Court Opinion

ID: 9895174
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-05 07:10:53.854661+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:31.856104
License: Public Domain

Reversed and Remanded and Memorandum Opinion filed October 31, 2023.

                                     In The

                    Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                             NO. 14-22-00772-CV

                      CLINTON J. POHLER, Appellant
                                       V.
                      CAVALRY SPV I, LLC, Appellee

                      On Appeal from the County Court
                            Llano County, Texas
                        Trial Court Cause No. 03030

                 MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellee Cavalry SPV I, LLC (“Cavalry”) sued appellant Clinton J. Pohler
in the justice court of Llano County, Texas, seeking to collect the outstanding
balance on a Costco Visa credit card. After denying Pohler’s motion to compel
arbitration, the justice court signed a final judgment in Cavalry’s favor. Pohler
appealed to the county court and reasserted his motion to compel arbitration. The
county court denied Pohler’s motion to compel and signed a final judgment
awarding Cavalry approximately $8,600 in damages.
       Pohler filed this appeal.1 For the reasons below, we reverse the county
court’s final judgment and remand the case for further proceedings.

                                         BACKGROUND

       In December 2017, Pohler opened a Costco Visa credit card issued by
Citibank, N.A. Approximately $8,500 was owed on the card when the account was
closed for nonpayment in January 2021.

       Cavalry, as assignee of Citibank, N.A., sued Pohler in the Llano County
justice court to collect the outstanding debt. Cavalry also filed a business records
affidavit and accompanying documents showing (1) Pohler opened the credit card
account, (2) charges were made on the account before it was closed for
nonpayment, and (3) Cavalry purchased ownership of the account from Citibank,
N.A.

       Pohler filed objections to and a motion to strike Cavalry’s business records
affidavit and the accompanying documents. Pohler also filed a motion to compel
arbitration, citing the arbitration provision in the credit card agreement issued by
Citibank, N.A. In relevant part, this provision states:

       PLEASE READ THIS PROVISION OF THE AGREEMENT
       CAREFULLY.
       This section provides that disputes may be resolved by binding
       arbitration. Arbitration replaces the right to go to court, have a jury
       trial or initiate or participate in a class action. In arbitration, disputes
       are resolved by an arbitrator, not a judge or jury. Arbitration
       procedures are simpler and more limited than in court. This

       1
         The Supreme Court of Texas transferred this case from the Third Court of Appeals to
our court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 73.001. In cases transferred by the high court from one
court of appeals to another, the transferee court must decide the case in accordance with the
precedent of the transferor court under principles of stare decisis if the transferee court’s decision
otherwise would have been inconsistent with the precedent of the transferor court. Tex. R. App.
P. 41.3.

                                                  2
arbitration provision is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act
(FAA), and shall be interpreted in the broadest way the law will allow.
Covered claims
   • You or we may arbitrate any claim, dispute, or controversy
     between you and us arising out of or related to your Account, a
     previous related Account or our relationship (called “Claims”).
   • If arbitration is chosen by any party, neither you nor we
     will have the right to litigate that Claim in court or have a
     jury trial on that Claim.
Except as stated below, all Claims are subject to arbitration, no matter
what legal theory they’re based on or what remedy (damages, or
injunctive or declaratory relief) they seek, including Claims based on
contract, tort (including intentional tort), fraud, agency, your or our
negligence, statutory or regulatory provisions, or any other sources of
law; Claims made as counterclaims, cross-claims, third-party claims,
interpleaders or otherwise; Claims made regarding past, present or
future conduct; and Claims made independently or with other claims.
This also includes Claims made by or against anyone connected with
us or you or claiming through us or you, such as a co-applicant,
Authorized User, employee, agent, representative or an
affiliated/parent/subsidiary company.
Arbitration limits
   • Individual Claims filed in small claims court are not subject to
     arbitration, as long as the matter stays in small claims court.
   • We won’t initiate arbitration to collect a debt from you unless
     you choose to arbitrate or assert a Claim against us. If you
     assert a Claim against us, we can choose to arbitrate, including
     actions to collect a debt from you. You may arbitrate on an
     individual basis Claims brought against you, including Claims
     to collect a debt.
               *                   *                  *
Survival and Severability of Terms
This arbitration provision shall survive changes in this Agreement and
termination of the Account or the relationship between you and us,
including the bankruptcy of any party and any sale of your Account,
or amounts owed on your Account, to another person or entity.
                                   3
(emphasis in original). The agreement also states that (1) Citibank, N.A. “may
assign any or all of our rights and obligations under this Agreement to a third
party”; and (2) “Federal law and the law of South Dakota govern the terms and
enforcement of this agreement.”

