Abraham Inetianbor v. Cashcall, Inc.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 18830
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- Inetianbor borrowed $2,600 from Western Sky in Jan. 2011; he paid about $3,252.65 over 12 months and disputed remaining obligations.
- CashCall, as loan servicer, claimed default and pursued arbitration under the loan agreement; district court stayed or refused arbitration due to forum issues.
- The arbitration clause requires disputes to be resolved by Arbitration conducted by the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Nation, with the Tribe’s consumer dispute rules, and to follow this Agreement.
- The Tribe reportedly does not authorize arbitration; the district court found the chosen forum unavailable, then vacillated between availability and unavailability.
- The FAA provides §§4 and 5 for arbitration; integral forum rule applies if the forum is integral to the agreement and unavailable, barring arbitration.
- The court ultimately affirms the district court’s decision not to compel arbitration because the integrated tribal forum is unavailable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the forum selection clause integral to the arbitration agreement? | Inetianbor argues Tribe involvement is integral. | CashCall argues the Tribe involvement is not integral. | Yes; forum is integral to the arbitration agreement. |
| Is the arbitral forum unavailable, so arbitration cannot be compelled? | Inetianbor shows Tribe does not provide arbitration. | CashCall contends Tribe involvement suffices for availability. | Yes; arbitral forum is unavailable. |
| Can a severability clause save the arbitration agreement where the forum is integral but unavailable? | Severability should preserve the rest of the agreement. | Severability should allow enforcement of the rest. | No; forum provision pervades the arbitration agreement and is not severable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. ITT Consumer Fin. Corp., 211 F.3d 1217 (11th Cir. 2000) (integral forum rule; substitution under §5 not allowed when forum unavailable)
- Reddam v. KPMG LLP, 457 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir. 2006) (integral forum guidance; forum designation implies exclusivity)
- Blinco v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, 400 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2005) (distinguishes general arbitration clause from forum-specific designations)
- In re Salomon Inc. S'holder's Derivative Litig., 68 F.3d 554 (2d Cir. 1995) (illustrates contract interpretation factors for forum clauses)