Stone v. Golden Wexler & Sarnese, P.C.

Post Reply
David A. Szwak
Posts: 1974
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:19 pm

Stone v. Golden Wexler & Sarnese, P.C.

Post by David A. Szwak »

Stone v. Golden Wexler & Sarnese, P.C.
341 F.Supp.2d 189
E.D.N.Y.,2004.
September 30, 2004

Background: Consumer brought class action against bank that issued credit card and others, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Bank moved to stay the proceedings in favor of arbitration.

Holdings: The District Court, Dearie, J., held that:
(1) because consumer neither expressly nor implicitly consented to the addition of the arbitration clause to the parties' customer agreement, the clause did not constitute a binding modification under general principles of Virginia contract law, and
(2) under Virginia law, as predicted by the district court, the customer agreement's change-in-terms provision did not authorize bank to unilaterally add the arbitration clause.

Motion denied.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER


DEARIE, District Judge.
Plaintiff brings a class action against defendants alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. Defendant Capital One Bank moves to stay the proceeding in favor of arbitration. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is denied.


BACKGROUND

The material facts of the case are undisputed. Plaintiff Stone opened a credit card with Capital One Bank (“Bankâ€
Post Reply

Return to “Arbitration, Forum Selection, Choice of Law, Choice of Venue and Other Adhesionary Clauses”