Akhter v. Compass Group USA, Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:22-cv-02194
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Akhter v. Compass Group, Judge Furman denied Akhter’s reconsideration motion, leaving the arbitration ruling in place.
Ruma Akhter and Compass Group USA, Inc.; the denial left in place the court’s earlier order compelling arbitration of Akhter’s claims.
What happened
In Akhter v. Compass Group USA, Inc., the court considered Ruma Akhter’s request to reconsider its earlier decision ordering arbitration of her claims against Compass Group USA, Inc.
Akhter argued that factual disputes existed about whether an employee-handbook disclaimer covered the arbitration agreement and whether her signature alone created an enforceable agreement. The court rejected both arguments, explaining that the documents’ language and timing supported its earlier conclusions.
Judge Furman held that Akhter had not shown a clear error, new evidence, or another reason required for reconsideration. He denied the motion and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the related filing.
The detailed version
- Akhter v. Compass Group USA, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-02194
- Jesse Furman
- Nov. 9, 2022
Background
On September 30, 2022, the court granted Compass Group USA, Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration of Ruma Akhter’s claims. Akhter then moved for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3.
Arguments
Akhter argued that the court had erred because there were disputed facts about two issues. First, she argued that a disclaimer in a document acknowledging receipt of an employee handbook applied to the arbitration agreement. Second, she argued that no enforceable arbitration agreement existed because only she had signed it.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that reconsideration is allowed only in limited circumstances, such as an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a clear error that must be corrected. It is not a chance to reargue issues already decided.
The court acknowledged that its earlier opinion did not expressly mention the summary-judgment standard, but said its analysis effectively determined that no disputed material fact required a trial, even when reasonable inferences were drawn in Akhter’s favor. The court rejected Akhter’s reliance on her stated understanding that the handbook receipt covered the arbitration agreement. It emphasized the documents’ plain language and the fact that the arbitration agreement was created and signed before the employee handbook and handbook receipt were created and signed.
The court also rejected Akhter’s argument that her signature alone could not create an enforceable arbitration agreement. Applying New York law, it said the written agreement showed only one objectively reasonable conclusion: that the agreement became enforceable upon Akhter’s signature. Her subjective understanding and her counsel’s experience in other cases did not overcome the plain language of the agreement.
Disposition
Judge Jesse M. Furman denied Akhter’s motion for reconsideration. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 33.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.