The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
WAYNE TAYLOR CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 24-2479
ALTERNATIVE SOLAR, LLC, ET AL. SECTION: “G”
ORDER AND REASONS
In this litigation, Plaintiff Wayne Taylor (“Plaintiff”) brings claims against Defendant
Solar Mosaic, LLC (“Mosaic”) for: (1) violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(“FDCPA”) on false or misleading information; (2) violation of the FDCPA on failure to provide
validation notice; and (3) violation of the FDCPA on prohibition on harassing and abusive
conduct.1 Pending before the Court is Mosaic’s Motion to Compel Arbitration.2 In the Motion,
Mosaic argues that the Court should compel Plaintiff to arbitrate his claims against Mosaic and
stay the case pending arbitration.3 The motion was filed on March 31, 2026, and set for
submission on April 15, 2026.4 Pursuant to Local Rule 7.5, opposition to a motion must be filed
eight days before the noticed submission date.5 To date, no opposition has been filed and the
1 Rec. Doc. 1 at 3. Plaintiff filed this litigation against Defendants Mosaic, Alternative Solar LLC, d/b/a The
Alternative Solar Home Solutions a/k/a Solar Home Solutions (“Alternative Solar”), Carlos Gudino (“Gudino”),
Wakefield & Associates (“Wakefield”), and Omnidian, Inc. (“Omnidian”). On February 3, 2025, Plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed the claims against Alternative Solar and Gudino. Rec. Docs. 6, 8. On May 30, 2025, Plaintiff notified the
Court that he had settled the claims against Wakefield. Rec. Doc. 19. On July 30, 2025, the Court granted an
unopposed Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the claims pending against Omnidian. Rec. Doc. 32. Therefore, Mosaic
is the only defendant remaining in this matter.
2 Rec. Doc. 35.
3 Id.
4 Rec. Doc. 35-2.
5 EDLA Local Rule 7.5.
Motion is therefore deemed to be unopposed. This Court has the authority to grant an unopposed
motion, although it not required to do so.6
In Iberia Credit Bureau, Inc. v. Cingular Wireless LLC, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit explained that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) was “in large
part motivated by the goal of eliminating the courts’ historic hostility to arbitration agreements.”7
The Fifth Circuit further explained that “Section 2 of the FAA puts arbitration agreements on the
same footing as other contracts.”8 This means that, “as a matter of federal law, arbitration
agreements and clauses are to be enforced unless they are invalid under principles of state law
that govern all contracts.”9
There is a “strong federal policy in favor of enforcing arbitration agreements.”10 Section
3 of the FAA provides:
If any suit or proceeding be brought in any of the courts of the United States upon
any issue referable to arbitration . . . the court . . . shall on application of one of
the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been had in
accordance with the terms of the agreement . . . .11
“[I]f the issues in a case are within the reach of that [arbitration] agreement, the district court has
no discretion under section 3 to deny the stay.”12
6 Edward H. Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350, 356 (5th Cir. 1993).
7 379 F.3d 159, 166 (5th Cir. 2004).
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Texaco Expl. & Prod. Co. v. AmClyde Engineered Prod. Co., 243 F.3d 906, 909 (5th Cir. 2001) (quoting
Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 217 (1985)).
11 9 U.S.C. § 3.
12 Texaco Expl. & Prod. Co., 243 F.3d at 909 (quoting Hornbeck Offshore Corp. v. Coastal Carriers Corp.,
981 F.2d 752, 754 (5th Cir. 1993)).
Mosaic has presented evidence to show that Plaintiff entered into a Home Improvement
Loan Agreement and Promissory Note (the “Loan Agreement”) with WebBank.13 Mosaic has
also presented evidence to show that Plaintiff electronically signed the Loan Agreement.14 The
Loan Agreement includes an arbitration provision that specifically applies to WebBank and
“service providers as well as their parent companies, subsidiaries, and affiliates.”15 Mosaic was
the platform service provider and loan servicer. The arbitration provision applies to “any claim,
dispute or controversy between you and us (or any Related Party) that arises from or relates in
any way to” the Loan Agreement.16 Plaintiff’s claims against Mosaic clearly arise from and relate
to the Loan Agreement, as each claim relates to Mosaic’s purported collection of the debt.
“Under the FAA, a written arbitration agreement is prima facie valid and must be enforced
unless the opposing party . . . ‘allege[s] and prove[s] that the arbitration clause itself was a product
of fraud, coercion, or ‘such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of the
contract.’”17 Because Plaintiff has failed to oppose the Motion, he has not met his burden to prove
that there is any defense to the written arbitration agreement.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Compel Arbitration18 is GRANTED.
13 Rec. Doc. 35-3.
14 Id. at 36.
15 Id. at 21.
16 Id.
17 Freudensprung v. Offshore Tech. Servs., Inc., 379 F.3d 327, 341 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting National Iranian
Oil Co. v. Ashland Oil, Inc., 817 F.2d 326, 332 (5th Cir. 1987)).
18 Rec. Doc. 35.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-captioned case is STAYED and
ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED pending arbitration.
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this 24th day of April, 2026.
elt) obawel BROWN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE