Delgado v. Progress Financial Company dba Progreso Financiero, 1:14-cv-00033

Plaintiff Miguel Delgado borrowed $1,300 from Progreso Financiero on Dec. 26, 2012 and signed a Loan Agreement, a Disclosure Form, and an Arbitration Agreement (Spanish originals translated to English).
The Arbitration Agreement broadly covered “any and all claims … arising out of or related in any way to” the Loan Agreement, including torts and federal/state claims, and preserved only small-claims court.
The Disclosure Form expressly authorized Progreso Financiero to contact Delgado by calls, SMS, prerecorded messages, and voicemail regarding the loan, including using automatic dialing.
Delgado alleges post-2013 automated and prerecorded calls and texts to his cellular phone, continued contact after his bankruptcy counsel notified the company, and brings TCPA and Rosenthal Act claims.
Progreso moved to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA); Delgado did not dispute signing or the validity of the arbitration agreement but argued the claims fall outside its scope and raised a jury-trial/waiver issue under state law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a valid arbitration agreement exists	Delgado did not contest validity but argued the conduct is outside scope	Progreso argued the signed arbitration agreement is valid and enforceable under FAA	Court: Agreement valid; parties must arbitrate
Whether TCPA claims fall within arbitration scope	Delgado: alleged automated/prerecorded calls are not "related to" the Loan Agreement or were consent-revoked	Progreso: calls/texts concerned loan collection and fall within broad "related to" arbitration clause and Disclosure Form consent	Court: TCPA claims are related to loan collection and covered by arbitration clause
Whether Rosenthal Act (RFDCPA) claims are arbitrable	Delgado: RFDCPA may preclude waiver of jury trial (state law) and claims broader than TCPA	Progreso: RFDCPA claims arise from collection activity tied to the loan and thus covered	Court: RFDCPA claims are related to the agreement and arbitrable; FAA preempts conflicting state rules on arbitration/jury-waiver
Whether disclosure/consent language affects arbitrability	Delgado: contends consent was never given or later revoked	Progreso: Disclosure Form expressly authorized autodialed/prerecorded communications about the loan	Court: Disclosure Form shows anticipated autodialer/prerecorded contact about the account; this supports finding claims arise from the contract and are arbitrable

Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983) (FAA creates federal substantive law of arbitrability)
AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011) (FAA preempts state rules that prohibit arbitration of particular claims)
First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (1995) (apply ordinary state-law contract principles to arbitration agreements)
Cox v. Ocean View Hotel Corp., 533 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir.) (court determines existence and scope of arbitration agreement)
Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 207 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir.) (scope of clause depends on clause language; broad language favors arbitration)
Cape Flattery Ltd. v. Titan Maritime, LLC, 647 F.3d 914 (9th Cir.) (different "arising out of/related to" language can be construed narrowly)
Bridge Fund Capital Corp. v. Fastbucks Franchise Corp., 622 F.3d 996 (9th Cir.) (choice-of-law and arbitration analysis under California law)
Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos., Inc. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265 (1995) (States may not selectively refuse to enforce arbitration clauses while enforcing other contract terms)