/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion in part and denied it in part, compelling arbitration but finding that the question whether the dispute may be arbitrated as a collective action is for the arbitrator to decide, and staying the case pending final decision by the arbitrator.

Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society v. Hatton, No. 2:16-CV-01355-JB-KRS, No. 19 (D.N.M. Sept. 29, 2017) 09/29/2017

Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement that had been signed by the decedent’s temporary legal guardian was valid and binding on the personal representative of the decedent’s wrongful death estate, and denying motion to compel discovery regarding the temporary legal guardian’s authority to bind decedent to arbitration, which was an issue for the arbitrator to decide.

Green Tree Servicing, L.L.C. v. Charles, No. 17-60165 (5th Cir. Sept. 29, 2017) 09/29/2017

Court of appeal dismissed defendant-appellant’s appeal of district court’s grant of plaintiffs-appellees’ motion to compel arbitration and to stay the claims of another civil action involving the same parties and same dispute. Court held the district court’s order was not a final decision as it stayed the claims still pending between the parties in the district court in the other civil action and therefore the appellate court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal.

Humphreys v. Houston Pizza Ventures, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00935 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2017) 09/29/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed, as well as administratively closed, case pending arbitration, finding that the parties entered into a valid and binding agreement to arbitrate under Texas law.

Powers v. Charles River Laboratories, Inc., No. 2-16-CV-13668-PDB-SDD (E.D. Mich. Sept. 29, 2017) 09/29/2017

District court adopted magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and, amongst others, granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss or compel arbitration, finding that magistrate judge had correctly concluded that the parties agreed to arbitration, that plaintiff had failed to show a genuine issue of material fact as to the validity of the arbitration agreement or as to whether defendant was a successor party to the agreement, and that the applicability of the contractual time bar contained in the arbitration agreement was for the arbitrator, not the court, to decide. Eurotec Vertical Flight Solutions, LLC v. Turbomeca, S.A., No. 3:15-CV-03454-B (N.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2016) 09/29/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings and granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion to refer only issues of arbitrability to arbitration and stay action pending arbitrators’ decision on arbitrability. Court found that the parties’ arbitration agreement contained a valid and enforceable delegation clause so that the issue of arbitrability was one of the issues that would have to be decided by arbitration, while rejecting plaintiff’s assertion that a court could initially refer only arbitrabilty issues to arbitration. Allied World Insurance Company v. New Paradigm Property Management LLC, No. 2:16-CV-02992-MCE-GGH (E.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2017) 09/28/2017

Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss plaintiff’s complaint, or alternatively stay action, finding that, while the arbitration agreement applied to plaintiff as surety, the scope of the arbitration agreement did not encompass the controversy at issue.

Durr v. Adams Beverages, Inc., No. 16-15285 (11th Cir. Sept. 28, 2017) 09/28/2017

Court of appeal affirmed in part and dismissed in part the district court’s order dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice and entering judgment for the defendant. Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in setting a deadline to enforce and grant defendant’s motion to dismiss when plaintiff showed no signs of challenging the arbitration award at issue. Court further held it lacked jurisdiction to consider plaintiff-appellant’s challenge of the denial of his post-judgment motions seeking to vacate the arbitration award.

Ford v. Combined Insurance Company of America, No. 5:17-CV-00103-RH-GRJ (N.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2017) 09/28/2017

Court adopted magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and granted motion to compel arbitration in part. Court held that the plaintiff signed a binding arbitration agreement that applied to plaintiff’s claims and ordered the parties to present their dispute to arbitration in accordance with their agreement.

Hubbard v. Dolgencorp, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-01133-SA-egb (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 28, 2017) 09/28/2017

Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the named plaintiffs, except Hubbard, were bound to arbitrate their claims. Court further held that because in the sixth circuit the class action waiver found in the arbitration agreement was void as against public policy and unenforceable under the FAA, and yet severable, the court would compel plaintiffs to bring their claims to arbitration but they could do so collectively as a class.

Imperial Crane Sales, Inc. v. Sany America, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-00859 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2017) 09/28/2017

Court denied a motion to vacate the majority of plaintiff’s arbitration award, confirmed plaintiff’s award and granted reasonable attorney’s fees to plaintiff in defense of the motion to vacate. Court held that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers in issuing his ruling, considered all the relevant contracts and based the final award on them, and properly limited the award to direct damages. Court further held that though the FAA does not provide for attorney fees to the party who successfully confirms an arbitration award in federal court, the parties’ contractual agreement did and thus plaintiff was entitled to recover its fees.

Chruby v. Global Tel*Link Corp., No. 5:15-CV-05136-TLB (W.D. Ark. Sept. 28, 2017) 09/28/2017

Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings. Court held that all three elements of waiver of the right to arbitrate were satisfied with respect to each of the arbitrating plaintiffs as the defendant knew of an existing right to arbitrate, acted inconsistently with that right by having waited over a year and a half after the litigation began to attempt to compel arbitration, and prejudiced the plaintiffs who were forced to defend against other motions.

CMH Homes, Inc. v. Pyke, No. 2:17-CV-00077-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss. Sept. 28, 2017) 09/28/2017

Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and improper venue. Court held that plaintiffs had filed their petition under § 4 of the FAA seeking an order to compel arbitration and that the underlying dispute was ripe for adjudication as no further factual development was needed and the issues warranted judicial review.

Pineda v. Oceania Cruises, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-20544-RNS (S.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2017) 09/28/2017

Court remanded case to state court, holding that the arbitration agreement relied upon by the defendants to remove the case to federal court was inapplicable to plaintiff’s claims as there was no agreement to arbitrate between the parties and therefore subject matter jurisdiction was lacking.

Diag Human S.E. v. Czech Republic-Ministry of Health, No. 1:13-CV-00355-ABJ (D.D.C. Sept. 27, 2017) 09/27/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the case. Court held that based on the parties’ arbitration agreement and resolution, the 2008 arbitration decision was not a final arbitration award enforceable under the New York Convention. The terms of the parties’ own arbitration agreement indicate that the 2008 final award never took effect because an application to review the award was submitted within the deadline and thus the award never became binding on the parties.

Bowers v. Northern Two Cayes Company Ltd., No. 1:15-CV-00029-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C. Sept. 27, 2017) 09/27/2017

Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm an arbitration award but denied plaintiff’s motions to remand for clarification and for consideration of new facts. Court held the parties agreed to arbitrate their dispute, that the contract, taken as a whole, required binding arbitration, and that the plaintiff’s filing complied with the FAA and established the basis to confirm the final award, but no further clarification of the arbitration award was necessary.

Johnson v. Dentsply Sirona Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00520-CVE-PJC (N.D. Okla. Sept. 27, 2017) 09/27/2017

Court granted motion to confirm the arbitrator’s preliminary injunction, holding it was proper to review interim arbitral awards and to confirm the arbitrator’s interim award of equitable relief in this case and enjoin plaintiff from breaching the confidentiality and non-compete provision of the parties’ agreement while the arbitration was pending.

Sanders v. JGWPT Holdings, LLC, No. 1:14-CV-09188-SLE (N.D. Ill. Sept. 27, 2017) 09/27/2017

Court granted defendant motion to compel arbitration, holding that the parties do not dispute that the arbitration clauses are mandatory and that plaintiffs failed to establish a defense to arbitration.

Barboza v. Adecco USA, Inc., No. 5:16-CV-01113-EJD (N.D. Cal. Sept. 27. 2017) 09/27/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, holding that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed and that plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the agreement.

Gyptec S.A. v. Hakim-Daccach, No. 1:16-CV-20810-KMW (S.D. Fla. Sept. 27, 2017) 09/27/2017

Court denied respondent’s motions to strike a majority of petitioner’s sur-reply and to quash subpoena and to vacate the court’s order granting petitioner’s application for discovery under 28 USC § 1782 for use in an ongoing litigation in Colombia. Court concluded that petitioner met the statutory elements of 28 USC § 1782 and determined that the discretionary factors weighed in favor of petitioner, finding that there is no exhaustion requirement that petitioner must first seek discovery in Colombia, that whether the discovery will ultimately be admissible is of no import to the analysis, that petitioner was not seeking to circumvent Colombian procedures, and that the discovery request was not burdensome. Del Monte International, GMBH v. Ticofrut S.A., No. 1:16-CV-23894-JEM (S.D. Fla. Sept. 27, 2017) 09/27/2017

Court denied motion to remand, holding that federal jurisdiction over the matter existed because it pertained to an ICC arbitral award and thus “relate[d] to” the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards under 9 USC § 205.

Gas Natural Aprovisionamientos SDG, S.A. v. Atlantic LNG Company of Trinidad and Tobago, No. 1:17-CV-00110-LAK (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2017) 09/26/2017

Court granted respondent’s motion to confirm two arbitration awards issued by the same tribunal and denied petitioner’s motion to vacate an award. Court held petitioner’s arguments to vacate failed because the arbitral tribunal did not act in manifest disregard of law and nearly all of petitioner’s arguments disputed the tribunal’s interpretation of the underlying contract, which is not open to judicial review.

Massaad v. CVS RX Services, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01064-JG (N.D. Ohio Sept. 26, 2017) 09/26/2017

Court denied motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint and defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that at the motion to dismiss stage of litigation it was required to draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor, including that plaintiff mailed his opt-out letter and as a result opted out of the defendant’s arbitration policy.

Stephens v. Charter Communications Holdings, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00354-JHM (W.D. Ky. Sept. 26, 2017) 09/26/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that agreement to arbitrate would be enforced as plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of a valid and binding arbitration agreement between the parties, there were no federal claims that could be nonarbitrable, nor were only some of the state law claims subject to arbitration.

Golden Gate National Senior Care, LLC v. Hudson, No. 3:17-CV-00431-JHM (W.D. Ky. Sept. 26, 2017) 09/26/2017

Court granted petitioners’ motion to expedite consideration of their motion to compel arbitration and granted the motion in part. Court held the parties entered into an agreement to arbitrate, that the agreement covered the decedent’s personal claims respondent raised in state court, that there were no federal claims asserted that were precluded from arbitration, and thus the parties were ordered to arbitrate all claims except a wrongful death claim that could proceed in state court as it was not required to be arbitrated because the beneficiaries to whom that claim belonged did not consent to arbitrate.

Finsa Portafolios, S.A. de C.V. v. OpenGate Capital, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-04360-RGK-E (C.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2017) 09/26/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss for forum non conveniens. Court held that parties were sophisticated corporations that chose an arbitration clause that incorporated AAA language in their commercial agreement and that the arbitrator should decide disputes relating to the validity and scope of the arbitration clause. Court also upheld the forum selection clauses at issue and held the plaintiffs’ fraud and tort claims to be within their scope.

Gibson v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., No. 4:17-00577-RMG (D.S.C. Sept. 26, 2017) 09/26/2017

Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that, accepting the complaint allegations as true, the arbitration agreement in the original warranty did not provide for binding arbitration, was not enforceable with regard to the warranty enhancement, and defendant’s argument that an arbitration agreement in a vehicle lease agreement should be enforced against anyone who purchased the used vehicle after the expiration of the lease lacked merit.

Larsen v. Citibank FSB, Nos. 15-10779, 10-12957 (11th Cir. Sept. 26, 2017) 09/26/2017

Court of appeal reversed district court’s order denying defendant KeyBank’s motion to compel on grounds of unconscionability and remanded case to district court with instruction to compel arbitration. Court addressed multiple issues on appeal and found no reason to relieve plaintiff Johnson from his obligation to arbitrate under Ohio law, the parties’ agreed choice-of-law provision.

Brne v. Inspired eLearning, No. 1:17-CV-02712-AJS (N.D. Ill. Sept. 26. 2017) 09/26/2017

Court granted defendant’s FRCP 12(b)(3) motion to dismiss for improper venue and ordered plaintiff to pursue his arbitration claims in Texas rather than Illinois. Court held the arbitration clause in plaintiff’s employment agreement was enforceable as there was no showing of procedural unconscionability, the cost sharing provision of the arbitration agreement was valid, and that the substantively unconscionable clause requiring the parties to pay their own attorneys’ fees regardless of the outcome of arbitration was invalid, but was properly severed under both Illinois and Texas law as the agreement expressly allowed for severance of unenforceable provisions.

Larsen v. Citibank FSB, No. 15-10779 (11th Cir. Sept. 26, 2017) 09/26/2017

Court of appeal reversed district court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration, finding that requirement that arbitral award be kept confidential was unconscionable in that it favored the bank as a repeat participant in the arbitration process, but this provision could be severed and the agreement was not otherwise procedurally or substantively unconscionable.

Cochlear Ltd. v. Oticon Medical AB, No. 1:16-CV-01700-PAB-KMT (D. Colo. Sept. 25, 2017) 09/25/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to compel plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims and denied the motion to stay the action. Court held that the arbitration agreement between the parties did not limit or exclude any types of claims and that the parties’ dispute was within the scope of the arbitration clause and should be sent to arbitration.

Northrop and Johnson Holding Company, Inc. v. Caryn Leahy, No. 0:16-CV-63008-BB (S.D. Fla. Sept. 25, 2017) 09/25/2017

Court denied motion to dismiss second amended complaint for failure to arbitrate. Court held that at the motion to dismiss stage, plaintiff had plausibly pled that it terminated the agreement that would have required it to arbitrate.

Primrose Retirement Communities, L.L.C. v. Omni Construction Company, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01007-RAL (D.S.D. Sept. 25, 2017) 09/25/2017

Court confirmed plaintiffs’ arbitration award and denied defendant’s motion to vacate or modify the award. Court held that the FAA requires the court to confirm the award since both parties received a fair arbitration hearing, there was no basis to conclude that the arbitrators engaged in misconduct that would justify vacatur of the award, and the arbitrators provided a final and reasoned decision.

Raju v. Murphy, No. 3:17-CV-00357-CWR (S.D. Miss. Sept. 25, 2017) 09/25/2017

Court denied plaintiff’s motion to stay proceedings pending interlocutory appeal. Court held that in the fifth circuit stays pending appeal from a denial of a motion to compel arbitration are not automatic, that plaintiff had not met his burden to show that the balance of equities weighed heavily in favor of a stay, and that in the discretion of the court the public interest favored denying the stay.

Sutherland v. Amerifirst Financial, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-01676-JAH-WVG (S.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2017) 09/25/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to transfer venue. Court held that the parties entered into a valid arbitration agreement, the agreement included the dispute at issue and should be enforced, and that the parties agreed upon a venue in Maricopa County, Arizona. Court held that, because § 4 of the FAA does not permit the court to compel arbitration outside of the district, the appropriate remedy was to transfer the case to the district of Arizona.

Bradley v. Centraarchy Restaurant Management Company, No. 2:15-CV-01218-PMD (D.S.C. Sept. 22, 2017) 09/22/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to confirm the arbitration award. Court held that the parties’ arbitration agreement specified that the arbitration award must be confirmed by a court, that plaintiffs filed no opposition to defendant’s motion, and that the arbitrator did her job.

Farrow Road Dental Group, P.A. v. AT&T, Corp., No. 3:17-CV-01615-CMC (D.S.C. Sept. 22, 2017) 09/22/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay the action. Court held that the arbitration agreement at issue was enforceable and, on balance, favors reference to arbitration. Further, the plaintiff’s obligation to arbitrate did not end when the parties’ relationship ended since arbitration clauses are separable from the contracts in which they are embedded.

Chen v. Kyoto Sushi, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-07398-DLI-JO (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2017) 09/22/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and denied plaintiffs’ request for class certification. Court held that plaintiffs consented to the arbitration agreement, that their Fair Labor Standards Act claims and state and local wage and hour law claims were arbitrable, that the arbitration agreement did not violate federal law and was not unconscionable under New York State law, nor a product of economic duress.

Diaz v. Intuit, Inc., No. 5:15-CV-01778-EJD (N.D.Cal. Sept. 29, 2017) 09/22/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the incorporation of the AAA Rules in the parties’ arbitration agreement was clear and unmistakable evidence of the parties’ intention to delegate arbitrability to the arbitrator irrespective of the sophistication of the parties and determining, upon plaintiffs’ request, that the assertion of arbitrability was not “wholly groundless.”

Novic v. Midland Funding, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00177-RDB (D. Md Sept. 21, 2017) 09/21/2017

Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay the litigation, finding that, subsequent to the assignment of the underlying contract, the defendant no longer holds the right to compel the plaintiff to arbitrate the dispute. Court also held that, in any event, because the defendant took part in litigation proceedings against the plaintiff it defaulted on its right to arbitrate as a matter of federal law.

Beltran v. InterExchange, Inc., No. 1:14-CV-03074-CMA-KMT (D. Colo. Sept. 21, 2017) 09/21/2017

Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss or stay the action. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that defendant had waived right to arbitrate, but found that there was not a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement because the agreements were unconscionable.

Uretek, ICR Mid-Atlantic, Inc. v. Adams Robinson Enterprises, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00004-GEC (W.D. Va. Sept. 20, 2017) 09/20/2017

Court denied defendant’s motion to strike the plaintiff’s motion to confirm the arbitration award and to transfer venue to the Southern District of Ohio. Court found that the forum selection clause, even when viewed in the entire context of the arbitration agreement, is permissive and therefore does not deprive the court of jurisdiction or otherwise compel the court to strike the plaintiff’s motion to confirm the arbitration award. Court therefore held it is a proper forum for reviewing the motion to confirm the arbitration award.

Oglala Lakota College v. Hudson Insurance Company, No. 5:16-CV-05093-JLV (D.S.D. Sept. 20, 2017) 09/20/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed the suit pending resolution of the arbitration. Court held that the arbitration agreement is not ambiguous, and therefore, the parties are obligated under the FAA to proceed to arbitration to resolve their dispute.

Ross Dress for Less, Inc. v. VIWY, L.P., No. 2:12-CV-00131-JS (E.D. Pa. Sept. 19, 2017) 09/19/2017

Court granted motion to confirm the arbitration award, finding that, even if manifest disregard of the law remains a valid ground for vacating an arbitration award, the arbitral tribunal did not do so because, inter alia, the improper application of a statute of limitations typically falls short of a manifest disregard of the law. Similarly, the tribunal did not exceed its powers under the §10(a)(4) of the FAA even if failed to apply the statute of limitations under Pennsylvania law.

Pacanowski v. United Recovery Systems, LP, No. 3:16-CV-01778-KM (M.D. Pa. Sept. 19, 2017) 09/19/2017

Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the suit. Court held that, although all the requisite elements for contract formation exist, and valid arbitration agreement exists between the plaintiff and third-party, the defendant was not a party to the arbitration agreement and therefore could not compel arbitration under the agreement.

Anoruo v. Tenet Healthsystem Hanhemann, DBA Hahnemann University Hospital, No. 17-1945 (3d Cir. Sept. 19, 2017) 09/19/2017

Court of appeal affirmed district court’s order granting defendant’s motion to confirm an arbitration award and denying plaintiff’s motion to vacate that award. Circuit court held that the appellant failed to establish any basis to vacate the arbitrator’s ruling.

Wiseley v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 15-56799 (9th Cir. Sept. 19, 2017) 09/19/2017

Court of appeal affirmed district court’s order granting defendant-appellee’s motion to compel arbitration. Circuit court held that there was no procedural unconscionability in the arbitration clause or the incorporation by reference of the AAA rules, and that plaintiff-appellant’s three arguments for substantive unconscionability lacked merit.

Alvarez v. Amgen Manufacturing, Limited, No. 3:16-CV-02205-PAD-SCC (D.P.R. Sept. 18, 2017) 09/18/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss action and compel arbitration, adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation that the plaintiff failed to opt-out of the arbitration agreement in question and that the agreement covered the claims asserted.

SBMH Group DMCC v. Noadiam USA, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-22605-CMA (S.D. Fla. Sept. 15, 2017) 09/15/2017

Court denied plaintiff’s motion to remand. Defendants had previously removed the case to federal court based on a purported arbitration clause. Court concluded that the suit had been properly removed under the New York Convention, as district courts have original jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

McMahan v. Byrider Sales of Indiana S, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00064-GNS (W.D. Ky. Sept. 14, 2017) 09/14/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court found that (i) the contract clearly indicated that plaintiff agreed to arbitrate any claim arising from a dispute between her and the defendant (and its assignee), (ii) the broad terms of the contract required plaintiff to arbitrate her claims and allowed defendant to require arbitration even after it assigned its rights under the contract, (iii) there is no indication that Congress intended to preclude the arbitration of Fair Credit Reporting Act claims, and (iv) the arbitration provision survived plaintiff’s bankruptcy discharge.

Lake Cumberland Regional Hospital, LLC v. Coventry Health & Life Insurance Co., No. 6:16-CV-00268-KKC (E.D. Ky. Sept. 14, 2017) 09/14/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel. Court found that the parties’ agreement contained an arbitration provision that required arbitration of claims arising out of or relating to that agreement. As such, court concluded that there was a valid arbitration agreement and plaintiff’s claims fell within that provision’s “broad purview.”

Royal Alliance Associates, Inc. v. Mooney, No. 16-56468 (9th Cir. Sept. 14. 2017) 09/14/2017

Court of appeal reversed district court’s grant of motion to compel arbitration, finding that claimants had not discharged their burden of showing that an arbitration agreement existed, since account transfer documents left ambiguous the question of whether the claimants were clients of the respondent.

Velasquez-Reyes v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 5:16-CV-01953-DMG-KK (C.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2017) 09/13/2017

Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss the complaint. Court held that plaintiff did not expressly agree to Samsung’s arbitration provision, and that there was no indication that plaintiff’s silence and failure to opt out of the arbitration procedures were intended to be taken as assent. Court also noted that the disclaimer on the box of the phone that plaintiff purchased did not expressly provide that opening the box or using the phone constituted consent to the terms contained inside the Warranty Guide, which itself was inside the box.e box.

IQ Products Company v. WD-40 Company, No. 16-20595 (5th Cir. Sept. 13, 2017) 09/13/2017

Court of appeal affirmed the district court’s order compelling arbitration and final judgment. Court held that plaintiff waived its challenge to the district court’s conclusion on the existence of a delegation clause by conceding it before the district court; and the assertion of arbitrability was not “wholly groundless,” which the court noted was “extremely rare.”

Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers v. Kellogg Company, No. 1:16-CV-01180-GJQ-RSK (W.D. Mich. Sept. 13, 2017) 09/13/2017

Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration, finding no merit to the defendant’s argument that, because plaintiffs took an inconsistent position in a separate case, they were judiciallyestopped from arguing that the arbitration provisions applied. Court also held that the agreements the parties entered into reinforced their understanding that the arbitration provisions did not apply to casual employees.

In re Application of Hulley Enterprises Ltd., et al., No. 2:17-MC-00088-UA-E (C.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2017) 09/13/2017

Court denied petitioners’ motion for leave to serve a subpoena by “alternative means.” Court found that Rule 45(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure required personal service rather than delivery “to the named person’s doorstep, mailbox or son.” Shearman & Sterling is counsel for the petitioners in connection with this case.

Haberer Foods International, Inc. v. Goya de Puerto Rico, No. 0:17-CV-00080-JRT-LIB (D. Minn. Sept. 13, 2017) 09/13/2017

Court denied plaintiff’s motion to confirm the arbitration award, finding that factual questions remained over whether the parties entered into an arbitration agreement. Court held that, where there is a plausible challenge to the existence of an arbitration agreement that would bring the dispute into the realm of the FAA, a party does not lose its ability to raise its challenge by failing to participate or raise the defense during arbitration. Court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that defendant is barred from challenging arbitrability by the equitable doctrines of equitable estoppel and laches, finding no evidence of a specific misrepresentation on which plaintiff justifiably relied or evidence defendant inexcusably delayed in its assertion of its defense.

Hunter v. NHCash.com, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00348-HEH (E.D. Va. Sept. 12, 2017) 09/12/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss to the extent defendants seek to compel arbitration. Court found that the doctrine of equitable estoppel was applicable in this case, which allows all defendants—even non-signatories—to move to compel arbitration. Court additionally found that, even if equitable estoppel were not appropriate, the scope of the arbitration provision was sufficiently broad to encompass plaintiff’s claims against all defendants.

Lockard v. EYM King of Kansas, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-02181-JAR-JPO (D. Kan. Sept. 12, 2017) 09/12/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and to stay the action. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration agreement was illusory because it was part of a handbook containing a conflicting revocation and modification clause, and that there was no meeting of the minds because the arbitration agreement failed to specify arbitration procedures. Court explained that (i) the arbitration agreement itself is separate and distinct from the handbook, (ii) even if there were ambiguity, this was a question for the arbitrator to decide, and (ii) the lack of arbitral procedures in the arbitration agreement does not invalidate the agreement.

Lawson-Jackson v. Rosenhaus, No. 8:16-CV-04049-TDC (D. Md. Sept. 12, 2017) 09/12/2017

Court granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the amended petition to vacate the arbitration award. Court held that the petition was not timely served pursuant to the FAA, which specifies a threemonth deadline for a party to both move to vacate the arbitration award and serve opposing party with that motion.

Barron v. Best Buy Co., Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00690-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss. Sept. 11, 2017) 09/11/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to stay, finding that one of the threshold issues in the instant case would be the subject of a pending arbitration, and thus it would be in the interest of judicial economy to stay the case pending the arbitration award.

Skiba v. Sasser, No. 1:16-CV-00444-HSO-JCG (S.D. Miss. Sept. 11, 2017) 09/11/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss or to compel arbitration. Court found that there was a valid arbitration agreement between the parties as it was undisputed that the parties signed the agreement. Court additionally found that there was a valid delegation clause that granted the authority to determine the arbitrability of plaintiff’s claims to the arbitrator.

NTCH-WA, Inc. v. ZTE Corporation, No. 2:12-CV-03110-TOR (E.D. Wash. Sept. 11, 2017) 09/11/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Court found that (i) the arbitration award had the same force and effect as a final judgment on the merits as entered by the federal court, (ii) the defendant and its wholly-owned subsidiary were in privity for the purposes of claim preclusion, and (iii) the undisputed evidence clearly showed that all current claims were or could have been raised during the arbitration proceedings.

Chin v. Boehringer Ingelham Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-03703-JSC (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2017) 09/11/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel and stay the action. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration agreement was contrary to public policy because it forced plaintiff to waive certain rights, finding that the arbitrator was not precluded from awarding plaintiff legal fees and costs. Court also held that the mere fact that the arbitration agreement is a contract of adhesion is insufficient to establish procedural unconscionability, and that the agreement did not lack mutuality and therefore was not substantively unconscionable.

United States ex rel. Welch v. My Left Foot Children’s Therapy, LLC, No. 16-16070 (9th Cir. Sept. 11, 2017) 09/11/2017

Court of appeal affirmed the district court’s denial of defendants’ motion to compel arbitration on an alternate ground. Court held that the plain text of the arbitration agreement—which Welch signed when she applied for employment with the defendant corporation—was not broad enough to encompass the instant False Claims Act case, and therefore the lawsuit was not arbitrable.

Ford v. Midland Funding LLC., No. 4:16-CV-12612-TGB-SDD (E.D. Mich. Sept. 8, 2017) 09/08/2017

Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether an arbitration agreement existed. Court explained that because the making of the arbitration agreement was in issue, under the FAA, the case should proceed in court rather than in arbitration.

Hinkle v. Southpointe Motorcars, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-01391-TWP-DML (S.D. Ind. Sept. 8, 2017) 09/08/2017

Court approved and adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, which stated that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to stay the action should be granted. Court further found that, since the parties agreed that the defendant corporation would pay the filing fee under these circumstances, the plaintiff may file his claim with the AAA by simply stating that there is an agreement that the defendant will pay all of the filing fee.

Judge v. Unigroup, Inc., 8:17-CV-00201-SDM-TBM (M.D. Fla. Sept. 8, 2017) 09/08/2017

Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss and granted in part defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court found that the FAA applied because (i) federal law strongly favors arbitration and (ii) plaintiffs reserved discretion that was characteristic of a contractor, and thus could not benefit from the transportation-worker exemption from arbitration. Court further found that the non-party defendants with contracts under Florida law could compel arbitration, but not those under Ohio, Virginia, or New Jersey law.

Medchoice Risk Retention Grp., Inc. v. Katz, No. 2:17-CV-00387-TSZ (W.D. Wash. Sept. 8, 2017) 09/08/2017

Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and confirmed the arbitrator’s final award. Court found that the FAA applied to the enforcement of the award and that the arbitrator did not engage in misconduct by postponing the hearing and by refusing to consider the additional evidence defendants were ordered to produce during the arbitration.

National Football League Players Assoc. v. National Football League, No. 4:17-CV-00615-ALM (E.D. Tex. Sept. 8, 2017) 09/08/2017

Court granted petitioner’s emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Court determined that running back Ezekiel Elliot did not receive a fundamentally fair arbitration hearing, and his suspension should be enjoined until the court’s final ruling. Court explained that, under the FAA, there is a narrow exception to the general deference toward arbitrators, which allows courts to intervene and vacate an award when a hearing is not fundamentally fair.

Orbital ATK, Inc. v. Heckler & Koch GmbH, No. 0:17-CV-00250-DSD-FLN (D. Minn. Sept. 8, 2017) 09/08/2017

Court granted in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. The parties had entered into a subcontract and a Teaming Agreement. Court found that most claims were subcontract claims, which were expressly excluded from the dispute resolution process in the Teaming Agreement. However, one claim—the failure to deliver intellectual property pursuant to the Teaming Agreement—was subject to the arbitration provision and should be submitted to arbitration.

Pointstreak, Inc. v. Colorado Amateur Hockey Assoc., No. 3:16-CV-00690-RJC-DSC (W.D.N.C. Sept. 8, 2017) 09/08/2017

Court granted plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and motion for confirmation of the arbitration award. Court explained that an arbitration award may be vacated only when an arbitrator strays from interpreting and applying the agreement, and effectively dispenses his own brand of justice. Here, defendant did not respond to plaintiff’s motions, and thus the court found no reason to disturb the arbitrator’s award, particularly under “the incredibly deferential standard of review.”

Treinish v. BorrowsFirst, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01371-JG (N.D. Ohio Sept. 8, 2017) 09/08/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding the arbitration provision to be valid and enforceable. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the claims are not arbitrable because she terminated the contract. Court explained that the arbitration provision contained an explicit survival clause, and thus the contract is not “completely expired” and the full presumption in favor of arbitration applies.

Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC v. Rocine, No. 4:17-CV-04993-PJH (N.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2017) 09/07/2017

Court granted temporary restraining order (TRO) restricting defendants’ use of plaintiff’s customer information, and ordered that plaintiff to initiate expedited FINRA arbitration. Court found that defendant had compiled a list of customer information after his departure from plaintiff’s company, and there was a likelihood of significant irreparable harm if defendants were not enjoined from using this information.

Alabama Municipal Insurance Corp. v. Munich Reinsurance America Inc., No. 2:16-CV-948-WHA-SRW (M.D. Ala. Sept. 7, 2017) 09/07/2017

Court granted motion to stay pending arbitration, holding that plaintiff had not waived the right to arbitrate. Court found that actions taken toward litigation prior to filing the amended complaint should not be considered waiver of the right to seek arbitration, as the amended complaint was the first time plaintiff alleged breach of a contract which contained an arbitration clause. Additionally, subsequently complying with a scheduling order did not waive the right to arbitrate.

Poole-Ward v. Affiliates for Women’s Health, P.A., No. 4:17-CV-00885 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 7, 2017) 09/07/2017

Court granted motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, holding that a valid arbitration agreement existed and covered the plaintiff’s statutory discrimination and state common law contract claims. Court found that invalidating the arbitration agreement would permit the plaintiff to litigate the types of claims she clearly and validly agreed to arbitrate.

Gibson-Dalton v. Carnival Corp. & PLC, No. 2:16-CV-02457-DCN (D.S.C. Sept. 7, 2017) 09/07/2017

Court granted motion to dismiss claims for failure to comply with the arbitration clause, holding that there was no issue in dispute as to whether parties were bound by an arbitration agreement. Court held that plaintiff failed to present any evidence suggesting she was not bound by the contract containing the arbitration clause.

Hoover v. Sears Holding Corp., No. 3:16-CV-04520-AET-TJB (D.N.J. Sept. 7, 2017) 09/07/2017

Court denied motion for reconsideration of order compelling arbitration, holding that the arbitration clause in the contract was severable and non-illusory, and that any issue regarding contract validity should be considered by the arbitrator. Court found that plaintiff had not argued that the clause allowing defendant to alter terms and conditions was within the arbitration provision, or that the arbitration clause was not severable. Court found that a unilateral change provision pertained only to a rewards program, not to the arbitration provision or other parts of the contract.

Ortiz Bey v. XPO Logistics, Inc., No. 6:16-CV-02195-RBD-KRS (M.D. Fla. Sept. 7, 2017) 09/07/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that defendant had not waived its right to arbitrate and that plaintiff had not demonstrated that the delegation provision was unconscionable. Court found that the sixth month delay in demanding arbitration, without any other substantial conduct inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate, did not amount to waiver. Court also found that plaintiffs failed to include detail of litigation expenses incurred, and failed to show prejudice as a result of delay, and that plaintiffs had failed to challenge the delegation provision specifically as unconscionable, and the enforceability of the arbitration agreement as a whole was a determination left to the arbitrator.

Petrobras America, Inc. v. Vicinay Cadenas, S.A., No. 4:12-CV-00888 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 6, 2017) 09/06/2017

Court granted motion for jury trial, and denied motion to stay lawsuit pending arbitration, holding that non-signatory plaintiffs were not bound by the arbitration clause. Court found that the directbenefits estoppel doctrine did not apply, as plaintiffs’ claims were not based on the purchase order containing the arbitration clause, but rather from pre-purchase representations and duties under Louisiana law.

Solo v. United Parcel Service Co., No. 2:14-CV-12719-DPH-RSW (E.D. Mich. Sept. 6, 2017) 09/06/2017

Court denied motion to stay or dismiss proceedings, holding that defendant had waived its right to arbitration by acting inconsistently with reliance on arbitration and delayed its assertion of the need to arbitrate, to the actual prejudice of plaintiffs. Court found that defendant did not seek to compel arbitration until more than two years after the complaint was filed, moving instead for dismissal on the merits. Court found that defendant had not filed this motion regarding the arbitration provision until eight months after the Sixth Circuit remanded the case.

Baldwin v. Wittle, No. 1:17-CV-00823-JMS-DML (S.D. Ind. Sept. 6, 2017) 09/06/2017

Court denied motion to dismiss, holding that there was no valid arbitration agreement between the parties. Court found no privity between parties to the security contract, containing the arbitration clause, and the insurance contract, which did not. Court found that there was not sufficient relatedness between the two contracts to justify estoppel.

Glass, Molders, Pottery, Plastics, & Allied Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC v. Tecnocap LLC, No. 5:17-CV-00006-JPB (N.D.W. Va. Sept. 6, 2017) 09/06/2017

Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, holding that parties must arbitrate grievances in accordance with the Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”). Court found that there is a presumption of arbitrability where there is a broad arbitration agreement. Court found that, according to precedent, it had no license to examine whether the demand for arbitration had been timely made, as the defendant had refused the demand.

Taylor v. Frontier Communications Corporation, No. 8:17-CV-00476-PA-DTB (C.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2017) 09/05/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff entered into a contractual agreement with defendant’s predecessor-in-interest, which included an arbitration provision that encompasses the claims at issue in the present action. Court also found that plaintiff consented to the granting of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.

White v. Sunoco, Inc., No. 16-2808 (3d Cir. Sept. 5, 2017) 09/05/2017

Court affirmed decision to deny motion to compel arbitration, holding that defendant, as a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, could not compel plaintiff to arbitrate. Court held that the principles of equitable estoppel could not be invoked since there was no alleged concerted conduct on the part of defendant and a signatory party. Court also found that the claims asserted against defendant did not rely on any terms in the contract containing the arbitration agreement.

In re Anthony Henson and William Cintron, No. 16-71818 (9th Cir. Sept. 5, 2017) 09/05/2017

Court granted petition for a writ of mandamus and vacated order granting motion to compel arbitration, holding that a non-signatory “middle man” for internet-based advertisements could not invoke an arbitration provision contained in a contract between plaintiffs and their wireless service provider. Court found that the customer agreement provided only that the subscriber and the internet service provider agreed to resolve disputes by arbitration. Court found that estoppel was not available, as the claims against defendant were not based on the contract containing the arbitration agreement, and there was no evidence of interdependent and concerted conduct.

Doe #1 v. Déjà Vu Consulting, No. 3 :17-CV-00040 (M.D. Tenn. Sept. 1, 2017) 09/01/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the action without prejudice, holding that there was an enforceable arbitration agreement covering all disputes. Court found that, according to precedent and § 3 of the FAA, a motion to compel arbitration must take precedence over and be considered before virtually any other pending motion. Further, the broad delegation clause conferred authority to resolve disputes regarding waiver and estoppel to the arbitrator, and the plaintiff was estopped from asserting that she did not agree to arbitrate with non-signatory defendants, as she had argued that these defendants were alter egos of the signatory defendant.

Stemcor USA Incorporated v. CIA Siderurgica do Para Cosipar, No. 16-30984 (5th Cir. Sept. 1, 2017) 09/01/2017

Court of appeal reversed district court’s order vacating a pre-arbitration attachment under Louisiana’s non-resident attachment statute, finding that, although the requirement that attachment support an action for a money judgment would not permit attachment in support of an action to compel arbitration, attachment could nevertheless be ordered in support of a future action to confirm the arbitral award.

Interactive Brokers LLC v. Saroop, No. 3:17-CV-00127-REP (E.D. Va. Sept. 1, 2017) 09/01/2017

Court denied motion to vacate and motion to confirm arbitration award, and remanded matter to arbitration panel for clarification, holding that without reasoning, the court could not judicially examine the award under § 10 of the FAA. Court found that the award did not explain the reasons for compensatory damages, and it was impossible to discern which theory of liability corresponded with the amount of damages awarded.

Carriere v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC., No. 2:17-CV-00325-UDJ-KK (W.D. La. Sept. 1, 2017) 09/01/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceeding, holding that there was a valid arbitration agreement, which delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Court found that, even if Louisiana law required consideration for arbitration agreements between at-will employees and employers, a mutual agreement to arbitrate claims was sufficient consideration.

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited v. APR Energy Holding Limited, No. 1:17-MC-00216-GHW (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2017) 09/01/2017

Court granted plaintiff’s motion to quash subpoena issued pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 for discovery for use in a foreign arbitral proceeding against Australia conducted under the UNCITRAL arbitration rules and the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement and denied defendant’s request for limited jurisdictional discovery. Although court noted that it was unclear whether the 28 USC § 1782 statutory requirement that the person from whom discovery is requested “resides or is found” in the district equated to a requirement of personal jurisdiction, it held that the Constitution’s due process protections applied and it lacked personal jurisdiction. General jurisdiction was not satisfied because plaintiff was not “at home” in New York and compliance with the International Banking Act of 1978 did not amount to consent to jurisdiction, and there was no specific personal jurisdiction as there was no nexus between plaintiff’s New York contacts and the subject matter of the discovery sought.

Ziglar v. Express messenger Systems Inc., No. 2:16-CV-02726-SRB (D. Ariz. Aug. 31, 2017) 08/31/2017

Court dismissed defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement to be unconscionable because of provisions prohibiting the awarding of attorney’s fees and requiring costsplitting.

Lublin v. American Automobile Association of Northern California, Nevada & Utah, No. 2:17-CV-00021-GMN-PAL (D. Nev. Aug. 31, 2017) 08/31/2017

Court denied motion to compel arbitration and dismiss, holding that plaintiff had sufficiently raised an issue of material fact regarding the formation of the arbitration agreement. Court found that plaintiff’s sworn affidavit stating that he was never presented with the arbitration agreement was sufficient to raise this issue, and that defendant had failed to show evidence regarding any electronic system of signature or otherwise provide evidence establishing chain of custody.

Broussard v. GameStop, Inc., No. 5:16-CV-06075-EJD (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2017) 08/31/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that an arbitration agreement providing an employee the opportunity to opt out of arbitration was neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable.

Townsend Ventures, LLC v. Hybrid Kinetic Group Limited, No. 1:17-CV-00130-GLR (D. Md. Aug. 31, 2017) 08/31/2017

Court granted motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, finding that reference in the arbitration agreement to rules of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) evidences an agreement to arbitrate arbitrability.

Employer Trustees of Western Pennsylvania Teamsters v. Union Trustees of Western Pennsylvania Teamsters, No. 16-3359 (3d Cir. Aug. 31, 2017) 08/31/2017

Court of appeal reversed district court’s denial of petition to appoint arbitrator, finding that the district erred in finding that a contested right was not provided for in the contract and thus not subject to arbitration, since the interpretation of the contract was a matter for the arbitrator to determine.

District Council No. 9 International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, A.F.L.-C.I.O. v. Siler Line Décor, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-05765-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2017) 08/31/2017

Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award, finding that, although unopposed, it should be treated as a motion for summary judgment, and no genuine issue of material fact existed.

Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Sandhu Hospitality, Inc., No. 8:16-CV-03330-TDC (D. Md. Aug. 31, 2017) 08/31/2017

Court granted motion for default judgment on petition to confirm arbitration award, finding that plaintiff had shown it is entitled to confirmation as a matter of law and nothing in the record suggested any grounds for vacating the award.

Clack v. United Services Automobile Association (USAA), No. 5:16-CV-01069-RCL (W.D. Tex. Aug. 31, 2017) 08/31/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff had agreed to mandatory binding arbitration and no defense had been established.

Luciano v. Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America-College Retirement Equities Fund, No. 3:15-CV-06726-MAS-DEA (D.N.J. Aug. 31, 2017) 08/31/2017

Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that, after successful motion to compel arbitration brought by all defendants, a sub-set of those defendants was not estopped from arguing that they were not parties to the arbitration agreement.

AbbVie Inc. v. Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc., No. 17-CV-01815-EMC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2017) 08/31/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration agreement covered patent disputes. Court found that the license agreement was reasonably susceptible to the interpretation advanced by Novartis, namely that patent disputes were arbitrable, and was therefore ambiguous. Further, if the parties had intended to carve out an exception to arbitration for patent disputes, they would have done so more clearly. Court also found that Congress made clear that patent validity may be determined in arbitration if the parties so choose.

Spano v. V & J National Enterprises, LLC, No. 6:16-CV-06419-EAW-MWP (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2017) 08/30/2017

Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that (i) the non-signatory defendants were bound to arbitrate as agents/alter-egos, but that (ii) the defendants had waived their right to compel arbitration by failing to participate in the parallel arbitration proceedings.

Fraternal Order of Police Metro Transit Police Labor Committee, Inc. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), No. 1:17-CV-00644-TSE-MSN (E.D. Va. Aug. 30, 2017) 08/30/2017

Court granted motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, finding that claim for breach of a settlement agreement was subject to arbitration since the settlement agreement was “inextricably intertwined” with a collectively-bargained labor contract containing an arbitration clause.

Lipinski v. Jones, No. 8:17-CV-02031-VMC-TGW (M.D. Fla. Aug. 30, 2017) 08/30/2017

Court dismissed petition to compel arbitration, finding that there was no federal jurisdiction over the claim. Court held that the FAA alone did not supply it with subject matter jurisdiction over the claim as the FAA supplies substantive law but does not itself establish federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Myers v. Credit One Bank, N.A., No. 5:16-CV-05214-JLS (E.D. Pa. Aug. 30, 2017) 08/30/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case, declining to decide objections over agreement validity because the parties had agreed to defer questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Court dismissed plaintiff’s claim of waiver through delay in responding to her claim as factually unsupported.

Dykes v. Cleveland Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, No. 4:15-CV-00076-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss Aug. 30, 2017) 08/30/2017

Court denied renewed motion to compel arbitration after determining that it could do so without a hearing. Court held that, because defendants could not prove that the signatory of the applicable agreement was empowered to act as the principle’s agent, no binding agreement to arbitrate existed.

The Children's Mercy Hospital v. Alliance for Community Health, LLC, No. 4:17-MC-00552-NKL (W.D. Mo. Aug. 30, 2017) 08/30/2017

Court granted unopposed motion to compel arbitration, noting the limited nature of judicial review available under the FAA.

Hart v. ITC Service Group, Inc., No. 4:15-CV-00599-DGK (W.D. Mo. Aug. 30, 2017) 08/30/2017

Court summarily granted joint motion for an order confirming arbitrator’s approval of a collective labor settlement, noting the limited nature of judicial review available under the FAA.

Griffin v. Senior Living Properties, LLC, 6:17-CV-00190-ILRL-KWR (E.D. Tex. Aug. 29, 2017) 08/29/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court rejected arguments that defendant had waived its right by failing to timely raise the issue, reasoning that defendant had acted defensively, promptly, and without prejudice to plaintiff; or was precluded from arbitrating because it failed to first seek mediation, finding that the mediation provisions of the agreement were not mandatory and had, in any event, been bypassed by plaintiffs themselves. Court likewise held that the arbitration agreement was not made unconscionable by its provisions concerning the applicable statute of limitations, limitations on discovery, or provision for attorney’s fees associated with compelling arbitration.

Russell v. Dunlap & Kyle Tire Co., Inc. (Tennessee), No. 3:17-CV-00843 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 29, 2017) 08/29/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the case. Court held that the contested arbitration agreement between the parties bound plaintiff, rejecting challenges to its form.

In Re: Application of Pola Maritime Ltd. for an Order Pursuant to 28 USC 1782 to Conduct Discovery for Use in Foreign Proceedings, No. 4:16-CV-00333-WTM-GRS (S.D. Ga. Aug. 29, 2017) 08/29/2017

Court denied motion to quash a 28 USC 1782 subpoena and deferred motion to compel compliance with same, pending a party meet and confer. Court held that the formal statutory factors for granting a §1782 subpoena were satisfied, including because a London Maritime Arbitrators Association tribunal qualified as a “foreign on international tribunal” for purposes of the statute. Court further held that related discretionary factors identified by the U.S. Supreme Court largely favored the requested discovery, noting that any concerns with over-breadth could be resolved through conference among counsel and deferring a final ruling pending such conference.

Progressive Health Supply & Source Corp. v. Biosense Medical Devices LLC, No. 3:16-CV-04965-AET-DEA (D. N.J. Aug. 29, 2017) 08/29/2017

Court denied without prejudice motion to compel arbitration and dismiss proceedings. Court, upon determining that a summary judgment standard applied, held that it had insufficient information to adjudicate whether an agreement with a non-party allegedly relating to one of the claims was sufficient to require arbitration, noting that defendant could renew its motion within 21 days.

Axia NetMedia Corporation v. Massachusetts Technology Park Corporation, No. 4:17-CV-10482-TSH (D. Mass. Aug. 29, 2017) 08/29/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, rejecting argument that the applicable arbitration agreement was illusory and thus invalid because it contained a unilateral right for defendant to elect arbitration.

Tierra Verde Escape, LLC v. The Brittingham Group, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00100-GJQ-PJG (W.D. Mich. Aug. 28, 2017) 08/28/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration in Hong Kong and stay proceedings, holding that it had the authority to compel a foreign arbitration because the envisaged performance was abroad. Court rejected challenges to the validity of the underlying memorandum of understanding as failing to contest the arbitration clause itself. Court also did not view the arbitration agreement’s reference to a non-existing arbitration association rules as fatal, holding this element to be severable from the underlying agreement to arbitrate.

Hall v. The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00193-JHM-CHL (W.D. Ky. Aug. 28, 2017) 08/28/2017

Court held that under applicable state and federal precedent, beneficiaries’ claims for wrongful death were not subject to the arbitration agreement binding on the decedent. However, any claims arising from the decedent’s right were subject to arbitration based on a valid agreement to arbitrate entered into under power of attorney and, therefore, granted in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, staying all claims. Court rejected plaintiffs’ challenge to the validity of that arbitration agreement based on alleged deficiencies of that power of attorney.

Legacy Carbon, LLC v. Potter, No. 1:17-CV-00231-SOM-KSC (D. Hawaii Aug. 28, 2017) 08/28/2017

Court denied without prejudice petition to compel arbitration against a third party, inviting petitioner to amend its submission with supplemental facts. Court held that it was within its power to determine whether claims against third party defendant were arbitrable because the parties to the arbitration agreement had not clearly delegated such decisions to the arbitrator. However, the court determined that it lacked sufficient basis in facts to determine whether the non-signatory third party (the president of an entity bound by the otherwise applicable arbitration agreement) could be compelled to arbitrate under theories of assumption, agency, and estoppel.

JusTours, Inc. v. Bogenius Group, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-00078-GMN-CWH (D. Nev. Aug. 25, 2017) 08/25/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the dispute was subject to the arbitration clause of the parties’ agreement, rejecting plaintiffs’ arguments that the agreement had been rescinded. Court likewise rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the arbitration clause was invalid as a matter of state law, holding that any such law was preempted by the FAA.

Johnson v. Retirement Plan of General Mills, Inc, No. 4:16-CV-00151-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind. Aug. 25, 2017) 08/25/2017

District court overruled objections to Magistrate Judge’s Opinion and Order and granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, rejecting an argument that the arbitration agreement was unsupported by consideration because it only required plaintiff to arbitrate her claims. Court further held that defendant could enforce the agreement as an affiliate of its signatory or, in the alternative, as a third party beneficiary that was intended to benefit from the agreement. Further, the court rejected arguments that a dispute over disability retirement benefits fell outside the broad scope the arbitration clause that covered “all” claims. Nor did the court find persuasive arguments that the agreement’s application had been waived, holding that defendant’s failure to respond to plaintiff’s query made after signing the agreement regarding its application to the disability claim did not constitute waiver and that defendant had not participated in litigation in a manner that would waive its rights to arbitrate.

Allen v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company, No. 6:16-cv-01603-RBD-KRS (M.D. Fla. Aug. 25, 2017) 08/25/2017

Court granted motion to dismiss labor claim without prejudice, holding that they had to be arbitrated instead. Court rejected plaintiffs’ contentions regarding the enforceability of the arbitration agreement, holding that the parties had manifested a clear intent to arbitrate any such questions of arbitrability by incorporating the AAA Employment Dispute Resolution Rules, which set out that the arbitrator shall have the power to arbitrate the validity of the underlying arbitration agreement.

Mahamedi IP Law, LLP v. Paradice, No. 5:16-cv-02805-EJD (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2017) 08/24/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the claim, finding that the dispute fell within the scope of a valid arbitration agreement. Court rejected plaintiffs’ proposal that it interpret the arbitration clause narrowly, reading it to have a broad application covering the dispute instead. Court rejected argument that defendant had waived its right to arbitrate by initiating an earlier action in state court, holding that the resulting dismissal without prejudice did not constitute a judgment on the merits and thus did not prejudice plaintiffs.

Rappley v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, No. 5:17-CV-00108-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2017) 08/24/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that there was a valid arbitration agreement which covered plaintiff’s claims. Court found that plaintiff was not seeking public injunctive relief, as the class of persons plaintiff sought to represent was comprised of persons who were subjected to purportedly unlawful debt collection efforts; as such, there was no basis to conclude that enforcement of the arbitration agreement would violate fundamental California policy. Court found that the terms of the arbitration were broad and encompassed any statutory claims.

Rappley v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, No. 5:17-CV-00108-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2017) 08/24/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that ordering arbitration would not contravene a fundamental public policy of California and the arbitration provision encompassed the dispute.

Re: Jersey Shore University Medical Center v. Local 5058 Health Professionals and Allied Employees, AFT/AFL-CIO, No. 3:16-CV-04840-MAS-DEA (D. N.J. August 24, 2017) 08/24/2017

Court declined to award attorney’s fees sought in connection with an action to enforce an arbitration award, holding that there was no evidence that the annulment challenge to the award had been in bad faith.

Arctic Glacier USA, Inc. v. Principal Life Insurance Company, No. 8:17-CV-00214-RFR-MDN (D. Neb. Aug. 24, 2017) 08/24/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings. Court reasoned that plaintiffs, which were not signatories to the arbitration agreement with defendant, could nevertheless enforce under successor and third party beneficiary theories.

Ace American Insurance Co. v. Guerriero, No. 2:17-CV-00820-CCC-JBC (D.N.J. Aug. 24, 2017) 08/24/2017

Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that the parties had a valid agreement to arbitrate, the defendant’s claims fell within the scope of the agreement, and the agreement was enforceable.

Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc. v. Harkness, No. 2:17-CV-00222-PP (E.D. Wisc. Aug. 24, 2017) 08/24/2017

Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm the arbitration award. Court found that it had subject matter and personal jurisdiction, the award had not been modified or vacated, and that defendant had not entered an appearance or responded to the motion to confirm.

Wolin v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-06996-LDW-AYS (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2017) 08/24/2017

Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that it could not conclude that one plaintiff agreed to arbitrate any dispute and denied the motion to compel that plaintiff’s claims. Court granted the motion to compel arbitration as to the other plaintiff who did agree to the arbitration provision in the credit card agreement because the provision clearly covered that plaintiff’s claims.

Opie v. CVS Caremark, No. 1:16-CV-00159-SPW-TJC (D. Mont. Aug. 24, 2017) 08/24/2017

Court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and denied defendant’s motion to dismiss but granted its motion to compel arbitration. Court held that plaintiff consented to the arbitration agreement and that Montana’s reasonable expectations and fundamental rights rule did not apply here because the ninth circuit held the FAA preempts general state law contract defenses that have a disproportionate effect on arbitration.

Developers Surety and Indemnity Co. v. Carothers Construction Inc., No. 2:17-CV-02292-JWL-KGG (D. Kan. Aug. 24, 2017) 08/24/2017

Court denied both plaintiff’s motion to remand the case to state court and defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer. Court, applying the tenth circuit rule in cases seeking to compel arbitration that courts should look to the possible award in the arbitration to determine the amount in controversy to this suit seeking to enjoin defendant’s arbitration, held that the jurisdictional amount to remain in federal court was satisfied as the defendant in arbitration sought an amount exceeding $75,000. Court further held that the plaintiff did not consent to arbitration of any claims on the bonds by defendant, the FAA did not require the plaintiff submit to arbitration of the underlying claims, and the plaintiff should not be estopped from opposing enforcement of the arbitration provision.

GGNSC Louisville St. Matthews v. Grevious, No. 3:16-CV-00829-DJH (W.D. Ky. Aug. 23, 2017) 08/23/2017

Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that it had jurisdiction and, on balance, abstention in favor of state court was not warranted. Court then held the parties were compelled to arbitrate the claims asserted by defendant in state court pursuant to the terms of an alternative dispute resolution agreement and stayed the case pending arbitration.

Lancaster v. Comcast Communications Management LLC, No. 2:16-CV-14446-DPH-MKM (E.D. Mich. Aug. 23, 2017) 08/23/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held there was a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate and that plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

NTT DoCoMo, Inc. v. Tata Sons Limited, No. 1:16-CV-07809-PGG (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2017) 08/23/2017

Court granted the parties’ joint request for an extension until December 31, 2017 of a stay of the proceedings reviewing an arbitral award. Shearman & Sterling is counsel for Tata Sons Limited in connection with this case.

Hispasat, S.A. v. Bantel Telecom, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-20534-KMW (S.D. Fla. Aug. 22, 2017) 08/22/2017

Court adopted the magistrate judge’s report recommending that petitioner’s petition to confirm and enforce a foreign arbitral award be granted. Court found that respondent filed no objections to the report and that respondent’s argument that the mediator should have recused was without merit.

Dialysis Access Center, LLC v. RMS Lifeline, Inc., No. 3:13-CV-01796-PAD (D. P.R. Aug. 22, 2017) 08/22/2017

Court adopted the magistrate judge’s report recommending that plaintiff’s petition to vacate be denied and affirmed the arbitration award in favor of the defendant. Court held that the Magistrate Judge’s findings and conclusions were well supported.

Beckham v. Copart of Connecticut, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00603-CMC (D.S.C. Aug. 22, 2017) 08/22/2017

Court adopted the magistrate judge’s report recommending that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s complaint be granted and granted the motion. Court held that plaintiff signed and agreed to be bound by her employer’s dispute resolution policy and agreement.

Chand v. Checksmart Financial LLC, No. 3:17-CV-03895-JSC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2017) 08/22/2017

Court granted defendant’s unopposed motion to compel arbitration, holding plaintiff agreed to arbitrate his claims and that the arbitration policy was not unconscionable.

Oracle Corp. v. Wilson, No. 1:17-CV-00554-ER (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2017) 08/22/2017

Court denied petitioner’s motion to vacate an arbitration award and respondent’s request to modify the rate of interest applied to the award. Court held that vacatur under §10(a)(3) of the FAA was unwarranted as there was no evidence that the arbitrator prevented petitioner from presenting pertinent and material evidence before issuing the award. Court further held that modification of the award pursuant to Section 11 of the FAA to reflect a pre-judgment statutory interest rate of 9 percent under New York Law instead of the arbitrator’s award of 3 percent was unwarranted as the court should not replace the judgment of the arbitrator with its own judgment.

Fowler v. Omnova Solutions, No. 1:16-CV-00160-NBB-DAS (N.D. Miss. Aug 22, 2017) 08/22/2017

Court granted plaintiff’s summary judgment motion demanding arbitration. Court held plaintiff’s claim fell within the scope of the arbitration provision in the employment agreement between the parties, that arbitration was mandatory, not permissive, and that plaintiff’s inability to submit his claim to the company grievance committee did not preclude his demand for arbitration.

Rite Aid of New York, Inc. v. 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East, No. 16-3342 (2d Cir. Aug. 22, 2017) 08/22/2017

Court of appeal affirmed district court judgment confirming arbitration award in part. Court held district court did not err in denying petition to vacate an arbitration award, but dismissed the appeal from the grant of attorneys’ fees for lack of appellate jurisdiction as the district court did not compute the fees owed and therefore that order was not final and ripe for review.

Maynard v. Valley Christian Academy, Inc., No. 5:16-CV-01889-KBB (N.D. Ohio Aug. 21, 2017) 08/21/2017

Magistrate judge granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, holding plaintiff’s five theories of unenforceability of her employment contract were not persuasive as the arbitration clause between the parties was valid and should be enforced.

Kangsong Ye v. Fujian South Coast Bioengineering Co., Ltd., No. 2:16-CV-04385-TJH-JEM (C.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2017) 08/21/2017

Court granted petitioners’ ex parte application for post judgment relief. Court allowed petitioners to enforce its amended order of June 28, 2017 confirming a China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) award of an equity transfer of Renminbi $25 million in corporate stock. Court held respondent failed to comply with the order, that future attempts to enforce the award would be futile, that respondent’s corporate shares were located where the corporation is located (within the district), and that respondent’s shares should be conveyed by the issuance of new share certificates to petitioners in partial satisfaction of the court’s prior order.

Roman v. UBS Financial Services, Inc. of Puerto Rico, No. 3:12-CV-01663-CCC (D.P.R. Aug. 21, 2017) 08/21/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, holding that a valid agreement containing an arbitration provision existed between the parties, the defendants were entitled to invoke the arbitration clause, and the plaintiffs’ claim fell within the clause and must be arbitrated.

Rahm v. TCF National Bank, No. 4:17-CV-04018-LLP (D.S.D. Aug. 21, 2017) 08/21/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the parties entered into a valid agreement to arbitrate under South Dakota contract law and that plaintiff’s employment claims should be sent to arbitration.

Rivera-Colon v. AT&T Mobility Puerto Rico, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01675-FAB (D.P.R. Aug. 21, 2017) 08/21/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that pursuant to the FAA and first circuit precedent there was a valid agreement to arbitrate, the moving party was entitled to invoke the arbitration clause, the third-party was bound by the agreement, and the claim fell within the scope of the clause. As all claims were arbitrable, the court dismissed the case with prejudice.

Citigroup, Inc. v. Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, No. 1:17-CV-01528-PKC (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2017) 08/18/2017

Court granted parties’ requests to confirm an ICDR arbitration award pursuant to the §203 of the FAA and the New York Convention.

Enron Nigeria Power Holding, Ltd. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, No. 1:13-CV-1106-CRC (D.D.C. Aug. 18, 2017) 08/18/2017

Court denied petitioner’s motion for attorney’s fees and nontaxable expenses associated with enforcing an ICC arbitral award against Nigeria, concluding that petitioner did not adequately support the reasonableness of its fee request. Court also declined petitioner’s request for fees incurred from the United Kingdom enforcement action, finding that English courts would be better positioned to assess the reasonableness of the fees and necessity of the parallel enforcement action and questioning whether the court even has jurisdiction to order a fee award for an action in a foreign court.

Hagan v. Katz Communications, Inc., No. 1:12-CV-05987-RA (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2017) 08/18/2017

Court denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of court’s order denying petitioner’s motion to vacate an arbitral award entered in favor of respondent. Court held that petitioner’s three arguments for reconsideration lacked merit as the first two reiterated her prior argument and the third was inapplicable as the arbitrator’s decision was not an abuse of his authority and did not manifestly disregard federal law.

CRM Limited v. Supreme Risk Management FZE, No. 1:16-CV-01344-AJT-MSN (E.D. Va. Aug. 18, 2017) 08/18/2017

Court granted motion for issuance of subpoenas and letters of request and granted in part motion to extend time to complete discovery to determine whether the court has jurisdiction to enforce an arbitral award issued by the Dubai International Arbitration Center.

In re Application for an Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to Conduct Discovery for Use in a Foreign Proceeding, No. 1:17-MC-01466-BAH (D.D.C. Aug. 18, 2017) 08/18/2017

Court denied request to issue subpoenas under 28 USC § 1782 for deposition testimony and production of documents for use in an appeal to reinstate arbitral awards totaling over $50 billion issued against the Russian Federation in an ongoing proceeding in the Court of Appeal of The Hague. Although the request fulfilled the statute’s mandatory requirements, the court exercised its discretion to deny the application, concluding that the request’s relevance to the appellate proceedings was tenuous and the burden on the witnesses would be substantial. Shearman & Sterling is counsel for petitioners in connection with this case.

Netplanner Systems, Inc. v. GSC Construction Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00150-CDL (M.D. Ga. Aug. 17, 2017) 08/17/2017

Court confirmed its prior ruling denying defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that defendants waived their right to compel arbitration by engaging in conduct inconsistent with insisting on their right to arbitrate the dispute, including waiting until the last minute before trial to raise the issue, which prejudiced the plaintiff.

A. Miner Contracting, Inc. v. Dana Kepner Company, Inc., No. 16-15209 (9th Cir. Aug. 17, 2017) 08/17/2017

Court of appeal affirmed denial of petition to vacate arbitration award, holding that the petition was time barred by § 12 FAA, that equitable tolling did not apply, and that appellant had not shown evident partiality in the arbitrator. Court found appellant did not act with due diligence in discovering information earlier that was freely available online. Court found that a connection with the attorney for appellant’s opponent in an unrelated litigation was too attenuated and insubstantial to create the necessary impression of partiality required by §10(a)(2) FAA.

Veolia Transportation Service, Inc. v. United Transportation Union, No. 16-16811 (11th Cir. Aug. 16, 2017) 08/16/2017

Court of appeal affirmed lower court’s decision to grant summary judgment declining to vacate an arbitral award. Court held that, in light of the highly deferential standard of review applicable to arbitral awards, the plaintiff-appellant’s contentions are meritless.

Demuth v. Navient Solutions, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-00675-NBF (W.D. Pa. Aug. 15, 2017) 08/15/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s attempt to confirm a AAA arbitration award, without prejudice to the plaintiff’s right to challenge a final award. Court held that the motion to confirm the arbitration award was premature because defendant had availed itself of the AAA Optional Appellate Rules and the appeal proceedings were ongoing, therefore the award was not final and ripe for confirmation.

Cooper v. DST Systems, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01900-WHP (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2017) 08/15/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration finding that the claims at issue fall squarely within the scope of the arbitration agreement; and that the defendant, as a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, may compel the plaintiff to arbitrate his claims under the doctrine of equitable estoppel.

Manios Properties LLC v. Riverport Insurance Company of California, No. 2:17-CV-01700 (D. Ariz. Aug. 15, 2017) 08/15/2017

Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay the case. Court found that pursuant to §2 of the FAA, the court must find that a valid agreement to arbitrate exists and that the agreement encompasses the dispute at issue. Here, while there was a valid agreement to arbitrate, it did not encompass the dispute at issue because the agreement only applies to the “meaning or effect of any provision,” not the parties’ dispute of when the loss occurred.

W.J. O’Neill Co. v. Shepley, Bulfinch, Richardson & Abbot, Inc., No. 16-2228 (6th Cir. Aug. 15, 2017) 08/15/2017

Court of appeal affirmed district court’s grant of summary judgment, agreeing that claims were barred by collateral estoppel (issue preclusion), having been decided in an unconfirmed arbitration award. Court held that plaintiff had had a fair opportunity to actually litigate the issue raised. Court further confirmed that mutuality of estoppel (same party) requirements were relaxed where issue preclusion is asserted defensively.

Crespo v. Matco Tools Corp., No. 3:17-CV-01394-GAG (D.P.R. Aug. 15, 2017) 08/15/2017

Court granted motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that parties had a valid agreement, plaintiffs’ claims fell within the scope of its clear and specific arbitration clause, and plaintiffs’ immediate termination did not trigger an exception to arbitration.

Pagano v. GFI Securities, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-04728 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2017) 08/14/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that there was an enforceable arbitration agreement between the parties which covered the dispute. Court found that the arbitration agreement was broad. Court found that whether res judicata and collateral estoppel precluded termination of employment was a merits argument that went beyond the threshold question of arbitrability, and that such arguments should be raised in arbitration.

Dell’Oro Group, Inc. v. Weckel, No. 3:17-CV-00750-JD (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2017) 08/14/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and administratively closed the case. Court held the defendants did not waive their right to arbitration by engaging in litigation conduct comprised of a case management conference and the motion at issue, neither of which demonstrates that defendants acted inconsistently with their arbitration demand or prejudiced the plaintiff. Further, the nonsignatory defendant is not absolutely barred from invoking the arbitration agreement since California law expressly allows non-signatories to enforce arbitration agreements on equitable estoppel grounds when the claims against the non-signatory “are dependent on or inextricably bound up with” the agreement featuring arbitration.

Potapowicz v. Gregerson Management Services, No. 4:16-CV-01999 (N.D. Ala. Aug. 11, 2017) 08/11/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration on the basis that the type of claim asserted by the plaintiff is subject to mandatory arbitration pursuant to §2 of the FAA because (1) a valid agreement to arbitrate exists; (2) the claims fall within the scope of that agreement; and (3) the underlying contract evidences a transaction involving interstate commerce.

System4, LLC v. Ribeiro, No. 1:17-CV-10455-RWZ (D. Mass. Aug. 11, 2017) 08/11/2017

Court denied a motion pursuant to §10 of the FAA to vacate a AAA arbitration award and granted the cross-motion to confirm the award. The allegation of evident partiality by the arbitrator failed because, inter alia, such a claim was not raised during the arbitral proceeding; petitioner did not identify any evidence in the record that the arbitrator failed to disclose a pre-existing bias or conflict of interest; and, in any event, no reasonable person would conclude that the arbitrator was partial to the respondent. Further, the court held that the arbitrator did not exceed her powers under the terms of the agreement or by acting in manifest disregard of the law.

Minnieland Private Day School, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-01695-AJT-IDD (4th Cir. Aug. 11, 2017) 08/11/2017

Court of appeal affirmed the district court decision denying Applied Underwriters’ motion to compel arbitration, but found the lower court erred in applying the doctrine of judicial estoppel to hold the agreement at issue constituted an insurance contract. Court held that, inter alia, a delegation provision within an arbitration agreement constitutes an additional, antecedent agreement to arbitrate, and therefore federal courts must consider challenges to delegation provisions before ordering compliance with such. Because under Virginia law arbitration provisions, including delegation provisions, are void in putative insurance contracts, the district court did not err in denying the motion to compel. Dye v. Tamko Building Products, Inc., No. 8:17-CV-590-T-35AEP (M.D. Fla. Aug. 11, 2017) 08/11/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the proceedings. The putative class action arose out of allegedly defective shingles that the plaintiffs’ purchased from defendant, Tamko. But, because the product’s limited warranty contained a valid arbitration clause, all parties were forced to arbitrate their claims.

GGNSC Louisville St. Mathews, LLC v. Phillips, No. 3:17-CV-00406-JHM-CHL (W.D. Ky. Aug. 10, 2017) 08/10/2017

Court granted petition to compel arbitration finding there was a valid arbitration agreement enforceable under the FAA and that all claims fell within the scope of the agreement. Court rejected the motion to dismiss finding there was no necessity to join the administrator and enjoined defendants from proceeding in state court against the plaintiffs pending conclusion of arbitration.

Amazon.com, Inc. v. Arobo Trade, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00804-JLR (W.D. Wash. Aug. 9, 2017) 08/09/2017

Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award even though respondent failed to respond to the petition. Court concluded that under the FAA petitioner did not have to affect service via United States marshal on a nonresident respondent and held that service by process server in accordance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was effective.

United Media Holdings, NV, v. Forbes Media, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-05926-PKC (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2017) 08/09/2017

Court denied petition to vacate arbitral award pursuant to the FAA and the New York Convention. Court found that the arbitrator acted reasonably and within his broad discretion in denying petitioners’ request for adjournments; concluded that neither the arbitration nor the award violated Executive Order 13660 since they were authorized by the Office of Foreign Asset Control (“OFAC”); determined that the petitioners were not under any incapacity at the time the arbitration agreement was made as necessitated by Article V(1)(a) of the New York Convention; and held that the award was not contrary to public policy under Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention or under New York or Federal Law. Court also denied petitioners’ motion for post-award discovery and leave to amend, concluding that petitioners’ assertions that the award was based on illegal proceedings and fraud were untimely and meritless.

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP v. Engagepoint, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-01163-KJM-KJN (E.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2017) 08/09/2017

Court granted unopposed petition to confirm an arbitration award pursuant to §9 of the FAA, finding that the petition was filed within one year of entry of the arbitration award and petitioner provided the arbitration agreement and the award itself.

GGNSC Louisville Camelot, LLC v. Coppedge, No. 3:16-CV-00834-TBR (W.D. Ky. Aug. 9, 2017) 08/09/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding the FAA applied to the transaction, determining that the power of attorney was sufficiently broad to include an arbitration agreement, and concluding that the agreement was not unconscionable. Court denied motion to dismiss, concluding that it had subject matter jurisdiction and enjoined defendants from pursing further claims against plaintiffs with the exception of loss of consortium.

Brittania-U Nigeria Ltd. v. Chevron USA Inc., No. 16-20690 (5th Cir. Aug. 9, 2017) 08/09/2017

Court of appeal affirmed district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s case finding no error in the district court’s recognition that the parties signed a confidentiality agreement containing an arbitration provision that delegates arbitrability to the arbitrators. Court also held that the arbitration provision’s adoption of UNCITRAL arbitration rules clearly and unmistakably delegated arbitrability.

International Corrugated and Packing Supplies, Inc. v. Lear Corp., No. 17-50139 (5th Cir. Aug. 9, 2017) 08/09/2017

Court of appeal vacated district court’s denial of a motion to reconsider its order denying defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the district court incorrectly applied the FRCP Rule 59 standard for review of its decision rather than a proper Rule 54(b) analysis that the court recently clarified regarding reconsideration of an interlocutory order, and therefore remanded the case for reconsideration under the appropriate standard. Klein v. Verizon Communications, Inc., No. 1:12-CV-00757-LMB-IDD (E.D. Va. Aug. 9, 2017) 08/09/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings, reasoning that a modification providing for arbitration validly changed the parties’ agreement to require arbitration of the underlying claim.

In re Kleimar N.V. v. Benxi Iron And Steel America, Ltd., No. 1:17-CV-01287 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 8, 2017) 08/08/2017

Court denied respondent’s motion to vacate and quash subpoenas issued pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 for production of documents and deposition testimony for use in proceedings before the London Maritime Arbitration Association (“LMAA”). Court concluded that respondent had standing to challenge its own subpoena and the order because petitioner had commenced arbitral proceedings against entities affiliated with respondent. But, respondent did not have standing to challenge the subpoena served on the other third-party entity. Court held that the requested discovery was “for use” in a foreign proceeding; the LMMA was a foreign tribunal for purposes of § 1782 because its decisions are judicial reviewable by the English courts pursuant to the English Arbitration Act 1996; and the document production requests were not unduly intrusive and burdensome.

Dumas v. Warner Literary Group, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00518-RM-NYW (D. Colo. Aug. 8, 2016) 08/08/2017

Magistrate judge granted motion to compel and stay proceedings, recommending that the matter be administratively closed. Court determined that the dispute was subject to a valid arbitration agreement, rejecting plaintiff’s contention that the agreement was ambiguous and thus unenforceable. Court likewise rejected a claim that the agreement had been fraudulently induced, reasoning that it did not challenge the arbitration clause itself, but the agreement as a whole. Nor did the court agree that any statute or policy rendered the claim non-arbitrable.

Crystallex International Corp. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 1:17-mc-00205-VEC (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2017) 08/08/2017

Court granted ex parte application for a writ of execution against sovereign defendant’s property held in the district. Court summarily concluded that its ruling was proper because (1) a reasonable amount of time had elapsed since entry of judgment; (2) execution was sought against defendant’s property that was located in the district and used for commercial activity; and (3) all requirements of 28 USC § 1610(1) had been met. Court further held that its order was to remain under seal for 14 days so that service could be effectuated without prior notice.

Byrne v. K12 Services Inc., No. 2:17-CV-04311-SDW-LDW (D.N.J. Aug. 8, 2017) 08/08/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the complaint. Pursuant to the FAA, the court found a valid agreement to arbitrate and determined that the wrongful termination dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration clause.

Carlton Energy Group LLC v. Cliveden Petroleum Company Limited, Case 4:13-cv-00095 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 8, 2017) 08/08/2017

Court issued order adopting magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation of June 23, 2017, staying the proceedings pending arbitration where the non-signatories to the arbitration agreement stipulated consent to be bound by the arbitral clause.

TIC Seven Bar 12, LLC, v. Core Seven Bar H, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00450-RB-SCY (D.N.M. Aug. 8, 2017) 08/08/2017

Court denied in part plaintiff’s motion to confirm the arbitration award, remanding for clarification of the award and deferring its decision pending clarification. Finding there was more than one reasonable interpretation of the interest ownership portion of the arbitration award, the court remanded to the arbitrator for clarification. Court denied plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs.

Crystallex International Corp. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 1:16-CV-00661-RC (D.D.C. Aug. 8, 2017) 08/08/2017

Court denied respondent’s motion to stay execution of judgment pending appeal of previously confirmed arbitral award. Court held that petitioner’s interests would be endangered if court were to grant a stay without requiring the foreign sovereign, which may be either unwilling or unable to satisfy the full judgment, to post a supersedeas bond.

Commercial Lubricants, LLC v. Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc., No. 1:14-CV-07483-MKB-RLM (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2017) 08/08/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment but reserved judgment on claim involving agreement with provision to arbitrate. Court noted that defendant first raised the agreement’s arbitration clause seven months after plaintiff filed its claim and instructed plaintiff to brief any prejudice should the court decide to sever and refer the claim to arbitration.

Wheeler v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., No. 6:17-CV-00847-RGJ-PJH (W.D. La. Aug. 8, 2017) 08/08/2017

Court deferred resolution of defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Court held that more discovery was necessary to determine whether a valid arbitration agreement was entered into by the parties.

Life Flights Network, LLC v. Metro Aviation, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00028-AC (D. Or. Aug. 8, 2017) 08/08/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees. Court held that plaintiff waived its right to attorney’s fees when it waived the arbitration clause because that was the only part of the Agreement that provided for the award of attorney’s fees.

Jones v. Waffle House, Inc., No. 16-15574 (11th Cir. Aug. 7, 2017) 08/07/2017

Court of appeal vacated the district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel and remanded with instructions to stay the case pending arbitration. Court held that the delegation provision in the agreement between the parties was valid and that the agreement evinced the parties’ intent to arbitrate all gateway issues.

In re Kleimar N. V. v. Benxi Iron and Steel America, Ltd. (Chicago), No. 1:17-CV-01287-JRB (N.D. Ill. Aug. 7, 2017) 08/07/2017

Court denied motion to vacate and quash subpoenas issued pursuant to ex parte order for discovery pursuant to 28 USC § 1782. Court held the requested discovery was “for use” in a foreign proceeding, that the London Maritime Arbitration Association constituted a “foreign tribunal” under the statute, and that the discovery was neither untimely nor burdensome.

Reliable Energy Solutions v. Amalfi Apartment Corporation, No. 4:16-CV-03346 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 7, 2017) 08/07/2017

Court adopted magistrate judge’s June 30, 2017 memorandum and recommendation and granted the motion to compel arbitration staying proceedings pending completion of arbitration.

In re Ex Parte Application of Anz Commodity Trading Pty Ltd., No. 4:17-MC-80070-DMR (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2017) 08/04/2017

Court granted ex parte application for an order to obtain discovery for use in foreign proceedings pursuant to 28 USC § 1782. Court found the application met the mandatory requirements, determining that the witnesses reside or were found in the district, the discovery was for use before foreign tribunals, and the applicant, as party to the anticipated litigation, was “interested person.” Court held the discretionary factors weighed in favor of issuing the subpoena because none of the witnesses were intended to be parties in the foreign proceedings, there was nothing to suggest that the applicant was attempting to circumvent foreign proof-gathering restrictions, and the discovery sought was not unduly burdensome. Shearman & Sterling is counsel for the petitioners in connection with this case.

Senter v. Equifax Information Services LLC, No. 5:16-CV-00875-SL (N.D. Ohio Aug. 4, 2017) 08/04/2017

Court denied plaintiffs’ petition to compel arbitration, holding that plaintiffs could not establish that the parties had a valid arbitration agreement or that any claim plaintiffs had was within the scope of any purported arbitration agreement.

Amergent Techs, LLC v. Transatlantic Lines, LLC, No. 3-16-CV-01140-JLS-JLB (S.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2017) 08/04/2017

Court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss petition to compel arbitration. Court held it did not have personal jurisdiction over the respondent, who did not purposefully avail itself of the benefits of the forum’s jurisdiction. The formation of the contract containing the arbitration clause was not alone sufficient to establish minimum contacts with the state.

McAllister v. The St. Louis Rams, LLC, No. 4:16-CV-00172-SNLJ, No. 4:16-CV-00189, No. 4:16-CV-00262, No. 4:16-CV-00297 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 4, 2017) 08/04/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion for stay pending arbitration in part. Court held that both Missouri state law and § 3 of the FAA requires courts to stay any suit with an issue referable to arbitration. Court further held that the remainder of the claims in litigation between the non-arbitrating plaintiff groups and the defendant was discretionary and declined to stay the litigation based on three factors, including the risk of inconsistent rulings, the extent to which parties will be bound by the arbiters’ decision, and the prejudice that could result from delays.

Iberiabank v. Previty Surgical PLLC, No. 4:17-CV-00160 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 4, 2017) 08/04/2017

Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court denied as untimely defendants’ motion, filed five months after plaintiff filed suit and three weeks after the court’s dispositive motion deadline, as it would cause undue delay and unfairly prejudice the plaintiff.

Arevalo Tortilleria, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc., No. 15-56830 (9th Cir. Aug. 4, 2017) 08/04/2017

Court of appeal vacated district court’s judgment dismissing the case and compelling arbitration. Court remanded to the district court for a trial on whether plaintiff executed the arbitration agreement, noting that, under the FAA, a party that raises a genuine issue of fact with respect to the execution of agreements is entitled to a trial.

Venco Imtiaz Construction Company v. Symbion Power LLC, No. 1:16-CV-01737-JDB (D.D.C. August 4, 2017) 08/04/2017

Court granted protective order stipulated by both parties in regard to discovery in aid of execution of the ICC award confirmed by this Court on May 31, 2017.

Valenzuela v. Crest-Mex Corporation, No. 3:16-CV-01129-D (N.D. Tex. Aug. 3, 2017) 08/03/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, but denied defendants’ motion to dismiss. Court found there were valid agreements to arbitrate because plaintiffs had received notice of their employer’s arbitration policy and continued to work and accept pay, which constituted an acceptance under Texas law. Court also found that plaintiffs’ claims were within the scope of the arbitration agreements; that the agreements were not unconscionable; and that plaintiffs had to arbitrate their claims against all defendants, even those who were not parties to the arbitration agreements.

Morgan v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00869-JAM-KJN (E.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2017) 08/03/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that there was a valid arbitration agreement and the dispute at issue fell within the scope of that agreement. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that defendant had waived its right to compel arbitration, noting that plaintiff had not met the “heavy burden” in showing the waiver elements.

Adams v. Conn Appliances Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00362-DLR (D. Ariz. Aug. 3, 2017) 08/03/2017

Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss, but granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration finding that the parties entered into a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate questions of arbitrability. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable and that defendant waived its right to arbitrate.

Chassen v. Fidelity National Financial Inc., No. 15-2814 (3rd Cir. Aug. 3, 2017) 08/03/2017

Court of appeal affirmed district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Circuit court agreed that plaintiffs had not consented to arbitration when they signed an owner’s policy that included an arbitration provision that was later amended to require both parties to consent to arbitration before arbitration could be compelled. Court rejected appellant’s arguments that the amendment to the arbitration agreement had resulted from mutual mistake or that it should not apply because two agreements at issue were not incorporated.

Starke v. Squaretrade, Inc., No. 1-16-CV-07036-NGG (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2017) 08/03/2017

Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that defendant failed to establish an enforceable arbitration agreement with the plaintiff where the arbitration provision appeared in a terms and conditions document provided by hyperlink in an email confirming plaintiff’s purchase.

Varela v. Lamps Plus, Inc., No. 16-56085 (9th Cir. Aug. 3, 2017) 08/03/2017

Circuit court, in split decision, affirmed district court holding that defendants agreed to class arbitration. Circuit court held that because the agreement was capable of two reasonable constructions, the district court correctly found ambiguity and that state contract principles required construction against the drafter of the adhesive agreement.

Dahir v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., No. 3:16-CV-00292-GCH (S.D. Tex. Aug. 2, 2017) 08/02/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held the New York Convention controlled an arbitration agreement between two United States citizens, as plaintiff was not exempt from arbitration because of his status as a Jones Act seaman. Unlike § 1 of the FAA that exempts seamen’s employment contracts from arbitration, the New York Convention provides no such exemption and the FAA applies only to the extent it is not in conflict with the New York Convention.

Nelson v. Carl Black Chevrolet of Nashville, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00687-WDC (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 2, 2017) 08/02/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion for a stay pending arbitration. Court held the defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate by failing to raise arbitration as an affirmative defense in its answer. Court further held the agreement between the parties reserved gateway issues of arbitrability and enforceability to the arbitrator -- who could determine whether the agreement applied to the plaintiff’s second period of employment with the defendant, and that the plaintiff’s whistleblowing and retaliation claims were not beyond the scope of the agreement.

Trader Joe’s Co. v. Hallatt, No. 2-13-CV-00768-BJR (W.D. Wash. Aug. 2, 2017) 08/02/2017

Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm and enforce an arbitration award. Court upheld the arbitration award as defendant did not argue and none of the factors existed to permit vacatur of an arbitration award under the FAA.

Mendel v. Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc., No. 16-17587 (11th Cir. Aug. 2, 2017) 08/02/2017

Court of appeal affirmed district court’s refusal to reopen discovery for plaintiff on remand as not an abuse of discretion. Circuit court held that the district court had provided plaintiff a three month discovery period within which to seek evidence that the arbitrator knew of a potential conflict to vacate an award under § 10(a)(2) of the FAA for partiality of an arbitrator. Court held that plaintiff’s failure to do so was unreasonable, even where the district court erroneously applied Alabama state law, rather than the controlling federal law to interpret that provision of the FAA, because the lower court had explained to plaintiff under the correct standard governing the case that plaintiff would need to provide evidence that the arbitrator had actual knowledge of a potential conflict to vacate the award.

Hispasat, S.A. v. Bantel Telecom, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-20534-KMW (S.D. Fla. Aug. 2, 2017) 08/02/2017

Magistrate judge recommended that Hispasat’s petition to confirm and enforce a foreign arbitral award be granted. Bantel argued that the award should not be confirmed because the arbitrator’s appointment by the ICC violated that institution’s rules and the arbitration agreement between the parties. But magistrate judge found that Bantel did not meet the heavy burden of proving any of the seven defenses to enforcement under the New York Convention and therefore the arbitral award should be confirmed and enforced.

Wendt v. The Bondfactor Company LLC, No. 1:16-CV-07751-DLC (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2017) 08/02/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss finding that existing arbitration awards barred the complaint under the doctrine of res judicata. Court found that an outstanding issue as to one of the plaintiffs’ claims regarding wages owed was collateral and did not impact the finality of the arbitrator’s adjudication of plaintiffs’ remaining claims. Court also found that all members of defendant’s board of directors could invoke res judicata, even if they had not been parties to the arbitration proceedings; and that res judicata applied to plaintiffs’ retaliation claims under Dodd-Frank that could have been litigated in arbitration.

Daniels v. Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01851-CBS (D. Colo. Aug. 1, 2017) 08/01/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, stayed the case pending completion of arbitration, and directed plaintiff to show cause as to why he could not bear the costs of arbitration. In making its decision, the court discussed the tensions between the “arbitrability doctrine” and the “effective vindication doctrine,” which allows the striking down of arbitration agreements that operate as a “prospective waiver of a party’s right to pursue statutory remedies.”

Goodly v. Check-6 Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00334-GKF-TLW (N.D. Okla. Aug. 1, 2017) 08/01/2017

Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitratio, finding that defendant had waived its right to demand arbitration. Fourteen months after the lawsuit was filed, and over six weeks after the class action opt-in period closed, defendant filed its motion to compel arbitration, arguing that each opt-in plaintiff had signed an agreement containing an arbitration clause. Court held that, per the Tenth Circuit’s Peterson decision, defendant had waived its right to arbitration.

Gold v. Opera Solutions, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-08121-JPO (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2017) 08/01/2017

Court denied the motion to modify the award and granted the motion to confirm the award pursuant to the FAA. Court found the award could not be modified under FAA § 11(a) because there was no clear mathematical error in damages calculations, but rather the petitioner was seeking modification on substantive grounds. Court also rejected petitioners’ argument the award should be modified on public policy grounds.

Aikens v. Johnson, No. 3:16-CV-00729-SDD-EWD (M.D. La. July 31, 2017) 07/31/2017

Court stayed the action pending arbitration finding that the Individual Retirement Account (IRA) Custodial Agreement at issue contained a valid arbitration agreement whose scope extended to the present matter. Court noted that plaintiff had failed to provide any proper legal challenge to the existence of the arbitration clause and found that the presence of a co-defendant did not foreclose a stay pending arbitration. Sugick v. New York Life Insurance Company, No. 2:17-CV-10211-RHC-RSW (E.D. Mich. July 31, 2017) 07/31/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss complaint pursuant to the FAA. Court held that plaintiff’s argument that his assent to the employment contract was obtained through fraud goes to the question of the contract’s validity, which should be decided by the arbitrator. Yeransian v. Markel Corporation, No. 1:16-CV-00808-GMS (D. Del. July 31, 2017) 07/31/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to stay litigation and compel arbitration finding that, even though the contract between the parties did not contain a traditional arbitration agreement, it was nevertheless an agreement to arbitrate and the present dispute fell within the scope of that agreement. Court also found that plaintiff’s arguments that defendant had either waived its right to invoke arbitration or should be estopped from doing so were not applicable. Elsadig v. Luxottica Retail North America, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-02055-L (N.D. Tex. July 31, 2017) 07/31/2017

Court adopted magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations that defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration be granted. Court found that all of plaintiff’s claims were subject to arbitration under the agreements between the parties. Therefore, finding no other reason to retain jurisdiction over the matter, the court dismissed the action with prejudice. Golden Gate National Senior Care, LLC v. Newkam, No. 1:16-CV-01791-JEJ (M.D. Pa. July 31, 2017) 07/31/2017

Court granted Golden Gate’s motion for summary judgment, finding that no genuine issue of material fact existed in that Newkam agreed to arbitrate and that the agreement was valid and enforceable. Court disagreed with Newkman’s argument that the arbitration agreement was substantively and procedurally unconscionable. Finally, court found that a wrongful death claim could be severed from other claims covered by the arbitration clause and that an arbitration agreement does not need to be dated to be valid. Castro v. Tri Marine Fish Company, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-00008-RSL (W.D. Wash. July 31, 2017) 07/31/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to enforce a foreign arbitral award certifying a 2014 settlement and release of claims between the parties. Upon reviewing the arbitral award, the court found that defendants had ensured plaintiff understood the rights he was waiving and held that the arbitral award did not offend the U.S.’ “most basic notions of morality and justice.” Fuentes v. Security Forever LLC, No. 1:16-CV-20483-RNS (S.D. Fla. July 28, 2017) 07/28/2017

Court adopted magistrate judge’s recommendation granting defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Even though defendants filed their motion to compel arbitration almost a year after the initial complaint was filed, the magistrate judge found that while defendants had “acted inconsistently with arbitration,” plaintiffs had not been “substantially prejudiced.” In reviewing de novo, Court found that none of the plaintiffs’ objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendations were persuasive and instead adopted the totality of the magistrate judge’s recommendations and stayed the case pending arbitration.

Catamaran Corp. v. Towncrest Pharmacy, 16-03275 (8th Cir. July 28, 2017) 07/28/2017

Circuit court reversed and remanded district court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Circuit court held, in case of first impression in the circuit, that absent clear and unmistakable language to the contrary, the question of class arbitration is for the courts to determine as a substantive question of arbitrability. Circuit court further held that the parties’ agreements did not delegate the issue of class arbitration to an arbitrator, and thus remanded case for district court to determine whether a contractual basis of class arbitration exists in the parties’ agreements.

Rajapakse v. Credit Acceptance Corporation, No. 2:16-CV-13144-MFL-SDD (E.D. Mich. July 28, 2017) 07/28/2017

Magistrate judge recommended that motion to compel arbitration be granted and the matter dismissed without prejudice because the claim was subject to a valid arbitration agreement. Magistrate judge also recommended against a stay, finding that all of the claims presented were subject to arbitration.

Tarazi v. Truehope, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-01038-LAK-RWL (S.D.N.Y. July 28, 2017) 07/28/2017

Magistrate judge recommended granting in part defendant’s motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration. Pursuant to the FAA the magistrate judge found that the contract contained a valid, enforceable arbitration agreement, and that it was proper to dismiss all claims except claims for unjust enrichment. Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. DGN Construction Corp, No. 1:17-CV-01659-LGS (S.D.N.Y. July 27, 2017) 07/27/2017

Court granted petitioners’ motion to confirm a 2016 arbitration award, finding that there were no genuine issues of material fact and the award drew its essence from the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the parties. Court also granted petitioners’ request for attorney’s fees and costs because, despite DGN signing the CBA, it failed to participate in the arbitration, did not satisfy the arbitration award, and failed to oppose the petition at hand.

Cassity v. GCI, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00004 (D. Alaska Jul. 27, 2017) 07/27/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration in part, finding that the parties had entered into a valid arbitration agreement that covered all but one of petitioner’s claims and rejecting petitioner’s arguments of fraud, duress, unconscionability, and waiver, while declining to find that federal law precluded arbitration of the claims in question.

Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, and Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund v. Baywood Concrete Corp., No. 1:17-CV-01800-ER (July 26, 2017 S.D.N.Y) 07/26/2017

Court granted unopposed motion to confirm a labor arbitration award under the FAA upon conducting a limited review of the award and finding that the arbitrator had acted within the scope of his authority.

Pinto v. USAA Insurance Agency Incorporated of Texas (FN), No. 2:17-CV-00873-DGC (July 26, 2017 D. Ariz.) 07/26/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that an electronic signature was not required for consent to arbitration where the plaintiff had been made aware in writing of the arbitration provision and rejecting plaintiff’s defenses based on unconscionability and waiver.

2017.07.26 Neal v. Asta Funding, Inc., No. 2:13-CV-06981-KM-MAH (July 26, 2017 D. N.J.) 07/26/2017

District court dismissed motion for relief from summary judgment affirming an arbitral award under Rule 60(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Court held that petitioner was effectively asking it to reconsider the award itself and declined to do so, ruling that it had been offered no clear and convincing evidence of fraud that prevented the petitioner from presenting his case to the arbitrator. Court noted that the issues brought up by the petitioners were properly decided by the arbitrator and known to him at that time, and therefore not reviewable by a court absent such a showing. 2017.07.26 Neal v. Asta Funding, Inc., No. 2:14-CV-03550-KM-MAH (July 26, 2017 D. N.J.) 07/26/2017

District court dismissed motion for relief from summary judgment affirming an arbitral award under Rule 60(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Court held that petitioner was effectively asking it to reconsider the award itself and declined to do so, ruling that it had been offered no clear and convincing evidence of fraud that prevented the petitioner from presenting his case to the arbitrator. Court noted that the issues brought up by the petitioners were properly decided by the arbitrator and known to him at that time, and therefore not reviewable by a court absent such a showing. 2017.07.26 Coyne v. Asta Funding, Inc., No. 2:14-CV-03932-KM-JBC (July 26, 2017 D. N.J.) 07/26/2017

American Process Inc. v. GranBio Investimentos S.A., No. 1:16-CV-4234-MHC (N.D. Ga. July 26, 2017) 07/26/2017

Court denied motion for an injunction and granted cross-motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that by incorporating AAA rules the parties had delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, including the scope of the contractual carve-out for court-issued injunctive relief.

Henry Controls, Inc. v. Ultra Electronics, No. 1:17-CV-00276-SS (W.D. Tex. Jul. 25, 2017) 07/25/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case, finding that since the parties’ dispute was subject to a broad arbitration agreement, it is for the arbitrator, and not the court, to determine whether petitioner’s claims are frivolous, and rejecting the petitioner’s argument that defendant had waived its right to appoint an arbitrator.

THI of New Mexico at Vida Encantada, LLC v. Lovato, No. 16-2041 (10th Cir. Jul. 25, 2017) 07/25/2017

Circuit court affirmed district court’s confirmation of arbitration award, finding that arbitrator had not exceeded his authority or manifestly disregarded the law, since the plain language of the arbitration agreement covered the contested award on costs and interest.

Davis v. Uber Technologies, INC., No. 2:16-CV-06122-MMB (E.D. Pa. Jul. 25, 2017) 07/25/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the parties’ contract clearly delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator and that, because plaintiff had failed specifically to challenge the validity of the delegation clause, the gateway issue of arbitrability was to be decided by the arbitrator.

Jeffries v. Wells Fargo & Company, No. 2:16-CV-01987-LSC (N.D. Ala. Jul. 25, 2017) 07/25/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that it could not decide challenges to the arbitration agreement’s validity, since the parties had delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator and plaintiffs had failed to specifically challenge that delegation, and that defendants had not waived their right to arbitrate by settling in related litigation.

Morrison v. Credit One Bank, No. 2:16-CV-03353-JS (E.D. Pa. Jul. 25, 2017) 07/25/2017

Court granted renewed motion to compel arbitration, both because plaintiff had failed to oppose the motion and because he had not provided any evidence that his claim falls outside the parties’ arbitration agreement.

Raju v. Murphy, No. 3:17-CV-00357-CWR-LRA (S.D. Miss. Jul. 25, 2017) 07/25/2017

Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that plaintiff had waived his right to arbitrate by filing the action before the court.

Barreto v. Jec II, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-09729-KBF (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 25, 2017) 07/25/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed case, finding that, even if the arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable, it was not substantively unconscionable and therefore enforceable, and that principles of estoppel required the plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims against even those defendants who were not signatories to the arbitration agreement.

Lathan v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 16-CV-794 (E.D. Wis. July 24, 2017) 07/24/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, finding that the parties’ arbitration agreement covered the dispute and that the challenge to the arbitration agreement’s validity was for the arbitrator to decide, since the parties’ agreement contained a valid and enforceable delegation clause to that effect.

Bradford v. Flagship Facility Services Inc., No. 5:17-CV-01245-LHK (N.D. Cal. Jul. 24, 2017) 07/24/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the action, finding that it had jurisdiction to rule on the question of arbitrability, since the parties had not delegated this question to arbitration, and rejecting arguments that the arbitration agreement was substantively or procedurally unconscionable or that compelling arbitration would result in impermissible claim splitting.

Jock v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc., No. 15-3947-CV (2d Cir. Jul. 24, 2017) 07/24/2017

Circuit court vacated judgment confirming arbitral award and remanded case, holding that district court erred in finding existing case law conclusively resolved the question whether arbitrator had the authority to certify a class containing absent class members.

O'Meara v. Intepros Incorporated, No. 3:16-CV-01840-HBF (D. Conn. Jul. 24, 2017) 07/24/2017

District court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings during its pendency, finding that the arbitration forum and choice of law provisions were not unconscionable and that defendant had not waived its right to arbitrate.

Amuchie v. Carmax Auto Superstores Inc, No. 6:16-CV-03074-TMC (D.S.C. Jul. 24, 2017) 07/24/2017

District court adopted magistrate’s recommendation to compel arbitration and dismiss the claim, finding that plaintiff had failed to show that there was no valid arbitration agreement between the parties.

Grant v. Performance Contracting, INC., No. 3:17-CV-00008-RLY-MPB (S.D. Ind. Jul. 24, 2017) 07/24/2017

District court granted in part motion to compel arbitration, rejecting it with respect to a claim of discrimination upon holding that it was not within the scope of the arbitration agreement; court stayed proceedings pending arbitration with respect to all claims, finding that the facts at issue in the arbitration were pivotal to the non-arbitrable claim as well.

Kelleher v. Dream Catcher, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-02092-APM (D.D.C. Jul. 24, 2017) 07/24/2017

District court determined that it retained jurisdiction over case pending party’s appeal of its decision not to compel arbitration upon finding that its appeal was frivolous.

Armenta v. Staffworks, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00011-BAS-NLS (S.D. Cal. Jul. 21, 2017) 07/21/2017

District court denied motion to compel arbitration and strike class claims, finding that the arbitration agreement is unenforceable, since by failing to provide for class arbitration, it unlawfully undercuts an employee’s right to concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act.

Guerrero v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01300-LJA LJT (E.D. Cal. Jul. 21, 2017) 07/21/2017

District court stayed proceedings and held defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in abeyance pending a forthcoming Supreme Court decision regarding the enforceability of agreements requiring an employee to arbitrate claims against an employer on an individual, rather than collective, basis.

Shoebacca LTD v. K-2 Corp., No. 3:17-CV-00473-G (N.D. Tex. Jul. 21, 2017) 07/21/2017

District Court granted motion to dismiss, finding that even though the arbitration agreement was a narrow one, plaintiff had failed to overcome the presumption in favor of arbitration, since it had not provided clear evidence that the parties did not intend for the claim to be arbitrable.

McGhee v. North American Bancard, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-00586-AJB-KSC (S.D. Cal. Jul. 21, 2017) 07/21/2017

District court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff had not manifested his assent to arbitration, since the agreement containing the arbitration clause could not be qualified as a (modified) “clickwrap” agreement. Odeon Capital Group LLC v. Ackerman, No. 16-1717-CV(XAP) (2nd Cir. July 21, 2017) 07/21/2017

Court of appeal affirmed district court’s refusal to vacate an arbitral award and vacated and remanded the court’s denial of Ackerman’s motion for attorneys’ fees. Court found that the arbitral award did not warrant vacatur because Odeon had not sufficiently demonstrated that Ackerman’s alleged perjury was material to the award. However, the court found that the district court had applied the wrong legal standard in denying Ackerman’s fee request and that, under New York law, employees who prevail against their employer on a claim of unpaid wages are entitled to all reasonable attorneys’ fees. Thai-Lao Lignite (Thailand) Co., Ltd. v. Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, No. 14-597 (2d Cir. July 20, 2017) 07/20/2017

Court of appeal affirmed district court’s vacatur of prior judgment confirming an arbitration award that had since been set aside, finding that a court should analyze the full range of considerations for vacatur under FRCP Rule 60(b) and give significant weight to concerns of international comity. Although the district court had failed to do so, and instead ruled on the ground that the New York Convention required vacatur, the court found that consideration of these factors would not have materially changed the outcome. Gridsmart Technologies, Inc. v. Marlin Controls, Inc., No. 17-5121 (6th Cir. July 20, 2017) 07/20/2017

Court of appeal affirmed district court’s vacatur of arbitration award, finding that, following termination of the contract, no enforceable contract existed as to matters at issue, and the arbitration clause did not survive termination. Eagle Rebar & Cable Company, Inc. v. Southern Industrial Contractors, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00025-LG-RHW (S.D. Miss. July 20, 2017) 07/20/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that a valid arbitration agreement covering the dispute at issue existed based on the record before it, and in light of the fact that the party against whom the agreement was to be enforced had not filed opposition papers or presented any reason for denying the motion. However, the court refused to grant the motion as to claims against a defendant who had not appeared in the lawsuit. Kaufman v. Sony Pictures Television, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-12027-LTS (D. Mass. July 20, 2017) 07/20/2017

Court granted motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, finding that the arbitration clause in an agreement governing the plaintiff’s participation on a TV show was (i) not procedurally unconscionable, as it was clearly disclosed in bold, capital letters on a page the plaintiff initialed, and (ii) not substantively unconscionable since it was not one sided. Lopez v. YourPeople Incorporated, No. 2:16-CV-03982-JZB (D. Ariz. July 20, 2017) 07/20/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that question of arbitrability was delegated to the arbitrator and that the arbitration agreement, including the delegation clause, was not procedurally or substantively unconscionable. Frank N. Magid Associates, Inc. v. Marrs, No. 1:16-CV-00198-LRR (N.D. Iowa July 20, 2017) 07/20/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding (i) that, although dispute resolution provisions allowed one party to choose between three fora and required the other party to pursue arbitration, it was not unconscionable; and (ii) that question of whether counterclaims fall within the scope of the arbitration is one of arbitrability delegated to the arbitrator to decide. Mathis v. Lendmark Financial Services, LLC, No. 7:16-CV-00355-FL (E.D.N.C. July 20, 2017) 07/20/2017

Court granted motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, finding that, although there were missing pages in the version of the operative note, it had been adequately established that an arbitration agreement was in the original version signed by the plaintiff.

Farley v. Eaton Corporation, No. 16-3893 (6th Cir. July 20, 2017) 07/20/2017

Court of appeal affirmed district court judgment confirming arbitral award which construed the language of an indemnification provision. Court found that petitioner provided no evidence that the award did not “draw its essence” from the contract, thus it was appropriate for the district court to confirm the award.

Mamouzette v. Jerome, No. 1:13-CV-00117-WAL-GWC (D.V.I. July 19, 2017) 07/19/2017

Court granted petition to confirm arbitral award, finding that: (i) although the defendant had already filed an action to vacate the award in superior court, Colorado River abstention was unwarranted in the absence of exceptional circumstances; and (ii) the respondent was estopped from raising defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies, since it had previously represented to the court that arbitration was the sole avenue for resolution of the dispute, and that the court’s findings in that regard when compelling arbitration are the law of the case.

EmployBridge LLC v. Riven Rock Staffing, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00833-WJ-KK (D.N.M. July 19, 2017) 07/19/2017

Court granted motion to stay pending arbitration, finding that non-arbitrable claims were intertwined with arbitral claims.

Aspic Engineering and Construction Company v. ECC CENTCOM Constructors, LLC, No. 4:17-CV-00224-YGR (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2017) 07/18/2017

Court granted motion to vacate arbitral award under the FAA, finding that arbitrator exceeded its powers when determining that a party should not be held to a “strict interpretation” of certain contractual provisions since they did not reflect a “true meeting of the minds.”

Developers Surety and Indemnity Company v. Carothers Construction Inc., No. 9:17-CV-01419-RMG (D.S.C. July 18, 2017) 07/18/2017

Court denied motion to dismiss claim seeking declaration that third party was not bound to arbitrate and transferred to jurisdiction of seat to compel arbitration, finding that a surety company’s liability is subordinate to that of the principal and thus is bound by the principle’s agreement to arbitrate.

General Re Life Corporation v. Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, No. 3:15-CV-01860-VAB (D. Conn. July 18, 2017) 07/18/2017

Court denied petition for reconsideration of the terms of its confirmation of arbitral award, finding that it did not have authority under the FAA to enter judgment for a sum certain when the award did not calculate the amount due thereunder.

Mason v. Regions Bank, No. 1:16-CV-01299-RP (W.D. Tex. July 18, 2017) 07/18/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that an assignee may invoke the assignors right to compel arbitration.

Goulds Pumps, Inc. v. DXP Enterprises, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-07427-VSB (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2017) 07/18/2017

Court granted petition to confirm arbitral award, in light of parties’ agreement that award should be confirmed and the court’s “independent review” that all of the requirements of § 9 of the FAA were met.

Presta v. Omni Hotels Management Corporation, No. 4:17-CV-00912 (S.D. Tex. July 18, 2017) 07/18/2017

Court granted motion for partial summary judgment and denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement was illusory since it was subject to a savings clause that allowed the employer to unilaterally modify or revoke the agreement after a dispute had arisen but before a claim had been filed.

Cox v. Perfect Building Maintenance Corp., No. 1:16-cv-07474-VEC (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2017) 07/18/2017

Court granted motion to dismiss statutory employment discrimination claims, finding that prior arbitral award was res judicata on the matter, since the arbitration agreement expressly included statutory discrimination claims within its scope and such claims were in fact raised in the arbitration (even though they were not decided in the award).

Bechtel Infrastructure Corp. v. S & N Communications, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-01221-LMM (N.D. Ga. July 18, 2017) 07/18/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that defendant did not waive its right to arbitration, that arbitration provisions were not permissive but provided the parties with a choice to continue a dispute in arbitration, and the rights at issue fell within the arbitration provisions such that all the claims should go to arbitration.

McKee v. Audible, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-1941-GW-E (C.D. Cal. July 17, 2017) 07/17/2017

Court denied motion to compel arbitration by one of defendants, holding that it had not demonstrated that a valid arbitration agreement existed between that defendant and the plaintiff, rejecting arguments that it could benefit from the arbitration agreement of its affiliate co-defendant. However, court granted that co-defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, denying plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable as a contract of adhesion or substantively unconscionable because it permitted unilateral modification, contained certain carve-outs, prohibited public injunctive relief, and contained a class action waiver. Court agreed that the agreement’s limit on liability was one-sided and arbitrary and thus substantively unconscionable, severing the offending provision.

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA v. Beelman Truck Company, No. 1:17-CV-02946-VEC (S.D.N.Y. July 17, 2017) 07/17/2017

Court granted petition to select an umpire, finding that, in the absence of agreement among the party-appointed arbitrators as to who the umpire would be, the FAA and arbitration agreement empowered the court to appoint the umpire.

Bamberger Rosenheim Ltd. v. OA Development, Inc., No. 16-16163 (11th Cir. July 17, 2017) 07/17/2017

Court of appeal affirmed district court’s confirmation of international arbitral award, finding that questions of arbitral venue are presumptively for the arbitrator to decide, and that the arbitrator arguably interpreted the arbitral-venue provision at issue.

Scheurer v. Fromm Family Foods LLC, No. 16-3327 (7th Cir. July 17, 2017) 07/17/2017

Circuit court affirmed district court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration, finding that third-party had no standing to invoke arbitration agreement under Wisconsin contract law doctrine of equitable estoppel.

Dlorah, Inc. v. KLE Construction, LLC, No. 5:16-CV-05102-JLV (D.S.D. July 17, 2017) 07/17/2017

Court granted motion to stay the case pending arbitration, finding that question of whether procedural prerequisites to arbitration had been met was for the arbitrator to decide, and that arbitration agreement was mandatory in nature notwithstanding the existence of procedural prerequisites.

Money Mailer LLC v. Brewer, No. 2:15-CV-01215-RSL (W.D. Wash. July 17, 2017) 07/17/2017

Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that party had waived its rights under the arbitration agreement by initiating litigation through its alter ego.

Laschkewitsch v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company, No. 5:14-CV-00632-D (E.D.N.C. July 17, 2017) 07/17/2017

Court denied motion to reconsider prior order rejecting motion to modify or correct arbitration award, finding that it did not clearly err in concluding that an arbitration agreement existed and no recognized ground for enforcing the award existed under the FAA or common law.

Guzy v. Guzy, No. 1:17-CV-00228-RP (W.D. Tex. July 17, 2017) 07/17/2017

Court granted motion to dismiss petition to confirm arbitral award, finding that litigation and appeals on motion to vacate the award before the Nevada state courts did not toll statute of limitations to confirm award under the FAA, and that equitable tolling was unavailable since confirmation action could have been brought notwithstanding parallel litigation before the Nevada state courts. Olivares v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-06062-JLA (N.D. Ill. July 15, 2017) 07/15/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending arbitration. Court held that plaintiff entered into valid and enforceable arbitration agreements, did not “opt out” of the arbitration provisions, and defendant’s delegation clause is clear and unmistakable evidence that plaintiff agreed to arbitrate threshold issues.

Weiss v. Macy’s Retail Holdings Inc., No. 1:16-CV-07660-AKH (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2017) 07/14/2017

Court rejected motion to compel arbitration, finding that no binding arbitration agreement was formed as program that allowed employee to opt out of arbitration did not state or imply that acceptance of arbitration was a mandatory condition of employment, and thus employee’s silence was not acceptance of arbitration.

Carr v. Air Line Pilots Association, International, No. 16-20578 (5th Cir. July 14, 2017) 07/14/2017

Court of appeal affirmed summary judgment, holding the Air Line Pilots Association’s conduct in organizing arbitration did not lead to an erroneous outcome, and that there was no evidence that ex parte communications with arbitrator caused it to breach its duty of representation. Court found that the final list created by arbitrators contained a full explanation of the factors considered. Court found that appellants failed to make a connection between unprofessional statements about the proceeding and bad faith.

Mountain Valley Property, Inc. v. Applied Risk Services, Inc., No. 16-2189 (1st Cir. July 13, 2017) 07/13/2017

Court of appeal affirmed denial of motion to vacate arbitrator’s decision that the dispute was not arbitrable, finding that the arbitrator issued a well-reasoned award and therefore did not manifestly disregard the law in determining that, under the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 USC §§ 1011-1015, the Nebraska Uniform Arbitration Act reverse preempts the Federal Arbitration Act in matters of insurance, and the Nebraska Uniform Arbitration Act bans arbitration or insurance-related cases regardless of the parties’ intent.

Webb v. Farmers of North America, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00080-FJG (W.D. Mo. July 13, 2017) 07/13/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that reference to AAA rules and broad arbitration clause evidenced a clear intent to submit questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association v. Southwest Airlines Co., No. 3:15-CV-03642-L (N.D. Tex. July 13, 2017) 07/13/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and rejected petition to vacate award, finding that the petitioner could rely on a previous award that the arbitrator had determined was inapplicable to the dispute. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 15, AFL-CIO v. R.W. Dunteman, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00076-MFK (N.D. Ill. July 13, 2017) 07/13/2017

Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, vacated the arbitration award, and remanded for further arbitration proceedings. Court held that although review of an award was extremely limited, the arbitrator’s award did not “draw its essence” from the construction agreement at issue.

Franlogic Scout Development, LLC v. Scott Holdings, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-05042-JHS (E.D. Pa. July 12, 2017) 07/12/2017

Court denied petition to compel arbitration and granted motion to dismiss, finding that, although the subject matter of the dispute related to an agreement with an arbitration clause, the parties had agreed that another agreement without an arbitration clause would control in the event of conflict, and the pre-conditions for arbitration under the first agreement were in any event not met.

Unite Here International Union v. Shingle Springs Bank of Miwok Indians, No. 2:16-CV-00384-TLN-EFB (E.D. Cal. July 12, 2017) 07/12/2017

Court granted petitioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in action to compel arbitration, finding that an agreement to arbitrate “any disputes over the interpretation or application of” the operative agreement was sufficiently broad to require questions of arbitrability to be submitted to the arbitrator.

Powers Distributing Company, Inc. v. Grenzebach Corporation, No. 4:16-CV-12740-TGB-EAS (E.D. Mich. July 12, 2017) 07/12/2017

Court granted motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, finding that the plaintiff’s common law and other claims could not be maintained without reference to obligations whose scope is determined by contracts subject to arbitration.

McHale v. Taylored Services, LLC, No. 16-3196 (3d Cir. July 12, 2017) 07/12/2017

Court of appeal reversed district court’s modification of an arbitration award to grant appellee attorney’s fees. Court held that under New Jersey law, absent an agreement by the parties to expand judicial review, a court could only modify an award if the arbitrator made an award on a claim not submitted to the arbitrator. Court held that the arbitrator had reviewed the issues properly before it when it concluded that neither party prevailed more than the other to award attorney’s fees to appellee, and that, at most, the conclusion was an error of law unreviewable by the district court.

Milestone Systems A/S v. On-Net Surveillance Systems, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-05724-JMF (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2017) 07/12/2017

Court confirmed two partial and final foreign arbitral awards in favor of petitioner and with the consent of the respondent.

Sanum Investment Ltd. v. San Marco Capital Partners LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00320-SLR (D. Del. July 12, 2017) 07/12/2017

Court granted motion to dismiss, holding that defendants, as non-signatories to a deed, could enforce an arbitration clause therein against the signatory plaintiffs because the defendants had a sufficiently close relationship to the other executing party to the deed and all of the claims were intertwined with the deed. Court also held the plaintiffs were estopped from avoiding arbitration with the non-signatories.

Homeland Munitions LLC v. Purple Shovel, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-00207-DB (D. Utah July 12, 2017) 07/12/2017

Court granted motion for confirmation of a final arbitration award rendered by the International Institute of Conflict Prevention and Resolution as a judgment of the Court. Court held that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate circumstances sufficient under § 10 of the FAA to vacate the award.

Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. IEC Corporation, No. 8:16-CV-00295-DOC-AJW (C.D. Cal. July 12, 2017) 07/12/2017

Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that it was premature to determine plaintiff’s right to arbitrate counsel’s fee dispute at this time. Court found that plaintiff may move to compel arbitration of fees upon a favorable ruling on the remaining substantive issues in dispute.

McHale v. Taylored Services, LLC, No. 16 -3196 (3d Cir. July 12, 2017) 07/12/2017

Court of appeals reversed district court’s modification adding attorney’s fees to an arbitration award, reasoning that a court has very limited authority to vacate or modify an arbitration award.

DDR Construction Services, Inc. v. Schlesinger Electrical Contractors, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-04454-DRH-ARL (E.D.N.Y. July 11, 2017) 07/11/2017

Court modified and confirmed an AAA arbitration award granting interest. Court found arbitrator exceeded his powers by granting an award including certain claims not submitted to arbitration. Court denied petition to vacate the award, but did vacate those portions of the claims outside the scope of arbitration, confirming a modified award.

UBS Financial Services, Inc. v. Zimmerman, No. 5:16-CV-00155-FL (W.D.N.C. July 11, 2017) 07/11/2017

Court granted motion for permanent injunction requiring defendant to withdraw arbitration, finding that permitting an arbitration to proceed in the absence of an arbitration agreement would cause irreparable injury.

Big City Small World Bakery Café, LLC v. Francis David Corp., No. 16-CV-12652-DML (E.D. Mich. July 11, 2017) 07/11/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, holding that the arbitration clause contained with plaintiff’s signed credit card merchant agreement was not unconscionable and therefore plaintiff must pursue its dispute in an arbitral forum.

Mobil Cerro Negro Ltd. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 15-707 (2d Cir. July 11, 2017) 07/11/2017

Court of appeal reversed an order denying respondent’s motion, vacated the judgment and remanded the case with instruction to dismiss the ex parte petition brought by petitioner to confirm a $1.6 billion ICSID award in accordance with the ICSID Convention. Court held that the district court’s reliance on New York’s CPLR Art. 54, to import into 22 USC § 1650a a procedural mechanism by which to convert an arbitral award into a federal judgment and thereby exercise subject matter and personal jurisdiction over the foreign sovereign, was in error. Court held that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) provides the sole basis for subject matter jurisdiction over foreign sovereigns and requires serving the sovereign with process in compliance with the FSIA and meeting venue requirements before seeking entry of a federal judgment, and that Section 1650a “mandates enforcement of ICSID awards in federal court through an action on the award and not through an ex parte order.”

Davis v. BSH Home Appliances Corp., No. 4:15-CV-00103-FL (E.D.N.C. July 11, 2017) 07/11/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to confirm arbitration award, holding there existed no basis to vacate, modify, or correct the arbitration award and plaintiff could not show that arbitration was improper.

Creasy v. Seelbach and Co., Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00742-AAT (M.D. Tenn. July 11, 2017) 07/11/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration. Court held that plaintiff did not challenge the validity or applicability of the agreement to arbitrate, and therefore, when presented with an issue that is referable to arbitration pursuant to a valid arbitration agreement, on the application of either party, the court must stay the suit and compel arbitration.

MacRury v. Am. Steamship Co., No. 1:16-CV-13889-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich. July 11, 2017) 07/11/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to stay and compel arbitration. Court, applying the sixth circuit’s four-factor test to determine if a case should be dismissed or stayed and arbitration compelled, held that because of the federal policy favoring arbitration, and the broad scope of the arbitration agreement, it would compel arbitration because the plaintiff’s complaint is either governed by the agreement as it relates to a preexisting injury or fails to state a claim because any injury was new.

Coleman v. Sys. Dialing LLC, No. 1:15-CV-03868-DLC (S.D.N.Y. July 11, 2017) 07/11/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute his claims. Court held that FRCP 41(b) permits the court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute, even though the FAA requires that federal courts stay rather than dismiss a case when all claims are referred to arbitration and a stay is requested. Court held that dismissal with prejudice was warranted in this case where the legal guardian of the plaintiff was on notice regarding his pattern of delay in commencing ordered arbitration proceedings, where no status letter had been received a year later, and where defendants had been substantially prejudiced.

Privacy-Assured Inc. v. AccessData Corp., Ltd., No. 2:14-CV-00722-CW (D. Utah July 11, 2017) 07/11/2017

Court denied plaintiff’s motion to join Access Data Group, Inc. as a judgment debtor with defendant pursuant to FRCP 21. Court held that where the court’s original jurisdiction arose under the New York Convention and was limited to confirmation of a foreign arbitration award, the court’s federal question jurisdiction did not extend to joining another party as a judgment debtor under a theory of alter ego liability. Court held it had independent diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC 1332(a)(2), which provides for alienage jurisdiction, and thus had broad discretion over whether to add a judgment debtor as an alter ego of defendant even after judgment had been entered, but to do so here would be inappropriate because of concerns of due process, judicial economy and inconsistent judgments.

Cho v. Mallon & McCool, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00453-KBJ (D.D.C. July 11, 2017) 07/11/2017

Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the case. Court held that the D.C. Circuit requires a party’s request to stay proceedings referable to arbitration under § 3 of the FAA to be invoked at the first available opportunity or the right is presumptively forfeited; court also held that plaintiff had repeatedly acted inconsistently with the intent to exercise any right to arbitration that he may have possessed and in doing so plaintiff’s litigation activities had imposed substantial costs on the defendants and the court. Drayton v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, No. 3:16-CV-00046-BJD-JBT (M.D. Fla. July 11, 2016) 07/11/2017

Magistrate judge recommended (and court later adopted) that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration be denied because the contract between the parties did not contain an arbitration provision. Additionally, defendant could not subscribe to an arbitration agreement in a related contract because, under Florida law, a non-party to an arbitration agreement cannot compel arbitration, and exceptions under equitable estoppel and the scope of the arbitration provision did not apply in the present case.

Forby v. One Techs, LP, No. 3:16-CV-856-L (N.D. Tex. July 10, 2017) 07/10/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case with prejudice. Court held that there was no dispute over the existence of a valid arbitration clause and that the dispute fell within that clause. Court further held that even though defendants substantially invoked the judicial process by seeking a decision on the merits before attempting to arbitrate and waiting nearly thirteen months after the transfer of the case to compel arbitration, plaintiff failed to establish she suffered sufficient prejudice from defendants’ actions to the extent required by existing precedent and Fifth Circuit authority.

Portland Gen. Elec. Co. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., No. 16-35628 (9th Cir. July 10, 2017) 07/10/2017

Court of appeals vacated the judgment of the district court which had entered a preliminary injunction prohibiting the appellant sureties from pursuing claims against the plaintiff-appellee in arbitration and denied a mandatory stay of the judicial proceeding under § 3 of the FAA. Circuit court held that the arbitration agreement incorporated the ICC Rules and thus constituted a clear and unmistakable delegation of gateway arbitrability issues to the arbitrator to determine the scope of the arbitration clause, and remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

A. Kershaw, P.C. v. Shannon L. Spangler, P.C., No. 16-1483 (10th Cir. July 10, 2017) 07/10/2017

Court of appeal affirmed district court’s confirmation of an arbitration award, finding that petitioner-appellant had not satisfied the exceptional showing required to upset the finality of arbitration. Court held that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers or so imperfectly execute them so as to create a ground for vacating the award under section 10(a) of the FAA.

Layne Winters v. AT & T Mobility Services, LLC, No. 4:17-CV-04053-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill. July 10, 2017) 07/10/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that FAA governs federal courts’ treatment of litigants’ arbitration agreements and that Illinois contract law applied to plaintiff’s contention that she did not enter into the unambiguous electronic contract containing both an arbitration clause and an “opt-out” provision. Court held plaintiff offered no evidence to suggest she had attempted to “opt out” and “in failing to do so, manifested her intent to be bound by the terms of the arbitration agreement, which must be enforced.”

Johnson & Johnson International v. Puerto Rico Hospital Supply, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01405-FAB (D.P.R. July 10, 2017) 07/10/2017

Court granted one defendant’s motion to compel arbitration but denied the other defendant’s, as the latter was neither a party to, nor a third-party beneficiary of, the agreement at issue. Court held that there was a valid agreement that contained an arbitration provision, that only claims implicating the agreement are arbitrable, and that while one defendant is entitled to invoke the arbitration while the other was not, it was in the interest of justice to stay all claims pending arbitration.

Freeman v. Progress Residential Prop. Manager, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00356-GCH (S.D. Tex. July 10, 2017) 07/10/2017

Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, holding that where one party has unilateral authority to terminate an arbitration agreement, under Texas law the agreement is unenforceable because it is “not supported by consideration and must be considered illusory.”

Dennie v. Medimmune, Inc., No. 8:16-CV-03643-PX (D. Md. July 10, 2017) 07/10/2017

Court granted one defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the action. Court held that the arbitration clause applied to the defendant who was a nonsignatory to the agreement and that the clause covered the conduct at issue in dispute. Court concluded that as all the issues in the lawsuit were arbitrable, the FAA requires a court to stay judicial proceedings involving issues covered by written arbitration agreement.

Kelleher v. Dream Catcher, L.L.C., No. 1:16-CV-02092-APM (D.D.C. July 10, 2017) 07/10/2017

Court denied defendant’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s prior opinion and order denying defendant’s motion to stay and compel arbitration. Court held that defendant had forfeited its right to arbitrate plaintiff’s claims by waiting nearly six months to move for arbitration and not timely invoking its right to arbitrate at the earliest opportunity, which caused plaintiff to incur costs.

Kutluca v. PQ New York Inc., No. 1:16-CV-03070-VSB (S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2017) 07/10/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the plaintiff’s agreed to arbitrate by agreed to create accounts, and that the plaintiff’s statutory claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreements.

Hargen-Rodriguez v. UBS Trust Co. of Puerto Rico, No. 3:16-CV-02340-FAB (D.P.R. July 7, 2017) 07/07/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case without prejudice. Court held defendants demonstrated the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, plaintiffs’ unelaborated conclusion that the arbitration clause is unconscionable was waived, and that plaintiffs’ claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreements. Court dismissed the case under the first circuit’s holding that a court may dismiss rather than stay a case pursuant to § 3 of the FAA.

Getma International v. Republic of Guinea, No. 16-7087 (D.C. Cir. July 7, 2017) 07/07/2017

Court of appeal affirmed district court’s decision not to enforce an arbitral award that had been annulled by the Common Court of Justice and Arbitration of the Organization for the Harmonization of Business Law in Africa (CCJA). Court determined that an annulled foreign award should only be enforced if the annulment was “repugnant to fundamental notions of what is decent and just,” and the alleged errors of law – including changes in fee schedules and an unsubstantiated allegation that there was a biased judge – were insufficient to meet such a high bar.

Burch v. P.J. Cheese, Inc., No. 2:09-CV-01640-SLB (11th Cir. July 7, 2017) 07/07/2017

Court of appeal affirmed district court’s order compelling arbitration, finding that the specific procedures provided in § 4 of the FAA for “demanding a jury trial on arbitrability issues displace the general procedures for demanding a jury trial.” Court noted that plaintiff had ample time and opportunity to proceed to trial and refused to create a bright line rule that the court loses authority to compel arbitration after some specified time.

Lesneski v. Ross Stores, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00754-GCM (W.D.N.C. July 7, 2017) 07/07/2017

Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss or to compel arbitration by staying the judicial proceedings pending arbitration. Court held that the dispute resolution agreement entered into by the parties was supported by adequate consideration and was not procedurally or substantively unconscionable and therefore directed the parties to proceed to arbitration.

TWC Administration LLC v. Cathey, No. 4:17-CV-00235-BCW (W.D. Mo. July 6, 2017) 07/06/2017

Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration, holding an arbitration clause the defendant had signed electronically was valid under Missouri law, and that enforcement of the arbitration clause would not harm defendant and that plaintiff would be irreparably harmed by further litigation.

TWC Administration LLC v. Cathey, No. 4:17-CV-00235-BCW (W.D. Mo. July 6, 2017) 07/06/2017

Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration and for a preliminary injunction to enjoin defendant from pursuing further litigation in any venue other than arbitration. Court held that the defendant’s electronic acceptance of the arbitration agreement was valid and granted the right of Plaintiff to compel arbitration.

Adams v. Anytime Labor-Kansas LLC, No. 4:16-00448-CV-RK (W.D. Mo. July 6, 2017) 07/06/2017

Court had previously ordered plaintiffs to submit their claims to individual arbitration instead of class arbitration. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration asking the court, for the first time, to allow an arbitrator to determine whether the arbitration agreement allowed for class arbitration. Court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration finding that plaintiffs had waived the argument of “who decides” by not raising it when defendant’s motion to compel arbitration was briefed.

Young v. Brahmbhatt, No. 8:15-CV-03290-PWG (D. Md. July 6, 2017) 07/06/2017

Court granted plaintiff’s motion for default judgment confirming an arbitration award by a FINRA arbitration panel. Because the defendant did not respond or demonstrate any basis for vacating the award, the court found that it had jurisdiction and cause to confirm the arbitration award. Court also denied prejudgment interest on the non-compensatory components of the award, but found that, as a matter of law, plaintiff was entitled to post-judgment interest.

Bey v. Citi Health Card, No. 2:15-CV-06533-JHS (E.D. Pa. July 6, 2017) 07/06/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, holding there was a valid arbitration agreement and that the dispute was within the agreement’s scope.

The Geo Group, Inc., v. United Government Security Officers of America International Union, No. 1:16-CV-02288-RBJ (D. Colo. July 6, 2017) 07/06/2017

Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate an arbitrator’s initial and supplemental awards. Given the narrow standard for reviewing an arbitrator’s decision, the court held that the arbitrator’s awards “drew their essence” from the parties’ collective bargaining agreement and were valid. Court granted defendant’s counterclaims and confirmed the arbitration awards.

Sempa Systems GmbH v. Wacker Polysilicon North America, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00348-CHS (E.D. Tenn. July 6, 2017) 07/06/2017

Magistrate judge granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration thereby ordering plaintiff to arbitrate its dispute. Court held that the arbitration clause in the prime contract had been incorporated into the subcontract between the parties, and that defendant had not waived its right to arbitrate when it appeared in a Virginia court to assert that court’s lack of personal jurisdiction. Unite Here Local 1 v. Hyatt Corporation, No. 15-3668 (7th Cir. July 6, 2017) 07/06/2017

Court of appeal affirmed district court’s judgment confirming two arbitration awards that instructed defendant to cease and desist from further violations of a collective bargaining agreement with the plaintiff. Defendants argued that enforcement of such awards would constitute “prospective enforcement” effectively nullifying the parties’ agreement to arbitrate and inviting plaintiffs to bring all future disputes directly to the court by way of a contempt petition. Court disagreed with defendants and found that there was no attempt on plaintiff’s part to bypass the arbitration process.

Burton Way Hotels, Ltd. v. Four Seasons Hotels Ltd. No. 2:11-CV-00303-PSG-PLA (C.D. Cal. July 5, 2017) 07/05/2017

Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and rendered moot defendant’s motion to appoint arbitrators. Defendant asked the court to interpret the scope of an October 2016 ninth circuit ruling reversing part of a previous arbitration award’s confirmation. Court, however, found that per the current arbitration agreement, “jurisdictional and arbitrability disputes” should be decided by the arbitral tribunal.

Union de Tronquistas de Puerto Rico, Local 901 v. Cadillac Uniform & Linen Supply, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-01795-GAG (D.P.R. July 5, 2017) 07/05/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, finding that plaintiff’s petition to vacate an arbitral award was meritless. Plaintiff argued that the arbitral award should be vacated on the basis that the arbitrator erred in concluding plaintiff’s complaints were “not procedurally arbitrable” and by failing to provide a written decision of the judgment. Court disagreed, noting that issues of “procedural arbitrability” were for the arbitrator to decide, not the court, and that the collective bargaining agreement in question did not require a more detailed judgment than the arbitrator had already issued. Webb v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, No. 1:16-CV-04664 (N.D. Ill. July 5, 2017) 07/05/2017

Court granted defendant's motion to dismiss finding that the defendant was entitled to arbitral immunity. Citing relevant case law, court found that defendant was “carrying out its normal administrative functions in support of an arbitration” and that it was therefore appropriate to extend arbitral immunity. As a result, plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims against FINRA were dismissed with prejudice.

Mawhinney v. American Airlines, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-00259-MMA-BLM (9th Cir. July 3, 2017) 07/03/2017

Court of appeal affirmed district court’s judgment denying Mawhinney’s petition to vacate an arbitration award and instead granted American Airlines’ petition to confirm the award. Court agreed with the lower court’s finding that Mawhinney’s allegations of arbitrator misconduct and disagreements with the arbitration process and results were not sufficient to establish any of the statutory grounds for vacating an arbitral award under the FAA.

Zetor North America, Inc. v. Ridgeway Enterprises, No. 16-2125 (5th Cir. July 3, 2017) 07/03/2017

Court of appeal affirmed lower court’s denial of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. A 2008 trademark infringement settlement agreement between the parties contained an arbitration clause, which defendant sought to enforce in the current case. However, the court found that the trademark infringement claims in the present case were independent of the claims covered by the 2008 settlement agreement and therefore did not fall under the scope of that agreement’s arbitration clause.

TravelPass Group, LLC v. Benjamin & Brothers, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-00247-JNP-PMW (D. Utah July 3, 2017) 07/03/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to stay litigation pending the outcome of arbitration between plaintiff and Expedia, a non-party to the present case. Citing relevant case law, the court noted that a motion to stay is appropriate where a closely related arbitration has the potential to resolve all or a significant portion of the disputes before the court, “even if the moving party is a nonsignatory to the arbitration agreement” or party to the pending arbitration. Court concluded that the TravelPass-Expedia arbitration would likely resolve several of TravelPass’s claims and, in the interest of judicial economy and avoiding inconsistent results, stayed the present litigation. Capili v. The Finish Line, Inc., No. 15-16657 (9th Cir. Jul. 3, 2017) 07/03/2017

Court of appeal affirmed the district court decision denying defendant-appellant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that the district court properly concluded that the arbitration agreement was adhesive, or at least minimally procedurally unconscionable, and that it did not abuse its discretion by declining to sever the unconscionable portions of the arbitration agreement. Court explained that, although the FAA articulates a preference for the enforcement of arbitration agreements, employers may not “stack the deck unconscionably in their favor to discourage claims” and then force the court to “assume the role of contract author rather than interpreter.” Ultra Lane Management v. McKellar, No. 9:17-CV-00076-RC (E.D. Tex. June 30, 2017) 06/30/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims. Court held that dismissal was proper as plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of a valid arbitration clause and no federal statute or policy rendered plaintiff’s claims non-arbitrable.

In re Ex Parte Application of the Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, No. 1:15-MC-08232-EJL-REB (D. Idaho. June 30, 2017) 06/30/2017

Court granted motion to quash subpoena issued pursuant to 28 USC § 1782. Court concluded that the criminal investigation did not constitute a proceeding before a foreign tribunal, although the two bilateral treaty arbitrations did qualify. However, court found based on the updated record that the requested discovery would likely not be permitted in the bilateral treaty arbitrations.

Clicksoftware, Inc. v. Honeywell International Inc., No. 1:16-CV-12522-NMG (D. Mass. June 30, 2017) 06/30/2017

Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration in Massachusetts, but denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in New York. Court held that, even though two contracts (one calling for arbitration in Massachusetts and the other calling for arbitration in New York) “apparently arose out of the same set of negotiations,” they were still separate and independent because neither contract incorporated or referenced the other. Therefore, given that the dispute at issue arose out of the contract calling for arbitration in Massachusetts, arbitration should take place in Massachusetts.

Perkins v. Dish Network, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-02039 (S.D.W. Va. June 30, 2017) 06/30/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the plaintiff’s employment contract contained a valid arbitration clause. According to the court, there were no problems of validity or unconscionability with the arbitration agreement and, therefore, the plaintiff’s claim concerning racial and gender discrimination in the course of her employment was arbitrable. Court also noted that the NLRB’s finding that the arbitration agreement violated the National Labor Relations Act had no impact on the court’s decision.

Lovelance v. Dekra N. Am. Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00318-BR (D. Or. June 30, 2017) 06/30/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the matter without prejudice. Court held that the arbitration agreement was indisputably signed by the parties, that plaintiff was a sophisticated employee who negotiated the terms of her employment, and that the agreement was neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable under Oregon law as plaintiff asserted.

Reliable Energy Solutions v. Amalfi Apartment Corporation, No. 4:16-CV-03346 (S.D. Tex. June 30, 2017) 06/30/2017

Magistrate judge recommended granting the motion to compel arbitration and staying proceedings pending completion of arbitration pursuant to the FAA. The judge found that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate because, although respondent was not a signatory to the agreement, it was an intended third-party beneficiary and the court found the parties intended to be bound by the agreement. Court concluded the quantum meruit and unjust enrichment claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

Hunt v. Moore Brothers, Inc., No. 16-2055 (7th Cir. June 29, 2017) 06/29/2017

Court of appeals affirmed district court order of sanctions under 28 USC § 1927 and dismissing action without prejudice, holding that the arbitration agreement was enforceable and that it was within the district court’s discretion to impose a sanction for the lawyer’s role in seeking to avoid arbitration and multiplying “the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously.” Court also held that leaving for later negotiations the selection of the arbitrator did not render the arbitration agreement unenforceable.

Drury-Jenkins v. Regency Furniture of Brandywine, Inc., No. 8:16-CV-03066-TDC (D. Md. June 29, 2017) 06/29/2017

Court granted in part and denied in part motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration agreement reserved questions of arbitrability for the arbitrator. Court also found that the question of whether an appeal provision rendered the agreement unenforceable was a question of arbitrability reserved for the arbitrator.

Horne v. Starbucks Corp., No. 2:16-CV-02727-MCE-CKD (E.D. Cal. June 29, 2017) 06/29/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration agreement was not unenforceable and substantively unconscionable by virtue of the provisions on discovery. Court found that plaintiff was not limited to two depositions under the arbitration agreement, but could take as many depositions as desired within two eight-hour days, and distinguished other cases finding unconscionable discovery limitations in an arbitration agreement. Court also found that, should additional discovery be required, the arbitrator was empowered to issue such an order.

Wussow v. Bruker Corp., No. 3:16-CV-00444-WMC (W.D. Wis. June 28, 2017) 06/28/2017

Court granted in part and denied in part motion to compel arbitration, holding that the Dodd-Frank retaliation claim was arbitrable, but that the SOX retaliation claim was not arbitrable and should proceed in parallel judicial proceedings. Court found that, while both statutes addressed retaliation for whistleblowing, the text and structure of Dodd-Frank compelled the conclusion that these claims were not exempt from arbitration agreements, while the SOX Anti-Arbitration Provision expressly exempted SOX retaliation claims from arbitration. Court found that, despite criticism, Congress had not chosen to address this inconsistency by expressly expanding the SOX Anti-Arbitration Provision to Dodd-Frank whistleblower claims.

Mounts v. Midland Funding LLC, No. 3:15-CV-00572-TAV-HBG (E.D. Tenn. June 28, 2017) 06/28/2017

Court granted in part and denied in part motion to compel arbitration, holding that parties had agreed to arbitrate claims under the terms of their credit card agreements, and that questions as to arbitrability of certain claims were delegated to the arbitrator. Court found that, by referencing the AAA and NAF rules, the parties had clearly and unmistakably delegated issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Court found that § 4 of the FAA and its notice requirements did not apply to cases where the plaintiff has already brought an action in court; instead, § 3 of the FAA, which did not have a notice requirement, applied.

Dome Technology, LLC v. Golden Sands General Contractors, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00069-GEC (W.D. Va. June 28, 2017) 06/28/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the merger and forum selection clauses in a later agreement between the parties did not supersede the original agreement’s arbitration clause. Court reasoned that, under Virginia law, the two contracts should be “harmonize[d]” to give “effect to each when reasonably possible,” and concluded that there was a valid arbitration agreement whose scope covered the dispute in question.

The University of Notre Dame (USA) in England v. TJAC Waterloo, LLC, No. 16-1397 (1st Cir. June 28, 2017) 06/28/2017

Court of appeals affirmed district court’s determination that the arbitrator’s decision on liability was final and that a contractor was bound as a party to the arbitration agreement. Court held, that under the FAA, a bifurcated decision on liability could be treated as final where the parties agreed to treat liability and damages separately. Court found that the parties had so informally agreed, and that the law was no different under the New York Convention. Court also found that neither party had objected when the arbitrator described the conclusions on liability as “binding,” that the contract referred to contractor as one of the three parties, and that the contractor had behaved as a party by participating in arbitral proceedings.

Bailey v. Affinitylifestyles.com, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-02684-JAD-VCF (D. Nev. June 28, 2017) 06/28/2017

Court granted motion to stay all pre-trial obligations, including discovery, pending a decision on a motion to compel arbitration, holding that the risk that a stay would cause prejudice to the parties and to case administration did not outweigh the serious and irreparable prejudice, including the loss of advantages of arbitration from the failure to grant a stay. Court found that continued discovery would involve considerable expense.

GGNSC Frankfort, LLC v. Moore, No. 3:17-CV-00045-GFVT (E.D. Ky. June 28, 2017) 06/28/2017

Court denied motion to dismiss and granted in part and denied in part motion to compel arbitration, holding that a binding arbitration agreement covered all disputes except for the wrongful death claim. Court found that power of attorney authorized plaintiff to enter into binding arbitration agreements and that pre-printed nature of the arbitration agreement was insufficient to render it unconscionable. Court also found that estate was not a party to the arbitration agreement, and thus the estate’s wrongful death claim was not within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

Levy v. Lytx, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-03090-BAS-BGS (S.D. Ca. June 28, 2017) 06/28/2017

Court granted in part and denied in part motion to compel individual arbitration and dismiss class claims, holding that the arbitration agreement’s reference to the AAA arbitration rules clearly and unmistakably evidence the parties’ intention to delegate the question of availability of class proceedings to the arbitrator. Court found that, by agreeing to resolve disputes according to AAA rules, parties also agreed to follow the supplementary rules, which delegate the question of class arbitration to the arbitrator.

Dome Technology, LLC v. Golden Sands General Contractors, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00069-GEC (W.D. Va. June 28, 2017) 06/28/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration clause was not superseded by a later agreement between the parties, and that the payment dispute was sufficiently related to the agreement so as to bring it within the scope of the arbitration clause. Court found that neither the merger clause, nor the forum selection clause, nor any other provision of a subsequent agreement between the parties indicated the intent to supersede or repudiate the prior arbitration agreement. Court also found that the arbitration clause extended to “[a]ny dispute, claim, or controversy arising … out of or relating to” the interpretation, construction, performance, breach, or enforcement of the contract, and that this embraced every dispute between the parties having a significant relationship to the contract.

Dowton v. Equity Lifestyle Properties, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00659-KM (M.D. Pa. June 28, 2017) 06/28/2017

Court granted in part and denied in part motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration clause was valid and binding, and applied to the plaintiff’s claims, but that parties had thirty days to conduct limited discovery on whether plaintiff intended to be bound by the arbitration clause, when she had not signed the agreement but had paid related fees due. Court found that the arbitration clause applied to “[a]ny dispute or claim arising out of [the] [a]greement,” which would include any tort claims. Court found that contract pertained to voluntary recreational activities and was thus not a contract of adhesion, but further evidence was required on arbitrability.

Matoza v. Thor Industries, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01971-MMC (N.D. Ca. June 28, 2017) 06/28/2017

Court denied without prejudice motion to dismiss, holding that that the court cannot ordinarily resolve an evidentiary dispute on a motion to dismiss, and that the filing of a petition to compel arbitration was required, where parties disputed the existence of a binding arbitration agreement. Court found that there was disputed evidence as to whether an arbitration agreement bound the parties.

Sanford v. Bracewell LLP, No. 2:13-CV-01205-JHS (E.D. Pa. June 27, 2017) 06/27/2017

Court withheld ruling on motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiffs should have the opportunity to return to arbitration and pay the associated fees. Court found that plaintiffs continued to violate a prior order that they produce financial documentation to demonstrate their claimed inability to afford the cost of arbitration, as partial tax returns, partial bank statements, and a list of properties owned were insufficient to show this. Court found that this failure to comply had prejudiced defendants by imposing excessive and irremediable costs, and that plaintiffs had acted in bad faith.

Personacare of Reading, Inc. v. Lengel, No. 5:16-CV-01965-JLS (E.D. Pa. June 27, 2017) 06/27/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, ordered survival claims in the state court matter proceed to arbitration, and stayed pending state court proceedings, holding that the arbitrator could proceed on arbitrable claims, bifurcated from non-arbitrable claims, even where the agreement provided for arbitration of “all disputes.” Court found that the arbitration agreement’s provision that a third party service “may” conduct the arbitration, unless the parties chose not to select them, did not amount to fraud.

Cochrane v. Open Text Corporation, No. 15-16322 (9th Cir. June 27, 2017) 06/27/2017

Court affirmed district court order confirming arbitral award, holding that the district court had correctly determined that parties had agreed to arbitrate arbitrability, and that neither the arbitrator’s determination that he had jurisdiction to determine the amount of compensation nor the determination of the amount was completely irrational or exhibited a manifest disregard of the law. Court found that parties had designated the arbitrator to determine arbitrability by incorporating the AAA’s Rules into the employment agreement. Court found that the arbitrator’s decisions derived from the language of the contracts and representations made by the parties.

Conde v. Open Door Marketing, LLC., No. 4:15-CV-04080-KAW (N.D. Ca. April 27, 2017) 06/27/2017

Court granted motion to deny class certification as to individuals who had not signed the arbitration agreement, denied motion to deny class certification with respect to individuals who had signed the agreement, and granted in part and denied in part motion to expand collective action to include individuals who signed a later arbitration agreement with a class action waiver clause. Court found that because some plaintiffs did not sign the arbitration agreement, they had no interest in its enforceability, and could not satisfy the typicality requirement of class certification. Court found that co-defendants who had not signed the arbitration agreement lacked an interest to enforce or rely on such agreement. Court found that the fact that some class members had signed arbitration agreements with class action waivers did not preclude conditional certification under the lenient standard at this point of litigation.

Leonard v. Delaware North Companies Sport Service, Inc., No. 16-3246 (8th Cir. June 27, 2017) 06/27/2017

Court of appeals affirmed district court order compelling arbitration and dismissing case without prejudice, holding that the arbitration agreement was valid and not unconscionable. Court found that plaintiff’s contract was easily understood, negotiable, and did not threaten basic necessities. Court also found that the language “any dispute arising from the Activity” in the arbitration agreement covered the underlying factual allegations.

Alexander Dubose Jefferson & Townsend LLP v. Vance, No. 1:17-CV-00133-RP (W.D. Tex. June 27, 2017) 06/27/2017

Court denied motion for reconsideration of denial of motion to compel arbitration, holding that the motion provided no newly discovered evidence and therefore did not meet the standard required under FRCP rules 54(b) and 59(e). Court found that the declarations regarding conversations that took place in 2016 did not constitute newly discovered evidence.

Aviation Alliance Insurance Risk Retention Group, Inc. v. Polaris Enterprise Group, Inc., No. 9:17-CV-00035-DWM (D. Mont. June 27, 2017) 06/27/2017

Court granted in part and denied in part motion to compel arbitration, holding that, to the extent that plaintiff’s claims arose under a terminated contract, they remained subject to a “zombie” arbitration provision post-expiration. Court found nothing in the agreement indicating intent to eliminate the duty to arbitrate as of the date of the agreement’s termination.

Garcia v. Kakish, No. 1:17-CV-00374-JLT (E.D. Cal. June 27, 2017) 06/27/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that parties agreed to arbitration and that the claims are factually and legally intertwined with the contract containing the arbitration provision. Court found that the arbitration agreement did not contain a waiver of the right to seek public injunctive relief, but left the interpretation and scope of the agreement to the arbitrator. Court also found that the procedural unconscionability of the arbitrator selection clause, which provided for one party’s approval of the arbitral body, did not permeate the entire agreement. Further, the nonsignatory plaintiff’s claims were intimately founded in and intertwined with the signatory plaintiff’s claims, and thus subject to arbitration.

Hebbronville Lone Star Rentals, LLC, v. Sunbelt Rentals Industrial Services, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00856-RP (W.D. Tex. June 27, 2017) 06/27/2017

Court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and findings that the court should vacate the portion of the arbitration award reforming an agreement between the parties on the basis of mutual mistake. Court held defendants’ objections did not raise any arguments not considered by the magistrate judge and that plaintiffs’ motion for vacatur was granted.

Cochrane v. Open Text Corporation, No. 3:15-CV-01234-WHA (9th Cir. June 27, 2017) 06/27/2017

Court of appeal affirmed district court’s judgment confirming an arbitration award. Court agreed with the lower court’s finding that the parties, through their employment agreement and its incorporation of AAA rules, had agreed to arbitrate the issue of arbitrability. Moreover, the court found that neither the arbitrator’s determinations as to jurisdiction or amount of compensation were “completely irrational or exhibit[ed] a manifest disregard of the law” and therefore the arbitral award should be upheld.

In re Document Technologies Litigation, No. 1:17-CV-02405-JSR (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2017) 06/26/2017

Court explained its reasons for an earlier bench order granting defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff argued that defendants had waived their right to arbitration because they unreasonably delayed filing a motion to compel arbitration, engaged in protracted discovery, and “evidenced a preference for litigation.” In rejecting those arguments, court held that defendants had filed their motions to compel arbitration shortly after plaintiff filed its suit and that they had not waived their right to arbitration. Court also denied a co-defendant’s motion to compel arbitration because it was not a signatory to the arbitration agreements and did not have the requisite “close relationship” with the parties to allow it to compel arbitration.

In re application of EISER Infrastructure Ltd. for Recognition and Enforcement of an Arbitration Award against Kingdom of Spain, No. 1:17-CV-03808-LAK (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2017) 06/26/2017

Court recognized and entered as a judgment the arbitral award, and ordered that Spain pay to petitioners the award amount of $128 million Euro plus interest, holding that petitioners had complied with the requirements under New York CPLR §§ 5401 et seq., for recognition of judgments entitled to full faith and credit.

Applebaum v. Lyft, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-07062-JGK (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2017) 06/26/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that, by clicking “I accept” on the terms of service in a subsequent agreement, where the terms were expressly presented as a legally binding agreement, the plaintiff assented to the arbitration clause. Court found that, regarding an earlier agreement, a reasonably prudent consumer would not have been on inquiry notice of the terms of service, as the text was small and difficult to read, and would not lead a reasonable consumer to understand that it hyperlinked to a contract.

Thompson v. AT&T Mobility Services LLC, No. 5:17-CV-139-FL (E.D.N.C. June 26, 2017) 06/26/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that plaintiff had agreed to arbitrate “any claim that [she] may have against [defendants]”, and that all of plaintiff’s claims were arbitrable.

Carlton Energy Group, LLC v. Cliveden Petroleum Co. Ltd., No. 4:13-CV-00095 (S.D. Tex. June 23, 2017) 06/23/2017

Court recommended that non-signatory defendants’ suggestion of mootness and motion to stay pending arbitration be granted, holding that non-signatory defendants submitted to the jurisdiction of the arbitrators in Texas pursuant to the arbitration provision, and accordingly to the Texas court’s jurisdiction, by stipulating that they were proper parties to the arbitration. Court found that this implied consent extended to any post-arbitration enforcement action. Court found that to determine issues beyond this question would constitute a decision on the merits and exceed the court’s authority, and these must be decided by the arbitrator.

Storagecraft Technology Corp. v. Storagecraft UK, No. 2.13-CV-01005-DN (D. Utah June 23, 2017) 06/23/2017

Court granted unopposed petition to confirm arbitration award, finding that parties had agreed to submit to arbitration any dispute, controversy, or claim arising out of, relating to, or in connection with the contract or the subject thereof, and that the final ICDR award had not been modified, corrected, or vacated.

Caribbean Bottlers (Trinidad & Tobago) Limited v. Alexander, Norona, & Expedient Ship Chandler of Panama, S.A., No. 1:17-CV-21740-UU (S.D. Fla. June 23, 2017) 06/23/2017

Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award rendered by the American Arbitration Association pursuant to the §9 of the FAA.

Information Systems Audit and Control Association, Inc. v. Telecommunications Systems, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-02066 (N.D. Ill. June 23, 2017) 06/23/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and denied dismissal of the complaint, holding that arbitrability was an issue for the arbitrator, and claims fell within the scope of the arbitration clause, notwithstanding the equitable relief sought. Court found that the arbitration clause incorporated the AAA’s Commercial Arbitration Rules, which expressly provide that an arbitrator will adjudicate on arbitrability. Court also found that the equitable nature of the relief sought did not alter the fact that plaintiff’s breach of contract claims went to the heart of the arbitration clause’s subject matter.

TK Services, Inc. v. RWD Consulting, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-01152-ABJ (D.D.C. June 23, 2017) 06/23/2017

Court granted motion compel arbitration and dismiss complaint, and denied as moot the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction in aid of arbitration. Court found that the arbitration clause was broad, covering “[a]ny controversy or claim between the [parties] arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, including any claim concerning an alleged breach,” which thus included claims for injunctive relief. Court also found that plaintiff had not shown risk of irreparable harm and had not shown that the integrity of the arbitration was at risk or that defendants will be unable to fund an award.

Burcham v. Ford Motor Credit Company, LLC., No. 3:16-CV-00943-DRH (S.D. Ill June 23, 2017) 06/23/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the delegation clause in the arbitration agreement rendered the issue of whether the claim was within the scope of the arbitration agreement one for the arbitrator to decide. Court found that the delegation clause was unambiguous, requiring parties to arbitrate “[c]laims regarding the interpretation, scope, or validity of [the arbitration] clause, or arbitrability of any issue.”

DataStrait Networks, Inc. v. S2 Security Corp., No. 0:17-CV-01355-DWF-FLN (D. Minn. June 23, 2017) 06/23/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and denied motion to dismiss, holding that whether the dispute was covered by the arbitration agreement was an issue for the arbitrator. Court found that the arbitration agreement provided that the arbitrator will decide “any disputes or questions arising hereunder, including the construction or application of this Agreement,” and incorporated by reference the AAA rules, which provide that an arbitrator determines whether a dispute falls within an arbitration agreement.

Clos la Chance Wines, Inc. V. AV Brands, Inc., No. 5 :16-CV-04047-EJD (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2017) 06/23/2017

Court granted application for order to confirm arbitral award and enter judgment, holding (i) the arbitrator did not exceed his powers or manifestly disregard the law by awarding damages for time and costs associated with capturing market share; and (ii) the respondent has not shown the final arbitration award was procured through undue means or fraud. Court found arbitrator’s finding on damages for loss of market position, as a “natural and necessary” consequence of respondent’s breach, was not something that could be overturned and was based on the arbitrator’s consideration of concrete evidence. Court also found it had no authority to re-weigh the evidence before the arbitrator, and that petitioner had cited no evidence demonstrating fraud on the part of petitioner or its expert.

Alvarez v. National Debt Relief, LLC, 1:16-CV-04156-CM (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2017) 06/23/2017

In re Application of Hulley Enterprises Ltd., Yukos Universal Ltd., and Veteran Petroleum Ltd., No. 1:17-MC-01466-BAH (D.D.C. June 23, 2017) 06/23/2017

Court denied petitioners’ ex parte application to issue subpoenas pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 to conduct discovery for use in a foreign proceeding, finding notice to recipients would streamline the proceedings and an order to show cause was appropriate given the likelihood of privileged material at issue. Court denied petitioners’ request for waiver of notice requirements for related cases, concluding that even if there was a reasonable concern that notification would result in spoliation of evidence, the risk would not be meaningfully mitigated by suspending immediate notice since petitioners would have to provide notice when issuing subpoenas. Shearman & Sterling is counsel for the petitioners in connection with this case.

In re Application of Hulley Enterprises Ltd., Yukos Universal Ltd., and Veteran Petroleum Ltd., No. 2:17-MC-00088-UA-E (C.D. Cal. June 22, 2017) 06/22/2017

Court granted petitioners’ application for an ex parte order pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 to conduct discovery for use in a foreign proceeding. Shearman & Sterling is counsel for the petitioners in connection with this case.

AGCS Marine Insurance Company v. Hymel & Associates, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-06899 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2017) 06/22/2017

Court granted in part and denied in part petition to compel arbitration, holding that the agreement to arbitrate was effective as to Mr. Hymel, but not with respect to Hymel & Associates (“H&A”). Court found that H&A had not signed the insurance application containing the arbitration clause, and petitioners had not demonstrated a valid basis to compel H&A to attend arbitration. Court found that the arbitration agreement did not require an insured non-party to the agreement to arbitrate, requiring only that “the parties hereto” submit to arbitration. Court found no indication that Mr. Hymel signed the application as an agent for H&A. Court declined to find that a choice of law clause served to limit the application of the arbitration clause to instances where New York law applied.

Pompeo v. AD Astra Recovery Services, Inc., No 1:16-cv-01371-MCA-KK (D.N.M. June 22, 2017) 06/22/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration agreement was binding and encompassed plaintiff’s claims. Court found that the binding arbitration agreement defined “claim” broadly, and was not on its face faulty because it is illusory, unconscionable, or otherwise invalid.

Trustees for the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Annuity Fund, and Training Program Fund v. Super, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-06387-PKC (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2017) 06/22/2017

Court granted petitioners’ motion to confirm the arbitral award pursuant to the FAA, the Labor Management Relations Act, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Court found there was no genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment confirming the award.

Kane International Corp. v. US Polymers-Accurez LLC, No. 4:17-CV-01625-RLW (E.D. Mo. June 21, 2017) 06/21/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the parties had agreed to arbitrate and that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration clause. Court found that defendants had previously relied on the arbitration agreement, in responding to the application for a temporary restraining order, and that any dispute regarding the scope of the arbitration provision was for the arbitrator to resolve.

Hobzek v. Homeaway.com, Inc., No. 17-50144 (5th Cir. June 21, 2017) 06/21/2017

Circuit court per curiam dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Court held that the district court’s order compelling arbitration was not a final appealable order over which the court had jurisdiction as the case was stayed pending a decision by the arbitrator. GGNSC Louisville St. Matthews, LLC v. Badgett, No. 3:17-CV-00188-TBR (W.D. Ky. July 20, 2017) 06/20/2017

Court denied petition to compel arbitration, finding that a respondent who signed an arbitration agreement upon admission to one nursing home but later disclaimed an identical agreement upon admission to another nursing home owned by the same parent company had novated the contract and was not bound to arbitrate.

Webco Industries, Inc. v. Texas Tubular Products, Inc., No. 4:15-CV-00704-JED-FHM (N.D. Okla. June 20, 2016) 06/20/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration. Pursuant to the FAA, court found a valid agreement to arbitrate and determined that the subject matter of the dispute fell within the scope of the agreement.

Al Azzawi v. International Centre for Dispute Resolution Organization, Kellogg Brown and Roots Services, Inc., No. 16-3965 (2d Cir. June 20, 2017) 06/20/2017

Court of appeal granted appellees’ motions for summary affirmance of the district court’s ruling that plaintiff lacked standing to assert claims of an alleged violation of the ICDR Arbitration Ruels in an underlying arbitration and dismissed the appeal as lacking “an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”

Optimum Laboratory Services LLC v. East El Paso Physicians’ Medical Center, LLC, No. 5:17-CV-00411-R (W.D. Okla. June 20, 2017) 06/20/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Pursuant to the FAA, court found the delegation provision in the arbitration agreement was clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to arbitrate issues of arbitrability, and under state contract law, the court found the clause valid and enforceable.

Sentry Select Insurance Company v. Ruiz, No. 3:16-CV-00376-DCG (W.D. Tex. June 20, 2017) 06/20/2017

Court granted and denied in part motion to compel arbitration. Court held that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate and found no evidence of a federal statute or policy that rendered the claims nonarbitrable. Court found counterclaims against plaintiff were not subject to arbitration, but stayed proceedings as to those claims pending arbitration.

JPay Inc. v. Salim, No. 1:16-CV-20107-DLG (S.D. Fla. June 20, 2017) 06/20/2017

Court affirmed a AAA arbitration award and denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate. Court disagreed with plaintiff’s argument that a determination on class arbitration exceeded the arbitrator’s powers.

Taylor v. Pilot Corporation, Pilot Travel Centers LLC, No. 16-5326 (6th Cir. June 19, 2017) 06/19/2017

Court of appeal denied defendants’ interlocutory appeal, finding that the FAA did not provide jurisdiction to resolve the class certification issue because it was not a final judgment on the merits. Court found defendants’ jurisdictional arguments under the FAA to be unpersuasive, concluding that §16(a)(1)(A) of the FAA only granted the court authority to consider the denial of stay and that §16(a)(1)(B) only applied to a petition to compel arbitration, which was not present here. Court held it had jurisdiction only over the denial of the request for stay, but affirmed the district court’s decision to deny the request pursuant to the FAA, finding the request premature.

Steinmann v. ZTE Corporation, ZTE (USA) Inc., No. 16-55109 (9th Cir. June 19, 2017) 06/19/2017

Court of appeal affirmed district court’s confirmation of an ICDR award, holding that plaintiffs’ waived their right to challenge the award because plaintiffs’ neglected to request a clarification or correction from the arbitrator when the issue arose, and thus waived their right to do so pursuant to Article 25 of the ICDR Arbitration Rules.

Amos v. Lincoln Property Company, No. 3:17-CV-00037 (M.D. Tenn. June 19, 2017) 06/19/2017

Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pursuant to the FAA. Court found there was no valid agreement to arbitrate that would bind the plaintiff as there was no evidence she was ever informed that her acceptance of an arbitration agreement was a condition of employment.

Mahanandigari & Mahanandigari v. Tata Consultancy Services, No. 2:16-CV-08746-JLL-SCM (D.N.J. June 19, 2017) 06/19/2017

Court granted motion to dismiss and compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA, finding a valid agreement to arbitrate and concluding the employment dispute fell within the scope of the agreement.

Arctic Glavier U.S.A., Inc., v. Principal Life Insurance Company, No. 8:16-CV-03555-PX (D. Md. June 19, 2017) 06/19/2017

Court transferred the petition to compel arbitration to the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska pursuant to the arbitration clause in the agreement. Court found jurisdiction pursuant to the FAA and concluded the petitioners had standing to enforce the arbitration agreement. While court held it had diversity jurisdiction, it found venue was improper based on the forum selection clause in the agreement pursuant to § 4 of the FAA.

Marchand v. Northrop Grumman Corporation, No. 5:16-CV-06825-BLF (N.D. Cal. June 19, 2017) 06/19/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration of all non-Title VII claims and stayed the case pending outcome of arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement enforceable pursuant to the FAA. Court concluded defendant did not waive or abrogate its right to enforce the agreement, finding that defendant did not fail to timely demand arbitration; defendant did not waive its right to compel arbitration by failing to complete the dispute resolution process requested or by failing to proceed with arbitration after plaintiff withdrew her demand for arbitration; and the arbitration agreement has not expired. Court concluded the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable, finding at most modest procedural unconscionability, but no substantive unconscionability.

Slavin v. Imperial Parking (U.S.), LLC, No. 8:16-CV-02511-PWG (D. Md. June 19, 2017) 06/19/2017

Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award and ordered the lawsuit to proceed on the remaining claims. Court held the FAA applied based on the choice of law provision in the agreement and concluded that the three month limitations period to vacate the award applied, but the respondent failed to make the request within that period. Court concluded the respondent’s fraud claims were also outside the time limitations and held that the respondent was a party to the arbitration.

2151 Michelson, L.P. v. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, No. 8:17-CV-0781-DOC-DFM (C.D. Cal. June 16, 2017) 06/16/2017

Court denied plaintiff’s motion to remand and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court found the issue of whether the previous state court judgment had preclusive effect was not subject to arbitration, but all other claims were and defendant had not waived its right to compel arbitration.

Fox v. Forest River Inc., No. 1:16-CV-0770-GTS-DJS (N.D.N.Y. June 16, 2017) 06/16/2017

Court denied motion to compel arbitration of all claims and cross-claims pursuant to the FAA. Court found moot the cross-defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s claims as the parties had stipulated to dismissal of those claims and denied the motion to compel arbitration of the remaining claims, finding that there was no evidence of a contractual arbitration agreement with the cross-defendant. Court held defendants had not established that a stay was warranted under the FAA.

Green v. Broker Solutions, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00844-RLW (E.D. Mo. June 16, 2017) 06/16/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court found the defendant non-signatory had standing to compel arbitration, that the agreement was a bilateral contract with adequate consideration under Missouri law that was not procedurally unconscionable.

In Re: Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation., No. 4:13-MD-02420-YGR (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2017) 06/16/2017

Court granted motion for issuance of letter rogatory to obtain discovery for use in an arbitration proceeding in Finland. Court found the discovery requested is relevant and discoverable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, finding the individual from which discovery was requested may possess information directly relevant to their claims.

Olson v. MBO Partners Inc., No. 3:15-CV-02216-HZ (D. Or. June 15, 2017) 06/15/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and denied motion to stay pending arbitration. Court held the arbitration clause is valid and found unpersuasive arguments that the provision violated Oregon law, was unconscionable, resulted from the plaintiff’s signature under duress, or was the result of misrepresentation or fraudulent inducement. Court found plaintiff provided no reason to stay the case and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Clearfield v. HCL America Inc., No. 1:17-CV-02933-JMF (S.D.N.Y. June 15,2017) 06/15/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the plaintiff received and agreed to the arbitration agreement at issue and was therefore bound by its terms.

Mesa Power Group LLC v. Government of Canada, No. 1:16-CV-01101-JDB (D.D.C. June 15, 2017) 06/15/2017

Court denied petition to vacate the arbitration award, granted the counter-petition to enforce, and denied the request to award attorney’s fees. In rejecting the petition to vacate, the court held that there is nothing in the tribunal’s award or the dissent to indicate that the tribunal engaged in “misbehavior by which the rights” of the petitioner “were prejudiced” under FAA §10(3)(a) or that the tribunal exceeded its powers under §10(4)(a). Additionally, the court held that while it has the inherent authority to award attorney’s fees when the losing party’s actions were frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, even though not brought in bad faith, the petitioner’s petition did not rise to this level.

Fontana v. The Chefs’ Warehouse, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-06521-HSG (N.D. Cal. June 15, 2017) 06/15/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action pending resolution of the arbitration. Court found that the original arbitration agreement between the parties controlled because a later in time agreement, which provided for resolution of the dispute by a court of competent jurisdiction, was not executed by both parties and therefore not legally binding. Moreover, to the extent there was a lingering doubt as to whether arbitration is appropriate, the arbitration agreement contained a delegation clause giving the arbitrator the authority to resolve such a dispute.

Colon v. Conchetta, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00959-RK (E.D. Pa. June 14, 2017) 06/14/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, dismiss the proceedings, and stay discovery. Under the FAA, the court determined the parties clearly agreed to arbitrate arbitrability, determined all defendants will be ordered to arbitration, and stayed the case pending the resolution of arbitration.

Hoover v. Sears Holding Corporation, No. 3:16-CV-0450-AET-TJB (D.N.J. June 14, 2017) 06/14/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court found there was reasonable notice for a valid agreement to arbitrate and the dispute fell within the scope of the agreement.

Singer v. Stuerke, No. 2:16-CV-02526-KJD-GWF (D. Nev. June 14, 2017) 06/14/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the first amended petition and ordered plaintiffs to file a second amended petition. Pursuant to the FAA, court found the parties had a valid agreement to arbitrate and the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement. Court also held it had specific personal jurisdiction over the defendant, but lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims because there was no federal question or diversity jurisdiction. Court denied defendant’s motion to strike but found the allegations were irrelevant to plaintiffs’ claims and thus should not be included in an amended petition.

New York Hotel & Motel Trades Council, AFL-CIO v. CF 43 Hotel LLC, No. 1:16-CV-05997-RMB (S.D.N.Y. June 14, 2017) 06/14/2017

Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm two arbitration awards and denied respondents’ cross-motion to dismiss. Court further ordered the respondents’ to pay petitioners’ attorneys’ fees and expenses in pursuit of this petition because the respondents failed to comply with the awards and presented no timely justification for contesting the awards.

Silfee v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc., No. 16-3725 (3d Cir. June 13, 2017) 06/13/2017

Court of appeals vacated and remanded the district court’s prior order denying motions to compel arbitration and dismiss the suit. Court held that since arbitrability is a gateway issue under §4 of the FAA, if a party moves to compel arbitration based on an authentic arbitration agreement that is attached to the complaint, a Rule(b)(6) summary judgment standard is appropriate unless the other party responds with additional facts sufficient to place the agreement to arbitrate at issue. Here, there were no facts presented at the outset of the litigation to place the arbitration agreement at issue and therefore the lower court failed to analyze the parties’ competing arguments regarding arbitrability.

Sterling Merchant Finance, Ltd. v Republic of Cabo Verde, No. 1:16-CV-01285-ESH (D.D.C June 13, 2017) 06/13/2017

Court issued a default judgment confirming a Permanent Court of Arbitration award against the Republic of Cape Verde pursuant to the New York Convention and the FAA.

Willcock v. My Goodness Games, Inc., No. 8:16-CV-04020-PWG (D. Md. June 12, 2017) 06/12/2017

Court stayed the action pending a decision by the arbitrator on the arbitrability of the claims because the parties’ incorporation of the AAA Arbitration Rules presents clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed the arbitrator would decide questions of arbitrability and not the court.

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh v. Seneca Family of Agencies, No. 1:17-CV-01061-JGK (S.D.N.Y. June 12, 2017) 06/12/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration in part, finding that California statute alleged to preempt arbitration agreement only applied to claims arising after a certain date, and thus earlier arbitration agreement was not preempted as to earlier claims. Court denied without prejudice motion to compel arbitration as to later claims so that California court could determine question of whether California statute preempted the arbitration agreement, and by extension reverse preempted the FAA.

Bacon v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-05939 (D.N.J. June 9, 2017) 06/09/2017

Court denied the motions to compel arbitration, finding that the issue of whether the arbitration agreement was incorporated into the principle agreement, and thus a mutual consent to arbitrate, required further development of the factual record so the motions can be decided on a summary judgment standard.

Internaves De Mexico s.a. de C.V. v. Andromeda Steamship Corporation, No. 9:16-CV-81719-DMM (S.D. Fla. June 9, 2017) 06/09/2017

Court denied defendants’ motion for stay pending appeal. Referencing the four factors identified in Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (1987), court found that the defendants (i) failed to show that they are likely to succeed on the merits; (ii) failed to identify any concrete harm that would befall them outside of a courtroom; (iii) it is not likely that plaintiff will be substantially injured by granting a stay; and (iv) it is not against public policy to compel arbitration while a dissatisfied party pursues an appeal.

Toth v. GSF Mortgage Corporation, No. 5:16-CV-02101-BYP (E.D. Ohio June 8, 2017) 06/08/2017

Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that there was, at the very least, a genuine dispute of material fact as to the existence of a contract and the arbitration provision therein.

Quality Plus Services, Inc. v. AGY Aiken LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00727-MHL (E.D. Va. June 7, 2017) 06/07/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and denied as moot the motion to dismiss or transfer. Court found that the parties agreed to the arbitration clause and the arbitration clause applied to all claims arising out of purchase orders, including plaintiff’s. Court also determined that because the court found all of plaintiff’s claims subject to arbitration, it would exercise its discretion to dismiss the case without prejudice.

Gold Mine Jewelry Shoppes, Inc. v. Lise Aagaard Copenhagen, A/S, No. 5:16-CV-00135-BR (E.D.N.C. Mar. 7, 2017) 06/07/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the suit, finding that the arbitration agreement at issues was enforceable and the dispute fell within the scope of that agreement, and therefore are not for the court to decide.

Demartini v. Johns, No. 16-15078 (9th Cir. June 7, 2017) 06/07/2017

Court of appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the district court’s order denying defendants’ motion to vacate an arbitration award. Court found that it could not conclude from the record that the arbitrator’s decision, while perhaps an erroneous application of California law, constituted a manifest disregard of the law. Could also found defendants’ public policy argument would require the court to revisit the arbitrator’s findings of fact and conclusions of law and so the court could not vacate on that ground.

Mayton v. Tempoe, LLC, No. 5:17-CV-00179-XR (W.D. Tex. June 7, 2017) 06/07/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismiss. Court found that (i) there was a valid agreement to arbitrate between the parties; (ii) the agreement to arbitrate covered the dispute in question; (iii) there were no legal constraints external to the parties’ agreement that would foreclose arbitration of plaintiff’s claims; (iv) there is a “tight relatedness of the parties, contracts and controversies” sufficient to compel plaintiff to arbitration with respect to his claims against a non-party to the contract; and (v) dismissal of the case, rather than a stay, would be appropriate as plaintiff presented no justification for a stay.

Trustees of the Northeast Carpenters, Health, Pension, Annuity, Apprenticeship v. Tiki Industries, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-04487-DRH-ARL (E.D.N.Y. June 6, 2017) 06/06/2017

Court adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge recommending that petitioners’ motion to confirm the arbitration award be granted. Magistrate judge held that petitioners satisfied their burden in establishing that the arbitration award should be confirmed, as the award was plausibly grounded in the parties’ agreement and there was no issue of material fact precluding summary judgment.

Wilhelm v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-01148-ILRL-KWR (E.D. La. June 5, 2017) 06/05/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration. Court held that (i) the fact that a representative of the defendant failed to sign the document did not invalidate the arbitration agreement; (ii) the FAA preempted any state law that attempted to prohibit the enforcement of otherwise valid arbitration agreements; and (iii) the misconduct alleged by the plaintiff against the signatory defendant and the non-signatory defendant was sufficiently interdependent to allow a non-signatory to compel arbitration against the signatories.

Benhenni v. Bayesian Efficient Strategic Trading, LLC, No. 16-3949 (3d Cir. June 5, 2017) 06/05/2017

Court of appeal affirmed the district court’s denial of pro se appellant’s petition to vacate an arbitral award. Court found that appellant filed a non-compliant appellate brief devoid of references to the record and citations to legal authority in support of his arguments, which failed to identify why the district court’s order should be disturbed. Court also found that appellant’s arguments amounted to assertions that the arbitrator’s interpretation was flawed, a basis upon which the court could not vacate the arbitrator’s award.

Evans v. Building Materials Corporation of America, No. 16-2427 (Fed. Cir. June 5, 2017) 06/05/2017

Court of appeal affirmed the district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss or stay action pending arbitration, finding defendant’s assertion that the dispute was covered by the arbitration agreement to be “wholly groundless.”

Xome Holdings LLC v. Derbonne, No. 4:16-CV-00550-ALM (E.D. Tex. June 2, 2017) 06/02/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, rejecting defendants’ argument that the arbitration agreement is unconscionable. Court held that the action fell squarely within the plain language of the arbitration clause, and thus, the parties should resolve their disputes in arbitration pursuant to their agreement.

Robinson v. PNC Bank, No. 2:13-CV-07818-SRC-CLW (D.N.J. June 2, 2017) 06/02/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to reopen the case, confirm the arbitration award, and enter judgment. The FAA provides that a district court must grant a motion to confirm an arbitration award if four conditions are met: (i) the parties agreed that a judgment would be entered after an arbitration award is made; (ii) a party to the arbitration has moved to confirm the award within one year after the award is entered; (iii) the motion to confirm is brought in the district court specified in the agreement or in a district court in the district within which the arbitration award was made; and (iv) there must be no grounds on which to vacate, modify, or correct an arbitration award. As all four conditions were satisfied in the instant case, the court found that it must grant defendant’s motion to confirm the arbitration award.

Forbes v. Seaworld Parks & Entertainment, No. 4:16-CV-00172-MSD-LRL (E.D. Va. June 2, 2017) 06/02/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that the dispute resolution program was not “outdated” the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable. Additionally, court held that defendant did not waive its right to arbitration by failing to “bring up arbitration” in response to settlement requests and failing to respond to certain emails, and plaintiff’s allegations of harassment do not provide sufficient justification to ignore the parties’ valid agreement to arbitrate their disputes

Cochran v. Nabors Drilling Technologies USA Inc., No. 2:16-CV-01633-JTT-KK (W.D. La. June 2, 2017) 06/02/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. Court held that plaintiff failed to establish that defendant waived its right to arbitrate because plaintiff provided no evidence that the defendant took an overt action manifesting an intent to resolve the dispute through litigation. Court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that defendant should be equitably estopped from enforcing the arbitration agreement, as plaintiff cited no law supporting the proposition that the state law doctrine of equitable estoppel can be the basis of a party being “in default” under the FAA.

Bakon v. Rushmore Service Center, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-06137-ILG-SMG (E.D.N.Y. June 2, 2017) 06/02/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to enforce an arbitration agreement between plaintiff and a third party, finding that plaintiff entered into a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement with the thirdparty that defendant (as an affiliate of the third party) is entitled to invoke. Court also determined that the regular use of a credit card constitutes sufficient evidence of a card user’s consent to the terms of the agreement governing the account and that the FAA does not require arbitration agreements to be signed to be enforceable.

GGNSC Louisville Mt. Holly, LLC v. Mohamed-Vall, No. 16-5606 (6th Cir. June 2, 2017) 06/02/2017

Court of appeals affirmed lower court’s order compelling arbitration and enjoining defendants from proceeding with litigation in state court. Court of appeals held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the dispute because the district court’s order compelling arbitration was not a final decision as required by the FAA. Court further declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction to hear defendant’s challenge to the district court’s injunction.

Ortiz v. Volt Management Corp., No. 4:16-CV-07096-YGR (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2017) 06/02/2017

Court granted a non-signatory defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that the plaintiff had signed an employment agreement with the staffing company that contained a broad arbitration provision, and that the staffing company had assigned plaintiff to work for the non-signatory defendant. As such, the plaintiff’s claims were intimately founded in and intertwined with his employment relationship with the staffing company and it was appropriate to allow arbitration.

North American Deer Registry, Inc. v. DNA Solutions, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00062-ALM (E.D. Tex. June 2, 2017) 06/02/2017

Court granted plaintiff’s application for a preliminary injunction, finding that (i) the arbitration clause was narrow and did not encompass injunctive relief, (ii) the contract did not provide any means by which the arbitrator could resolve a dispute as to the non-contract claims, and (iii) the FAA did not apply to bar a preliminary injunction because the non-contract claims were not subject to arbitration.

Nexteer Automotive Corporation v. Korea Delphi Automotive Systems Corporation, No. 2:13-CV-15189-GCS-LJM (E.D. Mich. June 2, 2017) 06/02/2017

Court confirmed in part a SIAC arbitral award. Court held that (i) although the New York Convention authorized the court to stay enforcement, such a stay would be inappropriate here because the parties agreed to be bound by the arbitrator’s decision and waived their right to appeal; (ii) that while it would be prudent to await a decision from the Singapore court on some parts of the award, the defendant did not level a serious challenge to the non-derivative royalty provisions of the arbitral award and so it was not necessary to stay enforcement of those portions; and (iii) the six Europcar factors established by second circuit precedent weighed in favor of denying a stay.

Madden v. Ally Financial Inc., No. 5:16-CV-00172-JMH-EBA (E.D. Ky. June 2, 2017) 06/02/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the only action defendant took that could be considered inconsistent with reliance on the arbitration agreement was filing an answer that did not include the arbitration agreement as a specific affirmative defense. However, since defendant moved to compel arbitration soon after discovery of the arbitration clause, this was not “completely inconsistent” with an intent to rely on the arbitration clause.

Golden Temple of Oregon, LLC v. Puri, No. 3:11-CV-01358-HZ (D. Or. June 2, 2017) 06/02/2017

Court granted plaintiff’s motion for order confirming arbitration award and denied defendant’s motion to vacate. Court found that (i) defendant did not show that the panel manifestly disregarded the law by implicitly rejecting defendant’s standing argument and by awarding relief to a party that did not participate in the arbitration; (ii) the panel did not exceed its power by not including foreign and other intellectual property in the award; and (iii) the plaintiff was the prevailing party because it prevailed on claims as alleged in the complaint, and so the panel did not exceed its power in awarding plaintiff reasonable attorney fees and costs. Kelleher v. Dream Catcher, L.L.C., No. 1:16-CV-02902-APM (D.D.C. June 2, 2017) 06/02/2017

Court denied defendant’s motion to stay pending arbitration, holding that the defendant failed to overcome the presumption that it had forfeited its right to arbitrate since it failed to invoke that right at the earliest opportunity and instead waiting more than five months to do so.

Wright v. Sirius XM radio Inc., No. 8:16-CV-01688-JVS-JCG (C.D. Cal. June 1, 2017) 06/01/2017

Court granted motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that defendant’s documentary evidence of mailing the agreement to plaintiff was sufficient to establish that plaintiff received the agreement and had notice of the arbitration provision.

Price v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00706-SEB-MJD (S.D. Ind. June 1, 2017) 06/01/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, holding that the class action waiver contained in the arbitration clause did not violate the National Labor Relations Act and was enforceable.

Moise v. Family Dollar Stores of New York, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-06314-RA-GWG (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2017) 06/01/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings. Court found that (i) claiming that one does not recall receiving the arbitration agreement does not create a genuine dispute as to whether the plaintiff signed it; (ii) plaintiff’s claim that he did not read or fully understand the agreement does not demonstrate a genuine dispute as to the formation of an arbitration agreement; (iii) plaintiff cannot avoid the binding effects of the agreement by asserting that he signed it “under economic duress and coercion;” and (iv) the argument that the arbitration agreement is unconscionable under New York law is for the arbitrator to decide.

Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company v. LaFerrera, No. 7:15-CV-02350-LSC (N.D. Ala. June 1, 2016) 06/01/2017

Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings as to one of the defendants (CCG) and held that it was moot as to the other defendants. Court found that the language of the arbitration agreement was sufficiently restrictive to preclude CCG, a nonsignatory to the arbitration agreement, from enforcing the agreement through the doctrine of equitable estoppel.

Jock v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., No. 16-1731 (2d Cir. June 1, 2017) 06/01/2017

Court of appeals dismissed appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Court of appeals held that the FAA only provides that an appeal may be taken in limited circumstances, including from “an order” confirming or denying confirmation of an award or partial award. According to the court of appeals, because the lower court did not confirm or deny an arbitrator's decision, but rather dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, the court of appeals lacked appellate jurisdiction under the FAA.

La Frontera Center, Inc. v. United States Behavioral Health, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00187-JB-WPL (D.N.M. June 1, 2017) 06/01/2017

Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration and to stay the proceedings. Court held that plaintiff entered into an enforceable arbitration agreement with defendants and that plaintiff’s claims against defendants were subject to the arbitration clause.

Leidel v. Coinbase, Inc., No. 9:16-CV-81992-KAM (S.D. Fla. June 1, 2017) 06/01/2017

Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that although plaintiff entered into a valid arbitration agreement, plaintiff’s claims did not fall within the scope of the arbitration clause.

Venco Imtiaz Construction Company v. Symbion Power LLC, No. 1:16-CV-01737-JDB (D.D.C. May 31, 2017) 05/31/2017

Court granted plaintiff’s motion to enforce an arbitration award and denied defendant’s motion for a stay and security. Court held that defendant had not established that issue preclusion arising from parallel proceedings in the U.K. courts was warranted and thus, had not established that the public policy exception to the New York Convention applied to the disputed arbitration award. Court further held that after balancing the factors established in applicable precedent, it would not be appropriate to stay the enforcement proceedings pending the outcome of an appeal before the U.K. courts.

Cavallo v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-04264-FLW-DEA (D.N.J. May 31, 2017) 05/31/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that, contrary to plaintiff’s arguments, the arbitration agreement did not violate the National Labor Relations Act and the arbitration agreement’s class waiver did not violate the Norris-LaGuardia Act. Court further held that the arbitration agreement contained an enforceable delegation clause which established that the arbitrator would decide the question of arbitrability.

Tradewinds Ltd. v. Grupo Dolphin Discovery, No. 2:17-CV-01292-RGK-RAO (C.D. Cal. May 31, 2017) 05/31/2017

Court granted petitioner’s petition to confirm an arbitration award, holding that the arbitral panel did not manifestly disregard the law by concluding that petitioner was not acting as an unregistered broker or deal in violation of federal and California law

Trustees of the Northeast Carpenters Health, Pension, Annuity, Apprenticeship, and Labor Management Cooperation Funds v. All State Furniture Technicians Corp., No. 2:17-CV-00722-SJF-AKT (E.D.N.Y. May 31, 2017) 05/31/2017

Court granted petitioners’ unopposed petition to confirm an arbitration award. Court held that because the arbitration award “draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement” at issue, the court must affirm the award.

Lower Colorado River Authority v. Papalote Creek II, LLC, No. 16-50317 (5th Cir. May 31, 2017) 05/31/2017

Court of appeals vacated the lower court’s decision to compel arbitration. Court held that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to compel arbitration because the dispute was not sufficiently ripe to constitute a “case “or “controversy.” Court further held that events occurring after the lower court’s decision which caused the dispute to become ripe would not retroactively resurrect the district court’s lack of jurisdiction.

NCR Corporation v. Goh, No. 2:16-CV-00127-BJR (W.D. Wa. May 31, 2017) 05/31/2017

Court denied plaintiff’s motion for (i) de novo review of an arbitrator’s decision on the arbitrability of the dispute and (ii) vacatur of the arbitrator's ruling. Court held that plaintiff was not entitled to challenge the arbitrator’s decision on arbitrability because plaintiff had previously agreed to submit the question to the arbitrator. Court further held that vacatur was not warranted because defendant failed to show that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law.

Rearick v. Clearwater 2008 Note Program, LLC, No. 4:15-CV-02265-YK (M.D. Pa. May 31, 2017) 05/31/2017 Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that (i) plaintiff’s request for additional discovery was untimely; (ii) plaintiff failed to adduce substantiated evidence of prohibitive arbitration costs to invalidate the arbitration clause; (iii) plaintiff failed to adduce sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to the validity of the arbitration agreement; and (iv) plaintiff’s breach of contract claim undoubtedly arises under, and relates to, the contract containing the arbitration agreement.

McDougle v. Kemper Corporate Services, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00231-WHB-JCG (S.D. Miss. May 31, 2017) 05/31/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that the subject insurance policy and the incorporated arbitration agreement involved interstate commerce as the term is applied to the FAA and therefore could be enforced thereunder. Court also held that the arbitration agreement was valid under Mississippi law and the issue of whether the agreement was enforceable was delegated to the arbitrator.

Iota Shipholding Ltd. v. Starr Indemnity and Liability Company, No. 1:16-CV-04881-KPF (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2017) 05/31/2017

Court granted petitioners’ motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that no valid arbitration agreement between the parties existed and a stay of a parallel arbitration. Court held that the arbitration clause in question did not bind the petitioners because the petitioners did not execute the agreement and the text of the arbitration clause did not purport to bind nonsignatories.

Ungava Technologies Inc. v. Innerspec Technologies, Inc., No. 6:17-CV-00006-NKM-RSB (W.D. Va. May, 31, 2017) 05/31/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding the parties had entered into a valid arbitration agreement and that the plaintiff’s interpretation of the agreement was inconsistent with the language of the arbitration clause. Prowant v. Federal National Mortgage Association, No. 1:14-CV-3799-AT (N.D. Ga. May 31, 2017) 05/31/2017

Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in this collective action case brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime provisions. Court held that defendant had waived its right to compel arbitration with respect to opt-in plaintiffs and that its new arbitration agreement, which purportedly replaced the prior dispute resolution policy, did not apply as to opt-in plaintiffs.

Michigan Health Information Network Shared Services v. Notarycam, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00342-RJJ-PJG (W.D. Mich. May 31, 2016) 05/31/2017

Court granted in part defendant’s motion arbitrate, but stayed the case instead of dismissing it pending resolution of the arbitration. Court held that the parties agreed to arbitrate, the claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and defendant had not waived its right to invoke arbitration.

Redeemer Committee of Highland Credit Strategies Funds v. Highland Capital Management, L.P., No. 1:16-CV-02668-JSR (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2017) 05/30/2017

Court denied joint motions to vacate preceding decisions confirming arbitration award and dismiss complaint with prejudice, holding that vacatur and dismissal or preceding decisions was not warranted on the sole basis that parties had settled the case. Court found that no exceptional circumstances existed to vacate the award on the basis of settlement.

Adams v. Energy Transfer Partners, No. 2:16-CV-00400 (S.D. Tex. May 30, 2017) 05/30/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings pending the outcome of the arbitration. Court held that plaintiff failed to state a reason for why the motion to compel arbitration should not be granted and, upon review of the agreement, found that it was free of errors or was not contrary to law.

Bigham v. Genz-Ryan Plumbing & Heating Co., No. 0:16-CV-00280-DWF-SER (D. Minn. May 30, 2017) 05/30/2017

Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment seeking to vacate an arbitration award. Court held that the arbitrator did not err by failing to give preclusive effect to an earlier decision in the federal courts because the earlier decision was not a final determination. Court further held that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the arbitrator committed a clear error when assessing the evidence presented in the arbitration.

New York Dialysis Services, Inc. v. New York State Nurses Association, No. 1:17-CV-00469-JSR (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2017) 05/30/2017

Court granted petitioner’s motion to stay the arbitration. Court held that the parties could not be forced to arbitrate a dispute pursuant to an expired arbitration agreement, notwithstanding the fact that the arbitration agreement unmistakably delegated the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

Local 1982 International Longshoremen's Assoc. v. Midwest Terminals of Toledo International, Inc., No. 16-04004 (6th Cir. May 30, 2017) 05/30/2017

Court of appeals affirmed lower court’s decision to remand an arbitration award to an arbitral panel for further clarification. Court of appeals held that the arbitration award was ambiguous and that, contrary to defendant’s arguments, the same arbitral panel should clarify the award.

Albtelecom SH.A v. UNIFI Communications, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-09001-PAE (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2017) 05/30/2017

Court confirmed an arbitration award and entered judgment for plaintiff. Court held that the fact that an arbitration award was entered into by consent of the parties, as opposed to being based on an arbitrator’s resolution of the factual and legal disputes, had no bearing on whether the award was binding under the New York Convention. Court further held that it lacked sufficient evidence to determine whether, as requested by plaintiff, defendant breached the terms of the arbitration award.

Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Patel, No. 8:15-CV-02968-TDC (D. Md. May 30, 2017) 05/30/2017

Court granted plaintiff’s application to confirm an arbitration award against defendants, holding that the parties entered into a valid arbitration agreement and that there were no grounds to vacate the arbitration award.

Robredo v. Metro Honda, No. 16-3317 (3d Cir. May 26, 2017) 05/26/2017

Court of appeal affirmed district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant, finding that the parties agreed to arbitrate all claims arising out of or relating to automobile purchase/lease transactions and the evidence did not support plaintiff’s claims that the arbitration proceedings were unfair or biased.

National Labor Relations Board v. Alternative Entertainment, Inc., No. 16-1385 (6th Cir. May 26, 2017) 05/26/2017

Court of appeal held that an arbitration provision requiring employees covered by the National Labor Relations Act to individually arbitrate all employment-related claims is not enforceable, finding that such a provision violates the NLRA’s right to collective action and therefore falls within the FAA’s saving clause.

Davis v. Fenton, No. 16-2121 (7th Cir. May 26, 2017) 05/26/2017

Court of appeal affirmed district court’s default judgment granting plaintiff’s motion to confirm arbitration award. Court held that district court, which enforced defendants’ request for arbitration, retained jurisdiction over any request to confirm or vacate an arbitral award, not a state court.

GGNSC Louisville St. Matthews v. Madison, No. 3:16-CV-00830-TBR (W.D. Ky. May 26, 2017) 05/26/2017

Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held inter alia that (i) a power of attorney was sufficient authority for a representative to bind an infirm patient to an arbitration agreement; (ii) the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable; and (iii) federal law did not require or otherwise advise the court to refrain from enjoining the parties from litigating in state court.

Sauberman v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., LLC, No. 2:17-CV-00756-WJM-MF (D.N.J. May 26, 2017 2017) 05/26/2017

Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration without prejudice. Court held that it could not determine whether the parties had entered into an agreement to arbitrate and therefore ordered the parties to engage in limited discovery on the issue of whether an arbitration agreement existed.

Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Kinsale Ins. Co., No. 2:17-CV-00350-ER (E.D. Pa. May 26, 2017) 05/26/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that plaintiff, a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement, could be compelled to arbitrate the dispute because plaintiff’s claims against defendant were dependent on defendant’s obligation to provide insurance coverage as part of an agreement that contained an arbitration clause.

Branch v. Mays, No. 3:16-CV-00249-HSM-CCS (E.D. Tenn. May 25, 2017) 05/25/2017

Court granted motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, finding that the existence of both an arbitration clause and forum selection clause in an agreement does not render the forum selection clause invalid, but rather gives the courts in the selected forum exclusive jurisdiction to hear actions complimentary to the arbitral proceedings

Conway Family Trust v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, No. 16-3289 (7th Cir. May 25, 2017) 05/25/2017

Court of appeals denied petitioner’s petition for review. Court held that petitioner’s request for equitable tolling and an opportunity to pursue its claims against defendant were, in fact, an attempt to collaterally attack an arbitration award that was barred by the FAA. Court further held that the arbitration award in question had nothing to do with equitable tolling.

Ploetz v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC, No. 0:17-CV-01112-PAM-DTS (D. Minn. May 25, 2017) 05/25/2017

Court denied petitioner’s petition to vacate an arbitration award. Court held that an arbitrator’s failure to disclose that he mediated a dispute involving the defendant at the time the parties selected him to be chair of the arbitral panel was not evidence of “evident partiality” or arbitrator misbehavior because the arbitrator had disclosed six other arbitrations involving defendant over which he had presided. Accordingly, court found that the arbitrator’s conduct was not sufficient to vacate the award.

Schmidt v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 2:16-01725-JCC (W.D. Wash. May 25, 2017) 05/25/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that under both Washington and California law plaintiffs assented to arbitration where they were provided with notice on the outside of the box and in a brochure for a Samsung device that additional terms and conditions applied to use of the device. Court further found that a Texas choice of law provision in the arbitration agreement was substantively unconscionable because plaintiffs had no connection to Texas, nor was there another basis for which Texas law might reasonably apply, and therefore the provision was severed.

Samenow v. Citicorp Credit Services, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01346-CKK (D.D.C. May 25, 2017) 05/25/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action, finding that plaintiff assented to arbitration agreements contained in credit card agreements governing plaintiff’s five credit card accounts and that there was no unconscionability with respect to the arbitration agreements.

Crawley v. Macy’s Retail Holdings, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-02228-KPF (S.D.N.Y. May 25, 2017) 05/25/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action, finding that plaintiff unambiguously agreed to arbitrate any employment disputes with the defendant and that the scope of the arbitration provision in the employer’s dispute resolution program encompassed plaintiff’s claim.

Nepomuceno v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., No. 2:14-CV-05719-SDW-SCM (D.N.J. May 24, 2017) 05/24/2017

Court denied defendants’ request to compel arbitration, holding that defendants’ unnecessary two-year delay in seeking arbitration and the expense of litigating the matter over the course of the prolonged time period had caused sufficient prejudice to the plaintiff such as to waive any right the defendants may have had to compel arbitration.

Webb v. Frawley, No. 16-3336 (7th Cir. May 24, 2017) 05/24/2017

Court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part district court’s order compelling arbitration. Court held that arbitration provisions in plaintiffs’ employment contracts were merely venue provisions, and that the court could only order plaintiffs to arbitrate under FINRA rules if they had so agreed. Court therefore found that plaintiff who had agreed to arbitrate under FINRA rules must do so, whereas other plaintiff who did not agree was not so required.

Simmons v. Rush Trucks Centers of Idaho, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00450-EJL (D. Idaho May 24, 2017) 05/24/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss lawsuit, finding a valid arbitration agreement supported by mutual assent and consideration and lacking indications of unconscionability. Court held that arbitration agreement constituted an offer that was accepted upon plaintiff’s signature binding both parties to its terms, even if defendant did not sign the agreement. Court further held that agreement was supported by consideration in the mutuality of obligation to arbitrate, and in the employment relationship governed by the agreement.

Anderson v. Credit One Bank, National Association, No. 3:16-CV-03125-MMA-AGS (S.D. Cal. May 23, 2017) 05/23/2017

Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding insufficient evidence that the parties agreed to arbitrate any dispute. Court held that factual disputes existed as to plaintiff’s assent to the terms of a cardholder agreement where plaintiff contended that he never received the agreement, was unaware of the agreement, and did not consent to any arbitration agreement.

Pfeffer v. Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, No. 7:16-CV-08321-VB (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2017) 05/23/2017

Court denied motion to vacate award issued by FINRA arbitral panel and confirmed the award. Court held that the award was not obtained through undue means, there were no allegations of partiality among the arbitrators, and there was no misconduct on the part of the arbitration panel.

Hiller v. Schwartz & Feinsod, No. 7:16-CV-05447-VB (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2017) 05/23/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the action. Court held that the expansive scope of the National Football League Players Association Regulations and the language of its arbitration provision encompassed the parties’ wage and hour disputes. Court also declined to rule that the Regulations’ six-month limitations period was unenforceable as a matter of law, as the general rule in the second circuit is that the arbitrator decides statute of limitations issues.

Scudieri v. Chapman Chevrolet Chandler, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-01988-JWS (D. Ariz. May 23, 2017) 05/23/2017

Court ordered parties to proceed to arbitration in accordance with terms of their arbitration agreement. Court held that because plaintiff had no evidence showing the likely costs of arbitration and had decided to forego discovery, plaintiff would be unable to establish that arbitration costs would be so prohibitively expensive such as to permit him to effectively resist arbitration.

Liquidx Inc. v. Brooklawn Capital, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-05528WHP (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2017) 05/23/2017

Court denied declaratory relief, holding that under New York law, successor was alter ego of predecessor company and thus could be compelled to join arbitration proceedings between creditor and predecessor. Court found that the predecessor and successor were virtually indistinguishable, and the latter was a new company in name only. Court found the successor took responsibility for the predecessor’s financing and legal disputes, offices and employees, and that this domination and control was not displaced by discrepancies in share ownership. Court found ample evidence that this control was used to commit fraud or wrongdoing.

Alexander Dubose Jefferson & Townsend LLP v. Vance, No. 1:17-CV-133-RP (W.D. Tex. May 22, 2017) 05/22/2017

Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff failed to establish that defendant received sufficient express or implied notice creating a valid agreement to arbitrate. Court held that law firm did not provide direct notice of an arbitration agreement where it informed employees of the existence and online availability of the firm’s dispute resolution program by email, but did not use the word “arbitration” and did not attach the policy. Court further held there was no implied notice of the arbitration agreement because the email from the firm did not suggest that the firm was implementing a binding arbitration policy to which continued employment would constitute acquiescence, so as to impose a duty to further investigate the policy’s terms.

National Water Services, LLC v. ACC Construction Co., Inc., No. 3:12-CV-00792-DJH-DW (W.D. Ken. May 22, 2017) 05/22/2017

Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award, finding no reason to vacate, modify, or correct the award.

Atkinson v. Harpeth Financial Services, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-504 (M.D. Tenn. May 22, 2017) 05/22/2017

Court granted defendants’ petition to compel arbitration and to stay the action pending arbitration. Pursuant to principles of severability, court held that plaintiff failed to advance any specific and unique challenge to the delegation provision of an arbitration agreement in a loan agreement. Court also held that plaintiff’s duress defense and unconscionability arguments relating to the loan agreement were not sufficiently specific or unique to the delegation provision to effectively contest its enforceability.

Pershing LLC v. Kiebach, No. 2:14-CV-02549-LMA-MBN (E.D. La. May 22, 2017) 05/22/2017

Court confirmed arbitration award in favor of plaintiffs. Court held that defendants had waived the right to seek vacatur because they did not raise the issue of alleged impartiality of the tribunal during the arbitral proceedings; that defendants failed to satisfy burden for proving panel bias; and manifest disregard of the law was not recognized by the fifth circuit as a ground for vacatur.

Gloucester Terminals, LLC v. Teamsters Local Union 929, No. 2:16-CV-05322-BMS (E.D. Pa. May 22, 2017) 05/22/2017

Court enforced arbitration award in favor of defendants, deferring to arbitrator’s determination of his own jurisdiction and to his conclusions regarding which of two agreements applied to the dispute. Court also found that arbitrator did not exercise manifest disregard for the operative agreement.

Arabian Motors Group W.L.L. v. Ford Motor Co., No. 2:16-CV-13655-MFL-SDD (E.D. Mich. May 22, 2017) 05/22/2017

Court denied plaintiff’s motion to certify for interlocutory appeal court’s order requiring plaintiff to arbitrate breach of contract claims pursuant to Motor Vehicle Franchise Contract Arbitration Fairness Act. Court held that such an appeal would not ultimately resolve plaintiff’s dispute with the defendant as the proposed question on appeal was not a controlling question of law at the instant point in the case. Court also held because an appellate ruling in plaintiff’s favor would lead to additional litigation regarding whether arbitration may proceed, an interlocutory appeal would not materially advance resolution of the litigation.

Vine v. PLS Financial Services, Inc., No. 16-50847 (5th Cir. May 19, 2017) 05/19/2017

Court of appeals affirmed lower court’s denial of appellants’ motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Court held that the lower court did not err in concluding that appellants waived their right to compel arbitration by litigating the dispute in the federal courts and initially seeking to avoid arbitration. Court also held that the lower court retained the authority to determine the scope of the arbitration clause.

Plocher Construction Co. v. Overseas Lease Group, Inc., No. 4:17-MC-156-JAR (E.D. Miss. May 19, 2017) 05/19/2017

Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award, holding that defendant’s failure to timely move to vacate the arbitration award under §12 of the FAA precludes it from asserting any defenses to confirmation of the award.

Verasonics, Inc. v. Alpinion Medical Systems Co., No. C14-1820-JCC (W.D. Wash. May 19, 2017) 05/19/2017

Court granted plaintiff’s unopposed motion to confirm arbitration award. Court held that none of the conditions permitting vacation, modification, or correction of the award under the FAA were present. Court also held that none of the seven grounds for refusal or deferral of enforcement under the New York Convention applied.

Columbus LTACH Management, LLC & Columbus LTACH, LLC v. Quantum LTACH Holdings, LLC & Quantum Int’l Income Corp., No. 16-6510 (D.N.J. May 19, 2017) 05/19/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s case, the sole purpose of which was to compel arbitration. Court held that plaintiff’s complaint failed to plead facts showing that defendant, a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, should be compelled to arbitrate under theories of contract or agency law. Court further denied plaintiff’s request in the alternative to stay the proceedings as court’s decision that defendant was not compelled to arbitrate left nothing for the court to stay.

Preferred Care, Inc. v. Roberts, No. 5:16-CV-00203-KKC (E.D. Ky. May 19, 2017) 05/19/2017

Court denied plaintiff’s motion to reconsider an earlier ruling that certain claims against nonparties to an arbitration agreement would have to be arbitrated. Court held that there was no reason to alter its earlier decision and that plaintiff improperly raised new arguments that plaintiff could have raised before judgment.

West Charleston Lofts III, LLC v. Farina, No. 2:16-CV-02491-JAD-VCF (D. Nev. May 19, 2017) 05/19/2017

Court dismissed plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration, holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the dispute because, in a case filed under diversity jurisdiction, defendants and one plaintiff were citizens of the same state.

Westberry v. St. Operated School District of Newark, No. 2:15-CV-07998-JMV-JBC (D.N.J. May 19, 2017) 05/19/2017

Court dismissed plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims, holding that the collective bargaining agreement’s use of the word “may” did not render arbitration a permissive step in the grievance process but rather offered plaintiffs the opportunity to either pursue their grievances through arbitration or abandon their claims altogether. Accordingly, because plaintiffs failed to pursue their grievances through arbitration, the court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims arising from alleged breaches of the collective bargaining agreement.

Winfrey v. Kmart Corp., No. 16-55184 (9th Cir. May 19, 2017) 05/19/2017

Court of appeal affirmed district court decision declining to stay litigation of claims pending arbitration of the employee’s claims under the labor code. Court held that that district court acted within its discretion by declining to stay plaintiff’s claims pending arbitration as a stay of litigation under § 3 of the FAA was mandatory for arbitrable claims but discretionary for nonarbitrable claims and issues. Promptu Systems Corp. v. Comcast Corp., No. 2:16-CV-06516-LDD (E.D. Pa. May 18, 2017) 05/18/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to stay pending arbitration. Court held that clear and unmistakable evidence of the parties’ intent to refer arbitrability to the arbitrator is demonstrated under Delaware law when an arbitration clause incorporates arbitration rules (here the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the AAA) that empower arbitrators to decide substantive arbitrability and provide for arbitration of all disputes.

Burgos v. Trans Union, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-06338-JCJ (E.D. Pa. May 18, 2017) 05/18/2017

Court granted the parties a thirty day period to supplement the record regarding a pending motion to compel arbitration. Court held that, after finding that the parties had entered into an arbitration agreement, the agreement was not unconscionable and that defendant waived its right to enforce the agreement. However, the court concluded that it required further input from the parties regarding the appropriate standard to rule on motions to compel arbitration.

Jones v. SCO Silver Care Operations LLC, No. 16-1101 (3d Cir. May 18, 2017) 05/18/2017

Court of appeals affirmed decision denying motion to dismiss or to stay proceedings pending arbitration, holding that the collective bargaining agreement did not provide a clear and unmistakable waiver of the right to judicial recourse for statutory claims, and that neither of the claims depended on interpretation of the agreement. Court found plaintiffs’ claims were based on statutory and factual analysis, and did not depend on a disputed term of the contract.

GGNSC Louisville St. Matthews, LLC v. Saunders, No. 3:17-CV-00185-CRS-CHL (W.D. Ky. May 18, 2017) 05/18/2017

Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ petition to compel arbitration, and granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s petition to compel arbitration of claims currently pending in state court. In denying defendant’s motion to dismiss, court held that diversity jurisdiction existed, plaintiffs did not fail to join indispensable parties, and there was a valid arbitration agreement. In granting petition to compel arbitration, court held that arbitration agreement was enforceable and the scope of the agreement encompassed only certain of plaintiffs’ claims.

Jacks v. CMH Homes, Inc., No. 15-6197 (10th Cir. May 17, 2017) 05/17/2017

Court of appeals affirmed decision to deny motion to compel arbitration, holding that non-signatory beneficiaries were not bound by an arbitration agreement where they had neither accepted the benefit nor sought to enforce the terms of the contract. Court found no authority for binding the non-signatory beneficiaries under contract law, and estoppel did not apply where a signatory defendant sought to compel arbitration with a non-signatory plaintiff.

Greenway Energy, LLC v. Ardica Tech., Inc., No. 1:17-819-RMG (D.S.C. May 17, 2017) 05/17/2017

Court ordered parties to arbitrate their dispute and dismissed the complaint. Because the parties agreed that all claims arising out of the contract must be arbitrated, court held that the only issues before the court were selection of the arbitral forum and the arbitrator, which the court duly selected. Court dismissed complaint given that entire dispute was within the scope of the arbitration clause.

North American Deer Registry, Inc. v. DNA Solutions, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00062-ALM (E.D. Tex. May 16, 2017) 05/16/2017

Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that claims of unfair competition, misappropriation of trade secrets, constructive trust, and unjust enrichment fell outside the scope of the arbitration agreement. Court found that the scope of the arbitration clause was narrow, as parties had only agreed to arbitrate disputes “concerning the interpretation” of the contract.

Del Monte International, GMBH v. Ticofrut S.A., No. 1:16-CV-23894-JEM (S.D. Fla. May 16, 2017) 05/16/2017

Court affirmed and adopted magistrate’s recommendation to deny request to garnish debt to satisfy an unconfirmed arbitral award which had not yet been converted to a judgment.

Oberhansly v. Assoc. of Better Living and Education International, No. 1:15-CV-00073-PLM (W.D. Mich. May 16, 2017) 05/16/2017

Court granted motion to dismiss, holding that the contract containing the arbitration agreement was valid and the arbitration clause was enforceable. Court found that the arbitration clause was broad and, in light of the presumption of enforceability, applied to all of plaintiff’s causes of action connected to the defendant’s facility, staff, and program.

Kindred Nursing Centers Limited Partnership v. Clark, No. 16-32 (U.S. May 15, 2017) 05/15/2017

Supreme Court reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded denial of motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, holding that Kentucky’s “clear-statement rule,” which requires a specific rather than a general grant of authority to enter into an arbitration agreement for someone else, violates the FAA by singling out arbitration agreements for disfavored treatment. Court found that the FAA applies not only to the enforcement of arbitration agreements, but also to questions of initial validity and formation.

Battle v. Reinhart Foodservice Louisiana, LLC., No. 5:14-CV-03191-DEW-MLH (W.D. La. May 15, 2017) 05/15/2017

Court denied motion to vacate the arbitration award and reopen the case, holding that plaintiff had failed to identify which of the exclusive grounds set forth in § 10 of the FAA justified the motion. Court found that the arbitrator’s award clearly demonstrated analysis of the text of the arbitration agreement and conclusions framed in terms of the contract’s meaning.

Whitworth v. Solarcity Corp., No. 3:16-CV-01540-JSC (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2017) 05/15/2017

Court denied motion to compel arbitration as to newly added plaintiffs, holding that employment arbitration agreements containing class action waivers are invalid and unenforceable under the National Labor Relations Act). Court found that it was bound by ninth circuit precedent which had reached this conclusion, and that the arbitration agreements contained unenforceable Private Attorney General Act, was prohibited by California law.

Vega v. New Forest Home Cemetary, LLC., No. 16-3119 (7th Cir. May 15, 2017) 05/15/2017

Court reversed award of summary judgment, holding that the collective bargaining agreement did not “clearly and unmistakably” require an employee to exhaust the grievance procedure, which included arbitration, to resolve statutory claims. Court found that employee had independent statutory rights in addition to the contractual claims, and the law required a “clear and unmistakable” indication in the contract that statutory rights must be resolved through a contractual dispute resolution process.

Gaspar Salas v. GE Oil & Gas, No. 16-20379 (5th Cir. May 12, 2017) 05/12/2017

Court vacated and remanded decision to withdraw prior order compelling arbitration, holding that (i) by withdrawing the order, the lower court did deny an application to compel arbitration, thus conferring FAA appellate jurisdiction, and (ii) that the district court lacked jurisdiction to withdraw its order compelling arbitration and reopen the case due to a default in the arbitral process. Court found that the order exceeded the court’s authority under the FAA, as it neither enforced nor determined the validity of the arbitration agreement.

Oliveira v. New Prime, Inc., No. 15-2364 (1st Cir. May 12, 2017) 05/12/2017

Court of appeal affirmed district court’s order denying motion to compel arbitration and dismissed appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, holding that (i) the applicability of the FAA is a threshold question for the court to determine before compelling arbitration; and (ii) § 1 of the FAA’s exemption for employment contracts of transportation workers applies to a transportation-worker agreement that establishes an independent-contractor relationship. Court found that whether § 1 of the FAA applies was a question of the district court’s authority to compel arbitration, not a question of arbitrability, and rejected a narrow reading of “contracts of employment.”

Monongalia County Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers of America, No. 1:16-CV-00004-IMK (N.D.W. Va. May 12, 2017) 05/12/2017

Court denied motion seeking reconsideration of order vacating arbitral award, holding there was no ambiguity in the arbitral award, and thus neither remand to the arbitrator nor judicial reconsideration were warranted. Court upheld the decision that the arbitrator’s finding that the work at issue was repair and maintenance, not construction, contradicted significant arbitral precedent.

Anderson v. American General Insurance, No. 16-15909 (11th Cir. May 11, 2017) 05/11/2017

Court upheld district court’s grant of a motion to compel arbitration and dismiss, finding the agreement to arbitrate was not illusory and declining to address the claim that the district court was required to stay the action instead of dismiss.

Lillegard v. Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-08075 (N.D. Ill. May 11, 2017) 05/11/2017

Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration without prejudice. Court held defendants had not waived their right to arbitration by their conduct in litigation; however, court determined that “genuine issues remained as to the existence of the parties’ agreement to arbitrate,” so it could not determine that the parties formed an arbitral agreement at that stage.

Ortiz v. Volt Management Corp., No. 4:16-CV-07096-YGR (N.D. Cal. May 11, 2017) 05/11/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court found arbitration agreement was slightly procedurally unconscionable but was not substantively unconscionable, and thus, was enforceable.

Ross v. P.J. Pizza San Diego, LLC., No. 3:16-CV-02330-L-JMA (S.D. Cal. May 11, 2017) 05/11/2017

Court denied defendants’ motion to compel plaintiff to submit his claims to arbitration on an individual basis. Pursuant to the FAA, court found the class action waiver invalid since it precluded the plaintiff from engaging in at least one of the concerted actions the National Labor Relations Act protects.

Stockade Companies, LLC v. Kelly Restaurant Group, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00143-RP (W.D. Tex. May 11, 2017) 05/11/2017

Court denied motion to compel arbitration since it was not demonstrate by clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to arbitrate the question of arbitrability. However, court concluded trademark infringement, false designation of origin claims, and breach of non-competition covenant fell within the exclusion clause and the parties were not compelled to arbitrate.

Waymo v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00939-WHA (N.D. Cal. May 11, 2017) 05/11/2017

Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that defendants were not party to any applicable arbitration agreement, and that the doctrine of equitable estoppel did not apply. Court found that plaintiffs had not relied on their third party arbitration agreement, having only made reference to it, and defendants’ claims were not “dependent on or inextricably bound up with the contractual obligations of the agreement[s] containing the arbitration clause,” so as to trigger equitable estoppel.

Long v. Miller, No. 0:17-CV-00424-DSD-FLN (D. Minn. May 11, 2017) 05/11/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the question of arbitrability was one for the arbitrator, notwithstanding the absence of an arbitration clause in the loan documents underlying the disputed transaction. Court found that the parties had broadly agreed to arbitrate some disputes in related stock purchase agreements and the shareholder agreement, and had incorporated the AAA rules into their dispute resolution procedures, thereby evincing an intent to reserve the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

Sunvalley Solar, Inc. v. CEEG (Shanghai) Solar Science & Technology Co., No. 15-56802 (9th Cir. May 10, 2017) 05/10/2017

Court of appeals affirmed grant of defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that distribution contract between the parties that was silent as to arbitration should not be read in isolation, but rather the arbitration clauses contained in specific purchase orders governing each transaction in dispute applied.

Clarke v. Upwork Global, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00560-AJN (S.D.N.Y. May 10, 2017) 05/10/2017

Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin defendant’s arbitration claims. Court found that the plaintiffs failed to persuade the court of their likelihood of success on the merits and that the balance of the equities weighed in their favor since they eschewed almost six months of opportunities to object to the arbitration.

Dillon v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., No. 16-1362 (4th Cir. May 10, 2017) 05/10/2017

Court affirmed district court’s order denying motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court held the choice of law provision providing for application of the “laws of the Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians,” but forbidding an arbitrator from applying any state or federal law, functioned as a prospective waiver of federal statutory rights and, thus, was unenforceable as a violation of public policy. Court denied a request to sever the choice of law provision, finding the provision went to the essence of the arbitration agreement.

Century III Mall PA LLC v. Sears Roebuck and Co., No. 2:16-CV-01839-LPL (W.D. Pa. May 10, 2017) 05/10/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding plaintiff’s vacatur motion failed to set forth a claim as a matter of law. Court held that plaintiff’s assertions – that the award departed from the terms of the Lease, exceeded the arbitrator’s authority, and was irrational error requiring vacatur – failed as they do meet the applicable standard of review under the FAA and FRCP Rule 12(b)(6).

Coudert Brothers LLP v. Rupert X. LI, No. 7:16-CV-08237-KMK (S.D.N.Y. May 10, 2017) 05/10/2017

Court denied order compelling arbitration, finding the defendant had not been properly served. Court determined that where a party to an arbitration agreement is not within the US service is not governed by the FAA but FRCP Rule 4. In the instant case, the plaintiff failed to properly effect service under any of the possibilities under FRCP Rule 4.

Fairhope Piggly Wiggly-Inc. v. PS 2 LED, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00031-KD-N (S.D. Ala. May 10, 2017) 05/10/2017

Court denied motion to compel arbitration at the current time and ordered a trial on the issue, finding there was a genuine dispute of material fact over the existence of an agreement to arbitration pursuant to the FAA.

Ouadani v. Dynamex Operations East, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-12306-PBS (D. Mass. May 10, 2017) 05/10/2017

Court denied motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s putative class action claims for violations of the Fair Labor standards Act and state wage laws under the FAA. Court held the non-signatory was not bound to arbitrate on traditional agency principals or equitable estoppel, and the agreement did not create third-party beneficiary status.

Metter v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-06652 (N.D. Cal. May 10, 2017) 05/10/2017

Court denied defendant’s motion for reconsideration of the order denying its motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s putative class claims. Court denied defendant’s argument that the court should have ordered trial on the material issue of consent pursuant to the FAA because defendant did not raise the issue of material fact in connection with its motion to compel arbitration.

Ambulatory Services of Puerto Rico, LLC v. Sankar Nephrology Group, LLC., No. 4:17-CV-230-A (N.D. Tex. May 9, 2017) 05/09/2017

Court denied plaintiff’s motion to stay arbitration and granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action pursuant to resolution of the issue of arbitrability. Court held parties clearly and unmistakably delegated authority to the arbitrator to determine issues of arbitrability.

Rivera v. Saul Chevrolet, Inc., No. 5:16-CV-05966-LHK (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2017) 05/09/2017

Court denied motion to compel arbitration on an individual basis. Court found the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because it interfered with plaintiff’s right to “engage in…concerted activities for the purpose of…mutual aid or protection” under the National Labor Relations Act and acted as an express class action waiver. Court also held the pendency of an action waiver issue before the United States Supreme Court offered no basis to grant the motion.

James River Insurance Co. v. Atlantic Building Systems, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-01981-MSK-NYW (D. Colo. May 9, 2017) 05/09/2017

Magistrate judge recommended motion to dismiss be granted and the case stayed pending completion of arbitration pursuant to the FAA. Court found arbitration provision was enforceable and the provision was mandatory not permissive, and therefore the arbitrator must resolve the claim alleging invalidity of the policies as a whole based on fraudulent misrepresentation or inducement.

Energy Operations, Inc. v. United Government Security Officers of America International Union, No. 16-1219 (8th Cir. May 9, 2017) 05/09/2017

Court of appeal affirmed decision to uphold arbitrator’s award, holding (i) that reinstatement of terminated officer would not violate public policy, as would warrant overturning arbitration award ordering reinstatement; and (ii) the arbitrator did not exceed his authority under the collective bargaining agreement. Court found that any violation of federal regulations could be avoided by employing officer in a different role, and that the arbitrator had analyzed this question in the context of the agreement’s provisions, and therefore acted within his authority.

Smallish v. Meijer, Inc., No. 2:12-CV-11457-VAR-MKM (E.D. Mich. May 8, 2017) 05/08/2017

Court confirmed the arbitral award and dismissed motion to vacate. Court held that plaintiff failed to establish facts to indicate partiality of the arbitrator and, in any event, had waived the claim by waiting to raise the alleged conflict of interest until after the award was rendered in circumstances where the plaintiff was previously aware of its existence.

Wilson v. 5 Choices, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-10659-RHC-MKM (E.D. Mich. May 8, 2017) 05/08/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice, pending the outcome of arbitration or litigation, finding the arbitration and forum selection provisions were enforceable. Court concluded plaintiffs’ Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations claims fell under the scope of the arbitration agreement.

Habliston v. FINRA Dispute Resolution, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-02225-ABJ (D.D.C. May 8, 2017) 05/08/2017

Court denied motion for reconsideration of order dismissing case with prejudice and motion for leave to file a substituted amended complaint, holding that the court had no jurisdiction over the proposed amended complaint. Court found that suits brought under the FAA required an independent jurisdictional basis, as the statute was not jurisdictional, and that claims were barred by the doctrine of arbitral immunity, as defendant was immune from suit.

Sullivan v. Endeavor Air, Inc., No. 16-1653 (8th Cir. May 8, 2017) 05/08/2017

Court of appeals affirmed the lower court’s denial of defendant-appellee’s petition to vacate an arbitration award. Court held that, contrary to defendant-appellee’s claims, (i) the arbitration award did not violate due process or any other form of public policy; (ii) the arbitrator did not exceed his jurisdiction; and (iii) the arbitration award did not fail to draw its essence from the contract.

Knight v. Idea Buyer, LLC., No. 2:16-CV-01175-GCS-TPK (S.D. Ohio May 8, 2017) 05/08/2017

Court granted motion to dismiss and compel arbitration and denied the motion to stay as moot. Court found review of the validity of the plaintiffs’ claims and enforceability of the agreements were issues for arbitration and plaintiffs should proceed in individual arbitral proceedings since the arbitration provision did not address class arbitration. Under the FAA, the claim should be dismissed and not stayed because all plaintiffs’ claims were arbitrable. Cross Link, Inc. DBA Westar Marine Services v. Salt River Construction Corporation, No. 16-CV-05412-JSW (W.D. Ark. May 8, 2017) 05/08/2017

Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award, finding that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers by issuing an award in favor of petitioner, since respondent had failed to provide evidence to support its assertion that arbitrator lacked jurisdiction and because respondent had not previously moved to stay the arbitration.

Garcia v. Midland Funding, No. 1:15-6119-RBK-KMW (D.N.J. May 5, 2017) 05/05/2017

Court denied motion to compel individual arbitration under the FAA. Court found that while there was a valid arbitration agreement, defendant did not have the broad right to compel arbitration for any dispute or claim under the assigned agreement. Court granted and denied in part defendant’s motion to seal, allowing for public access to a redacted version of the underlying agreement.

Janus Distributors LLC v. Roberts, No. 1:16-CV-2130 (D. Colo. May 5, 2017) 05/05/2017

Court granted motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, finding the FAA does not provide a federal cause of action to ground the petition to vacate the arbitral award. Court concluded that there was not another independent basis for federal jurisdiction under the Securities and Exchange Act based on a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority claim, finding that plaintiff’s petition did not require the resolution of a federal issue.

Lasseigne v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-16925-LMA-MBN (E.D. La. May 5, 2017) 05/05/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant, holding there was a valid agreement between the parties and the dispute fell within the scope of the agreement. Court did not find plaintiff’s claim that she did not electronically sign the arbitration provision to be credible, concluding it was more likely than not that she signed the agreement. Court stayed and administratively closed the action pending arbitration.

McCauley v. America’s Pizza Co., No. 2:16-CV-253 (S.D. Ohio May 5, 2017) 05/05/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to consolidate for discovery purposes but denied motion to consolidate in all other respects, reasoning that the cases were at different stages and the plaintiffs were seeking to represent different distinguished classes partially by issue of an arbitration agreement.

The Sanwan Trust v. Lindsay, No. 1:16-CV-12469-RWZ (D. Mass. May 5, 2017) 05/05/2017

Court denied petition to vacate arbitral award and granted petition to confirm. Court held that plaintiff’s grounds for vacatur on manifest disregard of the law and public policy were not an appropriate basis for vacatur.

Nadeau v. Equity Residential Properties Management Corp., No. 7:16-CV-07986-VB (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2017) 05/04/2017

Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay the action pending arbitration. Court found defendant materially breached the arbitration agreement by refusing to arbitrate before the AAA and thus waived its right to subsequently compel arbitration.

NV Petrus SA v. LPG Trading Corp., No. 14-CV-03138-NGG-PK (E.D.N.Y. May 4, 2017) 05/04/2017

Court denied motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens in favor of an LCIA arbitration. Court found defendants had waived their right to arbitrate by waiting nearly three years to request arbitration and actively participating in litigation. Court also held that defendants waived their argument that English law governed the action where defendants impliedly consented to state law governing the dispute by consistently relying on state law in their memoranda of law.

Olazabal v. Service Keepers Maintenance, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-20660-JAL (S.D. Fla. May 4, 2017) 05/04/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that a valid written agreement to arbitrate existed and that the statutory claims for unpaid overtime wages were arbitrable. Court found that plaintiff had signed a binding arbitration agreement, which contained a collective action waiver barring judicial recourse for these claims.

Bogar v. Ameriprise Financial Services., No. 1:16-CV-7199-GHW (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2017) 05/04/2017

Court denied petition to vacate arbitral award under the FAA and granted motion to confirm the award. Court rejected allegations that the arbitrator exceeded his authority, declining to consider the circumstances where a violation of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority could provide a basis for vacatur and dismissing as meritless the allegations of the insufficiency of evidence at arbitration.

Doctor’s Associates v. Repins, No. 3:17-CV-00323-JCH (D. Conn. May 4, 2017) 05/04/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the parties delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

T&S Brass and Bronze Works, Inc. v. Slanina, No. 6:16-CV-03687-MGL (D.S.C. May 4, 2017) 05/04/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding an individual was entitled to enforce an arbitration agreement that she signed as an agent of the party to the agreement.

Kambala Wa Kambala v. Checchi and Company Consulting, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00451-APM (D.D.C. May 4, 2017) 05/04/2017

Court granted motion to enjoin arbitration, finding that plaintiff waived its right to arbitrate by filing simultaneous court and arbitration actions.

Hamilton-Warwick v. Verizon Wireless, No. 0:16-CV-03461-JRT-BRT (D. Minn. May 3, 2017) 05/03/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay the action, adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendations finding that a valid arbitration existed, the dispute fell within its scope, and the arbitration agreement did not become void due to a breach of the contract which contained it.

Pataky v. The Brigantine, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00352-GPC-AGS (S.D. Cal. May 3, 2017) 05/03/2017

Court denied motion to compel arbitration and request for stay, finding that, although an arbitration agreement existed, the class action waiver was inconstant with statutory rights under the National Labor Relations Act and therefore unenforceable under ninth circuit precedent.

Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Shive, LLC, No. 8:16-CV-03560-PX (D. Md. May 3, 2017) 05/03/2017

Court granted motion for default judgment on action to confirm an arbitration award, finding that review of an arbitration award is “severely circumscribed.”

Rogers v. Nelson, No. 3:16-CV-00955-L-RBB (S.D. Cal. May 3, 2017) 05/03/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that an arbitration clause in “boilerplate” language is enforceable and that the arbitration clause was neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable.

Armenta v. Go-Staff, Inc., Rogers v. Nelson, No. 3:16-CV-02548-JLS-AGS (S.D. Cal. May 3, 2017) 05/03/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the question whether the mandatory class action waiver is enforceable is to be determined by the arbitrator.

Theo’s Pizza v. Integrity Brands, LLC, No. 3:17-CV-0039-MBS (D.S.C. May 3, 2017) 05/03/2017

Court denied motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and to compel arbitration, finding that, where the parties had not explicitly agreed to arbitrate, no such agreement could be imputed.

Vanwechel v. Regions Bank, No. 8:17-CV-00738-SDM-AAS (M.D. Fla. May 3, 2017) 05/03/2017

Court granted motions to compel arbitration and stayed the action pending arbitral decision. Court held that sufficient consideration supported the arbitration agreement; the claim fell under the arbitral agreement; the agreement was not unconscionable; the plaintiffs could not invoke the alternative jurisdiction provision; and the defendants did not waive the right to compel arbitration by removing the action. Additionally, equitable estoppel required arbitration of the claims even where a party was a non-signatory to the agreement.

Trustees for the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. Briscoe Sunrise Corporation, No. 1:16-CV-07680 (S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2017) 05/02/2017

Court granted motion for summary judgment to confirm arbitration award, finding that the arbitrator construed and applied the applicable agreement and the undisputed facts supported confirmation.

Inversiones y Procesadora Tropical Inprotsa v. Del Monte International GMBH, No. 1:16-CV-24275-FAM (S.D. Fla. May 2, 2017) 05/02/2017

Court granted cross-petition to confirm arbitral award, finding, inter alia, that (1) the New York Convention and FAA provided federal subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying action to vacate the arbitral award and thus the cross-petition to confirm; (2) the argument that the underlying contract had been obtained by fraud had already been addressed and rejected on the facts during the arbitration and could not be “rehashed” in the guise of a public policy argument; and (3) petitioner’s failure to effect service of petition to vacate award within the statutory time limit had the effect of barring it from asserting the award’s invalidity as an affirmative defense to the cross-petition for confirmation of the arbitral award.

Ortega v. Uber Technologies Inc., No. 1:15-CV-07387-NGG-JO (E.D.N.Y. May 2, 2017) 05/02/2017

Court denied motion for reconsideration or clarification of its prior order granting motion to compel arbitration, finding that question of whether arbitration agreement covers disputes that arose prior to its conclusion is a question of arbitrability that was delegated to the arbitrators.

Graham v. Chubb Insurance Company, No. 1:17-CV-01793 (E.D. Ill. May 2, 2017) 05/02/2017

Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration clause was permissive, and not mandatory.

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 18 v. Ohio Contractors Association, No. 16-4040 (6th Cir. May 2, 2017) 05/02/2017

Court of appeal affirmed grant of summary judgment on action to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration clause delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

Horton v. FedChoice Federal Credit Union, No. 16-3960 (3d Cir. May 2, 2017) 05/02/2017

Court of appeal affirmed denial of motion to dismiss or stay in favor of arbitration, finding that the district court did not err in determining that the complaint and incorporated documents are not clear on their face as to an agreement to arbitrate, and thus that the non-movant is entitled to conduct limited discovery on the narrow issue concerning the validity of the arbitration agreement.

Gemini Insurance Company v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London Subscribing to Policy No. B0973MA1305152 Issued Through the Offices of Osprey Underwriting Agency Ltd., No. 4:17-CV-01044 (S.D. Tex. May 2, 2017) 05/02/2017

Court granted motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration in a one-paragraph order referencing the reasoning in its April 13, 2017 order dissolving a state court’s temporary restraining order barring defendants from pursuing arbitration in England (covered separately on the Shearman & Sterling US International Arbitration Digest).

Donner v. GFI Capital Resources Group, No. 1:16-CV-09581 (S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2017) 05/02/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and plaintiff’s request for a stay, finding that broad arbitration clause in employment agreement encompassed plaintiff’s claims. Court further found that a non-signatory to the agreement could join in compelling arbitration given the close nexus between him and the employment agreement, and because the claims brought against him and the signatory were closely intertwined.

Crystallex International Corp. v. Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., No. 1:15-CV-01082-LPS (D. Del. May 1, 2017) 05/01/2017

Court granted motion to dismiss claims against defendant Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA) (“Venezuela's state-owned oil company and, undisputedly, an "agency or instrumentality" of Venezuela”) under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). Court held that the claimant failed to establish the “commercial activities” exception to the FSIA because the alleged conduct by PDVSA was extraterritorial or insubstantially connected to the US, and the conduct had no direct effect in the US given that the arbitration at issue did not relate to the US and the award had not yet been issued, much less confirmed, in the US when the conduct took place. PDVSA was therefore dismissed as a party to the suit.

Meierhenry Sargeant LLP v. Williams, No. 4:16-CV-04180-LLP (D.S.D. May 1, 2017) 05/01/2017

Court granted motion to stay action and compel arbitration, finding that a party’s repudiation of the underlying contract did not prevent the arbitration clause from applying to claims arising from the repudiation.

Gold v. Maurer, No. 1:17-CV-00734-CKK (D.D.C. May 1, 2017) 05/01/2017

Court denied motion for a temporary restraining order and injunction in aid of arbitration, finding that none of the preliminary injunction factors weighed in favor of granting the motion.

Daisley v. Blizzard Music Ltd., No. 2:17-CV-01500-CAS-AS (C.D. Cal. May 1, 2017) 05/01/2017

Court granted motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, finding that a party who invoked contractual rights against a non-party was bound to arbitrate its claims under the terms of the contract, and that the non-party was an alter ego of a party to the contract.

Heritage Capital Corporation v. Christie’s, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-03404-D (N.D. Tex. May 1, 2017) 05/01/2017

Court granted motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that the plaintiff was bound to arbitrate under a theory of equitable estoppel and that broad language of the arbitration agreement covered statutory claims.

O’Sullivan v. Sunil Gupta, M.D., LLC, No. 2:17-CV-00609-LMA-JVL (E.D. La. May 1, 2017) 05/01/2017

Court granted motion to dismiss and compel arbitration as to certain claims, finding that (i) the existence of additional claims carved out from the arbitration clause did not justify refusal to compel arbitration of claims that were not carved out, and (ii) a forum selection clause did not conflict with the arbitration clause.

Perez v. Directv Group Holdings, LLC., No. 8:16-CV-01440-JLS-DFM (C.D. Cal. May 1, 2017) 05/01/2017

Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that the parties had not entered into a valid agreement to arbitrate, and in any event, the circumstances demonstrated procedural and substantive unconscionability. Court found that defendant withheld the arbitration clause in a separate document from the consumer-plaintiff at the time the contract was signed, and thus the clause had not been incorporated into the contract and the procedure was unconscionable. Court found that the exemption of some of defendant’s claims from arbitration was one-sided and lacking in mutuality.

Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C. v. Scout Petroleum , LLC, No. 4:14-CV-00620-MWB (M.D. Pa. Apr. 28, 2017) 04/28/2017

Court granted motion for summary judgment on action for declaration that the contracts at issue do not permit class arbitration, finding that where the arbitration clause is silent as to class arbitration, class arbitration is excluded.

Finn v. Estate of Gennaro R. Schiavo, No. 1:15-CV-02409-NLH-KMW (D.N.J. Apr. 28, 2017) 04/28/2017

Court granted motion to enjoin arbitration, finding that movant had not submitted to arbitration and was not bound under theories of judicial estoppel or equitable estoppel.

MacDonald v. Cashcall, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-02781-MCA-LDW (D.N.J. Apr. 28, 2017) 04/28/2017

Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that the contract’s wholesale waiver of the application of federal and state law made it invalid, and that arbitration to which no law applies is a sham dispute settlement procedure.

Wilson-Davis & Co., Inc. v. Mirgliotta, No. 1:16-CV-03056-PAG (N.D. Ohio Apr. 28, 2017) 04/28/2017

Court granted motion for preliminary injunction and declaratory judgment enjoining ongoing arbitration proceedings in part, finding that claims arising out of losses suffered while the defendants were clients of the plaintiff were arbitrable, but losses suffered before the client relationship was formed were not subject to arbitration.

Gibbs v. Cappo Management VII, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00073-BO (E.D.N.C. Apr. 28, 2017) 04/28/2017

Court granted motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, finding that an arbitration provision in an employment contract signed a month after employment began did not give rise to procedural or substantive unconscionability.

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 465 v. ABM Government Services, LLC, No. 5:16-CV-0029-BO (E.D.N.C., Apr. 28, 2017) 04/28/2017

Court granted motion to confirm and enforce arbitration award, finding that no significant ambiguity existed to justify remanding the award to the arbitrator for clarification, and that additional challenges to confirmation of the award relied on arguments that could have been, but were not, raised in the arbitration.

Quiles v. Union Pacific Railroad Company Incorporated, No. 8:16-CV-00330-JFB-SMB (D. Neb. Apr. 28, 2017) 04/28/2017

Court denied motion to stay and compel arbitration, finding that no agreement to arbitrate was formed since the plaintiff was never provided a copy of the arbitration agreement, and, if an agreement was formed under such circumstances, it would be procedurally unconscionable.

National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 189 Labor Committee, No. 16-7004 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 28, 2017) 04/28/2017

Court affirmed the vacatur of the arbitrator’s award, finding that collective bargaining agreements may not regulate an Inspector General’s investigatory authority and that federal courts may refuse to enforce contracts that violate law or public policy. Dissent characterized the decision as being based on a “judicially fashioned ‘public policy’ exception,” warning that this “contradicts decades of precedent delineating a narrow public policy exception and threatens…to destabilize many, if not most arbitral awards.” Dissent further noted that the impact “may reach beyond labor arbitration to commercial arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act.”

Hilton v. Midland Funding, LLC, No. 16-1557 (6th Cir. Apr. 28, 2017) 04/28/2017

Court of appeal affirmed the district court’s dismissal and vacated the district court’s judgment that defendants did not waive their right to arbitrate. Court held that because neither party requested a stay, the district court did not err by dismissing the case without prejudice. Court also held that the district court should not have ruled on the issue of waiver because the arbitration provision delegated this question to the arbitrator.

Kabba v. Rent-A-Center, No. 8:17-CV-00211-PWG (D. Md. Apr. 27, 2017) 04/27/2017

Court denied motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, treating it as a motion for summary judgment and finding that there was a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the parties’ failure to include an arbitration provision in a renewed employment contract constituted repudiation of the arbitration provisions applicable to prior periods of employment.

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Gigi Jordan and the Hawk Mountain LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00199-RGA (D. Del. Apr. 27, 2017) 04/27/2017

Court denied requests for preliminary injunctions to enjoin ongoing arbitration, finding that question of whether the dispute was arbitrable under FINRA rules was to be determined in FINRA arbitration and that there had been no waiver by conduct of the arbitration agreement.

