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)

Download PDF
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?