Chai

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Chai filed a complaint against NES in 2020, claiming that, on an unknown date, he was “alleged to have incurred a financial obligation in the form of a consumer credit account owed to Citibank, N.A. [Citibank].” He admitted that he was unable to pay the debt and defaulted. Chai contended that Citibank sold the debt to USI Solutions, Inc. (USI), for “collection purposes.” USI thereafter “hired, contracted, or otherwise engaged” NES to collect the debt on USI’s behalf. Chai asserted in the complaint that NES engaged in a routine practice of sending initial communications that failed to provide notice as required by Civil Code section 1788.14, subdivision (d)(2), which governs attempts to collect “time-barred” debts—those that are “past the date of obsolescence set forth in Section 605(a) of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 1691c). . . .” (Civ. Code, § 1788.14, subd. (d)(2).) After filing a response to the complaint, in which it alleged that Chai’s claims might be subject to an arbitration provision contained within the agreement between Chai and Citibank, NES filed a motion to compel arbitration. In support of the motion,…