Weiss v. American Express National Bank
- James Oetken
- 1:19-cv-04720
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Weiss v. American Express National Bank, Judge Oetken granted AMEX’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the case.
Chaya Weiss and American Express National Bank; the court ordered the dispute to arbitration and directed that the federal case be closed.
What happened
In Weiss v. American Express National Bank, the court considered AMEX’s second request to require arbitration. The court had previously denied AMEX’s first request because AMEX had not satisfied a required condition for choosing arbitration, but AMEX later sent Weiss notice of its intent to arbitrate before JAMS.
Weiss argued that a second request was improper, that AMEX had not shown a valid arbitration agreement, and that AMEX had given up its right to arbitrate through earlier litigation. The court rejected each argument, finding that AMEX had provided new evidence, that Weiss had received and used the card under an agreement containing an arbitration provision, and that AMEX had not engaged in prolonged litigation causing the required prejudice.
Judge James Oetken granted AMEX’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the case. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion and the case.
The detailed version
- Weiss v. American Express National Bank · No. 1:19-cv-04720
- James Oetken
- Nov. 18, 2020
Background
American Express National Bank (AMEX) previously moved to compel arbitration under its Cardholder Agreement with Chaya Weiss. On January 7, 2020, the court denied that motion because AMEX had not satisfied a condition required before it could elect arbitration. AMEX later sent Weiss notice of its intent to arbitrate the case before JAMS and filed a second motion to compel arbitration.
Arguments and Analysis
Weiss opposed the second motion on three grounds. First, she argued that successive motions to compel arbitration were not allowed and that the court’s earlier ruling barred the new motion. The court rejected that argument because AMEX relied on new evidence—its notice of intent to arbitrate—rather than challenging the reasoning of the earlier decision. The court also noted that courts in the Second Circuit had considered successive motions to compel arbitration in other cases.
Second, Weiss argued that AMEX had not established a valid agreement to arbitrate because it had not produced a signed Cardholder Agreement or the exact terms sent when she opened her account. The court applied New York law to contract formation. It found unrebutted evidence that AMEX mailed the Cardholder Agreement to Weiss with her credit card, that Weiss accepted and used the card, and that the 2014 agreement AMEX produced contained an arbitration provision functionally identical to provisions in later agreements, including the one in effect when Weiss filed her complaint. The court therefore found a valid agreement to arbitrate.
Third, Weiss argued that AMEX had waived, or given up, its right to arbitrate by filing a collection suit in New York state court and removing this case to federal court. The court applied federal law governing arbitration and explained that waiver generally requires prolonged litigation that prejudices the opposing party. It found that both matters were at an early stage, that the state collection suit had been voluntarily dismissed before a decision on the merits, and that the collection claims involved different legal and factual issues from the claims in this case, which included claims under the Fair Credit Billing Act, the Truth in Lending Act, and the New York General Business Law. The court found no waiver.
Disposition
The court granted AMEX’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the case. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Docket Number 27 and to close the case.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.