Roxie Gooch v. Cebridge Acquisition, LLC

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · March 27, 2025 · No. 23-1146

Summary

This consolidated appeal addresses whether a cable and internet provider’s arbitration agreement is valid and enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act and West Virginia law. The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of motions to compel arbitration, holding that the October 2021 Residential Services Agreement governed the disputes rather than an earlier 2017 version. The court found the arbitration clause supported by adequate consideration and not procedurally or substantively unconscionable. The case was remanded with instructions to compel arbitration.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Rushing; Wynn; Lewis
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decision date
March 27, 2025
Docket number
23-1146
Procedural posture
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston; district court denied motions to compel arbitration.
Standard of review
de novo
Precedential value
published
Parties
Cebridge Acquisition, LLC; Cequel III Communications I, LLC; Cequel III Communications II, LLC; Altice USA, Inc. v. Roxie Gooch
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

contract formationunconscionabilitycontract interpretationcommercialcivil procedure

Practice areas

contractscommercial litigationcivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the October 2021 Residential Services Agreement arbitration clause is valid and enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act and West Virginia law.
  2. Whether the arbitration clause is procedurally or substantively unconscionable.

Holdings

  1. The 2021 arbitration agreement is valid, enforceable, and governs the parties' disputes; the district court's denial of the motion to compel arbitration is reversed.

Key quotations

The arbitration agreement, located at paragraph 24 of the RSA, provides: Any and all disputes arising between You and Suddenlink, or Your or its respective predecessors in interest, successors, assigns, and past, present, and future parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, employees, and agents, shall be resolved by binding arbitration on an individual basis in accordance with this arbitration provision. (at 5)

Factual background

Three West Virginia residents (Benjamin Meadows, Richard Chaty, Roxie Gooch) were customers of Suddenlink (Cebridge Acquisition, LLC and affiliates). Each signed successive versions of Suddenlink's Residential Services Agreement (RSA). The October 2021 RSA contained an arbitration provision that the parties agreed governed their disputes.

Procedural history

The district court denied Suddenlink's motions to compel arbitration, finding the 2017 arbitration agreement unconscionable. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the 2021 Residential Services Agreement arbitration clause governs and is enforceable.

Remand instructions

Compel arbitration of all three disputes consistent with the October 2021 Residential Services Agreement.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…