Plaintiff's Claim That He Opted Out of Arbitration 'Unsubstantiated,' Says Citibank

Venton Smith offers “vague protestations” based on a theory that his accounts incurred fraudulent charges and “unsubstantiated claims” that he opted out of arbitration agreements, said Citibank's reply Wednesday (docket 3:23-cv-02804) in support of its motion to compel arbitration in a negligence lawsuit involving the 2019 Capital One data breach. The pro se plaintiff opposed Citibank’s motion to compel arbitration in July (see 2308280030). The June lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco (see 2306120045), alleges the data breach, in which an Amazon Web Services employee stole data affecting about 106 million customers, led to at least 12 of his accounts being fraudulently accessed to secure loans, merchandise and products totaling $92,300. In its reply, Citibank said Smith opened, used and made payments on his Citibank accounts, and he provided no evidence he rejected arbitration agreements. The plaintiff is “free to pursue his meritless claims and damages -- he must simply do so in arbitration,” it said. The California court previously said the arbitration provision for Citibank credit cards is “valid and enforceable,” the reply said, citing Ackerberg v. Citibank and Assi v. Citibank National Association.