Keanna Lomax v. Weinstock, Friedman & Friedman, No. 14-1130 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1130 KEANNA LOMAX, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WEINSTOCK, FRIEDMAN & FRIEDMAN, P.A., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:13-cv-01442-CCB) Submitted: August 28, 2014 Decided: September 4, 2014 Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. E. David Hoskins, Max F. Brauer, THE LAW OFFICES OF E. DAVID HOSKINS, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. David M. Ross, WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Keanna dismissing her arbitration. Debt Lomax amended appeals the complaint district without court s prejudice order to permit Lomax s complaint alleged violations of the Fair Collection Practices Act, the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act, and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act. For the following reasons, we affirm. We review de novo a district court s dismissal for lack of subject 12(b)(1). matter jurisdiction under [Fed. subject matter jurisdiction. district 12(b)(6). 684 F.3d review). contain P.] Lomax has the burden of proving Piney Run Pres. Ass n v. Cnty. Comm rs, 523 F.3d 453, 459 (4th Cir. 2008). a Civ. Taylor v. Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc., 658 F.3d 402, 408 (4th Cir. 2011). novo R. court s dismissal under We also review de Fed. R. Civ. P. Kensington Volunteer Fire Dep t v. Montgomery Cnty., 462, 467 (4th Cir. 2012) (discussing standard of To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must enough facts plausible on its face. to state a claim to relief that is Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Lomax arbitration against district argues agreement Weinstock, court that precludes Friedman declined the to & plain language arbitration of Friedman, determine 2 P.A. whether her of claims Although federal the law the or Maryland state law governed, we conclude that, under either, Lomax s argument fails. arbitration test. App. clause Under Maryland law, a broadly worded triggers the significant Griggs v. Evans, 43 A.3d 1081, 1088 2012). Likewise, [w]e have relationship (Md. Ct. Spec. consistently held that an arbitration clause encompassing all disputes arising out of or relating to parties a contract having a embraces significant every dispute relationship to regardless of the label attached to a dispute. Nat l Ass n (quoting v. Am. Schmidt, Recovery 445 Corp. F.3d v. 762, 767 Computerized Inc., 96 F.3d 88, 93 (4th Cir. 1996)). between the the contract Wachovia Bank, (4th Cir. Thermal 2006) Imaging, Our review of the record leads us to conclude, as the district court found, that Lomax s claims have a significant relationship to the retail installment contract as they involve the parties obligations under the contract. We also agree with the district doctrine of equitable estoppel applies. nonsignatory to an arbitration court that the Under federal law, a clause may, in certain situations, compel a signatory to the clause to arbitrate the signatory s that arbitrate. 627 (4th against signatory the claims and the nonsignatory nonsignatory lack despite an the agreement fact to Am. Bankers Ins. Group, Inc. v. Long, 453 F.3d 623, Cir. 2006). One such 3 situation exists when the signatory is equitably estopped from arguing that a nonsignatory is not a party to the arbitration clause. Id. [E]stoppel is appropriate if in substance the signatory s underlying complaint is based on the nonsignatory s alleged breach of the obligations and duties (internal under assigned quotation Maryland permits to it marks law, in and [t]he non-signatories to the agreement. brackets doctrine enforce Id. omitted). of an at 628 Likewise, equitable arbitration estoppel provision . . . when a signatory must rely on the terms of the written agreement [containing the arbitration clause] in asserting [its] claims. Griggs, 43 A.3d at 1092 (internal quotation marks and footnote omitted). Because Lomax relies on the retail installment sales contract in an attempt to collect damages, she is equitably estopped from disclaiming the contract s arbitration provision. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
