Occilien v. Related Partners Inc.

Background

Guerda Occilien sent the court a March 12, 2021 letter asking to lift the stay in the case. The court construed the letter as a motion for reconsideration of its January 19, 2021 Opinion and Order granting the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. The earlier order held that Occilien had agreed to arbitrate her claims against the defendants; it did not decide the merits of her discrimination claims.

Arguments and analysis

Under Local Rule 6.3, reconsideration requires the moving party to identify controlling legal authority or factual information that the court overlooked and that could reasonably change the result. The court explained that reconsideration is generally limited to an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or the need to prevent manifest injustice. It is not a way to relitigate old issues or present new theories.

The court noted that Occilien filed her request about two months after the January 19 decision, although Local Rule 6.3 requires service within 14 days. The court nevertheless considered the substance of her request.

Occilien primarily argued that a conflict of interest existed concerning a mediator involved in an unsuccessful March 2020 mediation. The court found that she provided no evidence connecting the mediator, the Jackson Lewis law firm, and the defendants, and the court could not identify a conflict through its own research. It also concluded that any alleged conflict was irrelevant to the motion to compel arbitration because the mediation had been unsuccessful.

Occilien raised additional allegations about attorneys’ conduct, including sending an unsolicited email, sending her a conference transcript, and failing to introduce themselves at mediation. The court stated that it was considering those allegations only as possible grounds for reconsideration and was not deciding whether the conduct was insulting or offensive. Even if true, the allegations did not bear on the arbitration ruling.

Finally, Occilien argued that an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission determination and the defendants’ descriptions of that determination supported reconsideration. The court rejected that argument because the agency’s findings and the defendants’ characterizations were not relevant to the January 19 order, which addressed only whether Occilien had agreed to arbitrate. The court stated that Supreme Court precedent required her to seek redress in arbitration rather than federal court.

Disposition

Judge Katherine Polk Failla denied Occilien’s motion for reconsideration. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail a copy of the order to Occilien.