T-Mobile’s motion to compel Samuel Whatley's claims to arbitration for alleged Electronic Communications Privacy Act and Electronic Funds Transfer Act violations should be granted and Whatley’s complaint dismissed in full, said U.S. Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker for South Carolina in Charleston in her signed report and recommendation Wednesday (docket 2:23-cv-01339). The pro se plaintiff alleges a T-Mobile employee unlawfully transferred his phone number to another unauthorized device and in so doing compromised his entire bank account (see 2404170005). He responded to T-Mobile’s motion to compel with a countermotion for summary judgment against the defendant. Whatley entered into a service agreement and its arbitration provisions when he opened his T-Mobile account in 2017, said Baker’s report. He doesn’t contest the arbitration provisions or claim that they don’t cover his dispute with the carrier, it said. Instead, he contends that his signatures on the service agreement were unnotarized, undated and forged, and on that basis, he claims that no legally binding or recognized arbitration agreement exists, it said. But Baker finds Whatley’s claims “unconvincing,” said her report. As T-Mobile correctly notes, there’s no requirement that a signature to a contract be notarized or dated, it said. The law merely requires assent, it said. The plaintiff’s claims that his signatures were forged “are also unconvincing,” it said. Whatley provides “only bare assertions to support these claims, and the record is devoid of any evidence to substantiate them,” it said. His “self-serving assertions, without more, cannot dispel the substantial record evidence showing that he agreed to arbitrate the claims at issue here,” it said.

Samuel Whatley should be required to arbitrate his Electronic Communications Privacy Act and Electronic Funds Transfer Act claims against T-Mobile to arbitration, said the defendant’s reply Tuesday (docket 2:23-cv-01339) in U.S. District Court for South Carolina in Charleston in support of its March 27 motion to compel (see 2403280037). Pro se plaintiff Whatley alleges a T-Mobile employee unlawfully transferred his phone number to another unauthorized device and in so doing compromised his entire bank account. He responded to T-Mobile’s motion to compel with a countermotion for summary judgment against T-Mobile. But Whatley’s opposition “fails to refute the evidence” in T-Mobile’s motion to compel that he “repeatedly assented” to its terms and conditions, which require arbitration of his dispute with T-Mobile, said the defendant’s reply. The plaintiff’s "conclusory assertion" that his arbitration agreements aren’t legally binding “are not supported by any testimony or other evidence, and not enough to avoid arbitration,” it said. Whatley’s arguments that his unnotarized or undated signatures can’t show that he agreed to T-Mobile’s terms “are not well founded,” it said. He identifies “no requirement that a signature to a contract needs to be notarized or dated, it said. The law “merely requires assent, as opposed to formalities such as notarization,” it said. Whatley appears to challenge one of his signed arbitration agreements as a forgery, it said. But as courts have repeatedly held, “these types of unsupported allegations that an arbitration agreement was procured by fraud are insufficient to avoid arbitration,” it said. Even if the plaintiff could identify a "valid objection" to arbitration, which he hasn't, the parties “delegated all issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator to decide in the first instance,” T-Mobile said.

Volkswagen Group of America is appealing to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals a district court's March 19 opinion and order denying without prejudice its motions to compel the 3G telematics claims of five plaintiffs to arbitration and to dismiss their claims (see 2403200038), said its notice of appeal Monday (docket 2:22-cv-06230). The plaintiffs allege that VWGofA, distributor of VW and Audi vehicles in the U.S., knew well in advance of AT&T’s decision to terminate its 3G wireless service, yet did nothing to modernize its in-vehicle telematics equipment and kept car-buying consumers in the dark about it. Because the affirmative defense of arbitrability isn't apparent on the face of the amended complaint, the motion to compel arbitration must be denied pending limited discovery, U.S. District Judge Esther Salas for New Jersey in Newark said in her opinion.

T-Mobile seeks to compel the SIM swap claims of Tampa physician Pina Panchal to arbitration, said T-Mobile’s motion Wednesday (docket 8:24-cv-00456) in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Tampa. Panchal’s Feb. 21 negligence complaint alleges that her T-Mobile account was improperly transferred to individuals who used her identity to attempt to buy fraudulent prescriptions of controlled substances (see 2402220067). The thieves also tried to transfer $100,000 from the plaintiff's retirement account, it alleges. But Panchal is "contractually required" to bring her claims in arbitration, said T-Mobile’s motion. On numerous occasions over a period of years, she assented to T-Mobile’s terms and conditions containing the arbitration provisions, it said. The arbitration agreement delegates any “threshold questions” to the arbitrator, so the district court’s inquiry “should end here,” it said. But in any event, the arbitration agreement “plainly covers” Panchal’s claims, “which arise directly from T-Mobile’s provision of telecommunications services,” it said. Courts “regularly require” T-Mobile customers to abide by this arbitration agreement under “indistinguishable circumstances,” said the motion. This court “should do the same,” it said.