Moss v. First Premier Bank, No. 15-2513 (2d Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Plaintiff signed an arbitration agreement providing that any disputes between her and her payday lender would be resolved by arbitration before the National Arbitration Forum (NAF). When plaintiff tried to take her case to arbitration, however, NAF refused to accept it pursuant to a consent decree that prohibited NAF from accepting consumer arbitrations. The court agreed with the district court that the arbitration agreement contemplated arbitration only before NAF and thus affirmed the district court's decision declining to compel arbitration before a different arbitrator.
Download PDF
15 2513 cv(L) Moss v. First Premier Bank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 15 2513 cv(L) Moss v. First Premier Bank UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ____________________ August Term, 2015 (Argued: April 8, 2016 Decided: August 29, 2016) Docket Nos. 15 2513 cv(L); 15 2667 cv(CON) ____________________ DEBORAH MOSS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff Appellee, v. FIRST PREMIER BANK, a South Dakota state chartered bank, and BAY CITIES BANK, a Florida state chartered bank, Defendants Appellants.1 ____________________ Before: POOLER, LIVINGSTON, and LOHIER, Circuit Judges. 1 The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption as above. 1 2 the Eastern District of New York (Bianco, J.), vacating a prior order compelling 3 arbitration. The parties agreed to arbitrate their disputes before the National 4 Arbitration Forum (“NAF”), which no longer accepts consumer arbitrations. The 5 district court held that it could not appoint a substitute arbitrator because the 6 language of the arbitration agreement contemplated arbitration only before NAF. 7 We agree with the district court and therefore AFFIRM. 8 ERIC RIEDER, Bryan Cave LLP (Megan Awerdick Pierson, on the brief), New York, NY, for Defendant Appellant Bay Cities Bank. Bryan R. Freeman, Lindquist & Vennum LLP, Minneapolis, MN; Bryan Craig Meltzer, Herrick, Feinstein LLP, for Defendant Appellant First PREMIER Bank. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 J. AUSTIN MOORE, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP (Norman E. Siegel, Steve N. Nix, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP; Darren T. Kaplan, New York, NY; Hassan Zavareei, Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Tycko & Zavareei, Washington, D.C., on the brief), Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiff Appellee. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Affirmed. __________________ 9 18 Appeal from a July 16, 2015 order of the United States District Court for 2 1 POOLER, Circuit Judge: 2 3 disputes between her and her payday lender would be resolved by arbitration 4 before the National Arbitration Forum (“NAF”). When she tried to take her case 5 to arbitration, however, NAF refused to accept it pursuant to a consent decree 6 that prohibited NAF from accepting consumer arbitrations. The district court 7 (Bianco, J.) construed the arbitration agreement as contemplating arbitration only 8 before NAF and declined to compel Moss to arbitrate before a different 9 arbitrator. We agree with the district court’s construction of the agreement and 10 Deborah Moss signed an arbitration agreement providing that any accordingly affirm. BACKGROUND 11 12 Deborah Moss took out three payday loans from an online payday lender, 13 SFS, Inc. (“SFS”). When a payday lender such as SFS agrees to loan a customer 14 money, it relies on banks to serve as middlemen to debit the customer’s account. 15 These banks are known as “Originating Depository Financial Institutions,” or 16 “ODFIs.” First Premier Bank and Bay Cities Bank each served as an ODFI for one 17 of Moss’s payday loans with SFS. 3 1 2 that included an arbitration clause. The arbitration clause on one of the 3 applications provided, 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 When Moss applied for the loans, she electronically signed an application Arbitration of All Disputes: You and we agree that any and all claims, disputes or controversies between you and us, any claim by either of us against the other . . . and any claim arising from or relating to your application for this loan, regarding this loan or any other loan you previously or may later obtain from us, this Note, this agreement to arbitrate all disputes, your agreement not to bring, join or participate in class actions, regarding collection of the loan, alleging fraud or misrepresentation . . . including disputes regarding the matters subject to arbitration, or otherwise, shall be resolved by binding individual (and not joint) arbitration by and under the Code of Procedure of the National Arbitration Forum (“NAF”) in effect at the time the claim is filed. . . . Rules and forms of the NAF may be obtained and all claims shall be filed at any NAF office, on the World Wide Web at aww.arb forum.com, by telephone at 800 474 2371, or at “National Arbitration Forum, P.O. Box 50191, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55405.” Your arbitration fees will be waived by the NAF in the event you cannot afford to pay them. 21 App’x at 168. The following notice is printed directly beneath the arbitration 22 provision: “NOTICE: YOU AND WE WOULD HAVE HAD A RIGHT OR 23 OPPORTUNITY TO LITIGATE DISPUTES THROUGH A COURT AND HAVE 24 A JUDGE OR JURY DECIDE THE DISPUTES BUT HAVE AGREED INSTEAD 25 TO RESOLVE DISPUTES THROUGH BINDING ARBITRATION.” App’x at 168. 26 The other applications Moss signed contained similar arbitration clauses. 4 1 Moss filed a putative class action against First Premier Bank and Bay Cities 2 Bank in federal court, alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and 3 Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962, and state law. In short, Moss 4 alleged that the banks unlawfully facilitated high interest payday loans that have 5 been outlawed in several states. 6 The banks moved to compel arbitration on the basis of the arbitration 7 agreements that Moss signed when she applied for the loans. Although the banks 8 were not parties to those agreements, they argued that they were entitled to 9 enforce the agreements against Moss under principles of estoppel. The district 10 court agreed and initially granted the banks’ motion to compel arbitration and 11 stayed the proceedings. 12 After the district court ordered the parties to arbitrate, Moss sent a letter to 13 NAF indicating her intent to arbitrate her claims. NAF responded that it was 14 unable to accept Moss’s dispute pursuant to a consent judgment that it had 15 entered into with the Minnesota Attorney General. In 2009, the Minnesota 16 Attorney General had sued NAF for consumer fraud, deceptive trade practices, 17 and false advertising. The complaint alleged that, although NAF represented 18 itself as an independent and impartial arbiter, the forum was in fact “work[ing] 5 1 alongside creditors behind the scenes . . . to convince [them] to place mandatory 2 pre dispute arbitration clauses in their customer agreements and to appoint 3 [NAF] as the arbitrator of any disputes that may arise in the future.” App’x at 4 455 56. NAF also allegedly “ma[de] representations that align[ed] itself against 5 consumers” to solicit creditors to use its arbitration services. App’x at 457. To 6 settle the lawsuit, NAF entered into a consent decree that prohibited it from 7 accepting consumer arbitrations such as Moss’s. 8 9 After NAF declined to accept her dispute, Moss returned to federal court and moved to vacate the district court’s order compelling arbitration, arguing 10 that she could not arbitrate her claims because NAF declined to arbitrate her 11 case. The district court granted the motion. See Moss v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., 12 114 F. Supp. 3d 61, 63 (E.D.N.Y. 2015). The court concluded that the language of 13 the arbitration agreements reflected the parties’ intent to arbitrate exclusively 14 before NAF. Id. at 66. The court further concluded that, under this Court’s 15 decision in In re Salomon Inc. Shareholders’ Derivative Litigation, 68 F.3d 554 (2d Cir. 16 1995), a district court may not appoint a substitute arbitrator under such 17 circumstances. Moss, 114 F. Supp. 3d at 66. The court vacated its prior order and 18 lifted its stay of the proceedings, holding that Moss “cannot be compelled to 6 1 arbitrate her claims against Bay Cities Bank and First Premier Bank.” Id. at 68. 2 This appeal followed. DISCUSSION 3 4 We have jurisdiction to review an order “refusing a stay of any action 5 under section 3” of the Federal Arbitration Act. 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(A). Here, the 6 order appealed from lifted a prior stay under Section 3 and vacated a prior order 7 compelling arbitration. Because the order appealed from “was effectively one 8 ‘refusing a stay,’” we have jurisdiction to review it. Pre Paid Legal Servs., Inc. v. 9 Cahill, 786 F.3d 1287, 1290 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 373 (2015); see also 10 Dobbins v. Hawk s Enters., 198 F.3d 715, 716 (8th Cir. 1999) (holding that court had 11 jurisdiction to review order lifting stay of arbitration because it was an “order 12 refusing to compel arbitration”); Corpman v. Prudential Bache Sec., Inc., 907 F.2d 13 29, 30 (3d Cir. 1990) (same). We review the district court’s order de novo. See 14 Mediterranean Shipping Co. S.A. Geneva v. POL Atl., 229 F.3d 397, 402 (2d Cir. 15 2000). 16 17 provision in . . . a contract . . . to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) provides that “[a] written 7 1 arising out of such contract . . . shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable.” 2 9 U.S.C. § 2. 8 This text reflects the overarching principle that arbitration is a matter of contract. And consistent with that text, courts must rigorously enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms, including terms that specify with whom the parties choose to arbitrate their disputes and the rules under which that arbitration will be conducted. 9 Am. Exp. Co. v. Italian Colors Rest., 570 U.S. __, 133 S. Ct. 2304, 2309 (2013) 3 4 5 6 7 10 (alterations, emphasis, citations, and internal quotation marks omitted). As with 11 any contract, “the parties’ intentions control.” Stolt Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds 12 Int l Corp., 559 U.S. 662, 682 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). To discern 13 the parties’ intentions, we look to the language of the agreement. PaineWebber Inc. 14 v. Bybyk, 81 F.3d 1193, 1199 (2d Cir. 1996). 15 16 resolved “by binding individual (and not joint) arbitration by and under the 17 Code of Procedure of the National Arbitration Forum (“NAF”) in effect at the 18 time the claim is filed.” App’x at 168. The agreement does not address how the 19 parties should proceed in the event that NAF is unable to accept the dispute. The The arbitration agreement in this case provides that any disputes shall be 8 1 question is whether a court may compel arbitration when the designated 2 arbitrator is unavailable. 3 4 Litigation, 68 F.3d 554 (2d Cir. 1995). There, a group of shareholders brought a 5 derivative suit against former executives of Salomon Brothers. Id. at 555. The 6 executives had signed arbitration agreements with Salomon Brothers providing 7 that “any controversy . . . arising out of [the employee’s] employment . . . shall be 8 settled by arbitration at the instance of any such party in accordance with the 9 Constitution and rules then obtaining of the [New York Stock Exchange].” Id. at 10 558. The executives moved to compel arbitration, and the district court granted 11 the motion, referring the matter to the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”). Id. at 12 555. NYSE declined to arbitrate the dispute, invoking its discretion under its 13 constitution to decline to arbitrate cases referred to it. Id. at 555 56. The 14 executives then returned to the district court and requested that the court 15 appoint a substitute arbitrator pursuant to Section 5. Id. at 557. The court denied 16 the motion. Id. 17 18 that only [one arbitrator] could arbitrate any disputes between them,” a district We addressed that question in In re Salomon Inc. Shareholders’ Derivative We affirmed. We held that where “the parties ha[ve] contractually agreed 9 1 court must “decline[] to appoint substitute arbitrators and compel arbitration in 2 another forum.” Id. at 559. This is because 8 [a]lthough the federal policy favoring arbitration obliges us to resolve any doubts in favor of arbitration, we cannot compel a party to arbitrate a dispute before someone other than the [designated arbitrator] when that party had agreed to arbitrate disputes only before the [arbitrator] and the [arbitrator], in turn, exercising its discretion . . . , has refused . . . to arbitrate the dispute in question. 9 Id. at 557 58. Once the designated arbitrator refuses to accept arbitration, there is 3 4 5 6 7 10 “no further promise to arbitrate in another forum.” Id. at 557. 11 12 the parties’ agreement contemplates arbitration before only NAF, or whether it 13 contemplates the appointment of a substitute arbitrator should NAF become 14 unavailable. In Salomon, we concluded that the parties’ agreement to arbitrate “in 15 accordance with the Constitution and rules then obtaining of the NYSE” evinced 16 their intent to “designat[e] . . . an exclusive arbitral forum.” Id. at 558, 561 17 (alteration omitted). 18 19 numerous indicators that the parties contemplated one thing: arbitration before 20 NAF. The agreement provides that disputes “shall be resolved by binding Thus, under Salomon, the question in this case is whether the language of The same is true here. The arbitration agreement in this case contains 10 1 individual (and not joint) arbitration by . . . the National Arbitration Forum.” 2 App’x at 168. It provides that the arbitration shall be conducted “under the Code 3 of Procedure of the National Arbitration Forum.” App’x at 168. It requires that 4 claims “shall be filed at any NAF office.” App’x at 168. And it provides that, if 5 the claimant is unable to pay the costs of the arbitration, fees may be waived 6 “by . . . NAF.” App’x at 168. Further, the agreement makes no provision for the 7 appointment of a substitute arbitrator should NAF become unavailable. In view 8 of this mandatory language, the pervasive references to NAF in the agreement, 9 and the absence of any indication that the parties would assent to arbitration 10 before a substitute forum if NAF became unavailable, we conclude that, as in 11 Salomon, the parties agreed to arbitrate only before NAF. 12 13 substitute arbitrator pursuant to Section 5 of the FAA. Section 5 provides, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Appellants contend that the district court was required to appoint a If in the agreement provision be made for a method of naming or appointing an arbitrator or arbitrators or an umpire, such method shall be followed; but if no method be provided therein, or if a method be provided and any party thereto shall fail to avail himself of such method, or if for any other reason there shall be a lapse in the naming of an arbitrator or arbitrators or umpire, or in filling a vacancy, then upon the application of either party to the controversy the court shall designate and appoint an arbitrator or arbitrators or umpire, as the case may require, who shall act under the said 11 agreement with the same force and effect as if he or they had been specifically named therein . . . . 