This one is pretty clean. In Stebbins v. Wal-Mart, our hero tries to unilaterally enforce arbitration using an arbitration mill called Net-Arb. He apparently tried his unilateral contract change shenanigans, with predictable results.
The dismissal with prejudice is a hard lose, and probably explains why Stebbins didn’t try to get this one any further.
| Nov 8, 2010 | Stebbins uses Net-Arb in Stebbins v. Wal-Mart. It’s not clear if he ever pays the arbitration fee, it seems unlikely. |
| Mar 21, 2011 | Stebbins emails support@net-arb.com with a “counter-offer” to their terms and conditions: 1. All disputes between them, even those not arising form the contract, to be arbitrated by the American Arbitration Association. 2. If the invitation to arbitrate is not accepted within 24 hours, he wins, regardless of the merits. This “counter-offer” is deemed accepted if they cancel the registration and do not tell him about it. To reject the offer, they have to cancel registration and not tell him (their terms of use are silent on this, but almost certainly their automated processes mean that notification will be sent). |
| Mar 24, 2011 | Stebbins attempts to file a case using Net-Arb. It’s not immediately obvious which one this might be, but it appears to concern one Gary Wallman. Net-Arb canceled the registration and informed him. He sent a Submission to Arbitration form, to which they did not respond. Stebbins’ demand to Net-Arb is characteristically polite and temperate: As you may have gathered, by now, I am not taking this sitting down. I asked you for a simple explanation of why you don’t want me using your services, or anything I could do to make you more willing to accept me. You wouldn’t dignify that with an answer, so let’s fight each other over it. If only Net-Arb had had the foresight to include something about this in their terms of use. You know, something along the lines of “net-ARB retains the right to refuse to arbitrate any case at any time and without stated reasons.” |
| Mar 26, 2011 | Stebbins files for enforcement of the claim against Net-Arb, per the default victory clause. He asserts that “[t]his contract has a meeting of the minds”. Spoiler: It doesn’t. In the filing, Stebbins includes a screen grab of an email sent from readtheemailtofindout@gmail.com with the subject “Check this out. It’s not spam”, the contents of which appears to be a YouTube video. Any competent spam filter would trap this. There’s also an email from Net-Arb support. To whom it may concern, Regarding the notices you may have received concerning arbitration initiated by Mr. David Stebbins, be advised that you are only the latest in a long list of people and business entities that he has tried to bring to arbitration. We have advised Mr. Stebbins repeatedly that we will not do business with him, yet he defiantly continues to abuse our free filing system to harass others. Please be advised that registration for this case and any others filed by Mr. Stebbins have been cancelled. Should you need more information about Mr. Stebbins and the cases he has filed, please let us know. We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience. This is addressed to a Gary Wallman, who I don’t think appears in any of the other cases, raising the distinct possibility that there are a whole load more frivolous demands for ludicrous sums not exposed in the court filings. |
| Apr 14, 2011 | Report and recommendations by the magistrate judge. It turns out that Stebbins omitted the usual vastly inflated sum, so the amount in controversy is at most $299, which is below the limit for Federal diversity jurisdiction. |
| May 3, 2011 | Recommendations accepted, case dismissed with prejudice. |
Deucerthorn 