Petition To Compel Arbitration

138 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Univ. Life Ins. Co. OF Am. v. Unimarc Ltd.
  699 F.2d 846· 7th Cir.· 1983-01-12 ·cited 89×
  An order compelling arbitration is appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 even if the district court retains jurisdiction for supervision and enforcement, and such an order should not be stayed due to frivolous or insubstantial antitrust allegations.
• Farr & Co. v. CIA. Intercontinental de Navegacion de Cuba
  243 F.2d 342· 2d Cir.· 1957-02-04 ·cited 74×
  An order directing arbitration under section 4 of the U.S. Arbitration Act, when issued in an independent proceeding, is a final and appealable order. Service by mail is permissible under the Act as amended, incorporating state service rules, and constitutes valid personal jurisd
• Necchi S.p.A. v. Necchi Sewing Mach. Sales Corp.
  348 F.2d 693· 2d Cir.· 1965-07-15 ·cited 72×
  A court must determine the arbitrability of disputes before ordering arbitration, and not all disputes listed by a party are necessarily arbitrable under a broad arbitration clause.
• Chatham Shipping Co. v. Fertex S.S. Corp.
  352 F.2d 291· 2d Cir.· 1965-10-19 ·cited 68×
  An order directing arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, when issued in an independent proceeding, is a final and appealable decision.
• In re Carey v. Gen. Elec. Co.
  315 F.2d 499· 2d Cir.· 1963-03-11 ·cited 64×
  The court held that procedural arbitrability issues are for the arbitrator, and that limitations on an arbitrator's authority do not divest them of jurisdiction over grievances involving interpretation or application of the agreement. The court also held that claims arguably cons
• Victory Transp. Inc. v. Comisaria General de Abastecimientos y Transportes
  336 F.2d 354· 2d Cir.· 1964-09-09 ·cited 57×
  The court held that a foreign sovereign's commercial activities, including chartering a ship and agreeing to arbitration, are not protected by sovereign immunity, and that the court has in personam jurisdiction to compel arbitration.
• McALLISTER Bros., Inc. v. A & S Transp. Co. & Modern Transp. Co.
  621 F.2d 519· 2d Cir.· 1980-05-02 ·cited 51×
  The court held that a dispute over whether a contract was abandoned is arbitrable if the arbitration clause is broad enough to cover it. It also held that affiliated companies not signatories to an arbitration agreement may be bound by it, requiring a trial on the issue.
• Interocean Shipping Co. v. Nat'l Shipping & Trading Corp. & Hellenic Int'l Shipping, S.A.
  462 F.2d 673· 2d Cir.· 1972-06-23 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the district court erred in compelling arbitration without a trial because the appellants raised sufficient factual issues regarding the making of the arbitration agreement, including the existence of the charter party, the authority of the brokers, and the st
• In re Mercury Constr. Corp. v. The Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp.
  656 F.2d 933· 4th Cir.· 1981-08-12 ·cited 45×
  The dissenting judges would hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion by awaiting action from the state court.
• Reconstr. Fin. Corp. v. Harrisons & Crosfield
  204 F.2d 366· 2d Cir.· 1953-05-08 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the statute of limitations had not barred the arbitration because the cause of action for breach of the arbitration obligation accrues when arbitration is demanded and refused, not when the underlying breach occurred.
• United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. Alpha Beta Co.
  736 F.2d 1371· 9th Cir.· 1984-07-10 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the disputed contract provision is susceptible to a lawful interpretation by an arbitrator, and therefore the employer must arbitrate the dispute. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of the employer's motions to dismiss.
• In re the Arb. Between Mar. Int'l Nominees Establishment v. The Republic OF Guinea
  693 F.2d 1094· D.C. Cir.· 1982-11-12 ·cited 41×
  The court held that an agreement to arbitrate under the ICSID framework does not constitute an implied waiver of sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) because ICSID arbitration is designed to avoid domestic court involvement.
• In re the Complaint of Sedco, Inc. v. Petroleos Mexicanos Mexican Nat'l OIL Co.
  767 F.2d 1140· 5th Cir.· 1985-08-12 ·cited 39×
  The court held that an appeal from an order denying arbitration under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards is appealable, and that the defendant did not waive its right to arbitration.
• In re Pahlberg Petition
  131 F.2d 968· 2d Cir.· 1942-12-07 ·cited 39×
  The court held that an order compelling arbitration under Section 4 of the U.S. Arbitration Act is interlocutory and therefore not appealable.
• Commercial Metals Co. v. Balfour
  577 F.2d 264· 5th Cir.· 1978-07-27 ·cited 38×
  The court held that a suit to compel arbitration, based on a contractual agreement, does not arise under federal law and thus does not establish federal question jurisdiction, even if the Federal Arbitration Act removes defenses to enforcement.
• Hamilton Life Ins. Co. OF NEW York v. Republic Nat'l Life Ins. Co.
  408 F.2d 606· 2d Cir.· 1969-03-12 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the Federal Arbitration Act applies to insurance contracts and that a party's consent to arbitration in New York confers personal jurisdiction, even if service of process occurred elsewhere.
