This all started with arbitration and Uber…
I am writing this letter to be included in our fight for justice. Uber has a mandatory arbitration
clause within their terms of use. Most people find out the hard way about the clause and have to
make a tough decision. Do I go through arbitration or try to take my claim of fraud to court? We have
been through litigation before a very fair and impartial Judge. The FRCP rules were followed mostly
to the letter of the law with a bit of leeway so everyone could be accommodated to the best of the
Judge’s ability. We appreciated those guidelines and followed them because as Pro Se, we are purely
amateurs that want our day in court. Your Honor, I studied as much as I could on our case. We never
missed a deadline, had all documentation including all evidence filed with AAA at the start of our
claim to help expedite our claim, and we filed our initial Demand Letter according to the AAA rules
to Consumer Arbitration. At the inception of our claim there were serious flaws and negligence to the
point it derailed our arbitration. We had to file our Demand Letter three times and once with a third
party entity CT Corp. The rules are clear on how to start and serve the Demand letter, we did as AAA
requested. That was on February 15, 2016. On the 27th of February, Mrs. Barajas, Uber’s counsel,
stated she had not received the opening document. She then proceeded to state she had received the
Demand Letter but was new in the position and did not understand what the procedure was from
there. We were absolutely stunned. This is a multi-billion dollar company that deals with mandatory
arbitration daily and she was lost. At that moment, we knew this was a hoax. We are not
downplaying arbitration as a whole, but as a consumer who was defrauded, we do not want to deal
with more unethical practices. After reading this brief opening, you will see a detailed timeline on
what took place. This is our opinion and as we have tried not to include, our feelings towards the
process. We had no chance at a fair hearing. There was no arbitrator as their rules state. We had an
administrator who was clueless about the rules of AAA. When we asked her why are we paying to
serve Uber through a third party, she just told us we needed to do it if we wanted to continue our
claim. Here is the list of what came next…
- 3- Demand Letters and 1 Demand letter served through the third party. The rules state one
time through AAA and email/certified mail and never with a third party.
- Uber failed to pay for the fees and missed two deadlines AAA issued as a contract.
March 23, 2018, and April 20, 2018. There was no arbitrator assigned to the claim at this time so the
only help was from an administrator who was clueless about the rules. - We had a conference call March 20, 2018, to discuss fees and at that time our third
(Demand letter was sent out. A Judge would never allow a party to say the did not receive the
Demand letter, then in the same sentence say they had. Counsel’s confusion was to blame.)
The hard deadline of March 23, 2018, for fees, came and went. We raised questions about the
process and wanted answers on why they refused to pay. No one responded. The administrator
promised even harder deadlines. 4) We sent our administrator one e
process was and what came next. AAA had yet to follow their own rules. - On April 6, 7 and 9th we called because we had heard from the administrator. We were
on the verge of giving up. No one was informing us what was going on. It was absolutely frustrating.
The administrator submits to web file an Arbitrator has been assigned. AAA rules state, “Within 14
calendar days of confirmation of the arbitrator’s appointment, the arbitrator shall convene a
preliminary management hearing, via conference call, video conference, or internet, to establish a fair
and equitable procedure for the submission of documents, and, if the arbitrator deems appropriate, a
schedule for one or more telephonic or electronic conferences.” We do not hear from the arbitrator
until our May 2, 2018 hearing. - The Preliminary Hearing was next and it was canceled due to nonpayment by Uber. I asked
for a termination of the proceedings and we were denied. We felt as though we were doing something
wrong and being punished for being the Consumer. IF WE HAD NOT PAID OUR FEES, MADE
EXCUSES OF NOT UNDERSTANDING THE PROCESS EVEN AS PROSE, OR WE
IGNORED DEADLINES, OUR CLAIM WOULD HAVE BEEN TOSSED. - The Administrator set the next deadline for Uber to pay, April 20th, and there was a second
contract sent out about consequences for missing the second deadline. - Uber failed to pay by the second deadline. They did, however, decide to pay on April 23,
- By this time, we had enough. We emailed the administrator and asked why Uber was allowed to
miss every deadline, did not answer the Demand Letter, sent in no evidence, and was allowed to make
up the rules in which the arbitration would proceed. The administrator fired back a snarky reply and
stated that everything had been resolved and the claim would proceed as initially planned. 68 days
after we filed our claim Uber finally paid. We filed a complaint about the proceedings. The complaint
process was as flawed as it went to the administrator handling our claim. That did nothing but fan the
flames even more. After her second nasty email, we were going to have to find someone that could
help us.
