Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 21CHCV00795, Date: 2023-02-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21CHCV00795    Hearing Date: February 8, 2023    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 2-8-23 c/f 8-10-22

Case #21CHCV00795

Trial Date: Not Set

ARBITRATION

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Melanie Arakelian, pro per

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Plaintiff, Synchrony Bank

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Compel Arbitration

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On October 12, 2021, Plaintiff Synchrony Bank filed a complaint for common counts alleging a balance due of $29,712.90 on a certain account. On February 2, 2022, Defendant Arakelian, in pro per, filed a general denial to the complaint.

RULING: Off-Calendar

On August 10, 2022, the court continued the subject motion to February 8, 2023. The court placed the case on the civil inactive list, and requested status reports from the parties. Plaintiff maintains Defendant never initiated arbitration, and requests the court restore the action to the active civil calendar. Plaintiff counters that the agreement requires Plaintiff initiate arbitration.

As addressed in the prior motion, the arbitration agreement language provides that either party may submit account disputes to arbitration. The agreement specifically excepts the creditor from initiating arbitration in case of a collection matter, but nothing in the language bars a customer from initiating arbitration under any circumstance. “If either you or we make a demand for arbitration, you and we must arbitrate any dispute or claim between you or any other user of your account…except as noted below…We will not require you to arbitrate…(2) a case we file to collect money you owe us. However, if you respond to the collection lawsuit by claiming any wrongdoing, we may require you to arbitrate.” [¶][¶] “If a party files a lawsuit in court asserting claim(s) that are subject to arbitration and the other party files a motion with the court to compel arbitration, which is granted, it will be the responsibility of the party seeking asserting the claim(s) to commence the arbitration proceeding.” The section also provides that any questions over whether the arbitration clause governs certain claims or not, however, is to be determined by the arbitrator, rather than the court. Arbitration rules are governed by the FAA, unless in Utah. Again, the subject action arises on the collection of a past due amount on an account opened with Plaintiff.

Contrary to the statement of Defendant, the plain language of the arbitration agreement and Defendant filing the subject motion itself compelled Defendant to follow through with the initiation of the process upon the court granting the motion. Defendant apparently admits to no intent to follow through with the requirements.

Thus, given the lack of initiation of any arbitration after presented with the opportunity to proceed, the court restores the case to the civil active calendar and takes the motion to compel arbitration off-calendar. The case is at issue, and the court will proceed with setting a trial date at the hearing.

Plaintiff to give notice.