Clements v. T-Mobile USA, Inc

Background

On January 19, 2024, the court granted T-Mobile’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the case. The court had found that the 2019 arbitration agreement between Clements and T-Mobile was valid and covered the claims in Clements’s amended complaint. It also found dismissal appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) because of Clements’s repeated delays, procedural errors, and failure to oppose T-Mobile’s motion.

Clements then filed motions seeking reconsideration and vacatur, meaning cancellation, of the earlier order. He relied on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B), 54(b), 59(e), and 60(b), and asked to file an opposition to T-Mobile’s earlier motion. He argued that a discovery dispute with T-Mobile, an unanswered email to the courtroom deputy, and other circumstances prevented him from meeting the earlier deadlines. T-Mobile opposed vacating the order.

Clements also filed motions for an extension of time to submit his reply and to increase the page limit for his motion to vacate.

Legal standard

The court treated the motions for reconsideration and vacatur under Rule 60(b), which permits relief from a final order in specified circumstances, including mistake, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud, a void judgment, or another reason justifying relief. The court described relief under Rule 60(b) as an extraordinary remedy reserved for exceptional circumstances.

The court considered Clements’s argument that his failure to meet deadlines resulted from excusable neglect. Under the test used by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the court considered prejudice to T-Mobile, the length and effect of the delay, the reason for the delay and whether it was within Clements’s control, and whether Clements acted in good faith.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Clements did not show how additional discovery would have changed the earlier decision. He did not identify the materials he expected from T-Mobile or explain how those materials would support a challenge to the validity of the arbitration agreement. The court characterized his general assertions about needing discovery as unsupported.

The court found that allowing an untimely opposition would prejudice T-Mobile because arbitration proceedings had been held in abeyance during the federal case and because Clements had not identified a new argument that could change the result. The court also noted that T-Mobile’s motion had been pending for nearly a year and that Clements had previously obtained five months of extensions before missing the applicable deadline.

The court rejected Clements’s explanations for the delay. It found that the courtroom deputy’s failure to receive his October 17, 2023 email did not prevent him from filing a timely response or requesting an extension, particularly because he did not follow up for approximately three months. The court also found that the discovery dispute did not prevent Clements from filing a motion to continue the deadline or a motion to compel discovery. His other explanations, including calendar issues involving holidays and weekends, did not justify his repeated delays. Finally, the court questioned Clements’s good faith because he waited until after the court ruled on T-Mobile’s unopposed motion before seeking permission to file a late opposition.

The court also rejected Clements’s other arguments under Rule 60(b)(6), including that the court had overlooked facts showing diligence and legal arguments in an email to the courtroom deputy. The court stated that it considers legal arguments properly presented to it, and it found that the amended earlier order corrected a procedural-history mistake without changing the court’s findings.

Disposition

The court DENIED Clements’s motions for reconsideration and vacatur of the prior order. It GRANTED Clements’s motion for an extension of time to file his reply and stated that it would consider the arguments in that reply. It TERMINATED as moot Clements’s motion to increase the page limit.