Provanzano v. Parker View Farm, Inc. et al

Filing 37

Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: " In accordance with the foregoing, plaintiff's motions for reconsideration (Docket Nos. 33 and 34 ) are DENIED. So ordered.(Moore, Kellyann)

United States District Court
District of Massachusetts
________________________________
)
JOSEPH S. PROVANZANO,
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
Civil Action No.
)
10-11893-NMG
PARKER VIEW FARM, INC., ROBERT
)
M. TURNER, LM TURNER STABLES,
)
INC., and BRIDGETTE M. PARKER,
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GORTON, J.
The plaintiff, Joseph S. Provanzano, brought this action
against Bridgette M. Parker, individually and doing business as
Parker View Farm, Inc. (“Parker”) and Robert M. Turner,
individually and doing business as LM Turner Stables, Inc.
(“Turner”), for violations of the Massachusetts Consumer
Protection Act (“Chapter 93A”).
In June, 2011, the Court denied defendants’ motion to
dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.

Defendants timely

moved the Court to reconsider its decision, pointing out that the
Court did not address the forum-selection provision of the
parties’ Breeding Agreement.

In November, 2011, the Court

granted defendants’ motion for reconsideration and, after
reconsideration, allowed defendants’ motion to dismiss the case
for lack of personal jurisdiction (“the November, 2011 M&O”).

-1-

Pending before the Court are plaintiff’s initial and amended
motions to reconsider its decision to dismiss the case and
defendants’ opposition thereto.
I.

Legal Analysis
A.

Standard

A district court has “substantial discretion and broad
authority to grant or deny” a motion for reconsideration filed
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or 60(b). Ruiz Rivera v. Pfizer
Pharm., LLC, 521 F.3d 76, 81 (1st Cir. 2008).

Reconsideration is

appropriate only in the presence of “a manifest error of law or
newly discovered evidence,” Kansky v. Coca–Cola Bottling Co. of
New Eng., 492 F.3d 54, 60 (1st Cir. 2007), or upon a showing that
the Court has made an error “not of reasoning but apprehension,”
Ruiz Rivera, 521 F.3d at 81.

Reconsideration is not a mechanism

designed to allow the losing party to present new legal arguments
or “to repeat old arguments previously considered and rejected.”
Nat’l Metal Finishing Co. v. BarclaysAmerican/Commercial, Inc.,
899 F.2d 119, 123 (1st Cir. 1990).
B.

Application

Plaintiff’s initial motion to reconsider takes a scattershot
approach, asserting that the November, 2011 M&O was in error for
the following reasons: 1) the Breeding Contract containing the
forum-selection clause was not a valid contract, 2) the Court
would have personal jurisdiction over the defendants but-for the
-2-

forum-selection clause, 3) the Breeding Contract governs only the
initial breeding of Mild Emotion in 2008, not any subsequent
breedings, 4) plaintiff’s handwritten modification to the
Breeding Contract affected not only the choice-of-law clause but
also the forum selection clause and 5) dismissing plaintiff’s
claims against Robert Turner d/b/a LM Turner Stables, Inc. will
preclude the plaintiff from litigating those claims because
Turner was not a party to the Breeding Contract and thus is not
subject to the jurisdiction of Kentucky courts.

The Court

addresses plaintiff’s arguments seriatim.
First, with respect to the validity of the Breeding
Contract, plaintiff recycles the same arguments already
considered and rejected by the Court, namely: a) there was no
meeting of the minds or consideration, b) defendant’s signing of
the contract should be considered a counteroffer, not an
acceptance, and c) the contract is void as a result of duress and
threats.

Reconsideration is, therefore, unwarranted. See Liu v.

Mukasey, 553 F.3d 37, 39 (1st Cir. 2009) (explaining that
reconsideration is not proper when the movant “simply
regurgitates contentions that were previously made and rejected”).
Second, whether the Court would have personal jurisdiction
over the defendants absent a forum-selection clause is moot.

The

Court has ruled that the forum-selection clause is valid and, as
explained, plaintiff has presented no new or compelling reasons

-3-

to reconsider that decision.
Third, the Court agrees that the Breeding Contract governs
only the initial breeding of Mild Emotion in 2008 and not any
subsequent breedings.

As the Court already explained in its

November, 2011 M&O, however, it would be a significant waste of
judicial resources to try some of plaintiff’s claims in Kentucky
and others in Massachusetts.

The Kentucky court has jurisdiction

to hear plaintiff’s claims against the defendants for any
subsequent breedings because they are closely related to the
subject claims.

Consolidating all of the claims in one action is

in the interest of judicial economy.
The Court declines to address Provanzano’s fourth argument
because he raises it for the first time in his motion for
reconsideration. Cochran v. Quest Software, Inc., 328 F.3d 1, 11
(1st Cir. 2003).

Even if he had made the argument earlier,

however, it would not have altered the Court’s analysis because
Provanzano’s claims against Parker View do not relate to “his
responsibilities” under the Breeding Contract.
As for his fifth argument, it is unlikely that the dismissal
of this case will prevent plaintiff from litigating his claims
against Robert Turner d/b/a LM Turner Stables, Inc. because
Turner is a party to the ongoing Kentucky suit and has
voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the Kentucky Court.
Even if Turner had not subjected himself to the jurisdiction of

-4-

the Kentucky Court, that Court nevertheless has personal
jurisdiction over him if plaintiff proves (as he alleges) that
defendants Turner and Parker “regularly transact business
together” and conspired to defraud the plaintiff.
On November 23, 2011, plaintiff amended his motion to
reconsider to alert the Court to the “newly discovered” first
draft of the Breeding Contract at issue “proving” that he never
intended to enter into the contract.

The Court is unpersuaded

that the proffered document is newly discovered evidence.
Rather, it appears that plaintiff has handwritten on an old
photocopied draft the following:
Bridgette - I have left you a message I want to follow
up. What in the world is this all about. I made it clear
- Do not breed this horse - period. Please call - Joe.
Putting aside the authenticity and uncertain timing of the
addendum, it does not alter the fact that the plaintiff signed the
contract that authorized the breeding.
ORDER
In accordance with the foregoing, plaintiff’s motions for
reconsideration (Docket Nos. 33 and 34) are DENIED.
So ordered.
/s/ Nathaniel M. Gorton
Nathaniel M. Gorton
United States District Judge
Dated December 14, 2011

-5-