The court held that its sole duty on a section 3 motion to stay is to determine whether the agreement contained a valid arbitration clause. If the clause is valid, the court may not go on to consider arguments concerning fairness of the contract formation process or validity of the entire agreement. Resolution of such matters would be for the arbitrator. The court found that the arbitration clause at issue was valid and that the parties were bound by it. The court went on to note that a fair hearing does not require all of the procedure available to a litigant in court. Although TILA allows for class actions, that statute does not provide an undeniable right to class actions, and they may be waived in order to enforce arbitration. The court held that plaintiff was bound by the arbitration clause and therefore would not be able to participate in a class action.

See more: