In Brown v. DIRECTV, LLC, 2013 WL 3273811 (C.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Gee ordered a TCPA case to arbitration, notwithstanding the Plaintiff’s argument that the claim was outside the scope of the clause.
This action is about whether collection calls were legal under TCPA. Other district courts have compelled arbitration of TCPA claims in similar circumstances. See, e.g., Cayanan v. Citi Holdings, Inc., –––F.Supp.2d ––––, 12–CV–1476–MMA JMA, 2013 WL 784662, at *20 (S.D.Cal. Mar. 1, 2013) (calls made to plaintiffs “because Plaintiffs had failed to make timely payments on their accounts,” “for the limited purpose of collecting money owed them,” and “not … for advertising, marketing, or other purposes unrelated to the accounts,” were “ ‘related to’ the delinquent credit accounts” and thus TCPA claims based on those calls were covered by Citi arbitration clause); Coppock v. Citigroup, Inc., C11–1984–JCC, 2013 WL 1192632, at (W.D.Wash. Mar. 22, 2013) (same); McNamara v. Royal Bank of Scotland Grp., PLC, 11–CV–2137–L WVG, 2012 WL 5392181, at *7 (S.D.Cal. Nov. 5, 2012) (same). Canayan, Coppock, and McNamara found that collection calls were “related to” unpaid credit card contracts, to which collection is undoubtedly more central, but the principle remains the same. Indeed, the Agreement expressly contemplates collection in paragraph 2(g): “Collection Costs. To the extent permitted by law, you will pay us any costs and fees we reasonably incur to collect amounts you owe us.” (McCarthy Decl, Ex. A, at 7.) Brown’s TCPA claim alleges that the attempts to collect were illegal. The ability to collect on an unpaid contract is “related to” that contract and, here, that is all that is required for the claims against DIRECTV to fall within the scope of the arbitration clause. Similarly, because the UCL claim relies on and is derivative of the TCPA claim, it too “relates to” the Agreement.