Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_06-cv-00520/USCOURTS-azd-4_06-cv-00520-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michael Starr and Lorita Starr, husband 

and wife,

Plaintiff, 

v.

The Hameroff Law Firm, PC; et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

 No. CV 06-520 TUC FRZ (GEE)

 ORDER

Before the Court for consideration in this action, brought pursuant to the Fair Debt

Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., is a Motion to Compel

Arbitration filed by Defendants Unifund CCR Partners, Credit Card Receivables Fund, Inc.

and ZB Limited Partners.

This matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for all pretrial

proceedings and report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1) and LRCiv 72.1 and LRCiv 72.2, Rules of Practice of the United States District

Court for the District of Arizona.

Magistrate Judge Glenda E. Edmonds issued her Report and Recommendation, filed

on October 31, 2007, recommending that the District Court, after its independent review of

the record, enter an order denying the Defendants’ Motion to Compel, based on the finding

that Defendants failed to make the threshold showing that they are the “employees, agents or

assigns”of Bank One, based on the fact that the arbitration clause at issue “explicitly applies

to claims brought by the Starrs against Bank One or its’ employees, agents or assigns.’”

Case 4:06-cv-00520-FRZ-GEE Document 64 Filed 03/31/08 Page 1 of 3
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 -

Defendants Unifund CCR Partners, Credit Card Receivables Fund, Inc. and ZB

Limited Partners filed an Objection to and Request for Reconsideration of Magistrate’s

Report and Recommendation Regarding Motion to Compel Arbitration, arguing that the

recommendation is based on an erroneous reading of the facts alleged and that the issue of

whether Unifund CCR Partners is an assignee of Bank One should be resolved based upon

the pleadings, by which “Plaintiffs’ own allegations, and Defendants admission in the

pleadings, the issue of the validity of the assignment of Plaintiffs’ debt became a non-issue,

as it was never contested.”

In Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Objection to Magistrate’s Report and

Recommendation, the Plaintiffs urge the Court to adopt the Report and Recommendation and

deny the Motion to Compel Arbitration based on the Defendants’ failure to prove that they

were assigned any rights to arbitration created in the cardmember agreement between

Plaintiffs and First USA Bank, N.A. 

Setting forth the standards for review of a magistrate judge’s determination under 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), and case law in support thereof, Plaintiffs argue that the Court may

only set aside the finding of the Magistrate Judge if this Court finds such to be “clearly

erroneous” or “contrary to law.” 

Plaintiffs further argue that Defendants’ objection is improper based on newly

submitted evidence, which was not presented to the Magistrate Judge at the time of review,

and also based on evidence which is either irrelevant or based on unsubstantiated statements.

The Court, having made an independent review of the record herein, including the

parties’ objection and response filed thereto, finds that the Report and Recommendations of

Magistrate Judge Edmonds should be adopted as the findings of fact and conclusions of law

of this Court.

Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Edmonds’ Report and Recommendation is

hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of fact and conclusions of law by this

Court;

Case 4:06-cv-00520-FRZ-GEE Document 64 Filed 03/31/08 Page 2 of 3
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 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration [Doc.

#51] is DENIED.

DATED this 31st day of March, 2008.

Case 4:06-cv-00520-FRZ-GEE Document 64 Filed 03/31/08 Page 3 of 3