Bigge Crane and Rigging Co. v. Agility Project Logistics, Inc
- Donna Ryu
- 4:20-cv-01082
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
Judge Ryu denied Agility’s request in Bigge Crane and Rigging Co. v. Agility Project Logistics, Inc. to seek reconsideration of the arbitration-venue order.
Agility Project Logistics, Inc.’s request for permission to seek reconsideration was denied. The court’s earlier order compelling arbitration, staying the case, and requiring arbitration within the Northern District of California remained in place.
What happened
Bigge Crane and Rigging Co. sued Agility Project Logistics, Inc., BP Products North America, and Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. over alleged contract-related claims. The court previously ordered arbitration and required it to take place in the Northern District of California.
Agility asked for permission to file a motion asking the court to reconsider the arbitration location. Agility argued that it had sought only a stay of the lawsuit, not an order compelling arbitration, and that the court had misunderstood its arguments about the Federal Arbitration Act.
Judge Ryu denied Agility’s request. She found that Agility had not shown that the court previously failed to consider a material fact or important legal argument, and she noted that Agility’s motion largely repeated arguments it had already made.
The detailed version
- Bigge Crane and Rigging Co. v. Agility Project Logistics, Inc · No. 4:20-cv-01082
- Donna Ryu
- Feb. 22, 2021
Background
Bigge filed a state-court action against Agility Project Logistics, Inc., BP Products North America, and Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., alleging breach of contract and related claims. Agility removed the case to federal court and moved under the Federal Arbitration Act to compel arbitration and stay the lawsuit while arbitration proceeded.
In an earlier order, the court granted Agility’s motion to compel arbitration and granted its request to stay the case under 9 U.S.C. § 3. The court also ordered that any arbitration under the parties’ agreement take place within the Northern District of California. The court relied on 9 U.S.C. § 4, which states that arbitration proceedings must occur within the federal district where the petition seeking an order directing arbitration is filed. The parties’ agreement otherwise stated that arbitration would take place in Houston, Texas unless they agreed otherwise.
Motion for Leave to Seek Reconsideration
Agility sought permission under Civil Local Rule 7-9 to file a motion for reconsideration of the arbitration-location portion of the earlier order. That rule allows reconsideration of an interlocutory order, meaning an order entered before the case is finally resolved, only on specified grounds. One ground is a manifest failure to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments presented before the earlier order. The rule also bars a party from using reconsideration to reargue matters already presented.
Agility argued that the court had failed to consider its position that it was seeking relief only under Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act—a stay pending arbitration—not under Section 4, which governs an order directing the parties to arbitrate. Agility also argued that Section 4 did not require arbitration to occur in the Northern District of California.
Court’s Analysis and Ruling
The court rejected Agility’s argument that it had failed to consider the relevant facts or legal arguments. The court explained that Agility had made a similar argument in the earlier proceeding, where it characterized its request as one to stay the litigation rather than to compel arbitration. The court had addressed and rejected that position in the earlier order.
The court further found that Agility’s remaining arguments challenged the court’s interpretation of Ninth Circuit authority and repeated arguments made in its earlier reply brief. Because Agility did not show the required manifest failure to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments, Judge Donna Ryu denied Agility’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. The opinion does not alter the earlier order compelling arbitration, staying the case, or requiring arbitration within the Northern District of California.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.