Marciano v. DCH Auto Group, No. 7:11-CV-09635-KMK (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2017) 04/27/2017

Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award and denied motion to vacate, finding, inter alia, that the arbitrator had not shown manifest partiality, any ex parte communications were non-prejudicial, the arbitrator was justified in excluding evidence submitted out of time, and there was no manifest disregard of the law.

Conde v. Open Door Marketing, LLC, No. 4:15-CV-04080-KAW (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2017) 04/27/2017

Court granted in part motion to deny class certification, finding that the fact that some individuals signed an arbitration agreement prevented certification as to those individuals, but also granted in part motion to expand the scope of the collective action to include a group with some individuals who signed an arbitration agreement, finding that conditional certification was a more lenient standard than eventual class certification.

Ibrahim v. ABM Government Services, LLC, No. 4:16-CV-00102-JHM-HBB (W.D. Ky. Apr. 26, 2017) 04/26/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitration agreement covered claims arising before it was concluded.

Guidotti v. Global Client Solutions, LLC, No. 1:11-CV-01219-JBS-KMW (D.N.J. Apr. 26, 2017) 04/26/2017

Court denied motion in limine, finding that question of whether a party agreed to arbitrate was a factual question to be submitted to the jury, and not a legal one for the Court.

Edmondson v. Lilliston Ford, Inc., No. 1:13-CV-07704-RMB-JS (D.N.J. Apr. 26, 2017) 04/26/2017

Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitration award and granted defendant’s cross-motion to confirm the arbitration award. Court found that that plaintiff had jumped to the unfounded conclusion that the arbitrator was engaging in ex parte communications. Court also rejected plaintiff’s arguments that defendant’s initial failure to pay the requisite fees to the AAA rendered the arbitration agreement unenforceable under FAA § 4.

Xu v. China Sunergy (US) Clean Tech Inc., No. 5:15-CV-04823-HRL (N.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2017) 04/26/2017

Court granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm the arbitration award. Court rejected defendant’s argument that it should not be subject to the award because it neither signed an arbitration agreement nor consented to arbitration, finding that the parties intended to delegate the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator and the arbitrator properly considered the question of whether these non-signatories were the alter-egos of signatories. Court also rejected defendant’s argument that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the parties’ agreement and the relevant law, as the arbitrator made his decision after considering respondents’ shared directors and officers and shared decision-making structures.

Stuart v. Camp Korey, No. 2:16-CV-01815-RSM (W.D. Wash. Apr. 26, 2017) 04/26/2017

Court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, plaintiff’s motion to strike, and plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment. Court found that the record did not support a finding that the non-signatory plaintiff personally received a benefit from the agreement, and thus equitable estoppel did not require plaintiff to arbitrate his claims. Court also found that the instant situation was not similar to an employer binding its employees to arbitrate or a subsidiary binding its parent company to arbitration, so agency law did not require plaintiff to arbitrate his claims either.

Thomas v. Fiserv Solutions, No. 4:16-CV-02157-CEJ (E.D. Mo. Apr. 26, 2017) 04/26/2017

Court granted defendant’s unopposed motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Court held that the parties had entered into a valid arbitration agreement and that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration clause.

Integr8 Fuels Inc. v. Daelim Corp., No. 1:17-CV-02191-LTS (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2017) 04/25/2017

Court denied plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order enjoining defendant from pursuing arbitration. Court found that plaintiff did not demonstrate a likelihood of success, or even sufficiently serious questions going to the merits, on its claim that it is not a party to an agreement to arbitrate. Court also found that the arbitration clause was broad and the claims are at least “incidental to” the contract, thus falling within the scope of the arbitration clause.

Meridian Imaging Solutions, Inc. v. Omni Business Solutions, LLC No. 1:17-CV-00186-TSE-JFA (E.D. Va. Apr. 25, 2017) 04/25/2017

Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court found that although defendant was a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, he could nevertheless compel arbitration against signatory Meridian because Meridian’s claims were based on his conduct as an agent of another signatory. Court also found that neither agency nor estoppel principles supported the enforcement of the arbitration provision against another non-signatory, but that it was appropriate to stay the proceedings between the non-signatories because the issues were so closely intertwined with those being decided in the arbitration.

Glover v. Comenity Capital Bank, No. 3:16-CV-01785-BEN-BLM (S.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2017) 04/25/2017

Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that a preliminary factual question existed as to whether the arbitration agreement was concluded by an imposter, and that this question would be determined at trial. Celltrane Communications Limited v. Acacia Research Corporation, Nos. 16-2006, 16-2326 (2d Cir. Apr. 25, 2017) 04/25/2017

Court of appeal vacated and remanded part of the lower court’s judgment, finding that the lower court erred in dismissing instead of staying the case when it granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court noted that when “all claims are referred to arbitration and a stay is requested,” the FAA requires a stay of proceedings. Court therefore vacated the lower court’s dismissal and instructed it to enter an order staying the proceedings.

B&B Jewelry, Inc. v. Pandora Jewelry LLC, No. 1:17-CV-20198-UU (S.D. Fla. Mar. 23, 2017) 04/23/2017

Court granted plaintiff’s motion to remand, holding that defendants failed to meet their burden in proving the existence of a valid agreement in writing within the meaning of the New York Convention.

Ormonde v. Allied International Credit Corporation, No. 4:16-CV-01763-HEA (E.D. Mo. Apr. 21, 2017) 04/21/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that although defendant was a non-signatory, it was able to invoke the arbitration agreement between plaintiff and eBay as an agent of eBay.

Sunvison v. Rentokil North America, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-02151-PK (D. Or. April 21, 2017) 04/21/2017

Court recommended granting motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration agreement was enforceable and plaintiff had not demonstrated procedural unfairness. Court found that the arbitration clause described the rights waived, was contained in a single-document employment agreement, and that the “take-it-or-leave-it” nature of the contract was insufficient to render it unenforceable for procedural unconscionability, where plaintiff had not shown he was surprised, misled, or deprived of adequate time to read the contract.

Pope v. Integrated Associates of Denver, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-02588-JLK (D. Colo. Apr. 21, 2017) 04/21/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration for all but one of plaintiff’s claims. Court reasoned that plaintiff’s claim under Colorado Wage Claim Act was statutorily guaranteed a right to trial, and Court further refused to stay proceedings of this claim pending arbitration of other claims.

Bonner v. Michigan Logistics Incorporated, No. 2:16-CV-03662- GMS (D. Ariz. Apr. 20, 2017) 04/20/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration in part, finding that ADR provision survived the termination of the agreement, that non-signatories could invoke the arbitration/ADR provisions as a matter of estoppel, and that concerted action waiver provision was severable and therefore did not prevent enforcement of the arbitration/ADR agreements even if the concerted action waiver provision was unenforceable.

Daelim Industrial Co. Ltd v. ECC International LLC, No. 3:17-cv-00775-MEJ (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2017) 04/20/2017

Court granted plaintiff’s motion to stay the action pending arbitration. Court found that it must grant the stay under FAA § 3 and that the court had discretion to stay the action even though one of the defendants was not a party to the arbitration agreement.

Torres v. E-Land World, Ltd., No. 1:16-CV-00004 (D.N. Mar. Is Apr. 20, 2017) 04/20/2017

Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and granted plaintiff’s motion to remand back to state court. Since the claims at issue were based on state-law and independent from the agreement containing the parties’ arbitration clause, court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Wulfe v. Valero Refining Company-California, No. 16-55824 (9th Cir. Apr. 19, 2017) 04/19/2017

Court of appeal affirmed lower court’s decision declining to vacate the arbitration award on the basis that intervening law could not provide a basis for vacatur. Court held that, at the time the arbitration award was rendered the law relating to the plaintiff’s claim was unsettled, and the arbitrator’s failure to correctly predict future judicial decisions and the change in the law does not mean she acted in “manifest disregard” of the existing law.

Hyatt Franchising, LLC v. Shen Zhen New World I, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-08306 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 19) 04/19/2017

Court granted motion to confirm the arbitration award and, conversely, denied motion to vacate. Court held that there was no evidence of misbehavior by the arbitrator by which the right of any party had been prejudiced, as required to vacate an arbitral award pursuant to §10(a)(3) of the FAA, nor was there a manifest disregard for the law or authority to vacate the award on public policy grounds.

The Knabb Partnership v. Home Income Equity, LLC, No. 2:17-CV-00373-GAM (E.D. Pa. Apr. 19, 2017) 04/19/2017

Court granted motion to confirm the arbitration award and denied motion to vacate. Court determined that, while the third circuit has not taken a position on whether “manifest disregard of the law” remains a viable standard, it remains a viable basis for vacatur. Nonetheless, the respondent failed to carry the heavy burden of proving that the arbitrator willfully ignored controlling law.

JDA Software, Inc. v. Sabert Holding Corp., No. 2:17-CV-00373 (D. Ariz. Apr. 19, 2017) 04/19/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to stay case pending arbitration of plaintiff’s claims, which the court construed as a motion to compel arbitration, and denied plaintiff’s motion to stay the pending arbitration until the case was resolved. Court concluded that the parties’ incorporation of the AAA arbitration rules into their arbitration agreement means the question of arbitrability falls to the arbitrator to decide and not the court.

Local 689, Amalgamated Transit Union v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, No. 1:16-CV-01482-JEB (D.D.C. Apr. 19, 2017) 04/19/2017

Court granted motion to confirm award, finding that the arbitrator’s interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement could not be challenged, that the award was not arbitrary and capricious, and that it was not against public policy.

GCIU-Employer Retirement Fund v. Quad/Graphics, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-03391-ODW-AFM (C.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2017) 04/19/2017

Court affirmed in part and vacated in part an arbitral award, finding that questions of law in arbitration under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 are reviewed de novo and that arbitrator incorrectly found that obligation to contribute to a multiemployer pension plan survived termination of the agreement.

In re: Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:15-CV-03001-MOB-MKM (E.D. Mich. Apr. 18, 2017) 04/18/2017

Court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss and stay several claims pending arbitration in relation to an alleged conspiracy amongst defendants to fix prices. In relation to defendants that were signatories to an arbitration agreement, court held that the doctrine of equitable estoppel applied to compel arbitration of claims by a non-signatory plaintiff arising from damages attributable to the signatories’ purchases and sales under this contract. In relation to a non-signatory defendant whose sales were made through signatory defendants, court held that the doctrine of equitable estoppel equally applied and compelled arbitration accordingly.

Marshall v. SSC Nashville Operating Co., LLC, No. 16-5751 (6th Cir. Apr. 18, 2017) 04/18/2017

Court of appeals affirmed lower court’s decision denying plaintiff’s motion to vacate or modify the arbitrator’s decision. In holding that the plaintiff had not established any of the exceptions to enforcement of an arbitration award under the FAA, court noted that a review of an arbitrator’s decision is “one of the narrowest standards of judicial review in all of American jurisprudence.”

Metter v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-06652-RS (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2017) 04/17/2017

Court denied motion to compel arbitration in light of plaintiff establishing a genuine issue of fact as to whether he assented to defendant’s terms of service and the arbitration agreement therein.

McLeod v. General Mills, Inc., No. 15-3540 (8th Cir. Apr. 14, 2017) 04/14/2017

Court of appeals reversed and remanded lower court’s decision denying General Mills’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the arbitration agreement at issue is broad enough to establish the parties’ intent to arbitrate both the release of claims and stand-alone claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Further, court held that no “contrary congressional command” existed to override the FAA’s mandate to enforce the parties’ agreement to arbitrate substantive ADEA claims.

Albertson v. Art Institute of Atlanta, No. 1:16-CV-03922-WSD (N.D. Ga. Apr. 14, 2017) 04/14/2017

Court approved magistrate’s recommendation to dismiss labor claim and compel arbitration. Court held that a valid arbitration agreement applied to the dispute and rejected argument that mere inequality of bargaining power in concluding that agreement rendered it unconscionable. Court denied request for attorneys’ fees, holding that mere refusal to dismiss claim and proceed to arbitration did not constitute sufficiently egregious conduct to warrant bad faith subject to sanctions.

Mitchell v. Precision Motor Cars, Inc., No. 8:17-CV-00376-SCB-AAS (M.D. Fla. Apr. 14, 2017) 04/14/2017

Court granted motion for an evidentiary hearing on a motion to compel arbitration. Court reasoned that the existence of a valid written agreement to arbitrate is a threshold issue in compelling arbitration under the FAA. Because party seeking to compel arbitration could not locate the credit agreement allegedly containing the arbitration clause and the claimant categorically denied the existence of any such provision in the contract she signed, a genuine issue of fact existed. Court further held that the sufficiency of consideration for the contract went to the existence of the contract, which was a threshold question for the court to decide, and determined that adequate consideration existed under applicable state law.

Hernandez v. Goldfarb Properties, Inc, No. 1:13-CV-08640-LGS (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2017) 04/14/2017

Court granted motion to compel an arbitration award. Court determined that the motion was effectively unopposed because no motion for vacatur or modification of the award was filed within the FAA’s three-month limit to do so, but held that it was nevertheless required to consider the merits. However, court ruled that in the absence of any challenge of the award or of the arbitrator’s findings of fact, summary judgment to confirm the award was appropriate.

Bordelon Marine, LLC v. Bibby Subsea ROV, LLC, No. 16-30847 (5th Cir. Apr. 14, 2017) 04/14/2017

Court of appeal dismissed plaintiff-appellant’s appeal of the lower court’s decision as to the selection of arbitrators due to lack of appellate jurisdiction. Court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction because (1) the lower court never entered final judgment or dismissed the state-law claims, as required for an appeal under §16(a)(3) of the FAA; and (2) appellate jurisdiction does not exist under §16(a)(1)(B) of the FAA for a motion relating to the selection of arbitrators under §5 of the FAA.

Roach v. Asbury Automotive Group, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-04215-CC (N.D. Ga. Apr. 14, 2017) 04/14/2017

Court recommended motion to compel arbitration and stay pending arbitration be granted in part and denied in part, holding that all of plaintiff’s claims were subject to arbitration, as plaintiff had not established fraud in the factum, and dismissal of the claim was warranted. Court found that plaintiff did not allege she did not understand the contract containing the arbitration agreement, nor that plaintiff presented any evidence that defendant prevented her from reviewing the contract before signing it. Pharmacy Corp. of America, Inc. v. Health Care at College Park, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-04790-LMM (Apr. 14, 2017 N.D. Ga.) 04/14/2017

Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held plaintiffs’ claims for payment of money due were carved out of the arbitration clause, and that defendants’ arbitrable counterclaim did not require plaintiffs’ excluded claims to go to arbitration.

Gonzalez v. Coverall North America, Inc., No. 5:16-CV-02287-JGB-KK (C.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2017) 04/13/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court found that the agreement delegated issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator, and that the delegation clause was not unconscionable.

Minute Med Clinic Group, LLC v. Absolute MD, LLC, No. 6:17-CV-0025 (W.D. La. Apr. 13, 2017) 04/13/2017

Magistrate judge recommended defendants’ motion to dismiss be denied and motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings be granted. Court found there was a valid arbitral agreement, the claim for fraud in the inducement of the contract was arbitrable, and no federal statute or policy rendered the claims non-arbitrable. Court concluded action should be stayed because it was unclear whether defendant intended to arbitrate all claims in the petition.

Science Applications International Corporation v. Hellenic Republic, No. 1:13-CV-01070-GK (D.D.C. Apr. 13, 2017) 04/13/2017

Court corrected an entry of judgment following its January 5, 2017 confirmation of an arbitral award granted to petitioner in a contract dispute regarding Greece’s failure to pay for the design and installation of a public safety infrastructure system. In correcting the clerical mistakes, court held that petitioner had not waived its right to have the award granted in dollars, and, after tacking on interest, arbitration fees, and an adjustment to the exchange rate, increased the award from €39.8 million ($42.2 million) to $63 million. Court noted that federal courts generally enter judgment in U.S. dollars partly to protect aggrieved parties from having their award devalued by currency fluctuations, as had been the case here.

Gemini Insurance Company v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London Subscribing to Policy No. B0973MA1305152 Issued Through the Offices of Osprey Underwriting Agency Ltd., No. 4:17-CV-01044 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 13, 2017) 04/13/2017

Court dissolved a state court’s temporary restraining order barring defendants from pursuing arbitration in London. Court also denied a preliminary injunction finding that there was a valid arbitration agreement under the New York Convention. Finally, the court held that the arbitration agreement’s incorporation of English law was an implicit delegation clause and therefore any threshold arbitrability questions would be sent to the arbitrators.

Doctor’s Associates Inc. v. Nijjar, No. 3:16-CV-01944-JCH (D. Conn. Apr. 13, 2017) 04/13/2017

Court denied plaintiff’s petition to compel arbitration finding that, because defendant’s Virginia lawsuit was only seeking to enforce an existing arbitration award, the arbitration clauses found in separate franchise agreements did not apply to the present case.

UBS Financial Services, Inc. v. Bounty Gain Enterprises, Inc., No. 9:14-CV-81603-WM (S.D. Fla. Apr. 12, 2017) 04/12/2017

Magistrate judge denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment finding that there were disputed material issues of fact that should go to trial before a final decision on arbitrability could be made. One of the questions at hand would revisit whether non-signatories to a contract can compel arbitration, which the magistrate judge noted depends on the facts of each case.

BOSC v. Board of County Commissioners of the Country of Bernalillo, No. 1:15-CV-01042-KG-LF (10th Cir. Apr. 11, 2017) 04/11/2017

Court of appeals affirmed lower court’s judgment holding that the Board of County Commissioners had not waived its right to demand FINRA arbitration when it filed a state court action. Court rejected the existence of a bright-line rule under federal law that a party who files litigation intentionally abandons its right to arbitrate; and applied the Peterson factors to find that the Board of County Commissioners had not waived its right to arbitrate through its conduct.

Lefoldt for Natchez Regional Medical Center Liquidation Trust v. Horne, No. 16-60245 (4th Cir. Apr. 11, 2017) 04/11/2017

Court of appeals vacated and remanded lower court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration as to one of the three engagement letters at issue. The primary legal question was whether Mississippi’s “minutes rule,” which requires the board of trustees of a community hospital to “keep minutes of its official business,” pertains to the validity of a contract. Court thus remanded to lower court suggesting that the minutes rule is one of contract formation and thus should be addressed by the courts, not by arbitrators. Court also held that §2 of the FAA did not foreclose application of the minutes rule because there was no indication of the rule being applied selectively to arbitration provisions.

Hudson v. BAH Shoney’s Corporation, No. 3:16-CV-03016 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 11, 2017) 04/11/2017

Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay all proceedings regarding plaintiff’s claims of discrimination and retaliation against defendant as her employer Court refused to enforce the arbitration agreement because it found that three of the four factors in determining whether a waiver is “knowing and voluntary” weighed strongly against enforcement.

Stevens v. Jiffy Lube International, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-07175-EMC (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2017) 04/11/2017

Court denied petitioners’ motion for new judgment or to alter or amend a judgment vacating an arbitration award in favor of respondent. Court found that the FAA provision allowing a court to vacate an arbitration award “where there was evident partiality of corruption in the arbitrators” did not apply in the present case because there was insufficient evidence to show a “reasonable impression of partiality.”

Lockett v. Conn Appliances, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-703-ALM-CAN (E.D. Tex. April 11, 2017) 04/11/2017

Court recommended that motion to compel arbitration be granted and suit stayed pending an arbitral ruling on arbitrability, holding that the arbitration agreement evidenced a clear intent to submit disputes regarding arbitrability to arbitration. Court found that parties had incorporated the AAA rules and the arbitration clause specifically stated that disputes regarding “the scope and validity of this arbitration clause (including disputes as to the matters subject to arbitration)” must be submitted to arbitration. Further, court found that this agreement was not unconscionable merely by virtue of being a contract of adhesion.

Keraplast Technology v. Bath and Kitchen Distributors LLC, No. 2:17-CV-01562 (D.N.J. Apr. 10, 2017) 04/10/2017

Court confirmed an arbitration award issued by the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukraine Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Court held that it had jurisdiction pursuant to the FAA and the New York Convention and that defendant had not filed any opposition to petitioner’s efforts to confirm the award.

Simmons v. Simpson House, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-06636-GJP (E.D. Pa. Apr. 10, 2017) 04/10/2017

Court granted one of the defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims and enforce an arbitration agreement as to claims filed on behalf of decedent, but denied defendant’s motion with respect to plaintiff’s wrongful death claim. Defendant Kindred argued, and the court agreed, that decedent, through her attorney and legal guardian, agreed to arbitrate any dispute between Kindred and decedent and that such an arbitration agreement was valid even if it cited to the now-defunct National Arbitration Forum as the arbitration entity. However, the court agreed that plaintiff, decedent’s son, had not signed the arbitration agreement and therefore he and his wrongful death claim were not subject to arbitration.

Villarreal v. Perfection Pet Foods, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-01661-LJO-EPG (E.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2017) 04/10/2017

Magistrate judge recommended that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration be granted based on a finding that there was a binding agreement that was not unconscionable; that under ninth circuit case law Private Attorneys General Act claims were arbitrable; and that the arbitration could include class claims because there was no enforceable class waiver.

Novosad v. Broomall Operating Company LP, No. 16-2089 (3d Cir. Apr. 10, 2017) 04/10/2017

Court of appeals affirmed lower court’s judgment holding that an arbitration clause that covered “only claims by individuals and [did] not cover class or collective actions” excluded a putative class and collective action for overtime pay from arbitration. Court found that despite a strong federal policy favoring arbitration, in this case, the arbitration clause unmistakably excluded class and collective actions from mandatory arbitration.

Evans v. Midland Funding, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00421-GNS-DW (W.D. Ky. Apr. 10, 2017) 04/10/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding there was no issue of material fact as to the validity of the arbitration agreement since the plaintiff signed a credit agreement that contained an arbitration clause and failed to respond to the defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Court also found that all of the plaintiff’s claims where within the scope of the arbitration clause, that the credit agreement prohibited class-based claims, and the defendant was an appropriate successor-in-interest to the credit agreement’s original parties.

Emam v. CVS Foundation Inc., No. 5:16-CV-897-D (E.D.N.C. Apr. 10, 2017) 04/10/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration but denied motion to dismiss. Court found that there was a valid “arbitration policy” that required CVS employees to arbitrate disputes and, because the arbitration clause had not been obtained fraudulently, neither North Carolina public policy nor contract law invalidated it. Further, all of plaintiff’s claims were arbitrable.

Charging Bison, LLC v. Interstate Battery Franchising & Development, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-03479-G-BN (N.D. Tex. Apr. 7, 2017) 04/07/2017

Court denied plaintiff’s motion to stay an arbitration pending before JAMS. Court found that it had jurisdiction to decide the issue of arbitrability, and in doing so, held that the plaintiff’s right to terminate a franchise agreement due to defendant’s alleged misrepresentations was a dispute that fell within the scope of the parties’ arbitration clause.

Hallock v. Kia Motors Finance, No. 8:17-CV-00417-RAL-TBM (M.D. Fla. Apr. 7, 2017) 04/07/2017

Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and motion to stay, noting that, under eleventh circuit precedent, even if a court decides to compel arbitration, “it is error to dismiss [an] appeal.” Instead, upon compelling arbitration, a court should stay court proceedings.

Enron Nigeria Power Holding Ltd. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, No. 1:13-CV-01106 (D.D.C. Apr. 7, 2017) 04/07/2017

Court added approximately $2.6 million in exchange rate fluctuations and interest on fees to plaintiff’s arbitration award. because the pound-dollar exchange rate has declined 22 percent since the 2012 London-seated arbitration panel issued the award, the court issued its decision to allow plaintiff to receive a “judgment that reflects the true value in dollars of the Final Award at the time it was issued instead of the significantly diminished value resulting from Nigeria’s success in delaying the entry of final judgment.” The decision also left open the possibility for plaintiff to pursue legal fees related to the confirmation of the award, as long as it files a motion to do so within 14 days.

Patton v. Volkswagen Group of America Chattanooga Operations, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00327-TAV-CHS (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 6, 2017) 04/06/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint. Court found that the arbitration agreement’s delegation provision clearly communicates the parties’ intent to displace state law and to submit the gateway issue of arbitrability to arbitration; and plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily entered into the agreement with defendant.

Dimattei v. Diskin Motors, No. 2:16-CV-05183-GEKP (E.D. Pa. Apr. 6, 2017) 04/06/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in light of an arbitration agreement between the parties. Claimant failed to raise any argument that the dispute was outside the scope of the arbitration agreement.

Ciprianni v. Omni La Costa Resort Spa LLC, No. 3:16-CV-01002-L-BGS (S.D. Cal. Apr. 6 2017) 04/06/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the FAA applied since the contract between the parties involves interstate commerce; the presence of additional defendants who are not a party to the arbitration agreement cannot defeat a motion to compel arbitration with a party to the arbitration agreement; the defendant did not waive its right to compel arbitration; and a valid arbitration agreement covered the claim.

Clark v. Cellco Partnership, No. 3:16-CV-00720-GCM (W.D.N.C. Apr. 6 2017) 04/06/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the litigation pending arbitration. Court held that defendant did not substantially utilize the litigation machinery such that plaintiff suffered actual prejudice.

Glover v. Citibank, N.A., No. 3:16-CV-01786-BEN-BLM (S.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2017) 04/05/2017

Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and motion to file documents under seal. Court held that there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff consented to the arbitration agreement, which was a question in need of resolution by trial.

Nugussie v. HMS Host North America, No. 2:16-CV-00268-RSL (W.D. Wash. Apr. 5, 2017) 04/05/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding no justification for invalidating the agreement to arbitrate based on communication from defendants’ while a class action was pending. Court directed plaintiff to submit her individual claims to binding arbitration in accordance with the arbitration agreement.

Spencer v. CVS, 1:16-CV-07593-RBK-AMD (D.N.J. Apr. 5, 2017) 04/05/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss complaint and to compel arbitration. Court held that there was a binding arbitration agreement between the parties and that plaintiff was aware of that agreement and did not opt out of it. Plaintiff was therefore barred from asserting her discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims before any court and had to submit them to arbitration.

Hudson v. Windows USA, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00596-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss. Apr. 5, 2017) 04/05/2017

Court granted defendant Wells Fargo National Bank’s motion to compel arbitration, but denied Wells Fargo’s request for dismissal. Court found that there was a valid arbitration agreement, noting that plaintiffs’ argument that the credit-card agreement containing the arbitration clause had been procured by fraud-in-the-factum was not sufficient to challenge the arbitration clause within that agreement. Court set oral argument and sought additional briefing from the parties on whether other non-signatory defendants could join in Wells Fargo’s motion to compel arbitration.

Schambon v. Orkin, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00130-GNS (W.D. Ky. Apr. 5, 2017) 04/05/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration finding that plaintiff had knowingly and voluntarily entered into an agreement to arbitrate any dispute arising out of his employment relationship with Orkin, LLC. Court noted, among other things, that plaintiff’s experience, background, and education, as well as the time and opportunity that he had to review the agreement and consult with a lawyer, weighed in favor of finding that he executed a knowing and voluntary waiver to a jury trial.

Vega v. CVS, No. 1:16-CV-07594-RBK-AMD (D.N.J. Apr. 5, 2017) 04/05/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss complaint. Court held that there was a binding arbitration agreement between the parties and that plaintiff was aware of that agreement and did not opt out of it. Plaintiff was therefore bound to arbitrate her claims for discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Barron v. Best Buy Co., Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00690-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss. Apr. 5, 2017) 04/05/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that contract between parties contained an arbitration provision and that plaintiff’s Fair Credit Reporting Act claims were subject to arbitration.

Ipock v. Manor Care of Tulsa OK, LLC, No. 17-CV-0106-CVE-TLW (N.D. Okla. Apr. 4, 2017) 04/04/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings as to plaintiff’s negligence claim and denied motion as to plaintiff’s wrongful death claim. Court held that under Oklahoma supreme court precedent, plaintiff cannot be compelled to arbitrate a wrongful death claim based on an arbitration agreement that the plaintiff, as decedent’s next of kin, did not sign, even if the decedent’s husband signed the arbitration agreement on behalf of the decedent. Court also held that, per the US Supreme Court Concepcion test, the Federal Arbitration Act did not preempt the cited Oklahoma Supreme Court case.

Gray v. Midland Funding, LLC, No. 5:16-CV-00036-TBR (W.D. Ky. Apr. 4, 2017) 04/04/2017

Court found that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the validity of the arbitration agreement and decided to hold an evidentiary hearing on this issue. The arbitration clause was embedded in a credit agreement that plaintiff claimed she did not sign as she allegedly opened her account via phone. However, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for the court to order discovery and a jury trial on the issue of the agreement’s validity.

G.G., A.L., and B.S. v. Valve Corporation, No. 2:16-CV-01941-JCC (W.D. Wash. Apr. 3, 2017) 04/03/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court concluded that the that the arbitration agreement was conspicuous and each party had an opportunity to understand the terms, therefore plaintiffs’ procedural unconscionability argument was unpersuasive. Further, the plaintiff parents of the minors who entered into the contract were bound by the arbitration agreement on grounds of equitable estoppel.

Reis Robotics (China) Co., Ltd. v. Miasole, Inc., No. 5:15-CV-06112-HRL (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2017) 03/31/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, holding that inclusion of an arbitration agreement separate to the parties’ main contract did not cause the plaintiff to suffer surprise or hardship and became one of the parties’ agreed terms.

Commissions Import Export S.A. v. Republic of the Congo, No. 1:13-CV-00713-RJL (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2017) 03/31/2017

Court granted petitioner’s motion for sanctions and counsel for respondent’s motion to withdraw. Court held Republic of the Congo in civil contempt for failure to respond to post-judgment interrogatories for collection on a previously confirmed arbitration award.

Belize Bank Ltd. v. Government of Belize, Nos. 16-7089, 16-7094 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 31, 2017) 03/31/2017

Circuit court affirmed district court decision enforcing an arbitration award as consistent with the New York Convention. Circuit court held that enforcement of the award against Belize was not contrary to US public policy under New York Convention Art. V(2)(b). Court also held that Belize did not allege conduct that would warrant denial of enforcement of the award in challenging the LCIA’s decision to not disqualify LCIA-appointed member of tribunal. Even if it had, court held this would not have violated the “most basic notions of morality and justice,” the standard set forth in TermoRio required to set aside an award.

Certain Underwriting Members at Lloyd’s of London v. Insurance Company of the Americas, No. 1:16-CV-00374-VSB (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2017) 03/31/2017

Court granted motion to vacate the arbitration award, finding that the undisclosed relationships of the party arbitrator for respondent ICA were significant enough to demonstrate evident partiality. In his disclosures, the arbitrator claimed that his only connection to the respondent was a failed business venture that had occurred ten years ago, failing to mention his close business relationships with numerous principals of ICA, the number and variety of which suggested that he was personally acquainted with some of these individuals over a number of years. Further, the arbitrator failed to acknowledge that he knew the treasurer, secretary, and director of ICA during the three-day arbitration, evincing an apparent willful avoidance that suggested that he was hiding their relationship from the other arbitrators and petitioner’s representatives. Weickert v. Natural Products Ass’n, No. 1:16-CV-00142-RJL (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2017) 03/31/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held plaintiff made a binding contract with defendants to arbitrate his employment claims and that any contract defenses regarding the validity of the agreement are within the purview of the arbitrator under the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (JAMS) Rules and Procedures incorporated therein.

Schreiber v. Friedman, No. 1:15-CV-06861-CBA-JO (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2017) 03/31/2017

Court denied in-part defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and concluded a stay would be inappropriate because the majority of claims were non-arbitrable. Contrary to Supreme Court precedent but consistent with Second Circuit decisions, court determined that the issue of whether defendants’ pre-litigation and litigation conduct waived their rights to arbitrate was a question for the court rather than arbitration. Court held signatory defendant had waived his right to compel arbitration based on his pre-litigation refusals to arbitrate and denied non-signatory defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, concluding that the defendants failed to establish the close relationship required to prove equitable estoppel, but granted in part some of the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.

Rimel v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 6:15-CV-02191-CEM-KRS (M.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2017) 03/31/2017

Court adopted and confirmed magistrate judge’s recommendation, granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and strike class action allegations and stayed case pending arbitration, finding that the arbitration provision and the delegation clause are valid and enforceable under Florida law, which the magistrate judge correctly applied in the absence of a choice-of-law provision in the arbitration provision. Court further found that the California choice of law provision in the main agreement was inapplicable, since the arbitration provision is severable from that agreement, that its decision however would not be altered even if California law did apply, and that the class-action waiver in the arbitration agreement did not render the arbitration agreement substantively unconscionable, since plaintiff had the right to opt out of arbitration. Firdous v. Credit Acceptance Corporation, No. 1:17-CV-00215-RJJ-PJG (W.D. Mich. Mar. 30, 2017) 03/30/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that arbitration clause was not unconscionable since there were conspicuous notices regarding the arbitration clause right above the signature line and the contract gave the plaintiff the option to reject the arbitration clause.

Johnson v. Miami-Bade County, No. 1:16-CV-21658-KMW (S.D. Fla. Mar. 30, 2017) 03/30/2017

Court granted motion to dismiss in part, finding, inter alia, that the arbitration clause could be enforced after expiry of the agreement in which it formed a part, and that arbitration applied to some matters not all.

Brendel v. Meyrowitz, No. 3:15-CV-01928-SAF (N.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2017) 03/30/2017

Court granted in part plaintiff’s motion to confirm an arbitration award. Court held that defendants’ contention that arbitrator improperly considered records and manifestly disregarded Florida law did not correspond to any ground for vacatur of an award recognized in the Fifth Circuit.

Johnson v. Drake, No. 3:16-CV-01993-L-BF (N.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2017) 03/30/2017

Court accepted as modified magistrate judge’s report recommending that the court grant respondent’s motion to dismiss without prejudice for failure to effect service on respondent. Court held § 9 of the FAA applied to service in proceedings such as this one to confirm an arbitration award. Court also held failure to effect service was curable defect for which it provided petitioner with additional time.

Arabian Gas & Oil Dev. Co. v. Wisdom Marines Lines, S.A., No. 4:16-CV-03801-DMR (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2017) 03/30/2017

Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to increase plaintiff’s undertaking while arbitration proceedings were pending in London. Court held that plaintiff’s undertaking should be increased to provide defendants with security for a potential wrongful attachment claim in the event the plaintiff did not recover judgment.

McElrath v. Uber Tech., Inc., No. 3:16-CV-07241-JSC (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2017) 03/30/2017

Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings pending a Supreme Court ruling that may foreclose plaintiff’s class action claim. Court held that the entire arbitration agreement was unenforceable under current ninth circuit law, and whether the case could proceed as a class action turns squarely on the outcome of the Supreme Court’s upcoming review in Ernst & Young v. Morris, 2017 WL 125665 (Jan. 13, 2017).

Seaman v. Private Placement Capital Notes II, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00578-BAS-DHB (S.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2017) 03/29/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration in part and to stay the case pending arbitration. Court held that by incorporating the AAA Rules into their arbitration agreement, the parties clearly and unmistakably delegated the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Court further held that conflicting terms of Section 4 of the FAA provide that the forum will be both “in accordance with the terms of the agreement,” in this case Colorado, but also “shall be within the district in which the petition of an order directing such arbitration is filed, which the court held to be the southern district of California. Court also denied a transfer to the contractually-designated forum under 28 USC § 1404(a) for public interest factors.

James v. Global Tellink Corp., No. 16-1555 (3d Cir. Mar. 29, 2017) 03/29/2017

Circuit court affirmed district court ruling denying motion to compel arbitration against plaintiff and putative class. Circuit court held that appellees did not agree to arbitrate their dispute with appellants and a party cannot be required to arbitrate without consent.

Great Lengths Universal Hair Extensions S.r.L v. Gold, No. 1:16-CV-00193-GBD (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2017) 03/29/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court held that undisputed, valid arbitration clause in agreement applies to non-signatory plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are estopped from avoiding the clause when they receive a direct benefit from the contract containing it by seeking to enforce the provisions contained therein.

Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. MAA Laxmi, LLC, No. 8:16-CV-02322-PX (D. Md. Mar. 29, 2017) 03/29/2017

Court granted plaintiff’s request to enter default judgment confirming its arbitration award. Court held that plaintiff’s pleadings demonstrated that the award can and should be confirmed.

Johnson v. Retirement Plan of General Mills, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00151-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind. Mar. 29, 2017) 03/29/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to stay litigation and proceed to arbitration. Court held that agreement between the parties was enforceable and required plaintiff to arbitration questions regarding the right to enforce it and whether it covered her claims.

Westcode, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Electric Corp., No. 3:15-CV-01474-MAD (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2017) 03/29/2017

Court denied defendant’s motion for reconsideration of prior order denying motion to compel arbitration. Court held that defendant failed to demonstrate any of the three possible grounds upon which a motion to reconsider may be granted. Court also declined to send the entire case to arbitration when in the prior order court held that defendant waived it right to compel arbitration and plaintiff suffered prejudice as a result of defendant’s litigation.

Moore v. America Online Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01561-GBL-MSN (E.D. Va. Mar. 29, 2017) 03/29/2017

Court dismissed plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitral award, finding that the FAA does not create federal question jurisdiction and plaintiff did not have independent subject matter jurisdiction because he did not meet the amount in controversy. Court explained that although the Fourth Circuit had not adopted an approach to establish the amount in controversy in arbitral award challenges and that there was a split among the circuit courts regarding the appropriate methodology, plaintiff did not meet the amount in controversy under any of the approaches.

UBS Financial Services Inc, v. Asociación de Empleados del Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico, No. 3:16-02017-GAG (D.P.R. Mar. 28, 2017) 03/28/2017

Court granted petitioner’s petition to confirm its arbitration award, holding that respondent did not provide any evidence or argument for the application of any of the FAA’s statutorily defined exceptions to confirming an arbitration award.

Jackson v. Diversicare Humble, LLC, No. 4:16-CV-02776-SL (S.D. Tex. Mar. 28, 2017) 03/28/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pending arbitration. Court held the parties are subject to binding and valid arbitration agreement.

Cesca Therapeutics Inc. v. Syngen Inc., No. 2:14-CV-02085-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2017) 03/28/2017

Court denied defendants’ motion to stay proceedings pending appeal of prior order denying motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the defendants did not meet a threshold showing of the requisite individualized irreparable harm they would suffer but for a stay of proceedings or their likelihood of success on the merits, and a stay would injure plaintiff’s interests in preserving evidence. Court further held that the strong public policy support for arbitration did not outweigh these three reasons against the granting of a stay.

Carlson v. Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Ltd., No. 2013-CV-00115-CVG (D.V.I. Mar. 28, 2017) 03/28/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to vacate arbitration award. Court remanded case to arbitration for proceedings consistent with its prior order holding that arbitrator had committed misconduct in refusing to hear material evidence, and stayed matter pending completion of arbitration.

UBS Financial Services Inc. v. Associacion de Empleados Del Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico, No. 3:16-CV-02017-GAG (D.P.R. Mar. 28, 2017) 03/28/2017

Court granted petitioner’s motion to confirm arbitration award, holding that respondent presented no evidence or argument for the application of any FAA exception to confirming the award.

Internaves de Mexico s.a. de C.V. v. Andromeda Steamship Corp., No. 9:16-CV-81719-DMM (S.D. Fla. Mar. 28, 2017) 03/28/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration but denied motion to compel arbitration in London, England under English law. Court held that because plaintiff challenged the entire agreement, and not the making of the arbitration agreement in particular, an arbitrator must decide plaintiff’s allegation of fraud. Court further held it lacked jurisdiction to compel arbitration in a particular forum where the contract contained contradictory forum provisions resulting in an ambiguity.

Weirton Medical Center, Inc. v. QHR Intensive Resources, LLC, No. 16-1647 (4th Cir. Mar. 28, 2017) 03/28/2017

Circuit Court affirmed district court’s order denying plaintiff-appellant’s motion to vacate arbitration award and confirming defendant-appellee’s arbitration award. Court held that plaintiff-appellant had plenty of opportunity to uncover misconduct of witnesses and to demonstrate a causal connection between such and the result of the arbitration, which it did not.

Lenhardt v. Sysco Corp., No. 1:16-CV-00153-SPW (D. Mont. Mar. 28, 2017) 03/28/2017

Court adopted magistrate judge’s findings in part and modified in part. Court refrained from deciding defendant’s motion to dismiss until after arbitration, as plaintiff agreed to arbitrate any claim arising from certain protective covenants, including her non-compete agreement. Court therefore stayed the case pending arbitration.

UBS Financial Services, Inc. v. Zimmerman, No. 5:16-CV-00155-FL (E.D.N.C. Mar. 28, 2017) 03/28/2017

Court enjoined defendant from pursuing arbitration against plaintiff in prior order and expanded that injunction to include other affiliated corporate entities provided they are joined in the action. Court held that the defendant is not a customer of any of these entities and they do not have a written arbitration agreement with defendant.

Jefferson v. Baptist Health System, Inc., Nos. 2:14-CV-01028, 2:14-CV-1094-KOB (N.D. Ala. Mar. 28, 2017) 03/28/2017

Court awarded attorney’s fees and costs to plaintiff. Court held that where defendant challenged the plaintiff’s arbitration award in court, plaintiff was entitled to fees and costs for those proceedings concerning the enforceability of the arbitration award.

Murillo v. Coryell County Tradesmen, LLC, No. 2:15-CV-03641 (E.D. La. Mar. 28, 2017) 03/28/2017

Court stayed litigation of cross-claim plaintiff against one defendant pending the outcome of arbitration. Court held that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed, that the cross-claim fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and that the court would stay rather than dismiss the action pending resolution of the arbitration.

Song v. Charter Commc’ns, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00325-JTM (S.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2017) 03/28/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that under ninth circuit precedent, clear and unmistakable language in the agreement between the parties requires the arbitrator to determine which claims are arbitrable or belong in court.

The National Retirement Fund v. Metz Culinary Management, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-02408-VEC (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2017) 03/27/2017

Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the final arbitration award and denied defendant’s motion to confirm the award. Court held that the arbitrator made a legal determination rather than a factual finding when it decided that various assumptions continued from one pension plan year to the next, and that such determination was reviewable de novo by the court and in error.

Echevarria-Hernandez v. Affinitylifestyles.com, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00943-GMN (D. Nev. Mar. 27, 2017) 03/27/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the terms of the arbitration policy in plaintiff’s employment agreement were presented clearly, that plaintiff had a meaningful opportunity to agree or not with the terms, and that the policy was neither substantively or procedurally unconscionable nor unenforceable.

Local 30, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO v. Wood Group Power Operations LLC, No. 2:13-CV-02499-JS-GRB (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2017) 03/27/2017

Court adopted as modified magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to grant petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award against respondent. Court overruled both petitioner’s and respondent’s objections to conclude that respondent must comply with the award, that petitioner may not use the award to collect damages beyond the scope of the award, and that petitioner was granted leave to apply for an award of fees and costs.

Carey v. Uber Tech., Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01058-SEL (N.D. Ohio Mar. 27, 2017) 03/27/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to strike plaintiff’s class allegations as moot. Court held that plaintiff accepted defendant’s employment agreement that contained a valid delegation clause that was clear and unmistakable and was not unconscionable under Ohio state law.

Pierre v. University of Dayton, No. 3:15-CV-00362-TMR (S.D. Ohio Mar. 27, 2017) 03/27/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim. Court held, inter alia, that there is no written contract between the parties requiring controversies to be settled through arbitration and that plaintiff had not asserted any claim under the Ohio Arbitration Act.

Tritsis v. BankFinancial Corp., No. 1:16-CV-02052-SJC (N.D. Ill. Mar. 27, 2017) 03/27/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss case for lack of venue based on an arbitration clause in the parties’ employment agreement. Court held that payment by employee plaintiff of only the initial case management fee pursuant to the JAMS Endispute Employment Arbitration Rules and Procedures is not so burdensome as to render the arbitration clause unenforceable.

Carey v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01058-SL (N.D. Ohio Mar. 27, 2017) 03/27/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss complaint or compel arbitration and strike plaintiff’s class allegations. Court found that the language of the delegation provision in the parties’ valid agreement clearly and unmistakably evinces the parties’ intent to submit all issues to the arbitrator, including issues of arbitrability. Court further held that Ohio state law governed the delegation provision which was not procedurally unconscionable and could therefore not be both procedurally and substantively unconscionable as required to be invalid.

Inversiones y Procesadora Tropical INPROTSA, S.A. v. Del Monte International GMBH, No. 16-17623 (11th Cir. Mar. 27, 2017) 03/27/2017

Circuit court granted defendant-appellee-cross-appellant’s motion for a limited remand for further proceedings to resolve defendant’s cross-petition to confirm an arbitration award. Circuit court held it has no jurisdiction over the appeal until the district court clarifies its order.

McGrew v. VCG Holding Corp., No. 3:16-CV-00397-TBR (W.D. Ky. Mar. 27, 2017) 03/27/2017

Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that under New York law, the arbitration provisions are substantively unconscionable and void as against public policy where they would require plaintiff to forego his rights and remedies under the applicable U.S. securities laws.

Eisen v. Venulum Ltd., No. 1:16-CV-00461-EAW (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2017) 03/27/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismiss. Court held that plaintiffs’ claims are subject to arbitration on an individual, non-class basis because each signed multiple arbitration agreements that cover their claims while employed with defendants. Neither the Fair Labor Standards Act nor the National Labor Relations Act overrides the FAA’s clear mandate to enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms.

Brock Industrial Services, LLC v. Laborers International Union of North America, Construction & General Laborers Local #100, No. 3:16-CV-00780-NJR-DGW (S.D. Ill. Mar. 27, 2017) 03/27/2017

Court denied four interrelated motions to dismiss, vacate, and enforce a grievance decision of a labor dispute between the parties. Court held there are clearly disputed issues of fact which prevented the court from determining whether the decision should be enforced or vacated as the court must decide which arbitration agreement and procedure is applicable, which will have the effect of determining the merits of the underlying dispute and the arbitration award.

Pershing LLC v. Kiebach, No. 2:14-CV-02549-LMA-MBN (E.D. La. Mar. 27, 2017) 03/27/2017

Court ordered defendant to produce some but not all documents to defendant in an action under the FAA to confirm a FINRA dispute resolution panel arbitration award. Court held that the mere fact that certain documents are not privileged does not make them discoverable, and yet, even though rare in an action to confirm an arbitration award, discovery is not prohibited and certain relevant documents should be produced. Sport Collectors Guild Incorporated v. Bank of America NA, No. 2:16-CV-02229-ROS (D. Ariz. Mar. 27, 2017) 03/27/2017

Court found that claim for breach of contract for failure to arbitrate was not barred by res judicata or collaterally estopped by prior court decision that was dismissed without prejudice.

Crystallex International Corporation v. Venezuela, No. 1:16-CV-00661-RC (D.D.C. Mar. 25, 2017) 03/25/2017

Court granted petition to confirm, and denied motion to vacate, and arbitral award. Court found that arbitrability issues were delegated to the tribunal by clear and unmistakable evidence based on the language of the BIT and the arbitration rules, and therefore deferentially reviewed the tribunal’s decisions. Court held that the tribunal did not exceed its powers under Article V(1)(c) of the New York Convention by ruling on certain claims or using certain calculation methods. Additionally, court refused to vacate the award based on Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention, finding that its confirmation was not contrary to public policy. Finally, court rejected Venezuela’s independent argument that the award is in manifest disregard of the law, casting doubt on whether that doctrine is even “still good law.”

Clark-Williams v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, No. 1:14-CV-00099-RDM (D.D.C. Mar. 25, 2017) 03/25/2017

Court granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment and denied plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment. Court held that defendants’ demonstrated that no genuine question of material fact existed as to whether they breached the collective bargaining agreement with plaintiff, including its grievance and arbitration process.

Voorhees v. Ace American Insurance Co., No. 2:15-CV-01193-PP (E.D. Wis. Mar. 24, 2017) 03/24/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation. Court found that the defendant showed the existence of both an agreement to arbitrate and a dispute that falls within the scope of that agreement, as well as a refusal by the plaintiff to proceed to arbitration. Additionally, court held that the issue of whether the moving party waived its right to arbitration was one for the arbitrator to decide.

Tweatherford, Inc. v. 3D Systems Corporation, No. 1:16-CV-00783-WTL-DML (S.D. Ind. Mar. 24, 2017) 03/24/2017

Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss for improper venue but granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Court, applying New York law to determine whether the parties agreed to submit to arbitrate the disputes, held that unambiguous arbitration clause in the agreement cannot apply to disputes and that venue was not improper.

CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-11803-IT (D. Mass. Mar. 24, 2017) 03/24/2017

Court granted in part defendant’s motion to dismiss or stay plaintiff’s non-patent claims pending arbitration. Court held that defendant, a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, may invoke the equitable estoppel provisions of the arbitration agreement to refer three claims to arbitration and stayed plaintiffs’ claims pending arbitration.

Baltimore/Washington Constr. and Public Emp. Laborer’s Dist. Council v. Whiting-Turner Contracting Co., No. 16-CV-3722-JKB (D. Md. Mar. 23, 2017) 03/23/2017

Court granted petitioner’s motion to compel arbitration under the Labor Management Relations Act and denied as moot the motion to compel under the FAA. Court held petitioner filed timely motion and its grievance was contemplated under the arbitration provision contained in the Project Labor Agreement between the parties.

MHA, LLC v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-07825-ES (D.N.J. Mar. 23, 2017) 03/23/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to direct the arbitration panel to determine whether plaintiff’s claims are arbitrable and stayed action. Court held that the parties clearly and unmistakably agreed to submit the question of arbitrability of plaintiff’s claims to arbitration.

Mohebbi v. Khazen, No. 5:13-CV-03044-BLF (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2017) 03/23/2017

Court denied defendant’s motion to partially lift a stay of claims where court had previously granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay remaining claims. Court held that lifting the stay for a single defendant who joined the motion to compel arbitration would be contrary to the FAA’s mandate, prejudicial to other defendants, and unwarranted where the completion of the arbitration was imminent and furthered the goal of efficiency for both the judiciary and the litigants.

White v. Four Seasons Hotel and Resorts, No. 1:13-CV-01399-JEB (D.D.C. Mar. 23, 2017) 03/23/2017

Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitration award against defendant and granted defendant’s motion to confirm the award. Court held that plaintiff could not meet demanding standard for vacatur under the FAA where arbitrator’s discovery-related decisions did not amount to misconduct that denied plaintiff with a fundamentally fair hearing.

Deosaran v. ACE Cash Express, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00919-O-BP (N.D. Tex. Mar. 23, 2017) 03/23/2017

Magistrate judge recommended, and the district court later agreed, to grant a motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss action as to one of the plaintiffs, but denied the motion as to a second plaintiff. Court found that one of the defendants, Goodwin, had entered into a valid loan agreement containing an arbitration clause that did not restrict plaintiff’s substantive rights regarding damages and that he should therefore be forced to arbitrate his claims. However, as to Deosaran, the court held that she never signed a valid arbitration agreement and estoppel did not compel her to arbitrate her claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Tully Construction Co., Inc. v. Canam Steel Corp., No. 16-1324 (2d Cir. Mar. 23, 2017) 03/23/2017

Court of appeals affirmed the decision of the lower court’s confirmation of an arbitral award and denial of vacatur. Court held that the award was not in manifest disregard of the law or the parties’ agreement, that the award was reasoned, and that the lower court was correct in reducing the damages only by the principal amount in escrow instead of principal and accrued interest.

Chelsea Grand LLC v. New York Hotel & Motel Trades Council, AFL-CIO, No. 1:16-CV-05301-PAC (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2017) 03/23/2017

Court denied petition to vacate an arbitration award. Court held that the arbitral award did not manifestly disregard the law by ignoring the statute of limitations to confirm arbitral awards or by providing impermissible remedies.

Glenwright v. Carbondale Nursing Home, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00926-MEM (M.D. Pa. Mar. 23, 2017) 03/23/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, as a valid arbitration agreement existed between the parties and the issue of whether the plaintiff waived her right to arbitrate is an issue for the arbitrator to decide. Court also refused to grant more time for discovery where the parties had already been engaged in several months of discovery and the plaintiff had not submitted or attempted to submit any additional evidence or briefing to support her arguments on the issue of arbitrability.

Munro v. University of Southern California, No. 2:16-CV-06191-VAP-E (C.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2017) 03/23/2017

Court denied motion to compel arbitration, finding that claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) are arbitrable; but, although the plaintiffs-employees agreed to arbitrate in their personal capacities, their ERISA claims were brought on behalf of certain retirement plans, which did not agree to arbitrate.

Physicians Healthsource, Inc. v. Allscripts Health Solutions, Inc., No. 1:12-CV-03233 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 23, 2017) 03/23/2017

Court took judicial notice of an AAA interim award that found defendants’ claims to be time-barred and that plaintiffs would be entitled to recover reasonable costs incurred in the arbitration. Court explained that, for an arbitration to be judicially recognized, there must be a showing that it has some significance in the present case. Court determined that, while “it could be argued [that the arbitration ruling] may not now be a fit subject for the exercise of discretion to take judicial notice,” the defendant did not object to plaintiff’s motion, and therefore the court would take judicial notice.

Sader v. Griswold, No. 2:15-CV-02874 (E.D. La. Mar. 23, 2017) 03/23/2017

Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel joinder of one defendant in his individual capacity. Court urged the parties to submit the entire case to arbitration but held that if the defendant, a nonsignatory to the agreement requiring arbitration, would not consent to such, that the plaintiff, also a non-signatory, would not be subject to the AAA tribunal’s jurisdiction in his individual capacity. Amsurg Glendale, Inc. v. Glendale Surgery Partners, No. 3:16-CV-00862 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 22, 2017) 03/22/2017

Court confirmed the arbitration award and denied respondent’s motions to vacate. Looking at the grounds for vacatur under FAA § 10(a), the court concluded that respondent was not entitled to set aside the award for having been procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means because (i) petitioner was not complicit in the alleged wrong-doing by its attorneys, and (ii) respondent had not shown that due diligence would have failed to uncover the alleged wrongdoing prior to or during the arbitration. Broadcom Corp. v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 8:16-CV-01774-JVS-JCG (C.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2017) 03/22/2017

Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that an amendment to the parties’ agreement superseded the prior contract and did not provide for arbitration. Court further held that, in any case, corporate entities that were part of a corporate families but not themselves party to the agreement could not be compelled to arbitrate.

Burton Way Hotels, Ltd. v. Four Seasons Hotels Ltd., No. 2:11-CV-00303-PSG-PLA (C.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2017) 03/22/2017

Court denied plaintiff’s motion to void the parties’ arbitration agreement. Court held that the recusal and unavailability of a judge who was specifically named in the arbitration agreement did not invalidate the agreement because the judge’s involvement was not integral or central to the arbitration agreement, particularly in circumstances where the agreement provided that JAMS was to be the arbitral forum.

Donald v. National Truck Funding, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00403-HSO-JCG (S.D. Miss. Mar. 22, 2017) 03/22/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case. Court found that the parties agreed to arbitrate and that the dispute fell within the scope of the agreement and there were no external legal constraints that foreclosed arbitration.

Hite v. Lush Internet Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01533-JBS-AMD (D.N.J. Mar. 22, 2017) 03/22/2017

Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration but dismissed the case on other grounds. Court found that the terms of a website—including and arbitration provision—were not displayed conspicuously enough to website users and therefore there was no valid contract created under New Jersey law.

Chuang v. OD Expense, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00915-RGA (D. Del. Mar. 22, 2017) 03/22/2017

Court denied motion to compel arbitration and stay the action. Court found that of the two arbitration agreements that potentially applied to the dispute, one was too ambiguous to enforce, and the other did not cover the defendants in the case.

Adams v. John M. O’Quinn & Associates, PLLC, No. 4:16-CV-00071-GHD-JMV (N.D. Miss. Mar. 22, 2017) 03/22/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the signatories of the arbitration agreement were bound to it under principles of contract law, while non-signatories were bound to the arbitration agreement based on the “intertwined claims” theory of estoppel, which prevents a signatory plaintiff from bringing a case in court against a non-signatory defendant based on a contract that contains an arbitration provision.

Crumpton v. Hurstbourne Healthcare, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00478-DJH (W.D. Ky. March 22, 2017) 03/22/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court found that a valid agreement to arbitrate existed between the parties which covered the dispute within its scope, and stayed the action pending arbitration.

G&G Close Circuit Events, LLC v. Castillo, No. 1:14-CV-02073 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 22, 2017) 03/22/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration of third-party claims filed by the defendants. Court found that the third-party claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement, especially given the FAA’s rule that doubt over the scope of the arbitration clause should be resolved in favor of arbitrability.

Madrigal v. Zuniga, No. 1:16-CV-09415-RMB (D.N.J. Mar. 22, 2017) 03/22/2017

Court terminated pro se complaint of prisoner who filed action without paying the filing fee or completing an application to proceed without prepayment of fees in a case in which plaintiff was awarded fees against an attorney by the Supreme Court of New Jersey District 1 Fee Arbitration Committee. The Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to enforce plaintiff’s fee determination when it did not meet the amount in controversy given that the FAA does not create independent federal question jurisdiction.

Liebman v. Better Way Wholesale Autos, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-01263-JBA (D. Conn. March 21, 2017) 03/21/2017

Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for judgment based on the arbitral award issued in plaintiffs’ favor, and denied defendant’s motion to vacate the arbitral award. Court held that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority and did not act in manifest disregard of the law.

Aliments Krispy Kernels, Inc. v. Nichols Farms, No. 16-1975 (3d Cir. Mar. 21, 2017) 03/21/2017

Court of appeals vacated district court’s judgment denying plaintiff’s petition to confirm an arbitration award and granted defendant’s petition to vacate the award. Court found that issues of material fact existed as to whether the parties agreed to engage in arbitration proceedings, which defendant refused to attend. Court remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.

Johnson v. Pizza Hut, No. 1:16-CV-01089-SOH –BAB (W.D. Ark. Mar. 21, 2017) 03/21/2017

Court adopted magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, granting the motion to compel arbitration and staying the action without prejudice to the parties to re-open the proceedings to enforce the arbitration award. Court found that the contract-formation defenses advanced by the plaintiff were not persuasive and that the contract was valid under Arkansas law.

Grant v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC, No. 9:16-CV-81924-KAM (S.D. Fla. Mar. 20, 2017) 03/20/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to stay the action. Court held that the fact that the employee did not open the email regarding the expansion of the mandatory arbitration program by his employer did not render the arbitration agreement invalid, especially because the employee received a follow-up email about it.

Erwin v. Citibank, N.A., No. 3:16-CV-03040-GPC-KSC (S.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2017) 03/20/2017

Court denied motion to compel arbitration since there was a question as to whether the plaintiff opted out of a more recent arbitration agreement sent to him by his credit card company. Court granted the parties 60 days leave to take limited discovery on the issue, which the court stated would be dispositive of the arbitrability of the dispute.

Kelly v. Credit Acceptance, No. 1:16-CV-00223-SA-DAS (N.D. Miss. Mar. 20, 2017) 03/20/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding the plaintiff’s electronic signature on the arbitration agreement meant he agreed to arbitrate the claim and that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

Ameriprise Financial Services Inc. v. Ekweani, No. 2:14-CV-00935-DGC (9th Cir. Mar. 20, 2017) 03/20/2017

Court of appeals affirmed the lower court’s summary judgment order granting attorney’s fees in Ameriprise’s declaratory judgment action. Court found that the lower court properly granted summary judgment for Ameriprise because it had demonstrated Ekweani’s “knowledge of an existing right to arbitrate, acts inconsistent with that right, and prejudice” to Ameriprise. Court disagreed with Ekweani’s argument that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute because the underlying substantive question involved arbitration of damages in cases of intentional discrimination in employment.

La Frontera Center, Inc. v. United Behavioral Health, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00187-JB-WPL (D.N.M. Mar. 20, 2017) 03/20/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiff entered an enforceable arbitration agreement and that each of plaintiff’s claims against each defendant was subject to mandatory arbitration.

Mooneyham v. BRSI, LLC, d/b/a Big Red Kia, No. 15-6221 (10th Cir. Mar. 17, 2017) 03/17/2017

Court of appeals reversed district court’s decision that the parties’ arbitration agreement did not govern the dispute, holding that the arbitration agreement between the parties was not superseded by a set of documents that were signed after the arbitration agreement was executed and that the terms of the arbitration agreement clearly governed the dispute.

Al Maya Trading Establishment v. Global Export Mktg. Co., Ltd., No. 1:16-CV-02140-RA (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2017) 03/17/2017

Court granted petition to confirm an arbitral award and denied respondent’s motion to vacate the award and denied petitioner’s motion for sanctions. Court held that there was no evidence to indicate that the arbitral tribunal’s decision to exclude evidence met the standard of misconduct required to vacate the award. Court further held that, consistent with petitioner’s claim, the award should be adjusted to include $74,000 in damages that the arbitral tribunal inadvertently left out of its award and post-award interest.

Hanson v. Prime Communications LP, No. 1:17-CV-00161-VEH (N.D. Ala. Mar. 17, 2017) 03/17/2017

Court granted an unopposed motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings. Court held that although the motion was unopposed it was required to assess whether the parties had in fact entered into a valid agreement to arbitrate and that the dispute at issue fell within the scope of the provision. Upon review of the arbitration agreement and the parties’ submissions, the court concluded that the agreement was valid and should be enforced.

Personacare of Reading, Inc. d/b/a Kindred Transitional Care and Rehabilitation – Wyomissing v. Lengel, No. 5:16-CV-01965-JLS (E.D. Pa. Mar. 17, 2017) 03/17/2017

Court denied defendants’ motion to strike plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that, contrary to defendants’ assertions, a motion to strike the motion to compel arbitration was inappropriate because the motion to compel arbitration was not a pleading.

Fozard v. C.R. England, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-01334 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 17, 2017) 03/17/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration. Court held that a valid arbitration agreement existed, but found that it did not need to address the question of whether the dispute fell within the scope of the agreement because the agreement contained language clearly and unmistakably reserving gateway issues for the arbitrators, including “interpretation, scope, and enforceability” of the agreement.

Bright-Asante v. Saks & Co., Inc., No. 1:15-CV-05876-ER (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2017) 03/16/2017

Court inter alia denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate an arbitration award and denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that plaintiff was unable to meet the standard to vacate an arbitration award because plaintiff did not assert any of the grounds available for vacating an award. Court further held, with respect to defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, that plaintiff’s statutory claims were not subject to arbitration because there was no “clear and unmistakable” statement that the parties intended to arbitrate such claims.

Creech v. JEM Pizza Group, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-03087-PMD (D.S.C. Mar. 16, 2017) 03/16/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that plaintiff had validly executed an arbitration agreement because the evidence presented to the court demonstrated that in order to be hired by defendants, plaintiff had to fill out an online application that included an arbitration provision. Court also found plaintiff’s other argument—that someone else executed the arbitration agreement on her behalf and without her knowledge—unpersuasive because, according to the court, plaintiff was not a credible witness.

Cubria v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00544-SS (W.D. Tex. Mar. 16, 2017) 03/16/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and ordered the case stayed pending the outcome of the arbitration. Court held that plaintiff had agreed to an arbitration clause and that the clause evinced a clear and unmistakable intent to delegate arbitrability to an arbitrator.

Evans v. Affiliated Computer Services Inc., No. 15-55453 (9th Cir. Mar. 16, 2017) 03/16/2017

Court of appeals affirmed the lower court’s judgment holding appellant in contempt and dismissing her action for failure to comply with court-ordered arbitration. Court held that the lower court properly determined that appellant’s claims should proceed to arbitration. Further, the lower court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion for contempt where, on more than one occasion, appellant violated the district court’s order to arbitrate her employment-based claims.

Jersey Shore University Medical Center v. Local 5058, Health Professionals & Allied Employees, AFT/ALF-CIO, No. 3:16-CV-04840-MAS-DEA (D.N.J. Mar. 16, 2017) 03/16/2017

Court denied petitioner’s motion to vacate an arbitration award and granted respondent’s petition to confirm the arbitration award. Court held that, contrary to petitioner’s assertions, an arbitrator’s decision to rely on evidence that had been previously deemed inadmissible during the arbitration hearing did not rise to the level of misconduct justifying vacature because petitioner failed to establish that it had been prejudiced as a result of the alleged misconduct. Court further held that the arbitrator’s alleged failings did not satisfy the standard that the arbitrator engaged in a manifest disregard of the law.

Knight v. Dandy RV Superstore, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00229-JHE (N.D. Ala. Mar. 16, 2017) 03/16/2017

Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that, contrary to defendants’ contention, it was proper for the court to consider whether the arbitration agreement between the parties was enforceable prior to deciding defendants’ motion to dismiss. Upon examination of the parties’ agreement, court further held that the parties had entered into a valid arbitration agreement and that the subject of the dispute fell within the scope of the provision.

O’Connor v. Maritime Mgmt. Corp., No. 2:16-CV-16201-KDE-JCW (E.D. La. Mar. 16, 2017) 03/16/2017

Court denied plaintiff’s motion for remand. Court held that remand to the state court was improper and that defendant’s removal of the case to the federal district court was appropriate. Specifically, court explained that defendant, a foreign insurer, was entitled to invoke the removal provision of the New York Convention and remove the case to federal court because of the existence of an arbitration provision which defendant claimed covered the dispute. Court further rejected plaintiff’s defenses finding that (i) proof of a valid arbitration agreement was not required for purposes of establishing that removal was justified and (ii) that plaintiff’s efforts to attack the enforceability of the arbitration agreement were premature for purposes of deciding the motion to remand.

Sanders v. Concorde Career Colleges, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-01974-HZ (D. Or. Mar. 16, 2017) 03/16/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the parties had entered into valid arbitration agreement which covered the subject of the dispute and that plaintiff’s defenses, that the agreement was ambiguous and that she never signed the agreement, were belied by the evidence. Court further held that contrary to plaintiff’s assertions, the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable because there was no evidence that the agreement was oppressive or would impose a severe financial burden.

Hernandez v. DMSI Staffing, LLC, No. 15-15366 (9th Cir. Feb. 16, 2017) 03/16/2017

Court of appeals affirmed lower court’s order to deny appellants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the lower court correctly applied precedent which stated that any that claims under the California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act could not be waived by an employment agreement and that applicable law was not preempted by the FAA.

Zorilla v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00615 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 16, 2017) 03/16/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration. Court held that (i) the arbitration agreement clearly and unmistakably delegated issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator, (ii) plaintiffs’ claims that the delegation provision was substantively unconscionable due to the significantly greater costs of arbitration are “entirely speculative,” and (ii) plaintiffs were under no pressure or obligation to enter into the arbitration agreement, and thus it was not procedurally unconscionable.

BCI Construction, Inc. v. 797 Broadway Group., LLC, No. 1:16-CV-017077-FJS (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2017) 03/15/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to remand case to state court and denied defendant’s motion to confirm/modify an arbitration award as moot. Court held that it lacked federal subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiff’s complaint seeking to vacate an arbitration award failed to assert that the award was rendered in manifest disregard of federal law or that the underlying dispute involved a federal question.

Hammer v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., No. 8:16-CV-03553-EAK-AAS (M.D. Fla. Mar. 15, 2017) 03/15/2017

Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that plaintiff was bound to an unsigned arbitration agreement because an arbitration agreement is enforceable regardless of whether it is signed when, as was the case in the present dispute, the agreement stated that plaintiff accepted the agreement’s terms as a condition of continued employment.

Hebbronville Lone Star Rentals, LLC v. Sunbelt Rentals Industrial Services, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00856-RP (W.D. Tex. Mar. 15, 2017) 03/15/2017

Magistrate judge recommended that court grant plaintiffs’ motion to vacate an arbitration award. Magistrate judge concluded that, although an arbitrator had in fact decided the issue of arbitrability, the parties had not expressly intended for the arbitrator to determine his jurisdiction and that therefore, the court would have to independently determine whether the dispute at issue was arbitrable. Upon review of the parties’ claims, magistrate judge determined that the issue in dispute was outside the scope of the arbitration agreement and that the arbitrator had therefore exceeded his authority in issuing an award.

National Hockey League v. National Hockey League Players’ Association, No. 1:16-CV-04287-AJN (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2017) 03/15/2017

Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss a complaint seeking to vacate an arbitration award and granted defendant’s motion to confirm the award. Court held that dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint was not warranted simply because plaintiff elected not to initiate the action as a motion to vacate. Court further held that, contrary to plaintiff’s assertions, arbitrator did not exceed his authority when interpreting the standard of review that the collective bargaining agreement required him to apply.

Owensboro Health Facilities, L.P. v. Canary, No. 4:16-CV-00166-JHM-HBB (W.D. Ky. Mar. 15, 2017) 03/15/2017

Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration and to stay the proceedings in part. Court held that defendants, the representatives of a deceased resident of plaintiffs’ nursing and rehabilitation center, were required to litigate their case through arbitration because plaintiffs and deceased had entered into an arbitration agreement that covered all of defendants’ claims except for defendants’ wrongful death claim. Court further held that defendants’ wrongful death claim was not subject to the arbitration provision because controlling state law established that wrongful death claims do not derive from a claim on behalf of a decedent but belonged to the beneficiaries (i.e., defendants in the present case).

Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace v. Spirit Aerosystems, Inc., No. 16-3022 (10th Cir. Mar. 15, 2017) 03/15/2017

Court of appeals reversed the lower court’s decision to grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that an individual employee’s grievance had challenged a company-wide policy and thus, was not subject to arbitration under the parties’ collective bargaining agreement. Court of appeals held that the collective bargaining agreement contained a valid agreement to arbitrate and that the terms of the arbitration provision did not disqualify the dispute from arbitration simply because the dispute would likely affect other employees.

Woo v. Ochiai Georgia, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00086-TAV-HBG (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 15, 2017) 03/15/2017

Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. After finding that the parties had not expressly intended for an arbitrator to decide the issue of arbitrability, court held that plaintiff, a nonsignatory to an arbitration agreement, could not be compelled to arbitrate the dispute because traditional principles of contract or agency law did not establish that plaintiff intended to be bound by the arbitration agreement in question.

Greerwalker, LLP v. Jackson, No. 3:15-CV-00235-GCM (W.D.N.C. Mar. 14, 2017) 03/14/2017

Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment to enjoin the defendants from arbitrating their malpractice claims. Court held that there was no evidence to support defendants claim that an engagement letter containing an arbitration clause between plaintiff and a pharmaceutical company had been modified by plaintiff to make defendants, shareholders of the pharmaceutical company, party to the agreement.

Wexler v. Solemates Marine, Ltd., No. 0:16-CV-62704-BB (S.D. Fla. Mar. 14, 2017) 03/14/2017

Court inter alia granted one of two defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Court held that, contrary to plaintiff’s assertions, plaintiff’s personal injury claims were immediate and foreseeable results of the performance of contractual duties and therefore fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement between the parties.

Hurst v. Monitronics Int’l, Inc., No. 16-11177 (11th Cir. Mar. 13, 2017) 03/13/2017

Court of appeals affirmed district court’s denial of appellant’s motion to compel arbitration since appellant’s initial brief did not challenge the district court’s decision not to compel arbitration.

Roberts v. Lame Deer Public Schools, No. 14-36038 (9th Cir. Mar. 13, 2017) 03/13/2017

Court of appeals denied appellant’s challenge to an arbitral award. Court held that the district court correctly found that appellant’s attempt to vacate the arbitration award was barred as a result of claim preclusion. Court of appeals also held that, contrary to appellant’s claims, even if claim preclusion did not apply, the district court correctly concluded that the appellant had been afforded adequate procedural due process.

Umbach v. Carrington Investment Partners (US), LP, No. 15-1285-CV (2d Cir. Mar. 13, 2017) 03/13/2017

Court affirmed lower court’s decision to permit plaintiff the opportunity to amend his complaint to request damages. Court held that although the parties’ agreement included a provision that subjected claims for damages to mandatory arbitration, defendants waived their right to rely on the arbitration agreement as an affirmative defense because defendants offered no evidence to show they moved to compel arbitration before the lower court.

Carroll v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. 3:15-CV-02321-EMC (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2017) 03/13/2017

Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendants’ affirmative defense—that certain members of the putative class were barred from becoming members of the class because of their agreements to arbitrate employment disputes with the defendants. Court held that defendants’ had not waived their right to arbitrate the disputes in question because (i) a year-long delay in raising the prospect of arbitration was not sufficient to bar the defense and (ii) the plaintiffs would not be prejudiced if certain members of the class were required to arbitrate their disputes with the defendants.

Horner v. American Airlines, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-00665-D (N.D. Tex. Mar. 13, 2017) 03/13/2017

Court denied plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order against the commencement of an arbitration hearing between plaintiffs and defendants. Court held that a temporary restraining order was not justified because plaintiffs did not show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. Specifically, court found that plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that the court had jurisdiction to hear the dispute under the Railway Labor Act.

Choice Hotels Int’l, Inc. v. Shree Sai Properties, No. 8:16-CV-00231 (D. Md. Mar. 13, 2017) 03/13/2017

Court granted motion to enforce the arbitration award. Court construed defendants’ motion to dismiss as a motion to vacate, and proceeded to reject it because it was untimely under §9 of the FAA. Court also found that the defendants’ claim that they were not properly notified of the arbitration proceedings unpersuasive since they were given notices reasonably calculated to inform them of the action and had an opportunity to present their objections.

Johnson v. Uber Tech., Inc., No. 1:16-CV-05468-JZL (N.D. Ill. Mar. 13, 2017) 03/13/2017

Court denied defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff to arbitrate without prejudice. Court held that defendant failed to provide to the court facts that would establish that plaintiff was meaningfully informed of an arbitration agreement to which he assented and that parties should engage in discovery on the formation of the arbitration agreement.

B&Z Auto Enterprises, LLC v. Autotrader.com, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-02313-MHC (N.D. Ga. Mar. 13, 2017) 03/13/2017

Dine Dev. Corp. v. Fletcher, No. 1:17-CV-0015-JB-KBM (D.N.M. March 10, 2017) 03/10/2017

Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order and enjoined defendant from proceeding with arbitration against defendant. Court held that inter alia plaintiffs were entitled to sovereign immunity because they were corporations organized under the laws of the Navajo Nation. As a result, plaintiffs were immune from the claims that defendant planned to bring in arbitration.

Arkwright Advanced Coating, Inc. v. MJ Solutions GmbH, No. 0:14-CV-05030-DSD-TNL (D. Minn. Mar. 10, 2017) 03/10/2017

Court granted in part petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment. Court held that petitioner should be relieved of the injunctive relief imposed by an arbitration award which prohibited the petitioner from infringing on a patent held by respondent. Court found that under applicable precedent, the injunction imposed by the arbitration award should not apply because the patent in question had expired.

Trs. of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labor Management Cooperation, Pension and Welfare Funds v. Duncan & Son Carpentry, Inc., No. 2:15-CV02843-JS-AYS (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2017) 03/10/2017

Court granted magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to inter alia (i) grant a petition to confirm and enforce an arbitration award and (ii) direct the clerk of the court to enter judgment in favor of the petitioners. Court held that it should adopt the magistrate judge’s recommendation because the report and recommendation was free of clear error and the parties failed to submit objections to the magistrate judge’s rulings.

Golden Gate National Senior Care LLC v. Bateman, No. 1:16-CV-00898-YK (M.D. Penn. Mar. 10, 2017) 03/10/2017

Court denied, without prejudice, petitioners’ motion to compel arbitration and stay court proceedings. Court held that respondent made more than a “naked assertion” that the petitioners did not intend to be bound by the arbitration agreement and that the parties should be entitled to conduct discovery on the question of arbitrability before the court entertained further briefing on the question.

Jaeger v. Peak Medical Montana Operations, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-00030-SHE (D. Mont. Mar. 10, 2017) 03/10/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings. Court held that the terms of the arbitration agreement at issue were not unconscionable under Montana law. In determining that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable, court stated the agreement to arbitrate (i) was a standalone document; (ii) stated in multiple places that the agreement was voluntary; (iii) permitted cancellation by plaintiff within thirty days of execution; (iv) stated that trial by judge or jury would be waived three separate times (twice in capitalized type); and (v) included a signature page that restated certain provisions in capitalized type.

Goodwin v. Branch Banking and Trust Co., No. 5:16-CV-10501 (S.D. W.Va. Mar. 10, 2017) 03/10/2017

Court denied defendant’s motion to inter alia compel arbitration. Court held that the arbitration agreement between the parties was unenforceable because it was unconscionable under West Virginia law, namely, because (i) plaintiff was not offered the opportunity to opt out of the arbitration provision; (ii) plaintiff was rushed when she executed the agreement; (iii) plaintiff was an unsophisticated consumer; and (iv) the terms of the arbitration agreement heavily favored defendant.

Fujifilm North America Corporation v. Geleshmall Enterprises LLC, No. 1:16-CV-05677-BMC (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2017) 03/10/2017

Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion to dismiss and denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration on the “gray markets claims.” Court held that the counterclaims fell within the arbitration clause, but—contrary to plaintiff’s argument for dismissal—a stay of the counterclaims was mandatory. Court also found that the arbitration agreement was not broad enough to encompass the gray market claims, which exist separate and apart from the subject of the arbitration agreement.

Bright-Asante v. Saks & Co., Inc., No. 1:15-CV-05876-ER (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2017) 03/09/2017

Court inter alia denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate an arbitration award and denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that plaintiff was unable to meet the standard to vacate an arbitration award because plaintiff did not assert any of the grounds available for vacating an award. Court further held, with respect to defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, that plaintiff’s statutory claims were not subject to arbitration because there was no “clear and unmistakable” statement that the parties intended to arbitrate the plaintiff’s statutory claims.

Hill v. Assuranceforeningen Skuld, No. 1:15-CV-00025 (D. Guam Mar. 9, 2017) 03/09/2017

Court adopted the recommendation of the magistrate judge that the parties’ dispute should be arbitrated in Norway and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for an alternative forum.

Huttsell v. Radcliff Co., Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00796-CRS (W.D. Ky. Mar. 9, 2017) 03/09/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to stay the proceedings and compel the claims into arbitration. Court found that plaintiff’s claims were subject to arbitration because they could not be resolved without reference to the dispute resolution and were specifically mentioned within the agreement to arbitrate.

McAdoo v. New Line Transport, LLC, No. 8:16-CV-01917-JDW-AEP (M.D. Fla. Mar. 9, 2017) 03/09/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint and compel arbitration. Court held that, contrary to the plaintiffs’ claims, the arbitration agreement in question was not unconscionable and the issues in dispute were subject to the terms of the arbitration agreement.

Roy v. Buffalo Philharmonic Orchestra Society, Inc., No. 16-717 (2d Cir. Mar. 9, 2017) 03/09/2017

Court of appeals affirmed lower court’s decision to deny appellant’s motion to vacate an arbitration award. Court held that, contrary to the appellant’s claims, the arbitrator had not (i) committed misconduct by refusing to admit into evidence certain recordings and transcripts; (ii) exceeded his powers by hearing testimony concerning complaints and concerns over the appellant’s performance and competence; (iii) improperly considered the testimony of the appellees’ witnesses over those who supported the appellant; and (iv) issued an award that was contrary to public policy. Court of appeals further held that appellant failed to proffer sufficient evidence to establish that his union breached its duty to fairly represent the appellant during the arbitration.

Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB v. Universitas Education, LLC, No. 3:15-CV-00911-VLB (D. Conn. Mar. 9, 2017) 03/09/2017

Court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s decision to compel arbitration. Court held that plaintiff failed to (i) offer “newly discovered” evidence for purpose of a motion for reconsideration and (ii) establish that the court did not resolve material factual disputes in its decision.

Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, No. 1:69-CV-02145 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 9, 2017) 03/09/2017

Court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate an arbitration award. Court held that, contrary to plaintiff’s claims, there was no evidence to support a finding that the arbitrator had made gross errors of law and fact that were apparent on the face of the arbitration award.

Mumin v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-06143-NGG-JO (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2017) 03/08/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration agreement delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, and that this was not procedurally unconscionable. Court found that there was no inconsistency between the arbitration provision and a later forum selection clause, which explicitly governed disputes not subject to the arbitration clause and provided for enforcement of an award or the agreement. Court found that the employers were told that the arbitration agreement was not a mandatory condition of their contractual relationship with Uber.

Int’l Brotherhood of Elec. Workers Local 31 v. Allete, Inc., No. 0:16-CV-00523-PAM-LIB (D. Minn. Mar. 8, 2017) 03/08/2017

Court granted plaintiff’s petition to compel arbitration. Court held that a collective bargaining agreement between the parties contained a valid agreement to arbitrate and that the issues in dispute were subject to the terms of the provision.

Mumim v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 1:15-CV-07387-NGG-JO (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2017) 03/08/2017

Court inter alia granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the arbitration agreement in question provided clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties intended to delegate the issue of arbitrability to an arbitrator and that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable. Court further held that the class action waiver included in the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable.

Wright v. SSC Nashville Operating Co. LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00768 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 8, 2017) 03/08/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the lawsuit, rejecting plaintiff’s arguments that the agreement was improperly signed and that the integration clause superseded the dispute resolution provision.

Palmiste Group., LLC v. Prakash, No. 3:16-CV-05763-BRM-TJB (D.N.J. Mar. 8, 2017) 03/08/2017

Court denied petitioner’s motion to vacate the arbitration award. Court found that petitioner failed to allege it was denied a fundamentally fair hearing as a result of the arbitrator’s alleged refusal to review evidence. Court noted that no evidence was excluded by the arbitrator and neither party was prohibited from proffering evidence.

Spurgeon v. Marriot Int’l, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-24612-CMA (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2017) 03/07/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and to stay. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable and found that non-signatory defendants in the instant case were allowed to compel arbitration under the doctrine of equitable estoppel.

Johnson v. CRC Holdings, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-02937-JKB (D. Md. Mar. 7, 2017) 03/07/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration. Court noted that although the parties did not expressly address whether the arbitration would be binding, it would be sufficient to conclude that the agreement’s silence on the issue did not render it unenforceable, especially given the parties’ clearly expressed intention to allow the defendant to submit disputes to arbitration.

Parton v. FCA US LLC, No. 5:16-CV-00262-M (W.D. Okla. Mar. 7, 2017) 03/07/2017

Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings because plaintiffs met their burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that they were fraudulently induced into signing the dispute resolution clause. Court found that defendant’s agent owed plaintiffs a duty of full disclosure because he chose to speak regarding the dispute resolution clause, and the partial disclosure conveyed a false impression of the purpose and content of that clause.

Chebar v. Oak Financial Group, Inc., No. 2:14-CV-02982-LDW-GRB (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2017) 03/07/2017

Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings pending the completion of arbitration. Court held that, contrary to defendant’s claims, that plaintiffs had not waived their right to arbitration because (i) a delay of approximately two and one-half months between the commencement of litigation and the filing of plaintiff’ request for arbitration did not by itself constitute waiver; (ii) defendants would not suffer substantive prejudice and prejudice in terms of excess costs and delay if forced to arbitrate the dispute; and (iii) even if the plaintiffs’ conduct was inconsistent, the mere filing of litigation before a request for arbitration does not constitute waiver.

Pro’s Choice Beauty Care, Inc. v. Local 2013, No. 2:16-CV-02318-ADS-ARL (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2017) 03/07/2017

Court granted petitioner’s petition to vacate an arbitration award and denied respondent’s cross-petition to confirm the arbitration award. Court held that the arbitration award should be vacated on the grounds that a portion of the award violated public policy codified in the Immigration Reform and Control Act.

Luperon-Garcia v. Mexican Gastronomy International, LLC, No. 16-24598-CIV-JEM (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2017) 03/07/2017

Magistrate judge recommended that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration be granted, rejecting plaintiff’s argument that the arbitration provisions at issue violated the National Labor Relations Act because they do not permit collective arbitration or collective action. Magistrate judge noted that, despite circuits being split on the issue, under eleventh circuit law, the right to collective action is a procedural one, not a substantive one and therefore arbitration agreements with class and collective action waivers are valid and enforceable under the FAA.

Mecum v. Weilert Custom Homes, LLC, No. 1:15-CV-08548 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 6, 2017) 03/06/2017

Court entered and continued motion to compel arbitration, holding that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether an arbitration agreement existed. Court found that there was conflicting evidence as to whether parties received a letter containing the arbitration agreement, and whether there was a preexisting oral agreement. Court found that a trial was necessary to determine whether an agreement was offered and accepted by the parties.

Morgan v. Sears Holdings Mgmt. Corp., No. 1:16-CV-06871 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 6, 2017) 03/06/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in part, ordering one plaintiff’s claim be submitted to arbitration and staying further proceedings on that claim pending arbitration. Court first reasoned that the arbitration agreement itself was not void ab initio, as the subject matter of the agreement – including the existence of a collective action waiver – was not illegal. It next determined that, for two of the plaintiffs, the existence of a factual dispute regarding whether the two plaintiffs opted out of the arbitration agreement, required an evidentiary hearing. For the remaining plaintiff, however, the court held that it was required to compel arbitration because defendant had met its burden of showing the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate, a dispute within the scope of the arbitration agreement, and a refusal to arbitrate by the plaintiff.

Rightnour v. Tiffany and Co., No. 1:16-CV-03527-JGK (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2017) 03/06/2017

Court denied defendant’s petition for an order compelling arbitration. Court found that plaintiff’s continued employment was not conclusive and irrebutable evidence of her intent to be bound by the dispute resolution agreement. Rather, plaintiff’s written notice to defendant stating that she rejected the terms of the agreement plainly constituted an objective manifestation of her intent not to be bound by the Dispute Resolution Agreement.

Int’l Union v. Monongalia County Coal Company, No. 1:16-CV-00056-IMK (N.D. W. Va. Mar. 6, 2017) 03/06/2017

Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and ordered the arbitration award to be enforced. Court found that (i) the company’s defenses to the award were not time-barred under 9 USC § 12, as the three month statute of limitation was for challenges to the validity of the award, not the enforceability, (ii) the well-reasoned and factually supported award drew its essence from the contract and conformed with the prevailing common law of the shop, and (iii) the award did not violate any explicit public policy.

Choice Hotels Int’l, Inc. v. Grewal Props. LLC, No. 8:16-CV-01318-PX (D. Md. Mar. 3, 2017) 03/03/2017

Court granted plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and confirmation of an arbitral award. Court held that, as neither the grounds enumerated in the Federal Arbitration Act nor manifest disregard for the law were valid bases for vacatur, the award should be confirmed.

Wholesalecars.com v. Hutcherson, No. 2:16-CV-00155-KOB (N.D. Ala. Mar. 3, 2017) 03/03/2017

Court rejected plaintiff’s contention that the case before it should be dismissed, and instead ordered the parties to brief the court on the questions of whether the arbitration award at issue should be vacated because it was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means and whether defendant should be judicially estopped from enforcing the award or otherwise pursuing her claim (including whether the judicial estoppel defense is arbitrable). Court first held that the arbitration award, having made a final judgment as to liability, actual damages, and defendant’s entitlement to attorney’s fees, was final and subject to review by the courts, and that the amount of those fees remained outstanding did not compel a different conclusion. Court further held that the action before it should not be dismissed at this time on the basis of judicial estoppel because plaintiff had properly moved to vacate the arbitration award on the basis it was obtained through fraud and such decision remains outstanding.

United States ex rel Fisher v. Homeward Residential, Inc., No. 4:12-CV-00461-ALM (E.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2017) 03/03/2017

Court denied movants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that, while an arbitration agreement existed, the statutory attorney’s fee dispute did not fall within the scope of the agreed arbitration provision because, inter alia, the review of attorney’s fees is statutorily assigned to the court under the False Claims Act and, in any event, was agreed to be submitted to the court by the parties in their mediated settlement agreement.

Southside Hospital v. New York State Nurse’s Association., No. 2:15-CV-02282-JS-GRB (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2017) 03/03/2017

Court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in its entirety, thereby denying petitioner’s motion for summary judgment and confirming the arbitration award. Court held that the parties’ collective bargaining agreement did not include clear language excluding the underlying dispute from arbitration, thus requiring that it be arbitrated. Further, the court accepted the magistrate judge’s determination that the agreement’s incorporation of the rules of an arbitration association evidenced that the issue of arbitrability was to be referred to the arbitrator. As the arbitrators had considered and rejected petitioner’s arguments regarding arbitrability, and petitioner had not objected to the confirmation of the award, such determination is final.

Noble v. Samsung Electronics, America, Inc., No. 16-1903 (3d Cir. Mar. 3, 2017) 03/03/2017

Circuit court affirmed district court’s order denying motion to compel arbitration. Court found that a consumer could not be bound to arbitrate claims by an arbitration agreement that the consumer was unaware of, which was found buried within an approximately 100 page brochure.

Valdez v. Terminix International Company Limited Partnership, No. 15-56236 (9th Cir. Mar. 3, 2017) 03/03/2017

Circuit court reversed district court’s order denying motion to compel arbitration and remanded case to the district court to consider whether to dismiss or stay the action pending arbitration. Court found that the district court had erred in finding that cases under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) categorically could not proceed to arbitration. The court then found that the PAGA claim at issue fell within the scope of the arbitration clause.

Hayford v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. 2:16-CV-04480-JJT (D. Ariz. Mar. 3, 2017) 03/03/2017

Court granted defendants motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pursuant to the FAA, finding the claim was within the scope of a valid arbitration agreement.

CBF Indústria de Gusa v. AMCI Holdings, Inc., No. 15-1133 (2d Cir. Mar. 2, 2017) 03/02/2017

Circuit court granted petition for rehearing and vacated district court’s judgment dismissing the action to enforce award. Court found that district court had erred in determining that New York Convention and FAA require appellants to seek confirmation of a foreign arbitral award before the award may be enforced by a United States District Court, and erred in holding that appellants’ fraud claims should be dismissed prior to discovery on the ground of issue preclusion, as issue preclusion is an equitable doctrine and appellants plausibly alleged that appellees engaged in fraud.

In re Global Tel*Link Corporation ICS Litigation, No. 5:14-CV-05275-TLB (W.D. Ark. Mar. 2, 2017) 03/02/2017

Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that the question of whether an arbitration agreement was agreed in the first place is a question that is “presumptively committed to judicial determination” under eighth circuit precedent. Court determined that a reasonable layperson in plaintiff’s position would not have understood the automated message received prior to funding an account with defendant to be referring to the terms of any contract, thus eliminating the essential element of mutual assent requisite to establishing plaintiff’s agreement to arbitrate his claims.

Smith v. Dolgencorp, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00338-VEH (N.D. Ala. Mar. 2, 2017) 03/02/2017

Court granted motion to sever claims and compel arbitration. Court found that one of two plaintiffs’ claims were subject to mandatory arbitration under the FAA, and therefore severed these claims and compelled arbitration.

East El Paso Physicians’ Medical Center, LLC, v. Aetna Health Inc. and Aetna Life Insurance Company, No. 3:16-CV-00044-KC (W.D. Tex. Mar. 2, 2017) 03/02/2017

Court granted Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court first held that, as both Douglas factors (the parties “clearly and unmistakably” intended to delegate the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator, and the assertion of arbitrability is not “wholly groundless”) favor arbitrating arbitrability, the question of arbitrability of plaintiff’s claims must be resolved by the arbitrator. Court next held that ERISA neither preempts the Federal Arbitration Act nor renders unenforceable the arbitration provision in the parties’ agreement.

Chelmowski v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, Nos. 161855 & 163539 (7th Cir. Mar. 2, 2017) 03/02/2017

Circuit Court affirmed the district court’s denial of plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) motion to reopen the district court’s prior judgment denying his motion to vacate an arbitration award and granting defendant’s motion to confirm, finding that it was nothing more than an effort to relitigate matters conclusively resolved by the arbitrator. Circuit court also affirmed a separate judge’s denial of plaintiff’s motion to vacate a second arbitration award involving the same essential dispute with defendant. As this second arbitration was barred by the preclusion doctrine, plaintiff had no basis to argue that the arbitrator committed misconduct or otherwise exceeded his or her powers per the Federal Arbitration Act.

Haugh v. Barrett Business Services, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-02121-VC (E.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2017) 03/01/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding plaintiff’s failure to understand the arbitration agreement was insufficient to show unconscionability. Court also noted that even if the arbitration provision were unconscionable, plaintiff’s claims would still be compelled to arbitration because the problematic injunctive relief provision was severable from the arbitration agreement.

Millennium Operations, Inc. v. SuperValu, Inc., No. 15-1786 (8th Cir. Mar. 1, 2017) 03/01/2017

Circuit court affirmed district court’s finding that defendants who were non-signatories to an arbitration agreement could not compel arbitration. The Court held, as the district court had, that the defendants could not succeed in compelling arbitration based on a successors-in-interest theory or based on the alternate theory that the defendants could directly enforce their previous arbitration agreements because some of the conduct at issue occurred when the previous agreements were still in effect.

Bayer Cropscience AG v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, No. 16-1530 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 1, 2017) 03/01/2017

Circuit court affirmed district court’s decision to confirm arbitral award and vacated district court’s decision denying motion to amend the judgment. Court found that the district court abused its discretion regarding post-judgment interest by denying the defendant’s motion to amend the judgment to use the federal statutory rate for post-judgment interest for the period beginning with the entry of the district court’s judgment.

Hayes v. Reinhart Ford Service, LLC, No. 5:16-CV-02264-JLS (E.D. Pa. Mar. 1, 2017) 03/01/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable and, contrary to plaintiff’s arguments, was not a contract of adhesion, and found that the FAA applies to Title VII cases.

Walker v. USA Swimming, No. 3:16-0825 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 1, 2017) 03/01/2017

Court denied motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in relation to a motion to vacate an arbitration award. Court found that pursuant to the Sports Act, it had federal question jurisdiction over the issue of whether USA Swimming and the arbitrator properly implemented USA Swimming’s own rules and regulations in imposing the lifetime ban upon the plaintiff.

Sherrard v. Macy’s System and Technology, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-03322-CC (N.D. Ga. Mar. 1, 2017) 03/01/2017

Magistrate judge recommended that defendant’s motion to compel arbitration be granted and rejected plaintiff’s argument that the defendant had waived its right to arbitration and noted that the FAA requires a court to enforce agreements to arbitrate.

Hillyard v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc., No. 6:17-CV-06062-SJ-FJG (W.D. Mo. Feb. 28, 2017) 02/28/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings. Plaintiff argued that the arbitration agreement was part of an insurance contract and was therefore not enforceable. However, court found that the arbitration clause delegated all questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator and therefore compelled arbitration.

Tallakoy v. Black Fire Energy - Eastern District of Kentucky at Pikeville, No. 15-6322 (6th Cir. Feb. 28, 2017) 02/28/2017

Circuit court reversed district court’s prior decision on the basis that the record was inadequate to support a finding that the defendant’s motion to vacate the award under §12 of the FAA was not served “within three months after the award is filed or delivered.” On remand, the district court is to determine whether evidence supports a finding that the defendant took delivery or had knowledge of the award on dates that would make its motion under §12 of the FAA untimely.

LGC USA Holdings Inc. v. Julius Klein Diamonds, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-05294-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2017) 02/28/2017

Court granted motion to confirm the arbitration award and denied motions to dismiss, remand, and vacate. Court held (i) it has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to the New York Convention because the parties’ relationship involves property abroad and envisages performance abroad; (ii) the challenges to the award based on arbitrator bias were belated and fell short; and (iii) the substantial deference owed to arbitrators rebutted a finding that the tribunal’s award exceeded its powers or acted in manifest disregard of the law. Preferred Care of Delaware, Inc. v. Crocker, No. 16-6179 (6th Cir. Feb. 28, 2017) 02/28/2017

Court of appeal affirmed district court’s judgment dismissing appellants’ complaint to compel arbitration. Court held that the district court had correctly given preclusive effect to a state trial court’s ruling that the arbitration agreement between the parties was not enforceable because all of the elements of issue preclusion were satisfied. Epic Driving & Marine Services, LLC v. Ranger Offshore, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00386-KMH (S.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2017) 02/28/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to stay the proceedings until a full and final award was granted by the arbitration tribunal. Court held that judicial economy would be best served by permitting the arbitral tribunal to make all final decisions prior to ruling on plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment motion.

Urquhart v. Kurlan, No. 1:16-CV-02301 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 28, 2017) 02/28/2017

Court denied motion to confirm the arbitration award and remanded case to arbitration tribunal for clarification on apportionment of award, which it found to be ambiguous because of the award’s shift between “respondent” (singular) and “respondents” (plural), rendering the apportionment of damages ambiguous.

Cerner Middle East Limited v. Al-Dhaheri, No. 1:16-CV-11984-FDS (D. Mass. Feb. 28, 2017) 02/28/2017

Court denied motion to dismiss action for recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award for lack of personal jurisdiction. Court held that it has jurisdiction over claims where an arbitration agreement could “conceivably affect the outcome of the plaintiff’s case,” and that this was true for the present action.

Katsoris v. WME IMG, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00135-RA (S.D.N.Y Feb. 27, 2017) 02/27/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration. Court found that arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable and that plaintiff did not waive right to arbitrate by waiting five months after filing their complaint to file a formal motion to compel arbitration.

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated v. Oliver, No. 16-843-CV (2d Cir. Feb. 27, 2017) 02/27/2017

Court of appeal affirmed district court’s judgment enjoining a FINRA arbitration and granting declaratory relief in favor of Merrill Lynch. Court found that where a settlement agreement vested jurisdiction in the courts, and explicitly stated that it superseded previous agreements between the parties, it was sufficient to overcome any initial requirement on the parties to arbitrate.

Andresen v. Intepros Federal, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-00446 (D.D.C. Feb. 27, 2017) 02/27/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action during the pendency of the arbitration. Court held that while the delegation provision in the parties’ arbitration agreement delegates the question of arbitrability to the arbitral tribunal, because the agreement’s expense-shifting term and the incorporation of the provisions of the AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules risk saddling the plaintiff with prohibitive costs for the federal statutory claims – which is proscribed under Green Tree Financial Corp.– Alabama v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79 (2000) – the defendant is responsible for the arbitral filing fees and the fees and expenses due to the arbitrator for deciding the arbitrability of the federal statutory claims.

GoPro Hong Kong Ltd. v. 2B Trading, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-05113-JD (N.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2017) 02/27/2017

Court granted petitioner’s motion to seal specific portions of an arbitral award and the contracts in dispute since the petitioner established compelling reasons to overcome a historically strong presumption of access to judicial records.

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Oliver, No. 16-0843 (2d Cir. Feb. 27, 2017) 02/27/2017

Circuit court affirmed lower court’s judgment enjoining a FINRA arbitration and granting declaratory relief in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the parties’ subsequent settlement agreement released the claims that had been subject to the initial consent to FINRA arbitration.

Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company v. Laferrera, No. 16-14519 (11th Cir. Feb. 27, 2017) 02/27/2017

Circuit court affirmed lower court’s decision denying defendants’ request for a stay and request to compel arbitration. Court held that, under Alabama contract law, the non-signatory defendant could not compel arbitration where an agreement to arbitrate limited arbitration to the signing parties, even in circumstances where the nonarbitrable claims are “intimately founded in and intertwined with” arbitrable claims. Court did, however, vacate the lower court’s refusal to grant a discretionary stay of the nonarbitrable claims against the non-signatory because of the risk of inconsistent results and remanded with instructions to stay the nonarbitrable claims.

Basile v. Los Angeles Film School, LLC, No. 15-56309 (9th Cir. Feb. 27, 2017) 02/27/2017

Circuit Court affirmed lower court’s decision denying motion to vacate an arbitration award because the plaintiff failed to establish any of the limited grounds on which an arbitration award can be vacated under § 10 of the FAA.

McDougal v. Comcast Corporation, No. 9:16-CV-81906-DMM (S.D. Fla. Feb. 24, 2017) 02/24/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed proceedings. Court ruled that plaintiffs were bound by a valid arbitration agreement applicable to their claims that they had failed to opt out of before the stated deadline. Court rejected arguments that the agreement was invalid as unconscionable, finding no evidence of procedural unconscionability in the opt-out process and declining to consider substantive unconscionability following that determination.

Rasmy v. Marriott International, Inc., No. 1:1 6-CV-O4865-AJN (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2017) 02/24/2017

Court denied in part defendant’s motion to dismiss complaint for wrongful termination. Court held that provisions in the relevant collective bargaining agreement between the defendant and its employees did not bar the plaintiff’s lawsuit, as the these provisions came nowhere near constituting “clear and unmistakable” waiver of the plaintiff’s rights to pursue Title VII and state and city-law discrimination claims in federal court.

Brandenburg Health Facilities v. Ivye Mattingly, No. 16-6168 (6th Cir. Feb. 24, 2017) 02/24/2017

Court granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss. Since the district court stayed the case pending arbitration pursuant to the FAA, the court held there was no final order, and thus, it had no jurisdiction over the appeal.

DeVries v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-02953 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2017) 02/24/2017

Court granted motions to compel arbitration and stay litigation pursuant to the FAA. Court held plaintiff consented to the agreement and found, pursuant to the delegation clause, that issues of arbitrability were for the arbitrator to decide, save for the question of whether defendant had waived its right to enforce the arbitration provision. Court concluded defendant had not waived its right to arbitration because it did not know of an existing right to compel arbitration; it did not engage in acts inconsistent with the right to arbitrate; and the plaintiff was not prejudiced by litigation conduct inconsistent with the right to arbitrate.

Doe v. Swift Tranp. Co., Inc., No. 2:10-CV-00899 (D. Ariz. Feb. 24, 2017) 02/24/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion staying the case pending appeal. Court held the defendants did not show a likelihood of success on the merits but the appeal raised serious legal questions; that defendants would suffer irreparable harm from the increased cost of litigation associated with defending the proposed class action and the loss of the efficiency of arbitration; and that a stay is in the public interest.

Fox v. Vision Serv. Plan, No. 2:16-CV-02456 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2017) 02/24/2017

Court granted plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo pending a determination of whether the dispute resolution process is legal and enforceable. Court concluded that the plaintiff showed she was likely to succeed on the merits, she would suffer irreparable harm without preliminary relief, the balance of equities tipped in her favor, and the injunction was in the public interest.

AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. v. Lacchini, No. 16 Civ. 2575 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2017) 02/23/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction on allegations that the foreign defendant arbitrator corruptly presided over the arbitration, including violations of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) and tortious interference with contract under New York law. Court held it lacked jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k) (2), concluding that defendant did not possess minimum contacts to warrant an exercise of personal jurisdiction pursuant to constitutional standards.

G&K Services LUG, LLC v. Talent Creation, Ltd., No. 3:16-CV-00180-WHR (W.D. Ohio Feb. 23, 2017) 02/23/2017

Court sustained motion to confirm arbitration award and overruled petition to vacate arbitration award pursuant to the New York Convention. Court found that the arbitrator did not exceed his scope of powers in awarding damages; that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers in rejecting the laches defense; and that arbitrator did not manifestly disregard Ohio law in rejecting petitioner’s statute of limitations defense.

Lakah v. UBS AG, Exporters Insurance Co., Ltd., No. 07-CV-2799-LAP-AJP (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2017) 02/23/2017

Court stayed the proceeding pending arbitration and ordered arbitration be held in New York, New York, finding that the petitioners were bound by the arbitration agreement.

Peng v. Uber Technologies Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00545 (E.D.N.Y Feb. 23, 2017) 02/23/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the action pending arbitration, finding that plaintiffs assented to the Service Agreements and entered into a valid arbitration clause. Court concluded the parties clearly delegated the gateway arbitrability issues to the arbitrator; found the delegation clause was not procedurally or substantively unconscionable; and held that the class action waiver was valid and did not violate the National Labor Relations Act.

Shenzhen Fenda Technology Co. Ltd. v. Stellé LLC, 8:16-CV-02169-JVS-JCG (C.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2017) 02/23/2017

Court granted motion to confirm the final arbitration award and entered a judgment thereon pursuant to §§3 and 9 of FAA. Court found the arbitration agreement was valid and there was no indication the award had been modified, vacated, or corrected.

Avilla v. Discover Financial Services., No. 2:16-CV-09232-JFW-RAO (C.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2017) 02/23/2017

Court stayed all proceedings pending arbitration pursuant to §3 of the FAA on the stipulation of the parties and ordered the parties to file a joint status report on or before June 26, 2017.

Byrnes v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc., No. 1:16-CV-02445 (D. Md. Feb. 23, 2017) 02/23/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and denied plaintiff’s motion to stay pending arbitration where both parties agreed all of plaintiff’s claims were arbitrable. Court found plaintiff’s request to stay pending arbitration was unnecessary because plaintiff could request judicial review of the arbitration award and a stay was not required under §3 of the FAA.

CMH Homes, Inc. v. Bob’s Home Services, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-10696 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 23, 2017) 02/23/2017

Court granted petition to confirm the arbitration award and the motion for entry of default judgment pursuant to the FAA. Court concluded that it had jurisdiction to confirm the award, the plaintiff filed all the necessary documents required by §13 of the FAA, there was a valid arbitration agreement, and the claims fell within the scope of the agreement.

IPayment, Inc. v. 1st Americard, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-01904-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2017) 02/23/2017

Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award finding “this [was] a textbook case for application of veil piercing,” granted the application for attorney’s fees, and denied the motion to vacate the award. Court found it should consider any admissible evidence on the issue of alter ego under a de novo standard, concluding that the corporation easily met the alter ego test and that the defendant’s control of the corporation was used to perpetrate a wrongful act under New York law. The court therefore held the corporate veil should be pierced and the arbitration award confirmed.

Shore v. Johnson & Bell, No. 1:16-CV-04363 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 22, 2017) 02/22/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to proceed to arbitration and enjoin class arbitration. Court found the issue of class arbitration was an issue of arbitrability for the court to decide. Pursuant to the FAA, the court held that since the arbitration clause did not explicitly or implicitly authorize class arbitration, the defendant could not be compelled to submit to class arbitration.

Danley v. Encore Capital Grp. Inc., No. 16-1670 (6th Cir. Feb. 22, 2017) 02/22/2017

Court affirmed district court’s order compelling arbitration but reversed the order denying in part plaintiffs’ motion to unseal documents. Pursuant to the FAA, the court held that the plaintiffs did not meet the burden of demonstrating that no valid arbitration agreement existed and concluded the “parties ‘clearly and unmistakably’ provided for an arbitrator to determine various ‘gateway issues’ related to their claims.” Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to unseal documents, finding the district court failed to provide adequate and specific reasons for sealing the records.

Alfortish v. Greensky, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-15084-ILRL-JVM (E.D. La. Feb. 22, 2017) 02/22/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, and stayed and administratively closed the case. Court dismissed as moot plaintiffs’ motion to certify class and defendants’ alternative motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ first amended class action complaint. Court held that under the FAA, the arbitration clause in the loan agreement was valid and enforceable even though the plaintiffs may not have received a copy of the form including the arbitration clause; the dispute fell within the scope of the agreement; and the class action waiver was valid.

Reed v. First Premier Bank, No. 2:16-CV-15654-KDE-JVM (E.D. La. Feb. 22, 2017) 02/22/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the FAA and stayed the action pending completion of arbitration, finding no memoranda was filed in opposition to defendant’s motion.

The Casiano-Bel Air Homeowners Association v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance, No. 2:16-CV-08549-SVW-SK (C.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2017) 02/22/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay claims, finding that the arbitration clause was not unenforceable for unconscionability, was mandatory and not permissive, and encompassed the dispute at issue. Chatman v. Jimmy Gray Chevrolet, Incorporated, No. 16-60677 (5th Cir. Feb. 22, 2017) 02/22/2017

Court of appeals found that decision compelling arbitration and staying proceedings was not a final appealable order since case remained stayed before the district court.

Czech Republic Ministry of Health v. Diag Human SE, No. 16-620 (Feb. 21, 2017) 02/21/2017

U.S. Supreme Court denied the Czech Republic’s petition for writ of certiorari challenging the D.C. Circuit’s decision reviving Diag Human SE’s enforcement efforts of a $325 million arbitral award issued by an international tribunal. [NB: No case decision available]

Gates v. Northland Group., Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01492-NLH-AMD (D.N.J. Feb. 21, 2017) 02/21/2017

Court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint in favor of arbitration, finding the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable pursuant to the FAA because a valid arbitration agreement existed between the parties and the dispute fell within the scope of the agreement. Court also held the plaintiff’s class action claims were subject to the arbitration agreement’s class action waiver clause.

McKenzie v. AT&T Services Inc., No. 2:15-CV-02325-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2017) 02/21/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the motion to vacate or modify an arbitration award pursuant to the FAA. Court concluded there was no federalquestion or diversity jurisdiction.

Cova v. Charter Communications, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00469-RLW (E.D. Mo. Feb. 17, 2017) 02/17/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel individual arbitrations and stay litigation under the FAA. Court concluded the agreement was valid since plaintiffs were on notice of the arbitral provision and were given an opt-out option. Court also found the arbitration clause was not unconscionable because the plaintiffs presented no evidence of a disparity in bargaining power and the contract was negotiable based on the opt-out option and the un-prohibitive costs.

Anderson v. Walmart Stores Inc., No. 6:16-CV-06488-CJS (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2017) 02/17/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to stay and compel arbitration, and denied plaintiff’s motion to remand to state court. Court found that the FAA applied because the sale of the computers at issue involved interstate commerce, and therefore, New York law prohibiting arbitration clauses involving the sale of consumer goods was inapplicable. However, court held the arbitration agreement was valid, as the consumer was not induced by fraud and a binding arbitration agreement was formed.

Choice Hotels, Int’l, Inc. v. Patel, No. 8:16-CV-01316-PWG (D. Md. Feb 17, 2017) 02/17/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to confirm the arbitration award and denied plaintiff’s pre-conference request, construed as a motion to dismiss. Court found that it had subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction and that venue was proper pursuant to the FAA. Court held that the plaintiff received adequate notice of the arbitration proceedings and that the defendant’s motion to confirm the arbitral award under the FAA properly stated a claim for which relief could be granted.

Continental Transfert Technique Ltd. V. Federal Government of Nigeria, No. 1:08-CV-02026-PLF-GMH (D.D.C. Feb. 17, 2017) 02/17/2017

Court granted defense counsel’s renewed motion to withdraw, finding counsel’s sealed declaration explaining the rationale for the withdrawal request constituted “new evidence not previously available.” Court held that the motion to withdrawal would not unduly delay trial of the case since the defendants had failed to comply with any order of the court or the arbitration award issued eight years ago regardless of representation. Court also found it would not unfairly prejudice the plaintiff because sanctions would still persist for defendants’ failure to respond to the deposition notice regardless of counsel’s withdrawal.

Herrera Gollo v. Seaborne Puerto Rico, LLC, No. 3:15-CV-01771-JAG (D.P.R. Feb. 17, 2017) 02/17/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration under the FAA and pursuant to the arbitration agreement the plaintiff signed. Court held that (i) the defendant had not waived its right to arbitration by delaying to seek arbitration; and (ii) the defendant could enforce the arbitration agreement even though it was not the entity that signed the agreement because of its close relationship to the signatory and the related nature of the plaintiff’s claims.

Ray v. Chafetz, No. 1:16-CV-00428-CKK (D.D.C. Feb. 17, 2017) 02/17/2017

Court confirmed the arbitral award and denied the motion to vacate pursuant to the FAA, finding the award was not procured by undue means and there was no evident partiality of misconduct of the arbitrator. Concluding that the petitioners’ contentions were meritless, court determined it did not need to decide whether “manifest disregard of the law” was still a valid ground for vacatur. Court also found the respondent was entitled to post-judgment interest, but denied the respondent’s request for attorney’s fees and costs and denied the respondent’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions.

Csukardi v. Platinum Corral, LLC, No. 6:16-CV-00064-NKM-RSB (W.D. Va. Feb. 16, 2017) 02/16/2017

Court dismissed the complaint and ordered the parties to submit their dispute to arbitration. Court held that the parties entered into an agreement to arbitrate any disputes relating to plaintiff’s employment, including those under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and rejected plaintiff’s arguments that (i) the agreement was not voluntary, (ii) the agreement was missing material terms, and (iii) the agreement lacked consideration.

Bailey v. Healthsouth Corp., No. 9:15-CV-00057-RC-KFG (E.D. Tex. Feb. 16, 2017) 02/16/2017

Court ordered that magistrate judge’s report and recommendation was adopted and the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration was granted. Court thus stayed the civil action pending the completion of arbitration, after which the parties were to notify the court of completion of arbitration. Hermiz v. Credit Acceptance Corp., No. 2:16-CV-14089-VAR (E.D. Mich. Feb. 16, 2017) 02/16/2017

Smaller v. JRK Residential Mgmt. Corp., No. 5:16-CV-02066-JLS (E.D. Pa. Feb. 15, 2017) 02/15/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, rejecting plaintiff’s argument that the agreement was unconscionable because it prevented her from recovering attorneys’ fees and because it lacked consideration. Court held that the provision in the arbitration agreement requiring plaintiff to pay her own costs and legal fees could be stricken without invalidating the entire agreement and that continued employment was sufficient consideration for entering into the arbitration agreement.

C&N Farms v. Producers Agriculture Insurance. Co., No. 2:15-CV-00136-BSM (E.D. Ark. Feb. 15, 2017) 02/15/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and confirmed the arbitrator’s award. Court found that plaintiff failed to allege any of the four grounds under the FAA for vacating the arbitral award, and its failure to allege or produce evidence to support its claims meant that there was “no question that [plaintiff] is not entitled to modification.”

Corchado v. Foulke Mgmt. Corp., No. 1:15-cv-06600-JBS-JS (D.N.J. Feb. 15, 2017) 02/15/2017

Court denied defendants’ appeal of an opinion and order of the magistrate judge, and adopted the magistrate judge’s determination that a court, and not an arbitrator, must make the gateway determination of the existence of an agreement to arbitrate. Court also adopted the magistrate judge’s finding that limited discovery is necessary to determine the enforceability of such an agreement.

LED One Distribution, Inc. v. C.S. Koida, LLC, No. 4:16-CV-04315-PJH (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2017) 02/15/2017

Court denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the dispute did not arise from or relate to the contract containing the arbitration agreement, and thus there was no agreement to arbitrate. The contract created a joint venture between the parties, whereas plaintiff’s claims were regarding a failure to pay for certain products and the breach of a personal guaranty.

Corchado v. Foulke Management Corporation, No. 1:15-CV-06600-JBS-JS (D.N.J. Feb. 15, 2017) 02/15/2017

Court denied defendant’s appeal and upheld the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations, finding, pursuant to the FAA, that the court and not the arbitrator must make the gateway determination of the existence of an arbitral agreement since the “claim is fraud in the inducement of the arbitration clause itself.” Court granted limited discovery to determine whether there was mutual assent to the arbitration agreement.

Doherty v. Barclays Bank Delaware, No. 3:16-CV-01131-AJB-NLS (S.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2017) 02/14/2017

Court denied defendant’s motion to compel individual arbitration. Noting that questions as to the making of the contract containing the arbitration clause were for the court to decide, court determined that defendant failed to show that plaintiff assented to the card-member agreement when plaintiff used and became an authorized user of a credit card account.

Briggs v. Macy’s Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00902-MEM (M.D. Pa. Feb. 14, 2017) 02/14/2017

Court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding that plaintiffs were entitled to discovery on the question of arbitrability. Court explained that, pursuant to third circuit doctrine, when the issue of arbitrability is not apparent on the face of the complaint, the motion to compel arbitration must be denied pending further development of the factual record.

Mahamedi IP Law LLP v. Paradice & Li LLP, No. 5:16-CV-02805-EJD (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2017) 02/14/2017

District court granted in part motion to stay discovery pending decision on a motion to compel arbitration, but allowed a third-party deposition to proceed where that party may be unavailable after the court rules on the motion to compel arbitration.

Mohammed v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-02537 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 14, 2017) 02/14/2017

Court denied defendants’ motions to compel arbitration. Court recognized that Supreme Court doctrine delegates challenges to a contract to the arbitrator and challenges to the arbitration agreement itself to the court, but found that plaintiff was raising a third type of challenge as to whether or not a contract existed at all, which was for the court to decide.

Lismore v. Societe Generale Energy Corp., No. 1:16-CV-08012-AKH (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2017) 02/14/2017

Court denied plaintiff’s petition to vacate the arbitration award and confirmed defendants’ cross-petition to confirm. Court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that the chair of the panel was inherently biased against the plaintiff because she was a “repeat player” and “only SocGen has the ability to give [the chair] continuing business” and that the chair failed to make a complete disclosure regarding the number of times she served as an arbitrator in matters involving Societe Generale. Court also rejected plaintiff’s allegations that the defendant coached its witnesses and instructed them to engage in perjury, and that the tribunal refused to consider pertinent and material evidence because the relevant issues were within the discretion of the panel.

Perkins v. M&N Dealership XII, LLC d/b/a Metro Ford of OKC, No. 5:16-CV-00796-M (W.D. Okla. Feb. 13, 2017) 02/13/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Court held that (i) the arbitration clause was not superseded by a separate contract, which was executed at the same time and covered different terms than the purchase agreement; (ii) the arbitration clause did not contradict any terms in second contract; (iii) arbitration would provide complete relief to the plaintiff; (iv) defendant did not waive its right to arbitration when it rescinded the second contract; (v) plaintiff did not meet her burden of showing that she was fraudulently induced to sign the arbitration clause; and (vi) the arbitration clause was not unconscionable due to its fee-shifting provisions.

