United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Zemel ZEMEL LAW LLC Counsel for Plaintiff
Gregory Edward Reid SILLS CUMMIS & GROSS PC Counsel for
B. SIMANDLE, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
Frances Webster (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) seeks
damages against Defendant OneMain Financial, Inc.
(hereinafter “OneMain”) for alleged violations of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et
seq., (hereinafter, “FCRA”), alleging that
OneMain is a furnisher of information to a credit reporting
agency concerning the collection of Plaintiff's disputed
credit card debt. Plaintiff alleges that OneMain provided
information that was false, misleading and inaccurate,
whereby OneMain “willfully and negligently”
failed to comply with the requirements imposed on furnishers
of information pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b),
giving rise to liability for damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
§ 1681n (actual, statutory and punitive damages for
willful conduct), or in the alternative pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
§ 1681o (actual damages for negligent
matter comes before the Court by way of Motion to Compel
Arbitration [Docket Item 17] filed by OneMain on July 12,
2018. Plaintiff opposes the motion. (Brief in Opposition
[Docket Item 18].) OneMain filed a Reply Brief [Docket Item
19] indicating that OneMain believed it was possible to
resolve the present motion by stipulation.
Court has now considered the parties' submissions and
oral argument on December 3, 2018, and, for the reasons set
forth below, the Court shall deny OneMain's present
Motion to Compel Arbitration [Docket Item 17].
January 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint against
Defendants in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division
- Special Civil Part, Burlington County, Docket No.
BUR-DC-000548-18, alleging that OneMain violated the federal
Fair Credit Reporting Act in relation to a loan made by
OneMain to Plaintiff. (See Complaint [Docket Item
1-1].) On February 26, 2018, OneMain removed the action to
this Court. (See Notice of Removal [Docket Item 1].)
On March 19, 2018, OneMain filed an Answer to Plaintiff's
Complaint. (See Answer [Docket Item 9].)
OneMain filed the present Motion to Compel Arbitration
[Docket Item 17]. OneMain argues that this case is subject to
the mandatory arbitration provisions of the loan agreement
between the parties, while Plaintiff argues that this case is
within the small claims exclusion of the parties'
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Court has federal question jurisdiction over this FCRA claim
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Third Circuit has held that
[m]otions to compel arbitration are decided under the same
standard applied to motions for summary judgment. [Kaneff
v. Del. Title Loans, Inc., 587 F.3d 616, 620 (3d Cir.
2009).] Summary judgment is only proper if “there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(a). A party opposing a motion to compel arbitration bears
the burden of proving the arbitration clause unenforceable.
Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79,
92, 121 S.Ct. 513, 148 ...