Plaintiff Seeks Reconsideration of Order Dismissing His Case vs. T-Mobile
Bradford Clements seeks leave to file a motion for reconsideration of U.S. District Judge Edward Davila’s Jan. 19 order dismissing his case against T-Mobile and compelling his claims to arbitration (see 2401190009), said his memorandum of points and authorities Wednesday…
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.
(docket 5:22-cv-07512) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Jose in support of that motion. The pro se plaintiff alleged he was victimized in eight different data breaches during the three years he was a T-Mobile customer, and he brought claims under various California consumer protection and privacy statutes, plus the federal Stored Communications Act (see 2306060047). The judge found that the arbitration agreement between Clements and T-Mobile is valid and “encompasses the claims at issue” in Clements’ first amended complaint. He also found that the plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition to T-Mobile’s motion to dismiss constituted grounds for dismissal under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or comply with a court order, it said. But Clements now contends that Davila’s analysis under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) includes a manifest failure to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments that were presented to the court, said his motion for reconsideration. He also contends that Davila’s order “also dismisses a case that will ultimately present legal challenges to an arbitration agreement” that the court admits “only it can decide,” the memorandum said. Clements has shown “reasonable diligence” in bringing his motion within 19 days of the court’s filing of the amended dismissal order, it said. No response to the motion for leave need be filed, and no hearing will be held unless otherwise ordered by the court, it said.