CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood
| CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood | |
|---|---|
| Decided January 10, 2012 | |
| Full case name | CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood |
| Citations | 565 U.S. 95 (more) |
| Holding | |
| Because the Credit Repair Organizations Act is silent on whether claims can proceed in an arbitrable forum, the Federal Arbitration Act requires the arbitration agreement to be enforced according to its terms. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Scalia |
| Concurrence | Sotomayor (in judgment), joined by Kagan |
| Dissent | Ginsburg |
| Laws applied | |
| Credit Repair Organizations Act; Federal Arbitration Act | |
CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, 565 U.S. 95 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that because the Credit Repair Organizations Act is silent on whether claims can proceed in an arbitrable forum, the Federal Arbitration Act requires the arbitration agreement to be enforced according to its terms.[1][2]
Background
Although the Greenwoods' credit card agreement required their claims to be resolved by binding arbitration, they filed a lawsuit against CompuCredit Corporation and a division of their bank, alleging, among other things, violations of the Credit Repair Organizations Act. The federal District Court denied CompuCredit's motion to compel arbitration, concluding that Congress intended CROA claims to be nonarbitrable. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.[1]
Opinion of the court
The Supreme Court issued an opinion on January 10, 2012.[1]
Subsequent developments
References
External links
This article incorporates written opinion of a United States federal court. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the text is in the public domain.