AT&T Says Plaintiff Lacks Evidence to Oppose Motion to Stay
Plaintiff Robert Graham doesn’t dispute that he “assented” to an arbitration agreement with AT&T in 2018, or that his claims “fall within that arbitration agreement’s scope,” said AT&T’s reply brief Thursday (docket 1:22-cv-05155) in U.S. District Court for Northern Georgia…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
in Atlanta in support of its motion to stay Graham’s case pending the outcome of that arbitration. Graham, who alleges AT&T’s handset upgrade exchange program was a “bait-and-switch scheme,” had “no contract” with AT&T and so “no reason” exists to compel his dispute to arbitration, said his March 16 opposition to AT&T’s motion to stay (see 2303170037). Graham presents no evidence in opposition to AT&T’s motion “at all,” said AT&T’s reply brief. Graham does claim -- without any supporting evidence -- that he never signed a contract “in connection with the new equipment upgrade in 2020 that is the subject of his complaint,” it said. But whether Graham signed a new contract in 2020 “has no bearing” on AT&T’s motion to stay, “which is based on the 2018 arbitration agreement,” it said. Though Graham “asserts certain aspects of the 2020 transactions involve fraud, overreaching, or unconscionability, these arguments go to enforceability of the contract as a whole, as opposed to the arbitration agreement specifically,” it said. Such arguments “must be heard by an arbitrator,” rather than in federal court, it said.