The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
MARCUS CHISHOLM, ) CASE NO. 1:19CV1395
)
Plaintiff, ) JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
)
vs. ) OPINION AND ORDER
)
NEW CENTURY AUTO SALES, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, J.:
This matter comes before the Court upon the Motion (ECF DKT #9) of Defendants,
New Century Auto Sales, Inc. and RWOH, Inc. d/b/a Rightway Automotive Credit, to
Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss, or alternatively, to Stay All Proceedings. For the
following reasons, the Motion is granted in part and the above-captioned case is stayed and
removed from the Court’s active docket.
I. BACKGROUND
In February 2018, Plaintiff entered into a Retail Installment Contract with Defendants
for the purchase of a used car. The Contract contains an Arbitration Provision which sets
forth that either Plaintiff or Defendants may elect to resolve any Claim by neutral, binding
arbitration and not by a court action. “Claim” is defined as:
any claim, dispute or controversy between you and us or our employees,
agents, successors, assigns or affiliates arising from or relating to: 1. this credit
application; 2. the purchase or the Property; 3. the condition of the Property; 4.
this Contract; 5. any insurance, maintenance, service or other contracts you
purchased in connection with this Contract; or 6. any related transaction,
occurrence or relationship. This includes any Claim based on common or
constitutional law, contract, tort, statute, regulation or other ground.
(ECF DKT #9-1).
In this lawsuit, filed on June 16, 2019, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the
Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1601, et seq. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
circumvented the TILA disclosure requirements; and that Defendants intended to mislead
purchasers as to the terms of the sale, particularly as to the amount of down payment and
interest they would actually be required to pay.
Defendants contend in their Motion that the conspicuous, valid and mandatory
Arbitration Provision governs Plaintiff’s claims.
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) 9 U.S.C. §§ 1, et seq.
The FAA provides that an arbitration clause in a “transaction involving commerce ...
shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in
equity for the revocation of any contract.” 9 U.S.C. § 2 (2003). The FAA further mandates
that when the Court is “satisfied that the making of the agreement for arbitration ... is not in
issue, the court shall make an order directing the parties to proceed to arbitration in
accordance with the terms of the agreement.” 9 U.S.C. § 4 (2003).
The FAA establishes a liberal policy favoring arbitration agreements and any doubts
regarding arbitrability should be resolved in favor of arbitration over litigation. Masco Corp.
-2-
v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 382 F.3d 624, 627 (6th Cir. 2004); see Fazio v. Lehman Bros., Inc.,
340 F.3d 386, 392 (6th Cir. 2003). “A central purpose of the FAA is ‘to reverse the
longstanding judicial hostility to arbitration agreements ... and to place arbitration agreements
upon the same footing as other contracts.’” In re Olshan Foundation Repair Company, LLC,
328 S.W.3d 883, 891 (Tex.2010) (quoting Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S.
20, 24 (1991)).
The FAA requires courts to “rigorously enforce” arbitration agreements. Dean Witter
Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 221 (1985). Yet, arbitration clauses are subject to the
same defenses or bars as other contract provisions. 9 U.S.C. § 4 (2003). The Court must
ascertain whether the parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute at issue. See Mitsubishi Motors
Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 626 (1985). A party cannot be required
to arbitrate any dispute if the party has not agreed to do so. Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf
Co., 363 U.S. 574, 582 (1960); Simon v. Pfizer Inc., 398 F.3d 765, 775 (6th Cir. 2005). The
FAA does not confer an absolute right to compel arbitration, but only a right to obtain an
order directing that “arbitration proceed in the manner provided for in [the parties’]
agreement.” Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior
University, 489 U.S. 468, 469 (1989). The “party resisting arbitration bears the burden of
proving that the claims at issue are unsuitable for arbitration.” Green Tree Financial Corp.-
Alabama v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 91 (2000); Gilmer, 500 U.S. at 26.
In response to Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration, Plaintiff acknowledges:
“Since Defendant has invoked the arbitration clause in the contract between the parties, this
case may properly be submitted to arbitration.” (ECF DKT #11 at 1). Further, Plaintiff
-3-
requests that this matter be stayed pending arbitration and not dismissed.
In view of Plaintiff’s acknowledgment, the Court directs the parties to proceed to
arbitration in accordance with the terms of their agreement. Moreover, upon the application
of one of the parties, the FAA requires the Court to stay proceedings pending arbitration. 9
U.S.C. § 3. Therefore, the captioned matter is stayed pending completion of arbitration.
III. CONCLUSION
For all the reasons set forth in this Opinion, the Motion (ECF DKT #9) of Defendants,
New Century Auto Sales, Inc. and RWOH, Inc. d/b/a Rightway Automotive Credit, to
Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss, or alternatively, to Stay All Proceedings is granted in part
and the above-captioned case is stayed and removed from the Court’s active docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: August 23, 2019
s/Christopher A. Boyko
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
United States District Judge
-4-