Cain v. Citibank, N.A.

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge J. Frederick Motz on 11/15/2016. (bas, Deputy Clerk)

ci>fb~¥;-:~"

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

:zo ~5 f::~::~}I~;

CLIFFORD CAIN, JR.

v.
CITIBANK, N.A.

*
*
*
*
*
*
******

Civil No. - JFM-16-2930

MEMORANDUM

Defendant has filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay action. The motion will be
granted.l
Defendant assigned to Midland Funding, LLC, its rights under its credit card agreement
with plaintiff after plaintiff defaulted on his payment obligations. However, the arbitration
provision in the contract between the parties provided that it "shall survive: (i) termination or
changes in the Agreement, the account, or the relationship between you and us concerning the
account ... and (ii) any transfer, sale, or assignment of your account, or any amounts on your
account, to any other person or entity." Under Idaho law, which the parties agreed was to govern
the agreement between them, "[t]o determine intent, we look 'to the language that the parties
used in the contract[.]'" Tri-City Assocs., LP v. Belmont, Inc., 845 N.W. 2d 911,915 (S.D.
2014). The language here could not be clearer, and it provides that the arbitration provision
survives the termination or changes in the Agreement.
Likewise, there could be no question but that the parties' dispute falls within the coverage
of the arbitration provision. That provision made subject to arbitration "[a]ll claims relating to
your account, a prior related account, or our relationship .... " Plaintiff has presented no

I

Because of a temporary imbalance in caseload, I am handling this case for Judge Hollander.

evidence to suggest that defendant waived its right to compel arbitration under this clause as the
agreement.
Plaintiff suggests that this court stay its ruling on the motion to compel pending the
decision by the Court of Appeals of Maryland in Cain v. Midland Funding, LLC. However, the
Federal Arbitration Act reflects an "emphatic federal policy in favor of arbitral dispute
resolution."

KPMG LLP v. Cocchi, 565 U.S. 18,21 (2011). Further, the Supreme Court has

stated that the '''principal purpose' of the FAA is to 'ensur(e] that private arbitration agreements
are enforced according to their terms.'" AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 344
(2011). In light of that strong federal public policy, there is no reason to delay issuance of the
opinion in this case.
Finally, I note that this court has previously granted motions to compel arbitration based
on the same arbitration agreement involved in this case. See, e.g., Bey v. Midland Credit
Management, Case No. GJH-15-1329, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38355 (D. Md. Mar. 23, 2016);
Koenickv. Citibank (S.D.), NA., Civil Action No. AW-05-1006, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37499
(D. Md. June 7, 2005).
A separate order granting defendant's motion to compel and to stay this action is being
entered herewith.

Date:

IlJ

' -:;711

J o¥--7~cj
J. Fr~erick Motz
United States District Judge