1 2 3 9 U.S.C. § 5. Appellants contend that NAF’s inability to accept this case 4 constitutes a “lapse” within the meaning of Section 5 such that the district court 5 was required to appoint a substitute arbitrator. 6 7 in time in the naming of the arbitrator or in the filling of a vacancy on a panel of 8 arbitrators or some other mechanical breakdown in the arbitrator selection 9 process.” Id. at 560 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). A district In Salomon, we held that the “lapse” referred to in Section 5 “means a lapse 10 court may not, however, “use [Section] 5 to circumvent the parties’ designation 11 of an exclusive arbitral forum.” Id. at 561. We concluded that because the district 12 court “promptly referred the matter to the NYSE for arbitration,” there “was no 13 lapse or breakdown in selecting the arbitrator.” Id. 14 15 case. Here, as in Salomon, the parties designated an exclusive arbitral forum, the 16 district court compelled the parties to arbitrate before that forum, and the forum 17 declined to accept the case. In Salomon, we held that, under such circumstances, a Under Salomon, there was no “lapse in the naming of an arbitrator” in this 12 1 court cannot use Section 5 to circumvent the clear text of the parties’ agreement 2 and appoint a substitute arbitrator. 3 4 NYSE “exercise[d] its discretion” not to accept the arbitration, whereas, here, 5 NAF is unavailable because it cannot accept consumer arbitrations pursuant to a 6 consent decree. Appellants’ Br. at 18. We do not find this to be a meaningful 7 distinction. Under Salomon, the dispositive factor is not why the designated 8 arbitral forum is unavailable, but rather whether the designated forum was 9 “exclusive.” Where the forum is exclusive, the district court may not “use Appellants try to distinguish Salomon on the ground that, in that case, 10 [Section] 5 to circumvent the parties’ designation of an exclusive arbitral forum.” 11 Salomon, 68 F.3d at 561. 12 13 that Section 5 required the district court to appoint a substitute arbitrator in this 14 case. See Astra Footwear Indus. v. Harwyn Int’l, Inc., 442 F. Supp. 907 (S.D.N.Y. 15 1978); Erving v. Virginia Squires Basketball Club, 468 F.2d 1064 (2d Cir. 1972). But 16 Salomon considered and distinguished both of these cases. 68 F.3d at 560 61. 17 Moreover, Astra was a district court decision. It was affirmed in a one word, 18 unpublished opinion. Astra Footwear Indus. v. Harwyn Int l Inc., 578 F.2d 1366 (2d Appellants also rely on two pre Salomon cases in support of their position 13 1 Cir. 1978). Thus, to the extent the district court’s reasoning in Astra conflicts with 2 Salomon, we are bound to follow Salomon. And in Erving, the arbitration 3 agreement provided that disputes would be arbitrated before a designated 4 arbitrator or that person’s designee, undercutting the notion that the parties 5 intended to arbitrate exclusively before the designated arbitrator. 468 F.2d at 6 1066 n.1. Further, the court in Erving did not analyze the language of Section 5 or 7 address whether a “lapse” within the meaning of Section 5 had occurred in that 8 case. Thus, like the district court, we find Salomon to be more instructive on the 9 applicability of Section 5 than either Astra or Erving. 10 Finally, we acknowledge that there is a difference of opinion among the 11 circuits on this issue. Compare Flagg v. First Premier Bank, No. 15 14052, 2016 WL 12 703063, at *4 (11th Cir. Feb. 23, 2016) (unpublished opinion) (holding that 13 “[b]ecause the choice of the NAF as the arbitral forum was an integral part of the 14 agreement to arbitrate, we conclude that the district court properly denied First 15 Premier’s motion to compel arbitration and appoint a substitute for NAF”), and 16 Ranzy v. Tijerina, 393 Fed. Appx. 174, 176 (5th Cir. 2010) (unpublished opinion) 17 (following Salomon to conclude that district court properly denied motion to 18 compel arbitration given NAF’s unavailability), with Green v. U.S. Cash Advance 14 1 Ill., LLC, 724 F.3d 787, 793 (7th Cir. 2013) (holding that Section 5 required court to 2 appoint substitute arbitrator), and Khan v. Dell Inc., 669 F.3d 350, 356 (3d Cir. 3 2012) (finding Salomon “unpersuasive” and holding that NAF’s unavailability 4 constituted a lapse within the meaning of Section 5). Like the district court, 5 however, we are bound by Salomon. Thus, while some circuits have chosen to 6 follow Salomon and others have not, we are not free to make that choice. The only 7 question that we can decide is whether, applying Salomon, the district court 8 correctly declined to compel Moss to arbitrate her claims before a forum to which 9 she did not agree. We hold that it did. CONCLUSION 10 11 For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the order of the district court and 12 REMAND for further proceedings. 13 15
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
