322 F. Supp. 3d 1261
M.D. Fla.2017Background
- Plaintiff, non-signatory to a lease-to-own agreement, had her cell number associated with the account between Defendant and Mr. Ray.
- The Lease included a broad arbitration clause that Mr. Ray did not reject.
- Defendant made calls to Mr. Ray and instructed him to speak with his wife; Plaintiff intervened on her husband's behalf.
- Plaintiff alleges Defendant placed daily robocalls to her cell phone seeking payment under the Lease after her intervention.
- Plaintiff filed FCCPA and TCPA claims in 2017; Defendant seeks to compel arbitration based on the Lease.
- Court analyzes whether a non-party can be bound by arbitration and whether Plaintiff’s claims are premised on the Lease.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can a non-party be compelled to arbitrate? | Plaintiff benefits from Lease; claims premised on Lease. | Non-party bound due to benefit and premised claims. | No; Plaintiff not bound to arbitrate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lawson v. Life of the South Insurance Co., 648 F.3d 1166 (11th Cir. 2011) (federal arbitrability governed by federal law; contract law governs enforcement against non-parties)
- Mendez v. Hampton Court Nursing Ctr., LLC, 203 So.3d 147 (Fla. 2016) (third-party beneficiary cannot bind third party without consent; not all claims premised on contract bind non-parties)
- Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle, 556 U.S. 624 (Supreme Court 2009) (statements on arbitration and related issues cited by district court)