Anderson v. Credit One Bank, National Association
3:16-cv-03125
S.D. Cal.May 23, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Rodger Dean Anderson applied online for a Credit One Bank credit card, received and activated the card, used it for personal purposes, and closed the account after paying the balance.
- Several months after account closure, Credit One called repeatedly seeking payment of an annual fee; Anderson paid but continued to receive calls and sued for Rosenthal Act violations, TCPA violations, and intrusion.
- Credit One moved to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, claiming Anderson agreed to arbitration via documents mailed with the new card and by using the card.
- Credit One submitted (1) a VP’s declaration asserting the Cardholder Agreement/Arbitration Agreement was mailed with the card, (2) an online application printout, and (3) an unsigned form Cardholder Agreement containing arbitration terms.
- Anderson submitted a declaration stating no documents accompanied the card and he never received or agreed to an arbitration policy; the court found genuine factual disputes about mutual assent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether arbitrability questions were delegated to an arbitrator | Anderson argues there was no clear-and-unmistakable delegation provision and he disputes formation, so court must decide | Credit One contends gateway issues were delegated to arbitrator | Court: No clear-and-unmistakable delegation; court decides arbitrability |
| Whether a valid arbitration agreement was formed | Anderson: never received the agreement, never consented | Credit One: mailed the agreement with the card; card use manifested assent | Court: Genuine factual dispute exists; defendant failed to show no dispute of fact, so no compulsion |
| Whether Cardholder Agreement/Arbitration clause applies to claims | Anderson: not reached because he denies assent | Credit One: agreement (if formed) covers these claims | Court: Did not reach scope because formation unresolved |
| Whether arbitration clause is enforceable on contract defenses | Anderson: not reached; challenges formation | Credit One: not addressed | Court: Did not reach unconscionability or other defenses |
Key Cases Cited
- AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011) (FAA favors enforcement of arbitration agreements)
- Rent-A-Ctr., W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 (2010) (parties may delegate arbitrability to arbitrator when there is clear and unmistakable evidence)
- AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Communications Workers of America, 475 U.S. 643 (1986) (absent clear evidence, courts decide arbitrability)
- Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 483 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2007) (when making of arbitration agreement is disputed, court must resolve factual dispute before compelling arbitration)
- Three Valleys Mun. Water Dist. v. E.F. Hutton & Co., 925 F.2d 1136 (9th Cir. 1991) (when opposing arbitration on formation grounds, opposing party gets benefit of reasonable doubts and inferences)
- Momot v. Mastro, 652 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2011) (standards for finding clear and unmistakable delegation; course of conduct or express agreement can show delegation)