115 F. Supp. 3d 87
D.D.C.2015Background
- Riley alleges MBT, BMO Harris Bank, N.A., and First Premier Bank used ACH entries to collect alleged unlawful payday debts.
- The loan agreements contain a broad arbitration provision mandating binding individual arbitration via NAF, with no class arbitration.
- The court previously granted Defendants' motions to compel arbitration and dismissed the action.
- NAF advised it no longer accepts consumer arbitrations due to a consent judgment, impairing the forum designated by the arbitration clause.
- Riley moves to reopen the case against MBT on the basis that the arbitrator is unavailable and arbitration cannot proceed; Defendants oppose and propose substituting an arbitrator under FAA Section 5.
- The court analyzes ancillary jurisdiction and Rule 60(b) grounds and ultimately denies the motion to reopen, denying relief from judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has ancillary jurisdiction to hear the motion to reopen | Riley seeks ancillary jurisdiction to undo the arbitration order and reinstate the case | Defendants contend ancillary jurisdiction is inappropriate and the motion is a Rule 60(b) matter | No ancillary jurisdiction; treat as Rule 60(b) motion |
| Whether Rule 60(b) provides a basis to reopen | Rules 60(b)(6) or (1) authorize reopening due to NAF unavailability | Relief denied under both subsections based on timeliness and excusable neglect issues | denied under both Rule 60(b)(6) and Rule 60(b)(1) |
| Whether the delay in raising NAF unavailability was excusable neglect under Pioneer factors | Delay was not substantial and reflects extraordinary circumstances | Delay caused by plaintiff's strategic decision; within plaintiff's control | Not excusable; six-month delay not justified_under Pioneer factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (ancillary jurisdiction to enforce decrees; effectuation of judgments)
- Pigford v. Veneman, 292 F.3d 918 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (limits ancillary jurisdiction and enforces decree terms)
- Pigford v. Vilsack, 777 F.3d 509 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (narrow ancillary jurisdiction in arbitration contexts)
- Owen-Williams v. BB & T Inv. Servs., Inc., 717 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2010) (courts may exercise ancillary jurisdiction during arbitration proceedings)
- Adam Technologies Int’l S.A. de C.V. v. Sutherland Global Servs., Inc., 729 F.3d 443 (5th Cir. 2013) (substitute arbitrator under FAA Section 5)
- Kramer v. Gates, 481 F.3d 788 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (Rule 60(b)(6) sparingly used; not rescue from improvident choices)
- Good Luck Nursing Home, Inc. v. Harris, 636 F.2d 572 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (Rule 60(b) broad latitude but sparingly used)
- Carvajal v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 286 F.R.D. 23 (D.D.C. 2012) (untimely Rule 60(b)(6) relief generally denied)
- Salazar ex rel. Salazar v. Dist. of Columbia, 633 F.3d 1110 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (timeliness and post-judgment considerations in Rule 60(b))
- Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993) (establishes excusable neglect factors)