A Connecticut court held that an arbitration agreement in a credit card contract was valid, and that if a party brings a motion to vacate based on § 52-418 of the Connecticut Statutes after the thirty-day deadline set forth in § 52-420(b), courts are without jurisdiction to consider the motion.

In Reiss v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., No. CV084030653, 2008 WL 3916049 (Conn. Super. Ct. July 30, 3008), Reiss opened a credit card account with Chase Bank. The credit card contract contained an arbitration agreement. After Reiss's account became delinquent, Chase filed a claim against Reiss with the National Arbitration Forum (FORUM) seeking to collect the money owed under the account.

An arbitrator issued an award in favor of Chase, and notice of the arbitrator's decision was sent to the parties on March 5, 2008. On April 7, 2008, Reiss moved to vacate the award, arguing that her credit card contract did not contain an arbitration agreement. Reiss alternatively argued that the arbitrator exceeded his authority in his award, and that the arbitrator's decisional process was influenced "by the large amount of business Chase gives to [the FORUM]."

Chase argued that the Court was without jurisdiction to hear most of Reiss's claims because her motion to vacate was not timely filed. Also, Chase argued that Reiss failed to meet her burden of proof in asserting that the contract did not contain an arbitration agreement.

The Court agreed with Chase and denied Reiss's motion to vacate. The Court held that if a motion to vacate is based on the grounds set forth in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-418, which mirror the grounds set forth in § 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act, the motion must be brought within the thirty-day deadline set forth in § 52-420(b). Reiss received notice of the arbitration award on March 5, but did not bring her motion to vacate until April 7, more than thirty days after she received notice. Consequently, the Court held that it was without jurisdiction to hear Reiss's claims that were based on the grounds for vacatur set forth in § 52-418.

The Court also held that Reiss's claim regarding the validity or existence of the arbitration agreement was not subject to the thirty-day deadline because such a claim was a matter of contract formation. However, the Court held that Reiss did not meet her burden of proving that no valid agreement to arbitrate existed. Reiss failed to provide the Court with a copy of her contract with Chase; she merely argued that she was "certain" that the contract did not have an arbitration agreement in it. Chase, on the other hand, provided copies of the contract that contained an arbitration agreement. As a result, the Court held that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate between the parties and denied Reiss's motion to vacate.