Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-15-11869/USCOURTS-ca11-15-11869-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ally Financial Inc.
Appellee
Robert A. Schreiber
Appellant

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-11869

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-22069-DPG

ROBERT A. SCHREIBER, 

individually and on behalf of 

all others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ALLY FINANCIAL INC., 

a Delaware corporation 

d.b.a. Ally Bank,

f.k.a. GMAC, Inc., 

 Defendant - Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(December 17, 2015)

USCA11 Case: 15-11869 Date Filed: 12/17/2015 Page: 1 of 7
2

Before HULL, MARCUS, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

This appeal is controlled by state law. Robert Schreiber appeals the district 

court’s order compelling arbitration of Schreiber’s claims against Ally Financial, 

Inc. (“Ally”) for violation of the Consumer Leasing Act (“CLA”), 15 U.S.C. § 

1667 et. seq., and for breach of contract. Reversible error has been shown; we 

vacate the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings.

Schreiber and Ally are parties to a vehicle lease agreement (“Lease 

Agreement”).1

 The Lease Agreement includes a provision, titled “Purchase Option 

at End of Lease Term,” giving Schreiber the option to buy the leased car at the end 

of the lease term for “$25,899.70, plus official fees and taxes.” 

Near the end of the lease term, Schreiber sought to exercise the Lease 

Agreement’s purchase option; but Ally refused to sell Schreiber the car. Instead, 

Ally directed Schreiber to buy the car through Miami Lakes CJ, LLC (“Miami 

Lakes”). Ally was aware that Miami Lakes would charge Schreiber additional fees 

that had not been disclosed in the Lease Agreement. 

 1 The Lease Agreement was originally entered into between Wesley Reid and Miami Lakes CJ, 

LLC. Under the Lease Agreement, Miami Lakes agreed to “assign this lease and sell the vehicle 

to Ally Bank.” Reid also later assigned his rights and interest in the Lease Agreement to 

Schreiber. Thus, for purposes of this appeal, Schreiber and Ally are the only parties to the Lease 

Agreement. 

USCA11 Case: 15-11869 Date Filed: 12/17/2015 Page: 2 of 7
3

Unable to buy the car from Ally, Schreiber entered into a purchase 

agreement with Miami Lakes, dated March 2014 (“Buyer’s Order”). The total 

purchase price for the car -- which included undisclosed pre-delivery service and 

documentation fees -- was about $400 more than the agreed-upon purchase price in 

the Lease Agreement’s purchase option. The Buyer’s Order included an 

Arbitration Clause, requiring arbitration of all claims arising out of the Buyer’s 

Order. 

Schreiber filed this putative class action against Ally. The district court 

granted Ally’s motion to compel arbitration of Schreiber’s claims pursuant to the 

Arbitration Clause. The district court concluded that, although Ally was no party 

to the Buyer’s Order, Ally was entitled to enforce the Arbitration Clause on 

grounds of equitable estoppel. 

“We review de novo a district court order granting a motion to compel 

arbitration.” In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig., 754 F.3d 1290, 1293 (11th 

Cir. 2014). We look to state law to determine “whether a non-party can enforce an 

arbitration clause against a party.” Lawson v. Life of the South Ins. Co., 648 F.3d 

1166, 1170-71 (11th Cir. 2011). The parties agree that Florida law governs this 

dispute. 

Generally speaking, under Florida law, “a non-signatory to a contract 

containing an arbitration clause cannot compel a signatory to submit to 

USCA11 Case: 15-11869 Date Filed: 12/17/2015 Page: 3 of 7
4

arbitration.” Allscripts Healthcare Sols., Inc. v. Pain Clinic of Nw. Fla., 158 So. 3d 

644, 646 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014). Florida courts have recognized exceptions to 

this general rule, including the doctrine of equitable estoppel. Id. Under equitable 

estoppel, a non-signatory defendant may enforce an arbitration clause against a 

signatory plaintiff in two circumstances: (1) when the signatory to a contract 

containing an arbitration clause must rely on the terms of the contract to assert his 

claims against the non-signatory; and (2) when the signatory alleges 

“interdependent and concerted misconduct by both the nonsignatory and one or 

more of the signatories to the contract.” Id.; Bailey v. ERG Enter., LP, 705 F.3d 

1311, 1320 (11th Cir. 2013). Whether equitable estoppel applies is a fact-specific 

inquiry. Bailey, 705 F.3d at 1322. 

For purposes of the first exception, “[a] party relies on the terms of a 

contract when the party needs the underlying contract to make out his or her claim 

against the nonsignatory.” Id. at 1321. “The signatory must attempt to hold the 

nonsignatory to the terms of the contract.” Id. A mere but-for relationship 

between plaintiff’s claims and the contract is insufficient to warrant equitable 

estoppel. Id. at 1321-22. 

