Corry v. PuroSystems, Inc.
Filing
23
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 11/18/2014 DENYING 19 Motion for Relief from Judgment. (Michel, G)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JACK CORRY,
12
13
14
No. 2:13-cv-873-TLN-KJN
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
PUROSYSTEMS, INC.,
15
Respondent.
16
17
The matter is before the Court on Petitioner Jack Corry’s (“Petitioner”) motion for relief
18
from judgment. (ECF No. 19.) For the same reasons outlined in the Court’s previous order (ECF
19
No. 15), Petitioner’s motion is denied.
20
I.
Background
21
Purosystems, Inc. (“Respondent”) is a Florida-based company that owns casualty cleaning
22
and repair franchises. (ECF No. 1-2 at 4.) Petitioner entered into an agreement with Respondent
23
in 2007. A contractual dispute arose in 2012, which proceeded to arbitration and resulted in an
24
$85,639.53 award favorable to Respondent, which Respondent received on February 4, 2013.
25
(ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 7, 12.)
26
On April 16, 2013, Respondent filed an action to confirm the award with the United States
27
District Court for the Southern District of Florida. On January 31, 2014, that court confirmed the
28
award. (See Purosystems Inc. v. Corry, 13-cv-60892 (S.D. Fl. Jan. 31, 2014), ECF Nos. 1, 29.)
1
1
On May 3, 2013, before the Southern District confirmed the award, Petitioner filed an
2
action with this Court to vacate the arbitration award. (ECF No. 1.) On July 17, 2013,
3
Respondent filed a motion to dismiss that action. (ECF No. 7.) On September 6, 2013, this Court
4
granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice due to: 1) Petitioner’s failure to serve its vacatur
5
motion within three months as mandated by 9 U.S.C. § 12, and 2) Respondent’s prior filing to
6
confirm the award in Florida. (ECF No. 15.)
7
Petitioner now seeks relief from the Court’s previous order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc.
8
60(b)(1), which provides, in relevant part, that the Court may provide relief from judgment on
9
grounds of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, and excusable neglect. (ECF No. 19.)
10
II.
Analysis
11
The Court finds no grounds under Rule 60(b)(1) to depart from its previous order. Under
12
9 U.S.C. § 12, “[a] [n]otice of a motion to vacate, modify, or correct an award must be served
13
upon the adverse party or his attorney within three months after the award is filed or
14
delivered….” Respondent contends, and Petitioner does not dispute, that Petitioner failed to
15
serve its motion to vacate within three months of the underlying arbitration award in this case.
16
See Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Celotex Corp, 708 F.2d 488, 490 (9th Cir. 1983) (refusing to
17
consider arguments regarding arbitration award made three months after issuance of award);
18
Sheet Metal Workers’ Int’l Ass’n, Local No. 252 v. Standard Sheet Metal., 699 F.2d 481, 483 (9th
19
Cir. 1983) (running of statute of limitations bars losing party from bringing defenses). Petitioner
20
cites no authority that would exempt his action from 9 U.S.C. § 12.
21
The Court also declines to take jurisdiction over this matter, pursuant to the “first to file”
22
rule. Respondent filed its action to confirm the award in the Southern District of Florida, prior to
23
the filing of the instant vacatur motion in this district. The Florida court noted that Petitioner had
24
filed an action in this Court, noted that it was the first court to possess jurisdiction, and confirmed
25
the award. (Corry, 13-cv-60892, ECF No. 28 at 4, fn. 1.) See e.g. Barapind v. Reno 225 F.3d
26
1100, 1109 (9th Cir. 2000) (“The principles of comity allow a district court to decline jurisdiction
27
over an action where a complaint involving the same parties and issues has already been filed in
28
another district.”). Therefore, Petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment (ECF No. 19) is
2
1
denied.
2
3
Dated: November 18, 2014
4
5
6
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?