Nelson v. Credit Acceptance Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
JAH’WUAN D. NELSON,
Plaintiff, 	Case No. 3:25-cv-180
vs.
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE
CORPORATION, 	District Judge Michael J. Newman
Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER: (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
AND STAY THIS CASE (Doc. No. 9); (2) STAYING THIS CASE PENDING
ARBITRATION; (3) REQUIRING THE PARTIES TO FILE JOINT STATUS REPORTS
EVERY NINETY (90) DAYS AND WITHIN SEVEN (7) DAYS OF THE
ARBITRATION’S CONCLUSION; (4) DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO
ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE THIS CASE; (5) ADVISING PLAINTIFF THAT, IF HE
DESIRES TO CONTINUE WITH THIS CASE AFTER ARBITRATION, HE MUST
REQUEST THE STAY TO BE LIFTED WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF THE
ARBITRATION’S CONCLUSION; AND (6) CERTIFYING THAT AN APPEAL
WOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH AND FINDING THAT PLAINTIFF
SHOULD BE DENIED LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
______________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff Jah’Wuan D. Nelson brings this civil case pro se under the Fair Credit Reporting
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq., against Defendant Credit Acceptance Corporation (“Credit
Acceptance”).1 	Plaintiff’s complaint further alleges violations of the Truth in Lending Act, 15
U.S.C. § 1601, et seq., against Defendants as well as a breach of contract claim and a “willful
misreporting” claim.2 This case is before the Court upon Credit Acceptance’s motion to compel
arbitration and stay the proceedings. Doc. No. 9. Plaintiff has responded in opposition. Doc. No.
1 The Court accepts a pro se plaintiff’s allegations as true and “construe[s] filings by pro se litigants
liberally.” Owens v. Keeling, 461 F.3d 763, 776 (6th Cir. 2006).
2 Plaintiff does not cite to any statutory or case law authority for this claim.
Case: 3:25-cv-00180-MJN-PBS Doc #: 17 Filed: 03/04/26 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
10. Credit Acceptance replied (Doc. No. 11), and Plaintiff sur-replied3 (Doc. No. 12-1). Thus,
the motion is ripe for review.
In moving to compel arbitration and stay these proceedings, Credit Acceptance points to
the following arbitration clause as governing this dispute.:
ARBITRATION: The Contract contains an Arbitration Clause that states
You and We may elect to resolve any dispute by arbitration and not by court
action. See the Arbitration Clause on Page 5 of this Contract for the full
terms and conditions of the agreement to arbitrate. By initialing below, you
confirm that you have read, understand and agree to the terms and
conditions in the Arbitration Clause.
Doc. No. 9 at PageID 125-26; see Doc. No. 9-2 at PageID 138. Credit Acceptance also
presents a copy of the retail installment contract Plaintiff executed that contained the arbitration
clause at issue. Doc. No. 9-2 at PageID 138, 142.
Plaintiff does not offer any argument in opposition to Credit Acceptance’s assertion that the
arbitration clause governs this dispute. 	See Doc. Nos. 10, 12-1. 	Instead, Plaintiff opposes Credit
Acceptance’s motion on the grounds that the arbitration clause is unenforceable because it is
procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Doc. No. 10 at PageID 145-46. However, Plaintiff
fails to provide evidence to establish that the arbitration agreement is unconscionable. See Doc.
Nos. 10, 12-1.
After due consideration of the record and the briefings of the parties, and for good cause
shown, the Court GRANTS Credit Acceptance’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the
proceedings. See Albert M. Higley Co. v. N/S Corp., 445 F.3d 861, 863 (6th Cir. 2006) (Courts
“examine[] arbitration language in a contract in light of the strong federal policy in favor of
arbitration, resolving any doubts as to the parties’ intentions in favor of arbitration”). Therefore,
3 The Court previously granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a sur-reply in opposition to Credit
Acceptance’s motion to compel arbitration and stay this case. Doc. No. 13.
Case: 3:25-cv-00180-MJN-PBS Doc #: 17 Filed: 03/04/26 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
the parties are hereby ORDERED to participate in arbitration in accordance with the terms of the
executed arbitration clause. Doc. No. 9-2. Further proceedings in this case are STAYED pending
the results of the arbitration. 	The parties are ORDERED to keep the Court appraised of any
updates to the case by filing joint status reports every ninety (90) days and also within seven (7)
days of the arbitration’s conclusion. 	The Court also DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to
administratively close this case.4 Plaintiff is ADVISED that, if he desires to continue with this
case after arbitration, he must request the stay to be lifted within thirty (30) days of the
arbitration’s conclusion.
Finally, no appeal is presently available in this case because this Order is not a final
appealable order. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; cf. Sultaana v. Jerman, No. 1:15-cv-382, 2020 WL
13889761, at *5 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 7, 2020) (quoting Cleaver v. Elias, 852 F.2d 266, 267 (7th Cir.
1988) (“An appeal is possible in the absence of [a Rule 58 final judgment] only if the district court
has clearly disposed of all pending matters”)). Because of this and for the reasons set forth herein,
the Court CERTIFIES, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal of this Order would not
be taken in good faith, and consequently, DENIES Plaintiff leave to appeal this Order in forma
pauperis.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
March 4, 2026 	s/Michael J. Newman
Hon. Michael J. Newman
United States District Judge
4 This administrative closing of the case is for statistical purposes only and does not affect Plaintiff’s right
to request that the stay be lifted as directed above.
Case: 3:25-cv-00180-MJN-PBS Doc #: 17 Filed: 03/04/26 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>