T-Mobile Reply Again Asks Court to Compel Plaintiff’s Claims to Arbitration

Esperanza Rendon’s June 7 opposition to T-Mobile’s motion to compel her claims to arbitration (see 2406100028) fails to refute T-Mobile’s evidence that she agreed to T-Mobile’s terms and conditions (T&Cs), and that her claims fall within the broad scope of the arbitration provision contained in those T&Cs, said T-Mobile’s reply memorandum Friday (docket 2:24-cv-01666) ) in U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles in support of its motion to compel. Rendon’s various objections to arbitration “lack merit for multiple reasons,” said the reply. Rendon had “constructive notice” of the T&Cs and assented to them by using and paying for T-Mobile services and devices, it said. She doesn’t dispute that the arbitration provision encompasses her claims, it said. Rendon’s challenges to the validity of the arbitration provision and the delegation clause also “are for the arbitrator to decide,” it said. T-Mobile’s arbitration provision “is neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable,” it said. It’s not procedurally unconscionable because customers “may opt out of arbitration,” it said. It also doesn’t meet “the high bar for substantive unconscionability” because it’s not so one-sided that it “shocks the conscience,” it said. “It is, in fact, extremely fair to the consumer,” it said. To invalidate a contract, a party “must show that it is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable,” it said: “This is neither.” The court should compel Rendon “to honor her repeated promises to resolve any claims against T-Mobile through arbitration,” it said. Rendon is suing T-Mobile to challenge the “regulatory programs & telco recovery fee” on its monthly invoices. She also alleges that when she purchased additional phones from T-Mobile, she was charged for “add-on” device protection plans without her knowledge or consent.