Interceptor Ignition Interlocks, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility Services LLC
Filing
38
OPINION AND ORDER re: 17 FIRST MOTION to Compel Arbitration pursuant to FAA, 9 USC 3,4: Defendant AT&T's motion (Doc. 17) is GRANTED to the extent it seeks to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pending the outcome of arbitrati on. It is unnecessary for the Court to reach any other grounds asserted in the motion. The parties are ordered to report to the Court on the status of the arbitration as of June 30, 2019 within 14 days thereafter. Defendant's motion (Doc. 37) for oral argument is DENIED as moot. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 3/7/2019) (jwh)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------x
INTERCEPTOR IGNITION INTERLOCKS,
INC.,
Plaintiff,
18-cv-4289 (PKC)
-againstOPINION AND
ORDER
AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant.
-----------------------------------------------------------x
CASTEL, U.S.D.J.
Plaintiff Interceptor Ignition Interlocks, Inc. (“Interceptor”) sued AT&T Mobility
Services, LLC (“AT&T”) in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County,
alleging that AT&T improperly terminated the wireless communication services it provided to
Interceptor in connection with Interceptor’s patented automobile ignition “interlock” device,
designed to help prevent drunk driving. Interceptor brought claims for breach of contract and
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. AT&T removed the action to this
Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction and has since moved to compel arbitration of the
pending claims and stay the action. 1 For the reasons set forth below, AT&T’s motion to compel
arbitration and stay proceedings will be granted.
BACKGROUND
Interceptor alleges that in 2004 it entered into an oral contract for AT&T to
provide SIM cards (subscriber identification module cards) and wireless telecommunication
services. (Ruocco Decl. ¶¶ 2, 3, 5.) It asserts that its claim arises under this oral agreement.
1
AT&T also alternatively moved for dismissal on Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P., grounds, which is unnecessary for
this Court to reach.
AT&T, in contrast, has come forward with evidence that it does “not permit a
customer such as Interceptor to receive and be billed for wireless communications services
unless the customer enters into a written agreement with AT&T to receive such services.
(Cooper Decl. ¶ 4.) AT&T notes that Interceptor’s Complaint (at ¶ 52) describes a specific
AT&T invoice for services and the invoice identifies Interceptor by a Foundation Account
Number (“FAN”). (Id. ¶ 5). Utilizing this unique number, AT&T was able to locate a written
agreement between “AT&T Mobility National Accounts LLC” and Interceptor, titled “AT&T
Corporate Digital Advantage Agreement” (the “ACDA Agreement”). (Id. ¶ 6-8, Ex. 2.) AT&T
has a separate record of the April 29, 2008 electronic signature of John Ruocco, the President of
Interceptor, on the ACDA Agreement. (Id. ¶ 11, Ex. 3.)
The ACDA Agreement expressly provides for AT&T to provide “Service” to
Interceptor and provides for a Service Discount based upon Interceptor’s monthly volume of
incurred charges, including a 17% discount when the monthly volume of charges on certain
services reaches $916,000. (Id., Ex. 2 at 3). “Service” is defined as “commercial mobile radio
service, including Voice Service and Wireless Data Service, and other related products, services
and programs provided under the Agreement.” (Id., Ex. 4 at 10.) The ACDA Agreement states
in its first paragraph that the agreement is subject to the General Terms and Conditions found on
the AT&T Corporate Digital Advantage Program’s website and provides the URL of that
website after the words in boldface “The Program Website is. . . .”
The General Terms and Conditions contain a broad arbitration provision:
10. Arbitration. . . . Any dispute arising out of or related to this
Agreement that cannot be resolved by negotiation shall be resolved
by binding arbitration administered by the American Arbitration
Association (“AAA”) under its Commercial Arbitration Rules in
effect at the time that a dispute is submitted for resolution (the
“Rules”), as modified by this Agreement. . . .
2
(Id., Ex. 4.) It further provides that the defined party to the ACDA Agreement, “AT&T Mobility
National Accounts LLC,” includes “its Affiliates. . . .” (Id., Ex. 4 at 10.) It also defines
“Affiliate” as meaning and including “legal entities controlling or controlled by or under
common control” with “AT&T Mobility National Accounts LLC.” (Id.)
Interceptor, by Ruocco, also entered into the “AT&T Machine to Machine
Wireless Communications Agreement” (the “M to M Agreement”) with AT&T Mobility II, LLC
“on behalf of its Affiliates” on or about August 17, 2011 with terms and conditions, insofar as
relevant to the motion, substantially identical to those referenced above, including the quoted
arbitration provision. (Id., Ex. 5, 6.)
