Source: https://us-arbitration.shearman.com/digest?newstype=706&practiceid=5785
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 02:46:03+00:00

Document:
A collection of the most recent US international arbitration decisions is available here. Decisions can be quickly retrieved by using the filter tools below.
Courts 1st Cir. 2d Cir. 3d Cir. 4th Cir. 5th Cir. 6th Cir. 7th Cir. 8th Cir. 9th Cir. 10th Cir. 11th Cir. D.C. Cir. Fed. Cir. M.D. Ala. N.D. Ala. S.D. Ala. D. Alaska D. Ariz. E.D. Ark. W.D. Ark. C.D. Cal. E.D. Cal. N.D. Cal. S.D. Cal. D. Colo. D. Conn. D. Del. D.D.C. M.D. Fla. N.D. Fla. S.D. Fla. M.D. Ga. N.D. Ga. S.D. Ga. D. Guam D. Haw. D. Idaho C.D. Ill. N.D. Ill. N.D. Ind. S.D. Ind. N.D. Iowa D. Kan. E.D. Ky. W.D. Ky. E.D. La. M.D. La. W.D. La. D. Me. D. Md. D. Mass. E.D. Mich. W.D. Mich. D. Minn. N.D. Miss. S.D. Miss. E.D. Mo. W.D. Mo. D. Mont. D. Neb. D. Nev. D.N.H. D.N.J. D.N.M. E.D.N.Y. N.D.N.Y. S.D.N.Y. W.D.N.Y. E.D.N.C. M.D.N.C. W.D.N.C. D.N.D. D.N. Mar. Is. N.D. Ohio S.D. Ohio E.D. Okla. N.D. Okla. W.D. Okla. D. Or. E.D. Pa. M.D. Pa. W.D. Pa. D.P.R. D.R.I. D.S.C. D.S.D. E.D. Tenn. M.D. Tenn. W.D. Tenn. E.D. Tex. N.D. Tex. S.D. Tex. W.D. Tex. D. Utah D. Vt. E.D. Va. W.D. Va. D.V.I. E.D. Wash. W.D. Wash. N.D.W. Va. S.D.W. Va. E.D. Wis. W.D. Wis. D. Wyo. S.D. Ill. N.D. Ky. W.D. Ohio E.D. Ill S.S.D. U.S. E.D. Miss E.D. Ohio N.D. Tenn. D. Co.
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to stay the action pending the resolution of a related arbitration, finding that several of the defendant’s claims would not be resolved by arbitration and plaintiffs have failed to show that the arbitration would conclude in a reasonable amount of time.
Court issued temporary restraining order temporarily enjoining party from continuing to pursue claims in arbitration, finding that if the arbitration in Virginia proceeded it would to damage the plaintiff’s rights under California law not to be compelled to litigate outside of California.
Court denied motion to stay pending arbitration of related claim against another defendant, finding that (i) FAA did not provide authority for staying a non-arbitrable claim pending arbitration of a separate arbitrable claim; and (ii) the claims were not so intertwined as to justify an exercise of the court’s discretionary power to stay.
Court granted defendant’s motion to appoint a neutral arbitrator pursuant to the FAA. Court found that the parties failed to agree on an arbitrator and that arbitration agreement did not provide a method for appointing an arbitrator in the event that the parties failed to agree. Thus, court had authority to appoint an arbitrator pursuant to 9 USC § 5.
Court denied petition to enforce a FINRA arbitration subpoena. Court evaluated the motion to compel compliance with the subpoena as a petition under § 7 of the FAA to compel a non-party witness to appeal. Court reasoned that arbitration differed from litigation by providing for circumscribed discovery procedures and that Section 7 allowed an arbitrator to require production of documents in connection with an evidentiary hearing but not within 30 days of receiving a subpoena.
Court denied all parties’ applications for relief and dismissed the petition to appoint a neutral arbitrator and the cross-petition seeking to disqualify one of the party arbitrators. Court noted that it was guided by two governing principles: (i) courts have little business interfering in arbitrations; and (ii) the parties have made an agreement, which should be construed according to its plain terms and in accordance with the settled maxims of contract construction. Court dismissed the petition because Section 5 of the FAA clearly requires that whatever method for naming an arbitrator is provided in the arbitration agreement must be followed, and denied the cross-petition on the grounds that the party arbitrator met the qualifications for membership on the tribunal that was specified in the arbitration clause.
Court granted petitioner’s motions to enforce two arbitration summonses and denied respondents’ motions to quash the summonses. Court found, inter alia, that pre-hearing discovery was proper under § 7 of the FAA where respondents were summoned to a hearing rather than a deposition, the arbitral panel was prepared to rule on evidentiary issues, and the hearing would be recorded as part of the arbitration record for the panel to use in its determination of the dispute.
Court overruled defendants’ objection to the ruling on defendants’ motion to compel reciprocal discovery. Court found it could not set aside the order of the magistrate judge because defendant did not show the magistrate judge’s decision was beyond the scope of the court’s discretion or that it was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Court of appeals vacated district court’s preliminary injunction of a London arbitration, holding that, while participation in an arbitration to which a party did not consent constitutes irreparable harm, the district court failed to make adequate findings regarding the likelihood of success on the merits.
Court denied plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. Relying on Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc., 175 F.3d 716, court concluded that once a court determines that all disputes are subject to arbitration pursuant to a binding arbitration clause, it is improper for a district court to grant preliminary relief where provisional relief is available from an arbitral tribunal.
Court, inter alia, granted temporary stay of defendants’ 180 no-fault insurance collection arbitrations filed against insurer, finding that it would frustrate the purpose of the FAA and judicial economy if the FAA were interpreted to preclude granting stay.
Court granted motion for temporary restraining order, rejecting argument that such action was barred by arbitration agreement, since (i) the plaintiff did not sign the arbitration agreement but was alleged to have accepted it through its actions; and (ii) precedent barring preliminary injunctions in actions subject to arbitration did not necessarily apply to temporary restraining orders.
Court granted motion to stay pending an appeal but denied motion to stay pending the outcome of an arbitration in India. Court reasoned that it was not clear whether all of the claims were subject to arbitration, whether the claims would actually come before the arbitrator, or how the proceedings in India might affect plaintiff’s claims and thus granting a stay would be prejudicial to defendants. Court rejected defendant’s assertion that § 3 of the FAA required a stay when an a separate arbitration proceeding would cover an issue involved in the dispute, clarifying that a stay pending an arbitration is required if it the parties have agreed in writing to arbitrate an issue underlying the proceeding.
Court denied plaintiff’s request for declaratory judgment and dismissed case. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument for relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act, as parallel arbitration proceedings were ongoing on the same issues between the same parties.
Court granted plaintiff’s petition to modify an arbitration award and denied plaintiff’s petition to vacate the arbitral award. Court held that the award provided for plaintiff insurer to pay compensation to defendant insured outside of the scope of coverage. Court modified the arbitral award to cover only the covered month-to-month calculations.
Court granted defendant’s motion to stay litigation pending arbitration of plaintiffs’ claims against a related party, the law firm owned by defendants. Court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that because defendants are not signatories to the employment agreement between the plaintiffs and the law firm, which contained an arbitration provision, defendants are not entitled to a stay. Court found that plaintiffs’ claims in the present case arise from the same set of facts as the claims against the law firm at arbitration.
Court denied an ex parte application pursuant to 28 USC § 1782 to take discovery for use in a foreign arbitration, where the incident giving rise to the arbitration occurred in a U.S. state but the parties agreed to private arbitration in England. Court held a private arbitration body does not fall within the § 1782 definition of “tribunal” and, thus, found that it did not have jurisdiction to grant the application.
Court ordered the parties to submit an order to show cause of why the parties failed to comply with the court’s order to file a joint status report. The parties had been ordered to file a joint status report regarding the parallel arbitration proceedings, on which the stay of the action had been granted.
Court ordered discovery in this action to be stayed pending resolution of the parties’ dispute in the arbitration forum. Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that discovery in the federal action is relevant to plaintiff’s sought-after injunctive relief in the arbitration forum and accepted defendant’s argument that discovery should proceed solely in the arbitration forum.
Court denied defendant’s motion to enjoin a FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Association) arbitration and emergency motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin the same arbitration. Court rejected defendant’s argument that claimant could not separately bring arbitration because the court had approved class certification and accepted plaintiff’s argument that it was not bound by class certification because it had opted out of the class.
Court denied motion for preliminary injunctive relief limiting the arbitration that defendants commenced in Sweden, finding that the Swedish arbitration related to issues outside of the patent claim before the court and that comity concerns weighed against enjoining the arbitration.
Court denied plaintiff’s motion to stay arbitration pending the court’s disposition of parties’ competing motions. Plaintiff filed motion to stay arbitration when the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB) ruled that it had jurisdiction; defendant refused to stipulate a stay of arbitration proceedings and KCAB refused to stay the proceedings. Court found that, under the effective schedule, the plaintiff would have the court’s decision on the substantive motion before being required to file before KCAB.
Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss and request for a protective order, finding that the defendant wished to litigate this case, instead of joining the related arbitration proceedings, in aid of an indemnity dispute with a third party, Specifically, the court found that defendant was perpetuating the action in order to take plaintiffs’ depositions, since obtaining them during arbitration discovery would be unlikely, and so the court also quashed defendant’s deposition notices.
Court granted a stipulated protective order that all disclosure and discovery activity was entitled to confidential treatment extending to the court action and through the subsequent arbitration.
Court granted motion for preliminary injunction enjoining an ongoing arbitration pursued in violation of prior grant of temporary restraining order.
Court granted motion to stay proceedings for a renewable period of 120 days during pendency of an arbitration it had compelled by an earlier ruling. Court reasoned that considerations of judicial economy militated in favor of a stay given the relevance of the questions at issue in the arbitration to the resolution of the remaining claims. Court retained jurisdiction over pending motion of sanctions and the enforcement of the parties’ existing discovery obligations.
Court denied the petition for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in aid of arbitration. Court held that consummation of the transaction at issue would not result in irreparable harm to petitioner nor vitiate the arbitration process, and that the hardships claimed by the petitioner did not outweigh the hardships claimed by the respondent.
Court denied plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent the parties from arbitrating a dispute scheduled for hearing on August 6, 2018. Court found that there was not a substantial likelihood that plaintiff would prevail in showing the arbitration provision was invalid and unenforceable, and that allowing arbitration served the public interest.
Court rejected plea for preliminary injunctive relief pending the outcome of an ongoing arbitration. Court found that plaintiff failed to prove their likelihood of success on the merits of the arbitration and failed to prove that irreparable harm would follow the failure of the court to issue injunctive relief.
Court of appeals granted plaintiff’s motion for panel rehearing, and substituted its prior decision. Court held that plaintiff-appellant failed to comply with the procedural requirements which would have allowed for attachments to issue in aid of arbitration.
Court of appeals reversed district court’s decision to grant petition seeking leave to subpoena under 28 USC § 1782. Court held that the district court’s decision was an abuse of discretion where the documents sought from a foreign company’s US counsel would be unreachable in foreign proceedings. Court held that this would threaten the US policy of promoting open communications between lawyers and their clients.
Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction enjoining defendants from prosecuting any lawsuits against plaintiff before the Fort Berthold District Court and prohibiting the Forth Berthold District Court from exercising jurisdiction over the plaintiffs in a Tribal Court case. Court found plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits and a preliminary injunction was warranted.
Court granted plaintiff’s motion for declaratory summary judgment that defendant was party to a valid arbitration agreement that only allowed individual, not class, arbitration. Court further granted a permanent injunction against defendant pursuing class arbitration with plaintiff.
Court granted plaintiff’s motion to enforce two subpoenas issued by arbitrators to two non-party witnesses. Pursuant to §7 of the FAA, court concluded that the arbitrators had greater familiarity with what non-party testimony was material and therefore, the witnesses should appear to testify.
Court declined to enforce subpoena in arbitration that would require a non-party to provide pre-hearing document discovery. Court also declined to enforce a subpoena that would require FINRA witnesses to appear at a hearing, as the witnesses did not meet the location requirement for subpoenas set out in FRCP 45(c)(1)(A).
Court granted motion to compel compliance with FINRA arbitral subpoenas and ordered respondents to attend arbitration hearings after they failed to establish undue hardship. Pursuant to §7 of the FAA, court rejected respondents’ claim that arbitrators residing in a different state and present by means of video-conferencing technology were not “sitting” in the appropriate jurisdiction. Court expressly relied on FINRA rules for determining the arbitral seat, not the arbitrator’s physical location, and further rejected the claim that only a district court where the arbitrators sit may compel arbitral subpoenas.
