|
A credit card holder contesting a motion to compel arbitration was granted limited rights to discovery by a federal district court in Pennsylvania in a case where the card issuer had presented potentially ambiguous evidence.
In Azur v. MBNA Corp., No. 06-1047, 2007 WL 120049 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 10, 2007), a case regarding the fraudulent use of one of Azur's credit cards, the Court held that because the testimony of an MBNA vice president regarding credit card numbers belonging to Azur created "potential ambiguity," Azur would be allowed limited discovery in opposing MBNA's motion to compel arbitration.
The Court said that questions regarding the existence of an arbitration agreement –specifically, the dates on which the card in question was issued and notice given of a later amendment to the agreement – were matters open to discovery by Azur.
While expressing some incredulity over Azur's claims, the Court allowed discovery in light of the ambiguous testimony, noting that MBNA's evidence could "certainly stand to be tightened up," such as not clearly identifying which of Azur's several account numbers were subject to the dispute at hand when the affidavit alleged only one account existed.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|