Ji Dong Cheng v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 467 F.Supp.

3d 46 (2020)

Because the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)

467 F.Supp.3d 46
United States District Court, E.D. New York.
JI DONG CHENG, Plaintiff,
v.
HSBC BANK USA, N.A., Defendant.
[3]
20-cv-1551 (BMC)
| Alternative Dispute Resolution
Signed 06/15/2020
Synopsis
Background: Savings account holder brought claims against
bank for violations of state law and Electronic Fund Transfer
Act and for breach of contract, alleging that bank's policy of
applying interest to deposits was contrary to representations
in its terms and charges disclosures. Bank moved to compel
arbitration pursuant to arbitration clause in service agreement.
Holdings: The District Court, Brian M. Cogan, J., held that:
expresses a liberal federal policy favoring
arbitration agreements, any doubts concerning
the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved
in favor of arbitration. 9 U.S.C.A. §§ 2, 3.
Alternative Dispute Resolution Stay of
Proceedings Pending Arbitration
Remedies
and Proceedings for Enforcement in General
In deciding on whether all or part of a dispute
should be sent to arbitration, a court first must
determine whether the parties agreed to arbitrate;
second, it must determine the scope of that
agreement; third, if federal statutory claims are
asserted, it must consider whether Congress
intended those claims to be nonarbitrable; and
fourth, if the court concludes that some, but not
all, of the claims in the case are arbitrable, it must
then decide whether to stay the balance of the
proceedings pending arbitration.

[1] arbitration clause in service agreement was narrow, and

[4] Alternative Dispute

[2] arbitration clause in service agreement did not encompass
account holder's claims.
Motion denied.
Procedural Posture(s): Motion to Compel Arbitration.
Resolution Arbitrability of dispute
Recognizing there is some range in the breadth
of arbitration clauses, a court first should classify
the particular clause as either broad or narrow
in order to determine whether a particular
dispute falls within the scope of an agreement's
arbitration clause.

West Headnotes (20)

[5] Alternative Dispute Resolution Disputes

[1] Alternative Dispute Resolution Stay of and Matters Arbitrable Under Agreement
Proceedings Pending Arbitration To determine whether a particular dispute falls
Under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), a within the scope of an agreement's arbitration
district court must stay proceedings if satisfied clause, the court must, if reviewing a narrow
that the parties have agreed in writing to arbitrate clause, determine whether the dispute is over an
an issue or issues underlying the district court issue that is on its face within the purview of the
proceeding. 9 U.S.C.A. §§ 2, 3. clause, or over a collateral issue that is somehow
connected to the main agreement that contains
the arbitration clause.
[2] Alternative Dispute
Resolution Construction in favor of
arbitration

