[Uber Technologies, Inc.] Hey, has Uber used a phony attorney Rosemary Barajas


#1

Tiffany Swanson Cooper/Brian Cooper
Claimant American Arbitration Association
And REFERENCE# 01-18-0000-7341
UBER Technologies
Respondent

Plaintiff’s Brief on Bad Faith Arbitration, Breach of Contract

Violation of Due Process and Substantive Law.

On Feb. 4, 2018, the Plaintiff’s took the rideshare UBER to Talking Stick Casino 9800 E Talking Stick Way, Scottsdale, AZ 85256. Upon arrival, the app deducted the $11.79 it had quoted us at the beginning of the trip. We had taken this trip before and knew that was right in line with the quoted prices before (pic provided). When Plaintiffs were leaving Talking Stick, UBER’S app said the Plaintiffs owed $19.49. Having had fraud with UBER two years prior, we applied tighter security on the account and numerous charges would not be authorized unless we allowed them. After a week of back and forth and 3 days of UBER no longer trying to resolve the complaint, the Plaintiffs had to file mandatory arbitration per UBER’S legal clause.
The Plaintiffs filed for arbitration with AAA on February 14, 2018. On February 15, 2018 arbitration was filed and Demand letter was sent to UBER. On February 26, 2018, Rosemary Barajas responds for UBER and states she had not received the opening documents. The Administrator responds on February 27, 2018, “Attached you will find copies of the demand, clause, and email filing documents submitted to us by Claimant.”
On or around February 28, 2018, the Claimant again emails the Demand letter to the Respondent. The administrator makes a note and as far as the Claimant knew the arbitration was moving forward as planned. Between February 15 - March 6, 2018, the Claimant provides UBER and AAA their evidence. It is filed on a web file for easy access for both parties and Administrator. On March 15, 2018, the Plaintiff again emails AAA and informs them that UBER has yet to pay and there has been no response to the Demand letter. The Claimants also state that UBER has good reason not to want our claim to go to open court, where an award may have a precedent set for riders. The Administrator contacts the Respondent. AAA sends a letter stating, “UBER HAS UNTIL MARCH 23, 2018 TO PAY THE FEES IN FULL OR THE PROCEEDINGS WILL BE SUSPENDED OR TERMINATED.” Counsel for UBER replies on March 19, 2018, and states, “Uber is not refusing to pay fees. The delay has been because of not having been properly served. I did receive the demand earlier this month, but I still do not have clarity on the posture of the matter. I am new to the role of POC, and I am in the process of getting up to speed. Additionally, it is very difficult to comply with the requirements of accounts payable to pay out fees when we are unclear on when and how they have attached.” This makes no sense. Uber states they received the Demand letter, but they were not properly served? Counsel speaks of being new and did not have clarity on the matter. Here is where we feel Uber and counsel Breached the Contract and Arbitrated in Bad Faith. Claimants (Plaintiffs), are not legal scholars and never having been through arbitration. We did, however, follow the Rules of Arbitration and UBER’S Legal Clause. Plaintiffs filed Demand and served UBER as AAA stated, missed no deadlines, and found per AAA rules our claim was not filed until UBER paid the fees as they state in their legal (attached). On March 21, 2018 administrator emails both parties about a conference call set for the following day. Both parties agree, and the call is set for March 22, 2018. On March 22, 2018, parties discussed setting up a Preliminary Hearing over the phone. Both parties agreed to April 11, 2018. We then discussed there being hard deadlines to move the process forward. During the call, the administrator asked about the payment and Mrs. Barajas said she was still working on it. Also, during the call, Mrs. Barajas (managing Paralegal) stated that “Claimants needed to serve UBER through a third-party service CT Corp.” The administrator was confused and discussed this as these were not AAA Rules of Arbitration, nor did it follow the Consumer Rules of Procedure. It was also the third time the Claimant was serving the Respondent. We asked why was this a problem and Mrs. Barajas stated that we must serve UBER through CT Corp to have the fees paid. There is no rule in UBER’S Legal Clause nor does AAA state anywhere about third-party service. On March 27, 2018, the Claimants paid for service through CT CORP. On April 1, 2018, the Claimant sent in more evidence and “cc” all