Donte Jackson v. Protas, Spivok & Collins LLC

── Donte Jackson v. Protas, Spivok & Collins LLC ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Date: May 18, 2026 Category: General USCA4 Appeal: 25-1971 Doc: 26 Filed: 05/18/2026 Pg: 1 of 11 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-1971 DONTE JACKSON, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. PROTAS, SPIVOK & COLLINS LLC, Defendant – Appellant, and VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland at Greenbelt. Lydia Kay Griggsby, District Judge. (8:25−cv−00087−LKG) Argued: March 17, 2026 Decided: May 18, 2026 Before WILKINSON, HARRIS, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Wilkinson wrote the opinion, in which Judge Harris and Judge Benjamin joined. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1971 Doc: 26 Filed: 05/18/2026 Pg: 2 of 11 ARGUED: Justin Michael Flint, ECCLESTON & WOLF, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Emanwel Josef Turnbull, THE HOLLAND LAW FIRM, P.C., Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Channing L. Shor, ECCLESTON & WOLF, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Peter A. Holland, THE HOLLAND LAW FIRM, P.C., Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellee. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1971 Doc: 26 Filed: 05/18/2026 Pg: 3 of 11 WILKINSON, Circuit Judge: In this case, a law firm seeks the protection of its client’s arbitration agreement. But the law firm is not a party to the agreement, and the fact that its client is a party does not transform it into one. Because the firm is not a party to the agreement, it cannot enforce it. We thus affirm the district court’s decision denying the law firm’s motion to compel. I. This lawsuit arises from a $30,000 loan. WebBank initially extended the loan to Donte Jackson. Then it sold the loan on the secondary market, where Velocity Investments, LLC bought it. Velocity became Jackson’s creditor. When Jackson failed to pay his debt, Velocity sued him in Maryland state court to collect it. Velocity was represented in the state court action by Protas, Spivok & Collins LLC (PSC), a debt collection law firm. Shortly before trial, Velocity dismissed its own suit with prejudice. Then Jackson initiated this lawsuit against both Velocity and PSC, which he styled as a class action challenging the legality of their “practice of suing on time-barred debt.” J.A. 7. In response, Velocity and PSC asked the district court to send the case to arbitration. They pointed to the following provisions of Jackson’s original promissory note with WebBank: [(18)(a)](ii) “You” and “your” mean WebBank, any person servicing this Note for WebBank, any subsequent holders of this Note or any interest in this Note, any person servicing this Note for such subsequent holder of this note, and each of their respective parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors, successors, and assigns . . . . [(18)(a)](iii) “Claim” means any dispute, claim, or controversy . . . arising 3 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1971 Doc: 26 Filed: 05/18/2026 Pg: 4 of 11 from or relating to this Note . . . . [(18)](b) Any Claim shall be resolved, upon the election of either you or me, by binding arbitration . . . . J.A. 64. Velocity argued it had a right to enforce the arbitration ag