United States District Court, D. Maine
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Torresen, United States District Judge
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.)
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).
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.
“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