Jordan v. Best Buy Co., Inc.

Background

Plaintiffs Jewel Jordan and Michael Walsh filed a class action lawsuit against Best Buy Co., Inc. on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated consumers, seeking economic damages related to recalled Insignia pressure cookers. Best Buy moved to compel arbitration of Jordan's claims and to strike the class allegations as to both plaintiffs.

On February 21, 2025, the court issued an order (the "Order") that: (1) granted Best Buy's motion to compel arbitration of Jordan's claims; (2) granted the motion to strike Jordan's class allegations; (3) denied the motion to strike Walsh's class allegations; and (4) stayed the matter as to Jordan's claims pending arbitration.

On May 1, 2025, Plaintiffs' counsel sent a letter to Best Buy's counsel, purporting to initiate the informal dispute resolution process required under Best Buy's Terms and Conditions before arbitration can be commenced. The letter covered Jordan and 205 other consumers. Best Buy responded on May 22, 2025, stating that the letter failed to comply with the Terms' requirements, and further noted that because none of the claimed economic damages exceeded $120, the claims should be brought in small claims court.

Plaintiffs interpreted Best Buy's response as a refusal to arbitrate and sought permission to file a motion for reconsideration. The court granted permission to file only as to the motion to compel arbitration — not as to the motion to strike. Jordan and Walsh then filed the present motion, asking the court to deny the motion to compel arbitration and lift the stay on Jordan's claims.

Legal Standard

Motions to reconsider serve a limited function: to correct manifest (clear and obvious) errors of law or fact, or to present newly discovered evidence. Such relief is reserved for "extraordinary circumstances." The court analyzed the motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which allows a court to relieve a party from a judgment for reasons including: mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct by an opposing party, a void judgment, a satisfied or reversed judgment, or any other reason that justifies relief.

Analysis

Rule 60(b)(3) — Alleged Misconduct by Best Buy

Jordan argued that Best Buy committed misconduct by failing to consent to arbitration after having asked the court to compel it. To succeed under Rule 60(b)(3), the moving party must present clear and convincing evidence that the opposing party engaged in fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct that prevented a full and fair presentation of the case.

The court rejected this argument. Best Buy stated it had not refused to arbitrate and that Jordan had never filed a formal demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (AAA), a step required both by the AAA's Consumer Arbitration Rules and by Best Buy's Terms and Conditions to actually initiate the arbitration process. Because Jordan had not taken that step, Best Buy could not be found to have refused to arbitrate. The court held that Jordan's argument "falls flat" — there can be no misconduct for refusing arbitration if no refusal has occurred.

Rule 60(b)(6) — Catch-All Provision

Jordan also argued that Best Buy's conduct denied her a full and fair opportunity to litigate, warranting relief under Rule 60(b)(6)'s catch-all provision. This provision allows relief where exceptional circumstances have denied a party a full and fair opportunity to litigate and prevented adequate redress.

The court again rejected this argument. Because Jordan retains the ability to invoke arbitration by filing a demand with the AAA, she has an available course of action. The court found no exceptional circumstances warranting relief under this provision.

Disposition

The court denied the motion to reconsider. The court also noted — in a footnote — that it declined to reconsider the motion to strike Jordan's class allegations because permission to file for reconsideration had been granted only as to the motion to compel arbitration. The February 21, 2025 Order remains in effect: Jordan's claims are compelled to arbitration and stayed, and she must file a formal arbitration demand with the AAA to move forward.