Joseph Ozormoor v. T-Mobil USA, Inc.
459 F. App'x 502
6th Cir.2012Background
- Ozormoor signed 2003 and 2005 service agreements with T-Mobile requiring arbitration and a one-year claims period.
- After issues with service he canceled in 2005 and challenged an early-termination fee; T-Mobile referred his account to collections.
- Ozormoor sued in March 2008 in Michigan state court for multiple claims seeking over $600,000; the case was removed to federal court.
- The district court granted T-Mobile’s motion to compel arbitration, and the arbitrator denied all claims in April 2010.
- Ozormoor moved to vacate the arbitrator’s award in district court, which denied relief; he appeals.
- The controlling provisions in both agreements are materially the same, including arbitration under AAA and a one-year accrual period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2005 agreement governs or the 2003 agreement is controlling. | Ozormoor argues the 2003 agreement may cover the dispute. | T-Mobile contends both agreements are effectively the same and support arbitration. | No material difference; either agreement supports arbitration and the result is the same. |
| Whether the arbitrator exceeded powers by dismissing timely claims as untimely. | Ozormoor asserts collateral estoppel or timeliness should not bar merits. | T-Mobile maintains arbitrator correctly applied time-bar provisions. | Arbitrator did not exceed powers; timeliness issues were to be decided by the arbitrator. |
| Whether the award can be vacated for manifest disregard of the law. | Ozormoor claims the arbitrator ignored controlling authority. | T-Mobile contends manifest disregard is not applicable or not shown here. | No manifest disregard; the record does not show the arbitrator ignored clearly defined law. |
| Whether the district court properly allocated arbitration fees. | Ozormoor argues improper allocation after severing unconscionable provisions. | Arbitration under AAA rules could require the claimant to pay half the arbitrator’s fee. | Arbitrator could order Ozormoor to pay half the arbitrator’s fee under AAA rules. |
Key Cases Cited
- Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79 (U.S. 2002) (procedural arbitrability; questions left to arbitrator)
- United Steelworkers of Am., AFL-CIO-CLC v. Saint Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, Inc., 505 F.3d 417 (6th Cir. 2007) (en banc; limits on judicial review of arbitration decisions)
- Jaros v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 70 F.3d 418 (6th Cir. 1995) (manifest disregard and powers review framework)
- Hall Street Assocs., LLC v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (U.S. 2008) (FAA changes; judicially created grounds for vacatur addressed)
- Rory v. Continental Ins. Co., 703 N.W.2d 23 (Mich. 2005) (contract may shorten statute of limitations)
- United States v. Cinemark USA, Inc., 348 F.3d 569 (6th Cir. 2003) (timeliness challenges may be addressed in arbitration)
- Dawahare v. Spencer, 210 F.3d 666 (6th Cir. 2000) (manifest disregard standard application)