Jordan Jones v. Credit One Bank, N.A.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma grants Credit One Bank's motion to compel arbitration of Jordan Jones's claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Oklahoma tort law. The court finds that Jones entered into valid credit card agreements containing enforceable arbitration provisions, that his claims fall within their scope, and that the case should be stayed and administratively closed pending arbitration.

Holdings

1. Jones entered into three valid card-member contracts, including valid arbitration agreements, by receiving the cards and card agreements, activating and using each card, and failing to reject the arbitration provisions within the contractual 45-day period.
2. The arbitration provisions were not procedurally unconscionable because they were disclosed in bold, capitalized, and plainly worded text, and Jones had opportunities to review the agreements and reject arbitration.
3. The arbitration provisions were not substantively unconscionable because Jones failed to show that they were so one-sided as to oppress or unfairly surprise him, and the provisions contained the required modicum of bilaterality.
4. Jones's TCPA claim and supplemental Oklahoma intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim fell within the broad arbitration provisions because the factual allegations concerned calls allegedly made to collect debts owed on the accounts.
5. The action must be stayed pending arbitration under section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act, and the case was administratively closed pending completion of arbitration.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Jones entered into valid contractual agreements, including arbitration provisions, by receiving, activating, and using the three credit cards under Nevada law.
2. Whether the arbitration provisions were unenforceable because of procedural or substantive unconscionability.
3. Whether Jones's TCPA and Oklahoma intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims fell within the scope of the arbitration provisions.
4. Whether the action should be stayed pending arbitration under section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act.

Disposition

other