Filed: Mar. 29, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 29, 2019
Summary: ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO RECONSIDER NANCY TORRESEN , District Judge . On March 26, 2018, Defendant MaineGeneral Health (" MaineGeneral ") filed a motion to compel arbitration on Plaintiff Peter Garcia's Complaint that alleges employment discrimination. After considering complete briefing on the Defendant's motion, including a sur-reply by the pro se Plaintiff, I granted the motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case. The Plaintiff moved for reconsideration. Pl.'s Mot. (ECF No. 23).
Summary: ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO RECONSIDER NANCY TORRESEN , District Judge . On March 26, 2018, Defendant MaineGeneral Health (" MaineGeneral ") filed a motion to compel arbitration on Plaintiff Peter Garcia's Complaint that alleges employment discrimination. After considering complete briefing on the Defendant's motion, including a sur-reply by the pro se Plaintiff, I granted the motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case. The Plaintiff moved for reconsideration. Pl.'s Mot. (ECF No. 23). ..
More
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO RECONSIDER
NANCY TORRESEN, District Judge.
On March 26, 2018, Defendant MaineGeneral Health ("MaineGeneral") filed a motion to compel arbitration on Plaintiff Peter Garcia's Complaint that alleges employment discrimination. After considering complete briefing on the Defendant's motion, including a sur-reply by the pro se Plaintiff, I granted the motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case. The Plaintiff moved for reconsideration. Pl.'s Mot. (ECF No. 23). I have reviewed the Plaintiff's motion, the Plaintiff's supplemental submission (ECF No. 24), the Defendant's opposition (ECF No. 25), and the Plaintiff's reply. (ECF No. 26.)
The First Circuit has explained what a party seeking reconsideration must show.
Generally, to prevail on a Rule 59(e) motion, the moving party "must either clearly establish a manifest error of law or must present newly discovered evidence." F.D.I.C. v. World Univ. Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 1992); see also Marie v. Allied Home Mortg. Corp., 402 F.3d 1, 7 n.2 (1st Cir. 2005) (acknowledging four grounds for granting a Rule 59(e) motion: "manifest errors of law or fact, newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence, manifest injustice, and an intervening change in controlling law") (citing 11 C. Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1 (2d ed. 1995)). Notably, a party moving for Rule 59(e) relief may not repeat arguments previously made during summary judgment, Prescott v. Higgins, 538 F.3d 32, 45 (1st Cir. 2008), nor may it present new arguments on a Rule 59(e) if such arguments "could, and should, have been made before judgment issued." ACA Fin. Guar. Corp. v. Advest, Inc., 512 F.3d 46, 55 (1st Cir. 2008) (quoting F.D.I.C., 978 F.2d at 16).
Markel Am. Ins. Co. v. Diaz-Santiago, 674 F.3d 21, 32 (1st Cir. 2012).
The Plaintiff's reconsideration request consists of new arguments that could have been made before judgment issued and arguments previously raised and rejected. In the new arguments category, the Plaintiff contends that:
• there was no meeting of the minds;
• performance was impossible;
• the Defendant failed to provide notice of a breach and opportunity to remedy the breach;
• there was ambiguity in the arbitration clause;
• there was mutual mistake as to the Plaintiff's ability to receive a medical license;
• he is the victim of fraudulent misrepresentations; and
• he has a duress defense.
As "Rule 59(e) motions are aimed at re consideration, not initial consideration," these arguments are waived, and I do not consider them. See Markel, 674 F.3d at 33 (quotation marks omitted). In the "arguments previously raised and rejected" category, the Plaintiff contends that:
• communications between the Defendant and the state Board of Medicine violated Board policy;
• the Defendant presented the Plaintiff with a "take it or leave it" offer;
• there was no bargained-for consideration;
• the contract was an adhesion contract;
• the contract was unconscionable;
• the Defendant failed to act in good faith;
• the Defendant's actions were the result of unlawful paternalism under the ADA; and
• the Plaintiff never began employment at MaineGeneral, and therefore the contract never came into effect.
The Plaintiff has not presented any newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence or a change in controlling law, which might allow him a second bite at apple on these previously considered claims.1 Nor do the Plaintiff's arguments reveal any manifest errors of law or fact2 or establish manifest injustice. The Plaintiff, therefore, is not entitled to relief. See id.
I GRANT the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. Having fully considered all arguments raised in the Plaintiff's various submissions, I DENY any relief from my November 20, 2018 Order.
SO ORDERED.
