CALIFORNIA COURT UPHOLDS ARBITRATION PROVISION INVOKED BY NON-SIGNATORY
In a dispute alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act related to attempts to collect on a credit card debt, defendants moved to compel arbitration. Although defendants were not signatories to the agreement containing the arbitration provision, the court found the defendants had standing to compel arbitration because the language of the agreement was broad enough to include them. The arbitration provision governed ‘[a]ny claim, dispute or controversy . . no matter by or against whom the claim is made, whether by or against either you or us or . . . by or against any involved third party.” (emphasis added). The court also determined that the unavailability of the National Arbitration Forum (“NAF”), which was specifically designated as the arbitral forum in the arbitration provision, as an arbitration forum for consumer disputes did not render the agreement unenforceable. Significant to the court was the fact that the arbitration provision itself contained a severability provision, which allowed the provisions naming the NAF as the arbitral forum to be deemed invalid without rendering the entire arbitration provision unenforceable. Selby v. Deutche Bank Trust Co. Ams., Civ. No. 12-cv-01562 (USDC S.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2013).
This post written by Abigail Kortz.
See our disclaimer.
