UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JACOB J. DANLEY and

JEFFREY J. MACINTYRE, JR.,

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 15-CV-11535

vs.

HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP, INC.,

MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, and

MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL

ARBITRATION AND DISMISS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE [DOC. 27]

 

Plaintiffs filed this case under the Fair Debt Collection Act and Michigan

Collection Practices Act. Defendants purchase credit card debts from banks and other

debt buyers after the bank has charged off the debts. Under federal banking

regulations, a credit card debt must be charged off when it is 180 days overdue. 

Charge-off means that the credit card receivable is no longer carried on the bank’s

books as an asset. As a standard practice, most banks waive interest on credit card

debts after charge off because banks are not required to send periodic statements for

an account that has been charged off. Plaintiffs allege that defendants added interest to

debts for the period after charge off and waiver by the original bank creditor. 

Plaintiffs argue that defendants did not purchase the right to add or reassess or

collect interest once it had been waived and extinguished by the bank. Nonetheless,

-1-

2:15-cv-11535-GCS-EAS Doc # 31 Filed 12/01/15 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 862
defendants made efforts to collect the post charge-off interest from the debtors whose

accounts they purchased. For those debtors who did not pay in response to the

telephonic and mail collection actions, defendants filed lawsuits against the debtors. 

In this lawsuit, plaintiffs allege defendants violated various sections of the federal

and Michigan collection statutes by adding and attempting to collect interest that has

been charged off by the original owner of the debt. The matter is presently before the

court on defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, and dismiss plaintiffs’ case, pursuant

to the arbitration clauses contained in the credit card agreements allegedly entered by

plaintiffs and the banks. 

1. Plaintiff Danley’s Citibank Credit Card Account

Plaintiff Jacob J. Danley opened a credit card account issued by Citibank on April

6, 2009, with an account number ending in 5718. Defendants’ Exhibit C includes a

sample of the credit card agreement that allegedly governed Danley’s Citibank account

on the date of charge off. (Dec of Michael Berger, ¶ 8; Citibank letter in response to

subpoena, Ex. C, p. 1). Danley made purchases on the account, and stopped making

payments on July 23, 2009. The account was charged off on March 16, 2010. 

The sample credit card agreement contains an arbitration provision: 

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”).

* * * 

Not only ours and yours, but also Claims made by or against anyone

connected with us or you or claiming through us or you, such as a coapplicant or authorized user of your account, an employee, agent,

-2-

2:15-cv-11535-GCS-EAS Doc # 31 Filed 12/01/15 Pg 2 of 8 Pg ID 863
representative, affiliated company, predecessor or successor, heir,

assignee, or trustee in bankruptcy.

The arbitration provision also contains a class action waiver provision: “Claims

and remedies sought as part of a class action . . . are also subject to arbitration on an

individual (non-class, non-representative) basis, and the arbitrator may award relief only

on an individual (non-class, non-representative) basis.” 

The arbitration agreement provides that it is “governed by the Federal Arbitration

Act (the “FAA”).” (Ex. C, p. 214). The Credit Card Agreement provides that Citibank

may assign the Agreement: “We may assign any or all of our rights and obligations

under this Agreement to a third party.” (Ex. C, p. 217). The arbitration provision states

that it “shall survive: (I) termination or changes in the Agreement, the account, or the

relationship between you and us concerning the account; (ii) the bankruptcy of any

party; and (iii) any transfer, sale or assignment of your account, or any amounts owed

on your account, to any other person or entity.” (Ex. C, p. 217). 

On March 29, 2013, Citibank allegedly sold and assigned Danley’s Citibank

Account to Thunderbolt Holdings. The Bill of Sale and Assignment in Exhibit A states

that it assigns “the Accounts described in Exhibit 1 and the final electronic file.” Exhibit

1 redacts all of the Account information, and there is no electronic file provided in the

exhibits. On the same date, Thunderbolt allegedly sold and assigned the Citibank

Account to defendant Midland Funding. Again, all references to accounts have been

redacted. Exhibit B is an abstract of data from the Excel file pertaining to Danley’s

Citbank account, allegedly contained in the electronic records provided by Thunderbolt

in connection with the sale of accounts by Thunderbolt to defendants.

-3-

2:15-cv-11535-GCS-EAS Doc # 31 Filed 12/01/15 Pg 3 of 8 Pg ID 864
2. Plaintiff McIntyre’s Citibank Home Depot Credit Card Account

Jeffrey J. McIntyre, Jr. opened a Home Depot branded credit card account

issued by Citibank on September 25, 2003, with an account number ending in 8762. 

The Citibank Home Depot Account was governed by a Credit Card Agreement. (Berger

Dec. ¶ 13). The Credit Card Agreement is embedded in an account statement from

January 2009 and is attached as Exhibit C to Berger’s Declaration. (Ex C, pp. 1, 140-

47). McIntyre stopped making payments on the Citibank Home Depot Account by

August 31, 2009. The Account was charged off on April 6, 2010. 

The Citibank Home Depot Account Credit Card Agreement had the same

provisions as described above with regard to the purported Danley Citibank Credit Card

Account. This includes the arbitration provision, class action waiver, Federal Arbitration

Act, Assignment provision, and arbitration survival provision. 

