Michael Bandler and Michael Bandler and Company, Inc. n/k/a MB & CO., Ltd. v. Charter One Bank n/k/a Citizens Bank
192 Vt. 383
| Vt. | 2012Background
- Bandler sued Charter One in Rutland Superior Court in July 2003 for claims related to Charter One’s handling of Bandler’s checking account advertisements.
- Charter One moved to dismiss for failure to exhaust contractual arbitration, and the trial court dismissed and ordered arbitration.
- In 2004, Bandler demanded AAA arbitration; initial demand lacked class claims.
- In 2005, Bandler moved to amend to include a class-action claim; arbitrator ruled in 2006 that the arbitration clause permits class arbitration under AAA Rules, staying to allow court review.
- In 2009–2010, the Supreme Court issued Stolt-Nielsen, raising questions about class-arbitration under the FAA; Charter One stayed arbitration.
- In May 2010, Charter One moved in Rutland Superior Court to dismiss the clause-construction award; the court vacated the arbitrator’s award and directed bilateral arbitration; Bandler appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could review the arbitrator’s class-arbitration determination outside the Vermont Arbitration Act. | Bandler: court lacked jurisdiction to revisit arbitration ruling during ongoing arbitration. | Charter One: court can review arbitrability and arbitrator’s jurisdiction notwithstanding the VAA. | No; the court lacked statutory authority to review the arbitrability ruling during arbitration. |
| Whether the VAA allows a court to intervene to review arbitrability independent of vacatur deadlines. | Bandler: review must follow VAA procedures; not a free-floating jurisdictional inquiry. | Charter One: court may intervene to address arbitrability issues. | VAA governs intervention; no independent authority to review arbitrability outside VAA. |
| What is the impact of Stolt-Nielsen on arbitrability in this case? | Bandler: Stolt-Nielsen supports class-arbitration under the clause construction. | Charter One: Stolt-Nielsen clarifies limits and may affect class-arbitration finding. | Stolt-Nielsen does not compel court intervention here; arbitrability decision not reviewable under VAA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Springfield Teachers Ass’n v. Springfield School Directors, 167 Vt. 180 (1997) (arbitrability challenges may be waived if not timely raised)
- Lamell Lumber Corp. v. Newstress International, Inc., 2007 VT 83 (VT 2007) (arbitration waiver and lack of court intervention while arbitration proceeds)
- Green Tree Fin. Corp. v. Bazle, 539 U.S. 444 (2003) (arbitration clause silence on class arbitration; title to class arbitration depends on contract)
- Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 130 S. Ct. 1758 (2010) (cannot presume consent to class arbitration from silence; requires contractual basis)
- In re Denio, 158 Vt. 230 (1992) (jurisdictional challenges within arbitration context require timely action)
- Brown v. Citation Mobile Homes, unpub. mem. (2002) (unpublished; not controlling authority; reinforces VAA framework)