In protracted litigation springing from the sale of “free” credit reports that “were not really free,” the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a party’s waiver of its right to arbitrate state law claims did not result in a waiver of its right to compel arbitration of newly asserted federal law claims. In a purported class action, the plaintiff originally asserted several claims under Illinois law against One Technologies, L.P. One Tech removed to federal court and filed a motion to dismiss. After that motion was partially denied, One Tech moved to compel arbitration, which was granted by the district court but reversed on appeal, with the Fifth Circuit holding that filing of the motion to dismiss waived the right to arbitrate the state law claims.
On remand, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting, for the first time, claims under the Credit Repair Organizations Act, a federal consumer protection statute that regulates the practices of such organizations. One Tech moved to compel arbitration, arguing in part that it “could not possibly have waived its right to arbitrate” the new claims because they were not raised until after the previous waiver occurred through the filing of the motion to dismiss. The district court denied the motion, but the Fifth Circuit reversed again on appeal.
In so holding, the Fifth Circuit stressed that waiver of arbitral rights is claim-specific. A party waives arbitration by “substantially invoking the judicial process to the detriment or prejudice of the other party.” For waiver purposes, “a party only invokes the judicial process to the extent it litigates a specific claim it subsequently seeks to arbitrate.” One Tech could not have waived its right to arbitrate the CROA claims at issue because they had not even been asserted by the plaintiff when One Tech previously moved to dismiss the state law claims. Because One Tech moved to compel arbitration of the newly asserted federal law claims without first waiving its right to do so, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded.
Forby v. One Technologies, L.P., No. 20-10088 (5th Cir. Sept. 14, 2021).
©2026 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.
Perspectives on reinsurance and arbitration law and practice.
Recent Posts
Editorial Contacts
Shareholder
Shareholder
Of Counsel
Shareholder
Shareholder
