Hi TCPAWorld!
Every so often a case lands that is worth reading twice — once for the facts, and once for the procedure. Dobronski v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC, No. 25-12798, 2026 WL 2296669 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 10, 2026), is one of those.
Let’s set the table.
Mark Dobronski, a name most of you know well claims that between August 11 and 19, 2025, he got twenty calls from the same number to his cell. Each one rang once and dropped before he could pick up. So, he called the number back, landed in an IVR identifying Rocket, pressed 1, and got an agent named Blake. Blake told him Rocket had been trying to reach him about refinancing.
Dobronski told Blake his number was on the DNC registry, he wasn’t interested, and to stop calling. He says another call came in September anyway, plus a text from a Rocket loan officer.
Rocket’s response? You’re not telling the whole story.
The Lead Record
Rocket put in a declaration from a Principal Data Analyst. Her testimony: on or about August 11, 2025, a user at IP address 173.167.231.105 visited a Rocket website and submitted a mortgage inquiry. The submission listed the name “Testq Testing,” Dobronski’s phone number, a Michigan property, a purchase loan, and a $250,000 loan amount. The user then clicked “Confirm & continue.”
And here’s the part that matters. Sitting above that button was a disclosure that clicking it means agreeing to the Terms of Use including, expressly, an agreement to arbitrate claims related to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act — and express consent to receive marketing calls and texts even if the number is on a do-not-call list. The Terms themselves cover TCPA claims and any similar state law claims, governed by the FAA.
Rocket also came in with a supplemental submission: a September 29, 2025 inquiry, same name, same number, same state, from a different IP address, with the analyst attesting that Rocket’s systems tied both submissions to the same individual.
Solid record. So why isn’t this case in arbitration?
The Declaration
Because Dobronski filed a sworn declaration saying he didn’t do it. Not him, not anyone acting for him. Never used that IP. Never used the name “Testq Testing.” And this is the detail that stings, he points out the August IP traces on the public lookup sites to a Comcast connection at the Humane Society in Ann Arbor. He attests that he has no Ann Arbor residence and no Comcast.
Magistrate Judge Altman found the declaration to be competent evidence and found a question of fact on formation, because Rocket “has not shown that Dobronski himself entered into its arbitration agreement.” She recommended denying the motion to compel without prejudice, with discovery to follow and, at the same time, recommended the district court go ahead and rule on Rocket’s motion to dismiss to narrow the issues.
That second half is where Rocket objected. And Rocket won.
Arbitration First. Full Stop.
Judge F. Kay Behm sustained the objection and held the procedure was backwards.
Section 4 of the FAA says that if the making of the arbitration agreement is in issue, “the court shall proceed summarily to the trial thereof.” The Sixth Circuit has been clear on what that means in practice: once a motion to compel is filed, the district court refrains from further action and first determines whether there’s a written agreement to arbitrate. Southard v. Newcomb Oil Co., No. 19-5187 (6th Cir. Nov. 12, 2019). Boykin v. Family Dollar Stores of Michigan, LLC, 3 F.4th 832 (6th Cir. 2021), goes further than that. The parties may not address other issues, including merits issues, before the court resolves formation.
So: motion to compel denied without prejudice. First motion to dismiss denied as moot. Second motion to dismiss denied without prejudice. All remaining objections overruled without prejudice. Everything gets held in abeyance while the case proceeds to targeted discovery and a summary trial on one question — did Dobronski, or someone acting for him, submit that form?
If Rocket wins that, it’s over. Note what Dobronski didn’t argue: he never contested that the arbitration agreement is enforceable or that it covers his claims. His only position is that he never transacted at all. The court said so expressly, there is no question at this point that the agreement is enforceable against both parties if it turns out he or his agent submitted the number.
One more wrinkle worth flagging. Dobronski tried to use his response brief to shrink the scope of Rocket’s discovery into his online activity while expanding what he gets from Rocket. The court wasn’t having it, no showing of a Rule 26(f) conference, wrong posture, arguments not addressed. The court told him plainly to confer in good faith and resolve simple discovery matters before burning the court’s time.
The Takeaway
A few things for the defense bar here.
One: a bare declaration still moves the needle. In the Sixth Circuit the standard mirrors summary judgment, and a plaintiff’s sworn “I didn’t do it” is enough to put formation in issue even against clean business records. Bazemore v. Papa John’s USA, Inc., 74 F.4th 795 (6th Cir. 2023). You should expect this from every sophisticated serial plaintiff going forward.
Two: IP geolocation is soft evidence. Public lookup tools gave Dobronski a gift here. If your lead-record story rests on an IP that resolves to an animal shelter, you have handed the other side a talking point. Build the file with device fingerprints, session recordings, TrustedForm or Jornaya certificates, timestamps, and anything that ties a human to the keystrokes, not just a network address.
Three: and this is the real win — do not let a court run the merits alongside arbitration. Rocket lost the motion to compel and still walked away better off. It got the merits frozen, its motions preserved for renewal with all briefing intact, and a targeted discovery track aimed at exactly one factual question. If your court signals it wants to “narrow issues” by ruling on a 12(b)(6) while arbitration discovery runs, object, and object specifically. FAA § 4 is a mandate, not a preference.
Denial without prejudice is not a loss when the alternative is litigating the merits in the wrong forum.
We’ll keep you posted, TCPAWorld!
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]