Laschkewitsch v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company

Filing 31

ORDER DENYING 21 Emergency Motion to Dismiss; DENYING 23 Motion for Reconsideration; and DENYING 25 Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 4/20/2015. A certified copy of the order was sent on 4/20/2015 via US Mail to pro se plaintiff John Laschkewitsch, 1933 Ashridge Drive, Fayetteville, NC 28304. (O'Brien, C.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:14-CV-632-D
JOHN LASCHKEWITSCH,
Plaintiff,

v.
TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

On January 26, 2015, John Laschk:ewitsch ("Laschk:ewitsch" or "plaintiff") filed an
"emergency motion to dismiss" an arbitration proceeding [D.E. 21]. On February 10, 2015,
Laschkewitsch filed a motion for reconsideration [D.E. 23] concerning this court's order of January
20, 2015, directing the parties to arbitration, and filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing [D.E. 25].
On February 11, 2015, Transamerica Life Insurance Company ("Transamerica") responded in
opposition to the "emergency motion to dismiss." See [D.E. 27].

On February 27, 2015,

Laschkewitsch replied. See [D.E. 28]. OnMarch2, 2015, Transamericarespondedinopposition
to the motion for reconsideration. See [D.E. 29]. On March 24, 2015, Laschkewitsch replied.. See
[D.E. 30].
On January 20, 2015, the court entered a comprehensive order granting Transamerica's
motion to compel arbitration, dismissing Laschkewitsch's petition to stay arbitration, denying
Laschkewitsch' s motion to remand, and staying the action pending arbitration. See Laschkewitsch
v. TransamericaLifelns. Co., No. 5:14-CV-632-D, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6726, at *1-3 (E.D.N.C.
Jan. 20, 2015) (unpublished). As explained in Transamerica's response to Laschkewitsch's
"emergency motion to dismiss" [D.E. 27], this court's order of January 20, 2015, dooms

Laschkewitsch's "emergency motion to dismiss." Accordingly, the court denies the "emergency
motion to dismiss."
As for Laschkewitsch's motion for reconsideration, the court has considered
Laschkewitsch's motion for reconsideration under the governing standard.

See,~'

Zinkand v.

Bro:M1,478 F.3d 634, 637 (4th Cir. 2007); Bogart v. Chapell, 396 F.3d 548, 555 (4th Cir. 2005);
Hill v. Braxton, 277 F.3d 701,708 (4thCir. 2002); Pac.lns. Co. v. Am. Nat'lFirelns. Co., 148 F.3d
396,403 (4th Cir. 1998); Hughes v. Bedsole, 48 F.3d 1376, 1382 (4th Cir. 1995); Collison v. Int'l
Chern. Workers Union, 34F.3d233,236 (4thCir. 1994); Hutchinson v. Staton, 994F.2d 1076, 1081
(4th Cir. 1993). The motion lacks merit and is denied. Likewise, nothing in this case warrants an
evidentiary hearing in this court. Laschkewitsch can present evidence in the arbitration proceeding.
Accordingly, Laschkewitsch's motion for an evidentiary hearing is denied.
In sum, plaintiffs motions [D.E. 21, 23, 25] are DENIED.
SO ORDERED. This LO day of April2015.

2