Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02124/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02124-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Martha Carmack
Counter-defendant
The Chase Manhattan Bank
Counter-claimant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARTHA CARMACK,

Plaintiff,

 v.

THE CHASE MANHATTAN 

BANK (USA), 

Defendant. /

No. C 07-02124 WHA

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

On August 3, 2007, an order herein granted defendant’s motions to dismiss and to confirm

an arbitration award against plaintiff. Plaintiff was given until August 16 to file a motion

seeking leave to amend her complaint, but failed to do so. On August 27, an order to show

cause requested that plaintiff explain why a final judgment should not be entered against her. 

The deadline passed and a final judgment was entered against plaintiff, confirming the arbitration

award and dismissing plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice on August 31. 

On August 31, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. 

Plaintiff argues that under 9 U.S.C. 4, a jury right exists when there is a question of fact as to

whether an arbitration agreement existed between plaintiff and defendant, and that in this case

there is such a question. Plaintiff argues that “the specific right to a trial by jury was not

properly considered by the Court when rendering the decision” (Br. 3). Plaintiff finally

responded to the order to show cause, which was due on August 30, on September 4, 2007. 

Case 3:07-cv-02124-WHA Document 44 Filed 09/18/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Defendant’s opposition to plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration was

received on September 7, 2007.

After considering both sides’ arguments, plaintiff’s motion is DENIED and the prior

judgment REMAINS IN EFFECT. 

Motions for reconsideration are decided within the discretion of the district court. 

Civil Local Rule 7-9(b) governs the standard applied here. Rule 7-9(b) states that a motion for

reconsideration can be filed if the Court manifestly failed to consider material facts or dispositive

legal arguments, or if the moving party can show a material difference in fact or law from the

time the original order was entered. 

As she urged in the first round of briefing, plaintiff states that the “[a]greement [related to

the credit card account with defendant] contained no provision to resolve disputes using

arbitration” (Carmack Decl. at 2). As stated before, however, even if plaintiff did not receive any

amendment to the arbitration clause, plaintiff must have received the original cardmember

agreement since she used the credit card enclosed with it. There is no other way she could have

obtained the card. It is undisputed that the original agreement contained an arbitration clause,

which stated in part that “any use of your card or account confirms your acceptance of the terms

and conditions of this agreement” (Rutledge Decl. Exh. A). Plaintiff did use the card, and this

Court has already found the clause valid and that plaintiff agreed to binding arbitration

(Order at 10).

Plaintiff’s argument that the Court manifestly failed to consider a dispositive legal

argument is based on 9 U.S.C. 4, which allows a party to seek to compel arbitration when the

other party is alleged to have failed to comply with an arbitration agreement between the parties. 

Plaintiff contends that her “right to a jury trial pursuant to 9 U.S.C. 4 was unknown to plaintiff

and therefore not presented to this Court as an argument” (Br. 3). Section 4 also allows for the

party alleged to have failed to comply with the arbitration agreement to request a jury to

determine if there was an agreement and whether there was compliance. While it is true that the

Court did not consider Section 4 in granting defendant’s motion to confirm the arbitration award,

this fact is unhelpful to plaintiff because Section 4 is inapplicable to the facts of this case. 

Case 3:07-cv-02124-WHA Document 44 Filed 09/18/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

This case did not involve an attempt to compel arbitration but, rather, the defendant’s motion to

confirm an arbitration award. 

Defendant correctly states that a motion to confirm an arbitration award is governed

by 9 U.S.C. 9, which states that “any party to the arbitration may apply to the court . . . for an

order confirming the award, and thereupon the court must grant such an order unless the award is

vacated, modified, or corrected as prescribed in sections 10 and 11 of this title.” Section 9 does

not grant the right to a jury, nor do Sections 10 and 11. This case did not involve an attempt to

compel arbitration under 9 U.S.C. 4. Thus, plaintiff’s request to file a motion for reconsideration

must be DENIED.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED and the judgment in favor

of defendant REMAINS IN EFFECT. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 18, 2007. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-02124-WHA Document 44 Filed 09/18/07 Page 3 of 3