Owen-Williams v. BB & T Investment Services, Inc.
797 F. Supp. 2d 118
D.D.C.2011Background
- Owen-Williams filed a DC Superior Court breach of contract action against BB & T; BB & T removed it and moved to compel arbitration and dismiss or stay, which the court granted.
- The arbitration clause appears in the Covenants Agreement; the Employment Contract contemplated background checks and BB & T ultimately rescinded the job offer.
- A FINRA arbitration proceeded; a three-member panel issued a final award in BB & T's favor on September 22, 2008, denying all of Owen-Williams' claims with prejudice.
- Owen-Williams moved to vacate the arbitration award and to reconsider the order compelling arbitration; the court denied the motion in part and granted BB & T's cross-motion to confirm the award on May 24, 2010.
- Owen-Williams then filed a contested Motion for Reconsideration under Rule 59(e) (timely), which this court now addresses, finding no extraordinary grounds to alter the prior decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the motion qualifies as Rule 59(e) reconsideration | Owen-Williams contends for reconsideration of the May 24, 2010 order | BB & T argues standard Rule 59(e) criteria apply and movant fails | Motion treated as Rule 59(e); denied due to lack of extraordinary grounds |
| Whether the court's handling of pro se status constitutes grounds for reconsideration | Court biased against pro se plaintiff due to financial hardship | Status is irrelevant to merits; respectful consideration given pro se status | No grounds for reconsideration; merits remained unchanged |
| Whether lack of oral argument warrants reconsideration | Oral argument was needed to resolve complex facts | Discretionary denial of oral argument; briefing was adequate | No basis to reconsider; decision grounded in briefing and record |
| Whether arbitration panel's conduct was in manifest disregard of the law | Arbitration ignored Superior Court findings and authority | Argument not properly raised; panel conduct properly reviewed under standard | Not a valid ground for reconsideration |
| Whether the Superior Court findings were misconstrued to defeat the merits | Court misread findings as dispositive on merits | Findings were provisional and not binding on the arbitration | No reversible error; findings immaterial to vacatur analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Sataki v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 272 F.R.D. 21 (D.D.C.2010) (frames Rule 59(e) timing and standards)
- Kattan v. District of Columbia, 995 F.2d 274 (D.C.Cir.1993) (restricted grounds for reconsideration; new arguments not allowed)
- Kittner v. Gates, 783 F. Supp. 2d 170 (D.D.C.2011) (extraordinary circumstances required for Rule 59(e) relief)
- Dalal v. Goldman Sachs & Co., 541 F. Supp. 2d 72 (D.D.C.2008) (reconsideration not vehicle for relitigation of issues)
- Kanuth v. Prescott, Ball & Turben, Inc., 949 F.2d 1175 (D.C.Cir.1991) (limits on judicial review of arbitral awards)
- Ciralsky v. Central Intelligence Agency, 355 F.3d 661 (D.C.Cir.2004) (standard for obtaining reconsideration; extraordinary circumstances)