Pursuant to the Bill of Sale and Assignment executed on March 23, 2011,

Citibank purportedly sold and assigned the Citibank Home Depot Account to Midland

Funding. (Berger ¶ 12). The Bill of Sale states that it includes the “Accounts described

in Exhibit 1 and the final electronic file.” (Exhibit D). However, Exhibit 1 has the word

“redacted” where the accounts should be listed, and an Affidavit of Sale of Account

states that “[a]s part of the sale of the Accounts, certain electronic records were

transferred on individual accounts to the debt buyer. These records were kept in the

ordinary course of business of creditor.” (Exhibit D). Exhibit E is an abstract of the data

from the Excel file pertaining to the McIntyre Citibank Home Depot account. 

-4-

2:15-cv-11535-GCS-EAS Doc # 31 Filed 12/01/15 Pg 4 of 8 Pg ID 865
3. McIntyre’s Chase Credit Card Account

Plaintiff McIntyre opened a credit card account issued by Chase Bank on

September 20, 2007, with an account number ending in 3359. The Chase Account was

governed by a Credit Card Agreement. (Berger ¶ 18; Ex. H, p. 4). McIntyre used his

Chase Account and stopped making payments by January 13, 2010. The Account was

charged off on August 31, 2010. 

The Credit Card Agreement attached to Exhibit H contains an arbitration

provision providing that either party may elect mandatory, binding arbitration, without

the other’s consent, of any claim, dispute or controversy by either party. The

Agreement also contains a class action waiver, states it is governed by the Federal

Arbitration Act, provides that Chase may assign the agreement, states that the

arbitration provision survives, and has an anti-waiver clause. However, Exhibit H is a

sample credit card agreement, which is dated 2007. Plaintiffs point out that Chase

eliminated its arbitration agreement in 2009 for all current consumers holding its card as

part of the Ross litigation. Ross, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A. (USA), et al., S.D.N.Y.

Case No. 05 CV 7116. 

Pursuant to the Bill of Sale and Assignment executed on March 28, 2012, Chase

allegedly sold and assigned the Chase Account to Midland Funding. (Berger ¶ 17;

Exhibit F). All references to accounts involved in the sale and assignment are redacted. 

Exhibit G is an abstract of the data from the Excel file pertaining to McIntyre’s Chase

account. 

On May 14, 2015, plaintiffs filed their Amended class action complaint against

the Midland defendants alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15,

-5-

2:15-cv-11535-GCS-EAS Doc # 31 Filed 12/01/15 Pg 5 of 8 Pg ID 866
U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (FDCPA), and the Michigan Collection Practices Act, MCL §

445.251, et seq. (MCPA), in which plaintiffs allege the Midland defendants sought to

collect post charge-off interest that had been waived by their original creditors. The

defendants notified plaintiffs of their election to arbitrate the matter, but plaintiffs

refused. The defendants therefore brought the present motion to compel arbitration.

ANALYSIS

The FAA represents a “liberal federal policy favoring arbitration” and the

“fundamental principle that arbitration is a matter of contract.” AT&T Mobility LLC v.

Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740, 1745 (2011). When a contract contains an arbitration

clause, there is a presumption in favor of arbitrability. Huffman v. Hilltop Cos., LLC, 747

F.3d 391, 394 (6th Cir. 2014). When faced with a motion to compel arbitration, “the

court must engage in a limited review to determine whether the dispute is arbitrable;

meaning that a valid agreement to arbitrate exists between the parties and that the

specific dispute falls within the substantive scope of that agreement.” Javitch v. First

Union Securities, Inc., 315 F.3d 619, 624 (6th Cir. 2003). 

The preliminary issue to be decided in this case is whether there was an

arbitration agreement governing the parties’ relationship. It is not clear that the sample

or embedded credit card agreements provided by defendants are the same agreements

accepted by plaintiffs. The Citibank letter submitted in response to defendant’s

subpoena for credit card account records is telling of the lack of certainty that the

evidence contains the proper agreements:

. . . Enclosed are the available statement copies on Jacob Danley’s Citi

credit card account. Also enclosed is a sample of the Card Agreement in

place on the date of charge off.

-6-

2:15-cv-11535-GCS-EAS Doc # 31 Filed 12/01/15 Pg 6 of 8 Pg ID 867
Also enclosed are the available statement copies on Jeffrey McIntyre’s

Home Depot credit card account. The Card Agreements are embedded in

the statements.

After a diligent search, we did not locate any documents responsive to

your remaining requests.

(Exhibit C, p. 1, emphasis added). The court is not in a position to analyze the terms of

any arbitration agreement or class action waiver until it knows it is looking at the

relevant agreements. Unauthenticated sample credit card agreements, one dated many

years after the credit card was first used and therefore accepted by plaintiff, is not the

type of evidence the court can use to support an order compelling arbitration. 

Next, the Purchase Agreement is the document that describes what exactly

defendants acquired from Citibank and Chase, through Thunderbolt. The Purchase

Agreement allegedly conveys all rights, title and interests in and to each of the

purchased accounts. However, the Purchase Agreement has not been produced in

evidence. The court cannot determine if the credit card agreements binding the

plaintiffs and the banks were conveyed to defendants along with the debts that were

purchased. 

There are other issues aside from the main ones described above, such as what

impact the Ross settlement had on the Chase account, that similarly cannot be decided

due to a lack of evidence or legal authority presented to the court. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and

dismiss action is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Dated: December 1, 2015

-7-

2:15-cv-11535-GCS-EAS Doc # 31 Filed 12/01/15 Pg 7 of 8 Pg ID 868
s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

December 1, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marcia Beauchemin

Deputy Clerk

-8-

2:15-cv-11535-GCS-EAS Doc # 31 Filed 12/01/15 Pg 8 of 8 Pg ID 869