Carter v. General Motors Financial Company Inc.
8:25-cv-00493
M.D. Fla.Jun 20, 2025Background
- William R. Carter, Sr. (plaintiff, pro se) sued AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. d/b/a GM Financial (defendant) related to the purchase of a Dodge Durango in 2024.
- The purchase involved a Vehicle Buyer's Order and a Retail Installment Sales Contract allegedly signed by Carter and his son, with the contract rights assigned to GM Financial.
- Carter alleged he never validly executed the Retail Installment Sales Contract, asserting forgery and lack of assent.
- GM Financial moved to compel arbitration and stay the case based on arbitration clauses in both the Buyer's Order and the Retail Installment Sales Contract.
- The court evaluated whether a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement existed and whether the case should be compelled to arbitration under federal law, applying Florida contract principles to the formation of the agreement.
- The case was administratively closed and stayed pending the outcome of arbitration, with the parties ordered to submit periodic status reports.
Issues
| Issue | Carter's Argument | GM Financial's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of Arbitration Agreement | Contract was not validly executed; was forged | Binding arbitration provision with Carter's signature | Arbitration agreement exists and is binding |
| GM Financial as Proper Party | GM Financial not a party to Buyer's Order | GM Financial is assignee of the contract | GM Financial has rights by assignment |
| Unconscionability of Arbitration Clause | Clause is unconscionable and waives jury trial | No evidence of unconscionability; waiver not required to be knowing and voluntary | No unconscionability; waiver enforceable |
| Scope of Arbitration | Did not agree to arbitrate certain claims | Clause delegates arbitrability questions to arbitrator | Arbitrator decides scope of claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Emps. Ins. of Wausau v. Bright Metal Specialties, Inc., 251 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2001) (Federal law favors arbitration; state law governs contract formation)
- Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (1985) (Courts must first determine whether parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute)
- Bazemore v. Jefferson Capital Sys., LLC, 827 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2016) (Summary judgment-like standard applies to motions to compel arbitration)
- AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011) (Courts must enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms)