Greenwood v. Compucredit Corporation et al

Filing 402

ORDER COMPELLING ARBITRATION OF PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS UNDER THE CREDIT REPAIR ORGANIZATIONS ACT. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 5/3/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/3/2012)

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 COMPELLING
ARBITRATION OF
PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS
UNDER THE CREDIT
REPAIR
ORGANIZATIONS ACT

COMPUCREDIT CORPORATION; COLUMBUS
BANK AND TRUST, jointly and
individually,
Defendants.
________________________________/

12
13

This Court previously denied Defendants CompuCredit

14

Corporation’s and Columbus Bank and Trust Company’s motions to

15

compel arbitration of Plaintiffs Wanda Greenwood’s, Ladelle

16

Hatfield’s and Deborah McCleese’s first and second causes of

17

action under the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA).1

Docket

18
Nos. 17 and 27.

Defendants appealed the order and the Ninth

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Circuit affirmed.

However, on January 10, 2012, the Supreme Court

reversed the judgment of the Ninth Circuit and ruled that the
1

In addition to Plaintiffs’ causes of action under the CROA,
they alleged claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law.
Although the proceedings as to Plaintiffs’ CROA claims were stayed
pending resolution of Defendants’ interlocutory appeal, the
parties continued to litigate the UCL claims. In the course of
doing so, Greenwood’s and Hatfield’s UCL claims were dismissed.
Transcript of September 16, 2010 hearing at 3:14-21. On March 5,
2012, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration
of McCleese’s UCL claim, stayed all further proceedings in the
case and administratively closed the case, although retaining
jurisdiction to enforce the arbitration award.

1

Federal Arbitration Act requires the arbitration agreement in this

2

case to be enforced according to its terms as to the CROA claims.

3

The Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings

4

consistent with its opinion.

5

vacated this Court’s order denying Defendants’ motion to compel

6

On March 27, 2012, the Ninth Circuit

arbitration and remanded the case for further proceedings

7
consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion.

On April 18, 2012,

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

the Ninth Circuit issued its mandate and its judgment took effect.
Accordingly, the stay on Plaintiffs’ CROA claim is lifted for

11

the limited purpose of granting Defendants’ motion to compel

12

arbitration of the CROA claims.

13

action are stayed.

14

administratively closed but retains jurisdiction to enforce the

All further proceedings in this

The Court has ordered this case

15
arbitration award.
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
18
19
20

Dated: 5/3/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2