If Debt Collectors are contractually bound to arbitration, can a Demurrer, Motion to strike, or motion to dismiss be the first pleading to strip the court of jurisdiction

[Seadragon]

In a separate thread, facts came up that a certain internet bank is governed by an arbitration clause in the contract. If they file in court vs. JAMS or AAA is it :

1. an improper forum for any controversy ?

2. can it be quashed with a demurrer or a motion to quash?

3. can it be struck with a Motion to Strike?

or

4. Completing the steps already used for forcing arbitration?

I am thinking if we can kick them out of court once then the judge has to see that every case is flawed

[Clydesmom]

8 hours ago, Seadragon said:

1. an improper forum for any controversy ?

No because the arbitration clause states either party "MAY" file for arb in lieu of court.  The term "may" is flexibly meaning it is an option not a requirement.  

8 hours ago, Seadragon said:

2. can it be quashed with a demurrer or a motion to quash?

3. can it be struck with a Motion to Strike?

Doubtful since arbitration isn't a requirement but an option.

8 hours ago, Seadragon said:

4. Completing the steps already used for forcing arbitration?

I am thinking if we can kick them out of court once then the judge has to see that every case is flawed

The problem with this plan is the arbitration option works against debt buyers who spent pennies on the dollar and do not want the expense of arbitration.  There are several original creditors who aren't the least bit put off by the request to use that forum.  AMEX, Discover, and Citi will happily follow  a consumer in.  Worse at least 2 creditors figured out that strategy years ago and simply removed the option of arbitration all together:  BoA and Cap1.  

The goal is not to actually arbitrate but to get the creditor to drop the whole action there or in court.  This strategy used to be very easy but as the years have past creditors have wised up to it and are being more pro-active in using it to their advantage or getting courts to rule it isn't required or necessary.  Consumers need to step up their game again as old methods are no longer guaranteed to work.

[BV80]

@Seadragon

In regard to credit card agreements that use the term "may",  a creditor is only required to arbitrate if a party elects it.  It usually requires filing a motion to compel arbitration.    Simply including an arbitration provision in an agreement does not prevent a party from filing a lawsuit in court.

[Goody_Ouchless]

12 hours ago, Seadragon said:

I am thinking if we can kick them out of court once then the judge has to see that every case is flawed

What are you talking about? How is "every case" flawed? A consumer acquires a Credit Card, buys stuff, doesn't pay for it, is warned of the consequences and eventually gets sued for the money they owe. Am I missing something?