AAA arbitration – Turtle Talk

I. Whether there is a non-textual “integrality exception” to the mandatory requirement in the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) that a substitute arbitrator “shall” be appointed by the court whenever the parties’ chosen arbitrator is unavailable for “any … reason”? 9 U.S.C. § 5.

II. Whether a court may void an entire arbitration clause – and force the parties to litigate in court – despite the fact that the parties included a severance provision that, if applied, would render the arbitration clause enforceable?

Lower court materials here.

District court materials here.

Eleventh Circuit Affirms Inetianbor v. Cashcall

October 3, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the opinion. An excerpt:

This appeal arises out of a disagreement between Abraham Inetianbor, who borrowed money at a high interest rate, and CashCall, Inc., the servicer of Mr. Inetianbor’s loan. Mr. Inetianbor filed a lawsuit against CashCall, which then sought to compel arbitration based on the loan agreement. The District Court ultimately refused to compel arbitration because the arbitration agreement in the loan document contained a forum selection clause that was integral to the agreement, and the specified forum was not available to arbitrate the dispute. CashCall appeals that decision here. After careful review, and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm.

Briefs here:

Opening Brief

Answer Brief

Reply Brief

Lower court materials here.

Opening Eleventh Circuit Brief in Inetianbor v. Cashcall

November 12, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here:

Cashcall Opening Brief

Lower court materials here.

Federal Court Reopens Inetianbor v. Cashcall (Again) After Plaintiff Shows Reservation Arbitration a Sham

August 20, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher6 Comments

New materials here:

DCT Order Granting Renewed Motion for Reconsideration

Inetianbor Renewed Motion to Reconsider

Cashcall Opposition to Renewed Motion

Inetianbor Reply in Support of Renewed Motion for Reconsideration

Prior posts here, here, and here.

Update in Inetianbor v. Cash Call (Western Sky Financial) — Arbitrator Alleged Biased — Court Finds Irrelevant

June 21, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the new materials:

Inetianbor Motion to Reconsider

Cashhcall Opposition

Inetianbor Reply in Support of Reconsideration

DCT Order Denying Motion

An excerpt:

Here, Plaintiff asserts that he has uncovered two new pieces of evidence that indicate that Mr. Chasing Hawk is biased toward CashCall. First, Plaintiff claims that Mr. Chasing Hawk’s daughter, Shannon Chasing Hawk, is employed by Western Sky. Plaintiff has attached what he claims is a printout of Ms. Chasing Hawk’s Facebook profile page, listing “Western Sky Financial” as her employer. See DE 61 at 9. He further alleges that Mr. Chasing Hawk has “10+ kids and every single one of them has either worked for, currently works at CashCall or one of its subsidiaries . . . or had illegally attempted to conduct an unsuccessful arbitration for the defendant.” DE 67 at 2 n.1. Second, Plaintiff alleges that CashCall and Mr. Chasing Hawk have colluded in the initiation of arbitration proceedings. Plaintiff attaches what he claims is an email chain between Mr. Chasing Hawk and an employee of Lakota Cash, LLC (“Lakota Cash”), a subsidiary of Western Sky, which purportedly shows that Lakota Cash prepared the letter for Mr. Chasing Hawk. See id. at 7-8. Plaintiff further claims that he called Mr. Chasing Hawk, and that Mr. Chasing Hawk admitted during the phone call that CashCall had prepared the letter for him. Plaintiff represents that he has tried calling Mr. Chasing Hawk again, but that he told Plaintiff that “I am not able to talk to you because cash call (sic) will get mad. You have to call the attorney, sorry.” Id. at 3.

Prior order here.