We posted the cert stage briefs here.
Lower court materials here.
District court materials here.
Inetianbor v. Cashcall Inc.
CashCall v. Inetianbor Cert Stage Briefs
Here:
Questions presented:
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.
Eleventh Circuit Affirms Inetianbor v. Cashcall
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.
Opening Eleventh Circuit Brief in Inetianbor v. Cashcall
Federal Court Reopens Inetianbor v. Cashcall (Again) After Plaintiff Shows Reservation Arbitration a Sham
Update in Inetianbor v. Cash Call (Western Sky Financial) — Arbitrator Alleged Biased — Court Finds Irrelevant
Here are the new materials:
Inetianbor Motion to Reconsider
Inetianbor Reply in Support of Reconsideration
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.
Dispute with Western Sky Financial Heads to Arbitration with CRST Elder Robert Chasing Hawk
Here are the updated materials in Inetianbor v. Cashcall (S.D. Fla.):
DCT Order Compelling Arbitration
57-1 [Affidavit of Robert Chasing Hawk]
Update in Inetianbor v. Cashcall (Western Sky Financial): Federal Court Reopens Case
You may recall from our February post that a federal court had honored an arbitration provision in a Cashcall/Western Sky Financial form agreement and sent the case to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Court. That court responded to the plaintiff that the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe does not authorize arbitration under the American Arbitration Association rules, so the plaintiff successfully brought the case back to federal court.
Materials in Inetianbor v. Cashcall Inc. (S.D. Fla.) are here:
DCT Order Granting Motion to Reopen
Federal Court Order Compliance with Western Sky Financial Tribal Arbitration Provision
Here are the materials in Inetianbor v. Cashcall Inc. (S.D. Fla.):
DCT Order Granting Motion to Compel Arbitration
Cashcall Motion to Compel Arbitration or Dismiss
Inetianbor State Court Complaint
Inetianbor State Court Complaint Amendment
An excerpt:
Here, Defendant argues that the arbitration agreement, by its plain language, covers Plaintiff’s claims. The Court agrees. The terms of the agreement are clear: all disputes between the borrower and the holder of the Note or the holder’s servicer must be settled through arbitration. See Loan Agreement at 5-6. In this suit, Plaintiff seeks damages from Cashcall, the servicer of the note, for actions related to Cashcall’s servicing and collecting on the note. See Amended Complaint at 2. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims fall within the scope of the arbitration provision.
Turtle Talk 