Redbox Reply Stands by Its ‘Asserted Right’ to Arbitrate FTSA Claims
Redbox’s Oct. 31 motion to compel plaintiff Ruby Gamez’s Florida Telephone Solicitation Act claims to arbitration (see 2311020049) established that Gamez agreed at least three times in 2019 and 2020 to arbitrate any disputes with the company, said its Nov.…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
22 reply (docket 8:23-cv-01497) in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Tampa in further support of its motion to compel. Redbox “further established” that Gamez “entered into a valid arbitration agreement each time she completed a rental transaction” at a Redbox kiosk, it said. Gamez’s response in opposition relied on July 2022 case law in Gaudreau v. My Pillow (docket 6:21-cv-1899) to argue that Redbox chose “to invoke the judicial process” of this court when it removed Gamez’s case from state court and waited nearly four months before seeking to compel arbitration, it said. Despite Gamez’s argument that Redbox’s inaction “amounts to waiver,” her reliance on Gaudreau is “misplaced,” it said. The “totality of the circumstances” confirms that Redbox never acted “in a manner inconsistent with its asserted right to arbitrate this case,” said the reply. To the contrary, Redbox “repeatedly communicated that it would file a motion to arbitrate the case and did file such a motion at the appropriate time and within months of the complaint being filed,” it said. Gamez alleges Redbox phoned her and countless other Florida consumers to promote its goods and services without their prior express written consent, as the FTSA requires.