Arbitration Agreements Archives

In Arbitrability

U.S.: Sixth Circuit compels arbitration where attack was on validity of contract, not validity of arbitration provision, and remands case to district court to decide on permissibility of class arbitration.

April 4, 2019 by Lyndon Allin and David Zaslowsky 4 Mins Read

Rogers v. Swepi LP, No. 18-3229 (6th Cir. Dec. 10, 2018) [click for opinion] In 2011, Matt Rogers entered into a lease agreement governing oil and gas extraction from Rogers’s five-acre property in Ohio (the “Agreement”) with SWEPI LP and Shell Energy Holding GP LLC (together, “Shell”). The Agreement provided that Rogers would receive a $5,000-per-acre signing bonus upon Shell’s verification of his good title to the property. Rogers did not receive the signing bonus…

In Arbitration Agreements

U.S.: Second Circuit holds that arbitration provision did not become part of contract where plaintiff did not have reasonable notice of it and manifest his assent to it.

April 2, 2019 by Baker McKenzie 5 Mins Read

Starke v. SquareTrade, Inc., No. 17-2474-cv (2d Cir. Jan. 10, 2019) [click for opinion] In January 2016, Plaintiff…

In Arbitrability

U.S.: Fourth Circuit directs district court to compel arbitration where agreement contained clear and unmistakable language providing the arbitrator with the power to determine his or her jurisdiction.

March 28, 2019 by 2 Mins Read

Novic v. Credit One Bank, N.A., No. 17-2168 (4th Cir. Jan 4, 2019) [click for opinion] Charleene Novic…

In Arbitrability

U.S.: District court grants motion to compel arbitration in accordance with broad arbitration clause that provides that an arbitrator must decide the threshold issue of whether a dispute is arbitrable.

March 26, 2019 by 3 Mins Read

SteppeChange LLC v. VEON Ltd., No. 18-cv-04842 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2018) [click for opinion] Plaintiff SteppeChange, LLC (“SteppeChange”) a California-based tech company, was involved in two projects, under two separate oral agreements, with Dutch cellular phone and data service provider VEON Ltd. (“VEON”), and its Italian subsidiary, Wind Tre S.p.A. (“Wind” and collectively with VEON, “Defendants”). The first project involved developing a customer messaging platform (the “Button Project”), and the second involved developing a…

In Arbitration Agreements

U.S.: Appellate court reverses trial court order compelling arbitration, finding parties did not enter a valid mutual agreement to arbitrate.

March 25, 2019 by 4 Mins Read

Skuse v. Pfizer, Inc., No. A-3027-17T4 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Jan. 16, 2019) [click for opinion] In…

In Arbitration Agreements

U.S.: Fifth Circuit holds that party waived right to compel arbitration by invoking the judicial process and because Plaintiff was prejudiced in her legal position.

February 18, 2019 by 3 Mins Read

Forby v. One Technologies, L.P., No. 17-10883 (5th Cir. Nov. 28, 2018) [click for opinion] On April 24,…

In Arbitration Agreements

Canada: Ontario Court of Appeal invalidates arbitration clause requiring arbitration in foreign jurisdiction

January 14, 2019 by 3 Mins Read

In its first decision of 2019, the Ontario Court of Appeal has overturned the lower court’s decision in…

In Arbitration Agreements

U.S.: Eleventh Circuit establishes a two-part test for the independent issues of whether a district court has jurisdiction upon removal under the New York Convention and whether a non-signatory party to an arbitration agreement may compel a signatory party to arbitrate.

January 3, 2019 by 4 Mins Read

Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC, et al. v. Converteam SAS, No. 17-10944 (11th Cir. 2018) [click for opinion] Plaintiff…

In Arbitration Agreements

US: District court denies motion to compel arbitration because Defendant was a non-signatory to the relevant arbitration agreement and Plaintiff did not meet its burden in showing that it was acting as agent for one of the other signatories.

January 2, 2019 by Laura Kelly and David Zaslowsky 4 Mins Read

Thompson v. AT&T Serv., Inc., No. 17 C 3607 (N.D. III. Sept. 24, 2018) [click for opinion] Plaintiff brought suit against several Defendants, including AT&T Services, Inc. (“AT&T”), Illinois Bell, and Sutherland Global Services, Inc. (“Sutherland”), for allegedly making unsolicited calls to Plaintiff in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). AT&T allegedly contracted with Sutherland to call AT&T customers. Plaintiff alleges that he received multiple unsolicited calls from Sutherland’s using an automatic telephone dialing system, which…