Source: https://us-arbitration.shearman.com/digest?newstype=706&practiceid=5789
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 02:44:58+00:00

Document:
Court denied motion for conditional class certification, finding that class certification would be premature in light of pending decision on motion to compel arbitration and appeal in different case of legal question of whether an arbitration clause agreed by the union is binding on union members.
Court ordered defendant to show cause why it should not be held in civil contempt and sanctioned for failing to comply with terms of arbitration award confirmed by the court, finding that appeal of confirmation order did not divest the district court of jurisdiction absent a stay of proceedings.
Court denied motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, finding that although fees and costs pertained to representation in court proceedings for injunctive relief (as such proceedings were excluded from the arbitration clause), there was no explicit exception from the arbitration clause for claims for attorneys’ fees and costs, and that the claim must therefore be brought in arbitration.
Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, which raised five issues, including whether the FAA’s 90-day statute of limitations bars the claim to vacate the arbitration award. Court noted that it was uncertain whether § 12 of the FAA applied where a party is claiming that there was no arbitration agreement in the first place, and that defendant had not convinced the court to dismiss plaintiff’s claim based solely on the limitations period. As such, court concluded that it would not, at that time, dismiss plaintiff’s claim based on the 90-day statute of limitations under § 12.
Court denied petitioner’s application for leave to serve subpoenas on respondents, seeking evidence in connection with the litigation currently pending in the Court of Appeal of the Hague. Applying the factors from Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (2004), court found that (i) the first Intel factor supported the production of documents generated at the time of respondents’ representation in the 1998-2004 time period because respondents are not a participant in the Dutch proceedings; (ii) the second factor also weighed in favor of production, as petitioner provided examples of cases where the submission of evidence collected through 28 USC § 1782 was admitted; and (iii) there is no exhaustion requirement under §1782 that required petitioners to seek the documents through proceedings in the Netherlands and Russia. However, court also found that petitioner’s delay disfavored a grant of their §1782 application, and additional considerations under the fourth Intel factor more strongly counseled against granting the application.
Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss or to remand in regard to an action to confirm a $330,509.38 arbitration award. Court found that plaintiff properly removed the case to federal court where there was diversity between the parties and the amount in controversy – determined here to be the amount of the award – exceeded $75,000.00.
Court granted request to effectuate service on a nonresident with a private process server, finding that service pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is sufficient under § 9 of the FAA.
Court granted motion for default judgment confirming arbitration award. Court found that it need not specifically award post-judgment interest as plaintiff was entitled to it by statute.
Court of appeals vacated and remanded the district court’s order of dismissal based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Court of appeals explained that the court that has jurisdiction to compel arbitration under FAA § 4 also has jurisdiction to supervise the arbitration’s procedures and to confirm, vacate, modify, and enforce the resulting arbitration award. Court of appeals concluded that because the claim could, absent the arbitration agreement, be litigated in federal court under its federal-question jurisdiction, controversies regarding the arbitration of his claim should likewise be resolved in federal court.
Court granted motion to dismiss action to vacate arbitration award, finding that plaintiff did not serve timely notice of its application in a manner that conformed to the FAA.
Court denied motion to compel arbitration without prejudice, finding that defendant failed to discharge its burden of proof by failing to provide copies of the agreement to arbitrate and assignment, but that due to federal policy in favor or arbitration, denial would be without prejudice so that defendant could refile.
Court dismissed action in favor of arbitration, finding that, where two contracts governed the parties’ relationship but only one had an arbitration clause, the claims were subject to arbitration because the plaintiffs’ complaint had treated two contracts as “one and the same” and that the claims related to both contracts.
Court denied motion to dismiss, finding that defendant had waived its right to assert arbitration by agreeing without reservation to court stipulation that it owed money to plaintiffs.
Court granted petitioner’s motion to lift a stay on an action seeking to confirm a foreign arbitration award pursuant to the New York Convention. Petitioner originally sought confirmation in 2014 of an award that was rendered by an ad hoc tribunal in an arbitration arising under the ECT. The court had previously stayed the confirmation proceedings pending review of the award first by the Paris Court of Appeal, which set aside the award because the tribunal lacked jurisdiction under the ECT, and then by the Cour de Cassation which reversed the Paris Court of Appeal and remanded for a new decision. The court stated that while this district had not explicitly adopted the Europcar factors set by Second Circuit precedent, they would still use these factors to determine whether the stay should be lifted. The court determined that the balance of the factors weighed in favor of lifting the stay.
Court granted plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, confirming the arbitration award.
