Coleman v. 26 Motors Corp.

Background

The supplied document is a letter from Coleman’s counsel and a short order directing the defendant to respond. Coleman alleges that, after he agreed to buy a vehicle from 26 Motors, the dealership improperly placed his signature on transaction documents without his knowledge or consent. He says the resulting paperwork increased the final sale price by more than $20,000 over the advertised and negotiated price.

Coleman asserts claims against 26 Motors under the federal Truth in Lending Act, New York’s Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Act, and New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, as well as a common-law fraud claim. He asserts the same claims against Chase Bank as an assignee of the transaction.

Arbitration dispute

The defendant sought permission to file a motion asking the court to compel arbitration. Coleman opposed that request, arguing that no valid arbitration agreement was formed. The parties jointly asked for a conference concerning a possible fact-finding hearing and discovery about the arbitration dispute. The court then directed the defendant to address the choice-of-law issue concerning contract formation.

According to Coleman’s letter, the court later terminated the proposed motion to compel arbitration and scheduled a remote May 24, 2022, hearing on whether an arbitration agreement was formed. The court set deadlines for exchanging exhibits and witness lists. Coleman objected that the schedule did not allow discovery or provide for a jury.

Requests by Coleman

Coleman demanded a jury trial on factual issues concerning formation of the alleged arbitration agreement, relying on Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act. He also asked the court to postpone the May 24 hearing because he had a medical appointment, his wife and witness was outside the country until June 4, and his two attorneys had conflicting commitments.

Coleman separately requested targeted discovery before the formation hearing. He identified possible discovery about how 26 Motors assembled and presented the documents, collected electronic signatures, and created the alleged agreement. He also said that two signatures did not match and that expert testimony might be needed concerning signature authenticity and the technology used to create the documents.

The defendant did not consent to the requested relief. The letter says the defendant believed its sales file contained sufficient information and that Coleman had not timely demanded a jury trial. Coleman disagreed.

Court action shown in the document

The document states: “Defendant shall respond to this letter by May 18, 2022.” It does not show that Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted or denied Coleman’s requests to postpone the hearing, permit targeted discovery, or hold a jury trial. It also does not decide whether a valid arbitration agreement was formed or whether Coleman’s underlying claims must be arbitrated.