In Brice v. Haynes Investments LLC, No. 19-15707 (9th
Cir. Sept. 16, 2021), the Ninth Circuit considered an appeal by
shareholders in Native American tribe-linked online lenders of a
district court order denying the shareholders' motion to compel
arbitration. The Ninth Circuit reversed the order because, under
the terms of the parties' agreement, the enforceability of the
arbitration agreement was a question for the arbitrator, not the
judge, to decide.
A class of consumers filed suit against investors in the
now-defunct online lender Think Finance, alleging that investors
violated federal racketeering law, charged consumers interest rates
that were usurious under California law, and that tribal sovereign
immunity did not apply. The borrowers' loan documents contained
an arbitration agreement with a provision delegating to the
arbitrator questions concerning its enforceability. The district
court denied the defendant shareholders' motion to compel
arbitration,