UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
GRETA L. CAMPBELL,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 25-cv-3101 (CRC)
CITIGROUP,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Greta L. Campbell filed this pro se action against Citibank, N.A. (“Citibank”) in
the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.1 She alleges that Citibank engaged in “fraudulent
billing” practices that inflated her credit card account balance and damaged her credit score.
After removing the case to this Court, Citibank moved to compel arbitration of Campbell’s
claims. The Court twice directed Campbell to respond to Citibank’s motion, but she failed to file
an opposition. Based on the Court’s own review of Citibank’s motion and accompanying
documentation, the Court will grant the motion and stay the case pending the completion of
arbitration proceedings.
Campbell had a Staples credit card that was serviced by Citibank. See Compl.,
Continuation of Questions ¶ 1. Citibank closed her account in July 2023 when it discontinued
the Staples credit card program. Id. Campbell alleges that after her account was closed,
Citibank continued to “impose[] interest charges on purchases made” between October 2023 and
1 Citibank submits that Campbell erroneously sued “Citigroup” and/or “Citi Group.” See Notice of Removal at 1; id., Ex. 1 at 2. For the sake of clarity, the Court refers to Defendant as “Citibank.” May 2025.2 Id. ¶¶ 1–2. Because the charges “were imposed on an account that was no longer
active,” Campbell contends that she was “misle[d] . . . into making payments under false
pretenses.” Id. ¶ 2(1). She further submits that Citibank “reported [her] account to the credit
bureau despite the charges being fraudulent.” Id. ¶ 3(1). As a result, Campbell alleges that she
was “burdened with unnecessary payments,” her credit score was “negatively affected,” and she
suffered “significant emotional distress.” Id. ¶ 2(2)–(4). She seeks $250,000 in damages. Id.
¶ 2.3
After filing a notice of removal, Citibank moved to compel arbitration and stay
proceedings pending the completion of arbitration. Citibank submits that when Campbell
applied for her Staples credit card in 2018, she received a written agreement providing that any
“claims, dispute[s], or controvers[ies] . . . arising out of or related to” the account were subject to
2 Campbell attached several credit card billing statements to her complaint. See generally Notice of Removal, Ex. 1 at 19–43. The statements reflect that she was charged interest on her existing account balance, but they do not show any new charges after the account closed. Before closing Campbell’s account, Citibank informed her that she would “continue to receive a monthly billing statement until any remaining balance is paid in full” and the “terms and conditions as detailed in [her] cardholder agreement will remain in effect for any remaining balance on [her] account.” Id. at 16. 3 It is not entirely clear what cause(s) of action Campbell raises in her complaint. The “information sheet” accompanying her complaint indicates that she alleges a breach of contract. See Notice of Removal, Ex. 1 at 10. But she also attached to her complaint a “legal demand” letter that she sent to Citibank prior to filing this lawsuit; the letter asserts that Citibank’s actions “appear to constitute” a variety of unlawful acts, including “[h]arrassment in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act[.]” Id. at 14–15. Regardless of whether Campbell brings a breach of contract claim or the claims enumerated in her demand letter, the Court is satisfied that (1) it has diversity jurisdiction over the matter, and (2) the claims would be covered by the arbitration agreement. See Notice of Removal ¶¶ 8, 21 (representing that Citibank’s main office is in South Dakota); id., Ex. 1 at 4 (Campbell’s complaint listing her address in the District of Columbia); Declaration of Kyle Mitchell ¶ 1 (stating that Citibank is “located” in South Dakota); 28 U.S.C. § 1348 (“All national banking associations shall . . . be deemed citizens of the States in which they are respectively located.”); Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 318 (2006) (holding that for purposes of establishing diversity jurisdiction, a national bank is located “in the State designated in its articles of association as its main office”).
2 mandatory arbitration. Mem. of Law in Supp. of Def.’s Mot. to Compel Arbitration and Stay
Proceedings (“Def.’s Mot.”) at 2; see Declaration of Kyle Mitchell (“Mitchell Decl.”) ¶¶ 6–8; id.,
Ex. 1 (“Card Agreement”) at 6–7. It further notes that Campbell accepted the terms of the
agreement by using the credit card. See Mitchell Decl. ¶ 9; id., Ex. 2 at 3 (credit card statement
showing purchase). Because Campbell’s claims “clearly fall within the scope” of the mandatory
arbitration agreement, Citibank says, the Court must stay all proceedings pending arbitration.
Def.’s Mot. at 8–12. As noted above, Campbell did not respond to Citibank’s motion.