© 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1

Ji Dong Cheng v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 467 F.Supp.3d 46 (2020)
[6] Alternative Dispute Resolution Disputes
and Matters Arbitrable Under Agreement
Where an arbitration clause is narrow, a collateral
matter will generally be ruled beyond its
purview.
1 Case that cites this headnote
[7] Alternative Dispute
Resolution Arbitrability of dispute
If the matter being litigated is collateral to an
agreement with a broad arbitration clause, a
court trying to determine whether a particular
dispute falls within the scope of an agreement's
arbitration clause still needs to discern whether
the matter is beyond the purview of that
agreement.
2 Cases that cite this headnote
[8] Alternative Dispute Resolution Evidence
Unlike a narrow arbitration clause, where the
arbitration clause is broad, there arises a
presumption of arbitrability and arbitration of
even a collateral matter will be ordered if
the claim alleged implicates issues of contract
construction or the parties rights and obligations
under it.
6 Cases that cite this headnote
[9] Alternative Dispute Resolution Disputes
and Matters Arbitrable Under Agreement
An arbitration clause is broad if the language
of the clause, taken as a whole, evidences the
parties’ intent to have arbitration serve as the
primary recourse for disputes connected to the
agreement containing the clause.
3 Cases that cite this headnote
[10] Alternative Dispute Resolution Disputes
and Matters Arbitrable Under Agreement
An arbitration clause is narrow if the arbitration
was designed to play a more limited role in any
future dispute.
© 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
1 Case that cites this headnote
[11] Alternative Dispute Resolution Disputes
and Matters Arbitrable Under Agreement
Even if an arbitration clause uses sweeping
and expansive language, such as “any claim
or controversy arising out of or relating to
this agreement” or “all differences arising
between the parties to this agreement as to
interpretation, application or performance,” it
may still be considered narrow given the
surrounding context.
3 Cases that cite this headnote
[12] Alternative Dispute Resolution Disputes
and Matters Arbitrable Under Agreement
When the language of an arbitration clause itself
is specific to disputes concerning a definite
subject matter, and is not a clause intended
to cover all disputes that might arise between
the parties, it may properly be characterized as
narrow.
1 Case that cites this headnote
[13] Alternative Dispute Resolution Disputes
and Matters Arbitrable Under Agreement
Arbitration clause in service agreement to which
savings account holder agreed when he opened
his account with bank was a narrow arbitration
clause; clause was present only in service
agreement, not in master agreement or terms
and charges disclosures to which account holder
also agreed when he opened his account, clause
explicitly stated that it only applied to disputes or
disagreement regarding a service under service
agreement, and service agreement defined a
service as an electronic balance transfer service
via a specific provider.
[14] Alternative Dispute Resolution Disputes
and Matters Arbitrable Under Agreement
Arbitration clause in service agreement to which
savings account holder agreed when he opened
his account with bank did not encompass account
2
Ji Dong Cheng v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 467 F.Supp.3d 46 (2020)
holder's claims against bank, and therefore
claims were not arbitrable under that clause;
account holder's claims alleged that bank's policy
of applying interest to deposits after three to five
business days was contrary to representations in
terms and charges disclosures to which account
holder also agreed when he opened account,
neither master agreement nor terms and charges
disclosures contained an arbitration clause,
service agreement's arbitration clause explicitly
applied only to disputes and disagreements
regarding a service under service agreement, and
account holder made no reference to content of
service agreement in his complaint. 9 U.S.C.A.
§§ 2, 3; N.Y. General Business Law § 349.
[15] Alternative Dispute Resolution Disputes
and Matters Arbitrable Under Agreement
If an arbitration clause is narrow, a collateral
matter will generally be ruled beyond its purview
because, as opposed to broad clauses, for which
arbitration of even a collateral matter will be
ordered if the claim alleged implicates issues
of contract construction or the parties’ rights
and obligations under it, with narrower clauses
a court considering the appropriate range of
arbitrable issues must consider whether the
question at issue is on its face within the purview
of the clause.
1 Case that cites this headnote
[16] Alternative Dispute Resolution Evidence
The difference in analysis between broad and
narrow arbitration clauses is not merely one
of degree, for whereas a collateral matter is
presumed arbitrable under a broad clause, there
is no such expectation under a narrow clause.
[17] Alternative Dispute Resolution Disputes
and Matters Arbitrable Under Agreement
In the context of a narrow arbitration clause, a
nuanced examination of both the clause's scope
and the issue sought to be arbitrated is required.
1 Case that cites this headnote
© 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
[18] Alternative Dispute Resolution Disputes
and Matters Arbitrable Under Agreement
The “touch matters” standard applies to broad
arbitration clauses, not narrow clauses.
[19] Alternative Dispute
Resolution Arbitrability of dispute
The fact that a party's defenses to a claim may
implicate arbitrable subject matter says very
little about whether the claim is itself arbitrable;
rather, when dealing with narrow arbitration
clauses, courts must determine whether plaintiffs
by their particular allegations have brought
the dispute within the terms of the arbitrable
agreement.
[20] Alternative Dispute Resolution Disputes
and Matters Arbitrable Under Agreement
The main concern in deciding the scope of
arbitration agreements is to faithfully reflect the
reasonable expectations of those who commit
themselves to be bound by them.
Attorneys and Law Firms
*48 Daniel Adam Schlanger, Schlanger Law Group, LLP,
New York, NY, for Plaintiff.
Mark S. Melodia, Qian Shen, Holland & Knight LLP, New
York, NY, for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
COGAN, District Judge.
Defendant moves to compel arbitration of this case, brought
by plaintiff under the *49 Electronic Fund Transfer Act and
several state law causes of action. Because the scope of the
relevant arbitration clause does not embrace the claims at
issue, the motion is denied.
3
Ji Dong Cheng v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 467 F.Supp.3d 46 (2020)
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff opened a savings account with defendant bank
by online application, which required him to agree to
HSBC's Rules for Consumer Deposit Accounts (the “Master
Agreement”). Of relevance to this case, the Master
Agreement's introductory section provides:
Any Terms and Charges Disclosure
applicable to your account is also a
part of the Agreement. By signing a
contract to open any deposit account
or by using a Bank product or service,
you agree that these Rules, as amended
from time to time, shall apply to
all your deposit accounts. If there is
a conflict between these Rules and
something one of our employees says,
the Bank will follow these Rules.
There is no arbitration clause in the Master Agreement. It
does, however, contain a jury waiver provision in all-capital
letters:
YOU AND THE BANK AGREE
TO WAIVE THE RIGHT TO
TRIAL BEFORE A JURY IN
ANY ACTION FOR ANY CLAIMS
THAT MAY ARISE FROM OR
RELATE TO YOUR DEPOSIT
ACCOUNT INCLUDING, BUT
NOT LIMITED TO, CONTRACT,
NEGLIGENCE, USE, ATTORNEYS-
IN-FACT, RESTRAINT AND
EXECUTION.
According to defendant's Terms and Charges Disclosures,
“[i]nterest begins to accrue on the Business Day you
deposit noncash items,” which are instruments like checks
and wire transfers. That same document defines “Business
Day” as “every day except Saturday, Sunday and Federal
holidays.” Like the Master Agreement, the Terms and
© 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
Charges Disclosures also does not contain an arbitration
clause.
On Friday, May 31, 2019, plaintiff transferred $100,000 to
his account with defendant through an Automated Clearing
House (“ACH”) network. Plaintiff alleges, however, that
defendant “did not apply interest on [the] account until, at
the earliest, Tuesday, June 4, 2019.” Further, on Tuesday,
November 26, 2019, plaintiff made another $100,00 ACH
transfer to the account, but defendant “did not apply interest
on [the] deposit until, at the earliest, Friday, November 29,
2019.
Upon plaintiff notifying defendant of the alleged delay in
applying interest to his deposits, defendant responded that it
is not its policy to apply interest to deposits until 3-5 business
days after they are made. Plaintiff claims that this policy
is contrary to the representations contained in defendant's
Terms and Charges Disclosures, made binding by the Master
Agreement, which states that interest begins to accrue on the
same business day funds are deposited. He thus filed this
putative class action for violations of the Electronic Fund
Transfer Act and New York General Business Law § 349, as
well as for breach of contract.
Defendant moves to compel the parties to arbitrate this
dispute, citing the arbitration clause in the separate Electronic
Balance Transfer Service Agreement (“Service Agreement”),
which plaintiff signed at the time he opened his account.
The Service Agreement “authorize[s] HSBC to provide
an Electronic Balance Transfer Service (“Service”) using
CashEdge Inc. (“service provider”) to debit the bank account
indicated on the ... application form.” Unlike the Master
Agreement and the Terms and Charges Disclosures, the
Service Agreement does have an arbitration clause, which
provides, in relevant part:
*50 If either of us has any
dispute or disagreement with the
other regarding this Service that we
cannot resolve amicably, both parties