parties. At this time Claimant thought the arbitrator was involved. The Claimants asked about the payment and why it was still not paid. On April 2, 2018, the administrator responded and said there would be a time to go over evidence once the arbitrator was assigned. On April 2,3,4, and 5th 2018, the claimant sent one email a day asking about what the process was from that point. The process was going on 60 days and the fees had yet to be paid. The Claimant no longer felt as though the process was fair, nor did the Claimant feel AAA was protecting our constitutional right to Due Process and to Liberty even though it was stated by AAA. On April 9, 2018, the administrator emails Mrs. Barajas and asked about the payment and when the fees would be paid in full. On April 10, 2018, Mrs. Barajas states(attached) “Hello - This payment is in progress with our Accounts Payable department. I have requested a rush but will do so again. The hope is to pay this by the end of the week. I will update as soon as possible.” On April 11, 2018, the Preliminary Hearing call is canceled due to UBER’S failure to pay the fees. The same day, the Claimant ask for the AAA to suspend/terminate the arbitration due to UBER failing to pay the associated fees. AAA states we can pay the $3400 plus our fees if we wanted to. Then AAA states they did not want to terminate the hearing and to give Uber more time to pay. They send out a letter stating UBER has until April 20, 2018, to make the payment or they will look over the consequences. On April 23, 2018, Uber pays the fees that were overdue. On April 23, 2018, Claimant sends an email to the email addresses that contacted Claimant about setting up a Preliminary Hearing. Claimant asked why was UBER allowed to miss another date for payment? On April 24, 2018, Claimant sends AAA a complaint about the administrator, and again sends out an email to all parties requesting help with answers to questions about the way the process has gone. So far nothing has happened as the rules state and no one has answered questions. The assistant to the arbitrator responded and stated they forwarded message onto AAA. Again, there are so many different people emailing the Claimant they had no clue that one of the email addresses that had been “cc” was the arbitrators. The claimant had no clue as the email addresses were provided by his assistant. The administrator emails the Claimant and did not provide any answers to any questions, and failed to acknowledge questions from 2 weeks prior. The administrator simply informed us not to email the arbitrator again or there would be penalties. Again, we did not email the arbitrator on purpose we were looking for answers and “cc” every address that the administrator included on emails. On April 25 and 26, 2018 the Director of Pro Se verbally warns us that they will dismiss our case if we ask anyone else besides our administrator for help. The complaint we filed went directly to the person we filed the complaint on and the Director stepped in and stated: “if Mrs. Barajas sent you a letter requiring service through CT Corp that is not in our control.” We then posed the question, “who has control?’ A Judge would rarely if ever say they did not have control of their courtroom. It does not seem plausible. This was absolutely the tipping point. The administrator was not only on the call but encouraged us to pay it! There are other instances of carelessness by AAA, and if we did follow UBER’S legal clause and the AAA rules how did this happen? The final straw came from Mrs. Barajas (paralegal) and the actual attorney who we spoke with once. We finally had a phone hearing with the arbitrator, both parties participated in the scheduling. The arbitrator asked if UBER was going to send in any documentation because at that time they had yet to send in anything. Uber stated that “Mr. Cooper’s evidence will suffice.” That means UBER will not send in any documentation as far as the Claimants knew. On June 1st Uber was to respond to the claim. We asked why they were just now allowed to answer the claim. The answer was so all parties would know UBER’S position. The rest of the schedule was by June 8, 2018 Claimant was to have a final brief in and June 15, 2018, UBER would file their final brief. On June 1, 2018, UBER files 54 pages of evidence and statements. Claimants had already filed their final brief and NEVER saw what UBER was providing until June 1, 2018. We raised this point and the arbitrator was mute. We raised points that what UBER did provide, parts were tampered or changed. Again, the arbitrator was mute.

