In Hagy v. Demers & Adams, LLC,  2012 WL 359577 (S.D.Ohio 2012), Judge Kemp enforced an arbitration clause and referred FDCPA matters arising out of collection on a promissory note to arbitration. 



The arbitration agreement here covers “[a]ll disputes, claims, or controversies arising from or relating to this contract or the relationships which result from this contract….” Each of the Hagys’ claims against the Green Tree Defendants, which claims arise under the FDCPA, the OCSPA, and the Ohio common law of invasion of privacy, are premised on the Hagys’ allegation that the Green Tree Defendants wrongfully attempted to collect a debt which was initially created by the promissory note containing the arbitration clause and purportedly extinguished when the Hagys signed and delivered a deed in lieu of foreclosure. It would be impossible for the Hagys to prove any of these claims without introducing into evidence, and referring to, the promissory note and the debt relationship which it created. Consequently, all of these claims seem to fit neatly within the language of the arbitration clause which includes, as arbitrable disputes, matters “relating to … the relationships arising out of [the note]….”     Were this Court to reach that result, it would not be alone. Other courts have interpreted similar arbitration clauses in a similar way. See, e.g., Wilder v. Midland Credit Mgmt., 2010 WL 2499701, *4 (N.D.Ga. May 20, 2010) (holding that where arbitration agreement covered claims “arising from or relating to this Agreement or the relationships which result from this Agreement,” the arbitration agreement was broad enough to cover FDCPA claim involving actions undertaken in collecting a debt that related to a credit account); Miller v. Northwest, 2005 WL 1711131, *4 (E.D.Wash. July 20, 2005) (finding plaintiffs’ FDCPA claims fell within the scope of a loan agreement because they “arise from” the debt created by the note and the “relationships which result from” the note).