CareFusion 202, Inc. v. Tres Tech Corporation

Filing 32

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen granting 25 Respondent's Administrative Motion to Stay Briefing (emclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/29/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

CAREFUSION 202, INC.,

9

Petitioner,
v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-13-2194 EMC

TRES TECH CORPORATION,

12

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO STAY
BRIEFING

Respondent.
___________________________________/

(Docket No. 25)
13
14
15

Respondent Tres Tech Corporation has filed an administrative motion to stay briefing on

16

Petitioner CareFusion 202, Inc.’s motion to vacate an arbitration award. More specifically, Tres

17

Tech asks for a stay of briefing until its now-on-file motion to dismiss or stay (see Docket No. 27)

18

has been decided. Having considered the parties’ briefs and accompanying submissions, the Court

19

hereby GRANTS the motion.

20

The Court acknowledges that a motion to stay is typically not an administrative motion for

21

purposes of Civil Local Rule 7-11. However, under the specific circumstances presented herein,

22

Tres Tech did not act improperly in styling its motion as an administrative motion. In essence, Tres

23

Tech was presented with a somewhat unusual situation. CareFusion initiated this action not with a

24

pleading, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, but rather with a motion, which the Court construed as a pleading

25

(i.e., petition). Given this situation, it was not clear whether Civil Local Rule 7-3 – which governs

26

the time for the filing of an opposition to a motion – was triggered. In an abundance of caution, Tres

27

Tech asked for a stay of the briefing on the motion – if so construed – so that its motion to dismiss or

28

stay could be resolved first.

1

The Court agrees with Tres Tech that, for purposes of judicial economy, it makes sense to

2

resolve the motion to dismiss or stay first before dealing with the merits of CareFusion’s petition.

3

Furthermore, CareFusion has failed to show that it would be prejudiced in any way by what amounts

4

to a brief delay, as Tres Tech’s motion to dismiss or stay is currently scheduled for hearing on July

5

11, 2013, and nothing is scheduled or pending before the Texas court. Accordingly, Tres Tech’s

6

motion to stay briefing is granted. The Court shall resolve first Tres Tech’s motion to dismiss or

7

stay. If that motion is denied, then CareFusion may file an amended notice of a motion to vacate,

8

which will serve as the trigger for the briefing schedule as provided for by Civil Local Rule 7-3.

9

This order disposes of Docket No. 25.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated: May 29, 2013

14
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2