KOUREMBANAS et al v. INTERCOAST COLLEGES

Filing 44

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND TO ALTER JUDGMENT granting 38 Motion for Reconsideration re 36 Order on Motion to Dismiss; granting MOTION to Alter Judgment; granting MOTION for Order to Stay Action filed by CATHARINE VALLEY, STEPHANIE KOUREMBANAS, CARIDAD JEAN BAPTISTE, CATHY MANDE By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (CCS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
STEPHANIE KOUREMBANAS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
INTERCOAST COLLEGES,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:17-cv-00331-JAW

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND TO ALTER
JUDGMENT
Upon post-judgment motion of the class action plaintiffs and without objection
from the defendant, the Court amends its judgment to stay, rather dismiss this class
action lawsuit, because plaintiffs’ counsel alerted the Court that there may be some
potential statute of limitations issues if the matter were dismissed.
I.

BACKGROUND
On August 29, 2017, the Plaintiffs initiated a class action lawsuit against

InterCoast Colleges (InterCoast). Class Action Compl. (ECF No. 1). On November 7,
2017, InterCoast moved to compel arbitration and to dismiss the lawsuit. Def.’s Mot.
to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss the Case (ECF No. 7). On December 6, 2017, the
Plaintiffs moved to stay all proceedings and to extend time within which to respond
to InterCoast’s motion to compel arbitration. Pls.’ Mot. to Stay Proceedings and for
Extension of Time to File Opp’n to Mot. to Compel Arbitration (ECF No. 14). The
Court delayed considering the motion until August 27, 2018, at which time the Court
denied the Plaintiffs’ motion to stay but granted Plaintiffs’ motion to extend time to

respond to InterCoast’s motion to compel arbitration. Order on Mot. to Stay and Mot.
to Extend Time to Respond to Def.’s Mot. to Compel Arbitration (ECF No. 19). On
February 28, 2019, the Court granted InterCoast’s motion to compel arbitration.
Order on Mot. to Compel and Dismiss (ECF No. 36).
On March 14, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration and
requested the Court to alter its judgment. Mot. for. Recons. and to Alter J. (ECF No.
38) (Pls.’ Mot.). On April 4, 2019, InterCoast responded and stated it “does not object
to the issuance of an order altering the Court’s judgment” to stay the case pending
arbitration, rather than dismiss it without prejudice. Def.’s Resp. to Pls.’ Mot. for
Recons. and to Alter J. (ECF No. 43).
II.

DISCUSSION
Courts “enjoys ‘considerable’ discretion” when ruling on a Rule 59(e) motion.

Carrero-Ojeda v. Autoridad De Energía Eléctrica, 755 F.3d 711, 723 (1st Cir. 2014)
(citation omitted). Local Rule 7(f) provides
A motion to reconsider an interlocutory order of the Court, meaning a
motion other than one governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 or 60, shall
demonstrate that the order was based on a manifest error of fact or law
and shall be filed within 14 days from the date of the order unless the
party seeking a reconsideration shows cause for not filing within that
time.
D. ME. LOC. R. 7(f). The Plaintiffs state that “the parties did not brief the issue of
limitations and the Court did not ask for argument on this issue, there is a real
danger that some of Plaintiffs’ claims—and claims of the putative class members—
would be subject to dismissal in arbitration due to expired statutes of limitations.”
Pls.’ Mot. at 2. Specifically, the Plaintiffs state:
2

Count II of the complaint—brought by Plaintiffs Kourembanas, Jean
Baptiste, and Mande—alleges that Defendant violated the
Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, Mass. G.L. 93A, § 2, which has
a four-year statute of limitations. See Mass. G.L. 260 § 5A. Count III of
the complaint—brought by Plaintiff Valley—alleges that Defendant
violated New Hampshire unfair practices law, N.H. R.S.A. 358-A:2,
which has a three year statute of limitations. See N.H.R.S.A. 358-A:3,
IV-a.
Id. at 3. In light of when the Plaintiffs enrolled and attended InterCoast, they say
there is chance as a result of the Court’s ruling granting InterCoast’s motion to
compel arbitration and dismissing the action, they would be prevented “from moving
forward on their state consumer protection claims under Massachusetts and New
Hampshire law, and likely would prejudice other class members even more severely—
especially those that enrolled at InterCoast prior to March 2013, as these individuals
also could lose claims with 6-year limitations period.” Id. at 3-4. As a result, they
ask the Court to “reconsider its Order, alter the judgment of dismissal without
prejudice, and order this action stayed pursuant to the FAA pending the outcome of
arbitration.” Id. at 5.
In Baker v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., 432 F. Supp. 2d 120, 127 (D.
Me. 2006), the plaintiff’s claims against the defendant were arbitrable and the Court
found there were several advantages to dismissal. Yet, the Court stayed the action
in light of the parties’ concern over potential statute of limitations issues. Id. In
Bercovitch v. Baldwin School, Inc., 133 F.3d 141, 156 & n.21 (1st Cir. 1998), the Court
of Appeals for the First Circuit stated that district courts retain discretion either to
dismiss or to stay a case. Considering the issues raised and the parties’ positions, the
Court concludes staying the action is appropriate. See Venegas-Hernandez v. Sonolux
3

Records, 370 F.3d 183, 190 (1st Cir. 2004) (citation omitted) (Courts exercising their
discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny a Rule 59(e) motion “requires a
balancing of the need for finality of judgments with the need to render a just
decision”).
III.

CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration and to Alter

Judgment (ECF No. 38).

The Court ALTERS its Judgment (ECF No. 37) and

ORDERS this action STAYED pending the outcome of arbitration.
To maintain control of its docket, this Court ORDERS counsel to prepare and
file a joint status report within six months from the date of this Order or by the end
of October 2019, and no later than every six months thereafter until the matters are
resolved.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 1st day of May, 2019

4