Remedy for Damages

“The liberties of none are safe unless the liberties of all are protected.” - William Douglas
Principle 11. Agreements to Arbitrate Consumers should be given: a. clear and adequate notice of the arbitration provision and its consequences, including a statement of its mandatory or optional character; b. reasonable access to information regarding the arbitration process, including basic distinctions between arbitration and court proceedings, related costs, and advice as to where they may obtain more complete information regarding arbitration procedures and arbitrator rosters; c. notice of the option to make use of applicable small claims court procedures as an alternative to binding arbitration in appropriate cases; and, d. a clear statement of the means by which the Consumer may exercise the option (if any) to submit disputes to arbitration or to court process.
Here is the mission statement: The AAA’s official mission statement and vision statement are based on three core values: integrity, conflict management, and service. The AAA has long held its mediators and arbitrators to strict codes of ethics and model standards of conduct to ensure fairness and impartiality in conflict management. To further ensure the AAA’s integrity, however, the Association also developed Standards of Ethics and Business Conduct for its staff, as well as a general Statement of Ethical Principles to expand on its core values as an organization.
When this first started, we never imagined the opportunity for a fair outcome had nothing to do with the claim. Arbitration gives companies that do not want to face the reality of wrongdoing, a way out. As our claim shows, a multi-billion-dollar company was allowed to miss multiple deadlines, file false information, arbitrate in Bad Faith, and walk on our dignity, respect, and rule of law. The ability of corporations to opt out of the public civil justice system by using mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts poses a fundamental policy question for Congress and the Courts. Although arbitration clauses are generally enforceable under federal and state law, they cannot be enforced if they are imposed in an unfair or deceptive manner or would prevent consumers from effectively enforcing all of the legal rights they would have in court. To follow the rules applied to our claim, yet to be deceived. To file multiple Demand letters, and have UBER and counsel admit to receiving but not complying with Demand letters. To file false and tainted evidence against (Plaintiffs) through the course of this procedure is the epitome of violating Civil Rights. (Barry v USAA). UBER has been involved in price-gouging, evading enforcement, and fraud for years, yet they deny consumers the opportunity to find the truth through our courts. Without access to evidence as a matter of right, Americans, and particularly victims of discrimination, have less chance of proving their claims against giant corporations. We have provided emails and statements that show threats of dismissing our case to allowing UBER to miss deadlines. In (Maslo v Ameriprise), The courts found in favor of the insured against the Bad Faith actions of Ameriprise. We are asking this court to overturn the award due to Bad Faith arbitrations and Breach of contract and either allow us to face UBER in court (as Pro Se) or make a fair judgment. Both sides will submit documents in a timely manner and then file one brief. This is not asking for an overreach of the law. We are asking for a decision based on Rule of Law and a fair process we thought AAA would also have provided. Our court system does not allow Demand letters to go unanswered and fees not to be paid. If you promise the court, you must follow through. We will do so if provided the opportunity.
Principles, Mission statements, and all AAA material copied from Website…
Barry v USAA No. 17821-8-III A case study from FindLaw Dec 9, 1999
Maslo v Ameriprise Insurance No. B249271. A case study from Leagle July 2014
Quote from William O Douglas Wikiquote 1961 Since ADR.org uses the BBB arbitration rules as far as time… HAVE YOU HAD ANY ROSEMARY BARAJAS AFFIDAVITS? SEND ME AN EMAIL OR CONTACT US. WE WILL GET JUSTICE.


#2

Thanks for sharing! This is very interesting!

Here is Uber in the LPF database: https://levelplayingfield.io/party/non-consumer-uber-technologies-inc

Your case should show up soon.

It is fascinating how missing deadlines is inconsequential for defendants in arbitration. In court, technicalities can be fatal. You would typically get a default judgment. Unfortunately, the forced arbitration house of cards is constructed such that the AAA will not proceed unless you pay their unreasonable upfront fees on behalf of the defendant.

Frankly, default judgment against Uber would have been a better outcome for them financially.

Who is the director of pro se? Do you mind identifying?

You should not have had to file with CT Corp as clearly their counsel was already informed of the matter. That was strange. If it’s a bureaucratic hurdle, they could’ve handled it internally.

Can you share their evidence and why you think it was doctored? Also, what was the name of their counsel aside from the paralegal Barajas?

Responding to your claim cost Uber thousands of dollars in arbitration fees and surely thousands more for their attorney. That’s a victory of sorts. The smart move on their part would’ve been to refund you the money.

Poor AAA administration (that is convenient for the defendant) and companies wasting absurd amounts of money on small dollar claims (failing to identify the smart financial move) are recurring themes.

EDIT: FYI: You can attach documents to these messages.


#4

Cannot see those links. They are to your private email.


#5

Here is a definition of notice in AZ: https://www.azleg.gov/ars/33/01313.htm

You should not have had to re-mail anything.


#6

Dan, thank you very much for the clarification. I knew this, but to have someone actually step in and agree with proof is a great feeling. I would like everyone to know that the attorney’s may need to apply for Pro Hac Vice to take part in the arbitration. It is a legal proceeding and as a matter of fact I want to share an email I received from Director of Pro Se from AAA:

Pro Se Manager 1 ProSeManager1@adr.org
Aug 6 (2 days ago)
to Pro, me, Pro
Dear Mr. Cooper:

As the award was transmitted on June 28, 2018, neither the AAA nor the Arbitrator have the authority to make any modifications to the award ( Rule R-47 of the Consumer Arbitration Rules). Since the case has ended and we have no further role, we will not respond to further comment regarding the award.

