Employers' Innovative Network, LLC et al v. Bridgeport Benefits, Inc. et al

Filing 228

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER directing that the Plaintiffs' 226 Motion to Reconsider be DENIED. Signed by Judge Irene C. Berger on 9/17/2019. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (btm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
BECKLEY DIVISION
EMPLOYERS’ INNOVATIVE
NETWORK, LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:18-cv-01082

BRIDGEPORT BENEFITS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The Court has reviewed the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider (Document 226) and
Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider (Document 227). The Plaintiffs
request reconsideration of the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order (Document 216) granting
Defendant Capital Security, Ltd.’s motion to compel arbitration. They assert the following
grounds for reconsideration:
1) Capital Security waived its rights under the Convention on the
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards; 2) it
waived its right to arbitration by engaging in discovery that is not
allowed in arbitration; 3) its request for arbitration was in violation
of W.Va. Code § 33-44-10; 4) its arbitration claim is reversepreempted by the McCarran-Ferguson Act; 5) the arbitration was
not incorporated into the Policy; and 6) the Plaintiffs are not
equitably estopped from challenging arbitration.
(Mot. at 1.)
A motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order under Rule 54(b) is “not subject to
the strict standards applicable to motions for reconsideration of a final judgment,” because “a

district court retains the power to reconsider and modify its interlocutory judgments…at any time
prior to final judgment when such is warranted.” Am. Canoe Ass'n v. Murphy Farms, Inc., 326
F.3d 505, 514–15 (4th Cir. 2003). “Although Rule 54(b) does not specify grounds for seeking
reconsideration, the Fourth Circuit has recognized three grounds for amending an earlier judgment:
(1) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for new evidence not
available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.” Howard v.
W. Virginia Div. of Corr., No. 2:13-CV-11006, 2016 WL 1173152, at *5 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 22,
2016) (Johnston, J.).
Motions for reconsideration generally “may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise
arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” 11
Wright, et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 2810.1 (3d. ed.) (discussing Rule 59(e)); Ruffin v.
Entm't of the E. Panhandle, No. 3:11-CV-19, 2012 WL 1435674, at *5 (N.D.W. Va. Apr. 25,
2012) (applying rule to Rule 54(b) motions); Carrero v. Farrelly, 310 F. Supp. 3d 581, 584 (D.
Md. 2018) (same).
The Plaintiffs’ motion asserts arguments that either were fully litigated and considered in
the original briefing and opinion or are based on facts and law that were available at the time of
the original briefing. To the extent it raises new arguments, it does not state good cause for the
failure to bring those arguments in the response to Capital Security’s motion. The Court declines
to permit a second round of briefing on this issue, finding that doing so would give rise to unfair
prejudice to the parties that followed the scheduling order and briefing deadlines. Further, finality
in the resolution of a motion to compel arbitration is particularly vital to permit the parties to move
toward resolution of the merits in the appropriate forum.
2

Accordingly, after careful consideration, the Court ORDERS that the Plaintiffs’ Motion to
Reconsider (Document 226) be DENIED.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to
any unrepresented party.
ENTER:

3

September 17, 2019