Tentative Ruling: Citibank N.A. v. Svetlana L. Dayal
Case Number
25CV02873
Case Type
Hearing Date / Time
Wed, 04/15/2026 - 10:00
Nature of Proceedings
Renewed Motion to Compel
Tentative Ruling
For Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Citibank N.A. and Cross-Defendants Citigroup, Inc. and Jane Fraser: Adam Taryle, Mathew A. Morr, Ballard Spahr LLP
For Cross Defendant Suttell & Hammer, APC: Luke K. Chamberlain, Messer Strickler Burnette, Ltd.
For Defendant Svetlana Dayal: Self-represented
RULING
For all reasons stated herein, the renewed motion of cross-Defendants Citibank N.A. and Citigroup, Inc., to compel arbitration is ordered off-calendar. The Court reaffirms its March 4, 2026, order staying this action pending the resolution of cross-complainant Svetlana Dayal’s appeal.
Background
On May 7, 2025, Plaintiff Citibank N.A. (Citibank) initiated this action by filing a complaint against Defendant Svetlana Dayal (Dayal) alleging one cause of action for breach of contract.
As alleged in the complaint: On June 14, 2017, Citibank entered into a written agreement with Dayal. (Compl., ¶ BC-1 & Ex. A.) The attached agreement is a “Card Agreement” for payment on a credit card account. (Compl., Ex. A.) On January 7, 2025, Dayal breached the agreement by failing to make payments when due. (Compl., ¶ BC-2.) Citibank suffered damages in the unpaid amount due for a total of $16,761.33. (Compl., ¶¶ BC-2, BC-4.)
On August 27, 2025, Dayal filed an answer generally denying the allegations in the complaint and asserting nine affirmative defenses.
On August 27, 2025, Dayal filed a verified cross-complaint against cross-Defendants Citibank, Jane Fraser (Fraser), and Suttell & Hammer, APC (SHA).
On September 4, 2025, Dayal filed her operative verified first amended cross-complaint (FACC) against Citibank, Citigroup, Inc. (Citigroup), Fraser, and SHA, alleging five causes of action for (1) violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) against Citibank and SHA (15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e, 1692f & 1692g), (2) violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) against Citibank and Fraser (15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)), (3) defamation per se against Citibank and Fraser, (4) restitution against Citibank and Fraser, and (5) unfair competition against Citibank and Fraser. Although Citigroup was a named cross-Defendant in the caption of the FACC, no cause of action was asserted against Citigroup in the body of the FACC.
As alleged in the FACC: Citibank and SHA violated the FDCPA by attempting to collect on a disputed debt without validating the debt in violation of federal law. (FACC, ¶¶ 11-17.) Citibank and Fraser violated the FCRA by falsely publishing an account as an obligation owed by Dayal when such obligation had been assigned to the account of the United States under the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA) (50 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq.). (FACC, ¶¶ 18-23.) Citibank and Fraser are liable for defamation for publishing such false information to the credit bureaus. (FACC, ¶¶ 24-28.) Citibank and Fraser have been unjustly enriched at the expense of Dayal because the account over which Citibank sued Dayal in this action has been assigned to the account of the United States under the TWEA. (FACC, ¶¶ 29-33.) Citibank and Fraser’s actions in violation of the FDCPA and FCRA also constituted unfair competition. (FACC, ¶¶ 34-37.)
On January 21, 2026, the Court denied Citibank’s motion to compel arbitration (to which Fraser joined). This January 21 order also granted Citigroup’s motion to set aside the Court’s entry of default as to Citigroup pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b).
On January 28, 2026, the Court granted SHA’s special motion to strike (to which Citibank joined) as to the first cause of action in the FACC.
On February 4, 2026, Dayal filed a notice of appeal as to the Court’s January 28 ruling granting SHA’s special motion to strike.
On February 5, 2025, Citibank and Citigroup (collectively, the Citi Defendants) filed a demurrer to the FACC.
On February 9, 2026, the Citi Defendants filed a renewed motion to compel arbitration pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (b).
On March 4, 2026, the Court ordered off-calendar the demurrer filed by the Citi Defendants in light of the automatic stay pending Dayal’s appeal (Stay Order). (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 425.16, subd. (j), 916, subd. (a).) The Stay Order provided in part: “For all reasons discussed above, these proceedings are automatically stayed[.] … [¶] The Court’s ruling herein is without prejudice to the refiling of a procedurally appropriate demurrer to the FACC by the Citi Defendants once the automatic stay of these proceedings is lifted. In addition, to the extent a party asserts that there exists a basis to lift that stay, or that these proceedings are not stayed by operation of law or the exercise of the Court’s discretion, the Court’s ruling is also without prejudice to the filing of any appropriate future motion for an order lifting the stay.” (Minute Order, March 4, 2026.)
Analysis
The Court’s Stay Order construed the automatic stay under Code of Civil Procedure section 916, subdivision (a), as staying this action pending Dayal’s appeal. (Minute Order, March 4, 2026.) The Court noted that, “to the extent a party asserts that there exists a basis to lift that stay, or that these proceedings are not stayed by operation of law or the exercise of the Court’s discretion, the Court’s ruling is also without prejudice to the filing of any appropriate future motion for an order lifting the stay.” (Ibid.) The Stay Order was issued prior to the date any opposition was due as to the Citi Defendants’ renewed motion to compel arbitration. To date, no party has requested a lift of the stay, in whole or in part, for any purpose based on a showing of good cause. The Court reaffirms its Stay Order. For all these reasons, the Court will order the Citi Defendants’ renewed motion to compel arbitration off-calendar. This ruling is without prejudice to the Citi Defendants’ filing a renewed motion to compel arbitration after the Court’s stay is lifted.