Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, PRIVACY—W.D. N.C.: Related non-signatories subject to arbitration of individual’s TCPA claim, (Apr 20, 2015)

By Michael Menzhuber, J.D., LL.M.

An individual’s claims against a communications company, for allegedly violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), were subject to arbitration under the terms of the arbitration provision of a contract between the individual and the company. The federal district court in Asheville, North Carolina, ordered that all the parties, including the non-signatory defendants in the case, participate in arbitration after it determined that the contract, and its valid arbitration provision could be enforced against the non-signatory defendants (Hartman v. Charter Communications, Inc., April 17, 2015, Reidinger, M.).

Richard H. Hartmann, II filed an action against Charter Communications, Inc. and its related companies for alleged violations of the TCPA. The individual later amended his complaint by adding Straight Forward of Wisconsin, Inc. (SFW) as a defendant. The individual’s complaint alleged that SFW, on behalf of Charter, used an auto-dialer to place numerous telemarketing calls to the individual’s cellular phone for the purpose of soliciting him to purchase cable television and other services.

The individual moved to compel arbitration with respect to Charter. The Charter companies and SFW and Charter agreed that arbitration was appropriate, but contended that all Charter defendants should be included in the arbitration.

Arbitration. The court determined that the arbitration provision was enforceable because it was unambiguous in requiring arbitration and neither Charter nor the Charter defendants questioned its validity. The court also noted that, although the individual and Charter were the only signatories to the contract, non-signatories may demand arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) when the signatories claims against the non-signatory presume the existence of a contract and the signatory’s claims relate directly to the contract.

After reviewing corporate disclosures from the Charter companies of their relations to one another and to Charter, the court determined that there was a closely intertwined business relationship. The court also determined that an intertwined business relationship existed between Charter and SFW because the auto-dialer calls placed by SFW, which was the basis for the individual’s complaint, were made on behalf of Charter.

The court concluded that the issues in the case were very closely related and the individual’s claims made against SW presume the existence of a contract. As such, the court determined that all of the parties would best be served by granting the individual’s motion to compel arbitration and ordering that all the Charter defendants be included in the arbitration.

The case is No. 1:14-cv-00243-MR-DLH

Attorneys: Richard H. Hartman, II, pro se. Samuel Hawley Poole, Jr. (Cranfill, Sumner & Hartzog, LLP) for Charter Communications, Inc.

Companies: Charter Communications, Inc.

Cases: Advertising Privacy NorthCarolinaNews