United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
James Chelmowsi, Plaintiff, Pro se, Glenview, IL.
For AT& T Mobility (AT& T), Defendant: Mark W. Lewis, LEAD ATTORNEY, Legal Department--AT& T Services, Inc., Chicago, IL.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
James B. Zagel, United States District Judge.
In this suit against Defendant AT& T Mobility LLC (" Defendant"), pro se Plaintiff James Chelmowski (" Plaintiff") seeks to vacate an arbitration award pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 10. This case is presently before the court on Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint and confirm the arbitration award pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9 U.S.C. § 9. For the following reasons, I grant Defendant's motion in entirety.
Plaintiff is a former customer of Defendant who initiated an arbitration before the American Arbitration Association (the " AAA") on February 26, 2013. In this arbitration, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant refused to " port, " or transfer, his cellular telephone number to another carrier and improperly deleted his voicemails. Plaintiff asserted claims for (1) breach of contract, (2) conversion, (3) fraud, (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (5) violations of federal telecommunications regulations. Plaintiff asked the arbitrator to award more than $2.2 million in damages plus interest.
The AAA appointed Celeste Hammond, a law professor at the John Marshall Law School, as arbitrator. After Plaintiff took discovery from Defendant, Hammond conducted the arbitration hearing in Chicago on May 29, 2014. At the hearing, Plaintiff testified about the issues he experienced and Defendant presented an expert witness who testified that the new carrier to whom Plaintiff wished to port his number was responsible for the failed port. Defendant also asserted a counterclaim for $345.88 in unpaid service charges and other costs. On July 14, 2014, Hammond rendered her final decision and determined that neither party met its burden of proof on its respective claims. After ruling that " all claims asserted by the parties are denied, " Hammond ordered Defendant to pay the administrative fees of the arbitration as well as the arbitrator's compensation.
Plaintiff filed its current complaint, titled " Complaint for Administrative Review, " with the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, on August 15, 2014. The Circuit Court's clerk's office issued a summons under the Illinois Administrative Review Law, 735 ILCS 5/3-101 et seq., and Defendant removed the case to this court on September 18, 2014.
Defendant's motion to dismiss was filed on September 25, 2014. Plaintiff filed a motion for discovery of Defendant's privilege log from the arbitration proceedings on October 20, 2014, and a motion for leave to file an amended complaint on January 8, 2015. Although Plaintiff's response to Defendant's motion to dismiss was due on November 11, 2014, Plaintiff did not file it until January 6, 2015.
I. Plaintiff's Claims Under the Illinois Administrative Review Law
Plaintiff titled his pleading, " Complaint for Administrative Review, " and caused the Clerk of the Cook County Circuit Court to issue a summons under the Illinois Administrative Review Law, 735 ILCS § 5/3-101 et seq . These actions indicate that Plaintiff is attempting to invoke the provisions of the Illinois Administrative Review Law in some measure. This law governs actions seeking judicial review of the decisions of Illinois administrative agencies. 735 ILCS § 5/3-102. As the allegations of Plaintiff's complaint make clear, however, the current dispute before the court does not relate to an Illinois administrative agency decision. Rather, ...