White v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc. et al, No. 1:2020cv00115 - Document 20 (S.D. Ga. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER granting 7 Motion to Compel; granting 7 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff and Defendants SHALL ARBITRATE all claims raised in this dispute and this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to TERMINATE all motions and deadlines and CLOSE this case. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 3/15/21. (wwp)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
White v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc. et al Doc. 20 Case 1:20-cv-00115-JRH-BKE Document 20 Filed 03/15/21 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION u.s.nisi' * DANNY WHITE, Al‘ ZOZ! ii;, i'i n R 15 A Ih 35^ -k- Plaintiff, k V. CV 120-115 'k * SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC. and CAR MAX OF AUGUSTA, GA, k k k Defendants. ORDER Before the ("Santander") motion For the to Court and compel following Defendants is CarMax Auto arbitration reasons, Santander Consumer Inc. 's Superstores, and motion the motion is to Inc. USA, ("CarMax") 7. ) (Doc. dismiss.^ GRANTED. I . BACKGROUND A. Procedural Posture On w August Complaint for Restoration Santander 1. ) The Due 2020, 18, Breach to Consumer Complaint Plaintiff, of Contract Illegal USA /f and Predatory against alleges proceeding \\ Lending Defendants. Plaintiff // Predatory Loan/Ponzi Demand Scheme Auto Loan pro for with (Compl. , scheme Doc. entered Santander on ' Defendants' motion contends that CarMax Auto Superstores, designated in the Complaint as "CarMax Augusta, Georgia. a Title/Credit Ponzi unwillingly filed se. by 1, at into July a 16, Inc. was incorrectly (Doc. 7, at 1. ) Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:20-cv-00115-JRH-BKE Document 20 Filed 03/15/21 Page 2 of 12 2017 when purchasing a 2016 Chevrolet (Id. Impala. at 3. ) Plaintiff contends that Santander's unethical practices during the forces [him] to demand the title to [his] car for loan process Breach of Contract. n Plaintiff references a (Id. ) settlement agreement Santander made with 33 different states for $550 million to be paid to consumers that Santander has allegedly refused to June 15, 2020, he received a call from an agent who stated Plaintiff \\ did not have execute. He further alleges that on (Id. ) to make any more payments restoration (Id.) // due to the n \\ full credit and that he would have above mentioned settlement agreement. Plaintiff demands a jury trial, requests credit restoration at all three credit bureaus,^ demands title to his car. asks for a temporary or permanent injunction to be issued against Santander and its agents, and seeks punitive damages. (Id. at 4.) In response, on October 12, 2020, Defendants filed the present motion requesting the Complaint. (Doc. 7.) sets facts into forth between provision. the Court compel arbitration and Defendants' motion provides copies of, and surrounding. Parties the that underlying each contracts contain an entered arbitration Plaintiff first executed a Buyer's Order to purchase the vehicle from CarMax. (Id. at 1; Doc. 7-1, at 11-13.) Buyer's Order contained an arbitration provision. 12.) dismiss the The (Doc. 7-1, at Plaintiff then executed a Retail Installment Contract (the Contract") to obtain a loan in order to purchase his vehicle. 2 Plaintiff does not explicitly name the three referenced credit bureaus. 2 Case 1:20-cv-00115-JRH-BKE Document 20 Filed 03/15/21 Page 3 of 12 (Id. at 6-9.) The Contract contained an arbitration provision and assigned of all CarMax's rights, powers, and privileges to (Id. at 8-9.) Santander because Santander provided the funding. Plaintiff finally executed three extension agreements that gave him additional time to pay overdue loan payments, and each of these agreements also contained an arbitration provision. (See id. at Defendants contend the claims in the Complaint fall 15, 19, 23.) within the scope of the arbitration provisions and therefore are not properly before the Court. Further, they argue that even if it was disputed which claims are proper for arbitration, that in itself is an issue to be determined by an arbitrator and not the Court. (Doc. 7, at 13, 17.) Pursuant to Local 7.5, Rule Plaintiff's response to Defendants' motion was due by October 26, 2020, and at that time. no response had been filed. On November 10, 2020, (See Doc. 12.) Defendants filed a notice to inform the Court that on November 9, 2020, they received a response to their motion U.S. Mail and attached a copy for the from Plaintiff via (Doc. Court. 