Shabazz

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

EASTERN DIVISION

AAMIR SHABAZZ, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 4:25CV197 HEA

)

AMERICREDIT FINANCIAL SERVICES )

INC., d/b/a GM FINANCIAL, )

)

Defendant, )

OPINION, MEMORANDUM, AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Compel

Arbitration and Stay All Proceedings, [Doc. No. 4]. Defendant has filed its

memorandum in support, Plaintiff has filed his opposition, and Defendant has filed

a reply. The motion is now ripe for adjudication on the merits. For the reasons

stated herein, Defendant's Motion to Stay Proceedings will be granted.

Facts and Background1

Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint alleges the following facts:

On May 8, 2023, plaintiff and the defendant entered into an Investment

Contract disguised as a RETAIL INSTALLMENT SALE CONTRACT,

“(RISC”) for the purchase of a 2018 CADILLAC CT6 automobile VIN:

1 The recitation of facts is set forth for the purposes of this motion only. It in now way relieves

the parties of the necessary proof thereof.

1G6KM5RS5W1024682018. The description of property is identified as

ACCOUNT NUMBER 111070553812, VIN: 1G6KM5RS5Wl024682018 [USED

2018 CADILLAC CT6 SEDAN].

Defendant took the RISC “subject to plaintiff's claims and defenses.” The

RISC was sold "Without Recourse" to the defendant.

Defendant sent a NOTICE OF DEFAULT, RIGHT TO CURE. AND

INTENT TO REPOSSESS dated February 4, 2025, to plaintiff.

. Plaintiff challenges defendant's NOTICE OF DEFAULT, RIGHT TO

CURE, AND INTENT TO REPOSSESS dated February 4, 2025. Plaintiff publicly

acknowledged the alleged debt created from the RISC. Plaintiff presented full

prepayment in accordance with Federal and state law. Plaintiff did not receive any

payments, credits, or distribution from the sale of his property-Account Number

11107 05 53812. The defendant is unjustly enriching itself at plaintiff's expense, by

the use of plaintiff's RISC. Plaintiff maintains that he is the Holder in Due Course

of the RISC. Defendant is not the holder in due course of the RISC.

Defendant sold the RISC, without recourse, to undisclosed purchasers for

value. Defendant lacks enforceability of the RISC. Plaintiff is the entitlement

holder, with right to payment and right of subrogation in connection to the RISC.

Plaintiff is the real owner and beneficiary of the RISC. Plaintiff indorsed the RISC

due to fraud, accident or mistake.

Plaintiff performed his contractual obligation in full. Defendant is the

responsible party regarding all taxes owing and due to the United States.

Defendant seeks to violate the United States Constitution by attempting to

deprive plaintiff of his property without due process of law. Defendant is in breach

of fiduciary duty for their negligent misrepresentation of the RISC. The deceptive

acts or practices of the defendant make the RISC inequitable in its nature.

Plaintiff contends defendant took undue advantage of plaintiff by hiding the

true nature of the RISC. Plaintiff claims he signed the RISC under fraud, accident,

mistake, or surprise. The RISC is unconscionable in its entirety. The RISC is

unenforceable because it is one-sided and gives defendant 7undue advantage of

plaintiff's security interest.

Plaintiff claims defendant's NOTICE OF DE FAULT, RIGHT TO CURE,

AND INTENT TO REPOSSESS dated February 4, 2025, ("Defendant's Notice") is

in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution, Defendant's Notice violates the Fifth

Amendment by attempting to take plaintiff's property without due process of law-

without discovery and without a trial, defendant retains no more legal or equitable

interest in the collateral, defendant is in wrongful possession of plaintiff's property,

Count I of Plaintiff’s Complaint states he charges defendant with securities

fraud as defendant failed to get consent from plaintiff before creating, trading, and

selling securities with plaintiff’s name; Count II alleges defendant has willingly

deprived plaintiff of monetary funds due him an has harmed his financial health

trough deceptive, misleading, or other illegal practices in violation of 18 U.S.C. §

1348; Count III COUNT III: Plaintiff charges defendant with Negligent

Misrepresentation for willfully taking undue advantage of plaintiff by hiding the

true nature of the RISC; COUNT IV: Plaintiff charges defendant with Unjust

Enrichment, as defendant unjustly enriched itself at the expense of plaintiff and, by

retaining monies or benefits, which belong to plaintiff; Count V plaintiff charges

defendant with bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 656.

Defendant brings this current motion stating as part of the Retail Installment

Sales Contract, plaintiff signed an agreement to arbitrate. The Contract, which is

attached to plaintiff’s Complaint provides:

Agreement to Arbitrate: By signing below you agree that,

pursuant to the Arbitration Provision on page 5 of this contract, you

or we may elect to resolve any dispute by neutral, binding arbitration

and not by a court action. See the Arbitration Provision for

additional information concerning the agreement to arbitrate.

