A New Jersey Appeals Court has affirmed the dismissal of a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case that was dismissed by an arbitrator, with the plaintiff arguing the arbitrator refused to consider evidence and that the underlying agreement was unenforceable.
The Background: The plaintiff defaulted on a credit card debt, which was acquired by the defendant. The defendant filed a collection lawsuit against the plaintiff who made payments to satisfy the debt.
- The plaintiff then filed a class action against the defendant, at which point the defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration — a motion that was granted by the state court judge.
- The defendant sought dismissal of the case and the arbitrator agreed, which led the plaintiff to appeal that ruling.
The Ruling: There is no law to support the plaintiff’s arguments that the arbitrator should have related on the actual agreements instead of affidavits that claimed to provide details of those agreements, the Appeals Court ruled.
- The plaintiff also claimed the defendant was not licensed in New Jersey, but the decision that the dispute was subject to arbitration was made by the arbitrator, the Appeals Court noted.
- Finally, the plaintiff argued that the arbitrator’s acquisition of an ownership stake in another arbitration company was improper and not disclosed in a timely fashion. But the claim “falls far short” of the threshold that is needed to vacate an arbitrator’s award, the Appeals Court ruled. There would have to be instances of fraud, corruption, or similar wrongdoing for the court to vacate the arbitrator’s award, it noted.