Mooney v. Jimmy Gray Chevrolet, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00010-DMB-RP (N.D. Miss. Feb. 13, 2017) 02/13/2017

Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, rejecting plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitration provision was unconscionable. Court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that defendant waived its right to enforce the arbitration provision when it instituted criminal theft proceedings against the plaintiff, as this argument was a defense to arbitrability as a whole and the existence of a delegation clause—which delegated issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator—required plaintiff to specifically challenge the delegation clause.

Jurado v. Schutz 665 LLC, No. 2:16-CV-05996-CAS-RAO (C.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2017) 02/13/2017

Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Court held that defendants did not waive their right to compel arbitration by filing the current action, as it was still in its early stages and had not yet substantially invoked “the litigation machinery.” Court also held that there was a valid arbitration agreement, and rejected plaintiff’s arguments that defendants had provided no evidence of plaintiff’s assent and that the clause was unconscionable and unenforceable.

Cypress v. Cintas Corp. No. 2, No. 2:16-CV-02478-ADS-ARL (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2017) 02/11/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and rejected plaintiff’s argument that the employment contracts containing the arbitration agreements were invalid due to lack of consideration. Court also rejected plaintiff’s claim of fraudulent inducement, as plaintiff only asserted that he was fraudulently induced to enter into one of the arbitration agreements and challenges to the arbitration clause itself do not prevent a court from enforcing a specific agreement to arbitrate.

Salini Construttori S.P.A. v. Kingdom of Morocco, No. 1:14-CV-02036-TSC (D.D.C. Feb. 10, 2017) 02/10/2017

Court granted motion to enforce ICC arbitration award against the Kingdom of Morocco and denied cross-motion to dismiss. Court rejected argument that Moroccan courts could annul portion of the award issued by an arbitral panel in France, finding that Morocco was not a primary jurisdiction for purposes of Article V of the New York Convention. Court likewise rejected Morocco’s estoppel, public policy, comity, and res judicata arguments.

Laccinole v. IC System, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-00337-M-LDA (D.R.I. Feb. 10, 2017) 02/10/2017

Court granted motion to confirm AAA award and denied cross-motion to vacate, finding there was no evidence that the arbitrator’s summary disposition of the matter was improper.

Anglin v. Vertical Group, No. 1:16-CV-03269-KPF (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2017) 02/10/2017

Court affirmed FINRA award in its entirety, declining to vacate and revise portion of award denying attorney’s fees. Court held that request for partial vacatur was not timely because it was not served within three months of the date when the award had been delivered and fell short of meeting the high standard of manifest regard for the law.

Olson v. Harland Clarke Corp., No. 14-35586 (9th Cir. Feb. 10, 2017) 02/10/2017

Court affirmed district court’s decision to confirm employment arbitration award. Court reasoned that plaintiff had not demonstrated that the arbitrator had exceeded his powers for purposes of vacatur under the FAA nor was the arbitrator obligated to rule on all evidentiary issues.

GGNSC Louisville Mt. Holly, LLC v. Turner ex rel. White, No. 3:16-CV-00149-TBR (W.D. Ky. Feb. 9, 2017) 02/09/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and enjoin defendant from pursuing further litigation in state court. Court rejected argument that the matter was insufficiently related to interstate commerce to trigger the FAA, reasoning that courts had applied the broadest possible definition. Nor did the court agree that the agreement had been either procedurally or substantively unconscionable because it had been a contract of adhesion requiring arbitration, or that arbitration of the claim was barred by the Anti-Injunction Act.

Rodriguez v. Xerox Business Services, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00041-FM (W.D. Tex. Feb. 9, 2017) 02/09/2017

Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s motion to abate and compel arbitration, finding that a valid arbitration existed and the plaintiff’s claims fell within its scope. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the lack of interstate commerce meant the FAA did not apply, finding that there was no requirement that the contract itself constitute a commercial transaction, that the employee be regularly engaged in interstate commerce in performing her duties, or that the employee was so engaged at the time the cause of action arose.

Lewis v. Epic Sys. Corp., No. 3:15-CV-00082-BBC (W.D. Wis. Feb. 8, 2017) 02/08/2017

Court granted motion to stay proceedings pending appeal to the Supreme Court of its earlier rejection of a motion to dismiss the case after finding that the arbitration agreement was invalid. Court held that the balance of harms favored the defendant and a stay.

Valdez-Mendoza v. Jovani Fashion Ltd., No. 1:15-CV-07261-ILG-RML (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2017) 02/08/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismiss proceedings, holding that under the factors enumerated under Genesco, Inc. v. T. Kakiuchi & Co., 815 F.2d 840 (2d Cir. 1987) a valid arbitration agreement covered the claim.

Schardan v. Allied Interstate, LLC, No. 4:15-CV-01613-HEA (E.D. Mo. Feb. 8, 2017) 02/08/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, reasoning that the dispute was covered by a valid arbitration agreement. Court declined to find that the defendant had waived its rights to arbitrate by participating in the limited pre-trial litigation required by the motions before it.

Stevens v. Jiffy Lube International Inc., No. 3:16-CV-07175-EMC (N.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2017) 02/08/2017

Court denied motion to vacate AAA arbitration award, holding that plaintiffs did not meet the high burden of proving that the arbitrator had manifestly disregarded the law or was irrational in her reasoning. Court also noted, but did not decide, challenge to the motion based on its timeliness.

HDI Glob. SE v. Lexington Ins. Co., No. 1:16-CV-07241-CM (S.D.N.Y Feb. 7, 2017) 02/07/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Court rejected argument that the parties’ agreement was void for lack of mutual assent or that the court must interpret its applicability, holding that the parties agreed to arbitrate all questions of contract interpretation. Court noted that the arbitration agreement was, in any case, severable from the rest of the contract and could not be invalidated by a challenge to the contract as a whole.

Terra Finance, LLC v. Acrow Corporation of America, No. 2:16-CV-00075-SRC-CLW (D.N.J. Feb. 7, 2017) 02/07/2017

Court granted motion to dismiss proceedings and compel arbitration. Court held that the dispute was subject to a valid arbitration agreement and rejected the plaintiff’s assertions of procedural and substantive accountability, finding that they were mere assertions of impropriety. Court also refused to substitute an arbitrator, holding that concern with the amount of administrative fees did not satisfy the narrow FAA grounds permitting such judicial intervention.

20/20 Communications, Inc. v. Blevins, No. 4:16-CV-00810-Y (N.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2017) 02/07/2017

Court denied motion to issue a preliminary injunction to enjoin arbitration. Court held that the availability of class arbitration under the parties’ arbitration agreement was a question for the arbitrator because the parties had incorporated a delegation clause, including by agreeing that any arbitration would be governed by AAA rules.

Leverage Health Sols., LLC v. Medversant Techs., LLC, No. 2:16-CV-09058-JFW-FFM (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2017) 02/07/2017

Court summarily granted petition to confirm AAA arbitration award, including post-award, pre-judgment interest, but not an amount the arbitrator had ordered reimbursed to Respondent for fees paid to the AAA.

Bay S. Ltd., Inc. v. Stephens Constr. & Concrete, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00472-WS-C (S.D. Ala. Feb. 7, 2017) 02/07/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay judicial proceedings. Court rejected arguments that the Miller Act posed a statutory bar to arbitration or that the motion had been procedurally improper, and held that the parties had clearly and unmistakably agreed to have a AAA arbitrator decide the scope of their arbitral agreement and therefore deferred the question of scope to the arbitrator and stayed proceedings against all defendants.

Julian v. Rollins, Inc., No. 8:16-CV-03092-JSM-TBM (M.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2017) 02/07/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, reasoning that the arbitration clause extended to the dispute under Florida law and that defendant could enforce it as a non-signatory assignee of the underlying finance agreement. Court further held that by incorporating the AAA rules, the parties agreed to delegate any threshold questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.

Organizacion Ideal, S. DE R.L. DE C.V. v. FHR Mex. Mgmt. Co. S.A. DE C.V., No. 1:15-CV-7728-ER (S.D.N.Y. Feb, 6, 2017) 02/06/2017

Court granted motion to confirm ICDR award and entered judgment for the full amount of the award, plus interest.

BCB Holdings Ltd. v. Gov’t of Belize, No. 1:14-CV-01123-CKK (D.D.C. Feb. 6, 2017) 02/06/2017

Court granted petition under 28 USC § 1610(c) to enforce its earlier judgment enforcing an LCIA arbitral award, reasoning that sufficient time had elapsed and statutory notice had been given. Court denied without prejudice corresponding motions for anti-suit injunction and temporary restraining order, reasoning that there was no interference with the Court’s jurisdiction at this time.

Young v. CitiFinancial Serv. LLC, No. 4:16-CV-01171-CDP (E.D. Mo. Feb. 6, 2017) 02/06/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the dispute fell within a valid arbitration agreement. Court found that Plaintiff had presented no evidence that the agreement was invalid or that federal law might prevent arbitration of the claim.

Poublon v. C.H. Robinson Co., No. 15-55143 (9th Cir. Feb. 3, 2017) 02/03/2017

Circuit court reversed order denying motion to compel arbitration, finding that, although an agreement signed as a condition for receiving an employment bonus qualifies as an adhesion contract, the disputed features of the arbitration provision (including, inter alia, waiver of representative claims, distant location of arbitration, confidentiality requirement, power to award fees and costs, employer’s unilateral right to modify, and limitations on discovery) were not unconscionable.

Prime Healthcare Servs. – Landmark LLC v. United Nurses & Allied Prof’ls, Local 5067, No. 16-1161 (1st Cir. Feb. 3, 2017) 02/03/2017

Circuit court reversed district court’s order denying motion to compel arbitration, finding that issue of ERISA preemption was not an issue of arbitrability and was for the arbitrator to decide.

Celand Constr. Co. v. FutureNet Grp., Inc., No. 9:16-CV-03584-RMG (D.S.C. Feb. 3, 2017) 02/03/2017

Court granted motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, holding that plaintiff, by failing to respond to the motion, had not met its burden to show that arbitration agreement was unenforceable.

Hobzek v. Homeaway.com, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01058-SS (W.D. Tex. Feb. 3, 2017) 02/03/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed. Court held that plaintiff’s attacks on the arbitration clause (that it lacked consideration, did not bind a non-signatory, prevented class litigation of statutory civil rights claims, and was illusory as it could be unilaterally amended) were matters of arbitrability that had been delegated to the arbitrator, and their arbitrability was not wholly groundless.

Outokumpu Stainless USA LLC v. Converteam SAS, No. 1:16-CV-00378-KD-C (S.D. Ala. Feb. 3, 2017) 02/03/2017

Court granted motions to compel arbitration and dismiss, finding that defendant did not waive its right to arbitrate through participating in the proceedings in a limited fashion prior to moving to compel arbitration.

D/S Norden A/S v. CHS de Paraguay, SRL, No. 1:16-CV-02274-LTS (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2017) 02/03/2017

Court granted motion to dismiss petition to compel arbitration, finding that petitioner had not plausibly pleaded that it was an agent of a party to the arbitration agreement.

Plumbers & Pipe Fitters, Local 23 v. Kelsey Excavating, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-50306 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 3, 2017) 02/03/2017

Court granted in part and denied in part motion to dismiss action to enforce arbitral award, finding that (1) plaintiffs had adequately pleaded that one defendant was successor-in-interest to party to arbitral agreement; (2) another defendant had dissolved prior to accrual of claims; (3) plaintiffs had adequately pleaded that another defendant was operating as an alter ego to party to arbitral agreement; (4) plaintiffs had not alleged facts sufficient to state a claim for single employer liability as to another defendant; and (5) plaintiffs had not alleged facts sufficient to state a claim for successor liability.

Iraq Middle Mkt. Dev. Found. v. Harmoosh, No. 16-1403 (4th Cir. Feb. 2, 2017) 02/02/2017

Circuit court vacated grant of summary judgment in action to recognize Iraqi judgment and remanded, finding that a genuine issue of material existed as to whether the debtor lost his right to arbitrate by utilizing the Iraqi judicial process.

Jefferson v. Baptist Health Sys., Inc., No. 2:16-CV-01094-KOB (N.D. Ala. Feb. 2, 2017) 02/02/2017

Court granted motion to confirm arbitration award and denied motion to vacate. Court held that, where a party filed suit in court within the statute of limitations and the parties later agreed to have action heard in arbitration, the arbitrator did not exceed her authority to find that the claimant’s failure to initiate arbitration within the statute of limitations did not bar suit; and arbitrator did not exceed her authority under rules requiring a “single award” by issuing two preliminary awards and a final award.

Hays v. Jefferson Capital Sys., LLC, No. 1:15-CV-14025-GAO (D. Mass. Feb. 2, 2017) 02/02/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, holding that the existence of an agreement containing an arbitration clause in clear and unmistakable terms had been established without contradiction.

Selden v. Airbnb, Inc., No. 16-7139 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 2, 2017) 02/02/2017

Court of appeal granted the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Court held that the district court’s order compelling arbitration and staying litigation is not appealable, finding pursuant to 28 USC § 1292(a)(1) that the order did not have the effect of denying an injunction that affects all of the merits or would have a serious, perhaps irreparable affect. Court also found the order was not appealable under a pendent jurisdiction theory or the collateral order doctrine.

Wijesinha v. DIRECTV, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-22090-KMM (S.D. Fla. Feb. 02, 2017) 02/02/2017

Court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of court’s order granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration finding that plaintiff’s arguments failed to satisfy any of the grounds upon which a motion for reconsideration should be granted.

Erickson v. Thrivent Ins. Agency Inc., No. 4:16-CV-04044-RAL (D.S.D. Feb. 1, 2017) 02/01/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay case, finding that, where a contract incorporated a fraternal society’s bylaws by reference, and those bylaws were subsequently amended to include an arbitration clause, party is bound by subsequently added arbitration clause since it does not reduce his benefits under the contract.

CFL Pizza LLC v. Hammack, No. 6:16-CV-00968-JA-KRS (M.D. Fla. Feb. 1, 2017) 02/01/2017

Court denied petition to compel arbitration in accordance with agreement, finding that issue of whether class arbitration was permitted was to be determined by arbitrator in pending arbitration.

Amerisourcebergen Drug Corp. v. Primrose Pharmacy, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-06106-GAM (E.D. Pa. Feb. 1, 2017) 02/01/2017

Court denied motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration, finding that, where a contract incorporated another instrument by reference and the other instrument contained an arbitration clause expressly limited to disputes between parties to that other instrument, the parties to the contract were not bound by the arbitration clause in the other instrument.

Preferred Care, Inc. v. Roberts, No. 5:16-CV-00203-KKC (E.D. Ky. Jan. 31, 2017) 01/31/2017

Court partially granted motion to compel arbitration of claims pending in state court, holding, inter alia, that (1) there were insufficient grounds to abstain from exercising jurisdiction in favor of a pending state court proceeding in which a motion to compel arbitration had not been filed; (2) under FAA’s pro-arbitration policy, ambiguity over whether court-appointed guardian had authority to bind nursing home resident to arbitration is resolved in favor of arbitration; (3) delay in filing federal action seeking to compel arbitration, while state action on the merits was proceeding, did not effect a waiver as the delay was not unwarranted; (4) wrongful death claim was not subject to arbitration, as it is brought on behalf of beneficiaries not bound to the arbitration agreement; and (5) no basis existed to permit non-party plaintiffs to invoke arbitration clause.

Mellick v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No 5:16-CV-00821-D (E.D.N.C. Jan. 31, 2017) 01/31/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that no basis existed to hold that arbitration clause was invalid and any ambiguity over whether plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the arbitration clause should be resolved in favor of arbitration.

Dodson Int’l Parts, Inc. v. Williams Int’l Co., LLC, No. 2:16-CV-02212-JAR-KGS (D. Kan. Jan. 31, 2017) 01/31/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration, finding that question of whether party was fraudulently induced to enter contract was to be determined in arbitration; and the arbitration clause was not unconscionable.

Nat’l Indemnity Co. v. IRB Brazil Reseguros S.A., No. 16-1267 (2d Cir. Jan. 31, 2017) 01/31/2017

Circuit court affirmed confirmation of arbitral awards, finding that district court had not committed clear error in concluding that an arbitrator had not shown “evident partiality” by accepting an appointment by a related party in another arbitration.

Janvey v. Alguire, No. 14-10857 (8th Cir. Jan. 31, 2017) 01/31/2017

Circuit court affirmed district court’s denial of motion to compel arbitration, finding that no basis existed for non-signatories to be bound under the arbitration agreement; and the only party that had signed an arbitration agreement had waived its right to assert it by participating in that litigation to the point of obtaining discovery.

Gundrum v. Cleveland Integrity Servs., Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00369-WMC (W.D. Wis. Jan. 31, 2017) 01/31/2017

Court granted motion to transfer, finding that proper venue for motion to compel arbitration is in the district where forum-selection clause provides that arbitration would occur, and no valid ground for challenging the forum-selection clause existed.

Louisiana Dep’t of Nat. Res. ex rel. Coastal Prot. and Restoration Auth. v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, No. 3:16-CV-00586-BAJ-EWD (M.D. La. Jan. 31, 2017) 01/31/2017

Court denied motion to vacate arbitral award, finding that panel’s failure to consider certain evidence was not prejudicial.

Magee v. WD Servs., LLC, No. 2:16-CV-02132-JAD-VCF (D. Nev. Jan. 30, 2017) 01/30/2017

Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed, holding that there was no evidence creating a genuine dispute about whether the plaintiff agreed to arbitration and it was undisputed that the defendant was either a party to that agreement or an affiliate entitled to enforce it.

Simmons v. Hankey, No. 2:16-CV-06125-ODW-JEM (C.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2017) 01/30/2017

Court granted defendants’ petition to compel arbitration, finding that: employee’s signature was sufficient to create an arbitration agreement without the employer also needing to sign; the employers’ agents could invoke the arbitration agreement; questions of the arbitration agreement’s scope and whether it is unconscionable are to be determined in arbitration.

GoPro Hong Kong Ltd. v. United World Brands, No. 3:16-CV-05113-JD (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2017) 01/30/2017

Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award, finding that no grounds for non-recognition under the New York Convention existed.

J&JB Timberlands, LLC v. Woolsey Energy II, LLC, No. 3:14-CV-01318-SMY-RJD (S.D. Ill. Jan. 30, 2017) 01/30/2017

Court granted motion to stay litigation pending arbitration, holding that arbitration provision within a deed convey ng and ran w th the and and was b nd ng aga nst subsequent tenants n vert ca pr v ty to the or g na grantee.

Woody v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00825-HEH (E.D. Va. Jan. 30, 2017) 01/30/2017

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on, f nd ng that arb trat on c ause requ red no pre-arb trat on not ce requ rement.

Singh v. Uber Techs. Inc., No. 3:16-CV-03044-FLW-DEA (D.N.J. Jan. 30, 2017) 01/30/2017

Court granted mot on to d sm ss and compe arb trat on, ho d ng, nter a a, that (1) p a nt ff was suff c ent y not f ed of arb trat on c ause that was n a webs te agreement to wh ch he was prov ded a hyper nk; (2) except on to FAA for “transportat on emp oyees” s napp cab e to Uber dr vers; (3) c ass wa ver was va d n ght of p a nt ff s ab ty to opt out of arb trat on c ause w th n 30 days of agreement; and (4) arb trat on was not unconsc onab e n ght of p a nt ff s ab ty to opt out of arb trat on c ause w th n 30 days of agreement.

Craig v. Total Quality Logistics, LLC, No. 8:16-CV-02970-SCB-AEP (M.D. Fl. Jan. 30, 2017) 01/30/2017

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on and stay proceed ngs, f nd ng that part es agreed to arb trate arb trab ty; and arb trat on agreement cou d be enforced aga nst a non-party both under agency pr nc p es and due to a egat ons that the non-party s m sconduct was substant a y nterdependent and n concert w th a party to the agreement.

Bordelon Marine, LLC v. Bibby Subsea ROV, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-01106-LMA-DEK (E.D. La. Jan. 30, 2017) 01/30/2017

Court den ed mot on to compe arb trat on, f nd ng that (1) a though Lou s ana court prev ous y compe ed arb trat on of c a ms brought before t, t does not have author ty under FAA to order arb trat on n Texas of re ated c a ms pend ng before a Texas court; (2) the A Wr ts Act d d not prov de such author ty, s nce there were adequate means to seek order compe ng arb trat on n the Texas act on; and (3) the f rst to f e ru e d d not prov de such author ty, s nce t shou d have been ra sed n the Texas act on.

Outokumpu Stainless USA LLC v. Converteam SAS, No. 1:16-CV-00378-KD-C (S.D. Ala. Jan. 30, 2017) 01/30/2017

Court granted mot ons to compe arb trat on and d sm ss under the New York Convent on, f nd ng that: sub-contractor of party was bound by party s agreement to arb trate; and commerc a re at onsh p had suff c ent re at onsh p to fore gn states to ust fy nternat ona arb trat on.

Opalinski v. Robert Half Int’l Inc., No. 15-4001 (3d Cir. Jan. 30, 2017) 01/30/2017

C rcu t court aff rmed d sm ssa of co ect ve act on comp a nt, nterpret ng emp oyment agreements s ence as to c ass arb trat on as ref ect ng an ntent that c ass arb trat on not be a owed.

Bowers v. N. Two Cayes Co. Ltd., No. 1:15-CV-00029-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C. Jan. 30, 2017) 01/30/2017

Court den ed mot on to remand award to arb trator, f nd ng that t was unab e to ad ud cate any nterests ref ected n the ward unt a conf rmat on act on had been brought.

Muhammad v. Community Coach, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-08344-JLL-JAD (D.N.J. Jan. 30, 2017) 01/30/2017

Court granted mot on to d sm ss, f nd ng, nter a a, that certa n of p a nt ff s c a ms addressed matters that were a ready dec ded aga nst h m n arb trat on, and a mot on to vacate wou d be unt me y.

Deleon v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00767-CSH (D. Conn. Jan. 30, 2017) 01/30/2017

Court granted mot on to d sm ss and compe arb trat on, f nd ng that agreement to arb trate was supported by cons derat on s nce the prom se was mutua and because t was a cond t on of cont nued emp oyment of an at-w emp oyee; and quest on of whether arb trat on agreement was unconsc onab e was a quest on of arb trab ty to be determ ned by the arb trator.

Bethune v. LendingClub Corp., No. 1:16-CV-02578-NRB (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2017) 01/30/2017

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on on an nd v dua bas s and stay the act on, f nd ng that quest ons of unconsc onab ty and app cab ty of arb trat on c ause to non-s gnator es concerns arb trab ty, the quest on of wh ch was de egated to the arb trator to dec de.

Weckesser v. Knight Enters. S.E., LLC, No. 2:16-CV-02053-RMG (D.S.C. Jan. 27, 2017) 01/27/2017

Court den ed mot on to compe arb trat on under the FAA, ho d ng that no va d arb trat on agreement bound the actua part es to the d spute. Court re ected argument that the exc us on of defendant s spec f c corporate name from the arb tra agreement was mere c er ca error, reason ng that any contractua amb gu t es must be construed aga nst t as the drafter. Court kew se refused to recogn ze any th rd party benef c ary r ght to arb trate, f nd ng that the arb tra agreement d d not dent fy defendant as such.

Richemond v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 1:16-CV-23267-DPG (S.D. Fla. Jan. 27, 2017) 01/27/2017

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on, f nd ng that quest ons of whether arb trat on c ause s nva d under the NLRA was de egated n the f rst nstance to the arb trator.

Gunn v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01668-SEB-MJD (S.D. Ind. Jan. 27, 2017) 01/27/2017

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on and stayed act on, ho d ng that the FAA app es and quest ons regard ng unconsc onab ty and c ass wa ver and are to be dec ded by the arb trator.

Trs. of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Installations of Am., Inc., No. 1:15-CV-08316-PAE (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2017) 01/27/2017

Court granted unopposed mot on for summary udgment and conf rmed arb trat on award, f nd ng that there was no mater a ssue of fact n d spute.

Habilston v. FINRA Regulation, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-02225-ABJ (D.D.C. Jan. 27, 2017) 01/27/2017

Court granted mot on to d sm ss n ght of pend ng arb trat on, f nd ng that c a ms that arb tra forum v o ated the r const tut ona r ghts by unfa r arb trat on process were not r pe wh e arb trat on was ongo ng, and that the arb tra forum was ent t ed to arb tra mmun ty.

Patel v. Jack in the Box Inc., No. 3 16-CV-02561-H-JLB (S.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2017) 01/27/2017

Court granted defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on because p a nt ff s status as a superv sor meant that he was ab e to—and d d—wa ve h s co ect ve act on r ghts under the Nat ona Labor Re at ons Act, p a nt ff was not wa v ng any r ghts under the Ca forn a Pr vate Attorneys Genera Act because he d d not br ng c a ms under the act, and the arb trat on agreement was not unconsc onab e.

Daugherty v. SolarCity Corp., No. 3:16-CV-05155-WHA (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2017) 01/26/2017

Court granted mot on to d sm ss act on to compe arb trat on, ho d ng that, under n nth c rcu t precedent, c ass act on wa vers are mperm ss b e under the NLRA.

Trs. for the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. DCM Grp., LLC, No. 7:13-CV-01925-NSR (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2017) 01/25/2017

Court granted unopposed mot on to conf rm and enforce defau t op n on and arb trat on award, f nd ng that the arb trat on award shou d be conf rmed because the mot on was uncontested and the award was supported by the award and appropr ate.

Ranieri v. Banco Santander, S.A., No. 2:15-CV-037400-MCA-MAH (D.N.J. Jan. 25, 2017) 01/25/2017

Court grants mot on to compe arb trat on, ho d ng that as the terms of the arb trat on agreement are c ear the p a nt ffs man fest ntent was to be bound to t.

Bergheim v. Sirona Dental Systems, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01692-LTS (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2017) 01/24/2017

Court grants pet t oners mot on for conf rmat on of an arb tra award and request for pre- udgment and post- udgment nterest, and den es respondents cross-mot on to vacate the award. Court he d that, n render ng the award, the arb tra tr buna d d not exceed ts powers, d spense ts own brand of ust ce, or man fest y d sregard the terms of the arb trat on agreement or the aw.

Castro v. Macy's Inc., No. 3:16-CV-05991-CRB (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2017) 01/24/2017

Court grants defendants mot on to compe arb trat on and stays the c a m, ho d ng that the p a nt ff rece ved the arb trat on agreement by ma and mp c t y agreed to the arb trat on agreement by fa ng to aff rmat ve y opt out. As a resu t, the p a nt ff wa ved her r ght to a ud c a forum for her c v r ghts c a ms.

Egan Jones Ratings Company v. Pruette, No. 2:16-MC-00105-JLS (E.D. Pa. Jan. 24, 2017) 01/24/2017

Court den es respondents mot on to d sm ss a pet t on to vacate a part a f na award, ho d ng that as there was a forma b furcat on of the arb trat on, the part a f na award on ab ty was a f na award and the court had ur sd ct on to rev ew t.

Brown & Pipkins, LLC v. Service Employees International Union, Local 32BJ, Nos. 15-1931, 15-1987 (4th Cir. Jan. 23, 2017) 01/23/2017

C rcu t court aff rms d str ct court s conf rmat on of four abor arb trat on awards, based n arge part on the m ted scope of rev ew afforded to abor-arb trat on dec s ons pursuant to a co ect ve barga n ng agreement. Court a so he d that defendant wa ved ts c a m for attorneys fees by not comp y ng w th Federa Ru e of C v Procedure 54.

Bell Products, Inc. v. Hospital Building and Equipment Company, No. 3:16-CV-04515-JSC (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2017) 01/23/2017

Court grants defendants mot on to stay the arb trat on pursuant to § 3 of the FAA and he d that the venue prov s on n the part es arb trat on agreement s enforceab e because the FAA preempts Ca forn a Code of C v Procedure § 410.42(a)(1). Bruzda v. Sonic Automotive, No. 1:16-CV-02413-MEH (D. Co o. Jan. 23, 2017) 01/23/2017

Court den ed defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on because the defendant had defau ted n a pr or arb trat on proceed ng. P a nt ffs n t a y subm tted the r d scr m nat on c a ms to arb trat on w th the AAA, but defendant fa ed to pay the AAA adm n strat ve fees n fu and the AAA c osed the case. Court found that n fa ng to pay the AAA arb trat on fees, defendant had forfe ted ts ab ty to enforce the arb trat on agreement.

Ortiz-Espinosa v. BBVA Securities of Puerto Rico, Inc., No. 16-1122 (1st Cir. Jan. 20, 2017) 01/20/2017

C rcu t court aff rmed d str ct court s refusa to vacate arb tra award and nstead to conf rm t. Court he d that d str ct court s “ ook-through” the mot on to the under y ng d spute approach to determ ne whether a court has federa ur sd ct on was the correct test, that federa ur sd ct on ex sted, and that the ower court d d not err n determ n ng the ack of grounds to vacate or mod fy the award.

HCR ManorCare, Inc. v. Carr, No. 3:16-CV-00068 (N.D.W. Va. Jan. 20, 2017) 01/20/2017

Court den ed defendant s mot on to d sm ss or, n the a ternat ve, absta n, and grants p a nt ff s mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that a decedent s estate, though t s a non-s gnatory to the arb trat on agreement, s bound by that agreement because under West V rg n a aw any potent a recovery n a wrongfu death act on s der vat ve based upon the decedent s own ab ty to recover f a ve.

Norcia v. Samsung Telecom America, No. 14-16994 (9th Cir. Jan. 19, 2017) 01/19/2017

C rcu t court aff rmed d str ct court s order deny ng defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on of a c ass act on comp a nt concern ng the performance of the Ga axy S4 phone. Court found that arb trat on prov s on nc uded n the warranty brochure w th the Ga axy S4 s not b nd ng because the p a nt ff s s ence does not const tute consent to arb trat on; the brochure was an unenforceab e n-the-box contract; and (c) p a nt ff d d not agree to arb trate by s gn ng agreements w th Ver zon W re ess.

Martin v. Deutsche Bank Sec. Inc., No. 16-456 (2d Cir. Jan. 19, 2017) 01/19/2017

Court aff rms d str ct court s den a of p a nt ff s pet t on to vacate an arb trat on award because p a nt ff fa ed to g ve defendant t me y not ce of the pet t on to vacate as requ red by the FAA. Serv ce of the pet t on v a ema was nappropr ate where the defendant had not agreed n wr t ng to accept serv ce by ema .

Arabian Motors Group W.L.L. v. Ford Motor Co., No. 2:16-CV-13655 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 19, 2017) 01/19/2017

Court den ed mot on for pre m nary n unct on to stay arb trat on. Court found that the Motor Veh c e Franch se Contract Arb trat on Fa rness Act, wh ch requ res a wr tten agreement to arb trate after a d spute ar ses, does not cover the agreement between the part es because p a nt ff s a fore gn dea er and the statute s presumed to app y on y to domest c ent t es. Thus, the part es de egat on of quest ons of arb trab ty to the arb trator s enforceab e.

Malik v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-10477 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 19, 2017) 01/19/2017

Court den es mot on to a ow mmed ate appea of the court s grant of defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on and subsequent stay of the proceed ngs. Cou d he d that t conducted a thorough ana ys s of whether the de egat on c ause was va d and there s no substant a ground for d fference of op n on that cou d make an mmed ate appea appropr ate.

Dang v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 15-16768 (9th Cir. Jan. 19, 2017) 01/19/2017

C rcu t court reversed d str ct court order grant ng mot on to compe arb trat on, f nd ng that arb trat on c ause pr nted on brochure nserted n product box d d not create a b nd ng agreement w th purchaser who fa ed to opt out n accordance w th ts terms.

Pioneer Roofing Org. v. Local Joint Adjustment Smart Board Local Union No. 104, No. 3:15-CV-03544 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2017) 01/18/2017

Court granted defendant s mot on for summary udgment of p a nt ff s su t to vacate an arb trat on award favor ng defendant. Rev ew of an arb trat on dec s on pursuant to a abor contract s “very m ted” and, “[s]o ong as the arb trator s even arguab y constru ng or app y ng the contract or act ng w th n the scope of h s author ty”, great deference s g ven to the arb trator s nterpretat on of the part es agreement as we as h s f nd ngs of fact.

CBF Industria De Gusa SA v. Amci Holdings, Inc., No. 15-1133 (2d Cir. Jan. 18, 2017) 01/18/2017

C rcu t court vacated d str ct court s d sm ssa of enforcement act on and remands for further proceed ngs. Court he d that the d str ct court erred n ho d ng that appe ants were requ red to conf rm the r fore gn arb tra award before they cou d be a owed to enforce t. Th s s because the New York Convent on and Chapter 2 of the FAA requ re on y that the award-cred tor of a fore gn arb tra award f e one act on n a federa d str ct court to enforce the fore gn arb tra award.

Kroma Makeup EU, LLC v. Kimberly Kardashian, No. 15-15060 (11th Cir. Jan. 18, 2017) 01/18/2017

Court aff rmed d str ct court s den a of mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that the doctr ne of equ tab e estoppe a ows non-s gnatory defendants to nvoke the arb trat on prov s on of an agreement on y when the c a ms asserted aga nst those defendants fa w th n the scope of the c ause that the s gnator es had agreed upon. Here, the defendants fa ed to show that they are “part es” to the agreement and therefore cannot enforce an arb trat on c ause that reads: “the Part es agree that the d sputes ar s ng between them concern ng the va d ty, nterpretat on, term nat on or performance”.

Dickson v. Gospel for ASIA, Inc., No. 5:16-CV-05027 (W.D. Ark. Jan. 18, 2017) 01/18/2017

Court den ed mot ons to compe arb trat on and d sm ss act on. Court found that the re evant agreement, church m ss on statement and p edges s gned by the p a nt ff, are nva d because they ack cons derat on and conta n no mutua ty of ob gat on. Therefore the arb trat on prov s on s an usory prom se that s not b nd ng. Sundquist v. Ubiquity, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-02472-H-DHB (S.D. Ca . Jan. 17, 2017) 01/17/2017

Court granted defendants mot on to compe arb trat on, f nd ng that p a nt ffs had entered nto a va d arb trat on agreement when purchas ng Ub qu ty, Inc. stock. P a nt ffs c a med that they had been defrauded by defendants n the course of nvest ng n Ub qu ty, but because these c a ms were w th n the scope of the arb trat on agreement, the court he d that the part es had to proceed to arb trat on.

CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. v. Gas Workers Union, No. 0:16-CV-03543 (D. Minn. Jan. 17, 2017) 01/17/2017

Court granted mot on to vacate arb trat on award. Court he d that arb trator s author ty n abor d sputes s not un m ted. The arb trator d sregarded the p a n anguage of an unamb guous c ause of the co ect ve barga n ng agreement, wh ch m ts the arb trator s author ty to determ n ng whether an emp oyee was d shonest or neg gent; the arb trator exceeded th s author ty by fash on ng a remedy fo ow ng h s factua f nd ng.

CPB Contractors Pty. Ltd. v. Chevron Corp., 4:16-CV-05344 (N.D. Cal. Jan 17, 2017) 01/17/2017

Court granted defendant s mot on to stay pend ng the reso ut on of b nd ng arb trat on between the p a nt ff and Chevron Austra a, a non-party to the case. Court found that § 3 of the FAA a ows for a stay when “any ssue” nvo ved n the su t s referab e to arb trat on. Th s s supported by pr or dec s ons ho d ng that d str ct courts have d scret on to stay c a ms where (a) t gat on of c a ms aga nst the non-s gnatory wou d adverse y affect the s gnatory s r ghts n arb trat on and (b) a stay s adv sab e n v ew of the c a ms nterdependence w th c a ms proper y referred to arb trat on. Here, proceed ng w th the case wou d nterfere w th Chevron Austra a s r ght to have the c a ms aga nst t dec ded n arb trat on.

Laporte v. One Beacon America Ins. Co., No. 3:16-CV-00500 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 17, 2017) 01/17/2017

Court granted defendant s mot on to d sm ss pend ng arb trat on. A c ear and unamb guous agreement to arb trate ex sts and the p a nt ff s c a ms are w th n the scope of the arb trat on prov s on.

Payne v. Menard Inc, No. 2:15-CV-00317 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 17, 2017) 01/17/2017

Court granted defendant s mot on to d sm ss. The arb trat on agreement s va d and d sm ssa s proper where a va d arb trat on agreement requ res arb trat on outs de the d str ct where the awsu t pends.

DKS, Inc. v. Corporate Business Solutions, Inc., No.15-16589 (9th Cir. Jan. 17, 2017) 01/17/2017

C rcu t court aff rms d str ct court s den a of mot on to compe arb trat on fo ow ng de novo rev ew of the d str ct court s nterpretat on of the re evant contract prov s ons. Court conc udes that the comp a nt conta ns suff c ent facts that, f assumed true, const tute “fraud n the ncept on” and nva date the agreement.

D.A.R.E. New Jersey, INC v. D.A.R.E. America, No. 15-55512 (9th Cir. Jan. 17, 2017) 01/17/2017

C rcu t court aff rms d str ct court s conf rmat on of an arb trat on award. Court f nds that arb trator d d not man fest y d sregard the aw by re ect ng p a nt ff s app cat on to amend ts comp a nt on the eve of the hear ng, not ng that a tr buna s nterpretat on of the scope of ts powers s ent t ed to great deference. P a nt ff a so fa ed to show that an exp c t pub c po cy m tates aga nst the re ef ordered n the arb trat on.

Trina Solar US, Inc. v. JRC-Services LLC, No. 1:16-CV-02869 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 17, 2017) 01/17/2017

Court conf rms arb trat on award and den es mot on to vacate. Court found that de novo rev ew of arb trab ty s warranted because a non-s gnatory to the agreement preserved ts ob ect on to ur sd ct on by refus ng to part c pate n the arb trat on. Court ho ds that the tr buna d d not exceed ts author ty by f nd ng a non-s gnatory to the agreement o nt y and severa y ab e, hav ng conc uded that (a) the s gnatory to the agreement was an actua and apparent agent of the non-s gnatory and (b) the non-s gnatory was estopped from ob ect ng to ur sd ct on because t rece ved d rect benef ts from the agreement. Moreover, the arb trat on proceed ng was not fundamenta y unfa r desp te the tr buna s acceptance of a “ske eta ” dec arat on as sat sfy ng ts order of deta ed w tness statements; th s behav or d d not render the proceed ngs fundamenta y unfa r.

Curtis v. Cintas Corp., 2:16-CV-03597 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 17, 2017) 01/17/2017

Court grants mot on to stay pend ng the reso ut on of arb trat on. Even under the “s d ng sca e approach” of Pennsy van a aw, a f nd ng of both substant ve and procedura unconsc onab ty s requ red to deem the arb trat on c ause nva d. An arb trat on agreement that express y states that one party w pay the costs of arb trat on for the other party s not substant ve y unconsc onab e w thout a show ng that the agreement unreasonab y or gross y favors the pay ng party.

Kum Tat Ltd. v Linden Ox Pasture, LLC, No. 14-17472 (9th Cir. Jan. 13, 2017) 01/13/2017

C rcu t court d sm ssed nter ocutory appea from d str ct court den a of a mot on to compe arb trat on. C rcu t court he d that t d d not have ur sd ct on to hear the appea where the arb trat on mot on re ed on y on Ca forn a state arb trat on aw and was not f ed pursuant to the FAA. Court a so dec ned to treat the appea as a pet t on for a wr t of mandamus because the d str ct court order was not c ear y erroneous n reserv ng for tse f the quest on of whether the part es agreed to arb trate or had formed a va d contract.

Preferred Care of Delaware Inc. v. Simm VanArsdale, No. 16-5209 (6th Cir. Jan. 13, 2017) 01/13/2017

C rcu t court aff rmed the d str ct court s abstent on n a federa awsu t brought under the FAA. C rcu t court he d that d str ct court s Co orado R ver abstent on was proper because the federa and state su ts were para e act ons as both turned on an dent ca c a m of the enforceab ty of an under y ng arb trat on agreement and that the ma or ty of factors to be cons dered favored abstent on.

Capelli Enterprises, Inc. v. Fantastic Sams Salons Corp., No. 5:16-CV-03401 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2017) 01/13/2017

Hav ng den ed p a nt ff s mot on for temporary n unct on of a AAA arb trat on n August 2016, court grants mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that the key d sagreement between the part es, whether a c a m for dec aratory re ef s sub ect to the arb trat on agreement, shou d be reso ved n arb trat on s nce a va d arb trat on c ause ex sts, quest ons of arb trab ty are c ear y de egated to the arb trator, and the arb trat on c ause ev nces an ntent to arb trate arb trab ty. S nce the arb trator may u t mate y determ ne that the ssue s not arb trab e, the court stayed the proceed ngs rather than d sm ss ng the case.

Nichols v. Murray Ford of Kingsland, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00069-LGW-RSB (S.D. Ga. Jan. 13, 2017) 01/13/2017

Court granted defendant s mot on to stay proceed ngs and compe arb trat on. Court he d T t e VII c a m was sub ect to a va d arb trat on and enforceab e agreement as there was no d spute p a nt ff s gned the arb trat on agreement and the agreement was not unconsc onab e under Georg a aw.

Ventura v. Gov’t Empl. Ins. Co. (GEICO), No. 2:16-CV-08441-JFW-GJS (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2017) 01/13/2017

Court granted defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on and d sm ssed the act on w thout pre ud ce. Court he d that p a nt ffs fa ure to f e an oppos t on pursuant to oca ru es to defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on const tuted consent to the grant ng of the mot on.

S. Ohio Trenching & Excavating, Inc. v. Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs., Local 181, No. 0:15-CV-00027-HRW (E.D. Ky. Jan. 12, 2017) 01/12/2017

Court granted defendant s mot on for summary udgment and den ed p a nt ff s mot on to vacate an arb tra award. Court he d that the arb trat on c auses w th n the d sputed abor agreements between the part es were enforceab e, that the arb trator had proper ur sd ct on, and that no va d reason ex sted to vacate the award.

Stevens-Bratton v. TruGreen, Inc., No. 16-5161 (6th Cir. Jan. 11, 2017) 01/11/2017

C rcu t court reversed the d str ct court s udgment compe ng arb trat on and remanded for further proceed ngs. C rcu t court he d that the agreement requ r ng arb trat on between the part es had exp red pr or to the mater a events at the heart of the d spute arose and the contractua r ght at ssue d d not surv ve exp rat on under norma pr nc p es of contract nterpretat on.

Thick v. Dolgencorp of Tex., Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00733-ALM (E.D. Tex. Jan. 11, 2017) 01/11/2017

Court granted defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on and stay pend ng act on. Court he d there was a va d agreement to arb trate as defendant prov ded a copy of the agreement conta n ng p a nt ff s e ectron c s gnature and ast four d g ts of her soc a secur ty number, p a nt ff produced no ev dence otherw se, and p a nt ff s c a ms fe w th n the part es agreement.

Preferred Care of Del., Inc. v. Estate of Marilyn Hopkins, No. 16-6180 (6th Cir. Jan. 11, 2017) 01/11/2017

C rcu t court d sm ssed appea for ack of appe ate ur sd ct on over a d str ct court order en o n ng ts state court act on, compe ng arb trat on, and stay ng the case. Court he d that § 16(b)(3) of the FAA forb ds t from hear ng nter ocutory cha enges where the federa awsu t s covered by an arb trat on agreement; and where the ower court stayed rather than d sm ssed the su t, there was no f na udgment yet to appea .

CPR Telecom Corp., Inc. v. Bullseye Telecom, Inc., No. 5:16-CV-10732-JEL-RSW (E.D. Mich. Jan. 11, 2017) 01/11/2017

Court den ed defendant s mot on to vacate an arb tra award, granted the p a nt ffs mot on to conf rm the award and request for attorney fees and costs, and den ed p a nt ffs request for sanct ons. Court he d that s nce the award was der ved from a breach re at ng to the part es agreement, and the p a nt ffs cou d be cons dered the preva ng party, t was rat ona for the tr buna to award attorney fees and costs. Court a so he d the p a nt ffs were ent t ed to attorney fees and costs assoc ated w th the cha enge to the arb tra award, but den ed the p a nt ffs request to ssue sanct ons aga nst the defendant under FRCP 11 for a fr vo ous cha enge.

Smith v. Credit Acceptance Corp., No. 3:16-CV-01675-RPC (M.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2017) 01/11/2017

Court stayed the case pend ng the outcome of arb trat on. Court he d that p a nt ff requested the stay and that the th rd c rcu t has conc uded that § 3 of the FAA requ res a stay of proceed ngs f requested by a party, even though severa other c rcu ts have he d that t gat on n wh ch a c a ms are be ng arb trated may be d sm ssed.

Bhakta v. Choice Hotels Int’l, Inc., No. 16-CV-1431-EFM (D. Kan. Jan. 10, 2017) 01/10/2017

Court granted defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on and stay the case pend ng arb trat on. Court he d that p a nt ffs c a m s w th n the scope of the va d arb trat on prov s on w th n the part es franch se agreement.

Alstom v. Gen. Elec. Co., No. 16-CV-3568-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2017) 01/10/2017

Court den ed defendant s mot on to compe ICC arb trat on w th the ICC, and granted p a nt ff s mot on to compe subm ss on of the d spute to an ndependent account ng f rm. Court he d that where the agreement conta ns both a broad y worded arb trat on c ause and a spec f c arb trat on c ause ass gn ng the dec s on to the ndependent account ng f rm, the part es ntent to arb trate the quest on of arb trab ty under the broad c ause s not c ear; the presence of conf ct ng c auses and amb gu ty requ res the court to dec de arb trab ty.

King v. Sullivan, No. 4:16-CV-00695-JLH (E.D. Ark. Jan. 10, 2017) 01/10/2017

Court conf rmed arb trat on award, ho d ng that, where du y-served respondent f ed no response n the act on and d d not request extens on of t me to respond, respondent adm tted a we -p ed a egat ons aga nst her.

Ege v. Express Messenger Systems, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-01167-RSL ((W.D.Wash. Jan. 10, 2017) 01/10/2017

Court granted defendant s mot on to d sm ss n favor of arb trat on. Court he d that defendant was a th rd-party benef c ary to the agreement, a of p a nt ffs c a ms were w th n the scope of the agreement s arb trat on prov s on, and that arb trat on was the proper forum for those c a ms to be heard.

PT Antam (Persero) TBK v. Airtrol, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00586-HEA (E.D. Mo. Jan. 10, 2017) 01/10/2017

Court entered udgment n favor of p a nt ff after f nd ng that arb trator s awards were du y f ed.

Guidotti v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, L.L.C., No. 1:11-CV-01219-JBS-KMW (D.N.J. Jan. 9, 2017) 01/09/2017

Court den ed p a nt ff s mot on for recons derat on of pr or court order requ r ng a ury tr a to determ ne whether an agreement to arb trate under § 4 of the FAA ex sts. Court he d that p a nt ff prov ded no add t ona ust f cat on that the ru ng was a c ear error of aw and thus d d not meet the standard for recons derat on.

Massó-Torrellas v. Municipality of Toa Alta, No. 16-1319 (1st Cir. Jan. 9, 2017) 01/09/2017

C rcu t court aff rmed d str ct court s d sm ssa of p a nt ffs c a m pursuant to Fed. R. C v. P. 12(b)(6) for fa ure to state a v ab e c a m because the p a nt ffs fa ed to comp y w th the med at on/arb trat on c ause n the r contract. However, c rcu t court he d that the ower court erred n conc ud ng that the med at on/arb trat on c ause covered the const tut ona c a ms, wh ch the part es agreed were not n the scope of the c ause that on y encompassed matters re at ng to the contract.

Zweizig v. Northwest Direct Teleservices, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-02401-HZ (D. Or. Jan. 6, 2017) 01/06/2017

Court den ed defendant s mot on to d sm ss two of p a nt ff s c a ms. Court found that defendant s cha enge to the ex stence of an arb trat on agreement const tuted a pet t on to ra se an arb trat on defense w th n the mean ng of § 4 of the FAA, wh ch removes the court s sub ect matter ur sd ct on f there s a va d, enforceab e arb trat on c ause. Court he d that defendant, n h s nd v dua capac ty, was a non-s gnatory to an emp oyment agreement and, n any event, defendant had wa ved h s r ght to compe arb trat on by subm tt ng mu t p e f ngs and part c pat ng n severa hear ngs.

Doe 1 v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., No. 2:10-CV-00899-JWS (D. Ariz. Jan. 6, 2017) 01/06/2017

Court den ed defendants mot ons for part a summary udgment and granted p a nt ffs mot ons for part a summary udgment s nce p a nt ffs had contracts of emp oyment wh ch are exempt from arb trat on under § 1 of the FAA and under the AAA.

Service Employees International Union, Local 1107 v. Northeastern Nevada Regional Hospital, No. 3:16-CV-00476-HDM-WGC (D. Nev. Jan. 6, 2017) 01/06/2017

Court den ed defendant s mot on to d sm ss because p a nt ff stated a c a m for wh ch re ef may be granted. Court he d that arb trat on shou d be compe ed under the co ect ve barga n ng agreement because of defendant s a eged v o at ons of that agreement.

Baron v. DIRECTV, LLC, No. 1:16-03145-JKB (D. Md. Jan. 6, 2017) 01/06/2017

Court den ed p a nt ff s mot on to str ke defendant s aff rmat ve defenses pursuant to Fed. R. C v. Pro. 12(f), nc ud ng defendant s c a m that the p a nt ff s c a ms are barred because they are sub ect to arb trat on. Court he d that the va d ty of the aff rmat ve defense cou d not be ad ud cated pr or to d scovery and d spos t ve mot ons because p a nt ff s contract cou d have nc uded an arb trat on c ause.

TransAtlantic Lines LLC v. Amergent Techs, LLC, No. 16-CV-3549-PAE (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2017) 01/06/2017

Court granted respondent s mot on to d sm ss on the ground t acks persona ur sd ct on over the respondent and den ed pet t oner s mot on to compe arb trat on on the same bas s. Court he d that agreement conta ned an arb trat on c ause that spec f ed the app cat on of Connect cut aw but d d not spec fy an arb tra forum. Court he d that p a nt ff d d not a ege that defendant had any contacts w th n the d str ct or had undertaken act v t es there n, and therefore court cou d not exerc se persona ur sd ct on over the defendant.

Harman v. Wilson-Davis & Co., No.2:16-DV-00229-CW (D. Utah Jan. 6, 2017) 01/06/2017

Court den ed p a nt ffs pet t on to vacate an arb trat on award. Court noted that the tenth c rcu t has not yet addressed a c rcu t sp t as to whether a court may “ ook through” an FAA § 10 pet t on to vacate an arb trat on award to f nd federa quest on ur sd ct on based on the under y ng federa substant ve c a ms n the arb trat on. Court he d t had federa quest on ur sd ct on over the pet t on where the c a ms sub ect to arb trat on ra sed federa quest ons. Court a so he d that p a nt ff fa ed to state suff c ent grounds to vacate the award under e ther the pub c po cy except on or the enumerated reasons for vacatur set forth n § 10 of the FAA.

Gomez v. Lace Ent., Inc., No. 15-CV-3326-CM (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2017) 01/06/2017

Court granted mot on for c ass cert f cat on of p a nt ff s c a ms not sub ect to arb trat on where court had prev ous y den ed mot on to compe arb trat on of one of the p a nt ff s c a ms. Court he d that suff c ent y numerous emp oyees were not sub ect to arb trat on agreements to const tute the proposed c ass n that p a nt ff s putat ve c ass and co ect ve act on.

Food, Indus. and Beverage Warehouse, Drivers and Clerical Empl. Local 630 v. Barton Brands of Cal., Inc., No. 16-CV-6178-GW (C.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2017) 01/05/2017

Court den ed p a nt ff s mot on for summary udgment and granted defendant s cross mot on for summary udgment to compe arb trat on under Sect on 301(a) of the Labor Management Re at ons Act. Court he d that wa ver by t gat on conduct s a matter for the court to dec de un ess the part es c ear y and unm stakab y prov ded otherw se. Court further den ed p a nt ff s mot on to compe arb trat on on y after t had fu y t gated ts c a m before the NLRB because to perm t such wou d force the defendant to re t gate the ssues on the mer ts.

Klein v. Verizon Comm., Inc., No. 14-1660 (4th Cir. Jan. 5, 2017) 01/05/2017

C rcu t court reversed and remanded d str ct court s determ nat on of cho ce of aw prov s on that resu ted n arb trat on. C rcu t court he d that d str ct court wrong y app ed Mary and rather than V rg n a aw pursuant to the part es c ear contractua cho ce of aw prov s on n the r agreement.

Jones v. Singing River Health Services Foundation, No. 16-60263 (5th Cir. Jan. 5, 2017) 01/05/2017

C rcu t court aff rmed ower court s den a of mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that defendant vo untar y wa ved the ssue of arb trab ty because defendant subm tted the ssue to the court. Court a so found that the arb trat on prov s ons cou d not be enforced aga nst the non-s gnatory p a nt ff because the c a ms asserted d d not “necessar y re y” on the contracts conta n ng the arb trat on prov s ons.

Science Applications International Corp. v. The Hellenic Republic, No. 1:13-CV-01070-GK (D.D.C. Jan. 5, 2017) 01/05/2017

Court granted pet t on to conf rm an award from an ICC arb trat on seated n Greece after prev ous y stay ng the act on wh e annu ment proceed ngs were ongo ng n n the Greek courts. Court he d that the Europcar factors we ghed n favor of enforcement of the award s nce t had been set as de by an appea s court n Greece but was re nstated by the Greek Supreme Court.

Belnap, M.D. v. IASIS Healthcare, No. 15-4010 (10th Cir. Jan. 5, 2017) 01/05/2017

C rcu t court aff rmed n part and reversed n part d str ct court s ru ng on mot on to compe arb trat on. Court aff rmed that c a ms aga nst part es that were not s gnator es to the arb trat on agreement shou d not be arb trated. However, court reversed ower court s part a grant of the mot on to compe arb trat on as to the s gnatory, and stated that the mot on shou d be granted on the rema nder of the c a ms aga nst that s gnatory as we , because the part es c ear y and unm stakab y agreed to de egate quest ons of arb trab ty to the arb trators.

Solo Cup Operating Corp. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 528, No. 1:15-CV-00185-JRH-BKE (S.D. Ga. Jan. 4, 2017) 01/04/2017

Court den ed p a nt ff s mot on for summary udgment on comp a nt to vacate or mod fy the arb trator s award. Court found that the arb trator was arguab y constru ng the co ect ve barga n ng agreement n reach ng h s award and, therefore, the court deferred ent re y to the arb trator s nterpretat on.

Scott v. Family Dollar Store, Inc., No. 3:08-CV-00540-MOC-DSC (W.D.N.C. Jan. 4, 2017) 01/04/2017

Court den ed defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on, ho d ng that seek ng arb trat on after fu y t gat ng the c ass cert f cat on ssue was contrary to the purpose of arb trat on, and defendant therefore wa ved ts r ght to arb trat on.

Sherman v. Service Corp. International, No. 3:16-CV-00011-JJH (N.D. Ohio Jan. 4, 2017) 01/04/2017

Court granted defendant s mot on to d sm ss comp a nt and compe arb trat on. Court found that the on y po nt of content on—whether the agreement was s gned—d d not nva date the agreement under pr nc p es of contract aw, because c ck ng on an “I Agree” button s a va d e ectron c s gnature.

Aztec Engineering Group, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., No. 1:16-CV-01657-JMS (S.D. Ind. Jan. 04, 2017) 01/04/2017

Court den ed th rd-party ent ty from nterven ng to assert a counterc a m aga nst defendant and stay t gat on to pursue arb trat on. Court he d that f party be eved t was ent t ed to n t ate arb trat on on a eged y arb trab e c a ms, no aspect of the t gat on prevented t from do ng so but the proposed ntervent on was geared more to de ay than the mer ts of any d spute. Torgerson v. LCC International, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-02495-DDC-TJJ (D. Kan. Jan. 3, 2017) 01/03/2017

Court den ed p a nt ffs mot on for recons derat on. Court he d that an appe ate dec s on d d not change contro ng aw suff c ent to support recons derat on of a dec s on to compe arb trat on, and even f t d d, arb trab ty was an ssue for the arb trator not the court.

Kirsch v. Dean, No. 3:16-CV-00299-CRS (W.D. Ky. Jan. 3, 2017) 01/03/2017

Court granted defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on and den ed mot on to stay arb trat on pend ng a dec s on on the mot on to compe as moot. Court found that the part es agreed to a broad arb trat on prov s on that app ed to the c a ms, and that the defendant was ne ther estopped from, nor had we wa ved h s r ght to, arb trat ng the c a ms.

NRI Academy of Sciences v. Mukkamala, No. 2:12-CV-15333 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 1, 2017) 01/01/2017

Court granted mot on to conf rm arb tra award pursuant to the FAA. Court den ed the mot on to vacate, conc ud ng that the arb trator s d scovery dec s ons were reasonab e and the arb trator acted w th n h s broad author ty.

Eazy Electronics & Technology, LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-01830-GAG (D.P.R. Dec. 30, 2016) 12/30/2016

Court granted the mot on to d sm ss and compe arb trat on pursuant to the FAA and the New York Convent on. Court he d that the arb trat on agreement was sub ect to enforcement, was not unenforceab e based on pub c po cy, and was not unconsc onab e. Court found the wa ver of d scovery c ause n the agreement was va d, conc ud ng that d scovery was not a fundamenta attr bute of arb trat on and determ n ng that the c ause d d not contravene the FAA.

Sanes v. Treasure Bay (VI) Corp, No. 1:14-CV-00049-WAL-GWC (D.V.I. Dec. 30, 2016) 12/30/2016

Court nterpreted defendant s mot on to d sm ss act on n favor of arb trat on as request to refer matter to arb trat on, wh ch t granted, and stayed act on pend ng arb trat on. Court found that t had ur sd ct on to grant mot on and that defendant d d not wa ve r ght to arb trat on by fa ng to ra se th s r ght n the EEOC proceed ng.

Fraser v. Perkins & Marie Callender’s LLC, No. 8:16-CV-3226-SDM-AEP (M.D. Fla. Dec. 30, 2016) 12/30/2016

Court granted n part defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on and d sm ss the act on. Wh e the court agreed that arb trat on prov s on was va d under F or da contract aw, t refused to d sm ss the act on, stat ng that the Federa Arb trat on Act mandated a stay and prec uded d sm ssa .

Marcus v. Collins, No. 1:16-CV-04221-GBD-BCM (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2016) 12/30/2016

Court den ed mot on to compe arb trat on or an emp oyment d scr m nat on c a m, ho d ng that p a nt ff was not bound by a wr tten agreement to arb trate. Court reasoned that the FAA presumpt on of arb trab ty d d not app y to the thresho d quest on of whether an arb trat on agreement ex sts, wh ch must be dec ded as a matter of state contract aw; Court he d that defendants fa ed to demonstrate p a nt ff, who had not nd v dua y agreed to arb trate, was covered by a co ect ve barga n ng agreement.

Orafol Americas Inc. v. Reflex-o-Lite, LTDA, No. 3:16-CV-02070 (VLB) (D. Conn. Dec. 29, 2016) 12/29/2016

D str ct court den ed w thout pre ud ce mot on for a temporary restra n ng order and pre m nary n unct on stay ng certa n arb trat on, f nd ng that courts are not ord nar y a owed to nterfere w th the part es agreement to arb trate and that the movant had fa ed to make a show ng of part cu ar zed and rreparab e harm from proceed ng w th the arb trat on.

DISH Network L.L.C. v. Ray, No. 1:16-CV-00314-LTB (D. Colo. Dec. 28, 2016) 12/28/2016

Court den ed p a nt ffs pet t on to vacate arb trat on award. Court found that the arb trator had ur sd ct on to dec de whether the arb trat on agreement perm tted co ect ve or c ass arb trat on, and that the arb trator s conc us on that the agreement perm tted co ect ve or c ass arb trat on was not n error or man fest y d sregarded app cab e aw so as to vacate the award.

Machesky v. United Recovery Systems, LP, No. 4:16-CV-00596 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 28, 2016) 12/28/2016

Court granted defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on, f nd ng that p a nt ff agreed to a broad arb trat on agreement and that no state or federa aws prec uded arb trat on.

Alstom Brasil Energia E Transporte LTDA v. Mitsui Sumitomo Seguros S.A., No. 1:15-CV-08221 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2016) 12/28/2016

Court den ed pet t oners mot on to ho d respondent n contempt and to ssue monetary sanct ons aga nst t. Court found that refus ng to ab de w th the dec aratory re ef ssued n an arb tra award— and subsequent y conf rmed by the court—does not r se to eve of contempt, as dec aratory re ef acks the coerc ve effect of n unct ve re ef. Add t ona y, the court re ed on the arb trators dec arat on that wh e the act ons n Braz an courts may over ap w th the arb tra award, such a quest on was not for the tr buna to answer.

UBS Financial Services Inc. v. Bounty Gain Enterprises Inc., No. 9:14-CV-81603-WM (S.D. Fla. Dec. 27, 2016) 12/27/2016

Court den ed defendant s mot on for re ef from pre m nary n unct on, stat ng that the p a nt ff was not requ red to subm t to FINRA arb trat on. Court he d that both the defendant and the defendant s emp oyee, who kew se sought FINRA arb trat on, fa ed to estab sh stand ng, as the defendant was never a customer of the p a nt ff or an assoc ated person of the p a nt ff, and the defendant s emp oyee sought arb trat on under the same set of factua c rcumstances as the defendant.

Saporito v. Townes, No. 2:16-CV-01670-JAD-VCF (D. Nev. Dec. 27, 2016) 12/27/2016

Court granted p a nt ff s pet t on to conf rm FINRA arb trat on award. Court he d that t must conf rm award, as defendant offered no reason that award shou d be vacated, mod f ed or corrected, and court found no reason to do so.

Enron Nigeria Power Holding Ltd. V. Nigeria, No. 15-7121 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 27, 2016) 12/27/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed d str ct court order enforc ng arb tra award. Court re ected N ger a s defense aga nst enforcement on the ground that enforcement of the award v o ated U.S. pub c po cy and shou d thus be den ed pursuant to Art. V(2)(b) of the New York Convent on. Court found that the arb tra tr buna s nterpretat on of the power purchase agreement was due substant a deference and thus ed t to re ect N ger a s pub c po cy defense.

Hudgins v. Total Quality Logistics LLC, No. 1:16-CV-07331 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 23, 2016) 12/23/2016

Court den ed defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on and granted p a nt ffs mot on for cond t ona c ass cert f cat on. Court he d that de egat on c ause n arb trat on agreement d d not bar court from determ n ng enforceab ty of arb trat on agreement. However, court found that because the arb trat on c ause stated that arb trat on sha be he d n the county and state where the emp oyee most recent y worked for the defendant, and none of the emp oyees for whom the defendant sought to compe arb trat on worked for the defendant n the court s d str ct, the court cou d not compe p a nt ffs to pursue arb trat on n other d str cts.

Alvarado v. Pacific Motor Trucking Co., No. 14-56823 (9th Cir. Dec. 23, 2016) 12/23/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed ower court s order to compe arb trat on. Court he d that the arb trat on c ause n quest on was not unconsc onab e as a resu t of fraud n the nducement because, at the t me of the contract was executed, defendant had made no mater a m srepresentat ons. Court a so he d that p a nt ffs, a group of ong hau dr vers, d d not fa w th n the FAA s exempt on for “ nterstate transportat on workers” because the exempt on on y app ed to “contracts of emp oyment” and the contracts n quest on were not contracts of emp oyment.

Campbell v. Nevada Prop. 1 LLC, No. 14-17189 (9th Cir. Dec. 23, 2016) 12/23/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed ower court s order to conf rm an arb trat on award. Court he d that appe ant fa ed to show that the arb trator exceeded the powers afforded by the terms of the arb trat on agreement.

Trs. of the U.A. Local 38 Defined Benefit Pension Plan v. Trs. of the Plumbers and Pipe Fitters Nat’l Pension Fund, No. 16-15228 (9th Cir. Dec. 23, 2016) 12/23/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed ower court s order to conf rm an arb trat on award. Court he d that the arb trator d d not exceed h s author ty when determ n ng the amount owed to appe ee because the arb trat on agreement spec f ed that the arb trator wou d reta n ur sd ct on to dec de the amount due. Court a so he d that the arb trator d d not man fest y d sregard the aw because re evant case aw c ear y supported the arb trator s f nd ngs.

Trs. for the Mason Tenders Dist. Council Welfare Fund v. Earth Const. Corp., No. 1:16:-CV-06068-LGS (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2016) 12/23/2016

Court granted p a nt ffs unopposed pet t on to conf rm an arb trat on award, ho d ng that the arb trat on award shou d be conf rmed because the pet t on was uncontested and the dec s on n the arb trat on award cou d c ear y be nferred from the facts of the case.

Choice Hotels Int’l, Inc. v. Host Hospitality, LLC, No. 8:16-CV-02321-TDC (D. Md. Dec. 22, 2016) 12/22/2016

Court granted p a nt ff s mot on for defau t udgment. Court he d that defendants fa ure to respond to p a nt ff s app cat on to conf rm an arb trat on award ust f ed the defau t udgment. Court further he d that t was sat sf ed that the arb trat on award met the requ rements of the FAA and that t wou d be conf rmed as a resu t.

Worth v. Worth, No. 2:16-CV-03877-MAK (E.D. Pa. Dec. 22, 2016) 12/22/2016

Court granted p a nt ff s mot on to stay proceed ngs on a mot on to compe arb trat on pend ng the outcome of an nter ocutory appea . Court he d that the pend ng mot on to compe arb trat on must be stayed because ( ) p a nt ff made a strong show ng that he was ke y to succeed on the mer ts; ( ) there was a r sk that p a nt ff wou d be rreparab y n ured absent a stay; and ( ) the ssuance of a stay wou d not substant a y n ure defendants.

Lenox Corp. v. Blackshear, No. 2:15-CV-06019-AB (E.D. Pa. Dec. 22, 2016) 12/22/2016

Court granted p a nt ff s mot on to stay the proceed ngs pend ng the outcome of an ongo ng arb trat on and den ed defendants mot on to en o n the arb trat on. Court he d that the part es were ob gated to arb trate the d spute because there was no d spute that an agreement to arb trate ex sted and upon exam nat on of the arb trat on c ause the part es d spute c ear y fe w th n the scope of the prov s on.

UBS Financial Services, Inc. v. Asociación de Empleados del Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico, No. 3:16-CV-02017-WGY (D.P.R. Dec. 22, 2016) 12/22/2016

Court den ed respondent s mot ons to d sm ss for ack of sub ect matter ur sd ct on or n the a ternat ve a stay. Court he d that t has federa sub ect matter ur sd ct on because the proper ur sd ct ona nqu ry s to ook through a post-arb trat on pet t on to the substance of the d spute and, n th s case, the arb tra c a ms arose under federa aw, thus estab sh ng federa quest on ur sd ct on to cons der the enforcement of a FINRA award under the FAA.

Dagnan v. St. John’s Military School, No. 2:16-CV-02246-CM-GEB (D. Kan. Dec. 21, 2016) 12/21/2016

Court granted defendants mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that the arb trat on agreement between the part es was enforceab e because ( ) contrary to the p a nt ff s assert ons, defendants d d not reta n the r ght to un atera y a ter the terms of the part es agreement and thus render the arb trat on prov s on usory; ( ) p a nt ff s a egat ons that arb trat on d d not a ow for effect ve v nd cat on of p a nt ff s r ghts was unsupported; ( ) the arb trat on c ause was not unconsc onab e under Kansas aw; and ( v) the arb trat on c ause d d not v o ate pub c po cy by compe ng arb trat on aga nst a m nor.

Mohamed v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 15-16178 (9th Cir. Dec. 21, 2016) 12/21/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed n part and reversed n part d str ct court s den a of mot on to compe arb trat on, f nd ng that the d str ct court had erred n assum ng author ty to dec de whether the part es arb trat on agreements were enforceab e s nce the quest on of arb trab ty as to most c a ms had been de egated to the arb trator. C rcu t court a so aff rmed d str ct court s den a of co-defendant non-s gnatory s mot on to compe arb trat on, f nd ng that p a nt ff s conc usory a egat on that a defendants were each other s agents was nsuff c ent to ent t e co-defendant to nvoke arb trat on agreement as an agent of the s gnatory.

Meadows v. Dickey’s Barbecue Restaurants Inc., No. 1:15-CV-02139-JST (N.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2016) 12/21/2016

Court den ed p a nt ffs mot on for order to conso date arb trat ons. Court he d that t d d not have ur sd ct on to ru e on the quest on of conso dat on because conso dat on s a procedura quest on for the arb trator to dec de.

Yundt v. Amsurg Holdings, Inc., No. 6:15-CV-01548-MC (D. Or. Dec. 21, 2016) 12/21/2016

Court granted defendant s mot on to conf rm and den ed p a nt ffs mot on to vacate an arb trat on award. Court he d that the arb tra tr buna d d not exceed ts author ty by ssu ng ts award beyond the 30-day dead ne mandated by the app cab e arb tra ru es because ne ther party ob ected to nor was pre ud ced by the unt me y ssuance of the award. Court further he d that the arb tra award shou d not be vacated because the arb tra tr buna d d not refuse to hear p a nt ffs ant trust c a ms; rather, p a nt ffs fa ed to pursue those c a ms n arb trat on.

Youssofi v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Assoc., No. 3:16-CV-01330-MMA-JMA (S.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2016). 12/21/2016

Court den ed p a nt ff s mot on to recons der an order to compe arb trat on, ho d ng p a nt ff s dec s on to execute an agreement conta n ng an arb trat on c ause that d d not express y prov de for a wa ver of h s r ght to pet t on the courts d d not v o ate p a nt ff s F rst Amendment r ghts.

Allen v. Bloomingdale’s Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00772-WJM-MF (D.N.J. Dec. 21, 2016) 12/21/2016

Court granted defendants mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that the agreement to arb trate was enforceab e because p a nt ffs p a n y accepted the terms of the arb trat on prov s on; and that p a nt ffs content on that the arb trat on agreement const tutes an unconsc onab e contract that def ed pub c po cy aga nst rac a d scr m nat on was unsupported by ega precedent.

Brown v. Comcast Corp., No. 3:16-CV-03649-JST (N.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2016) 12/21/2016

Court granted defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that the part es shou d proceed to arb trat on because p a nt ff d d not argue that the arb trat on prov s on was nva d or unenforceab e, or that the present d spute fe outs de the scope of the arb trat on prov s on.

Burgess v. Buddy’s Northwest LLC, No. 3:15-CV-05785-BHS (W.D. Wash. Dec. 21, 2016) 12/21/2016

Court granted defendants mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that a defendant, an emp oyee of the company and a non-s gnatory to the arb trat on agreement, cou d enforce the agreement to arb trate because the agreement stated that t wou d app y to “the Company . . . [and] ts off cers, d rectors, emp oyees, or agents n the r capac ty as such otherw se.” Court a so he d that the arb trat on agreement was va d because there was mutua assent to arb trate the d spute at ssue; the arb trat on agreement was not unconsc onab e; and defendants had not wa ved the r ght to compe arb trat on by proceed ng w th m ted d scovery.

Calderone v. Sonic Houston JLR, LP, No. 4:15-CV-03699 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 21, 2016) 12/21/2016

Court granted mot on to d sm ss and compe arb trat on, ho d ng that the part es were ob gated to arb trate the d spute because p a nt ff, a car sa esman, d d not fa w th n the FAA s exempted c ass of “transportat on workers” and that defendant had not wa ved ts r ght to nvoke the arb trat on agreement.

House v. Rent-A-Center Franchising Int’l, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-06654 (S.D. W. Va. Dec. 21, 2016) 12/21/2016

Court granted defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that, contrary to p a nt ffs c a ms, the part es arb trat on agreement shou d be enforced because, a though the defendant s mot on was ate, p a nt ffs wou d not be pre ud ced f requ red to arb trate the d spute, and the de egat on prov s on conta ned n the arb trat on c ause was not unconsc onab e or otherw se nva d.

Int’l Corrugated and Packing Supplies, Inc. v. Lear Corp., No. 3:15-CV-00405-DCG (W.D. Tex. Dec. 21, 2016) 12/21/2016

Court den ed defendants mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that there was no agreement to arb trate because there was nsuff c ent ev dence to conc ude that an uns gned document conta n ng an arb trat on c ause was ncorporated by reference nto the part es executed agreements.

Roquette Frères S.A. v. Solazyme, Inc., No. 15-4030 and No. 16-1308 (3d Cir. Dec. 20, 2016) 12/20/2016

C rcu t court of appea s aff rmed d str ct court s order conf rm ng an arb trat on award. Court he d that the arb trat on c ause conta ned n the part es agreement was broad enough to cover the d spute and that there was no ev dence that the arb tra tr buna exceeded ts author ty n render ng ts award.

Zurich Ins. Co. a/s/o Adidas Group v. Crowley Latin America Servs., LLC, No. 1:16-CV-01861-JPO (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2016). 12/20/2016

Court granted p a nt ff s pet t on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that the part es were bound to subm t the r d spute to arb trat on because ( ) arb trat on was not barred by M ss ss pp state nsurance aw; ( ) defendant s arguments concern ng the doctr ne of aches ra sed ssues that shou d be dec ded by an arb trator and not by the court; and ( ) p a nt ff, as an equ tab e subrogee, was not proh b ted from enforc ng the terms of the agreement aga nst the defendant.

Velazquez v. Corporate Transit of America, Inc., No. 8:16-CV-00948-JDW-AEP (M.D. Fla. Dec. 20, 2016) 12/20/2016

Court granted defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on and stay proceed ngs. Because p a nt ff was an ndependent contractor, court re ected p a nt ff s arguments that agreement was a “contract of emp oyment” that f t w th n an except on to the FAA and that p a nt ff s had a substant ve r ght to c ass act ons under the NLRA.

National Star Route Mail Contractors Association, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, No. 1:16-CV-02350-CKK (D.D.C. December 19, 2016) 12/19/2016

Court he d that the matter was not r pe and that p a nt ffs acked stand ng to cha enge the arb trat on award, where t was uncerta n whether contracts he d by p a nt ff s members wou d be term nated by defendants n mp ement ng the arb tra award. Court found defendants had not yet made any determ nat ons as to how to mp ement the arb trat on award.

Galarza v. Greenway Automotive, Inc., d/b/a Westside Nissan, No. 3:16-CV-01251-TJC-JRK (M.D. Fla. Dec. 19, 2016) 12/19/2016

Court granted defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that the FAA s exempt on for “contracts of emp oyment of seamen, ra road emp oyees, or any other c ass of workers engaged n fore gn or nterstate commerce” d d not app y to p a nt ff, whose ob nvo ved nc denta trave across state nes. Court further he d that the case aw c ted by p a nt ff n support of the argument that t wou d be nequ tab e for an at-w emp oyee to be bound by an arb trat on agreement was nappos te.

Dishner v. Zachs, No. 1:16-CV-04191-LGS (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2016) 12/19/2016

Court granted p a nt ff s pet t on to conf rm an arb trat on award. Court he d that because defendant fa ed to oppose p a nt ff s pet t on, p a nt ff was ent t ed to summary conf rmat on of the award.

Doe v. George Street Photo & Video, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-02698-MEJ (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2016) 12/19/2016

Court granted defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that, contrary to p a nt ff s assert ons, the arb trat on agreement between the part es was not procedura y or substant ve y unconsc onab e and therefore, was an enforceab e agreement to arb trate the d spute at ssue.

Kirsch v. Dean, No. 3:16-CV-00299-CRS-DW (W.D. Ky. Dec. 19, 2016) 12/19/2016

Court den ed p a nt ff s mot on to d sm ss an amended counterc a m that a eged p a nt ff breached the part es arb trat on agreement. Court he d that, contrary to p a nt ff s assert ons, defendant ( ) was not equ tab y estopped from re y ng on the arb trat on agreement n her counterc a m; ( ) had a eged facts that wou d p aus b y support a f nd ng that p a nt ff breached the arb trat on agreement; ( ) d d not wa ve her r ght to compe arb trat on under the arb trat on agreement; and ( v) estab shed that there was no support for the assert on that p a nt ff was unaware of the arb trat on agreement.

Seldon v. Airbnb, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00933-CRC (D.D.C. Dec. 19, 2016) 12/19/2016

Court den ed p a nt ff s mot on to cert fy an nter ocutory appea of the court s order to compe arb trat on. Court he d that because p a nt ff fa ed to show that there was substant a ground for a d fferent of op n on on a contro ng quest on of aw, p a nt ff s mot on to cert fy an nter ocutory appea shou d be den ed. Court exp a ned that the mov ng party to an nter ocutory appea bears a heavy burden to show that except ona c rcumstances ust fy a departure from the bas c po cy of postpon ng appe ate rev ew unt after the entry of f na udgment and that th s burden s made more str ngent g ven the FAA s ob ect ve of mov ng the part es to an arb trab e d spute nto arb trat on as qu ck y and eas y as poss b e.

Portis v. Ruan Transp. Mgmt. Sys., Inc., No. 7:15-CV-00118-GEC (W.D. Va. Dec. 19, 2016) 12/19/2016

Court den ed p a nt ff s mot on to vacate and granted defendant s request to conf rm an arb trat on award. Court he d that the arb trator s dec s on was not sub ect to vacature on the bas s of fraud because, even f a w tness comm tted per ury dur ng the course of the arb trat on, p a nt ff had a fu and fa r opportun ty to cha enge the w tness s a eged y fraudu ent test mony dur ng the arb trat on.

Astanza Design, LLC v. Giemme Stile, S.p.A., 1:16-CV-01238-TDS-JEP (M.D.N.C. Dec. 16, 2016) 12/16/2016

Court den ed defendants mot on to vacate, mod fy, or correct an arb trat on award that granted p a nt ff s request for attorney s fees. Court he d that the arb trator reta ned the author ty to award attorney s fees under Art c e 34 of the ICDR Ru es.

Eagle Sys. and Servs., Inc. v. Int’l Assoc. of Machinists, District Lodge 725, No. 2:16-CV-02077-JAM-EFB (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2016) 12/16/2016

Court granted defendant s mot on to d sm ss and mot on to conf rm an arb trat on award. Court he d that t was procedura y proper for defendant to comb ne ts mot on to d sm ss w th a mot on to conf rm the arb trat on award. Court further he d that the award was proper under app cab e aw and that p a nt ff s arguments to vacate the award were unava ng.

Hardy Indus. Techs., LLC v. BJB, LLC, No. 1:12-CV-03097-PAG (N.D. Ohio Dec. 16, 2016) 12/16/2016

Court den ed p a nt ff s mot on to vacate, mod fy or correct an arb trat on award. Court he d that there was no “ev dent part a ty” on the part of the arb trat on pane , no ev dence to suggest that the rev sed st of arb trators was produced as a resu t of ex parte commun cat ons or was deve oped other than n accordance w th the app cab e arb trat on ru es. Further, the arb trators were not gu ty of m sconduct and there was no man fest d sregard of the aw by the arb trators.

Johnson v. Cach, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00383-BLW (D. Idaho Dec. 16, 2016) 12/16/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on, ho d ng that the anguage of the arb trat on agreement c ear y contemp ates and pred cts a s m ar fact pattern as the one n th s d spute, a part es are exp c t y encompassed by the arb trat on agreement, and the c a ms n th s case are re ated to the agreement.

Trs. of the New York City Dist. Counc. of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Coastal Envir. Group, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-06004-GHW (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2016) 12/16/2016

Court aff rmed pet t oners request to conf rm an arb trat on award. Court he d that there was no nd cat on that the arb trator s award was procured through fraud or d shonesty or that the arb trator was act ng n d sregard of the part es agreement or outs de the scope of h s broad author ty to reso ve any d spute between the part es regard ng contr but ons.

Lee v. Doctor’s Assocs., Inc., No. 5:16-CV-00032-KKC (E.D. Ky. Dec. 16, 2016) 12/16/2016

Court granted mot on to d sm ss or stay pend ng arb trat on. Court re ected p a nt ff s argument that she s not bound by the agreement s arb trat on prov s on because she s not a party to t, ho d ng that she s estopped from argu ng that such prov s on does not app y to her g ven that she s assert ng d rect benef ts from the agreement.

Heston v. GB Capital Holdings, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00912-WQH-AGS (S.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2016) 12/15/2016

Court den ed p a nt ff s mot on for re ef from court s pr or order compe ng arb trat on. Court he d that p a nt ff fa ed to prov de new y d scovered ev dence that wou d change ts pr or v ew that the part es d sputes must be arb trated.

Careminders Homecare Inc. v. Kianka, No. 16-10206 (11th Cir. Dec. 14, 2016) 12/14/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed d str ct court s order conf rm ng arb tra award. Court aff rmed the d str ct court s dec s on to conf rm the award based so e y on respondent s fa ure to f e a mot on to vacate w th n 90 days. Court a so found that respondent fa ed to demonstrate any of the four statutory bases for overturn ng an arb trator s dec s on and, accord ng y, fe short of overcom ng the heavy presumpt on under the FAA that arb trat on awards w be enforced.

Malhotra v. Copa de Ora Realty, LLC, No. 14-56241 (9th Cir. Dec. 14, 2016) 12/14/2016

N nth c rcu t aff rmed d str ct court s den a of defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that the d str ct court d d not err n deny ng the mot on because by ts terms, the contract conta n ng the arb trat on agreement requ res arb trat on on y of d sputes “ar s ng from or connected w th” that contract, and p a nt ff s c a ms do not have a “s gn f cant re at onsh p to the contract” nor have “the r or g n or genes s n the contract.”

Careminders Home Care, Inc. v. Kianka, No. 1:15-CV-01224-RWS (11th Cir. Dec. 14, 2016) 12/14/2016

E eventh c rcu t re ected appe ants appea and aff rmed d str ct court s conf rmat on of arb tra award. Court he d that d str ct court was ob gated to conf rm the award fo ow ng appe ants fa ure to cha enge the award w th n the statutory 90 day m t. Moreover, appe ants fa ed to dent fy any new y d scovered ev dence, a change n contro ng aw, or a need to correct a c ear error of aw or fact that wou d warrant recons derat on of the d str ct court s dec s on, and, hav ng fa ed to ra se any arguments before the d str ct court conf rmed the arb trator s award, appe ants were barred from ra s ng them n a mot on to amend.

Myricks v. AT&T Servs. Inc., No. 5:16-CV-00169-MTT (M.D. Ga. Dec. 14, 2016) 12/14/2016

Court granted defendant s mot on to stay t gat on and compe arb trat on of p a nt ff s c a ms. Court he d that, g ven the breadth of the arb trat on c ause, t was c ear that p a nt ff had agreed to arb trate the c a ms at ssue n the case.

Roman v. Northrop Grumman Corp., No. 2:16-CV-06848-CAS-GJS (C.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2016) 12/14/2016

Court granted n part defendant s mot on to compe b atera arb trat on of p a nt ff s c a ms and stayed case. Court he d that, pr or to the Supreme Court s reso ut on of a quest on ar s ng n a d fferent case, wh ch wou d thereby reso ve a centra quest on n the nstant case, a stay s who y appropr ate.

Freeman v. Austin Maint. and Constr., Inc., No. 2:16-CV-08588-JTM-JVM (E.D. La. Dec. 14, 2016) 12/14/2016

Court granted defendant s mot on to d sm ss and compe arb trat on. Court he d that p a nt ff prov ded suff c ent ev dence to estab sh the ex stence of a va d agreement to arb trate d sputes ar s ng out of h s emp oyment w th defendant, there s noth ng onerous or oppress ve about requ r ng an arb trat on agreement as a precond t on to emp oyment, and the agreement d d not const tute an unenforceab e wa ver of defendant s federa causes of act on.

Montero v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., No. 1:14-CV-09053-SEC (N.D. Ill. Dec. 14, 2016) 12/14/2016

Court den ed p a nt ff s mot on to vacate courts pr or order compe ng arb trat on. Court he d that p a nt ff cou d have chosen to advance certa n arguments that u t mate y preva ed n the seventh c rcu t by appea ng the court s or g na order or sought a stay of the proceed ngs pend ng the outcome of the seventh c rcu t dec s on, but p a nt ff fa ed to do so. There s thus no “extraord nary c rcumstance” that warrants vacatur of the ex st ng order.

Emcon Assocs., Inc. v. Zale Corp., No. 3:16-CV-01985-FLW-DEA (D.N.J. Dec. 14, 2016) 12/14/2016

Court granted defendants mot on to stay the proceed ngs and compe arb trat on. Court he d that the arb trat on c ause d d not fa to spec f ca y g ve not ce that p a nt ff s c a ms for statutory v o at ons wou d be determ ned by arb trat on and that p a nt ff wou d thus be depr ved of ts r ghts to t gate ts d sputes and therefore d d not offend Oh o s contract pr nc p es. Court add t ona y he d that two th rd part es cou d enforce the arb trat on agreement aga nst p a nt ff and that noth ng about the arb trat on prov s on was unconsc onab e.

Neal v. Asta Funding, Inc., No. 2:14-CV-03550-KM-MAH (D.N.J. Dec. 14, 2016) 12/14/2016

Court den ed mot ons to recons der pr or d sm ssa of p a nt ffs pet t on to vacate an arb trat on award. Court he d that recons derat on was not warranted as the movant s mp y repeated the cases and arguments prev ous y ana yzed by the court and f ed the mot on mere y to d sagree w th or re- t gate the court s n t a dec s on. No new arguments or ones that cou d not have been pursued at the t me of the n t a mot ons were proffered.

Ozturk v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 2:13-CV-05463-ES-JAD (D.N.J. Dec. 13, 2016) 12/13/2016

Court granted defendant s mot on for summary udgment because, nter a a, p a nt ff fa ed to exhaust the exc us ve remed es under the gr evance and arb trat on prov s ons of h s co ect ve barga n ng agreement.

Marc v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00579 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 13, 2016) 12/13/2016

Court granted defendants mot on to compe arb trat on and str ke c ass act on a egat ons. Court he d that, because the arb trat on prov s on express y mandates that arb trat on proceed on an nd v dua bas s and removes the arb trator s ab ty to cons der c a ms or ssues dea ng w th c ass arb trat on, and s nce p a nt ff had ra sed no ob ect on to the va d ty or enforceab ty of the c assact on wa vers, the court must order the part es to proceed w th arb trat on n the nd v dua manner set forth n the part es agreement.

Gessele v. Jack In The Box, Inc., No. 3:14-CV-01092-BR (D. Or. Dec. 13, 2016) 12/13/2016

Court granted defendant s mot on for part a summary udgment as to p a nt ff s state and federa c a ms on the ground that he s requ red to arb trate them. Court he d that ( ) p a nt ff s gned the arb trat on agreement by c ck ng “yes” that he agreed to the contract s terms; ( ) p a nt ff was of ega age when he s gned and rat f ed the arb trat on agreement; ( ) defendant d d not wa ve h s r ght to enforce the arb trat on agreement by fa ng to f e a mot on to compe dur ng the short durat on of p a nt ff s nd v dua cause of act on; and ( v) the arb trat on agreement s not ega under the Nat ona Labor Re at ons Act or the Fa r Labor Standards Act.

West v. Legacy Motors, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-12101-RHC-RSW (E.D. Mich. Dec. 12, 2016) 12/12/2016

Court den ed mot on for recons derat on to compe arb trat on. Court determ ned that, even f, as p a nt ff a eged, the contract conta n ng the arb trat on prov s on was “backdated,” p a nt ff st had weeks to read the contract and opt out of the arb trat on prov s on w thout affect ng the ba ance of the agreement. Thus, the arb trat on c ause was not substant ve y unconsc onab e. S m ar y, the court re ected p a nt ff s content on that the arb trat on c ause s fee-sp tt ng prov s on t pped the sca e n favor of unconsc onab ty, because the prov s on made arb trat on, “ f anyth ng, more affordab e for P a nt ff than federa t gat on.”

Sanchez v. Elizondo, No. 3:15-CV-00474-RCJ-VPC (D. Nev. Dec. 12, 2016) 12/12/2016

Court granted pet t oner s mot on to vacate FINRA arb trat on award, ho d ng the arb trator comm tted error by proceed ng w th a s ng e arb trator over p a nt ff s ob ect on n v o at on of FINRA s Ru es.

Preferred Care of Delaware, Inc. v. Blankenship, No. 4:16-CV-00131-JHM-HBB (W.D. Ky. Dec. 12, 2016) 12/12/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on and stay proceed ngs. Court he d that the part es entered nto an agreement to arb trate that covers the exact type of c a ms defendant asserted n h s state court act on. Moreover, there are no federa c a ms asserted that are prec uded from arb trat on, and a , rather than some, of defendant s c a ms are sub ect to arb trat on. Therefore, the arb trat on agreement must be enforced.

Kailuan (Hong Kong) International Co., Ltd. v. Sino East Minerals, Ltd., No. 16 Civ. 2160-PKC (S.D.N.Y Dec. 9, 2016) 12/09/2016

Court den ed pet t oner s mot on to vacate award. Court he d that the arb tra tr buna acted w th n the scope of ts author ty s nce t dec ded ssues covered by the terms of reference and d d not ntent ona y gnore a c ear and unamb guous term n the contract or add new terms to t, but nstead prov ded the requ s te “bare y co orab e ust f cat on” for ts f nd ngs. Court a so den ed respondent s request for attorney s fees and costs ncurred n connect on w th oppos ng the app cat on.

Short v. Grayson, No. 1:16-CV-02150 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 9, 2016) 12/09/2016

Court compe ed arb trat on under 9 USC § 2 s nce p a nt ff conceded that there was a wr tten agreement to arb trate between her and the attorney defendants, the d spute was w th n the scope of the arb trat on agreement, and p a nt ff d d not assert facts support ng a f nd ng that the arb trat on c ause s procedura y unconsc onab e. Further, court re ected p a nt ff s argument that the arb trat on agreement was contrary to I no s pub c po cy, ho d ng that, wh e the v o at on of an attorney s respons b ty to fu y nform a c ent about an arb trat on c ause may create an attorney d sc p ne ssue, t does not sat sfy the heavy burden to demonstrate the ex stence of a pub c po cy bar.

Katsil v. Citibank, N.A., No. 3:16-CV-03694-AET-DEA (D.N.J. Dec. 8, 2016) 12/08/2016

Court den ed mot on to compe arb trat on, ho d ng that there was no ev dence of a contract between the part es and, therefore, an arb trat on agreement cannot app y.

Congdon v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-02499-YGR (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2016) 12/08/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on w th regard to p a nt ffs that had entered nto arb trat on agreements w th defendants and stayed the act on as to the same. Court he d that the ssue of arb trab ty was for the arb trator to dec de s nce the arb trat on agreement conta ned a c ear and unm stakab e de egat on c ause and that arb trat on d d not create obstac es n the effect ve v nd cat on of the these p a nt ffs r ghts, s nce defendants had agreed to pay the fu costs of arb trat on for p a nt ffs.

Cicogna v. 33Across Inc., No. 3:16-CV-02012-JLS-WVG (S.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2016) 12/08/2016

Court granted defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on, ho d ng that the arb trat on agreement s not substant ve y unconsc onab e under Ca forn a aw, and stayed the ud c a proceed ngs under 9 USC § 3 pend ng the outcome of any arb trat on.

SunLink Corporation v. American Capital Energy Inc., No. 1:15-CV-13606-ADB (D. Mass. Dec. 8, 2016) 12/08/2016

Court conf rmed arb trat on award, ho d ng that defendant had fa ed to t me y contest the award w th n the requ s te t me per ods under both the FAA and the Massachusetts Arb trat on Act.

Road to Victory, LLC v. 3rd and Long Productions, LLC, No. 8:16-CV-PWG (D. Md. Dec. 7, 2016) 12/07/2016

Court granted defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on and d sm ssed p a nt ff s c a ms, ho d ng that defendant had not met ts burden of demonstrat ng a genu ne d spute as to the va d ty, enforceab ty, or scope of the re evant arb trat on prov s on.

Archer and White Sales, Inc. v. Henry Schein, Inc., No. 2:12-CV-00572-JRG (E.D. Tex. Dec. 7, 2016) 12/07/2016

Court reversed and ordered vacatur of mag strate udge s order, den ed mot ons to compe arb trat on and fted stay of the proceed ngs. Court he d that there was a “pos t ve assurance” that no reasonab e nterpretat on of the arb trat on c ause wou d cover the d spute at ssue. Further, the gateway quest on of arb trab ty s for the court, not the arb trator, to dec de s nce the part es d d not c ear y and unm stakab y agree to arb trate the arb trab ty of the act on and defendants argument that p a nt ff s c a ms fa w th n the scope of the arb trat on c ause s who y ground ess.

Pirtek USA, LLC v. Twillman, No. 6:16-CV-01302-RBD-TBS (M.D. Fla. Dec. 7, 2016) 12/07/2016

Court granted p a nt ff s mot on to compe arb trat on and stay t gat on and d sm ssed defendants mot ons. Court he d that defendants had not met the r “heavy burden” to show that p a nt ff had wa ved ts r ght to arb trate c a ms for permanent n unct ve re ef by seek ng pre m nary n unct ve re ef n court.

Savarese v. J.P. Morgan Chase, No. 2:16-CV-00321-JFB-SIL (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2016) 12/07/2016

Court adopted the report and recommendat on of the mag strate udge to grant mot on to compe arb trat on and stay the present act on. In grant ng defendant s mot on, court accepted the mag strate udge s re ect on of each of p a nt ff s arguments, nc ud ng that h s e ectron c s gnature was nva d, he d d not reca s gn ng the arb trat on agreement, and such agreement was s gned under duress. Further, Court accepted that each of the c a ms fe under the scope of the arb trat on agreement and were arb trab e.

Seldin v. Seldin, No. 8:16-CV-00372-JFB-CRZ (D. Neb. Dec. 6, 2016) 12/06/2016

Court granted defendant s mot on to d sm ss, referred case to arb trat on, and den ed p a nt ff s mot ons. Court he d that p a nt ff s co atera y estopped from reassert ng h s c a ms n court and that res ud cata a so app es s nce p a nt ff had a ready been ordered by a d fferent court to arb trate h s c a ms under the part es va d and enforceab e arb trat on agreement. Even f ne ther co atera estoppe nor res ud cata app ed, re y ng on Ru e 7 of the AAA Commerc a Ru es, court he d that t wou d be for the arb trator, not the court, to determ ne n the f rst nstance whether the account ng c a ms at ssue are arb trab e.

Recom Corp. v. Miller Brothers, a Division of Wampole-Miller, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-03320-SRC-CLW (D.N.J. Dec. 6, 2016) 12/06/2016

Court granted respondent s mot on to conf rm arb trat on award aga nst pet t oner and, pursuant to Federa Ru es of C v Procedure Ru e 54(b), entered f na udgment of conf rmat on of the award aga nst pet t oner. Court den ed pet t oner s on y defense to conf rmat on, f nd ng that the court had a ready ru ed n ts order vacat ng the arb trat on award that pet t oner d d not have stand ng to assert that the arb tra tr buna exceeded ts powers n mak ng the award aga nst not on y pet t oner, but a so ts parents, successors, aff ates, and ass gns.

Peterson v. Islamic Republic, No. 1:01-CV-02094-RCL (D.D.C. Dec. 6, 2016) 12/06/2016

Court den ed counter mot on to compe arb trat on, ho d ng p a nt ffs d d not agree to, or were otherw se bound by, the re evant arb trat on agreement, and there are no d sputes or pet t ons before the court wh ch cou d ust fy an order to compe arb trat on under 9 USC §§ 3 and 4.

Inversiones Y Procesadora Tropical Inprotsa S.A. v. Del Monte International GMBH, No. 1:16-CV-24275-FAM (S.D. Fla. Dec. 6, 2016 12/06/2016

Court granted mot on to d sm ss pet t on to vacate f na arb tra award, f nd ng that pet t oner fa ed to ra se any New York Convent on grounds as necessary to vacate a fore gn arb tra award and re ect ng pet t oner s re ance on F or da aw.

Ascendant Renewable Energy Corporation v. Soaring Wind Energy, LLC, et al, No. 3:16-CV-750-K (N.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2016) 12/05/2016

Court granted mot on to d sm ss for ack of sub ect matter ur sd ct on movant s pet t on to vacate arb trat on award and d sm ssed the case. Court he d there s no onger a case or controversy to be dec ded by t because respondents had ssued a covenant mak ng t “abso ute y c ear” that they w not seek to conf rm the arb trat on award aga nst movant.

McNeill v. Raymour & Flanigan Furniture, No. 6:15-CV-01473-GTS-TWD (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2016) 12/05/2016

Court granted defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on, ho d ng that defendant had successfu y estab shed the ex stence of va d agreements to arb trate s nce p a nt ff fa ed to subm t suff c ent adm ss b e ev dence to the contrary. Moreover, the c a ms are arb trab e and the arb trat on agreements at ssue not unconsc onab e. Court further stayed the proceed ngs pend ng arb trat on, f nd ng that, wh e not mandatory, a stay s appropr ate n ght of p a nt ff s pro se status.

Snedden v. Perkins & Marie Callender's Inc., No. 1:16-CV-668 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 5, 2016) 12/05/2016

Court granted defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on and stayed c v act on under § 3 of the FAA, ho d ng that the part es had conc uded a va d and enforceab e arb trat on agreement. Court found that arb trat on agreement was not usory s nce t was not an arb trat on d sc a mer n an emp oyee handbook but a stand-a one agreement and d d not ack cons derat on n v ew of the p a nt ff s cont nued emp oyment by defendant. Further, court he d that t was not fata y amb guous s nce the method for appo ntment of arb trators cou d be determ ned under § 5 of the FAA; the terms and scope of d scovery was c ear based on the agreement s ncorporat on of the federa ru es of procedure and ev dence; and the agreement s s ence as to the arb trat on costs s per se nsuff c ent to render an arb trat on agreement unenforceab e.

Nationwide Insurance Company of America v. Marquez, No. 2:16-CV-01978-WHO (E.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2016) 12/05/2016

Court den ed defendant s mot on to d sm ss p a nt ff s c a m for dec aratory re ef, ho d ng that the ssue n d spute was not w th n the scope of the part es arb trat on agreement. Accord ng y, court found t had sub ect matter ur sd ct on over p a nt ff s c a m.

Franklin v. H&R Block, No. 4:16-CV-666-JAR (E.D. Mo. Dec. 2, 2016) 12/02/2016

Court granted defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on, stayed the proceed ngs pend ng arb trat on, and den ed defendant s mot on to d sm ss p a nt ff s comp a nt. Court he d that the part es arb trat on agreement s va d and enforceab e and the c a ms at ssue are w th n the scope of the arb trat on agreement.

Milan Express Co., Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co., Inc., No. 16-5270 (6th Cir. Dec. 2, 2016) 12/02/2016

Court dec ned to exerc se appe ate ur sd ct on and dec de the va d ty of the arb trat on award, ho d ng that the d str ct court s non-dec s on on the mot on to vacate the arb trat on award was not an mp ed den a of the mot on. Court he d that the d str ct court s s ence was cons stent w th the rat ona e for ts forum-non-conven ens d sm ssa and the part es express agreement to t gate the va d ty of the award n the courts of Nebraska. Th s was a so cons stent w th the FAA, wh ch prov des that udgment on the va d ty of an arb trat on award sha be sought n the court spec f ed by the part es n the r agreement.

Zambrana v. Pressler and Pressler, LLP, No. 1:16-CV-02907-VEC (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2016) 12/02/2016

Court granted defendants mot on to compe arb trat on, ho d ng a va d arb trat on agreement ex sted n p a nt ff s cardho der agreement. Court a so he d that defendants adequate y estab shed p a nt ff s cred t card account was ass gned to them, and thus the defendants cou d enforce the arb trat on agreement.

Trs. for the Mason Tenders Dist. Council Welfare Fund v. Premier Bridging & Scaffolding Ltd., No. 1:16-CV-04921-LGS (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2016) 12/02/2016

Court granted p a nt ffs mot on for summary udgment to conf rm and enforce an arb trat on award. Court found that the arb trator s dec s on cou d be c ear y nferred from the facts of the case, and as such, conf rmed the award.

Franklin v. H&R Block, et al., No. 4:16-CV-00666-JAR (E.D. Mo. Dec. 2, 2016) 12/02/2016

Court granted defendants mot on to compe arb trat on. App y ng M ssour state aw, court he d that a va d offer to arb trate was extended; p a nt ff accepted the offer by s gn ng the arb trat on agreement; there was adequate cons derat on because both part es wa ved the r r ghts to t gate the emp oyment-re ated c a ms; and there was no d spute that the c a ms arose out of or were re ated to p a nt ff s emp oyment.

Doctor’s Assocs. Inc. v. Pahwa, No. 3:16-CV-00446-JCH (D. Conn. Dec. 2, 2016) 12/02/2016

Court aff rmed mag strate udge s recommendat on to grant p a nt ff s pet t on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that arb trat on was proper because ( ) the outstand ng ssues defendants c a med shou d be dec ded by the court before compe ng arb trat on were ssues to be dec ded by the arb trator and ( ) the case aw c ted by defendants was nappos te.

Linglong Americas v. Horizon Tire, No. 16-3520 (6th Cir. Dec. 1, 2016) 12/01/2016

Court aff rmed d str ct court s refusa to compe arb trat on. Court he d that the arb trat on c ause d d not surv ve the contract, wh ch had exp red four years ear er, because the vast ma or ty of events occurred after exp ry and there was no contractua r ght n d spute that surv ved the contract.

Watermill Ventures, LTD. v. Capello Capital Corp., No. 15-55145 (9th Cir. Dec. 1, 2016) 12/01/2016

Court aff rmed the d str ct court s den a of the mot on to compe arb trat on. Court found that the d str ct court correct y conc uded that the ass gnment of r ghts to the arb trat on proceeds was not a mater a breach of the sett ement agreement, and thus d d not excuse p a nt ff-appe ants from the r duty to arb trate under that contract.

Asphalt Trader Ltd. v. Taryn Capital Energy, L.L.C., No. 1:16-CV-00054-JNP-EJF (D. Utah Dec. 1, 2016) 12/01/2016

Court granted pet t on to conf rm fore gn award and enter udgment. Court a so agreed to convert port ons of the award or g na y rendered n Br t sh pounds to U.S. do ars because th s “ s the norm, rather than the except on.” Court found that the exchange rate on the day the respondent s ob gat on to pay costs and fees arose was the app cab e rate for convers on.

Sadjdlowska v. Guardian Services. Industries, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-03947-PAE (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2016) 12/01/2016

Court referred p a nt ff s c a ms to arb trat on and stayed the act on pend ng the outcome of the arb trat on. Court re ected p a nt ff s arguments that the defendants wa ved the r r ght to arb trat on by un ust f ab y de ay ng arb trat on and that an attachment to the agreement a owed p a nt ff to bypass arb trat on and f e the act on n federa court. Both these ssues are for the arb trator to dec de.

Gregorius v. NPC Int’l, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-593-FTM-99MRM (M.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2016) 11/30/2016

Court compe ed nd v dua arb trat on . Court found that the ev dence was suff c ent to estab sh the ex stence of an arb trat on agreement, nc ud ng ev dence that p a nt ff at east e ectron ca y opened the agreement and e ectron ca y s gned t. Court a so uphe d the c ass arb trat on wa ver n the arb trat on agreement.

Singh v. Interactive Brokers LLC, No. 2:16-CV-00277-RGD-DEM (E.D. Va. Nov. 30, 2016) 11/30/2016

Court granted mot ons to compe arb trat on, f nd ng that a mandatory arb trat on c ause was not nva dated by the p a nt ffs fa ure to s gn the contract. Court a so re ected p a nt ffs argument that defendant s fa ure to comp y w th FINRA Ru e 2268 was suff c ent to render nu and vo d an otherw se va d arb trat on agreement under the FAA.

Shah v. Blue Wake Shipping, No. 2:16-CV-00529-PM-KK (W.D. La. Nov. 30, 2016) 11/30/2016

Court adopted the report and recommendat on of the mag strate udge and den ed p a nt ff s mot on for remand. Mag strate udge found that the arb trat on agreement, wh ch was conta ned w th n an emp oyment contract s gned by the p a nt ff and an agent of the defendant, was b nd ng and d d not m t the type of c a m or the part es e g b e for arb trat on.

Hardy Exploration & Prod. (India), Inc. v. Gov’t of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, No. 1:16-CV- 00140-RC (D.D.C. Nov. 30, 2016) 11/30/2016

Court granted n part and den ed n part mot on to d sm ss pet t on to conf rm an arb trat on award because pet t oner had served the respondent us ng Federa Express, wh ch was nsuff c ent under the Fore gn Sovere gn Immun ty Act. Court he d that pet t oner wou d be g ven another opportun ty to attempt serv ce on the respondent.

Global Liquidity Partners, LLC v. Wegher, No. 3:16-CV-02439-MAS-LHG (D.N.J. Nov. 30, 2016) 11/30/2016

Court granted pet t on to conf rm arb trat on award and den ed cross-mot on to vacate the award. Court re ected respondents argument that the arb trator s fam ar ty w th pet t oners counse const tuted b as, and he d that the respondents had wa ved any ob ect on regard ng ate o nder by spec f ca y stat ng on record that they had no add t ona ev dence to present n support of the r case.

Cowsette v. Federal National Mortgage Assoc., No. 3:16-CV-02430-L (N.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2016) 11/30/2016

Court accepted the f nd ngs of the mag strate udge and granted defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on. Mag strate udge emp oyed the f fth c rcu t s two-step nqu ry for dec d ng a mot on to compe arb trat on under the FAA, wh ch ooks at ( ) whether the part es agreed to arb trate the ssue and ( ) whether any ega restra nts externa to the agreement forec ose the arb trat on of the d spute. The mag strate udge determ ned that the arb trat on agreement was va d because p a nt ff conf rmed rece pt of the arb trat on agreement conta ned n her emp oyment contract and cont nued to work for the defendant.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 2150 v. Nextera Energy Point Beach LLC, (E.D. Wis. November 30, 2016) 11/30/2016

Court den ed mot on for summary udgment and granted p a nt ff s mot on for summary udgment, ho d ng that there was no exp c t exc us on or pos t ve assurance that part es ntended to exc ude unescorted access dec s ons from arb trat on. Court found that arb trat on c ause was broad enough to tr gger a presumpt on of arb trab ty. Court found that defendant s nterna rev ew processes for th s ssue d d not prov de assurance of a purposefu ntent to exc ude those determ nat ons from arb trat on, and that pr or arb tra awards f nd ng to the contrary, part cu ar y nvo v ng d fferent part es and arb trat on agreements, were not precedent a .

Worth v. Worth, No. 2:16-CV-03877-MAK (E.D. Pa. Nov. 29, 2016) 11/29/2016

Court den ed mot on to compe arb trat on, ho d ng that most of p a nt ff s c a ms fe w th n a carve-out n the arb trat on c ause for “matters re ated to the operat on and management of the company.” On the rema n ng m nor ty oppress on c a m, court found that defendants wa ved the r r ght to arb trate after aggress ve y t gat ng the c a m for n ne months.

Rossman v. A.R.M. Corp., No. 1:16-CV-00493 WCG (E.D. Wis. Nov. 29, 2016) 11/29/2016

Court granted mot on to d sm ss or stay pend ng arb trat on. Court determ ned that whether the arb trat on agreement conf cts w th a non-wa vab e statutory r ght was a quest on for the court to dec de. In turn, court re ected p a nt ff s argument that the arb trat on agreement was unconsc onab e because t was n a weaker barga n ng pos t on compared to the other s gnatory.

Pocalyko v. Baker Tilly Virchow Crouse, LLP, No. 2:16-CV-03637-MMB (E.D. Pa. Nov. 29, 2016) 11/29/2016

Court granted mot on to d sm ss comp a nt and compe arb trat on. Court he d that s nce the p a nt ff cha enged the agreement as a who e, rather than the de egat on of author ty to the arb trator n part cu ar, p a nt ff s cha enges to the enforceab ty and app cab ty of the arb trat on c ause shou d be dec ded by the arb trator.

Calderon v. Total Wealth Management, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-01632-BEN-NLS (S.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2016) 11/29/2016

Court granted mot on to d sm ss, vacated mot on to stay pend ng arb trat on as moot, and d sm ssed c a ms. Court he d that p a nt ff s cha enge to the va d ty of the part es ent re contract conta n ng the arb trat on c ause s to be dec ded by arb trat on under §§ 3 and 4 of the FAA, not ng that the p a nt ffs d d not separate y c a m that the arb trat on c ause tse f was fraudu ent y nduced.

Reliant Pro Rehab, LLC v. Atkins, No. 3:16-CV-00920-M (N.D. Tex. Nov. 28, 2016) 11/28/2016

Court transferred the case to the M dd e D str ct of F or da due to ack of persona ur sd ct on over non-s gnator es to the arb trat on agreement. Court he d that p a nt ff fa ed to show that the forum se ect on c ause app ed to the non-s gnator es and re ected p a nt ff s arguments based on the ntertw ned c a ms theory of estoppe —because t on y app es to non-s gnator es br ng ng c a ms aga nst s gnator es—and found that d rect benef ts estoppe d d not app y.

Reading Joint Apprentice and Electric Committee v. Hiester, No. 5:16-CV-04306-JFL (E.D. Pa. Nov. 28, 2016) 11/28/2016

Court den ed request to conf rm arb trat on award due to ack of sub ect matter ur sd ct on. Court he d that wh e § 9 of the FAA a ows a party to app y to a court for an order conf rm ng an arb trat on award f the part es contemp ated do ng so n the r arb trat on agreement, the FAA does not prov de a bas s for federa sub ect matter ur sd ct on to hear an app cat on to conf rm an award. Instead, ur sd ct on must ar se from the quest ons presented by the § 9 app cat on tse f.

Trs. of the New York City Dist. Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, v. Jessica Rose Enters. Corp., No. 1:15-CV-09040-RA (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 2016) 11/28/2016

Court granted pet t on to conf rm arb trat on award and awarded pre udgment nterest and attorney s fees. Court conf rmed the award after f nd ng that there was no d spute as to whether arb trat on was appropr ate, whether the arb trator acted w th n the scope of h s author ty, or the amount owed. Court a so determ ned that, a though the FAA does not prov de for attorney s fees n act ons to conf rm arb trat on awards, a d str ct court a ways can award attorney s fees where the os ng party has acted n bad fa th.

Servpro Intellectual Property, Inc. v. Stellar Emarketing, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-01267 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 28, 2016) 11/28/2016

Court granted a th rd-party defendant s mot on to stay or d sm ss pend ng arb trat on. Court determ ned that the th rd-party defendant d d not wa ve ts r ght to arb trat on by f ng mot ons, part c pat ng n sett ement conferences, and part c pat ng n d scovery. Court a so re ected p a nt ff s argument that a de ay n assert ng arb trat on r ghts cou d be cons dered a wa ver, as there was noth ng n the FAA that suggested that a party oses ts arb trat on r ghts mere y by fa ng to exerc se them at the ear est poss b e opportun ty.

Fellows v. Sundahl, No. 2:16-CV-00785-JNP-PMW (D. Utah Nov. 28, 2016) 11/28/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on and stay t gat on. Court he d that p a nt ff fa ed to d spute the ex stence or app cab ty of the agreement s arb trat on c ause and that the anguage of the arb trat on prov s on was broad enough to encompass the under y ng d spute.

New York City Dist. Council of Carpenters v. Best Made Floors, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-03429-ARR-ST (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 2016) 11/23/2016

Court granted mot ons to conf rm two arb trat on awards and perm tted pet t oner to f e a new mot on seek ng to mod fy a th rd award, re ect ng mot ons to vacate a three awards. Court re ected procedura cha enges to the awards, pr mar y re at ng to the ev dent ary record dur ng the arb trat ons and the suff c ency of not ce.

Pine Tree Villa, LLC v. Lasley, No. 3:16-CV-00570-DJH (W.D. Ky. Nov. 23, 2016) 11/23/2016

Court granted mot on to d sm ss pet t on to conf rm arb trat on award for ack of sub ect matter ur sd ct on, f nd ng that FAA does not create federa sub ect matter ur sd ct on and that the “under y ng substant ve controversy” concerned state aw.

SprinkleBit Holding, Inc. v. MJD Interactive Agency, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-01324-W-BGS (S.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2016) 11/23/2016

Court granted mot on to stay proceed ngs pend ng conc us on of concurrent arb tra proceed ngs nvo v ng re ated c a ms and re ated part es.

Davis v. Vanguard Home Care, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-07277 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 22, 2016) 11/22/2016

Court re ected mot on to d sm ss n favor of arb trat on, f nd ng that seventh c rcu t precedent barr ng enforcement of c ass arb trat on wa vers n emp oyment contracts was app cab e and that, n the absence of a de egat on c ause, the quest on was for the court, not the arb trator, to dec de.

Martinez v. Utilimap Corp., No. 3:14-CV-00310-JPG-PGW (S.D. Ill. Nov. 22, 2016) 11/22/2016

Court granted mot on to conf rm arb trat on award, f nd ng that the part es de egated the quest on of c ass arb trab ty to the arb trator by choos ng to arb trate under AAA arb trat on ru es, and that arb trator s ana ys s ref ected a dut fu nterpretat on of the arb trat on agreement, “whether t be r ght or wrong.”

St. Pierre v. Advanced Call Ctr. Techs., LLC, No. 2:15-CV-02415-JAD-NJK (D. Nev. Nov. 22, 2016) 11/22/2016

Court granted mot on to d sm ss and compe ed arb trat on, f nd ng that defendant cou d nvoke an arb trat on c ause n an agreement between the p a nt ff and a th rd party s nce defendant served as the th rd party s agent n perform ng the acts at ssue.

Trs. of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labor-Mgm’t Cooperation, Pension & Welfare Funds v. C.R. Edwards Constr. Corp., No. 2:15-CV-05232-JFBARL (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2016) 11/22/2016

Court granted mot on to conf rm abor arb trat on award, f nd ng that the award drew ts essence from the part es agreement and was based on uncontroverted ev dence.

Pacific West Securities, Inc. v. George, No. 14-15628 (9th Cir. Nov. 22, 2016) 11/22/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed d str ct court s den a of mot on to vacate an arb tra award and grant ng mot on to conf rm the award, f nd ng that defendants fa ed to show ev dent part a ty or pre ud c a m sconduct or m sbehav or.

UBS Fin. Servs. v. Padussis, No. 15-2148 (4th Cir. Nov. 22, 2016) 11/22/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed den a of mot on to vacate an arb tra award, f nd ng that FINRA s refusa to extend dead ne for responses str k ng arb trators off of pane sts was w th n ts d scret on and app y ng setoff between the amounts awarded for the c a m and counterc a m wou d mperm ss b y mod fy the award.

Collier v. RD Am., LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00194-MOC-DSC (W.D.N.C. Nov. 22, 2016) 11/22/2016

Court den ed mot on for udgment on the p ead ngs, f nd ng that p a nt ffs adequate y a eged that they acked actua not ce of the terms of the arb trat on agreement, where, desp te s gn ng an acknow edgement that they “have read” and “have rece ved a copy of” the arb trat on agreement, they c a med that they never were n fact prov ded w th a copy of the arb trat on agreement.

Ji’An Grp. Co., Ltd. v. Rock-Tenn CP, LLP, No. 1:15-CV-03258-MHC (N.D. Ga. Nov. 22, 2016) 11/22/2016

Court den ed pet t on to conf rm arb trat on award, f nd ng that pet t oner fa ed to estab sh that respondent ever rece ved not ce of the arb trat on, and thus den a pursuant to the New York Convent on was proper under grounds re at ng to ack of not ce and mproper format on of the tr buna .

Local 210 Warehouse & Prod. Emps. Union, AFL-CIO v. Envtl. Servs., Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00756-JFB-SIL (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2016) 11/22/2016

Court den ed mot on to vacate an arb tra award and granted mot on for summary udgment conf rm ng the award, f nd ng that arb trator s fa ure to ho d an ev dent ary hear ng d d not depr ve p a nt ffs of fundamenta fa rness or exceed the arb trator s contractua powers desp te contractua anguage stat ng that the arb trator sha conduct a hear ng. And n any event the argument was wa ved by the p a nt ffs fa ure to ra se t n the arb trat on.

Sandor v. General Electric Co., No. 1:16-CV-01670-JG (N.D. Ohio Nov. 22, 2016) 11/22/2016

Court den ed mot on to compe arb trat on, f nd ng that emp oyee acked actua not ce that she had agreed to arb trate g ven that emp oyer had not nformed her that acceptance of emp oyment agreement conta n ng arb trat on c ause was a cond t on of cont nued emp oyment.

Trs. of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labor-Mgm’t Cooperation, Pension & Welfare Funds v. Bayview Custom Constr. Corp., No. 2:15-CV-06574JFB-ARL (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2016) 11/22/2016

Court granted mot on to conf rm abor arb trat on award, f nd ng that the award app es the re evant ega prov s ons “to the etter.”

