United States District Court, D. Alaska
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 1547, AFL-CIO, Plaintiff,
v.
ALASKA COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant.
ORDER RE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
SHARON
L. GLEASON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before
the Court at Docket 26 is Defendant Alaska Communications
Systems Holdings, Inc.'s (“Alaska
Communications”) Motion for Reconsideration. At the
Court's request, Plaintiff International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 1547 (“IBEW
1547”) responded in opposition at Docket
28.[1]
The Court did not request a reply from Alaska Communications.
On
December 11, 2019, this Court granted IBEW 1547's motion
for summary judgment and ordered Alaska Communications to
select an arbitrator within seven days.[2] The Court entered
a final judgment the following day.[3] Alaska Communications now
asks this Court to reconsider and amend its order to change
the seven-day deadline to a 40-day deadline.[4] Alaska
Communications contends that the Court made an
“inadvertent error of law because it [did] not take
into account relevant appeal deadlines” and the
seven-day deadline “conflicts with and comprises
[Alaska Communications'] right to appeal the Order”
within 30 days.[5]Alaska Communications adds that IBEW 1547
did not request the seven-day deadline and asked only for an
order to select an arbitrator “without
delay.”[6] Alaska Communications maintains that
complying with the seven-day deadline will have inequitable
consequences. Specifically, Alaska Communications is
concerned, first, that its compliance with the Court's
order will be construed as a waiver of its right to appeal
and, second, that it will incur unnecessary fees and costs in
selecting an arbitrator.[7]
IBEW
1547 disagrees, emphasizing that Alaska Communications'
position assumes that it has a right to a stay pending
appeal.[8] IBEW 1547 maintains that a stay of
injunctive relief pending appeal is not as of right, but is a
matter of discretion to be evaluated by considering the
likelihood of success on the merits, the likelihood of
irreparable harm, the balance of equities, and the public
interest.[9]IBEW 1547 contends that Alaska
Communications cannot satisfy this standard; it predicts that
Alaska Communications will not succeed on the merits and
maintains that the balance of hardships are in IBEW
1547's favor as the dispute has been ongoing for a year
and the delay has a “direct and ongoing impact on the
[relevant] employees” as they are denied certain wages
and other benefits.[10]
LEGAL
STANDARD
The
district court's local rule provides that a motion for
reconsideration of an order granting a dispositive motion
must be filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59 or
60.[11]
Rule
59(e) allows a party to seek an order altering or amending
the judgment.[12] The Ninth Circuit has stated that
“there are four basic grounds upon which a Rule 59(e)
motion may be granted: (1) if such a motion is necessary to
correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the
judgment rests; (2) if such motion is necessary to present
newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3) if
such a motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or
(4) if the amendment is justified by an intervening change in
controlling law.”[13]
Rule
60(b) provides that:
the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment,
order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly
discovered evidence that with reasonable diligence, could not
have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under
Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or
extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing
party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been
satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier
judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it
prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason
that justifies relief.
DISCUSSION
Alaska
Communications moves for the Court to amend its order on the
grounds that it contains an “inadvertent error of law
because it [did] not take into account relevant appeal
deadlines.”[14] The Court agrees and will grant Alaska
Communications' request to amend the seven-day deadline.
A short extension of the Court's order will alleviate
Alaska Communications' concerns about inadvertent waiver
and unnecessary costs and will not unduly prejudice IBEW
1547.[15]
CONCLUSION
In
light of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED as follows: Alaska
Communications' Motion for Reconsideration at Docket 26
is GRANTED. Alaska Communications must select an arbitrator
for grievance ACS 19-02 pursuant to the terms set out in
Article IV of the CBA within seven days
following the deadline to ...