ASP Franchising LLC v. Chandler Pools LLC et al

Filing 26

ORDER that the Stipulation to Withdraw the Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Stay Proceedings (Doc. 25 ) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART such that the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 8 ) is deemed to be withdrawn and the parties request for the Court to stay further proceedings in this case is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the 4/5/2021 evidentiary hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction is VACATED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall dismis s the instant case without prejudice unless the parties can show cause by 4/13/2021 as to why the case should not be dismissed. If the parties do not consent to the dismissal of the instant case, they must articulate what is left in this case for the Court to do. See the attached order for additional information. Signed by Senior Judge James A. Teilborg on 3/31/2021. (RMW)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 ASP Franchising LLC, 10 Plaintiff, 11 ORDER v. 12 No. CV-21-00335-PHX-JAT Chandler Pools LLC, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 8) 16 and a Stipulation to Withdraw Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Stay 17 Proceedings (Doc. 25). The Court now rules. 18 Plaintiff filed its Motion for Preliminary Injunction on February 25, 2021. (Doc. 8). 19 The Court set an evidentiary hearing on the motion for April 2, 2021. (Doc. 20). Shortly 20 thereafter, the parties filed the Stipulation to Withdraw Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary 21 Injunction and Stay Proceedings. (Doc. 25). In the stipulation, the parties state that they 22 have agreed to mediate and arbitrate their disputes in compliance with the franchise 23 agreements underlying this case. (Id. at 1). The parties request that the Court vacate the 24 April 5, 2021 evidentiary hearing and stay proceedings in this case pursuant to 9 U.S.C. 25 § 3. 26 Although 9 U.S.C. § 3 directs the Court, upon application by one of the parties, to 27 grant a stay pending arbitration, “a district court may either stay the action or dismiss it 28 outright when, as here, the court determines that all of the claims raised in the action are 1 subject to arbitration.” Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale's, Inc., 755 F.3d 1072, 1074 (9th 2 Cir. 2014); see Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 638 (9th Cir. 1988); Kam- 3 Ko Bio-Pharm Trading Co. Ltd-Australasia v. Mayne Pharma (USA) Inc., 560 F.3d 935, 4 940 (9th Cir. 2009); Shivkov v. Artex Risk Sols. Inc., No. CV-18-04514-PHX-SMM, 2019 5 WL 8806260, at *3 (D. Ariz. Aug. 5, 2019), aff'd, 974 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2020). Because 6 all of Plaintiff’s claims are subject to a binding agreement to mediate and arbitrate, the 7 Court will deny the motion to stay and dismiss Plaintiff’s claims unless the parties can 8 show cause why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice. 9 Accordingly, 10 IT IS ORDERED that the Stipulation to Withdraw the Motion for Preliminary 11 Injunction and Stay Proceedings (Doc. 25) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN 12 PART such that the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 8) is deemed to be withdrawn 13 and the parties request for the Court to stay further proceedings in this case is DENIED. 14 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the April 5, 2021 evidentiary hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction is VACATED. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall dismiss the instant case without 17 prejudice unless the parties can show cause by April 13, 2021 as to why the case should 18 not be dismissed. If the parties do not consent to the dismissal of the instant case, they must 19 articulate what is left in this case for the Court to do. 20 Dated this 31st day of March, 2021. 21 22 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?