GABRIEL SALDARRIAGA
v.
CITIBANK, N.A.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Plaintiff Saldarriaga brought suit against Citibank, N.A., but the district court granted Citibank's motion to compel arbitration based on an agreement between the parties to arbitrate disputes. The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and stayed the litigation pending arbitration.
The court granted Citibank's motion to compel arbitration. The parties are compelled to arbitrate the claims pleaded in the Complaint, and the litigation is stayed pending arbitration as to Citibank.
[1] A court may adopt and approve a magistrate judge's report and recommendation regarding a motion to compel arbitration.
[2] A motion to compel arbitration will be granted when the parties have an agreement to submit to arbitration.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The Report, recommending granting Defendant Citibank N.A.'s motion, is based upon an agreement between Citibank, N.A. and Plaintiff to submit to arbitration.”
Establishes the basis for the court's grant of the motion to compel—the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Gabriel Saldarriaga filed suit against Citibank, N.A. Citibank moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration agreement between the par…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Arbitration Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Citibank, N.A.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration, [DE 24] and the December 10, 2025, Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Patrick M. Hunt (the “Report”) [DE 36]. The Report, recommending granting Defendant Citibank N.A.’s motion, is based upon an agreement between Citibank, N.A. and Plaintiff to submit to arbitration. The Magistrate Judge’s factual findings in the Report [DE 36] are hereby adopted and deemed incorporated into this opinion. LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F. 2d 745, 749-50 (11th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 958 (1988); RTC v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F. 2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993).
In addition, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report [DE 36] and record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and conclusions.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report [DE 36] is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED; 2. Defendant Citibank, N.A.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration [DE 24] is GRANTED; 3. Plaintiff and Defendant Citibank, N.A. are COMPELLED to arbitrate the claims Plaintiff pled in the Complaint; 4. This action is hereby STAYED pending arbitration as to Defendant Citibank, N.A. ONLY. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida this 11th day of December, 2025. “4 ff % f ? i afl #4 v Paty 4 ‘4 ase [...]
VILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS
United States District Judge
Copies to: Counsel of record Magistrate Judge Hunt
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- LoCONTE v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745 (11th Cir. 1988)
- Resolution Tr. Corp. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144 (11th Cir. 1993)
- LoConte v. Dugger, 488 U.S. 958 (U.S. 1988)