Cason v. Chase Bank USA

CourtSuperior Court of Maine
DecidedFebruary 11, 2009
DocketSAGcv-07-060and076
StatusUnpublished

This text of Cason v. Chase Bank USA (Cason v. Chase Bank USA) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cason v. Chase Bank USA, (Me. Super. Ct. 2009).

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE UPERIOR COURT SAGADAHOC, ss IVIL ACTION ocket Nos. CV-07-060 & , CV-07-076 ! I , - ;"7 I I \! 'J c' ' , i TIMOTHY M. CASON,

Plaintiff ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTIO FOR SUMMARY v. JUDG NT

CHASE BANK USA, N.A.

Defendant

This matter comes before the court on the def ndant Chase Bank USA,

N.A. (Chase)'s1 motion for summary judgment. Fo the following reasons,

Chase's motion is granted.

BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The plaintiff filed complaints for breach of contract in both above-listed

docket numbers. Chase filed its answers and counterclaims, seeking to confirm

two Arbitration Awards entered against the plaintiff on August 15, 2007 and

September 4, 2007.

The plaintiff opened two credit card accounts with Bank One; on June 5,

1998, he opened Account 4316, and on August 6, 1999, he opened Account 7915.

The credit card accounts were open-ended credit plans. When the plaintiff

1JPMorgan Chase (JP Morgan) is the most recent successor in interest to Chase. Chase was the successor in interest to Bank One, Delaware, N.A. (Bank One), pursuant to their merger in October 2004. opened each account, he received a cardmember agreement in the same envelope

in which he received his new credit cards.

Chase has submitted a copy of its standard cardmember agreement,

accompanied by supporting affidavit testimony, which contains an arbitration

provision that provides:

Any claim, dispute or controversy ("Claim") by either you or us against the other, or against the employees, agents or assigns of the other, arising from or relating in any way to this Agreement or your Account, including Claims regarding the applicability of this arbitration clause or the validity of the entire Agreement, shall be resolved by binding arbitration by the National Arbitration Forum under the Code of Procedure in effect at the time the Claim is filed.

* * * * *

IN THE ABSENCE OF THIS ARBITRATION AGREEMENT YOU AND WE MAY OTHERWISE HAVE HAD A RIGHT OR OPPORTUNITY TO LITIGATE CLAIMS THROUGH A COURT AND/OR TO PARTICIPATE OR BE REPRESENTED IN LITIGATION FILED IN COURT BY OTHERS, BUT EXPECT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED ABOVE, ALL CLAIMS MUST NOW BE RESOLVED THROUGH ARBITRATION.

The agreement further provides that the cardholder will be deemed to

have accepted and ratified any changes, additions, or deletions accompanying

the notice if the card member does not send an opt out notice in a timely manner

or uses the card or account after a specified time period. The plaintiff used both

credit cards after receiving such notice. Each agreement also provides that

Delaware law and applicable federal law govern the terms of the accounts.

Chase has also submitted copies of amended arbitration clauses, which

Chase states it sent to the plaintiff when it updated his accounts. 2 Each

Amendment provided that"ANY DISPUTE MAYBE RESOLVED BY BINDING

2 Chase states it sent amended arbitration clauses for Account 7915 in October 2003 and February 2004, and for Account 4316 in November 2003.

2 ARBITRATION. ARBITRATION REPLACES THE RIGHT TO GO TO COURT."

The amendments also expanded the choice of arbitration forums from one to

three, adding the American Arbitration Association (AAA) and JAMS/Endispute

(JAMS) to the National Arbitration Forum (NAF) as possible organizations to

administer arbitration of claims.

Chase declared Cason's Account 7915 a bad debt on December 31, 2006,

and declared Account 4316 a bad debt on January 31, 2007. Subsequently, Chase

filed a claim against the plaintiff with the NAF. The plaintiff filed form

responses to the NAF claims. On August 15, 2007, following arbitration, the

NAF arbitrator issued an award in Chase's favor as to Account 7915 in the

amount of $6,850.66. On September 4, 2007, the NAF arbitrator issued an award

in favor of Chase as to Account 4316 in the amount of $20,214.92.

