ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceeding (Document No. 12). Having considered the motion, submissions, and applicable law, the Court determines that the pending motion should be granted.
I. BACKGROUND
This is a contractual dispute arising from international wire transfers.
On February 9, 2026, pro se Plaintiff Youras Ziankovich (“Ziankovich”) filed suit against Defendant Wise US Inc., a financial technology company specializing in low-cost international money transfers.
Ziankovich alleges that he attempted to make small humanitarian payments to the Lithuanian charitable organization Association Political Prisoners of Belarus and that those payments were wrongfully cancelled by Defendant.
Ziankovich further alleges that Defendant wrongfully restricted his international wire transactions because of perceived ethnic and national associations linked to Belarus, preventing him from sending or receiving funds.
Ziankovich further alleges that Defendant’s actions caused him to suffer a loss of contractual benefits, interference with lawful humanitarian activity, emotional distress, and reputational harm arising from false implications of wrongdoing.
Based on the foregoing, Ziankovich brings claims against Defendant for:
- Contractual discrimination;
- Breach of contract; and
- Defamation.
The Court construes all pro se filings liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
II. LAW & ANALYSIS
Defendant moves to compel arbitration and stay the pending proceedings, contending that Ziankovich is bound by Defendant’s customer agreement which contains a binding arbitration provision.
On March 27, 2026, Ziankovich filed a sixty-three-page response in which Ziankovich primarily contends that he never accepted the customer agreement or the binding arbitration provision therein.
Under the Federal Arbitration Act, Congress established that an arbitration agreement “shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable.”
The Supreme Court of the United States has made clear that:
“As a matter of federal law, any doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration, whether the problem at hand is the construction of the contract language itself or an allegation of waiver, delay, or a like defense to arbitrability.”
Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24-25 (1983).
Defendant contends that on August 29, 2025, Ziankovich registered for an account with Defendant, which required him to click a button indicating that he agreed to be bound by Wise’s Terms of Use and accompanying Customer Agreement.
Defendant refers the Court to the arbitration agreement, which provides that:
“All disputes arising out of or related to this Agreement or any aspect of the relationship between you and Wise, whether based in contract, tort, statute, fraud, misrepresentation, or any other legal theory, will be resolved through final and binding arbitration before a neutral arbitrator.”
Defendant further contends that Ziankovich’s claims fall within the scope of that arbitration provision because each claim concerns conduct arising from the contractual relationship between the parties.
In response, Ziankovich argued that Defendant presented no direct evidence that he agreed to the Customer Agreement.
The Court notes that Defendant pointed to Ziankovich’s acceptance of the Terms of Use, which incorporated the Customer Agreement and arbitration provision.
Defendant further asserted that Ziankovich was required to confirm acceptance of the following statement when creating his account:
“By continuing, I accept the Terms of Use, consent to receive electronic records as outlined in our Electronic Communications Policy and Privacy Policy.”
Defendant additionally argued that Ziankovich was prompted to agree to the Terms of Use each time he initiated a transfer, thereby reaffirming consent to the Customer Agreement and arbitration provision.
Based on the foregoing, and having considered the pending motion, submissions, and applicable law, the Court finds that Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration should be granted and that this matter should be stayed pending arbitration.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby:
ORDERS that Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings (Document No. 12) is GRANTED.
The Court further ORDERS that the parties are hereby COMPELLED TO PROCEED TO ARBITRATION pursuant to the parties’ arbitration agreement.
The Court further ORDERS that this matter is STAYED and ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED pending the parties’ forthcoming arbitration proceeding.
The Court further ORDERS that the parties file a joint status report informing the Court of the status of this matter no later than ninety (90) days from the date of this Order.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on April 14, 2026.
DAVID HITTNER
United States District Judge