Clements v. T-Mobile USA, Inc et al
Petitioner: Bradford Arthur Clements
Respondent: T-Mobile USA, Inc and T-Mobile US, Inc.
Case Number: 5:2022cv07512
Filed: November 30, 2022
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of California
Presiding Judge: Edward J Davila
Referring Judge: Susan van Keulen
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes: Arbitration
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 185 Suit to Compel Arbitration
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on May 8, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
January 3, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Bradford Arthur Clements re #9 Notice (Other) Proof of Service of Notice of Hearing on Petition to Compel Arbitration (Clements, Bradford) (Filed on 1/3/2023)
January 3, 2023 Opinion or Order Set Hearing per #10 Notice of Hearing re #1 Petition to Compel Arbitration: Motion Hearing set for 3/30/2023 at 9:00 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 4, 5th Floor before Judge Edward J. Davila. (crr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2023)
January 3, 2023 Opinion or Order #Electronic filing error. No title Page. Certificates/Proofs of Service e-filed separately and not as an attachment, require a title page. Please refer to Civil Local Rules 3-4 re first page requirement. Please re-file in its entirety. Re: #10 Certificate of Service filed by Bradford Arthur Clements (jml, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2023)
December 30, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 9 NOTICE of Hearing on Petition to Compel Arbitration by Bradford Arthur Clements re #1 Petition to Compel Arbitration (Clements, Bradford) (Filed on 12/30/2022) Modified on 1/3/2023 (jml, COURT STAFF).
December 6, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 8 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Bradford Arthur Clements. Service waived by T-Mobile USA, Inc. on 12/5/2022. Answer due 2/3/2023. (Clements, Bradford) (Filed on 12/6/2022) Modified on 12/22/2022 (crr, COURT STAFF).
December 2, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 7 CLERKS NOTICE RESETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE FOLLOWING REASSIGNMENT. Initial Case Management Conference set for 3/9/2023 at 10:00 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 4, 5th Floor. Joint Case Management Statement due by 2/24/2023. The Court does not issue a revised Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines. Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ejdorders. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (crr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2022)
December 1, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 6 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned using a proportionate, random, and blind system pursuant to General Order No. 44 to Judge Edward J. Davila for all further proceedings. Notice: The assigned judge participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. See General Order No. 65 and http://cand.uscourts.gov/cameras. Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen remains as referral judge assigned to case. Reassignment Order signed by Clerk on 12/1/2022. (Attachments: #1 Notice of Eligibility for Video Recording)(bw, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2022)
December 1, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 5 CLERK'S NOTICE OF IMPENDING REASSIGNMENT TO A U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: The Clerk of this Court will now randomly reassign this case to a District Judge because either (1) a party has not consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge, or (2) time is of the essence in deciding a pending judicial action for which the necessary consents to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction have not been secured. You will be informed by separate notice of the district judge to whom this case is reassigned. ALL HEARING DATES PRESENTLY SCHEDULED BEFORE THE CURRENT MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARE VACATED AND SHOULD BE RE-NOTICED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE JUDGE TO WHOM THIS CASE IS REASSIGNED. This is a text only docket entry; there is no document associated with this notice. (jhf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2022)
December 1, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 4 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Bradford Arthur Clements.. (Clements, Bradford) (Filed on 12/1/2022)
November 30, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 3 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 2/21/2023. Initial Case Management Conference set for 2/28/2023 09:30 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 6, 4th Floor. (jml, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2022)
November 30, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 2 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen. Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E-Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. Consent/Declination due by 12/14/2022. (jrs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2022)
November 30, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 1 PETITION to Compel Arbitration Compelling T-Mobile to Submit to Arbitration Governed by California Law in Santa Clara County, California in Accord with the Parties' Written Arbitration Agreement, and to Stay the Pending Texas Arbitration against T-Mobile USA, Inc, T-Mobile US, Inc. (no process) (filing fee $402, receipt number ACANDC-17768982). Filed by Bradford Arthur Clements. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit T&C Contract, #2 Affidavit Petitioner Affidavit, #3 Exhibit Consumer Demand Form 9.8.22, #4 Exhibit AAA Letter 9.21.22, #5 Exhibit AAA List for Selection of Arbs, #6 Exhibit September Call Text History, #7 Exhibit BAC Email 10.31.22 12:10 am, #8 Exhibit Consumer Demand Form 10.31.22 12:10 am, #9 Exhibit BAC Email 10.31.22 1:19 pm, #10 Exhibit Consumer Demand Form 10.31.22 341 pm, #11 Exhibit Revised CA Complaint 11.2.22, #12 Exhibit TM Objection Locale 11.7.22, #13 Exhibit BAC Email 11.7.22 1:03 pm, #14 Exhibit BAC Email 11.7.22 1:13 pm, #15 Exhibit AAA Email 11.11.22, #16 Exhibit BAC Email 11.11.22 2:06 pm, #17 Exhibit AAA Email 11.14.22, #18 Exhibit TM Email 11.17.22, #19 Exhibit BAC Objection Email 11.18.22, #20 Exhibit BAC-TM Email Exchange 11.28.22, #21 Civil Cover Sheet)(Clements, Bradford) (Filed on 11/30/2022) Modified on 11/30/2022 (jml, COURT STAFF).

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the California Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Clements v. T-Mobile USA, Inc et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Bradford Arthur Clements
Represented By: Bradford Arthur Clements
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: T-Mobile USA, Inc
Represented By: Deborah Yoon Jones
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: T-Mobile US, Inc.
Represented By: Deborah Yoon Jones
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?