The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) provides that a provision in a contract requiring the
arbitration of disputes related to the contract “shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable.” 9
U.S.C. § 2. The Supreme Court has recognized that “any doubts concerning the scope of
arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration.” Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v.
Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24–25 (1983). If a party subject to an arbitration agreement
nevertheless tries to resolve a dispute in federal court, the opposing party may petition the court
“for an order directing that such arbitration proceed in the manner provided for in such
agreement.” 9 U.S.C. § 4.
When evaluating a motion to compel arbitration, the Court applies the familiar summary
judgment standard. Aliron Int’l, Inc. v. Cherokee Nation Indus., Inc., 531 F.3d 863, 865 (D.C.
Cir. 2008). Accordingly, the Court may look to evidence beyond the complaint and grant the
motion if “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986)); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). In making this determination, the
Court views the facts “in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Chambers v. U.S.
Dep’t of Interior, 568 F.3d 998, 1000 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
3 Citibank has adequately shown that Campbell is bound by the mandatory arbitration
agreement. The evidence before the Court indicates that Campbell received the agreement when
she applied for the Staples credit card. See Mitchell Decl. ¶ 6; Card Agreement at 2. It further
demonstrates that she accepted the agreement’s terms by using the credit card. See Card
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
GRETA L. CAMPBELL,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 25-cv-3101 (CRC)
CITIGROUP,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Greta L. Campbell filed this pro se action against Citibank, N.A. (“Citibank”) in
the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.1 She alleges that Citibank engaged in “fraudulent
billing” practices that inflated her credit card account balance and damaged her credit score.
After removing the case to this Court, Citibank moved to compel arbitration of Campbell’s
claims. The Court twice directed Campbell to respond to Citibank’s motion, but she failed to file
an opposition. Based on the Court’s own review of Citibank’s motion and accompanying
documentation, the Court will grant the motion and stay the case pending the completion of
arbitration proceedings.
Campbell had a Staples credit card that was serviced by Citibank. See Compl.,
Continuation of Questions ¶ 1. Citibank closed her account in July 2023 when it discontinued
the Staples credit card program. Id. Campbell alleges that after her account was closed,
Citibank continued to “impose[] interest charges on purchases made” between October 2023 and
1 Citibank submits that Campbell erroneously sued “Citigroup” and/or “Citi Group.” See Notice of Removal at 1; id., Ex. 1 at 2. For the sake of clarity, the Court refers to Defendant as “Citibank.” May 2025.2 Id. ¶¶ 1–2. Because the charges “were imposed on an account that was no longer
active,” Campbell contends that she was “misle[d] . . . into making payments under false
pretenses.” Id. ¶ 2(1). She further submits that Citibank “reported [her] account to the credit
bureau despite the charges being fraudulent.” Id. ¶ 3(1). As a result, Campbell alleges that she
was “burdened with unnecessary payments,” her credit score was “negatively affected,” and she
suffered “significant emotional distress.” Id. ¶ 2(2)–(4). She seeks $250,000 in damages. Id.
¶ 2.3
After filing a notice of removal, Citibank moved to compel arbitration and stay
proceedings pending the completion of arbitration. Citibank submits that when Campbell
applied for her Staples credit card in 2018, she received a written agreement providing that any
“claims, dispute[s], or controvers[ies] . . . arising out of or related to” the account were subject to
2 Campbell attached several credit card billing statements to her complaint. See generally Notice of Removal, Ex. 1 at 19–43. The statements reflect that she was charged interest on her existing account balance, but they do not show any new charges after the account closed. Before closing Campbell’s account, Citibank informed her that she would “continue to receive a monthly billing statement until any remaining balance is paid in full” and the “terms and conditions as detailed in [her] cardholder agreement will remain in effect for any remaining balance on [her] account.” Id. at 16. 3 It is not entirely clear what cause(s) of action Campbell raises in her complaint. The “information sheet” accompanying her complaint indicates that she alleges a breach of contract. See Notice of Removal, Ex. 1 at 10. But she also attached to her complaint a “legal demand” letter that she sent to Citibank prior to filing this lawsuit; the letter asserts that Citibank’s actions “appear to constitute” a variety of unlawful acts, including “[h]arrassment in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act[.]” Id. at 14–15. Regardless of whether Campbell brings a breach of contract claim or the claims enumerated in her demand letter, the Court is satisfied that (1) it has diversity jurisdiction over the matter, and (2) the claims would be covered by the arbitration agreement. See Notice of Removal ¶¶ 8, 21 (representing that Citibank’s main office is in South Dakota); id., Ex. 1 at 4 (Campbell’s complaint listing her address in the District of Columbia); Declaration of Kyle Mitchell ¶ 1 (stating that Citibank is “located” in South Dakota); 28 U.S.C. § 1348 (“All national banking associations shall . . . be deemed citizens of the States in which they are respectively located.”); Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 318 (2006) (holding that for purposes of establishing diversity jurisdiction, a national bank is located “in the State designated in its articles of association as its main office”).
