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)

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