Hollaway v. Gemini Direct, LLC
Filing
28
ORDER signed by Senior District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 10/24/24 GRANTING 5 Motion to Compel Arbitration and STAYING action pending arbitration; DENYING plaintiff's request for sanctions against defendant; ORDERING both parties to SHOW CAUSE, within 14 days, why actions 2:24-cv-0642 KJM CKD and 2:24-cv-0644 KJM CKD should not be consolidated for all purposes; parties to file a joint status report within 7 days of the date the arbitration is completed and VACATING all other dates and deadlines. (Benson, A.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
Michelle A. Hollaway,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:24-cv-00642-KJM-CKD
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
Gemini Direct LLC dba Credit Innovation
Group,
Defendant.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
No. 2:24-cv-00644-KJM-CKD
Michael E. Hollaway,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
v.
Gemini Direct LLC dba Credit Innovation
Group,
Defendant.
23
24
25
Defendant Gemini Direct LLC, which does business as Credit Innovation Group, moves
26
to compel arbitration of plaintiff Michelle Hollaway’s claims in Case No. 24-642 above.1 ECF
1
All citations refer to documents filed in Case No. 24-642 unless otherwise noted.
1
1
No. 16. The motion is fully briefed. See Mem., ECF No. 16-1; Opp’n, ECF No. 18; Reply, ECF
2
No. 20. The court took the matter under submission without hearing oral arguments.
3
Hollaway does not dispute that she electronically signed an agreement to arbitrate “[a]ny
4
dispute arising between [herself] and the Company,” i.e., Credit Innovation. Timpson Decl. Ex. 1
5
at 13, ECF No. 16-2 (under seal).2 Because Hollaway agreed to arbitrate any disputes between
6
herself and Credit Innovation, this court must grant Credit Innovation’s motion to compel
7
arbitration unless the arbitration agreement is invalid or cannot be enforced. See 9 U.S.C. § 2
8
(providing that agreements to arbitrate are “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such
9
grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract”); id. § 4 (permitting
10
11
motions to compel arbitration); id. § 3 (requiring stays of actions referred to arbitration).
Hollaway argues her contract with Credit Innovation is invalid under the federal Credit
12
Repair Organizations Act. See Opp’n at 3–6. Her arbitration agreement with Credit Innovation
13
provides that arbitration will be governed by “the Commercial Rules of the American Arbitration
14
Association.” Timpson Decl. Ex. 1 at 13. Under those rules, “[t]he arbitrator shall have the
15
power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the
16
existence, scope or validity of the arbitration agreement or to the validity of any claim or
17
counterclaim, without any need to refer such matters first to a court.” American Arbitration
18
Association, Commercial Rules and Mediation Procedures R-7(a) (Sept. 1, 2022).3 By referring
19
to the American Arbitration Association’s rules, the arbitration agreement “clearly and
20
unmistakably” delegated the resolution of Hollaway’s arguments about the Credit Repair
21
Organization Act to the arbitrator. Brennan v. Opus Bank, 796 F.3d 1125, 1130 (9th Cir. 2015).
22
Hollaway has not shown her agreement to delegate the resolution of that claim was itself invalid
23
or unenforceable. Her arguments relate to the broader contract and the requirements of the Credit
24
Repair Organizations Act. Under binding Supreme Court authority, this court must therefore
2
The page numbers cited here are those applied by the CM/ECF system at the top right of
each page.
3
https://www.adr.org/sites/default/files/Commercial-Rules_Web.pdf (visited July 15,
2024). The court takes judicial notice of these rules. See, e.g., Fischer v. Kelly Servs. Glob.,
LLC, No. 23-1197, 2024 WL 382181, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2024) (granting request for judicial
notice of American Arbitration Association rules).
2
1
enforce the delegation. See CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, 565 U.S. 95, 104–05 (2012)
2
(holding claims based on Credit Repair Organizations Act may be referred to arbitration); Rent-A-
3
Ctr., W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 71–72 (2010) (holding delegation agreements enforceable
4
unless delegation agreement itself invalid or unenforceable).
5
The court grants the motion to compel arbitration (ECF No. 16 in Case No. 24-642). This
6
action is stayed pending arbitration. The court denies plaintiff’s request for sanctions against
7
defendant for revealing her social security number on the public docket. See Opp’n at 3 n.1.
8
Defendant promptly corrected the issue, and there is no sign the disclosure was intentional. See
9
Notice, ECF No. 19; Reply at 3 n.1.
10
A functionally identical motion to compel arbitration of claims by Michael E. Hollaway,
11
the spouse of Michelle A. Hollaway, also is pending in the related case, No. 24-644, ECF No. 5.
12
The court grants that motion for the reasons provided above and stays Case No. 24-644 pending
13
arbitration.
14
The court orders the parties in both actions to show cause within fourteen days why
15
these actions should not be consolidated for all purposes. The court also orders the parties in both
16
actions to file a joint status report within seven days of the date the arbitration is completed.
17
All other dates and deadlines in both cases are vacated.
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 24, 2024.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?