IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 2, 2010
KEINYATEY CHAMBERS, PLAINTIFF,
DOLLAR FINANCIAL GROUP A/K/A MONEY MART DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REINSTATE CASE*fn1
On January 5, 2010, Plaintiff filed a "Motion to Reinstate Case." (Docket No. 23.) Defendant opposes the motion, arguing Plaintiff's motion is unsupported, untimely and Plaintiff erroneously argues that his claims cannot be submitted to arbitration in accordance with the terms of the governing arbitration provision.
An order issued in this case on October 17, 2009, granting Defendant's unopposed motion to compel arbitration. The court concluded in that order that Plaintiff's claims alleged under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and California's Rosenthal Act were covered by the arbitration provision included in the written loan agreement executed by Plaintiff and Defendant on December 27, 2008. Therefore, Plaintiff's claims were dismissed and this case was closed.
Plaintiff argues in his pending motion, that his claims against Defendant should be "reinstated" since Defendant's "chosen arbitration forum, the National Arbitration Forum ("NAF"), issued a letter upon [Plaintiff's] filing [of a claim, stating] that it no longer accepts consumer claims for arbitration." (Mot. to Reinstate ¶ 5.) Plaintiff contends since "Defendant's chosen forum, the [NAF], cannot hear Plaintiff's claim due to NAF's inability to hear the type of claim brought by Plaintiff, Defendant waived its right to compel binding arbitration of Plaintiff's cause of action." (Id. ¶ 10.) Defendant counters that when Plaintiff failed to oppose its motion to compel arbitration before this case was dismissed, Plaintiff waived any right to object to arbitration; and further, Plaintiff has provided no reason why his claims cannot be arbitrated under the terms of the arbitration provision in the loan agreement.
Plaintiff's motion is unsupported by authority, and has not been shown to be timely. Further, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that compliance with the arbitration provision in the parties' loan agreement is not possible. Nor has Plaintiff shown that his claims must be arbitrated by the NAF. The arbitration clause states that "[t]he arbitration hearing will be conducted in the county of [Plaintiff's] residence, or within 30 miles from such county, or in the county in which [Plaintiff's] loan transaction occurred." (Nguyen Decl., Ex. A.) The arbitration clause further provides that "any dispute shall be resolved by arbitration in accordance with the rules and procedures . . . of [the NAF] . . . applicable to consumer disputes" and the "arbitrator shall apply applicable substantive law consistent with the Federal Arbitration Act . . . ." (Id.) Therefore, the arbitration clause reveals that even though arbitration is to be conducted in compliance with the NAF's rules and procedures, it need not be conducted by the NAF. Plaintiff, therefore, has not demonstrated that this court is a proper forum for his claims against Defendant. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to reinstate his claims is denied.