       The justice court denied both of Pohler’s motions before signing a final
judgment in favor of Cavalry. Pohler appealed the case to the county court of
Llano County. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 506.1(a), 506.3. At a hearing held in June
2022, Pohler reasserted his motion to strike and motion to compel arbitration.
After hearing argument from both parties, the county court denied Pohler’s motion
to compel arbitration 2 and signed a final judgment on June 20, 2022.

       On July 14, 2022, Cavalry filed a “Notice of Nonsuit with Prejudice,” asking
the county court to enter a nonsuit with prejudice on all its claims against Pohler.
The county court signed an order granting Cavalry’s request. But approximately
one month later, the county court signed an order nunc pro tunc denying Cavalry’s
requested nonsuit and stating, in relevant part:

       On July 14, 2022, Cavalry SPV I, LLC filed its Motion for Nonsuit
       with Prejudice. The court initially granted the Motion for Nonsuit
       with Prejudice, but has since determined that it lacked the authority to
       do so pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 162. [3]

       2
        The trial court did not rule on Pohler’s motion to strike in either a written order or at the
June 2022 hearing.
       3
         According to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 162, a nonsuit may be taken “[a]t any time
before the plaintiff has introduced all of his evidence other than rebuttal evidence.” See Tex. R.
Civ. P. 162(a); see also Hyundai Motor Co. v. Alvarado, 892 S.W.2d 853, 855 (Tex. 1995) (per
curiam) (“Once a judge announces a decision that adjudicates a claim, that claim is no longer
subject to the plaintiff’s right to nonsuit.”); In re E.H., No. 02-14-00352-CV, 2015 WL 4694142,
at *1 n.3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 6, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.) (Father filed a notice of
nonsuit two months after the final judgment was signed; the court concluded that “[t]he nonsuit
[] was ineffective because it was not timely”); Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. Nelson, 889
S.W.2d 312, 323 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, writ denied) (the plaintiffs did not
attempt to nonsuit until the day after the close of evidence; “[t]hus, their attempt to non-suit was
                                                 4
            Therefore, the Court will issue an Order Nunc Pro Tunc denying
            Cavalry SPV I, LLC Motion for Nonsuit with Prejudice.

     The county court instructed the parties to submit proposed findings of fact and
     conclusions of law. Cavalry filed a “Request for Dismissal” stating that it “fully
     settled this matter” with Pohler and asking the county court to dismiss the case
     with prejudice. The county court did not rule on the requested dismissal. Pohler
     timely appealed.

                                              ANALYSIS

            Pohler raises three issues on appeal, which we consolidate as follows:

            1.     the justice court and county court erred by denying Pohler’s motion to
                   compel arbitration; 4 and
            2.     the county court erred by denying Pohler’s objections to and motion
                   to strike Cavalry’s business records affidavit and accompanying
                   documents.
 Cavalry did not file a responsive appellate brief nor any other motion for relief in
 this court.        Because we sustain Pohler’s first issue, we need not reach his
 remaining issues.

I.          Standard of Review and Governing Law

            Pohler represents himself pro se on appeal. A pro se litigant is held to the
 same standards as a licensed attorney and must comply with all applicable rules of
 procedure, including appellate rules; otherwise, a pro se litigant would benefit
 from an unfair advantage over parties who are represented by counsel. Mansfield
 State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184-85 (Tex. 1978); Ratliff v. King, No. 03-

     ineffective and the trial court erred in granting their motion”).
             4
               Although the denial of a motion to compel arbitration may be challenged via
     interlocutory appeal (see 9 U.S.C.A. § 16; Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.016), it also
     may be challenged on appeal from a final judgment. See Bonsmara Nat. Beef Co. v. Hart of Tex.
     Cattle Feeders, LLC, 603 S.W.3d 385, 390-97 (Tex. 2020).

                                                   5
08-00424-CV, 2009 WL 2837706, at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 31, 2009, no
pet.) (mem. op.).

