Patterson v. Nine Energy Serv., LLC
Decision Date | 29 November 2018 |
Docket Number | No. CIV 17-1116 JB/GBW,CIV 17-1116 JB/GBW |
Parties | Ryan PATTERSON, Plaintiff, v. NINE ENERGY SERVICE, LLC, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
Jack L. Siegel, Siegel Law Group, P.L.L.C., Dallas, Texas and J. Derek Braziel, Travis Andrew Gasper, Lee & Braziel, L.L.P., Dallas, Texas, Attorneys for the Plaintiff
Christopher S. Mann, Jones Walker, L.L.P., New Orleans, Louisiana and Jennifer L. Anderson, Jones Walker, L.L.P., Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Attorneys for the Defendant
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiff's Reconsideration Motion, filed September 15, 2018 (Doc. 25) ("Reconsideration Motion"). The Court held a hearing on October 25, 2018. The primary issues are: (i) whether the Court committed manifest legal error in its Memorandum Opinion and Order, 330 F.Supp.3d 1280, filed August 30, 2018 (Doc. 21) (" MOO"), where it relied on Padilla v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2003-NMSC-011, 133 N.M. 661, 68 P.3d 901 (" Padilla"), as well as Cordova v. World Finance Corporation of New Mexico, 2009-NMSC-021, 146 N.M. 256, 208 P.3d 901 (" Cordova"), and Rivera v. American General Financial Services, Inc., 2011-NMSC-033, 150 N.M. 398, 259 P.3d 803 (" Rivera"), in concluding that, "although the injunctive relief provision in the Confidentiality and Dispute Resolution Agreement at 6, filed December 6, 2017 (Doc. 5-2) ("Arbitration Agreement") is substantively unconscionable, it is also severable," MOO at 20, 330 F.Supp.3d at 1287 ; and (ii) whether the Court should certify the question of whether the substantively unconscionable provision is severable to the Supreme Court of New Mexico for the Supreme Court of New Mexico's determination. The Court has carefully reconsidered its MOO and concludes that the injunctive relief provision in the Arbitration Agreement is severable, and the Court declines to certify the question to the Supreme Court of New Mexico for its determination.
The Court recites the factual background as stated in its MOO, as neither party has objected to the Court's recitation of facts in the MOO. The footnotes associated with the quoted text are also quoted in full from the MOO.
MOO at 2-3, 330 F.Supp.3d at 1287-89 (alteration in original).
The Court adopts the procedural background until the filing of MOO, as the MOO recites it. The footnotes associated with the quoted text are also quoted in full from the MOO.
Patterson filed his original Complaint on November 8, 2017. See Original Class Action Complaint, filed November 8, 2017 (Doc. 1) ("Original Complaint"). Patterson subsequently filed the Amended Complaint on November 13, 2017. See Amended Complaint at 1. Nine Energy filed the Motion on December 6, 2017. See Motion at 1.
Nine Energy moves the Court to dismiss this case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and to compel arbitration. See Motion at 1. Nine Energy first contends that Patterson's claims fall within the Arbitration Agreement's scope, because the Arbitration Agreement's provisions "cover all disputes, claims, or disagreements relating to Plaintiff's employment." Motion at 5. Nine Energy then argues that the Arbitration Agreement contains adequate consideration, asserting that "the bargained for exchange in this case was Plaintiff's offer of employment with Nine Energy in exchange for signing the Confidentiality and Dispute Resolution Agreement as well as the Parties' mutual agreement to submit all employment disputes to arbitration." Motion at 6. Turning to the class action allegations, Nine Energy avers that the Arbitration Agreement expressly states that the parties waive any right to participate in a class or collective action regarding any disputes subject to the agreement. See Motion at 7-8. Nine Energy concludes that the Court should grant the Motion and compel Patterson to arbitrate his claims on an individual basis. See Motion at 8.
Patterson responds. See Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Class Action Complaint and Compel Arbitration, filed January 2, 2018 (Doc. 13-1) ("Response"). Patterson first asserts that the Arbitration Agreement is substantively unconscionable. See Response at 4. According to Patterson, the Arbitration Agreement section allowing Nine Energy to bring an action for injunctive relief in court to enforce an employee's confidentiality obligations, such as the protection of trade secrets, represents a unilateral carve-out favoring Nine Energy and is therefore unconscionable. See Response at 4-5. Second, Patterson avers that the Arbitration Agreement contains no consideration and is thus illusory. See Response at 5. According to Patterson "continued at-will employment cannot serve as...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bhasker v. Kemper Cas. Ins. Co.
...P.2d at 243 (footnote omitted). See Patterson v. Nine Energy Serv., LLC, No. CIV 17-1116 JB/GBW, 355 F.Supp.3d 1065, 1096–97, 2018 WL 6250608, at *19 (D.N.M. Nov. 29, 2018) (Browning, J.). If a contract is ambiguous, however, "evidence will be admitted to aid in interpreting the parties' ex......
-
Global v. Prithvi Info. Sols. Ltd.
...can revise any order or decision not final before entry of final judgment. See FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b); Patterson v. Nine Energy Serv., LLC, 355 F. Supp. 3d 1065, 1108 (D. N.M. 2018). Factors that courts shouldconsider when contemplating reconsideration of interlocutory orders are the thoroug......
-
Dockery v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...is not solely dependent on the timing of filing, but also "on the reasons expressed by the movant." Patterson v. Nine Energy Serv., LLC , 355 F. Supp. 3d 1065, 1105 (D.N.M. 2018) (quoting Commonwealth Prop. Advocates, LLC v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. , 680 F.3d 1194, 1200 (10th C......
-
In re Randell
...‘can use whatever standard it wants to review a motion to reconsider an interlocutory order.’ ") (citing Patterson v. Nine Energy Serv., LLC , 355 F. Supp. 3d 1065, 1110 (D.N.M. 2018) (noting that the "law of the case" doctrine does not limit a court's review of its own prior non-final orde......