Greenwood

Greenwood v. Compucredit Corp.

Good Law
617 F. Supp. 2d 980·2009 WL 902323·2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130808
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMay 11, 2009C 08-04878 CWCalifornia3,432 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wilken, J.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

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

The following facts are alleged in the complaint. Defendant Compucredit marketed a subprime credit card under the brand name Aspire Visa to consumers with low or weak credit scores through massive direct-mail solicitations and the internet. Compucredit is the exclusive marketer and advertiser of Aspire Visa credit cards and the credit cards are issued by Columbus Bank and Trust. Compucredit marketed the card by representing to consumers that an Aspire Visa credit card could be used by the consumer to “rebuild your credit,” “rebuild poor credit,” and “improve your credit rating.” The promotional materials also noted…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.