Court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of court’s previous dismissal of copyright infringement claims, rejecting the plaintiff’s contention that the arbitrator’s findings in a parallel proceeding were evidence of error by the court.
Court granted in part and deferred in part defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Court found that regarding plaintiff’s claims of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and misappropriation of trade secrets, plaintiff was barred on res judicata or collateral estoppel grounds from re-litigating these claims against defendant as plaintiff had pursued the same claims against the defendant’s owner in arbitration proceedings. Court deferred plaintiff’s fraud claim against the defendant pending further briefing.
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to remand to state court on the basis that the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000. To remove to federal court, defendant had relied on Plaintiff’s Certificate Regarding Compulsory Arbitration, which indicated that the action was not subject to compulsory arbitration as the jurisdictional limit for compulsory arbitration in the relevant county is $50,000, and on Plaintiff’s Offer of Judgment for $74,000. Court accepted Plaintiff’s Certificate Regarding Compulsory Arbitration as having certified that the amount in dispute exceeded $50,000.
Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. In its discussion, court rejected defendant’s argument that plaintiff’s claims were preempted by plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the administrative remedies available to him by not entering binding arbitration. Court found that exhaustion of remedies is not a prerequisite to action, but granted summary judgment on other grounds.
Court granted defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, because defendants’ arbitral immunity bars suit against them, and because vacatur is the exclusive remedy to challenge an arbitration award. Plaintiff brought suit against defendants seeking to recover its arbitration costs in a separate dispute for defendants’ role in appointing allegedly conflicted arbitrators and for refusing to remove an arbitrator from the arbitration panel.
Court denied petitioner’s motion to certify respondent’s appeal as invalid or frivolous, retain jurisdiction, and lift stay. Previously, court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss petitioner’s action to seek confirmation of an arbitral award on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction under the FSIA. Petitioner objected to the motion to dismiss on the grounds that the FAA requires single petitions to enforce an arbitral award and defendant improperly sought to bifurcate. Court agreed and ordered defendant to file a petition with all jurisdictional and substantive defenses. Instead of complying with that order, defendant appealed on sovereign immunity grounds, and petitioner moved for the court to certify appeal as invalid or frivolous.
Court denied respondents’ motions to quash subpoenaed documents pursuant to a Section 1782 order for discovery related to ongoing litigation in Spain and ICC arbitration, but granted respondents’ motions to quash subpoenaed testimony since the Spanish court could compel respondents’ testimony. Court declined to prohibit petitioner from using discovered material in the ICC Arbitration, since there was no evidence that petitioner’s request for discovery for the Spanish litigation was a ruse for obtaining evidence for the arbitration. Court directed parties to meet and confer on the breadth of document production and denied respondents’ request for reciprocal discovery.
Court of appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment that plaintiff-appellants’ claims were not covered under its policy with defendant-appellee. The claims arose when an arbitration panel issued an award against plaintiff-appellants in a fee dispute with plaintiff-appellants’ former clients. Plaintiff-appellants sought to recover a portion of the award amount from its professional liability insurance carrier, defendant-appellee. The findings of the arbitral tribunal characterized plaintiff-appellants’ actions as such that they were not covered by its insurance policy.
Court denied defendant’s motion to quash two subpoenas, including one directed to JAMS, rejecting the defendant’s argument that JAMS rules treat information relating to pending arbitration proceedings as confidential. Court found that defendant did not meet his burden to prove any particular harm that will result from the disclosure of pending arbitrations.
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents and deposition of third parties, which were originally defendants in the suit; court dismissed the third-parties pursuant to a motion to compel arbitration. Court dismissed third parties’ argument that the motion was an attempt to circumvent the discovery restrictions in the arbitration proceedings and stipulated that any documents or depositions produced in this action were not to be used in the arbitration.
Court granted petitioners’ motion for additional discovery in a suit seeking to enforce an arbitration award against the respondent state-owned oil company. Court found that respondent’s general manager and two additional employees would be deposed on the subject of whether the respondent company is an alter ego of the Nigerian government. Court also held that respondent must identify recipients of documents on its privilege log or produce those documents.
Court found the statutes of limitations and repose had passed on the non-party’s claims and therefore denied the non-party’s motion to amend complaint and dismissed the non-party’s motion to enjoin arbitration.
Court granted motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff’s lone claim was subject to both claim and issue preclusion as the AAA arbitrator had addressed the question pending before the court and rejected the claim. Court recognized the arbitrator under AAA had competent jurisdiction over the case.
Court of appeals affirmed order confirming arbitration, rejecting appellant’s argument that the award could not be enforced against him because he was not a party to the arbitration. Court found relevant that plaintiff had appeared in the arbitration and acknowledged that the arbitral decision would be binding, and that the he specifically litigated before the arbitrator whether his personal guarantee to the losing party was valid.
Court granted the motion submitted by one defendant to compel arbitration for another defendant’s cross-complaint, because the cross-complaining defendant did not oppose.
Court administratively terminated plaintiff’s motion to confirm the arbitration award without prejudice, and denied plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and defendant’s motion to bifurcate trial and discovery. Court noted that whether the court will vacate, modify, or correct the award is dependent on whether plaintiffs are entitled to coverage under the relevant policy, which is an issue pending before the court.
Court granted plaintiff’s request to lift the stay and denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the arbitration order as moot. Court explained that an arbitration terminated under agreed-upon rules is deemed to have “proceeded pursuant to the parties’ agreement” to arbitrate and thus to have satisfied the FAA. Because Defendant voluntarily requested the arbitration be terminated under the AAA’s rules, and it did not seek relief from the court based on any failure, neglect, or refusal to participate on Plaintiff’s part, court found that the arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
Court denied defendant’s motion for reconsideration. Court rejected defendant’s argument that after Epic Systems v. Lewis, 138 S.Ct. 1612 (2018), district courts in the Ninth Circuit must now enforce parties’ arbitration agreements as written, noting that this was not a new holding from the Supreme Court but an interpretation of part of the Arbitration Act.
Court of appeals affirmed district court’s dismissal without prejudice of case for failure to prosecute where motion to compel arbitration had been granted and plaintiff failed to arbitrate, finding that dismissal was within the district court’s discretion. Circuit court did not review district court’s holdings as to the applicability of the arbitration clause, noting that the FAA forecloses interlocutory reviews of orders compelling arbitration.
Court granted motion to dismiss action against FINRA alleging breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing due to arbitrators’ dismissal of claim in unreasoned, two-sentence decision. Court found that an alleged failure to provide sufficient reasons for an arbitral award (as opposed to a failure to issue any award at all) fell within the scope of arbitral immunity, and that arbitrators’ failure to provide a reasoned decision was not a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing since FINRA rules require reasoned decisions only when jointly requested by the parties.
Court granted motion to stay proceedings pending conclusion of parallel arbitration. Court found that plaintiff had standing to bring statutory claims against background reporting company for breach of Fair Credit Reporting Act with respect to an incorrect background report, but that the plaintiff’s request for money damages resulting from his dismissal from employment allegedly as a result of the report overlapped with factual issues being addressed in a separate arbitration against the plaintiff’s former employer arising from the dismissal.
Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss certain claims that had previously been arbitrated for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Court rejected defendant’s argument that a valid agreement to arbitrate divests the court of jurisdiction to hear claims subject to the agreement. Although defendant’s did not make a motion to compel arbitration, court further found that a motion to compel arbitration could not have been brought under FRCP 12(b)(1).
Magistrate judge recommended that motion to compel arbitration be granted. Court held that although the defendants had engaged in conduct suggesting they had waived their right to arbitrate, the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that their conduct had prejudiced her.
Court granted narrowed discovery requests and ordered plaintiff to produce all non-privileged documents related to an arbitration pending in Canada between plaintiff and a Chinese manufacturer and its principal and a second arbitration in Canada between plaintiff and defendants related to their employment contracts.
Court denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment. Court found that because the arbitrator never considered whether defendant honestly believed plaintiff was at blame for the accident—which was defendant’s nondiscriminatory reason for terminating plaintiff—defendant was not collaterally estopped from relying on the accident against plaintiff’s Title VII allegations. Court also concluded that it remained free to accord the appropriate weight to the arbitration decision, taking into account (1) the degree of the procedural fairness at arbitration, (2) the adequacy of the record with respect to the issue of discrimination, (3) the special competence of particular arbitrators, and (4) whether the issue was solely one of fact, specifically addressed by the parties and decided by the arbitrator on the basis of an adequate record.
Court ordered that the matter be remanded to the Vanderburgh Circuit Court. Court concluded that it was not obvious that the FAA applied to the arbitration agreement and defendants provided no explanation or argument as to why it might. However, even assuming that the FAA applied generally, defendants provided no basis upon which the court could conclude that Section 4 of the FAA applies to them, a non-aggrieved party seeking to prevent arbitration where there is no Section 4 petition.

References: § 12
 § 12
 v. 
 § 1782
 §1782
 §1782
 § 9
 § 4
 v.