Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Baron v. Sprint Corp.

United States District Court for the District of Maryland

October 23, 2019, Decided; October 24, 2019, Filed

CIVIL NO. JKB-19-1255; CIVIL NO. JKB-19-1257; CIVIL NO. JKB-19-1298; CIVIL NO. JKB-19-1299

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

In April and May of 2019, four putative class actions were filed against each of the major mobile carriers in the United States: AT&T (Morrison v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, Civ. No. JICB-19-1257), Sprint (Baron v. Sprint Corporation, Civ. No. JKB-19-1255), T-Mobile (Ray, et al. v. T-Mobile US, Inc., Civ. No. JICB-19-1299), and Verizon (Morrison v. Verizon Communications Inc. et al., Civ. No. JKB-19-1298). Each complaint alleges that the mobile carriers illegally sold users' geolocation data to third parties in violation of the Federal Communications Act. (AT&T Compl., ECF No. 1; Sprint Compl., ECF No. 1; T-Mobile Compl., ECF No. 1; Verizon Compl., ECF No. 1.)

In all four cases, the [*3]  mobile carriers ("Defendants") have filed Motions to Compel Arbitration, citing the arbitration provisions contained in each plaintiff's contract with their respective mobile carrier. (AT&T Mot. Compel, ECF No. 7; Sprint Mot. Compel, ECF No. 11; T-Mobile Mot. Compel, ECF No. 12; Verizon Mot. Compel, ECF No. 11.) The plaintiffs in each case ("Plaintiffs") contend that the arbitration clauses are unenforceable because they are unconscionable under Maryland state law. (AT&T Opp'n Mem. 4-10, ECF No. 11; Sprint Opp'n Mem. 4-11, ECF No. 16; T-Mobile Opp'n Mem. 3-7, ECF No. 20; Verizon Opp'n Mem. 4-10, ECF No. 12.)

Because the arbitrability of each dispute involves the same legal analysis, the Court addresses these motions in one memorandum. The motions have been fully briefed. No hearing is required. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2018). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant each Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration.

I. Legal Standard

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184435 *; 2019 WL 5456796

PAUL BARON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SPRINT CORPORATION, Defendant.TYLER MORRISON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC, Defendant.MICHELLE MORRISON, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. and CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS, Defendants.SHAWNAY RAY AND KANTICE JOYNER, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. T-MOBILE US, INC., Defendant.

CORE TERMS

arbitration, unconscionable, arbitration clause, arbitration provision, contracts, invalidate, parties, courts, users