MUHAMMAD V. COUNTY BANK 912 A.2d 88 (N.J. 2006) CASE BRIEF

MUHAMMAD V. COUNTY BANK

912 A.2d 88 (N.J. 2006)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Muhammad (P) appealed decisions from the trial court and Appellate division which found a class arbitration bar enforceable.

FACTS: P, a part-time student at Berkeley College in Paramus, received a short-term, single advance, unsecured loan of $200 from County Bank. The principal, along with a finance charge of sixty dollars, was due on June 13, 2003. The annual percentage rate listed on the loan note was 608.33%. P extended the loan (with a sixty-dollar finance charge each time) because she could not repay it, resulting in a total of $180 in finance charges. P also obtained two similar loans from County Bank, dated April 28, 2003 and June 6, 2003. The note contained provisions that required arbitration for all disputes and prohibited class actions. The contract contains two types of class-action prohibitions. The first specifically bar class claims in arbitration. The second prohibits P from bringing or participating in class-action suits brought in court as well as class claims brought in arbitration. P filed a putative class-action suit in New Jersey Superior Court against Ds. The complaint alleged violation of the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), N.J.S.A. 56:8-2, the civil usury statute, N.J.S.A. 31:1-1, and the New Jersey RICO statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1, by charging, and conspiring to charge, illegal rates of interest. Ds removed the action to federal district court, but because P's claims were determined by that court not to be preempted by the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980, 12 U.S.C. 1831d, the case was remanded to state court. Ds filed a motion to compel arbitration and to stay the action pending arbitration. P argued that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable based on the class-action waiver, discovery limitations in NAF's rules, the costs of the arbitration, and the bias inherent in NAF as an arbitration forum. Ds offered to arbitrate in the American Arbitration Association but P rejected that offer. The trial court granted Ds'' motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The Appellate Division affirmed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner