Morgan Tire of Sacramento, Inc. v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, et al

Filing 28

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 4/28/2015 ORDERING 26 Here, Morgan Tire has not described the reason for its request to stay transfer and makes no effort to describe any "hardship or inequity" that would result if this action goes forward. Its request is DENIED. (Reader, L)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 MORGAN TIRE OF SACRAMENTO, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 17 18 No. 2:15-cv-00133-KJM-AC ORDER v. THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, an Ohio corporation; and WINGFOOT COMMERCIAL TIRE SYSTEMS, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company, Defendants. 19 20 On April 20, 2015, this court issued an order granting Goodyear Tire & Rubber 21 Company’s motion to transfer this case to the Northern District of Ohio. ECF No. 25. The same 22 day, Morgan Tire of Sacramento moved to stay the transfer for thirty days. ECF No. 26. In its 23 entirety, the request reads as follows: “Morgan Tire respectfully requests the stay of transfer of 24 this case, pursuant to Order, filed April 20, 2015, Doc. ID. No. 25 for thirty days.” Id. 25 “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court 26 to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 27 counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). The party requesting 28 a stay “must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward, if there 1 1 is even a fair possibility that the stay for which he prays will work damage to someone else.” Id. 2 A district court’s decision to stay an action is a matter of discretion, although reviewed under a 3 “somewhat less deferential” standard than in “other contexts.” Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. 4 Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007). 5 Here, Morgan Tire has not described the reason for its request and makes no effort 6 to describe any “hardship or inequity” that would result if this action goes forward. Its request is 7 denied. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: April 28, 2015. 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 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?