Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00549/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00549-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 430
Nature of Suit: Banks and Banking
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROGER D. ROMERO,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITIBANK USA, NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION,

Defendants.

1:07-CV-00549 OWW-SMS

MEMORANDUM DECISION RE

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CONFIRM

ARBITRATION AWARD (DOC. 4)

1. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the court on Defendant Citibank

(South Dakota), N.A.’s, successor in interest to Citibank USA,

National Association (“Citibank” or “Defendant”) motion to

confirm arbitration award pursuant to Federal Arbitration Act

(“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. §§ 9, 13 against Plaintiff Roger D. Romero

(“Romero” or “Plaintiff”).

2. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This case arises out of a dispute between Plaintiff and

Defendant regarding Plaintiff’s Home Depot-branded credit card

issued by Defendant. On April 10, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion

to transfer to federal district court. (Doc. 1, Motion to

Transfer.) The dispute was brought before an arbitrator and

arbitrated on April 12, 2007. (Doc. 4, Motion to Confirm

Arbitration Award (“Motion”), Memorandum of Points and

Case 1:07-cv-00549-OWW -SMS Document 10 Filed 09/13/07 Page 1 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Authorities (“P&A”), § I; and Declaration of Andrew W. Moritz

(“Mortiz Decl.”), Exhibit 5, filed on July 16, 2007.) The award

(the “Award”) was issued by the arbitrator on April 14, 2007. 

(Id., Mortiz Decl., Exhibit 5.) On May 11, 2007, Plaintiff filed

with the arbitrator a motion to vacate the award on the basis of

lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction under the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id., P&A, § I, p. 2:10-13.) 

On May 25, 2007, Citibank filed their opposition with the

arbitrator. (Id.) The arbitrator denied Plaintiff’s motion in an

order dated June 3, 2007. (Id.) On July 16, 2007, Citibank moved

to confirm the arbitration award. (Doc. 4, Motion.) Citibank

filed their reply on August 31, 2007. (Doc. 7, Reply.)

3.FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On or about February 2006, Romero commenced an arbitration

proceeding against Citibank through the American Arbitration

Association (“AAA”) in connection with his dispute regarding his

Home Depot-branded credit card (“Account”) issued by Citibank.

(Doc. 4, P&A, § I, p. 1:4-8; and Mortiz Decl., Exhibit 1.) The

binding arbitration agreement between the parties under the

Account (“Arbitration Agreement”) states: “Either you or we may,

without the other’s consent, elect mandatory, binding arbitration

for any claim, dispute, or controversy between you and us (called

“Claims”).” (Doc. 4, Mortiz Decl., Exhibit 2.) Under the

Arbitration Agreement parties can choose from one of three

arbitration firms, AAA, JAMS or National Arbitration Forum. (Id.) 

The arbitration proceeding, entitled Roger D. Romero v. Citibank

USA, National Association, AAA Ref. No. 74 148 E 00244 06 LIAL

(“Arbitration”) was assigned to arbitrator, The Hon. Lester H.

Case 1:07-cv-00549-OWW -SMS Document 10 Filed 09/13/07 Page 2 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Berkson (“Arbitrator”) by AAA. (Doc. 4, Moritz Decl., ¶ 4.)

Plaintiff contended in his arbitration demand that Citibank

violated the Fair Credit Billing Act (“FCBA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1666,

et seq. Plaintiff cited billing errors, restricting the Account,

unlawful collection actions through statements and telephone

calls, and ultimately the closing the Account on or about

September 2005. (Doc. 4, Mortiz Decl., Exhibit 1, p. 14-20.) 

Defendant in its counterclaim, claimed Plaintiff failed to

submit timely “billing error” notices under FCBA and sought

recovery of the outstanding debt owed under the Account. (Id.,

Mortiz Decl., Exhibit 3.)

Plaintiff thereafter made a motion to voluntarily dismiss

his arbitration demand without prejudice. On April 5, 2007, the

Arbitrator granted Plaintiff’s motion. In connection with

Citibank’s counterclaim, the Arbitrator ruled that the telephonic

arbitration hearing scheduled for April 12, 2007 would proceed.

(Doc. 4, Mortiz Decl., ¶ 5 and Exhibit 4.) 

On April 12, 2007, a telephonic arbitration hearing was

conducted by the Arbitrator. On April 14, 2007, the Arbitrator

awarded $6,108.85 to Defendant against Plaintiff. (Doc. 4, Mortiz

Decl., Exhibit 5 and 6.) 

On May 11, 2007, Plaintiff filed with the Arbitrator a

motion to vacate the Award. On May 25, 2007, Defendant filed

their opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the Award. The

Arbitrator denied the motion on June 3, 2007. (Doc. 4, P&A, § I,

p.2:10-13; and Mortiz Decl., Exhibit 7.)

//

//

Case 1:07-cv-00549-OWW -SMS Document 10 Filed 09/13/07 Page 3 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

4. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A. Applicable Law

Section 2 of the FAA provides: “A written provision in any .

. . contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to

settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of

such contract or transaction, or the refusal to perform the whole

or any part thereof, or an agreement in writing to submit to

arbitration an existing controversy arising out of such a

contract, transaction, or refusal, 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. 

“Section 2 is a congressional declaration of a liberal federal

policy favoring arbitration agreements,...” Id. (quoting Moses H.

Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U.S. 1,

24 (1983)). 

“When deciding whether the parties agreed to arbitrate a

certain matter (including arbitrability), courts generally

(though with a qualification we discuss below) should apply

ordinary state-law principles that govern the formation of

contracts.” First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S.

938, 944 (1995). The condition to this rule is: “Courts should

not assume that the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability

unless there is ‘clear and unmistakable’ evidence that they did

so.” Id.

