Camarillo v. Balboa Thrift & Loan Ass'n, Corp.
| Decision Date | 04 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 3:20-cv-00913-BEN-BLM |
| Parties | VERONICA CAMARILLO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BALBOA THRIFT AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, a California corporation, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND DISMISS
Plaintiff VERONICA CAMARILLO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated ("Plaintiff"), brings this putative action against Defendant BALBOA THRIFT AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, a California corporation ("Defendant") for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. (the "FCRA"). ECF No. 1.
Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss the Action, or Alternatively, Stay the Action Pending Arbitration. ECF No. 4. The motion was submitted on the papers without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1) and Rule 78(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 7.
After considering the papers submitted, supporting documentation, and applicable law, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Moton to Compel Arbitration, and because there are no remaining non-arbitrable claims, dismisses Plaintiff's claim with prejudice.
On February 21, 2015, Plaintiff entered into a Retail Installment Sale Contract - Simple Finance Charge (With Arbitration Provision) (the "RISC") with Yucca Valley Chrysler Center for the purchase and financing of a 2014 Fiat 500 vehicle (the "Vehicle"). Motion, ECF No. 4 ("Mot.") at 52:18-20; see also Complaint, ECF No. 1 ("Compl.") at 5, ¶ 24; Opposition, ECF No. 6 ("Oppo.") at 9:18-20. The RISC required Plaintiff to make monthly payments of $395.07 until February 23, 2021, as part of her agreement to finance the purchase of her $16,900.00 Vehicle by agreeing to pay nineteen percent (19%) interest for a total amount owed at the end of the RISC term of $28,945.04. Mot. at 20. Page 2 of the RISC contained a section entitled "Agreement to Arbitration," which said, "By signing below, you agree that, pursuant to the Arbitration Provision on the reverse side of the contract, you or we may elect to resolve any dispute by neutral, binding arbitration and not by a court action." Mot. at 21. Plaintiff signed this provision. Id. The actual provision itself requires arbitration of any dispute arising under the Agreement as follows:
(the "Arbitration Provision"). Mot. at 5:24-8:20 (emphasis added); see also id. at 25.
On March 3, 2015, Yucca Valley Chrysler Center assigned the RISC to Defendant, at which time Defendant carried the loan to Plaintiff in the sum of $16,900.36. Mot. at 8:22-23; Oppo. at 9:20-21.
From April 10, 2015 to November 12, 2018, or more than three years, Plaintiff made payments on the loan. Defendants' Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss, or Alternatively, Stay the Action, ECF No. 8 ("Reply") at 10:7-8. However, according to the RISC, these payments were supposed to continue through February 23, 2021, meaning Plaintiff still owed about 27 months of payment when she ceased making payments in November 2018. Id. at 10:8-11.
In January 2019, Plaintiff voluntarily surrendered the Vehicle to Defendant. Reply at 27, Exhibit D; see also Declaration of Veronica Camarillo in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Compel Arbitration, ECF No. 6-1 ("Camarillo Decl.") at 2, ¶ 5. Plaintiff alleges that by surrendering the Vehicle, her "account" with Defendant closed, and she no longer owed a balance due. Compl. at 5, ¶ 26; Camarillo Decl. at 2, ¶ 6.
On April 5, 2019, the Vehicle was sold at a private sale. Reply at 27, Exhibit D. Shortly thereafter, on April 23, 2019, Defendant sent a Notice of Deficiency and Demand for Payment to Plaintiff, notifying her that she owed a deficiency balance of $10,674.96, which represented the balance due after Defendant had credited the proceeds from the sale of the Vehicle to Plaintiff's account. Reply at 10:12-15. This letter claimed that Plaintiff owed the following amounts:
Item: Amount: Outstanding Principal & Interest Owed: $10,748.80 (Reduced by Proceeds of Sale): ($1,800.00)
Late Charges: $345.00 Costs/Fees: $1,383.16 TOTAL: $10,674.96
Reply at 27, Exhibit D. On May 10, 2019, Plaintiff sent Defendant a letter acknowledging receipt of Defendant's notice but claiming the Vehicle had been inoperable since December 6, 2016, so she stopped making payments because she was no longer able to afford to continue to put money into repairs while also making payments on the loan. Reply at 10:16-17; see also id. at 29 (attaching Plaintiff's letter as Exhibit E).
On July 29, 2019, Defendant "pulled" her Experian credit report. Reply at 10:19-20; Compl. at 5, ¶ 27. When Plaintiff reviewed her July 31, 2019 credit report, she discovered this unauthorized "hard" inquiry. Compl. at 5, ¶ 28.
On September 17, 2019, Defendant filed a small claims complaint against Plaintiff. Reply at 10:21-22; see also id. at 32-34 ().
On May 15, 2020, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against Defendant, alleging one claim for relief for violation of the FCRA. See generally Compl. On May 29, 2020, Plaintiff served Defendant by substituted service, ECF No. 3, meaning a responsive pleading was due by June 19, 2020, see FED. R. CIV. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i) ().3 On July 20, 2020, Defendant filed the instant motion. Mot., ECF No. 4. On August 25, 2020, Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the motion. Oppo., ECF No. 6. On September 1, 2020, Defendants filed a reply brief. Reply, ECF No. 8. That same day, Plaintiff filed evidentiary rejections to Defendant's reply brief. ECF No. 10.
Under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., arbitrationagreements "shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds that exist at law or in equity for the revocation of a contract." 9 U.S.C. § 2. "Once the court has determined that an arbitration agreement relates to a transaction involving interstate commerce, thereby falling under the FAA, the court's only role is to determine [1] whether a valid arbitration agreement exists and [2] whether the scope of the dispute falls within that agreement." Ramirez v. Cintas Corp., No. C 04-00281 JSW, 2005 WL 2894628, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2005) (citing 9 U.S.C. § 4; Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 207 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000)).
Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule 12(b)(1)") allows a defendant to seek dismissal of a claim or lawsuit by asserting the defense of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1). "If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject matter-jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3). "Dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is appropriate if the complaint, considered in its entirety, on its face fails to allege facts sufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction." In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litig., 546 F.3d 981, 984-85 (9th Cir. 2008). "Although the defendant is the moving party in...
To continue reading
Request your trial