Complot et al v. Citibank NA et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Oliver Complot,
Plaintiff,
v.
US Bank NA, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-00255-PHX-SMB
ORDER
The Court now considers Defendant Credit Control, LLC’s Motion to Enforce
Settlement and Release Agreement. (Doc. 76.) This motion has been fully briefed. For
the reasons noted below, the Court denies this motion.
I. BACKGROUND
The only remaining claim against Defendant Credit Control is Count II of the
Second Amended Complaint, the alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1692c(c)-Ceasing Communication. (Doc. 65.) This claim is based on
Plaintiff’s underlying U.S. Bank debt. (Doc. 59 at 8, ¶ 64). Defendant filed this motion
seeking complete dismissal from this case. (Doc. 76.) Former Defendant Citibank, N.A.
filed a Notice of Settlement on April 16, 2025. (Doc. 40.) According to its motion, on
April 30, 2025, Defendant Credit Control agreed to join former Defendants Citibank and
Moore Law Group, P.C. in settling the dispute with Plaintiffs. (Doc. 76 at 2.) Defendant
was not included in Citibank’s Notice of Settlement and “assumed” that this would be
corrected in a later stipulation. Id. The parties disagree about whether the April 2025
Case 2:25-cv-00255-SMB Document 83 Filed 09/22/26 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
settlement agreement covered only the underlying Citibank debt or if it also included
Plaintiff’s debt with U.S. Bank. (Doc. 77, Exhibit C.) The Court will consider their
respective claims.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
District courts have the inherent authority to summarily enforce settlement
agreements. In re City Equities Anaheim, Ltd., 22 F.3d 954, 957–58 (9th Cir. 1994).
Settlement agreements are contracts. Knudsen v. C.I.R., 793 F.3d 1030, 1035 (9th Cir.
2015). An evidentiary hearing is necessary only where there is a dispute about a material
fact. In re City Equities, 22 F.3d at 958.
The interpretation of a contract is a question of law for the court. Hadley v.
Southwest Prop., Inc., 570 P.2d 190, 193 (Ariz. 1977). “Where the language of a contract
is clear and unambiguous, it must be given effect as written.” Id. However, “the mere fact
that parties disagree as to its meaning does not establish an ambiguity. The controlling rule
of contract interpretation requires that the ordinary meaning of language be given to words
when circumstances do not show a different meaning is applicable.” Chandler Med. Bldg.
Partners v. Chandler Dental Grp., 855 P.2d 787, 791 (Ariz. App. 1993) (citation modified).
III. DISCUSSION
A. The Language of the Settlement Agreement
The “Account” identified in the settlement agreement is a Citibank credit card
account ending in 0407 issued to Plaintiff Tolamaa. (Doc. 77, Exhibit A at 1, ¶ 2.) The
agreement indicates that Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in federal district court against Defendant
Citibank and others. This is described as the “Litigation.” (Id.) Defendant Credit Control
is one of two “Collection Firms” involved in the Citibank debt. (Id.) The following is the
specific language of Section 5. Release of Claims:
Plaintiffs release and discharge the Bank and the Collection
Firms, and all of their respective current and former
predecessors, successors, parents, affiliates, assignees,
subsidiaries, and all of the aforementioned’s [sic] respective
agents, employees, officers, directors, members, managers,
owners, shareholders, attorneys, contractors, collection
agencies, servicers, insurers, sureties, credit reporting agencies
Case 2:25-cv-00255-SMB Document 83 Filed 09/22/26 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and vendors (all of the foregoing being referred to collectively
herein as the “Releasees”) from all claims and causes of action
of any kind (including without limitation any claims for
damages, costs, interest, expenses, fees and/or attorney’s fees)
that Plaintiffs may have related to the Account, any collection
efforts on the Account, the Collection Action, any
communications to Plaintiffs by the Bank or the Collection
Firms (including without limitation letters, emails, texts and/or
phone calls), any reporting of the Account to the credit bureaus,
any other account issued to Plaintiffs or where either Plaintiff
is an authorized user, any Form 1099 or tax consequences
relating to the Payment or the Agreement, or any other matters
between Plaintiffs and Releasees, including without limitation,
all claims that were asserted or could have been asserted in the
Litigation or Collection Action as of the date of this
Agreement. Plaintiffs further agree that Plaintiffs will not file
any claims, complaints, subpoenas, affidavits, arbitrations
and/or proceedings with any court, arbitration forum,
regulatory or administrative agency (collectively,
“Proceedings”) with respect to the matters released in this
Agreement against any of the Releasees, and any such
Proceedings filed prior to the execution of this Agreement is
intended to resolve forever the entire disagreement between
Plaintiffs and Releasees, all of which are intended as
beneficiaries of this release and entitled to enforce it.
It is the express intent of Plaintiffs that this Agreement release
all claims of any kind or nature, whether known or unknown,
that they may have against the Releasees, regardless of whether
such claims arise pursuant to contract, tort, statute, regulation,
or common law.
(Doc. 77, Exhibit 1 at 3, ¶ 5.)
B. The Language Of The Agreement Is Not Ambiguous.
Defendant argues that the broad language of “all claims that were asserted or could
have been asserted” in addition to the “express intent” to “release all claims of any kind or
nature…that they may have against the Releasees” means that the entire case should have
been dismissed as to Defendant Credit Control. (Doc. 76 at 3.) The agreement expressly
states that it is intended to resolve the entire disagreement between Plaintiffs and the
Releasees and to “release all claims of any kind or nature” that they have against the
Case 2:25-cv-00255-SMB Document 83 Filed 09/22/26 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Releasees. This expansive language appears to support Defendant’s claim.
Yet the references to “the Account” throughout the agreement support Plaintiff’s
contention that this agreement concerned only the Citibank debt and collection efforts
taken on that debt alone. The “Litigation” is defined in relation to the Account in question.
(Doc. 77, Exhibit 1 at 1, ¶ 2.) (“in connection with the Account.”) “Agreements must be
read as a whole to bring harmony, if possible, between all parts of the writing, with specific
provisions qualifying the meaning of general ones.” Robertson v. Petz, 574 P.3d 232, 237,
¶ 10 (Ariz. App. 2025) (citation modified). Here the specific provisions speak directly to
the Account in question while the broader more general provisions do not.
Viewing the agreement in its totality, it is clear to the Court that the repeated
references to the Account in question identifies this settlement as one intended for the
Citibank debt alone. There is no reference in the agreement whatsoever to any U.S. Bank
debt or any collection claims derived from that particular debt. Despite the occasional
expansive language noted above, the plain meaning of the agreement is to resolve the
Citibank debt and claims based on that debt. “Language in a contract is ambiguous only
when it can reasonably be construed to have more than one meaning.” In re Estate of
Lamparella, 109 P.3d 959, 963, ¶ 21 (Ariz. App. 2005) (citation modified). The only
reasonable interpretation of this agreement is that it resolves the Citibank debt and related
claims only.
Because the Court finds the language of the agreement unambiguous, there is no
need for an evidentiary hearing.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s motion.
Dated this 22nd day of September, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-00255-SMB Document 83 Filed 09/22/26 Page 4 of 4