Legal Opinion

Adams v. AT & T MOBILITY, LLC

District Court, W.D. Washington

Decided September 20, 2011No. Case C10-763RAJPublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

RICHARD A. JONES, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the court on motions to compel arbitration pending in this case and in Stoican v. Cellco P’ship, No. C10-1017RAJ. In each case, the Defendant is a wireless phone service provider invoking § 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) (9 U.S.C. § 4) to force arbitration of a claim from a consumer who prefers to litigate the dispute in court. AT & T Mobility, LLC (“ATTM”) is the Defendant in this case, and Cellco Partnership, doing business as Verizon Wireless (‘Verizon”), is the Defendant in the Stoican case. The only…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. At&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications WorkersSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
  4. Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
  5. Green Tree Financial Corp.-Alabama v. RandolphSupreme Court of the United States · 2000

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Postpichal v. Cricket Wireless, LLCDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2020

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API