On August 24, 2022 a
Complaint,Petition
was filed
involving a dispute between
Montoya, Garrett,
and
Airtouch Cellular, Inc.,
Asurion Insurance Services, Inc.,
Asurion, Llc,
Does 1- 50,
Motorola Mobility, Llc,
Verizon Wireless Services, Llc,
for Product Liability Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
V \t
Samer Habbas Bar No. 243683
Adam Kocaj,
’
Bar No. 321680 W3$§g%§§$m
-
DMWCT
RNA. I
1N0
LAW OFFICES OF SAMER HABBAS & ASSOCIATES, INC, P.C.
FEB 2 8 2023
aim-
200 Spectrum Center Dr. Ste. 1230
Irvine, CA 9261 8 l
Phone: (949)727—9300
Fax: (949)727-9308 0M
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Garrett Montoya
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
GARRETT MONTOYA, Case No.: CIVSB221861§
10
Plaintiff, PLAINTIFFS GARRETT
11 MONTOYA’S OPPOSITION T0
PETITION TO COMPEL
12
VS. ARBITRATION AND MOTION T0
13
STAY BY DEFENDANT AIRTOUCH
CELLULAR INC. DBA VERIZON
14 WIRELESS; ASURION, LLC, AND
ASURION INSURANCE SERVICES,
15
MOTOROLA MOBILITY, LLC; VERIZON INC
16
WIRELESS SERVICES, LLC; AIRTOUCH
CELLULAR INC. DBA VERIZON [Filed concurrently with the Declaration
17 WIRELESS; ASURION, LLC, ASURION VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
of Adam Kocaj; Declaration of
INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., AND DOES l
Garrett Montoya; Notice of Lodgment
18
TO 50,
and Exhibits Thereto]
19
20 DATE: March 13, 2023
Defendants, TIME: 8:30AM M”
21
DEPT: 523 ”AIM
22
/
‘wfcj,v
COMPLAINT FILED: October 28, 2022
23
Trial Date: None Set
24
25 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
26 COMES NOW the Plaintiff, GARRETT MONTOYA, who herby opposes the Petition to
27
Compel Arbitration and Motion to Stay by Defendant AIRTOUCH CELLULAR INC. DBA
28
1
VERIZON WIRELESS; ASURION, LLC, AND ASURION INSURANCE SERVICES, INC
Collectively “Dcfcndants”). As will be shown herein, the Motion to Compel Arbitration should
be denied, as among other things, because the Verizon contract including the Arbitration clause:
1) Defendants failed to establish the existence of a valid, enforceable arbitration agreement
between Plaintiff Garrett Montoya Jr and Defendant Verizon; 2) the purported Arbitration
Agreement allegedly entered into between Garrett Montoya Sr and Defendant Verizon does not
fall within the scope of the dispute because the subject phone was provided by Asurion, 3)
Garrett Montoya Jr is a non-signatory to any allegedly Customer Agreement and Arbitration
10
Clause between his father and Verizon and never gave Garrett Montoya Sr actual and/or
11
12 ostensible authority t0 act on his behalf; and 4) the Arbitration Agreement is a contract of
13 adhesion With elements of procedural and substantive unconscionability rendering it
14
unenforceable. As such, the Petition should be denied, and this court should retain jurisdiction
15
over the entire matter.
16
This opposition is based upon this notice of opposition, the memorandum of points and
17
18 authorities, the Declaration of Adam Kocaj, Esq., the Declaration of Garrett Montoya Jr, the
19 Notice of Lodgment and Exhibits Thereto, and Plaintiff‘s Evidentiary Objections, all filed
20
concurrently herewith, the pleadings and records on file in this action, and on whatever oral or
21
documentary evidence may be presented at the time of the hearing.
