Dittenhafer v. Citigroup

Filing 49

ORDER by Judge Hamilton denying 46 Motion to Stay (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/16/2011)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

CHRIS DITTENHAFER,
Plaintiff,

8
9

v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY
ORDER COMPELLING ARBITRATION

CITIGROUP,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 10-1779 PJH

Defendant.
_______________________________/

12
13

Before the court is the motion of plaintiff Chris Dittenhafer for an order staying the

14

court’s August 2, 2010 order compelling arbitration, pending appeal. Defendant Citigroup

15

opposes the motion. Having read the papers filed in this case and in the pending appeal,

16

the court finds that the motion must be DENIED.

17

The day before filing the present motion with this court, plaintiff filed an identical

18

motion with the Ninth Circuit, which denied it on November 15, 2011, citing Hilton v.

19

Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987); California Pharmacists Ass’n v. Maxwell-Jolly, 563

20

F.3d 847, 849-50 (9th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit having ruled on this matter,

21

there remains nothing for this court to decide.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

Dated: November 16, 2011

25
26
27
28

______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge