Judge Grants T-Mobile Motion to Compel, Says Court’s Role Is ‘Narrow’

U.S. District Judge John Chun for Western Washington in Seattle granted T-Mobile’s motion to compel its Sprint 5G shutdown dispute with plaintiff Jose Luis Garcia Moreno to arbitration, said his order Wednesday (docket 2:22-cv-00843). In contracts that delegate arbitrability of a claim to an arbitrator, like those that Garcia Moreno entered into with T-Mobile, “the court’s role is narrow,” said the order.

Garcia Moreno opposed the motion to compel (see 2212120021). Chun stayed Garcia Moreno’s litigation, pending the outcome of the arbitration, adopting T-Mobile’s uncontested request, said his order.

Garcia Moreno bought a Sprint OnePlus 7 Pro 5G phone in February 2020. He alleged in his June 15 class action that T-Mobile’s July 2020 shutdown of Sprint’s 5G network -- three months after T-Mobile completed its Sprint buy -- left about 75,000 sold 5G phones without the ability to receive a 5G signal, and their owners no recourse except to upgrade to new T-Mobile plans. His complaint alleged breach of written warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and violations of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act (CPA).

The judge’s order, siding with T-Mobile, said Garcia Moreno “agreed to several arbitration provisions during his relationship with Sprint and T-Mobile,” including when he bought the Sprint phone, and again when he activated the Sprint service. He did so yet again in February 2021 when he agreed to another contract to finance his purchase of a new Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G phone, said the order. Garcia Moreno “throughout” received notice of T-Mobile’s terms and conditions, including its arbitration provisions, with each monthly billing statement, it said.

When evaluating a motion to compel arbitration, courts generally limit their review to whether there's an agreement to arbitrate between the parties and whether that agreement covers the dispute at issue, said Chun’s order. “As an initial matter,” Garcia Moreno “does not appear to challenge the existence of various arbitration agreements or the fact that he agreed to arbitrate,” it said.

He argues instead that his CPA claim, based partly on a request for public injunctive relief, “is not arbitrable because Washington law does not permit a party to contractually waive such a right to relief, rendering that waiver unconscionable,” said Chun’s order. “T-Mobile argues that the contracts clearly and unmistakably delegated questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator,” it said. The contracts at issue “have no express delegation provisions,” but they incorporate “various arbitration rules into the agreements,” it said.

Garcia Moreno, in his brief, didn't address the delegation issue, said the order. Nor did he rebut T-Mobile’s argument that the incorporation of the American Arbitration Agreement’s rules in the terms and conditions he agreed to “show an intent to delegate arbitrability questions,” it said. The court concludes Garcia Moreno “has conceded the issue,” and the parties “delegated arbitrability to an arbitrator,” it said.

Garcia Moreno’s substantive unconscionability argument “does not specifically target the contract’s delegation of arbitrability,” said the order. He argues instead the arbitration agreements “are unconscionable because they deny him the right to pursue injunctive relief on behalf of the public,” it said. “Because the contracts validly delegate arbitrability to an arbitrator,” and because Garcia Moreno didn't challenge the validity of that delegation, the court “must enforce that delegation,” it said.