Moore v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER: T-Mobile's Cross-Petition to Confirm the Arbitration Award is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Petition to Vacate the Arbitration Award is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 2/03/2015) (ama)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

------------------------------------x
TEDDY MOORE,
Plaintiff,

~

;"'·i··-~'
'

~

'

.:

.

•' i

.IL"'-"
1·

l\~--

MEkORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER

-against-

14 Civ. 7724 (GBD) (AJP)
T-MOBILE USA, INC.,
Defendant.
-----------------------------------

x

GEORGE B. DANIELS, United States District Judge:
Defendant T-Mobile USA, Inc. ("T-Mobile") removed this case from the New York
County Supreme Court where pro se Teddy Moore ("Plaintiff') filed a claim to vacate an
arbitration award on the grounds that he did not agree to arbitrate his claims against T-Mobile
pursuant to his service agreement with T-Mobile. In Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck's Report
and Recommendation ("Report"), he recommends that this Court grant T-Mobile's cross-petition
to confirm the arbitration award, and enjoin Plaintiff from filing future claims relating to the
arbitration award without the Court's permission. See Report at 1, ECF No. 23. Magistrate Judge
Peck also recommends imposing monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $10,000 for
violations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.
The Court may accept, reject, or modify, m whole or in part, the findings and
recommendations set forth within the Report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C) (2012). When parties
object to the Report, the Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report
to which objections are made. Id. The Court need not conduct a de novo hearing on the matter.
See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 675 (1980). Rather, it is sufficient that the Court

J

"'arrive at its own, independent conclusion"' regarding those portions to which objections were
made. Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189-90 (S.D.N.Y. 1985).
Magistrate Judge Peck advised the parties that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l) and
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) failure to file objections to the Report within fourteen days
would result in their waiver and preclude appellate review. See Report at 16. Plaintiff filed timely
objections on October 31, 2014.

See Pl.'s Objections, ECF No. 24. T-Mobile subsequently

responded to Plaintiffs objections. ECF No. 25.
The objections of parties appearing prose are "generally accorded leniency" and should be
construed "to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest." Milano v. Astrue, No. 05 Civ.
6527, 2008 WL 4410131, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Nevertheless, "even a prose party's objections ... must be specific and clearly aimed at particular
findings" in the Report. Pinkney v. Progressive Home Health Servs., No. 06 Civ. 5023, 2008 WL
2811816, at *l (S.D.N.Y. July 21, 2008).
This Court adopts that part of the Report recommending confirmation of the arbitration
award and the issuance of an order to enjoin Plaintiff from filing future claims relating to the
arbitration. However, this Court declines to impose at this time sanctions for Rule 11 violations
in the amount of $10,000. It is hereby ORDERED that any new federal or state lawsuits filed by
Plaintiff arising from or related to his prior claims against T-Mobile shall be a violation of this
Court's order and will automatically result in the imposition of the recommended sanction in the
amount of $10,000.
Magistrate Judge Peck correctly recommends confirming the arbitration award in this
matter. Under Section 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), any party to an arbitration may
apply to a federal court for confirmation of an award at any time within one year after the award.

2

See 9 U.S.C. § 9. 1 Magistrate Judge Peck correctly stated that '"confirmation of an arbitration
award is 'a summary proceeding that merely makes what is already a final arbitration award a
judgment of the court[.]"' Report at 4 (citing D.H. Blair & Co. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95, 110
(2d Cir. 2006)).

An arbitration award should be enforced "if there is 'a barely colorable

just(fication for the outcome reached."' Report at 5 (quoting Matthew v. Papua New Guinea, 398

F. App'x 646, 648 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Plaintiff objects to confirmation of the arbitration award, arguing that the Report does not
address the issue of whether there is a valid agreement to arbitrate. Pl. 's Objections ii 2-3. Plaintiff
also argues that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this case, and that the Report is
biased. Id.

ii 1-3. Magistrate Judge Peck correctly rejected Plaintiffs attempt to relitigate this

claim. In a prior action brought by Plaintiff, United States District Judge Sandra L. Townes of the
Eastern District of New York held that Plaintiff was contractually obligated to arbitrate his claims
against T-Mobile.

See Moore v. T-Mobile USA, No. 10-CV-527, 2013 WL 55799, at *3

(E.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2013)). The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision. See Moore
v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 548 F. App'x 686, 686-87 (2d Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1348
(2014). Magistrate Judge Peck also correctly rejected Plaintiffs argument that this Court lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction. T-Mobile has adequately demonstrated subject-matter jurisdiction on
diversity grounds. 2 See Report at 11 n.11. Additionally, Plaintiffs objection that the Report is
biased is frivolous. Plaintiff has not, and cannot, provide any evidence of bias.

1

The arbitration award was rendered on August 7, 2014, dismissing all claims against T-Mobile. See Notice of
Removal, Ex. 3; ECF No. I.
2

Magistrate Judge Peck correctly found that complete diversity exists in this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), (c)(l).
Plaintiff is a citizen ofNew York, and T-Mobile is a corporation with dual citizenship in Delaware and Washington
State. See Notice of Removal~ 8. Plaintiff has raised this jurisdictional issue already in the Eastern District of New

3

Magistrate Judge Peck also correctly recommends enjoining Plaintiff with a court order
from filing future claims related to the arbitration proceeding against T-Mobile. 3 Report at 14-15.
A court order enjoining Plaintiff is necessary to prevent further waste of judicial resources.
However, this Court does not impose financial sanctions against Plaintiff at this time.
Although Magistrate Judge Peck's recommendation is well-founded and supported, Plaintiff states
that he presently lives in a homeless shelter. Pl.'s Objections if 11. This Court is concerned that
monetary sanctions in the amount of $10,000 may function more as a hardship for Plaintiff and
not a deterrent as intended. A court order enjoining Plaintiff from filing future claims relating to
the arbitration should suffice. However, if Plaintiff fails to obey the Court's order, monetary
sanctions will be imposed.

York before Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollack and Judge Townes. See Moore v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 10 CV
527, 2010 WL 5817656, at *2-3 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2010); T-Mobile's Ltr. at 3.
3

The Second Circuit has articulated the following factors to determine whether restricting future litigation is
appropriate: "(I) the litigant's history of litigation and in particular whether it entailed vexatious, harassing or
duplicative lawsuits; (2) the litigant's motive in pursuing the litigation ... ; (3) whether the litigant is represented by
counsel; (4) whether the litigant has caused needless expense to other parties or has posed an unnecessary burden on
the courts and their personnel; and (5) whether other sanctions would be adequate to protect the courts and other
parties." Safir v. United States Lines, I 0 Civ. 792 F.2d 19, 24 (2d Cir. 1986); accord Naughright v. Weiss, No. I 0
Civ. 8451, 2013 WL 1859221, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2013).

4

CONCLUSION

T-Mobile's Cross-Petition to Confirm the Arbitration Award is GRANTED. Plaintiffs
Petition to Vacate the Arbitration Award is DENIED.
The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

Dated: New York, New York
February 2, 2015,

f

; I so ORDERED.

,

..

"
j

;.

5

he_']>~
'i<DANIELS
United States District Judge