       We review the denial of a motion to compel arbitration for an abuse of
discretion. Henry v. Cash Biz, LP, 551 S.W.3d 111, 115 (Tex. 2018); Meritage
Homes of Tex., LLC v. Pouye, No. 03-21-00281-CV, 2023 WL 4139033, at *2
(Tex. App.—Austin June 23, 2023, no pet. h.) (mem. op.). “We defer to the trial
court’s factual determinations if they are supported by evidence but review its legal
determinations de novo.” Henry, 551 S.W.3d at 115.

       As set out above, the credit card agreement’s arbitration provision states that
it is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). “Under the FAA, a party
seeking to compel arbitration must establish the existence of a valid arbitration
agreement and the existence of a dispute within the scope of the agreement.” Baby
Dolls Topless Saloons, Inc. v. Sotero, 642 S.W.3d 583, 585-86 (Tex. 2022) (per
curiam). If one party resists arbitration, the trial court first must determine whether
a valid arbitration agreement exists — a question of law we review de novo. Id. at
586.   Once an arbitration agreement is found to exist, doubts regarding an
agreement’s scope are resolved in favor of arbitration because there is a strong
presumption favoring agreements to arbitrate. Rich v. Cantilo & Bennett, L.L.P.,
492 S.W.3d 755, 760 (Tex. App.—Austin 2016, pet. denied).

       “Under the FAA, ordinary principles of state contract law determine whether
there is a valid agreement to arbitrate.” In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166
S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding). Therefore, in accordance with the
credit card agreement’s terms, we rely on South Dakota law for this determination.
See id.; see also, e.g., Bell-Sparrow v. SFG*Proschoicebeauty, No. 18-cv-06707-
YGR, 2019 WL 1201835, at *4-8 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2019) (examining a
substantially similar credit card agreement issued by Citibank, N.A., the court

                                          6
  applied South Dakota law to determine whether the arbitration agreement was
  valid).

         When interpreting a contract, we are guided by the language the parties used
  to determine their intention. Powers v. Powers, 974 N.W.2d 706, 713 (S.D. 2022).
  We examine the contract as a whole and give words their plain and ordinary
  meaning. Id. In sum, we interpret the contract so as to give a reasonable and
  effective meaning to all its terms, without examining any particular words or
  phrases in isolation. Tri-City Assocs., L.P. v. Belmont, Inc., 845 N.W.2d 911, 915
  (S.D. 2014).

II.      Application

         In the justice court and county court, Pohler argued that the Citibank, N.A.
  credit card agreement entitled him to compel arbitration of his dispute with
  Cavalry. 5

         We begin with the question of whether a valid arbitration agreement exists
  between the parties. See Baby Dolls Topless Saloons, Inc., 642 S.W.3d at 585-86.
  Here, the credit card agreement’s arbitration provision is broadly worded and
  applies to “any claim, dispute, or controversy between you and us arising out of or
  related to your Account, a previous related account or our relationship.” Although
  the agreement defines “us” as Citibank, N.A., the agreement also states that
  (1) Citibank, N.A. “may assign any or all of our rights and obligations under this

         5
            Although Pohler filed a motion to compel arbitration in the justice court, he did not re-
  file this motion in the county court. However, one of our sister courts recently has held that,
  given the nature of an appeal from justice court to county court, re-filing a motion is not
  necessary to preserve error. See Duchouquette v. Prestigious Pets, LLC, No. 05-16-01163-CV,
  2017 WL 5109341, at *3-4 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 6, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (because “the
  TCPA motion was filed in the justice court . . . there was no need to re-file it in the subsequent
  county court appeal”). Moreover, Pohler reasserted the arguments in his motion to compel
  arbitration at the June 2022 county court hearing, which the county court denied in an oral ruling.
  See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a).

                                                  7
Agreement to a third party”; (2) the arbitration provision “shall survive changes in
this Agreement and termination of the Account or the relationship between you
and [Citibank, N.A.]”; and (3) the arbitration provision includes “Claims made by
. . . anyone connected with [Citibank, N.A.] . . . or claiming through [Citibank,
N.A.] . . . or by someone making a claim through [Citibank, N.A.].” Giving these
terms their plain meaning, we conclude that they express the parties’ intent that the
arbitration provision bind Cavalry as assignee of Pohler’s credit card account with
Citibank, N.A.    See Powers, 974 N.W.2d at 713; Tri-City Assocs., L.P., 845
N.W.2d at 915; see also, e.g., Hejamadi v. Midland Funding, LLC, No. 18-cv-
13203 (KSH) (CLW), 2022 WL 970248, at *1-2, *5 (D. N.J. Mar. 31, 2022)
(examining a substantially similar credit card agreement issued by Citibank, N.A.,
the court held that the arbitration provision included disputes pursued by the
company that purchased ownership of credit card accounts from Citibank, N.A.).
Therefore, we conclude that the parties are bound by a valid arbitration agreement.
See Baby Dolls Topless Saloons, Inc., 642 S.W.3d at 585-86.

