Julian Dayana Arias v. America First Credit Union

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: February 24, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02473
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * * 7 JULIAN DAYANA ARIAS, Case No.2:25-CV-2473 JCM (DJA) 8 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 9 v. 10 AMERICA FIRST CREDIT UNION, 11 Defendant(s). 12 13 Presently before the court is defendant America First Credit Union (“AFCU”)’s motion to 14 compel arbitration, or in the alternative, to dismiss. (ECF No. 8). Plaintiff Dayana Arias 15 (“plaintiff”) filed a response (ECF No. 9), to which AFCU replied (ECF No. 14). 16 I. Background 17 Plaintiff maintained a consumer deposit account with AFCU. (Id. at 2). On April 27, 2025, 18 plaintiff deposited $3,816 in cash at an AFCU ATM. (Id.). The ATM did not credit the account 19 and instead displayed an error message. (Id.). Plaintiff notified AFCU of the error in person on 20 April 28, 2025. (Id.). On May 7 and 8, 2025, AFCU issued provisional credit totaling $3,816. 21 (Id. at 2–3). 22 On June 6, 2025, AFCU denied plaintiff’s dispute, asserting that the ATM deposit totaled 23 only $1,235. (Id. at 3). Plaintiff submitted additional written disputes and documentation 24 demonstrating that the deposit totaled $3,816, but AFCU maintained its denial. (Id. at 3–4). 25 As a result of AFCU’s determination, AFCU reversed credit for the disputed funds, treated 26 the account as overdrawn, closed plaintiff’s deposit account and line of credit, and attempted to 27 collect an alleged overdraft balance. (Id. at 3). 28 . . .. 1 Plaintiff alleges that AFCU violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1693, 2 et seq. (“EFTA”), and related common law claims. (Id. at 1). Plaintiff seeks actual damages, 3 treble damages, statutory damages, an order requiring defendant to credit plaintiff with the 4 disputed amount and attorneys’ fees. 5 However, AFCU claims that the suit is barred by an arbitration clause in AFCU’s 6 Consumer Membership & Account Agreement. The court considers on that issue before 7 addressing the merits of plaintiff’s claims. 8 II. Legal Standard 9 “There is a strong presumption in favor of arbitrating a dispute where a valid and 10 enforceable arbitration agreement exists between the parties.” SR Constr., Inc. v. Peek Bros. 11 Constr., Inc., 510 P.3d 794, 798 (Nev. 2022) (citing AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Commc’ns Workers of 12 Am., 475 U.S. 643, 650 (1986); Int’l Ass’n of Firefighters, Local No. 1285 v. City of Las Vegas, 13 929 P.2d 954, 957 (1996)). “Nevada courts resolve all doubts concerning the arbitrability of the 14 subject matter of a dispute in favor of arbitration.” Local No. 1285, 929 P.2d at 957. “Nevada has 15 a ‘fundamental policy favoring the enforceability of arbitration agreements,’ and [courts] ‘liberally 16 construe arbitration clauses in favor of granting arbitration.’” Uber Techs., Inc. v. Royz, 517 P.3d 17 905, 908 (Nev. 2022) (quoting Tallman v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 359 P.3d 113, 118–19 (Nev. 18 2015)). 19 “Where the Federal Arbitration Agreement (FAA), 9 U.S.C. § 1–16, governs an arbitration 20 agreement, state courts are compelled to follow that act and any federal law construing it.” Royz, 21 517 P.3d at 907. “By its terms, the Act ‘leaves no place for the exercise of discretion by a district 22 court, but instead mandates that district courts shall direct the parties to proceed to arbitration on 23 issues as to which an arbitration agreement has been signed.” Chiron Corp. v. Ortho. Diagnostic 24 Sys., Inc., 207 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd, 470 25 U.S. 213, 218 (1985)). 26 “The court’s role under the Act is therefore limited to determining (1) whether a valid 27 agreement to arbitrate exists and, if it does, (2) whether the agreement encompasses the dispute at 28 issue.” Id. (citing 9 U.S.C. § 4; Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc., 175 F.3d 716, 719–20 (9th Cir. 1999); 1 Rep. of Nicaragua v. Standard Fruit Co., 937 F.2d 469, 477–78 (9th Cir. 1991)); see also Ashbey 2 v. Archstone Prop. Mgmt., 785 F.3d 1320, 1323 (9th Cir. 2015) (stating that the party seeking to 3 compel arbitration has the burden to show both elements) (citing Cox v. Ocean View Hotel Corp., 4 533 F.3d 1114, 1119 (9th Cir. 2008)). 5 If the answer to both inquiries is yes, then the court must enforce the arbitration 6 agreement’s terms. Id. Courts are guided by a “presumption of arbitrability in the sense that ‘[a]n 7 order to arbitrate the particular grievance should not be denied unless it may be said with positive 8 assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted 9 dispute.’” AT&T Techs., Inc., 475 U.S. at 650 (quoting United Steelworkers of Am. v. Warrior & 10 Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 582–83 (1960)). 11 III. Discussion 12 A. Whether a Valid Agreement Exists 13 Plaintiff’s argument attacks Exhibit B of AFCU’s motion to compel (ECF No. 8-2)—a 14 copy of AFCU’s Membership & Account Agreement (“the agreement”). Because the attached 15 agreement appears to arise from sometime in 2025, plaintiff argues that it cannot be the same 16 agreement she signed in 2017 when she completed the membership application assenting to the 17 terms of the agreement. 18 There are two provisions that are essential to determining whether plaintiff is bound by an 19 arbitration agreement. First, and most obviously, is whether the 2017 agreement included an 20 arbitration clause. This alone could solve the issue of how to treat the first prong of the analysis. 21 Second, AFCU claims that the 2017 agreement—like the 2025 agreement attached to its motion— 22 included the following language:

23 By signing the Membership Application or completing and transmitting an online 24 account authorization or service request that is a part of the Agreement, or by establishing and using this account, each of you, jointly and severally, agree to the 25 terms and conditions in this Agreement … You agree that additional accounts and services you request in the future will be governed by this Agreement, as amended 26 from time to time. 27 (ECF No. 8-2 at 1). If the 2017 agreement lacked an arbitration clause but included the amendment 28 1 clause, a later added arbitration clause could be enforceable. 2 The court cannot determine whether plaintiff agreed to the terms of AFCU’s arbitration 3 agreement solely based on the 2025 agreement attached to AFCU’s motion, and thus, cannot 4 compel arbitration. Further, the existence of a valid arbitration agreement could potentially strip 5 the court of jurisdiction, so the court defers ruling on the merits of plaintiff’s claims at this time. 6 See Chiron Corp., 207 F.3d at 1130. 7 To remedy this issue, the court grants AFCU 7 days from this order to supplement its 8 motion to compel arbitration. Only the very narrow issue of the 2017 agreement is to be discussed 9 in any further filings, and ideally, AFCU will attach a copy of the agreement that was in effect at 10 the time plaintiff signed the AFCU membership application. 11 IV. Conclusion 12 Accordingly, 13 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that AFCU has 7 days from 14 this order to supplement its motion. The court defers ruling on the motion to compel (ECF No. 8) 15 until the deadline has passed. 16 DATED February 24, 2026.

18 _________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19

22 23 24 25 26 27 28