Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Spinner v. Credit One Bank, N.A.

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division

December 29, 2017

JEANNINE SPINNER, Plaintiff,
v.
CREDIT ONE BANK, N.A., Defendant.

          ORDER

          ROY B. DALTON JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Complaint and Compel Arbitration and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. 23 (“Motion to Compel”)), to which Plaintiff responded (Doc. 24). For the following reasons, the Motion to Compel is due to be granted, and the action is due to be stayed.

         I. Background

         On February 28, 2017, Plaintiff initiated this action against Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Florida's Consumer Collection Protection Act. (Doc. 1 (“Complaint”).) After successfully moving for an extension (Doc. 14), Defendant answered the Complaint on June 19, 2017, and asserted several affirmative defenses, including its intent to arbitrate based on a binding arbitration provision in Plaintiff's cardholder agreement (Doc. 18 (“Answer”)). Now-more than six months after its Answer-Defendant moves the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(3) to compel arbitration and dismiss this action or, alternatively, to stay it pending the outcome of the forthcoming arbitration proceedings.[1] (Doc. 23.)

         According to the Motion to Compel, Plaintiff applied for and received a credit card from Defendant in February of 2014. (See Doc. 23-1, 12.) Attached to its standard cardholder agreement is an arbitration agreement (“Arbitration Agreement”), which provides:

PLEASE READ THIS PROVISION OF YOUR CARD AGREEMENT CAREFULLY. IT PROVIDES THAT EITHER YOU OR WE CAN REQUIRE THAT ANY CONTROVERSY OR DISPUTE BE RESOLVED BY BINDING ARBITRATION. ARBITRATION REPLACES THE RIGHT TO GO TO COURT, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO A JURY AND THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN A CLASS ACTION OR SIMILAR PROCEEDING. IN ARBITRATION, A DISPUTE IS RESOLVED BY A NEUTRAL ARBITRATOR INSTEAD OF A JUDGE OR JURY. ARBITRATION PROCEDURES ARE SIMPLER AND MORE LIMITED THAN RULES APPLICABLE IN COURT. IN ARBITRATION, YOU MAY CHOOSE TO HAVE A HEARING AND BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL
Agreement to Arbitrate: You and we agree that either you or we may, without the other's consent, require that any controversy or dispute between you and us (all of which are called “Claims”), be submitted to mandatory, binding arbitration. This arbitration provision is made pursuant to a transaction involving interstate commerce, and shall be governed by, and enforceable under, the Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., and (to the extent State law is applicable), the State law governing this Agreement.

(Doc. 23-4, p. 7) (emphasis in original).

         The Arbitration Agreement also sets forth a very broad scope, covering, among others, claims involving “any disclosures or other documents or communications relating to your account; any transactions or attempted transactions involving your account, whether authorized or not; billing, billing errors, credit reporting, the posting of transactions, payment or credits, or collections matters relating to your account” or “based on any theory of law, any contract, statute, regulation, ordinance, tort . . . [and] any allegations of fact, including an alleged act, inaction, omission, suppression, representation, statement, obligation, duty, right, condition, status or relationship.”

         Based on the Arbitration Agreement, Defendant requests that the Court compel arbitration on the grounds that: (1) it is enforceable; and (2) Plaintiff's claims fall within its scope. (Doc. 23, pp. 9-12.) As the matter is fully briefed (see Doc. 24), it is ripe for the Court's consideration.

         II. Legal Standards

         Under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), arbitration agreements are presumptively valid and enforceable. See 9 U.S.C. § 2. So “courts must rigorously enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms.” Am. Express Co. v. Italian Colors Rest., 133 S.Ct. 2304, 2309 (2013). With this, upon the motion of any party to a valid arbitration agreement, courts must stay or dismiss litigation of all claims that fall within the agreement's scope and compel arbitration according to the agreement's terms. See 9 U.S.C. §§ 3-4.

         “[D]espite the strong policy in favor of arbitration, a party may, by its conduct, waive its right to arbitration.” Garcia v. Wachovia Corp., 699 F.3d 1273, 1277 (11th Cir. 2012) (quoting S & H Contractors, Inc. v. A.J. Taft Coal Co., 906 F.2d 1507, 1514 (11th Cir. 1990)); see also Krinsk v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., 654 F.3d 1194, 1200 (11th Cir. 2011). Waiver of an arbitration right occurs when both: (1) the party seeking arbitration ‘substantially participates in litigation to a point inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate'; and (2) ‘this participation results in prejudice to the opposing party.'” In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., 754 F.3d 1290, 1294 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting Morewitz v. W. of Eng. Ship Owners Mut. Prot. & Indem. Ass'n (Lux.), 62 F.3d 1356, 1365 (11th Cir. 1995)). “[A]ny party arguing waiver of arbitration bears a heavy burden of proof.” Stone v. E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc., 898 F.2d 1542, 1543 (11th Cir. 1990).

         III. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.