Inetianbor v. Cashcall, Inc.
923 F. Supp. 2d 1358
S.D. Fla.2013Background
- Inetianbor entered into a consumer loan with Western Sky for $2,525 at 135% APR.
- CashCall, Inc. is the servicer, handler, and collector on the loan.
- Plaintiff alleges he paid off the loan but CashCall still reports upcoming/late payments to credit bureaus.
- The Loan Agreement reserves exclusive jurisdiction to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Court and foregoes other state or federal law.
- The Agreement requires arbitration for disputes, conducted by the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Nation, with telephonic/video appearances allowed.
- Plaintiff sued in state court (defamation, usury, FCRA) in 2012; CashCall removed to federal court in 2013; motions include remand and to compel arbitration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removal was proper under §1441(a). | Inetianbor argues lack of federal jurisdiction due to preemption/defense. | CashCall asserts federal question jurisdiction under FCRA and supplemental claims. | Removal proper; federal question jurisdiction over FCRA and supplemental claims. |
| Whether the arbitration agreement covers the present claims. | Arbitration does not coverPlaintiff's defamation/usury/FCRA claims. | Arbitration clause broadly covers disputes between borrower and holder/servicer. | Arbitration clause covers the current claims. |
| Whether the tribal court/jurisdiction clause is valid and enforceable. | Jurisdictional validity of tribal forum is questioned. | Choice-of-law/jurisdiction clause should be enforced in arbitration context. | Tribal jurisdiction is valid; arbitration should proceed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jenkins v. First American Cash Advance of Georgia, LLC, 400 F.3d 868 (11th Cir. 2005) (contract legality challenges go to arbitrator, not court)
- Lindo v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., 652 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2011) (strong presumption in favor of enforcing arbitration and choice clauses)
- Global Satellite Commc’n Co. v. Starmill U.K. Ltd., 378 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2004) (removal and jurisdiction in arbitration context; standard considerations)
- Miedema v. Maytag Corp., 450 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2006) (ambiguity in jurisdiction resolved in favor of remand when doubt exists)
- EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279 (Supreme Court 2002) (liberal policy favoring arbitration; enforceability of arbitration provisions)