Letourneau v. FedEx Ground Pkg.

2004 DNH 062

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: April 7, 2004
• Docket: CV-03-530-B
• Status: Published

Opinion

Letourneau v. FedEx Ground Pkg. CV-03-530-B 04/07/04

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Michael Letourneau

v. Civil No. 03-530-B Opinion No. 2004 DNH 062 FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

O R D E R

Michael Letourneau worked for several years as an

independent contractor delivering packages for FedEx Ground

Package System, Inc. ("FedEx Ground"). FedEx Ground terminated

Letourneau's contract on April 4, 2002. This prompted Letourneau

to sue for breach of contract and breach of New Hampshire's

Consumer Protection Statute, N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 358-A.

Letourneau's contract with FedEx Ground contains an

arbitration clause that reguires that

[i]n the event [FedEx Ground1] acts to terminate this agreement (which acts shall include any claim by [Letourneau] of constructive termination) and [Letourneau] disagrees with such termination or asserts that the actions of [FedEx Ground] are not authorized under the terms of this Agreement, then each such disagreement (but no others) shall be settled by arbitration . . . .

1 Letourneau entered into the contract with a predecessor. Roadway Package System, Inc. (D.'s Mem. Supp. Compel A r b ., Ex. 2 § 12.3). FedEx Ground

invokes this provision and seeks to stay the case pending

arbitration.

Letourneau offers three arguments in opposition to FedEx

Ground's demand for arbitration, none of which have merit. He

first argues that his dispute with FedEx Ground is not subject to

arbitration because it arises from an employment contract

involving an interstate transportation worker. See 9 U.S.C. § 1.

I reject this argument for the reasons set forth in Judge

Rosenblatt's well-reasoned decision in Owner-Operator Indep.

Driver's Ass'n v. Swift Transp. Co., 288 F. Supp. 2d 1033, 1035

(D. Ariz. 2003) .

Letourneau's second argument is that the arbitration clause

does not encompass all of his claims. He concedes that his

wrongful termination claim is covered, but argues that his claims

that FedEx Ground violated the contract by transferring his route

and customer accounts to a third party following his termination

are not subject to arbitration. He also argues that his Consumer

Protection Act claim based on the same events is not subject to

arbitration. The short answer to this argument is that all of

the claims Letourneau makes are derived from his central claim that FedEx Ground improperly terminated his contract. Since this

claim is arbitrable, the derivative claims are also arbitrable.

Letournau's third argument is that the arbitration agreement

cannot be enforced because it is contrary to public policy.

Letourneau bases this argument on the fact that the agreement

provides that any wrongful termination claim is waived if a

demand for arbitration is not made within 90 days. The waiver

provision, he argues, impermissibly shortens the statute of

limitations that would otherwise apply to his claims. Again, I

disagree. Neither New Hampshire (the forum state) nor

Pennsylvania (the jurisdiction specified by the agreement's

choice of law clause) bars parties from entering into agreements

to shorten the period in which claims may be raised as long as

such agreements are reasonable under the circumstances. See,

e.g., Wright v. Boston & Me. R.R., 81 N.H. 254, 255-56 (N.H.

1924); McElhiney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 33 F. Supp. 2d 405, 406

(E.D. Pa. 1999). The case Letourneau cites. West Gate Vill.

Ass'n v. Dubois, 145 N.H. 293 (N.H. 2000), is distinguishable

because it concerned an agreement to extend the statute of

limitations. As the New York decision that the court relied on

makes clear, the public policy concerns that counsel against certain agreements to extend the statute of limitations do not

apply to agreements to shorten the limitations period. See John

J. Kassner & Co. v. City of New York, 389 N.E. 2d 99 (N.Y. 1979).

There are sound reasons why the parties might want to agree on a

period within which to commence an arbitration proceeding that is

shorter than the statute of limitations that would otherwise

apply. Letourneau does not explain why the agreement that the

parties reached in this case is unreasonable under the

circumstances. Accordingly, I reject his argument that the

waiver provision renders the arbitration clause unenforceable.

Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration (doc. no. 3) is

granted.

SO ORDERED.

Paul Barbadoro Chief Judge

April 7, 2004

cc: William Aivalikles, Esg. Bret Gifford, Esg.