John Doe, Pro Se

Address
City, State Zip Code 
 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ARIZONA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA
 
Citibank South Dakota, N.A. Case No.:  CV2010 xxxxx
   
                                       Plaintiff, MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
 
vs.
 
John Doe
 
                                       Defendant.
 
Motion to Compel Arbitration

COMES NOW the Defendant to compel arbitration pursuant to the arbitration terms

contained within the attached Citibank Cardmember Agreement(Agreement). It states

under the ARBITRATION section on page 11 and 12 of the Agreement:

“ARBITRATION – PLEASE READ THIS PROVISION CAREFULLY. IT PROVIDES

THAT ANY DISPUTE MAY BE RESOLVED BY BINDING ARBITRATION.

ARBITRATION REPLACES THE RIGHT TO GO TO COURT, INCLUDING THE

RIGHT TO A JURY AND THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN A CLASS ACTION OR

SIMILAR PROCEEDING. IN ARBITRATION, A DISPUTE IS RESOLVED BY AN

ARBITRATOR INSTEAD OF A JUDGE OR JURY. ARBITRATION PROCEDURES

ARE SIMPLER AND MORE LIMITED THAN COURT PROCEDURES.”

The Agreement states on its page 12:

"Agreement to arbitrate: Either you or we may, without others consent, elect mandatory,

binding arbitration for any claim, dispute, or controversy between you and us (called

"claims").”

Plaintiff's attorney is a certified and legal professional who has reasonably and diligently

reviewed the contract before filing this suit pursuant to American Bar Association ethical

Cannons, therefore, Plaintiff is intentionally being deceptive and misleading to the court

to avoid mandatory binding arbitration as elected by the defendant when it was stated

“[citibank]...properly elected traditional litigation as a means to collect subject credit card

debt, and the Credit Card Agreement places no restriction on election to do so.” Plaintiff

agrees defendant has elected arbitration pursuant the arbitration terms in the Agreement

and therefore admits Plaintiff's election for traditional litigation is restricted and

Plaintiff's right to go to court has been waived.

Plaintiff asserts Defendant should initiate arbitration with “To the extent Defendant is

interested in resolving this matter through binding private arbitration or some other

acceptable means/forum, Defendant bears the responsibility of initiating those

proceedings.” Plaintiff continues to be deceptive and misleading to the Court and has

not supported his statement with specific case orders when he says “In cases similar

to the present matter, Courts will customarily stay proceedings for a time sufficient

to allow party requesting arbitration to initiate such proceedings... ” There is no

dispute, it is preposterous to have the defendant initiate a claim upon his/herself on

behalf of the Plaintiff and because arbitration has been elected, the right to go to

court has been waived. Plaintiff cannot complete litigation in this court; thusly there

is no basis to “stay” the litigation as requested.

The Agreement is clear on which party can elect arbitration but does not make clear

which Party should initiate arbitration. Defendant's only responsibility to the Arbitration

clause contain within the Agreement is to elect arbitration or not elect arbitration.

Defendant has elected arbitration. The Agreement specifies Plaintiff will pay the cost of

arbitrator and arbitration firm for the first day, an indication that Plaintiff expects to

initiate arbitration on claims upon their defendants. When a dispute arises over the

precise meaning of the Agreement, competent legal professionals realize that it must be

interpreted against the drafter of the Agreement.

Since Plaintiff initiated traditional litigation and has given to the defendant, the choice of

venue, in which arbitration was elected, it is reasonable for the Court to compel Plaintiff

to initiate arbitration with either and only National Arbitration Forum or American

Arbitration Association as specified in the Citibank Cardmember Agreement.

Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiff admits to the arbitration clause contained within the Agreement “...the

agreement between the Parties does allow either party to elect and compel a court order
to arbitration...”, therefore, Plaintiff admits the Agreement has be read and comprehended

and thusly admits Plaintiff is being deceptive by intentionally concealing and withholding

the Agreement which contains the governing arbitration provision. Further, Plaintiff

attempts to deny the right to arbitration when it is demanded for Defendant to produce

“...the Credit Card Agreement which contains the governing arbitration provision...”. It is

not the responsibility of the Defendant to produce the Plaintiff's alleged Credit Card

agreement.

There is no dispute the arbitration clause exists in the Citibank Cardmember Agreement.

There is no dispute the arbitration clause was exercised by Defendant. There is no dispute

the Plaintiff and Seidberg Law Offices, P.C. illegally concealed the Agreement, and

illegally concealed the waiver of litigation in this case before and after the Summons and

Complaint. Upon receipt of Defendant's notice to elect arbitration; Plaintiff waived any

and all rights to litigate this matter.

This case should have been dismissed by Plaintiff upon Defendant's election of

Arbitration! Plaintiff violates the very Agreement they are insisting very strongly that is

upheld by asserting entitlement to prosecution after the right prosecute was waived.

Further, Plaintiff violate their Agreement again by attempting to deny Defendant's right

to arbitration by demanding production of Plaintiff's alleged agreement that has been

intentionally concealed and withheld by Plaintiff and by demanding Defendant initiate a

claim upon him/herself on behalf of the plaintiff.

Plaintiff once again violated their Agreement by asking this court for anything other than

immediate dismissal when it reasonably realized it lost Venue in this case. By Defendant

having to raise the onus of dismissing for improper venue, via this motion, Defendant’s

Consumer rights have been violated at Defendant deserves all immediate remedies.

Defendant is entitled to dismissal of this case on the basis of:

1. Both parties have waived the right to litigation due to defendants election of

arbitration.

2. Plaintiff violated the Agreement they insist be upheld.

3. Plaintiff is unfairly attempting to maintain its litigation rights, via fraud and

concealment.

Wherefore the Defendant prays the Court grants the following:

1. That the Plaintiffs be compelled into arbitration per their agreement.

2. That the Plaintiff be compelled to initiate arbitration.

4. That this case be dismissed with prejudice;

4. Award Defendant costs and damages and any other relief the Court deems just and

appropriate.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this ____ day of ______________ 2011.

 
                                                                                                 
_____________________________
John Doe, Pro Se
 Original filed this _____ day of ________ , 2011 with:
 
Clerk of the Court
Maricopa County Superior Court
Address
Mesa, Arizona 85204 
 
Copy of the Answer mailed this _____ day of ________, 2011 to:
 
Seidberg Law Offices PC
PO Box 7290 
Phoenix Arizona 85011 
Attorneys for Plaintiff
 
By: _____________________________