Nido v. Lyft Incorporated

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Rene Alex Nido,
Plaintiff,
v.
Lyft Incorporated,
Defendant.
No. CV-26-00228-PHX-KML
ORDER
On January 20, 2026, defendant Lyft Inc. filed a motion to compel arbitration. (Doc.
6.) Plaintiff Rene Alex Nido did not file an opposition. On February 13, 2026, the court
granted the motion and administratively closed this case. (Doc. 11.) The court did not enter
a final judgment. On March 17, 2026, Nido filed a “Motion for Relief from Order and
Request to Reopen Case.” (Doc. 12.) That motion argues Nido “did not fully understand
the legal terminology, procedural requirements, or response deadlines associated with” the
motion to compel. (Doc. 12 at 1.) Nido requests the court reopen this case and allow him
to file a response to the motion to compel. Nido does not indicate what he would argue in
that response that he believes would defeat the motion to compel.
Nido’s motion invokes Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and claims his failure
to file an opposition was due to “excusable neglect.” An order granting a petition to compel
arbitration “is not a ‘final judgment [or] order’ within the meaning of Rule 60(b).” Tercero
v. Sacramento Logistics, LLC, No. 2:24-CV-00953-DC-JDP, 2025 WL 2811078, at *2
(E.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2025). Nido’s request is therefore properly characterized as a motion for
Case 2:26-cv-00228-KML Document 13 Filed 03/18/26 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
reconsideration pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(g).
“A motion for reconsideration is appropriate only when the district court (1) is
presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision
was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Cromwell
v. Thornell, No. CV-23-00783-PHX-DWL, 2026 WL 295635, at *1 (D. Ariz. Jan. 28,
2026) (simplified). Nido does not attempt to satisfy any of these three possibilities. With
no arguments from Nido under the proper standard and no hint of how he plans to avoid
what appears to be a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement, his motion is denied.
IT IS ORDERED the Motion for Relief from Order (Doc. 12) is DENIED.
Dated this 18th day of March, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-00228-KML Document 13 Filed 03/18/26 Page 2 of 2