SECOND DIVISION FEBRUA RY 1, 2011 No. 1-10- 0436 QUICKCLICK LOANS, LLC, ) Appeal from the ) C irc uit Co ur t o f Pl ai ntif f and Coun

terdef endan t-App el l an t, ) Co o k C o un t y ) ) v. ) No. 08 MI 180139 ) ) MELO DY A . RUSSE LL , ) Ho no r ab le ) Kathleen Pan

tle, Defe ndan t and Counterplai

ntif f-A ppelle e. ) Judge Presi din g.
JUS TI CE HARR IS deliver ed t he judg ment o f the co ur t , w ith o pinion. Jus t ices Kar nezis and Co nnor s co ncur re d in t he judg ment a nd o pinion. OPINI ON Pl ai n ti f f Qui ckCl i ck Loa n s, LL C, i n i ti ate d c oll ecti on

proce ed i n gsag ai n st d ef en da n t, Me l ody Ru ss el l , a l l eg i n g th at R us se l l h ad de f aul ted un der a l oan ag re em en t an d p rom i ss ory n ote ag r ee d t o by t he pa r t ies
. Ru ss ell file d a co un t er cla im fo rhe r se lf an d a pu t at ive cla ss o f simila r ly si tuated I ll in ois consum

ers agai nst QuickClic

k alle gin g violations

of the Truth in

Lendi ng Act (15 U.S.C. §1601 et seq. (2006)), Regulation Z (12 C.F.R. §226.1 et seq. ( 20 08 ) ) , t he I llino is Consum er Install me nt Loan Act (205 ILCS 670/1 et seq. (We st 2008 )) , and the Ill in ois Interest Act (815 ILCS 205/1 et seq. (Wes t 200 8)) . Qu i ckCl i ck the n f i l ed a m oti on to c om

pe l arbi trati on and stay procee di ngs , whi ch

the c i rcui t court den

i ed. Qu i ckCl i ck ap peal s.No.1-10- 0436

1 Russel l h ad the opport uni

ty to reject the Arbi

trat ion A greeme nt by subm ittin g a written objec t ion t o Q uickC lick wit hin 15 d ays o f signing t he pr omisso ry no t e. Rus sell did no t re ject t he Arbit ra t ion Agr eement and d oe s no t co nt est t he Arbit ra t ion Agr eement ’s su bseq uent i nc orporati on i

nto the l oan a greem en t and prom i ssory note. 2 We af fi rm the j udgme

nt of the ci

rcuit court, fi

ndi ng that the agreem

ent between the parti es t o ar bit r at e a llo ws fo ro nly t wo o r ga niz at io ns t o ad minist er an y dis pu t e b et we ent he pa r t ies in
ar bit r at io n, ne it he ro f wh ich wa s a va ilable
. T he t wo ex clu sive ad minist r at o r s w er e u na va ilable due to external constrai

nts, and theref

ore, t he arbi

trat ion a greeme nt between the parti es was imposs ible to enfo rc e. Addit ionally, we find tha t an alt er nat ive administr at or canno t be named by this court because

the designation b

y the parties of two excl

usi ve arbi trat ion organi

zations was

an i nteg ral part of the a greem en t betwe en the p arti es. JURISDICTION On Jan uary 14, 2010, the ci

rcuit court denied Qui

ckClic k’s m ot ion to compel

in div idua l arb i tration and to stay

the proceed

i ngs . On Feb ruary 9, 2010 , Qui

ckCl i ck f i l ed i ts i nterl ocutory appeal . Accordin

gly , this court has j urisdi

ction pursuan

t t o Illin ois Suprem

e Court Rule 307(a)(1) gove rni ng i nterl ocutory appe al s as

of ri ght. Il l . S. Ct. R. 30 7(a)(1 ) (ef

f . Feb . 26, 201 0). BACK GROUND On Decem

ber 2, 2006, Russel

l obtai ned a l oan from Quic kClic k by executi ng a l oan agreem ent and a promi

