The Desert Rock Capital lawsuit is a federal case in Utah, Christensen v. Desert Rock Capital, Inc., in which a borrower accuses the Salt Lake City lender of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by calling and texting numbers on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. In April 2025, Chief District Judge Robert J. Shelby stayed the case and sent the fight to arbitration, ruling that the loan paperwork gave an arbitrator, not the court, the power to decide whether the arbitration clause itself is enforceable.1CaseMine. Christensen v. Desert Rock Capital, Inc.
Who Sued and What They Allege
The plaintiff, identified as Christensen, filed suit in 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, case number 2:24-cv-00808-RJS-CMR. He says he took out a loan from Desert Rock in June 2018 and that the loan documents authorized the company to contact him by phone and text for marketing and business purposes.1CaseMine. Christensen v. Desert Rock Capital, Inc.
The complaint alleges two categories of TCPA violations under 47 U.S.C. § 227. First, that Desert Rock placed telemarketing calls and sent text messages to phone numbers on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. Second, that the company failed to honor internal do-not-call requests from consumers who asked to be left alone.1CaseMine. Christensen v. Desert Rock Capital, Inc.
The April 2025 Arbitration Ruling
Desert Rock moved to dismiss the case or, in the alternative, to stay it and compel arbitration, pointing to arbitration provisions in the loan documents that incorporated the American Arbitration Association’s Commercial Arbitration Rules. On April 17, 2025, Judge Shelby granted the motion to the extent it sought a stay and an order compelling arbitration.1CaseMine. Christensen v. Desert Rock Capital, Inc.
The ruling turned on delegation. Ordinarily a court decides whether a dispute belongs in arbitration, but that default flips when a contract shows “clear and unmistakable evidence” that the parties agreed to let the arbitrator make that call. Judge Shelby held that Desert Rock’s contracts did exactly that by incorporating the AAA rules, which give the arbitrator “the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence, scope or validity of the arbitration agreement.”1CaseMine. Christensen v. Desert Rock Capital, Inc.
That meant the court would not evaluate Christensen’s arguments that the arbitration clause was unconscionable, lacked a meeting of the minds, or was illusory. Those challenges now go to the arbitrator. The judge cited Tenth Circuit precedent including DISH Network, LLC v. Ray, 900 F.3d 1240 (10th Cir. 2018), which held that incorporating AAA rules is enough to delegate arbitrability questions.2FindLaw. DISH Network LLC v. Ray
Why the Case Was Paused, Not Dismissed
Desert Rock had asked for dismissal as its first choice. It did not get that. Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472, when a party requests a stay pending arbitration, Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act requires the court to grant one. The word “shall” in the statute, the Court wrote, “creates an obligation impervious to judicial discretion.”3Supreme Court of the United States. Smith v. Spizzirri
That distinction matters for Christensen. A stay keeps the case on the court’s docket. If arbitration falls apart or does not resolve the TCPA claims, he can return to federal court without refiling. A dismissal would have converted the arbitration order into a final judgment that Desert Rock could have used to close the courthouse door.4Law.cornell.edu. Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472
What Happens Next
The case is open but frozen. An AAA arbitrator will decide both the challenges to the arbitration clause and, if the clause survives, the underlying TCPA claims. Judge Shelby ordered Desert Rock to file status reports with the court every 120 days, starting October 1, 2025, and a final report on the arbitration outcome within 14 days of it concluding.1CaseMine. Christensen v. Desert Rock Capital, Inc.
The Complaint Pattern Behind the Lawsuit
Christensen’s allegations line up with complaints other Desert Rock borrowers have filed publicly. On its Better Business Bureau profile, where the company is not accredited and holds a “B” rating, Desert Rock has 26 complaints over the prior three years, with 11 closed in the most recent 12-month period.5BBB. Desert Rock Capital, Inc. Complaints
Borrowers have reported persistent calls and texts soliciting new loans even after asking to be removed from contact lists, which is the same conduct at the heart of the TCPA case.6BBB. Desert Rock Capital, Inc. BBB Profile Other complaints describe difficulty getting basic account information without visiting a branch, unreturned calls, garnishment notices arriving with no prior communication, and what one borrower called “bait and switch” pricing: prequalification for one amount over the phone, then a smaller offer at the branch. One consumer reported being sued for $4,000 on a $1,000 loan. In responding to complaints, Desert Rock has at times released garnishments, provided missing documentation, or set up payment plans, and in some cases acknowledged that service fell short and promised staff retraining.5BBB. Desert Rock Capital, Inc. Complaints
Desert Rock offers unsecured “signature loans” from $100 to $3,000, marketed to borrowers with bad credit, no credit, or a prior bankruptcy, with approvals based on ability to repay rather than a credit check. Loans are structured as 36 biweekly payments.7Desert Rock Capital. Personal Loans
Utah’s Lending Rules Give the Lender Room
Utah does not cap interest rates on consumer installment loans by number. It relies on a general “unconscionability” standard, meaning loan terms stand unless they “shock the conscience.” A 2024 National Consumer Law Center report grouped Utah with Idaho and Wisconsin as the only three states without explicit interest rate limits.8National Consumer Law Center. Predatory Installment Lending in the States
Utah courts have upheld annual rates above 20% and even above 40%. A borrower can attack a contract as unconscionable by showing absence of meaningful choice, exploitation of an uneducated or non-English-speaking party, or unfair surprise buried in fine print, and contracts can also be voided for fraud, duress, undue influence, or mutual mistake. The threshold, in practice, is high.9FindLaw. Utah Interest Rates Laws Desert Rock does not publicly disclose the interest rates on its loans, stating only that interest is “fully amortized over 36 biweekly payments” and that customers “only pay for the time you have the loan.”7Desert Rock Capital. Personal Loans
For now, the arbitration ruling means the substance of Christensen’s TCPA claims will play out privately, and any word on the outcome will reach the public docket only through Desert Rock’s status reports.