Plaintiff’s Own Arbitration ‘Sufficient Grounds’ to Dismiss His Complaint, Says T-Mobile
The “explicit dispute resolution provisions” of the agreement between T-Mobile and plaintiff Bradford Clements require that any dispute be arbitrated through the American Arbitration Association, said T-Mobile’s memorandum Monday (docket 5:22-cv-07512) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Jose in support of its motion to dismiss Clements’ May 22 first amended complaint. Clements sued for relief from injuries he alleges he sustained from the eight T-Mobile data breaches he endured during the three years he was a T-Mobile customer before switching carriers.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
Clements initiated an arbitration with the AAA Sept. 8, “seeking the same relief that he pursues here in this lawsuit,” said T-Mobile’s memorandum. “The mere existence of the pending arbitration alone is sufficient grounds to dismiss,” it said. It alternatively seeks a stay of Clements’ complaint pending the arbitration it seeks to compel.
Clements agreed in writing to arbitrate disputes with T-Mobile, said the memorandum. “Despite an opportunity to opt out of the arbitration provision, he chose not to,” it said. By initiating the AAA arbitration proceedings himself, Clements “waived any argument” about the enforceability of the arbitration agreement, it said. Any “lack of mutual assent arguments” he may “belatedly raise fail,” it said.
Clements’ refusal to abide by his agreement to arbitrate and instead assert his claims in California federal court, “a venue that he notably no longer even lives in,” shouldn’t be permitted, said the memorandum. His complaint “contradicts the parties’ contractual obligations and ignores the strong public policy and legal authority favoring and requiring arbitration,” it said.
Clements initiated his action against T-Mobile Nov. 30 as a petition to compel arbitration, seeking a ruling that California is the proper venue and governing law for his arbitration, said the memorandum. T-Mobile moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the arbitrator, not the court, should decide the proper venue and choice of law for the arbitration, it said. Clements responded by withdrawing his petition to compel and seeking leave to file an amended complaint, it said.
Clements’ amended complaint “now seeks to ignore his arbitration” and move forward in the court litigating the same claims, said the memorandum. Because an agreement to arbitrate still exists and because the arbitrator and not this court should decide arbitrability of his claims, T-Mobile’s motion to compel arbitration “should be granted and this case dismissed in favor of the pending arbitration,” it said.