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)

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