ssory n ot e. The loan agreem

ent contain

ed an arb itration provi si on, titled “A rbi tration Ag reem en t.” 1 The Arbit ra t ion Agr eement st at es t hat eithe r p ar t y may re quir e t he cl ai m to be arbi

trat ed. It defin

es what cl ai ms are covered, how to start t he arbi trat ion, an

d whi ch of two pr edeterm i ne d a rb i trati on or ga ni za ti ons may be se l ec ted . The s ec ti ons

of the A rb i trati onNo.1-10- 0436

3

A gr eemen

t th at a reat th e c en ter of th e p ar ti es ’ d i spute sta te i n re l ev an t pa rt: “b
. What Claims Are Cove red : ‘C laim’ mea ns a ny cla im dis pute or contro versy

between y

ou and us that in

any way aris es fr o m o rr ela t es t o t he No t e. ‘C laim’ ha s t he br o ad es t po ss ible mea ning , an d in clu de s init ial c laims , co un t er cla ims, cr o ss - cla ims
an d th i rd -p ar ty cl ai m s. It i n cl udes di spute s b as ed

up on con tra ct, t or t , c ons umer right s, fr aud and o t her intent ional t or t s, c ons t itu t ion, st at ut e, re gulat ion, or dinance , c ommo n law and equ ity (includ ing any cl ai m f or inj unctiv

e or declaratory relie f). *** It also i ncl udes di spute s a bou t the va l i di ty , en f orce ab i l i ty , ar bi trabi l i ty or s cop e of thi s A rb i trati on A gre em en t or th e N ote * ** H owe ve r, w e w i l l not ch o o se t o ar bit r at e a n ind ividua l Cla im t ha t yo u b r ing ag ain st us in sma ll cla ims c o ur t o ryo ur st at e’ s e qu iva len t co ur t , if an y. B ut if th at C l ai m i s transf er re d, r em ov ed or a pp ea l ed to a d i f f eren t cou rt, we t hen have t he r ight t o c hoo se a rbit ra t ion.
c. How Arbitration Is Started : Either y ou or we m

ay re quir e any Claim to be ar bitr at ed. Arbit ra t ion is st ar t ed by giving written notice to the ot her party of the in tent t o start or co mpe l arbi trat ion. Thi

s notice m

ay be gi ven bef ore o r after a l awsui

t has been s t ar t ed o ver t he Claim or wit h re spe ct t o o t her Claims bro ught l ater i n th e l aw sui t. The n oti cemay be i n th e f orm of a m oti on orNo.1-10- 0436

4 pe t it io n t o co mpe l ar bit r at io n. Ar bit r at io n o f a C laim mu st co mply wit h t his Arbit ra t ion Agr eement and, t o t he ext ent not incons iste nt or in conf li ct with thi s Arb itration A

greeme nt, the appli

cabl e rules of the arb i

tration adm i nistrator. d. Choosing the Administrator : The party requiring arbitration must choose one of the following ar bitration organizations as the Administrator: American Arbitration Asso ciati on ( ‘AAA’), ***

or N ation al Arb itra tion F

orum(‘N AF’), ***. I n all cases, t he arbitrator(s) mu st be a lawyer w ith more than 1 0 yea rs o

f exper ienc e. If f

or any reason the chosen organization is unable or unw illing or ceases to se

rve as the Administr

ator, the p arty r

equirin g arbitr ation w ill have 2 0 days to choose a different Adminis trator consis tent w

ith the r equire ments of this Arbitration Agreement .” (Em phasi s ad ded) I f t he pa r t ies ch o o se ar bit r at io n, t he y ar e p r o hibit ed fr o m pa r t icip at ing in acla ss ac t io n in cou rt or a cl as s- wi dearbi trati on u nd er th e A rb i trati on A gre em en t. A ddi ti ona l l y , th e A rb i trati on Agreem ent states that it is govern ed by the Federal

