Lack of Proof Is Grounds to Deny Suddenlink Motion to Compel Arbitration, Says Plaintiff

Despite bearing the burden of demonstrating that plaintiff Jackie Lane assented to an agreement to arbitrate her claims against Altice USA’s Suddenlink, the defendant doesn’t disclose “what agreement it relies on for this position or provide any proof of same,” said Lane’s opposition Wednesday (docket 3:23-cv-00380) in U.S. District Court for Southern West Virginia in Huntington to Altice’s Oct. 27 renewed motion to compel arbitration. That omission alone is grounds to deny Altice’s motion, it said.

Lane, on behalf of a class of West Virginia consumers, brings claims against Suddenlink, recently rebranded Optimum, for violations of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection, said her opposition. Her claims arise from Suddenlink’s “practice of cramming its customers’ bills with illegal fees and charges,” it said. Lane is the only remaining plaintiff in the case, which originally was brought May 8 (see 2305110004), after three others voluntarily dismissed their claims against Suddenlink without prejudice on Nov. 17.

Lane, who has been a Suddenlink internet customer since 2011, was likely subject to terms and conditions that preceded or were the same as those that another judge in the Southern District of West Virginia “found procedurally and substantively unconscionable” earlier this year in Gooch v. Cebridge Acquisition (docket 2:22-cv-00184), said Lane’s opposition. In that case, the court denied Suddenlink’s motion to compel under a 2017 agreement, it said. Gooch “is on all fours with this case” and “compels denial” of Suddenlink’s motion, it said.

That case is on appeal before the 4th U.S. Circuit of Appeals, said the opposition. Lane suggests that if the court doesn’t deny Suddenlink’s motion “in the first instance” for lack of proof of any agreement to arbitrate, it should stay this action “pending the outcome of the appellate court’s decision, in the interests of judicial efficiency,” it said.