“The idea behind the first exception is that a signatory plaintiff should not be 

allowed to sue to essentially enforce its rights under a contract and, at the same 

time, evade an arbitration agreement in the contract, simply by naming as 

USCA11 Case: 15-11869 Date Filed: 12/17/2015 Page: 4 of 7
5

defendants parties who were not signatories to the contract.” Allscripts Healthcare 

Sols., Inc., 158 So. 3d at 646. “The plaintiff’s actual dependence on the underlying 

contract in making out the claim against the non-signatory defendant is therefore 

always the sine qua non of an appropriate situation for applying equitable 

estoppel.” Id. 

Under the facts of this case, Schreiber’s claims do not “rely on” the terms of 

the Buyer’s Order. Schreiber is not seeking to enforce his rights under the Buyer’s 

Order. Schreiber seeks, instead, to hold Ally to the terms of purchase option in the 

Lease Agreement. 

We reject Ally’s contention that Schreiber’s claims “rely on” the Buyer’s 

Order merely because the Buyer’s Order contains the final purchase price of the 

car. Ally flat refused to sell the car to Schreiber. Although the final purchase price 

from Miami Lakes is pertinent to determining the amount of Schreiber’s actual 

damages, it is no necessary element of Schreiber’s CLA or breach-of-contract 

claims. See 15 U.S.C. § 1640 (providing for statutory damages for violations of 

the CLA); AMC/Jeep of Vero Beach v. Funston, 403 So. 2d 602, 605 (Fla. Dist. 

Ct. App. 1981) (under Florida law, “a cause of action exists for every breach of 

contract” such that a plaintiff who has suffered no damage is still entitled to 

nominal damages). And the final amount that Schreiber paid Miami Lakes for the 

car may be proved without reference to the Buyer’s Order. 

USCA11 Case: 15-11869 Date Filed: 12/17/2015 Page: 5 of 7
6

Moreover, Schreiber’s claims, as alleged,2 accrued when Ally refused to sell 

the car to Schreiber. That Ally’s alleged misconduct occurred before Schreiber 

entered into the Buyer’s Order with Miami Lakes supports a conclusion that 

Schreiber’s claims rely on no terms of the Buyer’s Order. See Bailey, 705 F.3d at 

1322-23 (“It would be rather puzzling to say that [Buyers’] fraud claims rely on the 

lot purchase contracts when the alleged fraud occurred before any of the Buyers 

purchased their lots.”). 

Ally has also failed to demonstrate that equitable estoppel is warranted under 

the second exception. We have said that the second exception is not implicated 

when a plaintiff alleges no interdependent and concerted misconduct between a 

signatory and a non-signatory to the contract and when the plaintiff names no 

signatory as a defendant. See Bailey, 705 F.3d at 1321. 

In his complaint, Schreiber contends only that “Ally directed Plaintiff to 

purchase the vehicle through Miami Lakes.” Schreiber alleges no conspiracy 

between Ally and Miami Lakes. Nor does Schreiber allege that Miami Lakes itself 

engaged in misconduct. Thus, Schreiber has alleged no interdependent and 

concerted misconduct between Ally and Miami Lakes. Compare, e.g., MS Dealer 

 2 The only issue before us on appeal is whether Schreiber may be compelled to arbitrate his 

claims against Ally. For purposes of our analysis, we consider Schreiber’s claims as alleged in 

his complaint, recognizing that “[t]he plaintiff is the master of the complaint” and “selects the 

claims that will be alleged in the complaint.” See United States v. Jones, 125 F.3d 1418, 1428 

(11th Cir. 1997). We express no opinion about -- and the district court made no ruling on --

whether Schreiber’s complaint states a claim for relief or about the underlying merits of 

Schreiber’s claims. Those issues are issues that can be decided on remand. 

USCA11 Case: 15-11869 Date Filed: 12/17/2015 Page: 6 of 7
7

Serv. Corp. v. Franklin, 177 F.3d 942, 948 (11th Cir. 1999) (plaintiff alleged 

“substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct” when she alleged that a 

non-signatory conspired with a signatory to engage in a fraudulent scheme), with 

Rolls-Royce PLC v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 960 So. 2d 768, 771 (Fla. Dist. 

Ct. App. 2007) (plaintiff alleged no “concerted action” where the allegations in the 

complaint pointed only to acts of the non-signatory). As a result -- and because 

Miami Lakes is no named defendant -- Ally has failed to satisfy the second 

exception warranting equitable estoppel. 

Under Florida law, Ally is precluded from compelling Schreiber to submit to 

arbitration. See Allscripts Healthcare Sols., Inc., 158 So. 3d at 646. We vacate the 

district court’s order compelling arbitration and remand the case for further 

proceedings. 

VACATED AND REMANDED.

USCA11 Case: 15-11869 Date Filed: 12/17/2015 Page: 7 of 7