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)
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?