A federal district court in Washington confirmed an arbitration award in favor of a credit card issuer where, despite the cardholder’s claim that she never agreed to arbitrate, the evidence demonstrated that notice of the arbitration agreement was mailed to the cardholder, and she continued to use the card without objection.

In Walters v. Chase Manhattan Bank, No. CV-07-0037-FVS, 2008 WL 3200739 (E.D. Wash. Aug. 6, 2008), Chase filed an arbitration claim against Walters seeking to collect the unpaid balance on a Chase credit card. The arbitrator issued an award in Chase’s favor. Later, Walters sued Chase for an alleged Truth in Lending Act (TILA) violation. Chase counterclaimed for confirmation of the arbitration award.

Walters, who voluntarily dismissed her TILA claim, opposed confirmation on two grounds. First, she argued that venue was improper because Chase was not seeking confirmation in the district where the award was made. In rejecting this argument, the Court explained that "the venue provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act are permissive, permitting a motion to confirm, vacate, or modify an arbitration award either where the award was made or in any district proper under the general venue statute."

For her second argument opposing confirmation, Walters claimed there was a question of fact as to whether she ever agreed to arbitration. The Court rejected this claim because the evidence demonstrated that notice of the arbitration agreement was mailed to Walters, and she continued to use the card without objection.

Having rejected both of Walters' arguments opposing confirmation, the Court confirmed the award.