11th Cir. Says Auto Finance Company Defending TCPA Case Cannot Rely on Dealer’s Separate Arbitration Clause that Was Not Contained in the RISC

In Drayton v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, 2017 WL 1485027 (11th Cir. 2017), the Court of Appeals found that an arbitration clause could not be enforced.

Lisa Drayton brought a putative class action claim against Toyota after she allegedly received automated telephone calls from Toyota attempting to collect a consumer debt. She alleged that the calls violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq., and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA), Fla. Stat. § 559.55 et seq. Toyota moved to compel arbitration but the district court, adopting a magistrate judges’ Report and Recommendation, denied the motion.  In 2013, as part of the purchase of a 2009 Lexus automobile from a Lexus dealership–Lexus of Orange Park, Lisa Drayton and her husband executed two documents: a Retail Buyer’s Order (RBO), to order the car, and a Retail Installment Sales Contract (RISC), to finance the purchase of the car through a loan. The RBO contains an arbitration clause and precludes class action claims. The RISC contains a merger clause that states it is “the entire agreement.” Lexus of Orange Park and Lisa Drayton signed the RBO. The Draytons and the dealer signed the RISC, but Toyota was later assigned the RISC. . . Toyota is not a party to the RBO, the only document containing an arbitration clause. Under Florida law, as non-signatory to the contract containing an arbitration clause, Toyota cannot compel arbitration.2 Furthermore, equitable estoppel is not appropriate for this case because Drayton is not seeking to hold Toyota to the terms of the RBO, or even the RISC for that matter. Accordingly, we affirm.