Arturo P. Batac v. Verizon, Nos. 22-18, 70 (February 27, 2023) ( 2023 )

Supreme Court
No. 2022-18-Appeal.
No. 2022-70-Appeal.
(PC 20-5579)
Arturo P. Batac :
v. :
Verizon.1 :
ORDER
The plaintiff, Arturo P. Batac (plaintiff or Mr. Batac), appeals pro se from a
Superior Court order granting the motion of the defendant, Verizon (defendant or
Verizon), to stay and compel arbitration. Separately, Mr. Batac appeals from a
Superior Court order granting the defendant’s motion to strike Mr. Batac’s notice of
appeal of the Superior Court order granting the motion to compel arbitration. These
consolidated cases came before the Supreme Court on January 25, 2023, pursuant to
an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in these
appeals should not be summarily decided. After considering the parties’ written and
oral submissions and reviewing the record, we conclude that cause has not been
shown and that we may decide these appeals without further briefing or argument.
For the reasons set forth in this order, we vacate the order of the Superior Court
1
The plaintiff names “Verizon” as the defendant in his complaint. The defendant
asserts that its proper name is “Verizon New England, Inc.”
-1-
granting the defendant’s motion to strike the notice of appeal and affirm the order of
the Superior Court granting the defendant’s motion to stay and compel arbitration.
On August 5, 2020, Mr. Batac filed an action against defendant in Superior
Court seeking $25,000 in compensatory damages, punitive damages, and court costs.
His complaint alleged that defendant engaged in a fraudulent business scheme that
involved defendant hacking into his emails. Mr. Batac further alleged that, if he
failed to pay his monthly bill, defendant would interrupt his services and that
defendant had done so on several prior occasions.
In response, defendant filed an answer including fourteen affirmative defenses
as well as a demand for a jury trial. Crucial to this matter, defendant’s third
affirmative defense stated that the Superior Court must stay plaintiff’s action so that
the parties could resolve the issues through arbitration, as mandated by the agreed
terms of service between the parties. Shortly after filing its answer, defendant filed
a motion to stay and compel arbitration that a justice of the Superior Court heard and
ultimately granted.
On November 17, 2020, Mr. Batac filed a notice of appeal. However, his
notice of appeal form failed to provide several details regarding the background of
this case. No activity took place in this matter until, over one year later, defendant
filed a motion to strike plaintiff’s notice of appeal based on the defects contained
within the filing. After defendant filed its motion, Mr. Batac spoke with an
-2-
individual in the Superior Court clerk’s office and submitted a corrected notice of
appeal. On January 12, 2022, the case was certified to this Court and later docketed
on January 19, 2022. Nevertheless, almost one month later, a second justice of the
Superior Court heard and granted defendant’s motion to strike, and Mr. Batac timely
filed a second notice of appeal.
Before this Court, Mr. Batac argues that the trial justices erred in: (1) granting
defendant’s motion to strike his notice of appeal and (2) granting defendant’s motion
to stay and compel arbitration.
Article I, Rule 11(f) of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure states
that “[f]rom the time of the docketing of an appeal in the Supreme Court, the Court
shall have exclusive jurisdiction to supervise the further course of such appeal and
enter such orders as may be appropriate * * * .” As such, the docketing of an appeal
divests the Superior Court of jurisdiction, even where motions are pending at the
time of docketing. See Thompson v. Thompson, 973 A.2d 499, 513 (R.I. 2009) (“It
is well established that once an appeal has been docketed in this Court, the lower
court no longer has jurisdiction.”). The Superior Court therefore lacked jurisdiction
to act after the case was docketed in this Court on January 19, 2022, and we vacate
the second trial justice’s order granting defendant’s motion to strike.
