Wang v. Skype Communications S.a.r.l
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:21-cv-08082
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Wang v. Skype, Judge Schofield deferred ruling on reconsideration, denied costs without prejudice, and denied an appeal-time extension while requiring a proposed amendment.
Hao Zhe Wang and the defendants in the case, including Skype Communications S.a.r.l. and the Microsoft defendant, were affected by the directions concerning amendment, costs, reconsideration, and appeal timing.
What happened
In Wang v. Skype Communications S.a.r.l., Hao Zhe Wang argued that he timely served his complaint and request to overturn an arbitration decision by email under the parties’ agreement. He also argued that claims concerning his Microsoft account had not been arbitrated and should remain in court.
The court treated Wang’s arguments as a request to change the earlier judgment under Rule 59(e) and as a request for permission to amend the complaint. The court said the complaint did not currently state a claim about the temporary suspension of an account because it did not identify the account, describe an injury, or request relief for that suspension.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield directed Wang to file a short letter and proposed amended complaint, and allowed the defendants to respond. The court deferred ruling on reconsideration concerning service and the claims involving Wang’s Skype account, denied the request for costs without prejudice, and denied the requested extension of time to appeal.
The detailed version
- Wang v. Skype Communications S.a.r.l · No. 1:21-cv-08082
- Lorna Schofield
- Jan. 10, 2022
Background
Hao Zhe Wang, representing himself, asked the court to reconsider its January 3 order. He argued that he served the complaint and his motion to overturn an arbitration decision by email on October 11, 2021, under service provisions incorporated into the parties’ agreement. He also stated that, after the defendants declined to waive formal service, he arranged for personal service of the complaint on November 15 and incurred $193 in costs.
Wang further argued that the arbitration concerned claims about the defendants’ handling of his Skype account, while claims concerning Microsoft’s handling of his Microsoft account involved different events, employees, and interactions and had not been arbitrated. He contended that any confirmation of the arbitration decision should apply only to the claims actually arbitrated.
Court’s analysis
The court construed Wang’s argument that the complaint included claims not raised in arbitration as both a request to alter the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and a request for permission to amend. The court stated that the complaint did not currently state a claim concerning the temporary suspension of an account because it did not request relief for that conduct, identify the account, or specify an injury caused by the suspension.
Because Wang was representing himself, the court stated that courts generally give self-represented plaintiffs an opportunity to seek permission to amend. It directed Wang to file, by January 21, 2022, a letter of no more than three pages explaining the basis for amendment and attaching a proposed amended complaint. The letter was to identify relevant people and their titles, describe the events and approximate dates and locations, describe injuries from the temporary suspension, and state the requested relief. The defendants were directed to respond by January 28, 2022.
Rulings and disposition
The court stated that it would rule on reconsideration concerning service of the motion to overturn the arbitration decision and conduct related to Wang’s Skype account after the request for permission to amend and the request to alter the judgment were briefed. Thus, the supplied text does not show a final ruling on those reconsideration issues.
The request for reimbursement of service costs was denied without prejudice. The court directed Wang first to confer with the defendants by email; if the parties disputed the costs, Wang could file a separate motion with supporting materials.
The request for a 30-day extension of the time to appeal was denied. The court explained that Wang’s motion was a Rule 59 motion seeking to alter the judgment, so the time to appeal had not yet begun to run under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(A).
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.