QuickClick Loans, LLC v. Russell
407 Ill. App. 3d 46
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Arbitration provision designates only two administrators (AAA or NAF) and states they must be chosen if arbitration is required.
- NAF ceased consumer arbitrations due to a consent judgment; AAA issued a consumer-arbitration moratorium.
- QuickClick filed collection and sought arbitration; Russell counterclaimed under TILA, Regulation Z, ICILA, and Illinois Interest Act.
- Circuit court denied QuickClick's motion to compel arbitration and stay; court found external constraints foreclosed arbitration.
- On appeal, QuickClick contends arbitration is possible by selecting another administrator or via Section 5 of the FAA; Russell contends arbitration is impossible and the agreement is enforceable as written.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding that the two exclusive administrators were unavailable and that designation was integral to the agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are arbitration claims enforceable when the designated administrators are unavailable? | NAF/AAA unavailable; arbitration impossible. | Exclusive administrator designation bars substitution; moratorium applies. | Arbitration unavailable; circuit court affirmed. |
| Does FAA Section 5 permit naming an alternative administrator where the designated ones are unavailable? | Section 5 allows substitution when forum fails. | Designation is integral; substitution not allowed. | Not permitted; designation integral; no substitute administrator. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614 (1985) (determine reach of arbitration agreement and external foreclosure of arbitration)
- Salsitz v. Kreiss, 198 Ill.2d 1 (2001) (arbitration scope and construction of arbitration agreements)
- Barth v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 228 Ill.2d 163 (2008) (unambiguous contract terms given plain meaning)
- Vassilkovska v. Woodfield Nissan, Inc., 358 Ill.App.3d 20 (2005) (abuse of discretion standard for interlocutory review and arbitration)
- Carter v. SSC Odin Operating Co., 237 Ill.2d 30 (2010) (FAA section 5 applicability and integration with arbitration agreement)