Court granted petition to confirm arbitration award and compel arbitration against respondent in default. As to the petition to confirm, the court found that there was no indication that the award was made arbitrarily, decided contrary to applicable law, or that the tribunal exceeded its authority. As to the petition to compel, the court found that there was an unambiguous agreement to arbitrate and that the respondent had refused to arbitrate additional claims.
After granting motion to compel arbitration and staying proceedings, court dismissed case without prejudice to arbitration due to plaintiff’s failure to initiate arbitration within the time limit set in its prior order. Court found that plaintiff was responsible for paying arbitration filing fees and that there was no authority for ordering defendant to initiate arbitration.
Court of appeals affirmed district court denial of defendant’s motion to arbitrate. Court held that district court properly found that defendant, who paid his arbitration fees, but whose co-defendants’ had not, had waived his right to arbitrate by remaining silent while the pending arbitration collapsed for failure of others to pay. Court held that defendant’s conduct was inconsistent with the right to arbitrate as plaintiff was prejudiced by the defendant’s delay in indicating that he wanted to continue to arbitrate.
Court granted plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order to maintain the status quo until the arbitration panel renders its decision. Court held that plaintiff made a timely request for arbitration, would be able to have an arbitration panel consider its challenges, was likely to succeed on the merits, and that the balance of equities favored granting the TRO as plaintiff would face a concrete, imminent and severe injury from great financial harm that would be irreparable as the Marine Corps’ sovereign immunity would preclude the plaintiff from recovering any monetary damages while the arbitration was pending, whereas any injury to the Marine Corps would be primarily economic.
Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. Court concluded that the requirements for personal jurisdiction over the defendant was satisfied, both to preserve the bargained-for benefit of arbitration and based on the defendant’s contacts with the forum state. Court also concluded that it should enforce the noncompetition agreement because doing so would not substantially harm the defendant, but it would not compel additional disclosures because plaintiff would not be irreparably harmed absent the additional disclosures it sought.
Court granted defendants’ motion for an expedited protective order staying discovery pending a ruling on a motion to compel arbitration. Court held that the interests of judicial economy would be advanced by a temporary stay of discovery, particularly in circumstances where the motion to compel arbitration could dispose of the entire action.
Court overruled respondents’ objection to magistrate judge’s order. Court concluded that the order at issue was procedural, and therefore the court’s review was governed by FRCP Rule 72, which requires modification or set aside of the parts of the order that are clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Court held that it was unable to conclude that the magistrate judge’s order was either a clear error or contrary to law.
After denying motion for preliminary anti-arbitration injunction, court denied motion for an injunction pending appeal, finding that appellant had not established it was likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal; that its claim of irreparable harm was insufficient; and that the balance of the equities was against the injunction.
Court of appeals dismissed appeal from preliminary injunction pending arbitration as moot, since award was issued in the interim.
Court granted temporary restraining order enjoining former employee from participating in state employment agency hearing, finding that employer’s motion to compel arbitration was likely to succeed and that proceeding with state agency hearings would cause irreparable harm. Court found unpersuasive employee’s argument that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable and that employer had waived its right to arbitrate by refusing mediation.
Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff securities broker-dealer sought reimbursement from defendant prior employee for settlements with customers whose accounts were handled by defendant. Defendant refused and brought arbitration proceedings before FINRA in Los Angeles. The FINRA arbitration panel heard plaintiff’s motion to transfer the Los Angeles arbitration to Palm Beach County, Florida pursuant to the venue-selection clause in the parties’ agreement and ordered the arbitration to remain in Los Angeles. Plaintiff then initiated the action to compel arbitration in Palm Beach County, Florida and to stay arbitration proceedings in Los Angeles, California. Court accepted defendants’ argument that arbitration proceedings must proceed in Los Angeles based on the arbitration panel’s order, despite the order being inconsistent with the parties’ venue-selection provision.
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.

References: § 5
 § 7
 § 7
 v. 
 § 3
 § 1782
 § 1782
 § 1782
 §7
 §7