agree that the sole and exclusive
remedy shall be binding arbitration
in accordance with the then-current
rules and procedures of the American
Arbitration Association.
4
Ji Dong Cheng v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 467 F.Supp.3d 46 (2020)
According to defendant, because plaintiff's claims deal with
the timing of electronic deposits, “the evidence which HSBC
will submit in support of its defense will necessarily ‘touch
on’ ” the substance of the Service Agreement, and therefore
must be arbitrated.
DISCUSSION
[1] [2] The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) states that “a face within the purview of the clause,’ or over a collateral
written provision [in a contract] ... to settle by arbitration a
controversy thereafter arising out of such a contract ... shall
be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable[.]” 9 U.S.C. § 2. To that
end, “a district court must stay proceedings if satisfied that the 1979)). “Where the arbitration clause is narrow, a collateral
parties have agreed in writing to arbitrate an issue or issues
underlying the district court proceeding.” McMahan Secs. Co.
L.P. v. Forum Capital Mkts. L.P., 35 F.3d 82, 85 (2d Cir. 1994);
see 9 U.S.C. § 3. Moreover, because the FAA expresses “a
liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements,” the
Supreme Court has instructed that “any doubts concerning
the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of
arbitration.” Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr.
Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24-25, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765
(1983).
[3] The Second Circuit has developed a four-step inquiry to & Aikman Prods. Co. v. Building Sys., Inc., 58 F.3d 16, 23
determine whether all or part of a dispute should be sent to
arbitration:
[F]irst, it must determine whether the
parties agreed to arbitrate; second,
it must determine the scope of that
agreement; third, if federal statutory
claims are asserted, it must consider
whether Congress intended those
claims to be nonarbitrable; and fourth,
if the court concludes that some, but
not all, of the claims in the case are
arbitrable, it must then decide whether
to stay the balance of the proceedings
pending arbitration.
See JLM Indus., Inc. v. Stolt-Nielsen SA, 387 F.3d 163, 169
(2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Oldroyd v. Elmira Sav. Bank, FSB,
134 F.3d 72, 75-76 (2d Cir. 1998)). Only the second step – the
arbitration agreement's scope – is at issue in this motion.
© 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
[4] [5] [6] To determine whether a particular dispute
falls within the scope of an agreement's arbitration clause,
a court should undertake a further three-part inquiry. “First,
recognizing there is some range in the breadth of arbitration
clauses, a court should classify the particular clause as
either broad or narrow.” Louis Dreyfus Negoce S.A. v.
Blystad Shipping & Trading Inc., 252 F.3d 218, 224 (2d Cir.
2001). Second, “if reviewing a narrow clause, the court must
determine whether the dispute is over an issue that ‘is on its
issue that is somehow connected to the main agreement that
contains the arbitration clause.” Id. (quoting Rochdale Vill.,
Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Emp. Union, 605 F.2d 1290, 1295 (2d Cir.
matter will generally be ruled beyond its purview.” Id.
[7] [8] Third, and alternatively, if the matter being litigated
is collateral to an agreement with a broad arbitration clause,
the court still needs to discern whether the matter is beyond
the purview of that agreement. See id. But unlike a narrow
arbitration clause, “[w]here the arbitration clause is broad,
‘there arises a presumption of arbitrability’ and arbitration of
even a collateral matter will be ordered if the claim alleged
‘implicates issues of contract construction or the parties’
rights and obligations *51 under it.’ ” Id. (quoting Collins
(2d Cir. 1995)).
[9] [10] Regarding the first inquiry, an arbitration clause
is broad if “the language of the clause, taken as a whole,
evidences the parties’ intent to have arbitration serve as the
primary recourse for disputes connected to the agreement
containing the clause.” An arbitration clause is narrow, if the
“arbitration was designed to play a more limited role in any
future dispute.” Id. at 225. Perhaps the most telling clue in
this regard is the expansiveness of the arbitration clause's
language. Phrases like “[a]ny claim or controversy arising out
of or relating to this agreement” or “all differences arising
between the parties to this agreement as to interpretation,
application or performance” are classic examples of broad
clauses. See id. at 225; Collins, 58 F.3d at 18; Abram Landau
Real Estate v. Bevona, 123 F.3d 69, 71 (2d Cir. 1997).
[11] [12] However, even if an arbitration clause uses
such sweeping language, it may still be considered narrow
given the surrounding context. For example, in Borecki
v. Raymours Furniture Co., No. 17-cv-1188, 2017 WL
5953172, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 2017), the court recognized