Arbi trat ion A ct (Act)(9 U. S.C. § 1 et seq. (2006 ). On

Jul y 17, 200 9, th

e N AF, one of the two a dm i ni stra tors p erm i tted u nd er th e A rb i trati on Agr eement , e nt er ed a co nsent judg ment w ith t he St at e o f Minneso t a fo r t he pu rp os e o f req uiringNo.1-10- 0436

5

“ the com pletedi ve sti ture by the NA F e nti ti esof an y bu si ne ss rel ate d to the a

rb i trati on of consum er dis putes.” Pursuant to this

consent j udgme

nt, the NAF ceased adm

in is tering cons

ume r ar bitr at ions, including t he co unt er claim in this case . Aft er t he NAF c eas ed a dminister ing cons um er arbi trations, the

AA A issued a m

oratoriu m on consum

er deb t coll ection arbi

trations. The AAA po st ed a not ice o n its We b site des cr ibing which claims the mor at or ium cove re d, t he t ime fr ame o f t he mo r at o r ium, an d t he r ea so ns f o rt he mo r at o r ium. Sp ec ifica lly, t he no t ice , in relevan t par t, stat es: “Mat t er s include d in t his mor at or ium are : co nsumer debt co llec t io ns p r o gr ams o rbu lk filing s a nd ind ividua l ca se filing s in wh i ch the com pa ny i s th e f i l i ng pa rty an d the c ons

um er h asnot agreed to arbitrate at the tim e of the di spute and the case i nvol ves *** a cons um er f i na nc e m atter. Th e A A A wi l l con ti nu e to adm i ni ster al l de man dsf or arbi trat ion f il ed by consum ers agai nst busi ness es, and al

l other types of consum

er arbi trat ions .” The n oti ce sta tes th e m ora tori um wi l l b e i n ef f ect un ti l th e “ A A A deter m i n es th at a de qu ate and b roadly acceptable due process prot ocols speci fi c to t hese cases are i

n pl ace.” On No vember 6 , 2 008 , Q uickC lick bega n co llectio n pr oc eed ings ag ainst Rus sell alleging th at s h e h ad de f aul ted un der the l oan ag re em en t an d p rom i ss ory n ote. In i ts c om pl ai n t, Qui ckCl i ck s ought j udgm

en t agai nst Russ el

l i n the am ount of $980.4 8, pl

us the costsof the su

i t.No.1-10- 0436

6

On Ja nuar y 29, 200 9, a de fault judg ment w as e nt er ed a gainst Rus sell. On M ar ch 3, 200 9, t he ci rc ui t cou rt gra n ted Ru ss el l ’s moti on to v ac ate th e Jan ua ry 29 , 20 09 , de f

aul t j udgm en t an d to quash s ervice of the com

pla in t. On March 4, 2009, Russel l f il ed a counterclai

m f or herself and a put at ive class o f simi

larly situ at ed I lli

nois c ons umer s ag ainst Quick Click alleging vio latio ns o f the Truth in Lendi

ng Act (15 U.S. C. §1601 et seq. (2006)), Regulation Z (12 C.F.R. §226.1 et seq. (2008)), t he Il

li nois Consum er Install me nt Loan Act (205 ILCS 670/1 et seq. (We st 2008 )) , and the Ill in ois Interest Act (815 ILCS 205/1 et seq. (West 2008)). On March 6, 2009, QuickClic k fi le d a ci tation to dis cover assets, whi ch the ci rcuit court dism

is sed wi thout prejudi

ce on March 11, 200 9. On July 24, 2 009, QuickClick fil

ed its mot ion to compel arbitrat ion of Russell’s co unt er claims and t o s t ay pr oc eed ings pe nding t he co mplet ion o f arbit ra t ion. In it s mot ion, Qu ick Clic k a ss er t ed t ha t t he Ac t ap plie s t o t his c as e a nd t ha t Ru ss ell’ s c o un t er cla ims fa ll wit hin the scope of the Arb itration A greeme nt between the parti es. Qui ckClic k further argues that under the Arbi trat ion A greeme nt of the loan, Russel

