Wang v. Skype Communications S.a.r.l
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:21-cv-08082
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Wang v. Skype Communications, Judge Schofield denied Wang’s request to reconsider the ruling that his motion to vacate an arbitration award was untimely.
The ruling directly affected Hao Zhe Wang and Skype Communications S.a.r.l., et al. It left Wang’s arguments concerning additional claims for consideration in a separate order.
What happened
In Wang v. Skype Communications S.a.r.l., Hao Zhe Wang asked the court to reconsider its ruling that his motion to vacate an arbitration award was filed too late. He argued that emailing the motion to the defendants and their lawyers counted as timely service under the arbitration rules incorporated into the parties’ agreement.
Wang also argued that some claims involving a Microsoft account had not been part of the arbitration and should continue in court. The opinion says those arguments would be addressed separately in connection with Wang’s request to amend his complaint.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied Wang’s request to reconsider and change the judgment. The court ruled that the cited arbitration rule did not authorize email service of a petition to vacate an arbitration award, and that Wang’s cited appellate decision concerned motions to compel arbitration instead. The excerpt does not state a disposition on Wang’s requests for an extension of time to appeal or reimbursement of service costs.
The detailed version
- Wang v. Skype Communications S.a.r.l · No. 1:21-cv-08082
- Lorna Schofield
- Feb. 15, 2022
Background
Hao Zhe Wang, proceeding without a lawyer, asked the court to reconsider an earlier order that rejected his motion to vacate an arbitration award as untimely. Wang argued that he timely served the motion and complaint by email on October 11, 2021. He relied on American Arbitration Association Consumer Arbitration Rule 52(a), which permits email service of certain papers or notices connected with arbitration or entry of judgment on an award. Wang also asserted that he later served the complaint in person and sought reimbursement of $193 for that service.
Wang further argued that some allegations concerning Microsoft’s handling of his Microsoft account had not been arbitrated and were separate from claims concerning the defendants’ handling of his Skype account. He contended that any confirmation of the arbitration award should affect only the claims actually arbitrated. The court stated that these arguments concerning new claims would be addressed in a separate order on Wang’s request for permission to amend.
Court’s Analysis
The court rejected Wang’s argument that the arbitration rule authorized email service of a petition to vacate an arbitration award. Relying on Dalla-Longa v. Magnetar Capital LLC, the court concluded that the rule’s language concerning papers or notices necessary to initiate or continue an arbitration, or to enter judgment on an award, did not cover service of a petition to vacate an award.
The court also found Wang’s reliance on Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Stuart misplaced because that decision addressed service of motions to compel arbitration, not service of petitions to vacate arbitration awards.
Disposition
The court denied Wang’s application for reconsideration and to alter the judgment. The opinion does not state a disposition on Wang’s alternative request for a 30-day extension to file a notice of appeal or on his request for reimbursement of service costs. It also does not decide in this order whether Wang’s additional Microsoft-related claims may proceed; the court said those matters would be addressed separately.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.