CareFusion 202, Inc. v. Tres Tech Corporation

Filing 24

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Denying 13 Petitioner's Emergency Ex Parte Application for Order Temporarily Staying Respondents From Further Proceedings. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/22/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 CAREFUSION 202, INC., 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 No. C-13-2194 EMC Petitioner, v. TRES TECH CORPORATION, Respondent. ___________________________________/ ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S EMERGENCY EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TEMPORARILY STAYING RESPONDENTS FROM FURTHER PROCEEDINGS (Docket No. 13) 14 15 16 Petitioner CareFusion 202, Inc. has filed a petition to vacate an arbitration award issued by a 17 AAA arbitration panel, which was favorable to Respondent Tres Tech Corporation. Currently 18 pending before the Court is CareFusion’s motion for a temporary restraining order. In the motion, 19 CareFusion asks this Court, in effect, to stay a case currently ongoing in a federal district court in 20 Texas. The Texas court has before it a petition to confirm the same arbitration award, which was 21 filed by Tres Tech. 22 Having considered the parties’ briefs and accompanying submissions, the Court finds this 23 matter suitable for disposition without oral argument. CareFusion’s request for relief is hereby 24 DENIED. As Tres Tech argues, because CareFusion seeks a stay of the proceedings in the Texas 25 court, that request for relief should be made before the Texas court, not this one, particularly as the 26 Texas case was filed before the instant case. See generally Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Prods., Inc., 27 946 F.2d 622 (9th Cir. 1991) (addressing the first-to-file rule). Moreover, CareFusion’s request for 28 temporary injunctive relief is problematic because it has failed to establish a likelihood of 1 irreparable injury. First, it is not clear that the prospect of being subject to different Circuit law is 2 enough to establish irreparable injury. Second, even it could be, Tres Tech persuasively argues that 3 a denial of the request for temporary relief will not result in any irreparable harm to CareFusion 4 because CareFusion may still seek relief from the Texas court. 5 Finally, the Court notes that, in its opposition brief, Tres Tech has asked the Court to dismiss 6 or stay this case in favor of the first-filed Texas case. The Court denies this request without 7 prejudice. The Court has before it only CareFusion’s request for relief. It is not appropriate for Tres 8 Tech to seek independent relief as part of an opposition brief. 9 This order disposes of Docket No. 13. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 Dated: May 22, 2013 14 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 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?