l’ s counterclai

ms mus t be arbi trat ed on an i nd i vi dua l , as oppos ed to a c l as s acti

on, basis. Q

uickCl i ck na med the A A A asthe ad m i ni stra tor for the requ ested ar bi

trat ion. Russell responded that arbitration is i mpossi ble in this case because un der th e A rb i trati on A gre em en t, th e p arti

esm us t ch oose ei the r th e N AF or the A A A , b oth of wh i ch wereun av ai l ab l e. Sp ec i f

i ca l l y , the N AF was un av ai l ab l e d ue to i ts s ettl em en t ag re em en t to not part ici

pat e in consumer arbitrat ions and the AAA was unavail able because QuickClick’s cl ai ms fal l wi thin the AA A’s moratorium

on consum

er arbi trat ions . Russel

l a ls o responded that Qui ckCl i ck wa i ve d i ts arb i tration ri ghts and tha t the al l eged class action wa

i ver i s un enf orceabl e.No.1-10- 0436

7

In i ts reply , QuickCl ic k agreed that the NAF could not admi ni ster the arbitration, b

ut contended tha t the A A A coul d b ec au se

the A A A m orator i um on n ew consu mer d ebt col l ec ti on a rb i trati on filing s, wh er e t he co mpa ny is t he filing pa r t y and t he co nsu mer ha s no t ag r ee d t o ar bit r at io n, did not app l y to the parti

es. On January 14, 2 010, the circuit cou rt enter ed a wr itte n ord er denying QuickCl ick’s
m oti on to co m pe l ar b i tra ti on . Th e c i rc ui t cou rt f oun d th at “ th e P ar ti es ’ a gr eemen t to ar b i tra te falls within t he pu rview of t he [ Act ]; ho weve r, legal co nst ra ints e xt er nal to t he Pa rt ies’ ag re ement for eclo ses t he ar bitr at ion o f Russ ell’s Co unt er claims.” T he circ uit co ur t re aso ned t hat t he Arbit ra t ion Agr eement lim ited t he pa rt ies’ cho ices o f arbit ra t or s t o e ither t he NAF o r t he AAA, neithe r o f which was able t o a dminister t he ar bitr at ion. The circu it co ur t fou nd t hat t he AAA
m orator i um appl i ed to the pa rti es , b ec au se

Qui ckCl i ck wa s th e f i l i ng pa rty f or pu rpos esof
ar bitr at ion. The circu it co ur t re ject ed Q uickC lick’s ar gument t hat t he Arbit ra t ion Agr eement allows parti es 20 day

s to select a non-A

AA or NAF arbi

trat or where both are unabl e to serve as admi ni strat or, in

stead fin din g that the Arbitration Agreement i s clear that t he parties can choose only the AA A or the NAF, n

ot a third-party a

dmi ni strato r. The circui

t cour t sim

il arly rejected Qui ckCl i ck ’s argu men t th at s ecti on

5 of th e A ct a l l ows Qui ckCl i ck to peti ti on th e c i rc ui t cou rt to na me a n a lt er na t ive ad minist r at o r . T he cir cu it co ur t rule d t ha t se ct io n 5 o f t he Ac t do es no t ap ply in t he inst an t ca se be ca us e t he pa r t ies ’ s pe cific de sig na t io n o f an ex clu sive ar bit r at io n fo rum, ei ther the AAA

or t he NA

F, was “ an i

ntegral part of the arb itration cl ause i n the agreem

ent.” On Ja n ua ry 19 , 20 10 , c ounse l

f or Q ui ckCl i ck se n t a l ette r to th e A A A aski n g th e A A A to confi rm Qui ckClic k’s b elie f that the AA

