Taha et al v. Northwest Group, Inc.

Filing 23

OPINION AND ORDER. Denying Motion for Reconsideration 20 . Signed on 9/23/2013 by Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. (sss)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION

RYAN TAHA, an Oregon resident; CHASITY
MYERS, an Oregon resident; and DONNA
BASHAM, an Oregon resident,

Case No.: 3:13-cv-00398-HA
OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs,

v.
NORTHWEST GROUP, INC., albin JACK IN
THE BOX, a Oregon Domestic Business
Corporation,
Defendant.

HAGGERTY, District Judge:
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), Northwest Group, Inc. ("defendant")
moves this court to reconsider its August 15,2013 Opinion and Order [19]. For the reasons
discussed below, defendant's Motion for Reconsideration [20] is denied.

1 -OPINION AND ORDER

BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Ryan Taha, Donna Basham, and Chastity Myers filed a law suit alleging
numerous violations of state and federal law that arose from plaintiffs' employment with
defendant. Defendant asserts that prior to the commencement of plaintiffs' employment, each
plaintiff executed an arbitration agreement, which requires plaintiffs to submit to binding
arbitration any dispute that may arise from their employment with defendant. Plaintiff Myers
refused to submit her claim to arbitration, and defendant moved this court to compel arbitration.
In suppmi of defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration [6], defendant submitted the
Declaration of Cacye Gonzales-Cobb [9]. In that declaration, Gonzales-Cobb stated that Myers
signed the Arbitration Agreement at issue on Februmy 11, 2011. To support her opposition to
defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration, Myers submitted her own declaration, which states
that no meeting occurred on February 11, 2013. Instead, Myers' declaration states that she signed
all of her employment documents on her first day of work, February 14, 2011, and back dated the
documents per the instructions of a human resources representative.
Finding ihat the validity of the Arbitration Agreement turned on which date it was signed,
this court issued an Order [15) requiring the parties to produce evidence of the date that the
Arbitration Agreement was signed. In response, plaintiff submitted, inter alia, a Second
Declaration of Chastity Myers and the Declaration of Ryan Taha, in which he stated that he was
in the office on Februmy 14,2011 and watched Myers sign employment papers. Defendant once
again submitted the documents that it had provided in suppmi of its original motion along with
Myers' Confidentiality Agreement and Myers' payroll information. In an Opinion and Order
dated August 15,2013, this comi denied defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration, relying on

2 -OPINION AND ORDER

the declarations ofTaha and Myers.

ANALYSIS
Reconsideration, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), is appropriate "in the
face of the existence of new evidence, an intervening change in the law, or as necessmy to
prevent manifest injustice." Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama

Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). A motion for
reconsideration should not be granted absent "highly unusual circumstances," unless, inter alia,
the court "committed clear error." 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th
Cir. 1999). Also, "[a] Rule 59(e) motion may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence
for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation." Kana

Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate ofBishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Whether or not to grant
reconsideration is committed to the sound discretion of the court. Navajo Nation, 331 F.3d at
I 046. (citation omitted).
In the present case, defendant fails to set forth an argument that any instance in which
reconsideration is appropriate is applicable under the cul1'ent circumstances. Defendant does not
argue that there is new evidence, that there is an intervening change in the law, or that
reconsideration is necessary to prevent manifest injustice. Therefore, defendant's motion does
not satisfY the standard for reconsideration.
Even if defendant's motion were construed to allege that the court committed clear error
by failing to consider the declaration of Gonzales-Cobb, the court did not el1'. To demonstrate
that the couti did not consider the declaration, defendant cites the Opinion and Order: "defendant
produced only the documents at issue themselves." Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration at 2.

3 -OPINION AND ORDER

However, the Opinion and Order actually says "In response [to the court's order to submit
evidence], defendant produced only the documents at issue themselves." Opinion and Order at 8.
The court's consideration of the Gonzales-Cobb declaration is evident through its frequent
citation to the declaration throughout the Opinion and Order.
Furthermore, the Gonzales-Cobb declaration did not satisfY defendant's burden to
demonstrate that a valid contract existed. "The district couti, when considering a motion to
compel arbitration which is opposed on the ground that no agreement to arbitrate had been made
between the pmiies, should give to the opposing party the benefit of all reasonable doubts and
inferences that may arise." Sanfordv. j\IemberWorks, Inc., 483 F.3d 956,963 n. 9 (9th Cir.
2007) (quoting Three Valleys }.Iun. Water Dis!. v. E. F. Hutton & Co., Inc., 925 F.2d 1136, 1141
(9th Cir. 1991)). In consideration of Gonzales-Cobb's declaration, this court was presented with
a situation that defendant accurately describes as "he said-she said" - or the declaration of
Gonzales-Cobb versus the declarations of Taha and Myers. When faced with opposing facts
such as this, it is clear that defendant did not satisfY its burden that a valid arbitration agreement
exists.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, defendant's Motion for Reconsideration [20] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 2-J_ day of September, 2013.

~

ik '---~-J(-~=~
Hagge;~:::'s

-/!___

Ancer L.
United States District Judge

4 -OPINION AND ORDER

- ..