- 1 -

Supreme Court 

No. 2022-18-Appeal.

No. 2022-70-Appeal.

(PC 20-5579)

Arturo P. Batac :

v. :

Verizon.1:

 

O R D E R

The plaintiff, Arturo P. Batac (plaintiff or Mr. Batac), appeals pro se from a 

Superior Court order granting the motion of the defendant, Verizon (defendant or 

Verizon), to stay and compel arbitration. Separately, Mr. Batac appeals from a 

Superior Court order granting the defendant’s motion to strike Mr. Batac’s notice of 

appeal of the Superior Court order granting the motion to compel arbitration. These 

consolidated cases came before the Supreme Court on January 25, 2023, pursuant to 

an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in these 

appeals should not be summarily decided. After considering the parties’ written and 

oral submissions and reviewing the record, we conclude that cause has not been 

shown and that we may decide these appeals without further briefing or argument. 

For the reasons set forth in this order, we vacate the order of the Superior Court 

1 The plaintiff names “Verizon” as the defendant in his complaint. The defendant 

asserts that its proper name is “Verizon New England, Inc.”
- 2 -

granting the defendant’s motion to strike the notice of appeal and affirm the order of 

the Superior Court granting the defendant’s motion to stay and compel arbitration.

On August 5, 2020, Mr. Batac filed an action against defendant in Superior 

Court seeking $25,000 in compensatory damages, punitive damages, and court costs. 

His complaint alleged that defendant engaged in a fraudulent business scheme that 

involved defendant hacking into his emails. Mr. Batac further alleged that, if he 

failed to pay his monthly bill, defendant would interrupt his services and that 

defendant had done so on several prior occasions.

In response, defendant filed an answer including fourteen affirmative defenses 

as well as a demand for a jury trial. Crucial to this matter, defendant’s third

affirmative defense stated that the Superior Court must stay plaintiff’s action so that

the parties could resolve the issues through arbitration, as mandated by the agreed 

terms of service between the parties. Shortly after filing its answer, defendant filed 

a motion to stay and compel arbitration that a justice of the Superior Court heard and 

ultimately granted. 

On November 17, 2020, Mr. Batac filed a notice of appeal. However, his

notice of appeal form failed to provide several details regarding the background of 

this case. No activity took place in this matter until, over one year later, defendant 

filed a motion to strike plaintiff’s notice of appeal based on the defects contained 

within the filing. After defendant filed its motion, Mr. Batac spoke with an 
- 3 -

individual in the Superior Court clerk’s office and submitted a corrected notice of 

appeal. On January 12, 2022, the case was certified to this Court and later docketed 

on January 19, 2022. Nevertheless, almost one month later, a second justice of the 

Superior Court heard and granted defendant’s motion to strike, and Mr. Batac timely

filed a second notice of appeal. 

Before this Court, Mr. Batac argues that the trial justices erred in: (1) granting 

defendant’s motion to strike his notice of appeal and (2) granting defendant’s motion 

to stay and compel arbitration. 

Article I, Rule 11(f) of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure states 

that “[f]rom the time of the docketing of an appeal in the Supreme Court, the Court 

shall have exclusive jurisdiction to supervise the further course of such appeal and 

enter such orders as may be appropriate * * * .” As such, the docketing of an appeal 

divests the Superior Court of jurisdiction, even where motions are pending at the 

time of docketing. See Thompson v. Thompson, 973 A.2d 499, 513 (R.I. 2009) (“It 

is well established that once an appeal has been docketed in this Court, the lower 

court no longer has jurisdiction.”). The Superior Court therefore lacked jurisdiction 

to act after the case was docketed in this Court on January 19, 2022, and we vacate 

the second trial justice’s order granting defendant’s motion to strike.

Regarding defendant’s motion to stay and compel arbitration, this Court 

conducts a de novo review to determine whether a dispute is arbitrable. West 
- 4 -

Warwick Housing Authority v. RI Council 94, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, 277 A.3d 707, 

712 (R.I. 2022). Because the duty to arbitrate arises from an agreement to do so, 

parties must arbitrate only when they agree pursuant to clear and unequivocal 

language. Rhode Island Council on Postsecondary Education v. Hellenic Society 

Paideia – Rhode Island Chapter, 202 A.3d 931, 934 (R.I. 2019) (quoting State 

Department of Corrections v. Rhode Island Brotherhood of Correctional Officers, 

866 A.2d 1241, 1247 (R.I. 2005)). While this Court requires parties to arbitrate only

issues that they explicitly agree to arbitrate, we resolve all doubts regarding 

arbitrability in favor of arbitration. Id. 

Here, the arbitration provision contained in the terms of service agreement is 

abundantly clear.2 Moreover, the terms of service specify that an individual accepts

this agreement either (1) electronically during an online order, when installing the 

software, or the equipment; (2) through the use of defendant’s services; or (3) 

2 The arbitration provision states, in pertinent part: 

“YOU AND VERIZON BOTH AGREE TO RESOLVE DISPUTES

ONLY BY ARBITRATION OR IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT.

“* * * 

“ANY DISPUTE THAT IN ANY WAY RELATES TO OR ARISES 

OUT OF THIS AGREEMENT OR FROM ANY EQUIPMENT, 

PRODUCTS AND SERVICES YOU RECEIVE FROM US (OR 

FROM ANY ADVERTISING FOR ANY SUCH PRODUCTS OR 

SERVICES) WILL BE RESOLVED BY ONE OR MORE NEUTRAL

ARBITRATORS BEFORE THE AMERICAN ARBITRATION

ASSOCIATION (‘AAA’).” 
- 5 -

through an individual’s retention of defendant’s software or equipment beyond thirty 

days following delivery. 

Mr. Batac does not deny that he used defendant’s services, and he has 

admitted that he subscribed to defendant’s services dating back to 2015. We 

conclude that the first trial justice did not err in finding that Mr. Batac accepted the 

arbitration agreement, or that the allegations contained in Mr. Batac’s complaint

arise out of and relate to his agreement with defendant and the services he received.3

Therefore, we affirm the first trial justice’s order granting defendant’s motion to stay 

and compel arbitration. 

Accordingly, we vacate the order of the Superior Court granting the 

defendant’s motion to strike the notice of appeal and affirm the order of the Superior 

Court granting the defendant’s motion to stay and compel arbitration. 

3 Mr. Batac lists a variety of arguments in support of his appeal. However, he has 

failed to meaningfully support these arguments with sufficient facts or legal 

arguments. Terzian v. Lombardi, 180 A.3d 555, 558 (R.I. 2018) (“[S]imply stating 

an issue for appellate review, without a meaningful discussion thereof or legal 

briefing of the issues, does not assist the Court in focusing on the legal questions 

raised, and therefore constitutes a waiver of that issue.”) (quoting Horton v. 

Portsmouth Police Department, 22 A.3d 1115, 1130 (R.I. 2011)). A litigant’s failure 

to provide “meaningful arguments, analysis, discussion, or citation to authority” 

constitutes a waiver. Id. (brackets omitted) (quoting Horton, 22 A.3d at 1130). 

While we acknowledge and understand plaintiff’s self-represented status, this Court 

is unfortunately unable to provide him with greater rights than those represented by 

counsel. Id. at 558-59 (quoting Jacksonbay Builders, Inc. v. Azarmi, 869 A.2d 580, 

585 (R.I. 2005)).
- 6 -

Entered as an Order of this Court this ___ day of February, 2023. 

By Order, 

________________________

Clerk 

27th

/s/ Debra A. Saunders, Clerk
SU-CMS-02B (revised November 2022)

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE

Licht Judicial Complex

250 Benefit Street

Providence, RI 02903

ORDER COVER SHEET

Title of Case Arturo P. Batac v. Verizon.

Case Number

No. 2022-18-Appeal.

No. 2022-70-Appeal.

(PC 20-5579)

Date Order Filed February 27, 2023

Justices Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and 

Long, JJ.

Source of Appeal Providence County Superior Court 

Judicial Officer from Lower Court Associate Justice Joseph A. Montalbano

Attorney(s) on Appeal

For Plaintiff:

Arturo P. Batac, Pro se

For Defendant:

Matthew S. Prunk, Esq.