Rocket’s Motion to Compel TCPA Claims to Arbitration Was ‘Properly Denied’: Plaintiff
Plaintiff Michael Dahdah is opposing defendant Rocket Mortgage's Dec. 1 motion seeking reconsideration of U.S. District Judge Kay Behm's Nov. 17 order denying Rocket’s motion to compel Dahdah’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims to arbitration (see 2312040036). Dahdah filed his…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
opposition Friday (docket 4:22-cv-11863) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Michigan in Flint. Rocket fails to satisfy “its initial burden with evidence to prove the existence of an agreement to arbitrate and that compelling arbitration would be appropriate,” said the opposition. Rocket incorrectly argues that Behm “applied the wrong law” in her evaluation of “conspicuous notice,” it said. But her discussion “is consistent with the case law,” it said. The judge concluded that Rocket hadn’t met its burden of proof “based on the totality of the circumstances,” it said. Rocket’s motion for reconsideration should be denied because a trial “is not appropriate in the circumstances herein,” said the opposition. In this case, the court evaluated only the evidence presented by Rocket to determine if the arbitration disclosure “was reasonably conspicuous,” it said. A failure of a party’s own evidence can’t create “a material issue of fact,” it said. In finding that Rocket didn’t satisfy its burden of proving that the disclosure was reasonably conspicuous, Behm “correctly found that Rocket had not met its burden of showing a valid arbitration agreement,” it said. The motion to compel arbitration was “properly denied,” so there’s no “factual dispute to try,” it said.