      We also conclude that the parties’ dispute falls within the scope of the
arbitration agreement. Two statements in particular bear on this analysis:

      •      “Individual claims filed in small claims court are not subject to
             arbitration, as long as the matter stays in small claims court.”
      •      “You may arbitrate on an individual basis Claims brought against you,
             including Claims to collect a debt.”
Read together and given their plain meaning, these statements provide that an
individual may seek arbitration of a debt-collection claim brought against him,
excluding those claims in small claims court. Pohler argues that, once he appealed
his case de novo to the county court, it was outside the scope of the “small claims

                                         8
court” limitation. 6 We agree.

       As relevant here, a county court “has appellate jurisdiction in civil cases
over which the justice courts have original jurisdiction in cases in which the
judgment appealed from or the amount in controversy exceeds $250, exclusive of
costs.” Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 26.042(e). Pohler’s appeal from the justice court
judgment was an appeal de novo, meaning that the entire case is presented to the
county court “as if there had been no previous trial.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 510.10(c); see
also, e.g., Mahrou v. White, No. 03-22-00058-CV, 2023 WL 4980971, at *5 (Tex.
App.—Austin Aug. 4, 2023, no pet. h.) (mem. op.). “Because of the de novo
nature of the proceedings, a county court does not sit as a true appellate court and
does not review the justice court’s decision for legal error; instead, it tries the case
for itself as if no ruling had ever been made in the justice court.” Mahrou, 2023
WL 4980971, at *5. Accordingly, cases appealed from the justice court (like the
case here) essentially proceed as new actions in the county court. See id.

       Moreover, Texas statutes and prior caselaw from the Austin Court of
Appeals indicate that county courts are separate and apart from small claims
courts. See, e.g., Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 31.005 (“A judgment or a
determination of fact or law in a proceeding in small claims court or justice of the
peace court is not res judicata and does not constitute a basis for estoppel by
judgment in a proceeding in a county court or statutory county court[.]”)
(emphasis added); Kohler v. Chiquillo, No. 03-14-00503-CV, 2016 WL 3924430,

       6
         In the justice court, Pohler also argued that the “small claims court” limitation did not
preclude arbitration because “small claims courts” no longer exist in Texas following the 82nd
Legislative Session. See Act of June 27, 2011, 82d Leg., C.S., ch. 3, § 5.06(b), 2011 Tex. Gen.
Laws 5225 (“On the effective date of this section, each small claims court under Chapter 28,
Government Code, is abolished.”). However, because we conclude that Pohler was entitled to
compel arbitration once the case was appealed to county court, we need not resolve this
contention.

                                                9
at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin July 15, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.) (stating that “[t]his
cause originated as a small-claims-court lawsuit” and later was “appeal[ed] de
novo to the county court at law”) (emphasis added); Rader v. Berry, No. 03-11-
00810-CV, 2013 WL 6665075, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 11, 2013, no pet.)
(mem. op.) (“The small claims court awarded [appellant] $1,250, and he appealed
to the county court.”) (emphasis added).

      Reading the arbitration provision in light of this jurisprudence, it is clear that
(1) the county court cannot be equated with a “small claims court”, and (2) Pohler
proceeded with a new case in the county court.             Therefore, the arbitration
provision’s exclusion of claims “filed in small claims court . . . as long as the
matter stays in small claims court” does not apply to Pohler’s de novo appeal in the
county court.

      In sum, we conclude that (1) a valid arbitration agreement between the
parties exists, and (2) the parties’ dispute falls within the scope of that arbitration
agreement.      See Baby Dolls Topless Saloons, Inc., 642 S.W.3d at 585-86.
Therefore, the county court abused its discretion when it denied Pohler’s motion to
compel arbitration. See Henry, 551 S.W.3d at 115. We sustain Pohler’s issue
challenging the denial of his motion to compel arbitration.

                                    CONCLUSION

      We reverse the county court’s June 20, 2022 final judgment and remand the
case to the county court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

                                           10
                                      /s/    Meagan Hassan
                                             Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Bourliot and Hassan.

                                        11