Brkic v. Dumbo Moving & Storage, Inc.

Background

Milija Brkic sued Dumbo Moving & Storage, Inc. and Lior Rachmany, alleging wage-and-hour violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, and hostile-work-environment violations under the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. Brkic brought the action individually and on behalf of others similarly situated.

The defendants moved to compel arbitration and to dismiss or stay the court proceedings. On January 9, 2023, the court granted that motion and stayed the proceedings until 30 days after an arbitration award was entered. The court determined that Brkic had signed the arbitration agreement in his individual capacity. It also ruled that, even if he had not signed individually, he would be required to arbitrate under an estoppel theory because he knowingly accepted benefits under the related agreement. The court further ruled that the arbitrator, rather than the court, had to decide Brkic’s argument that the arbitration agreement was invalid because it was created for an illegal purpose.

Motion for Reconsideration

Brkic sought reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1). He argued that the court had newly discovered evidence: a complete set of agreements between him or VOZD Express, Inc. and the defendants. In particular, he relied on an independent sales representative agreement signed by VOZD Express, Inc., which he argued conflicted with the arbitration agreement signed by Brkic and made it unclear whether he personally was a party to the arbitration agreement.

The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally available only for an intervening change in controlling law, genuinely new evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice. Evidence is not newly discovered if the party knew about it or could have found and presented it before the earlier ruling.

Ruling

Judge McMahon denied with prejudice Brkic’s motion for reconsideration. The court held that the independent sales representative agreement was not newly discovered evidence. Brkic did not claim that he was unaware of the agreement, and his ability to produce a copy showed that he had access to it. Because he could have raised the argument in his original opposition to the motion to compel arbitration but did not, the court denied reconsideration. The final conclusion states that the motion was “DENIED” and directs the Clerk to close Docket No. 28.