Adams v. AT & T MOBILITY, LLC
District Court, W.D. Washington
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
- Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- At&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications WorkersSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- 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
- Postpichal v. Cricket Wireless, LLCDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2020