Greenwood v. Compucredit Corporation et al

Filing 389

ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on November 23, 2011. (cwlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/23/2011)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 5 6 WANDA GREENWOOD; LADELLE HATFIELD; and DEBORAH MCCLEESE, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 v. No. 08-04878 CW ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION COMPUCREDIT CORPORATION; COLUMBUS BANK AND TRUST, jointly and individually, Defendants. ________________________________/ 12 13 This lawsuit consists of two causes of action, a claim under 14 the Credit Repair Organizations Act, 15 U.S.C. ยง 1679 et seq., and 15 a claim under this state's Unfair Competition Law, California 16 Business & Professions Code section 17200 et seq. 17 arise from the marketing and issuance of a credit card under the 18 19 brand name Aspire Visa to consumers. Both claims Defendants have appealed this Court's order denying their motion to compel arbitration of 20 21 22 the CROA claim. Defendants have also moved to compel arbitration of the UCL 23 claim. 24 In response, at the hearing Plaintiff Deborah McCleese argued, for 25 the first time, that National Arbitration Forum Rule 44(G)(1) 26 renders unconscionable the delegation clause of the credit card 27 28 They raised various new arguments in their reply brief. 1 2 3 agreement. After further review, the Court requires additional briefing on the new arguments. Therefore, on or before December 9, 2011, Plaintiff shall 4 address, in a brief not to exceed ten pages, Defendants' 5 contentions that (1) the California Arbitration Act, including 6 7 California Code of Civil Procedure section 1284.3, does not apply to the arbitration provision here because the parties did not 8 9 express a clear intent to incorporate the state's rules of United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 arbitration; (2) the FAA preempts section 1284.3; and (3) federal 11 law governs the severability of the arbitration provision and 12 allows its severance in the event it is found unconscionable. 13 14 15 On or before December 16, 2011, in a brief not to exceed ten pages, Defendants shall address Plaintiff's argument that Rule 44(G)(1) renders the delegation clause unconscionable, and 16 17 18 19 20 21 may reply to Plaintiff's supplemental brief. Plaintiff may file a three page reply brief on or before December 23, 2011. The December 13, 2011 case management conference is reset for February 22, 2012 at 2:00 pm. IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 24 Dated: 11/23/2011 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 25 26 27 28 2

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?