Valentine v. Verizon Wireless

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: June 24, 2025
• Docket: 24-1397
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 24-1397 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 06/24/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT June 24, 2025 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court ELET VALENTINE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. No. 24-1397 (D.C. No. 1:23-CV-2698-DDD-KAS) VERIZON WIRELESS, LLC; CELLCO (D. Colo.) PARTNERSHIP, d/b/a Verizon Wireless; VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,

Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________

Before HARTZ, EID, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

Elet Valentine entered into a contract with Verizon Wireless for cellphone service

but was unhappy with the service provided. The contract’s dispute-resolution provision

allowed her to seek relief only through arbitration or litigation in small claims court. She

initiated arbitration proceedings, but one month before the arbitration evidentiary hearing

was to commence, Valentine requested that the arbitration be dismissed so that she could

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined *

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. Appellate Case: 24-1397 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 06/24/2025 Page: 2

proceed in court instead. The arbitrator granted Valentine’s request but advised her that

she could now proceed only in small claims court.

Instead of proceeding to small claims court, Valentine filed suit in the United

States District Court for the District of Colorado against three named defendants,

“Verizon Wireless, LLC,” “Verizon Communications, Inc.,” and “Cello Partnership

d/b/a/ Verizon Wireless” (Cellco), for breach of contract, civil theft, vicarious

liability, and gross negligence. Aplt. App., Vol. 1 at 13–14. She also sought a

permanent restraining order against the defendants. Only Cellco responded,

explaining that it was the entity that contracted with Valentine and, in a subsequent

motion, asserting that the other two named defendants did not exist. The district court

dismissed Valentine’s claims without prejudice because the contract’s dispute-

resolution provision precluded suit in federal district court. Valentine appeals. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Valentine does not challenge the court’s dismissal of Cellco. She complains

primarily that she was not granted default judgment against the two nonresponsive

defendants, even though she served them properly. But there was an ongoing dispute

below about whether those entities existed, much less had been served properly.

Instead of resolving the service-of-process issue, the court properly dismissed

Valentine’s claims against all defendants without prejudice because of the dispute-

resolution provision of the contract.

Ordinarily, the court would have needed to determine whether it had personal

jurisdiction over the two nonresponsive defendants before entering judgment. See

2 Appellate Case: 24-1397 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 06/24/2025 Page: 3

OMI Holdings, Inc. v. Royal Ins. Co. of Canada, 149 F.3d 1086, 1090 (10th Cir.

1998) (stating that “we must address . . . personal jurisdiction . . . before reaching the

merits of the case” because “a court without jurisdiction over the parties cannot

render a valid judgment”). But Valentine’s complaint did not distinguish between the

defendants in any meaningful respect. Her allegations simply referred to the

defendants collectively as “Verizon Wireless” or “Verizon.” Thus, judgment against

Valentine on her claims vis-à-vis the nonresponsive defendants was inevitable in

light of the court’s conclusion regarding Cellco. The district court properly dismissed

the claims against the nonresponsive defendants without prejudice, just as it had the

claims against Cellco, without first resolving the matter of existence/personal

jurisdiction. See Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Pruitt, 669 F.3d 1159, 1168–69

(10th Cir. 2012) (While “we usually must resolve jurisdictional questions before

addressing the merits of a claim, we may rule that a party loses on the merits without

first establishing jurisdiction when the merits have already been decided in the

court’s resolution of a claim over which it did have jurisdiction. In these

circumstances, resolution of the merits is foreordained, and resolution of the

jurisdictional question can have no effect on the outcome.” (brackets, citation, and

internal quotation marks omitted)). The district court’s determination that it could not

hear the dispute of course foreclosed any default judgment or permanent restraining

order against any named defendant.

3 Appellate Case: 24-1397 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 06/24/2025 Page: 4

For the reasons discussed, we AFFIRM the judgment below and GRANT

Valentine’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

Entered for the Court

Harris L Hartz Circuit Judge