SECOND CIRCUIT VACATES DENIAL OF CITIBANK’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
On appeal from the S.D.N.Y., Citibank challenged the district court’s denial of Citibank’s motion to compel arbitration and decision that the agreement to arbitrate was not binding on the parties. The S.D.N.Y. concluded that Signature Cards signed by appellees when opening their accounts with Citibank did not incorporate by reference the Client Manual, which contains the arbitration agreement. The Second Circuit vacated the district court judgment and remanded for further proceedings because several issues of fact existed as to the making of the arbitration agreement, therefore requiring a trial. The issues of fact identified are (1) whether Citibank provided the Client Manual to appellees; (2) whether the Client Manual appears to be a contract on its face; and (3) whether appellees are estopped from arguing they did not agree to arbitrate because they “knowingly exploited” the benefits of the agreement. Hirsch v. Citibank, N.A., No. 12-1172-cv (2d Cir. Oct. 22, 2013).
This post written by Abigail Kortz.
See our disclaimer.