A m orat orium on consum

er debt coll

ection m atter s doesNo.1-10- 0436

8

not app ly to t he pa rt ies. O n Janu ar y 20, 201 0, co unse l for R uss ell sent a let t er t o t he AAA ur ging th e A A A to tak e n o acti on on Qui ckCl i ck ’s l ette r or, i n th e a l ter n ati v e, to re j ect th e a rgum en ts Quick Click pu t for t h in its Ja nuar y 19, 201 0, lett er . O n Mar ch 23 , 2 010 , c ou nsel for t he AAA acknowl edged recei

vi ng both parties ’ comm

unications an

d stated: “Al thou gh the [AAA] has

not t aken any

action in response t o t he r equ est t hat we p re sent ou r view s o n t he ap plicability of t he debt co llectio n ar bitr at ion mo ra t or ium as it r elat es t o t he abo ve re fere nced litigat ion, I w ant ed t o c onfirm o ur po sitio n on t he
ma tt er. Af ter reviewi

ng the parties ’ comm

unications, attached do cument s and t ra nscr ipt s, it is app ar ent t hat t he ap plicability of t he moratorium

has b een thoroughly

li tigated. As such, absen

t mutual ag r ee men t o f t he pa r t ies o ra d ire ct io n fr o m a c o ur t t o do so , it wo uld be inna pp r o pr iat e fo rt he AAA t o be co me inv o lve d in t his
ma tt er.” On Fe b ru ar y 9, 2 01 0, Q

ui ckCl i ck ti mel y f i l ed i ts n oti ce of i n ter l ocu tory appe al pu rsua n t to Supreme C ourt Rul e 307(a) seeki ng revers al

of the ci rcuit court’s January

14, 2010, or der de nying it s mo t io n t o co mpe l ar bit ra t io n an d t o st ay p ro ce ed ings . I ll. S . C t . R . 3 07 (a )( 1) (e ff. Feb . 26, 201 0). AN AL YSIS On appeal, QuickCl

ic k argues the ci

rcuit court err ed by

deny in g its m ot ion to compelNo.1-10- 0436

9

arbi trat ion a nd stay the proceedin

gs. Specif

ic ally , QuickCl ic k argues that the AAA ’s m orat orium do es no t app ly to t his case beca use Rus sell, as t he filer o f the co unt er claim, initiat ed t he
ar bitr at ion. Quick Click fur t her ar gue s t hat unde r t he Arbit ra t ion Agr eement , t he AAA and t he NA F a r e n o t t he ex clu sive ar bit r at io n a dmin ist er s. Fina lly, Q uic kC lick ar gu es t ha t t he cir cu it court erred

i n f i ndi ng th at section 5 of the A ct (9 U.S.C . §5)(20 06)) does not app l y i n th i s ca se. For t hese reasons, in addi tion to QuickCl

ick’s posi tion that the Arbitration Agreement contains a cl as s a cti on wai v er , Q ui ckCl i ck argu es th at th i s c our t sh oul d c om pe l Ru ss el l to s ub m i t to arbitration on an in

div idual , non-class-action basi s. Rus sell rep lies tha t ar bitr at ion in t his case is im po ssible beca use t he Arbit ra t ion Agr eement clearl y ba rs se l ection of

an arb i trator other tha

n the A AA or the NA

F, b oth of w

hi ch are unava ilable. Sp ecifically, the NAF is una vailable beca use it no long er ar bitr at es c ons umer debt
ar b i tra ti on s a n d th e A A A i s u n av ai l ab l e b ec au se

of i ts s el f -i m pos ed mora tori um . R us se l l as se rts tha t the A A A morator i um appl i esto the pa rti esbe ca us e Q uickCl

i ck i s th e f i l i ng pa rty f or pur po ses o f arbit ra t ion. Rus sell also a rg ues t hat Quick Click sho uld no t be ent itled t o r ewr ite t he Arbi tration Ag reem en t in order to choose an

