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.