- On April 25, 26, and 27th we reached out via email and left messages with customer service
to please find someone that could assist us. This was about our dignity and respect. I replied to an
email we received from the arbitrators assistant asking for help.We had no way of knowing it was
from our arbitrators assistant. We thought someone from AAA had caught wind of our plight. She said
she would forward the letter to the proper personnel. - We then receive a cold and threatening email from the Director of Pro Se. She stated if we
continued to search for answers without going through the administrator, they would dismiss our
claim. We were floored. We did everything right. We never missed a deadline and we were
arbitrating in good faith. We replied if she dared to dismiss our case, we will file with the Attorney
General of Arizona, CFPB, and in Superior Court. This was a nightmare. They stated, “the letter you
received from Mrs. Barajas is out of our control.” So parties can arbitrate in bad faith in order to get
the favorable outcome they are looking for? What did she mean out of her control, this was the
AAA’s process. You can not be the facilitator and then walk away when there are no real rules
protecting consumers in place! - HERE IS WHERE THE ISSUES ARE NOW COMPILING. WE HAVE RULES
AND
CONTRACTS BROKEN BY AAA AND UBER. IN FACT WHEN WE DID CALL INTO
CUSTOMER SERVICE FOR AAA, A GENTLEMAN WE SPOKE WITH TOLD US THE
RULES ARE “LOOSE” (HONESTLY) AND CAN BE CHANGED AT ANYTIME. THE
ADMINISTRATOR AGAIN SENDS US THE RULES STANDARD OF CONDUCT. WE
REPLIED,”IN YOUR RULES, , IT STATES WE SHOULD HAVE ANY AND ALL
INFORMATION READILY AVAILABLE TO US AS PRO SE LITIGANTS. WE
CONTINUED, THE CONSUMER DUE PROCESS PROTOCOL’S FIRST TWO
PRINCIPLES ARE FAIR-PROCESS AND ACCESS TO INFORMATION. iF YOU ARE
THE CONTACT POINT, BUT YOU DECIDE NOT TO REPLY TO EMAILS WHAT
THEN?” WE THEN THEN REMINDED HER PRINCIPLE 8 INFORMS PARTIES
“ADR proceedings should occur within a reasonable time, without undue delay. The rules
governing ADR should establish specific reasonable time periods for each step in the ADR
process and, where necessary, set forth default procedures in the event a party fails to
participate in the process after reasonable notice.” - The next day, the same Director from AAA again stated all issues were resolved and if
we wanted our claim to continue, we needed to watch our behavior, follow the rules, and do not go to
anyone but the administrator with questions or problems. Again, none of our questions were answered
from why it took 3 Demand letters, us paying for the delivery of another Demand Letter, why Uber
was allotted so much time to pay the fees, and why did the Director of Pro Se find it to be ok to
threaten to dismiss our case? We finally met our arbitrator on May 2, 2016, almost 90 days after we
filed. We had already submitted our complaints in writing per AAA Pro Se Consumer rules.
That was the only way we can file a complaint or discuss issues. None were ever discussed. We
were not wanting to come across disrespectfully, and we tried to reason with AAA. If they failed
us in this manner, they have failed many others. This is a breach of our Constitutional GOD
given rights which are non-negotiable. - During all this, we had “cc” Mrs. Barajas on every email so they knew what was going on.
During the May 2, 2016 Preliminary call with all parties, counsel for Uber was asked by Mr. Aiken if
they would be sending over any evidence. They said, “NO, Mr. Cooper’s should suffice.” - June 1st the arbitrator stated Uber needed to submit an answer to the claim. Instead, Mrs.
Barajas submits 54 pages of evidence! We were already disheartened, by the process this was the nail
in the coffin. We had 6 days to go through their evidence. Evidence that was tainted and fraudulent
because we kept all materials from bank records to screenshots. The screenshots alone should have
been a winner. We provided images of the same trip to and from Talking Stick Casino from Sept. 8,
- $11.58 to and $11.49 returning from Talking Stick. This current trip was at first quoted as
$11.79. Uber then stated the trip actually cost 19.79. This was not deducted from the PayPal account
associated with Uber. Instead, they took it upon themselves to work through 3 other cards and charge
our Capital One with a pre-auth. This violates Electronic Funds Transfer Act. The card had never been
used with Uber prior to. It was for business only. Capital-one found our claim in our favor and
refunded the money. This was the second round of fraud with Uber. In fact, Uber did not refund our
money, they instead issued a $5.00 credit. We again filed a claim that Uber had sent in fraudulent and
tainted evidence. It was clear as day, but the arbitrator was mute. No reply, no sanctions, not one
remark or follow up to our 3rd complaint. The evidence goes against the Rule of Law and violated our
Constitutional right to Due Process and our Liberties. The Judicial system would never allow evidence
into a proceeding that was falsified, especially if proven false. We had moved way past violations of
ethics. Your honor, we have provided all the evidence for you to examine and to determine if we
received a fair arbitration without fraud. We were involved in arbitration because of fraud, they were
battling in a California courtroom about the same type of fraud we claimed (price gouging), and the
counsel misrepresented herself as the attorney, but was actually a Paralegal. We believe in the rule of
law and respect it, but when a company like Uber is afforded room to make errors that are not
accidental, it goes against the moral fibers that connect us as people. The process is no longer fair and
it violates our Civil Rights. The attached documents are evidence of this flawed process. I do believe
it works business to business, but no way does it work for the consumers trying to regain their dignity.
I wanted to also add these two rules AAA has included in their Consumer Arbitration Rules…
(d) Parties to an arbitration under these Rules shall be deemed to have consented that neither
the AAA, AAA employees, nor any arbitrator shall be liable to any party in any action for
damages or injunctive relief for any act or omission in connection with any arbitration under
these rules. (e) Parties to an arbitration under these Rules may not call the arbitrator, the AAA,
or any AAA employee as a witness in litigation or any other proceeding relating to the
arbitration. The arbitrator, the AAA, and AAA employees are not competent to and may
not testify as witnesses in any such proceeding
ADR proceedings should occur within a reasonable time, without undue delay. The rules
governing ADR should establish specific reasonable time periods for each step in the
ADR process and, where necessary, set forth default procedures in the event a party fails
to participate in the process after reasonable notice.
This is just the start. The 2 litigation that followed gave us a sense of failure and the
system is truly rigged. I never thought this is how I would see and feel towards the
judicial system. We have all the documents to back up a claims and we can provide them.