Holl v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Filing 46

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING 42 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/22/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RANDALL HOLL,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No.16-cv-05856-HSG

v.
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
Re: Dkt. No. 42

12
13

On November 1, 2017, Plaintiff Randall Holl requested leave to file a motion for

14

reconsideration of the Court’s order granting Defendant United Parcel Service, Inc.’s motion to

15

compel arbitration. Dkt. No. 42 (“Mot.”). In that order, the Court “stay[ed] the case pending

16

completion of arbitration.” Dkt. No. 41 at 10. Despite clear Ninth Circuit authority holding that

17

the Federal Arbitration Act “requires federal district courts to stay judicial proceedings and

18

compel arbitration of claims covered by a written and enforceable arbitration agreement,” Nguyen

19

v. Barnes & Noble Inc., 763 F.3d 1171, 1175 (9th Cir. 2014) (emphasis added), Plaintiff contests

20

the Court’s decision to stay the case because he “seeks to pave the way for an immediate appeal to

21

the Ninth Circuit,” see Mot. at 1. Plaintiff accordingly requests that the Court either “modify[] its

22

order to dismiss the case (rather than stay[] the case)” or “certify[] its order for appeal pursuant to

23

28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).” See id. The Court declines to do so and denies his motion.

24

A party seeking reconsideration of an interlocutory order must “show reasonable diligence

25

in bringing the motion” and—as relevant here—“a manifest failure by the Court to consider

26

material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court before” issuance

27

of the challenged order. Civil L.R. 7-9(b)(3). Plaintiff contends that “it is unclear whether the

28

Court considered [his] argument that dismissal would be the appropriate remedy if Defendants’

1

motion [to compel arbitration] were granted”—an argument that Plaintiff relegated to the final

2

footnote in his opposition. See Dkt. No. 29 at 24 n.30. But the standard requires a manifest failure

3

by the Court to consider a dispositive argument, and a purported ambiguity as to whether the

4

Court did so is insufficient on its face. Even if that were sufficient, however, the argument

5

Plaintiff refers to stated only that “[t]he Ninth Circuit . . . has held that courts have discretion

6

under 9 U.S.C. § 3 to dismiss claims that are subject to an arbitration agreement.” Dkt. No. 29 at

7

24 n.30 (citing cases). An argument that courts have discretion to dismiss rather than stay claims

8

in this context does not evince a manifest failure by the Court to consider a dispositive legal

9

argument. At best, it simply means that this Court had the option of dismissing the case but could

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

still elect to impose a stay.
Plaintiff uses the remainder of his motion to argue that certification, and subsequently an

12

“immediate appeal to the Ninth Circuit [would] materially advance the resolution of this

13

litigation.” See Mot. at 3-4. But the Court is not persuaded that the question posed by Plaintiff—

14

which involves interpretation of the language of the parties’ arbitration agreement—“involves a

15

controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion.” See

16

28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Moreover, the Court notes that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

17

41(a)(2), Plaintiff is free to voluntarily dismiss this action if he wishes to proceed immediately to

18

an appeal. See Romoland Sch. Dist. v. Inland Empire Energy Ctr., LLC, 548 F.3d 738, 748 (9th

19

Cir. 2008).

20

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for leave is DENIED.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

Dated: 1/22/2018

23
24
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
2