In Camarillo v. Balboa Thrift & Loan Ass’n, No. 3:20-cv-00913-BEN-BLM, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22351 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2021), Judge Benitez granted a petition to compel arbitration with respect to an FCRA claim arising out of an automobile RISC.
In this case, neither party contends that (1) they lacked the capability to contract, (2) the RISC5 or Arbitration Provision lacked a lawful object, or (3) the RISC or Arbitration Provision lacked consideration. Rather, as part of her argument that there is no valid agreement to arbitrate, Plaintiff advances two arguments: First, she argues that her FCRA claim does not arise out of the alleged relationship between the parties, and is, therefore, not covered by the Arbitration Provision. Oppo. at 14:7-9. Second, Plaintiff contends that expanding the scope of the arbitration agreement to add the FCRA claim that arose after the account was closed, and the Vehicle was surrendered would be unconscionable. Oppo. at 20:24-27. Because the first argument predominantly pertains to whether Plaintiff’s claim falls within the scope of the Arbitration Provision rather than whether the agreement itself is valid, the Court defers addressing that issue until it addresses whether Plaintiff’s claim is covered by the Arbitration Provision. As to mutual consent, Plaintiff argues somewhat paradoxically not that the RISC or its Arbitration Provision are unconscionable or that she did not consent to their terms, but that if the Court interprets them as covering the FCRA claim, it would be unconscionable. Oppo. at 20:24-27. Thus, Plaintiff contends Defendant has failed to show a valid agreement to arbitration. However, the Court finds Plaintiff fails to explain how or why the RISC does not constitute a valid agreement to arbitrate.