NEVILLE MCFARLANE v. USA
NEVILLE MCFARLANE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Altice USA, Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:20-cv-01297
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In McFarlane v. Altice USA, Judge Furman denied Altice’s motion to compel arbitration because plaintiffs clarified their claims arose from employment, not cable service.
The ruling affected the plaintiffs’ employment-related claims and Altice USA, Inc.; the court left any issue about the proposed class’s definition for the class-certification stage.
What happened
In McFarlane v. Altice USA, the plaintiffs clarified that they were bringing their claims only as current or former Altice employees, not as cable-service customers.
Altice largely accepted that clarification but again argued that its arbitration provision covered the claims. The court said its earlier ruling had already resolved that issue and that the supplemental briefing was not a chance to argue it again.
Judge Jesse M. Furman denied Altice’s motion to compel arbitration in its entirety. The court also said any issue about whether the proposed class included nonemployee subscribers could be addressed when deciding whether to certify the class.
The detailed version
- NEVILLE MCFARLANE v. USA · No. 1:20-cv-01297
- Jesse Furman
- Apr. 15, 2021
Background
In an earlier Opinion and Order, the court held that Altice’s arbitration provision did not apply to claims lacking a connection to the cable-service agreement. The provision therefore did not apply to claims brought by plaintiffs in their roles as current or former Altice subscribers. Because the plaintiffs’ earlier filings were unclear about whether they asserted claims in that capacity, the court allowed them to amend their complaint to clarify that their claims arose from their employment at Altice and not from their cable service, and to remove allegations and claims suggesting otherwise.
The plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on March 29, 2021. The court found that it clarified that they brought their claims solely as current and former employees. Altice largely did not dispute that point. Instead, Altice again argued that the arbitration provision was enforceable against those employment-related claims.
Ruling
The court rejected Altice’s attempt to rebrief the enforceability issue, explaining that the earlier Opinion and Order had already resolved it. The supplemental briefing was meant to address the effect of the amended complaint, not to provide a second opportunity to argue the prior issue. The court also declined to consider Altice’s argument that the proposed class definition did not expressly exclude nonemployee subscribers because the argument appeared only in a footnote. In any event, the court stated that the class definition could be addressed at the class-certification stage.
Judge Jesse M. Furman denied Altice’s motion to compel arbitration, ECF No. 47, in its entirety.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.