Newton v. LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton Inc.

Background

Andowah Newton moved under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b) for relief from the court’s August 23, 2024 decision. She also moved under Rule 52(b) to amend the finding that her request to amend the complaint had been made in bad faith. The earlier decision had granted LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton Inc. and Rodney C. Pratt’s motion to dismiss Newton’s two retaliation claims, denied Newton’s request for leave to amend, denied her request to enjoin the pending arbitration, and denied the defendants’ request to compel arbitration.

The earlier decision concluded that Newton had not plausibly alleged that she engaged in protected activity known to the defendants. It also concluded that adding four claims involved in the arbitration would be futile, among other reasons because those claims accrued before the effective date of the Ending Forced Arbitration in Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021. The court further found that Newton’s proposed amendment had been made in bad faith because it was a tactical effort to affect the arbitration and because she had omitted facts from her original complaint despite knowing them when she filed it.

Reconsideration of the dismissal and amendment requests

The court denied Newton’s request to vacate the dismissal of her retaliation claims with prejudice. It held that Newton had not identified a clear error, manifest injustice, or extraordinary circumstance warranting relief. The additional facts Newton offered—including alleged complaints, litigation and arbitration activity, and public protests—did not cure the deficiencies the court had previously identified, including the lack of a sufficient connection between the alleged protected activity and the retaliation she claimed to have experienced from March through December 2022.

The court also denied Newton’s request to vacate the denial of leave to add the four proposed claims. It reaffirmed that the claims pending in arbitration were not part of the same “case” as the retaliation claims in the federal action because they were being pursued in a different forum. The court also reaffirmed that, after dismissal of the retaliation claims, adding the proposed claims would be futile and would leave no claim in the federal case accrued after the arbitration statute’s effective date.

Bad-faith finding

The court granted Newton’s request to vacate the finding that her motion to amend was made in bad faith. Although the court continued to view Newton’s decision not to plead the additional claims earlier as tactical, it credited her explanation that she had disclosed her reasons to the court during a December 20, 2023 hearing. Newton’s counsel had explained that Newton sought permission to add the arbitration claims partly because she was concerned LVMH might later seek attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses under the arbitration agreement.

The court emphasized that removing the bad-faith finding did not permit Newton to replead. The denial of amendment based on futility remained in place.

Arbitration and disposition

The court denied Newton’s request to enjoin the pending arbitration because it had denied relief from the dismissal and had denied permission to add the proposed claims. It therefore ordered that the reconsideration motion was DENIED in part and GRANTED in part: relief from the dismissal was denied, relief from the denial of the cross-motion to amend was denied, relief from the bad-faith finding was granted, and the request to enjoin arbitration was denied.

The court directed the clerk to close the reconsideration motion, dismisses the case with prejudice, mark the action closed, and mark other open motions denied as moot.