• Snyder v. Bruton Smith
  736 F.2d 409· 7th Cir.· 1984-06-07 ·cited 36×
  The court held that it had personal jurisdiction over the appellant and that the Federal Arbitration Act applied, but reversed the district court's order compelling arbitration in Illinois when the agreement specified Texas.
• Teamsters Union Local 315 v. Great W. Chem. Co.
  781 F.2d 764· 9th Cir.· 1986-01-29 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the six-month statute of limitations under § 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act is the appropriate statute to borrow for actions to compel arbitration under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act.
• Int'l Ass'n OF Bridge v. Madison Indus., Inc.
  733 F.2d 656· 9th Cir.· 1984-05-15 ·cited 32×
  A judgment on the merits is a final, appealable decision even when a request for attorney's fees remains unresolved, as such requests are collateral to the main action.
• Americana Fabrics, Inc. v. L & L Textiles, Inc.
  754 F.2d 1524· 9th Cir.· 1985-03-07 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the "last in time" rule of res judicata dictates that the New York District Court's order compelling arbitration was binding on the California District Court, entitling the petitioner to an order compelling arbitration.
• Acton Corp. v. Borden, Inc.
  670 F.2d 377· 1st Cir.· 1982-02-12 ·cited 30×
  Orders staying litigation pending resolution of related issues in another federal court are generally not appealable, and mandamus is not warranted when the district court acted within its discretionary authority.
• T & R Enters., Inc. v. Cont'l Grain Co.
  613 F.2d 1272· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-17 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the plaintiff waived its right to a jury trial on the existence of the arbitration agreement due to its procedural conduct and that the parties' agreement and conduct evinced consent to judicial enforcement of the award.
• N.V. Maatschappij Voor Industriele Waarden v. A. O. Smith Corp.
  532 F.2d 874· 2d Cir.· 1976-04-01 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the existence of antitrust and patent issues does not automatically require a stay of arbitration, especially when the antitrust claims are raised late and are not clearly established.
• Interocean Shipping Co. v. Nat'l Shipping & Trading Corp. & Hellenic Int'l Shipping
  523 F.2d 527· 2d Cir.· 1975-06-24 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a valid charter party existed and that the broker had authority to bind the parties, but modified the arbitration order to exclude the guarantor (National) from arbitration.
• HOH v. Pepsico
  491 F.2d 556· 2d Cir.· 1974-02-08 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the unions failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits and unduly delayed in invoking available arbitration remedies.
• World Brilliance Corp. v. Bethlehem Steel Co.
  342 F.2d 362· 2d Cir.· 1965-03-02 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the defense of waiver is arbitrable, and the issue of laches can be decided by the court on motion papers without a jury trial.
• Associated Brick Mason Contractors OF Greater NEW York, Inc. v. Harrington
  820 F.2d 31· 2d Cir.· 1987-05-22 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the broad arbitration clause in the collective bargaining agreement covers the grievances concerning the manpower shortage, and that the six-month statute of limitations under the NLRA applies to actions to compel arbitration.
• Petition of Petrol Shipping Corp.
  360 F.2d 103· 2d Cir.· 1966-04-21 ·cited 27×
  A foreign sovereign's branch that enters into an arbitration agreement is amenable to suit in federal court to compel arbitration, and service by ordinary mail on the branch's office within the state is sufficient.
• Application of Robert W. Davenport v. The Procter & Gamble Mfg. Co.
  241 F.2d 511· 2d Cir.· 1957-02-04 ·cited 27×
  The court held that both the order denying remand and the order denying arbitration were appealable, and that the grievance concerning the substitution of wage survey companies was not an arbitrable issue under the collective bargaining agreement.
• I.S. Joseph Co. v. Mich. Sugar Co.
  803 F.2d 396· 8th Cir.· 1986-10-10 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the question of whether an assignee can enforce an arbitration agreement against a party to the original agreement is a matter of substantive arbitrability that must be decided by the court, not the arbitrator.
• Valiant Ins. Co. v. Webster
  567 So. 2d 408· Fla.· 1990-07-26 ·cited 25×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that uninsured motorist coverage under an automobile insurance policy extends only to persons who would be covered under the policy's liability provisions. A deceased child who was not a resident of the insured's household and thus not covered for l
• Morelite Constr. Corp. (A Div. OF Morelite Elec. Serv. v. NEW York City Dist. Council Carpenters Benefit Funds & the Dist. Council of N.Y. City & Vicinity of the United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am.
  748 F.2d 79· 2d Cir.· 1984-11-05 ·cited 25×
  An arbitrator's father-son relationship with an officer of a party creates "evident partiality" under 9 U.S.C. § 10, requiring vacatur of the award.
• John Thompson Beacon Windows, Ltd. v. Ferro, Inc.
  232 F.2d 366· D.C. Cir.· 1956-03-29 ·cited 24×
  The court held that an order overruling a motion to compel arbitration, which does not dispose of the entire case on its merits, is not a final decision and therefore not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
• Cont'l Grain Co. v. Dant & Russell, Inc.
