IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 23, 2011
WANDA GREENWOOD; LADELLE CW HATFIELD; AND DEBORAH MCCLEESE, 5 ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
COMPUCREDIT CORPORATION; COLUMBUS
BANK AND TRUST, JOINTLY AND INDIVIDUALLY,
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Claudia Wilken United States District Judge
ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING REGARDING 6 DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
United States District Court 13 14 the Credit Repair Organizations Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1679 et seq., and This lawsuit consists of two causes of action, a claim under a claim under this state's Unfair Competition Law, California 16 Business & Professions Code section 17200 et seq. Both claims 17 arise from the marketing and issuance of a credit card under the 18 brand name Aspire Visa to consumers. Defendants have appealed 19 this Court's order denying their motion to compel arbitration of 20 the CROA claim. 21 22
Defendants have also moved to compel arbitration of the UCL claim. They raised various new arguments in their reply brief. 24 In response, at the hearing Plaintiff Deborah McCleese argued, for 25 the first time, that National Arbitration Forum Rule 44(G)(1) 26 renders unconscionable the delegation clause of the credit card 27 28 agreement. After further review, the Court requires additional 1 2 briefing on the new arguments.
Therefore, on or before December 9, 2011, Plaintiff shall 4 address, in a brief not to exceed ten pages, Defendants' 5 contentions that (1) the California Arbitration Act, including 6 California Code of Civil Procedure section 1284.3, does not apply 7 to the arbitration provision here because the parties did not 8 express a clear intent to incorporate the state's rules of 9 10 arbitration; (2) the FAA preempts section 1284.3; and (3) federal 11 law governs the severability of the arbitration provision and United States District Court For the Northern District of California allows its severance in the event it is found unconscionable. 13
On or before December 16, 2011, in a brief not to exceed ten 12 14 pages, Defendants shall address Plaintiff's argument that 15 Rule 44(G)(1) renders the delegation clause unconscionable, and 16 may reply to Plaintiff's supplemental brief. Plaintiff may file a 17 three page reply brief on or before December 23, 2011. 18 19
The December 13, 2011 case management conference is reset for February 22, 2012 at 2:00 pm. 21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.