Two other district courts have interpreted the instant arbitration clause. Lupo, LLC v. Reynolds and Reynolds Co., 729 F. Supp. 2d 350 (D. Me. 2010); S.Dade Dealership, LLC v. Reynolds and Reynolds Co., No. 10-24346-CIV-UNGARO (S.D. Fl. Mar. 7, 2011). Both have held that "the most sensible reading of the exception to the mandatory arbitration clause is that it was intended to apply narrowly to the simple uncontested collection action - that is, where the customer's liability for a sum certain is not in question but the customer is delinquent in paying this amount to Reynolds."

W.-S. Life Assurance Co. v. Kaleh, 879 F.3d 653, 663 (5th Cir. 2018); see also Aultman Hosp. Ass'n v. Comty. Mut. Ins. Co., 46 Ohio St 3d 51, 544 N.E.2d 920, 924 (1989) ("[C]ourts will not give the contract a construction other than that which the plain language of the contract provides."). This Court must also understand words for their common meaning and avoid interpretations that lead to portions of the contract being rendered meaningless or extraneous. Lupo, LLC v. Reynolds & Reynolds Co., 729 F. Supp. 2d 350, 356 (D. Me. 2010) (citing PowerShare, Inc. v. Syntel, Inc., 597 F.3d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 2010)); see also State v. Bethel, 110 Ohio St.3d 416, 854 N.E.2d 150 (2006). Additionally, this ordinary meaning must not manifest absurdity or contrary meaning is clearly evidenced from made clear through the overall contract.