  118 F.2d 967· 9th Cir.· 1941-03-29 ·cited 24×
  The court held that an order directing arbitration under the U.S. Arbitration Act is a final, appealable order, and that the Act mandates the arbitration hearing occur within the district where the petition was filed.
• Leaf v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
  544 So. 2d 1049· Fla. 4th DCA· 1989-05-24 ·cited 22×
  Kathleen Leaf sought to compel arbitration of an insurance claim against State Farm, and a jury found State Farm had consented to arbitration. The court reversed the trial court's striking of Leaf's attorney's fees claim, holding that section 627.428 authorized fees because State
• Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO v. Gen. Elec. Co.
  406 F.2d 1046· 2d Cir.· 1969-01-27 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a dispute over a plant suspension, even if involving a shutdown, is arbitrable under a collective bargaining agreement because the exclusion clause was not clear and unambiguous, and national policy favors arbitration.
• Bhd. OF Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local # 70 v. Interstate Distrib. Co.
  832 F.2d 507· 9th Cir.· 1987-11-13 ·cited 20×
  When a collective bargaining agreement contains a broad arbitration clause, disputes over whether the agreement has expired or been terminated are to be decided by an arbitrator, not the court.
• Int'l Union OF Operating Eng'rs v. Carl A. Morse, Inc.
  529 F.2d 574· 7th Cir.· 1976-02-10 ·cited 19×
  A court must order arbitration if there is a valid agreement to arbitrate and the agreement covers the dispute, even if the employer raises defenses to the underlying substantive provisions of the contract.
• In re a Motion to Compel Arb. between Hellenic Lines, Ltd.
  372 F.2d 753· 2d Cir.· 1967-02-10 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the agreement to arbitrate was valid and enforceable, as the defendant failed to establish duress, and the plaintiff's promise to arbitrate constituted sufficient consideration.
• In re the Arb. between Prudential Lines, Inc.
  704 F.2d 59· 2d Cir.· 1983-03-28 ·cited 18×
  The court held that disputes concerning the responsibility for repairs and sub-issues like the surveyor's authority are arbitrable under the charter party's arbitration clauses, even if significant delays have occurred.
• Hosp. & Institutional Workers Union Local 250, Seiu, AFL-CIO v. Marshal Hale Mem'l Hosp.
  647 F.2d 38· 9th Cir.· 1981-06-01 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the dispute was within the scope of the arbitration agreement and procedural arbitrability questions should be decided by the arbitrator, not the court.
• In re the Arb. between Thomas C. Gangemi
  532 F.2d 861· 2d Cir.· 1976-03-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the collective bargaining agreement's arbitration clause clearly and unambiguously provided for only voluntary arbitration of the dispute, and the district court erred in compelling arbitration.
• EL Hoss Eng'g & Transp. Co., Ltd. v. Am. Indep. OIL Co.
  289 F.2d 346· 2d Cir.· 1961-04-10 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the majority decision improperly departed from established liberal arbitration policy by considering contract performance issues.
• Schiffahartsgesellschaft Leonhardt & Co. v. A. Bottacchi S.A. DE Navegacion
  773 F.2d 1528· 11th Cir.· 1985-10-01 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the maritime attachment procedures under Rule B(1) are derived from the court's inherent admiralty powers, not exclusively from the rule itself, thus avoiding a constitutional challenge to the rule.
• Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Boston & Me. Corp.
  850 F.2d 756· D.C. Cir.· 1988-06-24 ·cited 16×
  A broad arbitration clause in a contract is presumed to cover disputes regarding the contract's duration, unless the parties clearly demonstrate otherwise.
• In re Grand Bahama Petroleum Co. v. Asiatic Petroleum Corp.
  550 F.2d 1320· 2d Cir.· 1977-03-03 ·cited 16×
  New York Business Corporation Law § 1312(a) cannot be invoked to preclude a foreign corporation from maintaining an action to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, even if diversity jurisdiction is the basis.
• Aaacon Auto Transp., Inc. v. Ninfo
  490 F.2d 83· 2d Cir.· 1974-01-02 ·cited 16×
  The court held that an order transferring venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is a non-appealable interlocutory order, and the district court erred in transferring the case instead of proceeding to trial on the arbitration agreement's validity.
• Prudential Sec. Inc. v. Ruskin
  707 So. 2d 782· Fla. 4th DCA· 1998-01-14 ·cited 14×
  Prudential Securities and an employee appealed a circuit court order denying their request for statutory attorney's fees under Florida's securities law following arbitration of a dispute with Dr. Ruskin. The court affirmed, holding that the defendants waived their right to attorn
• In re Cajun Elec. Power Coop., Inc. v. Riley Stoker Corp.
  791 F.2d 353· 5th Cir.· 1986-06-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that an arbitration clause, physically present and clearly labeled within a contract's incorporated documents, is binding even if the party claims it was a clerical error or they did not read it, absent fraud or misrepresentation.
• Dupuy-Busching Gen. Agency, Inc. v. Ambassador Ins. Co.
  524 F.2d 1275· 5th Cir.· 1975-12-24 ·cited 14×
  A party seeking arbitration may assert its Section 4 right in the district where the opposing party filed suit to enjoin arbitration, even if that district differs from the contractually agreed-upon arbitration venue.