Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 10355527
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Angelita Bailey v. Mercury Financial, LLC
No. 10355527 · Decided March 11, 2025
No. 10355527·Fourth Circuit · 2025·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decided
March 11, 2025
Citation
No. 10355527
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2133 Doc: 48 Filed: 03/11/2025 Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-2133
ANGELITA BAILEY, On Her Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MERCURY FINANCIAL, LLC,
Defendant – Appellant.
------------------------------
PUBLIC JUSTICE,
Amicus Supporting Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:23−cv−00827−DKC)
Submitted: November 6, 2024 Decided: March 11, 2025
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Judge Niemeyer wrote a dissenting opinion.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2133 Doc: 48 Filed: 03/11/2025 Pg: 2 of 4
ON BRIEF: Matthew A. Fitzgerald, Bryan A. Fratkin, Katherine E. Lehnen,
MCGUIREWOODS LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Richard S. Gordon,
Benjamin H. Carney, GORDON, WOLF & CARNEY, CHTD., Hunt Valley, Maryland,
for Appellee. Leah M. Nicholls, PUBLIC JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Amicus
Curiae.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2133 Doc: 48 Filed: 03/11/2025 Pg: 3 of 4
PER CURIAM:
In this appeal, Mercury Financial challenges the district court’s denial of its motion
to compel arbitration. The district court held that an arbitration clause contained within a
credit card contract did not bind the parties because it was illusory. Mercury contends that
the arbitrator, not the court, should have decided the issue of contract formation and that
the district court erred in holding the arbitration agreement illusory under Maryland law.
We considered and rejected these same arguments in Johnson v. Continental Finance Co.,
No. 23-2047 (4th Cir. 2025). For the reasons stated in that case, we affirm the district
court’s judgment.
AFFIRMED
3
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2133 Doc: 48 Filed: 03/11/2025 Pg: 4 of 4
NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
I respectfully dissent for the reasons I gave in my separate opinion in Johnson v.
Continental Finance Co., No. 23-2047 (4th Cir. 2025).
4
Plain English Summary
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2133 Doc: 48 Filed: 03/11/2025 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No.
Key Points
01USCA4 Appeal: 23-2133 Doc: 48 Filed: 03/11/2025 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No.
0223-2133 ANGELITA BAILEY, On Her Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff – Appellee, v.
03(8:23−cv−00827−DKC) Submitted: November 6, 2024 Decided: March 11, 2025 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
04USCA4 Appeal: 23-2133 Doc: 48 Filed: 03/11/2025 Pg: 2 of 4 ON BRIEF: Matthew A.
Frequently Asked Questions
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2133 Doc: 48 Filed: 03/11/2025 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Angelita Bailey v. Mercury Financial, LLC in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on March 11, 2025.
Use the citation No. 10355527 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.