1

10- 414 N a tio n a l U n io n F ire In su ra n c e v. L a s V e g a s P ro fes sio n a l F o o tb a ll U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT 

### SU MM AR

Y ORD ER

R U L I N G S B Y S U M M A R Y OR D E R D O N OT HA V E P R E C E D E NT I AL E F F E C T . C I T A T I ON T O A S UM M ARY ORDE R F I L E D O N O R AF T E R J ANUARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S P E RM I T T E D AND I S GOVE RNE D BY TH I S C O U R T’ S LO C A L RU LE 32 . 1. 1 AN D FED ERA L R U LE O F A PPELLA TE PRO C EDU R E 32 . 1. W H EN C I TI N G A S U M M A R Y O R D ER I N A D O C U M E N T F I L E D W I TH TH I S C O U R T, A PA R TY M U ST C I TE E I T HE R T HE F E D E R A L A P P E N D I X OR A N E L E C T R ON I C D A T A B A S E ( W I T H T HE N OT A T I ON “ S UM M ARY ORDER” ) . A PA RT Y CI T I NG A S UM M ARY ORDER M US T S E RVE A COPY OF I T ON ANY PA R TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL.
At a stated Te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pear l Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 20 day

of De cembe r, two thousand ten, th Pr e se nt: RO SEM AR Y S. POO L ER, B ARRI NG TO N D . PA RK ER, RI CHARD C. W ESL EY,

Circuit Judges

.

_____________________________________________________ NATI ONAL

UNI ON F I RE I

NSURANCE COMPANY OF PI TTSBURGH, PA, Petitioner-Appellee ,

-v- 10-414-c v L AS VEGAS PROFESSI ONAL FOO TBA L LL I MI TED PAR TN ERS HI P D/ B /AL AS V EG AS G L AD I AT OR S, Respondent-

Appellant

. Appea ringfor Appe llee: Michae l S. Davis (Anthony I . Giacobbe , J r., on the brief ), Z eichne r Ellman & K

rause L L P, New Yor

k, N.Y. Appea ri ng for Appe llant: J ames L . Fe rra ro, The F err aro L aw F irm, Miami, Florida.2

Appea l from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ne w York (Castel, J. ). ON CONSIDERATION WHE REOF, IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, ADJUD GED, AN D D EC RE ED that th e jud g me nt o f s a id D istri c t Co ur t be and it h e re by is AF F IRM ED

. L as Ve g as Profe ssional Football L imited Partnership, d/b/a L as Ve g as Gladiators (the “Gladiators”) a

ppeal f rom the January

15, 2010 memorandum a nd order of the United States District Court for the Southern D istrict of NewYork (Ca stel, J. ) deny ing the Gladiators’ motion for r econside ration of the district c ourt’s prior de cision, dated Nove mber 17, 2009, whic h g rante d the motion to compel arbitration brought by Americ an International Group Inc. (“ AI G”) , the pa re nt c omp any

of the Natio na l U nio n F ir e Ins ur anc e Com pa ny of Pitt sb ur g h, PA. We a ssume the par ties’ familiarity

with the underly

ing f acts, proc edura l history , and spec ification of issues for r eview. The Gla diators, a pr ofessional footba ll team in the Are na F ootball L eague, purc hased worke rs’ c ompensation insuranc e fr om the plaintiff. The a g ree ment betwee n the par ties includes (a) the Pay

ment Ag ree ment; (b) an A ddendum to the Pay ment Ag ree ment; (c) a

larg e risk rating plan endor sement; and (d) a wor kers’ compensation policy

. All of the docume nts that make up the a g ree ment betwee n the par ties were eff

ective f rom Dec ember

15, 2006 to Dece mber 15, 2007. How ever , the orig inal ag ree ment betwee n the par ties included only

the worke rs’ c ompensation policy , which did not contain an a rbitration provision. T h e G l a d i a t o r s a l l e g e th a tth r e e w e e k s a f t e r th e s t art o f th e 2 0 0 6 ar e n a

f o o t b a l l s e a s o n , A IG require d the Gladiator s to provide $600,000 in collater al and sign the Pay ment Ag ree ment, which c on ta ine d th e arb itr a tio n c la us e s at is su e he re . T he Gl a diator s a lle g e the y ha d n o c ho ic e but to sign, a s they

could not field a te am without the requisite insuranc e cove rag e, thus risking the entire a rena football season. The Gladiators sig ned the Pay ment Ag ree ment on Fe bruar y 8, 2007, with the eff

ective da te g oing ba ck to Dec ember 15, 2006. The Pay ment Ag ree ment provides in re levant par t that if the Gladiators dispute a ny amount owed Na

tional, they

must inform AI G/National of the dispute in writing, a nd National wi ll r e sp on d. Di sp ute d “ ite ms n ot r e so lve d w ith in 6 0 d ay s a ft e r o ur [Natio na l’ s] r e sp on se to Your [the Gladiators’ ] written particulars must immediately be submitted to arbitration as se t forth below.” A sec ond subsection re lates to “disputes other tha n disputes about pay

ment due,” and state s: “ Any

oth e r u nr e so lve d d isp ute ari sin g out of thi s A g re e me nt m

us t be su bmi tte d to arbitration. You must not ify us in writing a s soon as You have submitt ed a dispute to a rbitration. We must not ify

