Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Pollak v. KeyBank, N.A.

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

December 4, 2019

MICHAEL POLLAK, Plaintiff,
v.
KEYBANK, N.A., Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          DONALD C. NUGENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter comes before the Court upon the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint and Compel Arbitration. (ECF #10). For the reasons stated below, Defendant's Motion is GRANTED.

         Procedural and Factual Background

         On September 26, 2017, Plaintiff Michael Pollak submitted a KeyBank NA Credit Application ("Application") and provided Defendant KeyBank, N.A. ("KeyBank") with his cell phone number. (ECF #10, Exhibit A). The Application expressly stated that when providing a telephone number, the applicant gave consent to receive communications via that number from KeyBank (Id., Exhibit 1). Further, Plaintiff also signed a Preferred Credit Line Agreement and Disclosure Agreement ("Agreement"). (Id. Exhibit 2). By executing the Agreement, Plaintiff (1) agreed to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") onset Provision and (2) agreed that any dispute arising from or relating to the Agreement or his account was subject to binding arbitration. (Id.).

         On August 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging that Defendant violated the TCP A by placing calls to Mr. Pollak's cellular phone using an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") or an artificial or prerecorded voice after Mr. Pollak revoked consent for such calls. At issue is whether the Agreement encases the dispute alleged in this case.

         Discussion

         The Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") provides that a written agreement to arbitrate "shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract." (9 U.S.C. § 2). When such an agreement exists, a court "shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement." (9 U.S.C. § 3).

         Here, Plaintiff agreed to the Arbitration Provision contained within the Agreement. Further, when interpreting the FAA, courts have recognized a national policy in favor of arbitration; in turn, courts tend to resolve any doubts about arbitrability in favor of arbitration. (Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24 (1983); Glazer v. Lehman Bros. Inc. 394 F.3d 444, 450 (6th Cir. 2005); Stout v. J.D. Byrider 228 F.3d 709, 714 (6th Cir. 2000)).

         To determine whether to dismiss or stay proceedings in favor of arbitration, The Sixth Circuit applies a four-part test:

[F]irst, it must determine whether the parties agreed to arbitrate; second, it must determine the scope of that agreement; third, if federal statutory claims are asserted, it must consider whether Congress intended those claims to be nonarbitrable; and fourth, if the court concludes that some, but not all, of the claims in the action are subject to arbitration, it must determine whether to stay the remainder of the proceedings pending arbitration.

Stout 228 F.3d at 714.

         First, the Court determined whether the parties agreed to arbitrate. It is clear that Plaintiff did agree to the arbitration provision when he executed the Agreement. Under general contract principles, a party is bound by the provisions of a contract he signs, unless he can show special circumstances that would relieve him of such an obligation. (Stout 228 F.3d at 715; Hughes v. Cardinal Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 566 F.Supp. 834, 844 (S.D. Ohio 1983).

         Here, there is no dispute that the Arbitration Provision is a valid and enforceable agreement. The Arbitration Provision states that all claims arising from or relating to the Agreement or Plaintiffs account are subject to binding arbitration. (ECF #10, Exhibit 2). By signing the Agreement, Plaintiff "agree[d] to be bound by all of the [] terms and conditions" of the Agreement and "acknowledge[d] receipt of a completed copy" of the Agreement. (Id.).

         Second, because the parties agreed to arbitrate and the Agreement is valid, the scope of the arbitration agreement must be considered. A provision in which the parties agree to arbitrate all disputes "arising out of or related to" the agreement is the paradigm of a broad clause. (T ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.