LeMont Love v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless

Summary

The District of New Jersey granted Verizon’s motion to compel arbitration in pro se plaintiff LeMont Love’s action concerning Verizon’s handling of a subpoena for cellphone records in an underlying criminal case. The court held that the arbitration issue required review under the Rule 56 standard but that Love had not shown a factual dispute warranting limited discovery. The court denied Verizon’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim as moot.

Holdings

1. The Rule 56 standard, rather than the Rule 12(b)(6) standard, governs the motion to compel arbitration when the complaint does not clearly reference or rely on an arbitration agreement and the motion presents materials outside the pleading.
2. The device-payment agreements and incorporated Customer Agreement created a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement between Love and Verizon.
3. The arbitration clause was not procedurally or substantively unconscionable.
4. The valid delegation provision clearly and unmistakably delegated disputes concerning the scope of the arbitration agreement to the arbitrator.
5. The amended complaint must be stayed pending completion of arbitration, and the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is moot.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the motion to compel arbitration should be evaluated under Rule 12(b)(6) or the Rule 56 standard.
2. Whether Love entered into a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement with Verizon.
3. Whether the arbitration and delegation provisions were procedurally or substantively unconscionable.
4. Whether the scope of the dispute should be determined by the court or delegated to an arbitrator.
5. Whether the amended complaint should be stayed pending arbitration.

Disposition

other