5
Ji Dong Cheng v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 467 F.Supp.3d 46 (2020)
that although the contract included “phraseology often
[recognized as] a hallmark of a ‘broad’ arbitration clause,” the
language that followed worked a limitation on the arbitrable
subject matter. In that case, the clause began with “any claim,
dispute or controversy ... that in any way arises from or relates
to” – at first signaling a broad application – but continued
on with “the goods and/or services you have purchased
or are purchasing from us ... including the ... negotiation
or discussion regarding purchase, discount, price or credit
terms” – indicating that arbitration was available only for
certain areas of dispute Id. Thus, when “[t]he language of
the clause itself is specific to disputes concerning [a definite
subject matter], and is not a clause intended to cover all
disputes that might arise between the parties,” it may properly
be characterized as narrow. Duafala v. Globecomm Sys. Inc.,
91 F. Supp. 3d 330, 335 (E.D.N.Y. 2015).
Another sign that an arbitration clause is narrow is the
inclusion of language in another portion of the agreement that
fixes rules for judicial treatment other than arbitration. See
id. (holding that an arbitration clause was narrow where a
separate section of the agreement provided that “any suit or
proceeding related to or arising out of this Agreement shall
be brought in New York State Court, Suffolk County or the
Eastern District of New York”).
[13] In this case, the arbitration clause at issue is narrow.
Although the clause uses the broad prefatory phraseology of
“any dispute or disagreement,” that language is immediately
qualified by “regarding this Service.” “Service,” in turn, is
defined in the Service Agreement as “an Electronic Balance
Transfer Service ... using CashEdge Inc.” Because this
arbitration clause, present only in the Service Agreement,
applies exclusively to disputes regarding the service
described in the Service Agreement, it was clearly not meant
to “cover all disputes that might arise between the parties.”
See id.
Further supporting this conclusion is that neither the
Master Agreement nor the Terms and Charges Disclosures
contain an arbitration clause. On the contrary, the Master
Agreement contains a separate jury waiver provision, which
would be anomalous absent an understanding that other
account disputes could be litigated in court. Finally, because
even the Service Agreement clearly provides that the
customer's “HSBC account(s) will be subject to HSBC's
Rules for Consumer Deposit Accounts” (i.e., to the Master
Agreement), *52 the logical conclusion is that the Service
Agreement's arbitration clause is restricted to disputes
© 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
regarding the narrow subject of electronic balance transfers
using CashEdge Inc.
[14] Defendant does not necessarily disagree that the
arbitration clause is narrow, but instead argues that “whether
the arbitration provision ... is ‘broad’ or ‘narrow’ is minimally
important” because it is “sufficiently broad enough to
encompass all of the Plaintiff's claims as they relate to
contractual terms and disclosures” in the Service Agreement.
(Emphasis added.) However, this contention ignores that the
characterization of an arbitration clause as either broad or
narrow has a significant bearing on whether a collateral issue
– i.e., one related to but not facially covered by the arbitrable
subject matter – should be arbitrated.
[15] As discussed above, if the arbitration clause is narrow,
a collateral matter will generally be ruled beyond its purview.
See Cornell Univ. v. UAW Local 2300, 942 F.2d 138, 140 (2d
Cir. 1991). This is because, as opposed to broad clauses, for
which “arbitration of even a collateral matter will be ordered
if the claim alleged ‘implicates issues of contract construction
or the parties’ rights and obligations under it,’ see Duafala, 91
F. Supp. 3d at 334 (quoting Louis Dreyfus Negoce, 252 F.3d
at 224), “[w]ith narrower clauses ... a court considering the
appropriate range of arbitrable issues must ‘consider whether
the question at issue is on its face within the purview of the
clause,’ ” McDonnell Douglas Fin. Corp. v. Penn. Power &
Light Co., 858 F.2d 825, 832 (2d Cir. 1988) (quoting Rochdale
Vill., Inc., 605 F.2d at 1295).
[16] [17] To be sure, this difference in analysis between
broad and narrow arbitration clauses is not merely one of
degree – for whereas a collateral matter is presumed arbitrable
under a broad clause, there is no such expectation under
a narrow clause. And indeed, in the context of a narrow
arbitration clause, the Second Circuit requires a nuanced
examination of both the clause's scope and the issue sought to
be arbitrated. An example given by the Second Circuit is that
“if an arbitration clause covers only employee grievances, the
court should not compel arbitration of questions of contract
termination.” Rochdale Vill., Inc., 605 F.2d at 1295. Such
exacting textual scrutiny reflects the Second Circuit's view
that “[w]here the arbitration clause is narrow, a collateral
