American Arbitration Association Review

1/5 - (4 votes)

This is an archive of a consumer complaint published against American Arbitration Association at Scamity.com on 18-Feb-15.

 

Business Details –

  • Name: American Arbitration Association
  • Address: One Center Plaza, Suite 300
  • City: Boston
  • State: Massachusetts
  • Country: United States
  • Phone: 877-495-4185
  • Website: https://www.adr.org

 

Original Complaint against American Arbitration Association published at Scamity.com on 18-Feb-15 says, verbatim –

(The Claimant’s First name will be used; The Arbitrator’s Name has been removed, and The Respondent’s Lawyers Name has been removed) | I filed the following CLAIMANT’S MOTION TO QUASH RESPONDENT’S DISCOVERY REQUESTS. The Respondent DID NOT FILE a response to the motion; THEREFORE, the Respondent does not CONTEST the motion and is admitting fault and is ready to accept the consequences that the Arbitrator will issue. During the conference call on February 6, 2015, THE RESPONDENT acknowledged that he FAILED TO RESPOND! The Arbitrator DENIED The CLAIMANT’S MOTION TO QUASH RESPONDENT’S DISCOVERY REQUESTS, and the Arbitrator EXTENDED the discovery period; The Arbitrator IS ALLOWING The Respondent to Change the Discovery Requests to Federal Law; consequentially, The CLAIMANT’S MOTION TO QUASH RESPONDENT’S DISCOVERY REQUESTS should have been granted. I had several questions concerning the discovery requests that the Respondent DID NOT provide to me, and The Arbitrator told me that his pages were not numbered the same; as a result, I do not know if The Respondent has provided The Arbitrator with the documents. The ARBITRATOR EXPECTS this to be a one-sided EXCHANGE OF DISCOVERY. I asked The Respondent for the SAME DISCOVERY THAT HE ASKED ME FOR; I selected some of his discovery requests and COPIED THEM WORD FOR WORD. The ARBITRATOR RULED that the Respondent does not have to provide The Discovery I requested, but I have to provide The Respondent’s DISCOVERY REQUESTS! I explained to The Arbitrator that this is now a MATTER OF PRINCIPLE; THEREFORE, IWILL NOT COMPLY WITH THE RULING, and I will no longer participate in a ONE-SIDED ARBITRATION. | CLAIMANT’S MOTION TO QUASH RESPONDENT’S DISCOVERY REQUESTS | The Claimant LAWRENCE files this motion to quash Respondent’s discovery Requests. As grounds therefor, LAWRENCE respectfully submits the following: | MOTION TO QUASH | During the conference call on November 25, 2014, the parties agreed to the use of FEDERAL LAW. The Arbitrator APPROVED the use of FEDERAL LAW; therefore, The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will be used in this Arbitration. On December 2, 2014, the Respondent [Central Market HEB “HEB” or “Respondent”)] sent the following documents to the Claimant. | 1) Respondent’s Request for Disclosure to Claimant. | 2) Respondent’s First Request for Admissions to Claimant. | 3) Respondent’s First Set of Interrogatories to Claimant. | 4) Respondent’s First Requests for Production to Claimant. | The Respondent is CLEARLY VIOLATING the rules of this Arbitration. BOTH parties agreed to the use of FEDERAL LAW; HOWEVER; it has become apparent that The Respondent believes he is not limited by an agreement. | 1) The Respondent’s Request for Disclosure to Claimant states that Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, Claimant is requested to disclose, within thirty (30) days of service of this request, the information or material described in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194.2, as follows (A copy of Page #1 where this is stated is enclosed). | 2) The Respondent’s First Request for Admissions to Claimant states that Respondent Central Market HEB (“HEB” or “Respondent”) serves this First Request for Admissions on Claimant Lawrence Primm (“Primm” or “Claimant”) pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 198 (A copy of Page #1 where this is stated is enclosed). | 3) The Respondent’s First Set of Interrogatories to Claimant states that Respondent Central Market HEB (“HEB” or “Respondent”) serves this First Set of Interrogatories on Claimant Lawrence Primm (“Primm” or “Claimant”) pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 197 (A copy of Page #1 where this is stated is enclosed). | 4) The Respondent’s First Requests for Production to Claimant states that Respondent Central Market HEB (“HEB” or “Respondent”) serves this First Requests for Production on Claimant Lawrence Primm (“Primm” or “Claimant”) pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 196 (A copy of Page #1 where this is stated is enclosed). | The Respondent continues to use Unethical, Unprofessional, and Unjust Tactics during this Arbitration. BOTH parties agreed to the use of FEDERAL LAW, but The Respondent CONTINUES to use The TEXAS Rules of Civil Procedure. Then, The Respondent had the AUDACITY to file A Motion to Compel Discovery Responses. | The Respondent’s Discovery Requests are DRAFTED and CRAFTED using The TEXAS Rules of Civil Procedure instead of The FEDERAL Rules of Civil Procedure (AS AGREED); therefore, The Respondent’s Discovery Requests are ILLEGAL and can’t be used in this Arbitration. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, LAWRENCE respectfully requests that The Arbitrator grant this motion and QUASH RESPONDENT’S DISCOVERY REQUESTS. | PRAYER | For the reasons set forth above, the Claimant LAWRENCE asks The Arbitrator for the following relief: | 1) TO QUASH RESPONDENT’S DISCOVERY REQUESTS because they are not in compliance with Federal Law as Agreed. | 2) TO ADMONISH The Respondent to avoid this conduct during the duration of this Arbitration. | 3) TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS against The Respondent Central Market HEB (“HEB” or “Respondent”) ranging from the Claimant’s costs of this Arbitration | to rendering a DEFAULT judgment against The Respondent Central Market HEB (“HEB” or “Respondent”). | Respectfully submitted, | LAWRENCE | On December 29, 2014, I sent The PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO DISCOVERY REQUESTED BY DEFENDANT, and on JANUARY 09, 2015. I sent the Plaintiff’s Response to Respondent’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses to The Arbitrator. During the conference call on February 6, 2015, The Arbitrator did not give me a chance to address the documents. When I tried to address DISCOVERY ISSUES, The Arbitrator said that his pages were not numbered the same as mine; I pointed out that I send the same documents to The Respondent and to The American Arbitration Association. I believe that The Respondent is sending the Documents Directly to the Arbitrator which is in violation of the rules of The American Arbitration Association. | The Arbitrator had told BOTH PARTIES TO NUMBER THE PAGES of the documents; as a result, The Claimant, The Respondent, and The Arbitrator would be able to view the appropriate documents. When I tried to QUESTION A DOCUMENT THAT THE RESPONDENT was supposed to send to the Arbitrator, I was told by The Arbitrator that his pages were not numbered the same. The Arbitrator did not try to figure out what I was talking about. He did not address ANY OF MY DISCOVERY ISSUES! When I tried to Question The Lawyer for The Respondent, the Arbitrator acted like he was a Lawyer for the Respondent’s Lawyer. The Arbitrator told him that he did not have to answer; the respondent’s lawyer carefully responded to my question. | THE ARBITRATORS that are working with The AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION are charging an extraordinary amount of money. The Respondent Central Market HEB (“HEB” or “Respondent”) is paying the costs of this Arbitration; consequentially, the proceedings are corrupt, and the Arbitrator is BOUGHT and PAID FOR!

Visit the external source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *