Rackwise, Inc. v. Archbold

Filing 83

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 1/18/2018 DENYING 77 Motion to Stay. (Washington, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RACKWISE, INC., a Nevada
Corporation,

CIV. No. 17-797 WBS CKD

12
Plaintiff,
13

ORDER RE: MOTION TO STAY
v.

14
15
16

GUY ARCHBOLD, an individual,
and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive,
Defendants.

17
18
19

Defendant moves to stay proceedings in this case until

20

the earliest occurrence of the expiration of 90 days, or a

21

determination of anticipated personal jurisdictional challenges

22

in another action pending Nevada state court. (Def.’s Mot. at 2

23

(Docket No. 77).)

24

The power to stay proceedings “is incidental to the

25

power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the

26

cases on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself,

27

for counsel, and for litigants.”

28

248, 254 (1936).

Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S.

In evaluating whether to stay proceedings, the
1

1

court is concerned with balancing competing interests and should

2

consider: “(1) potential prejudice to the non-moving party; (2)

3

hardship and inequity to the moving party if the action is not

4

stayed; and (3) the judicial resources that would be saved by

5

avoiding duplicative litigation if the cases are in fact

6

consolidated.”

7

2:17-215 WBS DB, 2017 WL 915352, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2017)

8

(citing Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358, 1360 (C.D.

9

Cal. 1997)); see also Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55; CMAX, Inc. v.

Woodcox v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., Civ. No.

10

Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962).

11

requesting party to show that a stay is appropriate.

12

Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997).

13

The burden is on the
Clinton v.

Defendant argues that if the state court action

14

survives a pending jurisdictional challenge, a stay of this

15

action will promote judicial economy by preventing duplicitous

16

efforts and preserving costs and expenses of litigation.

17

However, defendant does not explain, and the court does not see,

18

how granting a temporary stay pending the resolution of

19

anticipated personal jurisdiction challenges in the Nevada

20

litigation promotes judicial economy.

21

speculative at this point to predict the outcome of the Nevada

22

action.

23

Moreover, it is too

A stay of this action would result in prejudice to

24

plaintiff, in that it would result in vacating the trial date--

25

set for June 5, 2018—and prevent plaintiff from proceeding to

26

trial first as the plaintiff in this action.

27

litigation also weighs against granting defendant's Motion to

28

stay--the discovery deadline is February 2 and a trial date has
2

The stage of the

1

already been set.

2

PAN, 2005 WL 2397041, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2005) (Damrell,

3

J.) (“Because this case is no longer in its incipient stages, the

4

scales tip heavily in favor of denying plaintiff's motion to

5

stay.”); Sorensen ex rel. Sorensen Research & Dev. Tr. v. Black &

6

Decker Corp., Civ. No. 06-1572 BTM CAB, 2007 WL 2696590, at *4

7

(S.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2007) (the more relevant inquiry is whether

8

discovery is nearing completion); Simon v. Healthways, Inc., Civ.

9

No. 14-8022 BRO JCX, 2016 WL 6595131, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 1,

See Jain v. Trimas Corp., Civ. No. 04-889 FCD

10

2016) (stating the stage of litigation weighed against finding a

11

stay where the discovery deadline passed, and the trial date was

12

roughly three months away).

13

plaintiff weighs against granting the stay.

14

Thus, the potential prejudice to

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s Motion to stay

15

(Docket No. 77) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

16

Dated:

January 18, 2018

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3