al terna tiv e adm i nistrator under s ection 5 of the A ct. 9 U .S.C . §5 (20 06) . Ru ss el l cl ai m s a n a l tern ati ve ad m i ni stra tor i s f orb i dde n u nd er th e A rb i trati on A gre em en t base d on

the ex pre ss l an gua geof the ag ree men t req ui ri ng tha t an ad m i ni stra tor “consi stent with the requi

remen ts of this Arbi trat ion A greeme nt” be sel ected. In the alternati

ve, Ru ss el l argu es th at Qui ckCl i ck h as wai v ed i ts r i gh t to ar b i tra te d ue to i ts i n con siste n t con duct. Speci fi cally , that QuickCl

ic k sought to li

tigate its colle ction cl

ai ms in ci rcuit court, but force Rus sell to submit t o a rbit ra t ion. Rus sell add itio nally argu es t hat bot h t he Arbit ra t ion Agr eementNo.1-10- 0436

10

an d th e pur por ted cl as s a cti on wai v er i n th e l oan ag re em en t are u n con sc i on ab l e a

n d c on tra ry to pub l i c pol i cy . Ty pical l y , revi ew of i nte rlocu tory appe als is c ond

uc ted un der an ab us e of di screti on stan dard. Vas silk ovska v. W

oodfiel d Nis san, I nc., 358 Ill . App. 3d 20, 24 (2005)(citin g Peregrine Fina ncia ls &

Secu rities v

. Hakakha, 338 Ill. App . 3 d 19 7, 202 (2 003 )) . H ow ever , w her e t he circui t co urt did not hold an evi dentiary h earing an d based its deci sion on a purely legal anal ysi s, the appli cable standard o f revi ew of the circuit court ’s decis ion i s de no vo. Id. See also Czar

nik v. We ndov er F inanc ial Se

rvices, 374 Ill. App . 3 d 11 3, 116 (2 007 ) ( “wher e t he t rial co ur t made no factual fi ndi ngs an d its decisi on was bas ed purely on a question of

la w, the decis ion to deny

[a] motion to compel

arbi trat ion i s revi ewabl e de novo ”). In addi

tion, i ssues of

contractual construction and statuto ry cons truct ion a re reviewed de novo. Avery v. State Farm Mutual Automo bile I

nsur ance Co., 216 Ill . 2d 100, 129 (2005) (“the construct ion, i nterpretat ion, or le gal eff ect o f a contract ” is a question of l aw, and, t hus, appell

ate re view is de novo ); Weather-Tite, Inc. v. U nive rsity of St. F

ranc is, 233 Il

l . 2d 385 , 389 (2 009) (i

ssues of statutory constructi on are reviewed de novo ). In t hi s in terlocut ory appeal, we must deter mi ne “wh ether t here was a suf fi ci ent showi

ng to sustain the c ircui

t cour t’s order denyi

ng the m ot ion to compel

arbi trat ion.” Vas silk ovska, 358 Ill . App. 3d at 24. It i s w el l es tab l i sh ed tha t agree men ts to subm

i t to arb i trati on, asan al tern ati ve meth od of di spute r esol uti on, are f avored at b oth the s

tate an d f edera l l ev el
. Board of Managers of the Courtyards at the W

oodlands Condominium Ass’n v. IKO Chicago, Inc. , 183 Ill . 2d 66, 71 (1998). Congress passed the A ct to “overcom

e the historical

reluctanc e of courts to enf orceNo.1-10- 0436

11

agreem ents to arbitrate” and wi

th the in tent t o “pl ace such

agreem ents on the sam

e footing as ot her contracts.” Car

ter v . SSC O din Op era ting C

o., 237 Ill . 2d 30, 41 (2010). The Act appl ie s to both state a

nd f edera l courts. Per

ry v . Thoma s, 482 U .S. 483, 4 89 (19 87). A l thou gh arbi trati on i s f av ored , an agree men t to su bm i t to arb i trati on i s a matter of contract. Sals itz v

