Verizon Wireless Personal Communications, LP v. Bateman

Filing 21

ORDER affirming the May 24, 2018 order (Bk. Doc. 50) denying Verizon's motion to compel arbitration; directing the clerk to CLOSE this case. Signed by Judge Steven D. Merryday on 9/24/2019. (GSO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

In Re: CHRISTOPHER BATEMAN

CASE NO. 8:14-bk-5369-RCT

____________________________________/
VERIZON WIRELESS PERSONAL
COMMUNICATIONS, LP,
Appellant,
v.

CASE NO. 8:18-cv-1394-T-23

CHRISTOPHER BATEMAN,
Appellee.
____________________________________/

ORDER
In 2012 Christopher Bateman entered a “Customer Agreement” under which
Verizon provided cellular service in exchange for monthly payments. The Customer
Agreement contained an arbitration clause. Later, Bateman petitioned for Chapter 7
bankruptcy protection and listed Verizon as a creditor possessing a $481 unsecured
claim. Although receiving notice, Verizon neither challenged the discharged nor
otherwise appeared in the bankruptcy. In due course the bankruptcy court
discharged Bateman’s debts under 11 U.S.C. § 727 and enjoined Verizon and other
creditors from undertaking “any attempt to collect from the debtor a debt that has
been discharged.” Verizon never appeared to challenge the issuance of the discharge
injunction or to request a modification.

About five months after the discharge and without obtaining permission from
the bankruptcy court, Verizon unilaterally sent Bateman a letter demanding payment
of the discharged debt. After receiving the letter, Bateman moved to hold Verizon in
contempt of the discharge injunction. Citing the arbitration clause in the Customer
Agreement, Verizon moved to compel arbitration of the contempt motion. Noting
that the bankruptcy court had “not agreed to arbitrate its contempt powers,” the
bankruptcy court denied the motion. Verizon appeals.
A party moving to compel arbitration must establish that the parties agreed to
arbitrate the dispute. Verizon cites an arbitration clause in the Customer Agreement,
which states that “[a]ny dispute that in any way relates to or arises out of this
agreement . . . will be resolved by [arbitration].” But Verizon identifies no dispute
that “in any way relates to or arises out of” the Customer Agreement. Bateman
claims that Verizon violated a court-issued injunction, not that Verizon breached the
Customer Agreement. Although characterizing the allegedly contemptuous conduct
as an attempt to enforce the Customer Agreement, no party disputes that the debt
accruing under the Customer Agreement was discharged. That is, no dispute “that
in any way relates to or arises out of” the Customer Agreement remains. Seifert v.
U.S. Home Corp., 750 So. 2d 633, 638 (Fla. 1999); Verizon Wireless v. Bateman, 264 So.
3d 345 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (holding that the same arbitration clause lacks a
“significant relationship” to Christopher Bateman’s claim under the FCCPA).
Further, a bankruptcy court, like any court, retains the inherent power to
enforce an order. Although begun by a party, a contempt proceeding is “at all times
-2-

an action of the court.” United States v. Coulton, 594 F. App’x 563, 567 (11th Cir.
Nov. 25, 2014) (per curiam) (holding that a court possesses a “distinct interest” in
compliance with an order, which interest “activates immediately in each action in
which the court's authority is defied [and] in each instance in which the court's
authority is defied.”)
Although subject to the discharge injunction, Verizon — unilaterally and
without permission — reportedly defied the injunction by demanding collection of
the discharged debt. Because the bankruptcy court “that issued the injunctive order
alone possesses the power to enforce compliance with and punish contempt of that
order,” Alderwoods Grp., Inc. v. Garcia, 682 F.3d 958, 973 (11th Cir. 2012) (Tjoflat, J.),
Verizon, which maintained silence in response to Bateman’s petition and in response
to issuance of the discharge injunction, cannot demand that an arbitrator determine
Verizon’s compliance. Words in a consumer agreement cannot deprive the
bankruptcy court of the inherent power to enforce compliance with an injunction, the
issuance of which was lawful, uncontested, and binding.
The May 24, 2018 order (Bk. Doc. 50) denying Verizon’s motion to compel
arbitration is AFFIRMED. The clerk is directed to close this case.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on September 24, 2019.

-3-