Court denies arbitration bid in tribal loan usury action

Courts Arbitration Tribal Lending Debt Collection FDCPA State Issues Usury

On December 10, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied a motion to compel arbitration filed by a collection company and its chief operations officer (collectively, “defendants”), ruling that the arbitration agreements are “unconscionable” and therefore “unenforceable” because of the conditions under which borrowers agreed to arbitrate their claims. According to the order, the plaintiffs received lines of credit from an online lending company purportedly owned by a federally recognized Louisiana tribe. After defaulting on their payments, the defendants purchased the past-due accounts and commenced collection efforts. The plaintiffs sued, alleging the defendants’ collection efforts violated the FDCPA and Florida’s Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA) because the defendants knew the loans they were trying to collect were usurious and unenforceable under Florida law. The defendants moved to compel arbitration based on the arbitration agreement in the tribal lender’s line-of-credit agreement, and filed—in the alternative—motions for judgment on the pleadings.

The court ruled, among other things, that while the plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate all disputes when they took out their online payday loans, the “proposed arbitration proceeding strips Plaintiffs of the ability to vindicate any of their substantive state-law claims or rights,” and that, moreover, “the setup is a scheme to hide behind tribal immunity and commit illegal usury in violation of Florida and Louisiana law.” The court also granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motions for judgment on the pleadings. First, in denying in part, the court ruled that because the “tribal choice-of-law provision in the [tribal lender’s] account terms is invalid,” the plaintiffs’ accounts are subject to Florida law. Therefore, because Florida law is applicable to the plaintiffs’ accounts, they present valid causes of action under the FDCPA and FCCPA. The court, however, ruled that the plaintiffs seemed to “conflate Defendants’ communications to facilitate the collection of the outstanding debts with a communication demanding payment,” pointing out that FDCPA Section 1692c(b) only punishes that latter, which “does not include communications to a third-party collection agency.”