In Powers v. Receivables Performance Management, LLC, the First Circuit Court of Appeals considered the defendant’s interlocutory appeal of the denial of a motion to reconsider an underlying denial of its motion to compel arbitration.

The case, a putative class action arising from defendant Receivables Performance Management’s (RPM) alleged improper debt collection practices, was brought in Massachusetts state court under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. RPM moved to compel arbitration, which the state court denied. RPM then removed the action to federal court, where RPM again moved to compel arbitration. The district court treated this as a motion for reconsideration of the state court order denying arbitration, and RPM did not object. The district court denied the motion for reconsideration, and RPM appealed.

On appeal, the First Circuit began its analysis by noting that even where a decision qualifies as an appealable interlocutory order, a motion to reconsider that underlying decision is not itself appealable “absent some newly available evidence, law, or a new stage of the proceedings.” But here, RPM had based its motion to reconsider on a “manifest error of law” rather than new evidence or law. Noting that RPM cited no case law to the contrary, the court concluded that while “manifest error of law” could serve as valid grounds for the district court to reconsider a motion to compel arbitration, “manifest error of law” does not provide a basis for appellate jurisdiction over that interlocutory reconsideration decision the way “newly available evidence or law” can. The First Circuit dismissed RPM’s appeal of the denial of its motion to reconsider accordingly.

Powers v. Receivables Performance Management, LLC, No. 22-1500 (1st Cir. June 8, 2023).