City Of Henderson et al v. Span Systems, Inc.
Filing
34
ORDER Requiring Supplemental Briefing re 29 Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration. The parties are to file Supplemental Briefs by 2/14/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 2/6/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
CITY OF HENDERSON, et al.
8
Plaintiffs,
9
10
vs.
SPAN SYSTEMS, INC.,
11
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 2:12-cv-00780-JCM-NJK
ORDER REQUIRING
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING
(Docket No. 29)
12
Pending before the Court is the Defendant’s motion to stay proceedings pending resolution
13
14
of an arbitration. Docket No. 29. Plaintiffs filed a response and Defendant filed a reply. Docket
15
Nos. 32, 33. For the reasons discussed below, the Court hereby ORDERS the parties to file
16
supplemental briefs no later than February 14, 2013.
17
Defendant requests that the Court issue a stay pursuant to section 3 of the Federal Arbitration
18
Act, acknowledging that “the facts of this matter present a novel question of law [and] Span has not
19
been able to find any case law on point with the facts of this matter.” Reply at 3-4. Nor does
20
Plaintiff’s response appear to rely on case law that is on-point. See Response at 2 (distinguishing
21
two cases based on the facts before the Court).
22
Before the Court wades into a novel issue of law, it appears that an alternative basis for
23
ruling may exist.1 Courts have inherent power to stay the cases before them as a matter of
24
controlling their own docket and calendar. See Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55
25
(1936). The Ninth Circuit has found such a stay may be proper when arbitration proceedings are on-
26
going:
27
28
1
The Court expresses no opinion at this time regarding the arguments already presented.
1
2
3
4
A trial court may, with propriety, find it is efficient for its own docket and the fairest
course for the parties to enter a stay of an action before it, pending resolution of
independent proceedings which bear upon the case. This rule applies whether the
separate proceedings are judicial, administrative, or arbitral in character, and does
not require that the issues in such proceedings are necessarily controlling of the
action before it. In such cases the court may order a stay of the action pursuant to its
power to control its docket and calendar and to provide for a just determination of the
cases before it.
5
6
Mediterranean Enterps., Inc. v. Ssangyong Corp., 708 F.2d 1458, 1465 (9th Cir. 1983) (emphasis
7
added) (quoting Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863-64 (9th Cir. 1979)). In
8
making such a ruling, the Court must consider a number of factors including, inter alia, whether the
9
arbitration proceedings will be concluded within a reasonable time in relation to the urgency of the
10
claims presented to the court. See Leyva, 593 F.2d at 864. Moreover, “if there is even a fair
11
possibility that the stay . . . will work damage to some one else,” a stay may be inappropriate absent
12
a showing by the movant of “hardship or inequity.” See Landis, 299 U.S. at 255.
13
The Court finds that the briefing does not adequately address the relevant issues or Ninth
14
Circuit authority for a discretionary stay for the Court to make a ruling at this time. Accordingly,
15
the Court orders the parties to file supplemental briefs no later than February 14, 2013 regarding:
16
(1) Whether the Court can order a stay of all claims before it based on its inherent authority
17
without ruling on the parties’ “novel” arguments regarding the Federal Arbitration Act; and
18
(2) Whether the relevant factors for such a stay militate in favor of staying this case.
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
DATED this 6th day of February, 2013.
21
22
______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
