• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

  • About
    • Events
  • Articles
    • Treaty Tips
    • Special Focus
    • Market
  • Contact
  • Exclusive Content
    • Blog Staff Picks
    • Cat Risks
    • Regulatory Modernization
    • Webinars
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Arbitration / Court Decisions / Arbitration Process Issues / ARBITRATION PROCEDURE ROUNDUP

ARBITRATION PROCEDURE ROUNDUP

January 10, 2013 by Carlton Fields

Confirming/Vacating Arbitral Award

Fisher v. Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, Case No. 12-1413-CM (USDC D. Kan. Dec. 18, 2012) (granting motion to confirm arbitration award; holding that allegedly erroneous discovery rulings did not deprive plaintiff of a fundamentally fair hearing nor constitute arbitrator misconduct)

Laughlin v. VMWare, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-00530-EJD (USDC N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2012) (denying motion to vacate arbitration award; holding that the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law by denying respondent’s motion to strike class allegations)

State Farm Insurance Cos. v. Padilla, No. 27-CV-11-23900 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 24 2012) (reversing order vacating no fault arbitration award; holding that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers by finding that insurer’s request for an examination under oath was unreasonable)

Stone & Youngberg, LLC v. Kay Family Revocable Trust, No. 11-16684 (9th Cir. Dec. 12, 2012) (holding that the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard negligence law and, further, that a court has no authority under the FAA to modify an arbitration award to prevent double recovery)

Compelling Arbitration

Baltazar v. Forever 21, Inc., No. B237173 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2012) (reversing order denying motion to compel arbitration; holding, among other things, that a provision in an arbitration agreement allowing either party to seek provisional remedies in court, such as injunctive relief, did not render the arbitration agreement unconscionable)

Taylor v. Community Bankers Securities, LLC, Case No. H-12-2088 (USDC S.D. Tex. Dec. 19, 2012) (denying motion to compel arbitration of action brought by receiver appointed to represent investors in Ponzi scheme due to absence of evidence that investors entered into arbitration agreements)

Botorff v. Amerco, Case No. 2:12-cv-01286-MCE-EFB (USDC E.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2012) (dismissing UCL claim against truck rental company; holding that arbitration agreement referred to but not included in rental agreement was enforceable and, further, that small claims court exception to compulsory arbitration did not apply because plaintiff’s lawsuit was brought as a class action that could not be adjudicated in small claims court)

Stone v. Vail Resorts Development Co., Case No. 1:09-cv-02081 (USDC D. Colo. Dec. 20, 2012) (denying plaintiff’s motion to reopen case and reconsider order compelling arbitration)

Interim Arbitral Relief

United States f/b/o Clifford & Galvin Contracting, LLC v. Endicott Constructors Corp., Case No. 12-10152-MLW (USDC D. Mass. Dec. 13, 2012) (denying motion to dismiss Miller Act claims against surety and staying case pending arbitration between contractor and assured party)

Bergman v. Spruce Peak Realty, LLC, Case Nos. 2:11-cv-127, 2:11-cv-128 (USDC D. Vt. Dec. 13, 2012) (granting motion to consolidate two related class action cases and granting motion to stay consolidated action pending arbitrator’s decision on scope of arbitrable claims in one case)

Jurisdictional Issues

First Investment Corp. of the Marshall Islands v. Fujian Mawei Shipbuilding, Ltd., No. 12-30377 (5th Cir. Dec. 21, 2012) (affirming that district court properly dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction a petition to confirm a foreign arbitration award under the U.N. Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards; affirming that defendant People’s Republic of China was properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction)

This post written by Ben Seessel.

See our disclaimer.

Filed Under: Arbitration Process Issues

Primary Sidebar

Carlton Fields Logo

A blog focused on reinsurance and arbitration law and practice by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Focused Topics

Hot Topics

Read the results of Artemis’ latest survey of reinsurance market professionals concerning the state of the market and their intentions for 2019.

Recent Updates

Market (1/27/2019)
Articles (1/2/2019)

See our advanced search tips.

Subscribe

If you would like to receive updates to Reinsurance Focus® by email, visit our Subscription page.
© 2008–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · Disclaimers and Conditions of Use

Reinsurance Focus® is a registered service mark of Carlton Fields. All Rights Reserved.

Please send comments and questions to the Reinsurance Focus Administrators

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.