Interceptor urges that the ACDA Agreement is “entirely unrelated” to the services
giving rise to its claims against AT&T. It also asserts that no services were ever provided
pursuant to the M to M Agreement. While Ruocco asserts that he has “no recollection” of
agreeing to the ACDA Agreement (Ruocco Decl. ¶ 6), Interceptor submits no evidence to
contradict the document or its electronic signature verification. Ruocco does not dispute that
Interceptor executed the M to M Agreement. (Id. ¶ 14-15.)
DISCUSSION
The principles governing a motion to compel arbitration under the Federal
Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16, are familiar and require little discussion. The
Supreme Court has explained that the purpose of the FAA is “to ensure judicial enforcement of
privately made agreements to arbitrate.” Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 219
(1985). The FAA reflects “a strong federal policy favoring arbitration as an alternative means of
dispute resolution.” JLM Indus. v. Stolt-Nielsen SA, 387 F.3d 163, 171 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting
3
Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Swiss Reinsurance Am. Corp., 246 F.3d 219, 226 (2d Cir.
2001)).
The FAA applies to the claims in Interceptor’s Complaint because the described
wireless services are comfortably encompassed within the term interstate commerce. See 9
U.S.C. § 1. “The Second Circuit has established a two-part test for determining arbitrability of
claims not involving federal statutes: (1) whether the parties agreed to arbitrate disputes at all;
and (2) whether the dispute at issue comes within the scope of the arbitration agreement.” ACE
Capital Re Overseas Ltd. v. Cent. United Life Ins. Co., 307 F.3d 24, 28 (2d Cir. 2002); see also
JLM Indus., 387 F.3d at 169.
AT&T has come forward with uncontradicted evidence that the parties did indeed
agree to arbitrate disputes. Interceptor does not deny entering into the M to M Agreement with
its broad arbitration provision and, at most, Ruocco does not recall if he entered into the ACDA
Agreement. A party’s failure to recall whether the party executed an agreement is not sufficient
to defeat summary judgment in the face of a movant’s evidence that the party did enter into the
agreement. Vardanyan v. Close-Up Int'l, Inc., 315 F. App'x 315, 318 (2d Cir. 2009). This
principle applies with equal force to a motion to compel arbitration. Moise v. Family Dollar
Stores of New York, Inc., No. 16-CV-6314 (RA), 2017 WL 2378193, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 1,
2017) (Abrams, J.).
As to the second inquiry, whether the dispute falls within the scope of the
arbitration agreement, there are two relevant points found in the language of the arbitration
provisions of the ACDA Agreement and the M to M Agreement. First, the scope of the
arbitration provision is broad covering “[a]ny dispute arising out of or related to this Agreement”
and the term “Services” as used in the agreements is also broad. Second, the agreements provide
4
that the arbitration shall be “administered by the American Arbitration Association . . . under its
Commercial Arbitration Rules in effect at the time that a dispute is submitted for resolution. . . .”
Rule 7(a) of the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association provide
that “[t]he arbitrator shall have the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction, including any
objections with respect to the existence, scope, or validity of the arbitration agreement or to the
arbitrability of any claim or counterclaim.” (Fedor Decl., Ex. A at 14.) Thus, on their face, the
arbitration agreements entered into by AT&T and Interceptor have granted to the arbitrator the
power and authority to decide whether a given dispute, such as that alleged in the Complaint,
falls within the scope of the arbitration provision.
The enforceability of a contractual delegation to an arbitrator of the power to
decide whether a particular dispute falls within the scope of an arbitration agreement was
recently reaffirmed by the Supreme Court:
When the parties' contract delegates the arbitrability question to an
arbitrator, a court may not override the contract. In those
circumstances, a court possesses no power to decide the
arbitrability issue. That is true even if the court thinks that the
argument that the arbitration agreement applies to a particular
dispute is wholly groundless.
Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 524, 529 (2019). In Henry Schein,
the source of the delegation to the arbitrator was the rules of the American Arbitration
Association, although not the Commercial Arbitration Rules. Id. at 528. Rule 7(a) of the
Commercial Arbitration Rules (quoted above), however, is similarly explicit.
The Court will grant AT&T’s motion insofar as it seeks to compel arbitration of
the claims asserted in the Complaint and stay the action pending the completion of the
arbitration. WorldCrisa Corp. v. Armstrong, 129 F.3d 71, 74 (2d Cir. 1997) (“Under Section 3
of the FAA, 9 U.S.C. § 3, a district court must stay proceedings if satisfied that the parties have
5
agreed in writing to arbitrate an issue or issues underlying the district court proceeding.”)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
CONCLUSION
Defendant AT&T’s motion (Doc. 17) is GRANTED to the extent it seeks to
compel arbitration and stay proceedings pending the outcome of arbitration. It is unnecessary for
the Court to reach any other grounds asserted in the motion. The parties are ordered to report to
the Court on the status of the arbitration as of June 30, 2019 within 14 days thereafter.
Defendant’s motion (Doc. 37) for oral argument is DENIED as moot.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: New York, NY
March 7, 2019
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?