Hunter v. EMC Corporation et al
Plaintiff: Kimberly Hunter
Defendant: EMC Corporation and Dell Technologies Inc.
Case Number: 1:2018cv12273
Filed: October 31, 2018
Court: US District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Presiding Judge: Richard G Stearns
Nature of Suit: Labor: Fair Standards
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on November 26, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
November 26, 2018 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ORDER entered. Case stayed pending arbitration, per order dkt 10 . (Pacho, Arnold)
November 21, 2018 Filing 10 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #6 Motion to Compel. Kimberly Hunter brought this lawsuit in Middlesex Superior Court against Dell Technologies and EMC Corporation for wrongful termination and failure to pay overtime and other wages. Defendants subsequently removed the case to federal court and now move to compel arbitration and to dismiss or, in the alternative, to stay the action. A party that seeks to compel arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) must show "(1) that a valid agreement to arbitrate exists, (2) that the movant is entitled to invoke the arbitration clause, (3) that the other party is bound by that clause, and (4) that the claim asserted comes within the clause's scope." Ouadani v. TF Final Mile LLC, 876 F.3d 31, 36 (1st Cir. 2017), quoting InterGen N.V. v. Grina, 344 F.3d 134, 142 (1st Cir. 2003).Here, Hunter signed an agreement with defendants that "binding arbitration shall be the sole and exclusive remedy for resolving any... employment-related legal claim." The agreement provided that defendants' arbitration policy, "as amended from time to time," would govern such a dispute. Hunter does not contest that she signed the agreement, but asserts that it is unconscionable. She argues that the agreement is substantively unconscionable because defendants "are in the proverbial driver's seat" since they decided that JAMS' rules and procedures would govern. She also argues that the agreement is procedurally unconscionable because defendants can "amend the terms of the arbitration policy without obtaining assent on behalf of their employees, and likely without their knowledge." See Machado v. System4 LLC, 471 Mass. 204, 218 (2015) (defining substantive and procedural unconscionability).Under Massachusetts law, unconscionability is an affirmative defense to a breach of contract claim. Bose Corp. v. Ejaz, 732 F.3d 17, 23 (1st Cir. 2013). "[A]n unconscionable contract is 'such as no man in his senses and not under delusion would make on the one hand, and as no honest and fair man would accept on the other.'" Waters v. Min Ltd., 412 Mass. 64, 69 (1992), quoting Hume v. United States, 132 U.S. 406, 411 (1889).Neither the arbitration clause nor the arbitration policy are beyond the pale, especially when considered "with a healthy regard for the federal policy favoring arbitration." Moses H. Cone Meml Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24 (1983). The JAMS' rules are not so one-sided as to be "oppressive" to Hunter. See Machado, 471 Mass. at 218. And because the agreement specifically referenced the arbitration policy in bold and italics, Hunter was not "subject to unfair surprise" by agreeing to resolve disputes with her employer by arbitration. See id.; Storie v. Household Int'l, Inc., 2005 WL 3728718, at *9 (D. Mass. 2005) ("Such unfair surprise might arise where the provision was 'obscurely worded,' 'buried in fine print in the contract,' or proposed under other circumstances suggesting unfairness.") (citation omitted).For the foregoing reasons, Hudson's motion to compel is ALLOWED. The Clerk will stay the case pending arbitration. (RGS, law1)
November 16, 2018 Filing 9 Opposition re #6 MOTION to Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss or Stay This Action filed by Kimberly Hunter. (Summer, David)
November 6, 2018 Filing 8 AFFIDAVIT in Support re #6 MOTION to Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss or Stay This Action filed by Dell Technologies Inc., EMC Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 (Offer Letter), #2 Exhibit 2 (Key Employee Agreement), #3 Exhibit 3 (Arbitration Policy))(Lamkin, Brian)
November 6, 2018 Filing 7 MEMORANDUM in Support re #6 MOTION to Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss or Stay This Action filed by Dell Technologies Inc., EMC Corporation. (Lamkin, Brian)
November 6, 2018 Filing 6 MOTION to Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss or Stay This Action by Dell Technologies Inc., EMC Corporation.(Lamkin, Brian)
November 6, 2018 Filing 5 NOTICE by Dell Technologies Inc., EMC Corporation Local Rule 81.1 Notice of Filing of State Court Record (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A (certified state court record))(Lamkin, Brian)
November 1, 2018 Filing 4 NOTICE of Appearance by Julie B. Brennan on behalf of Dell Technologies Inc., EMC Corporation (Brennan, Julie)
November 1, 2018 Filing 3 ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Richard G. Stearns assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Boal. (Finn, Mary)
October 31, 2018 Filing 2 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Dell Technologies Inc., EMC Corporation identifying Corporate Parent Dell Technologies Inc. for EMC Corporation.. (Lamkin, Brian)
October 31, 2018 Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Dell Technologies Inc., EMC Corporation ( Filing fee: $ 400, receipt number 0101-7390099 Fee Status: Filing Fee paid) (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A (State CourtComplaint), #2 Exhibit B (State Court Summons - Dell), #3 Exhibit C (State Court Summons - EMC), #4 Exhibit D (State Court Civil Action Cover Sheet), #5 Exhibit E (State Court Motion for Appointment of Special Process Server), #6 Exhibit F (State Court Tracking Order), #7 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, #8 Category Form)(Lamkin, Brian)

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 Massachusetts District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Hunter v. EMC Corporation et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Kimberly Hunter
Represented By: David B. Summer
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 ]
Defendant: EMC Corporation
Represented By: Brian H. Lamkin
Represented By: Julie B. Brennan
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 ]
Defendant: Dell Technologies Inc.
Represented By: Brian H. Lamkin
Represented By: Julie B. Brennan
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?