Section 9 of the FAA authorizes a party to an arbitration to

apply for an order confirming an award: “any time within one year

after the award is made any party to the arbitration may apply to

the court so specified for an order confirming the award, and

Case 1:07-cv-00549-OWW -SMS Document 10 Filed 09/13/07 Page 4 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

thereupon the court must grant such an order unless the award is

vacated, modified, or corrected as prescribed in sections 10 and

11 of this title.” 9 U.S.C. § 9. If no court is specified by the

parties, then the party may make an application in the district

court in which the award was granted, jurisdiction occurs once

adverse party has been served. Id.

The review of arbitration awards is “extremely limited.”

A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. V. McCollough, 967 F.2d 1401, 1403 (9th

Cir. 1992); Todd Shipyards Corp. V. Cunard Line, Ltd., 943 F.2d

1056, 1060 (9th Cir. 1991). Courts are deferential to the

decisions made by arbitrators. Rostad & Rostad Corp. V. Inv.

Mgmt. & Research, Inc., 923 F.2d 694, 697 (9th Cir. 1991). “An

arbitrator’s decision must be upheld unless it is ‘completely

irrational,’ or it constitutes a ‘manifest disregard of law.’”

Todd Shipyards Corp., 943 F.2d at 1060 (quoting French v. Merrill

Lynch, 784 F.2d 902, 906 (9th Cir. 1986)). Otherwise if no such

situation exists, the court must affirm the award. Corsini v.

Prudential Securities, Inc., 1995 WL 663174, p.1 (S.D. Cal.

1995); see also Barnes v. Logan, 122 F.3d 820, 821, 825 (9th Cir.

1997) (“An award will not be set aside unless it manifests a

complete disregard of the law.” (citing Sheet Metal Workers’

Int’l Ass’n v. Madison Indus., Inc., 84 F.3d 1186, 1190 (9th Cir.

2006).)); Sheet Metal Workers v. v. Arizona Mechanical &

Stainless, Inc., 863 F.2d 647, 653 (9th Cir. 1988) (“If, on its

face, the award represents a plausible interpretation of the

contract, judicial inquiry ceases and the award must be

enforced.”). “The reviewing court should not concern itself with

the ‘correctness’ of an arbitration award.” Thompson v. Tega-Rand

Case 1:07-cv-00549-OWW -SMS Document 10 Filed 09/13/07 Page 5 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

Int’l, 740 F.2d 762, 763 (9th Cir. 1984). “Deference to the

arbitrators is the rule.” Rostad, 923 F.2d at 697. The threshold

question then is whether the “parties have agreed to arbitrate

the subject in dispute” Sheet Metal Workers, 863 F.2d at 653.

Section 13 of the FAA provides the procedures required to be

undertaken by a party moving for a motion to confirm an

arbitration award:

The party moving for an order confirming, modifying, or

correcting an award shall, at the time such order is

filed with the clerk for the entry of judgment thereon,

also file the following papers with the clerk:

(a) The agreement; the selection or appointment, if

any, of an additional arbitrator or umpire; and

each written extension of the time, if any, within

which to make the award.

(b) The award.

(c) Each notice, affidavit, or other paper used

upon an application to confirm, modify, or correct

the award, and a copy of each order of the court

upon such an application.

9 U.S.C. § 13.

5. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff commenced an arbitration proceeding against

Defendant pursuant to their Arbitration Agreement under the

Account in or about February 2006. The terms of the Account

permitted both parties to elect mandatory and binding

arbitration to resolve any disputes surrounding the account. 

Therefore, it is clear and unmistakable that both parties

consented to arbitration. 

This court is the proper venue as the award was issued by

the Arbitrator, under the AAA, Western Case Management Center

located in Fresno, California pursuant to FAA § 9. The Award

was granted on April 14, 2007 and Defendant filed the motion to

confirm arbitration award on July 16, 2007, well within the one

Case 1:07-cv-00549-OWW -SMS Document 10 Filed 09/13/07 Page 6 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

year statutory period.

Defendant filed, pursuant to FAA § 13, the Arbitration

Agreement, the appointment of the arbitrator and the Award.(Doc.

4, Mortiz Decl., Exhibits 1,2 and 5.)

The issue arbitrated concerned the Account of Plaintiff for

a Home Depot-branded credit card issued by Defendant. Both

parties participated in the arbitration proceeding in accordance

with the binding Arbitration Agreement. As Defendant asserts,

the Arbitrator heard testimony from both parties and received

documents from both parties containing their arbitration claims

which the Arbitrator reviewed. The Arbitrator conducted a

telephone hearing on April 12, 2007, where Plaintiff admitted to

the charges of $4,393.37 and confirmed he had not paid the

amount in dispute. Defendant confirmed the amount and also

asserted interest, finance and late charges for total

indebtedness owed by Plaintiff to Defendant of $6,108.85. The

Arbitrator entered an award for the full amount asserted by

Defendant on April 14, 2007. The Arbitrator’s award does not

appear “completely irrational” or in “manifest disregard of the

law.” Plaintiff did not deny that he owed the amount asserted by

Defendant nor did Plaintiff bring forth any defenses to the

Arbitrator in the proceedings for the amount owed on the

Account.

Furthermore, in the present proceedings Plaintiff has not

made an application to modify, correct or vacate an award

pursuant to 9 U.S.C. §§ 10 or 11, therefore this court will not

conduct an analysis under those provisions of the FAA.

//

Case 1:07-cv-00549-OWW -SMS Document 10 Filed 09/13/07 Page 7 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s motion to

confirm arbitration award is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

bb4ed UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00549-OWW -SMS Document 10 Filed 09/13/07 Page 8 of 8