. Kre iss , 198 Ill . 2d 1, 13 (2001). Parties to an agreem ent to ar bi

trat e di sputes “are b ound to arbi

trat e onl y those issues they

have agreed to arbitrate, as shown by the cl ear la nguage of the

agreem ent and thei

r in tentions ex

pressed i n that la nguage.” Id. Thus , “[a

]n arbi trat ion a greeme nt wil l n ot be ex tended by construction or im

pli cation.” Id. Unam

bi guous contract terms

m ust b e gi ven thei r plai n a nd ord i na ry mean i ng. Barth v. State Farm Fire & Cas ualty Co., 228 Ill. 2d 163 , 1 74 ( 200 8) . T o d et er mine whet her ar bitr at ion sho uld be com pel l ed, a c ourt mu st f

i rst determ

i ne wh ethe r the a rbi tration agree men t reach ed th e statutory i ssues. Mitsu bish i Motor s Co rp. v. Soler Ch rys ler- Ply mouth , Inc., 473 U .S. 614, 6 28 (19 85). If the arbi trat ion a greeme nt does reach the statuto ry issues, then a court must determin

e whether any “legal constraints external to t he parties’ agreement foreclosed the arbitration of tho se cl ai ms .” Id. The plai n l anguage of

the Arbi trat ion A greeme nt make s clear that if

a party requi

res ar bitr at ion, it must cho os e eit her t he NAF o r t he AAA. T he Arbit ra t ion Agr eement st at es “t he par t y req uiring a rbit ra t ion must cho os e o ne o f the follow ing ar bitr at ion o rg anizat ions a s t he Adm in is trat or: *** AAA *** or *** NAF .” (Emphas is added.) This

term i s unam

bi guous and, thus, must be giv

en i ts plai n m eani ng. See Barth , 2 28 I ll. 2d a t 174 . T he Arbit ra t ion Agr eement al so makes

cl ear that “[i]f

for any reason the chosen

organiza tion i s unab le

or unwil li ng or ceasesNo.1-10- 0436

12

to serve as

the Adm in is trat or, t he party requi

rin g arbi trat ion wi ll have 20 days to choo se a di f f eren t Adm i nistrator consis tent w

ith the r equire ments o f this Arbitr

ation Agreement. ” (Em ph as i s a dded .) Th i s te

rm i s a l so u n am b i guous an d i ts p l ai n l an gu ag e d i re cts th e p ar ti es to select an alt er nat ive administr at or co nsist ent wit h t he t er ms of t he ag re ement . I n or der t o be co nsistent with t he t erms o f the ag ree ment, the par ties “must choo se” eit her t he AAA or the NAF. In t his case , ne ither t he AAA no r t he NAF w as a vailable to per for m the a rbit ra t ion. The par t ies ag re e t hat t he NAF is u navailable, bu t dispu t e whe t her t he AAA is available. The AAA
m orator i um, h oweve

r, c l ea rl y sta testha t i t wi l l not p arti ci pa te i n a ny consu mer d ebt col l ec ti on programs “i

n wh ic h the com pany is the fi li ng party an

d the consum

er has n ot agreed to arbitrate at t he t ime of t he disp ut e and t he ca se invo lves ** * a c ons umer finance mat t er .” Unde r t he mor at or ium, Qu ickClick is t he fili ng pa rt y becau se it bot h so ught t he ar bitr at ion and fil ed t he initial co mplaint befo re t he circ uit co ur t in this mat t er in Nove mber o f 200 8. Rus sell, as t he co nsu mer , ha s no t ag r ee d t o t he ar bit r at io n. Qu ick Clic k s ee ks t o lit iga t e it s c laims in c o ur t wh ile for cing Ru ssell t o t ake her co unt er claims to ar bitr at ion. The re for e, beca use Quick Click wa s t he f i l i n g p ar ty f or b oth th e i n i ti al dispute an d th e a rb i tra ti on cl ai m , the A A A mora tori um appl i es to the p arti es i

