Deucerthorn

Stebbins v. Wal-Mart marks an inflexion in Atherthorn’s legal shenanigans. It begins as a frivolous demand for compensation and employment, and morphs into the prototype for his series of four bogus arbitration claims. It marks his maturing from a rancid angry adolescent into a rancid narcissistic troll. From the world owing him a living, to the world owing him enough money that he can afford to really avenge his petty grievances.

I stumbled into this, in fact, from his first bogus arbitration attempt, Stebbins v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (3:10-cv-03123). Why Wal-Mart, I wondered? It turns out that it was because they failed to employ him after he failed a screening test. The court certainly thought so, and consolidated the cases.

His core misunderstanding underlies all his bogus arbitration cases: you can’t just email a giant corporation and unilaterally subject them to arbitration via Net-Arb.com (remember that name), because a contract requires a “meeting of minds”, and that is very obviously not present here.

Stebbins v Wal-Mart is a canonical Stebbins case. Almost exactly a year in the making, over 210 docket entries and documents, two Federal, three Federal Appellate and one Supreme Court case, which cost Stebbins nothing, unquestionably cost Wal-Mart a small fortune in lawyers’ fees, and wasted hundreds of hours of court, Marshals, and judicial time.

Total awarded to Stebbins: $0

Aug 2010	Stebbins applies for employment with Wal-Mart, and was asked questions in screening about customer interaction. This is… not his strong suit. He had already filed at least two suits against employers who fired or failed to employ him. He does not hear back. He reacts in characteristic form – in forma pauperis, to be exact.
Sep 14, 2010	Stebbins files the complaint that is docketed as 3:10-cv-03086 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. It’s important to note that he has not even received a FOAD letter. He has just not heard back. Patience is not one of his virtues. His demand is direct and classic Stebbins: he wants injunctive relief to force Wal-Mart to employ him with “no interview, no application, no nothing”, and full back pay to the date of the screening. or “front pay” – compensation for his lost earnings for not being employed as a shelf-stacker. These modest demands will not last.
Sep 19, 2010	Stebbins writes to Wal-Mart offering them the chance to mediate his claim for employment. Despite his “gracious invitation to mediate” and “honest attempt to explain the illegality of their actions”, he never hears back from them.
Oct 1, 2010	Stebbins files to amend the complaint, adding a small increment in punitive damages for failing to accept his obviously authoritative assessment of their discrimination. Say, $300,000.
Nov 4, 2010	Stebbins applies for court-appointed counsel.
Nov 8, 2010	Stebbins sends a “contract offer” by email to Wal-Mart (at approximately 8:36 pm, he notes). This “offers” a “contract” which comes into force if they initiate communication with him, for any reason. The “contract” referred all legal disputes to Net-Arb, an arbitration mill. It included a default victory clause – if the other party doesn’t respond within 24 hours, Stebbins wins, regardless of the merits.
Nov 12, 2010	Wal-Mart is finally served, at taxpayers’ expense.
Nov 15, 2010	Stebbins applies for declaratory judgment, then withdraws the application the following day.
Nov 17, 2010	Wal-Mart emails Stebbins saying the matter has been transferred to the regional office. It also answers the complaint, having finally been served.
Nov 21, 2010	Stebbins emails Wal-Mart reminding them of the “contract”
Nov 24, 2010	Wal-Mart emails Stebbins saying the matter has been transferred to the regional office. The trap is sprung!
Dec 17, 2010	Stebbins files Stebbins v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (3:10-cv-03123) in the US District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.
Dec 30, 2010	An amended complaint renewing the demands, and clarifying that what he is actually trying to do is end-run the employment discrimination case, Stebbins v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (3:10-cv-03086), by retrospectively inserting binding arbitration that he wins by default.
Jan 5, 2011	The cases are consolidated.
Feb 15, 2011	Stebbins draws the arbitration enforcement application to the attention of the court in 10-3086 in case it has “slipped their mind” that they have long passed the deadline to respond to the demand for arbitration, without responding. $660,000,000,000.00 please, Judge.
Feb 18, 2011	Stebbins files a motion to correct a judicial error in failing to grant his perfectly reasonable $660 billion award.
Feb 22, 2011	A renewed motion to confirm the arbitration award.
Feb 28, 2011	Wal-Mart tries to weasel its way out of the agreement: “Wal-Mart is entitled to summary judgment because there was no agreement between Plaintiff and Wal-Mart to arbitrate anything.” Three days later, on March 1, they reaffirm that they actually mean it.
Mar 2011	Several weeks of not at all repetitive suggestions in support of the motion to enforce.
Apr 14, 2011	Report and recommendations of the magistrate judge in respect of the arbitration award. “The e-mails from Plaintiff are self-serving documents that did not form the basis for any conduct or performance on Wal-Mart’s part.” No contract exists.
Apr 20, 2011	Over Stebbins’ objections, the recommendations are accepted and the motions to confirm the award denied.
Apr 29, 2011	After a flurry of briefs arguing his case, Stebbins applies once again for enforcement of the purported arbitration award. He also files an appeal, docketed as 11-966, apparently unaware that an appeal can’t be heard while there’s an outstanding motion.
May 13, 2011	Wal-Mart files for summary judgment in the lower court, in a spirited attempt to drag the thing back into the real world as the (non-)employment dispute it always was.
May 16, 2011	Stebbins moves to strike Wal-Mart’s response to his motion to confirm the arbitration, and argues that because it must be struck, so the defendants have not replied within 14 days and he wins! With one bound, he was free!
Jun 1, 2011	Appeal 11-966 is denied for (drum roll) lack of jurisdiction.
Jun 9, 2011	Motion for clarification in appeal 11-966 is denied. On July 13, a request for en-banc rehearing in the same motion is also denied.
Jul 19, 2011	Order denying plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration, confirmation of arbitration award, and, inevitably, motion to strike. Womp-womp.
Jul 20, 2011	The appeal court mandate hits the docket. Two days later, his motion to stay the appeal mandate is denied.
Jul 22, 2011	Stebbins files for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States, and also files a second appeal to the Eighth Circuit, docketed as 11-2583, against the July 19 Order. This is promptly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, because, once again, there is no final, appealable order.
Aug 9, 2011	Stebbins files a motion for summary judgment based on an undated “request for admissions” which, in a move that will surprise nobody, he asserts were accepted by Wal-Mart by virtue of failing to challenge them. Naturally this includes the full sum of the “arbitration award”. If only he’d served it, rather than sending it outside of process. As Wal-Mart notice in their response.
Sep 7, 2011	The judge finally brings the hammer down, the case is dismissed with prejudice.
Sep 13, 2011	The order being final and appealable, Stebbins, naturally, appeals. This is docketed as 11-2968.
Oct 28, 2011	In appeal 11-2968, the judgment of the lower court is summarily affirmed.
Nov 18, 2011	The appeal mandate lands.
Oct 23, 2011	The Supreme Court denies certiorari.