Please cite the case law in support of your claim.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals disagrees with you.
”The FDCPA is not a mechanism for matters governed elsewhere by state and federal law. Bentrud v. Bowman, Heintz, Boscia & Vician, P.C., 794 F.3d 871, 875 (7th Cir. 2015). A contrary ruling would require us to declare that adherence to an arbitration provision in a contract, even in the face of a state court order to the contrary, is essential to fair debt collection. This we will not do. Id.
That court has ruled that adherence to an arbitration provision has nothing to do with FAIR debt collection. Simply because the other party would rather litigate in court rather than arbitrate does not make the action unfair. In addition, as stated by the court, the arbitration provision is governed by the “federal law”. The FAA anticipated a party’s refusal to arbitrate and provides a remedy for a refusal.
9 U.S.C. §4
A party aggrieved by the alleged failure, neglect, or refusal of another to arbitrate under a written agreement for arbitration may petition any United States district court which, save for such agreement, would have jurisdiction under title 28, in a civil action or in admiralty of the subject matter of a suit arising out of the controversy between the parties, for an order directing that such arbitration proceed in the manner provided for in such agreement.
In other words, you file a MTC when the other party refuses to arbitrate.
Then, there’s the issue of a valid agreement to arbitrate (which is also addressed in the Federal Arbitration Act). Courts get to determine that issue. That’s part of the reason for a MTC.
The OP is in New Jersey. The following is from the N.J. Supreme Court in Goffe v. Foulke Management Corp. (2019)
“To make that so, the FAA provides remedies. First, section three provides that a party may request a stay of an in-court action of ‘any issue referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing for such arbitration.’ 9 U.S.C. § 3. And, section four provides a federal remedy for a party ‘aggrieved by the alleged failure, neglect, or refusal of another to arbitrate under a written agreement for arbitration,’ and directs the federal court to order arbitration once it is satisfied that an agreement for arbitration has been made and has not been honored. 9 U.S.C. § 4.
”New Jersey case law acknowledges the preeminence of the national policy established by Congress through the FAA as well as the Supreme Court's holdings interpreting and implementing that policy.”