22
23
DATED: February 26, 2023 LAW OFFICES OF SAMER HABBAS
24 j/f’céi‘f‘. an: A"
f I
25 / ‘5- _/ .’
m ‘5
By:
Samer Habbas
26
Adam Kocaj
27 Counsel for Plaintiff,
Garrett MontoyA
28
Document Filed Date
February 28, 2023
Case Filing Date
August 24, 2022
Category
Product Liability Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
V \t Samer Habbas Bar No. 243683 Adam Kocaj, ’ Bar No. 321680 W3$§g%§§$m - DMWCT RNA. I 1N0 LAW OFFICES OF SAMER HABBAS & ASSOCIATES, INC, P.C. FEB 2 8 2023 aim- 200 Spectrum Center Dr. Ste. 1230 Irvine, CA 9261 8 l Phone: (949)727—9300 Fax: (949)727-9308 0M Attorneys for Plaintiff, Garrett Montoya SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO GARRETT MONTOYA, Case No.: CIVSB221861§ 10 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFFS GARRETT 11 MONTOYA’S OPPOSITION T0 PETITION TO COMPEL 12 VS. ARBITRATION AND MOTION T0 13 STAY BY DEFENDANT AIRTOUCH CELLULAR INC. DBA VERIZON 14 WIRELESS; ASURION, LLC, AND ASURION INSURANCE SERVICES, 15 MOTOROLA MOBILITY, LLC; VERIZON INC 16 WIRELESS SERVICES, LLC; AIRTOUCH CELLULAR INC. DBA VERIZON [Filed concurrently with the Declaration 17 WIRELESS; ASURION, LLC, ASURION VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV of Adam Kocaj; Declaration of INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., AND DOES l Garrett Montoya; Notice of Lodgment 18 TO 50, and Exhibits Thereto] 19 20 DATE: March 13, 2023 Defendants, TIME: 8:30AM M” 21 DEPT: 523 ”AIM 22 / ‘wfcj,v COMPLAINT FILED: October 28, 2022 23 Trial Date: None Set 24 25 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 26 COMES NOW the Plaintiff, GARRETT MONTOYA, who herby opposes the Petition to 27 Compel Arbitration and Motion to Stay by Defendant AIRTOUCH CELLULAR INC. DBA 28 1 VERIZON WIRELESS; ASURION, LLC, AND ASURION INSURANCE SERVICES, INC Collectively “Dcfcndants”). As will be shown herein, the Motion to Compel Arbitration should be denied, as among other things, because the Verizon contract including the Arbitration clause: 1) Defendants failed to establish the existence of a valid, enforceable arbitration agreement between Plaintiff Garrett Montoya Jr and Defendant Verizon; 2) the purported Arbitration Agreement allegedly entered into between Garrett Montoya Sr and Defendant Verizon does not fall within the scope of the dispute because the subject phone was provided by Asurion, 3) Garrett Montoya Jr is a non-signatory to any allegedly Customer Agreement and Arbitration 10 Clause between his father and Verizon and never gave Garrett Montoya Sr actual and/or 11 12 ostensible authority t0 act on his behalf; and 4) the Arbitration Agreement is a contract of 13 adhesion With elements of procedural and substantive unconscionability rendering it 14 unenforceable. As such, the Petition should be denied, and this court should retain jurisdiction 15 over the entire matter. 16 This opposition is based upon this notice of opposition, the memorandum of points and 17 18 authorities, the Declaration of Adam Kocaj, Esq., the Declaration of Garrett Montoya Jr, the 19 Notice of Lodgment and Exhibits Thereto, and Plaintiff‘s Evidentiary Objections, all filed 20 concurrently herewith, the pleadings and records on file in this action, and on whatever oral or 21 documentary evidence may be presented at the time of the hearing. 22 23 DATED: February 26, 2023 LAW OFFICES OF SAMER HABBAS 24 j/f’céi‘f‘. an: A" f I 25 / ‘5- _/ .’ m ‘5 By: Samer Habbas 26 Adam Kocaj 27 Counsel for Plaintiff, Garrett MontoyA 28