Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 21CHCV00795, Date: 2023-08-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21CHCV00795    Hearing Date: August 28, 2023    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 8-28-23

Case #21CHCV00795

Trial Date: 1-22-24

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: Granted.

Defendant Melanie Arakelian, in pro per, brings a second motion to compel arbitration.

A previously scheduled motion to compel arbitration set for August 10, 2022, was continued to February 8, 2023. The court placed the case on the civil inactive list, and requested status reports from the parties regarding whether the parties would participate in arbitration or proceed on the civil docket. At the February 8, 2023, hearing, Plaintiff maintained Defendant never initiated arbitration, and requested the court restore the action to the active civil calendar. Plaintiff countered that the agreement requires Defendant initiate arbitration.

At the February 8, 2023, hearing, contrary to the statement of Defendant, the plain language of the arbitration agreement and Defendant filing the motion to compel arbitration, the court found Defendant refused to follow through with the initiation of the process of initiating arbitration. The court restored the case to the civil active calendar and took the previously filed motion to compel arbitration off-calendar. The case was designated at issue, and the court set a January 22, 2024, trial date.

Defendant filed a second motion to compel arbitration on May 31, 2023. The motion contains an exhibit showing engagement with JAMS and a request for expedited procedures. The exhibits also show an invoice for a $2,000 filing fee billed to Plaintiff. It’s not clear whether any payment was made.

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. The attempted collection is subject to arbitration. Because Plaintiff is “excepted” from commencing arbitration, Defendant must initiate the process, which appears to have occurred.

The court finds no basis preventing arbitration now that Defendant initiated arbitration and the invoice for arbitration was presented. The court therefore grants the motion subject to proof of submission of payment by Plaintiff.

The court will set an OSC re: Status of the Arbitration. The lack of any proof will lead to an instant reinstatement of the action to the civil calendar. The case will remain on the civil active calendar with the January 22, 2024, trial date intact pending confirmation.

Plaintiff to give notice.