Defendant argues it applies to any and all disputes between the parties

whether arising under federal, state, local, or common law. Defendant asks the

Court to stay the proceedings and compel Plaintiff to submit his claims to

arbitration.

Legal Standard

A party who has not agreed to arbitrate a dispute cannot be forced to do so.

AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of America, 475 U.S. 643,

648, 106 S.Ct. 1415, 89 L.Ed.2d 648 (1986). Defendant moves to compel

arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). The FAA applies to

contracts evidencing transactions “involving commerce.” 9 U.S.C. § 2; Hoffman v.

Cargill Inc., 236 F.3d 458, 461 (8th Cir. 2001).

Under the FAA:

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.

9 U.S.C. § 4. The FAA reflects a “liberal federal policy favoring arbitration.”

AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 339, 131 S.Ct. 1740, 179

L.Ed.2d 742 (2011). “[C]ourts must place arbitration agreements on an equal

footing with other contracts” and enforce them according to their terms. Id. “[A]ny

doubts concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of

arbitration, whether the problem at hand is the construction of the contract

language itself or an allegation of waiver, delay, or a like defense to arbitrability.”

Lyster v. Ryan's Fam. Steak Houses, Inc., 239 F.3d 943, 945 (8th Cir. 2001).

Consequently, when there is an enforceable agreement to arbitrate, federal courts

“shall make an order directing the parties to proceed to arbitration.” 9 U.S.C. § 4.

The “court's role under the FAA is therefore limited to determining (1) whether a

valid agreement to arbitrate exists and, if it does, (2) whether the agreement

encompasses the dispute.” Pro Tech Indus., Inc. v. URS Corp., 377 F.3d 868, 871

(8th Cir. 2004). See also Foster v. Walmart, Inc., 15 F.4th 860, 862 (8th Cir. 2021).

There is a public policy favoring the resolution of disputes via arbitration.

Moeller v. New Prime Inc., No. 6:25-CV-03031-MDH, 2025 WL 1297238, at *1–5

(W.D. Mo. May 5, 2025)(citing Coleman v. Bristol Care, Inc., No. 6:18-CV-04069-

MDH, 2018 WL 3848821, at *3 (W.D. Mo. Aug. 13, 2018 and Shearson/American

Express, Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220, 226 (1987)). An arbitration may be

compelled under a broad arbitration clause so long as the underlying factual

allegations touch on matters covered by the provisions. 3M Co. v. Amtex Sec., Inc.,

542 F.3d 1193, 1199 (8th Cir. 2008) (internal citations omitted).

“[S]tate contract law governs the threshold question of whether an

enforceable arbitration agreement exists between litigants; if an enforceable

agreement exists, the federal substantive law of arbitrability governs whether the

litigants' dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement.” Anhui

Powerguard Tech. Co. v. DRE Health Corp., 95 F.4th 1146, 1149 (8th Cir. 2024).

Where a valid arbitration agreement exists, a court “must liberally construe” its

terms, “resolving any doubts in favor of arbitration.” Parm v. Bluestem Brands,

Inc., 898 F.3d 869, 873–74 (8th Cir. 2018). A court must grant a motion to compel

arbitration based on a valid arbitration agreement unless the agreement “is not

susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute.” 3M Co. v. Amtex

Sec., Inc., 542 F.3d 1193, 1199 (8th Cir. 2008).

Discussion

The Arbitration Clause, which is contained in the RISC attached to

Plaintiff’s Complaint states as follows:

ARBITRATION PROVISION

PLEASE REVIEW – IMPORTANT – AFFECTS YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS

1. EITHER YOU OR WE MAY CHOOSE TO HAVE ANY DISPUTE

BETWEEN US DECIDED BY ARBITRATION AND NOT IN COURT OR

BY JURY TRIAL.

2. IF A DISPUTE IS ARBITRATED, YOU WILL GIVE UP YOUR RIGHT

TO PARTICIPATE AS A CLASS REPRESENTATIVE OR CLASS

MEMBER ON ANY CLASS CLAIM YOU MAY HAVE AGAINST US

INCLUDING ANY RIGHT TO CLASS ARBITRATION OR ANY

CONSOLIDATION OF INDIVIDUAL ARBITRATIONS

.

3. DISCOVERY AND RIGHTS TO APPEAL IN ARBITRATION ARE

GENERALLY MORE LIMITED THAN IN A LAWSUIT, AND OTHER

RIGHTS THAT YOU AND WE WOULD HAVE IN COURT MAY NOT

BE AVAILABLE IN ARBITRATION.

Any claim or dispute, whether in contract, tort, statute or otherwise

(including the interpretation and scope of this Arbitration Provision, and the

arbitrability of the claim or dispute), between you and us or our employees,

agents, successors or assigns, which arises out of or relates to your credit

application, purchase or condition of this vehicle, this contract or any

resulting transaction or relationship (including any such relationship with

third parties who do not sign this contract) shall, at your or our election, be

resolved by neutral, binding arbitration and not by a court action. If federal

law provides that a claim or dispute is not subject to binding arbitration, this

Arbitration Provision shall not apply to such claim or dispute. Any claim or

dispute is to be arbitrated by a single arbitrator on an individual basis and

not as a class action. You expressly waive any right you may have to

arbitrate a class action. You may choose the American Arbitration

Association (www.adr.org) or any other organization to conduct the

arbitration subject to our approval. You may get a copy of the rules of an

arbitration organization by contacting the organization or visiting its website.

Arbitrators shall be attorneys or retired judges and shall be selected pursuant

to the applicable rules. The arbitrator shall apply governing substantive law

and the applicable statute of limitations. The arbitration hearing shall be

conducted in the federal district in which you reside unless the Seller-

Creditor is a party to the claim or dispute, in which case the hearing will be

held in the federal district where this contract was executed. We will pay

your filing, administration, service or case management fee and your

arbitrator or hearing fee all up to a maximum of $5000, unless the law or the

rules of the chosen arbitration organization require us to pay more. The

amount we pay be reimbursed in whole or in part by decision of the

arbitrator if the arbitrator finds that any of your claims is frivolous under

applicable law. Each party shall be responsible for its own attorney, expert

and other fees, unless awarded by the arbitrator under applicable law. If the

chosen arbitration organization’s rules conflict with this Arbitration

Provision, then the provisions of this Arbitration Provision shall control. Any

arbitration under this Arbitration Provision shall be governed by the Federal

Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.) and not by any state law concerning

arbitration. Any award by the arbitrator shall be in writing and will be final

and binding on all parties, subject to any limited right to appeal under the

Federal Arbitration Act.

You and we retain the right to seek remedies in small claims court for

disputes or claims within that court’s jurisdiction, unless such action is

transferred, removed or appealed to a different court. Neither you nor we

waive the right to arbitrate by using self-help remedies, such as repossession,

or by filing an action to recover the vehicle, to recover a deficiency balance,

or for individual injunctive relief. Any court having jurisdiction may enter

judgment on the arbitrator’s award. This Arbitration Provision shall survive

any termination, payoff or transfer of this contract. If any part of this

Arbitration Provision, other than waivers of class action rights, is deemed or

found to be unenforceable for any reason, the remainder shall remain

enforceable. If a waiver of class action rights is deemed or found to be

unenforceable for any reason in a case in which class action allegations have

been made, the remainder of this Arbitration Provision shall be

unenforceable.

Plaintiff then signed his name and dated it under the following statement:

“You agree to the terms of this contract. You confirm that before you signed this

contract, we gave it to you, and you were free to take it and review it. You

acknowledge that you have read all pages of this contract, including the arbitration

provision, before signing below.”

The parties’ agreement satisfies the elements for a valid arbitration

agreement; there was both an offer and acceptance of the Arbitration Agreement.

Likewise, consideration was given by both sides for the sale of the vehicle. Under

Missouri law, “An offer is ‘the manifestation of willingness to enter into a bargain,

so made as to justify another person in understanding that his assent to that bargain

is invited and will conclude it.’ ” LoRoad, LLC v. Glob. Expedition Vehicles, LLC,

787 F.3d 923, 928 n.3 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting Brown Mach., Div. of John Brown,

Inc. v. Hercules, Inc., 770 S.W.2d 416, 419 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989)). The Arbitration

Agreement was presented to Plaintiff to review, which he acknowledged by his

signature immediately following the binding arbitration language.

With respect to whether Plaintiff’s claims fall within the broad arbitration

agreement, it is beyond doubt they do. Each of Plaintiff’s claims relate issues

arising under the Retail Installment Sales Contract in which the Arbitration

Agreement is found. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims are subject to the valid

arbitration agreement to which he agreed.

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) sets forth procedures for enforcing

arbitration agreements in federal court. Section 3 of the FAA specifies that, when a

dispute is subject to arbitration, the court “shall on application of one of the parties

stay the trial of the action until [the] arbitration” has concluded. The question here

is whether § 3 permits a court to dismiss the case instead of issuing a stay when the

dispute is subject to arbitration and a party requests a stay pending arbitration. It

does not.

Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472 (2024). “When a federal court finds that a dispute

is subject to arbitration, and a party has requested a stay of the court proceeding

pending arbitration, the court does not have discretion to dismiss the suit on the

basis that all the claims are subject to arbitration.” Id. at 475-76.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated herein, Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and

Stay All Proceedings is GRANTED. The Court finds good cause to stay this case

with respect to Plaintiff's claims against Defendant until such a time as their

resolution in arbitration.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff and Defendant are

COMPELLED to submit to arbitration.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall provide the Court with

a status report every 120 days until such time as the arbitration of Plaintiff’s claims

is completed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions to hold Defendant in

Contempt and Motion for Contempt, [Doc. No.’s 13 and 17], are denied.

Dated this 17 day of October, 2025.

HENRY EDWARD □

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11