Here are the materials in Parnell v. Cashcall Inc.:
Lower court materials here:
18-1 Cashcall Motion re Forum Non Conveniens
19-1 Cashcall Motion to Compel Arbitration
21 Parnell Response to Motion to Compel
22 Parnell Response to Motion re Forum
24 Cashcall Reply re Motion to Compel
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:
Lower court materials here.
Here are the materials in Narula v. Delbert Services Corp. (E.D. Mich.):
18 DCT Granting Motion to Dismiss
An excerpt:
Because the Court determines that the forum-selection clause does not apply in this case and the Arbitration Agreement is not a product of fraud and satisfies the Sixth Circuit test to grant motions to compel arbitration, the Court finds that Defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration [8] is GRANTED, the parties are ordered to Arbitrate this dispute, and the case is hereby DISMISSED.
Here are the materials in Dillon v. BMO Harris Band NA (M.D. N.C.):
34 BMO Harris Motion to Transfer
36 BMO Harris Motion to Compel Arbitration
39 BMO Harris Motion to Dismiss
68 Dillon Response to Motion to Sever
69 Dillon Response to Motion to Transfer
70 Dillon Response to Motion to Compel Arbitration
71 Dillon Response to Motion to Dismss
Here are the updated materials in Heldt v. Payday Financial LLC (D.S.D.):
36 Opposition to Motion to Compel Arbitration
46 Opposition to Motion to Stay
51 Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
56 Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss
An excerpt:
ORDERED that Defendants, as the parties asserting that there is tribal court jurisdiction and that there ought to be tribal court exhaustion, must file within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order a declaratory judgment action in the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Court naming the Plaintiffs herein to address to that court the issue of tribal court jurisdiction and if that court concludes it has jurisdiction, and the availability of an arbitration forum as specified in the loan agreements in this case. In such a tribal court action, Plaintiffs of course may contest tribal court jurisdiction and assert their arguments as the unavailability of an arbitration forum as specified in the agreements without waiving their assertion that there is no tribal court jurisdiction. It is finally
ORDERED that the parties keep this Court advised of proceedings in the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Court by filing upon the conclusion of any tribal court proceedings and/or appeals, all pleadings filed by any party and all rulings by the tribal court as an attachment to an affidavit or stipulation.
Here are the updated materials in Federal Trade Commission v. AMG (D. Nev.):
559 DCT Order Adopting MJ Report
Prior post in this part of the litigation is here. The post related to the partial settlement is here. Other posts are here and here.
Here are the materials (so far) in State of Minnesota v. CashCall Inc. (Minn. Dist. Ct.):
Cashcall Opposition to Minnesota Motion for TRO
The complaint is here.
Here is the complaint in State of North Carolina ex rel. Cooper v. Western Sky Financial LLC (N.C. Super.):
An excerpt:
1. This is an action for injunctive relief to restrain Defendants Western Sky Financial, LLC (“Western Sky”), CashCall, Inc. (“CashCall”), WS Funding, LLC (“WS Funding”), Delbert Services Corporation (“Delbert”), and John Paul Reddam (“Mr. Reddam”), (collectively, “Defendants”) from offering, funding, servicing and collecting on illegal usurious consumer loans made to North Carolina borrowers, in violation of North Carolina’s Consumer Finance Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 53-164, et seq.; North Carolina’s usury laws, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 24-1, et seq.; and North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, et seq.; and to obtain restitution and other relief.
2. CashCall, WS Funding, and Delbert are affiliated companies that make, fund, purchase, service, and collect on illegal loans to North Carolina consumers that accrue interest at rates far in excess of those allowed under North Carolina law. These Defendants seek to evade the State of North Carolina’s licensure, usury, and consumer protection laws by using as a front an unrelated fourth company, Western Sky. Western Sky falsely holds itself out as an Indian tribal entity that purports to be exempt from state laws under the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity. In reality, Western Sky is a for-profit South Dakota company that is owned by an individual who happens to be a member of an Indian tribe. Western Sky is not owned or operated by any Indian tribe or for the benefit of any tribe; therefore, the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity does not apply to the loans made to North Carolina borrowers.3. CashCall is the real or “de facto” lender in these loan transactions, and it controls virtually all aspects of the transactions. Pursuant to its arrangement with Western Sky, among other activities, CashCall, itself or through its subsidiaries, creates and distributes advertising materials for the loans; reviews all loan applications for underwriting requirements; funds the loans; assumes all risk of loss on the loans; receives all payments on the loans; services the loans; and indemnifies Western Sky for all costs and any liability associated with the loans.4. Based on these facts, regulators and courts have concluded that “Western Sky is nothing more than a front to enable CashCall to evade licensure by state agencies and to exploit Indian Tribal Sovereign Immunity to shield its deceptive business practices from prosecution by state and federal regulators.” In re CashCall, Inc., John Paul Reddam, President and CEO of Cash Call, Inc. and WS Funding, LLC, State of New Hampshire Banking Department, Case No.: 12-308 (June 4, 2013).
5. Since 2010, at least fourteen states, on relation of the respective State’s Attorney General or through the State’s banking or consumer credit regulator, have taken action against Defendants for unlawfully making loans without proper state licensure and in violation of state usury and consumer protection laws.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.