n th i s ca se. Altho ugh t he pa rt ies ag re ed t o a rbit ra t ion, t he exc lusive ad mini st ra t or s, a s o ut lined in the Arbit ra t ion Agr eement , a re not available t o a rbit ra t e t he mat t er . T her efo re , e xt er nal event s t o t he parties’ agree

men t hav e f orecl osed the arb i

tration of the parti

es’ clai m s, an d thus the c i rcui t court could n ot enf orce the Arbi

trat ion A greeme nt. See Mitsu bish i Motor s Co rp., 473 U .S. at 628 (a court mus t deter mi ne wh ether any “l egal constrain ts external

to the parties’ a

greeme nt foreclosedNo.1-10- 0436

13

the a rbi tration of th ose cl ai m s”). Quick Click also ar gue s t hat unde r se ct ion 5 of t he Act a su bst itu t e ar bitr at or sho uld be ap po int ed
. Se ct io n 5 o f t he Ac t allo ws a c o ur t t o ap po int an ar bit r at o rwh er e t he r e is a “ lap se in t he naming o f an ar bitr at or .” 9 U. S. C. §5 ( 200 6) . I n Carr v. Gatew ay, Inc. , our suprem

e court analyzed an ar bitr at ion ag re ement t hat des ignat ed t he NAF a s t he so le arbit ra l foru m for a ny dispu t es be t wee n t he pa rt ies, a nd pr ovid ed fo r p enalt ies for dispu t es br ou ght befo re non- NAF f orum s. Carr v. Gatew

ay, Inc. , N o. 1 09 48 5, s l i

p op . a t 4 ( Il l . F eb . 3, 20 11 ). Th e c our t h el d th at, “section 5 of the Act m

ay be appl ie d to nam

e a subs titute arbitrator where the partie s’ desi gnated arb i tral f orum f ail s, unless t he de sig na t io n o f t he ar bit r al fo rum is integral t o the parties’ agreement to arbitrate. ” (Em phasi s ad ded). Id. at 9. The co ur t re aso ned t hat “[w] her e t he des i gna tion of a n a rbi tral f orum i s onl y an ancil l ary, l ogi sti cal

conc ern and the pri mary consideration i s the i

ntent to arbi

trat e di sputes” a subs

titute arbitrator ma

y b e selected under section 5 of the A ct. Id. The court co ncl

uded that the design

ation of the NA

F as the arb itral f orum wasi nteg ral to the arb i

tration agree men t betwe en the p arti es. Id. at 14. As d isc us se d a bo ve , it is c lea rt ha t t he Ar bit r at io n Ag r ee men t in t his c as e e xc lus ive ly de sig na t es eit he rt he NA F o rt he AAA a s t he o nly ad minist r at o r s t ha t may be ch o se n. T he pla in l anguag e of

the A rbi tration Ag reem en t can not be read as su

pporti ng a ny other con

cl usi on. It cann ot be sai d that t he desi

gnation of

the NAF or t he A AA was an a nci ll ary or a logisti cal co ncer n. T he Arbit ra t ion Agr eement st at es t hat t he pa rt ies “must cho os e” e ither t he NAF o r t he A A A . Th e p l ai n l an gu ag e of th e A rb i tra ti on A gr eemen

t doe s n ot m en ti on an y oth er f ora b ut, ra t her , sp ecifically direct s t he pa rt ies t hat t hey “must cho os e” e ither t he NAF o r t he AAA. T heNo.1-10- 0436

14

la nguage i n the A rbi trat ion A greeme nt is cl ear that the design

ation of the NA

F or the AAA

is an in tegr al part of the Arbitration Agreement. Due t o o ur fi ndi ng i n this cas e, we need not address Rus sel l ’swai ver or pub l i c pol

i cy argum en ts. CONCLUSION For the f oregoi ng r eas ons, th e j udgm en t of the ci rcui t court of C ook County

i s af f i rm ed. Af f i rmed.