Pericles Posted July 16, 2018 Report Share Posted July 16, 2018 I have a filter set in a pacer service to return all cases filed under a 15:1692 cause of action in federal district courts around the country. Debt buyers typically move to compel arbitration in these FDCPA cases about a dozen times a month. The motions to compel are usually pretty boring. The debt buyer moves to compel arbitration, the motion is granted, the consumer attorney drops the case/consumer, and the case is over. An opinion from last week, denying PRA's motion to compel, is a little more interesting. It covers choice of law, some insights into the forward flow agreement, GE/synchrony agreements, the distinction between purchasing title to an entire account versus just purchasing the receivables, credit reporting, and more. The insights aren't really relevant to debt buyer lawsuits per se. They are more interesting for FDCPA claims. I did find interesting that there was agreement by both parties that Utah substantive law applied to the arbitration agreement. In non-federal state court actions (where debt buyers file their cases), it is rarely seen that a state court will apply any arbitration statutes other than the state law arbitration statutes where the case is filed. 1 18-CV-0026.pdf 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.