govinfo:USCOURTS-pawd-2_25-cv-00560-1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 
 
 
 
PARTHA SARATHI KATARI, ) 
 ) 
 Plaintiff, ) 
 ) 
 v. ) 2:25cv560 
 ) Electronic Filing 
WABTEC, INC. ) 
 ) 
 Defendant. ) 
 
 
MEMORANDUM 
 
 Proceeding pro se, Partha Katari ("plaintiff") commenced this action on April 28, 2025, 
alleging Wabtec Inc., ("defendant"), violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans 
with Disabilities Act, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations (PHRA). Defendant filed a motion 
to compel arbitration and stay proceedings on July 2, 2025. On March 23, 2026, the court 
granted defendant's motion. Presently before this court is plaintiff's motion to reconsider the 
March 23, 2026, order. For the following reasons, plaintiff's motion will be denied. 
 Plaintiff attempts to bring this motion pursuant to Rules 54(b) and 59(e). He declares that 
the court's March 23, 2026, order (ECF No. 20) is not a final order and insists that this court 
enter judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b). ECF No. 23 at 1. This position is misguided and 
procedurally incorrect for a myriad of reasons. First, multiple courts have held that an order 
compelling arbitration is a final judgment. See, e.g., Zhang v. Dorrance Publishing Co., 2025 
WL 746294 at * 6 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 12, 2025) ("[T]he Federal Arbitration Act. . . is instructive. 
The FAA considers an order compelling arbitration. . . to be a final decision. 9 U.S.C. § 16[.]"); 
see also Towers, Perrin, Forster, & Crosby, Inc. v. Brown, 732 F.2d 345, 349 (3d Cir. 1984) 
(holding that a California state court order denying arbitration was a final order, and observing 
that a decision to compel arbitration is conclusive as to that issue). 

2 
 
As the court's order compelling arbitration is a final judgment, Fed. R. CIV. P. 59(e) 
governs motions for reconsideration. A party seeking to alter or amend judgment must file such 
a motion within 28 days of the entry of judgment. FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e). 
Here, by plaintiff's own admission he has failed to timely file his motion for 
reconsideration. ECF No. 23 at 1. Therefore, plaintiff's motion is untimely and will be denied as 
such. 
But even assuming for the sake of argument that plaintiff's untimeliness should be 
overlooked, he has failed to present justified grounds for the relief he seeks. "The purpose of a 
motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly 
discovered evidence." Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010). A judgment may 
be altered or amended if the party seeking reconsideration demonstrates one of the following 
narrowly defined circumstances: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the 
availability of new evidence that was not available at the time of the court's decision; or, (3) the 
need to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice. Max's Seafood Café v. 
Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). 
Here, plaintiff cannot establish an intervening change in controlling law, newly 
discovered evidence previously unavailable to him, or a clear error of law. Plaintiff merely 
makes a thinly veiled attempt at relitigating the merits of his brief opposing arbitration. Such 
matters and arguments were clearly available to plaintiff when he initially opposed defendant's 
motion to compel. Reiteration of the same at this juncture does not satisfy the demanding 
standard controlling the relief plaintiff seeks. 
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration will be denied. 

3 
 
An appropriate order will follow. 
Date: May 11, 2026 
 s/ David Stewart Cercone 
 David Stewart Cercone 
 Senior United States District Judge 
 
 
cc: James A. Holt, Esquire 
 
 (Via CM/ECF Electronic Mail) 
 
Partha Sarathi Katari 
 651 Chilliwack Lane 
 Mars, PA 16046 
 
 (Sent Via First Class Mail) 

Passage view · GavelSight