Filed: Nov. 22, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 22, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER KATHRYN H. VRATIL , District Judge . On January 30, 2019, Daniel Peterson filed suit against Minerva Surgical, Inc. and David Clapper. Complaint (Doc. #1). Plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to make reasonable employment accommodations for his disabilities, retaliated against him by terminating his employment and interfered with his future employment. On October 23, 2019, the Court ordered the parties to complete arbitration in San Mateo, California pursuant to
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER KATHRYN H. VRATIL , District Judge . On January 30, 2019, Daniel Peterson filed suit against Minerva Surgical, Inc. and David Clapper. Complaint (Doc. #1). Plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to make reasonable employment accommodations for his disabilities, retaliated against him by terminating his employment and interfered with his future employment. On October 23, 2019, the Court ordered the parties to complete arbitration in San Mateo, California pursuant to ..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
KATHRYN H. VRATIL, District Judge.
On January 30, 2019, Daniel Peterson filed suit against Minerva Surgical, Inc. and David Clapper. Complaint (Doc. #1). Plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to make reasonable employment accommodations for his disabilities, retaliated against him by terminating his employment and interfered with his future employment. On October 23, 2019, the Court ordered the parties to complete arbitration in San Mateo, California pursuant to their arbitration agreement. Memorandum And Order (Doc. #30). This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion For Reconsideration (Doc. #32) filed November 6, 2019. For reasons stated below, the Court overrules plaintiff's motion.
Legal Standards
A motion to reconsider must be based on (1) an intervening change in controlling law, (2) the availability of new evidence or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See Coffeyville Res. Ref. & Mktg. LLC v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., 748 F.Supp.2d 1261, 1264 & n.2 (D. Kan. 2010); see also D. Kan. R. 7.3(b); Comeau v. Rupp, 810 F.Supp. 1172, 1174-75 (D. Kan. 1992). A motion to reconsider is not a second opportunity for the losing party to make its strongest case, to rehash arguments or to dress up arguments that previously failed. Brown v. Presbyterian Healthcare Servs., 101 F.3d 1324, 1332 (10th Cir. 1996); RTC v. Greif, 906 F.Supp. 1446, 1456 (D. Kan. 1995); Voelkel v. Gen. Motors Corp., 846 F.Supp. 1482, 1483 (D. Kan. 1994). A party's failure to present its strongest case in the first instance does not entitle it to a second chance in the form of a motion to reconsider. Cline v. S. Star Cent. Gas Pipeline, Inc., 370 F.Supp.2d 1130, 1132 (D. Kan. 2005). Whether to grant a motion to reconsider is left to the Court's sound discretion. Brumark Corp. v. Samson Res. Corp., 57 F.3d 941, 944 (10th Cir. 1995).
Analysis
Without citing any law other than the standard for reconsideration, plaintiff asserts that the Court's order to compel arbitration was clearly erroneous and constituted manifest injustice. To make his case, plaintiff simply reinvokes the same arguments that the Court expressly rejected in its prior order. Specifically, plaintiff argues that the arbitration and forum-selection clauses in his employment agreement are procedurally and substantively unconscionable.
For the reasons detailed in its original order, the Court again rejects these arguments. With respect to procedural unconscionability, plaintiff continues to rely exclusively on the fact that his employment agreement was adhesive, finding a number of different ways to rephrase his "adhesion equals procedurally unconscionable" argument. California law is clear, however, that an adhesion contract "is fully enforceable according to its terms unless certain other factors are present." Beltran v. AuPairCare, Inc., 907 F.3d 1240, 1253 (10th Cir. 2018). Because plaintiff has not identified other factors, his adhesive arbitration agreement by itself "only establishes a modest degree of procedural unconscionability." Id.
With respect to substantive unconscionability, plaintiff continues to focus on the inconvenience of arbitrating in California. According to plaintiff, because he and his witnesses live in Kansas, they will have to "exhaust substantial personal savings to testify." Plaintiff's Motion For Reconsideration (Doc. #32) at 4. As the Court clearly explained in its prior order, however, "[m]ere inconvenience or additional expense is not the test of unreasonableness" under California law. Beltran, 907 F.3d at 1259. Consequently, it is insufficient to simply show, as plaintiff has done here, "the additional expense and inconvenience attendant on the litigation of ... claims in a distant forum." Id. (even costs of traveling internationally are insufficient to render forum selection clause unreasonable).1 Accordingly, plaintiff has not shown that the Court's order compelling arbitration in San Mateo, California was clearly erroneous or constituted manifest injustice.2
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion For Reconsideration (Doc. #32) filed November 6, 2019 is OVERRULED.
