Skip to Content

First Circuit Holds That Motion to Reconsider Appealable Interlocutory Order Denying Motion to Compel Arbitration Is Not Appealable
August 03, 2023

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).
Related Practices
Reinsurance
©2026 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.

Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.