JohnW

That actually makes alot of sense. Therefore, it might make sense to ask the JP for a motion for reconsideration at the administrative hearing on the grounds that the Pro-temp misunderstood the motion and if properly understood the motion, mootness is not a grounds for denial under A.R.S. 12-1502(a). If it is denied, I can always drop my notice of appeal in the hopper after the hearing. 12-1502. Proceedings to compel or stay arbitration A. On application of a party showing an agreement described in section 12-1501, and the opposing party's refusal to arbitrate, the court

Isn't a ruling that the motion is moot, just a denial of the motion and the reason for the denial being that it is moot?

I need some help how to respond to an confusing ruling on my Motion to Dismiss/Compel Arbitration. Here is the background: Card was originally issued by HSBC in 2008 and assigned to Capital One in 2012. The debt is approx. $3k. I was sued by Cap One in November in Az Justice Ct. As is suggested in this forum, I filed a Motion to Dismiss/Compel Arbitration (along with an Answer). Plaintiff responded and I filed a reply brief. After filing my motion & answer, I received notice that the Court scheduled the pretrial conference in late Feb. Today, I received the court ruling o

Cap One entered in the Settlement Agreement below in 2010. They agreed to removed all arbitration terms from their agreement through 2013. https://www.arbitration.ccfsettlement.com/documents/files/2009-12-17-memorandum-of-settlement-with-capital-one.pdf However, along your lines of thought, Cap One's attorney did not authenticate the new Agreement. That is, they didn't include any affidavit that it was true and complete copy of the agreement. I was going to argue that the court shouldn't consider the new cap one agreement as evidence because it was not properly introduced as evidenc

Couple of comments to clarify my argument. The HSBC agreement says that Nevada law applies and even though I am in Arizona, this Nevada SC ruling and all other Nevada substantive law is controlling on the terms of the arbitration clause because of the selection of law clause. Cap One bought my HSBC account governed by the HSBC agreement. Thus, on day one after the purchase, the HSBC agreement was assigned to Cap One and Cap One was bound to it. Sometime after the purchase, Cap One decided to rescind/replace the agreement to new agreement that is silent on the dispute forum. In that way,

I need some help with my reply brief for a Motion to Dismiss or Compel Arbitration. Here is the background: Card was originally issued by HSBC in 2008 and assigned to Capital One in 2012. I have used the card and made payments since the card was assigned to Cap One in 2012. The debt is approx. $3k. I was sued by Cap One in November in Az Justice Ct. After reading the forums here, I filed an Answer along with a Motion to Dismiss or in the alternative a Motion to Compel and Stay Proceedings. Basically, I argued that the 2008 HSBC agreement include an arbitration clause and I was invokin