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
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?