Greenwood v. Compucredit Corp.
District Court, N.D. California
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
CLAUDIA WILKEN, District Judge.
Defendants Compucredit Corporation and Columbus Bank and Trust move to compel Plaintiffs Wanda Greenwood, Ladelle Hatfield and Deborah McCleese to arbitrate their claims brought pursuant to the Credit Repair Organization Act (CROA). Plaintiffs oppose the motion. The motion was heard on February 26, 2009. Having considered all of the parties’ papers and oral argument on the motion, the Court denies Defendants’ motion. The Court concludes that CROA prohibits consumers from waiving their right to sue.
BACKGROUND
Th…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Rodriguez De Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Green Tree Financial Corp.-Alabama v. RandolphSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Compucredit Corp. v. GreenwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 2012
- Compucredit Corp. v. GreenwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 2012