Olson v. Harland Clarke Corporation et al

Filing 32

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H Settle denying 31 Motion for Reconsideration.(TG)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

5
6
7

DANIEL C. OLSON,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10
11

v.
HARLAND CLARKE CORPORATION,
et al.,

CASE NO. C11-5585 BHS
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

Defendants.

12
13

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Daniel C. Olson’s (“Olson”)
14
motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 31). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in
15
support of the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby denies the motion for the
16
reasons stated herein.
17
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
18
On June 24, 2011, Olson filed a complaint against Defendant Harland Clarke
19
Corporation (“Harland”) alleging various causes of action based on the alleged breach of
20
his employment contract. Dkt. 1-1. On July 27, 2011, Harland removed the case to this
21
Court. Dkt. 1.
22

ORDER - 1

1

On April 9, 2012, Harland filed a motion to compel arbitration. Dkt. 16. On May

2 18, 2012, the Court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. Dkt. 30. On June 1,
3 2012, Olson filed a motion for reconsideration. Dkt. 31.
4
5

II. DISCUSSION
Motions for reconsideration are governed by Local Rule CR 7(h), which provides

6 as follows:
7
8

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The court will ordinarily
deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the
prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not
have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.

9
Local Rule CR 7(h)(1).
10
In this case, Olson argues that “the Court manifestly erred in two matters.” Dkt.
11
31 at 2. First, the Court found and concluded as follows:
12
13
14
15

The Court finds that neither party is at fault for failing to complete
mediation because Olson initiated a lawsuit and Harland unilaterally
withdrew. The Court also finds that, at this point, enforcing the mediation
prerequisite would be futile. Therefore, based on these facts, the parties’
failure to complete mediation does not preclude the enforcement of
arbitration.

16 Dkt. 30 at 3–4. Olson argues that this conclusion was manifest error and “not enforcing
17 the prerequisite of mediation would render Harland’s obligations under the arbitration
18 clause illusory . . . .” Dkt. 31 at 5. The Court disagrees. Simply because the Court finds
19 that at this stage of the proceeding enforcing the mediation clause would be futile, does
20 not render the contract illusory.
21

Second, Olson argues that the Court should find that the arbitration clause is

22 unconscionable because he is unable to afford the costs of arbitration. Dkt. 31 at 6–7.

ORDER - 2

1 There are no facts before the Court that Olson has been unable to participate in any
2 arbitration proceeding because of his financial status. Moreover, the rules of arbitration
3 accommodate parties that show current financial hardship. See Dkt. 18, Exh. A, Rule R4 49 (“The AAA may, in the event of extreme hardship on the part of any party, defer or
5 reduce the administrative fees.”). Olson has failed to show that the Court committed
6 manifest error by enforcing the arbitration clause.
7
8

III. ORDER
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Olson’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt.

9 31) is DENIED.
10

Dated this 5th day of June, 2012.

A

11
12

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3