Bradley Ammerman v. Goldman Sachs Bank USA

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma denied Bradley Ammerman’s motion to dismiss and granted Goldman Sachs Bank USA’s motion to compel arbitration. Applying Utah law to contract formation, the court found that Ammerman formed a valid agreement containing an arbitration provision and that his Fair Credit Reporting Act claims concerning credit-bureau reporting fell within its scope. The court referred all claims to arbitration and stayed the action pending arbitration.

Holdings

1. The court denied Ammerman's Rule 41(a)(2) motion because dismissal without prejudice would legally prejudice Goldman Sachs in light of its litigation efforts and expenses, Ammerman's delay and lack of diligence, and his insufficient explanation for seeking dismissal.
2. Under Western District of Oklahoma Local Civil Rule 7.1(g), the court could deem confessed the factual representations in Goldman Sachs's motion to compel arbitration because Ammerman failed to timely and properly respond.
3. Oklahoma choice-of-law rules required the court to apply Utah law to determine whether the parties formed an arbitration agreement.
4. The parties formed a valid credit agreement, including an arbitration agreement, under Utah law.
5. Ammerman's FCRA claim fell within the scope of the arbitration clause because it related to his account and to credit-bureau reporting.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Ammerman should be permitted to dismiss the action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) after Goldman Sachs filed an answer and incurred litigation expenses.
2. Whether the factual allegations in Goldman Sachs's unopposed motion to compel arbitration could be deemed confessed under Western District of Oklahoma Local Civil Rule 7.1(g).
3. Whether Oklahoma choice-of-law rules required application of the agreement's Utah choice-of-law provision to determine whether an arbitration agreement was formed.
4. Whether the parties formed a valid contract containing an arbitration agreement under Utah law.
5. Whether Ammerman's FCRA claim concerning credit-bureau reporting fell within the scope of the arbitration provision.

Disposition

other