"Small Claims Court exclusion" for arbitration in the CC Agreement. How to proceed?

[Captain999 0]

The card in question is 2010 Citibank Platinum select. 

I couldn't find the actual CC Agreement, but it may have "Small Claims Court" Exclusion.

 <<edited, ongoing case, don't want to jeopardize my strategy>>> still be able to file for arbitration for Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act or billing dispute regardless of the lawsuit, for leverage.

As in I can drop the arbitration case, if they drop the lawsuit?

Any ideas on how I should proceed?

[BackFromTheDebt 242]

I forget what year Citi dropped arbitration.  I think they still had arbitration in 2010.  

[BV80 2,794]

54 minutes ago, BackFromTheDebt said:

I forget what year Citi dropped arbitration.  I think they still had arbitration in 2010.  

Citi still has arbitration.  It’s Cap1 that dropped it.  

[Captain999 0]

On 10/14/2020 at 9:45 AM, BV80 said:

Citi still has arbitration.  It’s Cap1 that dropped it.  

I am trying to find if they had the "small claims court exclusion" at the time in their agreement. If they did I am SOL with arbitration.

I am trying to create a roadmap on how to proceed, <<edited, ongoing case, don't want to jeopardize my strategy>>>

Just trying to see all the options available to me, I am ready to fight them as best as I can, and the pre-trial date is in few weeks.

[WonderingInWI 4]

 

@Captain999

I received your message and apologize for not updating this topic.

Unfortunately, I don’t have good news about my experience with battling the exclusion clause but I did not pursue it beyond the very first level of proceedings in my state.

The county commissioner that heard the case told me his “hands (were) tied,” due to the clause.

 

Fun Fact: The commissioner was the same one I’d had in a prior case. He’d (rather arrogantly) dismissed my MTC out of hand and looked at me as if I had two heads for bringing it up. I appealed his decision to a higher court and my MTC was granted by that judge. (Plaintiff eventually dropped the case to avoid arbitration).  For this case, I presented the commissioner with a Judicial Notice, in which I carefully outlined how his previous decision was overturned by a judge. Strangely, this time he considered my MTC, lol.

 

I did have the option to appeal the MTC rejection  to a circuit court judge again, however, the plaintiff’s attorney offered me 50% of the original debt over time.  I negotiated down to 25% and took the deal.

I do think there are valid arguments to be made against the clause (as presented in the previous  thread). Citigroup should not be allowed to have their cake and eat it too- picking the parts of arbitration helpful to them and excluding the rest.

[Captain999 0]

22 hours ago, WonderingInWI said:

 

 

@Captain999

I received your message and apologize for not updating this topic.

Unfortunately, I don’t have good news about my experience with battling the exclusion clause but I did not pursue it beyond the very first level of proceedings in my state.

The county commissioner that heard the case told me his “hands (were) tied,” due to the clause.

 

Fun Fact: The commissioner was the same one I’d had in a prior case. He’d (rather arrogantly) dismissed my MTC out of hand and looked at me as if I had two heads for bringing it up. I appealed his decision to a higher court and my MTC was granted by that judge. (Plaintiff eventually dropped the case to avoid arbitration).  For this case, I presented the commissioner with a Judicial Notice, in which I carefully outlined how his previous decision was overturned by a judge. Strangely, this time he considered my MTC, lol.

 

I did have the option to appeal the MTC rejection  to a circuit court judge again, however, the plaintiff’s attorney offered me 50% of the original debt over time.  I negotiated down to 25% and took the deal.

I do think there are valid arguments to be made against the clause (as presented in the previous  thread). Citigroup should not be allowed to have their cake and eat it too- picking the parts of arbitration helpful to them and excluding the rest.

Thanks for the update.  

deleted.. ongoing case, don't want to jeopardize it sharing too much information..