Regarding defendant’s motion to stay and compel arbitration, this Court
conducts a de novo review to determine whether a dispute is arbitrable. West
-3-
Warwick Housing Authority v. RI Council 94, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, 277 A.3d 707,
712 (R.I. 2022). Because the duty to arbitrate arises from an agreement to do so,
parties must arbitrate only when they agree pursuant to clear and unequivocal
language. Rhode Island Council on Postsecondary Education v. Hellenic Society
Paideia – Rhode Island Chapter, 202 A.3d 931, 934 (R.I. 2019) (quoting State
Department of Corrections v. Rhode Island Brotherhood of Correctional Officers,
866 A.2d 1241, 1247 (R.I. 2005)). While this Court requires parties to arbitrate only
issues that they explicitly agree to arbitrate, we resolve all doubts regarding
arbitrability in favor of arbitration. Id.Here, the arbitration provision contained in the terms of service agreement is
abundantly clear.2 Moreover, the terms of service specify that an individual accepts
this agreement either (1) electronically during an online order, when installing the
software, or the equipment; (2) through the use of defendant’s services; or (3)
2
The arbitration provision states, in pertinent part:
“YOU AND VERIZON BOTH AGREE TO RESOLVE DISPUTES
ONLY BY ARBITRATION OR IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT.
“* * *
“ANY DISPUTE THAT IN ANY WAY RELATES TO OR ARISES
OUT OF THIS AGREEMENT OR FROM ANY EQUIPMENT,
PRODUCTS AND SERVICES YOU RECEIVE FROM US (OR
FROM ANY ADVERTISING FOR ANY SUCH PRODUCTS OR
SERVICES) WILL BE RESOLVED BY ONE OR MORE NEUTRAL
ARBITRATORS BEFORE THE AMERICAN ARBITRATION
ASSOCIATION (‘AAA’).”
-4-
through an individual’s retention of defendant’s software or equipment beyond thirty
days following delivery.
Mr. Batac does not deny that he used defendant’s services, and he has
admitted that he subscribed to defendant’s services dating back to 2015. We
conclude that the first trial justice did not err in finding that Mr. Batac accepted the
arbitration agreement, or that the allegations contained in Mr. Batac’s complaint
arise out of and relate to his agreement with defendant and the services he received.3
Therefore, we affirm the first trial justice’s order granting defendant’s motion to stay
and compel arbitration.
Accordingly, we vacate the order of the Superior Court granting the
defendant’s motion to strike the notice of appeal and affirm the order of the Superior
Court granting the defendant’s motion to stay and compel arbitration.
3
Mr. Batac lists a variety of arguments in support of his appeal. However, he has
failed to meaningfully support these arguments with sufficient facts or legal
arguments. Terzian v. Lombardi, 180 A.3d 555, 558 (R.I. 2018) (“[S]imply stating
an issue for appellate review, without a meaningful discussion thereof or legal
briefing of the issues, does not assist the Court in focusing on the legal questions
raised, and therefore constitutes a waiver of that issue.”) (quoting Horton v.
Portsmouth Police Department, 22 A.3d 1115, 1130 (R.I. 2011)). A litigant’s failure
to provide “meaningful arguments, analysis, discussion, or citation to authority”
constitutes a waiver. Id. (brackets omitted) (quoting Horton, 22 A.3d at 1130).
While we acknowledge and understand plaintiff’s self-represented status, this Court
is unfortunately unable to provide him with greater rights than those represented by
counsel. Id. at 558-59 (quoting Jacksonbay Builders, Inc. v. Azarmi, 869 A.2d 580,
585 (R.I. 2005)).
-5-
Entered as an Order of this Court this ___
27th day of February, 2023.
By Order,
/s/ Debra A. Saunders, Clerk
________________________
Clerk
-6-
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE
Licht Judicial Complex
250 Benefit Street
Providence, RI 02903
ORDER COVER SHEET
Title of Case Arturo P. Batac v. Verizon.
No. 2022-18-Appeal.
Case Number No. 2022-70-Appeal.
(PC 20-5579)
Date Order Filed February 27, 2023
Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and
Justices
Long, JJ.
Source of Appeal Providence County Superior Court
Judicial Officer from Lower Court Associate Justice Joseph A. Montalbano
For Plaintiff:
Arturo P. Batac, Pro se
Attorney(s) on Appeal
For Defendant:
Matthew S. Prunk, Esq.
SU-CMS-02B (revised November 2022)