Please also see Rule R-49, sections (b) and (e) of the Consumer Rules, which state that neither the AAA nor any arbitrator in the proceedings in the proceedings is a necessary or proper party to a judicial proceeding.

Thank you.

Pro Se Manager

Our response:
So, AAA will allow false evidence, will extend the timeframe for a claim to be filed especially if it is a company paying you big bucks, and allow anyone to represent themselves as an attorney or legal figure without your company checking? Of course, you will no longer answer emails from someone you threatened to dismiss their case and totally screwed because that is not part of your policy. You did find the time to email us parts of AAA’s rules on our conduct towards you all. Do not be upset with a company who blindsides you out of a fair chance? So what does happen when someone makes a mistake there? If you are no an entity that keeps track of everything going on, why are you legally able to carry out arbitrations? Arbitration IS a legal proceeding with consequences for those involved. Your statement referring to the arbitrator not being a proper party to a legal proceeding is curious since you state: AAA Rules,court- and time-tested, cover the spectrum of industries and fields. Well-defined steps move cases from filing to award as quickly and cost-effectively as possible while ensuring that all parties are treated fairly and equitably.

Your website then continues: AAA panels comprise distinguished judges as well as leaders in the legal and business communities with industry-specific knowledge and expertise. Arbitrators are required to adhere to Codes of Ethics developed by the AAA and the American Bar Association (ABA).

R-49(e) The arbitrator, the AAA, and AAA employees are not competent to and may not testify as witnesses in any such proceeding.

Let me understand this before I take it up with the Judge overseeing our newly filed civil lawsuit: You are to adhere to a Code of Ethics developed by the ABA, yet you are also to be excused from mistakes because your last rule states your incompetent? WHY ARE YOU INVOLVED IN ANY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IF YOU ARE NOT COMPETENT? You helped shape these rules, yet you broke them. You failed to admit the mistakes, you failed to answer our emails we sent over with our concerns, and you did it with a “NO ONE CARES” attitude. The President of AAA received an email from us stating only the facts. We keep everything from emails to documents, and we included those documents so she can see the egregious errors and damage caused by AAA staff and Uber. We will include your emails concerning the third party mailing of the Demand and how you stated it is not in AAA’s control. The problem is you knew!


#7

Funny how things work. Two days ago they tell us they can not modify awards. Today, Uber’s requesting AAA to change the award so it states Aaron Bergstrom and not Rosemary Barajas! Mr. Aiken followed his ethics and did not oblige. Read the letter. Does it not sound as if they want Mr. Aiken to forget ethics? I am forwarding theses emails to our Judge.

Road
Suite 1000
Phoenix, Arizona 85016-4232


Mark A. Nadeau
mark.nadeau@dlapiper.com
T 480.606.5110
F 480.606.5510

August 8, 2018
VIA EMAIL (SKA@ASHRLAW.COM) AND US MAIL
Shawn Aiken, Esq.
Aiken Schenk
2390 East Camelback Road
Suite 400
Phoenix AZ 85016
Re: Arbitration Award Correction
Case Number: 01-18-0000-7341
Tiffany Swanson Cooper and Brian Cooper v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Dear Arbitrator Aiken:
I am writing to respectfully request modification of the attached Award issued in the above
referenced matter, in order to correct a clerical error. The award mistakenly refers to Rosemary Barajas as
the attorney for Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”). As you will recall, Aaron Bergstrom was the attorney of
record for Uber in the proceedings, and Ms. Barajas only assisted Uber in her capacity as a paralegal.
Unfortunately, as a ministerial matter, someone in your office or at the AAA reflected in your Final
Award that Rosemary Barajas (a paralegal at Uber) was the “attorney” representing Uber. No doubt that
escaped your attention when you reviewed the substance of the Award. Likewise, to be clear, we ask for
your immediate correction of the record as the Coopers have now filed lawsuits and claims with the State
Bar alleging that Ms. Barajas violated Arizona statutes by acting as a lawyer without a license to practice
in this State. Their claims in this regard are totally unfounded and supported only by the mistakes of the
AAA in reference to her capacity during the Arbitration presented to you.
A modification of the award is appropriate pursuant to the AAA Consumer Arbitration Rules
and applicable Arizona law. Rule R-47 of AAA’s rules allows for modification of an award, upon notice to
opposing parties (who are copied here) and “request that the arbitrator correct any clerical, typographical,
or mathematical errors in the award.”
Importantly, R-47© provides:
© If applicable law provides a different procedural time frame, that procedure shall be
followed.
Under applicable Arizona law, an arbitration award may be modified within ninety days where, among other
things, “[t]he award is imperfect in a matter of form, not affecting the merits of the controversy.” A.R.S. §
12-1513(A)(3).
Because applicable Arizona law provides for ninety (90) days to modify an arbitration award for
clerical errors not affecting the merit of the controversy, and because Rule R-47© looks to applicable law
for determination of the time frame in which to request modification, it is within the arbitrator’s powers
pursuant to the Consumer Arbitration Rules to correct this obvious and prejudicial clerical mistake.
Accordingly, Uber respectfully requests that the award be immediately corrected so that Uber’s counsel of

