Christina Bazemore v. Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12403
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- In 2005 Bazemore applied online for an Imagine MasterCard issued by First Bank of Delaware (FBD), received and used the card, and later did not pay the balance in full.
- Jefferson Capital Systems (JSC) acquired Bazemore’s account in 2008 and filed a proof of claim in her 2013 bankruptcy for the alleged debt; Bazemore sued JSC in 2014 alleging an FDCPA violation for filing a time‑barred claim.
- JSC moved to compel arbitration relying on an arbitration clause in a Cardholder Agreement it says was part of a Welcome Kit mailed after account opening; JSC attached a form agreement to a declarant’s affidavit but conceded it did not have the exact agreement mailed to Bazemore.
- The declarant (an Atlanticus employee) stated only that a Welcome Kit “would have been sent” in the ordinary course, but offered no personal knowledge or records proving the kit was mailed or that Bazemore viewed/accepted any online terms.
- The district court denied the motion finding Bazemore’s claim outside the clause’s scope; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed on the alternative ground that JSC failed to prove formation of any arbitration agreement under Georgia contract law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of an arbitration agreement | Bazemore denies being bound; JSC failed to prove any agreement formed | JSC contends an online/mailed process + Welcome Kit created a binding agreement including arbitration | Held: JSC failed to prove assent or the actual terms; no enforceable arbitration agreement under Georgia law |
| Burden/standard for proving formation | State contract law governs; proponent must prove existence/terms | JSC urged prior Eleventh Circuit formulations placing heavier onus on resisting party | Held: Apply ordinary state‑law contract principles (Georgia); proponent bears burden to prove existence and terms of the contract |
| Whether FAA §4 requires remand for trial when proponent fails to prove formation | Bazemore argued no trial needed where no genuine factual dispute exists | JSC sought remand for summary trial under §4 to prove formation | Held: No trial required where no genuine dispute of material fact; court may resolve under summary‑judgment standard and deny motion as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (1995) (courts should apply ordinary state‑law contract principles to determine whether parties agreed to arbitrate)
- Caley v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp., 428 F.3d 1359 (11th Cir. 2005) (FAA presumption of arbitrability but state law governs formation of arbitration agreements)
- Dasher v. RBC Bank (USA), 745 F.3d 1111 (11th Cir. 2014) (apply state contract law to determine existence of arbitration agreement)
- Granite Rock Co. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 561 U.S. 287 (2010) (presumption of arbitrability applies only to a validly formed arbitration agreement)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary‑judgment principle that entry of judgment is appropriate when movant lacks evidence on essential element)