13.) On November 12, 2020, Plaintiff filed his response with the Court, identical earlier. to the (Doc. one Defendants 15.) attached Plaintiff's to their untimely notice response days stated generally that he objects to any arbitration and the motion to dismiss, but it did not dispute any of the factual allegations regarding the binding contracts, (Id.) Plaintiff simply reiterated that he was placed in a ponzi scheme which put him into 3 Case 1:20-cv-00115-JRH-BKE Document 20 Filed 03/15/21 Page 4 of 12 poverty and that Santander is in contempt of their judgment from the State of Connecticut.^ (Id. ) Defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to compel on November 17, 2020. (Doc. 16.) In their reply, they assert that Plaintiff's response should be disregarded as untimely filed, and that even if the Court does consider it, it provides no grounds for avoiding arbitration. (Id. at 1.) Defendants point out that Plaintiff did not deny that he has agreed to arbitrate these types of disputes or that the arbitration agreements cover claims. (Id. ) the asserted Further, Defendants assert that the stipulation of judgment Plaintiff referenced and attached to his response does not apply because he is a third party to the judgment. 6. ) (Id. at On December 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed a remark to the Court stating he title. // \\ rs ready for trial; credit restoration and demand for (Doc. 19.) B. Arbitration Provisions in Buyer's Order, Contract & Extensions It is unclear from reading Plaintiff's Complaint under which contract he is bringing his breach of contract claim; however, all the contracts contain an arbitration provision, so the Court will review each of them. The Buyer's Order provides arbitration can be demanded for; any claim, dispute or controversy . . . that in any way arises from or relates to this sale and/or this Contract or the Vehicle and related goods and services that are from the judgment Connecticut, which Superior Court (See id. at presumably is the settlement agreement he continuously references. 3 Plaintiff also stipulation of attached a copy of the of Hartford, the Judicial District of 3. ) 4 Case 1:20-cv-00115-JRH-BKE Document 20 Filed 03/15/21 Page 5 of 12 the subject of the purchase and this Contract or the collection or servicing of this Contract, including but not limited to . . . disputes based on contract, tort, intentional other and fraud consumer rights, torts . . (Doc. 7-1, at 12.) Further, the provision specifies it is governed W by the Federal Arbitration Act (the FAA"). (Id. at 13.) The Contract's arbitration provision is identical to the one in the Buyer's Order. (See id. at 8.) the Finally, three extension agreements contain identical arbitration provisions that also are governed by the FAA and cover any claim, dispute or controversy now or hereafter existing between [Plaintiff] and [Santander], including without limitation, any claims arising out of, in connection with, or relating to the Contract, and any modification, extension, application, or inquiry of credit or forbearance of payment; any trade-in of a vehicle; any products, goods and/or services, including the installation thereof, purchased in connection with the Contract . . w (Id. at 16, 20, Further, they 24.) explicitly exclude ff exercise W of extra-judicial or self-help repossession. seeking to enforce a security or any action U transfer of the property being foreclosed, [t]he actions to effect the sale or an y claims where all parties seek $15,000 or less in the aggregate. and "any [c]laims ft brought in small claims court. II. The FAA \\ embodies arbitration agreements. rr a (Id.) LEGAL STANDARD liberal federal policy favoring Caley v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp., 428 5 Case 1:20-cv-00115-JRH-BKE Document 20 Filed 03/15/21 Page 6 of 12 F.3d 1359, 1367 (11th Cir. 2005) (internal quotations and citations W omitted). The FAA requires ff agreements to arbitrate. courts to rigorously enforce Davis V. Prudential Sec., Inc., 59 F.3d 1186, 1192 (11th Cir. 1995) (quoting Shearson/Am. Express, Inc, v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220, 226 (1987)). clear that the strong federal \\ made The Supreme Court has preference for arbitration of disputes expressed by Congress in the [FAA] must be enforced when possible. // Musnick v. King Motor Co. of Fort Lauderdale, 325 F.3d 1255, 1258 (11th Cir. 2003) . \\ the F7\A applies to all Further, the Supreme arbitration Court found involving agreements n interstate commerce. including employment contracts . . Id. at 1258 n.2 (citing Cir. City Stores, Inc, v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (2001)). \\ [T]he party seeking to compel arbitration has the initial burden of producing the arbitration agreement and establishing the contractual relationship necessary to implicate the FAA and its provisions granting [the court] authority to dismiss or stay [the plaintiff's] cause of action and to compel arbitration. // Compere V. Nusret Miami, LLC, 396 F. Supp. 3d 1194, 1199 (S.D. Fla. 2019) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). If the party for arbitration meets its burden of production, the burden shifts to the party opposing arbitration to show why the court should not compel arbitration. Bhim V. Rent-A-Ctr., Inc., 655 F. Supp. 2d 1307, 1311 (S.D. Fla. 2009). 6 Case 1:20-cv-00115-JRH-BKE Document 20 Filed 03/15/21 Page 7 of 12 III. DISCUSSION As an initial the matter, Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this dispute through diversity jurisdiction, U.S.C. § 1332.4 The and are the parties whether (A) the arbitration provisions controversy is more amount in completely FAA governs the provisions cover the are arbitration dispute, and than $75,000 Court analyzes provisions. (C) enforceable. current The diverse.^ (D) the the 28 (B) the arbitration Court should dismiss this action. A. FAA \\ The FAA applies to // involving commerce, construed this 9 agreements U.S.C. § evidencing 2. The a transaction Supreme Court \\ commerce // language broadly, holding that the involving language in Section 2 must be read to extend the FAA's Allied- reach to the limits of Congress's Commerce Clause Power. Bruce has Terminix Cos. v. 513 Dobson, U.S. 265, 268, 277 (1995) . Here, the contracts at issue involved the purchase of a car and a connected and two loan agreement companies between located in Plaintiff, diverse a states. Georgia and resident. consequently does it create jurisdiction nor V. Porta, 192 Sunpoint Sec., Inc. independent federal question jurisdiction. F.R.D. 716, 718 (M.D. Fla. 2000) {citation omitted). Therefore, [i]ndependent Id. grounds for subject matter jurisdiction must be demonstrated. 5 Although Plaintiff incorrectly contends Santander and CarMax are incorporated under Georgia law and that the Court has jurisdiction because they are "corporations and not just citizen[s]"(Doc. 1, at 2), representatives from each company have clarified that CarMax is a Virginia corporation with its principal place of business there, and Santander is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business in Texas. (See Doc. 7-1, at 2, 3 4; Doc. 7-2, at Defendants do not otherwise challenge jurisdiction being proper in 2, i 4.) The FAA does not confer subject matter n this Court. 7 Case 1:20-cv-00115-JRH-BKE Document 20 Filed 03/15/21 Page 8 of 12 See Jenkins v. First Am. Cash Advance affected interest commerce. of Ga., LLC, 400 F.3d 868, 874-75 (finding the payday loan involved interstate commerce Therefore, the governed by because finds Court the it the arbitration [ajlthough But, FAA. between was diverse parties). agreement the validity here is of an arbitration agreement is generally governed by the FAA, state law generally governs whether an enforceable contract or agreement to arbitrate exists. // which will be addressed below. Gates V. TF Final Mile, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-0341, 2020 WL 2026987, at *5 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 27, 2020) (citing Caley, 428 F.3d at 1367-69). Defendants, have satisfied as the parties seeking their initial burden to compel of production arbitration. by producing copies of all of the arbitration provisions and establishing the contractual relationship necessary to implicate the FAA and the authority of the Based Court. on the this. burden shifts to Plaintiff, as the party opposing arbitration, to show why the Court should not compel arbitration. Defendants disregarded \\ Plaintiff's contend because it was served 28 [rjesponse days after the n Defendants' [mjotion, and was thus untimely filed. 1.) The Court agrees. should be filing of (Doc. 16, at Although Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and pro se filings are liberally construed. does not mean liberal deadlines. // liberal construction Kessler v. Fl. Dep't of Revenue, No. 09-10079-CIV, 2009 WL 10669038, at *2 n.3 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 22, 2009) (citing Wayne v. Jarvis, 197 F.3d 1098, 1104 (11th Cir. Case 1:20-cv-00115-JRH-BKE Document 20 Filed 03/15/21 Page 9 of 12 1999), overruled on other grounds by Manders v. Lee, 338 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2003)) . Plaintiff has a duty, just as any other party. to comply with the Local Rules of this Court and respond to motions within the allotted 14-day period, and he failed to do so.® L.R. 7.5, Based SDGa. on this. Defendants' motion to See compel arbitration is deemed unopposed. B. Enforceability of Arbitration Provisions W Whether an arbitration agreement exists is settled by state // law Hefter v. Charlie, Inc., No. principles of contract law. 2:16-CV-1805, 2017 WL 4155101, at *5 (N.D. Ala. Sept. 19, 2017) 611 (quoting Hanover Ins. Co. V. Atlantis Drywall & Framing LLC, F. App'x 585, provisions binding are 588 (11th Cir. valid under contract requires Here, 2015)). definite r r/ arbitration Under Georgia law, a Georgia law. 'a the offer and complete Shubert v. Scope Prods., Inc., acceptance, for consideration. No. 2:10-CV-101, 2011 WL 3204677, at *2 (N.D. Ga. July 27, 2011) (quoting Moreno v. Strickland, 567 S.E.2d 90, 92 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002) ) . the It is undisputed that the contracts at issue here satisfy required elements to be a valid contract. arbitration provisions within them enforceable, \\ all of the contracts, representing he // provisions on all pages making the Plaintiff signed read and agree[s] to all (Doc. 7-1, at 8), he acknowledges reading that Plaintiff's untimely response 6 Despite this failure, the Court notes of the assertions in Defendants' motion to compel failed to address any the enforcement arbitration regarding the actual arbitration agreement or it thereof. Therefore, even if the Court were to consider this filing timely would not carry its burden of showing the Court why it should not compel arbitration. 9 Case 1:20-cv-00115-JRH-BKE Document 20 Filed 03/15/21 Page 10 of 12 the entire Contract [], including the Arbitration Provision, . . [and] agrees conditions to be bound by all of the Contract's terms and (Id. at 11), and he read and understood the terms and contents of the extension agreement before signing it (Id. at 17). Based on these expressions, Plaintiff and Defendants clearly entered into binding, valid contracts which all contained binding arbitration provisions. C. Applicability of Arbitration Agreement n The F71A creates a presumption in favor of arbitrability. any doubts construed concerning in favor the of of scope arbitration. arbitral Paladino issues v. Avnet has further held that if parties be Comput. The Eleventh Techs., Inc., 134 F.3d 1054, 1057 (11th Cir. 1998). Circuit must so intend to exclude categories of claims from their arbitration agreement. they must clearly express such intent. Brown v. ITT Consumer Fin. Corp., 211 F.3d 1217, 1222 (11th Cir. 2000). be deemed arbitrable unless it is agreement intentionally omits them. In other words, issues will clear that the arbitration First Options of Chi., Inc. V. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 945 (1995). Here, the Parties agreed to arbitrate almost every single claim and explicitly enumerated disputes based on contract, The only exclusion was in the extension agreements, and the claims at issue do not fit into any of the excluded categories. in the arbitration provisions IS provides no argument that these claims 10 unambiguous The language and Plaintiff fall outside the arbitration Case 1:20-cv-00115-JRH-BKE Document 20 Filed 03/15/21 Page 11 of 12 Therefore, provisions. the Court finds that Plaintiff's claims are subject to mandatory arbitration. D. Status Pending Arbitration Defendants move the Court to not only compel arbitration, but also to dismiss the case. FAR provides issue[s] that once involved arbitration. in a district [a] court is suit // the district court that the referable to shall on application of one of 1/ 9 U.S.C. § 3. satisfied [are] until the arbitration is the parties stay the trial of the action complete. Section 3 of the (See Doc. 7, at 17.) A stay is not required, then, without a request for one because Section 3's stay requirement is triggered // See United Steel, Paper on application of one of the parties. & Forestry, Rubber, Mfq., Energy, Allied Indus. & Serv. Workers Int'l Union AFL-CIQ-CLC v. Wise Alloys, LLC, 807 F.3d 1258, 1268 (11th Cir. 2015) ("[Sjection 3 qualifies the mandatory nature of any stay stay.") it authorizes (alterations and by requiring a party to citations omitted); see apply also for the McGhee v. Mariner Fin., LLC, No. l:19-CV-934, 2019 WL 5491825, at *6-7 (N.D. Ga . Aug . stay). 7, 2019) (dismissing Because no stay is case because no party requested a requested, the Court finds dismissal proper. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons. Defendants' motion to dismiss and compel arbitration (Doc. 7) is GRANTED. 11 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Case 1:20-cv-00115-JRH-BKE Document 20 Filed 03/15/21 Page 12 of 12 Plaintiff and Defendants SHALL ARBITRATE all claims raised in this dispute and this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to TERMINATE all motions and deadlines and CLOSE this case. ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this day of March, 2021. / -4 ;aej/, chief judge j!^ RA^ UNTTE'D/STATES DISTRICT COURT ,N district of GEORGIA SOUT 12
]]>
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.
