Transfresh Corporation v. Ganzerla & Associates, Inc.
Filing
37
ORDER by Judge Joseph C. Spero granting 29 Motion to Dismiss, staying case pending arbitration and vacating June 28, 2013 motion hearing (jcslc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/31/2013)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
TRANSFRESH CORPORATION,
Case No. 13-cv-01730-JCS
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10
GANZERLA & ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Defendant.
11
ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS
PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(B)(6) AND
ALTERNATIVELY TO COMPEL
ARBITRATION
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Re: Dkt. No. 29
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff Transfresh Corporation (“Transfresh”) initiated this action to obtain a temporary
16
restraining order and preliminary injunction. On April 30, 2013, following a hearing, the Court
17
denied Transfresh’s motion, finding that Transfresh failed to establish that any provisional remedy
18
was warranted. Subsequently, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause “why this action should
19
not be dismissed without prejudice based on the Court’s ruling and in light of the Settlement
20
Agreement between the parties, which limits the remedies available in this Court to provisional
21
relief.” The parties filed responsive briefs, and in addition, Defendant Ganzerla & Associates, Inc.
22
(“Ganzerla”) filed a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and
23
Alternatively to Compel Arbitration (“Motion”). Transfresh agrees that all of the disputes raised
24
in this action are subject to arbitration. Thus, the only issue before the Court is whether the action
25
should be stayed or dismissed without prejudice.
26
The Court finds that it is in the interest of judicial economy to stay the instant action
27
pending arbitration rather than dismiss it. See U.S. for Use and Benefit of Newton v. Neumann
28
Caribbean Intern., Ltd., 750 F.2d 1422, 1426-1427 (9th Cir. 1985) (holding that district court did
1
not abuse its discretion in staying claims pending arbitration because stay was in the interest of
2
judicial economy). In particular, by staying the instant action, any future disputes that arise
3
relating to the provisional remedies allowed under the settlement agreement or enforcement of any
4
arbitration award may be raised in this action rather than requiring that a new action be filed.
5
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Ganzerla’s Motion to the extent that it orders the parties
6
to submit their disputes to arbitration and stays the instant action pending arbitration. The parties
7
shall notify the Court within ten days of a final decision by the arbitrator and submit a joint
8
statement addressing whether the case should be dismissed at that time. The Motion hearing set
9
for June 28, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. is vacated.
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
Dated: May 31, 2013
13
14
15
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
United States Magistrate Judge
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?