Young v. Marcos Pizza

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

WILLIAM YOUNG, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:19 CV 456 CDP ) HOOGLAND FOODS, LLC, a ) franchisee of MARCO’S PIZZA, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on pro se plaintiff William Young’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s order granting defendant Hoogland Foods’ Motion to Compel Arbitration. Plaintiff alleges he has “new evidence” to support his claims that he did not sign an arbitration agreement and that his electronic signature was forged. However, because plaintiff has not actually presented any alleged evidence to support his unsworn allegations, nor “set forth any manifest error of law or fact” in my Order compelling arbitration, I will deny plaintiff’s motion. See Meeks v. United Auto., Aerospace of Agr. Implement Workers of Am., No. 4:05CV1779 HEA, 2007 WL 1395461, at *1 (E.D. Mo. May 9, 2007). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff William Young’s Motion for Reconsideration [ECF 26] is DENIED.

Patton. 0 Lou. CATHERINE D.PERRY // UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 21st day of February, 2020.