matter will generally be ruled beyond its purview.” See Louis
Dreyfus Negoce, 252 F.3d at 224.
[18] [19] In the present case, the dispute concerns
defendant's representation in the Terms and Charges
Disclosures that “[i]nterest begins to accrue on the Business
6
Ji Dong Cheng v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 467 F.Supp.3d 46 (2020)
Day you deposit noncash items (e.g., checks).” Because the
Service Agreement does not mention interest at all, plaintiff's
claims are, at best, collateral to it. Defendant's suggestion that
the claims are arbitrable because “the evidence HSBC will
submit in support of its defense will necessarily ‘touch on’
the” Service Agreement demonstrates its misunderstanding
of the broad/narrow distinction. First, the “touch matters”
standard applies to broad arbitration clauses, not narrow
clauses. See id. at 225. Second, the fact that a party's defenses
to a claim may implicate arbitrable subject matter says very
little about whether the claim is itself arbitrable. Rather,
when dealing with narrow arbitration clauses, courts “must
determine whether plaintiffs by their particular allegations
have brought the dispute within the” terms of the arbitrable
agreement. See Specht v. Netscape Commc'ns Corp., 306 F.3d
17, 37 (2d Cir. 2002) (emphasis added). Here, a fair reading
of the complaint evidences that the allegations do not bring
the dispute within the terms of the Service Agreement.
*53 Perhaps the most relevant section of the Service
Agreement in favor of arbitration in this case is the one titled
“Business Days/Processing Time,” which provides that
[t]he Service will process requests
for transfers on business days.
Our business days are Monday
through Friday. Federal Reserve Bank
Holidays are not included. The
Electronic Balance Transfer may take
up to four business days before it is
credited to your HSBC account.
It may be that this portion of the Service Agreement will
prove instrumental in the case's defense. But at least on
the face of the complaint, the allegations speak only to
defendant's representation that interest will accrue on the
“Business Day you [i.e., the consumer] deposit noncash
items” (emphasis added). Plaintiff's complaint does not take
issue with the Service Agreement's substance, but with
defendant's execution of the Terms and Charges Disclosures,
which is not covered by the arbitration clause. The relevant
difference here is possibly as subtle as the use of the
phrase “you deposit” rather than “we receive”; however,
such a delicate distinction is in accord with the Second
Circuit's example that, when dealing with narrow clauses, “if
an arbitration clause covers only employee grievances, the
© 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
court should not compel arbitration of questions of contract
termination.” See Rochdale Vill., Inc., 605 F.2d at 1295.
This conclusion is further reinforced by the complaint's
allegation that defendant “told Plaintiff that it is HSBC's
policy to not apply interest to deposits ... until 3-5 business
days after a deposit is made.” Thus, plaintiff avers that
defendant contradicted the Terms and Charges Disclosures
without reference to the Service Agreement's content –
indeed, the alleged response assumes that a deposit had
already been made. But a fortiori, even had defendant
responded that the Service Agreement negated the same-
business-day promise found in the Terms and Charges
Disclosures, the Master Agreement clearly states that “[i]f
there is a conflict between these Rules and something one
of our employees says, the Bank will follow these Rules.”
Because matters falling under the Master Agreement, which
incorporates the Terms and Charges Disclosures, are not
covered under the narrow arbitration clause at issue, the same
result would follow.
Put in simpler terms, plaintiff's complaint expresses no
opposition to the substance of the Service Agreement. Rather,
it takes issue with defendant's interpretation of the Master
Agreement or, alternatively, with defendant's failure to abide
by the Master Agreement. This falls outside the limited realm
of a “dispute or disagreement with the other regarding [the]
Service.”
[20] In the end, the “main concern in deciding the scope of
arbitration agreements is to “faithfully reflect the reasonable
expectations of those who commit themselves to be bound by
[them].” Leadertex, Inc. v. Morganton Dyeing & Finishing
Corp., 67 F.3d 20, 28 (2d Cir. 1995). Given the narrow
application of the Service Agreement's arbitration clause
and the claims plaintiff brings that may relate to, but are
not regarding, the relevant “Service,” there is no reasonable
expectation that plaintiff had pre-committed himself to
arbitration for a dispute like this one.
CONCLUSION
Defendant's [12] motion to compel arbitration is denied.
SO ORDERED.
7
Ji Dong Cheng v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 467 F.Supp.3d 46 (2020)

All Citations

467 F.Supp.3d 46

End of Document © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

© 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 8