You in writing as soon as we have submitted a dispute to ar bitration.” Under the sec tion addressingarbitration procedur es, the Pay ment Ag ree ment provides that the arbitrators “will have e x clusive jurisdiction over the e ntire matter in dispute, includingany question as to its arbitrability .” The Adde ndum to the Pay ment Ag ree ment contains a f orum selec tion clause that3

pr ov ide s: “ any

a c tio n o r p ro c e e din g c on c e rn ingarb itr a bil ity , in c lud ingmot ion s to c omp e l or to s t ay ar b i tr a t i o n , m a

y b e b r o u g h to n l y i nc o urt[ ] o f c o mp e t e n tj ur i s d i c t i o ni nth e C i ty, C o un ty, and State of N ew Yor

k.” On J anuar

y 29, 2009, the Gladiator s, upset over a billing dispute, filed a c omplaint seekinginjunctive relief

and a de clar atory

judgme nt in the United States District Court for the Southern District of F lorida, see king to c larify the par ties’ rig hts and obligations under a worke rs’ c ompensation and e mploy ers’ liability insurance policy

. O nA u g u s t 2 6 , 2 0 0 9 , N a ti o n a l s e r v e d th e G la d ia

to r s w it ha d e ma n d f o r ar b it r a ti o n . T h e n e xt day , National filed a

petition to compel arbitration in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ne w York. O n August 27, 2009, the district court issued an or der to show cause as to why

the petition to compel not be g rante d, and as to why the ac tion should not be tr ans fe rr e d to the dis tr ic t c ourt in F lor ida . O n Augus t 28 , 2 00 9, AI G f ile d a mot ion to d ism iss the Flor ida complaint on the g rounds that the agree ment betwee n the par ties called f

or arbitration. On Novembe r 17, 2009, the district cour t ordere d the par

ties to procee d to arbitration based on the arbitration clause c ontained in the Pay ment Ag ree ment. On Dec ember 2, 2009, the Gladiators f

iled a motion for re consideration, which the district court de nied on the g rounds that the Gladiator s raised only arguments in their motion for rec onsideration that could have, and should have, be en ra ised ea rlier. The proble m for the Gla diators is a simple one: they did not raise their c halleng e to the e n f o r c e a b i l i ty o f th e ar b i tr a t i o nc l a

u s e s i nth e i r

o r i g i n a l o p p o s i t i o nt o th e m o t i o nt o c o mp e l

. In the ir or ig ina l mo tio n, the Gl a diator s argue d th a t th e c la ims a sse rt e d in its F lor ida

c omp la int

aro se only under the Policy , and thus wer e not subject to the a rbitration clause contained in the Pay ment Ag ree ment. The district cour t properly found all the c laims were cover ed by the arbitration clauses and on a ppeal the G ladiators do not contest that ruling

. Instead, on a

ppeal, the G ladiators ar g ue that the a rbitration clause is unconscionable a nd should not be enfor ced. The Gla diators ar g ue that, by waiting until after the sta rt of the a rena fo otb a ll s e a so n, Natio na l un c on sc ion a bly fo rc e d th e Gl a diator s to re lin qu ish the ir ri g ht t o prosec ute their c laims in court, rathe r than through arbitration. By way of explanation, the Gl a diator s to ld t

he dis tr ic t c ourt

the y did no t r a ise the un c on sc ion a bil ity iss ue “ in a

n e ff or t to avoid duplicity

[si c] and conser

ve judicial re source s,” as its claims of “ duress a nd unconsciona

bility that had bee n asser

ted bef ore the Florida

Court.” The district cour

t properly deter mined that the ar g ument was not prope rly raised f or the first time on a motion for re considera tion, and deeme d it waived - a finding we a ffirm. It is black letter lawthat a “motion for r econside ration may not be used to adva

nce ne w fa cts, issues or arguments not previously prese nted to the Court, nor may it be used as a

vehicle f or re litigating issues alrea dy

decide d by

the Court.” Da v ids on v . S c ull y , 172 F. Supp. 2d 458, 461 (S.D.N.Y.4

2001) citing Shrader v. CSX Transp. Inc. , 70 F.3d 255, 257 ( 2d Cir. 1995). The district cour

t also proper ly

deter mined that the first filed r ule did not apply . “Where there are two competinglawsuits, the first suit should have priority , absent the showingof balanc e of c onvenienc e in favor of the se cond ac tion, or unless there a re spe cial cir cumstance s which justify

g iving pr iority

to the second.” Motion Picture Lab. Technicians Local 780, I.A.T.S.E. v. Mc Gregor &W erner, I nc. , 804 F.2d 16, 19 ( 2d Cir. 1986) (citation and quotation omitted). Forum shoppingis one of those spec ial circ umstances. Id.; se e also New Y ork Marine and Gen. I

ns. Co. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc. , 5 99 F .3 d 1 02 , 1 13 (N e w Y or k c ho ic e of

law c la us e and Southern District of N ew Yor k forum sele ction clause favor disreg ardingfirst-filed r

ule). Her e, the Pay

ment Addendum conta ins a forum c lause providingthat “any action or pr ocee ding c on c e rn ingarb itr a

bil ity , in c lud ingmot ion s to c omp e l or sta y arb itr a tio n, may

be br ou g ht o nly

in a cour t of compete nt jurisdiction in t he City , County and State of N ew Yor

k.” Thus, the district court rig htly

conclude d that the prope r venue for a ny action involving the arbitra bility of the ag ree ment was in Ne w York, be cause it is what the parties a g ree d to. There is no error

. We have c onsidered the rema inder of the Gladiators’ arguments and find them to be without merit. Accor dingly , the judg ment of the district cour t here by is AFF I RMED.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk