District Court (Cal.) Orders FDCPA Claim to Arbitration

In Ferrini v. Cambece, 2013 WL 2421717 (E.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Drozd ordered FDCPA/Rosenthal Act claims to arbitration under a cardmember agreement.

The undersigned finds that the debt collection practices at issue relate to the card member agreement, that the broad language of the arbitration provision found in that agreement provides that plaintiff’s claims are subject to arbitration, and that there appears to be no reason to invalidate the arbitration agreement in this case. See Green Tree Financial Corp.-Alabama v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 89, 121 S.Ct. 513, 148 L.Ed.2d 373 (2000) (“we have recognized that federal statutory claims can be appropriately resolved through arbitration”); see also Evans v. Williams & Fudge, Inc., No 12cv0746 JM(WMc), 2012 WL 3025164, at *2 (S.D.Cal. July 24, 2012) (granting motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s FDCPA claim); Banks v. ACS Educ. Corp., Civil No. 10cv1886 AJB (CAB), 2012 WL 1033316, at *9 (S.D.Cal. Mar. 26, 2012) (finding that “All of the Plaintiff’s claims, [including FDCPA claim], no matter how characterized, are therefore subject to arbitration.”);   Makarowski v. AT & T Mobility, LLC, No. CV 09–1590–GAF (CWx), 2009 WL 1765661, at *1 (C.D.Cal. June 18, 2009) (granting motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s FDCPA and RFDCPA claims).