Gustavo Celis v. Credit One Bank, N.A.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Gustavo Celis moved to lift a stay of litigation in favor of arbitration after Defendant Credit One Bank failed to pay required arbitrator fees, resulting in the administrative closure of the arbitration. The Court granted the motion to lift the stay, allowing the litigation to proceed.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to lift stay granted“As such, and based on the fact that Defendant has failed to file an opposition, the Court GRANTS the motion.” | agree with court The court correctly applied Ninth Circuit precedent establishing that a party's failure to pay required arbitration costs constitutes a material breach of the arbitration agreement, justifying the lifting of a stay. The factual premise that the defendant failed to pay and the arbitration was closed is supported by the record cited in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound and relies on binding Ninth Circuit authority that directly addresses the specific factual scenario (failure to pay arbitration fees leading to termination). The court correctly identified the material breach and the resulting inappropriateness of maintaining the stay. The lack of opposition by the defendant further supports the grant, though the legal basis stands independently.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GUSTAVO CELIS, Case No.: 3:25-cv-1986-CAB-DEB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. LIFT STAY 14 CREDIT ONE BANK, N.A., [Doc. No. 8] 15 Defendant. 16 17 Before the Court is Plaintiff Gustavo Celis’ (“Plaintiff”) motion to lift the stay in 18 this case. [Doc. No. 8.] The Court previously granted the parties’ joint motion to stay and 19 arbitrate. [Doc. No. 6.] Defendant Credit One Bank, N.A. (“Defendant”) failed to file an 20 opposition to the motion to lift the stay by the August 18, 2026 deadline.1 21 Plaintiff states that Defendant failed to pay a required arbitrator compensation 22 deposit to the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) by a June 8, 2026 deadline. 23 [Doc. No. 8 at 4.] AAA asked Plaintiff how he wished to proceed and Plaintiff 24 subsequently elected pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1281.98(b)(1) to 25 26 27 1 Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c) states that failure to oppose a motion “may constitute a consent to the 28 1 || withdraw his claims from arbitration. [/d.] On July 9, 2026, AAA confirmed that the 2 || arbitration was administratively closed. [J/d.] 3 The Ninth Circuit has held that “failure to pay required costs of arbitration [is] a 4 || material breach of [] obligations in connection with the arbitration.” Sink v. Aden Enters., 5 352 F.3d 1197, 1201 (9th Cir. 2003). Indeed, in Tillman v. Tillman, the Ninth Circuit 6 || found it was inappropriate to stay a case “where one party [ran] out of funds to pay for its 7 ||share of the arbitration and the arbitrator thereupon terminate[d] the arbitration 8 || proceedings[.|” 825 F.3d 1069, 1071 (9th Cir. 2016). Given that Defendant similarly 9 || failed to pay a required deposit and the arbitrator thus closed the arbitration, the Court finds 10 |/it appropriate to lift the stay. As such, and based on the fact that Defendant has failed to 11 || file an opposition, the Court GRANTS the motion. 12 Itis SO ORDERED. 13 ||Dated: August 19, 2026 (ib 14 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28