Ragab v. Howard, No. 15-1444 (10th Cir. Nov. 21, 2016) 11/21/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed d str ct court s den a of mot on to compe arb trat on, f nd ng that ncons stenc es among mu t p e arb trat on prov s ons n a package of contracts prevented a meet ng of the m nds.

Parnell v. Western Sky Fin., LLC, No. 16-11369 (11th Cir. Nov. 21, 2016) 11/21/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed d str ct court s den a of mot on to compe arb trat on, app y ng contro ng precedent concern ng same arb trat on prov s on that had found that des gnated arb trator was unava ab e but “ ntegra ” to the oan agreement.

Color-Web, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Heavy Indus. Printing & Packaging Mach., Ltd., No. 1:16-CV-01435-DLC (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2016) 11/21/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on, f nd ng that non-s gnatory defendants cou d re y on an arb trat on c ause because the c a ms aga nst them were the “same d spute” as those aga nst the defendant that s gned the contract conta n ng the arb trat on c ause, and non-s gnatory p a nt ffs were bound by estoppe due to the r rece pt of a d rect benef t from the contract conta n ng the arb trat on c ause.

Greene v. IPA/UPS Sys. Bd. of Adjustment, No. 3:15-CV-00234-TBR (W.D. Ky. Nov. 21, 2016) 11/21/2016

Court granted defendants mot on for summary udgment, f nd ng that there were no va d grounds for vacat ng the arb trat on award.

Humana Ins. Co. v. Tenet Health Sys., No. 3:16-CV-02919-B (N.D. Tex. Nov. 21, 2016) 11/21/2016

Court den ed mot on for a pre m nary n unct on pend ng the arb trat on pane s dec s on, f nd ng that the movant had fa ed to make a c ear show ng that t s ke y to succeed on the mer ts or that t or others are ke y to suffer rreparab e harm n the absence of pre m nary n unct ve re ef.

One Man Band Corp. v. Smith, No. 2:14-CV-00221-TS (D. Utah Nov. 21, 2016) 11/21/2016

Court granted mot on to conf rm f na arb trat on award but re ected mot on to transfer property, f nd ng that there was no ground under the FAA for refus ng conf rmat on but that t was premature to seek execut on under Fed. R. C v. P. 70 s nce add t ona c a ms rema ned for tr a .

Anheuser-Busch, LLC, v. Local 1, Int’l Bhd. Of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO, No. 4:16-CV-00990-SNLJ (E.D. Mo. Nov. 18, 2016) 11/18/2016

Court granted mot on for summary udgment and vacated arb trat on award, f nd ng that the arb trator had app ed ega prov s ons that t recogn zed were napp cab e.

Evans v. Nissan Extended Servs. N. Am., Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00628-JLH (E.D. Ark. Nov. 18, 2016) 11/18/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on, f nd ng that the arb trat on agreement d d not unconsc onab y prec ude recovery of statutory fees and costs, and that the quest on of whether p a nt ff s c a m fe w th n the scope of the arb trat on agreement was a quest on of arb trab ty that the part es agreed to arb trate.

Trs. of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labor-Mgm’t Cooperation, Pension & Welfare Funds v. Allied Design & Constr., LLC, No. 2:15-CV-03854-JFBGRB (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2016) 11/18/2016

Court granted mot on to conf rm abor arb trat on award, f nd ng that the award app es the re evant ega prov s ons “to the etter.”

Tompkins-Cortland Counties Building & Construction Trades Council, Maintenance Division v. Cornell University, No. 5:16-CV-00429-MAD-ATB (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2016) 11/18/2016

Court den ed defendant s mot on to d sm ss the c a ms. Court he d that, a though the part es agreed to arb trate the mer ts of the under y ng d spute, because there s no “c ear and unm stakab e ev dence” that the part es ntended to subm t the ssue of arb trab ty to the arb trator, the quest on of arb trab ty s proper y before the court.

Owens v. American Arbitration Association, No. 16-1055 (8th Cir. Nov. 18, 2016) 11/18/2016

Court aff rmed d sm ssa of p a nt ff-appe ant s c a ms based on arb tra mmun ty. Owens sued the AAA for breach of contract, un ust enr chment, tort ous nterference w th contract, and tort ous nterference w th prospect ve econom c advantage after the AAA removed an arb trator from a three-member arb trat on pane w thout ho d ng a hear ng, consu t ng the removed arb trator, or nform ng Owens. Appe ate court conc uded that the remova of arb trators s protected by arb tra mmun ty, wh ch protects sponsor ng organ zat ons from c v ab ty at a stages of the arb trat on process.

Cooper v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00471-JTN-ESC (W.D. Mich. Nov. 18, 2016) 11/18/2016

Court den ed p a nt ffs mot on to compe arb trat on, ho d ng that the co ect ve barga n ng agreement at ssue on y governed the re at onsh p between defendant s act ve emp oyees and defendant. As a resu t, court conc uded that there was no va d agreement to arb trate between p a nt ffs, a group of ret red emp oyees, and defendant.

Purvis v. Cavalry SPV II, LLC., No. 2:15-CV-188 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 17, 2016) 11/17/2016

Court granted defendant s mot on to conf rm arb trat on award pursuant to §9 of the FAA. P a nt ff who prev ous y opposed defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on consented to enforcement.

Dallas Digital Signs & Graphics v. Bunting Graphics, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00923-A-JM (N.D. Tex. Nov. 17, 2016) 11/17/2016

Court granted defendants mot on to compe arb trat on, f nd ng that the contract between the p a nt ff and one defendant prov ded for arb trat on, and the other defendant wou d be ab e for any c a ms unpa d by the defendant and thus bound to arb trate as we .

Infrassure, Ltd. v. First Mutual Transportation Assurance Co., No. 16-306 (2d Cir. Nov. 16, 2016) 11/16/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed d str ct court s pr or dec s on, f nd ng that, between two compet ng arb trat on agreements executed by the part es, the arb trat on agreement n the body of the contract contro ed.

Trustees for the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. One Ten Restoration Corp., No. 1:15-CV-10000-JPO (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2016) 11/16/2016

Court granted mot on to conf rm a defau t arb trat on award. Court he d the defendant rece ved suff c ent not ce of the arb trat on from both the p a nt ffs and the arb trator, and that the arb trator had a suff c ent bas s to conc ude that the necessary procedures had been fo owed and there was no den a of fundamenta fa rness.

Quiroz v. Cavalry SPV I, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-04779-JFW-E (C.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2016) 11/16/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on, f nd ng that a cred t card agreement d d not have to be s gned to be b nd ng; that fa ure to prov de defendant w th a eged y requ red not ce mp cated the va d ty of the cred t card agreement as a who e, rather than ust the arb trat on prov s on, and thus was a quest on to be determ ned n arb trat on; and arb trat on agreement was not unconsc onab e s nce the defendant cou d have opted out.

In re Ex Parte Application of Kleimar N.V., No. 1:16-MC-00355-P1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2016) 11/16/2016

Court den ed mot ons to vacate an ex parte d scovery order and to quash a subpoena duces tecum. Court found that th rd-party acked stand ng to vacate the ex parte d scovery order d rected aga nst the defendant. As to the subpoena duces tecum, wh ch was d rected at the th rd-party, court he d: ( ) th rd-party had suff c ent y s gn f cant contacts w th New York to be cons dered a res dent for the purposes of 28 USC § 1782; ( ) second c rcu t precedent ho d ng pr vate fore gn arb trat ons fa outs de the scope of “fore gn tr buna s” for the purposes of 28 USC § 1782 s no onger determ nat ve n ght of subsequent US Supreme Court d cta; ( ) subpoena s ne ther a conf dent a ty concern nor an undue burden n ght of agreement by party request ng subpoena to narrow ts scope and consent to a protect ve order; and ( v) serv ce on th rd-party s n-state agent was suff c ent.

20/20 Communications, Inc. v. Blevins, No. 4:16-CV-00810-Y (N.D. Tex. Nov. 15, 2016) 11/15/2016

Court den ed mot on for a temporary restra n ng order aga nst arb trat ng ssues n d spute among the part es. Court he d that p a nt ff fa ed to demonstrate a ke hood of success on the mer ts or demonstrate an appropr ate ba ance of party and pub c nterest.

Robinson v. EOR-ARK, LLC, No. 15-3406 (8th Cir. Nov. 14, 2016) 11/14/2016

Court d sm ssed comp a nt and compe ed arb trat on, ho d ng that arb trat on agreement was enforceab e under Arkansas aw even f none of the arb tra fora foreseen under the arb trat on agreement were ava ab e, s nce n that case the arb trator wou d be appo nted by the court under 9 USC § 5. Court further he d that the arb trat on agreement was enforceab e even aga nst non-s gnatory defendants, s nce they were c ose y re ated to the s gnatory defendants and arb trat on therefore s appropr ate.

Linley Invs. v. Jamgotchian, No. 14-56437 (9th Cir. Nov. 14, 2016) 11/14/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed d str ct court s conf rmat on of arb trat on awards under the New York Convent on, re ect ng cha enges based on suff c ency of not ce of the arb tra proceed ngs, arb trator appo ntment, and pub c po cy.

Smagin v. Yegiazaryan, No. 2:14-CV-09764-R (C.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2016) 11/14/2016

Court granted app cat on for a post- udgment n unct on freez ng an award debtor s wor dw de assets, f nd ng the award debtor was sub ect to persona ur sd ct on and had a record of concea ng the true benef c a of assets.

Metlife Securities, Inc. v. Holt, No. 2:16-CV-32 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 14, 2016) 11/14/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on, ho d ng that the respondent fa ed to sat sfy the burden of ra s ng a genu ne ssue of mater a fact as to the enforceab ty of an arb trat on agreement, and therefore the court must compe arb trat on of the re evant c a ms.

GoPro Hong Kong Ltd. v. 2B Trading, Inc., No. 16-CV-05113-JD (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2016) 11/14/2016

Court den ed defendant s mot on to d sm ss p a nt ff s pet t on to enforce the arb tra award. Court he d that, nter a a, the presence of federa - aw ssues re ated to fore gn arb trat on we ghed n favor the act on be ng heard n federa court n c rcumstances where the defendant ssued state court proceed ngs to vacate the award.

Aria Fire Systems, Inc. v. Sprinkler Fitters UA Local 709, No. 2:16-CV-03522-CAS-RAO (C.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2016) 11/14/2016

Court granted mot on for summary udgment seek ng enforcement of an arb trat on award. Court he d that the arb trator s nterpretat on of the agreement must be uphe d “as ong as the arb trator s even arguab y constru ng or app y ng the contract and act ng w th n the scope of h s author ty,” and that the arb trator proper y reso ved the ssues before h m.

Osprey Partners RSF LLC v. UBS Financial Services Inc., No. 3:16-CV-04894-WHA (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2016) 11/14/2016

Court den ed mot on to compe arb trat on, ho d ng that the arb trat on agreement at ssue cou d not be construed to encompass c a ms that were not w th n the scope of the under y ng contract.

Fang v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-06071-JD (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2016) 11/10/2016

Court den ed p a nt ff s mot on for a temporary restra n ng order and/or pre m nary n unct on request ng the court to d sm ss an ongo ng arb trat on nvo v ng the part es. Court he d that n unct ve re ef was not warranted because p a nt ff made no show ng that she was ke y to suffer rreparab e hard n the absence of pre m nary re ef; that the ba ance of equ t es t pped n her favor; and that an n unct on was n the pub c nterest.

Snyder v. Cach, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00097-ACK-KJM (D. Haw. Nov. 10, 2016) 11/10/2016

Court granted defendants mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that the part es had entered nto a va d arb trat on agreement wh ch covered the d spute at ssue. Court a so he d that p a nt ff fa ed ra se a mer tor ous defense to arb trat on.

Sopinski v. Lackawanna Cnty., No. 3:16-CV-00466-PDM (M.D. Pa. Nov. 10, 2016) 11/10/2016

Court granted mot on by an arb trator to quash a subpoena for depos t on. Court he d that, a though arb trators may be deposed on ssues of a eged b as or pre ud ce, where an arb trator prev ous y d sc osed a conf cts of nterest to p a nt ff, the arb trator was ent t ed to assert her test mon a pr v ege.

Elmore v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No 2:16-CV-05603-ODW-AS (C.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2016) 11/09/2016

Court granted defendants mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that an arb trat on agreement, wh ch states that ssues to be arb trated “ nc ude d sputes ar s ng out of or re at ng to the va d ty, enforceab ty or breach of th s [agreement],” demonstrated the part es ntent to arb trate the ssue of arb trab ty. Court further he d that a of p a nt ff s c a ms fe w th n the scope of the part es arb trat on agreement.

Powers Distrib. Co., Inc. v. Grenzebach Corp., No. 4:16-CV-12740-TGB-EAS (E.D. Mich. Nov. 9, 2016) 11/09/2016

Court den ed defendant s mot on to d sm ss on the grounds that the d spute must be arb trated. Court he d that a though the c a ms, as drafted, were sub ect to arb trat on, the mot on to d sm ss shou d be den ed w thout pre ud ce because p a nt ff requested ora argument and asked to amend ts comp a nt.

Trs. of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labor-Management Cooperation, Pension, and Welfare Funds v. Akwesasne Const., Inc., No. 2:15-CV-06449ADS-AYS (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2016) 11/08/2016

Court granted pet t oners mot on to conf rm an arb trat on award. Court he d that pursuant to a mag strate udge s recommendat on, the arb trat on award shou d be conf rmed because respondent fa ed to f e any ob ect on to the mag strate udge s recommendat on and the recommendat on was free from error.

United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 653 v. Fresh Seasons Market, LLC, No. 0:15-CV-03910-PJS-TNL (D. Minn. Nov. 8, 2016) 11/08/2016

Court den ed defendants mot on to stay an order compe ng arb trat on pend ng the outcome of defendants appea of the court s order. Court he d a stay was not warranted because ( ) defendant fa ed to make a strong show ng that ts appea wou d be successfu ; ( ) the cost of subm tt ng to arb trat on was not an rreparab e harm; ( ) a stay wou d pre ud ce p a nt ff by further de ay ng a case that had a ready asted severa years; and ( v) there s a strong federa po cy favor ng arb trat ng d sputes n genera and abor d sputes n part cu ar.

Preferred Care, Inc. v. Bleeker, No. 7:16-CV-00152-ART-EBA (E.D. Ky. Nov. 8, 2016) 11/08/2016

Court granted mot on to d sm ss p a nt ffs c a ms to enforce an arb trat on agreement between the part es. Court he d that a though the arb trat on agreement bound the defendant, the adm n strator of the deceased s estate, t d d not b nd a ser es of wrongfu -death benef c ar es, whom the defendant had ra sed c a ms on beha f of, because the benef c ar es were not part es to the arb trat on agreement.

U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Waterfront Assocs., Inc., No. 1:15-CV-00046-SSB-SKB (S.D. Ohio Nov. 8, 2016) 11/08/2016

Court den ed th rd-party defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on and stay proceed ngs. Court he d that the arb trat on agreement between the p a nt ff and th rd-party defendant d d not app y to the ssue n d spute because the agreement was made before the events g v ng r se to the t gat on occurred and the p a n anguage of the agreement exc uded the ssue n d spute from the scope of the arb trat on c ause.

McKinnon v. Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., No. 4:12-CV-04457-YGR (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2016) 11/07/2016

Court granted p a nt ffs mot on to ntervene. Court he d nter a a that the ex stence of an arb trat on prov s on n an agreement between an ntervenor and defendants was not suff c ent reason to deny p a nt ff s mot on. Court exp a ned that f defendants successfu y compe ed the ntervenor to t gate h s c a ms n arb trat on, the court cou d stay the ntervenor s c a ms aga nst defendants and proceed to hear the rema n ng c a ms that were not sub ect to arb trat on.

Oat Solutions, LLC v. Rihko, No. 2:16-CV-01046 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2016) 11/07/2016

Court granted mot on to d sm ss p a nt ff s comp a nt for forum non conven ens. Court he d that nter a a the ex stence of an arb trat on agreement stat ng that the part es wou d reso ve d sputes ar s ng out of the operat ve agreement through arb trat on n F n and favored d sm ssa of p a nt ff s comp a nt on forum non conven ens grounds because arb trat on wou d reduce the burden on oca courts to adm n ster the case.

Herzfeld v. 1416 Chancellor, Inc., No. 15-2835 (3d Cir. Nov. 7, 2016) 11/07/2016

Court of appea s aff rmed the d str ct court s den a of a mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that an arb trat on c ause that on y app ed to “d spute[s] ar s[ ng] out of th s agreement” wou d not govern the d spute because p a nt ff s c a ms were statutory wage-and-hour c a ms.

PDV Sweeny, Inc. v. ConocoPhilips Co., No. 16-170 (2d Cir. Nov. 7, 2016) 11/07/2016

Court of appea s aff rmed the d str ct court s den a of the appe ant s pet t on to vacate an arb tra award. Court of appea s he d that the New York pub c po cy aga nst pena ty prov s ons n contracts d d not prec ude the arb trat on award because the arb tra tr buna construed the contract c ause at ssue as a term nat on prov s on rather than as a qu dated damages prov s on.

ABX Air, Inc. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Airline Division, No. 1:16-CV-01039-TSB (S.D. Ohio Nov. 7, 2016) 11/07/2016

Court den ed mot on for a temporary restra n ng order and pre m nary n unct on, and d sm ssed the act on for ack of sub ect-matter ur sd ct on. Court he d that the d spute at ssue was a “m nor d spute” as def ned by the Ra way Labor Act and, accord ng to the statute, a “m nor d sputes” must be subm tted to arb trat on nstead of the federa courts.

American Healthcare Assoc. v. Burwell, No. 3:16-CV-00233-MPM-RP (N.D. Miss. Nov. 7, 2016) 11/07/2016

Court granted p a nt ffs mot on for a pre m nary n unct on to en o n the defendants from enforc ng a new regu at on that wou d bar nurs ng homes rece v ng federa funds from enter ng pre-d spute arb trat on agreements w th the r res dents. Court he d that a pre m nary n unct on was warranted because nter a a t was ke y that the new regu at on wou d be barred by the FAA.

Romero v. DHL Express (U.S.A.), Inc., No. 1:15-CV-04844-JGK (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2016) 11/07/2016

Court granted mot on for udgment on the p ead ngs. Court he d nter a a that p a nt ff s c a ms must be d sm ssed because p a nt ff fa ed to subm t the d spute to arb trat on pursuant to the arb trat on c ause found n the part es co ect ve barga n ng agreement.

Kobren v. A-1 Limosine Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00516-BRM-DEA (D.N.J. Nov. 7, 2016) 11/07/2016

Court granted defendants mot on to compe arb trat on and stay the act on. Court he d that a c ass/co ect ve act on wa ver and cost-shar ng prov s on found w th n an agreement that a so conta ned an arb trat on c ause d d not render the agreement to arb trate unconsc onab e.

LIN Television Corp. v. Nat’l Assoc. of Broadcast Emps. and Technicians-Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, No. 1:14-CV-01048-WMS-LGF (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2016) 11/07/2016

Court den ed mot on to vacate a abor arb trat on award and granted defendants mot on to enforce the arb trat on award and recover attorney s fees. Court he d that the award shou d not be vacated because, contrary to the p a nt ff s assert ons, the arb trator d d not exceed the scope of h s author ty and the award d d not v o ate pub c po cy.

Archer v. TIC – The Industrial Company, No. 2:16-6649-GHK-SS (C.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2016) 11/07/2016

Court granted defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that the FAA prescr bed arb trat on and under Ca forn a aw the arb trat on agreement was not unconsc onab e desp te the fact that t was a contract of adhes on.

Pinnacle Health Facilities XXXIII, LP v. Crecca, No. 2:15-CV-01062-RB-LAM (D.N.M., Nov. 7, 2016) 11/07/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on. Court accepted theory that non-party defendant was bound by an arb trat on agreement as a th rd-party benef c ary of the under y ng contract. Court was a so not persuaded that s gnatory s fa ure to read the contract rendered t procedura y unconsc onab e, or that she had been unab e to dec ne part cu ar terms.

Ankofski v. M&O Marketing, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-10284 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 4, 2016) 11/04/2016

Court den ed defendants mot on to d sm ss for p a nt ff s fa ure to arb trate the d spute. Court he d that a though t was und sputed that the an arb trat on agreement ex sted between the part es, the agreement was ncorporated w th n a conf dent a ty and non-so c tat on agreement, not an emp oyment contract, and p a nt ff s d scr m nat on and reta at on c a ms d d not fa w th n the scope of the arb trat on agreement.

Move, Inc. v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., No. 14-56650 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016) 11/04/2016

C rcu t court reversed the d str ct court s order deny ng p a nt ff s mot on to vacate an arb trat on award. Court he d that the FAA s requ rement that a not ce of a mot on to vacate arb trat on award must be subm tted w th n three months of the ssuance of an arb trat on award wou d be sub ect to equ tab e to ng. Court a so he d that the tr buna cha rman s m srepresentat on concern ng h s qua f cat ons as a censed attorney was suff c ent grounds to vacate the award because p a nt ff was den ed a fundamenta y fa r hear ng.

Thomas v. Jenkins, No. 3:16-CV-01830 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 4, 2016) 11/04/2016

Court den ed defendant s mot on to vacate an arb trat on award. Court he d that an arb trat on award cou d not be vacated under the terms of the FAA because defendant mov ng to vacate the arb trat on award was not a party to the arb trat on.

Mondis Tech. Ltd. v. Wistron Corp., 1:15-CV-02340-RA (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 2016) 11/03/2016

Court granted pet t on for conf rmat on of arb tra award under the FAA and the New York Convent on. Court re ected defendant s arguments aga nst conf rmat on, ho d ng that the defendant d d not sat sfy ts ob gat on under the award and f nd ng the pub c po cy and due process arguments unpersuas ve.

Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 1:13-CV-01668-LPS (D. Del. Nov. 3, 2016) 11/03/2016

Court den ed defendants mot on to stay the proceed ngs pend ng arb trat on. Court he d that defendants cou d not nvoke the doctr ne of equ tab e estoppe to stay an arb trat on to wh ch they were not a party. Court further he d that a d scret onary stay of the pend ng arb trat on was unwarranted because a stay wou d unfa r y pre ud ce the p a nt ff and was un ke y to promote ud c a economy.

Fencemart, Inc. v. Stewart Envtl. Constr., Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00054-MPM-DAS (N.D. Miss. Nov. 3, 2016) 11/03/2016

Court granted defendants mot on to d sm ss. Court he d p a nt ff s c a ms shou d be d sm ssed n favor of arb trat on because the subcontractor agreement between the part es conta ned a va d arb trat on c ause, the d spute at ssue fe w th n the scope of the c ause, and there were no ega constra nts that wou d prec ude arb trat on.

Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Tripathi, No. 3:16-CV-00562 (D. Conn. Nov. 3, 2016) 11/03/2016

Court granted p a nt ff s pet t on to compe arb trat on. Court he d the part es agreed to a broad arb trat on prov s on that c ear y and unm stakab y de egated ssues of arb trab ty to the arb trators, and that gateway ssues such as unconsc onab ty were to be determ ned by the arb trator n the f rst nstance.

Hudson v. Windows USA, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00596-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss. Nov. 3, 2016) 11/03/2016

Court den ed request for d scovery n re at on to p a nt ffs fraud n the factum oppos t on to mot on to compe arb trat on, f nd ng that the a egat ons of fraud cou d be supported by the p a nt ffs own test mony and d scovery was mproper n ght of the summary nature of a mot on to compe arb trat on.

In re Anderson, No. 7:15-CV-4227-NSR (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2016) 11/02/2016

Court den ed appe ant s mot on to stay bankruptcy proceed ngs pend ng an appea of an order deny ng appe ant s mot on s to compe arb trat on. Court he d that appe ant had not sat sf ed the four factor test requ red to ssue the stay.

Ribeiro v. Sedgwick LLP, 3:16-CV-04507-WHA (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2016) 11/02/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on and stay act on. Court he d that, by ncorporat on of the JAMS Comprehens ve Arb trat on Ru es and Procedures, the part es had c ear y de egated the arb trab ty of the c a ms and the a eged unconsc onab ty of the arb trat on prov s on to the arb trator.

West v. Legacy Motors, Inc., 2:16-CV-12101 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 2, 2016) 11/02/2016

Court granted mot ons to compe arb trat on and d sm ss under the FAA, ho d ng that a p a nt ff s c a ms are sub ect to arb trat on. Court found that the part es agreed to arb trat on, the arb trat on c ause was not unconsc onab e, the scope of the agreement was broad and there was no ev dence that Congress ntended to prec ude wa ver of ud c a remed es.

Thomas v. Right Choice Staffing Group, LLC, No. 4:15-CV-10055-LVP-MKM (E.D. Mich. Nov. 2, 2016) 11/02/2016

Court den ed p a nt ffs mot on to render an arb trat on c ause unenforceab e. Court he d that, contrary to p a nt ffs c a ms, the r sk that p a nt ffs cou d be forced to sp t costs under AAA arb trat on ru es d d not per se render the arb trat on agreement unenforceab e. Instead, court he d that n the event substant a costs and fees were mposed on p a nt ffs, the court cou d engage n a post hoc rev ew of the arb trator s award to ensure t conformed to pub c po cy.

Commc’n Workers of America Local 3010, AFL-CIO v. Telephone Tech. Sys., Inc., No. 3:16-CV-02635-GAG (D.P.R. Nov. 1, 2016) 11/01/2016

Court granted p a nt ff s mot on for a pre m nary n unct on n a d of arb trat on and den ed defendant s mot on to d sm ss. Court he d that the quest on of whether the part es co ect ve barga n ng agreement had exp red at the t me the d spute arose shou d be dec ded by an arb trator per the terms of the part es agreement to arb trate. Court a so he d that a pre m nary n unct on n a d of arb trat on was ust f ed because (1) the part es had entered nto a co ect ve barga n ng agreement prov d ng for mandatory arb trat on; (2) the d spute between the part es was sub ect to b nd ng arb trat on; and (3) trad t ona pr nc p es of equ ty warranted n unct ve re ef.

Selden v. Airbnb, Inc., 1:16-CV-00933-CRC (D.D.C. Nov. 1, 2016) 11/01/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on, f nd ng that mutua arb trat on prov s ons n e ectron c contracts are enforceab e. Court re ected arguments that no contract ex sted and that the arb trat on c ause d d not app y to d scr m nat on su ts and was unconsc onab e.

Corporación Mexicana de Mantenimiento Integral, S. De R.L. De C.V., v. Pemex-Exploración Y Producción, No. 13-4022 (2d Cir. Nov. 1, 2016) 11/01/2016

Court den ed appe ant s pet t on for rehear ng n pane or en banc of ts dec s on to aff rm conf rmat on of an ICC arb tra award vacated by Mex can courts n Corporac ón Mex cana de Manten m ento Integra v. Pemex-Exp orac ón Y Producc ón, No. 13-4022 (2d. C r. Aug. 2, 2016).

Employers Resource v. NLRB, No. 16-60034 (5th Cir. Nov. 1, 2016) 11/01/2016

Court granted pet t on for rev ew and den ed cross-app cat on for enforcement of an adm n strat ve aw udge s dec s on that the arb trat on prov s on mandat ng nd v dua arb trat on v o ates §8(a)(1) of the Nat ona Labor Re at ons Act. Court dec ned to overturn ear er F fth C rcu t dec s ons absent an nterven ng change n the aw, conc ud ng that the FAA mandates enforcement of arb trat on prov s ons requ r ng nd v dua arb trat on.

Drill Cuttings Disposal Co., v. Lynn, 5:16-CV-00860-DAE (W.D. Tex. Nov. 1, 2016) 11/01/2016

Court granted mot on and conf rmed arb trat on award pursuant to the FAA, ho d ng the arb trator d d not reach h s determ nat on n man fest d sregard of the aw and d d not “exceed h s powers” under 9 USC §10(a)(4). Case was ear er transferred from the Western D str ct of Lou s ana n Dr Cutt ng D sposa Co. LLC v. Lynn, No. 6:15-02532 (W.D. La. Apr. 20, 2016).

Valencia v. Logan General-Hospital, LLC, 2:16-CV-06597 (S.D.W. Va. Nov. 1, 2016) 11/01/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on. F nd ng that the p a nt ff s c a m ar ses out of and re ates to the emp oyment agreement, court he d the c a m was arb trab e.

Mackall v. Healthsource Global Staffing, Inc., 3:16-CV-03810-WHO (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2016) 11/01/2016

Court den ed mot on to compe arb trat on. Court found c ass wa ver was nva d under the Nat ona Labor Re at ons Act and Morr s v. Ernest & Young, 2016 WL 4433080 (9th C r. Aug. 22, 2016). F nd ng the c ass wa ver prov s on cou d not be severed, the court he d the arb trat on agreement was unenforceab e under the FAA.

Fraser v. Brightstar Franchising, LLC, 1:16-CV-08179 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 1, 2016) 11/01/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on, ho d ng that p a nt ffs c a ms fe w th n the scope of the med at on and arb trat on prov s on and not an equ tab e re ef except on.

Key Motors Ltd. v. Hyundai Motor Co., No. 1:16-CV-23657-RNS (S.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 2016) 11/01/2016

Court granted defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that p a nt ff s argument, that an ora agreement wh ch made no ment on of an agreement to arb trate governed the part es d spute, was unava ng because the mere ex stence of an ora agreement d d not negate the fact that the part es had entered nto a wr tten agreement to arb trate the d spute. Court further he d that defendant s remova of the case from state court to federa court was proper because the sub ect matter of the d spute pend ng n state court re ated to an arb trat on agreement fa ng under the New York Convent on.

DCK N. America, LLC, v. Burns and Roe Servs., Co., 2:16-CV-00994-MRH (W.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2016) 10/31/2016

Court granted mot ons to compe arb trat on and stayed proceed ngs pend ng arb trat on or med at on. Court f rst he d that s nce the part es fa ed to suff c ent y reference the AAA Arb trat on Ru es n the r arb trat on agreement, such that the quest on of arb trab ty wou d be de egated to the arb trator, the quest on of arb trab ty was for ud c a determ nat on. In mak ng such a determ nat on, court then he d that the part es arb trat on agreement was broad y drafted and the presumpt on of arb trab ty app ed.

Clos La Chance Wines, Inc., v. AV Brands, Inc., 5:16-CV-04047 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2016) 10/31/2016

Court granted mot on for recons derat on and for re ef from udgment conf rm ng the arb tra award. Under FRCP 60(b) and 59(e), respect ve y, the court found the defendant s fa ure to f e t me y oppos t on to the mot on to conf rm the award was a resu t of excusab e neg ect and he d that man fest n ust ce wou d resu t f re ef was not granted.

Gonzalez v. Ceva Logistics U.S., Inc., 3:16-CV-04282-WHO (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2016) 10/31/2016

Court den ed mot on to compe arb trat on pursuant to the FAA and the N nth C rcu t s dec s on n Morr s v. Ernst & Young, 2016 WL 4433080 (9th C r. Aug. 22, 2016). Court found the arb trat on agreement, wh ch wa ved c ass c a ms w th no mean ngfu opportun ty to opt out, was unenforceab e under §7 of the Nat ona Labor Re at ons Act, and he d that sever ng the c ass wa ver prov s on wou d st v o ate Morr s.

Howse v. DirecTV, LLC, 6:16-CV-00594-PGB-TBS (M.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2016) 10/31/2016

Court granted amended mot on to compe arb trat on, ho d ng that the arb trat on agreement was not unconsc onab e under F or da aw and that the E ectron c Fund Transfer Act (“EFTA”) c a ms were arb trab e. Court found that p a nt ff fa ed to meet h s burden of show ng a contrary congress ona command prec uded the wa ver of ud c a remed es for a eged EFTA v o at ons that wou d overr de the strong federa po cy n the FAA requ r ng courts to enforce arb trat on agreements.

Matala-De Mazza v. Special Touch Home Care Servs., Inc., 1:16-CV-01185-ARR-RLM (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2016) 10/31/2016

Court granted mot on to stay and to compe arb trat on under FAA. Court found that there was a va d arb trat on agreement, that the act on fe w th n the scope of the agreement, and that the p a nt ffs fa ed to meet the r burden of show ng the arb trat on wou d be proh b t ve y expens ve.

Borgarding v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, No. 2:16-CV-02485-FMO-RAO (C.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2017) 10/31/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on, ho d ng that, a though there was a ow eve of procedura unconsc onab ty there was no substant ve unconsc onab ty, and therefore the agreement to arb trate was va d. Gamboa v. Citibank, National Association, No. 1:16-CV-02349-MHC (N.D. Ga. Oct. 28, 2016) 10/28/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on and stayed act on pend ng arb trat on, f nd ng that, by us ng defendant s serv ces p a nt ff had accepted defendant s terms of use, nc ud ng the arb trat on agreement conta ned there n, and that the broad arb trat on agreement encompasses the c a ms at ssue.

Lawrence v. Sol G. Atlas Realty Co., Inc., 15-3087 (2d Cir. Oct, 28, 2016) 10/28/2016

Court vacated d str ct court s mot on to compe arb trat on under the FAA, f nd ng that the co ect ve barga n ng agreement (“CBA”) does not requ re arb trat on of statutory d scr m nat on c a ms. Court he d that the CBA d d not conta n a “c ear and unm stakab e” wa ver of p a nt ff s statutory c a ms.

Munning v. Gap, 3:16-CV-03804-TEH (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28 2016). 10/28/2016

Court den ed defendant s mot on to d sm ss p a nt ff s t gat on c a ms as be ng sub ect to arb trat on. Under a FAA ana ys s of the va d ty and scope of the arb trat on agreement, the court found that t was unc ear whether an arb trat on agreement ex sted between the part es and he d the forum se ect on c ause on defendant s webs te was “suff c ent y spec f c” to mpute to the part es “the reasonab e expectat on that they were supersed ng, d sp ac ng or wa v ng the pr or arb trat on c ause.”

Youssofi v. Credit One Fin., 15-CV-1764-AJB-RBB (S.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2016). 10/28/2016

Court granted mot on to cert fy for mmed ate nter ocutory appea . P a nt ff cha enged court s ru ng that the const tut ona wa ver test s napp cab e n the context of arb trat on agreements. Court he d that (1) the ssue of whether the const tut ona wa ver test app es s a contro ng quest on of aw, (2) there s a substant a ground for d fference of op n on, and (3) mmed ate appea wou d mater a y advance the t gat on s end.

Coleman-Reed v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, No. 2:15-CV-13687 (S.D.W. Va. Oct. 28, 2016) 10/28/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on and re ected argument that defendant had wa ved ts r ght to arb trate under the defau t prov s on n § 3 of the FAA. Court he d that the a eged de ay n f ng the mot on to compe shou d be measured from the day the defendant became aware or shou d have become aware of the arb trat on prov s on and not the date of f ng of the comp a nt. Court a so he d that f ng of m n ma respons ve p ead ngs and m ted part c pat on n d scovery are not act ons ncons stent w th an ntent to pursue arb trat on, and conc uded that p a nt ff fa ed to show that defendant s act ons resu ted n actua pre ud ce.

Cortes-Ramos v. Martin-Morales, No. 3:16-CV-01223-DRD (D.P.R. Oct. 28, 2016) 10/28/2016

Court granted mot on to d sm ss and rem tted the su t to arb trat on. Court re ected p a nt ff s argument that the agreement to arb trate s not va d because p a nt ff had not read the arb trat on agreement, and found that p a nt ff fa ed to show that the agreement was nduced by fraud. Moreover, the court re ected the argument that defendant s not covered by the arb trat on c ause because defendant s a th rd-party benef c ary of the agreement.

Laurence v. Sol G. Atlas Realty Co., Inc., No. 15-3087-CV (2nd Cir. Oct. 28, 2016) 10/28/2016

Court vacated d str ct court s grant of mot on to compe arb trat on and remands su t. Court he d that the word ng of the arb trat on prov s on n the co ect ve barga n ng agreement s not “c ear and unm stakab e” as to whether statutory d scr m nat on or reta at on c a ms must be subm tted to arb trat on.

Mitchell v. Tillett, 3:15-CV-04044-VC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2016) 10/28/2016

Court d sm ssed the pet t on for vacatur of an arb tra award w th pre ud ce. Court found the New York Convent on, not the FAA, governed the sa or s emp oyment contract and conc uded that the award arose out of a commerc a re at onsh p. S nce the New York Convent on does not prov de for vacatur, the court re ed on FAA and state aw ru es. Court he d that regard ess of whether state aw or FAA ru es app ed, the pet t on to vacate was unt me y.

Dirse v. Rent-a-Car East, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-23530-FAM (S.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2016) 10/27/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on and entered udgment for pet t oner. Court he d that a non-s gnatory p a nt ff, hav ng rece ved benef t from the renta agreement, cannot avo d arb trat on where the s gnatory p a nt ff concedes that she entered nto a renta agreement and does not deny that she endorsed the arb trat on prov s on express y referr ng “any d spute or c a m” to arb trat on.

R&G Student Housing, LLC v. Phoenix Sustainable Group, LLC, No. 6:16-CV-01363-GAP-GJK (M.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2016) 10/27/2016

Court granted mot on to stay t gat on and compe AAA arb trat on pursuant to a c ause requ r ng arb trat on n a “neutra s te n accordance w th the ru es of the AAA”. Court he d that arb trat on “ n accordance w th the ru es of the AAA” requ res that the d spute be referred to the AAA as the arb trat ng ent ty.

Haven Beauty Inc. v. Kardashian, No. 8:16-CV-01307-JVS-DFM (C.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2016) 10/27/2016

D str ct court den ed mot on to compe arb trat on aga nst defendants who were not party to the arb trat on agreement, f nd ng that the estoppe theory art cu ated by p a nt ffs was napp cab e because the non-party defendants had asserted no c a ms (but on y aff rmat ve defenses) re at ng to the agreement conta n ng the arb trat on c auses.

ATCi Communications Inc. v. Federal Insurance Company, No. 1:16-CV-23374-CMA (S.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2016) 10/27/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on and stayed the t gat on, f nd ng that th rd party was bound to arb trate due to equ tab e estoppe , that the d spute fe w th n the scope of the broad y worded arb trat on c ause, and that t had the power to stay t gat on even n the absence of a pend ng arb trat on.

Clinical Solutions, LLC v. Physicians Plan Rx, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00196 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 26, 2016) 10/26/2016

Court d sm ssed case n ght of enforceab e arb trat on prov s on n part es o nt venture agreement. Court he d that the va d ty of the overa agreement shou d be eva uated by an arb trator, and p a nt ff s fraudu ent nducement argument s not app cab e so e y to the arb trat on c ause but to the agreement as a who e.

South Jersey Sanitation Co., Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co., Inc., No. 14-4010 (3d Cir. Oct. 25, 2016) 10/25/2016

Court reversed d str ct court s den a of mot on to compe arb trat on because p a nt ff s cha enges to the arb trat on agreement app y to the part es contract as a who e and the va d ty of the contract s to be determ ned by the arb trator.

TWTB, Inc. v. Rampick, No. 2:15-03399 (E.D. La. Oct. 25, 2016) 10/25/2016

Court granted mot on to stay matter pend ng arb trat on, but den ed mot on to d sm ss, ho d ng that the arb trat on agreement was enforceab e. Court found that p a nt ffs had made no argument that the arb trat on agreement was nva d or unenforceab e separate from the contract, and therefore the quest on of enforceab ty of the arb trat on prov s on was for the arb trator and not the court. Court found that matters not sub ect to the arb trat on c ause shou d be stayed pend ng arb trat on.

Eagle Aviation Technologies, LLC v. Carson Helicopters, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-05216 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 24, 2016) 10/24/2016

Court den ed pet t on to vacate pursuant to § 10(a)(4) of the FAA and conf rmed the arb trat on award. Court he d the arb trator made a good fa th effort to nterpret the part es agreement n accordance w th the pr nc p es of contract aw and, therefore, d d not exceed ts powers.

Aldrich v. University of Phoenix, No. 16-5276 (6th Cir. Oct. 24, 2016) 10/24/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed remova of su t to federa court and d sm ssa of su t n favor of arb trat on. P a nt ffs demonstrated assent to the arb trat on agreement under Kentucky aw by cont nu ng to work at the un vers ty even though they d d not execute the form express y acknow edg ng the arb trat on prov s on.

Trustees of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labor-Management Cooperation, Pension and Welfare Funds v. Lilco Construction, Inc., No. 2:15-CV03820-JS-GRB (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2016) 10/24/2016

Court adopted recommendat on of mag strate udge to conf rm an arb trat on award n favor of p a nt ff, award nterest, costs and attorney s fees, and compe respondents to a ow an aud t as no ob ect ons had been ra sed by e ther party. Mag strate udge rev ewed the unanswered pet t on and conc uded that there s no genu ne ssue of mater a fact prevent ng the court from ssu ng summary udgment n favor of pet t oner.

Canlas v. Olomana Golf Links, Inc, No. 1:15-CV-00243 (D. Haw. Oct. 24, 2016) 10/24/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on. Court re ected the p a nt ff s argument that a va d agreement to arb trate that encompassed her c a ms s unenforceab e because, nter a a, t was a contract of adhes on. Court he d that the prov s on was not unenforceab e desp te unequa barga n ng power because t mere y subst tuted one forum for another w thout mpos ng unequa ob gat ons on one party over the other. Court a so he d that the agreement s coverage of c a ms s even handed and the agreement s s ence as to the a ocat on of arb trat on expenses s nsuff c ent grounds for f nd ng the agreement unconsc onab e.

Wells Fargo Advisors, L.L.C. v. Tucker, No. 1:15-CV-07722-VEC (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2016) 10/21/2016

Hav ng prev ous y den ed P a nt ff s pet t on to d sm ss on-go ng c ass-w de arb trat on and compe nd v dua arb trat on and entered udgment for respondent, court den ed respondent s mot on to mod fy the udgment and stay proceed ngs pursuant to § 3 of the FAA. Court ho ds that § 3 on y app es when the under y ng d spute s before the court and s not re evant where a ssues n d spute are arb trab e as n the nstant case.

State of Wisconsin Local Government Property Insurance Fund v. Lexington Insurance Company, No. 15-1973 (7th Cir. Oct. 21, 2016) 10/21/2016

Seventh c rcu t conf rmed d str ct court s dec s on deny ng appe ant s attempt to ntervene n an arb trat on proceed ng. Court he d that the d spute over the ex stence of an arb trat on agreement was to be dec ded by the ud c ary, and that the po cy n favor of arb trat on d d not app y n th s case because the contract unamb guous y conta ned no arb trat on prov s on.

Holland v. LVNV Funding, LLC, No. 5:16-CV-00069-TBR (W.D. Ky. Oct. 21, 2016) 10/21/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on, ho d ng the cred tor, wh ch had bought the debt from p a nt ff s cred t card company, was ent t ed to nvoke the arb trat on agreement between the p a nt ff and the cred t card company. Court found that the arb trat on prov s on was va d and that the p a nt ff s su t ar s ng out of the sett ement of the debt fe w th n ts scope.

Fleming v. J. Crew, No. 1:16-CV-02663-GHW (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2016) 10/21/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on based upon a f nd ng that the part es entered nto an agreement to arb trate and that the c a m fe w th n the scope of that agreement.

Reyna v. International Bank of Commerce, No. 16-40057 (5th Cir. Oct. 20, 2016) 10/21/2016

F fth c rcu t reversed d str ct court s dec s on deny ng mot on to compe arb trat on, and remanded w th nstruct on to refer the d spute to arb trat on. Court he d that arb trat on was a thresho d quest on for the arb trator to dec de because of the agreement s de egat on c ause.

Spencer v. Midland Funding LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00093-BR (D. Or. Oct. 21, 2016) 10/21/2016

Court granted n part and den ed n part defendants mot ons to compe arb trat on, stay case, and str ke c ass a egat ons. Court he d that the app cab ty and enforcement of the arb trat on prov s on shou d be reso ved by an arb trator; that defendants had not wa ved the r r ght to arb trat on by proceed ng w th t gat on n state court; that the app cab ty and extent of ssue prec us on as a resu t of the state-court dec s on shou d be reso ved by an arb trator; and that p a nt ff s Fa r Debt Co ect on Pract ces Act c a m was sub ect to arb trat on, but p a nt ff cou d on y pursue her own c a ms, not c ass-act on c a ms.

Verizon Pennsylvania LLC v. Communications Workers of America, No. 2:16-CV-03992-GJP (E.D. Pa. Oct. 20, 2016) 10/20/2016

Court granted mot on to d sm ss comp a nt seek ng to vacate arb trat on award. Court found that the arb trat on pane s dec s on was not f na because t ru ed on ab ty but had not yet ru ed on remed es. Court was therefore not w ng to enterta n a mot on to vacate, based on the “comp ete arb trat on ru e,” wh ch mandates that courts shou d not enterta n a awsu t cha eng ng a abor arb trat on award unt t s f na .

Bouchard Transportation Co. v. VT Halter Marine, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-11264-NJB-JCW (E.D. La. Oct. 20, 2016) 10/20/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that as the FAA app ed to the d spute, t was requ red to enforce the arb trat on prov s on. Add t ona y, the part es ncorporat on of the AAA ru es “c ear y and unm stakab y” ev denced the part es ntent to arb trate ssues of arb trab ty.

Olson v. MBO Partners, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-02216-HZ (D. Or. Oct. 20, 2016) 10/20/2016

Court granted mot on to d sm ss an Amer cans w th D sab t es Act c a m. Court found that the c a m was sub ect to mandatory arb trat on as the agreement d d not v o ate Oregon aw, t was not unconsc onab e, t was not a resu t of m srepresentat on or fraud, and p a nt ff d d not s gn t under duress.

Trustees for the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Annuity Funds and Training Fund v. TNS Management Services, Inc., No. 1:16-CV01120-AJN (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2016) 10/20/2016

Court granted unopposed mot on to conf rm arb trat on award. Treat ng the unopposed mot on as an unopposed mot on for summary udgment, the court found that there was no genu ne d spute as to any mater a fact.

Zemel v. Citibank, No. 2:16-CV-03976 (D.N.J. Oct. 20, 2016) 10/20/2016

Court den ed w thout pre ud ce mot on to compe arb trat on, a ow ng for renewa of the mot on fo ow ng m ted d scovery on the quest on of arb trab ty. Court found that there were genu ne quest ons as to whether an arb trat on agreement ex sted between the part es, w th p a nt ff contend ng that he opted out of the arb trat on agreement at ssue. Court ordered m ted d scovery on the quest on of arb trab ty after wh ch defendant may renew ts mot on to compe arb trat on.

Ceona PTE Ltd. v. BMT Giant, S.A. DE C.V., No. 1:16-CV-04437-WHP (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2016) 10/19/2016

Court granted pet t on to conf rm arb trat on award. Court he d that because the pet t on was unopposed, t wou d treat t as a mot on for summary udgment wh ch wou d fa on y f the und sputed facts fa to show the movant s ent t ed to udgment as a matter of aw. Add t ona y, the court found the pet t oner to be ent t ed to pre- and post- udgment nterest.

Boehm v. Getty Images (US), Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00311-JDP (W.D. Wis. Oct. 19, 2016) 10/19/2016

Court granted mot ons to d sm ss comp a nts. Court he d that the part es “c ear y and unm stakab y” agreed to have the arb trator dec de thresho d quest ons of arb trab ty, but the court cou d not compe arb trat on because the arb trat on c ause ca ed for arb trat on outs de the court s ur sd ct on.

Metlife Secs., Inc. v. Holt, No. 2:16-CV-00032-RLJ-MCLC (E.D. Tenn. Oct. 19, 2016) 10/19/2016

Court granted mot on to str ke defendant s ury demand because the demand was unt me y. Under § 4 of the FAA, a party oppos ng arb trat on s ent t ed to a ury tr a on y when an ssue of mater a fact ex sts as to the va d ty of the arb trat on agreement and the demand s made “on or before the return day of the not ce of app cat on.”

AmTrust North America, Inc. et al. v. Preferred Contractors Ins. Co. Risk Retention Group, L.L.C., No. 1:16-MC-0340 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2006) 10/18/2016

Court grants mot on to compe defendant to d sc ose nformat on and orders defendant to refra n from us ng or transferr ng funds n ts possess on that be ong to a th rd-party debtor pursuant to an arb trat on award that was conf rmed by the court n a separate act on.

Levy v. Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, No. 2-16-mc-00171 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 18, 2016) 10/18/2016

Court d sm ssed mot on to vacate an arb trat on award. Court he d that mot on f ed on the 92nd day after the award was ssued s not t me y because New York Law requ res the mot on to be f ed w th n 90 days, and serv ce of the mot on s governed by the FAA, wh ch requ res serv ce w th n three months.

Jackson v. Comenity Bank, No. 0-16-cv-01133 (D. Minn. Oct. 18, 2016) 10/18/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on and stay proceed ngs. Court he d that a va d arb trat on agreement ex sts where cred t card user fa ed to re ect the arb trat on prov s on n the contract and used the cred t account.

Burton Ways Hotels, Ltd. v. Four Seasons Hotels Ltd., No. 14-56856 (9th Cir. Oct. 18, 2016) 10/18/2016

C rcu t court reversed n part and aff rmed n part d str ct court s conf rmat on of arb tra award. Court found that the arb tra tr buna erred n determ n ng the correct nterpretat on of the contract (based on externa ev dence presented by both s des) at a “summary udgment” phase because Ca forn a aw requ res that such f nd ng be made after a fu , ev dent ary hear ng.

Scott v. Education Management Corp., No. 15-2225 (3d Cir. Oct. 18, 2016) 10/18/2016

Court reversed d str ct court s d sm ssa of two age d scr m nat on awsu ts n favor of arb trat on. Court he d that there was no consent to arb trate, espec a y s nce Pennsy van a aw requ res arb trat on agreements to be “c ear and unm stakab e” and d scourages f nd ng arb trat on agreements “by mp cat on.”

Levi Strauss & Co. v. Aqua Dynamics Systems, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-04718-WHO (N.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2016) 10/18/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on. Court found that wh e the party seek ng to compe arb trat on was not a s gnatory to the arb trat on agreement, t was the successor n nterest to a company that had a r ght to enforce the arb trat on agreement.

Answers Corp. v. First East Circular, LLC, No. 4:16-CV-01252-RLW (E.D. Mo. Oct. 18, 2016) 10/18/2016

Court granted pet t on to compe arb trat on. Court found that the c a ms pursued by pet t oner fe w th n the scope of the arb trat on prov s on and that the arb trat on prov s on was va d and b nd ng.

United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union v. Phillips 66 Co., No. 15-5119 (10th Cir. Oct. 17, 2016) 10/17/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed ower court s order compe ng arb trat on. App y ng a presumpt on n favor of arb trab ty, court found that the broad scope of the arb trat on agreement encompassed the gr evances and that the presumpt on n favor of arb trat on was not rebutted.

Aztec Engineering Group, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., No. 1:16-CV-01657-JMS-TAB (S.D. Ind. Oct. 17, 2016) 10/17/2016

Court den ed mot on to d sm ss or to stay t gat on and compe arb trat on. Court he d the c a m arose from an agreement that d d not conta n an arb trat on prov s on, and that the other potent a y re ated agreement was ne ther ncorporated nor conta ned an arb trat on prov s on broad enough to encompass the d spute.

In re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, No. 1:09-MD-02036-JLK (S.D. Fla. Oct. 17, 2016) 10/17/2016

Court den ed mot on to d sm ss n favor of arb trat on. Court found that defendant wa ved ts r ght to arb trat on because t acted ncons stent y w th any r ght to arb trate and, by do ng so, t had pre ud ced the other part es. Court a so found that c ass cert f cat on d d not nu fy the defendant s pr or wa ver of ts arb trat on r ghts and that defendant s mot on was unt me y cons der ng the court had tw ce ordered a defendants to assert any arb trat on r ghts.

A&C Discount Pharmacy L.L.C. v. Prime Therapeutics LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00429-D (N.D. Tex. Oct. 17, 2016) 10/17/2016

Court den ed mot on to stay and compe arb trat on. Court he d that p a nt ff movant had “substant a y nvoked the ud c a process to the detr ment or pre ud ce of the other party” and therefore t had wa ved ts r ght to arb trat on.

Ziober v. BLB Resources, Inc., No. 14-56374 (9th Cir. Oct. 14, 2016) 10/14/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed d str ct court s order compe ng arb trat on and d sm ss ng an act on under the Un formed Serv ces Emp oyment and Reemp oyment R ghts Act (USERRA). Court found that USERRA s text and eg s at ve h story d d not ev nce any ntent to overr de the FAA s strong pro-arb trat on po cy, and therefore the arb trat on of c a ms ar s ng under USERRA s not proh b ted.

TIC Park Centre 9, LLC v. Wojnar, No. 1:16-CV-04302-ARR-JO (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2016) 10/14/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on and stayed proceed ngs pend ng arb trat on. Court found that an arb trat on agreement prov d ng for arb trat on of any controversy “ar s ng out of or re ated to” an agreement was suff c ent y broad n scope to tr gger “the presumpt on of arb trab ty for co atera agreements.” Add t ona y, the court found that p a nt ff was estopped from c a m ng that the arb trat on agreement d d not app y because defendants were not s gnator es, s nce the ssues n arb trat on were ntertw ned w th the s gned agreement.

Carmax Auto Superstores, Inc. v. Sibley, No. 8:16-CV-01459-RWT (D. Md. Oct. 14, 2016) 10/14/2016

Court granted summary udgment on pet t on to compe arb trat on. Court found that, n ght of ts ob gat on to “r gorous y enforce” arb trat on agreements accord ng to the r terms, the c ass act on wa ver and conf dent a ty prov s ons were va d as a matter of aw and no genu ne ssue of mater a fact ex sted.

Peters v. Amazon Services, LLC, No. 14-35294 (9th Cir. Oct. 13, 2016) 10/13/2016

Court aff rmed d str ct court order compe ng arb trat on. Court ru ed that d spute was encompassed by a va d arb trat on agreement, wh ch superseded any other agreements.

Roman v. AutoNation Ford Gulf Freeway, No. 16-20047 (5th Cir. Oct. 13, 2016) 10/13/2016

C rcu t court vacated d str ct court order to compe arb trat on and remanded for further proceed ngs. Court reasoned that the d str ct court had fa ed to estab sh facts necessary to determ ne whether t had sub ect matter ur sd ct on n an arb tra act on under state aw and remanded s nce ur sd ct on s not ndependent y created under the FAA.

Nardello v. Boehringer Ingelheim USA Corp., No. 1:15-CV-03792 (D. Md. Oct. 13, 2016) 10/13/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on and stayed proceed ngs. Court he d that arb trat on prov s on ref ected the part es ntent to arb trate arb trab ty and conc uded that t was for the arb trator to determ ne whether the d spute was arb trab e. Court noted that t wou d, n any case, conc ude that the d spute was w th n the scope of the arb trat on agreement.

Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh. v. Source One Staffing LLC, No. 1:16-CV-06461 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2016) 10/13/2016

Court agreed to appo nt arb tra cha r. Court conc uded that ud c a ntervent on was proper because the terms of the part es arb trat on agreement ca ed for ud c a appo ntment of th rd arb trator f the part es own process had apsed. Court made ts appo ntment w th reference to the requ rements nc uded n the part es agreement and cons derat ons of re at ve exper ence.

Horton v. FedChoice Fed. Credit Union, No. 2:16-CV-00318 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 13, 2016) 10/13/2016

Court den ed mot on to compe arb trat on, reason ng that part es were ent t ed to d scovery on the quest on of arb trab ty because the arb trat on prov s on was conta ned n a contract of adhes on ra s ng quest ons of unconsc onab ty.

ACP Inv. Grp., LLC v. Blake, No. 1:15-CV-09364 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2016) 10/13/2016

Court granted mot on to conf rm emp oyment arb trat on award under the FAA. Court he d that none of the narrow defenses to arb tra enforcement afforded by the FAA app ed.

Tompkins v. 23andMe, Inc., No. 14-16405 (9th Cir. Oct. 13, 2016) 10/13/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed d str ct court s order to compe arb trat on. Court conf rmed that arb trat on prov s on was va d, reason ng that the preva ng party c ause, forum se ect on c ause, exc us on of nte ectua property c a ms from mandatory arb trat on, statute of m tat ons, and defendant s un atera r ght to mod f cat on conta ned n the part es agreement, were not unconsc onab e under Ca forn a aw.

Wior v. Bellsouth Corp., No. 1:15-CV-02375 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 12, 2016) 10/12/2016

Court den ed mot on for recons derat on of ts order to compe arb trat on. Court reasoned that pet t oner cou d not meet the c ear error standard app cab e n the absence of new ev dence or nterven ng changes of aw, but was nstead ask ng the court to rev s t ts dec s on. Court d sm ssed as moot pet t oner s mot on to stay proceed ngs pend ng reso ut on of the mot on for recons derat on.

Scheurer v. Fromm Family Foods LLC, No. 3:15-CV-00770 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 12, 2016) 10/12/2016

Court granted mot on to stay proceed ngs pend ng appea of ear er order deny ng mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that a though t d d not f nd defendant s argument regard ng the d sputed contract persuas ve, t was not fr vo ous and therefore mer ted a stay.

CFL Pizza LLC v. Hammack, No. 6:16-CV-00968 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 12, 2016) 10/12/2016

Court den ed mot on to en o n c ass or co ect ve arb trat on pend ng outcome of ear er mot on to compe s ng e c a mant arb trat on. Court reasoned that movant had not demonstrated the ke hood of success, rreparab e n ury, or compe ng ba ance of pr vate and pub c harms.

Burke v. Cumulus Media Inc., No. 1:16-CV-11220 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 11, 2016) 10/11/2016

Court den ed mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that agreement conta n ng arb trat on prov s ons had been superseded by subsequent agreement and that, n any case, defendant had wa ved ts r ght to compe arb trat on by act ve y engag ng n t gat on n a manner “comp ete y ncons stent” w th re ance on the arb trat on prov s on.

Inomedic-Innovative Health v. Noninvasive Med. Techs., Inc., No. 2:14-CV-01035 (D. Nev. Oct. 11, 2016) 10/11/2016

Court conf rmed AAA arb trat on award and dec ned to cons der a “forthcom ng” mot on to vacate as unt me y. Court emphas zed ts narrow rev ew ng author ty and he d that there was no ev dence that the award shou d be set as de. It dec ded that udgment on the p ead ngs was appropr ate and that t was not requ red to wa t for forthcom ng p ead ngs because they wou d be barred by the FAA s three-month m t on f ng mot ons to vacate.

Tillman v. Hertz Corp., No. 1:16-CV-04242 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 11, 2016) 10/11/2016

Court den ed mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that the arb trat on agreement d d not cover the d spute because p a nt ff was not party to the agreement.

Duncan Telecom, Inc. v. Pond Constructors Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01086 (E.D. Va. Oct. 11, 2016) 10/11/2016

Court granted mot on to stay proceed ngs pend ng arb trat on w th respect to one of the defendants, but den ed t w th respect to the other. Court reasoned that on y one of the defendants was bound by the arb trat on agreement and conc uded that proceed ngs wou d cont nue w th respect to the other, even though ab ty of the two s genera y coextens ve under the app cab e precedent concern ng suret es.

Providence Health & Servs. – Or. v. Boulder Admin. Servs. Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00745-TSZ (W.D. Wash. Oct. 11, 2016) 10/11/2016

Court den ed mot on to d sm ss, but granted a ternat ve mot on to stay proceed ngs and compe arb trat on. Court he d that p a nt ff was bound by the arb trat on c ause conta ned n the contract as an ass gnee of r ghts thereunder.

HBR Lewisport, LLC v. Hamilton, No. 4:16-CV-00044 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 7, 2016) 10/07/2016

Court author zed m ted d scovery n a d of a mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that nsuff c ent ev dence had been prov ded as to whether the app cab e arb trat on agreement had been va d y s gned through power of attorney.

Johnson v. Dentsply Int’l, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-00520 (N.D. Okla. Oct. 7, 2016) 10/07/2016

Court stayed proceed ngs pend ng arb trat on, reason ng that broad stays are appropr ate where arb trab e c a ms predom nate the d spute and any nonarb trab e c a ms are of quest onab e mer t. Court he d that the part es d spute fe under two broad arb trat on c auses and any d st nct on between them was a procedura quest on presumpt ve y for the arb trators to dec de.

CM South East Texas Houston v. CareMinders Home Care Inc., No. 16-11054 (11th Cir. Oct. 7, 2016) 10/07/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed d str ct court s conf rmat on of arb trat on award. Court he d that arb trator s refusa to grant postponement of the proceed ngs d d not mandate vacatur under the FAA, even n c rcumstances where the part es had mutua y agreed to a postponement. Court found that defendant fa ed to estab sh that the arb trator s refusa to postpone the hear ng pre ud ced ts r ghts or depr ved t of a fa r hear ng. Dream Team Holdings LLC v. Alarcon, No. 2:16-CV-01420-DLR (D. Ar z. Oct. 7, 2016) 10/07/2016

Court den ed mot on to compe arb trat on, f nd ng that the arb trat on agreement d d not encompass the d spute at ssue, s nce t requ red arb trat on of c a ms “ar s ng out of” another agreement that was never conc uded.

GGNSC Louisville Mt. Holly LLC v. Stevenson, No. 3:16-CV-00423 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 6, 2016) 10/06/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on, d sm ss ng act on w thout pre ud ce and en o n ng p a nt ff from t gat ng n state court. Court he d that a va d arb tra agreement app ed to the c a m and re ected proffered defenses, reason ng that engthy documents and menta weakness n the p a nt ff d d not create procedura unconsc onab ty; and the agreement conta ned reasonab e terms that were not oppress ve or on-s ded and was therefore not substant ve y unconsc onab e. Court aff rmed ts power to ssue an n unct on aga nst state court act on under the Ant -In unct on Act as necessary for protect ng ts udgment.

United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 653 v. Fresh Seasons Mkt., LLC, No. 0:15-CV-03910 (D. Minn. Oct. 6, 2016) 10/06/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on. Court re ected a statute of m tat ons defense, reason ng that the p a n text of the app cab e statute started to ng when demand for arb trat on was refused, regard ess of the request s t me ness. Court kew se re ected defendant s c a m that t was not a party to the arb trat on agreement that had been struck by a mu t -emp oyer barga n ng un t.

N.J. Reg’l Council of Carpenters v. R. Mesmer, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-02881 (D.N.J. Oct. 6, 2016) 10/06/2016

Court den ed mot on to conf rm arb trat on award ssued aga nst a non-party to the arb trat on. Award had been ssued aga nst person and ent ty re ated to os ng arb tra defendant, wh ch was nso vent, but not themse ves a party to the arb trat on or under y ng agreement. Court he d that arb trator cou d not ssue an award aga nst a non-party absent ud c a determ nat on of a ter ego status.

Welch v. My Left Foot Children’s Therapy, LLC, No. 2:14-CV-01786 (D. Nev. Oct. 6, 2016) 10/06/2016

Court den ed mot on to stay pend ng appea of ts refusa to compe arb trat on. Court reasoned that defendants d d not make a strong show ng on the mer ts for the r content on that a non-party to the arb trat on agreement cou d be compe ed to arb trate. Court a so ru ed that monetary expenses d d not amount to rreparab e harm warrant ng a stay.

In re: Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., No. 15-3480 (2d Cir. Oct. 6, 2016) 10/06/2016

Court of appea s aff rmed the ower court s dec s on to deny p a nt ffs mot on to compe arb trat on. Court of appea s he d that the bankruptcy court d d not abuse ts d scret on n deny ng p a nt ffs mot on to compe arb trat on because the d spute at ssue was a “core proceed ng,” as def ned by app cab e case aw, and compe ng arb trat on wou d n th s nstance eopard ze the ob ect ves of the Bankruptcy Code.

Arrowhead General Insurance Agency Inc. v. Lincoln General Insurance Company Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01138-CCC (M.D. Pa. Oct. 5, 2016) 10/05/2016

Court den ed mot on to compe arb trat on n ght of the th rd c rcu t s express adopt on of a narrow except on to the genera ru e favor ng arb trat on where res ud cata mp cat ons of a prev ous arb trat on are at ssue. Based on th s, court found that conf rmat on of the pr or award was a federa udgment, and therefore res ud cata app ed.

Cornoyer v. AT&T Mobility Servs., LLC, 1:15-CV-00474 (D.N.M. Oct. 5, 2016). 10/05/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on and stay proceed ngs pursuant to the FAA and New Mex co aw. Court he d there s a b nd ng arb trat on agreement and defendant had not wa ved ts r ght to arb trat on through de ay n f ng ts mot on.

Clarke's Allied Incorporated v. Rail Source Fuel L.L.C., No. 15-41492 No. (5th Cir. Oct. 5, 2016) 10/05/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed d str ct court s conf rmat on of arb tra award. Court found that, contrary to the defendant s arguments, the arb trator d d not exceed h s author ty, as the award d d not: grant an unauthor zed resc ss on remedy; conf ct w th the terms of the under y ng contract; and, mperm ss b y grant unsegregated costs.

Carlos Reyna v. International Bank of Commerce, No. 16-40057 (5th Cir. Oct. 4, 2016) 10/04/2016

C rcu t court reversed d str ct court s den a of mot on to compe arb trat on and remanded w th nstruct ons to refer d spute to arb trat on. Court determ ned that arb trab ty was a gateway ssue and court was requ red to cons der arb trab ty of c a m cond t ona y before cert fy ng c ass and, based on the de egat on c ause, arb trator had author ty to determ ne arb trab ty of ssue.

Shilman Rocbit, LLC v. American Blasting Consumables, Inc., No. 2-16-CV-06745 (S.D.W. Va. Oct. 4, 2016) 10/04/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on n South Afr ca and d sm ssed the su t w th pre ud ce. Though both part es are c t zens of West V rg n a, the court conc uded that sub ect matter ur sd ct on s proper under the New York Convent on because the state court act on “re ates to” an agreement that s governed by the Convent on. The court a so he d that the arb trat on c ause s enforceab e.

Pine Tree Villa LLC v. Coulter, No. 3-15-CV-00815 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 4, 2016) 10/04/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d the part es had agreed to arb trate, that the d spute at ssue fe w th n the scope of the arb trat on agreement, and that a c a ms asserted were sub ect to arb trat on.

Nicholas v. N. Phila. Health Sys., No. 2:16-CV-00232 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 4, 2016) 10/04/2016

Court den ed mot on to d sm ss n favor of arb trat on, ho d ng that arb trat on agreements are not necessar y b nd ng on th rd part es ke trustees. Court dec ned to cons der the mot on on ur sd ct ona grounds under FRCP 12(b)(1), not ng that contract-based defenses to arb trat on speak to the mer ts of the act on and are therefore proper y cons dered under FRCP Ru e 12(b)(6) or Ru e 56.

InstallIt Inc. v. Carpenters 46 N. Cal. Counties Conf. Board, No. 3:16-CV-01514-TEH (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2016) 10/04/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that both the FAA and the Labor Re at ons Management Act requ red arb trat on of p a nt ff s c a m as the facts under y ng the c a m were covered by the arb trat on agreement and p a nt ff fa ed to meet ts burden to demonstrate congress ona ntent to prec ude arb trat on of the statutory c a m at ssue.

In re: Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation, No. 4:15-CV-03443-YGR (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2016) 10/04/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on and stay c a ms. Court he d that ncorporat on of the ICC Arb trat on Ru es nto the part es arb trat on agreement const tutes a c ear and unm stakab e de egat on of quest ons of arb trab ty to the arb trator, rather than the court; and g ven the commerc a re at onsh p between the part es and the over ap n the substant ve c a ms, the spec f c ssues n d spute were sub ect to arb trat on.

Roberts v. Petersen Investments, No. 1:16-CV-02525-VM (S.D.N.Y. October 4, 2016) 10/04/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on, ho d ng that the three agreements between the part es ref ected a common understand ng that a d sputes wou d be sub ect to FINRA arb trat on. Court found unpersuas ve c a ms of a forged s gnature on one agreement, as p a nt ff had subsequent y exerc sed h s r ghts under the contract for two years.

Leviege v. Vodafone US Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00374 (E.D. Va. Oct. 4, 2016) 10/04/2016

Court granted mot on to d sm ss and compe arb trat on, ho d ng that there was an enforceab e arb trat on agreement between the part es. Court found that a etter s gned by the emp oyee prov ded that t was the “ent re agreement” between the part es and that any d spute wou d be reso ved exc us ve y by the b nd ng arb trat on procedure set forth n defendant s ADR po cy.

Reed v. Darden Rests., Inc., No. 3:16-CV-03872 (S.D.W. Va. Oct. 3, 2016) 10/03/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on and d sm ssed act on w thout pre ud ce, ho d ng that the part es were bound by a va d arb trat on agreement. Court determ ned that the agreement was va d even though p a nt ff cou d not produce a copy s gned by defendant and that a mutua prom se to arb trate was adequate cons derat on. Court dec ned to cons der an unconsc onab ty defense, reason ng that the part es had agreed to de egate arb trab ty quest ons to the arb trators.

Wexler v. ATT Corp., No. 1:15-CV-00686-FB-PK (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2016) 10/03/2016

Court den ed mot on to compe arb trat on, f nd ng that scope of agreement to arb trate was too broad for a reasonab e person to th nk that check ng a box accept ng terms and cond t ons of contract wou d ob gate her to arb trate every poss b e d spute she m ght have w th the serv ce prov der.

McClean v. HSBC Finance Corp., No. 2:15-CV-08974-SDW-LDW (D.N.J. Oct. 3, 2016) 10/03/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on. Desp te defendant not hav ng been a s gnatory to the arb trat on agreement at ssue, court he d that the doctr ne of equ tab e estoppe d ctates that p a nt ff s c a ms proceed to arb trat on.

Micheletti v. Uber Technologies Inc., No. 5:15-CV-010001-RCL (W.D. Tex. Oct. 3, 2016) 10/03/2016

Court granted mot on to d sm ss n favor of arb trat on. Court he d the arb trat on agreement c ear y and unm stakab y de egates ssues of arb trab ty to the arb trator and s ne ther procedura y nor substant ve y unconsc onab e. Court a so found that t cou d not cons der whether the arger arb trat on agreement v o ates Ca forn a pub c po cy, as the nterpretat on of what c a ms fa under the arb trat on agreement and whether the very terms of the arb trat on agreement are enforceab e, was c ear y and unm stakab y de egated to arb trat on.

Stillwell v. SLH Vista Inc, No. 4:15-CV-01465-HEA (E.D. Mont. Sept. 30, 2016) 09/30/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on n d spute over p a nt ff s a eged wrongfu term nat on, wh ch court found was w th n agreement to arb trate. Court a so found that p a nt ff bore the burden, but fa ed, to estab sh that the arb trat on agreement she vo untar y entered nto was nva d.

Western Surety Co. v. U.S. Engineering Co., No. 1:15-CV-00327-TSC (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2016) 09/30/2016

Court granted p a nt ff s mot on for part a summary udgment, f nd ng that p a nt ff s not contractua y bound to arb trate d spute over surety bond. Court he d that a though p a nt ff was bound by the defendant s subcontract as a who e, t was not bound by the subcontract s arb trat on c ause.

Smith v. Xlibris Publishing Co., No. 1:15-CV-05334-DLI-RER (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2016) 09/30/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on, f nd ng the p a nt ff entered a va d arb trat on, the p a nt ff s c a ms fe w th n the scope of the arb trat on c ause, there were no non-arb trab e federa c a ms, and defendants d d not wa ve the r r ghts to arb trat on.

Crafty Productions Inc. v. Fuqing Sanxing Crafts. Co. Ltd., No. 3:15-CV-00719-BAS-JLB (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2016) 09/30/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that the part es c ear y and unm stakab y agreed to de egate the ssue of arb trab ty to the arb trator.

Helms v. Pioneer Energy Services Corp., No. 5:15-CV-00928-RCL (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2016) 09/30/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on. Court found that the part es agreed to arb trate and the Fa r Labor Standards Act c a ms fa w th n the scope of that agreement and there s no federa statute or po cy render ng these c a ms nonarb trab e.

Zylstra v. Matter, No. 0:16-CV-02438-RHK-SER (D. Minn. Sept. 30, 2016) 09/30/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on, f nd ng the d spute fe w th n the part es arb trat on agreement. Court stated that, even f t harbored some doubt on th s ssue, compe ng arb trat on st wou d be appropr ate due to the strong federa po cy favor ng arb trat on.

PHD@western, LLC v. Rudolf Construction Partners, LLC, No. 9:16-CV-80097-KAM (S.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2016) 09/30/2016

Court d sm ssed pet t oner s pet t on to compe arb trat on. Court found that t d d not have persona ur sd ct on over the defendant.

Hope Christian Fellowship v. Chesapeake Energy Corp. No. 4:15-CV-02275-BYP (N.D. Ohio Sept. 30, 2016) 09/30/2016

Court granted mot ons to compe arb trat on and stay the su t. Court he d that the part es had a va d arb trat on agreement, the d spute fe w th n the scope of the part es agreement, and there s no federa statute barr ng arb trat on of the d spute.

Hulley Enterprises Ltd. v. Russian Federation, No. 1:14-CV-01996-BAH (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2016) 09/30/2016

Court stayed act on to recogn ze and enforce an arb tra award of $50 b on aga nst the Russ an Federat on pend ng appea of dec s on to set as de the award by a fore gn court at the seat of the arb trat on. Court he d that t possessed the nherent author ty to stay the act on pend ng the fore gn court s dec s on and re ected the Russ an Federat on s argument that t must f rst dec de whether t possesses sub ect matter ur sd ct on before dec d ng whether to grant a stay. Court deemed that a stay was ud c a y eff c ent and warranted because the outcome of the fore gn court dec s on cou d affect the ega v ab ty of the award enforcement act on n the Un ted States. The court kew se found that the hardsh ps faced by the Russ an Federat on d d not outwe gh the benef ts that f owed from grant ng a stay. Shearman & Ster ng s counse for pet t oners seek ng award enforcement n connect on w th th s case.

W. Sur. Co. v. U.S. Eng’g Co., No. 1:15-CV-00327-TSC (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2016) 09/30/2016

Court granted mot on for part a summary udgment and den ed defendant s mot on to d sm ss. Court found that p a nt ff was not bound by the arb trat on agreement as t conta ned a m t ng c ause that meant that on y defendant and ts subcontractor were bound by the arb trat on agreement.

Trs. for the Mason Tenders Dist. Council Welfare Fund v. Marlboro Group Int’l, No. 1:16-CV-04776-WHP (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2016) 09/30/2016

Court granted mot on to conf rm arb trat on award. Court he d that there was noth ng n the record nd cat ng that the arb trat on award shou d be vacated, mod f ed, or corrected under FAA §§ 10 and 11. Court further he d that the award had substant a y more than the “co orab e ust f cat on” needed to conf rm t.

TD Ameritrade, Inc. v. Kelley, No. 1:15-CV-00714-PAC-FM (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2016) 09/30/2016

Court granted mot on to vacate the arb tra award. Court agreed w th the mag strate udge that t was mposs b e or ega for the pet t oner to comp y w th the award and thus vacatur was warranted.

Smith v. Xlibris Publ’g, No. 1:15-CV-05334-DLI-RER (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2016) 09/30/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on, f nd ng that the arb trat on agreement c ear y set forth on y one process through wh ch p a nt ff cou d “opt out” of arb trat on and p a nt ff conceded that he d d not fo ow that process. Court a so he d p a nt ff s c a ms fe w th n the scope of the arb trat on c ause, there were no non-arb trab e federa c a ms g ven the ack of a c ear congress ona command nd cat ng that the c a ms shou d be non-arb trab e, and defendants d d not wa ve the r r ght to arb trate by fa ng to demand arb trat on w th n th rty days, as they were not requ red to do so.

Republic of Argentina v. AWG Group Ltd., No. 1:15-CV-01057-BAH (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2016) 09/30/2016

Court den ed pet t on to vacate arb tra award and granted respondent s pet t on to conf rm the award. Court he d that the cha enged arb trator s fa ure to d sc ose her appo ntment to the board of UBS, a f nanc a nst tut on nvested n the re evant market and a shareho der n one of the AWG c a mants, d d not amount to “ev dent part a ty” warrant ng vacatur under FAA § 10(a)(2). Court a so he d that the tr buna d d not exceed ts powers when t awarded damages and e ected not to app y the pr nc p e of necess ty, thus vacatur under FAA § 10(a)(4) was a so not warranted.

Helms v. Pioneer Energy Servs. Corp., No. 5:15-CV-00928-RCL (W.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2016) 09/30/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on, ho d ng the part es mutua agreement to arb trate c a ms was suff c ent cons derat on and the arb trat on agreement was not usory because the defendant cou d not un atera y avo d ts prom se to arb trate. Court a so he d the arb trat on agreement was not unconsc onab e because p a nt ffs fa ed to show that arb trat on wou d mpose s gn f cant y greater costs than t gat on.

Crystallex Int’l Corp. v. Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A., No. 1:15-CV-01082-LPS (D. Del. Sept. 30, 2016) 09/30/2016

Court granted n part and den ed n part defendants mot on to d sm ss, d sm ss ng defendant CITGO but not defendant PDV Ho d ng, Inc. P a nt ff had f ed su t based on the De aware Un form Fraudu ent Transfer Act and c v consp racy, a eg ng that Venezue a had orchestrated transfers to avo d pay ng a arge arb trat on award. Court he d that (a) CITGO was not a party to a fraudu ent transfer and thus cou d not be he d ab e as an accomp ce or co-consp rator, (b) p a nt ff s c v consp racy c a m shou d be d sm ssed, (c) the su t was not barred under the FSIA, and (d) the mot on to d sm ss the su t under the act of state doctr ne wou d be den ed w thout pre ud ce.

Chatman v. Jimmy Gray Chevrolet, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00009-NBB-SAA (N.D. Miss. Sept. 30, 2016) 09/30/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on. Court found that a va d de egat on c ause ex sted, wh ch was not substant ve y or procedura y unconsc onab e. Thus, the arb trator shou d reso ve the ssue of whether the defendant wa ved ts r ght to arb trate when t nst gated cr m na proceed ngs aga nst the p a nt ff.

Sistem Muhendislik Insaat Sanayi Ve Ticaret v. the Kyrgyz Republic, No. 1:12-CV-04502-ALC-RLE (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2016) 09/30/2016

Court granted p a nt ff s mot on for summary udgment conf rm ng fore gn arb tra award. Court he d that defendant fa ed to meet ts burden to show that the compos t on of the arb tra tr buna or the arb tra procedure was not n accordance w th the agreement of the part es, and that the defendant s mproper venue and forum non conven ens arguments a so fe short.

Crystallex v. PDVSA, No. 1:15-CV-01082-LPS (D. Del. Sept. 30, 2016) 09/30/2016

Court granted n part and den ed n part defendant s mot on to d sm ss p a nt ff s c a ms that defendant, seek ng to repatr ate funds to escape enforcement of a fore gn arb tra award, engaged n a c v consp racy and v o ated the De aware Un form Fraudu ent Transfer Act. Court d sm ssed p a nt ff s c v consp racy c a m, but he d the p a nt ff s De aware Un form Fraudu ent Transfer Act c a ms cou d not be d sm ssed on the bas s of the FSIA and act of state doctr nes.

Diversicare of Nicholasville, LLC v. Lowry, No. 5:16-CV-00053-JMH (E.D. Ky. Sept. 30, 2016) 09/30/2016

Court granted n part and den ed n part p a nt ffs mot on for exped ted cons derat on of comp a nt to compe arb trat on and en o n defendant. Court found the arb trat on agreement fe w th n the scope of the FAA, was not unconsc onab e, and was not vo d as aga nst pub c po cy. Court conc uded, however, that the arb tra agreement d d not b nd wrongfu death benef c ar es and dec ned to compe arb trat on of those c a ms. Court found an n unct on of state court proceed ng was not barred under the Ant -In unct on Act and en o ned defendant from pursu ng state court c a ms.

Pacheco v. The Beverage Works NY, Inc., No. 1:14-CV-05763-DLI-MDG (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2016) 09/30/2016

Court den ed p a nt ffs mot on to vacate var ous arb trat on awards re at ng to c a ms under the Fa r Labor Standards Act and New York abor aw. Court found: (1) that the arb trator d d not exh b t a man fest d sregard of the aw n fa ng to cons der p a nt ffs ev dence at the hear ng; and (2) that the awards d d not v o ate pub c po cy.

Wijesinha v. DIRECTV, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-22090-KMM (S.D. Fla. Sept. 29, 2016) 09/29/2016

Court granted defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that a va d agreement to arb trate ex sted between the part es, the arb trat on prov s on rema ned n effect after term nat on of the customer agreement, and that p a nt ff s d spute fe under the scope of the arb trat on prov s on.

Vujasinovic & Beckcom, PLLC v. Cubillos, No. 4:15-CV-02546 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2016) 09/29/2016

Court he d that determ nat on of whether c ent that f red aw f rm owed the f rm attorney fees s a quest on to be determ ned n arb trat on, not by the court, as the cont ngent-fee arrangement n the representat on agreement requ red d sputes to be reso ved through b nd ng arb trat on.

International Union of Operating Engineers v. Wingra Stone Company, No. Case: 3:15-CV-00236-WMC (W.D. Wisc. Sept. 29, 2016) 09/29/2016

Court aff rmed arb trat on award, deny ng pet t oner s c a m that t shou d be vacated on the ground that the gr evance ead ng to the arb trat on was unt me y. Court found that the arb trator nterpreted the re evant statute to a ow for the f ng of a gr evance based on a cont nu ng v o at on, and the court s rev ew of an arb trator s award does not nc ude cons derat on of whether such an nterpretat on was n error. The court kew se dec ned to rev ew the arb trator s factua f nd ngs.

Benhenni v. Bayesian Efficient Strategic Trading LLC, No. 2:15-CV-08511-ES-JAD (D.N.J. Sept. 29, 2016) 09/29/2016

Court den ed mot on to vacate arb trat on award. Court found p a nt ff s argument that the arb trator s contractua nterpretat on was rrat ona d d not prov de the court w th a bas s for vacat ng the award and that the arb trator d d not exceed h s scope of power.

Hays v. HCA Holdings, Inc, No. 15-51002 (5th Cir. Sept. 29, 2016) 09/29/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed d str ct court s dec s on order ng arb trat on of p a nt ff s c a ms aga nst a non-s gnatory to the contract conta n ng the arb trat on agreement. Court he d that the d str ct court d d not abuse ts d scret on n ho d ng that defendant cou d compe arb trat on of p a nt ff s tort ous nterference c a m under d rect benef ts estoppe . Court a so he d that p a nt ff must arb trate h s wrongfu term nat on, breach of contract, and neg gence c a ms under ntertw ned c a ms estoppe , wh ch nvo ves compe ng arb trat on when a non-s gnatory has a c ose re at onsh p w th one of the s gnator es and the c a ms are “ nt mate y founded n and ntertw ned w th the under y ng contract ob gat ons.”

Wilson Constr. Co. V. Scheffler Northwest, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-173-YY (D. Or. Sept. 29, 2016) 09/29/2016

Court adopted mag strate udge s f nd ngs and recommendat on to compe arb trat on, deny mot on to d sm ss and grant a ternat ve mot on to stay pend ng the conc us on of arb trat on. A though the part es subcontract d d not conta n an arb trat on agreement, t ncorporated by reference a contract that d d. The mag strate udge he d that wh e the ncorporat on c ause of the subcontract was amb guous, any doubt shou d be reso ved n favor of arb trat on.

Transport Workers Union of Am. Local 252 v. Veolia Transportation Servs., Inc., No. 2:14-CV-03837-DRH-ARL (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2016) 09/29/2016

In grant ng a pet t on to conf rm an arb trat on award, and deny ng the counter-pet t on to vacate the award, the court he d that: the arb trator d d not d sp ay ev dent part a ty; the arb trator s dec s ons to b furcate the proceed ngs and defer ru ng on back pay unt a proper hear ng cou d be he d were not a v o at on of fundamenta fa rness; and the arb trator d d not show a man fest d sregard for the aw.

Smith v. Xlibris Publishing, Penguin et al., No. 1:15-CV-05334-DLI-RER (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2016) 09/29/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on and stayed act on pend ng the arb trat on. Court found that p a nt ff consented to a va d arb trat on agreement, p a nt ff s c a ms fe w th n the scope of the arb trat on c ause, there were no non-arb trab e federa c a ms, and defendants d d not wa ve the r r ght to arb trat on.

Merryman v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank., No: 1:15-CV-09188-VEC (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2016) 09/29/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on of a c a ms, f nd ng that the arb trat on agreement was enforceab e under the New York Convent on and the FAA, and the ssue of whether a cond t on precedent was met was for the arb trator to dec de.

Hope Christian Fellowship v. Chesapeake Energy Corp., No. 4:15-CV-02275-BYP (N.D. Ohio Sept. 29, 2016) 09/29/2016

Court granted mot on to compe nd v dua arb trat on. Wh e defendants were non-s gnator es to the contract conta n ng the arb trat on agreement, because there was an agency re at onsh p between the defendants and a s gnatory, the c a m was nextr cab y ntertw ned w th the contract and the defendants cou d compe arb trat on. Court a so he d that because the arb trat on c auses were s ent as to c ass arb trat on, c ass-w de arb trat on was not author zed.

Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Keyes, No. 3:16-CV-00058-WHB-JCG (S.D. Miss. Sept. 28, 2016) 09/28/2016

Court granted p a nt ffs mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that a va d arb trat on agreement ex sted between the part es and that the arb trat on agreement conta ned a de egat on prov s on under wh ch the part es agreed to arb trate the quest on of arb trab ty.

Green Tree Servicing, LLC et al. v. Clayton, No. 3:16-CV-00059-WHB-JCG (S.D. Miss. Sept. 28, 2016) 09/28/2016

Court den ed defendants mot on to d sm ss and granted p a nt ffs mot on to compe arb trat on. Court found that ( ) the part es under y ng contract nvo ved “ nterstate commerce” as that term s app ed to the FAA, ( ) a va d agreement to arb trate ex sted because the non-s gnatory p a nt ffs had a c ose ega re at onsh p w th a s gnatory and there was “substant a y nterdependent and concerted m sconduct” between the s gnatory and non-s gnatory p a nt ffs, and ( ) the arb trat on agreement spec f ca y author zed the arb trator to reso ve “d sputes over the format on, ex stence, va d ty, nterpretat on or scope of the agreement under wh ch Arb trat on s sought.”

V5 Investments, LLC v. GoWaiter Business Holdings, LLC, No. 6:15-CV-02065-PGB-KRS (M.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2016) 09/28/2016

Court granted defendants cross mot on to conf rm the arb trat on award, f nd ng no grounds to vacate, mod fy, or correct the arb trat on award. Court re ected p a nt ff s content on that the award was procured by undue needs, as the ssue had a ready been dec ded by the arb trator and p a nt ffs demonstrated no undue means wh ch were not d scovered pr or to or dur ng the arb trat on. Court a so re ected p a nt ff s content on that the arb trator exceeded h s powers by award ng damages that exceeded the scope of damages granted by the contract, f nd ng that the arb trator s nterpretat on of what damages were perm tted were not express y contrad cted by the anguage of the contract.

Kotchen and Low LLP v. Precision Discovery, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00224-GK (D.D.C. Sept. 28, 2016) 09/28/2016

Court granted n part and den ed n part defendants amended mot on to compe arb trat on, f nd ng that the anguage of the reta ner agreement showed that t extended to the e-d scovery serv ces prov ded by defendant. However, the scope of the agreement d d not app y to c a ms ar s ng out of unpa d host ng fees, as these were not suff c ent y re ated to the court-ordered forens c serv ces covered by the reta ner agreement.

Dockery v. GGNSC Louisville Hillcreek, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00025-DJH (W.D. Ky. Sept. 27, 2016) 09/27/2016

Court granted mot on to stay case pend ng the outcome of the part es para e arb trat on. Court found that a ow ng the case to proceed n tandem w th the para e FAA case wou d ke y resu t n unnecessary dup cat on and waste of ud c a resources, mak ng a stay eff c ent and appropr ate.

Larson v. Westwood Inc., No. 2:15-CV-01372-RFB-GWF (D. Nev. Sept. 27, 2016) 09/27/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on, den ed mot on to d sm ss and mot on for summary udgment, and stayed case pend ng outcome of arb trat on. Court found, that the part es agreed to b nd ng arb trat on, and that the scope of the agreement encompasses a of p a nt ff s c a ms.

Africard Co. Ltd. v. Republic of Niger, No. 1:16-CV-00196-ABJ (D.D.C. Sept. 27, 2016) 09/27/2016

Court granted pet t on to conf rm arb trat on award and mot on for defau t udgment. Court he d that t had ur sd ct on under the FAA and respondent d d not en oy sovere gn mmun ty under the FSIA because “ t s we sett ed that the New York Convent on g ves r se to ur sd ct on under the treaty except on.” Court a so he d that respondent was proper y served under 28 USC § 1608(a) and that there were no grounds for deny ng the conf rmat on of the arb tra award under Art. V of the New York Convent on.

Schnaudt v. Johncol, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-02619-JLG-EPD (S.D. Ohio Sept. 27, 2016) 09/27/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on for an nd v dua c a m for reta atory term nat on and prov s ona y granted the mot on as to the rema n ng c a ms that were brought as a putat ve co ect ve act on. Wh e the court he d that the arb trat on agreement was enforceab e as between the part es, because recent dec s ons n the seventh and n nth c rcu ts have he d that co ect ve act on wa vers were unenforceab e the court w thhe d an order compe ng arb trat on for the co ect ve act on pend ng further cons derat on and deve opments regard ng the ssue.

GGNSC Louisville Hillcreek, LLC v. Dockery, No. 3:15-CV-00908-DJH (W.D. Ky. Sept. 27, 2016) 09/27/2016

Court ordered an ev dent ary hear ng to determ ne f the arb trat on agreement at ssue was a forgery, granted mot on to d sm ss counterc a ms, and den ed mot on for summary udgment based on the content on that the FAA s unconst tut ona s nce t requ res wa ver of the r ght to a tr a by ury. Court he d that the counterc a ms fe outs de the scope of nqu ry nto a FAA § 4 pet t on to compe arb trat on, and that the r ght to a ury had not yet attached as the seventh amendment on y confers “the r ght to have a ury hear the case once t s determ ned that t gat on shou d proceed before a court.”

Asphalt Trader Ltd. V. Taryn Capital Energy, L.L.C., No. 1:16-CV-00054-JNP-EJF (D. Utah Sept. 27, 2016) 09/27/2016

Court granted pet t on to conf rm a fore gn arb trat on award and enter udgment under the New York Convent on. Court he d that the pet t oner met ts burden of product on by subm tt ng a s gned copy of the arb trat on award and the n t a charter-party, wh ch conta ned the arb trat on agreement. Court a so he d that the award fe under ts or g na ur sd ct on s nce the case was rendered n a fore gn nat on that was party to the New York Convent on and arose out of a commerc a agreement.

Tribal Casino Gaming Enter. v. W.G. Yates & Sons Construction Co., No. 1:16-CV-00132-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C. Sept. 26, 2016) 09/26/2016

Court granted mot ons to compe arb trat on and stay matter. Court he d that the quest on of whether the arb trat on pane exceeded the r powers by fa ng to extend the a eged y “unreasonab y short t me per od” wh ch they were to ssue an award was not r pe for cons derat on s nce an award had not been ssued by the tr buna .

Michel v. Parts Auth., Inc., No. 1:15-CV-05730-ARR-MDG) (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2016) 09/26/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on and d sm ss act on because, even f the FAA d d not app y, New York state aw wou d compe arb trat on. Court a so he d that the p a nt ff made no attempt to demonstrate what proh b t ve expense wou d resu t from compe ng arb trat on, and thus cou d not re y on unconsc onab ty to nva date the arb trat on agreement.

Lemberg Law, LLC v. Hussin, No. 3:16-CV-01727-JM-WVG (S.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2016) 09/26/2016

Court den ed mot on to compe arb trat on and stay proceed ngs because p a nt ff had t gated the case for over a year before mov ng to stay proceed ngs and compe arb trat on. Court found that by undertak ng extens ve federa t gat on p a nt ff wa ved any r ght to arb trat on.

Duge v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., No. 6:16-CV-00114-RP (W.D. Tex. Sept. 26, 2016) 09/26/2016

Court den ed mot on to compe arb trat on and d sm ss act on because the part es d spute over whether the p a nt ff accepted the defendant s arb trat on agreement was a genu ne ssue of fact, for wh ch the FAA prov des a r ght to a tr a by ury.

Dissolved Air Floatation Corp. v. Kothari, No. 1:14-CV-01223-WCG (E.D. Wis. Sept. 26, 2016) 09/26/2016

Court granted mot on to d sm ss on r peness grounds. Court re ected the argument that the case was unr pe because the purchase agreement under y ng the d spute conta ns a prov s on requ r ng d sputes to be sub ect to b nd ng arb trat on, but that arb trat on had not occurred. Court he d that an arb trat on c ause does not affect sub ect matter ur sd ct on because part es may a ways wa ve a contractua r ght to arb trate.

Dittmann v. ACS Human Services LLC, No. 2:16-CV-00016-PPS-PRC (N.D. Ind. Sept. 26, 2016) 09/26/2016

Court granted n part and den ed n part defendants mot on to compe arb trat on, re ect ng p a nt ff s argument that the d spute reso ut on p an d d not requ re h m to arb trate d sputes where a th rd party s named. Court found that the defendants were on y seek ng arb trat on of the d sputes aga nst them, and not a th rd party, and any cha enges regard ng the nterpretat on, app cab ty, or enforceab ty of the d spute reso ut on p an or the arb trat on agreement was to be dec ded by the arb trator.

Ybarra et al. v. Texas Migrant Council, No. 5:15-CV-00136 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 23, 2016) 09/23/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on and adopted mag strate udge s f nd ngs, wh ch re ected p a nt ff s arguments that the defendant fa ed to dent fy wh ch arb trat on agreement t was attempt ng to enforce, and that the arb trat on agreement was usory and unenforceab e. The mag strate udge a so found that the f fth c rcu t had nterpreted the FAA to author ze d sm ssa of the case when a of the ssues ra sed are subm tted to arb trat on.

Langere v. Verizon Wireless Servs., LLC, No. CV 15-00191 DDP (AJWx) (C.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2016) 09/23/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on s nce the arb trat on agreement at ssue was suff c ent y broad to cover p a nt ff s c a ms. Court a so found that the arb trat on agreement was m n ma y procedura y unconsc onab e and not accompan ed by any substant ve unconsc onab ty, and therefore s enforceab e.

Estate of Johnson Clark v. William Horwich, No. 12-17577 (9th Cir. Sept. 23, 2016) 09/23/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed d str ct court s d sm ssa of a mot on to compe arb trat on s nce the FAA does not tse f confer ur sd ct on on federa d str ct courts over act ons to compe arb trat on, nor create a federa cause of act on g v ng r se to federa quest on ur sd ct on under 28 USC § 1331.

Imbruce v. American Arbitration Association, No. 1:15-CV-07508-NRB (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2016) 09/23/2016

Court granted AAA s mot on to d sm ss p a nt ffs amended comp a nt based on AAA Ru e R-52(D) and the doctr ne of arb tra mmun ty. Court he d that AAA s fa ure to co ect a counterc a m fee pr or to the ssuance of the arb trator s damages award on that counterc a m s “suff c ent y assoc ated w th the ad ud cat ve phase of the arb trat on to ust fy mmun ty.” Court re ected p a nt ffs “th n y ve ed attempt to evade arb tra mmun ty” under the functus off c o doctr ne by bas ng the r case on the a eged post-award co ect on of a fee by the AAA rather than the AAA s fa ure to co ect such fees pr or to the ssuance of the award. Court a so d sm ssed p a nt ffs c a ms for a udgment dec ar ng the AAA s fee co ect on vo d, ho d ng that th s was an mperm ss b e attempt to cha enge the arb tra award that can on y be brought n an act on to vacate.

Lift Equipment Certification Co., Inc. v. Lawrence Leasing Corp., No. 2:15-CV-01987-JAD-GWF (D. Nev. Sept. 23, 2016) 09/23/2016

Court den ed mot on to mod fy or part a y vacate arb trat on award and granted n part and den ed n part defendant s counter mot on to conf rm and award attorney fees. Court he d that p a nt ff fa ed to prove by c ear and conv nc ng ev dence that the arb trator “man fest y d sregarded the aw” or that the award was “arb trary and capr c ous.” Court dec ned to award defendant ts ega fees s nce p a nt ff s c a ms were “far from fr vo ous – part cu ar y g ven the arb trat on award s vagueness.”

Montoya v. Comcast Corporation, No. 2:15-CV-02573-TLN-DB (E.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2016) 09/23/2016

Court granted defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on, den ed mot on to d sm ss as moot, and stayed act on pend ng arb trat on. Court he d that, even though p a nt ffs were non-s gnator es to the arb trat on agreement, p a nt ffs were bound by t s nce they know ng y exp o ted defendant s serv ces and therefore accepted ts contract terms, nc ud ng the arb trat on agreement. The arb trat on agreement was not procedura y unconsc onab e s nce t acked a “surpr se” e ement, nor was t substant ve y unconsc onab e under Ca forn a aw s nce t d d not ead to “over y harsh” or “one-s ded” resu ts. The d spute was a so w th n the scope of arb trat on prov s on.

Flynn v. FCA US, d/b/a Chrysler Group and Harmon International Industries, No. 3:15-CV-00855-MJR-DGW (S.D. Ill. Sept. 23, 2016) 09/23/2016

Court granted n part and den ed n part mot on to compe arb trat on. Court granted the mot on n re at on to certa n c a ms covered under an arb trat on agreement between Chrys er and two of the p a nt ffs and stayed such c a ms pursuant to § 3 of the FAA unt arb trat on s comp ete. Court he d Chrys er d d not wa ve ts r ght to arb trate by part c pat ng n the ud c a process s nce, as soon as t d scovered the arb trat on agreement, t moved to compe arb trat on.

McGroarty v. U.S. Rare Earths, No. 1:16-CV-02687-GHW (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2016) 09/23/2016

Court conf rmed arb trat on award under the FAA as defendant d d not oppose the pet t on to conf rm or otherw se appear n the act on and there s no nd cat on of a bas s for vacat ng or mod fy ng the award. Court app ed same standard as app cab e to unopposed summary udgment mot ons.

D.A. Nolt Inc. v. Local Union No. 30 United Union of Roofers, No. 15-3697 (3d Cir. Sept. 23, 2016) 09/23/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed d str ct court s order grant ng summary udgment n favor of appe ees on appe ant s cha enge to an arb trat on award n favor of appe ees. Court he d that d str ct court correct y determ ned that the arb trator acted w th n the scope of h s author ty n constru ng the contract and that appe ee had fa ed to show that the arb trat on award man fest y d sregarded the aw or v o ated pub c po cy.

D.A. Nolt, Inc. v. Local Union No. 30, No. 15-3697 (3rd Cir. Sept. 23, 2016) 09/23/2016

Court aff rmed d str ct court s den a of p a nt ff s mot on to vacate arb trat on award. The arb trator acted w th n the scope of h s author ty n nterpret ng the agreement and the p a nt ff s argument that the arb trator d sregarded the aw or v o ated pub c po cy was re ected.

Doss v Nordstrom Inc., No. 3:15-CV-904 (M.D. Tenn. Sept. 22, 2016) 09/22/2016

Court accepted mag strate udge s report and recommendat on that defendants mot on to d sm ss be granted and that the part es be ordered to arb trate the r d spute. Court he d that the arb trat on agreement has not been rendered unenforceab e due to a egat ons of breach of contract, wh ch was a matter for the arb trator to determ ne, and that the agreement was not an unconsc onab e contract of adhes on.

Zambrano v. Strategic Delivery Solutions, No. 1:15-CV-08410-ER (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2016) 09/22/2016

Court granted n part and den ed n part mot on to d sm ss comp a nt and compe arb trat on, and stayed act on pend ng arb trat on. Court he d that p a nt ffs are bound to arb trate the r c a ms s nce they agreed to arb trat on, the r c a ms are w th n the scope of the arb trat on agreement, there s no nd cat on that the r c a ms are nonarb trab e, and the arb trat on agreement does not prevent p a nt ffs from effect ve y v nd cat ng the r r ghts. Even f the p a nt ffs c a ms qua f ed as exempt from the FAA, court he d they wou d be sub ect to mandatory arb trat on under New York aw. Whether the c ass wa ver prov s on s enforceab e, s for the arb trator to dec de.

North Atlantic Distribution, Inc. v. International Longshoremen Association, No. 1:16-CV-00067-M-PAS (D.R.I. Sept. 22, 2016) 09/22/2016

Court aff rmed arb trat on award, ho d ng that the part es agreed ssues of arb trab ty were for the arb trator to dec de, and the arb trator s dec s on that the ssue n d spute was arb trab e cou d not be overturned. In ght of the deference g ven to arb trat on dec s ons, the court refused to rev ew the mer ts of the under y ng d spute.

United States Soccer Federation v. United States National Soccer Team Players Association, No. 15-3402 (7th Cir. Sept. 22, 2016) 09/22/2016

C rcu t court reversed d str ct court s udgment conf rm ng arb trat on award and remanded case w th nstruct ons to vacate award and enter udgment n favor of p a nt ff. Rev ew ng the arb trat on award de novo, c rcu t court he d that arb trator exceeded h s author ty by nterpret ng the part es agreement beyond ts c ear and unamb guous terms, erroneous y assum ng the terms were s ent on the ssue n d spute.

Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. SNV Hospitality, No. 8:15-CV-02385-GJH (D. Md. Sept. 22, 2016) 09/22/2016

Court granted request for udgment by defau t based on arb trat on award. Court he d that p a nt ff s ent t ed to conf rmat on of ts award under the FAA, f nd ng no reason n the record to quest on the va d ty of the part es agreement or the conduct of the arb trator. Further, court found that the part es agreed an award may be entered aga nst a party wh ch fa s to appear f t s proper y not f ed of the proceed ngs, and that udgment on the award may be entered n any court hav ng ur sd ct on.

Coopertiva Agraria Industria Naranjillo Ltd. v. Transmar Commodity Group. Ltd., No. 1:16-CV-03356-LLS (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2016) 09/22/2016

Court granted pet t on to vacate arb trat on award. Part es entered nto s x agreements that referenced a standard contract conta n ng an arb trat on agreement, wh ch was not furn shed or brought to the attent on of the pet t oner before or at the execut on of the s x agreements. Court he d that ncorporat on of the arb trat on c auses was never effect ve y accomp shed because pet t oner d d not know about an mp ed agreement to arb trate, nor was t on not ce to search for the terms of an arb trat on agreement or warned that an arb trat on agreement ex sted.

Service Employees International Union National Industry Pension Fund v. Scientific & Commercial Systems Corp., No. 1:13-CV-01705-JEB (D.D.C. Sept. 22, 2016) 09/22/2016

Court granted p a nt ff s mot on for summary udgment, ho d ng that defendant forfe ted ts r ght to arb trate by not request ng arb trat on and d d not make any overtures to p a nt ff to o nt y agree to arb trate. Gilman v. Walters, No. 3:12-CV-00114-SEB-MPB (S.D. Ind. Sept. 22, 2016) 09/22/2016

Court granted mot on to recogn ze AAA arb trat on award, deny ng a cross-mot on to vacate that award. The court re ected arguments that the arb trator had exceeded h s scope of author ty, f nd ng that the requested rev ew wou d amount to rev s t ng the arb trator s arb trab ty determ nat ons that were square y w th n h s purv ew.

Federal National Mortgage Association, a/k/a Fannie Mae v. Teri Prowant and Tamara Mitchell-Johnson, No. 1:14-CV-03799-AT (N.D. Ga. Sept. 21, 2016) 09/21/2016

Court granted mot on for summary udgment, ho d ng that by f ng the court case and “substant a y nvok ng the t gat on mach nery,” p a nt ff wa ved ts r ght to arb trat on and mater a y breached the part es d spute reso ut on po cy. Court further granted defendants request to resc nd the d spute reso ut on po cy based on p a nt ff s mater a breach and den ed as moot defendant s mot on for summary udgment seek ng a dec arat on and n unct on based on the now ext ngu shed d spute reso ut on po cy.

Lee v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-11756 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 21, 2016) 09/21/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on and stayed case pend ng outcome of arb trat on. Court he d that de egat on c ause n arb trat on agreement was c ear and unm stakab e n de egat ng the quest on of arb trab ty to an arb trator and was not unconsc onab e.

Choice Hotels International, Inc. v. Harikrishna, No. 8:15-CV-03528-GJH (D. Md. Sept. 19, 2016) 09/19/2016

Court granted request for udgment by defau t based on arb trat on award. Court he d that p a nt ff s ent t ed to conf rmat on of ts award under the FAA s nce the part es agreed that udgment sha be entered upon any award made under the r agreement and there s no ground for vacat ng, mod fy ng, or correct ng the award under §§ 10 or 11 of the FAA. Moreover, per the part es agreement, an award may be entered aga nst a party, wh ch fa s to appear, f t s proper y not f ed of the proceed ngs.

Melody Bynum v. Maplebear dba Instacart, No. 1:15-CV-06263-JBW-CLP (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2016) 09/19/2016

Court den ed mot on for cert f cat on for appea under 28 USC § 1292(b) of court order compe ng arb trat on and stay ng t gat on. Court he d that the quest on whether c a ms under the Fa r Labor Standards Act are arb trab e s not “a contro ng quest on of aw as to wh ch there s substant a ground for d fference of op n on.”

Sturtevant v. Xerox Commercial Solutions, No. 2:16-CV-01158-RSM (W.D. Wash. Sept. 19, 2016) 09/19/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on and to d sm ss c a ms s nce, by e ectron ca y s gn ng var ous company po c es nc ud ng defendant s d spute reso ut on p an, p a nt ff agreed to reso v ng d sputes by arb trat on.

Air-Con, Inc. v. Daikin Applied Latin America LLC, No. 15-2683 (GAG) (D.P.R., Sep. 19, 2016) 09/19/2016

Court granted mot on to remand case to state court. Court den ed request to exerc se federa quest on ur sd ct on pursuant to 9 USC § 205, ho d ng that from the not ce of remova t s not c ear that there s a wr tten arb trat on agreement as requ red by the New York Convent on..

Genz-Ryan Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Sheet Metal Workers’ Local 10 Pension Fund, No. 0:16-CV-00280-DWF (D. Minn. Sept. 19, 2016) 09/19/2016

Court den ed emp oyer s mot on to d sm ss a request for ud c a rev ew of an arb trat on award. Court he d that arb trat on proceed ng was comp ete for purposes of rev ew of the dec s on and construed the “Pet t on to Vacate” as a comp a nt suff c ent to beg n a c v act on under Federa Ru e of C v Procedure 3 and the Mu t emp oyer Pens on P an Amendments Act.

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Krieg, No. 2:15-CV-014846 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2016) 09/16/2016

Court granted mot on for defau t udgment and conf rmed arb trat on award. Court he d that, n the absence of any oppos t on by p a nt ff (as p a nt ff had fa ed to respond to defendant s pet t on to conf rm the award and a so fa ed to appear at the hear ng schedu ed for arguments on defendant s mot on for defau t udgment), aff rmat on of the arb trat on award was appropr ate.

Salameno v. Gogo Inc., 1:16-CV-00487-JBW-ST (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2016) 09/15/2016

Court den ed mot on for recons derat on of court s pr or order compe ng arb trat on. Court he d that, as the mot on for recons derat on ne ther presented new ev dence nor prov ded any equ tab e reason that wou d cause the court to a ter ts n t a conc us on, the mot on for recons derat on must be den ed.

Strong v. Geringer, No. 2:15-CV-00837-TC (D. Utah Sept. 15, 2016) 09/15/2016

Court granted n part and den ed n part p a nt ff s mot on to stay the present act on and compe arb trat on. Court he d that, p a nt ff, as qu dat on trustee, stands n the shoes of a debtor, and s therefore bound by the part es arb trat on agreement and p a nt ff d d not wa ve the r ght to pursue arb trat on. P a nt ff s therefore ent t ed to pursue arb trat on aga nst those part es who agreed to arb trate.

Joshua Silfee v. Automated Data Processing and ERG Staffing Service, No. 3:15-CV-00023 (M.D. Pa., Sept. 15, 2016) 09/15/2016

Court den ed mot on to compe arb trat on and stay t gat on s nce the comp a nt and ts support ng documents are unc ear regard ng the agreement to arb trate and the va d ty of the arb trat on agreement s n d spute. Court he d that t w enterta n a renewed mot on to compe arb trat on once “at the very east d scovery on the quest on of arb trab ty ” has taken p ace.

Ray Strong v. Robert D. Geringer, No. 2:15-CV-00837-TC (D. Utah, Sept. 15, 2016) 09/15/2016

Court granted n part and den ed n part mot on to stay proceed ngs and compe arb trat on. Court he d that arb trat on agreement n quest on app es to a d sputes ar s ng out of the part es contract, but t cou d not app y to cred tors and nvestors who had not s gned the arb trat on agreement. Court further he d that p a nt ff has not wa ved h s r ght to arb trate by n t a y oppos ng arb trat on and then chang ng course.

Patterson v. Raymours Furniture Co., Inc., No. 15-2820-CV (2d Cir. Sept. 14, 2016) 09/14/2016

C rcu t Court aff rmed d str ct court s grant of defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that defendant s proh b t on of c ass or co ect ve ad ud cat on of work-re ated c a ms does not ega y restr ct ts emp oyees substant ve r ghts under the Nat ona Labor Re at ons Act and the Norr s-La Guard a Act, and s therefore enforceab e under the FAA.

Miller & Son Paving, Inc. v. Teamsters Pension Trust Fund of Phila. and Vicinity, No. 2:15-CV-04869-GAM (E.D. Pa. Sept. 14, 2016) 09/14/2016

Court granted defendant s mot on for summary udgment, except for attorneys fees, thereby aff rm ng the arb trator s op n on and award. Court he d that p a nt ff s w thdrawa ab ty under ERISA was ca cu ated by the arb trator under a reasonab e nterpretat on of the pens on benef t p an and was ne ther arb trary nor capr c ous.

Silipigno v. Raymond James Fin. Servs., No. 1:16-CV-00170-MAD (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2016) 09/14/2016

Court den ed mot on to conf rm arb trat on award. Court he d that, as no proof of not ce had been subm tted on p a nt ff s mot on, wh ch s a requ rement under the FAA to reta n ur sd ct on, the Court had not obta ned ur sd ct on over defendant.

Fletcher v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00302-WHR (S.D. Ohio. Sept. 14, 2016) 09/14/2016

Court den ed mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that defendant d d not consent to arb trate d sputes w th p a nt ffs, who were ret rees and no onger emp oyees, and therefore the current d spute d d not fa w th n the scope of the arb trat on agreement. Court a so re ected argument that the p a nt ffs were ent t ed to re y on the arb trat on agreement as th rd party benef c ar es.

Brittania-U Nigeria Ltd. v. Chevron U.S.A Inc.., No. 4:16-CV-01457 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 14, 2016) 09/14/2016

Court den ed mot on to amend the court s pr or d sm ssa -w thout-pre ud ce order to one stay ng the case pend ng arb trat on. Court he d that a stay s not requ red because the we ght of author ty supports d sm ssa of the case when a of the ssues ra sed n the d str ct court must be subm tted to arb trat on, wh ch the court determ ned was the case.

Washington Frontier League Baseball LLC v. Zimmerman, No. 1:14-CV-01862-TWP-DML (S.D. Ind. Sept. 14, 2016) 09/14/2016

Court den ed mot on to d sm ss under Federa Ru e of C v Procedure 12(b)(3) (d sm ssa for mproper venue). Court he d that the c a ms asserted aga nst these defendants are sub ect to the part es d spute reso ut on c ause, not the mandatory b nd ng arb trat on c ause, and therefore may be asserted n court.

Golden Gate Nat’l Senior Care, LLC v. Fleshman, No. 3:15-CV-00891-GNS (W.D. Ky. Sept. 13, 2016) 09/13/2016

D str ct court granted mot on to compe arb trat on and stay court act on. Court he d that defendant ne ther acked the capac ty to execute the arb trat on agreement nor were the terms of the agreement procedura y or substant ve y unconsc onab e.

Favors v. Triangle Servs., Inc., No. 15-CV-03817-PKC-LB (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 13, 2016) 09/13/2016

D str ct court granted mot on to compe arb trat on and stayed the court act on pend ng p a nt ff s part c pat on n the a ternat ve gr evance procedure under the part es co ect ve barga n ng agreement. Court he d that, pursuant to the part es agreement, a nd v dua emp oyee c a ms of d scr m nat on must be arb trated.

Marshall v. Wells Fargo Advisors LLC, No. 16-10497 (11th Cir. Sept. 13, 2016) 09/13/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed d str ct court s grant ng of defendant s mot on to str ke certa n part es from the comp a nt because they were not represented by an attorney and ts mot on to d sm ss as to another p a nt ff because he acked stand ng to sue, as he was not party to the arb trat on and therefore s not a party to the award.

Mascio v. Mullica Twp. Sch. Dist., 1:16-CV-00206-RBK-JS (D. N.J. Sept. 13, 2016) 09/13/2016

D str ct court granted defendant s mot on to d sm ss for fa ure to state a c a m. Court re ected p a nt ff s argument that defendants v o ated her r ghts to procedura due process under the U.S. Const tut on, as p a nt ff rece ved not ce and a hear ng before an ndependent arb trator.

Hermés of Paris Inc. v. Matthew Swain, No. 1:16-CV-06255-CM (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 13, 2016) 09/13/2016

Court granted pet t on to compe arb trat on, s nce – absent any ev dence to the contrary – the part es arb trat on agreement was va d. Court he d t had persona ur sd ct on over respondent s nce a party who agrees to arb trate n a part cu ar ur sd ct on consents to both persona ur sd ct on and venue of the courts w th n that ur sd ct on.

Johnson v. Sally Beauty Supply, LLC, 2:16-CV-02531-JLL-JAD (D. N.J. Sept. 12, 2016) 09/12/2016

D str ct court granted defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that the ssue ra sed by p a nt ff – whether the arb trat on agreement s unconsc onab e – fa s w th n the scope of the arb trat on agreement s de egat on c ause, or agreement to arb trate arb trab ty ssues, and therefore shou d be addressed by the arb trator.

Croom v. Elkhart Products Corp., 3:15-CV-00288-RLM-MGG (N.D. Ind. Sept. 12, 2016) 09/12/2016

D str ct court granted mot on to d sm ss defendant s counterc a m, wh ch sought a dec arat on that p a nt ff s c a ms were sub ect to b nd ng arb trat on under the company s co ect ve barga n ng agreement. Court he d that the prov s ons of that agreement do not exp c t y or c ear y and unm stakab y mandate that federa emp oyment-re ated d scr m nat on c a ms must be reso ved n arb trat on and therefore do not prec ude p a nt ff from f ng statutory c a ms of d scr m nat on n court.

Danielle Chatman v. Jimmy Gray Chevrolet and John Does 1-10 Defendants, No. 3:16-CV-00008-GHD-SAA (N.D. Miss., Sept. 12, 2016) 09/12/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on and stayed case pend ng arb trat on., Court he d that part es entered nto a va d arb trat on agreement that de egated gateway ru ngs on thresho d arb trab ty ssues to the arb trator under 9 USC § 3, nc ud ng whether p a nt ff may have wa ved ts r ght to arb trate. Court further en o ned the part es from attempt ng to ud c a y prosecute any c a ms aga nst each other unt such t me as the arb trab ty ssue was dec ded.

Golden Gate Nat’l Senior Care, LLC v. Jones, No. 0:16-CV-00049-HRW (E.D. Ky. Sept. 12, 2016) 09/12/2016

D str ct Court granted p a nt ffs mot on to compe arb trat on and en o n defendant from purs ng c a ms n any a ternat ve forum. Court he d that the arb trat on agreement nvo ved nterstate commerce as the nurs ng home accepted Med care, that there was noth ng suggest ng t was one-s ded, oppress ve, unfa r y surpr s ng or the resu t of unfa r barga n ng, and that t was not vo d as aga nst pub c po cy, as wrongfu death and oss of consort um c a ms are arb trab e.

Board of Trustees of the Ohio Carpenters’ Pension Fund v. Ramunno Builders, Inc., No. 4:15-CV-00424-BYP (N.D. Ohio Sept. 12, 2016) 09/12/2016

D str ct Court granted p a nt ff s mot on for summary udgment. Court he d that, as defendants fa ed to t me y request arb trat on, as requ red by the Mu t emp oyer Pens on P an Amendments Act of 1980, they wa ved any defenses to the w thdrawa ab ty assessment under ERISA or any r ght to assert a counterc a m concern ng the assessment process.

Leviege v. Vodafone US Inc., No 1:16-CV-00374-LMB-IDD (E.D. Va. Sept. 11, 2016) 09/11/2016

Court den ed mot on for recons derat on of order d sm ss ng act on for ack of ur sd ct on because p a nt ff had s gned a b nd ng arb trat on agreement w th defendant. Court found that the m nor word ng ad ustments to a po cy supp ed after the arb trat on agreement was s gned d d not “muddy the crysta c ear anguage” of the arb trat on agreement between the part es.

