Diarra v. Coastal Alaska Premier Seafoods LLC

Opinion

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE 7 YACOUBA DIARRA, 8 Case No.: 2:19-cv-01070-RSL

Plaintiff, 9 vs. ORDER DENYING 10 COASTAL ALASKA PREMIER SEAFOODS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, 11 LLC, et al., CERTIFICATION, AND/OR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL 12 Defendants. 13 14 15 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for 16 Reconsideration of the Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Stay Case and Compel 17 Arbitration; Motion for FRCP 54(b) Certification; and Order Allowing Interlocutory 18 Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292; All in the Alternative. Dkt. # 29. Plaintiff argues 19 that compelling plaintiff to arbitrate his claims “will change the legal landscape that has 20 existed since the Jones Act was passed 100 years ago” and result in the unequal 21 treatment of injured seaman working side by side.1 Plaintiff at no point acknowledges 22 that the Ninth Circuit’s four-part test for determining whether to enforce an arbitration 23 agreement under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign 24

25 1 In reply, plaintiff argues that “[a]llowing a jury trial to an injured U.S. citizen working on a U.S.-flagged vessel but not allowing a jury trial to a non-U.S. citizen working at the same job aboard the same vessel and 26 sustaining a similar injury constitutes impermissible discrimination based upon citizenship.” Dkt. # 31 at 3. No statute, constitutional provision, or case law are cited in support of this statement. Because the argument was not 27 timely raised or properly supported, it has not been considered. 1 Arbitral Awards expressly provides for arbitration when “a party to the agreement is not 2 an American citizen . . . .” Balen v. Holland Am. Line Inc., 583 F.3d 647, 654-55 (9th 3 Cir. 2009) (quoting Bautista v. Star Cruises, 396 F.3d 1289, 1294-95 (11th Cir. 2005)). 4 Plaintiff has not, therefore, shown manifest error in the Court’s prior ruling. Nor has he 5 shown that an immediate appeal to the Ninth Circuit is appropriate under either Fed. R. 6 Civ. P. 54(b) or 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). 7 8 For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and 9 request for certification for interlocutory appeal (Dkt. # 29) are DENIED. 10 11 Dated this 28th day of February, 2020. 12

13 A 14 ROBERT S. LASNIK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27