Court Shuts Down Creditor’s Bait-and-Switch: Class Action Stays in Court

In Westlake Services LLC v. Williams, 2025 IL App (1st) 241383, the First District Appellate Court upheld the trial court’s decision denying a creditor’s attempt to compel arbitration in a case involving aggressive post-repossession debt collection tactics.

Erica Williams financed a used Hyundai and later faced repossession and a deficiency lawsuit from Westlake Services LLC. After Westlake sued her in court, Ms. Williams filed a class-action counterclaim alleging deceptive and unfair practices under Illinois consumer protection laws.

Months later, Westlake sought to enforce an arbitration agreement—despite having initiated the case in court themselves and delaying disclosure of the arbitration agreement for nearly a year.

The appellate court rejected Westlake’s request to compel arbitration, holding that:

• Westlake waived arbitration by suing first and engaging in litigation for 11 months without raising the agreement.
• Williams was prejudiced by this delay, incurring legal fees and investing time in court proceedings.
• The class-action waiver in the arbitration agreement only applied within arbitration, not to court cases like this one.

The ruling underscores the importance of timely enforcement of arbitration provisions and provides clarity on how class-action waivers are interpreted in Illinois courts. While arbitration remains a valid avenue for resolving disputes, parties that initiate litigation and substantially engage in court proceedings may forfeit that right.

This decision reinforces procedural protections for consumers and highlights courts’ willingness to scrutinize delayed attempts to shift cases out of the judicial system.