Shawn Aiken
August 8, 2018
Page Two
record—Aaron Bergstrom—be inserted as the Attorney for Uber, and that Rosemary Barajas’s name be
removed.
Uber is available as needed to participate in a telephone conference or further hearing to address
this matter.
Best regards,

Mark A. Nadeau
Cc via email and US Mail to:
Tiffany Swanson Cooper tiffanylcooper33@gmail.com and
Brian Cooper arizonaghostwriter@gmail.com
843 South Longmore, #2151, Mesa, AZ 85202
825 South Dobson


#8

So, the arbitrator declined to revise? Am I reading it right?

I too experienced a lack of reasonable care by the AAA multiple times. As you’ve probably read, I filed in small claims court, which I was allowed to do under my written agreement and the AAA’s rules. Citibank unilaterally removed it to arbitration. I raised this issue of wrongful removal with the case manager, the arbitrator and the head of consumer arbitration at the AAA, Cathe Stewart. Nobody cared. There was no formal process for addressing rule violations. In effect making the consumer rules “window dressing.”

Finally, in my case, we won. Citibank appealed to a three arbitrator panel. We filed a response. Citibank withdrew its appeal. We asked to file a motion to recover our fees and costs in preparing for and responding to the appeal and the AAA said, “no, the case is closed.” My attorneys were flabbergasted. I instructed them to file the motion anyways and dare the AAA to ignore it. Again, it was Cathe Stewart telling us it was over and the AAA would not convene the panel to review our motion.

After we formally filed our motion, the AAA relented and convened the three arbitrator panel. We were awarded our entire request. AND Citibank had to pay the $1,500 hearing fee times three. It was improper for the AAA to try to preclude our motion. It’s not an impartial administration, unfortunately.

Anyways, my point is: the AAA should be considered an adversary to the consumer/employee. Do not defer. Follow the rules and if they try to stop you, fight back. They want you to give up.

Best,
Dan


I beat Citibank's ass in forced arbitration and so can you.
#9

Yes, the arbitrator did his job , maintained his integrity, and his ethical standards. Bravo AAA for doing the right thing. Uber requested AAA to change the award by modifying the document. Take Rosemary out and put the supervising attorney on the document…!!! haha seriously!! I have a hard copy that I am going to forward to the Judge


#10

The AAA did the right thing or the arbitrator did? Both of them responded to that letter that quickly?

Can you share the arbitrator’s response?

As a consumer claim, none of it should be confidential. The AAA rules do not require confidentiality unless the agreement requires it. And we’ve yet to see a consumer agreement that requires confidentiality.


#11

Shawn Aiken ska@aikenschenk.com
Aug 8 (2 days ago)
to Adam, Mark, Cole, me, tiffanylcooper., Pat, DeAnn
Dear All,

I have received and reviewed today’s letter from Mr. Nadeau. Under A.R.S. § 12-3020(B), on motion by a party, the arbitrator (rather than the court) may correct an award, but “[a] motion under subsection A of this section must be made and notice given to all parties within twenty days after the movant receives notice of the award.” Because the motion—however well taken—is out of time under the controlling Arizona law, I regret that I cannot take up the request for correction to the final award.

Shawn Aiken

This is the response from Mr. Aiken. I must admit, it was an unexpected shock, but ethical


#12

Wow. Yeah, he implies that he agrees with the revision given the “well-taken” remark but declines to revise it.

What strikes me is: DLA Piper did not care to have the record revised until after you filed your complaints. That is notable. Why were they fine with it until you cited it in your complaint?

I don’t know where the line is between an attorney and his/her legal assistant acting as an attorney. I’m assuming it would be in how she communicated. I would think a legal assistant should be more-or-less invisible.