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

Summary judgment is proper where there exist no genuine issues of

material fact such that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of

law. M.R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Levine v. R.B.K. Caly Corp., 2001 ME 77, 14,770

A.2d 653, 655. A genuine issue is raised "when sufficient evidence requires a

fact-finder to choose between competing versions of the truth at trial." Parrish v.

Wright, 2003 ME 90, 1 8, 828 A.2d 778, 781. A material fact is a fact that has "the

potential to affect the outcome of the suit." Burdzel v. Sobus, 2000 ME 84, 1 6,

750 A.2d 573, 575. "If material facts are disputed, the dispute must be resolved

through fact-finding." Curtis v. Porter, 2001 ME 158, 1 7, 784 A.2d 18, 22. A

party wishing to avoid summary judgment must present a prima facie case for

the claim or defense that is asserted. Reliance Nat'l Indem. v. Knowles Indus.

3 Servs., Corp., 2005 ME 29,

reviewed "in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Lightfoot v. Sch.

Admin. Dist. No. 35, 2003 ME 24,

II. Binding Arbitration

The Law Court has recognized that arbitration offers its participants an

expeditious method of resolving disputes, and often allocates decision-making to

parties who are more informed and experienced with the issues at hand. See

Lewiston Firefighters Ass'n v. City of Lewiston, 354 A.2d 154, 164-66 (Me. 1976).

"Maine has a broad presumption favoring substantive arbitrability." V.J.P., Inc.

v. First Tree Dev. Ltd. Liab. Co., 2001 ME 73,

v. Tillotson, 1997 ME 121,

Invs., Inc., 2005 ME 43,

In his complaints, the plaintiff alleges that Chase breached its contract by

filing an arbitration claim without the parties having an agreement to arbitrate.

Chase has provided affidavit testimony from one of its Audit Managers, Joette G.

Herrera. She states that the plaintiff's accounts have been subject to a binding

arbitration clause from the time he opened the accounts. She states further that

the Chase's predecessor, Bank One, adopted arbitration in late 1997 and applied

it to all new accounts. Chase has submitted a copy of its standard cardmember

agreement, which it provides to all new card members in the same envelope in

which they receive their new credit card.

Chase contends that the plaintiff assented to arbitrate claims when he

received the agreement in the mail, and used the credit cards after receiving

notice that all claims would be subject to arbitration. The agreement submitted

by Chase states that the cardholder will be deemed to have accepted and ratified

4 any changes, additions, or deletions accompanying the notice if the card member

does not send an opt out notice in a timely manner or uses the card or account

after a specified time period.

In his opposition to summary judgment, the plaintiff counters that the

original agreements he received with his credit cards did not contain arbitration

provisions. Despite this claim, the plaintiff has not provided a copy of an

alternative agreement that does not include an arbitration provision. He has not

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lewiston Firefighters Ass'n, Local 785 v. City of Lewiston
354 A.2d 154 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1976)
Winters v. Federal Deposit Insurance
812 F. Supp. 1 (D. Maine, 1993)
Burdzel v. Sobus
2000 ME 84 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2000)
Roosa v. Tillotson
1997 ME 121 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1997)
Parrish v. Wright
2003 ME 90 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2003)
Barrett v. McDonald Investments, Inc.
2005 ME 43 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2005)
Handy Boat Service, Inc. v. Professional Services, Inc.
1998 ME 134 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1998)
Astor v. Boulos Co., Inc.
451 A.2d 903 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1982)
Curtis v. Porter
2001 ME 158 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2001)
Lightfoot v. School Administrative District No. 35
2003 ME 24 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2003)
Levine v. R.B.K. Caly Corp.
2001 ME 77 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2001)
V.I.P., Inc. v. First Tree Development Ltd. Liability Co.
2001 ME 73 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2001)
Reliance National Indemnity v. Knowles Industrial Services, Corp.
2005 ME 29 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2005)
Key Bank, N.A. v. Mott
1998 ME 151 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1998)
Bistline v. United States
640 F.2d 1270 (Court of Claims, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Cason v. Chase Bank USA, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cason-v-chase-bank-usa-mesuperct-2009.