Farr v. Acima Credit, LLC

Background

Sieara Farr moved for reconsideration of the court’s earlier order denying class certification. She had opted out of the arbitration clause in her agreement with Acima Credit LLC. The court previously ruled that she could not satisfy the typicality and adequacy requirements for representing a proposed class whose members had not also opted out of arbitration.

Farr argued that the proposed class members’ claims for equitable relief were outside the arbitration clause. The agreement included a provision, identified as “Row 11,” stating that the parties could seek remedies that did not claim money damages, including pre-judgment seizure, injunctions, or equitable relief.

Court’s reasoning

The court denied reconsideration. It explained that reconsideration of an earlier order is an extraordinary remedy generally appropriate only for newly discovered evidence, clear error or manifest injustice, or an intervening change in controlling law. The court also noted that Farr relied on the same language and reasoning she had previously presented.

The court clarified its interpretation of Row 11. It held that the provision described the types of remedies available to the parties, rather than procedural alternatives to arbitration. The court therefore concluded that Row 11 did not exempt claims for equitable relief from the arbitration clause. It also relied on the clause’s broad language covering all disputes, including claims concerning the clause’s validity, scope, and whether a dispute must be arbitrated.

The court further noted that the agreement separately identified its alternatives to arbitration: informal dispute resolution, small-claims court within legal limits, and opting out of arbitration. It found that those provisions did not exempt equitable-relief claims from arbitration. The court rejected Farr’s additional arguments based on Acima’s business model and the rule construing contract ambiguities against the drafter, noting that the latter argument could have been raised earlier and that the court had previously found the proposed interpretation would create an unreasonable result.

Rulings and case status

The motion for reconsideration was DENIED. The court maintained its denial of class certification, although it stated that its ruling did not prevent Farr from seeking public injunctive relief in an individual action.

The motion for leave to file a second amended complaint was DENIED AS MOOT, because Farr had advised that the motion would become moot if reconsideration was denied and the class-certification order remained unchanged. The court set a compliance deadline for 9:01 a.m. on November 26, 2021, required the parties to file a joint scheduling statement five business days before that deadline, and stated that the deadline would be removed from the calendar if compliance was complete. Judge Gonzalez Rogers ordered that the two docket matters be terminated.