Randhawa v. Skylux, Inc., et al.

Filing 123

ORDER signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 12/09/11 ORDERING that all proceedings in this matter shall be STAYED. The currently pending motion filing deadline and pretrial conference and trial dates are vacated. The Clerk of Court is instructed to administratively close this case, to be reopened upon request and application of the parties and order of this court. CASE CLOSED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
----oo0oo---11
12

MOHIT RANDHAWA aka HARPAL SINGH,
and SHANNON CALLNET PVT LTD,

13

Plaintiffs,

NO. CIV. 2:09-2304 WBS KJN
ORDER

14
15
16
17
18

v.
SKYLUX INC., INTERACTIVE
INTELLIGENCE, INC., MUJEEB
PUZHAKKARAILLATH, SKYLUX
TELELINK PVT LTD, and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive,
Defendants.
/

19
----oo0oo---20
21

Plaintiffs Mohit Randhawa aka Harpal Singh and Shannon

22

Callnet Pvt. Ltd. (“Shannon Callnet”) filed this action against

23

defendants Interactive Intelligence, Inc. (“Interactive”),

24

Skylux, Inc., Mujeeb Puzhakkaraillath, and Skylux Telelink Pvt.

25

Ltd. (the latter three collectively “Skylux defendants”),

26

alleging state law claims arising from contracts for an India-

27

based calling center and software.

28

court stayed all claims against Interactive, which are subject to
1

On October 18, 2010, the

1

arbitration, and all claims against the Skylux defendants, which

2

are not subject to arbitration.

3

2011, the court continued a Status Conference set for June 27,

4

2011, to December 12, 2011, and ordered the parties to file a

5

joint status report no later than two weeks before the

6

conference.

(Docket No. 102.)

In June of

(Docket No. 116.)

Only Interactive has filed a status report.

7

(Docket

8

No. 117.)

According to that report, an initial prehearing

9

conference was held with the arbitrator on October 12, 2011.

10

(Id. ¶ 8.)

11

file an amended complaint with the arbitrator by November 11,

12

2011, and a timeline for the arbitration was set.

13

proposes that the court continue the stay and set another status

14

conference six months from now.

15

At the conference, Shannon Callnet was instructed to

Interactive

(Id. ¶ 9.)

Interactive’s status report does not give an estimate

16

of when arbitration proceedings will conclude.

17

already been stayed for over a year and the arbitration

18

proceeding is only now commencing.

19

will be in arbitration for the foreseeable future, this case

20

shall be ordered administratively closed.

21

F.3d 1290, 1294 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he ‘effect of an

22

administrative closure is no different from a simple stay, except

23

that it affects the count of active cases pending on the court’s

24

docket; i.e., administratively closed cases are not counted as

25

active.’” (discussing and quoting Mire v. Full Spectrum Lending

26

Inc., 389 F.3d 163, 167 (5th Cir. 2004))).

27
28

This action has

As it appears that the action

See Dees v. Billy, 394

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that all proceedings in this
matter shall be STAYED.

The currently pending motion filing
2

1

deadline and pretrial conference and trial dates are hereby

2

vacated.

3

close this case, to be reopened upon request and application of

4

the parties and order of this court.

5

DATED:

The Clerk of Court is instructed to administratively

December 9, 2011

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3