Snyder v. Cach, LLC, No. 16-00097-ACK-KJM (D. Haw. Sept. 9, 2016) 09/09/2016

Court granted n part and den ed n part mot on to stay d scovery pend ng another mot on to compe arb trat on. Court found that defendant w ncur on y m n ma t me and expense respond ng to the f ve d scovery requests p a nt ff ma nta ns are necessary to oppose the mot on to compe arb trat on. Court found that, beyond these f ve requests, the rema n ng d scovery d d not have any arguab e mpact on the mot on to compe arb trat on, and that the part es shou d not be requ red to endure the expense of that d scovery at th s t me.

Patrick v. Rai Serv. Co., No. 3:16-CV-00852-HGD (N.D. Ala. Sept. 9, 2016) 09/09/2016

D str ct Court granted defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on and den ed p a nt ff s mot on to d sm ss, nstead stay ng the case pend ng reso ut on of the arb trat on. Court he d that there was an mp ed or construct ve contract between p a nt ff and defendant to subm t emp oyment-re ated matters to arb trat on, that p a nt ff had rece ved a copy of the arb trat on agreement and was aware of ts contents, and that the arb trat on agreement covered p a nt ff s c a ms n th s act on re ated to h s emp oyment.

Dunn v. Dunn, No. 2:14-CV-601-MHT (M.D. Ala. Sept. 9, 2016) 09/09/2016

Court granted f na approva of the part es o nt sett ement agreement, wh ch conta ned an arb trat on prov s on, and the r request to enter a consent decree. Court determ ned that the st pu at ons negot ated and entered nto by the part es were suff c ent to a ev ate ts concerns that any arb trat on of d sputes ar s ng dur ng the pendency of the consent decree wou d be b nd ng, mandatory and enforceab e.

Patrick v. Rai Serv. Co., No. 3:16-CV-00852-HGD (N.D. Ala. Sept. 9, 2016) 09/09/2016

Court granted mot on to d sm ss and compe arb trat on, f nd ng that t was poss b e to mp y the ex stence of an arb trat on agreement n the c rcumstances under the doctr ne of quas -contract, and thus the court d d not need to ru e on the cred b ty of p a nt ff s test mony that the e ectron c s gnature on the contract was not h s.

Yox v. Providence Health Plan, Nos. 14-35127, 14-35144 (9th Cir. Sept. 9, 2016) 09/09/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed d str ct court s grant of summary udgment n favor of p a nt ff, re ect ng defendant s argument that p a nt ff had wa ved r ght to sue by agree ng to arb trat on. Court found that the part es agreement to have med ca nsurance c a m den a s rev ewed by an Independent Rev ew Organ zat on d d not const tute an agreement to arb trate but was rather more s m ar to the pract ce of obta n ng another med ca op n on

Cortés-Ramos v. Sony Corp. of Am., No. 15-1786 (1st Cir. Sept. 9, 2016) 09/09/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed d str ct court s grant of pet t on compe ng arb trat on, f nd ng that appe ant s appea concerned ssues re at ng to the mer ts of ts c a ms and d d not mpact the d str ct court s dec s on that such matters shou d be dec ded n arb trat on.

Boyd v. Springleaf Fin. Serv., Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00814 (D.N.M. Sep. 9, 2016) 09/09/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on, reason ng that the part es were bound by the arb trat on prov s on of the r emp oyment contract. Court noted the pro-arb trat on po cy enacted v a the FAA and re ected p a nt ff s arguments that the arb trat on agreement was unsupported by cons derat on, was usory, was otherw se nva d because she d d not know a ts terms at the t me of s gnature, or because the part es fa ed to have a meet ng of the m nds based on a comb nat on of the three.

Smalls v. Five Star Premier Residence of Yonkers, No. 1:13-CV-07757-LGS (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2016) 09/08/2016

Court granted pet t on to conf rm arb trat on award and den ed cross-mot on to vacate, f nd ng that p a nt ff had not estab shed any grounds for vacatur under § 10 of the FAA.

Grynberg v. BP P.L.C., No. 1:08-CV-00301-JDB (D.D.C. Sept. 8, 2016) 09/08/2016

Court den ed mot on to vacate court s pr or d sm ssa of RICO c a ms n favor of arb trat on under Fed. R. C v. P. Ru e 60, f nd ng that p a nt ff fa ed to estab sh that the arb trator was b ased aga nst h m at the t me t ru ed on those c a ms.

Ga.-Pac. Gypsum, LLC v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 117, No. 3:16-CV-05255-BHS (W.D. Wash. Sept. 8, 2016) 09/08/2016

Court aff rmed arb tra award, f nd ng that arb trator s dec s ons on adm ss b ty of certa n ev dence and nterpretat on of govern ng agreement were not sub ect to ud c a rev ew.

Ryan v. Delbert Servs. Corp., No. 5:15-CV-05044-JFL (E.D. Pa. Sept. 8, 2016) 09/08/2016

Court den ed mot on to compe arb trat on, f nd ng that the arb trat on c ause s cho ce of tr ba aw mperm ss b y renounced the app cat on of federa aw to federa aw c a ms and was effect ve y a “cho ce of no aw c ause”; and de egat on c ause entrust ng determ nat on of va d ty of arb trat on c ause to the arb trator was unenforceab e s nce t wou d mperm ss b y nsu ate an unenforceab e arb trat on c ause from attack.

Norwin School Bus Drivers Ass’n v. First Student, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00666-RCM (W.D. Pa. Sept. 8, 2016) 09/08/2016

Court den ed both part es mot ons for summary udgment as to the enforcement of an arb tra award and remanded the matter to the arb trator for reso ut on of an amb gu ty as to whether federa regu at ons that appear to mpose prerequ s tes to re nstatement of emp oyment are mp c t n the award.

Sbrmcoa, LLC v. Bayside Resort, Inc., No. 3:06-CV-00042-CVG-RM (D.V.I. Sept. 8, 2016) 09/08/2016

On wr t of mandamus ssued by the c rcu t court, d str ct court reaff rmed prev ous grant of mot on to compe arb trat on, f nd ng that presence of u tra v res c ause n the contract d d not render the arb trat on c ause u tra v res.

Chassen v. Fid. Nat’l Fin., Inc., No. 15-3789 (3d Cir. Sept. 8, 2016) 09/08/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed d str ct court s grant of mot on to compe arb trat on, f nd ng that defendant s de ay n mov ng to compe b atera arb trat on d d not effect a wa ver s nce, under contro ng aw at the t me (s nce overru ed), the arb trat on c ause s m ts on c ass arb trat on wou d have been cons dered unconsc onab e and thus mot on wou d have been fut e.

Wiregrass Metal Trades Council AFL-CIO v. Shaw Envtl. & Infrastructure, Inc., No. 15-11662 (11th Cir. Sept. 8, 2016) 09/08/2016

C rcu t court overru ed d str ct court s set-as de of arb trat on award, ho d ng that where t s not apparent from an arb trator s stated reason ng whether she perm ss b y nterpreted a contract or mperm ss b y mod f ed t, a court shou d presume that the award s an nterpretat on of the contract and enforce t.

SBRMCOA, LLC v. Bayside Resort, Inc., No. 3:06-CV-00042-CVG-RM (D.V.I. Sept. 8, 2016) 09/08/2016

On a wr t of mandamus ssued by the th rd c rcu t, the d str ct court found that none of the prov s ons of the part es water supp y agreement that p a nt ff contended were beyond the author ty of the Board of D rectors rendered that agreement as a who e, nc ud ng ts arb trat on c ause, u tra v res, and therefore noth ng prevents an arb trator from address ng the part es d spute.

Grynberg v. BP P.L.C., No. 1:08-CV-00301-JDB (D.D.C. Sept. 8, 2016) 09/08/2016

Court den ed Ru e 60 mot on to vacate the court s pr or 2008 dec s on d sm ss ng h s c a ms, to resc nd the arb trat on agreement, and to rev ve h s prev ous y d sm ssed RICO c a ms on the ground of arb trator b as and defendant s a eged bad fa th n exp o t ng such b as. Court he d that, as p a nt ff had fa ed to pursue pr or avenues for appea , h s RICO c a ms are res ud cata, the arb trator was not b ased aga nst p a nt ff when he dec ded the RICO c a ms, and p a nt ff fa ed to show bad fa th on the part of defendant.

Tr. of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labor-Mgmt., Corp., Pension, and Welfare Funds v. All Cnty. Paving Corp., No. 2:15-CV-05688-ADS-ARL (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2016) 09/08/2016

Court granted pet t on to conf rm and enforce arb trat on award on report and recommendat on of mag strate udge dated Ju y 27. Court accepted mag strate s ho d ng that, as the respondent had been proper y served w th not ce of the arb trat on (a though not hav ng part c pated there n), the arb trat on award prov ded for more than “a bare y co orab e ust f cat on for the outcome reached.”.

Chassen v. Fidelity Nat’l Fin., Inc., No. 15-3789 (3d Cir. Sept. 8, 2016) 09/08/2016

C rcu t court remanded case to d str ct court w th nstruct ons to compe nd v dua arb trat on of p a nt ffs arb trab e c a ms. Court he d that fut ty can excuse the de ayed nvocat on of the r ght to compe arb trat on and, because any attempt to compe nd v dua arb trat on n p a nt ffs case pr or to the Supreme Court s dec s on n AT&T Mob ty LLC v. Concepc on wou d have been fut e, remand to compe arb trat on was therefore n order.

Wiregrass Metal Trades Council AFL–CIO v. Shaw Envtl. & Infrastructure, Inc., No. 15-11662 (11th Cir. Sept. 8, 2016) 09/08/2016

C rcu t court reversed and remanded d str ct court s dec s on to set as de arb tra award. Court, n support ng the broad federa po cy support ng enforcement of arb trat on awards, he d that when t s not apparent from the arb trator s stated reason ng (or ack thereof) whether he or she perm ss b y nterpreted a co ect ve barga n ng agreement or mperm ss b y mod f ed t, and one can p aus b y read the award e ther way, the court must reso ve the amb gu ty by f nd ng that the award s an nterpretat on of the contract and enforce t.

Gillick v. Brown, No. 4:16-CV-00122-RLW (E.D. Mo. Sept. 8, 2016) 09/08/2016

Court granted mot on for udgment on the p ead ngs n act on seek ng court appo nt ng of an mpart a ump re, f nd ng that the app cab e agreement prov ded for court appo ntment n the event the part es cou d not agree on an mpart a ump re.

Royal Alliance Assocs., Inc. v. Mooney, No. 2:16-CV-02379-PA-AFM (C.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2016) 09/07/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on and d sm ssed p a nt ff s c a ms. Court he d that defendants cou d nvoke FINRA s arb trat on ru es, wh ch requ re arb trat on where requested by a customer, and that defendants, as a FINRA account ho ders, were customers of p a nt ff.

Trs. of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labor-Mgmt. Cooperation, Pension and Welfare Funds v. All Cty. Paving Corp., No. 2:15-CV-05688-ADS-ARL (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2016) 09/07/2016

Court granted mot on for defau t udgment on p a nt ff s unopposed pet t on to conf rm and enforce an arb trat on award, adopt ng mag strate udge s report and recommendat ons.

Patterson v. Raymours Furniture Co., No. 15-2820-CV (2d Cir. Sept. 7, 2016) 09/07/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed d str ct court s grant of mot on to compe arb trat on. Wh e c rcu t pane “m ght we be persuaded” that c ass act on wa ver n an agreement to arb trate emp oyment and compensat on-re ated c a ms s unenforceab e n ght of co ect ve act on protect ons under federa and state abor aw, Second C rcu t precedent – not yet overru ed by en banc pane or Supreme Court rev ew – compe ed re ect ng a cha enge on th s bas s.

Golden Living Ctr.-Vanceburg v. Reeder, No. 0:16-CV-00009-HRW (E.D. Ky. Sept. 7, 2016) 09/07/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on and en o n para e state court proceed ngs and den ed mot on to d sm ss. Re ect ng the defendant s mot on to d sm ss for fa ure to o n a party, court found that non-d verse nd v dua defendants to a state act on are not nd spensab e part es n a para e federa court act on to compe arb trat on. In re ect ng cha enge to arb trat on agreement, court he d that state precedent creat ng exact ng requ rements for power of attorney documents purport ng to grant an agent author ty to enter nto an arb trat on agreement on beha f of a pr nc p e s pre-empted by the FAA and n any event not contro ng n cases of guard ansh p. In re ect ng request to absta n from exerc s ng ur sd ct on, court found that app cab ty of FAA we ghs aga nst surrender of federa ur sd ct on. F na y, court he d that, a though FAA does not author ze federa courts to stay state court proceed ngs pend ng arb trat on, an n unct on to th s effect may be ssued under an except on to the Ant -In unct on Act.

Diversicare Leasing Corp. v. Helmick, No. 0:16-CV-00048-HRW (E.D. Ky. Sept. 7, 2016) 09/07/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on and en o n para e state court proceed ngs and d sm ssed w th pre ud ce. In re ect ng cha enge to arb trat on agreement, court he d that state precedent creat ng exact ng requ rements for power of attorney documents purport ng to grant an agent author ty to enter nto an arb trat on agreement on beha f of a pr nc p e s pre-empted by the FAA and n any event not app cab e where the power of attorney express y g ves author ty to execute consents, wa vers, and re eases of ab ty. Court a so he d that, a though FAA does not author ze federa courts to stay state court proceed ngs pend ng arb trat on, an n unct on to th s effect may be ssued under an except on to the Ant -In unct on Act.

Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Ledbetter, No. 1:16-CV-00070-DAS (N.D. Miss. Sept. 7, 2016) 09/07/2016

Court den ed mot on to compe arb trat on, f nd ng that defendant vo untar y w thdrawa of her state court c a ms d d not render mot on moot, s nce they cou d be reasserted; and defendant was ent t ed to ev dent ary hear ng on her content on that her purported s gnature was nauthent c.

Slatten v. Jim Glover Chevrolet Lawton, LLC, No. 5:15-CV-01180-D (W.D. Okla. Sept. 7, 2016) 09/07/2016

Court den ed mot on to recons der pr or den a of mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that defendant s argument that the arb trat on agreement s fee-sp tt ng prov s on was contrary to the AAA arb trat on ru es and unenforceab e – and that the agreement may thus be enforced w thout that prov s on – shou d have been ra sed n pr or br ef ng.

Ekryss v. Ignite Restaurant Grp., Inc., 6:15-CV-06742-CJS (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2016) 09/07/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on and d sm ss the comp a nt, f nd ng that the arb trat on prov s on conta ned n emp oyment gu de nes was not usory s nce, a though emp oyment gu de nes cou d be changed by emp oyer at w , arb trat on prov s on was d st nct from the rema nder of the gu de nes.

Noye v. Johnson, No. 1:15-CV-02382-YK (M.D. Pa. Sept. 7, 2016) 09/07/2016

Court den ed mot on to compe arb trat on and stay proceed ngs, both as to s gnatory to arb trat on agreement and non-s gnatory co-defendant. Court he d that p a nt ff had produced suff c ent ev dence nd cat ng that he d d not ntend to be bound the arb trat on agreement to warrant d scovery on the quest on of arb trab ty and further br ef ng under a summary udgment standard, and that non-s gnatory co-defendant consequent y cou d not re y on arb trat on agreement der vat ve y.

R&G Student Hous., LLC v. Phoenix Sustainable Grp., LLC, No. 6:16-CV-01363-GAP-DAB (M.D. Fla. Sept. 7, 2016) 09/07/2016

Court den ed emergency mot on to enforce the part es negot ated arb trat on prov s on, f nd ng that, where part es d sagree over proper forum for arb trat on, cost of respond ng to arb trat on demand n contested forum s not an rreparab e n ury warrant ng a pre m nary n unct on en o n ng the contested proceed ngs.

Cunico v. Custom Alloy Corp., No. 14-56544 (9th Cir. Sept. 6, 2016) 09/06/2016

C rcu t court reversed d str ct court s order grant ng mot on to compe arb trat on and remanded for further proceed ngs s nce d str ct court had not made necessary factua f nd ngs as to the part es commun cat ons, dec ded the aw app cab e to contract format on, or stated as a matter of aw what const tuted the offer, acceptance, or terms of the contract.

Sangkharat v. Dr. Reynolds & Assoc., P.C., No. 2:16-CV-10514-DPH-DRG (E.D. Mich. Sept. 6, 2016) 09/06/2016

Court granted mot on to d sm ss and compe arb trat on, f nd ng that, where an emp oyment agreement conta ns a prov s on requ r ng comp ance w th non-d scr m nat on statutes, c a ms ar s ng under those statutes fa w th n the scope of the arb trat on agreement.

Harrod v. Signet Jewelers Ltd., No. 6:15-CV-06111-SOH (W.D. Ark. Sept. 6, 2016) 09/06/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on and stayed proceed ngs, adopt ng mag strate udge s report and recommendat on. Mag strate udge had found that p a nt ff s cha enges to the va d ty of the arb trat on agreement were factua y unsupported n ght of “recent y acqu red documentat on” subm tted by defendant w th ts rep y br ef.

Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local Union 272, AFL-CIO v. FirstEnergy Generation Corp., 2:16-CV-00360-TFM (W.D. Pa. Sept. 2, 2016) 09/02/2016

Court den ed mot on to vacate arb trat on award, f nd ng that arb trator s award represented a “ser ous and fa r-m nded attempt” to nterpret and app y the anguage of the co ect ve barga n ng agreement at ssue.

GGNSC Stanford, LLC v. Johnson, No. 5:16-CV-00012-KKC (E.D. Ky. Sept. 2, 2016) 09/02/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on, ho d ng that the arb trat on agreement (1) was sub ect to the FAA s nce t re ated to the prov s on of ong-term hea thcare and therefore nvo ved nterstate commerce; (2) was not procedura y unconsc onab e s nce t was conta ned n a separate document t t ed n bo d and wr tten n cap ta etters; and (3) t had not been shown to be substant ve y unconsc onab e s nce defendant fa ed to substant ate ts c a ms that arb trat on wou d be proh b t ve y expens ve and unacceptab y truncate d scovery.

HCR Manorcare, Inc. v. Youngblood, No. 3:16-CV-00032-GMG (N.D. W.Va. Sept. 2, 2016) 09/02/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on s nce n wrongfu death act on arb trat on agreement s gned w th the decedent s enforceab e aga nst adm n strator represent ng decedent s estate.

Delgado v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC., 1:13-CV-04427-NGG-ST (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2016) 09/02/2016

Court den ed mot on compe arb trat on and stay act on. Wh e cha enges to a contract as a who e, rather than the arb trat on c ause spec f ca y, are genera y for the arb trator to dec de, cha enges to the ex stence of the contract n the f rst p ace ( nc ud ng fraud- n-the-factum a egat ons) are genera y for the court. Court he d that p a nt ffs suff c ent y substant ated the r a egat ons of fraud- nthe-factum and are ent t ed to proceed to tr a on th s po nt.

AlixPartners v. Charles Brewington, No. 16-1027 (6th Cir. Sept. 2, 2016) 09/02/2016

Court aff rmed d str ct court s summary udgment order that arb trat on c ause n p a nt ff s emp oyment agreement d d not author ze p a nt ff to pursue c ass-w de arb trat on. The gateway ssue, whether the part es arb trat on agreement perm ts c ass-w de arb trat on, s reserved for ud c a determ nat on s nce the part es d d not “c ear y and unm stakab y” agree otherw se.

Rite Aid of NY, Inc. v. 1999Seiu United Healthcare Workers E., No. 16-cv-1821 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2016) 09/01/2016

Court den ed pet t on to vacate abor arb trat on award s nce the cha enge was prem sed ent re y on the not on that the arb trator had erroneous y nterpreted the agreement at ssue. Court he d that, even n c rcumstances where the arb trator has comm tted ser ous error, f the arb trator s arguab y constru ng or app y ng the contract w th n the scope of h s author ty the dec s on shou d be uphe d.

NCR Corporation v. Goh, No. 2:16-CV-00127-MJP (W.D. Wash. Sept. 1, 2016) 09/01/2016

Court granted mot on for summary udgment that arb trator was author zed to dec de the d spute. Court he d that the p a nt ff had wa ved ts r ght to cha enge the arb trator s author ty to reso ve the d spute and t wou d be unreasonab e to a ow the p a nt ff to reverse course after vo untar y part c pat ng.

Altela Inc. v. Arizona Science and Technology Enterprises LLC, No. 2:16-CV-01762-DGC (D. Ariz. Aug. 31, 2016) 08/31/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on and d sm ss act on but den ed mot on to compe negot at on or med at on. Court he d that under the FAA a party s post-rat f cat on breach of a contract cannot negate a va d arb trat on agreement un ess the breach perta ns to the arb trat on prov s ons tse f, and therefore the defendant s breach of contract does not prec ude t from enforc ng the arb trat on agreement. Court further he d that the defendant wa ved the r ght to med ate and that the a ter ego of the s gnatory-defendant can enforce the terms of an arb trat on agreement to the same extent that the s gnatory can.

Samann v. General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc., No. 15-2277 (6th Cir. Aug. 31, 2016) 08/31/2016

C rcu t court aff rms d str ct court s order deny ng a mot on to vacate an arb trat on award under § 10 of the FAA. In re ect ng the appe ant s arguments n favor of vacat ng the award, court he d that (a) under the terms of the arb trat on agreement the arb trator was not requ red to ru e on a mot on for summary d spos t on w th n 30 days of the hear ng; (b) the arb trator s act ons were not a suff c ent bas s for vacatur under the FAA; and (c) the FAA does not a ow for vacatur based on the fu f ment of mora and eth ca ob gat ons.

Amat v. Rey Pizza Corp., No. 1:15-CV-24687-JEM (S.D. Fla. Aug. 31, 2016) 08/31/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on and d sm ssed the case, f nd ng that the arb trat on agreement s ne ther substant ve y or procedura y unconsc onab e and that contested contractua m tat on on recovery wou d be severab e f arb trator f nds t to be un awfu .

Fitzgerald v. The Bondfactor Co., LLC, No. 1:15-CV-06796-CM (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2016) 08/31/2016

Court granted p a nt ff s pet t on to conf rm arb tra award but den ed p ea for pre- udgment nterest at New York s statutory rate of 9% per annum on the award. Court he d that ne ther party ob ected to conf rmat on of the award nor argued a bas s for vacat ng or mod fy ng t, so the award must be conf rmed. Court re ected p a nt ff s c a m for pre- udgment nterest because n an act on for v o at ons of the Fa r Labor Standards Act, pre- udgment nterest may not be awarded n add t on to qu dated damages, wh ch s what p a nt ff rece ved.

Samaan v. General Dynamics Land Sys., Inc., No. 15-2277 (6th Cir. Aug. 31, 2016) 08/31/2016

Court aff rmed d str ct court s den a of the mot on to vacate the arb trat on award pursuant to the FAA. Court he d that the arb trator was not requ red to ru e on the mot on for summary d spos t on w th n th rty days of mot on hear ng, conc uded that the arb trator s a eged act ons dur ng the arb trat on proceed ngs were nsuff c ent for vacatur, and found that the FAA does not a ow vacatur on the bas s of fu f ment of mora or eth ca ob gat ons.

Hose v. Washington Inventory Servs., Inc., 3:14- CV-02869-WQH-AGS (S.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2016) 08/30/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on. F nd ng that the e ectron c s gnatures were an act attr butab e to the p a nt ffs, court conc uded the arb trat on agreement was va d. Inventory assoc ate workers were not exempt from the FAA as transportat on emp oyees engaged n nterstate commerce.

Meditech Inc. v. 360Training.com, Inc., No. 1:14-CV-00023-TC (D. Utah Aug. 30) 08/30/2016

Fo ow ng the court s September 2014 order compe ng arb trat on, the defendant refused to pay the depos t on the arb trator s fees and the arb trator cance ed the arb trat on. Court now orders the defendant to pay the arb trator s depos t and the p a nt ff s reasonab e attorney s fees to enforce the court order and the arb trat on agreement; and re- mposes the stay pend ng comp et on of the arb trat on.

Moss v. First Premier Bank, No. 15-2513-CV (2d Cir. Aug. 29, 2016) 08/29/2016

C rcu t court aff rms d str ct court s dec s on that t cou d not appo nt a subst tute arb trator s nce the part es arb trat on agreement contemp ated arb trat on on y before the Nat ona Arb trat on Forum wh ch was no onger accept ng consumer arb trat ons. Court he d that, where the des gnated arb trat on forum s unava ab e and no other opt on has been agreed by the part es, t must dec ne under §5 of the FAA to appo nt subst tute arb trators or compe arb trat on n another forum. Court d d however recogn ze that there s a c rcu t sp t on th s ssue.

Parm v. National Bank of California, N.A., No. 15-12509 (11th Cir. Aug. 29, 2016) 08/29/2016

C rcu t court aff rms d str ct court s dec s on not to compe arb trat on s nce the arb trat on agreement was unconsc onab e and requ red the part es to arb trate n an unava ab e forum. Court he d that the arb trat on agreement s forum se ect on c ause mandates the use of an usory and unava ab e arb tra forum, and because th s term was ntegra to the part es agreement to arb trate, the court cannot prov de a subst tute arb trator or compe arb trat on under §5 of the FAA.

D’Cruz v. NCl (Bahamas) Ltd., No. 15-11766 (11th Cir. Aug. 29, 2016) 08/29/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed d str ct court s order compe ng arb trat on under the New York Convent on. Fo ow ng A berts v. Roya Car bbean Cru ses, Ltd. No. 15-14775 (11th C r. Aug. 23, 2016), court he d that because the p a nt ff s contract env s oned performance abroad the arb trat on c ause s enforceab e under the New York Convent on, § 202 of the FAA.

In re Cox Enter., Inc. Set-top Cable Television Antitrust Litig., Nos. 15-6078, 15-6077 (10th Cir. Aug. 26, 2016) 08/26/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed d str ct court s grant of mot on to compe arb trat on, f nd ng that d spute fa s w th n the scope of the arb trat on c ause and defendant d d not wa ve ts r ght to arb trat on. Court he d that p a nt ff s argument that defendant s prom ses were usory amounts to a cha enge to the contract as a who e and s therefore a quest on to be determ ned by the arb trators.

Craddock v. LeClair Ryan, No. 16-1423 (4th Cir. Aug. 26, 2016) 08/26/2016

Court d sm ssed appea of order d rect ng arb trat on. Court he d that a stay order was ne ther a f na order nor an appea ab e nter ocutory or co atera order and thus not sub ect to appea .

Hawthorne v. BJ's Wholesale Club, No. 3:15-CV-00572 (E.D. Va. Aug. 26, 2016) 08/26/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on. Court re ected p a nt ff s content on that the arb trat on agreement d d not app y to former emp oyees, ho d ng that the p a n text of the agreement suggested otherw se. Court kew se found that there was no ev dence of unconsc onab ty s nce the contract conta ned an opt-out c ause for the arb trat on prov s on. Court further he d that p a nt ff s content on that defendant s a eged breach made the arb trat on prov s on napp cab e was an ssue to be dec ded by the arb trators.

Capelli Enterprises, Inc. v. Fantastic Sams Salons Corp., No. 5:16-CV-03401 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2016) 08/26/2016

Court den ed mot on for temporary n unct on on AAA arb trat on. Court he d p a nt ffs d d not estab sh a suff c ent ke hood of success or ser ous quest on to succeed n a temporary restra n ng order. Court reasoned that ncorporat on of AAA arb trat on ru es nd cated de egat on of arb trab ty quest ons to the arb trator.

Robinson v. OnStar, LLC, No. 3:15-CV-01731 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2016) 08/25/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on. Court re ected p a nt ff s argument that arb trat on agreement, wh ch t determ ned was va d and app cab e to the d spute, was unconsc onab e. Court reasoned that defendant s ab ty to mod fy terms un atera y was rre evant because t was never exerc sed; and re ected p a nt ffs content ons that the agreement was procedura y unconsc onab e because t was a contract of adhes on.

Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 15-00423-CV (2d Cir. Aug. 25, 2016) 08/25/2016

Court vacated d str ct court s d sm ssa for fa ure to state a c a m because t was a eged y sub ect to mandatory arb trat on and aff rmed den a of p a nt ff s mot on for pre m nary n unct on. Wh e d str ct court had granted defendant s mot on to d sm ss for fa ure to state a c a m, reason ng that the c a m was sub ect to mandatory arb trat on, c rcu t court he d that there rema ned a reasonab e d spute as to whether p a nt ff was bound by the arb trat on c ause.

CareMinders Home Care, Inc. v. Concura, Inc., No. 16-10112 (11th Cir. Aug. 25, 2016) 08/25/2016

Court aff rmed dec s on conf rm ng arb trat on award. Court he d that the d str ct court had not abused ts d scret on n dec n ng to treat appe ant s cross-mot on as a mot on to vacate and that, n any case, appe ant had fa ed to a ege suff c ent grounds for vacatur.

Daskalakis v. Forever 21, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-01768 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2016) 08/25/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on. Court re ected argument that the agreement was nva d because t was m ss ng key terms, reason ng that where a comp ete, s gned arb trat on agreement s presented to the court, m ss ng terms such as the dent ty of the arb trator may be f ed n by the court f the part es are unab e to agree. Court stayed the act on pend ng arb trat on.

IQ Products Company v. WD-40 Company, No. 4:12-CV-01652 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 25, 2016) 08/25/2016

Court adopted mag strate udge s memorandum and recommendat on to conf rm arb trat on award. Court he d that there had been at east a “p aus b e” reason to compe arb trat on and re ected ob ect ons to conf rmat on based on arguments that the order to compe had been “ground ess.”

Flannery v. Thermasteel Corp., Inc., No. 1:13-CV-00038 (D.V.I. Aug. 25, 2016) 08/25/2016

Court den ed a ternat ve mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that a non-party to the agreement cou d not be compe ed to arb trate.

Nascimento v. Anheuser-Busch Cos., LLC, No. 2:15-CV-02017 (D.N.J. Aug. 24, 2016) 08/24/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that part es were bound by a va d arb trat on agreement and therefore sub ect to arb trat on, d sm ss ng defendant s defenses that agreement was nva d because t d d not conta n exp c t wa ver of ury tr a (or was not enforceab e n th s regard), was mod f ab e and therefore usory, or unconsc onab e because t “undu y” restr cted d scovery and requ red part es to keep the award conf dent a .

Nat’l Union Fire Ins. v. Beelman Tuck Co., No. 1:15-CV-08799 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2016) 08/24/2016

Court granted mot on to compe n ne re ated compan es to arb trate an nsurance d spute under the FAA, but den ed mot on of one company to compe th rd-party nsurance broker to o n n the arb trat on. Court he d that va d arb trat on agreements b nd part es thereto, nc ud ng a subs d ar es and aff ates. However, a non-s gnatory th rd party cou d not be compe ed to arb trate based on a eged ncorporat on by reference or estoppe .

Merck & Co., Inc. v. Pericor Therapeutics, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00022 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2016) 08/24/2016

Court granted pet t on to conf rm and den ed pet t on to vacate AAA arb tra award. Court he d that the cha enge to the award d d not sat sf ed the burden of demonstrat ng arb trator b as or suff c ent y “c ear ev dence of mpropr ety” to ust fy post-arb trat on award d scovery. It kew se re ected theor es that the arb trators man fest y d sregarded the aw or fa ed to render a f na dec s on.

In re Ashley Madison, No. 4:15-MD-02669-JAR (E.D. Mo. Aug 24, 2016) 08/24/2016

Court granted n part mot on to compe d scovery re at ng to contemp ated mot on to stay proceed ngs and compe arb trat on. Court reasoned that p a nt ffs were ent t ed to fu and comp ete d scovery on quest ons re evant to the court s u t mate determ nat on of whether they wou d be perm tted to proceed as a c ass act on or compe ed to arb trate nd v dua y. Requests not “reasonab y necessary” to address mot on to compe were den ed.

Sanzone-Ortiz v. Aetna Health of California, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-03334 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2016) 08/24/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on, dec n ng to hear ora argument. Court had prev ous y ordered to compe arb trat on of c a mant s case and he d that the new c a m presented n the amended comp a nt was sub ect to the same og c. Court emphas zed that “under recent Supreme Court dec s ons, the Department of Labor cannot sh e d ERISA c a ms from arb trat on absent a c ear congress ona command. ”

Ivie v. Multi-Shot, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-00166 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 24, 2016) 08/24/2016

Court granted mot on to stay and compe arb trat on. Court re ected defense of substant ve unconsc onab ty based on excess ve costs of arb trat on and procedura unconsc onab ty based on mu t p e contracts defenses presented by defendant. Court dec ned to cons der defense that d spute was not w th n scope of arb trat on agreement, f nd ng that part es had agreed to arb trate arb trab ty.

Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. TSL Staff Leasing, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-08696 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 24, 2016) 08/24/2016

Court granted mot on to conf rm AAA arb trat on award. Court re ected defenses a eg ng that arb trators had exceeded the r author ty by grant ng pre-hear ng secur ty and mproper y ca cu at ng the award amount, or, n the a ternat ve, that the award s unenforceab e under Texas aw. It reasoned that arb trators have broad powers – nc ud ng as stated n the AAA Ru es – to mpose nter m measures and to fash on remed es.

Bamberger Rosenheim, LTD. v. OA Dev., Inc., No. 1:15-CV-04460-ELR (N.D. Ga. Aug. 24, 2016) 08/24/2016

Court granted n part and den ed n part cross mot ons to conf rm and mod fy arb trat on award. Court re ected argument that arb trator had exceeded h s author ty n cons der ng a defamat on counter-c a m n a rea estate fee d spute. However, court reduced the award w th respect to those defamatory statements the arb trator stated he wou d not cons der.

Engle v. Kisco Senior Living, LLC, No. 6:15-CV-01819 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 24, 2016) 08/24/2016

Court den ed a ternat ve mot on to stay and compe arb trat on. Court refused to perm t a non-s gnatory to an emp oyment contract to compe arb trat on on that contract, ho d ng that the asserted agency re at onsh p was not suff c ent y c ose to perm t t to nvoke the arb trat on c ause.

Recom Corp. v. Miller Bros., Inc., No. 2:16-CV-03320, No. 34 (D.N.J. Aug. 24, 2016) 08/24/2016

Court den ed mot on to vacate arb trat on award. Court he d that p a nt ff acked stand ng to br ng vacatur act on and d sm ssed for ack of sub ect matter ur sd ct on, dec n ng to reach other a eged grounds. Court reasoned that pet t oner had fa ed to a ege actua n ury to tse f.

Velasquez v. WCA Mgmt. Co, L.P., No. 4:15-CV-02329 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 23, 2016) 08/23/2016

Court den ed mot on n the a ternat ve to d sm ss certa n c a ms n favor of arb trat on. Court he d that arb trat on prov s on was procedura y unconsc onab e and therefore nva d because, nter a a, p a nt ffs, who d d not speak Eng sh, were not prov ded w th Span sh- anguage cop es of the agreements or exp anat ons n sp te of the r requests.

Tompkins v. 23ANDME, Inc., No. 5:13-CV-05682-LHK (9th Cir. Aug. 23, 2016) 08/23/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed order compe ng arb trat on. Court he d that arb trat on c ause was not unconsc onab e and thus enforceab e under the FAA. Court re ected p a nt ffs content on that the o nt presence of a preva ng party c ause, forum se ect on c ause, c ause exc ud ng nte ectua property c a ms from arb trat on, one year statute of m tat ons, and c ause grant ng defendant r ght to mod fy terms of serv ce, rendered the arb trat on agreement unenforceab e.

Heston v. GB Capital Holdings, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00912 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2016) 08/23/2016

Court granted n part mot on to compe arb trat on and d sm ss ng the act on. Court he d that d spute was governed by a va d arb trat on agreement and therefore sub ect to arb trat on under the FAA.

Alberts v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., No. 15-14775 (11th Cir. Aug. 23, 2016) 08/23/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed order to compe arb trat on under the New York Convent on. Upon de novo rev ew, court aff rmed that emp oyment contract performed by a US nat ona wh e trave ng to or from a fore gn state “env sages performance . . . abroad” and therefore perm ts recourse to the New York Convent on.

Alfonso v. Maggies Paratransit Corp., No. 1:16-CV-00363 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2016) 08/23/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on and stayed proceed ngs. Court he d that arb trat on agreement was va d and re ected p a nt ff s defenses based on nterpretat ons of abor aws and a egat ons of uncons onab ty that effect ve y restated the former.

Johnson v. Thompson-Smith, No. 16 C 1182 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 23, 2016) 08/23/2016

Act on seek ng damages from arb trator appo nted by I no s Workers Compensat on Comm ss on (IWCC), as we as from two IWCC d rectors for fa ng to proper y superv se arb trator, for harms a eged y suffered n connect on w th the d sm ssa of an arb trat on act on d sm ssed w th pre ud ce. Court he d that arb trator en oyed abso ute ud c a mmun ty from su t for a acts taken w th n the scope of her ad ud cat ve dut es and that p a nt ff has prov ded noth ng to suggest that arb trator acted “ n the c ear absence of ur sd ct on.” Further, as pub c off c a s, the IWCC d rectors en oy qua f ed mmun ty, s nce the p a nt ff s comp a nt fa s to a ege the v o at on of a c ear y estab shed statutory or const tut ona r ght. Moreover, even n the absence of mmun ty, p a nt ff has fa ed to state p aus b e c a ms.

Morris v. Ernst & Young, No. 13-16599 (9th Cir. Aug. 22, 2016) 08/22/2016

C rcu t court vacated d str ct court order compe ng nd v dua arb trat on. C rcu t court he d that FAA sav ngs c ause d d not compe courts to enforce an arb trat on agreement that was mproper under the Federa Labor Re at ons Act.

City of New York v. Golden Dev. & Constr. Corp., No. 1:15-CV-04462 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2016) 08/22/2016

Court granted mot on to conf rm award and enter defau t udgment, nc ud ng costs and pre udgment nterest. Court found no ev dence of arb tra mpropr ety and conf rmed the ex parte arb tra award, not ng that the attorney fees requested were “reasonab e” and that such awards are “f na and b nd ng” for purposes of ca cu at ng pre udgment nterest.

Goldman v. Citigroup Glob. Mkts. Inc., No. 2:12-CV-04469 (3d Cir. Aug. 22, 2016) 08/22/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed d str ct court s order deny ng mot on to vacate a FINRA arb tra award for ack of sub ect matter ur sd ct on. Court aff rmed that FAA does not prov de a federa cause of act on for vacat ng arb trat on awards and agreed w th d str ct court that p a nt ffs prov ded no federa cause of act on.

Gonzalez v. Sterling, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-02127 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 22, 2016) 08/22/2016

Court granted mot on to d sm ss case w th pre ud ce for fa ure to adhere to arb trat on agreement s m tat ons requ rements. Court he d that p a nt ff fa ed to meet the FAA s standard for cha eng ng the app cat on of an arb trat on agreement, wh ch are m ted to “genera y app cab e contract defenses, such as fraud, duress, or unconsc onab ty,” and re ected p a nt ff s arguments grounded n equ ty. Because p a nt ff had fa ed to f e her c a m w th the app cab e arb trat on mechan sm w th n the contractua t me m t, court he d p a nt ff wa ved her c a ms.

Ohio Land Management, LLC v. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., No. 4:15-CV-001754 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 22, 2016) 08/22/2016

Court den ed mot on to compe arb trat on. The arb trat on prov s on n an amended ease s gned by a party that had f ed for bankruptcy pr or to execut ng the document s unenforceab e because, at the t me the amended ease was executed, that party d d not have the nterest necessary to effect ve y execute the agreement.

Gingras v. Rosette, No. 1:15-CV-00101 (D. Vt. Aug. 22, 2016) 08/22/2016

Court granted mot on to stay proceed ngs pend ng appea of court s refusa to compe arb trat on. Court he d there was no automat c r ght to stay pend ng appea of arb trab ty dec s on but that d scret onary factors favored such a stay.

Preferred Care, Inc. v. Howell, No. 7:16-CV-00013 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 19, 2016) 08/19/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on and stayed proceed ngs. The court he d that the FAA compe ed arb trat on because the d spute was sub ect to a va d arb trat on agreement. It dec ned to en o n p a nt ff from court proceed ngs and stayed the act on nstead.

Weirton Med. Ctr., Inc. v. QHR Intensive Res., LLC, No. 5:15-CV-00130-FPS (N.D.W. Va. Aug. 19, 2106) 08/19/2016

Court granted mot on to amend a prev ous y conf rmed arb trat on award to nc ude cont nu ng nterest awarded by the arb trator and the pre udgment nterest st pu ated to by the part es. Court he d that the f na award express y stated that t was ssued n accordance w th the f nd ngs of fact and conc us ons of aw wh ch nc uded the award of cont nu ng nterest.

Sbrmcoa, LLC v. Bayside Resort, Inc. A Corp., No. 3:06-CV-00042-CVG-RM (D.V.I. Aug. 19, 2016) 08/19/2016

Court prov ded reason ng for ts ear er grant of mot on to d sm ss act on and refer t to arb trat on. Court reasoned that under the FAA, a court s nqu ry nto the va d ty of the under y ng contract s m ted to the format on of the contract as a who e or to the va d ty of the arb trat on c ause, and he d that an u tra v res cha enge to d fferent parts of the agreement s a matter for arb trators to dec de.

Mercadante v. XE Servs., LLC, No. 1:11-CV-01044-CKK (D.D.C. Aug. 19, 2016) 08/19/2016

Court he d n abeyance defendants mot on to d sm ss n order to perm t p a nt ffs a f na opportun ty to perfect the r arb trat on demands and to proceed to arb trat on before the AAA. Court he d p a nt ffs have not moved w th a acr ty to arb trat on as court expected and thus p a nt ffs were ordered to f e a status report demonstrat ng cont nued progress n pursu ng arb trat on of ts c a ms.

Santos v. Wincor Nixdorf, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00440-RP (W.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2016) 08/19/2016

Court den es mot on to compe arb trat on. In ho d ng that state contract aw, rather than federa common aw, contro s whether a non-s gnatory to an arb trat on agreement can be bound by that agreement, court re ected an estoppe theory based on ntertw ned c a ms as bas s for compe ng a non-s gnatory to arb trate.

Scott v. Cricket, No. 1:15-CV-03330-GLR (D. Md. Aug. 19, 2016) 08/19/2016

Court granted mot ons to remand to state court where p a nt ff n t a y f ed both a putat ve c ass act on comp a nt a eg ng a v o at on of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act wh ch defendant removed to federa court, and then a second act on “Pet t on to Stay Threatened Arb trat on.” Court he d that defendant fa ed to prove federa ur sd ct on by a preponderance of the ev dence and, absent C ass Act on Fa rness Act or federa quest on ur sd ct on over the comp a nt, there was no ur sd ct on under the “ ook through” doctr ne.

Schultz v. Verizon Wireless Servs., LLC, No. 15-2415 (8th Cir. Aug. 19, 2016) 08/19/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed d str ct court s order compe ng arb trat on. Court he d that d str ct court d d not err n determ n ng that part es d d not reach an enforceab e sett ement agreement of the r c a ms and that d str ct court proper y found that part es agreed n the r p ead ngs and pr or consent to the matter be ng sent to arb trat on.

Preferred Care, Inc. v. Howell, No. 7:16-CV00013-ART-EBA (E.D. Ky. Aug. 19, 2016) 08/19/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on and den ed mot on to en o n defendant s state court act on. Court he d that part es agreed to arb trate and that defendant s c a ms fe w th n the scope of the arb trat on agreement. Court a so he d that FAA s s ent on whether a court must stop a re ated state-court proceed ng nvo v ng the arb trab e ssues and that the Ant -In unct on Act wou d perm t such to protect the court s order, but that the n unct on shou d not be necessary to protect or effectuate the court s order compe ng arb trat on.

A.D. v. Credit One Bank, N.A., No. 1:14-CV-10106 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 19, 2016) 08/19/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on and den ed mot on to d sm ss for ack of sub ect matter ur sd ct on. Court he d that defendant was reasonab y d gent as t had no bas s unt recent y to demand arb trat on and had not wa ved ts r ght to arb trate. Court a so he d that m nor was an “author zed user” of her mother s cred t card and s therefore bound by the terms of the contract s gned by the mother and not the m nor.

Pralle v. Dollar Gen. Corp., No. 5:16-CV-04057-SAC (D. Kan. Aug. 19, 2016) 08/19/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on and stay act on. Court noted that whether part es entered nto an agreement to arb trate “ s an ssue for ud c a determ nat on” because the part es have not c ear y and unm stakab y prov ded otherw se and, n f nd ng a va d arb trat on agreement, entered order to compe arb trat on.

Trs. of the New York City Dist. Counc. of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Pisgah Builders, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-02259-AJN (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2016) 08/19/2016

Court granted pet t oners pet t on to conf rm an arb trat on award. Court he d that where respondent had ne ther appeared nor responded to oppose the uncontroverted pet t on, desp te a court n t ated extens on of t me, the reasons for the award were ust f ab e on the record and cou d be nferred from the arb trator s dec s on.

Smith v. Citibank, No. 4:16-CV-00092-SA-JMV (N.D. Miss. Aug. 19, 2016) 08/19/2016

Court ordered part es to subm t to b nd ng arb trat on where part es agreed to arb trat on.

Santos v. Wincor Nixdorf, Inc., 1:16-CV-00440 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2016) 08/19/2016

Court den ed mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that part es cou d not be compe ed to arb trate where they had not agreed to do so and dec ned to f nd that defendant, who had not s gned the arb trat on agreement, was neverthe ess bound by t based on an ntertw ned-c a ms estoppe theory.

Inetianbor v. Cashcall, Inc., No. 0:13-CV-60066-JIC (S.D. Fla. Aug. 18, 2016) 08/18/2016

Court den ed mot on to compe arb trat on, ho d ng that c rcu t court s f nd ng that other p a nt ffs arb trat on agreements were unenforceab e app ed to nstant p a nt ffs s m ar arb trat on agreements under the “ aw of the case” doctr ne.

Star Ins. Co. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, No. 15-1403 (6th Cir. Aug. 18, 2016) 08/18/2016

C rcu t Court vacated arb trat on awards and reversed d str ct court s udgment conf rm ng them, f nd ng that arb trator s ex parte commun cat ons w th preva ng party, contrary to arb trat on agreement and schedu ng orders, const tuted “m sconduct pre ud c ng a party s r ghts” warrant ng vacatur under M ch gan aw.

Abernathy v. Becon Constr. Col., Inc., No. 1:14-CV-466-RC (E.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2016) 08/18/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on of p a nt ffs c a ms and to stay t gat on pend ng arb trat on of those c a ms pursuant to the contested report and recommendat on of the mag strate udge. Court he d that ne ther p a nt ffs ob ect on to the mag strate udge s f nd ngs concern ng the emp oyee d spute reso ut on p an nor defendant s ob ect ons to the mot on to compe as unt me y cou d a ter the court s agreement w th the mag strate udge.

Fin. Assocs. v. Hudson Specialty Ins. Co., No. 2:15-CV-02245-SDW (D.N.J. Aug. 18, 2016) 08/18/2016

Mot on granted to compe arb trat on. Court he d that the FAA and New York precedent conf rm ng strong federa po cy n favor of arb trat on n the presence of a va d arb tra agreement compe ed arb trat on.

Jeffreys v. Midland Credit Mngt., Inc., No. 2:15-CV-08470-JLL-JAD (D.N.J. Aug. 18, 2016) 08/18/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on of p a nt ff s Fa r Debt and Cred t Pract ces Act act on. Court he d that defendant, a non-s gnatory to the cardho der agreement, was ass gned the debt and thereby author zed to nvoke the prov s ons of the agreement wh ch were ne ther procedura y nor substant ve y unconsc onab e.

Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC v. Sappington, No. 1:16-CV-00878 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2016) 08/18/2016

Court den ed mot on to d sm ss or stay pend ng c ass arb trat on and to compe nd v dua arb trat on. Court he d that t was for the arb trators to dec de quest ons of arb trab ty, nc ud ng whether respondents can proceed on a c ass-w de bas s.

Diversicare Leasing Corp. v. Allen, No. 0:15-CV-00060 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 18, 2016) 08/18/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted. Determ n ng that the d spute was covered by a va d arb trat on agreement that was not unconsc onab e, court he d t was bound by the FAA to compe arb trat on. Court en o ned para e act ons and d sm ssed the matter w th pre ud ce.

Jeffreys v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., No. 2:15-CV-08470 (D.N.J. Aug. 18, 2016) 08/18/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on and d sm ss act on. Court he d that the arb trat on agreement was va d as between the part es, one of wh ch, wh e not a s gnatory, was author zed to nvoke the agreement, and was and not unconsc onab e.

Hong v. Belleville Dev’t Group, LLC, No. 1:15-CV-05890-RJS (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2016) 08/17/2016

Court granted mot on to d sm ss for ack of sub ect matter ur sd ct on because d spute was governed by mandatory arb trat on agreement. Court found that a va d arb tra agreement governed the d spute even though some of the defendants were not s gnator es. Court reasoned that “a s gnatory may be bound to arb trate c a ms t br ngs aga nst a non-s gnatory based on the c ose re at onsh p between the ent t es nvo ved, as we as the re at onsh p of the a eged wrongs to the non-s gnatory s ob gat ons and dut es n the contract and the fact that the c a ms were ntertw ned w th the under y ng contractua ob gat ons. ”

Cline v. Etsy, Inc., No.2:15-CV-02115-JCM-VCF (D. Nev. Aug. 17, 2016) 08/17/2016

Court den ed p a nt ff s mot on for fa ure to arb trate. Court he d that p a nt ff may use her pre-d spute arb trat on agreement or a prev ous y ssued court order compe ng arb trat on to n t ate arb trat on.

Cates v. Crystal Clear Tech., LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00008-AAT (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 17, 2016) 08/17/2016

Court granted three mot ons to d sm ss f ed by var ous defendants and den ed one of those defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on and stay t gat on as moot. Court he d because court f nds p a nt ffs have fa ed to state a c a m w th respect to one defendant, the court need not reach defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on. Court further noted that w thout dec d ng whether the p a nt ffs even entered nto any contractua re at onsh p governed by the customer agreements, the conduct g v ng r se to the act on takes p ace separate and apart from that re at onsh p governed by the terms of the agreement, nc ud ng an arb trat on c ause conta ned there n.

Local 1982, Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n v. Midwest Terminals of Toledo, Int’l, Inc., No. 3:12-CIV-1384-JJH (N.D. Ohio Aug. 16, 2016) 08/16/2016

Court granted p a nt ff s request to remand the act on to the Jo nt Gr evance Comm ttee for c ar f cat on of an arb tra award where the terms were amb guous. Court he d that award fa ed to spec fy deta s suff c ent to support e ther party s pos t on.

Zurich Ins. PLC v. Ethos Energy (USA) LLC, No., 4:15-CV-03580-MH (S.D. Tex. Aug. 16, 2016) 08/16/2016

Court granted mot on to d sm ss for ack of sub ect matter ur sd ct on to enforce an arb trator s subpoena d rect ng a non-party to the arb trat on to produce documents pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 7. Court he d §7 of the FAA does not estab sh federa quest on ur sd ct on and the amount n controversy does not meet the $75,000 thresho d amount requ red for federa d vers ty ur sd ct on.

Moomjian v. T.D. Ameritrade, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-00952-SAL (N.D. Tex. Aug. 16, 2016) 08/16/2016

Court den ed mot on to vacate arb trat on award and granted mot on to conf rm award. Court he d that when an agreement conta ns a c ause that des gnates Texas aw but does not exc ude the FAA, the Texas Arb trat on Act and FAA app y concurrent y to govern whether the arb trat on award shou d be vacated or conf rmed. App y ng the F fth C rcu t s “essence test,” court found the arb trators d d not exceed the r author ty or engage n m sconduct by determ n ng that p a nt ff s request for an exp a ned dec s on was unt me y.

Central States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund v. Nat’l Concrete Prods. Co., No. 1:15-CV-03739-MSS (N.D. Ill. Aug. 16, 2016) 08/16/2016

Court granted mot on for summary udgment to co ect payment for defendant s a eged defau t n contr but ng to a mu t emp oyer pens on p an on beha f of ts un on zed emp oyees wh e arb trat on between the part es about the amount of w thdrawa ab ty s ongo ng.

GCIU-Empl. Ret. Fund v. Quad Graphics, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-03391-ODW, No. 2:16-CV-03418-ODW (N.D. Ill. Aug. 16, 2016) 08/16/2016

Court conso dated two cases n wh ch both part es were seek ng to vacate, mod fy, or enforce d fferent port ons of an arb trator s award, where both act ons u t mate y stemmed from the same arb trat on proceed ng, and both act ons presented common quest ons of aw and fact.

Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. v. Regency Heritage Nursing & Rehab. Ctr., No. 15-1883 (3d Cir. Aug. 16, 2016) 08/16/2016

C rcu t court granted Nat ona Labor Re at ons Board s app cat on and enforced ts order aga nst respondent. Court he d that the case d d not need to be sent to arb trat on as the d spute was not encompassed by the ongo ng arb trat on between the part es, and deferra to arb trat on was not otherw se requ red because an arb trat on c ause does not surv ve the exp rat on of the contract un ess the d spute ar ses under the contract.

James v. Comcast Corp., No. 16-CV-02218-EMC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2016) 08/15/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on and to d sm ss putat ve c ass act on. Court he d that defendant had a new arb trat on prov s on n ts serv ce agreement that rep aced and superseded any pr or agreements that wou d take effect upon a customer s cont nued use of the serv ces un ess the user opted out w th n 30 days after the ma ng of the not ce of the new agreement. The prov s on was not unconsc onab e because of the consp cuous not ce, the opt-out prov s on, the non-essent a nature of the serv ce and p aus b e a ternat ves, and because the customer cou d eas y term nate the agreement.

Gill v. Grewal, No. 4:14-CV-02502-MH (S.D. Tex. Aug. 15, 2016) 08/15/2016

Court den ed mot on to abate and compe arb trat on. Court he d that fact that p a nt ff/counter-defendants f ed su t and conducted d scovery, were aware of arb trat on c ause, and had de ayed more than twe ve months unt the eve of tr a w th no reasonab e exp anat on after conso dat ng cases to compe arb trat on, were a factors under Texas aw n favor of f nd ng that ud c a process had been nvoked w thout assert ng arb trat on c ause.

Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund v. K & M Equip., Inc., No. 1:15-CV-11586 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 15, 2016) 08/15/2016

Court granted mot on for summary udgment, dec ar ng that defendants fa ed to t me y n t ate arb trat on. But court den ed mot on for an n unct on to compe defendants to d sm ss a pend ng AAA arb trat on s nce the court s f nd ng that defendant wa ved ts arb trat on r ghts str pped the AAA arb trator of h s ur sd ct on and p a nt ffs do not face rreparab e harm w thout the n unct on.

Doss v. Nordstrom, Inc., N.A., No. 3:15-CV-00904-JSB (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 15, 2016) 08/15/2016

Mag strate udge ssued report and recommendat on that the mot on to d sm ss proceed ngs and compe arb trat on be granted, and that the part es be ordered to arb trate the r d spute n accordance w th the arb trat on agreement.

Broom, Jr. v. AXA Advisors, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-0028-RDP (N.D. Ala. Aug. 15, 2016) 08/15/2016

Court granted mot on to d sm ss and compe arb trat on. Court he d that p a nt ff conceded that c a ms that accrued after Ju y 1, 2013 were sub ect to arb trat on, and no c a ms made n the comp a nt wou d have accrued pr or to that date.

Sural (Barbados) Ltd. v. Gov't of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, No. 1:15-CV-22825-KMM (S.D. Fla. Aug. 12, 2016) 08/12/2016

Court granted respondent s cross-mot on to conf rm arb trat on award. Court he d that g ven the h gh thresho d to overturn an arb trat on award under the New York Convent on, and the court s necessar y m ted rev ew, the pet t oners arguments for vacat ng the award must fa as a matter of aw and the pet t oner s “efforts to vacate the award are mere y an attempt to mask an unsuccessfu arb trat on campa gn under the gu se of a ack of due process.”

Fakhri v. Marriot Int’l Hotels, Inc., No. 8:14-CV-00840-PJM (D. Md. Aug. 12. 2016) 08/12/2016

Court granted mot on to d sm ss for ack of sub ect matter ur sd ct on, ho d ng that p a nt ff s su t const tuted a co atera attack on an arb tra award. Court he d that the p a nt ff was attempt ng to use the present su t as a means of re- t gat ng the same damages that were presented to the ICC arb tra tr buna , thus const tut ng a co atera attack over wh ch the court acks sub ect matter ur sd ct on to enterta n under the New York Convent on.

Carlini Enters., Inc. v. Paul Yaffe Design, Inc., No. 8:13-CV-01671-ODW (C.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2016) 08/12/2016

Court grants mot on to conf rm arb trat on award and den es mot on to vacate. Court he d t has no author ty to re-we gh the ev dence or quest on the arb trator s conc us ons and that the p a nt ffs fa ed to estab sh spec f c facts nd cat ng actua b as of the arb trator.

Wiles v. Palm Springs Grill, LLC, No. 9:15-CV-81597-KAM (S.D.Fla. Aug. 11, 2016) 08/11/2016

Court granted defendants mot on to compe arb trat on and stayed case pend ng the arb trat on. Court he d the agreement between the part es conta ned a va d arb trat on c ause that ncorporated the commerc a arb trat on ru es of the AAA, and therefore the quest on of va d ty and scope of the both the contract and the arb trat on agreement are for the arb trator to dec de. Court a so he d that p a nt ff s Fa r Labor Standards Act c a ms are sub ect to arb trat on, and that a stay furthers the FAA s goa of “eff c ent and speedy d spute reso ut on.”

Jolie Design & Décor, Inc., v. Kathy Van Gogh, No. 2:15-00740-MBN (E.D. La. Aug. 11, 2016) 08/11/2016

Mag strate udge recommended the court grant p a nt ff s mot on for costs and attorneys fees n an act on f ed to enforce an arb trat on award under the New York Convent on. The court ana yzed the nvo ces and recommended a reduct on for b ock b ng and an add t ona reduct on for fa ure to exerc se b ng udgment.

Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC v. Couch, No. 1:15-17092 (9th Cir. Aug. 11, 2016) 08/11/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed d str ct court s dec s on to grant mot on to pre m nar y en o n FINRA arb trat on proceed ngs commenced by the defendant pend ng reso ut on of the p a nt ff s dec aratory udgment act on. Court he d that, n the absence of any ev dence demonstrat ng the part es ntent to the contrary, the d str ct court correct y determ ned both that t had the author ty to dec de whether defendant had wa ved ts r ght to arb trate under an emp oyment contract, and that where the part es had been n t gat on for over a year, w th d scovery c osed and d spos t ve mot ons due, defendant had wa ved h s arb trat on r ghts.

Int’l Assn of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Bath Iron Works, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00257-GZS (D. Me. Aug. 11, 2016) 08/11/2016

Court granted mot on to d sm ss c a m that arb trator was b ased as p a nt ff both fa ed to f e ts comp a nt w th n Ma ne s 90-day t me m t to cha enge an arb tra award and, desp te know edge of a eged b as, fa ed to cha enge the arb trator pr or to the arb trator s dec s on.

Eggleston v. Marshall Durbin Food Corp., No. 6:16-CV-00217-LSC (N.D. Ala. Aug. 11, 2016) 08/11/2016

Court granted mot ons to conf rm an arb trat on award and den ed mot on to vacate award. Court he d that the arb trator d d not exceed her powers by nterpret ng Ru e 40 of the Nat ona Ru es for the Reso ut on of Emp oyment D sputes to a ow her to recons der the mer ts of p a nt ff s c a m heard by a pr or arb trator pr or to a f na award. Court a so he d that damages were ava ab e under the Fa r Labor Standards Act for p a nt ff s reta atory d scharge c a m.

Gordon v. TBC Retail Group, Inc., No. 2:14-CV-03365-DCN (D.S.C. Aug. 11, 2016) 08/11/2016

Court granted n part mot on to compe arb trat on for opt- n p a nt ffs who acknow edged a mutua arb trat on agreement through an “e ectron c onboard ng system.” Court den ed defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on for one named p a nt ff and some “opt- n” p a nt ffs who d d not reca , nter a a, acknow edg ng or s gn ng the agreement to arb trate s nce they cou d not be compe ed to arb trate g ven a genu ne ssue of mater a facts n d spute.

Vine v. PLS Fin. Servs. Inc., No. 3:15-CV-00031 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 11, 2016) 08/11/2016

Court refused to recons der ear er den a of mot on to compe arb trat on based on factua cha enges to ts ear er ru ng, ho d ng that t was bound to accept p a nt ffs a egat ons as true and that defendants cou d not re y on an arb trat on agreement where they had substant a y nvoked the ud c a process by f ng a cr m na comp a nt on re ated c a ms. Court further he d that notw thstand ng Supreme Court dec s ons that arb trators, and not courts, shou d dec de procedura arb trat on cha enges, courts reta n the power to eva uate whether a defendant wa ved arb tra r ghts through t gat on act v t es. Court granted a stay of proceed ngs pend ng defendants nter ocutory appea to the F fth C rcu t.

Mason Tenders Dist. Counc. of Greater New York v. Emlo Corp., No. 14-CV-8898-LLS (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2016) 08/10/2016

Court granted mot on to conf rm arb trat on awards aga nst defendant. Court he d that arb trator acted w th n the scope of h s author ty n dec n ng to change the schedu e of the hear ng where defendant refused a seven-day postponement and d d not part c pate further n the arb trat on.

Ackison Surveying, LLC v. Focus Fiber Sols., LLC, No. 2:15-CV-02044-ALM (S.D. Ohio Aug. 10, 2016) 08/10/2016

Court den ed mot on to compe arb trat on and stay ud c a proceed ngs. Court he d that fa ure to produce contract conta n ng the a eged arb trat on prov s on created a genu ne d spute of mater a fact and a stay wou d pre ud ce p a nt ffs whose c a ms were not dent ca to those ra sed n an ongo ng arb trat on proceed ng.

Torgerson v. LLC Int’l, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-02495-DDC (D. Kan. Aug. 10, 2016) 08/10/2016

Court granted request to stay proceed ngs and ordered part es to proceed to arb trat on. Court further dec ned to grant both defendants oppos t on to and p a nt ff s request for c ass cert f cat on, eav ng the quest on to be presented to an arb trator.

Grand Resources, Inc. v. Jewel, No. 4:14-CV-00642-JED (N.D. Okla. Aug. 10, 2016) 08/10/2016

Court granted mot ons to d sm ss and he d that t d d not have sub ect matter ur sd ct on over the case. P a nt ff acknow edged that arb trat on was requ red and court d sm ssed the case as refusa to part c pate n mandatory arb trat on does not create a federa ur sd ct on.

Clouser v. Golden Gate Nat’l Senior Care, LLC, No. 3:15-CV-00033-KRG (W.D. Pa. Aug. 10, 2016) 08/10/2016

Court den ed mot on to stay the tr a of p a nt ff s wrongfu death c a m pend ng reso ut on of p a nt ff s surv va c a m n arb trat on. In we gh ng the compet ng nterests and the tota ty of c rcumstances, nc ud ng a stay of ndef n te durat on, court he d stay was not appropr ate.

Sodexo Mngt., Inc. v. Detroit Public Schools, No. 15-CV-10610 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 10, 2016) 08/10/2016

Court conf rmed a $24 m on arb trat on award and den ed mot on to vacate the award. Court dec ned to vacate the award on the grounds of a eged part a ty of the AAA-appo nted arb trator where defendant d d not demonstrate even an appearance of b as. Court a so he d that the defendant d d not meet the exact ng test that an arb trator exceeded h s or her power as there was a contractua bas s for the arb trator to exerc se ur sd ct on over a nonparty, and, g ven the part es “threadbare” arb trat on c ause and contractua prov s on that M ch gan aw app es, the arb trator d d not exceed h s author ty e ther under the c ause or the AAA arb trat on ru es.

Sanchez v. Borelli, No. 3:15-CV-00455-LRH (D. Nev. Aug. 10, 2016) 08/10/2016

Court d sm ssed mot on to vacate an arb trat on award for ack of sub ect matter ur sd ct on. Court he d that the FAA does not tse f confer federa sub ect matter ur sd ct on; rather, there must be an ndependent ur sd ct ona bas s. Here, there was no federa quest on ur sd ct on because the amount n controversy d d not exceed $75,000 for d vers ty ur sd ct on and d d the pet t on d d not nd cate any ssues w th federa aw or how the arb trator hand ed federa aw.

Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC v Converteam SAS, No. 1:16-00378-KD-C (S.D. Ala. Aug. 10, 2016) 08/10/2016

Court den ed mot on to stay br ef ng and cons derat on of the defendant s pend ng mot ons to compe arb trat on and d sm ss—to the extent the substance of these mot ons are nextr cab y ntertw ned w th p a nt ff s expected mot ons to remand.

Neumayer v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 2:16-CV-03508-AB (C.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2016) 08/09/2016

Court den ed p a nt ff s mot on for remand and granted defendant s mot on to d sm ss. Court he d amount n controversy met the $75,000 ur sd ct ona requ rement to prevent remand to state court, but comp a nt fa ed to state a c a m for breach of contract because p a nt ff d d not a ege that defendant fa ed to part c pate n the arb trat on process as requ red by contract or to comp y w th the arb trat on award.

Robinson v. Universal Prot. Serv., L.P., No. 2:16-CV-01408-DGC (D.Ariz. Aug. 9, 2016) 08/09/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on and d sm ss the matter. Court he d that the Fam y Leave and Med ca Act does not confer an unqua f ed r ght to a ud c a forum, as wou d be requ red to d sp ace the FAA; nor does an ant -wa ver of emp oyee r ghts prov s on nva date an agreement to subm t such c a m to arb trat on.

The Robbins Co. v. JCM Northlink LLC, No. 2:16-CV-00646-RSL (W.D. Wash. Aug. 9, 2016) 08/09/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on and d sm ss the matter. Court he d that the Fam y Leave and Med ca Act does not confer an unqua f ed r ght to a ud c a forum, as wou d be requ red to d sp ace the FAA; nor does an ant -wa ver of emp oyee r ghts prov s on nva date an agreement to subm t such c a m to arb trat on.

Harris v. Halliburton Co., No. 1:16-CV-00281-LJO (E.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2016) 08/09/2016

Court adopted mag strate udge s f nd ngs and recommendat ons to grant mot on to compe arb trat on because p a nt ff was ob gated under the FAA to arb trate h s emp oyment c a ms.

Cooper v. Westend Capital Mgmt., L.L.C., No. 15-31068 (5th Cir. Aug. 9, 2016) 08/09/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed d str ct court s orders refus ng to en o n arb trat on and conf rm ng an award n favor of defendants who had expe ed p a nt ff from an operat ng agreement wh ch requ red b nd ng arb trat on of d sputes. Court he d that defendants d d not substant a y nvoke the ud c a process by f ng a TRO and d d not wa ve arb trat on when they sought ud c a re ef. Court a so he d that the operat ng agreement s cho ce-of- aw prov s on was nsuff c ent to compe app cat on of Ca forn a s arb trat on standards. Court re ected p a nt ff s c a m that the arb trator exceeded h s powers n mak ng the award as p a nt ff fa ed to po nt to any spec f c b as or pre ud ce aga nst h m.

Law Offices of Daniel C. Flint, P.C. v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 2:15-CV-13006 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 9, 2016) 08/09/2016

Court den ed mot on to amend an nter ocutory order f nd ng no except ona c rcumstances ex sted to warrant an nter ocutory appea n a case n wh ch the court had granted defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on and stay proceed ngs. Court he d that ts dec s on to compe arb trat on d d not “ nvo ve[] a contro ng quest on of aw as to wh ch there s substant a ground for d fference of op n on…”.

Switch Commerce, LLC v. Star Networks, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-4031-B-JJB (N.D. Tex. Aug. 9, 2016) 08/09/2016

Court den ed mot on for recons derat on of ts pr or dec s on n wh ch t he d the arb trat on prov s ons of the part es agreement enforceab e and d sm ssed the case n favor of arb trat on. Court he d that the contract was ne ther unconsc onab e nor usory and the case mer ted d sm ssa w th pre ud ce.

Beattie v. Credit One Bank, No. 5:15-CV-01315-LEK (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2016) 08/09/2016

Court granted mot on to stay and compe arb trat on of a d spute a eg ng v o at on of the Te ephone Consumer Protect on Act. Court he d that the c a ms are sub ect to arb trat on, that p a nt ff agreed to the terms of the cardho der agreement requ r ng arb trat on, and that the agreement was not unconsc onab e.

Bekele v. Lyft, No. 15-11650-FDC (D.Mass. Aug. 9, 2016) 08/09/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on and d sm ssed su t. Court he d that p a nt ff agreed to defendant s Terms of Serv ce Agreement wh ch conta ned a va d arb trat on c ause requ r ng b nd ng nd v dua arb trat on. Court a so re ected p a nt ff s aff rmat ve defenses, of procedura and substant ve unconsc onab ty under Massachusetts state aw and ega ty under the FAA s sav ng c ause, where the und sputed facts suff c ent y demonstrated that p a nt ff, as a prospect ve emp oyee, had more than reasonab e not ce of and assented to defendant s arb trat on prov s on, and the c ass act on wa ver conta ned w th n the agreement was not ega under the Nat ona Labor Re at ons Act.

Diag Human S.E. v. Czech Republic Ministry of Health, No. 1:13-CV-00355-ABJ (D.C. Cir. Aug. 8, 2016) 08/08/2016

C rcu t court den ed the Czech Repub c s request for a rehear ng en banc of D ag Human S.E. s enforcement efforts of a $325 m on arb tra award ssued by an nternat ona tr buna .

Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C. v. Ostroski, No. 4:16-CV-00050-JEJ (M.D. Pa. Aug. 8, 2016) 08/08/2016

Court granted mot on for summary udgment, dec ar ng that the ease agreement between the part es d d not perm t c ass arb trat on and prec ud ng defendants from pursu ng any c a ms on beha f of a purported c ass. Court he d the FAA, not the Pennsy van a Arb trat on Act, app ed to an nterstate agreement; and FAA ur sprudence does not perm t defendants to compe c ass arb trat on when the agreement was s ent on th s po nt.

Diversicare Leasing Corp. v. Wurtland Nursing & Rehab. Ctr., No. 0:15-CV-00029-HRW (N.D. Ky. Aug. 8, 2016) 08/08/2016

Court overru ed mot on for recons derat on of court s pr or order to compe arb trat on and en o n defendant from proceed ng n the under y ng court case g ven that none of the grounds for a court to amend ts udgment was present.

Union de Tronquistas de Puerto Rico, Local 901 v. United Parcel Serv., Inc. No. 3:16-CV-01098-JPG (D.P.R. Aug. 8, 2016) 08/08/2016

Court granted mot on for summary udgment deny ng mot on to set as de an arb trat on award. Court he d the arb trator had a reasonab e bas s for h s award after ho d ng a hear ng n wh ch both part es presented ev dence and the arb trator s determ nat ons on cred b ty are not proper grounds for rev ew.

Anderson v. AIG Life & Ret., No. 4:14-CV-00278-LGW (S.D. Ga. Aug. 8, 2016) 08/08/2016

Court granted mot on to d sm ss and compe p a nt ff to subm t c a ms to arb trat on. Court he d that the part es emp oyment d spute was sub ect to arb trat on where two arb trat on agreements broad y covered, w th a few except ons, a d sputes “regard ng ega y protected r ghts” and express y ment oned those brought by p a nt ff. Court further he d that the FAA and not the Georg a Arb trat on Act (requ r ng the n t a ng of the prov s ons) app ed, thus preempt ng the p a nt ff s argument that the arb trat on prov s ons are unenforceab e because they are not n t a ed by the part es.

Visteon Corp. v. Leuliette, No. 16-CV-11180-TGB (E.D. Mich. Aug. 5, 2016) 08/05/2016

Court stayed the case pend ng the outcome of arb trat on proceed ngs n t ated by defendant, and den ed p a nt ff s mot on for a pre m nary n unct on to stay arb trat on proceed ngs.

W.J. O’Neill Co. v. Shepley, Bulfinch, Richardson & Abbot, Inc., No. 11-CV-12020-RHC (E.D. Mich. Aug. 5, 2016) 08/05/2016

Court granted mot ons to d sm ss s nce p a nt ff and both defendants were part es to a pr or arb trat on n wh ch var ous ssues a ready had a fu and fa r opportun ty to be t gated and determ ned. Court further he d that mutua ty of estoppe was not necessary n th s case because M ch gan aw does not requ re such f co atera estoppe s, as here, asserted defens ve y, and p a nt ff d d not prov de any author ty or ev dence that co atera estoppe does not app y when the pr or act on was an arb trat on.

Incredible Foods Group, LLC v. Unifoods, S.A. DE C.V., No. 14-CV-5207-KAM (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2016 08/05/2016

Court granted app cat on for attorney s fees for reasonab e rates and hours worked to conf rm an arb trat on award and oppose mot on to vacate the award.

The O’Gara Group, Inc. v. UXB Int’l, Inc., No. 7:16-CV-00170-GEC (W.D. Va. Aug. 5, 2016) 08/05/2016

Court granted mot on to conf rm arb trat on award and den ed mot on to vacate the award where defendant fa ed to sat sfy ts heavy burden of show ng that the arb trator exceeded h s author ty or man fest y d sregarded the aw.

Ambrosio v. Cogent Commc’ns, Inc., No. 3:14-CV-02182 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2016) 08/05/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on den ed. Court he d defendant had wa ved ts r ght to compe arb trat on.

Stati v. Republic of Kazakhstan, No. 1:14-CV-01638-ABJ (D.D.C. Aug. 5, 2016) 08/05/2016

Court stayed act on to conf rm arb tra award. Court he d, as a pre m nary matter, that t had ur sd ct on under the FAA and the Fore gn Sovere gn Immun t es Act. However, g ven the pendency of a proceed ng n Sweden to set as de the arb tra award, the act on shou d be stayed pend ng reso ut on of that cha enge, pursuant to Art. VI of the New York Convent on.

Arabian Gas & Oil Dev. Co. v. Wisdom Marines Lines, SA, Nos. 4:16-CV-03801-DMR, 4:16-03872-DMR (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2016) 08/05/2016

Court set as de ts ex parte order to attach and ordered the mmed ate re ease of a vesse that was he d to secure an a eged, but not forthcom ng, arb tra award under the New York Convent on.

Jones v. Titlemax of Missouri, Inc., No. 4:15-CV-01361-JAR (E.D. Mo. Aug. 5, 2016) 08/05/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that de egat on c ause was va d under Rent-A-Center and therefore t was not the court s prerogat ve to answer quest ons of arb trab ty.

Parker v. ETB Management, L.L.C., No. 15-11128 (5th Cir. Aug. 4, 2016) 08/04/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed the d str ct court s conf rmat on of an arb trat on award, as p a nt ff-appe ant had “fa ed to advance any cred b e argument to show the arb trator acted w th corrupt on n v o at on of the FAA.” Court re ected p a nt ff-appe ant s argument that the arb trator gnored conf ct ng statements g ven by defendants w tnesses, as th s was an nqu ry regard ng the mer ts of appe ant s c a m and the cred b ty determ nat ons of the arb trat on, wh ch was outs de of the court s “ m ted” and “exceed ng y deferent a ” rev ew of arb trat on dec s ons.

Rimel v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No: 6:15-CV-2191-ORL-41KRS (M.D. Fla. Aug. 4, 2016) 08/04/2016

Mag strate udge recommended that the court grant mot on to compe arb trat on and str ke c ass act on a egat ons. The arb trat on prov s on s not procedura y unconsc onab e because p a nt ff had the r ght to opt out of the prov s on. The wa ver of co ect ve and c ass act ons s not substant ve y unconsc onab e and nva dat on of the wa ver s preempted by the FAA under F or da aw.

Bastida v. Nat’l Holding Corp., No. 16-CV-388-RSL (W.D. Wash. Aug. 4, 2016) 08/04/2016

Court granted n part mot on to d sm ss and den ed request for a stay unt FINRA arb trat on was reso ved. Court he d that p a nt ffs fa ed to p ead suff c ent facts to support the conc us on that defendant had an agency re at onsh p w th a party aga nst wh ch p a nt ffs had f ed c a ms n arb trat on. Court a so he d that the standards govern ng FINRA arb trat on are substant a y d fferent than those of a ud c a proceed ng, and that any dec s on wou d ke y have m n ma va ue to the court or promote ud c a eff c ency.

Guidotti v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, L.L.C., No. 1:11-CV-01219 (D.N.J. Aug. 4, 2016) 08/04/2016

Court den ed mot on cha eng ng r ght to a ury tr a to dec de whether p a nt ff agreed to arb trat on. Court he d that §4 of the FAA operates n the absence of a t me y ury demand under Fed. R. C v. P. 38, and therefore §4 of the FAA does not prescr be the exc us ve means of prov d ng a ury tr a n the context of summary arb trat on proceed ngs.

Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-05699-JGK (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2016) 08/04/2016

Court granted pet t on to compe arb trat on and to en o n defendant dur ng the pendency of the arb trat on from proceed ng w th a Ca forn a state court act on where the part es d spute was sub ect to arb trat on and the arb trat on c auses prov de that the part es w arb trate n New York.

Brent v. Priority 1 Automotive Group, BMW of Rockville, No. 8:14-CV-01705-PWG (D. Md. Aug. 4, 2016) 08/04/2016

Court granted p a nt ff s summary udgment mot on to determ ne that there was no va d agreement to arb trate. App y ng Mary and state aw, the court determ ned no va d agreement ex sted because the agreement acked cons derat on.

Golden v. O’Melveny & Meyers LLP, No. 14-CV-8725-CAS (C.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2016) 08/03/2016

Court den ed mot on for recons derat on and compe ed the part es to proceed w th arb trat on. Court he d that p a nt ff had no bas s for recons derat on of the court s pr or order send ng the part es to arb trat on for some c a ms and stay ng others pend ng arb trat on. Court further he d that the FAA, not Ca forn a s arb trat on ru es, app y to the arb trat on agreement even n c rcumstances where the agreement prov des that t s governed by Ca forn a aw because a genera cho ce-of- aw c ause does not ev dence the part es ntent to app y state aw procedura ru es of arb trat on suff c ent y to overcome the presumpt on that the FAA app es.

Webb v. Frawley, No. 1:15-CV-06406 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 3, 2016) 08/03/2016

Mot on granted to compe arb trat on. Court he d that d sputes were sub ect to mandatory arb trat on under FINRA, and therefore the FAA requ red the court to compe arb trat on. Court refused to stay the proceed ngs and d sm ssed the act on w th eave to re nstate w th n one year.

Thornell v. Performance Imports, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-00397-JHE (N.D. Ala. Aug. 3, 2016) 08/03/2016

Court den ed mot on to appo nt arb trator. Court he d that the arb trat on agreement ent t ed defendant to veto the p a nt ff s se ect on of an organ zat on other than the Amer can Arb trat on Assoc at on, not the arb trator the p a nt ff nom nated. Therefore, §5 of the FAA was not app cab e.

Douglas v. Oceanview Healthcare, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-00225 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 3, 2016) 08/03/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that the c a ms brought by p a nt ff were sub ect to arb trat on, that p a nt ff rece ved suff c ent not ce of the arb trat on agreement, and that defendant d d not wa ve ts r ght to compe arb trat on s mp y by remov ng the case to federa court.

Hagan v. Katz Communications, Inc., No. 1:12-CV-05987-RA (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2016) 08/03/2016

Court den ed pet t on to vacate arb tra award s nce arb trator d d not act n “man fest d sregard of federa aw” when he mposed a 90-day statute of m tat ons and found that such per od was not equ tab y to ed.

Corporación Mexicana De Mantenimiento Integral v. Pemex-Exploración Y Producción, No. 13-4022 (2d Cir. Aug. 2, 2016) 08/02/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed conf rmat on of an ICC arb tra award fo ow ng vacatur of the award by Mex can courts. Wh e acknow edg ng “the prudent a concern of nternat ona com ty” and caut on ng that “any court shou d act w th trep dat on and re uctance n enforc ng an arb tra award that has been dec ared a nu ty by the courts hav ng ur sd ct on over the forum n wh ch the award was rendered,” the second c rcu t aff rmed the d str ct court s dec s on, ho d ng, nter a a, that Mex co s retroact ve app cat on of one of ts aws, wh ch had the effect of favor ng a state enterpr se over a pr vate party, and eft that party w th no ava ab e remedy or potent a re ef for ts c a ms, v o ated U.S. pub c po cy and bas c standards of ust ce.

Glynn v. Christy, No. 1:14-CV-01924-LTS-RLE (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2016) 08/02/2016

Court den ed mot ons to compe arb trat on and stay act on. Court he d that defendants substant a de ay n assert ng the arb trat on c ause, unt after the r part c pat on n t gat on n mu t p e courts and after months of d scovery, demonstrated enough pre ud ce to p a nt ff to estab sh wa ver.

BMO Harris Bank, N.A. v. Lailer, No. 16-CV-545-JPS (E.D. Wis. Aug. 2, 2016) 08/02/2016

Court den ed mot on to compe arb trat on and stay court act on. Court he d that the d spute s not arb trab e before FINRA because t was not sub ect to mandatory arb trat on under the FINRA ru es. Further, the doctr ne of “d rect benef ts estoppe ,” by wh ch a non-s gnatory can be forced to arb trate a c a m, d d not app y.

Andrade v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc., No. 3:12-CV-02724 JLS (MDD) (S.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2016) 08/02/2016

Court den ed renewed mot on to vacate arb trat on award. Court he d that the award was not f na under the FAA and that cost and de ay a one cou d not const tute “severe rreparab e n ury” or “man fest n ust ce” so as to ust fy rev ew of the arb trator s non-f na dec s on.

Bosworth v. Cubicon Corp., No. 3:16-CV-02416-WHA (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2016) 08/02/2016

Court den ed mot on to vacate arb tra award and granted pet t on to conf rm. Court he d that the award d d not exh b t “man fest d sregard of the aw” and therefore defendant d d not c ear the FAA s h gh hurd e necessary to vacate an arb trat on award.

Woods v. Caremark PHC, L.L.C., No. 4:14-CV-583-SRB (W.D. Mo. Aug. 2, 2016) 08/02/2016

Court den ed defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on. Court found that the p a n terms of the re evant arb trat on agreement made c ear that t d d not app y to the d spute at ssue, as the d spute preceded the p a nt ff s v ew ng of the arb trat on agreement.

Main v. Gateway Genomics, LLC, No. 3:15-CV-02945-AJB-WVG (S.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2016) 08/01/2016

Court den ed defendant s request to compe arb trat on. A though the court found that the defendant d d not wa ve ts r ght to arb trat on, the p a nt ff was not bound by the arb trat on prov s ons because they were conta ned n contracts to wh ch t s a non-s gnatory.

Lerner v. Citigroup, No. 2:16-CV-01573-KM-MAH (D.N.J. Aug. 1, 2016) 08/01/2016

Mot on granted to compe arb trat on and act on stayed. Court he d that a va d arb trat on agreement ex sted and that a the c a ms were covered by that agreement. As such, pursuant to §3 of the FAA, court stayed the proceed ngs pend ng arb trat on.

Royce v. Needle, No. 1:15-CV-00259 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 1, 2016) 08/01/2016

Court granted request to compe arb trat on. Court found that the arb trat on agreement, wh ch spec f ed arb trat on by a former Mag strate udge who had s nce passed away, surv ved the named arb trator s death and rema ns enforceab e. As the arb trat on agreement d d not contemp ate the death of the named arb trator, t was the court s duty to appo nt an arb trator pursuant to sect on 5 of the FAA.

Lakah v. UBS AG, No. 1:07-CV-02799 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2016) 07/29/2016

Court granted request to vo untar y d sm ss pet t on w th pre ud ce, but cross-pet t on to determ ne whether pet t oners agreed to arb trate rema ns pend ng. Court he d that desp te pet t oners recent consent to arb trat on, court reta ned sub ect matter ur sd ct on because courts must dec de whether a party s sub ect to an arb trat on agreement by reso v ng ssues surround ng the mak ng of an arb trat on agreement.

Moon v. Breathless, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-06297-SDW-LDW (D.N.J. July 29, 2016) 07/29/2016

Court granted mot on for summary udgment. Court he d that t was for an arb trator to dec de whether the c ass f cat on of p a nt ff as an ndependent contractor v o ated New Jersey emp oyment aw, s nce that was a cha enge to the who e agreement, not spec f ca y to the arb trat on prov s on. Add t ona y, the arb trat on agreement was not unconsc onab e s nce both part es wa ved the r t gat on r ghts.

Tradeline Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Jess Smith & Sons Cotton, LLC, No. 2:15-CV-08048 JAK (C.D. Cal. July 29, 2016) 07/29/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on and stayed act on pend ng arb trat on. Court he d the ant trust c a m arose from a cens ng agreement w th a non-party trade assoc at on, and the cens ng agreement s arb trat on c ause therefore app ed even though the defendants were not s gnator es.

Bankers Life & Cas. Ins. v. CBRE, No. 15-1471 (7th Cir. July 29, 2016) 07/29/2016

C rcu t court reversed and remanded d str ct court dec s on upho d ng an arb trat on award. Court he d that the arb trators exceeded the r power by bas ng the award on documents outs de the part es agreement and gnor ng the agreement tse f.

Bodine v. Cook’s Pest Control Inc., No. 15-13233 (11th Cir. July 29, 2016) 07/29/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed d str ct court dec s on compe ng arb trat on. Court he d the FAA and the non-wa ver prov s on of the Un form Serv ces Emp oyment and Reemp oyment R ghts Act were not n conf ct and the d str ct court proper y compe ed arb trat on; t s, however, the arb trator, and not the d str ct court, that shou d determ ne the va d ty of the terms of the arb trat on agreement.

Tigges v. AM Pizza, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-10136-WGY (D. Mass. July 29, 2016) 07/29/2016

Court den ed mot on to d sm ss and a owed mot on to cert fy c asses. Court he d the c ass act on wa ver prov s on and opt-out prov s on n an arb trat on agreement was nva d because the Nat ona Labor Re at ons Act confers on emp oyees a non-wa vab e statutory r ght to act co ect ve y.

Meyer v. Kalanick, No. 1:15-CV-09796-JSR (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2016) 07/29/2016

Court den ed mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that a va d arb trat on agreement was not formed because the arb trat on agreement was n an e ectron c form contract that encouraged users to over ook contractua terms n the process of ga n ng access to a product or serv ce.

Berger v. Accounting Fulfillment Svcs., No. 8:16-CV-00744-JSM-JSS (M.D. Fla. July 29, 2016) 07/29/2016

Mot on granted to stay proceed ngs pend ng appea . Court he d the FAA g ves defendants a d rect, mmed ate r ght to f e an nter ocutory appea of an order deny ng arb trat on.

Wells Fargo Ins. Servs. USA, Inc. v. King, No. 0:15-CV-04378-PJS-HB (D. Minn. July 29, 2016) 07/29/2016

Court granted n part mot on to stay d scovery pend ng determ nat on of mot on to compe arb trat on, perm tt ng d scovery to proceed pr mar y n re at on to defendants grounds for oppos ng arb trat on.

DCK World Wide, LLC v. Pacifica Riverplace, L.P., No. 1:16-CV-00666-SS (W.D. Tex. July 29, 2016) 07/29/2016

Court den ed request for a pre m nary n unct on en o n ng para e arb trat on proceed ngs, f nd ng that the requestor had not estab shed a substant a ke hood that t wou d succeed n show ng that t d d not assume ob gat ons or benef ts from the under y ng agreement and thus that t was not bound by the agreement s de egat on of quest on of arb trab ty to the arb trator.

Chelmowski v. AT&T Mobility, LLC., No. 1:15-CV-10980 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 28, 2016) 07/28/2016

Court conf rmed mot on to conf rm an AAA arb trat on award, deny ng cross-mot on to vacate based on the arb trator s a eged b as, m sconduct, and exceed ng her powers. Court reasoned that p a nt ff fa ed to present c ear and conv nc ng ev dence that any of the “narrow grounds” ava ab e for overturn ng an arb trat on award under the FAA app ed, re ect ng p a nt ff s arguments that the arb trator acted mproper y by treat ng h s arguments as ega and not factua , deny ng requests for d scovery and an ev dent ary hear ng. Nor, Court he d, d d the arb trator make a man fest error of fact or aw or v o ate AAA ru es.

Breazeale v. Victim Services Inc., No. 3:14-CV-05266-VC (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2016) 07/27/2016

Court den ed mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that the Federa Arb trat on Act does not app y to a contract between a oca prosecutor and a cr m na suspect about how to address a potent a state- aw cr m na v o at on, and that Ca forn a aw does not a ow arb trat on of a d spute, between a c t zen and the government or ts agents, ar s ng out of the exerc se of the government s cr m na aw enforcement powers.

Langlois v. Amedisys, No. 3:15-CV-00835-SDD-RLB (M.D. La. July 27, 2016) 07/27/2016

Mot on granted to compe arb trat on. Court re ected p a nt ff s argument that t cou d not be compe ed to arb trate because pre-d spute arb trat on agreements are nu and vo d under Lou s ana aw. The FAA makes pre-d spute arb trat on agreements enforceab e and pre-empts Lou s ana aw.

Easter v. Prof’l Performance Dev. Group, No. 5:16-CV-00222-DAE (W.D. Tex. July 27, 2016) 07/27/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted. Court re ected p a nt ff s argument that the arb trat on agreement was nva d because the contract acks mutua ty of ob gat on, f nd ng that a though the prom ses were not dent ca , the agreement d d not prov de any party the power to avo d ts prom se to arb trate.

Unite Here Int’l Union v. Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, No. 2:16-CV-00384-TLN-EFB (E.D. Cal. July 27, 2016) 07/27/2016

Court den ed mot on to d sm ss act on. Court he d that n nth c rcu t and d str ct courts rout ne y treat pet t ons to compe arb trat ons as capab e of nst tut ng a court act on, and as a resu t, respondent fa ed to estab sh that d sm ssa was warranted.

Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc, No. 15-1970 (Fed. Cir. July 26, 2016) 07/26/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed d str ct court s den a of mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that the defendant s counterc a ms were not sub ect to arb trat on because they re ated to the scope of censed nte ectua property r ghts, an ssue express y exempted from arb trat on n the part es agreement. Court a so re ected p a nt ff s argument that counterc a ms not nvo v ng the cense shou d be severed and sent to arb trat on, s nce the counterc a ms were centered on the nfr ngement su t.

United States v. SF Green Clean, LLC, No. 15-15254 (9th Cir. July 26, 2016) 07/26/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed d str ct court s conf rmat on of an arb trat on award and d sm ssa of defendant s counterc a ms. Court he d defendant had been g ven the opportun ty to part c pate n the se ect on of an arb trator when t chose to s gn a ease that set out how the arb trator wou d be se ected, and therefore no adequate grounds ex sted for vacat ng the award under the FAA. Court a so he d that wh e the arb trator was not empowered to award damages on some of the counterc a ms, the counterc a ms were proper y d sm ssed on a ternat ve grounds.

Clark v. CitiFinancial Servicing, LLC., No. 3:16-CV-00140-MOC-DSC (W.D.N.C. July 26, 2016) 07/26/2016

Court granted mot on to stay and compe arb trat on, f nd ng that the p a nt ffs fa ed to meet the r burden of prov ng that the arb trat on agreement was unconsc onab e.

Virginia Van Dusen v. Swift Transportation Co, No. CB-7121-15-0034-V-1 (9th Cir. July 26, 2016) 07/26/2016

Court den ed wr t of mandamus order ng the d str ct court to vacate ts case management order and dec de the pet t on to compe arb trat on w thout d scovery or tr a . Court we ghed factors to determ ne whether mandamus re ef was ava ab e and determ ned that pet t oner may appea once d str ct court ssues a dec s on on whether to compe arb trator.

Robredo v. Metro Honda, 2:15-CV-08135-KM-JBC (D.N.J. July 22, 2016) 07/22/2016

Court granted mot on for summary udgment and d sm ssed the act on. Court he d that s nce the c a ms were arb trab e and the p a nt ff had fu y part c pated n the prev ous arb trat on, there was no genu ne mater a ssue of fact that wou d requ re tr a on the c a ms asserted by the p a nt ff.

Hillware v. New Orleans Saints, No. 2:14-CV-02964-MVL-KWR (E.D La. July 22, 2016) 07/22/2016

Court den ed mot on to vacate an arb trat on award. Court he d that p a nt ff s c a ms fe w th n the scope of the re evant arb trat on agreement and the arb trator d d not exceed h s author ty n ssu ng an award n defendants favor.

KAG West, LLC v. Malone, No. 3:15-CV-03827-TEH (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2016) 07/22/2016

Mot on den ed to en o n the respondent from f ng and prosecut ng dup cat ve c a ms. Court he d that the FAA d d not author ze federa courts to stay proceed ngs pend ng n state courts.

Keena v. GroupOn, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-00520-GCM (W.D.N.C. July 22, 2016) 07/22/2016

Court granted mot on to d sm ss w th pre ud ce. Court he d that because the p a nt ff s c a ms were sub ect to an enforceab e arb trat on agreement, and p a nt ff nd cated that she had no ntent on to pursue arb trat on, d sm ssa was warranted.

Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. John Deere Ins. Co., No. 2:15-CV-15-00671-PHX-PGR (D. Ariz. July 22, 2016) 07/22/2016

Court granted app cat on for attorney s fees and costs ar s ng from an act on to conf rm arb trat on award. Court re ected respondent s argument that the pet t oner was m ted to seek ng remunerat on for attorney s fees ncurred so e y n connect on w th the cross-mot on to conf rm the arb trat on award, and not matters such as f ng an answer or respond ng to a mot on to sea the ent rety of the proceed ngs.

Sanchez v. General Elec. Co., No. 2:16-CV-00050 (S.D. Tex. July 22, 2016) 07/22/2016

Mot on granted to compe arb trat on. Court he d that t reta ned the author ty to dec de whether the part es agreed to arb trate the d spute because the part es d d not de egate the quest on of arb trab ty to an arb trator. Court further he d that there was suff c ent ev dence of an enforceab e arb trat on agreement and the d spute n quest on fe w th n the agreement s scope.

Babb v. Credit One Fin., No. 2:16-CV-00266-SPC-CM (M.D. Fla. July 22, 2016) 07/22/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that the part es had agreed to arb trate a d sputes ar s ng out of a consumer cardho der agreement.

Hamilton v. Partners Healthcare Sys., Inc., No. 1:09-CV-11725-DPW (D. Ma. July 21, 2016) 07/21/2016

Court granted n part and den ed n part defendants mot on for udgment on the p ead ngs. Court he d nter a a that the Labor Management Re at ons Act preempted the state aw c a ms ra sed by two of the three p a nt ffs and, as a resu t, must be d sm ssed where those p a nt ffs fa ed to exhaust the statute s mandatory gr evance and arb trat on procedures.

Martin v. Yasuda, No. 15-55696 (9th Cir. July 21, 2016) 07/21/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed d str ct court s den a of defendants mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that the d str ct court reta ned ur sd ct on to dec de the quest on of whether the part es d spute was arb trab e because the agreement d d not nc ude c ear, unm stakab e anguage that ssues of wa ver wou d be dec ded by an arb trator. Court further he d that defendants conduct wa ved the r r ght to arb trat on because defendants spent seventeen months t gat ng the case before mov ng to compe arb trat on, and forc ng p a nt ffs to re- t gate the ssues n arb trat on wou d const tute obv ous pre ud ce.

Metlife Secs., Inc. v. Holt, No. 2:16-CV-00032-RLJ-MCLC (E.D. Tenn. July 21, 2016) 07/21/2016

Court granted n part pet t oners mot on to compe arb trat on and den ed Respondent s mot on to d sm ss wh e order ng an ev dent ary hear ng on the rema n ng c a ms. Court he d that, for at east some c a ms, the ev dence d d not demonstrate that pet t oners wa ved the r r ght to enforce an arb trat on agreement or that the arb trat on agreement n quest on was a contract of adhes on when pet t oners d d not engage n unfa r and oppress ve tact cs to obta n respondent s consent.

Razak v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00573-MMB (E.D. Pa. July 21, 2016) 07/21/2016

Court den ed defendants mot on to d sm ss and compe arb trat on. Court he d that p a nt ffs nd sputab y opted out of an arb trat on agreement and that, a though the agreement de egated quest ons of enforceab ty, revocab ty, and va d ty of the agreement to an arb trator, the agreement d d not de egate to an arb trator whether the part es comp ed w th the agreement s consp cuous opt-out prov s ons.

Spathos v. Smart Payment Plan, LLC, No. 3:15-CV-08014-MAS-DEA (D.N.J. July 21, 2016) 07/21/2016

Court den ed defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that the d spute arose after the f ve year term of the agency agreement conta n ng an arb trat on c ause exp red, and the part es d d not ntend to arb trate c a ms ar s ng after the exp rat on of the agreement.

Theerachayavaranont v. Red Lobster Hospitality, LLC, No. 2:15-CV-00188-SPC-MRM (M.D. Fla. July 21, 2016) 07/21/2016

Court granted defendant s unopposed request to stay the case pend ng the conc us on of arb trat on and p a nt ff d d not oppose arb trat on of her emp oyment d sputes.

Uszak v. AT&T Mobility Servs. LLC, No. 15-4195 (6th Cir. July 21, 2016) 07/21/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed d str ct court s f nd ng that an arb trat on agreement between the part es was enforceab e. Court he d that d str ct court proper y app ed Oh o state aw to f nd that the emp oyee (appe ant) entered nto an arb trat on agreement w th h s emp oyers (appe ee) by v rtue of read ng an ema conta n ng the arb trat on agreement, c ck ng a “Rev ew Comp eted” button, and never opt ng out of the terms of the agreement.

Valtech Solutions, Inc. v. Davenport, No. 3:15-CV-03361-D (N.D. Tx. July 21, 2016) 07/21/2016

Court den ed p a nt ffs mot on to remand the act on to state court. Court he d that the d spute re ated to conf dent a ty agreements conta n ng an arb trat on c ause fa ng under the New York Convent on; defendants remova of the case to federa d str ct court was proper where defendants asserted a non-fr vo ous argument that the c ause prov ded a defense to the p a nt ffs c a ms; and the court had sub ect matter ur sd ct on to hear the d spute pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 205.

Watson v. Corvias Constr., LLC, No. 5:16-CV-00463-C (W.D. Okla. July 21, 2016) 07/21/2016

Court granted defendants mot on to stay ud c a proceed ngs and refer the case to arb trat on. Court he d that p a nt ff fa ed to demonstrate that the arb trat on agreement was so unfa r and ones ded as to meet the Ok ahoma Supreme Court s def n t on of an unconsc onab e contract.

Varon v. Uber Techs. Inc., No. 1:15-CV-03650-MJG (D. Md. July 20, 2016) 07/20/2016

Court den ed p a nt ff s mot on for recons derat on of ts dec s on to grant defendants mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that p a nt ff s argument, that Ca forn a rather than Mary and aw governed the case, was ncorrect, but even f Ca forn a aw app ed, the arb trat on agreement n quest on wou d not be unconsc onab e.

Xu v. China Sunergy (US) Clean Tech Inc., No. 5:15-CV-04823-HRL (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2016) 07/20/2016

Court granted n part respondents mot on to d sm ss n an act on seek ng conf rmat on of an arb tra award. Court he d that pet t oner s comp a nt re ed on the wrong cause of act on, 9 U.S.C. § 9 nstead of 9 U.S.C. § 207, because the arb trat on award was governed by the New York Convent on, that the Court cou d exerc se ur sd ct on where the pet t on fa ed to nvoke the prec se ur sd ct ona c tat on, and that pet t oner wou d be granted eave to amend h s comp a nt.

Comm’ns Imp. Exp. S.A v. Republic of the Congo, No. 2:16-CV-00404-BSJ (D. Utah July 20, 2016) 07/20/2016

Court granted p a nt ff s mot on to compe comp ance w th a subpoena duces tecum aga nst a th rd-party bank where p a nt ff sought nformat on concern ng an asset of defendant, a fore gn sovere gn, to ass st n the enforcement of p a nt ff s arb trat on award. Court he d that the bank s concerns over the scope and nature of the subpoena were nsuff c ent to abrogate ts duty to respond and that the Fore gn Sovere gn Immun t es Act does not bar a request for d scovery n a d of execut on.

Erie Operating, LLC v. Foster, No. 1:14-CV-00072-TFM-SPB (W.D. Pa. July 20, 2016) 07/20/2016

Court granted defendant s mot on for summary udgment to d sm ss act on where p a nt ffs sought to compe arb trat on. Court, adopt ng the recommendat ons of a mag strate udge, he d that because the d spute n quest on had a ready been t gated and reso ved by a state court, p a nt ffs were prec uded from re- t gat ng the d spute n arb trat on.

Great N. Ins. Co. v. Cornerstone Custom Home Builder, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00071-WLS (M.D. Ga. July 20, 2016) 07/20/2016

Court granted defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that the defendant had not wa ved ts r ght to enforce the arb trat on c ause of the contract pr or to the n t at on of the awsu t, and had not de ayed n assert ng ts arb trat on r ght after p a nt ff n t ated su t.

Kennedy v. Am. Airlines Inc., No. 1:15-CV-08058-JBS-KMW (D.N.J. July 20, 2016) 07/20/2016

Court granted defendants mot on to d sm ss. Court he d nter a a that t acked sub ect matter ur sd ct on to dec de p a nt ff s co ect ve barga n ng c a ms when the Ra way Labor Act pre-empts those c a ms under an agreement that requ red d sputes to be reso ved through arb trat on.

Kubala v. Supreme Prod. Servs., Inc., No. 15-41507 (5th Cir. July 20, 2016) 07/20/2016

C rcu t court reversed d str ct court s den a of mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that the d str ct court ncorrect y conc uded that no va d arb trat on agreement ex sted between the part es where, after emp oyee-appe ee f ed a Fa r Labor Standards Act but before emp oyer-appe ant earned of t, appe ant prov ded not ce of a new y- mposed arb trat on agreement as a term of cont nued emp oyment. Court he d as a matter of Texas state aw, at-w appe ee accepted the agreement when he cont nued work ng w th not ce of the new po cy, and the agreement conta ned a va d de egat on c ause that transferred the author ty to dec de thresho d matters of arb trab ty to the arb trator to determ ne whether appe ee s c a ms shou d be dec ded n arb trat on or court.

Murdock v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., No. 2:15-CV-00268-SPC-CM (M.D. Fla. July 20, 2016) 07/20/2016

Court granted defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on. Adopt ng the recommendat ons of a mag strate udge, court ordered the p a nt ffs and one defendant to proceed n arb trat on pursuant to a va d arb trat on agreement. Court stayed p a nt ffs rema n ng c a ms not sub ect to the agreement aga nst two other defendants, to promote ud c a economy where the arb trab e and non-arb trab e c a ms arose from s m ar facts and c rcumstances.

New York City & Vicinity Dist. Council of Carpenters v. Plaza Constr. Group, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01115-GHW (S.D.N.Y. July 19, 2016) 07/20/2016

Court granted pet t oner s app cat on for attorney s fees and costs ar s ng from an act on to conf rm an arb trat on award where the co ect ve barga n ng agreement ent t ed pet t oner to recover reasonab e fees and costs and where respondent offered no ust f cat on for ts fa ure to ab de by a court-conf rmed arb trat on award.

Caldwell v. SSC Lebanon Operating Co. LLC, No. 3:16-CV-00036 (M.D. Tenn. July 19, 2016) 07/19/2016

Court den ed defendants mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that defendants fa ed to estab sh the ex stence of an agreement to arb trate because the counter-party to the agreement, a deceased former nurs ng home res dent, had not formed a va d contract w th the defendant.

I.B.E.W. Local No. 531 v. TGB Unlimited Inc., No. 2:15-CV-00028-JD (N.D. Ind. July 19, 2016) 07/19/2016

Court granted p a nt ff s mot on for summary udgment to conf rm a abor arb trat on award. Court he d that defendant s fa ure to cha enge the arb trat on award w th n the 90-day statute of m tat ons per od estab shed under Ind ana aw rendered the award f na .

KCOM, Inc. v. Emps. Mut. Cas. Co., No. 15-1218 (10th Cir. July 19, 2016) 07/19/2016

Appe ate court d sm ssed c a mant s appea of the ower court s dec s on to deny a mot on to conf rm an nsurance appra sa award. Court he d that t acked sub ect matter ur sd ct on over the d spute because c a mant s or g na mot on to conf rm the award was made under Co orado state aw and a federa court of appea s may grant nter ocutory re ef on y where a movant seeks to conf rm an award under FAA § 9.

Malik v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, No. 2:16-CV-10477-GCS-SDD (E.D. Mich. July 19, 2016) 07/19/2016

Court granted defendants mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that the p a nt ff s cha enge to the va d ty of an arb trat on agreement was a matter for an arb trator to dec de where the arb trat on agreement express y de egated “d sputes about the va d ty, enforceab ty, arb trab ty or scope” to the arb trator and p a nt ff fa ed to ra se an ssue of mater a fact concern ng whether he exerc sed the r ght-to-re ect c ause of the arb trat on agreement.

Tr. of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labor-Mgmt., Corp., Pension, and Welfare Funds v. CMI Casework & Millwork, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-05686-DRHGRB (E.D.N.Y. July 19, 2016) 07/19/2016

Court granted pet t oner s mot on to conf rm an arb trat on award. Court adopted the mag strate udge s recommendat on to conf rm where the respondent fa ed to answer the pet t oner s mot on and pet t oner demonstrated that there were no ssues of mater a fact prec ud ng summary udgment as to a port ons of the award.

CEEG (Shanghai) Solar Sci. & Tech. Co. v. Lumos LLC, No. 15-1256 (10th Cir. July 19, 2016) 07/19/2016

Appe ate court aff rmed ower court s d sm ssa of p a nt ff s mot on to conf rm an arb trat on award. Court found that p a nt ff s Ch nese- anguage not ce of arb trat on was not reasonab y ca cu ated to appr se the defendant of the arb trat on proceed ngs because past commun cat ons between the part es were on y n Eng sh, the defendant d d not understand Ch nese, and the agreement prov ded for proceed ngs n Eng sh. P a nt ff s nsuff c ent not ce caused defendant to m ss the dead ne to appo nt a neutra arb tra tr buna , ev dences substant a pre ud ce, and therefore v o ated the due process except on to enforcement under the New York Convent on.

Bd. of Trs. of the W. Metal Indus. Pension Fund v. Cent. Machine Works, Inc., No. 2:14-CV-00802-RAJ (W.D. Wash. July 19, 2016) 07/19/2016

Court granted p a nt ff s mot on for summary udgment fo ow ng defendants fa ure to arb trate the d spute n accordance w th ERISA. Court he d that ERISA requ res a d sputes concern ng an emp oyer s fa ure to appropr ate fund emp oyee ret rement p ans to be reso ved through arb trat on and an emp oyer s fa ure to n t ate arb trat on w th n 60 days of a tr gger ng event renders the emp oyer ab e for any unfunded w thdrawa s.

Patton v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., No. 4:15-CV-01371 (S.D. Tex. July 19, 2016) 07/19/2016

Court granted defendant s mot on for udgment on the p ead ngs. Court aff rmed mag strate udge s recommendat on that a udgment obta ned from arb trat on award aga nst a th rd-party contractor cou d not be enforced aga nst the defendant- nsurer because the arb trator s award estab shed that the awarded damages were exc uded under the contractor s nsurance po c es.

CEEG (Shanghai) Solar Science & Tech. Co. v. LUMOS LLC, No. 15-1256 (10th Cir. July 19, 2016) 07/19/2016

Tenth c rcu t aff rmed the d str ct court s den a of a pet t on for recogn t on and enforcement under the New York Convent on of a CIETAC arb tra award. Court he d that, because the not ce of commencement of arb trat on was sent to the US respondent n Ch nese nstead of n Eng sh, the not ce was not reasonab y ca cu ated to appr se the defendant of arb trat on proceed ngs and pre ud ced defendant because t cou d not part c pate n the se ect on of the tr buna . Lack of proper not ce s a defence to enforcement under the New York Convent on.

Britvan. v. Cantor Fitzgerald L.P., No. 2:16-CV-04075-ODW-JPR (C.D. Cal. July 18, 2016). 07/18/2016

Court granted defendants mot on to transfer to the Southern D str ct of New York where the agreement n d spute conta ned an arb trat on prov s on that requ red “any d sputes, d fferences or controvers es under [the] [a]greement to be ad ud cated by a pane of arb trators s tt ng n New York C ty.” Court re ected p a nt ffs arguments that the arb trat on forum se ect on c ause contravened pub c po cy, was unconsc onab e, and that defendant cou d not ega y be a party to arb trat on n the agreed upon forum.

Roes v. SFBSC Mgmt., LLC, No. 15-15437 (9th Cir. July 18, 2016) 07/18/2016

Appe ate court aff rmed the d str ct court s den a of defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that defendant was not a party to the app cab e agreement and fa ed to estab sh t had stand ng as a non-s gnatory to compe arb trat on.

Performance Dynamics, Inc. v. Flynn, No. 1:13-CV-00298-WTL-TAB (S.D. Ind. July 18, 2016) 07/18/2016

Court granted p a nt ff s mot on to enforce med at on agreement. Court he d that, contrary to defendants arguments, the agreement was va d, unamb guous, exp c t y conta ned essent a arb trat on terms, and was cons stent w th pub c po cy.

Sheet Metal Emp’rs Indus. Promotion Fund, v. Absolute Balancing Co., No. 15-1682 (6th Cir. July 18, 2016) 07/18/2016

Appe ate court reversed the d str ct court s den a of cross mot ons for summary udgment to conf rm an arb tra award. In response to a cert f ed quest on, court he d that federa not state aw app es to determ ne whether a party has assented to the terms of a co ect ve barga n ng agreement, nc ud ng ts arb trat on prov s on.

Jarrie Crawford v. Regions Bank, No. 3:16-CV-00190-DPJ-FKB (N.D. Miss. July 18, 2016) 07/18/2016

Court den ed w thout pre ud ce defendant s mot on to d sm ss p a nt ff s pro se su t seek ng to remand an arb tra award for c ar f cat on. Court he d defendant s arguments that court dec ne to exerc se ur sd ct on because of para e proceed ng pend ng n state court were not compe ng where no factors we ghed n favor of abstent on.

SCL Basilisk AG, v. Agribusiness United Savannah Logistics LLC, No. 4:16-CV-00162-WTM-GRS (S.D. Ga. July 18, 2016) 07/18/2016

Court den ed p a nt ffs pet t on and app cat on for an order for secur ty n a d of fore gn arb trat on. Court he d that p a nt ffs pet t on cou d not seek secur ty pursuant to Georg a s Internat ona Commerc a Arb trat on Code rather than trad t ona y app cab e but unava ab e mar t me aw prov s ons because the re ef sought wou d bypass the FAA s § 8 requ rement that ent t es seek secur ty “accord ng to the usua course of adm ra ty proceed ngs.”

Dimattina Holdings, LLC v. Steri-Clean, Inc., No. 16-CV-61084-CMA (S.D. Fla. Jul. 18, 2016) 07/18/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on and stayed the case pend ng arb trat on. Court he d that an arb trator must dec de matters of procedura arb trab ty, nc ud ng whether cond t ons precedent to arb trat on have been met. Court a so he d p a nt ff s fraudu ent nducement and decept ve and unfa r pract ces c a ms are “ n connect on w th” the franch se agreement even f they do not “ar se out of” t, and that a non-s gnatory to an arb trat on agreement may compe arb trat on when the a egat ons aga nst h m are nextr cab y ntertw ned w th or m rror those aga nst a s gnatory such that equ tab e estoppe app es.

Arriola v. Martinez, Jr., No. 5:15-CV-01097-OLG (W.D. Tex. Jul. 15, 2016) 07/15/2016

Court den ed defendants mot ons to vacate the arb trat on award and granted n part and den ed n part p a nt ff s mot on seek ng the part a conf rmat on and part a vacatur of the f na arb trat on award. Court found that ( ) defendants fa ed to a ege any corrupt on, fraud, or other mpropr ety that touched on the arb tra proceed ngs; ( ) defendant s second argument was s mp y a d spute over a f nd ng of fact reached by the arb trator, wh ch s not a ground for sett ng as de an arb trat on award; and ( ) the arb trator s unw ngness to de ay the arb trat on to a ow the defendant to change counse was not cons dered m sconduct or m sbehav or that pre ud ced defendant s r ghts.

Smart Techs. ULC v. Rapt Touch Ireland Ltd, No. 3:16-CV-03531-VC (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2016) 07/15/2016

Court den ed p a nt ff s mot on for a temporary restra n ng order where there was no va d reason for a federa court to ssue that re ef. Court he d part es had agreed that the contract n d spute conta ned an arb trat on c ause wh ch afforded the p a nt ff the r ght to request emergency re ef from an arb trator as we as the court.

AFSCME Council 25 v. Detroit Med. Ctr., 2:15-CV-12799-AC-DRG (E.D. Mich. July 15, 2016) 07/15/2016

Court den ed p a nt ffs mot on to enforce arb tra award. Court he d that p a nt ff cannot re y on the award to obta n ts requested re ef where defendant was not a party to the arb trat on and p a nt ff seeks re ef not w th n the conf nes of the award. Court further he d that p a nt ff nappropr ate y seeks enforcement of c a ms not yet sett ed by the arb trator.

Brockway Mould, Inc. v. United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Mfg., Energy, Allied Indus. and Serv. Workers Int’l Union on behalf of its Local 71, No. 15-2941 and 15-3542 (3d Cir. July 15, 2016) 07/15/2016

Appe ate court aff rmed d str ct court s den a of p a nt ff s mot on to vacate arb tra award and grant ng of defendant s mot on to enforce the award. Court he d that, regard ess of whether the arb trator s nterpretat on of the agreement was correct, p a nt ff got what t barga ned for—a procedure n wh ch an arb trator wou d nterpret the agreement.

Dr. Robert L. Meinders. D.C. Ltd. v. Unitedhealthcare, Inc., 3:14-CV-00548-DRH-DGW (S.D. Ill. July 15, 2016) 07/15/2016

Court granted two defendants mot on to compe arb trat on and to stay t gat on as to the rema n ng non-arb trat ng part es pend ng arb trat on. Court he d that non-s gnatory part es to an agreement had assumed mater a ob gat ons and performed core dut es of a s gnatory party under the agreement, wh ch thereby author zed those non-s gnatory defendants to enforce the arb trat on c ause.

Union Trustees of W. PA Teamsters. v. Emps. of W. PA Teamsters., 2:16-CV-00084-TFM (W.D. Pa. July 15, 2016) 07/15/2016

Court den ed p a nt ff s mot on for summary udgment and granted defendants cross mot on for summary udgment. Court he d that where part es trust agreement prov des for the appo ntment of an arb trator, but that the arb trator may not amend the agreement s terms, p a nt ff s mot on to compe arb trat on must be den ed when re ef p a nt ff seeks wou d requ re an act on the arb trator s not ent t ed to take.

Benihana, Inc. v. Benihana of Tokyo, LLC, 1:15-CV-07428-PAE (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 2016) 07/15/2016

Court den ed pet t oner s pet t on to part a y vacate arb tra award, granted respondent s cross-pet t on to conf rm the award n ts ent rety, and den ed respondent s mot on for sanct ons. Court he d that the arb trat on pane ne ther exceeded ts author ty nor depr ved pet t oner of fundamenta fa rness and due process, and acted w th n ts broad author ty n ssu ng the award.

Hale v. Heath, 3:15-CV-01676-LAB-JMA (S.D. Cal. Jul. 15, 2016) 07/15/2016

Court pre m nar y den ed defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on pend ng ury tr a . Court he d that the arb trat on agreement was not unconsc onab e, but tr ab e ssues of fact ex sted that requ red a summary tr a on the so e ssue of whether the part es entered nto the arb trat on agreement.

Crawford v. Pruitthealth-Peake, LLC, 5:16-CV-00157-CAR (M.D. Ga. July 15, 2016) 07/15/2016

Court granted defendants mot on to compe arb trat on and d sm ssed act on w th pre ud ce. Court he d that the arb trat on agreement was enforceab e as part es conceded, and p a nt ff cou d not po nt to any fact or aw as to why the case wou d not be reso ved ent re y by the agreement.

Trustees of New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, v. High Performance Floors Inc., 1:15-CV-00781-LGS (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 2016) 07/15/2016

Court den ed respondent s mot on for recons derat on of pr or vacatur of arb tra award. Court he d that respondent had not po nted to any prev ous y over ooked contro ng dec s ons or data.

Trustees of Empire State Carpenters Annuity v. Amendola Contracting, Inc., 2:15-CV-04034-ADS-GRB (E.D.N.Y. July 14, 2016) 07/14/2016

Court granted pet t oners pet t on to conf rm and enforce arb trat on award. Court he d that, s nce an unanswered conf rmat on pet t on must be treated as a mot on for summary udgment based on the movant s subm ss ons, and no genu ne ssue of mater a fact suff c ent to defeat summary udgment ex sted, the arb trator s award must be conf rmed.

Greerwalker, LLP v. Jackson et al., 3:16-CV-00235-GCM (W.D.N.C. July 14, 2016) 07/14/2016

Mot on for pre m nary n unct on to en o n arb trat on granted. Court he d that, as defendants were not part es to the engagement etter conta n ng the agreement to arb trate, there was no “c ear and unm stakab e” nd cat on that the part es agreed that quest ons of arb trab ty wou d be dec ded by the arb trator and not the court. Court further he d that p a nt ff showed t was ke y to succeed on ts c a m that the d spute between the part es was not arb trab e and that t wou d cause p a nt ff rreparab e harm f p a nt ff were forced to cont nue w th an arb trat on on the mer ts before the ssue of arb trab ty was determ ned.

Sittner v. Country Club, Inc., 4:15-CV-05043-RBH (D.S.C. July 13, 2016) 07/13/2016

Mot on to stay and compe arb trat on granted. Court he d that a va d and enforceab e arb trat on agreement ex sted and the ssues n the case were covered by the arb trat on agreement. Court re ected p a nt ff s argument that court shou d defer ru ng on the arb trat on agreement s enforceab ty pr or to determ n ng cert f cat on of a c ass and prov d ng not ce to a putat ve c ass members, f nd ng t rre evant whether other nd v dua s rece ved not ce of p a nt ff s awsu t and may have va d arguments aga nst arb trat ng the r c a ms.

Carmax Auto Superstores, Inc. v. Montgomergy Blair Sidley v. Littler Mendelson, P.C., 8:16-CV-01459-RWT (D. Md. July 13, 2016) 07/13/2016

Court granted p a nt ff unt Ju y 25, 2016 to f e a Mot on for Summary Judgment on defendant s pet t on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that, where a party has unamb guous y man fested an ntent on not to arb trate, a court may compe arb trat on.

Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co. v. City of Fresno, 2:16-CV-00495-JAM-KJN (E.D. Cal. July 13, 2016) 07/13/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted. Court he d that, even though defendant was not an off c a s gnatory to the po cy conta n ng the arb trat on agreement, because defendant d d not f e any oppos t on to p a nt ff s mot on to compe and defendant sought to benef t from the po cy, the court can presume that defendant conceded that t s bound by the agreement. Court further he d that the arb trat on c ause c ear y encompassed the d spute n th s case.

Gorchoff et al. v. Jefferson Capital Sys., LLC, 2:15-CV-09164-DDP-AGR (C.D. Cal. July 13, 2016) 07/13/2016

Mot on for recons derat on of order grant ng unopposed mot on to compe arb trat on den ed and matter stayed pend ng arb trat on. Court he d that p a nt ff had fa ed to proffer any exp anat on for ts fa ure to f e a t me y oppos t on and that the substant ve c a ms at ssue were arb trab e.

Miceli v. Citigroup, Inc., 2:15-CV-01962-GMN-VCF (D. Nev. July 13, 2016) 07/13/2016

Mot on to d sm ss comp a nt granted. Court he d that p a nt ff fa ed to demonstrate that the arb trat on po cy at ssue was procedura y or substant ve y unconsc onab e and that a of p a nt ff s c a ms were sub ect to the arb trat on c ause.

Reg’l Local Union No. 846 et al. v. Gulf Coast Rebar, Inc., 3:11-CV-00658-AC (D. Or. July 13, 2016) 07/13/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted and matter remanded to arb trator. Court he d that, where an award needs c ar f cat on, the same arb trator who made the award shou d prov de the needed c ar ty. Court further he d that except ons to the functus off c o doctr ne app ed so as to a ow remand to the arb trator.

Riederer v. United Healthcare Serv., Inc., 1:15-CV-01292-WCG (E.D. Wis. July 13, 2016) 07/13/2016

Mot on to d sm ss and compe arb trat on of Fa r Labor Standards Act (FLSA) c a ms den ed. Court he d that, pursuant to recent Seventh C rcu t precedent, an agreement mandat ng nd v dua arb trat on of FLSA c a ms brought by groups of emp oyees v o ated the Nat ona Labor Re at ons Act and was a so unenforceab e under the FAA.

SC&H Group, Inc. v. Altus Group U.S., Inc., WMN-16-1037 (D. Md. July 13, 2016) 07/13/2016

Mot on to d sm ss and compe arb trat on granted. Court he d that the agreement was a transact on nvo v ng nterstate commerce and, therefore, arb trab ty s governed by the FAA. Court further he d that the on y exc us on to the genera arb trat on c ause nvo ved were d sputes regard ng certa n ca cu at ons to the determ ned by an ndependent accountant, and that noth ng was eft to be t gated n court.

Redeemer Comm. of Highland Credit Strategies Funds v. Highland Capital Mgmt, L.P., No. 1:16-CV-02668 (S.D.N.Y July 13, 2016) 07/13/2016

Court granted mot on to conf rm arb trat on award and den ed mot on to vacate. In conf rm ng the award, Court he d that the part es agreed that quest ons of arb trab ty wou d be comm tted to the arb trators, the dec s on to exc ude ev dence was w th n the arb trators d scret on, and the pet t oners request for damages perm tted the arb trators to cons der grant ng nterest.

Enkema v. FTI Consulting, Inc., et al., 1:16-CV-01048-JFM (D. Md. July 12, 2016) 07/12/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted. Court he d that, as c a ms d d not ar se under a sect on of the contract prov d ng that a party sha not be requ red to subm t certa n d sputes to arb trat on, but otherw se prov d ng for arb trat on of any and a d sputes, compu s on of arb trat on was warranted.

Barclays Capital Inc. v. Ramon Manuel Hache, 1:16-CV-00315-LGS (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2016) 07/12/2016

Mot on to conf rm arb trat on award granted. Court he d that, as the three month per od for ra s ng cha enges to the va d ty of the award had passed and defendant had not ra sed any ega ssue that cou d depr ve the court of the ab ty to conf rm the award, the award must be conf rmed. Court further he d that, as the agreement g v ng r se to the under y ng arb trat on prov ded that defendant wou d pay a expenses ncurred, p a nt ff was ent t ed to ts costs ncurred n seek ng conf rmat on of the award.

Eastland Energy, LLC v. Sharpe Energy LLC and Ray Sharpe, 3:15-CV-00595-SMY-SCW (S.D. Ill. July 12, 2016) 07/12/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted and matter stayed pend ng reso ut on of arb trat on. Court he d that, g ven the breadth of the agreed prov s on and the federa po cy favor ng arb trat on, a of p a nt ff s c a ms were sub ect to arb trat on. Court further he d that there was no wa ver of arb trat on by defendants where, upon p a nt ff s f ng of the present act on, defendants ra sed the arb trat on c ause as an aff rmat ve defense.

Leonard v. Del. North Cos. Sport Serv., Inc., 4:15-CV-01356-CDP (E.D. Mo. July 11, 2016) 07/11/2016

Mot on to enforce arb trat on agreement and d sm ss case granted. Court he d that p a nt ff had not demonstrated unconsc onab ty suff c ent to overcome the FAA s strong po cy favor ng arb trat on or the c ear ntent on of the part es expressed n the r arb trat on agreement. Court add t ona y he d that the arb trat on agreement was suff c ent y broad to encompass p a nt ff s c a m of fraud.

Leonard v. Delaware North Cos. Sport Serv., Inc., 4:15-CV-01356-CDP (E.D. Mo. July 11, 2016) 07/11/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted. Court he d that p a nt ff had not demonstrated unconsc onab ty suff c ent to overcome the FAA s po cy favor ng arb trat on and there was va d cons derat on for the agreement to arb trate. Court further he d that a d sputed c a ms are encompassed by that agreement to arb trate.

East Mountain Energy, LLC v. United Mine Workers of America, Local Union 1769, 2:16-CV-00018-DAK (D. Utah July 11, 2016) 07/11/2016

Mot on to d sm ss for fa ure to state a c a m and compe arb trat on den ed. Court he d that, as the part es d d not c ear y and unm stakab y agree to arb trate the quest on of arb trab ty, the quest on of arb trab ty as t perta ns to the agreement must be dec ded by the court. Court further dec ded that the d spute at ssue was not w th n the scope of the arb trat on agreement.

Univ. of Chicago Med. Ctr. v. Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 743, 1:15-CV-08765 (N.D. Ill. July 11, 2016) 07/11/2016

Mot on seek ng vacatur of arb trat on award den ed. Court he d that, g ven the arb trator s factua f nd ngs, and the narrow scope of the pub c po cy except on, the award cou d not be vacated on pub c po cy grounds.

Westcode, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Elec. Corp., No. 3:15-CV-01474-MAD-DEP (N.D.N.Y. July 11, 2016) 07/11/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on den ed. Court he d that, wh e the t me e apsed pr or to defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on, stand ng a one, was not so egreg ous n ength, defendant neverthe ess wa ved ts r ght to compe arb trat on of p a nt ff s c a ms by pursu ng substant a and cont nued n-court t gat on.

Chu v. Chinese-American Planning Council Home Attendant Program, Inc., 1:16-CV-03569-KBF (S.D.N.Y. July 11, 2016) 07/11/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on den ed. The Court he d that, as t acked sub ect matter ur sd ct on over the act on, t was requ red to remand the act on to state court, thereby render ng moot defendant s mot on.

CNG Fin. Corp. v. Davis, 1:16-CV-00297-SSB-SKB (S.D. Ohio July 11, 2016) 07/11/2016

Mot on granted to d sm ss comp a nt seek ng conf rmat on of arb tra award and n unct ve re ef prec ud ng defendant from f ng future potent a c a ms. Court he d that p a nt ff had not proper y p ed a bas s for the court s sub ect matter ur sd ct on, as federa courts are not author zed to ssue ru ngs about c a ms that are not before t.

Mitsubishi Elec. Corp. v. Westcode, Inc., 3:15-CV-00505-MAD-DEP (N.D.N.Y. July 11, 2016) 07/11/2016

Court den ed p a nt ff s mot on to compe arb trat on of defendant s counterc a ms. Court he d that, by pursu ng substant a t gat on of c a ms that were sub ect to arb trat on, p a nt ff wa ved ts r ght to enforce the arb trat on prov s ons aga nst defendant s counterc a ms ar s ng out of the agreement.

Ault v. Centurylink, 1:15-CV-00002-TS (D. Utah July 11, 2016) 07/11/2016

Court den ed p a nt ff s mot on to compe arb trat on of defendant s counterc a ms. Court he d that, by pursu ng substant a t gat on of c a ms that were sub ect to arb trat on, p a nt ff wa ved ts r ght to enforce the arb trat on prov s ons aga nst defendant s counterc a ms ar s ng out of the agreement.

Salberg v. Massage Green Int’l Franchise Corp., 3:15-CV-02805-GPC-WVG (S.D. Cal. July 11, 2016) 07/11/2016

Mot on to compe nd v dua arb trat on granted. Court he d that the agreement to arb trate was va d and enforceab e under the FAA, that the agreement encompassed a re evant c a ms, and that the c ear anguage of the agreement express y forbade c ass cert f cat on, thereby requ r ng that any ssues re at ng to p a nt ff s emp oyment be dec ded by nd v dua arb trat on.

Williams v. Home Depot USA, Inc., No.3:15-CV-3655-L (N.D. Tex. July 8, 2016) 07/08/2016

Mot on granted to compe arb trat on. Court he d the c a ms were sub ect to arb trat on; that the defendant d d not wa ve enforcement of the arb trat on c ause; and that wh e med at on may have been a cond t on precedent to arb trat on, the effect of not go ng to med at on s a dec s on eft for the arb trator to dec de.

Himark Biogas, Inc. v. Western Plains Energy LLC, 6:14-CV-01070-SAC-KGS (D. Kan. July 8, 2016) 07/08/2016

Defendant s mot on for entry of f na udgment den ed. Court he d that, wh e ts conf rmat on order of the arb trat on award const tuted a f na udgment as to a c a ms presented and dec ded n the arb trat on proceed ngs, there were patent c a ms re ated to the c a ms arb trated and to the scope of the arb trat on proceed ngs and whose re at onsh p to those proceed ngs rema ns unsett ed.

Dynamic International Airways, LLC v. Air India Limited, No. 1:15-CV-07054-PKC (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2016) 07/08/2016

Defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on n Ind a granted; p a nt ff s cross-mot on to compe arb trat on n New York and to en o n defendant from proceed ng w th arb trat on n Ind a den ed and act on stayed pend ng the Ind a arb trat on. Court found that New York contract aw, rather than Ind a aw, app es to the quest on of whether the two arb trat on agreements the part es re y on are enforceab e. Court he d that the etter re ed on by p a nt ff for arb trat on n New York was not an enforceab e arb trat on agreement s nce t fa ed to state any mater a terms of the arb trat on, such as the ocat on, forum and ru es of the arb trat on; whereas the arb trat on c ause re ed on by the defendant for arb trat on n Ind a was va d and enforceab e s nce, even though t does not exp c t y use the words “arb trat on” or “arb trator,” t conta ns an unamb guous agreement to sett e a controversy. P a nt ff s a egat on that arb trator was not mpart a was not a pr ma fac e cause to en o n the arb trat on and nstead cou d be ra sed on a mot on to vacate the arb trat on award.

Berger v. Accounting Fulfillment Services, LLC, No. 8:16-CV-00744-JSM-JSS (M.D. Fla. July 8, 2016) 07/08/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on and d sm ss act on granted n part and den ed n part. Court he d that s nce the part es agreement ncorporated the AAA Ru es the quest on of arb trab ty s de egated to the arb trator, but arb trat on cou d not be compe ed n re at on to any c a ms accru ng pr or to the execut on of the part es arb trat on agreements. Court d sm ssed p a nt ffs defense that certa n defendants had not s gned the arb trat on agreement on the ground of equ tab e estoppe , f nd ng that p a nt ffs a ege “substant a y nterdependent and concerted m sconduct by both the nons gnatory and one or more of the s gnator es to the contract.” Court a so he d that prov s on requ r ng p a nt ffs to cover the r own attorney s fees, even f they u t mate y preva ed, s substant ve y unconsc onab e and thus unenforceab e as app ed to the Fa r Labor Standards Act.

Cullinane v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 1:14-CV-14750-DPW (D. Mass. July 8, 2016) 07/08/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted and case d sm ssed. Court he d that p a nt ffs were put on reasonab e not ce that s gn ng up to use Uber wou d b nd them to contract terms prov d ng for arb trat on. Hav ng conc uded that arb trat on s not an usory remedy for the p a nt ffs n th s case, court eft a other ssues to the arb trator to dec de.

Tassy v. Lindsay Entm’t Enter., Inc., 3:16-CV-00077-TBR (W.D. Ky. July 8, 2016) 07/08/2016

Ev dent ary hear ng ordered pr or to dec d ng upon defendant s mot on to stay pend ng arb trat on. Court he d that there was a tr ab e ssue of fact concern ng the format on of the agreement.

Emilio v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 1:11-CV-03041-JPO-KNF (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2016) 07/07/2016

Mot on to d sm ss amended comp a nt den ed. Court he d that p a nt ff was ent t ed to equ tab e to ng g ven that he proceeded n court on y after n t at ng arb trat on under a prov s on that was not on y mandatory, but a so pena zed p a nt ff f he f ed n federa court so e y to seek a stay, and therefore h s c a ms were t me y.

Bowers v. Northern Two Cayes Company Limited, No. 1:15-CV-00029-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C. July 7, 2016) 07/07/2016

Arb trator s order for nter m measures conf rmed and mot on to conf rm arb trator s op n on that the arb trat on s b nd ng den ed. Court he d that arb trator d d not act n man fest d sregard of the aw s mp y because h s order of nter m n unct ve re ef under AAA Ru e 37 fa ed to state the ega standard on wh ch t was based. S nce arb trator s op n on that the arb trat on s b nd ng was stated n an ema commun cat on to the part es, and not n a forma order or award, there was noth ng for the court to conf rm.

Moule v. United Parcel Serv. Co., No. 1:16-CV-00102-JLT (E.D. Cal. July 7, 2016) 07/07/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted and act on stayed pend ng arb trat on. Court he d that the part es va d y consented to arb trat on, and the prov s ons of the agreement regard ng c a ms sub ect to arb trat on, taken as a who e, were ne ther procedura y nor substant ve y unconsc onab e. Court a so he d that the ssue n d spute was encompassed w th n the arb trat on prov s on.

Blackman & Co., Inc. v. GE Bus. Fin. Serv., Inc. and Riverwinds Urban Renewal, LLC, No. 1:15-CV-07274-NLH-JS (D.N.J. July 7, 2016) 07/07/2016

Court he d that the c a ms at ssue were nonarb trab e because they dea t w th post-construct on defects, whereas the contract s d spute reso ut on procedures, nc ud ng arb trat on, so e y concerned c a ms ar s ng dur ng the construct on process, and the contract s anguage d d not c ear y and unm stakab y estab sh a wa ver of the comp a nant s r ght to a ury tr a under New Jersey aw.

Bordelon Marine, LLC v. Bibby Subsea ROV, LLC, No. 2:16-CV-01106-LMA-DEK (W.D. La. July 7, 2016) 07/07/2016

P a nt ff s mot on to re-open and enforce method for appo ntment of arb trators den ed and defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on granted. S nce the part es had dead ocked regard ng the se ect on of arb trators, the court may ntervene pursuant to 9 USC § 4 and dec de defendant s cha enge to the arb trator appo ntment. In do ng so, court he d that defendant was unamb guous y author zed under the part es contract to appo nt both the f rst and the second arb trator s nce p a nt ff fa ed to appo nt an arb trator w th n the contractua y agreed t me per od. An order compe ng arb trat on under 9 USC § 4 s warranted s nce, by refus ng to recogn ze the proper y appo nted arb trat on pane , p a nt ff had refused to arb trate.

Rainier DSC 1, L.L.C. v. Rainier Capital Mg, No. 15-20375 (5th Cir. July 7, 2016) 07/07/2016

D str ct court s dec s on to deny mot on to stay t gat on re at ng to non-arb trat ng co-defendants pend ng arb trat on aff rmed. A stay under 9 USC § 3 s sub ect to court d scret on and s on y warranted f (1) the arb trated and t gated d sputes nvo ve the same operat ve facts, (2) the c a ms asserted n the arb trat on and t gat on were “ nherent y nseparab e,” and (3) the t gat on had a “cr t ca mpact” on the arb trat on. Court he d the non-arb trat ng co-defendants had fa ed to estab sh these e ements or that the d str ct court abused ts d scret on.

Rainier DSC 1, L.L.C. v. Rainier Capital Mg, No. 15-20383 (5th Cir. July 7, 2016) 07/07/2016

D str ct court s conf rmat on of arb trat on award aff rmed as p a nt ffs fa ed to dent fy a bas s for vacat ng the award under 9 USC § 10(a)(3). Court he d that the fact that the arb trator and the d str ct court reached the same resu t regard ng the mer ts of the p a nt ffs c a m s not ev dence of the arb trator s mproper b as; the arb trator d d not refuse to hear mater a ev dence, d d not otherw se engage n “m sconduct,” and d d not depr ve the p a nt ffs of a fa r hear ng.

Salameno v. Gogo Inc., 1:16-CV-00487-JBW-ST (E.D.N.Y. July 7, 2016) 07/07/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted. Court he d arb trat on c ause n defendant s terms of use for nternet access serv ces was b nd ng on soph st cated p a nt ffs, who are assumed to have consented to defendant s arb trat on c ause by repeated y purchas ng and us ng defendant s on ne product; the d spute s w th n the scope of the broad arb trat on c ause; and p a nt ffs have not asserted any federa c a ms wh ch the statute made nonarb trab e.

Ranier DSC 1, L.L.C. v. Ranier Capital Mgmt., L.P. (I), No. 15-20375 (5th Cir. July 7, 2016) 07/07/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed d str ct court s den a of a mot on to stay t gat on pend ng arb trat on s nce p a nt ffs n t a br ef fa ed to address the d st nct on between s gnator es and non-s gnator es to an arb trat on agreement. Court he d that where part es to t gat on nc ude both s gnator es and non-s gnator es to an arb trat on agreement, stay of non-s gnator es t gat on under § 3 of the FAA s sub ect to the d str ct court s d scret on and on y warranted f: (1) the arb trated and t gated d sputes nvo ve the same operat ve facts; (2) the c a ms asserted n the arb trat on and t gat on are “ nherent y nseparab e”; and (3) the t gat on has a “cr t ca mpact” on the arb trat on.

Varela v. Lamps Plus, Inc., No. 5:16-CV-00577-DMG-KS (C.D. Cal. Jul. 7, 2016) 07/07/2016

D str ct court granted mot on to compe arb trat on and d sm ssed c a ms w thout pre ud ce. Hav ng found that p a nt ff s c a ms were w th n the broad scope of the arb trat on agreement, court dec ned to f nd arb trat on agreement nva d, ru ng that the eve of procedura unconsc onab ty was m n ma and the arb trat on agreement was not substant ve y unconsc onab e. Court further found that a c ass-w de arb trat on was perm ss b e, and den ed mot on for m ted d scovery on arb trat on-re ated ssues.

Vane Line Bunkering, Inc. v. Hooper, No. 1:16-MC-23148-FAM (S.D. Fla. July 6, 2016) 07/06/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on, f nd ng that (1) contract to prov de benef ts to n ured seaman does not fa w th n the “contracts of emp oyment of seamen” except on to the FAA; (2) federa aw re at ng to seamen does not ncorporate FELA venue prov s ons; and (3) arguments regard ng the va d ty of the contract were to be reso ved n n the arb trat on.

Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 of the United Ass’n of Journeymen, et al. v. Aleut Facilities Support Serv., LLC, 1:15-CV-01710-LO-MSN (E.D. Va. July 6, 2016) 07/06/2016

Mot on for summary udgment to enforce gr evance comm ttee dec s on granted. Court he d that the part es on y ntended that a d spute be sub ect to arb trat on under two spec f c c rcumstances, as prov ded for n the r agreement, and otherw se d sputes wou d be addressed by the gr evance procedure found there n. Court further he d that the gr evance procedure was f na and b nd ng on the part es, as was the gr evance comm ttee s dec s on.

Farley v. Eaton Incorporated, No. 1:16-CV-00690-PAG (N.D. Ohio July 6, 2016) 07/06/2016

Mot on to vacate arb trat on award under 9 USC § 10(a)(4) for excess of powers den ed and mot on for conf rmat on of award and entry of f na udgment thereon granted. Court he d that an arb trator s contract nterpretat on s ent t ed to great deference, and pet t oner fa ed to demonstrate that the arb trator exceeded h s powers by re ect ng the pet t oner s read ng of the contract. Court emphas zed that a party may not re- t gate ssues reso ved n arb trat on under the gu se of a mot on to vacate.

Christina Bazemore v. Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC, No. 3:14-CV-00115-DHB-BKE (11th Cir. July 5, 2016) 07/05/2016

D str ct court s den a of a mot on to compe arb trat on and stay proceed ngs aff rmed as a matter of aw. Court he d that defendant fa ed to prove under the app cab e state contract aw that p a nt ff n fact entered nto an arb trat on agreement when app y ng for a cred t card w th defendant s predecessor- n- nterest.

HSGCHG Investments, LLC v. Time Warner Cable Enterprises LLC, No. 4:15-CV-04401-RBH (D.S.C. July 5, 2016) 07/05/2016

Mot on to d sm ss p a nt ff s amended comp a nt and to compe arb trat on granted. Court he d that the part es c ear y and unm stakab y agreed to arb trate arb trab ty and therefore whether the d spute s arb trab e s for the arb trator, not the court, to dec de. Whether sect ons w th n the part es contract other than the arb trat on agreement are unconsc onab e s a so for the arb trator to dec de.

Phillip Ngheim v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc., No. 8:16-CV-00097-CJC-DFM (C.D. Cal. July 5, 2016) 07/05/2016

Court den ed mot on to compe arb trat on, f nd ng that user of automated te ephone serv ce had no actua or construct ve know edge of arb trat on agreement n terms of use posted the serv ce prov der s webs te.

Wells Fargo Advisors, L.L.C. v. Tucker, No. 15-CV-07722-VEC (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2016) 07/01/2016

Pet t on to d sm ss or stay pend ng c ass arb trat on and compe nd v dua arb trat on den ed. Court he d that t s for the arb trator, not the court, to determ ne whether, under the terms of the arb trat on c ause, respondents are ent t ed to arb trate on a co ect ve or c ass-w de bas s.

Virk v. Maple-Gate Anesthesiologists, P.C., No. 15-513-CV (2d Cir. July 1, 2016) 07/01/2016

D str ct court s udgment compe ng arb trat on aff rmed n part and remanded n part w th nstruct ons to stay the act on pend ng arb trat on. Appe ate court he d that arb trat on agreement was va d and enforceab e and p a nt ff fa ed to estab sh that he wou d be unab e to v nd cate h s statutory r ghts n arb trat on. Act on was however remanded because d str ct court acked the d scret on to d sm ss, rather than stay, the act on pursuant §3 of the FAA.

Gaul v. Chrysler Financial Services Americas, LLC, No. 15-1337 (2d Cir. July 1, 2016) 07/01/2016

Appe ate court aff rms d str ct court udgment compe ng arb trat on and dec n ng to ft the stay after the AAA refused to conduct the arb trat on. Court found that appe ees ra sed no ssues of fact contest ng that they entered the arb trat on agreement and that the d spute was w th n the scope of the agreement. Court a so found that ft ng the stay wou d mperm ss b y reward appe ees for fa ng to comp y w th the d str ct court s order compe ng arb trat on and the appe ees campa gn of nappropr ate, host e, and threaten ng ema s to the AAA that resu ted n ts refusa to conduct the arb trat on.

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Gates, Shields & Ferguson, P.A., No. 2:14-CV-02392-EFM-GLR (D. Kan. July 1, 2016) 07/01/2016

Arb trat on defense re ected. Court he d that wh e defendant may have demanded arb trat on before p a nt ff f ed su t, t never f ed a mot on to compe arb trat on n the pend ng t gat on, as requ red under § 4 of the FAA, and therefore court need not cons der whether ssues n d spute are covered by the part es arb trat on agreement.

Hotel Investors Inc. v. Modular Steel Systems Inc., No. 4:16-CV-01337-MWB (M.D. Pa. July 1, 2016) 07/01/2016

Mot on for emergency temporary n unct on den ed. Court found that a though p a nt ff showed t was ke y to succeed on the mer ts n the pend ng arb trat on, t fa ed to show that t wou d be rreparab y n ured f defendant were not en o ned from se ng, transferr ng, a enat ng, or exerc s ng any contro over assets re at ng to the agreement at ssue n the arb trat on.

Trustees for the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. Sukhmany Construction Inc., No. 1:15-CV-07200-PAE (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2016) 07/01/2016

Pet t on to conf rm arb trat on award granted. Court he d t had a duty to rev ew an unopposed mot on for conf rmat on of an arb trat on award and, n do ng so, found that the arb trator acted w th n the scope of the author ty granted h m by the part es and re ed upon “substant a and cred b e ev dence” to support h s award.

Tribal Casino Gaming Enterprise v. W.G. Yates & Sons Construction Company, No. 1:16-CV-00030-MR-DLH (M.D.N.C. July 1, 2016) 07/01/2016

Mot ons to compe arb trat on and stay a pend ng dead nes n court act on granted, and mot ons to stay, deny, and en o n arb trat on den ed. Court he d that the part es d spute fe w th n the scope of an arb trat on agreement and that the arb trat on c ause s requ rement that a dec s on by the arb tra tr buna be ssued w th n 30 days d d not render the agreement unenforceab e.

J. Christopher Reece v. Chambrel at Montrose-Brookdale, No. 5:15-CV-02117-SL (N.D. Ohio June 30, 2016) 06/30/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on and stay c a m d sm ssed. Court refused to compe benef c ar es to arb trate wrongfu death c a ms where they d d not s gn the arb trat on agreement. Under Oh o aw, the wrongfu death c a m s separate and apart from any c a m for n ur es susta ned by the deceased, whose s gnature on an arb trat on agreement cannot b nd her benef c ar es.

Cable System Installations Corp. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, No. 1:12-07447 (D.N.J. June 30, 2016) 06/30/2016

Mot on to conf rm arb trat on award granted and cross-mot on to vacate award den ed. In conf rm ng the award, court he d that f rst cross-pet t oner s c a ms of b as were nsuff c ent to overcome the strong presumpt on n favor of enforc ng arb trat on awards. However, the award cou d not be conf rmed aga nst the second cross-pet t oner because the determ nat on of whether a non-s gnatory party s an a ter ego s a matter for the court and not the arb trator to dec de.

A-Tech Concrete Company, Inc. v. Northeast Regional Council of Carpenters, No. 2:15-CV-08055-CCC-MF (D.N.J. June 30, 2016) 06/30/2016

Mot on to vacate arb trat on award den ed and cross-mot on to conf rm arb trat on award granted. Court found that the award drew ts essence from the co ect ve barga n ng agreement and the arb trator d d not exceed the scope of h s powers or demonstrate a man fest d sregard for the co ect ve barga n ng agreement. Further, s nce the award re ated so e y to the f rst pet t oner, court re ected pet t oners a egat on that d spute was not substant ve y arb trab e on the bas s that the second pet t oner d d not have a co ect ve barga n ng agreement w th the respondent.

Cely Tablizo v. City of Las Vegas, No. 2:14-CV-00763-APG-VCF (D. Nev. June 30, 2016) 06/30/2016

Mot on for summary udgment on res ud cata grounds den ed. Court he d that pr or arb trat on award n favor of defendant does not bar re- t gat on of p a nt ff s c a ms under federa statutory aw. The arb trat on award has no prec us ve effect under the Fu Fa th and Cred t Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, s nce noth ng n the record shows t was conf rmed by a court, no ud c a y fash oned ru e of c a m prec us on app es, and the arb trat on gr evance procedure n the part es co ect ve barga n ng agreement c ear y and unm stakab y does not app y to the federa statutory c a ms the arb trator ru ed on.

Neal v. Asta Funding, Inc., No. 2:14-CV-03550 (D.N.J. June 30, 2016) 06/30/2016

Mot ons to conf rm arb trat on award and d sm ss pet t on to vacate award granted. Court he d p a nt ffs were bound to arb trate under theor es of ve p erc ng, equ tab e estoppe , and successor nterest; and that the arb trator ne ther dec ned to hear re evant ev dence nor exceeded h s author ty, and the award was not procured through fraud or corrupt on.

Richards v. Gibson, 1:15-CV-00007-LG-RHW (S.D. Miss. June 30, 2016) 06/30/2016

Mot on to conf rm arb trat on award granted. Court he d that there were no grounds to vacate, mod fy, or correct the award under §§ 10 or 11 of the FAA, and the court was therefore requ red to conf rm the award. Court further he d that the part es agreement to keep the arb trat on proceed ngs conf dent a d d not trump the FAA s prov s ons author z ng act ons to vacate or conf rm the award.

Vixicom v. Four Corners Direct, No. 8:16-CV-00703-T-–MSS-JSS (M.D. Fla., June 30, 2016) 06/30/2016

Court granted mot on for entry of defau t udgment and conf rmed arb trat on award. Court he d that t must conf rm the arb trat on award under the FAA, s nce by subm tt ng to the commerc a ru es of the AAA, the part es agreed that udgment shou d be entered upon the award; p a nt ff made ts request for conf rmat on w th n the app cab e one year t me m t; and the award had not been vacated, mod f ed, or corrected and the t me m t for do ng so now had passed.

William Charles Const. Co., LLC v. Teamsters Local Union 627, No. 15-01613 (7th Cir. Jun. 29, 2016) 06/29/2016

Court of appea s reversed the d str ct court s dec s on to grant defendant s summary udgment mot on to enforce a pa r of Jo nt Gr evance Comm ttee awards. Court he d that, contrary to the d str ct court s ru ng, p a nt ff s cha enge to the Jo nt Gr evance Comm ttee awards was not barred by a statute of m tat ons because p a nt ff d d not rece ve a not ce of the awards f na entry. Court further he d that the greater of the two Jo nt Gr evance Comm ttee awards was vo d because p a nt ff d d not agree to arb trat on by the Jo nt Gr evance Comm ttee.

Ashley Slatten v. Jim Glover Chevrolet Lawton, LLC, No. 5:15-CV-01180-D (W.D. Okla. June 29, 2016) 06/29/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on and stay court proceed ngs den ed. Court he d that enforcement of the arb trat on agreement n th s case wou d prevent the effect ve v nd cat on of p a nt ffs statutory c a ms under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act s nce defendant does not d spute p a nt ffs assert on that they cannot afford to pay the r share of an arb trator s fee, nor cha enge as nsuff c ent p a nt ffs show ng that enforcement of the arb trat on agreement wou d be cost proh b t ve.

Balberdi v. Fedex Ground Package System Inc., No. 1:15-CV-00481 (D. Haw. June 29, 2016) 06/29/2016

Mot on to vacate arb trat on award den ed. Court found that arb trator ne ther showed ev dent part a ty nor fa ed to cons der mater a ev dence and that the arb trator d d not exceed her powers by app y a c v t gat on statute of m tat ons to the arb trat on proceed ng.

Hidalgo v. Tesla Motors Inc., No. 5:15-CV-05185 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2016) 06/29/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on and stay t gat on granted. Court he d arb trat on agreement was va d and enforceab e, re ect ng p a nt ff s argument that t was procedura y and substant ve y unconsc onab e.

Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Bronx Base Builders, Ltd., No. 1:15-CV-04438 (S.D.N.Y. June 29, 2016) 06/29/2016

Pet t on to conf rm arb trat on award granted. Pet t oners estab shed there was no genu ne ssue of mater a fact and that they were ent t ed to udgment as a matter of aw as the arb trator s dec s on was based on rev ew of substant a and cred b e ev dence.

Kensington Community, Corporation for Individual Dignity v. National Union of Hospital and Healthcare Employees, No. 2:15-CV-02942-CMR (E.D. Pa. June 29, 2016) 06/29/2016

Mot on for summary udgment and mot on to enforce arb trat on award granted. Court he d that award d d not v o ate pub c po cy and drew ts essence from the co ect ve barga n ng agreement.

Miller v. Tri Marine Fish Company, No. 2:16-CV-02203-JAK-SS (C.D. Cal. June 28, 2016) 06/28/2016

Mot on to remand act on to state court den ed. Court he d that remova of act on to federa court was appropr ate s nce the arb trat on agreements at ssue fe under 9 USC § 205 and the New York Convent on and because they re ated to the sub ect matter of the p a nt ff s c a ms.

Lozada v. Progressive Leasing, No. 15-CV-2812-KAM-JO (E.D.N.Y. June 28, 2016) 06/28/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on and stay court act on pend ng arb trat on granted. Court he d the part es agreed to arb trat on and the p a nt ff s c a m fa s w th n the scope of the arb trat on prov s on s nce the prov s on app es to “any d spute” and hence s broad n scope and creates a presumpt on of arb trab ty. Court aff rmed ts agreement w th other courts that have found no nd cat on that Congress ntended Te ephone Consumer Protect on Act c a ms to be nonarb trab e.

Tajonar v. Echosphere LLC, No. 3:14-CV-02732 (S.D. Cal. June 28, 2016) 06/28/2016

Mot on for recons derat on granted. Court d rected that p a nt ff s c a ms were to be presented to AAA arb trator s nce the arb trat on agreement s reference to the AAA arb trat on ru es const tutes c ear and unm stakab e ev dence that the part es agreed to arb trate arb trab ty.

Wior v. BellSouth Corp., No. 1:15-CV-02375-ELR (N.D. Ga. June 28, 2016) 06/28/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on and stay t gat on granted. Court he d that FAA, not state aw, governed ru es of arb trat on desp te state cho ce of aw prov s on n arb trat on agreement; and that defendant d d not wa ve r ght to arb trat on by de ay ng approx mate y s x years n br ng ng forth arb trat on.

Coleman v. LVNV Funding LLC, No. 1:15-CV-11338 (N.D. Ill. June 28, 2016) 06/28/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted. Court he d that arb trat on agreement entered nto as part of contract to obta n a cred t card was enforceab e and covered c a ms n d spute.

South East Color, Inc. v. BASF Corp., No. 3:16-CV-0877 (M.D. Tenn. June 27, 2016) 06/27/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted. Court he d that where an arb trat on agreement has not been negated express y or by c ear mp cat on the agreement cont nues to app y after the exp rat on of the contract.

A & C Discount Pharmacy, L.L.C. v. Caremark, L.L.C., No. 3:16-CV-0264-D (N.D. Tex. June 27, 2016) 06/27/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted and request for pre m nary n unct ve re ef not dec ded. Where court dec des to compe arb trat on, the part es ncorporat on of the AAA arb trat on ru es s c ear and unm stakab e ev dence that the part es agreed that the arb trator has the pr mary power to dec de whether a request for pre m nary n unct ve re ef s arb trab e.

Humphrey v. Cheddar’s Casual Café Inc., No. 5:16-CV-00704-CLS (N.D. Ala. June 27, 2016) 06/27/2016

Mot on to d sm ss act on and compe arb trat on part a y granted. Court he d that arb trat on agreement s gned w th an e ectron c s gnature was va d and enforceab e. The defendant was not requ red to prove that the p a nt ff s e-s gnature was n fact her s gnature.

Esmerald Hamzaraj v. ABM Janitorial Northeast Inc., No. 1:15-CV-02030-ER (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 2016) 06/27/2016

Mot on to compe med at on and arb trat on granted and act on stayed pend ng arb trat on. Court he d that p a nt ff s c a ms were sub ect to mandatory med at on and arb trat on pursuant to the terms of the co ect ve barga n ng agreement; and s nce the c a ms are arb trab e the act on must be stayed pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 3.

Attia v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., No. 8:16-CV-00504-DC-FFM (C.D. Cal. June 27, 2016) 06/27/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on of p a nt ff s nd v dua c a ms and stayed the act on to address the one outstand ng c a m unt the comp et on of arb trat on. Court found the de egat on c ause unenforceab e as both procedura y or substant ve y unconsc onab e.

Adtile Technologies Inc. v. Perion Network Ltd., No. 1:15-CV-01193 (D. Del. June 24, 2016) 06/24/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on and stay act on granted. An agreement that conta ns a broad arb trat on c ause, nc ud ng the se ect on of app cab e arb tra ru es and an express reference to a separate agreement w th a merger c ause, overr des se ect on of federa courts n a separate agreement. Add t ona y, the arb trab ty of each c a m shou d be eva uated by the arb trator.

American University of Antigua v. Leeward Construction Co., No. 1:15-1595 (2d Cir. June 24, 2016) 06/24/2016

D str ct court order conf rm ng arb trat on award aff rmed. Court re ects defendant s arguments that arb trators went beyond the scope of the agreement or man fest y d sregarded the aw.

Leeward Construction Co. v. American University of Antigua, No. 1:13-1708 (2d Cir. June 24, 2016) 06/24/2016

D str ct court order conf rm ng arb trat on award aff rmed. Court ho ds that the arb trat on pane d d not fa to produce a reasoned award; an award need not conta n a ne-by- ne ana ys s of the damages awarded to be cons dered reasoned.

Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. BNSF Railway Co., No. 8:16-CV-0063 (D. Neb. June 24, 2016) 06/24/2016

Court granted mot on to d sm ss. Court he d that whether or not to conso date c a ms s a dec s on eft to the arb trator, and therefore the court wou d not en o n a party from br ng ng counterc a ms to on-go ng arb trat on.

Cyber Imaging Sys., Inc. v. Eyelation, Inc., No. 5:14-CV-00901-BO (E.D.N.C. Jun. 24, 2016) 06/24/2016

Court granted p a nt ff s mot on to enforce an arb trat on award. Court he d that because the arb trat on award had not been vacated, mod f ed, or corrected, t shou d be conf rmed and enforced.

NTCH, Inc. and PTA-FLA, Inc. v. Huawei Technologies USA, Inc., No. 3:15-3631 (D.S.C. June 23, 2016) 06/23/2016

Mot on to conf rm AAA arb trat on award granted and mot on to vacate the award den ed. Court ho ds that pane d d not man fest y d sregard the aw.

Sweet v. ISS Facility Services, Inc., No. 8:15-CV-02849 (M.D. Fla. June 23, 2016) 06/23/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted and act on stayed pend ng comp et on of arb trat on. Court f nds a c ear and unm stakab e ntent of the part es to requ re an arb trator to determ ne the va d ty of the arb trat on agreement; the c a ms at ssue were therefore “referab e to arb trat on,” as contemp ated by § 3 of the FAA.

Adams v. Chrysler LLC FCA, No. 3:15-CV-01044 (N.D. Ohio June 23, 2016) 06/23/2016

Mot on to conf rm arb trat on award granted. Court re ected p a nt ff s c a m that arb trator was ev dent y part a as p a nt ff ntroduced no ev dence support ng c a m that arb trator den ed h m a fa r hear ng and offered no facts nd cat ve of arb trator s mproper mot ves.

Westport Resources Management Inc. v. DeLaura, No. 3:16-CV-00873 (D. Conn. June 23, 2016) 06/23/2016

Mot on for temporary restra n ng order granted, en o n ng defendant from so c t ng or nduc ng p a nt ff s c ents to end the r re at onsh p w th the p a nt ff, pend ng the outcome of an exped ted FINRA arb trat on. Court found that the p a nt ff had shown a ke hood of success on the mer ts and a r sk of rreparab e harm f the restra n ng order were not granted.

Trs. of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labor Management Cooperation, Pension and Welfare Funds v. Pisgah Builders, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-02547ADS-SIL (E.D.N.Y June 23, 2016) 06/23/2016

Mag strate udge recommended and court ater adopted the conf rmat on of a January 22, 2015 arb trat on award rendered pursuant to a co ect ve barga n ng agreement. Because respondent fa ed to appear n th s act on, the mag strate udge rev ewed the proceed ngs as an unopposed mot on for summary udgment and found that the pet t oners had “met the r burden of demonstrat ng that there [was] no ssue of mater a fact prec ud ng” conf rmat on of the award. Mag strate udge a so recommended that pet t oners be granted attorneys fees and costs.

GGNSC Camp Hill West Shore, LP v. Thompson, No. 1:15-CV-00445 (M.D. Pa. June 22, 2016) 06/22/2016

Pet t on to compe arb trat on granted fo ow ng m ted d scovery on the ssues of va d ty and enforceab ty of the arb trat on agreement. Court ho ds that the arb trat on agreement s ne ther procedura y nor substant ve y unconsc onab e.

Golden Gate Nat’l Senior Care, LLC v. Fleshman, No. 3:15-CV-00891 (W.D. Ky. June 22, 2016) 06/22/2016

Mot on to d sm ss su t seek ng to compe arb trat on den ed. Court refuses to carry out factua nqu r es concern ng defendant s competency to s gn the arb trat on agreement and the a eged unconsc onab ty of the arb trat on prov s on; that ana ys s s to be carr ed out when cons der ng the mot on to compe arb trat on.

Diversicare Highlands, LLC v. Lee, No. 3:15-CV-00836 (W.D. Ky. June 22, 2016) 06/22/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted w th respect to a c a ms except wrongfu death. Court conc udes that the arb trat on agreement s ne ther procedura y nor substant ve y unconsc onab e but ho ds that the defendant, who s gned the arb trat on agreement as attorney- n-fact on beha f of her husband, d d not have author ty to agree to arb trat on of the wrongfu death su t.

GE Transp. Co., Ltd. v. A-Power Energy Generation Sys., Ltd., No. 1:15-CV-06194 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2016) 06/22/2016

Pet t on to recogn ze an HKIAC award granted. Judgment entered aga nst the respondent n the under y ng arb trat on, who s en o ned from transferr ng or otherw se d ss pat ng ts assets pend ng fu payment. However, court f nds that t has no author ty to enter udgment aga nst ent t es re ated to the respondent under an a ter-ego o nt and severa ab ty theory.

Laudano v. Credit One Bank, No. 1:15-CV-07668 (D.N.J June 22, 2016) 06/22/2016

Mot on to d sm ss w thout pre ud ce and compe arb trat on den ed. Court ho ds that arb trab ty s not apparent from the face of the comp a nt and d rects the part es to conduct m ted d scovery on the ssue of whether the part es have entered nto a va d agreement to arb trate.

Home Buyers Warranty Corp. and Nat’l Home Insurance Co. v. Jones, No. 1:15-MC-00324 (D. Del. June 21, 2016) 06/21/2016

Mag strate Judge appropr ate y recommended that mot on to compe arb trat on and stay act on pend ng reso ut on of the arb trat on be granted. Fo ow ng de novo rev ew, court ho ds that, nter a a, the agreement to arb trate arb trab ty s va d and enforceab e.

Citizen Potawatomi Nation v. State of Oklahoma, No. 5:16-CV-00361 (W.D. Okla. June 21, 2016) 06/21/2016

Mot on to vacate arb trat on award on the bas s that, nter a a, the arb trator exceeded h s powers by fa ng to m t the award to enforc ng the part es agreement den ed; app cat on for conf rmat on of the award granted.

UBS Financial Services, Inc. v. Zimmerman, No. 5:16-CV-00155 (E.D.N.C. June 21, 2016) 06/21/2016

Mot on to d sm ss or, n the a ternat ve, to compe arb trat on d sm ssed. Court he d that defendant s not a customer of the p a nt ff and therefore not ent t ed to FINRA arb trat on. Court compares mot on to compe arb trat on to a mot on for summary udgment, n that t w be granted where there s no genu ne d spute desp te nferences be ng drawn n favor of the non-mov ng party.

Verizon New England Inc. v. NLRB, No. 1:15-1062 (D.C. Cir. June 21, 2016) 06/21/2016

Fo ow ng rev ew for abuse of d scret on, the court reversed the dec s on of the Nat ona Labor Re at ons Board (NLRB) who had overturned an arb trat on award. Court he d that the NLRB m sapp ed the h gh y deferent a Sp e berg-O n standard for rev ew of awards n abor arb trat on; the award was not “c ear y repugnant” to the Nat ona Labor Re at ons Act; and the NLRB dec s on was unreasonab e.

John Hancock Life Ins. Co. (U.S.A) v. Employers Reassurance Corp., No. 1:15-CV-13626 (D. Mass. June 21, 2016) 06/21/2016

Pet t on to remove an arb trator for ack of qua f cat ons spec f ed by the part es agreement den ed. Court he d that ne ther § 4 or § 5 of the FAA prov de author ty to remove an arb trator t me y appo nted pr or to the conc us on of the arb trat on.

Keena v. Groupon Inc., No. 3:15-CV-00520-GCM (W.D.N.C. June 21, 2016) 06/21/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted. Court found that the FAA preempts conf ct ng state aw and he d that the arb trat on agreement was ne ther usory nor unconsc onab e. Court a so re ected po cy arguments aga nst enforc ng arb trat on agreements conta ned n consumer contracts on the bas s that such arguments shou d be addressed to Congress, not the courts.

Von Maack v. Wyckoff Heights Medical Center, No. 1:15-CV-03951 (S.D.N.Y. June 21, 2016) 06/21/2016

Mot on to vacate arb trat on award den ed and mot on to d sm ss comp a nt granted. P a nt ff fa ed to serve mot on to vacate w th n three months of rece v ng award, as requ red by §9 of the FAA, and doctr ne of equ tab e to ng was not appropr ate based on the facts a eged.

Jaludi v. Citigroup, No. 3:15-CV-02076-MEM (M.D. Pa. June 21, 2016) 06/21/2016

Mag strate udge recommended defendant s mot on to d sm ss the act on and compe arb trat on be granted for p a nt ff s Racketeer nf uenced and Corrupt Organ zat ons Act (“RICO”) c a m pursuant to the FAA and recommended defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on for p a nt ff s Sarbanes-Ox ey Act of 2002 (“SOX”) c a m be den ed. Court found the emp oyment po c es created enforceab e arb tra agreements, and that the RICO c a m but not the SOX c a m fe w th n the scope of the agreements, recommend ng the SOX c a m be den ed w thout pre ud ce. Court he d the arb trat on agreements were not unconsc onab e as the p a nt ff fa ed to carry ts burden of show ng there was a ack of mean ngfu cho ce formed through oppress on or unfa r surpr se.

Holdbrook Pediatric Dental, LLC v. Pro Computer Services, LLC, No. 14-CV-06115-NLH-JS (D.N.J. June 21, 2016) 06/21/2016

Court den ed w thout pre ud ce defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that defendant s mot on was procedura y mproper as t fa ed to make an app cat on pursuant to a summary udgment rather than a mot on to d sm ss standard, wh ch s requ red when arb trab ty s not apparent on the face of the comp a nt and a factua record s necessary.

New York City and Vicinity Dist. Council of the United Bhd. of Carpenters and Joiners of Am. v. Ass’n of Wall–Ceiling and Carpentry Indus. of New York, Inc., 151574 CV (2d Cir. June 20, 2016) 06/20/2016

D str ct court s udgment vacat ng arb tra award vacated. Court he d that the award was proper y grounded n the arb trator s app cat on of the part es co ect ve barga n ng agreement (CBA) and d d not v o ate the court s pr or order approv ng the CBA. Court remanded to perm t the d str ct court to recons der ts dec s on to approve the CBA n ght of the arb trator s nterpretat on of that agreement.

Roberts Irrigation Co., Inc. v. Hortau Corp. and Hortau, Inc., No. 16-CV-0028 (W.D. Wis. June 20, 2016) 06/20/2016

Mot on to d sm ss or stay act on and to compe arb trat on d sm ssed. An arb trat on agreement must be n wr t ng and, un ke a new contract, cannot be mp ed from the part es cont nued course of dea ng after the or g na agreement exp red. The court nterprets the arb trat on c ause of the exp red agreement cover ng “any d spute wh ch ar ses n the course of or fo ow ng the performance of the present contract” as app y ng on y to d sputes ar s ng from the exp red agreement and not d sputes ar s ng from the new mp ed contract.

Alstom Brasil Energia E Transporte LTDA et al v. Mitsui Sumitomo Seguros S.A., No. 1:15-CV-08221 (S.D.N.Y. June 20, 2016) 06/20/2016

Pet t on to conf rm ICC arb trat on award granted and mot on to d sm ss for ack of ur sd ct on den ed because, once federa common aw cho ce of aw ru es are app ed pursuant to the FAA, the arb trat on agreement s enforceab e aga nst the nsurer-subrogee who “stands n the shoes of ts nsured”.

Mathew v. Austin Industrial Services, LP, No. 4:16-CV-00867 (S.D. Tex. June 20, 2016) 06/20/2016

Agreed mot on to compe arb trat on granted. Rather than grant ng agreed mot on to stay, case s d sm ssed w thout pre ud ce because a ssues ra sed n the t gat on are arb trab e.

Brandenburg Health Facilities, LP v. Mattingly, No. 3:15-CV-833 (W.D. Ky. June 20, 2016) 06/20/2016

Mot on to d sm ss su t seek ng to en o n state act on and enforce arb trat on agreement d sm ssed; mot on to compe arb trat on granted for a c a ms w th the except on of wrongfu death. The defendant s en o ned from pursu ng a causes of act on bes des the wrongfu -death c a m n state court.

Abaya v. Total Account Recovery, LLC, No. 2:15-CV-01269 (E.D. Cal. June 20, 2016) 06/20/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted and matter stayed pend ng comp et on of arb trat on. Court ho ds that part es agreement requ res gateway ssues, nc ud ng the “va d ty and scope” of that arb trat on agreement, be dec ded by an arb trator.

REM Directional, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of Am., No. 2:15-CV-152 (S.D. Miss. June 17, 2016) 06/17/2016

Mot on for summary udgment granted. The act on s barred by the app cab e statute of m tat ons; a court order compe ng arb trat on does not to the statute of m tat ons when the defendant was not party to the proceed ngs at the t me the order compe ng arb trat on was granted.

Gubala v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., No. 15-CV-1078 (E.D. Wis. June 17, 2016) 06/17/2016

Amended c a m seek ng n unct ve re ef d sm ssed where p a nt ff amends comp a nt to remove re ef that wou d tr gger the mandatory arb trat on c ause. Court he d that e ements for n unct ve re ef are not met because an adequate remedy at aw ex sts desp te p a nt ff s dec s on not to pursue t.

Telecom Decision Makers, Inc. v. Access Integrated Networks Inc., No. 15-6197 (6th Cir. June 17, 2016) 06/17/2016

D str ct court dec s on that c a ms were sub ect to and w th n the scope of a b nd ng arb trat on c ause aff rmed.

General Cable Industries Inc. v. Chauffeurs Teamsters Warehousemen and Helpers Union, No. 1:15-CV-00081 (N.D. Ind. June 17, 2016) 06/17/2016

Mot on to vacate award den ed and cross-mot on to aff rm award granted. Court he d FAA prov des so e, m ted grounds for vacat ng arb tra awards, and arb trator d d not exceed h s author ty or “d spense h s own brand of ndustr a ust ce. ”

Coleman v. System Dialing LLC, No. 1:15-CV-03868 (S.D.N.Y. June 17, 2016) 06/17/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted. Court he d arb trat on agreement was supported by cons derat on. Gonzales v. Brinker Intl Payroll Co, LP d/b/a Chili’s Bar & Grill, No. 2:15-CV-00711-MCA-GJF (D.N.M. Jun. 17, 2016) 06/17/2016

Court deferred defendant s mot on to compe b nd ng arb trat on and to d sm ss or stay case pend ng summary bench tr a on the so e ssue of whether p a nt ff agreed to defendant s arb trat on agreement, f nd ng that the quest on whether the part es conc uded an arb trat on agreement cou d on y be reso ved by the ud c a fact f nd ng process of a tr a . COR Clearing, LLC v. LoBue, No. 5:16-CV-00909-JGB-KK (C.D. Ca . June 16, 2016) 06/16/2016

Court granted pre m nary n unct on en o n ng arb trat on, f nd ng that p a nt ff wou d ke y succeed n show ng that t was not bound under FINRA ru es to arb trate w th a person who had not opened any accounts from t or rece ved any serv ces from t.

CAMOFI Master LDC v. Associated Third Party Administrators, No. 3:16-CV-00855 (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2016) 06/16/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted n part and den ed n part. Court he d that the non-s gnatory may be compe ed to arb trate where t know ng y rece ved d rect benef ts from the under y ng agreement; but refused to compe arb trat on of c a ms for wh ch no except on app ed to the genera ru e that non-s gnator es cannot be bound by the arb tra c ause of a contract. Court dec ned to stay arb trat on pend ng outcome of the t gat on as th s was a dec s on for the arb trator.

Vesta Corporation v. Amdocs Management Limited, No. 3:14-CV-01142 (D. Or. June 16, 2016) 06/16/2016

Mot on to d sm ss comp a nt as sub ect to arb trat on agreement den ed. Court he d c a ms were not w th n scope of arb trat on agreement.

Celltrace Communications Limited v. Acacia Research Corp., No. 1:15-CV-04746 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2016) 06/16/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted. S nce the ex stence of an arb trat on agreement was d sputed, the court dec ded the quest on of arb trab ty and he d that the part es had a b nd ng agreement to arb trate under the ICC Ru es.

Bridgetown Trucking, Inc. v. Acatech Solutions, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00236 (D. Or. June 16, 2016) 06/16/2016

Mot on to d sm ss n favor of arb trat on granted. Court he d arb trat on agreement encompassed d spute at ssue.

The Western Sugar Cooperative v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union 190, No. 1:15-CV-00119 (D. Mont. June 16, 2016) 06/16/2016

Mot on for summary udgment vacat ng arb trat on award den ed and cross-mot on for summary udgment granted. Court re ected argument that arb trator fa ed to draw h s dec s on from part es agreement and d spensed h s own brand of ust ce.

Mercado v. Sally Beauty Supply LLC, No. 2:15-CV-02316 (E.D. Cal. June 16, 2016) 06/16/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on and stay act on granted. Court he d there s a va d agreement to arb trate, the agreement covers the d spute, and the p a nt ff cha enged the arb trat on agreement as a who e rather than spec f ca y cha eng ng the spec f c agreement to arb trate arb trab ty.

The Western Sugar Cooperative v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union 190, No. CV 15-119 (D. Mont. June 16, 2016). 06/16/2016

Summary udgment granted and su t to vacate a abor arb trat on award d sm ssed. An arb trator s dec s ons are accorded h gh deference n the abor context, un ess (a) the award does not draw ts essence from the co ect ve barga n ng agreement; (b) the arb trator exceeds the boundar es of the ssues subm tted to h m; (c) the award s contrary to pub c po cy; or (d) the award s procured by fraud.

Clookey v. Citibank, N.A., No. 8:14-CV-01318 (N.D.N.Y. June 16, 2016) 06/16/2016

Mot on for recons derat on of defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on den ed because the p a nt ff fa ed to po nt to any change n contro ng aw, new ev dence, c ear error, or man fest n ust ce that cou d reasonab y be expected to a ter the conc us on reached by the court.

United Steel Union No. 348 v. Magellan Midstream Holdings, No. 15-3249 (10th Cir. June 16, 2016) 06/16/2016

D str ct court order grant ng summary udgment and compe ng arb trat on n a abor d spute aff rmed. Court reasoned that reversa s not warranted because (a) the arb trat on c ause s suscept b e to an nterpretat on that covers the asserted c a m, (b) doubts shou d be reso ved n favor of arb trab ty, and (c) the arb trat on c ause s broad and does not express y exc ude the asserted gr evance.

Tillman v. Tillman, No. 13-56624 (9th Cir. June 15, 2016) 06/15/2016

D sm ssa of ega ma pract ce su t n favor of arb trat on by the d str ct court reversed. Court ho ds that a va d arb trat on agreement ex sts but, where an arb trat on s term nated w thout udgment after one party ran out of funds, the arb trat on occurred for purposes of § 3 of the FAA and noth ng n the FAA suggests that d sm ssa s proper.

Beadore v. Conn Appliances, Inc., No. 5:16-CV-00224 (W.D. Tex. June 15, 2016) 06/15/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on and stay proceed ngs pend ng arb trat on granted. Part es o nt y st pu ated to app cab ty of b nd ng arb trat on agreement and o nt y requested to stay case under § 3 of the FAA.

Gatlin v. John M. O'Quinn & Associates, PLLC d-b-a The O'Quinn Law Firm, No. 4:16-CV-00629 (S.D. Tex. June 15, 2016) 06/15/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on and stay ud c a act on granted. P a nt ff d d not d spute the ex stence of a b nd ng arb trat on agreement and cou d not overcome the presumpt on that the agreement was va d.

Jones v. Singing River Health Services Foundation, No. 1:14-CV-00447 (S.D. Miss. June 15, 2016) 06/15/2016

Mot on to stay proceed ngs pend ng outcome of arb trat on den ed. Court he d that pet t oner was not ent t ed to a mandatory stay under § 3 of the FAA because she was not a s gnatory to the under y ng arb trat on agreement. However, the court granted a d scret onary stay pend ng reso ut on of an over app ng, but not dent ca , arb trat on n the nterest of avo d ng ncons stent resu ts.

Interstate Distributor Co. v. Ellis, No. 4:15-CV-01781 (S.D. Tex. June 15, 2016) 06/15/2016

Mot on to recover costs and attorney fees ncurred n connect on w th t gat on to vacate an arb trat on award den ed. Court he d that because the cha enge to the award was nonfr vo ous and was based on a recogn zed ground (an und sc osed conf ct suggest ng poss b e b as), defendant was not ent t ed to costs.

Fallbrook Hosp. Corp. v. Cal. Nurses Ass’n/Nat’l Nurses Org. Comm. (CAN/NNOC) AFL-CIO, No. 14-56177 (9th Cir. June 15, 2016) 06/15/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed d str ct court s d sm ssa of p a nt ff s th rd amended comp a nt. Court he d that defendant d d not breach an mp ed agreement to arb trate a d sputes w th p a nt ff because a of p a nt ff s a egat ons n support of ts content on that the part es entered nto such agreement are a conc usory, mp aus b e, or ncons stent w th such an mp ed agreement. Moreover, as p a nt ff s open ng br ef d d not address ts c a m that defendant breached an agreement to negot ate n good fa th, that argument was therefore wa ved.

Founders Real Estate Investment Trust v. Kinsale Insurance Company, No. 1:16-CV-00086 (N.D. Ohio June 14, 2016) 06/14/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted. Court he d the r ght to arb trate had not been wa ved through part es n t a fa ure to pay the fu f ng fees, espec a y s nce the defendant had subsequent y cured any f ng defects. Case d sm ssed n ts ent rety because the part es express y contracted to reso ve th s type of d spute by arb trat on, the arb trat on c ause governed a c a ms at ssue, and the arb trator s dec s ons wou d be f na and b nd ng.

Smagin v. Yegiazaryan, No. 14-CV-09764-R (C.D. Ca. June 14, 2016) 06/14/2016

Mot on to stay ud c a proceed ngs pend ng appea of arb tra award den ed. The court d sagreed w th respondent s argument that the award had been suspended because t was on appea at the seat of the arb trat on and further he d that, n any case, courts reta n d scret on to enforce a suspended award under Art c e V(1)(e) of the New York Convent on.

In re Anderson, No. 15-CV-4227 (S.D.N.Y. June 14, 2016) 06/14/2016

Bankruptcy Court s den a of mot on to compe arb trat on aff rmed. Bankruptcy Court proper y exerc sed ts d scret on to overr de the arb trat on agreement where there s an nherent conf ct between the Bankruptcy Code and FAA w th respect to a core bankruptcy proceed ng.

Manning v. Parsons Transportation Grp., Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00390-JLT (E.D. Ca June 13, 2016) 06/13/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted. Court he d that the FAA app ed to the emp oyment agreement because the defendant operated nat onw de and further he d that the agreement was va d, re ect ng p a nt ff s argument that t was procedura y or substant ve y unconsc onab e.

Welch v. My Left Foot Children's Therapy, LLC, No. 2:14-CV-01786 (D. Nev. June 13, 2016) 06/13/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on and stay act on den ed. Court he d the arb trat on agreement between the part es, wh ch covered a c a ms re at ng to c a mant s emp oyment, must be read broad y to nc ude qu tam c a ms under the Fa se C a ms Act. However, because the US government was the rea party of nterest n the act on and was not party to the arb trat on agreement, requ r ng arb trat on of the c a ms “wou d exceed the bounds of the arb trat on agreement regard ess of whether the government ob ects to arb trat on.”

Harris v. Halliburton Co., No. 1:16-CV-00281-LJO-JLT (E.D. Ca. June 13, 2016) 06/13/2016

Mag strate udge recommendat on to grant mot on to compe arb trat on. FAA app ed because the emp oyment agreement at ssue affected nterstate commerce. Court further he d that the agreement was va d, re ect ng defenses based on a eged procedura and substgant ve unconsc onab ty.

Jolie Design & Decor, Inc. v. Van Gogh, No. 2:15-CV-00740 (E.D. La. June 13, 2016) 06/13/2016

Mot ons to conf rm arb trat on award and grant attorney fees and costs granted and cross-mot on to vacate award den ed. US courts have pr mary ur sd ct on over New York Convent on awards and must ook to § 10 of the FAA for the exc us ve grounds for vacat ng an award, app y ng a “very d fferent a ” standard. Court he d that the arb trator had not exceeded h s author ty n f nd ng that a va d arb trat on agreement ex sted, re y ng on a ater agreement to nterpret a contract term, and award ng a eged y unreasonab e attorney fees. Mot on for attorney fees and costs assoc ated w th the t gat on granted based on the part es agreement.

Monica Echavarria v. Adir International, LLC, No. 2:15-CV-09172 (C.D. Cal. June 13, 2016) 06/13/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on and stay proceed ngs granted. Court he d defendant had not wa ved ts r ght to arb trate and that the c a ms at ssue were w th n the scope of the arb trat on agreement between the part es. Court kew se re ected p a nt ff s argument that the agreement had been oppress ve and therefore unconsc onab e on e ther procedura or substant ve grounds.

CVS Health Corp. v. Vividus LLC, No. 2:15-MC-00093-JJT (D. Ariz. June 13, 2016) 06/13/2016

Mot on to enforce arb tra tr buna s subpoena order ng a non-party to produce documents pr or to hear ng den ed. In the absence of a dec s on by the N nth C rcu t expand ng the scope of the FAA, 9 USC § 7, the court he d that “[t]he p a n terms of the statute restr ct an arb trator s subpoena power to s tuat ons where the non-party has been ca ed to appear n the phys ca presence of the arb trators and prov de the re evant documents at that t me.” The ssue of whether arb trators have the author ty to order a non-party to test fy and produce documents n con unct on w th pre-hear ng d scovery s however not sett ed between other federa courts.

Colton v. Hibbett Sporting Goods, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-04002-NKL (W.D. Mo. June 13, 2016) 06/13/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on under the FAA granted and case stayed pend ng the outcome of the arb trat on. Court he d that the arb trat on agreement at ssue conta ns va d cons derat on and s therefore b nd ng on both part es; and the c a m fa s w th n the scope of the agreement.

Campbell v. Adecco USA, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-04059-NKL, (W.D.Mo. Jun. 13, 2016) 06/13/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on under the FAA den ed. Court he d that s nce the defendant he d an asymmetr ca r ght to change or mod fy the terms of the arb trat on agreement at any t me and w thout reasonab e not ce, the prom se to arb trate was therefore usory and cannot const tute cons derat on or an enforceab e contract.

Gerszberg v. LI & Fung (Trading) Limited, No. 1:16-CV-01182 (S.D.N.Y. June 10, 2016) 06/10/2016

Mot on to cont nue pre m nary ant -arb trat on n unct on granted and part es perm tted to conduct exped ted d scovery and add t ona br ef ng on the ssue of arb trab ty. Non-s gnatory th rd-party benef c ary s en o ned from proceed ng to arb trat on s nce, a though the part es arb trat on agreement de egated the ssue of arb trab ty to the arb trators, the ssue of whether a party must arb trate w th a non-s gnatory th rd-party benef c ary s an ssue for the court.

Consolidation Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers of Am., No. 1:15-CV-00167-IMK (N.D.W. Va. June 10, 2016) 06/10/2016

Court granted mot on to d sm ss n favor of arb trat on, f nd ng that an arb trat on c ause prov d ng that an “emp oyee” sha subm t d sputes to arb trat on a so b nds the emp oyer to arb trate d sputes.

Zheng v General Electric Company, No. 1:15-CV-01232 (N.D.N.Y. June 9, 2016) 06/09/2016

Mot on of compe arb trat on and d sm ss act on granted. In grant ng the mot on, court he d that the part es agreed to arb trate and a of the c a ms were w th n scope of the arb trat on agreement and arb trab e.

Desimoni v. TBC Corp., 2:15-CV-00366-UA-CM (M.D. Fla. June 9, 2016) 06/09/2016

Recommendat on that mot on to compe arb trat on be granted. Court he d that p a nt ffs had fa ed to meet the r burden of show ng the ack of an agreement to arb trate and that the nc us on of a wa ver of co ect ve act ons n the agreement d d not render them unenforceab e. Court further he d that the contract s prov s on requ r ng that each s de pay ts own attorney s fees s severab e and therefore t does not affect ts dec s on to compe arb trat on.

Gerena v. Neurological Surgery, P.C., and Brisman, 2:15-CV-04634-JMA-GRB (E.D.N.Y. June 9, 2016) 06/09/2016

Recommendat on by Mag strate Judge to grant mot on to compe arb trat on and stay case pend ng comp et on of arb trat on. Court he d that, as to the f rst defendant, because there was c ear and unm stakab e ev dence under New York aw that the part es ntended that the arb trator dec de the quest on of arb trab ty, such ssue must be referred to the arb trator. Court further he d that, as to the second defendant, the fact that he was a non-s gnatory d d not prevent the court from compe ng arb trat on on the quest on of arb trab ty.

ExxonMobil Corp. v. United Steel Workers Local Union 11-470, No. 1:15-CV-00123-CSO (D. Mont. June 9, 2016) 06/09/2016

Order deny ng mot on to vacate and grant ng cross-mot on to enforce abor arb trat on award. In rev ew ng abor arb trat on awards, the n nth c rcu t has he d that courts afford a near y unpara e ed degree of deference to the arb trator s dec s on, nc ud ng the arb trator s nterpretat on of the part es agreement and to h s f nd ngs of fact. In ght of th s deference, on y four c rcumstances ex st where vacatur of a abor arb trat on s ust f ed: “(1) when the award does not draw ts essence from the co ect ve barga n ng agreement and the arb trator s d spens ng h s own brand of ndustr a ust ce; (2) where the arb trator exceeds the boundar es of the ssues subm tted to h m; (3) when the award s contrary to pub c po cy; or (4) when the award s procured by fraud.” None of these c rcumstances were present accord ng to the court.

Getma International v. Republic of Guinea, No. 1:14-CV-01616-RBW (D.D.C. June 9, 2016) 06/09/2016

Mot on to conf rm and enforce an annu ed arb trat on award den ed. Where a fore gn court has annu ed an arb tra award, a court n the US may on y gnore that annu ment on m ted occas ons and under extraord nary c rcumstances, such as where the annu ment tends to c ear y underm ne pub c nterest. Here, where the award ssued by a tr buna under the Common Court of Just ce (CCJA) Arb trat on Ru es was subsequent y annu ed by the CCJA because the tr buna breached the Ru es and so c ted ncreased fees desp te be ng ordered not to, the court s not compe ed to gnore the annu ment.

Belize Bank Ltd. v. Government of Belize, No. 1:14-CV-00659-APM (D.D.C. June 8, 2016) 06/08/2016

Mot on to conf rm fore gn arb trat on award and to enter udgment granted and mot on to d sm ss den ed. Fo ow ng recent assoc ated cases, court he d that an LCIA arb trat on award was enforceab e s nce the FSIA s arb trat on except on app ed and t had ur sd ct on under the Federa Arb trat on Act, 9 USC § 201. Court re ected the respondent s cha enges to the award under Art. V of the New York Convent on, nc ud ng a cha enge based on the const tut on of the arb tra tr buna and the app cat on of the LCIA s conf ct ru es.

Thomas v. Louis Dreyfus Commodities, LLC, No. 3:15-CV-00394-RLB (M.D. La. June 8, 2016) 06/08/2016

Mot on to stay act on pend ng arb trat on granted. Where a th rd-party was named as an add t ona defendant, and a b nd ng arb trat on agreement ex sts between the th rd-party and the defendant, the court was bound to enforce the arb trat on agreement notw thstand ng the presence of the p a nt ff who s a party to the under y ng d spute but not the arb trat on agreement.

Mills v. CarMax, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-05018 (D.S.C. June 7, 2016) 06/07/2016

Hav ng rev ewed, de novo, the Report of the Mag strate Judge, court granted the mot on to compe arb trat on and he d that the act on shou d be stayed pend ng arb trat on.

White Oaks Reality, LLC v. Fortress Clay Group, USA, LLC, 2:16-CV-02235-LMA-KWP (W.D. La. June 7, 2016) 06/07/2016

Mot on for a defau t udgment granted and court w enter a udgment conf rm ng the arb trat on award. Where part es have agreed to subm t to arb trat on pursuant to the AAA arb trat on ru es, they consent to a federa court s ur sd ct on to enforce the arb trat on award pursuant to 9 USC § 9.

Manning v. Parsons Transportation Group, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-00390 (E.D. Cal. June 13, 2016) 06/06/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on and stay act on granted because the FAA app es when emp oyment affects nterstate commerce, a va d agreement to arb trate ex sts, and that agreement encompasses the d spute at ssue.

Virtualpoint, Inc. v. Poarch Band of Creek Indians, No. 8:15-CV-02025, (C.D. Cal. June 6, 2016) 06/06/2016

Mot on to d sm ss act on for dec aratory udgment and common aw fraud aga nst the Nat ona Arb trat on Forum, Inc. granted. Doctr ne of “arb tra mmun ty protects arb trators and the arb trat on process from repr sa s by d ssat sf ed t gants ” so ong as they act “ w th n the scope of the r dut es and w th n the r ur sd ct on. ” A egat ons of b as, un ess “ system c, pervas ve, and far reach ng, ” are nsuff c ent to overcome arb tra mmun ty.

ST Shipping & Transp. PTE, Ltd. v. Agathonissos Special Mar. Enter., No. 1:15-CV-04983-AT (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 2016) 06/06/2016

Court den ed mot on to vacate the arb trat on award, re ect ng pet t oner s arguments that the pane had refused to hear ev dence pert nent and mater a to the controversy, warrant ng vacatur of the award under FAA § 10(a)(3). Further, contrary to pet t oner s assert ons, the arb trat on pane had no ob gat on to ho d an ora hear ng, and p a nt ff cou d not dent fy what ev dence further d scovery and hear ng wou d have adduced. Vine v. PLS Financial Services, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-00031-PRM (W.D. Tex. June 6, 2016) 06/06/2016

Court den ed defendants mot on to d sm ss. Court he d that desp te a va d agreement to arb trate under Texas aw, end ng defendants nvoked the ud c a process by report ng borrow ng p a nt ffs to the oca d str ct attorneys to nvest gate through the cr m na ust ce system a eged theft. Court he d defendants thereby wa ved the r arb tra r ghts as the p a nt ffs wou d be pre ud ced f requ red to arb trate.

Koch v. Koch, No. 3:16-CV-00037-ARC (M.D. Pa. June 3, 2016) 06/03/2016

Mot on to d sm ss and compe arb trat on den ed w thout pre ud ce. Court he d the record was nsuff c ent y deve oped to ru e on p a nt ff s c a ms of unconsc onab ty and granted the part es m ted d scovery on the ssue of arb trab ty.

Mitchell v. HCL America, Inc., No. 5:15-CV-565-FL (E.D.N.C. June 2, 2016) 06/02/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted and act on d sm ssed. Wh e mandatory arb trat on n an emp oyment contract s not unconsc onab e, the arb trat on c ause s unconsc onab e to the extent t prov des for arb trat on n a ocat on severa thousand m es away from the emp oyee s p ace of emp oyment and exempts defendant from arb trat ng c a ms ar s ng from p a nt ff s “undertak ngs.” Those aspects of the arb trat on c ause are to be severed.

Bumbarger v. Credit One Fin., No. 15-CV-944 (W.D. Pa. June 2, 2016) 06/02/2016

Mot on to d sm ss and compe arb trat on den ed. Ex stence and va d ty of arb trat on agreement was not estab shed on the face of p a nt ff s comp a nt, requ r ng d scovery nto th s ssue.

Franklin Templeton Bank & Tr. v. Butler Family Tr., No. 2:15-CV-435-JNP-EJF (D. Utah June 2, 2016) 06/02/2016

Mot ons to compe arb trat on and stay proceed ngs den ed. P a nt ff who s gned agreement w th arb trat on c ause n ts capac ty as a trustee, was not ntended to rece ve a d rect benef t from that agreement n ts nd v dua capac ty, and s not re y ng on that agreement, cannot be compe ed to arb trate.

Hart v. ITC Service Grp., Inc., No. 15-CV-599-W-DGK (W.D. Mo. June 2, 2016) 06/02/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted, deferr ng the quest on of co ect ve arb trab ty to the arb trator because the part es agreed to conduct arb trat on under AAA arb trat on ru es, wh ch empower arb trator to dec de quest ons of arb trab ty.

Wu v. Prudential Fin., Inc., Nos. 152877 & 152880 (7th Cir. June 1, 2016) 06/01/2016

D str ct court acted w th n ts d scret on to vacate order to d sm ss w thout pre ud ce and rep ace w th order to d sm ss w th pre ud ce, where order had been granted on the bas s of p a nt ff s prom se to take case to arb trat on and p a nt ff fa ed to n t ate arb trat on.

Haines Caribe, Inc., v. Global Mfrs. & Contractors, S.A., No. 1:15-CV-972 (M.D.N.C. June 1, 2016) 06/01/2016

Mot on for pre m nary ant -su t n unct on barr ng defendant from pursu ng fore gn court proceed ngs n contravent on of arb trat on agreement den ed because U.S. court d d not have persona ur sd ct on over defendant.

Grayco Commc’ns, L.P., v. ADB Cos., No. H-16-1029 (S.D. Tex. June 1, 2016) 06/01/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted and act on stayed pend ng comp et on of arb trat on. Arb trat on c ause that prov ded one party the opt on to choose arb trat on or t gat on was not usory. “The ack of mutua ty of arb trat on ob gat on does not nva date an arb trat on prov s on n a contract otherw se supported by va d cons derat on.”

Deem v. Baron, No. 2:15-CV-00755-DS (D. Utah June 1, 2016) 06/01/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted, act on stayed, and mot on for pre m nary n unct on to ma nta n the status quo den ed. P a nt ff s offer to arb trate, a though not accepted by defendant, was not suff c ent to const tute substant a comp ance w th mandatory med at on / arb trat on c ause. Pre m nary n unct on n arb trab e case not ava ab e from court where not prov ded for n arb trat on agreement.

Garmin Wurzburg GmbH v. Auto. Imagineering & Mfg., LLC, No. 3:14-CV-02006-PPS-CAN (N.D. Ind. June 1, 2016) 06/01/2016

Arb trat on award prev ous y ssued and conf rmed aga nst corporate defendant now conf rmed aga nst pres dent and so e member of the corporate defendant s nce e ements for p erc ng the corporate ve under M ch gan aw were met.

Flinn v. Bank of America Corp., No. 5:15-CV-00193-GWC (D. Vt. June 1, 2016) 06/01/2016

Court den ed defendant s mot on for stay. Court he d that under the FAA there was no bas s to grant a stay as defendant conceded that t s not a proper party to the arb trat on, and defendant d d not meet ts heavy burden of show ng the necess ty for a stay because there was no assurance the arb trat on wou d conc ude exped t ous y.

Diag Human S.E. v. Czech Republic, No. 14-7142 (D.C. Cir. May 31, 2016) 05/31/2016

Appe ate court reverses d str ct court s dec s on to d sm ss c a m for enforcement of a fore gn arb tra award for ack of sub ect matter ur sd ct on. An nforma arrangement contemp at ng rec proca r ghts and ob gat ons meets the requ rement of a “def ned ega re at onsh p, whether contractua or not” for the arb trat on except on to sovere gn mmun ty under FSIA. Sub ect matter ur sd ct on under the New York Convent on ex sts because the ega re at onsh p was commerc a n nature s nce t re ated to the prov s on of hea th serv ces.

Calumet River Fleeting, Inc. v. Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs, No. 15-3174 (7th Cir. May 31, 2016) 05/31/2016

D str ct court s re ect on of c a m to compe arb trat on conf rmed. Appe ant term nated ts part c pat on n the operat ve agreement before the d spute arose and thus was not a party to that agreement s arb trat on c ause.

Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Dyncorp Int’l LLC, No. 16-1023 (4th Cir. May 31, 2016) 05/31/2016

D str ct court s order compe ng arb trat on aff rmed. Carve-out to co ect ve barga n ng agreement s arb trat on c ause for secur ty matters was m ted to adverse emp oyment act ons that touch or concern part cu ar zed secur ty ssues of mportance to the government.

LeafGuard of Kentuckiana, Inc. v. LeafGuard of Kentucky, LLC, No. 5:15-CV-00237 (E.D. Ky. May 31, 2016) 05/31/2016

Mot on to re nstate c a ms re ected. Defendant d d not wa ve ts r ght to arb trate by fa ng to proceed w th arb trat on fo ow ng grant ng of mot on to compe arb trat on s nce p a nt ff s mot on to recons der that dec s on was pend ng.

Grkman v. 890 Weatherwood Lane Operating Co., No. 2:16-CV-00519 (W.D. Pa. May 31, 2016) 05/31/2016

Mot on to d sm ss n favor of arb trat on den ed. Decedent d d not have power to agree to arb trate wrongfu death c a ms ar s ng from h s death s nce such c a ms be ong to h s he rs. Wh e surv vorsh p c a ms be ong to decedent cou d n pr nc p e be sub ect to an agreement to arb trate, they cou d not be severed from wrongfu death c a m under Pennsy van a aw, and FAA d d not preempt.

Aquino v. Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc., No. 15-CV-05281-JST (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2016) 05/31/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted and act on stayed. Imp ed- n-fact agreement to arb trate ex sted where emp oyee had not ce of emp oyer s mp ementat on of an arb trat on agreement and cont nued to work for emp oyer after agreement went nto effect w thout opt ng out.

Fusco v. Plastic Surgery Ct’r, P.A., No. 2:15-CV-460-DBH (D. Me. May 31, 2016) 05/31/2016

Mot on for recons derat on of order compe ng arb trat on den ed. Wh e h gh cost structure of AAA arb trat on deters emp oyee-p a nt ff from seek ng re ef, f rst c rcu t precedent perm ts p a nt ff to cha enge whether mandatory arb trat on prov des an effect ve v nd cat on of her statutory r ghts on y fo ow ng f na dec s on of the arb trator.

Wills v. Arizon Structures Worldwide, LLC, No. 15-41166 (5th Cir. May 27, 2016) 05/27/2016

Appe ate court reverses d str ct court s re ect on of pet t on to compe arb trat on, f nd ng that d str ct court erred n conc ud ng that ts pr or ru ng deny ng appe ants emp oyer s pet t on to compe arb trat on was prec us ve aga nst appe ants. Court he d that a “shared nterest n compe ng arb trat on, by tse f, does not warrant the conc us on that . . . part es are n pr v ty,” such that a ru ng on one party s pet t on to compe arb trat on b nds the other party.

Henderson v. U.S. Patent Comm’n, Ltd., No. 1:15-CV-03897 (N.D. Ill. May 27, 2016) 05/27/2016

Court grants defendant s mot on to compe p a nt ff to proceed to arb trat on on an nd v dua bas s, f nd ng that the ava ab ty of c ass arb trat on s a quest on of arb trab ty presumpt ve y for the court, not the arb trator, to dec de; and that under the FAA where an arb trat on agreement s s ent as to c ass arb trat on an agreement to perm t c ass arb trat on w not be presumed.

Allscripts Healthcare, LLC v. Etransmedia Technology, Inc., No. 15-c-5754 (N.D. Ill. May 27, 2016) 05/27/2016

Mot on to stay su t and compe arb trat on granted. S nce the arb trat on c ause prov ded for arb trat on under the AAA arb trat on ru es, wh ch empower arb trators to dec de upon the arb trab ty of any c a m or counterc a m, the quest on of arb trab ty s to be determ ned n arb trat on and not by the court.

Daniels v. Painter, No. 15-CV-1334 (E.D. Wis. May 27, 2016) 05/27/2016

Mot on to transfer granted and other mot ons den ed as moot. Where arb trat on c ause prov ded for venue n Los Ange es, but p a nt ffs cause of act on was f ed n W scons n one week before defendants f ed n Ca forn a, W scons n court conc uded that the enforcement of the part es arb trat on c ause cons stent w th § 4 of the FAA and the nterest of ud c a economy were best served by hav ng the Ca forn a court determ ne whether to compe arb trat on.

Savannah Children’s, LLC v. Jarvis Consulting & Inv., Inc., No. 16-MC-203-JAR (D. Kan. May 26, 2016) 05/26/2016

Court grants pet t oners mot on to vacate arb trat on award, vacates the f na award, and remands for arb trat on by a new arb trator because pet t oners were den ed a fundamenta y fa r hear ng. Court found “suff c ent cause” under the FAA to vacate the award where arb trator refused to postpone a hear ng even when pet t oners d d not rece ve respondent s not ces of demand for arb trat on and the arb trat on hear ng, and had a med ca emergency prec ud ng part c pat on.

Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Top’s Personnel, Inc., No. 8:15-CV-90 (D. Neb. May 26, 2016) 05/26/2016

Mot on to d sm ss or a ternat ve y stay proceed ngs den ed. Court he d that fo ow ng amendment of the comp a nt, the c a ms brought by p a nt ff stem from an agreement that does not conta n an arb trat on c ause and does not ncorporate a va d arb trat on agreement.

Banks v. Cashcall, Inc., No. 6:14-CV-488-Orl-37TBS (M.D. Fl. May 26, 2016) 05/26/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted and act on stayed. FAA governs enforcement of the arb trat on c ause notw thstand ng exc us ve cho ce of tr ba aw and federa aw d sc a mer n oan agreement and arb trat on c ause express y prov des for arb trat on on quest ons of arb trab ty.

Castleton Commodities Shipping Co. PTE. Ltd. v. HSL Shipping & Logistics (NA) Inc., No. 4:16-CV-01472 (S.D. Tex. May 26, 2016) 05/26/2016

Court orders pre- udgment garn shment of $12,060,232 to ensure a part a award ssued by the London Mar t me Arb trat on Assoc at on (LMAA) order ng defendant to prov de money n escrow as secur ty.

Leslie v. Heath, No. 2:15-CV-00833-PMW (D. Utah May 26, 2016) 05/26/2016

Court den es defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on and d sm ss or stay the act on. Genu ne ssue of mater a facts ex st for the court to dec de regard ng whether p a nt ff entered nto the arb trat on agreement by “c ck ng” on terms of use conta n ng a “bur ed arb trat on prov s on.”

Mullen-Moore v. REB Enter., Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00935-MMB (E.D. Pa. May 26, 2016) 05/26/2016 | Mu en-Moore-REB-Enter-Inc

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted and proceed ngs stayed unt arb trat on s comp ete. No genu ne ssue of fact concern ng the format on of an arb trat on agreement where p a nt ff does not contest she s gned the agreement or that t ca s for arb trat on of p a nt ff s c a ms.

Geier v. M-Qube Inc., No. 13-36080 (9th Cir. May 26, 2016) 05/26/2016

Appe ate court reverses d str ct court s den a of defendants mot on to compe and remands for further f nd ngs on whether defendants are th rd-party benef c ar es of an arb trat on c ause. D str ct court must determ ne whether p a nt ff s spouse assented to terms and cond t ons conta n ng a c ause compe ng arb trat on for d sputes re at ng to a serv ce agreement between the subscr ber and any of the company s supp ers, and whether a non-party to the case s a supp er to the defendants.

Lewis v. Epic Sys. Corp., No. 15-2997, (7th Cir. May 26, 2016) 05/26/2016

Appe ate court aff rms d str ct court ru ng deny ng defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on. Court ho ds that defendant s arb trat on c ause, wh ch prec udes emp oyees from co ect ve act on as a cond t on of cont nued emp oyment, v o ates §§ 7 and 8 of the Nat ona Labor Re at ons Act (NLRA); the contract conta n ng the co ect ve act on wa ver prov des that f t s unenforceab e, then co ect ve c a ms must proceed n court. Add t ona y, because the arb trat on c ause s un awfu under the NLRA, t meets the cr ter a of the FAA s sav ng c ause for nonenforcement.

Malanga v. King Inv. Mgmt., Inc., No. 3:15-CV-02463 (D.N.J. May 25, 2016) 05/25/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted and cross-mot on for summary udgment den ed. The d spute fa s w th n the scope of a va d pre-d spute arb trat on agreement, and defendant s c a ms that the act on s barred by the statute of m tat ons, or wa ver and estoppe , are matters for the arb trator to dec de.

Colley v. The Scherzinger Corp., No. 1:15-CV-00720-SSB-KLL (S.D. Ohio May 25, 2016) 05/25/2016

Mot on to d sm ss and mot on for udgment on the p ead ngs concern ng p a nt ff s c a m of fraudu ent nducement granted. Court ho ds that Oh o Arb trat on Act emp oys anguage dent ca to the FAA favor ng arb trat on and the opt- n p a nt ff, who s gned agreement to arb trate emp oyment re ated c a ms, fa s to state a p aus b e c a m for fraudu ent nducement.

Pine Tree Villa, LLC v. Coulter, No. 3:15-CV-00815-CRS (W.D. Ky. May 25, 2016) 05/25/2016

Mot on to d sm ss p a nt ff s pet t on to compe defendant to arb trate her state aw c a ms den ed. The under y ng arb trat on agreement s he d va d because defendant s gned a power of attorney author z ng her daughter to b nd defendant to arb trat on.

The Doe Run Resources Corp. v. Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 4:16-CV-585-CDP (E.D. Mo. May 25, 2016) 05/25/2016

Hav ng d sm ssed p a nt ff s c a m for ack of sub ect matter ur sd ct on after p a nt ff vo untar y moved, unopposed, to d sm ss certa n defendants, court remands case to state court from wh ch the case was removed by these defendants who averred that p a nt ff s c a ms are sub ect to arb trat on agreements that fa under the New York Convent on.

Thermal Dynamic Int’l, Inc. v. Safe Haven Enterprises, LLC, No. 1:13-CV-00721-CKK (D.D.C. May 25, 2016) 05/25/2016

Mot on to conf rm arb trat on award granted and cross mot on to d sm ss den ed. Defendants fa ed to f e a mot on to vacate the award and ra se arguments n support of vacatur w th n three months as requ red by § 12 of the FAA; even f defendants had t me y f ed the r mot on, the r arguments that p a nt ff comm tted corrupt on and fraud are base ess and the request for sanct ons s unwarranted.

Trustees of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labor-Mgmt. Cooperation, Pension & Welfare Funds v. DiPizio Constr., Inc., No. 2:15-CV-02592-JFB-AYS (E.D.N.Y. May 25, 2016) 05/25/2016

Mot ons to conf rm arb trat on award and for fees and costs granted. Arb trat on award s based upon uncontroverted ev dence that defendant fa ed to pay t me y contr but ons to the pet t oner funds. Though ne ther Labor Management Re at ons Act nor the FAA author ze an award of attorneys fees n act ons to conf rm arb trat on awards, the part es agreement requ res the payment of such fees and costs ncurred to recover unt me y contr but ons.

Tribendis v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc., No. 2:14-CV-02765-DMG-PJW (C.D. Cal. May 25, 2016) 05/25/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on as to the arb trab ty of c ass c a ms, f nd ng ev dence n arb trat on agreement that the part es ntended to arb trate the arb trab ty of c ass c a ms.

JPay Inc. v. Salim, No. 1:16-CV-20107-DLG (S.D. Fla. May 24, 2016) 05/24/2016

Court granted defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on and stay proceed ngs. Court found, desp te p a nt ff s argument to the contrary, that the agreement c ear y de egated quest ons of arb trab ty to the arb trators, nc ud ng the quest on of c ass arb trat on.

Hunsinger v. Carr, No. 2:14-CV-02302-RK (E.D. Pa. May 24, 2016) 05/24/2016

Comp a nt to conf rm FINRA arb trat on award granted as there was no bas s to vacate, mod fy or correct t. Court has d vers ty ur sd ct on over sub ect matter because FAA app es to arb trat ons nvo v ng nterstate commerce, nc ud ng secur t es at ssue.

White v. Sunoco Inc., No. 2:15-CV-04595-PD (E.D. Pa. May 24, 2016) 05/24/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on and stay t gat on den ed. Defendant fa ed to estab sh that as a non-s gnatory t cou d compe enforcement of the arb trat on agreement conta ned n a cardho der agreement that governs p a nt ff s re at onsh p w th ts bank and s not ntertw ned w th the use of defendant s rewards cred t card.

Goldman Sachs Bank USA v. Moreno, No. 6:15-CV-020188-RFD-CBW (W.D. La. May 24, 2016) 05/24/2016

Court den es mot on to compe arb trat on and mot on for eave to f e an amended mot on to compe arb trat on. The act on n d spute does not fa w th n the scope of the arb trat on c auses at ssue because under Lou s ana aw an “executory process” t s not a “court tr a ” or “tr a by ury,” wh ch s what the part es wa ved n favor of arb trat on.

Neurosigma, Inc., v. De Salles, No. 2:13-CV-07973-DMG-PJW (C.D. Cal. May 24, 2016) 05/24/2016

Court enters udgment pursuant to pr or dec s on to grant defendant s mot on to conf rm AAA arb trat on award.

Racey v. Jay-Jay Cabaret, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-08228-KPF (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2016) 05/23/2016

Court grants p a nt ff s mot on for cond t ona cert f cat on of co ect ve act on and not ce to be sent to prospect ve co ect on act on members over defendants cha enges, nc ud ng a c a m that certa n members of the putat ve co ect ve act on are bound by arb trat on agreement that bar them from part c pat ng. Court he d that t may have to eva uate the va d ty of any purported arb trat on agreements, but that such nqu ry does not prevent cond t ona cert f cat on or not ce at th s stage.

Bruster v. Uber Tech. Inc., No. 1:15-CV-02653-JG (N.D. Ohio May 23, 2015) 05/23/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on and d sm ss act on granted. P a nt ff fa ed to estab sh procedura unconsc onab ty n the format on of the arb trat on agreement s de egat on of arb trab ty to the arb trator.

Jock v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc., No. 1:08-CV-02875-JSR (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2016) 05/23/2016

Mot on to vacate an arb trator s cond t ona cert f cat on award and to ng order den ed as the court acks ur sd ct on to rev ew arb trator s non-f na orders.

Muckle v. Healthcare Support Staffing, Inc., No. 6:15-CV-1391-Orl-28TBS (M.D. Fla. May 23, 2016) 05/23/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on den ed. Arb trat on agreement was nva d because t was not s gned by an agent of the defendant and the conduct of the defendant d d not demonstrate an assent to arb trate. Even f the arb trat on agreement were va d, the p a nt ff wa ved h s r ght to arb trat on by commenc ng two awsu ts covered by the agreement.

Pasi of LA, Inc. v. Harry Pepper & Assoc., Inc., No. 1:15-CV-0369HSO-JCG (S.D. Miss. May 23, 2016) 05/23/2016

Mot on to stay proceed ngs pend ng re ated t gat on and arb trat on granted pursuant to the court s nherent author ty to contro ts docket rather than pursuant to 9 USC § 3. Court he d that the nstant act on cou d not be t gated unt a re ated AAA arb trat on was reso ved and a pend ng ru ng on the ssue of arb trab ty was dec ded by another court n the f rst nstance.

McKool Smith, P.C. v. Curtis Int’l Ltd., No. 15-11140 (5th Cir. May 23, 2016) 05/23/2016

Appe ate court aff rms d str ct court s conf rmat on of p a nt ff s arb trat on award and den a of defendant s counter-mot on to vacate the award. Court he d that p a nt ff s argument, that prev ous y recogn zed non-statutory grounds for vacatur ( .e. man fest d sregard for Texas aw and v o at on of Texas pub c po cy) shou d be recogn zed as statutory grounds for vacatur under the FAA, need not be reached when p a nt ff fa ed to show suff c ent grounds to overcome the court s deferent a standard of rev ew.

Sullivan v. PJ United Inc., No. 15-13114 (11th Cir. May 23, 2016) 05/23/2016

Judgment of d str ct court aff rmed; the arb trat on agreement express y de egated to the arb trator ssues concern ng enforceab ty of the agreement and arb trator construed the contract after exc s ng the c ass arb trat on wa ver.

Cline v. Etsy, No. 2:15-CV-2115 (JCM) (VCF) (D. Nev. May 23, 2016) 05/23/2016

Court grants mot on to compe arb trat on and stays the act on pend ng outcome of the arb trat on. Court adopts mag strate udge s f nd ngs that the p a nt ff ma nta ned an account w th defendant, accepted ts terms of use agreement that conta ned a b nd ng and va d arb trat on prov s on that surv ved the term nat on of the agreement.

Salas v. Anheuser-Busch Sales of South Bay, Inc., No. 14–55748 (9th Cir. May 23, 2016) 05/23/2016

Appe ate court reverses d str ct court s order compe ng arb trat on because the co ect ve barga n ng agreement does not “c ear y and unm stakab y” requ re arb trat on of statutory d scr m nat on c a ms under the Ca forn a Fa r Emp oyment and Hous ng Act.

Avery v. Bagnato, Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-00161-LAP (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2016) 05/23/2016

Court den ed mot on to vacate arb tra award, f nd ng that mot on was unt me y pursuant to the FAA § 12 wh ch prov des that a mot on to vacate cannot be f ed outs de the three-month m tat on per od.

Capstone Associated Servs., Ltd. v. Organizational Strategies, Inc., No. H-15-3233 (S.D. Tex. May 20, 2016) 05/20/2016

Defendant s mot on for recons derat on of court order grant ng p a nt ff s mot on to compe arb trat on den ed. Court he d that another court s dec s on d d not have prec us ve effect on the court s dec s on that the arb trator shou d determ ne the arb trab ty of whether var ous aff rmat ve defenses were wa ved n the part es med at on sett ement agreement.

Geter v. Magnolia Manor of Columbia, No. 16-1050 (4th Cir. May 20, 2016) 05/20/2016

Appe ate court aff rms d str ct court order, f nd ng no revers b e error n order grant ng the defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on of p a nt ff s emp oyment d scr m nat on act on.

Ellison v. Canton Long Term Care, LLC, No. 2:15-CV-01650-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex. May 20, 2016) 05/20/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on den ed. A va d arb trat on agreement d d not ex st between the part es because the arb trat on agreement cou d be un atera y changed by the pet t oner and was therefore an usory agreement.

Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters v. Drywall Dynamics, Inc., No. 14-55250 (9th Cir. May 19, 2016) 05/19/2016

D str ct court s order vacat ng an arb trat on award reversed. Court he d that the d str ct court exceeded ts narrow author ty when t found that the arb trator s nterpretat on of the part es agreement was mp aus b e and contrary to pub c po cy. The d str ct court erred by eva uat ng the arb trator s nterpretat on, wh ch was arguab y based on the contract.

Malik v. F-19 Holdings, LLC, No. 5:15-CV-130-KKC (E.D. Ky. May 19, 2016) 05/19/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted. Court he d that the FAA compe s arb trat on of p a nt ff s c ass act on Te ephone Consumer Protect on Act c a ms because the agreement between the part es nc udes a broad arb trat on c ause and the c a m fa s w th n the scope of that c ause.

21st Century Fin. Servs., LLC v. Manchester Fin. Bank, 3:15-CV-01848-BTM-BGS (S.D. Cal. May 19, 2016) 05/19/2016

In an act on to enforce a conf rmed arb trat on award, court den es p a nt ff s mot on to add udgment debtors. Court he d that t acks sub ect matter ur sd ct on to enforce a udgment aga nst nond verse part es under an a ter-ego theory of ab ty.

Ideal Co., Inc. v. 1st Merch. Funding, LLC, 2:15-cv-07256-RSWL-GJS (C.D. Cal. May 18, 2016) 05/18/2016

Mot on to d sm ss granted s nce a c a ms asserted are arb trab e. Wh e 9 USC § 3 prov des that courts are to stay proceed ngs unt arb trat on has been comp eted, c rcu t courts, nc ud ng the n nth c rcu t, have he d that d str ct courts may order d sm ssa when a the c a ms are barred by the arb trat on c ause.

Henry v. New Orleans Louisiana Saints L.L.C., No. 2:15-CV-05971-CJB-JCW (E.D. La. May 18, 2016) 05/18/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted and act on stayed pend ng outcome of the arb trat on. Court found that a va d arb trat on agreement ex sted, not ng that amb guous anguage does not necessar y render t unenforceab e. Add t ona y, s nce p a nt ff fa ed to show that the arb trator s re at onsh p w th defendants was und sc osed, unant c pated, or un ntended, the appropr ate method for contest ng any poss b e b as s through ud c a rev ew of the ensu ng arb trat on award.

Gingras v. Rosette, Case No. 5:15-CV-101 (D. Vt. May 18, 2016) 05/18/2016

Mot ons to compe arb trat on den ed. Court he d that the court, not the arb trator, shou d dec de the va d ty of the arb trat on c ause because the c ause does not exp c t y de egate author ty to the arb trator and nstead sends quest ons re ated to arb trab ty of c ass act on c a ms to the tr ba court. Add t ona y, an attack on the de egat on c ause as unconsc onab e shou d be addressed by the court. The court a so he d that though the arb trat on agreement states t s sub ect to tr ba aw, the ack of any re evant tr ba aw on arb trab ty of d sputes m tates for the app cat on of Vermont aw.

Orange Middle East & Africa v. Republic of Equatorial Guinea, No. 1:15-CV-00849-RMC (D.D.C. May 18, 2016) 05/18/2016

Pet t on to enforce arb trat on award d sm ssed w thout pre ud ce. Court he d that proper serv ce was never effected on the respondent fore gn state, as requ red by 28 USC § 1608, s nce an agreement between the part es about the exchang ng of not ces was not a “spec a arrangement for serv ce” as requ red by the FSIA s str ct serv ce requ rements.

EEOC v. PJ Utah, LLC, No. 15-4079 (10th Cir. May 18, 2016) 05/18/2016

Appea of the d str ct court s order compe ng arb trat on d sm ssed. S nce the order compe ng arb trat on d d not d spose of a c a ms by a part es, and therefore does not const tute a f na dec s on, the appe ate court acked ur sd ct on over that order.

Mitchell v. EEG, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-00903-JHM-DW (W.D. Ky. May 18, 2016) 05/18/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted n part and den ed n part. The ex stence of a de egat on c ause s c ear and unm stakab e ev dence that part es agreed to subm t ssues of arb trab ty to the arb tra tr buna . However, s nce one of the p a nt ffs a eged her s gnature was forged the court reta ned the act on on a m ted bas s and ordered d scovery to dec de whether an agreement was formed n the f rst p ace.

Davis v. BSH Home Appliances Corp., No. 4:15-CV-103-FL (E.D.N.C. May 18, 2016) 05/18/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted. The court he d that the part es va d arb trat on agreement nc uded the d spute n ts scope and reference to the AAA arb trat on ru es was a c ear and unm stakab e de egat on of arb trab ty to the arb trator.

Monadnock Construction, Inc. v. Westchester Fire Insurance Co., No. 1:16-CV-00420-JBW-VMS (E.D.N.Y. May 17, 2016) 05/17/2016

Act on stayed s nce pend ng arb trat on between part es covered aspects of the court act on. Court requested that the arb trators exped te the proceed ngs and stated that the mag strate udge may ft the stay to he p the part es seek d scovery n a d of the arb trat on.

Komatsu v. NTT Data, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-07007-LGS (S.D.N.Y. May 17, 2016) 05/17/2016

In d sm ss ng the comp a nt, court he d that the p a nt ff was estopped from avo d ng arb trat on w th a non-s gnatory party when the p a nt ff s serv ces were prov ded to the non-s gnatory party pursuant to the contract conta n ng the arb trat on agreement. Add t ona y, a federa court does not have sub ect matter ur sd ct on over a pet t on to compe arb trat on after a state court has a ready ru ed on the mer ts of that pet t on.

Solo v. American Association of University Women, No. 3:15-CV-01356-WQH-JMA (S.D. Cal. May 17, 2016) 05/17/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on den ed. The arb trat on agreement was procedura y unconsc onab e because t was drafted by the party w th the stronger barga n ng power, d d not prov de a mean ngfu cho ce, and d d not reference the re evant arb trat on ru es or d scuss costs. The court a so he d the agreement was substant ve y unconsc onab e because t was unreasonab y favorab e to the defendant w th no ust f cat on for ts one-s ded nature.

Aiton v. Verizon New Jersey, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-06533-MAS-TJB (D.N.J. May 17, 2016) 05/17/2016

Mot on to d sm ss and compe arb trat on granted. A va d arb trat on agreement ex sted and the c a m fa s w th n the scope of the arb trat on c ause.

GSS Group Ltd. v. National Port Authority of Liberia, No. 14-7041 (D.C. Cir. May 17, 2016) 05/17/2016

D str ct court d sm ssa of pet t on to conf rm arb tra award aff rmed. Court he d that d str ct court was correct n d sm ss ng pet t oner s second attempt to conf rm the same arb tra award because the ssue of persona ur sd ct on cou d not be re- t gated. Court further he d that the FSIA arb trat on except on d d not g ve the d str ct court sub ect matter ur sd ct on over a c a m aga nst L ber a tse f because the pet t oner cou d demonstrate ne ther that the port author ty was L ber a s agent nor that treat ng t as a ega y separate ent ty wou d perpetuate fraud or n ust ce.

Highland TH, LLC v. City of Terre Haute, No. 2:15-CV-00196-JMS-DKL (S.D. Ind. May 17, 2016) 05/17/2016

Mot on to d sm ss and to compe arb trat on granted. Court he d that c a ms of tort ous nterference arose from or were n connect on w th a contract to wh ch a va d arb trat on agreement app ed.

Data Processing Sciences Corp. v. Lumenate Technologies, L.P., No. 1:16-CV-00387-TSB (S.D. Ohio May 16, 2016) 05/16/2016

Mot on to vacate or mod fy the arb trat on award granted n part and den ed n part. In vacat ng part of the award, the court he d that the arb trator exceeded h s author ty n dec d ng a counterc a m that arose out of a d fferent but re ated contract to wh ch the arb trat on agreement d d not app y. The award was enforceab e as to the ssues that drew the r “essence” from the contract conta n ng the arb trat on agreement.

Hedrick v. BNC Nat’l Bank, No. 2:15-CV-09358-JAR (D. Kan. May 16, 2016) 05/16/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted and act on stayed. Arb trator must dec de the quest on of whether the arb trat on c ause a ows for c ass arb trat on because the part es agreed to conduct arb trat on under AAA arb trat on ru es, wh ch empower arb trator to dec de quest ons of arb trab ty.

JPAY, Inc. v. Kobel, No. 1:16-CV-20121-DPG (S.D. Fla. May 16, 2016) 05/16/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on and stay proceed ngs den ed n part. Court he d that the d fferences between c ass and b atera arb trat on are of enough consequence that the determ nat on of whether c ass arb trat on s ava ab e s a substant ve quest on of arb trab ty for the court to dec de absent c ear and unm stakab e ev dence that the part es ntended otherw se.

Praxis Capital & Investment Management Ltd. v. Gemini Holdings I, LLC, No. 2:15-CV-02912-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio May 16, 2016) 05/16/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on den ed. The purported arb trat on agreement d d not requ re arb trat on and therefore was not mandatory.

Danley v. Encore Capital Group, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-11535-GCS-EAS (E.D. Mich. May 16, 2016) 05/16/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on and d sm ss act on w thout pre ud ce granted. Court he d that cha enges to the arb trat on agreements were de egated to the arb trator.

Atwood v. Rent-A-Center East, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-1023-MJR-SCW (S.D. Ill. May 13, 2016) 05/13/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on under the FAA den ed, but mot on to compe arb trat on under the I no s Un form Arb trat on Act granted. Court he d that the emp oyee fa s under the transportat onworker exempt on to the FAA but that does not prec ude arb trat on under state aw, f ava ab e.

Goad v. St. David’s Healthcare Partnership, No. 1:16-CV-044-RP (W.D. Tex. May 13, 2016) 05/13/2016

Mot on to d sm ss and compe arb trat on den ed. Whether the emp oyee rece ved not ce of the arb trat on agreement presented a genu ne ssue of fact and under the FAA the part es have a r ght to a tr a by ury on the ssue.

Minnesota Nurses Association v. North Memorial Health Care, No. 15-2211 (8th Cir. May 13, 2016) 05/13/2016

D str ct court order grant ng n part un on s mot on to vacate arb trat on award aff rmed. D str ct court correct y conc uded that the arb trator exceeded the scope of h s author ty under the co ect ve barga n ng agreement by reso v ng a d spute not presented by the part es.

Newco Ltd. v. Government of Belize, No. 1:08-CV-02010 (D.C. Cir. May 13, 2016) 05/13/2016

D str ct court udgment enforc ng arb tra award aff rmed. The Government of Be ze fa ed to prov de support for ts assert on that the doctr ne of nternat ona com ty s a “ru e of procedure” of the US, as prov ded for n the New York Convent on. Further, the pub c po cy nterest n nternat ona com ty does not present a c ear-cut case under the New York Convent on where enforcement wou d v o ate bas c not ons of mora ty and ust ce.

Owensboro Health Facilities, L.P. v. Henderson, No. 4:16-CV-00002-JHM (W.D. Ky. May 13, 2016) 05/13/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on and en o n defendant granted n part. Court he d that wrongfu death benef c ar es are not bound by arb trat on agreements to wh ch they are not a party. Court further he d that a requ rement under Kentucky aw that a power of attorney exp c t y grants author ty to s gn arb trat on agreements v o ates and s thus pre-empted by the FAA.

Parton v. FCA US LLC, No. 5:15-CV-00262 (W.D. Okla. May 13, 2016) 05/13/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on den ed. Arb trat on agreement requ r ng car purchasers to pay ha f of the arb trator s fees s unenforceab e under the FAA; s nce the purchasers cannot afford to pay such a fee the arb trat on agreement does not prov de an effect ve and access b e a ternat ve forum.

U-Save Auto Rental of America, Inc. v. Barton, No. 3:15-CV-00348-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss. May 13, 2016) 05/13/2016

Mot on to correct udgment as to pre udgment nterest under FRCP Ru e 60(a) den ed. Sett ng an ear er accrua date for ca cu at ng pre udgment nterest was not a c er ca -type correct on as env s oned by FRCP Ru e 60(a), but was a mod f cat on of the arb trat on award that wou d requ re f nd ngs of aw and fact.

BCB Holdings Limited v. Government of Belize, No. 15-7063 (D.C. Cir. May 13, 2016) 05/13/2016

D str ct court udgment enforc ng arb tra award aff rmed. The Government of Be ze fa ed to prov de support for ts assert on that the doctr ne of nternat ona com ty s a “ru e of procedure” of the US, as prov ded for n the New York Convent on. Add t ona y, the pub c po cy nterest n nternat ona com ty does not present a c ear-cut case under the New York Convent on where enforcement wou d v o ate bas c not ons of mora ty and ust ce. Further, n v ew of the c rcumstances presented, the d str ct court s equ tab e to ng of the requ rement under 9 USC § 207 to enforce an arb tra award w th n three years was appropr ate.

Preferred Care, Inc. v. Howell, No. 7:16-CV-00013-ART-EBA (E.D. Ky. May 13, 2016) 05/13/2016

Court granted n part and den ed n part defendant s mot on to d sm ss. Court granted defendant s mot on to d sm ss p a nt ffs attempt to compe arb trat on regard ng wrongfu death c a ms where the arb trat on agreement s not enforceab e aga nst the wrongfu -death benef c ar es who were not bound by the agreement. Court den ed defendant s mot on to d sm ss w th respect to the p a nt ffs rema n ng c a ms, as p a nt ffs arb trat on agreement s va d and enforceab e w th respect to the rema n ng c a ms defendant brought n h s state court comp a nt.

Consolidated Precision Products Corp. v. General Electric Co., No. 1:15-CV-8721-PKC (S.D.N.Y. May 12, 2016) 05/12/2016

Mot on to d sm ss for ack of sub ect matter ur sd ct on den ed, but mot on to stay act on pend ng comp et on of the arb trat on granted. Wh e ndependent grounds for the court s sub ect matter ur sd ct on ex sted, a va d arb trat on agreement contro ed the d spute, nc ud ng the cha enge to arb trab ty.

ICC Chemical Corp. v. Nordic Tankers Trading A/S, No. 1:15-CV-09766-KPF (S.D.N.Y. May 12, 2016) 05/12/2016

Mot on to vacate arb trat on award den ed, cross-mot on to conf rm granted. Court he d that the arb tra tr buna d d not ob ect ve y d sregard c ear y app cab e aw and therefore pet t oner was not ent t ed to vacat ng the arb trat on award based on man fest d sregard of the aw.

Pinnacle Foods Group, LLC v. United Dairy and Bakery Workers Local 87, No. 2:15-CV-12413 (E.D. Mich. May 12, 2016) 05/12/2016

Mot on to vacate arb trator s award den ed and mot on for summary udgment enforc ng award granted. S nce the arb trator was arguab y constru ng the contract, and n ght of the h gh y deferent a standard under wh ch t rev ews the award, the court refused to subst tute ts udgment for that of the arb trator.

Stover-Davis v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., No. 1:15-CV-01938-BAM (E.D. Cal. May 12, 2016) 05/12/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted. Court he d that a va d arb trat on agreement ex sts between the part es and that such agreement s not usory, un atera , or unconsc onab e.

Weirton Medical Center, Inc. v. QHR Intensive Resources, LLC, No. 5:15-CV-00131 (N.D. W. Va. May 12, 2016) 05/12/2016

Mot on to vacate arb trat on award den ed and mot on to conf rm granted. Court he d that the arb trator d d not exceed h s power, the award was not n man fest d sregard of the aw, and the award was not procured by corrupt on, fraud, or undue means.

Stati v. Republic of Kazakhstan, No. 14-1638 (ABJ) (D.D.C. May 11, 2016) 05/11/2016

Mot on for eave to subm t add t ona grounds n support of oppos t on to conf rm an arb trat on award den ed. Court he d respondent s proposed subm ss ons on ev dence of a eged fraud were not re ed upon by the Tr buna n mak ng ts dec s on and therefore wou d not be germane to the pet t on to conf rm the award.

Sheridan Healthcare of Louisiana, Inc. v. Progressive Acute Care, LLC, No. 6:15-CV-02509-RGJ-CBW (W.D. La. May 11, 2016) 05/11/2016

Mot on to conf rm arb trat on award granted. Court found no bas s for vacat ng or mod fy ng the award.

Transatlantic Lines LLC v. Amergent Techs, LLC, No. 3:15-cv-01681-AWT (D. Conn. May 11, 2016) 05/11/2016

Court grants defendant s mot on to d sm ss p a nt ff s pet t on to compe arb trat on n the D str ct of Connect cut. S nce the part es arb trat on agreement d d not spec fy a venue for the arb trat on, the court he d that defendant s commencement of arb trat on n Ca forn a d d not const tute ts refusa to arb trate.

Boule v. Credit One Bank, No. 15-CV-8562 (RJS) (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2016) 05/11/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on and d sm ss act on granted. Court f nds that p a nt ff rece ved and consented to a cardho der agreement, nc ud ng ts arb trat on prov s on, and the d spute over c a ms under the Te ephone Consumer Protect on Act fa w th n the scope of the agreement; p a nt ff s ob ect on to contract as a who e, and not the arb trat on c ause n part cu ar, s a matter for the arb trator to dec de.

Lainer v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-09925-BRO-MRW (C.D. Cal. May 11, 2016) 05/11/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on and stayed t gat on, f nd ng that a party s acceptance of the arb trat on agreement n the Terms of Serv ce for Uber s r de shar ng app cat on requ red her to arb trate c a ms ar s ng out of unso c ted text messages recru t ng her to be an Uber dr ver.

Leblanc v. Texas Brine Company LLC, No. 2:12-cv-02059-JCZ-MBN (E.D. La. May 10, 2016) 05/10/2016

Mot ons to stay c a ms pend ng arb trat on granted. In the f fth c rcu t the ncorporat on of the AAA arb trat on ru es s suff c ent to man fest a c ear and m stakab e agreement to de egate ssues of arb trab ty to an arb trator; and wh e on y ava ab e n rare c rcumstances, a non-s gnatory can nvoke equ tab e estoppe to re y on an arb trat on c ause where a s gnatory asserts c a ms ar s ng from the under y ng contract.

Claridge Associates LLC v. Schepis, No. 1:15-CV-04514-KPF (S.D.N.Y. May 10, 2016) 05/10/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted to dec de the arb trab ty of defendants res ud cata defense, and court act on stayed pend ng reso ut on of the arb trat on proceed ngs. The part es broad sweep ng agreement to arb trate a c a ms that “ar se out of” or “re ate to” the r contract, coup ed w th express ncorporat on of the AAA arb trat on ru es, p aces the res ud cata ssue n d spute proper y before the arb trator.

Messina v. North Central Distributing, No. 15-2323 (8th Cir. May 10, 2016) 05/10/2016

D str ct court s order deny ng mot on to compe arb trat on aff rmed. Defendant-appe ant wa ved r ght to arb trat on because t knew of ts r ght to arb trate, acted ncons stent y w th that r ght, and pre ud ced the p a nt ff-appe ee by ts fa ure to even ment on arb trat on desp te mu t p e opportun t es to do so over e ght months of t gat on.

Suazo v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd., No. 14-15351 (11th Cir. May 10, 2016) 05/10/2016

D str ct court s order compe ng the part es to arb trate aff rmed and defendant s mot on for sanct ons den ed. Defendant fa ed to estab sh an effect ve v nd cat on defense show ng t ke y that unaffordab e costs w deny h m access to the arb tra forum.

Dismuke v. McClinton Energy Group, L.L.C., No. 7:16-CV-00023-RAJ (W.D. Tex. May 10, 2016) 05/10/2016

Court granted defendants mot on to compe arb trat on and den ed p a nt ff s mot on for cond t ona cert f cat on. Court he d that, under Texas aw, p a nt ff cou d not evade the va d arb trat on agreement through artfu p ead ng, wh ch p a nt ff attempted to do by amend ng ts comp a nt to remove part es to the arb trat on agreement as defendants and to nstead name the r agent n h s nd v dua capac ty.

Azod v. Robinson, No. 2:16-CV-00440-JFW-E (C.D. Cal. May 10, 2016) 05/10/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on, ho d ng the arb trat on agreement was b nd ng and enforceab e and that c a ms asserted were w th n the agreement s scope.

Rowan v. Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc., No. 15-1793 (6th Cir. May 9, 2016) 05/09/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on aff rmed, where court he d that arb trat on c ause was not vo d s nce appe ant had menta capac ty to contract at the t me he s gned the agreement. The arb trat on agreement therefore d d not v o ate pub c po cy by wa v ng ury-tr a r ghts or m t ng ab ty for gross neg gence, and was not unenforceab e due to ack of mutua assent, ack of cons derat on, or for the costs of the arb trat on.

Butler v. New Horizons Great Lakes Holding Corporation, No. 2:15-CV-01304-RAJ (W.D. Wash. May 9, 2016) 05/09/2016

Mot on to stay proceed ngs n favor of arb trat on granted. The arb trat on agreement at ssue was va d and enforceab e, and a c a ms asserted by p a nt ff must be dec ded n arb trat on. Further, ncorporat on of the AAA arb trat on ru es demonstrates the part es ntent to de egate ssues of arb trab ty to an arb trator.

Larson v. Ameriprise Financial Services Inc., No. 4:16-CV-03025-JMG-CRZ (D. Neb. May 9, 2016) 05/09/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted and court act on stayed pend ng arb trat on. Nons gnatory who w shes to obta n the benef ts of contract must accept the contract s terms as a who e and cannot avo d app cat on of certa n prov s ons, nc ud ng the arb trat on agreement. Dry Ground Specialists, Inc. v. Newfield Exploration Company, No. 1:16-CV-00027-DLH-CSM (D.N.D. May 9, 2016) 05/09/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on, re ect ng argument that the arb trat on agreement was procedura y unconsc onab e because of the part es unequa barga n ng powers or substant ve y unconsc onab e because of a c ause requ r ng that the tr buna cha r be e ected by the party-appo nted arb trators from among the members of an ndustry group. Court a so re ected the pet t oner s quantum meru t c a m because equ tab e remed es are not ava ab e for d sputes governed by a va d contract.

Linglong Americas, Inc. v. Horizon Tire, Inc., No 1:15-CV-01240-DCN (N.D. Ohio May 6, 2016) 05/06/2016

Mot on to d sm ss or stay pend ng arb trat on den ed. P a nt ff cannot seek to enforce prov s ons of a contract, nc ud ng the arb trat on agreement, wh ch a part es agree s no onger enforceab e and where p a nt ff has proceeded n a manner who y ncons stent w th arb trat on and pre ud ces the defendants.

James Howden & Co. Ltd. v. Bossart LLC, No. 2:15-CV-01977 (W.D. Wash. May 5, 2016) 05/05/2016

Mot on for entry of udgment on a monetary fore gn arb trat on award pursuant to FRCP Ru e 58 granted. Court refused requests from both part es to convert the currency of the award s nce federa aw a ows for udgment n fore gn currency and federa po cy we ghs strong y aga nst mod f cat on of arb tra awards.

Sexton v. Karam, No. 15-2599 (2d Cir. May 5, 2016) 05/05/2016

D str ct court s udgment and order conf rm ng an arb tra award aff rmed. Ev dence d d not suff c ent y ev nce corrupt on by the arb trators to warrant vacat ng the award.

Wawock v. CSI Elec. Contractors, Inc., No. 14-56810 (9th Cir. May 5, 2016) 05/05/2016

C rcu t court he d that arb trat on c ause n co ect ve barga n ng agreement (CBA) d d not c ear y and exp c t y wa ve emp oyee s r ght to a ud c a forum for h s c a ms. Court found that d sputes concern ng the mean ng of a federa statute are not ent t ed to a presumpt on of arb trab ty and any CBA requ rement to arb trate them must be part cu ar y c ear; because the CBA here d d not exp c t y requ re arb trat on under these c rcumstances, t d d not wa ve emp oyee s r ght to a ud c a forum.

Advantage Sales & Marketing LLC v. USG Companies Inc., No. 1:15-CV-01225-RGA (D. Del. May 4, 2016) 05/04/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on and d sm ss comp a nt granted. In reach ng ts dec s on, the court was gu ded by cases dec ded under De aware aw where the FAA app ed.

Gold Reserve Inc. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 15-7158 (D.C. Cir. May 4, 2016) 05/04/2016

Mot on to stay a d str ct court udgment pend ng appea den ed. Appe ant fa ed to sat sfy the str ngent requ rements for a stay pend ng appea w thout post ng a supersedeas bond.

Nguy v. Cinch Bakery Equipment, LLC, No. 2:13-CV-02283-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal. May 4, 2016) 05/04/2016

Mot on to conf rm arb trat on award and d sm ss p a nt ff s c a m granted. P a nt ff s pet t on to vacate the arb trat on award was f ed near y four months after the arb trator ssued the award and was unt me y and barred by the statute of m tat ons.

SGC Health Group Inc. v. eClinicalWorks LLC, No. 3:15-CV-04022-M (N.D. Tex. May 4, 2016) 05/04/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on and d sm ss court act on granted. A va d agreement to arb trate ex sts and the d spute n quest on fa s w th n the scope of that agreement. The court a so he d that where the on y poss b e ro e t wou d have s to rev ew the arb trat on award the case shou d be d sm ssed w th pre ud ce rather than stayed.

Preferred Care of Delaware, Inc. v. Konicov, No. 5:15-CV-88-KKC-EBA (E.D. Ky. May 4, 2016) 05/04/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on and en o n state proceed ngs granted. Court he d that the arb trat on agreement prov des c ear de egat on of author ty to the arb trator and that the ssues n d spute fa w th n the arb trat on agreement. Further, d sputes w th n the amb t of an arb trat on agreement do not carry a r ght to tr a by ury because no “su t” w th n the mean ng of the Seventh Amendment ar ses.

Home Buyers Warranty Corporation v. Jones, No. 1:15-MC-00324-RGA (D. Del. May 4, 2016) 05/04/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted and court act on stayed pend ng arb trat on. Court he d that the agreement to arb trate a c a ms, nc ud ng arb trab ty, va d and enforceab e, and respondents are bound by the r agreement to arb trate.

Suarez v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 8:16-CV-00166 (M.D. Fla. May 4, 2016) 05/04/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on and str ke c ass and co ect ve a egat ons granted, and court act on d sm ssed w thout pre ud ce. The part es c ear y and unm stakab y ntended to arb trate quest ons of arb trab ty, and under F or da aw the arb trat on agreement at ssue s not unconsc onab e.

Merkin v. Vonage America, Inc., No. 14-55397 (9th Cir. May 4, 2016) 05/04/2016

D str ct Court s den a of mot on to compe arb trat on reversed and remanded w th nstruct ons to grant mot on. Court he d that, even assum ng the prov s on of the agreement that exempted certa n categor es of c a ms from arb trat on was substant ve y unconsc onab e, where on y one prov s on of the agreement s found to be unconsc onab e and that prov s on can eas y be severed w thout affect ng the rema nder of the agreement, the court shou d do so. The d str ct court erred n not sever ng th s prov s on.

Boardman v. Pacific Seafood Group, CV-15-0108-MC (9th Cir. May 3, 2016) 05/03/2016

D str ct Court s den a of mot on to compe arb trat on aff rmed. Court he d that p a nt ffs c a ms were not w th n the scope of the purported arb trat on prov s on n the part es agreement.

Varon v. Uber Technologies Inc., No. 1:15-CV-03650 (D. Md. May 3, 2016) 05/03/2016

Mot on to compe nd v dua arb trat on, d sm ss court act on, and str ke c ass a egat ons granted. Court he d the arb trat on agreement was not unconsc onab e and prov des c ear and unm stakab e de egat on of author ty to the arb trator.

InfoSpan Inc. v. Emirates NBD Bank PJSC, No. 8:14-CV-01679 (C.D. Cal. May 3, 2016) 05/03/2016

Mot on for award of attorney s fees and costs den ed. Court he d that a successfu mot on to compe arb trat on s temporary procedura v ctory rather than an event conferr ng preva ng party status.

Leong v. The Goldman Sachs Group Inc., No. 1:13-CV-08655 (S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2016) 05/02/2016

Request for n unct ve re ef granted to en o n p a nt ff from proceed ng w th Commod ty Futures Trad ng Comm ss on reparat ons c a m aga nst defendant. Part es d rected to subm t any d spute ar s ng out of the r agreement to the LCIA, cons stent w th the court s order of two years ear er compe ng arb trat on between the same two part es.

Doty v. Dolgencorp, Inc., No. 4:15-CV-01931-RWS (W.D. Mo. May 2, 2016) 05/02/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted and act on stayed pend ng the outcome of the arb trat on. By ncorporat ng the AAA arb trat on ru es n the arb trat on agreement, the part es c ear y and unm stakab y agreed to a ow the arb trator to determ ne thresho d quest ons of arb trab ty, nc ud ng cha enges to the va d ty of the agreement.

Loney v. USAA Fed. Savings Bank, No. 1:15-CV-00292-CCE-JLW (M.D.N.C. May 2, 2016) 05/02/2016

Mag strate udge recommended grant ng defendant s mot on to conf rm arb tra award on the bas s that the arb tra award had not been corrected, vacated, or mod f ed and no va d mot on to vacate the award was f ed w th n the t me a owed under 9 U.S.C. § 9.

Cooks v. Hertz Corp., No. 3:15-CV-0652-NJR-PMF (S.D. Ill. Apr. 29, 2016) 04/29/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on and d sm sses re ated c a ms granted. Arb trat on c ause was not unconsc onab e and express y prov ded for the arb trator to determ ne matters of arb trab ty.

Oberweis Securities, Inc. v. Investors Insurance Corp., No. 1:16-CV-04228-EEB (N.D. Ill. Apr. 29, 2016) 04/29/2016

Court d sm ssed p a nt ff s comp a nt f ed for the so e purpose of seek ng d scovery under § 7 of the FAA to compe the product on of documents n response to th rd-party subpoenas ssued by an arb tra pane to nonpart es n a FINRA arb trat on. Court he d that the FAA does not tse f prov de federa ur sd ct on and absent an ndependent ur sd ct ona bas s to hear the d spute, the court must d sm ss.

Oberweis Securities, Inc. v. Inv’rs Ins. Corp., No. 1:16-CV-04228-EEB (N.D. Ill. Apr. 29, 2016) 04/29/2016

Court d sm ssed p a nt ff s comp a nt f ed for the so e purpose of seek ng d scovery re ef under § 7 of the FAA to compe the product on of documents n response to th rd-party subpoenas ssued by an arb tra pane to nonpart es n a FINRA arb trat on. Court he d that the FAA does not tse f prov de federa ur sd ct on and absent an ndependent ur sd ct ona bas s to hear the d spute, the court must d sm ss.

Schatz v. Cellco Partnership, No. 1:10-CV-05414-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2016) 04/28/2016

Mot on to vacate award den ed and cross-mot on to conf rm award granted. Arb trator fu y and f na y reso ved pet t oners c a m for attorney s fees and costs; consequent y, no bas s to vacate the award pursuant to 9 USC § 10(a)(4).

Thomas v. Comcast Holdings Corporation, No. 2:14-CV-02428-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2016) 04/27/2016

Unopposed mot on to compe arb trat on granted and court proceed ngs stayed pend ng reso ut on of arb trat on.

Roberts v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 3:15-CV-03418-EMC (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2016) 04/27/2016

Amended order grant ng mot on to compe arb trat on granted and court proceed ngs stayed pend ng reso ut on of arb trat on. Court he d that there was no state act on n the nstant case and p a nt ffs ack a v ab e F rst Amendment cha enge to the arb trat on agreements.

Schafer v. Multiband Corp., No. 1:12-CV-13152-TLL-CEB (E.D. Mich. Apr. 27, 2016) 04/27/2016

Mot on to vacate arb trat on award granted n part. Matter remanded to arb trator pursuant to 9 USC § 10(b) to determ ne p a nt ffs fraudu ent nducement and prom ssory estoppe c a ms n the f rst nstance.

In Re The Application of TJAC Waterloo, LLC., No. 3:16-MC-00009-CAN (N.D. Ind. April 27, 2016) 04/27/2016

Court he d t d d not have ur sd ct on under 28 USC § 1782 to order d scovery n the fore gn proceed ng at ssue because the “Eng sh Expert Determ nat on” s a pr vate arb tra body. Even f the court had ur sd ct on, the d scovery request was unt me y and seeks nformat on beyond the appropr ate scope of d scovery.

Doe v. The New Ritz, No. 1:14-CV-02367-RDB (D. Md. Apr. 26, 2016) 04/26/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on and d sm ss t gat on granted as a of p a nt ff s c a ms are governed by the app cab e arb trat on agreement.

Research and Development Center "Teploenergetika" LLC v. EP International LLC, No. 2:15-CV-362 (E.D. Va. Apr. 26, 2016) 04/26/2016

Pet t on for conf rmat on of three arb tra awards ssued by the Internat ona Commerc a Arb trat on Court at The Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russ an Federat on (ICAC) granted. Respondents were unab e to demonstrate that they were unab e to present the r case at the arb trat on or that enforcement or recogn t on of the arb tra awards wou d be contrary to the pub c po cy of the US.

Immersion Corp. v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC, No. 16-CV-00857-RMW (N.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2016) 04/26/2016

Pet t on to conf rm an arb trat on award under the New York Convent on granted and mot on to vacate the award den ed. In cons der ng the defendant s arguments for vacat ng the award under both the New York Convent on and the domest c standards for rev ew under the FAA, the court he d that pub c po cy d d not m tate aga nst enforcement of the arb trat on award.

Impala Platinum Holdings Limited v. A-1 Specialized Services and Supplies Inc., No. 2:13-CV-02930-MMB (E.D. Pa. Apr. 26, 2016) 04/26/2016

Court granted mot ons to ft prev ous stay, conf rm f na LCIA arb trat on award, and enter udgment n conform ty w th award. Court refused to d sturb the f na award s nce both part es rece ved the benef t of the barga n struck, nc ud ng a fu and f na hear ng.

Villegas v. US Bank NA, No. 14-15727 (9th Cir. April 26, 2016) 04/26/2016

D str ct court s den a of requests for vacatur of an arb trat on award aff rmed. Court he d that the arb trator s d sm ssa of p a nt ff s c a m for a “pub c n unct on” d d not a ow the d str ct court to cons der such c a m on the mer ts as though t had never been referred to arb trat on and p a nt ff had otherw se wa ved a other arguments for vacatur.

Marshall v. SCC Nashville Operating Company LLC, No. 3-14-1569 (M.D. Tenn Apr. 25, 2016) 04/25/2016

Mot on to vacate or mod fy, n part, an arb trat on award den ed and act on d sm ssed. P a nt ff fa ed to carry the substant a burden of show ng that the award shou d be vacated or mod f ed under §§ 10 or 11 of the FAA.

National Football League Management Council v. National Football League Players Association, No. 15-2805 (2d Cir. Apr. 25, 2016) 04/25/2016

Judgment of d str ct court reversed and remanded to conf rm arb trat on award. Court s rev ew of abor arb trat on awards s narrow y c rcumscr bed and h gh y deferent a , and m ted to determ n ng whether the arb trat on proceed ngs and award met the m n mum ega standards estab shed by the Labor Management Re at ons Act, 29 USC § 141 et seq.

Ward v. Dillard's, No. 2:15-CV-02499-JPM-CGC (W.D. Tenn. Apr. 25, 2016) 04/25/2016

Mot on to d sm ss curt act on granted. Court he d t d d not need to stay the case and compe arb trat on s nce a of the p a nt ff s c a ms cou d on y be proper y brought n arb trat on.

Arshad v. Transportation Systems Inc., No. 1:15-CV-02138-NRB (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2016) 04/25/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted and court act on stayed pend ng conc us on of the arb trat on. Arb trat on agreement at ssue unm stakab y de egates the quest on of arb trab ty to the arb trator through the ncorporat on of the AAA arb trat on ru es and other c ear text requ r ng the matter therefore be sent to arb trat on.

Beverly v. Autonation Inc., No. 2:15-CV-00468 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 25, 2016) 04/25/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted and court act on stayed pend ng conc us on of the arb trat on.

Vap v. Big Iron, Inc., 4:16-CV-3008 (CRZ Mag.) (D. Neb. Apr. 25, 2016) 04/25/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on den ed by mag strate udge. Court he d that p a nt ff s c a ms are not sub ect to arb trat on because they are beyond the scope of the arb trat on c ause.

Badinelli v. The Tuxedo Club, No. 7:15-CV-06273 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2016) 04/25/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on and stay court act on granted. S nce the arb trat on agreement acked a descr pt on of the arb tra procedure, the court ordered that the part es to confer and appo nt an arb trator, fa ng wh ch the court wou d do so.

China MediaExpress Holdings, Inc., by Karl P. Barth as Receiver v. Nexus Executive Risks, Ltd., No. 1:15-CV-08429 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2016) 04/25/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted and court act on stayed pend ng reso ut on of the arb trat on. The po c es at ssue were sub ect to arb trat on under the FAA and the Convent on on Recogn t on and Enforcement of Fore gn Arb tra Awards (the New York Convent on).

Odeon Capital Grp. v. Ackerman, No. 1:16-CV-00274-JSR (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2016) 04/25/2016

Court granted defendant s mot on to conf rm and den ed p a nt ffs mot on to vacate an arb trat on award. Court he d that the arb trat on award shou d be conf rmed because there was no show ng that the tr buna engaged n m sconduct or man fest y d sregarded the aw.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1357 v. Hawaiian Telecom Inc., No. 1:15-CV-00221-SOM-KJM (D. Haw. Apr. 22, 2016) 04/22/2016

Mot on for summary udgment that abor d spute must be arb trated pursuant to an exp red co ect ve barga n ng agreement den ed; factors a ow ng arb trat on c ause to surv ve an exp red agreement were not present.

Zetor North America Inc. v Rozeboom, No. 3:15-CV-03035-TLB (W.D. Ark. Apr. 22, 2016) 04/22/2016

Mot ons to compe arb trat on den ed as court he d that the arb trat on agreement s napp cab e to the c a ms made n the nstant d spute.

Herndon v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, No. 4:15-CV-01202 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 22, 2016) 04/22/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on and stay proceed ngs granted; an ass gnee of a mortgage debt can enforce the arb trat on agreement w th the same r ghts as the ass gnor.

Johnson v. The FV Kilauea in rem, No. 115-CV-00065 LEK-KJM (D. Haw. Apr. 22, 2016) 04/22/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on den ed and prev ous stay fted. Under Hawa aw there must be b atera cons derat on for an arb trat on agreement and t must be n wr t ng; one or both of these e ements were not present w th respect to each of the p a nt ffs.

Monfared v. St. Luke's University Health Network, No. 5:15-CV-04017 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 22, 2016) 04/22/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted. Court he d that the c a ms at ssue were arb trab e, but port ons of the agreement that ban pun t ve and exemp ary damages and attorney s fees are ncons stent w th T t e VII of the C v R ghts Act of 1964 and 42 USC § 1981 and must be severed from the agreement, w th the resu t that the arb trator s a owed to award such damages.

Lower Colorado River Authority v. Papalote Creek II LLC, No. 115-CV-00656 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 22, 2016) 04/22/2016

Mot on to stay arb trat on pend ng appea den ed. Defendant d d not show t was ke y to succeed on the mer ts, r peness s an ssue for the arb trator and a stay wou d on y de ay the reso ut on of that r peness quest on. See a so Lower Colorado River Authority v. Papalote Creek II, LLC, No. A-15-CA-656-SS (W.D. Tex. Feb. 24, 2016) Mot on to compe arb trat on granted; the part es agreed to arb trate the d spute n quest on and there are no ega constra nts externa to the part es that forec ose arb trat ng the d spute.

Collado v. J G Transport Inc., No. 15-14635 (11th Cir. Apr. 21, 2016) 04/21/2016

Order of d str ct court deny ng mot on to compe arb trat on vacated and remanded; wa ver of r ght to arb trate federa c a m through t gat on does not extend to defendant-appe ant s subsequent y asserted state c a m that rema ns sub ect to the arb trat on agreement.

Eastern Ohio Regional Wastewater Authority v. Utility Workers Union of America AFL-CIO Local Union 436-A, No. 2:15-CV-3027 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 21, 2016) 04/21/2016

Mot on to d sm ss granted; FAA does not prov de ndependent grounds for court s sub ect matter ur sd ct on.

Choice Hotels International Inc. v Capital Hotel Inc., 8:16-CV-00152-DKC (D. Md. Apr. 21, 2016) 04/21/2016

App cat on to conf rm a arb trat on award granted. Foster v. Aaron’s Incorporated, No. 2:15-CV-01637-SRB (D. Ar z. Apr. 21, 2016) 04/21/2016

Court den ed defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on f nd ng that, even f there was an arb trat on agreement between the part es, the agreement d d not encompass the p a nt ff s c a ms aga nst the defendant under the Te ephone Consumer Protect on Act.

United Food Commercial Workers Int'l Union Local No. 7 v. King Soopers, No. 13–CV–02335–RM-KMT (D. Colo. Apr. 20, 2016) 04/20/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted. The court he d that the part es d spute s sub ect to arb trat on and therefore the arb trator shou d reso ve the d spute n the f rst nstance.

Drill Cutting Disposal Co. LLC v. Lynn, No. 6:15-02532 (W.D. La. Apr. 20, 2016) 04/20/2016

Mot on to transfer venue granted. P a nt ff must br ng act on to vacate arb trat on award n the same court that prev ous y d sm ssed the act on n favor of arb trat on; under the FAA, the court that d sm ssed the act on reta ns ur sd ct on over conf rmat on and vacatur proceed ngs.

Inficon, Inc. v. Verionix, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-08044-RWS (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 19, 2016) 04/19/2016

Mot on to vacate arb tra award den ed and cross-mot on to conf rm arb tra award granted; arb trators d d not man fest y d sregard the aw n ca cu at ng damages or deny a party fundamenta fa rness.

Bald v. PCPA, LLC, No. 15-CV-219-SM (D.N.H. Apr. 19, 2016) 04/19/2016

Summary udgment granted. So e member of an LLC was not persona y bound to an arb trat on agreement s nce under New Hampsh re aw an author zed member of an LLC s presumed to be execut ng agreements on the company s beha f.

K&M Installation Inc. v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters, Local 405, No. 3:15-CV-05265-MEJ (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2016) 04/18/2016

Mot on to conf rm arb trat on award granted. Arb trator d d not d spense h s own brand of ndustr a ust ce or exceed h s scope of author ty, and the award does not v o ate pub c po cy.

Shepperd v. DIRECTV Global Holdings LLC, No. 8:15-CIV-2886-T-EAK-AEP (M.D. Fla. Apr. 18, 2016) 04/18/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted and act on stayed pend ng comp et on of the arb trat on.

AMA Multimedia LLC v. Borjan Solutions SL, No. 2:15-CV-1673 JCM (GWF) (D. Nev. Apr. 15, 2016) 04/15/2016

Mot ons to compe arb trat on and stay act on granted fo ow ng part es subm ss on agreement to arb trate d spute. Court further orders that Honorab e Ph p M. Pro be se ected to arb trate the matter.

Silgan Containers Corp v. Sheet Metal Workers Int., No. 15-1956 (8th Cir. Apr. 15, 2016) 04/15/2016

Judgment aff rmed n part and reversed n part. Court aff rmed d str ct court s dec s on to vacate the award because the arb trator acked author ty to dec de the va d ty and format on of the contract, but d str ct court erred n grant ng summary udgment to p a nt ff-appe ee.

Golden Horn Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Volnas Shipping Company Limited, No. 114-CV-02168 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2016) 04/15/2016

Or g na wr t of attachment and garn shment mod f ed and reduced to ref ect amount of damages awarded by LCIA arb tra tr buna .

Laborers’ Pension Fund and James Jorgensen v. W.R. Weis Co., Inc., No. 1:15-CV-07867 (N.D. Ill., Apr. 15, 2016) 04/15/2016

Arb trat on award conf rmed by court as award was not c ear y erroneous.

Gunter v. Sprintcom, Inc., No. 6:16-CV-28-Orl-31TBS (M.D. Fla. Apr. 15, 2016) 04/15/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted. Court he d that a wr tten agreement and arb tra ssue ex sted, and the r ght to arb trat on was not wa ved.

Al Azzawi v. Kellogg Brown and Root, No. 2:15-CV-1468 GEB AC (PS) (E.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2016) 04/14/2016

Mot on to d sm ss act on granted. P a nt ff, as a eged “owner and corporate off cer” of a company, d d not have stand ng to sue based on m sconduct wh ch a eged y took p ace n an arb trat on between the defendant and the company.

Language Connect International Ltd. v. Iverse Media, No. 15-CV-00236-XR (W.D. Tex. Apr. 14, 2016) 04/14/2016

Mot on to compe documents from defendant s arb trat on w th th rd-party granted sub ect to n camera rev ew by the court to nspect for re evancy. Shapiro v. The L.S. Starrett Company, No. 2:15-CV-00384-RGD-RJK (E.D. Va. Apr. 14, 2016) 04/14/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on upon determ n ng that the part es cens ng agreement governed the d spute.

Probulk Carriers Limited v. Marvel International and Transportation, No. 114-CV-08338 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 13, 2016) 04/13/2016

Subpoenas served on Turk sh C t zen n an attempt to obta n ev dence for the enforcement of a prev ous y conf rmed arb trat on award mod f ed to account for FRCP Ru e 45(c) requ rement that the subpoena may command a person to attend a depos t on or to produce documents no more than 100 m es from where that person "res des, s emp oyed, or regu ar y transacts bus ness n person."

Tiffany v. KO Huts Inc., No. 5:15-CV-01190-HE (W.D. Okla. Apr. 13, 2016) 04/13/2016

Mot on to str ke c a m den ed and mot on for pre m nary n unct on granted to en o n part es from further pursu ng arb trat on unt the court dec des the gateway arb trab ty ssues or otherw se mod f es the n unct on.

Law Offices of Daniel C. Flint v. Bank of America NA, No. 2:15-CV-13006 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 13, 2016) 04/13/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted and act on stayed pend ng comp et on of the arb trat on. Court he d that de egat on prov s on n the arb trat on agreement was va d and enforceab e and ssues of arb trab ty are for the arb trator; court re ected p a nt ff s argument that wa ver of c ass act on arb trat on made the agreement unconsc onab e.

American Family Mutual Insurance Company v. TAMKO Building Products, Inc., No. 15-CV-02343-REB-NYW (D. Colo. Apr. 13, 2016) 04/13/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on and d sm ss the act on granted. A va d arb trat on agreement ex sted and the d spute fe w th n the scope of that agreement. Acceptance of terms of a m ted warranty that conta ned the arb trat on agreement was not unconsc onab e under Co orado aw.

Craddock v. LeClairRyan, P.C., No. 3:16-CV-11 (E.D. Va. Apr. 12, 2016) 04/12/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on and d sm ss the act on granted. P a nt ff was bound to the arb trat on agreement desp te not s gn ng t because, nter a a, p a nt ff s conduct demonstrated acceptance. A wr tten but uns gned contract, otherw se accepted, s suff c ent to nvoke the FAA.

Barrasso v. Macy's Retail Holdings LLC, No. 1:15-CV-13098-ADB (D. Mass. Apr. 12, 2016) 04/12/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted and act on stayed pend ng comp et on of the arb trat on. Arb trat on agreement c ear y commun cated that emp oyment c a ms were sub ect to arb trat on and was not vo d on grounds of unconsc onab ty.

Conde v. 2020 Companies LLC, No. 15-CV-04080-KAW (N.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2016) 04/12/2016

Mot ons to compe arb trat on and stay act on granted. In fo ow ng the n nth c rcu t, court he d that "any d spute ar s ng from" anguage n the arb trat on agreement shou d be construed narrow y and the forum se ect on c ause was therefore napp cab e to the c a ms at ssue.

Ortiz v. Spark Energy LLC, No. 15-CV-02326-JSW (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2016) 04/11/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on and d sm ss c a m den ed. Pursuant to 9 USC § 4, where ssue of whether arb trat on agreement was made rema ned n d spute the court s to proceed summar y to a tr a on that quest on.

John Hancock Life Insurance Company (USA) v. Leisher, No. 115-CV-13539 (D. Mass. Apr. 11, 2016) 04/11/2016

Mot on to stay and compe arb trat on or d sm ss the comp a nt den ed. Part es sett ement agreement was enforceab e and summary udgment therefore appropr ate.

Kenneth Lefoldt, Jr. v. Donald Rentfro, No. 5:15-CV-96-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss. Apr. 11, 2016) 04/11/2016

Mot on to stay act on pend ng arb trat on den ed s nce part es d d not agree to arb trate.

Cwick v. First Stop Health LLC, No. 115-CV-06238 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 10, 2016) 04/10/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted and act on stayed pend ng conc us on of arb trat on. Fo ow ng part es agreement to a bench tr a pursuant to 9 USC § 4, court determ ned that c a ms asserted were proper y w th n the scope of the arb trat on agreement.

Galloway v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., No. 15-1392 (4th Cir. Apr. 8, 2016) 04/08/2016

Court aff rmed d str ct court s dec s on to enforce the part es arb trat on agreement and order to d sm ss p a nt ff s act on aga nst defendant.

Money Mailer LLC v. Wade Brewer, No. C15-1215RSL (W.D. Wash. Apr. 8, 2016) 04/08/2016

Mot ons to compe arb trat on and for summary udgment den ed. Court he d that t was ob gated to determ ne whether a potent a wa ver of a r ght to arb trate had occurred through t gat on conduct.

Capstone Associated Services Ltd v. Organizational Strategies Inc., No. 4:15-CV-03233 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 8, 2016) 04/08/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on den ed because so e arb trator se ected by agreement of the part es refused to serve as arb trator. Separate mot on to compe arb trat on pursuant to d fferent arb trat on agreement granted and so e arb trator se ected sha dec de wh ch c a ms, f any, are sub ect to arb trat on.

Suntrust Investment Services Inc. v. Dull, No. 3:15-CV-00531-MOC-DCK (W.D.N.C. Apr. 8, 2016) 04/08/2016

Mot on to conf rm arb trat on award granted. Award was st pu ated between the part es and uncontested.

Jefferson Mullins and William Hines v. US Bancorp Investments Inc., No. 1:15-CV-00126-GNS (W.D. Ky. Apr. 8, 2016) 04/08/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted; part es agreed to arb trate and the r agreement superseded FINRA s arb trat on ru es.

Chan v. Chinese-Am. Planning Council Home Attendant Program, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-9605 (KBF) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2016) 04/08/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted. Court ho ds that there s a va d mandatory arb trat on c ause n a co ect ve barga n ng arb trat on agreement and that the d spute fa s w th n the scope of that agreement; court re ects p a nt ff s and putat ve c ass members c a ms that the agreement does not app y retroact ve y to c a ms that accrued pr or to the agreement, when there s no c ear anguage p ac ng a t me m t on arb trab ty, and that arb trat on s cost proh b t ve, when the agreement prov des that fees between them (a un on members) and the defendant are shared equa y.

Sena v. Uber Technologies Incorporated, No. CV-15-02418-PHX-DLR (D. Ariz. Apr. 7, 2016) 04/07/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted. Courts app y a presumpt on of arb trab ty when a contract conta ns an arb trat on c ause, and p a nt ff fa ed to bear ts burden of estab sh ng that the agreement s napp cab e.

Ali v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 3:13-CV-01184-JSW (9th Cir. Apr. 7, 2016) 04/07/2016

D str ct court s order deny ng mot on to compe arb trat on aff rmed n part, reversed n part, and remanded w th nstruct ons to compe arb trat on. The court he d that the arb trat on agreement s not substant ve y unconsc onab e and the d str ct court erred n fa ng to enforce t.

Southern Design Mechanical Inc. v. Flowserve US Inc., No. 1:16-CV-01003 (W.D. Ark. Apr. 7, 2016) 04/07/2016

Mot ons to compe arb trat on and d sm ss c a ms granted n part and den ed n part; part es d rected to proceed to arb trat on and act on stayed pend ng outcome of the arb trat on.

In re Application of the Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic, No. 1:15-MC-00018 (D.N. Mar. Is. Apr. 7, 2016) 04/07/2016

App cat on for d scovery pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 and the Un ted Nat ons Convent on on Corrupt on den ed. As a pr vate arb tra body SIAC does not const tute a "fore gn or nternat ona tr buna " for the purposes of a d scovery app cat on pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 and the potent a cr m na nvest gat on s not w th n reasonab e contemp at on, therefore fa ng the requ rement that the d scovery requested wou d be "for use n a proceed ng."

The University of Notre Dame (USA) in England v. TJAC Waterloo LLC, No. 6-CV-10150-ADB (D. Mass. Apr. 7, 2016) 04/07/2016

Court grants mot ons to conf rm part a award on ab ty pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 207 and attachment of defendants property under FRCP Ru e 64 and Massachusetts aw.

Ali v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, No. 14-15076 (9th Cir. Apr. 7, 2016) 04/07/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed n part, and den ed n part, d str ct court s order deny ng mot on to compe arb trat on, and remanded w th nstruct on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that d str ct court correct y conc uded that b nd ng arb trat on agreement s gned by former emp oyee was adhes ve and therefore procedura y unconsc onab e. However, s nce arb trat on agreement was not substant ve y unconsc onab e, under Ca forn a aw, the d str ct court erred n fa ng to enforce t.

Kwest Communications, Inc. v. United Cellular Wireless Inc., No. 1:16-CV-20242-JJO (S.D. Fla. Apr. 7, 2016) 04/07/2016

Mag strate udge recommended that defendants mot on to compe arb trat on be granted, f nd ng that va d agreements to arb trate ex sted, that a non-s gnatory may be bound by an arb trat on prov s on as a matter of F or da aw, that p a nt ff was estopped to deny t s bound by the arb trat on prov s ons conta ned n the under y ng agreements, that the arb trat on c ause covers p a nt ff s c a ms, and that one defendant that f ed and then qu ck y sought d sm ssa of a Texas state court act on d d not wa ve ts r ght to arb trate.

Trs. of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labor Management Cooperation, Pension and Welfare Funds v. Clover Construction of NY, No. 2:15-CV05689-ADS-AYS (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2016) 04/06/2016

Mag strate udge recommended and court ater adopted the conf rmat on of an arb trat on award ssued n a abor d spute aga nst respondent. Mag strate udge noted that n th s case, the arb trator had ssued an award that drew ts essence from the co ect ve barga n ng agreement and there was no nd cat on that the award was arb trary, exceeded the arb trator s author ty, or was otherw se contrary to aw. Mag strate udge a so recommended that pet t oners be granted attorneys fees and costs.

Tr. of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labour-Management Cooperation, Pension and Welfare Funds v. Akwesasne Const., Inc., No. 0:15-CV-06449ADS-AYS (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2016) 04/06/2016

Court ssued a report and recommendat on stat ng that pet t oner s mot on to conf rm an arb trat on award shou d be granted. Court he d that the award shou d be conf rmed because there was no nd cat on that the award was made arb trar y, that t exceeded the arb trator s author ty, or was otherw se contrary to aw.

Pershing LLC v. Kiebach, No. 15-30396 (5th Cir. Apr. 6, 2016) 04/06/2016

The amount n controversy for estab sh ng d vers ty ur sd ct on over a pet t on to conf rm an arb trat on award s the amount prev ous y sought n the arb trat on proceed ng, e.g. the "demand approach," and not the amount u t mate y awarded by the arb trator.

Sabre GLBL Inc. v. Shan, No. 15-CV-8900 (WJM) (D.N.J. Apr. 6, 2016) 04/06/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on and stay proceed ngs granted. Mot on for exped ted d scovery den ed where such r ght s on y prov ded by the arb trat on agreement n the context of a pre m nary n unct on app cat on, wh ch was not asserted.

Hatemi v. M & T Bank, No. 113-CV-01103 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2016) 04/06/2016

Upon remand from the second c rcu t, court d rects part es to arb trat on and stays the case pend ng the outcome of the arb trat on proceed ngs n ght of second c rcu t s dec s on n Katz v. Ce co P sh p, 794 F.3d 341, 345 (2d C r.), cert. den ed, 136 S. Ct. 596 (2015) that proceed ngs sha be stayed upon app cat on even f a c a ms have been referred to arb trat on. See a so Hatemi v. M & T Bank, No. 14-4338-CV (2d C r. Mar. 4, 2016) D str ct court s order deny ng mot on to compe arb trat on reversed; agreement that nc uded an arb trat on c ause for a ssues re ated to a bank account app ed to the overdraft account, even though the overdraft account had a separate agreement that d d not ncorporate an arb trat on c ause.

Hall v. Pacific Sunwear Stores Corporation, No. 115-CV-14220 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 6, 2016) 04/06/2016

Mot on to d sm ss comp a nt granted w thout pre ud ce to pursue c a ms through arb trat on.

Levi Strauss Co. v. Aqua Dynamics Systems Inc., No. 315-CV-04718-WHO (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) 04/06/2016

Mot ons to d sm ss or stay the case pend ng arb trat on and to d sm ss for sub ect matter ur sd ct on den ed. Arb trat on agreement s ncorporat on of JAMS arb trat on ru es d d not estab sh c ear and unm stakab e de egat on of arb trab ty quest on to arb trator, eav ng court to dec de gateway ssue of nons gnatory stand ng. However, non-gateway ssue of wa ver de egated to arb trator.

Shepardson v. Adecco USA Inc., No. 15-CV-05102-EMC (N.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2016) 04/05/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted, except for those ar s ng under Ca forn a Pr vate Attorney Genera Act of 2004, wh ch are stayed pend ng comp et on of the arb trat on. C ass act on wa ver n the arb trat on agreement was not an un awfu restra nt on p a nt ffs r ght to engage n concerted act v ty under the NLRA because p a nt ff was g ven the opportun ty to opt out.

First Federal Finance Corp. v. Clarrion-Concepcion, No. 14-1522 (D.P.R. Apr. 5, 2016) 04/05/2016

Mot on to vacate arb trat on award den ed and award conf rmed sua sponte by court; arb trator d d not exceed her powers or act n man fest d sregard of the aw. Mot on to mod fy award den ed; app cat on to mod fy award was t me-barred pursuant to 9 USC § 12.

Uzoamaka O. Akpele v. Pacific Life Insurance Company, No. 1:12-CV-02170-WSD (11th Cir. Apr. 5, 2016) 04/05/2016

D str ct court s dec s on to compe arb trat on aff rmed, arb trat on award conf rmed, and mot on for defau t udgment den ed. Under Georg a aw, successor n nterest deemed th rd-party benef c ary bound by arb trat on agreement; exc us on of documents was not "man fest n ust ce" or bad fa th by the arb tra tr buna .

WeWork Companies Inc. v. Zoumer, No. 16-CV-457 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2016) 04/05/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted and act on stayed except for ssues re at ng to appo ntment of arb trator. The fa ure to nc ude spec f c deta s on the procedure of the arb trat on s not fata to the c ause s va d ty. Court ordered part es to attempt to agree so e arb trator, fa ng wh ch, the court wou d do so.

Galilea, LLC v. AGCS Marine Insurance Company, No. CV 15-84-BLG-SPW (D. Mont. Apr. 5, 2016) 04/05/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted n part and den ed n part. The court reta ned ur sd ct on over certa n c a ms because ncorporat on of AAA ru es n arb trat on agreement d d not const tute c ear and unm stakab e ev dence of de egat on of arb trab ty to arb trator where one party s not a soph st cated party for these purposes. Where an arb trat on agreement covers d sputes "ar s ng under" the agreement, court he d that on y those d sputes re at ng to the nterpretat on and performance of the contract tse f are arb trab e.

Spirit Airlines Inc. v. Ass’n of Flight Attendants, No. 15-1821 (6th Cir. Apr. 5, 2016) 04/05/2016

D str ct court s enforcement of the arb tra award and summary udgment aff rmed.

Brian Leighton v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. No. 1:16-CV-20507-KMM (S.D. Fla. Apr. 5, 2016) 04/05/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted pursuant to the Convent on on Recogn t on and Enforcement of Fore gn Arb tra Awards (the New York Convent on).

Hill v. Assuranceforeningen Skuld, No. CV 15-00025 (D. Guam Apr. 4, 2016) 04/04/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted, sub ect to proper serv ce made on the defendant. P a nt ff estopped from seek ng the benef ts of the contract w thout shou der ng ts ob gat ons, nc ud ng the arb trat on agreement.

Biogas, Inc. v. Western Plains Energy LLC, No. 14-1070-SAC (D. Kan. Apr. 4, 2016) 04/04/2016

Mot on to conf rm arb trat on award granted as there were no grounds for vacatur estab shed, nc ud ng no ev dent part a ty by the arb trators.

Ranieri v. Banco Santander SA, No. 2:15-CV-03740 (D. N.J. Apr. 4, 2016) 04/04/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on and d sm ss or stay the act on den ed. Factua amb gu ty of the part es a eged agreement to arb trate requ res d scovery on the quest on of arb trab ty before the court can enterta n the quest on of arb trab ty.

Engle v. Kisco Senior Living LLC, No. 6:15-CV-1819-Orl-40GJK (M.D. Fla Apr. 1, 2016) 04/01/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on and stay case and d scovery den ed. Defendant s not a party to the emp oyment contract conta n ng the arb trat on c ause t a eged app ed.

Solid Q Holdings v. Arenal Energy, No. 2:15-CV-00419-DN (D.Utah Apr. 1, 2016) 04/01/2016

Defendants mot on to compe arb trat on den ed. Court he d that co atera estoppe does not app y to an order deny ng a mot on to compe arb trat on; equ tab e estoppe does not app y because p a nt ff d d not seek the benef t of the contract wh e try ng to avo d the arb trat on c ause; and, the p a nt ff s not a party to, and the c a ms fa outs de of, the arb trat on agreement.

Hamilton Park Health Care Center Ltd. v. 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East, No. 15-2595 (3d Cir. Apr. 1, 2016) 04/01/2016

D str ct court s dec s on deny ng pet t on to vacate arb trat on award aff rmed n part, reversed n part, and remanded. The th rd c rcu t he d that the d str ct court was correct n f nd ng that the arb trator d d not exceed h s author ty by ssu ng a mu t -year award. The arb trator d d however exceed h s author ty by nc ud ng a second generat on nterest arb trat on prov s on s nce the part es had not agreed to such an arrangement; the remedy was contrary to the FAA and the Nat ona Labor Re at ons Act.

Golden Gate Nat’l Senior Care, LLC v. Sulpizio, No. 1:15-CV-00174 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2016) 03/31/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted n part. Arb trat on agreement not unconsc onab e, however, one of the c a ms s not arb trab e under Pennsy van a aw and s therefore proper y before the court.

Soto v. F&M MAFCO, Inc., No. 2014-0024 (D.V.I. Mar. 31, 2016) 03/31/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted, but mot on to d sm ss p a nt ff s c a ms on the mer ts den ed w thout pre ud ce. S nce p a nt ff does not cha enge arb trat on prov s on at ssue spec f ca y, an arb trator w dec de the va d ty of the arb trat on agreement, as we as whether the p a nt ff s other c a ms are sub ect to arb trat on.

International Energy Ventures Mgmt. LLC v. United Energy Group Ltd. No. 14-20552 (5th Cir. Mar. 31, 2016) 03/31/2016

Arb trat on c ause n contract does not act as mp ed consent to persona ur sd ct on.

Bridge v. Credit One Financial, No. 2:14-CV-1512-LDG-NJK (D. Nev. Mar. 31, 2016) 03/31/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted. Wh e p a nt ff was a non-s gnatory to the arb trat on agreement, he s estopped from pursu ng a breach-of-contract c a m wh e s mu taneous y attempt ng to d sregard that same contract s arb trat on c ause.

DTC Engineers and Constructors, LLC v. Empresas Sabaer, No 15-1168 (D.P.R. Mar. 31, 2016) 03/31/2016

Arb tra award conf rmed and respondents mot on to vacate den ed.

Dirocco v. Victory Marketing Agency LLC, No. 215-CV-00552 (M.D. Fla Mar. 31, 2016) 03/31/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted and court act on stayed pend ng comp et on of arb trat on. Issue of whether th s act on shou d proceed to arb trat on on a c ass bas s s subs d ary ssue for the arb trator to determ ne.

Hilton v. Midland Funding LLC, No. 15-10322 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 31, 2016) 03/31/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on of consumer debt co ect on granted because p a nt ff fa ed to show that congress ntended for c a ms under the Fa r Debt Co ect on Pract ces Act to be nonarb trab e and no express prov s on exc ud ng the d spute from the scope of the arb trat on agreement.

Battles v. American Van Lines, Inc., No. 15-CV-62247-BLOOM/Valle (S.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2016) 03/31/2016

Request to vacate udgment aga nst p a nt ff n the under y ng arb trat on under §§ 10(a)(3) and 10(a)(4) of the FAA not warranted; arb trator s d sm ssa of p a nt ff s c a m w th pre ud ce when p a nt ff fa ed to attend the hear ng d d not amount to m sconduct so egreg ous as to warrant vacatur.

Greenberg v. Ameriprise Financial Services Inc., No. 2:15-CV-03589 (E.D.N.Y. March 31, 2016) 03/31/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on and stay act on granted. Court found that the FAA, not state aw, app ed to the act on based upon the d vers ty of c t zensh p of the part es and the events g v ng r se to the d spute and the fact that t concerned nterstate commerce.

OI European Group B.V. v. Venezuela, No. 1:15-CV-02178 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2016) 03/31/2016

Mot on to stay enforcement proceed ngs of an ICSID award granted wh e prov s ona stay mposed by ad hoc ICSID Annu ment Comm ttee rema ned n effect.

Bell v. Ryan Trans. Serv., Inc., No. 2:15-CV-09857-JWL-GEB (D. Kan. Mar. 31, 2016) 03/31/2016

Court granted defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that p a nt ff, a sa es representat ve of a transportat on og st cs f rm, was not a “transportat on worker” as def ned by the FAA and therefore, the FAA s exempt on of a “contracts of emp oyees of seamen, ra road emp oyees, or any other c ass of workers engaged n fore gn or nterstate commerce” d d not app y. Court a so he d that, contrary to p a nt ff s c a ms, certa n d scovery, attorney fee, and conf dent a ty prov s ons from the part es arb trat on agreement do not m t p a nt ff from v nd cat ng h s r ghts under the Fa r Labor Standards Act and were therefore enforceab e.

Bank of England v. Barrett and Barret Financial Group LLC, No. 4:15-CV-00683-SWW (E.D. Ark. Mar. 31, 2016) 03/31/2016

Court granted P a nt ff s mot on to compe arb trat on aga nst both s gnatory and non-s gnatory defendants. Court found a va d and enforceab e arb trat on agreement ex sted on y between p a nt ff and s gnatory defendant. However, because non-s gnatory defendant was w ng to subm t to arb trat on, t was unnecessary to determ ne whether compe ng the non-s gnatory wou d be appropr ate.

Iraq Middle Market Development Foundation v. Mohammad Ali Mohammad Harmoosh, 1:15-CV-01124-GLR (D. Md. Mar. 30, 2016) 03/30/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted; court s d sm ssa of matter was proper because ssue presented was arb trab e.

Rolando Renteria-Camacho v. DIRECTV Inc., No. 14-2529-CM (D. Kan. Mar. 30, 2016) 03/30/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on and stay the act on den ed because defendant wa ved ts r ght to enforce the arb trat on agreement by engag ng w th p a nt ff n another re ated t gat on. Wa ver of the r ght to enforce an arb trat on agreement does not requ re proof of ntent ona re nqu shment or abandonment of a known r ght.

Knatt v. J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-02516 JM(KSC) (S.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2016) 03/30/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted n ght of p a nt ffs agreement to arb trate a d sputes “ar s ng from, re ated to, or asserted after term nat on of emp oyment.”

Garcia-Clara v. AIG Insurance Company, No. 3:15-CV-01784-CCC (D.P.R. Mar. 30, 2016) 03/30/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted; a va d agreement to arb trate was created when the p a nt ff rece ved actua not ce v a ema s express y adv s ng her of the arb trat on agreement and g v ng her 60 days to opt out.

Veve v. OFG Bancorp, No. 3:14-CV-01601-CCC (D.P.R. Mar. 30, 2016) 03/30/2016

Mot on to d sm ss granted; arb trat on agreement n brokerage account of deceased mother was enforceab e aga nst her ch dren as members of the estate.

Kuruwa v. Turner Construction Company, No. 15-761 (2d Cir. Mar. 29, 2016) 03/29/2016

D str ct court s conf rmat on of an arb tra award conf rmed.

Vincent Sealey v. David R. Johanson, No. 3:15-CV-137-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss. Mar. 29, 2016) 03/29/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on den ed because the arb trat on c ause s narrow (cover ng c a ms “ar s ng out of” the agreement) and a narrow arb trat on c ause does not perm t a non-s gnatory to compe arb trat on.

A.K. Ngai, Inc. v. Xu Yong’an, No. 15-00356 LEK-KSC (D. Haw. Mar. 29, 2016) 03/29/2016

Mot on to d sm ss and compe arb trat on granted as to defendant wh ch serv ce had been effected; re evant agreements conta n va d, broad arb trat on c auses that encompass a of p a nt ff s c a ms.

Larsen v. Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-01512-L-MDD (S.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2016) 03/29/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted; court he d that there was a va d arb trat on agreement and the aggregate pract ce of p a nt ff s econom c act v ty substant a y affects nterstate commerce for purposes of § 2 of the FAA.

Jones v. SRHS, Nos. 1:14CV447-LG-RHW, 1:15CV1-LG-RHW, 1:15CV44-LG-RHW (S.D. Miss. Mar. 29, 2016) 03/29/2016

Fo ow ng conso dat on of three putat ve c ass act ons, mot on to compe arb trat on and stay proceed ngs pend ng arb trat on granted w th respect to c a ms brought by non-s gnatory p a nt ffs that re y on equ tab e estoppe doctr ne and den ed w th respect to p a nt ff whose c a ms are based pure y on common aw.

Bailey v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 1:15-CV-2818-AT (N.D. Ga. Mar. 29, 2016) 03/29/2016

Mot on to d sm ss p a nt ff s su t seek ng to vacate arb trat on award granted fo ow ng eva uat on under the FRCP Ru e 12(b)(1) standard and court s conc us on that t acks sub ect matter ur sd ct on over the c a m.

Equitas Disability Advocates, LLC v. Daley, Debofsky & Bryant, P.C., No. 15-611 (RM) (D.D.C. Mar. 29, 2016) 03/29/2016

Mot ons to remand the case to D.C. super or court and vacate the arb trat on award pursuant to D.C. s Rev sed Un form Arb trat on Act were den ed and defendant s mot on to conf rm the award granted.

Jarry v. Allied Cash Advance Virginia LLC, 6:15-CV-00045 (W.D. Va. Mar. 29, 2016) 03/29/2016

Court granted mot on to stay and compe arb trat on, f nd ng the arb trat on agreement va d and enforceab e pursuant to the FAA. Court conc uded that the arb trat on agreement covered the statutory d spute, requ r ng t to be reso ved through arb trat on, and determ ned that the arb trat on costs do not prec ude p a nt ff from v nd cat on of her r ghts.

Citgo Petroleum Corp. v. Lake Charles Metal Trades Council, No. 2:15-CV-01664 (W.D. La. Mar. 29, 2016) 03/29/2016

Court granted summary udgment to emp oyee and un on and aga nst emp oyer who brought act on to vacate arb trat on award. Court he d that, n ght of the “extraord nar y narrow” rev ew of arb tra awards a owed by the LMRA and the FAA, the arb trator acted w th n the scope of h s author ty under the Co ect ve Barga n ng Agreement.

Union de Tronquistas de Puerto Rico, Local 901 v. United Parcel Service, Inc., No. 15-1362 (GAG) (D.P.R. Mar. 28, 2016) 03/28/2016

Arb trat on award conf rmed; an arb trator s nterpretat on of a co ect ve barga n ng agreement must be conf rmed f there s any p aus b e bas s for that nterpretat on w th n the agreement s four corners and arb trator d d not man fest y d sregard Puerto R co aw.

Schrock v. Nomac Drilling, LLC, No. 2:15-CV-1692 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 28, 2016) 03/28/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on den ed; the arb trat on agreement prov des for arb trat on n Ok ahoma and the court acks author ty to order arb trat on outs de ts own ud c a d str ct.

Lezell v. USAA Savings Bank, No. 14-CV-5483 (FB) (PK) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2016) 03/28/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted; the arb trat on addendum at ssue was ncorporated by d rect reference n the ma n cred t card agreements and refers the quest on of whether p a nt ffs c a ms “ar se from” or “re ate to” the r cred t card accounts to the arb trator; agreement to arb trate c a ms does not v o ate p a nt ffs statutory r ghts.

Socoloff v. LRN Corp., No. 13-57064 (9th Cir. Mar. 28, 2016) 03/28/2016

Lower court s dec s on to deny defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on aff rmed where defendant fa ed to produce a s gned copy of the arb trat on agreement, cou d not produce a w tness who observed the p a nt ff s gn ng or return ng the arb trat on agreement, and fa ed to demonstrate va d ncorporat on of the agreement by reference n other documents.

Precision Builders, Inc. v. Olympic Group, LLC, No. 15-30848 (5th Cir. Mar. 28, 2016) 03/28/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on den ed; the court conc uded that defendants had substant a y nvoked the ud c a process and p a nt ff wou d be pre ud ced by an order compe ng arb trat on.

Ecopetrol S.A. v. Offshore Exploration and Production LLC, No. 14-CV-529 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2016) 03/28/2016

Mot on for an order of contempt aga nst respondent and respondent s pr nc pa den ed. An unsat sf ed udgment ar s ng from an nter m arb tra award and a supp ementa nter m arb tra award d d not g ve r se to an order of contempt.

Knaus v. Scottrade, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-03549 (ES)(JAD) (D.N.J. Mar. 28, 2016) 03/28/2016

Defendant s FRCP Ru e 12(b)(6) mot on granted but court cannot compe arb trat on under a Ru e 12(b)(6) mot on because, when the comp a nt s s ent on the ssue of arb trab ty, the court must app y the Ru e 56 summary udgment standard and that standard was not met here.

Dell Webb Communities, Inc. v. Carlson, No. 15-1385 (4th Cir. Mar. 28, 2016) 03/28/2016

D str ct court s conc us on that the thresho d ssue of whether an arb trat on c ause perm ts c ass act on s procedura and shou d be determ ned by the arb trator s reversed, vacated and remanded. Procedura matters ar se on y once the ob gat on to arb trate a matter s estab shed, and the thresho d ssue at hand s re evant to arb trab ty and shou d be determ ned by the court.

Parnell v. Cashcall, Inc., No. 4:14-CV-00024-HLM (N.D. Ga. Mar. 28, 2016) 03/28/2016

Court granted defendant s mot on to stay proceed ngs pend ng the e eventh c rcu t s reso ut on of defendant s appea of the court s order deny ng defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on. Court further den ed w thout pre ud ce p a nt ff s mot on to cert fy a c ass.

Preferred Care of Delaware, Inc. v. Crocker, No. 5:15-CV-0177-TBR (W.D. Ky. Mar. 25, 2016) 03/25/2016

Court, nter a a, den ed p a nt ff s mot on to compe arb trat on and request for pre m nary n unct on aga nst defendant s neg gence c a ms brought n state court. Court he d that attorney- n-fact had author ty to enter arb trat on agreement and cons dered the quest on of whether she entered that arb trat on agreement “free y, vo untar y and know ng y” rre evant. The court a so conc uded that the arb trat on agreement was not one-s ded, d d not ack va d cons derat on and conta ned comp ete and def n te terms.

Rio Tinto Plc. v. Vale S.A., et. al., No. 1:14-CV-03042-RMB (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2016) 03/25/2016

Court aff rmed pr or March 9, 2016 Dec s on and Order of a mag strate udge. See a so Rio Tinto Plc. v. Vale S.A., et. al., No. 1:14-CV-03042-RMB (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2016) U.S. D str ct Court for the Southern D str ct of New York he d that t has the power to mod fy a prev ous y ssued protect ve order and, therefore, approved the request to mod fy that protect ve order to a ow documents to be produced n an LCIA arb trat on.

Brooks v. Field, No. 6:14-CV-2267-BHH (D.S.C. Mar. 25, 2016) 03/25/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on den ed s nce, nter a a, the arb trat on c ause was napp cab e.

Sgouros v. Transunion Corporation, No. 15-1371 (7th Cir. Mar. 25, 2016) 03/25/2016

D str ct court s order deny ng mot on to compe arb trat on aff rmed. Webs te fa ed to prov de user reasonab e not ce that use of the s te const tutes assent to an arb trat on agreement.

Monteverde v. West Palm Beach Food & Beverage, LLC, No. 9:15-CV-81203-Rosenberg/Hopkins (S.D. Fla. Mar. 24, 2016) 03/24/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted; the court he d, nter a a, that arb trat on agreements were va d and can be app ed retroact ve y to c a ms stemm ng from events that occurred pr or to execut on of the arb trat on agreement.

Magnum Gas Pipeline, LLC v. Silver Oak Operating, LLC, No. 11-0056 (W.D. La. Mar. 24, 2016) 03/24/2016

Mot on to enforce a udgment conf rm ng an arb trat on award granted n part and den ed n part; p a nt ff s request for damages under the arb trat on award granted, but request for spec f c performance, where such performance s not express y ordered n the arb trat on award, den ed and must be addressed by a further arb trat on award.

National Casualty Company v. Resolute Reinsurance Company, No. 1:15-CV-9440 (DLC) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2016) 03/24/2016

Pet t on to conf rm arb trat on award granted because, nter a a, the part es arb trat on agreement mp es consent to conf rmat on under § 9 of the FAA.

Jake Mendel v. Morgan Keegan Company Inc., No. 15-12801 (11th Cir. Mar. 23, 2016) 03/23/2016

D str ct court s dec s on to vacate arb tra award on grounds of “ev dent part a ty” of a tr buna member reversed and remanded. Court found that d str ct court ncorrect y re ed on the A abama Supreme Court s nterpretat on of 9 USC § 10(a)(2), rather than app y ng b nd ng C rcu t precedent and that p a nt ff had not met th s court s narrow ev dent part a ty standard. S nce p a nt ff s a egat on that there was an actua conf ct cou d not be cons dered for the f rst t me on appea , the award cou d on y be vacated f the arb trator knew of, but fa ed to d sc ose, a potent a conf ct. P a nt ff fa ed to show th s was the case.

Dillon v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., No. 1:13-CV-00897 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 23, 2016) 03/23/2016

Court den ed mot on to compe arb trat on because defendant fa ed to offer cred b e, adm ss b e ev dence prov ng a va d agreement to arb trate ex sted. The test mony and documents presented, nc ud ng p a nt ff s conf rmat on that persona nformat on shown on the proffered oan agreement was accurate, were not enough to show how the document was created and prove that there was mutua assent to the arb trat on prov s on.

Alarcon v. Vital Recovery Services, Inc., No. 15CV992-LAB (KSC) (S.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2016) 03/22/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted and p a nt ff s su t d sm ssed because, nter a a, p a nt ff s pr or success n t gat on brought by the or g na ender d d not ext ngu sh a r ghts under the oan agreement n ght of the arb trat on r der surv va c ause.

GCIU-Employer Retirement Fund v. Quad/Graphics, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00100-ODW (AFMx) (C.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2016) 03/22/2016

Mot on to d sm ss or stay pend ng arb trat on granted w th respect to the c a ms that had been suff c ent y p eaded; p a nt ff granted eave to amend p ead ng for c a m p eaded w thout suff c ent support ng facts.

Miceli v. Citigroup, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-01962-GMN-VCF (D. Nev. Mar. 22, 2016) 03/22/2016

Mot on to stay a pre-tr a ob gat ons ( nc ud ng d scovery) pend ng the court s dec s on on mot on to compe arb trat on granted; when cons der ng a mot on to compe arb trat on a federa court “may cons der on y ssues re at ng to the mak ng and performance of the agreement to arb trate.”

Hopper v. American Arbitration Association, No. 2:16-CV-01124-RGK-AGR (C.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2016) 03/22/2016

Court granted defendants mot on to d sm ss, f nd ng that p a nt ff s c a ms were barred by arb tra mmun ty. P a nt ff argued that the AAA fa ed to prov de a neutra arb trator because, accord ng to an art c e n the New York T mes and the Emp oyee R ghts and Emp oyment Pract ce Journa , arb trators are not neutra because they unfa r y favor b g corporat ons. Court exp a ned that arb trat on proceed ngs requ re the need for ndependent udgments free from fear of ega act on, and so the Ca forn a and federa courts have he d that an arb trator and h s or her sponsor ng organ zat on are mmune from ab ty for “part a ty” or b as.

Sutherland Global Services, Inc. v. Adam Technologies International SA de C.V., No. 12-CV-06439 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2016) 03/21/2016

In ght of the second c rcu t s aff rmat on of the court s dec s on and order conf rm ng an arb trat on award n favor of the p a nt ff, court granted p a nt ff s mot on to compe responses to ts postudgment d scovery demands on the defendant pursuant to FRCP Ru e 69. See a so Sutherland Global Services Inc. v. Adam Technologies International SA de C.V., No. 15-1063-CV (2d C r. Feb. 9, 2016) D str ct court s order conf rm ng an arb trat on award aff rmed.

Unison Co., Ltd. v. Juhl Energy Development Inc., No. 13-CV-3342 (ADM/JJK) (D. Minn. Mar. 21, 2016) 03/21/2016

Mot on to compe comp ance w th an arb tra tr buna s d sc osure orders pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 7 den ed. Defendants request to the court went far af e d of the powers ava ab e under 9 U.S.C. § 7 s nce the arb tra tr buna had not ordered a w tness to appear at a hear ng or ssued a f na dec s on on the d sc osure of documents.

Allstate Insurance Co. v. Toll Brothers, No. 5:15-CV-05225 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 21, 2016) 03/21/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted as to defendant who had arb trat on agreement w th p a nt ff; but subcontractors were not th rd-party benef c ar es and the p a nt ff cannot be forced to arb trate c a ms aga nst them.

City of Benkelman, Nebraska v. Baseline Engineering Corporation, No. 7:15CV5003 (D. Neb. Mar. 21, 2016) 03/21/2016

Mot on to d sm ss granted; arb trat on agreement s enforceab e under Co orado aw and therefore c a ms must be subm tted to arb trat on.

Khraibut v.Chahal, No. C15-04463 CRB (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2016) 03/18/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted and case stayed; ncorporat on of AAA arb trat on ru es de egates dec s on on arb trab ty to arb trators.

Hall v. IKEA Property Inc., No. 14-12706 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 17, 2016) 03/17/2016

Th rd-party defendant d sm ssed as party because defendant s c a ms aga nst t were sub ect to a va d arb trat on agreement.

Magruder v. Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC, No. 15-1846 (7th Cir. Mar. 17, 2016) 03/17/2016

Lower court s udgment n favor of defendant s app cat on to enforce arb trator s order vacated and remanded; ower court d d not have d vers ty or federa -quest on ur sd ct on over act on.

Smagin v. Yegiazaryan, No. CV 14-9764-R (C.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2016) 03/17/2016

App cat on for summary udgment and conf rmat on of an LCIA arb trat on award granted under the New York Convent on; pet t on and support ng ev dence estab shed that the arb tra award was f na and enforceab e and that the arb tra tr buna had ur sd ct on over the part es and the d spute.

Siddiqua v. New York State Dep’t of Health, No. 15-2702 (2d Cir. Mar. 16, 2016) 03/16/2016

C rcu t court reversed d str ct court to ho d that arb trat on proceed ngs regard ng contractua c a ms under a co ect ve barga n ng agreement ne ther prec uded a Fa r Management Labor Act su t n federa court on subsequent statutory c a ms ar s ng under federa aw, nor an emp oyee s attempts to vacate an arb trat on award n state court where her contractua r ghts under the co ect ve barga n ng agreement were d st nct y separate n nature from ndependent, congress ona y-prov ded statutory r ghts.

Bowers v. Northern Two Cayes Co. Ltd., No. 1:15-CV-00029-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C. Mar. 15, 2016) 03/15/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted as the arb trat on agreement s va d; defendant s mot on to d sm ss den ed as premature. Part es d rected to confer and agree upon an arb trator.

Casa del Caffe Vergnano S.p.A. v. Italflavors, LLC, No. 13-56091 (9th Cir. Mar. 15, 2016) 03/15/2016

Order grant ng a pet t on to compe arb trat on reversed. The under y ng contract d d not const tute a b nd ng agreement under federa common aw because there was no mutua ntent on to be bound and no more than a sham agreement ex sted, thus eav ng the arb trat on agreement there n unenforceab e.

Trustees for The Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. Earth Construction Corp., No. 15-CV-3967 (RA) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2016) 03/15/2016

Pet t on to conf rm and enforce arb trat on award granted; court he d that app y ng the “very m ted rev ew” was appropr ate, there s no genu ne ssue of mater a fact and pet t oners are ent t ed to udgment as a matter of aw.

Western Security Bank v. Schneider Ltd. Partnership, No. 15-35617 (9th Cir. Mar. 14, 2016) 03/14/2016

Appea d sm ssed; nter ocutory appea not appropr ate because court acks ur sd ct on where the mot on to stay was not seek ng to have ssues exc us ve y dec ded by an arb trator, and on y sought a stay not to compe arb trat on.

HEI Investments, LLC v. Black Diamond Capital Appreciation Fund, LP, No. 15-746 (ES) (MAH) (D.N.J. Mar. 14, 2016) 03/14/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on den ed; further factua deve opment requ red s nce arb trab ty not apparent on the face of comp a nt.

Steele v. Citibank, N.A., No. 2:15-CV-01618-TFM (W.D. Pa. Mar. 14, 2016) 03/14/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on den ed as t was not c ear on the face of the comp a nt whether p a nt ff agreed to arb trate; m ted d scovery on whether there s a va d arb trat on agreement ordered.

Gross v. GGNSC Southaven, Nos. 15-60124, 15-60248 (5th Cir. Mar. 14, 2016) 03/14/2016

Pr or orders of the d str ct court deny ng mot on to compe arb trat on vacated and remanded for further proceed ngs.

Parnell v. Cashcall, Inc., No. 4:14-CV-00024 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 14, 2016) 03/14/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on and stay or d sm ss proceed ngs den ed. Court he d p a nt ff s cha enge of the de egat on prov s on w th n the arb trat on c ause as vo d and unenforceab e a ows the court to ad ud cate whether the prov s on s va d under § 2 of the FAA. Court a so he d the arb trat on c ause s genera y unenforceab e because the Cheyenne R ver S oux Tr be, as the chosen forum and source of app cab e ru es, was ntegra to the agreement to arb trate and nva d because the Tr be does not have d spute ru es.

Davis v. Lendmark Financial Services, LLC, No. 7:15-CV-000131 (W.D. Va. Mar. 11, 2016) 03/11/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on den ed; s nce t s d sputed whether p a nt ff saw offer etter that nc uded arb trat on agreement, a ury tr a s proper to determ ne th s mater a fact n d spute.

Albaniabeg Ambient SH.P.K. v. Enel S.P.A. and Enelpower S.P.A., No. 1:15-CV-03283-PGG (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2016) 03/11/2016

Mot on to remand act on to the state court granted; 9 U.S.C. § 203 and the New York Convent on do not prov de sub ect matter ur sd ct on over act ons to enforce a fore gn court s udgment, even where a party contends that the fore gn court s udgment s ncons stent w th an ear er arb trat on award or an agreement to arb trate.

Maple Leaf Adventures Corp. v. Jet Tern Marine Co. Ltd., No. 15-CV-02504-AJB-BGS (S.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2016) 03/11/2016

Order deny ng pet t on to conf rm arb tra award under the New York Convent on den ed based on pet t oner s nab ty to estab sh a pr ma fac e show ng of the court s genera ur sd ct on over respondent. Pet t oner s request to conduct ur sd ct ona d scovery aga nst respondent s non-party subs d ary granted.

National Indemnity Company v. IRB Brasil Resseguros S.A., No. 15 Civ. 3975 (NRB) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2016) 03/10/2016

Court granted pet t on to conf rm three awards, f nd ng, nter a a, no "ev dent part a ty" of an ump re so as to warrant vacatur.

Yancey & Jamieson, Inc. v. Mapp Construction, L.L.C., No. 3:14-00413-JWD-EWD (M.D. La. Mar. 10, 2016) 03/10/2016

Mot on to vacate arb tra award den ed; p a nt ff fa ed to meet ts burden under the Lou s ana B nd ng Arb trat on Law to show that tru y re evant ev dence was gnored or that arb trators exceeded the r powers; the award s suff c ent y def n te; there s no ev dence of gross unfa rness.

Bentley v. EFN West Palm Motor Sales, LLC, No. 9:16-CV-80453-KAM (S.D. Fla. March 10, 2016) 03/10/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on, ho d ng that the arb trat on agreement was not procedura y or substant ve y unconsc onab e. Court found that the arb trat on agreement was a short, eg b e document, w th room underneath for emp oyee s s gnature, wh ch express y stated that acceptance was not a prerequ s te to cont nued emp oyment and gave emp oyee an opt on to opt out of arb trat on for T t e VII c a ms. Court found that that s ence as to costs, or the mere r sk of proh b t ve costs w thout a non-specu at ve est mate, was nsuff c ent to render the agreement substant ve y unconsc onab e.

Rogers v. Ausdal Financial Partners, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-12899-FDS (D. Mass. Mar. 9, 2016) 03/09/2016

Mot on to vacate arb trat on award den ed and cross-mot on to enforce arb trat on award granted. The ssues n d spute do not fa w th n one of the narrow statutory grounds that perm t an arb trat on award to be overturned.

Thai-Lao Lignite (Thailand) Co. Ltd. v. Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic, No. 10-CV-5256 (KMW) (DCF) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2016) 03/09/2016

Pet t oner s mot on for eave to commence execut on and d scovery n a d of ts ear er sanct ons order aga nst respondent den ed. Respondent was ent t ed to nvoke ts statutory set off r ght n respect of ts sanct on ob gat ons w thout f rst obta n ng a udgment from a US court.

Rio Tinto Plc. v. Vale S.A., No. 1:14-CV-03042-RMB (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2016) 03/09/2016

Court he d t has the power to mod fy a prev ous y ssued protect ve order and, therefore, approved defendant s request to mod fy that protect ve order to a ow documents to be produced n an LCIA arb trat on. See a so Rio Tinto Plc. v. Vale S.A., No. 1:14-CV-03042-RMB (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2016) Court aff rmed pr or March 9, 2016 dec s on and order of a mag strate udge.

Reed v. Johnson, No. 4:14-CV-176-SA-JMV (N.D. Miss. Mar. 9, 2016) 03/09/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted; the arb trat on agreement was not procedura y unconsc onab e under M ss ss pp aw. See a so Reed v. Johnson, No. 4:14CV176-SA-JMV (N.D. M ss. Jan. 4, 2016) Mot on to compe arb trat on he d n abeyance unt court can comp ete a tr a on ssue of whether p a nt ff s gned the arb trat on agreement.

TGI Systems Corp. v. Jens Giessler, No. 15 C 4341 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 8, 2016) 03/08/2016

Defendants mot on to d sm ss den ed. Defendants may not seek advantages of arb trat on agreement to wh ch they are non-s gnator es and have not estab shed any of the except ons for nons gnator es.

Navarette v. Silversea Cruises Ltd., No. 1:14-CV-20593 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2016) 03/07/2016

Court granted cross-mot on to conf rm nternat ona arb trat on award, deny ng pet t on to set the award as de. Court re ected argument that award offended US pub c po cy, d sagree ng w th the ega nterpretat on of a Jones Act ssue urged by p a nt ff and ho d ng that p a nt ff cou d not meet the h gh thresho d mposed by the FAA, regard ess. It noted that “even f the Court d sagreed w th the resu t, the f nd ng . . . does not so offend pub c po cy that t shou d be set as de because [a]n arb trator s resu t may be wrong; t may appear unsupported; t may appear poor y reasoned; t may appear foo sh. Yet, t may not be sub ect to court nterference. ”

Dillon v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., No. 1:13-CV-00897-CCF-LPA (M.D.N.C. Mar. 4, 2016) 03/04/2016

Court den ed mot on to d sm ss n favor of arb trat on, f nd ng that contract conta ns prov s ons that “convert a cho ce of aw c ause nto a cho ce of no aw c ause” and that “f at y and categor ca y renounce the author ty of the federa statutes to wh ch [the defendant] s and must rema n sub ect.”

Fusco v. Plastic Surgery Center, P.A., No. 2:15-CV-460-DBH (D. Me. Mar. 4, 2016) 03/04/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted; even though two of the part es may or may not be a party to the arb trat on agreement as agents, n the nterest of ud c a economy, the c a ms aga nst those two part es were stayed pend ng arb trat on.

Hatemi v. M & T Bank, No. 14-4338-CV (2d Cir. Mar. 4, 2016) 03/04/2016

D str ct court s order deny ng mot on to compe arb trat on reversed; agreement that nc uded an arb trat on c ause for a ssues re ated to a bank account app ed to the overdraft account, even though the overdraft account had a separate agreement that d d not ncorporate an arb trat on c ause. See a so Hatemi v. M & T Bank, No. 113-CV-01103 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2016) Upon remand from the second c rcu t, court d rects part es to arb trat on and stays the case pend ng the outcome of the arb trat on proceed ngs n ght of second c rcu t s dec s on n Katz v. Ce co P sh p, 794 F.3d 341, 345 (2d C r.), cert. den ed, 136 S. Ct. 596 (2015) that proceed ngs sha be stayed upon app cat on even f a c a ms have been referred to arb trat on.

Vargas v. Delivery Outsourcing, LLC, No. 15-CV-03408-JST (N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2016) 03/03/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted. FAA exempt on for nterstate transportat on workers does not app y and arb trab ty s for the court because, desp te c ear anguage de egat ng arb trab ty, the ssue s made amb guous by other anguage n the agreement.

Superior Energy Services, LLC v. Cabinda Gulf Oil Company Limited, No. 4:13-CV-02056-PJH (9th Cir. Mar. 3, 2016) 03/03/2016

Den a of appe ant s pet t on to compe arb trat on reversed and remanded for entry of an order compe ng arb trat on; under Ca forn a aw the appe ant was a proper th rd-party benef c ary perm tted to enforce the arb trat on agreement at ssue.

Epic Diving & Marine Services LLC v. Ranger Offshore Inc., No. 4:16-CV-386 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2016) 03/03/2016

Request for pre m nary n unct on to freeze assets of the respondent pend ng the c a mant s app cat on to conf rm an arb trat on award granted; p a nt ff d rected to post a bond (or cash n eu of the bond) before the order became effect ve.

ASARCO, LLC v. United Steel, No. CV-15-117-PHX-SMM (D. Ariz. Mar. 3, 2016) 03/03/2016

Mot on to conf rm arb trat on award granted; p a nt ff d d not wa ve ts argument that arb trator acked ur sd ct on.

Guevara v. Seton Med. Ctr., No. 13-17457 (9th Cir. Mar. 3, 2016) 03/03/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed d str ct court d sm ssa of act on where, amongst other reasons, emp oyee fa ed to exhaust b nd ng arb trat on gr evance procedures set forth n her contractua barga n ng agreement w th her un on.

Taylor v. Pilot Corp., 2:14-CV-02294-SHL-TMP (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 3, 2016) 03/03/2016

D str ct court den ed defendants mot on on arb trat on seek ng to mod fy ts prev ous order grant ng p a nt ffs mot on for cond t ona c ass cert f cat on. Court he d that, wh e defendants d d not wa ve the r r ght to compe arb trat on as to those putat ve c ass members who s gned arb trat on agreements, the ex stence of s gned arb trat on agreements does not a ter the potent a c ass encompassed by the court s or g na cert f cat on order.

Unión De Tronquistas De Puerto Rico, Local 901 v. United Parcel Service, Inc., No. 3:15–CV-01362 (D.P.R. March 2, 2016) 03/02/2016

Mot on for summary udgment d sm ss ng pet t on for rev ew of arb trat on award granted and arb trat on award aff rmed. A though p a nt ff cast the grounds for vacatur as man fest d sregard of the aw, court found that the comp a nt actua y a eged factua and ega error by the arb trator, wh ch the court s not empowered to rev ew.

Lutin Investments Ltd. v. Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, No. 12-CV-5191 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2016) 03/02/2016

Court had prev ous y entered an order of d sm ssa fo ow ng the part es sett ement agreement concern ng enforcement of French udgment of an arb tra award. Pet t oner s subsequent mot on to vacate order of d sm ssa , under FRCP Ru e 60(b) on the bas s that the sett ement agreement was entered nto w thout author ty and under duress, was den ed.

Apple Inc. v. BYD Co. Ltd., No. 15-CV-04985-RS (N.D.Cal. Mar. 2, 2016) 03/02/2016

App cat on to compe arb trat on granted; an agency re at onsh p ex sted between the non-s gnatory respondent and the s gnatory respondent and both were therefore bound by the arb trat on agreement that encompassed the part es d spute.

Nelson v. Watch House Int’l, L.L.C., No. 15-10531 (5th Cir. Mar. 2, 2016) 03/02/2016

D str ct court s grant of defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on reversed and remanded. Appe ate court he d that under Texas aw the defendant s un atera ab ty to term nate the arb trat on agreement w thout advance not ce to the p a nt ff renders the arb trat on agreement usory and unenforceab e. Taft v. Henley Enterprises, Inc., No. 8:15-CV-01658-JLS-JCG (C.D. Ca . Mar. 2, 2016) 03/02/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on of c a ms that d d not fa under a part cu ar statute and stayed proceed ngs. Court he d that the part es d spute was sub ect to a va d arb trat on agreement, re ect ng p a nt ff s content on that defendants were requ red to authent cate her s gnature as a thresho d matter and f nd ng that the agreement was suff c ent y broad to cover p a nt ff s c a ms. Court re ected arguments that the agreement was procedura y unconsc onab e because t was an emp oyment contract of adhes on that had not attached the app cab e arb trat on ru es or that t was substant ve y unconsc onab e because t perm tted fee-sh ft ng, prec uded ud c a rev ew, requ red wr tten not ce of arb trat on c a ms, and requ red arb trat on of certa n c a ms. W th respect to the ast argument, Court he d that to the extent such c a ms were requ red to be t gated by aw, the prov s on was severab e from the rest of the arb trat on agreement and that any such c a ms wou d be stayed pend ng arb trat on.

Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. v. Fryar, No. 1:15CV591 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 1, 2016) 03/01/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on den ed; the arb trat on agreement c ear y stated that d sputes over the re evant ssue were not to be arb trated.

Gragg v. ITT Technical Institute, No. 14-3315 (C.D. Ill. Feb. 29, 2016) 02/29/2016

Mot on to d sm ss or n the a ternat ve to compe arb trat on granted; p a nt ffs must f e for arb trat on to pursue c a ms; a ssues, nc ud ng arb trab ty, are w th n the scope of a va d arb trat on agreement.

GGNSC Louisville Hillcreek, LLC v. Watkins, No. 3:15-CV-902-DJH (W.D. Ky. Feb. 29, 2016) 02/29/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted; a va d arb trat on agreement ex sts and covers a c a ms asserted by defendant.

CEEG (Shanghai) Solar Science and Technology Co. Ltd. v. Sunvalley Solar Inc., No. 2:15-CV-07339-PSG (C.D. Cal. Feb. 29, 2016) 02/29/2016

Judgment entered n favor of pet t oner s mot on to conf rm arb tra award ssued by Shangha Internat ona Econom c and Trade Arb trat on Comm ss on.

Merkin v. Vonage America, Inc., No. 14-55397 (9th Cir. Feb. 29, 2016) 02/29/2016

Order of the d str ct court deny ng defendant-appe ant s mot on to compe arb trat on reversed and remanded w th nstruct ons to grant the mot on. The FAA preempts state- aw defenses and the defense re ed upon by p a nt ffs to res st arb trat on s such a defense.

Odeon Capital Grp., LLC v. Ackerman., No. 1:16-CV-00274-JSR (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 29, 2016) 02/29/2016

Court den ed mot on to remand. Court he d that d vers ty of c t zensh p s assessed on the date the mot on to vacate s f ed, not the date that the under y ng arb trat on commenced. S nce the part es were d verse on the date the mot on was f ed, federa ur sd ct on ex sted.

Escobar v. Garden Fresh Rest. Corp., No. 8:15-CV-01825-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2016) 02/26/2016

Court den ed mot on to compe arb trat on. Court reasoned that even though P a nt ff had s gned an arb trat on agreement, he wou d be exempt from ts app cat on f he was a “transportat on worker” under § 1 of the FAA, wh ch exc udes such persons from the FAA s coverage. Court he d that a genu ne quest on of fact ex sted on th s po nt and shou d be dec ded by a ury.

Smalls v. Labor Ready Mid-Atlantic, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-293-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C. Feb. 26, 2016) 02/26/2016

Mag strate udge recommended that a mot on to compe arb trat on be granted and a mot on to d sm ss be den ed. Mag strate udge found that when p a nt ff app ed for emp oyment w th Labor Ready, a subs d ary of TrueB ue, he agreed to arb trate a c a ms ar s ng out of or re at ng to h s emp oyment and the app cat on for that emp oyment. Mag strate udge further he d that the parent company cou d enforce the arb trat on prov s on even f t was not a s gnatory to the agreement.

Later Link Croup Co-Op, LLC v. Turley, No. 2:16-CV-01096-BRO-GJS (C.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2016) 02/26/2016

Court den ed p a nt ff s ex parte app cat on for a temporary restra n ng order. Court found an arb trat on agreement, wh ch exempted c a ms for n unct ve re ef, was not unconsc onab e and he d the c a m for n unct ve re ef was exempted from the part es agreement to arb trate.

Mountain Valley Property, Inc. v. Applied Risk Services, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-187-DBH (D. Me. Feb. 25, 2016) 02/25/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted and act on stayed as to defendant as we as to two other defendants not nc uded n arb trat on. Even though state aw proh b ted arb trat on of the type at ssue, c ear and unm stakab e anguage de egat ng the ssue meant arb trab ty was for the arb trator to dec de.

Bowles v. Receivables Performance, No. 1:15-CV-04991 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 24, 2016) 02/24/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted. Issues n d spute are w th n contemp ated scope of arb trat on agreement, and a though a non-s gnatory to the arb trat on agreement defendant was act ng as ass gnee and agent, wh ch gave t stand ng to enforce arb trat on agreement.

Lower Colorado River Authority v. Papalote Creek II, LLC, No. A-15-CA-656-SS (W.D. Tex. Feb. 24, 2016) 02/24/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted; the part es agreed to arb trate the d spute n quest on and there are no ega constra nts externa to the part es that forec ose arb trat ng the d spute. See a so Lower Colorado River Authority v. Papalote Creek II LLC, No. 115-CV-00656 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 22, 2016) Mot on to stay arb trat on pend ng appea den ed. Defendant d d not show t was ke y to succeed on the mer ts, r peness s an ssue for the arb trator and a stay wou d on y de ay the reso ut on of that r peness quest on.

ISMT, Ltd. v. Fremak Industries, Inc., No. 15–2086 (2d Cir. Feb. 24, 2016) 02/24/2016

Court aff rms d str ct court s conf rmat on of arb tra award, f nd ng that cha enge of award does not meet burden to vacate award.

Exec. Home Care Franchising LLC v. Marshall Health Corp., No. 15-1887 (3d Cir. Feb. 23, 2016) 02/23/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed d str ct court s ru ng deny ng mot on for a pre m nary n unct on where p a nt ff had fa ed to estab sh t wou d suffer rreparab e harm. C rcu t court he d that the d str ct court d d not comm t revers b e error by cont nu ng to deny a request for a pre m nary n unct on after the part es f ed a c a m w th the AAA and a part es agreed to arb trate a c a ms, even where defendants may have agreed that p a nt ff wou d be ent t ed to the pre m nary n unct on f t estab shed a substant a ke hood of breach or threatened breach of a franch se agreement.

TCMS Transparent Beauty, LLC v. Silvernail, No. A-15-CV-926 LY (W.D. Tex. Feb. 22, 2016) 02/22/2016

Mot on to conf rm arb trat on award granted. Part es need not express y consent to ud c a conf rmat on of the award f the contract conta ns a prov s on stat ng that the award s f na , b nd ng, and non-appea ab e; cross-mot on to vacate award he d unt me y, pursuant to the FAA a party must cha enge an award w th n the three-months of t be ng ssued.

Hyundai Merchant Marine Co., Ltd. v. ConGlobal Industries, LLC, No. 3:15-CV-3576-G (N.D. Tex. Feb. 22, 2016) 02/22/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on den ed; the purported arb trat on c ause was a cho ce-of- aw and forum se ect on c ause.

Crescendo Maritime Co. v. Bank of Communications Co. Ltd., No. 15 Civ. 4481 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2016) 02/22/2016

Pet t on to conf rm three arb tra awards under the New York Convent on granted. D sm ssa on forum non conven ens not warranted, and wh e the presence of a defendant s property w th n a court s ur sd ct on s genera y nsuff c ent to a ow the court to hear c a ms aga nst the defendant unre ated to that property, an except on app es where a pet t oner seeks to recover on a udgment a ready ad ud cated n a forum w th persona ur sd ct on over the respondent.

Vican, Inc. v. Incipio Technologies, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-2720-L (N.D. Tex. Feb. 19, 2016) 02/19/2016

Mag strate udge s report recommend ng that mot on to compe arb trat on be granted adopted by court, but court re ects mag strate s f nd ng that a stay s appropr ate because the court may d sm ss the act on w th pre ud ce when a c a ms are sub ect to arb trat on.

Masso-Torrellas v. Municipality of Toa Alta, No. 15-1522 (PAD) (D.P.R. Feb. 19, 2016) 02/19/2016

Mot on to d sm ss granted; a though the agreement n quest on ca s for med at on, t s arb trat on n everyth ng but name.

Rune v. Masimo Corp., Nos. 14-55556, 14-55725 (9th Cir. Feb. 19, 2016) 02/19/2016

D str ct court s order vacat ng arb trat on award reversed; because the arb trator d d not fa to d sc ose nformat on that creates a reasonab e mpress on of b as, there was no ev dent part a ty.

McMullen v. Synchrony Bank, No. 14-1983 (JEB) (D.D.C.., Feb. 19, 2016) 02/19/2016

Court den ed mot on to compe arb trat on. App y ng D str ct of Co umb a aw, court he d that defendant had not prov ded suff c ent ev dence to support a f nd ng that there was a meet ng of m nds regard ng an enforceab e arb trat on agreement.

Johnson v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. d/b/a Norwegian Cruise Line, No. 2:15-CV-04400-NJB-DEK (E.D. La. Feb. 19, 2016) 02/19/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on and stay proceed ngs and den ed mot on to remand. Court he d that the Jones Act c a ms at ssue cou d be removed pursuant to the New York Convent on, wh ch app es to the arb trat on c ause n p a nt ff s emp oyment agreement, and any argument that the arb trat on c ause may be vo d as a matter of pub c po cy s premature.

Cline v. Etsy, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-2115-JCM-VCF (D. Nev. Feb. 19, 2016) 02/19/2016

Mag strate udge recommended that defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on be granted because Etsy s Terms of Use, a “c ck-wrap” contract that p a nt ff had agreed to, nc uded a va d arb trat on c ause. Mag strate udge noted that, desp te term nat on of Etsy s agreement w th C ne, Etsy s Terms of Use had a surv va prov s on and therefore the arb trat on and forum-se ect on c auses were st enforceab e. F na y, because C ne s copyr ght nfr ngement c a ms were w th n the scope of Etsy s arb trat on prov s on, p a nt ff was bound to arb trate her copyr ght nfr ngement c a ms aga nst Etsy.

Chicago Regional Council of Carpenters v. Resnick, No. 1:15-CV-07614-EEB (N.D. Ill. Feb. 19, 2016) 02/19/2016

Court granted defendant s mot on to d sm ss and den ed p a nt ff s mot on to d sm ss. Court he d defendant was not the rea party n nterest n the d spute for Count I of the comp a nt as a c a m ntended to determ ne f an arb tra body has author ty to proceed s n one n wh ch the body has no rea nterest. Court further he d there was no reason to d sm ss an n unct ve c a m aga nst p a nt ff at the p ead ng stage for fa ure to estab sh essent a e ements regard ng whether the agreement requ res b nd ng arb trat on and the d spute at ssue s sub ect to t.

Jewelry Repair Enterprises, Inc. v. Son Le Enterprises, Inc., No. 9:15-CV-81622-Bloom/Valle (S.D. Fla. Feb. 18, 2016) 02/18/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on den ed; even though a va d arb trat on agreement ex sted, the ssues were not w th n the scope of the agreement.

Sierra v. Oakley Sales Corp., No. 8:13–CV-00319 (9th Cir. Feb. 18, 2016) 02/18/2016

D str ct court order grant ng mot on to compe arb trat on reversed on the grounds that the FAA does not preempt a Ca forn a ru e that an emp oyee s r ght to br ng a Pr vate Attorney Genera Act act on s non-wa vab e. Case remanded to d str ct court to determ ne whether arb trat on agreement at ssue s enforceab e.

Al Rushaid v. National Oilwell Varco Inc., No. 15-20260 (5th Cir. Feb. 17, 2016) 02/17/2016

Appea from the d str ct court d sm ssed; the court acked ur sd ct on to cons der an appea of an nter ocutory order where the ower court compe ed arb trat on, a be t not n the appe ant s preferred arb tra forum.

InterDigital Comm., Inc. v. Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd., No. 15-CV-4485 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2016) 02/17/2016

Court stayed pet t on for an order conf rm ng an ICC arb trat on award rendered n Par s where annu ment proceed ngs before the Par s Cour d Appe were pend ng. Court found that tt e de ay wou d resu t from awa t ng a dec s on n the French annu ment act on and deferr ng a dec s on n th s proceed ng m ght avo d ncons stent resu ts.

Bayer CropScience v. Dow AgroSciences, No. 2:12-CV-47 (E.D. Va. Feb. 17, 2016) 02/17/2016

Mot on to amend court s pr or udgment re ected. The arb trat on award under y ng the udgment set forth the manner by wh ch post award nterest sha accrue, and the court wou d not subst tute a statutory rate where the part es agreed to b nd ng arb trat on and the resu tant award, nc ud ng ts determ nat on on post award nterest, was conf rmed. See a so Bayer CropScience AG v. Dow AgroSciences LLC, No. 2:12-CV-47 (E.D. Va. Jan. 15, 2016) P a nt ff s mot on to conf rm an ICC arb trat on award granted and defendants mot on to vacate the arb trat on award and stay the proceed ngs den ed. The court he d the award must be conf rmed absent extraord nary c rcumstances.

Dent v. Encana Oil & Gas Inc., No. 1:15-CV-01800-CMA (D. Colo. Feb. 17, 2016) 02/17/2016

Court granted n part and den ed n part mot on to compe arb trat on. Court found that the arb trat on c ause s gned by the part es author zed the arb trator to nterpret the agreement and determ ne whether t perm ts p a nt ff s co ect ve and c ass act ons c a ms to proceed n arb trat on.

Patriot Oilfield Services, LLC v. Greenhunter Water, LLC, No. 1:15CV32 (N.D. W.Va. Feb. 16, 2016) 02/16/2016

Mot on to d sm ss granted; court found t prudent to grant the mot on to d sm ss based on mproper venue.

HTG Capital Partners, LLC v. John Doe 1, A, B, and C, No. 15 C 02129 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 2016) 02/16/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted and act on d sm ssed w thout pre ud ce; a part es were party to arb trat on agreement; s nce arb trat on agreement nc udes anonym ty prov s on, court a so grants mot on to proceed anonymous y as to court act on, but arb trator to dec de on anonym ty for the arb trat on proceed ng.

Scottsdale Insurance Co. v. John Deere Insurance Co., No. 2:15-CV-15-00671-PHX-PGR (D. Ariz. Feb. 16, 2016) 02/16/2016

Mot on to correct arb trat on award den ed, cross-mot on to conf rm award granted. S nce an error s not obv ous, the court wou d have to engage n mperm ss b e specu at on to reach a conc us on that there s a m sca cu at on. Totten v. Kellog Brown & Root LLC, No. 5:15-CV-01876-ODW-KK (C.D. Ca . Feb. 16, 2016) 02/16/2016

Court granted n part and den ed n part mot on to compe arb trat on, f nd ng that arb trat on agreement that exc uded T t e VII c a ms d d not exc ude s m ar state aw c a ms, and was ne ther procedura y or substant ve y unconsc onab e.

Bernard v. Kabco Builders, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-02023 (W.D. La. Feb. 12, 2016) 02/12/2016

Mag strate Judge recommended, and court ater granted defendants f rst and supp ementa mot ons to compe arb trat on, f nd ng that there were va d arb trat on agreements that covered a of p a nt ff s c a ms. Court found: (1) that the federa Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act does not proh b t b nd ng arb trat on of express warranty c a ms and therefore one of the arb trat on agreements at ssue was va d; and (2) a second arb trat on agreement n quest on was not adhes onary because none of the factors taken nto cons derat on (phys ca character st cs, non-concea ment of the agreement, mutua ty, and re at ve d fference n barga n ng pos t ons) were nd cat ve of such an agreement.

Bynum v. Maplebear, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-06263-JBW-CLP (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2016) 02/12/2016

Court granted mot on to compe arb trat on and stayed proceed ngs, f nd ng that arb trat on agreement s venue, fee-sp tt ng, and fee-shar ng prov s ons were unconsc onab e but severab e.

Chad McAllister v. Alan Halls, No. 2:15-CV-15-02204-PHX-DLR (D. Ariz. Feb. 11, 2016) 02/11/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted; arb trat on agreement de egated gateway ssues of arb trab ty to arb trator.

Jones v American Credit Acceptance LLC, No. 15-CV-8163 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 11, 2016) 02/11/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted; court f nds d spute at ssue fa s w th n scope of arb trat on agreement.

Sanato v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., No. 1:15-CV-07486 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 11, 2016) 02/11/2016

Court den ed defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on under the FAA. P a nt ff argued that he sent defendant a form opt ng out of arb trat on, but defendant argued that t never rece ved such a form. Court found that p a nt ff ra sed a genu ne ssue concern ng whether he agreed to arb trate, wh ch prec udes arb trat on under the FAA.

Davis v BSH Home Appliances Corp., No. 4:15-CV-103-FL (E.D.N.C. Feb. 10, 2016) 02/10/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on den ed; defendant cou d not estab sh the va d ty of the arb trat on agreement s de egat on c ause.

Farina Focaccia & Cucina Italiana, LLC v. 700 Valencia Street, LLC, Nos. 15-CV-02286-JCS, 15-CV-04931-JCS (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2016) 02/10/2016

Mot ons to conso date and to compe arb trat on den ed. The arb trat on agreement at ssue s not governed by the FAA, but rather the Ca forn a Arb trat on Act, wh ch perm ts the court to determ ne whether the r ght to arb trate has been wa ved by a party.

Golden v. Lim, No. 2:15-CV-10795 (E.D. Mich., Feb. 10, 2016) 02/10/2016

Arb tra award conf rmed. Respondent s mot on to vacate pr mar y rests on the court correct ng a eged ega or factua errors n the arb tra award, wh ch the court cannot do when asked to conf rm or vacate an award.

Guidotti v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, No. 1:11-CV-01219 (3d Cir. Feb. 10, 2016) 02/10/2016

C rcu t court vacated order of d str ct court dec n ng to compe arb trat on and remanded for further fact-f nd ng. Court he d that record was nsuff c ent y deve oped for t to dec de whether the FAA preempted state aw affect ng arb trab ty of the d spute.

Unite Here Local 100 v. Westchester Hills Golf Club, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-01203-LTS (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2016) 02/10/2016

Court granted mot on to conf rm, and den ed mot on to vacate, arb tra award, f nd ng that arb trator d d not exceed h s powers or ncorrect y fa to cons der m t gat on n ca cu at ng damages.

Rubel v. Acclaim Fin. Group, LLC, No. 6:15-CV-859-MHS (E.D. Tex. Feb. 10, 2016) 02/10/2016

Court granted defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that the part es agreement to arb trate d sputes ar s ng out of matters re ated to the r agreement was va d and that p a nt ff s c a ms fe w th n the scope of the p a n anguage of the agreement s arb trat on prov s on.

Roy v. Buffalo Philharmonic Orchestra Soc’y, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-00283-MAT-HBS (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2016) 02/09/2016

Court den ed mot on to vacate, and granted mot on to conf rm, arb tra award, f nd ng that (1) arb trator d d not refuse to hear pert nent ev dence; (2) arb trator d d not dec de non-arb trab e ssues; (3) p a nt ff had the opportun ty to ra se h s a egat ons of fraud and w tness per ury at the hear ng; and (4) there s no pub c po cy that protects an emp oyee w th m ted ob prospects ( n th s case, a profess ona orchestra mus c an) from d scharge for ust cause.

Moton v. Maplebear Inc., No. 15 Civ. 8879 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2016) 02/09/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted; court f nds arb trat on agreement to be va d and enforceab e and p a nt ff s c a ms to be arb trab e under the agreement.

Littlejohn v. Timberquest Park At Magic, LLC, No. 5:14-CV-200 (D. Vt. Feb. 9, 2016) 02/09/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted; part es exchange of mot ons regard ng the excu patory c ause of an arb trat on agreement s not the type of extens ve pre-tr a t gat on that const tutes a wa ver of arb trat on.

Strain v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., No. 6:15-CV-3246-MDH (W.D. Mo. Feb. 9, 2016) 02/09/2016

Defendant s mot on to d sm ss granted; a ssues ra sed by the p a nt ff are sub ect to arb trat on.

Sutherland Global Services, Inc. v. Adam Technologies International SA de C.V., No. 15-1063-CV (2d Cir. Feb. 9, 2016) 02/09/2016

D str ct court s order conf rm ng an arb trat on award aff rmed. See a so Sutherland Global Services, Inc. v. Adam Technologies International SA de C.V., No. 12-CV-06439 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2016) In ght of the second c rcu t s aff rmat on of the court s dec s on and order conf rm ng an arb trat on award n favor of the p a nt ff, court granted p a nt ff s mot on to compe responses to ts post- udgment d scovery demands on the defendant pursuant to FRCP Ru e 69.

Ggnsc Altoona Hillview LP v. Martz, No. 3:15-32 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 8, 2016) 02/08/2016

Mot on to d sm ss granted based on ssue prec us on. Court f nds that because a state court a ready dec ded the ssue of whether the state aw tort c a ms must be compe ed to arb trat on under the FAA, p a nt ffs are prec uded from re t gat ng that ssue n federa court.

Dalon v. Ruleville Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC, No. 4:15–CV–00086–DMB–JMV (N.D. Miss. Feb. 8, 2016) 02/08/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on den ed; court f nds a egat ons of ack of capac ty and unconsc onab ty create quest ons about the mak ng of the arb trat on agreement that shou d be dea t w th by the court.

Wright v. SunTrust Bank, Inc., No. 15-1365 (3d Cir. Feb. 8, 2016) 02/08/2016

C rcu t court aff rmed d str ct court d sm ssa of p a nt ff s c a ms aga nst defendant and den a of h s mot on to compe arb trat on where c a ms aga nst a successor were not sub ect to mandatory arb trat on.

Walsh v. Zazzali, No. 8:15-CV-01970-JVS-JCG (C.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2016) 02/08/2016

Court den ed mot on to compe arb trat on. Court he d that defendant s c a ms were not e g b e for arb trat on before FINRA because defendant was not a “customer,” was not ass gned the c a ms at ssue and therefore acked stand ng, and wa ved h s r ght to compe arb trat on by t gat ng c a ms based on the same under y ng conduct at ssue.

Espinoza v. Galardi South Enterprises, Inc., No. 14-21244-CIV-GOODMAN (S.D. Fla. Feb. 5, 2016) 02/05/2016

Mot on to stay t gat on granted pend ng reso ut on of nter ocutory appea on the non-enforcement of an arb trat on agreement.

Candies Shipbuilders, LLC v. Westport INS. Corp., No. 15-1798 (E.D. La. Feb. 5, 2016) 02/05/2016

Th rd-party defendant s mot on seek ng a stay of a th rd-party s comp a nt and referra of c a m to arb trat on granted; the arb trat on agreement at ssue was va d and the controversy at ssue was w th n the scope of the agreement.

North American Composites Company v Reich, No. 15-CV-3537 (PJS/JJK) (D. Minn. Feb. 5, 2016) 02/05/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted. Court he d that t may reso ve a spec f c cha enge to a de egat on prov s on, but a cha enge to the arb trat on agreement or ent re contract s for the arb trator to reso ve.

GIB, LLC v. Salon Ware, Inc., No. 14-55399 (9th Cir. Feb. 5, 2016) 02/05/2016

D str ct court s grant of the appe ee s mot on to compe arb trat on reversed and remanded; court erred n not reso v ng the appe ant s cha enge to the va d ty of the arb trat on agreement.

Ostrom v Worldventures Marketing LLC, No. 12-213-JJB-RLB (M.D. LA, Feb. 4, 2016) 02/04/2016

Arb trat on award conf rmed by court, f nd ng that arb trator was not ev dent y part a , a eged m sconduct of arb trator d d not warrant vacatur of award, and arb trator d d not exceed ts author ty.

Fernandez v. Windmill Distributing Co., No. 1:12-CV-01968 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2016) 02/04/2016

Mot on to d sm ss re ected. A un on-negot ated co ect ve barga n ng agreement (CBA) cannot wa ve r ghts to br ng a federa statutory c a m n a ud c a forum un ess that wa ver s c ear and unm stakab e. S nce the CBA at ssue d d not exp c t y reference the statutory r ghts sub ect to arb trat on the CBA d d not wa ve the r ght to br ng these c a ms n federa court.

Dykes v. Cleveland Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, No. 4:15-CV-00076-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss. Feb. 3, 2016) 02/03/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on den ed. Surrogate for deceased acked author ty to b nd the decedent to the arb trat on agreement because decedent had capac ty at the t me the arb trat on agreement was entered nto.

Middlesex Hosp. v. On Assignment Staffing Servs., Inc., 3:14-CV-1138 (AWT) (D. Conn. Feb. 3, 2016) 02/03/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted and act on stayed pend ng conc us on of arb trat on. Agreement to arb trate surv ved term nat on of or g na staff ng agreement notw thstand ng merger c ause of subsequent staff ng agreement w thout arb trat on prov s on.

Didio v. Jones, No. 2:13-CV-04949-PSG-AGR (C.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2016) 02/03/2016

Court granted p a nt ffs app cat on to conf rm arb trator s f nd ng and award. Court re ected defendant s argument that arb trator exceeded ts powers by fa ng to reach dec s on by a set date, when arb trat on agreement sa d on y that arb trat on must take p ace by set not, not that a dec s on must be reached by such date.

Rosenhaus v. Jackson, No. 2:14-CV-03154-MWF-JCG (C.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2016) 02/02/2016

Court granted cross-pet t on to vacate arb trat on award and den ed pet t on to conf rm arb trat on award s nce arb trator fa ed to d sc ose that he prev ous y served as an arb trator (and rece ved fees) n a d spute nvo v ng one of the part es and was aware of facts reasonab y g v ng the mpress on that he m ght be appo nted to serve as an arb trator n future d sputes nvo v ng that party.

J.D. Fields & Co., Inc. v. Nucor-Yamato Steel Co. and Nucor Corp., No. 4:12-CV-00754 (E.D. Ark. Feb. 2, 2016) 02/02/2016

Court grants mot on to compe arb trat on f ed by a non-s gnatory to the agreement hav ng prev ous y found that the s gnatory had wa ved ts r ght to arb trate. Court ho ds that non-s gnatory defendant had not wa ved ts r ght to arb trate and, hav ng brought c a ms aga nst the non-s gnatory under the agreement, p a nt ff s estopped from deny ng non-s gnatory s r ght to enforce the arb trat on c ause.

Bradford Square Nursing, LLC v. Cornett, No. 3:15-CV-00055-GFVT (E.D. Ky. Feb. 2, 2016) 02/02/2016

Mot on to enforce arb trat on agreement and en o n defendant den ed; quest on of whether a eged ncompetency of s gnatory to arb trat on agreement vo ds the agreement s a quest on of contract format on that shou d be determ ned by the court, not by an arb trator.

Hayes v. Delbert Services Corp., Nos. 15–1170, 15–1217. (4th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016) 02/02/2016

Order of d str ct court reversed and remanded. Arb trat on agreement at ssue he d to be unenforceab e because t forb ds the arb trator from app y ng app cab e state and federa aw “to game the ent re system.”

Guarnero v. Sail Funding Trust II, No. 0:15-CV-62092-BB (S.D. Fla. Feb. 2, 2016) 02/02/2016

Court granted defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on f nd ng that there was a va d contract, desp te d screpanc es n the agreement and fraud a egat ons. Court a so found that p a nt ff was bound by the agreement desp te not be ng a s gnatory due to pr nc p es of agency, contract aw, and the agreement s p a n anguage. Court a so found that the c a ms at ssue cou d be outs de the scope of the agreement conta n ng the arb trat on c ause, but u t mate y dec ded that the arb trat on pane shou d make that determ nat on.

PR Group, LLC v. Windmill International, Ltd., No. 14-0401-CV-W-BP (W.D. Mo. Feb. 1, 2016) 02/01/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on and stay act on granted; arb trat on c ause was not unconsc onab e because of reference to non-ex stent "Arb trat on Soc ety n London." FAA empowered the court to order the arb trat on to be adm n stered by the AAA, and the AAA shou d determ ne whether th s s an " nternat ona matter" or a "US Matter," based on cr ter a set forth n Art. 1 of the UNCITRAL Arb trat on Ru es.

Sanchez v. MK Industries, Inc., No. 1:15-CV- 272-HSO-JCG (S.D. Miss. Jan. 29, 2016) 01/29/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted, and case d sm ssed because a c a ms presented to the court were arb trab e and wou d be dec ded by the arb trators.

Crawl v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., No. 8:15-CV-00097-PJM (D. Md. Jan. 29, 2016) 01/29/2016

Court granted a defendant s mot on to compe arb trat on and d sm ssed the case because a of Craw s c a ms—under the Fa r Cred t Report ng Act and state aw for defamat on—were sub ect to arb trat on. Court found that the or g na terms of contract for p a nt ff s cred t card conta ned a va d arb trat on agreement that the p a nt ff d d not opt out of.

Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Team Tankers A.S., No. 14-CV-4036 (2d Cir. Jan. 28, 2016) 01/28/2016

D str ct court s order conf rm ng an arb trat on award uphe d, but order award ng attorney s fees and costs vacated.

743809 Ontario, Inc. v. Cars of Manheim, LLC, No. 9:15-MC-81346-WPD (S.D. Fla. Jan. 28, 2016) 01/28/2016

Court granted p a nt ff s mot on to conf rm the arb trat on award. Court exp a ned that n the e eventh c rcu t, Sect ons 10 and 11 of the FAA set forth the exc us ve grounds for vacat ng, correct ng, or mod fy ng an arb trat on award. S nce defendant was argu ng for vacatur on grounds of ( ) excess of power, ( ) man fest d sregard of the aw, ( ) arb trary and capr c ousness, and ( v) v o at on of pub c po cy, three of the four grounds were ega y mer t ess, and ts rema n ng c a m on excess of powers was unava ng as ong as the arb trator was “arguab y constru ng” the contract.

Streamline Consulting Group LLC v. Legacy Carbon LLC, No. 15-00318 SOM/KSC (D. Haw. Jan. 27, 2016) 01/27/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted but court reta ns ur sd ct on on quest on as to wh ch part es are covered by the arb trat on agreement.

RX Pros, Inc. v. CVS Health Corp, Civ. No. 16-0061 (W.D. La. Jan. 26, 2016) 01/26/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted and state court s temporary restra n ng order s d sso ved; ncorporat on of ru es requ r ng the arb trat on of arb trab ty s c ear and unm stakab e ev dence that arb trators shou d dec de arb trab ty.

Uchikura v. Yoshida Business Solutions, LLC, No. 3:15-CV-2007-AC (D. Or. Jan. 25, 2016) 01/25/2016

Arb trat on warranted because a but one of the p a nt ff s c a ms were encompassed by an arb trat on agreement; any rema n ng quest ons can be determ ned by the court after an arb tra award s ssued.

Brendel v. Meyrowitz, No. 3:15-CV-1928-D (N.D. Tex. Jan. 25, 2016) 01/25/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted; defendants d d not wa ve the r r ghts to arb trat on by f ng an answer n state court that d d not ra se arb trat on defense.

New Orleans Cold Storage & Warehouse Co., Ltd. v. Grenzebach Corp., No. 15-6642 (E.D. La. Jan. 22, 2016) 01/22/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted; the FAA app es to transact ons nvo v ng nterstate commerce.

Nothum Manufacturing Company v. Marel Meat Processing Inc., No. 6:15-CV-03527-MDH (W.D. Mo. Jan. 22, 2016) 01/22/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted and d sm ssa of the act on, rather than a stay, was appropr ate n c rcumstances where t s c ear the ent re controversy between the part es w be reso ved by arb trat on.

Whitehead v. Pullman Group, LLC, Nos. 15-1627, 15-1628 (3d Cir. Jan. 22, 2016) 01/22/2016

D str ct court s den a of mot on to vacate arb tra award was proper; arb trators refusa to hear test mony was not fundamenta y unfa r; t s quest onab e whether the “man fest d sregard of the aw” standard surv ved the Supreme Court s dec s on n Matte ho d ng that the FAA prov des exc us ve grounds for vacat ng an arb tra award.

Reaser v. Credit One Financial, No. 3:15-CV-1765 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 21, 2016) 01/21/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on den ed; f the ex stence of an arb trat on agreement s not c ear from the face of the comp a nt, the part es shou d be ent t ed to d scovery over the quest on of arb trab ty.

Euro Pacific Capital Inc. v. Bohai Pharmaceuticals Group, Inc., No. 15-CV-4410-VM (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2016) 01/21/2016

Mot ons to compe arb trat on and stay t gat on den ed on grounds that the c a ms at ssue d d not fa w th n the scope of the arb trat on agreement.

Greenawalt v. Archdiocese of San Francisco, No. 15-CV-05077-JCS (N.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2016) 01/20/2016

App cat on to compe arb trat on d sm ssed w th eave to amend; movant fa ed to proper y a ege a bas s for federa ur sd ct on.

Interdigital Technology Corporation v. Pegatron Corporation, No. 15-CV-02584-LHK (N.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2016) 01/20/2016

Mot ons to compe arb trat on and stay t gat on granted; part es ncorporat on of the AAA ru es nto the r arb trat on agreement was a c ear and unm stakab e ntent to de egate quest ons of arb trab ty to an arb trator and the court s nqu ry was therefore m ted to whether the assert on of arb trab ty was who y ground ess.

Estate of Trantham v. SSC Lexington Operating Co., LLC, No. 1:15CV726 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 20, 2016) 01/20/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on and stay proceed ngs granted due to the presence of a va d arb trat on agreement cover ng the ssue n d spute.

Montview Blvd. Presbyterian Church v. Church Mutual Insurance Company, No. 14-CV-01635-MSK-KMT (D. Colo. Jan. 20, 2016) 01/20/2016

An nsurance po cy appra sa process s not an arb trat on c ause sub ect to prov s ons of the Co orado Un form Arb trat on Act.

Lloyd v. BRSI, LLC, No. CIV-15-964-M (W.D. Okla. Jan. 19, 2016) 01/19/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted; quest ons as to the va d ty of the arb trat on agreement are for the arb trators to dec de.

Van Buren v. Cargill, Inc., No. 1:10-CV-701S (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2016) 01/19/2016

Mot on to vacate award den ed and counter-mot on to conf rm award granted. Party mov ng to vacate wa ved b as as a grounds for cha eng ng award because the ssue was not ra sed dur ng the arb tra proceed ngs and the party cont nua y accepted the procedures and the arb trators. Cost of arb trat on was not too proh b t ve as to g ve r se to unconsc onab ty.

Vanquish Worldwide LLC v. United Sadat Transportation and Logistics Company, No. 15-CV-0135-SWS (D. Wyo. Jan. 19, 2016) 01/19/2016

ICC arb trat on award vacated n part where arb tra tr buna exceeded ts author ty by award ng payment of damages dur ng the f rst phase of a b furcated proceed ng on ab ty. Award conf rmed n a other respects.

A Miner Contracting, Inc. v. Dana Kepner Co., Inc., No. 2:15-CV-15-01904-PHX-NVW (D. Ariz. Jan. 15, 2016) 01/15/2016

Mot on to vacate award den ed as unt me y under the FAA. Even f mot on t me y made, the fact that a c ent of arb trator s f rm s opposed p a nt ff n a separate proceed ng d d not const tute b as.

Bayer CropScience AG v. Dow AgroSciences LLC, No. 2:12-CV-47 (E.D. Va. Jan. 15, 2016) 01/15/2016

P a nt ff s mot on to conf rm an ICC arb trat on award granted and defendants mot on to vacate the arb trat on award and stay the proceed ngs den ed. The court he d the award must be conf rmed absent extraord nary c rcumstances. See a so Bayer CropScience v. Dow AgroSciences, No. 2:12-CV-47 (E.D. Va. Feb. 17, 2016) Mot on to amend court s pr or udgment re ected. The arb trat on award under y ng the udgment set forth the manner by wh ch post award nterest sha accrue, and the court wou d not subst tute a statutory rate where the part es agreed to b nd ng arb trat on and the resu tant award, nc ud ng ts determ nat on on post award nterest, was conf rmed.

Ruiz v. Millennium Square Residential Association, No. 15-1014 (JDB) (D.D.C. Jan. 13, 2016) 01/13/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted and act on stayed pend ng arb trat on. Arb trat on agreement s fa ure to requ re wr tten arb trat on dec s ons or to prov de for certa n d scovery procedures does not render the agreement substant ve y unconsc onab e as a who e. The agreement s arb trator-se ect on process was however unconsc onab e because t ass gned the se ect on power so e y to one of the part es and the arb trator-se ect on prov s on cou d be severed from the agreement.

Parkcrest Builders, LLC v. Housing Authority of New Orleans (HANO), No. 15-150 (E.D. La. Jan. 13, 2016) 01/13/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted; quest on of whether p a nt ff exhausted adm n strat ve remed es s an ssue of procedura arb trab ty to be dec ded by an arb trator; the court s author zed to appo nt an arb trator but t s preferab e that arb trators be chosen by the part es.

Vector Electric & Controls, Inc. v. ABM Industries Inc., No. 3:15-00252-JWD-RLB (M.D. La. Jan. 11, 2016) 01/11/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted; the arb trat on prov s on a ow ng for arb trat ng “any d spute” ar s ng out of an agreement s not over y broad; non-s gnator es to an arb trat on agreement may be compe ed to arb trate.

Nowak v. Pennsylvania Professional Soccer, LLC, No. 12-4165 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2016) 01/11/2016

Mot on to vacate arb tra award den ed; the arb trator d d not m sapp y the aw and was not b ased; dec s on wou d not be overturned on ground that t cou d not be rat ona y der ved from the ev dence.

LLOG Exploration Offshore LLC v. Newfield Exploration Co., No. 15-1749 (E.D. La. Jan. 8, 2016) 01/08/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on den ed because the arb trat on agreement prov ded for d spos t on by a court f the ssues can be determ ned as a matter of aw.

McCormick v. Citibank, NA, No. 15-CV-46-JTC (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2016) 01/08/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted and stay under 9 USC § 3 entered because the statutory c a m at ssue was w th n the scope of the part es va d arb trat on agreement.

Cotton v. GGNSC Batesville, LLC, No. 3:13-CV-00169-DMB-SAA (N.D. Miss. Jan. 7, 2016) 01/07/2016

Mot on to stay pend ng appea (of den a of mot on to compe arb trat on) den ed.

Herrera Cedeno v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC, No. 1:15-CV-24244-UU (S.D. Fla. Jan. 6, 2016) 01/06/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted; p a nt ff s mere den a that he rece ved the arb trat on agreement s not suff c ent to nva date agreement when he s gned another agreement acknow edg ng rece pt of t.

Trailers Intl, LLC v. Mastercraft Tools Florida, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-00767-BR (D. Or. Jan. 6, 2016) 01/06/2016

Mot ons to compe arb trat on and stay t gat on den ed on the grounds that the c a ms at ssue d d not fa w th n the scope of the arb trat on agreement.

Lee v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 15-CV-05235-EMC (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2016) 01/05/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on granted; p a nt ff s fa ure to respond to the mot on s a concess on that arb trat on s proper.

Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC v. Scout Petroleum, LLC, No. 15-1275 (3d Cir. Jan. 5, 2016) 01/05/2016

D str ct court s dec s on – to vacate arb trators dec s on that c ass arb trab ty was w th n the r purv ew – uphe d. The ncorporat on of AAA arb trat on ru es d d not const tute a c ear and unm stakab e de egat on of author ty to the arb trators to dec de the quest on of c ass arb trab ty.

Nesbitt v. FCNH, Inc., No. 14-1502 (10th Cir. Jan. 5, 2016) 01/05/2016

Order of the d str ct court deny ng mot on to stay proceed ngs and compe arb trat on aff rmed. The effect ve v nd cat on except on app ed because the arb trat on agreement was amb guous as to whether p a nt ff cou d be awarded costs and fees f she preva ed, therefore d scourag ng p a nt ff from pursu ng her c a ms.

Reed v. Johnson, No. 4:14CV176-SA-JMV (N.D. Miss. Jan. 4, 2016) 01/04/2016

Mot on to compe arb trat on he d n abeyance unt court can comp ete a tr a on ssue of whether p a nt ff s gned the arb trat on agreement. See a so Reed v. Johnson, No. 4:14-CV-176-SA-JMV (N.D. M ss. Mar. 9, 2016) Mot on to compe arb trat on granted; the arb trat on agreement was not procedura y unconsc onab e under M ss ss pp aw.

© 2016 Shearman & Ster ng LLP | Attorney Advert s ng These pub cat ons are on y ntended to be a genera d scuss on of the top cs covered and shou d not be construed as ega adv ce. We wou d be p eased to prov de add t ona deta s or adv ce about spec f c s tuat ons