2 mandatory arbitration. Mem. of Law in Supp. of Def.’s Mot. to Compel Arbitration and Stay
Proceedings (“Def.’s Mot.”) at 2; see Declaration of Kyle Mitchell (“Mitchell Decl.”) ¶¶ 6–8; id.,
Ex. 1 (“Card Agreement”) at 6–7. It further notes that Campbell accepted the terms of the
agreement by using the credit card. See Mitchell Decl. ¶ 9; id., Ex. 2 at 3 (credit card statement
showing purchase). Because Campbell’s claims “clearly fall within the scope” of the mandatory
arbitration agreement, Citibank says, the Court must stay all proceedings pending arbitration.
Def.’s Mot. at 8–12. As noted above, Campbell did not respond to Citibank’s motion.
The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) provides that a provision in a contract requiring the
arbitration of disputes related to the contract “shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable.” 9
U.S.C. § 2. The Supreme Court has recognized that “any doubts concerning the scope of
arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration.” Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v.
Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24–25 (1983). If a party subject to an arbitration agreement
nevertheless tries to resolve a dispute in federal court, the opposing party may petition the court
“for an order directing that such arbitration proceed in the manner provided for in such
agreement.” 9 U.S.C. § 4.
When evaluating a motion to compel arbitration, the Court applies the familiar summary
judgment standard. Aliron Int’l, Inc. v. Cherokee Nation Indus., Inc., 531 F.3d 863, 865 (D.C.
Cir. 2008). Accordingly, the Court may look to evidence beyond the complaint and grant the
motion if “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986)); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). In making this determination, the
Court views the facts “in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Chambers v. U.S.
Dep’t of Interior, 568 F.3d 998, 1000 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
3 Citibank has adequately shown that Campbell is bound by the mandatory arbitration
agreement. The evidence before the Court indicates that Campbell received the agreement when
she applied for the Staples credit card. See Mitchell Decl. ¶ 6; Card Agreement at 2. It further
demonstrates that she accepted the agreement’s terms by using the credit card. See Card
Agreement at 7 (providing that enforcement of the agreement is governed by South Dakota law);
S.D. Codified Laws § 54-11-9 (“The use of an accepted credit card or the issuance of a credit
card agreement and the expiration of thirty days from the date of issuance without written notice
from a card holder to cancel the account creates a binding contract between the card holder and
the card issuer[.]”); Samenow v. Citicorp Credit Servs., Inc., 253 F. Supp. 3d 197, 203–04
(D.D.C. 2017) (recognizing that under both South Dakota and D.C. law, the use of a credit card
can constitute assent to an arbitration provision in the accompanying agreement).
As noted above, Campbell alleges that Citibank breached its contract with her and/or
engaged in various forms of “[u]nfair and deceptive business practices.” Notice of Removal, Ex.
1 at 14. All of these claims relate to her contention that Citibank improperly charged interest on
her remaining balance after closing her account. See id. (“I believe that continuing to apply
interest charges on purchases to a closed account is not only unfair but may also qualify as
allegedly deceptive business practice.”); Compl., Continuation of Questions ¶ 2 (asserting that
the requested damages “reflects both the tangible financial harm caused by the fraudulent
charges and the non-financial damages resulting from the emotional distress and long term
consequences of [Citibank’s] actions.”). They therefore fall within the scope of the mandatory
arbitration agreement. See Card Agreement at 6 (providing that Campbell or Citibank “may
arbitrate any claim, dispute or controversy between [the parties] arising out of or related to
[Campbell’s] account” and that all claims “are subject to arbitration, no matter what legal theory
4 they’re based on or what remedy . . . they seek” (emphasis omitted)). Accordingly, the Court
finds that Campbell entered into a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement with Citibank
covering the claims in her complaint.4
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that [9] Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings is
GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall administratively stay all proceedings in this
case. It is further
ORDERED that shall file joint status reports every six months, beginning on June 26,
2026, or as circumstances otherwise warrant. It is further
ORDERED that the parties shall promptly notify the Court of any arbitration award.
SO ORDERED.
CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER United States District Judge
Date: April 30, 2026
4 The Court will stay the proceedings in this matter rather than dismiss the case outright. See Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472, 478 (2024) (“When a district court finds that a lawsuit involves an arbitrable dispute, and a party requests a stay pending arbitration, § 3 of the FAA compels the court to stay the proceeding.”).