Capital One, N.A. v. Smokey G. Heisey

Capital One, N.A. v. Smokey G. Heisey

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration

Hearing Date: May 22, 2026

The motion of Defendant Smokey G. Heisey (“Defendant”) to compel Plaintiff Capital One, N.A. (“Plaintiff”) to arbitrate its collection claims against her is DENIED. The Case Management Conference set for May 22, 2026, is MAINTAINED.

A party to an arbitration agreement can request a court order compelling the parties to arbitrate a dispute covered by that agreement. [Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2.] In a motion to compel arbitration, the moving party must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a valid arbitration agreement exists. [Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 972; Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 236.] This proof can be provided by attaching a copy of the arbitration agreement to the motion or petition. [Bannister v.

Marinidence Opco, LLC (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 541, 543- 544.] If this requirement is met, the burden shifts to the opposing party to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, any facts that constitute a defense to enforcement of the agreement, such as unconscionability. [Engalla, 15 Cal.4th at 972; Pinnacle, 55 Cal.4th at 236.]

Defendant has not met her burden to prove the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties. [Engalla, 15 Cal.4th at 972; Pinnacle, 55 Cal.4th at 236; Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2.] She claims, without providing evidence, that the credit card was opened in 2012 and that an arbitration clause was in place at that time. As a result, she has failed to carry her burden, which typically requires attaching a copy of the agreement with the motion to compel arbitration. Moreover, in its opposition, Plaintiff presents evidence indicating that the operative agreement lacked a mandatory arbitration clause. [Anderson Decl. at ¶¶ 1-3 and Exh.

A.] Additionally, “Plaintiff and its predecessors in interest removed binding arbitration provisions from its consumer credit card agreements in 2010,” which was two years before Defendant opened her credit card account on December 19, 2012. [Id. at ¶¶ 2-3.]

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration is DENIED. The Case Management Conference set for May 22, 2026, is MAINTAINED, and the parties shall appear to discuss next steps.

Plaintiff shall prepare the Proposed Order consistent with this Tentative Ruling.

1