Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Garcia v. Mainegeneral Health

United States District Court, D. Maine

March 29, 2019

PETER GARCIA, Plaintiff,
v.
MAINEGENERAL HEALTH, Defendant.

          ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO RECONSIDER

          Nancy Torresen, United States District Judge

         On March 26, 2018, Defendant MaineGeneral Health (“MaineGeneral”) filed a motion to compel arbitration on Plaintiff Peter Garcia's Complaint that alleges employment discrimination. After considering complete briefing on the Defendant's motion, including a sur-reply by the pro se Plaintiff, I granted the motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case. The Plaintiff moved for reconsideration. Pl.'s Mot. (ECF No. 23). I have reviewed the Plaintiff's motion, the Plaintiff's supplemental submission (ECF No. 24), the Defendant's opposition (ECF No. 25), and the Plaintiff's reply. (ECF No. 26.)

         The First Circuit has explained what a party seeking reconsideration must show.

Generally, to prevail on a Rule 59(e) motion, the moving party “must either clearly establish a manifest error of law or must present newly discovered evidence.” F.D.I.C. v. World Univ. Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 1992); see also Marie v. Allied Home Mortg. Corp., 402 F.3d 1, 7 n.2 (1st Cir. 2005) (acknowledging four grounds for granting a Rule 59(e) motion: “manifest errors of law or fact, newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence, manifest injustice, and an intervening change in controlling law”) (citing 11 C. Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1 (2d ed. 1995)). Notably, a party moving for Rule 59(e) relief may not repeat arguments previously made during summary judgment, Prescott v. Higgins, 538 F.3d 32, 45 (1st Cir. 2008), nor may it present new arguments on a Rule 59(e) if such arguments “could, and should, have been made before judgment issued.” ACA Fin. Guar. Corp. v. Advest, Inc., 512 F.3d 46, 55 (1st Cir. 2008) (quoting F.D.I.C., 978 F.2d at 16).

Markel Am. Ins. Co. v. Diaz-Santiago, 674 F.3d 21, 32 (1st Cir. 2012).

         The Plaintiff's reconsideration request consists of new arguments that could have been made before judgment issued and arguments previously raised and rejected. In the new arguments category, the Plaintiff contends that:

• there was no meeting of the minds;
• performance was impossible;
• the Defendant failed to provide notice of a breach and opportunity to remedy the breach;
• there was ambiguity in the arbitration clause;
• there was mutual mistake as to the Plaintiff's ability to receive a medical license;
• he is the victim of fraudulent misrepresentations; and
• he has a duress defense.

         As “Rule 59(e) motions are aimed at re consideration, not initial consideration, ” these arguments are waived, and I do not consider them. See Markel, 674 F.3d at 33 (quotation marks omitted). In the ÔÇťarguments ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.