United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
CLARIFICATION AS MOOT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge
matter comes before the Court on Defendant Washington State
Nurses Association's (“WSNA”) motion for
clarification of order (Dkt. 41) and motion to amend judgment
(Dkt. 43). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in
support of and in opposition to the motions and the remainder
of the file and hereby rules as follows:
January 21, 2016, Plaintiff MultiCare Health System
(“MultiCare”) filed a complaint against WSNA
seeking to vacate an arbitrator's decision and award.
Dkt. 1 (“Comp.”).
12, 2016, WSNA filed a motion for summary judgment to confirm
the decision. Dkt. 15. On May 31, 2016, MultiCare responded.
Dkt. 23. On June 6, 2016, WSNA replied. Dkt. 26.
16, 2016, MultiCare filed a motion for summary judgment to
vacate the decision. Dkt. 29. On July 5, 2016, WSNA
responded. Dkt. 31. On July 8, 2016, MultiCare replied. Dkt.
September 14, 2016, the Court requested additional briefing
on certain issues. Dkt. 33. On September 30, 2016, both
parties filed supplemental opening briefs. Dkts. 34, 35. On
October 7, 2016, both parties filed supplemental response
briefs. Dkts. 36, 37.
November 17, 2016, the Court granted both motions in part and
denied both motions in part. Dkt. 38. In relevant part, the
Court affirmed the arbitrator's decision as to liability
but vacated the award as to remedies. Id. at 13. On
November 18, 2016, the Clerk entered judgment. Dkt. 39.
November 30, 2016, WSNA moved for clarification on the issue
of whether the Court intended to remand the matter to the
arbitrator for further proceedings on the issue of remedies.
Dkt. 41. On December 12, 2016, MultiCare responded and argued
that WSNA's motion is an unwarranted motion for
reconsideration. Dkt. 42.
December 15, 2016, WSNA filed a motion to amend judgment.
Dkt. 43. On December 423, 2016, MultiCare
responded. Dkt. 46. On December 30, 2016, WSNA replied. Dkt.
specific grounds for a motion to amend or alter are not
listed in the rule, the district court enjoys considerable
discretion in granting or denying the motion.”
McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir.
1999) (en banc) (quoting 11 Charles Alan Wright et al.,
Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1 (2d ed.1995))
case, the issue before the Court is whether the judgment
should be altered to state explicitly what the Court
implicitly intended. While MultiCare forcefully suggests that
granting the motion would be an extraordinary remedy, the
Court finds no harm in explicitly addressing the issue of
further proceedings. On the other hand, it would be a
manifest injustice and a waste of resources to affirm the
arbitrator's finding of liability and vacate the
arbitrator's remedy with no further direction. Therefore,
the Court will address the merits of WSNA's motion.
the arbitrator's award may properly be vacated, the
appropriate remedy is to remand the case for further
arbitration proceedings.” Major League Baseball
Players Ass'n v. Garvey, 532 U.S. 504, 511 (2001)